"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield"

For the second half of the class, we will be discussing many questions surrounding imperialism, capitalism, nationalism, racism, and sexism (a lot of isms) that are important in understanding where we are today as a society. I would like this blog post to help us think about the writers that we will encounter in the following weeks (and of course this reading is relevant for the next quiz and final).

Alfred Lord Tennyson is a seminal writer in the Victorian era in English Literature, which is considered to be a period of rapid European "exploration" (although, how can you explore lands that have been previously inhabited by civilizations for thousands of years?), ethnographic study (cultural anthropology), and imperial and colonial expansion. It is also a time in which a lot of anxiety arises from the expansion of the empire and questions begin to arise surrounding what it means to be British.

Tennyson's poem "Ulysses" is inspired by the ancient Greek epic "The Odyssey" and its eponymous king Odysseus. It is a poem that draws upon the idealization of "empire" that dates back to Greek civilization (and before). Although Tennyson does not reference the British empire explicitly in this poem, some literature scholars consider it to be inspired by the contemporary colonial project in Tennyson's time.

My first question: in general, what was your reaction to Tennyson's "Ulysses?" Did you find it to be personally affective? Did you find it to be a well written? (Be critical if you would like, just tell us why).

My second question: Do you find that the poem is in any way promoting imperialism, or rather does it seem critical? (Cite lines if useful)

I am interested to read your opinions... **Note: You will have until March 15th to complete this post. Have a great spring break! 8-)

Not Your Grandmother's Typical Romance Novels

This is in belated celebration of Valentine's Day...

After class today I thought quite a bit about our discussion on the Romantic movement in English Literature and tried to link it to our modern notion of "Romance" (yes, with a capital R). It seems as though we associate the descriptor more with popular media such as the Romantic Comedies or Romance Novels (with or without a shirtless hunk on cover), rather than the philosophical ideals of Blake and Wordsworth.

I wonder, do we still value a notion of Romance similar to that of Romantic Poets of the late 18th and early 19th century? Let us think of this kind of Romanticism as at least one (or more) of the following: emotional and less rational, idealistic of innocence and nature over corrupt society, a romantic idealization of one's country, and a direct connection with the transcendental/spiritual through nature. In your opinion, do we see any resemblance of this Romanticism in today's politics, culture, media, beliefs? Do we rather seem to exhibit the Enlightenment values Voltaire and Rousseau? Is one way of thinking about the world better than the other? If helpful, give some relevant examples and explain how they demonstrate your point.

Satire

Many of the authors that we have read thus far in the semester such as Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope and Voltaire have used fiction to make commentaries on contemporary issues. Voltaire's Candide is one of the best examples of comedic satire in the tradition of Western literature. It is well known that Voltaire's work is a direct commentary on Gottfried Wihelm Leibniz's philosophy of optimism in which he insists that "all is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds." Voltaire uses an illustration in Candide of the 1755 earthquake in Lisbon to criticize Leibniz's position, which incidentally launched a discourse on optimist philosophy and the role of religion in governance.

In consideration of the satires that we have been reading by Pope, Swift and Voltaire, what I would like you to do is select a modern satire that you feel is interesting and compare it to a satire that we have read in class. The satire that you wish to discuss does not necessarily have to be in the written form: you can choose a movie, TV show (think political satires on SNL), or any other visual media that might be circulated online (please share a link with us if you do). The point is to think about the ways in which we use satire today to comment on society and determine whether it has changed significantly or remains essentially the same.

When comparing the two pieces of satire you might like to think about a couple of the following questions (you don't have to answer all of these, it's just to help you brainstorm):

Are these two satires poking fun at the same thing? That is, are they both commenting on politics, current events, societal standards, gender roles, etc, or do the topics seem quite different?

Why do you think that the satire that you are looking at is so effective for you personally? How does it compare to the satire(s) that we read in class?

In general, does satire have an effect on politics and society today as much as it did in the time period that you are looking at? (For example, Voltaire became the hero of the French Revolution)

I'm curious to see what examples you bring to the discussion, and please, share a link to YouTube or other sites if you find something that we might all be interested in seeing :)

What the... devil?

A couple weeks ago, television evangelist and host of "The 700 Club" Pat Robertson made some incendiary remarks regarding the recent disastrous earthquake in Haiti. He claimed in his broadcast that the reason behind Haiti's suffering since its independence is not due to the country's history of slavery and exploitation by the West, but in fact, is due to the fact that they made a "pact" with the devil 200 years ago to get out from under the heel of the French. Please watch the brief video below from Media Matters.com, and then continue reading:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001130024

In consideration of Pat Robertson's remarks, please read the following passages from Alexander Pope's "An Essay on Man:"

(lines 61-69)

When the proud steed shall know why man restrains
His fiery course, or drives him o'er the plains;
When the dull ox, why now he breaks the clod,
Is now a victim, and now Egypt's god:
Then shall man's pride and dullness comprehend
His actions', passions', being's, use and end;
Why doing, suff'ring, check'd, impell'd; and why
This hour a slave, the next a deity.

(Lines 141-164)
But errs not nature from this gracious end,
From burning suns when livid deaths descend,
When earthquakes swallow, or when tempests sweep
Towns to one grave, whole nations to the deep?...
If plagues or earthquakes break not Heav'n's design,
Why then a Borgia, or a Catiline?
Who knows but he, whose hand the light'ning forms,
Who heaves old ocean, and who wings the storms;
Pours fierce ambition in a Caesar's mind,
Or turns young Ammon loose to scourge mankind?
From pride, from pride, our very reas'ning springs;
Account for moral as for nat'ral things:
Why charge we heav'n in those, in these acquit?
In both, to reason right is to submit.

In your opinion, does it seem as though Pat Robertson is arguing the same point
as Alexander Pope; that is, are they both in a sense claiming that all disaster and
suffering in the world is not in the hands of man but rather a part of God's plan?
When Robertson claims that the suffering in Haiti can be explained by a "pact with
the devil," what is he implying about the role of man in disasters and preventing
future suffering? What is Alexander Pope saying when he tells us to just "submit?"

You can answer these specific questions or give your general impression. I think
that this is an important topic and I would really like to hear what you think!

Read me before you blog!

Please respond to the prompt for each week by leaving a comment below with your full name indicated. I will update my blog posts every Sunday, and you will have that week to write your response. You also have the option of posting your own blog prompt to which others may respond. Responses to my posts, your own blog posts, or responding to other contributors are all acceptable ways to earn your required 7 posts. You must post your response to my prompts or the prompts of others within a week of its publication, and late responses will not be considered toward your final grade. Most importantly, the content of your blog posts must relate in some way to the course material or ideas that Professor Rosenstock has presented in lecture; you are free to relate it to contemporary issues, politics, or popular culture as long as you feel that it is relevant and worth discussing.

As for the administrative details, you will need to sign into an account to leave a comment. I have sent out invitations to everybody enrolled in the course to sign up as contributors to the blog. Please use your full name in your blog profile so that I can identify your posts and give you credit. Fortunately, you have the option of using your Google, Live Journal, AIM, WordPress, Type Pad, or Open ID account to sign in. Otherwise, if you do not have any of these, you will need to sign up for a Blogspot account.

Overall I want to use this blog as a way of extending the conversation in class and learning from each other in the process. I really look forward to learning from all of you throughout the semester!