1.7 Dilemma

My Dilemma

If I were to go, I would be miserable

The whole day: my exhaustion

Could take over my learning power, and force

My GPA to decrease; this physics test

That I’ll miss will put me behind,

But right now, today,

I am not ready for it. I know

I must take it; but I am not feeling

Up to par, and, actually, not taking it

Could help me: I’ll spend the day

Studying and catching up in that class

And kill it tomorrow. But my mom trusts me;

First of all, she expects not to be fooled,

And even though this is good for me; I can’t, as her son,

Lie to her face and abuse her trust in me,

I cannot bring myself to. Besides, maybe I am

Better off being honest, and admitting

That I didn’t study for this, that I played

Video games instead, for no benefit, rather than

Preparing for the biggest test this year;

I feel bad, like I’ve lied to everybody,

Like even though it’ll help me, it’s wrong, no matter

How great the benefits are,

I shouldn’t be this dishonest,

I should come clean and man up. I need to take

This test and accept what comes, because I know

What’s right, which is more important than

Any old grade. 

Men

A man is so much more than just a male. He is held to a certain standard, and expected to have certain qualities if he wants to be considered "manly" which we almost all do. But the perceptions of this word and what it stands for are thought of so differently by different cultures and different people. So what do you need to be if you want to be a "man"?

In my culture, (which is basically just in my head) a man is somebody who is never looked down upon, and uses bravery, intelligence, strength, and social skills in a respected manor. No, you do not need to put out a burning building to be considered brave. You don't need to score a 2400 on your SATs to be intelligent. You don't have to be superman to demonstrate strength, nor must you know everyone in the world to have good social skills. The thing that separates my vision of a man as opposed to everybody else's, is their ability to act on a given situation, and create the best possible outcome for everybody-- and putting themselves last. I consider a man to be brave when he will stand up for a cause that society or a group of people has already made up their mind on. I enjoy seeing a man with an open mind, not afraid to share what is on it, whether it make everybody else around him happy or not. I consider a man to be intelligent when he is able to get out of a bad situation with minimal consequences, or by using his unique brain to put himself or others in a great position. My brother is one of the manliest men I know in this sense, from getting us out of trouble with stupid little things with my parents like staying out too late, to getting the both of us out of the party when he knew people were getting out of control and it would not end well. I consider a man to be strong when he is always the one to look to when you need to hear "It will be okay." My dad does this all the time, with any circumstance. Even if it is as small as when I was not sure if I can get all my homework done, to as big as when my grandmother died, he is always there telling me everything will work out. And when I say a man should be socially skilled, I mean that he is able to talk about anything with anyone, never endure awkward moments, and make the best of meeting new people. My father does this all the time with meeting my new friends and talking to them or their dads and keeping a conversation alive and being a well-liked man.

I think that these expectations are very hard on men, but most men that I meet are up to the challenge. They like the result which is being considered manly and well-liked and are willing to make that small sacrifice. But these qualities are not found in every man, and this could either be because not all people expect what I do, or because not all men see it necessary. But certainly the men in my life follow these codes and I respect them greatly for it. I think that most men believe they have some responsibilities, but not nearly as many as society thinks they should. They do the right thing for the most part and are respectful and brave in some aspects, but not to the extent they are expected to by some people, of course with a few exceptions.

Shakespeare was a Woman?

     Shakespeare is well known as one of the greatest poets and play writes of all-time, and certainly one of the most influential. But how much of what we think is his work is actually somebody else’s? This question is often referred to as the “authorship question.” Did Shakespeare write all of what we think he did? Or has this conspiracy been held true for 450 years?

     One theory which is very common is the Oxfordian theory, who oppose the Stratfordians.  The people who consider themselves Stratfordians believe in Shakespeare as a writer, while the Oxfordians believe that we have been lied to throughout history. Oxfordians believe that a man named Edward de Vere of Oxford (1550-1604) wrote many of the plays Shakespeare claimed for his own. Many of the arguments made by the Oxfordians are based upon simple facts about Edward—the fact that he has a multilingual education, he has traveled abroad to places which later become settings of Shakespeare’s plays, his academic achievements, etc. All of which would lead him to be considered a more intelligent man and more fit for play writing and being a poet. Aside from Edward’s inside connection to the theater and people who ran it, the Oxfordians also point to the content of Shakespeare’s play, and how it matches up almost perfectly with events from Edward’s biography. There are plenty of the same idioms and play-on-words in both artists’ works, and personal events of Edward’s later described in detail in Shakespeare’s sonnets and poems. Perhaps the most bizarre similarity between these two is the fact that there are multiple quotations straight from Edward’s personal bible that can be found throughout Shakespeare’s plays. The last point made by Oxfordians to state their point, is the death years of the two men. Edward died in 1604, and Shakespeare died in 1609. Which seems pretty normal, with nothing suspicious. But after doing more research, you can find that 1604 was the year that Shakespeare stopped publishing new material at the same rate he was, and experienced a huge drop off in his production.

     Another theory which serves to prove the lack of truth behind Shakespeare's legacy is the case of Christopher Marlowe. Marlowe and Shakespeare were born just two months apart, and lived in the same town, and wrote for the same theaters. Shakespeare had been "born" as an author the same year that Marlowe had supposedly died. He was killed by a man (who he was later found to have a very good relationship with) after he was put on bail for being an atheist and committing treason. He was granted bail for a few days until he would be brought back and executed, but the judge was beat to it. Or so he was lead to believe. The similarities between Marlowe's work and Shakespeare's work are so precise and often, it would be hard to tell one from the other. To add to the list of weird coincidences, Henry VI, Shrew, and Titus Andronicus were all attributed to Marlowe until the early 1900's, when they became considered some of Shakespeare's finest works. Throughout almost all of the sonnets written by Shakespeare after Marlowe's death, you can see many direct quotes from Marlowe's previous works, as with his plays. Not to mention the seemingly recurring input of pretending to be dead and resurrection in Shakespeare's plays. There have been too many known coincidences for the followers of this conspiracy to think any other way. 

     After gathering all of this data, I have come to believe that all of these thought of conspiracies are just thought up. I do not know how to explain all of these coincidences, but there are a lot that can be easily rebutted. For example, all of the similarities can be explained by pointing out that Shakespeare was a huge fan of these writers, in which case they had influenced his work a lot. But that is just what I have gathered after a lot of research. So after all of this information, do you think that the Oxfordian theory, the Marlowe theory, or neither is the real truth? Also, why do you think if any of this was true, would it be covered up and disguised by an uneducated man from a infamous artist's background?

"Oxfordian Theory." Princeton University. Princeton University, 05 July 2008. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.

PBS. "In Search Of Shakespeare." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

"Christopher Marlowe." Christopher Marlowe. The Shakespeare Authorship Trust, n.d. Web. 29 Sept.           2014.