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.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, March 2, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)