Love (III) Actually

Love bade me welcome: yet my soul drew back,
Guiltie of dust and sinne.
But quick-ey’d Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
If I lack’d any thing.

A guest, I answer’d, worthy to be here:
Love said, You shall be he.
I the unkinde, ungratefull? Ah my deare,
I cannot look on thee.
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,
Who made the eyes but I?

Truth Lord, but I have marr’d them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.
And know you not, sayes Love, who bore the blame?
My deare, then I will serve.
You must sit down, sayes Love, and taste my meat:
So I did sit and eat.



The opening line of this poem personifies love as a persistent, but welcoming suitor. The speaker is hesitant, facing feelings of unworthiness in his soul due to his sins, saying, "Love bade me welcome: yet my soul drew back, guilty of dust and sin." But love, being persistent as it is, drew him back in. According to Ronald Johnson in his blog "Say Something Wonderful," ( http://saysomethingwonderful.blogspot.com/2006/09/herbert-love-iii.html )

this poem follows a specific pattern. He says, "
She tracks the gradual revelation of the various attributes of Love: first welcoming, then observant, then solicitous, and so on. I like this, too: the poem as sequential and accretive definition."

The observant part starts in the second stanza, when he says what is missing is someone who deserves to be there. Love responds back that the speaker shall be that person. When faced with this, the speaker is taken aback and bewildered, saying, "I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah, my Dear, I cannot look on thee." Love's response to this is where it becomes apparent that Love is in fact God, "Love took my hand, and smiling did reply, 'Who made the eyes but I?'"

The third stanza is the solicitous section. The speaker is enticed by Love's offerings, but still a little hesitant. Love at this point offers its self to the speaker, "'You must sit down,' says Love, 'and taste my meat.'" "So I did sit and eat." The last line is the speaker accepting love and essentially letting God into his life I believe.







image from: eishazinnerworld.blogspot.com

Why are we by all creatures waited on?

Why are we by all creatures waited on?
Why do the prodigal elements supply
Life and food to me, being more pure than I,
Simple, and further from corruption?
Why brook'st thou, ignorant horse, subjection?
Why dost thou, bull, and bore so seelily,
Dissemble weakness, and by one man's stroke die,
Whose whole kind you might swallow and feed upon?
Weaker I am, woe is me, and worse than you,
You have not sinned, nor need be timorous.
But wonder at a greater wonder, for to us
Created nature doth these things subdue,
But their Creator, whom sin nor nature tied,
For us, His creatures, and His foes, hath died.



This poem to me is asking why nature seems subservient to man. He asks, "Why do the prodigal elements supply life and food to me, being more pure than I, simple, and further from corruption." This is saying, why does something so pure provide for something so easily corruptible, such as a human being. He also expands this to animals too, saying, "Why dost thou, bull and boar, so silly dissemble weakness, and by one man's stroke die, whose whole kind you might swallow and feed upon?" This line is imploring animals to explain why they allow us to slay them senselessly and harvest them, when they easily have the power to overturn our rule and claim the land as their own. Man is weak, and guilty of sin, but it goes on to say that nature and the animals have not sinned and need not be fearful. Nature subdues fears and wonder. But in the end, it states, "But their creator, whom sin nor nature tied, for us, his creatures, and his foes, hath died." I assume this line to mean that it is not man who suffers for his own sins, but rather nature and its inhabitants.

photo by Fin Collins - www.fionnualacollins.com/.../Kerry%20Bull.jpg

Spit in my face you Jews... A Reflection

Spit in my face you Jews, and pierce my side,
Buffet, and scoff, scourge, and crucify me,
For I have sinned, and sinned, and only he
Who could do no iniquity hath died:
But by my death can not be satisfied
My sins, which pass the Jews' impiety:
They killed once an inglorious man, but I
Crucify him daily, being now glorified.
Oh let me, then, his strange love still admire:
Kings pardon, but he bore our punishment.
And Jacob came clothed in vile harsh attire
But to supplant, and with gainful intent:
God clothed himself in vile man's flesh, that so
He might be weak enough to suffer woe.


Before you even read this poem, you have to raise an eyebrow from the title. Spit in my face you Jews... What could he possibly have to write that involves Jews spitting in his face? Especially in the context of of being a "Holy Sonnet." It sounds degrading and Anti-Semitic from the get-go. Once you read it though, you realize he's not literally saying to spit on his face, but rather that he deserves it. Jesus died for man's sins without ever committing one himself. An example of this is the line, "For I have sinned, and sinned, and only he who could do no iniquity hath died..." He is saying that he has sinned over and over, but only Jesus paid for that sinning. This poem is Donne begging to pay for his sins in the manner Jesus did. He says that his sins surpass what the Jews did, and his continued sinning essentially makes the crucifixion happen every day, saying, "They killed once an inglorious man, but I crucify him daily, being now glorified." Essentially, this poem is a plea to people to remember that Jesus died for their sins, and continuing to repeat them is as bad of a crime as crucifying him from the start.

Picture from radicalx.org. No artist listed.

Blog Quiz

1) List the assumptions Dr. Wesch says permeated the old style classroom.

Classrooms are designed to help students acquire information
Information is scarce and hard to find
Therefore we put an expert at the front of the class
The room is essentially an information dump
This classroom is not about discussing information
Authorized information is beyond discussion
Trust authority for good information
The classroom teaches “obey authority” and “follow along”

2) Take each of these assumptions and demonstrate why they no longer are valid.

I can agree with Wesch in saying that these methods are outdated, and to an extent, no longer valid. The idea of a classroom being a place to gather and exchange information is more of a preconceived notion, rather than something that is actively put to practice. In my experience, classrooms are essentially dominated by a teacher lecturing to a class that is a mixture of attentive listeners, sleepers, talkers, and the kids who just played calculator games all day. The teacher's words fall silent on the closed ears of the majority of the students, thus making the whole class pointless. The gathering of knowledge is only worthwhile if people listen and revel in it. His point on trusting authority for good information is a valid one because I personally have experienced teachers tell me the wrong information. For instance, my first grade teacher spelled the word "Scissors" as "Sizzors" and "Sentences" as "Sentances." Not a big deal, I know, but it still reiterates Wesch's point. The idea of obeying authority is one that I do actually think is a necessary skill to learn. That is what you must do upon entering the workforce, so why not learn it from age five? I agree that the classroom we are a part of now is outdated and has it's multiple problems. I think the interactive classroom provides a much better outlet for student participation and creativity. What I am wondering is what will happen to classes if this trend continues? A class meeting three times a week is pointless if you are able to essentially meet online without going to class. I see it turning into a once a week get-together over coffee or sandwiches at a cafe, where everyone can get together and talk about what they have been compiling on their blogs and the like.

The (Bleak) Future

Blogging has grown exponentially in the recent years, and is even now creeping it's way into classrooms. Our class discussions on it's growth and the shrinking of libraries has gotten me thinking a lot about my father's profession and it's utter lack of a future in paper form. The newspaper industry. He is the sports content editor of The Commercial Appeal, and though it sounds like a secure job, no one is safe in this industry. With the vast majority of readers getting free news on the internet, the need for a hard-copy of a newspaper has all but vanished. I have always wanted to get into journalism, but with the recent changes, staffs are being reduced, no new writers are being hired, and some random Joe who writes a sports blog once a week is making more than all but the top of the paper. I admit, the new technology and the ways to gather information is handy, but an America with no newspapers? Now that's just scary to me. Images of a child standing on the street corner screaming, "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" will never be echoed again if this trend continues. Granted that probably hasn't been said in years anyway, but the possibility remains. The technology is great, but we can't forget our roots.

Beyond

Beyond. A common word with uncommon depth. Does it simply mean to pass something? To transcend it? To circumvent it? The Greek root of meta, meaning "Beyond," is one that can be added to several words to alter their meaning. In this particular case, the addition is physical. Beyond physical. A very interesting combination, if I might say. How can something be beyond physical? Can an object be intangible, as if it were an idea or feeling deep inside? Beginning to understand metaphysical as a theory requires you to look, yes, beyond your traditional boundaries to an almost spiritual or sensory level of thought. In poetry, when metaphysical is brought about, it can bring much confusion. What is poetry, if not meant to appeal to the senses? The best example I have read of explaining this idea would be Tintern Abbey by William Wordsworth. This poem has meaning on such a subliminal spiritual level. It is not the senses that are stirred, but more the feelings in your heart. This is a very difficult idea to understand, and it must be viewed with an open mind.