Contradictory Love

I was thoroughly moved by the writers James Weldon Johnson and W.E.B. Du Bois as the last of our overview of American literature. I was impressed with their stance in defending their race while retaining a high degree of objective studiousness in the “race problem.” The ideas poised by Johnson in The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man were astute and challenging. However I can not say that I enjoyed the story. For the character’s plodding insistence in pursuing his gross desire of breaking into an inner ring of society grew tiring. The lack of any characters with higher ideals made the story grow long and the insights from the character lack force. Du Bois in The Souls of Black Folk filled his discourse with virtues to strive after. His argument is strong and brings to the reader not only a compelling view of the equal treatment of colored people as a race but the personal recognition that needs to coincide with this. He argues for rights but also the respect to be treated like a man. I was watching the movie Glory a few weeks back and was equally moved by a speech given by one of the soldiers of the first black regiment in the civil war. His argument was similar, possibly derived, from Du Bois thought; he argued that, yes, the black race was uncivilized at present but that this should not disqualify them from respect as men. Du Bois appeals not in the context of gross northern financial advancement like Johnson, but as a man embodying uplifting culture. His people he argues, “generation after generation have pleaded with a headstrong, careless people to despise not Justice, Mercy, and Truth, lest the nation be smitten with a curse” (900). Never the less it seems as if our nation did (to Martin Luther King?) despise just these principles, in north and south, ending with an entrapping curse. Johnson depicts this curse of the nation well as polarizing the “race problem” in both North and South in two different ways;

"Northern white people love the Negro in a sort of abstract way, as a race; through a sense of justice, charity and philanthropy, they will liberally assist in his elevation…Yet, generally speaking, they have no particular liking for individuals of the race. Southern white people despise the Negro as a race, and will do nothing to aid in his elevation as such; but for certain individuals they have a strong affection, and are helpful to them in many ways" (80).

London The Great

When it comes to Jack London and his autobiographical novel there is a dispute about the work’s greatness. For with Martin Eden the novelist reveals his personal narrative of thought and his unique state of mind though the character Martin. However this character is a transparent veil that mirrors his life and experiences in a vivid and frightening, possibly deadly way. The critic Sam S. Baskett brings this to light in his essay “Martin Eden: Jack London’s “Splendid Dream””. He argues for the fantastical unreality of London’s splendid dream; that his ambitions to grasp the world were ultimately too grand, leaving the author in disillusionment and failure. To adequately show this Mr. Baskett compares London’s work to Henry Adams’ The Education of Henry Adams and Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. What the critique really brings to light is the struggle of all of these novelists to find what London terms “the scheme of existence.” All three authors were obsessed with the ordering of things, how the world was bound together, or the unity of the universe. The writers all experienced utter breakdown and found in the world only chaos. They experienced the break down of thought and connections and the loss of the Spenserian ideal; they found unreality in reality. Both London’s and Fitzgerald’s characters are overtaken by a romantic ideal. The ideal lover with which their souls connect bring each writer’s character transcendence and make existence tangible. However Martin is ultimately disappointed with his ideal lover –Ruth- when he finds her to be a mortal woman, compromised in the normal struggle of reality. His whole world crashes and falls to an even greater dismal state. Mr. Baskett shows how Adams and Fitzgerald go though the same process of collapse, but unlike London, they emerge with a more modest inspiration to find truth with a grimmer hope. But for London his hopes and searching are dashed with the death of his splendid dream of uniting the universe. The characterization of Martin’s death coincided with London’s intellectual death, the critic argues. London’s last years produced nothing as worthy as Martin Eden. Eight years of decline and then he died. Thus Baskett concludes that London failed in the sense that he did not rise above this fall to despair to a more modest ordering or imagining of the world. And yet the author is respected by Mr. Baskett as fulfilling the “impossible yet characteristic task of the central American writer” (155). He also seems to be impressed by the overpowering nature of London.
I have not at this point read Martin Eden or any of the comparative works. The strengths of the article were firstly, its limited thesis, and secondly the abundance of reference and support from the texts to support his overall critique of the writer’s mind. The author refused to address the issue of suicide in the piece and glanced over it with no attention. This could have been a serious distraction from his purpose but in glossing the matter he left a gap in his critique. Mr. Baskett also took the perspective of a skeptic without ever giving serious heed to London’s “Splendid Dream”. He therefore claims London a failure without ever clarifying what he failed to do; what system he did not live up to. This is a logical error but one that is small in comparison to his overall perspective on the novel Martin Eden. The critic presents a view of Jack London which is immediately intelligible and unnervingly close to describing the state of mind within the American novelist.

Works Cited:

Baskett, Sam S., “Martin Eden: Jack London’s “Splendid Dream””. Ed. Jacqueline Travernier –Courbin. Critical Essays on Jack London. Boston, Mass. 1983.

An Experience

When reading Charles Alexander Eastman's work From the Deep Woods to Civilization it brought me directly to experiences of my childhood. Arguements immediately surfaced into my mind which surfaced around me in my growing years. Distinct rationals like, "I'm sure his great grandfather was killed but you know they also some of our grandfathers" were counterbalanced in my youth with trips to memorials; even the Wounded Knee battle field. Of course swirling around this story and our personal experiences is this question of race. What is it about race that benefits us? Why emphisis the importance of race? Well I do not know if I can answer these first two questions but I do not think it is exactly nessecary. If ten men were thown out onto a desert Island after being raised by some aliens would they not still seek out those who's DNA is pumping though their viens? If a person spends their entire life trying to be enclusive of all races and wipe out all racial tension will their children not still be intralled with the tales of grandpa and grandma's origen? Now one might remove racial tension while having the knowledge of ones own race. But the very way we learn about our race is, first, the order of decendents one generation after the next, but secondly from the particular actions, advancements, wars, myths, religion, and habits of that race. Would Eastman have written his book if he had not been moved by the very force within all of us to go back to our "people"? In America the "pale-faced man" has a halfway coehesive hole, but America can not be said to have a no majority "race". The Germans are German. The Danish are Danish. And so on, but we Americans are a "salad bowl". I could go on and on but my point is something like this; if we always focus on our race relations the only place we end is in a very self-conscious position in regard to ourselves. And who enjoys a selfish self-conscious friend? If the furies had never been appeised all Greece would be drowned in a flood of feuding blood. Therefore let us focus coming together under a real common law with real common justice to appease these generational demons.

Patrimony

The reading for this week by Charles Waddell Chesnutt has a very unusual quality that I cannot place along side of any other literary work. We read a selection of his Tales of Conjure and The Color Line which show a unique side of irony. If we define irony as a discrepancy of meaning or as an author saying one thing and meaning another we come to an interesting delema when dealing with Chesnutt’s stories. For he employs a double or it could be argued a triple irony. Himself being of the “mulatto” racial classification, he self describes his advantage when looking at the racial tension. For he is apart of two worlds; the white elite with a classic British education and the underclass colored world with the education of slavery fixed upon it. The writer being able to pass for white but with that drop of blood which legally classifies him as being a “negro”, Chesnutt is a man between.

With this outlook we should not be surprised to find within his stories the thoughts and actions and social views of each “world” of each race vividly depicted with stunning reality. He does not put on display a bleeding sentimentality for the reader to be convinced by, nor does he give us a biting satire on the white society. When he shows us the white world in all of its justice and books in The Sheriff’s Children the next seen depicts the extra judicial “committee” mobbing around the jail.

Even when we think that Chesnutt is solidly on the side of the oppressed slave he makes us think again. For when Uncle Julius tells us stories in the happy plantation fashion we can see the darker side of slaver underneath by what he reveals. But just when you stop and say, O.k. this is what Chesnutt is doing he is giving a subtle subvertisement of the peaceful plantation ideal, you have to reconsider. For Uncle Julius is just telling the story in order to get what he wants out of the new plantation owner. Therefore Chesnutt does not seem to be recommending that black culture in that period is good either.

This is that double irony, settling with a defense of neither white nor black. But then you might ask yourself if he is defending his “in between” or the mulatto. But as we discussed he is not following in this tradition either. Therefore I think he is using this triple irony; where he can see two different world from his position as a no body class but then look out side of his own position as a mulatto and reach for a higher truth. By this higher truth he is able to give an intriguing account of the social climate within the times. But what truth he is grasping I cannot relate, for indeed I think that in part comes just from seeing what he has written. For after all, if he thought that the truth was worth expressing in a simple definition and propagating as a moral he would have undoubtedly proceeded down the course of a moral teacher and not a writer.

Howells: You Need A Drink Of Water

The English cartoon depicting James atop Howells head was a mark off. They should have depicted James nursing a raging child. For though James was fascinating and Twain has his dynamic character, Howells seems to have nothing but his philosophy. His thinking on literature might be true but that sure is not being revealed by writing a story in order to prove it. Especially one titled A Romance of Real Life, you might as well title it THIS IS HOW IT IS, with a clap on the ears of the listener. To be fair however it does seem to be a rather common mistake for someone who has not let their thinking become a living and active thing which engages with others, indeed I can get like THIS. But it still needs to be criticized; Howells consistently brings his story to the ditches in order to force his opinion. Little quips like, “However Jonathan Tinker had fallen in his esteem as a man” (A Romance of Real Life, 6), just give off the stench of stuffy non enjoyment. If this little insight had been reserved for a Malvolio type, it would have been priceless. Now if the reader shares the same sentiments this attitude can be less offensive. But I would only ask this reader to put themselves in the situation of reading a story with a similarly religious philosophical intrusion, and see how they would handle it.

Is Illness So Innocent?

So, considering we are going to be developing the idea in our class presentation, I thought I would work out my simmering mental processes here. I am speaking of the short little speech on illness as a theme in Henry James “Daisy Miller”. First, however, a few general comments. Miss Daisy Miller is certainly a most interesting study but I am not sure if this is simply due to my masculine perspective which engaged in flirtation being acted out. For the two women I was discussing with found absolutely nothing of interest in Miss Daisy Miller’s character. Well to the illnesses shall we, there are three main illnesses that come to my mind as relevant; Mrs. Millers, the Aunt’s, and the fatal illness of Miss Daisy Miller. As for Mrs. Miller’s sickness, it is minor, but it is the way in which she handles the matter that is of interest. For though the mother is of a medium high social standing, she goes about with more discretion than manners, and is quiet awkward. When her son shouted out her ill state of dyspepsia, this, “instead of embarrassing Mrs. Miller, seemed to relieve her” (487). Thus, instead of Mrs. Millers sickness shaping her social behavior, she feels her sickness is relieved though society. In complete contrast Mr. Winterbourne’s aunt is the lady who always seems to be down with a head ache. She uses this as a social tool instead of finding relief for the illness though society. The Aunt will not meet Daisy Miller, using the illness to become exclusive. So before we see Daisy Millers character played out there is this dichotomy of the Millers and high society; sickness to be expressed and sickness to be suppressed even manipulated for the carriers sake. Now when we come to the climax of Miss Daisy Miller’s story, the theme is represented again. She is accused of asking for illness by parading around the streets at midday. While the ladies of polite society are sitting around napping and separating themselves not to escape illness but to moderate there own illnesses. Of course Miss Daisy Miller in the end falls ill with not just an illness but the “Roman Fevor”. To end then the use of illness in this study is intermixed and subject to the plays deeper themes of innocence and audacity.

The Heart of Harte

Harte could be said to search a man’s heart. For in “The Outcasts of Poker Flat” he explores in depth the aspects of the heart buried beneath the layers of human developments and professional hierarchies. Rather than letting you catch glimpses of human motive within a complex characterization played out an in elaborate plot, he rather structures his story to highlight struggles in a human heart. Thus a person is removed from their every day interaction and habits, their life, and given an extraordinary task to see what there heart is truly made of. Almost like a Native American boy being sent out on some test to have his manhood proven, here the socially unacceptable are torn out or sent out to test the humanity of there very hearts. Thus the wicked gambler, prostitutes, and town drunk are cast out to see what mettle they are made of. When they come to the test not all of them made it, proved there humanity, which is what is interesting to me. Uncle Billy sees his chance to flee and takes the mules and runs. Now this is especially interesting because it shows in one way that Harte is not trying to make an explicate moral argument. For when it comes to stories like this I think that it is important to separate out the moral from the literary. For if one is always trying to make a moral conclusion of a story, especially a sentimental story, one becomes very lost. For this is like trying to decide if it is a moral wrong to eat meat based on the health studies by scientists. Now it might indeed be bad for your health to eat meat at such and such a rate per week but this doesn’t tell you whither or not it is bad to eat meat. In the same sense I think that Harte is not trying to give us a moral lesson on the goodness of prostitution. He seems to be asking us to sympathize with our common humanity, which will then reveal more of our self and others to our eyes. From this then we can then make our moral judgments, just as the man looking at the science of meat can afterwards make a fuller moral judgment based on his customs, addiction tendencies, and religious leanings. Uncle Billy, to get back to it, is important because in his betrayal of everyone Harte is showing us that there are still men who do not follow or are stubborn at heart. He is not trying to blatantly attack the system of criminal punishment by creating sympathy in you for everyone, but is trying to appeal to our hearts in order that he may deepen our understanding; I think. Mr. Oakhurst, whose modern equivalent might be a bad boy rapper, is shown to be weak not simply hateful. The improper man turned out to be the one troubled the deepest by his comrades sufferings, the “weakest of the outcasts of Poker Flats”.