The Crying of me trying to read Lot 49

I'm going to try and say this in the nicest way possible. I hated The Crying of Lot 49 more than any other piece of literature ever, except maybe anything by Gertrud Stein. There. I really did try to like this book. I expected a story about a band and the drugs and confusion of the sixties. Instead I got a book about...well...I'm not even sure. I expected a book full of symbolism and rich detail, and I got nothing. I got a flat story that leads you no where. For the greater part of the book I was confused about what was going on. What in the world does an underground postal system have anything to do with Oedipa. I'm still trying to figure out why she was so interested in the first place. It was not interesting. As for me, I believe that it was all a wild chase created by Pierce. But then how would he know that she would be able to fall into all his traps? For instance, how would he have been able to know that at the end of her wits she would be travel to San Francisco and end up in a gay bar called The Greek Way? I don't know the answers to these questions because the book fails to give you any. The ending was especially frustrating. Not being able to find out who the mysterious buyers identity was icing on the cake. How could Pynchon do that to me. I made it through the confusing play, and the 1003746382 different characters and then he's going leave me hanging. Although I believe that it was pierce and he was in no way deceased my theory is not enough. I need proof, I need to know! This book deliberately evades solutions to the hundreds of questions that are asked. As the reader you are plagued by uncertainty. But, I suppose the uncertainty that the reader feels is similar to the uncertainty that Oedipa is feeling. Perhaps Pynchon chooses to leave us in the dark so we can relate to Oedipa in her unanswered quest for knowledge. That's great and all, however, just as Oedipa is left feeling out of her mind, so am I.

I thought that the first chapter of The Crying of Lot 49 was slightly confusing but very intriguing. Throughout the entire 12 pages I felt like I had come into a book that was many chapters in. The reader was quickly introduced to people that the book makes you feel like you should already know. I felt like I was bombarded with information, and disordered information at that. However, the more you read through the disorder there was order. But even when I began to understand something, I still found it weird. For instance, the fact that Oedipa's psychiatrist is calling her in the middle of the night to ask her to be apart of his study that requires her to take drugs. There were many times throughout the chapter that I felt like it reminded me of Slaughterhouse 5. For some reason the amount of disorder reminded me of the almost random way in which Slaughterhouse 5 is written. Also there were small little additions to the story that were odd, but I'm sure have some deep hidden meaning. For instance, the fact that the radio station that Mucho works at is the word FUCK spelled backwards. Also, the names in this story are very odd. The name Oedipa which could be said to sound like Oedipus, might be a reference to Freud. Also what is with the name Mucho? So he is a lot. But a lot of what? Also, who could look past the name of the psychiatrist. How could you take someone seriously and expect them to take you seriously when their name was Hilarius. I know that there must be something more to these odd additions to the story I am just unable to figure it out at this point. Hopefully these will be questions that will be answered with further reading.

The Family Name

I enjoyed reading the story "There was a Queen" by William Faulkner. I had read the novel The Unvanquished in high school and was surprised to see the Sartoris family again. I found it interesting how the use of southern standards are used as a measuring stick for a person's character. To Miss Jenny the absolute worst thing that a person, a lady to be specific, could do was damage her reputation and the honor of her family. It was not only the responsibility of a southern woman to take care of her family, but also the family name. The Sartoris family is one that has some of the deepest and most respected roots in the south. Their name has managed to make it through wars and family feuds. To Miss Jenny, the fact that Miss Narcissa would threaten the Sartoris name is insulting. Even a letter that might destroy Miss Narcissa's reputation was enough for Miss Jenny to want to call on the aid of the colonel. The very fact that Miss Narcissa thinks the solution to the problem is to sleep with the man is more than Miss Jenny can bear. She dies in the end, not only because Miss Narcissa has dirtied herself and the family name, but because Miss Jenny knows that this marks the end of an era. This is the end of gentility and respect. This is the end of the life she had known and defended. This is the end of the Sartoris family. One of the most interesting points is that Miss Narcissa knows that what she has done will hurt the family. She knowingly moved the rendezvous to Memphis where she hoped that it would not affect the family. In addition, when she returned she cleansed herself and her son in the creek out beyond the pasture. This shows that Miss Narcissa knew that what she had done was damaging to not only her own self respect, but the respect and good name of the Sartoris family. In the end the damages that were made to Miss Jenny's family and name were too much for her to bear.

The old Stalker

I enjoyed the poem, "The Young Housewife" by William Carlos Williams. At first glance it seems as though this man is just describing a woman that he saw. However, as I continued to read I got the feeling that he was fantasizing more than observing. In the first stanza when he states that the housewife, "moves about in negligee", you get the feeling he is describing, or rather directing a fantasy. This is how he wishes to see her. You then realize that he actually can't see her when he says, "behind the wooden walls of her husband's house". This man has probably made this drive everyday on his way to work and is entertained by imagining what the housewife might be doing. This is more clear in the next stanza when he admits that this has been happening over the course of time by saying, "Then again". This is not just a single observation, this is the culmination of a few chance viewings and many fantasies along the way. In addition, it is interesting that he compares the housewife to a fallen leaf. Does he mean that she has fallen from grace, a woman ready to be tempted and taken advantage of? This can further be questioned when he goes on to describe how his car runs over leaves. Is this supposed to represent his domination of the housewife? Perhaps he understands the power he could have over this woman, that he has so thoughtfully imagined needing him as much as he needs her. In an essay on William Carlos Williams Marjorie Perloff describes the possibility that this stanza is describing a rape fantasy. She describes that even though this is possibly a need to have what another man has, this fantasy is quickly overruled by the normalcy of this mans life and his responsibilities. He settles his demons by deciding to simply, "bow and pass smiling."

I was very surprised by the ending of The Wife of His Youth. I expected that Mr. Ryder would not have acknowledged his old wife. The way that he described the society of the blue veins made it seem that he had forgotten his race all together. I'm not sure though how I would have acted in a similar situation. It is very heroic to say that you would not want to be associated with an upper class. However, it is quite tempting to belong. In Mr. Ryder's eyes belonging meant being to opposite of everything that had been formerly associated with his race. Even when I had figured out that he was the young husband I expected it to be a secret he would take to the grave. In addition, I was surprised that the people at the party, especially Ms. Dixon, were so supportive of his decision to acknowledge the older wife. I anticipated the group responding very negatively. Perhaps this is Chesnutt's way of disbanding some of the negative associations people were making in relation to societies of this sort. Maybe Chesnutt was trying to prove that these people were not turning their back on their race at all. They were merely trying to better themselves and uplift everyone. This is all very nice sounding, but I still am not sure if it is really believable. For a man that concerns himself with every outward appearance and ranking it seems unlikely that he would acknowledge his less than beautiful past. You just dont find many people who spend their entire lives trying to run away from the past wanting to revisit it. I guess Mr. Ryder was touched by the love and devotion of his former wife. Perhaps that love was enough to break him down into the real, less than perfect, man that he is.

Unexpected Ending

I was very upset with the ending of Huckleberry Finn. This was my first time reading this book and I expected a more happy ending. After so much bonding between Huck and Jim I can't imagine how Twain thought that the betrayal at the end was suitable. What is even harder to understand is how it is logical that Jim and Huck would so easily forgive Tom for taking their trust and feelings so lightly. The ending leaves the reader feeling let down. I guess it is just harder for us to understand how it could be so easy to toy with someones freedom in such a way. The reader must keep in mind when this was all taking place. If we were reading this in 1884 I'm sure that the thought of taking advantage of a slave and his freedom would sadly not be as upsetting. It just seems so atrocious now that a child could have that control over another person, a grown man of all things. Furthermore, this ending raises the question of how Huck could have went along with all of the trouble Tom was putting Jim through. Even though Huck did not know that Jim was free he knew how much his freedom meant to him. It just seems that Huck would have stood up and put and end to all of Tom's nonsense. However, I do believe that the main reason for Huck going along with the plan was the fact that he was so young and looked up to Tom. I know that when I was Huck's age I did whatever my older sister told me to because I believe she knew better than me. Huck aspires to be Tom so naturally he would listen to what Tom has to say. I don't think that Huck is at the age yet where he can successfully stand up for his own opinion. Though, I do believe that if Huck had know that Jim was already free he would have found it in him to stand up to Tom. I think that Jim and Huck had grown so close to each other that Huck was willing to risk his friendship with Tom for his friendship with Jim.

Revolution is the Pod

In Emily Dickinson's poem, "Revolution is the Pod", she describes that in order for liberty to remain intact it must be tested every so often by revolution. I believe she makes a very good point. Just as Emily describes, excellence can only be a product after revolution has taken place. She goes on to say that in order to see if liberty is still intact revolution, "shakes it for Test if it be dead". I believe that this is true of many things in life. Some of the biggest changes and social movements that support liberty have come out of revolutions small and large. One of the largest of these revolutions was the Civil War. So many times we can overlook the changes that need to be made in the world. In the case of the Civil War the South was refusing to acknowledge the liberty of a whole race of people. It took a revolution of enormous size to make the country as a whole come together and realize the capacity it had for being a better place. In Emily's poem revolution is the pod and excellence is the bloom. Only from revolution can one grow into something more excellent. In the second stanza Dickinson goes on to say that if it were not for the fall, or time of change, the summer would be, "the Entomber of itself". I think what she is trying to say here is that if you never go through a time of change or revolution then you will be your own self destruction. She goes on to say that the same goes for liberty. If liberty is not challenged and defended every so often it will be forgotten and die. To Dickinson liberty is not something that can be left and forgotten about. It must be something that is defended and honored and revised as the times change. I think this is an accurate description of what the United States was going through with the Civil War.

I will agree with Neely that Whitman seems to make no acknowledgement of the Emancipation Proclamation in his work. However, were there many (or any) white poets at the time who were making any acknowledgement of it? I don't believe that Whitman was alone in his quickness to make little of this huge event. As we have seen in the other Civil War poem by Timrod that not much acknowledgement is given to African Americans in the first place. Timrod only chooses to include the dusky fingers of the slave that he is describing. He could care less about the rest of his body. This slave as a person with worth was not allowed inside his poem. I'm not sure which Neely would consider worst, Whitman's total neglect of the Emancipation Proclamation, or Timrod's blatant disregard for African Americans. It seems to me that Whitman is very concerned with his country and the union. Throughout his poem, "Beat! Beat! Drums!" Whitman makes a call to men to join up and fight for their country. However, perhaps Whitman saw that the Emancipation Proclamation did not do as much as people think it did on that very first day. The Emancipation Proclamation at first only freed those slaves that had already escaped to the Union side. I want to make clear that I acknowledge that this was one of the most important moments in the fight against slavery. However, most people believe that the Emancipation proclamation freed all slaves. That is just not the case. Once the union army moved south more and more slaves were eventually freed. But it was not until the thirteenth amendment that slavery was officially banished. For all we know Whitman could have been disgruntled by the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation was not a total disbandment of slavery. This is probably a stretch, however, I believe that the fact that Whitman does not write about the Emancipation Proclamation does not give us room to say that he did not care at all.

Before There Were Draft Cards

I was surprised when I read the poem "Beat! Beat! Drums!" by Walt Whitman. For some reason I had not expected Whitman to produce such a patriotic poem. Though it is not blatantly one leaning or the other, when you read it you feel compelled to fight. I am not exactly sure why this surprised me about Whitman. I suppose that I had anticipated him as being against the war. However, he clearly displays his urgency to fight and defend in this poem. From the very first line of "Beat! Beat! Drums!" you can feel the effect of Whitman's words. Not only is he pushing you through the poem with these explosions, he is also pushing the people towards fighting. He discusses going into the churches and schools and rounding up the men to fight. Whitman did not consider these things to be excuses to get out of fighting. He clearly feels that it would be ridiculous to not fight. Whitman states, "would they continue? Would the talkers be talking? Would the singer attempt to sing?" In Whitman's mind people should not even be spending time on these things. He continues by warning the men not to give in to their feelings of retreat. To further warn the men Whitman states, "let not the child's voice be heard, nor the mother's entreaties." I believe Whitman fears that if the men listen to their children and mother's cries as they leave they will be less likely to continue on and fight. I believe that the drums and bugles serve to keep the men focused ad confident in their cause. Whitman ends the poem by saying that even the dead must be woken. Everyone must realize the need to fight and do their part. Finally, in the last line I found it interesting that Whitman calls the drums terrible. Perhaps as much as he supports the cause he still realizes how awful of a thing war is.

It took me so long to figure out what was going on in the story "Benito Cereno". It was not necessarily that the reading was difficult, I just lack the ability to foresee possible endings. It was actually when the narrator told the readers what happened that I fully understood what had happened on the boat. For the longest time I was under the suspicion that Don Cereno was the one who was out to get Captain Delano. His odd actions and weird conversations led me to believe that he was withholding information. The thought that the slaves could have been the ones running the show never crossed my mind. Not that the thought is unthinkable, it is just something that you never hear about in History class. I honestly don't know if I have ever heard of such a case. Melville catches you completely off guard when Don Cereno jumps ship. That must have been the moment I knew. When Don Cereno would not let go of Captain Delano's hand I knew that he was stalling. You could really sense the fear that Don Cereno was feeling at that moment. The fear that this might be the last time that he might encounter what he considered civilization and freedom. It seems odd that a man that is being forced into submission could still feel that certain people still deserve that kind of treatment.
But even when I thought I had it all figured out I was still stereotyping. I thought that it must have been the large African American man, Atufal, that would have led the revolution. Surely the only way they could have successfully taken over the ship would have been with his brawn. However, once again I was wrong. It was in fact Babo, the small and seemingly gentle aid to the Captain that led the deadly revolt. I was so quick to judge that the only way that the slaves could have made a successful revolt would have been through physical intimidation. Though force was used it was their intelligence and careful planning that got them as far as they did.

The Poor Man's Poem

I think the reason that The Raven by Edgar Allen Poe has become such an American classic is because so many people are able to understand it. There are many people who hate poetry for the very fact that they say it is far too confusing for them to understand what the author is talking about. Poe, however, seems to write in a way that people feel comfortable reading him. For instance, in The Raven Poe uses a very clear and definite rhyme scheme. Most people expect rhyming when they see a poem. There is something about expecting that next rhyme that keeps the poem flowing and understandable. Not to mention that Poe uses pretty simple language, especially when you compare it to the other readings we have been doing in class. If you were to take the average American they could most likely make some sense of what Poe was trying to talk about in this poem. In addition, Poe does an excellent job of creating a scene in which the reader needs no prior knowledge. There is not a certain time period that this poem makes the most sense in. For this reason The Raven has been able to be successful throughout many decades.
I also think that The Raven has been such a popular poem because for many people they understand what Poe was talking about. I personally believe that the raven represented that darkness in the man's heart. I think that the death of his Lenore caused him to lose a part of himself to the sadness that he felt. I think the raven represents what the man was missing. Not only did it represent that physically, but he reminded the man continually that these feelings would continue and that he would leave, "nevermore". I think many people have a raven in their lives. Perhaps it's not only the ongoing grief of a loved one, but rather the constant reminder that something is missing in your life. The Raven represents dark space in your heart that cannot be filled and cannot be satisfied without the desired object. I think for these reasons that many people have been able to connect with The Raven, making it a huge success.

Take that Tories

For Mercy Otis Warren the play "The Group" represents many different attempts to make statements about current issues in the colonies. To write a satirical play about Tories at this time, especially for a woman, was a fairly daring feat. To begin with Warren has many of the Tory characters making statements that do not necessarily correspond to usual Tory beliefs. There is an admission that one character is only in it for the fame and fortune, while others express that the patriot cause is really right and just. Why would any Tory say such things? This seems odd that Warren would switch up the thinking from what we would expect. However, I believe that she did this with the audience in mind. The entertainment value of this must have been priceless. How amusing would it be to see the people that you despise the most saying the things that they would never ever say? In addition, how infuriating would it be for the Tories that were able to get their hands on this play to see the things that Warren was accusing them of saying and doing? I believe it would be just as entertaining as for us to see a play in which Duke students expressed how inferior they are to UNC students. Portraying the Tories in such a light was a real blow to their egos and their cause.
In addition, Warren is even more daring when she challenges the way women are viewed in the Revolution. When Hateall is discussing how he married a girl for her money and then proceeded to beat her he is making the Tories not only look ignorant, but sexist. By adding this into the conversations that were intended to be taken as ridiculous, Warren is showing that she does not support such attitudes. Perhaps Hateall's view describes the popular view at the time. I'm sure that women were considered useless for most of the American Revolution. However, Warren brings this up to show that she, and educated successful woman, is a complete contradiction of the women portrayed in this play.

Franklin, Jesus Franklin

After reading part two of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography I am a little bothered by his attitude. To start off the second half of your book with letters from your friends begging you to come back and write because their lives would not be complete unless they know what happened to you is a little much. For a man who is claiming to just be writing for his son about the anecdotes from his family Franklin is a little proud. The entire second half of the autobiography consists of Franklin's discussion of how perfect he is in his quest for perfection. He is undoubtedly a very good human being and many of us could learn great lessons from him. However, he wastes no time agreeing to the fact and giving you ten different reasons why that's right.
In addition, I found his discussion of religion interesting. I agree with Franklin when he discusses the fact that many religions share the same values. However, I believe that Franklin getting mad at the preacher's interpretation of a scripture and leaving the church forever a little much. Franklin is such a know- it- all that a difference of opinion was enough to send him home to study the "little Liturgy" that he had whipped together in his spare time. From this point Franklin goes into great detail about his quest for perfection. The very thought alone is preposterous if he is a Christian. Perfection on this earth was only in the form of Jesus Christ. Period. No matter how many dots he keeps track of he will never be perfect.
Finally, the fact that Franklin sees it suitable to place Jesus Christ in the same category as Socrates is almost laughable. On advising the world to practice humility Franklin states that we should, "imitate Jesus and Socrates". Sure, the salvation of man is really comparable to Socrates' ideas on life. I honestly believe that Franklin has such a warped view of himself that he believes that man has the ability to reach the level of The Lord. In my opinion Franklin needs a big reality check.

Just Don't Touch My Wife

In his article, "The History of the Dividing Line" Byrd discusses the miscegenation of the settlers and the Native American women. Byrd discusses how the troubles between the settlers and the Native Americans could have been avoided had the Native Americans just loaned out their daughters to them. He states that much bloodshed could have been avoided by this contract and the country as a whole would be more populous. What I found interesting was that he goes further and explains that even the color of the Native Americans skin would no longer be an issue because the whiteness of the settlers would wash them out in two generations.
This passage confused me the first time that I read it for many reasons. At first glance it looks as though Byrd is in favor of interracial relations and a living experience. This confused me mainly because throughout most of history this sort of situation has been strictly punished and very looked down upon. However, once I thought about it some more I realized what the main difference was. The women in the scenario are Native American. They are not "pure" white women. The cases in history that I remembered all involved white women who were "tainted" by men of color. Throughout history women have been seen as objects to be owned. A husband has rights over everything that he owns and can't have anyone lessening the value of that property. So when a man of color infringes on a white man's property, or in this case his wife or daughter, it is an act punishable by death. To Byrd, the relations between a white settler and a Native American woman were fine because she was already worth less due to her color.
In addition, the eventual mixing of the two races would not be an advancement in race relations, but a white out correction to a Native American "problem". In Byrd's mind the color of the Native Americans would eventually fade away. However, I'm sure that he would not feel the same about this mixing if it were the white females who would be giving birth to the lighter skinned children. Just so long as his white property was not involved Byrd saw no problem mixing things up in the New World.

Opinion or Sense

In the work, "A Divine and Supernatural Light", Jonathan Edwards chooses at many times to distinguish between having an opinion about something and having a sense of it. He distinguishes that one can have an opinion about something just by knowing that it exists. This knowledge could be completely by hearsay. However, he states that to have a sense of something you must be able to have experienced it and to truly appreciate what it is. An example would be that you could be in the opinion that someone was beautiful because that is what you have heard. However, to have a sense of that person's beauty you must have experienced it and appreciated it. Edwards goes on to say that you can be of the opinion that Christ is holy and gracious just from knowing the word of God. However, to have a true sense of the holiness and grace of Christ is the work of the Holy Spirit.
I found this distinction interesting, especially for the audience that Edwards was preaching to. The Puritans believed that you should constantly be searching your soul for signs of grace and meditating on being prepared. Edwards is preaching that not only do you need to know of the Lord and his holiness, you need to have a sense of Him. So no matter how free of sin you tried to live your life if you were not blessed with the religious insight to have a true sense of the Lord then you were just as bad off as the wretched. Edwards states that those whose minds are polluted by sin are blind to the light of the Lord and are unable to have a sense of him. Surely the elect, though they did not know who they were, would have a sense of the Lord.
Something that distinguishes Edwards from others like Mather and Newton is his abandonment of reason. Mather, though he gives all credit and glory to God, acknowledges the reasonable and speculative features of the light. He references scientists like Newton and discusses the scientific descriptions of light. Edwards, on the other hand, says that though you need reason to function and perceive things, it is the spirit and senses that truly understand things. Edwards goes on to say, "for it is not a thing that belongs to reason, to see the beauty and loveliness of spiritual things; it is not a speculative thing, but depends on the sense of the heart". Edwards ends in saying that though you may gain pleasure in studying these things rationally, it is nothing compared to the joy and pleasure of this divine light shining into your soul.

Introduction

My Name is Kate Cunningham and I am a Junior at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This is the first blog I have ever written and it is a requirement for my English 122 class. I am from Columbus, North Carolina and I am majoring in Sociology.