Does society shape an author’s writing or does the author’s writing define society—or both? Does enjoyability and popularity deem an author “major” or simply designate them as “great” authors? To be considered a “major American author,” requires writing that encapsulates the pulse of any combination of American culture, religion, society, or politics, and is widely received and influential enough to have made a significant impact and lasting impression upon society. The various works studied throughout the semester capture key aspects of what it means to be “American,” that while unique to the periods these pieces were written, continue their timeless unraveling of our American legacy.
We began the class reading Frederick Douglass’ The Heroic Slave and Herman Melville’s Benito Cereno. Both of these authors provide timely novellas steeped in cultural, societal, and political relevancy to the 19th century. Specifically, we were introduced to the primary issues of their time—the institution of slavery; racial, cultural, and social disparity in the North and South; and tensions in the years leading up to and surrounding the American Civil War. Not only were these themes largely relatable to the readership, featuring identifiable characters; but the moral dilemmas and political agendas critical to America’s eventual civil rights evolution are clearly identifiable undertones. For example, Douglass’ The Heroic Slave was specifically written for the readers of the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society as an example of how the rebellion aboard the Creole “is part of a revolution and therefore fundamentally American” (Douglass, back cover), which emphasizes the historical importance of the anti-slavery movement, as well as, the influence and value of Douglass’ perspective.
Also highly valued for its unique artistic expression crystallizing the “unwritten” American Civil War and capturing the introspective heart of American sentiment is the poetry of Emily Dickinson, Herman Melville, and Walt Whitman. Through her use of the words “autumn; scarlet rain; sprinkles bonnets; and rose,” Dickinson presents a more delicate and universally accepted imagery when describing a bloody battle in “The name – of it – is “Autumn”—” (lines 1, and 8-10). In Melville’s “The Portent” and Whitman’s “A Sight in Camp,” an increase in military references (Melville’s foreshadowed battles of Shenandoah Valley and Whitman’s backdrop of a military camp) are representative of the authors’ closer ties to the repercussions of war and indicative of a more war-versed audience. Additionally, the three poets’ use of religious symbolism throughout their writing highlights the importance placed on American religious beliefs during that time (e.g., Whitman’s introduction of the image of Christ Himself, drawing a direct correlation between sacrificial religious symbols to that of the sacrificed soldiers). Each of these poetic perspectives poignantly captures the essence of our American Civil War lineage.
Buried within the self-explorative avant-garde works of Henry Adams’ The Education of Henry Adams and Gertrude Stein’s The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, are influential and progressive literary pieces that serve as introductions to American industry, technology, philosophy, and art against the relevant political landscapes of their respective times. On point social and political themes also serve as backdrops for F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Babylon Revisited, featuring a character’s moral journey after the 1929 stock market crash that led to America’s Great Depression, which parallels Fitzgerald’s own life; as well as, in the search for self-identity amidst racial inequality addressed in Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man. These works feature both characters and themes still widely applicable to the modern audience.
Greatly influenced by American life, these authors, among many others, have made significant and relevant literary contributions which have stood the test of time; tackling complex moral and social issues of yesterday that still deeply resonate today. Their heritage has been permanently woven into the historical fabric of America, serving as the family albums of our forefathers and blueprints for American legacy. The historical relevancy and sheer magnitude of timeless influence is what defines each of these authors as “major American authors” and is why their work will continue influencing American generations for years to come.
Monday, June 14, 2010
It is widely accepted that providing one concrete definition of a “major American author” is a nearly impossible task. This definition is flexible and opinionated, and the criteria that one critic or audience may consider will generally differ throughout other groups. This criteria of a major American author varies extensively; some readers grant this title only to those who have received awards, while others argue that an unrecognized author has an equal amount of potential. Historical content, prevalence, and time period are also considered to be among the essential components necessary for branding someone as a “major American author.” Though I support these previous claims, the most crucial factor is the representation of the values of Americans within their writings. A major American author is one who laces the values of American society within their works and impacts their readers by presenting to them the core of American culture and moral code.
An author who gives their audience the ability to recognize the values and standards of our society is treasured, as they provide knowledge of culture, moral code, and viewpoints of the American people. These knowledges are lauded, as they allow America as a whole to share similarities, as well as allowing foreigners to understand to our societal beliefs. A major American author is one who gives individuals from all over the world an opportunity to connect with American society, even if they are unfamiliar with the perspectives and values they share. One author who has been helpful in representing our values is O. Henry in his “The Municipal Report.” The way O. Henry depicts slavery in the story proves to the audience that, America, as a whole, has gotten past this appalling issue. The use of the a black man as a protector over a white woman represents the efforts American society has made to brush away slavery and our racist past. Contrasting the positive efforts of America, O. Henry also uses name-calling and stereotypes within the story that illustrate racism. These elements assist in providing a realistic story as they reveal the actuality that some racism remains within our society, as well as exposing some of its imperfections. Authors such as O. Henry, who accurately portray our societal values, earn the label of a “major American author” because they are a positive impact, aiding in the understanding of American values and thus creating an intercultural relevance and connection between Americans and foreigners.
Emily Dickinson is also considered “major American author,” as she too expresses the values in American society within her literature. Her poem “It Feels A Shame To Be Alive” represents the gratitude and sincerity Dickinson felt towards the soldiers fighting in the Civil War and depicts the appreciation Americans typically have towards those who sacrifice their lives for the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of our society. The poem is successful in revealing our society’s gratefulness for its loyal citizens, and and allows the audience to recognize the moral values we consider to be essential, which is why Dickinson earned the label of a “major American author.”
It is not about how prominent the author is, the amount of publicity they receive, or how many people read their works. In this particular situation, the term “major” is not viewed as something prevalent, but something influential. A “major American author” represents American societal values in their literature and creates a sense understanding that permits its audience to connect with the society as a whole. The story does not need to have historical relevance or even a slight truth as long as it reaps the benefits of portraying America’s values. A “major American author” is someone who establishes and represents within their writings the virtues and principles that are of utmost importance in American society.
What deserves the Title
There shouldn't be a strict formula for the classification of Major American Authors because it would restrict creativity for those aspiring to attain the title. With that said, some loose guidelines for the selection process are given by the following argument.
Major American author: how can this title be systematically given based on the background of a writer, and the content and significance of their writing. Noting the books that were chosen for this class, they need strong historical references. Slavery was a hot topic in America for a long time. It led to the United State's only civil war and is still a touchy subject today. The way slavery was instituted and organized in the States was also unique because slave owners bred the slaves. It makes sense to give an author this distinction if they can write about this time period well, for the sake of capturing this solitary case of slavery. Additionally, it must address a problem with American society, make it known to the reader, shed some light on it, and possibly present some ideas on how to improve the situation. If the book makes people aware of a corruption, there will likely be a call to action. Slavery is yet again a great example of this criteria. The injustice and immorality involved with suppressing a group of people based on the color of their skin is an obvious violation of human rights, and thus a good problem to appeal to the ethics of the American people via writing. Authors who have the power to persuade readers to overturn these problems in society should earn this title.
But after all these are just considerations, what it really comes down to is how the reader receives the book. If they can find their own personal values in it, then the book will probably be a favorite of the reader. When a majority of people favor the book, and the author is American, the obvious result is that the writer is a major American author.
There is one author that eludes these guidelines entirely, but she is still deemed major. That author is Gertrude Stein. Her autobiography does not make the United States a better place to live and the only history lesson the reader may receive is the kinds of styles of art and artists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. So why was she major? This just goes to show that there is in fact, no formula for the distribution of this title and any author can attain it if they are clever enough.
The Great American Author
Determining the criteria of a great American author is a difficult and ambiguous process. There are many things that can be considered, argued and alluded to, but what it boils down to, in my opinion, is the story itself. An American writer can become great if he or she is a great writer, but just as easily can achieve this exalted status by sheer good fortune. Still, there are aspects of writing that set some authors apart from the rest, whether their work consists of fiction or non-fiction, poetry or prose.
The most important characteristic of a great American author is the timelessness of his or her work – quality over quantity, if you will. William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway and Mark Twain all wrote numerous novels during their well-documented careers, but had each only written The Sound and the Fury, A Farewell to Arms, and Huckleberry Fin, respectively, it is hard to imagine that they would not be recognized for the genius they possessed. A parallel illustration can be found in music. Some of the greatest songs ever recorded are what we call “one-hit wonders,” but that doesn't take away from that doesn't take away from the historical significance of that one hit. It is likely, though, that if someone does something great, he or she is doomed to repeat it – or at least try to – and that's why “great” authors are generally categorized by repeated success.
Like all others who make great achievements, the great American author is a forward thinker. A unique style can separate a story that is similar to others and give a story a unique value that is absent in others like it. Usually a story is great, and thus it's author, if it has a meaning that the majority can relate to. Great American authors have the ability to make the subject matter relevant to readers regardless of what the story is about. Most of the people that read the first chapter of Ralph Ellison's The Invisible Man, likely had never stepped into a boxing ring, yet everyone understood what the narrator was going through. The best authors convey the message.
So what makes an American author great? It's an open ended question and one that really doesn't have a right or wrong answer. As is the case in any endeavor, a man or woman's greatness is determined by the impact that he or she has on society. And if an author makes an impact, a great impact, through his or her work, then I would argue that they fit the criteria.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Final Exam
After taking the class Major American Authors my view on what a “major American author” is has changed. Before entering into this course I believed a major American author as a writer who is well known throughout the United States. As I look over what has been read and discussed throughout this course my idea has now formed to believe that a major American author is someone who has had a significant influence in American literature.
My first perception of a major American author was a person who was prominent in society. The word “major” is what shaped my definition of an American author. I believe a writer is major when they are well known and a household name throughout the United States. When we began the course we read Frederick Douglass’ The Heroic Slave. He is the perfect example of the type of authors that I believe we were going to read. His name is used in every early American history course since elementary school. Also, his narrative is a common piece of literature that many students read in their high school and college years. Since he is an important figure in American society, one is compelled to take the meaning of his work seriously which is an important quality in a major American author.
As we came towards the end of the course, we read Gertrude Stein’s The Autobiography of Alice B. Tolkas who completely transformed my view of a major American author. While at first I thought that a major American author is someone who is well known, I now believe them to be a person who has a significant influence on other writer’s in American society. Since Stein was a mentor to F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemmingway, her influence brings curiosity to look into her work more. After reading The Autobiography of Alice B. Tolkas, her chaotic structure made me think what about her influenced these other great writers. While I am still not able fully understand her influence, since she had an effect on what we consider great writes makes her a major American author. Without her, the way we know and appreciate these authors such as Ernest Hemmingway may not be the same.
Finally, I found that in order to be a major American author, their work has to be timeless. A timeless piece of work is something that will have relevance whatever century, decade or year it is read in. Frederick Douglass will forever be important in history for his impact with the abolitionist movement. The The Heroic Slave told a story of certain incidents that happened. Douglass’ elements teach current generations about the reality of slavery during his time. He tells the story of one man account to reach freedom from the life of oppression he faced and the point in which he had enough. Also, he showed the power in slaves as they stand up against those inflicting pain on him. With Gertrude Stein, her story of Alice Tolkas tells the story of their adventures together. He accounts with many artist and writers, especially Picasso and Matisse. Since she had an intimate relationships with these men and many others, one become more intrigued in order to find out more about these people. As long as others are interested in these artist and writers, he work will forever be relevant. The stories of both authors keep the timeless aspects which allow them to become Major American Authors.
What makes a Major American Author? When first asked this question, I already knew what it meant to me. It is not how many Pulitzers someone has won or how many books have been sold, it is how did I feel at the end of the book and would I read it again? However, others may not agree but that is exactly my point. All people are different and enjoy different things. Certain authors are very popular and people decide they are considered “Classics” but why? I may not enjoy an author but that doesn’t make them a bad author or not major. The cliché, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is the way we should look at this question. It is through personal judgment what makes an author great no matter what the Wall Street Journal or Barnes & Noble’s says.
“And adds Picasso with a sigh, even after everybody knows they are good not any more people really like them than they did when only the few knew they were good” (Stein, 88). Picasso could never express the situation better. To be honest, I am not a person to go with what everyone deems worthy of time. I enjoy authors that create a world I can escape the rest of the world. Edgar Allen Poe may be deemed insane and morbid, but his works differentiate from most which creates a mystique. Important qualities for works I read contain a plot with equal imagery as dialogue. For such reasons, I enjoy some play writes as Arthur Miller but his work for The Crucible was lacking the fast pace story I enjoy. Nicholas Sparks The Notebook may be one of my favorite books. Romance and true love qualifies for the top of my list yet I also love stories with happy endings. In Spark’s other books, they end tragically. I may praise it while reading but I would never reread it. Every person’s major author has the readers begging for more and trying to go through the wardrobe as the children of C.S Lewis The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
The books and authors you read display your desires and wants. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of the books you read anymore than the clothes you wear. I enjoy romances with happy endings with little to no major conflict. The Major American Author’s List consists of who each person sees deemed worth no one else but you.
“And adds Picasso with a sigh, even after everybody knows they are good not any more people really like them than they did when only the few knew they were good” (Stein, 88). Picasso could never express the situation better. To be honest, I am not a person to go with what everyone deems worthy of time. I enjoy authors that create a world I can escape the rest of the world. Edgar Allen Poe may be deemed insane and morbid, but his works differentiate from most which creates a mystique. Important qualities for works I read contain a plot with equal imagery as dialogue. For such reasons, I enjoy some play writes as Arthur Miller but his work for The Crucible was lacking the fast pace story I enjoy. Nicholas Sparks The Notebook may be one of my favorite books. Romance and true love qualifies for the top of my list yet I also love stories with happy endings. In Spark’s other books, they end tragically. I may praise it while reading but I would never reread it. Every person’s major author has the readers begging for more and trying to go through the wardrobe as the children of C.S Lewis The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
The books and authors you read display your desires and wants. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of the books you read anymore than the clothes you wear. I enjoy romances with happy endings with little to no major conflict. The Major American Author’s List consists of who each person sees deemed worth no one else but you.
Final Exam- Considering Major American Authors
When I chose this class, I was curious as to what would constitute a major American author. Previously, I believed that someone was considered a major author, because their work was considered major or impacting/popular. In other words, the author was famous because their piece of work had become famous. Their work would not have to be classified under any certain category, but it would have to be popular among many and I automatically assumed that most of the time such works would be awarded. So my notion going into this class was that we would be focusing on popular authors such as Fitzgerald or Faulkner; authors whom I have heard a lot about and who I have known to be taught widely. This class however completely changed my point of view on the topic of major authors. I do believe that major authors are authors that have become popular and are widely known, but this class helped me answer why for several reasons. Firstly, it is evident that major authors help relay an important message to an audience. We have seen this in Benito Cereno as well as in Heroic Slave. We were exposed to the central messages of the importance of slavery and the need for the abolishment of slavery. Secondly, all the books we have read during this course take on a historical role. It seems likely that in order to be an important piece of literature, their must be some historical information. This was evident in all the books we have read this semester. In Douglas and Melville's books, the topic discussed was slavery. We were given an inside look into slavery from two different perspectives. With the poetry we focused on, we discussed poems that dealt with the Civil War. With Gertrude Stein we discussed an important historical/social moment and that was the coming about of various art forms. In Henry Adams, we discussed different historical aspects such as his background, and the technological boom and advancement of American society. Thus, all the literature we focused on this semester had a historical background. However, I don't believe that this is true or is necessary for all great works of literature. In other words, history played a huge role in our literary class, but doesn't always play a huge role in other major authors work. I think that their are different aspects or things that authors can focus on and provide great works. Our class, however, focused on literary pieces that offered historical content. It was up to Kelly to choose the major American authors and she chose them based on the historical peices they provided. After this course, while reflecting, I feel that what makes an author "major," really depends on the reader. I don't think it is necessarily fair to say that one author is major and another is not. I have read many works from various American authors, whom I think should be considered major, yet they are not. I think it's a personal opinion. I do believe that this course should be taught at the university because it has certainly opened up my eyes. I think that "major American authors" is so broad, and their are so many authors that can be found under this title, that this course helps in focusing in on some. As I said earlier, I would not have read these texts on my own time, nor would I have considered them to be works from major authors. Yet, now I can truly say that they are important reads and I do consider them major authors. I think that this class is essential at UNC because it helps individuals such as myself break the stereotypes of what makes an author important, and helps further enhance ones understanding of why pieces of literature hold such value. I have really enjoyed this class and I think it is beneficial for all to take because it truly helps one understand what a major American author is, and it helps illustrate that various individuals think authors are major for one reason or another. Quite frankly, their is no wrong or right response when answering what makes a major American author, it's all a personal opinion.
English 128 Final Exam Entry
Photograph from "Chimera" by UNC at Chapel Hill Intermediate/ Advanced Photography Spring 2010
(p45) © Michael Gurganus 2010
The criteria for my definition of a major American author before the start of this course is as broad when compared to, and based on, my photographic art itself: interpretation of the work on its own merits and looking for the meaning beyond just a figurative representation. This will render a broad based set of questions that would yield specific answers of more importance, in determining what defines a major American author. After June 11th, only one month of class, the answer remains basically the same but with the assigned works to consider.
The sheer volume of readings that were assigned could be see as overwhelming, even for a conventional semester class. Consider the fact that in a single summer session, the assignment was the complete reading of two novellas, one complete and one partial reading of novels, seven poems read for class discussion (and several others read for understanding of the authors) and four short stories. However, the volume of reading was actually not as overwhelming as one might think. It was the quality of the material presented that made a difference, being able to appreciate the time and location values the readings presented and the meaning beyond simple figurative narrative to understand the importance the author saw in writing these pieces, not only initially for readers in their respective time periods, but also for readers in the future.
Is it good to be strong? Is it bad to be weak? Those were two questions that were explored in the novellas "The Heroic Slave" by Frederick Douglass and "Benito Cereno" by Herman Melville. Both novellas explored these questions and revealed some answers that were as surprising as other answers that were predictable. Both explored the question concerning the justification of slavery and why it was important to abolish the practice in the United States. The qualities of strength and weakness, from the development of the characters to the meaning of their actions or lack of actions, were consistently demonstrated throughout these two works. While the character of Madison Washington is considered to be heroic in both words and deeds, Benito Cereno could be considered a polar opposite. His inaction is tied to the most basic of human traits, self-preservation, but does it make him weak or a victim of circumstance. One theme that ties these two works together, as well as other works that were read, is one of identity and the search for truth in the characters identity. Where Washington was established as a man with a message of hope for freedom, Cerano was a deceptive man who would not reveal the truth until he could freely speak. These two novellas, when read together and discussed in comparison and contrast, leave few comparable works of the same time period by similar authors that could be substituted to invoke the necessary transition from cause to effect.
Writing from different viewpoints was the association when examining the Civil War works associated with Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman. Many different personal qualities, most of which are inaccurate, are usually associated with Dickinson, whose poetry was covered in the class. The same misunderstanding can also be said of Whitman, the poet that chose to write intensely powerful poems during the same time frame. Dickinson uses a unique method of punctuation, capitalization, and metaphor to convey the impact of the war on the women of the north, where they were isolated and insulated from the conflict while their southern counterparts often had the effects of the war in their own front yard. Whitman, on the other hand, was a volunteer nurse at a Union army field hospital. He saw the effects of the war personally, while writing in a new form at the time called free verse by associating the symbolism of different aspects of his unique vantage point with how he wrote his observations and reactions. Both poets were similar in the methods they used, such as the use of simile, irony and symbolic representations of religion, military and historical events to go beyond simple figurative language. The poems covered in class used no conventional rhyme or structure, but relied on the reader having the ability to look beyond the simple writing to gain a greater meaning behind the words themselves. Also, the grouping of some words, or lines, with others often lead to "clues" about some specifics, imagined or real, that assists the reader's analysis further.
Why these authors and writers are important justifies the reasoning and need for coursework involving major American authors. In the broader strokes that define the components of a liberal arts education, they present examples of looking beyond the literal words to find meaning for the individual and how it relates to the class as a whole. It forms a baseline to enable readers to explore the possibilities that these works define, often enabling a relative dialogue among people from different backgrounds and education. One of the most important aspects that are presented involves the mutual respect for interpretation and analysis of not only the meaning, but also why the author chose to use their respective methods to relay their message with intellectual responsibility. When all of these aspects are examined in their proper context, it serves the student in a way not necessarily found in a number of introductory courses.
Recommendations could involve the complete reading of "Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison by reducing the entire reading of "The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas" by Gertrude Stein in a similar fashion to match the reading of "The Education of Henry Adams" by Henry Adams. It would be unfortunate for a student to miss the importance of Stein's style, as it demonstrated a new innovation in writing during that specific time. The novellas should remain as the lead-in readings and since Herman Melville's style is covered in "Benito Cereno," perhaps substituting poems from Whitman’s "Leaves of Grass" to compare and contrast with Dickinson's Civil War poetry would be appropriate. The short stories should remain, with the addition of perhaps one more relative short story to replace "Battle Royal."
Interpretation of the work on its own merits and looking for the meaning beyond just a figurative representation remains as a definition in my own outlook of a work by a major American author. I would enjoy looking at more works to gain some inspiration for my fall advanced photography classes, since the analysis of a poem does have some equivalence with critiquing photography. As the boundaries of my photography are modified, so should the reading I am doing to assist the creative process.
Michael
Final Exam
Before taking the "Major American Authors" course, I defined a major American author as someone who is born in America and writes about historical American events for recreational purposes. After taking this course, my definition has developed a much deeper meaning. Now, I think that a major American author does not necessarily have to be American, but his or her work is based on historical American events to remind readers of American values that may have been forgotten, regardless of the time period.
Various reasons cause Americans to forget some of our country's most important values, and stories such as Frederick Douglass's The Heroic Slave re-emerges them. In times of slavery, economical factors pushed for the preservation of this principle, and Americans were ironically denying African Americans the rights which the Founding Fathers fought so hard for. The Heroic Slave, especially Madison Washington's speech on the Creole, served as a reminder that America was founded upon the values of freedom and equality. In addition, the scene with Grant and Williams in The Heroic Slave contains themes of refuting racial stereotypes and acknowledging the positive aspects of a different race, things that still apply to society today. After the September 11th attack, there was a period of suspicion towards those seemingly of Arab or Muslim descent. America is a land of diverse cultural heritages, and people of all ethnic groups are treated equally as other Americans. Yet, the September 11th attack caused Americans to forget these values and view people of another race stereotypically. Stories such as The Heroic Slave help bring up these values again. Since Frederick Douglass's work reinforces American values to readers both during and after the time his work was written, he represents what a major American author is.
Besides freedom and equality, another thing that I believe Americans value is the family. Yet, many circumstances can cause someone to hold other things more importantly than family, especially money and wealth. Lost money can always be earned back, but a lost family is not always able to be earned back. F. Scott Fitzgerald's Babylon Revisited demonstrates this really well and stresses the idea of not letting such a valuable thing like family slip through your fingers. In the story, Charlie was completely taken by his sudden wealth from the stock market and put his family aside. After the crash of 1929, Charlie not only lost his wealth, but also his family. Though he was able to earn some money back from business in Prague, he still had a long way before he can win back his daughter, Honoria. No matter the time period, it is undeniable that this is a materialistic world, and most people tend to spend all their time pursuing their materialistic desires rather than paying attention to their family. I believe that Babylon Revisited would be able to remind readers about the importance of family over wealth regardless of the time period, so Fitzgerald also shows what a major American author is.
Taking the "Major American Authors" course has reshaped my views of a major American author. Instead of an American author writing a story on a historical American event solely for entertainment, I believe a major American author is an author who writes a story with historical American references to resurface fundamental American values that may have been forgotten. Whether during the time the story was written or in later time periods, these stories would still be able to appeal to readers, just like the stories we have read in this course. I learned a lot from this course, and UNC should definitely continue teaching it.
Various reasons cause Americans to forget some of our country's most important values, and stories such as Frederick Douglass's The Heroic Slave re-emerges them. In times of slavery, economical factors pushed for the preservation of this principle, and Americans were ironically denying African Americans the rights which the Founding Fathers fought so hard for. The Heroic Slave, especially Madison Washington's speech on the Creole, served as a reminder that America was founded upon the values of freedom and equality. In addition, the scene with Grant and Williams in The Heroic Slave contains themes of refuting racial stereotypes and acknowledging the positive aspects of a different race, things that still apply to society today. After the September 11th attack, there was a period of suspicion towards those seemingly of Arab or Muslim descent. America is a land of diverse cultural heritages, and people of all ethnic groups are treated equally as other Americans. Yet, the September 11th attack caused Americans to forget these values and view people of another race stereotypically. Stories such as The Heroic Slave help bring up these values again. Since Frederick Douglass's work reinforces American values to readers both during and after the time his work was written, he represents what a major American author is.
Besides freedom and equality, another thing that I believe Americans value is the family. Yet, many circumstances can cause someone to hold other things more importantly than family, especially money and wealth. Lost money can always be earned back, but a lost family is not always able to be earned back. F. Scott Fitzgerald's Babylon Revisited demonstrates this really well and stresses the idea of not letting such a valuable thing like family slip through your fingers. In the story, Charlie was completely taken by his sudden wealth from the stock market and put his family aside. After the crash of 1929, Charlie not only lost his wealth, but also his family. Though he was able to earn some money back from business in Prague, he still had a long way before he can win back his daughter, Honoria. No matter the time period, it is undeniable that this is a materialistic world, and most people tend to spend all their time pursuing their materialistic desires rather than paying attention to their family. I believe that Babylon Revisited would be able to remind readers about the importance of family over wealth regardless of the time period, so Fitzgerald also shows what a major American author is.
Taking the "Major American Authors" course has reshaped my views of a major American author. Instead of an American author writing a story on a historical American event solely for entertainment, I believe a major American author is an author who writes a story with historical American references to resurface fundamental American values that may have been forgotten. Whether during the time the story was written or in later time periods, these stories would still be able to appeal to readers, just like the stories we have read in this course. I learned a lot from this course, and UNC should definitely continue teaching it.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Final exam
Great discussion today, as usual. I learned a lot from your diverse responses to the story. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about a challenging story. And thanks to Mira for leading us through it. Let me know if you have questions about the final exam prompt below.
Final Exam
Write an essay defining the phrase “major American author,” in your own words. This will be an argumentative essay in which you provide evidence to support your claims. You can discuss examples that we haven’t read, but please use at least 2 examples from the readings for this class.
Some questions you may want to consider: What are the criteria for applying that label? Who gets to decide who is and who isn't major? Other than an accident of geography, is there some quality or attitude that makes someone a specifically "American" author? Should we still have a "Major American Authors" course at UNC? What do we gain from reading major American authors? Do their texts give us something that other authors don't?
Another approach would be to state your definition of “major American author” before this course and describe how your definition has changed as a result of our readings and discussions.
Post this essay to the course blog by 11am, Monday, June 14th. Your essay should be at least 400 words. I strongly suggest that you write a draft and revise it before you post it.
Final Exam
Write an essay defining the phrase “major American author,” in your own words. This will be an argumentative essay in which you provide evidence to support your claims. You can discuss examples that we haven’t read, but please use at least 2 examples from the readings for this class.
Some questions you may want to consider: What are the criteria for applying that label? Who gets to decide who is and who isn't major? Other than an accident of geography, is there some quality or attitude that makes someone a specifically "American" author? Should we still have a "Major American Authors" course at UNC? What do we gain from reading major American authors? Do their texts give us something that other authors don't?
Another approach would be to state your definition of “major American author” before this course and describe how your definition has changed as a result of our readings and discussions.
Post this essay to the course blog by 11am, Monday, June 14th. Your essay should be at least 400 words. I strongly suggest that you write a draft and revise it before you post it.
"Live with your Head in the Lion's Mouth"
Like others have mentioned, Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man is a very difficult and disturbing read for me. This theme is nearly impossible to accept and I’m left feeling quite humiliated and ashamed on behalf of those that should be. I don’t like thinking about the violent mistreatment and manipulative realities confronting an entire race of people, of which Ellison’s portrayal of the narrator’s struggle for significance and self-identity in the face of extreme adversity and inequality, poignantly portrays in such a relatable way. This first chapter of Invisible Man has opened my eyes to the harsh realities of that era in a way that the attempts of both Douglas and Melville could not.
The prose is dripping with symbolism, from the haunting words of the unnamed Narrator’s grandfather serving as the stigma of his family’s past enslavement he’s trying to escape; to the white blindfold representing the parameters set within the white-dominated world he’s forced to “see” and navigate through; to the Narrator’s discovery that the precious gold coins he fought so hard for were really “brass pocket tokens” (p 32) underscoring his presence as the white man’s “token African American”; to the briefcase’s symbol of hope; as well as the haunting message the Narrator’s grandfather sends through his dream, that no matter the struggle, life is full of empty envelopes at the end, and that if you want to win the fight, you must keep on struggling, keep on running.
Reflecting back on the dying grandfather’s words that led with “live with your head in the lion’s mouth,” I conclude he’s imploring his grandson to “fly in the face of fear” and to not back down from life’s challenges. The message is clear that he’s advising the Narrator to become invisible and “play the white man’s game” in order to exploit his share of life’s opportunity.
To this day, even if not necessarily the same game – do we not all still play by these rules in hopes of finding our place in life?
The prose is dripping with symbolism, from the haunting words of the unnamed Narrator’s grandfather serving as the stigma of his family’s past enslavement he’s trying to escape; to the white blindfold representing the parameters set within the white-dominated world he’s forced to “see” and navigate through; to the Narrator’s discovery that the precious gold coins he fought so hard for were really “brass pocket tokens” (p 32) underscoring his presence as the white man’s “token African American”; to the briefcase’s symbol of hope; as well as the haunting message the Narrator’s grandfather sends through his dream, that no matter the struggle, life is full of empty envelopes at the end, and that if you want to win the fight, you must keep on struggling, keep on running.
Reflecting back on the dying grandfather’s words that led with “live with your head in the lion’s mouth,” I conclude he’s imploring his grandson to “fly in the face of fear” and to not back down from life’s challenges. The message is clear that he’s advising the Narrator to become invisible and “play the white man’s game” in order to exploit his share of life’s opportunity.
To this day, even if not necessarily the same game – do we not all still play by these rules in hopes of finding our place in life?
Battle Royal
I thought the opening chapter to Invisible Man was interesting, but it was very chaotic. There was a lot of stuff happening, and it was all happening very quickly. That said, it was an easy read, like most have said. I'm not sure if this story is based on anything that really happened, but it seemed so odd to me that all of those drunk white men would be so adamant about this fight, then give the narrator a chance to speak at the end, and then applaud him on top of that. Another thing I thought was weird was the scene where the fighters all enter and find this naked woman dancing in the middle of everyone. Maybe it was the graphic description that caught me off guard, but her purpose in the story seemed strange.
I know that this was only the first chapter of a long story, but I feel like I would have been able to get a lot more out of it if I knew where it was going. The chapter does seem to cover a time period and tell a well-rounded story, I'm just not sure what it's significance is.
I know that this was only the first chapter of a long story, but I feel like I would have been able to get a lot more out of it if I knew where it was going. The chapter does seem to cover a time period and tell a well-rounded story, I'm just not sure what it's significance is.
The quest to become invisible
Chapter one of Ellison's "Invisible Man" is filled with symbolism and metaphor, making a point about the struggle of young black men after high school. Since there were few black colleges that were available to attend, the competition to gain admission was a struggle for the best and brightest students and just as competitive as gaining entrance to UNC. Most students received a full scholarship to pursue a dream they have and make a difference in the world, not only for their community but for the entire community of African-American people throughout the US.
The first chapter is very significant, since it sets the tone for the entire book. It opens with the unnamed narrator remembering his grandfather's death and the important message he was trying to pass along. Here, the grandfather tells him to "overcome 'em with yeses, undermine 'em with grins, agree 'em to death and destruction, let 'em swoller you till they vomit or bust wide open." Symbolically, he is saying that no matter what, always maintain the identity you have in your heart, but the outward appearance should be the one that always maintains the status quo of the appearance "they" expect. It's a powerful message that can be equated in some ways to the message Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. always tried to promote of non-violence. To overcome, undermine and agree is also along the lines of the anthem "We Shall Overcome."
Did the fight really take place, or is it Ellison's way to show the struggle of how a select few had to overcome the stigma of not being much more than waiting labor for the workforce after high school. The fight is symbolic and full of stereotypes to make a distinct separation between the older white men, show as successful in their tuxedos waiting for the "fight." In the grand hotel ballroom, black students are "forced" to fight one another for the prize, which is revealed to be the briefcase containing the scholarship. Ironically, the white towel was used to "blindfold" him which can symbolize the stereotypical point of view to see "his" world as a truth hidden behind the "darkness" of a white blindfold. The blindfold also showed the darkness, confusion, and fear he had within himself, since "he had never truly experienced darkness before and it scared him" and the blind rage of being treated this way. The symbolism of the nude white woman was significant, since she represented through his thoughts another struggle where it was love and hate, tenderness versus violence. At the time of the "fight," the struggle was attempting to lead him into a physical and mental fight for what he desired.
The fight was already won before it started, because Ellison wanted to make the point of "The prize was already yours, but you have to know at what cost." The fight against Tatlock was symbolic of part of the "cost," as the narrator is knocked down to the count of ten in what can be symbolically linked to the concept of single warrior combat like the story of David and Goliath. Unlike David, he does not win the physical fight and has to resort to using his intelligence to overcome the struggle he saw himself in.
The "cost" was also shown as the deception of "easy money." Where the men threw the fake coins and some paper money out on the electrified rug, the narrator was shown that not all that glitters was gold. Even after this incident, he was tested once again to give the speech after the fight and scramble for coins, when he accidentally revealed what was in his heart. The message that his grandfather had given him to maintain his individuality by working toward a goal, represented by the phrase "social equality" was not what the men represented there wanted to hear and he was questioned on it as the prize was dangled in front of him. Making the choice of winning or losing, he decided to say the correct phrase which is what the assembly wanted to hear. He won by saying what "they" wanted to hear but lost because it was not what he really wanted to say, much like Douglass having to "tailor" his speeches.
In the end, the dream reflected the way he projected he and his grandfather saw the world, as a circus with clowns and an endless supply of envelopes inside the briefcase. The briefcase held his representation of hopes and dreams, where his grandfather had the last word by showing him he had not learned the lesson yet, so he had to keep running, and fighting, to achieve the narrator's "dream" of a better life.
Michael
The first chapter is very significant, since it sets the tone for the entire book. It opens with the unnamed narrator remembering his grandfather's death and the important message he was trying to pass along. Here, the grandfather tells him to "overcome 'em with yeses, undermine 'em with grins, agree 'em to death and destruction, let 'em swoller you till they vomit or bust wide open." Symbolically, he is saying that no matter what, always maintain the identity you have in your heart, but the outward appearance should be the one that always maintains the status quo of the appearance "they" expect. It's a powerful message that can be equated in some ways to the message Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. always tried to promote of non-violence. To overcome, undermine and agree is also along the lines of the anthem "We Shall Overcome."
Did the fight really take place, or is it Ellison's way to show the struggle of how a select few had to overcome the stigma of not being much more than waiting labor for the workforce after high school. The fight is symbolic and full of stereotypes to make a distinct separation between the older white men, show as successful in their tuxedos waiting for the "fight." In the grand hotel ballroom, black students are "forced" to fight one another for the prize, which is revealed to be the briefcase containing the scholarship. Ironically, the white towel was used to "blindfold" him which can symbolize the stereotypical point of view to see "his" world as a truth hidden behind the "darkness" of a white blindfold. The blindfold also showed the darkness, confusion, and fear he had within himself, since "he had never truly experienced darkness before and it scared him" and the blind rage of being treated this way. The symbolism of the nude white woman was significant, since she represented through his thoughts another struggle where it was love and hate, tenderness versus violence. At the time of the "fight," the struggle was attempting to lead him into a physical and mental fight for what he desired.
The fight was already won before it started, because Ellison wanted to make the point of "The prize was already yours, but you have to know at what cost." The fight against Tatlock was symbolic of part of the "cost," as the narrator is knocked down to the count of ten in what can be symbolically linked to the concept of single warrior combat like the story of David and Goliath. Unlike David, he does not win the physical fight and has to resort to using his intelligence to overcome the struggle he saw himself in.
The "cost" was also shown as the deception of "easy money." Where the men threw the fake coins and some paper money out on the electrified rug, the narrator was shown that not all that glitters was gold. Even after this incident, he was tested once again to give the speech after the fight and scramble for coins, when he accidentally revealed what was in his heart. The message that his grandfather had given him to maintain his individuality by working toward a goal, represented by the phrase "social equality" was not what the men represented there wanted to hear and he was questioned on it as the prize was dangled in front of him. Making the choice of winning or losing, he decided to say the correct phrase which is what the assembly wanted to hear. He won by saying what "they" wanted to hear but lost because it was not what he really wanted to say, much like Douglass having to "tailor" his speeches.
In the end, the dream reflected the way he projected he and his grandfather saw the world, as a circus with clowns and an endless supply of envelopes inside the briefcase. The briefcase held his representation of hopes and dreams, where his grandfather had the last word by showing him he had not learned the lesson yet, so he had to keep running, and fighting, to achieve the narrator's "dream" of a better life.
Michael
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Ellison's Invisible Man
I thought it was ironic that Ellison would write about a guy that is trying to be humble and modest aka invisible, yet he get all this attention for writing this book. The grandfather seems to be a source of inspiration for the narrator. Why call this brutish fight a battle royal? He wants to give a speech about not being the hero, and contemplates that during the fight. He does not want to upset the crowds expectations, but he gets KOed as he is thinking about this, so it doesn't matter if he wanted to be the hero or not, his choice was made for him.
The naked woman was odd. Hypothesis: This event is entertainment for rich men, the woman was just foreplay to the fight. The mens reaction to the word equality was significant-thats the only thing that struck them out of the whole speech. One man says " We mean to do right by you, but you've got to know your place at all times. I can't think of many phrases that are more racist then that. The whole affair is weird because the narrator fights to earn money and then gives a speech to his employers.
Atleast he got a scholarship out of it. I guess they think he will lead his race into complacent submission, and want to encourage that.
Fitzgerald's "Babylon Revisited" -- Revisited
Fitzgerald with daughter Scottie in 1924 (Google Images)_______________________________________________________________
As mentioned in class, Babylon Revisited is largely an exploration of the valuable life aspects one gives up in pursuit of life in the “fast lane.” As Charlie revisits his old haunts of Paris and reconnects with Loraine and Duncan from his past, he concludes that the old haunts have changed in that they no longer have the appeal they once used to. This is important as we are able to recognize a distinct contrast between Charlie’s disgust over the frivolousness of his past life versus his new desire for a more stable and traditional life with his daughter. Fitzgerald focuses on Charlie’s evolving character and uses contrasting imagery to illustrate the vastly opposing lifestyles (e.g., the Ritz vs. the Peter’s home; inebriated friends vs. the laughing children; and the dark, isolated streets of Paris vs. the warm and intimate family fire).
The class was split on determining motivation for Marion’s antagonistic relationship with Charlie and her desire to prevent Charlie from regaining custody of Honoria. Some deemed Marion the "Wicked Witch of the Left Bank," listing jealously and a spiteful vindictiveness as her motive. Others responded with sympathy for Marion’s possible loss of Honoria as her only remaining connection to her sister, Helen.
In agreement were the following: that Honoria symbolizes redemption for Charlie and may be seen as the key to his continued abstinence from a life of depravity; Charlie maintains a strong resolution to remain “clean” in hope of later regaining custody of his daughter; and lastly, Charlie’s character is highly relatable as we can each identify with life’s struggles and in the celebration of victory when defeating them.
I dislike open ended stories. I much prefer knowing what’s just around the bend; if the guy gets the girl; and “whodunit” in the end. So I apologize in advance, Mr. Fitzgerald, for below is my re-write of your ending:
Although it sounds as if the class is somewhat divided as to whether F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Babylon Revisited is a good read or not, I feel everyone contributed great insight to today’s discussion. I think a few of us found this story refreshingly inspirational due to Charlie’s ability to overcome his past demons of alcoholism and partying in order to reclaim a better future life with his daughter. Others vehemently despised this tale because it was “boring and I just don’t get it!” (to paraphrase Kelly’s ending comment...lol).
As mentioned in class, Babylon Revisited is largely an exploration of the valuable life aspects one gives up in pursuit of life in the “fast lane.” As Charlie revisits his old haunts of Paris and reconnects with Loraine and Duncan from his past, he concludes that the old haunts have changed in that they no longer have the appeal they once used to. This is important as we are able to recognize a distinct contrast between Charlie’s disgust over the frivolousness of his past life versus his new desire for a more stable and traditional life with his daughter. Fitzgerald focuses on Charlie’s evolving character and uses contrasting imagery to illustrate the vastly opposing lifestyles (e.g., the Ritz vs. the Peter’s home; inebriated friends vs. the laughing children; and the dark, isolated streets of Paris vs. the warm and intimate family fire).
The class was split on determining motivation for Marion’s antagonistic relationship with Charlie and her desire to prevent Charlie from regaining custody of Honoria. Some deemed Marion the "Wicked Witch of the Left Bank," listing jealously and a spiteful vindictiveness as her motive. Others responded with sympathy for Marion’s possible loss of Honoria as her only remaining connection to her sister, Helen.
In agreement were the following: that Honoria symbolizes redemption for Charlie and may be seen as the key to his continued abstinence from a life of depravity; Charlie maintains a strong resolution to remain “clean” in hope of later regaining custody of his daughter; and lastly, Charlie’s character is highly relatable as we can each identify with life’s struggles and in the celebration of victory when defeating them.
I dislike open ended stories. I much prefer knowing what’s just around the bend; if the guy gets the girl; and “whodunit” in the end. So I apologize in advance, Mr. Fitzgerald, for below is my re-write of your ending:
“He was absolutely sure Helen wouldn’t have wanted him to be so alone” (page 1511), and he was correct. Charlie turns away from the recesses of the dark bar toward the sudden rush of light entering through the front door of the Ritz. The light was so bright that he couldn’t yet make out who was standing in the doorway. As he watches the small shadowy figure step forward tentatively, framed by the golden rays, he is met with a shrieking “Oh, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, dads, dads, dads!” and his heart skips a beat. Clutching her doll tightly, Honoria takes another step forward, meeting her father’s gleaming smile with that of her own.
The End.
Invisible Man
As I read Invisible Man I really enjoyed it but after getting into the story I started to build up so much anger. This unidentified narrator delivers a speech in for his school graduation, he is such a well spoken student that he is invited to speak at a function where some of the most important people from the city will be. He speaks about how so many of the members of the white community liked him because he was the perfect example of "desirable conduct." Once arriving at the hotel, they offered him to be a part of the "Battle Royal" which from their I knew it could not be a good thing. It's when they take black men and allow them to fight each other (At first I believed it to be them just standing and the spectators would come and beat them but I found clarification). The description of that scene along with the men fighting each other and the spectators just watching and fueling fight upset me more than anything. Just to know that people treated them this way infuriated me for some reason (yet i don't know whether or not this scene happened in real southern towns). Also, the fact that they made then gather fake coins with an electric current underneath just seemed cruel. Even though slavery had technically ended, there was a way to still keep it alive in the south. Yet his whole purpose for going was to deliver his speech and he was some what lured into it and fought/humiliated himself before showing his intellectual abilities (which was one his mind during the entire fight). Finally when he did, his words were completely ignored. Yet at the end of the scene, they award him with a briefcase and a scholarship. My question is why? Why abuse this guy and allow him to be humiliated in front of these men who find this fight as a pure IGNORANT entertainment? Then when he is finish, the spectators ignore his speech and award him with a briefcase/scholarship? Again I ask why?
No to Pay Off?
This has probably the fastest I have read a story this whole session. I felt the story was very humorous but also very grueling and intense. Yet for all of it, my favorite part had to be when he tries to pay the fighter, Tatlock, off to win the fight. I felt I have seen this scene in many comedy shows and movies before but to read it is just as funny. I actually had to restrain myself from laughing out loud in Davis. It is funny because he doesn't even want fight. All he wants to do is deliver his speech but they won't let him now. There is deeper questions to be answered. Why didn't he just pretend to be knocked out? Why did Tatlock not take the offer? Was it dignity or the fact he didn't want to lose to a black man? I didn't understand why that didn't happen. If he just wanted to end the fight it would be better to pretend to be knocked out. Maybe he knew last time he pretended they pulled him back up and they would do it again. Also comes to play is why Tatlock refused. I was expecting that maybe it was because of the whole race issue but then I thought, what competitor really ever wants to lose no matter they got money or not? Sure there are stories of men who throw games or fights for millions of dollars but this isn't that much money. I am just wondering is it race or just personal pride and honor that kept him saying no to pay off?
Faulkner Reading
I hated this story. The whole time, I was waiting for the brooch to have some huge significant value like the coat, the drizzle, etc in “The Municipal Report” or have some sort of twist. However, I did enjoy the simplicity and openness of the writing - it left a lot of free room for interpretation and not too much confusion. I really liked the symbolism too - the clock, which was the most significant to me because it represent the routine and repetition of the Howard’s life; they had to say goodnight every night, take off their shoes to creep around, etc. The discussion of the brooch was also intriguing because I was waiting for it’s significant, but as we discussed, it was a symbol of the authority Mrs. Boyd had over Amy and Howard and the “choking presence” she had among them.
Overall, I think the story as a whole represented the brokenness of the family, and as Michael said, the “toxic” household which was inescapable to them. The suicide at the end where he crouches down and huddles under a coverlet represents how he had “already began to suffocate” not only literally because of the blanket, but I think his mother suffocated him to his death.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Turning Over of a Leaf: Babylon Revisited
I must say that this short story is by far my favorite read of the semester. I loved it because I felt like many of us could relate to it in one way or the other. Most of us are guilty of actions which we are not proud of; whether at a certain instance or over a period of time. I also found it highly interesting that this story is based upon real life events in F. Scott Fitzgerald's life. This story begs the question of whether humans are truly able to turn over a new leaf and start a new life for themselves. The main character, Charlie, had suffered from alcoholism and had many skeletons in his past that he seems to be trying to forget/overcome- and run away from (such as his old friends, like Lorainne). However, Charlie is trying his best in a difficult situation. He has to deal with a sister in law who is raising his daughter and blames him for the death of her sister(Helen), visiting a city where he spent this "previous life" of partying and drunken shananigans and the memories that haunt him, the guilt he has towards his previous situation and the horrible circumstances, as well as other factors. I noticed a couple of interesting things throughout his fight for his daughter in the story. Firstly, when he is at lunch with her, he puts on this sharade as if they have never met, and they begin this cute and witty introduction. I found this interesting because he seems to be worried that if he does not get custody of her, her views on him will be distorted. To me, this brief dialogue between them meant a lot more then just a silly sharade. It was as if this was a new beginning for them, a re-introduction for this new life they were going to live together. From the background ifnormation the author provides, I felt as though the daughter loved her father, and they were close, but they didn't know eachother too well. Secondly, I noticed that all the places he sees in town have changed drastically. His life has changed as well, and I feel that this was a message that things don't stay constant or the same; in time things change. In sum, I thought this was a marvelous read. I was very shocked by the ending because I thought that he was going to go back to drinking. I felt as though that was the set up of the story- we hear so much about how he doesn't drink except one drink a day (and we see that at the beginning), so at the end, with the loss of his daughter temporarily, the reader might automatically assume that this is going to be the fall of Charlie, yet again. However, it was not! It just further proves that with will, individuals can change their lives for the better and unlike his horrid sister in law, we should not make assumptions of others character.
Interesting additional points about "A Municipal Report"
The narrator referenced Charles Dickens twice. Sydney Carton from "A Tale of Two Cities" and Jefferson Brick from "Martin Chuzzlewit." Jefferson Brick also has a double meaning, as it in the Jefferson Brick Company, based in Chicago manufactured brick and tile.
The books in Azalea Adair's bookcase the narrator looked over: "held half-calf backs of Lamb, Chaucer, Hazlitt, Marcus Aurelius, Montaigne and Hood." Charles Lamb was an English essayist.
Geoffrey Chaucer was an English author, poet, philosopher, bureaucrat, courtier and diplomat.
William Hazlitt was an English writer remembered for his humanistic essays and literary criticism. Marcus Aurelius was the last of the Roman "Five Good Emperors" and is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers. Michel de Montaigne one of the most influential writers of the French Renaissance, known for popularising the essay as a literary genre and is popularly thought of as the father of Modern Skepticism. Thomas Hood was a British humorist and poet.
So, what were the books?
Maybe they were these:
Lamb - Essays of Elia
Chaucer - The Canterbury Tales
Hazlitt - Characters of Shakespeare's Plays
Marcus Aurelius - Meditations
Montaigne - Essais (translated literally as "Attempts")
Hood - Odes and Addresses
As the narrator said "She had been educated at home, and her knowledge of the world was derived from inference and by inspiration. Of such is the precious, small group of essayists made." It was an interesting group of books she had to gain inspiration from.
Finally, the L&N Train. The cities and a interesting reference was made when you look at the fact that train lines often "named" their passenger train lines to reference where they were based at or going to. The "Azalean" ran from New York to New Orleans, so perhaps Azalea Adair's first name is referenced here without the reader knowing - unless they rode the L&N that is.
The L&N had trains that were also references to Dixie as in the names of 3 trains: Dixie Flagler - Dixie Flyer - Dixieland, referencing the one time reference to "Dixie" in the poem.
And today, the old Union Station in Nashville is now a Wyndham "Historic Hotel."
Michael
The books in Azalea Adair's bookcase the narrator looked over: "held half-calf backs of Lamb, Chaucer, Hazlitt, Marcus Aurelius, Montaigne and Hood." Charles Lamb was an English essayist.
Geoffrey Chaucer was an English author, poet, philosopher, bureaucrat, courtier and diplomat.
William Hazlitt was an English writer remembered for his humanistic essays and literary criticism. Marcus Aurelius was the last of the Roman "Five Good Emperors" and is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers. Michel de Montaigne one of the most influential writers of the French Renaissance, known for popularising the essay as a literary genre and is popularly thought of as the father of Modern Skepticism. Thomas Hood was a British humorist and poet.
So, what were the books?
Maybe they were these:
Lamb - Essays of Elia
Chaucer - The Canterbury Tales
Hazlitt - Characters of Shakespeare's Plays
Marcus Aurelius - Meditations
Montaigne - Essais (translated literally as "Attempts")
Hood - Odes and Addresses
As the narrator said "She had been educated at home, and her knowledge of the world was derived from inference and by inspiration. Of such is the precious, small group of essayists made." It was an interesting group of books she had to gain inspiration from.
Finally, the L&N Train. The cities and a interesting reference was made when you look at the fact that train lines often "named" their passenger train lines to reference where they were based at or going to. The "Azalean" ran from New York to New Orleans, so perhaps Azalea Adair's first name is referenced here without the reader knowing - unless they rode the L&N that is.
The L&N had trains that were also references to Dixie as in the names of 3 trains: Dixie Flagler - Dixie Flyer - Dixieland, referencing the one time reference to "Dixie" in the poem.
And today, the old Union Station in Nashville is now a Wyndham "Historic Hotel."
Michael
Monday, June 7, 2010
The Brooch - William Faulkner
Now this is a good story. I'm going to go through and read it again before class tomorrow, so I'll hold off on sharing my thoughts. There are, however, several points that I found interesting, and hope to talk about during discussion tomorrow:
First, there is the image of the clock. It is present a few times in the first half of the story, but then we don't get any more direct references to it in the latter half. Did anyone else find the clock significant?
Second, the characters. There are three characters that we become very familiar with during the story and a couple that either make cameos or are mentioned. What do you think about them? Is this story just a story, or does each character representative of something Faulkner is trying to convey to the reader?
Third, why do you think Mrs. Boyd hated Amy so much? Why does the narrator seem to focus on the times when Amy addresses her as "Mother?"
Lastly, what is the significance of the brooch. I have what I think is an interesting view on this, but maybe I'm crazy. Either way, I'll save it for tomorrow.
I just wanted to give you all a few points of reference as to what topics I'll try to bring up in discussion tomorrow.
First, there is the image of the clock. It is present a few times in the first half of the story, but then we don't get any more direct references to it in the latter half. Did anyone else find the clock significant?
Second, the characters. There are three characters that we become very familiar with during the story and a couple that either make cameos or are mentioned. What do you think about them? Is this story just a story, or does each character representative of something Faulkner is trying to convey to the reader?
Third, why do you think Mrs. Boyd hated Amy so much? Why does the narrator seem to focus on the times when Amy addresses her as "Mother?"
Lastly, what is the significance of the brooch. I have what I think is an interesting view on this, but maybe I'm crazy. Either way, I'll save it for tomorrow.
I just wanted to give you all a few points of reference as to what topics I'll try to bring up in discussion tomorrow.
Discussion Summary for 6/7
After a slow beginning to a class discussion (which made me extremely doubtful of my discussion facilitation skills), we focused mainly on the roles of the characters, the themes of protection and racism, foreshadowing, and the geographical location of the story. The characters were introduced in different ways: one as a traveling businessman, one as drunken nuisance, one as a carriage driver, and one as a feeble old woman. As the story unfolds, we realize that there was more to their characters than was initially seen. The black carriage driver ended up being a sort of “protector” for the old lady, supporting/protecting her from the drunken nuisance man that was her husband, eventually killing him in her defense. The narrator, who was unnamed, was a businessman in search of a contract with the old woman for writing in his magazine. Eventually, the narrator became involved with the other three characters and discovered what actually was happening behind the closed doors of Nashville.
As stated before, the protection was seen through Uncle Caesar (carriage driver) over the old lady (Azalea). But the theme of racism was brought out as we discussed the geography of the story. The narrator begins by speaking about the East, the West, and the South, and how he was a Southerner not by choice. We further discussed that he seemed to feel ashamed for some of the south’s qualities, specifically racism. The quarrel about the $2 carriage ride showed how he got upset and started calling Caesar names that he wouldn’t generally bring up, but it was deeply engrained within him. Also, we discussed the aspect of geography in the sense that Caesar was in “the know” about how people operated within the town. However, there was argument that this story could’ve happened in either the North or the South, since it was about an ex-slave helping his slave owner’s daughter. We also discussed that they sent the narrator from the Northern Magazine to the south because he actually knew about the southern ways of living and it would be easier for him to connect with Azalea. Overall, the discussion clarified the reason behind the quotes at the beginning and all of the talk of cities, locations, and details.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
O'Henry - A Municipal Report
I thought that this story was a very enjoyable read, definitely one of my favorites so far in this class. I thought it was funny how the narrator (I have no idea what his name is, maybe O'Henry?) likes to describe things as a recipe and compare things to food. For example, he describes the Nashville drizzle as a mixture of "London fog 30 parts; malaria 10 parts; gas leaks 20 parts..." and also says it is not "as thick as pea-soup." I just thought it was interesting because we've never read anything using this kind of language--very refreshing. Also, I thought the last line of the story, "I wonder what's doing in Buffalo!" was very interesting. I think it relates back to what was said in the beginning of the story about how it is rash to say that nothing could happen somewhere just because it's a small town. If such drama could happen in a "quiet town" like Nashville, imagine what is going on in bigger cities.
There was one thing that left me wondering. Impy, the young girl at Adair's house, just disappeared after she was sent to buy tea and sugar cakes. Nothing about her was ever mentioned afterwards. Is she related to Uncle Caesar? Could Uncle Caesar be Impy's father, since they are both African American and work for Adair?
There was one thing that left me wondering. Impy, the young girl at Adair's house, just disappeared after she was sent to buy tea and sugar cakes. Nothing about her was ever mentioned afterwards. Is she related to Uncle Caesar? Could Uncle Caesar be Impy's father, since they are both African American and work for Adair?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Discussion Summary
Overall, I think we had a good discussion today in class. I was fortunate enough to get a rich chapter full of so many events and incidents. It was hard to pick out some of the most important events. One of the topics that we spent more time than I expected on was the topic of why so many people like Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas so much to the point where they are able to talk to people of authority in a bold manner. Many of us discovered that Stein was very well known as the time and better understood why Stein spoke in the manner she did to these authority figures. It seems as if she is using her popularity to get her way with the people she wanted something from. Also, I liked how we talking about Alice's voice which we never had before. Someone pointed out that one of the reasons why she decides to do this is because we are able to see another side to Stein that we never were able to see before, her emotional stand view. These elements are shown through intimate moments between her and Alice, before the reader never really got a since on any of Steins emotions that she felt. As one person pointed out, Alice in this chapter seemed more humorous and understandable that Gertrude has in the entire book. The final topic I would like to bring up is about when Toklas meets her last genius, Doctor Whitehead, who she fails to mention a lot about. Many of you all came to the conclusion that the reason that Whitehead is not talked about is because Alice and Stein did not have as intimate of a relationship as they did with Picasso. I guess I will have to take it as is, it just really frustrated me. How can you say this person was a genius but knew nothing about him?
We missed those of you there were not in class today because I would have love your input on such an extensive chapter. Thanks the discussion for those of you who were in class!!!
We missed those of you there were not in class today because I would have love your input on such an extensive chapter. Thanks the discussion for those of you who were in class!!!
Are Your Papers in Order?
Alice B. Toklas (left) and Gertrude Stein (right) walking their dog, Basket
I actually find it a bit interesting how Gertrude and Toklas seem far-removed at times from the war – it magnifies how many were made to vacate Paris for the war, which is odd as I seldom think in terms of Paris ever having been directly inflicted by war. This somewhat morose mood of the war is in such stark contrast to that surrounding Gertrude’s festive art parties at 27 rue de Fleurus.
We are able to experience some of the anxiety Gertrude and Toklas feel during the war, seen on page 157, in the incident where Gertrude wakes Toklas, coaxing her downstairs to safety after hearing the alarm. I sense that Gertrude is worried and concerned for Toklas as she ushers her to safety and comforts her with a blanket. Toklas reveals her fear as she writes “I must say I would not have believed it was true that knees knocked together as described in poetry and prose if it had not happened to me” (p 157), which indicates how serious of a situation it was to hear nearby bombing.
I also detect how saddened by the war both Gertrude and Toklas are at times and how it may have impacted their lives based on remarks of how empty and dark Paris is and how long and dreary the winter of 1914-1915 is (p 156), as well as their desire to work for the American Fund for French Wounded. Gertrude is also seemingly greatly inspired by the war, as Toklas comments that most of Gertrude’s writings during this period are war-related.
After reading Chapter 6, I do have questions regarding the banking transactions and passports, etc. For instance, on page 154, Toklas mentions that she and Gertrude must be weighed and measured when they go to pick up the money sent to them by Gertrude’s cousin and Toklas’ father. Why is this? Is it some sort of measure to prevent smuggling of coin or something? I do not understand this (and haven’t researched yet). Also, I realize that times have changed a bit with regard to the regulation of passports; however, why is it they seem to be able to travel to and fro between countries with “…papers…so overpowering that there were no delays…” mentioned on page 155 when speaking of Mrs. Whitehead? Were passports convenient to have, but not necessary as long as one had a stellar letter of reference from the best and most important person?
Looking forward to getting some answers!
(FYI: Found the above photo widely available through Google Images and thought it was interesting!)
We are able to experience some of the anxiety Gertrude and Toklas feel during the war, seen on page 157, in the incident where Gertrude wakes Toklas, coaxing her downstairs to safety after hearing the alarm. I sense that Gertrude is worried and concerned for Toklas as she ushers her to safety and comforts her with a blanket. Toklas reveals her fear as she writes “I must say I would not have believed it was true that knees knocked together as described in poetry and prose if it had not happened to me” (p 157), which indicates how serious of a situation it was to hear nearby bombing.
I also detect how saddened by the war both Gertrude and Toklas are at times and how it may have impacted their lives based on remarks of how empty and dark Paris is and how long and dreary the winter of 1914-1915 is (p 156), as well as their desire to work for the American Fund for French Wounded. Gertrude is also seemingly greatly inspired by the war, as Toklas comments that most of Gertrude’s writings during this period are war-related.
After reading Chapter 6, I do have questions regarding the banking transactions and passports, etc. For instance, on page 154, Toklas mentions that she and Gertrude must be weighed and measured when they go to pick up the money sent to them by Gertrude’s cousin and Toklas’ father. Why is this? Is it some sort of measure to prevent smuggling of coin or something? I do not understand this (and haven’t researched yet). Also, I realize that times have changed a bit with regard to the regulation of passports; however, why is it they seem to be able to travel to and fro between countries with “…papers…so overpowering that there were no delays…” mentioned on page 155 when speaking of Mrs. Whitehead? Were passports convenient to have, but not necessary as long as one had a stellar letter of reference from the best and most important person?
Looking forward to getting some answers!
(FYI: Found the above photo widely available through Google Images and thought it was interesting!)
Spending a few "Ah Ha!" Moments with Gertrude Stein
They seem elusive during the first five chapters, but two similar but separate incidents tied to something Alice says about Stein's driving finally lead to some "Ah Ha!" moments in Chapter Six.
The two similar but separate incidents involved the passports. When Gertrude and Alice try to leave France for Spain, they have to get real passports to replace their temporary ones from London (p161). Although it seems like the American Embassy representative is going to deny them, Stein insists on speaking to a embassy secretary. She then does what she does best - she drops the name of a writer, who has lived in France and was not going back to the U.S. but since he had received a passport, so why are you denying me?
Gertrude 1 - American Embassy 0
On their return from Spain, she has to again deal with the embassy representatives (pp 167-168). I had the feeling she embellished the moment for a bit of comedy, since she showed the counsel and his assistant to be playing a game she sees through. Even though she has to get the approval from the French embassy, she again is able to return to the American embassy with the letter of approval for the visa. We also get to see a rare moment where Stein is vulnerable by finding out if she is asked a question quickly (by the French embassy representative) she could not readily remember the date she was asked for. It shows us a rare moment, but just a moment, of her not being in control.
Gertrude 2 - American Embassy 0
I wonder if she ever renewed her passport or they just went ahead and sent her a new one? Probably the latter.
So, how are these "Ah Ha!" moments? They're tied to Alice commenting on Stein's driving the ford car they used when working with American Fund for French Wounded (p173).
"She goes forward admirably, but does not go backwards successfully."
I think this sentence could be used to summarize Gertrude Stein. We have seen that in the face of rejection of her works at different points, she re-invents herself by taking on a new interest while refining what she already knows and relentlessly continuing to bring her works to the forefront. She rejects any notion of failure and continues to find new and interesting people, like the god-sons they met and find a place of importance for them in the book. I'm sure, knowing what it alludes to, finding these subtle "ah ha" moments going forward might not be so difficult.
Michael
The two similar but separate incidents involved the passports. When Gertrude and Alice try to leave France for Spain, they have to get real passports to replace their temporary ones from London (p161). Although it seems like the American Embassy representative is going to deny them, Stein insists on speaking to a embassy secretary. She then does what she does best - she drops the name of a writer, who has lived in France and was not going back to the U.S. but since he had received a passport, so why are you denying me?
Gertrude 1 - American Embassy 0
On their return from Spain, she has to again deal with the embassy representatives (pp 167-168). I had the feeling she embellished the moment for a bit of comedy, since she showed the counsel and his assistant to be playing a game she sees through. Even though she has to get the approval from the French embassy, she again is able to return to the American embassy with the letter of approval for the visa. We also get to see a rare moment where Stein is vulnerable by finding out if she is asked a question quickly (by the French embassy representative) she could not readily remember the date she was asked for. It shows us a rare moment, but just a moment, of her not being in control.
Gertrude 2 - American Embassy 0
I wonder if she ever renewed her passport or they just went ahead and sent her a new one? Probably the latter.
So, how are these "Ah Ha!" moments? They're tied to Alice commenting on Stein's driving the ford car they used when working with American Fund for French Wounded (p173).
"She goes forward admirably, but does not go backwards successfully."
I think this sentence could be used to summarize Gertrude Stein. We have seen that in the face of rejection of her works at different points, she re-invents herself by taking on a new interest while refining what she already knows and relentlessly continuing to bring her works to the forefront. She rejects any notion of failure and continues to find new and interesting people, like the god-sons they met and find a place of importance for them in the book. I'm sure, knowing what it alludes to, finding these subtle "ah ha" moments going forward might not be so difficult.
Michael
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Thoughts on chapter six
I'm with pretty much everyone else that has already posted in that I feel pretty clueless as to what on Earth this woman is talking about. I think I get it, but Stein jumps back and forth so much that she's hard to follow. What makes it most difficult is the timeline she uses to describe her various stays in these random places. Rather than providing succinct dates, she uses seasons. For example, on page 164, at the end of the first full paragraph, she says that "Instead of only spending the summer [in Palma] we stayed until the following spring." Thanks, Gertrude.
This brings up a point that I think Ty made it class at one point in regard to the fact that we never find out where Stein got her money from. These two women are making trips all over the place, and even though they seem to be bumming off whoever will let them stay at their house, that still has to be pretty expensive. Also, I've noticed several instances where Stein says that these various hosts requested that they stay longer. I don't know about you all, but that sounds like a crock to me! This lady reminds me of that friend that we all have who talks for the sake of hearing him or herself talk, you know, the one who would totally ask: "Hey, do you mind if I crash on your couch for a couple extra days?"
I don't know, but the timeline, and the references made to her money, are very hard to follow, especially the reference in the second paragraph of page 162 that mentions a time (in the future, I think) when "Gertrude Stein was not able to help any more ... ." Could this be foreshadowing? Is the picture on the front of this book a portrait from the panhandling days that followed her fledgling writing career? In a way, I hope so. That way we can all point our fingers and laugh at her for providing us with this tomfoolery.
In all seriousness, though, there are instances where she's funny and even enjoyable. Unfortunately, for me, those instances are typically about two sentences long, then she rambles for 14 pages about ateliers and some place or something called Marne.
Which leads me to my questions:
a.) What/where is Marne?
b.) The scene where Stein calls Toklas (I'm assuming it was her, anyway) downstairs during that weird and noisy night scene -- what was that all about?
c.) It seems like she keeps talking about how places are empty and how they'll be different later. Is that because the war is there, or because everyone is gone to fight in it?
OK, this is long. I'll save my 459 other questions for tomorrow!
This brings up a point that I think Ty made it class at one point in regard to the fact that we never find out where Stein got her money from. These two women are making trips all over the place, and even though they seem to be bumming off whoever will let them stay at their house, that still has to be pretty expensive. Also, I've noticed several instances where Stein says that these various hosts requested that they stay longer. I don't know about you all, but that sounds like a crock to me! This lady reminds me of that friend that we all have who talks for the sake of hearing him or herself talk, you know, the one who would totally ask: "Hey, do you mind if I crash on your couch for a couple extra days?"
I don't know, but the timeline, and the references made to her money, are very hard to follow, especially the reference in the second paragraph of page 162 that mentions a time (in the future, I think) when "Gertrude Stein was not able to help any more ... ." Could this be foreshadowing? Is the picture on the front of this book a portrait from the panhandling days that followed her fledgling writing career? In a way, I hope so. That way we can all point our fingers and laugh at her for providing us with this tomfoolery.
In all seriousness, though, there are instances where she's funny and even enjoyable. Unfortunately, for me, those instances are typically about two sentences long, then she rambles for 14 pages about ateliers and some place or something called Marne.
Which leads me to my questions:
a.) What/where is Marne?
b.) The scene where Stein calls Toklas (I'm assuming it was her, anyway) downstairs during that weird and noisy night scene -- what was that all about?
c.) It seems like she keeps talking about how places are empty and how they'll be different later. Is that because the war is there, or because everyone is gone to fight in it?
OK, this is long. I'll save my 459 other questions for tomorrow!
The War- Oh My!
I wanted to focus my discussion on Gertrude Stein's sixth chapter where she discusses the war. I was anticipating a sudden and drastic shift in tone; however, I was disappointed and strangely shocked. Chapter six reads like any of her other chapters to me. She is all over the place and can't seem to focus on one topic, or the topic at hand- the war (Before I go any further I would also like to mention that I am only 3/4ths of the way through the chapter, so this is my opinion thus far). She fails to really mention any fear or anxieties about the war really. She does focus on some of the hardships they faced when it came to travelling from place to place or going back to France. However, other then complaining about having to go to other embassies or arguing for the sake of their passports, I saw no real struggles, feelings, or emotions about the war. Their were a couple parts where she mentions that Paris was a little empty, or that things did not seem the same. However, because she jumps back and forth between her trip to England and Spain, it gets confusing as to what is the time period. Furthermore, I saw a constant repeat of the fact that they were very happy when they were in Palma. I was a little shocked by this because I was expecting more details about the war. The details she provides are very few- such as what they hear from their friends in letters. Also, we get one very minor detailed account- when Gertrude wakes Toklas up and brings her downstairs- because from what I understood bombs/gun shots were going off. This was the only experience that they seemed to endure, which barely seemed to effect them. Possibly, their was no real focus on the war because they were not living in France and because they were in places that didn't suffer. However, all I got out of this so far was that they traveled and enjoyed their time with different people like the Whiteheads, that they only endured little effects of the war such as struggling with their travels and passports, criticisms by Stein against the Germans- something we saw in earlier chapters, and that's it. No shift in tone, and she seems to be writing in the same style with more focus on herself than the war. A little dissapointing...then again this book is about something far more important than the war- it's about her..right?
Gertrude Stein
So Chapter 6 seemed to frustrate me more than her other chapters. It seems that in this chapter, Toklas (Stein) was all over the place. Now I know that she is like this in her other chapters but she seems to cover a lot of information. She starts with meeting the Whiteheads and her time living with them. Then she goes on to talk about things such as the her travels during the war, working with the American Fund for French Wounded to her life after the war. It just really frustrated me that she couldn't rant and go off topic on one aspect of her life. I think she could have divided the chapters with a chapter on her life before she became involved with the war, one on her involvements with the war and finally a chapter on her life after the war was over. Also, another frustrating part of this chapter is the fact that she mentions meeting her third genius, Doctor Whitehead yet she never spends anytime talking about him. Instead, she spends more time talking about Mrs. Whitehead and their family. I wonder why Toklas (Stein) does this. She talks extensively about Picasso and Stein in the book because she probably has a more intimate relationship with these two, but she fails to mention what makes Doctor Whitehead a genius in her mind. What makes Whitehead a genius?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Gertrude Stein and Gossip
I notice that Gertrude Stein steers away from her story once in a while to spend time talking about the gossip or scandals among her friends. In chapter 5, I particularly enjoyed the stories about Manolo and Uhde. On page 97, Manolo earns money off a business of bringing chairs to people in a church, but the chairs are actually owned by someone else. He then escapes his military service in Spain to go to Paris. On page 98, Uhde and his ex-wife is such a strange couple, because both of them did not marry out of love for each other. He wanted to "respectabilise himself" while his wife wanted to get her inheritance. I found it strange how things this dramatic could have happened back then. Anyhow, I enjoy the gossip and scandals because it takes a break from Stein and her being such a "genius," which just annoys me so much. But on another note, I think Stein chose to include so many stories about the personal lives of her group of friends because she was not so famous when she wrote this book, and the inside stories of her friends, who were famous, may have kept the attention of the reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)