Author: Erin Mullens

Loading Likes...

I felt that Baxter’s Procrustes poses an interesting question on the value of literature. The story asks whether literature has value intrinsic to itself and its writing, or do we create value in literature based on our appreciation of certain works? I thought this question was particularly relevant to our class, since several of the books we read were not popular at the time of publication, but have since been labeled “classics” by academia. Baxter reminds me a little bit of the stereotype of the tortured poet, and it’s interesting that his work was so highly regarded before it had even been read. 

For example, one of the characters says that “The author’s view of life… as expressed in these beautiful lines, will help us fit our shoulders for the heavy burden of life” (106). Yet the committee decided that they trusted Baxter so much they wouldn’t even need to read his manuscript before publishing it, so how could they know it “will help us fit our shoulders for the heavy burden of life”? The language used here is vague, and could apply to nearly every piece of writing. I think the author is trying to call out the hypocrisy of literary criticism that uses fancy language and grand statements instead of focusing on the specifics. 

I think the author is also trying to point out that, even if literature is a form of art, the book-making business is still a business. The committee, seeing the success of sealed books, decides to make Baxter’s Procrustes a sealed edition as well. And even though they have been duped, they are still willing to make money off the book, and “a sealed copy of Baxter’s Procrustes was knocked down, after spirited bidding, for two hundred and fifty dollars” (108). While literature is often shown in an idealized light, as a pure form of art that reveals truths about the human conditions, the story of Baxter’s Procrustes shows how the literary industry is as filled with flaws and hypocrisy as any other industry. 

Loading Likes...

What I found interesting about the short story “Editha” by William Dean Howells is the vagueness of the war that he describes. Since George mentions his father fighting in the Civil War, I initially assumed it must have been about the First World War. But the publication date, in 1905, means this story predates World War I by almost ten years. Therefore the war must be fictional; but Howells does not describe the circumstances of the war. Editha describes it only by making sweeping generalizations, such as when she says it is “for the liberation of people who have been struggling for years against the cruelest oppression” (354). Editha doesn’t describe who these people are, or what kind of oppression they are facing. She also doesn’t explain why it is necessary for America to go to war to fight for these people.

Instead of focusing on the details of the war, Howells focuses on emotions. Howells describes how once Editha had written a letter imploring George to enlist “she rested serene in the consciousness of having done what was laid upon her by her love itself to do” (356). The use of the word “serene” contrasts very strongly with the reality of war, which is bloody and violent. When speaking of George, Howells describes how after he enlisted “he was very gay, and he put his arm around her [Editha] with a boisterous laugh” (357). Again, these emotions are at odds with the reality of war. By enlisting, George has volunteered to leave his family and potentially risk death, yet he is described as being “gay” and “boisterious”. With these descriptions, Howells shows the irrational nature of the decision to go to war. In addition, by refusing to define the specifics of the war in the story, Howells is making his critique applicable to all wars. Someone reading this story could recognize the circumstances of World War I or the Vietnam War or the invasion of Iraq. In this way, the story is not just a critique of a single war, but a critique of the very idea of war itself. It becomes a warning about the danger of getting lost in patriotic feelings and forgetting the devastating consequences of war. 

Loading Likes...

While Uncle Tom’s Cabin showed many slaveowners that treated their slaves well, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl depicts all the ways a slaveowner can abuse and torture their slaves. In particular, it shows the sexual harassment of female slaves, something which was only alluded to in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. In this respect, Harriet Jacobs is much more forthright about the secrets of slavery, which she describes as being “concealed like those of the Inquisition” (35).

Jacobs starts by acknowledging preconceived notions of slavery, stating that Northern men are “proud, to give their daughters in marriage to slaveholders. The poor girls have romantic notions of a sunny cline… to what disappointments are they destined” (35). This shows how slaveowners are not only being cruel and violent to their slaves, but they are also deceiving their wives. The reaction of the “poor girls” mirrors the reaction Jacobs intends to elicit from her Northern readers, who were most likely unaware of this aspect of slavery. Jacobs goes on to describe how in the South, “women often marry a man knowing that he is the father of many little slaves… they regard such children as property, as marketable as the pigs on the plantation” (35). This simile, comparing the children of the slaveowner to “pigs”, shows the complete dehumanization of slavery. The slaveowner’s children that are born to his white wife are treated well, whereas his children born to his slaves are considered “pigs”. In addition, throughout the novel Jacobs shows the harassment of her slaveowner, Mr. Flint, and her own attempts to evade him. This context shows that not only were these children born from extramarital affairs, they probably were nonconsensual as well, coerced by the power a slaveowner holds over a slave. 

Jacobs then describes how “this bad institution deadens the moral sense… to a fearful extent” (36). This suggests that the nature of the slave institution has convinced southern men and women that the aforementioned behaviors are normal and acceptable. In fact, one can see a contrast between the southern women, who “do not trouble themselves about it”, and the northern women, who are disappointed that their husband “pays no regard to his marriage vows” (35). This contrast shows how being raised in a culture that accepts slavery can lead one to accept immoral actions. 

Loading Likes...

I was quite surprised, in chapter 17, when George and the other escaping slaves are so sympathetic to Tom, the slave catcher who had been trying to capture them just a few minutes before. Tom and his friends are initially portrayed as terrifying, tyrannical figures. One of Tom’s friends, Marks, even tries to shoot George, and “the ball had passed close to his hair, [and] had nearly grazed the cheek of his wife” (205). The reader is encouraged to feel afraid of the slave catchers, and to see them as the embodiment of evil. 

But then this abruptly shifts after Tom has been injured and left by his friends, when the fugitive slaves immediately become sympathetic. Jim’s mother says “he’s got a mammy, now… I can’t help kinder pityin’ on him” (208). They rescue the injured Tom and carry him to someone’s house, where he is taken care of. I was really shocked by the sudden change in their attitude, especially as it only happened in the span of a few pages. I also felt this was not very realistic, and glosses over the hatred and anger that real fugitive slaves would have felt towards slave catchers. 

I think that Stowe is trying to balance a hatred of slavery with a peaceful, Christian attitude at the same time. When George explains how he will shoot anyone who tries to take his family back into slavery, the Quaker Simeon says that “the leaders of our people taught a more excellent way; for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” (196). Similarly, when Phineas says to “let them look out, that’s all”, Simeon replies that “it’s quite plain thee wasn’t born a Friend” (196). This demonstrates that while Stowe thinks slavery is wrong, she thinks it is equally wrong to respond to slavery with hatred or violence, and that is why she shows the scene where Tom is taken in and cared for. However, I felt like her attitude comes from her perspective as a privileged white woman. If she was the one escaping from slavery, with violent slave catchers chasing after her, I doubt she would be so supportive of pacifism. 

Loading Likes...

In the story “Paradise of Bachelors and Tartarus of Maids” there is a strong contrast between the world of bachelors and the world of maids. The world of bachelors is described as a world of riches and education. The bachelors have many witty anecdotes to tell, talking about “Saracenic scenery” and “a funny case in law” (1500). At the bachelors’ dinner they have many fine dishes, such as “a saddle of mutton, a fat turkey, a chicken-pie, and endless other savory things” (1499). This is an enormous contrast to the Tartarus of Maids, which is described as a grim factory, where the women are largely unhappy. Melville describes the factory by saying that “machinery- that vaunted slave of humanity – here stood menially served by human beings, who served mutely and cringingly as the slave serves the Sultan” (1506). This suggests the dehumanization of the maids that work in the factory. 

I think that this story can be read as a metaphor for wealth inequality in the 19th century. In one part of the story you have the wealthy, educated men, and in the other, you have the lower classes who are fueling the Industrial Revolution. These two classes are normally very separate, as they live in different areas and have different social circles. But by placing them in the story side by side, Melville suggests that these two groups are actually connected. For example, the bachelors wouldn’t have any paper for books or letters without the work of the maids in the factory. Thus, Melville encourages us to think about how the prosperity of one class and the poverty of another might be interconnected. 

Loading Likes...

Something I found interesting about the ending of The Scarlet Letter is the contrast between the fate of Hester and that of Mr. Dimmesdale. While throughout the novel Hester has been shunned and looked down upon by the townspeople, in the end she is accepted. Knowing that “Hester Prynne had no selfish ends” the townspeople would to come to her and she “comforted and counseled them” (568). Meanwhile, Mr. Dimmesdale ends up dead, weighed down by the guilt of concealing his affair.

The novel seems to suggest that the concealment of sin is as bad as the sin itself. Hester does not hide the fact of her adultery, even after Pearl has grown up and left the town. After a while, as a result of Hester’s kind nature, “the scarlet letter ceased to be a stigma which attracted the world’s scorn and bitterness” (568). This suggests that because Hester is willing to accept the consequences of her sin, she is able to move on with her life. Mr. Dimmesdale, on the other hand, is characterized by his secrecy, as it takes him many years to admit that he is Pearl’s father. This secret takes its toll on him, and he describes “this burning torture to bear upon my breast” (565). Mr. Dimmesdale has committed a double sin, being both an adulterer and a clergyman lying about his adultery. Therefore, though he and Hester both committed the same initial sin, his concealment has made his sin grow even worse. This novel seems to suggest that, even though it is tempting to hide one’s sin, in the long run it’s better to admit to it. 

Loading Likes...

In Chapter 9 of Narrative of the Life, Douglass describes his escape from slavery. He describes it in very vague terms, not giving any specifics, to avoid implicating anyone who helped him escape, and to avoiding causing “greater vigilance on the part of the slaveholders” (1216). His attitude greatly contrasts with that of his “western friends [who] have conducted what they call the underground railroad” (1216). Douglass describes these friends as publicly announcing their efforts to rescue slaves, and thus aiding slaveowners in their efforts to prevent slaves from running away. I felt the contrast between these two interesting, because it shows a divide in the abolition movement between the former enslaved and those who were always free. Douglass has first hand experience with slavery, and therefore he has an understanding of the mechanisms of slavery that white abolitionists do not, which causes a different opinion about what methods are the most effective in fighting slavery. I also think this passage really underscored the cruelty and the power of the slaveowners. Even though Douglass is now escaped from slavery, he is still afraid to tell the entirety of his story, and restricted in a way that the white abolitionists are not. 

Loading Likes...

One similar theme I noticed in both “Ligeia” and “The Fall of the House of Usher” was the presence of resurrection. In “Ligeia”, the narrator’s dead wife Rowena comes back to life, but then she appears to turn into the form of the dead Ligeia. In “The Fall of the House of Usher”, the dead Madeline comes back to life. In both instances, the resurrection of the dead serves to disturb the narrator greatly. In “The Fall of the House of Usher” the narrator is so disturbed that he leaves the house immediately (641). The narrator of “Ligeia”, meanwhile, describes himself as “a helpless prey to a whirl of violent emotions” while he watches the resurrection of his dead wife (628). Poe’s stories show resurrection as a frightening event that disrupts the balance of nature, and leaves the narrator, and the reader, feeling unsettled. I thought this was interesting, because I feel like most people would be happy to find a way to bring their dead loved ones back to life. But Poe’s stories suggest that disrupting the boundaries between life and death would not be a good thing.