Response to O Pioneers Post

In O Pioneers, there were a couple things that stood out to me. One of the things was how Alexandra was so much more different than every other woman. She was strong, independent and did what see wanted and got what she wanted. Most of the other women in the story were rather weak and just lived through their lives unhappily, like Marie. And then there was Carl, who was also very different to a lot of the other men. He traveled around and also did what he wanted to do and didn't really care about what other people thought. What stands out to me, too, is how Carl is not "manly" in the traditional sense. He is sensitive and even lets Alexandra carry his suitcase for him when he returns to Walnut Grove or wherever they are...And I thought it was interesting, I am not sure if there is a so what there, that they were the two to get together. They were perfect for each other, and there wasn't many romances in the story where the people were in love with who they were married to. Or something bad happened to their spouse and then they were alone, Angel's husband died. All I mean by this is that love didn't work out for alot of people but it did for Carl and Alexandra. OK, so you've potentially got two things here: one, Carl and Alexandra don't follow traditional gender roles. You could focus on either one of these characters to show how Cather exposes the confining nature of these roles. Or, you can look at them as "lovers" who are friends, not passionate, wild things (like the ducks, like Emil and Marie, etc.)
Another thing that I thought was interesting was the way Alexandra felt towards Marie. At the beginning of the book, she loved her dearly, thought of her as her best friend. I really believe Emil is a vehicle to triangulate Alexandra's desire for Marie. This seems true to me even in the very first time Marie is introduced--Alexandra cannot bear to tear Emil away from such a lovely playmate. But then as the book goes on, and Emil starts to get kind of interested in Marie, Alexandra got really annoyed with her and Alexandra didn't really want to spend as much time with Marie. Then at the end of the book when Frank kills Emil, Alexandras brother, and Marie, she feels really bad for Frank! She feels like he is the victim in this whole situation. Frank killed her only two friends and it seems like she didn't care so much about that and cared more about Franks well being. I think this was because Alexandra was either in love with Marie, or she was extremely jealous of her. It would make sense that if she was jealous of Marie, because everyone loved Marie and Marie was kind of what everyone wanted to be like. Then when Alexandra loses her brother to her, it makes it Alexandra even more angry at Marie and probably more jealous. Sisters never like who their brothers love, It was interesting to hear you discuss this in class. The problem is that she certainly has more reason to dislike Oscar and Lou's goofy wives, but she seems rather indifferent abou tthem and in Alexandras case it could be because she was in love with Marie. The way she talked about Marie, it sounded like she loved her and when someone you like starts to like another person, you can get annoyed with the person you like, which is what happened between Alexandra and Marie. OK, you've got it. To do a good queer reading, you look at the ways in which lesbian desire is coded in the text or repressed by the characters. Alexandra is one cold fish, but she certainly seems enamored with Marie at moments. By the end, though, she blames Marie for her passionate nature and perhaps understands how a man (a heterosexual man) would get sucked in by her. The problem to Alexandra seems to be unbridled passion. Marriage with Carl is "safe"; following her desires, especially a desire for Marie, is most certainly not safe. You're ready to go with this if you can finish this thesis: Cather uses Alexandra's repressed desire for Marie to show...? The danger of unsanctioned passion? The destructive force of wild passions? What do you think?
Look closely at Ch. 6 of Neighboring Fields and Ch. 2 of Winter Memories. Lots and lots to work with, but I think this could be fun for you.

Response to O Pioneers!

In O Pioneers, there were a couple things that stood out to me. One of the things was how Alexandra was so much more different than every other woman. She was strong, independent and did what see wanted and got what she wanted. Most of the other women in the story were rather weak and just lived through their lives unhappily, like Marie. And then there was Carl, who was also very different to a lot of the other men. He traveled around and also did what he wanted to do and didn't really care about what other people thought. And I thought it was interesting, I am not sure if there is a so what there, that they were the two to get together. They were perfect for each other, and there wasn't many romances in the story where the people were in love with who they were married to. Or something bad happened to their spouse and then they were alone, Angel's husband died. All I mean by this is that love didn't work out for alot of people but it did for Carl and Alexandra.
Another thing that I thought was interesting was the way Alexandra felt towards Marie. At the beginning of the book, she loved her dearly, thought of her as her best friend. But then as the book goes on, and Emil starts to get kind of interested in Marie, Alexandra got really annoyed with her and Alexandra didn't really want to spend as much time with Marie. Then at the end of the book when Frank kills Emil, Alexandras brother, and Marie, she feels really bad for Frank! She feels like he is the victim in this whole situation. Frank killed her only two friends and it seems like she didn't care so much about that and cared more about Franks well being. I think this was because Alexandra was either in love with Marie, or she was extremely jealous of her. It would make sense that if she was jealous of Marie, because everyone loved Marie and Marie was kind of what everyone wanted to be like. Then when Alexandra loses her brother to her, it makes it Alexandra even more angry at Marie and probably more jealous. Sisters never like who their brothers love, and in Alexandras case it could be because she was in love with Marie. The way she talked about Marie, it sounded like she loved her and when someone you like starts to like another person, you can get annoyed with the person you like, which is what happened between Alexandra and Marie.

ReSpOnSe to HuCkFiNn PoSt

One thing that really stood out to me in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, especially in the beginning of the book, was Huck's obsession with wealth and material possessions. But you can't ignore the fact that he "sold" the judge his six thougsand dollars for just one dollar. You've got to to deal with that. While Huck seems to understand the problem with being caught up in money and possessions, he subconsciously replicates this pattern? That could be your take on this. This suggests that it's impossible to remain untainted by consumerism and the desire for goods. There are two sections in the book where Huck lists absolutely every single thing that he just got or has at the moment. It goes on and on for nearly a half a page. This shows how Huck is really focused on wealth. At this time, if you had money, you had the power. To Huck, a scared young boy, power is something he wants because it means security to him. So then what you'd do with this is you'd show the part where you see him feeling powerful. The evidence you'd cite would be evidence that in these goods is his security. By him listing off every single thing, I believe it is reassuring himself that everything will be okay, it is like a coping method. He knows that he has things which means, to him at least, that he has power and power alot of the time can mean security. The people with the power at this time did not have to worry about things, they were secure and were happy with the way their life is, which is something that Huck wants alot. You're making a different kind of move here. Huck had a hard life, he did not really have a family and he was absolutely terrified of his father. One thing that I think every person wants is security, to not have to worry about things. Huck has never really had security with his life being up and down and never really knowing what is going to happen. By listing things that he has, it is telling himself, Okay I have these things, I have possessions, People with things have power, I have some power, I will be alright. It is also interesting to see when you compare the Huck at the beginning of the book to the how he is at the end of the book. Towards the end of the book, he cares less and less about possessions and more about Jim and the people who he starts to care about. It shows how Huck changes as a person completely, how his priorites are completely different. Even when the Duke and the King come into the story, Huck is disgusting at how they scam people and fool with good people. At the beginning of the book Huck would have been all for scamming people because it would be an adventure. All of these things show how Huck is a dynamic person and how much he has changed. Your "so what" here at the end needs to be stronger. No one would debate that Huck changes throughout the book, but you're onto something far more interesting about how Huck changes. Basically, you're saying he changes from someone who takes comfort in possessions and seems to define his security by these possessions to someone who has learned to make real connections with other humans. If you decide to write about this, you might be interested in a pyschological model called Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Basically, you could argue that Huck becomes stuck in the lower levels because of the abuse he suffers, but then, he moves to a higher level...because of Jim? I don't know if that's quite where you want to go, but the model would certainly help you fit these disparate pieces together. If you're interested, let me know.
Either way, when you go to write this essay, make sure you are using specific evidence and reading it closely, not to summarize the evidence, but to show us something we might not have otherwise seen in that evidence.

AdVeNuTuReS oF hUcKlEbErRy FiNn

One thing that really stood out to me in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, especially in the beginning of the book, was Huck's obsession with wealth and material possessions. There are two sections in the book where Huck lists absolutely every single thing that he just got or has at the moment. It goes on and on for nearly a half a page. This shows how Huck is really focused on wealth. At this time, if you had money, you had the power. To Huck, a scared young boy, power is something he wants because it means security to him. By him listing off every single thing, I believe it is reassuring himself that everything will be okay, it is like a coping method. He knows that he has things which means, to him at least, that he has power and power alot of the time can mean security. The people with the power at this time did not have to worry about things, they were secure and were happy with the way their life is, which is something that Huck wants alot. Huck had a hard life, he did not really have a family and he was absolutely terrified of his father. One thing that I think every person wants is security, to not have to worry about things. Huck has never really had security with his life being up and down and never really knowing what is going to happen. By listing things that he has, it is telling himself, Okay I have these things, I have possessions, People with things have power, I have some power, I will be alright. It is also interesting to see when you compare the Huck at the beginning of the book to the how he is at the end of the book. Towards the end of the book, he cares less and less about possessions and more about Jim and the people who he starts to care about. It shows how Huck changes as a person completely, how his priorites are completely different. Even when the Duke and the King come into the story, Huck is disgusting at how they scam people and fool with good people. At the beginning of the book Huck would have been all for scamming people because it would be an adventure. All of these things show how Huck is a dynamic person and how much he has changed.

Response to !Walt Whitman! Post

Section 16 is a great choice. Right at the heart of his message about himself. The first thing in the section of writing that I noticed was the opposites he used to describe himself. He said the young and the old, the foolish and the wise, the child and the man, the man and the women. He uses opposites because it helps be the great equalizer. Exactly. He undermines the notion of being able to define ourselves in opposition to other concepts; he says it's all part and parcel of this universal whole. By saying he is all of these things it makes him relate able to nearly all people because he covers all the bases with the opposites. And by doing that everyone likes him well, except the people who found this creepy and distasteful because he is saying he is similar to nearly every human and people like to listen to other people who relate to them. He goes on and on not only with opposites, but with all sorts of different kinds of jobs and religions just to make him even more relate able not a word, dearest to all of his readers. He also says that he is relate able to all of the people in america that he is at home all over the country, so he is making himself similar to everybody in at least one way. And by doing that he is making people unify over him and come together because everyone will have something in common with him and he will be the connecting link between the opposite people. Keep going here! Think of the historical moment! Why would this be so very important post-Civil War? As a person who loved his country, Whitman was devastated to see what the war was like and how people stood on the field of battle killing their fellow citizens. The next thing in these passage I noticed was how lovely the diction and syntax was. When you read it, it just flows through your lips so smoothly and it just sounds very nice. He uses alliteration alot at the end of the section with the sound, with the suns I can see and the suns I cannot see. and the in the two last stanzas how he says place so many times, it really gets sunk into your head that that is one of the points he is trying to get across to you. The sound of the "s" creates a lasting whisper effect, too--powerful. The last thing that I really noticed was the parallel structure that he used in these section but also all throughout the only essay. poem It is a good technic to use because it makes everything in a list he is making more and more powerful, I can almost feel the writing getting louder and louder and more passionaite until it just peaks and then he changes the structure and starts with something new. In this sense, repetition in poetry works a lot like repetition in music; the volume of repeated notes increases as you go, increasing intensity. It makes what he is trying to say so much more powerful. It also give structure to a "free verse" poem. Free verse does not mean random. Whitman's poetry is highly structured and rhythmic. Things like the repetition, balanced lines, and catalogs create that.

!WALT WHITMAN!

The section of writing that I chose to blog about was section 16 of his poem Song of Myself

The first thing in the section of writing that I noticed was the opposites he used to describe himself. He said the young and the old, the foolish and the wise, the child and the man, the man and the women. He uses opposites because it helps be the great equalizer. By saying he is all of these things it makes him relate able to nearly all people because he covers all the bases with the opposites. And by doing that everyone likes him because he is saying he is similar to nearly every human and people like to listen to other people who relate to them. He goes on and on not only with opposites, but with all sorts of different kinds of jobs and religions just to make him even more relate able to all of his readers. He also says that he is relate able to all of the people in america that he is at home all over the country, so he is making himself similar to everybody in at least one way. And by doing that he is making people unify over him and come together because everyone will have something in common with him and he will be the connecting link between the opposite people. The next thing in these passage I noticed was how lovely the diction and syntax was. When you read it, it just flows through your lips so smoothly and it just sounds very nice. He uses alliteration alot at the end of the section with the sound, with the suns I can see and the suns I cannot see. and the in the two last stanzas how he says place so many times, it really gets sunk into your head that that is one of the points he is trying to get across to you. The last thing that I really noticed was the parallel structure that he used in these section but also all throughout the only essay. It is a good technic to use because it makes everything in a list he is making more and more powerful, I can almost feel the writing getting louder and louder and more passionaite until it just peaks and then he changes the structure and starts with something new. It makes what he is trying to say so much more powerful.

Response to Douglass Post

Hi Eleanor. I hope you're feeling better. We miss you in class.

The first thing that I noticed about this section was the passioniate writing. The diction he uses like meanest, basest, cruel, cowardly, darkest, foulest is so powerful. Each word gets stronger and stronger. Good point. The sentences are in parallel structure, but almost like repeated notes in music, each sentence has more intensity. Also the words he uses are against most of the beliefs of the Age of Reason time, especially the cowardly. People were supposed to be strong and sensitive, and the slave owners were neither of these things. Good point, too. Notice the juxtaposition between these slaveholders and his ethos. Here we also see how he feels about religion. He feels like it is just an excuse for the slave owners to treat the slaves in the way they did, and that made him extremely anger. He also says just being around a community with religion, makes him miserable, because it is always used as a reason to why they can treat the slaves the way they do. Notice how this echoes his argument from the Appendix: Southern Christianity is not "true" Christianity. Another time the diction is very good is when he describes the slave owners actions as barbaric, and their deeds as infernal, no? which is turning the tables on the slave owners. They are always saying that the slaves are animals and not human, but now Douglass is saying No it is you guys who are the animals. Excellent job noticing the rhetorical reversal. Douglass is careful to not say all religion is bad, but just says southern religion is bad. Since his readers were in the north, he had to be careful not to insult them when he is trying to make a point. So this part of his writings was mainly making his agrument about how he feels that the Slave owners only use religion as a big excuse for the awful ways they treat there slaves and how it isn't right, because that is not the point of religion

You chose a great passage. That's a sign that you're keying in on major ideas and noticing the power in his writing. Good stuff.

!Frederick Douglass!

I assert most unhesitatingly, that the religion of the south is a mere covering for the most horrid crimes- a justifier of the most appalling barbarity, - a sanctifier of the most hateful frauds,- and a dark shelter under, which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infernal deeds of the slaveholders find the strongest protection. Were I to be again reduced to the chains of clavery, next to that enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious mast the greatest calamity that could befall me. For of all slaveholders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others. It was my unhappy lot not only to belong to a religious slaveholder, but to live in a community of such religionists.

The first thing that I noticed about this section was the passioniate writing. The diction he uses like meanest, basest, cruel, cowardly, darkest, foulest is so powerful. Each word gets stronger and stronger. Also the words he uses are against most of the beliefs of the Age of Reason time, especially the cowardly. People were suppose to be strong and sensitive, and the slave owners were neither of these things. Here we also see how he feels about religion. He feels like it is just an excuse for the slave owners to treat the slaves in the way they did, and that made him extremely anger. He also says just being around a community with religion, makes him miserable, because it is always used as a reason to why they can treat the slaves the way they do. Another time the diction is very good is when he describes the slave owners actions as barbaric, which is turning the tables on the slave owners. They are always saying that the slaves are animals and not human, but now Douglass is saying No it is you guys who are the animals. Douglass is careful to not say all religion is bad, but just says southern religion is bad. Since his readers were in the north, he had to be careful not to insult them when he is trying to make a point. So this part of his writings was mainly making his agrument about how he feels that the Slave owners only use religion as a big excuse for the awful ways they treat there slaves and how it isn't right, because that is not the point of religion

Response to Patrick Henry Post

In this passage, the thing that I really noticed was the use of repetition. Through out the whole passage, Henry uses repetition a lot like when he says sir, which he says about 5 or 6 times in the passage. I think that he does that, to show respect to who he is reading the speech to. Use these posts to practice your "concise is nice" mantra. Ex: substitute "audience" for the stuff in red. He also uses phrases like we will, or we have, which really makes you feel united as one thing, which is what is needed if he is playing to go to war. Yes, good analysis of pronouns.
In the beginning section, I also noticed the use of quite a few rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions make person think about the question and realize, Oh ya, that does make sense, or that does not make sense. And with the rhetorical questions, he uses parallel structure with the Will it, and Shall we, which gives a nice sound when you are reading it. This gets pretty vague. Instead of discussing what rhetorical questions do generally, you want to discuss what these rhetorical questions do. Essentially, he's using them as antithesis, to say to his audience that the charges that they are weak are false; in fact, by waiting to respond to Britain, they will only become weaker. He also uses parallel structure in the later part with the vigilant, the active the brave, which also makes you feel passionate and it does give it the nice sound when you are reading it. Good job noting the parallel structure. I just want to see you go beyond "gives it a nice sound" because writers want all things to sound good. In this case, the parallel structure beats like a drum, rousing the listener's emotions and inciting action! Henry also uses Pathos a lot in most of this passage, in the rhetorical questions, it causes me to feel scared and worried and then in the very last part, it makes you feel passionate for the war, especially with all of the exclamation marks, it gives it real vigor and passion. The alliteration also suggests the impossibility of surrender for strong men: "There is no retreat but in submission and slavery." Again, he returns to the analogy of enslavement.
The very first sentence is antithesis, he is saying how people think that they are too weak to fight the British, and then he shoots them down with all of his rhetorical questions. It's like you're redoing this, with the specfics here. Get specific the first time! He also uses Logos a bit when he talks about the three million people, which just sounds like so many people, which makes the people feel better about having a chance to win the war. Exactly; also antithesis--how can we be weak if we're three million strong? He also uses analogy in the last bit, with the part about chains are forged and the clanging can be heard, kind of an analogy to the slaves. Notice this analogy runs through the whole piece. His extended metaphor drives home the danger of inaction. And there is an allusion well, it's not really an allusion. Allusions are less direct to God, when he mentions God of nature gave us powers. It's important here to see the connection to the Age of Reason God, the "just God" who has endowed men with natural, inalienable rights to liberty. He also uses a bit of benefits, mentioning that we aren't going to fight this war alone, which makes people feel a lot better knowing that they have help. Using all of this things together makes this speech very well written and a good way to persuade people to agree with the starting of to start? C.I.N. (concise is nice)a war against England.
This got better as you went. I'd caution you against to things in your future posts: 1) wasting space on generalities; and 2) wasting words with wordiness. I'm going to keep using CIN for you, and you'll know that it means get concise, sister! It's sort of like LOL or OMG.

Close Reading Assignment over Patrick Henry's Speech

They tell us, sir, that we are weak-unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were based enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanging may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable- and let it come! I repeat it, sire, let it come!

In this passage, the thing that I really noticed was the use of repetition. Through out the whole passage, Henry uses repetition a lot like when he says sir, which he says about 5 or 6 times in the passage. I think that he does that, to show respect to who he is reading the speech to. He also uses phrases like we will, or we have, which really makes you feel united as one thing, which is what is needed if he is playing to go to war. In the beginning section, I also noticed the use of quite a few rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions make person think about the question and realize, Oh ya, that does make sense, or that does not make sense. And with the rhetorical questions, he uses parallel structure with the Will it, and Shall we, which gives a nice sound when you are reading it. He also uses parallel structure in the later part with the vigilant, the active the brave, which also makes you feel passionate and it does give it the nice sound when you are reading it. Henry also uses Pathos a lot in most of this passage, in the rhetorical questions, it causes me to feel scared and worried and then in the very last part, it makes you feel passionate for the war, especially with all of the exclamation marks, it gives it real vigor and passion. The very first sentence is antithesis, he is saying how people think that they are too weak to fight the British, and then he shoots them down with all of his rhetorical questions. He also uses Logos a bit when he talks about the three million people, which just sounds like so many people, which makes the people feel better about having a chance to win the war. He also uses analogy in the last bit, with the part about chains are forged and the clanging can be heard, kind of an analogy to the slaves. And there is an allusion to God, when he mentions God of nature gave us powers. He also uses a bit of benefits, mentioning that we aren't going to fight this war alone, which makes people feel a lot better knowing that they have help. Using all of this things together makes this speech very well written and a good way to persuade people to agree with the starting of a war against England.