The Crying of Lot 49

So my first impression of the first chapter in this novel is that it is trying to epitomize the essence of the 1960s with the three characters that are established within it. First of all, Oedipa is presented to the reader in a curious manner, and she is shrouded with bits and pieces of a very eclectic life. For instance, her trip home lands her in a million different places that are none alike, but she all seems to be a frequent visitor to all of them. She goes to the market downtown to buy cheese and listen to Muzak, but on the way she takes a route to hear a concerto, then she ventures to an herb garden, and reads book reviews in a scientific journal, then she makes an Italian dinner. Oedipa's trip home and the different cultures she experiences along the way seem to form a collective sense of unity, while at the same time being totally diverse aspects of very different cultures. This type of unity in a world of ever-differing culture is what I think of most when I think of life in the 1960s. It seems that this era was the embodiment of rapid and progressive change, that cultures, languages, music and food were shared by everyone, no matter where you came from. The idea that everyone could enjoy variety seems to be prevalent in this first chapter and there exist people in it that are in a sense jack of all trades. For instance, Oedipa's husband Mucho is an ex-car salesman turned disk jockey, which seems to be an unlikely progression of a career path. Also, Pierce's conversation with Oedipa where he uses many different voices and characters seems to be rather eclectic and free-spirited. Overall, I feel like the rapid change in the 60s had a profound effect on people settling down, or choosing to be associated with one particular culture, and this is evident by Pynchon's development of his characters in the first chapter. Also, I wanted to point out that the names established in this first chapter are quite intriguing. Perhaps there is a sense of foreshadowing here, and I may be wrong in my assumptions, but I feel like Oedipa is meant to sound like Oedipus, or the tragic hero whose ultimate downfall was his own self. And Mucho, which means much in Spanish, seems like Pynchon is making a point that he is a very overbearing character. Also, Pierce, which has the connotation of action (since it is a verb) seems to be a commentary on his nature to upset or create change. And of course, my favorite is Dr. Hilarius, who seems more a head-case than his patient, is maybe a humorous satire of psychologists or therapists in general.

"There Was a Queen"

I feel like in this work, Faulkner is presenting his reader with some very interesting ideas about both the condition and the character of women. For one thing, the title of this piece suggests a forgotten brilliance and importance of a woman, though the reader is really never able to identify whether the "Queen" is a figure in the story or a more broad representation of women worldwide. The fact that there was a Queen, suggests a sort of fall from grace, or a diminishing quality. To me, though Faulkner is a bit ambiguous in this text, the Queen seems to be Miss Jenny, a woman who never married and seems to be the matriarch of the household. In fact, in the very beginning Faulkner makes note of the entire Sartoris family tree, but defines the men of that family as the sons of mothers, and the husbands of wives. This sort of emphasis on the female as the trace of a blood line is pretty unusual. In this piece, it also seems that Faulkner may be alluding to a shift in the character of women over the time period discussed (from 1869 to the early 20th century), and nothing highlights this shift more than when he juxtaposes Miss Jenny and Narcissa. Miss Jenny seems to be steadfast, and believes that women are truly autonomous and in many cases (for instance, when she says "You can thank your stars it was just men your grandfather fought.") more resolute and tougher than men. I think when Faulkner places these two women together, he is making a comment on how the inner character of the woman has changed over time. He inventively does this by having the house servants (particularly Elnora) comment on the characters of both Miss Jenny and Narcissa. For instance, Elnora describes Narcissa as "trash" and Miss Jenny as "quality." Even the stark contrast of the women's two names seems to hint that Narcissa is a product of a more selfish breed of woman. Interestingly enough, the issue of time and change over time seems to be of importance in this piece with regard to how women have evolved. When Elnora is describing Miss Jenny to her son she is trying to tell him that women of Miss Jenny's quality do not exist, or they are slowly becoming extinct. She relays this message by saying to him that "you don't know nothing about, because you born too late to see any of it except her." This statement implies that not only is Miss Jenny of a certain "quality," but that other women joined her in this category; women who are now no longer around. I think it is interesting that Faulkner is making the statement that the character of women is what has deteriorated, not their condition in society. Perhaps this piece is aimed at criticizing those women who would abuse the new-found powers that society afforded them, instead of embracing them genuinely.

H.D. and Sappho

I thought it was interesting that one author in particular (Eileen Gregory) decided to connect H.D. and Sappho. Having read quite a lot of Sapphor recently for a Classics course, I can certainly see how the two females' work might be compared. Sappho was generally known for her tenderness of words and her ability to capture emotion in the lines she wrote. Nature was also a resounding theme in her poetry and the imagery she creates with nature is astoundingly convincing. Similarly, H.D. is trying to create an image with the "Sea Rose" that reinforces the nature theme. However, in Sappho's poetry, much of her imagery and content was so florid and emotional that I found myself getting lost in the nature part of the poetry and not focusing on the metaphors she used. But I think that H.D. has solved the problem of too muchnature my making those images almost acidic in a way. She represents the beauty of a blossoming rose, but also its ability to fade and wither away. Also, H.D. takes the literal meaning of the rose and transforms it so it almost becomes a human in a way. The bad things that happen to it are things that we would think might happen in our own lives. For instance, being "marred," "lifted," or "flung" seems improbable for a rose, and more probable for a human. I think H.D.'s word connotations serve the purpose of making the reader humanize the rose in a very emotional and intimate way. This certainly seems like a progression from Sappho, whose Ancient way of writing was in effect a masterpiece, but nature was so totally offset from the human form and human emotion. I find it interesting that H.D. wrote a poem about Helen of Troy and then did such a florid poem like this to possibly imitate and expand on Sappho. Perhaps she has a fascination with the classic realm, but it seems she takes the themes of that realm and infinitely expands upon them in her own way. My only wish is that she would have done that for all Classical works, to make them entirely more interesting and relevant for young students like me.

Charles Waddell Chesnutt

In both of these pieces by Chesnutt, literacy plays an important role for the author in the way that he establishes his characters and ultimately his plot. For instance, in The Passing of Grandison, Colonel Owens makes some interesting observations about the slave Tom’s interest in reading. He says that he doesn’t think that Dick should take Tom with him on his journey to New York because “I strongly suspect him of having learned to read, though I can’t imagine how. I saw him with a newspaper the other day, and while he pretended to be looking at a woodcut, I’m almost sure he was reading the paper.” It seems that Chesnutt is making a connection between literacy and freedom in this passage that was most likely based on prevalent ideas throughout the South at this time. Frederick Douglass famously learned to read from his mistress, but when found out by the master, he was forbidden to ever pick up a piece of print again. I thought it was interesting that Chesnutt included this piece of information in a story that was about passing because it is true that often slaves who were able to learn to read were capable of forging passes that helped them to escape to freedom. Chesnutt also presents black literacy to the reader in The Wife of His Youth. In this story, Mr. Ryder, who is widely regarded as an intelligent and upstanding mulatto is an extremely avid reader, who collects Tennyson’s poetry and other famous American works. In this situation, literacy seems to highlight that Mr. Ryder is a class above the normal ex-slave, which is evidenced by the Society of the Blue Veins. This society comes across as somewhat haughty in the eyes of some blacks, and Mr. Ryder is well-respected by those within the society for his voracious literary appetite. Overall, it seems that Chesnutt’s own background in literacy has carried over into the themes of his writing, particularly his views on literacy as a motive for freedom and as a distinguished trait within the black community.

Huckleberry Finn

I was thinking today about what Menna said on Monday in class about how superstition and secular thinking were generally attributed to the African-American race around the time that Twain was writing about in Huck Finn. That statement really resonated for me when I looked back at the beginning of the work and saw that Huck and Jim's relationship was largely successful because they were both so superstitious. I also thought it was interesting how Huck and Jim are juxtaposed against Miss Watson and what this might say about religion and civility. When Miss Watson tries to turn Huck on to religion, he refuses to see the utility of prayer when he says on page 79 that he "couldn't see no advantage about it - except for the other people - so at last I reckoned I wouldn't worry about it any more, but just let it go." It seems to me that despite Miss Watson's efforts, Huck did not pick up on prayer or religion because he failed to recognize that prayer served any useful purpose for himself. On the other hand, when Jim presents his ideas about superstition to Huck, he quickly attaches to the idea because it is based on principles of individual action and personal gain or loss. For instance, when Jim warns Huck about him picking up the snake skin, Huck seems reverent towards Jim for imparting this advice on him that will be entirely useful in the future. For me, it seems like Miss Watson's attempts to convert Huck were a part of a larger effort to civilize Huck and make him a respectable piece of the whole of society. I think that Twain here is recognizing the link between religion and popular society and is somewhat satirizing the multi-functional duties of religion in the antebellum South. When you look at the overall work, I think that Twain is certainly attributing the superstitious to the African race, but he is also making important observations about how both blacks and whites manipulate the institution of religion to serve their own interests.

Dickenson's "The name - of it - is Autumn"

The first thing that struck me about this poem was its almost lyrical quality. The short stanzas coupled with the meter and the pauses in the lines lend itself to a musical interpretation. But then you look deeper, at the text of the poem and you realize that this would be a pretty disturbing song if you put it to music. After reading Civil War poetry for a couple of weeks now its evident that some of the poetry is violent (Whitman), some is observant (Horton), and some is more flowery and imaginary (Timrod). In contrast to all of those readings, I would have to say that Dickenson's sense of the Civil War is deeply embedded in the people, not the presidents or Southerners, but rather the everyday American. I say this because she uses common objects of the day and describes how they are upset in one way or another by the war. For instance, she says the war has "upset the Basin" and "It sprinkles Bonnets." I would also characterize Dickenson's elucidations about the war as pretty ominous. I think the strongest indication of this portentousness is found in her allusions to bad weather. In particular "Shower," "rain," and "Winds" conjure a sense of foreboding misfortune. Another interesting feature of this poem is its connections between the body and the war. In the first stanza Dickenson refers to "Blood," "An Artery," and "A Vein" in her observations on the war. I think that the use of these parts of the body is an implication that Dickenson is making a connection between the inner workings of the body systems and the inner workings of the soldiers and the armies. Overall, for me Dickenson's representation of the war has by far been the most resonant. The overall theme of this poem is that the war is devastating to many things, and I know that Whitman refers to that effect in the poem ''Beat! Beat! Drums!," but I feel that Dickenson presents the effects of war in a more poetic and less demanding tone. Therefore, her poem is more emotionally identifiable and has way more impact on me than any of the other poets' interpretations of the Civil War.

Whitman

I feel like the sheer dynamic way in which Whitman is portraying the Civil War in this poem is evidence that Neely's claim is valid. For me, the poem is extreme in the sense that it seems Whitman cares not what the effects of the war will be, but merely that the war should be fought in any way necessary, so long as it preserved the Union. I found the passages "Into the solemn church, and scatter the congregation" and "Make no parley-stop for no expostulation" to be the best evidence for his elevation of the entire cause (the preservation of the Union) over smaller, more unexciting things (like church and marriages). The way that Whitman seems to devalue all these institutions in light of the greater cause (the war) makes me think that he would not have been at all concerned with the Emancipation Proclamation, since it was mainly a tactic to get the North back on the winning side again. It seems that throughout the poem Whitman is advocating for the tactic of "any means to an end." Furthermore, it seems like Whitman is denouncing anything and everything that has a connotation of innocence and is upholding things that have connotations of cruelty and violence in the poem. For instance, he says things like "Mind not the timid," "Let not the child's voice be heard, " and "Mind not the old man." In light of these assertions, Whitman is consistently saying things like "rattle quicker, heavier drums - you bugles wilder blow." It seems that by denying the innocent and favoring the violent, that Whitman holds the cause of reinstituting the Union at heart, and that the more benevolent consequences of the war (i.e. abolishing slavery) are minor and insignificant details that come out of the greater cause. Overall, this poem by Whitman is more aggressive than the other two pieces we've read by Horton and Timrod. In fact, up until I read the Whitman poem, I thought the other two pieces had pretty violent portrayals of the war (now Horton seems like a casual observer of a small battle, and Timrod seems like a flowery southern sympathizer) and I think that my viewpoint changed because Whitman's piece is so much more proactive than the other pieces. While Whitman is encouraging the fervor in men to fight with their all, Timrod and Horton are taking a more descriptive and objective view toward the war. In the end, this go-getter kind of attitude makes Whitman's work more passionate and almost border-line sadistic for me.