3005WSP09

I found Nathanial Hawthorne's "The House of the Seven Gables" a difficult read. I have never been a fan of Hawthorne, but through class discussions I have a new appreciation for his ability to use literary devices to tell a story within a story. Many classical authors use literary devices to represent their characters, but Hawthorne's use of light and dark and the use of the house provided me with an understanding that I missed the first time I read this novel. Although I found the ending to be inappropriate and out of sequence with where the novel seemed to be going, Hawthorne does have an interesting ability in how he can tell a story.
I also found it interesting how Hawthorne used the narrator. As much as I felt the narrator was removed from the story as he was tellilng it, he still felt completely entwined as a pivotal character at times. Honestly, I think it may have been interesting if the narrator would have turned out to be a real character in the novel or if it would have turned out to be the house telling the story. It would have made a much greater impact on the story and could have provided a more powerful ending.

Posted by dole0025 at 4:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reading the works of Edgar Allen Poe can be challenging. He has a tendency to be very wordy. But I found as I read his works they are unbelivably haunting and there is an amazing dark quality that make them somewhat captivating. In "Ligeia" he discusses the past so that it sets up what happens in the future and why it is so haunting. "The House of Usher" is a great short story that provides some great historical irony. I think that Poe could have been an early Stephen King type. The ability to conjure up these dark and haunting stories is a great quaility. Be it that Poe may have used/abused drugs in order to come up with these concepts or his mental health may have been questionable, the man had a great talent. While some may not understand or appreciate this, it is what sets readers and critics apart in their idea of what is a classically relevant piece of literature.

Posted by dole0025 at 4:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Why do people feel uncomfortable discussing slavery? As we attempted to discuss this issue in class it seems that many of the uncomfortable feelings surrounding this discussion result from our own insecurities that stem from racism. As we read narratives by Douglass and Jacobs we are reminded of the separation of race. It was the white people who were persecuting the black people. Because of the color of skin people were separate into classes, making the whites the superiors. As we've read other accounts of settlement in the United States this is a common theme. The Europeans felt superior to the Native Americans. This idea obviously carried itself into the twentieth century and led to the civil rights movement.
We as students in the twenty-first century are becoming more removed from these major historical events. This should make it easier to discuss things like slavery without feeling insecure. But as we move further away time wise society has also added the pressure of political correctness. This making it even more difficult due to the fear of not wanting to say anything offensive, since everyone seems to have a different comfort level and a different idea of what they deem as politically correct. Therefore, I don't know if slavery or other historical events will ever be able to be discussed as indepth as some would like at an undergraduate level.

Posted by dole0025 at 3:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Although analysis has shifted towards discussing the narrator of Bartelby, The Scrivener, there is still much mystery surrounding the character of Bartelby and what he represents in the story. Bartelby’s famous phrase, “I would prefer not to” is a problematic one, in that it does not explicitly state Bartelby’s intentions. It is merely a preference which neither denies or confirms his actual willingness to complete a task. A choice, on the other hand, is something completely different. If Bartelby had said, I will not, he would have been making a choice. There are some distinctions, I feel, that must be established in order to understand the difference between a choice and a preference.

When one makes a choice, they are making a definite decision as what they do or do not want to do, see, experience, etc. A choice is much more expressive of one’s personality than a preference, in that a preference is an expression of what one would do, whereas a choice concerns what they will do. Bartelby’s preference, from that perspective, is problematic in that he would rather not do a task assigned to him, but that does not mean that he will not do it. His employer is unable, it seems, to understand this. When Bartelby says to him, “I would prefer not to”, the employer interprets Bartelby’s preference as an expression of his will rather than a mere preference. This illustrates a confusion as to what the will truly is, and how it relates to the decisions we make.

One of the prominent interpretations of Bartelby, The Scrivener is that it is a critique of western capitalism. The narrator represents a participant of the doctrine. He is used to expressions of the will which will allow him to earn profit or not. Bartelby’s preference to not accomplish his task puts the narrator in an awkward position, because capitalism seems to operate on expressions of the will rather than preference. The preference represents, in a sense, idealism. It is an expression of what we would do. Along with what we would do are several disclaimers. Often it is said that I would do X if it weren’t for Y, or something along those lines. In the case of Bartelby, he uses preference to show that he would prefer not to do this task. Were he to express his will he would be making a definite decision as to whether or not he wants to participate in the construct of capitalism, which he, like everyone else in society, obviously cannot do without great sacrifice. That being said, Bartelby’s preference, it seems, represents the part of society which does not subscribe to the capitalist mindset, yet lives within a world which runs on capitalist principles. It is an expression of hope for a different world in which one does not have to accomplish tasks to earn money to pay the bills, support a family, etc. It is, perhaps, a wish for change which, like Bartelby, is vague and unclear.

Posted by marsh367 at 11:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Our introduction to slave narratives began with reading works by Fredrick Douglass. Douglass was a former black slave who experienced the horrors of slavery. Moving on.... Then we read Harriet Jacobs who was another former black slave who experienced the horrors of slavery as well. Their writings vividly illustrated the horrors of slavery and made us question how our country ever let that happen. After reading Douglass and Jacobs, we read excerpts from the most popular book of the 19th century: "Uncle Tom's Cabin." "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was written by Harriet Beecher Stowe, a white woman. What?

I am interested to know why a historical fiction novel written by a white woman was more influential and popular than the nonfictional accounts of slavery written by Douglass and Jacobs. I mean, yes it is good that the popularity of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" enraged abolitionists and that it is credited with starting the Civil War that did end slavery, but why is it that Stowe's fictional work takes precedence over Douglass and Jacob's nonfiction?

I think that we as humans, for some reason unknown to me, are able empathize easier with fictional characters than real people. Take for example Douglass as himself in his works, and Uncle Tom. As readers now, who do we all feel that we know better? Sadly I admit that Uncle Tom is a more memorable character than Douglass in their respective works. At the time of the Civil War, did people feel more inclined to fight for Uncle Tom than they did Douglass? I feel that it creates a very awkward question regarding race and motives.

I guess I can rephrase my thoughts in the question:

Would you rather read:
a) Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut
b) Anne Frank's Diary

Maybe we read fiction in order to deny the harsh realities of life. Reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin," we as the readers know that none of these characters exist. However, reading Douglass or Jacobs we know that it happened and therefore it has a different emotion impact on us.

Posted by byrne115 at 11:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think the biggest issue with Rowlandson's writings that wasn't examined too carefully is that the whole piece was written in retrospect. Think about all the time Mary Rowlandson had after her release to think about and mull over her experiences with the Natives. It seems that this time was used mostly to craft the most negative, incendiary portrayal of the Natives. I think that what Rowlandson's piece ends up being is half propaganda and half memoir. To be fair, it is a very easy to understand piece and I think that Rowlandson is rather good at making her story available to all who want to read it by writing it in such simple prose. The book did become a best seller in its time. The piece works as propaganda because it does advance a view of the natives held by the Puritan church. The introduction credits Rowlandson with being a good Christian and relying on God for salvation. The introduction also introduces the idea that the Natives are devilish, etc etc. As a memoir it is good because she explains the events rather well but it is her reflections on her experiences that make it a very successful memoir. Clearly, the entire piece is very well thought out and crafted in that way since it was written in retrospect.

Posted by byrne115 at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I disagree with the post stating that "Self-Reliance" would have been an interesting place for the self help movement to start. The whole notion of self help goes against the whole idea put forth in the essay "Self Reliance." The whole idea of "Self Reliance" is that you should rely on yourself. At the beginning of the essay there is a quote that says, "Ne te quaesiveris extra, that means, "do not look outside yourself." Although self help is called "self help," really what it is are other people deemed "experts" writing step by step guides on how to make yourself feel better/less inadequate. I think that "Self Reliance" is more of a call for individuals to find motivation within themselves to do great things. What those great things are? Emerson doesn't know, only you do. I feel that Emerson doesn't think of his works as guides, but rather calls to action. For example "The Poet" doesn't instruct on how to write a pretty poem, but rather to find some inspiration in the world to write a pretty poem.

Ben Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanack" is a self help guide because it seems that Franklin writes with the motive to help people through step by step guides.

Posted by byrne115 at 10:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

"It is troubling that many of the problems and issues women faced in 1837 we are still struggling with. One of the things that really kind of irritates me is that she seems to say that the way women dress and what they find fun are the equivalent to asking to be treated unequally. If a woman takes an interest in fashion then she is asking to be not taken seriously? Really? That is almost like saying women who dress provocatively deserve to be sexually assaulted. Men have had equal and sometimes greater interests in clothing and fashion throughout history and nobody took them less seriously. I think she is identifying the wrong contributing factors and coming to some very distressing conclusions. I would instead ask why it is that men aren’t taught general housekeeping. This is a cultural problem not one that a woman can solve by dressing more plainly and by discouraging flattery. The problem is rooted in centuries of mistreatment that goes back before recorded history. I think the greater sin is to feel one must change the core of themselves in order to be accepted by the opposite sex. She is asking everything of women and nothing of men."

I would disagree. In fact, it seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of Grimke’s message. What she asks for is a compromise, a middle ground. In her letter, “Man Equally Guilty with Woman in the Fall”, Grimke alludes that society is at fault for a lot of the problems women have. What I think she is trying to get at is that women’s roles have been decided for them by men, and in order to remove the men from power, women need to re-envision their role in society, because the men obviously won’t do it for them. She is not out to ask women to sacrifice the little influence they have in society, but to change their influence so that the roles previously assigned to them by a male dominated society no longer thrust women into a position where they are nothing more than an object whose purpose is to serve man. It may be a mistake to ask women to let go of their interest in fashion; however, Grimke believes that a complete and total change is necessary for women to achieve the goal of social equality with men, and like Descartes said, “One should destroy the old city of the mind [in order to] build a new one.”

Posted by marsh367 at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Devin presents an interesting case for Clifford as a heroic character. I would like to disagree for several reasons, most of which are founded in an opposing interpretation of what it means to be a hero.

Clifford wants, it seems, to be a hero according to the examples Devin presents in his argument. “He wants to live life and be free of the rigid, lifeless house.” The issue present in this statement is the use of the term want. Clifford wants to be a hero, however, his personality seems to contradict the definition of a hero in that a hero does, and does not want to do something. A hero may be reluctant to accept the challenges laid out for them; however, he or she eventually realizes their destiny and then seeks to achieve it. For example, we can turn to the film Star Wars for an example of the reluctant hero. Han Solo claims that he is simply involved in the affairs of Luke and Leia for the money. However, in the end, Solo realizes in the end, when receiving awards, thanks, and praise for his heroic actions that although his motives were wrong, he seeks to do the right thing (helping the rebellion) for the sake of fighting against that which is morally wrong. Clifford does not accomplish such a goal. Once he and Hepzibah leave the house, a moral triumph for the two, he returns to his former self upon exiting the house. He cannot escape it, and is unable recognize his call to greatness.

Yet another example of Cliffords inability to answer the hero’s call is on the train. Devin is right to say that “the businessmen on the train don’t see what Clifford sees”. However, soon after Clifford’s soliloquy comes to an end, he is once again overcome with a feeling of tiredness. His heroic moment fades because he is unable to escape himself.

One might say that a hero constantly struggles with him/herself. This I do agree with, however, it seems that Clifford is unable to be heroic because he cannot overcome his own motivations. A hero comes to terms with their own problems and transcends them. In the case of a hero such as Spiderman, Peter Parker recognizes that his original motivations were to fight to avenge the death of his uncle, which he then overcomes, recognizing that “with great power comes great responsibility”. He then fights for the sake of fighting against those who represent that which is wrong. Clifford, on the other hand, seems to fight for the sake of his own survival, rather than for the sake of those who surround him, such as Hepzibah, who dedicated her life to him and Phoebe, who cares for him deeply.

Posted by marsh367 at 9:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Emily Dickinson has provided many mysterious to the literary critic. Ignored in her time, she spent a lot of her life secluded from the public. Dickinson has been mythologized as a recluse who hated light, and she loved her sister’s husband. There has been only one confirmed daguerreotype of her, along with a recently discovered (and controversial) photograph.
Her work was published and consumed after she died, leaving editor’s a tough challenge to try and provide the best volume and edition to the public. Dickinson’s use of the dashes proves difficult for editors trying to transfer her work into print. Many Dickinson fanatics feel the only way to really read her poems would be to read the hand-written poems themselves. I had a teacher in high school who wouldn’t teach Dickinson because she believed we need to read her hand-written pages rather than a loose translation of her writing.
Now, what is the point of this blog post? A discussion of Dickinson can provide an interesting discussion of literary fidelity. Translations have always fascinated me, because it seems so wrong. If not done by the author, the work becomes infected with another’s words. Poetry is the most affected by this unfortunate transformation. For instance, the poems included at the end of the novel Dr. Zhivago aren’t good. Okay maybe that’s harsh, but they don’t have any rhythm, rhyme, flow, proper stresses, &c. They fail to stand on their own (at least in English), and become the equivalent of the special features on a DVD.
While Dr. Zhivago’s poems are translated across language, Dickinson’s only have to be translated from the hand to type. But they still create a narrow gap between the author’s intention and the author’s printed work. Should we regard her journals as “better” than the translated printed word, or should we take the printed word as is? I think Whitman can be lumped in here—he too provides a challenge to readers and critics since he was a constant editor, publishing some six to nine editions of Leaves of Grass. Which one is the definitive version? I own the 8th edition, published in 1889. Harold Bloom seems to prefer the first edition of Leaves of Grass. One of my professors has a compilation of every edition. Which one should I read?

For more information about the recently discovered photograph, check out http://www.common-place.org/vol-04/no-02/gura/

Posted by dayxx169 at 6:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is interesting to stack these two narratives against each other. They use Bible verses to try and contextualize their plight and provide them with hope. They are captives that hope to be freed from their bonds. There are some interesting contrasts between the two pieces. One is the treatment they received from their captors. Mary Rowlandson was basically a domestic for the Native Americans she was owned by. She worked mostly for women and never wrote as if she was an object of sexual desire. Harriet Jacobs was a slave of white owners and was the object of sexual desire. The most striking difference is that When Mary Rowlandson is freed she has a home and husband to go back to. She has a life and it comes with some consistency. Harriet Jacobs has nothing to return to. She is on her own. She has no life to resume. She has a life to start. That comes with an enormous amount of uncertainty and fear. Mary Rowlandson was ransomed and returned. Nobody is coming after her. Everyone in her community knows and trusts her. Harriet Jacobs lives in fear of capture and retribution. Also, even though she is in the north, she is not trusted and accepted into the community. The after the release parts of these narratives are really what sets them apart.

Posted by kelli022 at 6:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The House of Usher and the House of Seven Gables have many similarities. Both of these structures are ominous. They are towering mansions of doom, despair and dread. Their inhabitants are ill either physically, emotionally, or both. They both belong to a specific family. The House of Usher belongs to the Ushers. It always has. The same is true of the House of Seven Gables. It has always belonged to the Pyncheon family. Both structures are old and decaying. Both reflect the mood of their inhabitants. Both have been intimately involved in the death of a character. There are a few differences though. The House of Usher seems to have taken on qualities and features of a human being. It is described relating many of its architecture and landscape to the features of a human face and body. The House of Seven Gables isn’t personified this way. At the end of the story, the House of Usher collapses and is washed away by the tarn. The House of Seven Gables stills stands at the end of the story and in fact the historic house still stands today. The house of Usher had a hand in the deaths of Roderick and Madeline. They are the long time residents of the house. Jaffrey Pyncheon dies in the House of Seven Gables, but he does not live in this dwelling, but the two are connected none the less. The biggest difference between the two stories is that Usher’s ending is sad and terrible and Seven Gables ending is happy. The Ushers couldn’t escape their house, but the Pyncheons could.

Posted by kelli022 at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Self reliance by Emerson would have been an interesting starting point for the self help movement. He loads a bunch of meaningful advice on the reader, the most important I feel is that people should be unique and be non-conformists. The non-conformist advice pretty much insures that very few self-help authors have ever taken it. Every self help book whether it is for dieting or relationships has steps. These steps get you from point A to point B and so on. You have to complete a step in the process in order to learn the next part of the process. There is little room for free thought. Self help allows you to have break throughs, but they are preprogrammed into the text. The ideas you are coming up with are anticipated not original. Emerson wanted people to think about the world in ways that other people didn’t. The exchange of these ideas would lead to more ideas. It was important to him that people shared what they were thinking. To remain silent was to deprive the rest of the world an idea. An idea that could lead you or someone else into greatness and advance the society as a whole.

Posted by kelli022 at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In response to our previous class discussion regarding why Stowe is viewed as a renowned author. As we outlined in class, there are various factors which influence our idea of why a book or an author becomes a classic. Obviously what makes us different as readers is what we like to read and what we deem as a "great" novel. As to why "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is viewed as a great novel is debatable. The rationale could be that because the novel was written by a former female slave, which was commendable for the time. I believe that the novel itself has become what it is due to the impact that it had on society at the time of publication. It was written for middle-class women, making an impact emotionally by focusing on the relationship of mother and son and the potential separation due to the selling of slaves. The book, although fiction, helped to draw attention the harsh reality of slavery by aiming at a part of the population who were most often overlooked. This helped the book to mark its place in history.

Posted by dole0025 at 5:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Writers have always been interested in writing about the process of writing. Whether it’s Paul Auster’s destruction of a character in City of Glass, Bulgakov’s depiction of an author in Master and Margarita, or Nicholson Baker’s entire catalog. “Bartleby, the Scrivener” is no different. I see the narrator as a writer who attempts to make sense of his surroundings through narration.
He opens the story by boasting about the stories he could tell about other co-workers,
at which good-natured gentlemen might smile, and sentimental souls might weep.” But, the story about Bartleby needs to be told because he “was a scrivener the strangest I ever saw or heard of.” Already, the narrator is marketing his story to the assumed reader.
There are times when the narrator makes it apparent that there are certain elements to the story that need to be mentioned. At one explicit point he writes, “it is fit I make some mention of myself, my employés, my business, my chambers, and general surroundings; because some such description is indispensable to an adequate understanding of the chief character about to be presented.” While this line may be dismissed as a typical set-up to a story, I think it sets up more than just the plot. All of these lines point to a self-reflexive quality to the text, but they also set up the narrator—who is a primary character in the novel—as someone who tells stories.
The narrator treats his staff like characters in a story. He gives them demeaning nicknames, points to their odd mechanical nature, and ascribes rigid characteristics to them. He notes the use of the word ‘prefer’ with his workers, making another aspect of the story wholly apparent. Adding to this, the work that they do is writing itself.
Ultimately, this is just one way to read a multi-faceted story that offers a new reading every time.

Posted by dayxx169 at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)