In brief

This is going to be quite short as the janitor will shortly be at the door, rattling his keys. Life is getting away from me this week.

Today we read “Glasgow 5th March” by Edwin Morgan, which I personally don’t think has quite enough to write about in the exam, and Philip Larkin’s “Poetry of Departures”, which certainly does.

We read part of Act 2 of “View”, in which Catherine and Rodolpho look set to marry; Eddie comes home drunk to find them coming out of the bedroom and tells Rodolpho to leave; Eddie goes again to Alfieri to ask for help from the law – none is forthcoming; Eddie decides, in desperation, to report the cousins to the Immigration Bureau and is seen doing so by Louis. Eddie then arrives home to find that the cousins have moved upstairs to the neighbours’ house, where there are other immigrants too – and he becomes very angry.

Homework: 2002 Close Reading, passage 2. This is slightly unusual because it’s very colloquially written – therefore very easy to read, though it doesn’t mean that the questions are any easier than usual.

Tent pegs and paper dolls

This evening we looked at a student’s “Patchwork Planet” critical essay about how the ending of a novel was prepared for earlier on. We admired the way in which this student actually discussed how various earlier bits led on to the end. This is better than just commenting on incidents which might have been shown to lead on to the end – but actually were.

We then looked at my version of this question and I reiterated the tent peg metaphor. It may seem like overdoing to keep referring to the questions, but a marker at this level likes to have the relevance to the question of what you’re saying made obvious. Remember that the markers want clear, relevant points in that SECT sort of way. If your tent shows signs of flying away on an enthusiastic gale, to land in some distant field, far from the question, then pin it down by adding sentences such as: “This leads on to the ending when…”.

We discussed Norman MacCaig’s “Hotel Room, 12th Floor”, full of imagery which is reasonably easy to discuss in the exam. The main, extended, metaphor is that of darkness as the enemy, seen specifically as a band of Red Indians riding into town and being shot at – ineffectually – by the light. Darkness is shown to bring violence to New York, despite the trappings of civilisation: helicopters, tall buildings, tv, radio, light. As he says, “And no stockades/ can keep the midnight out”. We may imagine that we’re civilised, but we’re never far away from violence, or potential violence – it’s there in human nature.

Then we read on in “View”, finishing Act 1 and just beginning Act 2. We saw Alfieri in the dual role of narrator (reminding us of the fact that he’s telling us a story) and lawyer (advising Eddie). The two roles merge seamlessly together – he turns from the audience and is apparently mid-conversation with Eddie, who has come to consult him. Eddie wants the law to help him against Rodolpho who, he says, is “not right” – he’s implying that Rodolpho is gay. Alfieri has to tell him that even if he were, marrying Catherine would not be illegal. The only illegal thing is that the cousins are illegal immigrants and Eddie says, “I wouldn’t do nothin’ about that…”. Then Alfieri gently suggests that sometimes “there is too much love for the daughter, there is too much love for the niece”. Eddie reacts “furiously”.

Alfieri tells the audience that he “could see every step coming, step after step… I knew where he was going to end”.Then, at dinner, Catherine is clearly very excited by Rodolpho’s stories of sailing to Africa and picking oranges off the trees in Italy.

Eddie is much less impressed. He points out that American girls aren’t as “free” as Rodolpho thinks; Rodolpho protests that he has “respect” for Catherine. She and Rodolpho dance to “Paper Doll”, though he, “in deference to Eddie” (stage direction) at first demurs. She, however, is “flushed with revolt” and dances with him. Here, Miller is reminding the audience that Eddie wants to keep Catherine as a "doll that other fellows cannot steal".

This is the Mills Brothers' version, which I think is probably the one that they're listening to.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=n2m8VZBfRYo&feature=PlayList&p=AA3233A397B67272&playnext=1&index=13

She, however, is “flushed with revolt” and dances with Rodolpho. Beatrice tries to divert Eddie's attention by talking about the cousins’ fishing expeditions, but Eddie’s worst fears are confirmed by hearing that Rodolpho is a good cook: “He sings. He cooks. He could make dresses…”. He suggests that Rodolpho would be better suited to working in a dress shop than as a longshoreman. This is not a compliment.

He suggests teaching Rodolpho to box and starts to do so. He punches Rodolpho lightly and makes him stagger, alarming the others. Marco then demonstrates his superior strength by challenging Eddie to lift a chair by one leg, with one hand. Eddie can’t do it but Marco can, and the act ends with Marco holding the chair high with a “smile of triumph, and Eddie’s grin vanishes as he absorbs this look”.

I'm sorry that not all my paragraphs have missed lines between them. They do when I type them, but then Blogger removes them. Bad Blogger.

Homework: this poetry question on "Hotel Room" - or choose your own question/poem.

Choose a poem which says something about human nature. By referring closely to the poet's language, show what message the poet is conveying about what human nature is like and how he gets this message across.

Love and suffering

We continued “A View from the Bridge” today. Miller is above.

Alfieri is now used, partly like the Chorus in Greek tragedy to comment on the action and partly to move the action on several weeks to when Catherine and Rodolpho are going out together. Eddie is hanging around waiting for them to come back from the cinema and discusses with Beatrice his apparent worries about Rodolpho as a suitor and possibly husband for Catherine:

Rodolpho sings a lot in public.
He’s blond.

Beatrice changes the subject: Eddie and she haven’t been sleeping together for three months – what’s the reason for this? He evades the question: he’s not been feeling good.

When Catherine and Rodolpho return, Eddie sends Rodolpho away and tells Catherine that Rodolpho just wants to marry her to become an American citizen. (Might this be true?) He points out that Rodolpho is spending his money, not saving it or sending back to Italy.

Catherine is very upset and denies it: Rodolpho loves her.

We can see love emerging as another theme: love between two young people, between husband and wife, between parent (and Eddie and Beatrice are almost Catherine’s parents) and child.

Once Eddie goes, Beatrice gives Catherine a little lecture: she must behave more circumspectly around Eddie now she’s grown up. She’s a woman – she should behave like one. Catherine is uneasy at the implication behind Beatrice’s words.

Now Alfieri takes on a dual role: as narrator saying that Eddie now has “a destiny” and as a character, the local lawyer. The two roles merge seamlessly together – he turns from the audience and is apparently mid-conversation with Eddie, who has come to consult him. Eddie wants the law to help him against Rodolpho who, he says, is “not right” – he’s implying that Rodolpho is gay. Alfieri has to tell him that even if he were, this is not illegal. Then he gently suggests that sometimes “there is too much love for the daughter, there is too much love for the niece”.

Alfieri tells the audience that he “could see every step coming, step after step… I knew where he was going to end”.

We then read and discussed WH Auden’s “Museé des Beaux Arts”, in which the poet (above)praises the Old Masters – famous European painters from before 1800 – for understanding about suffering: that one person’s suffering (or indeed any strong emotion), however extreme, isn’t really that important to other people.

In the first verse, he discusses this in general. In the second, he applies this to Breughel’s Icarus, which depicts the fall of Icarus, who flew too near the sun so that the wax melted from his wings.

Auden starts with inversion:
“About suffering they were never wrong,
The Old Masters”.

This informal, conversational beginning draws attention to the word “suffering” and also intrigues the reader – who were never wrong?

We noticed: the list of ordinary, mundane activities that go on while someone is suffering nearby; the contrasting word choice describing these two types of experiences; the almost flippant tone towards the end of the first verse. We also noticed the repeated structure of “they understood … how it takes place… how….there must always be…”.

In verse 2, the example of Icarus is mentioned in quite conversational language: “In Breughel’s Icarus, for instance…” with again that “how” structure – “how everything turns away…” linking the verses. The word “leisurely” suggests the calmness of the other elements in the picture as Icarus falls to his death: the ploughman, the sun and the ship which sails on regardless. Again we noticed the contrast in language: Icarus’s “forsaken cry” – desolate and abandoned – compared to the general feeling that it was “not… important”; and then “amazing… a boy falling out of the sky” compared to “sailed calmly on”.

We also discussed the rhyme – it’s not a rhyme scheme, since it has no regular pattern. Why is the rhyme not obvious? Because it’s not in a pattern; because of the enjambment (run-on lines); because of the irregular length of the lines. Why has WH Auden put it there? Well, who knows? But possibly just because he could; as a little structural constraint upon himself; to make his life more interesting. In an essay, there’s no point in mentioning the rhyme – or anything, come to that – unless you at least venture an opinion on the effect, so if you want to discuss it you might say that it adds a certain focus or unity or musical quality… whatever you feel yourself. Or you could just omit any reference to it.

Homework - write an essay either on the following question (probably on "Musée ") OR using another another question which suits a poem you want to write about:

Choose a poem in which the poet uses contrast to good effect (or to highlight a key idea? I can't quite remember what I said; sorry!)

Discuss how the poet uses these opposing elements and say how effective you find this use of contrast. (Or whatever it was that I suggested...).

Happy New Year

We thought again about writing critical essays – about how you must answer the question by using the SECT procedure – or something like it.


You have a new literature (“critical”) essay for homework:

Consider carefully the ending of a novel you know well.

Discuss in what ways the author has prepared for the ending in the earlier part of the novel.


You could write this essay by concentrating on the structure of the novel – the two station scenes – and how the theme of trust is seen very differently in each of them. You would obviously have to deal with some of the bits in between as you did this, but you would try to pick out the bits that are relevant to both, ie you’d need to discuss the characterisation of Barnaby and Sophia and some related matters.

You might also want to bring in other themes, eg change/families/etc.

You might like to bring in some symbols, eg the Twinform and the importance of money.

You would need, I think, to deal briefly with the Renascence School, so that you could bring in the earlier mention of the sonnet (“When in disgrace”) and then the importance of the sonnet on the last page. This could also be seen as part of the structure – preparing the reader to understand his sudden realisation that he may love Martine.

Remember to SECT! Critical essays should be about 700 words.

We then began to read “A View from the Bridge” (please buy this if you haven’t yet done so) and got to page 33 (in the Penguin edition – where Rodolpho first sings).

We noticed the emphasis, in this play about Italians, on the themes of justice and honour.

We also observed that Alfieri, the lawyer who’s also a narrator, makes a clear link between the way that people end up behaving in this play and the way they used to behave in Ancient Rome

or Greece.

Most of the time we “settle for half”, he says – unlike in the days of Al Capone, the gangster. But just occasionally – we don’t.

And that’s when things “run their bloody course”. He makes it clear that this play isn’t going to end well: it’s as if it’s already happened and he’s just showing it to us.

We notice Eddie’s extreme protectiveness of his niece Catherine – normal fatherly feelings or a bit over the top? – and the slight tension between Eddie and his wife Beatrice. Beatrice’s cousins arrive and Eddie gets stressed when Rodolpho sings. Is this because he’s nervous about the noise, or is Eddie anxious that Catherine seems to be interested in Rodolpho? Would any man want his almost-daughter to get involved with an illegal immigrant?

This is Rodolpho's song. Listen to it. Why did Arthur Miller choose it?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uZAy-GW1fek&feature=PlayList&p=39A4F48CA7E8B9F7&index=19