3005WSP09

In the piece from Handsome Lake explaining how America was discovered, I was rather confused at first. When I first read it I was puzzled at which people were the ones discovering America..the Native Americans or the Europeans. Then it dawned on me that it had to have been the Europeans he was writing about, because the Native Americans did not really "discover" America. They were already living in America, it was the Europeans who found the "island" and saw it with "a castle built of gold". It makes sense because many of the Europeans saw America as a place that had opportunities of wealth, as well as opportunities for freedom and spread of religion. It is also interesting the the items Handsome Lake lists that the man brings with him: cards, money, fiddle, whiskey, and blood corruption. His story shows the anger at the Europeans for using such items to weaken Native Americans, as well as portraying this "white devil" idea.
The other two pieces from The Beloved women of Chota and Hendrick Aupaumut show a certain friendship and understanding of the European people. The letter from the Beloved women to Benjamin Franklin definitely shows the brotherhood that is among them. Not only do they call him their brother, but speaks of everyone being children and the responsibility of the Beloved women to take care of them. It is also clear that there is a peace amongst them because of the tobacco that they tell him to smoke out of friendship in the beginning. It is quite interesting to note the order of Handsome Lake and then the Beloved women's work. Lake's story seeming very anti-European and hostile, while the Beloved women show friendship and brotherhood to a well-known European. Keeping peace carries on into the Aupaumut piece where it alos seems that he takes the side of the European over the Native Americans. While he remains diplomatic in most cases, the piece also sounds like he is more understanding of the Europeans.

Posted by selan004 at 7:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The editor's intorduction of Jonathan Edwards places him as one of the core people in the revival/awakening. Reading the excerpt from "Images of Divine Things" we can see how he was so influencial in creating a new interest in religion. Instead of using lofty imagery and phrases, he compares every day things such as tools and animals to teach about God. This shows that he is speeking to an audience of common people and that he purposely uses relatable metaphores and words that they'll understand. By doing this he takes away the separation that religion causes and brings his teachings about God directly to the people. He believes that there doesn't need to be that separation because, "there is a wonderful resemblance in the effects which God produces...throughout all nature." (Ali E.)

Posted by engel340 at 6:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Byrd begins his narrative with a history of the colonization of the “New World” and his narration criticizes the civility of Jamestown and the origins of Virginia while positively representing the puritan settlements in New England. Byrd seems to value New England’s culture over the South as he continually criticizes Southern communities as being barbaric, unreligious, and lazy. To Byrd they seem to be a lesser form of humanity. I wonder if this judgment comes from a difference in the values of an industrious/mercantile economy with the agriculturally based economy of the south. Byrd seems to place more value on institutions, and he views the lack of religious and governmental institutions in the south as a marker of their uncivilized society. The issue of white/Christian racial superiority seems more superficial than the puritan writers we have read. While they both considered the Native Americans as savage, they depicted the extent of Native American “otherness” in very different ways. Mary Rowlandson portrayed the Native Americans in a de-humanizing manner, whereas Byrd was troubled by the physical pigment of skin rather than inherent sin or racial inferiority. I wonder if Byrd would have thought in racial terms, or if his bias came from an English court tradition when physical appearance indicated how much labor you had to do, or how much time you had to work outside, and consequently pale skin indicated high class people of the court, and darker skin indicated lower class people. It seems the agricultural culture of the South as opposed to the North, in Byrd’s mind, indicates that the people of the south are less civilized, and these English court biases evolve into categories of race as the institutions that Byrd represents conceive of racial classifications to enact oppression among the poor agricultural working class.

Posted by wachu002 at 5:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The short bio on Sarah Kremble Knight notes how it was unusual for a woman to be traveling alone and to write a travel narrative from her experience. She doesn’t seem to acknowledge her challenge of gender roles in the beginning of her narrative the way Mary Rowlandson prefaces her writing with excuses and reasons for why she is writing. Knight’s texts reveal some gender anxiety she encountered as a lone woman traveler, such as the girl in Billinges who rudely questions her upon arrival. Knight does not seem threatened by any prejudices she encounters due to her gender, and her text reads as witty and confident. The anthology’s bio also notes that she was a widow, and even before the death of her husband she was heavily involved in the family’s economic affairs. Knight may have gained freedom that an unmarried woman or a wife could not experience. I thought this narrative was progressive with its portrayal of women’s gender roles especially towards the end of the narrative when Knight reveals that she had left her only child at home with her mother while she traveled to New York for five months.

Posted by wachu002 at 5:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There has been a great deal of discussion as to why the narrator demands the reader to give Clifford a pass for his love of beauty. The narrator commands us to like Clifford in spite of what otherwise may be deemed flaws in Clifford’s character. Clifford expects care around the clock, and is not at all productive in his home or society. Clifford’s love for all beauty invokes a deeper debate between ethics and aesthetics.

But should the reader truly be judging Clifford? Even if we ignore the narrator’s plea, Clifford still, I believe, deserves a pass. Clifford spent most of his life locked up in jail for the death of his uncle. We know, however, that Clifford did not commit this crime; instead, he was framed by his now-respected cousin, Judge Pyncheon. Spending decades in jail like this will change a person. I can’t begin to empathize for the situation, but the damaging mental effects have to be overwhelming.

Sure we can debate theories as to why Clifford is given a free pass by the narrator, whether we should take the narrator at his word or question that exemption, and all the other associated questions. However, I personally, regardless of what the narrator insists, would give Clifford a pass. The troubles of his life were substantial. We can expect his character to be rather different and slightly bizarre. And we should accept him for that. And move on.

Posted by niem0142 at 5:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Assignment Sheet for Paper #2

Posted by Lisa Trochmann at 10:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Assignment Sheet for Paper #1

Posted by Lisa Trochmann at 10:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here is the updated course schedule for the rest of the semester. Please note that we will be reading Kemble Knight, Byrd, and Edwards for the Monday after spring break.

Revised Course Schedule

Posted by Lisa Trochmann at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I read in the Afterword to the 1981 Signet edition by Edward Sampson that Hawthorne intended Clifford to be the central figure in the book and I can't seem to figure out what he was trying to say. He was psychologically freed when Judge Pyncheon died but what are we supposed to make of his death? It seems these Pyncheons up and die whenever great land deals are about to go down. The original with the NE territory, the judges father when he is searching his drawers and the Judge when he is threatening to institutionalize Clifford. Are we supposed to believe that the characters actually died of a genetic disorder, the Maules curse, or do they kill eachother and perhaps that is Maules curse, that they should kill eachother off out of greed.

But what does this say about Clifford? Unless he killed the Judge he is just an innocent bystander until his enemy happened to keel over and he was freed. If he did kill the Judge then why was he freed of Maules curse? Why wasn't he doomed like the Judge to drink his blood?

The themes surrounding Phoebe/Holgrave and even Hepzibah are fairly clear, but I cant get a handle on Clifford.

Posted by hart0679 at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As our novel comes to a close, we are left knowing Clifford, among the rest of his juxtaposed family, live the rest of their lives happily ever after in the deceased Judge Jaffrey's summer cottage. This is all well except for the fact that the narrator fails to convict Clifford of his cousins murder, or prove his innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt.

As Clifford converses with the ticket attendant on the train, during The Flight of the Two Owls, Clifford argues that a murderer who flees his home town which the murder was committed in, is the one whom should be shown pity, as it is the murderer who has been forced to become a refugee. The narrator, when describing the dead body of Judge Jaffrey, said that he seemed to have been killed by the same hand that killed father, Jaffrey Pyncheon senior. With Clifford's outbreak of joy, after the death of his cousin, it doesn't seem too far stretched to imagine Clifford as a murderer who actually did kill his uncle and cousin.

Hawthorne sets the stage for Clifford, up to the last chapter of this novel, as old man who has murdered and grown insane, or was insane to begin with. Upon reading the last chapter, we find that there is another theory surrounding the death of Jaffrey Senior, where he was not murdered at all, but suffered from the curse that has plagued his lineage. We seem to get the sense that Judge Jaffrey may have not been murdered at all, but was once again plagued by the curse of his fathers. If this was the case, then our dear Clifford is completely innocent of all wrong doings, but if it was not the case, who cares about locking up an old coot anyway? Let him live the rest of his life in peace, for once and for all.

Posted by john4892 at 9:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As we’ve discussed in class, and the book has makes clear, Phoebe is the reason for all the good in the novel. Hawthorne uses Phoebe’s arrivals and departure to drive the plot of the story. She first made the shop a success for Hepzibah, brings joy to Clifford, and brings conversation to Holgrave and Uncle Verner. Once Phoebe leaves for the country side the weather takes a turn for the worst. When Judge Pyncheon dies it is while Phoebe is gone and Clifford and Hepzibah are thrown into a tizzy without her. Once Phoebe returns, on a day that Hawthorne makes effort to describe its beauty, the pieces fall together to bring the novel to an end.

Posted by woot0019 at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday's discussion had us question the role of Clifford in the novel. To me, Clifford seems like the comic hero--an updated version of the Fool in King Lear, to some extent. Clifford sees the Truth throughout the novel, and he has a simple goal: He wants to live life and be free of the rigid, lifeless house.

Take, for instance, the moment of his unsuccessful leap from the balcony. He is stuck in the dark, stifling house--where he has been for the last several years of his life--and outside he sees the parade and the organ-grinder. The organ grinder has a little crank toy that makes its figures dance and move. To Clifford these figurines represent the people in society, and he sees them "all dance to one identical tune, and, in spite of our ridiculous activity, bring nothing finally to pass." Clifford puts his own thoughts into action, and he attempts to jump from the balcony of the house to the ground--a moment where he tries to break his attachment to that house and free himself of this cranked existence. He tries to create movement, life, energy but is stopped by the other characters.

Another moment of his heroism comes in the scene where he and Hepzibah have both left Seven Gables and have started to ride the train. Unlike the sullen figures that ride the train to do business, Clifford sees the train as a momentous progress in human history that will free us from rigid, lifeless structures. The businessmen on the train don't see the wonders that Clifford sees, they are living mechanical time. One of the old gentlemen says toward the end of the ride that, "You [Clifford] are a strange man, sir....I can't see through you!" Clifford has, unlike most of the gentlemen that this man has met, acquired depth and meaning: he isn't easy to read nor is he like anyone else.

Posted by dayxx169 at 6:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I see Mary Rowlandson’s account of her captivity as a very one sided, biased piece of work. I feel empathy for her, being that she was taken hostage for so many years, however the way she presents her story is what makes me question her motivations. Due to the form of typology she uses, one can easily see her main reasoning for this writing, to spread God’s work. I do believe that the leading men of the church heavily influenced Rowlandson in writing this account, they may have even written it themselves, to have this situation become propaganda for the church. She states in the writing that before her capture she may have not been the best Christian, therefore she sees this horrible situation as a punishment from God for her sins. This is also a political piece, in that she heavily portrays the Native Americans in a dark negative light. She shows profound intolerance in wishing that God would wipe the Native Americans out, being that they are atheists in her mind. This piece of literature could have been so informative if she was not so biased on her accounts.

Posted by eato0067 at 4:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The narrator in the House of the Seven Gables presents himself in many ways as all-knowing. In the chapter “Governor Pyncheon,” the narrator knows the full extent of his plans, listing his affairs in succession: interviewing Clifford, participating in a real estate auction of once-Pyncheon land, buying a horse, attending a meeting of a charitable society, renewing Mrs. Pyncheon’s tombstone, ordering fruit-trees, acting on several political matters, seeing a physician.

The narrator impressively shows his knowledge is not limited to what is public. This same notion is exemplified many times in the text regarding all of the characters. Two chapters before “Governor Pyncheon”, a suggestion is made of Judge Pyncheon’s death when he is described as “so heavy and lumpish that we can liken him to nothing better than a defunct nightmare, which had perished in the midst of its wickedness.” In the chapter, “The Flight of Two Owls,” the reader is left to assume that Clifford and Hepzibah are leaving the House of the Seven Gables to remove themselves from the Judge’s death , shown by this line regarding the others on the street, “could they have guessed the secret which Hepzibah and Clifford were carrying along with them.”

The narrator, in the next chapter, questions whether the Judge is meditating, sleeping or reclining. In doing so, he seems unaware of the same event that he foreshadows in each of the previous two chapters. The same heavy foreshadowing trend was given in at least two other instances that were revealed in the final chapters of the book: the Judge as responsible for the death of his uncle, and Holgrave as a relative to the Maules.

On the topic of the narrator, recall that the narrator had previously injected himself into the novel by demanding of the reader to respect without question Clifford’s appreciation of beauty. In such a way, the narrator proves to be very interested and engaged in the tale he tells, which is, with few exceptions, done impartially. In all instances, the narrator seems inclined to foreshadow, but reluctant to provide definite details.

Posted by niem0142 at 2:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In discussin HSG in class this week, i came to think of this idea. I havent looked into it very deeply, and im not even sure if i believe it, but i think its worth discussing. Is it posible that HOlgrave and CLifford serve very similar purposes in the novel. It would seem that Hawethorne had somewhat of an intent to critique people and or society, that much we can get from the preface. On one side there is CLifford, who is valued because he loves beuty, and shows little or no concern for everything else. THen we have HOlgrave, who values usefulness and lives in the moment, frownng upon both past and future. Is it possible that Hawethorne values participation in society, but is warning the readers about things that hapen to people once they are incorporated into society? Maybe Hawethorne uses these to characters to remind us that 1) beauty itself adds value to life 2) we live in the moment, not the past or future. I think Hawethorne is telling us that people get too caught up in the "meaning" of the art, or what has happened or what will happen, to truly live as they should.

Posted by ferso002 at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)