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.