She Stoops to Conquer

The epilogue by Dr. Goldsmith proposed some interesting thoughts. In the fourth line of this poem he states that "I have conquered him to conquer you." It seems here that he essentially strips away Kate's 'achievement' and credits the joining of her and Mr. Marlow to his writing the script and controlling the fate of the characters, not to any cleverness on her part. Really, Marlow stooped to conquer since he is unble to 'conquer' any women of higher class and therefore had to send his affections towards what he thought was a barmaid. This combines with the disguise in the play to emphasize the point that "our life is all a play, composed to please." Here Goldsmith is suggesting that we alter ourselves in different settings in order to fit the needs of the situation and the people it involves. We are constantly in character for fear that the world see our true selves, but at the same time, this role playing allows us the liberty to be our true selves. Disguise, as Kate has shown us, can oddly enough present a more accurate reality than reality itself.

I found Johnson's poem to be very depressing and very heavy reading. I'm not quite sure I got all of what he was saying but I think his point was essentially bashing pride and wealth and perhpas even knowledge because in the end we are all reduced to the same nothingness and therefore should not worry with those things. The more knowledge we have the more we are able to see the bad in the world and be depressed about it or try to act above it. I felt he was almost suggesting a state of naivety and idiotic oblivion to the world as opposed to one where we are taught to seek power and knowledge because these things supposedly make living harder on ourselves. I'm not so sure I agree with his thoughts because life is going to happen for an undetermined amount of time so even though one individual may pass through life that doesn't mean they can't contribute in a way that could perhaps make it more pleasant for future generations. Yes, there is a danger in becoming too enveloped in the things mentioned above but I also think its dangerous to be at Johnson's end of the spectrum and be unnaturaly and disturbingly cynical about life. He sees death as an escape and I have to wonder why it that he, instead of pondering the complete tragedy of life, did not just escape.

a sentimental journey

Volume II of Sterne's novel presented an interesting scenario of a man begging only from women. Yorick was greatly puzzled watching the man and agonized over what it was that made the man such a profitable beggar. I thought the answer was somewhat obvious, that he flattered the women in order to make them more prone to donation, but this realization did not come to Yorick until he saw it actually happening. The irony here of course is that in order to receive, one must first give. It is almost blatantly symbolic of male-female relationships in the sense that giving a woman what she wants, whether it be flattery or emotional intimacy, gets the man what he wants, and that is sex. Its an exchange of the intangible for the tangible and not exactly a fair trade in my opinion, but a frequent one nonetheless. I wasn't quite sure what he was trying to accomplish with the dark alley. He states that a man who fears walking up a dark entry way is fit for many things but not fit for being a sentimental traveler. Perhaps being afraid to explore the dark alley is like being afraid to explore ones own minds and confront unwanted thoughts and truths. While he is on a physical journey through France and Italy, he is moreso on an emotional journey through his mind, and those afraid to enter such a dark and threatening place cannot experience the world in the same manner as the sentimental traveler. There is a hint of light which is perhaps reason, but mainly darkness or confusion, and only when one penetrates the darkness do they find the answers.

Fantomina

I think Fantomina was not included in earlier editions of our anthology mainly because its a different genere composed by a different gender. Instead of the poems and plays about women composed by mostly misogynistic men, Haywood's work is a progressive topic contained within a relatively undeveloped literary structure. I'm not sure I would say it fits into the story of English literature but rather that it disrupts and challenges what great writing has been until that point. Her novel does not completely oppose the ideals of women conveyed by her male predecessors and contemporaries as she does not find women without error. However, because the story is from the point of view of a woman, sex is not just an image applied by men to women, but rather is a longing possessed and exchanged by both sexes. She acknowledges that there are differences between a man and woman's view of sex but does not necessarily condone the actions of either character in the novel. By initially presenting Fantomina as innocent and naive, she is able to show women's capability in developing and functioning within society. The irony of the story is that Fantomina, in her own distorted way, gets what women want (the devotion of one man) and in doing so, gives Beauplaisir the illusion of what men want which is to sleep around with every female possible. Although the end result is not necessarily favorable for either party, the story itself is more real to life than most of what we have read. A woman is not a piece of art with unrealistic ideals bestowed upon her but instead she is a being just as capable as men when it comes to the game of love. While the novel is drastically different from the other works within the anthology, I do think it is a valuable addition because it disrupts the monotony and challenges the reader to think about the social and gender ideals maintained by men during that period.

Pope

In An Essay on Criticism, Pope suggests reason and rational thinking as a necessity for proper poetry writing and criticism. To Pope, common sense is an inherent trait that is either nurtured or destroyed by education and environment and those who lack it lack the ability to effectively critcize and create. He argues that "most have the seeds of judgement in their mind:/Nature affords at least a glimmering light," but that "ill coloring" can taint these seeds. In lines 90-91 he states that "Nature, like liberty, is but restrained/by the same laws which first herself ordained." I took this to imply that reason is often times demented into something that is self-destructive which enhances his aforementioned point that what is inherent is not always permanent or pre-determined. It seemed to me throughout the essay that Pope equated lack of reason with egotism and that reason and self-doubt work hand in hand. He argues that "vain wits" should "admire superior sense, and doubt there own!". Those without reason are too caught up in their own thoughts and judgements that they are unable to let previous wisdom guide them in writing and in judging. I found the whole poem then to be very contradictory. Here Pope is writing about how good writers should draw knowledge from their predecessors, questions their own abilities and respond critically but rationaly, in a way that makes he himself seem like the overconfident, irrational critic/poet that he is criticizing. At the same time, I found his ideas clear and concise, the poem incredibly well written, and his knowledge of ancient philosophers to be extensive. Since the poem is of a satiric nature, perhaps he is trying to prove a point by criticizing other writers via the method he judges them for.

Reason also seemed to be a bridge or a transition between old and new. Throughout the poem, Pope deals with the struggle between tradtional thought/verse form and progressive thinking. He suggests reason as the thread with which to intertwine the two with arguments such as the chief whose method of application of power depended on the situation and did not always adhere to the consistent norm. This suggests using traditional form as a blue print and using common sense to moderate the amount of alteration necessary for the optimal poetic result. Pope seems to employ this thought throughout the essay with traditional heroic couplets used in a poem containing numerous stanza's of seemingly unpatterned length.

There were two things that I loved about Swift's "The Lady's Dressing Room." First, I found it absolutely hilarious. The line "Oh! Celia, Celia, Celia shits!" cracked me up mainly because there are few guys I know who are not in denial of this fact and it made me realize that men's intentional ignorance of women's gastro-intestinal functions is not a recent phenomenon. On a less literal level, I loved this poem because each time I read it I found a new way to interpret it. There are so many different ways the poem can be analyzed and reanalyzed that, for lack of a better analogy, its like rearranging furniture: all of the same pieces are there but how you choose to organize them in the room can create a drastically different impression. Is it making a statement about vanity? What about a lesson in minding your own business? No, maybe its a warning that things aren't always as they seem. Perhaps its a possible commentary on hope or a critique of women: are we all full of shit? And of course there are the obvious sexual undertones- is her dressing room really his undressing of her? More than likely, its all of these and then some. What intrigued me most when I read it was trying to decide if it was feminst or anti-feminist. When I first read it, it reminded me a lot of Hamlet accusing Ophelia and all women for lying and contributing to the ills of society by painting their faces. The poem appeared to be like a blatant attack on women and their supposed lack of any redeeming qualities and the constant alliteration made it seem like the narrator had a bad taste in his mouth. But when I read it again, it was almost sarcastic and mocking of men, not women. When Strephon, through his discovery of her bodily excrement, essentially realizes that women are human just like men, he throws a fit. The narrator says that Vengeance "punish'd Strephon for his peeping," which I took to mean that he was punished in the sense that because the thought of a woman being equal to men on any level so disgusted him, he was prevented from ever receiving and appreciating the beauty that is a woman. The joke was on Strephon as the narrator seems to indicate in the last few lines because if he merely "held his nose" he would see that "such gaudy Tulips rais'd from Dung." I'm not really sure what message he is really trying to convey here but regardless, this poem is definitely my favorite that we have read this semester.

Dryden

After reading Dryden's Mac Flecknoe and A Discourse Concerning the Original and Progress of Satire, I felt like his standards for what makes good satire did not exactly line up with the poem. He claims that satire is to "make a man appear a fool, a blockhead, or a knave without using any of those opprobrious terms," yet in Mac Flecknoe, he uses the term "dullness" at least a dozen times. Yes, he does use grand language and a very sarcastic style but he still employs degrading terms to make his point. I found his poem to be the "slovenly butchering of a man" and not the "fineness of a stroke that separates the head from body." This is not to say that I did not find the poem amusing; in fact I found his approach to writing tactical and entertaining, but personally I did not think it aligned with his discourse on satire. I liked the executioner analogy and think that perhaps Dryden just needs to sharpen his blade. Reading this also made me wonder what Dryden's reaction would be to a satire about himself. He seems very self assured and I would have a hard time believing that he would be tickled at such a production and not grossly offended.