In Memory of W.B. Yeats

I am a huge fan of poetry and have enjoyed all of it that we have read, but I have really been enjoying the poetry from Modernism.  As the literature in the course progresses further in time, the language becomes less elevated and foreign.  It becomes accessible and relatable in a way that older poetry can’t be.  Sometimes the thick language and even syntax and sentence structure can seem like an entirely different language.  I am a huge fan of sonnets and enjoy reading them annotating them and dissecting them, because when it clicks and I start putting together the puzzle pieces like I have achieved some small victory. Making sense of a difficult poem feels like I have unlocked some great secret. 

            One of my favorite poems has been “In Memory of W.B. Yeats,” by W. H. Auden.  I felt like the poem was functioning on more than one level.  Yeats was at the forefront of the literary scene for decades and was seemingly admired by Auden.  So, the poem is an elegy to a fellow and respected poet.  It is also a criticism of social behavior at the time when the world is on the brink of World War.  The poem is a compilation of three different forms within one poem.  I found the different forms satisfying on several levels.  To try to honor a poet who has made such an impact in literature with a standard elegy wouldn’t seem fitting, but the blend of different styles speaks volumes and delivers texture to what could have been a straight forward elegy. 

            The first stanza is written in third person.  It feels rather impersonal.  The speaker of the poem imagines what the last day might have been like for Yeats, “but for him it was the last afternoon as himself” (12).  He also explains that while Yeats is dying, the world keeps turning.  He describes how the water and wharf are responding to the death and gives them human like functions. The speaker is commenting on how people are acting, making the reader aware of social behavior.  The world is not screeching to a halt to acknowledge Yeats’ death, but rather still concerning itself with the same things as it did yesterday when Yeats was alive.

            We talked a lot about the lines “what instruments we have agree/The death of his death was a dark cold day. (5,6) and I thought a lot about it and I think that the speaker seems to be saying that there is no way to measure the end of the life, especially in reference to the mind and soul and influence of a poet like Yeats.  So instead, he logs it down to the tools that can be measured and what can be said, is that it is what the literal instruments can measure.  That it was a literal cold and dark day, of course then figurative meaning can be inferred.  If Yeats had ironically died on a bright, sunny summer day, it would probably read much differently. 

            In stanza four, it says “The words of a dead man/Are modified in the guts of the living” (22, 23).  I think the speaker is saying that when Yeats died, he lost his voice; fans will now interpret his work and make him what they want him to be.  And then he ends the first section by saying that few people will think of the day of Yeats death and “slightly unusual,” but few will really acknowledge the massive loss of such a literary talent.  He repeats the line about the instruments agreeing that “the day of his death was a dark cold day.”  The repetition of this line emphasizes the lack of human ability to measure the loss of human life.

            Section two of this poem takes a more traditional form of elegy.  In it, the speaker seems to be addressing Yeats directly and carefully pointing out, that Yeats is human.  And while his poetry didn’t directly change political on goings in Ireland, it will serve as a tool or instrument in expressing the charge of the time.  That while poetry survives and lasts, people don’t.  People “decay.”  Poetry survives and is important because it talks about what people don’t want to talk about or perhaps can’t really put into words.

            The third section of the poem rhymes in couplets in a sing-song way while delivering the raw negativity and social commentary.  The speaker talks about how people are “sequestered in hate and “intellectual disgrace/stares from every human face.”  The speaker is saying that humans are dark and unintelligent.  If we are rational animals then why are we “sequestered in hate?”  The very last stanza of the poem says “In the deserts of the heart/Let the healing fountain start,/In the prison of his days/Teach the free man how to praise.”  The speaker seems to be saying that to pay homage to someone that has died; perhaps it would do well to spend some time considering their world view or message. Even though Yeats is dead, people can learn from his poetry, his gift to the world.  Yeats was often concerned in his writing about human connections and political and social climate.  At a time when the world is on the brink of war and Yeats dies, the speaker is saying that people should read Yeats’ poetry, a vital instrument that just may be able to reach people by discussing the ugly truths of humanity and hopefully altering their behavior by providing some enlightenment.

 

I really love this poem and as I began to really pick it apart, I found it to be doing so much more than I have covered in this blog.  This is truly a multi-dimensional piece of work that is so intertwined and weaved so seamlessly, I find something new each time I read it!

           

Excited to be Excited

Excited to be Excited by Literature

            Often times, people scoff at survey classes because they encompass such large periods of time (periods rich with history, development, change and culture) that students often feel that they aren’t really immersed in the literature and the material that is presented.  How can you condense gobs of talent and history into a time slot as small as a semester? Well, that is simple, it isn’t possible.  But, what is possible is to get small doses and exposure to many genres, works, authors, point of views and perspectives throught literature in history.  Some works might fall on deaf ears with little to no connection and then, pow, something hits home.  A piece resonates with a student and gets them excited about something they never would have come across without a survey course.  Since we are supposed to use this blog to communicate with our classmates what we are taking away from the course and discuss things that we don’t have time for in class, I would like to take this opportunity, then, to express my feelings about what we are learning.   

            I will be honest and I believe I have mentioned this before.  I hated Brit Lit I.   I have always loved to read nearly anything I can get my hands on. So, naturally when I went back to school that is the route I chose.   I have zero idea what I will do with my English degree, but I love to discover different forms and pieces of literature that inspire me and make me appreciate the art form of writing (I love to write and create) as well as the journey of literature throughout history.  I seriously wanted to poke my own eyeballs out in Survey of English Literature I.  Much of the time I thought that perhaps I should rethink my major, that maybe I was mistaken and I didn’t love literature. But then a piece comes along, that I love, and I get excited all over again.  With the exception of a few pieces, like sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Dream on the Rood I seriously doubted that I was interested enough to continue on the path for an English degree.  For the exposure to many time periods and authors, I am truly grateful because I have felt so encouraged and inspired this semester. 

            I loved the romantic period more than I thought I would and was thrilled with the Victorians (loved “The Moonstone”), loved the Lady of Shallot and absolutely lost my mind over Aurora Leigh.  I have ordered it from amazon.com and I can’t wait to get it in the mail and read the whole thing.  How awesome that Elizabeth Barrett Browning was such an innovator and a forward thinker.  She was smart and educated and passionate about her craft, in a time when it was not what was expected of women.   I can’t help but wonder what someone like her could create if she was born in a different time and place; born into an environment of education, culture and support.  I don’t consider myself a feminist, but I am a woman writer who is passionate about writing, but can’t put bread or butter on the table with my prose or poetry.  I carry Elizabeth Barrett Browning in high regard.  I am thrilled that I found an author who has reconfirmed for me that I do in fact love literature and desire to someday create a  work that people will study years down the road and revere as a piece of literature that is thought provoking and layered and most of all special. 

            I am having a difficult time deciding my favorite part.  I love the, in Book two pages 385-446, how Browning compares and contrasts using mostly subtext what her aunt “likes and dislikes,” and what Aurora actually is by that standard.  The section is clever and witty and so well written.  I love it!  I also love the beginning of book two where Aurora discusses her confidence and passion for her craft and who she is and who she has the potential to become.  For a relatively young girl in a time where certain expectations sat on the horizon for her, she knew she was meant for more.  I love it!   

            Thank you, Dr. Hague for selecting this excerpt for us to read.  I don’t feel like I have read enough of Aurora Leigh to make a detailed analysis of the piece but I could already easily talk about writing techniques (a novel in verse, repetitive word choices, attention to detail, similes, etc.) and there effect on the story and the examination of gender roles.  I can’t wait until it comes in the mail!  The reading selections this semester have thus far been stellar and really exciting.  I am beyond relieved. I am excited!

 

Girls Rule

 

In the Victorian era, a time when men ruled the world and women were supposed to fade into the background or fulfill a supporting role to men, Wilke Collins produced a novel filled with women who break the stereotype for Victorian womanly behaviors and actions.  I love these characters for how modern they come across.  As a woman, I would like to think, that if I  had I been around at the time, I would have been one of these forward thinking women who had an opinion.  I love that the female characters are really the driving force behind the story; they are really the ones that propel it forward. 

Rosana Spearman is such an interesting character.  She is represented as “other” in so many ways.  Even though she is a servant she is different from all of the other servants.  She doesn’t behave the way a woman should or the way a servant should.  She is a unique and dynamic character who finds a voice from even beyond the grave.  Her tenacity to cover for Franklin whom she believes to have stolen the moonstone is atypical behavior for a female or a servant.  She goes to extraordinary lengths to cover for him.  Her intentions were not as pure as they originally seem however.  She thinks this knowledge that she has over him will be an equalizer.  It is so unfortunate that she kills herself because she thinks he has slighted her, but she is melodramatic and rash.  What a great female character though, she is defiantly not a traditional role fulfilling Victorian woman.

Lady Verinder is also a character who doesn’t fit into the “proper Victorian woman” box.  She does represent the “older” or traditional roles in some sense.  She is a lady and acts like one.  She is a proper widow and a devoted mother, but she also handles the affairs of their estate as the head of the household. She is left to handle the finances and always has an opinion and isn’t shy about expressing it.  She is a wonderful female character who subverts the typical gender roles of the time.

Rachel Verinder is at the heart of the whole story; she is integral to the plot and movement of the novel and like Rosana, doesn’t properly fulfill her role in class or in gender.  Her behavior, as a well to do woman in Victorian society, would be expected to be lady like and proper and Rachel is anything but that.  She is loud and obnoxious.  The slamming of doors, the loud outbursts and fit throwing are not the actions of a proper English lady.  She is so critical to the story though and although she is a complete brat, she is written in a way that readers still like her.  Her outspoken behavior and non-traditional straightforwardness seem to be praised in this book.

 The female characters that fulfill the more traditional roles in the story seem to be ridiculed for their behaviors because while they are meeting the Victorian standard of what a woman should be at the time, they come off looking bad.  The greatest example of this is Miss Clack.  She is on the page as the “ideal” Victorian woman.  She pays heed to her sense of Christianity and proclaims to be the ideal lady type but her overblown sense of propriety, obvious sexual frustration and her disgust for Rachel’s forwardness comes off as hypocritical.  Collin’s seems to be criticizing women who aren’t forward thinkers; women who seem traditional but are really repressed and frustrated.   This criticism then would seem to celebrate the women who can think and speak for themselves. 

Collins seemed to be ahead of his time in terms of the women’s movement.  At this time in life and in literature, women were not supposed to be so “manly.”  As a modern woman it is hard to imagine a time when things weren’t as equal and trying to fulfill the role of a soft spoken woman who knew her “place.”  It sounds down right ridiculous. The women in this novel play pivotal roles in the plot and creating suspense. Had these women been the “typical” Victorian woman, the story would  not have been the same and I don’t think as powerful.  This novel, filled with wonderful developed atypical female characters is awesome!  Way to go Collins, representing for women in a time when that wasn’t cool.  I love it!

 

 

Sometimes You Have to Give A Second Look

Sometimes You Have to Give  a Second Look /Moonstone

 

It would seem to me that the dated style of the prologue and some of the scrolling exposition in "The Moonstone," would be a major deterrent to a modern audience.  As readers, we are looking for a more interactive experience right away.  In fact, how often do you open a book these days and find a prologue and pages and pages of exposition? A modern audience expects the author to jump right into the action and give us the entrée, we aren’t looking for tapas, and to be frank, I suppose that we are a little spoiled. I appreciate the way that Hemingway left so much of his story telling to subtext.  You got so much of the story by what he wasn’t telling you.  No one likes to be beat over the head with exposition. Lol.  Modern readers want to skip right over the exposition and the rising action.  We want to jump in without dipping our toes in the water. We want to see a climax or something that hooks us right away.  As I read “The Moonstone” and plugged away through the somewhat dry and dragging out of numerous pages of exposition, I traversed a line of endearment and frustration. I had to fight with myself to give the prologue a chance and for that matter, to give old Gabriel Betteredge the opportunity to tell me a story; even if he had to digress here and there and mosey around to get to his point.  It is somewhat of an endearing trait because it seems honest.  If an elderly man were to tell you a story, he might stereotypically get sidetracked here and there making sure you have all the information and backstory you need to understand the current story he is trying to share with you.  In that respect, I found myself liking Betteredge and kind of laughing to myself about the crazy old timer who cannot seem to stay on point.  Mostly, I was feeling a little frustrated because, the constant veering off course from the main story was starting to feel a bit confusing.  It made me laugh when Betteredge’s daughter, Penelope, who is reading what he is writing, even tells her father to get to the point; to tell the story of the moonstone and not his own story.

 

After our class discussion, I thought to myself, why do my classmates see him as an endearing old man?  Weren’t they annoyed at how dry the first twenty pages were?  Luckily, being the diligent student that I am, I felt guilty for not seeing Betteredge as endearing and for being so annoyed with him.  I decided that I better read it again and that perhaps my modern expectation had tainted my first read.   After I reread the prologue and first chapters and found myself much less annoyed because I was able to pick up on the nuances and quirks in Betteredge’s personality and Wilkes actually uses documents (really creative, especially given the time and the lack of mystery novel prototype to follow) to feed us much of the exposition that as a reader, I will need to know if I am to follow the mystery of the moonstone.  However, the first go round when I had no idea what I was reading about, I felt mostly annoyed.  I wanted to tell Betteredge to stop beating around the bush and get to the point.  Rereading it made me appreciate it and enjoy it more.  It seems like “The Moonstone” will be one of those novels that gets better each time you read it because you pick up on something new each time that you hadn’t previously noticed or maybe even perhaps that on a second or third read, when the characters are concreted in your mind and the facts are easy to keep straight.  As the book continues, it gets considerably better to read by each turn of the page. I am not usually a mystery kind of girl, but despite my best efforts to dislike the novel, I am really enjoying it!

Wordsworth vs Coleridge

Wordsworth and Coleridge are so different in their belief system regarding poetry. I have a difficult time imagining how they ever got along. The duo of British romantic poets teamed up to write the lyrical ballads as an experiment to change the face of poetry and literature. Only four of the poems were written by Coleridge though and the text was dominated by Wordsworth. This seems fitting, knowing the fundamental difference and principle beliefs, regarding poetry, of the two men.

 

Coleridge says that in the beginning of the relationship between the two men, they would discuss “the power of exciting the sympathy of the reader by a faithful adherence to the truth of nature, and the power of giving the interest of novelty by modifying colours of the imagination.” A mutual respect and love of nature and the written word and its effect on human nature birthed the Lyrical Ballads, but Wordsworth’s poems geared towards nature and truth whereas Coleridge focused on the supernatural.  It is evident in “Biographia Literaria” that Coleridge had a vastly different opinion of poetry than Wordsworth. He said that Wordsworth’s approach of dumbing down the literature to be accessible to the masses was a sacrifice of quality of the poetry.  He says that “the language of these men is adopted . . . because from their rank in society, and the sameness and narrow circle o their intercourse, being less under the action of social vanity, they convey their feeling and notions in simple and unelaborated expressions” The lower class has no skill set to comprehend the beauty of language in poetry.  The poetic experience should be elevated, visceral and based on pleasure.

 

Contradictory to Colerdige, Wordsworth said that poetry should be understandable that it would serve the material and the audience best to be presented in “the very language of men.”  He says of his works in the lyrical ballads that “the reader will find that personification of abstract ideas rarely occur in these volumes; and, I hope, are utterly rejected as an ordinary device to elevate style, and raise it above prose.”  Elevating the language to a formal place and using poetic devises detract from the essential quality of a poem. Language should match the subject matter. It should be real. It should be about nature and centered on truth. It should be a way to let emotions out; a verbal expression of emotion. And who better to feel connected to the real suffering and truth of the world but the rural lower class. He says that men of low and rustic origin live in such a truth that “condition the essential passions of the heart and find a better soil in which they can attain their maturity, are less under restraint, and speak a plainer more emphatic language.” By being of a lower class these men are in tune with suffering and truth in the world. Words worth says that in the lower class the “condition the passion of men are incorporated with the beautiful and permanent forms of nature.”  They have a more inherent ability to connect with true emotions. 



I find myself feeling an approval and appreciation for Wordsworth. He wants the whole world to feel connected through poetry, to read, connect and understand human nature through text that is accessible to all man is admirable and I think a version of truth itself.  A traditional paper might not give me the opportunity that this blog allows, my informal opinion: I think that stuffy, snobbish writers, like Coleridge, who believe the only way to achieve a great work is to elevate the language until the audience needs a decoder pen detract from the real beauty of what the written art of poetry has means to do.  What good is a brilliant piece of thought and reflection if the language is so elevated that the majority of men can’t share it and experience it?  By discriminating your audience, the writer is then limiting the idea; keeping it in a box and not sharing it with the world. Will the work transcend the small audience it is then intended for and make an impact on the world?

 

 Not to say, I can’t appreciate the craftsmanship, insight and talent it takes to craft a poem of such elevated skill level and master craftsmanship of poetic devises.  I love poetry and deconstructing it and finding the layers within.  As a writer, myself, I can greatly appreciate and admire such skill especially within the restricted parameters lent by the time period.  However, I say, hats off to Wordsworth!

Sonnets are beautiful but too ridgid

“On the Sonnet” by John Keats

If by dull rhymes our English must be chain'd,
And, like Andromeda, the Sonnet sweet
Fetter'd, in spite of pained loveliness,
Let us find, if we must be constrain'd,
Sandals more interwoven and complete
To fit the naked foot of Poetry:
Let us inspect the Lyre, and weigh the stress
Of every chord, and see what may be gain'd
By ear industrious, and attention meet;
Misers of sound and syllable, no less
Than Midas of his coinage, let us be
Jealous of dead leaves in the bay wreath crown;
So, if we may not let the Muse be free,
She will be bound with garlands of her own.

                In “On the Sonnet” by John Keats, the rhyme scheme is not traditional.  It is a-b-c-a-b-d-c-a-b-c-d-e-f-g.  By playing with the rhyme scheme in a poem titled “On the Sonnet,” and keeping the form close to a sonnet, Keats accomplished two things in one piece.  He pays homage to the “loveliness” (3) of the form of the sonnet as well as challenging that its ridged structure denies a creative license to let the material dictate the form.  He points out the limitations of restricting a piece to a rigid form and to truly create works, form must be changed to suit the piece.  He is a writer speaking to not only readers of his time but also writers.  He himself is a poet living in a time where artistic expression was extremely limited to strict traditional forms and the material was about many ideas and concepts that are abstract and non-conformable.   If anything, these abstract ideas need more room to expand and be examined than the tight structure of the sonnet really allows. 

                Although John Keats appreciates the tradition of the “sonnet sweet” (2) and the beautiful expression or “pained loveliness” (3) that was birthed in the form of the sonnet, he argues the strict boundaries of the traditional form of the sonnet keep poetry confined.  The tradition of the sonnet, he implies, leaves little room for growth and expression in poetry.   Poetry was not meant to be restrained, like Andromeda who was shackled and bound to a rock, left to be swallowed by the sea.  Poetry by its very nature is creative and complex and should be innovative.  The English language and art of poetic expression is drastically limited by adhering to a strict form of rhyme scheme and meter.   To limit creative expression to a strict form, limits the poet from growing, changing and expressing ideas in new and interesting ways which is the very nature of poetry.  If poetry through the English language is not free to break the bounds of strict form it too will perish.  The analogy of finding “sandals more interwoven and complete/ to fit the naked foot of Poetry” (5, 6) is an interesting one.  Poets must be free to try no forms to express their views in the ever-changing world.    If we are “misers of sound and syllable,” (10) let our art meet a similar down fall to that of Midas.   If we don’t let the “muse be free,” (13) or the words be free to take their own form, the will be “bound by garlands of her own” or stifled.

                Keats strays from a traditional rhyme scheme of the sonnet while talking about the limitations of the sonnet and, while beautiful, stifles creativity and growth in art proving that beautiful poetry can be created while deviating from the strict boundaries set by the sonnet.  He does not discredit the sonnet by saying that it has not created beautiful timeless art, but does seem to express a desire for the limitations to be lifted to allow freedom of expression through form.