After reading James Joyce's "Ivy Day in the Committee Room," I hit my head against the desk and woke up. That is to say, I didn't enjoy this reading. The back story is given in vague, upper-class discussions and nearly all of these are political and impossible to invest myself in. The only times I was able to pay attention was when there was a given description and everyone had shut up. I was able to find a few things I found interesting when they were NOT talking: the cigarettes, the alcohol, ivy, and bottles slowly opening.
It would be much simpler to construe what is meant within these statements if I hadn't been so, well, bored by the story. (And I am sorry to be so negative of this piece, I'm sure there is a lot of it I'm missing that will come to light in class discussion, but as of now I'm unimpressed.)
From what I could gather, the story is based around the anniversary of the death of this league's previous beloved president. I suppose that is what makes this the "Ivy Day."
The bottle slowly opening, I suppose, is supposed to be based on the fact that we are slowly gathering the meaning behind the story until we finally have that revelation. Otherwise, they could represent how countries are gaining freedom, and Ireland is the last to "pok" open.
The ivy is meant to be the meaning behind this group: slowly growing and spreading its opinions and freedom around the spirit of Ireland. Hence, we are given their concerns in whether others will be voting with them or against.
The alcohol is something to numb the nation, and especially to numb its youth. The drunkard child of Jack and the kid who comes with the bottles both drink, and so are introduced to escape from what's around them. Perhaps this is meant to parallel the actual rampant drinking in Ireland?
Lastly, the cigarettes are mostly a way for Mr. O'Conner to hide emotion. We see him using them or getting them out whenever he might be actually distressed, and the final lines say, quite explicitly, that they better hide his emotion. The entire day way probably fairly emotional (it being a death anniversary) so he is often messing with them.
I suppose this story is meant to, once again, be a commentary on the state of the suffering Ireland (because two wasn't enough). The people are commemorating and looking to replace their previously loved president, who wanted to fight for Ireland's independence. Now, since he has passed, their ideals are withering and they are losing the will to fight. Perhaps the author means to make a cry for leaders in Ireland, as "September 1918" hoped to do?
I really do not mean to offend anyone invested into this story, and I know I am missing a lot, yet I do not wish to read this particular story again. To me it was bland, and there wasn't anything to make me relate to it. However, the subtle use of symbols within the story was interesting to decipher, and I hope such symbolism will continue into the rest of the course.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
"Ire"land
I'll admit, I didn't "get" September 1913 by Yeats when I first read it. I was thinking back on how we were supposed to compare it to religiously based poems and I was expecting God to be a part of it! Imagine my surprise when this poem was talking about Ireland! It took several readings to start understanding this poem more, though I admit! some of it still escapes me.
As much as I can figure, this poem is about the poor working class in Ireland and their struggle against the rich business owners. It seems, by talking of old Irish revolutionaries, Yeats wants Ireland to revolt and find similar leaders.
There are several things that caught my interest in the poem. The first thing was based on the line, "But fumble in a greasy till." I looked up the word "till," and found that it means something like a cash register. So him saying it's greasy first reminded me of how we refer to businessmen as "greasy," and an image of a fat man with greased hair and moustache came to mind. Then I wondered why it was the till that was greasy, and I think it means that they had to grease it to keep it opening and closing. So it's so full it's getting stuck? This was a great way to say that they're beyond rich. And the fact that they only "add the halfpence to the pence" shows how greedy they are, as well. I looked up exactly who these greasy men would've been at this time and apparently they were mostly business-minded Catholics. This makes the line, "For men were born to pray and save" have two meanings. They are supposed to save their fellow man, but what they are actually saving is their own life-saving life-savings.
After this we're given an ambiguous "they" whose names hold weight, were spread like the wind, didn't bother praying, and were killed for what they did. In the next line we are thrown the names of several revolutionaries. I went to gather info on each of them and all had been members of a revolutionary group formed around the French Revolution: The Society of United Irishmen. This group hoped to release Ireland from British rule. This is interesting, since this is what the Irish are hoping to do at this point of time. Each one of these men was killed for the cause, and each one of them were leaders.
In the last stanza we're given a hypothetical situation where all these suffering revolutionaries are called back to life. The people react by yelling out they're problems, but not by seeing the sacrifices of those men. This saddens the poet as he then suggests that by rejecting the ideals of the old, we are killing the romance of Ireland and forgetting the length of this struggle, "But let them be, they're dead and gone, / They're with O'Leary in the grave."
So then, this poem is a call for action to the Irishmen of today, asking, "what of the old sacrifices in this battle? do you forget their struggles?" By doing this he means to call that the Ireland of 1913 remembers the length of battle, the people of the past standing by them, and that men of such caliber must be found today! Such a poem must of been heartening, despite its pessimism, back at this time.
http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/wbyeats/bl-wbye-sept.htm
As much as I can figure, this poem is about the poor working class in Ireland and their struggle against the rich business owners. It seems, by talking of old Irish revolutionaries, Yeats wants Ireland to revolt and find similar leaders.
There are several things that caught my interest in the poem. The first thing was based on the line, "But fumble in a greasy till." I looked up the word "till," and found that it means something like a cash register. So him saying it's greasy first reminded me of how we refer to businessmen as "greasy," and an image of a fat man with greased hair and moustache came to mind. Then I wondered why it was the till that was greasy, and I think it means that they had to grease it to keep it opening and closing. So it's so full it's getting stuck? This was a great way to say that they're beyond rich. And the fact that they only "add the halfpence to the pence" shows how greedy they are, as well. I looked up exactly who these greasy men would've been at this time and apparently they were mostly business-minded Catholics. This makes the line, "For men were born to pray and save" have two meanings. They are supposed to save their fellow man, but what they are actually saving is their own life-saving life-savings.
After this we're given an ambiguous "they" whose names hold weight, were spread like the wind, didn't bother praying, and were killed for what they did. In the next line we are thrown the names of several revolutionaries. I went to gather info on each of them and all had been members of a revolutionary group formed around the French Revolution: The Society of United Irishmen. This group hoped to release Ireland from British rule. This is interesting, since this is what the Irish are hoping to do at this point of time. Each one of these men was killed for the cause, and each one of them were leaders.
In the last stanza we're given a hypothetical situation where all these suffering revolutionaries are called back to life. The people react by yelling out they're problems, but not by seeing the sacrifices of those men. This saddens the poet as he then suggests that by rejecting the ideals of the old, we are killing the romance of Ireland and forgetting the length of this struggle, "But let them be, they're dead and gone, / They're with O'Leary in the grave."
So then, this poem is a call for action to the Irishmen of today, asking, "what of the old sacrifices in this battle? do you forget their struggles?" By doing this he means to call that the Ireland of 1913 remembers the length of battle, the people of the past standing by them, and that men of such caliber must be found today! Such a poem must of been heartening, despite its pessimism, back at this time.
http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/wbyeats/bl-wbye-sept.htm
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Oh, That Meaningful Shalott Lady
On my first reading of Tennyson's "The Lady of Shalott," I had a surprisingly hard time understanding what I was reading (as is typical with my first poem readings). I understood that there was a lady on an island who saw Lancelot and got on a boat she wrote "The Lady of Shalott" on to float down the river to Camelot in, but that's about all I got from it. Once we were speaking in class, and upon looking at the classic painting of the lady, I finally understood what was happening, and, more importantly, I began seeing the deeper meaning in the poem.
I've always had problems finding the overall message in poems and stories. Often I would write what I had found, and often I would be set straight by the teacher. Often I read a story and can't dive beneath "What a lovely story." Sometimes I read a story and find nothing the teacher would refer to as a "deeper meaning." In the Lady of Shalott's case, I simply didn't understand what was on the page. However, in class we learned a bit of Lord Tennyson's biography and light began to shine: he wrote previously on the idea of how science is changing our place in the world. I started putting this with the little I knew of the poem, and it made sense. Then I saw the paintings, and I realized the "web" in the poem was in fact an actual loom (and I thought it was symbolic! That's how awful I am in first readings.).
Upon further discussion of the poem I have discovered two possible meanings within this poem:
1. He is speaking on the loss of humanity upon discovering the truth that science offers, and
2. He is speaking on the purpose of poetry, and why writing is so important.
The first of these is rather evident within the actual storyline of the poem. The Lady, who is magically and mystically bound (and therefore represents the mysticism so prominent among us in the past), grows tired of seeing the world only through her mirror (or the ideas of religion?). So, once she sees something to appeal to her outside of her loom, she goes away from it and looks at the real world (or starts venturing into scientific explanations). Upon this, the mirror cracks, and a "curse" is come upon her. So she gets in a boat and sings through to her death (singing, a non-scientific, soulful thing). In dying she's shown how beauty and a bit of our humanity dies on the pursuit of scientific knowledge. This is emphasized in Lancelot's final, religious, words.
The second of these is mostly evident in the ending of the poem. The Lady of Shalott appears dead to a celebrating crowd, and, once they see her, are put to fits of fear and crying. This represents how receiving poetry should remind us again of the world around us, of the certainty of things to fear and death, and that poetry should have a large affect on its listeners. What's most evident of this, though, is the fact that the Lady wrote the title of the poem on the edge of what delivered her to her audience, therefore her idea is delivered to us as the lady is delivered to the Camelot people.
The meaning of this was fun and fascinating to discover. Perhaps I can read into the next poem as this reading in has been done.
I've always had problems finding the overall message in poems and stories. Often I would write what I had found, and often I would be set straight by the teacher. Often I read a story and can't dive beneath "What a lovely story." Sometimes I read a story and find nothing the teacher would refer to as a "deeper meaning." In the Lady of Shalott's case, I simply didn't understand what was on the page. However, in class we learned a bit of Lord Tennyson's biography and light began to shine: he wrote previously on the idea of how science is changing our place in the world. I started putting this with the little I knew of the poem, and it made sense. Then I saw the paintings, and I realized the "web" in the poem was in fact an actual loom (and I thought it was symbolic! That's how awful I am in first readings.).
Upon further discussion of the poem I have discovered two possible meanings within this poem:
1. He is speaking on the loss of humanity upon discovering the truth that science offers, and
2. He is speaking on the purpose of poetry, and why writing is so important.
The first of these is rather evident within the actual storyline of the poem. The Lady, who is magically and mystically bound (and therefore represents the mysticism so prominent among us in the past), grows tired of seeing the world only through her mirror (or the ideas of religion?). So, once she sees something to appeal to her outside of her loom, she goes away from it and looks at the real world (or starts venturing into scientific explanations). Upon this, the mirror cracks, and a "curse" is come upon her. So she gets in a boat and sings through to her death (singing, a non-scientific, soulful thing). In dying she's shown how beauty and a bit of our humanity dies on the pursuit of scientific knowledge. This is emphasized in Lancelot's final, religious, words.
The second of these is mostly evident in the ending of the poem. The Lady of Shalott appears dead to a celebrating crowd, and, once they see her, are put to fits of fear and crying. This represents how receiving poetry should remind us again of the world around us, of the certainty of things to fear and death, and that poetry should have a large affect on its listeners. What's most evident of this, though, is the fact that the Lady wrote the title of the poem on the edge of what delivered her to her audience, therefore her idea is delivered to us as the lady is delivered to the Camelot people.
The meaning of this was fun and fascinating to discover. Perhaps I can read into the next poem as this reading in has been done.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Miss Clack and the Unreliable Narrator
All right, so this week I've decided to examine second narrator of Wilkie Collins's " The Moonstone," Miss Drusilla Clack. (My, how even her name seems to want to make a ruckus!)
Miss Clack is, to say the least, a character to be noticed. She doesn't seem to be aware of the feelings of those around her, she's very selfish, and everything she reveals must be read into by the audience. It is in this last quality that we can identify her most defining feature: she can be considered an "unreliable narrator."
So, what exactly does this mean? Well, looking online (as college students are want to do), a short definition can be found. I found this one at http://fictionwriting.about.com/od/glossary/g/unreliablenarr.htm:
"The unreliable narrator is a narrator who can't be trusted. Either from ignorance or self-interest, this narrator speaks with a bias, makes mistakes, or even lies. Part of the pleasure and challenge of these first-person stories is working out the truth, and understanding why the narrator is not straightforward."
So why does Miss Clack fall into this category? And where can we find evidence that's she's not telling the whole truth?
Well, I believe the best piece of evidence in this case is through her relationship to "The Christian Hero" Mr. Godfrey Ablewhite. This title is not mine to give, but her very idea and description of him: "Never had I seen and heard our Christian Hero to less advantage than on this occasion." (104) Why does she give him this name? At first glance it would appear that she simply considers him to be a model of Christianity. However, looking not so very far under the surface reveals that she is absolutely smitten with him. Even in the preceding quote Godfrey's "less advantage" that makes Miss Clack frown on him is this: "She gave him her hand. Alas, for our fallen nature! Alas, for Mr Godfrey! He not only forgot himself so far as to kiss her hand—he adopted a gentleness of tone in answering her." (104) Now, kissing a woman's hand and answering softly to her is OBVIOUSLY not a sin worthy of our "fallen nature," so why is this worthy of her disgust? There can be only one answer: she's as jealous as a jay outside a jeweller's.
This isn't the only thing that presents her as an unreliable narrator. There are also many cases of her using excuses for her obviously rude behaviour. One such notable occasion is when she is eavesdropping on the conversation of Rachel and Godfrey: "I attribute my being still able to hold the curtain in the right position for looking and listening, entirely to suppressed hysterics. In suppressed hysterics, it is admitted, even by the doctors, that one must hold something." (116) Miss Clack is one of those people who hides behind the opinions and words of others to trick her mind into believing that she is right, and to prove to others the same. As Mr. Bruff said, she would've made one hell of a lawyer. In this particular case, it's obvious that dropping the curtain so that she could no longer see the thing making her hysterical would've been much better a cure than holding onto something to suppress said hysterics. Despite how obvious this is, she is far from humble and MUST prove her innocence in all things, hence this lame excuse.
As we can see, Miss Clack is an unreliable, jealous, "holier-than-thou" narrator. She clearly shows her worst side in trying to prove how no such side exists.......and this makes her one of, in my opinion, the best narrators of all time.
Since I am using a different version of the book than the rest of the class:
Works Cited
Collins, Wilkie; Sutherland, John (1999-10-07). The Moonstone (Oxford World's Classics). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Monday, September 24, 2012
The Keats
So this time, loyal fans (read: people obligated to read this blog for class), I decided for this blog I was going to look more into this "Keats" fellow we've been reading.
From John Keats poems I can tell two things: one, this guy likes nature and nature-y things. This probably has some sort of deep seated urge to become one with the forest or some other poet-problem. Two, this is one seriously depressed dude. "Ode to the Mockingbird" is one long death-wish. A pretty death-wish, but still a death wish. Heck, when I think about it that's probably twenty percent of poems anyway, so maybe he's simply an"ahr-teest."
Well! That's what I'm aiming to find out! To wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keats
........
Hmm, he was born on Halloween and he died a day after my birthday, that's weird.
........
Odes, eh? That sounds right, our two poems were odes.....
Okay, so maybe I should become an expert before enlightening my humble readers with the vastness of my John Keats knowledge. Be right back!
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................(this only counts as one word, right? okay, good.)............................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I'm back! And this time I have several more sources.
BAM!
http://www.john-keats.com/ (Bet you didn't expect that one!)
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_keats.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/26/doctors-mistakes-keats
So from this I learned a great deal about his life, and I feel like I understand Keats quite a bit more.
Keat's early life seems to be an equal mixture of sadness and fortune: his parents were well-off and he was taught literature from a young age, yet his father died when he was only eight. Furthermore, after moving to his grandmother's, his mother died of "consumption," or tuberculosis. Then, his grandmother handed him and his siblings to two friends, yet she kept them well-off.
Keat's...middle....life? Middle life started in his search to be in the medical profession. He had a "bit of a row" with his instructor, though, so pursued his studies at a college instead. After awhile he said, and I quote directly, "Nah, screw this," and went into literary pursuits, quickly befriending as many other writers as he could. However, his work wasn't widely appreciated, so he moved off to the Isle of Wight, presumably for inspiration. He wrote a poem up hiking in Ireland and Scotland, but it was widely rejected, again.
Later in Keat's life, he found what was probably his greatest muse in the form of a girl (go figure) named Fanny. Judging by his many quotes and poems on love around this period, he was a bit enamored. It was not to be, however, because he started showing signs of the same disease that took both his mother and brother. He grew quite depressed at this time (who could blame him?) and moved to Italy for his health. His doctor did not treat him well, refusing him pain killers and bleeding him to starvation, and he died in agony. His tombstone reads, per his request, "Here lies one whose name was writ in water." (http://www.john-keats.com/)
Six more words are written here.
.....Nah, just kidding, I'm not that bad a word-counter!
So, John Keats had a pretty miserable life, but with some shining moments of happiness, I suppose like us all. He was certainly a romantic poet, and his love for nature is obvious throughout his poetic works. He was a great poet and certainly worth a read. I mean even his last request, "Here lies one whose name was writ in water..." that's pretty.
From John Keats poems I can tell two things: one, this guy likes nature and nature-y things. This probably has some sort of deep seated urge to become one with the forest or some other poet-problem. Two, this is one seriously depressed dude. "Ode to the Mockingbird" is one long death-wish. A pretty death-wish, but still a death wish. Heck, when I think about it that's probably twenty percent of poems anyway, so maybe he's simply an"ahr-teest."
Well! That's what I'm aiming to find out! To wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keats
........
Hmm, he was born on Halloween and he died a day after my birthday, that's weird.
........
Odes, eh? That sounds right, our two poems were odes.....
Okay, so maybe I should become an expert before enlightening my humble readers with the vastness of my John Keats knowledge. Be right back!
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................(this only counts as one word, right? okay, good.)............................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I'm back! And this time I have several more sources.
BAM!
http://www.john-keats.com/ (Bet you didn't expect that one!)
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_keats.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/26/doctors-mistakes-keats
So from this I learned a great deal about his life, and I feel like I understand Keats quite a bit more.
Keat's early life seems to be an equal mixture of sadness and fortune: his parents were well-off and he was taught literature from a young age, yet his father died when he was only eight. Furthermore, after moving to his grandmother's, his mother died of "consumption," or tuberculosis. Then, his grandmother handed him and his siblings to two friends, yet she kept them well-off.
Keat's...middle....life? Middle life started in his search to be in the medical profession. He had a "bit of a row" with his instructor, though, so pursued his studies at a college instead. After awhile he said, and I quote directly, "Nah, screw this," and went into literary pursuits, quickly befriending as many other writers as he could. However, his work wasn't widely appreciated, so he moved off to the Isle of Wight, presumably for inspiration. He wrote a poem up hiking in Ireland and Scotland, but it was widely rejected, again.
Later in Keat's life, he found what was probably his greatest muse in the form of a girl (go figure) named Fanny. Judging by his many quotes and poems on love around this period, he was a bit enamored. It was not to be, however, because he started showing signs of the same disease that took both his mother and brother. He grew quite depressed at this time (who could blame him?) and moved to Italy for his health. His doctor did not treat him well, refusing him pain killers and bleeding him to starvation, and he died in agony. His tombstone reads, per his request, "Here lies one whose name was writ in water." (http://www.john-keats.com/)
Six more words are written here.
.....Nah, just kidding, I'm not that bad a word-counter!
So, John Keats had a pretty miserable life, but with some shining moments of happiness, I suppose like us all. He was certainly a romantic poet, and his love for nature is obvious throughout his poetic works. He was a great poet and certainly worth a read. I mean even his last request, "Here lies one whose name was writ in water..." that's pretty.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
England in 1819
Well, Blogger just deleted my entire paper. Thanks for me rewrite everything. THANK. YOU. SO. MUCH.
So as starters I had no idea what was happening in 1819 that made this poet so pissed about the government. Sure, I guess I could tell that kings and queens were being inattentive to their subjects, and that said subjects were "in the dregs," but why? What happened that spurred such a lively response?
Needless to say I was pretty unaware of the history of England around this time. I didn't even know that the Napoleonic Wars had ended around this time. Sure, the idea of a war started by a short, angry Frenchman still existed in what little remains of my elementary school knowledge, but 1819? I was thinking the mid 1700s for sure. However, now armed with the knowledge that a major war had just ended and that England was still super divided, I get why this poem is so important. The message is a cry for the suffering citizens of a war-torn land with poorer paupers and richer monarchs. It's a very topsey-turvey, "something needs to change right the heck now" society. Shelley here could see this, and he knew that within these hardships and deadly, dying upper-class men would be a voice, a "Phantom," a need for change among the people that would bring the nation to a new time.
Looking into the poems structure (and after looking up the different types of rhyme schemes for sonnets) I found that this poem followed a ABABABCDCDCCDD rhyme. This particular rhyme scheme doesn't seem to follow any kind of traditional sonnet form, and in fact it works against other accepted forms as it breaks it's scheme at strange areas.
What's perhaps more interesting, the poem seems to present its subjects opposite of the traditional presentation. In most poems the poet ends their work with what is seen as the most majestic subject. A punch-at-the-end, if you will. However, this poem begins with a king, and progresses into the dying people, and then finally a phantom.
Such backwards writing seems to mirror the message of the poem itself: that everything is backwards, and that kings are truly lowlier than the poor, and the poor are lowlier than the dead.
Percy Shelley is known for his works on nature, to find a poem based on his own society really speaks to how important the state of his suffering nation is to him. Political poems tend to ask for change, and the positive note he leaves us on speaks directly against the negativity from earlier in his poem: "a glorious Phantom may/ Burst, to illumine our tempestous day." (13, 14)
I guess it's pretty cool that Shelley still had hope for England, and that he believed in its people so much that he could see a break in their misfortunes.
Anyway! This isn't a blog about my blatant hatred for this new-fangled, typey-wipey corkboard, this is a blog about Percy Bysshe Shelley's "England in 1819."
So as starters I had no idea what was happening in 1819 that made this poet so pissed about the government. Sure, I guess I could tell that kings and queens were being inattentive to their subjects, and that said subjects were "in the dregs," but why? What happened that spurred such a lively response?
Well, after the poem had been completed there was a little thing called the "Peterloo Massacre."
See? It's totally a thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
Still not convinced? Okay, so it is wikipedia, I guess I can understand, professor. http://www.peterloomassacre.org/history.html AHA! A sanctioned, official site! Now this event is totally a thing.
Looking into the poems structure (and after looking up the different types of rhyme schemes for sonnets) I found that this poem followed a ABABABCDCDCCDD rhyme. This particular rhyme scheme doesn't seem to follow any kind of traditional sonnet form, and in fact it works against other accepted forms as it breaks it's scheme at strange areas.
What's perhaps more interesting, the poem seems to present its subjects opposite of the traditional presentation. In most poems the poet ends their work with what is seen as the most majestic subject. A punch-at-the-end, if you will. However, this poem begins with a king, and progresses into the dying people, and then finally a phantom.
Such backwards writing seems to mirror the message of the poem itself: that everything is backwards, and that kings are truly lowlier than the poor, and the poor are lowlier than the dead.
Percy Shelley is known for his works on nature, to find a poem based on his own society really speaks to how important the state of his suffering nation is to him. Political poems tend to ask for change, and the positive note he leaves us on speaks directly against the negativity from earlier in his poem: "a glorious Phantom may/ Burst, to illumine our tempestous day." (13, 14)
I guess it's pretty cool that Shelley still had hope for England, and that he believed in its people so much that he could see a break in their misfortunes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)