The Crying of Lot 49

This novel makes a point to display the turbulence of society at the time. A major issue of the time was drugs. As Mucho Mass was on LSD it finally causes him to go crazy. His battle with drugs alienates Odepia and she has an affair with Metzger. While the story is about the mysetery Odepia is trying to put together it is also about her growing as a person in this crazy time period. Odepia is constantly hullucinating making it seem she also is always on drugs. The characters drug use, illusion, and craziness cause them to become alienated from one another, ruining marriages and relationships. This time she is living in makes her process of self discovery a rocky one. What makes her a part of society, her connection to the drug use and moral lapses, is what ultimately leaves her alienated. It distrubs her relationships and beings illusion and choas into the story. This is how drug use of that time period affected a large part of society.

The Brooch

The relationship between Amy and Howard is strange in this story. At first they seem to love each other, and cannot wait to be married, but then Howard becomes jealous and gets violent, and spanks her. It seems as though she was almost forced into marrying him because after his display of aggression she gives in and marries him, when before she had had complaints. Control is a major issue in this story. Clearly the mother is controling. Her son has absolutely no ability to make his own decisions, or even leave the house, even though he is an adult. He sacrifices his own happiness with Amy in order to keep his mother happy. The ironic part is she cannot even get out of bed. It is hard to see what he is afraid of, when she is basically powerless. It may be the guilt of her simply being his mother, as several times he says he just cannot leave her and he will not. I do not know if I could leave my mother either.
Although she clearly is the controling one, he ends up exercising control in his own way too. He decides that Amy must live in the house with his mother, even though she begs not to. In the end he basically decides the relationship is over by having her leave to the hotel. He makes her live a certain way in order to keep his mother happy. In the end he cannot bear it and ends up alone. In this story nobody wins, the mom ends up without her son, the very thing she was trying to control the entire time, Howard cannot live at all, and Amy ends up alone in a hotel. It is true in life and relationships that when one tries to control everything it never turns out well.

There Was a Queen

To me this story follows a theme pattern that has been ongoing as we move forward through American Literature. The further we go the more acceptable it is for interracial relationships to occur. Before the civil war African Americans were just slaves, even after the war racial tensions were high. For exmaple in "Desiree's Baby" when the husband believes his wife to be black he disowns her. Clearly in this story the relationship between Narcissa and her lover is not ideal, but we can see a trend in the fact that she does it anyway, although the old South would find it highly unacceptable. I do not think mixed racial relationships are the main point of "There Was a Queen", but I do think it is a huge American issue, and to me we can see our racial battle's progress through literature. Literature has a huge effect on society, causing controversy and sparking new ideas. The recurrent mixing racial relationships seen in the works we are reading, and the move toward acceptance tracks our country's journey through it, and shows how writing can make people think.

Williams

Williams’s “The Young Housewife” seems to paint an image of how dismal the life of a housewife can be. It goes along with how many modern day working women would view a housewife, making her out to be shy and working for a man.
First, the poem tells the reader that it is 10 A.M. in the morning, a time when a working woman would be at work, and the housewife is “behind the wooden walls of her husband’s house” (lines 2-3). Behind wooden walls makes her sound trapped and enclosed. And the fact that Williams calls it her husband house shows that she is living via her husband. This type of relationship does not imply equality but more that the husband owns the house, and she is confined in it, working for him.
The next stanza talks about her going to meet with various public service men and she is “shy, uncorseted, tucking in stray ends of hair” (lines 7-8). She is not confident in her own skin as she seems shy and timid around these men. Women wear corsets to shape their bodies into an ideal figure. The fact that she is shy and timid in relation to not having her body shaped right shows a lack of personality strength and makes it seems as though she is living to meet some man’s ideal, and is uncomfortable when she does not.
Williams likens her to a “fallen leaf” (line 9) and at the end of the poem speaks of his “rush with a crackling sound over dried leaves” (lines 10-11). Peter Baker of the Modern American Poetry asks “is the woman something crushed or discarded?” This is what the poem seems to be saying to me to. Today, with so many opportunities for women, a housewife does not look so glamorous, and Williams portrays her as a weak character, shy and timid, working for his husband in his house. At the end she is nothing but a fallen leaf that is crunched and discarded by the wheels of a car.

Chesnutt

Chesnutt's Goophered Grapevine has something in common with the last three storied we have read in class. This is the use of dialect, especially with racial stereotypes and words such as the "n" word. Although it can be upsetting to read it makes the story what it is, and forces readers to look at reality.
People have a hard time now days reading words like the "n" word because they are no longer politically correct. It is not acceptable to go around using them in every day conversation. Therefore, when we see them in stories we tend to cringe and are unable to say them when we read them outloud. This is because we, as a scoiety, feel a sense of shame and guilt for the rougher edges of our past. Certainly everyone does not share feelings of guilt, many also feel angerness and bitterness. But whatever the emotions, they are underlying. People are constantly making stereotypes like they used to in the past. The fact that these words are used makes people so uncomfortable because it brings back those feelings. While our society has come a long way since the time of the civil war, we have a long way to go. We have set rules that have made our stereotypes and and angry feelings become politcally incorrect to bring up often, or in the wrong way. But, they certainly still exist.
I think it is very important for authors to be able to use these words and write in the real way people used to talk. The freedom of press is meant exactly for that. So authors can have the ability to say things, even if they are hard for poeple to hear. It forces all of us to face our past. Only in facing and learning from the past can we move forward.

Huck Finn

While Huck Finn may not be completely morally evolved, he shows a wisdom and maturity that is far beyond his years. The fact that he is willing to go against societal norms shows a far greater moral maturity than could be shown from whether or not he goes along with Tom’s unnecessarily elaborate scheme to free Jim or the duke and dauphin’s silly lies. The fact that Twain writes about a character with these differing morals shows his own wisdom and bravery as an author, writing about something completely unacceptable for the time period.
Huck does go along with some of the stupid things other characters do. However, it does not always seem to be he does not have the morals to realize it is wrong. It often seems he is just passive and lets people do what they want in hopes of avoiding argument. In fact, he does have the moral visibility to see that what is going on is wrong. With the duke and dauphin for instance, Huck tells us he was aware of their lies from the beginning. He knew what they were doing but did not want to deal with the fighting that would ensue if he tried to call them out on their lies. However, when their scams get to the point where they are harming people, such as the Wilks family, and Jim, Huck tries to thwart their plan and get away from them. When he goes along with Tom’s elaborate scheme to free Jim, he still thinks he is doing the right thing by freeing Jim, if even if he going about it the hard way. The fact that Huck realizes it is right to free Jim, and is willing to take the risk to stand up for the Wilks family shows he has incredible moral understanding for someone his age. His going along with the stupid plans just shows that he is still young, not that his moral development is stalled.
When it comes to the most important matters in life Huck shows moral development that few people, at any age, could have displayed during the time period. This is in relation Jim. While everything he has been taught from day one told him black people are below him, and that he should turn in Jim is a runaway slave, he still trusts his instincts and heart instead of society. This is seen in two very important parts; when he apologizes to Jim for scaring him, making him think he disappeared, and when Huck writes the note to turn Jim in, but crumples it up, once and for all deciding he will not turn Jim in. He says “All right, then I’ll go to hell” (257), showing other people have told him he is wrong, but he is trusting his heart. To stand up for something, when everyone else says it is wrong is a moral maturity many people spend their whole lives coming to find. The fact that Huck is able to do this at such a young age shows that when it comes to morals, Huck is far beyond his years, even if in other areas of life he makes childish mistakes, such as going along with Tom’s schemes.
The character of Huck is a direct reflection of Mark Twain. Mark Twain was writing during a time period that was still extremely racist. Although blacks were no longer enslaved, white people were finding every means to suppress them. Mark Twain humanizing Jim they way he does, and using a white boy that comes to do things such a apologizing and “humbling” himself to a black man is revolutionary. Twain not only shows this through Huck’s actions, but through Jim and Huck’s relationship. Black and white people at the time were not tied by loyalty or care, but by work and payment. Jim and Huck’s relationship is almost father son, since Huck’s own white father is such a disgrace. In the story Huck’s relationship with Jim is very much against the time, and Twain’s writing about it is going very much against life’s reality. Twain does what his characters do and stands by his beliefs, even though others will criticize and disagree.

Dickinson Poem

Poems are often written in a language that makes the meaning unclear. The shorter poems are easier to read because they do not have as many words to decode. But the meaning even a short poem is hard to understand. However, it is this complex language that makes poems what they are. It forces readers to read carefully and get the message out of in a not entirely direct way of saying it. Emily Dickinson’s “The Name of it is Autumn” has a special focus on red and blood. What is going on in this poem is hard for me to figure out. The blood and veins could be a symbol of the bloodshed of war, and the thing be called autumn could be war itself.
The entire poem is focused on the color red and relates to blood. She says “the hue of it is blood” (line 2) and speaks of “scarlet rain” (line 8). This has a morbid sound to it, as it makes me imagine raining blood. The thought of a hill being an artery and vein makes me thing of bursting veins because war is full of weapons that cut veins. It could be from these “veins” that the blood in the poem is coming from. Dickinson’s use of blood and red shows how much death is a part of war and how it overtakes simple areas of life such as rain.
Poems are hard to understand because they do not follow the idea of a story. They do not introduce a character that goes through actions. They often just start with images and describe something, such as the war, without telling a story that can be followed. I like that they make readers have to think and consider what they mean. It also leaves them open to interpretation and gives the readers the ability to make them personal.

Weekly Whitman post

Walt Whitman’s poem “Beat! Beat! Drums!” is unique from Timrod’s and Horton’s poems about the war in the fact that it is focused on one thing, where as each of the other two poems have more than one purpose. However, each of the poems includes mention of the harshness and pain of war, although they all have differing overarching main points.
Walt Whitman’s poem is extremely focused on the beating of the drums, which is a symbol of the approaching battle, and the effects that sound is having on the residents. He mentions schools, bridegrooms, churches, the city traffic, lawyers, mothers, and children. He says that the beating drums will disrupt each of these people in what they are doing. The poem is focused simply on that. He does not speak of the South or North as a whole, he does not allude to any political schemes, he simply focuses on the war and those people.
While Timrod focuses on the war he also has a huge section devoted for appreciation of the South. He speaks on its grassy rolling and hills and physical beauty. In the end of the poem he brings up the war and he sounds much more for the victory of the war that Whitman does. However, he does not fail to mention tears and death, which are inevitable in war.
Horton speaks of the war much less straightforwardly. In “Jefferson in a Tight Place” he tells the story of a runaway fox as a metaphor for what happens in the war. In “Spectator at the Battle of Belmont” he focuses on the war from an outside prospective and also talks about bloodshed and destruction. His poems almost have a sad tone because of the pain war causes.
Each of these poems tells the story of the war a little differently with a slightly different main focus. Whitman is focused on one aspect and does not stray from his examples of it. Timrod appreciates the beauty of the South and is proud of them fighting to win, almost Soutnern patrioticness. Horton uses metaphor to make his point and speaks with a touch of sadness seen from an outside perspective. However, none of the three poems fails to mention to destruction, tears and bloodshed of war. Clearly, this is an undeniable part of war.

Weekly Whitman post

Walt Whitman’s poem “Beat! Beat! Drums!” is unique from Timrod’s and Horton’s poems about the war in the fact that it is focused on one thing, where as each of the other two poems have more than one purpose. However, each of the poems includes mention of the harshness and pain of war, although they all have differing overarching main points.
Walt Whitman’s poem is extremely focused on the beating of the drums, which is a symbol of the approaching battle, and the effects that sound is having on the residents. He mentions schools, bridegrooms, churches, the city traffic, lawyers, mothers, and children. He says that the beating drums will disrupt each of these people in what they are doing. The poem is focused simply on that. He does not speak of the South or North as a whole, he does not allude to any political schemes, he simply focuses on the war and those people.
While Timrod focuses on the war he also has a huge section devoted for appreciation of the South. He speaks on its grassy rolling and hills and physical beauty. In the end of the poem he brings up the war and he sounds much more for the victory of the war that Whitman does. However, he does not fail to mention tears and death, which are inevitable in war.
Horton speaks of the war much less straightforwardly. In “Jefferson in a Tight Place” he tells the story of a runaway fox as a metaphor for what happens in the war. In “Spectator at the Battle of Belmont” he focuses on the war from an outside prospective and also talks about bloodshed and destruction. His poems almost have a sad tone because of the pain war causes.
Each of these poems tells the story of the war a little differently with a slightly different main focus. Whitman is focused on one aspect and does not stray from his examples of it. Timrod appreciates the beauty of the South and is proud of them fighting to win, almost Soutnern patrioticness . Horton uses metaphor to make his point and speaks with a touch of sadness seen from an outside perspective. However, none of the three poems fails to mention to destruction, tears and bloodshed of war. Clearly, this is an undeniable part of war.

Prompt response

Mark Neely’s assertion on Walt Whitman is both supported and unsupported by his poem, “Beat! Beat! Drums!”. On the one hand he is correct when he says Walt Whitman does not seem to be concerned with the freeing of the slaves. On the other hand, Whitman’s focus in the poem is not just advocating the Union, but more about the effects of war on everyone.
There is no part of the poem that mentions anything about slavery, labor, or freeing the slaves. In fact, the poem is really not focused on the outcomes of the war, such as the Emancipation Proclamation. He is far more concerned with how the war is affecting life at that very moment speaking of it scattering a church congregation. A church congregation is an event happening at that moment, not a result of the war. What Neely said seems to be correct, Whitman did not have a problem with antislavery, however it does not appear to be a central issue to him, as he does not mention or even allude to it in his poem.
For Neely to say Whitman felt the Civil War was a “war for the Union” is not well supported in “Beat! Beat! Drums!”. Calling it a war for the Union implies that Whitman took a strong side (the Union) and that he was rah-rahing for his side to win. It makes it sound as though he advocated the war and hoped the Union would come out victorious. While he could very well be on the side of the Union, this poem appears that he is not advocating the war at all. He does not appear to be a mystical nationalist with some great hope for what happens in the war, but comes across almost anti-war. He is speaking very negatively about the effects of war saying things like a bridegroom “no happiness must he have now with his bride”(5) because of the war and “let not the child’s voice be heard, nor the mother’s entreaties” (19). People having no happiness and a child and mother’s voices being squashed do not sound like things that are advocating the Union or war at all. They are more focused on the negative effects of the war and how it is affecting the everyday people. There is no mention of victory, the country staying united, or nationalism.
Neely’s assertion of Whitman not being anti-slavery is supported in this poem. He does not mention of allude to slavery at all, it appears not to be an issue. However, Neely saying the Civil War was a “war for the Union” was not supported in the poem. Whitman does not mention the Union or unity at all, he does not sound patriotic. He instead focuses on the uproar the war is bringing and how the people are struggling to deal with it.

The Birthmark

The Birthmark left me torn between thinking Aylmer was a total jerk and admiring his insight. On the one hand he is degrading to his wife because of the slightest of imperfections. On the other hand he makes an insightful speech on the inherent imperfection of humanity.
Of course being a girl he is a frustrating character to me because he is picking out the imperfections of a beautiful woman. Basically, he is implying that she is not good enough because of one tiny imperfection. One would like to think that beauty should not be the only thing that matters to a man; but he is entirely obsessed with how his wife looks. Never once does he mention anything about her personality, but instead implies she is inadequate, saying her birthmark “shocks me, as being a visible mark of earthly imperfection” (2276). It should not matter to a husband whether his wife looks perfect or not, some merit should be placed on her personhood. He drives her to hate herself, shuttering at the birthmarks mention, and even being willing to die if only to be rid of it, telling him “either remove this dreadful Hand, or take my life”(2278)! In the end he is willing to kill her to rid her face of it. On the surface this paints Aylmer as shallow and unappreciative, unable to look past his wife’s physical imperfection to love the real her.
However, Aylmer’s hatred of the birthmark goes deeper than the physical imperfection. Aylmer expresses a deeper meaning of the birthmark as a sign of his wife’s mortality. He says the mark is “the fatal flaw of humanity, which Nature, in one shape or another, stamps ineffaceably on all her productions, either to imply that they are temporary and finite, or that their perfection must be wrought by toil and pain” (2277). It is here that he loses the illusion of perfection. He sees that his wife is mortal and that nothing in life is ever perfect. His attempt to remove the birthmark is a deeply seeded human desire to control. He wants to find a way to control mortality, to control imperfection. Humans fear death because it is out of their control. It strikes inevitably, when it chooses. That scares people. Removing the birthmark is Aylmer’s recognition of the temporariness of life, and his effort to control it.
On the surface the character of Aylmer comes across as shallow, and evokes dislike with the constant criticism of his wife. One would think a husband would be able to look past his wife’s physical attributes and appreciate her for who she is. However, on a deeper look, it is clear Aylmer actually sees the birthmark as a symbol of his wife’s mortality and a reminder that nothing in life is perfect. His attempt to remove it is really his attempt to control that part of life he cannot control. It is a coping mechanism.

Young Goodman Brown

Hawthorne uses many small symbols throughout his story to match the broader message of his loss of “faith”. The theme of the story, shown with Goodman’s experience in the woods, is clearly about the battle of religion and questioning of faith. Hawthorne uses characters that are created to display the different aspects of his faith journey, and the dream experience in the woods to be symbolic for a lifelong battle with belief.
Hawthorne does this first with the characters by naming his wife Faith. Faith is coherent with God, which is seen as the good side, and his wife embodies this image. She has pretty pink ribbons in her hair, and has a sweet and loving disposition. She is the reason he goes to the ceremony, and he tells her to stay away in the end. In essence he lives for her, as one would live for God. He even names her Faith, which in a biblical sense is the way to God. The “devil” in the story plays to opposition to this. He has a cane with a serpent that seems to slither with life. He is painted in a dismal, almost creepy way, meeting Goodman in the dark words, and leading him astray on a side path. This is exactly what this character does symbolically, he leads away from God.
These characters fall into a broader struggle of religion and faith. While Goodman’s experience was implied to be some kind of a dream, it is these kinds of experiences that effect humans throughout life. Things like the devil that shakes ones faith, and people like Faith, who give people hope and something to live for. And as Goodman ends up bitter and wary of people so do some of the toughest of life’s experiences leave people scarred. When Goodman saw the deacon woman he had thought to be a good Christian he was shaken by the fact that things may not always be what they seem. This is similar to someone being betrayed by someone they once trusted.
Hawthorne does an excellent job of painting characters to fit the story, making Goodman’s experience in the woods lively. He also uses these characters as symbols for some of the greatest battles with religion, faith, and how the hardships of life and effect people. He tells a story that is entirely human and insightful.

Mercy Warren Otis

This reading was one of the most challenging so far this year. When reading the head note introduction it stated that Mercy Otis Warren was pro-revolutionary, and used her plays to promote the revolution. Therefore, I went into the reading assuming the characters would be revolutionists fighting Britain. The poetic style of the writing made it even harder to decipher Warren’s message so I was totally confused for the first half. Finally, I realized she was writing as the Tories who were in support of the British and it started to make more sense. The thing that confused me was how the people of the time, who were not very well educated, understood Warren’s plays. If college students today have trouble reading them, and people are much better educated today, then how did the majority of the population understand them in the past? I guess that old English was easier to understand back then when people were used to reading it.
The thing that Warren did make clear was the spectrum of positions people could hold. The Tories had extremists, such as Hateall, who wanted to go straight to war to fight for the British cause. The name Hateall is strategically chosen describing his character as one that is narrow minded and headstrong. He said “compassion never shall seize my steadfast breast” showing he will not be swayed or have compassion for anyone else’s position. He stands his ground and hates all, meaning he hates the independence cause.
Crusty Crowbar for example is a different character that is also a Tory, but feels some guilt. Underneath he knows his cause is morally wrong. He says he “blindly swore obedience to his will” implying that he agreed to defend Britain but may not actually believe it. He feels guilt over the cause, but not enough to leave it. This puts him on the opposing end of the spectrum from Hateall, but still a Tory.
Warren’s poetic style and use of satire to convey her message at first made the play hard to understand. She used a very creative method of using Tories to promote the cause of the revolution. She used extremists that were ridiculous, like Hateall and then people like Crusty who had the conscience to know they were wrong. This use of Crusty’s conscience was a subtle way to prove her point as to why the revolution was right.

Ben Franklin

Benjamin Franklin was indeed a master of his image. Image is more than putting on an act to fool people. It is about having a subtle understanding of the world around oneself. To control one’s appearance, one must understand the people around him. To know what people like to hear, and likewise, what will upset people, is a gift that allows one to be what everyone else wants them to be. With this ability comes power and influence. People love someone they can relate to. They will look to follow someone they agree with. Benjamin Franklin was very influential and he did this because he knew how to relate to the public and make himself into someone others wanted to listen to. He was careful to not just arbitrarily say everything he thought, but was diplomatic, and mastered the art of saying the things he knew people wanted to hear, gaining influence and power. He, himself said he used his newspaper The Almanac, as “another means of communicating instruction” (96).
Benjamin Franklin understood that having a good virtue did not mean it had to be naturally instilled, but more that “virtue was not secure till its practice became a habitude, and was free from the opposition of contrary inclinations” (96). This meant someone must practice a virtue until it comes naturally, and convince everyone else of its genuineness, for it to be a real virtue. He was also careful about what he included in his paper saying he, “carefully excluded all libelling and personal abuse, which is of late years become so disgraceful to our country” (96). But, even as he refused to put in some poeple's writing, he managed to keep those people happy by saying he would be happy to print their work and hand it out separately. He was genius at dealing with people, preserving his own image, but not upsetting the other side. To younger writers who wanted to prove rash points he mentions, “a caution to young printers, and that they may be encouraged not to pollute their presses and disgrace their profession by such infamous practices, but refuse steadily, as they may see by my example that such a course of conduct will not, on the whole, be injurious to their interests” (96). Franklin knew that although one would like to go running their mouth, in the long run one must use self control and diplomacy, for it will get you further if people like you.
When people today speak of Benjamin Franklin they often mentioned his deep interest in his reputation and character. This is because he understood that how one looks to people around them is crucial to influence. He had a gift of knowing what people wanted, and delivering it. He showed this as he filtered out of his paper, knowing what things would do more harm than good in the long run. He knew how to compromise to keep people happy. This is why he was such a successful leader and influential person; he knew how to work people. This is a gift politicians must have. It is not fake, it is getting the job done.

T Jefferson Notes

In Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, he makes an interesting point regarding religious freedom, that sums up an American ideal, as well as one of the greatest conflicts to man throughout history. This battle between freedom and control is the basis of much of the conflict between people since the beginning of civilization, and still is today.

On the one hand, Thomas Jefferson mentions mentions the Quakers "were flying from persecution in England" (283). America was founded on people trying to escape persecution and reach freedom to practice religion and create laws and such as they chose. It could be argued that this was one of the main, if not the main, ideal on which America was built. Freedom. Eeven today Americans are seen trying to forced this ideal on people, such as trying to set up democracy in the Middle East. Our country was founded on people trying to be free, and that carries onto today, our countrie's slogan being "Land of the free, home of the brave."

Yet, even a country supposedly based on freedom, who had broken away from a colony (England), in search of freedom, immediately returned to the old patterns of control. The young colonies immediately established laws hindering the Quaker's freedoms such as prohibiting the unlawful assemblance of Quakers, and stopping a master of a vessel to bring a Quaker into the state. Control seems to be an unavoidable trait in humanity. Even today as we are supposedly "freeing" the Iraguis, we are using violence and force to control them.

This passage from Thomas Jefferson does an excellent job of describing an age old conflict of man, and also showing that time does little to change things. Although, our country was created on the ideal of freedom, we wasted no time in trying to control that freedom. It should be called freedom (to and extent). And even centuries later, people fall into the same pattern of advocating "freedom", but using a means of control to get there. It must be an unavoidable human trait.

Intro

My name is Brie Felnagle. I am a sophomore from Tacoma, Washington. I run track and cross country for UNC. I enjoy school a lot, even though it is far from home and I miss my family. I also enjoy English classes, so I am looking forward to this semester.

1/18/06 Post

Both Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards were important and influential ministers during the time they were writing. Their writings were centered around God but also were heavily influenced by the concept of light. While some of their ideas and uses of the word light were very similar, others were quite different.

Cotton Mather used a highly scientific approach to light. The first part of his essay on light spelled out Newton's scientific discoveries on the workings of light, such as the speed it travels and the way if reflects color. He explained that while these are natural laws of the universe, they were ultimately governed by God, the almighty creator. After he has explained the science of light he changes his usage of light into a metaphorical sense. He speaks of the light of God referring to the goodness and teachings of God that are present in God's word and in life. He speaks of both the scientific form of light and the metaphoric light of God as being important, but of God being the ultimate ruler of all kinds of light.

Edwards sermon does not reference the science of light. The light he speaks of is entirely centered around the idea of the divine spark or light of God in some people. He makes no mention of science or nature and even goes as far as to say that nature cannot overrule the spark of God, and almost implies that God uses nature to do his will. His usage of light is much less metaphorical than Mather's as he seems to take the divine light very literally, saying it exists and governs life and truth.

Overall, the writers are connected by their usage of the image of light. However, Mather has a much greater apprecation for nature and science, giving it more credit, although saying God ultimately governs all. His writing seems to say that nature is a major force as well as God's ultimate rule. Edwards gives less credit to the power of nature, speaking more of the divine light and power of God being special and in complete control of all things. Both writers use the concept of divine light in a sense of goodness and the word of God