While I was able to see some sort of storyline within “Good Country People,” I was, at first, completely baffled by “The Swimmer.” It is easily the strangest short story I have read in a long time. Both stories are very vague in meaning and they both have diverse characters. Structurally, it is clear that both O’Connor and Cheever were striving for the obscure.
“The Swimmer” is very generic in the sense that its characters while all different, are all of a lazy sort of upper class. They all appear to be extremely stereotypical of snooty rich people. The exception is obviously Ned Merrill, who is both drunk and slightly loopy throughout the entire story. He has no perception of anything going on around him and seems immune to emotion or reality. His goal of swimming across the county in swimming pools is absurd to the reader, and at the end, one is left confused as he finds his house empty. Previously, someone mentioned that his house had been sold, but nothing is really confirmed or verified by the author and the reader is left wondering.
Likewise, “Good Country People” was very strange and slightly disturbing. We see this thirty some year old woman who lives a mundane and frustrating life. She changes her name, which is awkward, from Joy to Hulga, and resents her mother but has no method of escape since she is handicapped. She seems to find a “salvation” if you will in the bible salesman, whose true name is never known, but we soon discover that all he wants from her is her leg. Now read that last sentence again and tell me with a straight face that this story isn’t bizarre.
In both stories, I think the author’s intent was to portray a sense of indifference to what is actually going on. In “The Swimmer,” we see that time is passing Ned by and he doesn’t even realize it. First he starts by describing his house and daughters but by the end he comes home to a deserted house. Also, he has no perception of time, which is evidenced a few times when he says something like, “last year, or was it the year before that.”
In “Good Country People,” we see Joy /Hulga’s indifference in that she will not live her life. She is “confined” to this house and the one time she tries to get out and do something, she loses her leg. This, however, is a result of her own naiveté, and gives the idea that no matter how much education you have or how many degrees, it won’t make you wise to the world. Also, the fact that she changes her name portrays that she is trying to deny who she is as a person and who her family is. She learns the hard way to appreciate what she has before its too late, which is a message strongly emphasized by Cheever as well.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Role of Women in Their Eyes Were Watching God
In Their Eyes Were Watching God, it seemed to me that Zora Neale Hurston really hit the nail on the head with her portrayal of Janie’s life and situation. In the novel, the women were treated essentially as property. This is even true of the role Janie played in her relationship with Tea Cake, even though their marriage was based on love. This role of property was much more evident with her first two marriages. For example, with Logan, she was only useful to him as an able body to help on the farm and to run his house. He tells her at one point that, “You ain’t got no particular place. It’s wherever Ah need yuh…”, basically saying that she doesn’t have any purpose but to do as he says. When she asks what he would do if she were to leave him, he doesn’t even think that she is capable of it. However, when she starts telling him her mind, the fear that she would actually leave takes hold and he threatens to kill her. Very soon after, she leaves.
After she marries Joe Starks, I think that we began to see a different kind of possession take place. At first, she did everything he said because it seemed like he loved her and that he was very different than Logan. True, she didn’t have to do the manual hard labor such as plowing a field, but she was trapped in a marriage where she was essentially at the whim of her husband’s demands, a situation that seems common in the book. She has to do what is expected of her and soon loses her passion for life. Joe’s demands and strict control of everything she does causes her to hate him.
I think that all three men that Janie marries see her as a possession, but Tea Cake is different because it seems that he truly loves her. That does not account, however, for the incident where he hits her just to show that she is his. This seemed completely unlike his character, yet in the book it was mentioned very nonchalantly and it didn’t seem to affect Janie at all. All in all, it is evident that women are seen merely as possessions throughout the book. Also, they were seen as helpless.
After Joe died, everyone expected Janie to get married soon after to have someone to take care of her, but she was too happy with her freedom that it sounded preposterous to her. By the novel, we might expect to see Janie as a broken woman, but it’s the opposite, because she learned that life and love doesn’t have to be commanded and controlled. I think that through the book, even as we see the various possessive relationships she is in, we also see her learn and grow past letting it hurt her permanently. Hurston seems to be emphasizing the subservient role of women in most marriages, but also portraying what it’s like when women stand on their own two feet and know what it can be like to truly love someone.
After she marries Joe Starks, I think that we began to see a different kind of possession take place. At first, she did everything he said because it seemed like he loved her and that he was very different than Logan. True, she didn’t have to do the manual hard labor such as plowing a field, but she was trapped in a marriage where she was essentially at the whim of her husband’s demands, a situation that seems common in the book. She has to do what is expected of her and soon loses her passion for life. Joe’s demands and strict control of everything she does causes her to hate him.
I think that all three men that Janie marries see her as a possession, but Tea Cake is different because it seems that he truly loves her. That does not account, however, for the incident where he hits her just to show that she is his. This seemed completely unlike his character, yet in the book it was mentioned very nonchalantly and it didn’t seem to affect Janie at all. All in all, it is evident that women are seen merely as possessions throughout the book. Also, they were seen as helpless.
After Joe died, everyone expected Janie to get married soon after to have someone to take care of her, but she was too happy with her freedom that it sounded preposterous to her. By the novel, we might expect to see Janie as a broken woman, but it’s the opposite, because she learned that life and love doesn’t have to be commanded and controlled. I think that through the book, even as we see the various possessive relationships she is in, we also see her learn and grow past letting it hurt her permanently. Hurston seems to be emphasizing the subservient role of women in most marriages, but also portraying what it’s like when women stand on their own two feet and know what it can be like to truly love someone.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Moore and Stevens
This blog confused me more than the other ones, and that’s saying something. Poetry has always been a struggle for me so here goes nothing;
In comparing the poems, I chose “Anecdote of the Jar,” and “To A Snail,” both because they are short and they seem to have a remote similarity to one another. Both Moore and Stevens use random rhyming patterns throughout their poetry, rarely sticking to a form. This, along with their choice of topics, makes their poems very interesting.
Starting perhaps with “Anecdote of the Jar,” my first impression was that it seemed very simple due to the language and word choices, but it was complex in the message, or “anecdote” it was relaying. It gave a very complicated position to the jar, putting it in a place that few have put jars. Stevens uses some rhyming in the last stanza, rhyming “everywhere” with “bare,” but other than that, there is no direct rhyme structure. Also, I found the line “the wilderness rose up to it, /and sprawled around, no longer wild” to be very profound in the idea that the entire wilderness rose up to “meet” a simple jar.
Moving on to discuss “To a Snail” and to compare it with “Anecdote,” I found this poem most impressive because it also took something simple (a snail) and turned it into interesting poetry. I found that Moore tends to use certain words more than once, but it is in the context that she is almost having a conversation with her reader. It is in this that I found the biggest difference. The tone differences are quite significant with each poem. For example, Stevens’ poetry has a bit more of a formal feel to it, whereas the line structure and wording gives Moore an aesthetic comfortable feel.
In “Anecdote,” Stevens uses internal rhyming (“the jar was round upon the ground”) to give his poem a whimsy quality, although it doesn’t have the same light effect that Moore’s poem does. However, it makes the poem more interesting. I find the last three lines of “To a Snail” the most interesting. They are; “in the absence of feet, “a method of conclusions”;/ “a knowledge of principles,”/ in the curious phenomenon of your occipital horn.” This is quite different than the way Stevens ends his poem, which says, “It did not give of bird or bush,/ like nothing else in Tennessee.” He chose to use a more abstractly worded ending, whereas Moore used previously used quotations and large words to convey a sense of importance to the snail.
In comparing the poems, I chose “Anecdote of the Jar,” and “To A Snail,” both because they are short and they seem to have a remote similarity to one another. Both Moore and Stevens use random rhyming patterns throughout their poetry, rarely sticking to a form. This, along with their choice of topics, makes their poems very interesting.
Starting perhaps with “Anecdote of the Jar,” my first impression was that it seemed very simple due to the language and word choices, but it was complex in the message, or “anecdote” it was relaying. It gave a very complicated position to the jar, putting it in a place that few have put jars. Stevens uses some rhyming in the last stanza, rhyming “everywhere” with “bare,” but other than that, there is no direct rhyme structure. Also, I found the line “the wilderness rose up to it, /and sprawled around, no longer wild” to be very profound in the idea that the entire wilderness rose up to “meet” a simple jar.
Moving on to discuss “To a Snail” and to compare it with “Anecdote,” I found this poem most impressive because it also took something simple (a snail) and turned it into interesting poetry. I found that Moore tends to use certain words more than once, but it is in the context that she is almost having a conversation with her reader. It is in this that I found the biggest difference. The tone differences are quite significant with each poem. For example, Stevens’ poetry has a bit more of a formal feel to it, whereas the line structure and wording gives Moore an aesthetic comfortable feel.
In “Anecdote,” Stevens uses internal rhyming (“the jar was round upon the ground”) to give his poem a whimsy quality, although it doesn’t have the same light effect that Moore’s poem does. However, it makes the poem more interesting. I find the last three lines of “To a Snail” the most interesting. They are; “in the absence of feet, “a method of conclusions”;/ “a knowledge of principles,”/ in the curious phenomenon of your occipital horn.” This is quite different than the way Stevens ends his poem, which says, “It did not give of bird or bush,/ like nothing else in Tennessee.” He chose to use a more abstractly worded ending, whereas Moore used previously used quotations and large words to convey a sense of importance to the snail.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
T.S. Eliot and Modernism
TS Eliot writes in such a style that separates him even from other modernists. He is very vague as to his actual meaning, and “The Waste Land” is very hard to understand. There are several different parts, each discussing something different, but having the same somber quality. His tone throughout is melancholy and somewhat empty feeling. While other modernists are openly sardonic and outspoken, Eliot has a mellow tone, but there is bitterness boiling under the surface of each part.
He is like other modernists in that “The Waste Land” is a direct observation of society, but Eliot gives his view in a different way. For example, in “A Game of Chess,” he first discusses a woman who I thought was discouraged- she had a lot of wealth, but there was a man making her unhappy. Eliot then gives a scenario between two women, in which the one is telling the other to fix herself up before the husband returns or he won’t want her. Also, it seems like the woman was trying to hide something from her husband, and the other one was making her feel guilty.
Through all of “The Waste Land”, Eliot seems to be basing his ideas on the modernist concept that society has lost its sense of morality and spirituality. He discusses prostitutes, empty marriages/relationships, death, and destitution caused by a 'drought". However, almost all of his “stories” or points are described by allusions to other occurrences and situations. He uses many biblical and mythological references.
“The Fire Sermon” begins with some kind of bittersweet song, intermixing unpleasant aspects with the softer points. It then moves to the observations of a young couple by an old blind man, Tiresias. He describes how they are in an empty sexually based relationship, which is in accordance to the general theme of waning morality that Eliot employs.
Eliot’s poetry, at least in “The Waste Land”, is exceedingly hard to understand. He is clearly a modernist in that he gives a frank, somewhat blunt observation of society, but he writes it in such a way that the reader has to read it over and over in order to just get the point. He uses many allusions, and it seems that throughout the poem, the anticipation of rain is a common theme. He talks about a dry and desolate world, and leaves the reader still waiting for the coming rain when he ends the poem. I think that the rain is supposed to symbolize some sort of necessary change that Eliot believes needs to take place to transform the “dry” world. Especially in the end on page 1440, he focuses on the desolation and arid land, saying, “Her is no water but only rock/rock and no water and the sandy road…seat is dry and feet are in the sand/ if there were only water against the rock.” This seems to be his final desperate cry for help.
He is like other modernists in that “The Waste Land” is a direct observation of society, but Eliot gives his view in a different way. For example, in “A Game of Chess,” he first discusses a woman who I thought was discouraged- she had a lot of wealth, but there was a man making her unhappy. Eliot then gives a scenario between two women, in which the one is telling the other to fix herself up before the husband returns or he won’t want her. Also, it seems like the woman was trying to hide something from her husband, and the other one was making her feel guilty.
Through all of “The Waste Land”, Eliot seems to be basing his ideas on the modernist concept that society has lost its sense of morality and spirituality. He discusses prostitutes, empty marriages/relationships, death, and destitution caused by a 'drought". However, almost all of his “stories” or points are described by allusions to other occurrences and situations. He uses many biblical and mythological references.
“The Fire Sermon” begins with some kind of bittersweet song, intermixing unpleasant aspects with the softer points. It then moves to the observations of a young couple by an old blind man, Tiresias. He describes how they are in an empty sexually based relationship, which is in accordance to the general theme of waning morality that Eliot employs.
Eliot’s poetry, at least in “The Waste Land”, is exceedingly hard to understand. He is clearly a modernist in that he gives a frank, somewhat blunt observation of society, but he writes it in such a way that the reader has to read it over and over in order to just get the point. He uses many allusions, and it seems that throughout the poem, the anticipation of rain is a common theme. He talks about a dry and desolate world, and leaves the reader still waiting for the coming rain when he ends the poem. I think that the rain is supposed to symbolize some sort of necessary change that Eliot believes needs to take place to transform the “dry” world. Especially in the end on page 1440, he focuses on the desolation and arid land, saying, “Her is no water but only rock/rock and no water and the sandy road…seat is dry and feet are in the sand/ if there were only water against the rock.” This seems to be his final desperate cry for help.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Zitkala Sa
My first impression of these narrative stories was the level of innocence present through all of the observations made by the young girl. She has experienced bad things throughout her life, such as the death of family, but she still sees it as something natural and even bad. She does not yet understand the injustice or cruelty of it as her mother does. Her mother tries to explain the hate she has for the “paleface” but the girl cannot yet comprehend that kind of evil.
I believe that the essence of these stories is the focus on her innocence. She knows what it is to fear, but it is a natural fear of the unknown. For example, she fears the wild (wolves howling at night, etc.) and she also is afraid of Wiyaka-Napbina, the man that roams the fields and hills around her village. But it can be asserted that this man is also a wild part of nature that she fears. She does not have any fear of the missionaries, mostly just curiosity. It is not until she is in an alien atmosphere, having left her family that she “was as frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature.”(1019).
I think that an important theme that the narrator also wants to emphasize is the idea of respect and community. The whole village is like one family, which is evident in how they address each other. For example, when the girl goes to the teepees of the elders, they say “What do you seek, little granddaughter?”(1010) She is not their real granddaughter in the way we think, but for her, they are the elders and therefore her grandparents in light of the level of respect they deserve. Also, in the incident with the plum tree, the impression the girl gets from that significant day is what her mother told her about the tree because it emphasizes the importance of respecting the dead.
I believe that the essence of these stories is the focus on her innocence. She knows what it is to fear, but it is a natural fear of the unknown. For example, she fears the wild (wolves howling at night, etc.) and she also is afraid of Wiyaka-Napbina, the man that roams the fields and hills around her village. But it can be asserted that this man is also a wild part of nature that she fears. She does not have any fear of the missionaries, mostly just curiosity. It is not until she is in an alien atmosphere, having left her family that she “was as frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature.”(1019).
I think that an important theme that the narrator also wants to emphasize is the idea of respect and community. The whole village is like one family, which is evident in how they address each other. For example, when the girl goes to the teepees of the elders, they say “What do you seek, little granddaughter?”(1010) She is not their real granddaughter in the way we think, but for her, they are the elders and therefore her grandparents in light of the level of respect they deserve. Also, in the incident with the plum tree, the impression the girl gets from that significant day is what her mother told her about the tree because it emphasizes the importance of respecting the dead.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Washington v. Du Bois
In the writing by W.E.B Du Bois concerning Booker T. Washington’s “Atlanta Exposition Address,” Du Bois deals out his criticism of Washington’s proposed goals for African Americans following their recent emancipation. Washington uses an analogy of a struggling ship to bring his point across in his address, all in all saying that for success, they should take what they can get. He does not feel that his fellow man should over stride his boundaries in a sense of what he is and is not able to do, namely demand civil equality, gain political power, or receive a higher education.
Du Bois feels that Washington’s advice is not wise considering the repercussions, namely, “1. The disenfranchisement of the Negro. 2. The legal creation of a distinct status of civil inferiority for the Negro. 3. The steady withdrawal of aid from institutions of higher training of the Negro.” Du Bois is saying that since Washington encouraged former slaves to avoid things such as politics and pursuing more civil liberties, they have suffered inequality as a result, which is another kind of bondage.
Essentially, the main conflict lies in where both men feel the direction of change must go. Du Bois is supportive of a more direct approach, including not submitting to racial expectancies. He feels that “Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission.” He also relays his opinion in stating, “We have no right to sit silently by while the inevitable seeds are sown for a harvest of disaster to our children, black and white.” In saying this, Du Bois is expressing his conviction that it is reprehensible to sit idly and place limits on change and reform.
Du Bois feels that Washington’s advice is not wise considering the repercussions, namely, “1. The disenfranchisement of the Negro. 2. The legal creation of a distinct status of civil inferiority for the Negro. 3. The steady withdrawal of aid from institutions of higher training of the Negro.” Du Bois is saying that since Washington encouraged former slaves to avoid things such as politics and pursuing more civil liberties, they have suffered inequality as a result, which is another kind of bondage.
Essentially, the main conflict lies in where both men feel the direction of change must go. Du Bois is supportive of a more direct approach, including not submitting to racial expectancies. He feels that “Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission.” He also relays his opinion in stating, “We have no right to sit silently by while the inevitable seeds are sown for a harvest of disaster to our children, black and white.” In saying this, Du Bois is expressing his conviction that it is reprehensible to sit idly and place limits on change and reform.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Regional Story
It was a beautiful summer morning and 7 year old Emily’s family decided to take a walk in the woods behind their house. Her dad wanted to show them a bald eagle’s nest that he had seen while checking the property in the spring. Her little sister Lizzy was very excited and almost ran out the door without her boots on. It had rained a few days before, but hopefully the hot July sun had dried up most of the mud. The dogs somehow knew they were going in the woods and began jumping up and down by the back door. Emily’s mom could hardly get Charlie, their little spaniel, to sit still long enough to put his harness on. Toby, their lab, didn’t need a leash, and he was already running in excited circles around the yard. Emily’s dad called him over, and they set off towards the opening of the path into the woods.
Lizzy ran ahead and her mom called to her to watch for prickers that sometimes grew over the path. The path was shaded by old maple and oak trees, so it was nice and cool as they headed further along. Charlie started barking excitedly after hearing a rustle in the bushes and Toby ran over to investigate. All of a sudden, a big gray rabbit shot out and Toby looked at Emily’s dad as if asking whether or not he could chase it. Emily’s dad called him back and Toby gave the rabbit a farewell bark.
They came to the corn field and started across, picking their way through the rows of loose soil. The farmer had planted this field last year, and all that remained this summer were the dead stumps of the husks. As they crossed the woods and went onto the old railroad tracks, Emily heard a small yelp to her right. She looked over to the edge of the path and saw three fox kits sticking their heads out of their den. Excitedly, Emily pointed them out to Lizzy, who's eyes grew wide with excitement. They crossed the bridge over the little stream and the girls layed for a while peering over the edge at the frogs and tadpoles in the water.
As they began to get nearer to the big pond, Emily’s dad picked up Lizzy and motioned for them to be quiet. There was a big pile of sticks lying at the bottom of a pine tree. He had Emily’s mom hold Toby by the collar and told the girls to stay by their mom. He went closer to investigate, being careful to look around for the parent eagles. He heard a desperate chirping come from within the pile of sticks, and considered the best option. It seemed that the nest had fallen out of the tree somehow, and the parents were nowhere to be seen.
They returned to the house and Emily’s dad looked up the number for his friend that worked for the Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge. He talked to him for a few minutes and when he hung up the phone, Emily asked him what they were going to do. Although the eagles are no longer endangered, they are still on the watch list, so her dad said they had to wait for his friend and his team to get there and remove them. They arrived later that day and Emily and her dad went back to the woods with them to show them the spot. The team told them that if they hadn’t found the baby eaglets when they did, they wouldn’t have made it much longer. It seemed the parent eagles had left because there was nothing they could do for their babies. As the rangers carried the box with the eaglets away, Emily whispered a goodbye.
A few months later, Emily and her dad went to the conservation facility in the swamps to visit the rescued baby eagles. Emily asked her dad why they were brown and didn’t look like bald eagles, and her dad told her they wouldn’t get their adult feathers until later. The ranger in charge of the eaglets came over and thanked Emily and her father for helping them out, and told Emily to come back and visit anytime. He told her that the world needed more girls like her, and gave her a "Junior Ranger" sticker. Emily had never felt so proud.
Lizzy ran ahead and her mom called to her to watch for prickers that sometimes grew over the path. The path was shaded by old maple and oak trees, so it was nice and cool as they headed further along. Charlie started barking excitedly after hearing a rustle in the bushes and Toby ran over to investigate. All of a sudden, a big gray rabbit shot out and Toby looked at Emily’s dad as if asking whether or not he could chase it. Emily’s dad called him back and Toby gave the rabbit a farewell bark.
They came to the corn field and started across, picking their way through the rows of loose soil. The farmer had planted this field last year, and all that remained this summer were the dead stumps of the husks. As they crossed the woods and went onto the old railroad tracks, Emily heard a small yelp to her right. She looked over to the edge of the path and saw three fox kits sticking their heads out of their den. Excitedly, Emily pointed them out to Lizzy, who's eyes grew wide with excitement. They crossed the bridge over the little stream and the girls layed for a while peering over the edge at the frogs and tadpoles in the water.
As they began to get nearer to the big pond, Emily’s dad picked up Lizzy and motioned for them to be quiet. There was a big pile of sticks lying at the bottom of a pine tree. He had Emily’s mom hold Toby by the collar and told the girls to stay by their mom. He went closer to investigate, being careful to look around for the parent eagles. He heard a desperate chirping come from within the pile of sticks, and considered the best option. It seemed that the nest had fallen out of the tree somehow, and the parents were nowhere to be seen.
They returned to the house and Emily’s dad looked up the number for his friend that worked for the Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge. He talked to him for a few minutes and when he hung up the phone, Emily asked him what they were going to do. Although the eagles are no longer endangered, they are still on the watch list, so her dad said they had to wait for his friend and his team to get there and remove them. They arrived later that day and Emily and her dad went back to the woods with them to show them the spot. The team told them that if they hadn’t found the baby eaglets when they did, they wouldn’t have made it much longer. It seemed the parent eagles had left because there was nothing they could do for their babies. As the rangers carried the box with the eaglets away, Emily whispered a goodbye.
A few months later, Emily and her dad went to the conservation facility in the swamps to visit the rescued baby eagles. Emily asked her dad why they were brown and didn’t look like bald eagles, and her dad told her they wouldn’t get their adult feathers until later. The ranger in charge of the eaglets came over and thanked Emily and her father for helping them out, and told Emily to come back and visit anytime. He told her that the world needed more girls like her, and gave her a "Junior Ranger" sticker. Emily had never felt so proud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)