Ode on a Grecian URL

The last hebdomadal topic is posted below.

Over the course of the semester, I have had the opportunity to read some spellbindingly good hebdomadals. Now that we are at the end, I wanted to share with you some of your classmates' excellent writing. Reading your peers' arguments is an excellent way not only to review for the final but also to get ideas about how to deploy exciting analytical arguments during the exam.

An answer to Hebdomadal 12, by Tim (312):

Discuss the differing representations of spatial logic in Pride and Prejudice and Wuthering Heights. Drawing from knowledge of the authors and their backgrounds as well as the British literary landscape at time of publication, suggest a reason for the difference.

A constant theme in novels is the manner in which authors confront spatial logic, the arrangement of characters in relation to plot and theme. Pride and Prejudice and Wuthering Heights both utilize spatial logic in their respective story lines, but differ in use to affect the novel's central question or conclusion: in Pride and Prejudice, spatial logic supports this conclusion; in Wuthering Heights, it disrupts the conclusion.

The most illustrative example of spatial logic in Austen's work is the introductory paragraph of Volume Three, in which Austen describes the valley of Pemberley Estate, Darcy's home. The sparse physical description throughout the novel stands in contrast to the large, emphasized description of the valley of Pemberley; Austin thoroughly details Elizabeth's journey down into the valley, and her final arrival at Pemberley House. When Elizabeth and Darcy later meet, they physically come together over a bridge, and symbolically unite as Elizabeth realizes she loves Darcy.

In Pride and Prejudice, spatial logic insists that the two characters must be brought together at strategic intervals in the novel, including the times when Darcy proposes. The physical distance that must be traveled in joining the characters parallels the emotional distance that must be reduced through change in the characters characters'. In this novel, spatial logic is part and parcel of the central argument that people can change.

The two estates of Wuthering Heights are spatially separated, but similar to Austen, Bronte pairs this spatial separation with another form of separation, in this case, cultural difference. The Grange is home to the cultured Lintons, who clash with primal Heathcliff and his assorted "inmates" at the Heights. The novel confronts class difference, and its ultimate conclusion is found in Cathy and Hareton's marriage, and the symbolic swallowing of the Heights and its Natural power by the Grange's culture.

While the culture comes to dominate nature, spatial logic seemingly throws off this conclusion: while the cultural difference and space has been eliminated by the joining of the families, the physical difference remains--the estates are still separate, and the Heights's natural power is maintained by its seedy guardian, Joseph. The novel's ultimate conclusion is hampered, rather than helped, by spatial logic.

In both novels, the theme of love and its repercussions are powered by spatial logic. The physical synthesis can only arise from physical situation of two characters. Both novels explore this dependence on spatial logic in love, but while their use of spatial logic as a fuel is common, their respective fires are different in scope: Austen answers questions of character and personality, where Bronte seems to confront the broader questions of society's interactions. Perhaps it is less the authors' different backgrounds and literary environments that led them to use spatial logic in different fashions, and instead their differing goals and themes.

An answer to Hebdomadal 11, by Kelsey B. (313):

“Mrs. Touchett might do a great deal of good, but she never pleased. This way of her own, of which she was so fond, was not intrinsically offensive—it was just unmistakeably distinguished from the ways of others. The edges of her conduct were so very clear-cut that for susceptible persons it sometimes had a knife-like effect.” (35)

For this hebdomadal I will use assume the following definition of interiority: interiority refers to an author's relatively full and non-judgmental rendering of the internal consciousness of a character.

Henry James narrates gently in describing Mrs. Touchett’s harsh character, and in doing so, reveals a perspective of exteriority. James first writes, “Mrs. Touchett might do a great deal of good, but she never pleased.” James first gives a complement about Mrs. Touchett’s good deeds before giving the criticism that she never pleases others. The comma separating the complement and the criticism shows James pause and apprehension about saying anything bad about Mrs. Touchett. It is as if the narrator himself is afraid of Mrs. Touchett’s wrath/harsh response for writing something negative about her. Since the narrator hesitates to say what he truly means in fear of Mrs. Touchett, the reader can infer that other characters in the novel will respond to her likewise.

Then James goes on to write, “This way of her [Mrs. Touchett’s] own, of which she was so fond, was not intrinsically offensive—it was just unmistakeably distinguished from the ways of others.” Again the narrator is overly careful in his description when he describes Mrs. Touchett’s behavior as “not intrinsically offensive” and “just unmistakeably distinguished” from others. However, the dash, like the comma in the previous description, separates the narrator’s attempt to be gentle and his explanation of the harsh truth. The description implies that Mrs. Touchett is harsh because her behavior is not offensive “intrinsically,” or by nature, but probably comes off as offensive to others. It is apparent that James is not writing with a perspective of interiority because his hesitance to describe Mrs. Touchett’s harsh personality in too harsh a manner shows his judgment of her behavior as harsh and frightening. The exteriority can also be seen when James writes, “This way of her own, of which she was so fond.” He does not reveal her thoughts from an unbiased omniscient perspective, as if he is inside her thoughts, but rather as an observer who judges Mrs. Touchett as liking to have things her way.

As the narrative continues, James becomes bolder with his description of Mrs. Touchett revealing a more severe judgment of her. He writes, “The edges of conduct were so very clear-cut that for susceptible persons it sometimes had a knife-like effect.” The phrases “clear-cut” and “knife-like” are punctuated the same way, which draws attention to the pun created by the two phrases (Mrs. Touchett’s conduct is clear-cut like the cutting of a knife). James makes this pun to reveal the folly in Mrs. Touchett’s belief that her sharp behavior is just her straightforwardness. This sentence also contributes to the exteriority because the narrator is making a pun about/making fun of the character’s thoughts rather than presenting them in a non-judgmental way.

The exteriority of the passage gives the reader an impression of how Mrs. Touchett is seen by other characters and by society which is more useful in the novel because it is a story about the social interactions of a group of people not the emotional development of Mrs. Touchett.

An answer to Hebdomadal 10, by Laura S. (313):

The effects of opium in The Moonstone are quite similar to the effects the suspenseful book has on the reader, specifically the first effect of opium. “The action of opium is comprised, in the majority of cases, in two influences – a stimulating influence first, and a sedative influence afterwards (388).” Through a little research to understand opium more, I found that opium stimulates and activates receptors in the brain, spinal cord, stomach, and intestine; basically, opium wakes up one’s entire body into a euphoric state where problems are temporarily forgotten (Opium). Likewise, when one reads a suspenseful novel, our own bodies are woken up. Our heart beats faster, our brain races, and butterflies flutter in our stomachs. Just like opium, a suspenseful novel produces a full-body effect. “Do you feel an uncomfortable heat at the pit of your stomach, sir? and a nasty thumping at the top of your head? …I call it the detective fever (300).” Betteridge is feeling a full-body effect like that of opium by simply being associated with suspenseful acts.

Opium also has addictive qualities, as we see that Ezra Jennings is an opium addict. This is consistent with the effects of sensation fiction. Just as one needs progressively more opium when one is addicted, as one reads a novel such as The Moonstone, one always wants to keep reading and to understand and figure out more and more. The more one reads, the more one needs and wants – much like an addiction.

The pleasant euphoria opium creates is also consistent with opium effects. The happiness opium creates and how it leads one to forget their problems is similar to the effects of reading. Getting lost in reading allows temporary escape from the problems of life. Similarly, getting lost in the pleasant effects of opium also leads to a temporary escape.

As I thought about the similarities between opium and suspense, I wondered one thing – why opium? Why didn’t Collins choose to get Franklin drunk or use some other drug? Similar effects to that of opium – the euphoria, bodily “awakening,” forgetfulness – could have been produced by other means. What is so significant about opium? While doing research on opium in general, I stumbled on an interesting connection. Beginning in 1757, the British East India Company launched a territorial invasion into India to pursue an opium export and production monopoly there. This had a significant effect on the cultivating peasants, as they were offered or pressured into cash advances on crops to promote cultivation. The product, opium, was sold at auction in Calcutta and then snuck into China. The British East India Company then used the profit from selling the opium to purchase the teas that were in high demand in Britain (Opium). This is an interesting connection to the colonialism of Britain in India and the use of India for Britain’s ends that we talked about in section last Friday. I think opium is important to the novel, not only because it produces similar effects to that of suspense, but also because it alludes to yet another way Britain uses India somewhat exploitatively to get what it wants.

A Crude Work Cited:

Opium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium

An answer to Hebdomadal 7, by Tony (312):

"The event of Tess Durbeyfield’s return from the manor of her bogus kinsfolk was rumoured abroad, if rumour be not too large a word for a space of a square mile. In the afternoon several young girls of Marlott, former schoolfellows and acquaintances of Tess, called to see her; arriving dressed in their best starched and ironed, as became visitors to a person who had made a transcendent conquest (as they supposed); and sat round the room looking at her with great curiosity. For the fact that it was this said thirty-first cousin Mr d’Urberville who had fallen in love with her, a gentleman not altogether local, whose reputation as a reckless gallant and heart-breaker was beginning to spread beyond the immediate boundaries of Trantridge, lent Tess’s supposed position , by its fearsomeness, a far higher fascination than it would have exercised if unhazardous.

Their interest was so deep that the younger ones whispered when her back was turned; “How pretty she is—and how that best frock do set her off! I believe it cost an immense deal, and that it was a gift from him.”

Tess, who was reaching up to get the tea-things from the corner-cupboard, did not hear these commentaries. If she had heard them she might soon have set her friends right on the matter. But her mother heard, and Joan’s simple vanity, having been denied the hope of a dashing marriage, fed itself as well as it could upon the sensation of a dashing flirtation. Upon the whole she felt gratified, even though such a limited and evanescent triumph should involve her daughter’s reputation; it might end in marriage yet, and in the warmth of her responsiveness to their admiration she invited her visitors to stay to tea." (pg 95)

------------

After reading the greater part of Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles, I would like to answer the question of how Hardy relates society to the individual. In this, I would like to pose the idea that through a representation of Tess and how she is treated by her surrounding society, the individual is not valued in Hardy’s world. Individual ideas or accomplishments are viewed as meaningless if they do not fit societal standards and ideas. If you were to not fit in with your social class and their beliefs, there was something wrong with you and you were ostracized.

While this can seemingly be a very obvious statement, I would like to argue that it goes into much greater depth because Hardy’s portrayal of a society is a very intolerant one. It does not accept Tess merely because she has been raped and “tainted” by living with a higher class. This passage is filled with gossip, the idea that everyone talks behind Tess’s back and considers her changed, a person that is not one of them. By looking at a close reading, we get this gossipy feeling—her story is “rumoured abroad” with little ones that “whispered when her back was turned”. Tess is declared different and assumes the role of being the center of attention: people merely “sat round the room looking at her with great curiosity”. She is changed. Tess is something to be talked about because she was not one of them anymore—she is not a part of society.

In this passage, Hardy’s style helps to shape the very gossipy feel by relating to the reader as a member of his society in order to stress his point of ostracizing Tess. His style of writing in a personal and conversational manner allows the reader to feel as if they are gossiping right along with the town. Right in the first line—mentioning that her behavior was “rumoured abroad, if rumour be not too large a word for a space of square mile”—establishes a personal relationship. Before the comma, Hardy introduces and states a fact, that the town was gossiping. After it, he is explaining and quantifying the extent of the gossip, a seemingly justification of just how bad the gossip is. It is presented in a very story or gossip telling manner. Additionally, the later parenthetical use “(as they supposed)” is another afterthought used after the sharing of the fact to explain the unsure reasoning behind the visitors’ stay. Again, the parentheses are mastered as another aside—much
like the use of parenthetical notes in everyday text. It is not so much a central statement as it is additional and justifying information. This idea of very personal writing not only includes the reader into the created society but helps to demonstrate more concretely the ostracizing of Tess. In this passage, we feel as if we are also gossiping about her, that we should hold the same negative and excluding attitude that everyone else in the story is holding.

For my writing style analysis and comparison text, I used Ernest J. Gaines’ A Lesson Before Dying. In Gaines’ novel, I would argue that society is again viewed as a cruel one—a place where people do not accept others because of different beliefs or past events in their lives. The main character, Jefferson, is ostracized, put on trial, and then death row for his supposed involvement in killing a store clerk. Society judges him behind his back and does not base their judgments on knowledge but rather simply rumor. The difference between Gaines and Hardy, however, would be their use of style and relationship to the reader—while Hardy seems to include the reader in his society in order for them to understand the cruelty and the negative and ignorant effect ostracizing the individual has, Gaines approaches the reader as someone who doesn’t understand, someone who will never understand because they will never be part of that society. For example, in a passage found on pg 142, Gain
es describes a scene of the town and the hardworking black population. He phrases his sentences continually by writing “you could see”, “you might be able to see”. These phrases are passive and seem to suggest things that could or might be, but won’t. He seems to offer in his thoughts, that if the reader might have been around they could experience and see the same cruelty he saw, but since they weren’t there they will never know.

In this way, I think that Hardy is pointing out the negative aspect of society’s view of the individual in hopes that society may one day change when realizing its wrongdoing. His writing is almost satirical. Gaines on the other hand uses his view and style as a sealing of fate: he seems to express to the reader that this is the way of life, it will never change because you never will understand.

An answer to Hebdomadal 4, by Glenn (313):

The paragraph, starting with “with your aid that may be avoided…” on page 131 contains a scene between Nells and Heathcliff, is an especially acrimonious scene. It gives an excellent sense of the volatile nature of the story up to this point.
Nell is attempting to keep Heathcliff from trying to see Catherine again by essentially insisting that any such visit might kill Catherine, if he encountered Edgar again. The argument between them is expressed in inflammatory rhetoric. Heathcliff, allegedly an uneducated, socially inferior savage when he fled Wuthering Heights as a youth, has become not only educated, but skilled in society and its vageries and understands the impact of what he says and how he says it. Heathcliff attempts to manipulate Nell in his effort to see Catherine one more time, and she has said unequivocally that Catherine might die as a result of his coming to the “Grange” again.

He says that with her (Nells) aid, Catherine’s demise might be averted, attempting to get her to conspire with him. His request is premised on Nells’ belief that if Heathcliff gets anywhere near Catherine all hell will break loose if he encounters Catherine’s husband. Heathcliff says in a graceful manner that had he been in Edgar’s place, he would not have treated him (Heathcliff) as poorly as Edgar in fact, has done. Here he is claiming that he in fact is a gentleman and is using his speaking skills in a supplicating fashion that would seem to give him some reasonableness. However, just in that same breath he states that he would “…have torn his [Edgar’s] heart out, and drink his blood…”, if he thought that Catherine no longer had “regard” for him. The power of this sentence and the vision that it places in the mind is of a virulent hatred and self degradation ( in a sense Heathcliff is talking about tearing out his own heart and drinking his own blood). The phrase amplifies the deviant nature of the relationship that Heathcliff sees as his due with Catherine. That relationship being one of possession, as he was treated as a low caste possession not good enough for the “Heights”, he would “drink the blood” of those that would deny him that which he desired the most.

The not so subtle notion of cannibalism and the religious defilement of blood drinking almost subsumes or excuses the other undercurrent here that is incest.

The high pitched emotional fervor of this passage is an exemplar of the current, thus far, of the novel. The behaviors of the characters and the way they interact is meant to shock and repel. The malevolent personality of Heathcliff is clear and explains the dark nature of the opening of the novel and seems to dispel any notion that things will improve.

Labels: essays, exam, hebdomadal