English 103 Blog #3
Discussion Questions
Discussion Question #3
3) “Wild Nights -- Wild Nights!” This poem has traditionally been understood as a brief meditation/ode to a sexual encounter (largely given the use of archetypal images often used to stand in for sex: "Might I but 'moor' -- Tonight --/ In Thee" (Lines 11 and 12). Consider, however, whether this poem might suggest something about a relationship UN-moored by the fetters of marriage. Critic Sarah Ann Wilder offers the following as commentary on the "wife" poems written in the 1860s. While "Night!" is not one of these poems, it does offer a depiction of something other than the typical female marital experience. "Dickinson's own ambivalence toward marriage-- an ambivalence so common as to be ubiquitous in the journals of young women--was clearly grounded in her perception of what the role of "wife" required. From her own housework as dutiful daughter, she had seen how secondary her own work became. In her observation of married women, her mother not excluded, she saw the failing health, the unmet demands, and the absenting of self that was part of the husband-wife relationship." Consider "Nights!", then, in a biographical context, explaining how/why this poem might suggest something more freeing than a conventional relationship.
The poem, “Wild Nights – Wild Nights!” written by Emily Dickenson, is a short but powerful piece that deals with breaking free from a traditional relationship. After I read the poem, I felt that Dickenson was reflecting the unexpressed feelings of many married women. Married women, back in Dickenson’s era, were held to different standards and had to stay in their own, “social spheres.” To break from those spheres, standards, and other roles would mean disgrace and dishonor for the woman and possibly her family. One of the two main roles that women had to adhere to back in Dickenson’s day was the role of wife and mother. These roles were often demanding – women had to raise the children, care for the house, cook the meals, tend to the laundry, clean the dishes, and care for the husband – and usually had no time at all to take care of herself. In fact, this was usually unheard of. However, this was the conventional relationship of most women that got married in society in the 1800s, and as critic Sarah Ann Wilder notes, Dickenson watched her mother go through firsthand.
I believe that Emily Dickenson’s poem “Wild Nights – Wild Nights!” can be considered in a biographical context because of her observations of women in daily life, and can explain why this poem suggests something more freeing than a conventional relationship. As a writer, Dickenson probably incorporated many things from her daily life into her writings. Furthermore, her writings reflect issues that were most important to her and probably echoed the unexpressed feelings of other women. I really liked how critic Sarah Ann Wilder explained some of Dickenson’s observations of women, and important issues she noted about them: “From her own housework as dutiful daughter, she had seen how secondary her own work became. In her observation of married women, her mother not excluded, she saw the failing health, the unmet demands, and the absenting of self that was part of the husband-wife relationship” (Ann Wilder). Dickenson wanted this poem to be of a biographical nature because she wanted other women to read it and feel the freedom from the poem that she felt. The women that were bound to these conventional relationships and marriages may have felt trapped, and Dickenson’s poem could have been the only release they felt they were allowed to have in their relationships. Emily Dickenson’s poem does suggest something more freeing than a conventional relationship in her poem, “Wild Nights – Wild Nights!” Dickenson suggests that marriages and relationships should not be so demanding, tiring, and restricting on a woman. If a woman has many responsibilities that are placed on her, than her life will start to crumble and not only will her health decline, but so will the health of those around her. In her poem, Dickenson writes, “Futile – the Winds – To a Heart in port – Done with the Compass – Done with the Chart!” (qtd. in Schlib and Clifford 582). I thought this particular stanza was important in the poem because it explained how Dickenson refuses to “navigate” the traditional seas; rather, she is willing and very excited to venture into more dangerous waters. It is this particular message that she is trying to communicate to her female audience that are stuck in these relationships and are not satisfied with them. Dickenson is exclaiming, “Break free from them! Do not experience the normal, conventional relationship. Take your relationship with your partner to different levels of respect.” This is the main message of Dickenson’s poem – something more freeing and empowering than a conventional relationship.
In Emily Dickenson’s poem, “Wild Nights – Wild Nights!” she is proclaiming to the world the empowering message of how liberating it is to be in a less conventional relationship.
The poem, “Wild Nights – Wild Nights!” written by Emily Dickenson, is a short but powerful piece that deals with breaking free from a traditional relationship. After I read the poem, I felt that Dickenson was reflecting the unexpressed feelings of many married women. Married women, back in Dickenson’s era, were held to different standards and had to stay in their own, “social spheres.” To break from those spheres, standards, and other roles would mean disgrace and dishonor for the woman and possibly her family. One of the two main roles that women had to adhere to back in Dickenson’s day was the role of wife and mother. These roles were often demanding – women had to raise the children, care for the house, cook the meals, tend to the laundry, clean the dishes, and care for the husband – and usually had no time at all to take care of herself. In fact, this was usually unheard of. However, this was the conventional relationship of most women that got married in society in the 1800s, and as critic Sarah Ann Wilder notes, Dickenson watched her mother go through firsthand.
I believe that Emily Dickenson’s poem “Wild Nights – Wild Nights!” can be considered in a biographical context because of her observations of women in daily life, and can explain why this poem suggests something more freeing than a conventional relationship. As a writer, Dickenson probably incorporated many things from her daily life into her writings. Furthermore, her writings reflect issues that were most important to her and probably echoed the unexpressed feelings of other women. I really liked how critic Sarah Ann Wilder explained some of Dickenson’s observations of women, and important issues she noted about them: “From her own housework as dutiful daughter, she had seen how secondary her own work became. In her observation of married women, her mother not excluded, she saw the failing health, the unmet demands, and the absenting of self that was part of the husband-wife relationship” (Ann Wilder). Dickenson wanted this poem to be of a biographical nature because she wanted other women to read it and feel the freedom from the poem that she felt. The women that were bound to these conventional relationships and marriages may have felt trapped, and Dickenson’s poem could have been the only release they felt they were allowed to have in their relationships. Emily Dickenson’s poem does suggest something more freeing than a conventional relationship in her poem, “Wild Nights – Wild Nights!” Dickenson suggests that marriages and relationships should not be so demanding, tiring, and restricting on a woman. If a woman has many responsibilities that are placed on her, than her life will start to crumble and not only will her health decline, but so will the health of those around her. In her poem, Dickenson writes, “Futile – the Winds – To a Heart in port – Done with the Compass – Done with the Chart!” (qtd. in Schlib and Clifford 582). I thought this particular stanza was important in the poem because it explained how Dickenson refuses to “navigate” the traditional seas; rather, she is willing and very excited to venture into more dangerous waters. It is this particular message that she is trying to communicate to her female audience that are stuck in these relationships and are not satisfied with them. Dickenson is exclaiming, “Break free from them! Do not experience the normal, conventional relationship. Take your relationship with your partner to different levels of respect.” This is the main message of Dickenson’s poem – something more freeing and empowering than a conventional relationship.
In Emily Dickenson’s poem, “Wild Nights – Wild Nights!” she is proclaiming to the world the empowering message of how liberating it is to be in a less conventional relationship.
Discussion Question #6
6) A Doll House: The criticism lodged against the play here belongs to Clement Scott, a theater critic for Britain’s (newspaper) The Daily Telegraph. As such, it’s a perfect example of “contemporary criticism” – Scott reads the play according to the conventions and morals of the day (1889). His overview Ibsen’s scandalous social drama:
this frivolous and irresponsible young person who does not hesitate to fib, and can, at a pinch, condescend to forge; a wife of eight years' standing who changes from a grown-up baby to an illogical preacher; a woman who, in a fit of disappointment, in spite of appeal to her honour, her maternity, her religion, her sense of justice, leaves the husband she has sworn to love, the home she has engaged to govern, and the children she is made to cherish; having introduced us to the sensual Dr. Rank, who discusses hereditary disease and the fit of silk stockings with the innocent wife of his bosom friend; having contrasted the sublimated egoism of the husband Helmer with the unnatural selfishness of Nora, his wife; having flung upon the stage a congregation of men and women without one spark of nobility in their nature, men without conscience and women without affection, an unlovable, unlovely, and detestable crew—the admirers of Ibsen, failing to convince us of the excellence of such creatures, turn round and abuse the wholesome minds that cannot swallow such unpalatable doctrine, and the stage that has hitherto steered clear of such unpleasing realism.
Is Scott’s criticism useful? Do you think it reflects social values of the day? Are the characters really so unsympathetic as Scott characterizes them? Discuss.
Yes, I do believe that Clement Scott’s criticism is useful. There is no perfect piece of literature; whenever there is a controversial piece written that challenges society, there will always be a critic. People have a right to voice their opinions against anything that may seem like an outrage against society; in this case, A Doll House fits this category. It fits this category because when "A Doll House" was written, it challenged the roles that men and women play in a family. "A Doll House" received much criticism, not only from Scott. For example, many Europeans thought this play was downright scandalous in nature due to the fact that it challenged the holy covenant of marriage (1). Furthermore, Henrik Ibsen, the play’s author, had to write an alternative ending because his agent felt the original ending would not received well (1). Doing a little bit of research on this play was helpful in understanding how critical people were of Ibsen’s, "A Doll House".
Yes, after doing my own research and reading Scott’s criticism on the play, I do think that Scott’s criticism reflects the social values of the day. For example, Scott states, “this frivolous and irresponsible young person who does not hesitate to fib, and can, at a pinch, condescend to forge; a wife of eight years' standing who changes from a grown-up baby to an illogical preacher; a woman who, in a fit of disappointment, in spite of appeal to her honour, her maternity, her religion, her sense of justice, leaves the husband she has sworn to love, the home she has engaged to govern, and the children she is made to cherish…” (Clement Scott). This particular quote from Scott’s criticism sums up the social values of the 1800s. Two of my favorite subjects in school are English and History; I am always doing some type of research on interesting history tid-bits, especially if I do not know a lot about it. Therefore, I know that these are the traditional values that were held by the majority of society during this time period. People did not question their roles in life; they followed them. To question them and walk away from your traditional duties was unheard of and dishonorable. People just did not do this type of thing. This is why Scott’s criticism of "A Doll House" is useful and why it does reflect the social values of the day. Everyone followed these values, and to stray from the path was shocking. This is probably the main reason why A Doll House was met with such harsh criticism.
I really do not think these characters are as unsympathetic as Scott characterizes them. Scott puts these characters in a harsh spotlight because he is criticizing the play, rather than praising it. The characters had their motives for what they did; they were not heartless, evil human beings. Let me go back to the quote that Scott uses in his criticism of the play, "A Doll House": “this frivolous and irresponsible young person who does not hesitate to fib, and can, at a pinch, condescend to forge; a wife of eight years' standing who changes from a grown-up baby to an illogical preacher; a woman who, in a fit of disappointment, in spite of appeal to her honour, her maternity, her religion, her sense of justice, leaves the husband she has sworn to love, the home she has engaged to govern, and the children she is made to cherish…” (Clement Scott). For example, let me analyze Nora a bit. I cannot say that I completely understand or agree with what she did at the end of the play when she walked away from her children without so much as a good-bye, but I can understand what she did at the beginning of the play. She was a desperate woman – when she heard that her husband was ill, and that the only chance of him recovering was a trip to the South, she did whatever it took to save his life. She loved him passionately, and could not bear the thought of losing him. Nora explains this to Helmer in one short sentence when he discovers her secret: “It is true. I’ve loved you more than all this world” (qtd. in Schlib and Clifford 903). When a person loves another person deeply and affectionately, they will do whatever it takes to keep that person happy and safe. That is exactly what Nora did, but she had to hide this deed from her husband because women were not allowed to take out such large amounts of money. When her husband found out and was lashing out at her, it hurt her deeply because all Helmer was thinking about was his reputation that she destroyed. He did not even care about the fact that without Nora, he would not be alive. It was this, along with other realizations, which made Nora leave in a preaching manner, along with a strange personality change. Nora was main character that Scott harshly criticized in this play. If readers completely did not agree with the theme of the play, and agreed with Scott’s criticism, than the characters would seem unsympathetic to the reader. However, I do not believe this is the case if readers take off the face of a critic. They will see that all of the characters have some type of sympathy – even the nurse, Anne-Marie. However, the characters’ flaws and controversial views can be seen in the play as well, and it is these flaws and views that are harshly criticized.
Clement Scott’s criticism of the play, "A Doll House", by Henrik Ibsen, is useful because it reflects the social values of the day, but it portrays the characters in an unnecessary unsympathetic light.
Links:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_doll_house#Critics
this frivolous and irresponsible young person who does not hesitate to fib, and can, at a pinch, condescend to forge; a wife of eight years' standing who changes from a grown-up baby to an illogical preacher; a woman who, in a fit of disappointment, in spite of appeal to her honour, her maternity, her religion, her sense of justice, leaves the husband she has sworn to love, the home she has engaged to govern, and the children she is made to cherish; having introduced us to the sensual Dr. Rank, who discusses hereditary disease and the fit of silk stockings with the innocent wife of his bosom friend; having contrasted the sublimated egoism of the husband Helmer with the unnatural selfishness of Nora, his wife; having flung upon the stage a congregation of men and women without one spark of nobility in their nature, men without conscience and women without affection, an unlovable, unlovely, and detestable crew—the admirers of Ibsen, failing to convince us of the excellence of such creatures, turn round and abuse the wholesome minds that cannot swallow such unpalatable doctrine, and the stage that has hitherto steered clear of such unpleasing realism.
Is Scott’s criticism useful? Do you think it reflects social values of the day? Are the characters really so unsympathetic as Scott characterizes them? Discuss.
Yes, I do believe that Clement Scott’s criticism is useful. There is no perfect piece of literature; whenever there is a controversial piece written that challenges society, there will always be a critic. People have a right to voice their opinions against anything that may seem like an outrage against society; in this case, A Doll House fits this category. It fits this category because when "A Doll House" was written, it challenged the roles that men and women play in a family. "A Doll House" received much criticism, not only from Scott. For example, many Europeans thought this play was downright scandalous in nature due to the fact that it challenged the holy covenant of marriage (1). Furthermore, Henrik Ibsen, the play’s author, had to write an alternative ending because his agent felt the original ending would not received well (1). Doing a little bit of research on this play was helpful in understanding how critical people were of Ibsen’s, "A Doll House".
Yes, after doing my own research and reading Scott’s criticism on the play, I do think that Scott’s criticism reflects the social values of the day. For example, Scott states, “this frivolous and irresponsible young person who does not hesitate to fib, and can, at a pinch, condescend to forge; a wife of eight years' standing who changes from a grown-up baby to an illogical preacher; a woman who, in a fit of disappointment, in spite of appeal to her honour, her maternity, her religion, her sense of justice, leaves the husband she has sworn to love, the home she has engaged to govern, and the children she is made to cherish…” (Clement Scott). This particular quote from Scott’s criticism sums up the social values of the 1800s. Two of my favorite subjects in school are English and History; I am always doing some type of research on interesting history tid-bits, especially if I do not know a lot about it. Therefore, I know that these are the traditional values that were held by the majority of society during this time period. People did not question their roles in life; they followed them. To question them and walk away from your traditional duties was unheard of and dishonorable. People just did not do this type of thing. This is why Scott’s criticism of "A Doll House" is useful and why it does reflect the social values of the day. Everyone followed these values, and to stray from the path was shocking. This is probably the main reason why A Doll House was met with such harsh criticism.
I really do not think these characters are as unsympathetic as Scott characterizes them. Scott puts these characters in a harsh spotlight because he is criticizing the play, rather than praising it. The characters had their motives for what they did; they were not heartless, evil human beings. Let me go back to the quote that Scott uses in his criticism of the play, "A Doll House": “this frivolous and irresponsible young person who does not hesitate to fib, and can, at a pinch, condescend to forge; a wife of eight years' standing who changes from a grown-up baby to an illogical preacher; a woman who, in a fit of disappointment, in spite of appeal to her honour, her maternity, her religion, her sense of justice, leaves the husband she has sworn to love, the home she has engaged to govern, and the children she is made to cherish…” (Clement Scott). For example, let me analyze Nora a bit. I cannot say that I completely understand or agree with what she did at the end of the play when she walked away from her children without so much as a good-bye, but I can understand what she did at the beginning of the play. She was a desperate woman – when she heard that her husband was ill, and that the only chance of him recovering was a trip to the South, she did whatever it took to save his life. She loved him passionately, and could not bear the thought of losing him. Nora explains this to Helmer in one short sentence when he discovers her secret: “It is true. I’ve loved you more than all this world” (qtd. in Schlib and Clifford 903). When a person loves another person deeply and affectionately, they will do whatever it takes to keep that person happy and safe. That is exactly what Nora did, but she had to hide this deed from her husband because women were not allowed to take out such large amounts of money. When her husband found out and was lashing out at her, it hurt her deeply because all Helmer was thinking about was his reputation that she destroyed. He did not even care about the fact that without Nora, he would not be alive. It was this, along with other realizations, which made Nora leave in a preaching manner, along with a strange personality change. Nora was main character that Scott harshly criticized in this play. If readers completely did not agree with the theme of the play, and agreed with Scott’s criticism, than the characters would seem unsympathetic to the reader. However, I do not believe this is the case if readers take off the face of a critic. They will see that all of the characters have some type of sympathy – even the nurse, Anne-Marie. However, the characters’ flaws and controversial views can be seen in the play as well, and it is these flaws and views that are harshly criticized.
Clement Scott’s criticism of the play, "A Doll House", by Henrik Ibsen, is useful because it reflects the social values of the day, but it portrays the characters in an unnecessary unsympathetic light.
Links:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_doll_house#Critics
Sorry, everyone!
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the email from Professor Bolaski this past week about the blogs, I should probably sign my name from now on my blogs. I am Jillian. :-)
Have a blessed week!
Jillian,
ReplyDeleteYou're doing such a thorough job with your blogging. :) I've enjoyed reading your responses. I just want to point out a small correction: middle-class women (like Nora) typically did not do all the household chores, cooking, child-rearing, etc. in this time period. Most had servants and/or cooks and governesses. Child-raising was viewed from a very different vantage point, and those with the means to do it usually employed nurses and governesses to do many of the things today's mothers do (and often want to do). The mark of a middle-class woman was her leisure time -- if she had the time to spend on leisure activities, some that had a high social value (like "calling" on friends and neighbors, having poetry readings, playing the piano, etc.), she had achieved a particular class status and thus place in the community.