The Twelfth Year of an Idiotic War

 So.

We are reading Grendel in March. And Grendel has decided to stroll into town to mock a blind priest.

A blind priest walks into a bar...

It sounds like the setup to a bad joke. And if we squint at it hard enough, gentle reader, I think that is precisely what it is. A bad joke. Because there is nothing else that Grendel seems to be capable of producing from his nihilistic perch.

Leave Ork alone! He's just a guy, a true believer! Why must he be mocked? What has he done to you?

We murder to dissect. 

Thank you, Uncle Wordsworth. This is true. Our humanity demands that we dissect, scrutinize, categorize, evaluate, critique. And an excitable fellow sharing thoughts on his faith seems like an easy target. 

I don't even think Grendel is fully to blame here. It is Ork's own exuberance that gets him into some trouble. "The King of the Gods is the ultimate limitation, and His existence is the ultimate irrationality." I have to wonder at Ork here. Is he attempting to merely pass the test? You know, show the Great Destroyer that he has it correct, to satisfy his God? It would make sense, being in the presence of the divine, to want to put your best foot forward, so to speak, and honor Him.

But I have to wonder: is Ork perhaps reaching a little bit too high here? Not showing off, but definitely showing out. See what I can do! Look at what I know! Yes, for your glory, but also for my own satisfaction, that I do have it right!

In any event, Grendel is taken aback by the man's conviction. Grendel is here to mock Ork, but his sarcasm dies on his lips halfway through the conversation because Ork responds with a flamethrower. He is cranked up to 11. He is literally weeping as he speaks, so overcome with emotion and belief and unrestrained passion. And that holds Grendel's attention. Grendel, the monster who is impressed by nothing, is impressed.

That's kind of cool.

No, I don't ultimately think that Ork is flirting with arrogance, nor do I really believe he is grandstanding. What I do think is that he goes for it. With everything he has. I don't think this is a life lesson to be applied everywhere. No yolo here. Because this isn't a ho-hum situation. When your God arrives in your praying circle, you express some exuberance. You give everything you have. Because that isn't the kind of thing that happens twice.

That's not something Grendel understands. Or, if he does, then he isn't interested. In either part of the equation: 1) having something that you are that invested in, or 2) exuding true blue passion when the moment is right.

I like Ork. He's a bit ridiculous, but, who cares? That criticism is the Grendel in me. Something that, I think, this novel tends to see as a detriment, not something to cultivate. 

After all, he is the monster.

Is St. John "Marble" Rivers a Sociopath?

It has been far too long, gentle reader, so let's pick the conversation back up.

Apparently in Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, our esteemed protagonist stumbles a bit after deciding to leave Thornfield---and all the potential sin-stained happiness that goes with it---and lands herself at Moor House. In addition to the easy kindness of the Rivers Sisters, Jane is confronted with the Man of Stone himself, St. John Rivers, the humble, cold, unflappable, reverent, made-of-marble cousin who spends about five chapters auditioning Jane for her role as missionary's wife. Jane resists, but just barely. My question is: what the hay, Sinjun? How is it possible for this guy to hold such sway, to literally invade Jane's being in a possessive and not unharsh way? Jane is tough; Jane is self-aware; Jane has experience in repelling unwanted advances. So what gives? In short, what makes St. John Rivers so formidable?

I wonder if we have a convenient comparison at our disposal. St. John is classically handsome, polite, understated, intelligent. In addition, he is religious and wise, dutiful and tireless. He also plays second fiddle to Rochester, at least in terms of their chronological and symbolic significance. Both for Jane and us. If the characters in Jane Eyre were treated as an order of operations, then Rochester's function would always be performed before St. John's, regardless of where the other characters fall. But this should not diminish St. John's influence. On the contrary, he is formidable, which only elevates Rochester's status. But enough of Eddie. This is supposed to be about how Marble Rivers imposes his will so effectively. He never yells (he wouldn't allow himself such a display of emotion) and he demands an almost impossible standard of Jane (he wouldn't allow himself anything less than superior levels of outcome). Jane finds herself literally weeping into her book of Hindostanee as she continues her lessons with St. John. That's crazy! She knows that she will literally die trying to appease him if she goes to India at his side. And she still considers going. That's crazy!

And Jane isn't crazy, gentle reader!

What would a convenient comparison be, then? Who fits the bill as demanding task master? Stone cold and yet motivating to the point of perishing? Clearly symbolism abounds: it is Rochester's Fire, his provocative and self-deprecating manner that wins Jane over, not St. John's Ice, his overly rational and underly emotional capacity for fellowship. Rochester wants an equal; St. John wants an asset. And while his own brand of charisma ultimately fails, it only just fails. St. John could be the ultimate display of a singular and righteous focus, a man of ultimate principle. Or he could be a sociopath, masquerading as a clergyman. I don't throw the term around loosely. Sociopaths can be very persuasive, very charismatic. They can also be very detached, very misunderstanding of typical human perceptions and responses. The text doesn't lie: St. John feels things and then represses them. He knows all about Rosamund's affection and his own reaction to it. So I really don't think he's a bonafide sociopath, nor do I think that Bronte wrote him as one. After all, the book doesn't really go to any great lengths to explore mental illness...

MLA Formatting: Quotations

Here is a link to Purdue's Online Writing Lab. This covers it all: short quotes, long quotes, prose quotes, poetry quotes, quotes in a house, quotes with a mouse, quotes in a box, quotes with a fox, quotes here and there, quotes anywhere.

Bradbury's Concerns

Hello, sophomores!

Please click here for the Fahrenheit 451 survey.

Your responses may or may not be used for quality assurance. In the event of a water landing, please exit the plane using the closest exit possible. In some cases, this door may be behind you.

Hamlet for the Ages

Hello, gentle seniors. Please click here to access the Hamlet Questionnaire.

Gatsby Questionnaire

Please visit here for the Gatsby questionnaire.

35 minutes, 44 questions...

Click here, gentle English 3 readers, for some blistering information, tips, and practice on the SAT Writing and Language Test.

If you keep scrolling down on the page, you will come to this scoring chart.

TO USE:
1. How many questions did you answer correctly? Find that number in the Raw Score column.
2. Follow the row over to find the corresponding Reading Test Score or Writing and Language Test score. Multiply by 10 to compute your overall score for that particular test.
3. Repeat the process for the other test.
4. Add scores together for your SAT English score. 800 is the best.

Raw Score (# of correct answers)	Reading Test Score	Writing and Language Test Score
38	32	34
39	32	35
40	33	36
41	33	37
42	34	38
43	35	39
44	35	40
45	36
46	37
47	37
48	38
49	38
50	39
51	40
52	40

Holiday Observation #19 (specifically regarding study schedules and busy lives)

It's all about troubleshooting.

Motif Madness

A few thoughts on motifs, for your consideration. I apologize that this comes from 2015; I am hopeful, gentle historian, that it is not too dated.

Kite Runner Meets Amazon

We are closing down on conversation on Hosseini's The Kite Runner. So, gentle reader, it is time to consider some more not-our-own ideas to tally a well-rounded consideration of themes, characters, motivations, and outcomes.

Click here for Timothy Aubry's essay from 2009, when The Kite Runner was dominating attention on Amazon and other book-selling outlets. 

Scholarly Research: "The Lay of Finn"

Okay, gentle reader, we want better than Wikipedia or Sparknotes on this one...

What is the purpose of The Lay of Finn as it appears in the first agon of Beowulf? Digressions serve a function, if only to compare, heighten, contrast, or emphasize the main narrative action to the new "story-within-a-story." So. Which one is it here?

 Try JSTOR to start your research.

Catcher in the Rye questionnaire

Hello, junior readers. Please visit here to take the Catcher in the Rye questionnaire.

Turnitin.com Launch Codes: 2017-18

Here, gentle reader, is this year's www.turnitin.com info:

0 Hour
Class ID: 16046881
P'word: English0

2nd Hour
Class ID: 16046914
P'word: English2

3rd Hour
Class ID: 16046930
P'word: English3

5th Hour
Class ID: 16046951
P'word: English89893849fj93jfijsafkdsjrokjfkaljafjdsafj;sjaf493493
Just kidding: English5

6th Hour
Class ID: 16046975
P'word: English6

Top Five Fears, anyone?

Click here to share your top five fears.

Like clowns.

Welcome Back

Hello. This is the class web page. It is a blog.

Have a great weekend.

Defining "World Literature"

In his essay "What Is World Literature?" David Damrosch states "[l]iterature in general, and world literature in particular, has often been seen in one or more of three ways: as an established body of classics, as an evolving canon of masterpieces, or as multiple windows on the world."

The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini, must surely be placed in one or more of these categories. For further framework on better defining world literature, please read Damrosch's essay. And be prepared, gentle reader, to cite Damrosch in class.

Junior Researchers

If you are scratching your head at the Works Cited page, don't. Check out the Purdue OWL (Online Writing Lab) for all your MLA formatting help.


There is nothing fancy to the process, no trick, no gimmick. Even if you are a fan of EasyBib.com (and you should be), you are still responsible for making sure of the following:


1. The final formatting of your Works Cited page is correct and consistent... cutting and pasting from multiple websites can lead to formatting glitches.


2. Items are in alphabetical order.


3. "Works Cited" is spelled correctly.


4. Items are NOT numbered.


5. Your entire document is double-spaced.


6. The first line of each item is left-justified.


7. Each line after the first line is indented over once.


8. Several other things that I can't think of but are still important, and I am reminded of them by visiting free, online resources like the Purdue OWL.


9. Even pros take a few minutes putting together a good-looking, properly formatted Works Cited page. Please allow AT LEAST 25 MINUTES to complete this process.


10. Three secondary sources + one primary source = FOUR TOTAL ITEMS included on your Works Cited page.


11. You get the idea. Please be meticulous, and please use your readily available resources for help.

This Just In:

Daisy is still awful.

Prufrock Literary Criticism

Are you looking for some knowledge? Are you bored with the status quo? Do you want to ponder on things like equivocation and nouns that lack specificity?


Me, too.


Check out Denis Donoghue's essay on Prufrock published in The Southern Review.

Is Prufrock Lame?

Yes, gentle reader, he is. J. Alfred Prufrock is as lame as they come. The man can't gain traction on anything. Visions and revisions. Daring to do stuff. Eating peaches. Mermaids. Hamlet. Baldness. And yes, asking overwhelming questions. Heck, wanting to think about the act of asking a question.

Can't. Do. Anything.

Lame.

But probably not. The whole point of this stream of consciousness interior monologue is to get as meta as possible. I always find it intriguing that we catch up with poor Alfred precisely as he is sticking his toes over the abyss, staring down the "overwhelming question" that we can't ask about. I find it intriguing because we, the audience (the understood "you" referenced in line 1), catch up with him after skipping over the all those visions and revisions. And yet he's still talking about them.

Why?

One question (and there are dozens and dozens of those for this poem...) to consider is:

Is Prufrock's uncertain position unique to his place in time? In other words, is Eliot exploring a strictly Modernist view of life? The idea of a common man being anchored, unwillingly, to indecision because of a some kind of self-prescribed existential self-loathing? If that's the case, then boo-hoo. If that's the case, then have things improved or proceeded to get worse, since this poem is about 100 years old. If not, then what?

If this poem is more universal in nature than just for the self-loathers out there (sorry to intrude!), then what else? This is, after all, a love song, and I don't think Eliot is using that term lightly.