This story is set in Massachusetts in the times when Puritans were the main religious view of the state (at the time, colony). The story is mainly about a woman who had an affair of sorts that ended up bringing about the birth of a child, but she won't say who the child is. Her punishment? She has to wear a scarlet letter (the letter wear) and stand for hours on some sort of scaffolding in front of one of the main buildings for the city to see her.
Why do they punish her in this way? After all, some of the people made the comment that they should kill her, as per usual punishment for such an act. Although this story does kind of seem written a sort of extreme style to kind of show the wrongness of how some extreme puritans or extreme religions may act in Hawthorne's mind, why this punishment?
Maybe it's to show that they can be merciful. Maybe it's to make her an example. Maybe it's so that they can show how without God, people make mistakes and amount to failures and sinners. Maybe it's to have her confess her sins so that God can restore her soul. Either way, I don't know if that's the point of this part of the story. Although it is clearly what's going on, I think Nathaniel Hawthorne is writing this part of the story to make a different point.
I believe that point is simply, "certain crimes are punished at a level undeserving of the crime (whether too much or too little).
Thursday, April 7, 2016
James Fenimore Cooper - The Last of the Mohicans
We only read a portion of the story titled "The Last of the Mohicans." Basically, this story seems to follow a character known as Hawk-Eye. Hawk-Eye seems to be a man who is of European descent but has kind of adapted some of the ways of the Native Americans.
In this particular part of the story, the white man (Hawk-Eye) is having a conversation with a Native American, a Mohican named Chingachgook. They seem to be discussing what happened in the past and how things came to be about today. It also seems to be a conversation that is peaceful and shows the white man gaining "prestige" and "rapport" with the native.
They continue discussing for a little while and the white man makes a point that "things are what they are based on how you look at them." Really, I believe this story is meant to show that whites and natives can work together and be friends or friendlies with one another. They don't have to be at each other's throats or mean to each other as they had been up to the point this story was written (even after this story was written).
That makes this story to be one with political intentions behind it. At the same time, though, it is a work of fiction. It is a work of fiction that is American Fiction. It hits close to home with the Americans and probably had some effect on some people back then. All in all, it was refreshing to read some fiction.
In this particular part of the story, the white man (Hawk-Eye) is having a conversation with a Native American, a Mohican named Chingachgook. They seem to be discussing what happened in the past and how things came to be about today. It also seems to be a conversation that is peaceful and shows the white man gaining "prestige" and "rapport" with the native.
They continue discussing for a little while and the white man makes a point that "things are what they are based on how you look at them." Really, I believe this story is meant to show that whites and natives can work together and be friends or friendlies with one another. They don't have to be at each other's throats or mean to each other as they had been up to the point this story was written (even after this story was written).
That makes this story to be one with political intentions behind it. At the same time, though, it is a work of fiction. It is a work of fiction that is American Fiction. It hits close to home with the Americans and probably had some effect on some people back then. All in all, it was refreshing to read some fiction.
Henry David Thoreau - Walden Ch. 1
Throughout this chapter of the writing named Walden, he says that we need to be as much a part of nature as we can. He puts forward his belief that it is better for us to get out and experience life for ourselves than for anything else to happen in our lives.
He shows the economy works better for us if we don't go to college by showing that he was able to build a cottage in the woods at Lake Walden for the same price that it costs to rent a dorm room that's a little smaller at a university per year. This is kind of his way of saying that universities should not be where we go to learn and to live. We should be getting out in nature and living life and learning things from our experiences.
The last major point of his I want to talk about is the point that "these things are more easily acquired than got rid of." He's basically saying that material things can be gotten extremely easily if you get out and work for them yourselves. Once you get them, though, it is difficult to get rid of them because you feel some sort of connection or pride with it. Or maybe it's just too hard to get rid of because not everyone needs it. Either way, this chapter's underlying tone is that you should do things for yourself instead of getting them done for you.
Henry David Thoreau - Resistance to Civil Government
Henry David Thoreau loved nature just as much, if not more than Ralph Waldo Emerson. He was also against government for the most part. He seems to wish that there was no form of government, although he does admit it can't happen right away.
At the very least he wants government to become less involved in the daily lives of the people. He states right from the beginning that he heartily accepts the saying: "That government is best which governs not at all."
He says that will be the government we will have when man is ready for it. I believe man will probably never be ready for it. Man will probably never be ready for it because it's not in our nature. For as long as man has existed, they have had a leader (or a government) of some kind. Whether that leader/government was God or a person or persons, it has always existed in some way. It's a fun thought to think about, though.
A lot of his ideas can be heard by Presidential Candidates today.
At the very least he wants government to become less involved in the daily lives of the people. He states right from the beginning that he heartily accepts the saying: "That government is best which governs not at all."
He says that will be the government we will have when man is ready for it. I believe man will probably never be ready for it. Man will probably never be ready for it because it's not in our nature. For as long as man has existed, they have had a leader (or a government) of some kind. Whether that leader/government was God or a person or persons, it has always existed in some way. It's a fun thought to think about, though.
A lot of his ideas can be heard by Presidential Candidates today.
Ralph Waldo Emerson - The American Scholar
Ralph Waldo Emerson challenges society. He challenges both the society of his day and the society of our day. What do we classify or identify ourselves as? Is our identity found in what we do? He believes it shouldn't be. He believes we should be Man Thinking, not just thinking about what we are told to think about.
We should be thinking for ourselves, asking questions and finding answers for ourselves. We shouldn't just take everything we're told at face value. We should dig deeper and learn things from our own experiences.
One of the biggest/most well known statements from this speech is "Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst."
Books have a use and are good to an extent. We should not, however just believe everything we read, he's saying. We need to take the books we are given and challenge them to see if they hold up to be true. If we find that they don't, then we need to rewrite them. He even makes a point that each generation has it's new writers who make new books. They are no use, though, if they just reiterate and say the exact same thing as what's been stated for generations upon generations, unless they still are true. We just need to be learning for ourselves.
We should be thinking for ourselves, asking questions and finding answers for ourselves. We shouldn't just take everything we're told at face value. We should dig deeper and learn things from our own experiences.
One of the biggest/most well known statements from this speech is "Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst."
Books have a use and are good to an extent. We should not, however just believe everything we read, he's saying. We need to take the books we are given and challenge them to see if they hold up to be true. If we find that they don't, then we need to rewrite them. He even makes a point that each generation has it's new writers who make new books. They are no use, though, if they just reiterate and say the exact same thing as what's been stated for generations upon generations, unless they still are true. We just need to be learning for ourselves.
Ralph Waldo Emerson - Nature
Ralph Waldo Emerson is a guy who had a lot of ideas. He was a philosopher, maybe a believer, and a lover of nature. He was a Transcendentalist.
Let's look at his lecture/writing entitle "Nature." I really want to focus on his eyeball analogy though.
He says "...all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball. I am nothing. I see all. The currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God."
All mean egotism vanishes. I believe he's saying something along the lines of "nature is so large, we are just one part of the larger picture." Next, he says "I become a transparent eye-ball." The transparent eye-ball means that he believes that being in nature, truly in and a part of nature, means that you are entirely open and transparent with nature (which includes with people).
The "I am nothing" part may refer to the idea that nothing we do will ultimately change nature (in the sense Ralph Waldo Emerson talks about it). "I see all" may refer to the idea that: if you are truly being a part of nature, you will be able to see the big picture of what's going on, not just what's happening in your immediate surroundings.
Now we are getting to the main part I want to talk about. "The currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God." This may sound like he's saying he is God to some people. You see, I don't believe that at all. I believe he is referring to the fact that we are made in God's image. We are made in God's image. God made everything. We are a part of God's creation. That's what I believe he is referring to with this.
Another thing I believe he's referring to with this statement is that no matter what we do, the outcome of nature will be the same in the end. But, by nature, I think he could be talking about the ultimate end of the world as we know it. I mean this as God's plan will come to pass whether we want it to or not. Whether we believe in Him or not, His plan will come to pass.
Let's look at his lecture/writing entitle "Nature." I really want to focus on his eyeball analogy though.
He says "...all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball. I am nothing. I see all. The currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God."
All mean egotism vanishes. I believe he's saying something along the lines of "nature is so large, we are just one part of the larger picture." Next, he says "I become a transparent eye-ball." The transparent eye-ball means that he believes that being in nature, truly in and a part of nature, means that you are entirely open and transparent with nature (which includes with people).
The "I am nothing" part may refer to the idea that nothing we do will ultimately change nature (in the sense Ralph Waldo Emerson talks about it). "I see all" may refer to the idea that: if you are truly being a part of nature, you will be able to see the big picture of what's going on, not just what's happening in your immediate surroundings.
Now we are getting to the main part I want to talk about. "The currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God." This may sound like he's saying he is God to some people. You see, I don't believe that at all. I believe he is referring to the fact that we are made in God's image. We are made in God's image. God made everything. We are a part of God's creation. That's what I believe he is referring to with this.
Another thing I believe he's referring to with this statement is that no matter what we do, the outcome of nature will be the same in the end. But, by nature, I think he could be talking about the ultimate end of the world as we know it. I mean this as God's plan will come to pass whether we want it to or not. Whether we believe in Him or not, His plan will come to pass.
Washington Irving - Rip Van Winkle
I both like and dislike this story. I like this story because the character of Rip Van Winkle is an interesting being. I like this story because it is a fictional story (finally, some work of fiction). I like this story because of the fact it used an actual folk tale some Dutch Americans said at the time and made a whole story out of it. I like this story because it used actual events (the Revolutionary War) as a background detail in the story.
I dislike this story because I feel it takes too long to get to the good stuff. The good stuff I think is everything after Rip leaves to go up into hills/mountains with his dog. It has too much exposition before the main events of the story start happening. This could be because of my own personal tastes. This could be because that's how I've been trained to think since a lot of movies have major events all throughout with background info sprinkled here and there throughout the story. I could be wrong. Maybe this style worked and was super intriguing back in the day. Maybe a lot of people still like this style. That's their prerogative.
Intro to 1820-1865
So... I have to start off with an apology. The past 4 weeks have been pretty busy for me, whether with work, school, or personal matters. Part of it was due to my preparing to propose (which I did on April 4th and she said yes!). Part of it is I forgot one or two of the weeks. The other parts I can't/won't go into. So now I am paying for it with the fact that I have to knock out 8 blog posts over the course of the next 2 days and 4 responses to someone else's blog posts in my class. This should be fun.
Now for the good stuff. The American Renaissance. That is the common name for this time period. It's not fully accurate to some people, but we'll just go with it. During this time period, it is considered that American Literature truly became a uniquely identifiable thing. American authors started to gain some notoriety, if only a little bit at the time of their lives.
Transcendentalism and romanticism became central ideas for a lot of the writings of the time. We finally started getting fiction stories being written in the United States. Imaginations could start to run wild. The fiction, I believe, made it easier for a lot of authors to get their personal opinions across to their readers (as opposed to just straight up saying their ideas).
I do want to address the fact that some don't appreciate the period being called an American Renaissance since they don't think it's a rebirth as it is just forming. I believe that calling it an American Renaissance is a perfect description of the period. It is a rebirthing because they are remaking their literature image so that it isn't like the stuff of England or the rest of Europe. They are being reborn in the sense that they are writing as Americans and not as Europeans who happened to move to the Americas or Europeans who were born in the American colonies.
Now for the good stuff. The American Renaissance. That is the common name for this time period. It's not fully accurate to some people, but we'll just go with it. During this time period, it is considered that American Literature truly became a uniquely identifiable thing. American authors started to gain some notoriety, if only a little bit at the time of their lives.
Transcendentalism and romanticism became central ideas for a lot of the writings of the time. We finally started getting fiction stories being written in the United States. Imaginations could start to run wild. The fiction, I believe, made it easier for a lot of authors to get their personal opinions across to their readers (as opposed to just straight up saying their ideas).
I do want to address the fact that some don't appreciate the period being called an American Renaissance since they don't think it's a rebirth as it is just forming. I believe that calling it an American Renaissance is a perfect description of the period. It is a rebirthing because they are remaking their literature image so that it isn't like the stuff of England or the rest of Europe. They are being reborn in the sense that they are writing as Americans and not as Europeans who happened to move to the Americas or Europeans who were born in the American colonies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)