"In a hole in the ground . . . " (11)

Illustration by J.R.R. Tolkien

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. 

And so begins one of the most beloved books of all time. 

An early review in the New York Post said: "This book will be worn ragged by boys and girls alike. It has immense charm, genuine wit, and dwarfs which put Snow White's boy friends completely in the shade." 

At the same time, a New York Times review said: "One of the most freshly original and delightfully imaginative books for children that has appeared in many a long day...a glorious account of a magnificent adventure, filled with suspense and seasoned with a quiet humor that is irresistible...The tale is packed with valuable hints for the dragon killer and adventurer in Faerie." 

Since that time, of course, many other magnificent books for a similar audience have hit the bookshelves - Harry Potter and Hunger Games to name just a few. 

Does The Hobbit stand out from current children's/Young Adult contemporary favorites in any way? Is this a book that will last through the ages? In addition to being a great narrative work, is it a lasting classic that will be around for the long haul, like The Odyssey and Beowulf? 

I'd like to hear your thoughts about both The Hobbit's literary value and longevity as well as its narrativity. That is, in what unique ways does it function as its own story-telling device?  One example of this can be found in the opening pages: 

The mother of our particular hobbit - what is a hobbit? I suppose hobbits need some description nowadays, since they have become rare and shy of the Big People, as they call us. 

Here the narrative text slips into the role of indiscrete story-teller. We can literally hear Tolkien (or our own grandparent) telling this story to his children (or to us) and stopping in mid-sentence to answer his children's (or our) question. [One of you rightly noticed this on your notecard this week - lovely.] 

So in pithy, Tolkiensian prose, comment on this text's "greatness" (or not, depending on your view) and its "story-tellingness." 

Comments are due by MONDAY 28 NOVEMBER, which is a long ways away. You might want to set a phone alert as a reminder. Happy Thanksgiving!

Þæt wæs gōd cyning! (10)

There is no doubt that Beowulf was a good hero - he killed Grendel (everyone's favorite non-human human); he killed Grendel's mother (though she was perhaps guilty of nothing more than loving and avenging her only son); he killed the dragon (albeit with some help from Wiglaf). 

However, being a good hero is not necessarily the same as being a good king. We know that Scyld Shefing was a good king. We know that Hrothgar was a good king. We know that Heremod was a bad king. We know that Beowulf - in the words of Wiglaf - "worked for the people" and "behaved like a hero" (3006-07) [folcred fremede - ođđe furđer gen /  eorlscipe efnde]. 

But was Beowulf a good king? As we discussed on Friday, this question is not as easy to answer as it might seem. Without merely revisiting the evidence put forth in class, make an original case for whether Beowulf was or was not a good king. Provide some concrete textual evidence and some solid narrative analysis. I doubt whether anyone's answer will be a simple yes or no. Rather, like most people, Beowulf was likely a mix of both good and bad characteristics, a fact which you can acknowledge while still having an opinion.


Posts are due by NOON on WEDNESDAY 16 NOVEMBER.

A perpetual Persuasion (9)

(Blog instructions below)

Here are some notecard highlights of the week:

"Capt. Wentworth is the man."

"Glad this book is over just because Mary gives me anxiety and raises my blood pressure."

"At this point I am just waiting for Mary to lose her voice."

"The letter from Wentworth to Anne makes the whole book worth it."

"I love Captain Wentworth's letter to Anne...I wish it was addressed to me instead."

"Wentworth is the first likable person in the book. He's going to die, isn't he."

"BEST LOVE LETTER EVER!!"

And now for this week's post, due Friday at class, worth 25 blog points and up to 35 quiz points (remember: 25 bp does not necessarily = 35 qp).

Find a phrase, a moment, or a scene in Persuasion and compare it to a parallel phrase, moment, or single scene in any of our 3 previous texts. This comparison must be focused, articulate, and substantive.

For example, on the bottom of page 148, Anne recalls the events at Lyme and says, "The last few hours were certainly very painful, but when pain is over, the remembrance of it often becomes a pleasure. One does not love a place the less for having suffered in it, unless it has been all suffering."

This parallels Hyoi's statement in OSP that "a pleasure is only full grown when it is remembered" (74), though in an inverted fashion: Hyoi begins with pleasure and ends with memory while Anne begins with memory and ends with pleasure. Of course, OSP is referring to joyous events while Anne is referring to tragic events. And yet they both come to the same conclusion - that memory plays an important role in "completing" life's moments. Ransom experienced tragic things on both earth and Malacandra but he loved them both and had fond memories of both because neither was defined solely by suffering. And one could reasonably assume that though Anne would probably love to reclaim the 8 years she lost with Wentworth, still the memory of his passionate letter to her and their subsequent reunion will provide her with deep, long-lasting pleasure that she would likely not trade for the world.

After introducing the two comparative elements (in brief, and citations please), provide some analysis and commentary. Does the parallel surprise you? Does it enrich either or both of the texts? What might we say about the presence of these similar moments in such diverse texts? Please don't try to answer all of these questions. They're simply some optional launching pads, though you are also welcome to consider your own analytical question(s).

Length: half to full single spaced page (1" margins, 12 pt font, name and date at top)

Due: hard copy at beginning of Friday's class / blog comment AFTER class

Faded flowers.... (8)

photo by Mathias Erhart, flickr

In the first few pages of Persuasion we are introduced to Sir Walter Elliot and his descendants via an entry in the Baronetage. Austen goes on to give her readers the briefest of snapshots of specific individuals: Sir Walter, for whom "vanity was the beginning and the end of...character" (10); his deceased wife, "an excellent woman, sensible and amiable" (10); Lady Russell, "of steady age and character" (11); Elizabeth, "very like [her father]" (11); Mary, who had "acquired a little artificial importance" through marriage... (and who quite frankly drives me crazy) (11); and finally, Anne - Anne who is "nobody" in the eyes of her father or sisters . . . Anne, who is "only Anne" to her immediate family . . . Anne, whose "bloom had vanished early" . . . Anne who is, well, just Anne.

And yet we suspect that this is not entirely true. We suspect that Anne is somehow much more than what we are first shown. After all, this is her story, and you can't have a story about "nobody."

As you read, be on the lookout for moments that hint at Anne's true identity and character, whether that be through her actions, her words, or her thoughts and observations, which often (but not always) reflect those of the narrator.

Who is Anne Elliot, really? Are your initial impressions confirmed throughout Book I, or do they change? If so, why? As always, be sure to include page number references.


Comments are due by Friday, 28 October, noon. 

Drawing Parallels (7)

from www.fotoblography.com

Now that we've finished reading and discussing two texts, it's time for some comparative analysis. For this post, identify and analyze an element in The Odyssey and Out of the Silent Planet.  You may focus on specific characters, settings, scenes, dialogues, or any other aspect of the narrative that lends itself to such a comparison.

Please do not write anything like this:
"Odysseus and Ransom both were trying to get home. That's sort of, you know, similar. Yeah. Similar. So, you know, kind of the same. And, well, they both really wanted to get home, but it was, um, really difficult and, um, hard. For both of them."

Or this:
"That big guy, the Cyclops, was kind of like those tall scary guys, the sorns...or is it 'scorns'? I can never remember. Anyway, they both lived in caves. And didn't hang out in groups. And, um, were really different from people. And they both liked cheese. That's very important."

Based on classroom conversation, I'm confident that you've identified any number of narrative elements that provide fodder for nuanced, interesting, and delightful comparisons. Here's your chance to wax eloquently about 1 of them. Please cite any quotes with page numbers. Otherwise there's no need for specific references, though your post must include specific information, explication, and analysis.


Due Friday, 21 October, noon.

Truth in Fiction (6)

Out of the Silent Planet offers many terse and pithy phrases whose meanings extend beyond their immediate contexts. Some examples include:

Small claims must give way to great. (Weston, 29)
The love of knowledge is a kind of madness. (Narrator, 56)
A pleasure is full grown only when it is remembered. (Hyoi, 74)

For this post, find one such phrase (being sure to identify the speaker and page number) and then comment on how the underlying meaning (whether true or false) reappears and/or is expanded upon in another section of the text. For example, you could argue that the first phrase above (though Lewis obviously didn't agree with it - at least not insofar as Weston meant it) reappears towards the end of the book where the reader is introduced to claims even larger than those of Weston, claims that demand some sort of response and that diminish the seeming importance of Weston's mission.

Though you each need not locate a unique phrase, you each must point to a unique moment in the text to which it can be applied. This post will require you to do some close reading and some sophisticated analysis. Do NOT fall prey to the abysmal, nonsensical, and pathetic discourse illustrated in the comic below. Find something significant to say, and then say it articulately, please. We will all be grateful for your own terse and pithy (and coherently significant) analysis of a terse and pithy phrase.

Some rules:

• you may use one of the phrases listed above
• phrases must be applied uniquely (see previous paragraph)
• phrases may be used only FIVE times each, so keep careful track of previous posts
• comments must be posted by 5 pm next Thursday (10.13) 

An xkcd webcomic. xkcd.com/451

Show . . . don't tell (5)

As we discussed in class this week, C.S. Lewis believed that a good author must use an economy of words (nothing extra), must be diligent about accuracy of vocabulary (use the word that conveys your exact meaning), and must show beauty / sublimity / ferocity / etc. rather than simply stating it; "The sky was beautiful" or "The heavens were sublime" or "The dragon was fierce."

Boring. Blah. Ungood.

Lewis shows us countless things in Out of the Silent Planet - the personalities of the main characters, the overwhelming heavens, the sublime landscape.

Find a moment when Lewis 'shows' readers something about either a character or a setting. Do not repeat a specific example already discussed in class, though you may certainly use another reference to either Ransom, Weston, or Devine.

Include the specific line from the text (referenced with page number) and then tell us (...yes, it's okay to tell us...) what exactly that reference shows us. Comments are due by next Wednesday at midnight.

Writing Life (4)

In her book Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Life and Writing Anne Lamott writes: 

"Thirty years ago my older brother, who was ten years old at the time, was trying to get a report on birds written that he'd had three months to write, which was due the next day. We were out at our family cabin in Bolinas, and he was at the kitchen table close to tears, surrounded by binder paper and pencils and unopened books on birds, immobilized by the hugeness of the task ahead. Then my father sat down beside him, put his arm around my brother's shoulder, and said, "Bird by bird, buddy. Just take it bird by bird." 

You're writing an essay, not a report; and you have only 3 weeks, not 3 months. Still, the advice is good. Take it one step at a time. (Which implies that you must, in fact, take a step - [read: write] - at some point.) 

To help you get started, for this week's blog please post a comment about your upcoming paper topic. I realize we haven't conferenced yet and that your ideas are still quite possibly nascent. Be that as it may, I'll happily take it upon myself to nudge you along. Please give

• a brief description of your overarching topic
• why/how it caught your interest and attention while reading
• your proposed thesis - the position or idea for which you'll be presenting textual evidence. 

It's quite possible that some of you will have a similar topic, but you should each have a unique thesis. 

Posts are due by midnight on Thursday, September 22.

Closure (3)

On Wednesday, we discussed endings and closure. Some  narratives draw to an end but do not provide closure (soap operas are a perfect example of this, as are the first episodes in a television series or movie trilogy). When a narrative does provide closure, it doesn't always 'look' the way we expect it will.

As readers, we want answers for our questions and fulfillment for our expectations. Many of us are engaged by narratives that keep us waiting for answers and fulfillment and then provide them in surprising and unexpected ways. True, we all love a predictable story now and then, a story that provides both closure and a satisfying ending. But we also love a story that keeps us guessing - that takes us down a path with twists and turns we didn't expect - that doesn't finish things off with a neatly tied bow. We love the thrill of a narrative that takes us on an interesting and exhilarating journey. 

For those who have already read The Odyssey and know the ending, what is keeping you engaged in the narrative this time around? What new questions and expectations do you have? How is this re-reading different from your first reading? 

For those who are reading The Odyssey for the first time, what kind of ending and/or closure are you expecting or hoping for? What moments have surprised you up to this point? What questions and expectations do you have? 

And for both groups, how do these concepts of questions/expectations and ending/closure, as discussed in class, enhance, illuminate, explain, deepen, modify, or add to your experience and understanding of narrative and reading? 

That's a lot to fit into a blog comment, so focus your answer on a specific element of the prompt (rather than trying to answer all the questions). As always, be sure to provide book.line references (required for credit) that explain or support your comments.

The Gods Must Be Crazy (2)

We've spent a lot of time discussing the gods in the Odyssey, mostly in regards to the relationship between gods and human beings, but also the relationships between the gods themselves.The burning question seems to be whether or not humans (and possibly the gods) do or do not have free will. Do the gods determine destiny? Do the gods merely tinker with destiny? Do the gods really even care about destiny? Or are the humans merely pawns for the gods, toys they can maneuver, move, manipulate, and play with at their own leisure? 
     This question of free will versus destiny is one that many people continue to ask today - though perhaps with different terminology and a different purpose - and the ensuing discussion often ends up arriving nowhere, caught in a cycle that can be difficult to detangle. These discussions are probably worth having, but for the sake of this discussion space, I'd like you to reflect on these topics only as they pertain to The Odyssey. To what extent do the gods control the destiny of human beings? To what extent (if at all) do human beings control their own destiny? To what extent do gods control the destiny of other gods (begging the question of who, if anyone, is actually in charge of things)?
     Certainly Odysseus is an easy target in this discussion since his interaction with the gods is often painfully apparent throughout the text. But I'd like you to set Odysseus aside and instead focus on another character, commenting on that person's relationship and interaction with the gods, being careful to note specific references to personal agency, divine intervention, and the like. Make special note of references that might seem to contradict one another, offering a theory about how the two can co-exist peacefully in the text. In the end, what observations and conclusions (if any) can we as readers draw about the intersection of humanity and divinity in The Odyssey?
     Remember: your comments MUST include pertinent book and line references and must be posted by midnight, 09.05.

International Man of Mystery (1)

So far in our reading (Books 1-4) we haven't actually met Odysseus. We have only others' statements about him, which are a mixed bag at best. Descriptions such as "excels all men in wisdom" (1.79), "mastermind of battle" (1.193), "godlike" (1.260), "great-hearted" (2.92), "hero" (3.159, 173, et. al.), "fearless" (3.303), "god-appointed" (3.778), and "excelled in every strength" (3.817) appear alongside descriptions such as "cunning" (1.312), "sheer cunning" (2.135), "wily" (2.181), and "crafty" (3.281).

Who exactly is Odysseus? A great-hearted, god-appointed hero? A wily and cunning human strategist? Both? Neither? Now that you've gotten further into the text and have actually "met" Odysseus, have your initial impressions of him changed? If so, to what extent and why? Be sure to defend your position with cited textual evidence (Page.Line #) as above.

Monster Mania (10)

Monsters play a big role in Beowulf, as well as countless other narratives. There's nothing like a good monster scene, replete with danger, fear, horror (and often blood, guts, and gore) to get the adrenaline pumping and the narrative chugging right along.


Grendel and Grendel's mom are model monsters: non-human, vengeful, powerful, dangerous, minutely sympathetic (an important trait), and most importantly of all, losers in the end.


Briefly talk about your all-time favorite monster from the world of either books or movies, explaining why that particular monster is so monstrously perfect. Then talk briefly about either Grendel or his mom. Are they, in fact model monsters? Or is there more to them than that? How do you view them, both as an individual monster and as an element in the larger poem? As always, line references please.


As my gift to you, your comments will not be due until Friday, April 15 at midnight.

Drawing Parallels (9)

Now that we've finished reading four texts, it's time to draw some parallels between either characters or plot elements (i.e. entities or events) of at least two different narratives. We've discussed some of these in class already. Anne Elliot and Odysseus (the various stages of a homeward journey). Anne Elliot and Penelope (the strong woman who holds things together). Weston's speech to Oyarsa and Elizabeth's diatribe about Mr. Elliot (the speech that needs translating and clarifying). The journeys of both Odysseus and Ransom (they come full circle, but the men are changed in various ways).

Now it's your turn. Discuss a new parallel from our texts, being sure to first give us the location of each (especially if it's a single unique scene). Then present a clear argument for why the two characters/events/dialogues/landscapes/etc. are, in fact, similar and comparable. NOTE: you must each write about a different parallel. You can use the same characters/scenes as a previous post if necessary, but you must draw out a new point of comparison and analysis. In other words, read previous posts carefully.

Austen's Genius (8)

Jane Austen is considered one of the most articulate, clever, and witty of 19th Century British authors. An 1890 textbook, A First Sketch of English Literature, declares that Austen "had a keen feminine perception of character, quickened by the sympathetic insight of true genius" and that "every sentence has pith in it...enlivened by the magic touch of genius in every page, and all this charm was found in the common things of life (912-13).

Identify at least one such "genius, pithy, charming" moment in Persuasion, offering your own analysis of its charm and your own hypothesis about why it qualifies as an example of literary genius.

Each of you must write about a unique moment in the book, so read previous posts carefully. 

Faded Flowers? (7)

In the first few pages of Persuasion we are introduced to Sir Walter Elliot and his descendants via an entry in the Baronetage. Austen goes on to give her readers the briefest of snapshots of specific individuals. Sir Walter, for whom "vanity was the beginning and the end of...character" (10); his deceased wife, "an excellent woman, sensible and amiable" (10); Lady Russell, "of steady age and character" (11); Elizabeth, "very like [her father]" (11); Mary, who had "acquired a little artificial importance" through marriage...and who quite frankly drives me crazy (11); and finally, Anne--Anne who is "nobody" in the eyes of her father or sisters...Anne, who is "only Anne" to her immediate family...Anne, whose "bloom had vanished early"...Anne who is, well, just Anne.

And yet we suspect that this is not entirely true. We suspect that Anne is somehow much more than what we are first shown. (After all, this is her story, and you can't have a story about "nobody.")

As you read, be on the lookout for moments that hint at Anne's true identity and character, whether that be through her actions, her words, or her thoughts and observations, which often (but not always) reflect those of the narrator.
Who is Anne Elliot, really? Are your initial impressions confirmed throughout Book I, or do they change? If so, why? As always, be sure to include page number references. 

Deeper Meaning (6)

Out of the Silent Planet offers many terse and pithy phrases whose meanings extend beyond their immediate contexts. Some examples include:

Small claims must give way to great. (Weston, 29)
The love of knowledge is a kind of madness. (Narrator, 56)
A pleasure is full grown only when it is remembered. (Hyoi, 74)

For this post, find one such phrase (being sure to identify the speaker and page number) and then comment on how the underlying meaning (whether true or false) reappears and/or is expanded upon in another section of the text. For example, you could argue that the first phrase above (though Lewis obviously didn't agree with it - at least not insofar as Weston meant it) reappears towards the end of the book where the reader is introduced to claims even larger than those of Weston, claims that demand some sort of response and that diminish the seeming importance of Weston's mission.

Though you each need not locate a unique phrase, you each must point to a unique moment in the text to which it can be applied. This post will require you to do some close reading and some sophisticated analysis. Do NOT fall prey to the abysmal, nonsensical, and pathetic discourse illustrated in the comic below. Find something significant to say, and then say it articulately, please. We will all be grateful for your own terse and pithy (and coherently significant) analysis of a terse and pithy phrase.

Some rules:

• you may use one of the phrases listed above
• phrases must be applied uniquely (see previous paragraph)
• phrases may be used only FIVE times each, so keep careful track of previous posts
• comments must be posted by Thursday (2.24) at noon

An xkcd webcomic. xkcd.com/451

Sci Fi (5)

Most of us have strong opinions about different narrative genres. Perhaps no genre evokes such strong "hate it/love it" responses as science fiction. Very few people shrug their shoulders and say "whatever" when asked how they feel about sci fi.

As we start reading C.S. Lewis's Out of the Silent Planet, what opinions and ideas about science fiction are you bringing with you? What is the source of those opinions and ideas? And how do you think they might affect your reading and enjoyment of the text? Finally, how does the text itself (so far) either line up with or diverge from your opinions and ideas? Be sure to provide textual examples and support for your statements.

Closure? (4)

Now that you've finished The Odyssey (quite an accomplishment, by the way; many hearty congratulations), do you have a sense of closure? That is, have your questions been answered and have your expectations been satisfied to a degree that provides you with something more than a simple and trite, "The End."

In order to answer this question, you must first discern exactly what questions and expectations you've had throughout the reading process. And then you must decide whether the text (and possibly classroom discussions) provided the necessary answers and satisfaction.

Your comments will necessarily be quite personal in nature, but please don't neglect to include pertinent book.line references to help explain your questions and expectations, and to then show where and how closure was either granted or denied you. You might also include some thoughts on how the ending either surprised or disappointed you, if in fact that's how you feel. By the way, it's quite possible to have experienced a sense of closure but to still have some lingering questions. What are those, and how might the answering of those change your view of the text?

Again, kudos on digesting an enormous (and enormously important) Great Narrative Work. 

(Free) Agency (3)

AgencyYCN graphic, designed by Oscar & Ewan

The topic of agency has come up in class on numerous occasions, mostly in regards to the relationship between gods and human beings throughout The Odyssey. The burning question seems to be whether or not humans do or do not have agency. Can mortals make their own decisions? Do the gods determine destiny? Do the gods merely tinker with destiny? Do the gods really even care about destiny? Or are the humans merely pawns for the gods, toys they can maneuver, move, manipulate, and play with at their own leisure? 

This question of agency/free will versus destiny is one that many people continue to ask today - though perhaps with different terminology and a different purpose - and the ensuing discussion often ends up arriving nowhere, caught up in a cycle that can be difficult to detangle. These discussions are probably worth having, but for the sake of this discussion space, I'd like you to reflect on these topics only as they pertain to The Odyssey.To what extent do the gods control the destiny of human beings? To what extent (if at all) do human beings control their own destiny? To what extent do gods control the destiny of other gods (begging the question of who, if anyone, is actually in charge of things)?

Certainly Odysseus is an easy target in this discussion since his interaction with the gods is often painfully apparent throughout the text. But I'd like you to set Odysseus aside and instead focus on another character, commenting on that mortal's/immortal's relationship and interaction with the gods, being careful to note specific references to personal agency, divine intervention, and the like. Make special note of references that might seem to contradict one another, offering a theory about how the two can co-exist peacefully in the text. In the end, what observations and conclusions (if any) can we as readers draw about the intersection of humanity and divinity, and the intersection of agency and destiny, in The Odyssey?

Remember to include pertinent book and line references.

The Main Event: Plot v. Character (2)

In his essay "On Stories" C.S. Lewis says:
"...the Story itself, the series of imagined events, is nearly always passed over in silence, or else treated exclusively as affording opportunities for the delineation of character."

There are two main schools of thought when it comes to what drives a narrative and what causes it to pull on the human imagination. One - that the events are the most important element. Two - that the characters are the most important element. (You may remember that our working definition of 'narrative' is a story plus narrative discourse, and that our working definition of 'story' is that which has both an entity (character) and an event.)

Of course, it's not as simple as either A or B, i.e. it is not ONLY characters which drive a narrative or ONLY events which drive a narrative. Still, most of us are enamored and engaged by one or the other to a greater degree.

Now that you are almost halfway through The Odyssey, do you find yourself leaning towards the character camp or the event (plot) camp? What keeps you engrossed in the book (besides the fact that it's required for the class) - wanting to know what happens next, or wanting to know more about a certain character? Please provide some specific examples from the text (book.line) to explain your position.