books to help)? My essay is basicly a compare and contrast essay between the two British Authors: Mary Wroth and Robert Herrick. You don’t need to know them to help me out though 
Here’s what I’ve got so far (as brainstorm):
I’ll be concentrating on the concept of Carpe Diem (live every moment like it’s your last) Like how some authors (Herrick) encourage it, while others like Mary Wroth would see it as degrading to women in the sense that they would be brought down compared to men if they were to even think of acting in that way. Maybe on her point of view, to follow Carpe Diem is impossible for women of the time and not true love?
I also want to argue that from Wroth’s point of view, she argues that love’s like a poison dart, because it brings one to lose control and it’s quite unexpected. To her, it is also a negative thing since it tends to bring with it a sort of loss of consistency (rarely do people stick to one person)... aka loss of true virtue while the other author sees love as being a liberating thing that needs no consistency.
Wroth is trying to say that she wants consistency in love and she feels like she had no choice in falling in love. Those are the two things that stick out in her poems... she doesn't seem to want to be in love and according to my teacher, consistency is virtue (its basically remaining a virgin until you are with the only ONE you'll ever be with and are therefore married...)
Then I have to compare her with another poet who's all about Carpe Diem (very erotic poetry, writing about his many mistresses and the beauty their bodies. He writes about how they should just have sex while they still can; just have some fun and bed as many women as he can.)
In that time, women NEEDED to be chaste to be virtuous and worthy of praise and the love of a good man. But men didn’t need to be chaste to have virtue and be considered noble or virtuous. Mary Wroth (the author), wants to promote equality in a sense, saying that the fact of that men don’t need to be chaste to be virtuous isn't right. They should have the same definition of noble and virtuous as women do.
If I could relate this essay to feminism that’d be awesome XD Because this author was a bit of a feminist... she sees true love as being Aphrodite while cupid is a nuisance...
Aphrodite is consistency -> female, while cupid is inconsistence -> male.
"Cupid's" version of love vs. Apherdite's version?
The child version of love versus the adult version?
Basicly the immature version (Cupid) vs. the matured version of love (Aphrodite)
I mean cupid is this little baby that throws arrows around like they're candy
I need another person's perspective, lol! (I get all my ideas when bouncing off someone else... almost like when I have to explain it to someone else, I come to understand it better myself)
Thanks for the help!!!
Here’s what I’ve got so far (as brainstorm):
I’ll be concentrating on the concept of Carpe Diem (live every moment like it’s your last) Like how some authors (Herrick) encourage it, while others like Mary Wroth would see it as degrading to women in the sense that they would be brought down compared to men if they were to even think of acting in that way. Maybe on her point of view, to follow Carpe Diem is impossible for women of the time and not true love?
I also want to argue that from Wroth’s point of view, she argues that love’s like a poison dart, because it brings one to lose control and it’s quite unexpected. To her, it is also a negative thing since it tends to bring with it a sort of loss of consistency (rarely do people stick to one person)... aka loss of true virtue while the other author sees love as being a liberating thing that needs no consistency.
Wroth is trying to say that she wants consistency in love and she feels like she had no choice in falling in love. Those are the two things that stick out in her poems... she doesn't seem to want to be in love and according to my teacher, consistency is virtue (its basically remaining a virgin until you are with the only ONE you'll ever be with and are therefore married...)
Then I have to compare her with another poet who's all about Carpe Diem (very erotic poetry, writing about his many mistresses and the beauty their bodies. He writes about how they should just have sex while they still can; just have some fun and bed as many women as he can.)
In that time, women NEEDED to be chaste to be virtuous and worthy of praise and the love of a good man. But men didn’t need to be chaste to have virtue and be considered noble or virtuous. Mary Wroth (the author), wants to promote equality in a sense, saying that the fact of that men don’t need to be chaste to be virtuous isn't right. They should have the same definition of noble and virtuous as women do.
If I could relate this essay to feminism that’d be awesome XD Because this author was a bit of a feminist... she sees true love as being Aphrodite while cupid is a nuisance...
Aphrodite is consistency -> female, while cupid is inconsistence -> male.
"Cupid's" version of love vs. Apherdite's version?
The child version of love versus the adult version?
Basicly the immature version (Cupid) vs. the matured version of love (Aphrodite)
I mean cupid is this little baby that throws arrows around like they're candy
I need another person's perspective, lol! (I get all my ideas when bouncing off someone else... almost like when I have to explain it to someone else, I come to understand it better myself)
Thanks for the help!!!