The Scarlet Letter and The Essay

        AHA!!! I knew Dimmesdale was the father. That indeed puts him in a very precarious situation. HE can't tell, or he loses his life. Yet if he continues on the current path, Hester  has to bear the burden alone. this can also be seen t be having a physical affect on Dimmesdale as well, as he is always sick. Pearl has proved to be a creepishly smart child. For a three year old, I think her English might be better than mine. She will prove to be a mess. Enough on that.
        As for this essay, I think there is a lot of value in finding a peer to collaborate with. It just so happens that I ended up with 3. Yet strangely, only one of them has commented on my essay. hmmmm. I also am glad that we are going to be having class time to work on the essays; I need some time to work on it while having the available resources of you and my peers around me all the time.

Scarlet Letter 12/5/10

        After reading through the two different possibilities as to why Hester remained behind, I am not exactly sure of her true reason for staying. From what the two paragraphs say, I feel like her reasoning came actually from a mixture of both. I feel like she does indeed have some emotional connection to this place, I'm just not sure what it is. My first thought is that the connection is probably to her lover, and she feels that she shouldn't abandon him to the pack of wolves that are the villagers. The book says that what is keeping her there is "half a sense of truth, and half a self-delusion," but I'm struggling to get past there.
        As for how the community treats her....let's just say I wouldn't want to be in her shoes. The community does support her a bit, but that is only because they want access to her incredibly fine needle-work. Other than that, they basically shun her. She turns into that creepy old hermit that lives on the outskirts of town where she won't be bothered. When she does go into the community, she is endlessly the center of attention as people in passing stare a her letter. It would be quite miserable

Scarlet Letter 12/1/10

As of now, the story line seems to be pretty straightforward. Young wife cheated on old husband, and old husband (and the rest of society) is really unhappy. My guess is that the mystery man who fathered her child is Arthur Dimmesdale, though I'm not sure how the rest of the community would react if this were the case. While I'm sure they have no problem backing their threats, Dimmesdale is an incredibly important member to the community, and on top of that he is very well-respected. My predictions for the immediate future is that Hester will continue to remain mute in regards to the name of her lover, and her real husband will continue to prod her about it; he might possibly discover the truth before everyone else and work to make said lover's life miserable. And the community will likely continue hating and debating over Hester.

Preparation for the Essay: Main Thoughts 11/10/10

          So I'm basically assessing the different perspectives of Emerson, Thoreau, and Fuller on what it means to be an American. But before even beginning I have a question. Can I write a paper based on their individual ideas, or do I need to find a common theme that is present in all of their writings and discuss those? It seems like Emerson is pretty all around, Thoreau is very American in relevance to government, and Fuller toys with the idea that the word American and all of the nuances and special implications that come with that word be not just applied to males, Although she does touch upon some other very interesting points as well. So let me break it sown further.
          So Emerson is all about what it means to be an American in terms of responsibility and privilege. He believes that it is the job of the scholars to lead society, to draw out a path for the rest to follow. He absolutely pushes action. You must act, says Emerson, on what you believe. For if one simply sits, society doesn't get very far. They must act to trail-blaze for others to follow behind, and they must orchestrate me so that me can be Man. That's Emerson.
          Thoreau is not as lengthy. He is very willing to see the American be something completely different than everyone before. Thoreau wishes for an America without government, yet he realizes that this young country couldn't handle it. So he advocates government with limited influence, and a shrinking amount of influence as the country matures. Thoreau is also an advocate of justice, and is a strong opponent to Slavery and the Mexican war. I guess in his mind, an American is (or at least should be) someone who is morally just, willing to participate in the government, even though they know that they might be outnumbered. I think that's about it. How to relate that to my thesis.... still working on that.
          And finally we have Fuller, who is all about the white males sharing the Americanism, if you know what I mean. She felt like, to the men, the women were just necessities; he provides for the house, and she tends it. Fuller also stresses though that women need to learn self-dependence and autonomy, and that while marriage is still important, she needs to know how to live for herself, and not just be a tool of her husband. I need to read more, but this is were I stand on Fuller at he moment.
          So this is pretty much what I'm working with at the moment. If you can find some connection between these people that I can analyze, it would help a lot. It seems to me that they have such different perspectives, and address such different things, that I don't know how I can use them. Just looking for some guidance. Thank you.

Whitman's "Preface to Leaves of Grass" 11/3/10

        While I do not really understand a lot of what Whitman is saying, and though I really don't like the way he writes, with his endless lists that give you automatic snow blindness, I can understand why he writes the way he does. Whitman believes wholeheartedly that the American poet needs to be to the world something new and different. He doesn't want Americans to be like Americans 50 years ago. He doesn't want Americans to be like Europeans. He wants Americans to be something new, something "appropriate to the time." This strange writing style of his is just a way of practicing what he preaches. He wants Americans to forge their own way, and who is behind this push for change but the poet.
        Whitman's poet is basically equivalent to Emerson's American scholar. It is the scholar/poets job to lead the nation, and to lead them in a new direction then their predecessors, the "minds of the past." It is also to teach the nation, as the poet is the enlightened one, the one who can focus just upon the scholarly and upon sharing their beliefs and discoveries with the world. In reality, the poet is to function as the conduit of new ideas to flow in and out of America.

Whitman's "Preface to Leaves of Grass" 11/1/10

        Ok so first off I am finding this a tad hard to follow, but based on what we discussed in class today, I will give it my best shot. So I'm guessing that sense he says the word America repeatedly and because we have been discussing this theme, Whitman is once again addressing the topic of "What is an American?". And it seems like he has some pretty lofty things to say about Americans. He acknowledges the fact in the first paragraph that America has gone through quite a few things, not all of them good, and learned a lot from them. However, the American is able to leave those things in the past and find the thing that is appropriate to the present. And then he goes on to say that Americans are perfect because blah blah blah. At least that's what I'm getting out of it. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know. He seems a bit conceded to me.
        The third paragraph is the one that seems a bit more contradictory though. In class you said that Emerson was a huge influence on Whitman, but Whitman advocates that the power of America lies with the common man. Whitman says "the genius of the United States is not best or most in its.... authors or colleges[,]... but always most in the common people." Doesn't Emerson advocate that the genius of America lies in the authors and colleges? That the common people play an important role, but are really just people to do the labor and keep society functioning. That the scholars were really the ones who ran the country? I guess I'm just trying to understand how Whitman can be a supporter of Emerson but have such a major contradiction in the preface of is book?

Thoreau's "Resistance to a Civil Government"

        So far Thoreau seems a bit more clear cut than Emerson, and his views are portrayed in such a way that it isn't overly difficult to read. His most basic stance on civil government is that the best kind is nothing; he believed that the pinnacle of a government is having the least amount of interference as possible in the lives of the citizens. He was virtually an anarchist. However, Thoreau was smart enough to know not to try to push for a radical anarchist shift in the government. He knew that the country just was not ready for it yet.
        Also, the other primary point that I saw as I looked over this was his opinion on your responsibility as an American. He actually summed up the common American quite accurately; He said that unless we are sure of being a part of the majority, we will not express out opinions about certain matters. The example that he used was with the American voting system. He basically stated that Americans will not vote for a belief of theirs as long as they feel that they will be defeated. They won't leave their feeling of security. At this moment, these are the only two primary ideas that I see, If there are some that I'm missing, just let me know in the comments

Emerson's "American Scholar" 10/17/10

        I'm oging to do kind of a mixture of a question/opinion blog. So opinion first. I think I've got the first half of this thing down; I'm good with pretty much everything that we talked about in class. The influences are good, and I understand the matter of action being both an influence and a responsibility pretty well. So that just leaves the end of he speech. I find it to be, if I understand it correctly, the most interesting part of the speech.
        Emerson says, "Man is surprised to find that things near are not less beautiful and wondrous than things remote. The near explains the far." This idea is a bit profound. I think Emerson is saying "look dimwits, you need to openyour eyes and realize that what you need to be working on is right in front of your face. Stop overthinking things. You can see your destiny right on your doorstep." Perhaps a bit more eloquently from his lips than mine of course, but that's the general idea. i think this is the first time that he has actually addressed the scholar on what they should be doing, aside from the responsibilities of course. Now, at the end of his speech, Emerson makes his point known.
        There is another quote that I find interesting though that I don't quite understand. "Is it so bad then? Sight is the last thing to be pitied. Would we be blind? Do we fear lest we should outsee nature and God, and drink truth dry?" I seems a significant passage, but I would appreciate it if we could go over it in class tomorrow.

Emerson's "American Scholar" 10/15/10

So in class we discussed the first of the two responsibities, which in many ways, is like the last of the three influences. While action is an influence on scholars, it is also a reponsibilty for them to take seriously. A scholar cannot sit around and just look at what others are doing, and can likewise he cannot be content to "parrot" the work of others. He must be willing to produce his own work, and trailblaze ahead for the rest of manhind. By sitting on his butt, the scholar is really just a completee waste to the human species, for it is his responsibility as a scholar to be the Man Thinking, and lead the rest of the world to its full potential.

Emerson's "The American Scholar" 10/13/10

Yesterday in class, the whole goal was to delve a a bit deeper into the "influences" that Emerson discusses in regards to the American scholar, and what the stand for. The firs two are pretty simple. Nature is all around us. Everything that humans work toward, all the sciences that humans treasure so much, can all be classified in terms of nature. It really represents all of the world around us, an obvious influence on scholars. The minds of the past is the second great influence on the American scholar. Those who came before us all worked towards the enlightenment of our species, and they left their legacy in the hands of generations to come later: that would be us. The third influence is the hardest and most difficult to understand. It's action. Action as an influence can be most easily described as the expectation of other great minds around you to  add to the wealth of knowledge of the human species. Just about the worst type of person to Emerson was one who, though completely capable, sat there and didn't contribute to society.

Emerson's "The American Scholar" 10/11/10

     Today in class you had us read over the first couple paragraphs of this essay by Emerson, and though the process was slow going, and it took a little bit of work outside of class to understand what in the world he was talking about. But alas, this is what I've got. Emerson is delivering a speech to a large group of scholars at a college. His start by telling a story, a "fable" he calls it, about how, at one point in time, all of humanity had been able to work together, all contributing to the greater good. However, when different people limit their focus and do only what they do (i.e. farmer, mechanic, etc.), they limit the capabilities of humanity as a whole. He points out the very scholars in front of him as the "man thinking," a state where the scholars can make true progress, and not just "parrot" the conclusions of others.
     The part from I to II is a bit more difficult. It seems to stress the importance of nature to the scholars. And how nature can be used by the scholars to make true progress in the world. Emerson lists certain examples of this, such as how he use of geometry in the aspect of nature can reveal the measure of planetary motion. Without a clear grasp on nature and what it means in the world of science, scholars are really nothing important, for they can make no more progress than what has been discovered before them. Now nature isn't the only important thing, but it is significant to say that Emerson specifically decided to use it first.

Oh the poor Indians

It seems to me that Indians had a terrible life, and the white men were horrible, horrible people. However, it seems to me that Apess and Occom have some different outlooks on the matter. Apess takes a strong defiant stand. Two quotes that really jumped out at me were "I'll venture to say, these very characters who hold the skin to be such a barrier in the way, would be the first to cry out, injustice!  awful injustice!" and "And you know as well as I that you are not indebted to a principle beneath a white skin for your religious services, but to a colored one." The first of these I found significant because it is the most blatant, straightforward punch to the white man's dignity that I could find in this essay. I almost envision that little kid who always complains about the other kid cheating at a game when he clearly isn't, and then cheating himself to try to win, but still failing to the other non-cheating kid and pitching a temper tantrum. The second was interesting because it was basically a slap to the face of the white man. The idea that Jesus, who they claim that they are doing everything for, wasn't white either, but a colored man. The sheer hypocrisy of the whites makes you a bit queasy. Occum, however, was different. I see Occum as being that annoying little nerd in the school yard who always got pushed around, never caring to put up a fight, and then told people how much he was going to beat up his tormentors the next time he saw them, but of course not. His writing is not as angry as Apess's by any stretch of the imagination, but it still succeeds in proving the whites to be selfish, self-righteous jerks. They pushed him around for all of Occum's life, and never until the end did Occum complain about how whites doing the exact same job as he were getting paid ten times more, and how he had to spend his whoe life living off of all his own work, and how no one would give him a break. Boo hoo. He was such a pushover. Regardless, his writing still manages to very successfully prove the same flaws of the white men as outlined in Apess's work.

White Males of the colonies in the 17th and 18th Centuries

Out of the three groups of the time, men, women and Indians, the white men probably had the most stress in terms of having to show leadership and provide for the group. Neither the Indians nor the women had this type of stress in the same sense. It was present, but not in the same way that it was for the white males. the men were completely responsible for the growth and survival of their households, and on a greater scale, their colonies. What they had to face was nothing like life back in England (or whatever home country they came from). They, not parliament, were in charge. They really had no higher power that they had to report to. If the Indians were to attack, it was the men who would have to rally together and fight. Unlike in England, they had to do all of the jobs; they had to weave clothe, make shoes, grow the food....everything was their responsibility. Also, they were forced to look at the women in a new light. Women could not be locked up in the house all day as in England. There was far too much to do. Women weren't all free to go and do whatever they wanted of course, but the men were forced to release a bit of their vice grip on the women's freedom. So all and all, I would say the life of the white male in the colonies was very difficult. They had to defend against the relentless Indians, govern their new state, do every single thing that needed to be done to support their well-being, and at all times try to make the life of their family a little bit easier. Life was hard...

Our Wonderful class Project (plus the "how I helped" blog)

Quite frankly, I don't think the project was a very good use of our time at all. I think that enough information is available out there that is just as easy to access and probably more valuable than compiling the amount of info that we were able to put together. I think a better use of our time would have been to continue reading and discussing the various works that were produced by these people in class. You could assign it as homework for us to read, but I think that we get much more out of it when we go over it as a group in class. I know that we turned this option down when you offered it at the beginning of last week in favor of the site, but I realize now that reading would probably be better. As for my participation in the project, I felt that David and I did a pretty equal job of leading it, so we both put in the most work. I think that this could be effective, but I don't think it is going to do it if we work in groups. I think that if we work alone a separate subjects and then put all of our individual work together on the same site, then we will be able to get a lot more done. Yes it will require more individual work on each of our parts, but the quality of the work and th quantity that we will individually be able to produce will be much greater than that which we could do as a group. In a group setting, you can't take over and be the boss, and you all have to agree on what needs to go on. I feel like personally I would be able to produce better work and be more productive if I was working on something alone.

Mary Rowlandson

So I think Mary Rowlandson is pretty cool so far (not as cool as Anne Bradstreet, however, though the two are very similar). I appreciate the fact that, like Bradstreet, Rowlandson was a very controversial female author. And she knew it. However, she was still very willing to put her work out in public. The passage that we read in class today about the Indian raid was, while a bit morbid, still good literature. And by good literature, I mean something that is capable of capturing and maintaining my attention. Bad literature is usually something that, after about 3 minutes of reading it, I fall completely asleep. I also liked the way that she stood up against the normal beliefs at the time and went so far the she was actually thrown out of a state. That was pretty cool.

Anne Bradstreet (Sorry it's a tad late)

So I was actually really impressed by Anne Bradstreet (it's actually pretty rare for me to like a poet. I've never really liked the stuff). Anyways, There are a couple of reasons why I found her interesting. First of all, she rights in a style that I can understand pretty easily. That's always a plus. Secondly, I liked the fact that she had beliefs, and she was very willing to write about them even though they were controversial, and she was willing to write about those things in a sarcastic and satirical manner. That makes things far more amusing for me. Her belief in writing about important matters, which she discussed in the first essay, makes her stand apart from other writers in my mind. If she wrote about things like love and lovers, then she would just be another author. I really hope that we can read more by her as the year goes by.

Oh Mr. Salatin...

I have to say that as a whole, I was a bit disappointed by Mr. Salatin. After I read The Omnivore's Delima (or at least most of it) and heard that Mr. Salatin was going to be our guest host, I was really excited. I was dying to hear more about the way that things worked at Polyface Farms, to learn the science behind the intense rotating cycle that he had going, to learn about the eggmobile and what inspired this idea. I wanted to know how this brilliant idea worked. These concrete ideas were met by a very abstract man. The speech at Convocation just didn't interest me. I really don't care that much about ten reasons why a garden is a metaphor for my life. I must say I was also quite frustrated by the fact that the band (including me) was in the worst possible place to hear the speech, and I only remained awake for about the first half. I really tried though. I was fully conscious through the Q & A D period though, and I still wasn't very impressed. He seemed to take a question so much further than we really cared about. It may have been great for other people, but I was far from impressed.

Freedom and Sustainability

        I think that there are actually a lot of different parts to this prompt, and the one that attracts my attention the most is actually within the first 3 lines. It is as follows: "The notion that we have the right to choose what we do, why and how, and that that right should not be removed by any force outside of our own free will is ingrained in all people across the globe." At first glance, I absolutely agree with this statement. However, after thinking further upon it, I start to diverge from this statement's beliefs. I believe that here, in America, this absolutely holds true. If we think about places outside of the United Sates though, things become a little more shaky. The first example that comes to my mind is the television documentary that I saw a while back about the international food and clothing industries. I constantly find images flashing through my head where I see Southeast Asians slumped over a sewing machine or cleaning fish to stuff into a can, all just so that they can make the bare minimum amount of money that they need to survive on.
        Thinking back to the sentence that grabbed my attention, we see that it claims that the right to choose our lifestyle should not be removed by any force outside of our own free will is ingrained in all people across the globe. For those people in the factory, there was no freedom of choice. Either they work at their towns factory, or they starve. I have a hard time believing that we human, all around the world, understand and are able to practice free-will.

A Model of Christian Charity (I know, not very creative)

Ok I'm not going to lie, I was completely confused by this prompt, and I'm not sure I understood very well but here is want I think it is saying. It almost seems that what John Winthrop is trying to say is that love should be complete and unconditional. Almost the type of love that holds a family together. The examples that he uses, with the mother's realtionship towards her child, the intense friendship between Jonathon and David (brothers?) in the bible, and the relationship of the two sisters, Ruth and Naomi, also in the bible, seemed to almost imply that in settings like these, the type of love that you need to show goes above everything else, and is the absolute priority. And that, Mr. Cook, is what I took from this.

Hello to everyone who actually cares enough to read my blog

Hello all. I sincerely must thank you for coming to read my wonderful new blog. Anyone who actually came to look at this has just reached the status of super awesome. For those of you who don't, I can understand, because I probably won't go look at other peoples much either. Anyway, watch this awesome new blog for all things D period English class, and possibly other things if I get bored enough. Thanks all.   -James