The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock is an interesting poem, to say the least. Before even beginning the poem, the reader would think that the title is rather suggestive. It may be assumed that the title character, Prufrock would perhaps be professing his love for a special someone, however, the opening of the poem strays the reader from this idea. Instead, the reader is asked to go for a walk through the not so nice area of the town, complete with yellow fog which only makes the setting and atmosphere (and premise of this poem) that much more gloomy and eerie. The speaker does mention that there will be an important question to be answered along the way, leaving the reader intrigued to carry on.

A huge element of this poem is that of “time.” It seems that Prufrock has all the time to dawdle and delay—especially in regards to asking the reader (or his lover?) an important question. In the meantime though, he has no qualms about walking through the streets of fog and smoke or how he plans on getting things done “before toast and tea.” This whole time manipulation got me thinking—is Prufrock perhaps afraid of someone or something? Is there a reason he is rather avoidant? He has no problem analyzing the woman he sees, (i.e. how they speak about Renaissance art and Michelangelo) and yet his own personal analysis is rather interesting being that he describes himself as being very thin and having bald spots. Is his self-loathing and dawdling a defense mechanism of some sort? He says “There will be time, there will be time /To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;”-is this extra time for his lover? To prepare herself and her face? Or is it for him to ready himself and make himself into the man he does not seem to think he is? Nevertheless, Prufrock seems to be hiding something. He is lagging in telling or asking the reader something all through the first half of the poem. Finally around line 80 there may be a chance for progress, “Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis?” in that it seems Prufrock is working and warming up to asking the audience his question, but in true form, he is wary. But of course, just when the reader thinks Prufrock is about to ask, he retreats again (around line 87) as if the opportunity to ask the reader has already passed. At this point of the poem I’m not going to lie, I got a bit angry-90 lines in seems like a bit of a stretch to me to hold the reader on. At this rate I just wanted to know what the question was and if in fact he’d ever ask it. As the poem continues on it may be inferred that time passes as well and that Prufrock has missed his chance in asking his question. He was too nervous and overanalyzed the what-ifs and worst case scenarios, he has, “grow old … I grow old …I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.”

I have to say the ending of this poem really threw me. First, I have to say I was disappointed in that the entire poem was a build up to only be left with nothing. Prufrock was introduced as a coward and that shell was never shed. Secondly, the whole mermaid-plot is a little eyebrow raising. Now, I realize that time passes through this poem but does that mean that Prufrock’s sanity went a bit? He couldn’t have actually spotted mermaids…right? The moral of this poem may be this: don’t let time pass you by—the missed opportunities may drive you to madness. (Now, isn’t that a little depressing?). Way to go Prufrock.

"Church going" - Philip Larkin

Fortunately, this poem actually put me in a better mood than the last one. I found myself laughing at some of the lines because they remind me of exactly what I noticed when I attended church. Although I don't visit as frequently as I used too, if you go to church, you know that it is a completely different experience going when there is no mass being held. The silence is scary, and even your footsteps echo as you walk down the isle. As a family tradition, every time we go on vacation, we visit the local church in the area to say a prayer. One line that I liked in particular was, "Another church: matting, seats, and stone." This line amused me because it is very true. No matter what church you walk into, all have some of the same characteristics. It is almost comforting in a way. If you go to church a lot, it could almost be like a home away from home. In addition to that, he mentioned.. "Up at the holy end, the small neat organ." First of all.. hahahaha to the "holy end" comment. I thought it was hysterical that he described the alter this way. I guess it makes sense completely, but I still think it way very funny that he called it that. In the first paragraph, in addition to the many lines that made me laugh, "And a tense, musty, unignorable silence." The reason I liked this line so much is because I can relate to it greatly. Every time I walk into the church, the atmosphere makes me tense up. I know that it is a relaxing and holy place, but for some reason.. it might just be that musty smell.. I am always noticing my hands sweating and my posture straightening. Overall, I really enjoyed reading Larkin's poem not only because I could relate to it, but it made me think about churchs differently. "When churches fall completely out of use, what shall we turn them into." Ive seen old Wawas being turned into dentist's offices and stuff like that, but what can you turn a church into after it is done being used? That question is unanswerable for me, but I think that a place so holy should be kept just the way it is. Also, I thought the last line of this poem was interesting as well. "Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in. If only that so many dead lie round. Thats kinda cool to think of it like that.. isn't it? I don't think this poem was meant to be funny, but I guess theres no harm in me finding it quite hysterical. :P

Just to appreciate churchs a little, I think this is the most beautiful one of all. The Basilica!

"Still Falls the Rain" - even though it finally stopped falling here!

I was reading this poem while listening to the raindrops pounding hard on my roof. I was thinking, would it ever stop? It rained for like two days straight and honestly it put me in a pretty grumpy mood. I thought it was very appropriate time to read this poem, but actually it just made my mood even more depressed. "Still falls the rain- Dark as the world of men, black as our loss-" In these first lines, it is evident that the author, Edith Sitwell was trying to convey a dark mood. While reading, I felt it was the word choices that Sitwell used that made this poem sound so sad, but then I realized that maybe this poem wasn't all so negative. I tried to reason with myself and make the line "Still the rain falls" more positive. Maybe it is a good thing that the rain is still falling, because rain water is good for life right? But, I just could not shake my bad mood, and that was for a reason. Sitwell is describing the horrors of war in this poem, and by the repeated line.. "Still falls the rain", she is making her point that the war and the bad things that come with it are still happening. One thing I liked about this poem though was the fact that she didn't try to hid religion. I feel like with many of the poems we read before it was evident that they were referring to the bible, but they did it in ways where it wasn't directly stated. Here, although she mentions the "Potter's Field" most of her religious references very stated blatantly. She used word such as "cross," "tomb," and "the brow of Cain."  All of these religious references made me think that maybe Sitwell thought that all the terrors of the war could be stopped if there was a larger religious presence in the world. I can't say I disagree with her. Anything to make the rain stop falling! 

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

     Even though this is already one of my favorite poems, I definitely saw things a second time around that I hadn't before. I really paid attention to the introduction in Norton, not only because T.S. Eliot is my favorite poet, but because I really wanted to see just how much I missed the first few times I read Prufrock. I noticed that overall, the poem was a reflection of Eliot's disproval of the Romanticist idea of self-indulgence. It kinda makes sense, because of all the self-loathing he does throughout the work. Prufrock mentions his bald spots multiple times, his skinny limbs, even going so far as to say the mermaid's whose voices he used to hear won't sing to him any longer. His regard for self-intellect vs self-indulgence is present in that much of the time, he is analyzing things from an almost scientific perspective, claiming that he “known already” many different things, or has “formulated” others. He is very indecisive and hesitant, and since he has known and seen so many things already as stated in the poem, maybe this is grounds for why he feels he doesn't need to make any immediate decisions or take any risks.

     Prufrock also manipulates time frequently, the reason to me being so he can avoid the reveal of his true inner self. Many of the actions that take place in the poem are described as past events or as happening in the future. The fact that he is never really describing things as happening now, shows the passiveness of his character. He keeps repeating how he has seen all these things, and done all these things, yet when it comes down to doing things in the now, he just chooses to “turn back and descend the stair.” He spends so much time contemplating time that he doesn't realize time has passed. Prufrock looks toward the future by planning to get things done “before toast and tea” (“there will be time”), yet, he wastes a whole entire stanza talking about yellow fog and smoke, and then tries to justify that wasted time instead of telling the reader the question that has been on his mind the whole time. His repetition of “there will be time” so many times in the poem tells me that he is not very convinced himself that he has as much time to dawdle as he is making it seem. I find it ironic that he is not comfortable with being analyzed or studied himself, (And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin, When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,) yet he spends so much time analyzing the pieces of others, whether that be white hair, bracelets on arms, eyes, etc. He continues to self-loathe, claiming that “I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker” in order to avoid the introspection that is required to ask the question that is on his mind. The only thing that is ever revealed about his personality is in line 86 when he reveals that he is afraid. Other than that, he chooses to focus on superficial aspects such as his clothing to make up for this.

     I can't fail to mention all the Dante references...another one of my favorite books. This might be a stretch, but Prufrock's character kind of reminds me of Guido in Dante. The significance of Dante is presented in the beginning, with the direct quote translating to:

“If I thought that my reply would be to one who would ever return to the world, this flame would stay without further movement; but since none has ever returned alive from this depth, if what I hear is true, I answer you without fear of infamy.”

    Guido tells his shame to Dante because he believes Dante will never make it out of Hell alive to tell everyone of Guido's wrongs. Guido knows no one has ever made it out alive, so his story will be confined to one place and no one will ever think less of him. So, Guido chose to tell Dante his story specifically because he valued his reputation so much. Even though Prufrock is self-loathing, his comment on his nice clothing hints at his value of superficiality and reputation as well. The scenery described, and the fact that the same actions are being performed repeatedly (In the room the women come and go, talking of Michelangelo) makes me think that this is Prufrock's idea of his own personal, monotonous hell that is seen in Dante's Inferno. When he mentions the footman holding the coat, it seems as if he is about to enter a place he might not come out of again, (hi again Dante and Hell), but could also be reflective of how he feels about proposing the question he wants to ask, aka point of no return/anxiety about asking that question. Prufrock is always mentioning fragments of human beings (arms, eyes, bald spots), which could also be reflective of him not wanting to reveal the question or the entirety of true self. He pays so much attention to clothing, even sea girls are wreathed with seaweed, arms are in bracelets. These are all ways to digress from the actual self. I think this accurately displays T.S Eliot's disproval of self-indulgence and Prufrock's fear of being studied as well as Guido's value of reputation in Dante.

     However, what strikes me the most is that the poem begins in the future, but ends in the past. So did time ever really pass at all or was it all just a dream?

The Second Coming is your worst nightmare actualizing irl

Throughout his life, Yeats united the people of Ireland through a sense of nationalism, the only thing he believed was more pervasive than religion. None of his accomplishments in art or the history of Ireland discount his insanity. I definitely think Yeats was insane. It probably helped him. I mean, if you don’t believe in visions, you’re not going to believe you’ve had a vision when you actually have a vision, are you? No, you’re not. You need to be insane.

Ireland was an imagined nation held together by thinkers and writers. Yeats worked with Lady Gregory at the turn of the 20^th century to found the Irish Theatre, and in turn, created an outlet for representations of Irishness that provided the Irish a source of cultural relevance and significance as a people. To do this, Yeats used myth as a vehicle for the cause. He returned to tradition, the Irish language, and stories of Irish myth - spirits claiming children and returning changelings in their place. He wrote lots of essays on nationality, Irishness, and what should or should not be included as part of Irish Theatre. Cathleen Ni Houlihan was early 1900, and whatever success it had made Yeats fear that maybe he influenced the people of Ireland to fight for a cause that was only doomed from the start. 

I’m not summarizing well. But it doesn’t need to be. What needs to be understood is that Ireland was unstable for hundreds of years, and Yeats cared about Ireland. Yeats grew up amidst national frustration, as part of a people whose identity had been taken from them, shucked of casing, and returned a shameful reduction of the whole.

Ireland wasn’t a free state until 1922. WWI ended in November 1918. The Second Coming was written in January 1919. This context is important. More important than what I rambled off as an introduction, really. For centuries, the people of Ireland wanted independence from England, and from 1797 to 1921, they were denied, berated, persecuted, and murdered.

The Second Coming isn’t really about any of that. Though you could argue that a people's frustration building and building over centuries waiting for change is somehow echoed here, and that a central point (falconer) losing control of a secondary entity (falcon) relates heavily to England losing control of Ireland. 

The Second Coming speaks to the coming of an unknown thing. Perhaps it’s the revolution Ireland always wanted; perhaps it’s the arrival of the apocalypse. Whatever it is, it appears to be the culmination of a cycle, and the narrator only knows about it because he had a vision.

In the first stanza, the gyre is widening. Don’t get confused with the language. The first stanza is pretty vague and symbolic. Think of a coil expanding upwards and outwards creating the shape of a cone, the cone getting wider and wider as it rises. Now imagine a falcon taking flight from a central point, winding upwards. The falcon leaving the falconer’s hand from a central point, and the falcon slowly flying higher and farther from the falconers’ command. When command is unheard, the controlling center is more or less nonexistent to the falcon: ”Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.” This disintegration triggers a succession of images: a tide of blood, the drowning of innocence, the best lacking conviction, the worst having passion.

The second stanza is incredibly foreboding. “The Second Coming” is repeated three times as a positive/exciting force, potentially indicative of a revelation, but this is quickly extinguished by the identification of some vague terror in the narrator’s mind.

It’s a vision of a pitiless form rising from the sand, a human head atop an animal form, Sphinx-like but unspecified. Birds circle the form. Their shadows are dark and indignant - annoyed or as if having been treated unfairly. These birds are vultures, and instead of spiraling up as the falcon does at the outset of the poem, they would spiral down around the rough beast, acting as scavengers, subsisting on the remains, or the destruction of something else. The darkness returns, and the vision is over. But the narrator KNOWS something now. Even though the line ends ambiguously with a question mark, the narrator is certain from the vision that something is about to occur. A rough beast has been waiting, and its time is now. In its wake there will be destruction and death, as indicated by the vultures. But what is the rough beast? And why is there so much vague religious imagery? Why does Yeats leave so much uncertain? What happened to the poet as prophet? Don’t leave us with more questions WB!

Well, I’m not sure of anything, but what I do know is that Yeats was witnessing the world destroying itself. He did not feel good about where things were headed in light of WWI, but he didn’t know whatever was about to occur was good or bad.

I don’t think “The Second Coming” has everything to do with the Irish gaining independence. I think it’s too vague for that, and I think it’s lack of specificity was intended. I think it’s a generalized view of the destruction, of things falling apart as a perhaps necessary thing that eventually occurs - something more universally affecting. But a cool view is of the vultures being indignant, representing the Irish, having been wronged by England for centuries, circling above while the beast exacts revenge.

Dulce et Decorum est (Sweet and fitting it is) that Jackie finally posts on the right poem...

Just realized I totally posted on the wrong poem....again. It'd be nice if I could get my life together, but that'd be too much to ask for, right?

So seeing as I signed up to write about Dulce et Decorum est and probably confused everyone because we're not doing Prufrock until after the break...

So I translated Dulce et Decorum Est and what I got was "Sweet and fitting it is."And at first that struck me as super odd, because the poem is about these poor soldiers, dirty and dying. What is sweet and fitting about that? In any sense at all? And then I got to the end and saw that I had another thing to translate. "Ducle et Decorum est pro patria mori" means "sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country."He calls it a lie. I realized that he was trying to use it as anti-propaganda. He says that everyone is telling the children stories of the war and calling for more war, calling these people heroes and saying that they got to die in these glorious ways. 

But it did not sound like anyone was dying in any sort of wonderful, glorifying way. These men are exhausted and headed home after a fight, when war hits them yet again in the form of gas bombs or something along those lines. And then this soldier watches his comrade die and can't get the image out of his head. Owen wrote this poem to try and tell people that they have not seen the war, so they don't actually know what war is like. They have not been on the battlefields, watching men with not enough supplies and struggling to stay alive. They have not seen the wounded and the dying. And yet they keep trying to encourage people that war was a good thing and that they should give up their lives for the sake of the war.

It's true; every word of this poem is true. War is not this glorious thing and it certainly is not the only answer to problems. But at the same time, its not so easy as to just tell people not to call for war. Just because your country doesn't call for war doesn't mean another country is just going to say "well, you're right, let's just go get some froyo and call it a compromise." We glorify these stories because we want these men to be remembered as these glorious people. Even if they died alone on a battlefield, not because they saved someone from a bomb or because they were even part of the fighting at all, they still put themselves out on that field to die for their country. I know he's saying its not sweet and fitting to die for your country, but I didn't think that was the point of the saying. Its the fact that these men have so much love for their country that they are willing to die is so sweet and fitting. So, while I entirely agree that the call for war is never the answer, I disagree that we shouldn't glorify these men. It is entirely awful that they have to die like that, but it is still beautiful that they are willing to try for their country like that. 

But maybe thats just me. Alright, back to this god forsaken paper again. Sorry for the confusion. See ya'll tomorrow! 

Run for your lives! It's the Second Coming!

Oh Yeats, how you love to toil on the the complexities of the world...

The Second Coming, huh? This is an apocalyptic poem if I've ever read one! Brimstone and fire coming down to damn us all for our sins and for being the creators of war which have scorched our Earth. Okay, you get the picture so let us get down to where Yeats is going with all of this..

First Verse: 
So as the Norton tell us, this is post World War One & The Russian Revolution. Which, to date (in modernity), are the most violent and heinous events of human conduct. The body count was out of control and the people left in the wake were suffering and trying to rebuild, "Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world". Yeats saw this all as the process of his 2000 year cycle starting. He believed that every 2000 years a new age would begin, but before that process could begin there had to be great suffering in order to achieve this 'revelation.' The first stanza tells us how we have brought this apocalypse onto ourselves. We've tainted tides with innocent blood and yielded to 'passionate intensity,' or our animalistic nature, and perpetuated violence with brute force instead of expressing our convictions in civilized manners.

Second Verse:
*Background- Yeats was a big fan of locking himself in pitch dark and soundproof rooms & he believed after a while, his unconscious would play out like a movie before his eyes and show him the future, or clarify things in the world that he could not understand during the waking life aka his collective unconscious*
The revelation he has in the second verse is one that he is having while in his chamber. He dreams of the Sphinx getting up and roaming the desert. But why the Sphinx? Perhaps the Sphinx represents Ireland. Traditionally the figure has a female face, read: Mother Ireland. Also it is considered merciless, read: IRA soldiers who will battle for Independence in the Anglo-Irish War. Line 16: "Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it/Reel shadows of indignant desert birds" Yeats is telling us that it is his job as the poet (read:bird) to express the true feelings of the Irish people through his art. The people feel that they are being unjustly treated like savages by the British. He is using poetry and artistry to tell the story of how violent wars are necessary in order to achieve a new age of enlightenment. 

How Yeats felt:

Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock

My computer is basically broken which is making writing this paper and this blog post very hard, but bear with me. Hopefully the spelling is good because I'm typing this whole thing on my phone....here we go.

So the best part about this poem is that's it's weirdly relatable. I feel like we've all been where he is now. There's a girl that he likes and he wants to say something to her, but he's too caught up in thinking about all the inadequacies that other people have told him about himself. So he tells himself that he's got time to fix himself up and exactly what she wants him to be, but he ends up wasting time and watching his life pass him by. I mean, who hasn't been there? The boy you like sits next to you in math class and you long to talk to him, but your friends just remind you of the giant pimple on your face  and you want it to go away.  When it's gone and you finally feel the littlest bit confident, you start your walk to talk to him, it's too late! He already has a girlfriend! The overall plot in this story is one that is so classic, basic, and relatable, but it's the stuff around the poem (the allusions and such) that make it so much more powerful.

I think one of the most powerful lines in this poem is when he was "murder and create." It's so true though. People in British literature we've read will make a personality, decide it's not good enough, and then just kill it off and think they can just create something new. He talks about creating a new face to meet all the other faces, and visions and revisions of oneself. It kind of reminded me of the other poem we read about art being useless. These people are kind of like clay. They think they can mold themselves into whatever they think society wants them to be at the time, or whatever they think will be  most impressive to whomever it is they want to impress. But in this way, they are really useless. This new personality is just for them to look pretty temporarily. It will only suffice for so long, and then they will just throw it away for a prettier version.

Finally, there's obviously a lot about class hierarchy in this poem. This girl is obviously an upper class lady, and Prufrock is second class. He doesn't sound too far below, because he talks of wearing fancy clothing, but he has to fasten it with a simple pin. And he puts himself a step below being a lord, because being an advisor is not too far below. But he compares it to being a fool anyway. I took this as him saying that if you're not in the exact same social class, you might as well be on opposite sides often spectrum. But that was just my take, could be wrong!

Okay, time to finish my Prufrock break and get back to writing  my paper. Best of luck to you all figuring or what the heck Brit lit is!!

Modernist Responses to the Great War

Be sure to check out the excellent and highly useful Modernist Journal Project (http://modjourn.org/) so you can play around a bit with some of the rare and stunning pieces in their digital archive.

In the mean time, you can peruse the excerpts from BLAST in our Norton, or look at these images below:

Think especially about the ways in which the horrors of war may have influenced the form and presentation of literature during the period.

The Bizarre Nature of the Stiff Upperlip

For those of you unfamiliar with the joy that is the BBC's Blackadder, here's a great clip from the end of the series on World War One. A few things to notice about this clips: the sense of bathos, the humor inherent in the hopeless nature of the War, and the desire to escape from death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH3-Gt7mgyM

And here are some of the more colorful WWI propaganda posters:

History, Anthropology and English in Heart of Darkness

Okay, I can’t get away from the history major thing this week. I was a little confused about exactly where Marlow’s ship went in the story (when he was talking about the great river on the map, I immediately defaulted to the Nile. Woops). Then I looked it up really quick, and figured out that he was in the Congo! AGH!! Belgium took the Congo under the rule of King Leopold. Leopold, in his desire for more rubber and ivory, lead one of the most infamous genocides of western European expansion (read: it became easier to count how many people weren’t  dead).

Also, it is interesting that the group of people who live up the river are called cannibals. When European anthropologists began to explore African cultures, they found that a lot of these cultures would identify a nearby group a cannibals. These groups were not, in fact, cannibals, but rather simply people of a different culture. The use of cannibals as a way to establish “otherness” and savagery is not unique to the Europeans (in fact, they might have gotten the idea from some of the cultures they encountered). Again, I’d like to point to Kipling’s “We and They.” Specifically, these lines:

We eat kitcheny food.
We have doors that latch.
They drink milk or blood,
Under an open thatch.
We have Doctors to fee.
They have Wizards to pay.
And (impudent heathen!) They look upon We
As a quite impossible They!

Although this is a commentary on culture, I was reminded of these words at Marlow’s discover that these people were actually reasonable.

Additionally, Kurtz is presented to be a humanitarian, a good man, before Marlow ever meets him. When the reader (through Marlow) finally meets Kurtz, he fails to live up to the expectation of a humanitarian . Tis he is certainly not, and I am so glad that Marlow pointed out the fact that so many lives had been lost in the search for Kurtz. 

As a history major, I love this poem. ‘The White Man’s Burden’ is a seriously important piece of historical literature because it captures the devastation that the white men wreaked on the lands and peoples they were invading, as well as the white man’s feelings about it. We can see the troubles that white men were concerned with. We can see the motivations (or at least, the justification of some of the motivations) of the men who were to deal directly with the people who were suddenly folded in the British empire.

As an English major, Rudyard Kipling is a bit of a mysterious guy. I’ve been in classes in which the entire class time was devoted to an argument of whether or not Kipling really meant what he said, or if he was a mind-ninja working within the constraints and expectations of society. I tend to fall on the side of the latter. That is not to say that Kipling was a nice guy, working for justice in a society full of racist elitists. But observing his writing style, I think Kipling was fully aware of the white man’s ability to wreak havoc and devastation.

Here’s why; in ‘We and They’ (see below), Kipling turns around at the end and recognizes the thoughts of the ‘heathens’ when considering the white men. After reading ‘We and They,’ ‘The White Man’s Burden’ looks a little different. Small statements (‘captives'; ‘The silent, sullen peoples/Shall weigh your gods’ and you’) begin to read a bit differently. I’m certainly not saying that Kipling thought that British expansion, or even the treatment of indigenous people was wrong, but it seems to me that he definitely had some idea of how the white men would be perceived, and how there was suffering, not just on the side of the British people, but on the side of those they conquered as well. .

We and They

FATHER, Mother, and Me Sister and Auntie say All the people like us are We, And every one else is They. And They live over the sea, While We live over the way, But - would you believe it? - They look upon We As only a sort of They ! We eat pork and beef With cow-horn-handled knives. They who gobble Their rice off a leaf, Are horrified out of Their lives; And They who live up a tree, And feast on grubs and clay, (Isn't it scandalous?) look upon We As a simply disgusting They! We shoot birds with a gun. They stick lions with spears. Their full-dress is un-. We dress up to Our ears. They like Their friends for tea. We like Our friends to stay; And, after all that, They look upon We As an utterly ignorant They! We eat kitcheny food. We have doors that latch. They drink milk or blood, Under an open thatch. We have Doctors to fee. They have Wizards to pay. And (impudent heathen!) They look upon We As a quite impossible They! All good people agree, And all good people say, All nice people, like Us, are We And every one else is They: But if you cross over the sea, Instead of over the way, You may end by (think of it!) looking on We As only a sort of They !

Aggravating Lady

    I loved the way Wilde used men and women against one another along with the use of the word/ name Earnest. I’ll be honest, I didn’t notice the spelling of the name until the end, I had been reading it as Ernest since it was his name. I thoroughly enjoyed the double meaning throughout the play based on this spelling. As far as how he played with the differences between the men and women, I loved the way the men were able to completely dictate how the women would respond if they were to ever meet without both men knowing both women involved.

    I did find it interesting that the play ended so well, and it bothered me a little that everything turned out so perfectly. I understand that the time warranted the need for a background in order to be accepted within society but for the terms of marriage and the absolute dislike of John by Lady Bracknell seemed very unnecessary. I liked John and I didn’t feel like there was any reason for her not to like him and any excuse she came up with seemed to be more excuses that didn’t make sense. I also found it interesting that he was able to hold the marriage over her head, or at least it was assumed he would if they hadn’t found out his lineage. Over all I thoroughly enjoyed the play but I almost hated Lady Bracknell. On more than one instance she proved to be so introverted and only looked out for her own good- even admitting to lie to Lord Bracknell in order to maintain control and keep things in place. It might be my thoughts of life in this time period but I felt she was very close minded and didn’t do a whole lot for me in terms of the plot.

Oscar Wilde's Insight on Victorian Life

Oscar Wilde has been a favorite of mine for quite some time. As a person who lived his life on the outskirts of propriety, he had the ability to portray the values of Victorian culture as an outsider looking in on something ridiculous. From the start of the play, he tackles facets of society that wouldn't seem outwardly obvious or even thought of by anyone. For example, the societal structure of marriage takes a beating throughout the play. Jack says, "But there is nothing romantic about a definite proposal. Why, one may be accepted. One usually is, I believe. Then the excitement is all over. The very essence of romance is uncertainty" (1735). The only joy we get out of life is the pursuit of something, but once we get it, the excitement dies and we've simply joined an institution that is deemed not only a natural course of action, but necessary.

There is an emphasis on the idea that our judgment of others is based on shallow things. Lady Bracknell places huge significance on Gwendolen marrying the right kind of person, which means having the perfect place in society. However, the reader must question what her priorities are in husband material. For example, she asks Jack if he smokes or not because "a man should always have an occupation of some kind" (1743).  Whether Gwendolen wants to or not doesn't really matter, all that matters is that she accepts the person her mother deems worthy. Gwendolen on the other hand doesn't have the best priorities in mind because she claims that she knew she was going to love Jack because his name is Ernest, which is ironic when his behavior is anything but "earnest."

 The play expands on this notion of hiding thoughts and actions to fit into ones environment. Both Algernon and Jack don masks and pretend to be people they're not to get enjoyment and pleasure out of knowing that they can change who they are. We can be one person in one place and someone completely different in another. People can act and have two faces easily in order to assimilate. Even names are expendable things and we can change them as we see fit.

Also, Wilde's wit never ceases to amaze me. He writes perfect one liners and truths into his character's dialogue. On page 1736, Algy says "More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." This reminded me of the fact that the Victorian era began the rise of sensational media and the idea that people were consuming scandalous stories that were held as pinnacles of what not to do in polite society. Wilde points to the idea that behavior is formed from reading about the downfall of others and building a society around it. Later on, Algy says "The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Modern life would be very tedious if it were either, and modern literature a complete impossibility?" (1738). So, basically, we thrive on complication. The minute details and idiosyncrasies of human behavior is the what prevents tedium from happening.

All I can say in the end is that I love this play and I might have brought great embarrassment upon myself from laughing hysterically while reading it at the library.

They would do anything for love...

     In the opening of The Importance of Being Earnest, a bunch of characters are already thrown at you. The whole play revolves around Jack Worthing, the guardian to a pretty girl named Cecily Cardew. Jack has operated for many years under a secret alias, “Ernest,” who is a scandalous, free spirited socialite. Because Jack has so many responsibilities, I guess you could say Ernest is his way of escaping those responsibilities to go to London and do whatever he wants. Jack is in love with his best friend Algernon's cousin, Gwendolen, who Jack plans to propose to at the beginning. This is really where all the love triangles started and if you don't keep track of them, you might end up back at square one. One of the obviously interesting things is the play being about the importance of being earnest, when it tells the story of a man who is quite the opposite and leading a double life, and the consequences of that dishonest and deceptive choice.

     I took one central idea of the play to be deception and lying to get what you want. The first example of this is Jack taking on the alias Ernest to participate in a scandalous lifestyle and escape from his responsibilities. Other examples are obviously when Jack and Algernon pretend they are Ernest in order to gain the affections of Gwendolen and Cecily. It's pretty crazy to think that if Jack told the truth at the beginning of the play, things would have turned out a LOT differently and events would have transpired a lot less chaotically. When Algernon first accuses “Ernest” of being someone else, Jack/Ernest counter-accuses Algernon of being “ungentlemanly” (1736); to me this is a little juvenile and definitely shows Jack's weakness as a character, since he doesn't really properly defend himself, he just focuses on insulting the other person. The fact that both Algernon and Jack attempt to be Ernest shows some kind of connection in character. The two women are also operating under lies as well, so they definitely aren't innocent either. Also, by the end they all end up with who they want, despite all the lies that have been thrown around, showing that honesty isn't really a necessary virtue, even in a huge event such as marriage (even though I would claim the opposite). This might also hint at some kind of corruption/flaw in the idea of marriage, and using it not for the romantic part but for the furthering of a family.

     Another theme I noticed was the reoccurring idea of social class division. To me, Algernon represented the higher class aristocrat; he comes off very greedy and careless on 1734, when he is talking about Lane's lax views on marriage. He believes that the lower class should set an example for the higher class, because he knows aristocrats are corrupt, yet he doesn't seem to be very concerned with fixing this corruption...jerk. Jack represents the lower class, he doesn't know very much about his family history, and is placed at a lower social ranking after Lady Bracknell calls him out for this lack of knowledge to further accentuate the difference in social status. Lady Bracknell plays a role in the display of this idea, as respect of elders and upholding social class seems very important to her.

Going back to being honest and the desire to continue the family name, I think this play overall reflects characteristics and motives of Victorian marriages, as well as the idea of reputation (appearing yet again!). Reputation back then came from family name alone, not character, so throughout the play the two men don't really have any motivation to further the quality of character, just their family names, making their sincerity and honesty not too important to them both. Gwendolen is clearly obsessed with reputation as well, shown in Act II. Her trivial exchange with Cecily in the garden about sugar in tea vs no sugar in tea, and bread and butter vs cake, shows how much she values being fashionable and up to date on trends, therefore hinting at her obsession with status, an idea that mirrors that of her cousin Algernon.

     To zoom out a bit, I always like to look at the big picture and determine what the work says about the author's attitudes. The Importance of Being Earnest showed me that he almost poked fun at the idea of aristocracy; the whole play was about corruption of marriage and general etiquette of the high class, yet the work maintained a light hearted mood, suggesting that he doesn't think this corruption is going to change, nor does he seem to be taking action on it, he's just poking a little fun at it. Overall I did really like the play and the ideas it presented about societal values.

Oscar Wilde’s Comedic Genius

The Importance of Being Earnest was a play that made me both laugh and cringe.  Wilde came up with so many situations that are perfect that culminate in such a dramatic ending.  Algernon, or Algy as Jack calls him, is a well-developed character, who though does not intend it, ends up being in my opinion the funniest character in the whole play.  In the first scene he gets his butler Lane to bring out cucumber sandwiches that he is going to give to his Aunt Augusta, but he starts eating them.  Then when Jack comes over he tries to eat one and Algernon says  “Please don’t touch the cucumber sandwiches.  They are ordered specially for Aunt Augusta” (1735) and then right after that the stage directions say for Algernon to eat one.  Then to top it all off because he keeps eating them when his aunt arrives Lane lies to cover up Algernon and Algernon goes along and lies to his aunts face when in fact their were cucumbers. One other scene that I found hilarious was after Gwendolen and Cecily find out that Algernon and Jack both have pretended to named Earnest and both ladies exit into the house.  Jack being to “freak out” and Algernon is sitting down eating muffins.  He claims that when he upset eating helps him and Jack gets so angry and takes the muffins away from him, but Algernon seems to not even be affected that he might not be able to marry Cecily and keep truing to eat the muffins.

Daniel Pietaro

The Importance of Being Earnest

When I began reading “The Importance of Being Earnest” my head began to spin a little bit. All the names and love triangles were a bit hard to follow in the beginning but after going over them (quite a few times I may add) I think I finally got a handle on who loves who and who wishes to marry the other. With that, the couple that intrigued me the most was between Jack (John/Ernest) and Gwendolen Fairfax.

Jack (or Ernest) is the plays protagonist. He is a man leading a double life—in Hertfordshire, in the country, he is known as Jack whereas in London he is known as Ernest. When Jack is in London posing as Ernest, he finds himself falling in love and proposing marriage to Gwendolen, his friend Algeron’s cousin.

Gwendolen is in love with Jack, whom she has come to know as Ernest. Through the play, Gwendolen presents herself as an intellectual, mature, and ostentatious woman. Believing that Jack is in fact Ernest, she becomes fixated on the idea of marrying a man with this name because it “is a divine name. It has a music of its own. It produces vibrations” (1742)

I find it very ironic that Gwendolen becomes obsessed with the name Ernest in that it evokes thoughts of “earnest,” or the quality of being serious or sincere. Within this text, the idea of being “earnest” is definitely put into question, for there is little sincerity between characters (especially in a relationship as serious as proposed marriage). Now, as I mentioned, I am most interested in Jack and Gwendolen’s relationship because I feel these two characters are the most twisted in personality.

Jack is not remotely sincere or serious in that he is not entirely who he says he is. Gwendolen presents herself as this all mighty type of woman and yet this is not entirely so.

Gwendolen shows a little bit of fight when she and Cecily come to realize there is some type of deception going on. At first she attacks Cecily’s character, telling her that she does not trust her and calling her out on her claims. When the two women realize that they are both being deceived however, Gwendelon shows some strength and turns her back on Jack and calls Cecily “sister” (1764). This is short lived though because she is eager to take him back. When everything is finally out on the table, Jack asks Gwendelon if she can forgive him and she responds, “I can. For I feel that you are sure to change.” (1777).

So, it is clear that neither character is entirely “earnest,” though in the end it does not seem to matter because they end up together. I suppose sincerity isn’t of much importance in their relationship? Let’s see how well that works out…

Coming Full Circle in Jane Eyre

As we wrap up Jane Eyre, I just loved the role reversal seen between Rochester and Jane at the end of the novel, especially after today's discussion of the passage comparing Jane and Blanche (pg. 137). Throughout the novel, we see how much of the upperhand Rochester exerts over Jane as he tries to assert his love for her; as an outcast, she constantly feels inadequate to Rochester, who is a member of the upperclass and rich. She struggles to find her place in society, especially amongst Rochester's supposed crew. On page 137, Jane chastises herself for having feelings for Rochester while Blanche is in the picture and creates "Portrait of a Governess, disconnected, poor, and plain." She then describes Blanche as this beautiful being with a "Grecian neck and bust." Blanche essentially has it all - money, class, family, the looks. In comparison to Blanche, Jane feels unequal to Rochester and  struggles to accept her feelings for him. On some level, Rochester seems to exploit this notion as he plays mind games with Jane. After Blanche is no longer in the picture and the whole Bertha unveiling goes down, Jane runs away (about time!).

I believe this separation is important as it sets up the true turning point in Jane and Rochester's relationship. When Jane returns to him, it is only AFTER she has asserted herself as an independent woman. She is rich and has family - essentially she has found a place in society after searching all this while. This is ironic as she approaches Rochester who is now in a vulnerable state. He has lost his house, his hand, and his vision in the fire. Rochester is utterly dependent on Jane. Now it is SHE who is taking care of him and it is SHE who even plays a few mind games with him. When Rochester asks about St. John, Jane makes it a point to describe him as "a handsome man: tall, fair, with blue eyes and a Grecian profile" making Rochester (who is now extra hideous) jealous and uncomfortable - seems to echo the whole Jane / Blanche ordeal, does it not? It is this equal playing ground that Jane and Rochester are able to form lasting relationship - one that Jane now accepts wholeheartedly without doubts, as confirmed by her reflection:

"I hold myself supremely best - blest beyond what language can express; because I am my husband's life as fully as he is mine. No woman was ever nearer to her mate than I am; ever more absolutely bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh" (384).

(posted for Jamie)

Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester…. Love? No…

            More like love triangle! So as I am writing this blog I am fighting the urge to rip open the book and finish it. But I am only blogging from chapter 13 to chapter 28 so I will have to fight this urge.

            One of the most interesting things to follow throughout Jane Eyre is the relationship between Jane and Mr. Rochester. Honestly, when he was first introduced I thought she would fall in love with him. However, I thought he would secretly be one of her relatives she always wondered if she had. Maybe that’s due to all the poems and stories we’ve read about incest or maybe I’m just a pervert, who knows. I think the first warning sign Jane should have seen with Mr. Rochester was when he fell off the horse. He pretended to be someone else to see what opinion she had of him! What a strange thing to do. His desire to know what people think about him becomes more apparent (and creepy) when he dresses up as a FEMALE fortuneteller to find out if Jane truly loves him. How did she not even question how weird this was!?!? All he asks is if she forgives him, and of course eventually she does.  

            Jane of course still thinks he has no feelings for her. This has much to do with the idea of wealth and ranking. She even tells herself “He is not of your order: keep to your caste” (138). This difference in wealth and social standing starts to affect them more and more.  When Mr. Rochester comes back to Thornfield with his fancy friends, you can tell it is ripping Jane apart. She feels secluded and believes he will go off and marry one of the wealthy, fancy ladies. So Jane does what she knows best… sits in a small space and watches people.  I saw an interesting character development for Jane in these chapters. At first she is very jealous of Ms. Ingram because she believes she will steal Mr. Rochester’s affection. However she soon sees just how dull of person she truly is. My favorite line is when Jane says, “But I was not jealous…Miss Ingram was a mark beneath jealousy: she was too inferior to excite the feeling” (158).  Jane finally sees herself as superior due to her intellect and wit, rather than inferior due to her lack of fortune. Miss Ingram gets screwed over anyway though (thankfully). She reminds me of the mother from “The Woman of Colour.” I wanted to punch her every time she spoke for her ignorant comments.  But it turns out Mr. Rochester was only using her to make Jane jealous, and he gets her to leave him by pretending he has less money than he actually does. Because… dun dun dun… Mr. Rochester loves Jane!

            Once they develop an intimacy (only took until page 216 for them to finally kiss) Jane thinks it is too good to be true. Even Mrs. Fairfax who has always been kind to Jane tells her he cannot possibly have true feelings for her. Once he proposes marriage, Mr. Rochester wants to shower her with gifts and expensive items. Jane shows her feelings in a powerful, yet slightly annoying way when she expresses she does not want money thrown at her. She shows that she is not a woman who wants expensive things because it is not who she is. I valued her opinions but she also was very consistent in not accepting anything. She even talks about her self as “two different Jane’s” when contemplating who she will be after the wedding. HOWEVER, Mr. Rochester is a nut. So this section ends with the wedding, where someone comes and OBJECTS.

            Let me tell you I did not see this coming at all. However, she did have weird dreams and started pacing back and forth the night before so I should have seen something terrible coming. So… the vampire/walking dead like person who has been biting people is not Grace Poole, but none other than HIS FIRST WIFE who is a zombie-like crazy person he has been hiding in the attic… There were super awesome gothic moments all throughout these chapters.  I’m still in shock. I thought Jane was too in love to leave him. Mr. Rochester seems pretty pathetic at this point as he begs her to stay and for his forgiveness.

He tries to justify the lies saying this woman is not his wife because they do not love each other and she has no human like qualities.  Apparently his family lied to him so he would marry her for her money. Of course… because everything bad in this book has to do with money and class. This section ends with Jane leaving and getting on some random carriage going somewhere unknown. I am proud she was strong enough to leave but I have no idea where she is going to go. I could ramble for days but I want to finish this book. Adios fellow 206ers.

Jane and Mr. Rochester Doomed?

I think Jane and Mr. Rochester’s marriage is doomed to fail and here is why. First of all, Mr. Rochester tries to make Jane admit that she is in love with him by pretending to court Miss Ingram (who is a horrible, icky person anyways). If that isn’t being manipulative, then I don’t know what is. As if the weird trick where Mr. Rochester pretended to be a gypsy was not warning enough, he had to make Jane jealous enough to make sure that she liked him. Poor Jane is going to have to spend her entire relationship with Mr. Rochester wondering if he is lying to her! These power play moves just make him seem cowardly and is really unfair to Jane since she has much more to lose in the relationship with Mr. Rochester being her boss. The worst part is that Jane was not even that mad that Mr. Rochester lied to her. It seems to me that Mr. Rochester likes being in control of situations, which will be interesting since Jane does also.

Secondly, Halina said in class that Charlotte Brontë is fan of foreshadowing and uses it a lot in her novel. I definitely think I picked up on some red flags that Brontë carefully set for the reader. For instance, just minutes after Mr. Rochester proposes to Jane, the sky grows so dark that she can’t see Mr. Rochester’s face and then a huge storm ensues. It continues for hours through the night and in the morning Jane finds out that the tree that they had been sitting under has been struck by lightning and split in half. There is a figurative as well as a literal dark cloud hanging over their romance right from the beginning. As if that isn’t obvious, Mrs.Fairfax, who we have deemed the voice of reason and facts, tells Jane that “all that is gold does not glitter... and I do fear there will be something found to be different to what either you or I expect” (226).  Talk about ominous sounding! She basically tells Jane that Mr. Rochester isn’t all that he is cracked up to be and all Jane can say is never mind. I just think that for someone who spends so much of her time observing others, Jane should be a little better about observing Mr. Rochester. All this talk about love has made Jane put her blinders up and I think she is in too deep with this marriage. RUN FOR THE HILLS, JANE! GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!

Rochester and Jane...ssouuull maaatteeess

So on my first blog post about Jane Eyre, I talked about the scene with Jane and Brocklehurst, and how Jane was portrayed as the OTHER. For pretty much Jane's entire life she was pushed outside of the normal society and portrayed as someone different. Not only did her family and teachers treat her as an outsider, but they also portrayed her as someone to be avoided--as if her different-ness could be caught like a disease; as if her presence and how she acted could badly affect those she associated with. This once again relates back to Women of Colour: the scene where George thinks that he can become filthy from touching someone black.

In chapter twenty seven, we find out that Rochester's emotional background is similar to Jane's. He was cast out from his family, treated like an other as well. His family even set him up in a horrible marriage to a to-be insane woman just so they could get her inheritance and money. His family, just like Jane's, set him up to be cast aside as an outsider. He only ended up with such a huge fortune because his family died. But all the money that he inherited from his marriage and from his family didn't make him happy or feel full. On the contrary he is very empty, and travels the world in search of a woman that he feels will make him feel whole. His large house and tons of money doesn't make him happy; he doesn't feel at home there. So he leaves and attempts to find home elsewhere, in someone else. This is similar to Jane who is constantly looking for a home, but can never really find one because she is always pushed out and made the other.

BUT, then they find each other! And as much as Rochester seems kind of creepy and overbearing at first, and Jane resists him at first, he and Jane's relationship makes complete sense! They have both been cast out in their families and are both searching for a home, but lucky for them, they have found comfort and home in each other! They still have their problems.. like Rochester wants Jane to be a little different than she is, he never casts her out like her family did. They welcome, compliment, and help each other. It's so cute and I love it. They are each other's home. They're lives set them up to be together and they're wonderful soul mates and it's the best. Rochester and Jane FOREVER.

Run Jane Run

So I'm very surprised at how much I have enjoyed reading Jane Eyre so far. I have heard the title all throughout my childhood and I even had the "kids" version of the book (which I'm glad I didn't read, because how the heck do you make all this craziness into a kids book?!) but this is my first time actually reading it. How much I like it is a problem, though, because I really have to write a paper for one of my other classes and I can't really put Jane Eyre down...that being said, I haven't quite gotten all the way to chapter 27 but I'll be there by monday.

Soooo Jane reminds me of one of those characters from a horror movie. I feel like the whole book I'm telling Jane, "NO. DON'T GO DOWN THAT HALLWAY. DON'T OPEN THE DOOR." and what do you know, she does it anyway. Like we were talking about, how she keeps going to all these new places and they all have scary daunting names. The first two were acceptable because she was a little kid and didn't really have a choice in the matter, but when she went to Thornfield and was like "ooh, this is gonna be great!" Really, Jane, really?!

 The perfect example: Mr. Rochester. To be honest, I would have gotten the heck out of there the moment I met Mr. Rochester. He creeped me out. Well, more fairly, he pissed me off before he creeped me out. He was all "Oh, right now I'm going to talk to you like you're my equal. But we all know how inferior you are to me." Like, cool. Glad you made yourself feel cool. And THEN Jane starts to go and get the warm and fuzzys for him. DON'T GO DOWN THAT HALLWAY, JANE. He almost has like a magical power over her, the way she acted sometimes. This is especially seen when he's the fortune teller. It's like he controls Jane and all of her emotions. She's kind of like a puppet to him. Or a doll. Even in his marriage proposal, he pretends that he's getting married to Blanche just to get Jane to be jealous. Why don't you just, I dunno...court her? But instead, he has to do it in the way that he has power over her. And then he even dresses her like a doll and she is repulsed because that's really not her, like, at all. He likes the fact that he's superior to Jane and she's torn because she's such an individual and she has been her whole life...she HAD to be, in fact, but at the same time, he's giving her the potential of a family and a home and someone to love her, which she's been looking for her entire life. What to do, what to do...?

Run, Jane. Run.

But now the name Thornfield makes even more sense. This whole life seems so beautiful to Jane, what she's always wanted, but she's getting herself further and further entangled into the thorns that are keeping her. And there are a couple of, umm, obvious signs, like the fact that Rochester's bed was on fire and that guy got stabbed and then maybe the fact that a creepy girl popped out of Jane's closet and ripped up her veil? Are those not obvious signs that this is not the happy home you crave, Jane? And then we're expected to just be okay with it being all hush hush? Jane, you need to get your mind out of your fairytales and get yourself the heck outta there.

Jane Eyre

Our dear plain Jane is so very critical of herself during several instances of this second section of the book. When Mrs. Fairfax first describes Blanche Ingram to Jane, Jane immediately compares herself to someone who is described a goddess-like. I found it harsh that Jane drew two pictures, one of herself and one of Blanche (who she had never actually seen) in order to remind herself that she was not worthy of Rochester’s affections and that he would never be interested in her when there are women like Blanche who are still single. She chastises herself for even thinking that Rochester could have any sort of fondness for Jane because why would he choose her when he could have someone like Blanche. Jane is once again putting herself on the outside and is branding herself as the “other” in this case because she realizes she is not of high society and status like the women who Rochester has gone to visit.

And Rochester only encourages this type of self-deprecating feelings when he feigned a courtship with Miss Ingram – which is an extreme way of trying to get someone’s attention or to make them jealous, but I mean it is Rochester. And then Jane once again says that she is not meant to have this much happiness – no human could possibly have such a great life and that she was not meant to have a great life. Considering what she has been through, it is obvious she deserves better, but is Rochester better? She seems to think so, but doesn’t think she deserves it.