Next Week and the 15-Point Quiz!

 We have ONE MORE class next week, on Monday, when we'll wrap up the class and talk about adaptations. Bring your paper with you IF you have it done, but if not, no worries (it's not due until 5pm). I want to discuss what approaches people are taking and how they solved the riddle of adapting an older work for a new audience. 

ALSO, I gave everyone a simple quiz about the class to satisfy the missing 15 points from class (since I cut one of the paper assignments, and forgot to fill the gap). E-mail me your answers anytime this week or next week, and you'll get 15 points towards your final grade! The questions are below. Otherwise, enjoy the break! 

The ‘Bonus Assignment’ Quiz

* Worth 15 pts of your final grade! (because I dropped Paper #2 in favor of the Adaptation Assignment, which became #2 by default)

Answer all of the following in a short response and get back to me as soon as you can (at least by Dead Week). This is an easy way to give you 15 points instead of assigning you another paper! I just want you to focus on the Adaptation Paper!

THE QUESTIONS:

Q1: Based on the works we read in class, what hidden theme(s) or idea(s) seems to unite most of them? Why do you think I chose to read these books together?

Q2: Which of the 5 works from class do you think students will still be reading in 50 years? What makes it/them so durable?

Q3: Which work do you feel was the most influential for modern novels, TV, movies, etc.? In other words, how can you ‘see’ it inside some modern shows and books?

Q4: Do you think As You Like It was a good work to represent Shakespeare in the course? Would you have rather read something more serious, or more popular? (students in the Shakespeare class can particularly weigh in here)

Q5: Do you feel historical/literary survey courses like this one (and American lit to 1800, World lit to 1800, etc.) are useful for the modern student? Do you benefit from seeing the big picture of literary history, or do you think you would be better served with another type of class (give example)?

Q6: For those of you planning to become English teachers, which one of these works would you most want to teach in your future classroom, and why? And if you’re not teacher cert, which one of these works would you have most liked to encounter in high school?

Schedule Change for Monday!

 Okay, since I had to cancel class on Wednesday I inadvertently screwed up my internal schedule. I wanted to have one decompression class before the paper was due to discuss Adaptations, and I forgot that the paper was due on Monday! Somehow, I thought it was due the Monday we got back from break. So...now it is!

So we DO have class on Monday for two reasons:

1. We can discuss some ideas about adaptation and I can show you part of a recent adaptation of Northanger Abbey for ideas, and 

2. I made another mistake in our class: you were supposed to have 2 papers PLUS the Adaptation assignment, but I made the Adaptation assignment Paper #2 instead (it was easier that way). So I cut the original Paper #2 entirely, leaving 15 points unnaccounted for in your final grade. So we're going to do a simple in-class assignment to make up those points (it's basically a freebie, but you don't want to miss it!). 

So for the mistake; it's been a stressful semester with too many balls in the air. But as always, when I mess up I try to give you more time and flexibility to make up for my mistake. Hope this helps! 

Be sure to work on the Paper #2 assignment over break, because it will be due the Monday we return, and I want to discuss it that week! E-mail me with any questions you might have. 

, For Friday: Austen, Northanger Abbey, Finish! (see note)

NOTE: I'm having repairs done on my house, so I need to be home tomorrow morning during our class. So take Wednesday off, and finish the book (and the questions below) for Friday's class. We'll do an in-class writing on Friday over some aspect of the end of the book, which will double as our final Reading Exam. 

Answer two of the following over Monday's class/reading:

Q1: We talked at length today about whether or not Henry Tilney is more of a father figure or a romantic figure for Catherine. While she obviously sees him as the latter, how does he see her and his role in courting her? Does this reflect a more 18th century approach to marriage? Or does he simply have a little of Mr. B in him, in that he doesn't quite see her as an equal? 

Q2: Re-read Isabella's letter to Catherine in Chapter 27: while this is the same Isabella we've seen/heard throughout the book, what does Catherine learn to read in this letter that she didn't see before? Though she doesn't admit anything in the letter outright, where do we see her betraying her feelings/motives in the letter? In other words, what does the Narrator let us see that Catherine is only learning to discover?

Q3: After the scene with Henry before his mother's door, the Narrator remarks that "The visions of romance were over. Catherine was completely awakened" (196). While she learns to downplay the romantic element of her reading, how might she also overcompensate for her earlier enthusiasm? Why might Henry's instruction bring her too far away from her original instincts? 

Q4: After Isabella's true behavior is exposed, Catherine admits that "though I am hurt and grieved that I cannot still love her, that I am never to hear from her, perhaps never to see her again, I do not feel so very, very much affected as one would have thought" (203). Why does this admission shock her, and what might it admit about her friendship with Isabella? Could she say the same thing about Henry if he, too, proved false to her? 

For Monday: Austen, Northanger Abbey, Chapters 22-28

There's only a little bit left, so read up to Chapter 28 at least (or finish it!) for Monday's class. The questions below are from today's discussion (Friday), but won't be due until next class, as usual.

Answer two of the following:

Q1: We talked in class today about how the Narrator's perspective (adult, satirical) is often at odds with Catherine's perspective (teenage, naive), which makes the story more complex than it otherwise was. Discuss a scene where we see the Narrator showing us a level of the story that is misread (or ignored) by Catherine. Why do you think Austen does this? What might be the point of contradicting or even belittling her heroine?

Q2: After having Henry explain the reality of his brother and Isabella's relationship, Catherine gives in and reflects, "Henry Tilney must know best. She blamed herself for the extent of her fears, and resolved never to think so seriously on the subject again" (157). Is this a healthy response to Henry's explanation? Should she always assume that Henry knows best? And should resolve to ignore her instincts since they're often too naive?

Q3: On the drive to Northanger, Henry narrates an on-the-spot Gothic narrative which completely frightens (and excites) Catherine. You can see examples of Gothic writing on pages 244-250 in the Appendix, to see how well he does this. How does Catherine, herself, adopt this narrative while at the Abbey? What is she looking for and how do we know she's writing herself into a make-believe novel?

Q4: So much of this novel is about how a girl learns to read the world around her in the same way she would read a book (without trying to read it like a book). How does Catherine start to see things as they really are, rather than how she would make them? Where does her perspective begin to line up with the Narrator (even if only slightly)?

For Friday: Austen, Northanger Abbey, Chapters 15-21

REMEMBER: the questions below are for Wednesday's reading/discussion, since they are post-reading questions. But be sure to read the above pages for Friday's class (to Chapter 21).

Answer two of the following for Wednesday's reading:

Q1: When Catherine is asked if she reads anything but novels, she declares that she does not, and especially hates histories, since "the men [are] all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all, it is very tiresome" (122). Why might Catherine's rant here sound suspiciously like the Narrator from Chapter 5, when she goes on and on about novels? What is Austen's point here?

Q2: In these chapters, Catherine learns to have moral convictions, even at the expense of her friends' opinions. Why might this be an important passage for Austen to include in the novel, considering her audience (young women)? 

Q3: We talked a little in class about how Henry Tilney, for all his perfections, might fall a little short as the 'ideal husband.' How do you think Austen wants us to read him? Is he the 'knight in shining armor' that all women secretly dream of? Or is he like the Narrator describes him, as "not quite handsome, [but] very near it")?

Q4: Northanger Abbey is significant among Austen's works in that there are hardly any adults in the book, other than the Allens (who do little), and General Tilney, who is more of a boogey-man. Why do you think this is? Why might Catherine's story be more important witnessed behind a background of her peers? Why blot out all the adults, since they are the ones who make the real decisions in Austen's world? 

For Wednesday: Austen, Northanger Abbey, Chapters 9-14

NOTE: The Post-Reading/Discussion questions are below

Answer two of the following for Wednesday's class (or you can e-mail it to me anytime between now and then): 

Q1: As we discussed in class, Catherine is a bit naive and bewildered by the world of Bath. But what clues does Austen offer us that show that there's more than meets the eye with her? Though she's "almost pretty" sometimes, what else makes her more than that? And why might Henry Tilney have been interested in her from the beginning?

Q2: Likewise, how do we know that Isabella is a little more like Pamela than Catherine? What makes her untrustworthy and calculating? Why might she have struck up such a friendship with Catherine in the first place?

Q3: Based on the first 8 chapters, how do you think Austen is commenting on or satirizing the conventions of the 18th century "marriage market"? How might Catherine, a relative newbie to this process, help her examine it from a new perspective for her readers?

Q4: Re-read the famous pro-novel speech on pages 58-60 that we briefly discussed in class. Though ostensibly in praise of reading novels, why else might this speech stand out as pretty revolutionary for a teenager (which Austen was when she wrote it)? Why might it have embarrassed the adult Austen and/or her relatives when they published it posthumously? 

For Monday: Read Austen, Northanger Abbey, Chapters 1-8 (see note below)

NOTE: Since most people seem to be doing questions after class, rather than before, I've decided to change the question format. For our final book, we're going to have questions after class, so you can focus on reading first and foremost, and then answer the questions after our class discussion. The questions will still ask specific questions about the reading, but will try to take advantage of ideas actually discussed in class. I will post them immediately after class and you will have until the next day's class to answer them.

For example, I will post the questions for today's reading after class on Monday. You have until Wednesday to turn them in, either in class on Wednesday, or anytime between Monday and Wednesday via e-mail. This is how most people are doing the questions anyway, so really, nothing should change. However, don't turn in the questions later than Wednesday's class for credit, so you can start thinking about the next set of questions, etc. 

See you in class! 

For Wednesday: Richardson, Pamela, pp.180-219 (the end of Book 1)

Last set of Pamela questions! Answer two of them for Wednesday's class, then we'll have a short break before starting Austen's novel (our last!). 

Q1: By the end of Book 1, is Mr. B finally able to see Pamela as an equal, or at least a woman of rank and character, and not merely a servant (or his servant)? If so, where does he finally acknowledge this? And if not, what seems to prevent him from making the intellectual switch?

Q2: What did you make of the incredible scene where Mr. B dresses up as a woman to seduce Pamela at night with Miss Jewkes' help? Is this a scene of high comedy, played for laughs to ridicule Mr. B and the aristocracy? Or is this a scene of lurid semi-pornography which almost went too far? How do you think Richardson wanted us to read this: with laughter or with terror (or for some readers, titillation)? 

Q3: Why do you think Pamela is so careful to reproduce Mr. B's "Articles" so exactly, followed by her point-by-point responses? She could have easily summarized all of this and/or merely recorded her indignation to them? Why did she take the time--and waste the paper, which is a scarce commodity for her--to copy it all out for herself (and the reader)?

Q4: Based on the ending of Part I, where do you think the novel is headed in Part II? Though you know the general outcome of the story (they do end up marrying), is that a foregone conclusion from Part I? What obstacles might they still face in the months (and years?) to come? 

For Monday: Richardson, Pamela, pp.140-180

Answer two of the following for Monday's class: 

Q1: Why does Pamela turn down Williams' proposal of marriage, considering he is not only a parson but has been trying to woo her in the right way (and of course, could save her virtue as well)? Do you believe her when she tells her parents, "I have no Mind to marry. I had rather live with you"? (144). Is she holding out for a better offer, or is she like Emily (in "The Knight's Tale") who truly wants to live happily and free from marriage?

Q2: Related somewhat to Q1, do you think Williams is proposing to Pamela out of his own love and affection, or is he merely following Mr. B's orders, as everyone else is? Does Pamela suspect this? If so, what might make her suspicious? 

Q3: Pamela shares two letters with the reader from Mr. B: one intended for her, and one intended for Miss Jewkes (both of which she conveniently reads, since they were 'accidentally' mislabeled). Do we trust the contents of these transcribed letters verbatim? Do you suspect Pamela of having embellished them? And if not, what do they reveal about Mr. B's psychology and intentions towards Pamela?

Q4: Toward the end of our reading, Pamela makes a shocking admission: "What is the Matter, with all his ill Usage of me, that I cannot hate him? To be sure, I am not like other People!...I must wish him well; and O what an Angel would he be in my Eyes yet, if he would cease his Attempts and reform" (179). Is it believable that after all this time, she could still have feelings for him? Could this be an example of her naive virtue at work? Or could she be acting even here? 

Paper #2: Old Wine in New Bottles, due Nov.21st

British Literature to 1800

Paper #2: Old Wine in New Bottles

INTRO: Everything old is new again, nowhere more so than in the entertainment industry. When Hollywood or Netflix runs out of ideas, they always look to the great literature of the past, with their seemingly inexhaustible supply of great plots, characters, and  dialogue. In recent years, there have been new adaptations of Jane Austen’s Persuasion (starring Dakota Johnson), Dracula (starring Morfydd Clark), and of course Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power (also starring Morfydd Clark!). In some cases, people now know the adaptation better than the actual work, as with movies such as Clueless (Austen’s Emma) or Ten Things I Hate About You (Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew). In the right hands, an adaptation can not only give new life to the old work, but can challenge how we see and understand it.

PROMPT: For this assignment, I want you to pitch a new adaptation of ONE of our last three works—As You Like It, Pamela, or Northanger Abbey—to Netflix as a potential series or film. Assume that the taste-makers at Netflix know nothing about the work in question, so in your proposal I want you to do the following:

(1)  Briefly summarize the main plot or action of the work in a way that will make it seem like a sure-fire hit to modern audiences; suggest its connection to modern-day works that it may have influenced (don’t do a play-by-play, just enough to fill them in and make it seem exciting)

(2)  Highlight one or two of the main characters that would be most relatable to modern viewers and explain why.

(3)  Discuss 1-2 scenes from the work that shows this character(s) in the best/most interesting light; help them see why this character(s) is so dynamic and interesting. QUOTE from the book and examine—close reading!

(4)  Finally, conclude by explaining how you would translate the work into a modern setting (in other words, outside the Elizabethan or Eighteenth-Century era). How could you restage the piece in a modern setting? Who would the characters be today, and where would they be? Would you change their names, careers, relationships? After all, we don’t really have servants today like Pamela…so what would be a close facsimile? Show how the work can easily translate to a 21^st century locale so that it doesn’t look like a history lesson. You don’t have to nail down every detail, but do try to show us how you could accomplish a translation that would look modern but still feel classic.

BONUS: This part is optional, but if you like, try to also re-write 1-2 pages of the book into modern conversational English to go along with #4. Since this will be a series, you might want to focus on dialogue, but you could also do the narrative if you plan to have a Narrator in your series/show. But show how you can adapt the actual ideas into different language without changing much. In the last week of class, we’ll share our adaptation ideas with the class, and I encourage you to read this passage to the class. It could be fun to guess which passage you chose based on the language alone.

DUE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21^st BY 5pm [no class that day]

For Friday: No Reading, but In-Class Writing & Paper #2 Assignment (see below)

NOTE: I decided to tweak the schedule slightly for the rest of the semester, since we're a day behind, but also, I wanted to introduce the next paper assignment and do a little in-class writing to as a way to approach it. For that reason (since our classes are so short!), I decided to give you a break for reading, and we'll pick up Pamela on Monday, finishing it on Wednesday. So keep reading! 

The in-class writing isn't really a "reading exam," but I'm going to call it one anyway. You don't have to quote from Pamela for this one, since it's a much larger question that goes towards the paper assignment. The revised schedule is below:

REVISED SCHEDULE

 

M 24    Pamela, pp.60-98

W 26   Pamela, pp.98-140

F 28     In-Class Writing (“Reading Exam #4”); assign Paper #2

 

M 31    Pamela, pp.140-180

NOVEMBER

W 2     Pamela, pp.180-219

F 4       Context: Intro to Jane Austen

 

M 7      Northanger Abbey, part 1

W 9     Northanger Abbey, part 2

F 11     Northanger Abbey, part 3

 

M 14    Northanger Abbey, part 4

W 16   Northanger Abbey, part 5

F 18    Reading Exam #5

 

M 21    Paper #2 due by 5pm [no class] 

W 23   THANKSGIVING BREAK

F 25     THANKSGIVING BREAK

 

M 28    Adaptation Presentations

W 30   Adaptation Presentations

 

DECEMBER

F 2       Adaptation Presentations

 

 

For Wednesday: Richardson, Pamela, pp.98-140 (since the letters become one long letter at this point)

Hogarth, Portrait of Miss Mary Edwards

NOTE: Below the questions for Wednesday is the handout I gave out in class on Monday. These are contemporary fictional responses to Pamela which show how two different authors felt about Richardson's novel. While Henry Fielding thought Pamela was a "sham," a woman who was playacting the entire time, John Cleland felt that Pamela was near-pornography, and decided to out-do Richardson in a work about a servant who really does sleep her way to the top--and he doesn't skimp on the sex (I included one very provocative passage below, so you can see how tame Pamela is by comparison!). 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Mr. B goes to great and frankly criminal lengths to prevent Pamela from going home in these pages. Do you feel his intentions, however dubious, are actually honorable? Is he trying to get her to fall in love with him? Or is he merely trying to work up the nerve to seduce her once she's growing tired of being in prison? In other words, do you believe his declaration of love and his claims that he is her "passionate admirer"? 

Q2: On page 114, Pamela gives a thorough and graphic description of her new warden, Mrs. Jewkes, saying, among other things, that she is has a "dead, spiteful, grey, goggling Eye." Why does Mrs. Jewkes inspire more fear and awe in Pamela than Mr. B ever could? Do you think this has something to do with why Mr. B hired her in the first place? 

Q3: Thanks to Arthur Williams, many of Mr. B's neighbors learn of what's going on in the house, and why Pamela is sequestered there. How do they respond to this act of abduction? Does it cause a scandal, as would happen today is a rich celebrity kidnapped a young girl and kept her in his country house (shades of R. Kelly, if you know about that story)? Or did it take more to shock 18th century aristocrats where servants were concerned? 

Q4: We talked about Pamela as a round character who likes to appear flat (virtuous) in her letters. But once she's abducted, note that her letters change, and she tends to keep more of a running diary. How else does she change in these chapters? Is Richardson trying to make her more obviously round? Is she becoming more aware of her precarious situation? Or is she merely playing a new, more intricate game with Mr. B (since, after all, Mrs. Jewkes tells her that everyone assumes she'll be the new mistress of the house)? 

RESPONSES TO PAMELA: SHAMELA (1741) AND FANNY HILL (1749)

(1) from Henry Fielding’s Shamela, Letter II (Shamela to her Mother):

O what news, since I have writ my last! The young Squire hath been here, and as sure as a Gun he hath taken a Fancy to me; Pamela, says he (for so I am called here) you was a great Favourite of your late Mistress’s; yes, an’t please your Honour, says I; and I believe you deserved it, says he; thank your Honour for your good Opinion, says I; and then he took me by the hand, and I pretended to be shy: Laud, says I, Sir I hope you don’t intend to be rude; no, says he, my Dear, and then he kissed me, ‘till he took away my Breath—and I pretended to be Angry, and to get away; and by Ill-Luck Mrs. Jervis came in, and had like to have spoiled Sport—How troublesome is such Interruption! You shall hear more soon…

(2) from Letter VI (Shamela to her Mother):

Mrs. Jervis and I are just I Bed, and the Door unlocked; if my Master should come…Odsbobs! I hear him just coming in at the Door. You see I write in the present Tense, as Parson Williams says. Well, he is in Bed between us, we both shamming a Sleep, he steals his Hand into my Bosom, which I, as if in my Sleep, press close to me with mine, and then pretend to awake—I no sooner see him, but I scream out to Mrs. Jervis, she feigns likewise but just to come to herself; we both begin, she to becall, and I to bescratch very liberally. After having made a pretty free Use of my Fingers, without any great Regard to the Parts I attack’d, I counterfeit a Swoon. Mrs. Jervis then cries out, O, Sir, what have you done, you have murthered poor Pamela; she is gone, she is gone…O what a Difficulty it is to keep one’s Countenance, when a violent Laugh desires to burst forth.

(3) from John Cleland, Fanny Hill: Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure:

She had hardly time to get downstairs before Mr.H—opened my room door softly, and came in, now undressed, in his nightgown and cap, with two lighted wax candles, and bolting the door, gave me, though I expected him, some sort of alarm. He came a-tiptoe to the bedside, and saying in a gentle whisper, ‘Pray, my dear, do not be startled—I will be very tender and kind to you.’ He then hurried off his clothes and leaped into bed, having given me openings enough, whilst he was stripping, to observe his brawny structure, strong-made limbs, and tough shaggy breast.

The bed shook again when it received this new load. He lay on the outside, where he kept the candles burning, no doubt for the satisfaction of every sense; for as soon as he had kissed me, he rolled down the bedclothes and seemed transported with the view of all my person at full length, which he covered with a profusion of kisses, sparing no part of me. Then, being on his knees between my thighs, he drew up his shirt and bared all his hairy thighs and stiff staring truncheon, red-topped, and rooted into a thicket of curls…and soon I felt it joining close to mine, when he had driven the nail up to the head, and left no partition but the intermediate hair on both sides. I had it now, I felt it now; and beginning to drive, he soon gave nature such a powerful summons down to her favorite quarters that she could no longer refuse repairing thither…I lost all restraint, and yielding to the force of the emotion, gave down, as mere woman, those effusions of pleasure, which in the strictness of still faithful love, I could have wished to have held up.

For Monday: Richardson, Pamela, Letters 25-31(pp.60-98)

NOTE: As you're reading Pamela, carefully distinguish between what she's writing, and what she's transcribing from other conversations (it can be tricky, since it all runs together). Her letters contain three kinds of narrative: (a) her own thoughts, (b) remembered conversations with others, such as Mr. B and Mrs. Jervis, and (c) second-hand conversations told to her by someone else, which she is re-telling in her letter. The letters can make everything sound like absolute truth, but remember that there a few degrees of separation here, especially since she's writing the letters after the fact.

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Even in Richardson's day, there were many pioneering works of early feminism floating about, such as Mary Astell's work, Reflections Upon Marriage (1700), where she famously declared, "if all men are born free, how is that women are born slaves?" Do we hear any of this feminist sentiment in Pamela, or in the character and ideas of Pamela herself? How much of this novel is an indictment of the sufferings of lower-class women at the hands of powerful men?

Q2: How seriously are we supposed to take this work? Though the subject matter is certainly serious and Pamela is constantly in danger, is Richardson aiming for pathos, or bathos? Where might we find echoes of Chaucer and Shakespeare in some of the struggles between Pamela and Mr. B? (you might keep "The Miller's Tale" and "The Wife of Bath's Tale" in mind).

Q3: Do you feel that there's any truth to Mr. B's assertion that "with all her pretended Simplicty and Innocence, I never knew so much romantick Invention as she is Mistress of. In short, the Girl's Head turn'd by Romances, and such idle Stuff, which she has given herself up to, ever since her kind Lady's Death" (93)? Is she writing her own 'romance' through these letters, which Mr. B is a somewhat unwilling participant? Or is he just gaslighting her and her family throughout? 

Q4: After Pamela's verses in Letter 31, the "editor" briefly takes over the work, and introduces a rare letter from Mr. B himself. Why do you think Richardson disrupts the narrative scheme of Pamela's letters? Is it distracting to be suddenly torn away from her first-person perspective, especially since it quickly reverts back to it? Or does it serve a useful narrative purpose? 

For Friday: Richardson, Pamela, pp.11-59 (Letters 1 through 24)

William Hogarth, Portrait of his Servants 

Remember our discussion about the early novel on Wednesday, and how Richardson is writing to the biggest consumers of novels in the mid-18th century: aristocratic women (or women of means, who had leisure time) and their servants, who wanted to be entertained and looked for the means to advance in status. Richardson intended Pamela, to some extent, to be a morality tale for servants who had many temptations to steal, gossip, and/or sleep with their superiors. However, he wasn't blind to the many dangers that a servant faced in an aristocratic household, since they had virtually no form of redress and could be turned out in a moment's notice. By and large, people loved this novel, so he must have done something right! But does it still make essential reading today? We'll have to see...

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Following from our discussion on last Wednesday (before Fall Break), does Pamela strike you as a flat or a round character? Novels are traditionally about round characters growing and developing over time/plot, so does Pamela show the potential to grow as a person? Or is she merely a blank slate for Richardson to shine his moral lessons on? Would a round character interfere with these intentions? 

Q2: In the opening Preface by the Editor, he claims that most novels these days (in the 1740's) "tends only to corrupt their Principals, mislead their Judgements, and initiate them into Gallantry and loose Pleasures" (9). In other words, novels teach vice rather than virtue. However, vice (and sex) sell in the marketplace, and Richardson seems to pile on the 'bad behavior' in his novel with a pretty liberal hand. Do you think he really means to write a manual of vice and virtue for young servants to follow...or is this a cover for him to get away with writing a novel that would appeal equally to men, who fantasized about being a Mr. B themselves? In other words, in this yet another novel of vice masquerading as virtue? 

Q3: Pamela has several chances to leave the house after Mr. B harasses her, and indeed, she could simply run home and quit her job. Why does she continue to stay even after Mr. B has made his sinister attentions clear? For example, why does she insist on staying "to finish the Waistcoat; I never did a prettier piece of work" (44)?

Q4: In Letter XXII (22), Mrs. Jervis tells Pamela that "you have it in your Power to make [Mr. B] as sweet temper'd as ever; tho' I hope in God you'll never do it on his Terms!" (48). And she's clearly right: if Pamela flirted with him more, couldn't she win him over even without sleeping with him? Why doesn't she take a more Wife of Bath approach, rather than making him angrier and angrier, and even more desperate? OR, is this her strategy all along? Do you think she's actually playing hard to get to make him more interested in her? Or is she just scared and naive? 

No Class Monday! See below...

 Sadly, I have to cancel class this Monday, so enjoy an extra day of Fall Break. We'll return on Wednesday so I can introduce some ideas about the early English novel, and what kind of work Richardson's Pamela is, which we'll start reading for Friday's class. See you then! 

For Monday: Shakespeare, As You LIke It, Acts 4-5

Finish the play for Monday, and answer TWO of the questions below that cover both acts, and indeed, your general impression of how the play ends for the audience.

Q1: Matthew Bevis, his book on Comedy, writes that "comedy can teach you to be both a fatalist and a moralist at the same time" (83). How might this describe most of the fools in Shakespeare's plays, and especially someone like Jacques? Why does being a satirist (which is the proper role of a fool) risk turning you into a misanthrope as well (a hater of people)? 

Q2: Discuss the difference between Phoebe's poem to Rosalind (delivered to her by Sylvius) and Orlando's poetry. Are they both wretched verses that mock the silliness of love conventions in poetry? Or does Phoebe manage something a little different? Consider Rosalind's response, "I saw she never did invent this letter./This a man's invention, and his hand" (157). 

Q3: Bevis also writes that "to be a witness [in a comedy] is to be an accomplice" (85). When do we feel guilty for laughing or enjoying a laugh in this play? When is the laughter also cruel or uncomfortable? What things do we laugh at in the play that we wouldn't laugh at in real life?

Q4: In the humorous wooing scene between Orlando and Ganymede, how aware do you feel Orlando is of Ganymede's true identity? Is he playing along because he knows who he really is...or is he falling in love with Ganymede? How can we tell? (note that they woo each other in prose, not poetry)

Q5: (one extra one): Why does Rosalind get an Epilogue at the end of the play where she speaks directly to the audience? Is this a way to wash away the shocking nature of the comedy from the audience's mind? Or is it equally subversive and a way to get a parting shot off at them...almost Shakespeare's retort against the quadruple marriages? How do you read it? 

For Friday: Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act 3

Remember, Act 3 is always the 'big' act in Shakespeare's plays. A lot of great stuff happens in this act, and everything that follows is really just a development of the 'plots' that occur here. 

Answer two of the following...

Q1: How does Act 3 satirize the conventions of love and how people speak (and write) of love? How does the play let us in on the joke? As an aside, Shakespeare loves to attack bathos in poetry, and did so most famously in Sonnet 130, which I’ve posted BELOW these questions (you might look for echoes of this sonnet in Act 3!).

Q2: How is the Touchstone and Audrey subplot a foil for that of Rosalind and Orlando? Similarly, when sets out to woo Audrey, how does he use wit rather than poetry to woo her?

Q3: In other Shakespeare comedies (Taming of the Shrew, Midsummer Night’s Dream, Much Ado About Nothing), the headstrong, witty woman always has a foil, a man who can ultimately overpower her. Why doesn’t Orlando really fill this role for Rosalind? Why would Shakespeare allow her to basically run wild in the forest with no one to oppose her?

Q4: How does Rosalind/Ganymede intend to ‘cure’ Orlando of his love for her? Do you feel she really wants him to fall in love with him, meaning Ganymede, rather than her female alter ego? Is this scene merely a comedic game, or something a little more subversive and racy?  

SONNET 130 (from Shakespeare's Sonnets)

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;

Coral is far more red than her lips' red;

If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;

If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.

I have seen roses damasked, red and white,

But no such roses see I in her cheeks;

And in some perfumes is there more delight

Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.

I love to hear her speak, yet well I know

That music hath a far more pleasing sound;

I grant I never saw a goddess go;

My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.

   And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare

   As any she belied with false compare.

 

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act 2

As always, answer TWO of the following for our next class, or soon thereafter...

Q1: Unlike Act 1, Act 2 is almost entirely in verse, except for certain 'low' characters who usually speak prose: Jacques, Touchstone, etc. Why do you think this is? What makes being in the woods (away from the court/civilization) more of a setting for verse? Also, why does a character like Jacques speak prose throughout the scene and then switch into verse for his big speeches at the end of the act?

Q2: Shakespeare's fools are often characters who have the liberty to speak the truth without getting in trouble, or as Touchstone mentions in Act 1, "The more pity that fools may not speak wisely what wise men do foolishly" (23). With this in mind, what kind of fool is Jacques? What makes him 'foolish'? Is he wiser than those around him, and if so, what kind of wisdom is it? Just wit?

Q3: At the beginning of the act, Duke Senior says of the forest that "Are not these woods/More free from peril than the envious court?/Here feel we not the penalty of Adam" (49). Why does Duke Senior, and others, see the woods as a more pure, innocent environment free from the 'sin' of mankind? Does Shakespere seem to agree with this, or is this part of his comedy: that the courtly people are clearly out of their element? (many comedies even today feature people from the city trying to rough it in the country/woods). 

Q4: Consider the many allusions to the stage in Act 2, particularly Jacques' famous speech, "all the world's a stage." Why call the audience's attention to this? Wouldn't this risk breaking the spell of the theater (which is already paper thin in Shakespeare's time)? 

For Monday: Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act 1

David Tennant as Touchstone in a 1996 RSC production 

Okay, we've watched a version of As You Like It, so you know the general story and characters, at least enough to really pay attention a second time around. We're going to read Act 1 for Monday, and as you read, think about the choices the film made, and where perhaps you might have made different choices. What did the film help you see...and what did the text help you understand?

Answer two of the following as usual:

Q1: Unusually for Shakespeare, almost the entirety of Act 1 is...prose! Why do you think this is? And where does the act switch into verse? Can you tell why it does, and why it switches back into the default mode of prose? 

Q2: Shakespeare's comedies are known for their wit, which is very different than outright humor or jokes. As the Notes in our volume explain, wit is "the mind or the mental faculties, specifically the faculty of reason; intelligence, cleverness, wisdom; and good judgment" (208). Where do we see an example of wit in the First Act? What makes this passage different than simple jokes to get cheap laughs from the audience? 

Q3: For the first time in any of our readings, we see two women who are friends, and whose relationship dominates the entire First Act. What makes their friendship unusual and interesting? What do you think Shakespeare is trying to show by portraying it? Also, does it pass the Bechdel Test? (look that up, if you don't know what it is...) 

Q4: In many of Shakespeare's plays, we find brothers (sometimes, twins) who are opposed to one another. In this play, we have two: Duke Frederick and Duke Senior, and Orlando and Oliver. Do we understand why Duke Frederick and Oliver hate and plot against their brothers? How seriously should we take their evil acts? 

For Monday: Reading Exam #2

 No reading this week! Instead, we're going to have our second Reading Exam in class on Monday, which is basically an in-class writing response to The Canterbury Tales--so please bring your book! The question should only take you about 20-25 minutes to respond to (depending on how much you like writing in-class), and we'll have time to discuss it afterwards. 

On Wednesday, I'm going to introduce the world of Shakespeare and his language to prepare for our viewing of As You Like It, which we'll actually watch in its entirety before reading the play (we'll watch it next week). And of course on Friday your Paper #1 is due, so no class--just work on the paper.

To help put you into the proper mindset for writing, here's a video from Ensemble Unicorn, an early-music group that specializes in the music of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. This is a "Saltarello," a famous dance piece from Italy that would have been played by roving music groups in Chaucer's time. So you can imagine the Wife of Bath, the Miller, and maybe even the Pardoner dancing to it! (but not the Knight; he's far too dignified for that...his son would, though!). 

Enjoy!

For Friday: Chaucer, "The Pardoner's Tale"

 

Questions for “The Pardoner’s Tale”

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Why does the Pardoner’s Tale also begin with a lengthy Prologue, especially considering it doesn’t have a lot to obviously do with the Tale that follows (unlike the Wife of Bath). Does it change or contradict how we read or understand the Tale itself? Could we even argue that the Prologue and the Tale are written by two different people?

Q2: The Pardoner says the theme of all his sermons is “money is the root of all evil.” Why does he specialize in this theme, and what does his theme suggest about the profession of ‘pardoning’ in general?

Q3: The Pardoner’s Tale is a classic medieval allegory: three ‘brothers’ arming themselves to find and murder Death. Why don’t they recognize him when they find him? What makes it so easy for Death to win, according to the Pardoner (or Chaucer)?

Q4: Why does the Pardoner try to sell his relics and pardons to the entire group after his sermon? Don’t they already know that both are worthless after hearing his Prologue? Why does Chaucer include this humorous sales pitch?

Paper #1 Assignment, due NEXT Friday, September 23rd by 5pm

English 2643

Paper #1: Don’t Shoot the Messenger!

 

But still I hope the company won’t reprove me

Though I should speak as fantasy may move me

And please don’t be offended at my views;

They’re really only offered to amuse.

--Wife of Bath’s Prologue

INTRO: It’s interesting that not only The Wife of Bath, but Chaucer himself, offers this apology to his readers, since the frank and vulgar nature of their tales could indeed offend some readers (then, and today). Of course, the same is true of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which claims to only be telling a second-hand story of Gawain which the poet claimed had been “inked in stories bold and strong”. Why do both poets adopt this polite and obsequious mask? Were they really scared of censure or scandal? Or this an artistic ploy to set the satire of each work in greater relief? Maybe a bit of both??

PROMPT: In your paper, I want you to discuss TWO moments (one in each poem) where you see the ‘mask’ come off, and the author seems to speak loud and clear through his characters or the narration itself. In other words, where do the poets frankly contradict the idea that their stories are “only offered to amuse,” and/or were just accomplished works of literary transcription? Show us where the poet is obviously using the excuse of telling a ‘true story’ to introduce real-world satire, scandalous opinions, or outright ridicule against certain members of their audience. Where does the intelligent reader finally go, “no, I think you wrote this yourself, and you wanted to drive in the nail as far as it would go!” You can choose passages that are thematically linked, or even ones that slightly contradict one another. Just make sure we can see the satire that rises above the story.

REQUIREMENTS: At least 3-4 pages double spaced, though you can do more. Be sure to CLOSE READ two passages from each work to examine the satire, the author’s voice, and the targets of each poet’s critique. Focus more on the language than the plot, and try to avoid giving me an elaborate blow-by-blow of the action. However, do offer context for each quote, and then show me WHY things happen. Be sure to use quotations from each poem in your paper, and cite them according to MLA format as below:

IN-TEXT CITATION

In “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue,” Chaucer has the Wife make the lame apology that her story and its preface are “really only offered to amuse” (263).

WORKS CITED PAGE

Chaucer, Geoffery. “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” The Canterbury Tales. Translated

Nevill Coghill. New York: Penguin Books, 2003.

For Wednesday: Chaucer, "The Wife of Bath's Tale"

Answer TWO of the following for next class:

Q1: In a way, the Wife opens her poem much in the same way the Gawain poet opens his, with a description of the natural wonders of Camelot. But what makes her prelude somewhat different? What does she want us to see about the world of "good olde days" England? Was Camelot really a chivalric utopia? 

Q2: The Wife's Tale satirizes chivalry in much the same way that Gawain does, though from a different perspective. What makes her Tale somewhat sharper, and less forgiving, than Sir Gawain? Do you think her knight fails worse than Gawain does?

Q3: The Wife's Tale in some ways sounds just like the stereotypical stories about shrewish wives that Medieval literature loved to tell themselves (see the post about the Prologue for two excerpts of these poems). Why do you think Chaucer had the Wife tell a somewhat traditional story about knights and Camelot, rather than a story about Alisons and Absalons? Is she purposely telling the 'wrong' story? Or the right one? 

Q4: At the very end of the story, instead of sleeping with the Old Woman as he promised, the knight laments that "You're so old, and abominably plain,/So poor to start with, so low-bred to follow;/It's little wonder if I twist and wallow!" How does the Old Woman respond to his misgivings, and how do we know that this is The Wife herself speaking here (and maybe just behind her, Chaucer)? 

For Monday: Chaucer, "The Wife of Bath's Prologue"

No questions for Monday, but please read "The Wife of Bath's Prologue" (not the Tale) for class. We'll have an in-class writing when you get there, and here are some ideas to think about as you read (including a few excerpts from the kind of Medieval literature that was common at the time): 

(you don't have to answer these--they're just ideas to think about)

* How does Chaucer expand his portrait of the Wife of Bath from the General Prologue in her own Prologue? What does he add or embellish? Is he more satirical here? Or more reverent? How are we supposed to respond to her characterization?

* Do you think his audience would find her interpretation of Scripture shocking or even blasphemous? What about the church figures in the Canterbury pilgrimage?

* What are the Wife’s views about marriage, considering she’s been married five times (and is looking for a sixth)? Does she believe in love or wedded bliss? Or is she ruthlessly cynical like the Miller?

* Do you feel the Wife is a forward-looking depiction of a Medieval woman,  even somewhat proto-feminist? Or is she ultimately another caricature of an over-sexed harpy that likes to beat her husbands into submission? In other words, is she just a middle-aged Alison from “The Miller’s Tale”?

ALSO, if you have time, read the following short texts that are contemporary with Chaucer and are critical of women. These are the kinds of works that The Wife of Bath is responding to in her own Prologue and Tale.

TWO MEDIEVAL TEXTS AGAINST WOMEN/MARRIAGE 

* All excerpts from Women Defamed and Women Defended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts, ed. Alcuin Blamries. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1992.

Anonymous, Against Marrying (c.1222-50)

A married man’s a slave for sure,

His flesh and spirit pain endure—

Like ox from market homeward led

To work the plough until he’s dead.

 

Who take a wife accepts a yoke:

Not knowing pain, with pain he’ll choke.

Who takes a wife, himself is caught

And to eternal serfdom bought...

 

A woman will receive all males:

No prick against her lust prevails.

For who could fill his spouse’s spout?

Alone she wears the district out.

 

Her lustful loins are never stilled:

By just one man she’s unfulfilled.

She’ll spread her legs to all the men

But, ever hungry, won’t say “When.”

Jehan Le Fèvre, The Lamentations of Mathelous (c. 1371-2)

“Many a war is begun by women and many a murder committed throughout the world; castles are burned and ransacked and the poor made destitute. As every man and woman knows, there isn’t one war in a thousand that isn’t started by a woman and her sowing of discord. She is the mother of all calamities; all evil and all madness stem from her. Her sting is more venomous than a snake’s; there isn’t anyone who has anything to do with her that doesn’t live to regret it...

Now you can see how foolhardy it is to take a wife...What is the point of your studying the matter? Don’t get married, have mistresses. If you are weak by nature, it will be safer for you to have a hundred of them rather than devote yourself to one; treat them as if they were no more important than a straw...Woman is a monstrous hermaphrodite, proving to be a chimera with horns and a tail bigger than a peacock or a pheasant’s. Thus she bears the marks of a monster, as this treatise informs you...their sex in no way prepares them to be virtuous or to do good, indeed they are predisposed to do the very opposite.”

For Friday: Chaucer, "The Miller's Prologue & Tale"

Answer TWO of the following...

Q1: Why do you think the Miller responds to the Knight’s tale by saying “I’ve got a splendid tale for the occasion/To pay the night out with, and cap his tale”? What is he responding to (or irritated by)?  Why might a low-class listener (who to be fair, is quite drunk) find fault in the Knight’s tale of bathetic chivalry?

Q2: Related to the question above, how is “The Miller’s Tale” a comic variation on “The Knight’s Tale”? What are the similarities and the slight—but telling—differences? How can we tell that he’s winking at the Knight as he tells it, as if to say “do you recognize your tale?” Consider how films today often parody other more serious films...how is the Miller playing into this tradition?

Q3: Discuss the role of Alison in “The Miller’s Tale”: is she a typically powerless woman seduced and controlled by men, or is she the actual ‘hero’ of the tale? How does the Miller—or Chaucer—want us to ‘read’ Alison, particularly in light of the depiction of Emily in “The Knight’s Tale.”

Q4; Chaucer makes an elaborate apology for this tale, writing “I’m sorry that I must repeat it here/And therefore, I entreat all decent folk/For God’s sake don’t imagine that I speak/With any evil motive...And so, should anyone not wish to hear,/Turn the page over, choose another tale.” Why do you think Chaucer includes such a bawdy, low-humor tale in his collection since he could have easily cleaned it up? Do you think low comedy and sexual humor has a place in literature? Did they have different standards in the 14th century, or is Chaucer merely part of an old tradition we still take part in today? 

For Wednesday: Chaucer, "The Knight's Tale, Parts III & IV"

Finish "The Knight's Tale" for Wednesday's class and remember what we discussed on Friday--about the different narrators in the piece, and how we can tell (if we can tell!) which one of them is speaking when. Is it the Knight? The Poet-Narrator? Or Chaucer himself, speaking through one of them? 

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Why does The Knight lavish such detail on the temples of Mars, Venus, and Diana? For someone who wants to cut to the chase, why does he lose himself in all the seemingly unnecessary detail? Or is there something Chaucer wants us to see here? Who is really writing these passages?

Q2: "Bathos" means an attempt to write great, moving poetry that utterly fails and becomes ridiculous, lame, or simply laughable. Throughout the poem, the Knight has many bathetic moments, either because he isn't the best poet, or he's satirizing the "lovers" in the poem. Discuss a moment which you think is bathetic and makes the poem temporarily come crashing down around the Knight's feet (hint: look at the speeches!). 

Q3: Discuss Theseus' final speech in the poem: since the Knight probably identifies with Theseus, what sentiments is he pronouncing here? How is he trying to end the poem? Do you think Chaucer concurs with this--or is he still mocking the Knight's pretensions? 

Q4: Chaucer (or the Knight) doesn't allow Emily much room to be a character in her own right...but what does she reveal about herself, or the Medieval woman, in the poem? How does she comment on the practice of chivalric love from a woman's perspective? 

For Friday: Chaucer, "The Knight's Tale," Parts I and II

 

A 19th century depiction of The Knight's Tale 

"The Knight's Tale" is one of the longest tales in the book (so of course we're reading it!), but it's also one of the best. It captures the essence of what makes Chaucer so great, while also providing an interesting counterpoint on chivalric romance and the story of Gawain that we read last week. It would be fascinating to know if Chaucer had read that poem, and if it influenced him at all (or the reverse). As you read, remember that this is a poem with three narrators: CHAUCER is telling the story by pretending to be the POET-NARRATOR who is claiming to transcribe, word-for-word, the KNIGHT'S poem. So as you read, ask yourself who is really talking here: the poet, the pretend-poet, or the Knight himself? And where might we hear all three? 

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Though the Knight is telling this story to the entire group, in some ways he has a very specific audience in mind: his son, the Squire. Why might we suspect that this story is really for him? How might this also help explain why tells a story of “long, long ago” instead of a modern tale of knights and battles? Consider, too, the difference between the Knight and the Squire in The General Prologue.

Q2: At the end of Part One, the Knight poses the question: “Now all you lovers, let me pose the question:/Who’s worse off, Arcita or Palamon?” Are we supposed to side with one of the lovers? Does one suffer a worse “hell” than the other? Or does this question have satiric undertones? (again, you might consider the audience)

Q3: Examine Theseus’ response to the lovers at the end of Part II: is this a mockery of the knight’s love or a defense of it? How might this be a commentary on the love story itself?

Q4: What kind of storyteller is the Knight? Remember that the narrator claims that “To tell a tale told by another man/You must repeat it as nearly as you can.” How does his storytelling differ from the narrator’s? What does he do well—or ill? Are we supposed to marvel at his rhetoric or find it somewhat lacking? In other words, does he strike us as a clumsy or a crafty poet?

For Wednesday: Chaucer, "The General Prologue" from The Canterbury Tales

Illustration of Chaucer, adapted from the original Canterbury Tales manuscript

For our next class, read the Prologue to The Canterbury Tales, which is one of the most famous poems in the English language. We'll even examine a little of the original in class on Wednesday. As you read, consider the following questions and bring TWO of them with you to discuss.

Q1: As we discussed on Monday, one of the hallmarks of the 14th century is an increasing focus on humanism, capturing people as they truly were in the language they actually spoke in. How do we know Chaucer is part of this movement in the Prologue? How does he defend (or explain) his purpose in the Prologue?

Q2: Which pilgrim’s description did you find most appealing or interesting? How does Chaucer’s language create this character and help us ‘see’ him or her? What do you feel he wanted us to connect with or admire/dislike about the character?

Q3: Where in the Prologue do we see social criticism and/or outright satire of individual pilgrims? How might this connect to the belief of the ‘common’ English man/woman, particularly regarding topics such as the nobility, the Church, fashion, and manners?

Q4: Compare the style of narration of “The General Prologue” to that of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Both were written around the same time, though in very different parts of England; that said, Chaucer might have been aware of the Gawain poem, and vice versa. Do you think they have more in common, or are they very distinct works of art?