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.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, March 2, 2007
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! 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.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)