have they crashe

d yet???Honestly, I have nothing else to say about this text. I feel like there should be some resolution but I’m not sure what it is. The characters are and they do. They coexist, they become and they develop. To understand who they become we must examine who they were at the beginning of the novel. They do each develop in their own ways. They seem to move and grow with the times. Well not all of them. Bernard for instance seems to remain the same but that is because there is no necessity for him to change. He is developed enough as the leader of the group. It does seem as if Jinny and Susan seem to change positions. Jinny becomes less concerned with the social world and instead replaces that with an obsession of self. However, it is not an unhealthy obsession. Instead she becomes more self-aware than anything else. Susan also realizes that she need not be concerned with a life he already has. She is able to step away from the life of being stuck in the home. While Rhoda does come into herself, she does not lose the idea that she is still not a part of the society she lives in.  
 Overall the novel is good but it isn’t the typical novel but the way things occur it is easy to see the characters have their own actions and those are the plots. The growth becomes the plot. What happens between and inside of each character makes the novel a typical novel. However, the way each character is a part of Woolf makes it seem more like a false autobiography.  

The Waves...

 So we’ve just been talking about character development so far. I guess I’ll continue with that. As far as the characters go, I think it’s important to see the characters as there seem to be dichotomies in sets of characters. I think Susan and Jinny contrast one another because Susan is more concerned with developing a family life while Jinny is more concerned with the life of a social mistress. Susan wants to be a slave to traditional life at home while Jinny is a slave to traditional social life. This shows both their similarities and differences. This is so interesting because while they seem different, they are actually two sides of the same coin. They are both victims of tradition. Neville and Rhoda also seem very different yet similar to me.
 Neville is weak while Rhoda seems strong, physically. Neville however does seems to have a good sense of self. Rhoda on the other hand is lost in the world in which she resides. Instead of developing her own perspective on life, she becomes lost in everyone else’s shadow. Another reason they are similar is because of their sexuality. However, the difference in their manifestation of their homosexuality truly makes them opposites. While Neville seems comfortable with his sexuality, Rhoda instead goes through the motions of heterosexuality before she develops a better sense of self.  
 Bernard and Louis function as opposites because of their existence in England. Bernard represents the typical male. He is dominant and observant while Louis is not the typical British male. He is an outsider. While Bernard is comfortable being around everyone, Louis doesn’t exist the same way. However, people are drawn to him, because of his exotic nature. The dichotomies between the characters serve as a way to bring them together and develop a plot that exists between the characters. The text becomes a plot about characters now about actual conflicts.

The Waves...1 Time

The Waves is much more interesting than I thought it would be. At first, I was a little put off by the lack of development, but I can appreciate the random bits of facts. I’ve never read a book in this style but I like the way we get a look at the characters from their own eyes and others eyes. It is as though they exist together in a soap opera or something. I really like how different the characters are. It helps not only to distinguish them but also develop.  
 Of the characters, my favorite is Jinny. I appreciate her free spirit. It seems as if she is more attached to the situations around her than she is given credit for. She reminds me of Mrs. Dalloway who is stuck in the being a part of the social aspect of life, but not because she is forced to but because she wants to. In Jinny, I see someone who craves attention not for her sake but for the purpose of having a way to truly enjoy life. To me, she is in stark contrast to Rhoda who seems completely unaware of her femininity. In this way, Jinny to me becomes the true feminist, because she is able to rise from the ties that life puts on her by using her femininity to her own advantage. What is most interesting to me is the way Woolf develops the characters and molds them to reflect people in her own life. Not only do I see reflections of people around her but also how they reflect her. It is so interesting the way she can take bits and pieces and split them up. It almost emphasizes and deemphasizes her mental issues all at once.  

The Last 2 of the Big 4

These two poems seem so much more detached from the whole of texts. In “Dry Salvages” you can see the structure that seems to come over the poem in a way that we don’t usually associate with Eliot or this series. What I found most interesting about this poem was the transportation reference. I’m not completely sure why he chose trains of all things. Also, the use of the Italian in stanza IV reminds me of the beginning of “The Wasteland”. The same way he makes the poem out of reach, it seems he makes the end of the poem the same way. He leaves the conclusion out of reach to the normal reach despite the fact that the poems are supposed to be relatable in a sense.
 In “Little Gidding” the idea of time brings me closer to the poem again. I think it makes it timeless and relatable. I also think this poem is interesting because it has so many conclusions. Not only does he conclude things seemingly in his own mind, but also in the poem. He provides resolution for the reader as well. He effectively brings together all of the quartets, which makes me feel like the series of poems has a purpose. I like the way it seems as if he effectively brings love and religion together. Like “Dry Salvages” the resolution occurs in stanza IV also.  
 Of all of the poems in the series, “Little Gidding” is my favorite. I think the way the moving out of the seasons brings about epiphany is interesting. It is as though Eliot himself and the reader are able to move out of the regularity of the poem and of life and achieve an understanding. It’s almost as if the poem is an unsolved resolution.

East Coker...

 In class we discussed the similarities between “Burnt Norton” and “East Coker” but I think this proved a difficult task because to me, the poems are so different. “Burnt Norton” seems to be a poem very centered on a specific event. It is about the love and the literal and figurative events that prevented it from developing. In “East Coker” it is harder to grasp the event that Eliot is talking about. He seems so detached from the event and its effect on him. In my Romantic Period class we recently discussed the way romanticism is more about the affect of the event on the speaker, and less on the event itself. In this poem it seems as if Eliot is detached from the event and its effect on him. Instead of it being something that is important to him and something that the reader can relate to, it turns into a text that is unapproachable for both the writer and the reader. I honestly could not wrap my mind around the elements of the text.
Unlike “Burnt Norton” this text becomes a fusion of metaphoric ideas without a clear cut resolution. It reminds me of the same confusion that Eliot probably feels at this point in his life as he struggles with his personal and spiritual life. In the fifth section, he seems to allude to the third poem in his series, by stating he is in the middle. The foreshadowing of the middle lets me that something will be resolved in the next poem. It is as though the poem is intentionally written to show the way one can be lost in the spiral.

Burnt What??

 As I sit down to write this I am a little disappointed with the text. I really enjoyed the first part but I find the themes and ideas difficult to remember. I think this is important to point out because we discussed in class that the first part is a reflection of an event that occurred between Hail and Eliot. I think my inability to remember it comes from the personal nature of the section. I think that in Eliot’s distaste for authors and their personal lives being associated with their poems now seems valid. The intimate nature of the poem takes away from the universality of the poem. Unlike the previous poems that we read that drew the reader in, the first part of this one pushes the reader away. In the same way that Eliot was known to push Hail away, so does he push the reader away.  
 Despite the fact that the Rose Garden is supposed to represent love, Eliot’s own personal struggles cause him to write something that does not make love seem like an attainable thing, but instead as a constant struggle between two people. It also seems to become a thing to be challenged. This is evident in part V when the speaker states “Love is itself unmoving,/ Only the cause and end of movement.” This shows the way love takes on a life of its own, as powerful but it also causes movement as much as it ends it. This is very evident of the effect that love had on Eliot’s life. The negativity from this part really disappoints. I prefer a poem with a message that is not as evident or relating to the poet’s life.

To the Lighthouse

 So the end of this novel was like a reading something written by two different authors. Part two seemed very dull and lacked a lot of plot. Instead, Woolf chose to write the section in a way that reflected the section title: “Time Passes”. While I didn’t enjoy it, I can definitely appreciate the method. It definitely clarified the idea that as life ends and begins, time still rolls on. This is especially important in the way Mrs. Ramsey’s death was portrayed. In part one, she seemed to be the focus. Not only was the section predominately about her, but the other characters all existed in respect to her it seems. Without her, Mr. Ramsey had no identity, James had no true place, and all the people she took in wouldn’t have been a part of the Ramsey family. However, Woolf seems to challenge her true purpose by killing her off in a bracket. There is no extra information about her death, yet it just becomes a point of interest without a second thought.  
 This, to me, shows the way women are dispensable. It seems as if Woolf is making a statement that women who do not exist in their own realm of life are destined to be forgotten; to be victims of time passing. It reminds me of the quote “Well behaved women rarely make history.” This passage seems like an affront to women who settle for the way of life that Mrs. Ramsey pursued. As I read through part three I even forgot that Mrs. Ramsey existed. This section showed how she truly meant nothing in the grand scheme of things, as we see James and his father reconciling in a sense, or at least reaching an understanding, because the thing that defined their relationship was no longer around to be factor. On the other hand, it was a little disheartening to see how quickly her memory vanished and her position was filled with Lily, a woman who wasn’t even supposed to be the same type of woman. While she showed genius in figuring out how to step in, she seemed to regress from a modern woman to a woman destined to be lost in time. Who knows…

To the Lighthouse and Beyond...but not too far...

So far this book seems pretty interesting. I think the relationship between the males and females in this book is very interesting for many reasons. I think it is interesting to note that while Mrs. Ramsey seems very passive and very much stuck in the structure of the pre-modern woman, she also seems very modern in some senses. When I think of modern women of Woolf’s time, I think of women who speak their minds and exist outside of their marriages. Mrs. Ramsey seems to have achieved this. She exists as representation of beauty, not because her husband constantly says so, but because the other men around her are infatuated with her. Also, you can see, in part one, the way she seems to control her husband and his mind. While it is true that he needs her praise in order exist, she still has the power. She does not need him in the same way that he needs her.  
 I also see the way the oedipal complex is created in this novel. At first, I did not think of the hate between James and his father, but was instead more aware of the love between James and his mother. Their love to me did not appear to be coming from a ‘sexual’ place, unconscious or conscious but it seemed to be a commonality between the two. It seems as if James wants to be his mother, not like he wants to be like her. He seems drawn to her commitments and to the ideals that she gives him.
 In his eyes, it seems like his mother represents a sense of hope for him. She seems to represent a sense of acceptance for him while his father deals a reality that he does not seem completely welcoming of. The truth that his father is so drawn to may be because of some reason that we won’t learn until later in the novel. I wonder, rhetorically, if they will become closer.  
 

Ash Wednesday

This poem was actually pretty good. I appreciated the religious references in it because it made it so relatable. As I go back and read it again, it really does remind me of a romantic poem. In another class we discussed a quote where someone said “Romanticism is split religion” and I can definitely see that in this text. It is almost like text reaches past romanticism because it doesn’t seem to be the parts of religion that don’t quite fit the mold but is instead a true representation of some type of religion.  
 I’m not sure how I feel about the possible references to Eliot’s personal life because I’ve adopted the idea that he wants to separate the author’s life from the author’s works. I think that because he does closely associate this poem with people shows a change not only spiritually but also literarily. His ability to join his personal life into his works shows that he has in some way changed from being a poet for the people to being someone more focused on his soul.  

 This change is really weird to me. I’m not sure if he was trying really hard to create this which makes me think of Shelley’s “Defense of Poetry” which presents the idea that poetry is often created accidently. If this is the case and if Eliot was trying to create this, then somewhere in his religious quest, he has lost his power as a poet. I think making this argument is powerful because it challenges Eliot’s talent, which is not at all what I want to do.

On another note, I am starting to get annoyed with the part structure of Eliot’s poem. I have a question about why six parts. I guess if you think about the divine Trinity often associated with religion this makes sense.  

Best Eliot Poem...

I really enjoyed this poem. As I said in class, it is very lucid. In typical Eliot form, it is separated into sections which I find interesting. I am beginning to question his motivation for separating poems into sections. I think it reflects the parts of his life. As he writes in parts, he is showing a part of his soul to the reader. This is very interesting because he is against associating the author’s personal life with the work. However, I cannot think of what else he could be talking about.  
 I feel like associating this poem with a social situation would be taking the simplicity away from it. Instead, I think it’s important to acknowledge that this poem also came at a pivotal point in Eliot’s spiritual life. I think he uses a lot of religious elements as he tries to mull through all of the ideas of religion. The references to Heart of Darkness seem to be a reference to the literal dark heart. The references The Divine Comedy seem to deal directly with the religious aspect of Eliot’s life. The affect of being a traitor, and shame, to me, deals with the idea of shame associated with a religious unaccepted. I’d like to say more but I’m not sure I remember enough to make a logical point.
 The last section of the poem truly highlights the idea that the text is a peek into Eliot’s soul. It almost seems like a prayer of some sort as he confesses the kingdom to be the true place of finality. It almost seems like he has come to a realization about something in life, and this last stanza reflects the way he resolves something, which goes with what we discussed in class.

Paper Topic Ideas

I feel like I’ve learned a lot about both Woolf and Eliot thus far this semester. Some of the topics I’ve thought about writing about concerning Woolf and or Eliot are as follow:
Saffism, Vivienne Eliot, Men in Woolf works, Monk’s house and its affect on Woolf’s literary works, Woolf and Eliot’s feelings towards the Romantcis, and anger in A Room of One’s Own.  
Saffism interests me because it deals with the relationship between women. I think it would be interesting to tie this together with the homosexual relationships that people often think are associated with Eliot. It is hard to see the homosexual elements, to me, in both Eliot and Woolf’s work but I’m sure upon further research it is possible to see them
Vivienne Eliot interests me, but I’m not sure she made enough of a dent for there to be enough information on her. I’m also contemplating Elizabeth Hail as a muse of Eliot.
Men in Woolf’s work interests me because often Woolf focuses on women but I feel she takes the same voyeuristic approach that men previously too to write about women as she writes about men. It is almost as though she reverses the roles and becomes like a man. Also, she also seems to try to equalize men and women along some lines. This calls to my attention A Room of One’s Own and Mrs. Dalloway.  
I’m not sure about the other topics because they may be too vague and have far too little information. I think they may be good references in other essays. I think the idea of Woolf’s perception of the romantics may influence her own perception of men, as characters and as authors.

Mrs. Dalloway- Critical Women

In class the other day we each discussed things in the novel that interested us. Somewhere along the way we started discussing the interaction between Clarissa, Miss Kilmer, and Elizabeth. I think this relationship between these three women represent the different images of women in the novel. The jealousy, the envy and the interactions reflect the way women of Woolf’s time were learning to adjust to one another. What was most interesting about the different descriptions of the women to me is the way the women are viewed through one another’s eyes, but rarely to we get a description from a man. I think this says something about the social gaze of society. The way Woolf excludes men’s perceptions reflect the way she was trying to get women from being objects and subjects of men’s thoughts to being objects of one another.
 This novel provides the reader with a description of women and their feelings, outside of what men may have thought. As a woman, Woolf is able to provide a description of what women truly feel rather than a description coming from a man. Also, Woolf uses these descriptions to eliminate the myths about women not being able to have minds and thoughts of their own. Instead of presenting a novel about women in similar positions in life, she instead chooses to focus on women and their differences. I think she ironically presents them in strange ways to challenge the ideas that women are supposed to easily transition into their newfound freedom. Instead of showing the adjustment as simple, she instead shows the struggle of a woman trying to make her own place in society. 
 I think the way Woolf chooses to create a male character in her likeness says something about the situation of man. Woolf clearly shows that mental illness weakens a man the same way it does a woman. She takes out the gender of mental illness and instead makes it a challenge of the people. She universalizes disease.  

Mrs. Dalloway- A Choice

I think the issue in the first half of this novel is determining who the characters are. However, in typical classical style, Woolf describes the characters through their actions, not her words. For instance, we learn about Mrs. Dalloway through her walk, and her past thoughts, but not through a descriptive page of her personality. This is very expected. What I don’t expect is the way Mrs. Dalloway is portrayed. It seems as if Woolf really likes Mrs. Dalloway, not necessarily because she is a strong woman of an independent woman by any means. Instead, Mrs. Dalloway seems to be a woman aware of her position and proud of the path she chose. The key thing here is that she chose her path.  
 Just as she chose her walking paths, something she did alone, to appease herself, so does she choose her path in life. She was able to think logically and choose someone who was financially sound and fit for society. While she does play into the role of a woman who maintains her position inside of the household, concerned with the public perception of her she also maintains the position of a woman not afraid to make her own decisions. Instead of being completely dominated by what society deems appropriate she does what makes her happy first and foremost.  
 I think this addresses the conflict between the women adjusted to the old way of life yet still desiring to modernize. It shows that while a woman can be “stuck” she can be so by choice.

The Wasteland 2

 In class this week, we discussed the possible homosexual relationship that may have helped guide Eliot in writing parts two and three. I’m not going to say I agree or disagree. I think reading it this way means looking beyond the surface, and looking at the reader, something Eliot wouldn’t have agreed with. However, if we do look at his personal life, it is interesting to compare his own feelings with those associated with the weakness of love. If Eliot felt that loved failed, he may have felt personally vindicated by love because he was unable to experience his true feelings for another man. Also, it is interesting to think that in part two, each of the relationships are destroyed by women. In the first relationship, a woman messes up, and ironically so with another woman. I think this plays into the idea of homosexuality that can be associated with the poem. This shows the way love between man and woman fail, not necessarily how love fails.
 Also, in the relationship of the people on the lowest socioeconomic level, there is a death of a child. If Eliot is truly feeling let down by heterosexual love, then he kills the child intentionally, to show that a child can’t save a relationship and that the union between man and woman. Also, if a child represents the true bond between and man and a woman and he kills the child then he is destroying the union between man and woman.
 These things aside, I think Eliot blurs the line of lust and love. I think part 3 is not about lust, but instead about something else. I think it is about some sort of control that man has over woman. I think this type of control, as we said, contrasts Prufrock. In the same way, I think the speaker is striving to find a connection between man and woman by forcing it. If this relationship is forced, than it reflects the relationship he has with his wife, despite his sexual orientation.

The Waste Land- Section 2

Part two is titled A Game of Chess. In class, we decided that this section was about the failure of love in marriage on several economic levels. We highlighted the references to love relationships between Cleopatra and her love, man and his hysterical wife, historically thought to be Eliot and his wife, and also about a lower class relationship where a woman aborts her baby. It is clear to see these references. The first couples love relationship seems to be destroyed by the weakness of love, as Cleopatra was unable to control her own desires. The second couple seems to be destroyed by the conflicting desires. It is as though the man’s love isn’t strong enough to make him open up to his wife. This is very interesting to me because Eliot and his wife do stay together and instead of getting upset, we were shown text where she praised his acknowledgement of his silence. The last couple seemed to be torn apart because they didn’t share a similar view of love. While he wanted to have a child to solidify their relationship she apparently thought it would take away from their love.  
 These ideas of failed love say something about what a wasteland is. They show that no matter how much people think an emotion can save them, they will be constantly be wrong. Love is as fickle of emotion as feelings of anger. I also think the weakness of love is coupled with the lack of wisdom. In part three, the mention of characters more concerned with lust are those who seem to understand the failure of love. In Sweeney Todd, the main character begins acting out of scorn after love has disappointed him. In Oedipus’ story, Tiresias is the wise man, aware of life and the lessons Oedipus must learn. This being said, it is fair to assume that he is aware of the failings of love.  
 In Brooks’ essay, he seems to agree with the Cleopatra reference, but not necessarily to prove that love is weak, but instead to show its destructive strength as it destroys an empire. To Brooks, this love becomes something that clouds judgment and logic. I’m not sure what he means by the references to Philomel and the raped woman. Is this about some obsessed love? How love has the power to make people lose control? In Headings’ essay about the structure of it is interesting because he refers to the section as being about failed lust. He looks beyond the idea of love to the idea of lust as being a force in this section. I think this is interesting because in class we decided that the third section was about lust.  

A Room...

Reading the rest of this novel was funnier the second time around. I understand that Woolf was trying to achieve some sort of change, and making an effort to get people to understand something about men and women’s positions in life and literature. To me, it seem as if in writing this she is pointing out the injustices done but also showing the result of equality. In a sense, she becomes Judith Shakespeare where she gets notice but her husband goes unnoticed as an author.  
 I also understand Woolf’s plan to show the true injustice that women suffer. As I read chapter 2 about women as objects, I thought of early American literature that also excludes women from many aspects of life and instead views them as objects. It also reminded me of the voyeuristic criticism I learned in Fem Lit Crit. I wonder if Woolf felt like women were happy in this position. I know she speaks about how they haven’t been in this position very long in chapter 6, but does she feel that women are limiting themselves?  
 I also found it very interesting that Woolf felt lonely near the end of the novel. This idea ties in with the idea that she can’t seem to find other women with the same room and money that she has. Is her anger truly directed at other women or at men or at the literary world in general? I do think that Woolf’s ability to write this novel is very interesting. Throughout she constantly challenges truths with her facts. I found myself lost in what was true and what parts she made up. I guess my final question about the novel was if it truly had any effect on the world. Were women everywhere reading this and becoming up in arms about their places in society and in the literary world??  

Get Your Own Room

 The list of events that we learned in class really shocked me. I am also in a Women’s Studies class and learning about what a short time ago women were done an injustice is sometimes hard. This being said, I see why Dr. Sparks is so enthralled with Woolf because she speaks out as a woman in a time when women’s voices are often stifled. Fortunately, she had a room of her own. I often wonder how seriously she was taken, and if her medical state affected the way people perceived her reading. Did she ever lose credibility because of her mental state? Anywho…
 I always enjoy reading Woolf’s overly opinionated works. I can definitely appreciate the contradictions and confusions she plays up in her work. I think in the first chapter of A Room of One’s Own, Woolf plays with the readers mine and perception of truth so that she can mix up the truth and the lies. By doing this, I think she is playing up the untruths as truths, almost adding fuel to the fire of injustice. Also, I think the idea of dinner to represent the difference in the way women and men are nourished is very clever. I really like the way she presents the dinner in such stark contrast. I think this difference in nourishing reminds me of the canon of literature. In the same way women aren’t fed academically or literally, nor are they fed mentally. I think women are ignored in this society and instead become simply objects and subjects. As objects, they can be owned and as subjects they can be observed but never fully respected. This correlates with the ideas of the entire novel.

Eliot's Opinion

 I think the excerpts of Eliot’s opinions are very interesting. In “Hamlet” I think the chain of the way emotion is formed is very interesting. The idea that emotions and feelings are different definitely shows me something about Eliot’s feelings and relate to “Prufrock.” I think the way Prufrock struggles to convey emotions yet hide feelings is very interesting because as Eliot states, each are developed by different things. I am a little confused by his dislike for Hamlet. I almost feel like he may have been missing the purpose of Shakespeare’s creating a society without definition. I think that as romantics struggle to universalize, so did Shakespeare in creating Hamlet. This is difference between them and modernists. However, I think Eliot does understand the idea of universalizing so I wonder why he didn’t pick up on this.
 As we discussed WAWA I think it applies to Eliot’s perception of literature. While he tries to separate the expressive from it yet still be expressive, I think he ends up making the reader feel more in touch with him than anything. I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m criticizing him. I’m just questioning the contradictions in his opinions, or at least how I perceive them. I perceive that by criticizing Hamlet as being a work to only be appreciated by those who “want to be great” removes the audience as an audience and instead places them in a position of the author, as though they wish to achieve the same things as the writer. 

Eliot, Criticism, Classicism...etc

I think this article was very interesting because of the way it was written. I found Eliot’s lighthearted method for criticizing very effectual. I think it allowed him to express himself in a manner that made his opinions seem unthreatening. Instead of conspicuously criticizing the romantics, he takes the approach of subtly explaining himself. He also discusses lots of the ideas of traditional writing: ideas of classicism. His description of these classic ideas do justice in helping the reader understand exactly what classicism is by comparing it with ideas about romanticism.
As Eliot puts it, romanticism focuses on a set script for writing, rather than writing in an analytical way. I found it interesting that classicism and traditional are supposed to affect one another as the past and present both work off one another. I do understand it though. I think that the way classicism pulls text together makes it so that romanticism seems too formulated. This formulated method seems to be one that I would associate with classicism because I expect it to focus on a more traditional form of writing, one that I would accuse of being more formulaic. I guess these are the type of ideas that Eliot is fighting against when he says that writing is open to criticism and if this is the case, then all writing must adapt to challenge this criticism.
I did really enjoy reading about the individual talent. It reminded me of the idea of eliminating psychoanalytic criticism when reading someone’s work. In the same way Eliot prefers that a work is taken for what it is and not who wrote, so does psychoanalytic criticism call for removing the writer from the work. I think this method is very important in reading anything. It is interesting that Eliot and Woolf both seem to support this, considering their respective medical issues.

Blog 6- "The Mark on the Wall"

 I think this story is very interesting. I like the way Woolf is able to create an entire story about something as trivial as a mark on the wall. Throughout the story, I found myself curious about the mark on the wall. I think the way Woolf draws the reader into the story really speaks to Woolf’s type of writing. Instead of appeasing the reader with a trivial mark on the wall, she draws the reader in and makes her or him a part of the story. As I would expect of the modernists, Woolf really chooses to focus on developing the character’s thoughts about the mark so it is almost as though the reader is looking at the mark as well. It makes it easy for the reader to become a part of the story.  
 I am not sure if this was exactly Woolf’s intention. I understand that as a modernist, the purpose of the writing is to let the reader understand the characters’ thoughts but I am not sure that for modernists the purpose was to relate and engage the reader. Instead, I see their purpose as being to enlighten the reader. Instead, I think this just comes as an extra bonus for their works. I think their approachability makes their works much more relatable and approachable and thus more enjoyable for the general audience.  
 In any event, I can see how Woolf’s work does bring us in. It reminds me of an effort to break from the mold of putting the story first and instead putting the reader first, the same way Eliot chooses to put remove the reader from the text.

Woolf

 From my previous experiences of learning about Woolf, nothing that I read surprised me. I did find the bio interesting because I had forgotten that she had such a checkered and hectic life. I think that definitely says something about the nature of her works, as she struggled to create works that challenged the lack of women in so many realms of the literary world. I’ve always appreciated the way Woolf is able to tie together the fiction and the nonfiction world in order to make a point.  
 In her short story about modernism, it was very interesting that she called modernists materialists. Instead of considering them to be deep people, being able to truly look past the defining boundaries of the past, she sees them as self absorbed in a sense. I am a bit confused by the use of the word materialist.  
 Woolf is amusing, however, in the way she feels that modernists/ materialists are concerned with fitting a certain mold, even though modernism is supposed to be just the opposite. In Eliot’s poem, I can see how he may have been forced to bring in a love interest, although that may not have been his initial purpose. This criticism of the literary world makes me wonder why Woolf wanted so much to be a part of it. Her constant challenging of the ideas associated with the literary world makes me question her place in it.  
 

Prufrock...again

 The “Prufrock” poem as a modernist work is further shown in the poem through the idea of conscious and awareness. As we discussed in class, the idea of the dual self is shown in the poem. As a poem directed towards self and not others shows that Eliot has reached a certain type of self awareness that Reed discusses in his article. This aspect of awareness does however bring about the idea that modernism is a selfish type of concept. Also, the concept of unification that comes from a joining of Prufrock and Eliot reflects what seems to be, in my opinion, a union of literary movements. Honestly, I think there is something that lacks in concretely defining modernism. Eliot’s poem seems to continue doing this by changing the basis of the poem, and contradicting himself. Even by the end of the poem, it is unclear who the speaker is speaking too and who is trying to bring with him. The uncertainty of the concept is similar to the uncertainty of modernism. I feel like this poem almost embodies what I’m learning that modernism is.  
 I think the progression of the poem is very similar to the uncertainty associated with modernism. The descriptions of confusion and sense of being lost are all easily associated with modernism as a concept where women are lost and literarily, it’s easy to get lost in the movement.  
 In Reed’s article, he also mentions the ‘anti-domesticity’ of modernism. I think this is interesting because in his poem, Eliot never reverts to associating the woman with domesticity. Instead, he gives a certain power that was not afforded women in literary periods prior. This furthers the idea of the poem as truly being a model for modernism.

Prufrock and Modernism

Eliot’s poem “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” seems very much like a modernist poem. It seems as though Eliot’s poem takes a step away from the security of society and poets by posing his own ideas of inferiority. The epigraph shows the type of exclusion that Levenson discusses in his article. As we discussed, he locks some people out of understanding the poem by writing it in Italian. The poem also embodies the type of exclusivity of modernism that Scott discusses. In the same way modernism pushes away women and other races, so does Eliot in his poem. Instead of embracing his feelings and “the question” he pushes them away. In a sense, Eliot’s poem becomes modernism.  
This question he refuses to answer, as we dicussed in class, has to do with a woman. It has to do with his inability to truly express himself to her and get something out of her. In the same way the speaker of the poem is unable to confront the woman, so is modernism. I think this is important in understand modernism. As a movement, modernism is universal and timeless, as is this poem. The feeling of inferiority that the speaker feels can apply to anyone. The turn away from the humanistic idea of the self as the center reflects a struggle of the literary and non literary world.  
I think the continuous references to age and fog show the age of the literary world and the fog is a representation of the clouded view that blocks modernism from accepting anything different from the canon; the basic model.  

My Take on Modernism

The three articles we discussed in class concerning modernism differed from each other. In Levenson’s article, we see modernism defined in terms of being a specific event, and less of a movement. This, in my eyes, makes it seem less literary and more idealistic. This also makes it easy to see it as something fundamental that is in place to change the world. I typically do not think of movements in this sense so it is interesting to see it in this way. Levenson also seems to present modernism as a movement that is not all inclusive. He limits it to being only something some people can achieve.  
 From Scott’s article, I get the same sense of acknowledgement of exclusion. Unlike Levenson, Scott seems more drawn to challenging these exclusions rather than encouraging and accepting them. Scott is aware that modernism excludes a variation or race and gender and she thus introduces us to writers who were influential in the modernist realm.
 These differing ideas directly show the difficulty in establishing a definition for modernism. Because there are differing ideas of what it is, it is thus difficult to discern who was or is a part of the movement. To me, the central idea of modernism is advancement. It is an attempt to make things better, by providing people with another option. It is a turn from the past, from the ideas that limited people in the literary world. It also seems like a return to the natural in a sense. I definitely agree with the Levenson that in a sense it is timeless because it is a movement that could be revived at any time.  

Intro

     Hello fellow surfers! My name’s LaCrystal. Many of you know me and those of you who don’t probably have friends who do because I know lots of random people on campus. Let’s see, I’m English major, Women’s Studies minor in my senior year of school! WHOOO!! I really like Dr. Sparks because she’s mildly amusing. I really like reading and watching TV…mostly reality shows. I also enjoy doing things that people don’t expect me to do i.e. long board, jet ski, swim, and be on yearbook staffer. If you ever see me on the library bridge on my long board feel free to speak.  

     Academically, I really enjoy History and English. I enjoy learning about different cultures and animals. I’m not really a huge fan of science and I wish I were better at math. It’s so straight forward and I can appreciate that. After graduation, I plan on teaching, either through Teach for America or wherever else I can get hired. Unless someone knows a wealthy man they want to set me up with! I’m pretty comfortable with computers, probably because I’ve had so many problems with them! That being said, if you ever need help feel free to let me know; I’ve been known to be occasionally helpful.  

     I know as much about Woolf as I remember Dr. Sparks teaching me about a year ago. I know very little about Eliot other than what I’ve learned in class. I plan on focusing on earning an A in this course. I don’t want to make any other predictions and disappoint myself and the end if they don’t come true. I’m a bit of a realist in that respect. I guess that’s it. Don’t be surprised by the things I say or frightened by me.