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

de Crevecoeur vs. Franklin

Both St. Jean de Crevecoeur and Benjamin Franklin seemed to have similair goals when writing "Letters from an American Farmer" and "The Autobiography"; which would be similiar to today's "self-help" writing

de Crevecoeur gave Europeans hope for wealth, peace, and pride for becoming an American.  He painted a picture of who an American truely was:

"What then is the American, this new man? He is either a European, or the descendant of a European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations....Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day cause changes in the world. [...] The American is a new man, who acts upon new principles; he must therefore entertain new ideas, and form new opinions.  From involuntary idleness, servile dependence, penury, and useless labour, he has passed to toils of a very different nature, rewarded by ample subsistence.--This is an American" (p.222-223).

Franklin's "The Autobiography" (meant to look like a letter to his son) has self-help aspects to it for American's as well.  Probably the most memorable section in which Franklin sets out for self-improvement is where he lists out the 13 virtues that he wants to work on weekly.  However, even through his experiement to achieve "moral perfection" he still found difficulties in certain virtues. Franklin states:

"I cannot boast of much success in acquiring the reality of this virtue [humility], but had a good deal with regard to the appearance of it" (p.310).

I think Franklin's intentions for this list of Virtues, was not necessarily for American's to perfect each one, but to be aware of them and strive for them in order to improve their own lives.

Differences I saw were in their writing styles.  Franklin's "Autobiography", was just what the name states: a record of his own life (although as stated earlier, can be used to help American's with their own lives).  de Crevecoeur however was writing directly to his audience, stating what they would experience in the New World and how their lives would be improved by becoming an American.

Overall, I like de Crevecoueur's "Letters from an American Farmer" more.  I found Franklin's writing (although technically very good--as I do not want to "bash" on one of our Founding Fathers) to be somewhat boring.  Whereas, I thought de Crevecoueur's writing to be a little more inspirational. 

Works Cited:

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

Knight vs. Rowlandson

Sarah Kemble Knight and Mary Rowlandson are similar in some ways.  In both their writings they talk about their journeys in which they incountered hardships.  Both of these journeys probably being unusual for a women to experience at the time.  However, although they both experienced these travels; their experiences and writings are much different from each others.

To begin, although they both went through difficult travels, Rowlandson's journey was against her will.  Whereas Knight voluntarily embarks on this journey. The tone in their writing is different as well.  Rowlandson (having a much more terrifying journey) wrote in a more serious tone:

"I sat much alone with a poor wounded Child in my lap, which moaned night and day, having nothing to revive the body, or cheer the spirits of her, but in stead of that, sometimes one Indian would come and tell me one hour, that your Master will knock your Child in the head..." (p. 123)

One can only expect her to write in this tone due to the horrible circumstances she was put in.  Knight's tone, on the other hand, is much different than Rowlandson's.  Knight's tone in her writing is much more humorous:

"I ask thy Aid, O Potent Rum!/ To Charm these wrangling Topers Dum./ Though hast their Giddy Brains possest--/ The man confounded with the Beast--/ And I, poor I, can get no rest./  Intoxicate them with thy fumes:/ O still their Tongues till morning comes!" (p. 193)

Another difference I observed was their mentioning of God.  Rowlandson mentions scripture throughout her writing and is constantly searching for comfort through reading her Bible.  Whereas, Knight barely mentions God and religion. 

I found Knight's writing to be much easier to read, because I think the situation in which Knight was in was more pleasent to read about.  However, I think Rowlandson's telling of her journey was much more powerful and the situations stuck with me more.  Overall, I think Rowlandson's writing is more memorable.

Bradstreet vs. Taylor

In both Bradstreet and Taylor's poems we see expressions of devotion; however, each author seemed to be devoted to different people.  In Taylor's poetry we see him talking directly to God such as in the opening lines to "Huswifery" (p.160):

"Make me, O Lord, thy Spin[n]ing Wheele compleate"

However, when we look at Bradstreet's poetry we see her devotion more to her husband such as in her poem "To My Dear and Loving Husband" (p.103):

"If ever two were one, then surely we.  If ever man were loved by wife, then thee"

Puritan beliefs can been seen in both Bradstreet and Taylor's work; however, it is much more evident in Taylor's work (due to the fact that he is speaking directly to God).

I did see similarities in their writing (specificially in Bradstreet's "The Author to Her Book" and Taylor's "Huswifery").  Both writers used metaphors in their writing (i.e., metaphysical writing).  Bradstreet using the metaphor of a child to describe her own poetry being taken away and published into a book with out her knowledge (the book being her child).

"Thou ill-formed offspring of my feeble brain, who after birth did'st by my side remian, Till snatched from thence by friends, less wise than true, Who thee abroad exposed to public view;" (p. 102)

 

The metaphor in Taylor's "Huswifery" is that of a Spinning Wheel and the "Weaver"; where the "Weaver" is God and the Spinning Wheel is Taylor (or human's in general).  Taylor goes through each part of the spinning wheel and makes connenctions to God.  To start, in asking God to turn him in to a Spinning Wheel where He (God) is the Weaver, Taylor is stating that he wants God to almost "guide" his life. The "distaff" (a part of a spinning wheel) is the word of God--The Bible.  The "flyers" is his affections or feelings towards God.  Taylor uses many more metaphors throughout his poem.  In his last stanza Taylor asks God to dress him in these newly spun and glorious robes and when he is dressed in them [robes] he will be able to return the glory back to God.

"My wayes with glory and thee glorify.  Then mine apparell shall display before yee/That I am Cloathd in Holy robes for glory." (p.160)
 

Overall I liked Bradstreet's poetry more than Taylors.  Perhaps it is because I like her wit, the fact that she is a Puritan woman writing poetry, and that her poetry seems to be for her own pleasure (i.e., not HAVING to write about the word of God); however, I have to give Taylor some credit in his writing.  I found "Huswifery", very clever and somewhat enjoyable to read (unlike many of the plain style pieces we have read). 


Source:

Perkins, George B., and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature: Volumes 1 and 2.
        Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008. N. pag. Print