Cheever and O'Conner

The two stories had very interesting structures to them. “The Swimmer” was very unique for two reasons. The first of which was the narration. It was 3^rd person but was odd because it seemed to be set up as stream of conscious (which is usually only possible in 1^st person). The second way it was interesting was how it deconstructed slowly over time. I always enjoy stories that seem happy and joyful but as they develop deconstruct themselves to slowly make it apparent that the joyfulness is the product of some malady. I also enjoy when a story slowly deconstructs the conscious world only to expose that it is a false world and that the real world is much more raw and bleak. I really enjoyed how this exposure swelled throughout. At first there were just some small hints that something was not right but they were easily disregardable. As time went on they seemed more noticeable and seemed more important until eventually by the end they are terminal, so to speak, within the story (I know that word technically doesn’t apply but they are key in the fate of the story). By the end you felt so bad for Neddy and relate so well with him because you (the reader) have slowly came to uncover the harsh reality at the same pace as him and have now suffered this discovery with him. For these reasons I enjoyed this story more and even though it skewed the lines of reality I found it to be an easier read then “Good Country People.” I didn’t really enjoy “Good Country People” very much because I got often confused in the beginning of it. This left me a bit detached from the story and a little cynical of it for the rest of the story however I did enjoy it more as it simplified its characters. The story was interesting how it was narrated in the 3^rd person mostly yet it took two separate views on the same story; first from Mrs. Hopewell and then the rest of the story that was not yet told was picked up by Hulga. This story was similar to “The Swimmer” in that it had a very surprising ending but with little hints placed along the way. I felt like it was making a lot of great points about society and people and intelligence but most of the time I couldn’t tell what they were, I could only acknowledge that they were accurate examples. The only point that seemed to be strong was that generalizations aren’t always accurate, they are just what they say “general.”

The Primitive Nature of Relationships

In the story, Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston, it seemed Hurston was implying a great deal of sexual discord at that time. She seemed to imply that men treated women much like dogs act or animals in general. There is a great battle for dominance. The struggle for who holds the dominant role can be ruthless and once these roles are set they can often maintained as they would in nature. In my life I have had quite a few dogs and I have noticed that once dominance is achieved that the subordinate one will seem to find comfort in their position. Janie displays examples of this struggle throughout the entire story. In chapter four, her first marriage to Logan Killicks was an interesting example of lacking dominance. She wasn’t interested and dominance was not established early on so she went freely. He tried to establish dominance later on and failed because of it. She left and there was nothing he could do about it at that point because it was too late. There was no control. In chapters 5 to 8, Joe Starks also tried to take control over her. He was different in that he started from the beginning with it but was too forceful with his dominance. Dominance comes with proving your stature without instilling hatred into subordinate. He violated this line. For this reason she never ran away from him but also was not compliant with him. Who did accomplish this relationship correctly was Tea Cake. He loved her and wanted her to live a happy life. He gave her many freedoms but at the same time would occasionally hit her to show that he was still in charge when she challenged his power (I don’t agree with this method by any means I’m merely stating what it is.) He proved his dominance while still making her happy and for this reason she was comfortable with him. Proof that this relationship worked could be seen in situations of asking for aid. With Logan he forced Janie to work and she often refused or fought it. With Joe he was also too forceful and very insulting. He exceeded proving his dominance and often put her down causing her to fight back and therefore that relationship failed as well. Her relationship with Tea Cake shows proof of success in that she offers to help him without his asking because she wants to help him for pure reasons. It is an interesting way to set up a relationship with them because there is a struggle for dominance but with splitting their roles they do not take anything away from one another. I guess what I found is that at this time the relationships between men and women were very primitive or instinctual rather. What is so interesting though is how it seems like it was the beginning of when relationships like this were starting to fade out. Throughout all of the history of nature a female always seeks out the best mate who offers the most or appeals with the most extravagance to her (or at least as Darwin theorized). At this point though she seems like she is starting to look for something other then what nature would typically imply but is in a world where that sense still stands.

Wallace Stevens and Marianne Moore

What I noticed about both Stevens and Moore is that they seem to jump around a lot. Sometimes they have real solid rhythms and real solid rhymes but other times they seem to just go free verse. It’s a bit hard to get use to. One paragraph will be very floaty and rhyme very well and then the next is just incredibly hard to read. It could be that there is some rhyme scheme going on that I just cant get unless someone else read it but most of the time reading it I couldn’t find any or the rhyme was just obvious. I’m not very familiar with rhyme so that could a big part of it. I am by far a novice with the terms as well.
One that I did notice is that there was a great deal of alliteration in Wallace’s poems even though it often didn’t seem to add to the flow at all. "The Idea of Order at Key West" by Wallace Stevens had a great deal of rhyming plays in it. In line 13 Stevens uses a weird version of what I guess you could consider alliteration. It says “The grinding water and the gasping wind.” I found this so odd because it is just repeating the first letter of two words in a row later in the same sentence. Its almost like the end of the sentence is a mirrored image of the beginning. I do not know much about the background of Stevens but I would not be surprised if I came to find out he was not well respected by many for his poetry because a lot of sentences seem like they are cheating with rhyme schemes. An example of this is in line 6 when it says “Made constant cry, caused constantly a cry.” He repeats words as a rhyme. I always thought using the same word to make something rhyme was kind of the cardinal sin in poetry or music but he does it without any fear. One other thing I noticed he does is he often changes where the rhyming word in a sentence is.
Moore does a lot of the same things. In “Nevertheless” there is a rhyme scheme that goes on through out the whole poem but it feels offset when words repeat. The poem goes in sets of three lines where the last word of the second line and the third line rhyme. The repetition of a word in the sentence does not occur in all of them but it does throw you off when it does. An example is in lines 22 to 24 where it says “to me unless I go/ to it; a grape-tendril/ ties knots in knots till.” The words tendril and till are the words that rhyme and knot is the word that repeats. The next paragraph as well does this with under and stir being the rhyming words and gone is the repeating word.

The Waste Land....ummmm....uhhhhh....yeaaaaa....

Upon reading this I initially thought “Wow this isn’t that bad. I’m enjoying this and I get what he is saying.” However, before I got to chapter II I realized I was wrong and soon began to hate how confusing it would get. It may have been because my brain is a bit fried due to mid-terms but I would read entire chapters and made no sense of them. In regards to ways he is different from other modernists is that I found he doesn’t say things straight forward. The modernists’ movement seemed like there was a pretty universal understanding that a message should be presented without all the extra verbal foliage. Everything was either a metaphor or an allusion or both. These were used by other modernists but their poetry never depended on it like this did. Also one thing I noticed about this that I hadn’t seen before was that it was like a mobius strip. It tended to loop back over the same stuff and end where it began but it was always changing as well. I enjoyed that form.

Ways in which it embodied modernism was that it still struggles with where humanity is going and that whole depersonalization. Another way is that he conveys feelings and thoughts without simply explaining them. The modernists tended to go for the feelings and thoughts that can’t be explained only conveyed by examples and literary devices. He gave a real sense of detachment. An example of how he conveys something you can’t simply describe is the entirety of chapter II. He puts you in the moment and there is soooo much tension going on between him and the woman. He made it seem like he was being hunted or stalked in some way. He was the pray and she was the hunter. It can be described but you can never fully understand it unless you are put there in that situation. He does that very well. I’m not sure what else to say about it. I’ve pretty much read through it twice so far and I feel like I would need to have a conversation about it and analyze it with other people before I could understand it any better. If this isn’t in depth enough then after next class I think I could revise this and could go much more in depth. At this point though I’m stuck.

Washington vs. Du Bois

I apologize if some of my knowledge is from stuff other then what is precisely in the text. This has been a main focus in every American history class since middle school so my outside knowledge is a little difficult to ignore for this. One of the first things I noticed when reading The Atlanta Exposition Address is the angle by which Washington approaches this task. On page 762 when Washington says “To those of the white race who look to the incoming of those of foreign birth and strange tongue and habits for the prosperity of the South, were I permitted I would repeat what I say to my own race, ‘Cast down your bucket where you are.’ Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know…” it seems he is bribing the whites into aiding the blacks in work with the fact that they won’t have to deal with learning to understand a new culture with foreign labor because the blacks have already adjusted. In that section and the following lines he really pulls on the hearts of the whites. His description of the connection they have over the years is very intense. I think those few lines could be the foundation for most dramatic scenes in literature, television, movies, soap operas, episodes of Oprah, etc. Washington does share some ideas with Du Bois, an example of this is when Washington says “let these efforts be turned into stimulating, encouraging, and making him the most useful and intelligent citizen.”(762) Where they seem to differ from what I got was that Du Boise was more interested in making a few much more successful then many a little bit more successful. I am against this however I do like how Du Bois was more for political action and more unforgiving. They each seem to have their advantage to their side. Washington understands the concept of small steps; this society wasn’t made in a day and won’t be changed in a day. The advantage of Du Bois is that he is very active and shows no signs of giving up. He’s a mover and shaker. He seems to be the kind of guy who you briefly mention an idea to in light conversation and the next day he comes back with full written plans, all the paperwork and supplies, and a readiness to kill anyone/thing that could possibly inhibit his ability to achieve this goal. However, each seems to be a little bit too much with their side. Washington is a little too much of a push-over and Du Bois is trying to fix the problem with out any room for adjustment or easing into. I know that I’m adding in a bit more then what the reading implies because I am making Du Bois sound rather ruthless when in fact he was a bit merciful to Washington in the reading and I am basing a lot of this off the accomplishments of Du Bois such as his part in creating the NAACP and as well basing it off of his ideas of The Talented Tenth. However, I feel even with this mercy to Washington you can get a sense of his aggravation boiling over from underneath his skin. Much like in a cartoon when a character yields to a request against their will and replies with an overly-proper abdication through clinching teeth, you can hear the emotion seeping through when he says “In his failure to realize and impress this last point, Mr. Washington is especially to be criticized. His doctrine has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro’s shoulders and stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators.” I apologize I made that a bit too wordy but I feel that was the way I could most accurately describe the severity of the statement. So anyway all-in-all with the readings Washington was more for preparing the black community for a struggle and asking them to work hard while also pleaing for the whites to have a bit of tolerance and understanding. Du Bois seemed to be unexcepting of giving an inch because he felt that asking for help from a society which has no history of help or understanding was only going to result in stagnation in the movement and progress of black rights. Oh one last thing sorry about being a few hours late. I had a lot of work for other classes and in all the confusion I was thinking this was just due before class and not at 8 PM. I was made even more late by the fact that for some reason it would not allow me to log into my account and after reseting my username AND password through google i finally was able to fix all problems and post this. If you take points off for being late I understand I just hope you still accept it.

Henry James and Edith Wharton

Well, to begin with I felt most of the time while reading "The Art of Fiction" as though I was listening to a friend who is describing something that he mentioned when I wasn’t paying attention. James seemed most of the time like he was getting at a point and developed it so much in his head that when he put it on paper her didn’t pay much attention to the extent of explaining the basis of his ideas. I’m not criticizing him for doing so because I do this most of the time myself but it did make it rather difficult to follow for me. This is what I got from it although I’m almost positive my view is skewed from his direction. There are multiple points about fiction which he is making. The first of which is that it is being overly critiqued. The second is that the writers are being too apologetic over their work instead of being proud. The apologies coming from writers, that he describes, seem to as though the writers feel this enormous pressure on them. As though a massive eye is on them peering over their shoulders as they write. They seem to feel as though there are rules to what they write and their apologies are the result of them needing to bend these rules. He also seems to feel that authors are experiencing a pressure to owe some debt to history. It was as though most authors are afraid of being mistaken or being crucified for someone finding something they say and turning it against them. A common example of this is the situation “You look pretty today.” “So what are you saying I don’t look pretty every day?” While reading his essay I pictured a tormented writer sitting at a desk, hunched over a marked piece of paper with sweat dripping off of him, in a panic attack over the way his words are used and running through all possible results of the words he writes like a move in chess. The problem with all this is that IT’S FICTION! It’s an art form and should be studied with great focus but it should not be held under a critical light for the statements it makes but rather the effect it has on the reader. Art should hold no boundaries. It’s the effect on the reader that is what makes a piece of art great or not great. This is seen when he says “Literature should be either instructive or amazing.”(556) I think I agree with him on this one. It’s much like a good relationship. The two things that make a great relationship in my view, and probably James’ view as well, is that each member gains something from it; or in other words grows as a person (smarter, stronger, more stable, better directed, etc.), or they should just be having fun enjoying the time they spend with the person. A relationship shouldn’t be based on being similar or because in the eyes of everyone else it is correct (in every sense of the word.) However I will admit these things can help aid to make it work well but it’s not required of it. Historical reference and solid rhyme structures don’t make a great poem but can defiantly help augment it to make it good. I know that was an odd analogy and I apologize but I’m trying to make sense of this concept without mere word for word description. So anyway, he seems to feel that critics should not make rules about what an author can do within their work. I agree that an artist is the sum of all their experiences in life thus far and also agree however that they can write what they want to write about for the simple fact that it is fiction. The idea of fiction is to create your own world or rather make a new one. Fiction can also create a world that is a distorted version of the real world because you have a perception of the real world and therefore it is on your pallet and able to be used.

Now the connection to "Souls Belated.” First off I want to say, Wharton really seemed to be breaking convention and setting an effect on the reader with the way the story was presented which made me love it. Lydia seems to be the protagonist and would seem to be just in her pursuit but seems to be suggested as being wrong by the way the narrator speaks. Generally you take the side of the narrator with all stories and often the protagonist and the narration seems to put a small bit of guilt and pressure on Lydia. In returning to the connections though the story is slightly reflecting of Wharton’s life. She involves a world based in intricate social analysis of the person whom she’s speaking with and the people around her. The complex social world of Lydia is a part of her own and shows through vibrantly. As well showing through is her unavoidable history and experience of trouble and drama with love situations. However, she breaks her own reality in the content of the story as well in the ending by creating a happy ending; whish also coincides with James article. Perhaps though she wrote the story this way in fulfillment of her real life failure. We enjoy happy endings because they are comforting to us. It is comforting to know everything will be alright. She may have been seeking a comfortable resolution to her situation from life. These are examples of how she let her personal experiences bleed through but was still able to use experiences outside of her own personal past.