All About Nelly

Throughout my reading of the last part of the book, Wuthering Heights, I realized how big of a character Nelly really was. Up until my final reading, I had focused mostly on Heathcliff and Catherine. Not to say that Heathcliff and Catherine weren't two of the main characters because they were, but I never realized the importance of this story being told through Nelly. Nelly has the power to change details and twist plot lines however she wants and we would be none the wiser. 

In the later sections of the book, it seems as though Nelly plays a huge part in almost everyone's actions. Nelly plays a leading role in Catherine's developing relationship with Linton because she isn't able to stop Catherine's hanging out with him and most importantly doesn't tell Edgar of their interactions. It almost is though, if Nelly weren't so worried about her job, a lot of the drama with young Catherine wouldn't have amounted. I say this because Nelly was so afraid of losing her job or of making Edgar mad that she didn't notify Edgar of the whole situation. If Nelly had notified Edgar, he would have been able to better control young Catherine and put distance between Thurcrush Grange and Wuthering Heights. However, because Nelly is afraid and doesn't step up, the two households become more intertwined.

It is also interesting to note that Nelly literally wrapped Edgar's hair and Heathcliff's hairs together in old Catherine's locket. She foreshadowed the intermingling between the two households better then any other character could have predicted. Some examples about how closely involved Nelly is with the other characters includes her conversation with Heathcliff at the end of the book. Heathcliff confides in Nelly that he no longer plans to exact revenge on young Catherine and Hareton. Also, Heathcliff literally puts Nelly in charge of Wuthering Heights, so she has moved away from Thurcrush Grange. It is key to note and understand that Nelly is also the only character that goes in between the two households freely. Every other character in the book is rooted to either Thurcrush Grange or Wuthering Heights. However Nelly seemingly gets along with every character even though her actions lead to a bunch of the drama with the other characters.

By saying she causes the drama in the other character's lives, I mean that, she either requites to inaction even though that might not be the right answer for anyone but herself pr is present at all major events. Nelly is always there it seems during the key plot points in the book. Whenever something major happens, Nelly is there as a bystander. For example, when Edgar’s health grows consistently worse and Catherine is worried for her father, Catherine reluctantly rides to her meeting with Linton on the moors. Nelly comes with her.

Only in the last section of the book did I realize what a big character Nelly was. She was the main storyteller so everything was always told from her perspective and she was also involved in every big event in both households. Nelly is a character that deserves a deep analysis because she serves an under-appreciated large role in the story. 

Hurt People, Hurt People

This blog post is probably going to be in stark contrast to my first blog post on Wuthering Heights. In my first post, I sided with Heathcliff and believed that his actions were purely the result of others wrongdoings upon him and not a result of his own blackened-heart. However, after reading further, I believe Heathcliff has not only far exceeded the hardships others have placed upon him but multiplied his own brash actions three fold. He is not acting purely in response to others actions upon him now, but instead acting as a manipulator to everyone around him.

In my first blog post, Heathcliff was mentioned as a manipulator when it came to using his close relationship with his adopted father as bait for others to treat him well and gain extra benefits. However now after more reading, Heathcliff is manipulating people for his pure enjoyment. He has become a very spiteful person. For example, Heathcliff marries Isabella only for revenge on Catherine. He doesn't truly love his wife. In fact, Isabella and Heathcliff's son, Linton Heathcliff, is shunned from his father until he becomes profitable to Heathcliff. Heathcliff ignores his son for the first thirteen years of his life and refers to his mother as a slut. Isabella was mistreated by Heathcliff and ran away to England to escape Heathcliff's wrath upon her. She was anything but a slut. Heathcliff should not speak so harshly about his deceased wife. 

I find it interesting that one of Heathcliff's main goals in life, is creating little Healthcliffs. By this I mean, Heathcliff raises children exactly how he was raised even though he hated his upbringing. For example, Hareton and Linton are both Heathcliff's sons and neither of them receive formal education. Harteton, especially is a exact representation of Heathcliff's revenge against the wrongdoings others have done upon him. Hindley raised Heathcliff as an uneducated worker and, to release his spite against Hindley, Hetathcliff treats Hindley's son the exact same way. Hareton is raised as an uneducated worker. He is ill-literate and has very little future because of his lack of education. Heathcliff has purposely tried to ruin Hareton's life, just as Hindley did to Heathcliff.

Heathcliff is a very spiteful person and I believe his heart has been blackened beyond repair. He has become a mass manipulator. The common saying, "Hurt people, hurt people", is a good descriptor of Heathcliff because he is able to hurt people due to his disgruntled childhood. However, even though Heathcliff was abused as a child, this does not allow him to act in these spiteful ways as an adult. He has far exceeded the hurt anyone had ever placed on him and takes pleasure in the pains of others. Heathcliff is deeply scared and misunderstood. He is no longer a victim in the book, but the victimizer. 

The Temptations and Their Earthly Ponds

                       Countless temptations arise in both Jane Eyre and Wide Sargasso Sea. These many temptations include abandoning justice and social fairness. Although the way these two temptations present themselves in the books is different, the key values they posses in the books are the same. 

                       In Jane Eyre and Wide Sargasso Sea, the setting plays a huge part into both of these topics and the locations serve as huge clues as to how the characters are feeling and their actions. Wide Sargasso Sea takes place in Jamaica during a period of severe racial tension. However obvious the social injustice is, Antoinette chooses to ignore the disconnect between the races and tries to befriend all, no matter what their skin type. This idea does not go over well with the natives. The land is much to wild for these civilized ideas. The setting truly reflects this idea because Antoinette says, "Our garden was large and beautiful as that garden in the Bible — the tree of life grew here. But it had grown wild. The paths were overgrown and a smell of dead flowers mixed with that fresh living smell. Orchids flourished out of reach or for some reason not to be touched. One was snaky looking, another like an octopus with long thin brown tentacles bare of leaves hanging from a twisted root" (Rhys, 19). 

                     This garden encapsulates the racial and social tensions with imagery. The setting, as previously mentioned, is crucial to the understanding of the book. Here we see the garden that once was perfect, like the Garden of Eden, has grown wild. The harmony of the garden is now broken. The paths are covered with brush and the twisted roots are past repair. This garden literally is a picture of the social and political challenges in the book, Wide Sargasso Sea. Jamaica is totally wild and the natives have lost control. They even burn Antoinette's house in hatred. Antoinette is trying to be a gardener in this crazy garden, however she is too late. The roots have twisted and the roots are the foundation, but even they are twisted and deformed. The land is broken and this brokenness leads to Antoinette's severe unhappiness because it is due to this brokenness that she can't find friends.

                   In Jane Eyre, the setting is starkly different. Jane lives in England, an area ruled by justice and fairness. In comparison, Jane has a strong moral code that is unwavering. She has an undying loyalty to her God and King. She even refuses to marry her true love, until the moral dilemma is resolved in the book. As you can see, the orderliness of the setting is reflective of Jane's order and moral code. She is unfaltering and really encapsulates the strictness and fairness of England.  

Beaten to the Bone

                   One genuine question I have had while reading through the first eleven chapters of Wuthering Heights is, why do I feel the need to be so compassionate towards Heathcliff? Heathcliff is not a flawless character in this book, nor are in of the characters in the book truly blameless, but why do I feel as though the past wrongful actions of others towards Heathcliff allow him to be the “victim” in the book? How does Heathcliff's flawed past make his future bad actions acceptable in the reader's eyes?

                   The reason I ask this question is because normally while reading a book, I feel some animosity towards a character like Heathcliff. He is what others in the book call a vagabond who likes to cause mischief. As Catherine writes in her journal, “Hindley calls him a vagabond, and won't let him sit with us, nor eat with us any more; and he says, he and I must not play together, and threatens to turn him out of the house if we break his orders” (Bronte 22).

I feel like the quote from Catherine diary listed above show the tornness about my troubles for showing Heathcliff compassion based on the cold actions of others. Heathcliff's actions, were all premeditated because of the actions of others, such as Hindley. Hindley treated Heathcliff horribly and therefore I feel as though the hurtful actions of others, like Hindley, shaped Heathcliff into the person he later became. I am not saying that Heathcliff is blameless because of the actions of others, but I feel as though I can understand where Heathcliff's animosity is coming from.

                 Heathcliff walks a fine line between animal-like characteristics and human like desires when it comes to his relationship with the other characters in the book. For example, “I found him very intelligent on the topics we touched; and before I went home, I was encouraged so far as to volunteer another visit, to-morrow. He evidently wished no repetition of my intrusion. I shall go, notwithstanding. It is astonishing how sociable I feel myself compared to him” (Bronte 8). Therefore in this passage, we see Heathcliff as a well-natured, intelligent man who lacks some social skills. However, later in the meetings, Lockwood describes Heathcliff in a negative sense. Lockwood later said, “I no longer felt inclined to call Heathcliff a capital fellow” (Bronte 12). Nelly describes Heathcliff as, “rough as a saw-edge, and hard as whinstone! The less you meddle with him the better” (Bronte 35).

                  In the eleven chapters as a whole, I think Heathcliff is more the victim from the poor actions of the other characters. For example, when Mr. Earnshaw brought Heathcliff home, “Mrs. Earnshaw was ready to fling it out of doors: she did fly up- asking how he could fashion to bring that gypsy brat into the house” (Bronte 37). Right from the beginning of Heathcliff's stay with the Earnshaw family, I feel compassion towards Heathcliff because he is immediately unwelcome and Mrs. Earnshaw refers to him as an it. No one should ever be referred to as an it, and I feel as though Heathcliff's actions are in response to this feeling of unworthiness and it-ness that started from the very beginning of his family life with the Earnshaws. I think Heathcliff was a kind soul who was mistreated and later became a “hard” person in response. I think his personality is a reflection of others actions because of multiple stories in the book, but one in specific would be Nelly's story about how Heathcliff acted when he was sick when he was younger. “Heathcliff was dangerously sick, and while he lay at the worst he would have me constantly by his pillow; I suppose he felt I did a good deal for him, and he hadn't wit to guess that I was compelled to do it. However, I will say this, he was the quietest child that ever nurse watched over. The difference between him and the others forced me to be less partial: Cathy and her brother harassed me terribly: he was as uncompelling as a lamb; though hardness, not gentleness, made him give me little trouble” (Bronte 39). From this little episode, I feel as though Heathcliff, if he had been treated right would have been the most loving, gentlemen in the household.

                 However, like I have mentioned, Heathcliff also acts poorly. Because Mr. Earnshaw was the only one who ever showed him any favor, Heathcliff used this advantage to use others. “ As an instance, I remember Mr. Earnshaw once bought a couple of colts at the parish fair, and gave the lads each one. Heathcliff took the handsomest, but it soon fell lame, and when he discovered it, he said to Hindley, 'You must exchange horses with me; I don't like mine, and if you won't I shall tell your father of the three thrashings you've given me this week, and show him my arm, which is black to the shoulder” (Bronte 39). Heathcliff manipulated others and used with his close relationship with his father as the bait.

                 In conclusion, my feelings are more compassionate towards Heathcliff because I feel like his problems are due to the mistreatment others show him. He isn't a mean person, but simply hard. His hardness was acquired from the cruel actions of others calling him an it and beating him both physically and emotionally. An abused person shouldn't have to treat their abusers with care, so instead Heathcliff is understandable in not retaliating but becoming hard and coarse. I still feel as though Heathcliff is the victim in the book and his bad actions are caused by others wrong doings against him.

Just a Little Slice of Life with Some Imagination

                  The Plain Sense of Things by Wallace Stevens is, on the surface, a poem about a once grandiose house that has turned to ruin. However, once the poem is more thoughtfully looked at, a whole new meaning appears. The poem is depicting sadness, depression, and despair as a reflection of the house. The author Wallace Stevens, wants to show how pitiful life can be. For example, "For this blank cold, this sadness without cause", leads the reader to a hopeless future. "A fantastic effort has failed, a repetition in a repetitiousness of men and flies" reinforces this idea of a depressing future. The title The Plain Sense of Things is a symbol for the ugliness of the house and how it needs help. Wallace states, "The great pond, the plain sense of it, without reflections, leaves, mud, water like dirty glass, expressing silence of a sort, silence of a rat come out to see, the great pond and its waste of lilies". The great pond is not great. It is disgusting and filled with muddy water which ruins the beauty of the lilies. The rat is the only living thing who is willing to come near, and rats are ugly. This scene of the house is one of disgust. Wallace Stevens wants to leave the reader with a clear message, life is disgusting and depressing at its core. Without all the pretty fluff of life (as per the falling leaves), humanity is broken and ugly (as per the ruined house).

              The arrangement of the poem is one that balances concrete references and abstract thought. The concrete consists of vision and evidence for the imaginative references Stevens depicts. The beginning stanzas pose a problem and the ending stanzas reach a resolution. There are five stanzas. Each stanza has four lines. The title is a reoccurring phrase in the actual poem because it shows the authors main idea that once you strip the world to its core and disregard the pretty exterior, it is ugly and depressing. 

Question: What conclusion is Stevens trying to reach with his talk of the imagination? I am confused with this part of the poem. 

The Flames and Their Forbidden Fates

The Flames and Their Forbidden Fates 

               

                    In both Jane Eyre and Wide Sargasso Sea, the main characters, Jane and Antoinette, are tempted towards self-immolation. In Wide Sargasso Sea specifically, Antoinette, is tempted to self-harm herself with fire many times. In fact, at the end of the book she dreams of burning the house down that she is living in because she believes that in doing so, she will free herself. "I was outside holding my candle. Now at last I know why I was brought here and what I have to do. There must have been a draught for the flame flickered and I thought it was out. But I shielded it with my hand and it burned up again to light mee along the dark passage" (Rhys, 112). As we readers all know, she will not only "free" herself with the flames, but she will also kill herself. Antoinette's obsession with fire and freedom will lead to her destruction.

Veil Over My Eyes

       The Souls of Black Folk, outlines W.E.B. du Bois feelings out the right of the Southern blacks. These people deserve equal rights and should be allowed to vote, go to a good school, and be treated like any other person. du Bois refers to himself as "different from the others; or like, mayhap, in heart and life and longing, but shut out from their world world by a vast veil. I had thereafter no desire to tear down that veil, to creep through; I held all beyond it in common contempt, and lived above it in a region of blue sky and real wandering shadows" (du Bois 2). This veil idea is referenced multiple times in The Souls of Black Folk. du Bois says that others see themselves through another person's visor. He refers to this as double-consciousness. "It is peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of world that looks on in amused contempt and pity" (du Bois 3). This veil du Bois mentions is one of a racial segregation. He sees the world as place of equals and equal opportunities which is why he believes Southern blacks should have equal opportunities as whites. However du Bois also realizes that the world has not caught up to his vision. There is still unrest between the different races. However, he is floating above the hatred in a world of happiness and acceptance. du Bois was truly a visionary and a civil rights activist. 


Question: Do you ever feel like you can see things more clearly than others and are able to hover above their veil? 

White Supremacy....Ew!

           Reading Rudyard Kipling's, The White Man's Burden, was disturbing to say the least. The tone of this poems suggests that whites should and have an obligation to rule over people of other ethnic backgrounds. Kipling comes across as a racist in this poem. He refers to non-whites like some referred to the Native Americans, "half-devil and half-child". This two words suggest two things, non-whites are like beasts and are evil. And secondly, this other people are stupid and childish. Kipling says we should approach these people, with "open speech and simple", as if the people are too dumb to understand sophisticated speech. Later on Kipling's poem he writes, "go mark them with your living, and mark them with your dead", signifying the bloodshed in a white man's burden. 


          Honestly, I am disgusted by Rudyard Kipling's poem. I disagree with everything he says and I don't believe at all in white supremacy. Kipling was obviously sick in the head and anyone who agrees with the poem needs to rethink their beliefs. No man has the right to judge another man based on the color of his skin. Every race is equally as intelligent and able to comprend difficult speech. Colonization is good if it helps the other nations, not if it hinders and imprisons them. 


Question: What is your view on white supremacy? Disgusting or like Kipling says necessary? 

Bam! Boom! Bam!

        In George Orwells, Shooting an Elephant, the story begins with Orwell a telling of when Orwell was a police officer in Moulmein. During this time period, there was much political unrest due to the anti-European mindset of the locals. Because of Orwells position of authority, he must keep the locals in line as they make fun of him, even though in his heart he sympathizes with their pain and suffering. While doing his routine walks around the villages, Orwell's called to handle a wild elephant roaming the streets of one of the villages. Once he arrives at the village, Orwell at first thinks he must be part of a hoax, but sure enough there is a giant elephant galavanting in the street. Orwell, passes one trampled Indian man and decides he must shoot the elephant per the town-peoples requests.  Orwell, "did not want in the least to shoot him. I decided that I would watch him for a little while to make sure that he did not turn savage again, and then go home" (Orwell 2). However, "I glanced around the crowd that had followed me...they were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to preform a trick. They did not like me, but with the magical rifle in my hands I was momentarily worth watching". It was at this moment that Orwell realized he had no choice but to shoot the elephant. The people were peer-pressuring him into shooting the animal and because Orwell's power was only what the people made it to be, he needed to remain in control of the situation. "A sahib has got to act like a sahib; he has got to appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite things. To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing-no that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man's life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at" (Orwell 2). Therefore, Orwell shot the elephant, not because he wanted to or because it was the right thing to do, but he shot the elephant as to not look stupid in front of the Indians.


      So much of our lives at like the sahib's actions. We do things not because we want to do them, but because we feel the pressure of others' opinions impressing on our own moral code. Sometimes we do not act like we want to, but instead act like the group. In our heart of hearts we know we should be the individual in the crowd who takes a stand, but sometimes it is just too hard to stand out and we fade into the veil of the popular opinion. 


Question: What have you done in your life not because you wanted to do it, but because you would look stupid to others if you didn't? 

Communism

         In Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels book the Communist Manifesto, they published their opinions about the struggles between classes, the capitalist system, and the rise of the workers' power. As far as class system goes, the duo say, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of the class struggles" (Engels & Marx 1). They argue that throughout all of time whether it be the freeman and the slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman all of these relationships simplify to being the oppressor and the oppressed. In the present day capitalist society, this relationship is shown by the proletariat facing the bourgeoisie. "The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society, has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of old ones" (Engels & Marx 1). The bourgeoisie is successful at maintaining superiority over the proletariat because of wage-labor. This means that the laborers bring some of the separation on themselves because, "wage-labor rests exclusively on competition between laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association" (Engels & Marx 3).
          This influences the rise of the proletariat. The proletariat will eventually rise to power due to the bourgeoisie's exploitation of the workers. A revolution will occur, but capitalism will still survive and the bourgeoisie will rise to power once again. The key to class equality in this society is capitalism, according to Marx and Engels.


Question: Americans hide from capitalism. Why is the common opinion so different in America compared to Germany?

Some Will Try and Fail

             

            The story "The Open Boat" is sad and depressing, but at the same time it shows how people can bond together through any circumstances and secure a bond that will stand many tests. In "The Open Boat", we learn of four survivors from an earlier sinking of their boat. The men are struggling to survive in their little dingy and all of them must work tirelessly, nonstop in order to keep the boat afloat. The men are: an oiler, the captain, the correspondant, and the cook. While the other three men work, the captain directs the dingy from the head. 


              As the story progresses the men find land. They rejoice and celebrate their feat! The correspondant even shares his last four cigars with his "brothers". However, the water is so rough and because there is no one out to help them ashore, they can't row ashore. Finally, the men believe they see a lone man on the shore. They wait out the night in hopes that help is coming to their rescue, but of course no one comes. 


              When morning comes, the captain suggests that the group get as close as they can and then it is each man for himself to swim to the shore. As the men make a break for it in the icy waters, a man plunges into the water  from the shore to help save the men. Three of the men survive, but the oiler was not so lucky. 


             In this story, I learned that it is important to trust other people. Humans all have an innate desire to live. Sometimes, the only thing you have in life to live for is the hope that everything will get better. Throughout having hope though, you have to act. You cannot wait for others to come and row your boat ashore, you have to fight. You have to show an inner strength for never giving up during the hard times. 


              It is easy to give up and it is also easy to let someone else do the hard work for yourself. In the story the men had worked so hard and then wanted others to finish the jobs for them. No one came. However when they showed that they wanted to fight for their lives, help came. It was a battle to live but three of the four men were lucky.


             Sometimes you're going to be that one man who doesn't get what you have worked hard for. It doesn't mean that you put in less effort or didn't deserve it, it just means you didn't have the luck that time. In this story, the luckless man would be the oiler. He worked just as hard as the rest of the men, but didn't get pulled ashore. 


Question: Have you ever been that one person who didn't get what they deserved? How did it feel?

The Heart is A Cruel Thing

              The poem "In the Desert", is a small poem but it is packed with meaning. In the poem, the narrator comes across a small creature who is eating his own heart. When asked if it is good, the creature replies, "It is bitter-bitter. But I like it because it is bitter and because it is my heart" (Crane 1). 


               The creature really shows the persona of almost every person on this Earth. We all believe that our hearts are good, pure, and clean. We, of course, see the good in ourselves. If we saw only the bad acts we commit we would all hate ourselves and that would be both an unhealthy and depressing world. So instead of discovering the pain we have caused, we discover the joy and happiness we have given to others. We love the kindness in our hearts, but in with all that kindness is a bitterness because man, deep down, is unpure. We are a sinful people and we spread so much bitterness with our tongue and with our actions that we leave a bitter mark on our hearts. Our hearts are marked with sin and due to this fact we almost love to act maliciously in certain situations. We have the saying, "what goes around comes around", and we use this to justify acting meanly towards other people. We love getting payback and therefore we sometimes love our bitterness. 


Question: If you looked truthfully at your own heart would you see mostly sinfulness or pure happiness?

What You Like is Not Always Good

Criticism and Fiction by William Dean Howells serves to ask readers to really consider and analyze a literary work instead of labeling it good because they like it. It seems as though our logic of good and bad isn't always applied to literary works like it should be. In our lives, if a person likes alcohol to excess and is an alcoholic, it is still bad even though it feels good. Howells states, "Their taste has been perverted by their false criticism, which is based upon personal preference, and not upon principle; which instructs a man to think that what he likes is good, instead of teaching him first to distinguish what is good before he likes it" (Howell 1). Howell believes Jane Austen was the last author to have a mastery of this art. Her writings were good because she treated the matter she wrote about with entire truthfulness. Her principles, not personal preference, are evidenced in the book. This is what Howell believes distinguishes her writings from those of bad writers. Anthony Trollope followed Jane Austen's suit, except his instinct was to much for his ideal. He believed the civic relations and a bourgeois soul were equivalent to life, however his literary works expressed beauty in life. 


Fiction is a declining literary sector because it had become based upon fads and not the authors beliefs and principles. Vampire books have become very widely written, not because writers like vampires, but because it is a popular topic and will sell a lot of books. Fiction is "continued debasement as an art" (Howell 1), due to this developing economic standard. Jane Austen's book is popular because it encompasses not only romance which is a popular sector, but also because Austen really placed her beliefs in the book and when we read her books we can take a little piece of the Jane's principle pie. 

It's A Hardknock Life For Us

Life in the Iron Mills is a very depressing story which follows the lives of workers in an iron mill. The story develops by setting the scene which incases a smoke-covered factory in which hunger and poverty rates run extremely high. Some people are so poor that they can not even afford the mill's cheap housing and instead have to sleep on the stacks of the iron dust. After that sad description, we learn of Deborah, a work-working woman who is quite homely. Her body shows years of malnutrition and hard-labor. She is delivering a sandwich to a worker named Hugh. She walks many, many miles and once she arrives and gives Hugh the sandwich she can tell he is eating the sandwich out of pity instead of hunger.


While at the mill, the group realizes four strange men walking around the factory. Instead of continuing their work like they normally do when the routine inspections come along, the workers, this time, stop their work and analyze the strange men. They seem to be discussing voting amongst the workers. The men stop and recognize a small, beautiful statue of a woman. The level of detail and detail in the woman in tremendous. The artist, Hugh, should not be forced to work in these slums because he has potential to be a great man. All he needs is money to dig himself out of this hole- money that he has no way of acquiring until a friend named Deborah gave him stolen money. Hugh puzzled over whether to keep the money or give it back but ended up deciding to keep the money because he was "worth it". In the end, Hugh should have given up the money because he is later arrested and sentenced to nineteen years in prison. While in prison, Hugh commits suicide. 


The meaning of the story is very confusing. While it serves to show the truth on the American industrial industry, it also shows that America was not the land of prosperity that it set out to be. America has said to be the land where someone can go from nothing to something with enough hard work and dedication. This story rejects that opinion because Hugh had worked many hard years in the iron mills, and when he finally got his break to become something, the prison door was shut in his face. Hugh didn't steal the money and he was seemingly penalized for believing in himself. 


Hugh is the model of many American hopefuls who end up becomes nobodies. How many wannabe starlets move to LA or New York only to end up working in McDonalds or some other lower society position. The opportunities are open for those who already have their foot in door. No door will magically open unless you already have the means to make it happen. 


Question: Have you ever felt as though your dreams were smashed because of where you fell on the social ladder?

"Nope, I have the caffeine patch. It's my invention. Each patch is the equivalent of 12 cups of coffee. You can stay up for days with no side effects. Ahhh! Sorry."

                      In Jamais Cascio's article, he talks about how technology is not an evil, like "Is Google Making us Stupid?" argues, in fact, the truth is quite the opposite. Cascio believes that technology is making us smarter. He believes that all the details and tid bits increased technology made available, is picked up by our brain and stored away for future use without us even consciously doing so. Cascio calls this automatic gathering of information, fluid intelligence. The technological advancements for fluid intelligence go hand in hand with pharmaceutical improvements.  


                      Cascio says that in the drug field, scientists created a drug, called modifinil, that allows you to stay up for 32 hours straight without completely confusing your sleep schedule. In addition to pushing off sleep, the drug also allows people to think more alertly and with more clarity and focus. A Cambridge study supports Cascio's findings. "concluded the modifinil confers a measurable cognitive-enhancement effect across a variety of mental tasks, including pattern recognition and spatial planning, and sharpens focus and alertness" (Casico 3). Casico concludes that through the use of technology we get smarter, and our fluid intelligence increases. 


                     I think the findings in Casico's story to be eye-opening and kind or startling. The sleep process for humans is not only a time for physical rest but also a time for mental and emotion regeneration. A sleep deprived person can act recklessly and foolishly because their brain is hindered from exhaustion. According to Casico's theory, the brain would find a different way to refuel and while sleep-deprived it would actually work more efficiently. I find this dangerous because it goes against our nature. I believe that humans need that time everyday to sleep just to remain sane. Hustling and bustling artificially for 36 hours is unhealthy and has to have detrimental effects somewhere else on the body. 


Question: Would you truly like to be able to stay awake for 36 hours straight?

Am I Getting Dumber?

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicolas Carr unwraps a big problem in American society- the way in which we learn. Nicolas states before the internet was so widely used and accepted he would have to spend  days gathering information for a project but now with the internet this research takes only hours. This is due to a change in the way we learn. How often do we skim an article without even realizing we aren't really focusing deeply on the details? I know I personally do this a lot and it kind of scares me. Us Americans especially have so much information at our fingertips and yet we don't utilize this gift as much as we should. We skim the paragraphs, click an other link, skim that article, and repeat. Our brains now learn in little bits and pieces because we are constantly going back and forth between documents.

In addition to the quality with which we read and the way we learn, I think Nicolas should have touched on the quantity of material we should know but dont and google daily. By this I mean, I still have to google cooking conversion tables while I'm cooking even though I should have them remembered by heart. Because of the readily available materials we are less likely to remember things. This is because if we forget something we googled, we can always google it again.


Question: How many google searches do you search per day?

Internet Trolls

            
        After reading Panopticism by Foucault, I began to think about how monitored I am throughout the day without even my realizing it. In school, I sit at a desk where the teacher is in center-front of the room giving his lecture and the doors have windows that people routinely look through. Also, we have windows that lead to the outside. On the main floor, certain windows allow passer-bys to peek into the room. In my house, I also have windows. Here, however, people can see through them and determine whether others are home or not, awake or sleep, avoiding them or answering the door. Our windows are not darkly tinted and even the bathrooms don't go all the way to the floor or up to the wall. At any time during my day, I have no idea how many people are watching me. Even when we eat our lunches at a circular table, there is surveillance. The only time humans are truly without surveillance is our digital-lives and our relationship with online social media.


        The online world is harsh and cruel. It is a place where people who normally hide within the woodwork, now speak freely and critically. Foucault says that the Panoptican, "was also a laboratory; it could be used as a machine to carry out experiments, to alter behavior, to train or correct individuals" (Foucault 10). I believe this certainly true in the case of online bullying. When the bully is out int he open and everyone is watching her petty actions, she is less likely to continue the behavior. However, if she is left to her own devices evil words will flow over. Humans are,at the  a core, flawed being. The Panoptican allows us to check our moral code more often because we are always being monitored.  


Question:Have you ever written a mean comment on Facebook?

Self-Reliance

I loved reading Self-Reliance because it was filled with truth-bombs. So many of the statements really spoke to me, so I thought I would share a few really quotes that I found really applicable.


1. "We but half express ourselves, and are ashamed of the divine idea which each of us represents" (Emerson 2).  I find, in my daily life, I often restrain my thoughts in order to not offend people or not have to not share my ideas because what I would say would cause others to judge me. This statement is true especially when my opinion is different then someone else's. When discussing certain topics, some answers are expected and if our answer deviates from what the other person is predicting us to say, judgement and argument can follow. Often to avoid this altercation, I will say, "Hmmmm...I haven't thought about that yet". When in actually, I have and my opinion is just different from theirs.


2. To go along with my first observation, Emerson continues, "For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure. And therefore a man must know how to estimate a sour face" (Emerson 3). When encountering a situation like the one above, I read the person's sour face and then answer accordingly. The few times  I have given my non-conforming opinion I have been told I was wrong and received a very sour look (much like the one in the above picture) because of my nonconformity. Going to a Christian school really amplifies the degree to which this is enacted because many of life's unanswered questions are involving religion. When my opinion differs on a religious matter it is usually because the answer is not in the Bible, and therefore a question mark. Most of the time, people are very dead-set about opinion oriented questions in relation to the Bible. Therefore, when I tell my opposing opinion, I am shut down and my idea is rejected by the other person. The person was displeased with my answer, like Emerson said would happen.


3. In order to form opposing beliefs often I can't be in a group situation. Emerson says, "it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude" (Emerson 3). Like I mentioned above, in conversation I often find myself concealing my true opinion. However, when I'm on my own, I don't have to lie to myself or flee from the judgement of others because there is no one to flee from. I wish I could be the great man and not be afraid of the judgement of others, but for now I will stay under the cloak of "hmmm....I haven't thought about that yet".


Question: Do you often not share your opinion because of what others may think?

I Can Feel You All Around Me, Circling the Air I'm Breathing

                   Walt Whitman's "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry", from his book Leaves of Grass, is phenomenal at depicting the world we live with such descriptive narration.  It proved impossible for me to not apply his imagery to my own life. These are just of my observations of the world in relation to his. 


1. "Sea-gull, saw high in the air floating with motionless wings, oscillating their bodies" (Whitman 1). Whitman describes seagulls in such poetic terms. I, on the other hand, see less beauty in these creatures. Although their flight is pretty, Whitman failed to mention their awful attitudes. I had two seagull memories that pop-out in my mind. One was on a family vacation in North Carolina in the Outer Banks. It was summertime and we were one the beach. My parents thought it would be so perfect to feed the seagulls. Never again will I make this mistake. After I threw the first piece of bread, it was all over for me. The seagulls attacked me, with their majestic flight seemingly to cause me to have a heart attack, and I was left fleeing for what seemed to be my life leaving the loaf of bread for them to fight over. My second memory involves seeing the flight of a seagull up close. I was on a field trip in elementary school. We were on a boat in the Chesapeake Bay learning about the sea creatures. A seagull flew over us and the guide pointed out the beauty of its figure and such. In return, the seagull pooped all over the ship and us. Long story short, I remember nothing from that field trip except the angry, pooping bird. 


2. Whitman describes the port cities as, "Come on, ships from the lower bay! pass up or down, white-sail'd schooners, sloops, lighters!"..."Thrive, cities- bring your freight, bring your shows, ample and sufficient rivers, expand, being that which none else is perhaps more spiritual" (Whitman 4). While there is a ton of beauty in the way the ships glide across the water and how harmoniously sailboats sail, the port cities at the time period of 1855 were disgusting. Industrial growth around the ports led to huge amounts of people. This is only natural because people will flock to whether the jobs are, however with more people comes more problems and hygienic issues. The waters were murky due to the whaling industry and factory waste. 


             In conclusion, although Walt Whitman is correct about so much of the simple beauty of nature, he also fails to comment on the realities of life. Nature is not always as glamorous as Whitman would have it appear. From reading his article, it is understandable that so many Americans back in the day pictured these perfect little seaports and wanted to travel there only to be disappointed upon arrival. Nature shows glimmers of beauty, but also, the harsh reality is, it is also disgusting at times. I would have like Walt Whitman to pay tribute to both the beauty and the less-admirable parts of nature. 

Question: Have you ever had a gross encounter with nature when it was well, just being nature?  

Rx: Prescription of Love

                   "The Wound-Dresser" is a poem about an old man who is asked to recount his days, during his youth, when he worked as a wound-dresser in the war-field hospital. The man recalls the faces and remembers his agony for the patients. "I onward go, I stop, with hinged knees and a steady hand to dress wounds, I am firm with each, the pangs are sharp yet unavoidable, one turns to me his appealing eyes- poor boy! I never knew you, yet I think I could not refuse this moment to die for you, if that would save you" (Whitman 2). 


                   This poem really captures the basic human compassion, which is instilled in all of us,  that we feel towards those in need. The wound-dresser was not immune to the soldiers pains and sufferings. Today, we often consider doctors as non-congenial robots who take no personal claim in their dealings with patients. The doctor from the show House comes to mind. He will purposely put his patients in agony and cause them both physical and emotional pain at times. He is definitely not afraid to tell them how it is. However, the side to House that many don't see is his hidden compassion. He will stay up all night and labor over his patients possible diseases and ailments. His own health is often put in second place compared to the lives of his patients. He truly cares about their lives even though he is afraid to show any compassion towards them. 

                   The wound dresser is a personification of this hidden compassion. The old man says he would have even given up his own life in order to remove his patients' pains. This man is truly amazing and I think we would all be very lucky to have put our wounds in his tender hands. 


Question: Have you ever received the unmerited compassion of a stranger? How did it make you feel? 

Change: Vote or Protest?

                         In Henry David Thoreau's paper, Resistance to Civil Government, he discusses his views on the government and how to actually make a difference. One of his main points was, "Even voting for the right is doing nothing. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of the masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote" (Thoreau 856). Basically, Thoreau is stating that voting in mass is worthless because when change happens it will be due to economics not what is morally right or wrong, and it is the individual who breaks away from the mass to make a difference because he is acting solely on moral means.


                        I'm torn whether to agree or disagree with Thoreau because I believe in the benefit of both the mass and the individual. Also, I believe that some individuals are completely wrong and are protesting the wrong things. For example, current day neo-Nazis should be silenced because their morals are wrong and the mass of America has told them so. However, some big movements began with the works an individual. I believe there has to be a certain balance between the mass and the individual. If a mass of passionate individuals come together as a group, I believe this is the perfect harmony in Thoreau's theory. Unlike Thoreau I believe in the virtue of the masses of men. There is nothing wrong with placing a well informed vote in a ballot box. It doesn't mean you aren't standing up for what you believe in it simply means you are quieter in your means of creating change. 


Question: Do you think there is more benefit in individual protests or the vote/protest of many? 

Bump Bump Bump in the Night

                        
                  The Tell-Tale Heart, by Edgar Allen Poe, describes the acts of the guilty conscience. In the story, Poe describes the murder of an old man with a vulture-like "evil" eye. This murder, however, was unlike most in that it was extremely well-thought out. The madman used his methodical ways so he can defend his claim of non-insanity Each night the murderer would open the "evil"eyes door. On the first night, the door was opened just a smidge. Each night that followed, the narrator got more and more ambitous until finally the door would be fully open after a night of inching it open. "Upon the eighth night I was more than usually cautious in opening the door. A watch's minute hand moves more quickly than mine did. Never before that night had I felt the extent of my own powers-of my sagacity. I could scarely contain my feelings of triumph" (Poe 1). Obviously, the man is somehow deranged, if he feels power from slowly opening a door to scare someone. Perhaps he was drawn to kill by the man's evil eye that "vexed" him, but whatever the case may be the murderer smothered the man when his eye was wide open and his heart was beating fast. The man's feelings of fear were "all in vain; because Death,  in approaching him had stalked with his black shadow before him, and enveloped the vitcim. And it was the mournful influence of the unperceived shadow that caused him to feel- although he neither saw nur heard- to fell the presence of my head within the room" (Poe 2). The murder had delcared "the old's man hour had come! With a loud yell, I threw open the lantern and leaped into the room. He shrieked once-once only. In an instant I dragged him to the floor, and pulled the heavy bed over him. I then smiled gaily, to find the deed so far done. But, for many minutes, the heart beat on with a muffled sound" (Poe 2). This heart would later cause his conscience to act against his evil mean and confess his guilt.


                 Later in story, the man realizes his guilty conscience is upon him. "I fancied a ringing in my ears; but still they sat and still chatted. The ringing became more distinct:--It continuned and became more distinct: I talked more freely to get ride of the feeling: but it continued and gained definiteness--until, at length, I found that the noise was not within my ears" (Poe 3). The noise was the sound of the man's beating heart and it resonated within his conscience. No act of reasoning can convince the man that his murderous acts were not wrongfully put into action.


               The heart beat stronger and stronger until finally he could bear the beating no longer. He confessed his evil deeds to the police and shrieked, "Villians! Dissemble no more! I admit the deed!--tear up the planks! here, here! --It is the beating of his hideous heart!" (Poe 4).


               The conscience is an tool to determine right from wrong. In our own lives, we are faced daily with choices between right and wrong. Sometimes, when we knowingly choose the bad option, our concscience comes back to haunt us. Even though the man could have sucessfully alluded police and been free for the rest of his life, his conscience was louder than his reason. Murder is never a option and his conscience knew that the man's deed, no matter how sickely twisted his mind had made the act, was in fact wrong and nothing could justify his cold-hard murder of the man with the "evil" eye.


Question: Have you ever commited a wrong and were haunted by your conscience?

Never Say Never

       Edgar Allan Poe was a very popular American writer and is still known today for his depressing tales of woe. Unfortunately, his most popular poem, "The Raven", is yet another sad American poem. This poem clearly defines romanticism in it's feelings of overpowering emotion, loss, and imagination. I recommend reading the poem to really get a true sense of the American romanticism movement because Poe's writing skills are highly impressive. 


       "The Raven", published by the American Review in February 1845, serves as a great milestone for American poetics. The story opens with a man recounting his relationship with a woman named Lenore. She is his "forgotten lore" (Poe 1). Suddenly, while in this state of depression and remembrance, the narrator hears a knocking at his door. He originally ignores the noise until the sound grows louder and moves to his window.  When he went to open his window, a raven flew in. The narrator, amused by this random event, asks the bird it's name. The bird replies "Nevermore". The man begins to talk to the raven saying things such as, "Other friends have flown before- On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before" (Poe 3). The raven simply replies, "Nevermore". The vocabulary of the raven includes only a single word- nevermore.
     
      As the man talks to the raven his mind wanders back to his lost love Lenore. He asks the raven if they will be together again in Heaven. He believes the raven to be sent from God to remove his anguish. The raven answers, "Nevermore". The narrator becomes furious with the bird because he feels as though his Lenore is forever lost and the Heavens have forsaken him. He commands the bird to leave, yet the bird never moves. The man feels as though he is trapped under the bird's depression of "nevermore" and will never be able to leave his dark shadow. The reader cannot help but feel pity for the man's condition. 


        The focus of anger in the poem is not reflected on the bird itself but on the answer of nevermore to certain emotional remarks. The narrator is in a state of depression and the bird's "nevermore" remarks are lowering his spirits. The romanticism movement's focus in America was on the profession of emotions. This poem is like a catharsis of emotions for the man. He wanted to be told by the bird that it would all be okay in the end, however the bird is "real" and tells the truth- the future is a broken and twisted path and not straight and perfect. 


Question: Have you ever felt like the man? Ever asked someone their opinion in hopes of high praise and been torn down due to their response? 

Too Much Beauty Sleep?

         The story of Rip Van Winkle written by Washington Irving is utterly confusing upon first glance. His story builds a unique plot line that serves to confuse the reader. Following the twists and turns of this American short story is an adventure unto itself. 
         
         The story opens with was Rip Van Winkle a lazy, unsuccessful Dutch colonist living in the colonial Kaatskills mountain area. He lived in pre-Revolutionary War times and didn't know of the oncoming threat of war. Although he so lazy, he is also well loved by all those in town. "I observed that he was a simple good natured man; he was moreover a kind neighbor, and an obedient, henpecked husband. Indeed, to the latter circumstance might be owing the meekness of spirit which gained him such universal popularity" (Irving 938). His wife was known as Dame Van Winkle and she ran a tight ship for her house and was constantly nagging Rip Van Winkle about his lack of drive for success. Rip had, "an insuperable aversion to all kinds of profitable labour" (Irving 938). Yet, "He would never even refuse to assit a neighbor in the roughest toil" (Irving 938). Although he was successful in his standings within the community, his home life was rocking and his farm was a failure. 


          To escape his wife's constant nagging, he would take up his gun and head into the woods. He would sometimes sit under a tree with his dog Wolf or at other times shoot game.  On one particular day, he saw a man at the bottom of the mountains that needed help carrying a keg. As to not go against his helpful nature, Rip Van Winkle descended into the deep ditch of the mountains to help the man. Silently they carried this keg through the mountains. "During the whole time, Rip and his companion had labored on in silence; for though the former marveled greatly what could be the object of carrying a keg of liquor up this wild unknown mountain, yet there was something strange and incomprehensible about the unknown, that inspired awe, and checked familiarity" (Irving 941).


         I think this last quote could not be more true and still relates to our lives today. Recently I was asked if I could choose to be a bird or a fish which would I choose. After thinking it through I chose to be a fish over a bird. For birds, they fly through clouds and all they can do is experience cloud after cloud, and although they reach an exciting destination- the journey is quite dull. However for a fish, they can experience many new species of fish and coral. They have the excitement of the unknown threat of a lurking shark. They can travel to the deepest parts of the ocean or skim the surface- there is so much more excitement in the journey.  The familiarity of the clouds was boring, while the unknown of the ocean inspired an awe in my fishy self. The unknown, although slightly scary, always carries along the dazzling question of what exists in itself.  


        Rip Van Winkle and his keg carrying companion delivered the keg to a bar. Although the bar mates were happy, they showed no joy. Rip Van Winkle began to drink their liquor and soon fell into a sleep. When he awakes he is in a green field. His gun is rusting and his joints ache. Also his beard has grown a foot. "I'm not myself-I'm somebody else-that's me yonder-no that's somebody else, got into my shoes- I was myself last night, but I fell asleep on the mountain, and they've changed my gun, and everything's changed, and I'm changed, and I can't tell what's my name, or who I am" (Irving 945). Even though these changes are troubling, Rip Van Winkle returns to his town. His town has also completely changed. The buildings are broken down and King George III's portrait in the hall has been replaced with George Washington's. Rip Van Winkle soon learns that he had slept for twenty years and slept through the Revolutionary War.  His son is all grown up and his wife and many friends have died.


       Rip Van Winkle, after sleeping through the war, still did not change his lazy ways. He told his story and some believed him while others laughed at the tale. His life, although he never accomplished much of anything, lives on in the Kaatskills. In fact, when it rains the current resident refers to the thunder as the Hendrick Hudson crew (the crew that drank the carried keg). 


Question: What was the significance of Rip Van Winkle's 20 year sleep and how does this reflect American literature?