I can see this. There is not only survivor’s guilt for living through something like this, but in some cases, it is actually very true. You see horrors that could have happened to you that did not. It is a very real thing, and I think he conveyed the meaning well in this sentence.

I like this sentence, however, I feel like it is different from the way Equiano writes his story. Equiano is writing not only to remember his own childhood, culture, and experience but to teach. There is a large difference between writing with a humble mind and writing because you believe you deserve or are worthy of your own memoir.

I like how he describes his culture and home before anything else. It really grounds his story.

I find this interesting because the colonizing European force would justify slavery by stating the exact opposite of Equiano’s story. They would say that people of color are uneducated and that they are doing them a favor by enslaving them because their life would be so much worse without it. When in reality it is the exact opposite. And Equiano, like many others, became the opposite of the narrative in a system that was looking for excuses to dehumanize them. A vestigial power structure that is similar still exists today, and there are many people just like Equiano that are going strong despite it. However, there are still many people that are having their stories closed too early. This story reminds me of how important it is to listen to and bolster people’s stories.

There is a show on Netflix called Love Death Robots where a giant body washes up on a beach. People show up and take pictures of the body, draw on it, and eventually, it just rots. I wonder what that beach would look like for the Lilliputians. A seemingly vast and endless shore, when one day a giant body comes out of the sea. What would you think? And how would we react if that happened today? Would we move him like ants, capturing him, or would we try to help? To me, I would likely be afraid. I would wonder what other mysteries this world has to offer, and I would be scared that the safety that we take advantage of daily is threatened by this new discovery.

I know it is just in the story, but seeing things like this reminds me of how much knowledge exists in the world. Whether practical or impractical, theoretical or applied, it goes to show that there is a lot to learn, and one person can never learn everything. It makes you (or at least me) want to chase after the knowledge that you are passionate about as there is always a wellspring where you least expect it.

1667 to 1745 is quite a long life. About 78 years, which is longer than I would expect as the average life expectancy in the U.S. was also 78 years in 2018. (About 300 years into the future)

He definitely lived a scholarly life. I wonder if the similarities between university and the church (as far as intellectual trade) drew him towards Christianity, or if he perhaps had many outside influences throughout his life (which is more likely also the case).

Writing is more than novels and prose. At its core (to me anyway), it’s a way to remember. You forget so many things throughout your life, things you thought you would remember forever. Writing things you feel and observe not only helps you parse out your feelings, but it helps cement those feelings for yourself and others to remember in the future. I feel like the moment writing became an intellectual trade, men (European men in particular) tried to one-up everyone else, citing women and people of color as not intelligent enough to understand the process despite writing and record-keeping being a fundamental part of the human experience. I often remember the quote that (when regarding early history) it is often not the most intelligent nor the most well-rounded people that are in power, but the most violent.

Reading this I think back to other works where women make excuses to write (No house duties, no children, can’t have children, etc.). I have no doubt that this author was more than excellent, but I wonder if the times also made her make some of these same excuses throughout her career, or if perhaps the local attitude was changing.

As raquellezausch said, it is very impressive that a woman in that day and age could not only become a well-known artist (although most that we have read about in these units have been more deeply known through the passage of time) but make a living as well. Reading this I know she likely encountered many obstacles (most of which would likely be men gatekeeping the profession) and had overcome them one way or another. This is very impressive indeed.

I like the way the lines rhyme, and I feel like we are moving towards more traditional rhyme-y poetry, which I do enjoy the cleverness of.

I like this line a lot, as she is saying that it does not matter how other people will view her verses when she herself enjoys them to the fullest extent that she can.

I feel like eccentricity goes largely undervalued, where most of the time it’s seen as othering rather than what it truly can be. In and of itself, it is an othering trait, but it only becomes that way when we shun other people for displaying qualities that we ourselves are jealous of in some way. A new set of eyes and a new way of thinking go a long way towards finding the solutions to most problems, and people with those new sets of eyes should not be punished for it.

I am glad to read that she was in love with him, as any time I read situations like these it is usually one-sided. This fact gives me a little comfort while reading.

I do not know if the women were particularly into men who were 30 years their senior. Who really knows, but to me, it feels more like a product of the times. Powerful men were creepy and desired younger women who quite literally were forced into these types of situations. This comes at me evaluating their culture by my culture’s standards, but it still remains creepy to me.

The wording here flows eloquently in the mind and the tongue as well.

I love how the reader is described as doubtful, gentle, and then virtuous. This progression is definitely interesting.

It is interesting to me that this phenomenon is not only exclusive to literature but also includes a variety of subjects like science, music, etc. It seems as if new discoveries or works of art often go undervalued until they are examined years later and -oftentimes- they are groundbreaking and change a fundamental way we view something.

This further reinforces the fact to me that childbearing was both deadly for the mother and infant. There were often many complications and sometimes the science behind it was vastly misinformed. Lives were lost to this lack of understanding that would have changed the world.

Sydney’s annotations have me cracking up because this is both exactly what I was thinking and exactly what I expected of Hunsdon. Given the times, I do not think this was a good romance, and it makes me feel sorry for Aemilia. When I compare the times then to the times now, I do not see a large difference either. This is exactly how men (can) behave in the modern world as well.

When you do the math Hunsdon had lived 2.5 more LIFETIMES than Aemilia. Imagine your whole life, then add all of that experience on again, and then add half of your experience to that. That age gap makes me uncomfortable, especially when I think that Hunsdon likely viewed her as an object.

There is a lot of monster words going around, and they are all referencing different things. Originally the monster word buildup was towards the middle, but now as we are nearing the end we are yet again reminded of it.

It is interesting to me how a requirement is that she is a virgin. It is actually kind of funny, and it goes to show that this obsession within our society started very early.

Ferdinand as a name itself means a brave journey. I think it is fitting for this character.

It amazes me how biblical some of these names can be. Ariel literally translates to ‘lion of God’ in Hebrew. I do not know if this was intentional, but it is nice to see language take shape in this way.

When I reach my unfortunate demise I hope these are my last words. What an amazing line.

Reading this I am reminded that throughout my English courses I have been told that Shakespeare shaped our modern language. Although this is more than likely a translation, the language still manages to astound me as I would not use these words in this way. It just goes to show how quickly language can evolve and change shape.

It is interesting to me how something once classified as a comedy could be later looked at through a new lens and now be classified as a romance. It goes to show you that interpretation can change over time, as well as what we perceive to be the author’s intent. However, the author’s intent isn’t always what we perceive it to be. Despite that, I would also view this story as a romance.

I don’t know if this is correct but in this context I always seem to see grapes as a status symbol. I remember on television growing up seeing people laze about on those open chairs while being fed grapes and fanned by their people. In that sense, I guess I see a lot of fruit in that time as some sort of a status symbol.

Things being capitalized really do draw my eyes. I am reading below and above and my eyes keep drifting to them out of pure distraction. It’s an interesting convention that also shows how urgent the message is.

Amazing intentions here. Nothing could ever go wrong. It’s interesting to see how sin is portrayed in this play.

I am unsure if fruits of lunacy is a biblical reference meaning to reference the garden and Adam and Eve. Reading it as such, it’s interesting to see an evil angle (which is kind of the definition of the devil) say that it is the fruit of lunacy.

It’s interesting to me to see how popularized the name God is versus when you look at one of the many other names such as Jehovah. I am not used to reading or hearing this name in reference to God, and it’s interesting to see how now only meaning but names change over time as well.

Main characters without names is an interesting concept. It acknowledges the roles they play throughout without actually naming them. It goes to show that some good (and bad) things in life go unnamed and can blindside you.

I would have never expected something as weird as the word wend to mean something similar to knew/infered.

This to me speaks a lot about bonds and what it really means to have that type of strength with someone. Obviously, Fellowship does not have a bond that he would die for with Everyman, but it makes me think of important questions like: What does a bond consist of? What forms a bond? Can bonds be easily broken or forged? Are different types of people more prong towards different types of arrangements?

Reading this part of the passage confused me a little bit. Not because anything is complicated in and of itself, but just because of the wording. I feel like in my mind I have to take the extra second to translate it into something I can understand, and sometimes that takes multiple attempts. Overall, I see writing like this but it makes me wonder what people spoke like. Did they also speak like this, or was this only secluded to writing?

Reading stories like these makes me think that we have told every story that will ever be told, just in different versions. Every trope has seemingly been written about, and being able to see it play out in real time is really interesting.

Seeing the word ‘gay’ in these contexts of older works always amazes me. I’m amazed by how quickly language can grow and change in meaning over time. I wonder what other words in this text have also changed in meaning.

I love it when time is described this way. This is the way it feels to me. It passes by day by day, but eventually, you lose track, and before you know it years are already made. It’s funny that we have noticed this for a long time throughout our existence, and it’s nice to know that these thoughts transcend time.

This actually makes me think about battle at the time. It would make sense that we would reuse armor and weapons from those who had died on the battlefield, whether enemy or friend. They would likely be sent somewhere to be refurbished or rebranded first, but it makes a lot of sense and that is one more aspect about the times that I did not know about.

For any tale in this format written around this time I always expect to see a sentence like this. People in higher social status are almost always described highly, and it’s comical how often this is portrayed. It’s either one duke of great renown fighting an oppressive duke (or something similar), and it is rarely common folk against the higher powers.

This genuinely makes me ask some fundamental questions about virginity. Why is it as a concept so coveted, and why once someone ‘loses’ their virginity are they supposedly never the same as we are taught? Overall this passage gives me a lot of questions, some of which I know the answer to, but some of them go back to the very foundations of our society and how we view women. It is very important to think back and reflect on that.

This is definitely not an idea I would expect to read from Chaucer, and you could even do a feminist reading of this text. To me, it reads as if he is challenging the imbalance of power in their social structure.

Reading this line makes me laugh knowing that a man wrote it, especially when I remember the times they lived in. It was seen as unseemly for a woman to marry more than once. She is a fictional character with every right to her own regrets, but it is still funny to me.

If he has the authority is it really a scam? Or does he only view it as such because of his personal views?

To me, this tale signifies some key aspects of what we are taught religion is supposed to be. The Pardoner makes a grand show of his craft, making it a spectral rather than something secluded and more personal. Growing up, I was taught that most of Christianity is a relationship with God, and that it should be a personal one. I find this distinction to be interesting. Why do we think that if this were less of a show that it would be closer to what we view as religious?

This is the first show of his dubious nature, admitting that the relics are fake.

From the get go the Pardoner sounds like he’s explaining a grand caper. He is so proud of his scheme that he is willing to explain it to all who will hear.

I wonder if common people reading about the exploits of Morgana further demonized women in society. I gather that anyone that saw Morgana as a powerful woman was looked down on. In my mind, this could further demonize women wanting to learn science (whether it be accurate or not) as witches or something demonic. I also wonder how many women she empowered over the course of her character development. It’s interesting to me how stories can become beliefs and vice-versa, especially in times where we are grasping at straws to try to understand our world around us on a very basic fundamental level.

Promises and one’s word are very important attributes in these works. I feel as if it’s what the society at the time valued (or at least tried to). I always read works like these as a snapshot of the society they were created in. It shows us a time where people wanted to behave a certain way (or at the very least the author who strongly suggests everyone should). Through the author, we can then glimpse further into the hopes and desires of people who have long passed.

I find the disparity between noble descriptions in these works vs non-nobles interesting. Non-nobles are often described as hard-working and kind-hearted (maybe pure-hearted), whereas nobles are always built up more. Pure as gold, void of villainy, etc.

It’s interesting to me here that they really are questioning who is the most renowned, as you hear so many stories about King Arthur and the round table growing up. When I think of knights I mostly think of King Arthur and the stories surrounding him like The Green Knight.

It’s humorous to me that he can not recognize her by her features. His one true love but he only knows her by her ability to untie a sailor’s knot. I understand that such time had passed and that he was unwilling to believe his eyes, but it is funny to me that he not only doesn’t believe his eyes but he also doesn’t believe his memory of her. (Moreover, he only remembers his commitment to her, not her.)

It’s interesting reading works from older time periods because women are always seen as only something if they are an extension of a man. Here it seems she is bouncing from place to place (generally speaking from man to man, as what would she be without one, right?) in hopes of finding her, one true love. Reading this I sense more emotion than I think I would if a man were to write this character. Some things still hold true, such as people still being described as ‘beautiful beyond measure’ as if it’s their only personality characteristic, but it is nice to see some genuine emotion from these texts.

I sense a bit of foreshadowing of the knight’s fate.

I think back to the fact that this work was made by a woman. If this work had been made by a man, perhaps two women would not be coming to a knight’s rescue. Or, even if they did, they would likely have less dialog and character depth than displayed here.

To me, this was anticipated throughout the poem as they kept building Beowulf up not only as a leader but as a person with a lot to prove.

These lines remind me of how physical the world is, especially in earlier times where manpower mattered. It is a big deal to have people ready to lend you aid in return for you to aid them when the time comes. Especially in earlier times, battles and conflicts whether man-made or nature-made were only overcome with people.

I feel anticipation here. All is well, but it will get worse in the lines to come. This buildup shows us that the characters are trying to get the most out of their lives because they may not live past tomorrow.

This shows arrogance and pride. The author spent a lot of time building up Beowulf and his companions. This is the first instance where I see character flaws starting to build. It’s interesting that the author focuses on weapons throughout this poem and references them very specifically.

These lines make Beowulf seem to have an aura of nobility or heroics around them.

Lines like these make me feel for the monsters. I wonder what we are to them if the roles were reversed. I try to wonder what they are thinking, feeling, or are doing instinctually.

I feel as if they are saying that while they believe in heaven, they are unable to know for certain whether or not they will end up there. Maybe some doubts if it even exists at all.

I have a hard time reading this poem as my eyes see the blank lines which my brain tells me should not be there. Perhaps this is meant to invoke confusion in this way?

I am not amazingly religious, but seeing people take solace in religion is moving. What is earthly can be taken away, what is spiritual lasts forever.

This line to me signifies how brutal the sea is and how hard someone's life is who sails it. It's interesting that this is a dialog between the experienced and the youthful.

I love the ending line. It gives me some hope for the wanderer, as their story is not yet over. There is still time to lay new foundations if they want to, or they can wander the earth and live with their grief until they hopefully become more content. In this poem, I feel as if we are wrestling with our own mortality, something we have been doing since perhaps the beginning of humanity.

I feel bad for the wanderer here. There is a realization that we are all dust in the wind. We live on after we have died in the lives of those who continue on, but eventually, even the memory of us will die. This is not inherently a bad thing. All things end. Joy in life will end because nothing lasts forever, but that does not mean that it never has come to pass. If I could tell the wanderer one thing, I would say that all good things end, but so too do bad ones.

In my mind, the speaker and the wanderer are one and the same here. The wanderer is talking about how no matter where they go, there is no one to greet them and make them feel welcomed. I find it interesting that they are speaking about themselves as if they have somehow detached their sense of self from their physical body. It’s definitely a form of dissociation or depersonalization to perhaps cope with their own trauma.

There is a shift from the third to the first person. It becomes a tale to be told to actually living life.

I really like these first few opening lines. This line to me signifies how lost the wanderer is, that they are wandering in perhaps more ways than one in search of something lost or something they may never find.