E.M. Forster, “The Other Boat”:A Story of Two Men Who Deserved Better

This story of two gay men made me wonder how people in 2019 would react. For something that was made in the 1900s it's about a gay interracial couple, which is something we often don’t often see in today's media. Throughout the passage I couldn't help but go back and forth throughout the reading to realize that Forster is doing a lot of foreshadowing in this book. “‘A very holy man had once told him that what nearly destroys may bring strength and can be summoned in the house of revenge.’” “‘I’ve no use for revenge’ Lionel said.” Eventually though, when he is bitten by his lover it is stated that it was sweet vengeance that Lionel was doing to the men he fought though it was actually his lover. There are many more examples of irony and foreshadowing throughout the passage. The example that is most important is, what changed Lionel to want revenge? Why was he suddenly so angry with the wounds inflicted on him by others? There are two options. First, post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD could be an obvious cause of this. PTSD is very common in soldiers no matter the age. Someone who is not reading this passage very in-depth could think of this as PTSD. According to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs in the Vietnam War, a total of 30% veterans had PTSD at one point in their lifetime. It wouldn’t be out of the question that he might actually have it. The second idea is that whoever comes back is not actually Lionel. He has now accepted his place with the other white people. He didn’t feel passionately anymore and only thought about other people's feelings. This confliction can be caused by knowing a relationship with Cocoanut would make his life hard, but he would be living an authentic life that he wanted. Going the easy route can lead to more conflict within oneself. According to Doctor Leon Seltzer “So, within life’s untidy framework, you’re frequently obliged to choose between what hasn’t been making you happy—or may even be making you miserable but, nonetheless, is safe and free from anxiety—and what might lead to far greater satisfaction and well-being, but is hardly a sure thing. In consequence, what you may have gotten used to, however frustrating and unfulfilling, must wage battle with what might be better for you, but isn’t without worrisome uncertainties.”  So while Lionel likes Cocoanut, he does not. Lionel would never need revenge, but this new man does. This can be proven by what he says when he goes back to Cocoanut. “‘When you come back to the cabin you will not be you. Cocoa had said: ‘and was it so?’” This explains why he is doing these things, and we as the audience could even see this other person popping out when he makes racist comments about his lover to the other white people. Afterwards, he feels horrible. It is obvious that Lionel is a very conflicted person inside, maybe even troubled with what he wants, and when it comes to be a moment where what he wants matters, he makes the wrong choice. Cocoanut lived the way he wanted though, and that's probably what made him content with his choices. Even when he was dead he went against the norms of that society.  Many would and will say that their deaths mean freedom for both of them, however I disagree. Not every LGBTQ+  relationship that ends with death means freedom. The interpretation is valid, but I would argue that this is very much a tragedy. When talking about Romeo and Juliet often people call is a tragedy. Just as this story was. Even in 2019 people kill themselves because they are forced to not be authentic themselves. This is not freedom, this is a cage that always ends in death. If love always ends with death then it is not freedom. Freedom means choices, not tragic death. 

Works Cited

“National Center for PTSD.” PTSD, 24 July 2018, www.ptsd.va.gov/understand/common/common_veterans.asp.

Seltzer , Leon. “What Causes You Inner Turmoil?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers,

 www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201504/what-causes-you-inner-            turmoil.  

The Misery of War: Glory of Women by Sassoon

This whole sonnet is very ironic, even making this a sonnet is ironic. Sonnets are typically connected with love. This one has something to do with bad love, but not anything to do with actual love. This is the toxic love of nationalism, not love for someone else, nor was it in a positive light. This poem is very accusing, the first line saying “You love us when we’re heroes, home on leave, or wounded in a mentionable place.” This sets up the idea of you, and us. You being people, not just women that glorify the idea of men being heros of war, while us is the soldiers fighting. throughout the sonnet, the idea of men in the army being a decoration for women, and how in love with the idea women are that men are out there fighting. Yet Sassoon still keeps that idea that war is disgraceful and is not something to glorify. “You worship decorations; you believe that chivalry redeems the war’s disgrace.” The sonnet seems to show the positive feelings that women felt from the war, glorifying the horror that happens on the battlefield, but then seems to bring them back to the reality of what war is actually like. The last line being the most powerful line in this sonnet. “O German mother dreaming by the fire, while you are knitting socks to send your son his face is trodden deeper in the mud.” This shows the two sides of what is happening currently in the sonnet. On the women's side, it is pleasant and glorifying those men fighting the ‘good’ fight. For the men though, it is brutal and awful. The son in the mud could easily be interpreted as dead, and this can mean that the glory and effort women are putting forth is not saving these men’s lives. They are all suffering and no one’s there to help them. When I read that last line I was deeply disturbed, it gives you a sense of sadness and maybe even hopelessness. Sassoon is trying to make people feel how the men feel, and did pretty well to do that. Showing both sides of the war, and showing that men and kids are dying. According to Michael Scott “World War One was one of the deadliest conflicts in the history of the human race, in which over 16 million people died. The total number of both civilian and military casualties is estimated at around 37 million people.” Glorifying people killing each other is a main core problem, it makes women complicit with the war. It is also interesting to mention that in the sonnet we assume that it is about British women, and then at the end it switches to German mothers. This is suppose to show the contrast between glorizing war for British women versus the German mother who does not seem to be glorifying the men, she just assumably misses her son who is probably or will end up dead. According to Griffiths, “the sudden turn to the presentation of a German mother at home is surprising for the reader, after the focus on the insensitivity and moral complicity of British women in the war. In some ways she is presented more sympathetically than British women: her “dreaming”, because not elaborated on, doesn’t seem as immediately corrupt as that of British women.” As stated previously, it brings everyone back to reality that war is not a goal, it is not something to glorify. At the end of the day, both ends end up having people die who have families and lives. It was and never should be something to romanticize.    

Work Cited

Griffiths, G. M. “Glory of Women – Siegfried Sassoon.” Move Him Into The Sun, 13 Nov. 2011, movehimintothesun.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/glory-of-women-siegfried-sassoon/.

“How Many People Died in WW1?” History, 15 Nov. 2018, www.historyonthenet.com/how-many-people-died-in-ww1.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: Psychology? Manly Friendship?

When reading this, I couldn’t help but constantly think about a few things. The first thing I thought of was desire, and how that played a role in Jekyll. Desire is what led him to make the potion and drink it.”I knew well that I risked death; for any drug that so potently controlled and shook the very fortress of identity. But the temptation of a discovery long since prepare my tincture.” Desire was the core problem that caused this situation. There is more to the story than just man versus nature, this passage is discussing the problem with too much desire. Many things in this story talk about Jekyll being the good and Hyde being the bad, at the end though I was left with the thought that all humans are both good and bad. Those two things naturally belong to people, and it's how we act and how much bad we let out that matters. Trying to change that as Jekyll did caused imbalance, and often when people do more bad things they are even more tempted to do worse. This could be why Hyde eventually took over Jekyll. “The evil side of my nature, to which I had now transferred the stamping efficacy, was less robust and less developed than the good which I had just deposed.” This is because he spent all his life being a pretty good man, but that bad side will get stronger the more you let it out. It makes sense that the fear that is written into this passage was one of man versus nature. It’s that fear that we all have some secret, or some bad side of us that is just asking to come out. It's like when someone wins something instead of you, we all have that feeling of despise towards that person, and feeding it would make it worse. This is exactly what Jekyll did. “I could enter on that of Edward Hyde without pecuniary loss. And thus fortified, as I supposed, on every side, I began to profit by the strange immunities of my position.” In this case, internally, he has been both man and nature all along. Feeding that nature caused him to become so much worse, to the point of murdering someone. According to Gregory Jantz who has written many books on this subject states “What is damaging is the denial of one aspect of our personality when we are functioning under another. When we're calm, we cannot deny we get angry. When we're happy, we cannot deny we get sad. When we're patient, we cannot deny we get impatient. When we deny certain aspects of our personality is taken to the extreme, we experience fragmentation.”

 What is very interesting though is the lack of women in this passage. I spent a great deal of time thinking about this. There are many points to this reading, but one I hadn’t picked up until recently is the interesting bond between men. Mr. Utterson seems like a very concerned friend who only wanted the best for Jekyll, going as far as damaging Jekyll’s property to make sure he was ok. Mr. Utterson uses that code of silence that connects men to make sure that Jekyll stays out of danger when he finds out that Jekyll doesn’t want anything to do with Mr. Hyde anymore. Friendships like this between men are important to see, even now in 2019. According to Timothy Wegner, “The amount of hidden social pressure that exists on how a man should interact and be in friendship may be one of the primary sources in why many young and old men do not have deep relationships with other men.” So seeing this is great representation for male friendship. Often nowadays we don’t see that level of care of men with other men, and I was delighted to realize how sweet they were to each other.

Work Cited

“Jekyll In Public, Hyde at Home? Our Fragmented Selves.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201307/jekyll-in-public-hyde-home-our-fragmented-selves.

Wenger, Timothy. “Male Friendships, Their Importance, and How to Develop Them.” The Man Effect, The Man Effect, 29 Apr. 2018, themaneffect.com/thejourney/male-friendships-their-importance-and-how-to-develop-them.

                                

“Maids, not you my mind doth change” by Michael Field (K. Bradley & E. Cooper):A Poem about Gender Roles

This poem has a lot of sapphic feeling to it, which is what the two authors were going for. I find it interesting how they state their feelings about men. They state “Men I defy, allure, estrange, prostrate, make bond or free” (Lines 2-3) This shows the role reversal they have for men. In most heterosexual relationships in the Victorian era the man was the dominating person. The relationship was dependent on him and often the woman was taught to be ‘helpless’ without him. According to victorian-era, “The patriarchal system was the norm and women usually led a more secluded, private life. Men, on the other hand, possessed all kinds of freedom. The man was naturally the head of the family and the guardian of family members.” These lines show the opposite though. They defy men, they manipulate men, and they turn the men to the submissive side of the relationship. They do this without changing their own gender to man, they are still women and they are dominant. In this poem, there is a lot of contrast from heterosexual relationships to lesbian relationships. When talking about women, the authors make you feel soft and sweet. “To you I sing my love’s refrain; between us is no thought of pain, peril, satiety.” (Lines 5-7) This shows that when two women are together, they are truly free, they have no feelings of pain or peril. With heterosexual relationships though, Bradley and Cooper state that “Soon odth a lover’s patience tire, but ye to mainfold desire can yield response, ye know.” (lines 8-10) In the Victorian era, it seems that women were trapped to become married to men because the law made it impossible for women to make any money independently. Olga Zeltser states “Because society prevented women from making their own living, there was an inescapable dependence upon men’s income.” This seems to show the struggle of loving another woman in a society that does not agree with that. It shows that the love of two women in this world they created is loving and soft, while the love of a man and a woman isn’t so loving as it’s filled with sexual desire and the idea of falling out of love. To these women, a lesbian relationship seems so much better because they like each other and they are as free as can be. There is no dominating figure. This brings on the idea that love is much more than roles and who works or who cooks, it’s a deep feeling of freedom when you are together. This deepens the question of how love was perceived back in the victorian times. There were heterosexual couples that loved each other, but how many people got married to each other because they thought that getting married was the correct thing to do? Would they have considered that to be love back then? I would argue that comparing that kind of love to love in 2019, that kind of love isn’t actually love. It is just filling a role that needed to be filled and is seen as doing your ‘duty’. Love is much deeper than duty, and that’s what the poem is ultimately about. Both women adore each other and see love as love, and letting go of the heterosexual ideals that had been forced upon them let them have that freedom. The freedom to love the person you really do love.

Work Cited

“Gender Roles of Victorian Era for Men and Women.” Victorian Era Life in England. Victorians Society & Daily Life, victorian-era.org/gender-roles-of-victorian-era.html.

Zeltser, Olga. “Victorian Women: The Gender of Oppression .” Historical Analysis: Women as               the "the Sex" During the Victorian Era,                                                                                    webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/tempmotherhood/fall2003/3/HisPage.html.

Blog 1: Goblin Market

Warning to all those reading, there are sexual themes and violence in this blog post!

            Goblin Market is a very sexual poem, filled with sexual desire and the relationship between men and women versus women and women. fruits were the first symbol that caught my eye. Fruit can symbolize various things, but mostly fertility and sexuality. It is no coincidence that these goblin men are selling such things. Christina Rossetti instantly makes any audience realize that whoever these men are, they are not good. There are good and bad statements to this poem. The good statement is a very feminist one. Women watching out for other women, an example would be Lizzie watching out for Laura and even going as far as putting herself in danger to give Laura what she wants. Even after Lizzie warned Laura constantly about the dangers of buying the fruit, even though Laura desired it. Buying the fruit is obviously a hint towards virginity or desire, and this can be proven by Laura's payment method when she buys fruit. “Buy from us with a golden curl. She clipped a precious golden lock, she dropped a tear more rare than pearl.” (Line 125) To maidens, virginity is of huge importance and to keep it they must watch out for whatever can take it. In this case, these goblin men will take it. When she cuts her curl, this shows that this exchange is sexual in nature, and once she bites into the fruits it is like nothing she has ever experienced, much like experiencing sex for the first time. The bad of this poem is that after Laura tasted the fruit, she became obsessed and started to go downhill. This is an example of sexual desire, her need to taste the fruit again. Lizzie then goes to buy some for Laura and it is obvious they do not want money. Lizzie’s interaction with the goblins is much different, and it is very obvious that they were trying to rape her as seen in this passage “Tho’ the goblins cuffed and caught her, coaxed and fought her, bullied and besought her..” (Line 424) It goes on to say that they tried to force her to taste the fruit, much like men trying to force a woman to have sexual relations with them. This is all for her sister, showing that connection between women that is so often overlooked in literature. It is also a representation of the stage in a woman’s life where their virginity is of huge importance to have a happy life. They have to wait for the appropriate time to taste the fruit. When they taste it too soon, suddenly they won’t be able to taste it anymore since the desire for men is in virgin women. An example of this is Laura being unable to hear the goblins cry anymore after eating or having sex with them. “Laura turned cold as stone to find her sister heard that cry alone, That goblin cry.” (line 255) The only person who stays with Laura in this is Lizzie which is directly shown to state that men only want sexual interactions with women and thusly that is what the relation between men and women is. Whereas the relationship between women and women is passionate, caring, and loving. Lizzie did all this for her sister because she loves her and would do anything for her. It is not only a poem about sexual violence and desire, but the precious connection that women have with one another, blood related or not. “For there is no friend like a sister.” (Line 562)