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.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
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)
