Commonplace Journal

What?? A happy ending? I am genuinely shocked. I still feel like I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop and there is a hidden chapter where Henry is exposed for infidelity which causes Catherine to commit suicide. I know that’s dark, but this ending was a refreshing shift from what I have become accustomed to.

In this sentence, Henry is the one speaking and he is referring to Catherine. So far I have really struggled with Henry. I can’t decide whether I think he has a genuine interest in helping Catherine to learn and understand the knowledge he has, or if he is exploiting her lack of knowledge in order to feel superior. Based on most readings from the 18th century that I have experience with, my gut would assume the latter.

I thought this was a very unique way to begin the novel. Austen is basically saying “here is the main character and the girl we are rooting for, but she’s not what you’d expect”. As the novel progresses the distinction between the idealistic heroine and Catherine as a flawed heroine was made clear.

In this excerpt, the suspense was not only a consistent presence, but it was also building up as Isabella ran from Manfred. Scenes such as this one seem to encourage the reader to read faster; partially out of curiosity and in part because of the anxious tone of Isabella’s thought process.

I thought these final lines were an interesting comparison to the conversation of beauty that was had during Canto 5. I felt the speaker accepted virtue as a quality that is to be held to the same standard as physical attraction, but ended by claiming all the good that can still come from beauty.

I had to laugh while reading this section because it is such a sharp contrast from what I am used to reading. Beowulf, for example, fought three different dragons before dying among all his riches, and Pope uses the convention of 3′s to cut a portion of Belinda’s hair.

While reading this poem, I noticed two different ways it could be read. At first, I felt like it was anti-feminist because Barbauld starts by listing multiple household chores and represents domesticated culture that women were often forced in to. However, Barbauld also showed the power women retained over men during a time when they were intended to have none, making it also read as a feminist poem. 

I felt that using multiple questions in Astell’s writing created an accusatory tone, which made it all the more powerful to read. While reading, I imagined so much strength and elegance in her voice that I naturally began to read faster. The questions and comparisons force the reader to see an issue, which sets Astell’s proposal up perfectly. 

Marriage a-La Mode works as a very interesting comparison to Swift’s poem. They both expose the “shallowness and stupidity of people” (Marriage a-la Mode), but in different ways. Swift is exposing the ignorance of men like Strephon, while Hogarth does the same with the sexual exploits and greed of the aristocracy during the 18th century.  

I have always heard the opposite of this. The most disturbed and unhappy are those who carry the most knowledge with them, and the ignorant are blissful. I would way rather agree with Shelley’s understanding, but I think the opposite is more applicable. He does say that they “ought” to be the happiest, not that they are. Maybe he also realized the truth but was writing what the poets and those of highest wisdom deserve rather than what they were most often given.

I find it interesting that Keats, in a way, abandons the sense of sight while still maintaining a clear image of his surroundings. While reading, I understood the darkness but felt like I was able to see past it and into the speaker's other senses in order to have a more full understanding. 

This reminds me of a quote I have heard too many times while playing basketball: “you get out what you put in”. Obviously, Coleridge isn’t talking about a sport, and he uses eloquent language rather than aggressive word choice. But both work on the same premise in my opinion. Coleridge is saying that in order to see the beauty of Nature we also have to provide light within our soul and spirit. It is much different use of this meaning than my basketball coach, who attempts to be motivational while making us run until we puke. 

This sentence claims that knowledge is equally attainable between everyone, it is just a matter of going out and learning. Although I don’t agree, I find the second part of Werther’s statement comforting. Regardless of the knowledge we possess, there is still a uniqueness we can see within ourselves and others. 

Those moments, however, feel like undeniable beauty; something that I feel Shelley would see as an “immortal and omnipotent” quality if humans had the power to obtain it permanently.

Maybe I am looking from an optimist’s perspective, but I disagree with Albert. Regardless of the amount of passion a person has, I don’t believe they lose all sense of reflection.

But why can’t intellectual beauty also be simplistic? It does make sense that these emotions which nourish us represent the naturalistic form of our spirit. So yes, I guess I do understand the representation of intellectual beauty.

I like how the personification throughout this poem creates a feeling that human beings are one with nature. I usually associate the two as different components of the earth, with humans negatively affecting nature. However, it is more comforting to view humans and nature hand in hand, alongside the dancing waves.