The Odyssey final

The Odyssey is a classic tale of journey and redemption. It was one that set the bar for adventure stories and inspired many future authors. This is a well known fact, but why am I here thinking that it set the bar so low? In my opinion, the Odyssey would get horrifically slammed if it released today, but why do I think that way?

Let’s first begin with the characters. This is where I find the book to be most disinteresting.
Telemachus is one of the first characters we are introduced to and he is by far the most interesting. He laments the fact that he pales in comparison to his father and lacks the strength or conviction to kick the suitors out. He must soon become the “man of the house” and take charge of his inheritance, something he fears he cannot do. This could have been made into an interesting plot line where he must become the man he needs to be and find some strength within himself. Possibly dealing with feelings of inadequacy and suffering some loss along his journey, and in the end he could learn to endure the hardest of times through grit and a merry demeanor. He could not only be an interesting character that way, but he could also speak to the hardships of men today and show that everyone has the capacity to overcome their insecurities. He could be an icon of strength, keeping a pure smile in hardship and dealing with his issues proactively rather. Instead, we got a journey and a proclamation of “you’re a man now” that had about the same impact as the seaweed mustache “now that we’re men” scene from the Spongebob movie.
Odysseus is not much better. He has no bad qualities to speak of and is always the best at everything. Essentially a textbook “Mary Sue” character. He is never matched in strength, cunning or intelligence unless the person he is contending with is literally a god’s son, sometimes even besting them, too. He always took the moral high ground and never did anything wrong. He is to amazing that Godesses want to get with him like this is some middle schooler’s fan fiction. Overall, an extremely boring character without quirks or flaws.
The antagonistic characters, such as Polyphemus, Eurymachus, Antinous, and Melanthius, are also rather bland. They all serve to embody all the bad characteristics of man and to be “evil and stuff”. None of them really showed any depth at all, rather, they were shallower than a roadside ditch. All of them only served to give us characters to hate and to paste Odysseus in a better light.

The pacing and structure of the book, while terrible, is not as glaringly awful as the characters are. Many times I found that new and important details of the plot were showing up randomly and then proceeded to break the pacing by explaining it. The scar on Odysseus’ leg is by far the worst example, introducing itself and requiring a page of backstory before returning to the event at hand. The drug “moly” is another example. It shows up out of the blue, gives some backstory, and turns out to be some wonder drug that Odysseus needs right now. Instead of, say, having an old man give it to him as a reward for some deed or having a crew member inexplicably find some on the ground and try to make a buck off of it in the mainland. It would still be incomprehensibly stupid to have some miracle substance solve all their problems, but it could have been handled far better. In addition to not establishing any important items or events beforehand, Chekhov's gun is not used at all. Chekhov’s gun states that if there is a rifle on the wall in act 1, it should go off in act 3. Essentially, do not introduce anything that is not meaningful to the story. Unfortunately, a vast majority of this book is exposition, talking about major events that took place or the achievements of people that just go on and on and on about stuff that is not conducive to the plot at all. The most annoying thing to me, however, was the SUBTLE FORESHADOWING in the book. By “SUBTLE FORESHADOWING”, I of course mean that it was not at all subtle. There were mentions of The Odyssey’s end by the first few books and as it went on, prophecies foretold of the ending and the narrator even outright tells you how the book ends at some points when he speaks of the arrows in the quiver after the competition. Overall, the book hinted at its ending very subtly https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RVAhW4ToLFI .

In conclusion, I was expecting a literary masterpiece out of The Odyssey, but I was extremely disappointed.

The Odyssey blog 3

The Odyssey has three important animal herders: Eumaeus, Melanthius, and Philoetius. Eumaeus the swineherd is a benevolent father figure to Telemachus and is loyal to Odysseus. He always offers the kindest hospitality to anyone he can and he says no unkind words of his friends and acquaintances. Melanthius the goatherd, on the other hand, is someone I would call a stain on humanity. He is rude and seems to enjoy feeling better than others. He offers no hospitality to guests of his master’s home. Philoetius the cowherd does not have a particularly big role in the story, but he is loyal to Odysseus and has an apparent distaste for the suitors. Because of their loyalty and good hospitality, Eumaeus and Philoetius will go on and live happy lives. I would assume that they would be held in a high regard by Odysseus due to their unwavering loyalty, possibly earning a reward not only from their master, but also from the gods due to their graciousness and faithfulness. Melanthius will likely meet some terrible fate. His horrible hospitality and awful demeanor have probably earned him a special place in Hades. I cannot see any good ending for the goatherd unless he repents and gains some degree of good character, which is unfortunately far less common in Greek myths than someone getting their comeuppance, usually through death.

IHSS HMNS visit

We went to the Houston Museum of Natural Science to view an exhibit on tribal life in the Amazon rainforest. It was definitely an interesting experience, as I knew next to nothing about it. I was extremely tired during the exhibit, so I had not retained much, but what I did remember was extremely interesting. It was mainly interesting to see an artistic style so very different from our own.
Here are some of the artifacts I saw:

 We had talked quite a bit about their diet, which consisted of mostly normal things for hunter-gatherer societies, but what I found interesting was they they were able to prepare a poisonous relative of the yucca so that it would be safe for consumption. These kinds of things always interest me because I have no idea how they managed to find out precisely what made it poisonous and devise a strategy to remove the toxin. It is similar to the awe I feel whenever edible pufferfish is mentioned because you really have to wonder how they had enough know-how to do this without an intimate knowledge of toxicology and chemistry.

Shrunken heads, while a staple in pop culture when speaking of uncontacted tribes, is actually extremely rare, only being practiced in about four to five tribes out of many hundreds. These tribes have also not practiced the collection and creation of shrunken heads for a long time, cutting back on it significantly after contact with Europe. The practice is almost entirely dead as of today. These tribes might have gotten the heads through battles or by murder. There were tales of some tribesmen a long time ago being attacked and beheaded for this practice. The process consists of removal of the skull and various organs in the head, including salivary glands and tonsils. The process continued with the removal of muscle and fat tissue and ending with a long soak in a solution. The reason they did this was because a person’s spirit and power was believed to be in his head and this power would help a warrior in battle. A warrior with two shrunken heads was considered nigh invincible.

This was a strange thing to focus on in the exhibit, but I was intrigued by the exhibit’s italicization on the tribe’s names. Mainly, I found their use of umlauts rather strange. An umlaut increases stress on a vowel and is indicated by two dots above a letter. This accent mark is common in many Germanic languages that aren't English and Uralic languages that use the Latin alphabet like Finnish or Hungarian. It is used to indicate a different, more stressed pronunciation from another vowel form. For instance, the “a” in “hat” is the same letter as the “a” in “almost” in English, but with proper use of umlauts, “hat” becomes “hät”. An umlaut is usually seen over an a, o, or u (an umlauted u in Finnish is replaced with a standard y, the sound for y in English is indicated by a j in Finnish). The exhibit had the pronunciations for the tribes’ names in standard form, with some accent marks, but their use of umlauts was strange, as when the tribes’ names were stated, there was not a need for the umlaut in the position as the vowels with umlauts were the standard forms of the vowel.

The Odyssey blog 2

On his journey, Telemachus received hospitality from Menelaus, the red haired King. His hospitality was nothing short of grand. They were bathed, clothed and given a grand feast by the king, despite the fact that there was a wedding party beforehand. The king obviously wasted no time in providing the best for his guests, even when short on supplies. If we use Menelaus’ hospitality for comparison, the hospitality of Nausicaa and Alcinous completely blew Menelaus out of the water. Odysseus was bathed clothed, given multiple feasts, had a divine bard sing at his meals, was given quarters, an opportunity to witness a sports tournament and the Phaeacian king even offered his daughter’s hand in marriage. Menelaus was extremely kind, he allowed the travelers to eat and stay at his home despite not knowing who they were, but  Nausicaa and Alcinous, having more power than Menelaus, had more to offer.

The Odyssey 1

The first sentence already makes it extremely obvious what the book will discuss. “The cunning hero, The wanderer, blown off course time and again After he plundered Troy’s sacred heights.” immediately allows the reader, provided that they are somewhat well versed in Greek mythology, to grasp who the “cunning hero” is. Odysseus, after “plundering Troy’s sacred heights”, was taken off course multiple times. First, he landed on the island of the cyclops Polyphemus, Poseidon’s son, and after some trickery and planning, made it off the island and left behind a very angry cyclops. Poseidon, in an act of revenge, caused Odysseus’ ship to once again land far away from Ithaca. Next, when the proem speaks about the fact that his men didn’t make it back, it is referring to the men who were eaten or turned into swine that Odysseus could not help. The longer that it goes on, the more it is apparent that it speaks of Odysseus. Also the title is the “Odyssey” so there’s that piece of evidence, too.

Frederick Douglass final

Frederick Douglass, upon becoming a free, married man, decided to heed warnings about America from his peers and left to Ireland. While there, he noticed that he was never judged as a person, he felt like an individual, like a human. This is no different from how it is now in Europe. With the exception of some extreme racists, personal character and appearance are not as analyzed or characterized as they are in the states. At least with my experience, Europe has allowed people to be themselves and the people there don’t seem to look through a social lens. Here, assumptions and preemptive personality checks are rather common. One thing always seems to lead to another, for example something that has annoyed me a lot would be this chain of assumptions: long hair means he’s effeminate which means he is submissive and therefore he likes other men. Despite the fact all of this chain is untrue bar the physical trait exhibited, this train of thought through various untruths and miniscule amounts of correlation is unfortunately more common than expected. My experience in Europe has been quite the opposite, allowing me to not be judged and to be simply a unique individual.

Frederick Douglass 3

If a person was to not be educated in any way for most of their life, there would be many ways to infringe upon their freedoms. They would be more gullible, more accepting and more reactionary. Anything one would do to a truly uneducated person could become justified to them. They haven’t had the opportunity to create a worldview for themselves, everything that could be done to them would seem normal. It is important to educate people, especially about how other’s live, so there wouldn’t be a way to justify wrongdoing. The masters reaped many benefits due to this. It likely reduced riots and probably assisted the slaveowners in teaching them the insulting idea that they were supposed to be slaves.

F. Douglass 2

A human right is a right that in a perfect world would not be denied to anyone. These rights include many things we take for granted, like freedom of speech and equal representation under law. Almost none of these rights were given to slaves. As they were not given humanity, there was little reason for America to attempt to do anything else. While there was a strong abolitionist movement, there was also rampant racism. Specifically, slaves were, well slaves. They were considered property, and therefore were unable to have simple privileges like freedom of speech or expression.

Frederick Douglass blog 1

Separating the family would have an unfortunately high amount of benefits for the owner. Separation would demoralize the slaves and make them more submissive and malleable. Young children would not have the care of their mother, causing their minds to be more open to authority figures. More respect for authority means fewer issues down the line. For the parents, it would reinforce the notion that they are property, which could lead to a more obedient workforce. Fewer close family bonds between slaves could also help in making things more efficient and safe for the master. Not to mention, the separation brings profit.

Sub-genre 2

This specific tale was of the fictitious knight Tancred, who was a central character in Jerusalem Delivered, an epic poem about the First Crusade. In this scene, Tancred has fought in single combat with Clorinda, his lover. Not recognizing her in battle apparel, he strikes her down. He unlaces her helmet and realizes what he has done, and with her final words Clorinda asks to be baptized. The Renaissance was a time of great advancement in the arts. As religion was of utmost importance in Europe at the time, many works were religious in nature. This one demonstrates the desire to connect with God, even in those of different religions.

The actual sub genre 1

I Live, I Die, I Burn, I Drown
Louise Labe

I live, I die, I burn, I drown
I endure at once chill and cold
Life is at once too soft and too hard
I have sore troubles mingled with joys

Suddenly I laugh and at the same time cry
And in pleasure many a grief endure
My happiness wanes and yet it lasts unchanged
All at once I dry up and grow green

Thus I suffer love's inconstancies
And when I think the pain is most intense
Without thinking, it is gone again.

Then when I feel my joys certain
And my hour of greatest delight arrived
I find my pain beginning all over once again.

When I do Count the Clock that Tells the Time
William Shakespeare

When I do count the clock that tells the time,
And see the brave day sunk in hideous night;
When I behold the violet past prime,
And sable curls all silver’d o’er with white;
When lofty trees I see barren of leaves
Which erst from heat did canopy the herd,
And summer’s green all girded up in sheaves
Borne on the bier with white and bristly beard,
Then of thy beauty do I question make,
That thou among the wastes of time must go,
Since sweets and beauties do themselves forsake
And die as fast as they see others grow;
And nothing ‘gainst Time’s scythe can make defence
Save breed, to brave him when he takes thee hence.


One of the most obvious differences in these poems are Shakespeare’s lack of stanzas. Louise is able to convey precisely what she is feeling through these stanzas, as she perfectly separates different ideas into them. Shakespeare is quite a bit more basic in his structure, simply having a block of text with a basic 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 scheme with the final two lines breaking the rhythm. Shakespeare uses a lot of metaphor in his piece, the most significant of which being Time’s scythe, alluding to Time being a reaper of beauty. Louise, however, settles for a lot of concrete language, which allows her to get her point across efficiently without much need for vagueness or fancy wording. She settles for the simple consonance “I live, I die, I burn, I drown” to simply convey her feelings.

Poetry post 3

The theme of Fruit Cocktail in Light Syrup is blandness, normality and hiding untruths. However, the interesting part of this poem lies in the opposite of what the words of it say. Fruit cocktail looks extremely bland, it is mostly white with a very similar texture throughout. Fruit cocktail is also extremely sweet and appetizing, especially to children. This may seem like somewhat of a stretch, but what I saw in the fruit cocktail was something seemingly bland. Something extraordinarily normal, but when you taste it, you are greeted to a symphony of flavor. What the poem could be saying between the lines is that something may seem incredibly bland or someone could seem detestably normal, but in fact be something else entirely once you get a taste.

Poetry blog post 1

The difference between the speaker and poet is similar to the difference between character and author. The author may write a character a certain way, say they have issues making friends, little emotional control, an inability to respond to stimuli optimally or a feeling of worthlessness due to weakness, this does not mean that the author has these feelings or issues. The author also could have these issues and are using the character as a conduit to express themselves. The only way to know for sure is an understanding of the author’s life and a statement from them saying that they did or did not have these issues. The reason you need a statement is that even if the author has or had these feelings, they may not be writing about themselves. They may not even be aware of the fact that their and their character’s dilemmas are similar and both are just isolated incidents. The relationship between poet and speaker is almost exactly the same as this.

ELA general post

1. My presentation on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It was a lot of fun going through the jokes I had written out and It was a very interesting book to analyze.

2. The most challenging thing for me was remembering the blog posts every week, especially when we had the gap week where there was no blog post. It was difficult getting through that part of the school year because I wasn't remembering to do all of the posts.

3. Hitchhiker's Guide. If you want a book we read together as opposed to my book of choice, my pick would be Much Ado About Nothing. MAAN was something that I had not read already, so the element of freshness made me enjoy it more than 1984 or Persepolis. It was also a lot of fun acting out the scenes and analyzing the language Shakespeare used.

4. All the Light We Cannot See. It suffered from what I am dubbing "Bel Canto syndrome" where it was either extremely predictable or completely and unnecessarily erratic. There was relatively little to keep my interest after the exposition and, while I am a sucker for tragic endings, Werner's death came off as forced and unnecessary. There was no buildup nor was there any reason for it to happen.

5. I think the vocabulary assignments should be teaching more challenging words. In addition, it should also teach us more about how to break down words and decipher their meaning through roots. While we did do this, I think that only two questions per practice exercise and ten questions on the final was a little minuscule.

6. The response projects are something I'd like to keep as they are. 

7. Identifying faulty logic was something I had no idea how to do before the debate. As for something more along the lines of the language arts part of the class. I can now actually dissect and understand works of fiction.

Hitchhiker's Guide 2

The main point of Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is that you shouldn't think about anything too much and just live life. The ridiculously illogical nature of the Galaxy and the characters' indifference to it shows this very well. Things that just don't make sense like planet-building planets, time travel, the end of the universe, the state of the Altairian dollar and engines that run on improbability are met with nothing but indifference to most of the characters besides Arthur, who can usually be found trying to wrap his head around these concepts and objects. This is the main difference between Arthur and everyone else. If somebody said that a rock concert disrupted the weather patterns of a planet so that the surface was perpetually at that perfect temperature to go to the beach, the other characters would accept the fact and move on, Arthur, however, would spend  good chunk of time afterwards trying to understand how that happened. As evidenced by Slartibartfast, who said: "...I always think that the chances of finding out what really is going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say hang the sense of it and just keep yourself occupied", People would be much happier just accepting how things are and living life rather than wondering why something is some way or thinking about the state of things. In many ways, he is right, not thinking about deeper meanings and just living life to the best of your ability would probably increase the overall happiness level in the world, but I would definitely not be satisfied with myself if I didn't feed my curiosity regularly.

Hitchhiker's Guide 1

Arthur Dent is an average human, so when he is faced with the reality of aliens and advanced technology combined with the fact that his planet was destroyed to make a highway, he is just a little bit in shock. He has no frame of reference for anything in the rest of the Galaxy, so he spends a large chunk of his time being completely dumbfounded. All he really wants is to do is to relax and have some tea, something that he just can't seem to do. 

Ford Prefect is a friend of Arthur's from Earth. He is actually not an Earthling, but a Betelgusean who has come to Earth to write entries for The Guide. In his many years of research, he has expanded Earth's entry from "Harmless" to "Mostly harmless". He has traveled far in his life and understands most everything about the Galaxy that the average individual from a space-faring civilization does, so he spends considerably less time being gobsmacked than Arthur. 

Zaphod Beeblebrox, Ford's cousin and new galactic president, is an arrogant, fun loving person whose actions are about as illogical as the 113th congress. It is unknown whether he is actually extremely unintelligent, or simply acts like an ignoramus for attention or to escape from reality. 

Trillian is an old aquaintance of Arthur and that's it. She is quite possibly the least important and least memorable character in the book. She is introduced and left to be a backdrop for the rest of Hitchhiker's Guide. 

Marvin the Paranoid Android is a robot with the brain the size of a planet. In a matter of seconds, he can solve any and every problem in the universe many times over, except his own. He would be a lot more useful if he weren't so depressed and cynical. His overall unhelpfulness stems from his creators giving him a "Real People Personalities" personality, causing him to be thoroughly depressed and thoroughly depressing.

1984 final

 1984 shows us a totalitarian government that has apparently succeded in subduing and indoctrinizing it's populace. However, after some thought, I have come to believe otherwise. Fear is likely the leading factor in the outer party's obedience. In a society where most people have learned basic logic, most everything The Party does would be considered lunacy, so the rise to power of such a nation seems ridiculous. Though it seems insane, this government has risen to power and has either indoctrinized or dominated its populace. Either way, the results would be the same. A good example of this would be raising children. An indoctrinized person would either leave it to The Party to raise their child for them because they respect it or thei would reinforce The Party's rhetoric to help create a truly orthodox child. A fearful person would do the same thing, but for different reasons. They would not want to teach their child the morals of the past for fear of being accused of attempting to poison the future generations, likely leading to imprisonment.

1984 2

Most anything the party does persuasively appeals to pathos or ethos. Of course, they cannot give a logical argument to back up anything, so logos is out of the question. Anyone who can see through the advertisements are kept quiet because of the party's ability to remove people from the consciousness of everyone in their sphere of control. A great example of both is the two minutes hate, which is not only a persuasion attempt, but also a sort of amplifier for other advertisements. In this two minutes hate, the enemies of the party are displayed menacingly and the people in the hate are artificially made extremely angry. This, of course would appeal to their emotion and they will continue to associate Eur/Eastasia negatively. Then, they are artificially made proud and happy as an image of Big Brother appears. The emotional state of the observers is altered to different extremes based on the situation, and Big Brother appears more trustworthy, so other ads featuring him will have more impact.

1984 1

    With its slogans, the party seems to be trying to increase its influence over the people. War is peace could mean that a time when one is not at war with the enemies of the state, one is never at peace because of threats and dangers from an unoccupied enemy. Freedom is slavery could mean that when one is truly free from rule, one is also leading a meaningless existence with only survival to occupy oneself with, becoming a slave to your own needs. Ignorance is strength could mean that the less one knows, the better a tool they become. Each slogan, while I would consider them completely false at first glance, have some truth to them when looked at from various points of view. While still important to Oceania's philosophy, the first two slogans I would consider less important as propaganda. An authoritarian fascist state would have to keep their population in check, and the more ignorant and carefree they are, the easier they are to control and manipulate. At some point, the children of Oceania would grow old and have children of their own. As it has been shown in the book, children are the biggest slogan swallowers in the country, and once they raise children of their own, they will likely engross them even more in the party's slogans and propaganda. This would eventually give the party an iron grip upon the populace, making the country much stronger in the process.

Shakespeare final

When I did my response project, I attempted to fiddle with the five act structure in Much Ado About Nothing. To try to do this, I removed conflicts and major characters in order to see if I could screw with the structure of the play. It failed miserably. Anything I did could be mended in a few stitches in the story and it would still be considered a Shakespearean classic. After the presentation, I thought to myself: is this really unique to this play? I began to test this with different books from different genres i.e. Robin Hood, Huck Finn, The Andromeda Strain and Flowers for Algernon. What I found is that in some books, you can do a lot without messing up anything, however, in other books, a minor change is enough to wreck the story. Robin Hood was likely a poor choice, considering that the story consists of multiple unrelated conflicts, but I was surprised that Andromeda Strain still retained its interesting story despite the changes I made. It made much less sense, but could still be construed as enjoyable. Flowers for Algernon fared poorly in this experiment. Some changes i made changed nothing, while others messed up the flow of the story and made the book no longer make sense. What I found is that when there is a large overarching theme or conflict, the changes made affected the story more than if there was not.

Shakespeare blog post 4

    The ending of Much Ado About Nothing most definitely points to it being a comedy. An obvious hint to this lies in the staggering number of characters that are still alive. If this play were a tragedy, multiple things would have occurred differently. Hero most likely would have actually died at the slandering, leading all the characters to despise Claudio and Pedro. This would continue with Benedick acting upon Beatrice's request and killing Claudio either in an honorable duel or an assassination, the former leading to Benedick being killed by Claudio's final dying strike and the latter leading to the execution of Benedick. Beatrice, upon being informed of Benedick's death, would likely off herself. Then Dogberry would go to Pedro with the news of John's plot and He, along with Leonato and Antonio, would mourn the loss of the others as the last ones standing. This play of course ends with everyone very much alive and some characters being newly married. The "problem person" is captured and everyone keeps joking as if nothing happened in the first place. These characteristics are the hallmarks of comedy endings, there is a wedding/pregnancy/party/feast and the "problem person" is killed/captured/exiled/unfollowed. All of these are present with Hero and Claudio getting married and the Benetrice ship setting sail all the while John gets himself captured. Much Ado About Nothing is most definitely a comedy, as you can tell by the ending.

Shakespeare blog post 3

There are many examples of dramatic irony in Much Ado About Nothing. For example in Act 2 scene 1, Don Pedro is putting the moves on Hero so that she and Claudio will marry. All of us in the audience knows Don Pedro is doing some serious trickery, but Hero has no idea. There are other, larger instances of dramatic irony, as we saw in act 2 scene 3 where Benedick is tricked by Pedro, Claudio and Leonato into believing that Beatrice is in love with him, and so he falls in love  with Beatrice. In act 3 scene 1, Beatrice is tricked by Hero and Ursula into believing that Benedick is in love with her, which at this point is not entirely untrue. In these scenes, Benedick and Beatrice are getting tricked by Don Pedro as he hatches his ultimate plan to get the two to fall in love. We all know that Pedro is matchmaking, as he points out that Benedick is hiding in a bush, and proceeds to ask Leonato about the “fact” that Beatrice is madly in love with Benedick. Leonato and Claudio were either previously informed of Don Pedro’s little idea, or they just took the joke and rolled with it. Either way, it worked fabulously. Hero and Ursula then played the same joke on Beatrice, and she proceeded to fall in love with Benedick. As all this happens, we know that Don Pedro is playing a intricately designed game of matchmaker, and Benedick and Beatrice being none the wiser. Next, it is Pedro’s turn to get bamboozled, as in act 4 scene 1 after Hero has been shamed, the friar hatches a plot of his own to get Claudio married to Hero. We know that Hero is pretending to be dead, but Claudio and Pedro don’t. From this, Claudio and Hero get remarried, John gets captured, and everyone lives happily ever after, well, except John. There are many examples of dramatic irony in this play, these are just a few examples.

Much Ado About Nothing prompt 1

For this blog post, I chose to follow the thought in the conversation between Claudio and Benedick when they discussed the fact that Claudio was in love with Hero. To follow the thought, I shortened metaphors into short sentences carrying the main idea across. For example: "play the good flouting jack?" -> "do you mock me?". I also did away with most of the Victorian English to make the passage more understandable. 

Actual text

Claudio: Benedick, didst thou note the daughter of Signor Leonato?

Benedick: I noted her not, but looked on her.

Claudio: Is she not a modest young lady?

Benedick: Do you question me as an honest man should do, for my simple true judgment? Or would you have me speak after my custom, as being a professed tyrant to their sex?

Claudio: No, I pray thee speak in sober judgment.

Benedick: Why, i' faith, methinks she's too low for a high praise, too brown for a fair praise, and too little for a great praise. Only this commendation I can afford her, that were she other than she is, she were unhandsome, and being no other but as she is, I do not like her.

Claudio: Thou thinkest I am in sport. I pray thee tell me truly how thou lik'st her.

Benedick: Would you buy her, that you inquire after her?

Claudio: Can the world buy such a jewel?

Benedick: Yes, and a case to put it into. But speak you this with a sad brow? Or do you play the good flouting jack, to tell us Cupid is a good hare finder and Vulcan a rare carpenter? Come, in what key shall a man take you to go in the song?

Claudio: In mine eye, she is the sweetest lady that I ever looked on.

Benedick: I can see yet without spectacles, and I see no such matter. There's her cousin, an she were not possessed with a fury, exceeds her as much as much in beauty as the first of May doth the last of December. But I hope you have no intent to turn husband, have you?

Claudio: I would scarce trust myself, though I had sworn the contrary, if Hero would be my wife.

Benedick: Is't come to this? In faith, hath not the world one man but he will wear his cap with suspicion? Shall I never see a bachelor of threescore again? Go to, i' faith, an thou wilt needs thrust thy neck into a yoke, wear the print of it and sigh away Sundays. Look! Don Pedro is returned to seek you.

Follow the thought

Claudio: Benedick, did you observe Hero's beauty?

Benedick: I saw her, but beauty seemed absent.

Claudio: She is such a modest woman, isn't she?

Benedick: Do you want me to answer you honestly? Or do you want me to answer as others would expect of me, as a man who thinks lowly of the opposite sex?

Claudio: I would hope you answer me truthfully.

Benedick: She is not fit for praise, though I will offer her this: If she were not such an important figure, she would be unseemly. As she is now, I have no interest in her.

Claudio: You think this is all fun and games! Tell me what you really think.

Benedick: If she could be purchased, would you?

Claudio: A beauty like hers is priceless, not even the world equals its value.

Benedick: The world could easily buy it, and then much more. But is this how you truly feel, or do you mock me, saying blind Cupid can hunt rabbits and Vulcan, God of smithing, would make an excellent carpenter? What will it take for me to convince you to stop swooning over Hero?

Claudio: I think of her as the kindest woman I have had the good fortune of seeing.

Benedick: I do not need glasses to see, and I see nothing of the sort. Her cousin would be beautiful if not for her overwhelming anger that overshadows her good looks completely. I hope you will not become a husband.

Claudio: I am still wary of marriage, but I may change my mind if Hero would be my spouse.

Benedick: Will I ever see a good bachelor again? Would you really give yourself into marriage? To be willingly forced into a yoke and made to work with little chance of finding freedom again? To exhaust yourself during the holy day of rest? Anyway, Don Pedro is here to see you.