American Literature II

In class when we discussed The Revolt of Mother, the question was raised as to whether or not Sarah could be considered a feminist character. Several members of our class, including myself, did not consider Sarah to be a feminist character, because of her dedication to her traditional gender role as homemaker. In fact, the genre of regionalism seemed to merely be a nostalgic glorification of old traditions. Nevertheless, after discussing it in class, I realized that Sarah had many feminist characteristics, as she did challenge the patriarchal hierarchy, even if it was within her traditional gender role. This prompted me to think about feminism and how sometimes our modern perspective of feminism can compromise the way we view female characters in earlier literature. This is because conventional wisdom has it that feminism is the strong advocacy of female empowerment, and we very much associate it with modern American feminist movements, like the movement led by Gloria Steinham in the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, by focusing on our modern notion of feminism, it becomes easy to overlook earlier instances of feminism, which seem to be more subtle than today’s. In the early twentieth century novel The Custom of the Country, there are instances in which we see women being highly restricted by the customs of their society. In the letter Mrs Fairford writes to Mrs Spragg, for example, she requests Mrs Spragg’s permission to ‘allow’ her daughter to attend dinner, as girls need their mother’s permission to do anything until they get married, and then that responsibility is passed down to the girl’s husband. Although this tradition adopted by high-society has elements that are evidently sexist, Undine and Mrs Heeny respond to this aspect of the letter in an empowering fashion.

Undine was brooding over the note. ‘It is written to mother – Mrs Abner E Spragg – I never saw anything so funny! “Will you allow your daughter to dine with me?” Allow! Is Mrs Fariford peculiar?’

‘No – you are,’ said Mrs Heeny bluntly. ‘Don’t you know it’s the thing in the best society to pretend that girls can’t do anything without their mother’s permission? You just remember that, Undine. You mustn’t accept invitations from gentlemen without you say you’ve got to ask your mother first.’ (Wharton 7)

In Undine making this comment, she is acknowledging the absurdity of this aspect of her traditional gender role. This comment blatantly conveys a sense of independence and female empowerment embedded in Undine and although she eventually abides by this sexist tradition, she is only doing to advance herself. As Ms. Heeny commented, a girl has to ‘pretend’ that she isn’t independent and that she can’t do anything on her own. The word ‘pretend’ here has important implications for the way we look at feminism and how it applies to this novel. In the first part of the novel, Undine’s obsession with finding a high-status husband may seem to go against the principles of feminism, nevertheless, Undine’s determination to reach the pinnacle of high-society is quite bold, unlike the meekness attributed to conventional notions of women. Similarly to Sarah in The Revolt of Mother, Undine does not rebel against the patriarchal hierarchy of her society, but instead, uses her beauty, wit, and diabolical ways to advance herself within her conventional gender role. Thus, like Sarah, we can also consider Undine to be a feminist. Undine’s determination to obtain the best husband reads as an early twentieth century way of achieving female independence and empowerment, as marrying into the pinnacle of society will buy that for her.

I love how unsettling The Blue Hotel was. I didn’t care for any of the characters at all and wouldn’t like to meet any of them, but I was invested in what was happening to them. The Swede was the only man who behaved erratically and in ways you wouldn’t predict, even though he seemed so desperate to fit in. The rest of the characters all fit Western character archetypes of sketchy businessmen, aggressive cowboy, and useless intellectual. The Swede didn’t fit any expected role and caused tension between the men, because none of them were willing to break their own character and reach out to understand him.

Each scenario could have been deescalated so easily, but no one was willing to try. Johnnie cheated at the game and refuses to admit it. The cowboy is swayed by his own violent tendencies, and encourages the fighting. The Easterner knew he could diffuse the fight, but doesn’t say anything to discourage them. If they never fought, the Swede would never have left the hotel. When the Swede is murdered at the end of the story, the Easterner decides they’re all to blame for his death. I keep thinking about the ending, and what would have happened if the Swede wasn’t so paranoid. Would he have just eventually encountered more violence anyway?

Great Blue Heron (source linked)

I like when authors describe western landscapes because they’re usually so idealized, but I enjoyed Crane’s dismal description of Nebraska too. In particular, I liked how he compared the hotel to a blue heron, because they’re majestic but also ridiculous.

ATTENTION THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS REGARDING BLACK PANTHER!

With that being said, while reading “The Souls of Black Folk”, I couldn’t help but compare it to conflict that appears in Marvel’s new film. It genuinely feels that Ryan Coogler, “Black Panther”‘s director, could see history repeating itself in the black community when he saw the storyline of this comic character and chose to make it the focal point of the movie for the same reason that Du Bois wrote out his points.

Brooker T. Washington argued that black people simply had to keep their head down and deal with white oppression for the time being while improving on themselves and believed that this notion would win the respect of their oppressors and allow them into a more accepted role in society. Du Bois’ negation of this claim is so strong that he goes as far as calling those who follow Washington’s ideals a “cult.” Du Bois’ knew that there was no gaining respect from the whites during early 20th century America and that to obtain the social mobility and success that blacks deserved, their race would have to find the means to do so themselves.

Now comes the spoilers.

In Marvel’s “Black Panther”, audiences are found with a modern day version of this conflict. The nation of Wakanda, although incredibly wealthy in their vibranium resources and next-age technology, has lived in isolation from all other African nations and tribes and held to obligation to help out their surroundings nations when colonizers entered and disrupted the stability of the land. One character, Killmonger, pushes the nation out of it’s confined way of living and threatens to use all of their advanced weaponry to arm all oppressed black people so that they may rule the world. T’Challa, the hero of the movie and king of Wakanda, opposes Killmonger with the knowledge that although Wakanda has let their neighboring nations down by only protecting themselves, Wakanda still must find a way to bring protect itself before placing itself in harms way for the sake of other countries with the same background. Unlike the disputes between Killmonger and T’Challa, Washington and Du Bois formed separate parties within their communities and were both concrete in the doctrines that they proposed. Killmonger and T’Challa were both more fluid with their viewpoints and the end result of that was a resolution that combined both ideals.

I think that Ryan Coogler knew what he was dong in putting this kind of conflict within such a staple movie in this day and age, the same way that I feel that both Du Bois and Washington knew what and who they were speaking to in their time when their points were made.

I really enjoyed these short stories. I especially liked them because they tell the stories of two women who were strong – and, in a sense, pioneers: making their lives their own in rural New England without the help of their male counterparts. Freeman challenged the traditional roles of women in America in the late 1800s in a way that was still within reach of women in this time period (I assume so, at least).

Between the two stories, I liked “The Revolt of ‘Mother’” better. Sarah’s “rebellion” was exciting to read about: I loved the way she took matters into her own hand when her husband wasn’t around, and stood her ground when he came back. She knew what was best for her family, and fought for it – I loved her spirit.

I’m including “Don’t Save Me” by HAIM in this post – a song that I was reminded of while reading “A New England Nun.” The song is about a woman reminding a man that she doesn’t need him – which is something I really loved about Louisa’s story. While I wouldn’t want to hang out with Louisa (I don’t love lettuce the way she does), I was rooting for her. I appreciated her kindness and the way that she was so content in the simple life that she led. Although she was standoffish by society’s standards, she was passionate about the things that were close to her, and held herself to a high standard, ultimately doing what was best for her.

Ms. Dickinson is a very darn interesting young woman in the best way possible. She experiments with different types of topics in her works such as death, love, sex and of course nature. One of her best qualities which she portrays through her writing is her vivid choice of words to describe her subject. For example, in her poem “I like a look of Agony” she uses words such as sham, convulsion, simulate, throe, glaze, beads and strung to have her readers create an anxiety provoking image of despair. She compares the pains of childbirth to those of a dying person and their last uttmost breaths. This is seen through the sweat beading up on their forehead which is actually quite unattractive, but then again who really cares how the fuck you look when youre dying. Sort of reminds me of a saying my mother once told me, “depending on the actions you lived your life by, death will soon reciprocate those same actions”. I also love how Dickinson strategically places dashes either in the middle or end of her lines to depict when and how time is going by as we read the poem. Her mysterious nature is shown throughout her works which captivates me even more and actually empowers me to step out of my own comfort zone and explore the outside world of creative writing.

Huckleberry Finn is a book where racist sentiments are intentionally displayed. The narrator, Huck, even shows shades of racism. However, the book itself is not racist. This can be seen through the moments of hypocritical and paradoxical humor in the narrative, as satire is used to convey Twain’s opposition to racism. Satire is often used as a part of social commentary, and often is accomplished through the use of irony.

There’s blatant irony in Chapter 14, when Huck’s freaking out when he realizes the implications of helping Jim be free, when Huck goes, “Thinks I, this is what comes of my not thinking.  Here was this nigger, which I had as good as helped to run away, coming right out flat-footed and saying he would steal his children—children that belonged to a man I didn’t even know; a man that hadn’t ever done me no harm.” The irony is heavy particularly at the end of the quote. The phrasing of “steal his children […] that belonged to a man I didn’t even know” depicts Jim as though he’s in the wrong, stealing something he has no claim on, and depicts the slave owner as a victim who does have the claim on the children. Jim’s children don’t belong to Jim, but to the slave owner. The sympathy Huck expresses for this slave owner is comedic because of its absurdity. It goes on further on to say how Huck “was sorry to hear Jim say that, it was such a lowering of him” and that Huck’s “conscience got to stirring” — on behalf of the slave owner, as if Jim was doing something wrong. This irony was intentional on the part of Mark Twain, demonstrating Huck’s racism while drawing attention to the ridiculousness of such racist ideology, or at the very least in regards to slavery. It’s one of those lines you read and laugh out in disbelief at the absurdity of it, and it’s not just because of the values dissonance between then and now; it was intentional on Mark Twain’s part, and it was to bring attention to the hypocrisy of racist ideology.

Satire can have the problem of being misunderstood for being straightforward. Therefore, a satire of racism can potentially be misunderstood for being racist. This is the case for Huckleberry Finn, which makes use of irony and satire as part of a social commentary. These moments of irony are funny to a modern audience, but Mark Twain used irony not just for comedic laughs but to also bring attention to the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of such thoughts. Huck being disgusted at Jim for planning on “stealing” his children is not Twain expressing that it’s wrong to “steal” slaves from their ‘owners’ but Twain expressing how ridiculous it is for a father not to have a claim on his children, and how ridiculous it is to think that freeing human beings who are really wrongly ‘owned’ can be “stealing” them anyway. Twain doesn’t really have more sympathy for the slave owner than Jim, but is rather poking fun at society for doing so with its racism. Huckleberry Finn is thus not a racist book but a book about racism and the hypocrisy of society, among other things.

I feel like Huckleberry Finn is one of the most descriptive, weird, and interesting books I’ve ever read. Diving into complex themes of trust, friendship, racism, etc. I feel like Twain wants to make the reader conflicted on purpose. Using racist language such ass the “n-word” and showing the physical and psychological mistreatment of blacks (in this case Jim) Twain shows how messed up slavery was in the South. Huck’s friendships he builds along the way with Jim, the duke and prince, etc. show a test of trust as the duke and prince betray him but Jim doesn’t. I Also learned that Twain uses his own experience as a steamboat pilot to show symbolism in the Mississippi River. The river is symbolic of freedom as no one can reach Huck and Jim while they’re gone away, while it is a symbol of control/fate as it takes them deeper into the South and they encounter several problems/scenarios afterwards. All in all, I feel like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is an embodiment of classic American literature, as it showcases different genres, opinions, and lessons learned.

(Illustration by J.E. Kemble, from the 1885 illustrated version of Huckleberry Finn)

Many critics have claimed that Huckleberry Finn is a racist book, particularly in its depiction of Jim. Do you agree? Why or why not? Please pick one passage that helps to support your argument and offer a close reading of it.

(You also have the option of answering the default response paper question posted under Response Paper Guidelines)

Due February 6.  1-2 pages, double spaced.  Please save it in your dropbox folder.