Check out this link, comrades:
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/17-03/ff_moore_qa?currentPage=all
Alan Moore's interview with WIRED magazine on superheroes, Watchmen, comic book-film adaptations, etc. Some very interesting moments...
"Farmer Brown"
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Girls on the Wrestling Team?
We began the discussion in class the other day concerning girls wrestling. I think two of the main questions that came up were:
- Should girls be allowed to wrestle (against guys)?
- What stereotypes go into deciding whether or not girls should be allowed to wrestle?
I think I'd like to add one more question: Why do girls choose to wrestle?
I personally have a pretty big issue with girls on wrestling teams. Wrestling is a "fighting" sport where guys pretty much get a chance to use skill to beat up on each other. I don't get why guys wrestle, but I further don't understand why girls wrestle. I don't think that saying girls shouldn't be on the wrestling team is an issue of "equality" or guys being preferred and girls being excluded. I don't think its an issue of stereotype either, that girls are weaker than guys. I hope that we can all see the moral reasons behind girls not wrestling guys. The school system seems to spend enough time encouraging girls and guys to not get too close, but yet they permit girls and guys on the same wrestling mat. That seems like a pretty heavy contradiction to me.
My brothers were both wrestlers and my older brother wrestled a girl once in middle school. The way my mom described it was "it was over fast." We mentioned in class how a guy beating a girl in a wrestling match is a "lose-lose" situation-- if he beats her he is seen as a jerk for beating up a girl, if he loses he's seen as a wimp because he was "beat by a girl." Now, it seems pretty safe to say that the stereotype in these situations is that a guy should be physically capable of beating a girl, but also that a guy should treat a girl kindly. Once a guy is put on the wrestling mat and asked to wrestle a girl he has a mentle battle: "do I do what I've been taught all my life and treat her like a lady, or do I do what my coach has been teaching me all season and treat her like an adversary." This puts the guy in a pretty tough situation in the first place because he really can't "win" no matter what he does. It seems pretty hard to escape stereotypes on the wrestling mat even if we try.
Why would a girl want to wrestle in the first place? I honestly don't know how to answer that. Any ideas? Any thoughts on this topic in general?
Emily T.
- Should girls be allowed to wrestle (against guys)?
- What stereotypes go into deciding whether or not girls should be allowed to wrestle?
I think I'd like to add one more question: Why do girls choose to wrestle?
I personally have a pretty big issue with girls on wrestling teams. Wrestling is a "fighting" sport where guys pretty much get a chance to use skill to beat up on each other. I don't get why guys wrestle, but I further don't understand why girls wrestle. I don't think that saying girls shouldn't be on the wrestling team is an issue of "equality" or guys being preferred and girls being excluded. I don't think its an issue of stereotype either, that girls are weaker than guys. I hope that we can all see the moral reasons behind girls not wrestling guys. The school system seems to spend enough time encouraging girls and guys to not get too close, but yet they permit girls and guys on the same wrestling mat. That seems like a pretty heavy contradiction to me.
My brothers were both wrestlers and my older brother wrestled a girl once in middle school. The way my mom described it was "it was over fast." We mentioned in class how a guy beating a girl in a wrestling match is a "lose-lose" situation-- if he beats her he is seen as a jerk for beating up a girl, if he loses he's seen as a wimp because he was "beat by a girl." Now, it seems pretty safe to say that the stereotype in these situations is that a guy should be physically capable of beating a girl, but also that a guy should treat a girl kindly. Once a guy is put on the wrestling mat and asked to wrestle a girl he has a mentle battle: "do I do what I've been taught all my life and treat her like a lady, or do I do what my coach has been teaching me all season and treat her like an adversary." This puts the guy in a pretty tough situation in the first place because he really can't "win" no matter what he does. It seems pretty hard to escape stereotypes on the wrestling mat even if we try.
Why would a girl want to wrestle in the first place? I honestly don't know how to answer that. Any ideas? Any thoughts on this topic in general?
Emily T.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Musical Chairs
Yesterday, we were discussing with Farmer Brown seating arrangements, and why his desk must be in the line of sight from the window. That started me thinking about seating arrangements in general.
Does the arrangement of desks in a classroom (where we sit) also influence our thinking and classroom dynamic? We all know the typical seating arrangements: ordered rows, horseshoe style, etc. However, does one mode of seating restrict thinking more than the other, or does seating have nothing to do with it?
For example, for reasons that Farmer Brown explained yesterday, in MHS classrooms the teacher's desks is almost always at the front. Would it change our perspective if his desk was in a back corner, or off to the side somewhere? For example, one of our teachers tends to stand up and teach from the doorway and move around, instead of standing at the front of the classroom. Does that influence our thinking at all?
Similarly, does having a more ordered seating arrangement also limit our thinking? In Spanish class today, for example, we came in to observe that our teacher had shifted from rows to a much more open sprawling horseshoe style. Is that shape more conducive to open discussion? I recall that when arranging desks for Moorestown Model UN, one teacher told us that whichever way the desks ended up after setting up for the UN, we could leave it that away (instead of moving the desks back to their original positions).
After all, sitting in a new place does provide a new perspective on the classroom (whether it's staring into Gollum's gaping eyes day after day or looking out the window).
Thoughts?
-Eric W or Comrade W
Does the arrangement of desks in a classroom (where we sit) also influence our thinking and classroom dynamic? We all know the typical seating arrangements: ordered rows, horseshoe style, etc. However, does one mode of seating restrict thinking more than the other, or does seating have nothing to do with it?
For example, for reasons that Farmer Brown explained yesterday, in MHS classrooms the teacher's desks is almost always at the front. Would it change our perspective if his desk was in a back corner, or off to the side somewhere? For example, one of our teachers tends to stand up and teach from the doorway and move around, instead of standing at the front of the classroom. Does that influence our thinking at all?
Similarly, does having a more ordered seating arrangement also limit our thinking? In Spanish class today, for example, we came in to observe that our teacher had shifted from rows to a much more open sprawling horseshoe style. Is that shape more conducive to open discussion? I recall that when arranging desks for Moorestown Model UN, one teacher told us that whichever way the desks ended up after setting up for the UN, we could leave it that away (instead of moving the desks back to their original positions).
After all, sitting in a new place does provide a new perspective on the classroom (whether it's staring into Gollum's gaping eyes day after day or looking out the window).
Thoughts?
-Eric W or Comrade W
Monday, February 23, 2009
Who do we side with?
Today in class we discussed how, despite the fact that people may think they investigate and search for evidence before making accusations against others, they still at times accuse carelessly without much thought. We mentioned our innate tendency to side with the accuser (claiming to be a victim) over the accused (the alleged perpetrator), as well as the various factors or stereotypes that seem to cause this tendency. We have all noted that gender clearly plays a major role here, and that possibly age is another factor. I wish to bring up another factor that I personally feel may have an even greater effect on our thought processes: race.
We considered different situations in which a young woman/man encountered an older man/woman. What if we also included race into the mix? Would we be more likely to "side with" an alleged perpetrator if he/she were Caucasian as opposed to African-American, for instance? If the accuser and the accused were of a different race, would this cause us to reconsider our alliances?
A particular case that provides insight into these questions took place in March of 2006. As you may recall, three Caucasian college students on the Duke lacrosse team were accused of sexual assault by an African-American woman. Eventually after several DNA tests and detailed investigations, authorities determined that the accusation was false and the three accused students were quickly cleared of all charges. Following this incident, some seemed to suggest that had the accused men been African-American and the woman Caucasian, the case would likely have proceeded in a slightly different manner due to stereotypes and biases. I personally agree with this sentiment. What are your thoughts?
(Janet Lee)
We considered different situations in which a young woman/man encountered an older man/woman. What if we also included race into the mix? Would we be more likely to "side with" an alleged perpetrator if he/she were Caucasian as opposed to African-American, for instance? If the accuser and the accused were of a different race, would this cause us to reconsider our alliances?
A particular case that provides insight into these questions took place in March of 2006. As you may recall, three Caucasian college students on the Duke lacrosse team were accused of sexual assault by an African-American woman. Eventually after several DNA tests and detailed investigations, authorities determined that the accusation was false and the three accused students were quickly cleared of all charges. Following this incident, some seemed to suggest that had the accused men been African-American and the woman Caucasian, the case would likely have proceeded in a slightly different manner due to stereotypes and biases. I personally agree with this sentiment. What are your thoughts?
(Janet Lee)
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Ambiguity of Language
Something occurred to me today during a car ride home with my parents. Their conversation made me realize just how ambiguous language can be. A bunch of their statements could have been applied to pretty much everything else. Why was a certain word chosen to fit in this certain context? I know we have already decided that there comes a point when the study of semantics is conducted too extensively, but one word sparked my attention: "corruption". Do you all realize how often this word is used? It can describe the government (flashback to AP U.S. History), people, businesses, you name it! So I am taking the liberty to draw a conclusion. The more often a word is put into use, the more trite it becomes, and it is used in a wider variety of contexts. I know this is probably an obvious point to come up with, but from this point I went further. Do we even know what words like "corruption" actually mean? We know it has something to do with unlawful means, but we have come to use it loosely.
Does this expansion of contexts mean that we are losing the essential meaning of the word? I'm interested.
(Sam Maliha)
Does this expansion of contexts mean that we are losing the essential meaning of the word? I'm interested.
(Sam Maliha)
Friday, February 20, 2009
Happy Dollars
So on Thursday, I went to the Rotary Luncheon and found it to be rather interesting. It was actually like a regular meeting at Interact, except with older people. The meeting ran about an hour long and consisted mostly of announcements of different service opportunities, charity events, etc. These were interesting to hear about, of course, but I really started to pay attention when someone suddenly announced that it was time for 'Happy Dollars.' I had no idea what that was, and I found out that Jen Goldenberg, who was sitting next to me, didn't know either as she asked a nearby Rotary member what exactly a Happy Dollar was. He said that essentially, a person would donate a dollar and share something happy that had happened in their life recently. So as I sat there watching different people giving in Happy Dollars, I couldn't help but think if all this was really necessary.
If someone wanted to contribute some money to the organization, couldn't they just do it directly? If a person wanted to share a story of something happy that happened recently, could they just mention it at their table while they're eating lunch? Also, the Rotary members seem to be fully aware of the fact that people are just donating some small money under the pretext of a Happy Dollar. Is it really necessary to keep making a special time slot in the meeting for the collection of Happy Dollars? Or is it possible that they just do this because it's part of a tradition?
Mary Quien
If someone wanted to contribute some money to the organization, couldn't they just do it directly? If a person wanted to share a story of something happy that happened recently, could they just mention it at their table while they're eating lunch? Also, the Rotary members seem to be fully aware of the fact that people are just donating some small money under the pretext of a Happy Dollar. Is it really necessary to keep making a special time slot in the meeting for the collection of Happy Dollars? Or is it possible that they just do this because it's part of a tradition?
Mary Quien
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Entitled to a grade?
February 18, 2009
Student Expectations Seen as Causing Grade Disputes
By MAX ROOSEVELT
Prof. Marshall Grossman has come to expect complaints whenever he returns graded papers in his English classes at the University of Maryland.
“Many students come in with the conviction that they’ve worked hard and deserve a higher mark,” Professor Grossman said. “Some assert that they have never gotten a grade as low as this before.”
He attributes those complaints to his students’ sense of entitlement.
“I tell my classes that if they just do what they are supposed to do and meet the standard requirements, that they will earn a C,” he said. “That is the default grade. They see the default grade as an A.”
A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, found that a third of students surveyed said that they expected B’s just for attending lectures, and 40 percent said they deserved a B for completing the required reading.
“I noticed an increased sense of entitlement in my students and wanted to discover what was causing it” said Ellen Greenberger, the lead author of the study, called “Self-Entitled College Students: Contributions of Personality, Parenting, and Motivational Factors,” which appeared last year in The Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
Professor Greenberger said that the sense of entitlement could be related to increased parental pressure, competition among peers and family members and a heightened sense of achievement anxiety.
Aaron M. Brower, the vice provost for teaching and learning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, offered another theory.
“I think that it stems from their K-12 experiences,” Professor Brower said. “They have become ultra-efficient in test preparation. And this hyper-efficiency has led them to look for a magic formula to get high scores.”
James Hogge, associate dean of the Peabody School of Education at Vanderbilt University, said: “Students often confuse the level of effort with the quality of work. There is a mentality in students that ‘if I work hard, I deserve a high grade.’ “
In line with Dean Hogge’s observation are Professor Greenberger’s test results. Nearly two-thirds of the students surveyed said that if they explained to a professor that they were trying hard, that should be taken into account in their grade.
Jason Greenwood, a senior kinesiology major at the University of Maryland echoed that view.
“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade,” Mr. Greenwood said. “What else is there really than the effort that you put in?”
“If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?” he added. “If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.”
Sarah Kinn, a junior English major at the University of Vermont, agreed, saying, “I feel that if I do all of the readings and attend class regularly that I should be able to achieve a grade of at least a B.”
At Vanderbilt, there is an emphasis on what Dean Hogge calls “the locus of control.” The goal is to put the academic burden on the student.
“Instead of getting an A, they make an A,” he said. “Similarly, if they make a lesser grade, it is not the teacher’s fault. Attributing the outcome of a failure to someone else is a common problem.”
Additionally, Dean Hogge said, “professors often try to outline the ‘rules of the game’ in their syllabi,” in an effort to curb haggling over grades.
Professor Brower said professors at Wisconsin emphasized that students must “read for knowledge and write with the goal of exploring ideas.”
This informal mission statement, along with special seminars for freshmen, is intended to help “re-teach students about what education is.”
The seminars are integrated into introductory courses. Examples include the conventional, like a global-warming seminar, and the more obscure, like physics in religion.
The seminars “are meant to help students think differently about their classes and connect them to real life,” Professor Brower said.
He said that if students developed a genuine interest in their field, grades would take a back seat, and holistic and intrinsically motivated learning could take place.
“College students want to be part of a different and better world, but they don’t know how,” he said. “Unless teachers are very intentional with our goals, we play into the system in place.”
I found this article very interesting because it really applies to our attitudes toward grades and it brings up good questions: Are we so focused on what grades we get because of the system in place, or because of ourselves, and isn't it reasonable that we feel entitled to a certain grade for 'x' amount of work?
Sorry this is so long...
(Arvind Kalidindi)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Everyone's a 'Hero' in Their Own Way
So after reading Watchmen, I was thinking about superheroes. In general, we think of superheroes as flying around, helping innocent people, doing kind acts, etc. According to dictionary.com, a superhero is 'a figure endowed with superhuman powers and usually portrayed as fighting crime or evil.'
Well, in this case, couldn't a 'villain' be considered a 'superhero'? Many happen to have superhuman powers. They consider their own plans as being right or justified and superheroes as being the evil ones. It actually reminds me of a show that was made during the time of the writer's strike. It's called Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long blog (my brother was the one who found it, I swear). It's the same old story of someone trying to take over the world (except with some jokes included along the way). However, it portrays the 'hero' as being this meat head (who cries at the end after experiencing pain for the first time in his life). It also puts the 'villain' in a brighter light.
Also, the terms good and evil are extremely broad as it is. Even 'superhuman' could be interpreted differently (ie Batman and Nightowl). We all have it drilled into our minds by now that such abstract words have a different meaning for everyone. It's all about perspective. So what do you think? Can't everyone be a 'hero' in their own way? (which is one of the songs of the show, by the way).
Mary Quien
Well, in this case, couldn't a 'villain' be considered a 'superhero'? Many happen to have superhuman powers. They consider their own plans as being right or justified and superheroes as being the evil ones. It actually reminds me of a show that was made during the time of the writer's strike. It's called Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long blog (my brother was the one who found it, I swear). It's the same old story of someone trying to take over the world (except with some jokes included along the way). However, it portrays the 'hero' as being this meat head (who cries at the end after experiencing pain for the first time in his life). It also puts the 'villain' in a brighter light.
Also, the terms good and evil are extremely broad as it is. Even 'superhuman' could be interpreted differently (ie Batman and Nightowl). We all have it drilled into our minds by now that such abstract words have a different meaning for everyone. It's all about perspective. So what do you think? Can't everyone be a 'hero' in their own way? (which is one of the songs of the show, by the way).
Mary Quien
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Mind over Matter
Recently there was a Time Magazine cover article about how spirituality can heal. Studies were conducted, and it was discovered that if a patient knew that other people were praying for them, he or she actually recovered more quickly. Whether this beneficial effect is actually due to prayer or just the placebo effect, however, remains in question. Under the placebo effect, even if a treatment is completely ineffective, if a patient believes that the treatment is working, he or she will show signs of actual improvement.
One very interesting example concerned a man with cancer. He was given an experimental drug that had been seemingly effective with other patients, and his tumors shrunk. His doctor later discovered that the drug was ineffective, and the man's tumors grew again. Then his doctor gave the man distilled water to drink, telling him that the water was a more concentrated and more effective form of the medicine. The tumors shrank again, as the man believed the treatment was working. Finally, the FDA declared publicly that the experimental drug had no effect at all, and the man died.
The placebo effect is quite remarkable. Essentially, if we believe that we are feeling better (an intensional thought), we actually do become better (an extensional result). Hence, mind over matter: can we manipulate, control, or influence our extensional bodies and symptoms with our intensional thoughts and emotions? Can our thoughts affect something very physical (our bodies' biological systems)?
Then again, pain is nothing but a perception. If we believe that there is no pain, then is there any? Is pain extensional, intensional, or a little bit of both?
It's amazing that we can fool ourselves into feeling better. Can we fool ourselves in any other way, using intensional thoughts to affect extensional reality?
-Eric Wei
What's in a Name?
I don't feel like we had enough time to discuss the value of the name in Puritan society, so here goes...
John Proctor put everything on the line for the preservation of his name and reputation, even his relationship with Elizabeth Proctor. He was hoping to keep his affair with Abigail a thing of the past, and by doing so failed to testify against her scheme at the outset of the play. Little did he know that this would bite him twice as hard later on, when his name was the obstacle between life and death.
Were it not for the notice to be nailed on the Church door, for the whole town to see, would John have confessed his non-existent sins? I believe I remember that he was held in the jail cell for three months without any public contact. Why didn't he confess during that time? When Judge Hathorn and Deputy Danforth were ready to record his confession, he was startled to see that it was to be written and that he would have to sign his name on the document. Was he unaware of this before and still refused to confess? If so, maybe we aren't giving poor Mr. Proctor as much credit as he deserves.
(Sam Maliha)
John Proctor put everything on the line for the preservation of his name and reputation, even his relationship with Elizabeth Proctor. He was hoping to keep his affair with Abigail a thing of the past, and by doing so failed to testify against her scheme at the outset of the play. Little did he know that this would bite him twice as hard later on, when his name was the obstacle between life and death.
Were it not for the notice to be nailed on the Church door, for the whole town to see, would John have confessed his non-existent sins? I believe I remember that he was held in the jail cell for three months without any public contact. Why didn't he confess during that time? When Judge Hathorn and Deputy Danforth were ready to record his confession, he was startled to see that it was to be written and that he would have to sign his name on the document. Was he unaware of this before and still refused to confess? If so, maybe we aren't giving poor Mr. Proctor as much credit as he deserves.
(Sam Maliha)
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Hey everyone! My friend came over tonight and showed me this comic. Not only did it make me laugh, but it reminded me of semantics. Calvin is using semantics to excuse himself from having to do something "morally good". Relativity, definitions, and toleration to the extreme! He sure does have a way of beating around the bush. Wouldn't it just be easier to say, "I am too lazy make resolutions or keep myself accountable to them"? But, then again, that's what makes Calvin so great! So, happy three-day weekend. I hope this comic makes you laugh too!Emily T.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Church of Scientology
So this is Grace, Tiffany, and Mary live from D.C. We actually got here early and decided to check out this place called the Church on Scientology (mainly because it offered free IQ and personality tests). I have to admit that at first, we went in there because we were kind of making a joke out of it and we wanted to get out of the wind. Personally (Mary) I thought that this was a bit paradoxical. I don't know, but science and religion seem to be opposites to me. Anyway, when we got in their, this lady brought us into a room and started talking about human rights. We even watched a DVD about scientology and different people who were 'scientologists'. While watching it, I couldn't help but notice all the different types of propaganda. It even got to the point where people were saying how scientology helped raised their grades. Next, we were allowed to ask questions. However, no matter how we asked it, the lady never really gave us a clear answer. She wouldn't even give an exact definition of scientology is. When we asked about the religious part of scientology, she said that there was no specific 'god' that they advocated. Essentially, people could believe in anything they want. A person can be an athiest or a Buddhist and still be a scientologist. So my theory on this is that this is all just a hoax for people to buy their books and DVDs about different theories. Also, they call members of their group scientologists, but I don't think there is really just any difference between them and any other person. Honestly, most of them just said over and over again about their responsibility about protecting human rights.
This is Tiffany here:
When the lady at the Church of Scientology was talking about the humanitarian aspects of Scientology, I couldn't help but admire their version of brainwashing. They were clearly aware of the fact that the large contingents of students were Model UN delegates. Thus, they centered the presentation around the humantarian aspect of their church under the pretense of catering to our interests. Honestly, were we expected to believe that Scientology only had its humanitarian aspect? When we finally directly inquired about the actual religious aspect of Scientology, the presenter replied with an vague statement about how all religions are evaluated using three conditions. Why were they avoiding the issue? Considering the amount of press that Scientology gets, she was clearly trying to avoid all controversy by making statements at the highest levels of abstraction that she could get away with.
Grace checking in...
In addition to the comments that Tiffany and Mary mentioned, I couldn't help but notice that Scientology seems to reject most "signs" of traditional religious institutions. There were various books available (and DVDs, like Mary mentioned) but they resembled science fiction novels more than the Bible or other "holy books." They also had, among other odd places, a cruise ship as a place of worship. Are they trying to position themselves as a mainstream yet alternative religion? Honestly, I felt like I was being mislead most of the time--the presentation at the open house made Scientology seem more like a secular charity or NGO more than a religious institution. They actually even mentioned the word "secular" more than the word "religious."
Also, the presenter mentioned that one could be an athiest and a Scientologist. One requires the absence of religion while one requires the presence of religion. Thus, is Scientology some weird form of paradoxical agnosticism? Or are they just "campaigning" (/lying)?
One last question: If Scientology had been introduced in 50AD instead of 1950, would it be considered as a religion instead of a cult?
This is Tiffany here:
When the lady at the Church of Scientology was talking about the humanitarian aspects of Scientology, I couldn't help but admire their version of brainwashing. They were clearly aware of the fact that the large contingents of students were Model UN delegates. Thus, they centered the presentation around the humantarian aspect of their church under the pretense of catering to our interests. Honestly, were we expected to believe that Scientology only had its humanitarian aspect? When we finally directly inquired about the actual religious aspect of Scientology, the presenter replied with an vague statement about how all religions are evaluated using three conditions. Why were they avoiding the issue? Considering the amount of press that Scientology gets, she was clearly trying to avoid all controversy by making statements at the highest levels of abstraction that she could get away with.
Grace checking in...
In addition to the comments that Tiffany and Mary mentioned, I couldn't help but notice that Scientology seems to reject most "signs" of traditional religious institutions. There were various books available (and DVDs, like Mary mentioned) but they resembled science fiction novels more than the Bible or other "holy books." They also had, among other odd places, a cruise ship as a place of worship. Are they trying to position themselves as a mainstream yet alternative religion? Honestly, I felt like I was being mislead most of the time--the presentation at the open house made Scientology seem more like a secular charity or NGO more than a religious institution. They actually even mentioned the word "secular" more than the word "religious."
Also, the presenter mentioned that one could be an athiest and a Scientologist. One requires the absence of religion while one requires the presence of religion. Thus, is Scientology some weird form of paradoxical agnosticism? Or are they just "campaigning" (/lying)?
One last question: If Scientology had been introduced in 50AD instead of 1950, would it be considered as a religion instead of a cult?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
We're Judging the Book by Its Cover...Literally!
Something just occurred to me. Since kindergarten, we've been warned against judging a figurative book by its figurative cover. With our discussions of Anne Bradstreet vs. Edward Taylor's work and the canon in general, it seems to me that we have been juding literal books by their literal covers. I don't think it's this deals with Bradstreet's gender as much as it does with the actual content of her poetry. She writes of emotions; such fluffy and trivial things these "emotions" are...right? Well that's what has been enforced upon us in our general education. "Only stern, professional works impact history and inspire the reader." I feel that this is the subliminal message that has been stealthily imposed on us for years.
This example was brought up in class: The Little Prince. Although filled with small drawings, the book is considered to be one of great philosophical value. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry makes a point of explaining life's most valuable lessons through the eyes of a child and his lovely flower. Now, take 1984, for example. Each page is filled with tightly packed text. Orwell manifests and imposes his mature content on the reader. Our trained minds immediately recognize this book as an "authoritative" one.
This pattern exists because we have been taught to follow rules and regulations. We are expected to interpret language similary to those responsible for us. Is there any way to break this cycle?
(Sam Maliha)
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Faith vs. Doubt
We discussed a little bit today in class about the significance of faith, especially in respect to Anne Bradstreet's works. One of the things that strikes me the most about Bradstreet's works is the evidence of her desire to be faithful to God. She seems able to justify the burning of her house and the death of her granchild by coming to terms with the fact that God is ultimately in control of all things. Here's a line from the introduction to Bradstreet's poems:
"Although she ultimately capitulates to a supreme being... it is the tension between her desire for earthly happiness and her effort to accept God's will that makes these poems especially powerful."
Two words that particularly stand out to me here are ultimately and effort. It seems that Bradstreet experiences inner struggles in her journey to ultimately accept God's will. It does not appear to come naturally for Bradstreet to trust her life and possessions in the hands of another, and that is why the use of effort strikes me. Bradstreet has to work to trust God.
Which brings me to my point. Where is the line between faith and doubt? Here is a line from a book called "The Case for Faith," by Lee Strobel, dealing with faith and doubt:
"I knew my fundamental trust in Jesus would be stronger, surer, more confident, more steadfast because it had been refined through the purifying fire of doubt. In the end, despite questions, challenges, and obstacles, my faith would not just survive, but it would thrive." (244)
Here's another line regarding faith as a choice:
"It's [faith] a choice we must make without having all the complete information we'd like to have." (237)
So, dealing with the first quote, does it seem that Bradstreet's faith is being refined by the trials that she experiences? I would argue that, yes, her faith is strengthened, because at the end of both poems dealing with loss, she ultimately chooses to put her trust in God's plan. Dealing with the second quote, it seems that, regardless of her ultimate faith, she still questions God: "And to my God my heart did cry to straighten me in my Distress." This, to me, seems like a cry from Bradstreet's heart to God asking, "Why!?" But, again, she ultimately resolves to trust God: "I blest his grace that gave and took." It appears that, despite unanswered questions, Bradstreet is choosing to still trust and rely on God, his will, and his provision.
Thoughts?
Emily T.
"Although she ultimately capitulates to a supreme being... it is the tension between her desire for earthly happiness and her effort to accept God's will that makes these poems especially powerful."
Two words that particularly stand out to me here are ultimately and effort. It seems that Bradstreet experiences inner struggles in her journey to ultimately accept God's will. It does not appear to come naturally for Bradstreet to trust her life and possessions in the hands of another, and that is why the use of effort strikes me. Bradstreet has to work to trust God.
Which brings me to my point. Where is the line between faith and doubt? Here is a line from a book called "The Case for Faith," by Lee Strobel, dealing with faith and doubt:
"I knew my fundamental trust in Jesus would be stronger, surer, more confident, more steadfast because it had been refined through the purifying fire of doubt. In the end, despite questions, challenges, and obstacles, my faith would not just survive, but it would thrive." (244)
Here's another line regarding faith as a choice:
"It's [faith] a choice we must make without having all the complete information we'd like to have." (237)
So, dealing with the first quote, does it seem that Bradstreet's faith is being refined by the trials that she experiences? I would argue that, yes, her faith is strengthened, because at the end of both poems dealing with loss, she ultimately chooses to put her trust in God's plan. Dealing with the second quote, it seems that, regardless of her ultimate faith, she still questions God: "And to my God my heart did cry to straighten me in my Distress." This, to me, seems like a cry from Bradstreet's heart to God asking, "Why!?" But, again, she ultimately resolves to trust God: "I blest his grace that gave and took." It appears that, despite unanswered questions, Bradstreet is choosing to still trust and rely on God, his will, and his provision.
Thoughts?
Emily T.
But...Why?
I understand that we greatly explored the topic of a woman's social status when discussing the poetry of Marge Piercy, but we seem to be rekindling our thought process with this newly found exploration of Anne Bradstreet. We have clearly established that women are more equal on paper than they are in reality (if it exists). But have we ever questioned why this is?
The first reason that pops into my mind is theologically based. Eve was tempted by the serpent into picking the apple that she had been warned against, and allowed the fall of mankind to take its toll. So technically, we are condemned to a work of toil and hard labor because of a woman. Dr. Bjornstad told us that the Salem Witch Trials revolved around women because they were seen as weaklings, the beings most likely to be in cahoots with the devil. But why is this? Since the beginning of time (even going back to the ancient Egyptians), females have been viewed as dishonest creatures, ones that abet "innocent" men. Sirens, anyone?
For a seemingly secular society, we seem to be basing such a significant matter on religion (for some part, at least). I can't be too sure or definitive, however; that is precisely why I'm asking for your input. It is greatly appreciated.
(Sam Maliha)
The first reason that pops into my mind is theologically based. Eve was tempted by the serpent into picking the apple that she had been warned against, and allowed the fall of mankind to take its toll. So technically, we are condemned to a work of toil and hard labor because of a woman. Dr. Bjornstad told us that the Salem Witch Trials revolved around women because they were seen as weaklings, the beings most likely to be in cahoots with the devil. But why is this? Since the beginning of time (even going back to the ancient Egyptians), females have been viewed as dishonest creatures, ones that abet "innocent" men. Sirens, anyone?
For a seemingly secular society, we seem to be basing such a significant matter on religion (for some part, at least). I can't be too sure or definitive, however; that is precisely why I'm asking for your input. It is greatly appreciated.
(Sam Maliha)
Well, I'm Just a Woman...
We spoke in class today about Ann Bradstreet's poem in which she says,
"Men can do best and women know it well...
If e'er you design these lowly lines your eyes,
Give thyme or Parsley wreath, I ask no Bays"
These lines in particular, though others convey a similar message, seem to accept the inferiority of her gender. As we discussed, Bradstreet seems to be saying something along the lines of "I know I'm only a women and I know I'll never be as good as a man but take a look at my stuff, I'm pretty good." This general sentiment seemed to be popular of the age. The idea reminded me of a speech of Queen Elizabeth I's that we read in Euro. She too condemns her sex. She states that although she knows shes weak and will never be as powerful as a man but asks the people to "forgive her sex".
I question whether or not this was an effective tactic. Was it necessary for women of the time to reassure everyone that they knew there place when they were trying for something? I just wonder if a sentiment like this would really change anyone's opinion of the speaker. Would people be less likely to support Elizabeth if you were'nt sure she knew her place? It seems almost nonsensical. If men of the time did not respect women's opinions that why would this tactic be effective? The position of the speaker has not changed. My only guess is that people feared that these women were looking for a drastic change in the social order and they were assuring that they did not.
Thoughts?
(Molly Dunbar)
"Men can do best and women know it well...
If e'er you design these lowly lines your eyes,
Give thyme or Parsley wreath, I ask no Bays"
These lines in particular, though others convey a similar message, seem to accept the inferiority of her gender. As we discussed, Bradstreet seems to be saying something along the lines of "I know I'm only a women and I know I'll never be as good as a man but take a look at my stuff, I'm pretty good." This general sentiment seemed to be popular of the age. The idea reminded me of a speech of Queen Elizabeth I's that we read in Euro. She too condemns her sex. She states that although she knows shes weak and will never be as powerful as a man but asks the people to "forgive her sex".
I question whether or not this was an effective tactic. Was it necessary for women of the time to reassure everyone that they knew there place when they were trying for something? I just wonder if a sentiment like this would really change anyone's opinion of the speaker. Would people be less likely to support Elizabeth if you were'nt sure she knew her place? It seems almost nonsensical. If men of the time did not respect women's opinions that why would this tactic be effective? The position of the speaker has not changed. My only guess is that people feared that these women were looking for a drastic change in the social order and they were assuring that they did not.
Thoughts?
(Molly Dunbar)
Definitions of the Canon
So I figured I might as well discuss the definitions that Mr. Lazarow gave us in class the other day.
The first definition, if I recall correctly, was that the canon is a list of books that we should read. This definition is understandable. For some reason or another, we would benefit from reading those books. It may be because of the different style of writing or the level of words used. However, I think that definition may be a bit too broad. After all, what we 'should' read can be determined by anyone. Also, we can benefit from reading from almost any book, right? This definition of the canon makes it sound as if those are the only books that we have to concern ourselves with, which of course is not true at all.
The second definition was that the canon is a list of books that cause us to feel guilty when we don't read them. I think that this is pretty accurate. Usually, such books are read by a large number of people and have good reviews. When other people start talking to you about a certain book, don't you start to feel a bit guilty? I know that when so many of my friends read 1984 and were talking about it, I felt a bit guilty about not knowing anything about it. I even felt a bit of regret for not picking up the book on my own. In a way, the canon creates this sort of hierarchy. Those who have read such books are considered intelligent and somewhat important in being able to handle such readings. Those who haven't read those books tend to be put on a level below that.
This got me thinking of how some people can easily fake reading these books. If even teachers can fake reading these books, then they really shouldn't be regarded as highly as they are.
Thoughts?
Mary Quien
The first definition, if I recall correctly, was that the canon is a list of books that we should read. This definition is understandable. For some reason or another, we would benefit from reading those books. It may be because of the different style of writing or the level of words used. However, I think that definition may be a bit too broad. After all, what we 'should' read can be determined by anyone. Also, we can benefit from reading from almost any book, right? This definition of the canon makes it sound as if those are the only books that we have to concern ourselves with, which of course is not true at all.
The second definition was that the canon is a list of books that cause us to feel guilty when we don't read them. I think that this is pretty accurate. Usually, such books are read by a large number of people and have good reviews. When other people start talking to you about a certain book, don't you start to feel a bit guilty? I know that when so many of my friends read 1984 and were talking about it, I felt a bit guilty about not knowing anything about it. I even felt a bit of regret for not picking up the book on my own. In a way, the canon creates this sort of hierarchy. Those who have read such books are considered intelligent and somewhat important in being able to handle such readings. Those who haven't read those books tend to be put on a level below that.
This got me thinking of how some people can easily fake reading these books. If even teachers can fake reading these books, then they really shouldn't be regarded as highly as they are.
Thoughts?
Mary Quien
Monday, February 9, 2009
We Cause Our Own Demise
So I was reading this SAT essay prompt that brought up the point whether we are the cause of our own demise.
At first, I was thinking of this in general terms. We blame other people many times when something doesn't go the way we want. For example, when a group of students fail a certain test, they tend to blame the teacher who gave them the test. However, isn't that just their fault for not studying hard enough? Here's another example. Let's say that you trust a friend to perform a certain task. If the task does not get completed, you generally tend to blame the friend. However, isn't it your fault for trusting that person?
This got me to think of the books that are put on the canon. We have said that the process of choosing books that go on the canon is unfair. It leaves out a lot of 'good' books and leaves out the existence of many works and authors. Is it possible that it is the author's fault? Is it possible that it is the authors of these books that need to change?
Mary Quien
At first, I was thinking of this in general terms. We blame other people many times when something doesn't go the way we want. For example, when a group of students fail a certain test, they tend to blame the teacher who gave them the test. However, isn't that just their fault for not studying hard enough? Here's another example. Let's say that you trust a friend to perform a certain task. If the task does not get completed, you generally tend to blame the friend. However, isn't it your fault for trusting that person?
This got me to think of the books that are put on the canon. We have said that the process of choosing books that go on the canon is unfair. It leaves out a lot of 'good' books and leaves out the existence of many works and authors. Is it possible that it is the author's fault? Is it possible that it is the authors of these books that need to change?
Mary Quien
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Gutenberg 2.0?
Many of you might recall from AP Euro discussions that Gutenberg's printing press was one of the initial causes for the Renaissance, as it greatly facilitated the spread of new ideas and encouraged intellectual innovation and distribution. It disseminated existing ideas more effectively than ever before, helped create new ones, and fostered new argument.
Is the Web the new printing press of the 21st century?
Certainly, the Internet has made the distribution of information much easier than it ever has been before. It has been said that the Internet is like all of the world's libraries combined, only with the books strewn about the floor. But with the advent of search engines and Wikipedia, anyone can put up anything, and now others can find it.
Its power even now is still only being recognized. In government, our new President has promised to make the governing process more transparent online, and already there are numerous websites out there where we can peruse bills. Suddenly, there are no physical restraints on information: when you're going by bytes, not books, it suddenly becomes feasible to put all of the world's books online, as Google once declared it would do. The Internet has connected us around the world, allowing us to spread information faster than we ever could before.
And yet some argue that the Web has brought forth a host of new problems. It may have become much easier to spread information, but it also has become much easier to spread disinformation. A significant amount of the population still questions the scientific backing and validity of evolution and global warming, and many people still do not believe that Barack Obama is a Christian. Incorrect perceptions can easily be reinforced and spread through the Internet. A quick Google search shows that.
Some say the Web has also led to increasing polarization, splitting us apart instead of uniting us. Now, a person can surf the Web for hours without ever straying into new intellectual territory, and can stay in websites that only reinforce his beliefs. A conservative could go only conservative sites, and likewise for a liberal. I doubt that the (right) Drudge Report and the (left) Daily Kos communities ever talk constructively with each other (constructive does not include flame wars).
Even the academic world has been effective. Scholars have discovered that many times nowadays, only the most known and mainstream opinions are cited in papers, simply because those academic papers show up the most on Google searches. That runs the risk of ignoring more unorthodox opinions that might not have as much Google clout.
Well, the Internet's certainly a two-sided coin. Thoughts?
-Eric W.
Is the Web the new printing press of the 21st century?
Certainly, the Internet has made the distribution of information much easier than it ever has been before. It has been said that the Internet is like all of the world's libraries combined, only with the books strewn about the floor. But with the advent of search engines and Wikipedia, anyone can put up anything, and now others can find it.
Its power even now is still only being recognized. In government, our new President has promised to make the governing process more transparent online, and already there are numerous websites out there where we can peruse bills. Suddenly, there are no physical restraints on information: when you're going by bytes, not books, it suddenly becomes feasible to put all of the world's books online, as Google once declared it would do. The Internet has connected us around the world, allowing us to spread information faster than we ever could before.
And yet some argue that the Web has brought forth a host of new problems. It may have become much easier to spread information, but it also has become much easier to spread disinformation. A significant amount of the population still questions the scientific backing and validity of evolution and global warming, and many people still do not believe that Barack Obama is a Christian. Incorrect perceptions can easily be reinforced and spread through the Internet. A quick Google search shows that.
Some say the Web has also led to increasing polarization, splitting us apart instead of uniting us. Now, a person can surf the Web for hours without ever straying into new intellectual territory, and can stay in websites that only reinforce his beliefs. A conservative could go only conservative sites, and likewise for a liberal. I doubt that the (right) Drudge Report and the (left) Daily Kos communities ever talk constructively with each other (constructive does not include flame wars).
Even the academic world has been effective. Scholars have discovered that many times nowadays, only the most known and mainstream opinions are cited in papers, simply because those academic papers show up the most on Google searches. That runs the risk of ignoring more unorthodox opinions that might not have as much Google clout.
Well, the Internet's certainly a two-sided coin. Thoughts?
-Eric W.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Gender or Ability?
Today in class we discussed the makings of a great writer and whether social and/or gender-related issues play any part in canonizing authors. Well, this got me thinking.. We're obviously never going to come up with an answer ourselves because of our differing perceptions. And let's face it: the dead white men are dead. There is no way they can answer our questions now.
So what would Anne, herself, say? Would she think that her writing is studied avidly because of her gender, because she represented ideals that clashed with those of an average Puritan woman, or because she raised eight children and still managed to write poetry and love her husband? Or would she believe solely in the quality of her work? Keep in mind that Anne readily included feminist ideas in her writing, especially when idolizing female historical figures. Would she be satisfied to be grouped in this category? Or would she wish to go further and contend her own poetry with that of Bartas?
Anne Bradstreet never seemed to have asked for fame or recognition, for it was her brother-in-law, John Woodbridge, who secretly printed her material without her consent. This is just one thing to consider.
(Sam Maliha)
So what would Anne, herself, say? Would she think that her writing is studied avidly because of her gender, because she represented ideals that clashed with those of an average Puritan woman, or because she raised eight children and still managed to write poetry and love her husband? Or would she believe solely in the quality of her work? Keep in mind that Anne readily included feminist ideas in her writing, especially when idolizing female historical figures. Would she be satisfied to be grouped in this category? Or would she wish to go further and contend her own poetry with that of Bartas?
Anne Bradstreet never seemed to have asked for fame or recognition, for it was her brother-in-law, John Woodbridge, who secretly printed her material without her consent. This is just one thing to consider.
(Sam Maliha)
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Throwback
Tuesday marked the beginning of the new semester. So today in Career Planning (got to love those requirements), we explored the work of Kahlil Gibran, a Lebanese poet. It reminded me greatly of Marge Piercy's "To Be of Use". I've included the excerpt here for your convenience.
On Work
Kahlil Gibran
You work that you may keep pace with the earth and the soul of the earth.
For to be idle is to become a stranger unto the seasons, and to step out of life's procession, that marches in majesty and proud submission towards the infinite.
When you work you are a flute through whose heart the whispering of the hours turns to music.
Which of you would be a reed, dumb and silent, when all else sings together in unison?
Always you have been told that work is a curse and labour a misfortune.
But I say to you that when you work you fulfil a part of earth's furthest dream, assigned to you when that dream was born,And in keeping yourself with labour you are in truth loving life,
And to love life through labour is to be intimate with life's inmost secret.
But if you in your pain call birth an affliction and the support of the flesh a curse written upon your brow, then I answer that naught but the sweat of your brow shall wash away that which is written.
You have been told also that life is darkness, and in your weariness you echo what was said by the weary.
And I say that life is indeed darkness save when there is urge,
And all urge is blind save when there is knowledge,
And all knowledge is vain save when there is work,
And all work is empty save when there is love;
And when you work with love you bind yourself to yourself, and to one another, and to God.
And what is it to work with love?
It is to weave the cloth with threads drawn from your heart, even as if your beloved were to wear that cloth.
It is to build a house with affection, even as if your beloved were to dwell in that house.
It is to sow seeds with tenderness and reap the harvest with joy, even as if your beloved were to eat the fruit.
It is to charge all things you fashion with a breath of your own spirit,
And to know that all the blessed dead are standing about you and watching.
Often have I heard you say, as if speaking in sleep, "He who works in marble, and finds the shape of his own soul in the stone, is nobler than he who ploughs the soil.
And he who seizes the rainbow to lay it on a cloth in the likeness of man, is more than he who makes the sandals for our feet.
"But I say, not in sleep but in the overwakefulness of noontide, that the wind speaks not more sweetly to the giant oaks than to the least of all the blades of grass;
And he alone is great who turns the voice of the wind into a song made sweeter by his own loving.
Work is love made visible.
And if you cannot work with love but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit at the gate of the temple and take alms of those who work with joy.
For if you bake bread with indifference, you bake a bitter bread that feeds but half man's hunger.
And if you grudge the crushing of the grapes, your grudge distils a poison in the wine.
And if you sing though as angels, and love not the singing, you muffle man's ears to the voices of the day and the voices of the night.
Both of the poems greatly illustrate the pressure put on us by society, especially our society. Milestones and goald are forced upon us. Although he who works with marble may be regarded with more prestige, the man or woman who ploughs the soil is just as valuable if he/she truly enjoys the essence of that work. He who tames rainbows is renowned, yet he who makes sandles is looked down upon. Where would we be without those who plough soil and make sandals? (Mr. McDonald even mentioned that people presently engaged in vocational jobs are the ones truly prospering. Professional are the ones suffering financially.)
The people I love the best
Jump into work head first
Without dallying in the shallows
And swim off with sure strokes almost out of sight.
They seem to become natives of that element...
(Piercy)
The goal of work is to be "a native of that element". Like Gibran, Marge Piercy feels that work is only accomplished correctly when done out of love for the work. Do not sing if you cannot bear to sing, for you will harm yourself and others. Do not crush grapes if you detest wine, for the product will be of poor quality. Although these examples are not realistic, they undoubtedly reflect bigger ideas in life. "Do something you love, and you'll never have to work another day in your life." Does this further help us define "work"? As far as I remember, we left the discussion without fully resolving that matter.
(Samantha Maliha)
On Work
Kahlil Gibran
You work that you may keep pace with the earth and the soul of the earth.
For to be idle is to become a stranger unto the seasons, and to step out of life's procession, that marches in majesty and proud submission towards the infinite.
When you work you are a flute through whose heart the whispering of the hours turns to music.
Which of you would be a reed, dumb and silent, when all else sings together in unison?
Always you have been told that work is a curse and labour a misfortune.
But I say to you that when you work you fulfil a part of earth's furthest dream, assigned to you when that dream was born,And in keeping yourself with labour you are in truth loving life,
And to love life through labour is to be intimate with life's inmost secret.
But if you in your pain call birth an affliction and the support of the flesh a curse written upon your brow, then I answer that naught but the sweat of your brow shall wash away that which is written.
You have been told also that life is darkness, and in your weariness you echo what was said by the weary.
And I say that life is indeed darkness save when there is urge,
And all urge is blind save when there is knowledge,
And all knowledge is vain save when there is work,
And all work is empty save when there is love;
And when you work with love you bind yourself to yourself, and to one another, and to God.
And what is it to work with love?
It is to weave the cloth with threads drawn from your heart, even as if your beloved were to wear that cloth.
It is to build a house with affection, even as if your beloved were to dwell in that house.
It is to sow seeds with tenderness and reap the harvest with joy, even as if your beloved were to eat the fruit.
It is to charge all things you fashion with a breath of your own spirit,
And to know that all the blessed dead are standing about you and watching.
Often have I heard you say, as if speaking in sleep, "He who works in marble, and finds the shape of his own soul in the stone, is nobler than he who ploughs the soil.
And he who seizes the rainbow to lay it on a cloth in the likeness of man, is more than he who makes the sandals for our feet.
"But I say, not in sleep but in the overwakefulness of noontide, that the wind speaks not more sweetly to the giant oaks than to the least of all the blades of grass;
And he alone is great who turns the voice of the wind into a song made sweeter by his own loving.
Work is love made visible.
And if you cannot work with love but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit at the gate of the temple and take alms of those who work with joy.
For if you bake bread with indifference, you bake a bitter bread that feeds but half man's hunger.
And if you grudge the crushing of the grapes, your grudge distils a poison in the wine.
And if you sing though as angels, and love not the singing, you muffle man's ears to the voices of the day and the voices of the night.
Both of the poems greatly illustrate the pressure put on us by society, especially our society. Milestones and goald are forced upon us. Although he who works with marble may be regarded with more prestige, the man or woman who ploughs the soil is just as valuable if he/she truly enjoys the essence of that work. He who tames rainbows is renowned, yet he who makes sandles is looked down upon. Where would we be without those who plough soil and make sandals? (Mr. McDonald even mentioned that people presently engaged in vocational jobs are the ones truly prospering. Professional are the ones suffering financially.)
The people I love the best
Jump into work head first
Without dallying in the shallows
And swim off with sure strokes almost out of sight.
They seem to become natives of that element...
(Piercy)
The goal of work is to be "a native of that element". Like Gibran, Marge Piercy feels that work is only accomplished correctly when done out of love for the work. Do not sing if you cannot bear to sing, for you will harm yourself and others. Do not crush grapes if you detest wine, for the product will be of poor quality. Although these examples are not realistic, they undoubtedly reflect bigger ideas in life. "Do something you love, and you'll never have to work another day in your life." Does this further help us define "work"? As far as I remember, we left the discussion without fully resolving that matter.
(Samantha Maliha)
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Taylor vs. Bradstreet
I know we haven't extensively discussed Edward Taylor's "Upon a Wasp Chilled With Cold", and I know that we haven't even touched upon Anne Dudley Bradstreet's writing, but I just thought I'd share some of my own personal observations before we begin class discussion. This way, we might have something to build/extrapolate from.
I interpret Taylor's utilization of metaphysical conceit in his writing as a warning to the reader. It demonstrates a cause and effect relationship between earthly, materialistic life and heavenly, divine afterlife. If one allows himself/herself (fly) to be entangled within the web of the spider (devil), then he/she deserves to be sent to hell. Paradoxically, the nightingaile is the only individual (the elect) worthy of eternal salvation. So why did the Puritans even bother? Well, because that's what a good Puritan did. There was always a chance of proving yourself to be one of the higher members of the Church. Or maybe, it is that we are but mere wasps, too insignificant to be acknowledged in God's world.
Anne Bradstreet, however, met ambivalence on her unsuccessful journey to believe blindly. What caught my eye was that her father exposed her to the writing of Hobbes at a young age. He was a thinker of the Enlightenment era, known for his secularism, atheism, and encouragement of self-interest. In her "Contemplations", Bradstreet concluded her poem by committing herself to the concept of salvation. She did this, however, because of her love of earth. Her ideal heaven was one that eternally extended the pleasures that she met on earth through her children, husband, and community.
Both of these poets were greatly renowned. Yet, to me, it seems that they wrote at opposite ends of the spectrum. Just some thoughts..
(Sam Maliha)
I interpret Taylor's utilization of metaphysical conceit in his writing as a warning to the reader. It demonstrates a cause and effect relationship between earthly, materialistic life and heavenly, divine afterlife. If one allows himself/herself (fly) to be entangled within the web of the spider (devil), then he/she deserves to be sent to hell. Paradoxically, the nightingaile is the only individual (the elect) worthy of eternal salvation. So why did the Puritans even bother? Well, because that's what a good Puritan did. There was always a chance of proving yourself to be one of the higher members of the Church. Or maybe, it is that we are but mere wasps, too insignificant to be acknowledged in God's world.
Anne Bradstreet, however, met ambivalence on her unsuccessful journey to believe blindly. What caught my eye was that her father exposed her to the writing of Hobbes at a young age. He was a thinker of the Enlightenment era, known for his secularism, atheism, and encouragement of self-interest. In her "Contemplations", Bradstreet concluded her poem by committing herself to the concept of salvation. She did this, however, because of her love of earth. Her ideal heaven was one that eternally extended the pleasures that she met on earth through her children, husband, and community.
Both of these poets were greatly renowned. Yet, to me, it seems that they wrote at opposite ends of the spectrum. Just some thoughts..
(Sam Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)