Unlike William Blake, William Wordsworth had an excellent education and graduated from Cambridge University. His childhood was filled with tragedy - the death of both of his parents. Like Blake, he was able to write from different perspectives. I enjoyed the writing entitled, Simon Lee. This began as a story of an old huntsman. He used to be in great shape, but now he was older, either "three score and ten but others say he's eighty," (pg. 197). He has outlived most of people around him - "His master's dead, and no one now Dwells in the hall of Ivor, men, dogs, and horses, all are dead, He is the sole survivor," (pg. 198). I smiled when I read how much the elderly man loved the hunts. Wordsworth wrote, "And still there's something in the world at which his heart rejoices, For when the chiming hounds are out, He dearly loves their voices!" (pg. 198).
This work did an excellent job allowing the reader to use his or her own imagination to picture the scene he was describing. I could see this old man in my mind smiling when he hears the hounds barking. I believe Wordsworth did an excellent job building up the character of this gentleman. He makes you like him, and then he presents the problem. This man was used to no one caring about him, and no one ever helped him. Then one day, the man saw that he was overworked. He wrote," You're overtasked, good Simon Lee, Give me your tool," (pg. 199). The man proceeded to lend a helping hand. Simon Lee burst into tears because this was such a kind act. Then, he writes, "The gratitude of men has oftner left me mourning," (pg. 199). I felt this line was the key. I read this line to mean that the gratitude shown by this elderly man was unnecessary. He should not have had to thank him. It should be expected that those who are able help those who are unable. It was not the fact that he thanked him; it was the fact that this man was so overwhelmed by the kind act. It made him sad because the man should be used to people respecting him and helping him when possible.
I would now like to draw attention to the poem, There Was a Boy. This poem was sad. I did not understand it at first glance. I think this poem was about nature and about the innocence of youth, two of his favorite topics and favorites among the romantics. He writes, "At evening when the earliest stars had just begun to move along the edges of the hills, Rising or setting, would he stand alone, beneath the trees, or by the glimmering lake," (pg. 212). Even though I did not completely get it, I liked the purity of the poem and the beautiful and eloquent phrases. Overall, I did not like his work as much as William Blake. However, I felt his works were more thought out and planned.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
William Blake
I found William Blake's work to be very diverse. He seemed to like changing perspectives. I am similar to Blake in my own work, because I love presenting two opposing views and showing the same ideas from different perspectives. I was fascinated to find out on the podcast that William Blake had no formal education, since his work was well thought out.
I thoroughly enjoyed Songs of Innocence and Experience. The innocent lamb questions who made him, and the question is later answered, "He is called by thy name For he calls himself a lamb," (pg. 79). The Songs of Innocence seem to have a more certain heir about them, while Songs of Experience seemed to be written with more uncertainty. I felt as though the author wanted the reader to see his point of view that as we grow older, we are blinded by experience. We, as adults, do not use our imagination, and therefore, no longer see the truth. Blake believed with innocence comes knowing, and with experience comes doubt. I found these writings to be very philosophical. I loved how one seem to have answers, while the other seemed to have none. I do know in my own life, I sometimes feel as though children hold more truths than adults. As we grow older, sometimes we do not see as clearly. Our own experiences seem to tarnish our beliefs. In some way, I agree with Blake. However, I am a Christian so I do not doubt God. Blake seems to question not God's existence, but more organized religion. He questions why God would make a tyger: "What immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry?" (pg. 88).
One of my favorites of his work was called London. Since I have actually been to London, I was curious to see his perspective on the city. He talks about a sadness in peoples faces. He writes, "And mark in every face I meet, Marks of weakness, marks of woe," (pg. 91). I think the author tries to say that there were a great deal of issues at stake in this city. These issues were harmful. He brings up the Chimney sweepers by saying, "How the Chimney-sweepers cry Every blackening church appalls," (pg. 91). Bake wanted to say how these young chimney sweepers, who started their jobs as young as 6, were suffering. He wanted people to look at this abuse and do something about it. I do not think it was right to have these children doing jobs which could in effect give them the black lung or cancer!
In the Chimney Sweeper on page 81, the child talks about being sold by his father to be a chimney sweeper. Blake writes, "When my mother died I was very young And my father sold me while yet my tongue could scarcely cry weep weep weep weep," (pg. 81). This poem was quite sad. It made me feel for this child and made me angry that someone would put him through this type of abuse. When he mentions the "Angel who had a bright key, and he open'd the coffins of black," (pg. 81), it evoked strong emotions. Blake captured the innocence of a child in this writing. He was able to make you think he was writing this as a child who dad had really sold him off. In my opinion, this poem showed his talent in being able to write from different perspectives than his own. Overall, Blake was very intriguing and I felt as if his work was well written and planned out. It seems as though he switches opinions, but I felt it was deliberate in order to show people different perspectives on the same issues.
I thoroughly enjoyed Songs of Innocence and Experience. The innocent lamb questions who made him, and the question is later answered, "He is called by thy name For he calls himself a lamb," (pg. 79). The Songs of Innocence seem to have a more certain heir about them, while Songs of Experience seemed to be written with more uncertainty. I felt as though the author wanted the reader to see his point of view that as we grow older, we are blinded by experience. We, as adults, do not use our imagination, and therefore, no longer see the truth. Blake believed with innocence comes knowing, and with experience comes doubt. I found these writings to be very philosophical. I loved how one seem to have answers, while the other seemed to have none. I do know in my own life, I sometimes feel as though children hold more truths than adults. As we grow older, sometimes we do not see as clearly. Our own experiences seem to tarnish our beliefs. In some way, I agree with Blake. However, I am a Christian so I do not doubt God. Blake seems to question not God's existence, but more organized religion. He questions why God would make a tyger: "What immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry?" (pg. 88).
One of my favorites of his work was called London. Since I have actually been to London, I was curious to see his perspective on the city. He talks about a sadness in peoples faces. He writes, "And mark in every face I meet, Marks of weakness, marks of woe," (pg. 91). I think the author tries to say that there were a great deal of issues at stake in this city. These issues were harmful. He brings up the Chimney sweepers by saying, "How the Chimney-sweepers cry Every blackening church appalls," (pg. 91). Bake wanted to say how these young chimney sweepers, who started their jobs as young as 6, were suffering. He wanted people to look at this abuse and do something about it. I do not think it was right to have these children doing jobs which could in effect give them the black lung or cancer!
In the Chimney Sweeper on page 81, the child talks about being sold by his father to be a chimney sweeper. Blake writes, "When my mother died I was very young And my father sold me while yet my tongue could scarcely cry weep weep weep weep," (pg. 81). This poem was quite sad. It made me feel for this child and made me angry that someone would put him through this type of abuse. When he mentions the "Angel who had a bright key, and he open'd the coffins of black," (pg. 81), it evoked strong emotions. Blake captured the innocence of a child in this writing. He was able to make you think he was writing this as a child who dad had really sold him off. In my opinion, this poem showed his talent in being able to write from different perspectives than his own. Overall, Blake was very intriguing and I felt as if his work was well written and planned out. It seems as though he switches opinions, but I felt it was deliberate in order to show people different perspectives on the same issues.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Mary Wollstonecraft
I found this author harder to understand than Burke and Williams. After I got used to her style of writing, I was able to see how she clearly attempts to tear apart Burke's argument piece by piece. In her writing, I found a parallel use of key phrases. Burke wrote, "By this wise prejudice we are taught to look with horror on those children of their country, who are prompt rashly to hack that aged parent in pieces, and put him into the kettle of magicians, in hopes that by their poisonous weeds, and wild incarnations, they may regenerate the paternal constitution, and renovate their father's life," (pg. 55-56). Wollstonecraft then writes in her work, "The ivy is beautiful, but, when it insidiously destroys the trunk from which it receives support, who would not grub it?" (pg. 58). At first glance, this analogy seems to come out of nowhere; however, when I read it, it reminded me of Burke's reference of the "poisonous weeds," (pg. 56). Wollstonecraft carefully uses Burke's expression against him in her argument.
Also, Wollstonecraft speaks of "artificial flowers" (pg. 61) She writes, "In modern poetry the understanding and memory often fabricate the pretended effusions of the heart, and romance destroys all simplicity; which, in works of taste, is but a synonymous word for truth. This romantic spirit has extended to our prose, and scattered artificial flowers over the most barren hearth; or a mixtures of verse and prose producing the strangest congruities," (pg. 61). I believe she directly attacks Burke and accuses his writings to be too flowery. I believe that Wollstonecraft thinks he is hiding the true ugliness of what he is saying behind elaborate and beautiful phrases. It is as if she uses his own analogy against him, which I felt was ingenious.
I also liked her reference to "rust of antiquity" and "blind love," (pg. 58). Wollstonecraft wrote, "If there is any thing like argument, or first principles, in your wild declamation, behold the result:- that we are to reverence the rust of antiquity, and term the unnatural customs, which ignorance and mistaken self-interest have consolidated, the sage fruit of experience: nay, that if we do discover some errors, our feelings should lead us to excuse, with blind love, or unprincipled filial affection, the venerable vestiges of ancient days," (pg. 58). When I read this, I interpreted the "rust of antiquity" to be a negative side effect of tradition. I believe she is trying to point out that as things age, they become less useful. These old ideas dull. Perhaps this is what Wollstonecraft meant by this expression. When she then refers to the idea of looking past the errors with a "blind love" I couldn't help but agree. I think Wollstonecraft wanted to make the point that to just go along with whatever we are told is absurd. When Burke wrote, "By this wise prejudice we are taught to..." (pg. 55). He is saying that the people should just accept the tradition and go along with their lives and stop questioning the past. He wants people to blindly go about their lives. Wollstonecraft sharply questions this with her expression of the "blind love."
Overall, I felt like both Burke and Wollstonecraft were excellent writers. Both knew exactly how to appeal to his audience. Wollstonecraft wants to appeal to those who find the Revolution exciting and want to break free from oppresion. Burke tries to appeal to the aristocracy who does not want things to change. He finds the revolution scary, and he does not wish to see things be redistributed. Overall, I enjoyed both perspectives. They were so different it helped me understand the other passage better by reading the opposing view.
Also, Wollstonecraft speaks of "artificial flowers" (pg. 61) She writes, "In modern poetry the understanding and memory often fabricate the pretended effusions of the heart, and romance destroys all simplicity; which, in works of taste, is but a synonymous word for truth. This romantic spirit has extended to our prose, and scattered artificial flowers over the most barren hearth; or a mixtures of verse and prose producing the strangest congruities," (pg. 61). I believe she directly attacks Burke and accuses his writings to be too flowery. I believe that Wollstonecraft thinks he is hiding the true ugliness of what he is saying behind elaborate and beautiful phrases. It is as if she uses his own analogy against him, which I felt was ingenious.
I also liked her reference to "rust of antiquity" and "blind love," (pg. 58). Wollstonecraft wrote, "If there is any thing like argument, or first principles, in your wild declamation, behold the result:- that we are to reverence the rust of antiquity, and term the unnatural customs, which ignorance and mistaken self-interest have consolidated, the sage fruit of experience: nay, that if we do discover some errors, our feelings should lead us to excuse, with blind love, or unprincipled filial affection, the venerable vestiges of ancient days," (pg. 58). When I read this, I interpreted the "rust of antiquity" to be a negative side effect of tradition. I believe she is trying to point out that as things age, they become less useful. These old ideas dull. Perhaps this is what Wollstonecraft meant by this expression. When she then refers to the idea of looking past the errors with a "blind love" I couldn't help but agree. I think Wollstonecraft wanted to make the point that to just go along with whatever we are told is absurd. When Burke wrote, "By this wise prejudice we are taught to..." (pg. 55). He is saying that the people should just accept the tradition and go along with their lives and stop questioning the past. He wants people to blindly go about their lives. Wollstonecraft sharply questions this with her expression of the "blind love."
Overall, I felt like both Burke and Wollstonecraft were excellent writers. Both knew exactly how to appeal to his audience. Wollstonecraft wants to appeal to those who find the Revolution exciting and want to break free from oppresion. Burke tries to appeal to the aristocracy who does not want things to change. He finds the revolution scary, and he does not wish to see things be redistributed. Overall, I enjoyed both perspectives. They were so different it helped me understand the other passage better by reading the opposing view.
Edmund Burke
I am glad that the author of this text gives us a background of the reader prior to jumping into his or her work. I found out that Edmund Burke was against the French Revolution and idealized the past, which are both extremely important concepts to understand before reading exerpts from his work. It became apparent that he was for "the monarchy, the aristocracy, the church, and the constitution," (pg. 47). The description said that he was "passionate," (pg. 47), which made me immediately think back to the passion found in Helen Maria Williams' work. I then started to see the similarities and differences in their work.
First, it was evident that he was just as passionate against the revolution as she was for the revolution. His opening grabbed me from the start. He thoughts were quite interesting and I found myself nearly taking his side. He writes, "Everything seems out of nature in this strange chaos of levity and ferocity, and of all sorts of crimes jumbled trogether with all sorts of follies," (pg. 47). With this passage he opens his idea that their traditions are completely natural. He makes a point that when a man dies, he leaves his legacy to his family. When a king dies, he leaves his legacy to his family. He wants the reader to understand that this inheritance is what nature intended. He felt as though the king had a right to keep the monarchy in his family, much like the wealthy man had a right to keep his land in his own family. He writes, "Through the same plan of a conformity to nature in our artificial institutions, and by calling in the aid of her unerring and powerful instincts, to fortify the fallible and feeble contrivances of our reason, we have derived several other, and those no small benefits, from considering our liberties in the light of an inheritance," (pg. 49). He found a peace in tradition. He thought the French Revolution had disrupted the "natural order of things," (pg. 50). I feel like Burke found an excellent way to express himself through this passage. By using these analogies, he tries to convince the reader that what has happened in the past is okay for the present and the future. However, we were asked to keep our eye out for that type of reasoning, since it is often false.
I was also impressed with his writings from The Arrest and Imprisonment of the King and Queen. He first paints a serene picture of the king and queen in their "splendid palace," (pg. 51) and then goes on to describe a violent scene of the king and queen leaving their "sanctuary... admist horrid yells," (pg. 51). He proceeds to show the reader the graphic and horrible scenes of October 6th, 1789, a day of "confusion, alarm, dismay, and slaughter," (pg. 51). Even though I do not share his same view, I was able to see how things got out of control on this day. In this pasage, he really reaches out to the part of humans which does not like to see suffering. He makes the reader uncomfortable and forces them to hear about the details which he thought showed how wrong the revolution was.
Another important aspect I would like to highlight is the fact that Burke used sacarsism in his passage to get his point across. He believed the revolution to be an abomination, and he was trying to do all he could to make the reader take his side. He wrote, "On the scheeme of things, a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order," (pg. 53). He is really saying that a king is much more than a man. He further writes, "the murder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop , or a father, are only common homicide..." (pg. 53). He shows how absurd this thinking in by bringing in religious figures and saying it is a mere common homicide when someone kills a bishop. This point made in the text is supposed to jump out at the reader and pull him into Burke's mindset. It definitely got my attention.
Finally, I found the line, "Society is indeed a contract," infuriating. I do not accept Burke's point of view as correct, but it was at this point where I truly felt amazed that someone would think this way. He wants people to just accept what they are told. He doesn't want society to think outside the box or think about things in their life. Burke wants society to live their lives the way they have in the past and be done with it. I couldn't be more opposed! I can now understand why Wollstonecraft and Paine made refutes to his works! After reading this text, I could not wait to read the rebutals of Burke's work!
First, it was evident that he was just as passionate against the revolution as she was for the revolution. His opening grabbed me from the start. He thoughts were quite interesting and I found myself nearly taking his side. He writes, "Everything seems out of nature in this strange chaos of levity and ferocity, and of all sorts of crimes jumbled trogether with all sorts of follies," (pg. 47). With this passage he opens his idea that their traditions are completely natural. He makes a point that when a man dies, he leaves his legacy to his family. When a king dies, he leaves his legacy to his family. He wants the reader to understand that this inheritance is what nature intended. He felt as though the king had a right to keep the monarchy in his family, much like the wealthy man had a right to keep his land in his own family. He writes, "Through the same plan of a conformity to nature in our artificial institutions, and by calling in the aid of her unerring and powerful instincts, to fortify the fallible and feeble contrivances of our reason, we have derived several other, and those no small benefits, from considering our liberties in the light of an inheritance," (pg. 49). He found a peace in tradition. He thought the French Revolution had disrupted the "natural order of things," (pg. 50). I feel like Burke found an excellent way to express himself through this passage. By using these analogies, he tries to convince the reader that what has happened in the past is okay for the present and the future. However, we were asked to keep our eye out for that type of reasoning, since it is often false.
I was also impressed with his writings from The Arrest and Imprisonment of the King and Queen. He first paints a serene picture of the king and queen in their "splendid palace," (pg. 51) and then goes on to describe a violent scene of the king and queen leaving their "sanctuary... admist horrid yells," (pg. 51). He proceeds to show the reader the graphic and horrible scenes of October 6th, 1789, a day of "confusion, alarm, dismay, and slaughter," (pg. 51). Even though I do not share his same view, I was able to see how things got out of control on this day. In this pasage, he really reaches out to the part of humans which does not like to see suffering. He makes the reader uncomfortable and forces them to hear about the details which he thought showed how wrong the revolution was.
Another important aspect I would like to highlight is the fact that Burke used sacarsism in his passage to get his point across. He believed the revolution to be an abomination, and he was trying to do all he could to make the reader take his side. He wrote, "On the scheeme of things, a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order," (pg. 53). He is really saying that a king is much more than a man. He further writes, "the murder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop , or a father, are only common homicide..." (pg. 53). He shows how absurd this thinking in by bringing in religious figures and saying it is a mere common homicide when someone kills a bishop. This point made in the text is supposed to jump out at the reader and pull him into Burke's mindset. It definitely got my attention.
Finally, I found the line, "Society is indeed a contract," infuriating. I do not accept Burke's point of view as correct, but it was at this point where I truly felt amazed that someone would think this way. He wants people to just accept what they are told. He doesn't want society to think outside the box or think about things in their life. Burke wants society to live their lives the way they have in the past and be done with it. I couldn't be more opposed! I can now understand why Wollstonecraft and Paine made refutes to his works! After reading this text, I could not wait to read the rebutals of Burke's work!
Monday, May 28, 2007
Helen Maria Williams
In the background describing this author, I learned that Williams was a liberal poet. She had a great deal of enthusiasm for the revolution, as seen in her texts. I found her writing captivating. She wrote with a passion that I think is hard to duplicate. She was quite obviously excited by the French Revolution. She saw it as an opportunity for new ideas and new possibilities. She described the Champ de Mars as if it were one of the most magnificent sights she had ever seen. She wrote, "Half a million people assembled at a spectacle, which furnished every image that can elevate the mind of man; which connected the enthusiasm of moral sentiment with the solemn pomp of religious ceremonies; which addressed itself at once to the imagination, the understanding, and the heart!" (pg. 37).
When she wrote about her visit to the Bastille Prison, you could tell how emotional she became at the sights of "hooks of those chains by which the prisoners were fastened round the neck, to the walls of their cells..." (pg. 39). She came up with the perfect metaphor of light versus dark. By using this mundane explanation of "light and shade," (pg. 39) she brought to life her feelings to those who had not been able to see the prison. She was able to portray the light with which the aristocrats lead their life while contrasting the dark life the political critics lead in the shadows of Bastille. When the disparity between wealth and poverty grows, it invites violence and revolution, as seen in the French Revolution. She continues the metaphor by sayings "the beams of liberty, like the beams of day, shed their benign influence on the cottage of the peasant, as well as on the palace of the monarch!" (pg. 40) This passage depicts her view that liberty and equality should be shared like the beams of the sun. It does not only casts its beams upon the palace of kings and queens; the sun is enjoyed by all. She is making the point that everyone is entitled a little sunlight, a little happiness, a little equality, in their lives. This metaphor impressed me the most, and I was able to understand her thoughts much more clearly since she used something that everyone, no matter what century you were born in, understands.
The last point I would like to draw attention to in her work lies on the pages 40 and 41. She explains to her reader that some aristocrats have "renounced the spendour of his titles or the general good," (pg. 40). She is obviously supporting this act and tries to glorify it. She wants to push the readers to get behind those who do the same and look down on those who still grasp to their inheritance and titles. She writes, "The number of those who have murmured at the loss of rank, bears a very small proportion to those who have acted with a spirit of distinguished patriotism; who, with those generous affections which belong to the female heart, have gloried in sacrificing titles, fortune, and even in personal ornaments, so dear to female vanity, for the common cause," (pg. 41). In this passage, I felt as though she is trying to connect with female readers in an attempt to push her own beliefs upon them. She wants them to know the noble cause is one of revolution, and they need to rise up to the challenges of renouncing their wealth and embrace the new opportunities at hand. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this passage because of her extreme passion. I always find that an author writes more eloquently on topics he or she exhibits fervor, or zeal, for.
When she wrote about her visit to the Bastille Prison, you could tell how emotional she became at the sights of "hooks of those chains by which the prisoners were fastened round the neck, to the walls of their cells..." (pg. 39). She came up with the perfect metaphor of light versus dark. By using this mundane explanation of "light and shade," (pg. 39) she brought to life her feelings to those who had not been able to see the prison. She was able to portray the light with which the aristocrats lead their life while contrasting the dark life the political critics lead in the shadows of Bastille. When the disparity between wealth and poverty grows, it invites violence and revolution, as seen in the French Revolution. She continues the metaphor by sayings "the beams of liberty, like the beams of day, shed their benign influence on the cottage of the peasant, as well as on the palace of the monarch!" (pg. 40) This passage depicts her view that liberty and equality should be shared like the beams of the sun. It does not only casts its beams upon the palace of kings and queens; the sun is enjoyed by all. She is making the point that everyone is entitled a little sunlight, a little happiness, a little equality, in their lives. This metaphor impressed me the most, and I was able to understand her thoughts much more clearly since she used something that everyone, no matter what century you were born in, understands.
The last point I would like to draw attention to in her work lies on the pages 40 and 41. She explains to her reader that some aristocrats have "renounced the spendour of his titles or the general good," (pg. 40). She is obviously supporting this act and tries to glorify it. She wants to push the readers to get behind those who do the same and look down on those who still grasp to their inheritance and titles. She writes, "The number of those who have murmured at the loss of rank, bears a very small proportion to those who have acted with a spirit of distinguished patriotism; who, with those generous affections which belong to the female heart, have gloried in sacrificing titles, fortune, and even in personal ornaments, so dear to female vanity, for the common cause," (pg. 41). In this passage, I felt as though she is trying to connect with female readers in an attempt to push her own beliefs upon them. She wants them to know the noble cause is one of revolution, and they need to rise up to the challenges of renouncing their wealth and embrace the new opportunities at hand. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this passage because of her extreme passion. I always find that an author writes more eloquently on topics he or she exhibits fervor, or zeal, for.
My response to the background of our course
As I listened to Podcast 1 and Podcast 2, memories of my high school literature class came flooding back. We read some earlier literary works like Beowulf. I was glad that I was taking English 264 instead of English 263, because I enjoy learning about the major changes of society. I love learning about the events that caused people to question their surroundings.
Personally, I feel as though this time period was an awakening for the population around Britain and Europe. It is interesting studying the strict structure of their political system and how they began to break out of the oppression in France. However, important lessons can be learned about how far people can take things. The pendalem swings both ways. The people seemed to go right along with the government without very many questioning their motives. Then, people began to oppose the government with great strength.
I also feel that since we live in a society based on capitalism and democracy, we should be aware of how the opposite system works. The readings in this book seem to show us a whole new perspective about a life which sounds so foreign to us. I have incorporated Economics into my map, so I already know a little about Adam Smith and his book The Wealth of Nations. It is interesting to see how the shift from the focus of land to the focus of money can change a society so much. This shift towards capitalism brought about a great deal of change. Also, I have studied a small amount of Charles Darwin's work in two of my previous biology courses. It was interesting to learn that this one man's view accelerated the shift of religious belief to religious doubt.
Dr. Glance makes the point to keep an eye open for authors who tend to project what they feel like will happen in the future and those who try to find an analogy to what happened in the past. They both tend to be wrong and inadequate. After hearing these first two podcasts, I can safely say I am looking forward to the text and simply hope that I will be able to understand them as well as I would like.
Personally, I feel as though this time period was an awakening for the population around Britain and Europe. It is interesting studying the strict structure of their political system and how they began to break out of the oppression in France. However, important lessons can be learned about how far people can take things. The pendalem swings both ways. The people seemed to go right along with the government without very many questioning their motives. Then, people began to oppose the government with great strength.
I also feel that since we live in a society based on capitalism and democracy, we should be aware of how the opposite system works. The readings in this book seem to show us a whole new perspective about a life which sounds so foreign to us. I have incorporated Economics into my map, so I already know a little about Adam Smith and his book The Wealth of Nations. It is interesting to see how the shift from the focus of land to the focus of money can change a society so much. This shift towards capitalism brought about a great deal of change. Also, I have studied a small amount of Charles Darwin's work in two of my previous biology courses. It was interesting to learn that this one man's view accelerated the shift of religious belief to religious doubt.
Dr. Glance makes the point to keep an eye open for authors who tend to project what they feel like will happen in the future and those who try to find an analogy to what happened in the past. They both tend to be wrong and inadequate. After hearing these first two podcasts, I can safely say I am looking forward to the text and simply hope that I will be able to understand them as well as I would like.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Who am I and why did I sign up for this course?
Who: I am a rising senior at Mercer University. I am currently studying International Business. To fulfill the study abroad requirement, I studied abroad last March in Brazil for two weeks. I fell in love with traveling internationally, so I decided to study abroad in Wales for four months last fall. During this past spring semester, I signed up for my third trip, which I just returned from. It was a faculty lead group to the Czech Republic. While in Wales, I decided that I wanted to pursue international law, and I am currently studying for the LSAT.
Why: I wanted to take this online course so I would have more time to read and enjoy the required text. I knew if I took this course in the fall I would not have been able to spend a great deal of time on it.
Expectations: I am hoping to acquire a better understanding of poetry and literary writings during this time period. I have only had two other english courses in college, so I hope that I will be able to understand what we are asked to do. I am nervous about taking the course online, but I hope that it will turn out to be a good decision.
Why: I wanted to take this online course so I would have more time to read and enjoy the required text. I knew if I took this course in the fall I would not have been able to spend a great deal of time on it.
Expectations: I am hoping to acquire a better understanding of poetry and literary writings during this time period. I have only had two other english courses in college, so I hope that I will be able to understand what we are asked to do. I am nervous about taking the course online, but I hope that it will turn out to be a good decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)