The Others

When I first read The Yellow Wallpaper, I didn’t perceive Gilman’s writing as a piece that was advocating change. Although Mandy’s lead respondent activity certainly made me rethink some of the motives of her writing, I still don’t necessarily believe that Gilman was writing a story about liberating women or advocating change. For instance, one of the examples that was brought up in class was the quote, “I wonder if they all come out of that wall-paper as I did?” (Gilman 365) which was suggested to represent the fact that women were hidden behind the duties of the home and controlled by men. When she finally frees herself from the paper, John faints in front of her and she “had to creep over him every time” (365) which is also supposed to represent that by freeing herself from the paper, she in turn has liberated herself from John. While certainly an interesting perspective on the text, I don’t agree with any of that. How is a story about a woman who kills herself and/or is dead and existing throughout the story as a ghost dealing with women’s liberation? If anything, this is a story about defeat. The dominance of her husband and being in solitary confinement with that wallpaper drove her crazy and she killed herself. I believe that this story is more about the dominance of men over women and not about liberation.

I also don’t agree with some of the other pieces we’ve read this semester that have been ‘written to affect change’. For example, The Yares of Black Mountain although certainly written about the North and South, did not, in my opinion, symbolize the baby as ‘our sick nation’. I personally think that is ludicrous! You can pull anything and see what you want to see from the text, that’s one of the great things about literature, however I personally fail to take the side of these pieces being written to change society.

Superbad

One of the things I found particularly interesting about Tom Sawyer is that it’s the first time that we get to see the boy’s point of view of getting a girl’s attention and being ‘in love’. When he first encounters the unknown girl outside her house, he tries “to ‘show off’ in all sorts of absurd boyish ways, in order to win her admiration” (Twain 23). Although the idea of the boy showing off to win the girl’s heart isn’t new, I find it hilarious that a boy, not a teenager or a man, is trying to show off with “some dangerous gymnastic performance” (23). Also when Tom is in Sunday School and the little girl and her whole family shows up, every one in the class begins to try and make themselves look better, but it’s very different for the girls than for the boys. “The little girls ‘showed off’ in various ways, and the little boys ‘showed off’ with such diligence that the air was thick with paper wads and the murmur of scufflings” (38). This highlights that the way that boys and girls think about “being the best” is quite different. For girls it seems to be about the whole picture and being the best overall; being good, smart, and accomplished. While for boys, it’s being the best at one particular skill; being the loudest, the fastest, or the toughest.

Also, another point I found interesting is that the ‘wealth’ of a boy is equal to the amount of junk he can accumulate. When he is painting the fence and tricks the boys of the neighborhood into paining it for him, “Tom was literally rolling in wealth” (18). But his ‘wealth’ is really just a bunch of junk from four pieces of an orange peel, to a kitten with only one eye, to a dilapidated old window-sash (18). Who caries all this around in their pockets? It’s as if boys during this time period were constantly on the hunt to trade their junk with another boys junk to see who could have the most junk. Even at church, Tom trades a “piece of lickrish and a fish-hook” (33) for a yellow ticket.

Cold Mountain

One of the things I found interesting about this story is the fact that the woman knew that there were people in the mountains that could help her baby, yet the text never states where she got this information from. Why would a woman with a sick baby go into the mountains to seek help unless she was previously told that there would be someone there to help her baby? She mentions that "her husband had been in Salisbury at the same time as Albery Richardson, and had escaped [...] These people might have saved him from death" (262). Does that imply that her husband ran away from the army, was helped by this family and told his wife to take their sick child to the mountains to be saved? We know so little of Mrs. Denby's background except that she's from New York, has a sick baby and a dead husband, and yet knows where to seek just the kind of help her baby needs. I found the whole thing rather odd.

I also found it interesting that the Yares family lives a in-the-middle-of-the-road life. They chose not to pick a side during the war because they didn’t feel that they could “argy or jedge whether slavery war wholesomest or not. It was out of our sight” (260) yet because they decided to stay out of the war, it only made them more of a target. With the Union hunting the Yares men “jest as if they war wolves” (261) and the Confederates thinking “the best use to make of the whole lot is to order them out to be shot” (266) it seems like it would have been more peaceful for the Yares if they had simply joined the war effort.

Newsies

I believe that the main difference between little girls and boys depicted in the nineteenth century has to do with their temperament. For example, we pride Ellen on her toast making abilities, willingness to try and form a relationship with God, the love that she displays for her mother and her docile nature. In essence, Ellen is the very picture of ‘good’ and the example of what every young girl at that time should be. Young boys on the other hand, are supposed to be a little rougher around the edges. We pride Dick on his ability to make money, on his witty nature, and adventurous attitude.

For example, one big difference that I noticed was the fact that if a young girl was to lie (such as Gerty) it’s seen as a dishonest and wrongful thing to do, however when a young boy is to lie, it’s seen as merely a funny joke. When Dick is trying to win over a customer and the man asks why Dick charges so much, his reply is, “I have to pay such a big rent for my manshun up on Fifth Avenoo” (Alger 253). We know that Dick does not live in a mansion on Fifth Avenue, yet instead of feeling like he’s dishonest, we only see it as a joke. Dick continues to lie to everyone saying such things as “This coat once belonged to General Washington” (253), his pants were “a gift from Lewis Napoleon” (254) and “I’m a gov’ment officer sent by the mayor to collect your taxes” (287). Not much has changed since the nineteenth century as this sort of gender expectation split is still present, although not to this extreme. We allow and expect boys to be loud, dirty and energetic while little girls to be quiet, clean and thoughtful.

A Beautiful Mind

Whatever the medium may be, as soon as insanity is placed on the table anything we’ve previously been shown or told is brought into question. How do we know that the side of the story we’ve been is the truth and not just the creativity of someone quite out of their mind? In the context of our story, Sybil, the narrator has been known to be very spirited and speak her mind on such matters as freedom and liberty. This is quite revolutionary for a woman of this time period, and for being so outspoken, Sybil makes herself out to be a target. Therefore when someone as spirited as her is locked away, it makes us want to fight for her more than if she was more docile and submissive. It also leads us to question what is going on and if what we’re told is going on is the truth.

There was only one point in the story where I questioned Sybil’s credibility as our narrator. When she looks upon the body of her mother and thinks that she’s seeing herself for the likeliness is stunning, she questions her own sanity and whether she is merely a spirit and that is her body or is she is still in fact alive, “I had plotted death, and with the waywardness of a shattered mind, I recalled legends of spirits returning to behold the bodies they had left” (Alcott 243). This sends the reader into his or her own tunnel of confusion. What exactly is going on? Is she really dead and that’s her spirit? At what point did she finally give in to insanity?

Every domestic novel we’re read thus far seems to glorify the mother/daughter relationship, however not one single main character has a stable relationship with their mother. Capitola is taken away from her mother at birth, Gerty’s mother died shortly after she was born, and even Ellen is left alone after her mother is sent away for her health and never returns. The idea has been reinforced in many didactic lessons that a young girl needs a powerful female role model (her mother) in order to lead a ‘good’ life. In the case of Sybil and her mother, the mother is thought to be insane and taken to an insane asylum. If Sybil was left to grow up around her mother, it probably wouldn’t have been very healthy environment for a young child, however without the strong female example, Sybil relies on her powers of manipulation to get what she wants and desires and gets sent to the asylum herself. In this case, it seems to me that the emphasis of the mother/daughter relationship is somewhat lessened. Yes, Sybil needs a mother figure and is at a loss without one, however if she was to have her own mother, wouldn't she still be at a loss?

Flowers in the Attic

In every domestic novel we’ve read, we get a glace at a different type of relationship between parents and children, mother and child. One thing that I found particularly odd about the Hidden Hand was the relationship between Traverse and his mother, Marah. Although no one can deny the fact that Traverse loves his mother, one must question just exactly in what way does he love his mother. For instance, when he first walks into the room and greets his mother and she asks if he’s outgrown his childhood, he replies, “Yes, dear little mother; in everything but the privilege of fondling you” (Southworth 196). This struck me as odd, so I wrote creepy in the margin of my book and continued reading. The two continue their conversation and it appears normal. I didn’t think more about it, until the last chapter of the selection.

Before Marah and Traverse receive the letter containing the bad news, the two are once again talking and the subject of Traverse’s father comes up. This “greatly bewildered the mind of Traverse and agitated him with the wildest conjectures” (212). Surely, I thought, he’s merely agitated with not knowing who is father was and not by the fact that his mother did have a lover at one time. I continued reading, once again writing the word ‘creepy’ in the margin. By the next page I failed to come up with and adequate excuse for the language represented in relationship between Traverse and his mother; I believe that he is in love with her.

Marah is crushed with the news that there is no fortune coming to save them and trying to comfort her, Traverse says “I love you more than son ever loved his mother, or suitor his sweetheart, or husband his wife! Oh! Is my love nothing, mother?” (214). Woa now, those are two very different types of love, how can he feel both for the same woman or even compare them to each other? The awkwardness continues when he paints a picture of how they will prosper in the end and tells Marah that, “you are not much older than you son; and we two will journey up and down the hills of life together-all in all to each other […] and we will pass out and go to heaven together” (215). This is the sort of dream that a husband wishes for him and his wife, not that of a young man and his mother…

A Little Princess

Although there are some definite similarities between girls of yesterday and today, one main difference stood out more to me.  In the show, Anna mentioned that girls shouldn’t try and act a certain way for people to like them, they should act like themselves.  This is the exact opposite of how young girls were raised in the nineteenth century.  For instance, Gerty is an awful little girl with a mean streak and a temper that often gets her in trouble, but when she runs into Emily Graham, she’s told “you can be good and then everybody will love you” (Cummins 63).  This implies that if Gerty was to act like herself, no one would like her and we can’t have that!  The same applies to young Ellen, who unlike Gerty, is quite well mannered, but is told by her mother that, “If you are a good child, and make it your daily care to do your duty, she cannot help liking you” (Warner 13).  Being human beings, it would be impossible for one to be ‘good’ all the time, yet we still find people who like us for ourselves.   But it makes me wonder if this ideology was around in the nineteenth century and it was simply ignored or is this merely a new way of thinking that has come across in the past couple centuries?

 

If young Gerty had appeared on Amy Pholer’s show, she probably would have said that her favorite thing to do would be to light candles or look at the stars, perhaps clean the house and make toast for Uncle True.  It’s probable that she might has told Amy that she loved her because she was so nice to her and might have yelled or had a tantrum if they asked her dance.  I could also see her saying that she didn’t know what either a rainbow or a butterfly was seeing that she had never been to school and where she lived seemed quite gloomy.  In answer to the question how she would “even herself out”, I can see Gerty saying something along the lines of trying to pray to God (because she is trying to learn) or talking with Emily, Mrs. Sullivan, or Uncle True.  

Dazed and Confused

One of the things that I find that challenges what we’ve talked about in class is the fact that this book wasn’t written for children, or even about children. Stowe uses children as reasoning behind “Christian slavery”, but children were not the target audience for this book nor are they the main focus. That being said, the children that Stowe does portray have a large impact on the novel, but not in the way that typical children’s literature of the nineteenth century often did. There are several incongruencies between Uncle Tom’s Cabin and common children literature of the time.

For example, according to MacLeod, many children’s literature pieces were filled with children “who were for the most part good but who were possessed of one great fault” (93). In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, it could be argued that The Shelbys were for the most part good, yet their fault would be the fact that they’re slave owners. However, the Shelbys are not the main focus of the novel and the didactic lesson comes from Tom, not the Shelbys. There is also the huge red flag that slavery should be seen as more than just a simple fault incomparable to sneaking into the kitchen for sweets.

Children in this novel don’t get enough ‘page time’ for one to accurately asses their personalities, however, it appears the main fault of Eliza’s baby Harry is that he loves his mother and is acting out selfishly by staying by her side. If we are in fact supposed to go along with the belief that selfishness is wrong, then Harry should run away from his mother and allow himself to be enslaved and treated miserably by Mr. Haley so that at least, he’s not being selfish and thinking of himself first. What kind of a message is that? On the other hand, if he did work for Mr. Haley, it would hurt his mother terribly and children’s literature does mention that we shouldn’t hurt others, for what kind of morality would that be? So where does this leave us? Either way you want to look at Harry’s or his mother’s actions, they’re in the wrong. “To look to one’s own advantage was always suspect in children’s stories” (95) yet for these characters, their ‘advantage’ is their way out of a terrible life not worth living. The audience, who's been trained to look at literature a certain way this whole time, is thrown for a loop. Who’s way of thinking is right, the Children’s literature of the time, or Uncle Tom’s Cabin?

Parenthood

Although The Wide, Wide World was written for adults, let’s hope that parents of the nineteenth century were not getting parenting tips from the Montgomery’s. It’s hard for me to give either one of the adult Montgomery’s credit for their parenting skills. While it’s understandable that Mrs. Montgomery is sick and quite care for her child in the physical sense, she doesn’t seem to care for her emotional needs either. When told that she will be separated from her mother indefinitely, Ellen begins to break down. Although her mother lets her cry for a small amount of time, she tells Ellen that, “’I cannot bear this much longer’” (Warner 6). The fact that “Ellen was immediately brought to herself by these words” leads the audience to believe that not only is the word of the parent final and children must bend to them, but that emotional displays weren’t customary and in fact, were considered quite lowly. Captain Montgomery is also quick to sidestep any emotion when he forbids his wife to tell his daughter about how soon she is leaving. He feels that, “’In the hurry and bustle of getting off, she will not have time to think about her feelings; and once on the way, she will do well enough; children always do’” (52). You would think that since he doesn’t take care of Ellen emotionally that he would physically and even that is somewhat of a question for he leaves his daughter with his sister without a second glance. Therefore, young Ellen becomes her own parent in a sense. By taking care of her mother, the parent-daughter relationship has flipped and it’s Ellen who’s making the tea and reading from the bible for her mother. It’s Ellen who is sewing her own clothing and Ellen who is writing the thank you notes. It seems the only roles that the actual parents fill are those of providing shelter, food and love.

In The Wide, Wide World, the mother’s role is to stay in the home and raise the children. As Ellen looks out her window and sees the poor deformed, orphan boy, she says, “’He’s a great deal worse off than I am. His mother is dead’” (9). This shows the audience that his position is so lowly not because of his disability, but because of the fact that his mother is dead. Notice that Ellen thinks nothing about the young boy’s father, for surely he can’t be an orphan if he still has a father. Perhaps this is because Ellen so rarely sees her father, or maybe it’s because Fathers were not very involved in child rearing. Captain Montgomery, who always seems to be at work, has only one role in Ellen’s life, to provide money. The fact that he’s gone for work so often leads the audience to believe that most of the parenting roles fall upon the mother while all of the financial support comes from the father. Even this is something Captain Montgomery can’t seem to get down for he gives Mrs. Montgomery “a sum barely sufficient for [Ellen’s] mere clothing” (21).

Since I mentioned earlier that I believe Ellen to be her own parent, I think she looks to her mother for spiritual advice. When she asks her mother “what does that mean, ‘He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worth of me?’” (31) Ellen is looking to her mother be a good Christian. When her mother tells her that she loves God more than her daughter and then proceeds to tell her daughter not to cry, it seems to me that Mrs. Montgomery is simply there to teach Ellen about Christianity. Ellen perception of her father is simply that of the man who is going to take her away from her beloved mother. When she hears his steps outside of her room, all she can think of is “He is coming to take me away!” (56). When he takes Ellen and puts her in the carriage “she did not feel the touch of her father’s hand, nor hear him when he bid her good-bye […] She knew nothing but that she had lost her mother” (57). This passage shows that it bothered her next to nothing to lose her father, but that the loss of her mother was too devastating to even notice the fact that her father was taking her away.

Little Children

“For the nineteenth century, childhood is better understood as a status or idea associated with innocence and dependency than as a specific development or biological period” (Sanchez-Eppler xxi). This idea presented in Sanchez-Eppler's introduction to Dependent States: The Child's Part in Nineteenth-Century American Culture that childhood isn’t an age thing so much as a maturity thing is one of the main factors that sets children’s literature of that time period apart from children’s literature in any other era. The fact that a twenty year old could theoretically be considered a child if his maturity level was that of a ten year old dramatically effects the way that you would present literature to them or about them.

For example, a main theory seen through out childhood literature is the idea that “they were written to teach, and specifically, to teach morality” (MacLeod 89). Although people of all ages can certainly take something away from a speech about morality, the effect is greater on one who is still testing those boundaries, a.k.a, people with lower maturity levels. When we’re younger, we’re more likely to grow and adapt to changes going on around us then when we’re old, therefore why not imprint the message on as many young minded people as you can to help shape the person you want them to become.

This idea of using children’s literature to mold their future leads me to my second theory that “children are incapable of defining their own terms and grounds of power and meaning” (Sanchez-Eppler xviii) and therefore we [be the older, wiser, more mature ones] must spell that out for them. How is it that we learn what’s right or wrong? Someone tells us. Someone is there to hold our hands and explain the world and how we should act in it in their eyes. Thus, it’s impossible to expect a child to know their own meaning and we must explain to them through stories and morals what their meaning truly is.

Another theory that stems from the idea that someone is teaching us meaning and power is the fact that many of these stories were told at home and therefore “if a child was to acquire firm moral principles, he must do so early, in the brief years before he left home” (MacLeod 96). Parents are essentially growing their own kids in the privacy of their own homes with no one there to guide them except perhaps the additional relative or two. How is it then that the basic morals are almost universal through the community? Society, yes, but what has an impact on society? Literature. We’re essentially giving them “the principles which wisdom and truth sanction are not those which govern society” (96) but which we desperately want them to have before they leave the home and join society as individuals.

A further look into children’s literature of the time leads me to the contradiction that although literature says children were supposed to stay in the home and obey their parents, at the time, children were in fact employed through out the factories. This leads to the theory that “fiction [was written] to counter the growing materialism and the rampant competitiveness of American society”(MacLeod 96) to turn children away from the factories [growing materialism] and towards a brighter, more moral light, such as education.

The last theory that I wish to discuss is the question about “whether [literature is there] to prepare children for adult worries and responsibilities or to protect and cherish them in a freer world of imagination and play” (Sanchez-Eppler xviii). The children are our future, we’re trying to teach them morals in the home, and mold them into the positive figures we want them to be but are telling them these stories because we want them ‘hurry up and grow up already’ or because we want them to enjoy the world around them while they can? The phrase, “youth is wasted on the young” isn’t a new idea, but were we seeing this theory as early as in nineteenth century children’s literature? The world will never know…

How Am I Not Myself?

Hello all! My name is Devon Martinez, and I'm a sophomore RTVF major (I'm still in denial about the whole FTDM thing) from San Antonio, TX. It's been a while since I've been in a literature class, and while I'm not a fan of all the paperwork, I can't help but enjoy this type of course. I just love the fact that five different people can read the same piece of writing and walk away with five different interpretations. Therefore, I'm glad to see that our class is so big and look forward to discussing the different literary pieces.

How I got to be Horned Frog is anyone's guess. I had never heard of TCU prior to by junior year of high school nor had I done any research into the school before applying. As I've stated before, I'm a film major and for as long as I can remember, college to me meant UT, and only UT. But, just to be on the safe side, I plugged in 'Texas' and 'film majors' into collegeboard and low and behold, TCU was on the list. Long story short (too late), UT didn't happen, but TCU did and it turned out to be the best decision I could've made! If I was Chancellor of TCU I would definitely do something about parking. I think everyone could benefit from better parking. Nothing says the start to a good day then getting a parking space without having to worry about a ticket. As far as a good teacher goes, I believe that there are two crucial ingredients that one needs to have and the rest is personality. One would be that the teacher has to want to be there. If the professor doesn't even want to see us, then what makes you think that we want to be there? And the other would be a decent amount of people skills. It's nice when people who stand in front of you and know the material actually know how to talk to you as well. Being a good student is really very simple; show up and do your work. If I could have dinner with any three people, I would invite Zooey Deschanel, Julie Harrison, and Mike Birbiglia. We would have spaghetti and bruschetta and it would be amazing. Three things you should know about me are that, a.) I pride myself on my memory b.) I make some of the best pumpkin bread you've ever tasted (or so I've heard) and c.) As I'm sure you will come to find out, I am terrible speaking in front of an audience and apologize now for when I have to do that 'Lead Response' jazz. As for all of you who choose to read this, I would like to know a.) What is your favorite movie? b.) What would you do on your perfect day? and c.) What would be your ultimate birthday present?

I'm not going to lie, I chose this course due to the fact that it filled a requirement and fit nicely into my schedule, although, this is the earliest class I've yet to have in college and am not excited about that aspect. But even though I went for the requirement bit, I wouldn't take it if there wasn't a little part of me that wasn't intrigued. I'm not looking for much to take away other than reading a few good pieces of literature, maybe improving my writing, and hearing the interpretations of the piece from the others around me. As far as reading outside the classroom goes, I'm actually in the middle of The Fountainhead. Prior to that, I must admit that the most recent thing I read was Harry Potter VI, but the movie was coming out and I wanted to re-read the book to freshen the story in my mind. The only real requirement I have about books/literature is that it tells a good story. Nothing drives me crazy like a weak story that just trails along (especially in screenplays, argh!). I enjoy writing, although most of the writing that I do tends to be more on the creative side, such as dabbling in screenwriting, although I did write many letters to people this past summer. I feel like my writing matches my personality pretty well, the technical stuff needs a lot of work, but the underlining message is strong.

My choices in this blog are relatively simple, sorry there isn't a grand master plan. The title of this post is from one of my favorite movies (I Heart Huckabees) and the title of every blogpost following this one will be the title of a movie. The picture is from my most recent trip to L.A. (and yes, those are my feet!). I chose the colors black and white for their simplicity and the ever so practical easy-to-read factor. I believe that way I approach my blog is roughly the same way that I'm approaching this course, I do my best to answer something completely and stay true to myself.

Thanks for sticking it out and reading this far! Yes, I have read the syllabus and agree to all of the terms, but no, I don't have any questions. Until next week...