Dickinson vs. Whitman

When reading Dickinson, I could not help but see the differences between her and another great American poet--Walt Whitman.  Both Whitman and Dickinson are considered "one of the greatest"; however their works are so different. 

One of the most obvious differences is with the style and structure of their poems.  One great example of the style and structure of Whitman's poems can be seen in "Song of Myself".  In this poem we see how long his poetry can be (almost to the point of rambling) and also the free-verse style of his poems.  The poem is broken up into 52 sections, and each section shows his writing style.

[From Section 1 of "Song of Myself"]
I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

I loafe and invite my soul,
I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass.

My tongue, every atom of my blood, form'd from this soil, this air,
Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their parents the same,
I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin,
Hoping to cease not till death.

Creeds and schools in abeyance,
Retiring back a while sufficed at what they are, but never forgotten,
I harbor for good or bad, I permit to speak at every hazard,
Nature without check with original energy.
(pg. 1873)

This is just one of the 52 sections from "Song of Myself".  Whitman also used many lists in his poetry--which just adds to the long and rambling nature of his poems.  When I followed up with a poem from Dickinson, her poems were short, condensed, and had a very controlled structure.

[Poem 249]
Wild Nights--Wild Nights!
Were I with thee

Wild Night should be
Our luxury!

Futile--The Winds--
To a Heart in port--
Done with the Compass--
Done with the Chart!

Rowing in Eden--
Ah, the Sea!
Might I but moor--Tonight--
In Thee!
(pg. 1954)

Just upon looking at the first section of "Song of Myself" and Dickinson's poem 249, Dickinson's short and controlled style is obvious. 

Works Cited:
American Tradition in Literature, Twelfth Edition. George and Barbara Perkins. McGraw- Hill, 2009.
Print.

Thoreau vs. Emerson

In Walden we can see Thoreau almost "test" Emerson's ideas about nature.  Thoreau discovers that simplicity in our lives can bring a deepness in our minds and souls. They both believed that it is through nature that we can stop depending on the ideas of others and start seeing and forming our own ideas. 

From Nature: "...why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also.  There is more wool and flax in the fields.  There are new lands, new men, new thoughts.  Let us demand our own works and laws and worship." (pg. 1282)

From Walden: "I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meannes of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experiece, and abe able to give a true account of it in my next excursion." (pg. 1458)

Emerson's passage tells us that we do not live for ourselves.  We tend to live through stories and traditions of our past, instead of becoming an individual.  Thoreau's passage after shows how he is testing Emerson's idea--he is going to live for himself and get the most out of life. 

The quote from Thoreau also shows how he wanted to live life as simply as possible: "reduce it to its lowest terms".  This is another idea that Emerson had about life as well. 

"Standing on the bare ground,--my head bathed by a blithe air, and uplifeted to infinite space,--all mean egotism vanishes.  I become a transparent eye-ball. I am nothing.  I see all." (pg. 1284)

Here I believe that Emerson is saying that by living more simply he is able to see things more clearly and has deeper thoughts.  Both Emerson and Thoreau believed that in order to find a deeper meaning in life, you must live simply. 

Hawthorne vs. Poe

Both "The Birthmark" and "Ligeia" are stories dealing with obsession.  Both have male characters that obsess over the perfection of their wives.  However, their obsession is different.  In "The Birthmark", Aylmer's obsession is on making his almost perfect wife completely perfect by getting rid of a birthmark that he finds repulsive.  In "Ligeia", the narrator's obsession is over how perfect his wife who had died had been (although her beauty was unconventional).

I found that in "Ligeia" I did not question the narrator's love for the late Lady Ligeia; however, I found myself questioning if Aylmer really loved Georgiana.  I was almost put off on how he talked about her, and how he says that he shudders at the sight of her birthmark.  He describes her as perfect except for the small birthmark on her left cheek. 

"Had she been less beautiful,--if Envy's self could have found aught else to sneer at,--he might have felt his affection heightened by the prettiness of this mimic hand, now vaguely portrayed, now lost, now stealing forth again and glimmering to and fro with every pulse of emotion that throbbed within her heart; but seeing her otherwise so perfect, he found this one defect grow more and more intolerable with every moment of their united lives."   (pg. 953)

What makes me even more put off by Aylmer, is that it is through the way he talks to Georgiana and the way he reacts every time he sees her birthmark, that she finds herself hating the birthmark as well and cannot stand to look at herself either.

Aylmer obsesses over the birthmark to the point where he has dreams about removing it and instead removing her heart.  At this point of his obsession I am reminded of another story by Poe: "The Tell-Tale Heart".  Although we did not read this story for class, I believe it is one that many know.  In "Tell-Tale Heart" that unnamed narrator obsesses over the old man's (who lives with him) eye--which reminds him of a vultures eye.  He cannot get the image of the eye out of his head and it causes him to grow mad with every day that passes.  As a result he comes up with a plan to murder him to rid himself of the eye. 

"I think it was his eye! yes, it was this! He had the eye of a vulture--a pale blue eye, with a film over it. Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees--very gradually--I made up my mind to take the life of the old man, and thus rid myself of the eye forever." (pg. 885)

In "The Birthmark", Aylmer is a scientist, and due to his obsession/hate for his wife's birthmark he convinces her to let him try to remove the birthmark scientifically.  When Aylmer finishes his experiment and gives Georgiana the liquor to drink, the reader thinks that his experiment might of worked and he has made his wife perfect; however, once the birthmark is gone, she dies. 

"'My peerless bride, it is successful! You are perfect!'" (pg. 962)

"Do not repent that with so high and pure a feeling, you have rejected the best the earth could offer.  Aylmer, dearest Aylmer, I am dying!" (pg. 962)

Both Hawthorne and Poe write great gothic short stories.  All three stories mentioned have a sense of horror, obsession, and death in them; however, I feel as though Poe's stories had more of a supernatural aspect to them. It is hard for me to pick a favorite of the three stories mentioned (mostly I am between "The Birthmark" and "The Tell-Tale Heart") because they all our so well written and all have similar effects on me--which is a sense of horror.

Works Cited:
American Tradition in Literature, Twelfth Edition. George and Barbara Perkins. McGraw- Hill, 2009.
Print

The Fall of the House of Usher vs. Ligeia

I found many similiarities when reading "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "Ligeia".   In both stories there are two characters who have, in a way, dual identites. In "House of Usher" we find out that Roderick and his sister, Madeline, are twins; both identical in apperance.  In "Ligeia",  Rowena and Ligeia are almost like the two sides of every woman (Rowena being the blonde, blue-eyed beauty and Ligeia being the dark haired, dark eyed, intellegent woman); both being beautiful in the other ways that the other woman is not. 

Also, in both stories there seems to be some external representation of the internal struggles of the characters in the story.  In "House of Usher", the struggle Roderick is having with his sister can be represented by the zig-zaged crack in the front of the house. Showing the literal division of these two people who live in the same house and who you would think would be closer (since they are twins).

"Perhaps the eye of a scrutinizing observer might have discovered a barely perceptible fissure, which, extending from the roof of the building in front, made its way down the wall in a zigzag direction, until it became lost in the sullen waters of the tarn." (pg. 874)

In "Ligeia", he mentions the city in which he meets his beloved.  The city is dwindling away; much as his beloved Ligeia is during her illness.

"Yet I believe that I met her first and most frequently in some large, old, decaying city near the Rhine" (pg. 862)

Finally, in the end of both stories we see the dead rising from their graves.  In "House of Usher", we see Madeline being buried alive and rising to seek revenge on her brother for doing so--and Roderick dies in fear of the attack of his sister.  And in "Ligeia" we see Ligeia coming back in Rowena's body for reasons that the readers are never told. We are left to wonder what happens to Ligeia and the narrator. 

The main difference I saw between the two stories is, although they both have supernatural and terrifying aspects to them (i.e., the dead coming back), "Ligeia" seemed to me as more of a love story (with the narrator confessing his love and obsession with the Lady Ligeia) and "House of Usher" seemed more of Poe's classic horror story.

Both are great examples of Poe's gothic style of writing: showing loss, death, madness, etc. Overall, I think both stories were written very well. However, I think I liked "The Fall of the House of Usher" more, because I think I liked the overall creepiness and uneasiness I felt throughout the story; whereas, in "Ligeia" I got over his obsessive rambling of how she looked very quickly.  

Wheatley and Bradstreet

Wheatley's poems reminded me much of Anne Bradstreet.  I could only imagine that both these women had difficulties writing and publishing poems in their time.  For Anne Bradstreet, she was a Puritan woman and should not be writing witty poems, but instead doing housework.  For Phillis Wheatley, not only was she a woman writing poetry, but she was an African slave (which I'm sure was controversial).  However, both of them were able to overcome any difficulties producing great works of poetry due to their gender or race.

I felt as though both writers wrote about topics that were overall accepted by society (mostly being religious matters); however, I also noticed that there seemed to be "testing" of boundries in both writers poems (seen more so in Bradstreet than Wheatley).  Bradstreet wrote about her husband and their love, which at the time was look down on because of Puritan beliefs:

"I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold, or all the riches that the East doth hold.  My love is such that rivers cannot quench, Nor ought but love from thee give recompense." (pg. 103)

Wheatley seemed to be much more careful in her writings, picking topics that were approved by society.  Writing about God and repected figures in their society (i.e., Whitefield and Washington).  However, in her poem "On Being Brought from Afica to America", I found that the topic could be controversial.   The start of her poem talk about her acceptance of the Chrstian religion; however, by the end of the poem, the reader is acknowledged of her unhappiness in regards to the race issue in America:

"Some view our sable race with scornful eye, 'Their colour is a diabolic die.' Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain, may be refin'd, and join th' angelic train." (pg. 403)

I think her poem brings up the question of the differing treatment of whites and blacks even though they both believe in the same God.  In the end, Wheatley states that regardless of her race, her acceptance of this religion will save her. 

Both Bradstreet and Wheatley were both able to overcome any difficulties they were faced with, and in the end it resulted in great poetry. 



Works Cited:
American Tradition in Literature, Twelfth Edition. George and Barbara Perkins. McGraw- Hill, 2009.
Print

Equiano vs. Rowlandson

Equiano and Rowlandson both write captivity narratives.  Equiano is held captive by white men while Rowlandson is held captive by the Native Americans.  Both narratives showed the emotional and physical pain they went through while being held captive (ranging from hunger to being beat).  

From Rowlandson: "Being very faint I asked my mistriss to give me one spoonfull of the meal, but she would not give me a taste" (pg.124)

From Equiano: "...two of the white men offered me eatables, and, on my refusing to eat, one of them held me fast by the hands, and laid me across, I think, the windlass, and tied my feet, while the other flogged me severely" (pg.393)

Both narratives reminded me much of propoganda.  Rowlandson writing to her fellow Puritans and to those still in England.  Her message was that they [the whites] are not treating the Native American's in a cruel way but the opposite (i.e., they are savages; killing and kidnapping the white people).  Whereas, Equiano was writing against slavery; telling of the horrors on the slave ship to his experiences with his owners up until he was able to purchase his freedom. 

Some differences I noticed between the two narratives were that Equiano's captors were much more violent than Rowlandson's.  Also, Rowlandson wrote a lot about the Bible (quoting Scripture numerous times throughout) noting that everything that was happening was either a punishment or reward from God.

On the subject of hunger, Rowalandson quotes from Proverbs: "For to the hungry Soul every bitter thing is sweet" (pg.126)

Equiano thought that much of his captivity (the people and the new territory he was going to) all had some magical explanation to it.

"They at last took notice of my surprise, and one of them, willing to increase it as well as to gratify my curiosity, made me look through it.  The clouds appeared to me to be land, which disappeared as they passed along.  This heightened my wonder, and I was not more persuaded than ever that I was in another world, and that everything about me was magic" (pg.395)

Both Equiano and Rowlandson eventually gained their freedom; Rowlandson's ransom was paid and Equiano paid for his own freedom.

Works Cited:
American Tradition in Literature, Twelfth Edition. George and Barbara Perkins. McGraw- Hill, 2009.
Print

Red Jacket vs. Tecumseh

Red Jacket and Tecumseh's speeches both show rejection to Christianity and the white man's arrival to America.  They both begin by talking about how accepting and welcoming the Indian's forefathers and the Great Spirit were to the White man when they first arrived to America.

From Red Jacket: "We took pity on them, granted their request; and they sat down amongst us.  We gave them corn and meat; they gave us poison in return." (pg. 514)

From Tecumseh: "They were feeble; they could do nothing for themselves.  Our fathers commiserated their distress, and shared freely with them whatever the Great Spirit had given his red children." (pg.516)

However, Red Jacket and Tecumseh differed on how they handled their reactions to the white man.  Red Jacket did not judge Christians, but instead only really questioned their actions.  He seemed to be very opened minded about their religion and even stated that he was willing to listen to what they [Christians] had to say; even though it was obvious that he was still going to reject their religion.

"We will wait a little while, and see what effect your preaching has upon them.  If we find it does them good, makes them honest and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will then consider again of what you have to say." (pg.515)

Tecumseh, on the other hand, reject the white man in everything he does and says.  They are not friends to the Indians, they are enemies; therefore, the Indians must fight back.

"Who are the white people that we should fear them?  They cannot run fast, and are good marks to shoot at: they are only men; our fathers have killed many of them: we are not squaws, and we will stain the earth red with their blood" (pg.517)

Both Red Jacket and Tecumseh give great speeches that get to the point, effectively show their dislike for the white man's arrival and religion, and support all their reasonings for their dislike of them.  Tecumseh was a little more violent and graphic when giving his speech, and Red Jacket was a little nicer and open minded; however, both speeches were very effective.


Works Cited:

American Tradition in Literature, Twelfth Edition. George and Barbara Perkins. McGraw- Hill, 2009.
Print