Emily Dickinson’s Poem “My Life had stood – a Loaded Gun” this poem is very interesting to me because the underlying theme of the poem is anger, which is something we all know very well.  In the first stanza of this poem Dickinson is comparing her life to a loaded gun, and “the Owner” which carried her and her life away is her anger.  It is easy for our anger to get the best of us and get swept away by it.  This is something that happens to me very often to me, as I’m sure it does for many of you.  The next stanza depicts hunting a deer in the woods, this is a violent act which anger can cause someone to be very violent.  When Dickinson writes “every time I speak for Him –” she is referring to when she speaks for her anger (the anger is “Him”).  Her speaking for the anger is when the gun is shot since anger can explode and make a person blow at any time.  When she writes “the mountain straight reply –” this can be seen as the echo a gun makes when it goes off in the woods, but also the ripple affect someone actions when they are angry can have.  The next stanza after this contain the lines “And do I smile, such cordial light” when Dickinson writes this she is describing how after a while the and the anger dissipates she can let out a smile to become friendly again.  Like many of Emily Dickinson’s poems, we can relate to them especially in this case with the underlying anger and problems it brings.

The poem I chose to write a response to was Emily Dickinson’s Wild nights – Wild nights! Right off the bat, the titled caught my attention by making me question two things. One, why does she repeat wild nights? And two, why does she scream those words? Interestingly, she says the title in the first line which presumes that these “wild nights” are the main focus of the poem. I get two images from the first line to represent the “wild nights”. It can either be a scene of a place inhabited by only wild life at night or a scene of people partying at night. Reading thru the rest of the first stanza I believe she regrets not having been with or at “wild nights”. Also, she goes on saying that “wild nights” should be a luxury making me believe that it is something we all have but we do not treasure it.

The second stanza, I believe she is describing her feelings of affection for something or someone. The winds she describes are obstacles that are futile to literally, her heart. Saying she’s done with the compass and chart means she does not want to follow the rules or roles in her life but to follow her own feelings.

In the last stanza, I believe she is referring to herself being in the unknown since she threw away the things in her life that tied her down. The place where she wants to be she is there for only that night.

I hope your Spring Break is off to a great start!!

Because of Spring Break, we’ll next see each other on Thursday, April 20th (which Baruch is running as a Monday scheduled)

By Thursday, April 20th at 9am, please complete the following:

2. Post 250 words in response to one of Emily Dickinson’s poems.
3. Please read the Manifesto packet posted under course readings and complete the following:
   1. Pick a manifesto or excerpt of a manifesto that particularly resonated with you and write a blog post detailing your response to it / why it resonated. Your post should be approximately 250 words.
   2. Write a manifesto inspired by the form of one of the manifestos included on a topic that is important to you. You might choose to write about literature, sports, politics, food, etc.
   3. Post your manifesto and one paragraph analyzing the ways in which your manifesto pulls from the form and strategies you encountered in the packet.
4. Read Kafka’s Metamorphosis and two other stories from you edition.

Chapter 17 in Adam Bede is an interesting chapter indeed. It is a perplexing chapter in this novel that changes the perspective of what’s going on in the novel, instead of letting the novel advance further—the way it had been for the past sixteen chapters. This serves as a break from how the author had been going about telling this story, because it changed from a romanticized perspective to a realistic perspective. Instead of talking about the plot itself, it stops and analyzes the realistic truth about how the author, Eliot, reflects on the characters in a completely different time period. She goes off into a rant, practically, about how her characters are always demanded to fit perfectly within the lines of either a protagonist or an antagonist, and she decides to draw the line between realism and fantasy. She illustrates that in life, there’s a lot of grey area as opposed to this black vs. White mentality.

The idea of realism is also speculated in 19th Century British Critics of Realism. It starts off with the claim, “When a realist writer depicts a dressmaker, G.H. Lewes wrote, ‘she must be a young woman who makes dresses, not a sentimental “heroine”, evangelical and consumptive…” (Freedgood 1) On one hand there is a young woman in real life who has responsibilities and needs to work in order to support a herself. She is the opposite of a sentimental heroine because she has been forced to mature, instead of allowing herself to remain overdramatic and spoiled, like a child. She doesn’t look like a heroine, either—she looks like a normal girl with less than perfect features.

Eliot stresses how a real person isn’t someone who is beautiful, perfect and knows the right thing to do and say. She says, “I might select the most unexceptionable type of clergyman and put my own admirable opinions into his mouth on all occasions. But it happens, on the contrary, that my strongest effort is to avoid any such arbitrary picture, and to give a faithful account of men and things as they have mirrored themselves in my mind” (Eliot 1). A real person isn’t always admirable—and words certainly cannot always be put in the mouth of a real man. Fantasy and fiction is totally different from realism, in which real emotions come out at the wrong times and flaws are all over peoples’ faces. This chapter is all about realism being shown in a fiction story—for once. Showing that characters have flaws and have emotions and feelings like the rest of us makes us realize that we don’t have to be just like the people in the fiction world. We realize that we can be imperfect, instead of thinking that we are subject to a happy ending just like our favorite fairy tale.

During the Romantic Era , the literature represented art , emotion and the Age of Enlightenment while Realism in literature represented a whole new movement of reality. In George Eliot’s theory of realism and Elaine Freegood’s reading depicts  its effects of realism arguing  that it is a real form of thinking . Realism is something we experience and are able to communicate it with out false claims. The position on realism is the human conception . In Adam Bede she displays the realism through a literary genre in which she developed.  The realism intersects with the representation of social class because it is nature and it is what humans go through on a daily basis. She believed that through writing, the fictional stories should be told through real life experiences and not be romanticise for our own pleasure, it’s simply not always glitz and glamour. Realism is a moral choice and it is ethical to represent the truths of society.

In chapter 17 of Adam Bede, she stresses the importance appreciating life at its finest but we should appreciate the pains of life. Art is the nearest form of life and through art , we learn to accept who we are. The Victorian era was a very difficult and strict period for women. The didn’t have the right to vote or own anything. The roles of men and women became sharply defined . Going back to the ideology of the roles of men and women of that time,  women were considered weak and men strong. These were faced because when it came literature, they had to realize they were women first and artists second. These were the sciences of human nature and according to Elaine Freegood, we should look beyond symbolism. Because the Victorian literature avoided deeper meanings, she tried to bridge the gap between the importance of meanings and realism.

After reading both of the critiques on Victorian realism, along with Adam Bede, by George Eliot, one of the things that stood out to me the most was how much the ideas about realism went against and fought the ideas of what being fictional is. For instance if we were to take the exact definitions of what each one is, realism would be the writing of realistic stories, such as non fiction. But when comparing it to the ideas of what a fictional story is, it would be more about the writings of what isn’t true, and fake such as Frankenstein.

When it comes to the ways that they each viewed realism and fictional ism , each one of the authors took a different stance. Eliot took the stance of fiction is in a way parallel to real life. It could mirror what people are living and how they are feeling as they want to create a realistic story. For example when Eliot was writing her novel, she shows that she wanted to make the characters in it as close to the real thing as possible. This is so we, as the audience, are able to relate to the characters more and feel what they do.

However when it comes to the way that Elaine viewed the ideas, she took a different stance on it. She pointed out the the people who wanted to write novels with the ideas of realism, had their own responsibilities as authors. As the time period where many people were arguing over romanticism versus realism, the ones who wrote about realism were subject to listen to and respect the opinions of those who wrote these styles of novels. Yet because of this, there is a limit in the way that one can write.

In her novel Adam Bede George Eliot establishes realism as a genre by using various aspects throughout the narrative.  I believe it is a fair assertion to believe that realism arose in literature because of a need to represent the middle class that people like Eliot belonged in.  There was a need to not just be romantic, but to illustrate all the nuances and details of ordinary life.  In a way, Eliot treats this kind of lifestyle as being noble, because it is a reflection of the wealth and success of the middle class.  However, realism does have its limits in both aesthetic and social terms; it is an attempt to illustrate the world as it exists to these authors, but it does not necessarily mean that the books are still “realistic.”  As stated by G.H. Lewes, a heroine must be “evangelical and consumptive…but she must be individually a dressmaker,” portrayed with enough recognizable traits (evangelical for example) but still “realistic” enough to fit the standards of the genre (Freedgood 325).  Furthermore, realism expects to capture life as it is, which can prove to be too challenging a task, “Realism is responsible for representing social and individual experience as it really occurs in the world outside of the novel” (326).

Here is where I think some of the limits of realism can come into effect; the characters are inherently fictional.  How could something fictional ever be as real as what realism attempts to be?  For another matter, why must characters even contain these generalized traits that Lewes mentions?  Doesn’t this take away from the originality of the character?

George Eliot’s writing is perhaps the foundation for realism as she carries on in critiquing art and literature within her novel; Eliot’s narrator also has an opinion of his/her own regarding events that happen in the story.  This is an example of the ways in which realism has aesthetic limitations.  In reality there is no narrator that expresses his/her opinions as events go on.  Likewise, Eliot’s characters all reflect people of different classes, but it does not reflect people of color, nor can it be truly effective in giving an objective viewpoint of the world.  As a middle class woman, Eliot has limitations by the lens she sees the world through.  Therefore, realism is impacted by the experiences of an author and cannot objectively provide a view for the world that is all inclusive.

Ultimately however, Eliot acknowledges this limitation, “The mirror is doubtless defective; the outline will sometimes be disturbed, the reflection faint or confused” (326).  What is important about realism are not just its limitations, but how truthful this reality is for the one writing it. Eliot attempts to show the reality that she knows and experiences in her writing because it is the only one that she knows.  Therefore the paradox of realism as a genre can be understood and resolved (at least somewhat). So long as the author’s representation of reality adheres by this example that Eliot sets, then it can pass for a realist novel.

People always compare realism with romanticism, argue that realism is what really happened and romanticism is about somehow fantasy. However, is it really true? I think this argue only rough limited both realism and romanticism. Things may work in different ways. I believe that realism is what we can tell from what we see.  Realism has been sharped so much by realism novelist. They tied to sharp the story that through it more reality would be reflected.  Then realism was limited by itself.

Elaine Freedgood had mentioned in her article Nineteenth-century British critics of realism realism novel were strong relied on characters. There must be some characters that are stand out so that the story can go on. But in realistic, there were not many resources for those realism novelists to write. At the same time, realism novelists were keeping sharping their story. Being loyal to realistic had been the biggest barrier for the novelist.  George Eliot had complained about the appalling lacking of empirical veracity purveyed.

Then Eliot opened up a paradox about fiction. Fiction may or may not reflect the reality. In another word, in fiction, there isn’t gap between aesthetic and realistic. But Eliot refused to accept the “arbitrary picture” that represent things as they never have been and never will be. George Eliot saw his work as Dutch painting that he delighted very much. Painting should be a mirror-like work present every sight that people can capture. He knew that the truth might be ugly and tough. But people shall do nothing but accept.

On the other hand, Eliot refused to be a “folly woman novelist”. He wanted the unexpected to do something unexceptional.

After reading both of these literary critiques, I get a sense that the role of realism was very controversial in 19th century Britain. More specifically, it sounds like many critics judged novels based on their impact on readers and society as a whole. Elaine Freedgood included a quote from the novelist and critic Vernon Lee’s ‘Dialogue on Novels’ that expressed my own discomfort with the standards that were applied to realism: “[I]t is extraordinary how aesthetical questions invariably end in ethical ones when treated by English people.” Realist novels are limited in their ability to create real, quantifiable social change, and ethical standards are therefore somewhat inappropriate. Although many critics insisted on burdening these works of art with some sort of social responsibility, novels are better judged through aesthetic evaluation. Freedgood also points out that, in the absence of the social sciences, realist novels were partly viewed as sociological investigations. Considering that people expected a certain level of honesty from realist authors, it is easier to understand why these writers were often held responsible for ethical questions surrounding their portrayal of social conditions. It is important to note that both readers and writers were well aware of how subjective accounts can distort reality, and were likely to take any information presented in novels with a grain of salt.

George Elliot’s excerpt was also quite insightful. It was interesting to hear a celebrated author speak on this subject with such convincing rhetoric. Someone wrote to Elliot concerning one of his characters not exhibiting proper behavior, and the author’s response was very profound and compelling. Elliot argued that he was obliged to present the world as he perceived it, and to provide an honest testimony of what life was like from his point of view. According to Elliot, much nuance is lost when characters are flattened into ideal archetypes, and it is his job as an artist to portray real people with flaws: “great men are overestimated and small men are insupportable; that if you love a woman without ever looking back on your love as folly, she must die while you are courting her; and if you maintain the slightest belief in human heroism, you must never make a pilgrimage to see the hero.” Elliot argues that the reality of human nature is often unpleasant, but without realistic representation, his contemporaries may never be exposed to a sincere reflection of what makes people human.

After reading the article, Nineteenth-century British critics of Realism by Elaine Freedgood, and a chapter of the novel, Adam Bede by the George Eliot, the difference between Realism and Fictionalism are expressed when it comes to each author’s personal preference in their own writing. For instance, in the article, Elaine Freedgood explains that “realism is responsible for representing social and individual experience as it really occurs in the world outside the novel.” (Freedgood, 326) Therefore, she claims that this is her preference when it comes to her own writing. To summarize what she believes in, ultimately that extending the truth or writing fictional things just feeds the reader false information which defeats the purpose of her writing. When I first encountered this I found it incorrect because there is always a purpose for writing because even in a made up story you can still spread a subliminal message to your audience, but at the same time agreed with the fact that reading fictional stories kind of does defeat the purpose of writing because you’re just writing lies in a way. In the modern era, I have noticed that most of our society is interested in knowing the truth and not really interested in made up stories or in this case fictional stories. For example, when you take a look at novels and even movies that are airing, the ones that are revolved around being based on a true story have been proven to have more hits. Why is that? I think that society has realized that in order to I guess get further in life you must learn from the stories of others. This is shown when she states “I feel as much bound to tell you as precisely as I can what that reflection is, as if I were in the witness-box narrating my experience on oath.” (Freedgood, 326) Stating that she is narrating her experiences just reflects a quote that says “you learn from your mistakes,” which in this case her audience learns throughout her mistakes and other words don’t commit the same ones in their life.

George Eliot on the other isn’t really a fan of realism, he prefers using fictionalism in his own writing. He even states that “Falsehood is so easy, truth so difficult.” (Eliot, 2) In my opinion, he’s also right because when you focus your writing around fictionalism you can manipulate the story and basically drag it on to make it turn out however you want it to be, just for it to be a good story. Which in cases like if you were to base your writing around realism you can’t really do that because you would have to end the story explaining the truth. Let’s face it expressing everything that is real, isn’t always the best option being that real stories don’t have happy endings all the time. For example, when it comes to stories in general, most readers nowadays are big fans of a happy ending. Although this can be a possibility in real life, in some cases it isn’t and an audience encountering an ending like that for instance can end up being upset with the way the story ended.