In our study of the three Spectator essays, we have moved from sampling Enlightenment-era imaginative literature (poetry, plays, novels) to examining some expository prose that sits more closely at the heart of the European enlightenment.
What are your take-aways from the Spectator essays? What do they add to the picture that you are building of the Enlightenment era?
Deadline: Wednesday (2/22), start of class.
10 comments:
I feel that the Spectator essays add a lot to my picture of the Enlightenment Era. Today's discussion opened my eyes to how much further ahead of its time some of the writings were. The comparison to Stephen Colbert is so impressive. So many people enjoy listening to him today and get a kick out of his hilarious outbursts. These essays depict the same types of scenarios and get people riled up in much of the same manner. These essays also bring a more humorous aspect than what we have read thus far. I think it would be interesting to be placed in the time period and see how the enjoyment of this type of production compared socially with that of today.
I think these essays highlight a new era in the prose of the enlightenment and in future literature. That is, the literature of satire. Our modern society is so saturated with satire that it's hard to go back to a time like the Middle Ages and look at what their idea of "comedy" is. Now, I'm not saying it's bad, we're just used to a form of comedy that involves a lot more satire (such as Colbert or Stewart). I was getting so used to more serious readings (like the "Love Suicides" or "Eloisa to Abelard") that I didn't even read the spectator as satirical at first.
Now we're getting into the part of the Enlightenment that is more familiar to people. "Candide" is a satirical play and probably one of the most famous out of that era, and I think the "Spectator" series follows, or even creates, that Enlightenment style.
I think the Spectator essays are a vehicle for us to see the rest of the Enlightenment. One of the largest movements on the rise at this time was that of "philosophy", which, as is noted in our Longman text, meant anything from "politics to physics". But much of the philosophizing going on was done by these "philosophes" who essentially espoused whatever they thought about the world into written words and published it. These essays are a perfect example of this kind of culture.
What I like most about this methodology is that in previous years only the most educated could engage in elevated thought. Writing like this, while satirical in body, seems to appeal to the spirit of the middle classes. We kind of talked about this today, that merchants might feel a sense of pride in spite of whatever statement the Spectator might by making about them. I like how accessible the ideas are because they're being written by Average Joe and Average Jim.
I think that the Spectator essays opened a window for us into the mundane world of the enlightenment. Until now, we have looked at the exceptional literature of the enlightenment as normal and analyzed it as if novels and plays of this sort were an everyday occurrence during this time period. As we read and discussed the essays, I feel that we got a better look at something that actually was a normalized occurrence and a closer look at everyday life from the essays. Looking at the essays also gave us a lens into why the other things that we have read would be attractive and entertaining and I think that this perspective will be useful as we read other entertainment literature throughout the course from the enlightenment era. This perspective on the difference between the everyday normalized occurrences and the extraordinary of the fictional literature that we read that would have been available to the growing middle class as well as to the upper class. I think will give us, as readers, useful information as to what would have been realistic to a reader when these fictions were first published and what would have been less credible as reality.
Up until now we have read stories about emotion and love. Usually involving strong feelings that lead the characters to forget about the consequences and usually ended up with tragedy. This new piece of writing involving Mr. Spectator shows how the age of enlightenment people way of thinking changed. Instead of focusing on only emotions, the writers during this new era have focused philosophy and thought. Mr. Spectator whether truthful or not is not focused on helping himself, but instead he claims that his writings will help the ignorant people and the female world. People during this new age have now thought of the importance of the sciences. They no longer rely on tradition and religion to guide their actions. Mr. Spectator's writing is a perfect example of what was probably beginning to occur as people did not place so much importance on god, and began to share their own views of the world.
My initial read of The Spectator pieces, I really didn't pick up on his arrogance or humor. The discussion in class help bring it to light. The voice in the Spectator commented on society and the way it was. From his perspective, I was able to realize the Enlightenment era as a period where there was a balance between those who didn't work and those who did. In the essay, the Spectator offered his reading as a piece of information to help the hopeless, the people that are looked down upon. In the reading, women were one of these groups that feel in the work-less. The author offers a bit of philosophy on why he feels that this reading will help educate individuals, although it does not offer much that is informative. During this time period, I feel this piece of reading was equivalent to the blogs of today or simple journals. It seems to be one of the first accounts, similar to the reading we previously read of a woman possessing qualities not seen during that time, this reading was a form of writing to break the barriers of viewing society. This reading didn't glorify the time period, it gave you a more direct account of the actually life going on. A view that most likely wasn't seen or brought up by other people during the Enlightenment era.
The Spectator Essays changed my picture of the Enlightenment era because it showed how similar audiences were to the people of this generation. The comparison to Jon Stuart and Stephan Colbert really opened up the idea that an audience's sense of humor has stayed consistent even through all these years. If Mr. Spectator wasn't exaggerating with his number of followers, then that is very similar to "Colbert Nation." It shows that people like to read/listen to a sarcastic character that has a false sense of superiority.
Before we read the Spectators, the other pieces we have read dealt with love/heartbreak/sex/romance. The Spectator series did not- in fact they focused more on everyday events instead of romantic escapades of a young woman, a love triangle or forbidden love.
Although there was occasional humor in previous pieces, the Spectator pieces were the first outrightly tounge-in-cheek. This shows us that although there is much romance and love written about in the Englightenment, there were humorous pieces and much more to the time period than romance.
Previous to The Spectator essays, all we had read from the Enlightenment era were works that were focused more on the theme of love and sacrifice. It was interesting to me to see a different face of the Enlightment that featured satire and sarcasm. I think that portrays the period in time where many people began to be bold in how they expressed their opinions and I feel as though that was a major aspect of the Enlightenment era and what it stood for.
I feel that The Spectator essays give a more vivid picture for those who are learning and understanding of what occured during the Enlightenment era. In the beginning of the semester, we were exposed to stories about love and sacrifice in: "Fantomina," "Eloisa to Abelard," and "The Love Suicides at Amijima". We also learn about the "social norms" that existed during the Enlightenment era about relationships and such. The Spectator readings were very interesting and quite funny because it gave a different aspect of the Enlightenment era that involved sarcasm and satire. After reading the Spectator I feel that the Enlightenment era is well-rounded with that of romance, love, heartbreak, sacrifice and now humor and satire. I agree with Haro that "during this time period, I feel this piece of reading was equivalent to the blogs of today or simple journals" (Haro). There is a similarity in the way they still communicated to relay messages from one another similar to how we express ourselves in today's society.
Post a Comment