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.