Katherine Phillips - A Woman in a Sea of Men

Although I was happy that we finally got to another female writer along with Queen Elizabeth and Wroth, I was kind of disappointed with Katherine Phillips. I much preferred writers like Marlowe and Donne and to be honest, I really did not like her style. Maybe it's my own personal gripe, but I get so bored of poetry that constantly rhymes so cleanly and neatly and bounces like a song. I did like some of her images, especially the one where her baby boy is a fallen rosebud, but I did not see the wonder I found in some of our other poets. I was certainly happy to see some semblance of women's work dug up, but I was sad to see that there wasn't more. I know it makes sense, since women still hadn't a fraction of the opportunities that men had, but even so. I was hoping to see a woman burst out of our crowd of men this semester and grab my heart, but it didn't really happen. At least I can be thrilled that there are a trillion women writers now, but it would have been nice to see a wider breadth of perspective during that time frame. Ho hum.

And then there is Milton. Oh boy does he have a word to say about everything...

What a Marvel!

Damn, I keep forgetting to do this! :( I know I'm about 12 hours late, but I'll post anyway. I think I liked the idea that Marvell had a smaller body of work and was only published after his death, but nonetheless had a large impact upon literature. His literary persona seems humble in this way (though of course I do not know what he was like as a person) and it made me happy for his eventual success. I also really enjoyed the fact that (as the book noted), he covered a range of forms, rather than recomposing the same sort of thing time and again. It completely makes up for having a smaller body of work, and promises that if he had written more it probably would have been just as rich and various. I also liked that he was friends with one of the most prolific greats (Milton) and although he was not seeking to be the next great epic poet, he was still confident enough in his abilities to write. Furthermore, he did not try to put himself out there in the way that other writers did (though of course his point in history was not so favorable for that sort of thing), but he stilled garnered the respect that he deserved. This alone makes me want to read more of him... oh, and the fact that his work is gorgeous.

The Winter's Tale

I thought instead of talking about The Broken Heart, I would take this blog post to discuss the Winter's Tale - the individual reading of mine. The Winter's Tale consisted of some very interesting characters - some of Shakespeare's most memorable. Leontes, though an interest character, is a very unrealistic character. Though a king, Shakespeare did not construct him to be a very strong authority figure. Instead, he gave into emotions, rather than logic and reasoning. This can be related to Richard III in that these high authority figures are driven by emotions and desires rather than what will better their citizens and kingdom.  Leontes is also very irrational figure, threatening to kill his best friend due to a stretched assumption.  What is most interesting about this character is how Leontes is a king, a figure who was supposed to embody masculinity at the time, yet he served the more bodily elements, than the ones of the mind, which was not as accepted for men of the time. Men were supposed to be of the mind, and women were of the body - perhaps this is a commentary on Shakespeare's part, either critiquing the tight social norms of the time, or opening others minds to the possibilities of being able to be either bodily or of the mind.

Marvell is Marvelous

I enjoyed Marvell poems, they were a good change of pace. A lot of his poetry was cute and romantic. I like the dialogue between the soul and body and how the two coexist with one another. The body has all this pain because of the soul and vice versa. Its just an ongoing battle between the two. The poems about the mower were also good, each one brought up a new story of Damon and Juliana. The Horation Ode was a unique one to put into the collection because all of the other poems were about love. I thought it was a strange choice. Its about Oliver Cromwell but did Marvell work for him or was Cromwell's return that most writers decided to write about it. I liked how Marvell wrote about Bermuda but in the footnotes it says that he never even went to Bermuda, but the guy he was working for did. Its weird to write about a place that you have never been to.

Andrew Marvell

My favorite of Marvell's poems was definitely a " Dialogue Between the Soul and Body". The idea that the mind and the body are slaves to each other was a very interesting thought. It makes you question Marvell's perception of appearance. The soul and the body go back and forth as if to see who will win. Technically neither would win because they are both trapped within each other. When dealing with a relationship between a man and a woman, the body eventually gets in the way because it is not everlasting. This idea is very similar to his poem " To His Coy Mistress" where he discusses the woman's body becoming old and essentially not attractive anymore ( very depressing/appalling way to think).

Good Ol' Herbie

There is no denying that George Herbert was a good guy. As a priest, he was noted for his unfailing care for his parishoners, bringing sacraments to the ill, feeding the hungry, and clothing the poor. But the dude wrote poetry. Not just any kind of poetry, either. Metaphysical poetry. The type that you and I (well, perhaps just me) are too dumb to understand. The type that makes it seem like he and God are BFFs and writing letters to each other about how cool they are. "God, you are the coolest. You are the man. I mean THE man." says Herbert. And God says, "You know I dont like poetry, right George?" Herbert's typical rhyme scheme varies from the simple to the slightly complex. His word choice is fairly simple, preferring to write so we, the reader, might understand what the hell he's talking about. Which we dont (again, probably just me). He's like the 17th century poetic equivalent of Ernest Hemingway in his simplicity, except Herbert doesnt seem to care all that much for old men or the seas they fish on. There is no question as to what he DID care for: the divine. Herbert was arguably the most infatuated with the divine of all the 17th century poets. After all, he was a priest, dammit. Herbert was also an innovator of some sorts, playing with what a poem does visually as opposed to just words. His poem "The Altar" looks like - you guessed it - an altar! Damn, thats creative!

George Herbert

While reading Herbert, I first found him to be dry and really hard to get through. But when we discussed him in class, I had a bit of a change of heart. His style of writing is very to the point, which I like. I also liked how he didn't make any excuses for the way he viewed the world. He is religious, but also pragmatic in a sense. I appreciate that, and I have to admit he has grown on me. "Jordan 1" was by far my favorite poem. Herbert comments on a lot of what I believe about poetry. A lot of the time it comes off as false imagery just for the sake of writing a poem. That being said, I think the only complaint that remains for Herbert is the loads of biblical references he alludes to in his writing. I think if you look beyond that, his writing is very beautiful, and to the point.

Herbert

The only thoughts in my mind while reading Herbert were "you'll be done reading it soon." Though Redemption is pretty entertaining and bearable, the rest of his poems are boring and in my opinion, redundant. He repeats many of his ideas and messages in many of his poems, making them unoriginal to a certain extent. He throws his religion at the reader, limiting the definition of a good religious follower, since he deems that there are so many ways to be a poor follower. Also, his writing is boring, in my finding. His tone is usually pompous and arrogant, as if trying to guide people into HIS way.

George Herbert

I have to say I also liked Herbert. His writing and rhyming style are simple but at the same time his poems are full of metaphors. So in a way makes up for the simplistic nature of the poem by giving the reader something to think about. Personally I would rather read a poem that sounds simple to the ear but has a lot of intrinsic meaning than a poem with complicated wording that has the meaning right on the surface. Even though a modern reader might have trouble deciphering the meanings unless they really knew their history of the 1600s, for example when in "Jordan" its says "false hair" the reader would have to know it meant a wig which in turn leads to wealthy people wear wigs which means vanity and embellishement and that wigs were used to cover up things on a person that wasnt so nice. So as you can see two words in a poem can really have a snowball effect and if the reader dosent understand the first "level" of the meaning they miss out on all the subsequent ones. I know a lot of people probably think its really cheesy but I even like how Herbert made a few of his peoms into the objects that were the title of the poem itself such as "The Alter" and "Easter Wings".

George Herbert

I enjoyed "Redemption", I thought the comparison between Christ's self sacrifice and the renegotiation of a lease to work well, especially by putting it into middle class terms. "In cities, theaters, gardens, parks, and courts: t length I heard a ragged noise and mirth" (Herbert, 1607) I took this line to be encompassing religion in our everyday life.
The more I read Jordan (1), the more I enjoy it. When first reading it, I must admit, I was painfully confused however, then the light switch went on. Then again that is how I feel about most poetry. This poem bringing back the idea of praising God and being true to God is what is most important. George Herbert discusses what a true, real poet is. That poet is speaking simply, and justifying their own methods.

George Herbert - An Okay Dude

Well, it appears as if I've taken a liking to your arch-nemesis, Sarah. Being a writer myself, I certainly appreciate Herbert's low tolerance for bullsh*t. His writing reflects his expectations of writers: writing with a purpose, writing concisely. His rhyme scheme is like his vocabulary: simple. His writing is, however, guilty of being ladened down with metaphors. (See: "The Bunch of Grapes"...one giant tangle of metaphors.) Yet, this would only be construed as unclear to contemporary readers as Herbert's audience was privy to the sorts of Bible references sprinkled about Herbert's work. I was also quite amused by the physical shape "The Alter" and "Easter Wings" took. Adorable. My respect for him as a writer comes specifically from reading "Jordan (1)" and "Jordan (2)." In both of the poems, Herbert tells us exactly what he thinks of the fluff writers of his time. While I'm not a huge fan of the content of his work (See: Anglican Church, See Also: Christianity), I can appreciate how frustrating it must have been to have been surrounded by fluff writers and copy cats producing empty work without sustenance or purpose to entertain the masses. While his writing is simple, he communicates this idea in a most eloquent and clever manners. (See: false hair, See Also: winding stair and painted chair; pg. 1611).

Also, I couldn't really find the connection between the beginning of Jourdan (2) and the beginning of Act III, Scene I of Jonson's Volpone...must've missed something.

Of Superstition by Sir Francis Bacon n' Eggs (I had to)

Ya' got me! I was so convinced Bacon was giving the godless crew props, but that crafty Devil was merely using us in a "lesser-of-the-two-evils" example! Perhaps I would have realized that ahead of time if I had read the very first line more carefully: "It were better to have no opinion of God at all than that such an opinion as is unworthy of him." I suppose you read things the way you want them to be. I respect his opinion though. Bacon's sticking to his guns. If you're going to believe in my god, do it right, or don't do it at all. I respect that. My favorite part has got to be the listing. "The causes of Superstition are: etc etc etc" I'll spare you the list but it's funny.

Of Marriage and Single Life...well, Bacon lost me there. I'm not a fan of marriage...at all, so when I read "Chaste women are often proud and froward as presuming upon the merit of their chastity," Let us take note that "froward" here means 'ill-tempered', I was far from amused. Then again, I'm a contemporary woman...maybe unmarried 17th century women were proud and ill-tempered.

Sir Francis Bacon

I thought Bacon had a very interesting view on marraige. Overall his view of it comes across as negative. Saying that single men are much more productive in society because they are not bogged down by family responsibilities. But of course readers would have to look at the flip side of this view because if men were to do as Bacon said to than how would society function without anyone getting married and having children? Bacon says that getting married makes a man "soft" which it seems he dosent neccesarily see as a bad thing. Maybe Bacon means that men should wait until they are a bit older to get married that way they can achieve things while they are yougn and energetic, such things as political achievments and such things as being a soldier as well. Being a soldier who is single has some obvious benefits, you are able to be more "fierce" in battle because you do not have to worry about leaving behind a wife and children to take care of themselves if you die. Possibly Bacon thinks that getting married slightly older would be better for society that way more things would get done but society itself would still be able to function because the population would be steady. Needles to say that Bacon does not take into account what the young women would feel being made to marry older men as is evident in a quote about them "women are young mens mistresses, companions of middle age, and old men nurses."

Sir Francis Bacon

My favorite piece that we read from Sir Francis Bacon was "Of Studies."  I liked the piece because it just explained that your shouldn't overwhelm yourself with studying too much because it isn't worth it. You should enjoy what your are learning because it will make you a better person, someone that is more knowledgeable than you were before. I loved the line, "Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider." I liked it so much because he is basically saying that books should be pondered on and that people should discuss what they liked about it and what they disliked. There is no point in reading something if you don't like it or if you don't think about it. I like how he said that some books should be chewed and digested and others you should just taste. Sometimes somethings aren't worth it to be read in full but if you give yourself an opportunity to read a little bit of it, your that much better for it.