Ode on a Grecian URL

Below you should find four posts that just went up tonight:

1. Some general comments about the second essays and remarks about how you might pursue future (literary-analytical) essays differently.
2. Graphs of the grade distributions from last semester.
3. Two answers to the exam essays that received full credit. (Here are some examples of ways people got full credit for the IDs.)
4. Finally, some recommendations for books worth the reading.

That's a bit of an information dump, I know, but hope some of the hints contained therein are worth your while to read.

If in your attentive perversity you wish to continue to follow my pedagogical adventures, you might turn your attention to my Spring 2006 class blog: As I Lay Reading. I'll be teaching English 168 (literature after 1900) for Jesse Wolfe, and we'll be tackling some extremely challenging texts--including Faulkner, Morrison and Coetze--and it should be quite fun to watch me struggle to talk about them at all meaningfully.

Remember that I am always here for you, and always reachable at the email address you used all last semester. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me if there is ever anything I can do for you!

I had hoped to copy out one answer to each of the four essay questions from the final exam, so you could see a range of the sorts of answers that were possible; however, some of these answers could get rather long and consquently somewhat fatiguing. Here, then, are answers to the first two questions. Both answers received full credit.

Essay 1.

Topic:

How do the Victorians imagine imagination differently than the Romantics? Compare and contrast "Ode on a Grecian Urn" or "On Seeing the Elgin Marbles" by John Keats to at least one Victorian text that describes or reflects on a particular work of visual art. Choose from among these Victorian texts: Ruskin's Modern Painters and Stones of Venice; Tennyson's "Lady of Shalott"; Eliot's Middlemarch; Browning's "My Last Duchess"; Pater's The Renaissance; Wilde's "The Critic as Artist." How do these Victorian works confront, work through, and grapple with the role of the imagination in the creative process? How does this differ from Romantic practice?

An answer in the exhaustive style, which received full credit:

The opening of the 19th century was filled with hope and potential. As the century wore on, this potential was still there, only in incredibly different terms from what was originally envisioned by the Romantics. Indeed, from Wordsworth’s “Preface to Lyrical Ballads,” to Mill’s “On Liberty,” a change had taken place. Where Wordsworth commented on the need for the poet to “step down,” to use the language of the common, rustic man because that was by far much more noble and “permanent,” Mill calls for a very different course of action, one where the talented in society would not “step down” and drift into the mold that was society, but rise up, to demonstrate their Freeness. He contested, like Wordsworth, that these men of genius were essentially “mirrors” of the populace, but unlike Wordsworth he asserted this role was leading to mediocrity. From these comments, it becomes obvious the focus and potential of the Romantics and Victorians corresponded to different times, and different problems. In comparing the different styles and the main subjects of two artistic evolutions from different literary periods, being Keats’ “On Seeing the Elgin Marbles” and Ruskin’s Stones of Venice, does one begin to understand how the emphasis placed upon man and his environment comes to be reflected different in the two periods’ emphasis of imagination.

The Romantic qualities of man, being his need to be individual, and to come to observe and glorify nature as a powerful influence, are best observed in the focus of Keats. For the Romantic, the environment is an incredible place. We get from Wordsworth how nature is “the guardian of his soul,” and consequently come to learn of the incredible impact the external forces of art, being the Elgin Marbles, come to influence him. In focusing on “Elgin Marbles,” both rhetorically and formally, we get a sense of Keats’ ideas on imagination. First, notice the enjambment used in the very beginning, “mortality – weighs heavily on my soul.” The use of the divider occurs as a powerful space, almost as if Keats is so overwhelmed by the Marbles before him that he must take a breath in order to continue. Also, notice how the theme of mortality persists throughout the poem, how near the end a conflict occurs between his brain, the source of all his knowledge, and heart, the source of life. It is a powerful force indeed that is causing Keats to weigh his life in his mind, while the work itself is causing physical symptoms that his heart is overwhelmed by his work. In reading “Elgin Marbles” it is important to take note that Keats’ focus on the external force influencing him internally, and how this focus is different for Ruskin and the Victorians.

While Keats’ focus on the external is the dominant force of his work, Ruskin also uses a focus on nature, but in a seemingly different way in understanding imagination. The beginning of Stones of Venice has the reader traveling through the Gothic landscape, noticing the rudeness, the savageness, how the trees act like obstructing objects and the mountain disrupt the landscape. However, this occupies a very brief portion of Ruskin’s work, and the rest of the focus of Stones is on man, his capabilities, his actions, his ideas. Even when Ruskin returns to an external object, being the ruddy, rigid, imperfect, brownish glass of the Venetian craftsman, his attention immediately turns to the nobleness of man in this creation, how it should be admired man has the capabilities to quit knowing a work is not completely finished. Instead, Ruskin asserts, and does so by using Leonardo as an example, that it is the greatest capability of man to leave something unfinished, as Leonardo himself knew nothing we be able to equal his idealized potential. In this description Ruskin actually refers to the Elgin Marbles (in his accompanying notes), noting how the Marbles are often described as perfect yet they are chipped, and how many of the figures are incomplete. How is it that Keats overlooks this, and Ruskin does not, while still contributing it to the greatness of the marbles? It is done through their differing focus of imagination.

The focus of Keats and Ruskin take two different roads in regarding imagination, as the former regards imagination as an external source, while the latter an internal one, reflecting the cultures of their times. That Ruskin should emphasize the individual is clear when considering the low state of the individual in the mid-late 19th century, occupying this mold that Mill talks about. It is then Ruskin’s hope that by pointing out successful individuals, other individuals will, too, realize their potential, their capability to achieve great things. Earlier in Stones, Ruskin compares humanities as either men or machines. It is the man that realizes his faults, that differs from the norm, that does things imperfectly because that is the noble thing. A machine does only what he is taught, being the most perfect way, and thus will never come to know the true freedom of man. In contrast, Keats focuses on the external as a powerful force that can drive man. Therefore, imagination can come from the outside. This is at a time when men still possessed that possible hope, where Wordsworth expressed a belief in the low and rustic. At that time, it was beneficial for men to look to nature for inspiration. For the Victorians, in the height of industrialization, it was natural to look at other men, because nature was no longer in excess. With men packed close together in the city, one could no longer realize imagination by going to those beautiful areas of nature, as Wordsworth retreats to, but must instead look for a more local inspiration. Thus, Ruskin and Keats choose their focus according to the times they are in.

In closing, it is worth noting that T. S. Eliot once commented, “in one’s prose reflections, one may be legitimately occupied with ideals, whereas in writing a verse, one may deal only with actuality.” Keats, then, may be the more restricted of the two, but is he not the more free, with less to accomplish? Ruskin, like Mill and Arnold, faced possible anarchy, and needed to cat. Keats, ever concerned with mortality, surely could not have discerned to live to see the suppression that later occurred. Therefore, in Keats and Ruskin’s focus on artistic works, their corresponding emphasis is on the betterment of the individual, but in ways that reflect the time of their writing.

Essay two

Topic:

A number of texts that we have read this semester represent social outcasts who, for one reason or another, exist on the margins of society. Choose at least two texts by two different authors and make an argument in which you discuss the picture of society that emerges from the literary representation of the outsider. You may want to consider the irreconcilable tensions or forces of exclusion that make him or her an outsider, as well as the outsider's response to them. Texts to consider: Wordsworth's "Michael," Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Eliot's Middlemarch, Tennyson's "Ulysses," Arnold's "The Scholar Gypsy," Rossetti's "Goblin Market."

An answer, slightly more concise, that received full credit:

Many Victorian writers, as well as some Romantic writers, focus on excluded characters and the tensions they face. The writers use the characters exclusions generally to illustrate a main point that they feel strongly about, and that usually pertains to the poet’s opinions or feelings about community. Authors/poets George Eliot, Christina Rossetti, and Lord Alfred Tennyson include excluded main characters within their works and each author uses the character to create a different view of society and community.

Middlemarch’s Lydgate represents the static, unchanging community of Middlemarch in a negative light, whereas Rossetti portrays the sin of the character Laura as being redeemed by the utopia and community of her sister. Contrastingly, Tennyson has the character Ulysses choose exclusion from community due to his past heroism. Each character has different tensions and forces that make them excluded that add to the author’s overall intent of portrayal of community.

George Eliot’s Middlemarch introduces a character, Lydgate, into the Middlemarch community in order to demonstrate the irreconcilable forces change faces in that community. Lydgate’s profession as a doctor creates the first of many tensions that Lydgate endures as an outsider within Middlemarch. There were already three doctors in Middlemarch with whom the community was thankful of and trusted. The three doctors all generally practiced in the same fashion and were quite old in age. Young Lydgate comes along with a different, more updated form of practice and people become wary of him and don’t know if they should use his services. Lydgate’s decision and belief not to use pharmaceutical products, compared to the other three doctors’ reliance on them, adds to the general unassurance. Lydgate however keeps to his way of practicing, ignoring the criticism and gossip from the people of Middlemarch. Additionally, Lydgate’s name and family relations create an obstacle and tension. Originally believed that Lydgate has distant, well-respected families ties helped welcome him into the community and become married to Rosamond. However, later when Lydgate’s past is finally discovered and his respected ties disappear, tension, dislike, and untrustworthiness settle upon Lydgate. Originally, after the first tension, Lydgate stayed in the community, but with the evergrowing tensions, Lydgate was forced to leave Middlemarch. Eliot uses Lydgate’s effort to stay in Middlemarch with his new ideas and then finally his resolution to move to a more advanced community, London, to represent how Middlemarch community resists change and ultimately will not be able to thrive without change.

Rossetti however uses the somewhat exclusion of Laura to shine a positive light on community. Rossetti’s community is the utopia of sisterhood between Lizzie and Laura. Lizzie represents the moral, good side of community and Laura represents the rebellious, curious side. Together however, Laura and Lizzie create the perfect utopian community. This utopian community also thrives in Rossetti’s opinion by the part of the poem that tells of the happiness and motherhood of the sisters later in life. Rossetti also demonstrates that one type cannot exist or thrive without the other by the community of the goblins, who are like the Lauras and do thrive nor be productive.

Tennyson’s character Ulysses’s exclusion is unlike Rossetti’s nor Eliot’s because Ulysses brings the exclusion upon himself. Ulysses is a very heroic figure in his community and because of his reputation and name is forced to continue that perception, whether he wants to or not. Ulysses does hold a place in the community as King, but he is very egoistic and self-involved, which drives him to continue his adventures away from the community. Tennyson demonstrates that egoism cannot be beneficial in a community and will not thrive, therefore egoistic people are excluded from the community.

Each poet has different characters relay the poet’s idea of community. Each poet, Tennyson, Eliot, and Rossetti, also have different point of views on society which is brought out by each character’s reaction to the exclusion.

Distribution of grades on the midterm (blue) and final (red) essays. As I believe I mention below, my grades on the final exams were statistically a bit low; the grade distribution you see here is slightly corrected.

Distribution of grades on the first (blue) and second (red) essays.

On a related note, the average for the second essay was 88.1; the average grade of those who collaborated on this essay was 92, the average for non-collaborators was 87. This isn't a statistically significant result, but it does give an anecdotal hint at how working closely with others can help you.

Distribution of final class grades. This distribution was slightly high, but Prof. Ortiz-Robles seems to have let that pass.

As next semester begins tomorrow, I suppose it is time that I wrap up this blog. Here are some notes, as promised, from my readings of essays from last semester:

• One goal of 100-level literature courses is to introduce students to the language of literary criticism. It is not an obvious language, and it is a picky one. In your final essays I observed that several writers misused a few fairly specific literary-technical words:
  • Although your thesaurus is likely to suggest otherwise, grotesque doesn't just mean ugly: it is often used to characterize physical as well as behavioral difference that defines otherness. Obviously grotesque is thus an even more appropriate characterization of Frankenstein's monster; however, your essays rarely treated it as a specifically differentiating ugliness.
  • Irony is a loaded word in most academic contexts and particularly in literature. As we discussed earlier this semester, there is at least one extremely specific meaning of irony (the permanent parabasis of tropes, according to Paul de Man) that characterizes much of the sorts of irony we see operating in Romantic literature. The specificity of this meaning, weighed against the variety of other meanings available, renders irony a dangerously vague term. When you discuss it, you might be careful to define in exactly what sense you mean the word.


• On a related score, you might try to avoid relying too extensively on a thesaurus. It's not actually a serious problem for you to repeat a word ("ugly," for example), and in fact your writing is likely to become less clear if you begin using words with which you are not familiar.


• Your best thesaurus is yourself, really. Consider the word aspect: as a word, aspect isn't particularly useful--it comes from the Latin ad + specere: to look at; in its historical, literal sense an aspect is an outlook, a prospect, a view. We might refer to the aspect of a building, meaning the direction that it faces: my apartment has a southern aspect, for example. We have troped the aspectual idea into a word meaning, neutrally, "part of a thing." How unspecific! How meaningless!
  
  But if we look up aspect in a thesaurus, we get "facet, side, characteristic, slant," etc.: not especially useful analogs. Instead, let us look at the exact context of our use of the word and seek out a more specific word to use. Here is some context:

  By taking aspects that are vital for the continuation of human life away from himself, he becomes increasingly less human by ignoring his basic needs.

  (This sentence is about Victor Frankenstein.) Here, the writer is referring to Frankenstein's increasing estrangement from social behaviors, which phrase ("behaviors" or "social behaviors") ends up most effectively replacing "aspects" in the sentence: By taking away from himself social behaviors that are vital for the continuation of human life... reads far clearer.


• A less obvious manifestation of vaguery: the cliche. Cliches, pithy nuggets of "common wisdom," are often meaningless. Here is the cliche I see at least five times per batch of essays: a picture is worth 1,000 words. What exactly is the nature of this equivalence? Is it a sort of gold standard between the visual and literary arts--could you take Dante Gabriel Rossetti's painting of The Lady of Shallot and transform it into a 1,000-word poem? Can you turn your poem in to a bank somewhere and exchange it for an exact photograph?
  
  Cliches are typically useless nonsense, and don't belong in your essays unless you are raising them up for critique.


• Rather than give you an overly graphic explanation, here is a simple instruction: avoid including dictionary definitions in your essays; avoid them particularly in your introduction. As readers, we are quite adept at looking up terms. If you are defining a word, it should be because you are using that word in a way that is not obvious but which is somehow essential to your argument. (Cf. Prof. Ortiz-Robles and his definitions of "Rime.") In this case, you are inevitably better off casting the definition in your own words.

A last note: theses are not easy to write, and they are specifically hard to write concisely. Just by way of a last example to close out our semester, here is the excellent, pithy, specific, interesting thesis of Kevin (301)'s essay:

Mary Shelley’s thoughts suggest that an ideal society should strive for knowledge at a healthy level, that is, not in excess.

I realize it's not necessarily useful to you, as individual writers, to hear where you are as a class, but I do feel confident after this semester that you are as a bloc in about the right position to move into literature courses in the future. You'll find that writing in, say, 200-level literature courses will take some of the writerly behaviors I discussed last semester as a given and will focus instead on new problems; the nature of writing and of analysis is that it is a constant trek upwards.

Remember, if you are making this trek, that I am always here to help you. Please, please feel free to email me whenever if there is anything I can do to help you work through writing essays in lit classes.