"The Raven" Criticism

"The Raven" is a poem that can be really enjoyable, but can also scare people or make them not want to read Poe anymore because of the themes he uses. "The Raven" can be interpreted a number of ways, and is often a start of controversies between literary critics (Edgar). "The Raven" talks about a man that wishes for his lost love Lenore, and has no way to do anything about it (Poe). Suddenly, a raven knocks on his window and flies in, and perches on a bust of Pallas Athena above the man's door (Poe). It sits there and stares at the man while the man is going crazy thinking about his lost love (Poe). He talks to himself and to the raven, and he thinks that the raven answers him by saying the word "Nevermore" over and over (Poe). The raven saying "Nevermore" made the man think he was crazy, and it also made the man very, very upset about the fact that the raven said he would never see Lenore again, which broke his heart even more than it had already been broken (Poe). He screamed at the raven to get out of his house, but the raven said that it would move "Nevermore", so the raven stayed on the bust of Pallas Athena for the rest of both of their lives (Poe). When "The Raven" was originally published, many of its readers really enjoyed reading it (Edgar). They loved the suspense, horror, and mystery that the poem brought, and they loved that it was such a new style of writing that they could read (Edgar). The literary critics, though, had mixed reviews of the poem (Edgar). They had many issues with some of the things that Edgar Allen Poe had written, and they declared that some of his lines were inconsistent with the others (Edgar). They thought that some of the literary ideas, such as internal rhyme and some of the more technical concerns that they had made the poem ineffective (Edgar). They also thought some of his lines did not make sense, and they thought that some of them should be gotten rid of. Critics also thought that Edgar Allen Poe had stolen some of his ideas for "The Raven" and possibly some of his other works from a number of other authors such as Charles Dickens (Edgar). They claimed that Poe based his poem off of a book that Dickens had written including a talking raven (Edgar). Though it is logical that they could be linked, the styles of writing would be very different and they would not have any relevancy to the other whatsoever. They argued with him and criticized him so much for it, he even wrote another work that explained how he come up with the idea for "The Raven", because he wanted to prove that it was an original work (Edgar). Many people still do not know what to make of "The Raven" and it is still considered a mildly controversial work, but it is still enjoyed by many. It was the beginning of a new genre of writing, and it changed writing all over the world forever.


"Edgar Allan Poe The Raven Criticism." ENotes - Literature Study Guides, Lesson Plans, and More. Web. 21 Nov. 2010. .


Poe, Edgar A. "The Raven : the Poem." Edgar Allan Poe's House of Usher (fan Site). Web. 23 Nov. 2010. .

"The Raven"

Literal Translation:
-Once at midnight while I was weak and thinking about a lot of forgotten lore, I was almost asleep when suddenly I hear rapping that sounded like someone gently knocking on my bedroom door.
-I said to myself, “It is only a visitor knocking on my door and nothing else.”
-I distinctly remember that it was the middle of December and every dying ember could be seen going out.
-I wished for tomorrow to come; I had vainly wished that my books would give me an end to my sorrow-sorrow for the lost Lenore, the beautiful girl the angels call Lenore, nameless here forever.
-And the rustling of the curtains thrilled me and filled me with terrors; so now, to calm my heart, I said to myself “It is only a late visitor who is knocking at my bedroom door and nothing else.”
-My heart grew strong; so I waited no longer, I said “Sir or Madam, please forgive me; but I was napping and you knocked so gently, I was not sure I heard you,” then I opened the door and nothing was there.
-I stood looking into the darkness for a long time, dreaming things no mortal had ever dreamed; but nothing happened, the only wound was my whispered “Lenore!” which was returned by an echo, “Lenore!” and nothing else.
-I turned around and my heart was pounding, soon I heard more knocking.
-“Surely that is something at my window,” I said; “Let me see what it is and explore this mystery, calm down, heart, and let me explore this mystery; it is only the wind.”
-Here I opened my shutter and a Raven from days past stepped in.
-He did not show respect; he did not stop or stay for a minute; but he perched on a bust above my bedroom door, a bust of Athena, just perched and sat and nothing else.
-The black bird twisted me into thinking it smiled, by the stern face it wore, I said “Though your feathers are gone you are not a coward, ghastly, ancient Raven, from the Nightly shore-tell me your lordly name on Pluto’s shore!”
-The Raven said “Nevermore.”
-I marveled at the clear conversation, though its answer had little meaning or relevancy; For we all agree that no human could see a bird above his bedroom door, bird or beast on the sculpture above his door with a name like “Nevermore”.
-But the Raven, sitting on the peaceful bust, said only that one word, as if that was his whole soul.
-He said nothing more and did not move until I said “He will leave tomorrow, like my other dreams.”
-Then it said “Nevermore.”
-Startled that it replied at such a time, I said “Surely this is only what the bird picked up from an unhappy master whom Disaster followed until his songs only talked about Never and Nevermore.”
-But the Raven, still tricking me into thinking he was smiling, I moved a cushioned seat to right in front of the bird, bust, and door; then, sitting down, I forced myself to start figuring out what the bird meant in saying “Nevermore”.
-This I sat pondering, not speaking to the bird who stared me down to my inmost core; I sat figuring out this and more, my head laid back, on the cushion the lamplight went over but that she would touch nevermore.
-Then, the air became more dense, perfumed with a hidden censer swung by Seraphim whose footsteps tinkled on the floor.
-I cried “Wretch! Your God lent you and sent you with these angels, give me respite and nepenthe to keep me from thinking of Lenore, drink this nepenthe and forget Lenore!”
-The Raven said “Nevermore.”
-I said “Prophet! Evil thing! Prophet, whether bird or devil! Whether sent by the devil or here because of storms, alone but not scared, stuck on this desert land, at this house, forever with horror, tell me truly, will I ever be relieved of my suffering? Tell me, I beg you!”
- The Raven said “Nevermore.”
- said “Prophet! Evil thing! Prophet, whether bird or devil! By Heaven above and the God we both adore, tell this sorrowful soul if in the coming Eden, I shall hold a girl the angels call Lenore, hold a beautiful girl the angels call Lenore.”
-The Raven said “Nevermore.”
-I said “Then let that word be the last, bird or devil! Get back into the storm and near Pluto! Leave no feathers signifying your speech! Leave me in my loneliness! Leave the bust above my door!”
-The Raven said “Nevermore.”
-And the Raven, never moving, still sitting there on the peaceful bust of Athena above my bedroom door; who has eyes that seem like a demon is dreaming, with the lamplight that casts your shadow on the floor; My soul shall never be lifted from that shadow floating on the floor.

Edgar Allen Poe uses a great deal of literary devices in his poem "The Raven", and quite a bit of it is symbolism. He repeats things a great deal for either emphasis or so he can paint the image a little bit differently in the mind of the reader. He also uses allusions a lot, leading to other things. He often alludes to the Bible and stories or passages in it. He also symbolizes many different things, because the Raven could symbolize his conscience, his unconcious mind, or things that he knows but refuses to come to terms with.

I think this poem is very dark and has a dark meaning, but it also may hide the true meaning from many of its readers. This poem talks about a man speaking with a Raven, who could symbolize his unconscious mind, and a lost lover that he longs for desperately. I think the man in the poem is imagining the whole thing and in reality is asleep, asking himself if he will ever see his lover again. He wants to hope for the best and get rid of his sorrows, but deep inside, he knows that he will never see his lover again, in this life or in the next, but he wrestles with himself over it. He does not want to believe that his hopes have been dashed, but he subconsciously knows that his hopes are dead. This is a very intriguing poem with many possible meanings and explanations.

Journal #24

There are many times when one's mind plays tricks on them. Often, the mind will play tricks on people when they are afraid of something or are paranoid. People are normally more wary when it is dark out, and that is more often when people see something that is not there. They also can not see everything clearly when it is dark out, and that adds on to their worry. I have been scared many times in the dark after I have seen scary movies or television shows, because I often go to bed right after them, and when I was younger I was afraid of the dark. I would think that the people or animals or beasts in the show that I had just watched would be in my room, so I would be very scared about what was in my room. I would want one of my parents to come and tuck me in, and I would always put my head right under the covers as soon as they left and the light was out. I also did that when I had nightmares, because those always freaked me out a lot. I would always hide completely under the covers with enough room open in my covers to have a breathing passageway. I would also get a stuffed rabbit that I called "Bunny" and I would put him right next to me on the pillow next to me. I always thought that he would protect me from any scary monsters and keep me safe, because when I was younger I thought he was the epitome of goodness, so he could keep any scary monsters that were in my room away. He always made me feel better when he was there, and he consistently helped me get back to sleep at night because I thought he would protect me. There are many times when people can have tricks played on their mind, and it often happens in the dark when people are already scared and wary anyway.

Thoreau's "Walden"

Henry David Thoreau's Walden is a very complex work. Walden describes a time in Thoreau's life where he went to the woods and lived by himself in a shack that he built, for two years, two months, and two days (Thoreau). He was trying to show everyone what it was like to live away from society and be in touch with nature constantly (Thoreau). Walden is a long work, that includes a number of different pieces that he wrote, which are all about different things, even if the topics are similar (Thoreau). He is trying to show his opinions on a number of things, including society, government, and nature, and their effects on people (Life). His book did not sell very well in the beginning, and there could be many reasons for that (Life). Many critics of that time did not really know what to do with the book, or what to think of it, so some were against the book, while others really enjoyed it (Life). Thoreau has been praised for his intelligence and his creativity, while he has also been frowned upon for the complexity of the his work when it was supposed to be about simplicity, and other hypocritical things that he had done while living in the wild and had written in his works (Life). A number of people also only look at a portion of his work, while completely ignoring the other parts, and it is generally based on the topics involved (Life). Some people only pay attention to the parts of Walden that are about the nature and the simplicity of it all and how it will help them check out from society and relax, while others only pay attention to the portions that involve society and government and his opinions on those things, which he did not get rid of while he was out in the wild (Life). Many people have noticed that Thoreau could not stick to one topic, and many people think he was hypocritical in the way that he did things (Life). He did not always stay in his cabin, and he often went to visit his sister and have supper with her. He went into town to get his groceries, so he did not really need to worry about killing things or collecting any food or supplies, so he was not necessarily completely living out by himself. Many people will not read his book or listen to his teachings because of the fact that he did not necessarily completely check out from society like he tries to say in his book (Life). He leaves some misconceptions in there and does not try to correct them, which make many people ignore his work and throw it all away completely. Thoreau made his work Walden stretch out and become incredibly long, so while many people do not like his book at all, it also makes people able to see different ideas about nature, society, and other things that may not be said today (Life). His work and his ideas are very intriguing, while they also are controversial and spark a lot of debate (Life). Thoreau was a good author, but many people do not agree with what he did in writing Walden or how he did it.

"Thoreau's Walden - an Annotated Edition." The Thoreau Reader. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. .

"Life in the Woods Henry David Thoreau Walden; or Criticism." ENotes - Literature Study Guides, Lesson Plans, and More. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. .

Journal #23

I think many people would find it difficult to go a week without any technology. I think it could be easy depending on who I am with. If I am with the people that I am constantly talking to, there would be no need for me to have my phone. I also would not need music or radios or television, because I would have other people to be with and talk to. I would probably do this somewhere in Europe, because I have always wanted to go to Europe. I could backpack the continent, because there are many different countries and places in certain countries that I want to go. It would also be very fun to take a camping trip in Australia, because Australia is a beautiful continent and country, that would have many exotic places for people to enjoy while they have no technology. I would enjoy camping in a number of places in the United States of America as well. I have always wanted to see Yellowstone, so there is a good chance that that would be a fun place to camp. The Grand Canyon is beautiful, but I think I would be more scared to camp there, because I have heard a number of stories of people who have gone in the Grand Canyon and run out of water, become delirious, and died or killed themselves because they did not know what they were doing. If I did go camping in the Grand Canyon, I would make sure to pack an excess of water so I would not need to worry about running out. I would not mind camping in Illinois, because if it was good weather, we have good woods to camp in, and while there are animals, if people are smart, they will be alright and not have to deal with it. I do not think I would like camping in Africa or the Amazon, because I would be too afraid of the animals that are there and what they could do, plus the weather is not always good, but I do not think I would really mind being without technology for a week if I had a few people with me to help me pass the time.

Thoreau and Gandhi

David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi were both people that wanted to persuade others to follow their causes, and they did so in different ways. While there are mainly differences, there are some similarities as well, so they are good things to compare and contrast. Thoreau wrote a small essay called "Civil Disobedience" which discussed his issues with the government and the night that he spent in jail because he refused to pay a poll tax (Thoreau). Gandhi gave a speech titled "On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March" which tried to persuade people to follow his point of view on getting rid of the salt issues that his country was having with Britain (Gandhi). They had similarities in their works in different ways. They both were going against their government, but trying to be peaceful about doing so (Thoreau) (Gandhi). They were both standing up to their government, and Thoreau was doing so by not paying a poll tax, while Gandhi was doing so by trying to get his own salt from the oceans instead of needing to buy it from Britain (Thoreau) (Gandhi). They were both against violence and did not want anyone to be hurt by their actions, but they both also wanted their opinions to come out into the open and be known by everyone around. They had more differences than they did similarities, though, and I think that is because they are from different time periods, so they had different styles of writing and speaking. Thoreau wrote his essay more as a story than as a persuasive essay, even though they had some of the same qualities (Thoreau). He was explaining a lot of the details of his time in jail and described many of the little, unimportant things that had been happening around him (Thoreau). He talked about the point that he was trying to make in the very beginning of his essay, but he quickly lost his point in the details (Thoreau). He was more worried about explaining how his night in jail was not terribly hard and how it was even pretty fun and not that difficult for him (Thoreau). He claimed that he might not have even had that hard of a time staying there for quite a long period of time (Thoreau). Gandhi was different in his speech, because was more inspirational to others than Thoreau's essay (Gandhi). Gandhi was trying to motivate other followers that shared his belief (Gandhi). He was trying to tell everyone else that the tax that the British were imposing on them was wrong and that it should be changed (Gandhi). Gandhi was explaining to the other followers that even if he and other people should get arrested while they were protesting the tax, the other people should keep going in their fight so that hopefully they could eventually get the tax lifted so that it will be gone (Gandhi). Thoreau only explained that he protested the United States being involved in wars and slavery, but he did not say that much about how he protested, which was by refusing to pay a poll tax, which seems to have very little relevance (Thoreau). Gandhi and Thoreau both wanted to protest something that their government was doing or was allowing others to do, but they did so in very different ways, and they also documented it very differently.

Thoreau, Henry D. "Civil Disobedience." The Transcendentalists--including Ralph Waldo Emerson--David Henry Thoreau--Others--Dial Magazine. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. http://www.transcendentalists.com/civil_disobedience.htm.

Gandhi. "Famous Speeches of Gandhiji: On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March." Mani Bhavan--Gandhi Sangrahalaya: Mahatma Gandhi Museum & Reference Library. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhicomesalive/speech4.htm.

Journal #22

Using some of the Romanticism qualities, there are quite a few instances that it would be okay to break the law. It was important to use intuition, so if one thought that they had a gut feeling that something bad would happen but they could stop it by breaking the law, then it would be their responsibility and duty to break the law, so in the end they would really be helping everyone else. It is also allowable to break the law when one's ethics or morals think the law does not matter or is irrelevant. Robin Hood and his Merry Men would be people that the Romanticists worshiped, because they broke the law, but they gave all of their earnings and everything that they got to the poor and to the people that needed it much more than they did. They stole from rich, wealthy people and killed some of the animals that had been deemed the King's to give that money and the meat of the animals to other people who had lost everything and could barely get enough. In fact, they did not get enough food for everyone, so the families had to eat smaller portions, but Robin Hood and his Merry Men helped by giving those people and those families the meat that they had killed. Robin Hood was an outlaw that everyone who followed the law wanted dead, but all of the poor people that were benefiting from his deeds loved him and wanted him to never leave them. Romanticists had a broad view of the law, and they interpreted it very loosely, which helped them get ahead against everyone else in the long run, but not everyone agreed with them and what they did or stood for. The Romanticists thought that the law was not always relevant, and they thought it appropriate to break the law if it was necessary or if their ethics and morals went against the law and prodded them to go against it to do what they thought was right.