So this is late...

In preparing for the small group discussion, I read the story and got a feel for it. Before class, I spoke to a classmate about the story, and got an even better feel for the story.this preparation for the class differed from week to week because I usually don't talk about the story before class. For the three things that I learned from this exercise is that it's difficult for me to actually participate in larger group discussions, as most people are better prepared than I am, and usually dominate the discussion. I have a hard time speaking up and responding to other people when a bunch of people are watching and listening to me. Another thing that I learned is that I need to manage my time better, and since then, I have managed my time better and have worked on more things in a timely fashion. I also learned that the texts are more and more interesting the further I get into the book. I found that the discussion for the class is not as useful to me than having smaller groups talking about the same thing.

Big Two- Headed River

This story was very easy to read. It was laid back for the most part and calm, even during the big catch that got away.

This story was different than the stories and poems we've read because it is fairly easy going and laid back. The other stories that we have read have more action through out the story, and this on is calm.

there was great imagery in this story. It had concrete sensory details, and showed things for what they were. The imagery of the line being pulled taught and breaking was amazing, to say the least. You could see what was going on. This story is great, and I would recommend it to someone else if asked about it.

Essay ideas?

So, as far as the midterm essay goes, i think i will be writing it on irony and its role in a couple of the stories we've read for class. this will take a lot of work, but i'm hoping to have it done by next monday.

Weighing the arguments

Booker T. Washington's argument is more conservative, while W.E.B. DuBois's argument is more militant. I agree with both arguments, but if i had to chose, i would go with DuBois's argument, as his is more get-it-done-now-ish. I feel that this is more effective, though the better way is to mix both ideas. If there was a person who found a middle ground, it would have been amazing.


While Washington was a man that was born into slavery, he has great ideals and ideas as to how to help the African American cause. He feels that the way to go about things is to ease people into the idea of there being freedom and equal rights to colored people. His background makes him know that the easiest way to do things is to let people become accustomed to the idea before acting upon it. He knows the life of a slave and how other slaves might feel about being freed- they all want it, but they want to assimilate slowly into society. Anyways, those are his views.


However, on the other hand, W.E.B. DuBois has the attitude of get it done now and get it over with. Him being born free in New England has impacted his views. He's from the northern free states, which means that he's experienced having things go well for him, and has not had the experience of being a former slave. He feels that slaves want and need to be freed and have equal rights as soon as possible and he wants it done right away. He has the “I–want–it–and–I–want–it–now” attitude. This is beneficial, and helps get the ball rolling, but his views oppose those of Booker T. Washington’s.


While their goals are the same, they go about it in different ways. The two men’s pasts have indeed influenced their arguments and how they want things done.

Response to Jenny's blog #3

Jenny brings up a great point about the whole story being ironic (Situational irony). The irony is definitely there. It makes me wonder about what would have happened to grandison's family if they had never run away, or if they had been caught?

I think that Grandison's family would have been severely punished infront of the other slaves had they been caught.

I also feel that Tom, Grandison's brother, is the whole reason why they were able to run away, even though grandison was the one who had been left behind and came back to get the rest of his family. It's possible that Tom talked to Grandison before he left with Dick. There are so many possibilities as to where this story could have gone and ended, or just how things went. I hope that that makes sense.

It's always fun to think about what happened behind the scenes of a story. There are so many possibilities, that leave the reader in the dark when they think about it, but it also leaves it to the reader's imagination.

The Use of Irony

"You could have knocked me down with a feather."(240)
This is verbal irony because the actual meaning of the speech contradicts the way it was said. You can't knock someone down with a feather because it's physically impossible. A feather's mass is less that that of a human, so therefore it is not able to knock down a human. It is also soft, so there's another reason why it is impossible.


"One monday morning Grandison was missing... And a hurried search and inquiry resulted in no information as to their whereabouts." (241)
This passage is situational irony because earlier in the story, we find out that grandison comes back with a broken leg, and then leaves not too long after, taking his family with him. They escape to canada and are freed by running away.

response to Jenny's blog: Bierce and Twain

Bierce and Twain




Jenny, I agree that Mark Twain’s story was a bit humorous. I found that the men not knowing what to do, running away constantly, and the bickering were all very amusing to me. I was happy to find such humor in such a dark time period for the USA. It pleases me that the authors of the time period were indeed able to find light of the situation and at the same time portray what was happening.

I also agree with you about the line in “Chickamauga.” It is indeed a great line, though it is horrible. It’s got a sort of grotesque feel about it, and definitely shows the portrayal of the Civil War to an innocent child. The child playing with his fake sword was a good contrast between having a good idea of what war was and the harsh reality of what it really is.

Response to "The Storm"

The ending of “The Storm” is very surprising, as the story talks about infidelity, marriage, and love. If we were to take the “storm” as a metaphor, then one could state that the storm was the feelings Alcee Laballiere was having while he was at Calixta’s home. The Infidelity there is that of which Calixta  is married, and so is Alcee, though they both commit acts of infidelity.

The definition of infidelity: in·fi·del·i·ty/ˌinfiˈdelitē/

Noun:	1.      The action or state of being unfaithful to a spouse or other sexual partner. 2.      Unbelief in a particular religion, esp. Christianity.
Synonyms:	disloyalty - unbelief - unfaithfulness - disbelief

  

For our purposes, the first definition is what we will go off for our purposes.

I had to google what it meant to understand the blog prompt.  

The reader should think about this ending as an end to the infidelity between Calixta and Alcee, and the happiness between Clarisse, Alcee, Calixta, and Bobinot.  Bibi is also involved, but the main characters are Calixta and Alcee.  The love that they might have once had is evident through the infidelity in the story, as is it through the small flashback of “Assumption,” whatever that was, whether it be a play or a gathering, I still do not know. I looked in the book at the previous story(a glance at a few pages), of which “The Storm” is supposed to be a sequel to, and have not found any evidence of the “Assumption.”  I would very much like to know what the thing is to make the story clearer to the reader and myself.

The ending has a lot to say about infidelity, love, and marriage.  If something goes by unknown about by those who it would harm, there is no foul. Which is not true(in my opinion), but that is the message I get from the end of the story.

response to Jenny's blog

JENNY'S BLOG

My second question comes from "The Freedman's Story." The article, written by William Parker, recounts his confrontation with slave-catchers. When I finished the article, I wondered why, throughout this time in history, slave owners were so intent on catching runaway slaves. Was it because if they let one go, they might all try to escape? Or is it more than for show? Does the slave owner actually find worth in one escaped slave, enough to send a whole gang of slave-catchers after him? Are slaves that hard to replace? Wouldn't it be easier to let a troublesome slave run away rather than struggle to beat the work out of him (assuming that the slaves most likely to chance their life by running away are the ones most resistant to working)? I want to understand better the dynamics between a slave owner and his slaves - not just that they owned them, but how valuable a slave was to them, and what conditions decided whether or not they sent pursuers after an escapee.

I think that the reason why the slave owners were so adamant about getting their slaves back is because if they were not, then that would probably have sent the message that the slave owner did not care about his slaves leaving or not, which is probably contradicting to what they wanted to do. I feel that slave owners wanted to keep their slaves and not have to buy new ones. It is sort of like the concept that if you lose a pair of shoes to a friend that you are able to get back you do not want to say “Shove it. I will buy a new pair.” Instead you will try getting them back as soon as you can or as soon as you need it. I think that this played a big role in the way history was written and how literature developed over the past couple centuries.

questions

Upon reading the post-bellum packet, I wondered about what it was like to live back then and be a woman writer like Emily Dickinson. I wondered about where I would fit in enough time to do any writing with a busy schedule with having to do house work all day and make clothes all the time. It would be a very busy life. I feel that this life style would not be something I would enjoy. I like my technology and internet very much.  Now that I think about it, I would spend a lot of time writing stories and reading books, as well as making clothes and other things.  I feel that I would end up not doing the daily chores and read all day and write all day instead. If I had to go back in time and compare today’s life to the time period back then, I would probably go crazy.  I think that I would be very bored in the past as I would find little to do that would entertain me.  I would rather have something to do to procrastinate with than have nothing to do except my actual work (school work). When Emily Dickinson was alive was a completely different time than now, almost two different worlds. I suspect that there were several skinny people who worked a lot and had little time on their hands. In today’s world, there are more people that are obese than there were in the past.  I think that this is due to modern day technology and more desk jobs than farming jobs. There are more “couch potato” people than busy bodies because of the modern day job tasks.



Basically, the questions I have are these:



What was life like for Emily Dickinson?

What made her decide to start writing, and where did she find the time?