Opening Statements
Prosecution:The People have accused William Blake of obscenity in his poem “The Sick Rose”. It is wrong that such vulgarity should be lauded as a contribution to literature! It reflects our own moral deficiency as a culture and this amorality is perpetuated because we teach it to our children in schools.
It will be up to you, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, to determine for yourselves the value of such profanity in the literary canon, of teaching our children the poems of a man who describes a violent sex act in his poem that is falsely praised for genius. Please use your best judgment, and remember that “The Sick Rose” is sick and vulgar.
Defense:
William Blake is innocent of these ridiculous charges. This poem can in no way be considered immoral or obscene, because the meaning of this poem is not set in stone. It is ambiguous and the interpretation and any meaning which can be derived is a meaning which can only determined by the individual reader.
Trial
Prosecution: The People call William Blake to the stand:
Please state your name and profession.
Blake:
My name is William Blake and I am a visionary.
Prosecution: Is this your poem, Mr. Blake?
Blake: No, that poem doesn’t belong to me!
Prosecution: Did you write a poem entitled “The Sick Rose” that is the same as this poem, line for line?
Blake: Oh, well yes, I suppose I did.
.
Prosecution: The People would like to submit this evidence as Exhibit A.
(Pass out Exhibit A to class)
What did you intend for “The Sick Rose” to mean?
Defense: I object on the grounds that the author’s intent has no importance in the theory of Deconstruction under form C3 of intentional fallacies.
Judge: Sustained.
Prosecution: No more questions your honor.
Defense: The defense has no questions for the accused, he and so he may step down.
Prosecution: The People call Dr. Sigmund Freud to the stand.
Dr. Feud, please state your profession for the court.
Freud: I am a psychoanalysis and literary critic.
Prosecution: And in what way are you qualified to relay your expertise on “The Sick Rose”?
Freud: I have extensively studied the human psyche and have come to the conclusion that sexual references are everywhere. You see the rose signifies the female reproductive organ and the invisible worm, oh well, you can guess what that is!
Prosecution: In your opinion, is “The Sick Rose” about a rape?
Freud: Undoubtedly so. The rose is slowly dismantled by a number of destructive elements. All very sexual of course. Simply look to the fifth and sixth lines of the poem if you don’t believe me, “has found out thy bed of crimson joy.” Truly, the rose doesn’t stand a chance.
Prosecution: No more questions, your Honor.
Defense: Dr. Freud, does your knowledge of literary criticism extend to all fields? Are you as familiar, say, with the literary school of Deconstruction as you are Psychoanalytical theories?
Freud: Well, of course not.
Defense: So isn’t it possible that because of your extensive study in Psychoanalytical that your objectivity may be off? Perhaps you have a case of tunnel vision? I mean you were taught to see the world with sexual connotations attached. So why not find those sexual undertones in this poem as well? Isn’t it just one man’s opinion you bring to this courtroom?
Freud: Yes, I have given my opinion based on my literary and career background. I will say no more.
Defense: No more questions your honor, the witness may step down.
The Defense calls Jaques Derrida to the stand.
Please state your name and occupation for the record.
Derrida: My name is Jaques Derrida and I have been called the father of Deconstruction.
Defense: Thank you. And could you tell me Mr. Derrida how many interpretations this poem, “The Sick Rose,” could have?
Derrida: It has any number of interpretations. The absence of the author when generally reading a work of literature leaves us only with the text as a source of meaning. Texts are read in various ways and on multiple levels. Now, I do encourage close reading because this is a heavy responsibility. One can’t merely read about a rabbit and make up interpretations that the rabbit represents old age and stinginess. No, of course not. At the same time there is no fixed meaning of a work just as the sun is not our only star in the universe. It is the most obvious, but certainly not one of a kind.
Defense: What advice would you give those that wish to condemn William Blake today?
Derrida: ALWAYS rethink your interpretations, play with texts you read, be willing to hear what it is saying and above all, QUESTION it - for this is when understanding (deconstruction) takes place.
Defense: Thank you, Mr. Derrida. No more questions, your honor.
Prosecution: Mr. Derrida, why should the reader have so much power? Shouldn’t it be up to better educated peoples to decide what material is inappropriate based on content?
Derrida: It is my understanding that to read is to experience. If a person is reading, then they have enough intelligence to listen to what the work is telling them. A person’s commentary or interpretation of a work of literature is a very personal aspect, and since there is such diversity among the peoples of this earth, that leads to multiple interpretations. And who has the power, knowledge or hubris to say which of those is the correct interpretation?
Prosecution: I’ll ask the questions, Mr. Derrida. What do you think the poem means?
Derrida: Well first I would take it line by line and determine what each word means. Because words themselves are quite ambiguous.
Prosecution: The meaning, Mr. Derrida?
Derrida: Right, well I see it as a struggle for life. A once beautiful flower has come to the end of her long life. She has been through many storms in her life and has but one more obstacle ahead of her. Death is wooing her, and I think she will answer him. But that is one interpretation, my dear.
Prosecution: Thank you; I have no more questions your honor.
Defense: The Defense calls Hans-Georg Gadamer to the stand.
Please state your name and profession for the record.
Gadamer: Yes, my name is Hans-Georg Gadamer and I am a philosopher and literary critic.
Defense: And your School of Criticism would be..?
Gadamer: Deconstruction.
Defense: And why is that?
Gadamer: I take the experience of beauty to be central to an understanding of the nature of art. The beautiful is that which is self-evidently present to us (as ‘radiant’). And we must explore the close relationship between the beautiful and the true. It is this continual exploration that leads to different points of view. I mean just look at all the Literary Schools of Criticism. Their arguing actually supports Deconstruction. All these varying point of views, interpretations, and criticisms are what make up the fabric of literature. How boring it would be to be constrained to one idea or thought process. I couldn’t live in a world like that.
Defense: What do you think the line, “The invisible worm,” means?
Gadamer: One can make a word anything they want it to be. Invisible can mean withdrawn from, out of sight, hidden, not visible, not perceptible by the eye, or any number of things. The word ‘worm’ has even more definitions. Did you know that worm can actually be traced back to legends of dragons? And that’s just scratching the surface. We haven’t even discussed portmanteaus or homonyms yet.
Defense: Thank you, professor. That will be all. No more questions, your honor. Defense rests.
Prosecution: No questions, your honor.
Judge: Closing Arguments
Prosecution:
The People have argued that “The Sick Rose” is a poem about rape, a poem about a violent, disturbing sexual act that doesn’t need to be taught in schools as a work of outstanding genius or act as a pillar in the canon of English literature. The Defense has argued that there is more than one way to view a piece of literature. If this is true then it is also true that the vulgar interpretation still stands, and if “The Sick Rose” can be interpreted in such a way, then it should be banned in schools and not heralded as a beautiful poem but denounced instead.
Defense: As we have seen from these various witnesses and Mr. Blake himself, The meaning of a poem or any piece of literature is not a static thing which has but a singular meaning, Since so much symbolism can be locked into a single word and this meaning can only be derived through the individual understanding of the reader, it only stands to reason that due to the complexity and infinite possibilities which can arise from the text…it only stands to reason that as a judge and jury that in your personal wisdom you can see the fault with in accusing Mr William Blake as being obscene and will allow readers to derive their own interpretation from the words which are found in this simple yet complex poem.
No comments:
Post a Comment