The document I chose to write about for this reflection was written by Edgar Allan Poe himself. It gives his thought process when he wrote one of his most famous poems "The Raven". The document is called "The Composition of 'The Raven'". I found this document very interesting to read. I had no idea that Poe ever criticized his own work or wrote other things about them. I thought it was really cool to get that peek into the mind of the poet.
In this article, Poe writes about how he wrote "The Raven". I admit that I was pretty curious as to how he got the idea. It's nice to know, but now I'm kind of wishing I didn't. It takes some of the magic away to read that one of your favorite authors wrote one of your favorite poems because he wanted a bird to repeat a word and have it create a melancholy atmosphere. That aside, I realized it was actually a pretty sensible way to go about writing anything, not just a poem.
Poe also explains that he had the climax of the poem in his mind and worked his way from there: ". . .in the progress of the construction—I first established in mind the climax, or concluding query—that to which "Nevermore" should be in the last place an answer. . ." (Poe). This method made me respect Poe's ability as a writer even more because I find it very hard to do that and am impressed that Poe manages to accomplish such a task in such an eloquent fashion.
I always find it interesting to read what authors write about themselves. A lot of times, you find that they can be boastful and their words contain a thinly disguised pride in their work, regardless of whether it deserves it. This is not the case with Poe, at least, not in this article. He sticks to the facts and goes about explaining his point in an ordered way. He sets out to explain something and then explains it. It reads pretty similarly to a Rationalism work in its structure and intent.
This composition does not give an explanation for why Poe wrote it. It made me wonder why exactly he wrote it. If I were Poe, I don't think I would want to explain my thoughts on my works. I would want to stay wrapped in that shroud of mystery that the Dark Romantic authors seemed to favor. But since I am obviously not Poe, I really have no say in the matter.
Poe also seems to be a perfectionist. Anyone who reads this article can tell that he put a lot of thought into "The Raven" and that he always tried to make things as close to perfection as he could. This also made me respect him more as writer because it truly shows his dedication to the profession of writing.
As a whole, this article was really interesting to me, and I really appreciated the insight into one of my favorite poems.
Poe, Edgar Allan. "The Philosophy of Composition" (1846) in Edgar Allan Poe: Poetry, Tales, & Selected Essays (New York: Library of America, 1996): pp. 1378–80. Quoted as "The Composition of 'The Raven'" in Harold Bloom, ed. Edgar Allan Poe, Bloom's Major Poets. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 1999. (Updated 2007.) Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= BMPEAP20&SingleRecord=True (accessed November 29, 2010).
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
"The Raven" Analysis
Literal Meaning:
The narrator is reading books very late at night in his study when he hears knocking on the door to his room.
He comes to the conclusion that it is a visitor knocking at his door.
He remembers that this happened in December because there was a fire in the grate.
He desperately wanted to forget about his lost love (Lenore) by reading.
The haunting atmosphere starts to creep him out, so he tries to convince himself that it is only a visitor that is at his door and not something more sinister.
He gathers his courage and calls out an apology to the person at the door, but when he opens the door, no one is there.
He stares at the darkness for a while and calls out to "Lenore" (he probably thinks it was here ghost at the door) but the only answer he gets is the echo of his own voice.
He goes back into the room, rather unsettled, and hears the tapping again.
It's at the window this time and he resolves to go see what it is, convinced it is the wind.
He opens the window and a raven steps in then goes to perch on a bust of Pallas above the door.
The bird looks so solemn and serious that the narrator can't help but smile.
The narrator asks the bird what it is called and it replies with "Nevermore"
He is impressed that the bird seemed to understand his question and muses on the fact that not many people get to have a bird above their door.
The bird only speaks the one word.
The raven says nothing else, prompting the narrator to become sad at the thought that the bird will leave him like everyone else has.
The raven, again, responds with nevermore.
The narrator is startled by the bird's abruptness, but thinks it is only repeating what some previous master must have said often.
He pulls up a chair and begins to ponder the bird's meaning.
He keeps thinking and the raven keeps staring at him.
Then the narrator senses a change in the atmosphere.
He yells at the bird to help him forget Lenore, and it replies with the usual.
He asks if there will be any respite from his feelings. And the bird answers.
He asks it if he will get to see Lenore when he dies, and the bird speaks its word.
Then he gets up and yells at the bird to leave him alone in his sorrows.
The raven stays watching the narrator as he sinks deeper into the madness brought on by the sight of the raven.
Poetic Devices:
Repetition shows up a lot with all the Nevermores going on. It makes the poem easier to remember.
Similes and metaphors are used quite often, as when the narrator likens the raven to a devil or nobleman.
Imagery is used to describe the scene to the reader.
In addition to the standard device of rhyme scheme, Poe also uses internal rhyme within the poem such as in these lines: "While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping, As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door."
I also saw the raven as a symbol for the grief and loneliness that lived in the narrator's heart.
Figurative Meaning:
Personally, I think this poem is awesome. It's been one of my favorites for a while now. To me, its meaning isn't really important. I read poetry because of how it makes me feel, and this poem leaves me with a haunting, creepy kind of feeling that I find awesome. To others, however, I think it could be interpreted as a story of grief that manifested itself and drove the narrator into madness. It's a pretty straightforward poem.
Poe, Edgar Allen. "The Raven." PoemHunter.Com - Thousands of Poems and Poets.. Poetry Search Engine. Web. 21 Nov. 2010.
The narrator is reading books very late at night in his study when he hears knocking on the door to his room.
He comes to the conclusion that it is a visitor knocking at his door.
He remembers that this happened in December because there was a fire in the grate.
He desperately wanted to forget about his lost love (Lenore) by reading.
The haunting atmosphere starts to creep him out, so he tries to convince himself that it is only a visitor that is at his door and not something more sinister.
He gathers his courage and calls out an apology to the person at the door, but when he opens the door, no one is there.
He stares at the darkness for a while and calls out to "Lenore" (he probably thinks it was here ghost at the door) but the only answer he gets is the echo of his own voice.
He goes back into the room, rather unsettled, and hears the tapping again.
It's at the window this time and he resolves to go see what it is, convinced it is the wind.
He opens the window and a raven steps in then goes to perch on a bust of Pallas above the door.
The bird looks so solemn and serious that the narrator can't help but smile.
The narrator asks the bird what it is called and it replies with "Nevermore"
He is impressed that the bird seemed to understand his question and muses on the fact that not many people get to have a bird above their door.
The bird only speaks the one word.
The raven says nothing else, prompting the narrator to become sad at the thought that the bird will leave him like everyone else has.
The raven, again, responds with nevermore.
The narrator is startled by the bird's abruptness, but thinks it is only repeating what some previous master must have said often.
He pulls up a chair and begins to ponder the bird's meaning.
He keeps thinking and the raven keeps staring at him.
Then the narrator senses a change in the atmosphere.
He yells at the bird to help him forget Lenore, and it replies with the usual.
He asks if there will be any respite from his feelings. And the bird answers.
He asks it if he will get to see Lenore when he dies, and the bird speaks its word.
Then he gets up and yells at the bird to leave him alone in his sorrows.
The raven stays watching the narrator as he sinks deeper into the madness brought on by the sight of the raven.
Poetic Devices:
Repetition shows up a lot with all the Nevermores going on. It makes the poem easier to remember.
Similes and metaphors are used quite often, as when the narrator likens the raven to a devil or nobleman.
Imagery is used to describe the scene to the reader.
In addition to the standard device of rhyme scheme, Poe also uses internal rhyme within the poem such as in these lines: "While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping, As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door."
I also saw the raven as a symbol for the grief and loneliness that lived in the narrator's heart.
Figurative Meaning:
Personally, I think this poem is awesome. It's been one of my favorites for a while now. To me, its meaning isn't really important. I read poetry because of how it makes me feel, and this poem leaves me with a haunting, creepy kind of feeling that I find awesome. To others, however, I think it could be interpreted as a story of grief that manifested itself and drove the narrator into madness. It's a pretty straightforward poem.
Poe, Edgar Allen. "The Raven." PoemHunter.Com - Thousands of Poems and Poets.. Poetry Search Engine. Web. 21 Nov. 2010.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Journal #24: Mind Tricks
I don't really have many instances where my mind plays tricks on me and creeps me out. That just doesn't happen very often. Really the only time that I get freaked out over nothing is right after I watch a scary movie with my friends. If I have to drive home alone, then it's even worse.
The only time I can really remember something specific that was my mind playing tricks on me was at my birthday party one year. I think I was turning eight, or somewhere in that area, I can't really remember. Anyway, I was having a sleepover, and one of my friends there somehow managed to convince the rest of us that there was a stalker outside. Her paranoia made us paranoid and was helped along by a number of coincidences such as my brother coming home really late and entering the house in a really sneaky way. Since I live in the middle of a forest, there are always many strange noises outside at night. Naturally, we heard them, and they only served to freak us out more. It probably helped that we were eight and half of the girls had never been to my house before. Then there was the creepy shadow at one of my windows. You'd think that we would notice that it wasn't moving, but none of us wanted to get close enough to actually look outside the window and confirm that it was only a tree. I checked in the morning after everyone left, and it actually was only a human-shaped tree. The funniest part was that one of my friends had already fallen asleep, so when we all freaked out and locked ourselves in my room, we just left her down at the other end of the house.
We were all really freaked out at the time, but now we just look back and laugh at how stupid we were.
Recently, there have been no instances where my mind has played tricks on me. I like to think I'm smarter than that.
The only time I can really remember something specific that was my mind playing tricks on me was at my birthday party one year. I think I was turning eight, or somewhere in that area, I can't really remember. Anyway, I was having a sleepover, and one of my friends there somehow managed to convince the rest of us that there was a stalker outside. Her paranoia made us paranoid and was helped along by a number of coincidences such as my brother coming home really late and entering the house in a really sneaky way. Since I live in the middle of a forest, there are always many strange noises outside at night. Naturally, we heard them, and they only served to freak us out more. It probably helped that we were eight and half of the girls had never been to my house before. Then there was the creepy shadow at one of my windows. You'd think that we would notice that it wasn't moving, but none of us wanted to get close enough to actually look outside the window and confirm that it was only a tree. I checked in the morning after everyone left, and it actually was only a human-shaped tree. The funniest part was that one of my friends had already fallen asleep, so when we all freaked out and locked ourselves in my room, we just left her down at the other end of the house.
We were all really freaked out at the time, but now we just look back and laugh at how stupid we were.
Recently, there have been no instances where my mind has played tricks on me. I like to think I'm smarter than that.
Reflection: Walden
The literary criticism I decided to read is titled "Thoreau's Walden and the American Dream: Challenge or Myth?". In this, the author presents the American Dream as one of two things: material gain and success or a dream of new beginnings. I admit that I like the idea of the second one better, but I am realistic enough to know that it is most often the first option that is the goal in today's commercial world. It's sad, but it certainly doesn't make me want to spend time in the woods in an almost pointless venture such as Thoreau did. Even the author of this article, Michaela Keck, admits that many have viewed Thoreau's endeavors as rather pointless, objectionable, and even hypocritical at times. On the one hand, I agree with the people who say that, but, on the other, I also disagree with them. I think what Thoreau did doesn't really count because he wasn't really that far from society, and he still went to his family's house to eat dinner with his sister on a regular basis. He didn't do exactly what he said he was, which discredits him in a lot of people's eyes. The thing that redeems him in my eyes is the fact that at least he tried to do something about what he felt. A lot of people only complain about the world and spout all these "philosophical thoughts" but do nothing about them. They just continue their annoying little lives and secretly hate their situation. Unlike those phonies, Thoreau actually does step back to closely analyze how he can change his situation.
This article brings up the point that Thoreau "shuns business as best he can and strives for 'voluntary poverty'"(Keck). I think this is kind of counter productive to Thoreau's grand scheme. Not to drag religion into a school work, but the Bible says we should work to be successful so that we can share what we have with those less fortunate. It seems to me that since Thoreau was so disgusted with the way the world was he should have been actively working to change it. As an influential man with influential friends, I believe he could have gotten many things accomplished.
This article really didn't take much of a stand on either side of the fence, instead preferring to sit in the middle of the question it poses in its title. Normally, this would annoy me to no end, but as I am unable to completely chose a side myself, I don't mind it at all. The author obviously knows more about Walden and Thoreau than I do, and presents a very well-rounded discussion of the topic they chose to write about. As far as the American Dream aspect, I really do not believe that the American Dream amounts to living in a shack in the woods, cut off from everyone else, no matter which of the definitions you accept as the true American Dream. I think what it really comes down to is that the American Dream is just being free to do what you feel you have to, such as Thoreau leaving society to reflect on himself and the world.
Keck, Michaela. "Thoreau's Walden and the American Dream: Challenge or Myth?" In Bloom, Harold, ed. The American Dream, Bloom's Literary Themes. New York: Chelsea Publishing House, 2009. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= BLTTAD021&SingleRecord=True (accessed December 1, 2010).
This article brings up the point that Thoreau "shuns business as best he can and strives for 'voluntary poverty'"(Keck). I think this is kind of counter productive to Thoreau's grand scheme. Not to drag religion into a school work, but the Bible says we should work to be successful so that we can share what we have with those less fortunate. It seems to me that since Thoreau was so disgusted with the way the world was he should have been actively working to change it. As an influential man with influential friends, I believe he could have gotten many things accomplished.
This article really didn't take much of a stand on either side of the fence, instead preferring to sit in the middle of the question it poses in its title. Normally, this would annoy me to no end, but as I am unable to completely chose a side myself, I don't mind it at all. The author obviously knows more about Walden and Thoreau than I do, and presents a very well-rounded discussion of the topic they chose to write about. As far as the American Dream aspect, I really do not believe that the American Dream amounts to living in a shack in the woods, cut off from everyone else, no matter which of the definitions you accept as the true American Dream. I think what it really comes down to is that the American Dream is just being free to do what you feel you have to, such as Thoreau leaving society to reflect on himself and the world.
Keck, Michaela. "Thoreau's Walden and the American Dream: Challenge or Myth?" In Bloom, Harold, ed. The American Dream, Bloom's Literary Themes. New York: Chelsea Publishing House, 2009. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= BLTTAD021&SingleRecord=True (accessed December 1, 2010).
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Journal #23: "Unplug" for one week
It would be extremely easy for me to disappear into the woods for a week. Especially at this point in time. I have a lot of things I need to think about now, but haven't had the time to consider lately. I would spend most of my time thinking about those things, recharging, and catching up on the many books I have to read. It is probably easier for me to go without technology for a week than many of my classmates because I spend a large portion of my time away from it already. I have many extracurriculars that keep me busy most days, and the time I have left, I usually spend reading. I don't have time to watch much TV anymore, and I mainly use the computer for homework.
A week in the woods would be awesome. I love camping, and think I'm pretty good at it, considering that I don't get to go very often. The only problem I can think of with the no technology thing is not having a cell phone. A cell phone would be really handy if I got in trouble and needed to call for help. Knowing me, that would be bound to happen.
To get away from society, I would just walk into my backyard. My house is surrounded by a small forest, so I would just go to the center of that and secret myself in a grove of trees or something.
As far as food and shelter and things like that, I would bring my family's tent with me. We don't go camping much anymore, so it's not like they would miss it. I would pack a lot of soup and crackers and granola bars and things that I could eat as they were or could cook over a fire.
I really don't think I would be able to put this impromptu "plan" into action though. My parents would prevent it from happening because they would worry.
A week in the woods would be awesome. I love camping, and think I'm pretty good at it, considering that I don't get to go very often. The only problem I can think of with the no technology thing is not having a cell phone. A cell phone would be really handy if I got in trouble and needed to call for help. Knowing me, that would be bound to happen.
To get away from society, I would just walk into my backyard. My house is surrounded by a small forest, so I would just go to the center of that and secret myself in a grove of trees or something.
As far as food and shelter and things like that, I would bring my family's tent with me. We don't go camping much anymore, so it's not like they would miss it. I would pack a lot of soup and crackers and granola bars and things that I could eat as they were or could cook over a fire.
I really don't think I would be able to put this impromptu "plan" into action though. My parents would prevent it from happening because they would worry.
Reflection: Thoreau vs. Gandhi
In my opinion, Gandhi was a much better writer than Thoreau, when looking at the two pieces of "Civil Disobedience" and "On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March". In "Civil Disobedience", Thoreau spends much more time on describing his surroundings than on the thoughts and beliefs that brought him to jail. In "On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March", however, Gandhi details why it is important that his followers and associates continue the march even if he is unable to, rather than describing the march plans themselves. Gandhi's writing seems more logical to me. I really got what he was trying to say much better than what Thoreau was talking about.
Gandhi's tone is also much more serious than Thoreau's. Gandhi even starts his speech with the very serious "In all probability this will be my last speech to you" (Gandhi 229). Gandhi's speech sounds like Gandhi is ready to be imprisoned for his cause and accepts that fate as long as his followers will still carry on. Thoreau's anecdote is just that- an amusing anecdote. When I read it, I remembered the night he spent in jail more clearly than the reason he was in jail.
These two works are obviously different in the style and circumstances aspects, but they are also similar in some ways. Though they were written by completely different people from different worlds, they both carry that air of dissatisfaction with the government and the state of the world. Both authors wrote these pieces with the aim of righting what they saw as a wrong. Despite my opinion on who wrote better, I can still see that much. For Thoreau it was the poll tax, and for Gandhi it was the English and salt.
Another comparison between the two is that both Thoreau and Gandhi were very detailed in their writing. A point of contrast, however, is what area their details went to. Thoreau's descriptiveness went to painting a picture of his surroundings and detailing his night spent in jail. Gandhi's went to giving his followers specific instructions for carrying on the march with or without him present. Gandhi also gives the reader a clear idea on how he is feeling by using his descriptive language.
All in all, I enjoyed reading Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" much more than Gandhi's "On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March". Even though Thoreau's lack of focus on his political point he was trying to make completely annoyed me, structure and language wise, I thought his was better. Gandhi's work was clearly written as a speech, and I find that format boring. I did appreciate how articulate he was on his points. It almost looked like Rationalism writing with it's clear and orderly statements of opinions and support. I could understand his writing and the point he was trying to make so much better than I could with Thoreau. It is for that reason that I believe Gandhi to be the better writer in this case. I can see that, even though I personally may not enjoy reading his works.
Gandhi, Mahatma. "On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March." American Literature. Comp. Jeffory Willhelm. Columbus: McGraw Hill, 2009. 229-30. Print.
Thoreau, Henry D. "Civil Disobedience." American Literature. Comp. Jeffory Willhelm. Columbus: McGraw Hill, 2009. 222-27. Print.
Gandhi's tone is also much more serious than Thoreau's. Gandhi even starts his speech with the very serious "In all probability this will be my last speech to you" (Gandhi 229). Gandhi's speech sounds like Gandhi is ready to be imprisoned for his cause and accepts that fate as long as his followers will still carry on. Thoreau's anecdote is just that- an amusing anecdote. When I read it, I remembered the night he spent in jail more clearly than the reason he was in jail.
These two works are obviously different in the style and circumstances aspects, but they are also similar in some ways. Though they were written by completely different people from different worlds, they both carry that air of dissatisfaction with the government and the state of the world. Both authors wrote these pieces with the aim of righting what they saw as a wrong. Despite my opinion on who wrote better, I can still see that much. For Thoreau it was the poll tax, and for Gandhi it was the English and salt.
Another comparison between the two is that both Thoreau and Gandhi were very detailed in their writing. A point of contrast, however, is what area their details went to. Thoreau's descriptiveness went to painting a picture of his surroundings and detailing his night spent in jail. Gandhi's went to giving his followers specific instructions for carrying on the march with or without him present. Gandhi also gives the reader a clear idea on how he is feeling by using his descriptive language.
All in all, I enjoyed reading Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" much more than Gandhi's "On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March". Even though Thoreau's lack of focus on his political point he was trying to make completely annoyed me, structure and language wise, I thought his was better. Gandhi's work was clearly written as a speech, and I find that format boring. I did appreciate how articulate he was on his points. It almost looked like Rationalism writing with it's clear and orderly statements of opinions and support. I could understand his writing and the point he was trying to make so much better than I could with Thoreau. It is for that reason that I believe Gandhi to be the better writer in this case. I can see that, even though I personally may not enjoy reading his works.
Gandhi, Mahatma. "On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March." American Literature. Comp. Jeffory Willhelm. Columbus: McGraw Hill, 2009. 229-30. Print.
Thoreau, Henry D. "Civil Disobedience." American Literature. Comp. Jeffory Willhelm. Columbus: McGraw Hill, 2009. 222-27. Print.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Journal #22: Breaking the Law- Romanticism Style
Apparently in Romanticism it was considered morally right to break the law if your intentions were good. This puts lawmakers and enforcers in quite the jam. And didn't they ever hear the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"?
Despite the obvious problems and consequences that could come from this type of thinking, I do think that sometimes it is okay to break the law if you have a good reason. The best example I can think of is a man with his pregnant wife that is about to give birth. As long as he doesn't crash into anyone, I think it is more than okay if he breaks several speed laws rushing her to the hospital.
Back in the olden days of stereotypical western movies, killing was also alright under the correct circumstances. Dueling was the norm for many, many years and was considered the gentleman's way of settling matters of honor. We learned in A.P. U.S. History that Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel by Aaron Burr. Though in this case, the people tried to punish Burr because he killed Hamilton. Either way, I find it incredibly stupid. Nothing says gentlemen like randomly shooting in the hopes of killing the person standing across the street from you.
I bet a lot of people in this class used the example of a hungry person stealing food to feed their family. This is only acceptable to me if certain conditions are met by the person who is doing the stealing. Its really complicated. If the person is stealing from someone who can actually handle being stolen from, then it's better. Like Robin Hood, only not dressed in green. Also, kleptomaniacs don't count because they don't even really have the thought process required to make a desicion not to steal.
Superhero comics are awesome for that kind of thing. Especially Batman because he's got that vigilante angle going on. He breaks the law sometimes in his pursuit of the various vile villians that pervade the pages. But it's okay because he always gets the villians in the end. And he's Batman.
Despite the obvious problems and consequences that could come from this type of thinking, I do think that sometimes it is okay to break the law if you have a good reason. The best example I can think of is a man with his pregnant wife that is about to give birth. As long as he doesn't crash into anyone, I think it is more than okay if he breaks several speed laws rushing her to the hospital.
Back in the olden days of stereotypical western movies, killing was also alright under the correct circumstances. Dueling was the norm for many, many years and was considered the gentleman's way of settling matters of honor. We learned in A.P. U.S. History that Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel by Aaron Burr. Though in this case, the people tried to punish Burr because he killed Hamilton. Either way, I find it incredibly stupid. Nothing says gentlemen like randomly shooting in the hopes of killing the person standing across the street from you.
I bet a lot of people in this class used the example of a hungry person stealing food to feed their family. This is only acceptable to me if certain conditions are met by the person who is doing the stealing. Its really complicated. If the person is stealing from someone who can actually handle being stolen from, then it's better. Like Robin Hood, only not dressed in green. Also, kleptomaniacs don't count because they don't even really have the thought process required to make a desicion not to steal.
Superhero comics are awesome for that kind of thing. Especially Batman because he's got that vigilante angle going on. He breaks the law sometimes in his pursuit of the various vile villians that pervade the pages. But it's okay because he always gets the villians in the end. And he's Batman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)