How did Fresne’s ring and clothing affect the overall direction of her stories? How might the stories have concluded if her biological mother had left her with nothing initially?

In both Marie de France’s Le Fresne and the middle English Lay le Freine, a network of similar actants performs in a similar, though not identical, way. The objects left with the abandoned girl play a pivotal role. In a less obvious way, so does the tree that she’s left in. How might these non-human actants affect the narrative in a way that is unavailable to their human counterparts? Do these objects have an advantage over a human actant in the narrative structure?

In her preface to VM Jane Bennett seeks to expose a ‘vital materiality’ that she compares to “childhood experiences” in “a worlid populated by animate things rather than passive objects” (vii). How can medieval or middle English texts like Guigmar and Sir Clegus be examined in terms of this adolescent mindset? The medieval world seems to be ridden with “engagements with vibrant matter and intelligible things” (viii)–like the hind in Guigmar or the concept of fortune or virtue in Sir Clegus, where wealth is the driving force of fate. Is the modern mindset more or less open to objects as possessing a vitality?

In Jane Bennett’s introduction to her book, Vibrant Matter: a political ecology of things, she emphasizes that “we need to cultivate a bit of anthropomorphism—the idea that human agency has some echoes in nonhuman nature” (Bennett xvi). How have we seen this theory at work in texts we have already encountered in class thus far? How does this related back to Bennett’s idea of “thing-power” (Bennett xvi)?

Sir Clegus presents us with the same moral ambiguities as Guigmar. To what extent can his generosity be considered a flaw as opposed to a virtue? How can virtues and flaws be considered objects within the text?

The tale of Sir Cleges makes a strong dichotomy between the rich and those “in poverté bare” (Sir Cleges 17). In what ways, and to what extent, does this factor into the interactions and exchanges Sir Cleges has on his way to speaking with King Uther?

The “Subjectivity” chapter of The Theory Toolbox (a book commonly used in ENGL 299) spends time discussing the self and the subject (among other things). According to the explanation offered in the chapter, does a “self” actually exist?

Marie de France’s narrative *Guigemar* surprises some readers by being much more morally ambiguous than they expect. If another reader of the poem expressed such a response to you, what might you say in reply?

I hope you’ll take a look around the course blog and get yourself familiarized, and I look forward to seeing you in our first class meeting on the 19th! The course schedule, description (“Our course” in the blog menu) and syllabus (“Policies” in the blog menu) are posted, and there you’ll see that most of our coursework will be done here on the blog site–but with papers submitted, and related comments and grades posted, in OAKS.  [I will send out an email to the class indicating the password for protected pages, such as the schedule. If you don’t receive one , email me and let me know.]

Please note that we will be using 5 texts this semester, and that 2 of those are available free online, so you may choose to use those electronically.

Feel free, please, to contact me with any questions that might arise before the first day.