Differing Styles in "The Swimmer" and "Good Country People"

First of all, I'd like to start off by saying that "Good Country People" was one of my favorite reads that we had to do all semester.

Now on to business! The contrasting styles presented in "The Swimmer" and "Good Country People" don't really seem to contrast at all. They both started out as unimportant(I could care less) type of stories. They progressed into intriguing proses when they added a touch of curiosity to the mix. I was curious about what was going on in the swimmers head to make him forget those events in his recent past. I was curious about Hulga and why she was so distant and anti social.

I think the common link between these two stories is their surprise endings. Who would have thought that the boy selling the bibles would have turned out to be the snake that he was. It totally caught me off guard. I thought I was going to read about how Hulga finally finds love but instead I read a disturbing story about treachery and deceit. I was shock and appalled. The story kept me on my toes and made me want to read more.

"The Swimmer" was just a weird story. Who swims across an entire county? Who does that? I thought this story was also good at surprising the reader and leading them up to a surprise ending. I still don't really get this story but I know that throughout the story I was curious about the life of its main character.

The essential comparison between these two short stories is they both interested the reader with vague descriptions and mini details. They kept me alert and curious and had twist at the end.

The mistreatment of women in "Their Eyes Were Watching God"

In "Their Eyes Were Watching God", women are portayred as being mistreated badly. There are several occurences of domestic abuse toward women in the novel and assumptions about the gender as well. Women are not treated as equals in the novel. Perhaps it reflects the times the book was written but getting beat by your husband seemed to be a norm for women ofthe time. It appeared to be socially accepted.

There was no opposition by Janie when Tea Cake beats her for no reason. She does not seem to acknowledge it really and still considers him a good man. In comparrison to the other men Janie was with, Tea Cake is a good man, which tells us something of how women were treated. They were expected to submit to the authority of their husbands and not question them. When Janie was with the mayor of the black town, she was oblidged to work for him and was expected to be his wife and nothing more. Not a confidant or business partner but instead a mere worker and a woman.

On top of being beaten, Janie had no independence. Although she had money, she did not seem to stand on her own. Her dependence upon her husbands is evident throughout the entire novel. Her husbands plan her daily activities and if they move, she moves along with them without any resistance. Also, when Tea Cak takes her money, it is alright because he needed it to gamble. She is not expected to argue against it or question his motives.

In this novel, Janie is never mentioned without a man by her side. She drifts from marriage to marriage like a orphane who drifts from home to home. Its as if she has no choice. It is suggested that in this time in this society, women were suppose to be married. If they weren't, then rumors spread and she would then be ridiculed and questioned.

Owmen had to remain loyal to their husbands as Janie does to all of her hers. Divorce was not allowed so janie wasn't free until they died. She probably would have remained with each man had death not overtook them. She was incapable of getting out of the marriages. She had to do as women do. She was also not expected to be tough. She was expected to be sumissive. Tea CAke didn't want her to work with him in the fields but she defiantly does. In this novel, women don't seem to ahve a mind of their own. They are almost always mentioned in accordance with their husbands and never given distinct qualities. The descriptions for the men are more detailed and there is more of an emphasis on Janie's relationships than on Janie, as a person. This shows the nature of the novel. Women were represented very much in the same way in which they were most likely treated in their communities: as property to be sold and nothing more than that. One dimensional at best.

"The Emperor of Ice Cream" VS "What are the years?"

These two poems did ot srike me as being similiar in sound but more so in content. The actual content may differ drastically but the confusion of what the hell are they talking about exist in both. In Steven's "The Emperor of Ice Cream", He uses very little rhyme scheme but it is still evident in the text. It sounds almost senseless but leaves me rather intrigued. I mean: Who is this emperor anyway? It strikes me as being rather bizarre and I honestly don't know how to resoond. It could stand in as a methaphor for a number of things. The true symbol: I will never know.

Moore's "What are the years?", is not as senseless as Steven's poem but it is still rather strange. I have no idea what she is talking about. There is no rhyme scheme really but a structure does exist. The places where new lines begin work to give the poem a shape on paper. The theme may not even be related to Steven's poem but the ackwardness I felt after reading it was very much the same as When I read about some emperor of ice cream.

Eliot's "The Wasteland" a modernist text?

Poetic as it may be, this was a difficult read. It was extremely complicated and hard to understand. I tried to read it for the poetry that it is but found myself dumbfounded by all that is mentioned. It is like reading a history book with all these names to look up. I couldn't really take note of what was modern about it.

There were a lot of religious references and that threw me off a bit. I would say that in comparrison to his modernist counterparts, Eliot is far more complex and is almost bizzare in a way. I love to read poetry but his poetry was almost torturous. It was like enduring a torture chamber that was mangling my mind(instead of my body). This book should be thrown across the floor several times during the coarse of a sitdown read. It is so confusing. I SEEK CLARITY!

In all, the rhyme scheme to most of the poems kept me engaged. I am still not sure about the content but I know I am not fond of the style. As great of a writer as Eliot is, why can't he just be real and upfront about what he is trying to say istead of hiding it in the midst of hidden incentives. Color coding things bothers me and that is exactly what this text did to me.

Forgive me for not addressing the question really but the content of Eliot's "The Wasteland" has left me oblivious to the cause. I am in need of clarity.

Zitkala Sa's impressions of an indian childhood

After carefully reading this selection, I feel that sa's trying to say that all these wonderful experiences she had will now be tarnished as her culture gets snatched away from her. This story is a heartbreaking truth that needed to be exposed. Since this was written such a long time ago, i'm sure it was shocking. I think that Zikala might have written it with these intentions in mind as well.

As the white men began trying to fase out the Native American culture, sa might have felt the need to tell everyone about it. Her detailed telling makes me sympathesize with the Native American condition and I feel as though that that might have been a part of it's purpose. Regardless of her ethnic backround, the story still tells like an autobiography that is attempting to give us a detailed glimpse into her life.

This story may very well have put a question mark in people's heads about the attempted assimilation plan America had for its natives. Its a disturbing account that disgust me at times. By her writing this story she may be trying to tell white people about what what the culture is about. Maybe shes showing them her culture and then posing the question: " Now that you now its beauty, do you still want to commit genocide? Do you still want to pretend like my culture never existed? Do you still want to fase it out and assimilate us?"

Washington VS DuBois

After reading about what both Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Dubois had to say concerning the best possible future for black people, I have to say that their positions seem to differ dramatically. Booker T seems to be suggesting that the only way for blacks to rise up in society is to be trained as skilled workers via trade school while Dubois is encouraging blacks to make a better, more financially stable life by attending universities and aspiring to have careers not just jobs.
Washington’s views also propose a union of the two races-black and white. Based on what I read, I would say that he believes that in order for blacks to succeed, they must rely on whites. He is basically advocating for their inferiority by promoting such a theory. It seems as though he is saying that there is no other way for blacks to emerge from poverty than to ride on the backs of whites for support. He also supports blacks giving up certain liberties in order to be at peace with the whites and assimilation at any cost. In suggesting that blacks start at the bottom, it may imply that they need not strive to reach the top.
Dubois, on the other hand is saying the exact opposite. He respects the legacy of Booker T. Washington and respects the man but is not fond of his ideals. They appear to be quite barbaric to Dubois. They also seem to contradict other previous statements made by Washington. Dubois is saying that blacks need to move forward. They need to create their own lives with no dependency what so ever on the white man for help. He believes that in order to do this, blacks mustn’t give up their political rights or the civil liberties. His opinion sponsors universities as the best place for blacks to go if they ever wish to truly be free, independent citizens.
Although these men had completely different views on how blacks should live their lives, their purposes are the same. They both seem dedicated to wanting to help their people become better. Perhaps Washington’s stance reflects his time spent as a slave and maybe Dubois is a man of the future. Either way, they used their literary works to help bring up reform in the black communities.

Henry James' "Art of Fiction" summarized and applied to Edith Wharton's "Souls Belated"

Though, quite complex in it’s content, I got the just of what James was talking about in his critical essay. I am not a huge fan of fiction but Unlike James I believe fiction is necessary. He spoke about “good” novels and “bad” ones and about how fictional stories have happy endings. I thought that he made fun of the genre for having those sorts of endings but I think that that is a great thing. Non-fiction doesn’t always have happy endings. The end realistically which often entails a not so happy ending. It’s nice that an abundance of fiction novels end in happy ways. Those endings lend to those types of readers and shouldn’t be criticized for their believability. After all, it is fiction and the reader knows this going into it. Fiction provides happy endings for all those who yearn for it and enjoy reading it, since it rarely happens in real life.
Most of this critical essay is too critical but I agree with a lot of it. You can’t teach someone how to write a good novel, it’s a natural given gift. The process is not a cinematic as painting a picture or sculpting a sculpture. There shouldn’t be rules to writing and I feel James is supporting this idea. He believes that experience is necessary for writing yet he disagrees with a disturbing remark made by Mr. Besant. The comment that this man made regarding lower middle class writers and them sticking to the realm is despicable. The whole idea of fiction is to imagine you in a whole other world. It’s about fantasy. If someone who is of lower class wants to write to escape their own reality, let them. They shouldn’t be viewed as less of a novelist, as James implies they should.
James, to his credit, adds the aspect of observing as a great tool of a writer. I feel that based on this essay, it would be safe to say that James is not a huge fan of fiction. I could be wrong but that’s what I concluded.
It was difficult for me to apply James’ ideas to Wharton’s writing because it disinterested me greatly. I couldn’t care less about a fictional story such as this and I think it was unrealistic. Who speaks to each other like that anyway? I noticed how Wharton used the character’s actions to describe them. By not giving us their physical features, it made it a fictional story. It allowed us as the reader to imagine the character. This element seemed to be mentioned in James’ critical essay. This work of fiction definitely supports James’ idea of writing from experience is much more enjoyable and bearable to read.