Verisimilitude - Langston Hughes

This week we were asked, "What is one theme [Hughes] creates? How does the verisimilitude foster the theme?" In his poems, Langston Hughes was able to show that African American people still face racism and segregation everyday. In one poem, "The Weary Blues", Hughes tells the story in first-person narrative, giving the appearance that he is there "...down on Lenox Avenue the other night". The colloquialisms he uses, "Ain't got nobody but ma self" allows the reader to believe that these black men feel isolated and alone but at the same time places the reader in that time period. In "I, Too, Sing America", Langston Hughes writes optimistically, hoping for a better tomorrow for black people. Again, he creates verisimilitude by placing himself in the situation, writing in first-person, "They'll see how beautiful I am and be ashamed". Lines like these strike the reader as true. They can feel his pain and emotion through his writing and his want for a better life for African Americans. And lastly in "The Negro Speaks of Rivers", Hughes outlines his history. However, instead of alluding to his ancestors directly, Hughes uses words like "I" and "my", writing again in first-person. By creating this verisimilitude that he had been there over all these years, Hughes shows that black people have persevered a lot and that they have gained much knowledge "deep like the rivers". Overall, Langston Hughes used first-person to give the appearance of his presence in each situation. By doing this, the theme of each of his poems is expressed. 

Unfairly Criticized

This week in class we read different literary criticisms about The Great Gatsby. When reading the feminist criticism, although I didn't agree with all her ideas, I found that the author made some valid points. She said, "Literary works often reflect the ideological conflicts of their culture, whether or not it is their intention to do so...". In her essay she pointed out that the women were all alike in The Great Gatsby; they are negatively portrayed as shallow, selfish, and appalling.
The main characters(Daisy, Jordan, and Myrtle) all are considered New Women. The way they dress and the way they act are characteristics of the New Woman. In the 1930s women began wearing skimpier clothing, cutting their hair short, and going to parties and drinking and smoking, etc. Women who did these things were considered "new". Many people were taken aback by this new attitude of women; most didn't like it and resented women who acted this way. F. Scott Fitzgerald's portrayal of the women in the book reflects the time period it was written in. The women, coincidentally, are new women and are also represented as horrible, crude, and egotistical. As the author points out, F. Scott Fitzgerald, whether intentionally or unintentionally, characterizes these women based on the 1930s view of women who acted like they did.
I admit that I didn't like Daisy, Jordan, or Myrtle. However, after reading I'm left reconsidering my first perception of them. They were each punished for their "crime" of being new women. Readers are led to dislike these women even though they were acting like many other women of the 1930s and even today. At the end, the author points out that we must know about the past views of women in order to understand women. 

The [Unattainable] American Dream

The American Dream is originally about finding happiness, but by the 1920s happiness only came with wealth; Americans strived for wealth because they thought that money brought happiness. However, F. Scott Fitzgerald never used the words "American Dream" in The Great Gatsby. Fitzgerald shows the difficulty of obtaining happiness through the American Dream. Fitzgerald uses motifs to demonstrate the unattainability of the American Dream.
One of the main motifs of the novel are parties. Gatsby throws his extremely extravagant parties in an effort to catch Daisy's attention; hoping that she would see the lights across the bay or hear about them. His attempts however, are useless because no one really knows who Gatsby is. Many of his guests make up his past and are only there to celebrate in the 'American Dream'. The corruption in this dream is evident. Men are fighting with their wives. They are unhappy with their marriages whereas the women feel as if they are being neglected. Plus, most of the guests only show up to increase their social standings and to bask in what they believe is the American Dream. These guests who feign their friendships with Gatsby do not show up for his funeral, which only exemplifies the corruption and superficiality of the American Dream.
Also, Gatsby's sole purpose for throwing these parties is to please Daisy, however she is not impressed by them. This demonstrates the impossibility of Gatsby attaining his American Dream (being with Daisy AND still having his wealth).
Overall, The Great Gatsby uses the party motif to show that there wasn't really an American Dream. The American Dream was perceived as having wealth and not really about true happiness. Wealth was thought to bring happiness, however, we should all know that money does not bring happiness.

History and Innocence

This week in class we read a poem called "The History Teacher" by Billy Collins. This poem really stood out to me because this teacher whom all the students look up to for answers and the truth is lying to them. He was giving them information about wars and time periods that were completely false. However, when I read it I didn't think of it as lying. Although he was being naive, he was only trying to protect what innocence was left in the world. The children, however, have already lost their innocence, "...[leaving] his classroom for the playground to torment the weak and the smart...", they have already been exposed to the cruelty in our world. This is what the teacher was trying to protect them from. This poem showed an ideal world: where everyone is able to maintain their innocence without being exposed to inhumanity. I think that Billy Collins was trying to say that we see the world how we want to see it. The teacher saw the children's ability to stay innocent, while the speaker saw the inevitable cruelness of man. While many may disagree with me, I think the teacher was only trying to protect the kids from the dangers in the world in order to preserve their purity.

Punctuation in Today's World

In an ever-changing world, standard punctuation must be highly valued for the sake of clarity and understanding .
In Source A, Hitchings states that "deviations from the established [standard punctuation] rules seem to indicate a break from tradition". New technologies and social media appear to be reinforcing this break. For example, using marks such as the "snark" instead of the standard question mark to represent a rhetorical question. Using new punctuation can cause confusion among the many people not connected with advanced technology and social media websites. By adding new or removing "outdated" punctuation, the point of the story, essay, tweet, etc. is lost. There is no clarity in what the author is trying to convey because the reader will be concentrated on deciphering what he/she is trying to say. It is "better to use [punctuation] sparingly, and with affection" (Thomas). According to Thomas, it is better to value punctuation rather than overuse or ignore it. Change is inevitable, the rules of punctuation are bound to change. In her poem, Austen demonstrates that punctuation is unnecessary to prove her point. When she says "YIPPEE" it is clear that she is exclaiming but she did not use any punctuation. Punctuation is not a necessity in writing, however, the highly valued use of punctuation creates clarity and understanding in writing.

Guilty and Ashamed

This week in class, we briefly talked about the difference between guilt and shame. Guilt is a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense,crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined. Shame is the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another. Guilt includes being aware of doing something wrong. Our guilt originates from our actions, much like Reverend Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter feels guilty for his sinful relationship with Hester. His guilt begins to eat away at him, breaking him down physically, as well as, emotionally.  Shame, on the other hand, is the agonizing feeling one gets from experiencing guilt. Dimmesdale experiences this too. His constant pain in his heart, his own scarlet letter, is killing him. He knows he did something wrong, therefore he feels guilty. From this guilt, he feels ashamed. It pains him to be hiding this secret away from society. His shame, in the end, is what ultimately kills him. The pain he experiences from his guilt(his shame) eats away at his sanity until it eventually kills him. Towards the end of his life, his shame had taken control of his life. He inflicted torture upon himself (the A "scratched"on to his chest). Finally, during his sermon, after keeping his relationship with Hester a secret for so long, his shame had gotten the best of him and had killed him. The guilt we experience after shameful actions is not what hurts us, it is the shame we feel that eats  away at us.

Society of the Past and Present

In The Scarlet Letter, Hester Prynne is judged merely on her faults and not much else. Hester is a self-sufficient, strong single mother. The Puritan society, however, does not see this, they only see a women guilty of adultery. The people of Massachusetts Bay Colony are quick to judge and find it hard to forgot her sin. They torment her and ridicule her in the streets and won't let her forget either.We say that society has changed, but maybe the only thing that has changed is what we see as wrong or right. Adultery and cheating, unfortunately, have become more prevalent in today's world. For lack of better words, most people have become more accepting of cheating. It is not as sinful and unlawful as it was seen back in the 1700s. Today many people are more focused on physical appearances and judge themselves and others based on outward characteristics. We judge and label people using harsh terms such as ugly, fat, and as Hester was labeled, whore. So society has changed, just not the way we think it has. Society has changed what they think is right/wrong. Hester's story points out that it's easy to judge someone based on their actions and not on their personality. Today it is easy to judge someone based on actions and appearances. Society itself has not changed just our view points on things have changed.

Our De"fault" Setting

In class this week we read a commencement speech delivered to the 2005 graduates of Kenyon College by David Foster Wallace. I really enjoyed this speech mainly because he made me think about our everyday thoughts and actions without being too serious and boring. I thought it was interesting how he brought about the idea of a "default setting". According to Wallace, all humans have a default setting which is being "deeply and literally self-centered and to see and interpret everything through this lens of self". Ironically default has the word "fault" in it, which can be defined as a defect or flaw; an imperfection. After reading his speech and class discussion, I thought that maybe he wanted to point out that our default setting is one of society's major faults. Most of us go through each day not thinking about others and what is going on in their lives. David Foster Wallace points out that THIS is our default setting. We subconsciously think about ourselves, how everything affects us, and don't pay attention to others' issues and problems. I know that I have probably done this a countless number of times, however, I believe that this is our fault. I agree with Wallace in that we have to think differently, think consciously, think open-mindedly. When we do this, we begin to eliminate our fault, our default setting. 

Independence v. Sentiments

This week we discussed the similarities and differences between the Declaration of Independence and Declaration of Sentiments. There is no doubt that the Declaration of Sentiments was modeled after the Declaration of Independence. While Thomas Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal", Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men and women are created equal". Even though the two documents were representing different ideas, most of the sentences in each document are similar. This brings up the question whether or not the two documents have identical purposes.
Both the Declaration of Independence and Declaration of Sentiments are petitioning to achieve certain unalienable rights - "Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness". The Declaration of Independence was written to achieve political freedom. On the other hand, the Declaration of Sentiments was written to achieve freedom through gender equality. In each document there is a different person (group) trying to achieve his/her rights. Both documents were written to outline suffering, however, each is trying to achieve a different goal. Maybe Stanton used the Declaration of Independence to call attention to her cause and to relate the importance of women's rights to men's rights.
All in all, each document aimed to achieve the same rights, but they were written with different objectives in mind.

Dying to Exist

This week in class we were presented with a quote by Goethe. "The whole art in life consists in giving up our existence in order to exist." At first, I was a little confused, but then I thought of all the people in the past that fought for equality rights and helped a whole generation survive and prosper. How would minorities in the US continue to live if people didn't fight for them, and even die for them. In order for a few to exist there has to be some suffering. There is always someone who is working hard for the rest of us to survive. The people I think of who are working hard are parents. They are constantly working in order to provide for their families. Some are struggling more than others, and many are not able to do the things they would like to do. Unlike these parents, John Proctor in The Crucible decided to save his name instead of his family. Basically his family gave up their "existence" in order for Proctor's name/reputation to "exist". We live in a world where being successful causes suffering for some. Can this change or can society only thrive at the expense of others? 

The Mob

Mob mentality is when a group of people (typically a large group) all follow the same beliefs because it would be easier to go with "the mob" then against it. In The Crucible, Abigail is able to convince almost everyone that the women of Salem are practicing witchcraft. The citizens of Salem believe her because they are scared of what will happen to them if they don't believe her. No one wants to be on the other side of Abigail's wrath so they all choose to believe her even though she is not right. Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible in 1953 which is around the time people were being accused for being Communists. Republican, Joseph McCarthy, accused many people for being linked to communism during his years as a Wisconsin Senator. If anyone went against McCarthy, he said that he/she was communist. With this, Joseph McCarthy won his role as Senator because he accused his haters of being communists. Many people, in fear of being black listed, supported him and his campaign. This type of thinking is exactly what mob mentality is. People find it hard to go against what is believed or forced upon them by the masses. This situation is very similar to today's world. Bullying is almost everywhere in modern society. Victims are preyed upon by bullies with barely anyone to stick up for them. Why is that? People are scared that they too will be bullied if they stick up for a victim. So my question to you is, How can we stop this mob mentality and learn how to have our own thoughts?

Am I Going to be Eternally Damned? I Don't Think So John Edwards.

**This is not meant to offend anyone, just my personal opinions.

Wait you're not Hindu?! I just thought I should take a moment to address the stereotype topic from last week that all/most Indians are Hindus, which is very annoying. Anyways, no I'm not, I'm Catholic and I have been ever since I can remember. With that being said, I've never really stopped to think of how I came to be a Catholic. I don't think I was forced to be, but I don't remember having a choice (I'm pretty sure my parents started taking me to church the week after I was born hahaha). Nevertheless, I think being Catholic was a part of my life from the beginning. My entire family is Catholic, so I think it was important for my parents to raise me as a Catholic. My family and I go to church every Sunday and I don't mind, but it probably wouldn't be my first choice. My parents along with previous generations are very religious. I'm not saying I don't believe in God, I just don't take religion as seriously as my family does. My parents know this and encourage me to be more religious, but they don't force it upon me like Jonathan Edwards does in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God to his audience. Unlike Edwards, my parents don't say I'm going to hell for the rest of eternity if I don't become a better Catholic. Edwards makes it clear to his audience that you not only have to be a converted man (to God), but also extremely devoted to Him. If you're not, well good luck with your life. His entire speech is a threat that if these people don't convert they are going to be eternally damned. His view on God is totally different than my family's. My parents are extremely religious but I'm pretty sure they're not going around yelling at everyone to convert. His extremist views on God are crazy and I just think they're not true.

Shameless Stereotypes

“Don’t judge a book by its cover”. Ever hear that before? You probably have and think you haven’t prejudged anyone, but have you ever stereotyped someone? Maybe you have, maybe you haven’t. I’m not going to lie I probably have stereotyped someone. After this week I feel as though stereotypes are so dumb. I think that there are so many stereotypes in our world, that they’re inevitable. People from Country A are really smart or people from Country B are obese. I’m not saying all stereotypes are wrong. People from one country may have an overall higher IQ than another country. However, this does not mean EVERYONE in this country is smarter than the people in the other country. I just think it’s wrong to group an entire culture together based on what may only be true for a few. Saying that all Asians/Indians are smart and only study is definitely an overstatement. Just because I’m Indian, it doesn’t mean that I am super smart, have A’s in every class, and spend every minute studying. These stereotypes are not only wrong, they are cruel. Judging someone before getting to know them is rude and doesn’t give that person the chance to truly express who they really are. I don’t think I fit in the “Indian stereotype”, and I would think it’s unfair if someone judged me based on my culture. My point is stereotypes are unjust and downright mean. I’m not sure where stereotyping started, but I hope it can come to an end soon. By slowly separating cultures, stereotypes are hindering humanity’s progress towards total equality. 

I found a map of the US that shows many of the stereotypes that are circulating through our world everyday. 

I thought it was interesting to see how easily we were grouped and separated.

Personal Power

How did Martin Luther King Jr. have enough power to voice an action that spread throughout most of the USA? I think that he was able to speak his mind because he believed in the power he had to effectively reach a nation. How much power does an individual really have? I believe an individual has as much power as he/she believes to have. What I mean is that if someone believes in himself, he can accomplish almost anything. The power that an individual holds comes from inside.

In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck defies all odds and actually helps an African American man escape! For his time period, this is a HUGE deal. Huck’s choice to help Jim proves that he has a lot of internal strength and power. Huck believes in himself enough to help Jim escape from slavery. If Huck did not believe he had the power to get Jim and himself out of there, he may have been caught early in his getaway. He really did have a great deal of power, he just had to realize it and put it to his best use.

People may not realize how much power they actually have, it just takes a while for one to realize his/her potential and strength. No one should be afraid of their power. Fear is what keeping people from believing in the power they actually hold. We all have the power to change stereotypes, like Huck did about Jim, it just needs to be recognized.