303 Survey of Literatures in English 2 (Rubik)

 

First Session 19.3.2009

 

Slide: Periods in English Literary history

 

DO HOMEWORK!!! Read books and the homework assignments, start as early as possible, read along the course and fairly fast.

 

Check the elearning platform regularly for additional information, assignments and the slides. Elizabethan to restoration period was part of survey 1; just references here.

 

Augustan Period (18. cent.): classical greek antiquety as the great model; people felt that england was as strong as greece under august at that time.

 

Periods: approximations, helps to guide you along the change of certain tastes, writing styles, midsets and genres. (focault’s term for certain cultural mindsets in different periods: episteme).

 

Victorian period (named after queen victoria); followed by modernism and post modernism.

 

Yes, characteristics prevailed and were popular; but not every writer followed those characteristics and not every work of art has those popular periodical characteristics. Texts in the reader are chosen with that in mind: they are characteristic for their period, which is of course a simplification. Characteristics are not the only thing that can be said about a period (there are always rebells and people who are not following the popular trend.).

 

Now, in the age of postmodernism, we value pluralism and not as uniform. There are a huge amount of many different characteristics now.

 

Slide: Important historical dates

 

Before we can talk about art, we need to look at cultural and political events of the age. Not know this by heart, but keep these in mind for orientation.

 

Stuarts were thrown off the throwne for: catholicism and trying to introduce absolutist monarchy -> britain revelled against this power with the glorious revolution by giving William III of Orange the throwne (from now on, the king could not rule without parliament -> institutional monarchy was introduced).

 

England was getting involved in european power politics (see the war of the spanish succession).

 

1707: england and scottland are united as a country (not just under the crown). Scottish nationalist are still not happy about that, rebelled against that.

 

1714 Hannovarian Dynasty -> George I. Didn’t speak a word of english :/ patron of the arts when you know no english? Important to consider that.

 

1726 first circulating (driving around, mobile!) library -> you didn’t have to buy books anymore.

 

1737: walpole (pm at the time) passed the licensing act to censur the theatre: to censur plays that attack or criticize the political parteys in power. This lasted until 1967, where not political but sexual content was censured.

 

1745/46: Jacobite Rebellion; had their biggest support in scottland (highlands), political consequences were terrible: highland clans were persecuted (scottish kilts and accents were forbidden) and killed -> high immigration to the states.

 

Slide 2 of historical dates

 

18^th cent. Saw a massive expansion of the british empire.

 

Industrial revolution started slowly in the last decades of the 18^th century; first inventions were done -> steam engine.

 

Discovery of the pacific, australia and new zealand; boston tea party -> no taxation without representation; war of indepence.

 

British lost north america, but found different markets in india and australia (used as a convict colony).

 

End of the 18^th century: outbreak of the french revolution.

 

DO NOT REMEMBER THE DATES BY HEART, but keep them in mind.

 

The 18^th cent. Might be difficult to understand, because our understanding of the world now is marked by the revolution. Class and hierarchy was very strict in the 18^th cent., you were born into your place in society. You could rise or fall moderately (make a lot of money), but basically, no revolutionary changes in society happened, nobody rebelled.

 

England was EMPTY for our standards, no fight for space, it was simply a patchwork of remote villages and communities. Roads were bad and transportation too. Only one big city at that time: london. Longon in 1770 had 700 000 in habitants. It was the centre for the arts, commerce and trade. Better roads were built, channals were built too to ship cargo. Traveloppurtinities increased (you went to Bath and took the waters den ahaha).

 

Ireland was not yet part of Great Britain, but under a very harsh british rule. In the English civil war, the irish supported the king; cromwell after his victory, took land from catholic farmers and gave it to protestant farmers -> causing trouble to this day. Ireland was treated like a colony.

 

In the other colonies, a lot of poor people immigrated; rich traders made a lot of money (importing cotton, spices). Slave trade was still the branch where the most money could be made -> england was the leading country in that branch. Traded them for goods, took them from the westcoast, transported them through the middle passage to the colonies or to the carrebiean. It was often a death sentence, 1/3 of the people died on the way there.

 

Classes were strictly ordered, and the one thing you couldn’t buy was an aristrocratic title. All the pms were aristocrats, they dominated the parliament. The richest were the most politically powerfu.

Below them was the lower aristocracy, the ‘gentry’ (ladies and gentlemen), then came the middle class (quite diversified. Rich traders, poor artists, shoe makers, grocers; their income varied). Below them was the lower class -> were the majority of people. Remember this was BEFORE the industrial revolution; back then, they consisted of rural laborers and servants. Below that was the criminal class; highwaymen, thieves, prostitutes.

 

The law was very strict; many offences, also offences of property would be punished with death. You could also be put into prison for debt :/

 

Only in the middle of the 18^th century, the forerunner of the police service was founded.

 

England was mainly rural, even fairly poor people could keep kettle because they were allowed to use the common (piece of meadow everyone in the village could use).

 

The capitalist system established itselt in the 18^th century, and besides advantages in agriculture, they (rich people) enclosed the commons so people were unable to keep kettle.

 

The problem of the rich being in power of politics and them dealing with the poor would pile up until the end of the century.

 

Medical treatment was grimm, child mortality was high, lack of hygenie, people DIDN’T bathe at the time. People STANK at the time, the richer used perfume to cover it up; in bath people used to carry apples with cinnamon in front of them so they wouldn’t smell the other.

 

It was a common thing to go and watch an execution, pinnary, pubic whippings -> all sources of entertainment. If people didn’t know what to do on a Sunday afternoon, they went to the sanitarium to look at the looneys :/ People were tough at the time; you couldn’t drink water -> it was polluted. Tea and choclate were only for the rich. They drank beer until gin got cheaper than beer until the end of the century.

 

The anglican church was established at that time; the clergy behaved like aristocracy (were enjoying life, good eating, they were rich); the full political power could only be given to members of the anglican church. Very few people could vote; only dissenters could sit in parliament. They often migrated to the us then (key concept of the economic success of the us:

 

Education: rich people = BOYS went to public schools (eaton or example), where they learned latin and greek and little else. You could only go to oxford or camebridge if you were an anglican church member, many had private tutors.

 

The dissenters had their own schools, which were more modern. These people were in trade, where modern languages were more useful.

 

Poor people got no education; apart from Sunday school.

 

For Literary development: more people were taught to read, more people were rich enough to have the time to read. For the first time in english literature, writers could live off writing full time without patronage of an aristocrat. Compare: Pope translation of the iliad: 4000 pounds; milton paradise lost: 10 pounds.

 

Women had no rights whatsoever. They had no personality whatsoever; they where always thought of as the wife of someone or the daughter of someone. Their place to be was the house and they were not supposed to be educated, just serve as decoration. Formal eduation (readig) yes, but other than that, they could sowe. Their mission in life was to catch a husband, which was a serious thing because there were no job opportunities for women. If they didn’t catch no husband, they would probably starved to death.

 

Major characteristics: chastity; an absolute must for females. Bastard child: this child would inherit the rich hubbies money. Women who bore bastards were considered outsiders. It was the duty of a woman to give birth to an heir. Many had up to 20 children, because so man died. The man had to support is wife. Second half of the 18^th century a new belief started that women and men were constitutionally different -> they had an interily different nature. This was the result of science and medical research. When they found that men and women were different on the inside (they had a womb :/), which made them unable to think. Women were emotional, men were rational. Women were ‘sensibility’, emotionally easily affected. Because women were so helpless creatures, they needed to be protected from the outside world and also to keep their purity. Language (leg, stomach? BOTTOM OH MY GOD!) had to be used carefully in the upper class, so they wouldn’t faint. This painted a completely different picture than the restoration period showed. Conduct books -> show women how to behave.

 

ART AND LITERATURE IN THE 18 CENTURY

 

No art or age is uniform. Whigs (town party, ‘liberal’), Tories (Converative, rural party). Surprising how uniform and harmonious tastes were in the first 6 decades. Similar tastes, themes, attitudes and fashions. Because there was such an agreement of the taste, authors could speak with a lot of authority, they weren’t questioned. They often used satire to critic people who were outside this fashion.

 

Uniformity was then lost in the transition time in the romantic period.

 

IMPORTANT:

It was the task of art to ‘follow nature’. Nature was not understood like we do today; not ‘wild nature’ as oppoosed to civilization. There was no romanticized, unspoiled nature in the 18^th cent.  Nature = divine order of the universe. You should write in harmony with these divine laws that govern the world. Could include: the balance between emotion and reason; always in control. You control the emotions by exercising the reason. It was then the duty of the writers to discribe order and harmony and what was general, permanent, the universal truth, not the individual, not the unusual. Thus it was focused on the characteristic elements, not on the individual; you generalize, leave out the unusual. You describe recognizable types and not individuals: the fat land owners, the pedantic owners, etc. Classes and species, not individuals.

 

Compare: paintings from the 18^th century: they left out what is unusual, and just painted the ‘beautiful’ rest.

 

If nature is described, it is always with connection to man. ‘Useful’ nature, apple trees, sheep grazing, corn fields. Nature is considered to be part of civilization.

 

Slides: Blenheim castle, duke of malborough. Everything is symmetrical, groomed gardens, made LOOK as if natural, but there is actually nothing natural there.

 

Slide: 18 century art

 

‘natural’ garden -> domesticated garden. So women could walk elegantly and play with their children.

 

Slide: gainsborogh.

 

Landscape is only interesting in connection with man.

 

Slide: hogarth: rake’s progress & Gin lane. Satirical art.

 

Literature was to express general truths elegantly and witty. No need to aim for originality -> THAT is a romantic concept. 18^th cent. Writer could tell a well known story in a witty and elegant manner. What mattered was the style rather than the subject. Sharpness and intelligence of expression. Emphasis is on reason and not emotion.

 

Second Session 26.3.2009

 

Wit = not simply humour; but intelligence and elegance; say the ‘old truths’ in an elegant way.

 

18^th century is the age of reason; were not blind to the passions, but reason should have control over the passions.

 

The idea that art ought to be reasonable, following god’s divine, natural rules was something most artists thought was to be found in the models of classical antiquety; Homer, Ovid, Virgil -> they had already realized these laws, and if you will imitate them you will achieve elegance and greatness.

 

The idea of the Augustan period -> They were as great as rome under the rule of augustus.

 

Neo- classical rules: show that people believed that they should follow certain rules, modelled by greek classics.

 

No split between science and art -> seems very alien now, but back then they were believed to work together. Science investigated the rules of nature, Art presented the rules of nature in artistic works.

 

Pope -> very important poet celebrating that following of the divine rules and the connection to science. Style was aimed at clarity and order; no complicated and difficult style / metaphors; however, art should use a style removed from everyday speech -> more elegant style. Also, they used ‘poetic diction’ -> special words which were believed to be very poetic; instead ‘the birds’ -> the winged choir; to us it sounds artificial and complicated, but they felt that these words were removed from everyday language.

Satyre (rape of the lock = satyre of the aristocratic lifestyle) was popular at that time; instrument to attack those who were not rational and did not conform to these rules.

 

Also important: literature became a trade, rise of a profession. Before that, writers were dependend on aristocratic patrons to survive. That means that literature no longer had to appeal to the taste of the patron, but to that of the market. Literature as a way of teaching the broader reading audience, educate them, teach them ‘taste’, make them more knowledgable about art and science.

 

However, the number of actual literature printed in the 18^th century was 7%; the rest was religious texts -> the importance of literature only grew slowly.

 

SLIDE: ALEXANDER POPE

 

The most important poet of the 18^th century; illustration: two sides of the coin of the 18^th century. Pope was a hunchback; cripples, but because of his great achievements he became a hero -> roman bust, idealised and beautiful; typically 18^th century. The satyrical illustration shows his imperfections. Those two forms of art were typical.

 

Pope was the poet of order and formed all these typical features in his poetry. Poetic elegance with a claim to authority -> he defines the rules of art of this age and speaks with great authority. He firstly imitated classical art, wrote translations; most important original works are ‘essays’ (verse essays): essay on criticism; essay on man.

 

Essay on criticism stresses the neo-cl. Rules of literature and reasons; attacks bad education.

Audience (boys, men, mainly) is clearly educated. He speaks about good and bad writing, but also good and bad criticism. If people don’t follow the rules, they won’t write OR criticise well! His recommendation is to follow nature. (quote: line 68 .. . .) Use reason to discpline your art. (quote: second column, first two stanzas). Half learned people are not acceptable (quote: second column, last stanza). Expression of self assurance; all this is made to sound very commonsensical, makes it sound very clear with every day comparisons. Was convinced that what he was saying was general.

 

Rhyme scheme -> heroic couplets; two lines of rhymed of iambic pentametre. Very strict and regulated meter; typical for the 18^th century. Chose a very strict and difficult, orderly metre.

 

It’s NOT metaphorical, doesn’t try to create a poetical language as shakespeare did; it tries for clarity. We don’t find it easy to understand because we’re not educated in classical antiquety. Even though the style aims for clarity, it wasn’t written for uneducated people, but for the kind of class that pope himself belonged to.

 

The essay on man, in a very similar manner, sums up the 18^th cent. Position on man. Intention is not to tell the reader something interily new, but to sum up the position of man in an elegant way.

 

“THE RAPE OF THE LOCK”

 

Mock epic/heroic poem. Uses the style and language (elevated, grand battle of gods -> the illiad, the odeyssey) of an epic poem in order to present a low and trivial subject. This way, you achieve a discrepancy -> the effect is satyrical; you make fun of a class or society by presenting their stupidity in a very elevated way.

Takes up a real story: aristocrat cut off a lock of hair of a young woman; rape = robbery; not sexual violation; what he does is show the stupid aristocracy who have nothing else to do but to flirt and laugh and presents them in a elevated style of heroic battles to show how stupid their occupation really is.

 

The beginning: where he sings to the muse -> not really seriously :/

 

The picture of the women presented is pretty mysonogist and demeaning -> “why would a woman say no to a lord”?

 

The way he prays to the god of love, and sacrafices his prizes of former loves (french romances -> stupid love stories :/) and other tokens -> mocking.

 

End of the poem especially mocks the triviality of the subject; the lack of love (husbands = lapdogs). They scream whenever anything happens; whether her hair is cut off or their husband dies. 

 

This poem is clearly an attack on the 18^th century aristocratic life style.

 

DUNCIAD (poem by pope)

 

The goddess of stupidity and her followers; all the followers were pope’s enemies; the people who were not following the rules.

 

 

JAMES THOMSON

 

He was another important 18^th century poet; wrote “The Seasons” -> is a nature poem, describes the passage of the seasons. Quite typically for the 18^th century is cimbined with didactic and philosophical thoughts; not wild nature, but nature in connection to human beings.

 

 

THOMAS GRAY

 

18^th century writer, following mainly the rules BUT, with touches of romanticism and gothic atmosphere. “Elegey written in a Country Courtyard”. Also points toward a change of taste toward romanticism. Belongs to the genre of ‘graveyard poetry’. Speaker is in a country church yard at night, begins to think who is in the grave, what lives they had. Were they poor? They couldn’t achieve a lot. In terms of atmosphere, points toward romantic/gothic. In attitude it’s typicall 18^th century. Death is the great equalizer; not a rebellious poem -> does not question the social hierarchie; still satisfied that every person has the correct place in life.

 

Nowadays this atmosphere it’s called ‘gothic’ -> very popular toward the end of the 18^th century; dark, frightening, full of old castles and towers and graveyards, spooky.

 

Gothic tales have remained popular until this very day.

 

 

DRAMA IN THE 18^th century went into a great decline. Why? Many of the aristocrats lost interest and middle class tastes in drama were not very sophisticated (didacticism, sentimentality, teaches you how to behave, goodness of heart). Restoration drama celebrates cleverness and wittiness -> a-moral (before 18^th century). Neo-classical tragedy was full of rules. Even the rules can make good poetry, but not good drama. For instance, it was felt that drama was to keep the three unities. A play must be set in one place only (more than one places wouldn’t be realistic), no more than 24 hours (not unrealistic again!), and could only have one action -> no subplot.

 

Second reason for the decline of drama: licencing act; killed political theatre; you needed a special permit to perform a play. People gave up writing for the theatre and started to write novels.

 

It’s not that absolutely no good plays were written (Gay’s 3 penny opera); but overall, not one of the great genres of the 18^th century.

 

WHAT became increasingly important: prose. Genre of the novel only developed in England in the 18^th century -> reason for this was the larger reading public.

 

A novel was very often read in the family; father would read and the rest would listen.

 

When the attitude towards women changed (sense ans sensibility) it became problematic to read it to woman -> problematic to write about sexuality and ‘immoral’ things.

 

NEWSPAPERS AND JOURNALS One of them is “The Tatler”; “Women and Wives”; all women a trivial, mainly interested in trifles and superficial things; they have no intellectual capacity. This was the standard picture of women (because no one educated them!). He reccomends a domestic life; the wife should be confined to the house, the family. Domestic = happy. The style aims at clarity, so that an educated readin public could understand it. Remarkable are the quotes from classical literature -> shows how high classical literature was valued. It’s ABOUT women and wives, but surely not meant to be read by woman and wives. Directed to the men.

 

 

DANIEL DEFOE

 

 “Robinson Cruseo”: The novel in general (18th century). Appeals to the middle class reader; focuses on personal experience.

 

Defoe is called the ‘father’ of the english novel; however the novel drew from many sources -> travel writing, religios writing, biographical writing.

 

Defoe was irish by descent (his family); he was not part of the church of england -> dissenter; received an education in trade. In his writing ‘The shortest way for dissenters” (pamphlet) -> used irony -> pretended that the speaker was an anglican englishman, who suggested to kill all the dissenters. However, people mistook it for a REAL suggestion, not satyr -> he was put on the pillarige (pranger).

 

Other important novels “Moll Flanders”, “Roxana” -> both these novels focus on women. Remarkable how much understanding he had for women; both of these women were prostitutes/thieves. The form the novels take are called picaresque novels, meaning ‘vagabond’. One of the early forms of the novel. It focuses on some kind of travelling vagabond, who has a geat number of adventures. The book his held together by the main figure of the book; episodic in order.

 

Moll Flanders: is an author who has to survive; marries several times, has many lovers. In the end she becomes rich in america. Defoe tried to see that Moll had little else she could do to save herself. And “Morality” is always easier when you’re rich.

 

These characters are explored individually, but they are ALSO typicall for their class, they were definitely not unique. Also; the novel was a COMPLETELY NEW GENRE at that time -> not that many rules established yet! More freedom granted.

 

Why did defoe pretend cruseo to be ‘real’? Because people were interested in real accounts; also -> dissenters were very hostile toward literature; clever to pass it off as a real life story.

 

Defoe is a penname; originally his parents were called ‘Foe’. Double meaning! Name AND ‘enemy’.

 

SAMUEL RICHARDSON

 

He came from a lower middle class family; First profession was to write ‘model letters’ for people who didn’t know how to write letters. Since he was so successful with this, he thought of writing a novel with letters -> epistolaries. It’s a novel which consists of many letters which various people write to one another. The advantage: great immediacy. You hear the emotions and speech of the speakers; There is no distance between the ‘narrating I’ and the ‘experiencing I’. Authenticity; a very lively genre.

 

Two famous novels: “Pamela” (servant in the house of a rich aristocrat; very vertious girl; this aristocrat tries to seduce the young girl. When she says no, he tries to rape her. But he’s always interrupted, so he HAS to marry her in order to have her :/ Message: if you hold out long enough, he’ll marry her.), “Clarssa” (much more serious, but similar subject matter; vertious middle class woman, who runs away from home because she doesn’t want to marry the man her parents selected. She thinks a young aristocrat will help her, but he rapes her. He wants to make up and marry her, but she has lost faith in her, pines and then dies out of shame. She is presented as a middle class saint, very virtuous. The young aristocrat is interesting too, because he’s not purely evil, but strong willed and self assured, passionate and lacks selfcontrol, uses swear words and thinks he can manipulate women; Clarissa’s style is meek and mild, self sacrifice, it avoid all exclamations and swears, it’s resigned and virtuous. Very good picture of the ‘typical’ man and woman in the 18^th century).

 

The rival of richardson was HENRY FIELDING. He came from a different social background; upperclass. Attitude entire differently from Richardson (piquaresque satyre); His answer to “Pamela” is his novel “Joseph Andrews”. The initial situation is very similar in Joseph Andrews; he’s a servant to an ‘old ugly lady’, who wants to seduce him, and rape him -> the very reversal of gender roles is what makes the fun. It started out as a parody, but then very quickly transformed into a satyre of 18^th century life. The Lady is supposedly the sister of the aristocrat in Pamela “Boobie”. Joseph flees to find his sweetheart and has a great many adventures. The ‘naked man’ discussion is an attack on 18^th century materialism and hipocracy. Whether you are chaste or not is not as important as being humane and helpful.

 

FOR NEXT TIME: READ ROBINSON CRUSEO + page 10 –15 in the reader.

 

Session 3 2.4.2009

 

Novel -> very new genre in response to the new middle class reading public and the licencing act. There were no ‘ancient greek’ rules to apply to the genre, so the novel had a new, unheard of range of freedom.

 

Epistolary narrators: sound very convincing, almost as if you hear them speak. Very little distance between the narrating and experiencing I.

 

“Pamela” was popular but extremely problematic (message: if you hold out long enough, he’ll marry you).

 

FIELDING

 

“Tom Jones” -> satyircal portrait of 18^th century society in the form of a picaresque novel -> novel in episodes of a vagabond/rogue/lower class member -> has various adventures -> critizes the modern society and its rediculous features.

 

The narrative technique is entirely different from Richardson; he had a much more secure position in society than Richardson and spoke with much more authority. Omniscient intrusive narrator -> stand above the story and looks at all the characters, tells you what they think and what their morals are and comments on those; also on the way he wants to write his story –> “I’m going to present you this . .” -> gives comments on novel writing in general, and this proved extremely influential (appeared again in many victorian novels ie jane austin novels). The novel ought to be an comic epic in prose.

 

Fielding had a number of immitators in the development in the novel, such as Laurence Sterne in the late 18^th century. L. Stern was famous for his novel “Tristram Shandy”; in many ways he has some elements of romantic writing -> sensibility and softness of heart is particularly important and prefigures the romantic period and L. Sterne didn’t fit into the 18^th century at all (if you told people this was a post-modern novel, they would believe it) -> in a way, at that time he already mocks the novel (a baby narrates when it wasn’t even born; “Now I’m going to present you this in great detail . ..  *blank page*); Stern is NOT a typical 18^th century writer -> his novels are very ahead of time and unusual for the 18^th century.

 

 

JOHNATHAN SWIFT

 

EARLY 18^th century writer, contemporary of Defoe. Prose and poetry, but his works are not really novels -> maybe pamphlets, prose pieces/satyres. Came from Ireland -> hated it’s provincilaty and longed to go to London -> worked as a political party. Eventually developed a new attituted toward IR and came to defend IR against the English exploitation (IR was treated like a colony at that time) -> wrote the pamphelt called “A modest Proposal” (ironic, satyrical pamphlet -> short essay in which he tries to attack britain for the way it treats irish economy; but the proposals he makes was “why don’t you cook all irish children and eat their flesh, make gloves out of their skin if they DIE ANYWAY because of the way you treat them and have them starve by the way britain treats irish economy -> very ironic proposal of peace).

 

Another work: “Gulliver’s Travels” -> marketed as a children’s book but it isn’t at all -> it’s a satyre of british imperialism, warmongering and cruelty -> takes the from of a (imaginary) travel reports (very popular at the time) -> travels to the land of the giants, then the dwarfs, then the land of the clever scientists, the world of the clever horses -> he simply defamiliarize our own world (the dwarfs seem cute, but they are not at all). Probably the most controversial book: there are many many MANY interpretations; only sure thing: distrust the first person narrator (gull = fool; he is fooled by so many things and HE himself also fools the reader). Meant as a satyre of 18^th century england and the people who are as foolish as gulliver.

 

 

DR SAMUEL JOHNSON

 

He was a well known literary critic; wrote poetry and prose BUT he is remmebered for the first proper dictionary of the english language; brought out an edition of shakespeares plays and wrote criticism about them -> calles sh. The poet of nature, who holds up a faithful mirror to the manner of life. He paints those general passions and principles with which all minds are agitated.

 

 

ROBINSON CRUSOE

 

Marked the beginning of the 18^th century and the english novel. Defoe (originally Foe) came from a dissenter background -> which were usually trained in the ‘trade’ (many references to book keeping; economic interest is very apparent in robinson crusoe). Dissenters were usually very earnest and religious and trained to examine their consciousness -> treamendous influence on the book -> in the book RC always reflects upon his sins and what he did.

When the novel was born, it immedaitely passed itself off as a ‘real report’ -> it pretends to be a real story, and doesn’t say it’s fictional. For a long time, people believed that RC was real -> the idea was in fact inspired by the scottish shipwreck of alexander S.

Goal: be as realistic as possible and to keep the pretence that this is a real work -> reason why the landscape and EVERYTHING is described in such detail -> at that time it was VERY impressive for the reader (create this impression to BE THERE and really experience it) -> now it may seem boring.

 

He is the ‘father’ of the english novel, influenced by the travel log/story, which were extremely popular at the time of the explorers and the world being discovered. It’s also an adventure story (being enslaved, fighting with cannibals), but he also drew on ‘the spiritual autobiography’: religious people kept those biographies to report their thoughts, their sense of sin and salvation and their feelings. It’s also a moral tale -> cast on the island as a punishment by god because he ran away from england against the expressed wish of his family and father (the representative of god on earth) -> he is disobendient and he is dissatisfied with his position in the world -> he doesn’t want to be a middle class man and he forced his fate (which back then was considered to be sinful); at that time It was defoe’s great invention that he combined all these genres.

 

God has a long patience (‘delivers RC many a times’), but RC is never satisfied. Obvious that it’s a punishment: birthday and shipwreck was on the same date; also the ‘providential dreams’.

In the 18^th cent. Very common: Religion is combined with the economic aspect -> when god forgives him, he is also a rich man -> forgiving him by granting him a lot of money.

 

In the book he combines a narration which looks back on the time of the island stay (retrospective narration) and muses -> great distance between the narrating I and the experiencing I. Also another part -> journal which he keeps on the island and which he writes it down on the spot.

 

Contains also moral criticism of the spanish behavior in the new world; when first cannibals come to the island he’s shocked and wants to shoot them all -> but he thinks ‘who am I to judge on these savages? The spanish are even worse with what they did to the incas.” -> there’s a lot of moral criticism in the book.

 

Realism of the book: essential; distinguishing marks of the ‘new genre’ the novel -> describes every day life. On the lonely island, nothing is self evident, everything has to be reinvented by him. He decribes all this in great detail -> in this way, the book celebrates human inventiveness and creativeness -> ‘brings british civilisation to the savage island’. He proceeds logically and methodologically. If you think reasonably, you can master everything (he *thinks* about building an oven, and he also accomplishes it).

 

RC has also been interpreted as the typical English Colonizer -> he is cast away on an uninhabited island, but he reconstructs on this island english civilization -> he never even considers ‘going native’ or immitating the natural habits of the natives. He is convinced that this is the superior civilization -> he has a ‘beach house’ and a ‘country house’ and he is King of the Island, with the cat, dog, spaniard and Friday as his subjects. The crop he has he speaks of as his ‘plantation’ (where slaves are kept) -> the very choice of vocab tells you that RC sees himself as the colonizer of the island (in a positive way).

 

RC attitude towards Xury and Friday seems very offensive to us -> back then it seemed natural. The way he treats Friday is problematic IN MODERN TERMS not for the 18^th cent -> first contact is not a shaking of hands, but he kneels down and puts his head underneath RCs foot. He’s considering Friday as a companion, but not as an equal but a servant; he is described in a way that appeals to European readers -> he’s not a negroid or a savage as in Afrika. Black people were simply seen as inferior -> Friday learns english instead of teaching RC the native language; he also missionized Friday and teaches him religion, which he is happy to accept and learn.

 

Two aspects of the problematic: you see the limitations of the book; but you can’t claim that he is not totally unfair; BUT RCs ignorance toward indegunous culture (he thinks that Friday ALWAYS eats human flesh). We need this background to appreciate RC and WHY people were so interested in this story, to show the limitation this narrative holds (Women are completely left out and Friday is treated unfair).

 

 

ROMANTICSIM

 

Consider the historical background around 1780-1820.

 

Strictrly hierarchical, everybody has their place in the world and NOW you have a revolution that promotes brotherhood, equality. Brits were very enthusiastic at the beginning, but as soon as the French started to behead aristocrats, there was hysteria by those in power that the revolution might spill over. Also keep in mind that the romantic age saw the beginning of the industrial revolution. Power driven looms; this revolutionized work. Before, their worked at home on a hand driven loom -> earned extra money when you were a farmer; could do it in the family conext and at your own speed. As soon as industr. Started, this ended. Factories very soon followed. The speed of your work was determined by the machines, you had to keep up with the machine -> mechanical and very monotonous. They soon hired women and children because their salaries were lower -> this disturbed the family life.

 

The building of factories led to mass congregation to where the factories were built -> slums; housing was very bad, no sanitation and no drains; extremely bad living conditions and heavy pollution of air and water -> lead to cholera epidemics, very high child mortality. All the problems connected to the industrialisation and that happened very early in Britian.

 

INTERESTINGLY: all this is not reflected in romantic literature; only in the victorian literature you find these problems being dealed with. In romantic lit.: flight to the countryside and celebration of nature.

 

Emotionality, sensbility and sentimentality -> emotions became more interesting. New interest in folk literature (ballads and songs and poems). Interests in exotic things: vases from china and indian art.

 

Position of women: idea of two separate spheres and places for men and women. Men belonged to the public work, women belonged to the house. They should be housewives and good mothers (in the middle class of course) -> they shouldn’t work because they were so soft and sensitive, overgushing with feeling so they’d be unable to work. They were immitating the life of the aristocracy -> women shouldn’t get their hands dirty, she had to be beautiful, entertaining and a pleasure for her husband. She was not an intellectual mate, but to bring him pleasure and to amuse him -> look beautiful, paint a bit, play on the piano . .. .

 

 

MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT

 

Mary Wollstonecraft -> protested against this picture of women in “Vindication of the Rights of Woman” -> answer to the pamphlet of Payne “The rights of man”. She wants education for women; they are in this subservant position because they are badly educated. To be better mothers and wives, they needed better education (see tut). First feminist pamphlet; her lifestile was not vertous :/ feminist, supported the french rev.; had an illegitimate child and married an atheist.

 

 

RELIGION: was secular and broadminded, a new kind of sense of religion came back in the romantic age -> evangelical movement (‘low church’). Were engaged in very humanitarian projects -> the evntual abolishment of slavery and the slave trade (in Britian!) in late 18^th century (until 1831 where slave trade in the brit. Colonies was forbidden); they also ‘reclaimed’ prostitues -> got them off the streets.

 

 

Cities were becoming unpleasant dwelling places, there was a new interest in WILD nature, something that is REMOVED from civilization and their use of that nature. Civilization was corrupting nature, which taught you true feeling and goodness. Instead of London being the centre of the world, it is the wild nature and landscape that is important -> many of the poets were living in the lake district (in north of england, very untouched).

 

SLIDES: romantic painting: the sublime.

 

Untouched nature is the main subject of romantic painting (lonely landscapes, untouched by civilization, without human beings, lonely, wild).

 

 

There was also a new interest in the middle ages (they were dark and mysterious) -> the neo gothic style became very popular.

 

Horace Walpole -> Neo-Gothic castle “Strawberry Hill” -> recreated in the gothic style; was supposed to be mysterious and sublime.

 

Of all this, new interests in two groups emerge: in the ‘low and rustic’ people, who lived nearer to nature and were not corrupted by civilization & children (were born innocent, society spoiled and corrupted them; children were nearer to god and the divine). I was the first time that children as characters became interesting (in the 18^th century children were ‘small savages’, now they were a desireable character).

 

Also, in the romantic period, the split between Art and Science arises. Now science was scene as something mechanical and rational, whereas art was seen as the product of the imagination and emotion, and thus superior to science. It was a contrast between dead machinery and imagination. 

 

 

Session 4 23.04.2009

 

RECAP from last session

 

Romantic: complete opposite of the 18^th century; not the typical and general but the inspiration and the imagination was important -> new and unusual view of the world. Romantics were interested in nature and landscape because they saw it as a positive opposition to industrialization. Poets preferred the unspoiled country side and not the dirty city centers. Rosseau “Back to nature!” because civilization spoils you.

 

Not nature in connection with man or how it is used, but wild nature; the alps, the raging sea, waterfalls -> quality of the nature was the ‘sublime’ which inspires admiration and horror at the same time because it is potentially dangerous. Inspire the feeling of awe and horror in the reader, that’s what the romantics wanted to achieve. Nature is unspoiled but also natural -> children became interesting -> were considered unspoiled by civilization and near the divine.For the first time, children were becoming subjects of literature; also rural people -> closer to nature. New interest in folk literature; ballads and poems -> this became fashionable and was also immitated by writers. Split between science and art occurred; science -> raitonal and mechanical; art -> imagination and in the heart -> this was more important. Politically speaking some romantics were quite conservative while the younger poets were radical (also atheist). It is well to remember that not all writers writing in the romantic period were in fact romantic writers -> not true! Some remained more in the 18^th century -> Jane Austin -> not a romantic writer. Precessors of the romantic writing were also found at the end of the 18^th century -> graveyard poetry.

 

Poetry was really the genre that was most important in the romantic period (and until today the most popular) -> most of them wrote nature poetry and deal with the impact of nature on themselves and their imagination and souls. They usually reject the coventions of the 18^th century, especially the stylistic conventions -> they use a simpler rhyme scheme (no heroic couplets) and a simpler language. Romantic poets strived for simpler nature and people, so they didn’t need to use ‘poetic diction’ or an elevated style to reach that aim. Of course it’s not ‘simple’ simple; to us it seems complicated, but at the time the style was closer to ‘normal’spoken language (no slang!!! That was in the 20^th century). This has to be seen in comparison to 18^th century poetry.

 

The romantic poets also theorized about what a poet should do and what the aims of poetry are.

Situations from common, rustic life were chosen, emotions; “all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings” -> takes its origin from emotions recollected in tranquility. So the idea is that you receive this powerful impressions from nature, you THINK about them and then you reproduce them after you pondered upon them in tranquility, very important!!! Compare to the idea of poetry in the 18^th century -> for other features see reader Wordsworth “PREFACE TO THE LYRICAL BALLADS”

 

 

SHELLEY 

 

“A DEFENCE OF POETRY” Theoretical statement of what art and artists are. Enormous influence on our perception of what art is -> he defines poets(lawgivers, teachers, legislator, founders of civilization ..  .) as the true prophets of the world. This is a typical way of thinking about poets -> that they have a special ability to see certain things of immense importance that other people can’t -> a sort of prophet of eternal truth -> extra sensitive to what other people can’t see, but he can. 

 

 

WILLIAM BLAKE

 

Very early romantic writer; was a visionary, had visions of all kids -> illustrated his poems himself. Two collections of peoms: Songs of Innocence, Songs of Experience -> two opposing views of the world; that of a child, every thing seems beautiful; the grown up sees everything corrupted in the world.

“The Tyger” -> songs of experience; seen as a beautiful but deadly and fierce creature; how could god create a tiger AND a lamb?

 

 

WILLIAM WORDSWORTH

 

“Prelude” and “Tintern Abbey”. He also theorized; lived most of the time in the lake district (at the time very unspoiled);

 

“Prelude” -> about his childhood and the way in which he responded to nature; in harmony, later he lost that harmony because he was spoiled by the civilized world; later he returned and tried to take up the relationship to nature through poetic imagination -> that’s the course romantics actually recommend.

 

“The daffodils” -> perfect execution of what he said in the preface to lyrical ballads.

 

“Tintern Abbey” -> note what the poet does -> opposes town (neg. connotations) and country (better part for man, inspirational). The poet outlines various phases in his relationship to nature. Young -> close to nature, plays with nature, no border between him and nature; older -> nature inspires him and gives him inspirational, pure thoughts and appeals to his heart. 

 

 

COLERIDGE

 

“Ryme of the Ancient Mariner”, “Kubla Khan”

 

Ryme of the ancient mariner -> this is only a small section of the poem; in the collection ‘lyrical ballads’ -> worked together with wordsworth. Used folkliterature as an inspiration -> this poem imitates both the theme, rhyme and rhythm of a folk ballad. What happened? The mariner took part in an expidition to the artic ocean; an albatross follows them and eats the food that is thrown to them -> out of a naughty thought or pure fun, the mariner shoots the albatross -> this is a sin against nature; not treating it with respect. And indeed, while the wind had been blowing favoribly, the wind stops for weeks and they cannot leave. They run out of water and everybody dies, except for the mariner -> when he’s about to die he sees some ugly water snakes, but he even sees the beauty of these snakes and blesses them. This lifts the curse from him and the albatross falls from his neck and he is freed, with the condition that he tells his tale and warns people.

 

Message: value and respect nature; also to transport the idea of the sublime.

 

It qas supposedly written during an opium induced dream of Coleridge. What characteristic is: it is described an individual and original vision of a poet and not the general, universal truth everybody knows.

 

 

SHELLEY

 

Was an atheist, reject orthodox religion but also burgeois moral; had hilarious love affairs and ran away with mary shelley (daughter of mary wolstoncraft BAHAHA). Nature and political poems. “Defense of Poetry.”, “Ode to the Westwind”.

 

LORD BYRON was equally unconvential, had an incestual relationship with his sister among many other affairs; came from a strict calvinistic family -> was convinced that he was destined for hell so WHATEVER; was a freedom fighter in the wars between greece and the turks -> also died in these struggles. “Don Juan”, “Manfred”. The kind of heroes he described had a tremendous influence on later writing -> the quintessentially romantic heros -> dark and mysterious, some kind of guilty secret, always an outsider of society, never integrated, rejecting borgoise norms. “Byronic hero”. Usually his shocking stories took place in exotic settings -> however, provided exactly the exotic and sexual thrills the readers secretly wanted.

 

KEATS

 

Died very young of tuberculosis. “Ode to a Grecian Urn” and “Ode to a Nightingale.” -> celebrating the imagination and saying that by imagination you can create beautiful things, which are true. True things are beautiful.

 

 

Fiction:

 

Two quite typical genres: Gothic fiction and the historic novel.

 

GOTHIC FICTION

 

Quite typically concetrates on the irration and the unconvential and tries in a typical manner to excite both awe and horror. It’s only reason seems to be to excite violent emotion in the reader. It employs a typical ‘gothic’ atmosphere -> settings are old castles, dark corridors, underground vaults, tombs, settings that are spooky, dark where mysterious and frightening things can happen. It suggests the supernatural and uncanny; supersticion, magic, unexplained events. The story very often centres around a beautiful innocent blond oO woman pursued by a dark, sexual active man. There’s always the threat of rape and murder, mysterious atmosphere, suspense, nerve wracking horror.

 

HORACE WALPOLE (strawberry castle!) “The castle of Ortranto” (1764) supernatural elements, features magic; is set in the middle ages.

ANN RADCLIFFE “The mysteries of Udolpho” (1764), set in italy (very often also germany, barbaric and irrational anyway! Whatever could happen in these catholic countries anyway! Not in brittain!), a set of supernatural occurances which have a logical explanation in the end.

MARY SHELLEY “Frankenstein” (1818)

 

 

Gothic fiction is not simply a period piece; it has survived until the present day. Stenvenson “Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde” (1886) and modern gothic fiction.

 

Jane Austin wrote a parody of gothic fiction “Northanger Abbey”.

 

 

HISTORICAL NOVEL

 

Father or ‘inventor’ of the historical novels: WALTER SCOTT “The wavery novels.” -> set 60 years back in the middle of the 18^th century and recreate the fights in connection with the jacobite rebellions. A new liking for the scotts began to arise because of Scott -> contrasts a nostalgic picture of an old period as opposed to the more modern, british people, who are less idealized and romantic.

 

Historical novels are set in the past and tries to recreate vividly what it was like to live in a past period. It describes in detail the living conditions, social and political situations. However, the hero/heroine are ALWAYS fictional. The period might me ‘real’ but the characters are invented. To create more authenticity, historical people appear in the background. This kind of formula has remained popular until today.

 

JANE AUSTIN Completely unromantic and ridiculed romantic fashions and the values and excessive sensibility (to be touched by EVERYTHING in the heart). “Sense and Sensibility” warns against the excessive sensibility. “Pride and Prejudice” and “Emma”. She always felt that there should be a balance between rationaity and sensibility. She was quite conservative socially -> she didn’t question the role of the aristocracy. They had a responsibility to behaving well -> rejecting snobbish behavior. Her novels are set in the country side, untouched by industrialisation.

 

Today, we value her for the portraial of witty, rational heroines, they can stand on their own legs and for her witty style. Very often she’s satyrical and ironic in tone. Irony doesn’t go well with emoiton -> it needs rationality to work and is quite opposed to the sentimentality of gothic fiction.

 

19. century

 

1830 (although it had earlier roots) – 1900.

 

Time of the french and the Industrial revolution, with which the romantic writers didn’t deal with although they hand an enormous influence. England went into an isololationary position regarding continental european affairs -> time of the napoleonic wars. Overseas expansion -> great age of imperialism (african and asian colonies, australia).

 

In addition to this there were problems in ireland. Great discrimination of the catholics in ireland and by the 19^th century they wanted semi-independence -> was always turned down. Situation didn’t get better -> potato famine. This bred a lot of hostility towards england (think of the poor guy boykott! Got screwed over by the irish hehe) -> easter rising. However, in the 19^th centruy, the irish problem remained unsolved.

 

The french revolution was threatening to spilled over to england -> people in high positions were paranoid à conservative swing was the result (forbidding of protests).

Nowadays seen as prudish and conservative, but in fact, in this age a lot of reform took place.

 

Session 5 30.4.2009

 

From 1881 Ireland was a part of great britain; question of ireland’s indipendence remained unsolves on the 19^th century. Britain was involved in the napoleonic wars on austria’s side.

 

Britian was extremely causious of revuliton -> wanted evolution, ‘slow change’ and that was the reason why britian was the only state that saw no revolution in the 19^th century.

 

Industrial revolution caused entire cities to evolve, which had no seats in parliament -> a reform act was carried out so they had representation.

 

The abolition of slavery happened in several steps and acts concerning the factories have been carried out. Religious movements arose to remind fellow believers of church traditions in contrast to those movements which were against it.

Age of the railways as a new means of transportations.

 

British agriculture had been protected from cheap imports from the colonies by ‘the corn laws’. The price of agricultural products were thus high (which was bad) and the farmers were protected (which was good). An illness of the potato plants was affecting the harvest in ireland, and a about a million people died of starvation. Many emigrated to america, but the misery of the people had the corn laws repealed. Food became cheaper and the industrial proletariat could survive.

 

First wave of economic liberalism -> manchester liberalism. The “free market” forces; let the market dominate the economic situation.

 

There was a war in the middle of the century -> britain against france fought against russia to prevent russia from gaining acces to the middle terranian -> Crimean War.

 

Darwin publishes Origin of the Species

 

2^nd reform bill extended the right to vote down to labourers (even rural labourers); however -> only men of course.

 

Suez Canal opened, canada became a dominion.

 

 

The living conditions of the labourers were horrible (see earlier lectures). Because of industrial revolution made mobility on a large scale possible. Remember: in order to be a gentleman you were not allowed to work with your hands, had to fulfill certain standards: you had to have a respectable job (not allowed to involve manual labour) -> lawyer, clergyman, doctor; if you were an industrialist, you were not necessarily a gentleman -> money itself didn’t necessarily define class status; your behavior had to be fair and honorable, responsible, kind. In the course of the 19^th century, these two conceptions were fighting against each other. Usually both are these combined in the literature of the time.

 

Women had no class status of their own -> they took on the class status of their husband (that’s why the reluctancy of e.g. an aristocratic woman to marry a lower class man; vice versa it was okay of course).

 

The industrial revolution brought a great number of innovations in medicine, chemistry, biology -> the sciences. The two theories which are still with us today were ‘invented’ in the 29^th century: Marx’s “The Capital” and Charles Darwin “The Origin of Species”. So you have on one hand the burgeuiose, the lower class on the other hand. Also the middle class as prusdish and conservative to contrast the more ‘immoral’ artist class (think of Oscar Wilde).

 

A contrast of art and science continued to exist; a new contrast developed between science and religion, which was mainly due to Darwin’s theories. Concerns: it seemed to do away with the difference between man an animal (man is decended from apes -> then  you can’t argue that man is totally different and superior); it contradicted the bible, which was taken literally back then.

 

Darwin wasn’t the only one who contradicted this -> all kinds of discoveries of fossiles made people realize that the world couldn’t have been created in just 7 days. For most people this created a true religious crisis.

 

For darwin -> only the fittest survive; this happens in various species. One is going to survive the other one dies out. Also happens WITHIN a species -> those who are best adapted will survive and the others will die. Of course darwin didn’t mean human beings, but the readers were coining it this way -> and of course! The fittest were the white people. Therefore they had a right to oppress the ‘uncivilized’ people, or they would die out of course! Racist theories were based on this thought of ‘survival of the fittest’.

 

What was missing in Darwin’s theory was the image of a loving God-> a theory which was only based on competition was quite upsetting those who believed in a loving, helping god -> this is reflected in the literature of the time.

 

Family was celebrated as the centre and basis of society. It was believed that men and women occupied two spheres: men went out and worked and fought; and the women stayed at home and made it homely and beautiful for the man. The woman was ‘the angle in the house’ -> it was believed that this was fitting the nature of women -> meek, mild, weak, sacrifice themselves -> were only educated for this task; they were taught to be attractive, but they were not given any intellectual task. Married women had no rights -> a married woman had no right to her children, divorce was hardly possible (had to get an act of parliament; if a woman was unfaithful, a MAN could divorce a woman, but if a man was unfaithful, he couldn’t), when a married woman worked her husband got her income (no one could afford to leave their husband), there were settlements which allowed them a bit of money, they weren’t allowed to go to college/university -> too stupid and a distraction for the male students :/ The suffragets were fighting for the right to vote and for education. ‘education’ for them was  a little painting, a little talking french and a little playing piano :/

 

Religion: agnosticism (atheist -> you can’t know if there’s a god) rose; a new ritualist movement arose. The ‘low church’ (evangelicals -> pious and strict in their religion, extremely hostile towards the arts; reading novels kept you from work and prayer) -> if a religion holds such views, the writers won’t portay them in a good light (usually as stupid, nasty).

 

Literature in this times deals with all these problem mentioned above; really takes on contemporary difficulties of their time. Literature was also in the grip of the market (see lectures before: reading public is expanding -> writer’s income through the numbers of volumes sold; wrote what was likely to sell). Remember: in the 19^th century there is no distinction yet between ‘high’ and  ‘popular’ literature. Most literature was still very popular and read by a wide number of classes. Only by the beginning of the 20^th century, a split between ‘high’ and  ‘low’ arose.

 

SEE READER

Ruskin: definition of the role of women -> needs protection, she guards the house; not fit for fighting. Remember the gender ideology.

 

Darwin: struggle for existance; more individuals are born than can survive. Exstinction is natural -> there are not fit enough to survive -> darwin’s followers applied this to human society.

 

 

 

 

VICTORIAN POETRY

 

They didn’t tackle contemporary problems; wrote about love and beauty.

 

TENNYSON:

 

Beautiful, emotion, lyrical poetry. “The Lady of Shalott” -> she looks in the mirror, then turns to the real world and dies.

 

Mood changes however -> “In Memoriam” -> about the death of his best friend. T. reflects all the doubts and problems about relgios believe. There are two forces at work: orthodox religious belief on one hand and darwin’s theory and followers on the other.

 

First three stanzas are addressed to the christian god -> created animals and human beings; men will not die eternally, they will rise again after death -> traditional idea that death is not the end.

 

Next two stanzas sum up what other people tell him; that everybody has to die is no consolation, it rather makes it worse that everybody must suffer loss.

 

The next passage marks the language of darwinism. The species survive, but single human beings will die. As long as the species survives, the single individual doesn’t matter.

 

“I go for nothing, all shall go” -> the many fossiles were found at the cliffs of dover and showed that species died out. Nature thus disregared entire species, nature is cruel, nature will kill whole species. Two views are opposed: god who loves you and promises to be kind and the darwinian nature who does not care for species -> T does not know what to believe in in this poem.

 

 

Married couple: ROBERT BROWNING AND ELIZABETH BARRET BROWNING

 

She wrote “A poem for Aurora Leigh”  (femminist poem about a female artist) and “Sonnets from the Portuguese” -> unusual because love poem are usually adressed to  women -> here -> men. As soon as she married Robert, however, she wasn’t considered a poet anymore. He received much more attention.

 

R. Browning was recognized for “Dramatic Monologues” -> a poem, in which a speaker reveals his character at a chritical moment in his life. He’s faced with a crisis and by speaking he in fact reveals his character. All these poems are sophisticated character poems -> their character is revealed by what and how they say something. It’s always a first person unreliable speaker. You’re meant to be critical, not trusting.

 

Most famous “My Last Duchess”: the speaker is a renaissance duke (of ferrara). The situation: he is walking through his picture gallery and showing another man all the arwork he has collected. He’s a machiavellian villian (only interested in power) -> entire unscrupulous who’s very proud of his family and very ruthless in his behavior. He’s evidently planning to marry a second time -> man he’s taking to is negotiating his second marriage after his ‘last = late’ dead duchess died. How did she die? Not entirely clear, but from what he says, you can guess that he had her murdered. Why? Because he was jealous. Did he have reason? No. He simply was jealous because the duchess was kind and happy to everyone -> she wasn’t greatful enough that he had married her. He couldn’t bear this :/ “I gave commands and all smiles stopped.” Uhhh . . . alright. But now she is an artwork and he can completely control her and he possesses her completely.

 

The kind of content of this poem makes it clear that you’re not meant to identify with him -> you’re supposed to be shocked at the way he talks about the duchess. The way he talks about his dead wife reveals the real character, and we are meant to react critically. We’re not meant to believe everything the speaker says.

 

 

PRE-RAPHAELITES

 

Term goes back to the painting (their were also painters) -> go back to a stile of painting before raphael (mideval painting as inspiration). Their style is quite artificial, melodious and the topics were removed from present day reality (deal with chaucer, shakespeare, dante; or religious topics or with medieval legends).

 

Dante Gabriel Rosetti -> (see slide)

 

Christina Rossetti -> female poet (not poetess :/)  “Goblin Murket” -> temptation to eat the forbidden fruit.

 

They were quite unconventional -> red hair, low cut dresses. SEE SLIDES FOR PAINTINGS (Lilith and Shakespeare’s Ophelia).

 

 

VICTORIAN NOVEL (1830-1900)

 

Most important literary form now; great age of realism -> realistic novel wants to reveal a true picture of life and character. What does that mean? How do you do that? If you create the impression of realism, is a trick for readers to believe that what you write is real -> the reality effect. This effect tries to immitate the way in which the reader experiences reality. Writers don’t only focus on describing a pair of eyes, but also of the appearances of the room and surroundings and what the tea cup looks like and what biscuits they eat -> not relevant to the plot, but it’s the way we experience things.

 

Works with two kinds of reality: outside realism (you describe the clothes, food, housing, street, external things), psychological realism (describes emotions, motivations, thoughts of the characters and describe it in a convincing way). If you plan to describe life as realistically as possible, if you believe that there is such a thing as ‘reality’, then, naturally, you will most often chose an omniscient narrator. This is the only way in which you convey ‘reality’, comments, explains and knows everything. This is entirely different in the 20^th century. There is no longer the belief into an objective, external reality -> omniscient narrator is no longer popular. Other possiblity -> first person limited narrator ->  reliable first person narrator -> tells his story and development, who is not lying to you. Both types of narration are typical for the 19^th century novel.

 

The two forms thr 19^th century: apprentice novel (describes the development of a character from childhood to maturity -> being integrated into a meaningful ways in society), social novel (= “condition of england novel”; deals with the industrial revoltuion).

 

 

 

 

SOCIAL NOVEL

 

The writers tried to describe the effect of the indurevo and the misery, difficulties, horrible living conditions (polution of water and air), exploitation of the working class.

 

However -> there’s a problem; all the writers came from the middle class; their insight into the working class culture was limited -> they were well meaning, but they were not part of this culture. They never advocated revolution but a slow development. The solutions with which they are come up is usually christian charity -> sharing your wealth, altruism, but no really useful important political suggestions. They obviously did not advocate a revolution because they were middleclass! Their solution seem naïve nowadays, but be aware that radical theories like marxism weren’t accessible at that time.

 

Marxism was not accessible as a theory as of yet, so you can’t really ‘blame’ the writers for ‘suggesting’ these solutions. They did attack social circumstances, but they did not bring about a ‘change’ in these social order.

 

 

CHARLES DICKENS

 

Came from a lower middle class family; for some time he also had to work in a factory, however -> thus he had an understanding for working class people. In many of his novels he attacks social ills and aroused pity for the social poor. Amazing that he appealed to a very broad readership. Especially his early novels were influenced by 18^th cent. Novels (H. Fielding) -> picaresque novels (Oliver Twist). Later he wrote a great number of apprentice novels (Great expectations). “Hard Times” & “A Christmas Carol” (Politics of charity) -> see reader. Typical industrial novel. David Copperfield -> typical apprentice novel.

 

Dickens is very digressive (many different characters) and he loved to described humerous and eccentric characters (strange outward appearance, speaking habits). Dickens published ‘installments’ -> he didn’t publish a novel in one entire book, but 2 or 3 chapters published in a magazine. Publication could go on for more than a year (case for most victorian novels) -> you had to keep up the excitement in the audience by ‘cliffhangers’. Defining characteristics are necessary if a work is published in installments.

 

Dickens had urben settings for his novels; he believed that people are basically good or evil by nature (Dickens was not a behaviorist!!) -> if you are a thief, stealing doesn’t change if you are good or bad to begin with. Influenced by melodrama -> many of his central scenes are effective because they are melodramatic.

 

THACKERAY

 

He was Dickens’ rival. Appealed more to an intellectual, educated readership -> disliked and rejected sentimentality; used irony and sarcasm in his novels (which needs intelligence). He didn’t write social novels, but satires on contemporary societ -> ‘comedies of manners’ in prose. “Vanity Fair” -> satirical picture of 18^th century middle and upper class society. Centres around two girls: a victorian angel in the house (meek, mild, stupid); and another girl that rises in society and is very energetic and immoral. They repesent the two extremes, which neither should be immitated -> It appeals to our sense of satire and irony. 

 

 

 

SESSION 6 7.5.2009

 

 

 

After the publication in installments, usually a novel was published in a volume. However, the results of the way of publishing it as an installment were still there: most novels are long and digressive, feature a great many characters, use repetition quite a bit (reminder of the characters to touch you up on what had happened), use cliffhangers -> very exciting scenes where you don’t know what is going to happen so you buy the next installment.

 

Two other social novellists:

 

ELIZABETH GASKELL

 

“Mary Barton” & “North and South”; Gaskell came from the middle class -> as limited as Dickens. However she has very good knowledge of the working class -> she was the wife of a non-conformist minister who worked in a poorhouse in Manchester, so she new about their living conditions of which she drew a realistic picture. She appreciated working class culture (they helped each other; their knowledge of herbal sciences). Mary Barton: focuses on working class radicalism and the relationship between the factory/mill owners and the working class. It portrays the feeling of the working class as they see how their fellow men have to suffer as the industrialist get richer and live in luxury. Mary’s father commits a political murder -> kills one of the mill owner -> this isn’t an acceptable solution. It ends in mutual forgiveness and christian charity. 

Mary’s Father was the hero originally -> however, a novel about a murderer wouldn’t sell well.

 

North and South takes up a similar theme -> contrasts the life of the mill owners and the working class, but it also contrast the north of England (heavily industrialized) and the South of England (still quite rural, as today). The heroine lives in the south but is forced to go north -> learns to appreciate the industrial culture. However, ends the same way -> christian charity.

 

 

BENJAMIN DISRAELI (later prime minister of britain)

 

“Sybil” or “The 2 Nations”

 

Argued that the middle and upperclass know absolutely nothing of the working class. They are like two separate nations. It is the task of the novellist to make the troubles of the working class known to middle class readers.

Since the novel had to sell, of course, there was a sentimental love story worked in. These kind of novels are kind of ‘spoiled’ because social criticism is mixed with love stories.

 

Remember: Not all writers in this period wrote social novels.

 

Example:

 

BRONTE SISTERS

 

They lived in a remote village in Yorkshire (the end of the world at that time). They had very little contact to london; the only reading they got was from their father’s library -> novels from the romantic period. This is the reason why they were extremely influenced by romantic writing. They all wrote in the victorian period, however if you want to turn to a romantic writer, you have to turn to Charlotte, Emily and Ann (not that gifted).

 

All the Bronte Sisters were influenced by the poetry of Lord Byron (remember: Byronic hero). Exactly these kind of heros you find in “Jane Eyre” or “Wuthering Heights”. The novels are full of gothic elements (dark atmosphere, mideval corridors and castles, dark secrets, wild nature, ‘men and women in the attic’ hehe).

 

They are very unusually because they don’t favor the idea of the women as ‘the angel in the house. They wrote about passionate, strong women which demand equality with men. The heroines reject self-sacrifice and beauty, they want passionate love and self-fulfillment.

 

CHARLOTTE BRONTE

 

“Jane Eyre” -> female apprentice novel. Outlines the development of a rebellious girl. She fights for her own rights and then becomes involved with a man who turned out to be a bigamist, left him, then returned to him after his mad wife died. The novel has gothic elements and is a realistic tale of development.

In the first scene (in the reader) in which Jane Eyre hears somebody move around the corridor, finds that the chamber of her master was set on fire and saves him (unusual! Usually women had to be saved from a mouse). The atmosphere is clearly gothic.

The second scene is a central love scene. She doesn’t behave in a typically female and submussive way (“I tell you I must go! . .. .”), but strong and indepent and free. Jane claims to have the same rights as a richer man (Mr. Rochester).

Jane Eyre and also “Vilette” (along the same lines) are based on her own experiences as governesses (house wives in a strange house hold).

 

EMILY BRONTE

 

“Wuthering Heights” -> very unusual novel for the Victorian period. The usual narrator of that time is intrusive (commenting on what happened; explaining what is the objective truth) omniscient narrator. But here, two first person unreliable narrators (a city man -> to stupid to understand what’s happening; servant -> has her own prejudices and wants to hide her responsibility) -> this creates a very passionate tale that is very hard to interpret.

 

 

GEORGE ELLIOT

 

A woman!! She chose a male pseudonym (as the bronte sisters did and then abbandoned) because women writers were criticised (by male critics) in a very patronizing way. She wanted to have a fair criticism.

 

She was a very emancipated woman -> she openly lived together with a married man, however was one of the most intellectual women of her age. What would you call her? Miss? Misses? No! You just addressed her as Misses George Elliot -> solution to this trouble and personal reason to change her name.

 

She lost her christian faith like many Victorian writers -> idea that jesus was just a normal man and the bible a book about him. However, she always retained her belief in christian ethics (responsibility, altruism, kindness, charity) and rejected christian metaphysics (the afterlife, heaven). This belief was called the “Religion of humanity” -> every action has consequences (good or bad consequences). All her characters are faced with this notion: Should we act selfishly and for our own amusement? Or should be act responsibly and give up our own dreams?

 

The narrator in her books is omniscient intrusive and passes judgement. The narrator also has understanding for human weakness -> “Adam Bede” -> in this passage she explains what the wants to do in the book. She doesn’t want to paint an ideal picture of women or a black and white picture of people -> they are not either very good or very bad. She compares her style to the dutch painters -> they did not only paint beautiful madonnas, but they painted normal working class people and painted them beautiful. She says that we as readers must be able to sympathize with the people we meet every day -> not look for the best and most beautiful human being -> we wouldn’t be able to have sympathy for anybody.

 

Elliot was a master of realism (outside and psychological). “Adam Bede” illustrates her idea of responsibility. Young girl (naïve) is seduced by an upper class man, for him she is just a plaything. However, she got pregnant, killed her baby and was sentenced to death. He doesn’t get sentenced, but he has to live with the fact that he ruined this girl’s life.

 

“Middlemarch” -> 2 main characters -> enthusiastic women who wants to do good, but marries the wrong man (a scholar, very jealous). She’s unhappy but she stays with him. She marries a second time, but can not realize her dreams because she has support her husband.

Second character: young docter who wants to further medicine -> marries the wrong woman (selfish), ends up as a rich doctor in a spa and is very unhappy. These two stories draw a very bleak picture of life if you make the wrong choices.

 

“The Mill on the Floss” (see reader). The small girl Maggie is always criticised that she is not conforming to the role of the ‘angel of the house’. Her mother is blaming her that her hair doesn’t curls nicely, her clothes get dirty, etc. However, maggie is more intelligent than her brothers, but is suppressed and is educated only to be an ideal woman. The novel ends tragically because such a woman couldn’t stand in her age -> self realization was hardly possible in this suppressive and intolerant society.

 

Although the Victorian novel is mainly realistic, it has a great many varations. Not each and everything writing in this period was realistic.

 

LEWIS CAROLL

 

“Alice in Wonderland” -> children’s story. The Victorian period saw the beginning of children’s literature. This text in particular enjoys to turn the Victorian World on its head -> parody of the pomposity of the Victorians. Children’s fiction at that time consisted of didactic religious texts, so this text was very unusual.

Alice -> confronted with the world turned upside down (cats vanish, roads leading to nowhere, you shrink and grow when you eat mushrooms). It has the logic of a dream/nightmare and at then end she escapes into her normal world again. The novel proved to be extremely influential for later children’s literature.

 

The “sensation novel” was the forerunner of crime fiction and detective fiction. Detective fiction was influenced by writers like Wilkie Collins “The Woman in White” (a woman is imprisoned in an insane’s asylum and replaced with a doppleganger so that villians can get to her money), Edgar Allen Poe (american).

Mary Bradden “Lady Auddley’s secret” -> international bestseller; also was one of the first books which drove male middle class critics up the wall because this book was “catering the instincts of the low working class” -> this was not ‘literature’ but a popular book and ‘low and taste’. What was so shocking? It focused on crime in the middle class (which was usual) but portrays a young, innocent, beautiful angel of the house which ended up to be revealed as a murder and bigamist. The conflict of ‘are sensation novels literature or low in taste?’ shows that the consesus of what people liked seemed to break up. 

Two more writers who wrote social novels: Stevenson: “Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde” and Bram Stoker “Dracula” -> more gothic tales than ‘crime fiction’.

 

A more ‘mainstream’ writer was THOMAS HARDY. On the one hand, he is a typical Victorian author (style, omniscient intrusive narrators). On the other hand, the values he propagated and the things he attacks are no longer typicall of the period. Like many Victorians, Hardy lost his belief in Christianity. In his novels, he always shows that christianity has lost its meaning and only leads to frustration (compare Tess: the fact that she can’t have her baby buried in a christian graveyard -> adds to the heartache; Angels family is not really ‘happy’, but deeply religious). The belief in a christian god is influenced by darwins theories (compare previous lecture). Nature is cruel (survival of the fittest), nature is anything but idyllic. In the novel, those who are kind and soft have less chance to survive than those who are selfish and only look after themselves -> Tess is ruined because she cares about his family and feels responisble (kills the horse -> meets Alec d’Urberville). Her fate is cruel, and there is absolutely no poetic justice. Those with a soft heart suffer even more than those with no heart at all.

 

Because Hardy does not belief in christianity, he often makes sarcastic remarks (gods in heaven are playing cruel games: “The president of the immortal has ended his sport with Tess.” -> quote from when she was executed; if she had a gardian angel, wouldn’t she have looked after her).

 

Industrialization ruins people and doesn’t make life easier -> think of Tess working at the thrashing machine.

 

Landscape reflects the mood of the characters -> most obvious contrast is between the Dairy (beautiful, lush, fertile -> she’s happy there and falls in love with Angel). Flintcom Ash -> Farm where she worked after Angel has left there (stony, dry -> reflects her desolation).

Hardy sees his characters against a vast panorama of History -> not just contemporary -> Tess is in fact a descendant of an old, aristocratic family (also her ruin -> wouldn’t have had to claim kin if she wasn’t).

 

The ending scene -> she flees with Angel and rests at stonehenge. At Hardy’s time it was believed that stonehenge was a place of pagan sacrifice. So when Tess lied on the stone, she was a human sacrifice by middle class society -> has been ruined by society.

Hardy attacks the double sexual morality of the time -> man can rape, but if women have sexual experience she is ruined. (Think of the scene where Angel confesses his premarital sexual relationship -> so in a way Angel and Alec both ruin Tess).

The subtitle where Hardy calls Tess “A pure woman” was attacked, because the novel doesn’t make it clear whether she was raped or seduced.

 

“Jude the Obscure” -> attacks Victorian marriage laws that two people who don’t fit together can’t get divorced.

 

In both novels he usus a triangular relationsip (one man between two women or one woman between two men). You would think that Angel is the good one (just the name!) and Alec is the bad one, but actually they are both blameworthy -> Angel contributes as much to Tess’ ruin and dispair as Alec does.

 

In the novel, Hardy makes it clear that Tess claims kin (and the rest of her blameworthy deeds) because she wants to help her poor family, and not because she wants to get rich herself.

 

There is a distinction between “Naturalism” and “Realism”. “Naturalism” is a style developed in france and it concentrates on the negative aspects of life, on working class people and their misery -> BUT not in the sense of charity and christianity, but in the sense of a stark darwinist determinism (sexual instinct, social determinism, addiction, extreme poverty). English writers like Henry Moore and George Gissing were naturalist writers, but outsider in the victorian period

 

 

DRAMA

 

Played a very minor role. Most of the playwrights of this period are forgotten these days, except these two: Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw.

 

OSCAR WILDE

 

Revived the resotration tradition of the ‘comedy of manners’ -> most famously “The Importance of Being Earnest”. All his comedies are very sparkling and witty, but they give a satirical picture of the superficiality of contemporary upper class society.

 

GB SHAW

 

He wrote ‘dramas of idea’ -> was ifluenced by Ibsen (renewd drama and concentrated on social problems and ideals) and is social drama. “Mrs. Warren’s Profession” (about prostitution in economic and political). He used his dramas as socialist propaganda pieces.

 

TURN OF THE CENTURY: THE COLONIAL THEME

 

19 century was the great age of imperialism, and still you didn’t find literature about it.

Rudyard Kipling (victorian), Joseph Conrad (modernist) and E. M. Forster (modernist). Two periods overlap here.

 

Read: pages 28 to 33

“The white man’s burden” and ‘heart of darkness’

 

 

model exam on the e-learning platform! Check it out.

 

KIPLING

His attitudes belong to the 19^th century -> idealizing of the british empire.

 

Born in india, parents were colonialists, sent back for education and felt an outsider there. He wrote poetry and prose (“Junglebook”; “Kim” -> presents a white boy in india who has contacts to all religious and social groups.)

 

THE WHITE MAN’S BURDEN

 

Idea that colonialism is a burden to the white man -> they ‘serve’ these people, want to civilize them (and not to have financial or economical gain, of course :/). Here, colonialism is justified as a humanitarian enterprise, would ‘increase’ the civilization in the colonized people. They were seen as half devil (superstitions, savage) and half child (you have to educated them) -> this attititude is characteristic for emperialism. In order to appease the indian continent you have to fight (“savage wars of peace”) -> justification was that the colonizers would fight hunger and ignorance, bring health care and science. Accusation -> colonized people were slothful and uneducated and ungreatful; not wanting or seeing the great civilization coming.

 

This poem is characterized by a propagandistic tone; however, not the only tone of course -> criticizm of the empire existed

 

JOSEPH CONRAD

 

Polish by birth, fled to france (russians took over that part of polish), took part in voyages and learned english on the ships.

 

The topics he wrote about differe crucially; victorian novel (young man, groes up, fights his snobism, integrates and marries -> usually story of finding your way in society). Conrads novels were not set in britian, because he didn’t have that sense of betrayal (not a brit!). Heart of darkness is one of the most read english novels. “Nostromo” (political novel about north america and the revolution), “Lord Jim” (set in east asia).

 

In contrast to Kipling, Conrad is clearly a modernist in his themes and his narrative technique.

 

HEART OF DARKNESS

 

Not quite a linear and chronoligical narrative; it has a frame -> it a ‘frame narrative’: it contains two narrative, which are set at different place and times. The main part of marlow’s narrative of africa; the frame narrative: set in england, on board of a ship, waiting for the high tide to come in. The frame has a different narrator! In the book you have two first person narrators (Marlowe; unnamed 1^st person narrator) -> neither of these are not particularly reliable. Why? Marlow himself contradicts himself, quite obviously lies, and most importantly, he stresses that he only ‘tries’ to tell you what is like, but words fail to convey what experience is really like. This is really new! And uncommon in the victorian novel -> the stress of the subjectiveness of experience.

 

The unnamed narrator is quite enthusiastic about emperialism, but as he hears marlows tale, he is quite shocked. “The thames seems to flow into a heart of darkness” -> changed his attitude towards the river that sent so many great explorers out into the world.

 

Before marlowe even starts his tale: frame narrator sets a naïve background of emperialism. Marlow draws attention to the fact that britain was dark at the roman ages too! So it is a question of development, so there is no real ‘british superiority’. Just as the romans corrupted in roman britain, marlows tale shows as the white emperialists are corrupted in africa.

 

Marlow seems to contradict himself: on one hand he liked emperialism (it’s good to see the flag of britian); on the other hand: you just take away things from people with flatter noses and different skin colors – is not a pretty thing -> is exploitation.

 

The the main part starts and marlow tells about his voyage to congo. Conrad actually went to the congo; at that time it was under belgium rule (private possession of king leopold); the situation was scandalous -> large scale murder and exploitation -> worst colonial rule by far. So conrad has first hand experience of this regime.

 

The form of the river congo is symbolical -> that of a snake. Many of the people who go there are damned.

 

The first stage of his travels is ‘the white city’ -> brussels. It’s ominous as well, like a tomb or a grave. He meets all kinds of people there who have a symbolic value (two women who knit -> hint at the three ‘fates’ -> knit the string of your life and then cut the string if one should die; the doctor who measures his head -> science that tells mental sanity by measuring the head -> assumption that most people who go to the congo are out of his mind;).

 

The picture of imperialism is negative: imcompetence (they should build a railway, but nothing gets done), cruelty (natives are beaten and starved to death, killing native people is fun for people (pilgrims who shot at black people for fun), explpoitation -> only thing they’re interested in was ivory; africans have to work for them but don’t understand why they’re criminals; it’s total mismanagement and cruelty).

 

It’s extremely controvertial what conrads/marlows attitude towards black people was. Often people think this is a racist book (blacks described as primitive and examples of ‘darkness’); however: the white people are described to be far worse than the black people.

 

The center of the book centers around the trip to Kurtz (wrote pamphlets about ‘civilizing’ the people, only at the end he adds ‘exterminate all brutes’) -> the stay there corrupted him and turned him into a cruel colonizer. He’s only driven by self-interest, but the pilgrims are no better. It’s problematic why marlow prefers kurtz to the pilgrims: at least he’s a remarkable man with status. Also problematic why marlow lies to kurtz’s fiancé (however, would you tell her that her fiance cut off people’s heads?) -> good? Bad?

 

There is no intrusive narrator who tells you what to think -> the READER has to decide what is good or bad.

 

MODERNISM.

 

IMPORTANT HISTORICAL DATES (see slide)

 

Time of Freud and Einstein -> both showed that truth is relative and depeneded on a particular perspective.

 

Cruelty of various wars -> WWI & irish rebellion; put an end to this unchecked belief in progress. There was a doubt in human rationality -> modernism stresses that, and the cruelty, irrationality and sexuality.

 

Decolonization started

 

Ecconomic problems -> great depression

 

Political problems -> rise of facism, WWII, loss of british status

 

 

MODERNISM: CHARACTERISTICS

 

Socialism developed because of the situation of the workers; this led to widespread fear of the working class masses on part of many middle class writers, they were afraid that the working class was going to dictate culture. In the 19^th century -> split between ‘low’ and ‘high’ culture, and this split was not fully enfored. This led to the fact that many moderinst writers were ‘elitist’ -> appealed to a eductaed readership and are intentionally difficult as to not appeal to the masses.

Moderinst writing deals with the dissapointment of the failure of 19^th century solutions -> apocaliptic end phase, where is it all going to end? Belief in an universal truth is given up, truth becomes subjective. You can not speak about ‘the truth’ anymore. There’s also a sense of fragmentation (you are not one and the same person all the time; you play different roles throughout your life). This new sense of fragmentation and fractions is represented in art -> modernist art.  Mimesis is a new interest in form and abstraction and the rejection of the 19^th century.

 

There is a new distrust in language; 19^th century artists never doubted that what you wanted to say could be expressed in language. Can words really convey (extreme) experience?

 

There are many different facets in modernism, but all of them are very critical of culture. They have a focus on urban life, on war, on the instincts of the body (sex). Because of all this change, a completely new narrative techinique/style developes. Novels or poems are no longer chronological and linear. They are very unchronological (very often work with symbols or associations, montage, collage), it’s much more difficult to follow the plot line. These people have lost their belief in order and rationality, but still wish for it. It’s not that they laugh about disorder and chaos -> they’re nostalgic about a time when order existed. Many of these writers looked for some kind of system to hold onto (facism, religion, communism). THIS is the difference to post-modernism: we don’t care about chaos anymore, we accept it.

They experiment with form -> no longer conventional sytax (they dislocate it). They dealt with subject matters that were formerly taboo (sex, cruelty of war). Elitism: the texts are consciously difficult and ambiguous with many different meanings (polysemy). A lot of intertextuality is in these texts -> references to early texts for comparison/contrast -> difficult to spot and interpret -> not written for the working class. Frequent use of symbolism.

 

MODERNIST ART -> see slide

 

MODERNISM: PROSE see slide

 

The english realist tradition has been extremely strong; not each and everything after 1900 is a modernist novel; however the following writers are modernist for the characteristics mentioned above.

 

Open ending; gives up the omniscient narrator (stop of the belief of THE TRUTH). Now it is the limited third person narrator, who seems to talk subjectively, but looks through the eyes of one character in the text and views the world. This becomes so extreme, many are written in a “stream of consciousness” technique. This term derived from psychology -> your consciousness is not happening step by step. A stream of consciousness makes you listen to the thoughts and irrational jumps of a character’s perception. These novels were no longer interested in the grand subject matters (career, marrying, dying) because that is not what’s happens everyday in your life. They wanted to describe the feeling of being alive. These things are seemingly trivial, but they want to show how the mind words and how impressions are processed.

 

VIRGINIA WOOLF

 

She attacked the naturalists and realists -> she felt that they were devoting time to irrelevant subject matters. She wanted to convey the feeling of being alive.

 

“To the Light house”, “The Waves” -> typical s.o.c. novels.

 

She was one of the first female feminist critics. “Professions for Women” -> rejects the idea of the angel in the house. The only solution -> kill this angel and become YOURSELF. If women would never have their own money and work, they could never be indeptendend from men.

 

KATHERINE MANSFIELD

 

From NZ to Britian; famous for her modernist short stories, which became a new important genre in the 20^th century.

 

JAMES JOYCE

 

“A portrait of a the artist as young man” (Bildungsroman -> describes the development of Steven Deadalus from a baby to an artist), “Ulysses” (rewriting of the homerian epic “Odeuseeus”; it’s a typical example of intertextuality) -> Irish descent; best knows modernists. Wrote in an extreme stream of consciousness style. Both of the texts are very difficult to read. “A portrait . ..” -> language is adapted to the age of the boy. It follows the thoughts and associations of the boy. Note: when he has bad conscious about his sins, a whole dream is included -> you actually watch his nightmare when he has that dream. In fact, the very trivial incident of watching a pretty girl walking into the stream of a river inspires him to become an artist -> epiphany is a sudden insight into an important aspect of your life, which is triggered by a very trivial incident. Autobiographical, but no ‘emotional strip-tease’.

 

D. H. LAWRENCE

 

Modernist, but his style if different (linear). His subject matter was entire different: extensively about love and sex. He lived in a mining town, father worked in a mine. In “Sons and lovers” he’s describing his development into an artists. Rejected christian morality and prudenty -> celebrates sexuality as a solution of self-realization. Sexuality assumes almost mythical propotions; men and women have different sensualities, but they have to come together to form unity.

 

It’s very difficult to describe sexuality without sounding pornographic -> he developed a new symbolism of light, fire, electricity to describe passion.

 

“Lady Chatterly’s Lover” was even not allowed to be printed because it was on trial for being pornographic.

 

MODERNISM: POETRY

 

There was a modernist revolution about 1910; a rejection of the regular victorian form (regular rhyme, meter, nice subject matters). For instance, the modernist poets did not refrain from describing ugly things. Many of them use intertextuality, the language is using a very broken up syntax, no logical development, associations, symbols. The writers were elitist; difficult to read.

 

WILFRID OWEN

 

Killed in the last months of WWI. Very influential poet

 

“Dulce et docorum est” -> in society, war was presented as an heroic and noble thing; however, it was different of course. This poem describes a poison gas attack. Describes the soldiers not heroically and flag waving, but as dead tired and desperate. There is a detailed description of the attack, the blood that comes from the soldier’s mouth. The rhythm is no longer regular & the subject matter is provocative.

 

Exam:

Model exam on platform under “files”

Sign up: On department website: exam date; sign up on UNIVIS from 3 weeks before exam (4.6.)

2^nd exam: 1^st Thursday in October (1.10.)

 

Rep. Modernism

·         Modernsim = something radically different from Victorian period

·         highly experimental

·         protest against Victorian laws by:

o   content

•  
  •  
    • a different subject matter: writing about war but not about heroism but about cruelty; writing about sexuality; not about great events like marriage, birth, death, but about daily events, the feeling of being alive, what it means to think every day and to perceive the world, the thoughts that cross the mind haphazardly, the flow of consciousness/thoughts in the mind
    • much mod. writing attacks modern way of life = culture critique
    • almost a feeling of apocalypse – 1^st world war: descent into savagery of the European nations
    • people had lost their belief that there was a shared reality/universal truth – truth considered to be subjective, relative, everyone perceives it differently – subjectivity of experience
    • nostalgia for a lost time in which there was universal truth, order, meaning

o   form

•  
  •  
    • events often related unchronological – no linear logical sequence
    • associations often used        
    • unity is achieved through symbols, recurring motifs, not through conventional logic
    • no clear-cut ending/closure
      in Victorian: bad characters punished, good get married, etc.
    • impression of fragmentation
      they seem fragmented because they jump from 1 thought to another by association; the characters are not unified personalities but fragments
    • no more omniscient, intrusive narrator who comments on action and explains the world, BUT limited 3^rd person narration, focalised through eyes of 1 person OR stream of consciousness narr. = following thoughts of 1 person
    • no more regular metrical rhythm
    • ambiguous or polysemic meaning – a work of art can have a variety of meanings, writer will not explain it but everyone has to find interpretation
    • references to old myths, works of art

è modernist works = elitist -> aimed at educated audience

• many writers wrote for the elite and not for everyone, they were for this split into popular and high culture

 

Reader p. 34 ff.: T.S. Eliot

·         this is a dramatic monologue – addressee = reader

·         speaker = anti-heroic personality

·         written in irregular meter

·         lots of intertextual references to myth,... -> very elitist and difficult to understand

·         these refer to a grad past (opposed to an unimportant, narrow-minded presnt)

·         anti-hero who has no meaning in his life

·         stream-of-consciousness, you hear his thoughts

·         instead of talking about great deeds, love, BUT about everyday things – his whole existence is trivial and meaningless “I have measured my life in coffee spoons”

·         he is upset that for modern men the myths no longer work – he doesn’t have access to a great tradition

·         he longs for Shakespeare’s/Marlowe’s time when heroism was still possible

·         no linear/clear narrative, whole poem is structured by his associations - ...= he drifts off and thinks about something else

·         he keeps coming back to society events (“women talking about him”)

·         he keeps coming back to a question – we don’t know what it is (maybe the meaning of life, what happens after life, or maybe “do I dare to make love to one of the women?”)

·         no clear structure, no clear ending – he never asks the question

·         starts with reference to Dante – assumes that readers know Italian and Dante

·         “you and I” – draws in and addresses reader

·         evening – static, nothing moves (just like events in poem – nothing happens)

·         Eliot makes fun of society women “talking about Michelangelo” who do not belong to educated elite

·         next page: “prepare a face...” you must prepare yourself so that nobody can read your emotions – you don’t show your true face for polite conversation

·         “murder and create”: artist must destroy something to create something new

·         Prufrock will never destroy & create

·         reference to Marvells poem: Marvell: “We don’t have time, let’s go to bed” (past: lovers were ardent and wild) – Prufrock: We have all the time – because he never dares... present: lovers are not passionate any more

·         he never makes up his mind – he changes his mind all the time – he does not dare (we don’t know what)

·         he is terribly self-conscious (his hair, women talking about him), he is not attractive and very conscious of that

·         his life is meaningless, no depths (-> measured with coffeespoons)

·         eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase: they are not really interested

·         insect “pinned to wall” – society looks at him, he is helpless

·         next page: women – he ist attracted to them – white skin: they are pure, but hair on their arms: they are sexual beings

·         middle of p. 36: reference to bible – he is victimised by this women but he is no prophet – not strong’/gifted enough, prophecy was possible in other time, in modern age heroism is no longer possible

·         end: Lazarus – even if h was resurrectd, women would not believ him because he is too insignificant

·         p. 37: contrast meaningless present with heroic past: “I am not Hamlet” – role of Hamlet is no longer possible in modern age – anti-hero is the only role possible for a modern man

·         he is extremely anxious to make a good impression: “shall I wear my hear...?? shall I eat a peach” (you should not dripple yourself, slurp etc in society)

·         -> trivial problems he creates for himself

·         mermaids: he has no access to poetry

·         end: not fulfilment but despair, destruction

 

Modernism: poetry

Wilfried Owen (last time)
Dulce et Decorum Est
Anthem for Doomed Youth

T.S. Eliot (last time)
American
Love Song of A. Prufrock
The Waste Land

Ezra Pound
American
Cnatos

W.B. Yates
Irish
The second coming

Political Writers of the 1930s

• Modernism lasted approx. until 2^nd world war
• ther were many writers who continued in realistic style
• in the 1930s a new style of political writing
• because economic crisis and rise of fascism
• many writers had a very bleak view of future
• modernist style continued but people who wanted to transmit polit message, they turned back to more linear logical style

 

well-known polit. writers:

Aldous Huxley

·         started as modernist writer

·         came more and more concerned with future

·         “Brave New World”: dystopia (negative vision of future)
not elitist – why? political message – you don’t want to make things difficult to understand

·         “Point Counterpoint”: Modernist

 

George Orwell

·         Animal Farm

·         1984

 

Important historical dates (slides)

1958: racism in England

“Top Girls” – not only a feminist play but makes negative reference to M. Thatcher

 

throughout 20^th ct realism continues to be read & written

realistic writing was written all throughout age of modernism (by polit writers)

 

Postmodernism

2 meanings:

time that came after modernism OR stylistic movement

we will regard it as stylistic movement

BUT: post-mod it is very anti-essentialist – doesn’t want to define itself (don’t believe in universal truth)

·         philosophically: post-mod has quite radical doubt to rational capacity of man to control and make sense of life

·         they reject any single explanational things

·         attack all established frameworks and beliefs, ideologies

·         want to destroy before they create

·         called an attack on all master-narratives (the famous time-honoured ideologies, stories, canonical texts of the west, e.g. the Bible, Hamlet, Robinson Crusoe, a received view of history (feminist: herstory))

·         master-narratives = defined in a very broad way, attacked, seen from new point of view

·         modernism: extremely elitist, insists on disctinction between high art and popular culture

·         post-mod: OPPOSITE – tries not to be elitist, combines elements of po and high culture

·         uses elements from all kinds of cultures – hybrid: mixing a great variety of styles and cultures

·         playful: plays with styles, language, concepts

·         satirical

·         non-serious

·         references: no longer elitist, but playful – e.g. Simpsons-Dali picture

·         mixture of styles and genres makes post-mod texts fragmented (like modernist texts), but they are much more hybrid

·         no more nostalgic about good old days, but celebrates freedom that no more universal standards exist -> attacks the past, we want to move on

·         characters fragmented (like in modernism), they have no one and singulars personality, play a great number of roles

·         many characters in post-mod fiction are outsiders on the edge of society, this allows the a critical view of mainstream society e.G. Waiting for Godot: main characters are tramps, Midnights Children: Narrator is somebody misshapen, Barnes’s History of the World in 9 ½ chapters: Noah’s story from the standpoint of a woodworm

·         self-conscious: works never try to conceal that they are made-up artifacts, they don’t pretend to be reality, this shows itself by many meta-fictional references: references to the act of writing itself, e.g. author says: I don’t know how story ends, i will give 3 alternative endings and you chose, OR: characters in book say to author: why do you let me say that

·         in many of these works: very unreliable narrators (criminals, mad people)

·         mixed forms – very often mixture of form within one work

·         mixed language (high lang mixed with slang)

·         writers try to shock you, do something completely different from what you expect

·         because of distrust in master narratives: many writers have tried to re-write them
re-writes of well-known stories or topics from a feminist, post-modern, ... point of view

·         language:
some writers break down standards of communication,
lang no longer functions as meaning of communication, fails to carry meaning
can be used for power games

·         genres: tragedy & comedy mixed
tragic comedies,...

·         revision of old master narratives: led to feminist literature – literature which tries to focus on the issues of women, to critizise structures that marginalise women, etc.

·         from 1970: post- colonial lit.
in Britain: written by immigrants and their children
in former colonies
like feminists tried to produce a feminist version of history and texts, colonised people tried to write from their point of view

è post-mod lit gives a voice to people who did not have a voice before (women, black people,...)

·         post-col lit can be very radical and post-mod
OR highly political
OR realistic because they want to teach a political message

 

post-mod texts are very different, they may have a few features from this list, but not all!
many texts mix features or are border-lined, it is not always easy to distinguish

 

 

Session 9 4.6.2009

 

 

Post modern art is playful: combines pop and high culture, not strictly elitists; mixes genres -> consists of fragments and various parts. Is not nostalgic about the past -> celebrates this new freedom.

 

Post modern art is very self-reflexive, it always makes the reader aware of its fictional status through meta-fictional remarks.

 

Thus, it’s quite difficult to sum up the pm features -> it’s anti essentialist, it hates universal lists of characteristics. Also, pm dissapoints or debunks expectations (lady in the nude -> you get a woman with an ugly mask). This dissapointing of the expactations in art is quite typical for pm.

 

Outsiders narrators, who tell the story with a very critical point of view (the wood worm who narrate’s noa’s arch in “History of the World in 10 ½ chapters”).

 

Master narratives -> the important texts and myths of out culture. Barnes: “History of the World in 10 ½ chapters” -> funny and playful approach, deconstructing history. This new point of view gives a new voice to people who didn’t have a voice before: women, black people, colonized people .. two important sub-divisions in pm literarture: feminist and post-colonial literature.

 

FEMINIST LITERATURE.

 

Second wave feminism started in the 60s and 70s; told stories from a women’s point of view -> claim that this will shed new light on the story and also reveal the hidden ideology of these old stories. They concentrated on the history of women, but also deconstructing traditional gender roles and views of women.

 

In western culture, women were shown in two roles: housewife and mother (saint/madonna), the sex object (whore). Feminists want to create a much more realistic picture of women. However, this consists with the views that are going on until today: woman are passive, weak, emotional, whereas a man is strong, active and rational.

 

Feminists also address the problem that women were often excluded from culture and politics.  They also tried to discover a female tradition of writing (Butler, Wolstonecraft).

Many feminists texts are political texts, because they try to change things -> this is why they are written realistically most of the time, so that they are more comprehensible.

 

FEMINISTS POETRY

 

CAROL ANN DUFFY (she’s the first female poet laureate in England)

 

Had a whole book in which she deconstrusts master narratives. READER: Eurydice (“Orpheus in the underground, persuading the god of the underworld to led eurydice go”). She’s not happy that Orpheus comes to reclaim her -> she is ferious that she doesn’t even have peace in the grave, and she doesn’t believe he is a great poet, she doesn’t like him.

 

1-2 stanza: It clearly addresses a female audience. The language is colloquial -> it’s not a ‘heoric’ language, appropriate to the great myth of eurydice. Her existence in the underworld is equainted with safeness from sexual harrassement from orpheus. She’s not an equal -> he can’t take her criticism -> only wants her to be a muse. “Big O” -> from a soap opera -> intertextuality. She is the prize for him, nobody ever asks her if she wants to go back with him.

 

3-4^th stanza: she turns the myth around and makes fun of him; use of swear words and slang. She can speak for herself, but isn’t allowed to.

 

The sudden inclusion of pop culture is used to ridicule the old master narratives.

 

 

POST COLONIAL LITERATURE

 

Political statement in many ways. Like feminism, post colonial literature tries to give a voice to the people who were colonized -> they’ve been called the “subalterns”. They were denied their own culture and language (everyone had to learn english).When colonialism came to an end, the writers from the colonies started to deconstruct the images connected with black/asian people -> wrote an alterantive version of history.

 

Kipling’s white man’s burden & Conrad’s Heart of darkness -> even though they’re critical of emperialism, they are not allowed to speak; they don’t have a voice.

 

In PC literature, this point of view is reversed.

 

People in colonies were given british passports because cheap labor was needed -> however, when they returned to britain, they felt like they came home to the mother country, but soon they were faced with racism. They were never acceted as fully british.

 

One of the topics ps literature often deals with: hybrid identity -> rootlessness (neither british or indian). Another topic: language. All the colonized people had to learn English, but that was not their native tongue -> they could not express their emotions or desires in the colonizers language, so they creolized English -> mixed their own native languages with English to make it more suitable to their own experience.

 

SALMAN RUSHDIE -> Midnight’s Children. Set in India; realist style. Narrates the history of Indian until Ghandi.

 

H. KURESHI -> “The Bhudda of Suburbia”

 

JOHN AGARD -> “A memo to Cruseo”. Friday has his own opinion and corrects Cruseo. The language is notable -> tries to convey west indian dialect/pronunciation “dat”, “me”; -> typical features of west indies features. “Playing mas” -> west indian carnival. Friday claims to have kept a dairy -> in defoe’s narrartive, he can’t read or write. A different perspective is introduced: here, Friday is not without culture, but just has a different culture, “Calypso” -> oral form; like the ‘blues’ for afro-americans. “A bone to pick with cruseo” -> pun. Means ‘quarrel’ and refers to the fact that he’s supposed to be a cannibal. Compare the slang/colloquial style that is ended with a formal english letter. “Yours etc . ..”

 

SUJATA BHATT “A different History” -> this is the materialist, capitalist culture. In the indian “nature culture”, a relationship with nature, that you should respect it and that it’s animate, is still alive. Saravasti = indian goddess. “2” -> topic of language. It was difficult to create art in the conquerers language. However, the grandchildren now made it their own and can use it freely -> it took that long for it to be acceptable.

 

POST MODERN WRITERS

 

PHILIP LARKIN -> “This Be The Verse”; Parents give their children traumas. This is presented in a playful, humorous way.

 

 

DRAMA

 

There was no modernist drama (only wilde and shaw).

 

The renewer of the british drama was Osborne: “Look Back in Anger” in 1956. This was an innovation, but not post modernist drama. He used working class milieu, language and characters -> attacking the establishment and the politics of that time.

 

At the same time, a completely new style developed in France: absurd drama. It has the philosophy of existentialism as its background. Existentialism believes that there is no god, no afterlife, man has lost his meta-physical roots, therefore, life on earth is meaningless because it leads to nowhere. Thus, the human condition is ‘absurd’.Writers: Beckett. They tried to put this kind of meaninglessness and absurdity of life into the form of a play.

 

If life is meaningless, it stands to reason that these plays don’t aim to achieve anything. They are circular in structure.

 

SAMUEL BECKETT-> “Waiting for Godot”; two tramps spend their time waiting for a man called godot, but he never shows up.

 

In absued drama -> communication also breaks. It’s not a suitable means of communication anymore, people don’t listen to one another, they don’t answer one another’s questions. Why? If the other one knows too much about you, they might use it against you. There is a distrust in communication; language is reduced to a power game -> you use it to gain power over the person you talk to. The characters don’t have any unified personality; they are fragmented. You never know anything for sure about their past.   

Session 10 18.6.2009

 

“Post modernism” -> umbrella term; also post-colonial literature was in that era.

 

Remember: not ALL post-colonial writers are black or from a non european background!!

 

POST MODERN DRAMA

 

See last session -> absurd drama and beckett

 

But also Caryl Churchill -> Top Girls. She writes feminist drama.

 

DAVID HARE

 

Political drama, very often documentary drama that is rooted in actual events in human history -> uses whole sections of the play for interviews/footage.

 

SARAH KANE

 

In yer face theatre -> blunt theater that is meant to shock the audience.

 

 

TOP GIRLS

Drama written duruing the rise of feminism. During the 70s, women were gaining a voice in literature; but they also wanted to concern themselves with problems and question which were in relation to women. (Notice: Top Girls has not one male actor in it).

 

On the other hand this play shows that feminist drama does not have to be equally sympathetic to every female character. It doesn’t paint men as bad and women as good. It questions the position of women and what they have achieved.

 

If you look at the play as a whole, it questions the price that it is necessary to pay in order to become a top girl. The title refers to the employment agency, but also refers to women who have broken through ‘the glass ceiling’ and achieved top careers. The price: she is not distinguishable from a man anymore; she is just as ruthless and gives up her private life in order to have a career, rejecting the gender role conventions.

 

She is successful in her career, but not in her private life -> look at the private scenes in her family.

 

However, the play does not say that having a family and NOT rejecting the typical gender roles, because Joyce in her family is not happy either. So, the play suggests that the solution to bring together work and family for women is just not realizable in the social system in which we live.

 

When woman are at the top, they behave competitive -> they’re not kind hearted, they’re not solidary with other women -> Marlene has more ‘balls’ than Howard -> for women to succeed they have to be the better men.

 

This makes you admire her at the beginning; at the end of the play, you’re shocked at the price she was willing to pay for that career. Churchill structured the play intentionally in this unchronological timeline.

 

Typical post modernist: It consist of a realistic part, and a surrealist part (the first part). The realistic part is divided into various scenes, which employ modern business language or modern colloquial language -> set in a realistic british social background.

 

The first act (although supposed to set in a London restaurant) is surrealistic because her guests are historical women. Why were they picked? They all did something exceptional and broke out of their gender roles of their time -> did things that weren’t ‘fit’ for women. Isabella Bird -> in the 19^th century women were angels in the house, but she went on a world travel alone! Nijo -> when she fell from favour she travelled around as a monk. Pope Joan -> woman as a pope.

 

You wouldn’t except that THIS is a ground for celebration. But they show that woman managed things and broke out of the conventions. When you look closer at these women, you noticed parallels to marelene -> they all had to pay a price for this exceptionality in their private lives. Many of these women are either unhappy about this because they didn’t get what they want (family better for them than the exceptionality); if they are proud of it? They have a bad consciens about what they did.

 

You would expect these women to understand each other, but they don’t. They start to quarrel about what the reader might see as trivial.

 

Also relevant: they never listen to one another: especially in the first act you get interlocking dialogue -> one person speaks and the next already starts to talk without listening to the rest of the other person’s sentence. This shows the lack of female solidarity; Whenever women want to achieve something exceptional they have to pay a very high price of it; if they achieve a very high position, they are not satisfied because they can not reconsile professional and private life.

 

Patient Griselda -> “Rolemodel” Chaucer recommends. But here she is presented as the opposite. But ..  is Marlene a rolemodel? Not really.

 

 

All the girls in the agency are pretty similar: they are very promiscuous, competitive, only interested in their careers and not family life -> they’re like males -> reject the gender role.

 

The women who come in for interviews are different: they feel that they don’t really get any help (they’re just told to lie).

 

At Joyce’s house -> Angie is not given any help -> Joyce thinks she’ll be a tesco packer.

           

COETZEE: FOE

 

Questioning of the master narrative Robinson Cruseo. The parallels in the beginning are clear, but as the book goes on differencies arise (“Cruso” is even spelled differently).

 

Again, there is a shipwrecked person on an island; the clothes and the hut is all similar, but there are decisive differencies: Cruo does not show any enegery and initiative. Defoe’s Cruseo was seen as a representative of the 18^th century man: believe in progress and reason (and thus make a remote island into a kingdom). These believes are completely lost in FOE.

 

He is not able to salvage any tools out of the shipwreck -> he only has stone tools, he’s on the level of a stoneage person. He is a hunter and gatherer -> This completely destroys the myth that black people are superior to black people. In FOE Cruso is just as primitive.

 

The problem is, Foe (in the book) complains that the story is boring (and suggests what is then realized in ‘robinson cruseo’). Metafictional reference: What is a good story? What would sell as a good story?

 

One thing that doesn’t happen in the story -> the visit of cannibals; there is not exciting conflict and suspense. Step by step, Foe invents these incidents to make the story interesting.

 

Also missing in FOE -> the whole religious background. Robinson Cruseo was also a ‘spiritual autobiography’ -> but not so in FOE.

 

Also, the island in FOE is completely barren, as opposed to the lush tropical island of Robinson Cruseo.

 

As in Defoe’s book, Cruso gives the law in the in the Island.

 

In Defoe’s book, any women hardly appear; in FOE there is Susan Barton and even SEX. Susan adapts all the things we would have excepted from Cruso -> she’s the energetic one, she wants to civilize the island; and it’s HER narration.

 

The narrative technique is pretty similar in both books. Mixture of narration and journal part. In addition, there’s letters in FOE.

 

Intertextuality plays a big role in post modernism, and also in this book -> to Robinson Cruseo. There are many other reference and texts Defoe wrote -> Roxana, Moll Flanders (whores).

 

Here, women are given a voice in a master narrative which is usually empty of women.

 

She thinks she needs a professional writer to tell her story; asks him to write it down, she’s narrating -> She is the ‘begetter’/father of the story, he is her muse (tells her how to write it, what style to use). If you consider this -> this is not the traditional gender roles. Muse = female; father=author. Men have the phallic power to write (pen) :/

 

When she assumes she could just write the story herself, she breaks through the time’s gender roles. Foe then rejects to be just the muse and takes over the story and (eventually as in Robinso Cruseo) deletes her from her own story and makes his name a success with the stolen story. -> This is quite cleary a comment on power relations in the field of literature: men were almost always the author while the woman is the muse.

 

Foe almost always tries to buy her off by putting her in another ‘traditional’ female story -> the story of the loss of her child and her search for it. She refused; but men at that time saw women either as whores (travelling woman who sleeps with captians) or saints (heart broken waiting mother).

 

Susan begins to realize that a plain narrative of the island story is not going to be a story that will sell well -> they begin to ‘invent sensation’ that you see end up in ‘robinson cruseo’.

 

In FOE Friday was not a south american indian, but a black ex-slave.

 

The novel never makes it completely clear what cruso’s role in this slaving expedition was (remember: 18^th cent. Cruseo WAS involved in the slave trade and was shipwrecked on the island during a voyage to the west african coast). Cruso says Friday’s tongue was cut out, but don’t know WHO cut it out. We don’t know.

 

Also important: We also have no clear evidence that Friday HAS NO TONGUE, he just doesn’t speak. This is highly symbolic -> if he doesn’t have a tongue: black people have no voice and were deprived by white people. If he has a tongue and simply refuses to speak, then this is a sign of his resistence: he will not cooperate with white people, because he knows they’re going to steal his story.

 

Whatever YOU think – the book invites you to think for yourself – Cruso wasn’t interested in teaching Friday speak. Susan tried to teach Friday to speak/write. But -> remember the english language within the context of colonialism -> colonized people were oppressed by the english language; a lot of people felt they couldn’t not express their feelings and desires in english.

 

So, the really interesting is Friday’s story, but we’re never going to hear it. Coetzee said he is not able to tell that story in all fairness. Maybe some time in the future, in a far utopia someone will -> this is where the last chapter comes in. Is narrated by an unknown ‘i’ and set in the present; the narrator visits the foe’s hiding place and then dives down into the sea whether he can hear Friday’s story and that of the slaves -> hears a stream, but can not interpret it. It’s not for a white man to tell the story of suffering and suppression.

 

Title: Foe was the family name of ‘Defoe’, but also means ‘enemy’ -> he steals susan’s story. Also: white people are enemies of the slaves; patriarchal power is an enemy to the voices of women and other ethnic races. It’s about the power of white man and them telling their story how they want it to tell.

 

Susan and Foe both struggle over the power of a narrative.