Reflection

I wanted to wait to write my reflection until I had time to read some other people's posts and reflections, because so much of a class experience is dependent upon all of its members. Overall, I would say this has been an excellent experience for everyone. I love literature, and there are very few things that bring me greater pleasure than the discussion of literature with other literate people. I have learned so much in this class not only because of my personal reading, but because of the many insights granted m by others in the class. My only regret is that I could not have dedicated more time to this class. It has been quite an eventful summer, and I have done my best to keep up with the excellent work of the others in the group. I just want to thank everyone for a wonderful experience you have helped to provide through your wonderful insights and pleasant demeanors. I hope you all have a wonderful summer. Thanks again.

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Shelley’s “Ozymandias” is a very interesting poem, because it says much about the differences between how people wish to be remember and how history actually remembers them. The footnote tells readers that Ozymandias is another name for Ramses II, a great pharaoh of Egypt. During the times of their reigns, pharaohs wee seen as all-powerful god-kings, and that is the legacy that Ramses would have wished to have left behind. He would have wished his people to remember all of the many things he did throughout his reign This is how a the sculptor from Shelley‘s poem captured Ramses. A face segment from a statue of Ramses is depicted in the sand as “a shattered visage lies, whose frown / And wrinkled lip, an sneer of cold command, / Tell that its sculptor well those passions read“ (399; ll. 4-6). There is even a quotation given by the god-kings commanding how he is to be remembered. The broken pedestal of the stature dictates “My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” (399; ll. 10-11). This was his wish and command; however, history seems to have painted a totally different picture of this supposed god-king. He is often remembered as the pharaoh defeated by Moses who was forced to release the slaves of Egypt. This is quite a stretch from original command. The scene illustrated by Shelley also tells readers history has shown this pharoah very little respect by depicting the statue as “shattered,” (399; ll. 4) and full of “decay” (399; ll. 12). Shelley also calls the once mighty statue a “colossal Wreck,” (399; ll. 13) demonstrating that all of Ramses’ so-called might has accounted for absolutely nothing according to history. All of his power has meant nothing after his death. He and his memory have been scattered to the wind against his every command. There is no way to determine how history will remember a person, and so there is not much point in trying. A person must live out his life to the best of his ability and hope that history remembers him kindly, if he is remembered at all.

Elliot

“The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” is definitely one of my favorite poems, because there is never a dull moment. The intrigue begins in the very epigraph of the poem. The epigraph does not seem to be a very important passage from Dante’s Inferno, but it does leave many questions in the minds of readers. Why did Elliot select this particular passage? I believe it has much to do with the themes of futility and despair that are prevalent throughout the entire piece. It often seems that the narrator carries about him a defeatist attitude, which is preempted by the epigraph. There seems to be no joy at all in Elliot’s tone in the beginning of the poem when he speaks “Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels / And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells: / Streets that follow like a tedious argument” (1195; ll. 6-8). He is totally disinterested in the world overall, as apparently are most others who are oblivious to things around them. Elliot makes a repeated comment about people’s ignorance and apathy to what is going on around them by saying “In the room the women come and go / Talking of Michelangelo” (1195; ll. 13-14). People all around these women (including our narrator) are suffering somehow, yet the most important thing in the world to them is Michelangelo. Even after his long descriptions of seemingly awful conditions, their only concern still is Michelangelo. This is very powerful commentary that speaks volumes about people’s major concerns. People do not concern themselves with the condition of the environment or the people around them. Instead they converse about totally inconsequential things, like Michelangelo. The other people in the poem seem only to be concerned with superficial and esthetic aspects of life. Several times he comments on what the people will say about him. First he says, “(They will say: ‘How his hair is growing thin!’),” (1195; ll. 41) and then he says, “(They will say: ‘But how his arms and legs are thin!’),” (1195; ll. 44) but these are not the only things growing thin. The narrator’s character is obviously thinning because of the way he worries about what the superficial people will say.
Because of the disconcert of others, it seems, unfortunately, as though Elliot has given in to despair in this poem, as it is obvious he struggles to find any sort of deep meaning in his own life. He feels as though his life is nothing more than a series of motions. This is apparent through how he measures his life. He says “ For I have known them all already, known them all-- / Have known the evenings, mornings, and afternoons, / I have measured out my life in coffee spoons;” (1195; ll. 49-51). He finds no joy in anything and obviously see most of his actions as totally meaningless. Nothing but despair could be used to describe these feelings. The narrator is such a lost figure that it is unsure if he will ever find himself again. It is an incredibly sad, but extremely moving piece that to me points out a sincere need to never give up hope in ourselves or each other.

WWI

It is difficult to find the good in something as terrible as a war, and yet such wonderful works of writing and art stem from effects of WWI. I shudder to think that without the advent of WWI, the writings of Elliot and Pound may have never come into existence. It is a dreadful occurrence; however, without it the mentality of people throughout the world may have never been changed. When I think back to the nineteenth century, a myriad of images flashes before me, most of them having to do with progress. Indeed the nineteenth century saw progress in scores, but everyone at that particular time stuck to the ideal that all of that progress was for the good. There was a certain amount of naivete that went along with that century. WWI put an end to that idealism. I have never been much of an idealist myself, probably due to the fact that I was born post-WWI, so I am almost comforted by the cynicism that followed the beginning of the war. That must seem like a very bleak outlook, but that is reality. I am very much so a realist, and realistically speaking, it was only a matter of time before someone realized that all the progress made in the nineteenth century did not necessarily have to be used for good. Someone did finally realize this and it must have been a very difficult transition for people to make in order realize that not all progress is for the good. Some people still held onto this ideal into the twentieth century, (and I am sure some people still hold onto it today) but Ezra Pound and Wyndham Lewis sought to make it known that this ideal was not realistic. The very name of their publication was reminiscent of bombs and war. After reading such a publication, called Blast, people could not help but accept this harsh reality. Some would say it was a negative that a certain amount of idealism was lost, but unfortunately it was a necessity that had a great effect on many aspects of life, especially art and literature.

Yeats

I think what I enjoy most about William Butler Yeats is his superb sense of history. He seems to have had an excellent knowledge of the history of both Ireland and the world for that matter. Many of his poems focus on references to various men and women from historical events. For instance, his "No Second Troy" makes constant references to Helen, the famed ‘face that launched a thousand ships’ and "taught to ignorant men the most violent ways" (1118; ll. 3). I am a bit of a history buff myself and I too enjoy the story of the Trojan War. His poem does not necessarily recount many facts from the tale, but it does pose many interesting questions. The whole premise of this particular piece rests in the question of "Why should I blame her that she filled my days / with misery" (1118; ll. 1-2). Yeats is pondering if Helen could really be blamed for starting the war because truly she did nothing to prompt it but follow her heart. He asks, "Why, what could she have done, being what she is?" (1118; ll.11). She did not make herself beautiful and desirable and therefore she is not to blame for the travesty that ensued. The real puzzle comes in the last line however. Yeats asks, "Was there another Tory for her to burn?" (1118; ll. 12). I cannot be sure what he means by this line. Does he really actually blame her for what happened or is he trying to say that had this not happened to Troy it would have happened to someone else because of Helen’s very nature? All very intriguing questions sparked by Yeats’ poetry.

Shaw

The preface to Pygmalion is so interesting to me, because parts of it still hold true in America today. The purity language is not something that is necessarily held in very high esteem, but this may not be a totally loss to the beauty of language. Language variances add to the cultural identity of the many diverse areas of the nation. Shaw points out that “The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it” (1005). I have no doubt that Americans do not teach their children pure English; however, I cannot say I agree with the thought that people have no respect for language. The real difference lies in how a person defines the phrase “their language.” Shaw obviously sees it as meaning the pure native language of the nation, but he and I seem to disagree. By using the word “their” he implies that it is a language that belongs to the people, and the language that belongs to the people does not have to be, and often is not, the pure and native language of a nation. People do indeed own language, which makes it an ever-changing and evolving entity. It is adapted to fit certain situations. Now it is true that for uniformity’s sake, there must be certain rules that are considered “correct” when it comes to grammar, spelling, and so forth, but correct is not always appropriate. Professional is not something people strive for when having every day conversations, but this helps to keep language alive and diverse. Take the word “you” for instance. This concept varies greatly according to the area in which a person hears it. In New York one would be likely to hear “yous guys,” but in the South one would hear the ever popular “ya’ll.” These variations add such color to the identities of the local cultures. It seems to me it would be a travesty to lose these identifying features of these various cultures out of a desire to seek out the “purity” of language.

Hardy

Thomas Hardy’s “Channel Firing” is such an interesting poem to me, because it really says a lot about how WWI affected people. Obviously Hardy felt that the war had an effect on every aspect of this world and the next. The very first two lines of the poem, “That night your great guns unawares, / Shook all our coffins as we lay” (1077; ll. 1-2) make readers aware that the poem is a story told from the perspective of a dead man. Hardy feels that the war has had such an effect on the world that is has caused people to be disturbed from their eternal rest. It would take an extremely powerful force to wake the dead, and Hardy seems to think that the war has that kind of affecting-power. The war seems to have caused people to think “it was the Judgment Day,” (1077; ll. 4) but Hardy seems to think the war was not only enough to wake the dead, but it was also enough for God to act from heaven. The dead narrator says that the dead “sat upright” (1077; ll. 5) in order to prepare for the Final Judgment but then Hardy says:
Till God called ‘No;
It’s gunnery practice out at sea
Just as before you went below;
The world is as it used to be; (1077; ll. 9-12)
God has to call from heaven so that the dead will return to their graves, because he has not called for the end of the world yet, and since He has already been forced to act, He decides to speak to those already dead. He rebukes the people of Earth because of the havoc they have created and the fact that “They do no more for Christes sake / Than you who are helpless in such matters” (1077; 15-16). The dead cannot win souls for Christ, but the living can, and yet they spend all of their time now at war. This has angered God, which is made apparent through His speech. He then convinces them to return to their rest by saying:
It will be warmer when
I blow the trumpet (if indeed
I ever do; for you are men,
And rest eternal sorely need). (1077; ll. 21-24)
God is not even sure if He’ll call the Judgment because of the rest people will need after such a war. Hardy believes the war to be enough to change the plans of God Himself, and then he goes on to talk about how the war has been totally unaffected by this entire little episode. IN the last stanza Hardy says “Again the guns disturbed the hour, / Roaring their readiness to avenge” (1078; ll. 33-34). God Himself acted from heaven and yet the war continued. WWI must have truly seemed to be an unstoppable force.