Despite the collection of poems being published under the guidance of her husband and poet Ted Hughes, Plath had outlined an arrangement prior to her death which is where the main debate regarding the authoritative edition of Ariel arises. The two versions, whilst containing a similar selection of poems in a similar order, result in different expressive functions. Perloff argued that “Plath’s arrangement emphasizes, not death, but struggle and revenge, the outrage that follows the recognition that the beloved is also the betrayer, that the shrine at which one worships is also the tomb” whereas Hughes’ Ariel arrangement has been seen as his attempt to make the text less personally aggressive to himself by his critics and simply as protective of those the more lacerating poems were aimed at as well as including stronger poems by his supporters. The difference in reactions to the two versions of Ariel suggests that each version’s authorial intention differs despite supposedly being the same text.
Paper Number 2: Gaddis Chapter Six While reading Gaddis’ chapter six, he focused on how to question causation. He uses E.H. Carr’s fatal flaw as a big example for the distinction of “rational” and “accidental” causes. Gaddis also gives an alternative view on procedures of causation, and additional procedures historians need to keep in mind when narrate the reality of history. Carr explains rational causes as, “lead to fruitful generalizations and lessons can be learned from them.” While he says that accidental causes, “teach no lessons and lead to no conclusions.” Gaddis claims that Carr clearly confused himself as well as his readers about the differences between the two. Gaddis claims that not explaining clearly the distinction between rational and accidental causes is the more serious problem with Carr.
Allen Ginsberg Exploration of the Taboo The 1950’s to the mid 1960’s where characterized by a literary movement that rejected conformity, and searched for true spiritual and physical release known as “The Beat Movement”. Allen Ginsberg was at the forefront of this movement, and it defined not only his poetry, but also his private life. Ginsberg was willing to speak and write about subjects often viewed as taboo, especially during the more conservative 1950’s. Ginsberg’s belived that positive change could only occur if there was open dialogue reguarding more controversial subjects, including communism, the Vietnam war, dugs and even Nambla. It wasn’t until the Johnson presidency that the campaign against North Vietnam began to draw its highest cristisms.
Part of what set Nietzsche apart from his predecessors, was his style of writing. He uses an aphoristic style with short sentences to express a ‘truth’. Philosophy is commonly regarded as ‘the attempt to clarify and justify of ones beliefs’, however Nietzsche does not follow these rules, and generally makes observations without providing any justification. His meaning is not always implicit. One could assume that the purpose of this was to challenge the reader, as Nietzsche was known for being deliberately demanding in his writings.
Book Review of “Mind: A Brief Introduction” by John R. Seale, Oxford (2004) “All of the most famous and influential theories are false.” From the very first page, this bold and no doubt provocative statement of intent by Searle, makes no apologies for its effect. A point, it appears, needs to be proved and in “Mind: A Brief Introduction” John Searle is out to do just that and “try to rescue the truth from the overwhelming urge to falsehood”. Referring to the ever contentious issue surrounding the philosophy of mind, Searle directs the majority of his effort towards the “mind-body problem”, the relationship between the physical and biological experiences and the mental experiences in our so called “mind”. His main aims are to introduce readers to the main theories of what the mind is, why they’re all simply wrong and to present his view on the matter. Previous and present literature regarding the mind is vast and Searle acknowledges this, so the task of effectively bringing every theory, which he regards as being based on “false assumptions”, into disrepute, makes this particular book stand out.
The question that proved to be the most intriguing was coming to the conclusion of whether Bartleby was rebel-hero or a quitter-loser. Because of the complexity of the story, an answer is never provided, which leaves the reader to make the decision. But the decision is hard to make considering that there is sufficient evidence to support the ideas that Bartleby is both a hero and a quitter, which means that the best way to go about this question is to make the statement that Bartleby lies between being a hero and a loser. In his overview of “Bartleby, the Scrivener”, Steven Goldleaf believes that “by asking and not answering this question, he [Melville] offers a puzzling story, unusually open to interpretation.” In order to make a sound judgment on whether Bartleby is a rebel-hero, one must understand what that exactly entails. Webster’s dictionary defines the term hero as “a mythical or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability; a person admired for his/her achievements and noble qualities; one who shows great courage.” The same dictionary also defines the term rebel as “opposing or taking arms against a government or ruler.” After taking both of those definitions into consideration, it is not hard to give the rebel-hero title to Bartleby.
Soon after he left the army he started his literary career. “Poe’s stories were influenced by his insecurities and his problems, for this reason he disliked criticism” (Kennedy 387). One story that Poe made was called “Tell Tale Heart”. Like many stories it did not become popular till long after Poe’s death. The reason was because many in the past could not understand the story enough to actually like it.
The story’s absence of important information leaves the readers hanging on the edge of a cliff, asking themselves “What’s going to happen next?” During the whole tale, Montresor never precisely explains how he was hurt or insulted by his old friend, Fortunado. This type of suspense was meant to trouble the minds of the readers, making them wonder whether or not Montresor’s motivation to kill was reasonable, in other words, whether he was sane or not. Also, Edgar Allen Poe’s tale is told from the first person and has an unreliable narrator. The point of view is limited. Since it is impossible to tell whether or not the main character has any logical reason, any information given to the readers by Montresor is classified as biased or prejudiced, thus creating a state of uncertainty and of anticipation in the readers’ minds.
Stealing the “bust of Shakespeare” also seems ironic to the reader, the thief takes an image of one of the greatest creative talent the world has ever seen, but without any sense of what it stands for. The final line, which recalls the poem's conversational opening, is as if the speaker has sensed not just that the person he is speaking to is disturbed by his confession but also that the reader of the poem doesn't “understand” him. This poem is colloquial but the speaking voice here is very distinct. Sometimes the speaker uses striking images (“a mucky ghost”) and some unlikely vocabulary (“he looked magnificent”) but he also uses clichés (“Life's tough”). Single words are written as sentences
Yet he dismisses without notice his thought, just because it is his." In this quote Emerson is elaborating on the idea that one must express intellectual independence and nonconformity. The question of, “Why does one rely on others to determine the way he thinks, acts, dresses and speaks?” frequently comes up in the defense of transcendentalism. Two very influential and active authors in transcendentalism, Thoreau and Emerson, both tried to incorporate this idea into their writings. When an individual allows others to influence his own ideas, he showed be deemed weak-minded and ignorant.