"How true it is that words are but vague shadows of the volumes we mean. Little audible links they are, chaining together great inaudible feelings and purposes."
"Ah, the promise of the night. What does it not hold for the weary. What old illusion of hope is not here forever repeated!"
These were two of my favorite quotes from the excepts of Sister Carrie. I love the romantic ideals they hold. Sister Carrie wavers between a romantic and a realist at different times--her ideas about life often contrast each other. On the one hand, she imagines idyllic experiences--she allows her emotion to preside over reason; but on the other hand, when she is confronted with the realistic issues around her, she puts aside her emotion and lets logic win. She sets off on this journey to Chicago with fear and excitement; the realistic qualities in her keep reminding herself that Chicago is not that far away from her home--she can turn back at any time. She continues to reason with herself and rationalize her trip. The more she comforts herself about this decision to leave her home, the more she lets in romantic ideas about Chicago. "There were lights and sounds and a roar of things." Her fear begins to slip away and in its place there is excitement. Of course, the appearance of Drouet only heightens her excitement of all the new things she will encounter. However, her romantic thoughts are again interrupted by her job search. The real world confronts her with serious questions, like--How will you get a job with no experience? Although she gets discouraged for a time, she once again finds a way to get past the realistic obstacles and lets romanticism win over. "Ah, the long winter in Chicago--the lights, the crowd, the amusement. This was a great, pleasing metropolis after all."
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Pick Up Your Buckets and Walk Away
"Cast down your buckets where you are." When I read Booker T. Washington's speech, I was all for it; I thought, what a great and practical idea. Start somewhere, do what you know, and work your way up. I thought his speech, addressing both the freed African American community as well as white community, was inspiring and helpful. It was a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" kind of speech. He asked of both races to work together and pull the load upward. In remaining faithful to one another, he suggested, both races would feel empowered. It sounded like a great idea, until W.E.B. DuBois asked this question: "How does it feel to be a problem?"
The more I thought about this question, the more I realized Washington's idea wouldn't work in reality. If African Americans remained on plantations, working for the white owners that enslaved them for so long, were they truly free? Even if they were being compensated, what was the difference between their life pre- and post-slavery? It had been engrained in the white American's brains for so long that African Americans were the inferior race; that they were a problem and their only worth was working in the fields. Did we really think those attitudes would change overnight? That "casting down your buckers where you are" on white land, continuing to work under white control, would help bring about any sort of change? Chances are, the white owners would continue to mistreat the African Americans, to continue to treat them as slaves, because who would hold them accountable and tell them otherwise?
By casting down their buckets, African Americans would be compromising. They would continue to be treated unequally. They would remain in their situation indefinitely; their children would inherit that fate, and their children's children the same fate. By continuing to be the ones bossed around, uneducated and without a voice, they would continue to see themselves as the white people saw them--inferior, a problem. DuBois suggestion turned out to be more powerful, inspiring, and helpful than Washington's. Although his message would require more work and would by no means be easy, what he wanted was true equality, and he knew it wouldn't happen if African Americans continued to accept the lives they had been forced to live before freedom.
The more I thought about this question, the more I realized Washington's idea wouldn't work in reality. If African Americans remained on plantations, working for the white owners that enslaved them for so long, were they truly free? Even if they were being compensated, what was the difference between their life pre- and post-slavery? It had been engrained in the white American's brains for so long that African Americans were the inferior race; that they were a problem and their only worth was working in the fields. Did we really think those attitudes would change overnight? That "casting down your buckers where you are" on white land, continuing to work under white control, would help bring about any sort of change? Chances are, the white owners would continue to mistreat the African Americans, to continue to treat them as slaves, because who would hold them accountable and tell them otherwise?
By casting down their buckets, African Americans would be compromising. They would continue to be treated unequally. They would remain in their situation indefinitely; their children would inherit that fate, and their children's children the same fate. By continuing to be the ones bossed around, uneducated and without a voice, they would continue to see themselves as the white people saw them--inferior, a problem. DuBois suggestion turned out to be more powerful, inspiring, and helpful than Washington's. Although his message would require more work and would by no means be easy, what he wanted was true equality, and he knew it wouldn't happen if African Americans continued to accept the lives they had been forced to live before freedom.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Human Nature
I couldn't help but notice the irony in the scene with the doctor in chapter 42. When he needs help to cut the bullet out of Tom's leg, Jim--knowing the consequences of coming out of his hiding spot and showing himself to an unfamiliar white man--offers to help. The doctor recognizes this goodness in Jim, yet it seems to shock him--solely because of the color of his skin. Although Jim's actions were proving his selflessness and faithfulness to other people, all the doctor could think about was that he had to sit around and wait with the runaway slave. While Jim felt it his obligation to give up his freedom to help someone in need, the doctor felt it his duty to give up a warm, cozy bed in order ensure another man's slavery.
It came as extremely ironic to me that the doctor stands up for Jim after he puts him back into slavery. It's as if Jim is only of good character as long as he is in chains. The doctor notices Jim's humanity, but still doesn't do anything about it! Reading this was so frustrating to me; I just wanted to shake the doctor and make him realize how contradicting he was sounding.
I guess this is just another way Twain was showing us the true human nature. We know what is morally right, but we also know the rules. And we deceive ourselves into believing that those two things alway go hand in hand. I think we can still apply this to our society today. What rules or laws are there set in place that contradict with our morals? Do we try to justify what we're doing because "it's the rules," even if the rules may be corrupt? It's certainly an interesting concept to think about.
I would like to end this with another little comment Twain makes on humanity, in a seemingly insignificant sentence. Just after the doctor is finished with his praise of Jim and his speech convincing the others not to treat him so badly, this is one of the onlookers response:
"Well, it sounds very good, doctor."
And then they move forward with their business and lock Jim back up, this time with a shackle on each limb.
It came as extremely ironic to me that the doctor stands up for Jim after he puts him back into slavery. It's as if Jim is only of good character as long as he is in chains. The doctor notices Jim's humanity, but still doesn't do anything about it! Reading this was so frustrating to me; I just wanted to shake the doctor and make him realize how contradicting he was sounding.
I guess this is just another way Twain was showing us the true human nature. We know what is morally right, but we also know the rules. And we deceive ourselves into believing that those two things alway go hand in hand. I think we can still apply this to our society today. What rules or laws are there set in place that contradict with our morals? Do we try to justify what we're doing because "it's the rules," even if the rules may be corrupt? It's certainly an interesting concept to think about.
I would like to end this with another little comment Twain makes on humanity, in a seemingly insignificant sentence. Just after the doctor is finished with his praise of Jim and his speech convincing the others not to treat him so badly, this is one of the onlookers response:
"Well, it sounds very good, doctor."
And then they move forward with their business and lock Jim back up, this time with a shackle on each limb.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
The Return of Tom
Just when we think Huck has begun to cut ties with Tom Sawyer and his romanticized view of life--full of adventures, murder, and heroic events--he proves us wrong. Huck keeps referring back to Tom and what he would have done along the way, sometimes modeling his life to look like Tom's, and chapter 32 is the culmination of this. Huck literally takes on Tom's identity, which is something, it seems, he has been striving for all along. It is extremely frustrating as a reader to see Huck begin to think for himself, only to revert back to his old ways. When Huck is away from his old society and Tom Sawyer's opinions, it is so easier for him to begin to think for himself, to feel sympathy for Jim and to want to help him for the right reasons. But as soon as Huck is reminded of where he came from and what he has held true his whole life, he loses all the progress he has made.
Even though Tom agrees to help Huck get Jim out of his "prison," he isn't doing it for the right reasons. Tom doesn't seem to understand that freeing Jim is a matter of life or death; he just sees it as another adventure. For me, it was so irritating to listen to Tom's ideas on how they would break Jim out. He made everything way more complicated than it needed to be, because that was what was in the books; that was what all the great heroes did, so of course Huck and Tom had to follow suit. What was even more frustrating was that even though Huck may have disagreed, he never stood his ground. He allowed Tom to sway him into doing things how Tom wanted them done.
Reading conversations like this one really made me dislike Tom:
"You got any rats around here?"
"No, sah, I hain't seed none."
"Well, we'll get you some rats."
No matter how many times Jim told Tom that he didn't want anything to do with the rats, snakes, or spiders, Tom just wouldn't listen. Tom was only concerned with setting up the scene just right so he would have a good story to tell to his friends later. These chapters were extremely frustrating to me; watching Huck switch his loyalty from Jim, who had been looking out for Huck's best interest all along, to Tom, who could not care less what happens to Huck or Jim in the end, irritated me and made me not only despise Tom, but Huck as well.
Even though Tom agrees to help Huck get Jim out of his "prison," he isn't doing it for the right reasons. Tom doesn't seem to understand that freeing Jim is a matter of life or death; he just sees it as another adventure. For me, it was so irritating to listen to Tom's ideas on how they would break Jim out. He made everything way more complicated than it needed to be, because that was what was in the books; that was what all the great heroes did, so of course Huck and Tom had to follow suit. What was even more frustrating was that even though Huck may have disagreed, he never stood his ground. He allowed Tom to sway him into doing things how Tom wanted them done.
Reading conversations like this one really made me dislike Tom:
"You got any rats around here?"
"No, sah, I hain't seed none."
"Well, we'll get you some rats."
No matter how many times Jim told Tom that he didn't want anything to do with the rats, snakes, or spiders, Tom just wouldn't listen. Tom was only concerned with setting up the scene just right so he would have a good story to tell to his friends later. These chapters were extremely frustrating to me; watching Huck switch his loyalty from Jim, who had been looking out for Huck's best interest all along, to Tom, who could not care less what happens to Huck or Jim in the end, irritated me and made me not only despise Tom, but Huck as well.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Brotherly Love
Although the Christian believers portrayed in Huck Finn are terrible examples of how Christians are called to live their lives, they are unfortunately accurate depictions of many "Christians." Miss Watson, a strong believer who has Huck pray every day, ironically equates prayer with a genie granting wishes. Yet another example of criticism is given in chapter 18, where Twain satirizes the Church in regards to the society it exists in.
"Next Sunday we all went to church, about three mile, everybody a-horseback. The men took their guns along, so did Buck, and kept them between their knees or stood them handy against the wall. The Shepherdsons done the same. It was pretty ornery preaching--all about brotherly love, and such-like tiresomeness; but everybody said it was a good sermon, and they all talked it over going home, and had such a powerful lot to say about faith, and good works, and free grace..." (176).
The irony is unmistakable, particularly in this passage. These two rival families, who have long forgotten what exactly it was that made them enemies in the first place, just so happen to attend the same church. And if you know anything about Christianity, it is all about loving your neighbor, being kind to others, submitting to one another, and living in peace with one another. The Shepherdsons and Grangerfords are anything but an accurate portrayal of the Christian walk of faith. "Good works" and "free grace" are completely absent between the two families.
Huck can see right through this act of Christianity. The fact that the families bring guns...to church...shows the cynicism that Twain has toward the Church, which he speaks about through Huck. Huck finds the church sermon tiresome; the families will go home to continue owning slaves and killing one another. Since the Christianity Huck has been shown is a self-serving, hate-filled, failed wish-granting type of faith that provides no solace to Huck , it's no wonder he rolls his eyes at God.
Huck can see right through this act of Christianity. The fact that the families bring guns...to church...shows the cynicism that Twain has toward the Church, which he speaks about through Huck. Huck finds the church sermon tiresome; the families will go home to continue owning slaves and killing one another. Since the Christianity Huck has been shown is a self-serving, hate-filled, failed wish-granting type of faith that provides no solace to Huck , it's no wonder he rolls his eyes at God.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Because I Said So
"Because it ain't in the books so--that's why."
This seems to be Tom's answer, at least in the first few chapters of Huckleberry Finn, whenever someone challenges his ideas. In other words, just go with what the books tell you; follow the rules because they're the rules and that's what you're supposed to do. It sounds like an answer educated people often give. It reminds me of an answer my teachers or parents gave me when I asked them why I had to do something--"Because I said so." In high school I remember questioning the importance and application of Calculus in the real world and getting shut down because, "it's important to know." Side note: I can't remember a thing I learned in AP Calculus.
I think Tom has fallen prey to blindly following the rules--which is what his education system is teaching him to do. Tom is the leader of the group and the mastermind behind all of the adventures, but he doesn't alway know why he's doing what he's doing. Although Tom is educated and has read enough books to imagine robbing Spanish merchants and "rich A-rabs," his creativity doesn't really go past what he learned in those books. The education system that taught him to read and write also seemed to stunt his personal logic and reasoning. Yes, he was educated, but the system failed at allowing him to think for himself. Tom had been taught to think a certain way, while Huck, who was not educated, was still free to imagine other scenarios. What's the point of educating people if they're not learning to think for themselves?
I was babysitting a few weeks ago, and the little boy was standing on the shoulder of a chair, trying to reach something above him on a shelf. Here was our conversation:
"Jack, get down from there."
"Why?"
"What if you get hurt?"
"What if I don't?"
His question took be by surprise, and I wasn't really sure how to answer it. Jack is just in kindergarten; he hasn't yet fallen prey to thinking how "the system" wants him to. Even though it annoyed me that he didn't obey right away, he had a point. What if he didn't get hurt? What if he safely got his toy down off the shelf with no assistance from myself? Although I hope Jack doesn't grow up to constantly question and disobey authority, I also hope he doesn't grow up to think the way they want him to without understanding why that is.
This seems to be Tom's answer, at least in the first few chapters of Huckleberry Finn, whenever someone challenges his ideas. In other words, just go with what the books tell you; follow the rules because they're the rules and that's what you're supposed to do. It sounds like an answer educated people often give. It reminds me of an answer my teachers or parents gave me when I asked them why I had to do something--"Because I said so." In high school I remember questioning the importance and application of Calculus in the real world and getting shut down because, "it's important to know." Side note: I can't remember a thing I learned in AP Calculus.
I think Tom has fallen prey to blindly following the rules--which is what his education system is teaching him to do. Tom is the leader of the group and the mastermind behind all of the adventures, but he doesn't alway know why he's doing what he's doing. Although Tom is educated and has read enough books to imagine robbing Spanish merchants and "rich A-rabs," his creativity doesn't really go past what he learned in those books. The education system that taught him to read and write also seemed to stunt his personal logic and reasoning. Yes, he was educated, but the system failed at allowing him to think for himself. Tom had been taught to think a certain way, while Huck, who was not educated, was still free to imagine other scenarios. What's the point of educating people if they're not learning to think for themselves?
I was babysitting a few weeks ago, and the little boy was standing on the shoulder of a chair, trying to reach something above him on a shelf. Here was our conversation:
"Jack, get down from there."
"Why?"
"What if you get hurt?"
"What if I don't?"
His question took be by surprise, and I wasn't really sure how to answer it. Jack is just in kindergarten; he hasn't yet fallen prey to thinking how "the system" wants him to. Even though it annoyed me that he didn't obey right away, he had a point. What if he didn't get hurt? What if he safely got his toy down off the shelf with no assistance from myself? Although I hope Jack doesn't grow up to constantly question and disobey authority, I also hope he doesn't grow up to think the way they want him to without understanding why that is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)