For Tuesday: Orwell, 1984, finish Part Two, Chapters II-X (2-10)

NOTE: Try to read as much of Part Two as you can, though I understand if you don't have time to finish it. Since we only have two days left, I want to read slightly larger chunks of the novel than we normally would. But again, I'm not worried about you finishing the book--just getting most of it ready before Thursday. 

Remember the Final Exam Paper is in the post below this one if you lose your hard copy. 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: What do you think drew Julia to Winston in the first place? Is she truly in love with him, as the original note says? Are we meant to trust her words and motives, considering that she's clearly a very accomplished actor?

Q2: For all his attraction to Julia, there are a few things that trouble Winston about her, namely that she takes no interest in history or anything about the Party that doesn't immediately relate to her. Why does this trouble him, and what might this say about the younger generation that grew up with the Party in charge?

Q3: Why does O'Brien give Winston a copy of Goldstein's book, "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism," which Winston had feared was an urban myth? What does he--and what do we--learn from his reading of the book? Does it answer the why beyond the how of the Party?

Q4: Writing about the first time he has sex with Julia, Winston observes, "Their embrace had been a battle, the climax a victory. It was a blow struck against the Party. It was a political act" (Chapter II). How could the mere act of sex be a political act, and why does he love the idea that she's had a great number of sexual partners? What does this prove for him? 

Final Exam Project: Judging a Book By Its Cover (due May 4th!)

Eng 2653: British Lit from 1800

Final Exam Project: Judging a Book By Its Cover

“A book cover demands our initial engagement with a work. You may not think a cover reflects your own thoughts of a book, but it evokes a response and inspires a reader’s imagination to begin building the world within the pages created by the author…A book cover is a key with which we open a world of storytelling…one page at a time, cover to cover.” (Elda Rotor, Classic Penguins: Cover to Cover)

This final exam is very simple: I want you to find new cover art for each of the 6 books in our class. The art can be come from the artists we discussed in class (or ones you wrote about in 3 of your papers), or can be something completely different, whether ancient or modern (or your own). However, instead of writing a paper about it, I want you to make a six-slide Powerpoint (or whatever visual aid you choose) that shows the work of art, lists the book and author, and contains a “book blurb” quote from the book that you think is especially significant. You don’t have to explain the quote, just find one that you think expresses the theme of the book and/or some aspect of the image. And that’s it!

Please e-mail these presentations to me no later than Thursday, May 4^th by midnight. I need to start grading immediately so I can get grades in by the weekend, since I have another class that starts the following Monday! So late presentations will not be accepted since I won’t have time to accept them!

This short project is worth 15 points (out of 100), so it should be an easy but enjoyable assignment. The only way you will lose points is if you don’t do all 6 books, show a certain laziness in your approach (in other words, you just use the exact same paintings we wrote about in class—go a little beyond that!), or you leave out the quotations from each book. So try to have fun and think about what art would not only help tell the story of the book, but also would help sell books! After all, we do judge a book by its cover—and why shouldn’t we?

For Thursday: Orwell, 1984: Read up to Part Two, Chapter 2

Try to at least get to Part Two of the book, and if possible, read to around Chapter 2. You'll have time to catch up on the weekend if you fall behind. The questions below will cover the entire book up until Part Two, Chapter 2, since we only touched on a few ideas in class today (Tuesday). 

Don't forget that I'll accept the Time Machine/Klee papers as late as Thursday, but after that we have to press on! 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Winston's 'friend,' Syme, is ecstatic about the evolution of Newspeak, since it's "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year" (Chapter V). Why is Newspeak obsessed with reducing the words and the range of expression available to its speakers? How does this show the relationship between language and culture in a devious way?

Q2: One of Big Brother's greatest slogan's is, "Who controls the past...controls the future" (Chapter III). They call this "reality control," or "doublethink." How can you control the past or even really change it? Surely enough people would remember the past and object if you changed it. What else is required to make "reality control" a reality? 

Q3: Why Winston continually risk his life (or simply exposure) by journeying to the proles' area of town to buy rubbish and knicknacks? What is he looking for or trying to buy? Related to this, why is he so obsessed by the proles (the lower classes), since his friend Syme claims they are "not human beings"?

Q4: Why does Big Brother allow the proles to have sex, love, marriage, and even alcohol when the rest of society is supposed to abstain from having their "ownlife"? Why police the more educated classes so severely, but let the lower classes--the ones who outnumber the rest--free reign to do whatever they like? 

For Tuesday: start reading Orwell, 1984 (Chapters 1-7, or so)

 Since we're a bit behind, I want you to go ahead and start 1984 for Tuesday's class, reading the first 7 or so chapters (or as much as you can). We will still write about a new work of art, but we'll do so in tandem with the novel, so as not to waste any more time! (only 4 days are left of the semester!!) But I won't give you any questions so you can just enjoy reading for a change. 

Remember that your H.G. Wells & Klee Art & Lit papers are due on Tuesday if you want to (or have to) do them. 

Also, I'll be giving you the Final Exam assignment on Thursday, so you'll definitely want to tune in for that! 

More soon! 

For Thursday (No Class on Tuesday--see below): Wells, The Time Machine (finish!)

Klee, Fugue in Red (1921)

NOTE: Sadly, I have to CANCEL TUESDAY'S CLASS AS WELL, since my wife has to go to Norman for a minor procedure which will render her unable to drive home. So we'll have to pick this up NEXT Thursday. Sorry about this...but it gives you extra time to read and finish the questions! Don't forget, too, about the Art and Literature paper for Wells if you need to do it.

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Is the Time Traveler a reliable narrator? How might his own biases and beliefs color his narrative, particularly when describing the Eloi and the Morlocks? Is there anywhere we can tell that Wells might be critiquing the Traveler himself?

Q2: In Marina Warner’s Introduction to the Penguin version of The Time Machine, she notes that in many of Wells’ fictions, “He show an almost anorexic fascination with feeding, hunger, and abstemiousness.” Why do you think Wells (and the Time Traveler), as a late Victorian, is so drawn to the idea of eating in the novel? What might food—and the choice of food—have to do with taboos and the evolution of man? ALSO: any connections to our other novel about food, Alice in Wonderland?

Q3: Why does the narrator decide to take Weena back to his own time? And what exactly is the true nature of their relationship? Is he like a Peter Pan to her Wendy? Or is he merely interested in her scientifically, as a specimen to bring back as proof (like he does the flower she gives him)?

Q4: Toward the end of the novel the Time Traveler “grieved to think how brief the dream of the human intellect had been. It had committed suicide.” Of course, since this is science fiction, Wells probably means that his own time had “committed suicide” in the same way. What do you think this means? How can an entire society decide to put an end to the “dream of the human intellect”? (Consider, too, that WWI is right around the corner, though he couldn’t quite see this…)

For Tuesday: Wells, The Time Machine, Chapters 1-6 (at least)

NOTE: This is a short work, so feel free to read as much as you like for Tuesday's class. But we can probably only tackle the first 6 chapters in class, so that's a comfortable place to get to for Tuesday's class. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Though this is a science fiction story about time travel, it also shares a lot in common with our first two works: Frankenstein and Sherlock Holmes. Where might we see the Victor or Holmes influence in these opening chapters? Also, what aspects of the storytelling might Wells have borrowed from his famous predecessors?

Q2: In the future, the Time Traveller is constantly forming theories as to what created such a strange, forbidding world. As he notes, “For the first time I began to realize an odd consequence of the social effort in which we are at present engaged. And yet, come to think, it is a logical consequence enough…Things that are now mere dreams had become projects deliberately put in hand and carried forward. And the harvest was what I saw!” (31). What “social effort” does he seem to be describing here, and is he excited or terrified by the “harvest” he sees before him? What might he fear the future has become?

Q3: Strangely, the book opens with a conversation between several gentlemen, none of whom have names other than "The Time Traveler," "The Medical Man," and "The Provincial Mayor?" Why does Wells make them so safely anonymous, and what are they talking about that might have seemed exciting--and disturbing--in 1895?  

Q4: Even though the Time Traveler is catapulted thousands of years into the future, he often uses quite primitive metaphors and imagery to describe his emotions and surroundings: "I felt hopelessly cut off from my own kind--a strange animal in an unknown world"...”I might seem some old-world savage animal”…"The old instinctive dread of wild beasts came upon me,” etc. Why does the Time Traveller see everything in this ‘law of the jungle’ light?

For Tuesday: Finish Peter Pan! Last questions below...

Sargent, Garden Study of the Vickers Children (1884) 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: In author and fairy-tale expert Jack Zipes' Introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of Peter Pan and Wendy, he writes that the work is "an anti-fairy tale that seeks to explicate mystery, whereas fairy tales simply display magic and mystery. It is a self-help book written by a doctoring author for those adults who have lost touch with their imagination and need to regain it through a re-introduction to children's imaginative play" (xxiii). Do you agree with this? Is it meant for the "Wendys" of the world who have grown up and forgotten Peter Pan and their long-lost days of flying? Though kids can like this book, can only adults love it?

Q2: Why does Barrie try to humanize Cook and make him (almost) less of a villain in the late chapters of the book? Why is he so obsessed with "good form," and why does this make his life--and his death--somewhat tragic, at least in Barrie's eyes?

Q3: What do you make of the Narrator's strange attitude/tone toward the children and their parents in the final chapters, especially "The Return Home"? How seriously are we supposed to take comments such as, "If she was too fond of her rubbishy children she couldn't help it" (137). Are these in-jokes with the other parents in the audience? Or is this book actually written by Peter Pan himself??

Q4: The Chapter, :When Wendy Grew Up" is a curiously late addition to the Peter Pan myth. It was actually an epilogue which he added to the play in 1908 (the play came out in 1904), and it reflected his later thoughts about the characters and the work itself. He finally withdrew the epilogue as being too dark, but decided to apapt it for his 1910 novel, Peter Pan and Wendy. Why do you think he ends the book here, rather than with the happy reunion of the Darling family? And what do you make of the morbid, and somewhat cynical remarks such as, "Mrs. Darling was now dead and forgotten" (147)? 

For Thursday: Barrie, Peter Pan, Chapters 7-13

Try to read through Chapter 13, "Do You Believe in Fairies?" for Thursday's class. And don't forget to think about your Art & Literature paper if you need to do it. The Sargent painting above, of The Pallieron Children, looks a lot like Peter and Wendy, don't you think?? The boy, especially, has that calculating, impressed-with-himself look of Peter Pan. 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: What do you find interesting in how Wendy, her brothers, and the Lost Boys play at being mothers and children? How might this be Barrie's own parody of the conventions of the Victorian family? Is it meant to satirize the children's unquestioning belief in these values, or the very values themselves? 

Q2: Throughout the book, Barrie calls children "heartless," which might mean something different to him than to us. He says also that "Off we skip like the most heartless things in the world, which is what children are, but so attractive" (Chapter 11, 97). Why does he think children are heartless, and is he praising or criticizing this quality in children? 

Q3: Why do you think all the women in the book--Wendy, Tiger Lily, Tinkerbell, the Mermaids--all fall in love with Peter Pan? What quality seems to attract them? Or is it merely that he's the only 'man' in the story, so they love him by default? (consider that he's the father to Wendy's mother, even though he's a child just like the other Lost Boys). 

Q4: What other dated or objectionable passages do you find in the novel? Do you think these are simply the biases/beliefs of the period, or is there something more sinister or inexcusable in these passages? Another way to think about this: what part would you want to skip or leave out for your own children? 

For Tuesday (after break): Barrie, Peter Pan, Chapters 1-6

Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose by John Singer Sargent 

No questions over Break, but do start reading Peter Pan and get to at least around Chapter 6 for next-next Tuesday's class. We'll do an easy in-class writing over some aspect of the book. Here are some small ideas to look out for:

* How does Barrie continue to long tradition of satirizing British society and its domestic rituals in this book? 

* Like Alice, how does he also take a few digs at the traditional manner of educating the young in this book? 

* How does Peter and Tinker Bell in particular differ from the many popular culture accounts of their character? Why might this be surprising to us?

* What passages or characters have not dated as well as others? Would any parts be seen as racist or unacceptable today? 

* Why is there more than a little touch of Alice in Wonderland in this book? How do we know that that Barrie definitely had Carroll's book in the back of his mind?

* Though a relativley light-hearted book, how could this book suggest a nightmare from an adult's perspective? In other words, how easily could this story become a horror novel (or movie)?

* Why might the Darling parents not conform to many of our 21st century notions of good parenting today? Do you think Barrie means to censure them, or is he good-naturedly mocking them? Remember, too, that the Darlings are based on the actual parents of the children he befriended (a group of boys), so they would have recognized their portrait in the novel.

* Wendy, alone, was Barrie's creation, though she is based on the daughter of another friend who called him "my friendly," (but couldn't pronounce her F's, which sounded more like W's). There was no "Wendy" in English literature before this. Why do you think he introduced an older daughter into this world of boys and boyish pranks? 

For Thursday & Almost, Maine announcement

Remember that we'll be watching a short excerpt of Alice in Wonderland in class on Thursday, so we can decide in what ways the modern myth of Alice is different than the original (we might look at a few other examples as well). 

Also, because I couldn't get the screen working today, here's the announcement for the play that two of your fellow students (and one professor, to remain nameless) will be starring in this Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Remember that admission is free at the show starts at 7:30 in the Halley Brown Ford Arts Center--in the smaller black box theater, not on the mainstage (you'll see where it is when you get there). Here's the university's press release: https://www.ecok.edu/news/almost-maine-take-stage-ecu

See you on Thursday! 

For Tuesday: Finish Alice in Wonderland!

Magritte, The Portrait (1935)

Sorry for the delay--I forgot to post these yesterday! But go ahead and try to finish the book for Tuesday since it's pretty short, and we'll have one more set of questions to round it out. On Thursday, we'll watch an excerpt from a recent adaptation of Alice in Wonderland to discuss ideas associated with your Mid-Term Paper. 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: How subversive should we consider the book, especially as it consistently parodies monarchs (this is written under Queen Victoria, after all), moral poetry, social norms, education, and even the courts of law. Is this all just cheeky nonsense to amuse children? Or is it also aimed at getting a chuckle (or a gasp) from the adults reading it aloud to their sons and daughters? An example that might support this?

Q2: How does Alice's approach to Wonderland change throughout the novel? As she grows in size, does she also 'grow' in other ways as well? Is there a hidden moral lesson in the character of Alice, perhaps for the 'real' Alice to pick up on?

Q3: In Chapter IX, the Duchess tells Alice to "Be what you would seem to be--or, if you'd like it put more simply--'Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." Though this sounds like nonsense, why might this support a certain view of British society we've seen in the other books in class?

Q4: Recently, the books of Roald Dahl (author of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, among others) has come under fire for offering damaging characters and stories to children, and many of his books have been slightly re-written so as not to offend young readers (substituting "ugly" for "unpleasant," for instance). As one of the first true classics of children's literature, how might Alice in Wonderland come under fire for offensive stereotypes, and triggering scenes and language? Would the 'mad' Hatter and March Hare pass muster today? Or the homicidal Queen? 

Mid-Term Paper: The Original vs. The Myth (due March 9)

English 2653

Mid-Term Paper: The Original vs. the Myth

INTRO: One of the most common statements a reader can make upon encountering Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes¸ or Alice in Wonderland in the original is, “I didn’t know it was like this!” Even though both are iconic works of literature that have spawned dozens of ‘sequels’ in books, films, comics, and elsewhere, relatively few people experience the original—or know how it differs from its modern-day mythology. And yet, the book is what remains, and what we ultimately have to return to so we can understand who these characters are and why their stories so captivated their audiences’ imaginations.

PROMPT: For this paper, I want you to explore the difference between the original and the myth with at least ONE of these works. To do this, consider what you knew, or thought you knew, about the work before you read it, and what surprised you, excited you, or confused (even annoyed) you about the real thing. Compare this to at least ONE of the modern-day adaptations so we can understand how they willfully (or ignorantly?) interpret the characters and give people a different twist on the iconic stories. You might consider films, shows, fan fiction, and other popular culture depictions that are today more visible than the books themselves.

ALSO: Also, find at least 2 articles that discuss some aspect of your novel: these could be critical articles about some aspect of the novel itself, or one of the characters, or the modern-day adaptations, or anything related to our understanding of the book. Bring this into your conversation, so we can understand some of the issues surrounding the original vs. the myth of your work.

AND: Be sure to CLOSE READ specific passages of the novel to show us important themes and ideas that might not make it into the myth, or that you feel are essential for understanding its importance. Quote too from your articles and from your other primary source, the film/show/comic, etc. The idea is to have a CONVERSATION about the myth vs. the work with several different ‘people,’ these being your primary and secondary sources.

 REQUIREMENTS

• Page limit up to you, but no one-pagers, please! Double space, too!
• At least 1 other primary source, and at least 2 secondary sources
• Close reading from the novel (enough to establish some important ideas/passages)
• In-text citations should loosely follow MLA format and include a Works Cited page
• You must have fun with this! This is exciting—you’re educating people on how popular culture changes literature, and whether or not this is for the greater good. Be a teacher…some of you might use these ideas in a future classroom.
• DUE THURSDAY, MARCH 9^th by 5pm [no class that day]

 

For Thursday: Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, Chapters I-VI

For Thursday's class, read at least through the "Pig and Pepper" Chapter (VI), though read more if you like. However, we're going to break this into two parts, so we'll finish the rest for next week. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: How might Alice in Wonderland be a satire of a Victorian childhood? From what we read here, what might have been expected of young girls or children in the 1860's? What is Carroll specifically making fun of or parodying through Alice's adventures?

Q2: When Carroll originally wrote the book for Alice Liddell (the daughter of a friend), he included his own illustrations throughout. When the book was properly published, the publisher insisted on more professional illustrations, and John Tenniel (a popular artist) was hired to provide illustrations throughout. Why are the illustrations as important as the text of the story? What do they add to the experience of reading Alice in Wonderland? 

Q3: Writing about Magritte's paintings, Marcel Pacquet said that "Things have a flip side, a reverse, which is even more curious and fascinating than their manifested form." How does Carroll show us the same thing through Alice's adventures through the rabbit hole? Why might the entire book be a surrealist adventure into the mundane? 

Q4: Why do you think the work is so obsessed with eating and drinking (but mostly eating)? Why does she need to consume things to grow bigger or smaller? Could this relate to a child's understanding of how the world works? Sort of like the train coming through the chimney in Magritte's painting? 

 

For Thursday: Doyle, "The Speckled Band" and "The Copper Beeches"

REMEMBER, no questions this time around, since we'll have an in-class writing response over the two stories. Below are some ideas to consider for Thursday...

* How do racial stereotypes and fears creep into these stories as well, esp. "The Speckled Band"?

* What taboos do these stories uncover about the "civilized world" of English high society? What horrors are being conducted behind closed doors? Or under respectable professions?

* Does Holmes follow a moral code like many superheroes in modern comics & film? Like Batman, does he refrain from killing his victims? Does he go too far?

* How does Holmes' egotism get in the way of his work? Does Watson notice this?

* Why does Holmes fear the country more than the city? What makes the country more dangerous and a greater nest of crime? 

* What role do women play in these stories? Are they still mute victims, like Elizabeth in Frankenstein? Or are they granted more agency (like Irene Adler)? 

For Tuesday: Doyle, "The Red-Headed League," "The Five Orange Pips," and "The Man With the Twisted Lip"

Since time is pressing, we'll read three stories for Tuesday, but I'm not worried if you don't get all three read. Read as much as you can, but at least read two of them. Or read them all! :) We just don't have time to discuss each and every one, sadly.

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: In “The Five Orange Pips,” Watson recalls a list he once made (in an earlier Holmes novella, The Sign of Scarlet), of Holmes’ skills and defects, admitting that he knows only a little Botany, random Chemistry, but everything possible about criminal literature. We also see Holmes resorting to an encyclopedia to learn about the Klu Klux Klan. Is Watson (or Doyle) trying to demystify Holmes in these stories? Is he becoming more of a man and less of a myth? 

Q2: In “The Red-Headed League,” Holmes tells Watson, “the more bizarre a thing is the less mysterious is proves to be. It is your commonplace, featureless crimes which are really puzzling, just as a commonplace face is the most difficult to identify.” Does this theory hold up in the mystery of the “Red-Headed League?” If so, what might this suggest about the psychology of criminals—and the reason they often get away?

Q3: In many ways, “The Five Orange Pips” could almost be a ghost story in the vein of “The Tell-Tale Heart” or “The Monkey’s Paw.” What does it have in common with these stories, and do you think Doyle ‘shifts’ the story away from the supernatural elements? Or does he affirm it by the end of the story? Consider, too, that this is one of Holmes’ rare failures—at least in the sense of bringing the criminals to justice.

Q4: How might "The Man With the Twisted Lip" by a kind of Jekyll and Hyde story without the scientific or supernatural element? Why might both stories (or Frankenstein, for that matter) deal with some of the deepest and darkest taboos of English society? Note, too, that it's another story of a "crime without a crime." 

Q5: At the end of “The Red-Headed League,” Watson calls Holmes a “benefactor of the race.” But he waves this off, saying merely that “man is nothing, work is everything” (to translate from the French). What do you think he means by this? How might this reveal an important aspect of Holmes’ character, particularly if we consider him a precursor to the modern-day superhero?

For Thursday: Doyle, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: "A Scandal in Bohemia" and "A Case of Identity"

Answer two of the following for Thursday's class:

Q1: Like Frankenstein, the Holmes stories all frame narratives related by Holmes’ assistant, Dr. Watson, who is telling them long after the fact (presumably, when Holmes is no longer around for new advenftures). Why do you think Doyle adopted this approach? Is it similar to the Walton-Frankenstein connection? Is Watson a kind of Walton? Or is there more to the frame narration?

Q2: Both stories are about the dangers women in the late-19th century face while trying to be independent. While Irene Adler is much more aggressive and clever than Miss Sutherland, what makes each one especially vulnerable? Is Holmes sympathetic or oblivious to their situation?

Q3: Iain Pears, a critic and mystery novelist, wrote of Sherlock Holmes that he “is the archetypal ‘new man’ of the Victorian age, a meritocrat, living solely off his brains, dislocated socially and scornful of the society in which he lives.” Where do we see this in the stories? What makes him an ‘outsider,’ yet someone who earns his own way in the world without relying on class or wealth?

Q4: In “A Case of Identity,” Holmes writes, “life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of man could invent. We would not dare to conceive the things which are really mere commonplaces of existence.” This sounds like a statement someone might make in a typical horror story about ghosts and monsters. So what does he mean by the “strange” things which are completely “normal” all around us? Why would we perceive these things as uncanny?

For Tuesday: Art Response #2: Edvard Munch (preparing for Sherlock Holmes!)

If you missed class today (Thursday) because of the icy roads, no big deal--I didn't count you absent. However, we did finish our discussion of Frankenstein (a lot of fun!) and will be moving ahead next week. See the post below this one for the revised schedule, barring any more snow/ice days! 

For Tuesday, we'll do another in-class writing to a painting by the Norwegian painter, Edvard Munch, who complements some aspects of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories. The painting above is one of his famous ones, and might be a depiction of the streets of Holmes' London itself, "Evening on Karl Johan Street," though I won't be using that one in class on Tuesday. However, it might be one you decide to use in your Art & Literature Paper, should you chose to do it.

For Thursday, we'll be reading the first two stories in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, which are "A Scandal in Bohemia" and "A Case of Identity." So feel free to read ahead. I'll post questions for them after Tuesday's class.

See you next week! 

Tomorrow's Class and Revised Schedule

NOTE: Class seems to be on for Thursday (the 2nd), so come if you think you can safely make it. The roads should be okay in many places, but maybe not in your neck of the woods. 

I've posted a revised schedule for the next few weeks so we can get back on track. The due date for the paper is the same, and only a few minor dates changed. So be sure to follow this schedule until Spring Break, at which point it the old schedule will resume. I'll assign the Mid-Term paper next week, so stay tuned! 

 

R 2                  Shelley, Frankenstein, last chapters [rescheduled] 

 

T 7                  Art Response #2: Edvard Munch 

R 9                  Doyle, Sherlock Holmes TBA

 

14                    Doyle, Sherlock Holmes TBA

16                    Doyle, Sherlock Holmes TBA 

 

21                    Art Response #3: Gustave Dore; 

                        Mid-Term Paper due by 5pm 

23                    Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

 

28                    Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

 

MARCH

2                      Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

 

7                      Art Response #4: Edward Burne-Jones

9                      Barrie, Peter Pan

 

14-16                         Spring Break

For Thursday: Finish Frankenstein! Last questions rescheduled

NOTE: These questions will be due for Thursday instead, since we missed class this Tuesday. So if you haven't turned them yet, no worries. The questions are always due on the day we discuss a work, so if class is cancelled, it gets pushed back. 

Answer two of the following: 

Q1:Why do you think Victor is so unwilling to believe that the Creature could ever intend to kill Elizabeth? As he says, "if for one instant I had thought what might be the hellish intention of my fiendish adversary, I would rather have banished myself for ever from my native country, and wandered a miserable outcast over the earth" (185). Is he really this naive, or is this a narrative feint for Walton's approval? (or, did Walton add it himself)? 

Q2: When Victor finds Elizabeth slain by the Creature, he “rushed toward her, and embraced her with ardour” (189). This is the only time he embraces her in the novel! Her also spends quite some time in describing her body as left flung lifelessly across the bed. Why might Shelley add this detail to the novel? How does it compare to the dream of his mother when he gives life to the Creature?

Q3: Victor claims that his narrative is a warning for Walton, so that “the gratification of your wishes may not be a serpent to sting you, as mine has been." However, the end of the novel seems to contradict his aim in telling his story, especially when he says, "swear to me, Walton, that he shall not escape; that you will seek him, and satisfy my vengeance in his death" (202). Why is he suddenly bequeathing his doomed quest to Walton? Is there another way to read his seemingly contradictory intentions? 

Q4: Why does the book end with Walton confronting the Creature himself on his ship, and watching him disappear into the Arctic wasteland? Is it merely to prove that the Creature did indeed exist? Or could this also be a cleverly contrived fiction? Other reasons that Shelley might have included this in the book? 

Tuesday's class cancelled for weather!

 Since the weather looks iffy, I'll cancel today (Tuesday's) class and we'll reschedule everything for Thursday. The reading and in-class writing ideas are in the post below this one. You didn't have any questions due, so don't worry about missing work. Just be sure you're caught up on reading so we can hit the ground running on Thursday. We'll be a day behind, but I'll adjust the calendar to reflect that and post the revisions on the blog later.

Enjoy the day, and see you on Thursday! 

For Tuesday: Frankenstein, Chapters VII to Book 3, Chapter IV (118-178)

Goya, A Way of Flying (etching, 1819)

Since we have the weekend, I encourage you to read a little more of the book, and to help you do that, I won't give you any questions to answer. When you come to class next week, we'll have an in-class response based on some big idea that occurs in these chapters. Below are some ideas you might want to consider as you read, since we'll probably write about one of them (and that will count for your Tuesday Reading Response). 

IDEAS TO CONSIDER (don't answer--we'll write about some of this on Tuesday): 

* How is the Creature's education shaped by his reading in the cottager's hut? What other works might shape his future character? You might also consider why Shelley chose these specific works for the Creature to read (it's more than a coincidence)...and maybe Victor/Walton chose them, too?

* How does Shelley make us empathize with the Creature, even as he commits murder and mayhem? Why might she try to make a murderer full of sensibility (think of the Goya portrait of the young woman)?

* Consider Victor's arguments against creating a mate for the Creature: are they sound and moral? Or simply selfish and vain? What makes him finally acquiesce? 

* Similarly, what makes him destroy it at the last minute? By destroying the mate is he potentially saving the world?

* Victor continues to quote Romantic poems in his story, though one of them, "Mutability" is a poem published by Percy Shelley in 1816(!). Why do you think Shelley continues to include out-of-place poems in this narrative? Is it a meta moment for the reader, almost like a movie soundtrack, which often uses 21st century means to evoke ancient times? Or is it meant to hopelessly confuse the narrative integrity? 

* If the Creature starts out more like Elizabeth, how does he become more like Victor by the end? What makes it harder to distinguish between the two, especially when they're speaking? 

* Why does Victor appear guilty before the Irish villagers? How might he inadvertently admit his own guilt in these pages (Chapter IV especially)? 

For Thursday: Frankenstein, Chapters 6 to Book 2, Chapter 6 (pp.60-118)

Witches' Sabbath by Goya 

As always, try to read carefully and with detail rather than skimming to the end. Reading a book is never about the finish line, but what you find and encounter along the way. But try to get as close to page 118 as possible for our next class.

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: In Book 1, Chapter 7, Victor and Elizabeth interview Justine in prison, and learn of her false confession, made in danger of eternal torment. Why doesn't Victor, who knows the truth, tell the court what he knows? And why might this passage be consistent with other passages of abandonment in the novel?

Q2: How does Elizabeth change over the course of these chapters? Victor notes that "She was no longer that happy creature," and that she had "become grave." Is it just the death of her loved ones that causes this change? As one of the few women in the novel, why might her character be significant to the novel, and not just a footnote? You might also consider what she does say when she’s actually allowed to speak.

Q3: One of the great debates of the 18th century was about the inner nature of men and women: were they a 'blank slate,' which was simply imprinted with their immediate surroundings? Or did they come into this world fully formed, with morals, values, and inclinations toward good or evil? How is the Creature a way of testing this theory in a dramatic way? As a truly blank slate (reanimated body parts), what does Shelley feel is the intrinsic nature of men and women?

Q4: How does the Creature's narrative compare and/or differ from Victor's? Does it sound like a completely new voice and a new perspective? Given that Victor is his 'father,' do they share certain traits and mannerisms? Is there anything suspicious about the Creature's story, which again is told completely by Victor through Walton's dictation? 

Q5: At the end of Volume 1, Victor claims that “I bore a hell within me, which nothing could extinguish.” How literally should we take this statement? Is this Victor’s subconscious admission that the Creature is part of him, or an expression of his own inner nature? What clues or inconsistencies seem to support this reading? Do you think Shelley wanted to leave this possibility open in the novel?

Art and Literature Reading Assignments (3): Note the Due Dates!

 

INTRO: For each book we read, I’ll begin our discussion with an examination of a pivotal artist whose works I feel are in dialogue with the book in question. We will always do an in-class writing to get us thinking about the work, and then we’ll continue to use the artists’ work and ideas as a frame for our class discussions. Ideally, this will help you see the many of the themes of the novel visually, which will also remind you that different forms of art aren’t created in a vacuum. Writers are looking at paintings and listening to music and living in a world that continually inspires them. It quickly becomes a ‘chicken or the egg’ situation: who dreamed it up first? Who inspired whom?

PROMPT: To help you explore the connections between literature and art, I want you to write THREE “Art and Literature” readings, based on ANY THREE of the novels in class. To do this, I want you to use a work from the artist we discuss in class to examine a specific passage in the book. This paper should be short, no more than 2-3 pages long double-spaced, and should use the artwork as a lens to ‘read’ some of the ideas/characters/themes of the book. But be specific: focus on only a specific scene or aspect of the novel, and QUOTE from it so we can see the literal connections from image to text. You DO NOT have to make it literal: that is, if you’re doing Goya’s Third of May, 1808, you don’t have to find a corresponding moment in the novel with a firing squad. Think more figuratively, and consider how the ideas and images of the painting complement similar passages in the novel.

SCHEDULE: You CHOOSE which of the three Art and Literature papers you want to do, since you have six choices. Each one is due NO LATER than the day we start discussing a new work of art. The deadlines for each paper are below:

Goya/Frankenstein: Tuesday, January 31^st

Munch/Sherlock Holmes: Thursday, February 16^th

Magrittte/Alice in Wonderland: Tuesday, March 23^th

Burne-Jones/Peter Pan: TBA

Kandinsky/The Time Machine: TBA

Hopper/Nineteen Eighty-Four: TBA

REMEMBER that if you skip the first three, you MUST do the last three to get three assignments turned in! Otherwise, you’ll lose points, and each assignment is worth 10 points out of 100. So be careful! You can also revise these assignments for a higher grade if you slightly miss the point. Keep your in-class writings so you can use them again in the paper for ideas/inspiration.

For Tuesday: Shelley, Frankenstein, Opening Letters & Chapters 1-5 (pp.7-59)

 

NOTE: Try to read as much of the first FIVE chapters of Frankenstein for Tuesday's class. There's SO MUCH to discuss here, so we can't possibly be through it all. The questions below are a kind of 'wish list' of what I hope to discuss, and where you might focus your reading as you wade through the opening chapters. Use the questions as a kind of guide if you find yourself lost and aren't sure what to look for and/or think about. But you only have to answer any TWO of them. Bring them to class on Tuesday if possible, but you have until 5pm on Tuesday to turn them in. 

 Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Most first-time readers of Frankenstein are surprised to find that the novel begins with a frame narrative: that of Walton, the arctic explorer, who is writing home to his sister, Mrs. Saville. Why do you think Shelley found this a necessary intro to the story? Why not simply open up with Frankenstein’s story? Also, why is a narrator like Walton a horror (or Gothic) convention even in films and books today? 

Q2: According to the story of his early education that Victor gives to Walton, what set him on the path of creating new life? How did he go from an earnest, naive young man to a “modern Prometheus” who would “pour a torrent of light into our dark world”? In other words, what went ‘wrong’ in his life, considering he had a good family, wealth, and the support of his parents? 

Q3: Immediately after he creates his “monster,” Victor ends up falling asleep and has a nightmare of Elizabeth, where as soon as he kisses her, “her lips...became livid with the hue of death; her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms" (84). How do you read this strange dream in relation to the events of the story? What might this say about his mission or his motives? 

Q4: How does Frankenstein react to his first meeting with his Creature? Since he created it to be beautiful and powerful, why is he so horrified by it? And related to that, shouldn't he have known what it looked like all along? What else is unusual about the appearance and disappearance of his Creation in Chapter 4? 

Q5: In the movies of Frankenstein, we always see the way the Creature is created: through scientific gadgets and lightning, etc. Here, we get a single sentence at most about the science of making life, and then it's never referred to again. Why do you think Shelley largely sidesteps how the Creature was made? Does this undermine the believability of Frankenstein's narrative (remember--he's telling this story to Walton)? Did Walton simply leave that part out of the story? Or might there be another reason for the lack of science in such a scientific narrative?                      

Welcome to the Course!

 Welcome to the Course! 

In this British literature survey, I want to focus on the literary myths authors created between 1800-1940 that have become a cultural shorthand on both sides of the pond. England was a virtual laboratory of new ideas in this era, giving birth to some of the most disturbing, provocative, and prophetic characters in the entire history of English literature (or any other!). From Frankenstein’s Monster to 1984’s Big Brother, we are constantly revisiting and re-writing these myths in an attempt to understand their attraction, or perhaps to exorcise their influence. Just think about how many songs and movies reference the books on this syllabus! What would pop culture be without Alice in Wonderland (Jefferson Airplane and The Matrix!), and where would the genre of True Crime be without Sherlock Holmes? I think we can all agree we live in a better world thanks to these Victorian and Edwardian nightmares…so the question is, how did they dream them up? What gave this era the combination to the vaults of our collective consciousness?

Be sure to buy the books for the course as soon as possible--we start with Frankenstein next week! :)