Poor Poor Lady of Shalott

So most people that know me well enough know that I have a very immature mind, I would love to blame it on my two sons; however, my mind was that way since I do not remember when.  From the very beginning of Lady of Shalott it mentions Camelot.  I instantly think, “Cool, there has got to be some sword fighting or something because it has to deal with chivalry and the Arthurian legends.”  But oh yeah, I need to refocus because I am reading for a class.  Okay, the young lady is in a tower surrounded by beautiful, natural scenery in an area of agricultural workers.  Then I find out that she is not allowed to look upon anything but a mirror and her weaving.  She has been told that there is a curse that will fall upon her if she looks upon anything else with her naked eye. 

So literally I try to think to myself maybe that is her curse, a curse to never look upon anything for its brilliance.  She will never see the true blue of the sky, the deepest red of a rose or the deep greens of Kentucky Blue grass.  She only gets to see the faded colors through a mirror, an image that will never show the true brilliance because of the constant glare.  She will probably never get to enjoy the smells either; if is not to look upon anything with her own eyes that means that she will never get the chance to lie on her back in the grass and next to the roses as she looks up to the sky.  She is cursed to stay in the tower for the rest of her days watching everyone else live their lives without her in it. 

So at that point I go back to being immature, I notice a similarity to the movie Tangled.  It is only through her evil, fake mother that she is told the world is a cruel place.  That she is never to step foot outside of her tower; it is only through her mother that says she is to look at the world from her window and never to experience the “dangers” of the world.   So within the mixture of logic and imaginative explanations we have the actual person that tells Lady of Shallot about the curse. 

Then after coming back from the silly detour I want to bring in Sir Lancelot.  It seems as though Lady of Shallot can tolerate her life without much, if any, human interaction.  However, when someone as “fiery” as Lancelot trots by with his horse things change.  Lady of Shalott seems to instantaneously be discontented with her life so much as to look at the young knight.  She figures that the curse will either be broken or turn out to be non-existent.  However, after the gleam of Lancelot’s horse, armor, and hair have gone away Lady of Shalott realizes the curse is upon her.  She no longer sees the brightness of any colors and everything seems to wither away to look like a dim, shadowy silhouette of their original form. 

I look at this as her virginity.  Most young girls set intercourse onto a pedestal of expectations.  They want to stay pure and a virgin, but constantly fantasize of how they will lose it and how perfect the entire experience will be.  They build up their own anticipation for this glorious moment and when it arrives they are sadly disappointed.  There is no instantaneous, deep connection and just left with a feeling of sadness because they could have either saved that moment for someone else or it was not what they made it up to be.  So many of the hopeful feelings are gone and all of the energy they spent thinking of that moment was all-in-all wasted. 

So I look at Lady of Shalott as horribly disappointed that the moment was not able to last forever and the connection was not established since Sir Lancelot was unable to return her love.  She was left feeling empty and regretful that she was not able to share the moment with her love.  Since that feeling of love or lust was so fleeting it left her unfulfilled and wanting more; however, she was unable to make to wonderful Camelot before she pours out all of her emotions.  So it leaves her dead as she floats down the river. 

Many others say that the moral of the story is keeping the women in the household and out of the streets, but I think that it would be closer to say it is about how women should be content with their lives and not so hopeful for something more than what they have been given in life. 

Collins: The Trickster

I will just say that this book has been interesting to read because it is a different set up from the usual American mystery novels.  There are so many pieces to the puzzle of a mystery and I have always had a hard time figuring out who was the perpetrator and who had just been wrongly accused because of being at the wrong place at the right time.  However, within this mystery it seemed to me so close to factual that I had a difficult time reminding myself that it is supposed to be fiction.  So it is my focus, not on a single or group of characters, but a focus on the author.  Collins seemed to know exactly what he was doing when he puts certain things in and keeping certain things out so that the reader must make their own interpretation.  He establishes the reader as both judge and detective.   The way he made it difficult for me was when he includes so many artifacts that are normally used to show facts like a compilation of letters, reports, newspaper clippings, notes, wills, several journal entries and even a receipt.  Franklin Blake organizes and submits as much evidence to his family as he can, while Collins, is thus submitting it to us as the reader/detective.  It seems as though that Collins is testing our own judgment and morals.  The reader is asked to evaluate not just a theft from an estate in England, but its earlier theft from a sacred Hindu shrine.  As the John Herncastle is the presumed thief in the legally sanctioned robbery of India by the British government.  But of course, I would hope others feel that the theft to the nation is a bigger injustice than the theft to the family because what is truly on trial in this novel is personal and national responsibility of those nations that choose to invade other nations.  The same is true about our country today as we may invade other areas that they must keep responsibility for all personal actions. 

The most difficult part for me was the beginning of the story because it seemed to only come from a small piece of a family document describing the events that took place in India.  It seems to open as the prologue and then as Franklin Blake wants to tell the story, but he decides to have Gabriel Betteredge write it out for him.  So the words are Blake’s, which I think you can hear, but as the events unfold it still feels like they are all from a distance.  Not only with Blake’s, but the rest of the novel it is interesting how the entire mystery intertwines personal interactions with political, then the private with the public, then the past with the present and finally gives the fiction a feeling of fact.  The problem really seemed to arise for me when the novel skipped around with narrators as it seemed to wrench the authority away from the typical first-person narrator.  This collection of contrasting voices serves Collins as both his evidence and possible archive to throw off the reader.    

Some of the other things that threw me off as the reader/detective were the thought of the curse.  I am not one to say that I would let an idea of a curse rule my life, but I will say that I am superstitious and feel that other powers in the world do exist.  So as a reader/detective I had a difficult time setting my superstitions to the side and think of the situation rationally.  The idea that had escaped me until I headed toward the end of the novel is just as I mentioned in the beginning that it was probably not a curse on the family, but on the nation.  In my mind the empire, not the moonstone, was the curse and the real problem.  The novel focuses on the spoils that the empire receives while the nation is overreaching its own authority over other nations.  I guess I could see the family history representing a nation’s history as each one tries to cover up any type of thieving or murderous act in the pursuit to preserve or protect itself.

So as the reader/detective that Collins had made me into, I had difficult time remembering that it was just a story.  Even though if we all were to look at it as I have in the previous paragraphs the story has many applications for many nations of today including our own

William Wordsworth                       Lines written a Few Miles above Tintern Abbey

 The second stanza from Lines 23-58 explains most of his feelings.  I want to look at how he reminisces of the place.  He knows that even though his absence has been for over five years, his feelings for the place have not changed.  It almost seems like a love between people because even though the other person is not present in their daily lives and do not get to see them very often they have a special moment in their mind and memories that they still hold dear to their heart.  Wordsworth explains the lovely feeling that you may not be able to see or tangibly touch, but you can definitely feel it within.  The landscape for a blind man is invisible, but all of the sounds, smells and feelings that a blind man can derive from the environment are just as strong as the beautiful sights. 

These feelings that he has cannot be felt within the hustle and bustle of the city, but by the quietness of nature.  I still think that the towns and cities do hold an important part in Wordsworth’s life; however, it is in nature where he can truly re-find himself.  He writes, “Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart, And passing even into my purer mind With tranquil restoration,” so saying that he feels it deep down that he can be reborn, restored and renewed as a person and possibly a partner of life.  Many times, individuals have a hard time remembering who they are as a person because they have been something else for many others; whether it is a husband, a father, a boss, a coworker or whatever else position in life they have played.  So when they can finally have some alone time and appreciate themselves for what they see themselves as then they can play their other roles much better.  Losing sight of oneself can be detrimental for anyone when they forget their own goals, dreams and inspirations. 

It seems that Wordsworth has either forgotten his goals, dreams, or inspirations and the time that he is in nature he regains his focus.  Wordsworth is sharing with the reader his own experiences with nature as a young man to display a bit of humility and at the time his immaturity.  As an older adult he can look back and see that he never seemed to appreciate the time in the tranquility; as a young adult he did not appreciate “pleasures” or “influences” in his life until it seemed to be too late.  All of what he had seen, heard, and felt at a younger age had shaped him into the person he is now, but it is only now that he can see the impact in his life. 

Wordsworth now knows to appreciate the time that he has in nature and can look upon his life and the life of others to say how blessed we all are.  He knows that through the many days that everyone lives there will be dark and “joyless” times within the “fever of the world”, but it is the love for nature that not only his spirit should go back to, but others as well. 

Overall, Wordsworth seems to be saying in this stanza that there is such a great power in nature in the awe inspiring sights, sounds, smells, and feeling that one may receive greater inspiration through this life and eternal life afterward because of the proof of God’s power to create and restore. 

Extra Credit: British Literature

A Party Of Lovers             By John Keats

 Pensive they sit, and roll their languid eyes,

Nibble their toast, and cool their tea with sighs,

Or else forget the purpose of the night,

Forget their tea -- forget their appetite.

See with cross'd arms they sit -- ah! happy crew,

The fire is going out and no one rings

For coals, and therefore no coals Betty brings.

A fly is in the milk-pot -- must he die

By a humane society?

No, no; there Mr. Werter takes his spoon,

Inserts it, dips the handle, and lo! soon

The little straggler, sav'd from perils dark,

Across the teaboard draws a long wet mark.

Arise! take snuffers by the handle,

There's a large cauliflower in each candle.

A winding-sheet, ah me! I must away

To No. 7, just beyond the circus gay.

'Alas, my friend! your coat sits very well;

Where may your tailor live?' 'I may not tell.

O pardon me -- I'm absent now and then.

Where might my tailor live? I say again

I cannot tell, let me no more be teaz'd --

He lives in Wapping, might live where he pleas'd.'

 

This poem, A Party of Lovers, by John Keats seems to be an iambic pentameter.  The rhyme scheme seems to be AABB CDDA.  The plot of the story seems to be two people sitting by the fire having some tea.  They seem to be so bored that the most excitement is a fly in the milk.  The two have been sitting there for so long that the fire is going out and the candles are burning down.  The two try to think of something to talk about and the closest thing is how one’s coat looks and so who their tailor may be. 

Within the first part it sets the tone of the night.  Their languid eyes suggest that they have been there for a long while.  Within British culture it is normal to have tea and a snack of some type, but only at certain parts of the day.  So these two are performing the proper social expectations to have tea and toast before bedtime along with what is supposed to be a fruitful conversation.  It seems that one of the individuals feel it is necessary to wait for an engaging conversation before they are allowed to go to bed when it states, “or else forget the purpose of the night.” My guess is that it is a married British couple where the wife refuses to go to bed until they have their full length conversation.  Both of them are trying to think of something to talk about, but nothing is coming to them as they sit with their arms crossed at the table.  Expectedly, it would be the man’s body language to be “closed off” in the conversation when he folds his arms across his chest. 

I think that Keats is being sarcastic when he writes, “Ah! Happy crew,” as they seem to not enjoy or appreciate either’s company.  If the couple were having a riveting conversation between one another and desired to continue throughout the rest of the night they would not allow the fire to go out.  The fire that Keats mentions could also be the fire between the man and woman.  While being together for so long and doing the same habitual thing every day the spark between them has evidently gone out.  If the couple did not want the fire between them or the actual fire in the fireplace to go out then they would figure out a way to keep it going.  The fire between them could be relit with some interesting activities that they both enjoy doing.  Otherwise, if the two wanted to keep the actual fire lit so they could continue their conversation on to the morning they would have “Betty” bring more coals to stoke the fire. 

The fire, whether figurative or actual, is going out because there is not much of a party between them.  The most excitement of the night is when a fly lands in the milk-pot.  The tension within the room must be so thick that even a simple fly can feel it and would rather suffer the long, slow death of drowning in the milk-pot rather than flying within the suffocating air of the “humane society”.  Finally after spending so many hours looking for something to talk about, with no prevail, it seems that the two will be calling it a night.  Throughout the evening all the candles have been melted down to a cauliflower sized growth and as they snuff the flames out the person with Mr. Werter takes an interest in his coat.  What may seem to be an innocent conversation may turn out to be more than what Mr. Werter had planned. 

Overall, the poem seems to describe the daily life of two people in love.  Even though the evening may seem trivial to most, it is a great example of what true life is all about and it is enjoying the little things while always looking for something new in a relationship.   

Summary: The Serious Pleasures of Suspense

The summary for the introduction from The Serious Pleasures of Suspense is very detailed.  Within, “ Victorian fictions, the secret, when it finally emerges, turns out to be entirely different from what we have been invited or expected to imagine.  Readers and characters may put forward a range of guesses and conjectures, but narrative mysteries remind us that even the plentiful range of our guesses may be narrow when compared with the hidden truth.  And so, as we read suspenseful plots, we learn to doubt and guess, to speculate and hypothesize, to pause in the knowledge that we do not know”.

The author transitions between subjects of the scientific to the dramatic then to politics.  It first starts out with what some of the top critics say about suspense.  Some of them say it is barbaric, boorish and low.  Others say that it is the exact opposite: too civilized.  The two critics agree to disagree and settle on the idea that it is “organized set of stoppages”.  The first critics that say it is too barbaric are E.M. Forster and Roland Barthes.  They say that, “suspense emerges as a literary instrument of social control.  The other critics like John Ruskin, Michael Faraday, Charlotte Bronte, and Wilkie Collins would say the contrary, “the experience of suspense was not a means of social regulation, but a rigorous political and epistemological training, a way to foster energetic skepticism and uncertainty rather than closure and complacency. 

Suspense not only has a place within literature, but also within science.  Most nineteenth century scientists felt that the doubtful pause that someone gets was necessary in the pursuit of knowledge; otherwise, we would assume that our thoughts are correct and never think of the possibility of surprises or unexpected truths.  Also most scientists and philosophers would agree that to do a true experiment one should not use their imagination, but only rely on the facts that the world brings to the table.  However, others would say that it is imagination that creates the possible experiments.  For if someone cannot think of new situations to experiment with then the raw data is not true within every realm.  The only main thing that they all agree on is that the imagination should be kept within check.  It would be the imagination that would try and correlate the data within the same realm as what the hypothesis had envisioned.   

Within the realm of Victorian Realism the idea is to mimic real life.  In order to mimic life “John Ruskin urged the scientific experiment as the most effective approach to cultural images, inviting his readers to test the representations around them against the reality of their own experience”.  The only drawback to this experiment was that the images that were placed in front of the reader were not real enough compared to the images that the reader had experienced firsthand.   

Suspense seems to be only a narrative problem.  Many Realist authors are trying to allow the reader to gather their own assumptions that align with their own ethics, morals, and values.  Along with that they are also trying to change the reader’s boundary of comfort zone and make a new judgment upon witnessing the world within someone else’s culture.  Within those new experiences the author engages the reader to allow themselves to review their ethics, morals, and values.  Within the nineteenth century suspense was, “an essential critical instrument” within the intellectual culture.      

A Dirty Town

What it seemed to me what the overall point that Dickens was trying to make was the shortcomings of the society of the time.  He was trying to point out inefficiencies of agencies, greed, and self-delusion.  Instead of one organized crime there were child farms, abused burial practices, no restriction on slums, and other documentary elements of a horrible society.  He was unable to ignore such things and decided to expose those many scandals through a carefully organized plot.  Just some of the examples would be the procrastination of Chancery which is similar to the disorder of Krook’s emporium, the dirt and mismanagement of the Jellyby household, the cobwebs of Tulkinghorn’s bottle of port, the filth of Tom-all-Alone’s, and the grit and grime of the “iron country” up north, and so on.  Then to contrast those examples in the story there is the cleanliness of Bagnets, the dependability of Trooper George, and the efficiency of Inspector Bucket.  I feel that Dickens was establishing Sir Leicester as both character and significant symbol with cross-reference with the Chancery and Tom-all-Alone.  It seems that Dickens is comparing Sir Leicester to Chesney Wold.  Chesney Wold (like Sir Leicester) is wet, dark, and damp compared to a place with ample sunlight (like Esther or Mrs. Bagnet).

I understand that London may actually be pretty dark, rainy, and smoggy throughout most of the densely populated area, but Dickens makes it sound more so of a place of death.  Through this physical landscape that he is willing to show the reader he assists in showing the horrible living conditions of the true London citizens.  I am sure there are other areas that are nice and efficient; however, Dickens wants to show the reader how bad the conditions are in London during that time.  That political atmosphere may not be as obvious in the current U.S., but there are still many authors that seem to want to follow Dickens’ lead on expression.  The bureaucracies do not run very quickly because they are not there to please the customer; however, they do keep their standards to a professional level in today’s government.     

PTSD: Esther's Best Illness

In most of my life’s experiences and education of human growth there is one slogan that has to be stopped right now and that is “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”  No matter how some people feel about it and want to support this slogan it is not true.  Words do hurt.  With Esther’s case it is not only the words, but also how the words are said and the actions that follow.  To this very day one of the biggest mental illnesses known to our species is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Esther may not actually be chronically ill with PTSD or her thoughts are not as deeply affected by her past, but it still does have an impact on her actions and plays a role in her life. 

While living with her Godmother (aunt) she is shown no emotion from her or the servant.  The emotional trauma that she experiences when she has her birthday always brings shame, embarrassment, and the feeling of being guilty.  Instead of someone of celebrating the day that you were brought into this world her aunt says that it was a mistake would be troublesome for anyone to handle.  Because of all this early conditioned learning, Esther has a mental illness.  Esther seems to be one of the few that use this illness to her own advantage to appreciate the relationships that she does build later in life. 

Within the story, her “illness” allows her to be a more trustworthy narrator.  The reader is can better understand her point of view when she is not worried about the Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce case.  Her motivation is not driven by prestige, power, or wealth.  The only wealth that she is looking for is a sense of belonging within society or her group of friends. 

Within her life her decisions she is able to appreciate a great opportunity for love when it presents itself.  After Esther accepts Mr. Jarndyce’s proposal for marriage she feels the need to get rid of the bouquet of flowers that Allan Woodcourt had given to her.  She was trying to give her whole self to Mr. Jarndyce and getting rid of the bouquet that, “preserved in memory something that was wholly past and gone.”  Even later with Mr. Woodcourt’s renewed love proposal is shot down because she thought she should out of respect for Mr. Jarndyce.  It was only after Mr. Jarndyce gives Esther to Mr. Woodcourt that she is able to outwardly recognize her true feelings.