A Recurring Theme

One of the themes that appears in The Crying of Lot 49 that has appeared in almost every piece of literature we've recently read, is infidelity. At this point, it is just frustrating me that this is such a prominent theme. It raises questions about the morality of the people at the time the literature was written. Does this theme really reflect the moral standard of the day? Was marital infidelity commonplace? I cannot accept that it was based on what I know about the culture in the 1960's so then why do Pynchon, Faulkner, and various other authors include it in their work? Perhaps Pynchon includes it to display how desperately Oedipa wants an escape from her boring average life. We can tell she is unsatisfied with her life from the first chapter of the book and my theory, for Pynchon at least, is that infidelity is one of the ways she seeks excitement and danger. Even if Oedipa wasn't out looking to sleep with someone, she allowed herself to be in a tempting situation with Metzger. If she was not planing on sleeping with him, it was quite poor planning on her part to be drinking alone with him.

Aside from infidelity being an escape, I believe there is another reason Pynchon, and other authors use sex in their work. Though less elegant an explanation, I find it reliable and probable, and it is that sex sells. From looking at our culture today, this principle is clearly visible, and hard at work in advertising. I find this principle is not exclusive to the advertising world because it shows up in American literature so frequently.

Yet this analysis of Pynchon's use of sexual infidelity may beg the response, "what about the fact that men are coming on to women, not the other way around? Isn't Pynchon commenting on men and their lust for women, not the infidelity of a wife?" Perhaps, and that interpretation is valid especially because of the way Miles, the hotel manager, assumes Oedipa wants to sleep with him in return for playing his demo tape. But I still don't believe that is an accurate commentary on then present day society based on my knowledge of the 60's. Maybe in extreme cases it is, but I do not see that as widespread or acceptable. The interpretation of sex in The Crying of Lot 49 may differ, but Pynchon's motive remains the same. And that is to use sex to sell books. Unfortunately, our culture is fascinated and has historically been fascinated with sex and scandalous happenings. Watching CNN or Fox News is a crystal indicator of that. Unless our culture losses its fascination with sex and infidelity, it will continue to be one of the prevalent theme in Literature.

Mucho Prejudice-o

One of the most interesting sections in the first chapter of The Crying of Lot 49 was where we learn how Mucho compares the people and families who come to him looking to trade in their vehicles with the actual cars themselves. I believe Pnychon's specific purpose behind giving the reader this information about Mucho is to reveal his character to us. Specifically that he is prejudiced. He makes judgments about his customers lives based on the "automotive projection" (pp 5) of themselves.

We see that he is judgmental of those that come in offering trade-ins that have little or no value, connecting the poor condition of the car with their lives. He assumes that just because they do not take car of the car, their lives must be in ruins. Mucho never stops to think that perhaps the people who come to him just choose not to spend their money on a nice car, but save it for things they might deem more important. He assumes because the interior of a car smells like cheap beer and cigarettes means the person who brought it too him must be smokers and and drinking in order to leave the problems of their "troubled lives". He doesn't think it just might be possible they purchased the car from someone else who smoked or drank. Mucho's problem in relating to people is that he doesn't go beyond the outward expressions of a person's life. He does not and chooses not to search for the hearts of the people he deals with and therefore will always be blinded by first-glance characteristics which may or may not be the true reflection.

Though Mucho may often be correct in his assumptions of people based on the evidence their automobiles provide, he will inevitably be incorrect sometimes. I cannot say for certain at this early stage in the novel, but I believe Pynchon reveals this characterization of Mucho as foreshadowing of his downfall because of his prejudice.

A Cleansing Power

In Faulkner's There was a Queen, the section of the short story that I found most interesting and a bit perplexing was the part when the reader finds that Narcissa and her son have been sitting in a nearby creek for hours just talking. They haven't been swimming or fishing and haven't gone to the water for any particular purpose other than to just sit.

Though I am not entirely sure of Faulkner's purpose in including this part of the plot, I believe he chose water specifically to symbolize a sense of renewal and cleansing. It is assumed Narcissa has sexual relations with the federal agent in order to retrieve her letters and also assumed that she is somewhat bothered by what she has done. Water, throughout history, has repeatedly been symbolic of purity and renewal. It occurs in almost every world religion. For example water is a symbol of new life in Christ in the act of baptism. In ancient Judaism, water was used to ritually purify oneself after one had encountered something in everyday life that had caused him or her to become unclean. Even in literature and film, rain often has a cleansing or renewing quality to it.

In having Narcissa sit in this running creek, Faulkner is portraying her attempt at washing herself clean of the guilt and shame she feels for offering her body to this stranger. This purifying power of water is why Faulkner includes this plot sequence. Going to lie in the creek is Narcissa seeking renewal and a new beginning so she can leave her shame in the past.

We Are All Searching For Something

I agree with Carl Rapp's interpretation of "The Descent" and offer other evidences in his poem that support his reading.
Williams writes "No defeat is made up entirely of defeat-- since/ the world it opens is always a place/formerly/unsuspected..." The defeat the writer speaks of is the outside world's defeat of his search for happiness and meaning in his own existence. But he continues that it is not entirely a defeat meaning it is not a realization that leaves him with nothing left to live for, but leads him to different methods of finding his satisfaction, which is looking inside oneself. "The world it opens" (his inner self) is a place he didn't expect to find peace and satisfaction but somehow does. It is obvious through the way many of us live that we are searching for affirmation and satisfaction in life from the world and doubtlessly Williams did as well. It is no surprise that the new world opened by turning inside one self is unexpected because almost none of us look inside.
Later in "The Decent" Williams leaves evidence which suggests this looking inward for satisfaction is truly where happiness lies. "The descent/made up of despairs/and without accomplishment/realizes a new awakening:/which is reversal/ of despair." The descent is the dismal understanding that the world is cruel and unforgiving. Willams writes that the descent is made up of despairs like the physical ailments he suffered and the loss of his mother Rapp noted in his essay on "The Descent". However, for Williams, this dismal realization leads to a "new awakening" which is the discovery of satisfaction by looking inward on himself. This new found understanding is the reversal of despair as Willaims learns he does not need to rely on the world that has proven itself to be unbearable for satisfaction. Instead he needs to look inside himself to be content; a realization which cannot be reversed. It is "indestructible".
Everyone is looking for the meaning and purpose of existence, and also a satisfaction or fulfillment of purpose. Literature and philosophy through the centuries proves that. At the realization that the world is empty and cannot satisfy, many turn to religion, others turn to existentialist philosophy, and whatever else out there promises fulfillment and joy. "The Descent" is the story of William's "awakening" and the means by which he finds fulfillment in his life.

If we look at the characters Chestnutt develops in the story we find three major personalities. First is Dick Owens who throughout the story is attempting to win Charities love with a heroic deed. His scheme to liberate Grandison is completely selfishly motivated. He does not care for the well being of Grandison, he merely is looking to win the affection of a woman with deeds. Not only that, but he chooses the easiest possible road to Charities affections by plotting to steal a slave from his own father's plantation. The task is simple, hardly dangerous, and places nearly any risk or consequence on Owens. Young Owen is a selfish and lazy man looking for the easy path in life and remains this way for the length of the novel. Secondly, Chestnutt develops Dick Owens' father, the Colonel. The Colonel lives for the glory of himself and nothing more. While he at least was not lazy like his son, he lives to hear praise from others and is blinded by his pride from the flattery of others. He loves to hear his slaves praise him for the comforts he provides and that they are proud to have him as their master, yet he fails to see through the farce of the praise because of his pride. He too is selfish which is evident as he lies to his slaves, especially Grandison, by explaining how terrible it is to be free. The Colonel comes to his ultimate downfall because of his prevailing pride and selfishness. In contrast to these characters, Chestnutt create the personality of Grandison. Grandison is neither selfish nor prideful is his actions. He serves both his masters faithfully until the very day he sees fit to leave. Also in one of the greatest acts of selflessness, he gives up freedom, which he ultimately wants, and risks his life in order that he might return to the plantation and deliver his entire family to freedom as well as just himself.
Chestnutt turns upside down the social order of that era by portraying the slave as the courageous, selfless hero rather than the well-to-do white plantation owner or his son, the heir to a great fortune. Chestnutt wanted to bring about change in the way his audience saw slaves. The common thought in the South was that slaves were property, but Chestnutt portrays them as humans, and not just humans but true men of courage and honor. Both the Colonel and Young Owens fail in their journey to be men, while Grandison, a slave, succeeds.

Down Memory Lane

I can honestly say that I don’t enjoy reading, especially if I am reading on a specific time frame for a class. However, I found Twain’s Huckleberry Finn to be quite amusing. Twain has a talent for writing in such a way that the reader is able to put himself in Huck’s shoes and really live out the story. I think what I loved most about the book was the feeling that I was a kid again running up and down the Mississippi, getting into all sorts of trouble. (Though my childhood adventures were for the most part confined to by backyard)

Mark Twain uses a couple of important elements in his writing to allow the reader to step into the story and really be able to live it. One of which, I noticed, was his ability to create characters that I’m sure each of us knew when we were growing up. Not that we knew the specific character, but that we all had friends with characteristics in common with Huck’s friends. I know for sure I had a friend who would try to swindle me into anything that was for his benefit like Tom does to Huck occasionally. Second was his ability to write from the perspective of a boy. One of the first sections in which I began to relate to Huck’s story was chapter II, where Twain introduces Tom Sawyer’s “gang”. Plainly, the gang’s purpose is for burglary and murder though clearly they are not capable or willing to carry out such acts. To a certain degree, every young boy wants to go on adventures and even engage in dangerous illegal activities like piracy and burglary just because we love being seen as daring and adventurous. Not only do the boys exaggerate the extent and daring of their deeds, but they are serious about them, at least in front of each other. As older men would begin to point out problems in their plans for the gang, the boys act as though the agenda for the gang is totally feasible. This kind of attitude that lacks the pessimism we get as we grow older is a perfect representation of how boys look at life. At least for me, Twain marvelously manipulates Tom’s “gang” to turn it into a point of connection with the story. His ability to create lifelike characters that resemble us in our youth and those that we have known truly allows the reader to step in and live Huck’s adventure. This above all is what makes Huckleberry Finn such a successful novel.

It Sifts From Leaden Sieves

This poem never explicitly states what "it" is but does provide a lot of valuable evidence to allow the reader to determine the unknown "it". In my reading of Emily Dickinson's piece, I determined the unknown to be time. The lines which support this hypothesis I believe are quite prevalent. Line 2 states "It powders all the Wood." which could be read to mean that all the wood as rotted. The passing of time is the one thing that rots all wood. Lines 5 and 6 declare, "It makes an Even Face Of Mountain, and of Plain--" This line refers to the weathering of the Earth through erosion of rock and the natural features of the land. A great amount of time is the one thing that is most necessary for this process to occur. One of the final pieces of evidence Dickinson leaves for us in this poem in order to determine that the unknown "it" is time, is found in the final two lines of the poem: "Then stills it's Artisans--like Ghosts--/Denying they have been--". Time is the one thing that erases the memory of people. No matter how famous one is, time will take away their remembrance. One's works may live on, but in the end, time will destroy it all. Time will always deny those who have been.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding Dickinson's intent but it is also possible that she left whatever the specific "it" was out of the poem in order to leave it open for interpretation. It is possible that the nouns "it" could define were too vast to allow her to choose only one to represent in the poem. She leaves the poem vague intentionally to leave the poem open for interpretation.

Whitman

In reading Whitman’s “Beat! Beat! Drums!” I found that the poem neither challenged nor supported Mark Neely’s assertion that Whitman was more conserved with preserving the Union than he was with abolition. “Beat! Beat! Drums!” is more concerned with pointing out the tragedy of civil war than the war’s primary goal (for Union or to end slavery). Throughout the piece, Whitman makes no mention of slavery so we as readers cannot know, from this poem alone, how he felt about it. Whether or not he desires the end of slavery in the South, Whitman gives no evidence in “Beat! Beat! Drums!” for either stance on the issue. Though some may see his lack of mention of slavery to mean he does not see it as an important goal of the Civil War, it needs to be taken into account that he doesn’t mention preservation of the Union either. Therefore one cannot asses that he deems Union the reason for war and not slavery, because he writes nothing on either topic.

The only fair assessment that can be made using the evidence in the poem is that Whitman dislikes the war itself. This is not to say that he is against it, but that he sees how awful and destructive it will be. He likens the drums and bugles of battle to cannon fire and charging soldiers that “burst like a ruthless force” (line 2) figuratively into the lives of Americans. He points out the disruptions in everyday living the War brought upon the citizens caught in the middle. The bridegroom has no happiness with his bride, no one will sleep peacefully, and the war will not wait even for those crying or praying.

The language he uses to describe the drums and bugles create negative images in the reader’s mind. He writes how “fierce” the drums and how “shrill” the bugles sound. He clearly chooses not to glorify the sound of drums and trumpets marching into battle as many poets do. Line 21, “So strong you thump O terrible drums—so loud you bugles blow” also conveys the negative feeling of these instruments of war. The “terrible drums” thump, and the bugles are not played, they merely “blow” as if they commence the action by themselves. Blowing into a bugle can create any number of sounds (mostly awful ones come to mind), not necessarily the triumphant trumpet sounds commonly associated with battle in other literature. Whitman utilizes negative diction in “Beat!” to convey his dismal out look on the Civil War.

Whitman writes this poem from the exaggerated perspective of a War hawk. He, though he obviously sees the destruction war brings, urges the war on and almost makes a mockery of those who are pushing for Civil War as a solution to the country’s problems. His perspective differs from Horton’s in that Horton writes his poem “The spectator of the battle of Belmont” from an outsider’s point of view. Horton sees the destruction and tragedy of war, but also writes with a tone deeming the war necessary. He calls the soldiers “heroes” and humanizes the war, unlike Whitman who symbolizes the soldiers with unfeeling drums and bugles. The War is no less tragic, in Horton’s but will cause a good change in the United States. Timrod’s “Cotton boll” is written from the perspective of a man who loves the South and sees it as a “blessed” land. He does not speak as much about the war (literally at least) as Whitman does so it is not easy to compare their perspectives. However their poetry overlaps in some areas as it is clear the Timrod loves the South and would not like to see any unnecessary harm come to it just as Whitman does not see any good in the needless destruction of America.

Benito Cereno

Much of the novel Benito Cereno is comprised of the thinking of Captain Delano. Whenever the action stopped, Herman Melville inserted Delano's analyzations and thoughts about the situation on the San Dominick. I believe Melville does this for two reasons. First to directly establish Delano as a brilliant man (perhaps Melville chose to make Delano's character a ship's captain for this same reason). And second, to indirectly prove that black men are every bit as clever and intelligent as white men. (I believe this argument may have been mentioned in class, but if that is the case, I would like to go more in depth in this post.)
To address the fist part of this claim, let us look at a passage on page 2692 which begins, "What meant this? Something...". Melville writes this passage as Delano's thoughts in response to a strange gesture by one of the Spanish sailors on board the San Dominick. Melville showcases Delano's intelligence and thoughtfulness here by having him pick up on the Spanish sailor's attempt at communication. He then further displays his mindfulness through analyzation of the situation for all possible meanings. Of the characters, Delano is certainly conveyed as the smartest; if anything suspicious was taking place, he should be the man to know of it.
At this point in America's history, to believe that black slaves were equal to whites, especially in the area of intelligence, was unheard of. Yet in this novel, Melville has the slaves fool the most intelligent character, Delano, by keeping their plot under wraps for nearly the entire span of the work. I believe one of Melville's underlying themes in Benito Cereno is the equality of blacks and whites. Even in instances other than this broad example, Melville is constantly mentioning through Delano's character many of the outstanding qualities the slaves posses. Atufal, the slave in chains is noted as behaving "obedient in all else[,] and respectful"(pp 2682). Of Cereno's servant, Babo, Melville writes, "it was now without humane satisfaction that Captain Delano witnessed the steady good conduct of Babo."(pp 2674) Melville portrays black slaves as upstanding people, contrary to the prejudices common in the slave-owning South. I believe Melville, through his writing, intends to convince the world (especially America) of the later realized fact that all men are created equally.

A Turning Point

There seemed to be a moment in "Young Goodman Brown" when the mood of the story completely changed and the reader knew something sinister was afoot. One element Hawthorne utilizes is foreshadowing by masterfully manipulating the mood in order to create suspense and interest the reader. This specific moment, I believe, occurs near the beginning in the passage, "He had taken a dreary road... ...an unseen multitude."(HA 2259) Though this is certainly not the only instance of foreshadowing in this short story, it is one of the first and perhaps most important to the rest of the tale.
Hawthorne employs descriptive adjectives to create an ominous mood while setting up the forest scene with Brown. Phrases like, "dreary road", "darkened by all the gloomiest trees of the forest", and "lonely footsteps" lend and eerie feel to the scene, suggesting to the reader that everything is not well. Also he makes use of personification to bring about that dismal feeling. The narrow path creeps through the forest, and the trees move as they "close immediately behind". The setting alone is even a rather creepy thought: Alone in a forest at night. Hawthorne's intentional combination of chilling adjectives, devilish personification, and eerie setting create an undoubtedly ominous mood which sets the tone for what troubling things Goodman Brown will encounter throughout his journey.
This foreshadowing is essential to the story for multiple reasons. Hawthorne obviously uses it to draw the reader in and make him/her curious for the resolution, but also this instance of foreshadowing is key in setting up the continuation of the plot. Hawthorne never (until the end) explicitly states who the mysterious man traveling with Brown is or exactly for what "evil purpose" Goodman Brown is making this journey. Though Hawthorne later reveals to the reader bits of information confirming the reader's suspicions of evil doings, this first instance of foreshadowing is critical to conjuring those suspicions. The mood he creates defines the rest of the story and it is what makes this story so appealing to the reader's curiosity.

The Group

In act two, scene three of Warren's play "The Group", I came across a passage that disturbed me at first and begged me to reexamine Warren's purpose in writing it. Hateall, in an exchange with Sylla and Simple, completely slams women and their value as people. In the dialogue beginning with "what's a woman's tears...", Hateall shamelessly takes shots at women reducing them to the value of their dowry. He also exclaims that women should be subservient to their husbands; always listening and never daring to go against their husbands will.
It took me some time to figure out why exactly Warren would include a section so derogatory towards women, and I cannot say I totally understand why. The play seems mostly to be a satire of over zealous men and their misguided reasons for making the decisions they make. If that is the case, then perhaps she is trying to point out an extreme stereotype she noticed men harbored against women. Not that all men were women haters, but that she noticed a trend in some part of the culture and hoped to point it out by taking it to the extreme in a sort of humorous form. Sometimes the only way to talk about a serious issue is through humor, as we've learned from many comedians of today.

It's All About the Benjamins

I find in part three of his Autobiography, that Benjamin Franklin contradicts his own wisdom by proposing a "United Party for Virtue" comprised of "the virtuous and good men of all nations"(Franklin 94). There is no doubt such a party would be very beneficial to the world and mankind, but he is naive to think something like that has a chance to succeed. Why should his party for virtue be any less susceptible to corruption than any other political parties of the day? In my opinion, such an idea is like Communism: it sounds like great, but just doesn't work in the real world. I am confused as to why Franklin would have such a naive proposition not only because of his obvious wisdom, but because his writing gives evidence that he is a God-fearing man. I assume a man as well read and as zealous about religion as Franklin would have taken time to read the Scriptures contained in the Bible. Under that assumption, he should have known that mankind is ultimately corruptible, and that while there are many virtuous men in the Bible, they all have faults. Kind David committed adultery even while he loved God with all his heart. King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived even turned away from God during his life. Assuming Franklin had read these recounts of Biblical men, I am confounded to think why he believed he could create an infallible party of virtuous men today.
Maybe it was that he never intended to create such a party in the first place. In thinking over this passage, perhaps Franklin would only write down such an idea to improve his own standing among other men, by presenting himself to the world as a virtuous man, able to judge other men with his "great" wisdom and understanding. It seems to go along with the thread of Franklin appearing to be a bit full of himself owing to his accomplishments and the praise he received for them. It is possible that Franklin did consider the idea, but never intended to see it fulfilled and merely wrote about it to impress others. It is impossible to know the intentions of Franklin's heart at the time he wrote this, but much of the evidence in his Autobiography seems to point to his desire to be internationally famous and well respected and admired. Writing in his memoirs about such a noble idea he himself envisioned seems to me a part of his method of acquiring his ambitions.

History Repeats Itself

In section six of Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia", Jefferson addresses a short writing of the French naturalist, Mon. de Buffon, in which Buffon declares the inferiority of Native Americans to the people of the Old World because of their perceived lower-than-human mental and physical capacities. Yet, Jefferson rebuts Buffon's opinions by presenting evidence to the contrary of nearly every reason Buffon gives for the Indians' inferiority. Jefferson effectively dispels the depiction of Natives as savages and common animals by writing about their similarities to white men. He brings to light their emotions and sensibilities, and proves that only nature and external conditions, specifically their habitat, have differed their behaviors from white men, not any mental or moral shortcomings. Jefferson sarcastically replies to Buffon's essay with the question, "How has this 'combination of the elements and other physical causes, so contrary to the enlargement of animal nature in this new world, these obstacles to the development and formation of great germs' been arrested and suspended, so as to permit the human body to acquire its just dimensions, and by what inconceivable process has their action been directed on his mind alone?"
Jefferson's purpose for taking the time to "humanize" Native Americans in the minds of the colonials and Europeans was clearly to break the Europeans' and colonials' stereotypical negative thoughts of the North American Indians. Perhaps his goal in promoting a better understanding of these Natives was to ease the tensions between Colonials and Indians. He writes in his book about the ongoing violence between the two groups and how it is often completely out of ignorance on the behalf of one party that violence breaks out in the first place. Jefferson knew it was easy for Colonials in Virginia to murder a group of people they perceived as inhuman and savage, so in an attempt to combat their prejudices, he tells them of the Indians' human qualities such as the ability to have meaningful relationships and their love and care for family and others. He likens the Indians to the Colonists themselves in order to further cultural understanding and the idea that the Indians just aren't that different. Jefferson's message in this rebuttal is seemingly to proclaim that the Native Americans are human too and deserve to be treated with respect just as any man should be.

Common Themes in Early American Literature

This comparison of texts involves the common theme of the Sun in Edwards' "A Divine and Supernatural Light," and Taylor's "The Sun of Righteousness." Both works refer to the Sun literally as a tremendous source of light, but also figuratively, I believe, as spiritual light containing characteristics of God and His power. Edwards' writes, "As he that beholds the objects on the face of the earth, when the light of the sun is cast upon them, is under greater advantage to discern them in their true forms and mutual relations, than he that sees them in a dim starlight or twilight," in paragraph 13 under DOCTRINE. Beyond the literal brightness of the Sun, I find Edwards' gives the Sunlight the ability to rightfully judge and wisely discern between true and false. An ability other forms of natural light, like starlight, do not poses.
Likewise in the Taylor poem, he gives to the Sun spiritual qualities beyond its literal light. The Sun endungeons darkness underground (Line 5), and provides life (Line 23). The darkness may represent evil that God sits in dominion over, and the life the Sun provides may figuratively represent the new life gained in Christ of a born-again Christian. All other forms of light pail in comparison to the Sun along with countless other descriptions of the Sun's superiority and greatness. Taylor especially displays the representation of God or Christ in the Sun throughout his entire poem.
Perhaps because the Sun was so necessary for survival for early Americans it became symbolic of God and his grace and power, as it is reflected and repeated in the Literature of the day.

Hello Everyone

Hi, my name is Chris and I am a freshman here at UNC. I can't say that I enjoy reading too much but I am looking forward to quality books and hopefully a better appreciation for literature through this class. Its great to be back in Chapel Hill and I look forward to getting to know all of you in Intro to American Lit this semester.