Author: Maggie Francis

Loading Likes...

After May’s death, Marcher decided to quit London but first went to visit May’s grave where he found himself “powerless to penetrate the darkness of death” (James, 335). This darkness parallels the light that Marcher witnessed surrounding May before her death. Now that she is dead, Marcher finds that her light is gone, and yet, he is unable to do anything about it. Despite this, Marcher still holds onto hope that May’s spirit and light will reach him through her grave.  Marcher “kneeled on the stones, however, in vane” and found that it was “like a pair of eyes that didn’t know him” and that “no palest light broke” (James, 335). It is almost as if Marcher went to May’s grave before he left in order to make sure that May could not reach him in London. Marcher held onto some semblance of hope after her death. A hope that maybe his beast was that May’s spirit was not completely gone, and that she could be the Beast in the Jungle watching him from afar. The act of May’s death may have been the great atrocity of his life and May’s spirit afterwards would always be present but not visible like a beast in a jungle. 

After Marcher went to May’s grave and found that her light was completely gone, he finalized his decision to leave London. For the first time since meeting May, Marcher decided to run from his catastrophic fate. May kept him present in London and provided companionship for him through their shared confession of Marcher’s secret.  As soon as she died Marcher decided to “stay away, after this, for a year” and found that “the state of mind in which he had lived for so many years shone out to him, in reflection, as a light that colored and refined” (James, 335). For the first time, Marcher reflected on his life without May in it and decided that without her he had lost everything. Marcher was now simply as common as everyone else, and his own light was nothing compared to May’s. Marcher’s decision to travel outside of London emphasizes his desire for an escape of the place where he and May lived together and a hope that he would find another light outside of London (to no avail).  

Loading Likes...

In chapter IV of Henry James’s The Beast in the Jungle, May is slowly dying as the seasons turn warmer. James utilizes the imagery of light in this chapter in order to explain the importance of May to Marcher’s life. May is literally the light in Marcher’s life as she is the only person who knows Marcher’s secret, and consequently, the only person that Marcher can confide in. This also foreshadows the end of the novel when Marcher realizes that loosing May drained him of his own happiness and life, or rather of his light. 

James begins chapter IV by writing, “He had gone in late to see her, but evening had not settled, and she was presented to him in that long, fresh light of waning   April days which affects us often with a sadness sharper than the grayest hours of Autumn” (James, 323). By comparing May to the sadness of an April day before it dawns, James is foreshadowing her death. May’s light is about to dawn and end, just as the April day will. This sadness is much more sad than that of the gray days of Autumn because Marcher understands what is about to happen, and yet he has no ability to prevent or stop the inevitable. Just as Marcher cannot stop the day from dawning, he also cannot stop May’s death. When Marcher enters into May’s home he notices that “May Bertram sat, for the first time in the year, without a fire” and that she understood “in its immaculate order and its cold, meaningless cheer, that it would never see a fire again” (James, 324). The lack of a fire emphasizes that May’s death is closer than it had originally seemed. Her fire has burnt out and what lay behind was only the shell of the woman who Marcher once knew. By stating that May will never see a fire again, James reveals that May will not recover from her sickness and will be deceased before the fall. The extended use of light through the sun and fire both reveals that May provides happiness and love for Marcher, and that this light will soon be gone with her death. 

 

 

Loading Likes...

In the short story Daisy Miller: A Study, the young son Randolph parallels Daisy to represent a break from proper society life. Randolph introduces us to this overarching theme of the novel by his introduction on page 5. Randolph asks Winterbourne for a lump of sugar before exclaiming, “American candy’s the best candy” (James, 5). This boastful nature of Randolph is seen throughout the novel and often comments that “My father’s rich, you bet.” (James, 8). Children of the upperclass would not typically boast that their father is rich because wealth would be the norm for them and the people in their circles. By Randolph bragging that his father is “rich” he is implying that he understands that most of the world does not have nearly as much money as them. Stating this observation out loud not only breaks typical social norms, but also reveals that the Miller family is new to wealth, and consequently, do not fit in with proper society life. Europe for the upperclass is also considered a refined and sophisticated place. Randolph’s lack of understanding of this concept and his headstrong belief that America (specifically New York State) is better, further reveals the Miller family’s introduction as a new money family struggling to fit in. 

Not only does Randolph immediately expose the Miller family as New Money and unsophisticated, but his consistent struggles with bedtime reveal how Daisy herself must have been raised. Randolph is known to stay up well past midnight and creates trouble over the prospect of sleep. Daisy tells the story of how one night Randolph “wouldn’t go to bed at all” and “wasn’t in bed at twelve o’clock” (James, 19). This dynamic displays that Randolph does not have a strong parental figure in his life. Although many kids refuse bedtime, not many kids are indulged in this desire. Similarly to Randolph, Daisy also lacks a true parental figure and is often seen past decent hours with many gentleman callers. Randolph represents how Daisy grew up and reveals the Miller family dynamics. Randolph is a representation of how Daisy grew up, and consequently, unearths why Daisy is ignorant to many societal expectations. Just like Randolph, no strong parental figure was around to create the perfect societal child. In effect, the Miller family becomes the social outcast to American society life. 

Loading Likes...

In the beginning chapters of Chestnutt’s Tales of Conjure and the Color Line, the character Julius represents the intelligence of enslaved people and the  possibility of autonomy on a plantation. In contrast to novels such as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin where even the most intelligent and caring enslaved people are spoken about as pets to their masters, Chestnutt creates a dynamic where Julius consistently outwits his white enslavers. Although, there are flaws with the representation of race in this novel, this relationship between a white enslaver and a black enslaved person emphasizes the enslaved person’s identity as an individual person instead of just as a “slave”. 

Uncle Julius’s first story is about the Vineyard that the masters of the novel are soon to buy. Julius reveals that “but dat Yankee done dug too close under de roots, en prune de branches too close ter de vime, en all dat lime en ashes done burn’ de life out’n de vines, en dey des kep’ a-with’in’ en a-swivelin'” (Chestnutt, 10). Julius tries to convince the couple that the vineyard was ruined by this past Yankee and that the spirit of the enslaved man, Henry, haunts the vineyard and makes crops unprofitable. Throughout the tale Julius tells the story with such passion and detail, that it becomes quite easy to believe his often ridiculous tails. We soon find out that “Uncle Julius had occupied a cabin on the place for many years, and derived a respectable revenue from the product of the neglected grapevines” (Chestnutt, 11). By telling a story about the grapes, Julius outwitted the potential buyers of the grapevines, and consequently, was able to live similarly to a free man for many years. Julius’s storytelling skills represents one of the only powers that enslaved people are allowed to have: verbal communication. Although most enslaved people are silenced, Julius found a way around this problem and began to use his gift for storytelling to benefit his own life. This is seen again when Julius tells the story about Sandy and the schoolhouse in order to have a place for the Sandy Run Colored Baptist Church to meet and the story about Dave and his ham in order to walk home with plenty of ham in his pocket. 

Loading Likes...

Emily Dickinson is not only known for her poetry but also for her decision to remain unmarried. Despite having various lovers and writing about love, Dickinson spent most of her life living under her parents’ roof as a spinster. This fact stood out to me as I was reading poems 194 and 225. Both of these poems mention marriage yet also contrast each other. I found 194 to have a more positive stance on marriage while 225 depicted marriage as a constraint on the life of women. 

Poem 194 reveals Dickinson’s personal relationship to marriage. Despite remaining unmarried, Dickinson considers herself to be married to a higher spiritual being, most likely God. Dickinson writes, “The Wife without the Sign” (Dickinson, 1661). The “sign” implies a marriage certificate/wedding bands or other concrete symbols of marriage. By calling herself a wife without a sign, Dickinson reveals that she recognizes the relationship and responsibility of a marriage without a man to play the part of “groom”. Instead, Dickinson states that she is “Betrothed without the swoon”, hence implying that it is better to be married and commit oneself to a spiritual entity than to a man. Dickinson agrees with the values and commitments of a marriage, but critiques the conventions of women being tied to men through marriage. Dickinson outlines the typical path for 19th-century women by writing, “Born – Bridled – Shrouded – In a Day” (Dickinson, 1661). She emphasizes this lack of freedom that women succumb to when they are married by reiterating that in a day (a wedding ceremony) their path in life is chosen. They are born, they are married, and they die. 

Where Dickinson demonstrates through her “marriage” to a spiritual world or God in poem 194 that she values the theory of marriage, in poem 225, Dickinson further emphasizes her opinion that marriage restrains a woman’s free will. Dickinson writes “How odd the Girl’s life looks Behind this soft Eclipse” (Dickinson, 1662). Dickinson is implying that the role of marriage on a woman is a “soft” or subtle way of covering and restraining her life. In most 19th-century scenarios, she is forced to stand behind a man and serve him instead of living for herself. By describing an eclipse, Dickinson critiques this societal norm. Dickinson ends the poem by exclaiming, “I’m “Wife”! Stop there!” (Dickinson, 1662). The use of exclamation marks in this sentence represents Dickinson’s strong desire to remain unmarried. The idea of being a “wife” forces her to shout “Stop there!” consequently representing her desire to never repress her life through marriage. 

Loading Likes...

In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the characters Mrs. Shelby and St. Claire are considered to be good people to their enslaved servants. They do not whip or abuse them. They treat them kindly and always ensure that they have food to eat and a bed to sleep in. This begs the question of whether or not there is such a thing as just and kind enslavement. Shelby and St. Claire represent a type of slavery that may not be as physically or verbally abusive to their servants, but still greatly dehumanizes them in an emotional context. Neither character treats their enslaved workers as equals, but instead, considers them to be a type of beloved pet that they can dote on and control as a master.

Mrs. Shelby demonstrates this dehumanizing relationship with her enslaved servant Eliza. Mrs. Shelby sees Eliza as a young woman whom she must instill Christian notions of family and guide towards spiritual salvation. The very first statement that Stowe writes on Eliza and Mrs. Shelby’s relationship reiterates these sentiments by stating “Eliza had been brought up by her mistress, from girlhood, as a petted and indulged favorite” (Stowe, 17). Stowe’s utilization of the words “petted” and “indulged” relate closer to a well-liked pet than a true mentorship or daughter-like relationship. You do not indulge or show great liking to an equal. Although Mrs. Shelby is kind to Eliza, the social hierarchy of enslavement is still prevalent in the Shelby household. This relationship does not harm the enslaved people physically or verbally but it does give Mrs. Shelby a sense of superiority over the enslaved servants. This, consequently, teaches the enslaved workers that they are biologically inferior to white people as their devoted “pets”. 

Likewise, St. Claire has a similar relationship with his enslaved servants as Mrs. Shelby does with hers. St. Claire is known to indulge his enslaved workers to the point of greediness and laziness (according to Marie St. Claire). One would believe that for an enslaver to treat his enslaved people with kindness, he must also treat them as people. In this case, as with Mrs. Shelby’s case, St. Claire regards his enslaved workers as beloved pets to dote on and not as people. After Marie St. Claire criticizes Mr. St. Claire for his indulgences, he responds “What’s the harm of the poor dog’s wanting to be like his master”. St. Claire outwardly compares his enslaved servant, Adolph, to a dog. St. Claire may indulge and act kindly towards his servants, but he certainly does not see them as people. This dehumanization may not be as outwardly barbaric to those who are enslaved, but it still supports a money-making institution that profits from selling humans by ensuring that black people know they are below white people. 

 

 

Loading Likes...

In Bartleby, The Scrivener, Melville utilizes the spread of the word “prefer” to emphasize the plague of otherness in typical society life. The word “prefer” is not anything unusual but instead is just a formal and passive way of saying you want something. This word is consistently used by Bartleby when he refuses to accomplish his hired work by simply stating “I would prefer not to” (Melville, 1482). The rest of the characters in Melville’s story see Bartleby as a strange man who is “thin and pale” (Melville 1482) and had nothing “ordinarily human about him” (Melville 1476). This description of Bartleby paints him as an outsider to the human occupants of the Wall Street office who were given nicknames based on personality traits. Bartleby is the only worker who does not have one of these nicknames since he is not humanized by the narrator. The narrator understands the habits, personalities and lives of the other workers, but Bartleby is an enigma. This characterization of Bartleby as a mysterious outsider or “other” explains why Bartleby is the only character called by his actual name.

This otherness further explains why the spread of the word “prefer” was a frustrating and exciting realization for the narrator. It represents the fear that society has over the unusual infiltrating “normal society” if you allow it to remain near you (and why most “others” are cast out of society as outsiders). The narrator describes his personal usage of the word as “involuntary” and questions if his “contact with the scrivener had already and seriously affected [him] in a mental way” (Melville, 1483). The narrator describes the spread of the word “prefer” in the way someone would describe an incurable disease. This implication reveals the fear that the narrator and workers have over Bartleby’s oddities spreading to them. As if to intensify this fear, both Nippers and Turkey begin using the word “prefer” too. Turkey states Bartleby would “prefer to take a quart of good ale…” (Melville, 1483) and Nippers asks if the narrator would “prefer to have a certain paper…” (Melville, 1484). This spread of Bartleby’s otherness is only noticed by the narrator who finds this both concerning and exciting. By utilizing something as small as the spread of a word to indicate that a “disease” of otherness is infiltrating the men of the office, a broader message on the perception of differences and strangeness by “normal” society can be better understood. 

Loading Likes...

As I read Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, I found the descriptions of social hierarchies in enslaved communities to be incredibly interesting. Douglass writes that “few privileges were esteemed higher, by the slaves of the out-farms, than that of being selected to do errands at the Great House Farm. It was associated in their minds with greatness” (Douglass, 1176). The enslaved were truly of a completely different world than their free, white counterparts. Within this world, the social structures were based on the master who enslaved them, and the job that they performed on the plantation. I had assumed that enslaved people viewed each other as equals because they were all under forced suppression and abuse, and consequently, there is no better form of slavery or abuse in comparison to another. Douglass’s Narrative proves this thought untrue as Douglass states that when appointed to the Great House “a representative could not be prouder of his election to a seat in the American Congress” (Douglass, 1176). The comparison of an enslaved person’s position in the Great House Farm to a representative in the American Congress reveals the gap between the white and enslaved communities in America while simultaneously emphasizing the connection between human beings. Douglass humanizes the enslaved community by describing their excitement over a “promotion” in life. The humanization over a mundane accomplishment such as a promotion bridges the gap between black and white people as this is something that both races celebrate and feel excitement over. It is only when the reader considers the truth of the situation, that the enslaved person is excited over a “better” form of slavery, that this comparison emphasizes the harsh reality of an enslaved person’s life. Not long after this comparison, Douglass continues to write about the hierarchies of slavery when he states that “It was considered as being bad enough to be a slave; but to be a poor man’s slave was deemed a disgrace indeed!” (Douglass, 1180). Not only did an enslaved person’s job on a plantation indicate the enslaved person’s role in a slave community but the wealth of their master did as well. This further emphasizes the separate world that enslaved people were forced to live in, and consequently, displays that enslaved people developed their own social norms and customs for black communities in the U.S.