Davis vs. Melville: a look into the future?

         
     Out of all the authors that we have read so far, Melville’s Tartarus of Maids is the most similar to Davis’ Life in the Iron-Mills.  Both of them are very alike in that they portray the real and horrific working conditions that they witnessed during their lives.  Yet like the book says, even the Tartarus of Maids “falls short of the grim picture of living and working conditions [Davis] paints” (1824).  However, even with the many similarities between their works, Davis’ work struck me as being much different than Melville’s because of her happy ending.

     Yes, Davis paints a very bleak and depressing picture of life in the iron-mills, but she also attempts to show that there is more than that: that there is still hope for change.  Her ending, while it isn’t exactly “happily ever after,” presents an optimistic view of the future.  Even the statue, with its “mad, half-despairing” look (1834), is presented as being a symbol of hope:

 

"While the room is yet steeped in heavy shadow, a cool, gray light suddenly touches [the statue's] head like a blessing hand, and its groping arm points through the broken cloud to the far East, where, in the flickering, nebulous crimson, God has set the promise of the Dawn" (1849).
 


     While Davis ends her story looking towards the future and the possibility of a better life, Melville only ends with a lamentation, exclaiming “Oh! Paradise of Bachelors! and oh! Tartarus of Maids!” (Melville). Melville’s story presents the idea that the horrors of industrialization are due to greed. The end of the Tartarus of Maids implies that the narrator will continue to use that particular paper mill because it is cheaper, and thus the seeming hopelessness of the situation is left unsolved and nothing changes.

     Both Davis and Melville show the horrors of the working conditions of the time, but while Davis remained optimistic about the future, Melville obviously did not seem to think that the conditions were going to improve any time soon.  They are both excellent writers, but being the fairy-tale fan that I am, I much prefer Davis’ work.        

Works Cited

Melville, Herman. The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tartarus of Maids.  Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library.  Retrieved from Blackboard, ICC.  7 December 2012.

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature. 12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston. McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

Views on death: Dickinson vs. The Puritans

    

     I decided to compare Dickinson to the Puritans because their ideas on death and the afterlife provide an interesting contrast.  Dickinson’s ideas on an afterlife vary throughout her poetry, and her approach to death is very casual.  She accepts it as a fact of life and often presents it in a very lighthearted or even ironic way.  The Puritans, on the other hand, treated death more seriously and viewed it as the final barrier keeping them from God.  For them, death was nothing to be feared, because after death they would be with God in complete happiness.  Anne Bradstreet expressed that view in her poetry, asking that: “The world no longer let me love, / My hope and treasure lies above” (107).      

     In contrast, Dickinson’s poetry varied as to what sort of afterlife there would be, and it treated death very casually.  Much of her poetry suggests a belief in an afterlife, but the sort of afterlife that would be changed from poem to poem.  In one of her poems she states that “I never spoke with God / Nor visited in Heaven- / Yet certain am I of the spot / As if the Checks were given” (1969).  Her view in this poem, and in others like it, suggests a belief in a Christian idea of heaven.  However, other poems of hers detail a much more vague interpretation of the afterlife, like how she talks about death as a real person in poem #712, and spends “Centuries” with him.  She also talks about death rather ironically in that poem, saying that:

 “Because I could not stop for Death-
He kindly stopped for me-
The Carriage held but just Ourselves-
And Immortality.

We slowly drove-He knew no haste
And I had put away
My labor and my leisure too,
For His Civility-” (1966).

 

     Dickinson obviously believed in some sort of afterlife, but she didn’t seem altogether sure of what it would be like, and her light way of talking about death seems to reflect that.  Even though the Puritans would probably not agree, I think her poetry is very cool, and I appreciate her lighthearted approach.

 

Works Cited

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature. 12th ed.
     Vol. 1. Boston. McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

    

Dickinson as Emerson's poet

    According to Emerson, one of the most crucial aspects of a good poet - and of good poetry - is the way it flows.  In his mind, the best words and images are wasted on a poem in which the form makes it sound stilted.  He felt that any form, even free verse, was totally acceptable as long as it helped to create the intended impact of the poem.  Whitman is more commonly seen as "Emerson's Poet", but I think that Dickinson's work also embodies Emerson's ideas on what makes a poet.

"For it is not meters, but a meter-making argument that makes a poem, - a thought so passionate and alive that like the spirit of a plant or an animal it has an architecture of its own, and adorns nature with a new thing.  The thought and the form are equal in the order of time, but in the order of genesis the thought is prior to the form" (1364).

     Dickinson definitely wrote that way, setting aside the contemporary styles of structure, meter, and rhyme in order to bring out a greater effect from the few words and short phrases that she uses.  Instead of focusing on making it rhyme or making sure that the meter stays the same, she only uses what serves her purpose and is not afraid to disregard it when it gets in her way.  Because of that, her poems have a unique power to them, since the reader is not distracted by the rhymes or continuous meter of the poem.  They are even required to concentrate harder on her poems than on many other poets' works, because of the short phrases and cut off lines.  In this, her style serves her very well, focusing the reader's attention on the words, and drawing them in to see the meaning behind the poem rather than just looking at the written form.


"I died for Beauty-but was scarce
Adjusted to the Tomb
When One who died for Truth, was lain
In an adjoining Room-

He questioned softly 'Why I failed'?
'For Beauty', I replied-
'And I-for Truth-Themself Are One-
We Brethren, are', He said-

And so, as Kinsmen, met a Night-
we talked between the Rooms-
Until the Moss had reached our lips-
And covered up-our names-" (1960).

     I don't think that Dickinson was trying to be Emerson's poet like Whitman was, but her style of poetry is, in many ways, similar to what Emerson was looking for.  For her, the thought was more important than the form, and that is what Emerson wanted.  He wanted poetry in which the idea is not overshadowed by unnecessary rhymes and meters, and Dickinson definitely provided that.  

Works Cited

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins.  The American Tradition in Literature.  12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston.  McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.



    

Whitman and Emerson

     Walt Whitman reminded me a lot of Ralph Waldo Emerson.  While I don't know whether or not Emerson would necessarily approve of Whitman, there is a great deal of similarity between them.  Whitman really seems to embody Emerson's idea of seeing things differently, while at the same time bringing his own unique style to the idea.

     Emerson focuses a lot on the eye, and teaches the importance of being able to look at nature and really see it the way it is.  He wants people to absorb nature, instead of just looking at it and passing by.  He wants nature to evoke emotion, to create a feeling inside of a person that is inexpressable by words.  It is this kind of response that he talks about in Nature, saying that "The waving of the boughs in the storm, is new to me and old.  It takes me by surprise, and yet it is not unknown.  Its effect is like that of a higher thought or a better emotion coming over me, when I deemed I was thinking justly or doing right" (pg. 1284).

     

     Whitman follows Emerson's ideas, using very strong imagery and language to evoke a strong response from the reader: to get them to see things in an unusual or new light.  His work is totally unique in the way that it talks about familiar objects, and yet manages to portray them in such a way that it feels as if you are learning about it for the first time.  

          "Houses and rooms are full of perfumes, the shelves are crowded with perfumes,

          I breathe the fragrance myself and know it and like it,

          The distillation would intoxicate me also, but I shall not let it" (1873).

     What is a bit different between the two of them is the subject focus.  Emerson concentrates totally on nature, seeing it as the key to greater self-awareness and appreciation of the surroundings.  In contrast, Whitman focuses on people, implying that it is through his self-awareness that he is able to fully appreciate the beauty of nature and of other people around him.  He states that, "I exist as I am, that is enough/. . . One world is aware and by far the largest to me, and that is myself" (pg. 1885-1886).

     It is always fascinating to see different interpretations of an artist's work, and even though Whitman did follow Emerson's basic idea, it was interesting to see Whitman's views come through in his work and really make it his own.  

Works Cited

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins.  The American Tradition in Literature.  12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston.  McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

Douglass vs. Jacobs

     

Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs were both escaped slaves who were encouraged to write down their stories to promote the abolitionist movement.  Both of their narratives showed the horrors that they had witnessed and experienced, and yet the stories are as different as they are alike.


     Frederick Douglass is still well renowned for his writings on his experiences in slavery, and he is by far the best writer - in terms of technique - of the slave authors we have read so far.  His style of writing and usage of language is extremely elegant, as much so or more than any educated person at the time.

     However, his story lacks the emotional depth of Harriet Jacobs.  Even though his writings portray the horrors of slavery very strongly, he retains a more factual approach to his narrative.  Douglass' style of writing seems to distance itself from the readers, remaining composed even while he describes the atrocities he witnessed.  He tells what happened, but he rarely, if ever, mentions the emotions that he felt when it happened. 

"he rushed at me with the fierceness of a tiger, tore off my clothes, and lashed me till he had worn out his switches, cutting me so savagely as to leave the marks visible for a long time after" (1773).

      Jacobs, on the other hand, uses a style of writing that is much more personal.  Although it is well written, it does not have the technical precision of Douglass' writing.  She writes much more freely, relying more on the story itself than on the writing.  She seems to speak directly to readers, telling not only what happened, but also showing the emotional impact it had on her.

"How long those hours seemed, and how fervently I prayed that God would not forsake me in this hour of utmost need!  I was about to risk every thing on the throw of a die; and if I failed, O what would become of me and my poor children?  They would be made to suffer for my fault" (1740).

      Although both of their narratives are extremely moving, Jacobs' narrative is much more emotionally powerful.  Of the two writers, Douglass is unquestionably better known, but if I had to choose between the two, I would have chosen to read Jacobs.

Works Cited

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins.  The American Tradition in Literature.  12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston.  McGraw-Hill, 2009.  Print.

Jacobs vs. Equiano

           Even though Olaudah Equiano and Harriet Jacobs were both slaves, their narratives are different in many ways.  While Equiano's story is still very emotional, the physical pain and torture that he went through can't compare with the sexual abuse that Jacobs had to endure for years.  Both of their stories are heartbreaking, but Jacobs' is more so, both because of what she went through and because she had no way to get out of it.  Unlike Equiano, Jacobs was unable to earn her freedom, and she was not even allowed to be bought by someone else.   

  

 

       

          The tone of the narratives is also a main difference.  Equiano's narrative comes across with the satisfaction of a self-made man.  His tone is one of triumph; he made it through all the challenges that he had to face, and he was successful in the end.  His story, in a way, details not so much the horrors of slavery as it does his own victory.

"the crew used to watch us very closely who were not chained down to the decks, lest we should     leap into the water; and I have seen some of these poor African prisoners most severely cut for attempting to do to, and hourly whipped for not eating.  This indeed was often the case with myself" (393).

 

          On the other hand, Jacobs' narrative comes across from a mother's viewpoint.  Jacobs details the horrors that she experienced and her fight to finally get away, but instead of portraying it as her own personal triumph, she credits her children as giving her the strength to succeed.  For "nothing less than the freedom of my children" (1740), Jacobs attempts what she could never do before: she runs away.  Thus her final triumph is not only her own, but also her whole family's.  

          Jacobs and Equiano were both skilled writers, and both of their stories are one of unimaginable horror, heartbreak, and finally, success.  However, I think that Jacobs' narrative is more powerful.  The ideas that Jacobs embodies - her love for her children, her strength, and her determination - appeal to the heart in a way that Equiano never could.     

Works Cited 
Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins.  The American Tradition in Literature.  12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston.  McGraw-Hill, 2009.  Print.

Equiano and Rowlandson: Captivity Narratives

            Equiano's writing reminded me in many ways of Mary Rowlandson's captivity narrative.  Not only is the subject matter pretty much the same, but they also write with the same style.  Some of the main characteristics of their writing style are that their works are both mainly descriptive and they talk about the facts without relying a lot on emotion.  Their own emotions can be seen throughout their works, but what makes their writing so powerful is not their own emotions, but the emotions that their vivid imagery and detailed descriptions evoke in the reader.  The almost dispassionate tone that they use only strengthens the reader's own reaction to the horrors that they describe.

 

           

          One example of this is shown in Equiano's description of the slave ship that he was on, where he talks about the horrible conditions that the slaves were kept in, saying that "[t]he stench of the hold while we were on the coast was so intolerably loathsome that it was dangerous to remain there for any time . . . [t]he closeness of the place and the heat of the climate, added to the number in the ship, which was so crowded that each had scarcely room to turn himself, almost suffocated us" (pg 394).  However, instead of focusing on his own horror at seeing this, he distances himself from the situation and merely describes it in a way that allows the readers to feel the horror of it for themselves.

          Rowlandson also uses this same style to narrate her own experiences in captivity.  When she talks about the attack of the Indians, she doesn't even mention her own reaction, but instead describes the attack in great detail and leaves the emotional response up to her readers.  She states everything very calmly, like when she describes how "[a]nother their was who running along was shot and wounded, and fell down; he begged of them his life, promising them Money (as they told me) but they would not hearken to him but knockt him in head, and stript him naked, and split open his Bowels" (pg 119).  

          Instead of detracting from their works, the straightforward and dispassionate way in which Rowlandson and Equiano relate their experiences actually increases the emotional impact of their stories, and that is because the details and imagery that they used in their narratives were specifically meant to create an emotional response in their reader.

                       

Works Cited

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature.
      12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston. McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

Red Jacket and Tecumseh

 

            For me, one of the most interesting similarities between Red Jacket and Tecumseh's speeches was that they both focused on the fact that white men were not the original inhabitants of America.  They gave their speeches for different reasons - Red Jacket protesting the introduction of Christianity and Tecumseh arguing for war against the "white people" - but they both support their argument by pointing out that this land was originally theirs.

            They both give a narrative of the Americans (relatively short) history in the new world, pointing out the horrible conditions that the Americans first faced when they arrived here and clearly implying that this land was, and still is, not theirs.  Tecumseh states that "[w]hen the white men first set foot on our grounds, they were hungry; they had no place on which to spread their blankets, or to kindle their fires" (pg 516).  His referral to "our" grounds and his portrayal of the help that the Americans needed from the Native Americans just to survive shows that he still viewed the Americans as trespassers on what was their land.

            Even though Red Jacket tried to maintain a more ambivalent tone towards the Americans on the whole, his speech shows the same feelings that Tecumseh's does.  He also narrated the Americans history, talking of the "evil day" in which the white people arrived in America.  Like Tecumseh, he refers to America in terms of "our" land, but he goes even farther, saying that the Americans "fled from their own country" (pg 514).  This statement was his way of drawing a clear line between the two countries, implying that the Americans already have a home country, and emphasizing the fact that they are guests in this new country, which is the Native Americans home.

            Red Jacket and Tecumseh's speeches were given to different audiences, for different reasons, so it was really interesting to me to see that their views were so similar when talking about the Americans history and rights in the new world.        

Works Cited

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature.   
        12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston. McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

The Federalist Papers

           Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, of the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties, respectively, are both well renowned historical figures who are best remembered for their writings: in Jefferson's case, the Declaration of Independence - in Hamilton's, the Federalist Papers.  Even today, their opposite viewpoints on government provide the basis of our own political parties' viewpoints.

 
    

          Jefferson's view on the role of government was extremely similar to the modern Republican viewpoint.  He saw government as needing to have a laissez-faire approach, stating that "a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement" (pg. 381).  He believed that as long as government provided the freedom and opportunity in which to grow, the people would be able to pretty much govern themselves.

 

          On the other hand, Hamilton's ideas of government were what we would now term Democratic, as he believed that government should play more of an active role instead of just providing a few basic protections.  In The Federalist Papers, Hamilton wrote that "the vigour of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people, than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government" (pg. 409).  He felt that a strong, more involved government was the only way to protect the people and insure freedom.

          The one thing that these two political enemies had in common was that they both wanted what they thought was best for the people.  They had no other working constitutional governments that they could use as a role model for their own.  This was still in many ways the "American Experiment."  They both wanted this to work, and realized that it would not if the government failed them.  I think their differences can be best summed by a quote that I found online: "Hamilton feared anarchy and thought in terms of order; Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom" ("Hamilton vs. Jefferson").  

Works Cited

"Hamilton vs. Jefferson."  United States History.  Country Studies.  Federal
     Research Division of the Library of Congress.  Online book.  Accessed October 4, 
     2012. 

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins.  The American Tradition in Literature.   
     12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston.  McGraw-Hill, 2009.  Print.

Crevecoeur vs. Knight

 

St. Jean de Crevecoeur

Sarah Kemble Knight

 

         
           Writing almost 50 years before the accredited start of the abolitionist movement, St. Jean de Crevecoeur is perhaps one of the earliest writers to argue in defense of the slaves.  His passionate argument for emancipation and belief in racial equality greatly contrasts him with the obvious disgust and inferiority with which Sarah Kemble Knight viewed the slaves.

            In Knight's journal, she talked about her journey through Connecticut, and she outlined a few examples of "too great familiarity" between the white slave owners and their slaves.  One of her stories, about a farmer that was ordered to pay some money to his slave in recompense for a broken promise, subtly illustrates her disapproval of it.  More overtly, she expresses her disapproval of their "Indulgent" habits of "permitting [the slaves] to sit at Table and eat with them" (195).  Her belief in the inferiority of the slaves is perhaps best shown by her expression of horror that "into the dish goes the black hoof as freely as the white hand" (195).

            In complete contrast to that, Crevecoeur is not afraid to express his abhorrence of slavery, and goes so far as to state that "I hope the time draws near when [the slaves] will be all emancipated" (231).  He argues against the unfounded belief that slavery is right simply because it has always been around, and cites the slaves similar emotions as reasons for proving them equal to their white counterparts, saying that "those hearts in which such noble dispositions can grow, are then like ours, they are susceptible of every generous sentiment, of every useful motive of action" (232).  

            Most importantly, Crevecoeur views the slaves as human, as a people equal to his own instead of as a subservient race.  In the end, the main difference between him and Knight is not whether slavery is actually right, but whether the slaves are capable of being more than that, of whether they are naturally inferior or equal.       

Works Cited

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins.  The American Tradition in Literature.  12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston.  McGraw-Hill, 2009.  Print.