There Was a Queen

Faulker's short story about the decline of a southern Sartoris family is interesting for several reasons. Faulkner goes to good lengths to describe how the Sartoris house came to be full of women and two male children. As a result, the story's only characters of substance are women. Furthermore, the women have a good amount of voice in the story, as opposed to simply being puppets of a third person narrator. The story is third person, however, the narrator does not take extraordinary license when telling the reader what the women think. The narrator allows for much of the womens thoughts to be shared by the women themselves as opposed to constantly saying, "Elnora thought X or Miss Jenny's mind told her Y". The family's decline could certainly have been told from the male perspective and had all the female characters be the ones who had died or gone to jail. Choosing this point of view could stem from a sense of Faulkner perhaps wanting to make women heard in a way. His biography stated that he was committed to changing or at least addressing the racism in America. Thus, it is possible that he felt at least somewhat sympathetic to women's place in society.

In going along with this idea, it is also worth noting that Faulkner gives Elnora, a half black woman, alot to say in the story. Elnora speaks her mind to Miss Jenny when she tells her flat out that Narcissa "wont never be a Sartoris woman". This is a little striking to hear from Elnora because of her place in the household. This statement makes it seem like Elnora has a strong belief in what is means to be a Sartoris and that she takes it seriously. It is a little shocking to say the least that she would care about such a thing because it does not seem like she serves any other function in the household other than a maid/cook. She seems to think her opinion will be valued by Miss Jenny but it clearly is not as Miss Jenny tells her not to say things like that. Elnora also seems to almost contradict her previous satement when she answers Miss Jenny's question about whether or not she thinks Bory missed Narcissa while she was gone. She replies, "Aint no Sartoris man never missed nobody". She could have simply said no, but she made it a point to reference again what it means to be a Sartoris. In this case, it is not a good criticism she is making and subsequently not a reason to be proud of being a Sartoris. Thus, why she would put down Narcissa for not being much of a Sartoris and then essentially put down Bory for being a typical Sartoris is slightly perplexing.

William Carlos Williams

In "Portrait of a Lady", William Carlos Wililiams presents what at first seems to be a a poem seeking to describe an unidentified woman. However, by the third line Williams has made it clear the poem takes the form of a conversation of sorts. By not having any information that precedes the start of the poem, the most likely identity of the other person in the conversation is indeed the woman Williams seeks to describe. Although, Mordecai Marcus makes a good point that it could very well be an imaginary conversation taking place in the head of the author. Were this the case, the slightly stream of conciousness feel that the poem has would make more sense. I say that it has a stream of conciousness feel because right after Williams answers the first question of, "Which sky?", he goes off on an random tangent that brings into the character of the painter Fragonard. Also, when the woman (either real or imagined) asks, "Which shore?", Williams replies, "the sand clings to my lips" and when pressed again for his answer, "Agh, petals maybe. How should I know?" These statements taken together do suggest the author to be writing in a slight stream of concious manner and could serve as further evidence that the conversation is taking place in the author's head as opposed to real life.

Also worth noting about the poem, is the fact that the woman even presses for the specific sky and shore which the author say describe her. Had the author directly compared her to a painging for example, it would make sense to ask which painting they meant. However, the fact that the author has these be the types of questions asked could point to his own attention to detail or his own need for specificity, even though his ability to answer the questions is not quite perfect.

Huck Finn

Over the course of the novel, Huckleberry Finn raises many issues with racism and slavery. While this commentary goes on, what is a little striking is the fact that it takes SO much for Huck to eventually come to any kind of newfound stance on Jim/slavery. That is to say, there are certain things in the novel that Huck is very quick to question such as "sivilization" and religion when brought up by Miss Watson and Widow Douglas. With these topics, Huck is rather a bit more curious and more into asking "why" type questions. However, when it comes to Jim and slaves, Huck acts to a large degree like a typical white or Southern person. He does not question the institution of slavery or racism. It is not until he has his many adventures over the course of the novel that he begins to reevaluate his position on Jim and even still, it is very likely that Huck views Jim as an exception to the rule; one black person who seems nice and deserves to be free.

The arguement could be made that slavery was very much a norm and way of life and that as a Southerner, Huck would not likely question it unless he had a real reason to. That being said, the "sivilization" Huck rails against and his slight disdain for religion do not necessarily fit into categories of things to question when juxtaposed with slavery. Many basic religious conceps (such as prayer) and base ideas of what being civilized means (clean clothes, schooling) are arguably more a way of life than slavery ever was. Thus, why Huck would choose to question these things and not slavery is not exactly crystal clear.

Also, why Twain takes this approach to Huck's pseudo change of heart and subsequent addressing of the novel's major theme is not entirely clear. It is very obvious that Twain is asserting that slavery and racism are very much misguided. However, you have to wonder why Twain has Huck blatantly question things that are either minor themes (religion for example) or not of any real importance and not have a second thought about racism/slavery until he begins his adventures. What is more, even at the conclusion of the novel, it is not likely that Huck has undergone a rather significant change as I mentioned before. It seems more a change for the moment; one that could be reversed if Huck went through another contrasting set of adventures.

Emily Dickinson, wow....

The most obvious thing that stands out about both poems is the style Dickinson employs. Both, at first read, do not seem to make a great deal of stylistic sense but several readings make some of Dickinson's stlyistic choices more clear. In "Revolution is the Pod", one thing that I immediately noticed was the seemingly random word capitalization. However, it seems more likely that Dickinson deliberately capitalized these words because she wanted them to stand out as opposed to wanting to just be different from other poets. The overall message of the poem seems to be that revolution is a good thing and as far as the Civil War goes, it is not completely clear wether she supports the South's revolution or more of abolitionish revolution. The words she chooses to capitalize, "Revolution", "Pod", "Liberty", etc... are evidence that she wants the reader to focus on these words and I thnk help the reader along with getting to Dickinson's central message. The last stanza almost sounds like a challenge from Dickinson to those whom revolution seeks to affect. Specifically, the last two lines make it sound like the author is saying that revolution tests wether people are truly serious about what they believe in, because things can get stagnant and their passion can wain over time.

The other poem has a similar rhyme scheme and meter to "Revolution is the Pod" but it is stylistically different because it makes heavy use of dashes, which is an interesting choice by Dickinson. The dashes appear to mark places of longer than normal pause more than simply substituting for a comma or period. When reading the poem with steady, longer pauses, it almost sounds like a chant to a certain degree. The poem itself seems to have a somewhat somber tone which is to be expected due to the fact that it is describing blood spilling and raining down on people. When taken together, the poems offer seemingly conflicting views if considering the Civil War. On the one hand, "Revolution is the Pod" suggests that revolution can be a good thing. However, "The name--of it--is Autumn" gives depressing imagery of blood forming pools and forming "sprinkling Bonnets". The latter certainly would not be considered pro war so it is not completely clear what Dickinson's view of the Civil War really is.

Whitman vs Neely

When it comes to Neely's statement, I dont think that it is actually clear one way or the other whether Whitman favors the Union or if he is advocation the abolitionist cause.
"Beat! Beat! Drum!" in my opinion is meant to be so ambiguous because I think that Whitman himself didn't quite know how to feel about the Civil War. So, to say that he did not care one way or the other about the fight for freedom is a little harsh a criticism from Neely in my estimation. Perhaps Neely interpreted (in this poem anyway) the drums to represent a nationalist sentiment as opposed to one of freedom.

When comparing "Beat! Beat! Drum!" to the poems by Horton and Timrod, what stands out most clearly is the fact that Whitman does not pick a side, nor does he address the nature of war itself. Both Horton and Timrod make it clear in their poems that they either have a clear side that they are on (Timrod) or that they wish to critque the nature of war itself (Horton). Whitman's poem when set next to Horton's and Timrod's works seems a little empty in a way. I say empty because Whitman does not give the reader anything to think about in the way that Horton and Timrod do. The language of Whitman's poem is not very complex or overly intriguing, nor is the subject matter. Horton and Timrod at least make use of staunch imagery and metaphor in a way that entreats the reader to look more deeply into their poems.

"Beat! Beat! Drums!

After reading ""Beat! Beat! Drums!" the first time it seemed as though Whitman was literally talking about drums but further reading made me think that he was using the drums as a metaphor for something bigger. Given that the piece is Civil War related, the drums may symbolize freedom. He writes that the drums should beat and the bugle blow "into the solemn church....into the school..." and "over teh traffic of cities....over the rumble of wheels in the streets..." If it is freedom he is talking about then this seems an appropriate metaphor. It brings to mind Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech where he said to let freedom ring over various places. If interpreted this way, Whitman is saying that freedom should penetrate everything, everywhere, and everyone. It should trump everything and should be so loud as to "let not the child's voice be heard, nor the mother's entreaties...".

It is not perfectly clear that Whitman's drums do indeed symbolize freedom. The fervor or intensity that the poem has for the drums could also represent Whitman's strong feelings about the Civil War. It would be an assumption that Whiman would be pro Union based on the fact that he grew up and spent alot of time in the North. But that being said, it is interesting also that the poem does not necessarily seem to take a stance on war itself. It appears to simply say that whatever the drums do symbolize, possibly freedom, should be an overwhelming force in people's daily lives and activites and also that this symbol is something that is so powerful that people cannot resist it or turn away from it.

Benito Cereno

While reading Benito Cereno, I found it interesting that the author thought it so necessary to imbellish the good nature and character of Captain Delano. All throughout the novel the reader is met with comments from the narrrator about how nice Delano is and how unsuspecting a person he is because his charitable nature always gives people the benefit of the doubt. This is almost to the point of propaganda at times because Melville litterally goes on for pages it seems about the almost saint-like nature of Delano. What is interesting about this is why Melville does it. It's understandable that the author would want to make the hero of the story a very likable charachter. Melville would surely not want a character readers cannot sympathize with or have disdain for to happen to do a good thing. But the frequency and directness of the lauding of Delano's "excellent" character go beyond simply making him more affable to readers. It seems that Melville has a more than normal interest in making Delano appear to be such a "good" person.

Young Goodman Brown

In his short story, "Young Goodman Brown", Hawthorne introduces the reader to an interesting and persistent double entendre. Goodman Brown has a wife that is named Faith and given the religious context of the story this is a very interesting and clearly deliberate choice for a person's name. What makes this choice interesting is that it is not always clear which meaning of "Faith" the author wishes to assert. When the word/name is first used, it is on the first page when Goodman Brown states, "My love and my Faith, of all the nights in the year, this one night must I tarry away from thee." At first it would seem as though clearly Goodman Brown is merely referring to his wife, but after reading the story in its entirety, this sentence can be interpreted as "Faith" meaning to have faith and also as foreshadowing. As foreshadowing, it is clear that by the story's end, Goodman Brown has very clearly lost his "Faith" as he becomes fairly reclusive and very on edge around the townspeople. He no longer takes the sermons or religious piousness of others seriously and is skeptical of his wife, Faith.

Throughout the story, there are several more occasions where Hawthorne has Goodman Brown bring up "Faith" and it is an open interpretation as to wether it is the name or the word that the reader should take as the true meaning. Also, where the author could have had Goodman Brown say "my wife", he always had him use his wife's name. Furthermore, in the statements that Goodman Brown makes regarding "Faith", the context is nearly always ambiguous. For example, shortly after leaving his companion in the woods Goodman Brown begins to pray while looking up at the sky. He proceeds to say, "My Faith is gone! There is no good on earth; and sin is but a name." Hawthorne would possibly have the reader believe that Goodman Brown was referring to his wife, given that in the previous paragraph the narrator states that a pink ribbon (which the wife wears) has fallen into Goodman Brown's hand. However, the context of the aforementioned sentence could be taken either to mean that his wife was gone, or his actual faith was gone.

The Group

One thing that was particularly perplexing when reading "The Group" was the part where Sylla, Simple Sapling, Publican, and Hateall start talking about their wives. Sylla is asking whether or not the men have "no wife who asks thy tender care, To guard her from Belona's hardy sons..." This seemed all little odd for a few reasons. First, this play is largely satire. Satires normally have good reason for every bit of dialogue they have, as far as poking fun at the characters or situation. Having the men digress into a conversation about their wives, with most having nothing good to say about them at all, seems a bit out of place when taken into context with the entire play.

Another reason this section stands out is because the author of the play is a woman. It is not uncommon for members of a group to disparage their own in order to make a point. For example, a black author using racial slurs in his work in order to make a point about racism. However, it does not seem clear why Warren introduces this conversation about women into the play. Perhaps it is in order to make these men look worse than they already do as Tories, by pointing out that none seem to care a great deal about their wives.

Ben Franklin Autobiography part 2

While reading part 2 of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, I became curious as to why he chose to include the two letters at the beginning, and more specifically why he included the Benjamin Vaughan letter. The letter seemed to have no other purpose then to glorify and pay homage to Benjamin Franklin. Vaughan's letter wrote about how Franklin needed to write an autobiography because of "the chance which your life will give for the forming of future great men..." and that "the wisest man will receive lights and improve his progress, by seeing detailed the conduct of another wise man..." These types of comments are very, very complimentary things that are being said about Franklin and it seems as though the letter was possibly used as a way for Franklin to "blow his own horn" if you will, without directly talking about how great he may think himself to be.

In an effort to sort of make it seem like he is really just doing a favor and kindly writing an autobiography as suggested by the letters, Franklin states that "I have been too busy till now to think of complying with the request they contain..." I hardly think that it took alot of convincing for a man like Franklin, who clearly has a passion for composition, to write his autobiography. With that said, I really think that Franklin siezed these letters (Vaughan's in particular) as a chance to really help convince people how smart and amzazing he is. Franklin was a very intelligent man and he was cunning enough to realize he could introduce his "greatness" into his autobiograpy as someone else's opinion and not his own, thus still maintaining his apperance as a very modest man.