In “The Brooch” Faulkner conveys the relationship between the mother and that of her son, Howard, as parasitical and inhibitory. Faulkner also shows the negative effects of Freudian infatuation.
The reader is first made aware of this parasitical relationship when the narrator tells of the mother not allowing Howard to associate with the other boys, “he probably cold not have long associated with other children even if his mother had let him.” Another example of Howard’s mother’s parasite-like actions comes when he goes to college in Charleston and she moves there while he goes there. The relationship between Howard and his mother at its earliest stages is not fully elaborated on, but the remainder of the story shows the inhibitory effects which this relationship has on Howard’s life. The first example the reader encounters in this story of these inhibitory effects comes when it is mentioned that Howard averts his gaze from girls as they pass, “who hurried with averted head, even when his mother was not with him, past the young girls on the streets…” The next example of these inhibitory effects is the whole relationship between Howard and his wife Amy. Immediately upon hearing of her son’s relationship with Amy, the mother tries to discourage Howard by saying (while referring to Amy), “Don’t confuse the house with the stable.” The inhibitory effects also play on the relationship between Howard and Amy. These inhibitory effects are symbolized through the brooch. When Amy and Howard marry, Howard’s mother gives Amy the brooch which Amy wears throughout the marriage. Amy wears the brooch throughout the whole marriage, and she is trapped inside of Howard’s mother’s house. Amy wishes to move on several occasions, but Howard adamantly refuses. The night that Amy loses the brooch is, ironically, the night which she moves out of Howard’s mother’s house. There are also hints at unfaithfulness in Amy’s character, because she goes out dancing every night, but Howard does not care about Amy’s unfaithfulness; he just cares that his mother does not find out. Howard’s whole outlook on his marriage represents the effects of his infatuation with his mother. He should want to go out and be on his own, but he doesn’t. He should also care about Amy being unfaithful to him, but he doesn’t care about this either. These examples only represent the negative effects which his parasitical and inhibitory relationship he has with his mother. The last, punctuating effect which this relationship has on Howard is when he takes his own life.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Helen: Innocent or Guilty?
In her poem “Helen,” Hilda Doolittle uses the images of whiteness to convey Helen’s innocence; however, Doolittle uses variance in the strength of the initial verbs in each stanza to portray the Greek’s dissenting sentiments towards Helen.
There are three stanzas in this poem, and each stanza includes a visual description of Helen. Each stanza repeats the color white to describe Helen’s flawless physical appearance; furthermore, Doolittle uses the color white to convey her belief that Helen should not be held responsible for the Trojan War.
There are varying views about whether or not Helen was really abducted or if she went with Prince Paris willingly to Troy; however, the footnote in the Heath Anthology suggests that Helen was kidnapped. In light of this translation, it is reasonable to assume that Helen did not go with Paris on her own accord; thus, we must assume that Doolittle wishes us to relieve Helen of the blame for the Trojan War or at least say that Helen did not intentionally cause the war. With this footnote in mind, we can further guess that Doolittle held the view that Helen was abducted which verifies Helen’s innocence.
Doolittle also uses variance in the strength of the verbs to convey the feelings of Greeks towards Helen and to also continue to reveal Helen’s innocence. The first stanza’s opening line is “All Greece hates.” The rest of the stanza describes Helen and her beauty. The second stanza’s opening line is “All Greece reviles,” and like the first stanza, the second stanza continues to describe Helen’s beauty. The two verbs in the opening lines of each of the first two stanzas are strongly negative towards Helen. It is obvious that through the eyes of the Greeks up to this point, Helen is definitely at fault and to blame for the countless Greek soldiers who have fought and died in Greece. Should the poem end after this point, one could make the claim that Doolittle was blaming Helen for the Trojan War and the deaths of the Greek soldiers. The meaning of the whiteness in the poem would also change should the poem end here, and Helen’s whiteness would not be representative of her purity but rather her coldness which would lead the Greek nation to war and death. However, the third stanza’s opening line contains a neutral verb, “Greece sees unmoved.” The verb sees is much less harsh than hate or reviles. This change in verb intensity represents the realization among the Greek people that Helen is indeed “white” and innocent; however, in the eyes of these Greeks, her innocence does not excuse her from the responsibility which she must claim by being the reason for the war. The only available option for Helen at this point is death, “could love indeed the maid, only if she were laid, white ash amid funereal cypresses.”
There are three stanzas in this poem, and each stanza includes a visual description of Helen. Each stanza repeats the color white to describe Helen’s flawless physical appearance; furthermore, Doolittle uses the color white to convey her belief that Helen should not be held responsible for the Trojan War.
There are varying views about whether or not Helen was really abducted or if she went with Prince Paris willingly to Troy; however, the footnote in the Heath Anthology suggests that Helen was kidnapped. In light of this translation, it is reasonable to assume that Helen did not go with Paris on her own accord; thus, we must assume that Doolittle wishes us to relieve Helen of the blame for the Trojan War or at least say that Helen did not intentionally cause the war. With this footnote in mind, we can further guess that Doolittle held the view that Helen was abducted which verifies Helen’s innocence.
Doolittle also uses variance in the strength of the verbs to convey the feelings of Greeks towards Helen and to also continue to reveal Helen’s innocence. The first stanza’s opening line is “All Greece hates.” The rest of the stanza describes Helen and her beauty. The second stanza’s opening line is “All Greece reviles,” and like the first stanza, the second stanza continues to describe Helen’s beauty. The two verbs in the opening lines of each of the first two stanzas are strongly negative towards Helen. It is obvious that through the eyes of the Greeks up to this point, Helen is definitely at fault and to blame for the countless Greek soldiers who have fought and died in Greece. Should the poem end after this point, one could make the claim that Doolittle was blaming Helen for the Trojan War and the deaths of the Greek soldiers. The meaning of the whiteness in the poem would also change should the poem end here, and Helen’s whiteness would not be representative of her purity but rather her coldness which would lead the Greek nation to war and death. However, the third stanza’s opening line contains a neutral verb, “Greece sees unmoved.” The verb sees is much less harsh than hate or reviles. This change in verb intensity represents the realization among the Greek people that Helen is indeed “white” and innocent; however, in the eyes of these Greeks, her innocence does not excuse her from the responsibility which she must claim by being the reason for the war. The only available option for Helen at this point is death, “could love indeed the maid, only if she were laid, white ash amid funereal cypresses.”
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
The Interaction between the young housewife and the narrator in "The Young Housewife."
In paragraph five of his literary criticism of William Carlos William’s “The Young Housewife,” Barry Ahearn makes the assertion that nothing happens between the narrator and the housewife: “Finally, the meeting of housewife and doctor is defused of sexual anxiety by the doctor’s slightly pompous and ridiculous final act: ‘I bow and pass smiling.’” In his criticism, Barry Ahearn correctly analyzes the sexual tension between the narrator and the housewife; however, Ahearn perceives that nothing happens between the narrator and the housewife, which is incorrect.
Throughout the entirety of the poem, Williams portrays a young housewife who is struggling behind the “wooden walls of her husband’s house “against the domination of her husband and social stigmatisms of that day. Unfortunately for her husband, the young housewife fights these gender stereotypes through negligence of her duties, “in negligee behind,” and adultery.
The fact that the young housewife comes “again” to call the ice-man and the fish-man, suggests that this is a common occurrence. This common occurrence would most likely not be a problem if the young housewife kept the boundaries between her and these possible adulterers; however, this does not seem to be the case. The fact that the young housewife comes to the curb at ten o’clock A.M. suggests that her husband is most likely at work, since many jobs are from eight A.M. to five P.M. The absence of her husband from this reoccurring scene dramatically increases the likelihood of an interaction between the young housewife and another man (the narrator in this case). In addition to the absence of her husband, the fact that the young housewife leaves the confines of the wooden walls and comes to the curb without her corset suggests that she is completely releasing the restraints of society and committing adultery without any self-control. This lack of restraint also increases the likelihood that something occurs between the narrator and the housewife.
When Williams uses figurative language, a metaphor specifically, to compare the housewife to a fallen leaf, the reader comprehends the young housewife to be one who has fallen away from society’s and her husband’s conventional standards. William’s confirms this decadence and the fact that an interaction indeed occurs between the narrator when the narrator’s “noiseless wheels…rush with a crackling sound over dried leaves.” Now, the housewife has not just fallen away from her husband and society, but she has completely denounced this conformity; thus, the fallen leaf becomes the dead dried leaf.
For all of these reasons, I disagree with Barry Ahearn’s assessment of the interaction between the narrator and the young housewife, because according to my close reading of the poem, something did occur between them.
Throughout the entirety of the poem, Williams portrays a young housewife who is struggling behind the “wooden walls of her husband’s house “against the domination of her husband and social stigmatisms of that day. Unfortunately for her husband, the young housewife fights these gender stereotypes through negligence of her duties, “in negligee behind,” and adultery.
The fact that the young housewife comes “again” to call the ice-man and the fish-man, suggests that this is a common occurrence. This common occurrence would most likely not be a problem if the young housewife kept the boundaries between her and these possible adulterers; however, this does not seem to be the case. The fact that the young housewife comes to the curb at ten o’clock A.M. suggests that her husband is most likely at work, since many jobs are from eight A.M. to five P.M. The absence of her husband from this reoccurring scene dramatically increases the likelihood of an interaction between the young housewife and another man (the narrator in this case). In addition to the absence of her husband, the fact that the young housewife leaves the confines of the wooden walls and comes to the curb without her corset suggests that she is completely releasing the restraints of society and committing adultery without any self-control. This lack of restraint also increases the likelihood that something occurs between the narrator and the housewife.
When Williams uses figurative language, a metaphor specifically, to compare the housewife to a fallen leaf, the reader comprehends the young housewife to be one who has fallen away from society’s and her husband’s conventional standards. William’s confirms this decadence and the fact that an interaction indeed occurs between the narrator when the narrator’s “noiseless wheels…rush with a crackling sound over dried leaves.” Now, the housewife has not just fallen away from her husband and society, but she has completely denounced this conformity; thus, the fallen leaf becomes the dead dried leaf.
For all of these reasons, I disagree with Barry Ahearn’s assessment of the interaction between the narrator and the young housewife, because according to my close reading of the poem, something did occur between them.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Chopin's view on Racism
In “Desiree’s Child,” Kate Chopin makes her views about racism well known through a metaphor and diction. Chopin first conveys her message about racism and Armand through diction when she uses the metaphor that “the very spirit of Satan seemed suddenly to take hold of him in his dealings with the slaves.” Chopin makes a loud and clear statement about the evilness of Armand and his racism by comparing him to Satan in a metaphor. Chopin conveys Armand and his racism as so terrible that he could be the devil himself.
Chopin also uses diction and word choice to convey her message about racism. On page 361, Desiree calls for Armand in a voice “which must have stabbed him, if he was human.” By questioning whether or not Armand is human, Chopin clearly states that she views racism as something that is far less than human almost bestial. Chopin uses diction to purport her disdainful view of racism once again when Armand is reading the letter from Valmonde, “in silence he ran his cold eyes over the written words.” By describing Armand’s eyes as cold, Chopin also portrays racism as cold and unfeeling. Chopin also uses the word white as a symbol for purity in order to portray the ridiculousness of Armand’s racism and views on blacks. Armand is so racist that when he finds out that he is descended from Negro blood, he says to Desiree, “‘the child is not white; it means that you are not white.’” Armand obviously knows that Desiree and his child are really white, but he says they are not white, because he is using the word white as a metaphor. Through Armand’s eyes white means pure, so through his point of view the child is not white, because the child has Negro blood. This definition also classifies Desiree as “not white” as well, because she has reproduced with someone with Negro descent; thus, making her impure as well. This definition of the word white confuses Desiree, and this confusion conveys Chopin’s view that racism is senseless and confusing; furthermore, the fact that Armand is said to have been in love with Desiree and then loses the love because of the fact that he is descended from a former slave, further purports the ridiculousness of racism.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Pa as a Symbol for Southerners, Ex-confederates, and Plantation Owners after the Emancipation Proclamation
In his novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain uses Huck’s father, Pa, to represent some southerner’s sentiments towards reconstruction after the civil war.
In chapter six of the novel, Pa purports southern sentiments when he rants about the government taking Huck away from him: “Call this a govment! Why, just look at it and see what it’s like. Here’s the law a-standing ready to take a man’s son away from him-a man’s own son, which he has had all the trouble and all the anxiety and all the expense of raising. Yes, just as that man has got that son raised at last, and ready to go to work and begin to do suthin’ for him and give him a rest, the law up and goes for him. And they call that govment! In this passage, Twain compares Pa to an angry slave master who has lost his slave (Huck) to emancipation. All the trouble and anxiety which Pa has had raising Huck, is much like the price that the plantation owner has paid for the services of the slave. Pa also represents the southern sentiment when he complains about Judge Thatcher taking his six thousand dollars and putting him up in a cabin. This is the same kind of argument which plantation owners made to the United States government. The southerners would have been void of their slaves, their source of free labor, and After the emancipation proclamation plantation owners probably felt like the government was leaving them high and dry, which is just like Pa without his son Huck. Twain conveys the southern attitude again when Pa complains about blacks voting during the Election Day. After the 15th amendment gave African-Americans the right to vote, there was a large amount of dissention towards the government from southerners and ex-confederates.
Viewing Pa as a symbol for southerners and ex-confederates also portrays Mark Twain’s attitude towards these ex-confederates. In the novel, Pa is an antagonistic character, the town drunk. Since Pa is a drunk who beats Huck, one could make the argument that Mark Twain did not think very highly of southerners and ex-slave owners.
In chapter six of the novel, Pa purports southern sentiments when he rants about the government taking Huck away from him: “Call this a govment! Why, just look at it and see what it’s like. Here’s the law a-standing ready to take a man’s son away from him-a man’s own son, which he has had all the trouble and all the anxiety and all the expense of raising. Yes, just as that man has got that son raised at last, and ready to go to work and begin to do suthin’ for him and give him a rest, the law up and goes for him. And they call that govment! In this passage, Twain compares Pa to an angry slave master who has lost his slave (Huck) to emancipation. All the trouble and anxiety which Pa has had raising Huck, is much like the price that the plantation owner has paid for the services of the slave. Pa also represents the southern sentiment when he complains about Judge Thatcher taking his six thousand dollars and putting him up in a cabin. This is the same kind of argument which plantation owners made to the United States government. The southerners would have been void of their slaves, their source of free labor, and After the emancipation proclamation plantation owners probably felt like the government was leaving them high and dry, which is just like Pa without his son Huck. Twain conveys the southern attitude again when Pa complains about blacks voting during the Election Day. After the 15th amendment gave African-Americans the right to vote, there was a large amount of dissention towards the government from southerners and ex-confederates.
Viewing Pa as a symbol for southerners and ex-confederates also portrays Mark Twain’s attitude towards these ex-confederates. In the novel, Pa is an antagonistic character, the town drunk. Since Pa is a drunk who beats Huck, one could make the argument that Mark Twain did not think very highly of southerners and ex-slave owners.
Pa as a Symbol for Southerners, Ex-confederates, and Plantation Owners after the Emancipation Proclamation
In his novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain uses Huck’s father, Pa, to represent some southerner’s sentiments towards reconstruction after the civil war.
In chapter six of the novel, Pa purports southern sentiments when he rants about the government taking Huck away from him: “Call this a govment! Why, just look at it and see what it’s like. Here’s the law a-standing ready to take a man’s son away from him-a man’s own son, which he has had all the trouble and all the anxiety and all the expense of raising. Yes, just as that man has got that son raised at last, and ready to go to work and begin to do suthin’ for him and give him a rest, the law up and goes for him. And they call that govment! In this passage, Twain compares Pa to an angry slave master who has lost his slave (Huck) to emancipation. All the trouble and anxiety which Pa has had raising Huck, is much like the price that the plantation owner has paid for the services of the slave. Pa also represents the southern sentiment when he complains about Judge Thatcher taking his six thousand dollars and putting him up in a cabin. This is the same kind of argument which plantation owners made to the United States government. The southerners would have been void of their slaves, their source of free labor, and After the emancipation proclamation plantation owners probably felt like the government was leaving them high and dry, which is just like Pa without his son Huck. Twain conveys the southern attitude again when Pa complains about blacks voting during the Election Day. After the 15th amendment gave African-Americans the right to vote, there was a large amount of dissention towards the government from southerners and ex-confederates.
Viewing Pa as a symbol for southerners and ex-confederates also portrays Mark Twain’s attitude towards these ex-confederates. In the novel, Pa is an antagonistic character, the town drunk. Since Pa is a drunk who beats Huck, one could make the argument that Mark Twain did not think very highly of southerners and ex-slave owners.
In chapter six of the novel, Pa purports southern sentiments when he rants about the government taking Huck away from him: “Call this a govment! Why, just look at it and see what it’s like. Here’s the law a-standing ready to take a man’s son away from him-a man’s own son, which he has had all the trouble and all the anxiety and all the expense of raising. Yes, just as that man has got that son raised at last, and ready to go to work and begin to do suthin’ for him and give him a rest, the law up and goes for him. And they call that govment! In this passage, Twain compares Pa to an angry slave master who has lost his slave (Huck) to emancipation. All the trouble and anxiety which Pa has had raising Huck, is much like the price that the plantation owner has paid for the services of the slave. Pa also represents the southern sentiment when he complains about Judge Thatcher taking his six thousand dollars and putting him up in a cabin. This is the same kind of argument which plantation owners made to the United States government. The southerners would have been void of their slaves, their source of free labor, and After the emancipation proclamation plantation owners probably felt like the government was leaving them high and dry, which is just like Pa without his son Huck. Twain conveys the southern attitude again when Pa complains about blacks voting during the Election Day. After the 15th amendment gave African-Americans the right to vote, there was a large amount of dissention towards the government from southerners and ex-confederates.
Viewing Pa as a symbol for southerners and ex-confederates also portrays Mark Twain’s attitude towards these ex-confederates. In the novel, Pa is an antagonistic character, the town drunk. Since Pa is a drunk who beats Huck, one could make the argument that Mark Twain did not think very highly of southerners and ex-slave owners.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Dickinson's extended metaphor
“Revolution is the Pod” contains an extended metaphor represented directly by the title. Dickinson uses the image of a blooming flower/plant to represent the revolution of the Civil War. In the poem, the flower represents the revolution, the color of the flower represents the inspiration of the revolution, and the Winds of Will represents the initiation of the revolution. Dickinson represents the revolutionary south as enclosed inside the flower pod before the Civil War began, in bloom when the Civil War occurred, and dead and colorless after the Civil War ended.
In this poem, Dickinson uses color as a symbol of the drive behind the Confederacy. Through the emphasis she places on the color of the flower, Dickinson conveys the message that because of a lack of drive and passion (the presence of color in the flower), the revolution (flower) has died: “But except it’s Russet Base/ Every Summer be/ The Entomber of itself,/ So of Liberty.” In this stanza, the blooming of the flower is both its rise and demise, because eventually the color goes away; Dickinson uses this image of the flower blooming with color and dying colorless to convey the message that the Confederate revolution was destined to end eventually, because the confederacy’s passion was destined to die. In light of this analogy, it is prudent to suggest that the Union symbolizes time in this metaphor, because the flower died when the summer ended or when its time was up. Dickinson uses this metaphor to express her sentiments that she never believed the confederation had a chance even in the beginning, because time was eventually going to cause it to die.
The last stanza shows the confederacy as an inactive flower on the stalk. Dickinson uses color to represent the confederacy as dead and without hope: “All it’s Purple fled.” It is interesting that Dickinson uses purple as the absent color in the dead flower, because purple is traditionally known as a royal color, which conveys the message that any kind of foothold the Confederates had gained is now stripped away.
In this poem, Dickinson uses color as a symbol of the drive behind the Confederacy. Through the emphasis she places on the color of the flower, Dickinson conveys the message that because of a lack of drive and passion (the presence of color in the flower), the revolution (flower) has died: “But except it’s Russet Base/ Every Summer be/ The Entomber of itself,/ So of Liberty.” In this stanza, the blooming of the flower is both its rise and demise, because eventually the color goes away; Dickinson uses this image of the flower blooming with color and dying colorless to convey the message that the Confederate revolution was destined to end eventually, because the confederacy’s passion was destined to die. In light of this analogy, it is prudent to suggest that the Union symbolizes time in this metaphor, because the flower died when the summer ended or when its time was up. Dickinson uses this metaphor to express her sentiments that she never believed the confederation had a chance even in the beginning, because time was eventually going to cause it to die.
The last stanza shows the confederacy as an inactive flower on the stalk. Dickinson uses color to represent the confederacy as dead and without hope: “All it’s Purple fled.” It is interesting that Dickinson uses purple as the absent color in the dead flower, because purple is traditionally known as a royal color, which conveys the message that any kind of foothold the Confederates had gained is now stripped away.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Comments on Anne's Blog
Sorry I didn't post this on your blog, Anne, I had trouble accessing your site.
From Anne's Blog:
"Whitman’s perspective in “Beat! Beat! Drums!” speaks to everyone in the nation and does not use illusions to describe the influence the war has on the union. In Timrod’s “The Cotton Boll,” the cotton ball is linked to the earth (from which it came) and a bird pulls the narrator up into the sky to view the confederacy. This view is difficult for the reader to understand since it challenges normal perception of the world. It is more easily understood by the reader in Whitman’s poem that the sound the drums beat at the heart of everyone in the nation, including the dead. “Make even the trestles to shake the dead where they lie awaiting the hearses.” "
From Anne's Blog:
"Whitman’s perspective in “Beat! Beat! Drums!” speaks to everyone in the nation and does not use illusions to describe the influence the war has on the union. In Timrod’s “The Cotton Boll,” the cotton ball is linked to the earth (from which it came) and a bird pulls the narrator up into the sky to view the confederacy. This view is difficult for the reader to understand since it challenges normal perception of the world. It is more easily understood by the reader in Whitman’s poem that the sound the drums beat at the heart of everyone in the nation, including the dead. “Make even the trestles to shake the dead where they lie awaiting the hearses.” "
Although I originally interpreted Whitman’s view of war as menacing and interrupting to peace of the nation’s people, I can also see the side of the argument which places Whitman more on the supportive side of the war. When Whitman contrasts the beating of the drums and the blowing of the horns with the images of the peace and progress of everyday life, his attitude could also be suggesting that this is a time for war instead of peace. Through Anne’s reading that the drums beat at every heart of the nation I can concede to a Whitman who is supportive of this war: A Whitman who realizes that the time for war is now.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Whitman's View of the War
Walt Whitman displays his disdain for the civil war in his poem “BEAT! BEAT! DRUMS!,” through his acerbic tone. Whitman establishes this tone through the repeated reference to the drums and the bugles: “Beat! beat! drums—blow! bugles! blow!” This reference is followed by images of interrupted peace and progression in each paragraph. By using this pattern, Whitman establishes his sarcastic/irritated tone. Whitman begins by sarcastically enticing the sound of the drums and the bugles, which represents the civil war, to come “through the windows—through doors—burst like a ruthless force, “and then he conveys his disdain for the war through the images of the solemn church, the scholar who is studying, the bridegroom who is not able to enjoy his bride, and the farmer who cannot plow his field. By including these images directly after mentioning the drums and the horns, Whitman points out how much turmoil the war actually causes. Whitman proceeds to bring the drums and bugles back up at the end of each stanza, conceding to the inevitability of the war: “So fierce your whirr and pound your drums—so shrill you bugles blow.” Whitman’s acceptance of the war punctuates Whitman’s sarcastic tone with a hint of helplessness, which shows the inevitability of the war.
Whitman’s diction throughout the poem also contributes to his disdain towards war. Whitman uses such tangible diction to conceptualize war as loud and abnoxious. The words beat and blow presents a tangible sound which conveys the annoying disturbance these instruments actually cause. By using the drums and the horn to be a metaphor for the war, Whitman properly conveys his belief that the war is loud and obnoxious, much like the drums and the horns. Whitman also uses emotionally-wrenching diction to contrast the disturbance of war to convey his contemptuous tone. For example, Whitman uses the solemn church, the peaceful farmer, the timid, the weeper, or prayer in order to present the good things which are forced to a halt during times of war.
Civil War Historian Mark Neely is somewhat correct when he says that Walt Whitman does not portray the Emancipation Proclamation in his poem. Neely is not totally correct, because although he does not directly represent the Emancipation, Whitman does vicariously convey his feelings towards the emancipation in his poem, “BEAT! BEAT! DRUM!” In the poem, Whitman does not directly make any reference to slavery or even the Union for that matter. Instead, by focusing on the disturbance and uproar the war causes, Whitman trivializes the causes of the civil war. In the Poem, whether consciously or unconsciously, Whitman conveys feelings about the emancipation indirectly when he says, “Nor the peaceful farmer any peace, ploughing his field or gathering his grain.” This quote is critical to deciding whether or not Whitman portrays any sort of feelings towards the Emancipation Proclamation, because he does not mention anything about a slave when he talks about the farmer gathering his grain. Traditionally, slaves would most likely gather the grain for their master. Whether Whitman excluded any information about a slave intentionally or unintentionally, this quote still conveys the message that the Emancipation Proclamation is not the largest issue, especially in the midst of the entire disturbance of the war.
Whitman differs from Timrod in his overall stance towards the civil war, because Whitman finds the war distracting and annoying, while Timrod is patriotic and hopeful of a Confederacy victory. Timrod ends “The Cotton Boll” with the belief that the confederacy will grant the Union mercy when the beat them in battle, “mercy; and we shall grant it, and dictate the lenient future of his fate.”
Whitman’s poem is really an extension of George Moses Horton’s poem “The Spectator of the Battle of Belmont.” The spectators of the Battle of Belmont realize the horror of the civil war and they learn that there is not anything romantic about it: “Betray’d by the vestige of blood in their gore.” Whitman is almost like one of the spectators of the Battle of Belmont who has been enlightened to the idea that this war is a atrocious thing and has further analyzed what he has seen. Through his diction, metaphors, imagery, and stanza structure, Whitman portrays the message that the war is not about the Union or emancipation, but about how terrible it is for the people of America in general.
Whitman’s diction throughout the poem also contributes to his disdain towards war. Whitman uses such tangible diction to conceptualize war as loud and abnoxious. The words beat and blow presents a tangible sound which conveys the annoying disturbance these instruments actually cause. By using the drums and the horn to be a metaphor for the war, Whitman properly conveys his belief that the war is loud and obnoxious, much like the drums and the horns. Whitman also uses emotionally-wrenching diction to contrast the disturbance of war to convey his contemptuous tone. For example, Whitman uses the solemn church, the peaceful farmer, the timid, the weeper, or prayer in order to present the good things which are forced to a halt during times of war.
Civil War Historian Mark Neely is somewhat correct when he says that Walt Whitman does not portray the Emancipation Proclamation in his poem. Neely is not totally correct, because although he does not directly represent the Emancipation, Whitman does vicariously convey his feelings towards the emancipation in his poem, “BEAT! BEAT! DRUM!” In the poem, Whitman does not directly make any reference to slavery or even the Union for that matter. Instead, by focusing on the disturbance and uproar the war causes, Whitman trivializes the causes of the civil war. In the Poem, whether consciously or unconsciously, Whitman conveys feelings about the emancipation indirectly when he says, “Nor the peaceful farmer any peace, ploughing his field or gathering his grain.” This quote is critical to deciding whether or not Whitman portrays any sort of feelings towards the Emancipation Proclamation, because he does not mention anything about a slave when he talks about the farmer gathering his grain. Traditionally, slaves would most likely gather the grain for their master. Whether Whitman excluded any information about a slave intentionally or unintentionally, this quote still conveys the message that the Emancipation Proclamation is not the largest issue, especially in the midst of the entire disturbance of the war.
Whitman differs from Timrod in his overall stance towards the civil war, because Whitman finds the war distracting and annoying, while Timrod is patriotic and hopeful of a Confederacy victory. Timrod ends “The Cotton Boll” with the belief that the confederacy will grant the Union mercy when the beat them in battle, “mercy; and we shall grant it, and dictate the lenient future of his fate.”
Whitman’s poem is really an extension of George Moses Horton’s poem “The Spectator of the Battle of Belmont.” The spectators of the Battle of Belmont realize the horror of the civil war and they learn that there is not anything romantic about it: “Betray’d by the vestige of blood in their gore.” Whitman is almost like one of the spectators of the Battle of Belmont who has been enlightened to the idea that this war is a atrocious thing and has further analyzed what he has seen. Through his diction, metaphors, imagery, and stanza structure, Whitman portrays the message that the war is not about the Union or emancipation, but about how terrible it is for the people of America in general.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Melville's Message
Melville uses Captain Amasa Delano to portray antebellum societies’ underestimation of African-American slaves. In "Benito Cereno," Captain Delano believes that Captain Don Benito has conspired to murder him, when in actuality; the slaves have overthrown Spanish control of the boat. The evidence for this overthrow is overwhelming. For example, Delano notices as he doles out water that there is no distinction between the amount and elderly white man receives and the amount a young black boy receives. This equality should spark some kind of curiosity about why there is a lack of propriety between the whites and the slaves. Another peculiarity which should spark Delano’s curiosity is the slaves who sharpen axes continuously without restraint. This extensive trust that Captain Benito has put in the slaves should suggest that Captain Benito may not be in control. In the midst of this evidence, Delano fails to realize what is really happening on the ship, because he wouldn’t ever expect the Negroes to be able to accomplish such a feat. Thus, Melville uses Delano to express the possible problems associated with the antebellum societies’ nonchalant attitude towards Negroes. Nevertheless, Melville does not point his finger at Delano for failing to recognize the situation, but he uses this to exalt the chief antagonist of the story, Babo. Babo essentially holds the façade together by acting as a dedicated servant in order to monitor Don Benito’s interaction with Delano. Babo gives such as stellar performance as a dedicated slave, that Delano even jokingly suggests that he would like to buy Babo from Benito. The court hearing elaborates further on Babo and his intelligent action as the chief mutineer. For example, when the ship approaches the harbor which they expected to be empty but holds Delano’s boat as well, Babo is quick to cover the skeleton on deck with a sheet and disguise it as a repair and fabricate the story about how they have reached their current situation. Babo is also responsible for keeping their façade under cover for so long. For example, Babo coincidently cuts Don Benito right when Captain Delano is inquiring about the amount of time it took for them to get to the harbor; which would have revealed the mutiny. Essentially, Melville uses Babo as a symbol for potential African-American leadership and intelligence, because in the story, Babo outsmarts two white captains who are both unable to do anything about the situation due to Babo’s intervention. Through Babo, Melville suggests that the antebellum society would do well not to underestimate African-Americans.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The Raven
In the Raven, Poe conveys the darker themes of life such as unremitting pain and despair, through the narrator’s inquiry with the Raven. In lines 80 through 84, the narrator asks the raven if it’s been sent to relieve his soul from the loss of his Lenore. The narrator says, “Swung by Seraphim,” which suggests that he is hoping that God is divinely relieving him of his grief and agony. When the narrator calls the bird nepenthe which is defined as “a legendary drink supposed to soothe the bereaved,” in the footnote, he is again hoping for divine intervention. In lines 85 through 92, the narrator’s desperation increases. He no longer cares whether the bird is a gift from God or only a devil, but only that the bird is a prophet and can give him the answers which he needs in regard to his agony for his lost Lenore: “‘Prophet!’ said I, ‘thing of evil! prophet still, if bird or devil!” The narrator asks the bird if there is a future for him, anything beyond his current state of sorrow, “Is there-is there balm in Gilead?” This inquiry suggests that the narrator is beyond the point of simply turning to God; he is turning to anything in order to find solace from his suffering. Finally, the narrator requests the bird to “Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,/ It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels name Lenore-/ Clasp a rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore.” The Raven replies, “‘Nevermore.’” This is the final interrogative exchange between the narrator and the bird, and Poe uses the word “Nevermore,” to suggest that the narrator’s agony will never be lifted by God or any mortal thing. Poe also purports his theme of unremitting sorrow through the action of Raven throughout the Poem. When the narrator demands the Raven to leave, “‘Get thee back into the tempest and the Night’s Plutonian shore,’” the raven is “never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting/On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door.” In this case, the Raven could be a symbol for the narrator’s pain and the raven’s unwillingness to leave the narrator’s house could suggest that the pain will never go away.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Rousing the Colonial People
The Heath Anthology of American Literature states that Mercy Otis Warren wrote The Group as “a brilliant defense of the patriot cause.” It is also revealed in the biographical note that some Tory supporters brutally beat her brother James in a Boston tavern, and afterwards, John Adams suggested that Mercy Otis Warren take the initiative to take his place amongst the patriots. From this information, Mercy Otis Warren must have held some serious anger and resentment towards the Tories and from the basic message of the play, it seems that she did. The a line in the poem which Warren used as a prologue for The Group demonstates this bitterness and determination which Warren contains: “Unplaced unpensioned, no man’s her or slave?/I will or perish in this generous cause.”
Warren attempts to rile the colonists through the connection she makes between the British and evil by means of the character Hateall. In the play, Warren names one of the Tory leaders Hateall and uses him to convey Britain’s malevolence. Warren shows Hateall’s wickedness by comparing him to Nero on page four, “I, Nero like, the capital in flames.” Through this figurative language, Warren demonstrates the evil/underhandedness of the Tories on American soil. By comparing himself to Nero, Hateall shows that he would use destruction in order to gain a profit off his own land. Warren would use the comparison in order to show the colonists exactly how corrupt the Tories are, which in turn would most likely stir the audience. Hateall also describes these people which sign this pact as his minions, which is a term that is sometimes associated with demons. Warren further elaborates on the loyalist evil when Hateall takes joy in gluttony and vengeance , two sins of the flesh. A statement which Hateall makes regarding the Patriots also shows a similarity to Satan, “had I power, as I have will/I’d send them murmuring to the shades of hell.” This line is relevant to Satan, because Satan also has the will to send people to Hell, but it is ultimately up to God to decide the fate of mankind. Obviously, the relationship of Hateall, who represents the Tories, and Satan, the evil villain of the Bible, would stir the colonists into taking action against the Tories. Ultimately, Warren uses the character Hateall and his terrible attitude to convey the ruthless, corrupt spirits of the Tories and stir the colonists to battle.
Warren attempts to rile the colonists through the connection she makes between the British and evil by means of the character Hateall. In the play, Warren names one of the Tory leaders Hateall and uses him to convey Britain’s malevolence. Warren shows Hateall’s wickedness by comparing him to Nero on page four, “I, Nero like, the capital in flames.” Through this figurative language, Warren demonstrates the evil/underhandedness of the Tories on American soil. By comparing himself to Nero, Hateall shows that he would use destruction in order to gain a profit off his own land. Warren would use the comparison in order to show the colonists exactly how corrupt the Tories are, which in turn would most likely stir the audience. Hateall also describes these people which sign this pact as his minions, which is a term that is sometimes associated with demons. Warren further elaborates on the loyalist evil when Hateall takes joy in gluttony and vengeance , two sins of the flesh. A statement which Hateall makes regarding the Patriots also shows a similarity to Satan, “had I power, as I have will/I’d send them murmuring to the shades of hell.” This line is relevant to Satan, because Satan also has the will to send people to Hell, but it is ultimately up to God to decide the fate of mankind. Obviously, the relationship of Hateall, who represents the Tories, and Satan, the evil villain of the Bible, would stir the colonists into taking action against the Tories. Ultimately, Warren uses the character Hateall and his terrible attitude to convey the ruthless, corrupt spirits of the Tories and stir the colonists to battle.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Franklin's Long Setence Structure: Vanity or not?
Benjamin Franklin’s writing style is long and uninterrupted. On the fifth page of his autobiography, Franklin says, “Having emerged from the poverty and obscurity in which I was born and bred, to a state of affluence and some degree of reputation in the world, and having gone so far through life with a considerable share of felicity, the conducing means I made use of, which with the blessing of God so well succeeded, my posterity may like to know, as they may find some of them suitable to their own situations, and therefore fit to be imitated.” As this is only one sentence, Franklin attempts to prove the advancements he has made through society, by using long sentence structure. Franklin also shows his intellectual prowess by using large vocabulary words such as conducing, felicity, and posterity. While Franklin appears to be vain by using firstly writing an autobiography about himself, using big words, and using long sentence structure, he references several prominent persons of his day such as: Cotton Mather and John Locke. Each of these authors use what can appear to be convoluted writing as well, so it is most likely that his writing style is the style of that day. Another instance that proves that Franklin is not vain is his elaboration on the gifts that God has given him: “My belief of this induces me to hope, though I must no presume, that the same goodness will still be exercised toward me, in continuing that happiness, or enabling me to bear a fatal reverse, which I may experience as others have done: the complexion of my future fortune being known to Him only in whose power it is to bless to us even our afflictions.” Not only does this sentence show that Franklin respects God for giving him the gifts he has received, but the long sentence structure makes it appear like he is actually praying to God, not to let him lose the things which he has gained. He is trying to include every possible thing that God could do to take away his blessing, and by doing this, Franklin shows his true belief that God could take away everything he has, which shows that he thinks God really did give those things to him. Franklin also uses this long sentence structure when he is describing other persons, which may mean that he actually is elaborate about other people, not wanting to cut them short of their deserved attention. For example, Franklin references Mather’s observations of his grandfather Peter Folger, giving him all the credit which he deserves: “Without offense your real friend/ It is Peter Folgier.” Another example of this thoroughness in describing others occurs on page twelve where he describes his father: “In the latter, indeed, he was never employed…between contending parties.” Therefore, Franklin’s long sentence structure and large vocabulary is nothing other than his attempt to give people proper justice and the writing style of the Revolutionary period.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Ambiguity in William Byrd's Two Texts
William Byrd wrote the “History of the Dividing Line” for some Virginians who wanted him to survey the people and the land in North Carolina. “The Secret History” is more of a personal journal that is compromised of William and his comrades’ sexual escapades among the North Carolinian women written mainly for his intimate friends. As these two texts are juxtaposed in our reading, it is easy to see the duplicity of William Byrd. For instance, in paragraph 17, Byrd elaborates on a particular provinces’ apathy towards God and religion, “They do not know Sunday from any other day.” Byrd’s religious observation is contradicted by his own playful innuendos, “She asked me very pertly who was to keep an account of the evil? I told her she should be my secretary for that if she would go along with me.” As the latter example comes from “The Secret History,” and the former example comes from
“The History of the Dividing Line” one begins to think that Byrd is wearing a façade for the Virginian people, when in actuality his sexual interests make him as unworthy as the North Carolinians without religion. Byrd’s ambiguous lifestyle becomes more complex with his regard for the Indian women as dark angels. This oxymoron can be looked at in two different lights. Firstly, the fact that he calls the dark angels means that this could refer to evil or demonic influence. This interpretation of the connotation would coincide correctly with a consensus view on Indians in the colony at that time. This connotation would also please the Virginians for whom Byrd was writing the “History of the Dividing Line.” On the other hand, the oxymoron could also mean that these women are angels with a dark complexion, but still rather pleasing to the eye. This meaning of the connotation would fit nicely with “The Secret History” and Byrd’s sexual exploits. The ambiguity of this oxymoron parallels the ambiguity of Byrd’s two texts. The subject matter of this oxymoron, dark Indian women, reflects the source of the ambiguity of Byrd’s character, which is sexual pleasure.
In Thomas Jefferson’s query “Aborigines,” he reflects a superior attitude towards the Natives through his diction. Jefferson calls the Pamunkies tolerably pure because they have intermarried with people of a lighter skin tone. However, Jefferson shows concern for the disintegration of the Native’s identity. He recognizes that the Colonials had failed to learn anything about the Native’s or their language. He says, “It is to be lamented then, very much to be lamented, that we have suffered so many of the Indian tribes already to extinguish, without our having previously collected and deposited in the records of literature, the general rudiments at least of the languages they spoke.
“The History of the Dividing Line” one begins to think that Byrd is wearing a façade for the Virginian people, when in actuality his sexual interests make him as unworthy as the North Carolinians without religion. Byrd’s ambiguous lifestyle becomes more complex with his regard for the Indian women as dark angels. This oxymoron can be looked at in two different lights. Firstly, the fact that he calls the dark angels means that this could refer to evil or demonic influence. This interpretation of the connotation would coincide correctly with a consensus view on Indians in the colony at that time. This connotation would also please the Virginians for whom Byrd was writing the “History of the Dividing Line.” On the other hand, the oxymoron could also mean that these women are angels with a dark complexion, but still rather pleasing to the eye. This meaning of the connotation would fit nicely with “The Secret History” and Byrd’s sexual exploits. The ambiguity of this oxymoron parallels the ambiguity of Byrd’s two texts. The subject matter of this oxymoron, dark Indian women, reflects the source of the ambiguity of Byrd’s character, which is sexual pleasure.
In Thomas Jefferson’s query “Aborigines,” he reflects a superior attitude towards the Natives through his diction. Jefferson calls the Pamunkies tolerably pure because they have intermarried with people of a lighter skin tone. However, Jefferson shows concern for the disintegration of the Native’s identity. He recognizes that the Colonials had failed to learn anything about the Native’s or their language. He says, “It is to be lamented then, very much to be lamented, that we have suffered so many of the Indian tribes already to extinguish, without our having previously collected and deposited in the records of literature, the general rudiments at least of the languages they spoke.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
"A Divine and Supernatural Light, Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the Spirit of God"
This sermon by Jonathan Edwards stresses the fact that a human being must be given this “Divine and Supernatural Light,” directly from God. Jonathan Edwards emphasizes this divinely inspired knowledge by using biblical references. For example, Edwards cites the Apostle Peter’s declaration of Jesus Christ’s sanctity as God’s son and Jesus’ response to this declaration. Edwards puts particular emphasis on Jesus’ dialogue towards Peter, “This is such knowledge as only my Father which is in heaven can give: it is too high and excellent to be communicated by such means as other knowledge is. Thou art blessed, that thou knowest that which God alone can teach thee.” Edwards uses these italics in these verses in order to indicate that God alone is responsible for this divine knowledge.
Edwards also shows the importance of God in inspiring great knowledge when he says, “ Yea, the least glimpse of the glory of God in the face of Christ doth more exalt and ennoble the soul, than all the knowledge of those that have the greatest speculative understanding in divinity without grace.” Edwards reinforces this viewpoint once again by discussing the “great men” such as the Scribes, Pharisees, and Rulers. These are the gentlemen with the most knowledge about religion in general, but they are unable to understand this divine and supernatural light. Edwards suggests that they are to caught up in their own righteousness to understand that all good things come from the Son of God. When Edwards references Matthew 11:25-27, he continues to stress the fact that only through God can one reach true enlightenment, because his truth is hidden from the wise and prudent, but revealed to babes.
Overall, Jonathan Edwards conveys the message through this sermon that God is responsible for everything that is accomplished in life. In this sense Edwards portrays God as a deity who leaves no room for arrogance or pride. Edwards constantly states that divine enlightenment comes from the savior only. In a lot of ways this sermon reflects some of the important themes in Cotton Mather’s book The Christian Philosopher. Each essay states that God is ultimately in power, and everything we achieve is through him alone. Each essay also states the unimportance of the individual in comparison to God, because God essentially gives us all our talents and abilities. Each work of literature also contains metaphors to darkness and the light. Although each essay speaks of humbleness, Edwards seems to be the only one to follow through with this plan. While Cotton Mather constantly praises God throughout his book, one gets the feeling that Mather is writing to impress rather than glorify God. Mather’s use of syntax, vocabulary, and sentence structure makes one wonder whether or not the early American-Puritans found Mather as a righteous or a self-righteous man. In sharp contrast of Mather’s bombastic writing style, Edwards has a solid, straight-to-the-point style. Edwards tells his congregation what they need to hear, without elaborating on his own genius by using complicated writing. In this sense one may feel that Edwards is actually adhering to the humbleness which he preaches of a lot closer than Cotton Mather ever did. To be fair to Cotton Mather, one should keep in mind that Jonathan Edwards came about a century after him. Also, Edward’s sermon is not an book and perhaps he would be more verbose if he took the time to write a large peace of literature.
Monday, January 15, 2007
About Me
Hey class,
My name is David Hetrick, and I'm a freshman. My hometown is Mt. Airy, North Carolina which is about 30 miles northwest of Winston Salem, NC. I am undecided about a major thus far; however, I think I would like to major in either sociology or exercise sports science. I like to play and compose music, so I would like to minor in music or take a few classes at least. I love to play the electric guitar, and I would love to make some professional music some day. I love watching movies; my favorite movies are Legends of the Fall, Meet Joe Black, A River Runs through It, The Devil's Own, and Braveheart. If you are familar with any of these movies, you probably noticed that I like movies with Brad Pitt. This is a correct assumption, as Brad Pitt is my favorite actor. I enjoy long distance running and physical activity; this year I am training for a marathon. I like to read novels in my spare time. My favorite books are The Count of Monte Cristo, East of Eden, A Prayer for Owen Meany, Harry Potter, and Dracula. I am taking this American Literature class as an required perspective, but I am still looking forward to learning more American Literature. I am excited about this class, and I hope I get to meet many of you during this semester as we learn together.
Sincerely,
David Hetrick
My name is David Hetrick, and I'm a freshman. My hometown is Mt. Airy, North Carolina which is about 30 miles northwest of Winston Salem, NC. I am undecided about a major thus far; however, I think I would like to major in either sociology or exercise sports science. I like to play and compose music, so I would like to minor in music or take a few classes at least. I love to play the electric guitar, and I would love to make some professional music some day. I love watching movies; my favorite movies are Legends of the Fall, Meet Joe Black, A River Runs through It, The Devil's Own, and Braveheart. If you are familar with any of these movies, you probably noticed that I like movies with Brad Pitt. This is a correct assumption, as Brad Pitt is my favorite actor. I enjoy long distance running and physical activity; this year I am training for a marathon. I like to read novels in my spare time. My favorite books are The Count of Monte Cristo, East of Eden, A Prayer for Owen Meany, Harry Potter, and Dracula. I am taking this American Literature class as an required perspective, but I am still looking forward to learning more American Literature. I am excited about this class, and I hope I get to meet many of you during this semester as we learn together.
Sincerely,
David Hetrick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)