Nora and May

In class, I wondered why we were reading The Age of Innocence and Doll House at the same time. Of course, I assumed there would be at least some similarities, but the two works seem to parallel each other very closely. The two female character, especially, resemble each other.

Both May and Nora are manipulative while acting innocent. They’re both subtle, so the men don’t realize it. However, Nora is relatively more obvious in her manipulation. She is clearly playing a role. She acts childish and helpless around her husband so that he never suspects her. In the beginning, Nora acts naïve and childish so that Torvald gives her money. She is his little lark or doll or songbird. When she wants to help Kristine, she tells Kristine not to worry because she’ll take care of it. However, when talking to Torvald, Nora makes it sound like it was all Torvald’s idea. Plus, in order to keep him away from the mailbox, Nora pretends to need help on her dance. She knows that Torvald loves to help and care for her, so she claims to need his attention and assistance. She flatters and manipulates him to get what she wants. In the same way, May manipulates Archer when she needs information. While talking to Archer, May lets slip a comment about Ellen’s marriage. Archer defends Ellen’s decision not to return to her husband, so May drops the subject and says nothing more. It isn’t until much later that Archer figures it out. May was trying to gauge Archer’s feelings about Ellen’s separation from Count Olenska. The Mingotts had previously relied on Archer when dealing with Ellen. It was Archer who convinced Ellen not to get a divorce. However, when Archer defends Ellen’s decision to stay away from her husband, May tells her family, and they cut him out of their talks. May’s seemingly innocent comment was actually a way for her to test Archer. Additionally, May comes to realize that Archer loves Ellen. So, when she meets with Ellen, May tells Ellen that she is pregnant. May tells Ellen this two weeks before she is sure; Ellen was told two weeks before Archer. May tells Ellen mainly because she knew it would force Ellen to reconsider having an affair with Archer. Of course, this information caused Ellen to decide to leave. Thus, May got what she wanted; Ellen left Archer. Both women, Nora and May, manipulated the situation to carry out their own agenda while their husbands thought they were just innocent. Archer even says that he doubts May will ever have a thought or emotion that surprised him.

Both works question the society it takes place in along with its beliefs on marriage and duty. May and Nora relied on their husband. May, for this reason, manipulates Ellen into leaving so that Archer stays with her. Nora, on the other hand, decides to leave and make her own life. Despite their similarities, both women chose different paths in the end. The endings give rise to another question: Whose choice was the better one?

Blake and Grendel

Two opposites must live in harmony. This is the central idea throughout Blake's work and throughout Grendel. That Gardner chose one of Blake's poems for the short introductory quote makes sense since Grendel's internal conflict so closely parallels that of Blake's. Grendel must choose between two conflicting ideas. This internal battle eventually destroys him, as if to prove that the battle cannot be won. Blake, however, disagrees; Blake believes that a perfect state is a mixture of both heaven and hell. He believes that these two opposites must combine to maintain a sense of innocent joy coupled with knowledge. Grendel is an exploration of that idea.

The Shaper is one of the forces that Grendel is attracted to. The Shaper builds and creates memories. He unifies the people. Grendel desperately wants to be a part of his world, even if it means being one of Cain's descendants. The Shaper represents the Songs of Innocence. Both are hopeful and naïve. The Shaper lives in an illusion where the conquests of the Danes are important and heroes are real. Even Unferth fights to be a hero, in the end. The poems represent a child’s perspective on life while the Shaper represents child-like perspective. Both are similar in their joy and innocence.

On the other hand, we have the Dragon. The Dragon is all knowing. He has the knowledge that the child-like Danes cannot even hope for. In chapter five, he shares his experience with Grendel. He explains the concept of time and says that extinction is inevitable, but the world will keep spinning. The Songs of Experience represent him. The Dragon sees all and understands the harshness of life that destroys all good and innocence. He shows Grendel that Grendel is only an enemy of the Danes because he needs to be. Without Grendel, life would go on and the Danes would find a new enemy. This reality is something Grendel must accept. Grendel is a monster because it is fate. Everything is pre-determines, so there is no free will. The Dragon can see all but change nothing. This viewpoint is harsh and lacks hope.  

Grendel struggles to find a common ground. At first, he accepts the Shaper’s point of view. The Dragon, however, convinces him otherwise. So, Grendel begins his spree of killings. He transforms himself into the Wrecker of Mead Halls. However, he begins to doubt himself when Wealtheow is introduced to the novel. She tears him up on the inside, just like the Shaper, and he is again faced with an internal conflict. Is the Shaper right, or is the Dragon right? This internal conflict destroys him and eventually causes his destruction. He is unable to fight Beowulf because Beowulf represents his own inner conflict. Beowulf’s constantly changing appearance further shows that he is another mental conflict Grendel faces. Blake’s two opposites don’t come together very well. Instead of in a perfect state, Grendel was left destroyed. 

Isolation.

Isolation: a common theme throughout the semester. Frankenstein was isolated; Frankenstein’s creature was isolated. Wing Biddlebaum was isolated. Enoch Robinson was isolated. Almost every novel we have read features isolation, but it was specifically Winesburg, Ohio and Frankenstein in which isolation was prominent.

Frankenstein isolated himself in trying to create the creature. He locks himself away and creates something that he eventually regrets. He “shunned his fellow creatures” and hid in his lab (Shelley 41). He was isolated in the beginning and again, in the end, he was isolated. In the end, a “solitary cell had been [his] habitation…” (Shelley 176). Out of isolation, he created what he called, a monster, and he failed to destroy his monster. It was in isolation that he, again, almost created another monster. Victor’s isolation proved detrimental and eventually caused his death as he died after spending months isolated in the artic. It became difficult to tell whether he was the monster himself. His fits coincided with the creature’s appearances and nobody else ever saw the creature. If the creature was real, even he was isolated. Men feared him, so there were “none among the myriads of men that existed who would pity or assist…” him (Shelley 116). Villagers ran away at the sight of him. His isolation turned him into the monster that Victor thought he was in the beginning. The creature even admits it and says, “I am malicious, because I am miserable” (Shelley 124). His isolation made him miserable and by extension, malicious. The family that he thought would protect him abandoned him. Isolation was his downfall.

Even Winesburg, Ohio was full of isolated characters. Wing, for example, is isolated out of fear. His hand forced him to fear men. He was accused of horrible crimes, so he keeps his hands “hidden away” and isolated (Anderson 12). He is “driven from the Pennsylvania town,” which is when he starts his period of isolation (Anderson 15).  His isolation made him nervous and “forever frightened” (Anderson 9). Similarly, Enoch Robinson’s isolation drove him crazy. He bought a room and left his wife, and that “took Enoch out of the world of men” (Anderson 171). This isolation then drove him crazy especially when he met a woman who only furthered his isolation. This woman’s room is never shown, and there is no proof that she is real. She is likely just one of his imaginary people. However, he screams at her and when she leaves, she takes all of his people with her, leaving him completely alone. Thus, he is forced to return to Winesburg.

All of these characters-- Victor, the creature, Wing and Enoch—were isolated and suffered because of it. Their isolation became their downfall; it ruined them. So, the main theme throughout these two novels is that isolation is usually a curse.

Fra gm en ta t ion

The main similarity between Winesburg, Ohio and "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", other than that we worked with them in class, is that both are fragmented. In class, we separated the poem by section, but even without that, the poem is very fragmented. The chapters and short stories fragment the novel. This fragmentation is a common device used by modernist writers.

In section 4, the "arms" are meant to represent the woman. This use of synecdoche highlights the choppy-ness. We have pieces here. The "eyes" and "arms" and "dress" are mentioned, but not the woman. The poem is a very fragmented dream-like state. The constant sleep imagery lends to this. It is clear that Prufrock is in a nightmare. Starting in the first section, the use of "etherized" tells the readers that this is a dream state. Then, in Section 7, a human voice is sent to “wake” him. This use of dreams further lends to the fragmentation. When you suddenly wake up in the middle of dreaming, you can remember bits and pieces, but never the whole thing: Fragmentation. Thus, the choppiness can almost be explained.

The novel does the same thing—it uses fragmentation. It tells multiple different stories while telling one story. The one story is, of course, choppy. Plus, none of these multiple stories seem to be linked except through George Willard. The one story is George: it’s about his disillusionment. In "Sophistication", he matures. He realizes that he is insignificant. He no longer carries any notions of self-importance, just acceptance of his place. This main story is fragmented because it is told through other stories. The use of stories such as “Mother” and “Nobody Knows” serve to highlight his immaturity. However, Anderson never just comes out and makes George act immature. It shows in his interactions with others in stories that he is not the main character. In “Mother”, for example, the story is about Willard’s mother, but his immaturity is what we should pick up on. Then, in the stories involving Kate Swift, we must realize George’s immaturity in his lack of understanding. Kate wants George to understand, but instead he is only left more confused. The story isn’t about George. It is about Kate. Thus, George’s story is choppy and fragmented. We don’t get the full story, because it isn’t meant to be George’s story, but yet it is.

This separation or fragmentation, leaving the reader slightly confused or unsure, is a characteristic of both works. The authors are effectively able to chop their main story/message and create sections in which readers can work.

Shelley and Wordsworth

Mary Shelley and Wordsworth have a lot in common. Not only were they friends, but they were banished together, as well. Writers of this time were generally the "bad boys". Mr. Shelley eloped with Mary while he was with another woman. Anyways, the point is, these similarities are easiest to see when looking at their writing. Both Mary Shelley and Wordsworth use nature and an outside listener within their works.
Frankenstein is full of nature related imagery. On the night the creature is created, it is raining. It is almost as if the skies are crying. This imagery creates a sense of sadness within her work. Furthermore, when Victor first sees the creature after the night of creation, it is nighttime. Nighttime is feared to be full of evil and danger. Seeing the creature at this time only emphasizes that. Wordsworth, similarly, uses such nature-related imagery. Section 1 was full off such detail. Wordsworth, here, looks outwards to the greenery and the beauty and the forests. The use of such descriptions creates a sense of peace. The reader wants to grab a hammock and set it up between some of the trees and just stay forever. The orchards and cottages give the poem a fairytale-like feeling. It almost feels like a dream. Snow White ran through the forests full of fruit and found a cottage. These words, for me, brought back memories of my childhood-- which is exactly what the next sections in the poem do for Wordsworth. Thus, we can see that the use of nature imagery in both Shelley and Wordsworth's writing has the purpose of conveying an emotion or idea. It isn't just a tree. It's more than that.
Shelley and Wordsworth also share their use of outside listeners. Through Shelley's novel, the story is being told. Sometimes it is being told to someone telling it to someone telling it to M.S. Such circles can be confusing to grasp. In the middle of the novel, the reader almost forgets that there is a listener, but the end snaps them back and reminds them that it's all a letter. We get to see what happens after the main character is gone. We get to see glimpses of the teller's life. Similarly, Wordsworth does the same. The entire poem seems like a reflection. Wordsworth is looking out then inwards at himself and his childhood, then boom- he's talking to his sister. This is all confusing and forces readers to go back to the beginning and realize the reflection is meant for his sister. He isn't writing it for the readers or for himself. This changes how readers may perceive the poem. No longer is it a way to hold on to or compare a memory. Now, it's a message that Wordsworth wants his sister to carry on his memory and hold the abbey dear to her heart. This changes things. Now, the beginning of the poem can be viewed as his way of persuading her that the abbey is meaningful. Just like Shelley, Wordsworth snaps readers back and reminds them that the work isn't specifically for them.

For Love

For Love by Robert Creeley

Yesterday I wanted to

speak of it, that sense above   

the others to me

important because all

that I know derives

from what it teaches me.   

Today, what is it that   

is finally so helpless,

different, despairs of its own   

statement, wants to

turn away, endlessly

to turn away.

If the moon did not ...

no, if you did not

I wouldn’t either, but   

what would I not

do, what prevention, what   

thing so quickly stopped.   

That is love yesterday   

or tomorrow, not

now. Can I eat

what you give me. I

have not earned it. Must   

I think of everything

as earned. Now love also   

becomes a reward so

remote from me I have

only made it with my mind.

Here is tedium,

despair, a painful

sense of isolation and   

whimsical if pompous

self-regard. But that image   

is only of the mind’s

vague structure, vague to me   

because it is my own.

Love, what do I think

to say. I cannot say it.

What have you become to ask,   

what have I made you into,

companion, good company,   

crossed legs with skirt, or   

soft body under

the bones of the bed.

Nothing says anything   

but that which it wishes   

would come true, fears   

what else might happen in

some other place, some   

other time not this one.   

A voice in my place, an   

echo of that only in yours.

Let me stumble into

not the confession but   

the obsession I begin with   

now. For you

also (also)

some time beyond place, or   

place beyond time, no   

mind left to

say anything at all,

that face gone, now.

Into the company of love   

it all returns.

Robert Creeley, one of the Black Mountain Poets, is considered to be a very influential poet. He wrote the poem "For Love" in 1962. This poem is written about his wife, which throws it into new light.
Taking into account the poem's title, we know love has something to do with it. This makes sense, since he is talking about his wife. However, he talks about despair. It is almost as if he isn't sure if it truly even is love. He worries that he has changed her ("What have you become... bones of the bed"). Here, he is questioning who she is. He wants to know if she has changed from who she used to be. He goes on, questioning himself, inwardly. He questions whether he is confused. Even in his description of her, his love is evident. His tone is tender. He speaks of her "soft body" and "good company", which obviously means he likes spending time with her. However, the rest of the poem begs the question of whether that means he loves her.
Throughout the rest of the poem, his tone is confused. The tone almost conveys a sense of searching, but searching for what? The diction doesn't help. It is very open ended and unclear. It the first stanza he says he wanted to speak of "it", but what is 'it' anyways? From the very start, the reader is unclear about what the author is talking about. The reader likely assumes that he means love. The poem is titled love, which makes the assumption that he is discussing love very likely. However, it isn't explicitly stated, so we have to account for the fact that "it" could be almost anything. This sense of confusion, is, well, confusing! It's almost as if the writer, himself, has no idea what is going on ("If the moon did not.../ no, if you did not"). Yet at the same time, there is a sense of calm, as the writer knows exactly what is happening. He says, "let me stumble into/ not the confession but/ the obsession...". Thus, it's clear that he knows EXACTLY what he is obsessed with. This back and forth is confusing.
Overall, this poems begs the reader to wonder how the writer actually felt about his wife. He obviously loved her, but there is also a lot of confusion present. So, he's tender, but confused. Yet, then, again, at the very end, he says "Into the company of love, it all returns". So, again, he is saying love solves everything. To solve this dilemma, reading the poem out loud helps. The poem beings with confusion, but he discovers that likes her company, then he finally realizes love at the end.