I actually had the privilege of reading "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" back in high school several years ago. Before I even re-read this poem for this post, I remembered feeling confused and surprised by the nature of the main character and speaker of this poem, Mr. J. Alfred Prufrock. What an interesting and self-loathing man! I think this kind of poetry shows the great divide in the type of literature that one would find in the Romantic or Victorian times as compared to the Modern period.
While I had already read "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," I had not been exposed to the "Journey of the Magi." This poem was very interesting to me. The poem gives an account of the wise men's journey to Bethlehem for Jesus' birth, rather than the common Christian or Biblical story of Joseph and Mary. I like the way Elliot presents the poem from the perspective of the wise men while capturing the Christian heart at the same time.
The poem begins as the speaker, one of the wise men, describes the journey that he made. He said it was "...Just the worst time of the year..." and that it was "...such a long journey" (2,3). The speaker in the poem seems unhappy about this trip, but describes it just the same. It seems that at that time, he wished he were doing something else. He continues to give more detail about the difficulty he experienced on his way: "And the camels galled, sore-footed, refractory,/ Lying down in the melting snow" (6-7). Because the weather was cold, the speaker had a hard time with his transportation. He explains that the camels did not want to walk and proceed on the journey, which made it even more difficult for him to continue on his way.
To make matters even worse, the speaker starts to remember how on his journey he and his fellow travelers "...regretted/ The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,/ And the silken girls bringing sherbet" (8-10). The speaker admits that it was hard for him not to think back on times past when he was comfortable and enjoying life. This is of course in direct contrast with the speaker's situation at hand. Fond memories of the past make continuing on the journey that much harder; so much harder in fact that he and his friends "regretted" even having these great past experiences that make him aware of his tribulation at present. This line of thinking conveys to the reader that the speaker probably wants to turn back and return home. Despite his annoyance with the journey, he continues on his way.
As the speaker continues to describe his journey, he begins to mention further complications that he experienced along the way in addition to bad weather, poorly behaved camels, and past memories. The speaker must really wonder what he was doing on this trip as he relates that there were "...night fires going out, and the lack of shelters,/ And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly/ And the villages dirty and charging high prices" (13-15). As if things were not already bad enough, the speaker recalls all the other inconveniences that he was forced to experience on his way. Nothing comes easy to the speaker on this journey. Once again, the reader may question why these wise men did not turn around and go home; it certainly would have been easier for them to go home than to struggle against the troubles they continued to encounter. Rather than give up, the wise men "...preferred to travel all night" rather than deal with difficult people and unwelcoming circumstances (17). Even sleeping during the day, they were left to ponder the "...voices singing in our ears, saying/ That this was all folly" (19-20). The wise men are told by those around them that there is no need for this journey; that it is nonsense in fact and that they are wasting their time. I am sure hearing this kind of negative talk made continuing on the journey almost unbearable. Still, the wise men continued on their way.
Finally, the men reach the "...temperate valley..." that the reader can assume is probably Bethlehem where Jesus us born. Upon reaching this area, the weather changes and so does the tone of the poem. While in the previous lines of the poem the speaker seems overcome by dark and troublesome images and events, coming to Bethlehem relates a new beginning:
"Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,
Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation,
With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness
And three trees on the low sky.
And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow." (21-25)
Through the description given by the speaker, Elliot reveals a variety of positive images. Using words or phrases like "dawn," "temperate," "vegetation," "beating the darkness," "trees," and "white" all convey a positive and uplifting tone. The direction of the poem shifts when the wise men reach the city; Elliot seems to show the reader learns that being in the city of Jesus' birth brings new light in all kinds of ways.
The speaker reveals upon reaching their destination that they "...arrived at evening, not a moment too soon/ Finding the place; it was (you may say) satisfactorily" (30-31). Through all of the complexities of the journey, the speaker says that his destination is simply "satisfactory." While some may be surprised or even offended by this word, I think it fits perfectly with the Biblical story of Jesus. Although I believe Jesus was the most important and influential people that ever lived, he was not born in a palace with a golden manger. I do not think God planned it that way. In fact, his birth is all the more meaningful because being born in a stable shows the humanity of Jesus. This humanity allowed him to connect with people in a realistic way. For this reason, the word "satisfactory" is completely appropriate and proves the scene was more personal, and less showy than it could have been. I like the way Elliot really ties Biblical truths with his poetry here.
Further Biblical principles are revealed in the last, and most important, stanza in the poem. The speaker explains his recollection of the event and questions if they were "...led all that way for/ Birth or Death?" (35-36). Again, this line may at first seem strange and out of place; however, as a Christian, I see a strong connection with the speaker's line of thought and Christianity today. Many Christians, including myself, believe in not only a physical death, but also a spiritual death. In short, Christians believe that dying and being born again spiritually means that you acknowledge God is worthy of all praise and you commit your life to him and his will. Making this commitment is obviously difficult and does not ensure perfection, but in an eternal sense, it will be worth it one day. I think Elliot also believed in this principle. He further clarifies this belief through the voice of the speaker: "...this Birth was/Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death" (38-39). The speaker describes how this kind of (spiritual) death is very difficult. The speaker goes into even more detail when he explains that one of the hardest aspects of spiritual death and re-birth is giving up past sinful ways in hopes of living a holier life: "We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,/ But no longer at east here, in the old dispensation,/ With alien people cluthching their gods" (40-42). While the speaker was previously comfortable and very much a part of this kind of environment, his life changed upon his journey to see Jesus. Because of the difficult journey that he made, he knew that he could not return to his old way of life. Though the speaker toiled on his journey, he seems now grateful for that very special trip, as it changed his life and he "...should be glad for another death" (43). The speaker seems to be a changed man and though he remembers clearly how hard his journey was and how many times he wanted to turn back, it was meant to be the way it was and he is glad for it.
Another connection that I found in this poem to the Bible is the journey to Bethlehem. While the speaker describes how treacherous his trip was to Bethlehem, in the end, it changed his life. I think in the same way, many people travel long, difficult paths on the way to becoming a Christian. Despite the way their lives were before their spiritual rebirth, Christians generally welcome the positive affects of becoming a Christian even if getting to that point was not easy.
I very much enjoyed this poem and say many Biblical parallels. What made this poem most enjoyable were the subtle ways in which Elliot compares the journey of the Magi and what he found with Christian concepts.
Monday, June 16, 2008
William Butler Yeats
I found many of Yeat's poems less enjoyable than other authors. I chose to write about "The Lake Isle of Innisfree" because of the emotion expressed by the speaker. In Yeat's poems "The Lake Isle of Innisfree," the speaker seems to yearn for something other than his life at present. He dreams of another place and time, but is eventually thrown back into the reality of his life.
In "The Lake Isle of Innisfree," the speaker begins by describing a place that he wants to visit and even says that he is on his way there: "I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree...And live alone and in the bee-loud glade" (1,4). The speaker desires to leave his present state and travel to a new place: Innisfree. The speaker describes various characteristics of Innisfree and the way he would carry on while there. While the reader is unsure why the speaker wants to get away, I think most people can relate to this concept. There are times when we all want to escape, leaving our troubles and worries behind us. In much the same way, the speaker longs for a place to clear his mind: "And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow" (5). It seems that the speaker in the poem wants to be somewhere other than where he has been; a place that makes him happy. The speaker therefore, relates that sometimes taking time away from the routine of life sharpens are mind and our judgement.
As the speaker continues in "Te Lake of Innisfree," it becomes clear how much he loves this place and enjoys the scenery: "There midnight's all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,/ And evening full of the linnet's wings" (7-8). When the speaker is at Innisfree, if only in his mind, he feels free and at peace. Innisfree seems like a get-away for the speaker; a place of rest and relaxation. Again, the reader can relate to this type of place because we all like to take a vacation and slow down for a while. People, like the speaker, look forward to leaving home for a while to catch up on sleep and try to forget about the reality of their lives. While the speaker does not go into depth about his reasons for wanting to go to Innisfree, it is easy to relate to the speaker's feelings and connect further with the poem. This connection intensifies when the speaker jolts the reader back to reality: "I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;/ While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,/ I hear it in the deep heart's core" (10-12). The tone of the poem changes upon reading he last two lines of the poem because the speaker recognizes the sounds of the world around him. It is now that the speaker conveys that he is no longer able to dream about the serenity of Innisfree, but rather forced to face his real life.
Yeats strongly contrasts the ideal with reality; while the speaker begins by describing this lovely retreat to Innisfree, he returns from his thoughts and is left once again to hear the sounds of the nearby lake in the road. The reader wonders if "the deep heart's core" led him to dream of his retreat or if it brought him back to reality. I tend to think that it was the mind's wishful thinking that led the speaker to Innisfree and his heart, being able to feel the depth and reality of his present situation, that led him to once again realize that he is not actually in Innisfree. Why is the poem written this way? I think Yeats wants to convey that while dreaming is okay, it is crucial to listen to the voice of the heart that always leads you back to reality. Your mind wonders and dreams of unrealistic things, but the heart knows better. While Yeats seems to compare the value of both the mind and imagination with that of the heart, in the end, he portrays his own, individual conviction: the heart knows best.
In "The Lake Isle of Innisfree," the speaker begins by describing a place that he wants to visit and even says that he is on his way there: "I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree...And live alone and in the bee-loud glade" (1,4). The speaker desires to leave his present state and travel to a new place: Innisfree. The speaker describes various characteristics of Innisfree and the way he would carry on while there. While the reader is unsure why the speaker wants to get away, I think most people can relate to this concept. There are times when we all want to escape, leaving our troubles and worries behind us. In much the same way, the speaker longs for a place to clear his mind: "And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow" (5). It seems that the speaker in the poem wants to be somewhere other than where he has been; a place that makes him happy. The speaker therefore, relates that sometimes taking time away from the routine of life sharpens are mind and our judgement.
As the speaker continues in "Te Lake of Innisfree," it becomes clear how much he loves this place and enjoys the scenery: "There midnight's all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,/ And evening full of the linnet's wings" (7-8). When the speaker is at Innisfree, if only in his mind, he feels free and at peace. Innisfree seems like a get-away for the speaker; a place of rest and relaxation. Again, the reader can relate to this type of place because we all like to take a vacation and slow down for a while. People, like the speaker, look forward to leaving home for a while to catch up on sleep and try to forget about the reality of their lives. While the speaker does not go into depth about his reasons for wanting to go to Innisfree, it is easy to relate to the speaker's feelings and connect further with the poem. This connection intensifies when the speaker jolts the reader back to reality: "I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;/ While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,/ I hear it in the deep heart's core" (10-12). The tone of the poem changes upon reading he last two lines of the poem because the speaker recognizes the sounds of the world around him. It is now that the speaker conveys that he is no longer able to dream about the serenity of Innisfree, but rather forced to face his real life.
Yeats strongly contrasts the ideal with reality; while the speaker begins by describing this lovely retreat to Innisfree, he returns from his thoughts and is left once again to hear the sounds of the nearby lake in the road. The reader wonders if "the deep heart's core" led him to dream of his retreat or if it brought him back to reality. I tend to think that it was the mind's wishful thinking that led the speaker to Innisfree and his heart, being able to feel the depth and reality of his present situation, that led him to once again realize that he is not actually in Innisfree. Why is the poem written this way? I think Yeats wants to convey that while dreaming is okay, it is crucial to listen to the voice of the heart that always leads you back to reality. Your mind wonders and dreams of unrealistic things, but the heart knows better. While Yeats seems to compare the value of both the mind and imagination with that of the heart, in the end, he portrays his own, individual conviction: the heart knows best.
World War I
I really enjoyed reading "The Soldier" by Rupert Brooke. I felt the poem carefully and truthfully captured the mind and heart of many soldiers during his time and even now.
The poem begins when the speaker openly accepts that he may die due to his services as a soldier: "If I should die, think only this of me:/ That there's some corner of a foreign field/ That is forever England" (1-3). The opening line of this poem is beautiful and shoots straight for the heart. This soldier knows that he may die in battle. Rather than lament this dreary outcome, the speaker proudly proclaims that if he dies, he will remain a part of England and be buried in the earth. The speaker conveys his pride for this country, thus showing the reader that dying is a small price to pay for England.
As the poem continues by giving credit to all those men and women who may/will die as a result of fighting in the great war. He honors them by saying "There shall be/ In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;/ A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware..." (3-5). The speaker in the poem explains that those who are fighting for their country, and thus exhibiting great loyalty, are even more special than the ground in which they lay. The speaker obviously loves his country, but appreciates the people who die in the war even more; he respects them greatly and in showing his regard, further reveals why his death would not be a total loss. Furthermore, I really enjoyed reading lines five through eight because the speaker explains in great detail why the soldiers are so prideful and how their country influenced their lives: "England...Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,/ A body of Englands, breathing English air/ Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home" (5-8). The speaker gives thanks to England for the many blessings he has received from the flowers to the rivers and thus conveys why soldiers are willing to risk their lives. He reveals many reasons why English soldiers love their home and even in death, pay tribute to the beauty and life that England possesses.
The last part of the poem is my favorite part because the speaker focuses his thought on those who have passed: "And think, this heart, all evil shed away,/ A pulse in the Eternal mind, no less/ Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given..." (9-11). The speaker reveals that these fallen soldiers do not blame England or covet the lives of the living; rather, they feel they are giving something back to England for the previously mentioned ways the country gave to them. Giving their lives, from this prospective, is a small contribution in the way of England's beauty and natural blessings. The speaker further describes the fond memories of the lost soldiers as they recall "...Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day; And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness" (12-13). In this passage, the speaker shows the human aspects of what the soldier will cherish forever in death. It is not only the beauty in nature that the fallen soldiers appreciate, but the livelihood of the people. These soldiers were able to experiences all of these wonderful things because they lived in such a great country. For that reason, those memories will always be "...In hearts at peace, under an English heaven" (14). The soldiers are not left feeling they missed out on life or left things unfinished at war, but rather the speaker conveys that these soldiers were "at peace." This image is very powerful and bittersweet. No country or body of people want to see soldiers being killed; through the calming and reminiscent tone Brooke uses in the poem, the reader is encouraged and in ways, inspired.
According to Brooke's history, "The Soldier" was one poem that made him memorable. This poem "...meshed perfectly with the temperament of the British people as the nation entered into war" (1097). People liked reading this poem because it gave them comfort as they confronted the possibility of their loved ones passing away. The poem revealed the pride of a soldier's heart and eased the minds of those who were concerned about the war to come. What I wonder is if this poem would have been as successful if it appeared in in the middle or toward the end of the war as opposed to the early stages. England was hopeful at first, but after so many lives lost the people began to lose hope. I do not think people would have appreciated "The Soldier" as much if the reality of the war had already settled in upon it's publication.
During the midst of war in 2008, I am also interested in how this poem would affect our soldiers and their families today. I think much like that of Brooke's times, people would have been much more responsive at the beginning of the war. After so many lives lost and resources used, it is very difficult for many Americans to continue to support the "War on Terror." When the war began after 9-11, Americans were fired up and wanted to see action taken against the enemy. Unfortunately, problems have continued to escalate in the Middle East, and as a result, Americans are split on whether the war is even worth fighting anymore. I know one of my best friends, a Sergent in the US Army, still supports the war and would proudly give his life tomorrow if it meant defending the United States. He served in combat in Iraq for over two years. Thankfully, he is home again, but not without escaping many life-threatening events. He is an example to me and because of him and the sacrifices that he has made (including all soldiers of course), I can somehow relate to what Brooke wrote about the soldiers in England so long ago. Times have changed, but I think the pride of those who sever their country is still much the same.
The poem begins when the speaker openly accepts that he may die due to his services as a soldier: "If I should die, think only this of me:/ That there's some corner of a foreign field/ That is forever England" (1-3). The opening line of this poem is beautiful and shoots straight for the heart. This soldier knows that he may die in battle. Rather than lament this dreary outcome, the speaker proudly proclaims that if he dies, he will remain a part of England and be buried in the earth. The speaker conveys his pride for this country, thus showing the reader that dying is a small price to pay for England.
As the poem continues by giving credit to all those men and women who may/will die as a result of fighting in the great war. He honors them by saying "There shall be/ In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;/ A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware..." (3-5). The speaker in the poem explains that those who are fighting for their country, and thus exhibiting great loyalty, are even more special than the ground in which they lay. The speaker obviously loves his country, but appreciates the people who die in the war even more; he respects them greatly and in showing his regard, further reveals why his death would not be a total loss. Furthermore, I really enjoyed reading lines five through eight because the speaker explains in great detail why the soldiers are so prideful and how their country influenced their lives: "England...Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,/ A body of Englands, breathing English air/ Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home" (5-8). The speaker gives thanks to England for the many blessings he has received from the flowers to the rivers and thus conveys why soldiers are willing to risk their lives. He reveals many reasons why English soldiers love their home and even in death, pay tribute to the beauty and life that England possesses.
The last part of the poem is my favorite part because the speaker focuses his thought on those who have passed: "And think, this heart, all evil shed away,/ A pulse in the Eternal mind, no less/ Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given..." (9-11). The speaker reveals that these fallen soldiers do not blame England or covet the lives of the living; rather, they feel they are giving something back to England for the previously mentioned ways the country gave to them. Giving their lives, from this prospective, is a small contribution in the way of England's beauty and natural blessings. The speaker further describes the fond memories of the lost soldiers as they recall "...Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day; And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness" (12-13). In this passage, the speaker shows the human aspects of what the soldier will cherish forever in death. It is not only the beauty in nature that the fallen soldiers appreciate, but the livelihood of the people. These soldiers were able to experiences all of these wonderful things because they lived in such a great country. For that reason, those memories will always be "...In hearts at peace, under an English heaven" (14). The soldiers are not left feeling they missed out on life or left things unfinished at war, but rather the speaker conveys that these soldiers were "at peace." This image is very powerful and bittersweet. No country or body of people want to see soldiers being killed; through the calming and reminiscent tone Brooke uses in the poem, the reader is encouraged and in ways, inspired.
According to Brooke's history, "The Soldier" was one poem that made him memorable. This poem "...meshed perfectly with the temperament of the British people as the nation entered into war" (1097). People liked reading this poem because it gave them comfort as they confronted the possibility of their loved ones passing away. The poem revealed the pride of a soldier's heart and eased the minds of those who were concerned about the war to come. What I wonder is if this poem would have been as successful if it appeared in in the middle or toward the end of the war as opposed to the early stages. England was hopeful at first, but after so many lives lost the people began to lose hope. I do not think people would have appreciated "The Soldier" as much if the reality of the war had already settled in upon it's publication.
During the midst of war in 2008, I am also interested in how this poem would affect our soldiers and their families today. I think much like that of Brooke's times, people would have been much more responsive at the beginning of the war. After so many lives lost and resources used, it is very difficult for many Americans to continue to support the "War on Terror." When the war began after 9-11, Americans were fired up and wanted to see action taken against the enemy. Unfortunately, problems have continued to escalate in the Middle East, and as a result, Americans are split on whether the war is even worth fighting anymore. I know one of my best friends, a Sergent in the US Army, still supports the war and would proudly give his life tomorrow if it meant defending the United States. He served in combat in Iraq for over two years. Thankfully, he is home again, but not without escaping many life-threatening events. He is an example to me and because of him and the sacrifices that he has made (including all soldiers of course), I can somehow relate to what Brooke wrote about the soldiers in England so long ago. Times have changed, but I think the pride of those who sever their country is still much the same.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Gerard Manley Hopkins
I did not enjoy reading poems by Hopkins; they were confusing to me and I found it very difficult to find meaning in his work. It took a lot of time and patience to really understand what he might have been fighting to portray.
In "Pied Beauty," the speaker seems to be giving thanks to God for his blessings on earth. He begins by verbally acknowledging the good things God has given: "Glory be to God for dappled things--" (1). The speaker clearly appreciates God's work and specifically calls attention to the "dappled things" in the world. Dappled things along with the work "pied" from the title suggest, according to the footnote, that these items are "blotched with different colors" (775). Therefore, the speaker is making note of things that he sees that are multi-colored and praises God for the beauty that results due to his blessing. The speaker describes and gives examples of things that are dappled that he sees:
"For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stiple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut falls; finches wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced--fold, fallow, and plough." (2-5)
In these lines of the poem, the speaker specifically identifies numerous objects/things in nature that occur with a multitude of color and variety. The descriptions that he gives provide a strong connection with the reader, creating many mental images. While the speaker seems to be recalling someone ordinary objects, it is important for the reader to remember that these ordinary objects are made extra-ordinary in the poem. The speaker could thank God for anything in the world, but chooses to focus on those things that are multi-colored, thus making them different.
The speaker continues on, this time paying indirect tribute to the differences in the people of the world: "And all trades, their gear and tackle and trim" (6). While the speaker does not directly mention that the world is very diverse, this particular line of the poem seems to suggest that people, like things found in nature, are very different. People may have different jobs, and use different tools and equipment, at the heart they are all people. I think what the speaker means to convey is that beauty exists in the simple things in life, but that diversity is to be acknowledged and appreciated. Perhaps Hopkins is relating through the speaker that not all things in life are supposed to be the same. He recognizes that something as minute as variation in the color of a cow's skin is beautiful and worth paying tribute to--at the same time, human diversity should be celebrated.
The speaker changes his tone slightly at the beginning of the seventh line. While the speaker previously describes multi-colored and diverse people, he now relates how he feels about those things in more detail: "All things counter, original, spare, strange;/ Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)/ With swift, slow, sweet, sour; adazzle, dim" (7-9). The speaker points out that the strange or unique aspects of these objects make them memorable to him. He seems to even enjoy the fact that clouds, cow hide, trout, chestnuts, finches, the landscape, and men are beautiful in their differences. He pays tribute, therefore, to things that are not necessarily or typically considered worth mentioning. He again draws the connection between nature and man when he says "...whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)" (8). Because no thing in nature, other than humans, can have freckles, it is clear that the speaker is once again pointing out the beauty that exists in individuality. And what is more, a lot of people with freckles consider them unattractive (some love them of course)--the speaker finds this particular physical feature and distinction (freckles) something wonderful.
At the end of this poem, the speaker draws the reader back to his original claim: he is thanking God for the colorful and diverse blessings on earth: "He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:/ Praise him" (10-11). Once again, the speaker in the poem directly speaks to God, giving him praise and glory for the things he created and that the speaker appreciates. While some would completely overlook the small details, moreover the unique aspects of man and nature, he thinks it is important to celebrate these items.
Overall, I do like this poem, but I'm not sure that I'm reading it correctly. I feel like what I think he speaker is conveying is far too simplistic. Other than the obvious, I'm not sure what Hopkins wanted to demonstrate in this poem. I'm open to suggestions!
In "Pied Beauty," the speaker seems to be giving thanks to God for his blessings on earth. He begins by verbally acknowledging the good things God has given: "Glory be to God for dappled things--" (1). The speaker clearly appreciates God's work and specifically calls attention to the "dappled things" in the world. Dappled things along with the work "pied" from the title suggest, according to the footnote, that these items are "blotched with different colors" (775). Therefore, the speaker is making note of things that he sees that are multi-colored and praises God for the beauty that results due to his blessing. The speaker describes and gives examples of things that are dappled that he sees:
"For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stiple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut falls; finches wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced--fold, fallow, and plough." (2-5)
In these lines of the poem, the speaker specifically identifies numerous objects/things in nature that occur with a multitude of color and variety. The descriptions that he gives provide a strong connection with the reader, creating many mental images. While the speaker seems to be recalling someone ordinary objects, it is important for the reader to remember that these ordinary objects are made extra-ordinary in the poem. The speaker could thank God for anything in the world, but chooses to focus on those things that are multi-colored, thus making them different.
The speaker continues on, this time paying indirect tribute to the differences in the people of the world: "And all trades, their gear and tackle and trim" (6). While the speaker does not directly mention that the world is very diverse, this particular line of the poem seems to suggest that people, like things found in nature, are very different. People may have different jobs, and use different tools and equipment, at the heart they are all people. I think what the speaker means to convey is that beauty exists in the simple things in life, but that diversity is to be acknowledged and appreciated. Perhaps Hopkins is relating through the speaker that not all things in life are supposed to be the same. He recognizes that something as minute as variation in the color of a cow's skin is beautiful and worth paying tribute to--at the same time, human diversity should be celebrated.
The speaker changes his tone slightly at the beginning of the seventh line. While the speaker previously describes multi-colored and diverse people, he now relates how he feels about those things in more detail: "All things counter, original, spare, strange;/ Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)/ With swift, slow, sweet, sour; adazzle, dim" (7-9). The speaker points out that the strange or unique aspects of these objects make them memorable to him. He seems to even enjoy the fact that clouds, cow hide, trout, chestnuts, finches, the landscape, and men are beautiful in their differences. He pays tribute, therefore, to things that are not necessarily or typically considered worth mentioning. He again draws the connection between nature and man when he says "...whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)" (8). Because no thing in nature, other than humans, can have freckles, it is clear that the speaker is once again pointing out the beauty that exists in individuality. And what is more, a lot of people with freckles consider them unattractive (some love them of course)--the speaker finds this particular physical feature and distinction (freckles) something wonderful.
At the end of this poem, the speaker draws the reader back to his original claim: he is thanking God for the colorful and diverse blessings on earth: "He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:/ Praise him" (10-11). Once again, the speaker in the poem directly speaks to God, giving him praise and glory for the things he created and that the speaker appreciates. While some would completely overlook the small details, moreover the unique aspects of man and nature, he thinks it is important to celebrate these items.
Overall, I do like this poem, but I'm not sure that I'm reading it correctly. I feel like what I think he speaker is conveying is far too simplistic. Other than the obvious, I'm not sure what Hopkins wanted to demonstrate in this poem. I'm open to suggestions!
John Stuart Mill
John Mill certainly had lofty and radical ideas concerning the equality of women. Mill begins by arguing that "...the legal subordination of one sex to the other--is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality..." (521). Mill clearly states that in his opinion, any kind of inequality that exits between men and women of his society should be abolished. He believes that it should be replaced with new laws that uphold the potential for equal opportunities for both men and women. While he is a man who by some should be concerned with the outside world, Mill rather focuses his time and energy on an issue in which he strongly believes. He continues to explain his point by addressing the possibility that times have drastically changed since these laws were set in place: "...at the time when it was adopted, it was the best" (521). Mill demonstrates that while this kind of backwards thinking might have been acceptable in years past, times to change and thus so do people and their wants and needs. He does not think that inequality is appropriate during this time because "...like so many other primeval social facts of the greatest importance, have subsequently, in the course of ages, ceased to exist" (521). Mill does an excellent job defending his position and explaining that the facility of marriage has changed, and thus women should not be considered a weaker, less important sex. He further explains his point when he says that "...the present system...rests upon theory only" (521). Mill wonders how those who defend the current system have any real data to present; no one ever tested these laws to make sure that subordinating "...the weaker sex of the stronger" is really an effective means of operation (521). Rather, Mill believes that these rules and laws were set in place without any real test, and therefore rest solely on idealistic theories of success.
Continuing his argument, Mill proclaims (indirectly) that it is unlikely for most women to fight for their equality, even if they long for it. Women in his time have been influenced by social and natural events that lead them to think that being a subordinate is a forever way of life: "All causes, social and natural, combine to make it unlikely that women should be collectively rebellious to the power of men" (523). Here, Mill argues that women cannot be expected to stand up for themselves because they have been taught to accept this way of life. I believe that for this reason, Mill finds it necessary for him to actually fight for women's rights, as they are unable to do it for themselves. Mill strongly advocates against this way of thinking. He compares the facility of marriage to that of slavery, wherein the men are "...the masters of women..." wanting "...not a forced slave but a willing one, not a slave merely, but a favourite" (523). By comparing marriage to a master and a slave, Mill conveys negative images of the life of women. He sees men as undeserving "masters" and pities the women that are trapped in a lifestyle with no real freedom. Mill obviously longs for women to experience true freedom, just as a slave longs to know the outside world.
I really enjoyed reading what Mill had to say about equality for women. He truly sought to change the way they were objectified in their society, and wanted them to have a chance at experiencing life to the fullest. I think he makes some very strong points in "The Subjection of Women" and I'm sure people like Mill ultimately made part of the difference in woman's lives today. I think that falling in love with a married woman himself might have influenced Mill. I am led to wonder if some of his opinions in "The Subjection of Women" were not directly linked to his personal situation because he was able to see how marriage negatively affects some women, including the woman he loved. Either way, I think Mill was a powerful and persuasive speaker and I like what he had to say.
Continuing his argument, Mill proclaims (indirectly) that it is unlikely for most women to fight for their equality, even if they long for it. Women in his time have been influenced by social and natural events that lead them to think that being a subordinate is a forever way of life: "All causes, social and natural, combine to make it unlikely that women should be collectively rebellious to the power of men" (523). Here, Mill argues that women cannot be expected to stand up for themselves because they have been taught to accept this way of life. I believe that for this reason, Mill finds it necessary for him to actually fight for women's rights, as they are unable to do it for themselves. Mill strongly advocates against this way of thinking. He compares the facility of marriage to that of slavery, wherein the men are "...the masters of women..." wanting "...not a forced slave but a willing one, not a slave merely, but a favourite" (523). By comparing marriage to a master and a slave, Mill conveys negative images of the life of women. He sees men as undeserving "masters" and pities the women that are trapped in a lifestyle with no real freedom. Mill obviously longs for women to experience true freedom, just as a slave longs to know the outside world.
I really enjoyed reading what Mill had to say about equality for women. He truly sought to change the way they were objectified in their society, and wanted them to have a chance at experiencing life to the fullest. I think he makes some very strong points in "The Subjection of Women" and I'm sure people like Mill ultimately made part of the difference in woman's lives today. I think that falling in love with a married woman himself might have influenced Mill. I am led to wonder if some of his opinions in "The Subjection of Women" were not directly linked to his personal situation because he was able to see how marriage negatively affects some women, including the woman he loved. Either way, I think Mill was a powerful and persuasive speaker and I like what he had to say.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Victorian Ladies and Gentlemen
The Victorian time period was one drastically divided by the rich and the poor. Just like society today, there was a large gap between the rich and the poor and a very gray area that existed for the middle class. Being referred to as a "lady" or a "gentleman" greatly affected many aspects of their lives, including "...one's freedom to act, speak, learn, and earn" (555). Things are very different (in America) today because all men and women have equal opportunities according to the First Amendment. Further distinction existed regarding the position of middle class men and women. The women "...were to preside over the domestic sphere, the home and family, while men entered the fray of the world" (555). Basically, up until the Victorian period, most people supported these gendered roles and duties. Previously, no one seemed to really question why these roles had been set in place; they were brought up and taught to respect this way of life as something that had always been. However, as times began to change with the surge of Industrialism in England, so did women's views of their position in society. Some women continued to uphold the values of old, while others felt victimized and desired a change.
Sarah Stickney Ellis was one female writer who strongly supported the old school of thought. In her opinion, women should "...accept their inferiority to men and devote themselves to the happiness and moral elevation of their brothers, husbands, and sons" (557). This way of thinking obviously comes from tradition. Ellis did not question the duties of a woman and felt that it was unnecessary to fight for equality among men and women. Despite the fact that Ellis defined the responsibility of women very plainly, she did not devalue the wisdom and influence that women have on men: "How often has man returned to his home with a mind confused by the many voices...while his integrity was shaken...he has stood corrected before the clear eye of a woman..." (557). Ellis clearly acknowledges that women have a great duty to fulfill when it comes to discernment; it is the woman who acts as a "...secret influence, that he may have borne it about with him like a kind of second conscience, for mental reference, and spiritual counsel, in moments of trial" (557). Once again, Ellis clearly describes ways in which women are treasured and valued as members of society. She does not support female counsel outside the home or in the working world; however, she focuses on ways in which a woman's influence makes the difference in the world by way of the men they counsel: "...but as far as the noble daring of Britain has sent forth her adventurous sons...derived in no small measure from the female influence of their native country" (557). Ellis does not seem to carelessly overlook the powerful work of women in the home; in fact, she says that the prosperity of her nation comes from strong men who have been uplifted and supported by their sisters, mothers, and wives. Ellis further defends the position of women as she explains the significance of effective communication skills: "Women have the choice of many means of bringing their principles into exercise, and of obtaining influence...amongst the most important of these is conversation..." (559). Ellis believes that the role that women have in the home is crucial. She also thinks that women must have the gift of conversation in order to obtain an "...intellectual hold upon her husband's heart..." (559). She knows that if a woman merely connects to her husband on a physical or monetary level and fails to connect to her husband on a intellectual level, then she cannot fully serve her purpose in the home. Therefore, Ellis does not see women as victims of men or society; she believes that women will continue to be empowered in their "domestic spheres" as long as they effectively advise the men in their lives.
While Ellis voiced an opinion of one way of thought in the Victorian period, there were several others who strongly opposed her views and felt that women were victims of societal restraint, especially within the facility of marriage. Caroline Norton was a strong advocate for women's rights. She knew from personal experience that marriages were oftentimes very different than what they would have appeared. She was "...trapped in a disastrous marriage to a brutal man" and used her negative experience to "...bring this injustice into the public eye" (564). She was very unhappy with her marriage. She had no voice and felt she functioned more like an object, than as a person, in her marriage. More specifically, she was outraged by the lack of laws that existed to support and defend women who find themselves married to this kind of domineering and forceful man. She found that she had little to no rights in her situation, regardless of how terrible she was treated. Because of this, she made it her priority to speak out about women's rights hoping that she could make a difference for women in the future.
Norton openly shared how she felt about role of married women in society. She learned from experience that "...a woman's person and property were at her husband's disposal, not merely by custom but by law" (564). Norton has a huge issue with the fact that during this time, women were their husband's property. She thought that women should be partners with their husbands in marriage, rather than his subordinate. She was troubled by the notion that when "...husband and wife are one person, and the husband is that person" (564). This kind of thinking clearly relates that the women's role was essentially null and voice upon marriage. She feels that women become invisible when they marry. Married women are held captive by their husbands and are forced by him and by law, to do whatever he sees fit.
Norton decided to write a letter to the Queen in which she describes, in detail, the plethora of ways that women are denied equal rights in marriage. She begins by explaining that "a married woman in England has no legal existence: her being is absorbed in that of her husband" (565). Norton believed that it was unfair for women to loose any kind of legal support in England based on the fact that they were married. She thought that married women should have the same legal rights as married men. She is depressed by the notion that "...legal fiction holds her to be "one" with her husband, even though she may never see or hear from him" (565). Norton cannot believe that in a country as wonderful as England, that they would uphold this kind of law. The law permits men to leave their wives and do whatever they want to do (even live with another woman), leaving their wives ignored and alone. Even in this situation, a women at this time has no legal rights to support her desire for a divorce. In fact, Norton points out that "...in only four instances (two of which were cases of incest), has the wife obtained a divorce to marry again" (566). Out of all the broken marriages in England, only four of them were ended because the wife sought a divorce. While the reader is not given the number of married men who file for divorce, my guess would be that it is far greater than four. Her point is that it is ridiculous and unfair for women to remain unhappily married because the law will not allow her to make something more of her life.
Norton continues as she goes into greater depth about the roles and characteristics of men and women in married relationships. She begins by explaining that "he is not bound to her. He is bound to his country; bound to see that she does not cumber the parish in which she resides" (566). This argument portrays the attitude of many men in marriage. They do not feel any kind of responsibility to love and care for their wives; rather, they are to make sure they defend their country and keep their wives out of trouble. What kind of marriage would that be? Why then would any woman enter into the facility of marriage if this were the way she would be treated? Norton is obviously disgusted and outraged by the poor way that married women are treated during this time. It is clear through her many arguments that things were totally unfair and the scale was tipped in favor of men. There was no good reason for the way things were, or for the lack of laws that supported women's rights in marriage as much as men's rights in marriage. She portrays a multitude of laws that fail to uphold the equality of women in marriage and strongly fights to defend the position of women at this time.
After reading work from Ellis and Norton, it is rather strange that these women have such diverse views on the role of women in society. Ellis does not seem to mind being labeled as a second class part of society, falling behind her husband. While she acknowledges her role in marriage and as a mother and sister, she explains that she finds inner strength and is empowered by the way her influence affects the men in her lives. She does not desire to voice her opinions loudly or make a name for herself; she would rather use her womanly gifts to manipulate the men in her lives to make a changes. On the contrary, Norton was very dissatisfied with the position women were forced to uphold. She found no empowerment in her relationship with her husband and thought it necessary to find a way out. She wanted England to change the laws regarding marriage, thus giving women a chance to make a name for themselves, rather than hiding behind their husbands and following his lead.
People are often on different sides of an issue in life because everyone is entitled to make their own opinions. What is interesting to consider in the case of Ellis vs. Norton is how their relationships with their husbands might have caused them to feel the way that they did. From what I can gather, it seems that Ellis had a good relationship with her husband. While he may have been unaware of her influence over him, he did often seek her counsel and then was left to make his own decision. I am led to believe that he would usually do whatever his wife advised. On the other hand, we knows that Norton had a terrible marriage in which her husband never acknowledged her presence, never mind listening to what she had to say. What I learn from this is perhaps their varying views stem from the reality of their personal experience with marriage. If one is happily married it is not surprising that she would respect her role in society as being less powerful than her husband. If the other is unhappily married, it is not surprising that she would feel like a victim in society with no laws to support legal rights that she feels she is entitled to have. This is a case of the way personal experience molds our judgement and outlook on various aspects of life.
Sarah Stickney Ellis was one female writer who strongly supported the old school of thought. In her opinion, women should "...accept their inferiority to men and devote themselves to the happiness and moral elevation of their brothers, husbands, and sons" (557). This way of thinking obviously comes from tradition. Ellis did not question the duties of a woman and felt that it was unnecessary to fight for equality among men and women. Despite the fact that Ellis defined the responsibility of women very plainly, she did not devalue the wisdom and influence that women have on men: "How often has man returned to his home with a mind confused by the many voices...while his integrity was shaken...he has stood corrected before the clear eye of a woman..." (557). Ellis clearly acknowledges that women have a great duty to fulfill when it comes to discernment; it is the woman who acts as a "...secret influence, that he may have borne it about with him like a kind of second conscience, for mental reference, and spiritual counsel, in moments of trial" (557). Once again, Ellis clearly describes ways in which women are treasured and valued as members of society. She does not support female counsel outside the home or in the working world; however, she focuses on ways in which a woman's influence makes the difference in the world by way of the men they counsel: "...but as far as the noble daring of Britain has sent forth her adventurous sons...derived in no small measure from the female influence of their native country" (557). Ellis does not seem to carelessly overlook the powerful work of women in the home; in fact, she says that the prosperity of her nation comes from strong men who have been uplifted and supported by their sisters, mothers, and wives. Ellis further defends the position of women as she explains the significance of effective communication skills: "Women have the choice of many means of bringing their principles into exercise, and of obtaining influence...amongst the most important of these is conversation..." (559). Ellis believes that the role that women have in the home is crucial. She also thinks that women must have the gift of conversation in order to obtain an "...intellectual hold upon her husband's heart..." (559). She knows that if a woman merely connects to her husband on a physical or monetary level and fails to connect to her husband on a intellectual level, then she cannot fully serve her purpose in the home. Therefore, Ellis does not see women as victims of men or society; she believes that women will continue to be empowered in their "domestic spheres" as long as they effectively advise the men in their lives.
While Ellis voiced an opinion of one way of thought in the Victorian period, there were several others who strongly opposed her views and felt that women were victims of societal restraint, especially within the facility of marriage. Caroline Norton was a strong advocate for women's rights. She knew from personal experience that marriages were oftentimes very different than what they would have appeared. She was "...trapped in a disastrous marriage to a brutal man" and used her negative experience to "...bring this injustice into the public eye" (564). She was very unhappy with her marriage. She had no voice and felt she functioned more like an object, than as a person, in her marriage. More specifically, she was outraged by the lack of laws that existed to support and defend women who find themselves married to this kind of domineering and forceful man. She found that she had little to no rights in her situation, regardless of how terrible she was treated. Because of this, she made it her priority to speak out about women's rights hoping that she could make a difference for women in the future.
Norton openly shared how she felt about role of married women in society. She learned from experience that "...a woman's person and property were at her husband's disposal, not merely by custom but by law" (564). Norton has a huge issue with the fact that during this time, women were their husband's property. She thought that women should be partners with their husbands in marriage, rather than his subordinate. She was troubled by the notion that when "...husband and wife are one person, and the husband is that person" (564). This kind of thinking clearly relates that the women's role was essentially null and voice upon marriage. She feels that women become invisible when they marry. Married women are held captive by their husbands and are forced by him and by law, to do whatever he sees fit.
Norton decided to write a letter to the Queen in which she describes, in detail, the plethora of ways that women are denied equal rights in marriage. She begins by explaining that "a married woman in England has no legal existence: her being is absorbed in that of her husband" (565). Norton believed that it was unfair for women to loose any kind of legal support in England based on the fact that they were married. She thought that married women should have the same legal rights as married men. She is depressed by the notion that "...legal fiction holds her to be "one" with her husband, even though she may never see or hear from him" (565). Norton cannot believe that in a country as wonderful as England, that they would uphold this kind of law. The law permits men to leave their wives and do whatever they want to do (even live with another woman), leaving their wives ignored and alone. Even in this situation, a women at this time has no legal rights to support her desire for a divorce. In fact, Norton points out that "...in only four instances (two of which were cases of incest), has the wife obtained a divorce to marry again" (566). Out of all the broken marriages in England, only four of them were ended because the wife sought a divorce. While the reader is not given the number of married men who file for divorce, my guess would be that it is far greater than four. Her point is that it is ridiculous and unfair for women to remain unhappily married because the law will not allow her to make something more of her life.
Norton continues as she goes into greater depth about the roles and characteristics of men and women in married relationships. She begins by explaining that "he is not bound to her. He is bound to his country; bound to see that she does not cumber the parish in which she resides" (566). This argument portrays the attitude of many men in marriage. They do not feel any kind of responsibility to love and care for their wives; rather, they are to make sure they defend their country and keep their wives out of trouble. What kind of marriage would that be? Why then would any woman enter into the facility of marriage if this were the way she would be treated? Norton is obviously disgusted and outraged by the poor way that married women are treated during this time. It is clear through her many arguments that things were totally unfair and the scale was tipped in favor of men. There was no good reason for the way things were, or for the lack of laws that supported women's rights in marriage as much as men's rights in marriage. She portrays a multitude of laws that fail to uphold the equality of women in marriage and strongly fights to defend the position of women at this time.
After reading work from Ellis and Norton, it is rather strange that these women have such diverse views on the role of women in society. Ellis does not seem to mind being labeled as a second class part of society, falling behind her husband. While she acknowledges her role in marriage and as a mother and sister, she explains that she finds inner strength and is empowered by the way her influence affects the men in her lives. She does not desire to voice her opinions loudly or make a name for herself; she would rather use her womanly gifts to manipulate the men in her lives to make a changes. On the contrary, Norton was very dissatisfied with the position women were forced to uphold. She found no empowerment in her relationship with her husband and thought it necessary to find a way out. She wanted England to change the laws regarding marriage, thus giving women a chance to make a name for themselves, rather than hiding behind their husbands and following his lead.
People are often on different sides of an issue in life because everyone is entitled to make their own opinions. What is interesting to consider in the case of Ellis vs. Norton is how their relationships with their husbands might have caused them to feel the way that they did. From what I can gather, it seems that Ellis had a good relationship with her husband. While he may have been unaware of her influence over him, he did often seek her counsel and then was left to make his own decision. I am led to believe that he would usually do whatever his wife advised. On the other hand, we knows that Norton had a terrible marriage in which her husband never acknowledged her presence, never mind listening to what she had to say. What I learn from this is perhaps their varying views stem from the reality of their personal experience with marriage. If one is happily married it is not surprising that she would respect her role in society as being less powerful than her husband. If the other is unhappily married, it is not surprising that she would feel like a victim in society with no laws to support legal rights that she feels she is entitled to have. This is a case of the way personal experience molds our judgement and outlook on various aspects of life.
Robert Browning
Robert Browning is by far one of the most fascinating individuals and writers that we have studied thus far. As I was reading the biographical information on Browning, I was surprised to find that he did not want anyone to identify him upon publishing his initial work. Was he ashamed or just trying to avoid potential criticism? I am not sure why he did that, but nevertheless I found his dramatic monologues very appealing. I actually remember performing a dramatic monologue in a theatre class in high school. While it was nerve racking to preform and I do not know the author, I do remember that the short scene was very action packed and included a surprise ending. I found this to often be the case in Browning's dramatic monologues as well.
One poem I really found entertaining was "Porphyria's Lover." Browning created a poem with a twisted love story that few would expect. He begins by setting the scene with a description of the weather that contains several negative connotations: "The rain set early in to-night,/ The sullen wind was soon awake,/ It tore the elm-tops down for spite,/ And did its worst to vex the lake..." (1-4). In this part of the poem, Browning personifies the wind to give it a monster-like mentality. In doing so, Browning sets the tone of the disaster that is yet to come. While the reader might expect something different, Browning contrasts this dim description of the weather when Porphyria is introduced: "She shut the cold out and the storm,/ And kneeled and made the cheerless grate/ Blaze up, and all the cottage warm" (7-9). Although the speaker previously depicts the terrible weather outside, the focus changes when Porphyria enters the house; soon, all is forgotten. She travels through the storm to see her lover and to bring him warmth. It is also clear that Porphyria warms the speaker's spirit.
At this point in the poem, the focus again transitions, this time to Porphyria removing her wet clothes and calling the speaker to sit with her. Porphyria "...withdrew the dripping cloak...and called me" (11,15). The reader is left to assume that Porphyria is undressing because she is soaking wet and probably cold. She has come to visit her lover (the speaker) and wants him to sit and spend time with her. However, it soon becomes clear that she has instead temporarily escaped those who do not support their relationship: "...she/ Too weak, for all her heart's endeavour,/ To set its struggling passion free/ From pride, and vainer ties dissever..." (21-24). Although the reader is unaware of what trials Porphyria faces, it seems that she is being told to forget about her lover. She feels that the love she has for him is too strong and additionally wants to "...give herself...for ever" (25). This particular visit is probably different than times past because Porphyria is making herself so vulnerable. She tells the speaker that she loves him and leads the reader to assume that she has run away from home and wants to start a life with him there.
While Porphyria has gone against the world around her to be with her lover, he is not willing to let her do this. He even says that her love and journey are "...all in vain" (29). The speaker obviously feels differently than Porphyria, but the reader is initially unaware of why he feels this way or what action he plans to take. While it appears that he does love Porphyria, he remains confused by the situation at hand: "...at last I knew/ Porphyria worshipped me; surprise/ Made my heart swell, and still it grew/ While I debated what to do" (32-34). Clearly, the speaker is somewhat mesmerized by the fact that Porphyria "worships" him, but is unaware of how to handle what to do next. At this point, a logical reader may think that he is trying to figure out a plan for how they can be together. He is the man, after all, thus making the escape his responsibility. Much to the contrary of logical thought, however, the speaker decides to murder Porphyria: "...I found/ A thing to do, and all her hair/ In one long yellow string I would/ Three times her little throat around,/ And strangled her" (37-41). It does not take the speaker long to decide to kill Porphyria with her own hair; therefore, he had not been decided on a plan of escape, but rather the best way to murder the woman who loves him. His actions seems very strange and out of the ordinary; this certainly is not what you would expect to happen in this poem. It is truly shocking. As the reader, I was left so confused that I had to stop and re-read the passage to make sure I read it correctly.
Just as plainly as the speaker reveals how he murdered Porphyria, he goes on his merry way explaining what he did with the body after she was no longer alive. Disgustingly, he "...oped her lids...and...untightened next the tress/ About her neck" (44,46-47). The speaker in the poem works with the body and completely objectifies his former lover. He seems to be treating her more like a doll than a human being. He does not seem to have any emotional connection with Porphyria despite her honest love for him. He continues to manipulate her body as he "...propped her head up as before...which droops upon it [the shoulder] still" (49,51). The speaker is careful with the body and seems to treat her as if her happiness is his utmost concern; it is almost as if she were alive. The speaker's distorted mind-set in this scene is unbelievably creepy. As the reader, you want the speaker to feel some kind of remorse for his action, but clearly he is incapable of feeling sorry for his wrong-doing. On the contrary, he is proud of his actions and feels he does the right thing: "So glad it has its utmost will,/ That all it scorned at once is fled,/ And I, its love, am gained instead!/ Porphyria's love: she guessed not how/ Her darling one wish would be heard" (53-57). The speaker believes that he has accomplished his lover's goal by killing her; this way, she can forever escape whatever held her back and have her lover forever (but only in death). The speaker thinks he has done well by Porphyria, despite the fact that he knows that she too was shocked as his method of satisfying her need to be with him. He then gloats that "...God has not said a word!" to him about his actions (60). He sits happily next to the corpse and God has yet to condemn him for committing murder.
This poem stretches far beyond the limits of any Romantic poetry and portrays Browning as a classic Victorian writer. I think Browning wrote this (and other) dramatic monologues to convey a message to his readers: wake up! In reading other author's works like "A Visit to Newgate" by Dickens, it is clear that people in the masses of England were completely numb to the reality and devastation that existed in the world around them. While Dickens method of choice was much different in "Newgate," he still chose to expose the life of many prisoners to inspire some kind of response from the people who walk by Bedlam every day without a care in the world. Both Browning and Dickens as Victorian writers want to send a message to the readers about how the world has changed for the worse. Browning certainly pushes his message to a new limit by writing the unimaginable and unexplainable in his poetry, specifically "Porphyria's Lover." This kind of poetry definitely captures the interest of the reader, and causes them to wonder why the speaker thinks and acts the way that he does. Unfortunately, I am afraid that many other readers, like myself, are left baffled and confused as to what the speaker was actually thinking--is he mentally impaired? is he under the influence of some kind of drug? The reader is forced to create their own opinions about the psychological state of the speaker which makes this kind of poetry exciting and worth reading.
One poem I really found entertaining was "Porphyria's Lover." Browning created a poem with a twisted love story that few would expect. He begins by setting the scene with a description of the weather that contains several negative connotations: "The rain set early in to-night,/ The sullen wind was soon awake,/ It tore the elm-tops down for spite,/ And did its worst to vex the lake..." (1-4). In this part of the poem, Browning personifies the wind to give it a monster-like mentality. In doing so, Browning sets the tone of the disaster that is yet to come. While the reader might expect something different, Browning contrasts this dim description of the weather when Porphyria is introduced: "She shut the cold out and the storm,/ And kneeled and made the cheerless grate/ Blaze up, and all the cottage warm" (7-9). Although the speaker previously depicts the terrible weather outside, the focus changes when Porphyria enters the house; soon, all is forgotten. She travels through the storm to see her lover and to bring him warmth. It is also clear that Porphyria warms the speaker's spirit.
At this point in the poem, the focus again transitions, this time to Porphyria removing her wet clothes and calling the speaker to sit with her. Porphyria "...withdrew the dripping cloak...and called me" (11,15). The reader is left to assume that Porphyria is undressing because she is soaking wet and probably cold. She has come to visit her lover (the speaker) and wants him to sit and spend time with her. However, it soon becomes clear that she has instead temporarily escaped those who do not support their relationship: "...she/ Too weak, for all her heart's endeavour,/ To set its struggling passion free/ From pride, and vainer ties dissever..." (21-24). Although the reader is unaware of what trials Porphyria faces, it seems that she is being told to forget about her lover. She feels that the love she has for him is too strong and additionally wants to "...give herself...for ever" (25). This particular visit is probably different than times past because Porphyria is making herself so vulnerable. She tells the speaker that she loves him and leads the reader to assume that she has run away from home and wants to start a life with him there.
While Porphyria has gone against the world around her to be with her lover, he is not willing to let her do this. He even says that her love and journey are "...all in vain" (29). The speaker obviously feels differently than Porphyria, but the reader is initially unaware of why he feels this way or what action he plans to take. While it appears that he does love Porphyria, he remains confused by the situation at hand: "...at last I knew/ Porphyria worshipped me; surprise/ Made my heart swell, and still it grew/ While I debated what to do" (32-34). Clearly, the speaker is somewhat mesmerized by the fact that Porphyria "worships" him, but is unaware of how to handle what to do next. At this point, a logical reader may think that he is trying to figure out a plan for how they can be together. He is the man, after all, thus making the escape his responsibility. Much to the contrary of logical thought, however, the speaker decides to murder Porphyria: "...I found/ A thing to do, and all her hair/ In one long yellow string I would/ Three times her little throat around,/ And strangled her" (37-41). It does not take the speaker long to decide to kill Porphyria with her own hair; therefore, he had not been decided on a plan of escape, but rather the best way to murder the woman who loves him. His actions seems very strange and out of the ordinary; this certainly is not what you would expect to happen in this poem. It is truly shocking. As the reader, I was left so confused that I had to stop and re-read the passage to make sure I read it correctly.
Just as plainly as the speaker reveals how he murdered Porphyria, he goes on his merry way explaining what he did with the body after she was no longer alive. Disgustingly, he "...oped her lids...and...untightened next the tress/ About her neck" (44,46-47). The speaker in the poem works with the body and completely objectifies his former lover. He seems to be treating her more like a doll than a human being. He does not seem to have any emotional connection with Porphyria despite her honest love for him. He continues to manipulate her body as he "...propped her head up as before...which droops upon it [the shoulder] still" (49,51). The speaker is careful with the body and seems to treat her as if her happiness is his utmost concern; it is almost as if she were alive. The speaker's distorted mind-set in this scene is unbelievably creepy. As the reader, you want the speaker to feel some kind of remorse for his action, but clearly he is incapable of feeling sorry for his wrong-doing. On the contrary, he is proud of his actions and feels he does the right thing: "So glad it has its utmost will,/ That all it scorned at once is fled,/ And I, its love, am gained instead!/ Porphyria's love: she guessed not how/ Her darling one wish would be heard" (53-57). The speaker believes that he has accomplished his lover's goal by killing her; this way, she can forever escape whatever held her back and have her lover forever (but only in death). The speaker thinks he has done well by Porphyria, despite the fact that he knows that she too was shocked as his method of satisfying her need to be with him. He then gloats that "...God has not said a word!" to him about his actions (60). He sits happily next to the corpse and God has yet to condemn him for committing murder.
This poem stretches far beyond the limits of any Romantic poetry and portrays Browning as a classic Victorian writer. I think Browning wrote this (and other) dramatic monologues to convey a message to his readers: wake up! In reading other author's works like "A Visit to Newgate" by Dickens, it is clear that people in the masses of England were completely numb to the reality and devastation that existed in the world around them. While Dickens method of choice was much different in "Newgate," he still chose to expose the life of many prisoners to inspire some kind of response from the people who walk by Bedlam every day without a care in the world. Both Browning and Dickens as Victorian writers want to send a message to the readers about how the world has changed for the worse. Browning certainly pushes his message to a new limit by writing the unimaginable and unexplainable in his poetry, specifically "Porphyria's Lover." This kind of poetry definitely captures the interest of the reader, and causes them to wonder why the speaker thinks and acts the way that he does. Unfortunately, I am afraid that many other readers, like myself, are left baffled and confused as to what the speaker was actually thinking--is he mentally impaired? is he under the influence of some kind of drug? The reader is forced to create their own opinions about the psychological state of the speaker which makes this kind of poetry exciting and worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
