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.
Monday, September 30, 2013
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.
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.
Women of Winesburg
Throughout Winesburg, Ohio, abandonment is repeatedly mentioned. Enoch, Alice and Wash are all abandoned. Usually, it leads the character to his eventual doom. It is at the center of the plot in each story. So, the question arises: why? Why are is it so important? What does it do? The answer is that abandonment is the source of a character's ruin.
Look at Enoch Robinson, for example. He lived in a closed off farmhouse, and was similarly closed off, himself. Once he moves, he is able to open up to passion. He is passionate about his work, but he is unable to communicate his passion. His inability forces him to shut himself off, again. Instead of relying on others, he turns inwards. He creates people with whom to interact. His room becomes the source of his passion, full of those who support him. Out of nowhere, along comes a woman. The narrator says she lives in the room across the hall. The only problem with this is that her room is never shown. Every encounter takes place in Enoch's room, causing readers to wonder if she is also a figment of his imagination. Either way, she offers him a chance to be a better person. If he can connect with her, he could encounter love. Instead, he is unable to understand her. He stomps and shouts until, finally, she leaves him. This single act of abandonment tears him apart. His people leave with her. He is left alone. He loses his passion, all because of her.
Wash Williams is similarly abandoned. He gave everything he had. He married a woman; looking back, he realizes she was dead inside. He would have done anything to make her happy. He recounts their time spent gardening. The narrator references him as crawling at her feet, emphasizing Wash's love for his wife. He was pure right up until they were married, because he was virginal. She takes that from him. She takes his innocence. He forces her to leave, so in a physical or literal sense, she doesn't abandon him. However, she does abandon him emotionally. He loves her, but she has three other lovers to visit. She betrays him. In this betrayal, she leaves him emotionally abandoned. She doesn't reciprocate his love for her. She takes it for granted. This leaves Wash alone to hate the world. He pities men who will, like himself, be duped by a woman. He hates woman since they leave. They abandon, therefore he hates them.
In "Adventure", it isn't the woman doing the abandoning; it is the man. Ned claims to love Alice. He confesses his feelings for her and promises to return. However, as years pass, he never does. Alice, is abandoned by him. He ceases to care for her. It takes her a long time to realize that, but when she does, she goes crazy. She runs naked through the streets and begins to become emotionally attached to inanimate objects. Overall, she tries to replace Ned without actually replacing him. He leaves her broken while meeting new women in the city. His abandonment of her leaves her broken down and miserable.
The most interesting part of the novel is Helen. She loves George, and they share a moment together. Both of them mature and become sophisticated. She calls for him in the night when she can't deal with her professor any longer. She becomes emotionally attached. He, on the other hand, leaves without saying goodbye; he abandons her.
Look at Enoch Robinson, for example. He lived in a closed off farmhouse, and was similarly closed off, himself. Once he moves, he is able to open up to passion. He is passionate about his work, but he is unable to communicate his passion. His inability forces him to shut himself off, again. Instead of relying on others, he turns inwards. He creates people with whom to interact. His room becomes the source of his passion, full of those who support him. Out of nowhere, along comes a woman. The narrator says she lives in the room across the hall. The only problem with this is that her room is never shown. Every encounter takes place in Enoch's room, causing readers to wonder if she is also a figment of his imagination. Either way, she offers him a chance to be a better person. If he can connect with her, he could encounter love. Instead, he is unable to understand her. He stomps and shouts until, finally, she leaves him. This single act of abandonment tears him apart. His people leave with her. He is left alone. He loses his passion, all because of her.
Wash Williams is similarly abandoned. He gave everything he had. He married a woman; looking back, he realizes she was dead inside. He would have done anything to make her happy. He recounts their time spent gardening. The narrator references him as crawling at her feet, emphasizing Wash's love for his wife. He was pure right up until they were married, because he was virginal. She takes that from him. She takes his innocence. He forces her to leave, so in a physical or literal sense, she doesn't abandon him. However, she does abandon him emotionally. He loves her, but she has three other lovers to visit. She betrays him. In this betrayal, she leaves him emotionally abandoned. She doesn't reciprocate his love for her. She takes it for granted. This leaves Wash alone to hate the world. He pities men who will, like himself, be duped by a woman. He hates woman since they leave. They abandon, therefore he hates them.
In "Adventure", it isn't the woman doing the abandoning; it is the man. Ned claims to love Alice. He confesses his feelings for her and promises to return. However, as years pass, he never does. Alice, is abandoned by him. He ceases to care for her. It takes her a long time to realize that, but when she does, she goes crazy. She runs naked through the streets and begins to become emotionally attached to inanimate objects. Overall, she tries to replace Ned without actually replacing him. He leaves her broken while meeting new women in the city. His abandonment of her leaves her broken down and miserable.
The most interesting part of the novel is Helen. She loves George, and they share a moment together. Both of them mature and become sophisticated. She calls for him in the night when she can't deal with her professor any longer. She becomes emotionally attached. He, on the other hand, leaves without saying goodbye; he abandons her.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
The narrator?
In the 'Book of the Grotesque', the reader is introduced to the narrator. He is an old man, who i reflecting back on his life. This, of course, causes the reader to wonder... Who is the narrator? Who is the old man recounting his tales? Is he one of the characters? Reading through the stories, I realized that George was the only character present in every story. He linked them all together.
I thought it made sense because the old man with the white mustache "spent all of his life writing..." the book (6). This leads to the possibility that George is the old man, writing down the stories all throughout his life. George is even a reporter. The job of a reporter is to listen to people's stories, gather information, then write about it. This would fit with what the old man is doing, which is writing about the people in his life. He is comparable to a small town reporter. This link between George and the old man is undeniable. The old man created the truths, then people "snatched up one... some who were quite strong snatched up a dozen..." (6). Each person took a truth and became a grotesque, so the old man wrote about that grotesque. The only person throughout the novel who doesn't do the same but also happens to be the only one listening? Why, it's George Willard!
George, like the old man, does not become a grotesque because of a woman. A woman saves them both. The old man feels that "...something inside him was altogether young... it was a woman..." (4). George and Helen, when they kiss, drop "... into the animalism of youth..." (247). Thus, both of them stay young and whole. They had "taken hold of the thing that makes mature life possible" (248). Both George and the old man stayed young because of a woman. Furthermore. both are heavily influenced by spirits. "Ghosts of old things creep into his consciousness..." as George matures (238). The old man reflects back on his life through spirits. While reflecting, "figures began to appear before his eyes..." (5). Both are influenced by these ghosts or spirits that remind them of the past.
Finally, the main reason the George is most likely the narrator/old man is because he leaves. George leaves and just then he realized Winesburg is a 'background on which to paint the dreams of his manhood" (252). As a reporter, it would make sense that his dreams involved writing, making it possible that writing down these stories is how he achieved his dreams. Plus, he leaves and is reflecting back at his life.
I thought it made sense because the old man with the white mustache "spent all of his life writing..." the book (6). This leads to the possibility that George is the old man, writing down the stories all throughout his life. George is even a reporter. The job of a reporter is to listen to people's stories, gather information, then write about it. This would fit with what the old man is doing, which is writing about the people in his life. He is comparable to a small town reporter. This link between George and the old man is undeniable. The old man created the truths, then people "snatched up one... some who were quite strong snatched up a dozen..." (6). Each person took a truth and became a grotesque, so the old man wrote about that grotesque. The only person throughout the novel who doesn't do the same but also happens to be the only one listening? Why, it's George Willard!
George, like the old man, does not become a grotesque because of a woman. A woman saves them both. The old man feels that "...something inside him was altogether young... it was a woman..." (4). George and Helen, when they kiss, drop "... into the animalism of youth..." (247). Thus, both of them stay young and whole. They had "taken hold of the thing that makes mature life possible" (248). Both George and the old man stayed young because of a woman. Furthermore. both are heavily influenced by spirits. "Ghosts of old things creep into his consciousness..." as George matures (238). The old man reflects back on his life through spirits. While reflecting, "figures began to appear before his eyes..." (5). Both are influenced by these ghosts or spirits that remind them of the past.
Finally, the main reason the George is most likely the narrator/old man is because he leaves. George leaves and just then he realized Winesburg is a 'background on which to paint the dreams of his manhood" (252). As a reporter, it would make sense that his dreams involved writing, making it possible that writing down these stories is how he achieved his dreams. Plus, he leaves and is reflecting back at his life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)