I was surprised to find out that the Modern Age of Poetry is officially dated 1890-1950. It just seemed ironic that the “modern” age of poetry ended almost 70 years ago. I liked Ezra Pound’s tag phrase of “Make It New.” This represents the sentiments of the day. They wanted to do new things, adding new twists and universal truths to everyday experiences.
I went to Europe last fall and spent a weekend in Paris. As I was exploring different options of places for us to visit in Paris, I noticed a place called “Shakespeare & Co.”. I enjoyed the image shown in Wednesday’s presentation of this early 20th century writing hub because although I did not end up going, I knew exactly where it is on a map of Paris. I had a personal connection with this.
The term “objective correlative” was new to me. I had not heard it before. Eliot wanted to evoke emotion in his readers through a set of objects or symbols instead of directly stating the emotion.
I think great works came out of the Lost Generation. I wish I was more familiar with more of the works from this time period. It is interesting to me to learn about T.S. Eliot’s private life. It makes these great, historical figures seem more human. I feel the pressure to know what direction my life is going: where I want to work, where I want to settle, etc. As we talked about Eliot’s life, I made the realization that even these great artists who I deem as “successful” did not know what they would achieve: they simply lived their lives and great things came from it. This takes a lot of pressure off of me. Just like these poets, I can live my life one day at a time, knowing great things can just come from that.
Response 10: 3/28
I had known Freud for his ideas on sexual theories and studies, but I had never really heard how he got started. Wednesday’s reading presented a very natural and chronological explanation of how he went through his studies and how he got where he ended up. I was intrigued to read about his start with shock therapy and hypnotism. Freud began to find failure in his methods, and read the publications of other scientists of the day who were discovering that shock therapy wasn’t effective. This made Freud refocus his effort. He also eventually moved on from hypnotism.
It seems like the majority of Freud’s experiences were simply that: his experiences. Freud develops his theories based on what he hears from his patients. This makes me wonder how reliable they are, as there is not statistical data to accompany his work. The mystery and attraction to Freudian ideas could come from this very fact: that many of his theories are beyond the ability to measure or prove. One cannot quantify dreams, or map out the unconscious. His theories are beyond what we can measure and observe directly.
I appreciated how the Professor we watched in the Harvard Lecture clip made the distinction between Freud’s ideas. He mentioned that some are really out there like the penis complex. However, the professor also mentioned the more practical and “valid” points to Freud’s propositions. I think it is valid to differentiate between ideas that seem to crazy to be true without discrediting Freud’s other ideas. I am glad we distinguished the difference between the subconscious and the unconscious. The unconscious cannot be tapped into. It is the place of repressed emotions and desires, which Freud argues are usually sexual in nature. The subconscious, on the other hand, is still connected to consciousness. It refers more to the subliminal forms of communication and ideas. It was also interesting see Freud change his model of the mind, from the two channel model we first looked at into the Id, Superego, and Ego model that he later developed.
Response 9: 3/21
I love the symbolism in Heart of Darkness. The plot takes the audience from the “outside” to the “inside”, or to the heart of the issue. This is presented in the name of Marlow’s destination, going first to the Outer Station, and then into the Inner Station where Kurtz is located. Marlow, raised in a European world, approaches the Congo and the Natives from what he believes to be a civilized perspective. From his point of view, his descriptions, epithets, and attitudes to his surroundings is communicated through Marlow’s eyes. I think that the steamship that Marlow takes into the Congo is a great symbol. It is ironic the contrast between the behaviors of the supposed barbaric natives and the civilized Europeans. It’s the Europeans that are enslaving the Natives using brutal and inhuman tactics. I like the line where Marlow has the realization that the Natives almost act human. The Cannibals on the steamship act civilized and follow orders. It seems that a lot of the plot is tied to the fate and progress of the steamship: when it breaks down, Marlow cannot continue on. He is tied to the ship. The ship might symbolize technology. Technology is one of the biggest differences between the colonizers and the colonized. But, we see the frail position that Marlow is in—when technology fails, he is helpless. During the attack on the steamship by the Natives on the shore, we saw this illustrated. The Natives outnumbered those on the steamship, but Marlow was able to scare them off with the “bells and whistles” of technology. It wasn’t power, numbers, bravery, or any other traditional aspect of war, but simply technology. The steamship is still dependent on nature to run. It needs logs to burn for the steam engine. This could show how even technology is rooted in nature.
Response 8: 3/7
I was really intrigued by the point that was brought up at the end of last class. The idea was proposed that the yellow wallpaper was just a mirror reflecting Jane’s fading dress. Maybe the faces she thought she saw through the “windows” were just imaginary faces in the mirror, or even her own as she desired: free to be herself out in the world. The dress became more and more yellowed as it faded. Her tearing down the wallpaper at the end could have been her ripping off her dress. However, I do not think that this is the meaning of the story, or the intended metaphor. I don’t know for sure what the author is getting at with the wallpaper metaphor. The author keeps mentioning that her husband doesn’t know how “bad” her condition is. Maybe the story is about self-expression, and how if we can’t express ourselves, a basic need of all humans, we begin to loose ourselves. She was confined to her room, told when to go out, when to rest, what to eat, etc. Eventually the imagination she could not use elsewhere began to eat away at her. She saw things in the patterns of the wallpaper. She saw faces. Eventually, it became too much for her to handle. The evils of the “Resting Cure” are also addressed. It seems the author is speaking of how it is not a cure-all and how harmful it is. As a physician, Jane’s husband tried his best to cure her. However, it made it worse by locking her up in her room. It also bothered me that he did not listen to her when she asked to have the wallpaper removed. It seemed like he treated her as a child whose opinions and thoughts did not even really matter. He thought that as the male and husband and doctor, he knew best. This, however, lead to a catastrophic ending.
Response 7: 2/28
One thing we didn’t look at in class is the significance of the Tarantella in A Doll’s House. I think that this dance in this play could arguably be a metaphor of Torvald’s control over his wife. In regards to the dance, Torvald is the final authority over Nora: he alone knows how it should be done. The wording and phrases used by Ibsen in the dialougue makes me think there is more to this seemingly simple Tarantella than at first meets the eye. This dance mirrors Nora and her husband’s marriage relationship, too. Just like their marriage, Nora continually looks to Torvald for approval, and to make sure she is “doing it right.” She must artfully sneak behind his back to make the loan and to sneak money from him. Such actions could arguably be like a manipulative dance. Nora claims that she needs “practice” with the dance, and Torvald is very willing to instruct her. Likewise, during their marriage, Nora wants to please her husband, and he is always willing to tell her how to conduct her self and how to behave. Nora cries out to Torvald while practicing, “Torvald dea; direct me and put me right, as you used to.” He replies, “With all the pleasure in life, since you wish it.” He commands her to slow down and to be less wild. When she does not obey, Torvald says, “I couldn’t have believed it. You’ve positively forgotten all I thought you.” This communicates a sense of control and absolute devotion that Torvald feels he is entitled. It is this mastery of the dance, or in other words his control over Nora, that Torvald is excited to show off to everyone at the party. I think the Tarantella could signify more than most audience members realize. At the end of the second act, we see Nora loose control while practicing with Torvald. She goes crazy, beyond his control. Maybe this foreshadows the coming storm, when Torvald looses all control of her and she leaves.
Response 6: 2/21
The plot of Ivan Ilych is very simple. In fact, the title is a spoiler. The plot begins with the aftermath of Ivan’s death, and then jumps back in time to explain how events progress. The reader knows up front what this novel is about: Ivan’s death. I enjoyed this reading. I appreciated the very realistic comments and views given. For example, just after Peter leaves the death-chamber following the service, Ibsen writes, “Peter Ivanovich found the fresh air particularly pleasant after the smell of incense, the dead body, and carbolic acid.” I often have a sarcastic and sometimes dry sense of humor, which may be why I found this statement to be so impactful. It contrasts the seriousness of what is going on. Here Ivan has just died, and Peter’s first observation after walking out of the service seems to say, “Whew, glad that’s over…it smells so much better out here!” Peter moves on very quickly, and the first thing that he notices is the removal of uncomfortable smells. Maybe Ibsen is making a statement about humanity with this comment: humanity is fickle. We strive to please ourselves and often focus on the immediate present. When Peter first hears of his friend’s death, one of his first realizations is that he will miss his routine nap because he feels obligated to go visit the Ilych family. Nothing in this opening funeral scene seemed to be about Ivan at all, but about each individual having to deal with or put up with societal formalities. The three smells that Peter notices are incense, the dead body, and carbolic acid. In response to Romanticism and Realism, I wonder if we can metaphorically substitute these suffocating and oppressive smells with three societal movements that Ibsen might be arguing are crippling humanity: forces of religion, evil human nature, and science. Peter was refreshed by the pleasant air, suggesting that nature has a restorative power that no human establishment (religion or science) has.
Response 5: 2/7
It amazes me how the views and values of a society shape all aspects of life during any given era. For example, as we study the Romantic period, we see common threads appearing between plays, stories, music, poetry, and art of the time period. Just like the literature we read, we were able to identify differences between classical and romantic pieces. The music of the classical period was rigid and structured. Its precise approach allowed it to sound the same no matter who performed it. Romantic music, on the other hand, allows for much more expression and movement. This means it is more subjective to those performing it. The Romantic style allowed for more embellishment. More could be added to the music in regards to creative expression. This is exemplified by the words of Gretchen’s lament from Faust being set to music and sung as the “Spinning Wheel Song.” It rose and fell with the words and emotions of the words, mirrored by the expression of the music, flowing passionately. The poetry we read this week also mirrored the Romantic themes we have been studying. I loved the figurative language and creative approaches that were used by the authors. I liked how The Sea View and The Lake explore the emotions of the human spirit. They explore what happiness is in the context of life and sorrow. There was so much packed into both of these pieces, that I feel like we could spend a long time fully exploring their meanings. I was very impressed with the use of seasons in The Sea View, how each section represented a different season. We did not talk in class about the theme of death in this poem. It seemed like a very important element, like the mention of the tomb at the end of the first stanza.
Response 4: 1/31
I wonder if Faust knew what he knows now, how would that night in his study have changed? That first night where he summoned the Earth Spirit, fed up with the emptiness that had become his life was a pivotal moment in this story. Would he experience all the joys and passions, knowing full well the pain and sorrow that would come hand-in-hand? Would he have just taken the vial, ending it there? Did Faust find fulfillment in "experience", just as he set out to do? Or maybe, he would have realized that he already had a lot in his life, a career, knowledge, people that looked up to him. But alas, it wasn't enough, and he cast it away for the fever of his soul; carnal desires he craved. In his head, I think Faust knew what the outcome would be, but the key thing is the fact that I don't think he cared, for finding seeming fulfillment was more important to him than upright behavior. Even at the time of Faust's character, surely there were other examples he could have learned from, other peers and heroes who found fulfillment without plunging into sin. We face the same thing today: the pull between rational thought and passionate pursuit. We know the consequences of our Faustian desires, but trade it anyway for the immediate gratification of our desires. Why is it human nature to flirt with the Devil, instead of learning from the woes of others? Faust, I do not think, would have changed his decision even after knowing what he now knows. He had to walk the path he walked, and endured the climb he endured. Broken, I suppose he found redemption. It sucks that he had to drag others down through hell with him: Valentine's death, Gretchen's heartache, her mother's death. Why did he have to go through Hell to find God, who was there the whole time, unchangeable? But Faust chose the damnation of himself for the sake of "experience". What would Faust have turned out to be if that night in the study he would have realized the changes he could have made instead of turning to the Devil?
Response 3: 1/24
I have been fascinated by this story. Not only do I like the various layers to it (the prologue, the pursuit of happiness, the meaning of life, striving for potential, etc.), but we get to interpret it in the way it speaks to us. The activity we did on Monday helped me to think critically in what ways I would put this on the stage. It allowed me to interact with the poem, instead of just reading it and moving on. It felt a lot of creative power in being able to create Faust as I saw him. I also find myself relating to Faust and his struggles, as many of his struggles are central to human nature. His search for purpose, for example, is a part of nearly everyone's life, including myself. Faust feels trapped in where he's at in life, turning to various methods – poison, the Earth Spirit, and eventually Mephistopheles – to answer the central question, “Do I matter?” He has reached the top in academics and law, and it seems in vain. What does he have to show for it? He then turns to experience, desperately desiring validity to who he has become. Just as we mentioned in class that this story mirrors the Old Testament story of Job, I see many central themes to the story of Solomon and the book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon, the richest man in the world and a king, turns to experience to find meaning and purpose, just as Faust does. Solomon seeks the pleasures of the flesh and of experience, but in the end finds all things to be vain, empty and meaningless. It is fascinating that after thousands of years of human existence, we still are wrestling with the same issues of identity and purpose.
Response 2: 1/17
For some reason, I was quite surprised by Walt Whitman’s words. In particular I was interested in his comparison of humanity and animals in the first half of chapter 32. From an early age, I have been taught that we as humans are superior to animals. We have what no other creature has: the ability to reason. I believe that humans have a spirit, too, which makes us different than the beasts of the field. Whitman, however, writes that he could “turn and live with the animals.” To me, these words are interestingly chosen. First, the word choice “turn” implies a complete direction change, like he is either turning his back on society or just fed up with human association. In most situations, “to live with the animals” would be repulsive, dirty, and suggestive of a sinful state of existence. Whitman contrasts animals and humanity in six lines of parallel structure. I feel that though there is truth to his claims, they are shallow. He claims that animals are better off because they do not whine of their condition, obsess with materialism, foolishly discuss religion, etc. I argue, however, that this ultimate state of passivity would be a poor state of existence for humanity. While there are lessons to be learned, such as learning to accept one’s life circumstances, I believe Whitman is missing out on a huge part of our existence as humanity. We alone of all creatures on this earth can advance. We as human beings are capable of higher thought, allowing us to not only advance our knowledge but to pass it on. The cows of the pasture will forever stay cows in a pasture until they consciously decide that they want something else. Humans, as we have proved for several millennia, can not only make sense of the earth, stars, and existence, but can pass our accomplishments and knowledge from one generation to the next.
Response 1: 1/10
I thought Frederick Douglas’s narrative was very gripping. As I read through it, I could see two themes really shine out, the first being freedom and the second being self-discovery. Both of these ideas are intertwined and result from his heart-wrenching experiences, as exemplified by not knowing his birthday, losing his mother, or watching the whipping of his aunt. In my opinion, these two ideas come together on page 540, when Douglas is telling how he received his name. A person’s name is their identity, a means by which the rest of the world can refer to who that person is. The section where Frederick recounts the names he has gone by, I see parallels to his journey for freedom and self-discovery. At first, he is given a name by his mother, “Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey”: this was his first identity. In the same way, his mother also gave him a social identity, as Frederick was a black and white mixed baby born into a slave society. Frederick writes that he dropped his two middle names early on in his youth. In Frederick’s personal life, he continually wrestled with the inequality of slavery, firmly believing that he himself was just as much a man created equal with all whites. We watch Douglas fight for his identity by standing up to his master and refusing a whipping. As he leaves from Baltimore, Frederick changes his last name to Stanly, then again to Johnson when he arrives in New York. This becomes true of himself as a person too, where each new location or city is like a new chapter in his identity of himself. When he finally reached personal freedom and was ready to further update his identity, he asked Mr. Johnson to give him a new name on the grounds that he kept Frederick as part of it. In the same way, Frederick was ready to start his new identity as a free black-man in the North, but he could not fully let go nor deny that part of him that would forever shape his identity: “Frederick”, the name given to him by his mother. The name he had carried all his life. The name that he would forever hold to as his own. After receiving the name of “Douglas,” Frederick continues to use it for the rest of his days as he was best known by it. Finally, he settled into his freedom and his identity.
4/11
I was surprised to find out that the Modern Age of Poetry is officially dated 1890-1950. It just seemed ironic that the “modern” age of poetry ended almost 70 years ago. I liked Ezra Pound’s tag phrase of “Make It New.” This represents the sentiments of the day. They wanted to do new things, adding new twists and universal truths to everyday experiences.
I went to Europe last fall and spent a weekend in Paris. As I was exploring different options of places for us to visit in Paris, I noticed a place called “Shakespeare & Co.”. I enjoyed the image shown in Wednesday’s presentation of this early 20th century writing hub because although I did not end up going, I knew exactly where it is on a map of Paris. I had a personal connection with this.
The term “objective correlative” was new to me. I had not heard it before. Eliot wanted to evoke emotion in his readers through a set of objects or symbols instead of directly stating the emotion.
I think great works came out of the Lost Generation. I wish I was more familiar with more of the works from this time period. It is interesting to me to learn about T.S. Eliot’s private life. It makes these great, historical figures seem more human. I feel the pressure to know what direction my life is going: where I want to work, where I want to settle, etc. As we talked about Eliot’s life, I made the realization that even these great artists who I deem as “successful” did not know what they would achieve: they simply lived their lives and great things came from it. This takes a lot of pressure off of me. Just like these poets, I can live my life one day at a time, knowing great things can just come from that.
Response 10:
3/28
I had known Freud for his ideas on sexual theories and studies, but I had never really heard how he got started. Wednesday’s reading presented a very natural and chronological explanation of how he went through his studies and how he got where he ended up. I was intrigued to read about his start with shock therapy and hypnotism. Freud began to find failure in his methods, and read the publications of other scientists of the day who were discovering that shock therapy wasn’t effective. This made Freud refocus his effort. He also eventually moved on from hypnotism.
It seems like the majority of Freud’s experiences were simply that: his experiences. Freud develops his theories based on what he hears from his patients. This makes me wonder how reliable they are, as there is not statistical data to accompany his work. The mystery and attraction to Freudian ideas could come from this very fact: that many of his theories are beyond the ability to measure or prove. One cannot quantify dreams, or map out the unconscious. His theories are beyond what we can measure and observe directly.
I appreciated how the Professor we watched in the Harvard Lecture clip made the distinction between Freud’s ideas. He mentioned that some are really out there like the penis complex. However, the professor also mentioned the more practical and “valid” points to Freud’s propositions. I think it is valid to differentiate between ideas that seem to crazy to be true without discrediting Freud’s other ideas. I am glad we distinguished the difference between the subconscious and the unconscious. The unconscious cannot be tapped into. It is the place of repressed emotions and desires, which Freud argues are usually sexual in nature. The subconscious, on the other hand, is still connected to consciousness. It refers more to the subliminal forms of communication and ideas. It was also interesting see Freud change his model of the mind, from the two channel model we first looked at into the Id, Superego, and Ego model that he later developed.
Response 9:
3/21
I love the symbolism in Heart of Darkness. The plot takes the audience from the “outside” to the “inside”, or to the heart of the issue. This is presented in the name of Marlow’s destination, going first to the Outer Station, and then into the Inner Station where Kurtz is located. Marlow, raised in a European world, approaches the Congo and the Natives from what he believes to be a civilized perspective. From his point of view, his descriptions, epithets, and attitudes to his surroundings is communicated through Marlow’s eyes. I think that the steamship that Marlow takes into the Congo is a great symbol. It is ironic the contrast between the behaviors of the supposed barbaric natives and the civilized Europeans. It’s the Europeans that are enslaving the Natives using brutal and inhuman tactics. I like the line where Marlow has the realization that the Natives almost act human. The Cannibals on the steamship act civilized and follow orders. It seems that a lot of the plot is tied to the fate and progress of the steamship: when it breaks down, Marlow cannot continue on. He is tied to the ship. The ship might symbolize technology. Technology is one of the biggest differences between the colonizers and the colonized. But, we see the frail position that Marlow is in—when technology fails, he is helpless. During the attack on the steamship by the Natives on the shore, we saw this illustrated. The Natives outnumbered those on the steamship, but Marlow was able to scare them off with the “bells and whistles” of technology. It wasn’t power, numbers, bravery, or any other traditional aspect of war, but simply technology. The steamship is still dependent on nature to run. It needs logs to burn for the steam engine. This could show how even technology is rooted in nature.
Response 8:
3/7
I was really intrigued by the point that was brought up at the end of last class. The idea was proposed that the yellow wallpaper was just a mirror reflecting Jane’s fading dress. Maybe the faces she thought she saw through the “windows” were just imaginary faces in the mirror, or even her own as she desired: free to be herself out in the world. The dress became more and more yellowed as it faded. Her tearing down the wallpaper at the end could have been her ripping off her dress. However, I do not think that this is the meaning of the story, or the intended metaphor. I don’t know for sure what the author is getting at with the wallpaper metaphor. The author keeps mentioning that her husband doesn’t know how “bad” her condition is. Maybe the story is about self-expression, and how if we can’t express ourselves, a basic need of all humans, we begin to loose ourselves. She was confined to her room, told when to go out, when to rest, what to eat, etc. Eventually the imagination she could not use elsewhere began to eat away at her. She saw things in the patterns of the wallpaper. She saw faces. Eventually, it became too much for her to handle. The evils of the “Resting Cure” are also addressed. It seems the author is speaking of how it is not a cure-all and how harmful it is. As a physician, Jane’s husband tried his best to cure her. However, it made it worse by locking her up in her room. It also bothered me that he did not listen to her when she asked to have the wallpaper removed. It seemed like he treated her as a child whose opinions and thoughts did not even really matter. He thought that as the male and husband and doctor, he knew best. This, however, lead to a catastrophic ending.
Response 7:
2/28
One thing we didn’t look at in class is the significance of the Tarantella in A Doll’s House. I think that this dance in this play could arguably be a metaphor of Torvald’s control over his wife. In regards to the dance, Torvald is the final authority over Nora: he alone knows how it should be done. The wording and phrases used by Ibsen in the dialougue makes me think there is more to this seemingly simple Tarantella than at first meets the eye. This dance mirrors Nora and her husband’s marriage relationship, too. Just like their marriage, Nora continually looks to Torvald for approval, and to make sure she is “doing it right.” She must artfully sneak behind his back to make the loan and to sneak money from him. Such actions could arguably be like a manipulative dance. Nora claims that she needs “practice” with the dance, and Torvald is very willing to instruct her. Likewise, during their marriage, Nora wants to please her husband, and he is always willing to tell her how to conduct her self and how to behave. Nora cries out to Torvald while practicing, “Torvald dea; direct me and put me right, as you used to.” He replies, “With all the pleasure in life, since you wish it.” He commands her to slow down and to be less wild. When she does not obey, Torvald says, “I couldn’t have believed it. You’ve positively forgotten all I thought you.” This communicates a sense of control and absolute devotion that Torvald feels he is entitled. It is this mastery of the dance, or in other words his control over Nora, that Torvald is excited to show off to everyone at the party. I think the Tarantella could signify more than most audience members realize. At the end of the second act, we see Nora loose control while practicing with Torvald. She goes crazy, beyond his control. Maybe this foreshadows the coming storm, when Torvald looses all control of her and she leaves.
Response 6:
2/21
The plot of Ivan Ilych is very simple. In fact, the title is a spoiler. The plot begins with the aftermath of Ivan’s death, and then jumps back in time to explain how events progress. The reader knows up front what this novel is about: Ivan’s death. I enjoyed this reading. I appreciated the very realistic comments and views given. For example, just after Peter leaves the death-chamber following the service, Ibsen writes, “Peter Ivanovich found the fresh air particularly pleasant after the smell of incense, the dead body, and carbolic acid.” I often have a sarcastic and sometimes dry sense of humor, which may be why I found this statement to be so impactful. It contrasts the seriousness of what is going on. Here Ivan has just died, and Peter’s first observation after walking out of the service seems to say, “Whew, glad that’s over…it smells so much better out here!” Peter moves on very quickly, and the first thing that he notices is the removal of uncomfortable smells. Maybe Ibsen is making a statement about humanity with this comment: humanity is fickle. We strive to please ourselves and often focus on the immediate present. When Peter first hears of his friend’s death, one of his first realizations is that he will miss his routine nap because he feels obligated to go visit the Ilych family. Nothing in this opening funeral scene seemed to be about Ivan at all, but about each individual having to deal with or put up with societal formalities. The three smells that Peter notices are incense, the dead body, and carbolic acid. In response to Romanticism and Realism, I wonder if we can metaphorically substitute these suffocating and oppressive smells with three societal movements that Ibsen might be arguing are crippling humanity: forces of religion, evil human nature, and science. Peter was refreshed by the pleasant air, suggesting that nature has a restorative power that no human establishment (religion or science) has.
Response 5:
2/7
It amazes me how the views and values of a society shape all aspects of life during any given era. For example, as we study the Romantic period, we see common threads appearing between plays, stories, music, poetry, and art of the time period. Just like the literature we read, we were able to identify differences between classical and romantic pieces. The music of the classical period was rigid and structured. Its precise approach allowed it to sound the same no matter who performed it. Romantic music, on the other hand, allows for much more expression and movement. This means it is more subjective to those performing it. The Romantic style allowed for more embellishment. More could be added to the music in regards to creative expression. This is exemplified by the words of Gretchen’s lament from Faust being set to music and sung as the “Spinning Wheel Song.” It rose and fell with the words and emotions of the words, mirrored by the expression of the music, flowing passionately. The poetry we read this week also mirrored the Romantic themes we have been studying. I loved the figurative language and creative approaches that were used by the authors. I liked how The Sea View and The Lake explore the emotions of the human spirit. They explore what happiness is in the context of life and sorrow. There was so much packed into both of these pieces, that I feel like we could spend a long time fully exploring their meanings. I was very impressed with the use of seasons in The Sea View, how each section represented a different season. We did not talk in class about the theme of death in this poem. It seemed like a very important element, like the mention of the tomb at the end of the first stanza.
Response 4:
1/31
I wonder if Faust knew what he knows now, how would that night in his study have changed? That first night where he summoned the Earth Spirit, fed up with the emptiness that had become his life was a pivotal moment in this story. Would he experience all the joys and passions, knowing full well the pain and sorrow that would come hand-in-hand? Would he have just taken the vial, ending it there? Did Faust find fulfillment in "experience", just as he set out to do? Or maybe, he would have realized that he already had a lot in his life, a career, knowledge, people that looked up to him. But alas, it wasn't enough, and he cast it away for the fever of his soul; carnal desires he craved. In his head, I think Faust knew what the outcome would be, but the key thing is the fact that I don't think he cared, for finding seeming fulfillment was more important to him than upright behavior. Even at the time of Faust's character, surely there were other examples he could have learned from, other peers and heroes who found fulfillment without plunging into sin. We face the same thing today: the pull between rational thought and passionate pursuit. We know the consequences of our Faustian desires, but trade it anyway for the immediate gratification of our desires. Why is it human nature to flirt with the Devil, instead of learning from the woes of others? Faust, I do not think, would have changed his decision even after knowing what he now knows. He had to walk the path he walked, and endured the climb he endured. Broken, I suppose he found redemption. It sucks that he had to drag others down through hell with him: Valentine's death, Gretchen's heartache, her mother's death. Why did he have to go through Hell to find God, who was there the whole time, unchangeable? But Faust chose the damnation of himself for the sake of "experience". What would Faust have turned out to be if that night in the study he would have realized the changes he could have made instead of turning to the Devil?
Response 3:
1/24
I have been fascinated by this story. Not only do I like the various layers to it (the prologue, the pursuit of happiness, the meaning of life, striving for potential, etc.), but we get to interpret it in the way it speaks to us. The activity we did on Monday helped me to think critically in what ways I would put this on the stage. It allowed me to interact with the poem, instead of just reading it and moving on. It felt a lot of creative power in being able to create Faust as I saw him. I also find myself relating to Faust and his struggles, as many of his struggles are central to human nature. His search for purpose, for example, is a part of nearly everyone's life, including myself. Faust feels trapped in where he's at in life, turning to various methods – poison, the Earth Spirit, and eventually Mephistopheles – to answer the central question, “Do I matter?” He has reached the top in academics and law, and it seems in vain. What does he have to show for it? He then turns to experience, desperately desiring validity to who he has become. Just as we mentioned in class that this story mirrors the Old Testament story of Job, I see many central themes to the story of Solomon and the book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon, the richest man in the world and a king, turns to experience to find meaning and purpose, just as Faust does. Solomon seeks the pleasures of the flesh and of experience, but in the end finds all things to be vain, empty and meaningless. It is fascinating that after thousands of years of human existence, we still are wrestling with the same issues of identity and purpose.
Response 2:
1/17
For some reason, I was quite surprised by Walt Whitman’s words. In particular I was interested in his comparison of humanity and animals in the first half of chapter 32. From an early age, I have been taught that we as humans are superior to animals. We have what no other creature has: the ability to reason. I believe that humans have a spirit, too, which makes us different than the beasts of the field. Whitman, however, writes that he could “turn and live with the animals.” To me, these words are interestingly chosen. First, the word choice “turn” implies a complete direction change, like he is either turning his back on society or just fed up with human association. In most situations, “to live with the animals” would be repulsive, dirty, and suggestive of a sinful state of existence. Whitman contrasts animals and humanity in six lines of parallel structure. I feel that though there is truth to his claims, they are shallow. He claims that animals are better off because they do not whine of their condition, obsess with materialism, foolishly discuss religion, etc. I argue, however, that this ultimate state of passivity would be a poor state of existence for humanity. While there are lessons to be learned, such as learning to accept one’s life circumstances, I believe Whitman is missing out on a huge part of our existence as humanity. We alone of all creatures on this earth can advance. We as human beings are capable of higher thought, allowing us to not only advance our knowledge but to pass it on. The cows of the pasture will forever stay cows in a pasture until they consciously decide that they want something else. Humans, as we have proved for several millennia, can not only make sense of the earth, stars, and existence, but can pass our accomplishments and knowledge from one generation to the next.
Response 1:
1/10
I thought Frederick Douglas’s narrative was very gripping. As I read through it, I could see two themes really shine out, the first being freedom and the second being self-discovery. Both of these ideas are intertwined and result from his heart-wrenching experiences, as exemplified by not knowing his birthday, losing his mother, or watching the whipping of his aunt. In my opinion, these two ideas come together on page 540, when Douglas is telling how he received his name. A person’s name is their identity, a means by which the rest of the world can refer to who that person is. The section where Frederick recounts the names he has gone by, I see parallels to his journey for freedom and self-discovery. At first, he is given a name by his mother, “Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey”: this was his first identity. In the same way, his mother also gave him a social identity, as Frederick was a black and white mixed baby born into a slave society. Frederick writes that he dropped his two middle names early on in his youth. In Frederick’s personal life, he continually wrestled with the inequality of slavery, firmly believing that he himself was just as much a man created equal with all whites. We watch Douglas fight for his identity by standing up to his master and refusing a whipping. As he leaves from Baltimore, Frederick changes his last name to Stanly, then again to Johnson when he arrives in New York. This becomes true of himself as a person too, where each new location or city is like a new chapter in his identity of himself. When he finally reached personal freedom and was ready to further update his identity, he asked Mr. Johnson to give him a new name on the grounds that he kept Frederick as part of it. In the same way, Frederick was ready to start his new identity as a free black-man in the North, but he could not fully let go nor deny that part of him that would forever shape his identity: “Frederick”, the name given to him by his mother. The name he had carried all his life. The name that he would forever hold to as his own. After receiving the name of “Douglas,” Frederick continues to use it for the rest of his days as he was best known by it. Finally, he settled into his freedom and his identity.