For Friday: Try to Finish Emma!

No questions for Friday's class, but try to finish the remaining chapters of the book or get as close as you can. We'll do a final in-class response over the end parts of the book, focusing on some of the following:

* Frank's letter in Chapter 50 (which we didn't get to talk about yet): what does it reveal about his character and his perspective on the story?

* How do Emma and Knightley read and respond to the letter? Do they agree?

* How does Emma, who vows she will never marry since that would require her to leave her father, reoncile her desire to marry Knightley? What compromise can help them live together?

* Frank returns to the story briefly, and re-encounters Emma: what is their reunion like?

* Similarly, how does Emma and Harriet mend fences after the 'betrayal' with Knightley? Does Harriet get her own happily ever after? Or does she simply  have to take what she can get, since Emma has left her with nothing? (or has she??)

* Why does the Narrator (or Austen) seem so disinterested in the marriage and the 'pay off' for the reader? Why does she merely write, "The wedding was very much like other weddings"? 

* Having read the novel, is it more of a romance or a satire? Can we sympathise with and appreciate the love story at the heart of the novel, or is it satirizing the fact that we can't? In other words, does this end like a traditional love story, or does it make fun of one? 

For Wednesday: Austen, Emma, Chapters 44-50

Keep reading, even if you fall short of Chapter 50. You can catch up for Friday and even next Monday. And heck, even if you don't finish the book, you can still answer the questions and do the Final Paper assignment. So just try to enjoy the story and see where it takes you! There are many surprises in store...

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Why do you think Emma falls in love with Mr. Knightley? Do you believe, as she comes to believe, that she always loved him, but just didn't recognize an emotion that was so familiar to her? Or did it actually happen in response to Jane and Harriet's rivalry? Consider Emma's reflections at the beginning of Chapter 48: "Till now that she was threatened with its loss, Emma had never known how much of her happiness depended on being first with Mr. Knightley" (336). 

Q2: Is Frank Churchill a scoundrel, even despite his happy ending with Jane (who seems to care for him--if we can believe Mrs. Weston and Frank himself)? Why does Knightley thunder against him and even claim "He is a disgrace to the name of man...Jane, Jane you will be a miserable creature" (345-346)? Is this still Knightley's jealousy speaking, or is Austen creating the very real possibility that Jane has made a disastrous match? 

Q3: In Chapter 50 we get a long letter from Frank himself, which is the only time we get a parallel narrative to the episodes related to us by the narrator/Emma. How does it change the story as it was set down in the previous chapters? Is he a convincing narrator--or an unreliable one?

Q4: In Chapter 47, Emma realizes with horror that she has 'ruined' Harriet forever--made her into a vain, upstart woman not unlike herself! As she reflects, "Oh! had she nevr brought Harriet forward! Had she left her where she ought, and where he had told her she ought!" (336). Do you think it's true that Harriet has been corrupted or spoiled in some manner by Emma's friendship? Would Harriet herself agree with this? Did she gain nothing from the chance to move in higher circles? Or is Emma just angry that she created a rival? 

The Last Paper Assignment: Paper #4: Old Wine in New Bottles!

NOTE: The questions for Monday are in the post BELOW this one...

INTRO: Students often complain, “why are they speaking in Old English?!” when reading anything from Shakespeare to Jane Austen, even though the language is easily accessible with a little practice. But then when you ask them their favorite movies, it’s often an adaptation of something very old, which only looks/sounds like new. Even though these films are now pretty old, so many people adore Clueless, Ten Things I Hate About You, She’s the Man, and Cruel Intentions, each one of which is based on a classic work of literature. The twist? It only sounds new through the language and the context—a modern high school, spoken by modern gossip-mongering teens. So is the play the thing? Or does the language really matter?

PROMPT: Sort of following on the heels of our dramatization of The Sonnets, I want you to RE-WRITE A SHORT PASSAGE from either The School for Scandal OR Emma in modern language and in a modern setting. Imagine that this is part of a new adaptation of either work that is set, Clueless-style, somewhere in the modern world. Figure out where it would work, in what setting/context, and between what characters. You can keep the characters exactly the same (Emma, Knightley, etc., just as Clueless did) or you can change their names or backgrounds as long as you don’t fundamentally change who they are. But all you really have to do is re-write a passage (length is entirely up to you) in modern language/style without deviating from the general sense of the passage in question. I want to read some of these in class so we can hear the translations live, and enjoy what changes and what doesn’t change with the switch of language and time/place.

FOR EXAMPLE: In Chapter 31 of Emma, Emma is trying to talk Harriet out of love with Mr. Elton. She finally finds a wonderful way to gaslight her, which I might re-write as the following: “Harriet, if we’re being honest, you’re really making me feel like proper shit here. I mean, I’ve done so much for you, and I’ve already taken the blame for this whole Mr. Elton-fiasco, but here you’re still whining about him and why it didn’t work out. So what you’re really saying is, “Emma, you’re a terrible matchmaker, or else you don’t think I deserved him to begin with.” Which is really triggering me because like, I know it’s my fault, okay? I get it. You don’t have to keep reminding me. My therapist—Dr. Weston, she’s totally the best—is already telling me about working on my positive self-image, and I was about to scale back to three sessions a week, but then whenever you start crying, it’s like one step forward, two steps back, you know? So chill, please. I’m only thinking about you, after all. You get that, right?”

See how fun it is? So take a passage that really delights you, either a long dialogue-bath from Miss Bates, or a witty change between Sir Peter and Lady Teazle, and let us hear how modern words/phrases can clothe this timeless situation. Help us see how modern it is behind the 18/19^th century decorum. Because really, nothing ever changes, and literature in particular reminds of this fact.

DUE IN-CLASS Friday, May 9^th! It’s a birthday present to me! 😊

For Monday: Austen, Emma, Chapters 33-43

NOTE: I'm starting where we left off on the questions, even though I told you to try to finish Volume II for Wednesday's class. But since we didn't really discuss it much (other than the parts which were covered by the movie), I thought we would go back and pick up some of the important passages in these earlier chapters. 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Though Austen tries not to delve too much into politics and social causes, how do some issues of the world 'outside' bleed into the novel? Where do we see that Austen was aware of the social ills of her society, and wanted to address them, even slightly, in her novel? And which of her characters seem most aware of thes social reality of early 19th century England? (hint: you might look at Chapter 35)

Q2: How does Emma's interest seem to shift from Frank toward Knightley in these chapters? Where do we see--and perhaps, where does she see--that she is more interested in Knightley than she may have realized? And why might the Frank/Jane duo be necessary for her to realize this?

Q3: Why does Emma concoct the scheme to bring Harriet and Frank together? Isn't this a match doomed to fail? And isn't her too highborn for Harriet (who is an orphan, after all) to aspire to? Besides hubris, what else motivates Emma to bring the two of them together?

Q4: In many ways, Chapter 43, at Box Hill, is the dramatic heart of the novel. We saw this scene dramatized in the 1996 BBC version of Emma  on Wednesday. What does Austen, herself, show us about this scene that makes it so important to the novel and to the characters in it? What comes out in this scene, and what can never be put "back in"? 

For Monday: Emma, Chapters 24-32 & Paper #3

The 2009 BBC Emma, which is well worth watching; there are four versions currently available, from the 80's, 90's, 00's, and 20's. 

NOTE: The Paper #3 assignment is at the bottom of this post, so if you missed class on Friday, be sure to review it. I'll give you a hard copy on Monday.

Answer two of the following: 

Q1. How does Frank Churchill ingratiate himself with Emma throughout these chapters? Is this meant to be romantic, the way any two characters fall in love in a novel? Or does the narrator gently push against this in some way? Are we meant to believe in him (as Emma does), or suspect him (as Knightley does)? 

Q2. Jane Fairfax is a peripheral character in these chapters, seen only in glimpses; yet Austen is careful to lay great weight on these moments.  What are we made to see in her brief interactions with Frank, Emma, and Miss Bates?  What kind of character is she?  Do we agree with Emma’s comment, “this amiable, upright, perfect Jane Fairfax was apparently cherishing very reprehensible feelings”? 

Q3: Find a passage where the narrator employs "free indirect discourse" (see the paper assignment below that follows for a definition) in the novel. How does she incorporate other voices into her narration, and why do you think she does this? What affect does it have to hear the voices through her voice, rather than through their own?

Q4: Why is Emma's first impressions of Mrs. Elton--like Jane's--so unfavorable? How does she form a judgment of her even before she sees her, and how does the impression worsen once they actually meet? What lies behind her dislike? Is it merely jealousy and competition? Or we are meant to dislike her, too? 

Paper #3: The Author Behind the Curtain

From M.H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms:

“The grammar of narration is the analysis of special grammatical uses that are characteristic of fictional narratives…that mis, words and phrases such as “now,” “then,” “here,” and “there,” “today,” “last week,” as well as personal pronouns and some tenses of verbs—whose reference depends on the particular speaker and his or her position in space and time. In many narratives, usually in a way not explicitly noted by the reader, the references of such terms constantly shift or merge, as the narration moves from the narrator, by whom the events are told in the past tense to a character in the narration, for whom the action is present.

 Another notable grammatical usage in narration has been called free indirect discourse or “represented speech and thought.” These terms refer to the way, in many narratives, that the reports of what a character says and thinks shifts in pronouns, adverbs, tense, and grammatical mode, as we move—or sometimes hover—between the directed narrated representation of these events as they occur to the character and the indirect representation of such events by the narrator of the story. Thus, a direct representation, “He thought, ‘I will see her home now, and may then stop at my mother’s,’” might shift to “He thought that he would see her home and then maybe stop at his mother’s.”

 PROMPT: For this assignment, I want you to examine a short passage in Emma where the narrator is not just telling us what is happening, but is inserting her own ideas into the narrative and/or appropriating the voices of her characters (often satirically) to make her points. How is she using the tools of her trade, including things like “free indirect discourse” to tell the story behind the story? Since she is writing in the present, and her characters exist in the past, how does this passage play with the space in-between the two?

CLOSE READ this passage (it can be a paragraph or about a page long, but not much longer) to explain how Austen is artfully using narration to say things without seeming to say them, and to challenge how we read or interpret the story without the characters being aware of it. Do you think this is fair? Is it too heavy-handed? Too satirical? Or does it help explain the ‘gray areas’ of the text which the characters often can’t express or are otherwise taboo? Why would the book lose something important without this passage (and others like it), and why do you think authors refrain from this kind of narration today?

NO PAGE LIMIT…BUT YOU MUST CLOSE READ: DON’T JUST SUMMARIZE!

DUE NEXT FRIDAY IN-CLASS!

 

 

 

 

For Friday: Austen, Emma, Chapters 16-23

 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: In Chapter 18, Emma and Knightley are discussing Frank Churchill--a man neither of them has yet met--and they have (once more) an argument. As she complains, "You seem determined to think ill of him." Does his dislike of Frank come from a simple source--jealousy? Or do his complaints carry more weight than she wants to believe? You might consider whose criticisms seem more true to life once Frank enters the story. 

Q2: What makes Jane Fairfax such a foil for Emma in the story? How does the narrator present her to us, and how to other people genreally respond to her? Similarly, why does Emma seem to dislike her so much from the beginning? Does anyone share her opinion? 

Q3: First impressions are always an important element of any Jane Austen novel. What are Emma's first impressions of Frank Churchill once she actually meets him? Is she really seeing him, or is she still 'reading' him through her own novelistic fantasy of class and family? Is it love at first sight? Or something else?

Q4: Does Emma begin to have any doubts in these chapters of her powers of observation or matchmaking? What might make her overweening confidence begin to falter--even for a moment--in the wake of Elton's rejection and Churchill's arrival? 

For Wednesday: Austen, Emma, Chapters 9-15 (approx)

No questions this time, but keep reading Emma and try to get around Chapter 14 for next time. I'll give you an in-class response when you return based on some passage or idea in these chapters, which might include the following:

* Why does Emma so completely misread Mr. Elton's romantic intentions towards her? Why does she attribute them instead to Harriet? What might this say about her character and talents of outward perception?

* How does her relationship with Knightley continue to develop in these chapters? Do they have a potentially romantic relationship--or merely an adversarial one? What insights does Austen allow us to into their past relationship? 

* While Knightley criticizes Emma's attempts to mold and improve Harriet, could we argue that he is doing the same toward Emma? Is he trying to shape her into the future Mrs. Knightley (and failing)?

* Why is she so insulted by Mr. Elton's declaration of love? Is it merely because of the insult to Harriet--or to the insult toward herself? Does she really think him so beneath her? 

* How does the novel continue to play with the ideas of sensibility and sentiment? Which characters most embody which quality? How does Austen make us aware of this? 

* What does Emma see as Harriet's biggest failings--and hardest 'flaws' to correct? Are these really flaws, or just her own social bias showing through? In other words, do these need to be fixed? 

For Monday: Emma, Chapters 1-8

 

For Monday: Austen, Emma, Chapters 1-8

NOTE: Feel free to read more than the first eight chapters if the mood takes you, but I want to start slow since starting any novel (especially Austen) takes a little getting used to. We’ll talk about some of the main characters and their relationships in class on Monday, as well as some issues of Class which are very important to the book. Give Austen’s language some time to sink in: this does not read like a modern novel, since the author’s voice is more like its own character, who makes snarky comments at times about the characters and even adopts their voices/perspectives. But once you get into it, I think you’ll find it very amusing and fascinating. Hope you enjoy it!

Answer two of the following:

Q1: In most novels of the time, and maybe novels of our time, Harriet Smith might be the main character, and Emma a side character (or even a villain!). Novels are usually about the education and growth of a young, naïve character into some kind of experience and wisdom, which Harriet would certainly qualify for. Based on that, why do you think Austen made Emma the main character? Doesn’t she seem already developed and ‘set’ as a character? Or is she writing a very different kind of novel?

Q2: Sort of related to Q1, why does Emma take such an interest in Harriet Smith? Are her motives truly altruistic, or does she have a selfish motive at heart? How do other people, such as Mr. Knightley, view her relationship with Harriet?

Q3: How does Emma define culture and being respectable in these chapters? Besides wealth, what separates someone (in her eyes) like Knightley and Robert Martin (the farmer who proposes to Harriet)? What makes someone worthy of polite society and her friendship? Do you think Austen agrees with this definition, or is it open for critique/satire?

Q4: What is the tone of Emma as a novel? Is it a satire like The School for Scandal, or a more serious/darker work like Dangerous Liasons? Or is it something more comic like Chaucer would write? How can we 'hear' the tone in the voice of the narrator herself? Can you isolate a specific passage that makes you confident of the tone/genre of the work itself?  

For Monday: Sheridan, The School for Scandal, Acts 4-5

 

Answer two of the following...

Q1: The great writer and playwright, Oscar Wilde, once wrote that, “an artist, sir, has no ethical sympathies at all. Virtue and wickedness are to him simply what the colours on his palette are to the painter. They are no more, and they are no less … Shakespeare, as Keats said, had as much delight in creating the one as he had in creating the other.” Do you think this is true for Sheridan and The School for Scandal? Is there a strong moral that emerges in the final act…or does the play remain mostly amoral, delighting in society’s depravity without strongly taking sides?

Q2: In his attempt to seduce Lady Teazle, Joseph Surface claims that “ ‘Tis this very conscious innocence that is of the greatest prejudice to you. What is it that makes you negligent of forms and careless of the world’s opinion? Why, the consciousness of your innocence. What makes you impatient of Sir Peter’s temper and outrageous at his suspicions? Why, the consciousness of your own innocence” (4.3). What does this mean? Why might she need to be “unconscious” of her innocence in order to be truly “innocent”?

Q3: Sir Peter continually proclaims Joseph Surface as “a man of sentiment…there is nothing in the world so noble as a man of sentiment” (4.3). The Oxford English Dictionary defines this as (among other definitions), “What one feels with regard to something; mental attitude (of approval or disapproval, etc.); an opinion or view as to what is right or agreeable.” How does Joseph seem to embody this quality, and by extension, why doesn’t Charles?

Q4: Do you feel that Charles and/or Lady Teazle are truly reformed by the end of the play? While Charles repents for his conduct and Lady Teazle returns her “diploma” to Lady Sneerwell, is this yet another act in the play? Are they still playing roles for a different audience? Or have the masks finally come off? How can we tell?

For Wednesday: Sheridan, The School for Scandal, Act III

Remember to read Act III of The School for Scandal (the last play in the book, if you have the Penguin Classics edition) for Wednesday's class. There are NO QUESTIONS for Wednesday, since we'll have an in-class response instead. Here are some ideas to consider as you read:

* Look at the argument Sir Peter and Lady Teazle get into in Act III, Scene i, which ends up in both of them threatening divorce. What sets them off? Why does he keep 'acting' like her enemy when he's clearly in love with her?

* Why does Sir Oliver get in on the act and play the role of Mr. Premium? Why does he simply confront Charles without the mask? 

* How does Act III also reveal the casual racism of the era, which forced people outside the norm of English life into stereotypical roles? Do you think Sheridan is trying to expose these stereotypes or taking them at face value? 

* What does Charles do that deeply offends Sir Oliver (disguised as Mr. Premium)? Why is this shocking to him, and probably to an eighteenth-century audience? 

* Is Charles a sympathetic character; are we rooting for him at this point in the play? If so, what makes him a more likable character than, say, his brother Joseph? Has Charles earned his bad reputation, or is it all slander from the 'school for scandal'? 

For Monday: Sheridan, The School for Scandal, Acts 1-2

 

Answer TWO of the following for Monday’s class:

Q1: Which characters or lines in the play reminded you the most of Dangerous Liasons? Why is this? What makes you know that both works are from the same general world, even if one takes place in France and the other in England?

Q2: In Act 2, Mrs. Candour defends her delight in gossiping by saying, “surely you would not be quite so severe on those who only report what they hear?” (214). Do you think there’s any merit to this defense? If they’re not actively causing harm to other people, but just repeating what others have already said—whether true or false—are they really to blame? Or are they equally guilty?

Q3: We meet Sir Peter and Lady Teazle in this play, which is a new take on the age-old joke of old men marrying young wives (which we also encountered in The Wife of Bath’s Prologue). What does Sheridan seem to be poking fun at in this relationship: just his age? Or some factor of marriage between unequal partners? (hint: Jane Austen will pick up on this theme herself)

Q4:  Dangerous Liasons was a more serious work of satire, while The School for Scandal is more humorous and light-hearted. But where might the joke be less ‘funny’ in this play? In other words, why might Sheridan have the same intentions for the play as the film? Where is the comedy not really a comedy?

After Spring Break: The Midterm Paper (new DUE DATE) and other info

I've made a few tweaks to the schedule after Spring Break, which are pasted below. The biggest thing is that your Mid-Term Paper is due ANY TIME the week we return, but NO LATER than Friday by around 5pm. That should give you some extra time to work on it and iron out the connections between Sonnets. The Mid-Term assignment sheet is posted about four posts down (scroll down to find it).  

Be sure that you have a copy of Sheridan's The School for Scandal, which is a play we'll start reading the week after we return from class. We'll watch a film that introduces the world and the context of the play called Dangerous Liasons, which is an adaptation of an 18th century French novel that was all the rage in Austen's day, and of which she was a big fan. 

Here's the revised schedule for the rest of the semester, which we should pretty much stick to:

M 17                SPRING BREAK

 

M 24               Film: Dangerous Liasons

W 26               Film: Dangerous Liasons

F 28                Film Discussion/ Mid-Term Paper due

 

M 31               Sheridan, The School for Scandal, Acts 1-2

 

APRIL

W 2                Sheridan, The School for Scandal, Act 3

R 3                 [Scissortail Creative Writing Festival begins]

F 4                 Scissortail Creative Writing Festival [no class]

 

M 7                 Sheridan, The School for Scandal, Acts 4-5

W 9                 Context: The Age of the Novel

F 11                Austen, from "Love and Friendship" [handout]

 

M 14                Austen, Emma TBA

W 16               Austen, Emma, TBA

F 18                Austen, Emma, TBA

 

M 21               Austen, Emma TBA  

W 23               Austen, Emma, TBA

F 25                Short Paper #3 due in class  

 

M 28                Austen, Emma, TBA

W 30               Austen, Emma, TBA  

 

MAY

F 2                   Austen, Emma, TBA  

 

M 5                  Austen, Emma, TBA

W 7                 Wrap-Up/Discuss Final Paper

F 9                  [Extra class if needed]

 

Final Paper due TBA

 

 

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, The Sonnets, Part 5

Read the following Sonnets for our last (sigh) official class on The Sonnets, even though we'll be discussing your Paper #2 assignment on Friday (so I guess that still counts). However, I tried to summarize the rest of the 'story' of the Sonnets up with the following Sonnets, though feel free to read more around them--I still left out some great ones! 

Read the following for Wednesday's class: 116, 121, 126, 127, 129, 130, 134, 135, 138, 144.

We'll do an in-class writing response when you come to class on Wednesday, but consider some of the following ideas:

* What makes Sonnet 126 different from all the rest? Look less at what the sonnet is saying than how it is written...compare how it looks on the page to other sonnets (hint, hint).

* Sonnet 116 is one of the most famous sonnets in the entire sequence, almost as much as Sonnet 18, and is often read at weddings. What makes this sonnet so traditionally romantic, and why is it coming so late in the sequence (especially since he ends things with the young man in Sonnet 126)? Is it out of place?

* How does Sonnet 121 seemt to negate Sonnet 116, and why do they come so close together in the sequence?

* Sonnet 127 is the first one featuring the "Dark Mistress," as most scholars call her. How is his relationship markedly different with her than the Young Man?

* Sonnet 130 is another super famous one, and is often contrasted with Sonnet 18. Is this also a romantic sonnet? How is his love and appreciation different for the woman than the man?

* Look at all the possible meanings of "will" in Sonnet 135, one of which is the poet's own name, Will. Read the longer note on page 339 if you really want to open your eyes to all the possibilities! 

* What kind of relationship does the poet have with the mistress by Sonnet 138? Is this deep love and affection? Deep distrust and paranoia? Or a reluctant truce?

Class Updates!

 I sent everyone an e-mail about this, but I wanted to post it here as well just in case. Here's what to expect for the rest of this week and next week:

* I sent everyone the In-Class Writing Response to the Sonnets we planned to do today in class. You can bring that to class on Monday OR e-mail it to me between now and then. 

* The new questions for Monday are in the post BELOW this one. You can also find the Short Paper #2 assignment and the Mid-Term Assignment in the post below that one (though I handed them both out on Monday).

* The Short Paper #2 will NOT be due on Monday anymore. We'll move it two days back to Friday (next Friday, the 14th). The Mid-Term will have the same due date after Spring Break.

Let me know if you have any other questions! Hope to see you on Monday! 

For Monday (!): Shakespeare, The Sonnets, Part 4

NOTE: Since we're losing two days of class, I want to keep up with The Sonnets so we can roughly finish them before Spring Break. So read the following for Monday's class, and you can turn these in anytime this week.

Read the following Sonnets: 73, 78, 80, 82, 86, 87, 91, 94, 96, 110

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In these later Sonnets, a fourth character seems to enter the scene, someone else to complicate the initial love triangle. Where do we see a fourth person (and a second rival for the young man's love)? Why might this rival be even more threatening than the Mistress?

Q2: As a playwright, Shakespeare not only draws from a stock of theatrical metaphors, but also adopts dramatic poses and rhetoric. Where might we see the poet adopting a theatrical 'mode' for greater effect? In other words, why might the poet be adopting a role or simply "acting out" to elicit a specific emotion from the young man? How do we know this poem might be a little out of place because of this attitude?  

Q3: Is the poet trying to end the relationship himself in these Sonnets, or do you feel he’s merely trying to deal with the fact that it’s been over for some time? Who broke up with whom? How do you read a Sonnet like 71, for example, by way of answering this question?

Q4: Do we get any more sense of who the Lover is based on these later Sonnets? Their class, rank, wealth, profession, etc.? Is Shakespeare this person’s inferior? Is he truly a younger man? What clues emerge as their relationship comes to its fatal conclusion? Is Shakespeare (or the poet) more forthcoming with information he might have previously withheld?

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, The Sonnets, Part 3

For Wednesday's class, read the following range of 10 Sonnets (though feel free to read others within this range as well):

Nos. 46, 53, 55, 57, 58, 62, 66, 68, 69, 71

We'll have an in-class writing response when you come to class. However, here are some ideas to consider as you read:

* Look for repetitions in Shakespeare--words that he repeats often in one poem, or a word that he plays on with several different meanings in one Sonnet. But whenever he repeats something, it's for a reason, to call attention to the idea behind the word.

* Does he continue to make excuses for the beloved's behavior, or is he more in 'attack' mode at this point? Who is winning the "civil war between  love and hate"? 

* Note when he switches back into "you" from "thou" in the poems, and try to figure out why he does this. What is the effect of using "you" in a poem, such as No.55, or 57? 

* Have the poems become more sophisticated as they go along? More complex? Darker? Stranger? What quality has changed over the course of 70 sonnets?

* How 'healthy' do you think the poet's love is for the beloved? Are there signs that this is pathological behavior? Could he be arrested for this behavior today? Are we supposed to condone the poet's sentiments? Or be afraid of them? (Remember, Shakespeare writes many plays about lovers who kill their beloved for questionable reasons, such as Othello).

Paper #2 and the Mid-Term Paper Assignments

Short Paper #2: Call and Response

INTRO: This short paper is designed to get you ‘into’ the Mid-Term paper by focusing on a brief close-reading exercise with The Sonnets. It’s very simple but will require you to really pay attention to the language so that you ANALYZE instead of just SUMMARIZE. This is the most important thing you can do when writing a literature paper.

THE PROMPT: Pick TWO Sonnets (no more) from anywhere in the sequence that you feel respond to one another almost literally. By this I mean that one Sonnet says something, and the other one responds to it, as if they are written by two different people. What makes you hear this ‘call and response’ in the poems? Who might be speaking in each one (it doesn’t just have to be Shakespeare and the Lover)? What ideas do they both share, and how does each one examine them? Does one question how the initial theme is presented? Is one more defensive and one more accusatory? Does the second one come to some sort of resolution or explanation about the first? Or does it end in an even greater mystery?

REQUIREMENTS: Try to CLOSE READ both poems, either by looking first at one and then the other, or by examining them together, examining shared themes or ideas. But don’t just say “this poem seems to say this, or makes me feel this” without showing us where and how. Remember how subjective literature is: what you see isn’t necessary what I see, or what someone else sees. So you have to show us where you see it and why you think it reads that way. Examine individual words, too, since words can be twisted and pulled in many directions. Don’t be afraid to use the word glossary on the left side of the Folder edition, too, to help you.

DUE: In-Class on Friday. the 14th (revised date). Obviously we haven’t read all The Sonnets yet, so just do what you can with the ones we’ve read by then. I want to discuss the connections you found in class since this could help everyone work on their Mid-Term papers. If you miss class, the paper is still due by class time.

 

Mid-Term Paper: He Said/He Said

For your more creative Mid-Term Paper, I want you to create a mini drama of connected poems for TWO ACTORS, each actor speaking FOUR Sonnets. The catch is that each Sonnet (except the very first) is a response to the one before it, as if they’re having an actual poetic conversation. So even though The Sonnets as we have them feature a single person speaking, imagine that these poems are actually a dialogue between two people, with one Sonnet by the Poet, and another Sonnet by the Lover, in response. You should decide WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE (they don’t have to be Shakespeare and the Lover, for example; they can be contemporary people, or characters in a movie or sitcom, and you can even swap their gender, age, etc.) and A STORY/BACKDROP for the Sonnets (such as—they work in an office together, or they’re a divorced couple, are two aging-movie stars, etc).

Your Paper should open with a Cast of Characters (explain who each character is) and a list of Four Acts, concluding with a One Sonnet Epilogue. Each Act Should have a general Title/Theme and should indicate which two Sonnets make up that Act. For example:

Actor 1: Jim from The Office

Actor 2: Pam from The Office

Act 1: The First Meeting: Sonnets 14 and 29

Act 2: Working Late at Night: Sonnets 53 and 74

Act 3: The Fatal First Kiss: Sonnets 28 and 92

Act 4: Going Our Separate Ways: Sonnets 124 and 134

Epilogue: Sonnet 145

 

The ‘writing’ part of your paper should briefly explain the conversation you see in each Act, and why you chose these Sonnets. Use a little close reading here to read AT LEAST ONE of the Sonnets to bring out the conversation between the two characters. Do this for all Four Acts and the Epilogue, explaining how this ‘winds up’ the entire drama. This doesn’t have to be too long or exhaustive, but I should get a sense that you didn’t just choose poems at random. I want to see the logic and the connection between the two sonnets that make them a dialogue. Feel free to use entire parts of your Short Paper #2 for this as well.

HAVE FUN with this, and try to imagine the Sonnets as a conversation (which in many ways they are) which goes back and forth, up and down, and sideways. Does anyone ‘win’ in this struggle, or do they both declare defeat? What do you want us to see about the characters through the Sonnets? Who is the betrayed and who the betrayer?

DUE MONDAY, MARCH 24^th BY 5pm (we do have class that day, but will be watching a film)

For Monday: Shakespeare, The Sonnets, Part 2

 

For Monday, please read the following Sonnets:

·      23-25

·      29-31

·      33-35

·      40-42

Answer two of the following:

Q1: In many of the Sonnets, Shakespeare seems to elaborate on the same idea in pairs or throughout several Sonnets. Discuss how one of the groups above seems to do this? What does he most develop: the situation? The metaphor? the approach? the tone/attitude? Be specific so we can see how they're related, and if possible, what one of them develops (is the second harsher than the first, or vice versa?)

Q2: Many of the early sonnets seem to express a philia, or sincere     friendship between the poet and the young man (as in Sonnet 1). Do you detect a change in the Sonnets as they hit the 20's? What specifically seems to change, and where might we sense an element of eros (romantic love)? Do you think the poet was addressing them to a different audience? Clues?

Q3: Reading between the lines of these poems, how does the poet reveal something about his personal life or class/station? What is his relationship to the young man (or whomever he's writing to)? Are they of the same age? Class? Profession? How can we tell?

Q4: Many of these poems are defined by their complaints: the poet seems to have a lot of grievances against the young man, and has trouble hiding his feelings. Reading between the lines, what does the young man seem to have done to the poet, or what 'crimes' has he committed? Do these threaten the relationship they have together, or is it more born out of jealousy or paranoia? 

 

For Friday: Shakespeare, The Sonnets, Part 1 & the Handout from Wednesday's class

 

For Friday: Shakespeare, The Sonnets, Part 1

Read Sonnets 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20: you can read all 20 if you want, but we’ll only have time to discuss a few, so I want to whittle it down to 6 basic poems. However, Shakespeare often writes the same idea two or three different ways in poems adjacent to each other, as you’ll see in 17 and 18, so it might be useful to read the poems just before or just after the ones listed here.

ALSO: the handout I gave in class about the Sonnets is just below the questions in case you missed class on Wednesday. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Discuss where you see a distinct shift in the relationship between the poet and the ‘young man’ he’s writing to. It could be big or small, or just a slight change in language. What do you think prompted this change? Is the poet just taking a risk, or do you think something outside the poem prompted it? Any clues?

Q2: Discuss a unique metaphor that one of the Sonnets uses that you’ve never read or thought about before. How is it comparing one thing to something else, and why is it so effective? Do you think it would be as effective with the poem’s intended audience?

Q3:  Discuss a line or passage in ONE of the poems that has very unusual syntax (sentence/grammatical structure). What do you think it literally means, and why do you think he writes it this way? Could he have been trying to make it difficult to read or understand?

Q4: Which poem feels or sounds the most like a ‘love poem’ to you? Why is this? What makes the poem unusually intimate or revealing? Also, what makes it so different than the other poems around it?

Q5: How do two of the poems seem to ‘copy’ each other? Or, why might one poem actually be the revision (or the first draft) of another one? Where do we see ideas, words, or metaphors repeated, even if with slight variation? Discuss TWO poems that do this.

READING THE SONNETS: SOME THINGS TO REMEMBER

Iambic Pentameter: an “iamb” is a pair of syllables—unstressed and stressed; “pentameter” means literally five meter, and in this case, a meter of five iambs.

EX: From FAIR-est CREA-tures WE de-SIRE in-CREASE.

The Sonnet: Typically a 14-line poem which has a strict rhyme scheme: ABAB, CDCD, EFEF, GG. It always ends in a rhyming couplet, set apart from the rest of the poem, which usually twists the meaning somewhat, often with a surprise or a contradiction of what came before. HOWEVER, sometimes Shakespeare will fiddle with the number of lines, and in one poem (late in the sequence) he even removes the couplet! So be on the lookout for subtle changes.

Poetic Syntax: Syntax is how we put a sentence together, and Shakespeare bends the rules of grammar for poetic effect. For example, he often inverts a sentence like “He goes off to the store” to “Off to the store goes he.” Or, in the first sentence of Sonnet 1, he says “From fairest creatures we desire increase,” rather than “We desire increase from the fairest creatures.” Sometimes this is for rhythmic effect, or to create a rhyme. But other times, it is for emphasis—so the object doesn’t get lost in the sentence. And sometimes it’s simply to create ambiguity and mystery. The Elizabethans liked puzzles, and literary puzzles most of all. Especially when you’re writing love poems, which might require a certain amount of secrecy!

The Narrator and Audience: “These sonnets are not the unaddressed speeches of an anonymous “I.” They are utterances in which it matters who is speaking, to whom, and in what situation…Shakespeare’s speaker is not analyzing his inner experience in relation to the loved object, the “she” of most other Elizabethan sequences. Instead, the poems work like conversation, even if they get no direct answer…As with any conversation or phone call overheard, they make a demand on the interpreter to imagine who would say this to whom, and in what situation. Speech is a social activity: what one says depends on whom one speaks to and in what context” (Magnusson, Shakespeare’s Sonnets: A Modern Perspective).

The Language of Intimacy: “In Elizabethan English, power differences are strongly marked in use of pronouns: “you” is the usual address to a social superior, with “thou” tending to denote someone of lesser power or in an intimate relationship that is reciprocal. How, then, is it that the speaker dares to “thou” the addressee throughout the first fifteen sonnets?...The private “I,” withheld until Sonnet 10, begins to make quiet intrusions into the safe and publicly accountable language of instruction…this emerging “I” also shifts his pronoun of address, at least temporarily, to the more deferential “you.” Why should the addressee now become “you?...what is fascinating here is how [his consciousness] shows itself in the verbal ballet of “thou” and “you,” “we” and “I”” (Magnusson, Shakespeare’s Sonnets: A Modern Perspective).

(Reschedule) For Friday: Chaucer, "The Nun's Priests' Tale"

NOTE: Since ECU is closed on Wednesday, I'll move everything on the syllabus back. That means we WILL have class on Friday and your Paper #1 will be due the following Monday. BUT we will have class on Monday...but there won't be any work. I'll just introduce some background on Shakespeare so you won't have extra work to compete with finishing your paper by around 5pm. I'll remind you of this in class on Friday, but remember, we DO have class on Friday, so take the weekend to finish your Paper #1. 

For Friday, read the next-to-last tale in our book, "The Nun's Priest's Tale," which is an animal fable about a rooster named Chanticleer and his wife, Pertelote. It is a very odd tale, since we don't know much about the narrator, except that he is a priest traveling with the Prioress from the Prologue (Madame Eglantyne). And like all animal fables (think Animal Farm), this is a satire of human life and behavior, as is evident from all the books Chanticleer and his wife read and throw at each other as they argue about the proper interpretation of dreams! Keep this in mind as you read, and look for moments of satire in the story--especially toward people in the audience. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Why do you think Chaucer gave this story--one of his most elaborate, and fantastical--to a relatively anonymous narrator? In many ways, I would expect the Prioress herself to recite this one, or even the Wife of Bath. Why might his anonymity aid the reader (and the teller) more than someone we know much better from the Prologue? Does Chaucer use this to his advantage in the tale itself?

Q2: The quarrel between Chanticleer and his wife, Pertelote, is one of the few snapshots we get in medieval literature of a 'typical' husband and wife. How do their dialogue contrast with that of the Wife of Bath with her own husbands? Does Chanticleer offer his wife "sovereignty" over their household? Or does he seem to hold sway? Despite their animal natures, do you think this is a more realistic depiction of marriage than we see in, say, The Wife of Bath's Tale? 

Q3: The term "Bathos" (or "bathetic") means a rhetorical anticlimax, or in other words, something that tries to be pathetic (deeply emotional) and fails. Ironically, what we call "pathetic" today is really "bathetic." Most authors use bathos for ironic effect, to play up emotions that really fall short of reality. What scenes in this tale are highly bathetic and why? What makes them seem a bit absurd and are played for laughs, even though they are treated seriously by the narrator? Do you think the narrator is aware of this, or is Chaucer putting him up to it? 

Q4: The story behind all the narrative embellishments and classical citations is almost comically simple: a fox tricks a rooster into being caught, and the rooster, in turns, tricks the fox into letting him go. If we just had the plot to go by, the moral would be as basic as "don't talk to strangers," or something similar. But the narrator adds a Gawain-like element which blames women for Chanticleer's downfall. Do you think this story is meant as a reposte to the Wife of Bath? Is Pertelote a caricature of her, and women like her? Or is Chanticleer, like Gawain, the butt of the joke? 

For Monday: Chaucer, The Wife of Bath's Tale

Answer TWO of the questions for next time--and yes, this very short Tale has inspired five questions! There's just so much going on here...

Q1: Obviously, we can't read this Tale without the Prologue looming large in our sight. We read everything through the Wife's voice and opinions. And yet, how might we read this story differently without the Prologue? What if we didn't know the Wife was telling it, and assumed it was just a kind a fairy tale told by a man (as it really is)? What would change about the story and/or its intentions? Or would it remain roughly the same? 

Q2: Did you find it strange that the Wife of Bath is telling a story more similar to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight than The Miller’s Tale? Why do you think she chose to do this? Why might a story of chivalry misplaced, magic, and King Arthur suit her personality and interests? Does this go against the grain of the Prologue? Or develop its central themes? (Incidentally, scholars have evidence that this story was originally meant for someone else, and Chaucer gave it to the Wife in a later revision…)

Q3: The question posed to the Knight—“What thing it is that women most desire”—is somewhat ridiculous and of course utterly subjective; and yet, when the women of court hear his answer, all of them agree that it is utterly true. What do you make of this response? Does this answer flatter men or women the most? And do you think Chaucer believes it himself, or is this merely the work of the Wife?

Q4: At the very end of the story, instead of sleeping with the Old Woman as he promised, the Knight laments that "You are so loathy, and so old also,/And come from such low lineage, no doubt,/Small wonder that I wallow and writhe about” (166). How does this compare with Gawain’s own ‘failure’ before the Green Knight? Which one has failed chivalry worse? Or are they different sides of the same coin?

Q5: Does the ‘happy ending’ of the Tale simply a re-writing of the Wife’s own history with her fifth husband? Has she merely tricked him into an uneasy truce through her own lies and deceit? Or does the ending strike at something different—and more subversive—than even the Wife understands? (does Chaucer take over, in other words)?

For Friday: 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...

(remember, 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”?

* How do some of her arguments remind you of Christine de Pisan's arguments defending women (from the handout I gave you)? Do you think Christine de Pisan would agree with the Wife despite her more secular--and sexual--perspective? 

For Wednesday: Chaucer, "The Miller's Prologue and Tale"

NOTE: The story that precedes this one, “The Knight’s Tale,” is a very long and somewhat long-winded tale about two ‘knights’ in ancient Greece who are taken captive and both of whom fall in love with the same woman (Emily) through a window in their prison cell. Though friends, Arcita and Palamon each become dire foes over this love, and vow to fight to the death over her. One escapes, while the other is pardoned, and both wind up fighting an elaborate duel to win her affections (no one asks Emily who she wants). Arcita defeats Palamon, but at the last second, his horse is spooked and throws him to the ground, where he breaks his neck. So Palamon gets Emily, though she makes it clear she doesn’t want either one…but that’s not an option, so she marries Palamon. What makes this story so interesting is how the Knight tells it, with long digressions and asides which often derail his story. However, the Miller finds the story boring and offensive, and tells his story in order to mock what he feels is a pretentious tale about chivalric love. He would probably feel much the same about Sir Gawain and the Green Knight!

Answer TWO of the following...

Q1: Why do you think the Miller responds to the Knight’s tale by saying “I know a noble tale I could tell you/With which right now I'll pay back the Knight's tale”? Why might a low-class listener (who to be fair, is also quite drunk) find fault in a story like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which is similar in many respects to “The Knight’s Tale”? What might he misunderstand, or simply be annoyed/offended by?

Q2: 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 Wife in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? Is she another faithless ‘daughter of Eve’?

Q3: Chaucer makes an elaborate apology for this tale, writing “For the love of God, judge not what I say/as my own rude intent; I must rehearse/All of their tales, the better and the worse/Or else, my matter falsify and lose” (94). 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? 

Q4: How are the portraits of Nicholas and Absolon similar to the portraits of the gentry and the clergy that we find in “The General Prologue”? Who is each one of them most like, and how much satire do we find in their portraits? Are we supposed to root for either of them? Or are they simply subjects of mockery?

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

For our next class, read "The General Prologue," which is the overall Preface to the entire work that follows. Here we meet all the people going on a pilgrimage to Canterbury to visit the shrine of Thomas of Beckett (who was assassinated by Henry II in 1170). Some of these pilgrims don't get stories of their own, though quite a few them do, and even Chaucer tells a story of his own (which is so bad the pilgrims interrupt him!). So enjoy this overview of the entire crew and Chaucer's sly comments about each one, some of which he likes more than others...

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Toward the end of the Prologue, the poet-narrator (Chaucer himself?) protests that "But first I pray you...that you not blame my own vulgarity...Whoever tells a tale after a man,/He must repeat, as closely as he can,/Every last word, if that is his duty,/Even if he has to speak quite rudely,/Or otherwise, he makes his tale untrue" (23). What do you make of this excuse, since these are all fictional pilgrims, and he is making up all the stories and language? Why is he hiding behind an excuse of truth, and how might this compare to the Gawain poet's claim that he is just telling the story as he heard it in town and in other books? 

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?