British Literature

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.