Crying of Lot 49

This was by far the weirdest book I've read all year. It seems sort of like a mix between a warped mystery and a satire of just about everything in the sixties. The weird thing about it is that it reminds me of a mystery because you see Oedipa figure out all these clues and try to piece them together like bits of evidence in a mystery novel, but it never really leads to any conclusion. It's a mystery without suspense because it's put together in such a manner as to make the reader feel as insane as Oedipa does instead of building up to a grand finale. The language and pop-culture allusions mixed with satirical images of subcultures makes it hard to take seriously, which is probably why it feels differently than a mystery novel even though the entire plot is driven by piecing together bits of evidence to try to arrive at some final conclusion. It is, however, a mystery in the sense that Pynchon never really tells the reader whether Oedipa is really onto something with the Tristero and Lot 49 or if it's all in her head. He makes it ambiguous so the reader is just as confused as she is. Oedipa's paranoia mirrors the paranoia of the Cold War era and makes fun of it, bringing up the question of whether the paranoia was due to real threats or just in the minds of Americans. Oedipa shows how easy it is to put pieces together to try to come up with some way to make sense of it all, whether there's meaning behind it or not. I think Pynchon purposefully leaves the "mystery" unsolved to maybe get people thinking about the issue while at the same time pointing out who ridiculous things are.

Crying of Lot 49: Chapter 1

So far the thing that most stands out to me is how tragically insane Oedipa's life is. She doesn't seem to have any strong connection with any of the characters outlined so far except Pierce, who is now dead. Her husband seems to be a typical male drama queen who will find any excuse for a moral vendetta at whatever job he has. While dishonesty may have marked his job at the lot, the fact that he no longer works there should count for something, but it doesn't seem to. It seems he's overreacting because on page 6 Oedipa reflects on the idea that maybe if he'd gone through a horrific war he'd get over the post traumatic stress sooner than he would having worked at the car lot. This seems a bit extreme. Even at his radio station job he takes out a vendetta against the censorship of his calls with his listeners. When Oedipa shows him the letter about Pierce's will and asks his advice, he dismisses it and says it's not his expertise. To me so far he seems a bit self-involved and over dramatic, providing hardly the emotional support that Oedipa seems to need. Another weird character is Roseman, the lawyer. At their business lunch, he tries to play footsie with Oedipa. This is particularly unprofessional and offensive because he knows she is married to Mucho. Even Oedipa's therapist seems shady, as he calls her at 3am to try to persuade her once again to participate in a study about LSD. Oedipa is surrounded by dysfunctional men who can't seem to "rescue" her from the tower she imagines herself locked in. She does paint Pierce as her knight in shining armor, but that is of little use now because he is dead. There is a sense of helpless resiliency in Oedipa and it will be interesting to see where it develops.

There Was a Queen

The thing that most stuck out to me in this story was how Faulkner depicted the death of the old Southern culture. Jenny, in her old age, represented the honor and pride of the old South while Narcissa represented the new, degraded state of the South after the Civil War. The fact that a Yankee took advantage of Narcissa over the letters that he had shows how the South was defeated and degraded by the North, at least in a cultural sense after all the carpetbaggers came down after the war. However, it's Narcissa's own foolishness in keeping the letters and her lack of honor for doing so that allows the Yankee to do so in the first place, showing that the degredation of Southern culture was rooted in the South itself and the abandonment of old values. Narcissa doesn't listen to Jenny's wisdom and she suffers for it. Jenny's feeble old age and lack of ability to walk on her own shows the weakness that the old South had in this new age. The most potent imagery is when Jenny fades away at the end in the dark, representing the dying of the old values of the South as Narcissa admits to what she's done. Jenny even puts on her old bonnet, sort of like a crown as she stands indignant against the fading of the old ways.

The Passing of Grandison

The thing that most stuck out to me in this story is how deluded and hypocritical Dick and his father are in reference to the slaves. The father sees slavery as a beautiful relationship of trust and dependence, but seems ignorant of the violence and horror of slavery, like in the case of the abused runaway slave in the beginning of the novel. Dick seems to be the ultimate hypocrite - he seems to agree with Charity that such treatment of people is wrong, but doesn't really show this attitude towards his slaves. He only attempts to free one of the slaves to impress Charity and doesn't have any real goodwill towards them. This is most evident in his treatment of Grandison. Throughout the whole trip up north he tries to get rid of Grandison thinking that he's doing such a good deed by giving him his freedom. Dick never takes into account that Grandison has a family in Kentucky that without whom his freedom wouldn't really mean much. If Dick really wanted to do something good for Grandison he'd try to free his family as well. As for Grandison, he's the perfect actor throughout the whole story. While reading it I actually got to a point where I thought he might be sincere in his despise for abolitionists. The fact that he played his "masters" so well and that his masters were such selfish hypocrites makes the ending, when Grandison and his whole family escape to Canada, all the more enjoyable. Not only do they get their freedom, they shatter the colonel's delusions of justified slavery.

Twain and the N Word

Although Mark Twain is one of my favorite American authors, it's difficult for me to read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn without being a little offended. Today's society recognizes that the n word is extremely racist and, having been brought up the way I was, it's always a little shocking to see it in things that were printed in the past. Although Twain was probably just a product of his environment and meant no serious racist offense by his frequent use of the word in his writing, I think that for his purposes at the time it may have served to help his audience identify with his writing. Twain wrote the novel during the reconstruction at a period where racism against African Americans was frequent, and so was the use of the n word. In writing the same way that many of his readers talked, Twain was able to facilitate the acceptance of his book. This is important since it is full of critique of American society. Jim's character is particularly lovable in the novel and as it progresses the reader more easily identifies with him. In the beginning, as mentioned in class on Wednesday, Jim seems to be stereotypically uneducated and superstitious. As the novel progresses, however, many more layers to Jim's character show up as he clearly becomes one of America's most admirable fictional heroes. I think this is a clever way for Twain to trick his readers. In the beginning they think he's catering to their prejudiced views about African Americans, but then he slowly contradicts them. While extremely offensive, the n word's prominence in the novel helped its popularity in a racist society. It exposed prejudiced people to a character who defied their stereotypes. While I'm not saying Twain's novel had a huge impact on making the reconstruction and reconciliation between the races any easier, the use of the n word did increase the chances of his political and social critiques being seen by the society he wished to change.

Dickinson

The main thing I've noticed that Emily Dickinson's poems have in common with each other is an anti-war sentiment. "The name -- of it -- is Autumn" paints a gruesome image of the normally beautiful colors of autumn transformed into blood red everything. War is everywhere in this poem, and the blood is inescapable. Both "I like a look of Agony" and "After great pain, a formal feeling comes" convey emotional scars from the war. It's strange to hear someone say that they like seeing people in agony and corpses, but Dickinson says so because she "know[s] it's true" (line 2). This poem reveals her jaded and pessimistic outlook on life that the war has wrought on her. She only trusts the suffering and dead. This attitude is also expressed in "After great pain, a formal feeling comes." This poem describes how the war robs people of their emotions and turns them into jaded pieces of stone. They stop feeling and take on a formal attitude all the time. In both poems the characters seem to be characterized by unnatural feelings - whether they seek refuge in the sight of a corpse or don't feel anything at all. All these poems depict the negative effects of war, both physical, as in "The name -- of it -- is Autumn" and psychological, as in the other two. While Dickinson does not name the war directly in any of them, or give particular indicators that she speaks of the Civil War, there are clues in the text. Coupled with the fact that they were written around the time of the Civil War, it is safe to conclude that this was the "great pain" she was talking about.

Whitman Response Post

I disagree with Jennifer's view that Neely was correct in his assumption that Whitman viewed the Civil War as an "advance of the Union cause." I think that if anything, "Beat! Beat! Drums!" is an anti-war poem because it shows how war divides society and has negative effects on the nation. He can't support the quest for a unified United States if he views the methods for achieving union as divisive and destructive. He describes the drums as "terrible" and "loud" and portrays the call for war as insensitive to the needs and sentiments of the people. I do agree, however, when Jennifer later argues that Whitman viewed the war as unnecessary. Whitman's critical portrayal of the drums as ruthless and violent forces with little regard for the citizens at risk suggests that he at least disagreed with the attitudes of the pro-war population, if not with the war in general. There is no citation of a motive for war anywhere in the poem. If Whitman had been pro-war at all, it seems as if he would have tried to justify the severity of the drums' insensitive call to arms with some greater purpose that might be served by the sacrifice of the bridegroom, farmer or lawyer. Since Whitman chooses not to validate the call to arms, it is safe to suppose that he didn't see it as justified.

whitman post

While Neely does seem to be correct about the lack of emancipation in Whitman’s poems, at least in this one in particular, I do not believe it reveals any romantic notions of a war for union either. The whole poem seems to be a mockery of the war and the attitude of the people who so blithely encourage it. For example, he says in the first stanza “… burst like a ruthless force, / Into the solemn church, and scatter the congregation” (lines 2-3). Here the sound of war drums and bugles separates rather than unites the people. The whole poem is filled with instances of the force of war separating people from one another. The young men separate themselves from the rest of society to go to war despite “the old man beseeching the young man” (line 18) or “the mother’s entreaties” (line 19). Men are even separated from their happiness, as the case with the newlywed groom in the first stanza, and from their ideals of peace, as the farmer in the first stanza. Despite all this, the drums “rattle quicker” and the “bugles wilder blow” (line 14). This is a poem which depicts the agony of war and the disruption of daily life that it brings. It strips men of their lives and makes them into soldiers – whether they want to be or not. Whitman doesn’t mention anything about the motives behind the war or whether or not he thinks it is justified. He simply outlines the effects of it on the people. If anything he depicts the war in a negative light. In the last line, for instance, he says “So strong you thump O terrible drums – so loud you bugles blow” (line 22). After all the problems the war has caused for people, this lines shows that the force of war has no mercy on them and cares not for their personal lives. It is a terrible force that needs to be fed no matter the cost to society.

I think the attitude in this poem about the war is very similar to that in Horton’s “The Spectator of the Battle of Belmont.” In Horton’s poem, he also describes the destruction of war and how graphic the scene of the battle is. This is where the two poems differ. Horton describes a bloody battle scene as the terrible effects of war while Whitman describes the effects through instances that occur off the battle field. The young men in Whitman’s poem are torn from their lives and ideals and chances for happiness by the call of the drums and the bugles. They have not yet seen the carnage of battle, although the dead bodies in line 20 give testament to its power. The soldiers in Horton’s poem are seeing the carnage first hand in the battle and have since lost all ideals of the war and what it stands for. This sentiment is evident when Horton says “The fugitives fly to the cave on the mountain, / Betray’d by the vestige of blood in their gore” (lines 11-12). These lines show that the soldiers weren’t expecting such blood when they went into battle. Both poems show the negative consequences of war. Horton shows the carnage and loss of life as the main sacrifice while Whitman cites the loss of ideals and societal division as the negative effects. What is interesting is that in both poems there are characters who are immune to these negative effects. In Horton’s poem, the spectators “the pain of the conflict explore” (line 10), viewing the carnage as something to be studied instead of the horrific scene that it is. In Whitman’s poem, the drums and the bugles represent the call for war that sounds stronger and faster despite the pain it causes. Horton’s spectators are ignorant of the pain while Whitman’s war mongers are merely ruthless.

Benito Cereno

It's difficult to tell whether Melville is pro or anti-slavery from Benito Cereno. At first it seemed as if he was anti-slavery because the slaves on the ship were allowed to roam free under Cereno's command and they were portrayed as smart and strong. One scene in particular, when Cereno faints and Babo catches him, seems to make a stark contrast between the strong African and the frail, weak white man. When I read the scene I thought that Melville was romanticizing the slaves and making them seem strong in contrast to Cereno to show that they weren't at all inferior. The scene where the black child hits the white child on the head with a knife, however, seems to steer Melville's opinion the other way. After reading the end and realizing that the slaves had taken over the ship, Melville's views still baffle me. On the one hand, he does portray the African slaves as strong and competent, which is a lot more than can be said for other authors of the time period. The Spanish sailors are constantly shown to be the weaker of the two races on board with the exception of Delano. Delano is more of a neutral character so that the issue of slavery can be viewed more objectively. It can also be read as pro-slavery, however, depicting slaves as dangerous people not to be trusted. I think overall it isn't mean to be for or against slavery, but to just show that slaves are people who are intelligent and stronger than the white people of the day gave them credit for and only rebelled because they were treated unfairly.

One thing about Mercy Otis Warren's writing that stuck out to me is how she uses rhyme to convey the meaning of the satire. The fact that the play is written in verse and uses rhyme every now and then is reminiscent of Shakespeare's approach to satire, which she studied as a child. In the beginning of the play there isn't much rhyme - just a few lines thrown in here and there. The first bit is in the first scene of Act I where Simple says "And ecstasies entranced my slender brain/ But yet, e'ere this I hoped more solid gains." The next occurence is in the same scene when Halzerod, responding to Crusty Crowbar's doubt about his stance in the war, says "Gave me a competence of shining ore, /Or gratified my itching palm for more; / Till I dismissed the bold intruding guest, / And banished conscience from my wounded breast." In these beginning bits of rhyming lines, Warren is using rhyme as a method of emphasizing the characters' personalities and portraying them as greedy and heartless. Another instance of this is at the end of Act I where Halzerod, responding to a horrific scene of brutality against the Americans that Hateall has just invented, expresses in rhyme how he would have no pity for such victims because they would be getting what they asked for. Once again, rhyme is used to reiterate how cruel the Tories are.
The emphasis on rhyme shifts a bit towards the end of the play. In the middle of Act II, scene 3 on page 18, Secretary Dupe says "Not Senex rant, nor yet dull Grotius' pen... Can either coax them, or the least control/ The valorous purpose of their Roman souls." Here he compares the colonists to Romans, suggesting that he must have some sort of respect for them. The last three speeches of the play are all in rhyme. A little later in scene 2 Secretary Dupe expresses in rhyme how he thinks that the British cannot win the war and then Meagre, also rhyming, chastizes him for it. The very last speaker is the woman, who in her rhyming verse says that the colonists will indeed win the war and that they will be heroes. There is a definite shift in the tone of the rhyming segments in the second half of the play as Warren uses it to praise the colonists and their cause. She uses rhyme to outline her main points - the cruelty of the Tories and the valor of the Colonists - because rhyme makes the lines more memorable.

Benjamin Franklin

The main thing that most stuck out to me about the third part of Benjamin Franklin's biography was how he takes it upon himself to teach what he knows to others and how seriously he seems to take that responsibility. When he talks about his printing business, he usually ends with advising young printers to do the same. For example, when he opposes printing "private altercations" in his paper, he says "These things I mention as caution to young printers, and that they may be encouraged not to pollute their papers and disgrace their profession by such infamous practices, but refuse steadily, as they may see by my example that such course of conduct will not, on the whole, be injurious to their interests." He constantly uses his life experiences as lessons to other people, suggesting that his aim in writing this biography is not just to brag about his accomplishments or tell about his life, but to use what he has learned to teach others to improve their lives.
While such an authoritative position on virtue and wise business and social practices as Franklin takes could be easily construed as arrogant, this does not seem to be the case with Franklin. This is mainly due to the fact that he does not simply boast about his own accomplishments, but also the accomplishments of others. In talking about the fire company and how he and his committee got it up and running, he constantly refers to his achievements with "we" instead of "I," sharing the credit with his peers. He also talks about how the widow of the man in South Carolina to whom he lent printing materials takes it upon herself to bring the business out of debt and buy it from Franklin in a short time period. He then boasts of how good she was with finances and proposes that all women in America be taught to manage money. He takes the attention off of himself and praises someone else numerous times like this one, discussing also travelling preachers that he favored. This praise of other people shows that his intentions in writing this autobiography can't be arrogant and selfish because he does not brag about anything. He admits his short comings, as seen in the second part when he talks about how he has trouble conquering the virtue of order, and advises people on what he has found successful in life so that they might learn from both his mistakes and his successes.

Thomas Jefferson

The thing that most stuck out to me about Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia" is the way he discussed Native Americans. He takes a very scientific and anthropological approach in describing them. On page 184, he says "The Indian of North America being more within our reach, I can speak of him somewahre from my own knowledge, but more from the information of others better acquainted with him, and on whose truth and judgment I can rely." This statement shows his unwillingness to rely on simple stereotypes to describe Native Americans and his careful method of picking reliable sources of information on their culture. It is admirable that Jefferson tries to be objective, but at times it seems like he sees them less as his equal neighbors and more as some alien force that fascinates him. His fascination is clearly demonstrated when he describes the barrows he investigates and how he analyzes all the remains that he finds. A labor intensive act like this clearly shows a genuine interest in Native American culture and how it works. At first it seemed to me like the scientific way in which he analyzes Native American reproductive trends and burial rituals seemed to dehumanize them a little bit, as if they were simply a subject to be studied rather than real people. He neither seemed to be in defense of them or critical of them; he was merely curious. However, on page 227, he refers to Native Americans as "this part of the human race," cutting through his objective writing style and both clearly and respectfully identifying them as fellow human beings just like the Englishmen. This is a clear contrast to how Byrd portrayed the Native Americans, describing them as handsome savages that needed to be bleached over time.
Another thing that struck me throughout Jefferson's account of the Native Americans was how bound he was, despite his efforts to be objective, by English stereotypes. While he was a lot more respectful of Native American culture in his writing than a lot of other writers in that time period, little bits of prejudice seeped through every now and then. For example, on page 185 when describing how many Native American choose to die rather than surrender, he says "... though it be the whites, who he knows will treat him well..." This is a clear bias in favor of Jefferson's own race as he seems oblivious to the various war crimes against Native Americans and the ill treatment they received during colonial and post-colonial times. On the same page, when he describes how women seem to be of lower social status than men among Native Americans, he says "This I believe is the case with every barbarous people." Such examples show that while Jefferson acknowledges the Native Americans' humanity and has genuine enthusiasm for the study of their culture, he still holds racial prejudices against them.

Jonathan Edwards

Throughout the whole sermon, Jonathan Edwards's quality education is obvious. His study of philosophy in college, as outlined by the biographical information on blackboard, is particularly apparent in the section where he attempts to show that his doctrine on grace and divine light is rational. He divides it into various premises, like a philosopher, arguing that particular arguments for divine light are rational and any views to the contrary are not. He continually says "It is rational to suppose..." He fails, however, to prove any of his claims without referencing anything other than his own theological views. This is probably because his audience was Christian and would probably not question the strength of his argument, but listen in awe and accept it. To an eighteenth century Christian in New England, everything about his views on divine light would probably seem natural and logical. His arguments would probably seem much less convincing to someone who didn't share his beliefs.
One thing that Edwards does do well in this section is refrain from turning it into a fire and brimstone sermon. There is a definite shift in strategy when it comes to this section as he tries to rationalize the characteristics of divine light which he has previously outlined. While there are various references to religious texts within the essay as well as myriad examples of religious rhetoric, there are less of them when he attempts to tackle the subject like a philosopher. He doesn't separate himself from his religious biases, but tries to interweave logical and philosophical strategy into a theological issue.

introduction

Hey guys. My name is Jen Griffin and I'm from Raleigh, NC. I'm a sophomore anthropology and linguistics double major with a minor in Italian. I'm taking this class because it fills a perspective requirement and American lit has always interested me.