Calling all Christopher Marlowe and Dr Faustus lovers!!

[poppy13]

Hi Everyone,

I am wondering if anyone can help me, i have analysed Scene 5, Act 1 from Dr Faustus by specifically looking at Marlowes use of language and how he has used it to portray Faustus as a tragic hero. I have only paid attention to the presence of Helen within this section of the play.

If anyone has any input in how the language has been used to portray Faustus as a tragic hero, then i would be very grateful to know your thoughts!!

MEPHIST.
His faith is great; I cannot touch his soul;
But what I may afflict [238] his body with
I will attempt, which is but little worth.

FAUSTUS.
One thing, good servant, let me crave of thee,
To glut the longing of my heart's desire,--
That I may have unto my paramour
That heavenly Helen which I saw of late,
Whose sweet embraces may extinguish clean [239]
Those thoughts that do dissuade me from my vow,
And keep my oath [240] I made to Lucifer.

MEPHIST.
This, or what else my Faustus shall desire,
Shall be perform'd in twinkling of an eye.

[Re-enter HELEN, passing over the stage between two CUPIDS.]

FAUSTUS.
Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships,
And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?--
Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.--

[Kisses her.]

Her lips suck forth my soul: see, where it flies!--
Come, Helen, come, give me my soul again.
Here will I dwell, for heaven is in these lips,
And all is dross that is not Helena.
I will be Paris, and for love of thee,
Instead of Troy, shall Wittenberg be sack'd;
And I will combat with weak Menelaus,
And wear thy colours on my plumed crest;
Yea, I will wound Achilles in the heel,
And then return to Helen for a kiss.
O, thou art fairer than the evening [241] air
Clad in the beauty of a thousand stars;
Brighter art thou than flaming Jupiter
When he appear'd to hapless Semele;
More lovely than the monarch of the sky
In wanton Arethusa's azur'd [242] arms;
And none but thou shalt [243] be my paramour!

[PeterL]

In this bit Faustus does not seem tragic. He seems to be getting what he desires.

[poppy13]

Thank you for your input. I do agree with you that he is getting what he desires, but I think because its at the hands of sourcery - that makes it tragic. What do you think?

[PeterL]

Thank you for your input. I do agree with you that he is getting what he desires, but I think because its at the hands of sourcery - that makes it tragic. What do you think?

It does lead to the tragic end, so you are right in an indirect way.

BTW, the last time I read the play it occurred to me that it might have been meant as a satire aimed at John Dee.

[hannah_arendt]

I agree that the end is tragic. However Faustus at the same time tries to get what he desires.

[Ser Nevarc]

For my part, I do think that your passage puts forth a protagonist who is a bit tragic. Of course he gets what he wants--he is proud, and that's an integral elemt of classical tragedy. The scene also predicts his catharsis and realization at the end. Interesting stuff

[hannah_arendt]

I liked Marlowe`s Faust much more than Goethe`s version, I must say.

[PeterL]

I liked Marlowe`s Faust much more than Goethe`s version, I must say.

Me too, I think that Marlowe's Faust is one of the best plays that I know of.

[OrphanPip]

It's important to keep in mind that the Helen who appears before Faustus is not really Helen, but a devil in the guise of Helen. This is another one of those scenes that highlights the superficial worth of what Faustus gets out of his deal with the devil.

I think the extent to which we interpret Faustus as a tragic figure in the play depends on how we read the question of predestination. If you were a Calvinist you would see Faustus as inevitably the product of double predestination, he was both destined to damnation but also responsible for that damnation. However, Calvinist would also claim we can't really know if Faustus is damned or saved at the end, although we can see Faustus' lack of faith because of his misunderstanding of Calvinist theology.

If we read the play as anti-Calvinist, the first scene of the play where Faustus selectively reads the Bible and espouses Calvinist views about damnation suggest that Faustus becomes damned because of his lack of faith in the potential for salvation, which arises from his Calvinism.

The pertinent question of the play, which it doesn't give us a totally definitive answer to, is the fate of Faustus' soul.

Edit: As to the quality of the play, the middle acts are pretty terrible.

[maxphisher]

There are critical works that deal with how appeals to the heavens and to natural forces are often evoked by the tragic hero. I know that a good bit of this has been discussed in regard to Shakespeare. I've got some of them lying about, so I'll track them down and post the titles. I think they'll be helpful to your work. Give me a day or so.

Also, watch how far you take the Calvinist readings. While there is a decent argument to be made with the theory, I'm not sure I'd agree that there is enough evidence for it to completely define the purpose of the play. For instance, one could also perform a Marxist reading that argues that Faustus' tragedy stems from his inability to overcome his categorization as worker and commodity that is attempting to rise above his social and economic station. I have written a little bit along those lines, but much like my concerns with the Calvinist readings, I'd worry about settling on that as a definitive reading of the play.

[OrphanPip]

I wasn't putting forward a definitively Calvinist reading of the play, but calling attention to the fact that the nature of Faustus' tragedy is in part dependent on whether we think he is capable of salvation or not. One of the fruitful ways of approaching this is to consider the play as Calvinist or anti-Calvinist in its theology. This is a question the play poses to us repeatedly, and it is a question that requires careful consideration of Early Modern theology.

Also, I wouldn't consider a Calvinist reading of the play to be as spurious as a Marxist one, because Faustus makes clear allusions to Calvinist thought when he reads the Bible in the first Act. These topics were of great interest in England at the time when Calvinist views were beginning to supplant less radical Protestant ideas in the Church of England. Marlowe is unlikely to have been sympathetic to Calvinist views, but Faustus seems to lean towards Calvinism in the play.

[Snowqueen]

I read Dr. Fautus now seems like ages ago. I did find it boring at some points, but I think it’s a fine tragedy. I also liked it for its poetry (and Marlow’s mighty line) Such as Faustus’s apostrophe to Helen quoted above. Some of the last verses are the most poignant of the entire play.

FAUSTUS. Ah, Faustus,
Now hast thou but one bare hour to live,
And then thou must be damn'd perpetually!
Stand still, you ever-moving spheres of heaven,
That time may cease, and midnight never come;
Fair Nature's eye, rise, rise again, and make
Perpetual day; or let this hour be but
A year, a month, a week, a natural day,
That Faustus may repent and save his soul!
O lente, lente currite, noctis equi!
The stars move still, time runs, the clock will strike,
The devil will come, and Faustus must be damn'd.
O, I'll leap up to my God!--Who pulls me down?--
See, see, where Christ's blood streams in the firmament!
One drop would save my soul, half a drop: ah, my Christ!--
Ah, rend not my heart for naming of my Christ!
Yet will I call on him: O, spare me, Lucifer!..............

Enter DEVILS.

My God, my god, look not so fierce on me!
Adders and serpents, let me breathe a while!
Ugly hell, gape not! come not, Lucifer!
I'll burn my books!--Ah, Mephistophilis!
[Exeunt DEVILS with FAUSTUS.]

[hannah_arendt]

Have you been thinking about differences in showing Faustus by Goethe and Marlowe?

[Corona]

Other than his Faustus I'm yet to read anything by Marlowe but I'm planning to do that as soon as possible!
Anyway, what do you people think about Marlowe's "use" of the chain of being? Did it "really" apply to Marlowe's plays - exactly like it happened with his fellow dramatist, such as Shakespeare - or it was meant to be a mere convention in his case?
The ending of his Doctor Faustus is often exemplified to illustrate Elizabethan view, e.g. the so called "chain of being". Since Marlowe has tried to break that chain by trying to obtain greater knowledge he has challenged God and the order of things and order has to restabilished by having the chaotic elements destroyed.
Now, in Marlowe's case - a presumed atheist - does it really apply or it may have been a simple convention?
It's not that questioning an author's specific faith does really have great importance - during Elizabethan age a dramatist wasn't supposed to express his personal view of the world, especially his political believes - but in his case couldn't it be seen as a mere, though ironic, convention?
As for me, by judging from the tragedy in itself, it is seemingly evident tragedies like Faustus or Shakespeare's Macbeth are rooted in the Elizabethan ethics and questioning these ethics is but a result of our modern view.
Given the Elizabethan context on the one side we feel emphatic and tend to sympatize with anti-heroes as Macbeth, Faustus or Hamlet; on the other side we know for certain their ambition opposed the ethics of the period.
The dichotomy was due to the fact it was a transition era with two leading and opposing way of approaching to the nature: the Medieval and the Renaissance thought. Ambiguous heroes such as Faustus or Hamlet are far from being totally "evil" characters: they personify vices and attitudes and although they are guilty of corrupting the social/moral order in different ways, on the other hand they carry some qualities along with them, the same qualities the Renaissance man would have emphasised later.

[maxphisher]

I wasn't suggesting that YOU were proposing a definitively Calvinist reading; my point was to remind the OP to be open-minded and willing to synthesize readings and connections. I apologize if my reply was not clear.

[My2cents]

Beats me.

"shall Wittenberg be sacked"

This makes me wonder though about Marlowe's relative renownless vis-a-vis Shakespeare.

[OrphanPip]

Marlowe's done pretty well for a man who only wrote 7 plays and an incomplete heroic poem, and who was murdered at 29.

[maxphisher]

and idolized by Shakespeare.

[hannah_arendt]

Interesting review about "Doctor Faustaus" performed recently at Yorkshire Playhouse:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2013/feb/28/faustus-doctored-marlowe-makeover

[Corona]

I don't know very much about Marlowe - since I've just read Doctor Faustus - so I can't tell if his "ideology" was rooted in Calvinism. But I have to say I don't believe he was supposing "predestination" to be the main topic, since I got the impression Faustus had the chance to convert till last. Maybe Faustus himself could have a calvinist view of salvation, but I think Marlowe was pointing to show the possibility of regretting thus saving one's soul. If he wanted to illustrate predestination then what would have been the point of having two angels conflicting over Faustus, for example?

[hannah_arendt]

I think that the calvinist conception in "Faustus" is a contemporary interpretation which doesn`t have much in common with the author`s idea.

[PeterL]

I think that the calvinist conception in "Faustus" is a contemporary interpretation which doesn`t have much in common with the author`s idea.

Or with the play itself.

[hannah_arendt]

Or with the play itself.

Very often , critics create completely new works whicj differ from the basic play, poem or novel.

[PeterL]

Very often , critics create completely new works whicj differ from the basic play, poem or novel.

It is good that people are so imaginative that they can dream up new meanings for old works. I should mock them too much, because I enjoy the sport of interpreting literature also.

[hannah_arendt]

I agree that literature should remain opened. I think that the meaning is something endless and nobody should impose on the reader how should he/ she understand, interpret the work.
I remember hearing, at school and university, that an author wanted to express something and the teacher told us then what was it. I have no recollection of being asked: What do you think about it?

[PeterL]

I agree that literature should remain opened. I think that the meaning is something endless and nobody should impose on the reader how should he/ she understand, interpret the work.
I remember hearing, at school and university, that an author wanted to express something and the teacher told us then what was it. I have no recollection of being asked: What do you think about it?

I recall use of the Socratic method. I was asked what I thought it meant frequently, and I still interpret literature, but there are reasonable limits. I found Umberto Eco's thoughts on interpretation very useful. See "Interpretation and Overinterpretation" and "The limits of Interpretation"
http://www.umbertoeco.com/en/
There used to be brief summaries of his books, but the site has been changed.

http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Interpretation-Advances-Semiotics/dp/0253208696

I agree with Eco on interpretation. There are works that can and should be interpreted broadly, but there are other works that point toward a single interpretation. Imposing one's opinions on a work is a pointless game; one would be better off writing something new.

[hannah_arendt]

We had to read Eco during a course in theory of literature.

Sometimes it is very difficult t create a braad interpretation but not to add something non- existent. Recently I have nitoced that as well readers as critics try to see sex/ gay/lesb/ political elements everywhere.

[PeterL]

We had to read Eco during a course in theory of literature.

Sometimes it is very difficult t create a braad interpretation but not to add something non- existent. Recently I have nitoced that as well readers as critics try to see sex/ gay/lesb/ political elements everywhere.

I have seen the same, and I find much of it amusing. On the other hand, there are themes are are common in literature, so common that authors sometimes don't even notice that they inserted one.

[hannah_arendt]

Once, during my soiree, I was shocked when I heard ideas of my readers about my works. However it is as well interesting as amusing:)

On the other hand, my husband has been recently shoked, even afraid after reading fragments of my prose. Then, I decided to change the whole conception a little.

[PeterL]

Once, during my soiree, I was shocked when I heard ideas of my readers about my works. However it is as well interesting as amusing:)

On the other hand, my husband has been recently shoked, even afraid after reading fragments of my prose. Then, I decided to change the whole conception a little.

Did it make you change your writing? Or what you were trying to express?

[Corona]

Interesting debate! I'll try to express my opinion, but sorry for my bad english!
Discussing what are the limits of the interpretation is indeed a thorny problem; I think every work, especially the greatest one - or, indeed, those which are considered to be canonic by most critics and people - leaves a range of numberless questions opened which are more than likely to be taken and interpretated according to one's own view.
I'm not saying interpretation is subjective at all; what I'm saying is that objecetive interpretation is impossible to obtain: of course we CAN NOT share the same point of view Elizabethan people had, for example, and it's more than possible for "open" works to leave a lot of space to interpretation.
What I am trying to say is that it's no coincidence a play like Hamlet has received countless interpreations over the centuries; of course the wide range of the main problem raised by Shakespeare helped its canonization, but what has really influenced more than anything else is the fact that people have argued over unexplained matters, the so called "holes" of the play.
Add that to the fact every object of literature cannot be impartially studied as even interpreters and critics tend to be influenced by their subjective point of view, their critical approach and, above all, their context.
Plays like those of Marlowe and Shakespeare were written during a particular context which cannot be ignored at all. Neo-historicism should tend to "retrace" the original context of the play and how people should have perceived them, but it's a tendance, nonethless: even neo-historicism is a product of time and we cannot impartially judge a work of art without leaving some rooms for subjectiveness.

Said that, earlier I mentioned Marlowe and Shakespeare for a very precise reason: their plays, especially those of Shakespeare, have been subjected to very different interpretations, each one influenced by each period. Romantics tended to concentrate on Hamlet's incapacity of acting and on the "variance" between thought and action - it was easy to see Hamlet as an hero of their time.
The same happened to every great character ever created; take Don Quixote, for example - he was subjected to both Illuminist and Romantic analyses, both remarking different aspects of his characters and coming to different conclusions about the author's point of view.
Although unachievable, I would still say studying the context and the other works of the author help not to exceed with over-interpretating; a couple of months ago on this forum Kafka's Crow - I can't tell how much I'm greateful to him for this! - adviced me an essay by Eleanor Prosser. It was about Hamlet; that was a great kind of neo-historicist essay; of course we cannot read/perceive Hamlet the way elizabethan audience could; also because we can't read Hamlet with "pure" eyes - purity is always a construct! - and it doesn't help a secular tradition has weighed on Shakespeare's plays, especially Hamlet.
We can't see a representation of it without being influenced by popular theories, like Freud or Nietzsche's, and even in case we didn't specifically read them, we still TEND to be influenced by our different intellectual and sensitive substratum.
I'm not saying an interpretation holds the same value as another one - techically it would be so, maybe -, but that "purity" is not achievable... still critic should tend not to separate too much from the original context and to give the most impartial opinion one can have.

In Marlowe's case I can't tell, as I have just read one play, but the one that I did read doesn't seem too ambiguous to me, at least not in its main theme/point of view. Macbeth, which is someway similar to Faustus, has been opened to interpretation - still most critics tend to say Shakespeare was totally rooted in the Elizabethan context, so concepts like "chain of being" or "wheel of Fortune" tend not to be dismissed. Of course some stick on the lack of a real point of view in Shakespeare and eminent scholars like Harold Bloom say there's not a "moral" in it.
I don't agree and I think Shakespeare's ambiguity to be due to the fact his works were written 4 centuries ago and critics always tend to see the things the way they like; that's not necessarily bad... it's a necessity, after all, because thought cannot be "boxed", but always vary. I think we should take into account the possibility his plays were not meant to be ambiguous at all.
As for Marlowe and his Faustus, it has often been used as an example of the so-called "chain of being" which cannot be destroyed. More than his work's, the real ambiguity there lies, rather, in Marlowe's own point of view, as he was accused of being atheist. Admitting that to be true, does it really change the way we should see his work?
I guess not. Some even say Raphael, maybe the greatest religious painter ever, was an atheist - does it really change? Also, how could we be sure about an author's point of view? And how much does it count, in a period in which artists were bounded to either precise assignments or to respect the commonly-accepted moral values.
If Shakespeare did represent in his works the theory of the chain of being because he really believed in it or not, does really change? He wrote for a precise audience and the fact he was able to depict eternal human questions and passions shouldn't lead to force interpretations, like that Shakespeare was a nihilist!

[OrphanPip]

I don't know very much about Marlowe - since I've just read Doctor Faustus - so I can't tell if his "ideology" was rooted in Calvinism. But I have to say I don't believe he was supposing "predestination" to be the main topic, since I got the impression Faustus had the chance to convert till last. Maybe Faustus himself could have a calvinist view of salvation, but I think Marlowe was pointing to show the possibility of regretting thus saving one's soul. If he wanted to illustrate predestination then what would have been the point of having two angels conflicting over Faustus, for example?

That's exactly the point, because Faustus believes himself damned, his reading of the Bible in the first act is overtly Calvinist. We don't really know if Faustus has the chance to be saved until the end, but he certainly has the chance to attempt it and we can't really know whether that would have been successful or not. Most people interpret the play as anti-Calvinist, which would have been going against the official Church of England doctrine at the time. One of the common anti-Calvinist criticisms that were put out in the period was the accusation that Calvinism traps people in despair and impedes salvation, which can arguably be what happens to Faustus.

Act I, 38-50:

Jerome's Bible, Faustus; view it well.

[Reads.]
Stipendium peccati mors est.
Ha!
Stipendium, &c.

The reward of sin is death: that's hard.

[Reads.]
Si peccasse negamus, fallimur, et nulla est in nobis veritas;

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
there's no truth in us. Why, then, belike we must sin, and so
consequently die:
Ay, we must die an everlasting death.
What doctrine call you this, Che sera, sera,
What will be, shall be? Divinity, adieu!

Saying a play about damnation has no engagement with contemporary debates in theology, as some have suggested above, is absurd. Especially, since you can point to many sections of the play where Faustus espouses Calvinist views. The same questions are debated rather hotly in the sermons and religious writing of the period, and the question of religious despair, that is giving up on salvation, was an important concern of early modern literature.

It is easy to read the above passage as anti-Calvinist because Faustus essentially quote mines the Bible and ignores all the assurances of forgiveness that appear throughout.

[hannah_arendt]

Did it make you change your writing? Or what you were trying to express?

Well, it came to me that perhaps there is too much of myself in my work. I have never wanted to be discovered throught my writting. Everything is a dialogue- it was the biggest lesson I got.

[hannah_arendt]

Interesting debate! I'll try to express my opinion, but sorry for my bad english!
Discussing what are the limits of the interpretation is indeed a thorny problem; I think every work, especially the greatest one - or, indeed, those which are considered to be canonic by most critics and people - leaves a range of numberless questions opened which are more than likely to be taken and interpretated according to one's own view.
I'm not saying interpretation is subjective at all; what I'm saying is that objecetive interpretation is impossible to obtain: of course we CAN NOT share the same point of view Elizabethan people had, for example, and it's more than possible for "open" works to leave a lot of space to interpretation.
What I am trying to say is that it's no coincidence a play like Hamlet has received countless interpreations over the centuries; of course the wide range of the main problem raised by Shakespeare helped its canonization, but what has really influenced more than anything else is the fact that people have argued over unexplained matters, the so called "holes" of the play.
Add that to the fact every object of literature cannot be impartially studied as even interpreters and critics tend to be influenced by their subjective point of view, their critical approach and, above all, their context.
Plays like those of Marlowe and Shakespeare were written during a particular context which cannot be ignored at all. Neo-historicism should tend to "retrace" the original context of the play and how people should have perceived them, but it's a tendance, nonethless: even neo-historicism is a product of time and we cannot impartially judge a work of art without leaving some rooms for subjectiveness.

Said that, earlier I mentioned Marlowe and Shakespeare for a very precise reason: their plays, especially those of Shakespeare, have been subjected to very different interpretations, each one influenced by each period. Romantics tended to concentrate on Hamlet's incapacity of acting and on the "variance" between thought and action - it was easy to see Hamlet as an hero of their time.
The same happened to every great character ever created; take Don Quixote, for example - he was subjected to both Illuminist and Romantic analyses, both remarking different aspects of his characters and coming to different conclusions about the author's point of view.
Although unachievable, I would still say studying the context and the other works of the author help not to exceed with over-interpretating; a couple of months ago on this forum Kafka's Crow - I can't tell how much I'm greateful to him for this! - adviced me an essay by Eleanor Prosser. It was about Hamlet; that was a great kind of neo-historicist essay; of course we cannot read/perceive Hamlet the way elizabethan audience could; also because we can't read Hamlet with "pure" eyes - purity is always a construct! - and it doesn't help a secular tradition has weighed on Shakespeare's plays, especially Hamlet.
We can't see a representation of it without being influenced by popular theories, like Freud or Nietzsche's, and even in case we didn't specifically read them, we still TEND to be influenced by our different intellectual and sensitive substratum.
I'm not saying an interpretation holds the same value as another one - techically it would be so, maybe -, but that "purity" is not achievable... still critic should tend not to separate too much from the original context and to give the most impartial opinion one can have.

In Marlowe's case I can't tell, as I have just read one play, but the one that I did read doesn't seem too ambiguous to me, at least not in its main theme/point of view. Macbeth, which is someway similar to Faustus, has been opened to interpretation - still most critics tend to say Shakespeare was totally rooted in the Elizabethan context, so concepts like "chain of being" or "wheel of Fortune" tend not to be dismissed. Of course some stick on the lack of a real point of view in Shakespeare and eminent scholars like Harold Bloom say there's not a "moral" in it.
I don't agree and I think Shakespeare's ambiguity to be due to the fact his works were written 4 centuries ago and critics always tend to see the things the way they like; that's not necessarily bad... it's a necessity, after all, because thought cannot be "boxed", but always vary. I think we should take into account the possibility his plays were not meant to be ambiguous at all.
As for Marlowe and his Faustus, it has often been used as an example of the so-called "chain of being" which cannot be destroyed. More than his work's, the real ambiguity there lies, rather, in Marlowe's own point of view, as he was accused of being atheist. Admitting that to be true, does it really change the way we should see his work?
I guess not. Some even say Raphael, maybe the greatest religious painter ever, was an atheist - does it really change? Also, how could we be sure about an author's point of view? And how much does it count, in a period in which artists were bounded to either precise assignments or to respect the commonly-accepted moral values.
If Shakespeare did represent in his works the theory of the chain of being because he really believed in it or not, does really change? He wrote for a precise audience and the fact he was able to depict eternal human questions and passions shouldn't lead to force interpretations, like that Shakespeare was a nihilist!

So maybe, we should call it "recreation" instead of "interpretation"?

[PeterL]

Well, it came to me that perhaps there is too much of myself in my work. I have never wanted to be discovered throught my writting. Everything is a dialogue- it was the biggest lesson I got.

There is no way to avoid putting much of yourself into your writing, because everything that you write is from you. The secret is to learn how to write as if your were someone else. I recently wrote a short story with a female police officer as the narrator. I will soon learn whether it came across as a gemale cop telling a story or something else.

But yes, writing is a conversation with the reader, and as in an actual conversation the writer is projecting himself or herslf through the written words.

[hannah_arendt]

There is no way to avoid putting much of yourself into your writing, because everything that you write is from you. The secret is to learn how to write as if your were someone else. I recently wrote a short story with a female police officer as the narrator. I will soon learn whether it came across as a gemale cop telling a story or something else.

But yes, writing is a conversation with the reader, and as in an actual conversation the writer is projecting himself or herslf through the written words.

Now I am writing a piece of fantasy and I would like to finish it this year. Then I am going to fight for publication:)

[PeterL]

Now I am writing a piece of fantasy and I would like to finish it this year. Then I am going to fight for publication:)

Good luck, I usually have two or three stories making the rounds, and I have yet to sell anything.

[hannah_arendt]

Good luck, I usually have two or three stories making the rounds, and I have yet to sell anything.

Thank you:)

Up to now, I have published my works (poems) in Argentina and Poland. I write in Spanish and Polish. Maybe one day, I`ll manage to write something using English.

[PeterL]

Thank you:)

Up to now, I have published my works (poems) in Argentina and Poland. I write in Spanish and Polish. Maybe one day, I`ll manage to write something using English.

SOmeone may want to print translations. The English language market is difficult even though there are many, many publications.

[hannah_arendt]

SOmeone may want to print translations. The English language market is difficult even though there are many, many publications.

It is very difficult to publish in Poland too. Sometimes it seems to me that without "help" or apropriate surname you don`t have any chance. I think that in UK or USA you have a bigger chance.

[PeterL]

It is very difficult to publish in Poland too. Sometimes it seems to me that without "help" or apropriate surname you don`t have any chance. I think that in UK or USA you have a bigger chance.

That's because they decided to try to educate everuone, and there are many people who think that they can write but can't.

[hannah_arendt]

That's because they decided to try to educate everuone, and there are many people who think that they can write but can't.

Here more and more people cannot use Polish properly. Unfortunately, in Poland education is free. The main problem is that people doesn`t read here. Living among such people is becoming for me more and more difficult I must say...

[PeterL]

Here more and more people cannot use Polish properly. Unfortunately, in Poland education is free. The main problem is that people don't read here. Living among such people is becoming for me more and more difficult I must say...

Same as here, and the people trying to teach don't know much or how to teach.

If you don't want to live among people like that, then you could move to some uninhabited island in the central Pacific Ocean.

[hannah_arendt]

Same as here, and the people trying to teach don't know much or how to teach.

If you don't want to live among people like that, then you could move to some uninhabited island in the central Pacific Ocean.

Believe me, sometimes I would like to:)

[PeterL]

Believe me, sometimes I would like to:)

There are a fw islands that are still available.

[hannah_arendt]

There are a fw islands that are still available.

(Un)fortunately, I cannot afford it:)

[PeterL]

(Un)fortunately, I cannot afford it:)

I will also have trouble getting to Palmyra Atoll. Maybe in a couple of years.

[hannah_arendt]

I will also have trouble getting to Palmyra Atoll. Maybe in a couple of years.

Do you want to follow Robinson Crusoe?

[PeterL]

Do you want to follow Robinson Crusoe?

No, he was on an island near Trinidad. I want to go to the central Pacific. There are fewer people there, and the ones who do live inn the region would be farther away, well out of sight.

[hannah_arendt]

No, he was on an island near Trinidad. I want to go to the central Pacific. There are fewer people there, and the ones who do live inn the region would be farther away, well out of sight.

Good luck:) I have never been thinking about moving out so far away from Europe. Once, I wanted to go to Mexico. In three months time, I go to Austria.

[PeterL]

Good luck:) I have never been thinking about moving out so far away from Europe. Once, I wanted to go to Mexico. In three months time, I go to Austria.

Have a merry time.

[hannah_arendt]

Have a merry time.

Thank you very much:)