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.

Week 8 (I think?): Donne

What I found most interesting about Donne was the vast difference between his early poetry and later poetry. The early poems focus on attaining a pure, true love (lust included) while the later focus on his relationship with God. Although these two subjects seem to be very separate, I think the progression of them and the way Donne writes them connects these two periods very well. His style of writing doesn't change, just the topic he is writing about. In fact, I think that his unique way of looking at a subject is what marks Donne as such a great poet.

I think that it is very telling that Donne first writes about sex and romance, but in a spiritual way then his writing progresses to religion and God. His private writings are all self deprecating, almost as if these writings are a direct response to his younger writings. In this way they are connected.

I really liked Donne's poetry more so than any of the other poets we've read so far. He is funny, clever, and actually genuine in his writing it seems. I don't think he was writing just for the sake of writing a love sonnet or because that was what was "cool" at the time, or even writing about God because he wanted to preach. I got a sense that he was really writing from his heart. That gains him a lot of respect as a poet in my opinion. Go Donne!

Week 6 Sonnet

The Anti-Sonnet

Tonight I really loathe writing sonnets
While all my friends are out I'm stuck here.
I can't think of what to write upon it.
But if only the words would just appear.

This sonnet is so anti-creative.
It is an abomination of art.
It makes anyone feel vegitative.
It should have remained an act of the heart.

This process is totally purposeless.
I can't seem to get it perfectly right.
I really don't care if it's hit or miss.
Why can't I go out on this Friday night?

Yet I had a lot of fun doing this.
It really became a work of sheer bliss.



*Note to readers: I never claimed to be a writer. - G.O *

Week Four - The Faerie Queen

What always interests me in reading a work like "The Faerie Queene" is how easily a meaning can be assigned to it. Do we really know that Spencer meant for his work to be taken on a religious or political level? Are the scholars that study works like this just over analyzing the things that were written long ago? Maybe Spencer really just liked the idea of women-dragons and false beautiful witches.

I have to say, overall, if I were to purely read "The Faerie Queene" as a commentary on religion or politics, I would not enjoy it. So I ended up just ignoring that route and decided to just pay attention to the pure plot of the story. The more I get into English studies, I realize that plot isn't as dominant as is analysis and interpretation. Where is the fun in that? Sometimes it's nice to just read an adventure tale, allowing yourself to get caught up in it! That being said, Spencer was a great adventure tale writer. He knew how to keep it interesting with including disguises and bursting baby monsters. I commend him for his vivid imagination.

Week Three- Faerie Queene

Similar to what was said in class about the villains in the story, I noticed that the majority of the time Redcrosse takes what they say to be true, and then later realizes their falsehood. For example with Archimago, Redcrosse trusts him and then later is deceived by his false appearance. Archimago turns out to be a dark sorcerer that separates Una from Redcrosse by planting false images (spirits) in his dreams. The same goes for Duessa, she too appears to be a lovely woman, whom Redcrosse falls in love (or lust?) with. Yet, inside she is an evil witch who is trying to trap him or bring him over to the dark side! On Redcrosse's defense there was really no way of knowing that these people were leading him into a trap (at first). It seemed that they were really trying to help him, or just so happened to cross paths with him. How was he to know he would be following a woman to the palace of pride? It seemed like such good fun!

As we said in class, the bad guys normally appear to say the right thing at first, so that we can't know that they are bad until they reveal themselves to us. This is supposed to be similar to Christianity: you can't see the evil in something until it is upon you(or Catholicism I suppose). So my question is this, according to this view of Christianity, do all people need to be deceived first before they can see the truth in something? If that is the case then, how is someone supposed to know what deception is until they are almost trapped by it? In Redcrosse's case, he is a brave knight and the ultimate personification of holiness, so of course he can get out of the traps laid for him. But what about the rest of the people that this book was written to help direct, the "non-knightly" folk? Will they ultimately get trapped by deception and evilness? Is there any hope for them?

It seems that Spencer is writing for an ideal way of life, but how can it possibly be true, or even followed? People get deceived, people go the wrong way, and most people aren't strong enough to ignore temptation and falsities. In that, I feel that Spencer was writing similar to More. They both had this idea of how life should be lived, yet was it really attainable? - In reality I don't think so.

Week Two - Utopia: Human Nature

On the subject of “false pleasure”, More includes the absurdity of having lavish things and wanting to be or thinking of oneself as better than others. He begins to discuss people who want to own expensive jewelry and the like, “But if you consider the matter, why should a counterfeit give any less pleasure, when your eyes cannot distinguish it from a real gem? Both should be of equal value to you – as they would be, in fact, to a blind man.” (pg. 563) What intrigues me with this section is More has broken through the role of the narrator and is openly voicing his options on the matter. This section doesn’t seem to have any literal connection to the Utopians, except that they wouldn’t do such things, it is more an example of More looking at the current society with shame. This passage seems to me to be a response to the corruption and falsehoods of England as More sees it.


I couldn’t help but draw a distinction between a text I’m reading for Medieval English Literature. In Ecclesiastical History of the English People Bede does a similar thing in criticizing the society in which he lived. After an abundance of grain, Bede noted that the people began to be terrible to one another and cast their morals aside. “With abundance came an increase in luxury, which was immediately followed by every sort of crime; in particular, cruelty and hatred of truth and love of falsehood increased so much that if anyone among them happened to be milder than the rest…all the rest heaped hatred and missiles upon him, as if he had been the enemy of Britan.” It seems to me that both More and Bede are making a direct assumption that with luxury comes downfall. I think that is a very astute observation of human nature.


To address the question in class if More actually believed what he was writing was possible, I think that isn’t the way to look at Utopia. Instead of a matter of plausibility, I think it was a matter of getting the public to pay attention, or rather the educated to pay attention. I think More believed that by writing of a “perfect” society he would then be able to make people realize that what they lived in was far from perfect. It was a way to spark change, not actually a plan for civilization. Whether or not it worked, who knows.