Earlier, when asked for suggestions as to how to "improve" the Introduction to the English Major class, Will made a comment that focused on the oral poetry presentations. Now, I agree with the idea that it would have been more, say, "interesting", to do poetry that we personally picked up and liked; however, the poetry, if allowed to pick, wouldn't be completely "random". If given a list of poets, as Will said, we could pick from it; but, the poetry that we do end up choosing should have to be a great example that demonstrates the poet's particular style.

Not only would this induce a deeper amount of research and interest into a poet, it would broaden the student's knowledge of their poetry, and consequently benefit them more. Plus, by looking at different examples of the poet's work, the student will get an eventual, ultimate feel of how, say, a Plath poem should be, or how a Ginsberg poem can be differentiated from a Kerouac poem. By having the student well-versed in a certain poet's area of work, it would lead to a more successful and confident presentation, since they have become quite an expert in their author's field.

 If we had done that, I think it might have been more "fun" as a whole; however, this isn't to say I'm complaining about the presentations we did do, because they were fine. But, we were asked for suggestions to "improve" the course. Alas, besides from the previously stated suggestion, the only other thing I could think of is to not make the class an 8 a.m. I think that killed it for a lot of people-- I know I personally was not feeling the early morning class, which was partially to blame for my quietness throughout the term. Had the class been at 11:30, it would have been ideal; still, I liked it, and had a good time during the last three weeks.

I liked the poem by Seamus Heaney we went over, since it gave the reader a good idea of an Irish family's tradition and a strong sense of physical labor that was conveyed with solid imagery. However, I read the next poem after "Digging", which was "Mid-Term Break", and I found that I liked that one a lot better. The poem is pretty subtle, and drops hints of what the story is about, until the reader gets to the final, icy lines: "A four foot box, a foot for every year." That line especially struck me as something tragically beautiful. The way he portrayed the death of his younger brother without ever explicitly saying it is something all aspiring poets should consider; by being subtle at times, I think it makes for more effective poetry, such as Heaney's example. I wish we would have done that poem too, but it's okay; maybe next time.

It's really hard for me to get into the Romantic poets for some reason. I can understand how they've mastered their craft in poetry, particularly in terms of style and form, but so far I don't think I've read a poet's work I thoroughly enjoyed. For example, in Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn", I would've thought I'd like it, since I am interested in Ancient Greek mythology and culture. Even though he has very nice images, I just get lost reading the poem...

Also, in part III, it is a little over-the-top with the repetitive happiness. However, I don't think he's been overly joyous and celebrating the stuck figures on the urn; instead, it feels as though he's mourning their ignorance to the fact that they are "for ever panting, and for ever young". Being permanently young and trapped in a naive cloud does not let anyone enjoy life, or lessons learned in life; and, in Keats' perspective, it seems the youth do not appreciate beauty as they would when they age. Thus, the poor figures are blind to the rest of their life, and will never know the truth in beauty, or the beauty in truth.

While talking about Dickinson's poem today, I think I had a slightly different interpretation of it. Now, while it is established that she is a gun, and that she is useless without whoever her "Master" is, I still feel as if both Dickinson and her "Master" realize the power and potential she has.

Taking it from the feminist approach, it's clear that the "Master", assuming he is male, seems to be the controlling sex in the relationship. That would consequently make the gender roles unbalanced, and as usual, tip the scale in favor of the testosterone. However, I feel like her "Master" knows that she is a threat, and accordingly, that all of the female sex have an explosive force to be reckoned with. So, the "Master" only acknowledges Dickinson when need be, and uses her potential when it is useful to him; and, as said before, he always knows the gun is fully loaded, and seems to afraid to touch it.

After reading "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", I am surprisingly pleased. I was expecting it to be much like "The Wasteland", and am relieved it does not take the same poetic feel. While I've heard the references to the poem before, such as the famous lines of "I have measured out my life with coffee spoons" and "Shall I part my hair behind? / Do I dare to eat a peach? ... I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each", I am glad now to have read the actual thing.

I liked a lot of the imagery Eliot gives, especially the in the lines,

 "And would it have been worth it, after all

 After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,

Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,

 Would it have been worth while,

To have bitten off the matter with a smile,

To have squeezed the universe into a ball..."

 as well as

"I have seen them riding seaward on the wave

Combing the white hair of the waves blown back

 When the wind blows the water white and black."

There are something about those lines that flow beautifully and present thoughtful images to the reader, and actually do make me partial to an Eliot poem.

Also, I find it interesting he references Hamlet in the poem, with his hatred for the character and all. I suppose the dislike does manifest, since the line says, "No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be"; still, it's funny to see him namedropping Hamlet into the poem to show that the narrator is not as pathetic and indecisive as the titular Shakespearean character.

For some reason, the more I know about T.S Eliot, the more I dislike him.

It all started when I had to read "The Wasteland" for American Classics last year. I mean, there were nice images, but wow was that poem the most confusing thing I have ever read. And even after Dr. Brown explained every reference involved in the poem, it still didn't necessarily warm me up to Eliot's work.

A few months ago, I read something briefly about how the entirety of "The Wasteland" was plagiarized, since it takes directly from other people's works. Now, I don't know how of much of that is entirely true, but it is interesting to think about; however, it is even more interesting, with the aforementioned statement in mind, to think of Eliot criticizing Shakespeare for plagiarizing Hamlet. Obviously, I haven't read the "original" version of Hamlet's story, but I'm quite sure it isn't exactly the same thing as Shakespeare's version. It might take some parts of the original plot, but I honestly doubt it's completely stolen from.

Regardless, his criticism of Hamlet (namely the possible hypocrisy in it), only strengthens my dislike for Eliot. However, I'm about to read "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", and hopefully it won't be as dreadful as I'm expecting it to be... wish me luck.

Also, reading Melville's "Bartleby, the Scrivener" again was a lot better than when I read it for American Classics last spring. I mean, it was still a longer read than the other short stories we have read so far, and it definitely feels like the exposition trudges on for longer than it should, but it's still a nice read. Melville's characterization and quirks of his employees are very human and hysterical, especially how Turkey's drinking and Nipper's indigestion foil each other at different parts of the day.

However, I can't recall the reason behind Bartleby's idleness, besides that he "prefers not" to move. It definitely symbolizes something else, but I'm not currently remembering what it was, and I'm a little too tired myself to try and dive into it (rather, I would prefer not to analyze it at this time). Still, it's curious, and because of said curious behavior, I think it's what makes the story interesting.