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?