I can clearly see why Schreiner's writing was used as inspiration in the women's movement and feminism. This piece is so beautifully written, and is about a woman rising after being kept down by a "burden" for so long. I love the way that Schreiner highlights the responsibility women must take in doing things for themselves. No longer can the woman be bonded to the man in all aspects and rely on him to lift her up, she must do it herself. She is capable of helping herself. Schreiner also acknowledges that after centuries of being stagnant and tied down, there will be a struggle in the woman, which translates to the struggle for equality among the genders, but that it is possible. It will take some time, but eventually, she will rise and be strong, just as women in society will be too.

The shift in Lord Arthur's character here is very striking. Previously, when he planned to murder his second cousin, he would not think to carry out the act in a violent manner. Lord Arthur referred to violence as "extremely distasteful". Yet, once he learns that Lady Clementina dies a natural death and it was not his doing, he is very quick to switch methods and go for something extremely violent, such as an explosive. I wonder if the way in which he attempted to murder his two relatives had anything to do with their gender. I find it odd that he was not willing to commit a violent crime on his female relative, but had no hesitation with his male relative.

This part is really interesting to me. Irene doubts her own suspicions at first, because she does not want to believe a sweet old man would have such deceitful intentions. Still, she is able to recognize the fake veil that Sherlock Holmes tried to hide himself under, because she knows how to do the same. I think these few lines emphasize the power that Irene possesses. It shows how a woman recognizes the forces that are at work against her, and will not let them win. She is very smart, and even manages to trick Holmes, who is supposed to be some sort of expert on observation and deception.

The girl expresses her sorrow for those who cannot see what she can. Her aunt and her friends argue over whether or not the window is real, yet she can clearly see that it is real and that there is someone inside. She believes that her youth grants her the ability to be able to see clearly, and that as youth fades, a person is robbed of the "simplest things" such as sight. She is thankful for her young age and her ability to be able to witness such things. However, I feel that this is not the case. So far, no one can decide on if the window is real or not, so it seems unlikely that the girl is the only one to clearly distinguish it, because of her youth. I think that there is another reason for this, which will be reveled later on in the story. Perhaps, it is a figment of her imagination that appears because she so badly wants something to be there, rather than something so real and obvious.

This passage is extremely reminiscent of another work from Thomas Hardy that we have read, "An Imaginative Woman". In both stories, a woman falls in love with a man she hardly knows, so much that it consumes her. Both women, Edith in this one and Ella in the other, correspond to their "lovers" under a guise. Ella had to take on a male persona, and Edith had to take on a persona of a younger, more pretty girl. Their infatuations are to be forbidden due to the fact that both women are married, yet they simply cannot help the draw they feel towards these men. Still, both stories end tragically, with the forbidden love never truly getting a happy ending. I have noticed this theme in Hardy's work, the two stories I have mentioned along with the others that we have read, of love, deception, and tragedy all being interwoven. Hardy writes very interesting tales of romance, yet never allows the tale to finish on a happy note. This makes me curious what his own life experiences with marriage and deception may be. He seems to have created a lot of material of the same nature, so he must have something in his personal life feeding this inspiration.

This passage really struck me while I was reading. The signalman has just revealed what troubles him so deeply, the haunting of this spectre figure who is always followed by some act of destruction and death. In his explanation of this constant haunting, he expresses his anguish towards the position he is put into. He knows that this spectre represents danger, but he cannot fully understand what it is trying to warn him of, so he cannot tell anyone. If he was to disclose this fear of danger that he had to his superiors, with no explanation, he would be taken away from his work and regarded as crazy. The signalman loves his work, and he is very good at it. Yet this constant fear looming over his head is hindering his ability to do his job and his ability to think straight. The last few words of this passage, "an unintelligible responsibility involving life" are very broad, and in a way, can encompass things beyond this story. I feel that this passage would relate to readers of the time, who also feel an inexplicable burden in their everyday responsibilities. Anxiety, stress, depression, etc. can be the cause of oppression in readers at the time and they may feel a connection to the signalman in that way.

The language used here when describing Hester speaks to her overall weak and subdued nature. It highlights just how much trauma she was put through with the attack on her and her husband. The words "careworn face" imply that she has become almost a shell of a person, succumbing to the deep sadness that was thrust upon her. Yet, as a reader, the description aids in the sympathy felt for this old woman, because no matter what she has gone through and how torn down she may be, she must still stand up in front of people and recount the cause of her sadness. In this instant, she is completely vulnerable to the harsh truth about what her son, whom she had loved so much, had done to his own family. Even though her husband had been harmed in the attack as well, these few lines almost give the impression that Hester is the one who has suffered the most in this story. Hester had waited long to marry and have a child, only for that child to betray her in the end. I see this as a commentary on a mother's love for her child, and a question of what happens when that unconditional love is not reciprocated, but betrayed.

The Pre-Raphaelites work is about speaking to an audience, and hopefully influencing that audience in their desired way. The Pre-Raphaelites acted as a sort of moral compass to the public. What they were portraying in their art, were visions of social change. They weren't creating art just for themselves to enjoy, but for their public to use as a guide and reference for behavior and social ideals. The works they created demand to be taken seriously, and hold a lot of weight.

T.S. Eliot establishes his stance on the nature of time very early on in the poem, in fact in the first few lines. To Eliot, time past and time future both exist in time present. The conclusion drawn on this concept is that time has no boundaries. It is limitless and timeless. Eliot believes that humans are the constructors of this notion that there is a past present and future, all of which are different and separate. In his reality, time is seamless and flows together; there are no visible limits and labels. Here, Eliot is commenting on the human nature to want to be in control. Another theme constantly seen throughout this poem is the notion of fate and destiny. Humans do not have the power to change the path completely or alter things that are already preexisting. We crave to have authority and control over something, and by creating different categories for time, we grant ourselves that power. Humans need to manufacture a false sense of time in order to feel secure. We dwell on the past and obsess over the future, yet fail to realize and acknowledge that they are not separate entities to the present. Will we ever be able to let go of that longing for authority over the nature of time, or will we cling to it our whole lives?

T.S. Eliot contemplates the idea that there is a constant state in which we reside throughout his poem. Here, he focuses on this theme and elaborates on how we cannot do anything to change it. We don't have enough control to completely alter something that is preexisting. In this case, that is love. However, the love that he refers to here is not the romantic or soft kind. Instead, it is the kind that "devised the torment". Humans are made up of this kind of love, and we cannot escape from that. Nothing we try to do will grant us the freedom and separation from this integral part of our identity. We can only manipulate so much in our life, until we reach the point where there is no room for change.