For Credit: A Woman's Labour

As you read Mary Collier's "A Woman's Labour" for tomorrow (and trace her references to Stephen Duck's poem), consider the following questions:

• What was it about Duck's poem that annoyed her so much?
• How is her attitude toward her lot in life similar to or different from that of the other working class writers we discussed on Wednesday?
• What overarching issues, themes, ideas shape her poem as a whole?  (If you have time to look over Duck's poem at greater length, how does she structure her poem differently from his?)
• How does this poem expand your "big picture" of later C18 literature?

Feel free to respond to any of those questions.

Deadline: Friday (4/1), 1pm.

For Credit: Working-Class Literature Follow-Up

On Wednesday, we looked at the four readings in class and discussed how they fit in to the whole of working-class literature and in the era of literature we've been discussing this semester. Below are two main ideas; feel free to reply to either.

The last point we brought up was that Yearsley and Leapor, the female writers we examined, were aware of the fact that they had little to no chance of social mobility and wrote from that perspective. Dodsley, as a male writer, had a higher chance of being able to move up the social ladder, and we believe that this was reflected in his writing. The category of "working-class writers," then, breaks down into smaller categories, just as the category of "the working class" can be broken down into any number of categories. Do you agree that this gender gap is displayed throughout these works (and the other works we've studied)? Are there other differences between Dodsley's works and the Leapor/Yearsley poems that can be attributed to the genders of the authors?

One final question revolves around the idea of authorship. The replies to our previous blog post have shown that our class has a wide range of opinions on the question of whether an author's background matters. What if, as Kirstin suggested in class, we found Ann Yearsley's poem in an anthology of poetry and had no information about the author? For one, we could no longer definitively relate her claims of feeling unequal to those around her to what we know about her class, but what would this do to the poem? What would our class discussion on the poem (assuming it were part of our syllabus) look like? Would the poem become less valuable, transformed from a work that speaks from the experiences of one working-class woman into a cute treatise on what friendship is?

As our past post suggested, in classroom settings, we don't always look at authorial background. We don't normally examine the love letters John Keats wrote in order to understand a little more about who he is and why he wrote his poems, for example. Part of this is due to the constraints of a classroom schedule, of course, but we tend to analyze the great works of English literature without using the lens of biographical information. Should we? Do we treat the great writers of literary history unfairly by not looking at their backgrounds, or are we doing a disservice to less-notable writers like Yearsley and Leapor a disservice by limiting our interpretations of their works to what we know about their backgrounds?

Any other thoughts on Wednesday's discussion, the works we looked at, or working-class literature in general are also welcome.

FYI: The Castle of Otranto!

In class today, we voted and determined that the reading for the last two weeks of class would be Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto (1764).  This is the edition I've ordered at the bookstore.  I don't know what the bookstore will charge you for it when it gets here, but you can order it from Amazon for $11.99 (including shipping), or click on their links to cheaper copies available from other purveyors.  We will start discussing it on Monday, April 25.  You should plan to come to class that day with your copy in hand.

For Credit: Working-Class Literature and the Question of Background

In the opening weeks of class, we looked at Mary Leapor's "Epistle to Artemisia," examining how the relationship between the poem's characters "Mira" and "Artemisia" deliberately mirrored the real-life relationship between Leapor and her friend and benefactor Bridget Freemantle. Leapor was largely unknown until after her death, when Freemantle was able to get Leapor's works published. This week, we'll be looking at another of Leapor's poems, as well as other works from working-class writers Robert Dodsley and Anne Yearsley.

No writing exists in a vacuum; we care about the background of a writer, or any other artist. More than once, our class discussion has gravitated around the gender of the author of a given work. We use "working-class literature" as a category just like we use categories such as "women's literature" or "African-American literature," believing that a writer who belongs to a certain category can speak authoritatively about that category. The idea is that, much like we wouldn't lend much credence to a man writing about what it's like to be a woman because we presume that women are much more knowledgeable about that topic, we look to working-class writers to tell us something about what it's like to write and live as members of the working class.

Is this fair? Is it reasonable to want to be informed about writers' backgrounds and to use that information when analyzing a work, or do we run the risk of pigeon-holing authors into neat categories and not letting them speak about what they want to speak about? If we simply analyzed the readings for Wednesday as pieces of literature and ignored the lives of their authors (as we traditionally do when we read items from the Western canon), would we lose something, or would we just be treating these members of disenfranchised groups fairly?

Specifically, are your interpretations of any of the readings for Wednesday changed or affected by the fact that you know the backgrounds of the writers? If Dodsley's "The Miseries of Poverty" were written by Alexander Pope, would you read it differently?

For Credit: Readings for Wednesday, 3/30

The readings for Wednesday are over there in the sidebar: a poem by Ann Yearsley (who also wrote "Clifton Hill," which we read earlier), a poem by Mary Leapor (who also wrote "An Epistle to Artimesia," which we read earlier, and two texts by Robert Dodsley, one poem and a prose "Sketch of the Miseries of Poverty."  Note that the Leapor poem is available in your poetry anthologies--if you would prefer to read it in that modern edition, you can do so, but you must bring the book to class with you.

Otherwise, please print these out and bring them to class on Wednesday.  I've been fairly lax about letting people use laptops in class, but these readings are relatively short, and you will benefit from having a hard copy you can mark up.

For Credit: More Shandy after Break!

As announced in class on Friday, the reading for the Monday after break (3/28) is from Tristram Shandy:

Book IV Chapter 14 (pp. 258-9)
Book VI Chapters 3 and 4 (372-3)
Book IX Chapter 15 to the end (563-588)

These passages present some of the working-class characters in the book: Susannah (housemade in the Shandy family), Bridget (the Widow Wadman's maid), Corporal Trim (Uncle Toby's servant), and Maria (a young peasant woman who Tristram encounters in his travels abroad).  The reading assigned for Wednesday presents a number of poems by working-class authors; the readings in Shandy will present some of the assumptions around and through which such authors wrote.

The question you can respond to in advance of class: what features of these characters (Susannah, Bridget, Maria, Toby) emerge from the readings assigned?  What do you find striking or worthy of note in their portrayals?

Deadline: Monday (3/28), 1pm.

For Credit: Final Thoughts on Print Culture, Children's Literature, Our Emerging Big Picture of Later C18 Lit. or Anything Else that Comes to Mind over Spring Break...

Yeah. 

Posts before midnight on Saturday (3/26) will count towards Week 9.  Posts after midnight and before class on Monday (3/18) will count towards Week 10.

For Credit: The History of Sandford and Merton

You can find the reading for Friday here.  Yes--it's a huge document.  You don't need to print it out; this once, I will smile with approbation on anyone who brings a laptop to class so they can refer to the whole document as we discuss it.

How is work represented differently in this novel than in the other children's literature and related texts that we've looked at this week?

Deadline: Friday (3/18), start of class.

Some More Kids Stuff…

Thank you to everyone for contributing to the great discussion we had today on children’s literature. We outlined several key points and raised some interesting questions, such as:

1. Children’s literature emerged relatively recently during the 18th century when the idea of childhood as a separate developmental state became more and more clear. John Locke and his ideas of the Tabula Rasa (or “blank slate”) were crucial in this development. Our notions that we have today about childhood are distinctly different from historical concepts of childhood which are reflected in the time period’s literature and its paintings.

2. One of the major features of 18th century children’s literature was its emphasis on instruction. Authors wanted to teach children certain concepts, specifically behavioral concepts (as in “Rules for Behaviour”) or moral concepts for boys (“Dirty Boots”) and girls (“The Female Choice”). However, we noticed that the lessons being taught in these stories were a bit peculiar. For example, “Dirty Boots” does not teach you to be independent and not to rely on other people, but rather, its lesson is that you should not insult the people whose services you rely on because it can inconvenience you. Hmmm…

3. As a sort of synthesis between these two points, it can be said that our modern perceptions of children’s literature inflect the way in which we understand children’s literature of the 18th century. The lessons (if any) we learned from the stories we read growing up were very different from those of the 18th century (I don’t think there is a modern equivalent to “The Female Choice’s” moral of settling down and becoming a housewife!). However, just because they were different does not mean that we should discount them. Rather, we should be interested in exploring the cultural paradigm that existed and the way society imagined its children.

Some questions to consider: 1) Is there a true, natural state of childhood or is it a socially invented concept? 2) What other factors may have caused the enormous growth in children’s literature during the 18th century? 3) How effective is children’s literature in its didactic intent? Is it too, maybe even harmfully effective? 4) From this week’s readings, what were the most important concepts or morals that adults wanted children to learn, and why? 5) What do you think is the biggest difference between children’s literature from the 18th century to that of the 21st century?

Please use this blog to raise any other questions or comments that were left unsaid or never truly fleshed out during class.

The Blank Slate: Children's Literature

It might be hard for us, as people living in this historical moment of the 21^st century, to imagine a world without children’s literature. Books for kids have been around for as long as we can remember and they’ve been an integral part of our childhood, right up there with the likes of Oregon Trail and Pokémon cards. However, we’re going to learn this week in class that this hasn't always been the case. In fact, we can trace the origins of children’s literature as a genre all the way back to the 18^th century.

It all started with the philosopher-physician John Locke and his idea of the tabula rasa—the blank slate. Prior to Locke’s writings, people generally believed that there were some innate notions and principles present in every person from birth. However, Locke, in his 1690 work An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, virtually changed the very idea of innate notions and negated it, saying, "it is evident, that all children and idiots have not the least apprehension or thought of them [preconceived notions]". Basically, since children (and idiots) aren't aware of their own preconceived notions that must mean that they don't exist and, therefore, are what he likes to say--blank slates. Because of his theory adults began producing literature specifically designed to teach children the very essentials of being a "good" person and mold them into the people that parents and adults wanted them to be.

As a result, children’s literature as a genre and industry exploded in the 18^th century and since then has been used as a tool to ingrain the most important lessons into our children. So, what do you guys think?

1. Are we still following Locke’s philosophy and primarily using literature as a tool to teach?

2. Is there an alternative purpose to children’s literature?

3. In our day and age, what are the most important lessons that children’s books want to teach kids?

Added: How effective do you think stories like the ones assigned for Wednesday were in molding kids the way adults intended to?

For Credit: Does Children's Lit. Even COUNT?

Over there in the sidebar is the reading for Monday (an excerpt from Hester Thrale's Family Book and the Child's New Play-Thing) and Wednesday (an Evening at Home by John Aikin, "Dirty Boots," and some "Rules for Behavior').  Our topic: children's literature.

Is this material, properly speaking, literature?  What objections might one legitimately raise to this unit on the syllabus?  Why should or shouldn't those objections matter?

Deadline: Monday (3/14), 1pm.

For Credit: Mary Jones and Mary Leapor

Mary Jones's "Epistle to Lady Bowyer" has some themes in common with Mary Leapor's "Epistle to Artimesia," which we read earlier in the semester.  Or does it?  Can one identify common ideas about the poetic vocation across these two poems, or do they occupy entirely different realms of literary experience?

Deadline: Saturday (3/12), midnight.

For Credit: Mary Jones and Print Culture

For class on Friday, read Mary Jones's "Epistle to Lady Bowyer," which you can find on pp. 300 - 303 of your poetry anthologies (yes, the same Mary Jones who wrote "Holt Waters").

You should also bring to class the readings that we discussed on Wednesday (Rambler 23, "The Blessings of the Press," and "The Pernicious Effects of the Art of Printing").

You can respond to this post by offering your thoughts about what this poem reveals about either (a) Jones's sense of vocation as a poet, (b) her relationship to the world of print, or (c) her feelings about having her poetry published.

Deadline: Friday (3/11), 1pm.

For Credit: Last Two Weeks of the Semester

As befits a course structured around your independent work, we will spent the last two weeks on a single text that we select together.  I imagine that text will probably be a novel, but it doesn't have to be.  It should be a text that will provide a useful counterpoint to your exploration of Tristram Shandy and the poems in our anthology and it should pull together at least some of the themes that have been addressed in the group presentations.  It needs to be a book that is in print and available in an expensive (<$20) authoritative modern edition (e.g., nothing published by Kessenger or Owl or some other fly-by-night internet imprint).  Here are some of the possibilities (in no particular order), drawn from texts that have already been mentioned in class:

The Castle of Otranto by Horace Walpole

Boswell's London Journal, 1762 - 1763

Evelina, by Frances Burney










 Rasselas, by Samuel Johnson

The Vicar of Wakefield, by Oliver Goldsmith

The School for Scandal, by Richard Sheridan 










Pamela, by Samuel Richardson 











This list is by no means exhaustive.  Please respond to this post by suggesting other texts we might consider, or by suggesting some reasons pro or con for any of these books.  I hope to have a shortlist that we can vote on compiled by the end of spring break--so please weigh in!

Deadline: open (posts before midnight on Saturday 3/12 count for Week 8; posts after midnight on Saturday count for Week 9.

Rambling on About Print....

In Wednesday's class we discussed three readings 1) Blessings of a Free Press 2) Pernicious Effects of the Art of Printing 3) Rambler 23.  There are many things to examine within these poetry and prose pieces, but there was only so much time to discuss them in class.  Please offer any additional comments about the passages that were brought up today, or feel free to point out something that wasn't covered.  Did you find a passage or line that was particularly interesting?  Which reading did you find to be the most fascinating in regards to the print culture topic?  Why did you feel that way and what made it so stimulating as opposed to the other readings?  Your classmates brought up many interesting points about the topic for today, would you like to elaborate on anything you said in class or respond to any comments or interpretations that a classmate had?

Also, there were some really good points brought up during the group activity that not everyone had a chance to hear. I will put some of those responses under the questions they pertain to. Feel free to comment on those as well.  

In your groups you discussed the illustration that was handed out (seen above).  Below are the questions from the worksheet.  Feel free to discuss your / your classmate's interpretation(s) of the image or pick a question to expand on.

1.      What do you see in this picture? Point out the details and list the tools/weapons that are being used to express the artist’s message.

2.      Who are these figures? What do you think their class status is?  Why do you think the artist chose to include a woman in this image, and why is she the one protecting the printing press as opposed to a male? 

• The woman represents freedom of the press [Neil, Mariam, Michelle, Sara, Bianca] 
• The woman represents those without voices (lower class, women, etc.) and the men are trying to prevent the woman's access to the printing press [Paul, Westyn, Molly, Elizabeth] 

3.      What do you think this image is saying about the print era and/or the printing press?  In this era, many people in society were cut off from reading.  Also, consider those who were illiterate.  What is the significance of using illustrations?   

• It's demonizing people who are pro-censorship, showing them as monsters. The illustration makes it so this message can be understood by a wider audience [Ryan, Noble, Madison, Jason, Jeff]       

4.      This image originally appeared in William Hone’s The Man in the Moon.  Hone was a political activist, writer, and publisher who fought against government censorship in 1817 and fought for freedom of the press.  Do you think an illustration can convey a message more or less effectively than print, or do you think both are equally capable of making the same point?  Why or Why not?

• Both are capable in different ways. Illustrations "catch the eye" and makes a quick / effective point. Writing can make stronger points and create more debate [Ryan, Noble, Madison, Jason, Jeff] 

5.      In Rambler No. 23, Johnson discusses that the reader is at the mercy of the authors ideas.  In what ways do you see this happening here?  

• The author is relying on the reader to put together the message [Neil, Mariam, Michelle, Sara, Bianca]

After reading the group responses, and reflecting on the works discussed in class, what are your final thoughts on printing and its overall societal implications?  

Readings for Wednesday

The readings for Wednesday (three of them) have been e-mailed to you; they can also be found in the sidebar.  Please read them, print them out, and bring them with you to class.

For Credit: Print Culture in the 18C

Her e is some background information about print culture:

Some things to keep in mind about the advent of print culture in the eighteenth century are that it had a variety of consequences for both the upper and lower classes. The upper class felt that the availability of publications bridged the gap between the two classes. They did not like that the lower class was now more knowledgeable about politics, literature and other worldly matters. They did not feel the lower class deserved such important knowledge without earning it. On the other hand, the lower classes reaped benefits of print culture, such as, more diverse subject matter, increased literacy, and a growing interest in the world, literature, and politics. Print culture not only had enormous effects on the upper and lower classes, but it gave way to growth in plagiarism, illustrations, legitimacy, and fame.

As you read all the material about print culture in the 18th century, what can you identify as the major concerns of the upper and lower classes regarding publications? The three pieces we gave you present an array of opinions both praising and rejecting the press. What were your opinions about print culture before you read these writings and how do you think mass productions affected society? The publications of the press gave way to numerous types of media such as illustrations in books, graphic/obscene literature, religious texts, and reviving past scholarly masterpieces. What can you identify that all three primary sources have in common with each other and what are they in objection over? As a society, we are overwhelmed with print media every day. Do you think this desensitizes or enhances our ability to analyze and interpret print culture from the eighteenth century? If you are having a difficult time thinking about these questions, then think about this question: Does the culture of “print culture” stem from the people reading one specific text, or the piece of literature that brings an audience together?

For Credit: Print Culture

This week's topic is "Print Culture."

What does that mean?

How has the term been used in other English courses you've taken?

Offer some opening thoughts--or respond to a classmate's ideas--here.

Deadline: Monday (3/7), start of class.

For Credit: Second Assignment Questions (BUMPED)

The topic for the second assignment is available here, and also over there in the sidebar.  Feel free to respond to this post with questions or concerns about the assignment.

UPDATE: the version of the assignment that was linked to from Friday to Sunday morning was incomplete.  The link now takes you to the entire assignment handout (the one that was handed out in class on Friday).

And, for what it's worth, Tristram Shandy's method of writing: "I begin by writing the first sentence,--and trusting to Almighty God for the second."

For Credit: And they all lived happily ever after...?

On Wednesday we shared our various interpretations of three gothic short stories, but one aspect deserves a bit more attention: the endings!

I would ask you to consider the end of the first story in the packet, that of Sir Bertrand. We find our hero trapped in a sort of mausoleum being attacked by animate marble statues when, all of a sudden, he dashes for a spectral woman, kisses her, and is instantly transported to a nymph-filled paradise.

My question, then, is this: where did the "gothic" go? What do you think the significance of such an abrupt turn in the story is? Also, since the story trails off at the end of the page and the reader is left wondering, how, given what you now know about the gothic, do you think it ends? Will there be a loose connection to some sort of morality, or is our hero in for a surprise?

For Credit: Jane Austen Critiques the Gothic

The reading for Friday (part of it, anyway) is two chapters from Jane Austen's novel, Northanger Abbey.  (You should also bring the poetry anthology to class so we can finish Clifton Hill.)

Austen will complete our study of the C18 Gothic. Northanger Abbey was published first in 1819, after Austen's death, which would put it well outside of our period.  However, the novel was the first she wrote, and it bears more traces of the century that preceded its composition than the new literary era that Austen helped to bring into being.

I've given you the parts of the novel that offer an explicitly commentary--through the conversations of characters--on gothic fiction.  The novel has some gothic elements of its own, as the title indicates, but I'll let you find those out on your own--they aren't part of these two chapters.  Based on the chapters you have here, what is Austen's attitude toward the gothic?  Which (if any) character expresses her views? 

Deadline: Friday (3/4), 1pm.