The Wife of His Youth

One thing I was trying to get from the story, "The Wife of His Youth," was whats the point?  Chesnutt always had a point to make in his work, and for a while it eluded me.  But I think I cracked it, and I think that it is a statement about how you cant hide from your past.  Even though Mr. Ryder had done everything in his power to shed away his past, it ended up right at his door step.  But the way that he dealt with it was how any reasonable and civilized person would, even thought it took a while, by addressing it head on.  I think this is a statement about how the past, no matter how different it maybe, needs to be embraced and remembered.  It does not mean it should drag you down, but any attempt to forget it or bleach it from your memory is futile and you would be lying to yourself in the process.  Thoughts?

Dave's Neckliss

The thing that struck me as the most crucial theme of the story was the effect labels can have.  The allegory with Dave and the ham illustrating this point rather well.  He held strong in his beliefs at first, but after relentless verbal abuse from the people around him, coupled with the physical ham being tied around his neck, he broke down.  He became so used to the label, that he became it.  He even missed the ham around his neck.  The fact that he could read and was a preacher makes the fall even more drastic, and the statement even more powerful.  The whole story also makes you sympathise with Julius' point of view about ham, and feel the effect of labeling as well.  I know that, for a while at least, I will be reminded of this story whenever I see a ham.

The Long Arm

First of all, what a great story.  I love the style of narrative where the first part of the story is an account after the fact, then the last is segmented into days like a journal (even though I doubt anybody could remember conversations in such accurate detail).  As soon as it made that switch to the journal entries I became very concerned that Miss Sarah Fairbanks would not come out of this story alive.  The red herrings were well placed and fequent enought to keep my attention. 

I must say though, did anybody else figure it was Phoebe Dole immediately after she bossed Maria around?  That expression of power struck me as such a telling clue, and got my mind racing about how her being the murder would be the most interesting outcome by far. 

One question on the sheet that was handed out today that I felt that needed answering was about the heterosexual vs. lesbian relationships in the story.  The heterosexual ones are viewed as just fine and dandy.  Even though there are some forbidden and secret relationships going on in the Fairbanks household, both parties are consensual in their love.  While the lesbian relationship on the other hand seems to be controlled completely by Phoebe.  Maria did not seem to have mutual feelings for her, but Maria's timid nature and fear of Phoebe pushes this aside.  So the only homosexual person in the story, is also capable of murder.  I chalk this up to Wilkins staunch religious upbringing, giving her the perspective that she does on homosexuality in general.  Does anyone else share this viewpoint that I have or am I just a little crazy myself?  Either way, the story was well written and a fun read.

Thomas Wentworth Higginson

     After hearing about Thomas Wentworth Higginson in class I was fascinated by him.  What was the relationship like between him and Emily?  Who was he as a person?  And what was the reasoning behind editing Emily's poems? While this isn't an essay and I'm only scratching the surface, I did come across some interesting information about the man.

     Being one of the very few people that Emily kept in contact with, it must be assumed that Thomas had to be an interesting person, which is accurate.  He was a Captain of a Union regiment during the Civil War. This group was one of the first to enlist African Americans into their ranks.  Being a Minister before the war was another one of his occupations.  He also read a poem by Emily Bronte at Dickinson's funeral.  

     His relationship with Emily was one, as she would call him her, "preceptor."  He was also referred in one article I read as, "her only critic."  He advised her on her writing, and had much to do with her works finally being published.  His reasoning behind editing Emily's poems as far as I found out, is because it couldn't be classified, making them difficult to publish in his eyes.  While at the same time referring to her as, "wholly new and original poetic genius," he chopped up some of the critically best works of poetry in the English language.  I'm not saying that he has bad taste or could not write, quite the opposite in fact, but I find it interesting that he, along with Mabel Loomis Todd, found her works in a way, needing polishing.  After looking at some of the decisions they made when editing in class, I cannot say that they were completely wrong, and I can say any of the poems were completely butchered.  They were just, different.

Does anybody agree with the decisions they made?


Sources:

http://www.emilydickinsonmuseum.org/ed/node/70

http://www.poets.org/page.php/prmID/308

Weblog Post #1

            After reading Twain’s selected readings I feel like I gained a good amount of perspective on the man’s sense of humor.  Two stories in particular struck as something only a very intelligent comedian would do: Letters From Earth, and The War Prayer.  

            While Letters I found to be very funny by playing with expectations and turning preconceived notions on their head, War Prayer is in its construction one big joke.  A joke essentially is a setup, and a punch line.  The set up was a church in the midst of a rousing, patriotic prayer from the preacher is then deflated by the observations of an aged stranger.  The stranger posits that, in a nutshell, praying for victory is praying for failure for somebody else.  The punch line is in fact the last line of the story: “It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.”  I found it to be paralleling the same kind of thought process as George Carlin.  He drops a new idea on you, and then to break the tension pops in a punch line that makes the whole thing hilarious.  But while it makes you laugh, you feel like you are learning something important as well.  As well as juggling with such taboo topics as religion and war also put him in familiar territory with Carlin.

Or am I misinterpreting his sincerity with sarcasm?  Is his tone more dreadful and serious?