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?