Goblin Market

As the Goblin Market began, I misunderstood what the contents of the story would be. I understood that goblins are characterized by trickery and underhandedness, if not evil intentions. However, the listing off of fruits gave me the impression that they would be described as merchants in a literal market trading with other mythical creatures. Once the two women appeared my original suspicion about the goblins was confirmed.
Lizzie was able to stay true to her convictions from the beginning of her presence in the story saying to Laura, "You should not peep at goblin men… Their offers should not charm us, their evil gifts would harm us." Learning from the fate of Jeanie, Lizzie ran back to the girls' home.
However, Laura is weak to the goblin's enticing and steps out to taste their fruits. She offers up a lock of her hair as payment for the fruit and is soon overwhelmed by it. "She never tasted such before." Losing all track of time or her surroundings she feasts upon the fruits she bought with her purity.
I quickly drew allusions to the Rape of the Lock given the description. "She clipped a precious golden lock, she dropped a tear more rare than pearl." Her hair is her pride and joy as a woman, but she agreed to the payment and had to go along with it just as with the card game. I took this as an emphasis of the great temptation that Laura faced and fell to as well as the temptation that Lizzie held fast against later in the story.
Contrary to the Rape of the Lock, Laura enjoyed reward for giving up her lock. She became obsessed with finding the goblins again so she could partake in the pleasure of the cursed fruit. Laura's search for the goblins was not for revenge, but because of obsession.
What other allusions to the Rape of the Lock did you notice? Can stronger allusions be drawn to Paradise Lost and Eve's temptation because of the use of fruit as the source of temptation in both situations?

Tennyson Monstars

While they're are many differences between Tennyson's "The Lotos Eaters," and "Ulysses" such as the general ideas on pursuit and exploration. In "The Lotos Eaters" the crew members have no desire to leave the island and stay and eat the fruit, whereas in "Ulysses" we see our main character confess that he "cannot rest from travel." We see that both poems both have hints of colonization in them, but both seem to be different view on colonization. "The Lotos Eaters" ends with the line, "we will no longer roam,"(line 45). This could suggest colonization with the idea that once they have reached their destination, they will stop and generate revenue and set up colonies there and search no more. Tennyson gives us more of a utilitarian idea of colonization in "Ulysses" when the main character says things like,"Tis not too late to seek a newer world,"(line 57). And even sets his limits high claiming, "to sail beyond the sunset,"(line 60). Ulysses' proclamations on exploration could be a tie to an idea of colonization where they won't stop once they are simply satisfied with what they have, but are always looking to further expand their empire. Not only looking to improve trade, but also looking to improve their society as a whole. A question that I may have is what is Tennyson's view on colonization as a whole? Does he think that it truly improves their society? Or does he feel sympathy for those under British rule?

Goblin Market, Female Hero

Christina Rossetti, in her poem entitled Goblin Market, uses two sisters to construct a female hero unseen in previous English-literature works, escaping the established gender-roles to save another’s life. Laura submits herself to the temptation of the goblins’ fruits and, as a result, loses the ability to receive more, leaving her physically weak and mentally unable to overcome further desire for the fruit. In a way, Laura represents the typical “fallen women” of British literature by being unable to control herself at the presence of temptation. The heroine figure is revealed through Laura’s sister, Lizzie. At the sight of her sister’s demise and deterioration, Lizzie ventures out to this temptation with the goal of conquering it.  She meets with the snickering goblins that tempt her by telling her to “sit down and feast with us, be welcome guest with us, cheer you and rest with us” (811). The goblins attempt to win her over by these requests as well as their fruit, but Lizzie proves herself heroic by resisting. They begin to attach her physically and sexually, “grunting and snarling, their looks were evil, [they] tore her gown and soiled her stocking, held her hands and squeezed their fruits against her mouth to make her eat” (812). Even as these goblins force themselves and their fruit upon her, Lizzie keeps her mouth sealed and stands strong against the temptation. This character operates well within the framework of a female hero’s behaviors. Although it is somewhat passive, Lizzie saves her sister by self-sacrifice. She maintains actions expected of women by not attacking any of the goblins, but comes out on top by resisting them and saving her sister, representing a heroic side of the character.

Is it somewhat contradictory that Rossetti uses women in two different ways—one as the fallen woman and one as the heroine? It is difficult to know her stance on women in literature when she uses such contradicting characters. Also, what is it that saves Laura ultimately—the juices of the fruit or the love of her sister?

"The Lotus-Eaters" & "Ulysses"

Alfred Tennyson “The Lotus-Eaters” & “Ulysses”

“The Lotos-Eaters” – The captain of a ship full of people catch a glimpse of land and decide to take course to the shore. Upon reaching the shore, the narrator describes the island as always feeling like its afternoon. The island is also described as the land of streams, meaning there is plenty of water to indulge. The people are greeted by a group of people called Lotos-Eaters. These Lotos-Eaters give the new inhibiters some fruit. After eating the fruit, the people have no desire to leave the island, they have decided to live on the island permanently…  I think these people have found paradise. Why would anyone want to leave paradise?

“Ulysses” – The poem starts by Ulysses declaring that he doesn’t know a reason why he should continue living, with his old wife. Ulysses says he can’t do much anymore, but he is going to live to the fullest. He claims to be an icon for all people who want to discover new things. I think this poem describes life. Ulysses is now an old man. He doesn’t have physical endurance or the strength to do the things he used to do, but he can still do noble things at an old age. Ulysses has become the man he is through his experiences; like all his times at sea searching for new land. I think a theme of the poem is age. It doesn’t matter if you are young or old, you can always do something; whether that be noble or dastardly deeds.

1)      Did the foreigners find their new home amongst the Lotos-Eaters?

2)      Is there another theme in “Ulysses”?

"The Lotus-Eaters"

I thought that the final stanza of “The Lotus-Eaters” was the most interesting. At the beginning of the poem, the mariners are told by Odysseus to be courageous and they come upon an island where the Lotos-eaters live. These people offer the mariners fruit and they take it to eat. The last stanza makes us believe that the mariners miss their homeland. On page 624 lines 39-40 the poem states, “And sweet it was to dream of Fatherland, of child, and wife, and slave…” These lines allude to the fact that the sailors actually do miss their families. They have something to look forward to coming home to, so why do they choose to stay on the island? Lines 42-43 on page 624 of the poem state, “Weary the wandering fields of barren foam, then one said, “We will return no more.’” This part of the poem was really confusing for me because the stanza starts out talking about how much the mariners miss their families and slaves, and then it ends in telling us that the mariners decided to stay on the island. I think that the mariners are really tired of their voyage on the sea. In other poems and stories we have read in class, like “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” and “Frankenstein,” mariners are also characters and they don’t ever seem to be particularly happy. I think the fruit from the lotus-people in “The Lotus-Eaters” is symbolic of the mariners’ weariness, which leads to resignation or even depression. They think that the voyage home just isn’t worth it and may never even be a reality. The mariners are content to stay on the island and simply dream of returning home.

What other factors may cause the mariners to want to stay on the island instead of returning home?

Why do you think the Lotus people shared their fruit?

New Post

            While I was reading Ulysses, another past reading kept popping up in my head, Beowulf. During the poem the speaker, Ulysses, is continuously stating that he misses the sea and essentially that he wants to embark on another adventure, which reminded me of Beowulf’s last battle before he was killed.

            In Beowulf, after the dragon’s treasure has been stolen, Beowulf embarks on one last adventure to slay the dragon. While he knows that he will likely loose, he goes anyways. While in Ulysses, the speaker never mentions a specific adventure; he doesn’t hesitate to say that he is not done exploring the sea like a warrior. The section I think encompasses this is the last five lines that state, “We are not now that strength which in old days/ Moved earth and heaven…made weak by time and fate, but strong in will/ To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield” (65-70). In this section the narrator is recognizing his physical weaknesses, which came with age, while simultaneously pointing to his will as the more important of these two attributes. He might not be able to accomplish what he could do in his youth, but he has the will to try.

My questions are:

·      Are there any other similarities to Beowulf that you could point out?

·      Why do you think these similarities exist?

o   Is there a purpose or was it just random?

Tennyson and his Qualms

So, presumably we are still in the rather short span that is the Romantic period of British literature when everyone was going crazy about nature and being an individual.  Everything is about finding one’s self in the peace that is the natural world, and really discovering what it means to be who you are.  Therefore, the message that Tennyson is trying to convey in his poem “The Lotos-Eaters” seems rather odd to me.  The bulk of the poem describes the grandeur and beauty that is the island of the Lotos-Eaters, and the image created by such a description is practically a romanticist’s perfect abode.  “A land of streams! some, like a downward smoke, /Slow-dropping veils of thinnest lawn, did go.”  Who could imagine a more perfect place; a land where time seems to stand at a barred gate with no hope of continuing; a land where the impossible has and still is achieved; a land where one could be alone for eternity?  Yet, the people who do live here are husks: empty shells of humans, with very little that makes them human left.  They chose to eat of the lotos’s and now feel no sense of adventure, no want to return to their home and their families, all loyalty to their captain lost.  It presents a rather dreary image of the Romantic era, and it almost seems like Tennyson is, in a way, criticizing the hermits and naturalists of the time that love the seclusion of nature above all else.  Why he chooses to say that I know not, but due to the fact that this land has the rather intriguing factor of time being still, it also seems that Tennyson is perhaps also criticizing people who refuse to allow progress in the world.  Honestly, I am really not quite sure what Tennyson is getting at, but it definitely seems that he is perhaps not so happy with some aspect of the world around him, but what it is exactly I cannot quite pinpoint.

Concerning "Ulysses"

First and foremost, I loved this poem. From what I gathered it's the exact opposite of what Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", which seemed to have a pessimistic view on the search for knowledge, whereas "Ulysses" embraces the search for discovering a higher meaning in the life of man, with an emphasis on discovering life through the individual. He opens with the line "It little profits that an idle kind... know not me." Basically, Tennyson is saying that it does one no good to not understand themselves, and that outside discovery cannot begin until that is accomplished. He then continues to pontificate about life through the eyes of Odysseus, and mentions that life has its ups and downs, parts he has "enjoyed" and parts he has "suffered." My personal favorite line is "I am a part of all that I have met." Tennyson is saying that everything we say and do is part of this interwoven network of action and reaction, where every little move, whether it be big or small, has some sort of impact on the world. We are a part of everything, no matter how separate we may feel. All that with just ten little one syllable words. Another line that reaffirms my contention that this is about discovering more of life and knowledge is "And this gray spirit yearning in desire to follow knowledge like a sinking star, beyond the utmost bound of human thought." Tennyson is suggesting that we push ourselves beyond our limits to discover a meta-cosmic understanding of the world and life. He plays off of the Romantic period's tendencies-- There's the isolation, the sense of the individual, but he plays it off so cool. It is beyond just the individual. It is the individual and the individual's rippling impact on the world around. Then there's also the love of the natural. The stars, the seas, all depicted with a sort of transcendent beauty. Really one of my favorite poems we read this year.

What was the purpose of using the allusion to Odysseus?

Are there any parts where Tennyson seems to have some trepidation towards discovery?

I'm craving IHOP.

"The Lotos-Eaters" Parallels the Story of Adam and Eve

     In this incredibly short poem, it is known that the Lotos-Eaters try to get the guests from the ship to eat the fruit they have by offering it as a gift. The guests then eat the fruit and are manipulated into never wanting to return to their homes because of the way the Lotos-Eaters manipulated them. I analyzed this story as paralleling the Bible and the story of Adam and Eve. Though this comparison is not exact, there are elements that parallel what takes place in the story of Adam and Eve.
     The first comparison is the location/scenery of the place where they are manipulated. In the Bible, Adam and Eve are in a beautiful forest where they are manipulated by the serpent, and in "The Lotos-Eaters" the guests are awed by the streams and snowy mountaintops. "They saw the gleaming river seaward flow…three silent pinnacles of aged snow…the charmed sunset lingered low adown in the red West…" (p. 623). This is significant because it is easier to be manipulated in a beautiful environment as shown by Adam and Eve when they were manipulated into eating the fruit by the serpent, just as the sea-guests were manipulated into eating the strange fruit by the lotos-eaters.
     The second comparison is that the characters of Adam & Eve and the serpent are paralleled nicely with the characters of the sea-guests and lotos-eaters. The sea-guests are the naive characters that don't know they shouldn't eat the fruit, just as (Adam &) Eve were when they mistakenly ate the fruit. "Branches they bore of that enchanted stem. laden with flower and fruit, whereof they gave to each …the gushing of the wave far far away did not seem to mourn and rave" [meaning they did not miss their home anymore because they ate it, unknowingly] (p. 623). Although Eve had a fair warning not to be manipulated, she still ate the fruit just as the sea-guests did. The lotos-eaters would then obviously resemble the serpent because they were the ones manipulating the sea-guests into eating the bad fruit.
     It's not that the sea-guests eating the fruit was ultimately as bad as Adam and Eve eating the fruit, but  it tore the guests away from their home and could ultimately be bad for their families back home. If all of the guests visiting the island fell into this trap, it could be harmful to their people and they could lose their population to what is assumed to be to the enemy. This parallel is significant because it shows the biblical knowledge that Tennyson had while constructing this poem, and he may have just wanted this poem to be a spin-off of the original story of Adam and Eve.
     Questions:
1. Is this just a small story part of a bigger story?
2. Just a thought: maybe the lotos-eaters were just previous guests the island had given the fruit to, and now they want others of their same kind to join them?

The Lotos-Eaters

     "The Lotos-Eaters" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson leaves me with a mildly confused, yet earnest mind. Odysseus is urging his men to continue on with courage stating "This mounting wave will roll us shoreward soon" (line 2). Odysseus and his men are traveling home, and yet are discouraged by the long period of time they have been traveling and the distance they have yet to cover. However, they soon come upon a land "in which it seemed always afternoon" (line 4). This land appears beautiful to the men with its languid air, slender stream, and the flush of sunset. Tennyson uses lines 3 through 24 to describe the land upon which the men have stumbled. I think Tennyson uses so many lines to convey the island's beauty so as to draw the reader in, much like the men are soon to be drawn into the island. Soon the Lotos-eaters come bearer fruit. The men that eat the fruit seem to retreat unto themselves. "To each, but whoso did receive of them and taste, to him the gushing of the wave far far away did seem to mourn and rave on alien shores; and if his fellow spake, his voice was thin, as voices from the grave; And deep-asleep he seemed, yet all awake, and music in his ears his beating heart did make" (lines 30-36). In these lines, we experience the effects of the fruit on those that partook of it. The sounds of the waves, typically very loud, seem distant. The voice of the men seem to go unheard. The only sound that is clearly heard is the sound of the partaker's own heart, which becomes music to his ears. It appears to the reader as though the fruit has the effect of eliminating reality. Line 24 of the poem states that this is "a land where all things always seemed the same!" I believe that this is an effect of the lotos fruit, which seems to bring a peace over its partakers. In fact, the word "seems" appears numerous times  in the text, suggesting that this island of eternal afternoon is subjective to the individual man's view of the island.

In "The Lotos-Eaters", the fruit seems to bring peace over the men. Does this inversely relate to the story of Adam and Eve? Does Ulysses actually return home?

Frankenstein

I would like to focus at the very beginning of this section of the book as the tone in the monster shifts dramatically. On page 120-122 the monster changes from what seemed to be a hopeless figure in society, to one with anger and rage. For instance on page 120, the monster states, " Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension. Remember that I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can take you so wretched that light of day will be hateful to you. You are my creator, but I am you master; obey!" (120) I read this passage and found such power and movement in it. In the last section of the book I sympathized with the monster, for he did not ask to live in this world where everyone, even the blind view him as hideous, but as we enter the next section of the book I soon learn that he may be a hideous beast after all. While the monster has it's breaking point, his creator is forced to acknowledge the evil and destruction he has brought into the world. So I ask, who do you sympathize with now, the monster or the creator, and why? For I feel sorry for the creator because though he is to blame, he seems to be constantly running from his problems, rather than solving them, and the passage above highlights the destruction and rage the monster is capable of, but what do you think?

Frankenstein's Monster and the Classical Hero

Whoo, made it on time this time. Kinda sorta not really. ANYWAY, here goes.

This time around I read ahead since I think this will be the last time I write a blog post on Frankenstein. I'm gonna write about how Frankenstein's monster is really a tragic hero in the Greek tradition.

Mary Shelley, being a woman better read than many of her male counterparts, was very well versed in classic (read: Greek and Roman) tradition. She makes constant allusions to other works, but it's what her characters say and do that really cinches it. Perhaps the most obvious reference to a Greek epic is the way the monster discusses ending his own life after the death of his master, Victor Frankenstein.

After he breaks into room where his master lies, the monster weeps and alludes to Heracles/Hercules climbing up onto his funeral pyre to end his own life and "exult in the agony of the torturing flames". Why this reference? Does Shelley really want us to think of the monster as a tragic hero of sorts? While it's up to interpretation, I think the answer may be a reluctant yes.

From the moment he was created, we know that the monster had the capacity to achieve great things, much like any epic hero. He's unnaturally strong and incredibly intelligent but, like all tragic heroes, he has a fatal flaw. Unlike most heroes, his flaw is created externally. Instead of being like the rage-prone Heracles/Hercules, the monster's greatest flaw was that he never received the positive interaction with other people that every growing mind needs. Instead of learning to love, he learned jealousy and hatred toward others. The death of his master was the completion of his great labor - the destruction of the Frankenstein clan. Like Hercules, it didn't fill him with a great sense of accomplishment. Rather, he was tired and sought only to end his struggles. He, like Hercules, burned away what remained of his imperfect body, leaving only the mind (or soul, if you will) to drift away.

With that in mind, why have the alternate title the "Modern Prometheus"? Is it Frankenstein himself that is a modern Prometheus?

What was Victor thinking?

Frankenstein pgs 120-166

            After reading the end of the book, I could only think about Victor. What in the world was he thinking? Victor started on a slippery slope by creating a monster. He made this thing freakishly huge, and had no idea if it would be able to function. After its creation, the monster turned out to be quite modern and had lots of sensible things to say. So Victor and the monster get in a little argument and the monster says he won’t kill anyone if he gets to have a female monster companion. Victor agrees and they leave each other. Victor begins his second creation. One night, Victor is working on this monster-lady and he sees the monster peeking through the window. Victor is overwhelmed and decides to destroy the almost completed monster woman. So the monster tells Victor he will see him again on his wedding night. Now it’s Victor’s wedding night and he is looking all around for this monster. He tells his wife to go inside. Soon after, Victor hears the scream of his wife. The monster wanted to kill Victor’s wife because Victor never completed the monster’s companion. After this sequence of events, I am left questioning Victor’s rationale. He had an ape/monster/hulk type creature threatening him throughout these events, but Victor never listened to the monster, and paid for it in the end.

Victor Becomes the Monster

As a result of refusing to create a counterpart for creation, the creation swears revenge on Victor until he is as lonely and solitary as it is. It promises to be with him on his wedding night, which Victor believes means that the creation will attempt to kill him then. However, before that, it kills Henry Clerval, a murder that causes Victor to once again become overcome by grief, and almost causes him to be executed. He recovers however, and returns to Geneva to marry Elizabeth. 

All is well until their wedding night, when Victor realizes that the creation is not planning on killing him, but rather Elizabeth. Elizabeth’s death is the final straw for Victor, and he develops an obsessive desire for revenge. Soon he and the creation have switched roles, with Victor aimlessly chasing the creation around the world in order to kill it. He drifts further away from society until even the landscape around him (such as the barren terrain of the north where he encounters Walton) is devoid of human life (unrelated to the main idea of this post, but this could also relate back to the Romantic theme of the importance of nature, for as Victor loses his humanity, so does the natural world around him lose its beauty).