As with the awesome exam questions, you can post a response to any of these. If your response has some intellectual content related to the course material, I will grade it for blog credit.
- Have you come any closer to tracking down the White Bear?
- What your favorite section of this course and why?
- If you were to pose an attendance question on the subject of coming up with attendance questions, the question should be "What are the philosophical implications of asking attendance questions?"
- What were your favorite and least favorite works we read this semester and why? What other works, if any, do you wish we had gotten to read?
- Is the later eighteenth century an important period of its own or is it simply an in-between era of literature?
16 comments:
My favorite section of the course would have to be the Gothic and/or the Sublime.
I've only gotten some teasers of Poe in other classes where not enough time was devoted the gothic. Stories with supernatural characteristics, creepy atompshere, "WTF" moments and spookification is a fresh breath of air! If the work is entertaining, then it's easier to want to analyze so there is an educational purpose. We were able incorporate different ideas when we talked about Castle of Oranto with the sublime or women's roles. I think it was an efficient way to complete the class on a good note with a general understanding of different aspects of this era.
Also, I can't lie, but the sexual innuendo with Shandy were a hoot. It's just typical for that kind of context. It was intriguing trying to figure out exactly what the author was trying to hint at though, and it was still an intellectual challenge. We sure got to practice a new way of reading complex works.
My least favorite and favorite works were the two novels we read in the class. My favorite work was The Castle of Otranto. I feel that this was my favorite because it was the most interesting thing to read that as far longer than simple a couple of pages out of some bigger work. The novel had some unrealistic elements that were at times confusing and somewhat difficult to fully wrap your head around, but all in all, I liked the book. I felt like it was a fairly easy read and I was able to understand what was going on in the main plot of the story, but it also brought in different aspects covered in the course, such as the sublime and the gothic.
My least favorite thing to read this semester was Shandy. It was extremely confusing to me and I did not know what to think while I was reading it. Although I did try to do the readings, I simply did not understand what was going on until it was discussed in class. Though it may be an important work from the time period, I do not feel as though it gave a great amount of insight into the times whereas other readings we did throughout the semester provided a look into the later 18th century and the way life was happening at the time.
I thought the best part of this class was the presence of the blog. I think the blog helped maintain an engagement with each text or unit we covered irrespective of whether or not we responded to the post. The blog not only allowed me to convey my thoughts on these topics, but it also allowed me to access other student's opinions on these topics. Many of the comments made by my classmates forced me to reconsider some aspects of our learning. These opportunities helped me in completing assignments as well as understanding the material more fully. I have never taken an English course that has used this system, and I found the experience to be rewarding and worthwhile.
I honestly believe that the later 18th century is just an in-between, marking the end of the Enlightenment and the beginning of Romanticism.
We've looked at a pretty wide range of works through a series of different lenses, and although we can play connect-the-dots as much as we want, the truth is that there really is no domineering, overarching theme. Granted, some of my reading may be a cause of being taught that all works from their given eras can be neatly categorized (surely, in any given era, there are deviant works), but the wide range of authors and wide range of stories indicates that this era might just be an in-between era.
The phrasing of this question is a bit unfair, though. Surely, this period can be both an in-between era and an important period of its own, right? Without bridges, we would never get anywhere.
I didn't often enjoy reading Tristram Shandy because Sterne's writing is pretty hard to decipher at times, even with footnotes, and I always managed to miss key plot elements while reading, but I actually enjoyed lectures and discussions about the readings because it revealed all the weird/crazy things about the characters and their lifestyles, as well as a lot of Sterne's ideas about the production of literature and how audiences can interact with it (like the page he provides for us to make a sketch of our ideal mate). So even though Shandy was at most times a pain to get through, I always enjoyed the fun conversations about what goes on in it.
I also enjoyed the assigned readings of Macpherson's fragments, which I didn't really like so much until I went back to use them for my second paper topic. Thinking back on the day the Literary Forgery group lead the class, it seems like we as a class dismissed the fragments too early because they are fabricated and missed out on discussing together the possibilities of these pieces as C18 literature regardless of how Macpherson was trying to sell them as ancient. They are actually quite fun.
Meanwhile, the readings I disliked most were the plays, namely School for Scandal. It's really the written play form that bothers me because I can never really get comfortable with reading it and so working through it frustrates me.
I'm not exactly sure if Tristram Shandy was the most enjoyable part, but it was definitely--at least for me--the most rewarding. There's just something about reading a creative piece of work where you have to pay close attention while trucking your way through. I'm not sure if people would agree if the cost was worth the interpretive payoff, but it was for me. Sometimes during our discussions in class, the thought in my head would be: There's no way Sterne could mean that. Oh Laurence, whoever knew that an 18th century writer like you could be so raunchy. And also, in tandem with the raunchiness, I liked Mary Jones poem "Holt Waters." It's strange to see such a formal style of English writing to be used to describe something so vulgar. It was shocking, but still very entertaining.
I will say as a unit, I enjoyed the section on the Gothic. It's really interesting to see the origins of Gothic themes birthed in the 18th century. There are defining markers in the Gothic that survived in later Gothic texts and even now. But aside from the historical aspect of the Gothic, the dark ethos of this genre is very attractive. I think the human mind is fascinated with the unknown (shoutout to the sublime) and is just naturally curious in finding out the truth. The Gothic plays with these sort of innate desires inside of us and, especially with more Gothic media, adds in a "M. Night Shyamalan" sort of twist to totally floor us. From a sheer entertainment perspective, the Gothic was the most enjoyable genre for me to read this semester.
I would have to say that one of my favorite sections was the “literary forgeries” section. Not necessarily due to the content of the works but simply because I found the concept of someone pretending they found a historic work when they really wrote it themselves quite intriguing. I’m a sucker for “Buddy Holly” stories or stories about young talent whose full potential is lost due to a tragic death, so naturally I was fascinated with Chatterton’s background story. For me, having that much talent at a young age, overshadows the fact that he lied about the legitimacy of the works he “found.” I also liked, how we were able to see the different view points the public had toward the forgeries. The Jefferson and Johnson readings really showed these drastically different opinions; Jefferson praised Macpherson for being a genius, while Johnson condemned him for lying about the legitimacy of the works. I also feel like the “literary forgeries” section incorporated many of the other topics we studied in class. For example, Jefferson mentions how Macpherson’s Ossian is sublime, and social class issues are seen by the upper class feeling duped by the writers for lying to them. Overall, this was my favorite section due to my interest in the background stories of the authors and the conflicting viewpoints it generated from the public.
To claim that the eighteenth century is an in-between era of literature would be highly unfair, as there is no such thing as an in between era of literature. While it may not be the most captivating, interesting, or glamorous canon of literature, it is what it is, and must be appreciated as is. Eighteenth century works are undoubtedly the red headed stepchildren of literature, but nonetheless, they offer their own respective qualities to any substantial literary collection. Associated with the development of the modern novel, the sublime, and distinctions in class, eighteenth century literature served as a stepping stone for further developments in several literary movements and genres to come.
My favorite pieces to read this semester in this course was probably...anything but Tristram Shandy. I kid, but seriously, Shandy was my least favorite literary venture in this class...the phallic nose jokes and incompetence snubs mixed in with such quirky prose was a little too much for me. However, I did particularly enjoy most of the poetry we read in this class, with the sole exception of "Holt Waters".
I think that my favorite section was the literary forgeries unit. I thought it was very interesting to learn about that phenomenon, because I never knew anything about it beforehand and even the ideas that I had about it were completely wrong. I liked thinking about the implications of creating a culture or a past for a certain group of people.
I didn't really enjoy the children's literature section very much. I do believe that children's literature is important, but I still didn't think it was very interesting to learn about.
I've seen a lot of responses talk about how little they enjoyed Tristram Shandy. I felt the opposite. I thought it was definitely difficult to get through at times, but I also thought that it was incredibly interesting, not only as something very different from the other 18th century material but as something that is still different and a little crazy today.
I believe that late 18th century literature is an important period of its own. If we look at the multitude of genres and themes we have explored this semester (ie. the Gothic, the sublime, Children's Literature, Sentimentality, etc), we see that late c18 provided a somewhat table of contents for what was to come in the literary canon. If anything, I think that this period provided the literary world with a stepping stones toward future literature. A great example of this is the Children's literature we explored. Texts such as "Rules for Behaviour" and "Dirty Boots" blatantly exemplified the moral teachings that were deemed important and necessary during C18. Now, children's literature has evolved to where these lessons are much more subtle and sometimes, not even present. This not only exemplifies a shift in how people were writing, but also in the values and lessons of a modern society. Late C18 literature acts as a part of the backbone of literature, making it an extremely important period in its own right.
Although I feel that this question is a bit loaded, the short answer is yes. Any period of literary production is significant in its own way simply because there are important insights into the social culture of the period being studied. We’ve seen the creation of a working-class authorship in the late eighteenth century, as well as innovations in children’s books. Although I think these categories have been typically overlooked in the literary canon and deserve more of a spotlight, there is still a reason why we’re exploring this lack of discussion in this era.
Perhaps the late eighteenth century lacks the literary authority of insanely popular authors that landed before and after the time period we studied in this class. I’m thinking of the activity we did in the first week of class where we compared various anthologies of literature and found that even within higher education, there is a bias away from looking into the late eighteenth century. Additionally, I think that the political turmoil of this time may have taken away from a possible literary presence that could have emerged more strongly. Maybe this is why we began looking at Jacobin texts and reflected on the discourse between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. Traditionally, these are texts I’ve been assigned multiple times in history classes, but never once in an English class. Is it possible then that there is more of an historical focus on the late eighteenth century? Couple this idea with the fact that the late eighteenth century really did fall within this in-between era, perhaps we get a little bit closer into finding out why it has been largely ignored. Of course, all eras produce something of literary importance but the nature of this period makes it more difficult to find and define what is important
My favorite section in this course would be either Gothic literature or literary forgery. Gothic literature would have to take a slight advantage because it’s something that I’ve been exposed to multiple times during and before my college career. I’m a huge fan of horror so the gothic falls right in the horror genre. It’s fun, creative and sometimes not as serious as other literature. Keeping that in mind, the gothic was fun also because we went further than that. I believe we posed questions as to whether the gothic was sublime or possessed a deeper meaning and I feel it was interesting to hear people’s responses to the questions. In answering those questions, like many other literary pieces, I feel that the gothic can be sublime at times. The works we read in class don’t strike me as sublime, but I can see where people can argue that it is (remember, the sublime is subjective).
Literary forgeries comes in close second because I really enjoyed my outside source that I had acquire for our lecture. It was interesting to see how adamant the author of the book was to expose McPherson. I was also able to learn more about Samuel Johnson. His life work and ideals were outlined in the book as well. It was an interesting read I’m glad to have experienced beyond the weekly readings.
And finally, I enjoyed reading Tristram Shandy. Admittedly, I didn’t enjoy reading it on my own because many times, not all the time, innuendos and meaning would go right over my head. Lecture was helpful at picking these out and making them relevant for a topic of the week.
I think that it is an important period. While it is somewhat of an inbetween period, there was some really important ideas that were bing worked through by writers and philosophers. For instance the sublime. Sure it may have been born out of the enlightenment period but it seems tohave been somewhat solidified in the later 18th century. This was hugely important to the romantics. Can you imagine Wordsworth without this and other ideas as his foundation? And one coudl say the same about sentimentality and Jane Austen. My point is that you cant just jump from era to era without some sort of transitonal period, and the is great value to be found in these trasitions.
I have come no closer to tracking down the White Bear. It seems every time I get close to snaring him he decides to pull a fast one and runs away in a completely different direction. One example in particular would be Tristram Shandy. Following, much less holding onto, the concepts contained here make this task quite significant and challenging to say the least.
I'm uncertain about my favorite topic. But my favorite readings were the personal letters and lesser-known pamphlet selections written by esteemed 18th-century writers, particularly those of Samuel Johnson and Thomas Jefferson. These writings have the vibe of spontaneity and a personal touch that isn't as tangible in their more canonical works.
18th-century literature's degree of importance depends on how one defines importance. It was certainly important in being a transitional period from the classical era to the early modern, and this, in my opinion, makes it important enough to be included in literary canons. It's beneficial to understand the mindset of society during the time in order to understand why this transition took place. Without this understanding, the drastic change in 17th century literature to 19th century literature doesn't make any sense.
I think that besides getting us to think about what we were reading. The attendance questions were used to distinguish how each of us interpreted what we were required to read. since it should come as no surprise, when you give twenty-five students materials you are bound to get that many interpretations. I also believe that although some of the questions deemed to be more on the difficult they open the discussion to other questions building up to it. I've found that some questions like the ones regarding sentiment and sensibility couldn't be answered at all because no one knows how to approach them altogether. All in all, I felt that these questions made this classroom experience transition as little more smoothly because you can't really ask a group of people about 18 century literature late in the afternoon and expect a massive outburst. This just does not happen in the 21st century.
Post a Comment