What Josh Does at Youthworks

I’m employed by an organ­i­sa­tion (the one I referred to in my first post about this project, wherein I didn’t bother explain­ing exactly what was going on, but hoped it would be clear to those who already knew) that exists to — amongst other things — resource youth ministry.

One thing we’ve noticed (“we” is myself and a hand­ful of oth­ers with an inter­est in the web) over the past twelve months is an uptake in web usage by youth min­istries — for obvi­ous rea­sons: that’s where kids are spend­ing their time, and it’s a great com­mu­ni­ca­tion tool, and every­one else is doing it.

When I say every­one else is doing it, I actu­ally mean every­one else is try­ing to do it. Every­one has, for the last six to twelve months, been writ­ing the same appli­ca­tions, inte­grat­ing the same soft­ware, pay­ing for the same soft­ware, attempt­ing to train the same peo­ple, and gen­er­ally doing a lot of the same stuff, sep­a­rately. With no point of inter­sec­tion or shar­ing or intel­li­gent resource management.

This is under­stand­able: after­all, the web presents a rel­a­tively new front for churches in gen­eral, and whilst kids have been wast­ing time online for years, only with the rel­a­tively recent advent of social net­work­ing web­sites (I refer to it as ‘Soc­Net’ in these parts — no-one else seems to, but I like it, so what­ever) have the less computer-inclined began spend­ing sig­nif­i­cant amounts of time in front of a keyboard.

There’s also a bit of a catch-22 when it comes to build­ing these things. Peo­ple ask, what are the ben­e­fits? We’ve never had some­one come along to youth group because of our website! — well, no, you’re right. But you also don’t have a web­site, so that’s hardly fair, is it? Nine times out of ten peo­ple will not come along to church (gener­i­cally) because they’ve searched for a church in a par­tic­u­lar sub­urb in Google (though, speak­ing of that, I’ve got to do a bit of SEO work on the Matthias site — it’s not on the first page for a “Church in Padding­ton” query. Changed the title, it’ll be a while til that kicks in. We’ll see.)

They’ll come because a friend asked if they wanted to, or they were walk­ing past and heard peo­ple inside, saw them going in, and won­dered what it was all about.

But this is hardly exclu­sive to hav­ing a web­site. If they have those points of con­tact, a web­site is a great way to invis­i­bly inves­ti­gate fur­ther with­out need­ing to make them­selves uncom­fort­able. It’s easy to find these sorts of web­sites through search engines — you walked past a church and noted its name, you remem­ber the name of your friend’s church, etc.

The same goes for youth groups, obviously.

Peo­ple have just been start­ing to realise this, or at least think of it at all and decide “yeah, we could do that”. So, there’s the ratio­nale for it all. Most peo­ple with decent web­sites already may not have con­sid­ered ratio­nale in any great depth — they’ve got a good web­site because they know some­one who makes them, and vol­un­teered their time (maybe they’re a leader), throw­ing some­thing together with Xoops in an after­noon. It’s quick and dirty, but effective.

We’re try­ing to spend a small but not insignif­i­cant amount of money to equip peo­ple to do these sorts of thing, so it’s only sen­si­ble that some more time is spent con­sid­er­ing what on earth we’re try­ing to achieve. Hence the lengthy pre­lude to what it actu­ally does.

Now, the fea­tures. We have too many tar­get audi­ences for it to be an alto­gether com­fort­able project, but that’s half the fun of it. The prod­uct is being mar­keted to churches (who pay for it) through lead­ers (who want to use it) and for youth (who actu­ally aren’t the cen­tre of the uni­verse on this one, but we need to give them UX that says they are). Out­side of these three, there are also the friends of the youth already in the appli­ca­tion who are just check­ing out the youth group page.

Of course, it’s not quite that sim­ple. We’re also mar­ket­ing this to camps, high school scrip­ture groups/lunchtime bible groups, and maybe bands/events. Which is great and tech­ni­cally only a small step, but it does pretty hor­ri­ble things when you try and explain who’s pay­ing for what in a con­cise business-like fash­ion. If you’ve read this far, chances are you’re well aware that concise-ness has never been my strong point.

So, with these tar­gets in mind, we are (firstly) going to equip them with web­sites. Big woop. WordPress.com and Blog­ger eat your heart out. Cue yawns.

No, seri­ously. We’re going to give them (‘them’ being the var­i­ous enti­ties described above, not indi­vid­u­als so much — there’s no way I’m posi­tion­ing this against other Soc­Net sites because I reckon it’s too frag­mented to last… Face­book or Myspace or Bebo or.… yes.) web pages. Wel­come to 1999.

They’re going to have web pages with cal­en­dars they can chock full of the sched­ule for the term, though. So that’s exciting.

And everyone’s going to have their own user­name, so they can leave com­ments on the inevitable blog­ging ele­ment with iden­tity — this is won­der­ful for com­ment– and generic form-spam. Inci­den­tally, I read a few blogs that Wild St peo­ple are writ­ing and was really excited to see they’re actu­ally enthu­si­as­tic about doing it. There’s quite the bunch of them on Blog­ger these days, and it’s all com­pletely autonomous — so far as I know, no-one has pushed them to start doing it. I was so proud of their keen­ness and inno­va­tion for build­ing up com­mu­nity and spread­ing the gospel! Another aside, my copy hasn’t arrived yet but I believe there’s some­thing about blog­ging in The Brief­ing for Decem­ber (it’s not on their web­site yet, either). My copy arrived today, and I dis­cov­ered the cur­rent issue is in their web­store, just not on the main site. It’s The Brief­ing #339, if you’d care to read it.

Any­way. Blogs will fea­ture. Cal­en­dars will fea­ture. All the stuff you’d rea­son­ably expect to be able to do with a CMS tool these days will fea­ture. Blogs, cal­en­dars, gal­leries, con­tact forms, sta­tic pages. Yay. So that’s the bor­ing stuff that we’ve just got to do the grunt-work for at some point (I’m sure it can be fun, but, just between you and me, I’m not really look­ing for­ward to the cou­ple of weeks we have to spend on that bit).

Now, for inter­est­ing and inno­v­a­tive fea­tures — because, let’s face it, the above is hardly enough to con­vince any­one to switch their exist­ing web­site (if indeed they have one) across to a hosted plat­form for a nom­i­nal (to be deter­mined, but prob­a­bly only payable by church groups, and not for camps/events on account of these being once-off) monthly fee.

Con­tact tools. Yummy. We’re going to give them mail­ers that make it easy to send a mes­sage to, say, all the kids in year 10. Or just guys. Or girls in year 8. Or only to your co-leaders (we’ll have a resource area where they can share files — Word doc­u­ments, PDFs, slide shows — on the site, too: that’s some of the fun CMS stuff). But email’s been done before. Everyone’s used email. Admit­tedly, some­times you just wish there’s a bet­ter way to store and man­age lists of peo­ple, and this tool will cer­tainly do that, but it’s a lit­tle bor­ing still.

So we decided it’d be a good idea to throw SMS into the mix. It’s not just a gim­mick: again, this is in response to what peo­ple are already doing. The only dif­fer­ence is it’s paid on a shared account (used by the lead­ers — the youth kids won’t have access to these tools, for fairly obvi­ous rea­sons) and inte­grates the same con­tact man­age­ment fea­tures as the mailer app. We’re hop­ing con­ve­nience will draw peo­ple across to this tool. Use sce­nar­ios are basi­cally just that you’d use this tool to inform peo­ple of what’s going on this week at youth group, or remind­ing them that the group is on bring­ing sup­per this month, etcetera. The orig­i­nat­ing num­ber will be that of a sin­gle leader, or it could even be that of that person’s own leader.

For exam­ple, one mes­sage is sent to all kids by the group co-ordinator, but that mes­sage is altered depend­ing on who the indi­vid­ual recipient’s bible study leader is, so that it appears to orig­i­nate from them. Obvi­ously com­mon sense would say that you wouldn’t do that with­out con­sul­ta­tion, so we’d prob­a­bly have a check box in the leader’s “my account” page that would say “Allow mes­sages from other senders to orig­i­nate from my mobile num­ber”, or some­thing to that affect.

Beyond con­tact tools, we want to take advan­tage of the fact that this is a service-based prod­uct and entirely a hosted solu­tion. Part of the rea­son we’re strongly pur­su­ing that is it gives an oppor­tu­nity to equip and direct in a way that decen­tralised sites can’t be. So, a few things we’re think­ing of doing are cen­tralised offer­ings like weekly newslet­ters (sent to lead­ers two days in advance so they’ve got an oppor­tu­nity to see it first) and global blog prop­er­ties that give reviews, cur­rent affairs com­men­tary, etc.

That’s the end of the uni­ver­sal fea­tures that are great for kids and lead­ers alike, but there’s lots more for lead­ers. As I’ve already said, we want this to be self-funding. Part of this is sell­ing elec­tronic ver­sions of dead-tree prod­ucts, as DRM’d PDFs, or as unen­cum­bered PDFs with watermarks/obviously time-sensitive adver­tis­ing (so vio­la­tion of copy­right is glar­ingly obvi­ous). The other part is (for me at least) far more excit­ing, and that’s reselling user generated/contributed con­tent (UGC) under an iStockPhoto-esque model (Basi­cally, profit sharing).

This isn’t just about words on a page — I want to get plenty of video stuff hap­pen­ing, too, because (espe­cially in reformed evan­gel­i­cal Anglican/Baptist/Presbyterian, etc. churches) that doesn’t get nearly enough of a work out as is. It’s a really effec­tive tool for sup­port­ing preaching/bible stud­ies, and it’s been largely over­looked until prob­a­bly early this year (I had my first con­ver­sa­tion with some­one about video resources for small group bible stud­ies as late as July or August this year, I think! They had used a Matthias Media resource which I haven’t encoun­tered, and thought it really helpful).

Pric­ing mod­els for all that are still a lit­tle up in the air, but, from a consumer’s point of view, it’s def­i­nitely going to be afford­able. The project will ulti­mately sit on a server main­tained gratis and depend largely on vol­un­teer labour to admin­is­ter con­tent. The only “costs” are those to the estab­lished Youth­works pub­lish­ing divi­sion, but hope­fully we can tran­si­tion the way they do their high-school level con­tent effec­tively, so they’re com­mis­sion­ing con­tent for the web and sell­ing it there. Some­thing that’s really excit­ing is the pos­si­bil­ity that, instead of com­mis­sion­ing con­tent, it’s pos­si­ble to pur­chase it directly and already cre­ated from a pool of resources on the website.

There’s def­i­nitely a work­able model here, somewhere.

Prayer is greatly wel­comed for:

  • wis­dom try­ing to fig­ure that model out
  • energy and resources to make it hap­pen (in what­ever form)
  • adop­tion and enthu­si­asm from youth lead­ers and kids
  • effec­tive­ness in web strat­egy as we attempt to use it as an evan­ge­lis­tic out­reach tool, and a tool for the growth of exist­ing ministry
  • and, hand-in-hand with that last point, that God’s will be done and if He wills it, that growth would be given!

RI revisited, Web standards, AJAX, LDAP and architecture

I vis­ited Raw Ideas today and was really quite excited by what I saw. They’re about to move office again so I was pop­ping in to return the keys (I still had them even though I haven’t worked there for sev­eral months now) and gen­er­ally catch up. Tino was work­ing on a tape library appli­ca­tion for archiv­ing DVCPro and Mini DV and HD(V, mostly) footage in a really search­able and gen­er­ally more-manageable-than-shelves-full-of-labels kind of way, and he was pretty keen to show it off. Freakin’ awe­some stuff. Aside from some DHTML gim­micks (fad­ing rollovers, etc., stuff that you think is cool when you’re devel­op­ing it but does noth­ing but irri­tate you once you have to sit down and finally use the appli­ca­tion for five min­utes!) it was great to see he’s using Scrip­tac­u­lous for some gen­uinely use­ful AJAX-based functionality.

Because it’s a library, it’s basi­cally one big search engine. Which means that auto­com­plete is a really handy thing to have, and being able to click on a piece of infor­ma­tion and edit it straight away (so, tak­ing plain text and con­vert­ing it into a textarea or input field for edit­ing imme­di­ately, with­out a sep­a­rate admin view) is absolutely price­less for mov­ing through a library quickly. This is so the way con­tent edit­ing should be head­ing — I’m hop­ing we all get there in the end.

But even more excit­ing than Javascript usabil­ity gim­micks was to see that he’s still using CSS, now more exten­sively and with­out assis­tance, and with kick-arse seman­tics. I looked at the source of his page quickly and the only com­plaint I had was his use of a span for a header instead of an Hx… totally won­der­ful to see a few months after the res­i­dent stan­dards nazi (that would be me) has taken off!

So we threw around ideas about that (includ­ing rip­ping time­code off DV tape and try­ing to set marker points, import­ing EDL’s for use inside the library, automat­ing transcod­ing processes and export­ing H.264 or FLV for pre­views, and a cou­ple of other equally fun things), then even­tu­ally started chat­ting about what I’m doing over here at Youth­works these days.

I think I made him kind of jeal­ous. I’ve seri­ously got one of the best jobs in the web devel­op­ment world right now. I get to come up with stuff that’s gen­uinely use­ful for users (and pro­duc­tive for the Gospel, yada yada — that’s the implicit goal of all of this), entirely in response to their needs, with­out being bur­dened in par­tic­u­lar by his­tory, or legacy sys­tems that need to inte­grate, or any major com­peti­tors — it’s won­der­ful. So we started talk­ing about plat­forms and what­ever and I said I was con­sid­er­ing Django (and got a big tick accord­ingly, which was nice) with an RDBMS (i.e. MySQL, just because that’s pretty much all I have expe­ri­ence with inso­far as DBs go) but then out­lined a bit more about the project and he rec­om­mended an LDAP sys­tem pretty strongly.

LDAP is a directory-based data­base which is strongly heirar­chi­cal and finely gran­u­lated in nature. Which is bloody use­ful when you’ve got a user struc­ture five lay­ers deep:

Simple CYIADA universe

But, of course, mod­er­a­tors do not “con­tain” lead­ers any more than lead­ers “con­tain” youth. All of these tiers exist inde­pen­dently of one another. They are inter­nally defined by their extrin­sic rela­tions, even though their user expe­ri­ence of the web­site will vary depend­ing on their heirar­chi­cal posi­tion. The lat­ter makes LDAP seem entirely sen­si­ble, but the for­mer def­i­n­i­tion of per­sonal iden­tity (that is, what con­sti­tutes a “self” or inde­pen­dent user entity — a Dis­tin­guished Name, in LDAP-speak) seems to rile against that direc­tory concept.

“Mod­er­a­tor” is, in fact, a prop­erty of “Leader”. That is, it is a qual­ity belong­ing to the user, who belongs to the group “leader”. Users should be unique and belong to an Organ­i­sa­tional Unit (again, in LDAP speak) that reflects their role within the sys­tem. Thus, mod­er­a­tor­ship gen­er­ally will neces­si­tate belong­ing to two OUs: one does not cease to lead within their own group con­text if they are appointed as a sitewide mod­er­a­tor — like­wise, mod­er­a­tors may be appointed who do not have any for­mal role as a leader of a youth group. (This prob­lem may be cir­cum­vented by cre­at­ing such users at a CYIADA Global admin­is­tra­tion level, instead — for exam­ple, I do not lead a youth group in the tar­get demo­graphic, and I vol­un­teer to edit con­tent occa­sion­ally: I am not the web­mas­ter admin­is­tra­tor (hypo­thet­i­cally), but require mod­er­a­tion pow­ers with­out being a leader asso­ci­ated with any group).

CYIADA universe with groups

Groups, of course pose their own set of stu­pid dif­fi­cul­ties. They appear to have no heirar­chy at all: indeed, even where they could (for exam­ple, a Katoomba Con­ven­tion branch with KYCK, KYLC, KEC, etc. sub-branches, or a CMS branch with Sum­mer School, MMM, etc. sub-branches) this isn’t par­tic­u­larly use­ful (and, con­se­quently, not desirable).

They don’t con­sti­tute OUs, because OUs have already been used to assign roles (prob­a­bly a bas­tardi­s­a­tion of stan­dard X.520 prac­tice, but so much of this will be I don’t par­tic­u­larly care). The only way I could see it work­ing would be by defin­ing mul­ti­ple Organi[s/z]ation com­po­nents, but even then…

I don’t know. My head has been in rela­tional data­base space for so long I want every­one to have a numeric iden­ti­fier link­ing them to another table chock full of organ­i­sa­tion records. It makes me com­fort­able. But then, LDAP would man­age authen­ti­ca­tion and roles, if not asso­ci­a­tion, and appears to gen­er­ally have poten­tial to make life a lot eas­ier. So per­haps there’s some way to con­nect direc­tory and RDBMS happily?

Feed­back more than wel­come. I’m not wor­ried about plat­form specifics, just about the the­o­ret­i­cal archi­tec­ture of such a beast (and my con­cep­tion of LDAP in gen­eral). If you’re read­ing this and know any­thing about OpenL­DAP or AD or RHCS or any other plat­form, or just know about con­nect­ing to exist­ing sources and extend­ing them, please leave a com­ment and make me happy :-)

Roman Catholic reform?

An illus­trated con­ver­sa­tion with Car­di­nal Cor­mac Murphy-O’Connor, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Eng­land and Wales, explor­ing his pen­e­trat­ing insights on the Church’s role in a post mod­ern, mul­ti­cul­tural and sec­u­lar Britain.

For broad­cast on Com­pass: Pil­grim Cor­mac. Sun­day 15 Octo­ber at 22:15 on ABC TV, Fri­days at 9.05am, 4.30pm, 7.30pm and 9.45pm on ABC2 (Dig­i­tal only, IIRC)

I heard a radio promo for this last night and it sounds really interesting/bizarre. One of the things Murphy-O’Connor is reput­edly argu­ing is that the “Parish” con­cept is too large/impersonal for the unchurched (they didn’t use that word, I wouldn’t nor­mally either, but I’ve been read­ing too many reformed mis­sional blogs/websites of late and it’s start­ing to become a part of my vocab­u­lary, for bet­ter or worse), postmodern-influenced, sec­u­larised British per­son. Accord­ingly, he is (appar­ently, again with­out hav­ing seen the pro­gramme) advo­cat­ing a new approach/structure of fel­low­ship cen­tred around meet­ing in people’s homes/more casu­ally. One (pre­sum­ably sig­nif­i­cant) part of this is for prayer and bible study.

Which is excit­ing, to say the least.

Appar­ently there are only 4 mil­lion peo­ple who call them­selves Roman Catholics that Cor­mac Murphy-O’Connor has the respon­si­bil­ity of serv­ing (this is in Eng­land and Wales: 50– and 3-million pop­u­la­tion respec­tively), which has prob­a­bly con­tributed some impe­tus to reform. This idea that smaller groups are bet­ter for fel­low­ship (jar­gon for meet­ing together and talk­ing) than larger bod­ies is in inter­est­ing con­trast with large (chiefly Pen­ta­costal) churches that don’t seem to have (pub­licly) popped up in the UK par­tic­u­larly lots. British cul­tural thing? Roman-Catholic church thing? It’s hard to tell.

Cer­tainly it would seem that there are senses in which belong­ing to a larger com­mu­nity can be of equal value to small groups… and in which small groups pre­vent the poten­tial detach­ment of larger ‘com­mu­nity’. But it’s espe­cially inter­est­ing that a church defined by its cen­tral­ity of lead­er­ship and centuries-old adher­ence to struc­ture defined by Tra­di­tion (cap­i­tal T as in defined by Roman church, not tra­di­tion as derived from the bible) over Scrip­ture is appar­ently mov­ing back to meet­ing pri­vately, pos­si­bly (prob­a­bly, given clergy short­ages and so forth) con­sist­ing wholly of lay peo­ple, read­ing God’s word and pray­ing together. One can only won­der what this means for tradition-bound non-Biblical prac­tices such as confession.

Maybe I’m just think­ing wish­fully. It’s been a week of Roman Catholic outreach-ish stuff at Uni and there are some really bizarre things that keep crop­ping up. The ‘prob­lem’ (it is a prob­lem, I’m just hes­i­tant to call it that because I know peo­ple are going to be offended… as though the rest of this post were com­pletely innocu­ous) of Roman Catholi­cism isn’t going away any more than lib­eral Chris­tian­ity and false teachers.

But false prophets also arose among the peo­ple, just as there will be false teach­ers among you, who will secretly bring in destruc­tive here­sies, even deny­ing the Mas­ter who bought them, bring­ing upon them­selves swift destruc­tion.
2 Peter 2:1

Keep pray­ing.

Essay: Iachimo, Imogen and Cymbeline’s Dénouement

Essay, ENGL1002.

Screenshot of PDF front page

Full­text fol­lows, incor­rect for­mat­ting. PDF ver­sion also avail­able (proper for­mat­ting, foot­notes, etc.).

Read the rest of this entry »

Speech: Shakespeare’s Cymbeline

No pretty PDFs of this one. I wrote it in a nor­mal word-processor (because jaggy, unjus­ti­fied lines are eas­ier to read) so there were no LaTeX sources to make doc­u­ments from. OpenOf­fice does PDF export but there’s not much point. Shrug. Speech fol­lows, ~5mins (prob­a­bly over, closer to 6). ~950 words.

Scene 4 in Act 2 of Shakespeare’s Cym­be­line affords us a great deal that is of inter­est when exam­in­ing the devel­op­ment of romance nar­ra­tive through­out time.

This por­tion of the play is a scene — just in case, you know, every­one doesn’t, ah, remem­ber what the read­ing was — a scene in which Posthu­mus is in the house of Phi­lario, dis­cussing the present polit­i­cal sit­u­a­tion that exists between Rome and Eng­land. As Penny Gay men­tioned in her sec­ond lec­ture on Cym­be­line, there’s a cer­tain depar­ture from his­tory at this point. We are made aware that there is trou­ble brew­ing over the ces­sa­tion of the pay­ment of trib­utes to Rome, and, in Posthu­mus’ words, “this will prove a war”.

It’s unabashed nation­al­ism, com­pletely shame­less, and writ­ten in such a way that a con­tem­po­rary audi­ence would thor­oughly approve: “You shall hear/ The legions now in Gal­lia sooner landed/In our not-fearing Britain than have tidings/Of any penny trib­ute paid.” O’Neill would, how­ever, have us call this some­thing other than the re-writing of History.

It is the con­struc­tion of a fic­tional world — a fic­tional world that, it should be said, bears some mark of real­ity… but a fic­tional one nonethe­less. In fic­tion, as O’Neill explains, every­thing is con­tin­gent upon noth­ing aside from the whim of the author; that term, of course, extend­ing to include “play­wright”, “poet”, and all other man­ner of narrative-creator.

So in this fic­tional world, against this back­drop of polit­i­cal tur­moil, Iachimo enters. He enters amidst Posthu­mus’ nation­al­is­tic out­bursts, and it almost appears as though Posthu­mus doesn’t realise the issue at hand has altered, so unfal­ter­ing is his courage in his spouse, as with his nation.

“I hope the brief­ness of your answer made/The speed­i­ness of your return.” — he could well be speak­ing of an emissary’s rebut­tal at the hands of a for­eign power demand­ing trib­ute. There is some­thing diaphanous about the edges of these themes, as though Shake­speare has feath­ered them together inten­tion­ally. Our con­cep­tion of “state” is quite dif­fer­ent from that of mar­riage, but per­haps there is some­thing to be made of the way in which they are together, here. I think it pos­si­ble that we are being invited to exam­ine Posthu­mus against expec­ta­tions of what befits a “good” hus­band, specif­i­cally with regards to his lead­er­ship qual­i­ties. As a poten­tial states­man, Posthu­mus has not yet been thor­oughly dis­qual­i­fied. That comes in the scene fol­low­ing this, wherein he throws a hys­ter­i­cal, misog­y­nis­tic, tempter tantrum.

I con­sider this jux­ta­po­si­tion of polit­i­cal and rela­tional dis­cus­sion some­thing that is meant to con­nect the two in our minds: Posthu­mus is, after­all, being eval­u­ated not only as the con­demn­ing hus­band of Imo­gen, but also as a poten­tial ruler of the state. His apti­tude for both roles is seri­ously brought into ques­tion through­out this play: and often through the same events.

In an envi­ron­ment of ironic cru­dity, the sup­posed elite of Renais­sance Europe gather in Philario’s house, jest­ing about the con­stancy of, in par­tic­u­lar, Posthu­mus’ wife Imo­gen. Posthu­mus is agree­ably con­fi­dent in his wife’s fidelity, but, some­what less agree­ably, will­ing to sub­ject her to the approaches of one Iachimo. In con­clud­ing their wager, Posthu­mus declares:

Only, thus far you shall answer: if you make your voy­age upon her, and give me directly to under­stand you have prevail’d, I am no fur­ther your enemy; she is not worth our debate : if she remain unseduc’d, you not mak­ing it appear oth­er­wise, for your ill opin­ion, and the assault you have made to her chastity, you shall answer me with your sword.

This doesn’t take too much unpack­ing. In the case that Iachimo suc­ceeds, Posthu­mus explic­itly says “I am no fur­ther your enemy”. Back in Act II Scene IV, Iachimo is speak­ing of the par­tic­u­lars of Imogen’s cham­ber, and says he must speak in greater detail to jus­tify his knowl­edge. Posthu­mus agrees, stat­ing: “So they must,/Or do your hon­our injury”. There is a con­cern here for Iachimo’s hon­our even amidst his defama­tion of Posthu­mus’ wife. Again, on line 124, Posthu­mus responds to Philario’s ratio­nal sug­ges­tion that a cor­rupt ser­vant may have taken a token on Iachimo’s behalf, say­ing “I am sure/ She would not lose it : her atten­dants are/ All sworn and honourable”.

Sworn and hon­ourable, in fact, beyond the hon­our of his wife? Appar­ently, in Posthu­mus’ mind, this is true.

All this has a fan­tas­tic irony about it, as it serves both to cri­tique Posthu­mus as leader, and as hus­band. The two are insep­a­ra­ble; Posthu­mus has failed in ways a Renais­sance man is not per­mit­ted to fail, demon­strat­ing his cru­dity, his lack of faith, his inabil­ity to lead respon­si­bly even his wife — in the eyes of the audi­ence, he has failed.

This is realised through a nar­ra­tive that is cal­cu­lat­ing in its grad­ual rev­e­la­tion and con­struc­tion of the char­ac­ter Posthu­mus: we see this in the estab­lish­ment of the wager, Act 1 Scene 4; its con­tin­u­a­tion as Iachimo slowly unveils his deceit in Act 2 Scene 4, and Posthu­mus’ propen­sity to doubt his wife jeal­ously; his tantrum in Act 2 Scene 5; and, later, his order­ing her mur­der; and, later still, his grov­el­ing repen­tance rather unlike Iachimo’s stoic admis­sion of guilt. Iachimo is, in some respects, an anti-Posthumus. He is cal­cu­lat­ing, not impul­sive; cun­ning, not deceived; and orches­tra­tor of much action with regards to Posthu­mus’ rela­tion­ship with Imo­gen: he leads their rela­tion­ship, whilst Posthu­mus is (falsely) led.

This should not be taken to mean that Iachimo is a paragon of great lead­er­ship — this is, after­all, a com­edy in a world sus­pended between his­tor­i­cal fact and Renais­sance dis­course. There is scope for some degree of reflex­iv­ity within this play, as Shake­speare pokes fun at his own char­ac­ters, using oth­ers to delin­eate their foibles and pro­pel the nar­ra­tive towards its inevitable, genre-defined, close: poetic justice.

The Myth Figure of Oedipus: Human Responsibility vs. Divine Intervention

Essay, CLCV1001.

Screenshot of PDF front page

Full­text fol­lows, incor­rect for­mat­ting. PDF ver­sion also avail­able (proper for­mat­ting, foot­notes, etc.).

Read the rest of this entry »