My God! Virginia Woolf's life was filled with so much loss at an early age that I couldn't imagine how it would feel to be dealt those cards. The first blow would come in the death of her relative Julia Cameron. Soon after, Woolf's half-sister who was also her substitute mother died during childbirth. After this came the death of her father in 1904. Two years later, her brother died of typhoid during a trip they were on in Greece. Needless to say, her losses were sure to have had a significant influence on her writing, both in style and content.
In her work, "The Lady in the Looking Glass: A Reflection", Virginia Woolf, according to the book, "takes the garden shears of her missing character and tears representation to pieces (1224)." The story is somewhat difficult to follow at first, because you have no clue as to who the poem is discussing. While it's a narrative, we find out a little deeper into the work that her name is Isabella Tyson.
Apparently, the story deals with the inward journey of Tyson. She is trying to figure out who she is as a person, and decided that she isn't happy with what she sees. Depressing, I know. The beautiful thing about this poem, in my opinion, is that it shows us that we are fully capable of metacognition and this helps us make the changes necessary to better ourselves.
We can see Tyson's reflection of herself change when she says the following:
"Suddenly these reflections were ended violently and yet without a sound. A large black form loomed in the looking-glass; blotted out everything, strewed the table with a packet of marble tablets veined with pink and grey, and was gone. But the picture was entirely altered. For the moment it was unrecognisable and irrational and entirely out of focus. One could not relate these tablets to any human purpose. And then by degrees some logical process set to work on them and began ordering and arranging them and bringing them in to the fold of common experience. One realised at last that they were merely letters. The man had brought the post." (p.1226)
To me, Woolf was realizing all of the good things about herself, until she takes a negative turn and starts thinking about her downfalls. The most important thing to take away from this is to understand that it's not thinking about bad thoughts that makes your self-image go down, but it's how you respond to those negative thought. There's an old saying that applies to this: "Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it."
Monday, June 23, 2008
T.S. Eliot
Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but why does T.S. Eliot's name even show up in a book entitled "British Literature". First of all, Eliot was born in St. Louis, Missouri. So he's an American. His schooling? He attended school in St. Louis and finished his collegiate career at Harvard. Are these not American institutions? While he did spend some time in Paris, this still has nothing to do with British literature.
The book claims that Eliot's works are a product of British and French literature, but that's somewhat of a silly comment. To say that his work is constituted as British literature just because his poems "are deeply indebted both to French and British poets (1192)" is like saying all Christians are Jews because Jesus was a Jew. It's flawed logic.
When I read Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", I coudln't help but think of it as a drunken country song. I mean that in the nicest way possible. It was fun and exciting to read. Read this part and tell me what you think:
"Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent" (p. 1195)
I found that pretty funny.
The book claims that Eliot's works are a product of British and French literature, but that's somewhat of a silly comment. To say that his work is constituted as British literature just because his poems "are deeply indebted both to French and British poets (1192)" is like saying all Christians are Jews because Jesus was a Jew. It's flawed logic.
When I read Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", I coudln't help but think of it as a drunken country song. I mean that in the nicest way possible. It was fun and exciting to read. Read this part and tell me what you think:
"Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent" (p. 1195)
I found that pretty funny.
William Butler Yeats and "No Second Helen"
William Butler Yeats has proven to be a breath of fresh air in our readings. I was beginning to tire over the same pattern of poetry that we've been following. While I could spot some differences in Victorian and Romantic poetry, they still remained very similar in wording and form (in my honest opinion). Yeats was different in that some of the poems shown in our book dealt with raw, complicated emotion that we have not seen yet. Yeats was infatuated with Maud Gonne, a lady who introduced herself to Yeats and informed him about the effect one of his poems had on her. This sparked Yeats to write poems to her, which all dealt with his love for her. When he eventually proposed to her, she declined and instead married and Irish soldier. Gonne was beginning to become somewhat of a political radical, and this provided fuel for the fire in Yeats.
In his poem, "No Second Helen", Yeats compares Helen of Troy to Maud Gonne. In the poem, he discusses the bitter rivalry between him and her husband. The rivalry is most evident in the following one line:
"Had they but courage equal to desire?" (p. 1118)
Essentially, he's comparing the soldier's courage to his, even thought they may be demonstrated in different forms. I really enjoy how the jealousy shines through in Yeats writing. He words it in a very simple way, but the emotion is thick. We see this most in the opening lines of the poem. He says,
"Why should I blame her that she filled my days
With misery, or that she would of late
Have taught to ignorant men most violent of ways,
Or hurled the little streets upon the great," (p. 1118)
I noticed that he never discussed any loss of love for her, but rather he pointed out all of her flaws. This shows me that Yeats still remembers the way the Gonne used to be like, and still hopes to have a chance at her.
In his poem, "No Second Helen", Yeats compares Helen of Troy to Maud Gonne. In the poem, he discusses the bitter rivalry between him and her husband. The rivalry is most evident in the following one line:
"Had they but courage equal to desire?" (p. 1118)
Essentially, he's comparing the soldier's courage to his, even thought they may be demonstrated in different forms. I really enjoy how the jealousy shines through in Yeats writing. He words it in a very simple way, but the emotion is thick. We see this most in the opening lines of the poem. He says,
"Why should I blame her that she filled my days
With misery, or that she would of late
Have taught to ignorant men most violent of ways,
Or hurled the little streets upon the great," (p. 1118)
I noticed that he never discussed any loss of love for her, but rather he pointed out all of her flaws. This shows me that Yeats still remembers the way the Gonne used to be like, and still hopes to have a chance at her.
Thomas Hardy was a nice read...
Thomas Hardy was an individual who bridged the gap from the Victorian era to the modern era. He started his career as a Victorian novelist and later abandoned it to become a modern poet. A lot of his works discussed issues like class tensions, industrialization, and questioning religious faith. Some of his most well-known works include "Far From the Madding Crowd", "The Return of the Native", "Tess of the d'Ubervilles", and "Jude the Obscure". Some of these books were very controversial, and most readers were astounded that someone would even write it.
Soon after the backlash from his novels, Hardy decided to express himself through poetry. With the Victorian age fading away, Hardy took on the writing style of the modernists. His style was very similar to religious hymns and writings. Hardy was saddened by all of the death that came with World War I, yet he remained somewhat of a nationalist. This can be observed when he says the following:
"All nations striving to make
Red war yet redder. Mad as hatters
They do no more for Christes sake
Than you who are helpless in such matters.
That this is not the judgement-hour
For some of them's a blessed thing,
For if it where they'd have to scour
Hell's floor for so much threatening." (p. 1077)
I like how Hardy takes both sides of the war. He is quick to point out war and all of its madness, but he's quick to jump to the other side and show you why it's necessary. It doesn't feel like you're being fed a load of propaganda when you read his works.
I'm glad to see that Thomas Hardy lived a long life (88 years). It seems like most people we've covered have either had their life cut short or not pushed past 70. Hardy was a pleasure to read because he made you actually think about what he was writing, as opposed to being spoon-fed.
Soon after the backlash from his novels, Hardy decided to express himself through poetry. With the Victorian age fading away, Hardy took on the writing style of the modernists. His style was very similar to religious hymns and writings. Hardy was saddened by all of the death that came with World War I, yet he remained somewhat of a nationalist. This can be observed when he says the following:
"All nations striving to make
Red war yet redder. Mad as hatters
They do no more for Christes sake
Than you who are helpless in such matters.
That this is not the judgement-hour
For some of them's a blessed thing,
For if it where they'd have to scour
Hell's floor for so much threatening." (p. 1077)
I like how Hardy takes both sides of the war. He is quick to point out war and all of its madness, but he's quick to jump to the other side and show you why it's necessary. It doesn't feel like you're being fed a load of propaganda when you read his works.
I'm glad to see that Thomas Hardy lived a long life (88 years). It seems like most people we've covered have either had their life cut short or not pushed past 70. Hardy was a pleasure to read because he made you actually think about what he was writing, as opposed to being spoon-fed.
Gerard Manley Hopkins
Hopkins was man who led a very admirable life. He was a poet who was Oxford educated. While attending Oxford, he converted to Catholicism and decided to become a priest. This decision had a tremendous impact on Hopkins and can definitely be seen in his poetry. Apparently, Hopkins had a lot of personal issues with his decision to become a priest, but it wasn't about the religion itself. It dealt more with what came with being a priest. For starters, not being allowed to engage in sexual activity. The obvious implications of this rule is that Hopkins was without a wife and children. This was painful for him, and you can feel his pain in a lot of his poetry. Some of his works focused a lot on death, and how he wished he was dead.
In his poem, "Spring and Fall: to a young child", we can see Hopkins discuss death through the eyes of a young girl. The young girl in the poem is sad and depressed because she is watching leaves fall from a tree. The symbol of death is very disturbing, but Hopkins points out the following:
"Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
What heart heard of, ghost guessed:
It is the blight man was born for,
It is Margaret you mourn for." (p. 776)
The young girl, Margaret, is who the reader should care about. She is looking at the leaves falling and it's a reminder to her that she is going to die. So, in essence, Hopkins is pointing out that when we mourn someone's death, we are subconsciously mourning our own future death.
Hopkins also focuses on nature, but more in how he sees God in it. In his work, "Pied Beauty", he seems to be making the point that you can see God's love for the individual in nature. The poem discusses God's love of the unique and how he enjoys things being different. Regardless of how something looks, whether similar of different, it is beautiful in God's eyes. We see this when he writes,
"All things counter, original, spare, strange,
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how!)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him." (p. 776)
The cool thing about Hopkins is that he didn't gain recognition until around 40 years after his death. He is considered one of the best writers of the Victorian age, and he wasn't even published until 1918. It appears that the World War I crowd was a big fan of his content and writing style. Needless to say, his works spoke to many people and his legacy continues.
In his poem, "Spring and Fall: to a young child", we can see Hopkins discuss death through the eyes of a young girl. The young girl in the poem is sad and depressed because she is watching leaves fall from a tree. The symbol of death is very disturbing, but Hopkins points out the following:
"Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
What heart heard of, ghost guessed:
It is the blight man was born for,
It is Margaret you mourn for." (p. 776)
The young girl, Margaret, is who the reader should care about. She is looking at the leaves falling and it's a reminder to her that she is going to die. So, in essence, Hopkins is pointing out that when we mourn someone's death, we are subconsciously mourning our own future death.
Hopkins also focuses on nature, but more in how he sees God in it. In his work, "Pied Beauty", he seems to be making the point that you can see God's love for the individual in nature. The poem discusses God's love of the unique and how he enjoys things being different. Regardless of how something looks, whether similar of different, it is beautiful in God's eyes. We see this when he writes,
"All things counter, original, spare, strange,
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how!)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him." (p. 776)
The cool thing about Hopkins is that he didn't gain recognition until around 40 years after his death. He is considered one of the best writers of the Victorian age, and he wasn't even published until 1918. It appears that the World War I crowd was a big fan of his content and writing style. Needless to say, his works spoke to many people and his legacy continues.
Oscar Wilde and "The Decay of Lying"
Oscar Wilde was more than an interesting fellow. To say he was a man before his time would be an understatement. An Irishman, Wilde can be considered one of the most fascinating individuals of the 19th century. He was a poet, a playwright, and a philosopher. He had a meteoric rise and a tragic nadir. Oxford educated, he became a leading proponent of the aesthetes movement, which can be summed up by what Walter Pater said: "Poetic passion, the desire of beauty, love of art for art's sake." (p. 828) Wilde gained his wealth from the plays he wrote, and was very popular in America. He had a wife and two kids (the two kids are the characters in "The Decay of Dying"). Oscar Wilde later became involved in an affair with an aristocratic man's son. The father of the son became outraged when he learned this, and sent Wilde a letter calling him a sodomite. He later started spreading this among the people of England. Wilde then filed suit against the man for libel, but the claim came out to be true that Wilde was involved in this behavior. This landed him in jail for two years. Once he was released from prison, he was disowned by his family, who while he was in prison, changed their last name. This led Wilde to live the rest of his life as a bum. He later died in a Paris hotel, poor and dejected. Always the comedian, Wilde said it best when he said, "I am dying beyond my means." (p. 830)
In his piece, "The Decay of Lying", he set up a dialogue between two individuals using the names of his two sons, Cyril and Vivian. It's important to keep in mind that Wilde plays Devil's advocate in almost all of his works. In this one, he takes on Plato in his assertion that art is a lie. In my opinion, Wilde hits an important issue head on and I couldn't agree more. He discusses two different kind of lying. He tells us to always think outside of facts. If we argue with one another based on facts, we wouldn't progress. Lying by means of exaggeration is acceptable, and encouraged, by Wilde, as this helps us think outside the box. Lying by means of distorting facts is despicable, according to Wilde. He says it best when he says,
"Many a young man starts in life with a natural gift for exaggeration which, if nurtured in congenial and sympathetic surroundings, or by the imitation of the best models, might grow into something really great and wonderful. But as a rule, he comes to nothing. He either falls into careless habits of accuracy...or takes to frequenting the society of the aged and well-informed. Both things are equally fatal to his imagination, as indeed they would be fatal to the imagination of anybody, and in the short time he develops a morbid and unhealthy faculty of truth-telling, begins to verify all statements made in his presence, has no hesitation in contradicting people who are much younger than himself, and often ends by writing novels which are so like life that no one can possible believe in their probability." (p. 834)
Wilde was very interesting to say the least.
In his piece, "The Decay of Lying", he set up a dialogue between two individuals using the names of his two sons, Cyril and Vivian. It's important to keep in mind that Wilde plays Devil's advocate in almost all of his works. In this one, he takes on Plato in his assertion that art is a lie. In my opinion, Wilde hits an important issue head on and I couldn't agree more. He discusses two different kind of lying. He tells us to always think outside of facts. If we argue with one another based on facts, we wouldn't progress. Lying by means of exaggeration is acceptable, and encouraged, by Wilde, as this helps us think outside the box. Lying by means of distorting facts is despicable, according to Wilde. He says it best when he says,
"Many a young man starts in life with a natural gift for exaggeration which, if nurtured in congenial and sympathetic surroundings, or by the imitation of the best models, might grow into something really great and wonderful. But as a rule, he comes to nothing. He either falls into careless habits of accuracy...or takes to frequenting the society of the aged and well-informed. Both things are equally fatal to his imagination, as indeed they would be fatal to the imagination of anybody, and in the short time he develops a morbid and unhealthy faculty of truth-telling, begins to verify all statements made in his presence, has no hesitation in contradicting people who are much younger than himself, and often ends by writing novels which are so like life that no one can possible believe in their probability." (p. 834)
Wilde was very interesting to say the least.
Friday, June 20, 2008
John Stuart Mill
As I was reading about John Stuart Mill's life, I couldn't help but think, "Great, another radical striving for blah, blah, blah..." Now, before you take that the wrong way, let me clarify. Almost all of the author's we've covered had dabbled a bit in extreme political views. These usually constituted the same things, whether it involved women's rights, equality, etc. So, when reading about John Stuart Mill, I wasn't exactly moved by his political views, as I've been calloused by those before him (and after). However, after reading more about him, I realized that Mill was an incredibly good guy. He was unbelievably selfless! You know, it's one thing to say you're for women's rights and equality, but it's another thing to actually live up to that. Mill practiced what he preached. The fact that he said his wife deserved just as many accolades for his writings as he did was surprising. Most people, and it's completely human and understandable, would want sole recognition for their works, especially when your name is John Stuart Mill! But he claims that he and his wife thought out loud together, and their conversations inspired his writings. I thought that was very admirable.
When I was reading Mill's "Statement Repudiating the Rights of Husbands", I couldn't help but wonder what kind of response he got from the men in his area. Did he get beat up when he was walking down the street? Was he allowed into the local pub? For every man that didn't believe in John's approach, they must have been ticked off that some guy was infringing on what they believed to be the best part of marriage. He was rocking the boat. I personally liked it when Mill said the following:
"And in the event of marriage between Ms. Taylor and me I declare it to be my will and intention, and the condition of the engagement between us, that she retains in all respects whatever the same absolute freedom of action, and freedom of disposal or herself and of all that does or may at any time belong to her, as if no such marriage had taken place; and I absolutely disclaim and repudiate all pretence to have acquired any rights whatever by virtue of such marriage." (p. 527)
There must have been an angry mob following Mill around daily. To be a woman and speak like this was not entirely unheard of at the time, but a man!?! They must have been livid! I think that's why I like Mill. He wasn't doing it to be outrageous, or even to get noticed, but he was doing it because he actually believed in it. That's why Mill was such a good guy.
When I was reading Mill's "Statement Repudiating the Rights of Husbands", I couldn't help but wonder what kind of response he got from the men in his area. Did he get beat up when he was walking down the street? Was he allowed into the local pub? For every man that didn't believe in John's approach, they must have been ticked off that some guy was infringing on what they believed to be the best part of marriage. He was rocking the boat. I personally liked it when Mill said the following:
"And in the event of marriage between Ms. Taylor and me I declare it to be my will and intention, and the condition of the engagement between us, that she retains in all respects whatever the same absolute freedom of action, and freedom of disposal or herself and of all that does or may at any time belong to her, as if no such marriage had taken place; and I absolutely disclaim and repudiate all pretence to have acquired any rights whatever by virtue of such marriage." (p. 527)
There must have been an angry mob following Mill around daily. To be a woman and speak like this was not entirely unheard of at the time, but a man!?! They must have been livid! I think that's why I like Mill. He wasn't doing it to be outrageous, or even to get noticed, but he was doing it because he actually believed in it. That's why Mill was such a good guy.
Robert Browning and, (sigh), "Fra Lippo Lippi"
It wasn't a surprise to find out that Robert Browning was, according to the book, a symbol of obscurity. The more I read about his life and his works, the more I grew to dislike him. I found it very interesting that he was an individual who wanted his private life and poetry kept a secret, yet he was known as extremely flamboyant. On top of this, he wanted so very badly to be famous. Hmmmm. So, what does he do? He marries a famous, what?- you guessed it, poet. And, as you may have read in my earlier post about his wife, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, he was quick to ask her to do something he doesn't like to do. He asked her to publish very intimate poems that she wrote to him during their courtship. Doesn't this sound fishy? I mean, Robert was several years her junior, was dying to be recognized for his poetry, wanted his private life and poetry to be kept a secret (probably to add to his appeal), but had no reservations about asking his wife to publish private poems?!? It seems like Robert had ulterior motives when marrying Elizabeth.
When it comes to Robert Browning's works, well, I just flat-out didn't like them. Some of his works were just so ridiculous that it was near impossible to take them seriously. Clearly there are people out there that like the guy, or else he wouldn't be mentioned in our book, but in my opinion, he's grossly overrated. I'll use his work "Fra Lippo Lippi" as an example. Let me start by taking you back to the fact that Browning wanted to be famous. When people want to be famous, they usually go out of their way to make themselves different from everyone else. It's kind of like a goth kid who wears all black and pierces every piece of flesh s/he has. They do it to be noticed and different. "Fra Lippo Lippi" is the same. It seems like Browning went out of his way to create a poem that has little structure and no rhyme scheme. It's transparent. Here's an excerpt, and I'll let you judge it for yourself:
"Three streets off--he's a certain...how d'ye call?
Master--a...Cosimo of the Medici,
I' the house that caps the corner. Boh! you were best!
Remember and tell me the day you're hanged,
How you affected such a gullet's-gripe!" (p. 675)
I thought for a moment, "If I had never learned that Browning wanted to be famous, would I still dislike his writings?" After mulling it over, I decided, no, I would still not like them. However, I would dislike them for different reasons. As you can tell, I'm mostly disappointed in his attempt to be different, and thus, noticed. If I hadn't learned of his yearning to be famous, I would have disliked his writings for their choppiness.
All in all, I think Robert Browning has been the least of my favorites thus far.
When it comes to Robert Browning's works, well, I just flat-out didn't like them. Some of his works were just so ridiculous that it was near impossible to take them seriously. Clearly there are people out there that like the guy, or else he wouldn't be mentioned in our book, but in my opinion, he's grossly overrated. I'll use his work "Fra Lippo Lippi" as an example. Let me start by taking you back to the fact that Browning wanted to be famous. When people want to be famous, they usually go out of their way to make themselves different from everyone else. It's kind of like a goth kid who wears all black and pierces every piece of flesh s/he has. They do it to be noticed and different. "Fra Lippo Lippi" is the same. It seems like Browning went out of his way to create a poem that has little structure and no rhyme scheme. It's transparent. Here's an excerpt, and I'll let you judge it for yourself:
"Three streets off--he's a certain...how d'ye call?
Master--a...Cosimo of the Medici,
I' the house that caps the corner. Boh! you were best!
Remember and tell me the day you're hanged,
How you affected such a gullet's-gripe!" (p. 675)
I thought for a moment, "If I had never learned that Browning wanted to be famous, would I still dislike his writings?" After mulling it over, I decided, no, I would still not like them. However, I would dislike them for different reasons. As you can tell, I'm mostly disappointed in his attempt to be different, and thus, noticed. If I hadn't learned of his yearning to be famous, I would have disliked his writings for their choppiness.
All in all, I think Robert Browning has been the least of my favorites thus far.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Elizabeth Barrett Browning and her "Sonnets from the Portuguese"
My, my, my! These poems gave me the vapors! Only kidding. But on a serious note, wow. Browning got a little hot and heavy in these love poems, huh? I thought it was kind of funny that these were considered explicit in their time, but thank God we live in the 21st century and find these poems sweet, right? The book claims the title of this collection was derived from Browning's husband, Robert. Apparently, Elizabeth was hesitant to publish them and he swayed her decision by suggesting a title that implies the poems were translated from Portuguese. That had to have been a hilarious conversation. I can see why she was reluctant to let these go public. Not only do they convey her love for Robert, but they are incredibly intimate.
A good example of Browning's intimacy comes when she writes the following:
"When our two souls stand up erect and strong,
Face to face, silent, drawing nigh and nigher,
Until the lengthening wings break into fire
At either curved point, --what bitter wrong
Can the earth do to us, that we should not long
Be here contented?..." (p. 531)
"First time he kissed me, he but only kissed
The fingers of this hand wherewith I write;
And ever since, it grew more clean and white,
Slow to world-greetings, quick with its 'Oh, list,'
When the angels speak. A ring of amethyst,
I could not wear here, plainer to my sight,
Than that first kiss." (p. 532)
If I wrote these words to someone I love, I would want it to be for their eyes only. Even if it meant so much that they wanted to share it with the world, I would still refuse. I'm surprised that Browning even compromised with Robert! It's kind of like painting a picture for your mother, then your mom turning around and selling it for $1000. "Bittersweet" would be a good word to describe it. While it's cool someone found your work inspiring, it's still a slap in the face that your mother sold something you personally made for her.
A good example of Browning's intimacy comes when she writes the following:
"When our two souls stand up erect and strong,
Face to face, silent, drawing nigh and nigher,
Until the lengthening wings break into fire
At either curved point, --what bitter wrong
Can the earth do to us, that we should not long
Be here contented?..." (p. 531)
"First time he kissed me, he but only kissed
The fingers of this hand wherewith I write;
And ever since, it grew more clean and white,
Slow to world-greetings, quick with its 'Oh, list,'
When the angels speak. A ring of amethyst,
I could not wear here, plainer to my sight,
Than that first kiss." (p. 532)
If I wrote these words to someone I love, I would want it to be for their eyes only. Even if it meant so much that they wanted to share it with the world, I would still refuse. I'm surprised that Browning even compromised with Robert! It's kind of like painting a picture for your mother, then your mom turning around and selling it for $1000. "Bittersweet" would be a good word to describe it. While it's cool someone found your work inspiring, it's still a slap in the face that your mother sold something you personally made for her.
Lord Tennyson Alfred's "In Memoriam"
Reading about Lord Alfred's life was interesting, to say the least. I couldn't help but wonder if someone had made a movie about him. His life is filled with so many ups and downs, that it's remarkable he came out the way he did. I thought starting his biography with his grandfather's words of, "There, that is the first money you have ever earned by your poetry, and, take my word for it, it will be the last", was brilliant. It definitely sets Alfred up to be the protagonist.
Reading "In Memoriam" was a very long and difficult task. It took me a while to get into his wording, but once I did, the reading picked up its pace. The poem was written over a span of three years and it focuses on Alfred's grieving over the death of a close friend. It's amazing to me that, instead of the poem being a drawn-out sob-fest, Alfred resolves his feelings towards the end. I thought it was cool to see, through poetry, a person deal with their emotions. Usually, most of the poetry I've read deals with the author focusing on one emotion and running with it. While "In Memoriam" does focus a lot on despair and depression, he does see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Alfred, in the beginning of the poem, writes, "Let Love clasp Grief lest both be drown'd, Let darkness keep her Raven gloss, Ah, sweeter to be drunk with loss, To dance with death, to beat the ground... (600)". From this quatrain alone, you can see he is fresh with grief. I base that on the idea of drinking to help deal with pain, and people usually do that in the beginning of the grieving process. Later, towards the middle of the poem, he writes, "Be near me when my light is low, When the blood creeps, and the nerves prick And tingle; and the heart is sick, And all the wheels of Being slow... (605)" To me, Alfred is at a later point in grieving, where he misses the subtle memories of his friend. While in the beginning of grieving, people are usually overwhelmed with a loss because it takes them by surprise, the later aspects of the process involve missing certain characteristics about an individual. In Alfred's case, it was probably his friends presence through tough times. Towards the end of the poem, Alfred uses far more positive and uplifting words than before. He writes, "My love involves the love before; My love is vaster passion now, Tho' mixed with God and Nature thou, I seem to love thee more and more. (614)" This proves that Alfred has come to terms with his loss and is ready to move on. I thought it was an excellent way to end the poem because I think most people can relate to that pain, or even learn from it.
Reading "In Memoriam" was a very long and difficult task. It took me a while to get into his wording, but once I did, the reading picked up its pace. The poem was written over a span of three years and it focuses on Alfred's grieving over the death of a close friend. It's amazing to me that, instead of the poem being a drawn-out sob-fest, Alfred resolves his feelings towards the end. I thought it was cool to see, through poetry, a person deal with their emotions. Usually, most of the poetry I've read deals with the author focusing on one emotion and running with it. While "In Memoriam" does focus a lot on despair and depression, he does see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Alfred, in the beginning of the poem, writes, "Let Love clasp Grief lest both be drown'd, Let darkness keep her Raven gloss, Ah, sweeter to be drunk with loss, To dance with death, to beat the ground... (600)". From this quatrain alone, you can see he is fresh with grief. I base that on the idea of drinking to help deal with pain, and people usually do that in the beginning of the grieving process. Later, towards the middle of the poem, he writes, "Be near me when my light is low, When the blood creeps, and the nerves prick And tingle; and the heart is sick, And all the wheels of Being slow... (605)" To me, Alfred is at a later point in grieving, where he misses the subtle memories of his friend. While in the beginning of grieving, people are usually overwhelmed with a loss because it takes them by surprise, the later aspects of the process involve missing certain characteristics about an individual. In Alfred's case, it was probably his friends presence through tough times. Towards the end of the poem, Alfred uses far more positive and uplifting words than before. He writes, "My love involves the love before; My love is vaster passion now, Tho' mixed with God and Nature thou, I seem to love thee more and more. (614)" This proves that Alfred has come to terms with his loss and is ready to move on. I thought it was an excellent way to end the poem because I think most people can relate to that pain, or even learn from it.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Thomas Carlyle and "Labour"
Thomas Carlyle's works were a pleasure to read. While his crankiness did shine through at moments, he was overall dead-on in his takes on society. During this blog, I'm going to focus on what I liked and what I didn't like about his idealism. I will also talk about his piece "Labour".
To start, I want to begin by discussing what I don't like about Carlyle. I know, I know, I sound like a "glass-is-half-empty" guy, but I'd rather end this blog on a positive note than a negative one. Carlyle seems like the kind of guy that would hang out with Karl Marx and just bitch about all of the inequalities in the world. I can't stand this. You can count this as one of my biggest pet peeves. I guess what frustrates me is how someone as brilliant as Carlyle can't realize the most obvious aspects of inequality. The one aspect I'd like to bring up is free will. Perhaps the main reason why inequality exists is due to man's, or woman's, free will. The decisions we make in life determine whether we're rich or poor, intelligent or unintelligent, healthy or unhealthy, etc. If tomorrow everyone had the same amount of money, in one year's time, we'd have the rich and the poor. Why? Because some people made good decisions with their money, and some people made bad decisions with their money. And of course, in the middle of the pile, we have people who made both good and bad decisions. Sure, some people start with more than others, but that's life. What good is complaining about it if it changes nothing? I find this ironic coming from someone who talks about the importance of work.
Now, getting to what I like about Carlyle. In his piece "Labour", Carlyle stresses the importance of a man's work. He says "there is a perennial nobleness, and even sacredness, in Work. (481)" This is an incredibly powerful document, as it applies to all generations, but I think it should be required of my generation to read. We live in an age where we want things immediately without working hard to get it. We want food? Go to the drive-thru. Even then, if it takes a few minutes longer than usual to get our food, we get agitated! Carlyle highlights the fact that, outside of money, work is good on many different levels. He says, "Blessed is he who has found his work; let him ask no other blessedness. He has a work, a life purpose; he has found it, and will follow it...Labour is Life: from the inmost heart of the Worker rises his God-given Force, the sacred celestial Life-essence breathed into him by the Almighty God... (482)" While we look at a job, or work in general, as a means to getting money, he puts the task in a different perspective. He wants us to realize that without work, we would cease to exist. So, by his standards, finding work is fulfilling our life's purpose. We are helping prolong ours and future generation's existence.
To start, I want to begin by discussing what I don't like about Carlyle. I know, I know, I sound like a "glass-is-half-empty" guy, but I'd rather end this blog on a positive note than a negative one. Carlyle seems like the kind of guy that would hang out with Karl Marx and just bitch about all of the inequalities in the world. I can't stand this. You can count this as one of my biggest pet peeves. I guess what frustrates me is how someone as brilliant as Carlyle can't realize the most obvious aspects of inequality. The one aspect I'd like to bring up is free will. Perhaps the main reason why inequality exists is due to man's, or woman's, free will. The decisions we make in life determine whether we're rich or poor, intelligent or unintelligent, healthy or unhealthy, etc. If tomorrow everyone had the same amount of money, in one year's time, we'd have the rich and the poor. Why? Because some people made good decisions with their money, and some people made bad decisions with their money. And of course, in the middle of the pile, we have people who made both good and bad decisions. Sure, some people start with more than others, but that's life. What good is complaining about it if it changes nothing? I find this ironic coming from someone who talks about the importance of work.
Now, getting to what I like about Carlyle. In his piece "Labour", Carlyle stresses the importance of a man's work. He says "there is a perennial nobleness, and even sacredness, in Work. (481)" This is an incredibly powerful document, as it applies to all generations, but I think it should be required of my generation to read. We live in an age where we want things immediately without working hard to get it. We want food? Go to the drive-thru. Even then, if it takes a few minutes longer than usual to get our food, we get agitated! Carlyle highlights the fact that, outside of money, work is good on many different levels. He says, "Blessed is he who has found his work; let him ask no other blessedness. He has a work, a life purpose; he has found it, and will follow it...Labour is Life: from the inmost heart of the Worker rises his God-given Force, the sacred celestial Life-essence breathed into him by the Almighty God... (482)" While we look at a job, or work in general, as a means to getting money, he puts the task in a different perspective. He wants us to realize that without work, we would cease to exist. So, by his standards, finding work is fulfilling our life's purpose. We are helping prolong ours and future generation's existence.
Industrialism and Those Against It
While industrialism brought about some exciting changes, it definitely had its opponents. Industrialism, while laying the groundwork for future innovations, also came with disturbing conditions. Since jobs in the rural areas were becoming obsolete, people were flooding major cities. This obviously brought about high poverty rates, as most of the immigrants had no money, and thus, no place to stay. To make matters worse, the jobs they were taking paid next to nothing, even though the people worked long hours. And if you thought it couldn't get worse, children were employed in jobs where the conditions were the worst! From the "Parliamentary Papers", Hannah Goode stated, "I think the youngest child is seven. There are only two males in the mill, I dare say there are twenty under nine years. They go in when we do and come out when we do. The smallest children work at the cards, and doffing the spinning bobbins. I work in that room. We never stop to take our meals, except at dinner. It has gone on so this six years and more... William Crookes is overlooker in our room; he is cross-tempered sometimes. He does not beat me; he beats the little children if they do not do their work right... They are always very tired at night." Now, I think just about everyone can object to this. It's disgusting that young children are put to work in such terrible conditions when it's already bad enough that they're working in the first place.
So, if we do a cost/benefit analysis of industrialism, would people be "for" or "against" it? Sure, the downfalls to this age were gross and inhuman, but look at where it has taken us today. If we never had those terrible work conditions, then we wouldn't have workers' rights today. I don't know about you, but I'm glad that they had to go through all that instead of me. Selfish, I know, but I think most people would agree with me on that one. Another positive that came out of all this mess is our ability to embrace change. It forced itself upon us, and being humans, we adapted. So not only did we learn to embrace change, but it made it to where we looked forward to change. While this may not seem like a big deal today, it certainly was a big deal to those who lived in a time where traditions reigned supreme.
So, if we do a cost/benefit analysis of industrialism, would people be "for" or "against" it? Sure, the downfalls to this age were gross and inhuman, but look at where it has taken us today. If we never had those terrible work conditions, then we wouldn't have workers' rights today. I don't know about you, but I'm glad that they had to go through all that instead of me. Selfish, I know, but I think most people would agree with me on that one. Another positive that came out of all this mess is our ability to embrace change. It forced itself upon us, and being humans, we adapted. So not only did we learn to embrace change, but it made it to where we looked forward to change. While this may not seem like a big deal today, it certainly was a big deal to those who lived in a time where traditions reigned supreme.
Industrialism and Fanny Kemble
The Industrial Age was an overwhelming, yet very exciting time for the countries involved. To say it turned people's worlds upside down would be a huge understatement. Essentially, this Age brought about mass efficiency. When people once used horses and coach to get places, they now had trains. Weavers in cotton factories were replaced by steam-powered weavers. Jobs in the country were replaced by jobs in the city. I think you get my point.
When I read Fanny Kemble's letter about travelling on a train for the first time, I couldn't help but laugh out loud. Not in a condescending sort of way, but more in a appreciative way. It made me feel so blessed to be living in a time when waiting five seconds for a webpage to load is too long. At the same time, this impatience can be considered a curse by some. I'm of the former opinion, but I'll get into that later. Getting back to Kemble, her comparisons of the train to a horse was pretty funny. While a horse was probably the best thing to compare it to at the time, I highly doubt you'd find someone today comparing a train to an animal. More than likely, we'd compare it to a car or a jet. I like how she personified the train when she said, "She (for they make these curious little fire-horses all mares) consisted of a boiler, a stove, a small platform, a bench, and behind the bench a barrel containing enough water to prevent her being thirsty for fifteen miles,--the whole machine not bigger than a common fire-engine. She goes upon two wheel, which are her feet, and are moved by bright steel legs called pistons. (490)" She goes on to say, "The reins, bit, and bridle of this wonderful beast--a small steel handle, which applies or withdraws the steam from its legs or pistons, so that a child might manage it. The coals, which are its oats, were under the bench, and there was a small glass tube affixed to the boiler, with water in it, which indicates by its fulness or emptiness when the creature wants water... (491)". I couldn't help but think about how wonderful of an explanation this was, especially for someone who's never been on a train. This personification also had me thinking about how we do things similarly today. A lot of people do this to their cars, and especially their boats. They usually refer to them as a "she", and when they're by themselves, will sometimes find that they're talking to the machine. I thought that was kind of interesting. I mean, will we ever grow out of that? Let's hope so.
I pointed out earlier that I was not trying to be condescending when laughing about Kemble's reaction to her train ride. I made sure I said this because there are countless situations in today's world where I would be in her shoes. For example, if I ever were to go on a space excursion in the year 2020, how would I go about describing my experience? What could I possible compare it to? If I compared it to flying in a commercial airliner, I have no doubt that someone reading my letter in the year 2100 will find it humorous. So, to clarify, my laughter was appreciative because I can empathize with Kemble about what she must be feeling.
When I read Fanny Kemble's letter about travelling on a train for the first time, I couldn't help but laugh out loud. Not in a condescending sort of way, but more in a appreciative way. It made me feel so blessed to be living in a time when waiting five seconds for a webpage to load is too long. At the same time, this impatience can be considered a curse by some. I'm of the former opinion, but I'll get into that later. Getting back to Kemble, her comparisons of the train to a horse was pretty funny. While a horse was probably the best thing to compare it to at the time, I highly doubt you'd find someone today comparing a train to an animal. More than likely, we'd compare it to a car or a jet. I like how she personified the train when she said, "She (for they make these curious little fire-horses all mares) consisted of a boiler, a stove, a small platform, a bench, and behind the bench a barrel containing enough water to prevent her being thirsty for fifteen miles,--the whole machine not bigger than a common fire-engine. She goes upon two wheel, which are her feet, and are moved by bright steel legs called pistons. (490)" She goes on to say, "The reins, bit, and bridle of this wonderful beast--a small steel handle, which applies or withdraws the steam from its legs or pistons, so that a child might manage it. The coals, which are its oats, were under the bench, and there was a small glass tube affixed to the boiler, with water in it, which indicates by its fulness or emptiness when the creature wants water... (491)". I couldn't help but think about how wonderful of an explanation this was, especially for someone who's never been on a train. This personification also had me thinking about how we do things similarly today. A lot of people do this to their cars, and especially their boats. They usually refer to them as a "she", and when they're by themselves, will sometimes find that they're talking to the machine. I thought that was kind of interesting. I mean, will we ever grow out of that? Let's hope so.
I pointed out earlier that I was not trying to be condescending when laughing about Kemble's reaction to her train ride. I made sure I said this because there are countless situations in today's world where I would be in her shoes. For example, if I ever were to go on a space excursion in the year 2020, how would I go about describing my experience? What could I possible compare it to? If I compared it to flying in a commercial airliner, I have no doubt that someone reading my letter in the year 2100 will find it humorous. So, to clarify, my laughter was appreciative because I can empathize with Kemble about what she must be feeling.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Felicia Hemans and "The Homes of England"
I can not emphasize enough how much I appreciate the authors' biographies in our book. It really does help one appreciate their work more (or at least in my case it does). For Felicia Hemans, matching the dates of events and some of her works helped shed some light in how she must have been feeling at the time.
"The Homes of England" was written in 1827. This was also the year in which her mother died. Also, several years back, her husband left her. Let me back up a little bit. When I first read this poem, I was completely unaware of the date in which it was composed. As you may imagine, I wasn't completely moved by her writing. To me, at first blush, it appeared to be a poem about how much she loved England. Whoopee. But once I noticed the date in which the work was completed, it started to make sense to me. I started to ask myself, "Why would she write about England if her world is falling apart?" I soon realized that she was probably trying her hardest to focus on things in her life that she could appreciate. With her mother dead, her husband gone, and a houseful of chores, writing this poem must have been very therapeutic for Hemans. She describes in detail how beautiful the homes are in England. When describing the homes of England, she used the following words: "stately", "merry", "blessed", "Cottage", "free", and "fair". To me, this shows a very strong woman.
Given the circumstances, she had to have been depressed when writing this poem. Normally, when someone is depressed, the depression continues due to a person's involvement in a depressive "schema". Essentially, a depressive schema is where the mind blocks out all positive thoughts and focuses on the negative things, and breaking out of it is difficult to do. In Felicia Hemans' case, poetry was a way of helping her do this. I thought that was pretty cool.
"The Homes of England" was written in 1827. This was also the year in which her mother died. Also, several years back, her husband left her. Let me back up a little bit. When I first read this poem, I was completely unaware of the date in which it was composed. As you may imagine, I wasn't completely moved by her writing. To me, at first blush, it appeared to be a poem about how much she loved England. Whoopee. But once I noticed the date in which the work was completed, it started to make sense to me. I started to ask myself, "Why would she write about England if her world is falling apart?" I soon realized that she was probably trying her hardest to focus on things in her life that she could appreciate. With her mother dead, her husband gone, and a houseful of chores, writing this poem must have been very therapeutic for Hemans. She describes in detail how beautiful the homes are in England. When describing the homes of England, she used the following words: "stately", "merry", "blessed", "Cottage", "free", and "fair". To me, this shows a very strong woman.
Given the circumstances, she had to have been depressed when writing this poem. Normally, when someone is depressed, the depression continues due to a person's involvement in a depressive "schema". Essentially, a depressive schema is where the mind blocks out all positive thoughts and focuses on the negative things, and breaking out of it is difficult to do. In Felicia Hemans' case, poetry was a way of helping her do this. I thought that was pretty cool.
John Keats and his Life of Conceit
John Keats cracks me up. I probably enjoyed reading more about his life than I did his poetry. Don't get me wrong, it's tragic that he died at 25 years of age, but the details held within that time are entertaining. First of all, the book mentions that Keats's mother's "committment to her children was as erratic as it was doting, and her presence at home was inconstant. Keats was deeply attached to her and was devastated when she disappeared for four years, leaving them all with his grandmother.(p. 421)" I began wondering why his mother had left them, and decided to look on Wikipedia for some more information. They have an entirely different story. They claim that Keats's mother, after remarrying, left her husband and moved her and her children to live with their grandmother. It then says she later died of tuberculosis. It also points out that his brother soon died from tuberculosis as well. This is also stated on the John-Keats.com website, however they claim that his mother died of consumption (I have no clue what that is). I find this irritating, as this misleads the reader to believe that events in his life were more tragic than they already were.
Now, getting back to why I find his life entertaining, I found it hilarious that Keats was actually writing for fame. Don't get me wrong, he was incredibly talented. However, when we learn that his writings were laced with vanity, it takes away from their meaning. In my honest opinion, the very fact that this is even mentioned should eliminate him from being a Romantic. If true Romantics were writing about their feelings, whether they be politically or emotionally charged, then Keats was far away from the pack. He was writing for glory, which in my opinion, is about as far from feelings as one can get. A good comparison would be a musician who creates music just for the money. Keats said it himself when he said to his brother, "I think I shall be among the English Poets after my death."
Now, getting back to why I find his life entertaining, I found it hilarious that Keats was actually writing for fame. Don't get me wrong, he was incredibly talented. However, when we learn that his writings were laced with vanity, it takes away from their meaning. In my honest opinion, the very fact that this is even mentioned should eliminate him from being a Romantic. If true Romantics were writing about their feelings, whether they be politically or emotionally charged, then Keats was far away from the pack. He was writing for glory, which in my opinion, is about as far from feelings as one can get. A good comparison would be a musician who creates music just for the money. Keats said it himself when he said to his brother, "I think I shall be among the English Poets after my death."
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Lord Byron and "She Walks in Beauty"
George Gordon struck me as a pretty cool guy. I found it funny how he went from riches-to rags-to riches in such a short amount of time. In his case, he seemed to be an aristocrat who remembered where he came from. While the book doesn't mention that, I like to imagine it that way. Something else I found interesting was that aristocrats were not supposed to make any money from their writings. They were supposed to act like that kind of work was "beneath" them.
Out of all of Byron's works, I want to discuss "She Walks in Beauty" for several reasons. First of all, it is very rare for a mushy poem to capture my interest. This one did. Second, the poem is so perfectly simple that it has a timeless aspect to it.
The fact that this lovey-dovey poem caught my interest may have been largely due to the fact that I read his biography before reading the actual poem. Visualizing the author before and during writing a piece I think has a powerful impact in how we interpret it. For example, if vigilantes in movies didn't have at least one soft characteristic, whether it's their voice or looks, they could quite easily become "the bad guy". In Gordon's case, I viewed him as a kind aristocrat who was head-over-heels when writing this poem. Another factor to consider in this poem capturing my interest is that it has masculine undertones. While emotion is the central theme to the poem, he describes it using nouns rather than adjectives. For example, he writes, "One shade the more, one ray the less, had half imapir'd the nameless grace which waves in every raven trees, or softly lightens o'er her face." To me, this is far better than saying "She is so perfect that it makes me cry".
The aforementioned timeless aspect of this poem is evident in Lord Byron's word choice. He describes his love interest's beauty by using natural themes, something that will never change. The quote used in the previous paragraph is an excellent example of that. Another good example is when he writes, "She walks in beauty, like the night of cloudless climes and starry skies; And all that's best of dark and bright Meet in her aspect and her eyes." The fact that we will never see an end to "dark" and "bright" things will help make this poem enjoyable to all future generations.
Out of all of Byron's works, I want to discuss "She Walks in Beauty" for several reasons. First of all, it is very rare for a mushy poem to capture my interest. This one did. Second, the poem is so perfectly simple that it has a timeless aspect to it.
The fact that this lovey-dovey poem caught my interest may have been largely due to the fact that I read his biography before reading the actual poem. Visualizing the author before and during writing a piece I think has a powerful impact in how we interpret it. For example, if vigilantes in movies didn't have at least one soft characteristic, whether it's their voice or looks, they could quite easily become "the bad guy". In Gordon's case, I viewed him as a kind aristocrat who was head-over-heels when writing this poem. Another factor to consider in this poem capturing my interest is that it has masculine undertones. While emotion is the central theme to the poem, he describes it using nouns rather than adjectives. For example, he writes, "One shade the more, one ray the less, had half imapir'd the nameless grace which waves in every raven trees, or softly lightens o'er her face." To me, this is far better than saying "She is so perfect that it makes me cry".
The aforementioned timeless aspect of this poem is evident in Lord Byron's word choice. He describes his love interest's beauty by using natural themes, something that will never change. The quote used in the previous paragraph is an excellent example of that. Another good example is when he writes, "She walks in beauty, like the night of cloudless climes and starry skies; And all that's best of dark and bright Meet in her aspect and her eyes." The fact that we will never see an end to "dark" and "bright" things will help make this poem enjoyable to all future generations.
William Blake-y Seems a Bit Flaky
First of all, I must say that reading William Blake's biography in the book was very insightful. I would have never known that The Doors took their name from one of his works. That's pretty cool, but I digress. Blake was a very interesting individual. He claimed to have had spiritual encounters left and right (p. 74), and these experiences didn't really make him too popular. Well, let me clarify that. It didn't make him popular in his lifetime, but he later gained a cult-following in the 1950's and 1960's.
In his piece, "All Religions Are One", Blake delivers a poem that's a product of extreme ideology and philosophy. The book says that "Blake asserts that religious sects are only various forms of a central truth, divined by the poet's imagination. He did not subscribe his name to the potentially heretical All Religions Are One but presents its argument and principles as if from the voice of a Biblical prophet speaking to the modern age." This confuses me. If he didn't subscribe to their principles, then why is he arguing in their favor? While I'm not rehearsed in what they believe in, when Blake says, "The Religions of all Nat-ions are derived from each Nations different reception of the Poetic Genius which is everywhere call'd the Spirit of Prophecy", he appears to be summarizing the religion's beliefs. I wish the book had elaborated more on why he didn't subscribe to their beliefs. Did he not OPENLY subscribe to them, out of fear of political or religious persecution? Or did he simply not believe in other things the religion had to offer? His mentioning of a "Poetic Genius" is interesting. He's essentially comparing God's work to poetry, which isn't mind-blowing or anything, but makes you look around and think about it.
All in all, William Blake was a hippy before his time. While he did make some interesting observations and was wildly imaginative in his poetry, he struck me as the kind of guy who was hard to take seriously when he was alive. I am not surprised that he was an outcast in his day, but I'm NOT surprised that he is celebrated today. Two hundred years makes a world of difference.
In his piece, "All Religions Are One", Blake delivers a poem that's a product of extreme ideology and philosophy. The book says that "Blake asserts that religious sects are only various forms of a central truth, divined by the poet's imagination. He did not subscribe his name to the potentially heretical All Religions Are One but presents its argument and principles as if from the voice of a Biblical prophet speaking to the modern age." This confuses me. If he didn't subscribe to their principles, then why is he arguing in their favor? While I'm not rehearsed in what they believe in, when Blake says, "The Religions of all Nat-ions are derived from each Nations different reception of the Poetic Genius which is everywhere call'd the Spirit of Prophecy", he appears to be summarizing the religion's beliefs. I wish the book had elaborated more on why he didn't subscribe to their beliefs. Did he not OPENLY subscribe to them, out of fear of political or religious persecution? Or did he simply not believe in other things the religion had to offer? His mentioning of a "Poetic Genius" is interesting. He's essentially comparing God's work to poetry, which isn't mind-blowing or anything, but makes you look around and think about it.
All in all, William Blake was a hippy before his time. While he did make some interesting observations and was wildly imaginative in his poetry, he struck me as the kind of guy who was hard to take seriously when he was alive. I am not surprised that he was an outcast in his day, but I'm NOT surprised that he is celebrated today. Two hundred years makes a world of difference.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Dorothy Wordsworth and "The Grasmere Journals"
Okay, is it me, or did anyone else think the relationship between Dorothy and her brother was too much? Granted, I don't know how things worked in the 18th and 19th century, but it's still gross.
Anywho, outside of the previous comment, I really enjoyed reading Wordsworth's "Grasmere Journals". It is clear that her attention for detail is what made her such an excellent writer. Instead of throwing a big word at you every other sentence, Wordsworth allowed you to imagine, in rich detail, what she was describing without you having to grab a dictionary. For example, in her entry "Home Alone", she wrote "A beautiful yellow, palish yellow flower, that looked thick round & double, and smelt very sweet--I supposed in was ranunculus--Crowfoot, the grassy-leaved Rabbit-toothed white flower, strawberries, Geranium--scentless violet, anemones two kinds, orchises, primroses. The heckberry were very beautiful(294-295)." This kind of writing helps take me out of Macon and puts me into the author's shoes.
While I'm still not 100% clear on why they travelled so much, I enjoyed the author's detailed descriptions of the people they encountered. Whether it was the random beggar, or the lady whose husband had just left her, they livened up a lot of her writings. For me, when I read about nature too much, I sort of zone out and lose interest. She placed these characters in the right position so as to hold my focus. She also added what I presumed to be comic relief in discussing a serious situation when she wrote, "The mother when we accosted her told us that her husband had left her & gone off with another woman & how she 'pursued' them" (297). Putting "pursued" in quotations cracked me up, because it probably unfolded a lot differently than that.
In one of her last entries, Wordsworth logged something that cracked me up, as I related to it all too much. She wrote, "Wm promised me he would rise as soon as I had carried him his Breakfast but he lay in bed till between 12 & one (298)." Now I don't know if she was trying to be funny or wrote it out of frustration, but it was an excellent way to end the reading.
Anywho, outside of the previous comment, I really enjoyed reading Wordsworth's "Grasmere Journals". It is clear that her attention for detail is what made her such an excellent writer. Instead of throwing a big word at you every other sentence, Wordsworth allowed you to imagine, in rich detail, what she was describing without you having to grab a dictionary. For example, in her entry "Home Alone", she wrote "A beautiful yellow, palish yellow flower, that looked thick round & double, and smelt very sweet--I supposed in was ranunculus--Crowfoot, the grassy-leaved Rabbit-toothed white flower, strawberries, Geranium--scentless violet, anemones two kinds, orchises, primroses. The heckberry were very beautiful(294-295)." This kind of writing helps take me out of Macon and puts me into the author's shoes.
While I'm still not 100% clear on why they travelled so much, I enjoyed the author's detailed descriptions of the people they encountered. Whether it was the random beggar, or the lady whose husband had just left her, they livened up a lot of her writings. For me, when I read about nature too much, I sort of zone out and lose interest. She placed these characters in the right position so as to hold my focus. She also added what I presumed to be comic relief in discussing a serious situation when she wrote, "The mother when we accosted her told us that her husband had left her & gone off with another woman & how she 'pursued' them" (297). Putting "pursued" in quotations cracked me up, because it probably unfolded a lot differently than that.
In one of her last entries, Wordsworth logged something that cracked me up, as I related to it all too much. She wrote, "Wm promised me he would rise as soon as I had carried him his Breakfast but he lay in bed till between 12 & one (298)." Now I don't know if she was trying to be funny or wrote it out of frustration, but it was an excellent way to end the reading.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The French Revolution
I am in no way a history buff, nor do I consider myself someone who enjoys learning about it, so my knowledge of the French Revolution before reading this was minimal. As with other revolutions, France's dealt with breaking away from a government that ruled with an iron fist and was unjust in its taxing. Something I found interesting while reading about it was how this same kind of thing takes place today. In Haiti, for example, rising food costs have sparked riots all over the country. The Prime Minister has already been kicked out, and residents (the majority of which are very poor) have already said that it's only a matter of time before they storm the government's palace. So I guess it's true when they say "history repeats itself".
When reading about Helen Maria Williams, I found it very hard to imagine a woman willing to speak out against the injustices of the government, as most men, who had more freedom, would be scared to do it. I enjoy reading about people like Williams. The courage a person needs to do what she did is a rarity. I'm sure, in her time, that most people would have passed the ruins of the Bastille prison and would never want to be closer. Williams asked her friends to take her on a tour! It's as though she cared about her cause so much that she needed to have more fuel for her fire. When she was discussing the execution of the king, I found it interesting how she spent a good bit of her writing justifying his death. It was as though she felt a small amount of guilt and needed to rectify it within her letters.
Edmund Burke. I like this guy. I found it interesting that his biography in the book began singing his praises for things he stood up for, then almost tore him to shreds when they described the other things he stood up for. As I mentioned before, I'm not a history buff so it is difficult for me to see things from his point of view. His opposition of the French Revolution is what the book seems to take great offense to, but without any knowledge of what could have made him opposed to it, it is hard for me to dislike him. Yes, his writings do shed some insight into how he felt about certain things (The Constituent Parts of a State is a good example), however, I would like to know more about Europe's stability at that time. It came across to me that Burke was opposed to the Revolution mainly because it disrupts the stability of surrounding countries. Another thing that intrigues me about Burke is that he was very influential, and yet wasn't a radical. Williams was about as extreme as one could get at the time. Burke's rhetoric and social position allowed his voice to be heard all over. I think there is a very powerful message there.
Mary Wollstonecraft rubs me the wrong way. Not in the content of her works, but in how she writes it. She is extremely condescending and patronizing, that it seems pointless to even write at all. While I don't agree with everything Edmund Burke stood up for, at least he had a gentle way of getting his point across. Wollstonecraft, on the other hand, lacked any tact. If I was engaged in a debate with someone who holds opposing views, I would expect him/her to talk to me respectfully in order to get their point across. Wollstonecraft, in my opinion, was a snobby know-it-all.
I remember learning about Thomas Paine when I was in high school. After reading some of his works, I enjoyed seeing how he delivered his messages. In his response to Burke, he, unlike Wollstonecraft, used little, if any, sarcasm. He made very logical arguments that the other side could let sink in. He wasn't inflammatory. I did disagree with him when he wrote, "Mr. Burke is contending for the authority of the dead over the rights and freedom of the living." In my opinion, Burke was more concerned about maintaining social order than the rights of the dead. I think Paine was putting words in Burke's mouth.
In my opinion, the only one of these four authors who wouldn't consider himself a "Romantic" would be Edmund Burke. He would more than likely argue that he is simply telling you what is right and what is wrong, and that there is very little compassion in his writing. I think the others would agree that they were Romantic writers, and would probably go further in saying that Burke wasn't. They seemed so opposed to him that they wouldn't want anything tying them together!
When reading about Helen Maria Williams, I found it very hard to imagine a woman willing to speak out against the injustices of the government, as most men, who had more freedom, would be scared to do it. I enjoy reading about people like Williams. The courage a person needs to do what she did is a rarity. I'm sure, in her time, that most people would have passed the ruins of the Bastille prison and would never want to be closer. Williams asked her friends to take her on a tour! It's as though she cared about her cause so much that she needed to have more fuel for her fire. When she was discussing the execution of the king, I found it interesting how she spent a good bit of her writing justifying his death. It was as though she felt a small amount of guilt and needed to rectify it within her letters.
Edmund Burke. I like this guy. I found it interesting that his biography in the book began singing his praises for things he stood up for, then almost tore him to shreds when they described the other things he stood up for. As I mentioned before, I'm not a history buff so it is difficult for me to see things from his point of view. His opposition of the French Revolution is what the book seems to take great offense to, but without any knowledge of what could have made him opposed to it, it is hard for me to dislike him. Yes, his writings do shed some insight into how he felt about certain things (The Constituent Parts of a State is a good example), however, I would like to know more about Europe's stability at that time. It came across to me that Burke was opposed to the Revolution mainly because it disrupts the stability of surrounding countries. Another thing that intrigues me about Burke is that he was very influential, and yet wasn't a radical. Williams was about as extreme as one could get at the time. Burke's rhetoric and social position allowed his voice to be heard all over. I think there is a very powerful message there.
Mary Wollstonecraft rubs me the wrong way. Not in the content of her works, but in how she writes it. She is extremely condescending and patronizing, that it seems pointless to even write at all. While I don't agree with everything Edmund Burke stood up for, at least he had a gentle way of getting his point across. Wollstonecraft, on the other hand, lacked any tact. If I was engaged in a debate with someone who holds opposing views, I would expect him/her to talk to me respectfully in order to get their point across. Wollstonecraft, in my opinion, was a snobby know-it-all.
I remember learning about Thomas Paine when I was in high school. After reading some of his works, I enjoyed seeing how he delivered his messages. In his response to Burke, he, unlike Wollstonecraft, used little, if any, sarcasm. He made very logical arguments that the other side could let sink in. He wasn't inflammatory. I did disagree with him when he wrote, "Mr. Burke is contending for the authority of the dead over the rights and freedom of the living." In my opinion, Burke was more concerned about maintaining social order than the rights of the dead. I think Paine was putting words in Burke's mouth.
In my opinion, the only one of these four authors who wouldn't consider himself a "Romantic" would be Edmund Burke. He would more than likely argue that he is simply telling you what is right and what is wrong, and that there is very little compassion in his writing. I think the others would agree that they were Romantic writers, and would probably go further in saying that Burke wasn't. They seemed so opposed to him that they wouldn't want anything tying them together!
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Introduction
Hi all,
My name is Daniel Day and I'm a senior at Mercer. I'm currently enrolled in this online course because I move around a lot in the summer and spend very little time in Macon. I have yet to take an online course and I'm excited to see how it works. I am currently in West Palm Beach, where I've been spending time with my brother and his family. My girlfriend and I leave tonight to head back for Atlanta, so we'll be getting in around 5:00 AM. Not too excited about that. Anywho, outside of FYS, I have not taken any English classes, so I'm looking forward to learning something new. It will be interesting to see how the dynamics of an online class unfold.
Well, take care and I'll see everyone on Monday.
Daniel Day
My name is Daniel Day and I'm a senior at Mercer. I'm currently enrolled in this online course because I move around a lot in the summer and spend very little time in Macon. I have yet to take an online course and I'm excited to see how it works. I am currently in West Palm Beach, where I've been spending time with my brother and his family. My girlfriend and I leave tonight to head back for Atlanta, so we'll be getting in around 5:00 AM. Not too excited about that. Anywho, outside of FYS, I have not taken any English classes, so I'm looking forward to learning something new. It will be interesting to see how the dynamics of an online class unfold.
Well, take care and I'll see everyone on Monday.
Daniel Day
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
