As a die-hard humanities academic, I was pleased to here that we would be examining another timeless art form, Italian poetry. Though I have never studied specifically Italian poetry, I have always been interested in the general genre. I also was happy to see that many of his examples were ones that I was previously aware of. As such, this lecture was a fascinating and invigorating ride. I found myself simultaneously understanding the topic more deeply than I ever had, but also having more questions that I never had even thought to wonder about. This led to a simultaneously satisfying, but frustrating experience of learning a great deal, while also becoming aware of how much I don’t understand. As I have found with many of these lectures, I leave with more questions than when I arrive. Having known very little about the origin of anything from the universe to Italian Poetry or Novel Writing, I am repeatedly exposed to a new corner of the world which I know little to nothing about. In the brief time, it is impossible to learn the origins of anything to a satisfactory level. However, opening up these corners of the world, and shedding a bit of light on them makes me more curious, and I find myself wondering about the finer points of origins often. Can we prove an origin, or separate it from an evolution? If we can prove that it happened, but we can’t prove how or why, then is this finding really significant? Does investigating this idea bring us more answers or will it lead to more questions, as the brief lecture on it has for me? How is is possible to define the first novel except by the definition used at the time when it was written? Is it possible to define the boundaries between poetry and music, or does doing so pigeon-hole a broad art form into a claustrophobically tight academic category? It was fascinating to learn so much about both a topic that I was previously very uninformed about. Additionally, I was very interested in his distinctions between poetry and music, which are two categories which I believe have a great deal of overlap between them. As music is poetry, and poetry is also music in its own sense. This is another case where the lines between art forms are clearly obfuscated, and it is impossible to define a clear definition of one that completely excludes the other. Therefore, it can be endlessly debated what is poetry, what is music, and what is neither, as there is no possible way for anyone to materially define the boundaries of either form of art, or draw a line which divides and separates them. To me, that is what makes theses different types of art so interesting, is the ambiguous nature of them. They are impossible to pin down, and that is what makes them so satisfying. It is impossible to explain what they are, but yet they still exist, and are still important.