Holy Bummer Batman

The works of both John Cheever and Flannery O'Connor were both extremely interesting and each dealt with human emotion and crisis.

In Cheever's "The Swimmer" the character is developed in a way that is meant to
be likable by the reader. He comes off as somewhat of a goofball but in a
likable way. Descriptions such as, "and while he was far from young he had slid
down his banister that morning and given the bronze backside of Aphrodite on the
hall table a smack." and "He did not want to mystify or seem rude to the Grahams
nor did he have the time to liner there." These words portray the character as
friendly and a real 'go getter'. On his trip to swim across the county via
swimming pool the reader can begin to see that while the majority of the
neighborhood greeting him very kindly, there was something amiss and a turn of
events was likely. He began to tire on his journey and seemed to concentrate
more and more on the alcohol that awaited him at each pool stop. Only his
ex-mistress and a neglected neighbor greeted him reluctantly.
He
mentioned his wife and kids on a couple of occasions and at the end of the
story, when he made it home, he found the house locked up. First blaming this on
a "stupid cook" or a "stupid maid" he came to realize that the house was in fact
empty. This ends the story.
I feel that this story represented the
characters escape from the reality of his life through the use of alcoholism.
Not only did the author use direct reference to alcohol, but the use of liquid
(the pools) and his exhaustion toward the end of journey also represented
alcohol. I think that he was slowly 'drowning' in alcohol and fooled himself
into believing all was well. Perhaps this alcoholism is why his family packed up
and left, and his failure to realize and address the problem led him to create a
fantasy life.

O'Connor's "Good Country People" had a similar flavor to it. The main character was a woman who was going to die young, had lost a leg, and was incredibly rude and obviously very embittered with life. Her PHD was in Philosophy which likely added to her distaste for optimism and acceptance of the negative. She is described by her mother as, "the poor stout girl in her thirties who had never danced a step or had any normal good times." She also changed her name from Joy to Hulga. This has obvious intention. Joy represents happiness and joy, how could a bitter, helpless, and pessimistic girl live with that name? An ugly and rougher sounding name like Hulga could seem more fitting to a girl with this mind set. Hulga is so wrapped up in her bitterness that she is blinded by the young bible selling country boy's true intent. She leads the boy on with malicious intent of her own but he ends up pulling one over on her. When he was done with her she didn't have a leg to stand on. He turned from bible boy to a kid with a bottle of booze, porno cards, and anti-christian beliefs. He steals her leg and tells her he's stolen a glass eye from a girl in the same manner before.

In "The Swimmer" the character is a likable guy but his inability to deal with life leads to his being alone without his family. In "Good Country People" the character is very unlikeable but like the former possesses an inability to deal with life. And she too is left alone in the end, only instead of loosing her family, she looses what is dear to her, her leg.

Cheever's style deals primarily with the life of one man. He adds brief visits with neighbors and friends but the story focuses on one character. Flannery uses multiple characters in his story. The bitter girl, her mom, and her mom's know it all friend. While both stories are told effectively each has its own approach that makes it work.

Cheever's aims at getting to know the character as a friendly man. One who seems to be 'floating' through life, and hints throughout the story of an ominous end to the story. You start thinking of his drinking and the mistress and the drinking and the drinking, and his exhaustion, and the drinking, and know somethings gotta go wrong. With Flannery you grow to dislike the main character, but you grow to like the mom, care less for her friend, and grow curious about the boy. These elements add more dimension to the story. Your not quite sure where it is going to go, but when it gets there your not sure to feel bad for the girl, or say that's what she gets. She was rude, mean to her mom, she misled a teenager about her age and planned to have sex with him, and she was generally unlikable. The kid ends up 'one upping her', so you almost feel that there was a moral to this story. One of Karma and what goes around comes around. Where is in Cheever's its more of how avoiding problems with more tangible means of escape will ruin your life as you know it. Either way both characters lost something very important to them. And both stories rocked.

I found this poem while creating a lesson plan on WWI and thought I would share.

There died a myriad,
And of the best, among them,
For an old
bitch gone in the teeth,
For a botched civilization,

Charm, smiling
at the good mouth,
Quick eyes gone under earth's lid,

For two gross
of broken statues,
For a few thousand battered books.

-- Ezra Pound,
1920

InterWar Period:Womens Treatment

Women of the early twentieth century were treated almost subserviently by there male counterparts. The old "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" belief was alive and well in the U.S during the interwar period.In Their Eyes were Watching God, written by Zora Neale Hurston, we can see many examples of the mistreatment of women. Even the main charector Janie, who is portrayed as very beautiful and caring (the beautiful image is enhanced by watching the movie, which Oprah butchered) is treated poorly. As a young woman Janie is warned of men and their evil ways by her grandma. When she discovers that Janie is entering adult hood she tells her, "Ah don't want no trashy nigger, no breath-and-britches, lak Johnny Taylor usin' you' body to wipe his foots on." When discussing a suiter for her she say's, "'Tain't no Logan Killicks Ah wants you to have, baby, it's protection." Further evidence in Grannies warninings are multiple and include, "Ah can't die easy thinkin' maybe de menfolks white or black is makin' a spit cup outa you:" These warnings to her granddaughter gives us an idea of how women were treated. Janie's relationships were evidence that proved her mothers warnings about men. Her first marriage was arranged by her grannie. This guy was older and unattractive. Janie couldn't stand being married to him. Janie was just 'better off' to be married to a guy that hand land a decent house. Marriage wasn't about falling in love and enjoying each other, it was about making life better by settling for the best option. Ol' Mr. Starks was Janie's next adventure. He was a chauvinist that believed that she should keep her mouth shut and be a good wife. He would provide and she would obey. At one point Janie would insult his 'manhood' and get beat down for it. At this time a woman had no voice, it was a mans world. Teacake ended up being a decent guy whom she fell in love with. He did smack her around once, not because she did any wrong, but to simply make a statement of his manhood and dominance. Kind uncivilized in today's world but in this period nobody would question it. Women of this period were treated as personal property by their men. They would do what they were told and keep their mouths shut. Men were the King's of their castles and had complete authority. Women were to hold the household and provide sex, not much else.

Stevens and Moore

I enjoyed both Moore's What Are Years and Steven's Emperor of Ice-Cream.

They are both very lyrical in context. There is a fast pace and even flow to both poems. I can easily come up with a heavy rythm guitar base for both of them, they would definatley work.
They both use colorful language as well. I found Moores to be a little less fragmented and easier to roll, but Steven's makes up for it with the poems depictions and obscurities. Comparing Ice-Cream to a woman dying in bed is pretty wild, where Moore goes right for emotions and depths (emotional). Moore breaks her lines as we would break our sentences. The lines easily lead in to another, usually with a comma. Steven's makes you work a little more for it.

"The muscular one, and bid him whip
In kitchen cups concupiscent curds.
Let the wenches dawdle in such dress
As the are used to wear, and let the boys"

Moore's poem was easier to follow than this. And just what is it in them cups?

Modernism

The works of e.e cummings, Genevieve Taggard, and T.S. Elliot offer different perspective of the modernist writer. My personal taste enjoyed the work of cummings the greatest, and the work of Elliot the least. Elliots The Waste Land was quite hard to read. I feel it is because there are an equal amount of foot notes as there are words in the work itself. I had a flash back of trying to study the Communist Manifesto while reading this (and the Manifesto was easier!).

cummings offered a more politically based outlook of the modern times. He reflects on the lives lost in The Great War in next to of course god amicica i. In this work he contemplates the effects of the war and dead as related to america's reputation as the beautiful, "why talk of beauty what could be more beautiful than these heroic happy dead who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter they did not stop to think they died instead then shall the voice of liberty be mute?" cummings does not use line breaks throughout this poem, giveing it a fast flow. This reflects the war and the fast way in which soldiers lost their lives. He is definatley a modernest in that he focuses on the sadness and discontent of the inter war period. The poem somewhere i have never travelled,gladly beyond is probably my favorite of those read. I can't put a finger on why it is my favorite but it leaves me in a comfortable yet borderline somber mood. He is great with his wordage and flow.

Taggard doesn't seem to focus on political viewpoints as cumming does. She seems like a feminest and likely a supporter of the progressive movement. She writes poems that reflect the sadness of the times (as does cumming) but does so in focusing on women and children. She reflects the aspect of death and poverty in a war torn world.

Ok, on the other hand, T.S. Elliot frustrated the hell out of me. I tend to think I am a very good reader, but this work was a little tedious. I had to read it a few times jsut to get a general feel for what it was about. It is definatley a reflection of sadness. Of a changed world where unhappiness reaches most aspects of life (both the natural world and the human world). The foot notes completely took the excitement and meaning away from the story.

Elliot (ESPECIALLY Elliot) and Taggard used the more fragmented style of the modernest era while cummings seemed to like the flow of words. Some of his work was fragmented as well, ie. O sweet spontaneous, but even his fragmented work seemed to make better sense and flow better that Taggard and Elliot.

I feel bad knocking on Elliot as such, but maybe devoting two or three weeks to this story can help it to make sense, lol. I did enjoy the works of the other authors though, very much.

Zutkala Sa's "Impressions of an Indian Childhood."

This narrative is both touching and sorrowful. Zitkala is a good story teller who forces you to connect with her characters with her suttle writing style and her true-to-life depictions of an Indian woman raising her daughter in the nineteenth century. I believe the story is intended to show a particular culture thriving and eventually falling into decline.

There is a strong bond portrayed between mother and daughter, this bond is made from respect and love. The innocents of the child is repeated throughout the text, an example being her trying to catch her shadow while running in the fields with her friends. Another example is found when she graciously (but foolishly) prepares coffee for a respected village elder. While displaying this innocents the author also succeeds in painting a serene picture of nature and the children's appreciation of it. From natures 'gum', which is even describes as nature as "the size of a small bird's egg" and tastes sweet and leads to a "woody flavor". The innocents is seen on a deeper level when she asks her mother when she will be big enough to fetch water by herself and her mother replies, "If the paleface does not take away from us the river we drink." She didn't understand her mothers reply but the unhappiness she felt from her mother when she was talking about these people instantly led her to feel hatred for the unfamiliar people. Her mother then bitterly relates the story of how the paleface killed their loved ones. Her mother was likely teaching her a valuable lesson that the life of the Indian was under attack, and to be wary of the whites.

The story is peppered with descriptions of Indian culture. The child learns to make beaded jewelry with her mother and describes how beautifully her mother makes her moccasins. The playful depiction of her relationship with the squirrel while watching the corn shows us both the culture and the beauty of nature. The villagers seem to respect one another throughout the story, making frequent visits to each others wigwams and seemingly feeling very comfortable in doing so. When the community met at the mothers house the mother/daughter bond was strengthened for the reader. The way the daughter securely and comfortably laid on her mothers lap while eagerly listening to the elders tell stories (generational)comforted even me while I was reading it. Zutkala made me see a very close knit community. Another cool part of the story is when the daughter tries to pick a plum from a tree. Her mother quickly averts her and explains that a warrior who loved to play games with the plum seeds was buried with the seeds in his hand. The seeds sprouted from the bones in his hand and the tree was the result. What a great depiction of the love and respect for both the living and the dead. A certain amount of superstition is evident in this part of the story as well. Maybe not superstition as much as a belief in nature. I'm not sure exactly what it made me feel but it left its impact on me. She grew weary of tattooed people from a story she heard over a fire too, leading me to believe in the superstitious tendencies of this culture.

The examples of a culture in decline are present throughout the story both in substance and measure. The first was when the mother told of the paleface and made comment of the water being under threat, they experienced their land taken (and their happiness and people) already, and feared for the worse. In one part of the story the daughter describes "That evening, as on other evenings, I went to sleep over my legends." Could this be an indicator of things to come? Not just for the story but for history itself. This is basically what the Indians were left with when all is said and done, their legends. When the whites enter the story it takes a more somber mood. The daughter (being as innocent as she was) was easily led to the motives of the whites. With her brother's approval and the promise of apples, she decided to leave her mother. This was very much a bummer because when she realizes that she is going she begins to cry and you can feel her regret. Her mother let her go because of her unselfishness, it seemed to hurt her to do so. She states that, " though she does not understand what it all means, is anxious to go. She will need an education when she is grown, for then there will be fewer real Dakotas, and many more palefaces." The mom seemed to know it all along that the end of the culture was near. She looked at her daughters leaving as the white mans payback, an education for her daughter. I highly doubt that mom truly believed this, she likely used this to ease the pain of her loss.

I believe the meaning of the story is one of innocents lost. The innocents of a closely knit people with a love and connection with nature. I also think the message is that when you know something is dying, you must overlook what you truly want and make logical decisions that will guarantee the survival of both the culture and the people you love.

Booker vs. Du Bois

I will try and blog on the topic of these documents the best that I can, though I believe that these documents require more of an extensive reading to properly analyze and decipher their meaning and relationship to one another.

In his response to Washington's The Atlanta Exposition Address, Du Bois seems at times to be jealous and perhaps even envious of Washington's successes. He portrays Washington as a man who does not believe in the freedoms of the black race. He makes strong accusations toward Washington that I could not find evidence of in the text. Accusations of his representing the , "old attitude of adjustment and submission" and that his program "practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro races". I think these words (and the many others that Du Bois slanders him with) are unfounded and wreak of radicalism.

Du Bois seems to want drastic and immediate change in the acceptence and equality of blacks. In this time period I don't believe that this was a realistic goal. While Du Bois makes a good argument that is very much valid about wanting equal opportunity for all Americans I think that radical wording and phrasing likely hurt the cause more than helped.

I feel that Washington had the same passion as Du Bois but used logic and intelligence instead of passion when dealing with the matter. I feel his success was genuine and his followers plenty, unlike Du Bois' allegations that his supporters were merely a "cult". Washington's main focus at the time of the writing was to take steps in getting better lives for Black Americans, primarily by means of capital. By working toward equality in the work force resulting in better jobs and pay for blacks Washington was aiming to improve many lives. We must remember that this was a much different period in history. If I were on the streets and starving in today's world I would certainly first ask for food before demanding to be given a new apartment. This analogy seems ridiculous I am sure, but I need to somehow reflect my thoughts on this matter. Du Bois seems to want changes from the political aspects first. To him having more black Congressman would be an incredible improvement for all blacks, and he is right to believe so, but having a handful of black politicians isn't going to do squat for the millions of hungry and homeless families. Putting a check in their pockets would.

I have to take Washington's view as a more realistic and thought out view than Du Bois. While Du Bois was also correct in wanting equality for blacks, his attitude and logic were driven by passion and not realism. Using aggressive rhetoric and making demands would have less effect with the whites than compromising and beginning in steps would.