Oscar Wilde

(My last post is on Oscar Wilde not intentionally, but because I typed it in word about a week ago and somehow forgot to post it! Oops!)

Oscar Wilde’s plays did little to hold my attention. I hate to admit it but I had to read The Importance of Being Earnest twice in high school and while it was not the most miserable thing I ever had to read, it was far from pleasurable. I did find his Preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray and “Aphorisms” to be rather enjoyable. They were not as deep or hard to figure out as many of the other works we have read this session but they still held plenty of meaning. I think that this Preface was a prime example of how artists and other intellects strived to live. During the Victorian age society was status obsessed and their only focus were on material values. They did not appreciate the finer or more “beautiful” aspects of life. “Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.” This line I believe is more directed towards society at the time. A normal middle class member of society strives only to have what others who were considered better had. They found no real beauty or meaning in this, however they wanted this only for superficial reasons. Many of these authors also used their art as a way to hide themselves. “To reveal art and conceal the artist is the art’s aim.” I found this line especially relevant for those artists who wrote under pseudonyms. Fame and fortune are not common goals for Victorian authors. “No artist desires to prove anything” Nearly all of the authors we have studied have taken part in some sort of controversial publication. Wilde believes that this controversy and differing opinions shows that the work is innovative and that it is a sign or originality “Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.” I really loved where Wilde wrote “All art is at once surface and symbol.” This made me smile because if you take art for face value is empty and “useless” as Wilde ends the preface by stating. (A view I do not believe Wilde agreed with.). Art is something which you have to study and think about and take with an open mind. Sure, on the surface it is a bunch of eloquently written words. If you do not read between the lines all it will be is a group of meaningless pretty words. Wilde also goes into great detail of the aesthetic value of art. Society at the time was only concerned with this aspect of the artwork. “They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.” Wilde is using this piece to speak out against this ignorant thought.
I thought Wilde’s writing was inspiring and very thought provoking. Though this preface differed greatly from most of the other works I have focused on in my blogs, the freshness of it is what drew me to want to write on it. (Much like an idea Wilde discusses in the preface!) I really enjoyed being able to relate all of these ideas back to other artists we have studied. In every line of the text, I was able to think of authors who followed and believed them. Proving them to be the truth. (“Even things that are true can be proved”). Reading this preface actually helped to prove to me how much I have learned thus far in the course! I am anxious to read into the modern era and see how many more ways these sayings can be put into practice.

T.S. Eliot

I found it very interesting that T.S. Eliot was actually born in America. It proved to me just how much British literature at the time influenced today’s modern writers. Though Eliot lived during the same time as many of the other writers we have studied only his family and history were rooted in America instead of Europe. Nearly all of the works we have studied in this course have been reflections of Europe at the time they were created which is why I found it so interesting that Eliot was born and raised as an American.
I really enjoyed being able to listen to Eliot read his own work with the clip Dr. Glance provided us. I have never had the opportunity to hear any of these writers read their work as they intended it. Therefore, I jumped on the opportunity to be able to listen to Eliot. The change of tones in his voices really helped me to get a better grasp for his work “The Waste Land”. However, I must admit I still struggled with this poem for understanding. When the texts states that Eliot felt difficulty was necessary, they were not exaggerating! I think most of what made his writing so hard to understand was all the allusions to past authors works. I unfortunately did not understand all of his references. One thing I have come to hate from many of the works we have read in this class is authors who purposely try to make their more writing more difficult and cryptic then necessary. (Admittedly, that is probably due to my own laziness and ignorance as a student) I thought this poem had a lot of aspects that made it very different from most other poetry we have studied.
The shortest section of “The Waste Land” was my favorite. Just because “Death by Water” was his shortest section does not mean it was by any means easy to interpret. The way he wrote it reminded me of a parable or lesson you were taught as a child. This lesson however was a little morbid. “Death by Water” focuses on the physical aspect of death and does not hint at any sort of spiritual afterlife. This section is set up in “the Burial of the Dead” where Madame Sosostris warns of the Phoenicians Sailor who drowned in the ocean. Thanks to the foot notes I was able to catch the reference of the “pearls that were his eyes” (48) to Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”. The foot note allowed me to understand that “The Tempest” depicts a very similar scene to “Death by Water” where a body is brutally decapitated by drowning. Madam Sosostris warns, “Fear death by water” (55) which set the scene for the fourth section of this poem.
I thought it was very interesting how Eliot never hints to an afterlife in this section or suggests any spiritual aspect of death. Instead, he only depicts the depressing truth, the physical end of earthly life. Most poets attempt to touch on the deeper end and meaning of life, here Eliot does not seem to do this. He writes that it does not matter whom you are when it comes to death. When you drown, your body decays and sea creatures eat away at you. There is nothing romantic or deep about it. You stop breathing; you stop seeing, listening, feeling. Nothing matters any more and there is nothing else to come.

“Gentile or Jew/ O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.” (319-321)

It is as though Eliot is trying to warn readers to be careful not to take themselves too seriously during their time on earth. Your religion, occupation, social status, does not matter once you die. I admit there is a lot of parts in “Waste Land” that I do not understand, but I feel as though that may be the intention of Eliot. He did not want reading and understanding poetry to be easy, and in many ways I do not think he wanted readers to always fully understand his work. Though I am sure I was way off par when making my assumptions of his readings, unlike other purposely difficult writers I actually really enjoyed reading his work.

James Joyce

When I began reading the texts background information on James Joyce, I had horrific flashbacks to reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man in AP English my junior year of high school. I do not remember specifically what made reading that book the most painful experience I had that year but the memory of it did give me plenty of biases before I started reading his writing again. I was surprised how quick and painless it was to read “Clay” from Joyce’s Dubliners. I regret to admit that just because it was effortless to get through this selection, I still was not a fan of the reading the first time I read it. Now that I am getting to the end of the readings for this course, I am realizing something that probably prevented me from enjoying these authors before this class or while I was in high school. In order to understand or appreciate any of this literature I have to read it several times to pick up on all the authors subtleties. So I read this text again and while I still felt unsure of any real significance, I actually found myself liking Joyce’s style a little more.
“Clay” presented readers with the incredibly monotonous life of Maria. From what I gathered, Maria led an unfulfilling life with no achievements to call her own. She had no family, choosing to never marry, and as result, she lived what appeared to be an empty life. Though she never married, Maria was loved by everyone who knew her. She was a pleasant woman who spoke kindly and strived perfection and organization in everything she did. In the incident where she discovers she leaves her plum cake on the tram, she is so upset about her carelessness and her waste of the money that she nearly cries. I thought this was strange because that is an honest mistake which anyone could easily have done. Maria constantly tries occupy her time by serving other people to make up for the fact that she has little going on in her own life. The title and reference to the clay is symbolism that part of her is suffering an early death. The game played with the three saucers is a traditional Halloween game played to foresee the future. While blindfolded you pick a plate and what is on the plate supposedly determines your fate. She was the only one at the party to land on the clay (which suggests you will die soon) and this shows how she herself has lost a part of herself to the trite nature of her daily life.
I found it interesting how much emphasis was placed on her never being married. It was as though just because she never married she doomed herself to have this fate. All the other ladies in the text skirted the issue of her single life, but it was suggested several times by other characters that perhaps she would be happier if she was married. It was strange to me, I gathered in the other readings from the modern era, and in the background information, during this era women sacrificed any chance of a fulfilling life if she did not marry. Once again, I was provoked to think about the inequalities between men and women during this generation. Men could lead perfectly satisfying lives, take a mistress, and never once be reminded that they did not marry. Women had a daily reminder that she did not live up to this expectation society laid out for her.
I felt Joyce purposely left out many details as to why the characters felt the emotions they did. Why Maria’s life had wound up so empty, and why Joe was so emotionally moved by Maria’s song, were hard for me to understand. I think the reason why I am so exhausted by Joyce’s writing is that I do not understand his choices in many of his stories. After reading his work, I find myself frustrated that I still can not drive a greater meaning out of his words. I found this story to be fun to read, but deciphering the motives behind his writing still bewilders me.

William Butler Yeats

While I was reading William Butler Yeats poem “A prayer for my Daughter”, I could not help but think of the similarities it had with Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s work. These men actually had similarities in their own childhood and wrote poems revealing their hopes for the way their children would be raised. While I noticed many similarities, I also thought that there were a number of differences for what the men believed the ideal childhood. I thought that each poem was a very adequate reflection for life during that time. Coleridge was a romantic writer and we saw him hope that his son would be raised around nature with emphasis on his son’s spiritual growth. Yeats was considered a more modern writer and his hopes for his daughter’s future are appropriately suited for his time as well. I found it interesting to see how Yeats though directing the poem toward his daughter’s future was able to make political and cultural references.
The poem opens with a howling a storm, I was able to interpret this meaning in two ways. The first time I read the poem I understood this stanza to refer to his protecting his daughter from the evils of the world. Once I reread the poem, I began to wonder if this stanza was more of a political metaphor.

“My child sleeps on. There is no obstacle
But Gregory’s wood and one bare hill
Whereby the haystack-and rook-levelling wind,
Bred on the Atlantic, can be stayed;” (3-6)

I wonder if this is referring to the political turmoil occurring in Europe at the time. Perhaps what Yeats was trying to express was how hard it was to raise and protect your child during the current time, and how he feared losing his daughter to immorality.
The poem displays throughout several stanzas traits which Yeats wants his daughter to develop. I think this could be a reflection of the morals and cultural expectations of women. He wishes her to be beautiful, but cautions that he does not want her to be so beautiful that it takes away from her character or causes conceit. He worries if she is too beautiful it will ruin not only her character (perhaps by going to her head and causing her to “lose natural kindness”) but also her love life.

“In courtesy I’d have her chiefly learned;
Hearts are not had as a gift but hearts are earned
By those that are not entirely beautiful:” (33-35)

Men at this time were weary to marry women who were too beautiful because they worried that they may not be faithful and that they would have competition among other men.
I thought it was interesting that he wished her to become a “flourishing hidden tree”. While he wished her to have intelligence, beauty, and strong moral standing, he seemed to want this “hidden” from others. Yeats possibly may have feared others exploiting her and wanted her to prize intimacy. This also suggested to me that he did not want his daughter to be proud or boastful. He instead wanted her to be more humble and modest. I found his desire for her happiness even when things were not going right the most moving lines of the poem.

“She can, though every face should scowl
And every windy quarter howl
Or every bellows burst, be happy still.” (70-72)

Life during Yeats time was very chaotic. During the time of the war, there was constant political mayhem and it was a dangerous time. Most European citizens experienced great suffering during their life. Yeats wanted his daughter to be happy despite this. This optimism is a very important characteristic that I admired Yeats for acknowledging.
I really enjoyed reading this poem and thinking how life had changed so dramatically since Coleridge wrote “Frost at Midnight”. I loved how two men could share so many similarities and yet desire such different things. I think comparing these two poems is a great way to realize how much life changed for the western world in such a short period of time.

World War I

The War produced many deep and moving works of literature which were particularly insightful because they were created by the people who knew the topic the best, the soldiers themselves. Like every era, we have studied before this there were people who were for and against the war. I did notice that this topic seemed to have less controversy then other eras though. In general, I got the understanding that the people who saw the most action were the ones who provided the strongest opposition. This was interesting to me because I think it is the opposite for the war which taking place today. My brother is an officer in the Army, and at any given time he and his military friends will launch into a three hour debate as too why the war is relevant including all the reasons we should remain fighting it. The literature that was in favor of the war also appeared to be more patriotic then war specific, whereas those opposing did not hold back the bloody truth.
Rupert Brooke was enlisted in the military but he died before ever getting to have any combat experience. His early death could be one reason he wrote such passionately patriotic poetry in support of the war. His most popular poem was also his last, “The Soldier” reveals Brookes passion his country and ironically deals with the remembrance of a fallen soldier. I say ironically because Brookes wrote this long before he knew that his life would soon becoming to and end, and long before he saw combat and knew what the war was truly like. The poem is sappier in nature and does not really have deeper understanding of the war (or perhaps I was just oblivious to its inner meaning?) showing only his love for his country and not any reason which we should fight in the war.

“That is foreve England. There shall be
In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;
A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,
Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,
A body of England’s breathing English air”
(3-7)

While these lines are beautiful and show why soldier is proud to fight for his country, it does not show any motives other then patriotism to fight the war. While I admire his patriotism and devotion to his country, I think it is foolish to fight a war only for those reasons. My brother is the most patriotic person I have ever met but that is not what drives his desire to fight in Iraq. For him it is the political motives, the knowledge that he is fighting the war for a greater good then just his love for America. I found that in the literature opposing the war more of a sense that the war has gone on too long and no longer serving its original purpose. These authors have seen the horrors of war and no longer think it necessary.
Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen had many of the same beliefs of the war. Both openly and publicly declared that enough was enough. Whatever reasons they had for entering the war were no longer relevant and it was time to put an end to it. Both Sassoon and Owen fought in war and went through rehabilitation after where they wrote many of their most noted works. While most people prefer Owens work because it was written with a “more formal and technical skill” I enjoyed the roughness of Sassoon’s work. In his piece entitled “Glory of Women” provides a more realistic idea of the war then we read in Brookes work. In fourteen lines Sassoon is able to capture the horrifying truth. He writes this to the women back home who praise and worship their soldiers and who may fail to realize what hell their men are really facing.

“O German mother dreaming by the fire,
While you are knitting socks to send your son
His face is trodden deeper in the mud.” (12-14)

I liked that Sassoon’s style was a little less “technical” then Owens because I think it helped prove his deep feelings on the issue. He did not concern himself with the form or technique but instead wrote what he felt and I feel this made his work a little more heartfelt and genuine.
As with any war, there was debate over the length, purpose, and effectiveness of the battle. I found it interesting though that unlike the issues over Victorian society and the French Revolution the differences in opinions on this topic were less attacking and more from the heart. I really enjoyed gaining the differing perspectives on this war and found reading the pieces very enlightening on the reality of the situation.

Bernard Shaw

My junior year of high school we spent two weeks discussing Bernard Shaw’s “Pygmalion”. At that time I had enjoyed the play, it was comical, dramatic, had an underlying romance, and unlike many of the other works we read that read that year I actually felt like I understood it. When I saw that reading as one of my assignments for this course I was very excited and thought that it would be an easy blog, I could just skim the reading and write a quick entry. I was wrong! Skimming the text turned into my reading every word of it, and once again becoming absorbed by Shaws writing. This time however I was able to find more meaning to the text. I realized how Shaw was revealing his disgust for the Victorian class system, and his frustration with society as whole in his play.
Henry Higgins can easily be mistaken for an arrogant, selfish man who is hung up on the superficial nature of society. When Shaw fist introduces Higgins in the opening act on the street, my first reaction was that he was pretentiously obsessed with rank in society. Feelings for him changed towards the end of the play when I realized that he was actually an advocate for treating people as people despite their class. Victorian society was obsessed with class and status, the more “refined” you were (which is a nicer way of saying how wealthy or elite) determined your place in society. It would be easy to think that the lower class suffered the most however the text makes it appear it was the middle class. Perhaps the author felt that the poor were too ignorant to know what they were missing out on, while the middle class (when having occupations as governess’ and other roles serving the rich) were reminded on a daily basis what they were being cheated of. Shaw uses this play as a way to fight against society. Through his characters I think Shaw attempts to prove we are all humans and deserve to be treated the same. Class, wealth, colloquialisms, clothes, possessions, and education should not be what define us. We should all be free to the same opportunities and have equality among all classes. Many of the other Victorian writers focus on the inequalities between men and women, however Shaw goes beyond that and to the larger scale that all society is based on injustices. One thought that Shaw suggests in the text I found particularly poignant. The idea that we may praise the upper class for their “culture” and knowledge of the arts, but do they know meanings behind the words, is this really any reason that they are treated better?

“You see, we’re all savages, more or less. We’re supposed to be civilized and
cultured – to know all about poetry and philosophy and art and science, and so
on; but how many of us known even the meanings of these names.” (1036)

What should it matter if somebody knows more in these subjects then another? What is the relevance? What does any of that do to better society or make them more worthy then somebody who has no knowledge? These are all questions that were raised by this statement of Higgins. I think they are very valid and worth wondering, because even today we praise some scholars for their higher education, but what is the point if they do not know a greater meaning for it and put their skills into practice.
One of the other ideas Shaw raises along the same lines is that there is no true difference between a “lady” and a “flower girl” (in other words rich and poor), these are just titles and only is different because of the way people treat them and the title which society brands them.

“You see, really and truly, apart from the things anyone can pick up (the
dressing and the proper way of speaking), the difference between a lady and a
flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she’s treated.” (1057)

The only difference between classes during this time was materialistic. None of these things were earned or deserved but rather the luck of being born into wealth. This is a principle which Shaw and many other influential writers spoke out against and warned society of falling victim to. I really enjoyed how Shaw was able to provoke so many questions and thoughts within the audience and cleverly disguising this political message behind the comedic personalities

Thomas Hardy

Much like Hopkins, Thomas Hardy is strong in faith; however, the two men’s beliefs are very different. Hardy finds comfort in the thought of a vengeful God who purposely makes life hard for his subjects on earth. This is probably because it is easier to blame your problems on someone or something other then yourself. To be able to blame his sufferings on God would be a convenience to Hardy reassuring him that it was not his fault. He expresses these views in one of his earlier poems, “Hap”. I was drawn to this poem because it is not often that somebody wishes for a vengeful god. Many may choose to believe that there is a high power cursing their life, but this is not usually something they desire. The impression I got from this poem however was that he believes it would be easier to cope and more convenient if this belief were true.
In the first stanza Hardy sets up this desire by wishing that this vengeful god would “call to me from the sky and laugh” at his miseries. This god he creates finds joy in Hardy’s suffering. Which suggests the higher being is the reason his life is miserable.

“Though suffering thing,
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,
That thy love’s loss is my hate’s profiting!” (2-4)

He clarifies in the second stanza why it is that he creates this vengeful god. Knowing that his problems are out of his control makes him feel more at ease. I think we have all experienced at some point in our life the ease of blaming our problems on anything other than ourselves. Blaming ourselves for our own unhappiness is one of the hardest things to do. Denial is safe and comfortable and it helps us grow numb, but admitting we are the root of our misery (as Hopkins did) is painful and difficult. The second stanza shows Hardy having those same thoughts that if this god had given him these problems he would have no choice to grin and bear it. Hardy admits in the third stanza that this is not the case and no such god exists. Rather is unhappiness is by chance.
The translation for word Hap is “chance” and I think that is very important to keep in mind when interpreting this poem. The first time I read this poem I neglected to note this definition and was having a hard time understand the final stanza. However once I took that into account it made a lot more sense. Happiness in life is a gamble. Hardy admits there may not be a vengeful god, but there is no opposite either. “And dicing time for gladness casts a moan…” (12) Here he shows that his misery was the result of the gamble of life. Life does not come with any guarantees. Even in today’s society, we are all given the right to the pursuit of happiness but we are not guaranteed to have that final product, I think this is a thought that Hardy is trying to express in his poem.
I admired how honest Hardy was in admitting his wish for the ability to place the blame for his own misfortunes on somebody other then himself. It is hard for us to admit to being the reason for our misery and even harder to admit when we do place blame unfairly. I do not necessarily agree with the desire for a vengeful god, I personally find comfort in my faith of a loving, compassionate God.