Tag Archives: hermaphroditic deer

Response to Creative Projects

Posted on by
1

When we were told that we would be able to demonstrate what we learned throughout the semester in the form of a creative project, I was excited because the material we have been dealing with is so hard to contain on a sheet of paper. Though it took a little while to pin down exactly what we wanted to do, because the choices were practically unlimited, it was so fun working with my group to try to portray Bennett’s ideas of edible matter and agency through a medieval-themed cooking show. It was also so interesting, surprising (in a good way!), and enlightening, to see how the other students in the class dealt with the concepts we’ve talked about this semester. It really made it clear that traces of these theories can be found pretty much everywhere from Lady Gaga to pecan pies.

A lot of people dealt with similar concepts as my group did, dealing with assemblages and how individual parts come together to create a whole action or ‘thing’: Thomas’ kinexs (sorry if I spelled this wrong Thomas!), our pottage, Austin’s writing process etc. Some of the projects that interested me the most in a “wow I never would have thought of that!” sort of way was Autumn’s re-naming of the lais and Victor’s Lady Gaga presentation. Not only were Autumn’s books beautiful but they really made you think about how the lais we read would have been greatly altered if their object of focus was not human action but some of the actants we talked about. For example, In Guigemar, if the hermaphroditic deer was the center of the story, the story would end when she/he died. We would never know or really care what happened to Guigemar except that he was cursed for killing this deer. Also I felt so much more for the poor nightengale who was so wrongly killed and never wanted to be involved in these neighbors love affair when Autumn put it in her new lais perspective.

When Victor got up to present and Lady Gaga came on the screen I thought, “Ok, how on earth is he going to make this work?” and he did! So well too! I can completely see how Lady Gaga has removed her human identity from herself and taken on so many different personas and even objects to make a cultural, political, or environmental point. She was a great example of how a person can un-objectify herself and, to use Jane Bennett’s description, shimmy back and forth between object and thing.

Basically, good job everyone! I very much enjoyed listening to/painting/eating/watching your presentations!

The morality of sexuality in Guigemar

Posted on by
1

Rachel, you weren’t the only one who was surprised by the views of morality found in Guigemar, a work which predates the height of the mystery play by a mere fifty years.  I’m well aware of the courtly love tradition and its importance to knight tales, yet a knight’s relationship with a lady is meant to boost one’s honor and loyalty.  But to me, the relationship in this tale seems to do nothing but diminish Guigemar’s honor.

Really, was Guigemar such a bad knight at the start of the tale?  He doesn’t do anything as sexually depraved as rape and pillage with wanton abandon.  Rather, he lives a life of sexual purity and chastity, while continuing to serve his land through his knightly deeds.  Yet this is unacceptable, as he is shot in the “thigh” (if you don’t use it, you lose it?) for living such an ignoble life.  The speaker truly believes that the punishment fits Guigemar’s crime, which further complicates things as the story progresses.

Guigemar’s adulterous relationship is directly endorsed by the speaker, who “[hopes they also enjoy whatever else / others do on such occasions” as they “lie down together and converse” (532-534).  The speaker is well aware that the knight is taking another’s woman, a woman he has just met and formed a relationship with based solely off of their Barbie x Ken comparability.  Yet she endorses this as the right thing to do, refusing to allow sympathy for the sexually inadequate husband.  As readers, we are frequently reminded that this is a tale of passion and romance, but I still find it difficult to forgive the implicit morals found in this tale.

To me, the most hypocritical part of this story lies in its conclusion, where a new knight claims the lady Guigemar has lost.  Guigemar saw nothing wrong with taking another’s woman earlier in the story, but when it is he who is wronged he sees death as a suitable punishment for womanizing. Unlike her husband, this new suitor is sexually capable and loves her more than any woman he ever had, so this exchange of hands should be less than punishable if anything.  Yet Guigemar only profits from his adultery and murder.

Am I blowing smoke here?  I’m not arguing about the morality of adultery in today’s world- I’m just trying to understand how this story and its morals could fit into a supposedly pious world, especially when its hero is a representative of the ideal.  Am I wrong about the apparent hypocrisy of the tale?

Gender roles in Marie De France’s Guigemar

Posted on by
1

One could say that Marie De France’s Guigemar is a more or less frank reflection of  gender norms in the 12th century. However, there are instances in which gender is symbolically or literally reimagined. The opening to Guigemar, for instance, struck me as a very bold move for a female writer to make, one which certainly did not conform to the gender standards of the time period. From the beginning, it is made clear that the writer herself is operating within a world of gender bias in which she feels a need to defend herself, even though she grants them “…a right to their evil talk.”

The deer Guigemar finds on his hunting expedition is no ordinary deer. In the forest, he sees “…a hind with a fawn; / a completely white beast, / with deer’s antlers on her head’ (90-92). The deer is curiously characterized as “she” but apparently possess both male and female attributes. Why make the deer a hermaphrodite? Furthermore, why is it a deer, and not a human being? First of all, the deer being a hermaphrodite lends the story a strange quality, making the encounter “magical” rather than tragic. Moreover, I believe it’s easier for an audience to accept a hermaphroditic deer rather than a human because we see animals (in a sense) as objects. The reality of an animal, which is mysteriously both male and female, is somehow less objectionable precisely because it is inhuman.

How do other characters defy prescribed gender roles? Guigemar himself appears to fulfill all the standards associated with knighthood. He is handsome, brave, valiant, and generous. In other words, he acts exactly as a male in his station of life is expected to act. However, his role as a knight (and by extension, an ideal male) is marred by one significant weakness. The fact that he does not have romantic feelings toward women is problematic considering his duties as a knight. This inability to love interferes with his ability to engage in the ritual of courtly love. After all, who would inspire him to go to battle (a central part of his chivalric duties) if there was no woman by his side?

His lady conforms to gender norms in that she is beautiful, noble, and remains nameless throughout. However, though nameless, she acquires power in her rescue of Guigemar (traditionally the knight is the one who saves the damsel in distress) and their subsequent romance.

Marie de France questions the role of gender in Guigemar, giving the impression that gender, while an undoubtedly strong force, can be undermined by characters who embody both the traditional and non-traditional roles of “male” and/or “female.”