Sunday, February 2, 2014
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Showcasing...
As an avid photographer, I am always seeking for some inspiration through the genius works of other photographers. I hunt for photographs that speak out to me and attempt to portray that same vivid emotion through my own pictures. One particular photographer whose work never ceased to amaze me and has influenced me as an artist is Alfred Eisenstaedt. As a tribute to this epic LIFE magazine photographer, I have taken the liberty of critiquing one of my absolute favorite photos by him titled, “Saint George and the Dragon”.
In this photograph, multiple techniques were used to capture this unforgettable moment. A small depth of field was used to bring the foreground into focus and to blur the background. This depth of field effectively controls the viewer’s eyes to target the children in front and exclude the surroundings. The outdoor scenery shows that the photograph was taken using natural lighting from the sun. By using natural lighting, Eisenstaedt was successful in maintaining perfect light exposure to avoid an overly dramatic contrast of colors. In addition, the composition in this photograph consists of leading lines, shallow depth background layering, positive space, and a repetitive pattern. Lines make up most of this photograph, in my opinion. There are rows of children’s heads which draws the eyes from the foreground to the mass of blurry heads in the back. The viewers’ eyes are also led to follow the lined structure in the background. I find it fascinating how genius usage of lines gives the impression of a never ending crowd of eager children. The shallow depth background layering is seen through the layering of multiple faces with special attention towards the focused children with various expressions. I enjoy how the background is shallow and unfocused because it places emphasis on the the emotions displayed by the children. This photograph also contains positive space because the entire frame is full. This composition provided me an image of a large, squirming crowd squeezed together with very little space between them. Finally, the last composition I see here is a repetitive pattern of children’s heads. This pattern is continuous throughout the entire picture and adds to the impression of an extremely large gathering.
When I see this photograph, I am amazed at Eisenstaedt’s ability to connect with his subjects. Not only is it skilled compositionally, but the emotion is real and gets across to the audience. I believe Eisenstaedt is the master of photography simply because he has a knack for capturing candid moments that immerses the viewers into the moment. I interpret “Saint George and the Dragon” as a message of the importance in treasuring the precious memories your childhood has given you. There is an innocence and a sweet emotional appeal in this photograph. Seeing this picture, I am awash with powerful feelings of nostalgia, excitement, and a tinge of bitterness. The children’s emotions serve as a reminder to me of what it once felt like to truly believe in magic and the fantastical stories of heroes. Eisenstaedt captured more than just the climax of the puppet show when Saint George finally slayed the beast-- he also captured the pure, triumphant belief in good over evil as seen on the children’s faces. However, it feels slightly bitter because this is not the case when childhood innocence is lost. Eisenstaedt truly is a visionary in the photography field and I admire his works of art. “Saint George and the Dragon” is a perfect photograph that demonstrates great composition with effective emotional appeals.
As an avid photographer, I am always seeking for some inspiration through the genius works of other photographers. I hunt for photographs that speak out to me and attempt to portray that same vivid emotion through my own pictures. One particular photographer whose work never ceased to amaze me and has influenced me as an artist is Alfred Eisenstaedt. As a tribute to this epic LIFE magazine photographer, I have taken the liberty of critiquing one of my absolute favorite photos by him titled, “Saint George and the Dragon”.
In this photograph, multiple techniques were used to capture this unforgettable moment. A small depth of field was used to bring the foreground into focus and to blur the background. This depth of field effectively controls the viewer’s eyes to target the children in front and exclude the surroundings. The outdoor scenery shows that the photograph was taken using natural lighting from the sun. By using natural lighting, Eisenstaedt was successful in maintaining perfect light exposure to avoid an overly dramatic contrast of colors. In addition, the composition in this photograph consists of leading lines, shallow depth background layering, positive space, and a repetitive pattern. Lines make up most of this photograph, in my opinion. There are rows of children’s heads which draws the eyes from the foreground to the mass of blurry heads in the back. The viewers’ eyes are also led to follow the lined structure in the background. I find it fascinating how genius usage of lines gives the impression of a never ending crowd of eager children. The shallow depth background layering is seen through the layering of multiple faces with special attention towards the focused children with various expressions. I enjoy how the background is shallow and unfocused because it places emphasis on the the emotions displayed by the children. This photograph also contains positive space because the entire frame is full. This composition provided me an image of a large, squirming crowd squeezed together with very little space between them. Finally, the last composition I see here is a repetitive pattern of children’s heads. This pattern is continuous throughout the entire picture and adds to the impression of an extremely large gathering.
When I see this photograph, I am amazed at Eisenstaedt’s ability to connect with his subjects. Not only is it skilled compositionally, but the emotion is real and gets across to the audience. I believe Eisenstaedt is the master of photography simply because he has a knack for capturing candid moments that immerses the viewers into the moment. I interpret “Saint George and the Dragon” as a message of the importance in treasuring the precious memories your childhood has given you. There is an innocence and a sweet emotional appeal in this photograph. Seeing this picture, I am awash with powerful feelings of nostalgia, excitement, and a tinge of bitterness. The children’s emotions serve as a reminder to me of what it once felt like to truly believe in magic and the fantastical stories of heroes. Eisenstaedt captured more than just the climax of the puppet show when Saint George finally slayed the beast-- he also captured the pure, triumphant belief in good over evil as seen on the children’s faces. However, it feels slightly bitter because this is not the case when childhood innocence is lost. Eisenstaedt truly is a visionary in the photography field and I admire his works of art. “Saint George and the Dragon” is a perfect photograph that demonstrates great composition with effective emotional appeals.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Showcasing..."The fallen pedals"
It all began when we had moved into our new house, and he left to go pay our rents and bills. Everything seemed to be slowly falling in to place. Like the final puzzle piece was found and now the puzzle was complete. All the hard-work, sweat, and tears had finally paid off. It was a Monday when the first of many packages arrived. We had just moved into the town, and I wondered who could be at the doorsteps when the doorbell rang. I opened the door, just a peek to see who it was. Behind the screen door was a mailman with a bundled package. I opened the door hesitantly and he said I received a package from my husband. A tiny smirk had crossed my face when I saw the package was just a dozen flowers. They were arranged just the way I liked them.
From that day onwards, every Monday was a delivery day. It became more and more of a routine to a point where I would wait at the door steps for the mailman with the water and vase ready in my hand.
It was a Monday in the middle of May, and I had a feeling the flowers were to be arriving soon. I saw the mailman's car approaching and I waited on my toes for the package to come. It took him longer to arrive at our home than usual. It felt like hours, days, and weeks for him to arrive at our house in the corner. Finally, he had arrived, he handed me the package, like he always did. And with a sincere smile and bow of his head, he left my doorstep and never returned.
That was the last time I had gotten flowers from him. The last time I would ever see his face when he would return home from work. So I took the flowers he gave me. The yellow Sunflowers glistening in the sun, its pedals slowing shedding one-by-one. I left it on the table. Every Monday, I awaken hoping to receive the flowers at the doorsteps.
It all began when we had moved into our new house, and he left to go pay our rents and bills. Everything seemed to be slowly falling in to place. Like the final puzzle piece was found and now the puzzle was complete. All the hard-work, sweat, and tears had finally paid off. It was a Monday when the first of many packages arrived. We had just moved into the town, and I wondered who could be at the doorsteps when the doorbell rang. I opened the door, just a peek to see who it was. Behind the screen door was a mailman with a bundled package. I opened the door hesitantly and he said I received a package from my husband. A tiny smirk had crossed my face when I saw the package was just a dozen flowers. They were arranged just the way I liked them.
From that day onwards, every Monday was a delivery day. It became more and more of a routine to a point where I would wait at the door steps for the mailman with the water and vase ready in my hand.
It was a Monday in the middle of May, and I had a feeling the flowers were to be arriving soon. I saw the mailman's car approaching and I waited on my toes for the package to come. It took him longer to arrive at our home than usual. It felt like hours, days, and weeks for him to arrive at our house in the corner. Finally, he had arrived, he handed me the package, like he always did. And with a sincere smile and bow of his head, he left my doorstep and never returned.
That was the last time I had gotten flowers from him. The last time I would ever see his face when he would return home from work. So I took the flowers he gave me. The yellow Sunflowers glistening in the sun, its pedals slowing shedding one-by-one. I left it on the table. Every Monday, I awaken hoping to receive the flowers at the doorsteps.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Showcase Essays: Frankenstein and Critical Approach
Showcasing...#1
Consider: What makes this a good essay? What is your peer doing well?
The roles of a typical master and slave switch back and forth between Victor and his monster throughout Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, as well as the characteristics associated with each role. It seems that we do not and will not ever really know who is the true commander and who is the true slave; perhaps all of us are both master and slave to something or someone, possibly at the same time.
Near the beginning of the book, Victor is clearly creating this monster so that he will be master over it. He says, "A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me" (Shelley 40). Not only do we see evidence of Victor's hubris in thinking that his creation(s) would be immediately submissive to him, but he obviously deems himself as a great master to whom a species would thank for their existence.
The monster, does indeed, play the role Victor had wanted him to: a slave. The monster tells Victor, "I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king if thou wilt also perform thy part, the which thou owest me" (Shelley 87). the obedience he claims he will show towards Victor, his "natural lord and king" is, indeed, a trait we would expect to see in a servant. The monster also calls victor his "natural lord and king", which means he must hold Victor in pretty high regard, as well as knowing his role from the time of his "birth". He knows Victor is his creator, and he submits to him, even though Victor has called him ugly and a monster on several occasions. Just in the way that the monster talks to Victor shows who is in power. He begs, "Will no entreaties cause thee to turn a favorable eye upon thy creature, who implores thy goodness and compassion" (Shelley 87). The monster, once again, calls himself Victor's creature, and simpers and snivels for his benevolent master to find favor with him, which is (again) something a slave would do. He also says Victor has "goodness and compassion", which is what you'd expect of a master. The monster is also trying to flatter Victor by talking about his wonderful qualities, which is also something a slave would be expected to do to his master.
The power shifts later on in the book, for Frankenstein becomes the slave, and the monster is the one holding the reins. The monster tells him, "Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension. Remember that I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my Creator, but I am your master; obey" (Shelley 157). When Victor tears apart the monster-bride he is making, the monster goes ballistic and tells him that he is the master of Victor, which is true. He holds Victor in his power; if Victor does not obey him, he will just keep killing the people that Victor loves, so Victor is forced to comply to his command of creating a she-devil. When Victor, the slave, revolts, the monster-master punishes him for doing so, which is very typical for a master-slave relationship.
The monster may hold power over Victor, but at the same time, he is a slave to something else. At Victor's "funeral", he tells Robert, "I know that I was preparing myself for a deadly torture, but I was the slave, not the master, of an impulse which I detested yet could not disobey" (Shelley 210). Although he was the master of Victor, his emotions of hatred and vengeance had a tight grip on him. He allowed himself to be controlled by his emotions, which led to his violent acts. Being a slave to his uncontrollable feelings was even worse than being a physical slave to Victor. When he was slave to Victor, he was able to overcome his physical master, but when he was (is?) a slave to his emotions, he was a complete puppet and could never handle them completely.
The labels of master and slave are quite fragile, for someone can claim they hold power over another, but the other person could also hold power over the original "master". Are we, then, both masters? Are we both slaves? Are we all not slaves to a master, whether spiritual, physical, or emotional? If we really think about it, is it a bad thing to be mild, docile, submissive, obedient, compliant, etc.? The Romantics may have hated this institution of this master-slave relationship, and one can see why: the monster's slavery to his emotions cause him a great deal of pain, and Victor was also quite wretched when he was slave to the monster, but being a gentle and obedient person to someone else is not necessarily something frowned upon.
Showcasing...#2
Again consider: What makes this a good essay? What is this peer doing well?
In her novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley used Victor's "Creature" to represent a lower class in society and how it can partake in an unstoppable revolt against upper classes (represented by Victor) when mistreated by them . Due to excessive hubris, Victor decided to, "make the being of a gigantic stature, that is to say, about eight feet in height and proportionably large," (Shelley 90). Little did Victor know that his creature would turn out to be a "miserable monster" (Shelley 44) that "a mummy endued with animation could not be so hideous as," (Shelley 44).
Victor beheld his creation, only to discover he had created a hideous wretch. Because o his horrific appearance the monster, despite having a good heart (at first), couldn't make any friends. Eery time the beast attempted to initiate a conversation with someone, he was greeted by a shriek of terror. After months of miserable loneliness, the wretch finally decided to plot, "a deep and deadly revenge, such as would alone compensate for the outrages and anguish [he] had endured," to avenge Victor, his creator, for making him so hideous (Shelley 130). Though Victor was his creator, the monster "exceeded that of a man" and no human on Earth would compensate for his physical stature (Shelley 85). Instead of ending Victor's life, however, the creature ended the lives of Victor's friends and loved ones, so he would suffer. As Frankenstein later miserably remarked, "I was the slave of my creature,"(Shelley 143). Frankenstein had learned Shelley's lesson of the story: never allow your ambitions to create uneasiness in those you control (creature), because a rebellion from them is dismal against just a few powerful rulers.
A similar occurrence took place during the French Revolution. King Louis XVI established an overpowering monarchy, and a man known as Robespierre established what is known as the "Reign of Terror". Since the government had made radical social and political reforms, many oppressed people complained. Robespierre shut up complainers for good by cutting their heads off with the guillotine. Additionally, the lower class in France known as the Third Estate was harshly taxed by the government and received little food. After the lower class had taken enough abuse by thos in power, they revolted just like "the Creature" revolted against his ruler, Victor. This proved to be fatal to those in power because there were tens of thousands of people from the lower class angry and ready to fight just a select few who ran the governmental show- the rulers were severely outnumbered and stood no chance. Victor's monster's incredible strength was similar to the Third Estate's man power- it greatly outnumbered anyone of higher status and making him seek revenge was not a smart choice on Victor's behalf.
In all forms of society, one always rises to the top and takes power. What Mary Shelley warns through Frankenstein is to not let your ambitions as a ruler overpower those you rule. Victor's eagerness caused him to amass body parts and create an inhumanly strong monster. The wretch was hideous, and miserable, so he plotted revenge on his creator/ruler. Radical French rulers were, like Victor, obsessed with power. They let their obsession excalate too high, and the oppressed lowe class revolted strongly. The rebellion of those one rules against their ruler will always be fatal to the one in charge. the oppressed have more manpower and are not afraid to make their oppressors pay the hefty price of happiness in exchange for miserable, bloody death.
Consider: What makes this a good essay? What is your peer doing well?
The roles of a typical master and slave switch back and forth between Victor and his monster throughout Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, as well as the characteristics associated with each role. It seems that we do not and will not ever really know who is the true commander and who is the true slave; perhaps all of us are both master and slave to something or someone, possibly at the same time.
Near the beginning of the book, Victor is clearly creating this monster so that he will be master over it. He says, "A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me" (Shelley 40). Not only do we see evidence of Victor's hubris in thinking that his creation(s) would be immediately submissive to him, but he obviously deems himself as a great master to whom a species would thank for their existence.
The monster, does indeed, play the role Victor had wanted him to: a slave. The monster tells Victor, "I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king if thou wilt also perform thy part, the which thou owest me" (Shelley 87). the obedience he claims he will show towards Victor, his "natural lord and king" is, indeed, a trait we would expect to see in a servant. The monster also calls victor his "natural lord and king", which means he must hold Victor in pretty high regard, as well as knowing his role from the time of his "birth". He knows Victor is his creator, and he submits to him, even though Victor has called him ugly and a monster on several occasions. Just in the way that the monster talks to Victor shows who is in power. He begs, "Will no entreaties cause thee to turn a favorable eye upon thy creature, who implores thy goodness and compassion" (Shelley 87). The monster, once again, calls himself Victor's creature, and simpers and snivels for his benevolent master to find favor with him, which is (again) something a slave would do. He also says Victor has "goodness and compassion", which is what you'd expect of a master. The monster is also trying to flatter Victor by talking about his wonderful qualities, which is also something a slave would be expected to do to his master.
The power shifts later on in the book, for Frankenstein becomes the slave, and the monster is the one holding the reins. The monster tells him, "Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension. Remember that I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my Creator, but I am your master; obey" (Shelley 157). When Victor tears apart the monster-bride he is making, the monster goes ballistic and tells him that he is the master of Victor, which is true. He holds Victor in his power; if Victor does not obey him, he will just keep killing the people that Victor loves, so Victor is forced to comply to his command of creating a she-devil. When Victor, the slave, revolts, the monster-master punishes him for doing so, which is very typical for a master-slave relationship.
The monster may hold power over Victor, but at the same time, he is a slave to something else. At Victor's "funeral", he tells Robert, "I know that I was preparing myself for a deadly torture, but I was the slave, not the master, of an impulse which I detested yet could not disobey" (Shelley 210). Although he was the master of Victor, his emotions of hatred and vengeance had a tight grip on him. He allowed himself to be controlled by his emotions, which led to his violent acts. Being a slave to his uncontrollable feelings was even worse than being a physical slave to Victor. When he was slave to Victor, he was able to overcome his physical master, but when he was (is?) a slave to his emotions, he was a complete puppet and could never handle them completely.
The labels of master and slave are quite fragile, for someone can claim they hold power over another, but the other person could also hold power over the original "master". Are we, then, both masters? Are we both slaves? Are we all not slaves to a master, whether spiritual, physical, or emotional? If we really think about it, is it a bad thing to be mild, docile, submissive, obedient, compliant, etc.? The Romantics may have hated this institution of this master-slave relationship, and one can see why: the monster's slavery to his emotions cause him a great deal of pain, and Victor was also quite wretched when he was slave to the monster, but being a gentle and obedient person to someone else is not necessarily something frowned upon.
Showcasing...#2
Again consider: What makes this a good essay? What is this peer doing well?
In her novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley used Victor's "Creature" to represent a lower class in society and how it can partake in an unstoppable revolt against upper classes (represented by Victor) when mistreated by them . Due to excessive hubris, Victor decided to, "make the being of a gigantic stature, that is to say, about eight feet in height and proportionably large," (Shelley 90). Little did Victor know that his creature would turn out to be a "miserable monster" (Shelley 44) that "a mummy endued with animation could not be so hideous as," (Shelley 44).
Victor beheld his creation, only to discover he had created a hideous wretch. Because o his horrific appearance the monster, despite having a good heart (at first), couldn't make any friends. Eery time the beast attempted to initiate a conversation with someone, he was greeted by a shriek of terror. After months of miserable loneliness, the wretch finally decided to plot, "a deep and deadly revenge, such as would alone compensate for the outrages and anguish [he] had endured," to avenge Victor, his creator, for making him so hideous (Shelley 130). Though Victor was his creator, the monster "exceeded that of a man" and no human on Earth would compensate for his physical stature (Shelley 85). Instead of ending Victor's life, however, the creature ended the lives of Victor's friends and loved ones, so he would suffer. As Frankenstein later miserably remarked, "I was the slave of my creature,"(Shelley 143). Frankenstein had learned Shelley's lesson of the story: never allow your ambitions to create uneasiness in those you control (creature), because a rebellion from them is dismal against just a few powerful rulers.
A similar occurrence took place during the French Revolution. King Louis XVI established an overpowering monarchy, and a man known as Robespierre established what is known as the "Reign of Terror". Since the government had made radical social and political reforms, many oppressed people complained. Robespierre shut up complainers for good by cutting their heads off with the guillotine. Additionally, the lower class in France known as the Third Estate was harshly taxed by the government and received little food. After the lower class had taken enough abuse by thos in power, they revolted just like "the Creature" revolted against his ruler, Victor. This proved to be fatal to those in power because there were tens of thousands of people from the lower class angry and ready to fight just a select few who ran the governmental show- the rulers were severely outnumbered and stood no chance. Victor's monster's incredible strength was similar to the Third Estate's man power- it greatly outnumbered anyone of higher status and making him seek revenge was not a smart choice on Victor's behalf.
In all forms of society, one always rises to the top and takes power. What Mary Shelley warns through Frankenstein is to not let your ambitions as a ruler overpower those you rule. Victor's eagerness caused him to amass body parts and create an inhumanly strong monster. The wretch was hideous, and miserable, so he plotted revenge on his creator/ruler. Radical French rulers were, like Victor, obsessed with power. They let their obsession excalate too high, and the oppressed lowe class revolted strongly. The rebellion of those one rules against their ruler will always be fatal to the one in charge. the oppressed have more manpower and are not afraid to make their oppressors pay the hefty price of happiness in exchange for miserable, bloody death.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
"Rime" Showcase
“Rime of the Ancient Mariner"
How does Coleridge exemplify Romanticism in his poem?
What does this poem suggest about the nature of evil in the universe?
Where does Coleridge use poetic devices or shifts to emphasize meaning in his poem?
Discuss the Exigence, Target Audience, and the Purpose of the poem.
Showcase #1
The epic poem Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge suggests that man is capable of great evil and that this evil arises from human blindness and arrogance. The reader first witnesses this when the Ancient Mariner shoots the noble Albatross, never thinking that Nature might seek revenge for this act. In his arrogance, the Ancient Mariner had forgotten the power Nature holds and so was continually shocked as to why the spirits of Nature came to make him suffer: “And some in dreams assur’ed were/Of the Spirit that plagued us so;” (Coleridge 131-132). In his dreams, the Spirit comes to tell the bewildered Mariner that he suffers because he shot the Albatross. But he never once hesitated when shooting the Albatross, because he never once thought there would be any consequences. In his mind, humanity dominated nature, and, therefore, there was nothing nature could do that could hurt him.
Also, the Ancient Mariner has a clear disregard for the beauty and purity of Nature. Not only does he shoot the Albatross, but he refers to the creatures of the sea as “Yea, slimy things did crawl with legs/Upon the slimy sea”(Coleridge 125-126). He has no respect for these creatures, and it clearly shows in his dismissive, disgusted tone. He is blind to their beauty and thinks himself so much greater than these creatures. For him, there is nothing wrong with harming the creatures of nature because they are not sentient beings in his mind. It is not difficult for him to kill a creature that he feels no sympathy or wonder for. So, through both of these quotes, the reader sees that the Ancient Mariner’s great act of evil--shooting the Albatross--was not due to hatred or malice, but the simple belief that he was more powerful than nature.
That being said, the reader never actually does find out why the Ancient Mariner shoots the Albatross. Though the implications of his callous tone regarding nature, I have surmised that it was due to disrespect of nature. All that is written in text is that “...--with my cross-bow,/I shot the Albatross” (Coleridge 81-82). We never see into the Mariner’s mind during this critical moment. This murkiness is a clear weakness in my argument, but it is also strong due to clues of word choice and tone in the poem. I’ll never truly know what Coleridge intended the Mariner’s reason to be, only my own interpretation of it.
Showcase #2
When looking thought the “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”, one sees many times when faith and religion are brought into the story. Looking deep enough, one can see that it is actually an allegorical representation of the biblical story of Jeebus Christ. The author, Som. Taylor Coleridge, wrote this story to tie the view of human nature expressed in the New T estimate to the Post-Renaissance Age of Exploration.
We can see this comparison in three aspects of the story: the Algebratross, why it died, and what happened when it was killed. Clearly, the albatross represents Jesus, as the strict juxtaposition of a friendly bird in a world of ice reflects the juxtaposition of a truly pure human in a world of sin. Also to be noted is the way that the Albatross was “hailed in God's name.” (line 66) as Jesus was upon his birth.
As in birth, so in death does the tale of the Albatross reflect the story of Jesus. It has been speculated by members of the class that the Albatross was killed because it was being treated as a god, and was diminishing the sailors' faith in the christian church, a hypothesis supported by the phrase “Instead of the cross, the Albatross, about my neck was hung” (lines 140-141). This shows that the crew was beginning to replace the image of their god with the bird. This is understandable; the bird's appearance was perceived as a good omen and brought safe passage through the Ice. Jesus'death organized by kings who feared his bringing the downfall of their religion, is similar in this way.
Finally, the punishment of the mariner for killing the Albatross is similar to the punishment of Humanity for our sins. We are forced to suffer if we sin, according to the Bible. The Mariner suffered for his sins as well: he nearly died of thirst. When he repented and changed his ways, however, he was forgiven and prospered, as the Bible was will happen to it's faithful.
Showcase #3
Coleridge exemplifies Romanticism in his poem “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”. Throughout the entire poem, he is constantly describing and explaining the natural forces at work. He often uses personification to make nature seem more real and dramatic. This is evident in Part II, Line 83-84 where Coleridge writes, “The Sun now rose upon the right/Out of the sea came he.” He is giving nature all the power in this poem. Romantics thought that nature was all powerful and man was not. They believed that man was only temporary in this world. Romantics also believed that nature was a god – or that it replaced God. Coleridge states, “instead of the cross, the Albatross/about my neck was hung” (Part II, Line 141-142). These lines show that the Albatross is symbolizing a great burden, which is what a cross traditionally symbolizes. Nature has replaced religion.
Although the poem was clearly written to reflect Romanticism, there are times, especially towards the end, where the “Rime of the Ancient Mariner” appears to be a Christian morality story. As stated previously, Romantic thinkers replaced God with nature. The plaguing doubt in my mind is why does a story that is meant to be Romantic use so many Christian allusions? The moral of the story is essentially, “He prayeth best, who loveth best” (Part VII, Line 614). The Mariner learned that by loving everything God made, including the slimy water snakes, one can become closer to God. This does not coincide with what Romanticism is all about. They disregard God and revere nature in His place. There is no simple explanation to this question. Perhaps Coleridge is pointing out that God and nature are one. You cannot love one without loving the other. This way of thinking may explain the significance of the Hermit in Part VI of the poem. He was once a monk, so he is still very religious. However, now he so lives at peace with nature. He is able to love both. Perhaps this is why the Mariner respected and was excited for him to shrieve his soul. Even if I am totally off the mark on that note, this confusing tug-of-was between Romanticism and morality may take away from my definition of Romanticism. This piece was supposed to exemplify it, but at the same time it does not. Now confusion is the only factor that I am able to take away from this otherwise enjoyable piece.
How does Coleridge exemplify Romanticism in his poem?
What does this poem suggest about the nature of evil in the universe?
Where does Coleridge use poetic devices or shifts to emphasize meaning in his poem?
Discuss the Exigence, Target Audience, and the Purpose of the poem.
Showcase #1
The epic poem Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge suggests that man is capable of great evil and that this evil arises from human blindness and arrogance. The reader first witnesses this when the Ancient Mariner shoots the noble Albatross, never thinking that Nature might seek revenge for this act. In his arrogance, the Ancient Mariner had forgotten the power Nature holds and so was continually shocked as to why the spirits of Nature came to make him suffer: “And some in dreams assur’ed were/Of the Spirit that plagued us so;” (Coleridge 131-132). In his dreams, the Spirit comes to tell the bewildered Mariner that he suffers because he shot the Albatross. But he never once hesitated when shooting the Albatross, because he never once thought there would be any consequences. In his mind, humanity dominated nature, and, therefore, there was nothing nature could do that could hurt him.
Also, the Ancient Mariner has a clear disregard for the beauty and purity of Nature. Not only does he shoot the Albatross, but he refers to the creatures of the sea as “Yea, slimy things did crawl with legs/Upon the slimy sea”(Coleridge 125-126). He has no respect for these creatures, and it clearly shows in his dismissive, disgusted tone. He is blind to their beauty and thinks himself so much greater than these creatures. For him, there is nothing wrong with harming the creatures of nature because they are not sentient beings in his mind. It is not difficult for him to kill a creature that he feels no sympathy or wonder for. So, through both of these quotes, the reader sees that the Ancient Mariner’s great act of evil--shooting the Albatross--was not due to hatred or malice, but the simple belief that he was more powerful than nature.
That being said, the reader never actually does find out why the Ancient Mariner shoots the Albatross. Though the implications of his callous tone regarding nature, I have surmised that it was due to disrespect of nature. All that is written in text is that “...--with my cross-bow,/I shot the Albatross” (Coleridge 81-82). We never see into the Mariner’s mind during this critical moment. This murkiness is a clear weakness in my argument, but it is also strong due to clues of word choice and tone in the poem. I’ll never truly know what Coleridge intended the Mariner’s reason to be, only my own interpretation of it.
Showcase #2
When looking thought the “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”, one sees many times when faith and religion are brought into the story. Looking deep enough, one can see that it is actually an allegorical representation of the biblical story of Jeebus Christ. The author, Som. Taylor Coleridge, wrote this story to tie the view of human nature expressed in the New T estimate to the Post-Renaissance Age of Exploration.
We can see this comparison in three aspects of the story: the Algebratross, why it died, and what happened when it was killed. Clearly, the albatross represents Jesus, as the strict juxtaposition of a friendly bird in a world of ice reflects the juxtaposition of a truly pure human in a world of sin. Also to be noted is the way that the Albatross was “hailed in God's name.” (line 66) as Jesus was upon his birth.
As in birth, so in death does the tale of the Albatross reflect the story of Jesus. It has been speculated by members of the class that the Albatross was killed because it was being treated as a god, and was diminishing the sailors' faith in the christian church, a hypothesis supported by the phrase “Instead of the cross, the Albatross, about my neck was hung” (lines 140-141). This shows that the crew was beginning to replace the image of their god with the bird. This is understandable; the bird's appearance was perceived as a good omen and brought safe passage through the Ice. Jesus'death organized by kings who feared his bringing the downfall of their religion, is similar in this way.
Finally, the punishment of the mariner for killing the Albatross is similar to the punishment of Humanity for our sins. We are forced to suffer if we sin, according to the Bible. The Mariner suffered for his sins as well: he nearly died of thirst. When he repented and changed his ways, however, he was forgiven and prospered, as the Bible was will happen to it's faithful.
Showcase #3
Coleridge exemplifies Romanticism in his poem “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”. Throughout the entire poem, he is constantly describing and explaining the natural forces at work. He often uses personification to make nature seem more real and dramatic. This is evident in Part II, Line 83-84 where Coleridge writes, “The Sun now rose upon the right/Out of the sea came he.” He is giving nature all the power in this poem. Romantics thought that nature was all powerful and man was not. They believed that man was only temporary in this world. Romantics also believed that nature was a god – or that it replaced God. Coleridge states, “instead of the cross, the Albatross/about my neck was hung” (Part II, Line 141-142). These lines show that the Albatross is symbolizing a great burden, which is what a cross traditionally symbolizes. Nature has replaced religion.
Although the poem was clearly written to reflect Romanticism, there are times, especially towards the end, where the “Rime of the Ancient Mariner” appears to be a Christian morality story. As stated previously, Romantic thinkers replaced God with nature. The plaguing doubt in my mind is why does a story that is meant to be Romantic use so many Christian allusions? The moral of the story is essentially, “He prayeth best, who loveth best” (Part VII, Line 614). The Mariner learned that by loving everything God made, including the slimy water snakes, one can become closer to God. This does not coincide with what Romanticism is all about. They disregard God and revere nature in His place. There is no simple explanation to this question. Perhaps Coleridge is pointing out that God and nature are one. You cannot love one without loving the other. This way of thinking may explain the significance of the Hermit in Part VI of the poem. He was once a monk, so he is still very religious. However, now he so lives at peace with nature. He is able to love both. Perhaps this is why the Mariner respected and was excited for him to shrieve his soul. Even if I am totally off the mark on that note, this confusing tug-of-was between Romanticism and morality may take away from my definition of Romanticism. This piece was supposed to exemplify it, but at the same time it does not. Now confusion is the only factor that I am able to take away from this otherwise enjoyable piece.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Which parent do you think Christopher should live with?
1. Write a brief CEW paragraph in which you provide textual evidence for your choice. Start your post with giving your name: "_____says,"
2. Then, read the paragraphs of others in our class and politely respond to one of them, either agreeing or disagreeing using evidence.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Process Analysis: Reading a Poem
1) Your initial post will explain your audience, your poem is, and how you plan to put this essay together. The more specific, the better.
2) Your response will provide constructive feedback to at least one fellow student.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
SOHO English: Thomas Nunnally's "Breaking the Five-Paragraph-Theme Barrier
1) Read the essay "Breaking the Five-Paragraph-Theme Barrier."
2) Post a response, citing something that confuses you or with which you agree or disagree.
3) Read other people's responses and comment on at least one of their ideas.
Friday, May 13, 2011
SOHO English
Paul Jury's "5 Ways Texting is Ruining Changing English"
1) Read the article, "5 Ways Texting is Ruining Changing English"
2) Post a response, citing something with which you agree or disagree.
3) Read other people's responses and respond to at least one of their responses.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
SOHO English
How to Write a Sentence "Why Sentences?" by Stanley Fish
1) Read the essay, "Why Sentences?"
2) Post a response, citing something in the chapter that speaks to you.
3) Read other people's responses and respond to at least one of their responses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)