English 300

i have a lot more to say but alas...

2008-12-17T17:26:00.000-08:00

i guess this is where I'll leave my thoughts in regards to this class, but only in the cyber world will my thoughts be discontinued. in all honesty i have to say that i really enjoyed this class, i wish that there was more time to continue on with the discussions that we have had thus far, but overall i am grateful for what this class has been able to expose to me. i was thinking about my grade in the class and unfortunately i came to the conclusion that i am kind of indifferent to the letter that will reflect what this class meant to me. the reason i say this is because once i was able to transfer some of the thoughts that i had through out the course of the semester on to this blog i began to realize that i really walked away with a peace about literary criticism, which in all honesty i did not think would happen. i know that personally can say that i am leaving this class with a completely new respect for all the work that people have done in the field of literature and also a new respect for my self. to look back at all the various aspects that we have covered and see the ties and connections that are found between everything is truly amazing. the fact that all of the criticism groups we studied are intertwined and connected with not only each other, but with the things that Frye wrote about really blows my mind, i mean wow it really makes sense. i just feel like this is not one of the classes that i have taken in which the material that was taught, was in a way taught in vain. i am not saying that the other classes that i have taken have been pointless, but i am saying that with the ideas that i have been exposed to in this class, i feel far more prepared to take other classes that this university has to offer. i guess this class is like the idea i had just mentioned, it makes connections and builds bridges to so many aspects of my education...so for that i am stoked...ok fin

Inwards Outwards and Everything in Between

2008-12-17T11:22:00.000-08:00

Centrifugal and Centripetal
Centripetal is staying inside the text
Centrifugal is going outside the text

I think it is great how these two words that we had discussed in the first part of the semester make their way into the later part of the semester in relation to the literary criticism groups.
there seems to be two groups that can be created and fit perfectly inside these two groups. i would venture to say that the deconstructionist as well as the New Critics would without a doubt fall under the category of centripetal being that they look at literary criticism as something that can only be taken from inside the text. and then you look at groups like the Marxist or the feminists and they see literary criticism as texts that need to be explored in various aspects of our lives, taking in consideration our social standing and what a persons situation maybe at the time. i just think that it is amazing that two words that we talked about in this class actually classify as broad ideas in which groups of literary criticism fall under

random thoughts from Frye

2008-12-16T11:30:00.000-08:00

teachers tend to think that analysis and criticism means that you read literature based on what the author writes and as well as what the author intended you to see when reading their work, Frye suggest that what the work means is what is written, it is more important to focus on the structure of words. the literature's meaning is not detachable from the actuall work itself.

oh i just found this

2008-12-16T05:51:00.000-08:00

i think this picture sums up what i was speaking of in that last blog entry about the art itself directly connecting and creating something within us, our relationship with art

WOW i kind of have a crush on my critic

2008-12-16T05:24:00.000-08:00

Samuel Taylor Coleridge was just another author that had a second job of being a critic, i guessed he needed some spare cash to pay the bills, but it turns out that he was and is so much more than that. i have read a lot of his work, but never did i know his thoughts behind literature. i guess i could have inferred given Kubla Kahn and so on and so forth. when we talked about the willful suspension of disbelief in class, i could only think of this song that i have like now for the past two years or so

"Willful Suspension Of Disbelief"

Everywhere everywhere everywhere
It's all so plain it's all a plan
The sky doesn't ever end
The air just gets much thinner further up
You could keep diggin' down and down
A thousand graves down without turnin'
Around or finding hell
You find you're digging up again
Everywhere everywhere everywhere
Willful suspension of disbelief

this song was always so beautiful and accompanied me on many walks and moments in my life as a form of comfort, the irony. when i found out what a willing suspension of disbelief was, i realized that was defined in how i felt about this song which just so happened to be titled a willful suspension of disbelief, now if thats not crazy i don't know what is. I'm actually playing the song on repeat right now as I'm typing this and the haunting instrumentals really make an impact on my soul, and i think about what Samuel, yes we are on a first name basis, talked about a person's relationship with art, and i totally understand that, its like how the woman in Wallace Steven's poem has a relationship with her song, or how DQ has a relationship with the books he has read, or even how Frye has a relationship with all of the writings he has read, it goes to show that art is apart of us, it creates something in us all its own. we suspend our minds, imaginations, and souls in order for that to happen, and i think that is beautiful.

More ON STC

2008-12-16T02:56:00.000-08:00

Hello, I am Samuel Taylor Coleridge; I was born on the 21st of October in the year 1772 in Devonshire England. I am fairly I should tell all of you a little bit more about my self in respects to criticism and literature, even though I would much rather fabricate who I am through the use of my imagination. I was a poet, romantic, philosopher, and also a critic. Most of you probably know of the project that my friend William Wordsworth and I put together titled, lyrical ballads, this work of art, like all of my work, exemplifies my philosophical and critical approach to literature. For example the lyrical ballads opens with my poem, the rime of the ancient mariner, which is now considered to be one of the pieces that opened the door for the period of romantic literature. In response to this work Mrs Anne Barbauld tole me that the only faults she found with the Ancient Mariner were – that it was improbable and had no moral. As for the probability – to be sure that might admit some question – but I told her that in my judgment the poem¡¯s chief fault was that it had too much moral, and that too openly obtruded on the reader, It ought to have no more moral than the story of the merchant sitting down to eat dates by the side of a well and throwing the shells aside, and the Genii starting up and saying he must kill the merchant, because a date shell had put out the eye of the Genii¡¯s son .

The imagination that can be found within the poem is what should be focused on rather than focusing on what didactive qualities can be found. I think that a crucial aspect of literature is with out a doubt imagination. In my Biographia Literaria, I wrote about the two crucial components of the imaginations, the first of the two is The primary imagination I hold to be the living power and prime agent of all human perception, and as a repetition in the finite of the eternal act of creation of the infinite I AM. The secondary I consider, as an echo of the former, coexisting with the conscious will, yet still identical with the primary in the kind of its agency, and differing only in degree, and in the mode of its operation. I also believe that the concept of fancy is the lowest form of imagination because its only counters are fixed, there is no creation, but rather a recreation of that which has already been created, which takes little to no imagination. I also believe in the idea of poetic faith, meaning when an individual indulges in any type of art that their mind will awake from the lethargic of custom and it will then be directed to the loveliness and wonders of the world that is before us.

The last concept I am going to expose to you is the willing suspension of disbelief, which I have been told has already been mentioned in this class but let me help expand your knowledge in regards to the meaning behind the words. The willing suspension of disbelief is the aesthetic theory that tries to characterize one¡¯s relationship to art. Specifically when looking at the creation or reading of poetry, I think people should express a willingness to accept a work of fiction as truth, even if it is fantastic or impossible. I challenge you all to allow your self to be separated from the truth you know and take part in the truth that literature creates.

My Apology

2008-12-16T02:31:00.000-08:00

Chelsea Diem

Literary Criticism

December 2, 2008

My Apology

My major is English education, and my name is Chelsea Diem. The order of words that I chose for the opening line of my apology seems to reveal exactly what I think in regards to me being an English major. When we were presented with the task of apologizing for being English majors, I have to admit that I continued to think that I was going to have to say, “I’m sorry for pursuing an English degree”. This was not something that I was prepared to do, but then I began to understand what the word apology in this situation meant.

Noun: apologia `a-pu'low-jee-u- A formal written defence of something you believe in strongly.

Now this definition illuminated exactly what it was that I had to do. I was going to have to make a stand for one of the most important aspects of my life: English! So here I am sitting at my computer with my thoughts spiraling out of control and my fingers desperately trying to keep up in order to type. I guess I’ll begin with why this assignment elated me to a great extent. While it may seem to many people that the reason one would choose to add on the education title to their English degree is so that they can actually do something that would resemble a “real” job, I can say personally for me that is not the case. I chose to be an educator of English because I want to be able to help people understand what it was about English that is undeniably crucial to our everyday lives, hence my excitement. This apology grants me the honor, or maybe more accurately the attempt to explain to whoever will listen why English is nothing short of fantastic, and on that same note I hope to be able to carry these ideas into my classroom some day. My defense seems to parallel greatly with each of the apologist that we have looked at this semester, but I have to admit that it appears as though both Percy Shelley and Sir Philip Sidney were able to convey my thoughts years before I was ever able to conjure them.

The best way that I can explain English is that it is the poetry of life. When I have the opportunity to mold the minds of various high school students in an English class, the idea that I want them to consider to be a “woo woo” idea is that English is everywhere.

In regards to that last statement I hope that to be able to convey what both Sidney and Shelley touched on, which is that no matter what field you enter, the fruit of that field stems from English. For example in the Defence of Poesie Sidney writes, “The poet with that same hand of delight doth draw the mind more effectually than any other art doth”(25). This quote really seems to hammer the nail on the head, while poetry and writing are viewed as nothing more than an act of fancy; Sidney proposes that it also stretches the mind more than any other field. Therefore other fields such as the sciences and so on benefit from the knowledge that is gained though English. Without rhetoric, writing, and literacy none of the other crucial occupations that make this world go around would be able to exist. Shelly also brings up this explanation in his work A Defence of Poetry, “Poetry is indeed something divine It is at once the center and circumference of knowledge; it is that which comprehends all science, and that to which all science must be referred” (39)

"For until they find a pleasure in the exercises of the mind, great promises of much knowledge will little persuade them that know not the fruits of knowledge."6

Poetry is indeed something divine. It is at once the center and circumference of knowledge; it is that which comprehends all science, and that to which all science must be referred. It is at the same time the root and blossom of all other systems of thought; it is that from which all spring, and that which adorns all; and that which, if blighted, denies the fruit and the seed, and withholds from the barren world the nourishment and the succession of the scions of the tree of life. It is the perfect and consummate surface and bloom of all things; it is as the odor and the color of the rose to the texture of the elements which compose it, as the form and splendor of unfaded beauty to the secrets of anatomy and corruption. What were virtue, love, patriotism, friendship—what were the scenery of this beautiful universe which we inhabit; what were our consolations on this side of the grave—and what were our aspirations beyond it, if poetry did not ascend to bring light and fire from those eternal regions where the owl-winged faculty of calculation dare not ever soar? Poetry is not like reasoning, a power to be exerted according to the determination of the will. A man cannot say, “I will compose poetry.” The greatest poet even cannot say it; for the mind in creation is as a fading coal, which some invisible influence, like an inconstant wind, awakens to transitory brightness; this power arises from within, like the color of a flower which fades and changes as it is developed, and the conscious portions of our natures are unprophetic either of its approach or its departure. Could this influence be durable in its original purity and force, it is impossible to predict the greatness of the results; but when composition begins, inspiration is already on the decline, and the most glorious poetry that has ever been communicated to the world is probably a feeble shadow of the original conceptions of the poet. I appeal to the greatest poets of the present day, whether it is not an error to assert that the finest passages of poetry are produced by labor and study. The toil and the delay recommended by critics can be justly interpreted to mean no more than a careful observation of the inspired moments, and an artificial connection of the spaces between their suggestions by the intertexture of conventional expressions; a necessity only imposed by the limitedness of the poetical faculty itself; for Milton conceived the “Paradise Lost” as a whole before he executed it in portions. We have his own authority also for the Muse having “dictated” to him the “unpremeditated song.” And let this be an answer to those who would allege the fifty-six various readings of the first line of the “Orlando Furioso.” Compositions so produced are to poetry what mosaic is to painting. This instinct and intuition of the poetical faculty are still more observable in the plastic and pictorial arts; a great statue or picture grows under the power of the artist as a child in a mother’s womb; and the very mind which directs the hands in formation is incapable of accounting to itself for the origin, the gradations, or the media of the process.

D Q update

2008-12-16T01:40:00.000-08:00

In regards to Chapter XXX -Which recounts the Good Judgment of the Beautiful Dorotea along with other highly diverting and amusing matters.

This chapter for whatever reason prompted me to write a response. i think what has got my attention through out the reading of Don Quixote is that there is always room for insanity. now while this may seem to be stating the obvious in regards to a novel that is about a man whom thinks himself a knight errant, i think i can explain my self more clearly. In this chapter DQ turns down the offer Dorotea makes which is marring Don Quixote, but he declines for he is still hopelessly(emphasis on hopelessly) in love with his lady Dulcinea. Then Sancho opens up his big mouth and tells DQ that Dorotea is not only a better catch, but she is asking for marriage now, and that DQ should marry her. Then DQ becomes so angered that he beats Sancho with his lance so badly that ,"if Dorotea had not called him to stop, he no doubt would have killed him then and there" (255). Not that these kind of shenanigans have been absent through out this novel, but i guess this part in particular got me thinking that there is something so interesting about the imagination, that it would result in some sort of action in real life. Even though Don Quixote will never be with Dulcinea and absolutely has no real concept of who she is, he would beat his friend to a pulp in her honor. i guess I'm just taken with the idea that even though it is only in his imagination, Don Quixote is willing to sacrifice the things that are real in order to defend what is good. What Dulcinea stands for is virtue, kindness, and goodness so i guess what i see in DQ his his ability to defend the things that are real and worth fighting for, even if they are exemplified in people or things that don't exist.

T.S. Eliot's Four Quartets

2008-12-16T01:05:00.000-08:00

i think that the idea of combining all of these poems in one understanding is really reflective of what we have learned about T.S. Eliot during class. His quote about ceasing exploration and finding your self arriving where you first begun is such an interesting element, an i think it can be seen in the first poem Burnt Norton

Time present and time past

Are both perhaps present in time future

And time future contained in time past.

If all time is eternally present

All time is unredeemable.

i think he is right about knowing that time cannot even factor into our lives, which to me relates to the idea of exploration being something that we cannot attain, just as time is not something we can attain, ultimately we just arrive where we were and see it for the first time, just as time goes by but we are still in the time present, we cannot gain the knowledge that we want to acquire a lot of the the times for we end up finding our selves just as clueless and thirsty as we began, and time may gain wisdom, but ultimately i think that wisdom will just prove to us our foolishness and lack of understanding, maybe that is what it takes to be truly wise, is to know that you know nothing time and time again.

definitions please

2008-12-16T00:36:00.000-08:00

Words that we have disscussed in class and that are found ihn Frye's text that i can't seem to define on my own
(I picked out the definitions i liked the best)

Pathos-1 : an element in experience or in artistic representation evoking pity or compassion or tears

Spoudaios-active, diligent, zealous, earnest

Dianoia-the mind as a faculty of understanding, feeling, desiring

Alright now on to the theory of Modes:

Fiction According to Frye
There is a difference between fictions and those differences lie with in the characters in the fictions themselves. fictions are not based off morality, not concerned with the god or the bad but rather their ability or inability to accomplish what it is that they are trying to do.

Fiction According to Me
So what i gather from what Frye expresses in this chapter is that fiction is not necessarily didactic, but rather purposeful though the characters in the fiction, which i found to be interesting because i remember always being read fictions that had some type of moral, but looking at that now it is kind of easier to see that we as people always try and discover the moral in a text , even if there is not one to be found. i think the reason we do this is to comfort our selves in some sort of way so that we feel like the three little pigs we able to offer us something. its sees as if we are unable to just deal with the fact that somethings have a purpose, but are not necessarily instructive...

My Vision

2008-12-15T23:58:00.000-08:00

When we were talking in class about Frye's theory of modes and the theory of symbols i decide to make a visual representation which in my head really shows the connection between the two chapters, exposing the similarity in pattern that can be seen in Fry's concepts.

LOGOS

2008-12-15T22:04:00.000-08:00

The idea that there is the agency of creation through one's voice. God spoke and the world was created right? so then why is this concept something that we tend to pass off as folly rather than applicable in our everyday life. I'm sorry if i am bursting anyone's bubble, but the truth is our voices do have the agency to create. Again I'm going to reference Steven' poem, "That was her song, for she was the maker. Then we, As we beheld her striding there alone, Knew that there never was a world for her Except the one she sang and, singing, made".The world that she created around her she was able to do solely because she spoke the words that were the song that became the world. Just as Stevens created the world in which the singer could create he world through song...now i know this is getting a little weird but in my mind it makes sense though not only literature, but our everyday life that we have the ability to create by our words. This ability is so powerful and I don't think we give much credit to it because when i heard of logos my mind stayed on God and the creation, but when you apply it to life, especially literature i think you really get an understanding of how important literature and words really are, it kind of makes me think of those dolls that are all sacked inside one another

ya those dolls...well they are stacked inside one another and through opening one you get another, there is creation in each of them, but they are the reason for the creation. In literature there is the creation of the story, which was created by the mind, words, and thoughts of the creator, and then the fact that the creator was created in the same manner, well that just blows my mind...ya logos is cool

Postcard from the Order at Key West

2008-11-30T23:34:00.000-08:00

When we were all given Wallace Stevens' poem "The Idea of Order at Key West", i was given another poem of his that Dr. Sexon handed out as an extra little gift, the poem was titled "A Postcard from the Volcano". And i sort of stored it away in my notebook until we began to get deeper into Wallace's poem. When i pulled it out and read it, it was obvious that the same artist composed both pieces of work. While both pieces of work have multitudes of aspects that could be examined and analysed , there was one aspect that seemed to stick out to me more than the rest, the aspect was the parallel between hearing and seeing. In the Idea of Order, there is an obvious emphasis on hearing the singer's song, where as similarly in the the Postcard there seems to be an emhasis on seeing things.

A Postcard from the Volcano

And least will guess that with our bones

We left much more, left what still is

The look of things, left what we felt

At what we saw. The spring clouds blow

Above the shuttered mansion house,

Beyond our gate and the windy sky

Cries out a literate despair.

We knew for long the mansion's look

And what we said of it became

The Idea of Order at Key West

The sea was not a mask. No more was she.
The song and water were not medleyed sound
Even if what she sang was what she heard,
Since what she sang was uttered word by word.
It may be that in all her phrases stirred
The grinding water and the gasping wind;
But it was she and not the sea we heard.

I would like to believe that Wallece Stevens knew something that we still try to grasp in regards to poerty and literary critisism. he seemed to know there is so much more than reading the piece of literature. One must hear it and see it with poery seeing eyes and poetry hearing ears. and in that i would like to think poetry takes on another form, maybe even a form removed from critisism. maybe...

Alright so here it goes...

2008-11-30T21:53:00.000-08:00

i have written many post in my notebook, but have yet to transfer them onto my blog...so that is what i am going to do...it may take a long time but that is what i get for being procrastinator extraordinaire, what can i say...i mean i am an English major for crying out loud! so here is where i will begin to expose the thoughts i have had all semester

this one was hard...

2008-11-07T03:57:00.000-08:00

but for a few reasons this piece of poetry has proven time and time again to be a touchstone
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare sieze the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art.
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

ok and then i thought i would throw this song on here as well because it has been a major touchstone in my life for many years now...even though there are no lyrics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kp3XLRC9Gw

this helps me understand things a little more...

2008-11-04T22:23:00.000-08:00

Definition from Wiki

metonymy — a trope through proximity or correspondence, for example referring to actions of the U.S. President as "actions of the White House."

My definition-
"Back to the grind stone" in reference to getting back to work.

Definition from Wiki

irony — creating a trope through implying the opposite of the standard meaning, such as describing poverty as "good times."

My example
-as trust worthy as a politician

Definition from Wiki

metaphor — an explanation of an object or idea through juxtaposition of disparate things with a similar characteristic, such as describing a courageous person as having a "heart of a lion."

My definition
-"they have the voice of an angel" when talking about someone who sings well.

Definition from Wiki

synecdoche — related to metonymy and metaphor, creates a play on words by referring to something with a related concept: for example, referring to the whole with the name of a part, such as "hired hands" for workers; a part with the name of the whole, such as "the law" for police officers; the general with the specific, such as "bread" for food; the specific with the general, such as "cat" for a lion; or an object with the material it is made from, such as "bricks and mortar" for a building.

My example
-"Nice ink" said when commenting on someones tattoo.

Defense

2008-10-06T08:21:00.000-07:00

While reading Sidney's The Defense of Poesy I was really interested in which words he used to convey his thoughts. for example in one line he said, "as i have just cause to make a pitiful defense of poor poetry, which from almost the highest estimation of learning is fallen to the laughing-stock of children..." i really liked how he used the words pitiful and poor because he then switches the tone by saying that poetry is one of the highest estimations of learning. to me it seems as if he is being very he is being satirical in saying that there really is nothing pitiful of poor in regards to poetry, i almost feel that because this is true of poetry and all forms of literature, yes even what some might consider trash, it can be stated that poetry does not need a defense, because it itself and only itself is defense enough. it is just like the poet (i can't remember his name for the life of me right now) who said that the poem's meaning is the poem, and i really liked that because i think it is all that Shelly and Sidney would have to do is claim that the defence of poetry lies within every poem, or any other piece of literature for that matter.

2008-10-03T00:38:00.000-07:00

Literature. After our discussion on Wednesday, my mind was racing in regards to literature.

My First thought was on the topic of instructive literature. We talked about how literature that is not didactic, basically is worthless. If you are reading a piece of literary work that is not shaping the inner workings of your mind, then you are reading "trash" literature. But i guess my question is what exactly is the criteria for a piece of literature to be considered instructional? I feel as if every piece of literature possesses the ability to teach someone something. Everything from comic books to books on literary criticism, can teach the people reading them at least one thing. I think as long as you are reading, you are learning. Why do we have to create this hierarchy for literature? When the hierarchy is created, i feel as if it discourages people from reading. What i mean by that is i know people who might enjoy reading "trash" novels, but because we place them at the lower end of the totem pole, they are not even given the opportunity to explore their identity as a reader. As far back as i can remember, schools gave students limitations on what they read inside a classroom. These limitations consisted of classical and intellectual readings, and as a result left out the "unimportant" genres. In doing this, i believe a lot of kids grew up never appreciating literature, whatever it may have been, because they were never encouraged to read books that sparked their particular interests. If you have a kid who is interested in sports but he is never given the option to read a book on sports, then that might be taking away the chance for him to want to read. Dr. Sexon said that most people don't read anymore, that some people will go for a year or longer without having read a single book, but i think the reason for that is because from the beginning they are functioning off the notion that we talked about in class; if what we read is not didactic, then basically it is pointless. This is why people have fallen away from reading, if someone wants to read for their pleasure, why does that mean that they are not going to be learning from their text? I think this is where the ball has really been dropped...(to be continued)

Samuel Taylor Coleridge. (1772–1834)

2008-09-25T22:44:00.001-07:00

"Reviewers are usually people who would have been poets, historians, biographers, etc., if they could: they have tried their talents at one or the other, and have failed; therefore they turn critics"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
(Lectures on Shakespeare and Milton, p. 36. Delivered 1811–181 )

Romantic-lonely-poetic-critical-imaginative-passionate-inspiring-intelligent-free thinking-rebel-unique-gifted---

Samuel Coleridge encompassed many of these attributes, but he was not defined by a single one of them. Being a writer of course meant that his life would be filled with multiple successes as well as downfalls. For a long period of his life, he was a dear friend of William Wordsworth, and in 1798 the two of them published the poetic volume, Lyrical Ballads...that is all I really want to divulge for now...more to come

Thoughts on Don Quixote

2008-09-22T09:01:00.000-07:00

So far i have to admit that i am thoroughly enjoying this book. There is something about the character Don Quixote, that in a weird way is very relatable. I am not saying that I have wanted to go out and fight imaginary battles while pretending to be the most heroic knight of all times, but i am saying i understand Don Quixote's undeniable thirst for something more. He is nothing short of a dreamer, and while that seems to amuse people, you have to wonder who is really crazy? Don or everyone else? I just think that Don Quixote, despite how ridiculous he is portrayed with his horse, his armor and his false perception of the very world around him, is not as ridiculous as the people who never think to step out of what they know and what is seemingly comfortable to them. I guess what I'm saying is that i would chose the idealist over the realist any day...that's all for now

The Death of Innocence

2008-09-15T08:12:00.000-07:00

In class on Friday i found myself interested in something Dr. Sexson said about people and the innocence, or lack there of, in regards to their thoughts. To me it was painfully clear that the reason we can't just hear and enjoy a story simply for what it is, is because we know too much. The more we learn the less innocent our minds tend to be. I tend to reminisce about the innocence of my youth and sometimes wish that when I'm reading any piece of literature, i could stop from myself from diving right into a deep analysis and criticism of that piece of work, but that is no longer a capability of mine. Being an English major has destroyed my ability to go back to the days when little red ridding hood was just a story with a valuable moral. We have learned too much to revert back to our days of simplicity, and while i value all that i have learned, i still sometimes find myself in a state of nostalgia for the days when simplicity was appreciated rather than criticized.But i guess we all have to grow up sometimes...