Class summary

March 15, 2011 was a pleasant and sunny day, ideal for discussing 18th century British travel and empire. It was 9:33 when Professor Foss’s Victorian British Literature class began. On this particularly fortunate Tuesday morning, we dodged a traditional reading reward quiz and instead where invited to partake in a quiz of other sorts. At 9:35, the lights went out, the overhead projector switched on, and the McCord Museum of Montreal’s online quiz confronted the class with one question, “Are you a 'civilized' person, suited to the Victorian period?” After several failed attempts we were able to answer, “yes... somewhat.” After our discovery of the proper attire for a Victorian Gentleman, we were admitted into the exclusive Gentleman’s club, where we went on to briefly dine, play games, and talk business among the other proper British elites. At 9:40, we moved onto the more serious subject matter of intellectually discussing our assigned readings. The readings for this particular day were focused on the British Empires involvement in war. Our assigned readings consisted of Tennyson’s “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” Pfeifer’s “The Fight at Rorke’s Drift,” FitzGerald’s “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam of Naishapur,” and Seacole’s excerpt from “The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole.” Together these works presented insight into Britain’s pro war moral and the glorification of their army. The portrayal of Britain’s opponent’s in contrast to the British themselves were depicted through the differences in rhetoric and view points throughout these works. In large group discussion started with the comparison of Tennyson’s “The Charge of the Light Brigade” and Pfeifer’s “The Fight at Rorke’s Drift.” While both of these poems praised the British military through their glorifying diction, each poem also dehumanized the British opposition. “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” written early on in the Crimean War, demonstrated the power of literature as a contribution to the war effort. This poem illustrated an effort to boost Britain’s homeland moral in favor of the war, through the portrayal of a gallant and noble British army. In spite of the many early casualties that this poem referred to, the rhetoric that Tennyson chose reinforced a sense of bravery. The word choice clearly intended to deter objections of the war and prevent contributors from becoming disheartened by early losses. Although our class ultimately concluded that this poem was pro war and honoring bravery of the soldiers sacrifices, line thirteen, “Their’s not to make reply,” presented some controversy within the discussion. The lack of response by the soldiers here could have been Tennysons commentary on soldiers following orders at all cost. However, most people still argue that it is intended to honor the soldiers. In addition to valorizing the British through his rhetoric, Tennyson also objectified the Russians. The metaphors used to describe the enemies such as “cannon,” or “gunners,” eliminated the individuality and humanity of the Russian people. Pfeifer’s “The fight at Rorke’s Drift,” differed fro Tennyson’s in respect to the poet’s portrayal of the “other.” While Tennyson simply objectified the Russians, Pfeifer depicted Zulus as savages. Pfeifer deliberately used racist comments to strengthen the idea of racial inferiority and highlight British supremacy. The depiction of the British in “The Fight at Rorke’s Drift,” on the other hand, emphasized their individuality through the use of specific names. The individuality of the British further demonstrated the division between them and their Zulu opposition. During our large group discussion, time simply flew and by 10:08 we had to switch gears over to discussing in our small groups. In the small groups we looked at Seacole’s “The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole” and FitzGerald’s “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam of Naishapur,” Before breaking off, we were prompted to focus on the intersection of empire, gender and race. In “The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole,” Seacole’s presentation of her story seemed fictionized due to how progressive and independent she was. Seacole’s perspectives on the war presented a middle ground between the British and the “savages.” Being an ethnically “other” woman herself, Seacole displayed no strong connection to either side. Seacole’s Creole background did not give her a positive opinion of anyone and she placed the two nations on an even keel. In respect to race and gender, Seacole seemed to focus more on the limitations set by her Creole heritage as oppose to her womanhood. My small group considered the possibility that had Seacole been a white woman, she would have adhered to the societal confines of the white woman. However, as it was, Seacole’s message to men seemed to be saying, “I am one of you.” After delving deep into the effects that Seacole’s unique viewpoint had on her portrayal of the British Empire and their opponents, we briefly moved on to discuss FitzGerald’s work. My group was abel to conclude that FitzGeradl manipulated his audience through organization and, like Seacole, viewpoint. At 10:45 AM our class was promptly dismissed after a morning of scintillating discussion on Victorian British Literature. We left combs 002 with newfound knowledge on the role of literature in shaping public opinion. And so further educated on perspectives and portrayals of British Empire through the use of rhetoric and viewpoints, as exemplified in Tennyson, Pfeifer, Seacole, and FitzGerald’s works, we parted ways. word count- 884