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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.