Unit Four: Community 6/2

In Roman Fever by Edith Wharton, Mrs. Slade and Mrs. Ansley's relationship grows more and more complex as the story develops. Initially, it seems like they are have just been acquaintances for a long time, but it turns out that they have always felt themselves to be superior to the other. They even think poorly of the other woman's daughter due to some long standing resentment or envy. It turns out that Mrs. Slade forged a letter to Mrs. Ansley so she would think her fiance stood her up and she would get sick with Roman Fever. It didn't work, but the resentment between the two women grows. At the end, Mrs Ansley confesses that her daughter is the illegitimate child of Mrs. Slade's late husband. I would characterize their relationship as a facade that covers deep feelings of envy and resentment.

One Art is a poem about a relationship between the narrator and someone special to her which she has lost. We know that the "you" she refers to is someone special because it's the only type of loss that actually constitutes a disaster. The tone of the poem, to me, suggests that she starts off confident but starts to get upset and maybe even cries towards the end. When the narrator includes "(write it!)" in the last line, I think this is evidence that the narrator is struggling to even finish her thoughts, signaling how distraught she is.

Mending Wall is a more complicated explanation of the relationships between people. The narrator wonders why he and his neighbor need to repair the wall separating their property each Spring, after the elements break it down each year. The neighbor insists "Good fences make good neighbors," but the narrator isn't so sure. The narrator comically states that the trees were not going to trespass on to the other property, but this is actually a good point. The narrator also says before he builds a wall he would like to know "What I was walling in or walling out." I think this is Frost suggesting that there are situations that call for walls, but they aren't always necessary. I think the "something" that doesn't love a wall is time and seasons/weather. Every year the two neighbors mend the wall, and its inevitable that the wall will fall again with the passage of time and the wear of the elements. I think overall, Frost is saying that good fences do not necessarily make good neighbors, they just inhibit the relationships between neighbors.

Unit Four: Community 6/1

First of all, I reject Winthrop's notion that everyone's place in society is predetermined by God's will. If you were poor, unemployed, couldn't support your family, and seeking religion as a source of inspiration, what kind of message does this send? Why would anyone who isn't living comfortably believe in this nonsense? People like this need hope, not someone to tell them they're at the bottom of society because God wants them to be and they have no free will to change their status. What makes American society great is that people hold their destiny in their own hands (the American Dream). A millionaire can lose everything if he doesn't act appropriately and, conversely, someone who has nothing can build themselves up. I think this is the first contradiction between Winthrop and Thoreau. Thoreau believes in the individual to strengthen society, whereas Winthrop tells society to just accept their individual roles because God said to. I understand that there were centuries of American history separating these two writers, but I have to say I don't agree with Winthrop on this case at all. Especially in light of the success stories of the 20th century, I don't think there would be a lot of support for Winthrop's ideas today.

Another way that Thoreau and Winthrop contradict one another is that Thoreau is opposing a government that supports institutions he doesn't believe in (a.k.a. slavery) while Winthrop is basically saying to listen to God and do what I tell you to. It's ironic that the passengers traveling to America with Winthrop were fleeing closed-minded religious societies, but they are submitting to the same closed-minded religious society in America, only this time it's being dictated by Winthrop. Thoreau calls for the right to not support a government with contrasting beliefs, while Winthrop doesn't acknowledge the existence of contrasting beliefs with God.

Thoreau and Winthrop agree on the fact that community is the only way to succeed in a young, growing nation. Though they are writing about two completely different eras in American history, they are both right. It was especially crucial for Winthrop's era to have a sense of community, and perhaps religion was the uniting force that allowed them to succeed. Winthrop suggests love is the essential uniting force, while Thoreau sides with reason. Thoreau knew that community was critical, but maybe slightly less critical than it was for the original settlers.

I think that Thoreau is not condemning the American community, but rather praising it's accomplishments in spite of the American government. Thoreau states "The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way." Thoreau is instilling more pride in the American community by celebrating its achievements and calling for the community to discontinue their association with a standing government that doesn't always represent the will of it's citizens. I think Thoreau's definition that "government is at best but an expedient" is interesting and still holds true today. Most politicians do not care about what the American people want, they care about what special interest groups, unions, lobbyists, and other major contributors want. In short, they want to do what it takes for them to make some money and retain their office. Of course, this is not true of all politicians, but it describes a frightening percentage of congressmen at the moment.

Today, the conservative movement in America calls for smaller government to achieve more for the American people. Especially in the past half century, government entitlements and hand-outs have caused taxes to sky rocket, backroom deals to become more prevalent, and "pork" projects are more common than ever. More far-right groups, such as Libertarians, also accept the motto that Thoreau presents: "That government is best which governs least" and further "That government is best that governs not at all." I won't go into the details of the Libertarian movement, but if you are unfamiliar with it, there is plenty information on the internet. I am sure that if Thoreau were alive today he would associate with the Libertarian school of thought.


Questions
I'm not a very religious person, so maybe I condemned Winthrop's ideas unfairly. Do you think that the notion that "God's will" can explain every person's place in society and that a person's success can be solely attributed to God?

Obviously, no government at all would lead to chaos. But there is a growing amount of Americans that are calling for the smallest government possible. Considering our ever-growing debt and continued spending, where do you think the line needs to be drawn? Does government need to provide social security, public housing, etc. when not all Americans want to support these concepts? Does the government need to prosecute victimless crimes like smoking marijuana in your own home or having an open container of alcohol in front of your own house?

Unit Three: Individual 5/31

A White Heron by Sarah Orne Jewett
This narrative is about the importance of preserving parts of nature that may not be replaceable. I think that the sportsman represents industrialization, and Mrs. Tilley represents American society. Sylvia initially hides from the stranger in the woods, and then she is reluctant to welcome him into her grandmother's home. After about a day, Sylvia has grown somewhat fond of the sportsman, but the narrator says "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." Here, the gun symbolizes the destruction that industry is capable of causing, and the birds symbolize nature in general.

Sylvia's trip to the top of the pine tree to find the white heron's nest makes her appreciate her natural surroundings even more, leading to her to keep the location of the nest hidden from the hunter. Her decision to save the life of the bird is the author's message of praising nature and celebrating individual will. I don't view this as romantic or feminist, I think it's just an individual decision, free from peer pressure, to preserve the natural world.


After Apple-Picking by Robert Frost
I found this poem hard to interpret in the context of nature. Literally, the poem is about picking apples and the narrator's report of what happens after. But I don't think this poem is just about picking apples. If apple-picking is symbolic of life, as suggested on blackboard, then it seems like the narrator is reflecting on things he could have done differently before he feels death coming on. Overall, the narrator seems content with his life. He only talks about not filling one barrel, leaving two or three apples unpicked, which could mean there are only a handful of regrets in his life. In this interpretation, I think that Frost is cleverly relating life to the nature in a way most people wouldn't have initially thought. It seems that he embraces nature, and he is almost nostalgic about it. The narrator compares his oncoming sleep (death) to the hibernation of a woodchuck in a hopeful light. I think the narrator is hoping that after his death he will be reborn into nature again in some way. I could be wrong here, does anyone else have another interpretation of this?


Emily Dickinson

Some Keep the Sabbath Going to Church
I liked this poem a lot. Dickinson contrasts the fulfillment she gets from organized religion and nature, strongly favoring nature. She almost comically compares figures and icons of the Church to the beauty she finds in nature. For example, she compares a bird to the chorister, an orchard to the "dome" of a church, wings to a surplice, and so on. I think the most interesting part of the poem is the last two lines: "So instead of going to heaven at last,/I'm going all along!" I think this means that instead of abiding by the laws of organized religion in hope of reaching heaven in the after life, she's in her own "heaven" just by living in the natural world and enjoying it.

I Taste a Liquor Never Brewed
Essentially, this poem is about how the author is getting "drunk" off of nature. It is a celebration of the beauty of nature and how the author cannot get enough of it. I don't know what else is left to say about this poem except that it confirms that Dickinson is a great supporter of nature about everything else.

There's a Certain Slant of Light
I think this poem is about relating "a certain slant of [winter] light" to the oncoming of death. The last verse of the poem reads: "When it comes, the landscape listens,/Shadows hold their breath;/When it goes, 't is like the distance/On the look of death." The natural world revolves around the seasons and winter often represents death and spring represents new life. The author discusses the inevitability of death (the light), not in a bad way, but a natural way. It is as much a part of the life cycle as birth/new growth. Dickinson says the light is as oppressive as Cathedral Tunes. I think Dickinson is suggesting that the laws and judgments of the church can hinder the natural life cycle in the same way that death appears to.

Unit Three: Individual 5/30 Streetcar Named Desire

I have very little sympathy for Blanche, and I feel that she has brought on her own demise with very little outside help. I understand that the situation surrounding her late husband was probably very taxing on her, but everything since then has been her fault. For a person who has no place else to go, she has no problem telling everyone around her, including her sister, all of their flaws. If you want help, don’t demean the only people you have left, don’t tell lies about your past, present, and future, and don’t pretend to be superior to everyone you meet. Stanley probably contributes to her mental breakdown, but only because he sees through her deceit and doesn’t let her continue with her delusional stories and lies any longer. I feel like Stella contributes to Blanche’s demise even more than Stanley. She encourages Blanche’s preferential treatment, encourages her to take 3 hour baths, waits on her day and night, and sticks up for her even after she has been found out. I understand that they are sisters, but Stella needs to realize when she is being taken advantage of and stop allowing Blanche to run over her and her family.

I like Stanley the most, followed by Stella, and finally Blanche. I like Stanley because he’s the only character who didn’t put up with a lot of nonsense and didn’t tolerate Blanche’s pitiful stories and behavior. Obviously, he’s not an ideal individual, but I related to him the most because he is the only character who can confront Blanche. In scene ten, Blanche is making up stories about how she turned down Mitch and is leaving town to meet up with Shep Huntleigh, and then Stanley stops playing along:

Blanche:

…So farewell, my friend! And let there be no hard feelings…

Stanley:

Was this before or after the telegram came from the Texas oil millionaire?

Blanche:

What telegram! No! No, after! As a matter of fact, the wire came just as—

Stanley:

As a matter of fact there wasn’t no wire at all!

… There isn’t no millionaire! And Mitch didn’t come back with roses ‘cause I know where he is—

… There isn’t a goddam thing but imagination!

… I’ve been on to you from the start! Not once did you pull any wool over this boy’s eyes! You come in here and sprinkle the place with powder and spray perfume and cover the light bulb with a paper lantern, and lo and behold the place has turned into Egypt and you are the Queen of the Nile! (Pages 127-128)

I view Stella as a fairly neutral character. She is very tolerant of both Stanley and Blanche’s behavior, but in the case of Blanche, she actually encourages her princess-like mentality. She’s caught in between her husband and her sister, between reality and ideality, between her new “common” life and the overly glorified, delusional lifestyle that apparently existed at Belle Reve. I didn’t dislike Stella, but her tendencies to stick up for Blanche are the reason I didn’t like her more than Stanley.

As I stated at the beginning of my post, I didn’t like or sympathize with Blanche at all. Everything about her is despicable. Even on her last leg, she cannot be truthful about anything to her own sister, who has accepted her into her home for an indefinite period of time and has taken care of her for the duration. She lies about being fired from her teaching job, tries to hide her residence at the Flamingo hotel, conceals her affair with a number of men including a 17 year old student, implies to Mitch that “she had never been more than kissed by a fellow” (page 98), lies about her intentions of returning to Laurel, and probably made up everything regarding Shep Huntleigh, possibly even his existence. I couldn’t find one redeeming quality about Blanche in the entire play. Does anyone disagree with me here?

I think there is some resolution for the Kowalski family at the end of the play. Stanley and Stella have their child, representing a new start for them. Blanche is finally out of the picture. Stanley has his own issues regarding drinking and abuse, but those problems were there before Blanche entered their lives. Stanley is optimistic about the future with Stella, on page 108:”Stell, it’s gonna be all right after she goes and after you’ve had the baby. It’s gonna be all right again between you and me the way that it was. You remember that way that it was? Them nights we had together?” He continues on page 112, “When we first met, me and you, you thought I was common. How right you was, baby. I was common as dirt. You showed me the snapshot of the place with the columns. I pulled you down off them columns and how you loved it, having them colored lights going! And wasn’t we happy together, wasn’t it all okay till she showed here?” Stanley is optimistic for the future with Stella and their new child, and I agree with him. Blanche tested their will to be together, and now that she’s gone, they may even be better off than before she arrived.

Unit Three: Individual 5/27

The Life and Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T. S. Eliot is a poem narrated by Prufrock in which he feels inferior to his everyday peers. It seems that J. Alfred Prufrock is suffering from some type of anxiety or paranoia disorder, because he second guesses every thing that he even thinks about doing. It seems to me that he should stop hanging around these people and things would be a lot better off for Mr. Prufrock. But I guess that's not the point of the poem. T. S. Eliot is making a statement about individuality that suggests that people need to worry less about their peers and more about themselves. Being around these people is clearly driving Prufrock insane, he wishes he was "a pair of rugged claws/Scuttling across the floors of silent seas." Insane. I'm not sure if the poem is suggesting that society has turned Prufrock into this nervous mess, or if he has been this way and is simply trying to fit in by trying to tolerate the pressures of this high-society group. I'm leaning towards the idea that society has given him all this paranoia, but if anyone would disagree, then let me know.

It seems like all Prufrock wants out of life is to comb his hair back without doubting himself, eat peaches, and walk the beach, wearing trousers while checking out mermaids. In other words, live free from social pressures and be himself. He doesn't do anything to help his case, which is probably some kind of statement about American culture that I'm not grasping. Personally, I didn't like this poem at all because the concept doesn't make sense to me. If you're uncomfortable around all these people, don't associate with them. If you want to walk the beach in "trousers rolled", then go for it. Don't complain about it and drive yourself insane and then make me read about it.

Howl by Allen Ginsberg is quite an interesting narrative. Essentially, it documents the lifestyle of a Beatnik and their unique counter-culture habits. Obviously Ginsberg is part of the beat movement, and so he is in favor of the non-conformist way of life. He says that "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness" and I think he's talking about the madness induced from post WWII America and the nationalistic, conformity-driven culture that existed during this era. The late 1950's and into the 1960's brought cultural revolution that had never been seen before in America. The individual was celebrated by this (initially) small group of counter-culturalists. Gingsberg implies that it was the oppression from government and police that drove his circle of friends into the drugs, sex, and alcohol habits and that if they were left to be alone then they would not abuse these vices. It's no secret that Ginsberg is in favor of individual thought and freedom, but this poem reinforces that belief.

I think both of these poems are very pessimistic about the American potential for individualism. Even today, I would say I am pessimistic about the way Americans exercise their freedom of individuality. Our culture is so wrapped up in reality television, top 40 radio stations, advertisements for everything from clothing to beer to cell phones, it's disgusting. I don't claim to be the most unique person on the planet, but I at least acknowledge the fact that conformity runs rampant in our society and I try to avoid it when I can (within reason). Obviously, no one wants to feel left out of a group, but that doesn't mean we should all wear the same shoes and watch the same movies and buy the same iPods with the same music preloaded on to them.

Unit Three: Individual 5/26

Both Emerson's Self-Reliance and Whitman's Song of Myself celebrate the individual in an unprecedented manner. Both authors stress the importance of the individual in terms of freedom of thought, non-conformity, creativity, and maturity.

An excellent example of Whitman's call for individual thought is given in the second stanza, in lines 25-30:

Stop this day and night with me, and you shall possess the origin of all poems;

You shall possess the good of the earth and sun - (there are millions of suns left;)

You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books;

You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me:

You shall listen to all sides, and filter them from yourself.

Whitman urges the audience to stop looking for opinions from peers and form their own opinions. When the individual is free from outside thought, the he/she can truly think for themselves and be enlightened. He even urges the audience to stop listening to his own opinions which is a bold move for only the second stanza.

In the seventh paragraph of Self-Reliance, Emerson writes: "No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions. Every decent and well-spoken individual affects and sways me more than is right." Similarly to Whitman, Emerson urges the audience to stay true to their individualism in the face of adversity. He dismisses the laws of 'dead institutions' such as structured religion and government, and instead he accepts the laws of his nature.

This celebration of individualism is so much different than certain texts we have read so far this semester. For example, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Eduards pleads that all people should blindly follow the laws of the church, or else face the dire consequences. Whitman and Emerson actually say exactly the opposite. They urge to do what the individual desires, to oppose the mainstream. I actually think that the transcendentalists are contradictory to some of the African-American writers we have studied to date also. I think the exception to this would be Zora Neal Hurston and her concept of individualism rather than belonging to one race or nation. Can anyone else relate the transcendentalists to some of the African-American writers (or any of the other writers) we have read so far this semester?

In Kate Chopin's The Story of an Hour, the widow presents a more complicated view of individualism. The new widow is torn between her grief and the anticipation of the new life that waits for her now. During this period of indecision, the narrator writes "There would be no one to live for during those coming years; she would live for herself. There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature. A kind intention or a cruel intention made the act seem no less a crime as she looked upon it in that brief moment of illumination"(12th paragraph). The author is suggesting that while a man and woman often need each other, they cannot live together without affecting the individuality of the other.

It is my opinion that the widow is telling herself this to calm herself down, because of all the grief she is feeling and her heart condition. Deep down, she wishes her husband were not dead and she is simply protecting herself. When her husband appears, alive, at the end of the story she becomes overwhelmed with joy, killing her. I think overall, the author accepts individualism, but acknowledges the need for companionship as well.

In light of The Story of an Hour, Emerson and Whitman do seem a little extreme. I agree with the concepts of self-reliance and non-conformity, but to suggest that companionship between a man and woman is conformity seems a little ridiculous. I think that Chopin's text fits in with some of the main concepts of Emerson and Whitman, but it is a slightly different perspective on individualism. If anyone sees this story differently, or if I am misinterpreting something, please let me know with comments.

Unit Two: Equality 5/25 (A Raisin in the Sun)

The American Dream is an indication of the ambition and idealistic sense of equality that exists in this country and has reached to all corners of the globe. In its most general sense, the American Dream is the concept that anybody from any background can be successful with hard work, determination, ambition, and respect. The reason I say that the American Dream has spread to all corners of the globe does not mean that it can be obtained anywhere in the world, I mean to say that people all over the world choose to immigrate to America for the opportunities that exist here. Another part of the American Dream is that each generation hopes, even expects, to be more successful that the generation before it.

More specifically, becoming the American Dream often includes the comforts of financial stability, owning a home, providing education to children, and other luxuries such as automobiles, boats, etc. This may be a portrayal of the American Dream that is more relevant in the last half century than to previous generations of Americans. In the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, immigrants and American families were happy to be provided an opportunity to succeed regardless of their background, even though this was often times more of a dream than a reality.

Britney Spears has certainly had a rollercoaster of success over the past 15 years, but many would agree that she embodies the American Dream to some extent. She had pretty humble beginnings, but progressively worked her way up through dance and vocal competitions and ultimately became a worldwide pop sensation. Spears is one of the best examples of how too much money and fame can affect someone. Her private life, at least for a while, was non-existent and I recall her shaving her head at one point. She also married Kevin Federline. Enough said about that. I suppose this is an extreme case of the American Dream, but it’s one that I don’t think most Americans would actually want for themselves after seeing its psychological toll. I personally would never want to live the life of Britney Spears. Does anybody disagree with me (I guess it would be nice to be a millionaire as a teenager)?

“You want something. Go get it. Period.” is a pretty reckless way to live, in my opinion. Someone who lived like that probably wouldn’t make it too far. We have inhibitions and advice from friends and family for a reason. I might be taking this too literally, but it seems like you wouldn’t add the word “Period” as its own sentence if the statement wasn’t to be taken literally. How does everyone else feel about this assessment of this phrase?

I think this is the general mentality of Walter in A Raisin in the Sun. He doesn’t listen to anyone, including his wife especially before Mama promises him the $6,500. He associates with Willy Harris and they discuss plans to open a liquor store costing them (and Bobo) ten thousand dollars each. If Walter had access to that kind of money, there’s no doubt in my mind he would have already spent that and more without listening to anyone in the family. Later, despite countless warnings about Willy and the liquor store idea in general, Walter gives the full $6,500 to Willy (including $3,000 for Beneatha’s tuition to medical school) only to find that he took the money and ran.

In some ways Mama is spontaneous too. She buys the house in an all white neighborhood, knowing that it’s what she has wanted for decades and also knowing the potential consequences. That being said, she is far less spontaneous than Walter. Ruth and Beneatha are less spontaneous, but have their own goals in mind. Beneatha is only 20 years old, and far more ambitious and less settled-down than Ruth. Her aspirations of becoming a doctor, she admits, were somewhat vain until she considers helping the people of Nigeria with Asagai. Still, she is on the path to fulfilling her goals regardless of the lack of support from her family.

I think the end of the play is an optimistic for the Younger family. Walter, although foolish throughout the majority of the play, shows pride and respect for his family’s opinion in the third act. As Mama says on page 151: “He finally come into his manhood today, didn’t he? Kind of like a rainbow after the rain…” Also, Beneatha is considering moving to Africa with Asagai to realize her dreams of becoming a doctor. Walter and Ruth have reignited the flames in their relationship, inspiring hope for the future of Travis and their unborn child. Mama is proud of the progress the family has made since the beginning of the play, and optimistic for their move to Clybourne Park.

Knowing the background of the author, their lives at Clybourne Park will probably be less than peaceful. But to avoid a white neighborhood would be cowardly, and Mama would not allow intimidation to keep the family from their dreams. I think the end of the play is still meant to be optimistic, even though some turbulence lies ahead for the Younger family.

I think that optimism and determination are still what makes someone successful in America today. The recent economic downturn has hurt a lot of families, but this is not the first economic tragedy to roll through America. If everyone had just given up after the Great Depression, we might be in a different situation today, but the resiliency of Americans is astounding. Among other things, optimism is essential to get America out of the economic rut we are in. New investing will take place, new jobs created, revolutionary thinking in terms of industry and commerce, and America will be bigger and stronger than ever. But only with the help of optimism and determination.

Anyone who believes the American Dream is over (especially those who carry signs through the street claiming this fact), clearly have lost the optimism and determination required. So for them, the American Dream is over. For the rest of us, the American Dream lives on and will make this country greater than it has ever been before.

Unit Two: Equality 5/24

In Langston Hughes' Mother to Son, the mother is telling the son not to undo the progress that has been made towards equality. She talks about how hard it has been to climb to where she is, and not to take any steps down because it will be even harder to climb up again. This inevitable "step down" could be any action that white people disagree with, which was rarely something rational. In my opinion, this advice is really more of a warning to make progress when possible, but sort of stay in line otherwise.

In Yet Do I Marvel, Countee Cullen compares the struggle for black equality to the story of Sisyphus. According to Greek mythology, Sisyphus was punished for trying to outsmart Zeus, the ruler of the Gods. His punishment was to push a boulder up a mountain, then watch it roll down to the bottom, and then repeat the process for eternity. Cullen is making the statement that while the black community tries to become equal with the white community, the more powerful white community resents them for it and turns it against them.

Both of these works reinforce the same idea, that the way to approach equality is with respect, not force or hatred. In spite of the terrible way of life and disrespect that whites had for blacks, the only way to earn respect is to show respect. Otherwise, the hatred between the two groups would be strengthened and equality would be farther than before.

In contrast, If We Must Die by Claude McKay challenges white oppression with the fist. From McKay's background, we know that he comes from Jamaica and is met with racism in America. This poem harnesses his frustration and his call to kinsmen for violence against white people is certainly a product of that frustration. It's hard to put myself in his situation, I cannot begin to understand his frustration, but it seems to me that this is a step in the wrong direction towards equality. At the end of the civil rights movement, it was peaceful, respectful, understanding that prevailed.

America also by Claude McKay shows a less aggressive side to the author. His bittersweet relationship with America is confusing. He says that America is taking the life out of him, but he loves it anyway. I find the last four lines especially confusing. What does he mean by the 'priceless treasures sinking in the sand'? Does he mean that the values America was founded on (All men are created equal) have been forgotten? That's the best I can come up with, if anyone else has some insight let me know.

My favorite reading for today was definitely Theme for English B by Langston Hughes. First, I like the flow of the poem and how easy it is to read from one line into the next line. It definitely is comparable to a jazz rhythm combined with everyday speech (like described in his background information on blackboard). I feel like it gives the author a somewhat confident, almost happy, tone, even though this poem is an identity struggle. Mostly, I like the message of this poem. The following lines, in particular, describe the message I'm referring to:

You are white-

yet a part of me, as I am a part of you.

That's American.

Sometimes perhaps you don't want to be a part of me.

Nor do I often want to be a part of you.

But we are, that's true!

I think that this is reminiscent of the "melting pot" idea we encountered yesterday in Letters from and American Farmer. It is truly an American concept to think that the people around us, even if they are not viewed as equals, are a part of our identity. Hughes emphasizes that we may not always want to associate with each other, but not to recognize this as part of our identity would be ignorant.

In short, I think that Langston Hughes is the most aligned with the concepts of American equality that we saw yesterday.

Unit Two: Equality 5/23

The American concept of equality defined in today's readings is drastically different than today. The Declaration of Independence and Crisis No. 1 call for freedom from British rule. Before the American Revolution, the colonists could not govern themselves and were treated as second-rate citizens to the British. Jefferson and Paine called for a land where all citizens were equals.

de Crevecoeur observed the potential greatness that existed in America. The term melting pot is especially relevant today, but at that time it was a new concept. As a modern day American, it is hard to imagine living in a culture so indiverse, but every society before the United States was this way.

Today, equality is an entirely different matter. We have taken our true freedom and equality for granted. These days equality means making sure exactly as many men are given scholarships as women, making sure that a commercial has a person from every race, and not keeping score in children's little league games (because winners are better than losers - not equals). When you take a step back and look at the strides this country has made in terms of civil rights, women's rights, etc., it seems petty to argue about some of the things we do today. But I guess this is just the American spirit still at work. Americans want to see this country become the best it possibly can. Even if our equality is unrivaled anywhere else in the world, it may still be able to be improved.

I'm a little confused about On Being Brought from Africa to America. I understand that the author is grateful for some of the opportunities given to her in America, and appreciative of the apparent equality she has been given, but it seems like she identifies more with being Christian than being an African American. Maybe she has been convinced that Christianity can separate her from the discrimination she probably receives, but doesn't it seem like she has gone a little too far? She still does identify with her ethnicity, but not in the same nationalistic way as her contemporaries. Also, she is not resentful at all, but rather pleased to be shown (at least some) equality.

Unit One: Freedom 5/21

I would prefer not to write any blog posts today.

For the sake of my grade, I guess I should anyway.

Bartleby the Scrivener is an story about extreme non-conformity. I wish that the "I prefer not to" method was effective in real life, but unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. Obviously this is an exaggerated fictional story about non-conformity, but it is intended to make the point that we all have free will. Of course, there are consequences for disobeying authority (like me getting a zero for not writing a blog post today), but some times it is necessary. I think the author is trying to suggest that non-conformity is necessary at times, but can also be a dangerous thing when taken to an extreme.

This story reminds me of the movie Office Space. For those who have not seen it, I will summarize the plot in a few sentences. The protagonist, Peter, hates his job, his girlfriend, his apartment, his boss, etc. and at one point states that each day of his life is worse than the last. One day he visits a hypnotherapist for relationship counseling with his girlfriend, and as he's being hypnotized the therapist has a heart attack and dies. He has some type of revelation and decides he cannot maintain his life as it is currently. He stops going to work, stops answering phone calls, doesn't talk to his girlfriend, and starts doing whatever he wants every day. This is reflective of the "I would prefer not to" mentality. Despite massive lay offs at his company, the consultants decide to promote Peter because they think his honesty and straight-forward attitude show ambition. Ultimately, Peter becomes a construction worker because he would prefer not to pursue any type of corporate job or responsibility. The plot continues, but I think the similarities are clear by this point.

Anyway, the resonating theme of the film is that you need to do what makes you happy, not always what society dictates.

As a side note about the Youtube video, I think that these students have gone a little too far. The 'meaningless' tests they are referring to help assess schools so that schools and students can be compared nationwide and statewide. If schools weren't tested, they would have no real reason to improve their teachers, facilities, etc. Just because you don't want to take a test, doesn't mean that it's meaningless. This is all kind of beside the point, but I just wanted to share that. Does anyone else agree with me, or am I just being overly critical?

The Allen Ginsburg poem Sunflower Sutra definitely celebrates individualism and non-conformity. Personally, I did not like this poem very much. I agree with the message that we should celebrate our flaws rather than hide them, but I didn't care for the style of writing or the excessive use of certain words (locomotive, in particular,) over and over again. I also found this poem to be very hard to follow, but the video really helped me understand what was going on.

I believe that Ginsberg is saying that America has been overcome by the prevalence of industry and massive corporations, but it can be saved by breaking the mold. Americans need to embrace their individualism, not associate and model themselves after someone else. Ginsberg suggests that it is easy to be yourself, but non-conformity is often met with opposition.

Both of these pieces of literature emphasize the American quality of personal freedom and its necessity to our society. This is a part of our identity as Americans. Some cultures embrace and encourage conformity, but as Americans we have the right and the will to be individuals when appropriate.

Unit One: Freedom 5/20

Jonathan Edwards' sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is filled with extreme rhetoric and perhaps even more extreme threats. Edwards presents religion to his audience as though he's trying to scare them into believing what he wants them to believe. By citing tales of death and destruction from the bible, he preaches almost as if he is speaking for God himself. He does not present his ideas as something to consider, but rather as a matter of fact. There is no shortage of extreme language throughout this sermon, used probably to grasp the attention of the audience and to create a tone that establishes the author as almost God-like.

Edwards also uses reason throughout the sermon, but not the same sense of reason that exists today. This was obviously a time before the internet and the availability of information, and Edwards uses reason to compare and contrast between scenarios that he presents to the audience. Reason in the 21st century is entirely different than reason in the 18th century. I think that Edwards is "playing God" again here, but allowing the audience to decide, but limiting their focus to the options he presents.

I'm not religious, so I don't attend too many church services these days. Does this type of rhetoric and threatening language still exist or work today? It seems to me like this type of approach would be dismissed by most people, but that's just my analysis.

Sunday Morning by Wallace Stevens is very different from Jonathan Edwards' presentation of religion in America. In my interpretation, the author is suggesting that there is so much to appreciate on this planet, why should we live like monks in the hopes that some kind of Heaven exists. Further, why submit to the social pressures created by the church when "the green freedom of a cockatoo" is everywhere around us. On a Sunday morning as beautiful as the author describes, the subject is content with her oranges and coffee, representative of what the Earth has to offer, but is suddenly overcome with thought about Jesus' crucifixion. The author contrasts the oranges and coffee with 'blood and sepulchre', reference to wine/the last supper and the church where Jesus was resurrected. All of this symbolism suggests that this is not any Sunday, but Easter Sunday. This conflict between Earth and Religion is representative of the subject's desire to be free of the social pressure of the church, to live according to her own morale code and amongst the natural world, but even when she skips church service she finds herself doubting her decision.

I think this poem is indicative of religion in society today. Without being too specific, I know a lot of people who are simply not religious, but feel pressured from their family, their peers, politicians, and other sources to attend church services. They have the freedom to believe whatever they want to, but ultimately still feel guilty for not following the pack. Ultimately, Americans have the right to choose their beliefs even though they may be judged if their ideas don't conform to societal "standards".

Young Goodman Brown by Nathaniel Hawthorne, in my eyes, is more about good vs. evil than any sort of religious conflict. Goodman Brown is put in a position to accept evil, but even though he resists because of his better half (Faith, his wife) he ultimately gives in because he finds out that everyone, including Faith, have betrayed him. I believe this story is about a hallucination, or some type of dream, rather than an actual physical journey. Goodman's description of the cane as a snake provokes the reader to consider the story of Adam and Eve, but also the description of the cane seems surreal.

After Goodman Brown's intriguing experience in the woods, he cannot face the people he (thinks) he saw in the woods that night. It is unclear whether or not he has actually witnessed the ceremony or it is just his imagination, but either way it has permanently affected him. Does anyone else have any insight to what happens immediately after the ceremony?

This story actually reminds me of some contemporary issues. Some very prominent figures have recently been exposed for the despicable characters that they actually are. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared to be a respectable, decent Governor of California after his career in acting. It has come to light that he is certainly not who anyone thought he was, and the people he lied to will never be able to see him the same way again. A similar, current topic is the ongoing case with Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I will spare the details of the former IMF president's alleged crimes, but it is just one more example of how seemingly trustworthy and respectable people can be simply putting on a facade.

Unit One: Freedom 5/19

Anne Bradstreet's The Author to Her Book is about the author's embarrassment regarding one of her books. She wrote the book to fulfill her own personal freedom of expression, but feels even more trapped and victimized when her work is criticized. This poem is symbolic of Bradstreet's "perfectionist" nature and the pressure to be a mother and wife before an artist.

In To My Dear and Loving Husband, I feel like the author is writing in an idealistic tone. In other words, she should feel like this for her husband, but simply cannot. Knowing that the author has a strong Puritanical background, it seems that she feels guilty for wanting to be an equal in marriage. She has no social freedom and submits to the ideal case of everlasting, perfect love. I think it's interesting that the first three lines start with the word 'if'. I wonder if this is supposed to suggest that this is a hypothetical situation, or that maybe she would feel this way IF some other conditions were met.

In Prologue, the author is very plainly relating the dominance of men to the less powerful, but slowly progressing, presence of women in society. She relates the wars of captains and kings to the poet's pen. She discusses how women were dismissed, even when they contributed positively to society. In one stanza, she writes:

I am obnoxious to each carping tongue

Who says my hand a needle better fits.

A Poet's Pen all scorn I should thus wrong,

For such despise they cast on female wits.

If what I do prove well, it won't advance,

They'll say it's stol'n, or else it was by chance.

She goes on to ask for the smallest amount of acknowledgment and suggests that men and women can freely contribute side by side. She doesn't boast that her work is better than any man's, and even states: This mean and unrefined ore of mine/Will make your glist'ring gold but more to shine. She doesn't want to prove herself better than anybody, she just wants to be able to write freely and be accepted.

The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is a truly interesting story. A woman, essentially ignored by her husband, becomes more and more delusional as she becomes increasingly fascinated by the yellow wallpaper of their bedroom in a rented house. She is aware of the wallpaper's effects on her immediately and rejects it, but becomes obsessed with it as the story progresses. She claims she can't stop examining the wallpaper because when you "follow the lame curves for a little distance they suddenly commit suicide - plunge off at outrageous angles, destroy themselves in unheard of contradictions." The narrator contradicts herself constantly by talking about how awful everything about the paper is, but then becoming obsessed with it and allowing it to rule her life.

The narrator eventually determines that the pattern on the paper represents bars, trapping women inside who constantly attempt to escape. Ironically, the narrator is fixated on the wallpaper day and night, trapped in a bed that is physically nailed to the floor. Her husband, and all other men in the entire story, constantly remind her that she is mentally unstable and that she should rest constantly. This only pushes the narrator further down the road to insanity by enclosing her in the room with the paper.

The narrator talks about how she would never allow her child to reside in a room with such wallpaper, and she is grateful that she could sacrifice herself. I feel that this is representative of the pressure on women to submit to men and consider all other members of the family before themselves.

She goes on to write that she has begun to lie and conceal her thoughts from her husband and her husbands sister, giving up her ability to speak freely even to the closest people in her life.

She realizes that there is a woman trapped in the wallpaper, the same woman that creeps around the yard and road surrounding the house. At this point the narrator must be totally delusional, but she recognizes the woman's desire for freedom from the wall. The bars in the wallpaper strangle the woman every night, obviously symbolic of male oppression. As the narrator's sanity fades quickly, she decides to lock herself in the room as she has become totally obsessed with it and doesn't want to leave it on their last day in the house. She can finally be freed of the oppressive wallpaper, but she rejects the opportunity as the story comes to a close.

I'm not really sure what happens in the last sentence of the story, or more specifically what it means.

In Rip Van Winkle by Washington Irving, Rip Van Winkle sleeps for 20 years and finds himself in the same location, but a very different environment. There is a lot of very plain symbolism. First, Van Winkle falls asleep under British rule and wakes up in post-revolution America. It's hard to look past the concept of freedom, since the British rule was very oppressive and the revolution took place in the name of freedom. Immediately, Van Winkle discovers the price of freedom. His only friends in the village have all been killed in the war, sparing the schoolmaster who is now a member of Congress. Second, Van Winkle's wife is described as a tyrant and when he awakes she has already passed away. Van Winkle was never close to his children, because his wife dominated the household and discouraged his presence. After he wakes up, one of the only people in the village that he can recognize turns out to be his daughter. Finally, I think that the draught/liquor that Van Winkle drinks is the actual catalyst of all the freedom that he obtains. All of the old places in town that Van Winkle used to frequent have since fallen to ruin, but his personal freedom couldn't exist if these portions of his former life were still around.