Welcome to the MHS English 3H Blog!
Welcome, English 3H scholars of MHS Class of '08. Ever since we first began using online bulletin boards as a way to converse about literature and writing (all the way back in the early '90's, and please don't feel the need to comment about how long ago that was, or how old you were then), it was always my intent to do the same in my classroom. Admittedly, it took a little longer than I thought, but here we are.
I have put this space together for the benefit of your literary study--to expand your ability to converse about the texts we will be discussing. This space is essentially yours to post relevant--and presumably intelligent--comments and questions regarding our readings. At the moment, that would consist of American Puritan literature.
Please note the following rules:
1. only students enrolled in MHS English IIIH may post comments here. This is not a discussion board intended for the world.
2. anyone who posts must do so with their REAL first name. Any posts found to be made using names other than real (for example, posting using another student's name) will be dealt with according to school disciplinary policy.
3. all discussion will proceed in respectful, scholarly manner
4. to ensure that #3 is obeyed, I will personally monitor all discussions on this blog. It's not that I don't trust teenagers to behave in responsible ways. . .oh, wait--yes, it is. I don't.
5. Do not expect me to comment on every posting, even if a question has been directly asked of me by one of you. I am much more interested to see whether your fellow scholars are capable of suggesting viable answers and explanations. I reserve the right to comment when and if I deem it necessary.
6. From time to time, if the mood strikes me, I may make a comment or pose a question, or refer you to some additional reading I've discovered. Just because I've done that does not make you obligated to respond. . .at least, not yet.
That's all I can think of at the moment, but I also reserve the right to change/adjust/modify/ invent as we go along. Because I can, that's why.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and seeing you all in in class.
MR. LAZ
I have put this space together for the benefit of your literary study--to expand your ability to converse about the texts we will be discussing. This space is essentially yours to post relevant--and presumably intelligent--comments and questions regarding our readings. At the moment, that would consist of American Puritan literature.
Please note the following rules:
1. only students enrolled in MHS English IIIH may post comments here. This is not a discussion board intended for the world.
2. anyone who posts must do so with their REAL first name. Any posts found to be made using names other than real (for example, posting using another student's name) will be dealt with according to school disciplinary policy.
3. all discussion will proceed in respectful, scholarly manner
4. to ensure that #3 is obeyed, I will personally monitor all discussions on this blog. It's not that I don't trust teenagers to behave in responsible ways. . .oh, wait--yes, it is. I don't.
5. Do not expect me to comment on every posting, even if a question has been directly asked of me by one of you. I am much more interested to see whether your fellow scholars are capable of suggesting viable answers and explanations. I reserve the right to comment when and if I deem it necessary.
6. From time to time, if the mood strikes me, I may make a comment or pose a question, or refer you to some additional reading I've discovered. Just because I've done that does not make you obligated to respond. . .at least, not yet.
That's all I can think of at the moment, but I also reserve the right to change/adjust/modify/ invent as we go along. Because I can, that's why.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and seeing you all in in class.
MR. LAZ
18 Comments:
uh you said "posting may only be done by ap english people"
we're honors kids mr. lazarow, don't get your hopes up yet :P
-Albert
Albert: Obviously, Mr. Lazarow was acting in the most efficient way possible and just copied the text of the first post from his AP blog. That way both classes can enjoy his singular wittiness.
Mr. Lazarow: If you want us to be able to post to this blog as well as make comments, you should make it a "team blog". Take a gander.
-- Matthew Weiss
SALUTATIONS!
I have just finished reading the works of our favorite Puritan, (No, not Winthrop, even though he is "interesting" too)our good friend Edward Taylor. His poems have a good flow and since they are about God...i don't understand them.
The trouble with me is, i'm the most unreligious person in the world and can't understand the Puritans way of life/point of view. I do know they are god loving people and believe in having a pure soul (how that is accomplished and determined baffles me).
This entry isn't an excuse because i don't understand anything that deals with religion, it is to start a wonderful discussion between us wonderful scholars. Mostly questions will be asked by me, since i have a tiny brain and depend on all of you other bloggers. (I didn't know what i was thinking when i requested to move up to Honors. Cheers Mr. Lazarow!)
In "Upon a Spider Catching a Fly", i interpreted that there are three characters; the wasp, the fly, and the spider. I believe Taylor wanted to get this poem across by signifying the characters as; the wasp as the Puritans, the fly as Non-believers or non-puritans, and the spider as God. This made sense in a way because from Puritan point of view, God was everything and we were all in his "web" or world. The Puritans or "wasps" who do believe in him and love him were shown mercy and affection in his "net". The flys that struggled against him were killed and smited by him.
This is definitely written by a Puritan, because they would only want a non-believer or a non-pure person to be extinguished from God's world. The Puritans also believed that if they were pure and loved God, they would be shown mercy.
If my character idea is correct and that is what Taylor really meant by the poem then i guess i DO understand this a little.
If any of you have insight on what you believe is meant by it or have other comments please post! If you think i might be on to something, please help me understand the ending of the poem, starting with "This Frey seems thus..." I was absolutely clueless and would like to see what others think.
Love,
Scott Palombo
Three cheers for Matthew, who (1) correctly identified my technological limitations, and (2) made an outstanding suggestion--the "team blog." I am thoroughly appreciative!
And as long as I'm on the subject of appreciation, an excellent job on your first posting, Scott--great questions to ask! Exactly the sort of thing I believe will benefit your discussion. Now --would someone care to respond and help Scott out?
LAZ
Scott: I think that you could be right about the possibility that the wasp represents the Puritans and the fly represents the non-Puritans. But another possibility, I think, is that the wasp represents those who are chosen to be with God and the flies as the ones that are not chosen. This is kind of coming of the fact that what I think that he is trying to say is that no matter what a fly does, it cannot be with God because he was not chosen. This leads to the "fear" mindset of the Puritan belief because no one really knows, only God know, if they are chosen or not. (this either sounds scholarly or like nonsense to me; you be the judge of that).
By the way, does anyone know what the password is for?
--Dan Kim
Scott: Oh..
When you make comments that long, especially on a blog, people don't usually read to the end. I only noticed your question when Mr. Laz said you had one. Sorry about that. Anyways, I think the last part of the poem, going off of what I said before, that he is asking God if he is/will be accepted to "glory's gate." Also he is saying that if we are more cherished by God (perched on high In glory's cage), we can be free in the mind. But since we do not know, it leads to a constant fear of what is to come.
I also thought it was interesting that he refers to God's place for the Puritans as a “cage” in the last part. (hoping someone can explain why)
because im an not internet savy so to speak, i dont know how to make this a new topic. i find your discussion of puratin symbolism very interesting, and helpful. so, could someone please help me interperate something from the Edward Taylor poem "Meditation Six"
when Taylor says in the first stanza, line 3, " , but count me o'er thyself"
is he saying that God should value him? or that God should be extra careful and review his acceptance into heavan or hell? the reason i don't believe it to be the latter is because of the puratin mindset. predestination would not allow them to belive God can change his mind. It would undermine the whole system of puratinism
so to quickly summarize (since no one reads longer blogs...thanks Dan)
what dose taylor mean when he says " , but count me o'er thyself" (line three, stanza one)
Billy: I think that he wants God to value him. I also talks a lot about this gold, mine, mint thing. I think it is because usually when you think of gold, you think of that pure, shiny bar. And I think he is trying to reference its purity. Though I don't really understand why he says "count me o'er thyself" because I thought that "o'er" meant "over" but that really doesn't make sense in the context of the prior sentence. That is why I think that probably has something to do with being wanted to me worthy to God.
--Dan
i agree with scott about the whole spider = god etc...
but you (scott) forgot to mention the whole shock factor of it
i think what this poem represents is how the wasp, though very much akin to a fly, is able to sit on the web, almost taunting the spider without being caught. this puts humans in a higher position than god, which undoubtedly is blasphemous.
another point that puts humans almost above god is when taylor mentions how the wasp might sting the spider. it gives humans a defense against the wrath of god, to which there is no defense.
but after reading the second half of the poem, it seems that the roles of the creatures are switched, i.e. the spider is satan or hell, the wasp is god or the saved, and the fly represents the unsaved.
but then i can't find any shock factor to it.
i'm not quite sure what the last poem is talking about "upon a wasp chilled with cold" but i have a slight idea. i think the wasp represents people. the sun probably represents god and the sun's act of warming the wasp can be likened to saving it from hell. that is, it's almost saying that if you have sinned, you can still be saved by god.
i'm not sure though cause the language he uses is pretty confusing.
any comments on anything i said are more than welcome
-Albert
I agree with Elizabeth that the spider in Taylor's "Upon a Spider Catching a Fly" represents the devil. Puritan poets tended to depict MAN's fallen state, not God's. Insinuating that God could fear the sting of a human is a huge insult to God and his powers, at least from the Puritan perspective. It's far easier to say that the Devil (lacking in strength in comparison to God) would fear a human.
It's interesting that Taylor says "..thy Whorle pins did not clasp / Lest he should fling / His sting."
Going with the metaphor, one could say that the devil fears the Puritans. Perhaps this is because the devil believes/"knows" that the Puritans are very aware of the presence of evil and take great precaution to avoid evil.
QUESTION 1: Could the "sting" feared by the spider be the sting of the Puritan faith? Any other ideas?
QUESTION 2: Are there any other thoughts as to what the spider might represent?
Using the metaphor (spider = Satan, wasp = Puritan, fly = non-Puritan), it seems that Taylor viewed his belief in the Puritan religion as a sort of weapon (albeit a spiritual one), which he could wield against enemies.
My final bit for now is in regards to the following excerpt from "Upon a Spider Catching a Fly,"
"Hells Spider gets / His intrails spun to whip Cords thus / And wove to nets / And sets. / To tangle Adams race / In's stratigems."
This indicates that evil is composed of the same ingredients as the Devil.(bonus: unintended pun) It also may suggest the Devil's weakness: he has to use his own internal organs/"evil" in order to affect (or infect) human affairs.
Albert: To respond to your interpretation of "Upon a Wasp Chilled with Cold", I would have to say I understood it a little differently.
I agree that the wasp represents a person. I think that the wind, however, represents God and the sun represents a person's own reason and rationality. The blast of wind is God's warning to the wasp (his followers) that it cannot go through life living by its own rules and moral code.
The sun represents the common person's own rationality. The sun's warmth lures the wasp into believing that it is in a correct standing with GOd even though this only shows that the wasp is in correct standing with its own set of beliefs and moral code.
The line referring the the "apothecary's shop" and a "remedy to all her sad ails" might mean that the wasp is so comfortable with its standing with GOd and itself that it can heal itself and solve all of it's problems on it's own.
THe line in the last stanza, " Lord clear my misted..." might be referring to the wasp wanting to clear its mind of its own rationality and learn to live by the spirit of God within it.
I agree with most of you on the metaphors in "Upon a Spider Catching a Fly" (spider=Satan, web=sin, wasp=Puritans, and fly=non-Puritans). Originally, like Albert, I thought the stinger on the wasp was the "shock factor." The stinger would be ironic because humans are supposedly helpless to defend themselves from God's will. Danielle's comment that the sting is actually Puritan faith makes more sense though.
Question: Was the wasp caught in the net? Taylor does say that he saw the wasp "fall foule therein." This would indicate that Puritans are not immune to sin. The fly (non-Puritan) simply succumbed more quickly.
Also, I wish someone would explain the verse with "Strive not above the strength hath got, Lest in the brawle thou fall." It seems to contradict Puritan ideals of hard work and avoidance of sin. Maybe the verse is discussing non-Puritan weakness in faith. Any ideas?
On "Upon a Wasp Chilled with Cold"- I agree with Albert's interpretation of the metaphors. I thought it was strange that Taylor discussed all the merits of the wasp (humans), especially when he said that the wasp had "a nimble spirit bravely mind." This humanistic approach seems most uncharacteristic for Puritan literature.
Lastly, I have a little psychotic feminist theory I want to share. The spider (Devil) in the second poem spins a web like women spin cloth. The wasp in the third poem is described as a female. Because the wasp can be influenced by sin and the spider is evil, the metaphors refer to Eve's original sin. Puritans felt that women were evil since Eve made Adam eat the forbidden fruit, hence the witch trials. This theory is manifested in Taylor's poems. I can't wait to see how many people tell me I am crazy. Bring it on...
Sorry this is so long! If you get bored and do not read it, I completely understand. By the way, MGV=victory. That is no metaphor.
I agree with Albert on the poem "Upon a Wasp Chilled With Cold" I agree that the wasp is the person and the sun is God and the sun's act of warming is saving the puritan from satin.
I would like to add that the bear, or northern blast of wind symbolysis the devil. In the first stanza, the wasp was stiff, or was sinful, and God came and saved the puritan from sin.
I am not sure if this is right or not, because both Albert's and Winnie's blogs made sense to me even though their metaphors were very different.
I am also confused about the statement "Where pulse doth beat, and head doth ache" in the first stanza. (on the second page) If the sun is causing the wasp's heart to beat, and limbs to be warmed by god, then why does her head hurt? Is it because she has to make a choice between god and the devil? Or did I just miss the point of the statement completely?
Hey blogger world!
About Anne Bradstreet, I have a question about the poem "The Author to her Book." I understand that her brother-in-law sent the book to the printer and that the poem is discussing the book was not "good enough" in the author's eyes. She is Puritan though and I did not catch any religious references. Would it be the word "Critics" because it is capitalized or does that refer to the community? She seemed to be worried about how those in the family would react, such as the Mother by kicking the author out of the house.
If someone could please give me their opinion, I would really appreciate it!
By the way, I found the next poem "Prologue [to her book]" interesting with its references to the Muses and an ancient Greek orator as well as a French poet. None of the references has to do with Puritanism. It seems to reinforce the impracticality of the Puritan idea of seclusion.
Rachel
There were a few things I found especially interesting in the biography/poems of Anne Bradstreet.
I found Bradstreet's tendency to slightly question Puritanism to be very interesting. An exerpt from one of her poems reads, "for were earthly comforts permanent, who would look for heavenly?" This is a clear example of Bradstreet's constant questioning of her faith. It's obvious from this quote (and from similar others) that Bradstreet's belief in God and heaven is in large part based on the DESIRE that such a place/thing exists... This further backs up the assertion that Bradstreet's "outward faith" was heavily influenced by societal pressures and norms.
THERESA: I love your feminist theory, though it does apply a lot more strongly to Bradstreet than to Taylor.
TINA: "If for thy Father askt, say, thou hadst none; / And for thy Mother, she alas is poor, / Which caus'd her thus to send thee out of door." To me, it seems that Bradstreet is (yet again) making a comment insinuating that women are inferior to men. I translate the above excerpt to mean that "If someone asks you who wrote you, tell them that it was not a man (who would be held to a high standard) but rather, a woman. Tell inquiring minds that the woman who wrote you only published you (and your poor-quality work) because she needed money." I don't think it has much to do with the love of a parent, at least not in those lines.
QUESTION: Please help me to interpret Prologue [To her book], lines 13-18, "From School-boy's tongue no Rhet'ric we expect, / Nor yet a sweet Consort from broken strings, / Nor perfect beauty where's a main defect. / My foolish, broken, blemished Muse so sings, / And this to mend, alas, no Art is able, / Cause Nature made it so irreparable." I feel Bradstreet may be alluding to the alleged inferiority and innate flaws of women when she says "Nature made it so irreparable." Does anyone have a different take on that?
I agree with the assumptions you've made, not that that makes it correct in any means, but oh well..
When she talks about the muse being broken, and that no art is able, describes her feelings about her works, how she cites them as less than that of a man. Also the nature making it irreprable, saying that it is a "natural thing" that men are superior to women, and that there is no way to change it. It's kind of ironic that her opinions of herself at the time we so negative, being as she is considered to be one of the best female poets of her time. Or so I thought I heard Mr. Lazarow say in class? question mark?
Jillie: I am also confused as to why Bradstreet constantly degrades her abilities in her poetry. These negative judgements of herself could have been the subject of her earliest poems when she was uncertain about her talent as a poet. Bradstreet also could have been "playing it safe" by deciding to write about subjects that wouldn't be questioned by the male dominated society.
Maybe she was trying to advocate equality between women and men by satirically humoring the men of the time with verses like "this mean and unrefined ore of mine / Will make your glist'ring gold but more to shine"--meaning "you guys don't need to worry about me, I'm just a woman, there's no way that I could possibly possess abilities comparable to yours..." In this way, Bradstreet's writing could be interpreted as the thoughts of a rightful Puritan woman who understood her place in society or the thoughts of a woman who attempted to undermine the ideals that the Puritan lifestyle revolved around.
Hello again i know it's been i long time since i posted but i just got my computer fixed. theres a lot to catch up on. With less and less Bradstreet poems to discuss i think it would be wise to turn attention towards the other puratins were currently discussing. The first thing I would like to present is in Thomas Hookers journal. On both sides he refers to the word of God as a weapon, in one case an axe and in the othercase he says "The word of God is mighty in operation, sharper than any 2-edged sword...[another point i would like to make is why he uses two so many times...2 edges, divides betwixt the Soul and the Spirt, and is a discerner of the Thoughts and Intents of the heart...(capitalizations refer to the pairs)]
so why is the word of God considered a weapon something that would end a life, rather than deliver it to a more perfect place.
and who weilds this weapon is it a pastor who speaks through the divine inspiration of God? or can anyone weild it and just claim it is the word of God. (or possibly claim something is true when it is not...aka Witch Trials)
does anyone agree or am i just over thinking this?
Post a Comment
<< Home