Extra Credit Post

When this course started and we were introduced to the group blog idea I was very skeptical.  I’m not a huge fan of group work and I don’t like other people being responsible for my grades and vice versa.  I also didn’t know how we would organize our blog.  I was worried that the brunt of the work would be placed on one person.  Luckily with my group that didn’t happen and we were all really good about splitting the work evenly.  We did have a few mix ups because we always split up the work which made it difficult to remember who was responsible for the blog that week.  I also felt like it would be difficult to write the blog because I was worried that our ideas wouldn’t all be the same.  That wasn’t the case though because even when we didn’t see eye to eye on everything we were all willing to listen to the others’ ideas and thoughts which allowed us to grow and learn different ideas.  Our blog never really matched up to our manifesto simply because I don’t think we completely understood the blog assignment when we wrote our manifesto.  We planned to make it much more exciting than it ended up being and I think part of that was our schedule.  Everyone in my group had a very full schedule this semester and I think that was part of the reason that our blog was a bit dry.  We did try to include interesting views and ideas into our blog and I think that matched up well with our original manifesto.  We just kind of struggled because when one of us was busy it seemed like all of us were busy.  I didn’t expect so many students to have such different interpretations of each reading.  It really gave me the opportunity to learn because it allowed me to read others’ interpretations and compare them to mine.  I am a fan of learning from different ideas and perspectives and this blog assignment really allowed me to do so.  Had I not been exposed to other blogs I might not have ever realized the different ways that the text could be understood.  By reading other blogs I was equipped with every weapon I could have for class discussion because I could reference my fellow classmates’ blogs and ideas.  This assignment really allowed me to grow and learn in terms of understanding the texts that we read in this course.

The Awakening & Presentation Idea

Kate Chopin’s The Awakening was a very controversial book back during the time in which it was written. It is easy to see this because it shows the main female character, Edna, wanting to explore her sexual desires with other men besides her husband. She goes off on many excursions with various men throughout the story – while deceiving those around her, mainly her husband. In the process she starts to realize that she doesn’t want to be a “proper lady” like madame Ratignolle, but instead was wanting to be more like mademoiselle Reisz who was more artistic and free-spirited. We didn’t really understand why Edna would choose to swim out into the ocean and drown herself though. In class we talked about the Creole vs. Anglo argument that is portrayed in this book, and because Edna was of Creole decent we have now come to the conclusion that she most likely drowned herself because she was “owned” by her husband. We say this because in class we talked about some of the Creole customs and one of them was that the women are pretty much the property of the men. So with that being said, Edna would have been afraid to confront her husband because she had cheated on him and was afraid of just what he would do.

Now we would like to go over what we plan to do for our final paper/presentation. The three of us (plus Joshua Zaborowski) plan on creating a website on the topic of 19^th century heroism. We chose this topic because although it is broad, it gives us a lot of room to work with and will be able to compare and contrast the different styles of heroes that we have learned about during this semester. We will be focusing mainly on Byronic and Romantic heroes, while also comparing the modern day hero to the 19^th century hero. We have the general basis of what our presentation/paper will be on. The main heroes (or stories) that we plan to focus on are Joaquin Murrieta, Frankenstein, and the slave in Douglass’s Narrative to name a few. We will discuss how each of these characters are heroes and what purpose they serve in their respective stories, as well as the similarities and differences amongst them. We will be getting together over the next few weeks to iron out the rest of the details and put the information in a neat, organized, and creative outlook on our websites – while also putting the process of the website design into our paper and presentation. Please provide us with some helpful output on if our idea is ideal and possibly what you might suggest we do differently, thank you!

Pudd'nhead Unchained

In this blog I would really like to relate Twain’s Pudd’nhead Wilson to the Quinten Tarantino film “Django Unchained.”  “Django Unchained” is a sort of Western film only extremely modernized and, like an Tarantino film, extremely gruesome.  Django, who is played by Jaime Foxx is a former slave who was freed by a German bounty hunter who was disguised as a dentist going to different plantations to conduct business.  The bounty hunter makes a deal with Django that if he can help catch the bounties he will be a free man and he will split the profit.  Django agrees under the condition that they must free his long lost wife from slavery at the “Candy Land” plantation owned by Calvin Candy.  Stephen, who is played by Samuel L. Jackson reminds me a lot of the Real Chambers, or “Tom.”  Stephen is one of the older more privileged slaves on Candy’s plantation.  He has the right to stay in the “big house” and when Candy is away he even tends to business.  He acts very much like a white slave owner would even though he himself is a black slave.  One scene that really demonstrates this is the scene in which Django and the bounty hunter first ride into “Candy Land.”  Django rides a horse alongside the bounty hunter while slaves that Candy just purchased are forced to walk behind the wagon.  Upon seeing Django, a former slave, upon a horse Stephen has an interesting reaction.  He meets the group on the front steps of the “big house” and after a little heckling he asks Candy, “Who dis nigger upon dat nag?”  I find this very interesting because Stephen is economically more poor than Django, given that Django is a free man and Stephen is still in slavery.  It really reminds me of Real Chamber’s character in that because he is raised white and treated better, in turn he oppresses other races and treats other people poorly.  Another parallel between the two stories is the idea of being “sold down river” in Pudd’nhead Wilson and the fact that Stephen wants Django to be sent to the LeQuint Dickey Mining Company.  In Pudd’nhead Wilson everybody fears being “sold down river” because they know how harsh conditions will be.  Being “sold down river” is intended to mean that they will have to work every waking moment of every day, they will be beaten, they will be starved, and they will be much worse off than they were before they started causing trouble.  That is exactly what the LeQuint Dickey Mining Company is supposed to do.  After Django gets caught and the white men start to torture him, Stephen convinces them that sending him to the mining company will be worse punishment than anything they could ever do to him because he will be whipped constantly, he will work until the day he dies without ever getting a break, and he might die soon because of his defiance.  Luckily, before Django gets to the mining camp he convinces the men who are transporting him that he can help them make a lot of money, in turn he blows those men up and returns to “Candy Land” where he basically murders everyone that gets in his way and he saves his wife.  I just watched “Django Unchained” this week and I found so many parallels when comparing it to Pudd’nhead Wilson that I can’t help but wonder if the movie is at least loosely based on the novel.

Plot Twists & Turns

Sherlock Holmes. This particular story made me very delighted as there is finally a competent adversary to face off against Sherlock, the woman. She consistently outwits him and stays one step ahead of all of Sherlock’s plans. This was very much seen in the extra credit video that we saw Tuesday night from the television/mini-series Sherlock. In the video we saw that “the woman” managed to poison Sherlock, faked her death, and managed to throw him through a loop when it came to trying to figure out the pass-code to her cell phone. This is such an uncommon situation when it comes to Sherlock because he is known for being one of the greatest – if not the greatest – deductive specialists. He never misses anything, not even the minutest detail. So this makes it very interesting that this random woman is able to “pull the wool” over Sherlock’s eyes. The shows makes it clear that Sherlock and “the woman” have feelings for one another, whether those feelings are love or just admiration for a fellow genius is still to be seen. Nonetheless, it is quite clear to me that whatever the feelings he had for the woman made him vulnerable to her tactics – just as her feelings for him allowed him to beat her in the end. It truly is a riveting story line.

Another really intriguing story we read was Rudyard Kipling’s The Man Who Would Be King. The story of Daniel Dravot and Peachey Carnehan going into the foreign land of Kafiristan to make themselves kings is a dream that most people have – I am referring to the being a king/queen, not taking over another land. They accomplished this by making the Kafiristan locals believe that the two of them were Gods among men. However, Daniel gets greedy and tries to take a wife which was against the rules. The woman was frightened and ended up biting Daniel causing him to bleed which showed the locals that the two of them were in fact not Gods, but mere humans like themselves. The locals turned against Daniel and Peachey, killed Daniel by making him fall to his death, and staked Peachey with wooden stakes – that is quite the grotesque scene when seeing the movie version. In the end, all Peachey has to remember his time as a king is the decapitated head of his dear friend (Daniel) and the crown that was upon his head when he fell to his death. Now if that isn’t a story that you can really sink your teeth into, than I don’t know what is!

These two stories both kept the three of us on the edge of our seats because they both included many plot twists. The fact that they were able to capture our attention so vehemently really shows how intriguing the two authors wrote their stories! This being said, we believe that the best stories frequently have thrilling endings that nobody sees coming (or at least, that is the idea the authors have in mind).

Kipling and Harrison

Hubert Harrison wrote, “The Black Man’s Burden (A Reply to Rudyard Kipling) in 1920.  This poem was written in response Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden.”  Kipling’s work is almost a satirical piece that concerns the hardships that white men went through in the nineteenth century.  Today when I read Kipling’s work I have to laugh in order to avoid complete anger.  The fact that Kipling tried to argue that what he was writing about were hardships is disgusting.  In fact, I think that Kipling was trying to be comedic because I have a hard time believing that anybody could have ever believed that what Kipling is describing was a hardship.  Harrison did a great job in his reply to Kipling though because what he described as hardships are really hardships.  Harrison talks about the lies that the white men told the black men.  He talks about how the white men starved their slaves and still worked them day and night in terrible conditions.  Reading Harrison’s work makes me realize the seriousness of slavery in the nineteenth century.  Harrison’s piece truly depicts the struggles that the black men and women had to suffer through during such a terrible time in our nation’s history.  As an aspiring teacher I think that these two pieces would be great to compare in a history class.  I think that these pieces show exactly the differences between what white men thought of as a burden and what was truly a burden for black men.  It is important that we read and understand pieces like these so that we can create a future in which we do not recreate the past.  I cannot imagine living in a world where all of the men in one race were considered less human than another race.  I do believe though that racial inequality still exists and that bothers me.  I do not understand how someone can think less of a person because of his or her skin color.  After all of the revolution that has taken place in our country it would seem as though we would understand equality, yet we continuously forget.  Harrison did such a wonderful job of comparing what a real burden was to what Kipling described as a burden.  I think it would be important to point this out to students so that they could see how naïve white slave owners were, how they lacked work ethic in every sense.  How they thought controlling an entire race was a burden that they were forced to uphold when it was a burden that they could have put an end to without much effort at all.  I really enjoy comparing these two pieces for a number of reasons.  I am a huge fan of poetry, and Harrison and Kipling to a great job of using poetry to portray their thoughts and feelings.  Also, I think that by reading work from this time I get a better sense of what was really happening in the nineteenth century instead of the sugarcoated version that I got from history books in high school.

19th Century Amusement

In the nineteenth century sports became largely popular in the United States. This was mainly due to the introduction to bat-ball sports when New England started to migrate west. The biggest of those sports was cricket, which became vastly popular within the middle states. Americans changed around the format of this game to create the game of baseball which was just a more organized and “sophisticated” way of playing. It quickly rose to fame in the United States and was unofficially reputed as our national past time.

Another reason that sports became so highly integrated into Americans’ lives was the rise of boxing and the invention of basketball and football. Boxing before the nineteenth century was largely despised because of the violence and gambling that came along with it. However, after the Marquess of Queensberry Rules called to have the boxers wear gloves when they fought the sport rose to national fame almost immediately. With the invention of football and basketball everyone in America had a sport of their choosing to watch and love. Football first began in 1869, while basketball was created later on in 1887. These two sports – although new – were vastly popular in America. People flocked to the games to watch how they were played and to see the athletes who played them. This new fascination led to the sports being incorporated into the collegiate level.

Speaking of collegiate sports – they first began in 1852 with the first rowing match between Harvard and Yale. This was followed by the first baseball game in 1859 between Williams and Amherst, and later followed by the first football game in 1869 between Princeton and Rutgers. Harvard University is actually where the football that Americans play today was created. Beforehand football was more like soccer – a kicking sport. However, Harvard wanted it to be closer related to that of rugby and thus the IFA (Intercollegiate Football Association) adopted the rules to fit Harvard’s version.

It was also during the nineteenth century where Vaudeville shows came to be as the main form of mass entertainment. The first Vaudeville Theater began in 1881 in Manhattan by Tony Pastor. New York was pretty much the Vaudeville capital of the United States soon after as they had ten theaters there (New York is still the capital of theater with Broadway taking over). For the younger generations, “the greatest show on Earth” was invented by Phineas Barnum and James Bailey. It was a three-ring circus with a vast array of acts for the kids – and it is still very popular in today’s society.

The nineteenth century was also dubbed the “age of the bicycle.” The invention of the velocipede – the bike with the really big wheel – was in 1885. The bicycle than became safer with equal sized tires and became a much better way of exercise for everyone. It also helped improve women’s fashion as they were unable to ride with the Victorian hoop dresses, so designers had to come up with a freer and less constrictive style.

"The Luck or Roaring Camp"

I really loved the story “The Luck of Roaring Camp” by Bret Harte.  I’ve always been a fan of Western literature.  Growing up my favorite movie was Tombstone.  I loved all of the wild action, the lack of law and order, the abundance of gunfights.  I could watch Tombstone every day of the week without it ever getting old.  When I was reading “The Luck of Roaring Camp” I noticed all of the similarities between how that town, Roaring Camp, and the town of Tombstone are represented.  Roaring Camp is dirty, rugged, full of criminals all running from the law, very much like Tombstone.  Tombstone is run by a gang, the law in that town is virtually nonexistent due to the fear that the gang, the Cowboys, enforces.  As I read the story and it explained gamblers and drinkers and people shooting their revolvers just like a lot of the scenes in Tombstone.  One thing that I thought this story did well was show how humanity can restart.  While Roaring Camp is a dirty and rough place everything changes as soon as a baby is brought into the mix.  As soon as the baby is born, and the mother dies, all of those men who were originally depicted as mean and gruff become more human, more motherly.  I think it is almost comical how clean and caring the men become.  Each one of them does his part to care for the baby, Tommy Luck, the “luck” of Roaring Camp.  It’s funny how when the baby is born another character, Kentuck, calls him a “damned little cuss” but he uses it is as an endearment.  It is clear that all of the men in the town love the baby and it helps them to better themselves.  I think that this story does a great job of showing that anyone can change if they find something worth caring for.  For these men, before the baby, there was nothing to care for.  They were simply trying to get by, avoid the law, make a little money, and have a good time.  They gambled, they fought, they drank to their fill whenever they pleased.  They were noisy, they were messy and they were just downright gross.  Once they find something worth truly caring for, the baby which is attributed to their newfound luck, they really turn over a new leaf.  They begin to refurbish the broken furniture within the camp.  They start to bathe regularly if they intend to spend time with the baby, they are quiet and they are more civilized.  The end of the story is tragic which I think only attests to the fact that in an instant everything can change in an instant.  As soon as the flood comes it changes the landscape and the well-being of the camp.  Many people die, including the baby and Kentuck and the men who survive are left to rebuild for themselves and restart.  Their lives change again in an instant just as quick as they did when little Tommy Luck was born and the camp decided that keeping him would be the right thing to do.

Short Passage from Hard Times

The passage that we would like to elaborate on in this week’s blog post is that of the horses on the wall and flowers for a carpet dialogue from the second chapter of Charles Dickens’s Hard Times. In this chapter we are introduced to Mr. Gradgrind. He is a very fact-oriented man and a very “proper” man. The passage about the horses and flowers starts off with Gradgrind asking Sissy (or as he calls her Cecilia) what her fathers does for a living. When she is describing that her father is a “horse-rider” Gradgrind waves it off as objectionable and has Bitzer define what a horse is in a “boy’s definition of a horse” (Dickens, 9). The scene goes on further to show that Gradgrind – among others – denies the idea of having horses papered on the walls. The justification for not liking the idea of papering horses onto the wall by saying, “Why, then, you are not to see anywhere, what you don’t see in fact; you are not to have anywhere, what you don’t have in fact. What is called Taste, is only another name for Fact” (Dickens, 11). Now the three of us all had the same thoughts to this whole passage, blasphemy! For these men (especially Gradgrind) to be so against someone putting horses on their walls or flowers as their carpets is just crazy. They completely take away a person’s sense of imagination and even their creativity by shutting their minds down to these ideas. To live a life that is just completely based on facts would lead to a terribly boring and unadventurous life. If one cannot put horses on the wall or flowers on the carpet if they so please, than what kind of mindset would we be giving to our kids. Take Bitzer for example, this kid is like a robot of everything parents seem to want. He is obedient, fact-driven, and just a total bore (in our opinions at least). It seems that he has no free will or desire to stray from the course like most kids do. But that is the way that kids learn and mature, so if we were to live our lives the way that Gradgrind seems to want us to in this passage than our world would be super uneventful and lame! We must instill the ideals of learning from one’s mistakes in order to develop into the respectful and mature adults that most people become! So we must continue to keep papering horses onto the walls and to lay our carpets with flowers!

The Tell-Tale Heart

As I read through Edgar Allen Poe’s The Tell-Tale Heart I couldn’t help but notice the obsession with madness.  The first very first sentence asks, “but why will you say I am mad?” (GASS 13).  Poe starts the story by with a question of madness that leads to the rest of the story.  I started the story by questioning the credibility of the narrator.  Why would I trust someone who isn’t sure if he is mad or not?  I feel like if someone is truly having to argue that they are not mad they are probably at least a little bit mad.  As the story continues it becomes clear that the narrator is mad.  It seems like it is important that the narrator proves his innocence.  He needs to make it clear that he isn’t mad and that his actions have no effect on him.  As the story continues it becomes blatantly obvious that the narrator is crazy.  He explains in detail how every night for a week he entered “the old man’s”, who I interpreted as his master, room and watched him sleep.  What kind of normal man would sneak into another man’s room at midnight each night to watch him sleep for hours.  The narrator had some kind of perverted fixation on the old man’s eye.  It drives him to kill the old man so that the eye won’t bother him anymore.  If that doesn’t say madness I don’t know what does.  It is completely crazy that someone would argue that they aren’t mad when an eyeball drives them to murder.  I found it interesting that in the first paragraph the narrator stated “The disease had sharpened my senses—not destroyed—not dulled them.” (GASS 13) and that the final reason the narrator goes crazy is the beating of the old man’s heart.  A heartbeat isn’t something that is easily heard so I found it ironic that the beating of the old man’s heart is what drove the narrator to commit murder.  If the disease had not strengthened the narrator’s senses he wouldn’t have been able to hear the heartbeat and it might not have driven him to murder the old man.  I think that irony is one of the main themes in this story, that is why Poe included the blurb about the narrator’s senses.  Had his senses not been better than usual he never would have heard the heartbeat after he had killed the old man.  Had he not been mad he might not have killed the man at all to begin with.  This is a great example of gothic literature because it is very ominous, very strange.  I liked all of the mystery that was included in this story.

Frankenstein's Monster is.....ALIVE!!!!

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a true classic in literature. The fact that it has spawned so many different parodies and run-offs just goes to show the impact that it has had on the world. This particular version of the book – being the very first one of the Frankenstein genre – was quite fascinating to us. To see where this creature was “born” from is truly unique. The back story that we learned today in class about this book’s true origin – about Shelley writing the book because her husband and his friends bet who could write the greatest horror book – makes the book that much better in our eyes. To know that she created this book in order to trump her husband is just fantastic!

The book itself was a masterpiece in and of itself. The way that Shelley portrayed Victor Frankenstein to be so wretched and horrible toward his own creation really made us think that he (Frankenstein) was the TRUE monster in this story. We all felt that Frankenstein’s monster was the victim in this story because all he wanted was to be accepted by society and to live a normal life. This is shown during “the monster’s” story when he lived in the mountains and studied the family that lived in exile next to him. “The monster” spent months studying these people – learning their language, studying their actions, and just gaining an overall understanding of human interaction. However, even after all his time over studying them and helping them out, when he finally went to them to ask for “protection,” they screamed in horror and starting fighting him. Although he felt despair from this, he still did not kill them even though he knew he could have. If feels to me that “the monster” really just wants to have the love and support of his creator – Victor Frankenstein. This is where the dilemma comes into play though because Frankenstein only sees his creature as a murdering monster. So it is ironic in a way because Frankenstein is so ruthless toward his creature that he ends up becoming a murderer (at least through association) and the monster just wants love and connection amongst others – so he is more human than his creator is (in some ways).

Throughout this book we all felt mixed emotions about both Frankenstein and the monster. We didn’t really know at all times who the protagonist and who the antagonist were. We feel that Shelley intentionally wrote the characters out to be this way so that it left their roles up for interpretation. We all loved that Shelley left them up for interpretation because we all were able to interpret the book differently which led us to have a great group discussion about it in class.

We as a group loved this book and are wanting to explore even more into Frankenstein, as well as the author Mary Shelley. We would definitely recommend this book to anyone who wants a good read (horror or not).

BRING ON THE NEXT BOOK!

Blog Manifesto

R.E.S blog is all about the bass, no tremble. We delve deep into the works of Wordsworth, Douglass, Poe, and many more of the great poetic writers of the 19th century. If you love action, we got it. If you love romance, we got it. We got it all and we don't hold back. We're just three normal guys who tolerate poetry and blog about it! And we're the three best friends that anyone can have.