Romanticism

Romanticism can best be defined as the movement that holds in its’ premise the ideal of time, and the double edged sword that it is. As such, Romantics believed that because of the limited life from time, expression was the only concept that could create a lasting impression on someone’s life. In John Keats’ “Bright Star, Would I Were Steadfast as Thou Art,” the speaker describes his struggle to create his own identity and everlasting impression on society. Similarly, “Clocks and Lovers” by W.H. Auden entails the speaker’s conversation with a clock, who tries to dissuade him out of being significant. Both poems lament at the essence of time; this can be supported with several examples throughout both texts.

            As Keats opens “Bright Star, Would I Were Steadfast as Thou Art,” the speaker immediately reveals his lack of conviction in his actions. The title serves to illustrate the revering nature of the speaker; he anguishes at not being as omnipotent as the star. The conjecture can also be made that he feels jealousy and distrust towards it. As the poem progresses, the reader notes the star’s great power and everlasting impact on its surroundings, watching “the moving waters at their priestlike task,” clearly exemplifying the star as a sort of all-knowing religious figure. Subtly, the speaker insinuates that he will be awake forever in a “sweet unrest,” emanating the feeling that he despises the star for being so powerful, and he not. Auden creates an illusioned world that completely clashes with Romanticism as “Clocks and Lovers” opens. A man is with a lover and all is well, creating the clever situation that love’s ignorance is bliss. However, a clock soon preaches to the speaker, ““0 let not Time deceive you,” (23) indicating that he is wasting the one limited gift he has that is time, neither creating any significant work nor an everlasting impact on society on something as frivolous as love. Resistant to leave his lover, the clock urges the speaker to not be a fool, telling him to wake up and “plunge your hands in water.” The speaker is ignorant to change, and because time passes, the clock leaves, with “the lovers they were gone,” indicating that he wasted time on a mortal concept.

            It is incontrovertible to assert that both poems display Romantic elements. Keats and Auden both include the elements of time in their poems as well as the indirect suggestion that humans do not use time wisely. In both poems, neither speaker uses time as their counterparts the star and the clock, respectively, have. Thus, it is suggested that humans can never create an everlasting impact on others. Empathy leads to humans’ demise in the eyes of the omnipotent forces.

Grendel

Essay III

            In John Gardner’s novel Grendel, the protagonist Grendel is the quintessential outsider. He lives a reticent life, lurking in the outskirts of a Dane establishment during the day and slithering into his cave at night. As time progresses, he experiences several revelatory instances where his complete outlook on life is challenged. Encountering humans and speaking to a dragon both impact the way Grendel thinks. Nevertheless, he still retains his original, existentialist values. Thus, the conjecture can be made that based off the events in Grendel’s life, his mind is constantly struggling to counter the ideals of the outside world against his own.

            As the novel opens, Grendel’s interest in the outside world compels him to escape his cave and see the other side. One night, while Grendel is searching the outside world, he encounters humans, meticulously observing them right before they attack him. The humans’ logic of attacking unknown beings does not change Grendel, however. As the story progresses, Grendel remains on the outskirts of the forest. He does not blindly attack because he fears humans as they did him but instead because he wants to learn their strategies and logic. Speaking to an omnipotent dragon, he tells Grendel that all the frivolous actions he commits are worthless. He tells Grendel to instead, “seek out gold and sit on it,” signifying he should not try understand what is around him. Eventually, everything will “turn to dust,” thus in lieu of trying to be a saint, become a cold-minded intellect. Even to death, however, Grendel chooses to understand what is, unaffected by the dragon’s words.

            Perhaps one of the greatest testaments to Grendel maintaining his true logic is his death. As Grendel and the mysterious Geat, clearly Beowulf, are dueling, Beowulf tells Grendel, “Though you murder the world, transmogrify life into I and it, strong searching roots will crack your cave and rain will cleanse it.” Clearly about to kill Grendel, Beowulf tells Grendel these words in order to create a control he will hold over him in death. As Beowulf flees, bleeding to death in his arm, he runs back to where he originally left the cave in the opening of the novel. This creates the illusion that he is the same as when he was young. Right before he dies, he says, “Poor Grendel’s had an accident.” This last ode serves as a vessel for Grendel dying on accident, not at the hands of Beowulf. Thus, he is not controlled by Beowulf or society, but himself.  

Hamlet

In what can perhaps be called literature’s most significant play and William Shakespeare’s magnum opus, Hamlet explores the ensuing struggle after Prince Hamlet seeks revenge once he discovers his uncle to be his father’s murderer. As Hamlet progresses, the young prince executes his plan with explicit detail, creating a smokescreen around his loved ones that only he can navigate through. Hamlet’s actions in the play suggest that he is a sociopath, evoking neither emotion nor rectitude. However, Shakespeare paints Hamlet not as an apathetic murderer, but a grieving son. This can be supported through several instances in the play.

            As Hamlet prepares to avenge his father after discovering the murder conspiracy, he falls into a downward spiral. All those around him notice, and when Polonius takes his leave, Hamlet replies, “You cannot, sir, take from me anything that I will more willingly part withal.” (205) This response to Polonius indicates that Hamlet feels he has lost everything. His father is dead, his murderous uncle is the king, and his mother married before the funeral was even over. This evokes a strong response of sympathy and compassion in the reader. Later, perhaps the most famous line in the world, “To be, or not to be: that is the question,” (58) describes Hamlet’s struggle for life. Feeling as if nothing is worth it, he does not plan to kill King Claudius but instead himself. This clearly shows that he is not thinking of murder. As Hamlet prepares to kill him in Act III, Scene III, he notes that Claudius is praying. His reluctance to kill a religious man is a testament to his empathetic nature.

            There is no doubt that some of Hamlet’s thoughts are murderous and cynical in nature. Nevertheless, Hamlet is not a cold-blooded killer. He ultimately kills Claudius not because of what a ghost told him to do, but to release what he had been feeling all along. Thus, Hamlet’s murdering Claudius can be seen not as the ultimate act of a sociopath, but as the ultimate act of a scrupulous human. 

Howl by Allen Ginsberg

       I always find it interesting to think of the extent of power the government tries to exert over its' people. I suppose many would say that the government tries to do what is best for the majority, but it doing so is some opinion wrong? What if the majority is wrong, or not with the best interests of the "state?" Are we to follow what the majority says because they always rules over the minority, even if they are wrong? (So easy to write questions that are statements b/c of the past essay). I suppose the struggle comes with opinion. Who really is right? How can we say that killing is wrong when in someone's mind it may be completely right?
       This leads me to think of what was written in Allen Ginsberg's "Howl." It is incontrovertible to see that the speaker is describing all the flaws of the generation, but he is also calling on other members of society to think and act out. The speaker tells them to distribute, "Supercommunist pamphlets in Union Square," encouraging others to think outside what the government tells you to think and be defiant. Later on, however, he admits to the reader that people who rebel, "Were burned alive, " "Jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge," and, "Sang out of their windows in despair." This seems to suggest that rebellion should not be done. What is most interesting to me, however, is how the rebels were, "Run down by the drunken taxicabs of Absolute Reality." By thinking that there is one reality, people hold a sort of dominance over others, most clearly seen by the driver who believes in an absolute truth and drives the cab that kills people. The speaker is implying that people who hold an absolute truth are deadly and can of course be interpreted that the speaker thinks that there are different truths. This creates an underlying question that can possibly debunk the entire argument of the rebels, or Beat generation: if there are so many different opinions of the truth, how can they fight so ferociously to their own opinion? By doing so, aren't they just doing exactly what the taxicab driver is doing? It's is almost like the Beat generation is calling the norm insane when the the norm calls them insane. It is an endless circle. You really are insane when you deny your sanity, right?

In the poem "Clocks and Lovers" by W.H. Auden, the debate on how to use time arises. speaker describes his unfathomable affection to his lover, citing that he would spend eternity with her. The voice of doubt then comes from a clock in the city, who brands the speaker as a fool for wasting his time on love.. Based off the poem, however, it can be inferred that love is a trivial thing, and time will always win out over it. There are several instances in the poem to support this.

            Through the course of the poem, each narrator defends his own viewpoints. The lover begins with his lover being the only one he sees and hears in a, "Field of harvest wheat." (4) He notes that he will love her, "Till China and Africa meet," (10) thereby signifying he will love her for eternity. He uses a metaphor later on to call her, "The Flower of the Ages," (19) supporting the previous statement that she is a rare woman. The clock, however, goes on to debunk everything the speaker has said. He tells the speaker, "Time will have his fancy/To-morrow or to-day."(31-2) Here, the clock is indicating that will they may love each other, time is inevitable, coming whenever it pleases. When the clock tells the speaker, "O plunge your hands in water...and wonder what you've missed," (37/40) he is mocking the speaker for being in almost a dream, thus telling him to wake himself up by putting his wrists into water. More so, by immersing himself in water, he would be cleansing himself of any parasite, in this case the disease of love. Finally, the clock asserts, "Life remains a blessing/Although you cannot bless."(51-2) This statement tells the speaker that life is a blessing because he can savor all that life has to offer, yet he cannot be blessed with it because he is wasting it on love.

            As the poem closes, the lovers are nowhere to be found, yet, "The deep river ran on." (60) This unmistakably asserts the clock's prediction that love does not last forever, and to waste life on it is foolish. If the clock is correct, why then do so many people fall prey to its' seducing ways? Is it because people fall prone to their emotions in lieu of their logic? Perhaps if people were to abandon emotions, the world would be much more rational and worry-free.

Resistance

            In the poem "Storm Warnings" by Adrienne Rich, the speaker describes the events leading up to a storm. The speaker prepares his house against the power of the storm and notes the constant tediousness of the storm's coming. In the poem, Rich creates several comparisons between the literal struggle of the speaker to the storm as well as the metaphorical struggle of human nature to their existence. Based off the information in the poem, it can be concluded that power is something the speaker and society are aware of, but are still perplexed by its proper usage. This can be supported with examples throughout the poem.

            The more that the speaker tries to prepare for the storm, the more melancholy he becomes. As the speaker notices the storm approaching, he quickly acts to, "Draw the curtains as the sky goes black." (22) Here, the speaker is well aware of the extent of his ability to prepare for the storm, and thus draws the curtains. When he sees that the storm begins to produce wind, he says, "We can only close the shutters." (21) By providing the distinct word of only, he is indicating that he cannot do some ludicrous action such as try to stop the storm or stop time. As the poem closes, he notes that drawing the curtains and closing the shutters are two of the few moves he can do.

            Nevertheless, the speaker constantly tries to surpass his human limitations. In one instance, he tries to stop his watches, but he notes that, "Time in the hand is not control of time." (18) This quotation serves to indicate that the speaker cannot control something, in this instance time, that is out of his control as a human being. Later on, when he tries to, "Set a match to candles sheathed in glass," (23) as the sky turns black, the wind enters and puts it out. This attempt at defiance illustrates the idea that if it is going to be dark because of a storm, the speaker is to oblige and submit to it. As the speaker tries to silence the wind, he shows the wind the damage it committed is not fair, but, "the wind will rise." (20) This indicates his attempts to stop the wind are feeble and worthless.

            Clearly, the speaker tries to prepare for the damage the storm will cause. Just as apparent is the resistance he exerts on what is. The speaker's actions pose an interesting question of the actions humans commit. If someone is sick, are we to try to help them? According to the poem, we are not supposed to intervene with what is, and just watch that person die. Are we then supposed to live our lives with no resistance and just allow all unfortunate things to go unchallenged? Would there even be a meaning to life?

Is it Worth It

             Is life even worth it? Why wake up, eat, and sleep forever in an endless cycle? While Meursault goes through life in The Stranger, does his life have value when he commits actions? Through Gregor's acts as a vermin in The Metamorphosis, does trying to leave his room really impact his life? Because the constant struggle between doing nothing and taking action bears no winner, are actions worth it? Why do humans even keep trying to conquer life if we know that it will always come back, but we will not?

            Is it better to just observe life, or should someone strain him/herself by taking action? In The Stranger, when Meursault takes action by lying to the police for Raymond, is he not punished later on? Because of this, is the correct idea to not worry about others but only oneself? Later, as he attacks the priest for trying to convince him to believe in God and later is punished for it, does he symbolize the idea that one should not bother with pestering things? Ultimately, when he shoots the Arab to save Raymond's life, by being arrested, tried, and eventually executed, is Camus trying to allude that watching Raymond's life be taken is better than his own? In The Metamorphosis, does Gregor taking a job to pay his family and his own debt lead to his transformation to a vermin? Would he have stayed human if he were to be unemployed? After his transformation, when he confronts his office manager about his tardiness, does the manager's repulsion signify both his disgust with his appearance but also to someone who takes action? Afterwards, when he does the same thing to the boarders in his apartment, does their interest in him show the surprise they have in someone who foolishly commits deeds?

            Is it possible for humans to ever be happy? After doing something of significant achievement, is it almost inevitable for something to happen to dampen the spirits? Because it is a never-ending cycle, why try? When Meursault realizes this in his trial, does he not give up and succumb to conviction and eventual execution? When Gregor finally understands, is it almost incontrovertible that he would let himself die? Because actions seem to bear no impact, and because humans are still alive, why do we exist? Is it just for God to watch in amusement as we constantly fail, bringing a rock to the top of a mountain only to see it fall back down?