Author: Watson

As we discussed in class, Fin de Siecle poetry was often lamented and described with frustration as heard by T.S. Elliot and other critics. These ideas surrounding the late century’s poetry stemmed within its consistency of feeling contested by existing within traditional forms yet wanting to be more modern. Many questioned why these poets did not fully embrace modernity since that was what many of them expressed, yet worked through a means of the traditional. As exemplified in Fin de Sielce poet John Symonds,’From Friend to Friend’ represents exactly what many critics dislike about the poetry of the turn of the century. Symonds writes a poem within the neat and organized formal structure of the Octavian Sestet while following its rhyme scheme to a tee. However, while the form is of traditional its content is not. Symond’s utilizes consistent contradiction by pairing words such as, “know not”, “sweet strange”, “unspeakable delights”, and “twin minds”. He also includes insistent repetition with the words “or” and “our” which purposefully causes the reader to confuse whether or not the speaker and the friend are both being described as one or as separate individuals. His prose creates a kind of unusual disruption for the reader and further gets at what Symond’s is expressing within his poem, that of a homosexual relationship that can’t safely exist within the reality of the era, “That sway both breasts in harmony, have wrought/ Our spirits to communion: but I swear/That neither chance or change nor time nor aught/That makes the future of our lives less fair,/”. The two cannot be together as desired, “sway both breasts in harmony” because there is an anxiety revolving around it as suggested in the words, “That makes the future of our lives less fair,”. Therefore, Symond is creating as well as expressing a new ideology and desire that is not allowed within the Victorian society. However, Symond is expressing these ideas through traditional form which suggests his undoing of the conventionalities.

Despite, many critics who lament this poetry of the fin de siecle I would like to argue that they purposefully wrote within modes of the traditional in order to express new ideology because they had too in order to be published. Had these poems been completely void of the traditional framework and express atypical ideas then they wouldn’t have been able to be published. Additionally the forms of the traditional are undoubtedly beautiful and using them was just as much of a desire to write within them as it was necessary. However, through using the traditional to express the unconventional poets, as well as other authors, were able to play the system by working within the system to achieve their repressed desires that couldn’t be otherwise expressed without the use of the traditional forms.

Dorian Grey is portrayed as an immoral and sinful individual many times throughout the book. Whether portrayed through the literal morphing within his own portrait as the book progresses, or during Basil’s intense confrontation of Dorian in Chapter 12 the reader is constantly reminded that Dorian is infected with an immoral conscious that forces him to commit evil acts. In chapter 12 Basil states, “They say that you corrupt every one with whom you become intimate, and that it is quite sufficient for you to enter a house, for shame of some kind to follow after. I don’t know whether it is so or not” (145). The reader discovers Basil’s own conflicting feelings surrounding his friend Dorian yet, the reader is also given a window into Basil’s misconceptions surrounding Dorian and his “vices” which one cannot conceal, “I can’t believe them when I see you. Sin is a thing that writes itself on its face. It cannot be concealed” (143). Basil firmly states that had Dorian actually been a man of sin he would’ve been able to see it upon his friend’s face. However, unbeknownst to Basil the reader is aware that Dorian’s face has been changing accordingly to his immoral actions, yet it is not his physical face but rather a representation of Dorian and not the real person of Dorian. Dorian’s “representation” just as Basil’s discussion of his reputation in chapter 12 is extremely tarnished heavily due to his literal actions yet I think they may stem from Dorian’s surroundings and those who project their beliefs surrounding Dorian as “immoral” to which Dorian then wholly agrees with because he can’t break out of a societal ideal surrounding him as evil. Relating this idea back to class and our discussion surrounding how much the artist is within the art, or the artist within the text, I wonder how much of the “art” is able to transform to its “audience”. What I mean to say in relation to Dorian Grey is to what extent do those surrounding Dorian Grey morph him into their own preconceptions surrounding his being?

Upon Dorian’s murder of Basil the reader is left with feelings of horror. Undoubtedly one finds it difficult to observe Dorian as an individual other than sinful and evil. Yet Wilde refuses to leave the reader solely with these feelings as he strangely enough is able to create sympathy for his character Dorian. This sympathy is achieved in chapter 14 as the reader observes Dorian reflecting upon his violent actions towards Basil, “It was a thing to be driven out of the mind, to be drugged with poppies, to be strangled lest it might strangle one itself” (156). In this instance Basil cannot think of the murder or it will end up killing him. Dorian is then seen trying to comprehend his emotions as he reads a poem which only leads him to further degradations, “Poor Basil! what a horrible way to die!” (157) Dorian is regretful and isn’t void of compassion for Basil unlike how one would associate an immoral person of his kind to be. Rather than Dorian’s immorality stemming from something innately within his person, it is rooted within an outer source that I believe to be society and he has absorbed the idea surrounding him as immoral which causes his immoral actions.

The moment in chapter 14 when Van Helsing is speaking to Mina about her health and happiness caught my attention for several reasons. Van Helsing states to Mina on page 198, “Now you must eat. You are overwrought and perhaps over-anxious. Husband Jonathan would not like to see you so pale; and what he like not where he love, is not to his good. Therefore, for his sake you must eat and smile”.
I found this passage particularly striking because it is employing the use of Mina’s body in different ways. It also shows a significance surrounding the importance of consumption. As Van Helsing speaks to Mina one can see how her body is portrayed as a kind of consumptive remedy for her husband Jonathan. Mina’s health is something that is clearly important to her husband as she is described “overwrought and perhaps over-anxious” something that “is not to his good”. Therefore, Van Helsing tells Mina that she must “eat and smile” in order to be in good health for her husband’s “sake”. Rather than being in good health for Mina’s own personal benefit, here the stress for Mina to achieve her health back is expressed as something that needs to be done for Jonathan. Once Mina’s body is back to health no longer “so pale” she will then bring Jonathan happiness. Jonathan’s needs within this passage can be identified as the top priority through Van Helsing’s words as he dictates Mina what to do. It is also interesting that just as Mina is able to give happiness to Jonathan by being a healthy body to him, she can only become “healthy” through consuming food herself. Van Helsing tells Mina to “eat” which brings her back to health. In this sense Mina can be viewed as a kind of consumption material to her husband. However, while not being able to literally consume Mina like food, her body still creates a remedying effect upon her husband. To the Count however, Mina is able to embody literal food. Therefore, her body serves as a purpose to be consumed both literally and figuratively depending upon whomever is viewing her. This idea reminded me of the expression that is used today, “looked at like a piece of meat” often times used in order to describe the ways in which men stare at women. To be “looked at” like a piece of “meat” would be exactly how the count stares at Mina within the book as literal food to be consumed. Today we know that there is no such thing as vampire’s yet, we still use this idea more similarly to how Jonathan figuratively consumes Mina. This whole consumptive idea, whether figurative or literal is still existing today despite this book being written within the 19th century. The handout in class from Walter Pater’s The Rennaissance surrounding the Monet Lisa cements the idea surrounding this consumptive view of the female that is seen today as well as in the Victorian Era. Lisa is described within the last line as an “embodiment of the old fancy” yet still “the symbol of the modern idea” however, in this context the “modern idea” or modern female can still be viewed often times as a consumptive. I feel saddened to think that the ideas surrounding the female body as a consumptive are both old and current just as the article states, “The fancy of a perpetual life, sweeping together ten thousand experiences, Is an old one;” Is there ever a way to rid the past? Why is it that the female is still described as a piece of meat? Or could we see a possible empowerment within the fact that without Mina’s healthy body Jonathan would then not be “happy” does that empower her body?

Upon reading the beginnings of Stoker’s Dracula I was immediately surprised at the religious aspects discovered early within the book. Once Harker tells his landlord that he is headed to Count Dracula’s castle the couple both begin to act anxious and seem to lean on God as a way to avoid any further conversation with Harker regarding the count.

The first moment the reader sees this is when Stoker asks if they’ve been to his castle, “When I asked him if he knew Count Dracula, and could tell me anything of his castle, both he and his wife crossed themselves….simply refused to speak further” (10). Rather than discuss the count it seems that the couple know something that Harker doesn’t, to the point in which they feel inclined to make the sign of the cross it order to connect to God. In doing the sign of the cross the couple ask for protection of God which means that there is something unsafe regarding the count. Furthermore the fear surrounding the count’s castle culminates when the Landlord’s wife begs Stoker to not leave by stating, “It is the eve of St. George’s Day. Do you not know that tonight, when the clock strikes midnight, all the evil things in the world will have full sway? Do you know where you are going, and what you are going to?” (pg 11) To this Stoker admits that he is now feeling rather anxious, ‘It was all very ridiculous, but I did not feel comfortable however’ (11) but he must go to the count on business to attend too. Ultimately the woman then pulls out a crucifix to which Stoker thinks, “As an English churchman, I have been taught to regard such things as in some measure of idolatrous…She saw, for I suppose, the doubt in my face, for she put it round my neck, and said, ‘For your mother’s sake’ (11). Unbeknownst to Stoker, there seems to be something to fear surrounding the count to the point in which the woman finds it necessary to put the crucifix around his neck in order to keep him safe through the power of Christ.

The doubt in which Stoker portrays can align with the Victorian ideas surrounding the “crisis of religious doubt” upon the arrival of scientific studies such as Darwin, which denounced aspects of the bible. However, Stoker’s doubt, is contrasted with the fervor in which the woman portrays over religion. Upon reading the chapter, “Crisis of Faith” within The Victorian Age, there seemed to be a mix of emotions regarding religion especially within the coming of the Modern. The woman portrays the influential Evangelical religion of Britain during the time whom George Eliot “maintained that an Evangelical sense of duty and ethics was essential as a social “glue” to prevent the disintegration of society in the absence of religious authority” (1056). Thus upon the woman noticing the “doubt” on Stroker’s face she places the crucifix around his neck portraying the “sense of duty” to which she felt necessary in order to save him from “disintegration”.
Yet Stoker’s uncertainty surrounding the couple’s fear and viewing the crucifix as “idolatrous” conflicts with his previous statement saying that he is a “churchman”. Why then, if Stoker is a churchman, does he refuse to listen to the woman’s warnings as well as his own uncertainties surrounding his journey to Count Dracula?

 

Throughout H.G. Wells’ “The Island of Dr. Moreau” many thematic points of intersection can be highlighted throughout the text. Within these points of intersection I noticed a possible ideological transformation that is solidified within the final moments of the novel surrounding the character of Prendick. Prendick describes himself as being mentally ill after experiencing the Island with Dr. Moreau and is seeing a psychologist in order for him to get through each day, however, I believe that Prendick’s terror, “They say that terror is a disease, and anyhow, I can witness that for several years now, a restless fear has dwelt in my mind, such a restless fear as a half-tamed lion cub may feel” (102) is in reality a transformation of the imperialistic idea surrounding the “white man’s burden”. The white man’s burden which aims to validate the white man’s oppression of native peoples as seen within Prendick, “The little pink sloth creature dashed at me and I cut it over, gashed down its ugly face with the nail in my stick,” (46) occurs many times of the as well as through Dr. Moreau’s practice of vivisection and the Laws of Man he inflicts upon the civilization. However, Prendick’s white man’s burden I believe transforms from a kind of burden to what it truly is which is in reality a horrifying truth that he has contributed to so much pain and suffering and that he himself is in fact an animal. Prendick states, “For that reason I live near the broad free downland, and can escape thither when this shadow is over my soul” (103) the words “this shadow over my soul” is what I believe at one point was Prendick’s own imperialistic white man’s burden however, has now escalated into that searing and horrific realization of the pain that he and other men are able to cause. While the “shadow” originally stems from the idea of the white man’s burden its reality is only illuminated for Prendick once he has already caused and witnessed such harm lead by the misleading “white man’s burden”.