Author: Kaitlin Reed

Loading Likes...

In James’s “Daisy Miller,” it is interesting to think about the symbol of the daisy flower. It is definitely a complex and multi-layered element that I am still trying to figure out. I do think James must have meant for this to be understood with a deeper complexity. At first, the daisy appears to most obviously represent Daisy Miller herself, paralleling a sense of innocence, a kind of simplicity, and perhaps even a bit naiveté. Like the flower, Daisy herself is beautiful and almost unassuming, and is very charming to those around her with her natural grace and liveliness. This depiction of her aligns with the initial impression of Daisy as a very carefree and unspoiled American girl, untouched by some of the constraints of European society. At the same time though, I wonder if the daisy can also be seen as a symbol of Daisy’s vulnerability and fragility. Just like a fragile daisy flower can be easily picked, wilted, or crushed, in the end Daisy’s character is unable to withstand the social expectations and norms of the European aristocracy. The fact that she refuses or in some ways is simply unable to conform to these expectations, is what ultimately leads to her tragic downfall, which seems somewhat similar to what might happen to a flower when it comes in contact with a strong force. Most of all, I do admire the way Daisy is defiant and independent, and remains true to herself despite the warnings from those around her. She has a rebellious spirit and refuses to be confined by societal standards, and constantly is shifting and evolving, which all seem like qualities that could also be understood through the symbol of a flower. Through its various interpretations (just a few of which I have made predictions about, though I’m certain there are more) the daisy serves as a powerful symbol, and its depth highlights the depth and complexities of Daisy’s character and the challenges she faces in navigating the social hierarchy of Europe in the 19th century.

Loading Likes...

I found one of the most intriguing aspects of “Dave’s Neckliss” to be Dave’s personality and character development. Despite facing numerous challenges and injustices, Dave remains a stoic and dignified figure throughout the narrative. He has this ongoing refusal to be cowed by the hostility of his neighbors, which I think really speaks to his resilience and the inner strength he has. In a way, this kind of resilience and inner strength reminded me of Tom’s character in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. However, this resilience comes at a cost for Dave, and his steadfastness ultimately leads to tragic consequences. Clearly, Chesnutt’s portrayal of Dave is very nuanced and multi-faceted. While on the one hand Dave can be seen as a symbol of defiance against this kind of post slavery racial oppression, and his refusal to bow to the expectations of the white community are a form of quiet resistance, his stubbornness and pride also end up being his tragic flaw, leading to his downfall. Does anyone else see parallels to Tom’s character or any others we’ve read about so far?

Loading Likes...

I loved reading Emily Dickinson’s poem 466, which seems to be a complex and rich exploration of the power of imagination and creativity. The poem celebrates the freedom and boundlessness of the imaginative mind, contrasting it with the limitations of more conventional ways of thinking. Emily starts by declaring that she “dwells in Possibility,” suggesting that her mind is open to endless potential and creativity, and to me the word”dwells” implies a sense of permanence and deep engagement with this state of mind- for her, possibility is not just a fleeting thought but more like a way of life. The way that she describes imagination as a place where “forbidden feet” have never trod (untouched by the constraints of society or tradition) and contrasts it with the mundane “Chambers” and “Halls” associated with prose and conventional thinking reminded me instantly of some themes from Whitman, and even Emerson. The theme of expansiveness and freedom in imagination could be compared to Emerson’s ideas of the individual’s potential for growth and connection with the universe. I also immediately thought of “Leaves of Grass”, which is often cited as the work that expanded the limits of poetry, and more specifically “Song of Myself” which is notable for its innovative use of free verse, unconventional themes, and celebration of the individual and the universe. On the other hand, in 466, Dickinson is exploring the idea of the imagination as a dwelling place, a realm of infinite possibility. Whitman more often seems to celebrate the external world and the connections between individuals, while Dickinson’s focus is more internal, exploring the depths of the human psyche and mysteries of existence and truth.

Loading Likes...

I really enjoyed reading Emily Dickinson’s poem 225, which presents a speaker who revels in the idea of being “nobody” rather than “somebody”. Overall, the poem seems to be a rejection of societal expectations and pressures to conform to a specific identity or status, and more specifically is challenging what the terms “nobody” and “somebody” and their connotations even really mean. I like the way the poem opens with such a playful tone, inviting the reader to sort of share in the speaker’s anonymity. It suggests right away that those who are “nobody” may actually be much more free or authentic in who they are. She contrasts within the second stanza using “bog” and “frog” vs. “the Admiring bog”. On the one hand, she seems to suggest that those who are seeking fame or recognition have a superficial existence, while those who embrace their anonymity might actually enjoy a more private, real, and deep sense of self. She ends with warning the reader that those like the frog who want to be “public” will actually lose freedom and integrity along the way, and may be stripped of their true identity. It is better to be “an admiring Bog” than a “public frog”. Based on what I know about Emily Dickinson, she was actually virulently opposed to publishing her work and disliked the pressure of her work being under public scrutiny, or of the process of poetry becoming somewhat of a job or something she owed others or the world. In many ways I’m sure this is why she kept most of her poems safe during her lifetime, and I can definitely understand how this portion of her biography and storyline may carry through within the undertones and message of this particular poem. 

 

Loading Likes...

After our discussions last class, I found myself continuing to think about the way Harriet Beecher Stowe writes, and why exactly this novel took off, and became one of the most widely read novels of the 19th century (regardless of how controversial it has since become). It became increasingly obvious to me that Stowe used a tactic, probably in a strategic way, that could definitely be rejected today: she made one of the most key characters, young slave Eliza, a very light-skinned black woman who could “pass” easily as white. In scenes like the scene when Eliza is about to have her little son taken away from her, and runs away across the river, Stowe’s writing begs for the sympathy of any reader, but especially white readers. Without a doubt, every white woman with a child was imagining themselves in her shoes, and what they might have done if they were coming for HER little boy. Is it possible that, subconsciously, at least, Eliza’s light skin was in large part what made it so easy for white women to identify with her? Another tactic, of course, which seems to be particularly obvious in the end of the story with Tom’s death, is the way Stowe and the story is siding with/mirroring Christianity and Christian morality. Without a doubt, she writes Uncle Tom is a noble, Christlike character who is patiently enduring the torture imposed on him by Legree. The way he is tortured onto death just as Jesus was, had to have been by design, as was the references to Tom holding prayer services in his cabin each night. Finally, the way she portrays the Shelbys seems to have also played a role in how the novel was received and the success/popularity it gained during its time. As written, the Shelbys are forced by absolute economic necessity to sell these slaves, but they themselves (especially Mrs. Shelby) are portrayed all in all as fundamentally good people. Here, Stowe is letting white readers have someone positive to identify with, while still acknowledging that the institution of slavery itself is evil. This certainly was in a massive part of why the novel was popular in comparison to other more harsh narratives within the abolitionist literature of the time; white readers could complacently/peacefully identify with the virtuous Shelbys who were “masters,” even while also claiming to despise the institution of slavery itself. 

Loading Likes...

I found myself increasingly interested in Bartleby’s character, and trying to figure him out, but I never really did. I think it is interesting how so much of this story is spent reflecting on the narrator, in this limited point of view. The reader ends up with so much perspective on him, but not much on any of Bartleby’s internal dialogue. Certainly the wall, Bartleby’s preferred location to work, is his way of separating himself from the other employees, and symbolizes his isolation and alienation from society. But I found myself wondering what exactly the wall symbolizes here- why a wall? Why not a cubicle or a window? It certain seems like the most pertinent symbol for a dead stop or dead end, and the blankness of it must be symbolic as well. The one phrase we do hear from Bartleby repeatedly is, “I would prefer not to”. This is an interesting example of a kind of passive resistance, which is definitely him defying what is expected of him (both socially and professionally) and precedes his acts of resistance to this oppressive system, but also seems to reflect an aire of defeat and even an odd politeness. The comparison of the narrator to Bartleby was a striking duality, and it was surprising and fascinating to me how much the narrator did try to circle back towards a place of empathizing or understanding the way that systems had been oppressive and caused Bartleby to struggle, even despite his frustration. The contrasting personalities of Turkey and Nippers was also an interesting layer. It definitely emphasized to me the message that human behavior can be unpredictable, and the effects of a strenuous work environment like this one on individuals can certainly vary.

Loading Likes...

It is interesting to think about the way that having knowledge can be equated to having power, autonomy, and freedom in Douglas’ experience. Along the trajectory of Frederick Douglass’s life, his movement from oppression to liberty is certainly fueled by the urge of knowing. Douglas is keen to know the ideas of the world (history, language, culture, etc.) and at the same time is very eager to uncover details about his identity. This includes wondering about his age and birthday, confusion regarding his parental identity rumors that his master is his father, and vague memories of his mother who was allowed to meet him only at night. Without this proper family identity, Douglas was even more eager to establish an identity of his own, which he seemed to realized from a young age could only be developed with knowledge and learning.  His journey began with learning and literacy in Baltimore under the guidance of Mrs. Auld. Once Mrs. Auld was warned by her husband, the learning stopped, but Douglass indulged in self-learning and pressed on. He started reading news paper secretly and learned from poor little white boys in exchange for bread. It becomes clear that educating slaves in any sort of way, or providing them with knowledge (even just about themselves, their birthday, their age, etc) was condemned and seen as something that would give these people power they didn’t deserve. It is incredible how through all of this resistance, there was still a spark of desire in Douglass, almost like a mission to ‘steal’ the wealth of knowledge from the privileged whites. Douglas’s story showcases his incredible growth, and the way he develops from a learner to an educator, and from a listener to a speaker. 

Loading Likes...

I found “The Philosophy of Composition” extremely interesting to read, particularly after rereading “The Raven”. I felt like the beginning, where Poe tries to explain his motives for writing the essay, was most interesting. I had never quite thought of the fact that many great writers of the time (and frankly even now) have not explained or analyzed their creative process in any kind of thorough or public way. Particularly when it comes to poetry, I do agree with Poe that the process of creation and conception seems to be understood by many as a sort of esoteric, or even indescribable thing. Some describe inspiration or ideas as merely “coming to them” or arriving in their minds, which seems to me to imply some kind of exclusive or divine election, which makes the minds and souls of “poets” more apt than the average person to communicate important messages or convey powerful sentiments. I thought of Emerson and his essay on poets; it seems to me like his writing is in agreement with the aforementioned phenomena. He describes great poets as those who are gifted enough to transcend their time, with a rare awareness of the eternal. For Emerson, there is a need, even a duty, for those special poets (for whom he builds an incredible pedestal) to put the “right” words to life’s phenomena and share these articulations with the “less skilled”. From my reading, Poe’s work did quite the opposite. In a way that I really appreciated, he admitted (and seemed to prove) that it is in fact possible for great writers to boil their processes down to steps. Though this may take work, he reminds us that realistically, most writers do have methods to their madness, and usually ideas don’t just “appear”. In many ways, the way he demystifies things (particularly from a position of power as a very successful and influential writer of his time), was inspiring to read. I felt like it sent a message to readers that anyone who wants to write poems or express sentiments or ideas can do so, either by following a method similar to his, or creating their own. For these reasons and more, I can assume this essay had a positive affect on young or aspiring writers at the time.

Loading Likes...

One thing I really appreciate about Poe’s stories is the way his language is able to capture certain parts of the human condition. Though the intense and lengthy descriptions made a few of these stories a bit more difficult to read and caused the plot to drag, I felt a certain sentiment of manic obsession or almost paranoia was a common pattern in most of Poe’s work. The presence of opium and the way its effects seem to intensify these emotions/conditions is also a continuing theme. Certainly in “Ligeia”, the reader can practically feel the way the narrator’s heart yearns for this woman. The way this love and obsession is portrayed so beautifully, to me, is what made the loss so heartbreaking and palpable. Then, in the latter half when the second wife is dying, the kind of manic paranoia that we see the narrator go through, as he is experiencing such sinister dejavu, is written so well. The narrator describes the woman’s struggle, and the way she seemingly comes back to life repeatedly before really dying. To me, it was clear all along that the narrator was really just picturing Ligea in front of him once again, and whether or not the body was actually coming in and out of life (or if this was an illusion/hallucination), the obsessive paranoia and fear he felt watching the life leave this woman before him, and the way his mind kept bringing him back to visions of Ligeia, captured a very nuanced state of mania that was fascinating to read. Similarly, in “A Man of the Crowd”, the narrator is absolutely obsessed with keeping eyes on the man in the crowd, and is astute in their observations of his every expression and movement. There is this urgency in the tone that portrays the urgency to keep the man in view, and undertones of paranoia as the narrator relentlessly tracks the man and then expresses unsettling sentiments about the fact that among us there are always “criminals” or those with secrets to hide. Of course, in “The Fall of the House of Usher” the narrator has this nagging feeling that he must go into this house; he sees it and describes the fear and unsettling feelings associated with the house, and yet, there is still this relentless desire that leads to an blinding obsession with exploring the house and understanding what is going on inside, and even agreeing to the extremely strange idea of keeping Madeleines body in the walls, regardless of the absurdity and disturbance that is evident here. I could go on about how these haunting layers of mental spiral are unraveled in each of these tales, and how the opium at play is interwoven to intensify this. It certainly is impressive how Poe writes such complex mental states so impeccably, and it left me with a dark unsettledness which is likely exactly the impact he had hoped to have on readers. I also in many ways found myself empathizing with narrators/characters which were objectively mentally unstable or off kilter, and not really realizing because of the way I was enveloped in the story. In many ways, I suppose I then temporarily lived and exemplified some kind of mania, obsession, and paranoia in my own kind of way!

Loading Likes...

I absolutely love reading Emerson, and reading this particular essay in the midst of a campus glistening with fresh snow has been fitting. As he mentions, there is something special about winter and its beauty that is often taken for granted, or looked past, by those waiting for the warmth and lushness of summertime.

I appreciated what Emerson says about nature being an independent entity- something that acts on its own accords, its essences unchanged or undefined by man. The divine quality of nature, and the kind of reverence it awakens and begs for in its beholders is something that he speaks of as constant and timeless; though not itself human, a part of the human experience that is so moving and powerful. Nature can bring back a sense of youthful wonder for those who allow themselves to be affected by it, those “whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other”. Emerson’s ever so poetic language makes this easy a beautiful read, however I do feel like there are certain lines such as “nature wears the colors of the spirit” that are ambiguous enough to welcome various interpretations (I wonder if he welcomes this intentionally).

On the topic of nature giving, and giving, and humans not seeming to reciprocate its generosity, I was reminded of literature I have read about Native American/Indigenous spirituality and relationship to the earth. Our species is greedy; we take and take from the earth and it gives to us, but to Emerson’s point, we are often so distracted by the superficial demands of our human world to fully understand or appreciate this gift. Some of the latter chapters beg the question, What is matter? Being a philosophy major, my mind went to Kantian philosophy and theories of idealism, which state that matter is a phenomenon, “the form of experience is mind-dependent” rather than simply a substance. Emerson seems to think it is of utmost importance for us to be able to explain nature in ways that aren’t purely physical. It has this divine spirit and emphasis on ways humans and human minds perceive it may be distancing us from it or removing sympathy for and with it.