Langston Hughes' "Harlem" or "A Dream Deferred"

Last year, when writing a paper for my poetry writing class, I discovered a simple but beautiful piece of poetic genius called "A Dream Deferred" by Langston Hughes. And again, this winter, I've rediscovered him in American Literature II. Only this time it is listed in the text under "Harlem." Which got me to thinking: Why are there two different titles for this one poem? What could the writer be inferring by having two titles? Does the title being "Harlem" change its meaning from what it is in "A Dream Deferred"?

These are questions that I have been thinking about very intensely. I think that the titles do change the meaning of the poem, and possibly even the universality of the poem. I will attempt to analyze the poem by using both titles, and explain what I believe the difference between the two pieces are.

The text of "Harlem" or "A Dream Deferred" reads:

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore----
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

First, I will analyze the poem using the title "Harlem."

• In Harlem at the time of Hughes' writing of this poem, there were many dreams deferred by the prejudice that African-Americans were given countrywide.
• If analyzing the text in the historical context, then each question could be asking a very different question. For example, "Does it dry up // like a raisin in the sun? //" could very well be asking: "Why is the work so oppressive?"
• Other questions that the poem asks: "Why are we sick with no treatment? Why are we not given adequate nutrition?"
• The last question: "Or does it explode?" We discussed in class that this could be metaphorically the violence that oppression causes.

Now I will analyze the poem using the title "A Dream Deferred."

• Using this title gives a universality of time and space.
• Changes the tone of the poem from oppression to the overall synapsis of life--a series of dreams met and dreams deferred.
• The line "Maybe it just sags // like a heavy load. //" could be talking about the burden all dreams are on the back of the dreamer. It is like a heavy load of regret almost.
• The last line this way is just asking whether or not the dream dissipates.

I personally connect with the poem on a deeper level when it is "A Dream Deferred," because I see many dreams deferred in my life. And sometimes, they are "heavy loads" and sometimes they are "syrupy sweets."

What about you? With with title do you connect with more?

Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken"

Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken" will always be one of my favorite poems of all time. It tells the story of a man who has two roads to choose from. Both roads have their benefits, but only one can be chosen, mostly because "way leads on to way" and he "doubted if I should ever come back."

I have had to make decisions like this and then regretted it, like in line 16-17. Yet the final line gives hope through the regret, "And that has made all the difference." Even though my first decision may have been the wrong one at the time, "way [lead] on to way" and I "[knew] I should never come back." The road I had taken lead me away from home, but the next way lead me home, "And that has made all the difference."

All through my life, this poem has been a symbol of strength in times of difficult decision, as I hope it always will be. And I hope I always make the right decision, but I know that if I do not, I should never look back but always follow "the way that leads on to way."

Frank Norris' "A Deal in Wheat"

There was a day when the price of wheat got so high that bakeries had to cut back on handouts. They were spending hundreds of percent more annually for this wheat.

The late 19th century.

Wrong, well, partially right.

The early 21st century.

I heard the other day that the price of wheat had gone up nearly 1000 percent from last year, and that as a result, buying flour has been incredibly difficult for small businesses. I guess it just goes to show you, "What goes around comes back around." The only other thing that came to mind at the moment was Frank Norris' story about the wheat market, "A Deal in Wheat."

In listening to the report on the television, I reflected back on the story of Sam Lewiston, a man who sold when wheat was too low and lost his new job when it was too high because of swindling big businessmen who liked to play the market. I also remember when we related this to the oil crisis now, but guess what, this comes along, and I feel like I can relate to Sam even better.

I guess that is what I like about Norris. I can relate to his protagonist, Sam, in more ways than one. Yet there are also things I do not like about this story.

Even though I am a Romantic at heart, I was rather disappointed at the end of "A Deal in Wheat," because Sam ends up in a somewhat happier state. We discussed how this is one things that critics often critique him for. Nevertheless, "A Deal in Wheat" can teach us some valuable lessons regarding today's economy, and how we have not really "grown" at all.

Stephen Crane's "I Saw a Man"

Never have I read something so fatalistic as Stephen Crane, yet, never have I enjoyed his poetry so much. Crane's poetry is dark, deterministic, and filled with red swords, etc. etc. One poem though, really caught my attention because it coincides with something that I learned in my mythology class this quarter. The poem I am referring to is called "I Saw a Man Pursuing the Horizon," and was published in 1895. Actually Crane never titled his poems, so really the poem is "Untitled."

In my mythology class this quarter, I have learned about the horizon--a very important element of all classical mythology up to some Native American mythologies as well. The horizon is a symbol of an afterlife or immortality. Sometimes the protagonist would travel around in circles to reach it, eventually doing so, and gaining life eternal or the illustrious immortal life. And they are two different things, in my opinion.

You are probably asking, "What does this have to do with Stephen Crane?"

Good question, I applaud you. What does this have to do with Stephen Crane or his work? Everything.

The poem goes like this:

I saw a man pursuing the horizon;
Round and round they sped.
I was disturbed at this;
I accosted the man.
"It is futile," I said.
"You can never--"

"You lie," he cried,
And ran on.


Is the man chasing eternal life or immortality in this piece as well? I think so, which makes sense, certainly if Crane is the narrator. Crane rejected the faiths of his parents, rejected notions of hope, and rejected notions of paradise. He would reject the notion, then, that finding the horizon would lead to life everlasting.

In the line, "I was disturbed at this," I got the sense that Crane sees those who blindly search in faith to be ridiculous. It obviously disturbed him just to see the man chasing the horizon, how much more disturbing would it be for him to see someone walking with "blind faith"?

I see a lot of truth in that. How many people live with "blind faith"?

Sarah Orne Jewett's "The White Heron"

There is nothing that truly satisfies me like a Romantic story, poem, or novel. Yet I suppose that is because I am a Romantic at heart, a person truly connected with nature. There is obviously more than just that element to Romanticism, and such elements are displayed in Sarah Orne Jewett's story about a little girl named Sylvia who has to make a choice whether to part ways with Romanticism or to embrace it. Of course, the story is "The White Heron," and is the only true Romantic piece that we have read this quarter.

The story starts with the basic background of Sylvia, the little girl who was born in California but sent to her grandmother's in rural New England, away from the big city and into life on the fringes of society. In this rural area resides the white heron, a very beautiful bird, and highly treasured by bird lovers. It is no surprise then to Sylvia, when the young man shows interest in all of the birds surrounding Sylvia's forest. Sylvia even begins to show feelings of love for the man (this is important because feelings are an important part of Romantic literature). However, as it turns out, the man offers her 10 dollars in exchange for the White Heron, a very tempting offer for a poor family, and so Sylvia must decide between the bird (her friend) and the money (a better life for her grandmother and her).

In the end, after seeing that the white heron has a mate, Sylvia does not betray the nature that her name embodies and her person relates with, and so stays connected with nature--the major tenet of Romanticism.

Yet here is another issue to discuss--that being the issue of situational ethics. Or more simply put, what would one do in a win-win or lose-lose situation? How can a decision be made that isn't biased toward the protection of oneself? I am only asking the questions, because frankly, I do not think that I can answer that question completely or even give it due justice.

I would probably stay with nature, because money does not really matter in the whole scheme of life sublime and serene. I told you I was a Romantic.

In my own life, I have had to make some difficult decisions. I once wanted to be a scientist, but nature, art, and beauty surrounded me and I could not refrain from its call. For its call not only gave more knowledge of the universe, but also made the heart and mind find rest, peace, and utter fulfillment. I chose the one that would draw me closer to who I wanted to be--in a spiritual and emotional sense.

What would you choose?

Theodore Dreiser's "Free"

Theodore Dreiser's "Free" is one story that I have really taken an interest in because of its themes of fatalism and the idea that no matter how much one wants to take off the chains of convention and be "free", the only "freedom" that one can have is the freedom to die. A few years ago, I would have slammed my book shut on Dreiser probably within the first couple of pages, but for some reason, this piece now really fascinates me.

Perhaps this is because I am in a current doubting stage of my life and this story gives one solution (albeit morbid and slightly depressing). After reading "Free" I had all of these thoughts about my life and how doubting that I am becoming about things that I had always known. I, on Mr. Haymaker's terms, would define these things that I have always known as "conventions".

For years, I had Mrs. Haymaker's telling me that this is how I should act, what I should be, how I should do things. Everything was supposed to make me this "whole" person, this "saintly" person, this "amazing, wonderful, special, great, potentially perfect" person. Well, it might have helped for a while, but it has made my life no greater than if I would have been left to my own learning, understanding, and artistic license.

Maybe I am getting a bit off topic, but I think that going into why I am enjoying naturalistic literature is important to understanding why "Free" influences me so. Mr. Haymaker is the Romantic artist, but the Realistic architect, completely stunted by preciseness. This is not to say that art is not precise, because it certainly can be, but it is a different sort of precise. I am a poet--a sort of artist, but for years, I was also stunted by preciseness. The Naturalism comes in with Mr. Haymaker's conclusion at the end of "Free", and in my life comes in my doubt.

Another important issue in "Free" is Mr. Haymaker's notions on his marriage. He does not love his wife, and he wishes now that he would have ended it before it began. If only read this way, it makes Mr. Haymaker out to be this malicious man who hates womankind. But I choose to read Mr. Haymaker differently.

Mr. Haymaker does not love his wife because she represents conventionality. As a Romantic, he chooses to wonder of an ideal life in every aspect, and even what it would be like to be "free" after Mrs. Haymaker dies. Simply put, it is conventionalism v. idealism. As I said earlier, this is a direct reflection of what I am going through right now.

Of the many stories that we have read in this class, I really enjoy Dreiser's "Free" because it has truly made me think about my own life and my current thoughts.

"The Other Two" by Edith Wharton

"The Other Two" by Edith Wharton in my opinion is a rather biased idea of high society. But I suppose Wharton couldn't help it, what with the upbringing that she had. I don't mean to sound ticked off by her, but she seems to automatically put this stigma on the character of Haskett, just because he lacks funds.

For this blog, I would like to focus on Mr. Haskett's character. In "The Other Two" he seems to be written off as this terrible person, this sort of low-life, a under-achiever, whereas Waythorn (the only one with old money) is the moderation of all things.

Let me qualify and say that Waythorn is not a bad character, its just that I believe Wharton puts too much stock into his character.

But back to Haskett. How can someone deny the character of a man, who, based on the text, left his first job to be closer to his daughter, takes the time to visit her when she is sick, and is willing to take an interest in how she is raised?

Perhaps I am reading too far into this and missing another point that Wharton is trying to make, but for the life of me, I am not sure what that is.

What do you think about Haskett and the way that he is portrayed in the text? Do you think he is represented well?