Yeats' Lapis Lazuli

I had to do a little research with this poem to figure out exactly what a Lapis Lazuli was and why Yeats would use it to title his poem. Once I learnt about the blue stone I could somewhat connect it's meaning to the poem. Like the the dark blue stone, there's a sense of cold and dreariness in this poem. Yeats opens it by talking about the women who say they are sick of poets who are always happy when it's such a dark period of time. I really liked Yeats answer for these women in saying that life is like a play and we're all performing our parts. It's almost like when you're a child and your parents tell you that life isn't fair, and it reaches to a relatable aspect of human nature. It's hard to maintain a positive outlook when there's so much negative around and Yeats wants the reader to see that art is a means of achieving positivity.

A forsaken love

Matthew Arnold's Forsaken Merman has a lot going on. It reminds me of an ocean itself. On the surface there's a story of a merman falling in love with a human woman and her birthing his children then leaving him on Easter. What?? But if you look deeper you see the confliction between love and religion. The merman becomes increasingly depressing as the poem goes on yet still loves this woman. She, on the other hand, doesn't quite reveal her motives as to why she leaves the land for a merman and then decides to return due to hearing the church bells. Was religion that important to her? Or did she never love him at all? Or maybe the sea was too much of a difference from the civilization on land? All of these questions played in my head. Another thing that struck me was the influence of music in this poem. The children's voices, the Murmansk repetition of down, down, down and dear children and the church bells are all very influential to the melancholy atmosphere the poem draws on.

Goblin Market and Female Strength

When reading Goblin Market, I felt as if the poem had overtones of female empowerment. The relationship of Lizzie and Laura could be interpreted as erotic due to word choices but the fundamental nature of their relationship is that of sisters who support each other. When the poem describes them sleeping next to one another, they are painted as innocent and at total peace with the world. While they are together, they are untouchable and all is good.
I found it interesting that men do not make an appearance in the poem except when the goblins are being described - Rossetti refers to them as "goblin men" who the girls should stay away from. The fruit that they sell Lizzie is possibly a metaphor for the dominant and often abusive nature of masculine love that was accepted at the time. Lizzie indulges on the fruits and becomes hooked on it even though it is clearly self-destructive. The goblins forcing Laura to consume their fruit against her will could very well be a metaphor for violence against women. By the end of the poem, both women have fallen victim to the evil of "goblin men" which causes them to once again find comfort in one another.

Dismantling the Patriarchy sans merci

After reading both versions of Keats' work, I find that I prefer the draft version over his published one. 'Knight-at-arms' just strikes a chord better than 'wight'. Plus, I find that the imagery comes easier in the first version of the poem. Incorporating the titles, 'sans merci' means without pity whereas 'sans mercy' is simply without mercy. Both phrases are ripe with meaning, but 'without pity' just appeals to me greater than 'without mercy'. In the draft, Keats has the knight-at-arms making the woman a flower crown, bracelets, and a zone before he is consumed by her power; it's his attempt to quell a wild woman and confine her to fit his needs within the patriarchy. Historically, the Victorian era bound women both by its social propriety and its fashions. I like that this woman with 'wild eyes', is still able to entrance a seemingly misogynistic man after his attempts to ensnare her.  It shows her command of faculties and refusal to give up her personal power, or agency. I find it both captivating and terrifying, but in the best sort of way; as if I too, are under this faery queen's spell. It reminds me of my favorite archetype in literature: disciples that love their god too much. For there is nothing crueler than being loved by something divine made flesh and blood.

The Lady of Domestication

On Monday our group, when discussing The Lady of Shallot, talked about its references toward women in the Victorian society. We concluded that the act of her weaving represented a mundane place where women resided, this place being the home and womanly domestication. The mirror represented, to us at least, a skewed view of society. This skewed view helped keep "The Lady of Shallot" in “her place”, as well as the fear of a curse. The curse was a sort of warning to women in general, that leaving their post of domestication would result in disastrous repercussions. However, when Lancelot comes into her mirror in shining armor, we see the Lady of Shallot forsake her post and gaze at this man. It was at this point when our group realized the wording of the poem changed, before this romantic natural words were used, after the words became more metallic just like the armor of Sir Lancelot. It wasn't until her eventual death that the words reverted back to the romantic natural words. In regards to the pictures we discussed on the way in which she sat on her tapestry and allowed it to dip into the murky water. Perhaps this symbolized defiance of her former life before seeing Lancelot. She had spent every day looking through this mirror and weaving this tapestry, then when the curse befell her it provided a new life to be opened up, cursed or not, causing her to forsake the former and take the boat to journey into the new. 

I love this rendition of the poem and the pictures are great!

Porphyria's Lover: Mad, or Merciful?

It seems mostly adequate, upon critical reflection, to conclude that Porphyria's Lover commits this murder by the craze of his mind; however, I feel that it is unjust to assume that madness is the narrator's primary motivation. Browning's biography makes us aware of the suggested intent behind his writing, claiming "the impossibility of ever finding a coherent or truthful narrative and the importance of recognizing the relativity of points of view"(711).  In light of this, I hope within my interpretation to contend with conventional morality's claim that murder is unanimously unjustified.

The foundation for my interpretation lies in accepting that the female character's name is an allusion to porphyria as a rare disorder that relentlessly poisons both the body and mind. In other words, porphyria is Porphyria's affliction.  It is that which defines death as her "utmost will".
It is the lack of dialogue and indifference within the voice of the narrator that seems to render him a bit unaffected by having murdered his love, but it is through the action of the poem that the narrator's truly grievous sentiments become clear. The reader is throughout the poem made aware of the narrator's love for Porphyria. He lies nestled against her shoulder, consumed by her flowing yellow hair, as if aching to be one with her.  Representative of his conflicted feelings, he strangles Porphyria with the very hair he so adores, because he, in that very moment, realizes its effectiveness in accomplishing what they are both aching for:  the severance of her soul from the wicked, earthly pains of her affliction.  He vanquishes not only Porphyria's life but also her suffering, and in doing so has committed a most pristine act of love.  In the aftermath of the fateful moment, the two lovers sit motionless together throughout the night, the lingering airs of deep affection hung still over the scene:

"And thus we sit together now,
And all night long we have not stirred"


What are your thoughts?  Which of the narrator's motivations do you feel are most significant: madness, mercy, or something different entirely?  Am I misled in assuming that mercy by euthanasia justifies Porphyria's murder?

Hopelessness, Pride, or Animosity?

In West London, Arnold describes a coldness toward the rich and an interesting camaraderie between the poor. The “tramp” in West London sends her daughter after local workmen to beg, and the little girl returns “satisfied.” However, when rich people pass by, the woman lets them “pass with frozen stare.” I think there are a few reasons she might have done this. Arnold states “She will not ask of aliens, but of friends, Of sharers in a common human fate,” but he does not extensively describe the woman’s reason for this.  It seems most likely that the woman believes she and her children will have better luck begging from people who understand their condition than from the rich, who have no knowledge of the poor’s suffering. But I wonder if it is hopelessness, pride, or animosity that prevents the woman from begging the rich. She may know from experience that the rich will not help her, or she may not want to grovel at the feet of someone who looks at her as if she is the alien. The “frozen stare” she gives them may also imply her contempt for the selfish upper class, or even terror at the power they possess. Even if knowing the woman’s motivations is not key in understanding Arnold’s point in the poem, I am still curious to hear what others think about this.

The hills where our lives rise

The Buried Life by Matthew Arnold is a beautiful and inspiring poem that urges readers to reflect on themselves and rediscover their passions in life. Arnold believes that, in the flurry of day to day labor and routine, we lose who we truly are at the expense of "all the thousand nothings of the hour" and their "stupefying power". We dream of experiencing things, going places, and accomplishing personal goals but more often than not those dreams never come to fruition because we become so wrapped up in the mundane hum of day to day life. Those dreams are what Arnold calls our "buried life" - it is the life that we long for but are not brave enough to sacrifice stability necessary to pursue. The tone of the poem, though, is not one of despair. Instead, Arnold conveys a message of truth and peace and a "lull in the hot race" that modern man finds himself stuck in. Arnold encourages man to fearlessly mine deep into his own heart and discover what causes it to beat.

Social Awareness In The Cry Of The Children

After listening to the in class discussion and going into small groups about the poem The Cry Of The Children I wanted to go into more detail about the voices of the children act as a social commentary of the time.

                “But the young, young children, O my brothers, They are weeping bitterly! They are weeping in the playtime of the others, In the country of the free”.  The lead up to this is how everything is happy and how the young in the natural world are free and joyous yet the young children who are not in nature are not free and happy but are weeping instead. It seems to me that at the time that this poem was written the social view of children had begun to swing away from them being small adults and actual children. My reason for thinking this is that for Browning to be bemoaning the condition of these children infers that at least some segment of the population would be in agreement with her.

                There was one passage in particular that did show kind of a transition from being young adults into children. In the passage the children say their our fathers but feel do not know the rest. I am not sure which is more oddly cruel, the fact that they only know those two words for the prayer or the fact that they are aware that they do not have all the words necessary for their God to hear them. I think that Browning uses lines like that to paint a looking glass view into the confusion surrounding what society was to expect of and from the young adults.

The crying children.

The Cry of the Children provides an insight of the life of working children and the misery of life. These children were in fact the little adults of the Victorian period that we discussed in class. These children are in so much misery that they think "Death in life, as best to have". These children have obtained the belief that death would be more enjoyable than life because all they do is suffer and do labor. They then begin to question religion, God more specifically. They question his existence because he has not answered there prayers. These children did not get to experience a normal childhood; such as, innocence, joy,  and growing experiences. These children were thrown into a life they had no choice but to take and are miserable living it. In this selection were are shown sides that make us feel more sympathetic towards the children because we do not get to see their kid side. To experience what they have at such a young age makes a person grow up faster than they should and not enjoy life, as these children have.

Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!

William Blake critiques the status of children through the symbolic use of animals in his collection. In Song of Innocence he often refers to children as lambs, and the poem itself describes a soft and gentle creature being “meek and mild.” This is a classic Christian symbol that is meant to invoke a sense of innocence and helplessness. However, Blake meant to make a more sinister connection with the addition of Songs of Experience. The lamb is also used in the Old Testament as a sacrifice; during Passover a Paschal Lamb was killed in order to atone for sins, basically washing away sin in blood. Blake saw children as being abused by religious leaders who supported an economic environment that allowed children to be the victim of cruel work conditions. This is most evident in “Holy Thursday” were he speaks about children being reduced to misery and poverty, most likely working instead of attending Thursday night services. These children sacrificed their innocence in order to serve a system that did not support them economically or spiritually. The companion piece to “The Lamb” is “The Tyger.” The tiger in Christianity represents martyrdom. There are many stories of Christian being thrown to lions and tigers in huge arenas for all to see. This is much like the children being thrown into a life of labor with “good Christians” as the spectators simply watching as the children get devoured by a life of poverty and hardship.

Political Agenda

In regards to which poem would have made a more political impact, between Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Southey, my partner and I both came to the agreement they Southey made more of a political statement. The main reason for this is that the Rime of the Ancient Mariner read more like just a story and I would not have seen it as an allegory to abolition unless 1) I was really digging or 2) it was spelled out. Also in Southey's poem the avid use of religion adds to the political aspect because during the time it was written religion and politics were inevitably interwoven. Also that fact that Southey's poem was more compact keeps the reader focused for the entirety of the poem.

Self Loathing in Bristol

In Robert Southey's "The Sailor Who Served in the Slave Trade," he tells the tale of a sailor who was forced by his captain to bound and flog one of the female slaves they had just picked up who ended up dying the following day. The way that he words this poem vividly paints the sailor's anguish as he describes how guilty he feels for what he was forced to do by his captain. The slave woman haunts his dreams and he seeks mercy and forgiveness from God. However, knowing what I do about God, once you ask you are forgiven, so really the issue is forgiving himself. He feels a deep anguish and self loathing for not resisting his captain's orders. If the sailor can't forgive himself then when Southey has the call to action at the end for all us to pray for him as well is all for naught. He must forgive himself if he is to recover from this tragedy.

An Educational Complaint

   The line between right and wrong is often said to be a matter of perspective, but people often mistake the meanings of these words with "correct" and "incorrect", which blurs the lines even further. In the context of The Negro's Complaint the issue of slavery is laid bare, in a way that appeals primarily to the moral compass. Yet in Pity for Poor Africans, Cowper does something different. He lays out his internal conflict, claiming that he knows that slavery is wrong "I own I am shock'd at the purchase of slaves," then turns to explain that though it would be right to try and end it the correct thing socially is to be silent. The excuses are both ridiculous and desperate, they reek of forced justification. Yet it is the story of the boy in school that really makes the poem.
   The boy in the story is against the idea of stealing the apples from a neighbor, it is initially strictly a moral issue. It is when the other children threaten to keep the apples they steal from him that he buckles. This portion mirrors the first half of the poem in which Cowper argues that though slavery is wrong it would be awful to be the only nation without. By taking the moral conundrum away from the touchy subject of slavery it becomes easier to see how frivolous the actual argument is. The fear isn't really to be without dessert in the first place, just to be the only one without. The whole poem becomes satirical and those who would pose such arguments are exposed as disingenuous. When the argument is considered from this angle it becomes apparent that the argument is strictly a social one.
   Remembering The Negroes Complaint, and how it poses that the issue of slavery goes against nature's claim of equality, an interesting opinion from the poet himself emerges. Cowper's poems are two halves to a whole. Half of his argument claims that slavery is not an issue of inequality, because skin color cannot  "forfeit nature's claim" and god himself would answer with fury upon it's proponents. The other half states that it is instead is a social, issue, thus concretely stating that society is in direct opposition to God in regards to slavery.

A religious Appeal

When reading William Cowper “The Negro’s Complaint” the thing that stood out to me the most is the religious aspect of the message. I know that cowper was a religious man, and I believe the approach he took was wise and understanding. Religion has always been a complex topic to discuss, people will always stand behind their believes when they feel they are threatened. I think he used this knowledge to try and connect to the common people and their feelings towards guilt in the name of god. Most importantly the fourth stanza, beginning with line 25 questions if it is the peoples doing or gods. All men are supposed to be treated equally, so why are men and women of color being treated so differently and used for white mens needs. “What are Englands rights, I ask,” calls to not only to question the laws of government but the laws of religion and moral integrity. Although no actual slaves were asked for their opinion and Cowper did not know what it was like, I feel it was wise of him to write it in a way that shows how slaves are really just the same as everyone else. It is then that the person reading should start asking themselves how they could deny a person their natural given rights.  By doing the opposite of what they say in the name of god, then they are simply hypocrites and denying the fact.

Cowper's Complaint

Upon reading William Cowper's The Negro's Complaint, what becomes immediately evident is that it is written from the first person point of view. This is indeed interesting, as Cowper has no background in slavery and finds it morally appalling only due to his religious nature. Had this poem been written by John Newton, it would have probably been vastly different, but still more agreeable since Newton was once a slave trader himself. Though the poem itself does seem to capture what would arguably be a well written dissent to the social norms in a time where slavery was a common practice, it seems to stand out in that it's message is that which the slaves at the time were not allowed to say or were unable to so eloquently express: slavery is wrong on every basis. It is morally wrong "Skins may differ, but affection/dwells in black and white the same," it is illogical, "still in thought as free as ever, what are England's rights, i ask," and it there are emotional connotations that ask the reader what kind of person indeed would enslave another, even when the "One who reigns on high" sends nature to undo the such evil. The poems ends in a rallying call to arms that the reader "prove [their] human feelings/ere you proudly questions ours!" This poem is indeed quite a powerful sentiment coming from a white evangelist hymn writer, not necessarily because he believes in the words he's written, but because he has given a voice to a group that had none.