With the Fall semester coming to a close, I figure I would do a little recap on what I have learned in my classes.
I took two classes online this semester: English Cornerstone, and English Literature Since 1800. The “Since 1800″ one is the main reason I’ve posted anything in my blog these few months. I had to post something every week, although I did miss one week.
I would say I am pleasantly surprised about how this class wasn’t too crazy. After all, it was an 8 week course, but there didn’t seem to be a surplus of assignments. It was busier than a normal class, sure, but it wasn’t unbearable.
The life changing thing that this class did was have me read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Reading it at this time in my life, and learning about its author, really opened my eyes to the process of literature. There does not need to be a specific process to writing. Sometimes things start out as ghost stories, for instance.
The other online class was good, too. We read more poems and short stories, and less novels, so I guess that could be the main difference in work load: more reading in the 8 week class.
I also had Chaucer this semester, and I loved the class.
Chaucer>Shakespeare
I had two other in-class classes, but I won’t talk about those. What a disappointment.
One thing I have noticed through my readings of so many different stories, is that writers use this technique so differently.
Some use it in order to show us what the character is thinking, but some use it as a way to confuse the reader. Why would they do this? Why do we have to work so hard, and think so hard, just to understand what the heck is going on?
I understand we should have to think sometimes, but not in order to just understand the plot! When we want depth, fine, we might have to look for it. However, and this happens too often, we have to reread the same sentence over and over just to figure out the denotative meaning.
As a male, I find it difficult to empathize with the whole women liberation thing. Everyone wants equal rights and equal pay, and it should be that way, but how do we get about making that happen?
Well, I read this poem:
http://plexipages.com/reflections/goblin.html
It talks about women being harassed by goblin men selling stuff. The symbology and metaphors abound. It really helped me understand a little more about the objectification of women… at least in the Victorian period. 
Yes, before anyone corrects me, I know Frankenstein is not the monster. Dr. Frankenstein creates the monster that has later been named Frankenstein by the media. To do a quick recap, Frankenstein is the doctor, and the monster is not green.
That’s right – according to the original Mary Shelley version of him, he isn’t green. In fact, he probably doesn’t look anything like the depictions we see today. He was made from a lot of different dead people’s body parts, so he probably looks more like John McCain than the green thing we are used to seeing him as.
I think this is one of the coolest things I’ve gotten from reading it so far. It reminds me of all the paintings of Jesus that depict him as a white guy with long, glorious hair and a perfectly groomed beard. In all actuality, he was probably considered on the uglier side. The Bible mentions that he looked like everyone else, and there was nothing about his appearance that you would prefer over your own.
This is the only way I know that links Frankenstein and Jesus. Well, besides the whole coming-back-to-life-thing.
Yeah, I said it. Someone in my class said that people tend to like Romantic writers better because we want an escape. I don’t agree. I think Realism writers can provide just as strong an escape. Romanticism is a part of every day life. People romanticize everything: their car, a presidential candidate, their newest love interest, etc. It is not that Realism is realistic, it just tries to be. And it is not that Romanticism is romantic, it just tries to be.
I think I am arguing the definitions of these works and genres. I see more Romanticism than Realism in my reality, my daily life. So, for me, Realism offers more of an escape.
You can read the poem here: http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/blake03.html#sweeper
My professor asks the question, “How does the poem condemn the culture for allowing the exploitation of children? Does this make the poem ironic?” If this question had not been asked, I would have not thought about children being exploited at all. In fact, it seems to be saying that everything is going to be alright, we will get to go to Heaven, if we all do our part.
If it is being ironic, is the poem saying that children are being fooled into thinking that working at such a young age is for the glory of God?
I’m confused.
I personally get something completely different from the poem: work sucks, but there will be a break from it. Some of us have retirement, some of us have the weekend, and for everyone else, there is heaven.
I haven’t posted on here in a long time, and not that anyone actually reads this, but I feel a sense of irresponsibility for lapsing in my attempt at writing consistently. Anyway, I will be doing more blogs in the next 8 weeks because now I am starting a class that requires I post stuff. Yep, you get to read my homework.
Grainger is a wholesale supply store that sells everything from tools to tampons, from degreasers to generators, from polyurethane tubing to pandemic kits.
That’s right, they sell pandemic kits.
I bring this up for one reason: the government is expecting a shortage of pandemic supplies. That would include, primarily, the masks you saw people wearing during the bird flu in Asia.
Grainger has a limit on how many people can buy because government, health care companies, and large companies get them first. So, in other words, you better buy them now.
I am not one that is freaking out about this, but I figure it is best to be prepared. Especially since it means spending a few bucks to have a box of masks for a just-in-case situation.
Check them out: www.grainger.com
The above title is an inside joke. I have said that I should write a book about all the messed up stuff I have seen happen by being brought up in a Fundamental, Independent, old-fashioned Baptist church.
Anyway, it has been bothering me more and more lately. I am starting to think people proclaiming to be “Christians” are instantly a sub-class of human beings. To clarify, I still consider myself a “Christian” in its general sense. I believe in God, and Jesus, and all that stuff, but too many people use it as a way to say they believe anything a preacher tells them.
Am I making any sense? I am rambling this off while I am trying to pay attention to an online class chat session.
Blind faith is nothing but willful ignorance.
I should put quotation marks around that and claim that as my own. Blind faith is nothing but willful ignorance.
I think one big thing that bothers me is that people use their Christianity, their religion, as an excuse to act like a jackass.
Anyone have any examples?
