English Literature

“I believe the fabric of the entire universe is made of one continuous thread that everything in the universe is in some way connected to everything else. Therefore, all the examples of literature we read this semester — the short story, the play, the poetry, and the novel — are linked, and not just by the accident of language. They are woven of that same universal thread, and our little bit of the universe would not be the same without any one of them. They are all connected by form (more on that in a bit) and by content. They are connected in terms of content because I believe all literature exists to serve a single purpose: to give us a better understanding of who we are, and a greater ability to know others and thereby help us to understand others, not destroy them. They (those "others") are, after all, of the same universal thread, the same endless supply of star-stuff as we. All the works we read are connected by form in that all the various forms of literature are much more alike than disparate. After all, they are many voices saying the same thing: that we are worth it.”

“A book consists of all possible permutations. That is, it is at once One and Many. Literature is holographic, intertextual; the part is necessarily a fragment of the whole, and yet it is intricately connected with every other part of the whole: somehow it is that whole. And the whole remains the dream of every author. But just as the set of all sets cannot be a member of itself, so the part cannot logically be tantamount to the whole. Yet, it is!”
                                        Floyd Merrell
Merrell couldn’t have said it better. In the thesis statement given, there are two distinct claims that are being made. While one states that all literature is connected in form, the other states that all literature is also connected in content. While I choose to agree with the former, I will go on to refute the latter in a minor way. In the paper that follows, the above statement is discussed and dissected, to conclude why it may be true or false.

Allow me to begin by comparing literature to religion, for in some of our lives, that is the role the written word plays. It occupies a pedestal, where each work of art is likened to an object worthy of worship, where each piece of literature leads us closer to a truth we never knew. Going by that premise, we can state that we’ve worshipped many gods so far and bowed at several shrines. To say it in the words of Ramakrishna, a mystic of 19th-century India, ‘We are all calling on the same God. Like one mother, who has prepared dishes to suit the stomachs of her children; Religions to suit different aspirants, times and countries. All doctrines are only so many paths.’ And so it is with literature: different authors, churning out classics to suit their readers, their times, their ethnographic survey results, but all borrowing from one fount of wisdom – what the above statement calls the continuous universal thread.

The above mentioned fount is an extremely interesting piece of architecture. Let us for a moment assume that all literature is drawn from this common fount. And to describe that fount, let us gather that it is a bottomless pit, comprising the deepest of human emotions, the wisest of mortal minds and words – every single one of them. The contents of this fount by itself, is sheer proof of the fact that all literature is woven out of the same thread. And here’s why: Given that writing is the result of an emotional need to express oneself, that literature is literally just laying bare the recesses of one’s mind, soul and heart, and given that these emotions are the very link that connects one human being to another, we reach the conclusion that all literature is linked, inextricably, but not inadvertently. And so we see blatant proof of the above in all works of literature, even the few pieces we’ve studied over the course of the year.

William Carlos Williams wrote The Red Wheelbarrow while caring for a sick child. While there are several interpretations to the poem, about its imagery, and its color, and its great choice of words, most interpretations miss the cruel streak that lies somewhere beneath those lines. When the poet said so much depends on the wheelbarrow and the chickens that lay close by, and then threw in red into the picture, did he mean to paint a life-giving image? Or did he mean to say that so much of life and death itself, depended on that wheelbarrow, which had the power to crush those chickens that lay on the side, wet by the same rain that glazed the wheelbarrow, and allow blood – red – splatter across the scene? Was he talking about the cruelty that could be caused in a single move of the wheelbarrow? And if yes, how different is his expression of cruelty from that of Charlotte Gilman’s portrayal of it in her story,  The Yellow Wall Paper?  What was she empathizing with in her story? The great tragedy of a manic depressive? Or the subtle thread of male cruelty that confined a woman’s convoluted mind to a claustrophobic nursery? What is amazing about both pieces of literature is that while Charlotte Gillman chose to paint her picture or weave her masterpiece with many skeins of thread, William Carlos Williams chose to weave his not so obvious story in a few lines. Yet, did it attack at the very root of the emotion that is being packed into the story? Did it manage to relate to the reader, irrespective of length, and form? The answer to that would be a definite yes, and goes to show that one only need look close enough, before connections to everything begin to surface.

Consider the two poems we studied and their two poets. Gerard Manley Hopkins begins his song of praise, in words that could not be clearer, giving glory for everything that is beautiful, for freshness, colour, pattern and variety. He manages to cover so much of God’s creation in a few lines, and makes a vehement statement of God’s unchanging beauty by the end of it. The reader cannot help but be filled with a sense of awe, and look on at the exquisite picture that the poet has painted. Hopkins chooses to write in a meter of his own, in a style he prefers, and on a theme that means the most to him. Cut to another poem, another time, another gender. Here is Elizabeth Bishop, writing about a Filling Station. Who would’ve thought that a poem could be written on a grime destination such as this, and one so beautiful, that we study it and ponder its meaning many years down the line? And who would’ve thought that she writes about the very same theme that Hopkins chose to write about. Yet she picks a different setting, a different image, and a whole set of new characters, to convey the exact same emotion that Hopkins conveys. Both poets talk about the striking beauty in imagery that they’re familiar with: Hopkins about scenes in nature that he’s admired and Bishop, about scenes in a setting closer home. Yet the end result, tugs at that distinct universal thread of beauty that lies buried in every human heart. And every reader, no matter where or when, is capable of building their own mental image of the poets’ description, thanks to the common thread that runs through our veins. It is the thread that links us all as readers of poetry, as admirers of beauty, and links in the endless chain of life and literature. Different forms, the same beauty!

Proof of this is seen in Brannigan’s New historicism and cultural materialism. An eternal philosophical riddle of our times, has always been, does art reflect life, or does life reflect art? And what better art form to answer that question than literature itself? What better record of life than the study of history. There is no doubt that there is immense truth in the statement that history repeats itself. And so it is with literature, with writes that borrow from the same fount of inspiration, there is bound to be a certain degree of repetition, a commonality that binds and ties us together with the universal thread. Literature regularly invites us to believe in it as a narrative or representation of the past. It needs our belief, or at the very least, the suspension of our disbelief, in order to tell its stories of history, community, the individual, and everything else. When we consider the similarities between history and literature, Brannigan notes that the only difference he can find is that history was intended to be true. Literary theories and critical practices are always in transition, because they are always in history, always subject to change and constantly being revised and reused. Every new historicist reading, every reading of a new historicist reading, reinvents the concerns and methods of new historicism. The challenge which literary theories offer the reader is not the necessity of learning how to reinvent the theory and the text. The challenge of theory is the challenge to invent conversations between texts and theories, between one text and other texts, between texts and the histories and discourses of which they are part. If this sounds like the creation of imaginary friends, it is because there is something of childish play in reading, something of the childish fascination with invention and gaming in the act of conversing with texts. And yet, at the same time, these acts of playing with texts could not be more serious. All texts are about representations, and representations are about how we see ourselves to others. Proof of this is seen in the way native Americans were colonized and subjugated. Why? Because the Europeans consistently represented the native Americans as savage, wild people in need of Western civilization and culture, but in order to avail of the gifts of European civilization, their savagery had to be tamed, punished and controlled (Brannigan 219).

The above argument goes to show, that just as there is an irrevocable tie that binds all of mankind to all of history, irrespective of past, present or future; so it is with literature that is written across time periods and audiences, yet manages to make a connection with that universal thread buried deep within us.

Moving on to the second claim that is mentioned, that states that all literature exists for a common purpose. Earlier on in this paper, there is mentioned the analogy of literature like religion, is many gods, one truth. There’s more to the above analogy than meets the eye: sure, religion is like literature in that it is different versions of the same thing. But in more ways than one, literature reflects religion and its properties. It’s a balm that the masses turn to for hope and sustenance, it’s a temple that the rational, the delusional and the conventional seek hope in. It’s a weapon to those that chose to react and rant against those powers that be, and the forces that exist and exert their influence.

While the statement made in the claim as to why literature exists is this: ‘to give us a better understanding of who we are, and a greater ability to know others and thereby help us to understand others’, I would disagree with it slightly. Not in saying that this is not the purpose of literature, but in saying this is only the byproduct of the ultimate purpose of literature, which is solely: expression of the self. It serves an extremely ironic purpose – here is a medium that seeks to alleviate pains of the world at large, and yet, it is produced solely to relieve oneself of a deep emotion that is dying to be let lose. The greatest of writings, the most poignant of poetry, the novels that struck a chord with audiences across the world are not pieces of writing that were written to impress or to empathize or to connect, but simply to put on paper a burden that weighed heavily on the mind, a story that marinated in the writer’s imagination for days and would cause great pain if it weren’t penned, an emotion that was all-pervasive and needed to be expressed, not for praise, or accomplishment or flattery, but just for self expression.

Let us take for example the widely read, and greatly loved book: The Diary of Anne Frank. Did the young girl write those words knowing that it would be a best seller or that it would sell thousands of copies or that she would touch the hearts of many? None of the above. Anne wrote with the sole purpose of self expression and self-preservation in mind. And that is the key to great literature that is timeless and unaffected by form or even, I dare to say, content.

On the other hand, let us consider an author who writes with the aim to sell, to be a best-seller, to make as much money as he possibly can. His writing is not one of self-expression. His style may titillate, please, excite, arouse and even move to tears, but it was not written from the heart, the temple of the universal thread. And it is such literature, that is written from the heart that is sheer proof of the fact that literature exists but to self-express!

It is that quality that ties all content in literature together: the ability to be an exorcist of deep emotion and expression. Having stated this purpose, every other purpose of literature, cascades from it, and begins to be sub-parts to a larger whole.

Good natured critics early in the day agreed to the above argument. In effect, what they did was to separate literature from morality by refusing to judge a literary work on moral grounds, in good part because they more and more thought of literature as self-expression, in accordance with the increasingly popular idea of the natural goodness of man and hence the natural goodness of the poet’s emotions. Critics thought of their chief duty as interpreting and appreciating the author’s works rather than judging them, and hence in effect repudiated the fundamental premise of the purpose of literature which Neo-classical considered critical to the dignity and esteem in which literature should be held (Trace 23)

Secondary purposes of literature have been agreed upon by several since time immemorial. Plato argued that the tragedy, comedy and epic stirred up emotions that must be kept under check. Aristotle in reply to Plato’s claim accepted that certain kinds of poetry have powerful emotional effects on the audience, but the function of this emotion he says is cathartic in nature. Aristotle explains the cathartic effect of literature, by comparing it with the healing of people suffering from hysterical outbreaks of emotion, and the role of ‘cathartic songs’ in healing them, which arouse their emotions and thereby relieve them. Jacob Bernay lends another interpretation and states how the best audience for a tragedy, in terms of its emotional effect, would surely be an audience of people who are emotionally disturbed and unbalanced. Aristotle implies in his writings that ordinary audiences are inferior to the man of judgement, who is in control of his emotions. The Poetics assume that normal audiences in normal emotional states, visit literature the way they visit a doctor (Janko 3).

Borges’ “The Dream of Coleridge”, tells of a thirteenth-century emperor who dreams a palace  and builds it, and a nineteenth century poet dreams a poem about the same palace, unaware that the structure was derived from a dream. This puzzle gives rise, Borges conjectures, to the notion that the series of dreams, poems, and labors has not ended. Perhaps in fact, the series is endless, or perhaps the last person to dream will have the key. At any rate, whoever would have compared palace to poem “would have seen that they were essentially the same”. This is a vision of the qualitative infinity of a timeless order of textuality. This interconnected fabric, whether supposedly in reference to reality, fiction or dream, necessarily includes both the world of readers and authors as well as texts. Should it disconcert us or disquiet us to realize that Don Quixote is a reader of the Quixote or Hamlet a spectator of Hamlet? No, for on the contrary, if the characters in a story can be readers and spectators, then we, their readers or spectators can be fictitious. For universal history is an infinite, sacred book that all men read, write and try to understand; and in which they too are written (Merrrell 192). While all of the above claims continue to coexist with the several forms of literature, while the critics can continue to state their reasons why literature should or shouldn’t exist, how it should or shouldn’t be read, all that matters at the end of the day, is that literature will continue to pervade humanity and course through our veins, binding us together with the invisible, universal thread that lies buried within us all.

John Keats remains to this day a distinguished  poet of the Romantic movement, but in his time he was snubbed by literary critics and other poets; viewed as a simpleton, with his “lower-middle class social status, limited education, early association with  the “Cockney School” of poetry, and poor health” (enotes.com). The “Cockney School” was named for a group of  London poets in the early l9th century.  The term came to be synonymous with hostile reviews, whose primary aim was poet Leigh Hunt, but included Keats.  

John Keats was born on October 31, l795 in London, England.  His parents died when he was young, and his grandmother appointed two London merchants, Richard Abbey and John Rowlan Sandell as his guardians.  Abbey, a tea broker, took on most of the responsibility of raising young John, Sandell played a minor role in Keats life. He was educated at the progressive Clarke’s School in Enfield. Keats and was known not for  his academics, but for fighting. “ My mind has been the most discontented and restless one that ever was put into a body too small for it,“ he wrote (john-keats.com).

When he was fifteen years old, he became an apprentice to an apothecary-surgeon, and to study medicine at a London hospital. In l816 he earned a license from the Society of Apothecaries, but never practiced, to become a poet.  Keats first writings were completed in l814, there were four stanzas called, “Imitation of Spenser,” inspired by the poem, ‘Faire, Queen,’ by Edmund Spenser.

He then met editor Leigh Hunt of the leading liberal magazine, the Examiner, who published his sonnets; ‘On First Looking into Chapmans Homer,’ and ‘O Solitude.’ Hunt also introduced Keats to poets like , Percy Shelley and William Wadsworth;  their influence encouraged Keats to publish his first volume; Poems by John Keats, in l817. Shelly tried to mentor Keats, and continuously offered, sometimes unwanted, advice.  One point he advised Keats to do was to “develop a more substantial body of work before publishing it” ( poets.org).  Keats didn’t listen, and published a four book collection, called Endymion,

Keats started writing Endymion from April to December  of l817, and published it in May l818.  It was four thousand lines, based on a Greek myth about  Latmian shepherd’s love for the moon goddess Cynthia.  Keats takes the hero through the ends of the earth, bottom of the sea, and across the sky, with his exuberant imagination. At the end, the hero realizes that you can only realize your vision through humble acceptance of your own limitations, and of the sufferings you must endure.

Critics found fault with Endymion’s structure, but it still created rich imagery and color. The first line is one of the most well known to all poetry lovers: “A thing of beauty is a joy forever,” so even though it was critically bashed, it is been widely read for decades.  The tale was originally sung by Sappho, an ancient Greek poet, and  several writers before Keats, attempted to retell the myth, but its length deterred them; while Keats took it as a challenge. The visions that haunt Latmian, in his dreams, is symbolic to Keats; meaning beauty in its purest sense - the human soul”  (john-keats.com).  

While writing Endymion, Keats said, “I think poetry should surprise by a fine excess, it will be a test, a trial of my powers of imagination, and chiefly of my invention, which is a rare thing indeed - by which I must make 4000 lines of one bare circumstance and fill them with poetry” (john-keats.com).  Endymion is a compellation of rhythm with Keats deliberately keeping sentences independent of the meter, putting complete phrases anywhere in his lines, rather than at the end, negating any regular beat.  Leigh Hunt thought Keats took his method to the extreme.

Some critics likened Endymion to the writings of Pharonnida, “a fourth rate poet, for two reasons; extricable trailing involution of his sentences, and a perverse persistence in ending his heroic lines with the lightest syllables - prepositions-adverbs- conjunctions” (john-keats.com). Keats gave himself the best self-criticism, which he wrote six months later stating,  “It is a good as I had power to make it by myself” (john-keats.com)  This  quote is confusing, because Keats never collaborated with other poets, so all his works were done by himself.  

Two critical magazine articles, one from the Quarterly Review, the other from Blackwood’s Magazine gave the nastiest reviews of Endymion.  Blackwood’s article was written by  John Crocker and John Lochard  It declared that Endymion was nonsense and that  Keats should give up writing poetry.  Crocker also attacked Keats for being part of the “Cockney School” of poetry.  This marked a turning point for him; now he had
to examine his works more closely, and eliminate some of the influence Hunt had on his works.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
The article continued stating,  “it has just as much to do with Greece as it has with, Old Tartary the Fierce,” no man whose mind has ever been imbued with the smallest knowledge of feeling of classical poetry or classical history, could have stooped to profane and vulgarize every association in the manner which has been adopted by this ‘son of promise’ (tekiija).”  The  worst part of the article was the personal comments about Keats, - “so back to the shop, Mr. John, stick to ‘plaster, pills, ointment boxes,’ and that Keats mind was “reduced to a state of insanity.” (Haney. 141)

Most critics who reviewed Endymion discussed his work, not his personal life. Keats staunch supporters were his  friends, some of them publishing their own review;  John Reynolds in a west-country paper, The Alfred,  John Scot in the Morning Chronicle, and Hunt reprinted Reynold’s letter in the Examiner.

John Gibson Lockhart was the editor of the Quarterly Review when he wrote a “detailed account of the literary society in Edinburgh and London”(Lockhart) He actually called himself “the scorpion which delighted to sting the faces of men” (Lockhart). If you were one of the Romantic poets he, your review went accordingly - but Keats didn’t fall into that category.  Lockhart tarnished Leigh Hunts reputation, taking Keats down with him. He wrote, “the calm, settled, imperturbable driveling idiocy of Endymio. Lockhart somehow learned that Keats said to his friend Reynolds, “If I die you must ruin Lockhart” (Lockhart). In fairness to Lockhart he was one of the few literary critics in the l9th century to look at Keats in a different light after his Endymion article.

The Quarterly Review admitted they did not read Endymion when they reviewed it, they said they tried, but it was too cumbersome and lengthy; the critics couldn’t get past a few chapters of the first book. So why did this harsh review get so much attention, and merit? William Gifford wrote the article saying: “It is not that Mr. Keats (if that be his real name, for we almost doubt that any man in his senses would put his real name to such a rhapsody)” - it continues with the observation that Keats was “writing for his own sake,” alluding to the fact that Keats did write to please his readers or his critics (Haney. 135).

The article reads that Keats created Endymion under unusual circumstances, Quoting Keats: “it is not without a feeling of regret that I make it public; what manner I mean, will be quite clear to the reader, who must soon perceive great inexperience, immaturity, and a very error denoting a feverish attempt, rather than a deed accomplished: (Haney. 135).  Gifford made a cruel personal remark that “the rhymes in Endymion have no meaning as does the author” (Haney 136).

Gifford’s article noted that the author “has not powers of language, rays of fancy, and gleams of genius, he has all these; but he is unhappily a disciple of the new school of what has been somewhere called ‘Cockney Poetry,’ which may be defined to consist of the most incongruous ideas in the most uncouth language…” (Haney.136). The lines are randomly scattered and don’t follow the accompanying line,  but what is suggested by the rhyme at the end.  There is hardly a complete couplet enclosing a complete idea in the whole book. “He wanders from one subject to another, from the association, not of ideas, but of sounds …” (Haney.136).

Keats responded to an encouraging letter from his friend and mentor Richard Woodhouse, saying “I am ambitious of doing the world some good, if I should be spared that may be the work of mature years - in the interval, I will assay to reach to as high a summit in poetry as the nerve bestowed upon me will suffer”  “Endymion proved that personal gratification is to overcome barriers of ordinary human experience” (john-keats.com).

What was Keats reaction to the critics?  His friends commented  that, “Keats demeanor under the lash, such as could make his friends support him particularly hurt” (john-keats.com).  He was proud, and modest; and “rather despised than courted such success as he saw some of his contemporaries enjoy, - “I have,” he says, “a mawkish popularity” (john-keats.com).  Keats admitted to his own weaknesses, similarly as his critics.  He took the criticism in stride, with dignity, and “treated the annoyance as one merely temporary, indifferent, and external” (john-keats.com).

Author Stephen Hebron, wrote an interesting book titled, “John Keats: A Poet and His Manuscripts.  It includes a brief chapter on Endymion where Hebron states that Endymion is “a long and fairly unsuccessful poem”(32)  yet it took just a short period of time for Keats to bounce back from the negative criticism. Hebron includes surviving manuscripts - some illustrated in their entirety; giving his readers an insightful, new look at Keats amazing imagination.  It is noted in the book that these manuscripts were protected after Keats death for years, before they were finally published.  This is another instance that shows how the harsh criticism of Endymion didn’t stop this prolific poet, and his works from being literary masterpieces (Hebron 32-40)

Why was Endymion the basis for such consistently poor reviews?  Was Keats just, “of his game,” because he was physically ill and emotionally distressed, with his brother’s death and surmising his illness was more serious?  The vast majority of critics focused on Keats weakness in his use of words, form, rhythm, and style in Endymion. It was not what Keat’s readers were accustom to, the words were too fluid and randomly scattered, he seemed to set the English language back two hundred years using, “active verbs as passive, and passive verbs as active; and in not only reviving archaic participial forms (‘dight,’ ‘flight,’ ‘raft,’ etc.) but in giving currency to participles of the class Coleridge denouced as demoralizing to the ear…” (Colvin). Was Keats simply a product of his youth? This was his first attempt at a substantial body of work, but he was destined for success beyond his realization.

Other faults that negatively affected Endymion are spiritual; failures of taste and feeling due “ partly because of his inexperience, partly because of excessive intensity, and partly due to second rate social contact.” (Colvin).  Keats treatment of love as an actuality, is found by some critics as being distasteful. “From flaws or disfigurements of one or other of these kinds the poems is never free for more than a page or two, and rarely for so much, at a time” (Colvin).  There were some critics who wrote a fair review, including, not only the weaknesses in Keats work, but what “a power of poetry is in Endymion: what evidence, unmistakable, one would have said, to the blindest, of genius” (Colvin).

It was these liberties which “scandalized conservative critics” (Colvin).  We now that Keats self-criticized Endymion, because when the drafts of the poem were compared to the published text, the revisions before going to press excluded more meters, and “worse passages in this vein than he left in” (Colvin).  Disregarding the reviews, it is noted that for all Endymions weaknesses, it was an empowering collection for a twenty-two year old poet

Keats next work immediately following Endymion, in l819,  was a straightforward narrative called Isabella, based on an operetta by Boccaccio, its theme focuses on the philosophical beauty of tragic love.  Did Keats purposely give his readers, a standard, logically assembled piece of work?  Isabella was praised by several critics as being very structured and enjoyable to read.  Keats knew what he was doing, re-establishing his work with the powers that be.  His second volume of collected poems, received the same type of  praise.                                                                                                                                            John Keats wrote, and published his third and final volume of poems, in l820.
The title is, “Lamia, Isabella, The Eve of St. Agnes, and Other Poems.  The collection
also included three of his most famous works; Ode on a Grecian Urn, Ode on Melancholy, and Ode to a Nightingale.  Numerous critics gave reviews praising this volume, including Blackwood Magazine.  Lamia is probably Keats most serious and successful poetry romance.

Charles Lamb, literary critic for the New York Times reviewed Lamia; saying that it had charm and the authority of a genius.  He begins by quoting four famous stanzas - “Like the radiance, which comes from those old windows upon the limbs and garments of the damsel, is the almost Chaucer-like painting, with which this poet illumes every subject he touches” (Colvin).  Lamb continues by saying that society has nothing like it in present time.  “The finest thing,”  he continues, “in the volume is The Pot Basil” (Colvin).

Keats enjoyed more positive reviews about Lamia.  In the New Monthly Magazine,  the editor, Cyrus Redding declares, “these poems are very far superior…to any which the author has previously committed to the press.” “They have nothing showy, or extravagant, or eccentric about them; but are pieces of calm beauty, or of lone and self-supported grandeur” ( Colvin).

The British Critic, who wrote an even more horrific review of Endymion than Blackwood or The Quarterly wrote of Lamia, “Mr. Keats is a person of no ordinary genius and prophesying that if he will take Spenser, and Milton for models instead of Leigh Hunt he need not despair of attaining to a very high and enviable place in public esteem”(Colvin).

Stanley Plumly, author of  “Posthumous Keats: A Personal Biography,” chronicals Keats last nine months before his death in 1821, at only twenty-five years old.  He was living in Italy, with Leigh Hunt and his family.  Keats “Lamia,” was reviewed as one of his best, and would “make his reputation.” “It was a measure, however, of how far removed he was from any sense of the literary value of the moment - a moment he had struggled his whole life to reach.”   Keats good friend, Italian painter, Joseph Severn
sketched him on his deathbed.   Plumly makes an insightful statement, “the place in his poetry that Keats has come to in his final days as a writerr, is a practice of form in which the eye and ear are indistinguishable.”

On July 27, l821, five months after Keats death, the Morning Chronicle printed an article titled; “John Keats, the Poet.”  An extended letter written by someone identified as
“Y,” claiming to be a “school-fellow and friend,” of Keats.  He mentioned personal talkes he had with Keats about the “hostile reviews of Endymion,” and how sensitive Keats was about them, which was never mentioned in any biography.  In the letter is also an account
of Keats lying awake, “through the whole night,” discussing “sensitive-bitterness,” about  Endymion’s bad reviews. If thi is true, it dispels the other accounts that the reviews did not affect him.
    Forty years later, in 1861 Charles Cowden Clarke, a longtime friend of Keats, was identified as being “Y.”  He had published a book titled, “Recollections of Keats,” retelling about the night he spent listening to him.  Clarke said, “He felt the insult, but more the injustice of the treatment he had received; he told me so, as we lay awake one night, when I slept in his brothers bed” (Bardnard).  The letter written iin the Morning
Chronicle was very poetical, and praises Keats and his contributions to society.  It is signed “Quiet consummation have, and renowned by thy Grave. Y” (Bardnard).
  
In Conclusion, critically Keats was not only juged for his language structure in
Endymion, but for his association with Leigh Hunt.  The Blackwood and Quarterly Magazines, especially lumped him as a “Cockney Poet,” and personally assaulted his character.  A very unprofessional review, but one Keats took with a grain of salt.  He didn’t give up his friendship with Hunt, and actually had a closer relationship.  Keats was living with Hunt, in Italy when he died.  What Keats, did do, is take the portion of review that revolved around his structure, and with his next poem created a standard, narrative.
This showed the critics his flexibility, and that he wasn’t a “Cockney Poet.”  The                                                                                                                    
reviews on his last work, Lamia, were all positive, geared strictly towards his framework, except for the  British Critic who still mentioned poets Keats was associated with.
     
John Keats remains one of the most influential English poets.  He was a noble, generous, and passionate individual, who accomplished more inhis short lifetime than most.  Keats accepted his critics, and in spite of they’re blasphemy, he flourished, and gave society a body of work that is indescribably beautiful.

Section A, Extract i Lady Macbeth begins this excerpt with expressing the futility of jealousy and anger as a means to an end. Though their task is complete and they have destroyed what they set out to destroy, it is only a job half completed since it’s simply begun a vicious cycle. After there is one gain, there is always the possibility of another, and another. Power has proven to be a strong motivator but it simply creates the need for more. In expressing her doubts through speaking to herself rather than another character, Shakespeare illustrates perfectly the very private conflict of conscience and guilt. She will never be able to erase the memory of her guilt and knows that she's created a kind of personal hell for herself, even as she thought she was achieving her dreams, “'Tis safer to be that which we destroy,/Than by destruction dwell in doubtful joy.” She will constantly be aware of the possibility of discovery, the realization among her peers of what she has done. It seems she fears discovery and the taint of her deed far more than the moral and spiritual consequences but in these lines we can see a kind of wish for redemption.

 When Macbeth enters, she knows that he too has not shaken the deed from his mind. Having been alone and brooding, she assumes that he too has been wracked with the inner dialogue of conscience. However, she comforts him telling him that “what's done is done” and that the continued dwelling on such thoughts is a kind of wasted effort. A moment before, she'd been mentally beating herself up but when confronted with his own dangerous brooding, Lady Macbeth puts her anxieties aside to sedate Macbeth's. Macbeth's reply to her is telling of the cycle, the lady had previously made note of, because Macbeth sees their end as having become a beginning. By using the image of the snake, Macbeth implies the sly power and rejuvenating qualities of the snake. What they'd hoped to defeat, they had only delayed. There was no really victory for either of them; they still live in fear of retribution and discovery. In such acts of deceit, no one truly wins. Their greed and want of power led them to a fatal mistake, now haunted with their own guilt they cannot enjoy their victory. Nights of “terrible dreams” and an inability to live their lives in fear is the reward they have won.

Section B, Extract ii
The imagery in the poem “The Road Not Taken” is one of the most important stylistic features of the piece. By creating a physical image that represented the ideal of nonconformity so well, Frost is making the achievement of it a concrete goal and not simply a matter of philosophy. It’s also a very solitary portrayal of the issue, showing how nonconformity is a personal journey; rebelling as part of a group is simply just another representation of conformity. The scenery of the woods on a fall day isn’t a dark image of the woods but mellow image with the concept of “yellow” implying a kind of comfort and simplicity.

He uses the same subtle imagery to describe the similar though very different paths that he chose between on that day. Both roads are equally appealing; the one road, though overgrown in some areas, was obviously used more, as the grass had been beaten away in some spots though he notes, “as for that the passing there/ Had worn them really about the same.” However, since the other path seemed less traveled, he made the choice to take that road. I think it’s important to note that all and all, the descriptions of the roads are very similar. In fact, Frost takes pains to show that they are really not so dissimilar, “both that morning equally lay/ In leaves no step had trodden black.” The difference is then not so much based in the appearance of things but the power of impulse and human intuition. The speaker in the poem knows that this decision is not one he will likely be able to make again, “Yet knowing how way leads to way, / I doubted I should ever come back.” He knows that the choices we make in life are often one minute opportunities that can very rarely be relived.

At the end of the poem, we realize that the speaker is now an old man who “somewhere ages and ages hence” had made a fateful choice in the woods that day. Though in the first part he seems to stress the only small variations in the appearance of the two roads, he shows in the last stanza the personal importance of the realization of his choice. The final lines are more purposeful than the first three stanzas, which almost seems a departure from the beginning sentiments. While the strength of the final two lines certainly strengthens the basic message of the benefits of nonconformity, it’s almost too forceful. From the imagery laden first section of the poem to the morally driven final stanza, I think the poem loses some of its power. The two roads imagery is a wonderful conceptualization of the choices in life, the one road more common and the other “less traveled” but the subtly of the differences in the first portion is overpowered by that latter forcefulness. 

Alice Walker’s essay, In Search of Our Mother’s Garden, talks about her search of the African American women’s suppressed talent, of the artistic skills and talents that they lost because of slavery and a forced way of life. Walker builds up her arguments from historical events as well as the collective experiences of African Americans, including her own. She uses these experiences to back up her arguments formed from recollections of various African American characters and events. Walker points out that a great part of her mother’s and grandmothers’ lives have been suppressed because of their sad, dark pasts. But all of these are not lost because somehow, these are manifested in even the smallest things that they do, and that they were also able to pass it down to the very people that they loved. Our search of our mother’s garden may end back to ourselves.

Walker builds up her argument by mentioning the experiences of other people in the essay. One of them is Jean Toomer, a poet in the early 1920s. He is a man who observed that Black women are unique because they possessed intense spirituality in them, even though their bodies endure every aspect of punishment in every single day of their lives. They were in the strictest sense Saints – crazy, pitiful saints. Walker points out that without a doubt, our mothers and grandmothers belong to this type of people. By building up on the observations of Toomer, she was somehow able to show how hard it was to be a mother or a grandmother or even just a woman at that time, one reason perhaps is that they are black. The mothers and grandmothers at that time endured all of this without any hope that tomorrow will be different, be better. Because of this, they were not able to fully express themselves. They were held back by their society.

 Another black character that she used to build her argument is Phillis Wheatley, a Black slave girl with a precarious health. Phillis is a poet and a writer at her own right, but unfortunately, she wasn’t able to do much with it because she was a slave. She didn’t have anything for herself, worse, she didn’t even own herself. Her futile attempts for self expression would be washed up by forced labor and pregnancies. She lost her health, and eventually her life without fully expressing herself through her gift for poetry.

Alice Walker used the story of Phillis to establish the understanding that indeed, African American women at that time were not allowed or didn’t have the luxury of time to exercise their gifts, to hone their talents and abilities, and use them to fully express themselves. By doing so, Walker proves that our mothers and grandmothers lived a boxed life back then, with no way to channel to them emotions and thoughts other than hard labor and forced servitude. She pointed out that we wouldn’t know if anyone of them would’ve bloomed to be poets, singers, actresses, because they never really had the chance to know what they can do.

By building up her argument using these two accounts, she is also presenting very strong evidence to her claim. These accounts were personal experiences of real African American people, and these are not just isolated cases. These are shared experiences not just by these two but by all of their people. Walker can confidently say that there is a lot of Phillis Wheatley in those times, perhaps including her mother and grandmothers. This is concrete evidence because it is not fictional, it is not imaginary, or something conceived out of Walker’s creativity. Slavery, forced pregnancies, poverty, and artistic suppression were the realities during the time of our grandmothers. No one can deny this, and no one can deny the existence of Phillis or the accounts of Jean Toomer.
    Considering Alice Walker’s authority in her arguments, she could be considered as an expert, a reliable source of information on the topic. First off, she is an African American woman, who had her fair share of poverty in her childhood. She was born and raised by hardworking parents, who really had to work day and night to provide for their family. Also, she witnesses first hand that even though her mother may not be a poet or a novelist; she was an artist in the truest sense. Her artistic side is manifested in her gardens and the beautiful flowers that she grows. Alice Walker witnessed all of this, experienced first hand what it was like to be poor and seemingly talentless.

The accounts that Alice Walker used to prove her points and back up her arguments were African American history that she was all too familiar with. It may have been shared to her by her families, or simply a collective knowledge passed down from one generation to another. She is also well-educated, a wide reader, and an artist. She often cites Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own, relating a white woman’s plight to a black woman’s hardships. She emphasizes that even though she recognizes Woolf’s point about society’s unfair treatment to women of her time, Walker still believes that black women suffered the most (Walker). There is simply nothing that could compare to the artistic suppression that her mother and grandmothers experienced.

In this essay, she is appealing to a general audience, with no specific race or ethnicity. I think this essay was written to highlight the African American women of her mother and grandmother’s time, who were unable to express their talents and hone it to its full potential. This essay is written to inform anyone and everyone reading it about their stories, and of her discovery of her mother’s garden. She was glad to know that it is possible for African American women to express themselves even unknowingly, that it is up to us to discover these “gardens.” She is appealing to the readers in general that even though some people like our mothers and grandmothers seem talentless or artistically inferior, it doesn’t mean that they really lack the talent. It just means that were not looking hard enough to find it.

Alice Walker’s method of using personal experience and historical accounts allow her to truthfully see and say what has really happened. She doesn’t have to make up hypothetical events because she already has a basis for her arguments. Jean Toomer’s recollections and Phillis Wheatley’s experiences are enough proof of her argument. If some people would disagree with what she’s saying, she can always go back to their experiences, to how Phillis suffered without fully using her gift, or what Toomer saw in the streets in the early Twenties. But because of this, I think Walker is somehow limited to the sad and pitiful stories of the past. Well, in reality, most of the stories of African Americans were really sad and pitiful, but still, Walker failed to mention of any successful artist who rose from the ranks of slaves to write her own story. It is either this kind of story really didn’t exist at that time, or Walker just didn’t mention it, since it wasn’t the focus of her essay.

Alice Walker concluded her essay by saying that Phillis Wheatley’s mother was also an artist, and that the achievements of their daughters were in some way brought about by their mothers. Her conclusion states that the mother is somehow responsible in every achievement of their daughter. Any artistic output by a person is also a product of their mother. Indeed, their children are their best creations, their very own wonderful gardens. This conclusion is related to her method because it goes back to how Phillis Wheatley’s mother was somehow responsible for her daughter’s artistic sense, and that beyond the poverty and the hardships that our mothers and grandmothers experienced during their times, they were still able to artistically express themselves through their children, their very own wonderful gardens.

It is fascinating that Harper Lee’s only novel, To Kill A Mockingbird, went on to be one of the greatest treasures of American Literature. As one reads the novel, it may seem that the story may have nothing to do with mockingbirds, as the title would imply. In fact, the mockingbird is only explicitly mentioned once in the whole novel. However, it should be understood that the mockingbird is used in reference to two important characters in the novel, Tom Robinson and Arthur “Boo” Radley. Harper Lee uses the mockingbird theme with Boo and Tom as examples and with fears and superstitions attached to the mockingbird and both characters.

    In order to truly understand how Harper Lee uses the mockingbird as a recurring theme, one must first understand what a mockingbird is like. A mockingbird is oftentimes also called a “songbird”. That is, it is a type of bird that appears to be singing as it mimics the cries of insects, amphibians, or other birds.

Additionally, a mockingbird does not act as a pest to the crops or animals of human beings. Thus, the only way that a mockingbird affects human beings is through its “songs” which can be heard. The birds do not harm humans, nor bother them in any other way. It can be said that by nature, the mockingbird willing “sings” for human beings while asking for nothing in return, and at the same time, not causing any harm to the humans. As stated earlier, the mocking birds are mentioned once in the entire novel, when Atticus Finch tells his children “shoot all the bluejays that you want” while adding, “it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird”. This is further explained when Miss Maude explains to Scout that mocking birds “don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us”. Using these lines from the novel along with an understanding of mockingbirds, Harper Lee intends to portray the birds as nothing but beneficial to human beings. As such, it would be unclear as to why anyone would want to harm, let alone kill, something that does nothing but good.

    With an understanding of mockingbirds in Harper Lee’s context, it is now possible to begin analyzing how this theme is used in the novel. Boo Radley is the first character that can be compared to a mockingbird. As stated earlier, mockingbirds do nothing but benefit human beings by giving their songs. How can this be seen in Boo Radley? It should not be taken literally that Boo Radley himself is a “songbird”, singing for the benefit of the Maycomb County folk. He does however also provide benefit to them, particularly to Jem and Scout. This is clearly seen in the various gifts that he gives them via a hole in a tree. The greatest gift given by Boo however was his act of protecting Jem and Scout from Bob Ewell at the end of the novel. It should be noted that these acts of generosity and kindness came with no price attached to them. That is, Boo never asked for anything in return for the gifts he gave, and not even for saving the children’s lives. Additionally, despite all the rumors and hearsay about the violent nature of Boo, he never did any harm to any other person, except of course to Bob Ewell. With this in mind, it can be clearly seen that Boo Radley did nothing but good things to the people of Maycomb. As such, similar to what Atticus said, it can be argued that it would be a sin to kill Boo Radley.

    The second character that can be compared to the mockingbird is Tom Robinson. Tom Robinson was the African-American field hand accused of the rape of Mayella Ewell, Bob’s daughter. Once again, in order to establish a comparison between Tom and the mockingbird, it must be proven that he provides nothing but benefits to people, while at the same time providing no harm to them. In this case, what are the gifts that Tom provides? Tom was field worker, while also doing odd jobs for people around the town. It is evident that the gift of Tom would be labor. He goes around town helping other people with manual labor. What about the point of not asking anything in return? How can Tom Robinson be considered a “mockingbird” if he willingly did odd jobs for money? It must be understood that Tom Robinson did the feats of manual labor out of the goodness of his heart, and that he never charged a price or fee. Whatever was given to him was given out of the kindness of the person whom he has helped. For the final point, can it be established that he has not done any harm to anybody else? With a shriveled, useless left arm, it would be near impossible for Tom Robinson to harm anybody. Also there are no indications of any criminal behavior by Tom aside from the accusation of Bob Ewell. With this information, it can be said that Tom did no harm to other people. Similar to the mockingbird and to Boo Radley, it would be a sin to kill Tom Robinson, as all he did for the people was help them.

    Having established that both Boo and Tom can be considered to be “mockingbirds” in their own rights, the next important aspect to understand would be the superstitions and beliefs attached to each. For the mockingbird, it should be clear at this point that one superstition attached to them is that they should not be harmed. All they do is provide good to human beings, to an extent, living their lives with nothing but the intention to sing for human beings. Would it be right to kill something that spends it live giving nothing but good things? As such, it would be a sin to kill such an animal. As for Boo Radley, the belief attached to him was that he was some kind of violent monster locked up in his house. With the rumors that he had stabbed his father in the leg with a pair of scissors, people began to think that Boo was a violent man who would harm anyone who came near his house. As for Tom Robinson, the beliefs that were said about him were not just for him as a person, but also rather for the entire race of African-Americans. People, mostly the white people, believed that the African-Americans were dangerous and were criminals. Take for example Mrs. Farrow, a member of Aunt Alexandra’s missionary circle. She says, in reference to African-Americans,  “We can educate ’em till we’re blue in the face, we can try till we drop to make Christians out of ’em, but there’s no lady safe in her bed these nights.” In short, Mrs. Farrow believes that the African-Americans will always be evil and that Tom Robinson is automatically guilty of the rape. Another character in the novel, the newspaper editor Braxton Bragg Underwood was another person who was not very fond of African-Americans. However, upon Tom Robinson’s death, he writes, “It is a sin to kill a cripple”. This can be understood as thinking cripples are harmless and should not be killed. In Underwood’s case it can be seen that his beliefs against African-Americans were eventually overpowered by his beliefs about cripples. These beliefs and superstitions are all attached to mockingbirds, Boo, and Tom for various reasons. What is more important though is how all these beliefs tie into the theme of Harper Lee.

    In conclusion, it must be understood that encompassing theme in To Kill A Mockingbird would be the usefulness of mockingbirds and how they should appreciated and not killed or harmed. It has been established that all three points of discussion, namely the mockingbirds, Boo and Tom, have superstitions attached to them. For the mockingbird, the superstition is that they are very helpful and should not be harmed. For Boo, the belief is that he is a violent man who should be avoided. Tom has two beliefs attached to him, one being that African-Americans in general are evil or criminal, while the other is that cripples are harmless and should not be harmed. Despite all these superstitions and beliefs, one thing is clear. That is, if something, or someone, does nothing but good, giving gifts and helping out, why is there any reason for harm? For Tom and Boo, initial beliefs would leave people in Maycomb to think that they are dangerous individuals, blinding people from seeing that they are “mockingbirds” in their own rights, and should not be harmed. The superstitions and beliefs about Boo and Tom blind people from seeing what the two truly are: good people who have not harmed anyone. It is unfortunate that a group of people who believe that the mockingbird should not be harmed can fail to see that fellow human beings should be treated the same way, all because of the beliefs that they have had previously. Harper Lee uses this recurring theme of mockingbirds to establish that no matter what initial belief or superstition, if nothing but good comes from something or someone, it must not be harmed. Boo and Tom were mockingbirds, no question about it. “Mockingbirds” can be seen in everyday life. It is up to a person whether he wishes to see them for what they are or whether to let previous beliefs blind them. At the end of the day, the fact remains; a person should never kill a “mockingbird”.

Noah is a significant character both in the Bible and the Quran. In both books, he was saved by God or Allah from the flood that wiped out the human race and the world they are living in. Noah in the Bible and in the Quran has a similarity and a few differences in personality which shall be discussed in this essay.

Noah of the Old Testament found favor in the eyes of the Lord because of his obedience. When God decided to put an end to mankind along with all living creatures on earth by flood, he asked Noah to build an ark where he will put two, male and female, of every creature and store food of every kind. Furthermore, he said, “I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. Noah obeyed all of God’s commands.

In the Quran, Allah’s favor for Noah was reflected when he was sent to the people with a command, “Do thou warn thy People before there comes to them a grievous Penalty.” His obedience of this command may be gleaned when he said, “O my Lord! I have called to my People night and day” and “I have spoken to them in public and secretly in private…”
In this obedience underlies the difference in personality between the two depictions of Noah. While in the Bible, it was said that Noah obeyed everything that God commanded showing his humility and the low self-importance which he befits himself. In contrast, in the Quran, Noah showed through his words his opinion or his belief of how important he is to wit, "O my People! I am to you a Warner, clear and open; "That ye should worship Allah, fear Him and obey me.”; and “O my Lord! They have disobeyed me, but they follow (men) whose wealth and children give them no increase but only Loss.”  Instead of saying that it is Allah who is to be obeyed, his words showed that it is himself that is to be followed and not Allah. This character is not evident in the other Noah. In fact, he was described as a righteous man who walked with God.

Furthermore, the Quran depicts a Noah who deems it upon himself to set judgment on other people and tells God to punish them. This is mirrored when he said to God after he was unable to dissuade the people from their evil ways, “"O my Lord! Leave not of the Unbelievers, a single one on earth! "For, if Thou dost leave (any of) them, they will but mislead Thy devotees, and they will breed none but wicked ungrateful ones. In addition, he said to Allah, “to the wrong-doers grant Thou no increase but in perdition.” Being described as someone who is blameless, Noah of the Bible did not exhibit the trait depicted above.

It is also noteworthy that Noah of the Bible did not appeal to God that his family be saved from the impending worldwide catastrophe. He accepted everything which God told him and obeyed all of His commands. Noah in the Quran, however, asked for forgiveness for his family, all who enter his “house in Faith” and all believers. Although, this is not to say that asking forgiveness is a bad thing, it is, however, apparent that he asked forgiveness for a few select people which means that he already marginalized those whom he thinks have been disobedient to the ways of Allah and he already assumed that his family has not been so.

Though united by the same fate and their obedience to the Creator, the two Noah’s are divided by personality traits which are of significance because of their impact on the message of the Bible or Quran. From this personal evaluation, issues about the character of those who will be saved may be in question. But, of course, evaluations are relative ideas. Being relative, they may differ from one person to the next. The story of Noah in the Bible and the Quran imparts the message of deliverance through faith, obedience coupled with good actions.