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.