English 103 Blog #1

English 103 Blog #1

Discussion Question #1

1) Choose a selection from Week 1 and explain how the concept of romantic love is treated. Does it offer a traditional take or challenge typical conventions (i.e., we should date/marry for romantic love rather than security; everyone should find/have a “soul mate”; “true” love lasts forever; romantic love should be reserved for a man and a woman, etc.)

The reading pieces for this week were quite enlightening to me. I have never read so many different pieces that had so many different ideas. The romance pieces that we read were a good example of this. Some of them centered on true love forever, others on seduction, while others centered on love being nothing but a vague idea. This was the case with the romantic piece, “True Love,” written by Wislawa Szymboska. Szymboska wrote this romantic piece and treats love as something that is something to be desired, but that is not attainable for everyone. This came to mind after reading the end of Szymboska’s poem: “Let the people who never find true love keep saying that there’s no such thing. Their faith will make it easier for them to live and die” (Schilb and Clifford 623). This was rather a bold slap in reality, but one I realized that is true. Not everyone finds true love. I thought of a good connection to Szymboska’s poem regarding wealthy and poor people. Everyone wants wealth and riches, but sometimes it is only attainable by certain people. Not everyone is extremely rich with no debts and a carefree life – there will always be a monetary gap in society. When reading this romantic poem by Szymboska, I was making that same comparison because that is exactly how Szymboska is treating love. Furthermore, she wonders if true love is even practical in the real world. Szymboska states, “True love. Is it normal, is it serious, is it practical? What does the world get from two people who exist in a world of their own?” (Schilb and Clifford 623). Does it benefit anyone other than the two people who are in love? No, and love that two happy couples feel should be hid from society. In my opinion, Szymboska challenges the traditional ideas of love (that love is not forever, and that it is not for everyone). In fact, I have never read a poem such as hers. Another thing that I was amazed about in her poem is that she suggested that love should be hid for the sake of others! She acts like it is a disgusting, vulgar thing that must be eliminated off of the face of the planet: “Look at the happy couple! Couldn’t they at least try to hide it, fake a little depression for their friends’ sake! Listen to them laughing – it’s an insult. The language they use – deceptively clear. And their little celebrations, rituals, the elaborate routines – it’s obviously a plot behind the human race’s back!” (Schilb and Clifford 623). Basically, Szymboska treats the concept of romantic love as a big joke. True love is not for everyone and people should face this reality. But could this be that the author was hurt by her own true love and therefore wrote a poem harshly criticizing it? That was what I was thinking a little bit after reading this piece. This criticism has to come from somewhere; maybe it came from the depths of the author’s soul. No matter where it came from, the author’s point is clear. In the poem, “True Love,” written by Wislawa Szymboska, the concept of romantic love is treated harshly and explains to its audience that if they face the fact that they may never find “the one,” it will be easier to live and die more comfortably.

Discussion Question #3

3) Does the selection you chose challenge the definition/beliefs you have about romantic love? How so? Does it correspond to your definition/beliefs? How so?

In the romantic short story, “The Story of an Hour,” written by Kate Chopin, Mrs. Mallard was confronted with the grim news that she was going to have to spend the rest of her life without her husband. At the beginning of the short story, Chopin explains how Mrs. Mallard was “afflicted with heart trouble” and that “great care was taken to break to her as gently as possible the news of her husband’s death” (Schilb and Clifford 688). After I read this, it made me think that Mrs. Mallard was a delicate woman who was deeply in love with her husband, and that the news of his death would kill her. I thought that it would kill her because she loved him deeply. Not so. This romantic piece that I chose does challenge my beliefs about romantic love. It challenges my belief system because I believed that marriage was for love, and if something terrible happened in the marriage, the marriage should be dissolved. Furthermore, I believed that if two people truly did not love each other in the first place, they should not have married in the first place. After I finished reading the short story, I was amazed at how liberated Mrs. Mallard was when she found out that she was not going to be spending the rest of her life with her husband, Brently Mallard. Mrs. Mallard felt utter freedom at her husband’s death: “There would be no one to live for during those coming years: she would live for herself. There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature”(Schilb and Clifford 689). Mrs. Mallard felt that her life had finally had begun after hearing the news of her husband’s death: “Free! Body and soul free!” she kept whispering. Her fancy was running riot along those days ahead of her. Spring days, and summer days, and all sorts of days that would be her own. She breathed a quick prayer that life might be long. It was only yesterday she had thought with a shudder that life might be long” (Schilb and Clifford 689). After reading these critical parts of the story, it revealed just how miserable Mrs. Mallard was in her marriage. When she heard about the death of her husband, it seem as though she was released from her bondage. However, something amazing happened: Mr. Mallard reappeared! In fact, he never died and it was a mistake: “Some one was opening the front door with a latchkey. It was Brently Mallard who entered, a little traveled-stained, composedly carrying his gripsack and umbrella. He had been far from the scene of accident, and did not even know there had been one” (Schilb and Clifford 689). When Mrs. Mallard found out that her husband was in fact, alive, and well, it killed her: “When the doctors came they said she had died of heart disease – of joy that kills” (Schilb and Clifford 689). Mrs. Mallard was so upset that her husband was alive that her heart stopped. It was a tragic end, and really, a tragic story. If Mrs. Mallard was that miserable, she and her husband should have separated. She should not have stayed out of a sense of duty to her husband; living a miserable life is not living at all. Or, if they really did not truly love each other in the beginning of their lives, they should not have gotten married. However, maybe they did not have a choice if it was arranged for them. Or, maybe they did love each other once, and things happened that caused their feelings toward each other to change. No matter the circumstances regarding the marriage, this romantic piece does challenge my belief system, and it does not correspond at all to my belief system. I would not marry anyone unless I was sure he was “the one.” However, if things started to fall apart or get dangerous in my marriage, I would divorce my husband. I would not waste years and years of my life, making myself miserable. I would not let anything in my life get to the point where it would kill me. The romantic short story, “The Story of an Hour,” is a tragic story about how relationships can be dangerous to our health, and that we have a responsibility to not just other people, but ourselves as well.