How does each version differ in its view/representation of Red or the main character (and, by extension, children/girls)? What lessons do the different versions offer?
---
We encounter several versions of this take in our book, and I'll take each one by one to make this hopefully simple in organization at least.
...Continued from Part 1...
Tomi Ungerer paints a completely different picture of a story in his "Little Red Riding Hood." This Red Riding Hood is not wearing a cloak by choice, but by the suggestion of her mother to find the girl more easily. She's said to be a child at several points, but then also is referred to as "damsel" and "lady" at times, and considering Duke (the wolf) takes her off to marry her, I feel like she isn't as young as the other Red Riding Hoods. She's described as sensible, and it's true. She's kind in delivering food to her cruel grandmother, but she understands the woman is cruel and seems justified to the reader in her shying away from finishing that journey. When Duke approaches her, she does not immediately accept his offer, which speaks well for her. Then she doesn't even know the term "reputation", so she's obviously not supposed to be the brightest of girls. When she does give in, there's no suggestion of negative repercussions. She actually marries the wolf and lives "happily ever after" though her mean granny doesn't. So the moral here? The tale honestly feels like a shallow romp, but is by no means poorly written. The usual theme, warning against strangers is missing, as the stranger sweeps her off to a better life. Perhaps the moral here is obedience and doing for those who might not appreciate it can lead to good things in the end? I'm honestly quite iffy. This I think might be the start of fairytales being dulled down. Though Polly's story involved it as well, she was more self-aware I felt than muted. Though using familiar characters, I almost feel like this was a completely different story entirely from what we've been reading, even more so than Polly.
Tony Ross gives us another version with "Little Red Hood: A Classic Story bent Out of Shape." The style is drastically different and very dated with slang like "turkey" and bits of Yiddish even. Considering that Granny, or "Crazy Carmela," lived in Jersey, I'm thinking that Little Red Hood is out of New York, and I'm not surprised. She's sassy and strong, but she was still eaten along with Carmela. I thought it was funny that everyone got a name, mother "Linda," father "Rocky," granny was already mentioned, everyone except for Little Red Hood and the wolf. Then Little Red wasn't just for her hood, but for her father calling her a "commie" after she said she was going on strike. This is a Little Red Hood that wants to be independent, but still have that parental safety net. She's lucky for it in the end of course. The moral here harkens back to our previous stories: Don't stop to chat with strangers, and honestly, don't tickle strange dogs either.
"Ruby" by Michael Emberly I'll note wasn't officially intended to be a retelling. He said it had sounded like one so he "ended up just riding that wave to the beach" (pp 368). In this tale, Ruby, our heroine, is actually a little mouse. She doesn't want to visit her Granny, but does still as her mother asks. As most Red Riding Hoods, she disobeys direct orders by reading as she walks and talking to cats. The "wolf" who is a cat here actually rescues her from a reptile mugger. The cat is suave and Ruby tells her Granny's address, but she then calls her Granny's neighbor instead of the old woman, and the dog makes quick work of that cat when he arrives. Ruby is interesting because there's no real attention made to the red cloak, though she does wear one it's never spoken of, only shown. The contemporary feel it has with being placed in the city I think makes it appeal more to children from more modern days. This story does relate back to previous Red Riding Hoods, where the moral is about not trusting strangers, even strangers that act kindly to you and to mind your parents.
Francesa Lia Block's "Wolf" is the final spin on this tale. From the first paragraph, this is not a story for young children. It's from the first person, so again, she has no name and no physical hood. She tries to be strong for her mother who she also feels is her best friend. The "wolf" is her mother's boyfriend and he raped her regularly. She never told her mother because she was scared her mom would hate her. This to my understanding is common in this situation. She smokes, she swears, but when she describes her best dream involving a bed of puppies and kitties with a party full of balloons and so on, she's still very much a child. In the end, she takes matters into her own hands and deals with the attacker herself when she's scared he's after herself and her grandmother. She is the one that pulls the trigger and ends her pain. This story isn't about the wolves in the wild, but the ones that can enter our homes that we must watch out for. Many young girls end up like this one, maybe not killing a man, but keeping this all to themselves and not talking about their pain because they're scared. I enjoyed this story; it's a modern and sobering tale.
The Red Riding Hood stories have evolved and changed drastically over time, but many things stay the same; the girl going to grandma's encounters a wolf. How she deals with it is up to her. As Red Riding Hood has progressed though, she continues to take actions into her hands.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Alphabets
What do alphabets tell us about the values of the times/places in which they were written? The view of childood in those times and places? How have alphabets changed over time? Which kinds of alphabet works would be best for which kinds/ages of children, and why? If you were an early primary school or kindergarten teacher or were planning to be one, which alphabet books would you use in your classroom? Why and HOW? If you're a parent or planning to be one which alphabet books would you use (or did you/would you have used) with your children? Why and HOW?
The alphabets have changed in presentation greatly over the years. Originally a strip placed in view of all the students to be repeated and memorized almost mindlessly. As writing and reading became more a part of things, with primers and hornbooks, I feel like the value of the education improved. Children were actually having to do some physical work to be associated with that big bunch of letters. The addition of rhymes and pictures I think also made things better. Instead of simply learning letters, they also learned sounds, "A Was an Archer" and "Andrew Airpump asked his aunt her ailment" it's not just memorizing, it's also hearing the sounds in repetition. Children don't just learn by memorizing and repeating and in so hearing, though it can be helpful. Some children need visual queues as well, pictures to associate with what they learn.
I think I'd use several methods to teach my child. I'd use something colorful with pictures and words that I would read aloud. The Dr. Seuss alphabet would be good, as children will encounter his work often and I know I used to love Dr. Seuss books. The only draw back is while the sounds are massive, the words are often made up which can be fun, but I would want to also use a source with real words that children could relate to better. That would depend on the child I think. I wouldn't use something that seemed as difficult as Anno's Alphabet for teaching, but maybe for improving a child's skills as they learn more, just not for a a first effort.
The alphabets have changed in presentation greatly over the years. Originally a strip placed in view of all the students to be repeated and memorized almost mindlessly. As writing and reading became more a part of things, with primers and hornbooks, I feel like the value of the education improved. Children were actually having to do some physical work to be associated with that big bunch of letters. The addition of rhymes and pictures I think also made things better. Instead of simply learning letters, they also learned sounds, "A Was an Archer" and "Andrew Airpump asked his aunt her ailment" it's not just memorizing, it's also hearing the sounds in repetition. Children don't just learn by memorizing and repeating and in so hearing, though it can be helpful. Some children need visual queues as well, pictures to associate with what they learn.
I think I'd use several methods to teach my child. I'd use something colorful with pictures and words that I would read aloud. The Dr. Seuss alphabet would be good, as children will encounter his work often and I know I used to love Dr. Seuss books. The only draw back is while the sounds are massive, the words are often made up which can be fun, but I would want to also use a source with real words that children could relate to better. That would depend on the child I think. I wouldn't use something that seemed as difficult as Anno's Alphabet for teaching, but maybe for improving a child's skills as they learn more, just not for a a first effort.
Primers
What do primers tell us about the values of the times/places in which they were written? The view of childood in those times and places? How do primers develop/devolve over time (here, consider the differences betweeen the Mcguffey and Fun with Dick and Jane). What primer (first readers in school) did you read? If you are (or were) a primary school teacher or (are/were) planning to be one, and you were given the choice, what would you use as a primer in your classes? What would be your objectives? How would you achieve them? If you're a parent or planning to be one, which primers would you use (or did you/would you have used) with your children? Why and HOW?
The improving status of primers shows the improving of the times. Childhood became more and more a time in which we are to learn. When education to the age of ten became both free and compulsory in 1880, I feel like that was one of the earliest steps in the proper direction. Literacy was obviously increasing in importance when the right to vote in Britain was extended to the people.
Primers I feel devolved to a degree, at least between the McGuffey and Dick & Jane. The McGuffey read like a story in a children's book, which it actually is. I've heard Chicken Little growing up for years, though I've never heard this ending. There is an actual story there for children to learn from, but with Dick & Jane it's sort of dull and more repetitive. Neither Jane nor Chicken Little can understand what they are getting wrong, but where Jane gets it wrong, she laughs and fixes her mistake. Chicken Little gets eaten. The issue I find with Dick & Jane is the language. It's stiff and robotic.
I doubt children in this era even spoke in this manner. It sounds awkward and like someone's trained words. Chicken Little also uses older language, but as it's a fairytale and from a time where we accept and almost expect that kind of language.
I wouldn't use Dick & Jane for my children. I don't like the language and though it's good that Jane can laugh at her mistake (which is a fine lesson!), I feel like Dick almost mocks her with how repetitious he is in pointing out her mistake. I'd be more likely to use something with fairy tales, stories that I've told my child in earlier times. My parents read the Frog and Toad stories to me as a child, which I felt were very laid back with the layout of the text to the pictures helping to show what's happening. I feel like I'd also want to use books like those. First I'd read them to the child aloud, sitting beside them and using my finger to follow the words to let them see them as I speak them. We'd discuss any strange or large words or actions that the child might not understand. Eventually, I'd offer for them to read with me. Ideally, the child would eventually take over reading the books to me or just themselves.
The improving status of primers shows the improving of the times. Childhood became more and more a time in which we are to learn. When education to the age of ten became both free and compulsory in 1880, I feel like that was one of the earliest steps in the proper direction. Literacy was obviously increasing in importance when the right to vote in Britain was extended to the people.
Primers I feel devolved to a degree, at least between the McGuffey and Dick & Jane. The McGuffey read like a story in a children's book, which it actually is. I've heard Chicken Little growing up for years, though I've never heard this ending. There is an actual story there for children to learn from, but with Dick & Jane it's sort of dull and more repetitive. Neither Jane nor Chicken Little can understand what they are getting wrong, but where Jane gets it wrong, she laughs and fixes her mistake. Chicken Little gets eaten. The issue I find with Dick & Jane is the language. It's stiff and robotic.
"'Oh, oh!' laughed Jane.
'Where is one for me?
I will get one for Jane."
I doubt children in this era even spoke in this manner. It sounds awkward and like someone's trained words. Chicken Little also uses older language, but as it's a fairytale and from a time where we accept and almost expect that kind of language.
I wouldn't use Dick & Jane for my children. I don't like the language and though it's good that Jane can laugh at her mistake (which is a fine lesson!), I feel like Dick almost mocks her with how repetitious he is in pointing out her mistake. I'd be more likely to use something with fairy tales, stories that I've told my child in earlier times. My parents read the Frog and Toad stories to me as a child, which I felt were very laid back with the layout of the text to the pictures helping to show what's happening. I feel like I'd also want to use books like those. First I'd read them to the child aloud, sitting beside them and using my finger to follow the words to let them see them as I speak them. We'd discuss any strange or large words or actions that the child might not understand. Eventually, I'd offer for them to read with me. Ideally, the child would eventually take over reading the books to me or just themselves.
Animal Fables
Animal Fables are also sometimes (when illustrating a moral point or offering a moral) didactic works; they are UNLIKE fairy tales in this, but let's not oversimpliy them--especially modern ones like the Hoban. What sorts of ideas and values (if any) do these seek to instill in their readers? Consider at least three fables from different times.
Samuel Croxall's The Fox Without a Tail has a strong and useful moral. The fix, having lost his tail to a hunter's trap tries to talk his fellow foxes into ridding themselves of their own tails. This fox is vain and thinks by having the others conform to his new appearance that he'll feel less silly. After the first fox tells them of all the advantages and how nice it is to be without his tail, another who knew it was not the first fox's choice to lose the tail called out that maybe he did like not having a tail and were the others to get stuck, then maybe they'd like it too. The moral here in about vanity and conforming. Croxall disagrees with vanity when it gets to extravagant and silly proportions, specifically making mention of women with enormous petticoats. That message would probably be useful to young men and women who find themselves within the age to go out and socialize. Peer pressure has always been quite a real thing!
Walter Crane's version of The Crow & the Pitcher was another good one. The crow cannot drink the water because it's too low in the pitcher. He took a smart way about things and dropped pebbles into the water to make the level rise so he could reach it. Like the fox, the crow had a problem but he did not try to solve it in a selfish way, like spilling the water. Instead he was careful and still got his drink. This story shows us that thinking and not just doing the first thing that comes to mind is the way to go about things. This sort of story would be good for the younger children learning how to think things out for themselves. Really, these are useful to any age and a good reminder as many people often act to quickly and foul things up. The thing to notice about Crane's is how the illustration is the fable. The actual story and short and simple, with a line at the end expressing the moral to reinforce it. This method screams younger learners to me.
Russel Hoban's The Sea-Thing Child is greatly different from the other two fables I've written on. For one it had no illustrations in the text, though I did look up the cover and found the image of the Sea-Thing Child different from what I had been imagining. The Sea-Thing is tossed out of the water during a nasty storm and fears to return, though he never really states that he fears it, we learn this through his interactions with the eel and albatross when he asks these creatures if they fear the sea and no, they don't because it's where they belong. After much thinking and his friend, the fiddler crab's own decision to actually try to make a bow and play his fiddle as he's been meaning to, the Sea-Thing child opens his wings and is swept up into the great sky where he finds what he's been missing before he returns to his home, the sea. This is a case of fearing to attempt something, perhaps similar to learning to ride a bicycle or walk to school. it could also be something far greater as actually attending school where the child will then be a small fish in a great big ocean with others. Here, the reader is learning about independence. I especially like how his fears are not voiced by the Sea-Thing Child, but by the Fiddler Crab who fears losing his friend.
Samuel Croxall's The Fox Without a Tail has a strong and useful moral. The fix, having lost his tail to a hunter's trap tries to talk his fellow foxes into ridding themselves of their own tails. This fox is vain and thinks by having the others conform to his new appearance that he'll feel less silly. After the first fox tells them of all the advantages and how nice it is to be without his tail, another who knew it was not the first fox's choice to lose the tail called out that maybe he did like not having a tail and were the others to get stuck, then maybe they'd like it too. The moral here in about vanity and conforming. Croxall disagrees with vanity when it gets to extravagant and silly proportions, specifically making mention of women with enormous petticoats. That message would probably be useful to young men and women who find themselves within the age to go out and socialize. Peer pressure has always been quite a real thing!
Walter Crane's version of The Crow & the Pitcher was another good one. The crow cannot drink the water because it's too low in the pitcher. He took a smart way about things and dropped pebbles into the water to make the level rise so he could reach it. Like the fox, the crow had a problem but he did not try to solve it in a selfish way, like spilling the water. Instead he was careful and still got his drink. This story shows us that thinking and not just doing the first thing that comes to mind is the way to go about things. This sort of story would be good for the younger children learning how to think things out for themselves. Really, these are useful to any age and a good reminder as many people often act to quickly and foul things up. The thing to notice about Crane's is how the illustration is the fable. The actual story and short and simple, with a line at the end expressing the moral to reinforce it. This method screams younger learners to me.
Russel Hoban's The Sea-Thing Child is greatly different from the other two fables I've written on. For one it had no illustrations in the text, though I did look up the cover and found the image of the Sea-Thing Child different from what I had been imagining. The Sea-Thing is tossed out of the water during a nasty storm and fears to return, though he never really states that he fears it, we learn this through his interactions with the eel and albatross when he asks these creatures if they fear the sea and no, they don't because it's where they belong. After much thinking and his friend, the fiddler crab's own decision to actually try to make a bow and play his fiddle as he's been meaning to, the Sea-Thing child opens his wings and is swept up into the great sky where he finds what he's been missing before he returns to his home, the sea. This is a case of fearing to attempt something, perhaps similar to learning to ride a bicycle or walk to school. it could also be something far greater as actually attending school where the child will then be a small fish in a great big ocean with others. Here, the reader is learning about independence. I especially like how his fears are not voiced by the Sea-Thing Child, but by the Fiddler Crab who fears losing his friend.
Graphic Novels and Libraries
As far as public libraries, there's a decent amount of choice when it comes to comics. It seems at least at my local branch that graphic novels are awarded their own area, which makes it convenient, yes, but only once you find thing thing. It's set aside within a pair of shelves that's supposed to be their "Young Adult" section. It's on the opposite side of the library of the Children's section and actually set very close to one of three sets of racks of Romance Novels. I was surprised that this designation existed, though happy. However, I entirely missed it upon entering. All I saw in the catalog was "YA Graphic Novel" as the designations, then it was separated by author's names. The shelf itself had a lot of American graphic novels along with a few manga (Japanese graphic novels) mixed in. The selection wasn't awful I guess, including work by Neil Gaiman, the first book in the "Maus" series, a splattering of super hero books, and several from the "Bone" series as well. I personally didn't care for the style of organization, however my particular branch is a rather small one.
As a reader, I prefer college libraries for organization of graphic novels. Admittedly, they don't have the same concerns for a children's section and such. At my community college, there is a long line of shelves against the wall with fiction of various sorts. You can find graphic novels mixed within the rest of the shelves though, I believe around the art section. They actually house "Watchmen" as well as most if not all of the "Sandman" series, among other well known titles.
Something I've seen at book stores, but not so much as libraries has been a collection of graphic novels that sort of retell classic works, like "Hamlet" in comic form. I think that sort of thing would appeal to young people. I mean, Shakespeare is hard for a lot of us and (in my opinion) is better to see acted out or hear out loud. I feel that seeing it in the form of a comic could easily draw people in though, and make use of images that were only alluded to even on stage.
As a reader, I prefer college libraries for organization of graphic novels. Admittedly, they don't have the same concerns for a children's section and such. At my community college, there is a long line of shelves against the wall with fiction of various sorts. You can find graphic novels mixed within the rest of the shelves though, I believe around the art section. They actually house "Watchmen" as well as most if not all of the "Sandman" series, among other well known titles.
Something I've seen at book stores, but not so much as libraries has been a collection of graphic novels that sort of retell classic works, like "Hamlet" in comic form. I think that sort of thing would appeal to young people. I mean, Shakespeare is hard for a lot of us and (in my opinion) is better to see acted out or hear out loud. I feel that seeing it in the form of a comic could easily draw people in though, and make use of images that were only alluded to even on stage.
May 2009 Spotlight
The first Spotlight author for Shojo U is Neil Gaiman! A group favorite, many of us have read at least one of his works. We've been showing his BBC aired six episode mini-series Neverwhere (which brought about his book of the same name) and we plan on showing the movie Stardust based on his stellar novel at our May 29th meeting.
Gaiman has been in the game for a couple of decades now. He started off as a music journalist, writing and networking to get himself a step up into the world he hoped to join. His first published short story was Featherquest in 1984, while surprisingly his first book was a biography for the band Duran Duran in that same year. Still inspired by music and musicians today, obviously his former bread and butter was also an early love.
His first foyer into the world of comics was picking up Miracleman after the famed Alan Moore was finished with the series. This led to many other projects with one of his main collaborators and illustrators, Dave McKean, including eventually their own spin on a DC heroine, Black Orchid with an origin swing that even touched on other plant oriented DC characters including Alan Moore's handling of Swamp Thing. However, Gaiman's greatest work in this field and some may say of all is The Sandman series which started in 1989, ran until 1996, and was published by DC until picked up by DC's more fantasy and horror oriented imprint, Vertigo. Sandman follows the Endless, beings who have lived longer than humans, gods, even time. The lead character is Dream, also called Morpheus, the Shaper, and countless of other names. He's a mournful man with black eyes who can be both kind and uncaring; kind when it comes to the poor souls that are abused within and without his realm and uncaring when it comes to those who hurt him, like a former lover of his that he condemned to Hell for forsaking him. Gaiman has also done work with the Spawn series which led to issues between himself and series creator Todd McFarlane over character copyright when McFarlane used characters that Gaiman created for the series without permission or paying royalties. This dispute was settled in a 2002 hearing where the McFarlane and Gaiman were granted joint custody of the characters. Other comic works of Gaiman have been various illustrated versions of short stories, a colonial take on the Marvel heroes in "Marvel 1602", and a two part Batman story titled "Whatever Happened to the Cape Crusader?" that followed "Batman R.I.P."
Stepping away from comics and into a more traditional medium, Gaiman's made large contributions to the literary world. His first real work in the serious world of fiction was a collaboration with Terry Prattchet of Disc World fame to create a humorous take on the end of the world called "Good Omens". The 1990 novel featured characters, demon Crowley and angel Aziraphale who find themselves dealing with the coming of the Anti-Christ that went just a bit awry. His second novel was based off of the mini series Neverwhere released on BBC in 1996. A normal man is thrown into the London Underground, a place full of dark beings and magic goings on that you and I don't even notice. It was actually released in tandem with the series, though having a number of differences. Following this was "Stardust", which was published in 1999 in novel form and was illustrated into a storybook style novel with the drawings of Charles Vess. Another man thrust into a strange world, but for love and adventure more than simple mistakes. The next novel is likely his best known in this format, the best-selling and multi-award winning "American Gods". The 2001 novel won the 2002 Hugo, Stoker, Locus, Nebula, and Geffen awards, not to mention being nominated for numerous others. An ex-con finds himself lost in the world of mythology that has taken hold with the immigrants fairy tails and stories along with the local lore of America. His next adult novel in 2005, "Anansi Boys" even takes a supporting character, Mr. Nancy (Anansi) and follows his sons, one who is for lack of better term normal and the other who is the exact opposite.
Gaiman has also published successful novels for youth, including "I Sold My Father For Two Goldfish", "Wolves in the Walls" which was adapted into a play format, and "Coraline". A novelette about a little girl with a big imagination and an "other mother", "other father", and other more interesting life on the other side of a little bricked up door. As with Gaiman's other works however, nothing can be as good as it seems in those creepy black button eyes. A story for his eldest daughter that was completed for his youngest, it was made into a stop motion movie in 2009. It was also turned in to a graphic novel, a musical, and a video game. A big feat for a bedtime story. His most recent writings for children were "Blueberry Girl," a poem put to pictures and words that was written for the daughter of singer Tori Amos and "The Graveyard Book," a take off of the classic "The Jungle Book" set in a graveyard. While yes, a children's book, but like Coraline is contains a bit of darkness. Don't be mistaken, these as other books aimed at kids are easily readable to adults as well.
Stepping into yet another area of entertainment, Gaiman has done a lot of work in films, including scripts and directing. His Neverwhere series started the trend and was followed up by writing the English language script for famed Hayao Miyazaki film, "Princess Mononoke" as well as co-writing the script for Beowulf and an episode of science fiction series, Babylon 5. His own work as previously mentioned has been made into film, such as "Stardust" and "Coraline". Along with these comes 2005 Mirrormask, a film about a girl who wants to run away from the circus and the lie she leads there with a Jim Henson feel like old cult classics such as "Labyrinth" and "The Dark Crystal", but absolutely standing apart from those films given Gaiman and Dave McKean's co-writing flair, the latter's directing, and not to mention the updates to technology since those older films. It's also notable that "Death: The High Cost of Living", a short spin-off of The Sandman graphic novels that follows Death instead of Dream, and the more recently published "The Graveyard Book" will both be hitting the big screen.
Though fans come and go, Neil Gaiman is a constant in some way, shape, or form. Once you've finished everything, there should be something new or maybe something old hiding out in the shelves or even the big screen. His heavy use of strong females is what's given him the position as this club's spotlight author. In "Neverwhere," Door surges through all the hardships and the frightening world beneath the streets even leading about some stranger along with her guard which includes the best guard in the London Underground who certainly fits into our strong females as well. With "Stardust," Yvaine is willful and speaks her mind, giving poor Tristam a run for his money. "Coraline" gives us a curious little Coraline who finds adventure in unlikely places and saves the day even though she's scared of what's happening. Even going back to his graphic novels, we see Death who is essentially the Grim Reaper by our definitions as a sympathetic soul who knows people fear and hate her, but she also knows and accepts that people just don't understand her and what she means. Black Orchid too, in the form of Black Orchid, Susan, even little Suzie are strong women who surely have their moments of doubt and naivety, but could they be honestly called weak? No. So here's to Neil! Keep them coming, we'll keep paying your bills or hopefully at least buying you a drink or two.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Victorian Era
The Victorian period was distinct in time as a time of change. Many advances were being made during this time period and it’s suggested that it was more than had been made in the two thousand years before. Sure, this might be exaggerating, but it could pretty close to the truth as well. This was a period of industrialization, when nearly everything that could run on steam power was altered to do so. People were urged to “close the Byron; open the Goethe”, meaning to set aside their introspective romances for the higher moral purposes found in other literature, such as Goethe. The initial idea is surprising in a period of invention, but makes sense as science was practicality were big players. Each period within the Victorian period is made distinct even upon itself, though this may be due to the books clean set up. The first period wasn’t a good time; women and children were at hard work with children as young as five working in mines, the representation of the people in Parliament was not as it should be with the population having shifted from where it was when the system was first created and there being no update. The Reform Bill of 1832 was the first step in remedying this as it gave the vote to all men owning property up to 10 British Pounds in worth. This still excluded many, but it was just the first step on the path to improvement. The Mid-Victorian era was full of people attacking the social system of the time, misgivings coming from the first period. The improvements of the era were evident here though. Industry was booming beyond just the railways of the first part of the Victorian age. Religion was evolving, which made sense as science was also bringing about new ideas and at least to me those two fields often like to counter each other. One of the important theories of the time was in fact evolution as though by Charles Darwin and pushed by Thomas Huxley. Many thought this was an addition to their beliefs, taking the meaning to be figurative and not literal. Men of science then were taking the Bible not as a sacred book, but a tome of history for examination and many religions didn't care for this. Toward the end of the era, things were obviously changing. While the first era could be considered one of unrest and politics, the middle of change, religion, and science, perhaps the last is of war, mutiny, and change. Mutiny and war came more from the colonies than England itself however. America having just gotten through its own civil war was becoming more of a rival. Labor was becoming a powerful force and many of its leaders were being influenced by things such as the writing of Karl Marx. Even the writers of this time were taking shots at those from the Mid-Victorian era. Obviously things were trying to head in a different direction.
The following generation after Queen Victoria’s death almost went out of their way to distinguish themselves from the Victorian era. Literary critiques of the next era would treat Victorian writers as “stuffily complacent prigs” and how very different literature had become since those writers. As always, the following generation was still built on the shoulders of its predecessors.
The following generation after Queen Victoria’s death almost went out of their way to distinguish themselves from the Victorian era. Literary critiques of the next era would treat Victorian writers as “stuffily complacent prigs” and how very different literature had become since those writers. As always, the following generation was still built on the shoulders of its predecessors.
Victorian Era: The Novel
The novel was huge during this time period. They often appeared in three volumes as opposed to simply one book, which explains why some classic literature is separated even today within one book as different "Books". This books were an attempt to cover a large amount of life and society as it really was. Each novel showed each author's own views of what life and their world was about in this time in very realistic fashions, though they might not all seem to show the same world in their individual realism. Victorian novels showed a main character who was trying to define their position within society. This was also an era of many strong women writers, considering the common topics of the novel were of daily life, society, courtship, family, and marriage.
It's interesting the reading speaks of the Victorian heroine, the representation of the human condition. While this is a model of women very familiar to me, from my experience these novel were still not without their Byronic males. Of course, they weren't quite as romantic as in the previous era of Bryon himself perhaps.
It's interesting the reading speaks of the Victorian heroine, the representation of the human condition. While this is a model of women very familiar to me, from my experience these novel were still not without their Byronic males. Of course, they weren't quite as romantic as in the previous era of Bryon himself perhaps.
Liberal vs Useful
How does Newman define "Liberal" and "Useful" education? Which of the two does he promote? How and why?
Newman feels there are two different types of knowledge and education, "Liberal" and "Useful". Useful knowledge is more technical and practical. This is the scientific knowledge of creation, and thus especially useful during this age of technological advances. In reference to "useful knowledge", Newman feels that, "Knowledge, in proportion as it tends more and more to be particular, ceases to be Knowledge" Though Newman finds this type of knowledge to be good and of it's own sort of use, but he feels eventually it becomes so specific that it is no longer knowledge. I feel he means that it becomes so specialized that it can only be useful for something in particular and not a knowledge good for discussion and sharing. Liberal knowledge is more philosophical. This education is much more generalized and rounded out. Newman I feel prefers it because this is what he himself shares in. Of this type of knowledge he feels, "...that there is a Knowledge, which is desirable, though nothing come of it, as being of itself a treasure, and a sufficient remuneration of years of labor." Liberal knowledge is something to expand upon and be discussed and furthered. It will never not be knowledge, even if it were to become a book as then it would simply be relayed knowledge.
I get what he's saying, but it seems a little silly. He obviously respected "useful" knowledge, but he finds himself working in liberal knowledge and so favoring it.
Newman feels there are two different types of knowledge and education, "Liberal" and "Useful". Useful knowledge is more technical and practical. This is the scientific knowledge of creation, and thus especially useful during this age of technological advances. In reference to "useful knowledge", Newman feels that, "Knowledge, in proportion as it tends more and more to be particular, ceases to be Knowledge" Though Newman finds this type of knowledge to be good and of it's own sort of use, but he feels eventually it becomes so specific that it is no longer knowledge. I feel he means that it becomes so specialized that it can only be useful for something in particular and not a knowledge good for discussion and sharing. Liberal knowledge is more philosophical. This education is much more generalized and rounded out. Newman I feel prefers it because this is what he himself shares in. Of this type of knowledge he feels, "...that there is a Knowledge, which is desirable, though nothing come of it, as being of itself a treasure, and a sufficient remuneration of years of labor." Liberal knowledge is something to expand upon and be discussed and furthered. It will never not be knowledge, even if it were to become a book as then it would simply be relayed knowledge.
I get what he's saying, but it seems a little silly. He obviously respected "useful" knowledge, but he finds himself working in liberal knowledge and so favoring it.
On Liberty
What concerns about conformity and democracy does Mill express in the selections from On Liberty? How do YOU feel about them?
Mill feels that the people are becoming meek in that they are doing only what is expected of them. Instead of doing what they want and feel, they are conforming to the ideas and arguments of other people. “If the grounds of an opinion are not conclusive to the person’s own reason, his reason cannot be strengthened, but is likely to be weakened, by his adopted of it” They are not making their own plans, they are not forming their own independence, which is the meaning of having liberty. “But it is the privilege and proper condition of a human being, arrived at the maturity of his facilities, to use and interpret experience in his own way.” This meant that we as humans are educated to allow ourselves to make our own way, our own experiences and to not just melt into the background. “He who lets the world, or his portion of it, choose his plan of life for him has no need of any other facilities than the apelike one of imitation.” For all the education and living in the world, if a person lets himself be controlled his environment, then he’s no more use than an animal.
Mill feels that the people are becoming meek in that they are doing only what is expected of them. Instead of doing what they want and feel, they are conforming to the ideas and arguments of other people. “If the grounds of an opinion are not conclusive to the person’s own reason, his reason cannot be strengthened, but is likely to be weakened, by his adopted of it” They are not making their own plans, they are not forming their own independence, which is the meaning of having liberty. “But it is the privilege and proper condition of a human being, arrived at the maturity of his facilities, to use and interpret experience in his own way.” This meant that we as humans are educated to allow ourselves to make our own way, our own experiences and to not just melt into the background. “He who lets the world, or his portion of it, choose his plan of life for him has no need of any other facilities than the apelike one of imitation.” For all the education and living in the world, if a person lets himself be controlled his environment, then he’s no more use than an animal.
Subjection of Women
In The Subjection of Women, Mill bases his argument against the subjugation of the female to the male on a very interesting foundation: that we don't KNOW women's nature, and that the concepts of womanhood and the gender arrangements we assume are natural are, instead, entirely traditional and habitual, rather than based in nature. Focusing on these parts of his argument, discuss whether and in what ways (if any) the assumptions Mill questions are still true today.
I personally think things have greatly improved since Mill's times. Women got the vote, they can work most any job that men can work, and there's even men staying at home and raising children. However, I feel like the expectation for women to obey their husbands and to be the caregiver and housewife are still underlying. "The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother." Women of a certain age are expected to get/be married and have children, it's seen as unusual in some circles if you're not. Married life these days is not the equivalent of slavery though, it's a partnership. Wife no long equals housewife.
I personally think things have greatly improved since Mill's times. Women got the vote, they can work most any job that men can work, and there's even men staying at home and raising children. However, I feel like the expectation for women to obey their husbands and to be the caregiver and housewife are still underlying. "The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother." Women of a certain age are expected to get/be married and have children, it's seen as unusual in some circles if you're not. Married life these days is not the equivalent of slavery though, it's a partnership. Wife no long equals housewife.
Ulysses
In "Ulysses," the speaker is the Ulysses (or Odysseus) of Homer's The Odyssey. Tennyson imagines what this hero would feel like after having spent some time at home in Ithaca after all his adventures, his 20-year quest to return home, and his triumphant driving out of his faithful wife Penelope's suitors. Again, this is a dramatic monologue, so (I've told you who the speaker is), what is the situation, and whom is he addressing? How does he feel about his wife, his people and his son? What does he intend to do? One tip: the poem is in three verse-paragraphs: consider them separately and together.
Ulysses has been back from his twenty year journey for some time now. He is again ruler of Ithica with his beloved wife and strong son. Here, he is the speaker and is addressing perhaps not just those men who had traveled with him solely, but the whole of his people. He feels useless “an idle king”, just repeating the same actions to a people who don’t know him and so he feels do not care, “I mete and dole//Unequaled laws unto a savage race,//That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know me not.” Perhaps he just feels so disconnected though. Ulysses wants to life live and feels he must leave to do it. “I cannot rest from travel; I will drink//Life to the lees.” He lists of past experiences and says how they are a part of him, “I am part of all I have met” So obviously he is planning on leaving again. The island will be left to his son’s care, who he trusts to handle the job. “This is my son, mine own Telemachus,//To whom I leave the scepter and the isle” Ulysses hopes that Telemachus can change the people, make them more gentle than they had become. “by slow prudence to make mild//A rugged people, and through soft degrees//Subdue them to the useful and the good.” Which shows us that right now, Ulysses doesn’t find his people to be mild and good. The thing I find interesting is that he doesn’t speak much of his wife. Ulysses says at the start that she is “aged” but nothing else. In the final section I thought perhaps he spoke to her when he said “you and I are old” but the more I look at it, the more I feel like he’s talking to the sailors he spent his time with.
Ulysses has been back from his twenty year journey for some time now. He is again ruler of Ithica with his beloved wife and strong son. Here, he is the speaker and is addressing perhaps not just those men who had traveled with him solely, but the whole of his people. He feels useless “an idle king”, just repeating the same actions to a people who don’t know him and so he feels do not care, “I mete and dole//Unequaled laws unto a savage race,//That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know me not.” Perhaps he just feels so disconnected though. Ulysses wants to life live and feels he must leave to do it. “I cannot rest from travel; I will drink//Life to the lees.” He lists of past experiences and says how they are a part of him, “I am part of all I have met” So obviously he is planning on leaving again. The island will be left to his son’s care, who he trusts to handle the job. “This is my son, mine own Telemachus,//To whom I leave the scepter and the isle” Ulysses hopes that Telemachus can change the people, make them more gentle than they had become. “by slow prudence to make mild//A rugged people, and through soft degrees//Subdue them to the useful and the good.” Which shows us that right now, Ulysses doesn’t find his people to be mild and good. The thing I find interesting is that he doesn’t speak much of his wife. Ulysses says at the start that she is “aged” but nothing else. In the final section I thought perhaps he spoke to her when he said “you and I are old” but the more I look at it, the more I feel like he’s talking to the sailors he spent his time with.
Mariana
Again, "Mariana" is one example of Tennyson's exceptional skill with image and mood. In responding to this, remembering our earlier discussion of the effect of setting in Gothic fiction, identify/describe the MOOD of this poem, and discuss how the images (consider here those which appeal to the senses of sound and feeling, as well as that of sight) create this mood.
The mood here is morose and dreary, as the woman keeps saying of her life, “She only said, ‘My life is dreary’”. The way things are described, the reader feels as though they are dragging through the time alongside this waiting woman. We are with her in the “moated grange” or farmhouse. A farmhouse with a moat is already a strange image to us today, though perhaps not in these times or in Shakespeare’s time during which this woman, Mariana, is plucked for this poem. Everything about her is aged or unkept, “With blackest moss the flower-plots//Were thickly crusted, one and all” Even the thatched roof of the grange is grown over with weeds “Weeded and worn the ancient thatch//Upon the lonely moated grange” This is not a cheery place. Not even the coming of the day improves things, “Till cold winds woke the gray-eyed morn//About the lonely moated grange” The light coming with the morning isn’t sunny and bringing blue skies, it is grey and chilly. She can hear the sound of the water nearby, “A sluice with blackened waters slept” Or perhaps she didn’t is the “sluice” had “slept”? Either way, again, the water is murky, black. Further on, creepy quiet noises abound, “The doors upon their hinges creaked;//The blue fly sung in the pane; the mouse//Behind the wainscot shrieked” Nearly everything is called old and though the woman is beckoned or thinks she is so, she still sits in her depression, “Old faces glimmered through the doors//Old footsteps trod the upper floors,//Old voices called her from without” I personally think the most downcast things of the whole poem is Mariana’s repetition, “She only said, ‘My life is dreary,//He cometh not,’ she said;//She said, ‘I am aweary, aweary,//I would that I were dead!’”
The mood here is morose and dreary, as the woman keeps saying of her life, “She only said, ‘My life is dreary’”. The way things are described, the reader feels as though they are dragging through the time alongside this waiting woman. We are with her in the “moated grange” or farmhouse. A farmhouse with a moat is already a strange image to us today, though perhaps not in these times or in Shakespeare’s time during which this woman, Mariana, is plucked for this poem. Everything about her is aged or unkept, “With blackest moss the flower-plots//Were thickly crusted, one and all” Even the thatched roof of the grange is grown over with weeds “Weeded and worn the ancient thatch//Upon the lonely moated grange” This is not a cheery place. Not even the coming of the day improves things, “Till cold winds woke the gray-eyed morn//About the lonely moated grange” The light coming with the morning isn’t sunny and bringing blue skies, it is grey and chilly. She can hear the sound of the water nearby, “A sluice with blackened waters slept” Or perhaps she didn’t is the “sluice” had “slept”? Either way, again, the water is murky, black. Further on, creepy quiet noises abound, “The doors upon their hinges creaked;//The blue fly sung in the pane; the mouse//Behind the wainscot shrieked” Nearly everything is called old and though the woman is beckoned or thinks she is so, she still sits in her depression, “Old faces glimmered through the doors//Old footsteps trod the upper floors,//Old voices called her from without” I personally think the most downcast things of the whole poem is Mariana’s repetition, “She only said, ‘My life is dreary,//He cometh not,’ she said;//She said, ‘I am aweary, aweary,//I would that I were dead!’”
Porphyria's Lover
In "Porphyria's Lover," we overhear the title character speaking of how he murdered his beloved Porphyria. You take it from here, but be sure to try to explain the last line.
The poem starts off almost sweet. This woman, Porphyria, loves the man, the speaker. He watches her as she enters the place, locking up behind her, and then sheds her clothing that had grown wet from the storm outdoors. “Withdrew the dripping cloak and shawl,//And laid her soiled gloves by, untied//Her hat and let her damp hair fall” She even released her hair, which from what I know of this time period these two must be intimate considering most ladies would never do such a thing in male company. He does not answer her when she calls, but she seemed unphased and just places his arm about her waist. The speaker says she’s too weak to do the things she wishes or he expects her to want. “Too weak, for all her heart’s endeavor” With what she is doing to him, however, it would seem she expects him to be weak as well. She loved him, “worshipped” him even. He wanted her to be his though, “That moment she was mine, mine, fair,//Perfectly pure and good” So he killed her. “In one long yellow string I wound//Three times her little throat around,//And strangled her” He didn’t regret it, not at all and swears she didn’t feel it, “No pain felt she;//I am quite sure she felt no pain.” Then he shifted her body to sit with him. I feel he might be an invalid or nearing death himself perhaps. She obviously trusted and loved this man, and he loved her as well, but he loved her so much he wanted to keep her with him forever. But there has come no punishment, no angel in the night to deliver either him nor her from each other. He is happy about this. “And all night long we have not stirred,//And yet god has not said a word.”
The poem starts off almost sweet. This woman, Porphyria, loves the man, the speaker. He watches her as she enters the place, locking up behind her, and then sheds her clothing that had grown wet from the storm outdoors. “Withdrew the dripping cloak and shawl,//And laid her soiled gloves by, untied//Her hat and let her damp hair fall” She even released her hair, which from what I know of this time period these two must be intimate considering most ladies would never do such a thing in male company. He does not answer her when she calls, but she seemed unphased and just places his arm about her waist. The speaker says she’s too weak to do the things she wishes or he expects her to want. “Too weak, for all her heart’s endeavor” With what she is doing to him, however, it would seem she expects him to be weak as well. She loved him, “worshipped” him even. He wanted her to be his though, “That moment she was mine, mine, fair,//Perfectly pure and good” So he killed her. “In one long yellow string I wound//Three times her little throat around,//And strangled her” He didn’t regret it, not at all and swears she didn’t feel it, “No pain felt she;//I am quite sure she felt no pain.” Then he shifted her body to sit with him. I feel he might be an invalid or nearing death himself perhaps. She obviously trusted and loved this man, and he loved her as well, but he loved her so much he wanted to keep her with him forever. But there has come no punishment, no angel in the night to deliver either him nor her from each other. He is happy about this. “And all night long we have not stirred,//And yet god has not said a word.”
The Duchess
Characterize the Duchess, and then tell us how the way he sees her differs from the way you see her.
The Duchess is portrayed as a sweet woman. She took compliments all too well, even things that weren’t always intended as compliments per say. “Sir, ‘twas not//Her husband’s presence only, called that spot//Oh joy into the Duchess’ cheek” Her husband felt she was too easily made happy by little things. It almost seems that he thought she was simple and flighty.
He didn’t find this at all fair, of course. The Duke felt that his Duchess took the gifts of other men to be equal to the gift of being wed to him and his “nine-hundred-years-old name”. He hated this so much that he “gave commands” and “the smiles stopped altogether” which leads one to wonder what exactly he has done to his first wife now that she’s passed.
The Duchess is portrayed as a sweet woman. She took compliments all too well, even things that weren’t always intended as compliments per say. “Sir, ‘twas not//Her husband’s presence only, called that spot//Oh joy into the Duchess’ cheek” Her husband felt she was too easily made happy by little things. It almost seems that he thought she was simple and flighty.
“Too easily impressed; she liked whate’er
She looked on, and her looks went everywhere.
Sir, ‘twas all one! My favor at her breast,
The dropping of the daylight in the West,
The bough of cherries some officious fool
Broke in the orchard for her, the white mule
She rode with round the terrace- all and each
Would draw from her alike the approving speech”
He didn’t find this at all fair, of course. The Duke felt that his Duchess took the gifts of other men to be equal to the gift of being wed to him and his “nine-hundred-years-old name”. He hated this so much that he “gave commands” and “the smiles stopped altogether” which leads one to wonder what exactly he has done to his first wife now that she’s passed.
In Memoriam
My selections from the poem show the speaker's (we can say Tennyson's) whole grieving process. Trace this through the selected sections. Note especially the Christmases and the two "Dark House" sections (7 and 119). TRY to relate sound to sense in doing this.
Start – 19: Here, the speaker starts off sort of addressing God and/or Jesus. “We” means not just him, but all of mankind. Here he is talking about the meaning of life, as man “thinks he is not made to die” It seems the speaker believes in God, but has less faith in religion, saying “Our little systems have their day;//They have their day and cease to be;//They are but broken lights of thee” The speaker seems to still trust in this higher power though, and asks it to forgive him his grief.
As we continue, the speaker talking about ways in which others deal with death, such as in Stanza 1, where he says “That men may rise on stepping stones//Of their dead selves to higher things.” Essentially taking what work we see from our predecessors and use it to help us learn. Then he asks though “But who shall so forecast the years//And find in loss a gain to match?” Meaning with all the great losses through the years, does what we gain from them really even out in comparison? The speaker feels that it doesn’t. The speaker is looking for ways to cope with his loss.
He envies the yew tree, Stanza 2, which never changes in its resting place amongst death.
Stanza 3, he considers accepting sorrow as it is, or “crushing” it, which to me means ignoring or denying it.
Stanza 4, he again talks of denying his sorrow, “’Thou shalt not be the fool of loss!’”
Stanza 5, he admits to “sometimes hold it half a sin//To put in words the grief [he] feels” He doesn’t even want to talk about it.
Stanza 6, “One writes, that ‘Other friends remain,’//That ‘Loss is common to the race’” and while the speaker finds this true, he finds it no comfort. There are other friends, but those are not his lost friend.
The speaker actually visits his friend’s old house, “Dark house” in Stanza 7. He awoke early to visit it and think about the man he will never clasp his hand again. He notices that “He is not here; but far away//The noise of life begins again” Life keeps going on.
Stanza 8, he compares missing his friend to a man missing his lover. He resolves however to continue with a poem “since it pleased a vanished eye”
Stanza 9 is about the sailing of his friend’s body back to England. Something I really like here is how he called Hallam “my Arthur” showing a great loyalty as Tennyson is a man who obviously enjoyed the Arthurian legends. What’s curious is what role does he feel he takes to his Arthur?
Stanza 10, keeps on about the boat and how it brings many things to the country, including “a vanished life”.
Stanza 11, keeps talking about calm and peace, but again references the ship carrying his dead friend. Even the speaker’s own calm, “If any calm, a calm despair” Which makes it seem consolable at least.
Stanza 12, again mentions the ship, this time the speaker takes the form of a dove metaphorically and searches out the ship where his friend lies. He asks “Is this the end?” he must be ready to see the burial and try to mend his heart. Not to say the mending will happen quickly.
Stanza 13, he obviously very much wanted this ship to come so the burial could finally happen. This time as he waits he compares his lose again with a man having lost not just a lover, but a wife. We can clearly see, this Hallam was like a brother to him.
Stanza 14, he doesn’t believe his friend will return to him alive, but he admits that if his friend walked off the boat fully alive and just as he’d last seen him, “[He] should not feel it to be strange.” This shows us that he is still deep down holding out some hope.
Stanza 15, here I wonder if he isn’t suggesting that nature itself is mourning now.
Stanza 19 compares his keeping his feelings inside of himself to the dammed Wye river. When it becomes vocal, he allows himself to as well.
I think part of the reason he kept wanting the ship to come related to him thinking that once the burial happened, that he could really get over his mourning or truly start to mourn instead of simply miss his friend badly.
28 – 30: Here the speaker has reached his first Christmas without his friend. The songs do not cheer him, “Swell out and fail, as is a door,//Were shut between me and the sound.” The bells make him want “no more to wake” almost. He hates that they’re still keeping Christmas even as in mourning. He has no urge to please the spirits of Christmas as “They too will die.” It sounds like the whole family is faking it through this Christmas, “We gamboled, making a vain pretense//Of gladness, with an awful sense//Of one mute Shadow watching all.” This is the first time it seems he mourns with others.
50 – 56: The speaker seems to be accepting that his friend is gone, hoping the dead man can be with him in spirit when he needs him, “Be near me when my light is low,//When the blood creeps, and the nerves prick” Again, he revisits the concept that nothing was created in vain, “That not a worm is cloven in vain” and everything has some reason to exist. The speaker does not see his reason however. He questions his faith, but considers whether it’s God or Nature who is doing him wrong. “Are God and nature so at strife,//That Nature lends such evil dreams?” He purposes that man was made by Nature and not of God so life actually has no purpose, “O life as futile, then, as frail!”
70: He seems scared of forgetting his friend. “I cannot see the features right” but he also realizes that his vision is hindered by the depression he’s feeling. “When on the gloom I strive to paint//The face I know” But when he looks within himself, he can see his friend clearly.
78 – 83: Another Christmas time, they play their games and the speaker feels that they do all still feel “the quiet sense of something lost.” This time, no one cried or showed pain any longer. It seems like they might all be dealing better, realizing they have mourned long already, “with long use her tears are dry.” The speaker does not blame Death for his friend’s passing, as such things are natural. “Nor blame I Death, because he bare//The use of virtue out of earth”. Then the following Spring, he talks about the flowers and the new year “Delaying long, delay no more” The speaker thinks that his sadness cannot follow him into the spring months. “Can trouble live with April days?//Or sadness in the summer moons?”
95: In this summery time, the speaker was struck to read old letters from his dead friend. He still felt a same connection to the man, “And all at once it seemed at last//The living soul was flashed on mine.” This seemed to actually fill him with joy. It was to him as though his friend was still there with him.
104 – 108: We start this section with another Christmas. It seems like he is in a different place from the past holidays mentioned. The family lapses on their holiday customs, “tonight ungathered let us leave//This laurel, let this holly stand” Though it isn’t said to be out of mourning, but that the family seems to have fallen out of practice. With the ringing bells at the New Year, the speaker hopes to be able to set let his mourning go, “Ring out, wild bells, and let him go.” When his friend’s birthday comes, the celebrate it instead of using the day to mourn, “With festal cheer,//With books and music, surely we//Will drink to him, whate’er he be.” It seems the speaker is starting to step back out into the world now. “I will not shut me from my kind”
119 – 120: Again we visit the house of his lost friend. It isn’t quite the same dreary visit, this time he hears “a chirp of birds” and sees “Betwixt the black fronts long-withdrawn//A light blue lane of early dawn” as though the world is awakening again and not just moving past. He leaves it, giving his friend a blessing as he goes. He comments on science and Darwin’s theory of evolution, but it seems our speaker as gotten himself back to his faith, “Let him, the wiser man who springs//hereafter, up from childhood shape//His action like the greater ape,//But I was born to other things.”
126 – Epilogue: He is obviously much more secure in his thinking and is past the pained depression of his mourning. The speaker talks of his love for his friend and how this love makes him more secure and happy. He feels that though his friend is gone, with his love for him, the man will never truly leave him, “I prosper, circled with thy voice;//I shall not lose thee tho’ I die.” In the end, we come back to the marriage of the speaker’s sister, his dead friend’s wife. The speaker expresses no ill will toward the couple and even wonders about the children their union will bring. “For all we thought and loved and did,//And hoped, and suffered, is but seed//Of what in them is flower and fruit”
Start – 19: Here, the speaker starts off sort of addressing God and/or Jesus. “We” means not just him, but all of mankind. Here he is talking about the meaning of life, as man “thinks he is not made to die” It seems the speaker believes in God, but has less faith in religion, saying “Our little systems have their day;//They have their day and cease to be;//They are but broken lights of thee” The speaker seems to still trust in this higher power though, and asks it to forgive him his grief.
As we continue, the speaker talking about ways in which others deal with death, such as in Stanza 1, where he says “That men may rise on stepping stones//Of their dead selves to higher things.” Essentially taking what work we see from our predecessors and use it to help us learn. Then he asks though “But who shall so forecast the years//And find in loss a gain to match?” Meaning with all the great losses through the years, does what we gain from them really even out in comparison? The speaker feels that it doesn’t. The speaker is looking for ways to cope with his loss.
He envies the yew tree, Stanza 2, which never changes in its resting place amongst death.
Stanza 3, he considers accepting sorrow as it is, or “crushing” it, which to me means ignoring or denying it.
Stanza 4, he again talks of denying his sorrow, “’Thou shalt not be the fool of loss!’”
Stanza 5, he admits to “sometimes hold it half a sin//To put in words the grief [he] feels” He doesn’t even want to talk about it.
Stanza 6, “One writes, that ‘Other friends remain,’//That ‘Loss is common to the race’” and while the speaker finds this true, he finds it no comfort. There are other friends, but those are not his lost friend.
The speaker actually visits his friend’s old house, “Dark house” in Stanza 7. He awoke early to visit it and think about the man he will never clasp his hand again. He notices that “He is not here; but far away//The noise of life begins again” Life keeps going on.
Stanza 8, he compares missing his friend to a man missing his lover. He resolves however to continue with a poem “since it pleased a vanished eye”
Stanza 9 is about the sailing of his friend’s body back to England. Something I really like here is how he called Hallam “my Arthur” showing a great loyalty as Tennyson is a man who obviously enjoyed the Arthurian legends. What’s curious is what role does he feel he takes to his Arthur?
Stanza 10, keeps on about the boat and how it brings many things to the country, including “a vanished life”.
Stanza 11, keeps talking about calm and peace, but again references the ship carrying his dead friend. Even the speaker’s own calm, “If any calm, a calm despair” Which makes it seem consolable at least.
Stanza 12, again mentions the ship, this time the speaker takes the form of a dove metaphorically and searches out the ship where his friend lies. He asks “Is this the end?” he must be ready to see the burial and try to mend his heart. Not to say the mending will happen quickly.
Stanza 13, he obviously very much wanted this ship to come so the burial could finally happen. This time as he waits he compares his lose again with a man having lost not just a lover, but a wife. We can clearly see, this Hallam was like a brother to him.
Stanza 14, he doesn’t believe his friend will return to him alive, but he admits that if his friend walked off the boat fully alive and just as he’d last seen him, “[He] should not feel it to be strange.” This shows us that he is still deep down holding out some hope.
Stanza 15, here I wonder if he isn’t suggesting that nature itself is mourning now.
Stanza 19 compares his keeping his feelings inside of himself to the dammed Wye river. When it becomes vocal, he allows himself to as well.
I think part of the reason he kept wanting the ship to come related to him thinking that once the burial happened, that he could really get over his mourning or truly start to mourn instead of simply miss his friend badly.
28 – 30: Here the speaker has reached his first Christmas without his friend. The songs do not cheer him, “Swell out and fail, as is a door,//Were shut between me and the sound.” The bells make him want “no more to wake” almost. He hates that they’re still keeping Christmas even as in mourning. He has no urge to please the spirits of Christmas as “They too will die.” It sounds like the whole family is faking it through this Christmas, “We gamboled, making a vain pretense//Of gladness, with an awful sense//Of one mute Shadow watching all.” This is the first time it seems he mourns with others.
50 – 56: The speaker seems to be accepting that his friend is gone, hoping the dead man can be with him in spirit when he needs him, “Be near me when my light is low,//When the blood creeps, and the nerves prick” Again, he revisits the concept that nothing was created in vain, “That not a worm is cloven in vain” and everything has some reason to exist. The speaker does not see his reason however. He questions his faith, but considers whether it’s God or Nature who is doing him wrong. “Are God and nature so at strife,//That Nature lends such evil dreams?” He purposes that man was made by Nature and not of God so life actually has no purpose, “O life as futile, then, as frail!”
70: He seems scared of forgetting his friend. “I cannot see the features right” but he also realizes that his vision is hindered by the depression he’s feeling. “When on the gloom I strive to paint//The face I know” But when he looks within himself, he can see his friend clearly.
78 – 83: Another Christmas time, they play their games and the speaker feels that they do all still feel “the quiet sense of something lost.” This time, no one cried or showed pain any longer. It seems like they might all be dealing better, realizing they have mourned long already, “with long use her tears are dry.” The speaker does not blame Death for his friend’s passing, as such things are natural. “Nor blame I Death, because he bare//The use of virtue out of earth”. Then the following Spring, he talks about the flowers and the new year “Delaying long, delay no more” The speaker thinks that his sadness cannot follow him into the spring months. “Can trouble live with April days?//Or sadness in the summer moons?”
95: In this summery time, the speaker was struck to read old letters from his dead friend. He still felt a same connection to the man, “And all at once it seemed at last//The living soul was flashed on mine.” This seemed to actually fill him with joy. It was to him as though his friend was still there with him.
104 – 108: We start this section with another Christmas. It seems like he is in a different place from the past holidays mentioned. The family lapses on their holiday customs, “tonight ungathered let us leave//This laurel, let this holly stand” Though it isn’t said to be out of mourning, but that the family seems to have fallen out of practice. With the ringing bells at the New Year, the speaker hopes to be able to set let his mourning go, “Ring out, wild bells, and let him go.” When his friend’s birthday comes, the celebrate it instead of using the day to mourn, “With festal cheer,//With books and music, surely we//Will drink to him, whate’er he be.” It seems the speaker is starting to step back out into the world now. “I will not shut me from my kind”
119 – 120: Again we visit the house of his lost friend. It isn’t quite the same dreary visit, this time he hears “a chirp of birds” and sees “Betwixt the black fronts long-withdrawn//A light blue lane of early dawn” as though the world is awakening again and not just moving past. He leaves it, giving his friend a blessing as he goes. He comments on science and Darwin’s theory of evolution, but it seems our speaker as gotten himself back to his faith, “Let him, the wiser man who springs//hereafter, up from childhood shape//His action like the greater ape,//But I was born to other things.”
126 – Epilogue: He is obviously much more secure in his thinking and is past the pained depression of his mourning. The speaker talks of his love for his friend and how this love makes him more secure and happy. He feels that though his friend is gone, with his love for him, the man will never truly leave him, “I prosper, circled with thy voice;//I shall not lose thee tho’ I die.” In the end, we come back to the marriage of the speaker’s sister, his dead friend’s wife. The speaker expresses no ill will toward the couple and even wonders about the children their union will bring. “For all we thought and loved and did,//And hoped, and suffered, is but seed//Of what in them is flower and fruit”
Fra Lippo Lippi
How does Lippi talk himself out of this rather sticky situation?
Lippo is caught out on the streets where it’s thought he shouldn’t actually be. I’m assuming it might have something to do with it being past midnight and his location, “And here you catch me at an alley’s end//Where sportive ladies leave their doors ajar?” “Sportive ladies” sounds like a nice way of suggesting they were prostitutes. I’m not sure the legality of these things at the time as the only indication of Lippo being in the wrong is that he’s caught by the men on rounds. He explains that he is a monk from Carmine, which doesn’t seem to quite do the job of getting him free. We see he is still being held when he continues on into his high friendships, “Aha, you know your betters! Then you’ll take//your hand away that’s fiddling on my throat,//And please to know me likewise.” Mentioning his acquaintance seemed to be the trick of it though, “Who am I?//Why, one, sir, who is lodging with a friend//Three streets off-he’s a certain…how d’ye call?//Master-a…Cosimo of the Medici” Saying precisely where the man lives to further the truth of it. This seemed to get the men to ease off of him so he in turn mocked them, “Remember and tell me, the day that you’re hanged,//How you affected such a gullet’s gripe!” “Zooks, are we pilchards, that they sweep the streets//And count fair prize what comes into this net?” “He’s Judas to a tittle, that man is!” Though he then says he’s not angry and regales them with his stories of life. I think the story telling also took them far off the subject of his unknown doings about in that hour and place, but really he was fine before it.”
Lippo is caught out on the streets where it’s thought he shouldn’t actually be. I’m assuming it might have something to do with it being past midnight and his location, “And here you catch me at an alley’s end//Where sportive ladies leave their doors ajar?” “Sportive ladies” sounds like a nice way of suggesting they were prostitutes. I’m not sure the legality of these things at the time as the only indication of Lippo being in the wrong is that he’s caught by the men on rounds. He explains that he is a monk from Carmine, which doesn’t seem to quite do the job of getting him free. We see he is still being held when he continues on into his high friendships, “Aha, you know your betters! Then you’ll take//your hand away that’s fiddling on my throat,//And please to know me likewise.” Mentioning his acquaintance seemed to be the trick of it though, “Who am I?//Why, one, sir, who is lodging with a friend//Three streets off-he’s a certain…how d’ye call?//Master-a…Cosimo of the Medici” Saying precisely where the man lives to further the truth of it. This seemed to get the men to ease off of him so he in turn mocked them, “Remember and tell me, the day that you’re hanged,//How you affected such a gullet’s gripe!” “Zooks, are we pilchards, that they sweep the streets//And count fair prize what comes into this net?” “He’s Judas to a tittle, that man is!” Though he then says he’s not angry and regales them with his stories of life. I think the story telling also took them far off the subject of his unknown doings about in that hour and place, but really he was fine before it.”
The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim's Point
In "The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim's Point," a dramatic monologue, she takes aim at slavery in America. In responding to/explicating this, treat it as a dramatic monologue. Who is speaking? What is the situation? How do we know? Also discuss whether and how this is an effective way of arguing against slavery.
The speaker is a slave on the run. She has made it to Pilgrim’s Point, or Plymouth Rock, in Massachusetts. The woman addressed the spirits of the long dead pilgrims, “O piligrim-souls, I speak to you!” She seemed to think herself and her race lower than the whites that make them work, as she says that she knows God made her, but “He must have cast his work away//Under the feet of his white creatures”. It looks like she questions this position she’s been placed in, “And yet He has made dark things//To be glad and merry as light”. She speaks of her own life, the love she was given by another slave, “And tender and full was the look he gave-//Could a slave look so at another slave?” and the freedom she felt from that, “And from that hour our spirits grew//As free as if unsold, unbought” This man she loved so much was killed, or at least beaten and taken away, but considering “They wrung [her] cold hands out of his,//They dragged him-where? I crawled to touch//His blood marks in the dust” we as the reader at least see that this man is out of the picture. The men that took him away also raped her, “Wrong, followed by a deeper wrong!//Mere grief’s too good for such as I://So the white men brought the same ere long” Which led to her pregnancy with a mixed child that appeared more white than black. “And the babe that lay on my bosom so,//Was far too white, too white for me” Because of this and she killed her baby. She carried the dead body about with her still though, until she ran off to bury it. Once buried, she considered the child black now that the dead body was covered in dirt, “All, changed to black earth,-nothing white,-//A dark child in the dark!” This is the point where we come to the present, where the women had first been addressing the ghosts. Now she is addressing the reader, who is placed amongst the white men. They hang her, thinking she is mad, but she knows she’ll see “the white child waiting for me.”
The speaker is strong and a good voice against slavery. Her story is utterly sad and easy to sympathize with. I think it’s a fine argument against slavery. Toward the end, she appeals to Christianity and essentially says that slavery goes against it, “Two kinds of men in adverse rows,//Each loathing each; and all forget//The seven wounds in Christ’s body fair” which if that didn’t hit home for at least the educated Christians reading, I’d be surprised.
You get the speaker and the situation, but you still don't get the (present) audience in the poem: her pursuers.
The screwy time frame sometimes throws me off. As best I can determine, her pursuers don't really know or care about the situation of her dead child which she had killed. They were likely more concerned with her being a runaway than any other action she'd taken up on this journey. They were just sent to deal with her and find her mad. Truthfully, they wouldn't be wrong, but it was the white men handling of her and the pale skin of her child I feel that drove her to that.
Not as influential as "Cry of the Children"
True. I know someone else said it before and I'm going to guess Ash, but don't quote me on that, but someone had said it was difficult to sympathize with the speaker because while she is in a sad and desperate situation, she still murdered her child. I think it's the shock of that and how she loves it more once it's in the ground that made me feel for her more. I can see what you mean about the poem addressing slavery in America and therefore not hitting home with the English as much. It's true, their situation in England is much different and it makes good sense for the plight of the children to be more hard hitting.
The speaker is a slave on the run. She has made it to Pilgrim’s Point, or Plymouth Rock, in Massachusetts. The woman addressed the spirits of the long dead pilgrims, “O piligrim-souls, I speak to you!” She seemed to think herself and her race lower than the whites that make them work, as she says that she knows God made her, but “He must have cast his work away//Under the feet of his white creatures”. It looks like she questions this position she’s been placed in, “And yet He has made dark things//To be glad and merry as light”. She speaks of her own life, the love she was given by another slave, “And tender and full was the look he gave-//Could a slave look so at another slave?” and the freedom she felt from that, “And from that hour our spirits grew//As free as if unsold, unbought” This man she loved so much was killed, or at least beaten and taken away, but considering “They wrung [her] cold hands out of his,//They dragged him-where? I crawled to touch//His blood marks in the dust” we as the reader at least see that this man is out of the picture. The men that took him away also raped her, “Wrong, followed by a deeper wrong!//Mere grief’s too good for such as I://So the white men brought the same ere long” Which led to her pregnancy with a mixed child that appeared more white than black. “And the babe that lay on my bosom so,//Was far too white, too white for me” Because of this and she killed her baby. She carried the dead body about with her still though, until she ran off to bury it. Once buried, she considered the child black now that the dead body was covered in dirt, “All, changed to black earth,-nothing white,-//A dark child in the dark!” This is the point where we come to the present, where the women had first been addressing the ghosts. Now she is addressing the reader, who is placed amongst the white men. They hang her, thinking she is mad, but she knows she’ll see “the white child waiting for me.”
The speaker is strong and a good voice against slavery. Her story is utterly sad and easy to sympathize with. I think it’s a fine argument against slavery. Toward the end, she appeals to Christianity and essentially says that slavery goes against it, “Two kinds of men in adverse rows,//Each loathing each; and all forget//The seven wounds in Christ’s body fair” which if that didn’t hit home for at least the educated Christians reading, I’d be surprised.
You get the speaker and the situation, but you still don't get the (present) audience in the poem: her pursuers.
The screwy time frame sometimes throws me off. As best I can determine, her pursuers don't really know or care about the situation of her dead child which she had killed. They were likely more concerned with her being a runaway than any other action she'd taken up on this journey. They were just sent to deal with her and find her mad. Truthfully, they wouldn't be wrong, but it was the white men handling of her and the pale skin of her child I feel that drove her to that.
Not as influential as "Cry of the Children"
True. I know someone else said it before and I'm going to guess Ash, but don't quote me on that, but someone had said it was difficult to sympathize with the speaker because while she is in a sad and desperate situation, she still murdered her child. I think it's the shock of that and how she loves it more once it's in the ground that made me feel for her more. I can see what you mean about the poem addressing slavery in America and therefore not hitting home with the English as much. It's true, their situation in England is much different and it makes good sense for the plight of the children to be more hard hitting.
The Cry of the Children
In "The Cry of the Children," she paints a wrenching picture of the plight of child laborers, alternating appeals to the reader with the children’s' own descriptions of their conditions. In responding to/explicating this, consider both the appeals and the children’s voices.
The poem is spoken by an adult, someone amongst those who might not have seen the plight of the children at first and wishes to educate about the problem. They ask “Do ye hear the children weeping, O my brothers,//Ere the sorrow comes with years?” These children are suffering and there is no comfort, “They are leaning their young heads against their mothers,//And that cannot stop their tears.” These children are being denied the same freedoms that other simpler creatures are permitted, “They are weeping in the playtime of the others,//In the country of the free.” The speaker is expecting to be questioned, for others to ask why the children are crying. While the speaker does respond, it is left to the children to do so as well. They are young and feel weak, they do not understand why only the old are expected to die and they are not, “‘Ask for the aged why they weep, and not the children,//For the outside earth is cold,//And we young ones stand without, in our bewildering,//And the graves are for the old.” They feel like death could almost be a blessing compared to what they’re going through working, they talk specifically about one girl, Alice who they are sure is better off dead as “merry go her moments, lulled and stilled in//The shroud by the kirk chime.” Then they feel for themselves that it’s better to die early, “‘It is good when it happens,’ say the children,// ‘That we die before our time.’” The children say when told they should go out and play in the meadows, that “‘cannot run or leap;//If we cared for meadows, it were merely//To drop down in them and sleep.’” These are children forced to work and not permitted a childhood. They don’t know the joy of running in the meadows or picking flowers because they’ve never done such things. This piece is tragic and really expresses what Barrett Browning was going for I feel. That being sorrow for these poor children and outrage that such things were ever so.
The poem is spoken by an adult, someone amongst those who might not have seen the plight of the children at first and wishes to educate about the problem. They ask “Do ye hear the children weeping, O my brothers,//Ere the sorrow comes with years?” These children are suffering and there is no comfort, “They are leaning their young heads against their mothers,//And that cannot stop their tears.” These children are being denied the same freedoms that other simpler creatures are permitted, “They are weeping in the playtime of the others,//In the country of the free.” The speaker is expecting to be questioned, for others to ask why the children are crying. While the speaker does respond, it is left to the children to do so as well. They are young and feel weak, they do not understand why only the old are expected to die and they are not, “‘Ask for the aged why they weep, and not the children,//For the outside earth is cold,//And we young ones stand without, in our bewildering,//And the graves are for the old.” They feel like death could almost be a blessing compared to what they’re going through working, they talk specifically about one girl, Alice who they are sure is better off dead as “merry go her moments, lulled and stilled in//The shroud by the kirk chime.” Then they feel for themselves that it’s better to die early, “‘It is good when it happens,’ say the children,// ‘That we die before our time.’” The children say when told they should go out and play in the meadows, that “‘cannot run or leap;//If we cared for meadows, it were merely//To drop down in them and sleep.’” These are children forced to work and not permitted a childhood. They don’t know the joy of running in the meadows or picking flowers because they’ve never done such things. This piece is tragic and really expresses what Barrett Browning was going for I feel. That being sorrow for these poor children and outrage that such things were ever so.
The Function of Criticism at the Present Time
What (and how) does Arnold argue about the importance of criticism in his time? Consider here what he says about BOTH literature and society.
It sounds like critics have almost been left by the wayside at his time with the way he takes it. Arnold thinks this is a travesty, using a quote from himself stating that “almost the last thing for which one would come to English literature is just that very thing which Europe most desires- criticism” The funny fact of this though is that criticism was almost too harsh in the past era and has seemed to of gone to another extreme from the way Arnold puts it. I mean, I’m drawing a blank on whom, though I want to say Keats, but I remember specifically that it was thought that harsh criticism it what weakened him and lead to his death. We know how much he respects Wordsworth, but this prose shows his honesty as he blatantly disagrees with the man. He mentioned Wordsworth feelings against criticism, “Wordsworth holds the critical power very low, indefinitely lower than inventive; and he said today that if the quantity of times consumed in writing critiques on the works of others were given to original composition… it would be much better employed” but Arnold counters, bringing up that Wordsworth himself was a critic as well as poet. Arnold suggests that Wordsworth wasn’t again criticism as much as harsh criticism, “However, everybody would admit that a false or malicious criticism had better never been written.” Arnold is very much in favor or criticism, but I feel he wishes for honesty, rather than simply harsh words meant to injure. Again, he also mentions Goethe as a fine critic, which considering the opinion of him mentioned in Memorial Verses makes excellent sense. Arnold felt that Goethe could pinpoint problems easily and tell it how it was. I think Arnold felt that proper criticism and a wider range of reading experience during the previous era would have helped the writers of the time. He doesn’t dislike the writers, he specifically says of Wordsworth that “I admire Wordsworth, as he is, so much that I cannot wish him different; and it is vain, no doubt, to imagine such a man different from what he is, to suppose that he could have been different.” It doesn’t stop him from wondering what Wordsworth could have done were he a more read man or what he might have taken from criticism were he again a more read man. Really, much of society could have been changed for the sake of being more well read.
It sounds like critics have almost been left by the wayside at his time with the way he takes it. Arnold thinks this is a travesty, using a quote from himself stating that “almost the last thing for which one would come to English literature is just that very thing which Europe most desires- criticism” The funny fact of this though is that criticism was almost too harsh in the past era and has seemed to of gone to another extreme from the way Arnold puts it. I mean, I’m drawing a blank on whom, though I want to say Keats, but I remember specifically that it was thought that harsh criticism it what weakened him and lead to his death. We know how much he respects Wordsworth, but this prose shows his honesty as he blatantly disagrees with the man. He mentioned Wordsworth feelings against criticism, “Wordsworth holds the critical power very low, indefinitely lower than inventive; and he said today that if the quantity of times consumed in writing critiques on the works of others were given to original composition… it would be much better employed” but Arnold counters, bringing up that Wordsworth himself was a critic as well as poet. Arnold suggests that Wordsworth wasn’t again criticism as much as harsh criticism, “However, everybody would admit that a false or malicious criticism had better never been written.” Arnold is very much in favor or criticism, but I feel he wishes for honesty, rather than simply harsh words meant to injure. Again, he also mentions Goethe as a fine critic, which considering the opinion of him mentioned in Memorial Verses makes excellent sense. Arnold felt that Goethe could pinpoint problems easily and tell it how it was. I think Arnold felt that proper criticism and a wider range of reading experience during the previous era would have helped the writers of the time. He doesn’t dislike the writers, he specifically says of Wordsworth that “I admire Wordsworth, as he is, so much that I cannot wish him different; and it is vain, no doubt, to imagine such a man different from what he is, to suppose that he could have been different.” It doesn’t stop him from wondering what Wordsworth could have done were he a more read man or what he might have taken from criticism were he again a more read man. Really, much of society could have been changed for the sake of being more well read.
Culture and Anarchy: Ch 1, Sweetness and Light
In the "Sweetness and Light" section, Arnold takes aim at the Puritan element (of Dissenting, or Independent, Christians) in middle class English culture.
What does Arnold argue is wrong with the "Puritan" element in English society, and how does he argue this? How does he contrast this (consider here the way he SORT OF allows religion its positive value) with the "sweetness and light" which men of "culture and poetry" try to promote?
Here Arnold proposes that the Puritan's Independents organization holds their faith "The Dissidence of Dissent and the Protestantism of the Protestant religion" which Arnold relates to his concept of perfection, "sweetness and light". What Arnold says was being suggested is that one has no need for poetry or reading, but only of religion and the church, which is given to us in the language that "is in our mouths every day." He understands others respecting their religion, as it's something they believe in, that has done so much for them and started them down the road of "perfection" though it "wears such a brand of imperfection on its forehead as this." He feels the good of it, even just supposed good, can blind people to the imperfection. These people "can only be reached by the criticism which culture, like poetry, speaking of language not to be sophisticated, and resolutely testing these organizations by the ideal of a human perfection complete on all sides, applies to them." The only way people can see the downfalls of this religion is by knowledge brought to them via criticisms and poetry, which their religion puts down. It seems that Arnold is disgusted by the good things of the Puritans being so applauded, while the good side of regular educated men are not. Men who have many faults as well as many positive points are only seen for their faults, where as the Puritan church is seen only for it's positives and ideal of perfection. "And they have been punished for their failure, as the Puritan has been rewarded for his performance." But obviously these men still have Arnold's respect for their ideals, while the Puritans do not.
"They have been punished wherein they erred; but their ideal of beauty, of sweetness and light, and a human nature complete on all sides, remains the true ideal of perfection; just as the Puritann's ideal of perfection remains narrow and inadequate, although for what he did well he has been richly rewarded."
What does Arnold argue is wrong with the "Puritan" element in English society, and how does he argue this? How does he contrast this (consider here the way he SORT OF allows religion its positive value) with the "sweetness and light" which men of "culture and poetry" try to promote?
Here Arnold proposes that the Puritan's Independents organization holds their faith "The Dissidence of Dissent and the Protestantism of the Protestant religion" which Arnold relates to his concept of perfection, "sweetness and light". What Arnold says was being suggested is that one has no need for poetry or reading, but only of religion and the church, which is given to us in the language that "is in our mouths every day." He understands others respecting their religion, as it's something they believe in, that has done so much for them and started them down the road of "perfection" though it "wears such a brand of imperfection on its forehead as this." He feels the good of it, even just supposed good, can blind people to the imperfection. These people "can only be reached by the criticism which culture, like poetry, speaking of language not to be sophisticated, and resolutely testing these organizations by the ideal of a human perfection complete on all sides, applies to them." The only way people can see the downfalls of this religion is by knowledge brought to them via criticisms and poetry, which their religion puts down. It seems that Arnold is disgusted by the good things of the Puritans being so applauded, while the good side of regular educated men are not. Men who have many faults as well as many positive points are only seen for their faults, where as the Puritan church is seen only for it's positives and ideal of perfection. "And they have been punished for their failure, as the Puritan has been rewarded for his performance." But obviously these men still have Arnold's respect for their ideals, while the Puritans do not.
"They have been punished wherein they erred; but their ideal of beauty, of sweetness and light, and a human nature complete on all sides, remains the true ideal of perfection; just as the Puritann's ideal of perfection remains narrow and inadequate, although for what he did well he has been richly rewarded."
Literature and Science vs. Science and Culture
In your opinion, who "wins" this debate? Why and how?
Huxley has a good point. He’s tired of science not garnering respect as a field of study. Considering the newness of the subject at this time, I can’t say I’m exactly surprised. He comes off insulting almost, suggesting that “practically men” are extinct in his current era. Huxley is obviously a well read man himself, easily referencing Milton and Shakespeare. He specifically calls up Arnold as well, specifically his thought of criticism and literature. He agrees on the factor of criticism being necessary, but he disagrees on the factor of literature being the only source. I feel that Arnold wins this debate. He takes a better stance of the argument, covering Huxley’s side as well as his own. Again, he shows respect for both sides of the battle. What he suggests is that Huxley felt that a knowledge of literature was wrong in that it was a person’s only knowledge. That they did not learn from it, but only memorized it and could run about quoting it as they pleased. Arnold disagrees with it, saying that “I mean more than a knowledge of so much vocabulary, so much grammar, so many portions of authors in the Greek and Latin languages, I mean knowing the Greeks and Romans, and their life and genius” so it seems as though Huxley had over simplified the argument on his side. So of course Arnold wins.
Huxley has a good point. He’s tired of science not garnering respect as a field of study. Considering the newness of the subject at this time, I can’t say I’m exactly surprised. He comes off insulting almost, suggesting that “practically men” are extinct in his current era. Huxley is obviously a well read man himself, easily referencing Milton and Shakespeare. He specifically calls up Arnold as well, specifically his thought of criticism and literature. He agrees on the factor of criticism being necessary, but he disagrees on the factor of literature being the only source. I feel that Arnold wins this debate. He takes a better stance of the argument, covering Huxley’s side as well as his own. Again, he shows respect for both sides of the battle. What he suggests is that Huxley felt that a knowledge of literature was wrong in that it was a person’s only knowledge. That they did not learn from it, but only memorized it and could run about quoting it as they pleased. Arnold disagrees with it, saying that “I mean more than a knowledge of so much vocabulary, so much grammar, so many portions of authors in the Greek and Latin languages, I mean knowing the Greeks and Romans, and their life and genius” so it seems as though Huxley had over simplified the argument on his side. So of course Arnold wins.
Dover Beach
Describe the situation, and discuss what the speaker says (and HOW he says it) to his beloved about faith and love.
The speaker is looking out the window at the view. He beckons another to join him, a lover. The speaker isn’t so much admiring the view as he is observing it and wishing to share it with this lover. It seemed peaceful and nice at first, “The sea is calm tonight,//The tide is full, the moon lies fair//Upon the straits” The further we get, the more agitated the ocean seems to become. “Listen! you hear the grating roar//Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling//At their return, up the high strand,//Begin, and cease, and then again begin” This could be a comment on the repetition of life or the constant back and forth arguments of things, such as faith and love versus science. Faith, the speaker suggests, is crumpled and collected in a confusing state, though it was previously spread out and open, easy to make sense of. “The Sea of Faith//Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore//Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.” He fears faith is leaving, or he himself is losing it, which is a statement on the times as faith was a big question as science was explaining more and more, changing the way people think and causing greater questions.
Love, the speaker has greater belief and hope in. He wants to at least. He begs his lover, “let us be true//to one another!” because he has no faith in anything outside of love. The speaker doesn’t trust the world and feels he can only trust in himself and his lover, but only if she did the same.
They are alone with each other, which harkens back to the Marquerite poems with the feeling of isolation. “And we are here as on a darkling plain//Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,//Where ignorant armies clash by night”
Arnold has a excellent grasp of the age! There's no denying that. His writing I felt had a sort of realness, something that I thought Wordsworth also had and I personally liked.
Good connection to the speaker in the "Marguerite" poems--again, maybe "reduced" Byrons?
Certainly! Arnold's speakers are less bad and put on the front of not being stoic with their great love. They are not as much self-outcasted as they are self-isolated, but instead of doing it because of judging society or some past hurt or whatever reasoning a Byronic hero might use, they have lost faith in anything but their love.
As a love poem: how would you feel if a guy addressed you like this?
I do feel can be a love poem. He wants to trust her and have her trust in him, each other being the only thing they can depend on. If a guy said that to me though, I'd feel incredibly overwhelmed. He basically says that the world sucks, so we can only trust in each other. That's extremely pessimistic and needy.
The speaker is looking out the window at the view. He beckons another to join him, a lover. The speaker isn’t so much admiring the view as he is observing it and wishing to share it with this lover. It seemed peaceful and nice at first, “The sea is calm tonight,//The tide is full, the moon lies fair//Upon the straits” The further we get, the more agitated the ocean seems to become. “Listen! you hear the grating roar//Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling//At their return, up the high strand,//Begin, and cease, and then again begin” This could be a comment on the repetition of life or the constant back and forth arguments of things, such as faith and love versus science. Faith, the speaker suggests, is crumpled and collected in a confusing state, though it was previously spread out and open, easy to make sense of. “The Sea of Faith//Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore//Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.” He fears faith is leaving, or he himself is losing it, which is a statement on the times as faith was a big question as science was explaining more and more, changing the way people think and causing greater questions.
“But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.”
Love, the speaker has greater belief and hope in. He wants to at least. He begs his lover, “let us be true//to one another!” because he has no faith in anything outside of love. The speaker doesn’t trust the world and feels he can only trust in himself and his lover, but only if she did the same.
“For the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath neither joy, nor love, not light,
Nor certitude, not peace, nor help for pain”
They are alone with each other, which harkens back to the Marquerite poems with the feeling of isolation. “And we are here as on a darkling plain//Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,//Where ignorant armies clash by night”
Arnold has a excellent grasp of the age! There's no denying that. His writing I felt had a sort of realness, something that I thought Wordsworth also had and I personally liked.
Good connection to the speaker in the "Marguerite" poems--again, maybe "reduced" Byrons?
Certainly! Arnold's speakers are less bad and put on the front of not being stoic with their great love. They are not as much self-outcasted as they are self-isolated, but instead of doing it because of judging society or some past hurt or whatever reasoning a Byronic hero might use, they have lost faith in anything but their love.
As a love poem: how would you feel if a guy addressed you like this?
I do feel can be a love poem. He wants to trust her and have her trust in him, each other being the only thing they can depend on. If a guy said that to me though, I'd feel incredibly overwhelmed. He basically says that the world sucks, so we can only trust in each other. That's extremely pessimistic and needy.
Memorial Verses
"Memorial Verses" (pp.1358-60) can be read as Arnold's own reflections on the poets of the previous generation, primarily Wordsworth, to whom this is an elegy. Arnold, as a young man, knew and looked up to Wordsworth. What does he say (and HOW does he say it) about Wordsworth's value? About the other poets?
Wordsworth is such a focus for this poem that frankly it could almost be called Wordsworth and be gotten away with. The speaker refers to Wordsworth of “the last poetic voice” which makes good sense as he was the last of his generation of poets to pass on. The speaker talks about Wordsworth as a calming introduction to darker things, comparable to the song of mythical Orpheus, singing from Hades:
The speaker feels that Wordsworth made a big dent on the literary world. Wordsworth took us from the “iron time//Of doubts, disputes, distractions, fears” suggesting a time of coldness and many problems back to a time where we could appreciate the earth around us.
The speaker goes as far to say that “our youth returned; for there was shed//On spirits that had long been dead” meaning that Wordsworth was revealing to people an almost childlike joy in his writing at times, which I fully agree with. Wordsworth’s appreciation for children and innocence was often evident. The speaker though he respects other poets that he knows and likely feels too were great at times, he has such appreciation for Wordsworth and love of what the man has created that he sets him on a higher pedestal. “Again find Wordsworth’s healing power?... But who, ah! Who, will make us feel?”
Wordsworth was well respected, though he does mention others in passing. Goethe and Byron are both mentioned. The speaker says that Byron “taught us little; but our soul//Had felt him like the thunder’s roll.//With shivering heart the strife we saw//Of passion with eternal law” Which to me feels that while he enjoyed Byron’s work and was touched by it at times, as he knew many were by the man’s deep passion, the speaker himself did not feel he learned from Byron. As for Goethe, a German poet (I believe?), he seems to have a deeper respect for his work, calling him a “Physician of the iron age” and appreciate his almost painful accuracy, “He reach each wound, each weakness clear;//And struck his finger on the place,//And said: Thou ailest here and here!” That Goethe was a man who could identify problems of society. The speaker does belief that there could be other Goethe-like or Byronic poets, “time may restore us in his course//Goethe’s sage mind and Byron’s force” though he doubts this is likely for Wordsworth. Considering he lives in an era which demanded readers to “Close thy Byron; open thy Goethe" it’s actually interesting he mentions these two specifically.
Wordsworth is such a focus for this poem that frankly it could almost be called Wordsworth and be gotten away with. The speaker refers to Wordsworth of “the last poetic voice” which makes good sense as he was the last of his generation of poets to pass on. The speaker talks about Wordsworth as a calming introduction to darker things, comparable to the song of mythical Orpheus, singing from Hades:
“For never has such a soothing voice
Been to your shadowy world conveyed,
Since erst, at morn, some wandering shade
Heard the clear song of Orpheus come
Through Hades, and the mournful gloom.”
The speaker feels that Wordsworth made a big dent on the literary world. Wordsworth took us from the “iron time//Of doubts, disputes, distractions, fears” suggesting a time of coldness and many problems back to a time where we could appreciate the earth around us.
“He found us when age had bound
Our souls in its benumbing round;
He spoke, and loosened our heart in tears.
He laid us as we lay at birth
On the cool flowery lap of earth.”
The speaker goes as far to say that “our youth returned; for there was shed//On spirits that had long been dead” meaning that Wordsworth was revealing to people an almost childlike joy in his writing at times, which I fully agree with. Wordsworth’s appreciation for children and innocence was often evident. The speaker though he respects other poets that he knows and likely feels too were great at times, he has such appreciation for Wordsworth and love of what the man has created that he sets him on a higher pedestal. “Again find Wordsworth’s healing power?... But who, ah! Who, will make us feel?”
Wordsworth was well respected, though he does mention others in passing. Goethe and Byron are both mentioned. The speaker says that Byron “taught us little; but our soul//Had felt him like the thunder’s roll.//With shivering heart the strife we saw//Of passion with eternal law” Which to me feels that while he enjoyed Byron’s work and was touched by it at times, as he knew many were by the man’s deep passion, the speaker himself did not feel he learned from Byron. As for Goethe, a German poet (I believe?), he seems to have a deeper respect for his work, calling him a “Physician of the iron age” and appreciate his almost painful accuracy, “He reach each wound, each weakness clear;//And struck his finger on the place,//And said: Thou ailest here and here!” That Goethe was a man who could identify problems of society. The speaker does belief that there could be other Goethe-like or Byronic poets, “time may restore us in his course//Goethe’s sage mind and Byron’s force” though he doubts this is likely for Wordsworth. Considering he lives in an era which demanded readers to “Close thy Byron; open thy Goethe" it’s actually interesting he mentions these two specifically.
Isolation: To Marguerite & To Marguerite--Continued
Characterize the speaker in these poems, focusing on the language he uses to express his views on love.
The speaker is in love and wished to remain so. He longed for her and wanted to only miss her and not open himself up to others, “I bade my heart be more constant” and “grow a home for only thee”. Being away from his love for so long though has made him shut his heart away from others and grow lonely, “The heart can bide itself away” Through that, he still retains his love of this woman and only this woman, “and thou, thou lonely heart,//Which never yet without remorse//Even for a moment didst depart//From thy remote and sphered course//To haunt the place where passions reign” He compares his love not with one passionate and outlasting time, but with one notoriously unrequited. “Back with the conscious thrill of shame//When Luna felt, that summer night…When she forsook the starry heights//To hang over Endymion’s sleep” The speaker has no real hope for his love to be returned to him. “Or, if not quite alone, yet they//Which touch thee are unmating things-//Ocean and clouds and night and day” Then in the second part, the speaker compares life to the sea, “Yes! In the sea of life enisled,//With echoing straits between us thrown” He and the woman he loves are on opposite sides, even going as far as to say that all people are alone, “We mortal millions live alone.//The islands feel the enclasping flow,//And then their endless bounds they know.” These islands, us or our very souls, still recall being a part of a whole, though, and long to return to it. “For surely once, they feel, we were//Parts of a single continent!” This is like his longing to be one with his love, though again, he knows he never can be because of essentially the grace of God.
John Donne's Meditation 17--"No man is an iland?" Hear a contrary echo of this here? Why do you think Arnold did this?
Where Donne felt that man was not alone, "All mankind is of one author and is one volume", Arnold felt the opposite. Almost absolutely opposite, which is why I think he might have used this sea and island reference. Though he didn't mention the island sentiment as much as in "Dover Beach", but the separation by the sea and the yearning for them to rejoin as if from "one continent" are still calling up the same images. I think he did this because Donna gave a strong message, "No man is an island" is still well known even today.
What do you think of the speaker Arnold creates here?
The speaker is longing and it's sweet, but sad. He loves so strongly, but he's content to just long after this woman for the rest of his days. I'd much rather read this than experience it or know someone who does.
The speaker is in love and wished to remain so. He longed for her and wanted to only miss her and not open himself up to others, “I bade my heart be more constant” and “grow a home for only thee”. Being away from his love for so long though has made him shut his heart away from others and grow lonely, “The heart can bide itself away” Through that, he still retains his love of this woman and only this woman, “and thou, thou lonely heart,//Which never yet without remorse//Even for a moment didst depart//From thy remote and sphered course//To haunt the place where passions reign” He compares his love not with one passionate and outlasting time, but with one notoriously unrequited. “Back with the conscious thrill of shame//When Luna felt, that summer night…When she forsook the starry heights//To hang over Endymion’s sleep” The speaker has no real hope for his love to be returned to him. “Or, if not quite alone, yet they//Which touch thee are unmating things-//Ocean and clouds and night and day” Then in the second part, the speaker compares life to the sea, “Yes! In the sea of life enisled,//With echoing straits between us thrown” He and the woman he loves are on opposite sides, even going as far as to say that all people are alone, “We mortal millions live alone.//The islands feel the enclasping flow,//And then their endless bounds they know.” These islands, us or our very souls, still recall being a part of a whole, though, and long to return to it. “For surely once, they feel, we were//Parts of a single continent!” This is like his longing to be one with his love, though again, he knows he never can be because of essentially the grace of God.
“Who ordered that their longing’s fire
Should be, as soon as kindled, cooled?
Who renders vain their deep desire?-
A God, a God their severance rules!
And bade betwixt their shores to be
The unplumbed, salt, estranging sea.”
John Donne's Meditation 17--"No man is an iland?" Hear a contrary echo of this here? Why do you think Arnold did this?
Where Donne felt that man was not alone, "All mankind is of one author and is one volume", Arnold felt the opposite. Almost absolutely opposite, which is why I think he might have used this sea and island reference. Though he didn't mention the island sentiment as much as in "Dover Beach", but the separation by the sea and the yearning for them to rejoin as if from "one continent" are still calling up the same images. I think he did this because Donna gave a strong message, "No man is an island" is still well known even today.
What do you think of the speaker Arnold creates here?
The speaker is longing and it's sweet, but sad. He loves so strongly, but he's content to just long after this woman for the rest of his days. I'd much rather read this than experience it or know someone who does.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Sandman Analysis
Using one of the comics or graphic novels in the text or one of your own choice, analyze/discuss the relations between pictures and text, and how the story develops between frames and from frame to frame.
A favorite graphic novel of mine was mentioned in the text, though I was unsure if I should tackle it. Since it came up, I figured, why not? I’ll be using Neil Gaiman’s Sandman as my example. I highly recommend it to adults, as it tackles some very adult-style situations and has its fair share of graphic images. As the series is rather long, I’ll just pull from the first issue, "The Sleep of the Just". The story of this issue is June 6, 1916, an English man named Roderick Burgess and a cult of men try to summon up Death, but instead they get Death's brother Dream. Through different matters and after decades of waiting, eventually Dream gets free of his enchanted prison. He punishes those that trapped him then starts going about fixing what has been injured by his absence.
As you read a comic, you eye is drawn to read as you might normally do so, left to right and from the top to the bottom. This is much the same for this comic. With this, text isn't always required. As we see in the first page there are are 8 panels and 7 word bubbles, with 4 of the bubbles being paired. We can still this this man is nervous about entering this house. The concentration on the elaborate knocker, the eye peering from a cracked door, we can see why. There is obviously something afoot, though the text has not revealed as much to us, the reader. The second page really gives us more information with the text, but little through the images. Here, they're more used to convey a certain feeling. You can tell that though Burgess has used his mission of trapping Death to get what he needs by influencing others with it, you can tell by his looks that he doesn't care about other people's feelings or interest. He wants Death under his thumb for his own reasons. This page takes a different manner of vision, as we see things from Dream's point of view from within his glass prison. The world is warped, and it's interesting to notice that Dream's thoughts appear with a black background, like the night sky. As the series continues, all of Dream's siblings (As seen with Delirium ) also have their own special style of text and speech bubbles. Then here is the page where Dream makes his escape. The previous page had the guards discussing whether or not he was dead, and here we see he has tricked them. There is not one text block on this page, the only words appearing are to show sounds and emphasize actions. But the story here is clear. Finally, a technique I personally like! Though we've seen progression of action via frames, here we see progression of time. The characters don't move, but they age and even without the year at the top, we would still understand that they were aging. Gaiman I've seen use this technique more than once and I personally rather like it.
A favorite graphic novel of mine was mentioned in the text, though I was unsure if I should tackle it. Since it came up, I figured, why not? I’ll be using Neil Gaiman’s Sandman as my example. I highly recommend it to adults, as it tackles some very adult-style situations and has its fair share of graphic images. As the series is rather long, I’ll just pull from the first issue, "The Sleep of the Just". The story of this issue is June 6, 1916, an English man named Roderick Burgess and a cult of men try to summon up Death, but instead they get Death's brother Dream. Through different matters and after decades of waiting, eventually Dream gets free of his enchanted prison. He punishes those that trapped him then starts going about fixing what has been injured by his absence.
As you read a comic, you eye is drawn to read as you might normally do so, left to right and from the top to the bottom. This is much the same for this comic. With this, text isn't always required. As we see in the first page there are are 8 panels and 7 word bubbles, with 4 of the bubbles being paired. We can still this this man is nervous about entering this house. The concentration on the elaborate knocker, the eye peering from a cracked door, we can see why. There is obviously something afoot, though the text has not revealed as much to us, the reader. The second page really gives us more information with the text, but little through the images. Here, they're more used to convey a certain feeling. You can tell that though Burgess has used his mission of trapping Death to get what he needs by influencing others with it, you can tell by his looks that he doesn't care about other people's feelings or interest. He wants Death under his thumb for his own reasons. This page takes a different manner of vision, as we see things from Dream's point of view from within his glass prison. The world is warped, and it's interesting to notice that Dream's thoughts appear with a black background, like the night sky. As the series continues, all of Dream's siblings (As seen with Delirium ) also have their own special style of text and speech bubbles. Then here is the page where Dream makes his escape. The previous page had the guards discussing whether or not he was dead, and here we see he has tricked them. There is not one text block on this page, the only words appearing are to show sounds and emphasize actions. But the story here is clear. Finally, a technique I personally like! Though we've seen progression of action via frames, here we see progression of time. The characters don't move, but they age and even without the year at the top, we would still understand that they were aging. Gaiman I've seen use this technique more than once and I personally rather like it.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Lady of Shalott
Tennyson, as our editors point out, was early on told by his friend, R.C. Trench, "Tennyson, we can't live in Art." Discuss how Tennyson might have had this in mind when writing this poem.
Living in art was exactly what the Lady of Shalott was doing. The woman was cursed to only be able to do this exact thing. “There she weaves by night and day//A magic web with colors gay,//She has heard a whisper say,//A curse is on her if she stay//To look down to Camelot.” She cannot watch out the large window down to Camelot or she would be cursed. Instead she must sit and work at her loom, only watching the land through a mirror. She cannot stop her working, she cannot go out and interact with the people. One day, she spies Lancelot and straying to the window to watch him, the curse inacts! “Out flew the web and floated wide;//The mirror cracked from side to side;//’The curse is come upon me,’ cried//The Lady of Shalott.” The Lady lived in the art and forsaking it, it left her and she died.
What did you think of the poem?
The flow is beautiful. I did Forensics competitions in high school and this poem was a favorite competition piece. I had one friend who delivered it with such eloquence! The story is sort of bitter sweet as well. Though she never met her knight, Lancelot did meet her in a way and even commented on her beauty. Tragic but lovely.
Living in art was exactly what the Lady of Shalott was doing. The woman was cursed to only be able to do this exact thing. “There she weaves by night and day//A magic web with colors gay,//She has heard a whisper say,//A curse is on her if she stay//To look down to Camelot.” She cannot watch out the large window down to Camelot or she would be cursed. Instead she must sit and work at her loom, only watching the land through a mirror. She cannot stop her working, she cannot go out and interact with the people. One day, she spies Lancelot and straying to the window to watch him, the curse inacts! “Out flew the web and floated wide;//The mirror cracked from side to side;//’The curse is come upon me,’ cried//The Lady of Shalott.” The Lady lived in the art and forsaking it, it left her and she died.
What did you think of the poem?
The flow is beautiful. I did Forensics competitions in high school and this poem was a favorite competition piece. I had one friend who delivered it with such eloquence! The story is sort of bitter sweet as well. Though she never met her knight, Lancelot did meet her in a way and even commented on her beauty. Tragic but lovely.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Child Development with Hansel & Gretel
The various sets of sequences within childhood is interesting. I've only heard of Freud's theory in the past, but not the others. Between the ones we're currently studying, I think I most enjoy Erikson's and Kohlberg's. Erikson progresses as one might naturally expect and I appreciate how adulthood is also involved here. It's not as though you reach 18 are stop changing after all. Kohlberg is a different beast entirely, seeming to tackle moral levels as opposed to actual age versus behavior. I like to look for morals and lessons in stories aimed at younger readers, so this table caught my interest in that way.
Given these different systems, I'll take the story of Hansel and Gretel to take a stab at showing examples with. We all know Hansel and Gretel by the Grimm brothers. I'll be using the exact version from our textbook considering there are other altered versions of some of these stories. I'll start with Freud. The Phallic stage can apply here in a way. Though there's no overt affection for the daughter for her father, the two are both related. Both are the weaker of the pair they are placed in (Father and Mother, Hansel and Gretel) to the point where the father can't argue against his wife and Gretel is left to entirely depend on her brother for her survival after they're abandoned. Later both characters are champions, as the father welcomes his children happily and Gretel tricks the witch into the oven, saves her brother, and even returns with pearls and jewels to save the family from being tempted to leave the children in the woods again. Hansel obviously has more of a relationship with the witch that wants to eat them than he does with their mother, though both women are portrayed in a wicked light. The witch lusts after him in a way because she wishes to eat him. Hansel doesn't have much visible interest in her though, only her food.
Since the two are similiar, I'll move on to Erikson's 8 stages. His third stage speaks of initiative and guilt. We see Hansel showing this trait, where he thinks ahead after over hearing his parents talking about leaving the children in the forest. Instead of just crying in defeat like Gretel, he fetches white stones that he drops as his parents lead them off to show the children the way home. Of course this only worked the first time.
Now Piaget's is different and easier in a way. The stages are much simpler in concept which makes this exceedingly easy. The Concrete Operational stage works well into this story I feel. We see it from three points of view, the parents', the children's, and the witch's. The problems that everyone encounters are simple though difficult in a moral sense. A child might not agree with the decisions made consider several include murder and attempted murder, so they could think about other possible solutions as well. Though this could be closer to Formal Operational.
Finally the Kohlberg stages. The moral stages are very useful for this particular story. I'd identify much of this with the Preconventional level and the first stage within that. The children obey the parents who they know are taking them out to die. They obey the witch because they think they'll only be further rewarded. The mother has no consideration for anyone besides herself when it comes to the lack of food and honestly I feel if she could get rid of her husband as easily as the children, that she wold do exactly that.
Can you add on to this the child reading the tale (or having the tale read to her or him)?
As for the child's investment in the story, I think they might not take away everything I've mentioned, but I'd think given certain stages of development, they'd at least take away valuable lessons put into print: Don't accept candy from strangers, not everyone in the world has your best interests at heart. For younger children being read to, it might be good to explain to them the unlikelihood of the situation and how mom and dad have no intentions of leaving them out in the woods to starve. I always felt like this and other Grimm brothers' stories were a little too much for younger kids that may think that sort of thing.
Given these different systems, I'll take the story of Hansel and Gretel to take a stab at showing examples with. We all know Hansel and Gretel by the Grimm brothers. I'll be using the exact version from our textbook considering there are other altered versions of some of these stories. I'll start with Freud. The Phallic stage can apply here in a way. Though there's no overt affection for the daughter for her father, the two are both related. Both are the weaker of the pair they are placed in (Father and Mother, Hansel and Gretel) to the point where the father can't argue against his wife and Gretel is left to entirely depend on her brother for her survival after they're abandoned. Later both characters are champions, as the father welcomes his children happily and Gretel tricks the witch into the oven, saves her brother, and even returns with pearls and jewels to save the family from being tempted to leave the children in the woods again. Hansel obviously has more of a relationship with the witch that wants to eat them than he does with their mother, though both women are portrayed in a wicked light. The witch lusts after him in a way because she wishes to eat him. Hansel doesn't have much visible interest in her though, only her food.
Since the two are similiar, I'll move on to Erikson's 8 stages. His third stage speaks of initiative and guilt. We see Hansel showing this trait, where he thinks ahead after over hearing his parents talking about leaving the children in the forest. Instead of just crying in defeat like Gretel, he fetches white stones that he drops as his parents lead them off to show the children the way home. Of course this only worked the first time.
Now Piaget's is different and easier in a way. The stages are much simpler in concept which makes this exceedingly easy. The Concrete Operational stage works well into this story I feel. We see it from three points of view, the parents', the children's, and the witch's. The problems that everyone encounters are simple though difficult in a moral sense. A child might not agree with the decisions made consider several include murder and attempted murder, so they could think about other possible solutions as well. Though this could be closer to Formal Operational.
Finally the Kohlberg stages. The moral stages are very useful for this particular story. I'd identify much of this with the Preconventional level and the first stage within that. The children obey the parents who they know are taking them out to die. They obey the witch because they think they'll only be further rewarded. The mother has no consideration for anyone besides herself when it comes to the lack of food and honestly I feel if she could get rid of her husband as easily as the children, that she wold do exactly that.
Can you add on to this the child reading the tale (or having the tale read to her or him)?
As for the child's investment in the story, I think they might not take away everything I've mentioned, but I'd think given certain stages of development, they'd at least take away valuable lessons put into print: Don't accept candy from strangers, not everyone in the world has your best interests at heart. For younger children being read to, it might be good to explain to them the unlikelihood of the situation and how mom and dad have no intentions of leaving them out in the woods to starve. I always felt like this and other Grimm brothers' stories were a little too much for younger kids that may think that sort of thing.
Articles on Child Development
"Factors Influencing The Development of The Idea of Childhood in Europe and America" by Jim Vandergriff & Chris Livesey on Childhood
Both articles were rather interesting, though I found myself partial to the Vandergriff article. I found it interesting how children working in factories and mines seemed to come about. Though it still has obvious glaring flaws, the logic of keeping children busy to "save their souls". The appeal of a younger work force is also logical, but I'm curious of what sort of problems this caused in the creation of literature for children. You can see why children's literature took time to truly occur considered that children were needed to work and bring income into their families. The invent of Sunday schools surely helped it out. That's just the lower classes though. All things considered, it's easy to see how children were viewed as "little adults" up until the 15th century.
I think it's crazy for children to of had to endure this, but frankly it doesn't seem like they knew anything else during this time. I was happy to see as things progressed that the hours changed, school became a bigger part of life, and children were even dressed differently than the adults they practically mirrored. That to me seems like the birth of true childhood.
Childhood has changed from the past to modern eras, even compared with our grandparents. My grandmother who would have been 98 this past December was of a similar mindset along with my grandfather. Though they were kind and nurturing people, they didn't understand why their grandchildren acting like little crazy beasts and their great-grandchildren even moreso. It's exactly as you say, they didn't have the same freedoms. I think the cause may be because this was during the age when consumption was back down (The Great Depression!) as well as early on in the process of childhood actually occurring. The definition between parent and child was almost too strong I think, and there was little respect for the child and their own freedom. I wonder if the changes in the economy these days will have any noticeable effect on childhood when people look back on us in the future.
Isn't it also interesting to consider how much longer childhood has become?
It's amazing to think about. Not just the evolving of childhood, but also the growth of of parenthood after those times as well. The change in the way the parents behaved toward their children also changed the length of the childhood period. There were honestly many factors as well though, and in the end I feel like maybe the official cap was the creation of the nuclear family which gave the child a definite different role from their parents within the family. It's shocking to realize that childhood can almost extend to as late as 18 or older in some cases. That is if you count "childhood" as anything that isn't yet "adulthood", which is honestly very simplistic.
Isn't the evolution of parenthood dependent upon the evolution of the idea of childhood?
I think they definitely evolved together since the one sort of created the need for the other. I mean, there were always children and parents, it's just that the roles have become more distinct in time.
On the "simplistic"--it is, but how else might we define those states?
Well yeah, that's the problem of it. In my mind it gets to a "do or don't" sort of situation. I like to lean toward do personally, at least by sorting terms. I'd rather not see Dr. Seuss hanging out with books like Judy Blume's "Forever". Which I've never heard of as being bad, just definitely not for the same age group of readers.
The idea of the Seuss/Blume connection is a good one--some libraries and book stores--mainly bookstores--already do a "If you liked this, you'll like this" thing, and its a way of getting kids to read stuff that might otherwise be "beyond their level."
This is exactly the sort of thing I'd like! With the huge popularity of books like Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series, young adults at least are in a good position to be shown other interesting books. Edward is the Byronic hero at his best and worst. He isn't dangerous for his personalty, but for his species. He forces himself to not have what he wants most and when he does have it, he can't feel right about keeping her and changing her to what he is. This is perfect for placement of Victorian and Romance era classic novels. The author is honestly trying to hard as she even has the characters, high school students, reading "Wuthering Heights", but I'm really going off on a tangent if I start going in to that.
Also, other Blume novel would be great, but "Forever" is too much unless it's beside "Oh The Places You Will Go" perhaps. But I still agree with the idea you brought up from that!
Both articles were rather interesting, though I found myself partial to the Vandergriff article. I found it interesting how children working in factories and mines seemed to come about. Though it still has obvious glaring flaws, the logic of keeping children busy to "save their souls". The appeal of a younger work force is also logical, but I'm curious of what sort of problems this caused in the creation of literature for children. You can see why children's literature took time to truly occur considered that children were needed to work and bring income into their families. The invent of Sunday schools surely helped it out. That's just the lower classes though. All things considered, it's easy to see how children were viewed as "little adults" up until the 15th century.
I think it's crazy for children to of had to endure this, but frankly it doesn't seem like they knew anything else during this time. I was happy to see as things progressed that the hours changed, school became a bigger part of life, and children were even dressed differently than the adults they practically mirrored. That to me seems like the birth of true childhood.
Childhood has changed from the past to modern eras, even compared with our grandparents. My grandmother who would have been 98 this past December was of a similar mindset along with my grandfather. Though they were kind and nurturing people, they didn't understand why their grandchildren acting like little crazy beasts and their great-grandchildren even moreso. It's exactly as you say, they didn't have the same freedoms. I think the cause may be because this was during the age when consumption was back down (The Great Depression!) as well as early on in the process of childhood actually occurring. The definition between parent and child was almost too strong I think, and there was little respect for the child and their own freedom. I wonder if the changes in the economy these days will have any noticeable effect on childhood when people look back on us in the future.
Isn't it also interesting to consider how much longer childhood has become?
It's amazing to think about. Not just the evolving of childhood, but also the growth of of parenthood after those times as well. The change in the way the parents behaved toward their children also changed the length of the childhood period. There were honestly many factors as well though, and in the end I feel like maybe the official cap was the creation of the nuclear family which gave the child a definite different role from their parents within the family. It's shocking to realize that childhood can almost extend to as late as 18 or older in some cases. That is if you count "childhood" as anything that isn't yet "adulthood", which is honestly very simplistic.
Isn't the evolution of parenthood dependent upon the evolution of the idea of childhood?
I think they definitely evolved together since the one sort of created the need for the other. I mean, there were always children and parents, it's just that the roles have become more distinct in time.
On the "simplistic"--it is, but how else might we define those states?
Well yeah, that's the problem of it. In my mind it gets to a "do or don't" sort of situation. I like to lean toward do personally, at least by sorting terms. I'd rather not see Dr. Seuss hanging out with books like Judy Blume's "Forever". Which I've never heard of as being bad, just definitely not for the same age group of readers.
The idea of the Seuss/Blume connection is a good one--some libraries and book stores--mainly bookstores--already do a "If you liked this, you'll like this" thing, and its a way of getting kids to read stuff that might otherwise be "beyond their level."
This is exactly the sort of thing I'd like! With the huge popularity of books like Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series, young adults at least are in a good position to be shown other interesting books. Edward is the Byronic hero at his best and worst. He isn't dangerous for his personalty, but for his species. He forces himself to not have what he wants most and when he does have it, he can't feel right about keeping her and changing her to what he is. This is perfect for placement of Victorian and Romance era classic novels. The author is honestly trying to hard as she even has the characters, high school students, reading "Wuthering Heights", but I'm really going off on a tangent if I start going in to that.
Also, other Blume novel would be great, but "Forever" is too much unless it's beside "Oh The Places You Will Go" perhaps. But I still agree with the idea you brought up from that!
Defining Children's Literature (Preface)
We learn many things from the preface. One such item is the origins of children's literature. Readings for young people started off as books teaching Latin, manners, and morals. The first book to be truly considered a children's book is "The Orbis Sensualium Pictus" by Johann Amos Comenius, a latin picture book. The genre was further assisted by the Puritans who wished to use the books to instill their religion in the young minds. This included John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" in 1678 which is actually referred to in a favorite book of mine, "Little Women". While 'Pilgrim's Progress" was also religiously educational, it was an adventure story! Then John Newberry's "A Little Pretty Pocket-Book" in 1744 was published where amusements were used instead of religion and an industry was slowly born. After this, everything started snowballing with "Robinson Crusoe", "Swiss Family Robinson", works from Williams Wordsworth, Charles Dickens, and Lewis Carroll. As literacy raised, so did the amount and quality of books.
The problem with children's literature is how to classify it and what exactly counts as children's literature. Literature in general has a great many books that appeal to many audiences, so it's difficult to pin-point the exact limits. Then there's also the genre known as young adult literature. where would something like Harry Potter fall? The books start with an 11 year old orphan, but at the end of the series you have a 17 year old man who has faced loss, love, hatred, and death. How do you define that? Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials is a lovely series that has some very serious religious themes. The difficulty of creating antholgies is entirely understandable.
You mention Dickens and Wordsworth here--younger children read them into the early 20th century than do so today. The dumbing down of children's lit is one topic we can discuss as the course progresses.
I noticed that. It's funny how few pieces of "classic" literature children are read to or read in general these days. The closest thing I think my parents read to me or that I read on my own was "The Secret Garden" by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Enjoyable, but big for it's britches when put against other books I remember like the Ramona series or The Boxcar Children. Not that either weren't good of course! I think the closest thing we have that's a little more modern is probably the Harry Potter books, though they're a controversial little can of worms in certain company. I'm currently remedying my lack slowly. I'm reading "Little Women" right now and loving it.
The problem with children's literature is how to classify it and what exactly counts as children's literature. Literature in general has a great many books that appeal to many audiences, so it's difficult to pin-point the exact limits. Then there's also the genre known as young adult literature. where would something like Harry Potter fall? The books start with an 11 year old orphan, but at the end of the series you have a 17 year old man who has faced loss, love, hatred, and death. How do you define that? Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials is a lovely series that has some very serious religious themes. The difficulty of creating antholgies is entirely understandable.
You mention Dickens and Wordsworth here--younger children read them into the early 20th century than do so today. The dumbing down of children's lit is one topic we can discuss as the course progresses.
I noticed that. It's funny how few pieces of "classic" literature children are read to or read in general these days. The closest thing I think my parents read to me or that I read on my own was "The Secret Garden" by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Enjoyable, but big for it's britches when put against other books I remember like the Ramona series or The Boxcar Children. Not that either weren't good of course! I think the closest thing we have that's a little more modern is probably the Harry Potter books, though they're a controversial little can of worms in certain company. I'm currently remedying my lack slowly. I'm reading "Little Women" right now and loving it.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Past and Present
"Love of men" vs. "Love of money"
Thomas Carlyle feels strongly that the love of man should be greater than the love of money. However, at this time he feels this is not so and has not been so for far too long, and understandably.
The examples of human kind treating each other poorly are clearly stated. "Descending, accordingly, into the Dumb Class in its Stockport Cellar and Poor-Law Bastille, have we not to announce that they are hitherto unexampled in History of Adam's Posterity?" In this quote he refers to both the workhouses for the unemployed masses as well as a situation in Stockport where parents poisoned their children so they could still collect the insurance benefits from a burial society. "Never before did I hear of an Irish Widow reduced to 'proving her sisterhood by dying of typhus-fever and infecting seventeen persons'" This was a situation he mentions later as well. This was a lecture on the sanitation system of the times. A necessary comment as sanitation and civilization go hand in hand as the former keeps the latter healthy and clean. Carlyle feels that even as a servant or underling, others can be given a fair lot, as seen in his example of Gurth from Scott's Ivanhoe. Gurth served Cedric and was born his thrall, but this was acceptable because Cedric treated him well. Gurth still got his fair cut of things. With this, though he was a thrall, Carlyle felt he was happy. "Gurth is now 'emancipated' long since' has what we call 'Liberty.' Liberty, I am told, is a Divine thing. Liberty when it becomes the 'Liberty to die by starvation' is not so divine!" Here Carlyle compares the awarded freedom of a man who has worked for his living and has thus gained the respect of life to the freedom of people who do not work, are not permitted it outside of workhouses, cannot manage jobs, are not compensated properly for jobs done, and who thus find themselves dying in the streets or, as previously mentioned, murdering their children for the money.
The clear thing we take from this is how much Carlyle despises "laissez-faire" the sort of hands of method of business at this time. The meaning of the phrase is essentially the pursuit of wealth without concern for others. Considering the grief this has caused the poor people underfoot, it's obviously not a good method for all.
Is Carlyle's argument here more socialist or fascist/authoritarian?
I'd say he'd rather a more socialist society. He wants more freedom for the people to be able to get what they need. He wants people to have a fairer chance than they've been allowed thus far. Which I agree with and he makes a good argue for. Carlyle doesn't want things made easy, he just wants people to be allowed the chance to find their "right path".
Any thoughts on his language?
His phrasing was sort of smooth. He used some more I'll say poetic phrases at times. Carlyle also makes several Biblical references which I feel probably helped get the message across in his day. Even though he turned away from his Calvinist upbringing, it was a smart move. He has no issue repeating his point in different ways to make it clear, he obviously wants to be understood in his thinking.
Thomas Carlyle feels strongly that the love of man should be greater than the love of money. However, at this time he feels this is not so and has not been so for far too long, and understandably.
The examples of human kind treating each other poorly are clearly stated. "Descending, accordingly, into the Dumb Class in its Stockport Cellar and Poor-Law Bastille, have we not to announce that they are hitherto unexampled in History of Adam's Posterity?" In this quote he refers to both the workhouses for the unemployed masses as well as a situation in Stockport where parents poisoned their children so they could still collect the insurance benefits from a burial society. "Never before did I hear of an Irish Widow reduced to 'proving her sisterhood by dying of typhus-fever and infecting seventeen persons'" This was a situation he mentions later as well. This was a lecture on the sanitation system of the times. A necessary comment as sanitation and civilization go hand in hand as the former keeps the latter healthy and clean. Carlyle feels that even as a servant or underling, others can be given a fair lot, as seen in his example of Gurth from Scott's Ivanhoe. Gurth served Cedric and was born his thrall, but this was acceptable because Cedric treated him well. Gurth still got his fair cut of things. With this, though he was a thrall, Carlyle felt he was happy. "Gurth is now 'emancipated' long since' has what we call 'Liberty.' Liberty, I am told, is a Divine thing. Liberty when it becomes the 'Liberty to die by starvation' is not so divine!" Here Carlyle compares the awarded freedom of a man who has worked for his living and has thus gained the respect of life to the freedom of people who do not work, are not permitted it outside of workhouses, cannot manage jobs, are not compensated properly for jobs done, and who thus find themselves dying in the streets or, as previously mentioned, murdering their children for the money.
The clear thing we take from this is how much Carlyle despises "laissez-faire" the sort of hands of method of business at this time. The meaning of the phrase is essentially the pursuit of wealth without concern for others. Considering the grief this has caused the poor people underfoot, it's obviously not a good method for all.
Is Carlyle's argument here more socialist or fascist/authoritarian?
I'd say he'd rather a more socialist society. He wants more freedom for the people to be able to get what they need. He wants people to have a fairer chance than they've been allowed thus far. Which I agree with and he makes a good argue for. Carlyle doesn't want things made easy, he just wants people to be allowed the chance to find their "right path".
Any thoughts on his language?
His phrasing was sort of smooth. He used some more I'll say poetic phrases at times. Carlyle also makes several Biblical references which I feel probably helped get the message across in his day. Even though he turned away from his Calvinist upbringing, it was a smart move. He has no issue repeating his point in different ways to make it clear, he obviously wants to be understood in his thinking.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
incomplete
1) How does Newman define "Liberal" and "Useful" education? Which of the two does he promote? How and why?
---
Newman feels there are two different types of knowledge and education, Liberal and Useful. Useful knowledge is more technical and practical. This is the scientific knowledge of creation, and thus especially useful during this age of technological advances. Newman finds it to be good and of it's own sort of use, but he feels eventually it becomes so specific that it is no longer knowledge. I feel he means that it becomes so specialized that it can only be useful for something in particular and not a knowledge good for discussion and sharing. Liberal knowledge is more philosophical. This education is much more generalized and rounded out. Newman I feel prefers it because this is what he himself shares in. Liberal knowledge is something to expand upon and be
---
Newman feels there are two different types of knowledge and education, Liberal and Useful. Useful knowledge is more technical and practical. This is the scientific knowledge of creation, and thus especially useful during this age of technological advances. Newman finds it to be good and of it's own sort of use, but he feels eventually it becomes so specific that it is no longer knowledge. I feel he means that it becomes so specialized that it can only be useful for something in particular and not a knowledge good for discussion and sharing. Liberal knowledge is more philosophical. This education is much more generalized and rounded out. Newman I feel prefers it because this is what he himself shares in. Liberal knowledge is something to expand upon and be
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Mont Blanc
What questions do the speaker in this poem ask? What answers does he give or receive?
This speaker has larger questions of his surroundings than Wordsworth seemed to. In Stanza 3, he questions the mountain, Mont Blanc. "Has some unknown omnipotence unfurled//The veil of life and death?" He doesn't believe the thing he is seeing that is the mountain and wonder if it might be a dream, "...or do I lie//In dream, and does the mightier world of sleep//Spread far around and inaccessibly//Its circles?" He can't even believe he is awake, that is how astonishing the sight of this place is to him. Other parts he casts in myth, "Is this the scene//Where the old Earthquake-daemon taught her young//Ruin? Were these their toys? or did a sea//Of fire, envelope once this silent snow?" He knows though that he will never be told the answer to this as "None can reply-all seems eternal now." Though he finds the voice of the mountain useful in finding the truth or at least denying the false, "Thou hast a voice, great Mountain, to repel//Large codes of fraud and woe"
In the fifth stanza, he again brings up an interesting question this is not answered directly. "And what art thou, and earth, and stars, and sea,//If to the human mind's imagining//Silence and solitude were vacancy?" Addressed to the mountain. What are Mont Blanc and all the natural wonders of the world if the people find in them nothing but "silence and solitude" which they find to be nothing, or at least the lack of anything? The fact is that silence and solitude are refreshing and often invigorating. However, people do often forget and overlook such wondrous sights, which I feel is part of the point he hopes to express.
This speaker has larger questions of his surroundings than Wordsworth seemed to. In Stanza 3, he questions the mountain, Mont Blanc. "Has some unknown omnipotence unfurled//The veil of life and death?" He doesn't believe the thing he is seeing that is the mountain and wonder if it might be a dream, "...or do I lie//In dream, and does the mightier world of sleep//Spread far around and inaccessibly//Its circles?" He can't even believe he is awake, that is how astonishing the sight of this place is to him. Other parts he casts in myth, "Is this the scene//Where the old Earthquake-daemon taught her young//Ruin? Were these their toys? or did a sea//Of fire, envelope once this silent snow?" He knows though that he will never be told the answer to this as "None can reply-all seems eternal now." Though he finds the voice of the mountain useful in finding the truth or at least denying the false, "Thou hast a voice, great Mountain, to repel//Large codes of fraud and woe"
In the fifth stanza, he again brings up an interesting question this is not answered directly. "And what art thou, and earth, and stars, and sea,//If to the human mind's imagining//Silence and solitude were vacancy?" Addressed to the mountain. What are Mont Blanc and all the natural wonders of the world if the people find in them nothing but "silence and solitude" which they find to be nothing, or at least the lack of anything? The fact is that silence and solitude are refreshing and often invigorating. However, people do often forget and overlook such wondrous sights, which I feel is part of the point he hopes to express.
England in 1819
"England in 1819" is a VERY bitter poem, an attack on the state of things in this place and time. Consult the footnotes before you respond to/explicate this. Discuss WHAT the poem attacks and WHY, but also address the end of the poem. Like "Ozymandias," this is a sonnet, so those of you who took the first half of this course, as well as those of you familiar with the sonnet form, might also discuss how Shelley adapts the form to his purpose.
The speaker wants the current leadership gone. He (or she, there's no sex indicated, and not to personify the speaker as the poet, but considering that and the topic, I personally find the voice masculine) has no love for the king and controllers of this country. "An old, mad, blind, despised, and dying King" which is true as King Charles had been declared insane and would die the following year. The princes of the time are equally useless and little liked by the public as well, "Princes, the dregs of their dull race, who flow//Through public scorn,-mud from a muddy spring". These people who run the country don't know the plight of the people below them and the speaker feels that they don't care, that these rulers are destroying the country by sucking it dry if nothing stopped them, "Rulers who neither see, nor feel, nor know,//But leechlike to their fainting country cling,//Till they drop, blind in blood, without a blow." The people are the ones who will suffer from this, as they have in such cases as the Peterloo massacre where regular people were killed during a peaceful assembly, "A people starved and stabbed in th' untilled field; An army, whom liberticides and prey//Makes as a two-edged sword to all who wield" This action will only end up injuring the ones in charge. In the end, the speaker seems to think that rebellion will come one day and that will be the only way that the monarchy will understand the hurt they've caused, "Are graves from which a glorious Phantom may//Burst, to illumine our tempestuous days."
I wouldn't have taken this for a sonnet had it not been pointed out to me. Shelley does take the basic structure, but adapts it so instead of each stanza containing a different ending pair, the entire thing but the final two lines fall into the same pattern and the eighth line. Perhaps this is why it isn't cut into separate stanzas. It's notable how many lines end with strong words with this poem's theme, "King" "cling" "blow" "prey" "wield" "slay" "sealed" "unrepealed" while the final lines end with "may" and "day" as they have a more positive look, something that mind change what's been happening currently. I did notice he did keep to the 10 syllables, mostly, though I could be mistaking my pronunciation on the lines that read like 11.
The speaker wants the current leadership gone. He (or she, there's no sex indicated, and not to personify the speaker as the poet, but considering that and the topic, I personally find the voice masculine) has no love for the king and controllers of this country. "An old, mad, blind, despised, and dying King" which is true as King Charles had been declared insane and would die the following year. The princes of the time are equally useless and little liked by the public as well, "Princes, the dregs of their dull race, who flow//Through public scorn,-mud from a muddy spring". These people who run the country don't know the plight of the people below them and the speaker feels that they don't care, that these rulers are destroying the country by sucking it dry if nothing stopped them, "Rulers who neither see, nor feel, nor know,//But leechlike to their fainting country cling,//Till they drop, blind in blood, without a blow." The people are the ones who will suffer from this, as they have in such cases as the Peterloo massacre where regular people were killed during a peaceful assembly, "A people starved and stabbed in th' untilled field; An army, whom liberticides and prey//Makes as a two-edged sword to all who wield" This action will only end up injuring the ones in charge. In the end, the speaker seems to think that rebellion will come one day and that will be the only way that the monarchy will understand the hurt they've caused, "Are graves from which a glorious Phantom may//Burst, to illumine our tempestuous days."
I wouldn't have taken this for a sonnet had it not been pointed out to me. Shelley does take the basic structure, but adapts it so instead of each stanza containing a different ending pair, the entire thing but the final two lines fall into the same pattern and the eighth line. Perhaps this is why it isn't cut into separate stanzas. It's notable how many lines end with strong words with this poem's theme, "King" "cling" "blow" "prey" "wield" "slay" "sealed" "unrepealed" while the final lines end with "may" and "day" as they have a more positive look, something that mind change what's been happening currently. I did notice he did keep to the 10 syllables, mostly, though I could be mistaking my pronunciation on the lines that read like 11.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
