‘I have no mother tongue , no mother to tongue no tongue to mother tongue me I must therefore be tongue dumb , dumb tongued ,  dub tongued damn dumb tongue but I have a dumb tongue, tongue dumb father tongue and English is my mother tongue , is my father tongue is a foreign lan  lan language , languish anguish a foreign anguish is English another tongue my mother, mommy,  mummy , mosair  maysayer maytear modare tongue …..” English is a foreign language that was instilled upon the slaves to keep them from being rebellious to their owners. By taking a way there ability to speak with one another in their foreign language they lost any sense of their culture “English is a foreign language and not a mummy tongue” oh how I cant get over these words so powerful and true . English is not the language of the foreigners , their mummy tongues , grand mothers tongues, great grand mothers tongues have vanished in the soil of the lad of the English . ” I have no mother tongue no mother to tongue ..”  in the narrative of Douglas he explains how the slave owners would part them from their mothers at early age to remove any connection and passage of culture. In the poem  she mentions parts of the brain  in the frontal cortex called brocas (named after psychologist Broca) who thought that white men had larger brains than blacks , minorities , and women therefore making them  inferior to the rest. Douglass had no mother to tounge and yet he was not tongue dumb beause of his passion to learn which took him from thinking of me to we to free and that he was . so English is a lan lan laguage languish anguish therefore it is not my freign language.

It was fairly easy to come the conclusion that after reading both William Blake’s, The Lamb & The Tyger ”, that the Lamb and Tyger both contrast each other in a number of ways, like two seasons with changes in weather days apart clearly felt as you walk outside. The Lamb and the Tyger each exhibit characteristics that the outside world we live in today, if I were to describe each of them like a particular season, the Lamb being like summer : warm, fruitful, and innocent and the Tyger I would say is like the winter ; dark, cold and foggy in its intentions . Each poem discusses why each created the way they were, and both question their place in the world. Both both obviously were created by a higher power. The lamb is described like a “child , soft, miled , well clothed”. Although the Tyger is put in a situation where he is doubted as it is exhibiting characteristics that are a polar opposite to the lamb. In both poems, like I mentioned before Blake, made the lamb so peaceful and beautiful like summer, while creating a creature so terrifying like the Tyger.

Shifting gears for a moment, Mary Shelley’s, Frankenstein, in the eyes of Victor like William Blake their creations appeal to them and are beautiful but at the same terrifying once brought to life on paper. It is with great difficulty to not come to the conclusion that the creature is an amalgamation of both the Lamb and the Tyger. Mary Shelley’s creature was made to be beautiful in the eyes of Victor, but once brought to life his perspective was completely changed. To quote the book, “his limbs were in proportion, and i had selected selected his features as beautiful, his yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles arteries beneath, his hair was of a lustrous black , and flowing, his teeth of a pearly whiteness, but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same color as the dun white sockets in which they were set , his shrivelled complexion, and straight black lips”.

After creating something, through a process that many would consider impossible, Victor chose to neglect his creation, out of genuine terror after realizing of what he thought of something as being beautiful, once it was literally set in motion with the enormous size it carries, Victor I believe foresaw the potential damage the creature would cause. His ambitious experiment failed an he felt nothing but distain for his creation. Normally when a creator plan is brought to fruition by bringing something or someone to life, it’s inventor expresses joy and happiness. Once the creature was brought to life, Victor thought of the creature as reflection of himself and realize what he himself was truly like as a person. The Lamb can be described as the creature, while the Tyger can be the creature and Victor. We all live in world that is filled with people and things that are characterized as good and evil, however it on certain occasions it is fairly easy to see that both good and evil can co-exist within something or someone.

Both The Lamb and the Tyger poems hold parallels with the story of Frankenstein and the creature. It’s almost funny given how short the poems are that they can hold so many similarities with the creature. That said I’m going back and forth between which poem has better similarities with the creature. My first reaction was that it was The Lamb, but that quickly changed as I read Tyger.

The Lamb is a poem that explores the little lamb who knows not it’s creator. Only to learn that his creator is a Lamb as well. Now both these points are comparable in some way to the creature and Frankenstein. Rather simplistically both the lamb and the creature initially don’t know who their creator is, only later to find out. The second part is hardly a connection to the creature from the book and more a connection with the common interpretation of the name Frankenstein. Commonly thought that Frankenstein is the creature itself and not the creator, much as the little lamb is called the same as it’s creator the Lamb. This connection is tenuous at best.

Tyger. This poem in contrast with The Lamb makes no explicit mention of not knowing who the creator is at first, only late showing that it does not know it’s creator, and that it may be the same individual as the one who created the little lamb. There are a few more lines than a simple lack of knowledge as a similarity that connect the Tyger to the creature; “…thy fearful symmetry?”, “…hand dare seize the fire?”, “…twist the sinews of thy heart?”, “Did he smile his work to see?”, and “…deadly terrors clasp!” First “…thy fearful symmetry” shows a connection between the tiger and the creature because the creature is described as having beautiful parts, that when brought together and brought to life are horrifying. “… hand, dare grasp the fire” this describes to me the relationship between Frankenstein , the hand and the creature, the fire. I make this connection through interpreting the creature as the fire, dangerous, but also the act of creating a flame of life. Playing with fire. “…twist the sinews of thy heart” illustrates what happened to the creature, humanity rejects him. “Did he smile his work to see?” illustrates Frankenstein’s rejection of his creation… he never smiled at his work, only ever rejecting it as a monster. Lastly, “…deadly terrors clasp!” can be a way to show the lethality of the creature, being very similar to Frankenstein’s description of the creature “…one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped…”

In conclusion for the reasons above I believe that Tyger the poem has more in common with the creature and the story of Frankenstein than The Lamb. The lamb as I see it only rally has one thing in common with the book and tiger has that as well, beyond that tyger has many more points in common with the creature to give it credence. That said it is easier for tyger to have those points because nothing was explicitly decided upon. Nearly everything mentioned is a question not a statement implying similarities not guaranteeing them.

” The Lamb & The Tyger ” resemble day and night to me . Each of these poems describe the world we live in today the Lamb being the day : innocent, peaceful, good and the Tyger  being the night;  scary , dark ,evil , and  mysterious. Both poems question there coming to the world and why they were created the way they were. Although they are some what opposites they also resemble one another in the sense that they were both created by a higher power & are both questioning their being. The lamb is described like a child , soft , miled , well clothed .While the Tyger is being questioned for his fearful symmetry . I guess the main question that’s being asked between both poems is how can the same creator who created something so peaceful and beautiful as the lamb  creates a creature so horrifying as the Tyger . Both these poems tie in with Mary Shellys Frankenstein the monster being a sublime in the eyes of victor,  beautiful yet horrifying at the same time. Can’t it be that the monster as described be a combination of both the Lamb and the Tyger . The creature in Frankenstein was described so beautifully and yet became a horrifying creature to the creator him self ” His limbs were in proportion , and i had selected  selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! – great god ! his yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black , and flowing ; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast  with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same color as the dun white sockets in which they were set , his shrivelled complexion, and straight black lips .” {volume 1 ch.4}     Victor accomplished the unthinkable and yet it all meant nothing after his creation saw life . His dream vanished and felt nothing but disgust and horror in his heart. Normally a creator creates something/someone that relates to them , can it be that the creature is a reflection of victor himself . Its not till the creature was alive that he seen a reflection of  him self and realize what his inner self is like . The characteristics of the Lamb  can be used to describe victor during the day while the Tyger can be the creature (victor) at night . Over all we live in a ying and yang world we have both good and bad to give a balance we wouldn’t be able to recognize good without evil .

“The Lamb” and “The Tyger” seem to both be similar in a way that there are certain questions that are being asked throughout most of the poems, “who created such a creature?”,”how can that creator have thought of something so beautiful or horrid”? Although both poems are discussing the complexity of both creations, there is this unanswered question of why did the creator make these creations in this particular way? Is it to embrace the beauty and goodness of the creator or to show the horrid and evil creations of man that are unexplainable? Both poems relate to Frankenstein in which there is a particular creature that sets so many questions as to why or how and what is the meaning of this creation. I learned that the Monster from Frankenstein is not exactly this”monster” how most of the characters we encounter in the story say he is, he is really this lifeless and lonely individual who seeks a normal life involved with love and companionship. From the exterior I picture the monster to be as how the media have made him many years ago, as this giant green zombie looking creature with a scare on his forehead and these broad shoulders and that one lazy eye, anyone that comes across something like that will immediately get terrified and think its an evil monster. As I got to know more about the monster I figured that in the inside he isn’t this horrible and evil monster I thought he was, he actually is someone who simply seeks someone or something to build and share a life with.

In the text Frankenstein, anyone who sees the monster immediately rejects him or fears him because of his appearance, throughout the entire time he is alive he lives a life full of rejection and hate. While in both poems by William Blake the speaker is questioning such creations and trying to get an answer is to why these creations are the way they are. I think all three texts are similar in the way that there is something were just to figure out about these creations. Blake builds up this idea of nature is being a work of art, and that in a certain way it must have a reflection of its creator. There is a possibility that Victor might have created this monster as a reflection os himself and how his life has been. In the poems, it seems to me that the creator of these animals is God or possibly a God-like thing. These animals can be a reflection of God because of its beauty and mystery that cannot be answered and explained, we just accept it as it is. How an animal or a monster was made so perfect or symmetrical is a creation of god because of its complexity. When the monster in Frankenstein was finally complete and alive, Victor was so proud and he described it to be this beautiful creature because it is his own, or possibly a reflection of him. When something is your own you tend to find it so beautiful and has no flaws. The poems and Frankenstein both have this concept in which there is a creation that cannot be fully or completely explained but its a representation of the creator or of something beautiful that represents goodness or evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcJwt8XB4M

Key Terms

causality, mind/body, satire, mystification

The Age of Enlightenment (17th-18th century in Europe & America)

• beginning of the scientific age
• moved away from religion
• started admiring their surroundings
• reaction to the superstition of earlier generation

Think of your journey vs. Candide’s journey

“Cogito Ergo Sum” – I think, therefore I am

Why is this a radical statement?

• emphasizing you have a mind of your own
• you can go about things in your own way
• there is nobody above you dictating how you should think

Thinking means…..

• imagining
• point of view
• questioning
• what makes us human
• REASONING (we are equipped with mental capacity that allows us to figure thins out

“On life’s vast ocean diversity we sail, Reason the card, but Passion is the gale” Alexander Pope Essay on Man 1733

gale– wind, storm                 card– the cloth on the sail of a ship

How is this quote connected to Candide?

• everyone takes their own journey through life ( there are multiple way through this path )
• your social, economic, cultural, and personal ways help you choose this path
• Reason is the physical structure of how to get through life, but passion is the face behind it
• you need both reason and passion on your journey through life

Vestiges

1. Deism-accept a universal creator who created the world like a watch, where he could walk away and it would still function.  Agnosticism, atheism, and secular humanism (thinking that we as humans are most important and that religion was created to fill our desire for explanation) were emerged from deism.
2. Universal Human Rights- inalienable rights of all humans.
3. Nature as Pattern- thinking as the world fitting in, interconnected, cause and effect.
4. Scientific Method- understanding through experimentation, procedure, and evidence.

Critical thinking is an Enlightenment belief still used today

What did you think about Candide?

• dramatic
• soap opera like
• satirical
• he seems innocent and naive
• challenges our expectations of reality

Pangloss’ theory is dedicated to optimism

• Page 1- “It is demonstratable……..for the best” Pangloss’ logic if faulty our reason for having a nose is to breathe not to wear glasses.  This shows him convoluting casualty by putting the effect before the cause.
• Page 8- Pangloss got syphilis and his response is “it was a thing unavoidable a necessary ingredient in the best of worlds”  Syphilis is just a part of human process according to Pangloss (this shows his optimism)

“It is what it is” is a mystified quote it causes us to not question things and just accept what things concretely are.

Mystification– dominant power convinces us that something is a truth because it benefits them.

• we dont’t learn what not to believe
• sugar coating

“sufficient reasoning” – Voltaire’s way of making fun of philosophers by making this a euphemism for sex.  (deep down the reason humans do everything is because of sex)

This sufficient reasoning for Cunegonde drove Candide all around the world.

Page 40- “They rowed a few leagues…….the rubies and the emeralds”

• Where is Candide?    El Dorado
• What is it like there?  paradise with plentiful jewels, people are happy with no fights, there is no poor and there is enough to eat.
• Utopia is the Greek word for nowhere, El Dorado seems like a utopia.  The people of El Dorado have to give up their opinions to live in this paradise.
• Utopia isnt for everyone, because of this they don’t exist.  El Dorada wasn’t a utopia for Candide, because Cunegonde wasn’t there.

What happened to Candide after he experienced El Dorado?

Now Candide sees all the problems in the world and becomes skeptical of Pangloss’ optimism.

Where does this journey take Candide?

The journey ends in Turkey with Candide and all the characters in the book (even the ones who died) in a garden.  They are almost in utopia living.  When Pangloss tries to philosophize, Candide says “lets cultivate our own garden”.  Which is the theme of trying to get at making your own path by thinking on your own.

Garden is a metaphor for our mind, soul, and reason because like a garden our mind has to be tended to constantly it is an ongoing process.  Gardening gives power over his circumstance, because throughout the book Candide was a victim of circumstance.

 

For next class (Tuesday 9/29) Read the 1st half of Frankenstein (preface, introduction, volume 1, and as much as you can into volume 2)

 

 

 

For Tuesday 9/29: Read First Half of Frankenstein (Including the preface)

Terms to know:
– Causality/Reason
– Mind/Body Dualism
– Satire
– Mystification

The Age of Enlightenment:
17th-18th Centuries in Europe and America
– Enlightenment was a result of the reaction to superstition of early tradition
– It’s goal was to find ones place in the world through rational, reasonable, and quantifiable experience rather than assuming that things just happen through the works of God
– It was the beginning of a scientific age (Movement away from religion)

“Cogito Ergo Sum” or “I think therefore I am”
– This embraced the fact that you have a mind of your own
– Thinking –> imagining, point of view, questioning, what makes us human, the capacity to reason is what makes us human, dismantles hierarchy (you think therefore you are)
– Enlightenment places the thinking human at the center of life

“On life’s vast ocean diversely we sail, Reason the card (sail of ship), but passion is the gale (wind/guiding force)” – Alexander Pope, Essay on man 1733
– Everyone moves diversely through the ocean of life (meaning there are multiple journeys to take)
– Reason acts as the function piece (the card) but passion is the force behind it
– Reason and passion ultimately work in conjunction with one another.

Terms Commonly Associated with Enlightenment:
1) Deism: Accept there is a universal creator. Common belief is that this creator made the world a watch – it keeps going on its own accord with no daily manipulation. Deism lead to secular humanism (the belief that humans are number one).
2) Universal Human Rights: There are certain inalienable rights – we are free, allowed to live life with integrity and respect, etc.
3) Nature as Pattern: Thinking about world/nature as a cause and effect relationship (Ex: No rain means a lake will dry up).
4) Scientific Method: Understanding trough experimentation and quantifiable evidence.

World of Candide:
– That of a “Soap Opera” – Everything is the most drastic result
– Satirical quality
– Challenges expectation of realism
– World seems conflicted as a result of greed, religion, and philosophies

Candide is innocent, susceptible to influence, and naive

Pangloss’s theory is dedicated to optimism.
Page 1: “It is demonstrable,” said he, “that things cannot be otherness than as they are; for all being created for an end, all is necessary for the best end”
– This is ultimately a faulty theory because he uses a sort of inverted, crazy, mixed up logic (effect by cause rather then cause and effect (causality))
– Ex; we have a nose to breathe, legs to walk
– However the biggest critique can be seen when he says “All things cannot be otherwise…”
– This is demonstrative of a rampant optimism. It ultimately takes away from what things are.
– This includes no questioning -> a troubling view of the world.

His theory is the result of mystification.
– Mystification: Process by which dominant power convinced us of a truth only because it benefits them.
– Page 8 – We find our Pangloss has syphilis. He justifies this with human progress (an overall mystification of the order of things)

How is Candide a satire?
– Making fun of philosophies
– “Sufficient Reason” is a running joke throughout the book and is a euphemism for sex
– Ultimately claims the reason we do everything is love and sex (Candide’s love for Cunegonde)

Page 40 – Candide in the new world (El Dorado)
– Paradise – Jewels so plentiful used as stone, everyone is happy, no fighting, no hunger, no poverty
– This is an example of utopia (Greek for nowhere)
– The people of El Dorado give up thinking in order to maintain their utopia (“here we are all of one opinion”)
– Despite their seemingly perfect living, Candide still wants Cunegonde

After his experience in the utopia of El Dorado Candide is able to see all of the problems of hi own world. He is now demystified of Pangloss’s optimism.

Candide ends up in a garden in turkey with all of his people (Cunegonde, Cacambo, Pangloss, etc).
– They all happily resolve together
– Candide starts to take things as are (“Let’s cultivate our own garden”)
– New truth: To take your own path… You go one way and I’ll go my own… Not forgetting to be active in the world.

The garden is a metaphor for our minds. Our minds need to be cultivated which is not justified by Pangloss’s philosophy. Cultivating is active and subjective.
– This gives Candide agency (ability of one to have power and mobility over his or her circumstance)