June 2, 2011 Response

     Without the bonds and personal connections among our friends and families, life would appear meaningless. Human interactions are depicted in both positive and negative ways throughout Edith Wharton’s “Roman Fever,” Robert Frost’s “Mending Wall,” and Elizabeth Bishop’s “One Art.”  

     Throughout the story, “Roman Fever,” two women, Mrs. Slade and Mrs. Ansley, grew up together as perceptibly “best friends.” However, their relationship was determined by a façade from both parties. They constantly played off their friendship as close and perfect, referencing how little moments “bring back the past all too acutely” and remind them of cherishing times together. The entire story displays both Mrs. Slade and Mrs. Ansley utilizing “indefinable” tone of voices with one another, as their thoughts consistently oppose their edited verbal messages. Each woman secretly felt sorry for the other because they each had something to hide. The entire friendship was based off of lies and secrets, since “these two ladies visualized each other, each through the wrong end of her little telescope.” At the end, however, all their secrets unravel when Mrs. Slade decides to reveal her own secret about forging a letter from her husband to Mrs. Ansley about their secret love connection. At this moment, Mrs. Slade feels superior to Mrs. Ansley, as she thinks she got away with the menacing joke when she laughs, “girls are ferocious sometimes, you know. Girls in love especially.” Well, she certainly was right when Mrs. Ansley spun the entire story around. Mrs. Slade had no idea that her husband and Mrs. Ansley actually got together that night, and so goes the explanation of Mrs. Ansley’s daughter! Now, the tables have turned and Mrs. Ansley has established the “upper hand” in their little argument. The future of their friendship is clearly ruined, but it wasn’t much of a friendship to begin with! Mrs. Slade spent years thinking she was so clever for tricking her best friend, yet Mrs. Ansley had worse secrets of her own! I enjoyed this story and thought the ending was hysterical. I wasn’t expecting that at all!

     “One Art” depicts a series of losing connections with valuable people, places, and things. As the poem goes on, the lost objects become increasingly important to the character. She starts saying that she can “accept the fluster of lost door keys, the hour badly spent” and has learned to shrug off such a small incident. However, the poem then goes from losing door keys to losing houses, and the character “practices losing farther, faster.” At this moment, I felt the character losing control and getting overwhelmed with the loss of connections happening around her. By the time we get to the final stanza, we expect the lost “item” to be very important. Bishop writes, “even losing you (the joking voice, a gesture I love),” indicating that she is still hung up on the fact that she has lost someone she cares deeply about. She is not ready to accept her loss. The statement in parenthesis indicate how she still reminisces about the person and longs for a taste of them and their mannerisms.  

     Finally, Robert Frost’s “Mending Wall” represents human relationships through a metaphor of a mending wall between neighbors. Robert Frost writes, “And on a day we meet to walk the line, And set the wall between us once again.” This was one of my favorite lines because it truly portrays the façade people have and the walls they keep up to protect themselves, their feelings, and their reputations. He describes the masked banter as “just another kind of out-door game,” indicating that people find it easy and second nature to lie and keep to themselves. Frost then states, “my apple trees will never get across,” which I took to mean that his secrets will never be known by his neighbor because of this metaphorical wall between them. However, then Frost questions this “wall” and why it is beneficial to society and relationships. He asks, “Why do they make good neighbours? Isn’t it where there are cows?” I think Frost is mocking people who lie and hold back their feelings by equating them to cows. Therefore, Frost is giving this outer façade in society (what the wall symbolizes) a negative connotation. Therefore, fences do not necessarily make good neighbors. I think they constantly have to “reconstruct” this wall because every once in a while a secret or story will slip to an outside source in society, and the secrets need time to accumulate again. I was really confused as to who makes a “good neighbor,” because Frost was very vague about this subject. I think he just means people who are honest and straightforward. However, why does he mention “Elves?” Why does he capitalize “Elves?” Did anyone have an idea why Frost depicts “elves” as good neighbors?
     These selections were a great series to end on. It made me think about different relationships and friendships I have acquired throughout the years. With most of my friends, I find it really easy to be straightforward and honest. We are all 100% open to each other. However, with others, I constantly feel like they’re holding something back and afraid to let their guard down, and it can be even awkward at times to converse with people who are so protective of their lives. I’m sure everyone has a good reason for putting their guard up, but I always feel uncomfortable trusting people like that.

June 1, 2011 Response

    Just because rules or laws have been established through a democratic process does not necessarily mean that they abide by a moral compass. This notion of morality is presented throughout the texts “A Model of Christian Charity” by John Winthrop and “Resistance to Civil Government” by Henry David Thoreau.

    Throughout “A Model of Christian Charity,” Winthrop utilizes “logical reasoning combined with sympathetic nature” to persuade his audience to unite together and form a loving community.  He ties in God’s plans during his description of the different kinds of people in the world: the poor, the rich, the average joe, etc. He says the reason for the variety of people is “to show forth the glory of His wisdom in the variety and difference of the creatures” and for His “preservation and good of the whole.” Winthrop depicts how God created different social statuses of people in order to balance out peace, since “every man might have need of others.” I think he’s saying that everyone has something to offer, and if we were all the same, no one would progress or have the ability to help one another. Winthrop also discusses morality through the Law of Nature, an idea that presents man in a “state of innocence,” and the Law of Grace, an idea that shows one must “love his neighbor as himself.” Essentially, Winthrop ties in religion and the whole idea of purity and innocence to persuade his audience to practice moral behavior. He wants everyone to treat each other the way they would want to be treated, and with that concept the community will thrive. Winthrop continually uses Bible references to back up his points, such as “Love your enemies…Do good to them that hate you” (Matt. 5:44). This helped enforce Winthrop’s idea of unity. Sometimes the rich need to give to the poor and people need to make sacrifices for others. God intended love for mankind, and practicing love will unite the Puritans. One of the most influential things that Winthrop stated was, “If thou pour out thy soul to the hungry…the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul.” This was probably one of the most influential points for Winthrop’s speech. As Puritans, Winthrop’s audience strive to follow God’s wishes and lead a pure life leading to heaven. Knowing that moral behavior and a united community can “guide thee continually and satisfy thy soul” is comforting to the Puritans. Winthrop discusses love as the “bond of perfection” and the glue that holds the community together. He also mentions the metaphor of a city upon a hill, with people constantly below and watching the people in the city’s actions. I think this is essentially stating that it is important for everyone to practice morality because their moral compass is consistently being watched by God.
     While Winthrop utilizes religion and puritan beliefs to persuade his audience to unite, Henry David Thoreau takes a different standpoint. He does not address religion at all, but rather, he utilizes logical reasoning by breaking down each of his points and essentially guilting his audience (in a subtle, non-aggressive way) into practicing morality. Winthrop discusses more government-oriented issues, opposed to religious issues. He presents the notion that the government should not be overbearing, and he describes the American government as nothing but “tradition” to “transmit itself unimpaired to prosperity, but each instant losing some of its integrity.” The American government does not seem to care about whether or not the law practices morality. Thoreau describes it as a “wooden gun” shooting America in the face, as the government is neither educational nor representative of freedom. One of Thoreau’s interesting points was his deconstruction of the idea: majority rule. Thoreau discusses that just because the majority agrees, does not mean they “are most likely to be in the right.” Rather, they are just more overpowering. Instead, Thoreau thinks that laws should be determined through “conscience” and morality. He thinks that people are resentful to use morality for laws because of the amount of work it will take to change society’s way of thinking, but they can’t “postpone the question of freedom.” Thoreau states, “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish to prevail through the power of majority.” Essentially, someone who truly wants to abolish slavery and practice morality will not just simply vote against it. Instead, they will slowly try to help and become active in the reformation. Thoreau continually uses logical reasoning to depict the faults of the American government. He thinks that if we start small, with even just one person sacrificing himself to cease holding slaves, it will be the beginning of abolition. He persuades people to stop paying taxes to a country that supports slavery. If they cease taxpaying, at least there won’t be “bloody” or “violent” activities encircling the country.

     Essentially, Winthrop and Thoreau were similar in their works in the sense that they both use logic and simplicity to present their points. They give examples and metaphors (as shown above, like the “wooden gun”) to persuade their country to unite. However, Winthrop and Thoreau contrasted in what they chose to focus on. Winthrop depicted Bible versus and referenced God (which worked, as his audience was mainly Puritans), while Thoreau picked apart the American government (which also worked, as he was in a politically active time period). Both people, however, were extremely powerful influences during that time period. What else did you guys find differed between the two? I found the language to be pretty similar…very simple and to the point!
     I really enjoyed reading Thoreau’s work. It must have been so difficult for him to stand up against slavery in a time of such chaos. It made me think of times when I had to stand up for what I believed in even when the majority of people around me thought the opposite. Do you guys have any examples of this in your life? Times that paralleled Thoreau’s courage to stand up for his beliefs despite majority rule?

May 31, 2011 Response - Nature

     Whether or not everyone admits it, nature has and always will be an influential force in our everyday lives. Especially in today’s society, our earth’s environment is the only true outlet to experiencing the natural, simplistic lifestyle we were meant to lead when people first originated the world. Writers Jewett, Frost, and Dickinson convey the appreciation of nature, as well as the human-nature connection throughout nineteenth century literature.

     Jewett’s story, “A White Heron,” portrays a romantic perspective on the connection between a girl, Sylvia, and the nature around her. Sylvia is more connected to nature in this story than to actual people. She feels a sense of security and freedom in the woods around her that she appears to lack when attempting to relate to other people. Jewett describes Sylvia, “She was not often in the woods so late as this, and it made her feel as if she were a part of the gray shadows and moving leaves.” Immediately, Sylvia seems one with nature. She has connected so much to her natural world that she has become a part of it. When Sylvia hears a man whistle in the woods, she immediately senses aggression and fear. However, she describes how if heard a bird’s whistle, she would have felt friendliness and peace. Nature serves as a symbol for the endeavor that Sylvia goes through: deciding whether or not to tell the stranger (who hunts birds) where the white heron bird lives so that he can kill it and, consequently, pay Sylvia’s poor family money in which they need. She describes this endeavor, how this “human interest” (the hunter) can come in and “sweep away the satisfactions of an existence heart to heart with nature” (take away her connection to the natural world). I think Jewett does a great job of showing not only how much Sylvia appreciates nature, but also how much nature appreciates Sylvia. When she goes to climb the tall white oak tree, she is described in a playful manner as a “harmless housebreaker” to the birds. The story concludes with Sylvia refusing to “tell the heron’s secret and give its life away.” Sylvia chooses to sacrifice her own personal lifestyle and limited amount of income to protect nature. Nature plays the role of Sylvia’s internal endeavor of struggling to make the right choices. Did anyone else realize that silence was also a prominent theme here? Whenever Sylvia was asked a question regarding something she did not want to answer, she remained quiet. This was her way of not only protecting nature and the white heron, but also her way of avoiding telling a lie and keeping her dignity. 
     Frost’s poem, “After Apple-Picking” seemed to present nature as a symbol of life itself. The first couple of lines discuss the apple tree and a ladder that is pointed “toward heaven still.” I thought that this symbolized that the man picking apples was leading an honorable, pure life, as his ladder ‘still pointed to heaven.’ However, I could also see it as a symbol that death is nearing for the man and that he is on his pathway to heaven. Regardless, it appears that the man is feeling this connection through nature and the apple trees. He then becomes drowsy and drifts off thinking of “magnified apples” as they “appear and disappear.” I think that again shows the connection of nature, how even when the character is going to sleep, he incorporates nature in his dreams. Then, he states, “I have had too much of apple-picking: I am overtired of the great harvest I myself desired.” This could mean a number of things. Is this a metaphor for the fact that people sometimes “bite off more than they can chew” in life? That as people, in particularly Americans, we take on too much of a heavy load that we drive ourselves to pure exhaustion? Nature plays the role of life’s conflicts: taking on too much of a challenge and getting over-excited about the numerous available possibilities. The man saw all of the apples and got overwhelmed with the amount he could pick.
     Lastly, Dickinson portrays nature as an outlet to break free from the current religious trends occurring in that time period. She mocks religion in her third poem, describing how a certain light in the winter afternoon’s are “oppressive, like the weight Of cathedral tunes.” Just like the light creates an oppressive heat and overwhelming glare, cathedral tunes (essentially religion) emit a repressive sound and atmosphere for Dickinson. In her first poem, she simply describes that while “Some keep the Sabbath in surplice, I just wear my wings.” Dickinson is stating that while some people go to church just for the title, so that they can be highly viewed in society’s eyes, she sticks to nature as a way to connect with the world and her spiritual self. Dickinson’s second poem dealt mainly with symbolic nature, and not as much with religion. For instance, she describes how “When butterflies renounce their drams, I shall but drink the more!” The whole poem describes Dickinson drinking and enjoying nature. I think this shows how Dickinson feels freedom from judgment whenever she is surrounded by her natural environment. In Dickinson’s poems, nature serves as a contrast for religion, as it is her way to celebrate spirituality. All three of these writers portray nature through a positive, romantic perspective and attitude, but Dickinson appears to be the only one to tie in religion.
     I really enjoyed reading these stories and poems because I felt I could relate to them. My family doesn’t go to church and I haven’t established any organized religion I believe in yet. However, we are a very outdoors-oriented family. We love hiking, running, swimming in the ocean, rock climbing, and anything to do with nature. We’ve talked about how being in our outdoor environment gives us some connection to spirituality, which I think is the same sense of connection many people get from going to church (maybe what Dickinson was talking about). Especially in today’s society where computers and technology have become mainstream, people tend to sacrifice their connection to nature for what they think is a more fun or efficient way to spend their time. It’s scary to think how disconnected people have become from nature even in the past 10 years. I think it’s important to appreciate nature for what it is, because before we know it, technology, buildings, and pollution will corrupt it.   

     

May 30, 2011 Response - A Streetcar Named Desire

People who undergo tragedies and lead an unstable, difficult life often have trouble coping and maintaining their sanity. This idea holds true for Blanche, one of the main characters in the play A Streetcar Named Desire. As an insecure, self-conscious woman who lost her husband, Blanche is driven out of her home in Mississippi and travels north to stay with her sister, Stella, in New Orleans. When Blanche first arrives, she is very snappy and, in the way that I read it, seemed abrupt and somewhat obnoxious. Despite her abrupt behavior, however, she is extremely insecure and displays a façade in order to pretend that she leads a perfect, “easy” life. She is very critical of her sister, Stella, and she consistently fishes for compliments in order to keep any last bit of confidence.
     In my opinion, Blanche is the only person that leads herself to her own demise. One of the first things she says when she walks into Stella’s home is, “Let me look at you. But don’t you look at me…not till I’ve bathed and rested! And turn that over-light off! I won’t be looked at in this merciless glare!” (19). Immediately we can tell that Blanche has very low self confidence, attempts to hide her age, and only displays herself through false, unrealistic lighting in hopes of masking her true self. This is Blanche’s biggest flaw and ultimately what leads her to going crazy and getting taken away in the end. She continuously avoids standing in light throughout the entire play, she is appalled at her sister’s living arrangements, and she gets excessively dressed up for every occasion. These are all indications of insecurities. I remember at one moment she was asked if she wanted to smoke a cigarette and she states, “I’m not properly dressed” (61). Nothing seems to reach her expectations, and she consistently puts down her sister’s life and her sister’s husband in hopes of feeling better about her own situation. Not only does the light imagery parallel Blanche’s life (she becomes obsessive about being in darkness because it masks her life’s reality), but the music also seems to parallel Blanche’s life. She has a constant polka tune in her head ever since her husband died, and whenever she gets nervous or starts to feel vulnerable, the music comes back. The narrator describes her insanity, “The music is in her mind; she is drinking to escape it and the sense of disaster is closing in on her” (113). Blanche, who previously refused alcohol, starts to drink more and more as the play goes on in an attempt to ease the pain of reality. Even though Stanley gets under Blanche’s skin and isn’t very welcoming, I ultimately think that Blanche is responsible for her downfall. If she weren’t insecure, or didn’t portray a façade, or didn’t try to have a perfect, “magical,” “southern belle” lifestyle, Stanley’s comments would not have irritated her. The tragedies that happened in Blanche’s life, although were difficult, would not determine her overall success or failure as a person if she didn’t have so many insecurities. Thus, she is the only person responsible for her demise.

     If I were to rank each of the main characters, I would rank Stella as the most likeable, Stanley somewhere in between, and Blanche as the least likeable. I feel that Stella consistently tried to mediate the tension between Stanley and Blanche and make everyone happy. When Stanley initially asks Stella about Blanche “swindling” them out of money and a place to stay, Stella plays devil’s advocate and defends her sister. When Blanche starts criticizing Stella and Stanley’s relationship, Stella states, “You’re making too much fuss about this” (63) and nonchalantly eases the tension. Stanley, however, isn’t quite as likeable. Blanche describes him as “bestial” (71) and he is often depicted with animalistic, inhuman qualities. For example, when he got angry at Stella and went to hit her, Stella cried, “Drunk-drunk-animal thing, you!” (57). However, despite Stanley’s negative qualities, at least he is realistic. He understands that happiness does not stem from materialistic things, and he leads a realistic life, opposed to a fantasy-oriented, fake life (like Blanche). Finally, Blanche is the least likeable because she does not have a single nice thing to say about anyone, she is insecure to the point of annoyance, and she lives such a “fantasy” lifestyle that you never really know who she is as a person. Did anyone choose a different order? Did anyone think Stanley was the least likeable character? I thought he and Blanche were relatively even.

     To some degree, I feel that justice was served in this play. The fact that Blanche was taken away by the doctor portrays that Blanche has reached some sort of fulfillment and solution to all her conflicts with realism. However, I was disappointed that Stella and Stanley’s life was somewhat unresolved. In my opinion, I think there should have been some resolution with Stanley’s wild, animalistic behavior. Do you all think that Stella and Stanley’s life was somewhat unresolved as well?

     This play reminded me of false images in the media. The same way that Blanche tried to portray her life is the same way that the media tries to portray people. The modeling industry in particular alters people to the point where they are inhuman. Today’s society is frustrating to live in because of the emphasis placed on the media. Sometimes people don’t realize how much advertisements influence their decisions. It’s important to not let the media affect your decisions and to stay honest and true to who you are! 

May 27, 2011 Response

     Life during Elliot and Ginsberg’s time, as well as life in contemporary America, is often times about finding your true inner self and establishing a sense of pride about your individuality. Elliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” and Ginsberg’s “Howl Part 1” depict two contrasting perspectives on individuality: one view from a self-conscious, insecure man, and the other view from a secure individual expressing his opinions on society.

     In Elliot’s poem, J. Alfred Prufrock allows his insecurity to get the best of him and prevent him from living an authentic life. When Prufrock notices a group of women he is interested in approaching, his mind fills with doubts and second-guessing. He continually asks himself, “Do I dare?” and then eventually asks, “Do I dare Disturb the universe?” (48). Here, Prufrock thinks of himself as an inconvenience or ‘disturbance’ to society, and does not want to address the women because he thinks he is not “good enough” for them. He uses a metaphor, stating, “I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent seas” (74). I think this metaphor alludes to the fact that Prufrock does not feel he has a voice in the world and is not living his dream of an authentic life, and instead “scuttling” through the world in silence. He desires confidence and good looks (when he references his “bald head”), and feels sorry for himself for allowing his insecurities to impede on his desires. At one point, I think that Prufrock even blames God, when he states, “But though I have wept and fasted, wept and prayed…I am no prophet – and here’s no great matter…And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker” (85). I have no idea if this is an accurate assumption, but is the ‘Footman’ he’s referring to God? Is Prufrock wondering why, if he has “wept and prayed” and done what he is ‘supposed’ to do, is he still self-conscious and unable to fulfill an authentic life? It’s just an idea? Prufrock also continuously alludes to Michaelangelo, and I think he does this to compare societal status’s from himself to the women (associating the women with a prominent status and himself as worthless). He then becomes angry and frustrated, declaring, “No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be” indicating that his life will never be what he wants because that is not in the cards for his fate. “Till human voices wake us, and we drown” (131) is the final line of the poem, and I think that this is significant because it shows how Prufrock’s self confidence has not changed or grown since the beginning of the poem. Even though time has passed, he is still self-conscious and has made no progress. It’s similar to the song lyrics “Creep” because the same message holds true for today: people are still afraid to be themselves and thus hope for something else. The lines “I want a perfect body, I want a perfect soul” indicate how people are always comparing themselves to the ‘norm’ and what is expected of them.

     From a contrasting point of view, Ginsberg’s “Howl Part 1” describes how the “best minds of his generation” are being destroyed. This poem presents classic irony. You would initially think that the “best minds of his generation” are people who are successful in their jobs and people who are making money for themselves and their families. However, Ginsberg discusses that the “best minds” are people like him; people who engage in drugs, careless sex, and alcohol to reach a spiritual path to liberation and individuality. He refers to these people as those “who chained themselves to subways,” “who were expelled from academics,” “who burned cigarette holes in their arms protesting narcotic tobacco haze of Capitalism” and “who lounged hungry and lonesome.” However, when these people deviate from the norms of society, they are chastised by the average everyday people, who are disturbed by their ways of expressing individuality. He even references his friend again, Carl, stating, “ah, Carl, while you are not safe I am not safe, and now you’re really in the total animal soup of time,” indicating that the time period for progression and change is chaotic. Overall, I feel that Elliot’s poem is entirely pessimistic, while Ginsberg’s poem presents a small amount of hope. I think Ginsberg is stating facts in a rather nonchalant manner. Although he is upset by the reactions he receives from society, he is not as ‘brought down’ by society as Prufrock. I was a little surprised at Ginsberg’s use of graphic language. I can imagine how controversial his poetry must have been in such a conservative era. However, when you think about it, Ginsberg does have a point. He is so confident and comfortable with himself and his individuality that he has the ability to write these poems in the first place. Sometimes that is better than someone who is popular in society yet has no confidence.

     These poems remind me of high school…people were so focused on fitting in that often times they compromised themselves just to be accepted. This concept goes against everything Ginsberg believed in (individuality). It’s sad how far people go sometimes to “blend in” and feel acceptance. They’re certainly not living an authentic life.

May 26, 2011 Response

     Although individuality, self-worship, and self-power are popular themes of today’s society, this idea of transcendentalism in the 18^th century was an entirely new concept to America. Writers Whitman, Emerson, and Chopin all convey themes of establishing individuality and the pathway to achieve individualism.

     Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” utilizes repetition and addresses a variety of different people in order to drive home his point: believe in yourself. For instance, one of Emerson’s first thoughts is, “God will not have his work made manifest by cowards. A man is relieved and gay when he has put his heart into his work and done his best.” He is addressing the religious people of the time period (in this case, nearly everyone). He states that God created man to do things for his own self, and not be a “coward” by conforming to society just to make everyone else happy. Emerson also addresses adolescence, stating, “Do not think the youth has no force.” This was one of my favorite lines because Emerson presents the idea that individuality starts when you are young. You don’t have to wait to “grow up” to start learning to think for yourself, and while thinking for yourself, you establish a “force” and sense of self-pride. Emerson states that “What I must do is all that concerns me, not what people think” and “My life is for itself and not for a spectacle,” indicating that the opinions of others is irrelevant and that it is important to find a power within yourself. You should not do something just for a “spectacle,” or for people to perceive you in some way; you should do it because it makes you happy. He repeats this concept, saying “Welcome ever more to gods and men is the self-helping man,” meaning that people are more likely to want to be around those who help themselves. He also presents the idea that conformity and consistency prove nothing about yourself, and that individualism flatters character. I thought Emerson’s views of travelling the world were interesting…how people should not travel in search of finding “something better.” It reminded me of the saying “The grass is always greener on the other side.” What I got from Emerson’s message is that running from your problems does not make them go away, and you have to believe in yourself to make things happen.

     Similar to Emerson, Whitman also presents the notion that individualism and “being yourself” are the best things you can do in life. By celebrating his passions, his body, and his voice, Whitman poetically depicts the path to becoming an individual. His poem suggests that you should never fully follow one person’s story or another, and that “You shall listen to all sides, and filter them for yourself” (2). He is essentially saying to make your own decisions and stand ground. Whitman also describes the power of individuality, when he writes, “I resists anything better than my own diversity…And am not stuck up, and am in my place” (16). Whitman has found his individualism, or “his place,” and has established the diverse aspects of himself. For instance, he describes all the “voices” within him, and how each one isn’t necessarily perfect: the voice of slaves, prostitutes, diseased, despaired, and thieves. These “voices” are what make up Whitman and his individuality. I was also a little surprised that Whitman freely wrote about sexuality and worshipping his own body. What I got out of stanza 48 was that nothing should be greater to you than yourself and your soul, not even God. Finally, Whitman concludes his poem with “I too am untranslatable,” admitting that even for him, finding individuality is a struggle and is not always a ‘clear cut’ answer. Did anyone else have a difficult time with Whitman’s language? I felt like Emerson was a little easier to understand…what were some of your opinions about the end (stanza 48/52) of Whitman’s poem? What do you feel is the main take home message?

     Kate Chopin’s story, “The Story of an Hour,” also affirmed the idea of individuality as presented by Emerson and Whitman. When Mrs. Mallard hears the news that her husband died, she does not act “with a paralyzed inability to accept its significance,” as she would be expected to act in that time period. Instead, she portrayed a sense of relief, and by doing so, conveyed non-conformity and individualism. She looked out her window at the “delicious breath of rain” (which I think is a metaphor and symbol for relief) that was in the air, and she suddenly felt a feeling that was “too subtle and elusive to name.” This is when Chopin foreshadows Mrs. Mallard’s path to liberation. She confirms Mrs. Mallard’s relief when Mrs. Mallard starts shouting, “free, free, free” over and over again. I think the fact that Mrs. Mallard could recognize that she was tied down by her husband in society and that she was happier alone shows that she has established individualism, since she does not conform with society’s expectations. It seems that her husband used to tie her down from achieving her goals judging by the line, “no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence” and a “long procession of years to come that would belong to her absolutely.” Essentially, her husband’s will and power will no longer overpower her individualism, and the remainder of her life will be spent as a proud, free individual. Where Mrs. Mallard previously shuddered at the thought of a long life, she is now praying for a longer one. I think that Mrs. Mallard died at the end because she realized the joy, freedom, and liberation that filled her body at the thought of not having a husband.  The thing that changed was her feeling of individualism, which she could previously not express. Now that she knows her husband is not dead, she cannot go back to feeling trapped again in marriage after having a taste of freedom away from marriage. The “joy that kills” was that feeling of liberation that was so great that Mrs. Mallard could literally not live without it. This story was interesting to me because it reminded me of my outside novel (also by Kate Chopin). I won’t say too much for those who haven’t read it, but the stories parallel each other in many ways!   

May 25, 2011 Response

     My personal conception of the American Dream is the idea that, by mere virtue of the fact that you live in America, you automatically possess the potential to accomplish any goal you set for yourself…as long as you have the work ethic and personal drive to achieve that desire. In the case of Britney Spears, she represents the American Dream because she grew up like every other girl. However, slowly but surely, with dedication and hard work, she eased her way into fame and success, and is now a renowned name in America. In our country, you don’t have to be born into wealth and success in order to be wealthy and successful.

     I think that Will Smith’s clip from Pursuit of Happiness is applicable to the Younger’s in Raisin in the Sun. Smith is assuring the little boy that no one has the right to tell him that he can’t do something. He states, “You got a dream? You gotta protect it” and claims that although people will attempt to crush the little boy’s dreams, he can’t lose sight of his passion. This is similar to the play because of the situation at the end when Lindner claims to the Younger’s, “the people of Clybourne Park believe…that our Negro families are happier when they live in their own communities” (118) and that the family cannot move there. However, the Younger’s family does not let Lindner push them around and instead refuses to move. Like Will Smith’s message, they do not let Lindner get in the way of their goal, which in this case, is a right to freedom and a right to overcome oppression. However, there are issues, both within the Younger’s family and outside of their control, which I think hinder the Younger’s chances at fully fulfilling their dreams. Within the family, there appears to be an immense amount of obsession over money. For instance, when they finally receive the check for ten thousand dollars, they become obsessive, impatient, and controlling. Mama states, “Now don’t act silly…we ain’t never been no people to act silly ‘bout no money” and Ruth exclaims, “We ain’t never had none before – OPEN IT!” (68). They seem to think that this money is the only way to accomplish their goals in life, thus losing sight of the American Dream, which involves hard work and dedication. I think another big issue within their family, and theme throughout the entire play, is the presence of female oppression. Walter was always discouraging Beneatha about becoming a doctor, stating, “If you so crazy ‘bout messing ‘round with sick people – then go be a nurse like other women – or just get married and be quiet…” (38). Walter discourages Beneatha from her dreams and thus sets the entire family back from possibly making money and becoming successful.
     On the other hand, outside factors from their family unit also played a huge role in preventing the Younger’s from achieving their ultimate goal, like the constant racism and discrimination. Not only were there bombings because of racial differences, but Lindner even offered to pay the Younger’s more money than what their newly bought house was worth just so that they didn’t have to live there anymore, as the house was in an “all-white” neighborhood. These incidences left the Younger’s in a vulnerable, helpless position, where they were oppressed based off of the color of their skin. Even when Lindner was speaking with the family, he constantly referenced them in a negative manner as “you people,” subjugating them to an entirely different category than others.

     I honestly tried to look at the end of the play as offering hope and a happy ending. Initially, when the end started to wrap up, I thought it was going to go downhill, like when Beneatha second-guessed her decisions at becoming a doctor. She stated that there “isn’t any real progress…there is only one large circle that we march in” (134), indicating that society has essentially hit a wall, and that racism will never be overcome. However, Asagai then tells his story about Africa, stating how slowly a progressive movement can take, when he states, “I will teach and work and things will happen, slowly and swiftly” (135). Mama also starts to clean up the house and states that she “sees things differently now.” This could be taken in a negative way, but I like to think that the Younger’s family has realized that such a big movement (overcoming racism) will not happen overnight. Walter’s statement at the end was one of the most important statements in the play, in my opinion, when he states, “Well – what I mean is that we come from people who had a lot of pride” (148) and he describes how his sister will become a doctor and how successful their family will become. This reminds me of the poems we looked at yesterday and the pride that was so evident in each work. If I were to see a sequel to this play, I think that each character would be in a better place. I think that Beneatha would go to Africa with Asagai and become a doctor there, and build self-worth by seeing the slow changes she brings to their country. I think Walter will work a job and slowly make enough money to fend for him and his family. Overall, I feel their family will be less obsessive with money and more positive in the idea of a social movement. Although faith seemed to almost be lost after Lindner’s visit, I think it will slowly rebuild because of the Younger’s pride.

     Unfortunately, today, I feel like the American Dream is more than just a work ethic and optimism. Although we are better off than many places, when we look at the facts: 1 out of 7 people in our country are food insecure and many have lost their jobs. Today, I feel like it takes the right combination of a positive attitude, creativity, and education to mold success, because everything gets increasingly competitive each year. People who are extraordinarily smart and talented are losing jobs just because of the economic downfall. Knowledge and creativity play a huge role in surviving the economy. My dad always jokes about “learning to play your cards right” in regards to pursuing a career, but he is honestly right. Everything needs to be carefully planned out, with plans A, B, C, and D, because it’s a dog-eat-dog country and you’ll most likely resort to plan E anyway.