British Literature

This piece interested me because despite the fact that it was a non-fictional type of essay by Virginia Woolf, it was also a perfect example of the style of writing she exhibits in her other work, such as her short stories.

One of this biggest similarities I noticed was in her tendency to ramble. She would start out with one point, and end up at some distant and in many cases non-related point. I tend to think that this is no accident, but instead that it was intended. I think that Woolf uses this as a way of communicating something to the reader that she can't quite put into words. Instead she simply implies it, or makes a point that she assumes will bring the reader to her own chain of thought. It's really an interesting technique if in fact that was her intention. And even if it wasn't, it's still interesting to see the possibility of such a pattern because it also puts her one step ahead of her readers.

The first thing that came to mind when reading this piece was how it seemed to point to a kind of end of times sort of theme. It wasn't openly mentioned, but definitely implied. This included mythological and biblical reference, or at least small implications to them. The image of the Kraken itself made me think of Leviathan, the mythical creature from the Bible that is thought to have swallowed Jonah and that appears several times in the end of times scenario in Revelation. Also, there were multiple references to an abyss, which courtesy of Dante's Inferno, bring to mind images of Hell.

Now this was an interesting piece! First of all, I loved the absurd plot, and how it almost felt like some kind of skewed dream sequence because of how warped reality was. That made everything from the setting to all of the characters incredibly diverse and deep. It's one of those pieces I think different people will always find something new to pull out of it because it just leaves the opportunity for countless vantage points.

To me, one of the most interesting aspects was in the way that Coleridge capitalized random words throughout the poem. For one thing, I definitely don't think this was a random thing on his part. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Also, I loved the inconsistency of it, and how it was impossible to predict. I think it was meant to draw the reader's attention to some certain word, and from that word gain some implied understanding or idea. Like a hidden meaning.

Okay, I'm going to start off by being completely honest about this one. I didn't like it at all. Until this point, I have never read anything by William Blake, and frankly I don't think I was missing anything.

I felt that all of the pieces by Blake that we discussed in class had a very juvenile feel to them, particularly the ones that featured an animal, like the lamb or the tiger. I liked the idea behind these poems, which was to emphasize the transition from an innocent childhood to a corrupt adult world, but as far as poetry goes, I have seen better. I also thought some of his poems, particularly the ones about lost children were a little bit disturbing. Also, the ones that had the narrator in the mind of a child. I don't know...I guess I just don't connect with William Blake...sorry...

This post, and several following are meant to be "make-up" posts for the pieces I haven't posted on yet. I think they're in order, but I'm not sure. Hey, I tried...

Anyway, I really enjoyed reading the Sonnets. The one I found to be the most interesting was Sonnet 130, where the narrator talks about his mistress. There are countless pieces of poetry out there written about mistresses, but what sets this one apart is that instead of complimenting the woman with otherworldly descriptions of beauty and grace, Shakespeare talks about how she's just an average, run of the mill woman.

It also says something about the standards of beauty for the Elizabethan era versus what they are today. Back then, they valued pale, snowy white skin, big red lips and big breasted women. Today, I think the major difference is in skin tone. Women today spend a lot of money to get that golden tan, yet back then that would have made you look like a poor field worker, and therefore unattractive.

Since I was sick last week and I have no idea where we're supposed to be in Heart of Darkness, I read the whole thing and this post will cover my thoughts...lol.

Anyway, I would like to start off by saying that I really enjoyed Marlow as a main character for several reasons. For one thing, he's a good main character because he makes all kinds of observations, so the reader is kept well informed. At the same time, he doesn't really interpret these observations well, because he has yet to really understand either himself or the true nature of humanity, hence the point of the book. Because of this, he can be analyzed to death, and I love that.

I found myself really interested in Marlow's obsession with Kurtz. Until he met the man, and for some time after that even, he looked at Kurtz like some sort of unreachable god and not like the flawed man he was. He relied on only what he had heard of him, rather than actual facts. Kind of like gossip or folk tales. He built up this unbeatable man in his mind, and really put him on a pedestal. To me, it seemed like Kurtz was the very symbol of everything that made Marlow want to come to Africa. It was the great unknown, exploring the unexplored and all of the mystery that surrounds it. Like Kurtz, Marlow built up the African experience to be something amazing in his mind and was really unprepared for the reality of it.

When I read this piece, I found myself thinking not so much about the work itself, but about who wrote it. Until now, I had never really read much from Elizabeth Browning, but instead I have read a lot from her husband, Robert Browning. First of all, it's amazing how similar their writing styles are. I also enjoyed the fact that particularly in this piece, they both tend to put a lot of their own personal lives into their poetry. It was a very refreshing piece to read and it has made me was to seek out other things by both Robert Browning and Elizabeth Browning as well as other Victorian era authors.

Now this was an interesting piece. It completely reverses the roles of man and beast, which I found really odd. I think it's an interesting idea that in the beginning of this section, Gulliver sees a Yahoo and is not only disgusted by this discovery, but also neglects to recognize them for their human qualities. It soon becomes apparent that Yahoos are simply wild, hairy human beings that are ruled by horses, beasts of burden in the ordinary world.

I also loved that last scene where Gulliver is back home and he can't stand to be around people anymore, but prefers horses. It was especially interesting to me when he is so disgusted with even his wife and can't stand to sit any closer to her than across a long table with a handkerchief over his nose.

Well, to start with I felt that this one was an extremely interesting read. It wasn't exactly easy, but it was very interesting. I think what I liked best about it was the sort of feel it had that there was always something else implied, something much more important than what was actually being said. I liked that power in Laputa was based on technology. This really brought to mind the Enlightenment, where everything seemed to revolve around science. I also liked that due to this, Gulliver couldn't communicate with any of the Laputans. I thought that stood as an interesting symbol.

First off, I really enjoyed reading John Donne's work. I remember reading a lot of poems by him in my AP English class in high school, so I liked that it was at least somewhat familiar to me.

What I find the most interesting about his work is how drastically it changes over the years. He makes one huge change, and that comes in the subject matter. In both poems we read this week, he's clearly a romantic, always writing about his latest exploit as if this current fling is the single love of his life. I think these poems make his life style clear to us, especially because many poets of his time lived similarly, moving from woman to woman and constantly writing poetry about it as though each woman were of any significance.

The interesting thing, is that years later, as if out of nowhere, Donne starts writing strictly religious poetry, such as his Holy Sonnets (I think that's what they're called). They reflect his same style, almost writing about religion as though it were one of his exploits. He uses that same sensitivity, that same romantic styled love to reflect his relationship with God. I remember in one in particular where he describes God's love as being similar to rape. Interesting metaphor, I must say...

Anyway, I just thought it was really interesting how much his subject matter changes, so I thought I'd make note of that.

Unfortunately, I can't think of very much to say about this particular play. I've never come across this problem with any other work of Shakespeare that I've read thus far, so I find this a little surprising. To be honest, I really didn't like the Tempest. To begin with, I thought it lacked the usual depth that all of the other pieces of Shakespeare's work have shown, in my opinion. All in all, it just seemed like an ultimately shallow piece, with each character only really skimming the surface of what he or she could be. I found that really unusual.

Also, I thought it was extremely odd that most people tend to refer to the Tempest as Shakespeare's ultimate redemption piece. I can't help but laugh about that, mostly because I just don't see it. As I said before, I thought the play was very shallow, and redemption is such a big theme when it's in a play, that I don't even think it could fit in this one. I definitely see traces of forgiveness, particularly when Prospero forgives Antonio, but even that felt vaguely pathetic to me. And aside from that, I don't really think forgiveness of another human being has anything to do with redemption. In my opinion, redemption is much more broad on the grander scale of things than forgiveness. Forgiveness is something you give to another person, as Prospero gave to the undeserving Antonio. Redemption is something no one can actually give you, though they can offer you a chance at it, or push you to grab it for yourself. I think redemption is something each of us must find for ourselves, and that isn't something I see any evidence of in this play.

Okay, that was a really hard read. I think the most redeeming quality about this piece was the outspokenness of the Wife of Bath. It made it much easier to understand the piece as a whole, in my opinion.

Anyway, I think the thing I found the most interesting about this piece was the way that the main character constantly flip-flopped on nearly every issue, particularly on her sources. For example, right from the start, she claims that experience will be her guide. She says that she's constantly criticized for her numerous marriages and that it is her experience from these very marriages that makes her an expert on marriage. However, later on in the story, she attempts to back up such statements with everything from biblical to scholarly facts. To me, this displays an entirely different attitude and personality than what she initially presented. At first, she seemed to be a very domineering person, who could easily fend for herself and didn't care what people thought of her. As the story goes along though, she takes on a much more defensive air, and it almost feels like she's trying to prove something.

Either way, the main issue I want to point out is that she goes from saying she doesn't need a reason for the things she says and does, to trying to supply her audience with a dozen reasons. I just found that odd.

Wow...I'm so glad we had a translation for this! Just looking at the original text to the right was painful. I'm pretty sure in some parts of the world, its a mechanism of torture to make someone read in Old English.

Anyway, I have a hard time really picking out anything of real value in the General Prologue. Yes, all of it was very useful information since all of these characters will come up later with their own tales, but there really wasn't much depth to it. It was honestly hard to keep an interest in what often seemed like a simple list of characters.

However, what stuck out to me the most was how observant the narrator is. It's as if he's standing in the room, watching every character as he describes him or her. The only point in which the narrator breaks this patter is when stereotypes start being used. For example, it just seemed like several of the characters such as the Host/innkeeper, were written exactly as you would expect them to be. You might even want to call them cliche.

All of the stereotypes aside, the massive amount of detail that went into this piece can't be ignored. If the rest of the individual tales are written in half as much detail as the General Prologue, then we're all in for an interesting read.

I was actually really excited to read this particular piece because I have always loved the Arthurian legends. I have to say, Lanval, though probably one of the older pieces, is really unique from others I've read, particularly the more current renditions.

The biggest difference that really stuck out to me was in the characterization. It seemed to me that King Arthur, though not a very important character in this piece, was portrayed in a rather harsh light. In most Arthurian writings I have read, he is always glorified as being the very image of chivalry and honor, and this poem just doesn't reflect that. The same can be said of Queen Guinevere. Yes, she is legendary for her affair with Sir Lancelot in nearly every rendition of the Arthurian legends, but she also typically has a more honorable air.

The overall plot of this piece really reminds me of the Bible story of Joseph, in which as a slave, he is confronted by his master's wife with a similar proposal as is seen between Guinevere and Lanval. Considering the time period in which this is written, and the theories as to the possible identity of Marie de France, I wonder if the author was inspired by this story as many writers of that time were drawn to images from the Bible.

After reading it, I was left with a few questions though. I'm curious if Lanval is an actual knight never mentioned in the original tales of Arthur, or if Lanval is just one of the many names of Sir Lancelot. I think it's possible he is Lancelot because of his interaction with Guinevere. That interaction could be Marie de France's rendition of their legendary affair. Also, in line 641, it says: With her he went to Avalun, so the Bretons tell us. In most other Arthurian legends, Lancelot is constantly related to the legendary Avalun or Avalon. In some, it is through who is believed to be his mother, in others it is through the Lady of the Lake. Still, it makes me curious.

Ok, this is my first post for ENGL 31 (British Lit).

My first thought after finishing Beowulf, was to consider the bard's tale in part II, lines 1070-1165. I found it an interesting point in the poem, because it's a poem within a poem. I immediately thought that there must be some kind of symbol or metaphor buried in there somewhere due to this fact. So, I came to the conclusion that the bard's tale does have a symbolic nature, and that comes out not in the direct plot, but in the values the story expresses. It really emphasizes the importance of honor, and how in this particular setting, it isn't just an option. It does the same for vengeance or revenge.

I thought it really drove home the idea that at this point in history, if a wrong is committed against anyone in your family, even someone of the most vague relation, you are bound by honor to defend them. I thought that that really points to the entire story of Beowulf because that same idea is exactly why he came to fight Grendal.

It also explains his loss in the race with Breca years earlier, when he was faced with various sea creatures, all of which he defeated. When confronted by Unfurth, Beowulf makes it clear that in slaying these monsters, thus costing him the race, he was also defending his opponent, who had no knowledge of the monsters and was vulnerable to attack.