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.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
"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?
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?
"The Yellow Wallpaper" by C.P. Gilman
"The Yellow Wallpaper" by C.P. Gilman was a piece of literature that truly confused me, and for that, I might not have as much to say about it as I did for Huck Finn or "Trifles", but I guess I will give it a shot.
One thing that really got me was the parallel of the narrator of this story and Bertha Mason of Bronte's Jane Eyre. Both of them are kept in the attic, and both of them are crazy. However, the similarties stop here. The narrator, I believe, is going insane because of her yellow wallpapered room, whereas Bertha Mason is truly insane and a menace--proved by her setting fire to Thornfield. Maybe people will argue, though, that the narrator is also destructive--basing their argument on page 649, where the narrator begins to destroy the wallpaper, believing that she is seeing people running around on it.
As I said above, I believe the nature of the narrator's illness is not herself--although she may have a bit of post-partum depression. I believe that her environment would certainly effect her because it alienates her from everyone and everything. Not only that, but our narrator is not even supposed to be writing her thoughts down. I don't think I could ever be so stunted by someone. And her husband--a doctor, honestly! What doctor subjugates someone to that hell of a lifestyle? I certainly wouldn't, but that's why I am not entering that profession.
I think a lot of people are stunted by their environments, but what do you think?
One thing that really got me was the parallel of the narrator of this story and Bertha Mason of Bronte's Jane Eyre. Both of them are kept in the attic, and both of them are crazy. However, the similarties stop here. The narrator, I believe, is going insane because of her yellow wallpapered room, whereas Bertha Mason is truly insane and a menace--proved by her setting fire to Thornfield. Maybe people will argue, though, that the narrator is also destructive--basing their argument on page 649, where the narrator begins to destroy the wallpaper, believing that she is seeing people running around on it.
As I said above, I believe the nature of the narrator's illness is not herself--although she may have a bit of post-partum depression. I believe that her environment would certainly effect her because it alienates her from everyone and everything. Not only that, but our narrator is not even supposed to be writing her thoughts down. I don't think I could ever be so stunted by someone. And her husband--a doctor, honestly! What doctor subjugates someone to that hell of a lifestyle? I certainly wouldn't, but that's why I am not entering that profession.
I think a lot of people are stunted by their environments, but what do you think?
"Trifles" by Susan Glaspell
"Trifles" by Susan Glaspell reminds me of many of the shows that I watch on TruTv. You know the ones, where police search for evidence and someone or something hides the truth. Nowadays, much of these "hidden" things can be found simply through DNA evidence, but the police in "Trifles" did not have that luxury. They instead had to rely on their own intellect...and we can suppose that since they are men, that Glaspell is in fact asserting that the female is smarter (and in some ways, more cunning) than the male.
Certainly she demonstrates this by having the two women, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale, find the most important motive of Mrs. Wright's murder of her husband John, and then shows their wit in concealing said evidence. The evidence in question, the dead canary with the wrung neck, shows the women exactly why Mrs. Wright wrung the neck of her husband.
Of course, the men never notice this, but remain upstairs "gathering" evidence, or at least, what they think is evidence. The only thing they do know is that Mrs. Wright committed the murder, but even then, one needed evidence for a conviction.
What makes "Trifles" such a moving piece to me is the idea that Mrs. Wright's happiness was killed when her husband killed the canary, and how that parallels the oppression that men have over women, particularly during that time in history, when women did not have the jobs that they do today. Of course, that oppression is much more blatant. But what about the oppressions that we, as women, still face today.
I know that when I was in high school, I was told that my views on egalitarianism were not suitable for a god-fearing woman. I was to be submissive to the utmost, that even though I might know more than a man, I should always trust his judgment over mine. I am not like that, and I think that Mrs. Wright had had it (so to speak) in that department too. She probably isn't the sort of feminist that I am, but her actions certainly show a desire for escape from oppression. At least I think so, but you may disagree.
The last thing that I want to bring up about this story is the moral choice of the women to hide the condemning evidence. I do not think I could make a truly unbiased judgment in this matter because I understand Mrs. Wright's oppression, and not only that, but I was offended that the police thought that women only talk about "trifles". However, what the women did is obstruction of justice, and therefore wrong. But I am not sure if I could answer that they were completely moral or immoral in doing this. Situational ethics aren't my thing, usually, but for the sake of this blog and this story it is important.
Obviously, this brings me to my own case of situational ethics, which if you were in class, you heard about in brief detail, but here is not the place to discuss it. The feeling, though, is difficult and can sometimes tear you up. One thing I guess I would like to know of the women is if they were torn up by not giving the evidence. I would like to know how they feel about things, and maybe then I could make a better judgment.
Certainly she demonstrates this by having the two women, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale, find the most important motive of Mrs. Wright's murder of her husband John, and then shows their wit in concealing said evidence. The evidence in question, the dead canary with the wrung neck, shows the women exactly why Mrs. Wright wrung the neck of her husband.
Of course, the men never notice this, but remain upstairs "gathering" evidence, or at least, what they think is evidence. The only thing they do know is that Mrs. Wright committed the murder, but even then, one needed evidence for a conviction.
What makes "Trifles" such a moving piece to me is the idea that Mrs. Wright's happiness was killed when her husband killed the canary, and how that parallels the oppression that men have over women, particularly during that time in history, when women did not have the jobs that they do today. Of course, that oppression is much more blatant. But what about the oppressions that we, as women, still face today.
I know that when I was in high school, I was told that my views on egalitarianism were not suitable for a god-fearing woman. I was to be submissive to the utmost, that even though I might know more than a man, I should always trust his judgment over mine. I am not like that, and I think that Mrs. Wright had had it (so to speak) in that department too. She probably isn't the sort of feminist that I am, but her actions certainly show a desire for escape from oppression. At least I think so, but you may disagree.
The last thing that I want to bring up about this story is the moral choice of the women to hide the condemning evidence. I do not think I could make a truly unbiased judgment in this matter because I understand Mrs. Wright's oppression, and not only that, but I was offended that the police thought that women only talk about "trifles". However, what the women did is obstruction of justice, and therefore wrong. But I am not sure if I could answer that they were completely moral or immoral in doing this. Situational ethics aren't my thing, usually, but for the sake of this blog and this story it is important.
Obviously, this brings me to my own case of situational ethics, which if you were in class, you heard about in brief detail, but here is not the place to discuss it. The feeling, though, is difficult and can sometimes tear you up. One thing I guess I would like to know of the women is if they were torn up by not giving the evidence. I would like to know how they feel about things, and maybe then I could make a better judgment.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
Disclaimer: I am sorry that all of these blogs will be out of order to the way we read them in class. My thoughts just wanted to start with this one and will work backward from here.
In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, one thing that caught my attention was the ultimate humanity of the characters within the text. For example, the two main characters, Huck and Jim both care for each other in capacities that neither should by social more. What is beautiful about Huck Finn is that it breaks that more--the social construct that Jim was less than Huck because he was a slave. This isn't the only social construct that is toppled by the text. Certainly Huck is known throughout the text as a "rapscallion", yet we see that he is taken in (even if unwittingly) by people who are "civilized". And even though Huck "won't stand for it", he in a way shows that those with more should help those with less.
But social construct is only the surface of the humanities shown by both Huck and Jim. As we discussed in class, Huck Finn is about race relations, or to be more clear, how race is viewed in society. Obviously the debate of whether Twain is racist has been and will continue to be raised (as long as people read literature out of context), so there is already that element to the reading of the text. Huck Finn, though, is much more than the question of Twain's view of races, it is of his whole view of society. As said above, Huck is described as a "rapscallion", but he is introduced to the "civilized" society. Huck's denial to be "civilized" may in a way be Twain saying that because both sides of society have their ironies, discrepancies, and contradictions, aren't they all equal. So Huck's refusal is not because he is a "bad" boy, but because he sees the contradictions of the "civilized". The best example of this in the text is the Grangerfords and Shepherdsons.
There were moments while reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn when I had to stop and consider myself and how I treat others. One thing that I am glad about is that Twain did not make a perfect character in anyone. For example:
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is one of my favorite pieces of American literature and I think it always will be, solely because of all life lessons that one can learn from it, even if it is done with satire and humor.
In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, one thing that caught my attention was the ultimate humanity of the characters within the text. For example, the two main characters, Huck and Jim both care for each other in capacities that neither should by social more. What is beautiful about Huck Finn is that it breaks that more--the social construct that Jim was less than Huck because he was a slave. This isn't the only social construct that is toppled by the text. Certainly Huck is known throughout the text as a "rapscallion", yet we see that he is taken in (even if unwittingly) by people who are "civilized". And even though Huck "won't stand for it", he in a way shows that those with more should help those with less.
But social construct is only the surface of the humanities shown by both Huck and Jim. As we discussed in class, Huck Finn is about race relations, or to be more clear, how race is viewed in society. Obviously the debate of whether Twain is racist has been and will continue to be raised (as long as people read literature out of context), so there is already that element to the reading of the text. Huck Finn, though, is much more than the question of Twain's view of races, it is of his whole view of society. As said above, Huck is described as a "rapscallion", but he is introduced to the "civilized" society. Huck's denial to be "civilized" may in a way be Twain saying that because both sides of society have their ironies, discrepancies, and contradictions, aren't they all equal. So Huck's refusal is not because he is a "bad" boy, but because he sees the contradictions of the "civilized". The best example of this in the text is the Grangerfords and Shepherdsons.
There were moments while reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn when I had to stop and consider myself and how I treat others. One thing that I am glad about is that Twain did not make a perfect character in anyone. For example:
- Huck is often deceptive. He is a habitual liar, but often his lies benefit Jim or himself from being caught.
- Jim is a runaway slave, a fugitive. He technically is a criminal, but he cares for Huck as he would his own. He is also on the run so that he can find his family.
- The river is often oppressive for Huck, Jim, really for everyone who is on it. But the river can be beautiful, peaceful, and relaxing.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is one of my favorite pieces of American literature and I think it always will be, solely because of all life lessons that one can learn from it, even if it is done with satire and humor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)