The History of Mary Prince

I can’t say that The History of Mary Prince was good since it is a slave narrative so it was not happy, but I thought that it was good at telling what happened to Mary during that time. Since the narrative tells of her life and how she was treated as a slave, which in a way, represents how all slaves were treated. Even though Strickland shaped it in her favor I honestly do not think that altering Mary’s history was such a bad thing, since they wanted to use the narrative to achieve a greater purpose. If Strickland omitted important information that Mary strictly wanted others to know then I would see a problem.    

Since slavery was not a happy circumstance I feel bad for what Mary, Aston, and all of the other slaves had to go through it. The only time that I was happy for Mary was in the beginning when she was friends with Miss Betsy and Betsy mother was also kind to Mary and her family. I honestly can’t imagine working that hard every day and getting reprimanded for simple things that were not even my fault.

All throughout this time the British expressed the need for power and control over everyone around them, like we discussed in class. Even though this is minor, the Woods even changed Mary’s name to Molly Wood since they probably thought that it was the most appropriate. In a way I think that the British appeared very useless in the history, but I am not if that was Strickland’s or Mary’s doing. Anyways whether who expressed it does not matter since they were useless anyways since the slaves did all the work for them. I really do wonder if any of them contributed to doing anything at that time. I wonder if not wanting to let go of Mary in England had anything to do with not wanting to do things themselves until they could hire someone else to do it. I also noticed that throughout the piece Mary often said how ashamed she felt by what she had to do, but I do not see how it was her fault that she was forced do those things in order to not be punished.

Discussion Questions:

 Do you think that the reason the British wanted to control everything was because, without control they would feel weak and helpless and they wanted to be superior over everyone else?

When Mr. Wood wrote to Mr. D asking if Mary Prince could be sold, why do you think Mr. D replied back that he did not want Mary to be sold off to someone who would treat her badly, even though he treated her horribly?

Northanger Abbey

I thought that “Northanger Abbey” by Jane Austen was ok but nothing special. Nothing in the story really stood out to me, since most of the characters were either somewhat plain or annoying. The only character that I really liked was Henry Tilney, since he was kind and always seemed to have something insightful to say. For example, whenever he talked to Catherine he always had some type of advice or useful knowledge to give her which helped Catherine become more knowledgeable of the world and the people around her. I found Catherine to be a highly gullible and naïve person, since she based her opinions on one person, which unfortunately was John Thorpe and she that no one’s intentions could ever change. At a time a found her innocence amusing since she thought the Abbey was going to be like the one Henry described in the story he told her, and for a short time she believed him, due to the cabinet she overlooked at first just like in his story and the mysterious chest. I also found it amusing that she thought the General murdered his wife or was keeping her prisoner somewhere, because he did not like talking about her or going to the places that she liked.  In the end, I think she learned some valuable lessons that she could use if she is confronted with a similar issue in the future, since she now knows more about people. I found John Thorpe to be the most annoying character in this story since he tried to be someone he was not and he clearly did not know what he is talking about. I seriously thought that it was pathetic that he tried to ruin the chances of Catherine and Henry being together when Catherine never expressed any feelings for him. I just do not understand how he could not notice how rude he was being. In a way Henry Tilney seems to be the opposite of John Thorpe, since Henry appreciates a good book, is calm when he is the coachman on the way to Northanger Abbey, and is overall more proper and treats Catherine better, unlike John.

Discussion Questions:

Was John Thrope just crazy for doing all of the things that he did or do you think he had some type of inner struggle that he was trying to cover up which made him try to make himself appear better to those around him and put false ideas in his head?

Since John Thorpe is General Tilney’s friend, should the General have based his opinion of Catherine on John or should he have asked her himself in the first place?

Christabel

Out of all three poems that we had to read, I liked Christabel the best, since I thought it was the most interesting. Before discussing it in class I knew that Christabel was the dove and Geraldine was the snake but I did not realize the weird things that were happening were part of showing that something was not right with Geraldine.

If Geraldine is really Sir Roland’s daughter, I wonder how she became some type of evil snake like creature in disguise. Then maybe the main reason for why she was captured and told to wait under the oak tree was because, Sir Roland knew something was not right with his daughter so he ordered five warriors to take her away and leave her somewhere, hoping he would not have to be bothered with her again. Or maybe Geraldine made the whole story up and planned to use Christabel’s hospitality and innocence to her advantage. It really makes me wonder what kind of snake creature Geraldine really is if she is able to see spirits, like Christbel’s mother, and is able to make the spirit actually leave.

The theme of this poem really shows that hospitality can be used against you, since Geraldine betrayed the hospitality and kindness of Christabel and turned against her and tricked her father. But, I seriously think that Leoline should have known better, and he should have listened and tried to understand his daughter, his only family, instead of going off with Geraldine who he does not even know but has become enamored with. This makes me feel bad for Christabel, since all she wanted to do was help but she was naive for letting a stranger into her home and not figuring out at first that there is something wrong with Geraldine when she brings her to the threshold of the castle and she is in great pain.

Personally, I found it annoying that Coleridge published the poem and did not finish it, since I like to know what happens in the whole story to fully understand what truly happened. Other than the fact that it is not complete I thought it was a good story and I liked the imagery of the poem.

Discussion Questions:

Was Christabel naïve for letting a stranger into the castle or is she just too kind and innocent?

Do you think that Geraldine has some type of plan for the castle which involves the trust of Leoline and Christabel out of the way?

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

While reading "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner", I was relieved to see that there were side notes that told what happened in a certain stanza. Without those I would not have been able to grasp what was really happening in the poem. Even though I did not find this poem difficult to understand, since I summarized each part's stanza's while I was reading the poem. At first, I thought that the Wedding-Guest was actually part of the tale instead of the Mariner telling him the tale, but I missed the transition.

I did not really like this poem, except for the fact that there was an actual meaningful point to the story. Since the Mariner had to tell his tale to certain people who were inhospitable to others that had done them no wrong, in order to try to help that person change their ways and see that they were wrong like the Mariner was at first. In a way a think that the lesson from the Mariner's tale is an important lesson that should be taken into account today, since I do not think you should be rude or disrespectful to someone if they do not deserve it. The main thing that I did not like about this poem was that it was highly unrealistic. For example, the wild winds ended up taking them to the South Pole and a sea bird randomly happened to be flying by and ended up helping them.

In the Mariner's tale I felt bad for all the crew member's that ended up dying because the Mariner shot the Albatross. But I also feel bad for the Mariner since he will have to live with what he has done for as long as he continues to live. But, if the crew members never died and the Mariner didn’t realize the true beauty of the snakes, then he would have never learned his lesson and there would not be a moral to the story. One thing that I found odd though, was that the lady spirit considered all of the crew's lives to be some kind of game, since she rolled dice to see what boat, DEATH or LIFE-AND-DEATH that they would go on.

Discussion Questions:

Do you think that the Mariner purposely got LIFE-AND-DEATH and the whole crew got DEATH, in order teach him a lesson and to make him feel miserable about shooting the Albatross?  

Do you think that the deaths of the crew members were necessary, in order for the Mariner to be able to tell his tale to others that need to hear it?  

The Castle of Otranto

Out of everything that I have read for this class so far I liked this book the best, since I thought “The Castle of Otranto” was a very easy read and was easy to figure out what was happening in the story.

At first, I thought that the giant pieces of armor that certain people were seeing was out of their own imagination, but when I read the end of the story  it made more since to me since the pieces of armor were signs that the prophecy was soon going to be fulfilled. I was glad that Theodore ended being the rightful heir to Otranto, since I thought he was a kind, thoughtful, and brave person that was willing to risk his life in order to help and protect others. Unlike Manfred who was mean, selfish, and only thought of what was best for himself. I was sad that Matilda died though, since I thought she was a very kind and generous person since she really cared about the people that were the closest to her. In a way wish that Matilda did not die and was able to live happily with Theodore as the prince, but sadly that could not be the case.

One thing that really bothers me about this time period, and is made evident in other British literary works that we have read, especially in “The Country Wife”, is that marriage is such an important deal. Since people only considered marrying others who were within their rank, were rich, royal and/or had a lot of land. In “The Castle of Otranto” this is displayed by Manfred, since he tries to get Isabella to marry him, even though she would have hated to do so, but she did not have a choice since her father agreed to it. Even though Manfred wanted to marry Isabella mainly because he wanted to remain the prince, he did not care about what she wanted and was only concerned about him. Also before everyone knew that Theodore was the rightful heir to Otranto, Matilda’s or Isabella’s parents would have never allowed either of them to marry Theodore since he was poor.         

Discussion Questions:

  

Is willing to give up your life and protect someone that you do not even know, like Theodore did, a bad thing?

If Matilda had never died, would Theodore and Matilda have found a way to be happy together, or would Matilda still respect her parent’s wish to not be with him, since the truth about Theodore would still have not came out?

The Rape of the Lock

After I first read the “The Rape of The Lock”, I found it quite difficult to understand what really happened in the poem. I have never read such I difficult poem before, since there were many references to other literary works that I have never read or heard before. Although, the poem does seem well written since Pope uses certain parts from other literary works that fit into the story and help get the poem’s point across. The only part of the poem that I actually liked was how Pope used vivid imagery to aid in telling what was happening in the story, even if it did not all make sense. But I did find it funny how the poem was written to make fun of a real event that happened, but was not even that big of a deal. The poem really shows how ridiculous it was to fight over a lock of hair, especially since there was an epic battle in the poem that people died in, because Belinda was trying to get her hair back. I just do not understand why she wanted her lock of hair back, since she obviously could not attach it back to her hair. Maybe the lock of hair symbolized beauty and Belinda wanted it back so she would not feel less beautiful and important.

After rereading the poem for a second time and breaking down what happens in each canto, I was able to understand the poem better. But I am still not sure if certain parts of the poem are even necessary, like the part about the Cave of Spleen.  

I know “The Rape of The Lock” is a mock epic, but I think it really portrays Belinda as a trivial “hero”. Since, she does not do anything heroic or important in the poem except for fighting over her lock of hair, which she still does not end up getting back. Honestly I really do not think she is not much of a hero at all, but her high status in society and beauty show that she is. Overall, I think Pope really accomplished presenting the poem and its character’s in a trivial manner, which shows how stupid the matter is that the poem is about.     

Discussion Questions:    

Would the poem have been as effective in explaining the purpose of the poem, if all of the comparison’s to other literary works were not made?

Why would losing a lock of hair be considered so important to the character’s in the story but unimportant to others, like Pope?