Death is a process of life; the end to a beginning for all. However, each death is not the same. Some suffer to transition from life to death. Others leave more quietly than they came. But the idea of suffering seems to be Eliot’s niche in poetry.
“A current under sea
Picked his bones in whispers. As he rose and fell” (1212, lines 315-317)
Water is a powerful force. We must have it to live, but with too much we are bound to die. Death by water is one the most painful deaths to experience, because of the process the body is put through. Your cells expand and burst from over saturation. Your lungs begin to fill quickly and air is pushed further away from your brain. The pressure begins to build as you reach to breathe nothing but water filled with oxygen you cannot use.
But Eliot’s death does not seem to be a literal expression of death, but a longing to die as age progresses. And a reminder of our fate.
“He passed the stages of his age and youth
Entering the whirlpool.
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look windward
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.” (1212, lines 317-321)
They shall die, either at sea or somewhere. But their fate is sealed. Did they truly have a chance to live?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Gerard Manley Hopkins
I love Hopkins’ poem about waking in hell. The idea of a Heaven and Hell is spellbinding, and gives more attractive natures to the idea of being disowned by God and cast into hell. The darkness that covers him when he awakes is not just an external cover, but an indication of what he feels like on the inside.
“ I am gall, I am heartburn. God’s most deep decree
Bitter would have me taste: my taste was me;
Bones built in me, flesh filled, blood brimmed the curse.” (778, lines 9-11)
Suggests that he did not simply awake into hell, he was born there. His flesh and bone were built to suit the hellish heat by God alone. However, he woke up to find that he was still much better off than those who must experience hell away from God and Jesus. Is he suggesting that Earth is a form of hell? A temporary torment with the option of “saving” out through a redeemer? And if so, why would God create Earth to be a slight form of hell?
I don’t think I will ever know the answer to the latter question, but I can question and answer my own beliefs of heaven and hell. And Hopkins has helped get the ball rolling.
“ I am gall, I am heartburn. God’s most deep decree
Bitter would have me taste: my taste was me;
Bones built in me, flesh filled, blood brimmed the curse.” (778, lines 9-11)
Suggests that he did not simply awake into hell, he was born there. His flesh and bone were built to suit the hellish heat by God alone. However, he woke up to find that he was still much better off than those who must experience hell away from God and Jesus. Is he suggesting that Earth is a form of hell? A temporary torment with the option of “saving” out through a redeemer? And if so, why would God create Earth to be a slight form of hell?
I don’t think I will ever know the answer to the latter question, but I can question and answer my own beliefs of heaven and hell. And Hopkins has helped get the ball rolling.
Bernard Shaw-Pygmalion
What does it mean to be you pretending to be someone else? Is it important for people to like you, or perceive you as something you are not? These are questions I asked myself while reading Shaw’s Pygmalion.
This play is wonderful because its message is timeless. Why do we have to give up ourselves to allow others to define us? It is a universal question, a theme that crosses borders and seas. Why would someone want to change another in order to identify with something that is not real?
I believe that it is a part of human nature to try to shape our surroundings to fit our comfort level. But I think Shaw wants us to see the brutal ideals that come from trying to shape others in a way that is unnatural to their individuality. I believe the Pygmalion is his commentary about the ills of trying to mold everyone from the same clay.
This play is wonderful because its message is timeless. Why do we have to give up ourselves to allow others to define us? It is a universal question, a theme that crosses borders and seas. Why would someone want to change another in order to identify with something that is not real?
I believe that it is a part of human nature to try to shape our surroundings to fit our comfort level. But I think Shaw wants us to see the brutal ideals that come from trying to shape others in a way that is unnatural to their individuality. I believe the Pygmalion is his commentary about the ills of trying to mold everyone from the same clay.
John Keats-Sonnet: When I have fears
When love and fear combine you find yourself reading When I have fears by John Keats. It is a wonderful poem about the things that matter most in life. It made me think about the things that matter most in my life. It seems a lot of the poems I have been reading recently have helped in the process, because so many of them have dealt with death. But Keats’ When I have fears make me wonder what my fears truly are.
When I behold upon the night’s starred face,
"Huge cloudy symbols of high romance,
And think that I may never live to trace
Their shadows with the magic hand of chance;” (425, lines 5-8)
The idea of not reaching my goals or the possibilities that are head frighten me as they do Keats in the lines before. What would I miss? Who would miss me? Would I have accomplished all that I possibly could?
It seems that chance is very important to Keats and his of idea of living life to its fullest. The idea of not having chance seems to be more frightening that opportunity. For me, not having the opportunity to explore or to conquer is what frightens me. I want to be able to accomplish all that I set out to before I leave this Earth.
But why is accomplishing much important to me? That is the question I think Keats would like for me to answer. I would simply answer, “I could have not lived to accomplish nothing at all.”
When I behold upon the night’s starred face,
"Huge cloudy symbols of high romance,
And think that I may never live to trace
Their shadows with the magic hand of chance;” (425, lines 5-8)
The idea of not reaching my goals or the possibilities that are head frighten me as they do Keats in the lines before. What would I miss? Who would miss me? Would I have accomplished all that I possibly could?
It seems that chance is very important to Keats and his of idea of living life to its fullest. The idea of not having chance seems to be more frightening that opportunity. For me, not having the opportunity to explore or to conquer is what frightens me. I want to be able to accomplish all that I set out to before I leave this Earth.
But why is accomplishing much important to me? That is the question I think Keats would like for me to answer. I would simply answer, “I could have not lived to accomplish nothing at all.”
Robert Browning, Porphyria's Lover
The love of Elizabeth Barrett Browning did not faze Robert Browning when he wrote Porphyria’s Lover.
I found this poem engaging from the beginning. Love, a universal theme in poetry, was being turned around from the neck to see what was behind it. What it found was its behind and Browning’s uncanny wit. This poem is grotesquely beautiful in every sense. The elements of psychosis, love, and murder all bundled into a magnificent package. One feels compelled to read this murderous tale without flinching or condemnation.
Somehow, we experience the connection between the narrator and Porphyria.
“she put my arm around about her waist,
And made her smooth white shoulder bare,” (662, lines 16-17)
The love triangle begins, and the scent of her lovely “displaced yellow hair” reaches out to me. I want to touch her and caress below her waist. And as she offers herself to narrator as a sacrifice, I want to offer her my life in place of hers, but the narrator frightens me.
How could he believe that when she offered herself to him forever that she meant for him to take her life? Did love or passion possess him so, that he wanted to keep her forever in death? I believe Browning is showing how love can overtake a sane man and make him irrational.
“in one long yellow string I wound
Three times her little throat around,
And strangled her. No pain felt she;
I am quite sure she felt no pain.” (663, lines 39-42)
But did she feel pain? I was shocked. I wanted to cry. I thought the love affair between Porphyria, her lover, and I could be immortalized in some manner other than her death. If she felt no pain, I felt it for her. I wept for her return.
I found this poem engaging from the beginning. Love, a universal theme in poetry, was being turned around from the neck to see what was behind it. What it found was its behind and Browning’s uncanny wit. This poem is grotesquely beautiful in every sense. The elements of psychosis, love, and murder all bundled into a magnificent package. One feels compelled to read this murderous tale without flinching or condemnation.
Somehow, we experience the connection between the narrator and Porphyria.
“she put my arm around about her waist,
And made her smooth white shoulder bare,” (662, lines 16-17)
The love triangle begins, and the scent of her lovely “displaced yellow hair” reaches out to me. I want to touch her and caress below her waist. And as she offers herself to narrator as a sacrifice, I want to offer her my life in place of hers, but the narrator frightens me.
How could he believe that when she offered herself to him forever that she meant for him to take her life? Did love or passion possess him so, that he wanted to keep her forever in death? I believe Browning is showing how love can overtake a sane man and make him irrational.
“in one long yellow string I wound
Three times her little throat around,
And strangled her. No pain felt she;
I am quite sure she felt no pain.” (663, lines 39-42)
But did she feel pain? I was shocked. I wanted to cry. I thought the love affair between Porphyria, her lover, and I could be immortalized in some manner other than her death. If she felt no pain, I felt it for her. I wept for her return.
Samuel Coleridge, Constancy to an Ideal Object
I found Coleridge’s work to be engaging as if I were a character is his poems, or his poems were written as letters to me. The most fascinating poem that Coleridge wrote is Constancy to an Ideal Object because it left me wondering what objects are most enjoyable in life.
The speaker in Constancy to an Ideal Object seems to be a lover away from his love, tormented and pleased by the dreams of what his life will be. He seems frustrated with his persistent thoughts on a consistent topic and pines,
Since all that beat about in Nature’s Range
Or veer or vanish; why shouldst thou remain
The only constant in a world of change
Oh yearning Thought! That liv’st but in the brain?” (349).
He treats thought, with a capital T (line 4), as if it is a spirit that is formed in the mind, and as it grows, possesses the body. I believe Coleridge uses this device as a way to sublimely allow the reader to “feel” what the narrator is feeling. But how can thought be so powerful that it can possess your mind? I believe this question calls the reader to recall a time when a thought consumed them so that nothing else in life could surpass it. How was the reader able to move pass that point in their life? How did they conquer the thought?
I believe this is what Coleridge is asking his reader to do. He wants us to think about being overtaken by thought, and how that thought changed or affected our lives. I have had many thoughts that seemed untamable, a point the narrator has come to. Coleridge wants the reader to become empathetic with the narrator.
But why is it important for the reader to empathize with the narrator? If the reader doesn’t sympathize with the narrator when he says, “…Yet still thou haunt’st me; and thought well I see/She is not thou, and only thou art she…” (349) we would only think he was crazy, and not realize that it is what we think that defines who we are. Though our thoughts are not always reality, they can define what our reality becomes.
The speaker in Constancy to an Ideal Object seems to be a lover away from his love, tormented and pleased by the dreams of what his life will be. He seems frustrated with his persistent thoughts on a consistent topic and pines,
Since all that beat about in Nature’s Range
Or veer or vanish; why shouldst thou remain
The only constant in a world of change
Oh yearning Thought! That liv’st but in the brain?” (349).
He treats thought, with a capital T (line 4), as if it is a spirit that is formed in the mind, and as it grows, possesses the body. I believe Coleridge uses this device as a way to sublimely allow the reader to “feel” what the narrator is feeling. But how can thought be so powerful that it can possess your mind? I believe this question calls the reader to recall a time when a thought consumed them so that nothing else in life could surpass it. How was the reader able to move pass that point in their life? How did they conquer the thought?
I believe this is what Coleridge is asking his reader to do. He wants us to think about being overtaken by thought, and how that thought changed or affected our lives. I have had many thoughts that seemed untamable, a point the narrator has come to. Coleridge wants the reader to become empathetic with the narrator.
But why is it important for the reader to empathize with the narrator? If the reader doesn’t sympathize with the narrator when he says, “…Yet still thou haunt’st me; and thought well I see/She is not thou, and only thou art she…” (349) we would only think he was crazy, and not realize that it is what we think that defines who we are. Though our thoughts are not always reality, they can define what our reality becomes.
Industrialism
With every change in life there is something lost or removed. In the case of Industrialism, the innocence of pastures and farms, family and country were swept away with the motions of the locomotive. In their place, social freedom and awareness, economic gain and power, technology came and dominated. After reading many writers from the Industrial Era, it is assumed that most had suspicion of the locomotives good for mankind and country. Though, the days of family and extended family may have been dwarfed, I can find no reasonable alternative to the locomotive coming into the lives of humans.
The locomotive was a powerful force in moving my things forward, women’s rights being one that began to move with great speed. After factory work became available the idea of the “factory girl,” the immoral promiscuous female, became a popular symbol for working women. Women who earned a living, helped to raise the economic standing of a nation were somehow the enemy, because they were “undermining the family structure” (487). Industrialization was widening the economic gap between the rich and the poor, and as in any time of ‘war’, women chipped in the close the gap so their families could eat. In essence women were told they weren’t needed. Their responsibility to industrialism and their country was to supply children for work, which the women could not feed. This made some women begin to look at the double-sided crazy talk of being a woman. It also made many people notice the effects factory work had on children.
Though working conditions were not ideal for women, children, or men; it was work. And many people needed the work to survive the times they were in. As, we do now. Those who do not work, do not eat; or eat very well.
The locomotive was a powerful force in moving my things forward, women’s rights being one that began to move with great speed. After factory work became available the idea of the “factory girl,” the immoral promiscuous female, became a popular symbol for working women. Women who earned a living, helped to raise the economic standing of a nation were somehow the enemy, because they were “undermining the family structure” (487). Industrialization was widening the economic gap between the rich and the poor, and as in any time of ‘war’, women chipped in the close the gap so their families could eat. In essence women were told they weren’t needed. Their responsibility to industrialism and their country was to supply children for work, which the women could not feed. This made some women begin to look at the double-sided crazy talk of being a woman. It also made many people notice the effects factory work had on children.
Though working conditions were not ideal for women, children, or men; it was work. And many people needed the work to survive the times they were in. As, we do now. Those who do not work, do not eat; or eat very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)