Great Works Fall 2013

Remember that you need to meet with me before turning in your revision of Essay 1.

If you haven’t emailed me to make an appointment, please do so immediately. The appointment times are filling up fast! If you did email me, you will have gotten back a response with the time I have scheduled your appointment.

Here are the times still available:

Tuesday, Oct 15: 3 pm, 3:20 pm, 3:40 pm

Thursday, Oct 17: 11:10 am, 12:50 pm

Email me if you can’t make any of these times!

There is something so captivating about Ivan Ilyich’s final though that i find it difficult to put into words. It questions our view on death. What is it? Is death actual death or is it something more than that? I get the sense from reading this story that it was a process. Ivan Ilyich’s demise wasn’t the culmination of his life, but a spiritual process.

As I was reading the story I felt as if Ivan’s death was being played out over the course of years. It was only near the end that you realize that Ivan’s demise has been occurring for 3 months. So why does Tolstoy feel the need to explicate his demise so thoroughly? What is it that Tolstoy is trying to get at that cannot be done with more brevity? Although I cannot fully answer these questions I think it is because dying is more important than death itself. It is in the process of dying that Ivan realizes that everything he strove for his entire life was worthless. This meaninglessness is best exemplified by the injury that led to his death in the first place. It was his vanity that led him to climb the step ladder to mount the drapes. As he is  dying we see Ivan slowly come to that realization. At first he can’t bring himself to believe it, and who would. There cannot be anything more painful for a person to come to the realization that his life was meaningless as they’re dying. That, in my opinion was the “real” death of Ivan Ilyich. The fact that he stopped breathing and his heart sopped beating was a formality.

You can find the poems from The Flowers of Evil in your Norton. You can link to the two prose poems from Paris Spleen from this blog’s Readings page.

I’ve also posted a handout on the blog Handouts page called “Meter in Poetry.” Please read it over before the next class and think about how Baudelaire uses meter–perhaps especially in “A Carcass.” You don’t have to be able to identify exactly what the meter is in every line, but give meter (and rhyme) some thought while you read. What is he doing with sound and rhythm in the poem?

When the narrator of Bartleby, the Scrivener first becomes acquainted with the “pallidly neat, pitiably respectable, [and] incurably forlorn” Bartleby, he is quick to point out just how different this man is from the other scriveners at his office (301).  In fact, one of the first things that he notices about Bartleby is just how quiet and calm he is, unlike Turkey and Nippers who take turns throughout the day at being irritable and unruly. This seemingly small and innocent difference, however, is soon brought into question when the young scrivener stolidly replies that he would “prefer not to” review the copy that he created. As he repeats this answer, with the same unmoved expression, to nearly all of his boss’s requests and pleadings, the narrator becomes incredibly confused about his employee. Due to Bartleby’s seeming lack of emotion, the narrator describes this man as cadaverous, column-like, and deranged. So strange and different, Bartleby is unlike anything the narrator has ever seen. Herman Melville, the author of this story, almost over-emphasizes the point that Bartleby is unusually eccentric. With the difference between the scrivener and the other characters so immense, I feel compelled to uncover a similarity.

Digging a bit into the text, I began to see an uncanny resemblance between Bartleby and the two other scriveners, Turkey and Nippers. Though Turkey seems to contrast Bartleby in his appearance and temper, the two characters are both incredibly stubborn. Like the young man who refuses to leave the office when he is dismissed, Turkey too does not yield to his boss’s request, though he agrees with the displeased narrator that his work becomes sloppy in the afternoon.

The connection between Bartleby and Nippers is much less obvious, yet far more foreboding and eerie. The narrator describes Nippers as a “sallow” young man, who is the “victim of two evil powers—ambition and indigestion” (299). Bartleby, though certainly not ambitious like Nippers, shares his sickly characteristic. Bartleby is often described as pale and Nippers, too, has an unhealthy quality to his skin. Somehow, Nippers’ state of health is linked to food, or rather the lack of it. The narrator reveals that the young man has to struggle with indigestion, and constantly reminds us of this connection between Nippers and food by addressing the character with his nickname.  The name Nippers, which contains the word “nip”, connects to taking, or perhaps digesting, a small bite of food. Overall, Melville frequently draws attention to food, including ginger-nut cakes and apples, in the story. We see these two snacks when the errand boy brings them to the scriveners in the office, and when the narrator finds ginger-nut crumbs in Bartleby’s newspaper. It seems that when Melville references food, Nippers’ indigestion of it, Bartleby’s scarcity of it, and the malnourished-nature of both characters, he somehow foreshadows the gruesome ending of his story, in which Bartleby dies of starvation. The ending also loses some element of shock when I think back to the connection between Turkey and Bartleby. As a stubborn character, Bartleby’s last words were “I prefer not to dine to-day… It would disagree with me; I am unused to dinners” (320). Upon reading that line, I though that the poor man would simply skip one meal, but as it turned out, he refused to eat altogether.

It seems that Melville includes these two seemingly unimportant characters of Turkey and Nippers to show that they are somehow similar and maybe even linked to the strange Bartleby. However, it is the actions of the narrator that end up separating the characters, both figuratively and literally. The narrator overlooks the eccentrics of Turkey and Nippers yet cannot bear to keep the mysterious scrivener in his office. Understandably, he decides that it is best to disposes of Bartleby. Yet we are somehow left to ponder, what would have happened if the narrator were to find a link between himself and Bartleby? As the most compassionate character, would he have been able to save the poor scrivener from his grim fate?

Check out these illustrations from 1893 and 1865 editions of the poem.

Keats poems seem to be so jam-packed with meaning in every word, that it is hard to chew a simple sentence. However, what seemed to predominate was a dominating theme of dreaminess and an awareness of mortality.

The first poem: “When I Have Fears That I May Cease to Be” is a prime example of this theme. This poem in particular made me think of a one-nighter experience. In the beginning of the poem, the writer expresses a dilemma: he can’t capture on paper all that he thinks in his mind. The poem then describes the sky and the clouds which seem to symbolize his uncertainty of love. In line 7 he expresses a parallel desire as he had in line 2, wanting to capture the “uncapturable,” in this case the sky. The shadows seemed to symbolize something that is not really there and cannot be traced, perhaps like the past that cannot be grasped. Line 10 in particular gave me the impression that he was describing a passionate one-nighter that made him question his purpose and existence. Line 13, an unreflecting love, seems to describe something that the writer cannot grasp because he is not a part of…his lover. I understood the last line to convey that fame takes away love and so his conclusion was to either sink in suicide or to to sink in the rolling tides of life and just keep going through the motions without purpose.

In the poem “Bright Star,” I understood it as a story of his faithful “steadfast” lover who was consistent with him, however, he was the one that got hung in the “splendor” of the night, such as by going out and getting caught up in nightlife rather than in “steadfast” love. His lover is described with imagery of nature a lot, like in the Asian works we have read. It seems to describe a contrast between her purity and his impurity. Again, this poem ends with a descent to death.

The “Ode to Nightingale” sounded like a dream or like euthanasia. It was describing fleeting memories and desires like a dreamy or dreary calm that is the life before death. It seemed reminiscent of pastoral times, returning to nature, returning to earth. I also thought I was in a nursing home, especially in section III, a descent into dementia or a heart ache for life.

Throughout all of these poems I also saw a strong resemblance of describing love in the way Akinari did in “Bewitched,” a mesmerizing and enchanting way. For example, Line 12 in “When I Have Fears That I May Cease to Be” describes this love like a fairy power. It sounded like she was enchanting and then disappears like shadows of the past. The poem with the closest resemblance to Manago and Toyo-0 from Bewitched is “La Belle Dame Sans Merci.” It seemed to be describing a love that was killing him softly. This is also the poem I least understood. How did the imagery of nature relate to the message of the poem? It all seemed too mystical to channel into reality.

Overall, these poems seemed to be written as life perceived under the influence. It could be under the influence of alcohol, drugs, depression, memories of the past, or simply love.

Before the story begins we are given a basic background of the author, Ueda Akinari, and some information about Japanese culture. We are also told that the reason this story is so thrilling is because of the melding of reality and illusion, however this “illusion” is referring to the monster known as Manago and her otherworldly quality. I don’t like this reasoning because in Shinto beliefs these monsters aren’t illusions but another part of reality; so I want to throw this idea out the window and, instead, question who is the one who is actually bewitched in this story.

It seems obvious, at first, that it is the mythical monster that is the one bewitching others, but what does the word bewitched mean or insinuate? To bewitch someone is to gain control over that person with magic. It’s true that Manago uses something akin to magic by transforming a run down manor into a beautiful an inviting mansion, but besides this one incident, she doesn’t use any magic to actually change Toyo-o’s feelings and views of her. In fact, what she does to win his favor is quite normal for a Japanese girl. She ingratiates herself to win the acceptance and favor of his family through her actions and words. The only other “magic” she uses is the transformation into a giant snake and the possession of Toyo-o’s human wife, Tomiko. She never once casts a spell or use her powers to directly influence Toyo-o. On the other hand Toyo-o is constantly hiring others to cast spells on her; the humans end up enacting more magic than Manago.

Another case could be made that her beauty is bewitching. It’s true that she is a “voluptuous” and beautiful woman, but the same can be said about Toyo-o; he is called a “handsome youth” – equally bewitching characteristics. Also, the last I checked, someone who is bewitched doesn’t usually run, let alone realize they are bewitched; yet Toyo-o is constantly running in fear and trying to kill Manago. That doesn’t make sense to me. If he were truly bewitched he’d be chasing after her the same way she is chasing after him. He’d want her all to himself, the same way she tries to keep him her’s. Rather than saying bewitched, I’d rather use the term cursed to describe Toyo-o’s situation, while it is Manago who has been bewitched by Toyo-o and has fallen madly in love with him.

In the end I couldn’t really call this a scary story. I couldn’t help but feel sorry for Manago in the end. Toyo-o was the one to initiate the relationship between the two and is ready to love her, but the instant he finds out she’s not human he does a one-eighty. Manago on the other hand has always known that they were two different beings but is still willing to love him, and we know she means it from her overly attached actions and her constant wish to be his wife. She even says it near the very beginning of the story in Toyo-o’s dream (very frequently dreams are used as a means to communicate between spirit world and the human world in Japanese culture). Besides the very start and end of the story, Manago acts like a normal girl. I also don’t understand how a scary story just let’s the main character get away so cleanly; usually they die or are so traumatized their life is ruined.

Sorry for the length of this response, and if it’s hard to understand. There’s a lot I wanted to say but I just can’t seem to articulate it all very clearly.

Also really quickly:
She is a white snake. White snakes are symbols of luck and longevity in Japan so it’s a bit strange for a white snake to be viewed as something so ominous and unwanted.

The age of the Enlightenment changed the face of Europe, if not the world. It was time where all social conventions were challenged, people questioned the constraints of their society, and most notably thinkers began to emphasize reason.

Prior to this age, reason was not used in forming explanations of the universe, or mans place in it. The church and rulers of the time understood that without reason, whatever ridiculous claims they made can always be believed. However, during the Enlightenment people began to realize that the only way to make sense of the universe was through rational conclusions.

With that being the premise of the Enlightenment, I was a bit stunned by Alexander Pope’s “An Essay on Man”. This philosophical poem, I thought, was desperately trying to blend two separate ways of thinking.  In this work, Pope was trying to present a rational argument about man’s place in the universe, however he did so by alluding to pre-Enlightenment ideas of religion and the great chain of being.

Section IV (page 347-348), Pope describes mans pride as his greatest failure, in the attempt to aspire to higher rank in the great chain of being he claims man “wishes to invert the laws of Order”. This seems to be a direct reaction to the rejections of religion and old order during the Enlightenment. However, Pope’s execution of this attack is clever- because he attacks reason with reason.  Which is clearly seen in section VIII (page350), where Pope uses obvious examples of the visible world to prove his point of a hierarchy unseen.

Furthermore, in the end of epistle 1, Pope makes is very clear that the only way to ensure man’s safety is to stay true to God’s order.  While reading this essay, I was unclear weather or not Pope was just rejecting Enlightenment ideas, or was he trying to find a compromise between the Enlightenment and pre-existing ideas.

The whole essay was Pope making the argument that man cannot understand a system, in which he is a part of. However, his argument was very rational- so was he trying to tell everyone to slow down in the quest of knowledge and answers. His use of rationality made his essay more convincing to readers, who otherwise might have just rejected the essay in full. Yes, men were making great strides during this time, but Pope’s point might be that some things are best left not understood, giving more clarity to a then unclear world.

Well, long post. Here goes.

The first thing that struck me about Ihara Saikaku’s short tale of a sensuous woman’s confession would be the shift in narration after the first page and a half. The story begins not from the nameless sensuous woman’s perspective but, oddly, from an insubstantial, anonymous person following the two men who have walked the same path but hold different views on the way of life. The reason, however, is unclear—at least to me. I take it that it is Saikaku’s way of inviting the readers to become impartial listeners to the sensuous woman’s tale—not one who believes the pursue of boundless sexual pleasure is the way of life nor one who seeks isolation for the peace of the mind and body; as if we are the curious follower who happens to hear her confession. Then, it is also up to us whether to forgive, reprimand, or simply disregard her recollection.

As readers, we can view Saikaku’s story as mere entertainment, as it was considered during his time. But I, and perhaps Saikaku would agree as well, perceive this piece as a small glimpse of life and society in 17^th century Japan. Since in the past, much of how the wealthy Samurais, lords, and especially the commoners lived is obscured. Just as one of the two men has requested, we readers should bear this in mind as we read, “won’t you please tell us the story of your life in the words people use now? Please do it in a way that will help us understand more about life and the world today” (594).

Take the structure of the sensuous woman’s reminiscence for example, each short episode of her life follows a similar rise and fall structure, though her position fell considerably. She would first enters a new setting, find someone who she could make love with to satisfy her “insatiable sexual desires” (592), then a shortcoming that prevents her from staying or pushes her to leave. In truth, it is not particularly interesting. However, the people she encounters, the world that they live in, and the unspoken rules they abide to are, in my opinion, more fascinating.* Undoubtedly, we are shown the ugliness of the high ranks (daimyo, monks, samurais, etc). It makes wonder what they thought of Saikaku’s portrayal of them and how they had responded, if they did at all.

Next, I’ll talk a bit about gender then. In the patriarchal society of this tale, to be male is almost like winning a lottery at birth. They hold more power and freedom in all areas (to the women of the same or similar class). The interest, of course, is how women are treated and acted in such a society. The first line, “A beautiful woman, many ages have agreed, is an ax that cuts down a man’s life” (593), speaks to us the common societal views, that women is harmful to man. However, this line suggests that the opposite is also true after reading through the story, that men induce equal or perhaps even greater harm to women.

During Saikaku’s time, society was changing quickly. However, many of the girls and women, we are told, took on traditional roles such as to marry into a good household for her parents’ sake (598). Life as a woman is typically miserable for those who are poor; if forced, there is nothing she could do other than sell herself for a small price (I assume two small gold pieces is not a lot back then). The situation gets worse when it comes to the monks. Those who are forced or hired must live in a secret underground room and not allow outsiders to find out; when aged, they are forsaken as if they were tools. According to the sensuous woman’s observations, it seems like it is not typical for commoners (women) to play kickball but it is for those who live in the daimyo’s domain (609). Nevertheless, it only serves as weak entertainment to the ladies who hardly meet any males. To offset the stress and feelings build-up, jealousy meetings are held. I’m not sure when the story is set in, though the meetings are “commonly held in the 7^th century” (610). All in all, what I mention above is but one face of Saikaku’s views. I believe it is his way of showing us how women have acted, however, through our narrator, the sensuous woman, we see a more daring and intellectual side to women—or perhaps it is how Saikaku believes some women act presently or will do so in the near future as society is changing.

Note: On page 597 is the description of the daimyo’s ideal wife (could probably be said about women in general).

Of course, I cannot finish the discussion on Saikaku’s tale without mentioning the countless references to nature and the descriptions linking nature and human together—particularly, girls and flowers. I’ll just list some for now: “invisible blossoms of the mind” (593), “soul leaves,” “I was still a flower in bud” (595), “pure water of my mind turned completely the color of sensuous love” (595-6), “All women were fresh as budding cherry blossoms, ready to burst into full bloom if wet by the slightest rain” (596), “The lotus flower in my heart” (611). I will add that “bride” in Japanese is hanayome (花嫁) or flower daughter (in law), since getting married is mentioned a few times in the story. As far as I know, the appreciation of nature’s beauty is considered elegant, stylistic, and poetic in the Japanese language. I certainly think the metaphor in the last two sentences conclude the tale nicely, in the sensuous woman’s atonement from “With this single body of mine I’d slept with more than ten thousand men” (610) to “The lotus flower in my heart opened for you, and before it closed it told everything, from beginning to end. I’ve certainly worked in some dirty professions, but is my heart not pure?” (611).

*At first, we see the difference of punishment between a pretty servant girl (of 13) and a low rank samurai. The former is secretly fired but spared while the latter is killed. Next is of the high class, a daimyo and the roles of people around him—from the daimyo’s need of a male heir, the worried attitude of his samurai retainers, and the process in which a mistress is selected (not to be mention a woman’s worries about the procedure and cost just to present oneself as a candidate). The monks are presented as sex fiends who could care less about a person’s life and pretended to be gracious, enlightened men only for appearance (similar to Tartuffe in that perspective, but more cold and ominous). Then we see the environment of a female teacher, which included the art of letter writing where feelings can be clearly and mutually communicated. Finally, we see the forms and ugliness of women’s jealousy from the daimyo’s wife and the women around her.

I found that this was an interesting play: not only because of its form (a translated play which maintained the decasyllables, and rhymes), but also the ways Molière uses to criticize. Indeed, the comic dramatist used a form of irony in this play. For instance, Dorine is more reasonable than Orgon (who is so blind about the situation, and unwilling to question himself), and Cléante is more virtuous than Tartuffe (this latter is supposed to be a virtuous and pious man, but is a hypocrite instead). An example of Orgon’s lack of reason is when he makes a generalization about holy men p.188, l.34, or pp.150-151,where Dorine is being sarcastic and more reasonable than Orgon. Also, I liked Dorine’s sarcasm, like for instance when she uses “Poor man” p.190, l.18. By using this switch of traits of characters, Molière leads the reader to the moral of the story, which is that one should not judge a book by its cover, and instead of following foolishly, one should think critically, which is one of the pivotal values of the Enlightenment.

By making Tartuffe a hypocrite, Molière is able to criticize the Church. This left me thinking: how was Molière able to show Tartuffe without being censored? It turned out that the king was supporting him. This left me dubitative, for at the time, the Church was very powerful, and the king was said to be God’s representative on Earth. So by criticizing the Church, Molière is indirectly criticizing the monarchy. However, I believe that Louis XIV liked the play because it was flattering (calling the king the “Prince of reason”). This way of flattering reminded me of Jean de la Fontaine’s fables (where the king was always the mightiest of animals), as well as Patrice Leconte’s film, Ridicule (where courtiers flatter, but cheat as soon as people have their back turned, just like Tartuffe, whose name means “to cheat”)

Another issue that I thought of was a political one. In fact, Tartuffe’s hypocrisy reminds me of the hypocrisy and demagogy of some politicians who use religion as a political tool, so they can achieve their personal goals, and attain positions of power.

In fine, through the use of an improbable set of character traits, Molière is able to criticize the Church, and the king in an indirect way. This kind of criticism can be compared to direct criticism (like the one seen during the arab spring for instance), and one can ponder which one is more beneficial.