Emily Dickinson

I think when reading poetry, it is easy to look at a poem and go, "too long with too much going on, must be difficult" or "wow, super short with short words, must be an easy read".  Sadly, most students are taught to loathe poetry.  So if they actually decide to read poetry, they go for the shorter one because it must be easier.  If they read it, they just give it a short sweep and assume whatever conclusion they have come to is the only one.  Or, they just search on the internet, see the popular belief and assume it to be true.  Assumptions when reading poetry are not beneficial.  Assumptions in general are not helpful for much of anything.  
Just looking at Emily Dickinson's poetry is amazing.  She uses so many dashes!  I love it!  And there aren't that many words, which can at first be lovely, but an absence of words does not mean an absence of depth.  I think it is easy to assume that her poems are very straightforward, but I don't believe them to be.  Dickinson and Shakespeare have about the same depth.  With Shakespeare's sonnets, it can be somewhat difficult to find the meaning, but he does have a great plenty more words in his sonnets (usually) than Dickinson does.  With her terse nature, one can see it as she is simply terse and what you see is what you get.  I find that is not a beneficial way of looking at Dickson's poetry.  In that regard, I think she is simply deceptive.  Most would see the short poems with short words and assume them to be easy peasy.  As mentioned previously, Dickinson has as much depth, if not more, as Shakespeare.  She writes with such feeling and emotion, and manages to contain that in a short poem.  

Whitman

In the first bit of Crossing Brooklyn Ferry, Whitman repeats the word 'face'; which this repetition, I do believe I should be paying attention to the word 'face'.  To me, the repetition of the word shows the many faces there can be.  On the ferry, he can see many physical and human faces; yet, he can also see the faces of the tide.  With saying the tide has a face, he is personifying the sea.  I found this to interesting.  While we do hear of the sea being personified--usually as a spiteful woman (I'm not even going to touch that idea)--this idea of faces is new to me when thinking of the sea.  The tide, a temporary and changing thing, becomes more human and therefore relatable.  The sun is also given a face.  This is not as new of a concept.  I found it difficult to concentrate after reading of the sun's face, because for some inexplicable reason, all I could think of was the baby sun from Teletubbies.

I found his address to 'you' was interesting.  I can't quite figure out who the you is in the second half.  In the first, it refers to the tide and the sun (but not the Teletubbies' one). 

The opening line of the second part has fantastic consonance in 'impalpable sustenance'.  Quite frankly, I don't even care what he is trying to say here, because I find the consonance to be amazing.  It is one of those phrases that makes me want to read more.  This consonance is continued throughout the piece, but not as spectacularly compact as in the opening line (in my opinion).  The second piece also employs repetition.  I find repetition to be helpful because it is a--sometimes--discrete way to clue me in to what I should be focusing on.  
Looking ahead on the remainder of the pages, I can see Whitman likes to repeat himself.  I can also see the word 'you' used a rather unhealthy amount.  The 'you' meaning seems to escape me.  I thought I understood it in the first piece, but the remainder of the poem I cannot quite discern who the 'you' is referring to.  I can see that it probably refers to someone who is crossing the Brooklyn Ferry, and Whitman probably feels strongly about them--otherwise, why write such a long poem?

"fine centrifugal spokes of light round the shape of my head in the sunlit water" (1384)  I just really enjoy the word centrifugal.  Due to that word being in a heinous Shania Twain song from my childhood, I now have that song stuck in my head and that is not quite conducive to reading Whitman.
"vapor as it flew in fleeces tinged with violet" (1384)  I don't know how vapor can fly in fleeces, but I find the visual to be interesting. As it is within the last weeks of the semester, my addled brain visualizes fleece pull-overs flying through the air and coaxing vapor to fly with it.  I can safely imagine this is not what Whitman had in mind when he wrote those lines.  

When reaching the fourth piece, I find this piece to be more of a poetic letter.  Kind of like in Shakespeare had tried to write a letter instead of sonnets.  It still employs poetry, but it not quite poetry.  It has deep feelings and vivid imagery.  

I apologize that this blog post is quite scatter-brained and reads more like my thoughts while reading the poem, instead of thoughts after having read the poem and digested it.  It is nearing finals time and I am much more scatter-brained than usual.  

Douglass

When reading Douglass, I was not able to discern between the slave drivers.  They were all described with harsh language.   They were categorized as cruel men with a penchant for profane language.  They were proud and cruel barbarians who were given leave to do their wicked deeds by their apathetic masters.  With his language, Douglass showed how barbaric the slave drivers were.  I found it interesting that the stereotypes persisted.  As a society, we still do not hold people who utilize profane language or copious amounts of alcohol in high esteem.
Douglass played on basic human emotions.  As humans, we tend to have more feelings for children, women, and the elderly.  When describing the savage whippings and beatings of the slaves, there were few instances where the slave was a grown man.  As a whole, most of his examples were of children or women.  The occasional example was of an elderly person.
Douglass also tugged on the heart strings with his continual liking of slaves to animals.  At one point, he even stated that to be a beast would be better than being a slave.  The images of slaves with little shelter, food, clothes and other basic human rights draws readers into this idea of slaves as beasts.
In his language, Douglass juxtaposes slaves and their masters.  His use of harsh words for the brutal slave drivers displays how they were more like beasts than those they abused.  His critique of whites does not end with the crash slave drivers.  He touches on the epitome of white culture--the proper white lady.  He talks of how his white mistress, who was once one of good heart and intentions, turned into a beast when she was given power over slaves.  The critique of the upper white class is interesting.  I found his description of the white women keeping the slaves out of their gardens to be fascinating.  Perhaps he was trying to allude to the Bible story of Eden.  This allusion could have many different connotations; the slaves as the rightful owners of the garden, the whites as gods (or thinking they are gods), etc.
I found the punishments of the male slaves to be intriguing.  Obviously, Douglass would prefer we focus on the savage beatings of the women and children, but the method of killing for men should not be overlooked.  With my basic understanding of human psychology, it is telling that the male slaves were killed by blows and shots to the face.  This suggests that those killing them felt the slight was personal and this is intriguing.  They could have very easily just shot them in the stomach or foot, but they chose the face.  This could definitely be a way to show their power over the slaves and make the punished slave into an example for all the others; yet it can also show how invested the whites were in their slaves.  The white dependency on slaves is a key aspect of Douglass's work and it is easy to overlook.    

I am not known for my internet-researching skills.  With my limited skills, I found that the college holds the pond as a key aspect of the biology departments resources.  Apparently the pond has painted turtles, spring peepers, and bluegills.  Good gracious.  I find it difficult to believe that anything really lives in the water.  I can see from my room that the water is probably not conducive to many forms of life.   It was difficult to find much else on the pond, other than the lovely flickr photos.  
As I live right above Lindeman Pond, I see it every day.  While I see it everyday, that does not mean I am consciously aware of it. 
Awhile ago, I woke up one day and decided to wake myself up further by opening the blinds and looking out at the sun.  This was a poor choice for my eyes.  While it was a poor choice for my already wretched eye-sight, it made me aware of my surroundings.  I looked down from the window and saw a big mass of water.  I couldn't remember seeing it before.  My roommate found my sub-par observation skills rather amusing.  I have driven and walked by Lindeman Pond but never actually been mindful of what it was.  I had even been on the ropes course and been acquainted with the mosquitoes which breed there in the summer.  Yet, I had never actually processed that the pond existed.  Maybe because I don't think the pond is a pond.  It looks like an overgrown puddle.  My theory is that the "pond" is manmade.    
This overgrown puddle does have the aspects one thinks of when a puddle comes to mind.  It doesn't seem to have that "aesthetically pleasing" beauty; which is interesting because it is man-made.  While it is a bit of a sight for sore eyes, it is a source of knowledge and enjoyment for the school.  People kayak on the pond, they run past it on their morning jog, and see it when they are on the ropes course.  While I am not a nature girl, I see the benefits this "pond" has on our campus.  It may  not be immediately beautiful, but beauty isn't the only purpose something can have in life.  The pond serves as a resource for students, and that is what makes it beautiful.    

Emerson Inspirational-ish Poster

In "The American Scholar", Emerson writes of learning and gives us the brilliant nugget, "Books are the best types of influence on the past"(246). As I have more books than I know what to do with, I found this line to be striking.  More often than not, when I tell someone I am an English major, I am subject to their asinine dronings about how I am paying for a worthless major.  Emerson's words ring true to my firm belief that books are not useless and offer a window into our past and the past in general.  In his essay, Emerson sets out to discuss what makes a great American scholar.  Books obviously are an essential part of learning.  Books can shape our ideas about the past, present, and future.  So take that people who think English majors are pointless. Emerson discusses the many areas of literature and their affects upon a scholar.  He states that "the theory of books is noble," and also discusses how books can preserve the past, yet we bring our modern readings and understandings to the past (247).  When the nugget is taken out of context, Emerson's larger argument is lost.  One misses his other nugget which qualifies the first nugget: Books are the best of things, well used: abused, among the worst (247).  Emerson furthers this argument throughout the text and also shows the downfalls or reliance upon a text.  The nobility of books, yet their inevitable downfalls, is lost when the quote is taken out of context.  As I love books, I was immediately struck by the first nugget, but the following nuggets made me more fully understand what Emerson was trying to say.  It also aided in understanding how books can be crutches and not ways to re-imagine the world.  When the creativity is lost, and people become complacent with the past (e.g., "the English dramatic poets have Shakespearized now for two hundred years", 247) then books are a hinderance.  By losing oneself in a book story, as grand as that may seem, it can have downfalls.  Books cannot give the whole story of the world.  This exercise displays that even by removing this quote from its page and the page following it, the quote can be misunderstood.
*I can't help but remember watching Scooby Doo 2 with my siblings.  As childish as it is, Fred's indignation over his quote being taken out of context was the first thing that popped into my mind when working on this assignment.     

Women's non-existent power in Kingdom of this World

When reading Kingdom of this World, I immediately noticed the juxtaposition of sex and death.  Sex can bring life; whereas death brings life to an end--obviously.  In a world where slaves have their lives continually taken away from them, Ti Noel incorporates sex into his life.  He fathered twelve children.  The masters can literally and figuratively take away the lives of their slaves.  With the slaves having little, if any, control over their lives, sex becomes a way for them to--sometimes--exercise control.  In the case of the slave women, this is not true.  M. Mezy continually took advantage of his slave women.  This may have had something to do with the sexual violence the slaves perpetrated against the white women.  As mentioned in class, this puts both white and black women in positions of little power.  I found the non-existent power women had to be telling of the time, yet it still irritated me.  This made Pauline an interesting character.  She was in control of her sexuality. Some of this may be due to her seemingly absent husband.  Pauline was intriguing because with her sexuality and curiosity,  she was able to be part of the white world and the slave world--in a way.  She took up the slave religion when her husband became sick.  
I found Carpentier's choice to make Ti Noel a rapist jarring.  I did not want to continue reading.  Historically--and today--rape was used as a power-play.  The slave women did not have any power over their own bodies.  The white women were shown to have power, through Mlle. Floridor.  She was shown to be rather sexual and she used this to her advantage.  She did not appreciate her husband's sexual nature and she punished the female slaves for it.  Ti Noel's decision to rape her could be due to that fact.  What I found disturbing was the lack of reason shown why he made that decision.  It leaves it open-ended for the reader.  The reader is given the tough task of choosing why Ti Noel made that decision.
In his novel, Carpentier shows that women have little to no power--regardless of their race.  Pauline is the exception.  Sex is way that he shows the women's lack of power.  

Outdoors with Literature

Guys, I apologize in advance for my "poetry".  I am not a creative writer.  Also, I am snarky, in case you can't tell from the poems.


Obvious Beauty
struggling to be seen
through the plain and dull
yet
the plain and dull
has rugged beauty
it gives life
is that not more important than just beauty?

I haven't allergies--Thanks be!
Yet outside can still be scary
Creepy crawlies
Giant bugs, medium bugs, and small bugs.
Oh my!
Scary bugs and weird bugs and FLYING BUGS!
RUNNNNNNNN
I think I lost it...

What would this be like with allergies?
Runny nose, foggy eyes
My eyesight is bad enough!
Is it time to go inside yet?


This may sound like the prairie was a traumatizing place; it really wasn't.
Also, I did not have to escape a bug attack in the prairie, but that has happened before.