Review of Review by Dorothy Van Ghent

            In her review of Pride and Prejudice, Dorothy Van Ghent attempts to clarify what a reader’s expectations for a Jane Austen novel should be. She explains that many modern readers find the book to be “limited to the manners of a small section of English country gentry,” and while this observation is true, Ghent believes that the true value of Austen’s novel is in the way that she explores and masters the limits of her world.

            Ghent gives light to Austen’s background and the civilization that she writes for, in which “there is time only for a sufficiently complicated business of getting wived and husbanded and of adapting oneself to civilization and civilization to oneself.” Austen is writing for people who live in this society and are stifled by it. She is limited to this world, but according to Ghent, she is able to “illuminate the difficult and delicate reconciliation of the sensitively developed individual with the terms of his social existence.” By working within the language and conventions of her time, Austen was able to further explore and define the intricacies of her world in her own person style.

            Ghent points out that this style of Austen’s includes wit and double meaning, especially in the very first sentence of the novel, which tells us that “”a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife’”. Ghent reads this as “a single woman must be in want of a man with a good fortune” and therefore, as a perfect summary of the novel’s plot, and of Austen’s society. Ghent further describes Austen’s language by stating that it has a “syntactical modesty conveying a very daft and energetic mental dance.” It is remarkable in its timelessness, despite the limitations that Austen was working with.

Ghent’s review is eye-opening in that it allows readers of Pride and Prejudice to delve deeper into the style of the author. It helps us to remember whom Austen was writing for, and that she wasn’t writing for us. Ghent describes the novel perfectly when she says it is “two inches of ivory”. It is a piece of work to be admired for what it does describe, not to be criticized for what it doesn’t. 

Soul

     The word "soul" probably has a distinct meaning for everyone. Soul can be a term used to explain the thing that drives our thoughts or simply a type of music. Soul might be what we think defines us or even a type of food that gives us comfort. It is because "soul" has so many meanings and associations that I am curious to learn about its origins. What was this word originally used to mean, and how did it become so ambiguous? In my opinion, the soul is a mysterious part of us, that can never really be defined, but I certainly acknowledge it as a type of food or music as well. The word "soul" is hard for me to define, because I find it impossible to understand, and I am curious to learn its history and development. I want to understand what "soul" means to the rest of the world, present and past.

Summary of "Frankenstein and Radical Science" by Marilyn Butler

• "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is famously reinterpretable." It seems to fit any time period because it can be interpreted to be an allusion or allegory for different things in any time period. 

• About one year after Shelley published the novel, the public criticized it for the controversial kind of science (natural science) that it represented. It became less infamous as people gained awareness of the scientific world, because they no longer viewed it as something radical and exciting. 

• Mary Shelley wrote accurately on scientific matters, most likely because she was friends with a respected science writer, William Lawrence. He also influenced her view of man through his writings about natural science and the mechanisms or motivations of man seen in animals. Furthermore, because of this influence, many people, at one time, interpreted Shelley's work as an attack of Christianity.

• Many themes of Lawrence's natural science writings can be found in Shelley's text. For example, "mankind as a domesticated animal, pretentious but flawed." Other themes that Shelley touches on might include "heredity, fosterage and nurturance, sexual selection and the perverse adoption of choices which lead to extinction." (It's easy to see why these ideas were not entirely excepted at the time.) Also the fact that the creature attempts to nurture Frankenstein--for example when he kills a hare for him--could reflect the idea that primitive man is inevitably father to sophisticated man. 

• Lawrence was later condemned for his writings, and this left Shelley in the predicament of publishing a book with blasphemous writings. She re-published a new edition in 1831, which depicted Frankenstein as a more religious character. She also took out a lot of Frankenstein's scientific background, and the genetic material about his family. Now, people could interpret the plot of Frankenstein as they liked, because most of the obvious themes of evolutionary theory were eliminated. 

The Similar Nature of Humility Represented by Sir Gawain and Sculpture of Akhenaten

     One of Sir Gawain's most admirable traits throughout his story is his humility. He consistently lies about or conceals his virtuous acts, mainly those of strength and his courtesy, in order to avoid loftiness. In this way, Sir Gawain uses a dishonest portrayal of his character to keep himself humble in his court and his travels. Another example of humility lies in one of Ancient Egypt's most famous rulers, Akhenaten, whose honest portrayal of himself in sculpture represents a humility that is juxtaposed against the exaggerated and haughty sculptures of his predecessors. Sir Gawain and Akhenaten are therefore similar in their relatively humble views of themselves; however, they are different in that one chooses humility through dishonesty, while the other is humble in his honesty.
     Both subjects are humble in their portrayal of their own strength, as strength and power were important in both cultures. When he proposes his challenge of the Green Knight to King Arthur, Gawain de-emphasizes his strength as he proclaims, "...I am the weakest, well I know, and of wit feeblest; And the loss of my life would be least of any..."(121). The reader knows that this is false, because Gawain easily decapitates the Green Knight in the next passage. His statement was simply an example of his humility and his tendency to reject the reality of his potency.
     Similarly, any statue of Akhenaten gave him an androgynous figure with a large stomach, which was probably what he actually looked like because of starvation at that time, instead of the muscled figure that his predecessors granted themselves. Similar to Gawain's de-emphasization of his strength, Akhenaten chose to reject any method of portraying himself as powerful. The difference between these two portrayals, though, is that Akhenaten's was actually very realistic, while Gawain's was entirely false. Still the effect is the same, in that their representations give an impression of weakness.
     Further evidence of this humility lies in the cultures of each subject, which give reason to their actions. For example, Gawain is humble when describing his strength to King Arthur, because he knows he must be courteous in the face of one who is in a position of higher power than he is. It is more important for Gawain to respect the authority of another by derailing himself, than to describe his own strength, and this ideal is a reflection of a knight's code. Furthermore, Gawain's humility can be seen as a reflection of Christian morals, a religion which guided the lives and actions of knights at that time. Therefore, Gawain's self-deprecation is the result of his respect for those whom he believes have authority over him.
     Similarly, Akhenaten believed in a humbling and realistic portrayal because he was devoted to a higher power in his culture, Aten, the sun god. Akhenaten was the first king of Egypt to commit to Aten, and the ideals of divine verity that this god represented. He chose to depict himself as lacking strength, despite his need to represent power as a ruler, because he wanted to remain faithful to this deity that was greater than he was. There is discrepancy in the actions of Akhenaten and Gawain in that as a king, Akhenaten could have chosen to depict himself as he liked. Still, they both respected authorities greater than themselves, and were, for this reason, humble in their descriptions.
     The similarities between Gawain and Akhenaten with regards to their representations of themselves show a theme of humility among those with great power. For Gawain, his humility allows him to stand out as one who embodies the courtly kindness of his time, while for Akhenaten, it is a divine way to live in humility and truth. Both show a connection and also define what it means to be humble.

The Perils Leading to and the Effects of the Danelaw

     Around 790 A.D. the Viking invasion of the Anglo-Saxon world was brutal and gruesome, in that they attempted to take over established villages, in the typical pillaging fashion of the time. There are surviving works such as the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle", which describe in great detail the misfortunes of the mainlanders who fell victim to the Vikings: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/conquest/after_viking/legacy_vikings_01.shtml

     Diplomacy won out when Alfred the Great signed a truce with the Viking King, Guthrum, after Guthrum was baptised, which enacted the Danelaw, in 878 A.D. This new law designated Viking land and Anglo-Saxon land, such that pillaging was no longer a necessity for the Vikings. This map shows the boundaries that they created:

    The Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings then lived in harmony as neighbors, and intermarried, therefore, sharing cultural and agricultural practices, which led to the adoption of some Scandinavian words into English. Evidence of this melding of cultures can be seen even today through names of places in this area that are Scandinavian such as Grimsby and Thurnby, and through these place names, historians have found that there is more Scandinavian influence in the North than in the South. The closeness of the two culture's languages and the appearance of Scandinavian names for places in the Anglo-Saxon world show that the societies were close despite their bitter beginnings, and therefore, the Danelaw can be considered successful in this way.
     One interesting myth surrounding this fusion of languages is that an Anglo-Saxon could have understood a Viking because both English and Scandinavian are part of the same Germanic family, however, this is not true. Still, the languages were so similar that even today it is hard for historians to identify some of the Scandinavian elements adopted into English.

Assignment # 4: Life of Pi by Yann Martel

                This summer, I chose to read Life of Pi by Yann Martel, because it was recommended to me. Upon starting it, I did not know exactly what the book was about or under what context the author had written it; therefore, I read the novel thinking that it was a true story about a boy named Pi in India, when in fact it is completely fictional. Because I thought the events of the novel were real, I was devastated at the end of the book when two Japanese officials did not believe Pi when he retold his story. For this reason, I am so impressed by Martel’s storytelling. He successfully convinced me, the reader, that a young boy could fall in love with three religions, sail across the ocean with a Bengal tiger, and live to start a family.

            Martel began convincing me when he introduced the character Pi, who lives in a zoo with his parents and siblings in Pondicherry, India. The main reason I believed Piscine’s character so easily was that he had a vast knowledge of animals and zoos. A boy who lived in a zoo would surely know a lot about the behavior of animals, and Pi, the narrator, devotes a large portion of the novel to this. For example, he describes the territorial tendencies, and dangers of animals, which his father, the owner of the zoo, tells him about. It would make sense, too, that a boy in India at this time would be interested in religious practices. It would even make sense that he would be interested in multiple religions, which Pi was. He devoted himself to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, even though none of the leaders associated with these religions approved of it. Pi’s character is not only believable; he is also relatable, in that he wants to do more than is required of him. At a time in India when people were so unsure of themselves and their lives, Pi knows himself and his beliefs so well.

            Martel also does a great job of conveying the setting to the reader, through a young boy’s eyes. The reader understands the chaos of India at that time, through Pi’s perspective. For example, Pi discusses “a prime minister who has the armour plating of a rhinoceros without any of its good sense” with his teacher, and says, “religion will save us.” He also learns his father’s beliefs about the current situation. Finally, as Pi and his family leave India, in response to the government takeover, he explains the turmoil that is going on in India, without boring the reader with facts. Therefore, the reader gets a good sense of the setting through Piscine’s eyes.

            Finally, the novel itself pokes at the idea of belief. From Pi’s consistent belief in God to his attempt to persuade the two Japanese officials at the end of the book that he did in fact spend over one hundred days in a small boat with a tiger, he learns that belief is everything. Without belief, there is no way for Pi to convince the officials that his story must go in their records. Without anyone to believe Piscine, his story is not technically true. In this way Martel challenges the reader to believe Pi’s story, because he makes it seem so real.

Assignment #2: Most memorable 8 books

1. Wuthering Heights: I read this book a few years ago and loved it. I also love the movie that is based off of it. When I saw it on the summer reading list for this course, I remembered it well and decided to read it again. It is one of my favorite books.
2. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley: I remember certain aspects of this book very well. The characters stuck with me because they had such distinct qualities. The dystopian setting of the book is still very clear to me because it was so fun to imagine when I read descriptions of it.
3. The Giver by Lois Lowry: I know that this book stuck in my mind because it came to me as an example when I had to write SAT essays. The moral of this story, which stuck with me the most, is very powerful.
4. The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls: This was a terribly emotional and shocking story. The life of this little girl has stuck with me as a reminder of how lucky I am, especially since the book is a true story.
5. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson: This book was memorable because of its shocking and terrifying events including torture and murder. Unfortunately some of these stuck with me.
6. The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants collection by Ann Brashares: I read these when I was younger and I loved them so much because I could identify with each character in different ways.
7. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith: I loved this book so much because the story of the main character, a little girl from a poor and troubled family in Brooklyn, was so emotionally stirring. I desperately needed to know what would happen to this girl such that I had trouble putting the book down.
8. The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett: I loved this book when I was in middle school because it terrified me and excited me to think of such a mysterious place as this little girl's garden.
9. Night by Elie Wiesel: This is the saddest book I have ever read. I cried for at least five minutes after reading it and its message has always stuck with me.