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.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
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??
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??
Friday, September 19, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Friday, September 12, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Friday, September 5, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)