Shaw's Pygmalion 1

Pygmalion Act 1 is all about class and how the classes treat one another. Each class is represented by the person or group that seems to congregate under the church in order to get out of the thundering storm. It took me a second to get used to this book. I am not use to reading play books and at several points I was close to asking my fiancé to act out three characters and I act out the rest, a choice that would have made me have to change my voice for each character. She declined.

So when reading the book, alone, there is a very definite lean towards feminism. I don't argue that it is invalid or anything, but I feel that the author should have allowed the feministic motif to come in sideways instead of blatantly through the dialogue of the gentleman and the note-taker. As said, everything is based on how the different classes treat one another, and further down, everything is based on how the classes treat themselves.

The betterment of Eliza sets the pretense of the control of the female lead and the notion that those of higher refinement and class have the morale right to sanction them to what is right or wrong. I believe  in act 1 & 2, the positive roles are attached to the women and the negative roles are attached to the men. Although the gentleman, Colonial Pickers, does positive actions, there is something unseemly about him that will probably arise out of the last act.

From a male perspective, feminist writings can be very aggravating because they usually depict most men, if not all men, as immoral and base to women. Because of the unfair treatment of men, it usually takes me a few moments before I can let my guard down enough to read it. To some extent, it feels like propaganda, but since the book was written in the early 1900’s, it is understandably so.

Language and Politics and its effect on Poetry

I stood like a deer in headlights while reading the first few paragraphs of Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language.” Understanding what is being stated was not the problem, the problem arrived when attempting to understand it’s connection to poetry. For several paragraphs, there was a large emphasis on the general decadence of our political system and how the failing of our political system is transmitting the same decadence to our English language.

Orwell lived during a very disruptive age, several wars, the holocaust, Watergate, etc. and his weariness  of what was being said by the world’s governments shows through his work. The government’s attempts to placate meaning to the audience, he states, has now transferred into the non-political arena and has made the English language “slovenish” and “makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”

I did not understand the paper’s connection to poetry until the second page when Orwell writes “As soon as certain toopics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed.” The concrete from abstract is what creates poetry. 

I believe poetry is a type of prose that connects inanimate and intangible characteristics, qualities, and ideas into tangible or achievable feelings while conveying some meaning thorugh the diction, the syntax, and the speech patterns. In reversal of what Orwell’s states as “bad language,” poetry tries to convert the abstract into the concrete.

“Politics and the English Language” is about the necessity of each individual to make sure there is meaning in what they write. The cause of the destruction of society is not the rampant writings and speeches that seek only to vaguely inform its audience, but those that continually produce the writing.

 I do not agree to some aspects of what Orwell writes. To some extent Orwell is seen as angrier about the situation then trying to state a solution, but even in spirited fervor, Orwell makes a good point about how orthodox politics is used to create vagueness and disillusionment.

This paper can be seen as what poetry should not be.

A Feminist Look At "Wuthering Heights"

The need to understand the experiences of historical women has lead to a resurgence of female writer's text. Emily Bronte's "Wuthering Heights," being one of the most prolific female text, has been one of the most criticized and discussed.

At first glance, the introduction seemed a little long winded. From a guy's standpoint, while trying to discuss how "phallocentric" (p 452) our language is is understandable, the desire for the author to separate the negative idea from the people practicing it is necessary. The separation of the masculinity oppresses femininity idea only goes to incite anger in those males that do not agree or those that understand that to be true. Through much of the introduction I found myself shaking my head, rereading an argument, or writing questions in the margins stating "this is not true in one situation or another." With that stated,  I feel I am part of the "phallus," and as such I am probably biased toward my own textual designations. However, even if that be the case, I feel it necessary to also attach the notion that we as males have little control in how to change the language.

In Lyn Pykett's text "Changing the Names: The Two Catherines," the primary suggestion is the "consequences of [a] socially sanctioned choice" that all females had to make during that time and how in doing so, in Catherine's instance, caused her eventual self destruction(469). Pykett speaks on the requirement of Catherine to lose her "wild, hatless little savage" side and become more socially acceptable as she matured (Bronte 64) (Which resulted to her going to the Grange and eventually separating from Heathcliff.)

Throughout Catherine and Cathy's entire life there is a sense of powerlessness that reverberates throughout both generations. Catherine's inability to choose with her heart, Healthcliff, and Cathy's inability to leave Heights is a representation of the subjectivity of women and for both instances were only truly resolved by death. A resolve that lead to Catherine's death and a resolve that truly ended with Heathcliff's death.