QUOTE:
“Now a cold bare pole I seemed to be, planted in a strange earth” (Sa 1124).
SUMMARY:
After Zitkala Sa decides to go to an Indian school, she feels like an uprooted tree, stripped of its bark and alone.
RESPONSE:
When Zitkala Sa describes herself as a “cold bare pole,” I immediately think of the telephone poles that catch her attention on her trip to “Red Apple Country” with the missionaries. However, instead of taking her mind off of her decision to go east and possibly reminding her of home, I think her sort of “becoming” one of those poles is more of a reminder of how the “Christian palefaces” stripped her and her people of their culture, and basically their lives. She describes the telephone poles as “planted by white men” (Sa 1114), and her shameful appearance is the result of the palefaces cutting her hair, and forcing her to “grow” into their idea of a more civilized person.
The image of a stripped tree trunk or pole translates as Zitkala Sa feeling very vulnerable to me, which is exactly the feeling I understood the Native American man (in the “youtube” video we watched in class) to be expressing. What’s amazing about Zitkala Sa’s writing, is that she conveys the same feeling of great shame that anyone who watches that video will also feel from the Native American man. What I think is the most shocking from seeing this connection, is that the Native American man obviously isn’t very old, especially since he has a video on “youtube.” I think it’s difficult for most people to think of the issues brought up in Zitkala Sa’s writing as still affecting people who are alive today, but her writing is powerful enough convey everything that video conveys.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
Journal #35 Henry James: What's The Point?!
QUOTE:
“’I never was sick, and I don’t mean to be!’ the Signorina declared. ‘I don’t look like much, but I’m healthy! I was bound to see the Colosseum by moonlight; I shouldn’t have wanted to go home without that; and we have had the most beautiful time…If there has been any danger, Eugenio can give me some pills” (James 427).
SUMMARY:
Daisy has the age-old idea that many young people will ruin their lives believing: that she is invincible. She would rather take a huge risk to do something she thinks will be “cool,” than listen to anyone who may seem dull.
RESPONSE:
If Daisy was in control of everything she was doing, then she must have really wanted to be remembered for the tragic story of her short life. It actually makes sense for her to have wanted everyone to feel completely despondent over her short life because she confesses to her “true love” for Winterbourne, and she asks her mother to make sure that she lets him know. This seems like a pretty lame plan, because the “joke’s on her.” At the end of the story, Winterbourne is back to his old life of “studying” and having a “sugar-momma,” and Mr. Giovanelli obviously never cared too much about Daisy’s safety or life when he took her all around to such dangerous places.
Since I had already stopped caring about what was going to happen to any of the characters in James’ story, I wasn’t moved by the ending very much at all. If anything, I felt bad for Mrs. Miller more than anyone, since she loses her daughter, but maybe she can finally take Randolph home and spend more time worrying about his health (such as his teeth).
I guess I still was entertained by this story though, because I easily read it, and I really did enjoy it. Maybe I got so into it, I was more disappointed with James’ characters ruining their lives (as it seems), than really not caring about their fate. At least it was fun discussing what the real point of this story could be in class.
“’I never was sick, and I don’t mean to be!’ the Signorina declared. ‘I don’t look like much, but I’m healthy! I was bound to see the Colosseum by moonlight; I shouldn’t have wanted to go home without that; and we have had the most beautiful time…If there has been any danger, Eugenio can give me some pills” (James 427).
SUMMARY:
Daisy has the age-old idea that many young people will ruin their lives believing: that she is invincible. She would rather take a huge risk to do something she thinks will be “cool,” than listen to anyone who may seem dull.
RESPONSE:
If Daisy was in control of everything she was doing, then she must have really wanted to be remembered for the tragic story of her short life. It actually makes sense for her to have wanted everyone to feel completely despondent over her short life because she confesses to her “true love” for Winterbourne, and she asks her mother to make sure that she lets him know. This seems like a pretty lame plan, because the “joke’s on her.” At the end of the story, Winterbourne is back to his old life of “studying” and having a “sugar-momma,” and Mr. Giovanelli obviously never cared too much about Daisy’s safety or life when he took her all around to such dangerous places.
Since I had already stopped caring about what was going to happen to any of the characters in James’ story, I wasn’t moved by the ending very much at all. If anything, I felt bad for Mrs. Miller more than anyone, since she loses her daughter, but maybe she can finally take Randolph home and spend more time worrying about his health (such as his teeth).
I guess I still was entertained by this story though, because I easily read it, and I really did enjoy it. Maybe I got so into it, I was more disappointed with James’ characters ruining their lives (as it seems), than really not caring about their fate. At least it was fun discussing what the real point of this story could be in class.
Journal #34 Henry James: Annoying Characters!
QUOTE:
“Daisy gave a violent laugh. ‘I never heard anything so stiff! If this is improper, Mrs. Walker,” she pursued, “then I am all improper, and you must give me up. Good-bye” (James 416).
SUMMARY:
Winterbourne and Mrs. Walker both try to advise Daisy to get into Mrs. Walker’s carriage instead of walking around town with Mr. Giovanelli.
RESPONSE:
When I read this section, all I could think about was how Mrs. Walker and Winterbourne “lose” Daisy by giving her advice that she never really asks for. I couldn’t decide if Daisy was in control and “playing” Winterbourne, or if she was just a stupid girl; however this behavior of hers makes her seem like a “wannabe” rebel. Maybe Daisy was trying to take a stand against having to do everything the “proper” way, so she makes bad decisions just to prove her point. Not to say that refusing to get in Mrs. Walker’s carriage just to save face is necessarily a bad decision, but in Daisy’s situation of being in a foreign country, I think she would have been much better off listening to her acquaintances.
The choices Daisy makes may be “sticking it” to all of the “stiff” social types, but she really is walking a dangerous path. Mr. Giovanelli may actually be a good friend to her, but that doesn’t change the fact that she doesn’t really know him. If Daisy really feels like making a statement about societal issues, it probably isn’t the best plan to make them so far away from her own country. Not only is there a potentially fatal disease to be worried about, any number of things could happen to Daisy if she puts too much trust in strangers.
Even the trust Daisy puts in Winterbourne isn’t very wise. She doesn’t even know him, and even the readers don’t exactly know him. James doesn’t give full details about what Winterbourne is really like; only that he doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to finish “school,” and that he may have some type of “sugar-momma.” At this point in the reading, I stopped caring about what was going to happen.
“Daisy gave a violent laugh. ‘I never heard anything so stiff! If this is improper, Mrs. Walker,” she pursued, “then I am all improper, and you must give me up. Good-bye” (James 416).
SUMMARY:
Winterbourne and Mrs. Walker both try to advise Daisy to get into Mrs. Walker’s carriage instead of walking around town with Mr. Giovanelli.
RESPONSE:
When I read this section, all I could think about was how Mrs. Walker and Winterbourne “lose” Daisy by giving her advice that she never really asks for. I couldn’t decide if Daisy was in control and “playing” Winterbourne, or if she was just a stupid girl; however this behavior of hers makes her seem like a “wannabe” rebel. Maybe Daisy was trying to take a stand against having to do everything the “proper” way, so she makes bad decisions just to prove her point. Not to say that refusing to get in Mrs. Walker’s carriage just to save face is necessarily a bad decision, but in Daisy’s situation of being in a foreign country, I think she would have been much better off listening to her acquaintances.
The choices Daisy makes may be “sticking it” to all of the “stiff” social types, but she really is walking a dangerous path. Mr. Giovanelli may actually be a good friend to her, but that doesn’t change the fact that she doesn’t really know him. If Daisy really feels like making a statement about societal issues, it probably isn’t the best plan to make them so far away from her own country. Not only is there a potentially fatal disease to be worried about, any number of things could happen to Daisy if she puts too much trust in strangers.
Even the trust Daisy puts in Winterbourne isn’t very wise. She doesn’t even know him, and even the readers don’t exactly know him. James doesn’t give full details about what Winterbourne is really like; only that he doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to finish “school,” and that he may have some type of “sugar-momma.” At this point in the reading, I stopped caring about what was going to happen.
Journal #33 Henry James: Etiquette First!
QUOTE:
“Winterbourne wondered if he himself had been like this in his infancy, for he had been brought to Europe at about this age” (James 393).
SUMMARY:
Winterbourne meets little Randolph in the hotel’s garden area and is somewhat entertained with the boy’s obnoxious behavior.
RESPONSE:
Since Daisy Miller: A Study seems to look at the behavior of each of the characters and how they deal with certain situations, this section is revealing more about how Winterbourne’s character perceives the obnoxious little boy. At first, Winterbourne tries to suggest how he thinks the boy should be acting, but he soon becomes more amused at Randolph’s mannerisms. Winterbourne realizes that he could be looking at himself seventeen years ago, and since he is also caught up in worrying about proper etiquette (at least in public places), Winterbourne probably doesn’t want to be too critical of the boy if it could possibly seem hypocritical (even if he would be the only person to notice).
Winterbourne soon forgets about proper etiquette though. He begins to realize that Randolph and Daisy are far from “refined” when he starts to ease his way towards a friendship with Daisy. This seems to give Winterbourne extra confidence and even the gumption to think that he could have some kind of romantic relationship with Daisy. I think Winterbourne also tries to relate to Randolph more, due to his interest in Daisy. He definitely doesn’t want to seem like an “old crank” when it comes to kids like Randolph if he is assuming that he may see this kid more often. However, I think Winterbourne also sees how he can “use” Randolph to his advantage. Randolph could help Winterbourne start conversation topics that may seem impolite to someone like Mrs. Costello, which could lead to finding out more about Daisy.
“Winterbourne wondered if he himself had been like this in his infancy, for he had been brought to Europe at about this age” (James 393).
SUMMARY:
Winterbourne meets little Randolph in the hotel’s garden area and is somewhat entertained with the boy’s obnoxious behavior.
RESPONSE:
Since Daisy Miller: A Study seems to look at the behavior of each of the characters and how they deal with certain situations, this section is revealing more about how Winterbourne’s character perceives the obnoxious little boy. At first, Winterbourne tries to suggest how he thinks the boy should be acting, but he soon becomes more amused at Randolph’s mannerisms. Winterbourne realizes that he could be looking at himself seventeen years ago, and since he is also caught up in worrying about proper etiquette (at least in public places), Winterbourne probably doesn’t want to be too critical of the boy if it could possibly seem hypocritical (even if he would be the only person to notice).
Winterbourne soon forgets about proper etiquette though. He begins to realize that Randolph and Daisy are far from “refined” when he starts to ease his way towards a friendship with Daisy. This seems to give Winterbourne extra confidence and even the gumption to think that he could have some kind of romantic relationship with Daisy. I think Winterbourne also tries to relate to Randolph more, due to his interest in Daisy. He definitely doesn’t want to seem like an “old crank” when it comes to kids like Randolph if he is assuming that he may see this kid more often. However, I think Winterbourne also sees how he can “use” Randolph to his advantage. Randolph could help Winterbourne start conversation topics that may seem impolite to someone like Mrs. Costello, which could lead to finding out more about Daisy.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Journal #32 Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Read The Disclaimer!
QUOTE:
“I have found out another funny thing, but I shan’t tell it this time! It does not do to trust people too much” (Gilman 817).
SUMMARY:
The narrator of Gilman’s story seems to be unreliable now. She is completely obsessed with the wall-paper, so this cure may be causing her supposed “condition” to drive her crazy for real.
RESPONSE:
Since this quote makes the narrator seem paranoid and weird, it’s hard to trust anything she says about the wall-paper. In a way, I think this quote just gives the readers some hope for a straightforward explanation or conclusion at the end of the story; however, it may just be a sentence to make it seem like Gilman knows the answer. For some reason, I don’t think Gilman ever thought of a real explanation for what is happening in the story, so her character is free to notice anything and make any assumptions.
At this point, Gilman can have her character think anything without having her make any sense, and yet, the point Gilman is making about the “rest cure” actually does make sense. Forcing women stay in bed without thinking too hard sounds more like a punishment than a way to “get better” from a non-existent illness. This made me think that the main character even purposely acts crazy at the end, just to get back at her husband (to teach him a lesson).
I’m glad that I read Why I Wrote “The Yellow Wall-paper”? after the story though, because Gilman at least tells the “story of the story,” and puts anyone who feels a little more insane from reading it at ease. It even seems like a “disclaimer” that people should read before they read the story! The last sentence especially makes me feel better about Gilman possibly getting some satisfaction from her work, since it seems like her personal life wasn’t very happy.
“I have found out another funny thing, but I shan’t tell it this time! It does not do to trust people too much” (Gilman 817).
SUMMARY:
The narrator of Gilman’s story seems to be unreliable now. She is completely obsessed with the wall-paper, so this cure may be causing her supposed “condition” to drive her crazy for real.
RESPONSE:
Since this quote makes the narrator seem paranoid and weird, it’s hard to trust anything she says about the wall-paper. In a way, I think this quote just gives the readers some hope for a straightforward explanation or conclusion at the end of the story; however, it may just be a sentence to make it seem like Gilman knows the answer. For some reason, I don’t think Gilman ever thought of a real explanation for what is happening in the story, so her character is free to notice anything and make any assumptions.
At this point, Gilman can have her character think anything without having her make any sense, and yet, the point Gilman is making about the “rest cure” actually does make sense. Forcing women stay in bed without thinking too hard sounds more like a punishment than a way to “get better” from a non-existent illness. This made me think that the main character even purposely acts crazy at the end, just to get back at her husband (to teach him a lesson).
I’m glad that I read Why I Wrote “The Yellow Wall-paper”? after the story though, because Gilman at least tells the “story of the story,” and puts anyone who feels a little more insane from reading it at ease. It even seems like a “disclaimer” that people should read before they read the story! The last sentence especially makes me feel better about Gilman possibly getting some satisfaction from her work, since it seems like her personal life wasn’t very happy.
Journal #31 Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Oh The Ambiguity!
QUOTE:
“It was a nursery first and then a playroom and gymnasium, I should judge; for the windows are barred for little children, and there are rings and things in the walls” (Gilman 809).
SUMMARY:
The room the narrator stays in seems to have actually been a restraining room for mental patients since the hall most likely used to be a mental hospital. She assumes it used to be a nursery for some very restless, troubled children.
RESPONSE:
When I first read The Yellow Wall-paper, I actually did not pick up on the colonial mansion previously being used as a sort of mental hospital, or asylum. Once that was brought up in class, however, the story seems a lot creepier to me and a little less random. I’m having a hard time deciding if I would have wanted a bigger clue to the mansion originally being a mental hospital though, because I like the ambiguity, and I like how many different explanations can be used to describe what exactly happens to the main character. I think that Gilman probably wanted the story to be just as vague and uncertain as the concept of “Neurasthenia,” which seems more like a “sentence” than a sickness.
I guess that’s what makes The Yellow Wall-paper so interesting and disturbing to read though. There are no answers, which actually can lead to readers even wondering if the main character had actually been to that mental hospital before. It led me to simply thinking that confining “nervous” or “hysterical” people to one room can’t be a good thing. Since this was basically the real “cure” Gilman herself had been told to follow, and since she explains her reasons for writing the story in Why I Wrote “The Yellow Wall-paper”?, it’s probably much easier for readers to draw their own conclusions about the significance of the story to Gilman. My conclusion is that Gilman is addressing the possible similarities between a cause and a cure for a questionable disorder.
“It was a nursery first and then a playroom and gymnasium, I should judge; for the windows are barred for little children, and there are rings and things in the walls” (Gilman 809).
SUMMARY:
The room the narrator stays in seems to have actually been a restraining room for mental patients since the hall most likely used to be a mental hospital. She assumes it used to be a nursery for some very restless, troubled children.
RESPONSE:
When I first read The Yellow Wall-paper, I actually did not pick up on the colonial mansion previously being used as a sort of mental hospital, or asylum. Once that was brought up in class, however, the story seems a lot creepier to me and a little less random. I’m having a hard time deciding if I would have wanted a bigger clue to the mansion originally being a mental hospital though, because I like the ambiguity, and I like how many different explanations can be used to describe what exactly happens to the main character. I think that Gilman probably wanted the story to be just as vague and uncertain as the concept of “Neurasthenia,” which seems more like a “sentence” than a sickness.
I guess that’s what makes The Yellow Wall-paper so interesting and disturbing to read though. There are no answers, which actually can lead to readers even wondering if the main character had actually been to that mental hospital before. It led me to simply thinking that confining “nervous” or “hysterical” people to one room can’t be a good thing. Since this was basically the real “cure” Gilman herself had been told to follow, and since she explains her reasons for writing the story in Why I Wrote “The Yellow Wall-paper”?, it’s probably much easier for readers to draw their own conclusions about the significance of the story to Gilman. My conclusion is that Gilman is addressing the possible similarities between a cause and a cure for a questionable disorder.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Journal #30 Kate Chopin: Being A Mother Requires Some Responsibility!
QUOTE:
“She thought of Leonce and the children. They were a part of her life. But they need not have thought that they could possess her, body and soul…Exhaustion was pressing upon and over-powering her” (Chopin 625).
SUMMARY:
Edna ends up committing suicide as a conclusion to Chopin’s, The Awakening. This ending is disturbing, but more due to the oppression felt by Edna that causes her to abandon her life.
RESPONSE:
I had to reread the last few paragraphs over and over again because I was hoping that Edna wouldn’t go as far as killing herself. I think I lost a little respect for her character because I thought that Edna knew how to keep her family from taking over her body and soul, while still alive. I know this had to do with Chopin wanting to represent how Edna’s (or any 19th century woman’s) quest for freedom was futile, but maybe I just don’t agree with how much power Chopin gives to Robert. I think Edna could have been stronger after losing Robert since she had already lost him once, and I can’t help but view Edna as being very selfish.
I may seem very harsh on Chopin’s character, but it’s no one’s fault but Edna’s for how she doesn’t even seem to find any joy from her own children. It makes me think of mothers who have a children that remind them of the deadbeat biological fathers, so they take out their anger towards the fathers on the kids. I think if Chopin wanted to emphasize how little freedom a woman like Edna has, she could have made it harder for Edna to get away from her husband. After Edna was supposedly going to be forced to travel abroad with Mr. Pontellier, she ends up back at Grand Isle alone? Maybe I’m looking too much into what I consider plot holes though, because I actually really enjoyed reading Chopin’s work.
“She thought of Leonce and the children. They were a part of her life. But they need not have thought that they could possess her, body and soul…Exhaustion was pressing upon and over-powering her” (Chopin 625).
SUMMARY:
Edna ends up committing suicide as a conclusion to Chopin’s, The Awakening. This ending is disturbing, but more due to the oppression felt by Edna that causes her to abandon her life.
RESPONSE:
I had to reread the last few paragraphs over and over again because I was hoping that Edna wouldn’t go as far as killing herself. I think I lost a little respect for her character because I thought that Edna knew how to keep her family from taking over her body and soul, while still alive. I know this had to do with Chopin wanting to represent how Edna’s (or any 19th century woman’s) quest for freedom was futile, but maybe I just don’t agree with how much power Chopin gives to Robert. I think Edna could have been stronger after losing Robert since she had already lost him once, and I can’t help but view Edna as being very selfish.
I may seem very harsh on Chopin’s character, but it’s no one’s fault but Edna’s for how she doesn’t even seem to find any joy from her own children. It makes me think of mothers who have a children that remind them of the deadbeat biological fathers, so they take out their anger towards the fathers on the kids. I think if Chopin wanted to emphasize how little freedom a woman like Edna has, she could have made it harder for Edna to get away from her husband. After Edna was supposedly going to be forced to travel abroad with Mr. Pontellier, she ends up back at Grand Isle alone? Maybe I’m looking too much into what I consider plot holes though, because I actually really enjoyed reading Chopin’s work.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Journal #29 Kate Chopin: Root, Root, Root...For The Protagonist!
QUOTE:
“You have slept precisely one hundred years. I was left here to guard your slumbers; and for one hundred years I have been out under the shed reading a book. The only evil I couldn’t prevent was to keep a broiled fowl from drying up” (Chopin 564).
SUMMARY:
After Edna wakes up and finds Robert reading under a tree, they playfully make up a little story to explain what happened when Edna was overcome earlier.
RESPONSE:
This point in the story changes my perspective of Robert’s character. The previous introduction to Robert makes him seem like a little puppy; a little, annoying puppy. However, Robert now has some charm, and seems to make a better connection to Edna. I think this actually makes the readers accept the potential relationship (even if it means an adulterous one), between Robert and Edna. Perhaps Kate Chopin solved part of the problem she felt she had with The Storm, or maybe I’m thinking about how I could have made the characters and situation in my short story more understandable.
Whether this was her specific intention or not, Chopin seems to have figured out how to make Mr. Pontellier less likable than Robert, which makes Edna’s feelings for Robert more understandable. However, maybe the incident when Mr. Pontellier makes Edna cry only affects the sympathetic readers, or at least the readers who don’t think Mr. Pontellier should treat a woman he expects to stay faithful, the way he did in that incident. Whatever Chopin’s intentions for her characters may have been, I was hoping Edna would be able to leave her husband for Robert at this point in the story.
It’s surprising how one little factor can change my perspective on a character, and change it enough for me to want Edna to commit adultery. Maybe I’m just a sucker for “true love” though, and it seems like Chopin made the Pontelliers’ marriage far from true love. I also think that most readers, as well as I, usually tend to root for the protagonist in a novel, which puts readers in the position to agree with Edna’s feelings.
“You have slept precisely one hundred years. I was left here to guard your slumbers; and for one hundred years I have been out under the shed reading a book. The only evil I couldn’t prevent was to keep a broiled fowl from drying up” (Chopin 564).
SUMMARY:
After Edna wakes up and finds Robert reading under a tree, they playfully make up a little story to explain what happened when Edna was overcome earlier.
RESPONSE:
This point in the story changes my perspective of Robert’s character. The previous introduction to Robert makes him seem like a little puppy; a little, annoying puppy. However, Robert now has some charm, and seems to make a better connection to Edna. I think this actually makes the readers accept the potential relationship (even if it means an adulterous one), between Robert and Edna. Perhaps Kate Chopin solved part of the problem she felt she had with The Storm, or maybe I’m thinking about how I could have made the characters and situation in my short story more understandable.
Whether this was her specific intention or not, Chopin seems to have figured out how to make Mr. Pontellier less likable than Robert, which makes Edna’s feelings for Robert more understandable. However, maybe the incident when Mr. Pontellier makes Edna cry only affects the sympathetic readers, or at least the readers who don’t think Mr. Pontellier should treat a woman he expects to stay faithful, the way he did in that incident. Whatever Chopin’s intentions for her characters may have been, I was hoping Edna would be able to leave her husband for Robert at this point in the story.
It’s surprising how one little factor can change my perspective on a character, and change it enough for me to want Edna to commit adultery. Maybe I’m just a sucker for “true love” though, and it seems like Chopin made the Pontelliers’ marriage far from true love. I also think that most readers, as well as I, usually tend to root for the protagonist in a novel, which puts readers in the position to agree with Edna’s feelings.
Journal #28 Kate Chopin: An Unhappy Marriage?
QUOTE:
“The rain was over; and the sun was turning the glistening green world into a palace of gems. Calixta, on the gallery, watched Alcee ride away. He turned and smiled at her with a beaming face; and she lifted her pretty chin in the air and laughed aloud” (Chopin 533).
SUMMARY:
After Calixta is unfaithful to her husband in The Storm, she doesn’t seem to have any remorse for committing this infidelity.
RESPONSE:
It seems as though the conclusion of this story, or the message in this story, is conveying: “What he doesn’t know can’t hurt him.” Without thinking about what is most likely considered “morally right,” and if a reader doesn't mind being exposed to anything that society might look down on, The Storm is a surprising and intriguing story. However, if I look at this story as an example of what drives people to commit adultery, I don’t really see the answer, because Calixta goes on and on about how great Bobinot is to her. Could this be just an act brought on by her possible guilt?
This story seems more like a sad tale than anything else to me. Sad, because Bobinot and Bibi spend their time right after the storm cleaning up (as if they weren’t just stuck in a horrible storm), just so they can please Calixta. Sad, because there is obviously something missing in Calixta’s marriage that causes her to be unfaithful, as well as Alcee’s marriage. However, maybe this story has nothing to do with happiness (or unhappiness) in marriage, because maybe it’s more about humans giving in to forbidden desire and getting away with it.
The Storm actually reminds me of a short story I wrote for Creative Writing last year. I remember that during the class critique we had, most of the class didn’t like how it ended with nothing happening to the “dog” of a man, and no consequences for the girl. However, I think my story is quite tame compared to Chopin’s because the characters in my story never actually have a sexual encounter; my story is more about mental unfaithfulness. I guess I understand what kept Chopin from publishing this story, though.
“The rain was over; and the sun was turning the glistening green world into a palace of gems. Calixta, on the gallery, watched Alcee ride away. He turned and smiled at her with a beaming face; and she lifted her pretty chin in the air and laughed aloud” (Chopin 533).
SUMMARY:
After Calixta is unfaithful to her husband in The Storm, she doesn’t seem to have any remorse for committing this infidelity.
RESPONSE:
It seems as though the conclusion of this story, or the message in this story, is conveying: “What he doesn’t know can’t hurt him.” Without thinking about what is most likely considered “morally right,” and if a reader doesn't mind being exposed to anything that society might look down on, The Storm is a surprising and intriguing story. However, if I look at this story as an example of what drives people to commit adultery, I don’t really see the answer, because Calixta goes on and on about how great Bobinot is to her. Could this be just an act brought on by her possible guilt?
This story seems more like a sad tale than anything else to me. Sad, because Bobinot and Bibi spend their time right after the storm cleaning up (as if they weren’t just stuck in a horrible storm), just so they can please Calixta. Sad, because there is obviously something missing in Calixta’s marriage that causes her to be unfaithful, as well as Alcee’s marriage. However, maybe this story has nothing to do with happiness (or unhappiness) in marriage, because maybe it’s more about humans giving in to forbidden desire and getting away with it.
The Storm actually reminds me of a short story I wrote for Creative Writing last year. I remember that during the class critique we had, most of the class didn’t like how it ended with nothing happening to the “dog” of a man, and no consequences for the girl. However, I think my story is quite tame compared to Chopin’s because the characters in my story never actually have a sexual encounter; my story is more about mental unfaithfulness. I guess I understand what kept Chopin from publishing this story, though.
Journal #27 Sarah Orne Jewett: True Love!
QUOTE:
“And wait! wait! do not move a foot or finger, little girl, do not send an arrow of light and consciousness from your two eager eyes, for the heron has perched on a pine bough not far beyond yours, and cries back to his mate on the nest, and plumes his feathers for the new day” (Jewett 528).
SUMMARY:
Sylvia climbs up the tall tree where she knows she has seen the white heron before. As she ascends up the tree, it seems as though this journey coincides with her understanding of her situation with the young hunter.
RESPONSE:
When Sylvia climbs the tall tree, it seems to represent her reaching the understanding of what true love is, as opposed to infatuation or her “crush” on the ornithologist. She finds the hidden nest, but she remains silent even when her grandmother rebukes her and the ornithologist looks straight into Sylvia’s eyes on her return. I think Sylvia wasn’t quite sure if she was going to give up the nest’s location as she climbed the tree, but once she finds the nest and sees that the white heron has a mate, she witnesses what she considers true love between her friends (even though they are birds).
Sylvia is confronted with her personal values and what is valuable to her grandmother or even to society. In other words, Sylvia’s loyalty to what she considers her beautiful creature-friends, versus an offer of money from a one-time guest in her home. To me, this story explores how a young girl will remain loyal to what is priceless in her life. Even though Sylvia contemplates all of the “treasures” the ten dollars can buy and the hunter is “so well worth making happy” (528), he actually turns out not to be worth it for her to lose the white heron forever. She witnesses the white heron with its mate, and it seems like viewing this representation of love (if this type of mating between birds can be considered love) helps Sylvia realize her own true love for the birds.
“And wait! wait! do not move a foot or finger, little girl, do not send an arrow of light and consciousness from your two eager eyes, for the heron has perched on a pine bough not far beyond yours, and cries back to his mate on the nest, and plumes his feathers for the new day” (Jewett 528).
SUMMARY:
Sylvia climbs up the tall tree where she knows she has seen the white heron before. As she ascends up the tree, it seems as though this journey coincides with her understanding of her situation with the young hunter.
RESPONSE:
When Sylvia climbs the tall tree, it seems to represent her reaching the understanding of what true love is, as opposed to infatuation or her “crush” on the ornithologist. She finds the hidden nest, but she remains silent even when her grandmother rebukes her and the ornithologist looks straight into Sylvia’s eyes on her return. I think Sylvia wasn’t quite sure if she was going to give up the nest’s location as she climbed the tree, but once she finds the nest and sees that the white heron has a mate, she witnesses what she considers true love between her friends (even though they are birds).
Sylvia is confronted with her personal values and what is valuable to her grandmother or even to society. In other words, Sylvia’s loyalty to what she considers her beautiful creature-friends, versus an offer of money from a one-time guest in her home. To me, this story explores how a young girl will remain loyal to what is priceless in her life. Even though Sylvia contemplates all of the “treasures” the ten dollars can buy and the hunter is “so well worth making happy” (528), he actually turns out not to be worth it for her to lose the white heron forever. She witnesses the white heron with its mate, and it seems like viewing this representation of love (if this type of mating between birds can be considered love) helps Sylvia realize her own true love for the birds.
Journal #26 Sarah Orne Jewett: Just A Crush!
QUOTE:
“All day long he did not once make her troubled or afraid except when he brought down some unsuspecting singing creature from its bough. Sylvia would have liked him vastly better without his gun; she could not understand why he killed the very birds he seemed to like so much” (Jewett 526).
SUMMARY:
Sylvia seems to be developing a crush on the young hunter as she follows him hunting birds. However, she doesn’t like the fact that he kills the birds, so she doesn’t actually help him.
RESPONSE:
Since Sylvia “has been nine years growing” (Jewett 528), which I still consider to be quite young, I think that she merely has a simple crush on the young hunter. Her crush isn’t serious enough to make her act against her personal “blueprint” for her life, or her own set of specific values, however. When Sylvia first realizes that she is somewhat fascinated with a young man who wants to kill the beautiful creatures that she even considers to be her real friends, she becomes very conflicted. Sylvia begins her own small battle inside, weighing out exactly which of her choices carries the most meaning to her. It seems to be a battle that deals with literally “selling out” in order to get ahead in life.
It’s very fitting for Sylvia to be nine years old and having this conflict though. I think she’s young enough to still value her animal friends, almost like “imaginary” friends, but she’s also starting to notice the opposite sex in more of a “dreamy” way. She wants to be “liked” by the young man, but I don’t think she wants him to necessarily like her in a romantic way. This is why I describe Sylvia’s feelings toward the young hunter as a crush, because she has a short-lived infatuation with a new person who happens to be male, and she also seems to be infatuated with the ten dollars the young hunter offers. Everything about the hunter’s plan sounds pretty nice to Sylvia, except for the fact that it involves killing the creatures that she considers to be possibly her true friends.
“All day long he did not once make her troubled or afraid except when he brought down some unsuspecting singing creature from its bough. Sylvia would have liked him vastly better without his gun; she could not understand why he killed the very birds he seemed to like so much” (Jewett 526).
SUMMARY:
Sylvia seems to be developing a crush on the young hunter as she follows him hunting birds. However, she doesn’t like the fact that he kills the birds, so she doesn’t actually help him.
RESPONSE:
Since Sylvia “has been nine years growing” (Jewett 528), which I still consider to be quite young, I think that she merely has a simple crush on the young hunter. Her crush isn’t serious enough to make her act against her personal “blueprint” for her life, or her own set of specific values, however. When Sylvia first realizes that she is somewhat fascinated with a young man who wants to kill the beautiful creatures that she even considers to be her real friends, she becomes very conflicted. Sylvia begins her own small battle inside, weighing out exactly which of her choices carries the most meaning to her. It seems to be a battle that deals with literally “selling out” in order to get ahead in life.
It’s very fitting for Sylvia to be nine years old and having this conflict though. I think she’s young enough to still value her animal friends, almost like “imaginary” friends, but she’s also starting to notice the opposite sex in more of a “dreamy” way. She wants to be “liked” by the young man, but I don’t think she wants him to necessarily like her in a romantic way. This is why I describe Sylvia’s feelings toward the young hunter as a crush, because she has a short-lived infatuation with a new person who happens to be male, and she also seems to be infatuated with the ten dollars the young hunter offers. Everything about the hunter’s plan sounds pretty nice to Sylvia, except for the fact that it involves killing the creatures that she considers to be possibly her true friends.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Journal #25 Stephen Crane: Determination, Not Determinism!
QUOTE:
“When it came night, the white waves paced to and fro in the moonlight, and the wind brought the sound of the great sea’s voice to the men on shore, and they felt that they could then be interpreters” (Crane 1016).
SUMMARY:
After the surviving men are welcomed back to land, they watch the oiler’s body being carried up the beach. Although the land is welcoming them, they seem to have a deeper connection to the sea now.
RESPONSE:
The men actually seem to have a deeper understanding of life after this experience. They not only appear more connected to the sea, they also now “know” the color of the sky. The first sentence of The Open Boat starts out, “None of them knew the color of the sky” (Crane 1000), which can have many interpretations. However, by section VII, “The morning appeared finally, in its splendor, with a sky of pure blue, and the sunlight flamed on the tips of the waves” (Crane 1013). I think the men learn much more about themselves, the sky, and the sea, and can now become “interpreters” because they have a learning experience about this aspect of nature that they can share.
I know that some people who read this story don’t understand the ending, but I think the ending makes sense when the sentences I mentioned are really analyzed and broken down. The physical journey from the ocean to land is accompanied by a psychological journey (the mental stages that we went over in class). Although it may seem like there isn’t a solid conclusion to the story or plot, the men certainly seem to have an epiphany. That’s where I think the story is open to interpretation. Readers may understand the story to be about love and friendship, determination, or even about what I see as a more pessimistic view: determinism, different than determination because there is no free will.
“When it came night, the white waves paced to and fro in the moonlight, and the wind brought the sound of the great sea’s voice to the men on shore, and they felt that they could then be interpreters” (Crane 1016).
SUMMARY:
After the surviving men are welcomed back to land, they watch the oiler’s body being carried up the beach. Although the land is welcoming them, they seem to have a deeper connection to the sea now.
RESPONSE:
The men actually seem to have a deeper understanding of life after this experience. They not only appear more connected to the sea, they also now “know” the color of the sky. The first sentence of The Open Boat starts out, “None of them knew the color of the sky” (Crane 1000), which can have many interpretations. However, by section VII, “The morning appeared finally, in its splendor, with a sky of pure blue, and the sunlight flamed on the tips of the waves” (Crane 1013). I think the men learn much more about themselves, the sky, and the sea, and can now become “interpreters” because they have a learning experience about this aspect of nature that they can share.
I know that some people who read this story don’t understand the ending, but I think the ending makes sense when the sentences I mentioned are really analyzed and broken down. The physical journey from the ocean to land is accompanied by a psychological journey (the mental stages that we went over in class). Although it may seem like there isn’t a solid conclusion to the story or plot, the men certainly seem to have an epiphany. That’s where I think the story is open to interpretation. Readers may understand the story to be about love and friendship, determination, or even about what I see as a more pessimistic view: determinism, different than determination because there is no free will.
Journal #24 Stephen Crane: The Open Boat Filled With Love and Compassion!
QUOTE:
“A soldier of the Legion lay dying in Algiers, / There was lack of woman’s nursing, there was dearth of woman’s tears; / But a comrade stood beside him, and he took that comrade’s hand, / And he said: ‘I never more shall see my own, my native land’” (Crane 1012).
SUMMARY:
The correspondent suddenly remembers this verse from his childhood. He had never understood the importance of the verse, but it now has meaning to him.
RESPONSE:
This is where I first noticed the emotions of love and understanding in The Open Boat. The correspondent finally realizes that these men may be the last people he ever interacts with, and really realizes how they are all trying to help each other survive. He also remembers this verse while he is on “rowing duty” while the others sleep in the bottom of the boat. This part of the story is very endearing because the relationship forming between the men seems like the unconditional love between family members or extremely close friends. They take turns sleeping and there is always one man rowing, however even though each man who is rowing may feel alone because the others are asleep, the injured captain is actually awake.
I think this is also where the deeper camaraderie really forms between at least the correspondent (since he comes to the realization of the verse) and his fellow men. He doesn’t give up and he never says that he won’t see home again like the soldier, so I think his appreciation for his friends (especially the captain) is what makes him relate to the verse. He also can rely on the oiler (Billie) to switch places with him and row for a little while without having any animosity build up between the two. I think the plan they are carrying out for the survival of the group shows the compassion the men have for everyone in the boat, which makes the readers feel some compassion as well.
“A soldier of the Legion lay dying in Algiers, / There was lack of woman’s nursing, there was dearth of woman’s tears; / But a comrade stood beside him, and he took that comrade’s hand, / And he said: ‘I never more shall see my own, my native land’” (Crane 1012).
SUMMARY:
The correspondent suddenly remembers this verse from his childhood. He had never understood the importance of the verse, but it now has meaning to him.
RESPONSE:
This is where I first noticed the emotions of love and understanding in The Open Boat. The correspondent finally realizes that these men may be the last people he ever interacts with, and really realizes how they are all trying to help each other survive. He also remembers this verse while he is on “rowing duty” while the others sleep in the bottom of the boat. This part of the story is very endearing because the relationship forming between the men seems like the unconditional love between family members or extremely close friends. They take turns sleeping and there is always one man rowing, however even though each man who is rowing may feel alone because the others are asleep, the injured captain is actually awake.
I think this is also where the deeper camaraderie really forms between at least the correspondent (since he comes to the realization of the verse) and his fellow men. He doesn’t give up and he never says that he won’t see home again like the soldier, so I think his appreciation for his friends (especially the captain) is what makes him relate to the verse. He also can rely on the oiler (Billie) to switch places with him and row for a little while without having any animosity build up between the two. I think the plan they are carrying out for the survival of the group shows the compassion the men have for everyone in the boat, which makes the readers feel some compassion as well.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Journal #23 Stephen Crane: High Stress Can Cause Narcissism!
QUOTE:
“If I am going to be drowned – if I am going to be drowned – if I am going to be drowned, why, in the name of the seven mad gods who rule the sea, was I allowed to come thus far and contemplate sand and trees” (Crane 1011).
SUMMARY:
This is the plea repeated throughout the treacherous last stretch of the boat trip to shore.
RESPONSE:
I pointed this quote out in class as being one of the emotional stages the men go through while they try to survive their trip to shore. I really related to this sort of questioning since I had a very similar mindset right after my accident, but now I see how it is basically thinking, “Hey this is ME…how can I be put through this?” This mindset seems to fall under a more narcissistic attitude, and can cause anyone to become annoyed or angry with anyone or anything (no matter how trivial the situation may be). Being on the outside looking in makes it much easier for the readers to either identify the misinterpretation as a result of the high stress atmosphere, or to laugh at it.
There isn’t really anything to laugh at in a situation like this one though. I don’t think this quote is repeated because it is funny or narcissistic, I think Crane is representing the psyche of the characters; and especially since his style falls into the category of “realism” and “naturalism,” it makes the most sense to portray the more extreme psychological responses real people may have.
I think one of the main reasons why I liked this story so much is because it is so real. I happen to relate to how real it is from my own personal experience, but I think anyone can identify the story in his or her own way and enjoy it. Crane’s fictional account of a nonfiction story is told from the perspective of almost a “reporter-type” third person, but still keeps the emotion of reading a story told in the first person.
“If I am going to be drowned – if I am going to be drowned – if I am going to be drowned, why, in the name of the seven mad gods who rule the sea, was I allowed to come thus far and contemplate sand and trees” (Crane 1011).
SUMMARY:
This is the plea repeated throughout the treacherous last stretch of the boat trip to shore.
RESPONSE:
I pointed this quote out in class as being one of the emotional stages the men go through while they try to survive their trip to shore. I really related to this sort of questioning since I had a very similar mindset right after my accident, but now I see how it is basically thinking, “Hey this is ME…how can I be put through this?” This mindset seems to fall under a more narcissistic attitude, and can cause anyone to become annoyed or angry with anyone or anything (no matter how trivial the situation may be). Being on the outside looking in makes it much easier for the readers to either identify the misinterpretation as a result of the high stress atmosphere, or to laugh at it.
There isn’t really anything to laugh at in a situation like this one though. I don’t think this quote is repeated because it is funny or narcissistic, I think Crane is representing the psyche of the characters; and especially since his style falls into the category of “realism” and “naturalism,” it makes the most sense to portray the more extreme psychological responses real people may have.
I think one of the main reasons why I liked this story so much is because it is so real. I happen to relate to how real it is from my own personal experience, but I think anyone can identify the story in his or her own way and enjoy it. Crane’s fictional account of a nonfiction story is told from the perspective of almost a “reporter-type” third person, but still keeps the emotion of reading a story told in the first person.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Journal #22 Stephen Crane: Life Or Death Strength!
QUOTE:
“The correspondent wondered ingenuously how in the name of all that was sane could there be people who thought it amusing to row a boat. It was not an amusement; it was a diabolical punishment” (Crane 1004).
SUMMARY:
The men become stuck out in the ocean before they can attempt to safely steer their rowboat to shore. The wind and waves are treacherous to the dinghy, so they take turns constantly rowing to stay alive.
RESPONSE:
This quote reminds me of a line from any standup comic’s routine that is pointing out the irony in certain hobbies, or maybe even “death-sports.” I think that it could even be the “comic relief” in Crane’s story. This would be an observation to make the readers (or entire audience for a comic) feel the humorous power of being in complete agreement, at least for this specific situation. The different thoughts that the men have during this experience tend to be contemplating ideas that many people can relate to in their own ways, which I think helps make The Open Boat a very interesting and engaging read.
This section also makes me think of the difference between a hobby and a job. Rowing a boat, or any activity/hobby is fun when it’s not required, or when it isn’t a “life or death” situation. Just like how teaching dance sounds fun, which it usually is; but sometimes it can be a difficult test of character and strength. Sometimes I think the kids I teach are purposely trying to be difficult, but I’m seen as “providing a service,” which makes the customer almost always right (I say almost because I still have my judgment as a teacher). However, my job (like many jobs) isn’t really life threatening, which puts my “job wimpy-ness” into perspective when I read stories like this one. I guess I can’t really think of this situation of rowing the boat to safety as a real job though. I always hear about the amazing bursts of strength that people demonstrate in very serious situations.
“The correspondent wondered ingenuously how in the name of all that was sane could there be people who thought it amusing to row a boat. It was not an amusement; it was a diabolical punishment” (Crane 1004).
SUMMARY:
The men become stuck out in the ocean before they can attempt to safely steer their rowboat to shore. The wind and waves are treacherous to the dinghy, so they take turns constantly rowing to stay alive.
RESPONSE:
This quote reminds me of a line from any standup comic’s routine that is pointing out the irony in certain hobbies, or maybe even “death-sports.” I think that it could even be the “comic relief” in Crane’s story. This would be an observation to make the readers (or entire audience for a comic) feel the humorous power of being in complete agreement, at least for this specific situation. The different thoughts that the men have during this experience tend to be contemplating ideas that many people can relate to in their own ways, which I think helps make The Open Boat a very interesting and engaging read.
This section also makes me think of the difference between a hobby and a job. Rowing a boat, or any activity/hobby is fun when it’s not required, or when it isn’t a “life or death” situation. Just like how teaching dance sounds fun, which it usually is; but sometimes it can be a difficult test of character and strength. Sometimes I think the kids I teach are purposely trying to be difficult, but I’m seen as “providing a service,” which makes the customer almost always right (I say almost because I still have my judgment as a teacher). However, my job (like many jobs) isn’t really life threatening, which puts my “job wimpy-ness” into perspective when I read stories like this one. I guess I can’t really think of this situation of rowing the boat to safety as a real job though. I always hear about the amazing bursts of strength that people demonstrate in very serious situations.
Journal #21 Stephen Crane: Near-Death Experience Bonding!
QUOTE:
“To express any particular optimism at this time they felt to be childish and stupid, but they all doubtless possessed this sense of the situation in their mind. A young man thinks doggedly at such times…so they were silent” (Crane 1002).
SUMMARY:
The men from the sunken steamer are attempting to escape the rough seas in a ten-foot dinghy. They feel hopeful about making the trip back to land, but they don’t want to seem impractical if they don’t survive.
RESPONSE:
The men are feeling a roller coaster of emotions as they try to row towards land, and each phase in their escape seems to have a different trial for the men to endure. They are first arguing about life-saving stations and houses of refuge, which seems premature, especially after the oiler points out where they are located in the ocean. When the men work together to figure out what seems like a system for successfully rowing through and over the waves, they are practically attacked by seagulls. The men become completely annoyed with the continual ordeals that are only a nuisance to them, in what seems like a boundless journey. They never consider giving up though, so they begin to happily support every suggestion towards reaching the shore.
I guess in a situation like this, letting the seagulls, waves, or sweltering sunlight really get to them would cause the men to go insane. The drive to keep pushing on is their motivation, since they don’t want to possibly “jinx” this detour, and they can’t let their minds become caught up in other thoughts. Crane conveys the anxiousness throughout the entire text though, so even when the men are keeping themselves very composed considering the circumstances, I still can’t imagine how uncomfortable and horrible the conditions of their craft are.
It makes sense for the men to be almost confused about how to react in this life-threatening experience. So many contrasting emotions affect them, along with the sense of being “in it together,” which brings everyone closer together as essential parts of a machine. I think this supports the idea that near-death experiences bring people together, like family or even in marriage.
“To express any particular optimism at this time they felt to be childish and stupid, but they all doubtless possessed this sense of the situation in their mind. A young man thinks doggedly at such times…so they were silent” (Crane 1002).
SUMMARY:
The men from the sunken steamer are attempting to escape the rough seas in a ten-foot dinghy. They feel hopeful about making the trip back to land, but they don’t want to seem impractical if they don’t survive.
RESPONSE:
The men are feeling a roller coaster of emotions as they try to row towards land, and each phase in their escape seems to have a different trial for the men to endure. They are first arguing about life-saving stations and houses of refuge, which seems premature, especially after the oiler points out where they are located in the ocean. When the men work together to figure out what seems like a system for successfully rowing through and over the waves, they are practically attacked by seagulls. The men become completely annoyed with the continual ordeals that are only a nuisance to them, in what seems like a boundless journey. They never consider giving up though, so they begin to happily support every suggestion towards reaching the shore.
I guess in a situation like this, letting the seagulls, waves, or sweltering sunlight really get to them would cause the men to go insane. The drive to keep pushing on is their motivation, since they don’t want to possibly “jinx” this detour, and they can’t let their minds become caught up in other thoughts. Crane conveys the anxiousness throughout the entire text though, so even when the men are keeping themselves very composed considering the circumstances, I still can’t imagine how uncomfortable and horrible the conditions of their craft are.
It makes sense for the men to be almost confused about how to react in this life-threatening experience. So many contrasting emotions affect them, along with the sense of being “in it together,” which brings everyone closer together as essential parts of a machine. I think this supports the idea that near-death experiences bring people together, like family or even in marriage.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Journal #20 W.E.B. Du Bois: The "What If" Game!
QUOTE:
“I had thereafter no desire to tear down that veil, to creep through; I held all beyond it in common contempt” (Du Bois 896).
SUMMARY:
Du Bois decides that he no longer wishes to be accepted, in other words, to be “white.” Instead, he would rather be the “underdog” or the one who can at least rise above the hate.
RESPONSE:
I think everyone can relate to this quote. I wanted to raise my hand in class and talk about how I directly relate to this quote, just like Dr. Scott, so then I was going to wait until after class. However, it dawned on me: This is what journals are for! So referring to my life directly: It’s strange to say, “I’m glad I almost died and had to start over,” so I won’t exactly say that. However, I really wouldn’t change anything that has happened to me.
Sometimes I still wonder what would have happened if I wasn’t unconscious for the Missy video I had booked, or the show I was about to do in France, but then I would just be saying, “what if” to a million possibilities. And of course I would have had a much “easier” life if I didn’t spend a whole year in and out of the hospital, but I think at least a part of my character is stronger now. I’m pretty sure this is the same type of mindset Du Bois is referring to; the same type of mindset that makes people prefer working for their accomplishments, instead of being completely spoiled.
There seems to be more dignity in being the “bigger” person, or the “stronger” person, in the sense of confidence and respect, and in comparison to the selfish person who probably has a “weaker” personality. In regards to exactly what Du Bois is referring to however; I know a lot of people who are from different racial backgrounds, and I don’t think any of them wish that they were some other race. If anything, I know a lot more “white” people who wish that they were “black” or “Latin” or anything more “exotic.” Of course, this mindset is brand new compared to how long these races have been discriminated against.
“I had thereafter no desire to tear down that veil, to creep through; I held all beyond it in common contempt” (Du Bois 896).
SUMMARY:
Du Bois decides that he no longer wishes to be accepted, in other words, to be “white.” Instead, he would rather be the “underdog” or the one who can at least rise above the hate.
RESPONSE:
I think everyone can relate to this quote. I wanted to raise my hand in class and talk about how I directly relate to this quote, just like Dr. Scott, so then I was going to wait until after class. However, it dawned on me: This is what journals are for! So referring to my life directly: It’s strange to say, “I’m glad I almost died and had to start over,” so I won’t exactly say that. However, I really wouldn’t change anything that has happened to me.
Sometimes I still wonder what would have happened if I wasn’t unconscious for the Missy video I had booked, or the show I was about to do in France, but then I would just be saying, “what if” to a million possibilities. And of course I would have had a much “easier” life if I didn’t spend a whole year in and out of the hospital, but I think at least a part of my character is stronger now. I’m pretty sure this is the same type of mindset Du Bois is referring to; the same type of mindset that makes people prefer working for their accomplishments, instead of being completely spoiled.
There seems to be more dignity in being the “bigger” person, or the “stronger” person, in the sense of confidence and respect, and in comparison to the selfish person who probably has a “weaker” personality. In regards to exactly what Du Bois is referring to however; I know a lot of people who are from different racial backgrounds, and I don’t think any of them wish that they were some other race. If anything, I know a lot more “white” people who wish that they were “black” or “Latin” or anything more “exotic.” Of course, this mindset is brand new compared to how long these races have been discriminated against.
Journal #19 Booker T. Washington: How Ex-Slaves Can Thrive!
QUOTE:
“In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress” (Washington 681).
SUMMARY:
This is another part of Washington’s speech, The Atlanta Exposition Address. Washington is promoting the idea of “Separate but Equal” with this metaphor.
RESPONSE:
I think Washington’s metaphor could have worked better if people really understood what he was envisioning. In my opinion, he is saying that white people and black people don’t have to hang out together, but that everyone needs to be able to work together. It’s hard not to see this statement as a promotion for segregation though, and especially since Washington describes black people as being “unresentful” and still willing to “lay down [their] lives” (Washington 681) to protect the same people who have kept them in daunting slavery. It’s good to be forgiving, but I don’t know if I could have let go of all the torture, rape, and servitude slaves had to endure, if I were an ex-slave.
When we read this quote in class, I understood what Washington meant, but then I started analyzing his metaphor. The first thing I thought was, “I think people don’t really need their pinky finger to survive.” What was I thinking??!! I can only imagine what other interpretations and thoughts came up, perhaps, from someone who didn’t really want to see black people reach any success in life. People tend to hear what they want, especially listening to a speech coming from a representative of the “inconvenient” situation. Maybe I’m being too hard on Washington though. I still understand that he was looking out for the extremely oppressed people, and that he was trying to suggest the most practical way they would be able to thrive.
“In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress” (Washington 681).
SUMMARY:
This is another part of Washington’s speech, The Atlanta Exposition Address. Washington is promoting the idea of “Separate but Equal” with this metaphor.
RESPONSE:
I think Washington’s metaphor could have worked better if people really understood what he was envisioning. In my opinion, he is saying that white people and black people don’t have to hang out together, but that everyone needs to be able to work together. It’s hard not to see this statement as a promotion for segregation though, and especially since Washington describes black people as being “unresentful” and still willing to “lay down [their] lives” (Washington 681) to protect the same people who have kept them in daunting slavery. It’s good to be forgiving, but I don’t know if I could have let go of all the torture, rape, and servitude slaves had to endure, if I were an ex-slave.
When we read this quote in class, I understood what Washington meant, but then I started analyzing his metaphor. The first thing I thought was, “I think people don’t really need their pinky finger to survive.” What was I thinking??!! I can only imagine what other interpretations and thoughts came up, perhaps, from someone who didn’t really want to see black people reach any success in life. People tend to hear what they want, especially listening to a speech coming from a representative of the “inconvenient” situation. Maybe I’m being too hard on Washington though. I still understand that he was looking out for the extremely oppressed people, and that he was trying to suggest the most practical way they would be able to thrive.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Journal #18 Booker T. Washington: Be A Farmer!
QUOTE:
“No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not the top” (Washington 681).
SUMMARY:
Washington gives this speech at the Atlanta Exposition in order to encourage a friendship between Southern whites and Southern blacks especially. He is introduced as a representative of “Negro enterprise and Negro Civilization.”
RESPONSE:
There is definitely truth in this statement, as far as there being dignity in different professions and lifestyles, since all people are especially skilled in different mediums. However, not everyone is necessarily destined to start out farming. At first Washington’s speech makes perfect sense though, people in general start at level one before they start on level five, but every single African American has a different scenario and cannot be expected to hold back if he or she is ready for a, perhaps, more “sophisticated” or complex lifestyle. It seems like Washington’s main concern is with the Southern states though, and enabling Southern whites and Southern blacks to progress side by side, so he is most likely talking about the majority of the “ex-plantation” slave population becoming farmers before anything else.
At first I thought, “This makes sense,” and I agreed with Washington. However, although his idea can be applied to many Southern African Americans, I also see how Washington’s speeches contributed to racial segregation and inequality. It’s unfortunate that his points didn’t include African Americans who had been educated since his speeches brought so much attention, so I’m glad that there were other black Americans who at least disagreed with Washington's ideas. If nobody challenged Washington, I wonder if there would still be segregation today? I don’t want to completely dismiss what Washington was trying to accomplish, however. I understand his reasoning considering how many slaves were somewhat dependent on their masters, since slaveholders liked to keep their slaves in a “childlike” state.
“No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not the top” (Washington 681).
SUMMARY:
Washington gives this speech at the Atlanta Exposition in order to encourage a friendship between Southern whites and Southern blacks especially. He is introduced as a representative of “Negro enterprise and Negro Civilization.”
RESPONSE:
There is definitely truth in this statement, as far as there being dignity in different professions and lifestyles, since all people are especially skilled in different mediums. However, not everyone is necessarily destined to start out farming. At first Washington’s speech makes perfect sense though, people in general start at level one before they start on level five, but every single African American has a different scenario and cannot be expected to hold back if he or she is ready for a, perhaps, more “sophisticated” or complex lifestyle. It seems like Washington’s main concern is with the Southern states though, and enabling Southern whites and Southern blacks to progress side by side, so he is most likely talking about the majority of the “ex-plantation” slave population becoming farmers before anything else.
At first I thought, “This makes sense,” and I agreed with Washington. However, although his idea can be applied to many Southern African Americans, I also see how Washington’s speeches contributed to racial segregation and inequality. It’s unfortunate that his points didn’t include African Americans who had been educated since his speeches brought so much attention, so I’m glad that there were other black Americans who at least disagreed with Washington's ideas. If nobody challenged Washington, I wonder if there would still be segregation today? I don’t want to completely dismiss what Washington was trying to accomplish, however. I understand his reasoning considering how many slaves were somewhat dependent on their masters, since slaveholders liked to keep their slaves in a “childlike” state.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Journal #17 Maria Amparo Ruiz De Burton: The Great Wall of Mexico!
QUOTE:
“’What do you expect us to do in return? To give back to you our homesteads?’ asked Hughes” (De Burton 96).
SUMMARY:
The Don is offering the squatters a compromise that seems too good to be true. The squatters are expecting to find a “catch” to the deal because they assume the Don has a plan to drive them off of his land.
RESPONSE:
The most ironic quote in The Squatter and the Don is probably when Hughes asks these questions. I keep expecting to read about when the squatters purchased a part of the Don’s land, but then it wouldn’t make sense to call them “squatters.” Since the squatters have the audacity to bargain for land that doesn’t even belong to them, of course they think something is wrong with the Don’s generous deal. Perhaps the Don is actually planning on sabotaging the squatters’ plans, but it seems more like the Don is just trying to make the best out of an irritating situation. However, referring back to the status of Native Americans in this “food chain,” I don’t have too much sympathy for the Don once I think about how he treats the Native Americans.
The last two authors we have read make me frustrated with history. It’s interesting for me to read, but at the same time, it makes me wish the Europeans never stole this land. I know for me to be here today, this history had to happen, so I’m torn between wanting to give the country back to the Native Americans and just excepting that a lot of shadiness has happened in the United States over time. I do, however, think going as far as building a wall on the Mexico border in the 21st Century is a really awful idea. For one reason, it makes me think of the Berlin Wall (like how many others are seeing it as well), and I don’t think illegal immigrants are really causing as many problems as people like to assume they are in their generalizations.
“’What do you expect us to do in return? To give back to you our homesteads?’ asked Hughes” (De Burton 96).
SUMMARY:
The Don is offering the squatters a compromise that seems too good to be true. The squatters are expecting to find a “catch” to the deal because they assume the Don has a plan to drive them off of his land.
RESPONSE:
The most ironic quote in The Squatter and the Don is probably when Hughes asks these questions. I keep expecting to read about when the squatters purchased a part of the Don’s land, but then it wouldn’t make sense to call them “squatters.” Since the squatters have the audacity to bargain for land that doesn’t even belong to them, of course they think something is wrong with the Don’s generous deal. Perhaps the Don is actually planning on sabotaging the squatters’ plans, but it seems more like the Don is just trying to make the best out of an irritating situation. However, referring back to the status of Native Americans in this “food chain,” I don’t have too much sympathy for the Don once I think about how he treats the Native Americans.
The last two authors we have read make me frustrated with history. It’s interesting for me to read, but at the same time, it makes me wish the Europeans never stole this land. I know for me to be here today, this history had to happen, so I’m torn between wanting to give the country back to the Native Americans and just excepting that a lot of shadiness has happened in the United States over time. I do, however, think going as far as building a wall on the Mexico border in the 21st Century is a really awful idea. For one reason, it makes me think of the Berlin Wall (like how many others are seeing it as well), and I don’t think illegal immigrants are really causing as many problems as people like to assume they are in their generalizations.
Journal #16 Maria Amparo Ruiz De Burton: The Right To Steal Property!
QUOTE:
“Thus the government washes its hands clean, liberally providing plenty of tribunals, plenty of crooked turnings through which to scourge the wretched land-owners” (De Burton 93).
SUMMARY:
After the Mexican War, the new laws being made in the United States protected the Mexican landowners who remained in the Southwest, but those articles were soon deleted from the treaty. Landowners were no longer protected from “squatters.”
RESPONSE:
When we first discussed The Squatter and the Don in class, I said that what happens in this story would be similar to having random day-workers from down the street “squatting” in my backyard. However, as I was saying this, I realized that they are somewhat the original inhabitants of California, at least in comparison to the Europeans. I guess it’s the same feeling I get when I think about the Native Americans who are the rightful owners of the United States, but regarding this case, the law is involved instead of just killing everyone or driving them out.
De Burton’s text seems to be an observation about the hierarchy in the Southwest during the 19th Century, and really shows how Native Americans were even considered “cheap labor” by the landed class of Mexican Americans. It makes me think of the animal food chain, such as the little fish getting eaten by the bigger fish, and then that fish getting eaten by an even bigger fish. I know what happens to the Don isn’t fair, but then I think about how the Native Americans are treated by the Don, and I start to not sympathize with anyone except the Native Americans.
After reading De Burton, I see why landowners tend to be very shrewd businessmen and women. The right to own private property is probably one of the most important keys to success in this country, and I understand why the Don is willing to give some of his land away in hopes of keeping any of it.
“Thus the government washes its hands clean, liberally providing plenty of tribunals, plenty of crooked turnings through which to scourge the wretched land-owners” (De Burton 93).
SUMMARY:
After the Mexican War, the new laws being made in the United States protected the Mexican landowners who remained in the Southwest, but those articles were soon deleted from the treaty. Landowners were no longer protected from “squatters.”
RESPONSE:
When we first discussed The Squatter and the Don in class, I said that what happens in this story would be similar to having random day-workers from down the street “squatting” in my backyard. However, as I was saying this, I realized that they are somewhat the original inhabitants of California, at least in comparison to the Europeans. I guess it’s the same feeling I get when I think about the Native Americans who are the rightful owners of the United States, but regarding this case, the law is involved instead of just killing everyone or driving them out.
De Burton’s text seems to be an observation about the hierarchy in the Southwest during the 19th Century, and really shows how Native Americans were even considered “cheap labor” by the landed class of Mexican Americans. It makes me think of the animal food chain, such as the little fish getting eaten by the bigger fish, and then that fish getting eaten by an even bigger fish. I know what happens to the Don isn’t fair, but then I think about how the Native Americans are treated by the Don, and I start to not sympathize with anyone except the Native Americans.
After reading De Burton, I see why landowners tend to be very shrewd businessmen and women. The right to own private property is probably one of the most important keys to success in this country, and I understand why the Don is willing to give some of his land away in hopes of keeping any of it.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Journal #15 Sarah Winnemucca: What I Can Do!
QUOTE:
“Oh, for shame! You who are educated by a Christian government in the art of war; the practice of whose profession makes you natural enemies of the savages, so called by you…and seizing the welcoming hands of those who are the owners of this land, which you are not” (Winnemucca 511).
SUMMARY:
Winnemucca is confronting the settlers (the people responsible for the horrible and tragic state Native Americans are put in) about the hypocrisy of their “great civilization.”
RESPONSE:
After reading this section of Life Among the Piutes, it seems like Winnemucca so eloquently explains exactly what is happening to her people and her land. She makes me want to start a movement or a rally, but then I change my mind. It’s so hard for me to read texts like this because I become torn between wanting the true inhabitants of North America to own the United States, and the idea of “what’s done is done.” I think everyone needs to read original texts from the Native American perspective though, and especially texts like Winnemucca’s, because she explains things simply and straightforward. It couldn’t have come at a better time for me to be reading Native American literature too, because it helped me decide that I at least wanted to vote for whatever Native American tribes are pushing for in this election.
I already voted for “Super Tuesday” because I’m a permanent absentee ballot voter, and I paid attention to the propositions regarding Indian Gaming Casinos. I actually don’t really care about what California gets out of these propositions; I just want Native American tribes to be happy. I looked up exactly what each proposition would mean and who is paying for each proposition to be advertised, so hopefully I made the right decision.
I guess a part of me feels guilty when I read about what was done to the Native Americans, but then I have to remind myself that I had nothing to do with it. I think possibly the best thing most people can do, is to know the true history of this country and to be aware of what is happening now in comparison to the past.
“Oh, for shame! You who are educated by a Christian government in the art of war; the practice of whose profession makes you natural enemies of the savages, so called by you…and seizing the welcoming hands of those who are the owners of this land, which you are not” (Winnemucca 511).
SUMMARY:
Winnemucca is confronting the settlers (the people responsible for the horrible and tragic state Native Americans are put in) about the hypocrisy of their “great civilization.”
RESPONSE:
After reading this section of Life Among the Piutes, it seems like Winnemucca so eloquently explains exactly what is happening to her people and her land. She makes me want to start a movement or a rally, but then I change my mind. It’s so hard for me to read texts like this because I become torn between wanting the true inhabitants of North America to own the United States, and the idea of “what’s done is done.” I think everyone needs to read original texts from the Native American perspective though, and especially texts like Winnemucca’s, because she explains things simply and straightforward. It couldn’t have come at a better time for me to be reading Native American literature too, because it helped me decide that I at least wanted to vote for whatever Native American tribes are pushing for in this election.
I already voted for “Super Tuesday” because I’m a permanent absentee ballot voter, and I paid attention to the propositions regarding Indian Gaming Casinos. I actually don’t really care about what California gets out of these propositions; I just want Native American tribes to be happy. I looked up exactly what each proposition would mean and who is paying for each proposition to be advertised, so hopefully I made the right decision.
I guess a part of me feels guilty when I read about what was done to the Native Americans, but then I have to remind myself that I had nothing to do with it. I think possibly the best thing most people can do, is to know the true history of this country and to be aware of what is happening now in comparison to the past.
Journal #14 Sarah Winnemucca: Native Americans Are Just Like You!
QUOTE:
“Our children are very carefully taught to be good. Their parents tell them stories, traditions of old times…We are taught to love everybody. We don’t need to be taught to love our fathers and mothers” (Winnemucca 507).
SUMMARY:
In this chapter, Winnemucca describes the domestic and social morals of her tribe. The Piutes are very similar to Europeans (and basically everyone) in the way they raise their children, they just use different language to teach the same lessons.
RESPONSE:
While I was reading this chapter, I kept thinking to myself, “Well, duh!” Of course the Native Americans teach their children about the origins of humans, to love their parents, and to be good. However, after our class discussion, I realize that Winnemucca is most likely setting up her readers/listeners (listeners if she was giving this chapter as a speech) to view her tribe with more empathy. If she could get a sympathetic reaction towards the Piutes, it would be much easier for Winnemucca to then hit the audience with how “shameful” their Christian nation acts.
It’s pretty hard for me to stereotype any nation or race, but I guess I can understand how most of the Europeans coming to the West had a stereotypical idea of how Native Americans live. When I try to look at the history of this country from a completely objective point of view, I only rationalize the behavior of the white people by thinking that maybe the Europeans were too terrified to accept the Native Americans and their culture. A part of me doubts that this was always the case though. I tend to look at the whole situation as the Europeans taking advantage of very generous people, and then making themselves feel better by oversimplifying the nature of all Native Americans.
Without focusing so much on how this country was stolen and sold, it’s really cool to read how Winnemucca was dedicated to educating people about her culture. It would have been great if more people were affected, or if there weren’t as many people trying to take advantage of the “free” land. I think if the Europeans weren’t trying to get as much as they could out of the land for free, everyone would have been able to coexist.
“Our children are very carefully taught to be good. Their parents tell them stories, traditions of old times…We are taught to love everybody. We don’t need to be taught to love our fathers and mothers” (Winnemucca 507).
SUMMARY:
In this chapter, Winnemucca describes the domestic and social morals of her tribe. The Piutes are very similar to Europeans (and basically everyone) in the way they raise their children, they just use different language to teach the same lessons.
RESPONSE:
While I was reading this chapter, I kept thinking to myself, “Well, duh!” Of course the Native Americans teach their children about the origins of humans, to love their parents, and to be good. However, after our class discussion, I realize that Winnemucca is most likely setting up her readers/listeners (listeners if she was giving this chapter as a speech) to view her tribe with more empathy. If she could get a sympathetic reaction towards the Piutes, it would be much easier for Winnemucca to then hit the audience with how “shameful” their Christian nation acts.
It’s pretty hard for me to stereotype any nation or race, but I guess I can understand how most of the Europeans coming to the West had a stereotypical idea of how Native Americans live. When I try to look at the history of this country from a completely objective point of view, I only rationalize the behavior of the white people by thinking that maybe the Europeans were too terrified to accept the Native Americans and their culture. A part of me doubts that this was always the case though. I tend to look at the whole situation as the Europeans taking advantage of very generous people, and then making themselves feel better by oversimplifying the nature of all Native Americans.
Without focusing so much on how this country was stolen and sold, it’s really cool to read how Winnemucca was dedicated to educating people about her culture. It would have been great if more people were affected, or if there weren’t as many people trying to take advantage of the “free” land. I think if the Europeans weren’t trying to get as much as they could out of the land for free, everyone would have been able to coexist.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Journal #13 Sarah Winnemucca: The Settlers Believe In Manifest Destiny!
QUOTE:
“[S]he said to my mother: ‘Let us bury our girls, or we shall all be killed and eaten up.” So they went to work and buried us, and told us if we heard any noise not to cry out, for if we did they would surely kill us and eat us” (505 Winnemucca).
SUMMARY:
The Piutes have heard about the Donner Party, who had to resort to cannibalism after being stuck in a storm, so they are terrified that their girls will be eaten. Since Sarah is too frightened to run, her mother buries her and her sister alive.
RESPONSE:
It’s ironic how the Piutes are frightened by savage, cannibalistic white people, since Native Americans are the ones who are supposed to be the “savages.” Throughout Life Among the Piutes, the theme of “mistaken identity” seems to come up as a main cause for the problems between settlers and Native Americans. However, the skewed views each group of people has for the other, causes the Native Americans to end up worse off. Native Americans such as Winnemucca’s grandfather were ready to welcome the white settlers, but that view was obviously not shared, and entire nations of indigenous people were displaced.
Maybe if these Native Americans were actually more ferocious, they wouldn’t have been defeated so easily. They were so ready to accept the settlers, but possibly because of certain tribes who were in fact hostile to the people trying to take their land, the white people were already expecting the worst from Native Americans. However, I do have a feeling that the settlers would have still kicked out the Native American tribes, even if it were completely obvious how kind and helpful they were, because the settlers believed in Manifest Destiny: that they had every right to possess all of North America.
This just would not fly nowadays, even though in a way it reminds me of when (for example) certain political figures think that they can go into any country and start changing things. It seems really tough to stay on track and accomplish anything when clashing cultures come into contact. That's usually why one culture is completely phased out, or becomes more of a subculture.
“[S]he said to my mother: ‘Let us bury our girls, or we shall all be killed and eaten up.” So they went to work and buried us, and told us if we heard any noise not to cry out, for if we did they would surely kill us and eat us” (505 Winnemucca).
SUMMARY:
The Piutes have heard about the Donner Party, who had to resort to cannibalism after being stuck in a storm, so they are terrified that their girls will be eaten. Since Sarah is too frightened to run, her mother buries her and her sister alive.
RESPONSE:
It’s ironic how the Piutes are frightened by savage, cannibalistic white people, since Native Americans are the ones who are supposed to be the “savages.” Throughout Life Among the Piutes, the theme of “mistaken identity” seems to come up as a main cause for the problems between settlers and Native Americans. However, the skewed views each group of people has for the other, causes the Native Americans to end up worse off. Native Americans such as Winnemucca’s grandfather were ready to welcome the white settlers, but that view was obviously not shared, and entire nations of indigenous people were displaced.
Maybe if these Native Americans were actually more ferocious, they wouldn’t have been defeated so easily. They were so ready to accept the settlers, but possibly because of certain tribes who were in fact hostile to the people trying to take their land, the white people were already expecting the worst from Native Americans. However, I do have a feeling that the settlers would have still kicked out the Native American tribes, even if it were completely obvious how kind and helpful they were, because the settlers believed in Manifest Destiny: that they had every right to possess all of North America.
This just would not fly nowadays, even though in a way it reminds me of when (for example) certain political figures think that they can go into any country and start changing things. It seems really tough to stay on track and accomplish anything when clashing cultures come into contact. That's usually why one culture is completely phased out, or becomes more of a subculture.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Journal #12 Mark Twain: That Darn Pap!
QUOTE:
“’Don’t you give me none o’ your lip,’ says he. ‘You’ve put on considerble many frills since I been away. I’ll take you down a peg before I get done with you. Your educated, too, they say; can read and write. You think you’re better’n your father, now, don’t you’” (Twain 120).
SUMMARY:
Pap catches up with Huck and decides to drag him down to his own low level. He doesn’t want Huck to be any “better,” and he only wants the money Huck has.
RESPONSE:
Twain creates an uneasy feeling right before Pap returns, and it’s almost like reading a thriller or scary novel. At first it seems pretty silly when Jim gets out his magic “hair-ball” that has a spirit inside of it, but it actually predicted the future! (Or did it??) I don’t know whether Jim already knew Pap was back or not, but assuming that he didn’t, this is definitely the part of the book that puts me into “movie-mode.” I’ve always liked books that can create a vivid picture in my mind (and it seems like almost everything I’ve read in the last class as well as this one have become little movies in my brain), so this part of the story helped to hook me into reading more.
From this point on in the story, however, I started to get more and more frustrated with Pap. I couldn’t wait to read how Huck finally escapes, and of course he fakes his own death! That must be a running theme for Twain because I think Tom Sawyer ends up at his own funeral in his book? I guess the idea of a person faking his or her own death is pretty fascinating. I wonder if Twain found the idea fascinating as well, so he wrote about it in his books? However, it seems like a pretty tricky situation to “stay dead” once Huck plants all of the evidence. I actually thought, “You’ve got to be kidding me!” when Pap passes right by Huck in the skiff. Even though I already knew that Huck escaped, I was still uneasy reading this whole part.
“’Don’t you give me none o’ your lip,’ says he. ‘You’ve put on considerble many frills since I been away. I’ll take you down a peg before I get done with you. Your educated, too, they say; can read and write. You think you’re better’n your father, now, don’t you’” (Twain 120).
SUMMARY:
Pap catches up with Huck and decides to drag him down to his own low level. He doesn’t want Huck to be any “better,” and he only wants the money Huck has.
RESPONSE:
Twain creates an uneasy feeling right before Pap returns, and it’s almost like reading a thriller or scary novel. At first it seems pretty silly when Jim gets out his magic “hair-ball” that has a spirit inside of it, but it actually predicted the future! (Or did it??) I don’t know whether Jim already knew Pap was back or not, but assuming that he didn’t, this is definitely the part of the book that puts me into “movie-mode.” I’ve always liked books that can create a vivid picture in my mind (and it seems like almost everything I’ve read in the last class as well as this one have become little movies in my brain), so this part of the story helped to hook me into reading more.
From this point on in the story, however, I started to get more and more frustrated with Pap. I couldn’t wait to read how Huck finally escapes, and of course he fakes his own death! That must be a running theme for Twain because I think Tom Sawyer ends up at his own funeral in his book? I guess the idea of a person faking his or her own death is pretty fascinating. I wonder if Twain found the idea fascinating as well, so he wrote about it in his books? However, it seems like a pretty tricky situation to “stay dead” once Huck plants all of the evidence. I actually thought, “You’ve got to be kidding me!” when Pap passes right by Huck in the skiff. Even though I already knew that Huck escaped, I was still uneasy reading this whole part.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Journal #11 Mark Twain: Good Lessons For Kids!
QUOTE:
“She said all a body would have to do there was to go around all day long with a harp and sing, forever and ever…I asked her if she reckoned Tom Sawyer would go there, and, she said, not by a considerable sight. I was glad about that, because I wanted him and me to be together” (Twain 110).
SUMMARY:
Miss Watson tells Huck about heaven, “the good place,” but he realizes that he probably wouldn’t care to go to heaven. This foreshadows Huck’s tough decision later in the story.
RESPONSE:
This little conversation about heaven and hell in the beginning of the story sets up the nature of Huck’s character. He seems to think like a young boy who would rather play all day than take life seriously, but he is also a loyal friend. He would much rather go to hell and be able to have “fun” with his friends, than go to heaven and stroll around the clouds with a harp singing. I think Huck truly believes in heaven and hell, and especially because he is so superstitious. Just from killing a spider, Huck ends up completing at least three actions “to keep witches away” (110), and yet he still has no problem with sneaking out to start a gang with Tom Sawyer.
This gang is pretty violent and nasty, however, Tom Sawyer’s Gang doesn't actually do anything in real life that is “bad,” such as killing people. The first couple chapters set up the book to be about a bunch of kids playing “make-believe” games, so I can see why a lot of people thought Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was going to be a Tom Sawyer Part II. When I first started reading (probably up until Huck’s father comes back), I was even thinking what a great book this must be for young kids. However, even after reading about Huck’s father, a part of me still thinks there is a lot in this book that is probably better for kids to learn at a young age. Maybe? I guess I think kids can handle a lot more than people give them credit for.
“She said all a body would have to do there was to go around all day long with a harp and sing, forever and ever…I asked her if she reckoned Tom Sawyer would go there, and, she said, not by a considerable sight. I was glad about that, because I wanted him and me to be together” (Twain 110).
SUMMARY:
Miss Watson tells Huck about heaven, “the good place,” but he realizes that he probably wouldn’t care to go to heaven. This foreshadows Huck’s tough decision later in the story.
RESPONSE:
This little conversation about heaven and hell in the beginning of the story sets up the nature of Huck’s character. He seems to think like a young boy who would rather play all day than take life seriously, but he is also a loyal friend. He would much rather go to hell and be able to have “fun” with his friends, than go to heaven and stroll around the clouds with a harp singing. I think Huck truly believes in heaven and hell, and especially because he is so superstitious. Just from killing a spider, Huck ends up completing at least three actions “to keep witches away” (110), and yet he still has no problem with sneaking out to start a gang with Tom Sawyer.
This gang is pretty violent and nasty, however, Tom Sawyer’s Gang doesn't actually do anything in real life that is “bad,” such as killing people. The first couple chapters set up the book to be about a bunch of kids playing “make-believe” games, so I can see why a lot of people thought Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was going to be a Tom Sawyer Part II. When I first started reading (probably up until Huck’s father comes back), I was even thinking what a great book this must be for young kids. However, even after reading about Huck’s father, a part of me still thinks there is a lot in this book that is probably better for kids to learn at a young age. Maybe? I guess I think kids can handle a lot more than people give them credit for.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Journal #10 Mark Twain: That Controversial Topic!
QUOTE:
“O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain” (Twain 323).
SUMMARY:
This section of “The War Prayer” is one of the most outright violent parts in this text. It’s probably one of the main sections that led to it being unsuitable for publication at the time.
RESPONSE:
While I read this work, I imagined the most passive-aggressive speaker reciting it as a speech. I think Twain is exposing how ridiculous it is for people to go to war “in the name of God,” and is throwing this idea back up in everyone’s face. At first I thought Twain was just merely suggesting his idea, but after our discussion in class, I see how bold Twain was with his choice of words. The word that stood out to me the most was from our class discussion though, and that was hypocrisy. It pointed out to me that Twain is basically accusing “Crusaders” (or even just basic religious people) of viewing war as a double standard. It reminds me of when we read Abraham Lincoln last quarter because he addresses the issue of how not everyone can be “right,” and yet they are all praying to the “same” god.
I think that it was too controversial to publish this text at the time, not only because it was written during the Philippine-American War, but also because some people probably realized that there was some truth to what Twain wrote. However, Twain takes back everything he says at the end. The last sentence, which reads, “the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said” (Twain 324); seems to be Twain’s disclaimer. He can blame everything he has written on the “crazy” man, who is just a character in a story. Maybe it’s more obvious that this isn’t just a fictional story though, so any publisher would know that any “war literature” would be too touchy.
“O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain” (Twain 323).
SUMMARY:
This section of “The War Prayer” is one of the most outright violent parts in this text. It’s probably one of the main sections that led to it being unsuitable for publication at the time.
RESPONSE:
While I read this work, I imagined the most passive-aggressive speaker reciting it as a speech. I think Twain is exposing how ridiculous it is for people to go to war “in the name of God,” and is throwing this idea back up in everyone’s face. At first I thought Twain was just merely suggesting his idea, but after our discussion in class, I see how bold Twain was with his choice of words. The word that stood out to me the most was from our class discussion though, and that was hypocrisy. It pointed out to me that Twain is basically accusing “Crusaders” (or even just basic religious people) of viewing war as a double standard. It reminds me of when we read Abraham Lincoln last quarter because he addresses the issue of how not everyone can be “right,” and yet they are all praying to the “same” god.
I think that it was too controversial to publish this text at the time, not only because it was written during the Philippine-American War, but also because some people probably realized that there was some truth to what Twain wrote. However, Twain takes back everything he says at the end. The last sentence, which reads, “the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said” (Twain 324); seems to be Twain’s disclaimer. He can blame everything he has written on the “crazy” man, who is just a character in a story. Maybe it’s more obvious that this isn’t just a fictional story though, so any publisher would know that any “war literature” would be too touchy.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Journal #9 Mark Twain: My Favorite Humor!
QUOTE:
“Why, it made no difference to him - he’d bet on any thing – the dangdest feller” (Twain 105).
SUMMARY:
Smiley is just a lucky guy, so he finds the strangest bets to try his chances on. He even goes as far as betting whether Parson Walker’s wife will die or not.
RESPONSE:
This is a nice light-hearted story about a gambling man and a frog, and it also happens to be frustratingly funny without the obvious punch line. The humor comes from the ridiculous situations, which seem especially silly when told in the correct accent of the dialect, and other little details in how the simple story is told. For example, I wonder how different this story would have come across if it were told from a third person perspective instead of a first person perspective.
The main reason I love this story, however, is because it reminds me of my all-time favorite show in the whole world on television: The Simpsons. Reading this story made me think of an episode with Krusty The Clown making ridiculous bets, similarly to Jim Smiley’s ridiculous bets. Krusty starts getting into gambling debt, so to fix this problem he makes any other bet he can make. He asks his bookie, “What do ya got on the Opera tonight?” And the bookie actually asks, “Who do ya like?” Krusty then says, “The Tenor!!” That’s the joke without a punch line.
It seems so much wittier to me than anything; book, movie, or television show, that uses “bathroom” or crude humor. Maybe that’s why I also have always loved Groucho Marx. He is probably my favorite comedian, and he always said that a real comedian would never have to be censored; a real comedian can suggest something that is only an allusion to something shocking, so anyone will still find it funny.
“Why, it made no difference to him - he’d bet on any thing – the dangdest feller” (Twain 105).
SUMMARY:
Smiley is just a lucky guy, so he finds the strangest bets to try his chances on. He even goes as far as betting whether Parson Walker’s wife will die or not.
RESPONSE:
This is a nice light-hearted story about a gambling man and a frog, and it also happens to be frustratingly funny without the obvious punch line. The humor comes from the ridiculous situations, which seem especially silly when told in the correct accent of the dialect, and other little details in how the simple story is told. For example, I wonder how different this story would have come across if it were told from a third person perspective instead of a first person perspective.
The main reason I love this story, however, is because it reminds me of my all-time favorite show in the whole world on television: The Simpsons. Reading this story made me think of an episode with Krusty The Clown making ridiculous bets, similarly to Jim Smiley’s ridiculous bets. Krusty starts getting into gambling debt, so to fix this problem he makes any other bet he can make. He asks his bookie, “What do ya got on the Opera tonight?” And the bookie actually asks, “Who do ya like?” Krusty then says, “The Tenor!!” That’s the joke without a punch line.
It seems so much wittier to me than anything; book, movie, or television show, that uses “bathroom” or crude humor. Maybe that’s why I also have always loved Groucho Marx. He is probably my favorite comedian, and he always said that a real comedian would never have to be censored; a real comedian can suggest something that is only an allusion to something shocking, so anyone will still find it funny.
Journal #8 Ambrose Bierce: Oh The Humanity!
QUOTE:
“From this state he was awakened – ages later, it seemed to him – by the pain of a sharp pressure upon his throat, followed by a sense of suffocation” (Bierce 363).
SUMMARY:
Peyton Farquhar is being hanged. This is the description that leads to the “trick” ending, but it is really describing the suffocation sensation of the hanging.
RESPONSE:
The beginning of Part III is creepy and pretty horrible when I think about it; and it reminds me of my experience waking up from a coma, like many other texts do as well. When I first woke up, it was the middle of the night and I thought I was dreaming. I had no sense of time or anything, so it seemed like I had forgotten my whole entire life. I guess the difference is that I was waking up, but Farquhar is “falling asleep” a.k.a. dying. I think Farquhar also had more time to experience thoughts in his brain as he dies, which led to his “dream” sequence. I guess maybe that’s better than actually knowing that you are dying, kind of like a movie that just suddenly ends, instead of Farquhar using that time to think about how he’s dying a horrible death.
What I find really interesting about this story (I’m pretty sure Dr. Scott pointed this out in class, and I agree) is that I think the readers are going to be on Farquar’s side. The readers want him to have escaped the noose, but don’t necessarily want any slave owner to help sabotage “The Yanks,” or get any sort of upper hand. Without section II, I believe the readers (and myself) would feel more disappointed or depressed from the ending. However, even though I don’t feel quite as bad for Farquar once I know his background, I still notice that section III makes me wish that he ends up escaping in the end. Maybe that’s just having some sort of compassion for another human being going through a horrible experience?
“From this state he was awakened – ages later, it seemed to him – by the pain of a sharp pressure upon his throat, followed by a sense of suffocation” (Bierce 363).
SUMMARY:
Peyton Farquhar is being hanged. This is the description that leads to the “trick” ending, but it is really describing the suffocation sensation of the hanging.
RESPONSE:
The beginning of Part III is creepy and pretty horrible when I think about it; and it reminds me of my experience waking up from a coma, like many other texts do as well. When I first woke up, it was the middle of the night and I thought I was dreaming. I had no sense of time or anything, so it seemed like I had forgotten my whole entire life. I guess the difference is that I was waking up, but Farquhar is “falling asleep” a.k.a. dying. I think Farquhar also had more time to experience thoughts in his brain as he dies, which led to his “dream” sequence. I guess maybe that’s better than actually knowing that you are dying, kind of like a movie that just suddenly ends, instead of Farquhar using that time to think about how he’s dying a horrible death.
What I find really interesting about this story (I’m pretty sure Dr. Scott pointed this out in class, and I agree) is that I think the readers are going to be on Farquar’s side. The readers want him to have escaped the noose, but don’t necessarily want any slave owner to help sabotage “The Yanks,” or get any sort of upper hand. Without section II, I believe the readers (and myself) would feel more disappointed or depressed from the ending. However, even though I don’t feel quite as bad for Farquar once I know his background, I still notice that section III makes me wish that he ends up escaping in the end. Maybe that’s just having some sort of compassion for another human being going through a horrible experience?
Monday, January 14, 2008
Journal #7 Bret Harte: Death For A False Messiah!
QUOTE:
“A smile lit the eyes of the expiring Kentuck. ‘Dying!’ he repeated…‘Tell the boys I’ve got The Luck with me now;’ and the strong man, clinging to the frail babe as a drowning man is said to cling to a straw, drifted away” (Harte 333).
SUMMARY:
The winter causes the creeks and rivers to overflow, and the cabin “The Luck” is living in is swept away. Kentuck, who dies trying to save The Luck, is actually happy during his last breaths because he believes he will be with Tommy forever now.
RESPONSE:
Maybe Kentuck is actually happy because he can believe that he will still be with The Luck, instead of surviving and having to live without Tommy. The expressman even says, “they worship an Ingin baby” (Harte 332) when describing the men at Roaring Camp, which sounds like Tommy is almost like their own “Baby Jesus.” Millions of people have died throughout time because of their religion and so many gruesome wars are caused by religious differences. I think Kentuck’s death probably isn’t in vain, in his own eyes at least.
After reading The Luck of Roaring Camp, I just want to say, “That sucks for them.” Hopefully the men in Roaring Camp won’t turn back into reckless murderers, because their lives seemed to be more enriched when they had The Luck to take care of. Maybe they will really open up the camp to other people, now that they’ll need someone or something to love again. Either that, or they’ll completely shut off their camp to the outside world. I have to say that I really enjoyed this story, and especially because it’s hard for me to think of it as fiction. I was totally thinking about what will become of Roaring Camp, or what became of Roaring Camp, but then I had to remind myself that it’s a fictional story; realistic, but fictional.
Maybe that’s what also allows me to actually like the story though. Maybe because Kentuck or Tommy didn’t actually exist, and camps in the “Wild West” probably never devoted all of their time to a “false Messiah.” I can just read this story as an interesting idea without feeling bad, even though a situation like this has probably happened somewhere in the world already.
“A smile lit the eyes of the expiring Kentuck. ‘Dying!’ he repeated…‘Tell the boys I’ve got The Luck with me now;’ and the strong man, clinging to the frail babe as a drowning man is said to cling to a straw, drifted away” (Harte 333).
SUMMARY:
The winter causes the creeks and rivers to overflow, and the cabin “The Luck” is living in is swept away. Kentuck, who dies trying to save The Luck, is actually happy during his last breaths because he believes he will be with Tommy forever now.
RESPONSE:
Maybe Kentuck is actually happy because he can believe that he will still be with The Luck, instead of surviving and having to live without Tommy. The expressman even says, “they worship an Ingin baby” (Harte 332) when describing the men at Roaring Camp, which sounds like Tommy is almost like their own “Baby Jesus.” Millions of people have died throughout time because of their religion and so many gruesome wars are caused by religious differences. I think Kentuck’s death probably isn’t in vain, in his own eyes at least.
After reading The Luck of Roaring Camp, I just want to say, “That sucks for them.” Hopefully the men in Roaring Camp won’t turn back into reckless murderers, because their lives seemed to be more enriched when they had The Luck to take care of. Maybe they will really open up the camp to other people, now that they’ll need someone or something to love again. Either that, or they’ll completely shut off their camp to the outside world. I have to say that I really enjoyed this story, and especially because it’s hard for me to think of it as fiction. I was totally thinking about what will become of Roaring Camp, or what became of Roaring Camp, but then I had to remind myself that it’s a fictional story; realistic, but fictional.
Maybe that’s what also allows me to actually like the story though. Maybe because Kentuck or Tommy didn’t actually exist, and camps in the “Wild West” probably never devoted all of their time to a “false Messiah.” I can just read this story as an interesting idea without feeling bad, even though a situation like this has probably happened somewhere in the world already.
Journal #6 Bret Harte: The Power of a New Baby!
QUOTE:
“Strange to say, the child thrived. Perhaps the invigorating climate of the mountain camp was compensation for material deficiencies. Nature took the foundling to her broader breast” (Harte 329).
SUMMARY:
Even without his mother, “Tommy Luck” is able to survive in Roaring Camp. All of the men make sure that they give the baby sufficient substitutes for anything the mother would have provided.
RESPONSE:
Baby Tommy probably had a pretty good chance of survival with “Cherokee Sal” gone because he had the whole camp as his fathers. In a way I think he may have had a greater chance of survival (or just a better life), because I’m not sure the men in the camp would have claimed Tommy as their own; especially with Cherokee Sal still alive. It makes me think of those horrible talk shows that give paternity tests to all of the possible fathers of a single baby. Almost every time, the real father ends up saying, “I will do what’s right for the baby, but I don’t want anything to do with the mother.” Without Cherokee Sal still alive, all of the men can feel like Tommy is possibly their own baby, but don’t have to worry about any “right” way of dealing with Cherokee Sal.
That may not have been the only reason why the men want to take such good care of Tommy, however. Since this is the first birth at Roaring Camp, followed by the ”regeneration” in the Camp, the new life seems to show the men that there is a possibility for change. I think this possibility is enough motivation to break the old habits of the men. I also think that the men were probably in need of something or someone to really love. No matter how crude, rough, or unwieldy these men were; I think this experience changed them. It’s not like they were all lazy deadbeat-dads to begin with. They may have been known to shoot men dead in the streets, but their parenting skills were what came through in the end.
“Strange to say, the child thrived. Perhaps the invigorating climate of the mountain camp was compensation for material deficiencies. Nature took the foundling to her broader breast” (Harte 329).
SUMMARY:
Even without his mother, “Tommy Luck” is able to survive in Roaring Camp. All of the men make sure that they give the baby sufficient substitutes for anything the mother would have provided.
RESPONSE:
Baby Tommy probably had a pretty good chance of survival with “Cherokee Sal” gone because he had the whole camp as his fathers. In a way I think he may have had a greater chance of survival (or just a better life), because I’m not sure the men in the camp would have claimed Tommy as their own; especially with Cherokee Sal still alive. It makes me think of those horrible talk shows that give paternity tests to all of the possible fathers of a single baby. Almost every time, the real father ends up saying, “I will do what’s right for the baby, but I don’t want anything to do with the mother.” Without Cherokee Sal still alive, all of the men can feel like Tommy is possibly their own baby, but don’t have to worry about any “right” way of dealing with Cherokee Sal.
That may not have been the only reason why the men want to take such good care of Tommy, however. Since this is the first birth at Roaring Camp, followed by the ”regeneration” in the Camp, the new life seems to show the men that there is a possibility for change. I think this possibility is enough motivation to break the old habits of the men. I also think that the men were probably in need of something or someone to really love. No matter how crude, rough, or unwieldy these men were; I think this experience changed them. It’s not like they were all lazy deadbeat-dads to begin with. They may have been known to shoot men dead in the streets, but their parenting skills were what came through in the end.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Journal #5 Emily Dickinson: The Potential of the Brain!
QUOTE:
“The Brain is deeper than the sea - / For – hold them – Blue to Blue - / The other one will absorb - / As Sponges – Buckets – do –“ (Dickinson 632).
SUMMARY:
This quote seems to be Dickinson explaining that the brain is able to absorb the whole entire sea. The rest of the poem is also about the brain having the most capacity.
RESPONSE:
I had to write about another “brain” quote since Dickinson seems to know about the enormous amount of potential the human brain actually has. Ever since I’ve experienced first hand how the brain can recover from injury, I know that the potential for the brain is all about building connections. The coolest thing about the brain is that it can always build new connections, which can help make up for lost or damaged connections. I’m not really sure if that much was known about the brain in 1863, and even if doctors and scientists did know what is known now, it seems very intelligent for Dickinson to write about it.
She definitely seems like a woman in love with her own brain, and especially because she never really left her room! I think a lot of people who can spend most of their time alone are usually very imaginative, which means they use their brains a lot too. I wonder if a lot of Dickinson’s ideas for her poetry came from random thoughts that entered her brain, and especially the ideas for all of her poems about death and being dead. I guess all of those poems make me think of Dickinson having many daydreams about her own death or being dead. She kind of sounds morbid in most of those poems, but morbid works for a lot of people! I’m not sure if I necessarily enjoy that type of poetry, but I can appreciate her skill and her approach in all of her poems. I know that my favorite poems of hers now will be the “brain poems!”
“The Brain is deeper than the sea - / For – hold them – Blue to Blue - / The other one will absorb - / As Sponges – Buckets – do –“ (Dickinson 632).
SUMMARY:
This quote seems to be Dickinson explaining that the brain is able to absorb the whole entire sea. The rest of the poem is also about the brain having the most capacity.
RESPONSE:
I had to write about another “brain” quote since Dickinson seems to know about the enormous amount of potential the human brain actually has. Ever since I’ve experienced first hand how the brain can recover from injury, I know that the potential for the brain is all about building connections. The coolest thing about the brain is that it can always build new connections, which can help make up for lost or damaged connections. I’m not really sure if that much was known about the brain in 1863, and even if doctors and scientists did know what is known now, it seems very intelligent for Dickinson to write about it.
She definitely seems like a woman in love with her own brain, and especially because she never really left her room! I think a lot of people who can spend most of their time alone are usually very imaginative, which means they use their brains a lot too. I wonder if a lot of Dickinson’s ideas for her poetry came from random thoughts that entered her brain, and especially the ideas for all of her poems about death and being dead. I guess all of those poems make me think of Dickinson having many daydreams about her own death or being dead. She kind of sounds morbid in most of those poems, but morbid works for a lot of people! I’m not sure if I necessarily enjoy that type of poetry, but I can appreciate her skill and her approach in all of her poems. I know that my favorite poems of hers now will be the “brain poems!”
Journal #4 Emily Dickinson: Her Message Is- Don't Judge Me!
QUOTE:
“For love of Her – Sweet – countrymen - / Judge tenderly – of Me” (Dickinson 87)
SUMMARY:
It almost seems like Dickinson is asking for people in the world to not judge her harshly in this poem. There are also a lot of random capitalizations of letters, which possibly emphasize a deeper meaning within each word.
RESPONSE:
The message in this poem seems to be that the “World” is ignoring Emily Dickinson, but God Herself told Dickinson that She wants everyone to “be nice.” This seems like the “message from God” that most people believe to be true: Judge not lest ye be judged. (I’m pretty sure that’s the saying.) So it sounds like Dickinson is beseeching her readers to think of her kindly while they read her poetry. It sort of reminds me of certain female writers we read in 48A, or any female writer who would include in her work that she is only a helpless woman; so readers shouldn’t judge her like they would a male author. I guess it could be a defensive way to protect Dickinson’s self-confidence, even though she probably knew that her writing was very good.
As far as technical aspects in this poem, when I first read the poem I right away noticed Dickinson’s capitalizations in what seems like random places for random words. I thought her capital letters could possibly be highlighting certain words that she really wants her readers to pay attention to. I then turned my attention to the capital “H” in “Her,” which made me think of how people capitalize the “H” in “Him” when referring to God. Since Dickinson writes about “Her Message” reaching all the people she cannot see, I think it further stands out that “Her” could very well likely represent God. On the flipside though, it wouldn’t surprise me if the capitalized “H” really doesn’t have anything to do with God because Her Message could be Dickinson's message: Don't Judge Me! But I guess it also wouldn’t surprise me if it does in fact represent God as a woman.
“For love of Her – Sweet – countrymen - / Judge tenderly – of Me” (Dickinson 87)
SUMMARY:
It almost seems like Dickinson is asking for people in the world to not judge her harshly in this poem. There are also a lot of random capitalizations of letters, which possibly emphasize a deeper meaning within each word.
RESPONSE:
The message in this poem seems to be that the “World” is ignoring Emily Dickinson, but God Herself told Dickinson that She wants everyone to “be nice.” This seems like the “message from God” that most people believe to be true: Judge not lest ye be judged. (I’m pretty sure that’s the saying.) So it sounds like Dickinson is beseeching her readers to think of her kindly while they read her poetry. It sort of reminds me of certain female writers we read in 48A, or any female writer who would include in her work that she is only a helpless woman; so readers shouldn’t judge her like they would a male author. I guess it could be a defensive way to protect Dickinson’s self-confidence, even though she probably knew that her writing was very good.
As far as technical aspects in this poem, when I first read the poem I right away noticed Dickinson’s capitalizations in what seems like random places for random words. I thought her capital letters could possibly be highlighting certain words that she really wants her readers to pay attention to. I then turned my attention to the capital “H” in “Her,” which made me think of how people capitalize the “H” in “Him” when referring to God. Since Dickinson writes about “Her Message” reaching all the people she cannot see, I think it further stands out that “Her” could very well likely represent God. On the flipside though, it wouldn’t surprise me if the capitalized “H” really doesn’t have anything to do with God because Her Message could be Dickinson's message: Don't Judge Me! But I guess it also wouldn’t surprise me if it does in fact represent God as a woman.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Journal #3 Emily Dickinson: How Does A Funeral In The Brain Feel?!
QUOTE:
“I felt a Funeral, in my Brain, / And Mourners to and fro… / Kept beating – beating – till I thought / My mind was going numb” (Dickinson 84)
SUMMARY:
This poem feels like Dickinson is exploring deeply into her own mind. She uses death or a funeral as a metaphor for most likely something else, however that seems like the usual speculation for her poetry.
RESPONSE:
Even though it may be somewhat cliché to say that pain brings the most beautiful poetry or art, it seems like there is a lot of pain or sorrow in this poem (and something about it is really beautiful to me). Most of the poem sounds agonizing, but only in the speaker or Dickinson’s mind. Although it’s not clear to me what is causing everything in this poem, it seems like the last stanza at least brings understanding or some sort of sense to her mind. However the last stanza isn’t necessarily a “happy” ending.
Maybe to me it can seem possibly uplifting at the end because “a Plank in Reason, broke” (line 16), and that seems better to me than suffering without knowing why. However, I then think about how ignorance is bliss for some people, so maybe having too much reason brings pain? I somehow doubt that this ending is as painful as the beginning sounds though.
I guess anything that has to do with “the brain” is going to stand out to me though. When I was first recovering from my traumatic brain injury (it was 4 years ago on January 4th) I guess I felt like really depressing thoughts (like a funeral) were always in the back of my mind. I’m not suggesting that Dickinson had any injury to her brain however; I guess I think that’s probably how I can relate to this poem. Certain lines stand out to me too, such as, “A Service, like a Drum - / Kept beating – beating – till I thought / My mind was going numb” (line 6-8). It kind of reminds me of when I get horrible pounding headaches - like my skull is squeezing my brain. (I know that sounds fun.)
“I felt a Funeral, in my Brain, / And Mourners to and fro… / Kept beating – beating – till I thought / My mind was going numb” (Dickinson 84)
SUMMARY:
This poem feels like Dickinson is exploring deeply into her own mind. She uses death or a funeral as a metaphor for most likely something else, however that seems like the usual speculation for her poetry.
RESPONSE:
Even though it may be somewhat cliché to say that pain brings the most beautiful poetry or art, it seems like there is a lot of pain or sorrow in this poem (and something about it is really beautiful to me). Most of the poem sounds agonizing, but only in the speaker or Dickinson’s mind. Although it’s not clear to me what is causing everything in this poem, it seems like the last stanza at least brings understanding or some sort of sense to her mind. However the last stanza isn’t necessarily a “happy” ending.
Maybe to me it can seem possibly uplifting at the end because “a Plank in Reason, broke” (line 16), and that seems better to me than suffering without knowing why. However, I then think about how ignorance is bliss for some people, so maybe having too much reason brings pain? I somehow doubt that this ending is as painful as the beginning sounds though.
I guess anything that has to do with “the brain” is going to stand out to me though. When I was first recovering from my traumatic brain injury (it was 4 years ago on January 4th) I guess I felt like really depressing thoughts (like a funeral) were always in the back of my mind. I’m not suggesting that Dickinson had any injury to her brain however; I guess I think that’s probably how I can relate to this poem. Certain lines stand out to me too, such as, “A Service, like a Drum - / Kept beating – beating – till I thought / My mind was going numb” (line 6-8). It kind of reminds me of when I get horrible pounding headaches - like my skull is squeezing my brain. (I know that sounds fun.)
Journal #2 Walt Whitman: The Real Walt Whitman!
QUOTE:
“An unseen hand also pass’d over their bodies, / It descended tremblingly from their temples and ribs…They do not think whom they souse with spray” (Whitman 37).
SUMMARY:
This section of Whitman’s “Song of Myself” can be very ambiguous because it is unclear whom exactly Whitman is referring to. There is a woman, the speaker, and the twenty-ninth bather, however those may all be the same person.
RESPONSE:
When reading the eleventh subdivision of “Song of Myself,” a first-time reader will probably think Whitman is writing literally about a spinster woman who is spying on a bunch of half-naked young men. However the idea that Whitman himself is actually the “woman,” or possibly the twenty-ninth bather in the poem, was brought up in class. Whitman could have been referring to himself as living “Twenty-eight years of womanly life and all so lonesome” (line 201), but that would probably only work if he wanted to represent his homosexuality as “womanly.” Thinking of Whitman as the woman may be too simple of an explanation though, because there is also an “unseen hand” that is touching the young men’s bodies as they bathe themselves and splash each other.
There are so many different possibilities to answer the question of where Whitman may show up in the poem (if at all), and no one can ever really know the truth. However, I don’t necessarily think anyone really needs to know because I wonder if Whitman himself even knew! He probably did know, but maybe the poetic master in him liked to imagine the future debates on his poetry between grad students? I think it’s fun coming up with really mysterious or complicated explanations for poetry, and especially ones that make me see some aspect in a whole new light.
I’m really happy that we’ve read Walt Whitman in class though, because I’ve never actually read his poetry before, even when I feel like I’ve seen so many references to him. When we were discussing Whitman in class, I kept thinking about Homer Simpson. In one episode, Homer’s upset because his father always told him that his mother was dead, but when he finally decides to go look at the supposed grave up close, it’s Walt Whitman’s! Homer then yells, “My mother’s grave belongs to WALT WHITMAN??!! I hate you Walt Whitman! Leaves of grass my ass!” I guess I’ll repeat that I’m glad to have found out about the "real" Walt Whitman now.
“An unseen hand also pass’d over their bodies, / It descended tremblingly from their temples and ribs…They do not think whom they souse with spray” (Whitman 37).
SUMMARY:
This section of Whitman’s “Song of Myself” can be very ambiguous because it is unclear whom exactly Whitman is referring to. There is a woman, the speaker, and the twenty-ninth bather, however those may all be the same person.
RESPONSE:
When reading the eleventh subdivision of “Song of Myself,” a first-time reader will probably think Whitman is writing literally about a spinster woman who is spying on a bunch of half-naked young men. However the idea that Whitman himself is actually the “woman,” or possibly the twenty-ninth bather in the poem, was brought up in class. Whitman could have been referring to himself as living “Twenty-eight years of womanly life and all so lonesome” (line 201), but that would probably only work if he wanted to represent his homosexuality as “womanly.” Thinking of Whitman as the woman may be too simple of an explanation though, because there is also an “unseen hand” that is touching the young men’s bodies as they bathe themselves and splash each other.
There are so many different possibilities to answer the question of where Whitman may show up in the poem (if at all), and no one can ever really know the truth. However, I don’t necessarily think anyone really needs to know because I wonder if Whitman himself even knew! He probably did know, but maybe the poetic master in him liked to imagine the future debates on his poetry between grad students? I think it’s fun coming up with really mysterious or complicated explanations for poetry, and especially ones that make me see some aspect in a whole new light.
I’m really happy that we’ve read Walt Whitman in class though, because I’ve never actually read his poetry before, even when I feel like I’ve seen so many references to him. When we were discussing Whitman in class, I kept thinking about Homer Simpson. In one episode, Homer’s upset because his father always told him that his mother was dead, but when he finally decides to go look at the supposed grave up close, it’s Walt Whitman’s! Homer then yells, “My mother’s grave belongs to WALT WHITMAN??!! I hate you Walt Whitman! Leaves of grass my ass!” I guess I’ll repeat that I’m glad to have found out about the "real" Walt Whitman now.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Journal #1 Walt Whitman: The Beauty In Biology!
QUOTE:
“My tongue, every atom of my blood, form’d from this soil, this air, / Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their parents / the same” (Whitman 30).
SUMMARY:
This stanza is from the opening section of Whitman’s Song of Myself. He is introducing himself and his origin, which he describes in biological terms, but still uses poetic techniques for this poem.
RESPONSE:
When I first read these lines I immediately thought that Whitman must have just finished attending a biology lecture before writing the opening section of Song of Myself. However, the “scientific” language he uses is very descriptive and rich, so Whitman seems to have turned science into art with this section of his poem. Words such as “tongue,” “atom,” “blood,” and “soil,” may just be nouns, but they are used almost like adjectives (if that makes any sense). Whitman’s vocabulary is still simple even though it is scientific, but since he arranges his words almost like how I think song lyrics are usually arranged, they express something much more complex than just stating: “My family and I come from nature and earth.”
After reading the introduction for Whitman in Norton, however, it makes so much more sense why Whitman’s scientific language stands out to me. Since Whitman “would address all ‘the facts of the animal economy, sex, nutriment, gestation, birth,’ [and] he put the living, breathing, sexual body at the center of much of his poetry” (Norton 17), reading his poetry can feel like witnessing the beauty of nature, in a way. I think his innovative techniques in his poetry help display just how beautiful language can be, as well as how beautiful nature and the natural occurrences of life can be.
On a side note though, I think I just may be too squeamish to find beauty in blood or other biological things. That’s why I’m not a Science Major! I’ve always hated doing labs in any science class I’ve ever had to take, so it really impresses me when people can make all of that gross stuff sound beautiful!
“My tongue, every atom of my blood, form’d from this soil, this air, / Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their parents / the same” (Whitman 30).
SUMMARY:
This stanza is from the opening section of Whitman’s Song of Myself. He is introducing himself and his origin, which he describes in biological terms, but still uses poetic techniques for this poem.
RESPONSE:
When I first read these lines I immediately thought that Whitman must have just finished attending a biology lecture before writing the opening section of Song of Myself. However, the “scientific” language he uses is very descriptive and rich, so Whitman seems to have turned science into art with this section of his poem. Words such as “tongue,” “atom,” “blood,” and “soil,” may just be nouns, but they are used almost like adjectives (if that makes any sense). Whitman’s vocabulary is still simple even though it is scientific, but since he arranges his words almost like how I think song lyrics are usually arranged, they express something much more complex than just stating: “My family and I come from nature and earth.”
After reading the introduction for Whitman in Norton, however, it makes so much more sense why Whitman’s scientific language stands out to me. Since Whitman “would address all ‘the facts of the animal economy, sex, nutriment, gestation, birth,’ [and] he put the living, breathing, sexual body at the center of much of his poetry” (Norton 17), reading his poetry can feel like witnessing the beauty of nature, in a way. I think his innovative techniques in his poetry help display just how beautiful language can be, as well as how beautiful nature and the natural occurrences of life can be.
On a side note though, I think I just may be too squeamish to find beauty in blood or other biological things. That’s why I’m not a Science Major! I’ve always hated doing labs in any science class I’ve ever had to take, so it really impresses me when people can make all of that gross stuff sound beautiful!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
