American Literature: Romanticism Sample Final Exam Essays 2015 final exam assignment Overall Learning Essay

Hanna Mak

Mid-length essay: American Romanticism: A Course Retrospect

One of the major problems that one must inevitably confront in the study of literature is the debate of its canon—how, after all, can a survey course most fairly determine what is to be studied in such a limited amount of time? It can often be difficult to strike a true balance, at least partially because authors often fade in and out of vogue with each subsequent generation. In my experience, one negative result of this is that my knowledge as an undergraduate literature student often failed to match up with most people who were from the same program in the same school; these knowledge gaps can present definite obstacles in collaboration and conversation. Therefore, in my case, I think that the earliest benefit of this class was at least the establishment of a foundational knowledge in Romanticism, which I previously had little exposure to both at the high school level and the undergraduate level. Furthermore, texts which I had previously read, such as Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Young Goodman Brown and Emerson’s Nature, were never discussed within the context of Romanticism, and as a result, my understanding of both authors has been greatly expanded. Although it is presumably one of the more obvious benefits in taking such a course, its usefulness cannot be overlooked—such groundwork cannot be ignored by a student that aims for the development of their skills.

Additionally, it should be noted that it was this lack of knowledge which gave rise to my initial reservations about the subject matter. After learning broadly what Romanticism entailed—particularly its emphasis on emotions over reason and its nostalgia for the past—I admittedly felt little excitement for what was to come. However, I soon discovered how wrong I was to hold this prejudice. The broad scope of material that was demonstrated to fall under the umbrella of Romanticism was much richer than I expected. Even pieces that I did not personally enjoy were useful in terms of their historical significance or insight into past and present American culture, as was the case with Last of the Mohicans, for example. Ultimately, this surprise was not just pleasant, but it was also important to my development as a student, and served as a necessary reminder to always keep an open mind during one’s studies. After all, it is often the case that when one’s own viewpoint or aesthetic ideals differ substantially from the material that one stands to learn the most.

Perhaps one of the most effective standards of measurement for the use of this class, however, could be judged in terms of its relation with others that were offered during the semester. The study of many disparate movements, especially in terms of their succession, is in many ways similar to watching a conversation or debate unfold. And yet, for all the differences to be found, it is also highly instructive to take note of the similarities. In Dr. Day’s British Restoration Literature class, many of the authors that we studied, such as Swift, Johnson and Smollett, would have undoubtedly rejected the ideals of the Romantic movement with vehemence. In fact, Johnson, who according to James Boswell once said, “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money,” seemingly could not have been more ideologically removed from the ideals of the Romantic tradition. And yet, because Romanticism draws upon so many images and patterns which are rooted in human psychology and emotion (the sublime, the patterns of dark vs. light, escapism and imagination, among others), it cannot help but manifest itself to some degree in the works of most authors—a point which is readily displayed in this course’s study of such varied works as John Smith, Emerson, Stowe, Charles W. Chesnutt, Faulkner, and F. Scott Fitzgerald. The presence of Romantic elements in these works, and those of other classes, demonstrate how flexible and pervasive the tradition is. Perhaps only the Houyhnhnms could fully disprove.

Besides a lifelong admiration and interest in literature, one of the things that brought me to consider it as a major in the first place was the subject’s versatility in terms of its practical applications. The study of literature steadily trains a student to write, analyze and empathize more effectively, which are skills that can be applied both professionally and personally. Therefore, ideally, an individual course should contribute to the gradual broadening of one’s perspective, which in light of my previous points, appears to have been achieved during this semester. In terms of the improvement of my writing skills, I found the level of detail and the amount of useful advice on the midterms to be of particular interest. Since the majority of my proficiency in writing has been gathered from reading as opposed to formal instruction, I oftentimes rely too heavily upon intuition rather than actual rules and structure. This is a weakness in my writing which I must continue to develop.

Lastly, although I often found that the broadness of Romanticism’s definition at times proved to be a double-edged sword, and could be just as frustrating as it was rewarding in its inclusiveness, on the whole, it was helpful in its demonstration of the general purpose and limitations of such terms. Reflecting on this balance, it becomes clear that it is important to use the constraints of genre and artistic movement primarily as tools, and to be able to step back and consider the larger picture when frustrations begin to emerge. While often useful in its contribution of context both to individual works and as a means for understanding multiple works in relation to one another, ultimately, analysis in this vein can stand the risk of devolving into a simple list of a literary movement’s traits and a work’s corresponding catalogue of quotations. In such moments as I have described, it seems that the outside influence of peer perspective is key—this has proven to be one of the most worthwhile aspects of just about any literature course, but it seemed particularly applicable to this one, due to its extensive focus on the specific terms and characteristics within the Romantic tradition. Although most courses I have taken in the past have not shared the extent and direction of this focus, the frustrations that I felt were largely counteracted through the attendance of classroom discussion. In light of this observation, in conjunction with the others, I would say that although the structure was markedly different from my prior expectations, that difference was not altogether a bad thing.