ncskeith’s Blog

Why do you think loyalty is so important to the blue-collar, ethnic community that Miller portrays in his play?  Why do you think loyalty might have been a complicated issue to Miller in the 1950s?  What makes loyalty such a difficult value for Eddie? And, finally, has your notion of loyalty ever been tested in ways similar to Eddie’s?  Blog three or four good paragraphs for Wed., May 6.

        Loyalty means everything to the The folks in Eddies neighborhood. Here is a group of Italians who have left their homes a generation or less ago, they are a culture ingrained in family… they are away from all of their relatives in an alien land. The neighborhood becomes a place of family and in that makeshift family loyalty is highly valued, a comfort of home. They are living from meal to meal under a government that is unsympathetic and untrustworthy in their eyes and therefore they need to make their own safety. The family system of trust is all of their safety net, they look out for each other, and if those bonds are broken all hell will break loose. If one cannot be trusted he must be removed with no mercy or the entire community is at risk. In total trust in this setting is a piece of home, comfort, safety, family, and culture that runs the lives of all involved. –I spent my last semester studying abroad in Firenze, Italia and noticed that their was secrecy and trust within family units that no outsider could break. Most of all I noticed this on my weekend trip to Napoli and in my friends from Sicilia. Italians do not mess around when it comes to trust and family– all of those mafia movies got that right…you break the bonds of family, you’re swimmin with the fishes. Eddie learned that first hand.

          In Millers day and age loyalty was also a strong issue. He was a strong leftist in a country that thought leftists should all be put in jail. Especially in show business there was a strong feeling about trust and loyalties and friendships based on ones political beliefs. Even in Arthurs own life he was betrayed by a friend to the committee, put in jail and fined because of someone naming names– He probably felt a bit like Marco.

Diving into the story a bit more, let us take a look at Eddie’s loyalty plight. He starts out as a pretty decent guy. He is loyal to his family by providing for them and staying with them. He is loyal to his wife by letting her family come and stay with him. He is loyal to catherine (in an odd way) by providing for her even when she is not his own daughter (mainly because he wants her). HOwever Eddie has an issue under the surface. He is loyal mainly to his obsession with CAtherine. HE provides faithfully as long as he has complete control over her. She has a job but cannot take it until he feels like he has iven his blessing, she cannot get married because she is his and only his, the cousins can stay as long as catherine stays his and when this is threatened too much by the marriage he calls the police. Eddie is also loyal first to his masculinity. If his position as boss or his name of power are compromised everyone involved’s heads are going to roll until they are restored. This is shown mainly in the last scene when he holds the knife to Marco and demands he “give him back his name.” This pride and obsessive ownership are what end up making him meet his demise. In a neighborhood where loyalty rules one cannot put them-self first all the time and expect all to be peaceful.

This is one of my favorite Hemmingway short stories. I only read it for the first time at the beginning of this semester for my creative writing class. We were doing a section on subtext, and if there is any story that exemplifies powerful subtext–this is it. And Hemmingway is a Genius at it!

There is really a lot to be said about emotion and logic in this story–

I will start with the American because he is the simplest. Here is a man who is a complete Jackass in my opinion, he is on vacation with his pregnant girlfriend trying to talk her into having an abortion with complete lack of regard for her emotions. He is thinking about this situation completely coldy– and logically. He knows that it is best for HIM to not have a kid running around and he is going to do whatever it takes to convince her of that. So synapses in his brain react and tell him that women are emotional and that that is the only way to convince her– he does incorporate listening to her emotions or even feeling his own he simply must fix the problem by convincing her and seeming sensitive and be done with all of it. This is evidenced by certian points in the text when she throws out red flags that she is not comfortable with this procedure “I dont care about myself” and he still pursues his goal– even to the very end when she is so uncomfortable that she repeats “please” half a million times to get him to stop talking about it and he STILL wants her to know it is a simple procedure. My opinion is that the subtext of every word this guy says is “I hope I’m sounding sensitive enough for her to get rid of that thing.”–not very sensitive.

For Jig things get a bit more complicated…She IS emotional about this situation but seems to evaluate her feelings in a sound and logiacal way. She knows she is not comfortable with the procedure, she also KNOWS  that her relationship with him is more important to her than with the child–therefore she decides that if it will make the relationship with him better she will get rid of the child. This is sound yet based off feelings. However, she is still skeptical of if their relationship will acctually be better after the procedure because of the way he is handling the situation at hand. She realizes he is just trying play off her emotions. “You musn’t feel that way” he says to her like a caring prince charming, warning her to come back into the shade– but she asserts that she does not “feel anything” she just “knows things.” Basically she is throwing the message that his emotional crap is not working, she gets that he just wants the baby gone for his own good, and she is okay with that and doing it for him and not because he slyly convinced her.

At the very end she “feels just fine” but I think is hinting that logically she does not feel sound about the situation– she knows he is demeaning her by trying to convince her slyly, she knows that she loves him more because she is willing to sacrafice herself and her child for his wants, she knows that this will probably not make them any better–but she hopes.

Another interesting thing is the tidbit about him not seeing white elephants — I feel like she is saying that she has imagination, emotions, love, vision and that of course he wouldnt see them because he is in a box, dry, and cannot feel or imagine– I think hemmingway is advocating her emotion artisitic side in this moment.

this is all kind of random and muddled together, there is just so much good stuff in this story it is hard to pinpoint what to write about!

Dear Abigail,
The Armory Show was quite an experience! I so wish that you could have made it, it is unfortunate that Jimmy was so conveniently under the weather—pathetic man is so afraid of art! To give you an answer to his ridiculous question “what makes this stuff modern?”—I can here him say that in his Jersey accent. I will need a bit of space on paper.
Do you remember how depth perception and reality was so honored in all of the renaissance paintings in Florence last summer? Well this “stuff” is modern because it does not focus on the reality of the object but the reality of how we perceive the object in our consciousness. For instance I will lay side-by-side 3 nudes that are all extremely different. I will start with the most classic piece entitled Figure in Motion by Robert Henri. This black and white piece has depth and character, a nude woman in the midst of a dance is captured just like a snapshot of Isadora Duncan, it is very good but very realistic. Another nude that is a bit more–new is a cubist painting by Marcel Duchamp  called Nude descending staircase No.2. This piece uses rich hues of red and black to depict a nude body from many angles in each motion of descending the staircase—there is such an ambiguous depth to the picture that it left me staring for nearly 20 mintues trying to grasp at the genius and meaning of it all! Funnily enough it was in a gallery named the “Chamber of Horrors”… we should stick Jimmy in there! I guess that is also a modern aspect to this work, I could not see the scene as lovely and walk away, I had to stare and ponder on the piece. The third nude is a sculpture titled White Slave by Abastenia St. Eberie which depicts a young nude soft girl being held tightly for auction by a cartoonish and harsh looking gentleman. This piece is so outgoing and really shows the feeling of human trafficking, very sexual, full of tension, and very straightforward.—it gave me the heebie-jeebies honestly.
Two pieces that really sticks out in my mind as especially modern are Matisse’s Goldfish and Sculpture and Henri Roseau’s Horse Attacked by a Jaguar. You can tell by the titles that these two are playful! Both are very bright and have no perception to them, they are childlike and playful—they really challenged my idea of what art really is. I tend to think Micheal Angelo, Titian, Rembrandt, etc. However these pieces captured and moved me just as much as those genius’… perhaps even more. Why does that make me feel a tinge of guilt? I feel more justified saying that Harriet Monroe ( you’ve heard of Poetry I presume?) used to hate Matisse and after the Armory she said “In a profound sense these radical artists are right. They represent the revolt of the imagination against nineteenth century realism . . . They represent a search for new beauty . . . a longing for new versions of truth” (Brown, Story 212).
I will stop going on and on but I must tell you about the post-impressionists! Of course there is Van Gogh who I adore—this show I saw one of his more simple pieces that was so captivating. It was titled olive trees, pale blue sky—doesn’t that just sound peaceful? There were also two pieces that colorfully depicted robust working class woman in geometrical shapes. The first is John Sloan’s Sunday, Women drying hair and Stuart Davis’ Babe La Tour. Both were the same subject but Davis’ work was hideous in my eyes! It was so sexually harsh and the whole thing lacked style.
Okay I will stop bothering you by reminiscing! I hope you have a lovely week and I will see you next Sunday for brunch—by the way I think it is illegal to be married to a child. Just kidding darling!
Toodle loo Lovely loo!
Natalie

THE SOUL selects her own society,
This description of “selecting her own society” makes the soul the queen of life, the thrown and decision maker. This point is proved by the capitalization of “THE SOUL” in its entirety. The fact that “her” is used makes it personal to ED but also that she might give a feminine orientation to the soul and maybe sees it as the emotions of a person. A person selecting their own society shows a personal personality people do not come into ED’s life, she chooses them and with an air of royalty. There is also kind of a resistance to other authority, “her own” it gives me the feeling that she is rejecting some man to choose her friends for her, she will do it herself, thank you very much!
Then shuts the door;
Here is the motif of the house again, the door. This is a metaphor for the soul’s company. Is she shutting the door because she values herself and will only let a few people into her innermost being? That is a feel I get from ED throughout her other poems. However this could also be taken as insecurity, she is not willing let anyone in but those first few whom she trusts. ED never got married, this seems like she chose her company, her family, and maybe was to scared to open the door back up wide enough for romance.
On her divine majority
This feels a little bit sarcastic, why is the door being shut on a divine majority. If ED really believes there are a multitude of divine beings out there to choose from, whay has she bolted the door behind her? Has she given the crowd the chance to show her they are worthy and they have failed? It is interesting that it is “her” majority…she keeps up the identity of queen and all the world is hers to choose from. Although I guess this could still be simply the soul as the queen of life that has the option to choose form all encounters who to value. Along with this high value of self here, there is also a value of the others who are not welcome; they are divine, made by the creator.
Obtrude no more.
Obtrude has such a strong connotation of annoyance and severity. The Soul’s company is a private intimate quiet party and the “divine majority” are an annoying punk band trying to crash the get together. ED apparently feels as though they want to obtrude, she has to turn them down in a sense. It is interesting for a woman who lived in the same home her whole life that she feels threatened by so many trying to intrude on her soul. This has the feel of a queen’s command, keeping the royal theme, “Obtrude no more!” in a queeny British accent is really what I picture ED’s soul yelling at the line of people at her door.
(end of first stanza)
Unmoved, she notes the chariot’s pausing 5
“unmoved, she notes” is soooo high society status. She emotionlessly, unimpressed by anything, notes her surroundings. She observing the coming and going around her but is unmoved, she knows who she wants in and out and nothing will change that. Chariot is a very Roman image for me, she may see herself as a woman of old, a woman to be reckoned with, a woman with power, a woman who will not open her palace for just anyone. It is almost a very romantic thing. ED is the heroine, worthy of the best, she knows it, she is romanticizing the scene by giving it an ancient Roman feel and saying too bad buddy, I’m too good for you!
At her low gate;
The romantic scene is kept up by the image of a lower gate. I picture a lovely castle with a lower gate and maybe a drawbridge. This shows that she values herself quite a bit, she is a queen in a castle all her own. However this also shows a certain coldness, I cant help but think of a stone building at night that is essentially a fortress keeping everything new out. This is the second use of a semi-colon… interesting… almost formal maybe? (Again she possesses the lower gate)
Unmoved, an emperor is kneeling
Again here appears the word “unmoved” this feels very cold now. She is not even a little bit wooed or surprised. This seems arrogant to me. Although maybe things other than royalty impress her, she chose her society for a reason and maybe values different things than chariots and emperors have to offer. Also, THE SOUL was all in caps but emperor ad chariot were not even capitalized. She is worthy if an emperor is kneeling, he is bowing before her, reinforcing the image of the queen, but her highness is stone cold and says not a word to the emperor. The emperor also conjures up images of Roman times, a romantic period of power but also domination of a lot of peoples. Perhaps this is a call that ED will not let many people in because she will not let anyone have the chance of dominating her, say through, marriage?
Upon her mat.
Because of “once upon a time” the word upon really flows with the fairytale princess theme we have going here. The emperor has made it all the way to her front door, he is not at the gate, he is kneeling on her mat. ED’s should has allowed him to get very close, but she will not let him in, perhaps he has not proved himself worthy. She has such a powerful voice here and here is this man kneeling before her…on her mat begging to come in. (That sounds sexual, lol) Perhaps ED merely needs someone who has more self worth, who does not beg, but proves themselves worthy, who is stronger than her. (she possesses the very mat he kneels on)
(end of second stanza)
I’ve known her from an ample nation
There is a certain distance here from the soul, as if maybe she is talking of all souls or feels she has no controls over her own soul’s actions. This is past tense, showing that there is a history of this kind of behavior. This image of an ample nation is interesting, it pairs well with “divine majority” it shows that she is not rejecting peasants but she is choosing from the cream of the crop and still choosing to scoff. The cliché that comes to mind is “the world is at her fingertips” but she is choosing the best diamonds and crowns and turning her eyes from all that could be hers.
Choose one; 10
Again here is the semi-colon… now looking at the pattern it almost serves as a divide, a door, a gate. She shuts the door, puts a “;” she is at the low gate and again “;” she chooses only one and closes off the possibility with a “;” It is interesting that she only chooses one, that seems very romantic, she only has eyes for one, she is given the choice of many but only wants her man. However, knowing that ED never married and her poetry is very personal I wonder is there was a love interest or if there is something I am missing here. Maybe this is about more than people. She has a myriad of forms of expression to choose form and she picks poetry? No prose, painting, sewing, speaking, she only loves poetry and chooses that one. Maybe this is ambiguous. Poetry is really the closest thing to her soul I believe, maybe the only one that she will host in her soul.
Then close the valves of her attention
Valves that were referred to in Whitman were musical, I wonder if that is true here. That would go nicely with the poetry metaphor, her valves, her song, her expression, are only for her beloved poetry. She is observing the man on her mat and the chariot but when she chooses this one she no longer has attention for them? She is absorbed entirely in this one love?
Like stone.
This is an interesting way to end, like stone, it is so cold. This makes me go back to the feeling of relationships, she is blocked off from everyone, hard as rock, impenetrable. Perhaps poetry is the only one she lets in and blocks even vulnerability in her relations with family, friends, and loves. She is a worthy castle and has many beautiful things inside but is almost trapped within herself, trapped with in her stone walls, with so much going on inside perhaps she wishes someone could break through.

Interesting tidbits:
-ED usually captilizes much more in her poetry and here the only example of this is“THE SOUL”, giving it a lot of power.
-The second line of each stanza ends with a semi-colon
-the symbols of “majority” and “nation” that she is rejecting both use positive adjectives “divine” and “ample”
-The Soul possesses many things in the poem “her own society,” “her divine majority,” “her low gate,” “her mat,” “her attention”
-the rhymes are never perfect except for “door and more” but an ABAB rhythm is in each stanza and the words are merely similar, not necessarily rhyming.
-the word unmoved is repeated twice and pairs nicely with the imagery of stone, the soul seems un-alive.
-gate, door, and mat go with the motif of the house in her poetry

Whitman begins his poem with two distances that must be “crossed”: “FLOOD-TIDE” and the “I” that watches the tide “face to face”; and, the “I” that observes “crowds of men and women attired in the usual costumes” to be “curious.”
How do these differences (I vs. tide; I vs. crowd) pose a problem for Whitman?
How is this problem resolved by the end of the poem?

In the very beginning of the poem there is a definite rift between walt and the crowd. His diction makes it clear that he is studying an odd “curious” species from afar. He accuses them of wearing costumes, they are merely actors in the play of life. He seems to connect more easily with nature, the river, the sun, his surroundings. He is face to face with the tide and far removed from the people in the crowd.
What eventually draws them together in the end is walt almost deciding not to hold it against the crowd that they do not see it yet. He reveals the knowledge that seperates him, that we are all connected by the journey, we all have good and bad in us, we all appreciate nature, we are one in our experiences. As he relays this to those around him, to those in the country he loves, to those a hundred years away, to us in this class he connects us all face to face with the tide/journey of life and eachother for we are all riding the same river.

this is a little cheesy and discontinuous but oh well!

http://thogue.edublogs.org/2009/02/16/creative-reading/

1) Name 1-2 things you liked about this assignment. Why

a) i loved bringing the visual aspect of learning into poetry..I love  photography and kind of think of it as a form of poetry so it was so fun for me to mix the teo forms of expression

b) looking at the poem with all the images was amazing! it was like seeing thought bubble over everyones head the first time they all heard that poem…I dont know it was just beautiful to see all of those interpretations so clearly

2) Name 1-2 things you disliked about this assignment. Why

a) I felt like it was hard to find a picture that really suited the way I felt about the line because the words had so many aspects to them that it was hard to narrow it to one.

b) I am technologically so “un-savvy” so it was a little tricky for me to figure everything out.

3) By participating in the wiki, what new things did you learn about Whitman’s poem?

I feel like seeing everyones photos and their experience with the poem made me really feel part of the “grass” like whitman was really connecting with everyone on a different level  and touching his readers and that just made the poem become a little bit more alive for me.

4) What changes or additions would you make to this assignment? Why?

I think it would be fun to have everyone do a picture for each line or maybe even a song for a line and make that a 2week project..it would just be so interesting to see how different everyone’s turned out.

“Colleges and books only copy the language which the field and the work-yard made” (8). Given our discussion of Emerson’s theory of books and higher learning and knowledge, what do you think he means by this? What is so important about understanding that colleges and books only “copy” the language of the field and work-yard? How does this fit into his arguments about “creative reading” and about the relation between creation and imitation?

Emerson makes the distinction between creators and imitators very clear through this speech. The institutions of our world set limits and boundaries for ones mind. As we talked about in class they say “shakespeare and Plato and no farther.” This control turns books from something inspiring and active to something stifling and stagnantly praised. It is a shame because Emerson points out that “the field and the work-yard” ( too very active, alive, moving things) ignited the fire for most of the books written. In order to create great things, one must live, be active, experience, watch nature, explore ones self in nature, etc. and with the institutions not encouraging any of those things it is true that their followers works will never be up to par with the past, for they will have nothing to write about! They are merely copying the experience of others in nature. We need to learn to “read creatively” whatever that means to individuals, creative=creation, when reading we need to be pursuing stretching our own minds and thoughts and putting those thoughts into action in some way.
I love that Emerson is speaking about creating one’s own work, exploring one’s own mind, watching nature for one’s self, and really living and pushing limits and writing. Because by doing so his writing is doing exactly what he speaks of, it is a manual and tool all at once. After reading “The American Scholar” I felt as if a muse had nudged me to not accept the past as the best, but to push myself to my limits, explore more and create something….

Emerson was basically saying we need to put down THE MAN and write something amazing about it…duh.

I was exhausted, my soul in that place between nightmare and reality, I reached what yesterday would have been safety and home but I kept thinking to myself, could this be the same village? Everywhere I turned the faces of once holy friends of mine now snarled back at me with red sin covering their souls. Alone, all alone! No righteousness to be found anywhere. As I passed the graveyard that morning as the dawn was just breaking I caught a glimpse of that false witness, the minister. He wore his robes and pretended to be innocently strolling along, thinking of good and righteous things…how appropriately he walked near the dead—HE THREW a gesture, a word my way! He disguised it as a blessing, I knew he remembered me seeing him last night, he had cursed me! I crouched, I was out of breath, I yearned for holy water to throw upon his evil face and burn him! Where is your mighty lightning to put down this DEMON?!!
Then, right as I had escaped from his grasp I heard the hollow words of “Deacon Gookin!” OH! How this troubled my spirit! I became instantly agitated, he was my friend, how was I so blind? He was disguising his blotched soul with words of holy connotation but evil dripped from his tongue with every syllable. I wondered aloud “what god doth the wizard pray to?”– — In hopes he would hear me and repent! Would this torture never end?? Goody Cloyse stood in the sunlight and I was greatly surprised that she was not melting. How had my grand family never noticed that the creature that gave me catechism was indeed a witch, a black magic sorceress of the night — –I wanted to tell the authorities will all my heart. Hark! At that moment a wee lass came with innocence seeping form her blue eyes, she wore a white crisp dress and carried pure white morning milk. She came for catechism and as she put one foot in the air to cross into the shadow of Cloyse’s lattice I rescued her, I boldly SNATCHED her from the grasp of that old woman. In that moment the devils fire blazed in her eyes and I knew I had done right. Such a shame, a loving old woman like her, so entrenched in fires of hell.
There she was, this was the moment I had dreaded since we last met in the forest. I prayed a quick prayer that it was all a dream. As I approached her the bow in her hair glinted red in the sunlight and I could not deny anything I had seen. My love for her was vast but could I be near such a sinner? So unclean a soul? NO!! I WILL NOT I said to myself, and I was resolved. She looked upon me with a childish enthusiasm and for a moment I saw the old FAITH, the old FAITH!! But as she tried to draw me in for affection in the midst of a crowd I knew it was no longer my pure angelic wife, I passed her, I left her in the crowd of her kind and went on alone. I went on ALONE, to be away from the sinners, the blood stained, the wicked, and the fiends!
From then on my life seemed to twirl around me in a haze. Never again could I trust the people of this world, never again could I smile when I knew the hearts of man were so dark and held secrets and sins far beyond comprehension. Each person was stained and therefore had no good in them, NO GOOD! To whom was I to relate? Are you to say I was should have held dear my wife whose beauty was splattered with vice? NO! NO! NO, I WOULD NOT HAVE IT! She became as a harlot in my sight— my village was as a brothel to me and I was alone. I was ALONE FOR MANY YEARS. And in a crowd, a crowd even of those I was to hold dear, I was alone. I was strong and withheld my self from my cravings. I yearned to hold my daughter, to love my wife the way a man should at night, to rejoice at my sons wedding ceremonies, I craved someone to talk to, yes I WANTED for many years. But I was pious and righteous and withheld from mixing with sinners, from polluting my soul, from corrupting my morals. Without that touch, without that love, without any good soul in my midst my world grew colder, colder by the year, COLD at the end—I performed my duties still. At church I waited for God to judge, to bring Salem down like Gomorrah. When my wife lead evening prayers with my relatives whose blood was thick with iniquity I scowled at them from afar, I could not handle there counterfeit faith, only I could see their morals shriveling to nothing! FAITH! How could YOU, of all, MY DEAREST ONCE ANGELIC, faith, how could you have fallen? My heart after many years of this, failed me. As everything else, it FAILED ME! – I was alone, I was cold, I was given no hope, but it was over. Relief!

In Edgar Allen Poe’s “A man in the crowd” the narrator becomes fascinated, almost obsessed, with an old man he sees in the throng of people outside of his coffee shop. First of all, the narrator (who I will call Felipe so I do not have to keep on saying narrator) is already intrigued by people in general. He spends his evening watching, categorizing, and searching out different details of the human/animals in the crowd. His viewing becomes an almost biological taxonomy of the humans below him. When Felipe cannot categorize the elderly man with the fiendish face his full attention is fixed on figuring him out.
Felipe is very orderly and removed, so to stay removed and above the crowd he must have every man in his place within his mind. As he follows the crazy oldy around London throughout the night he is constantly baffled by the twirly whirlys they make, always following crowds, with no logic at all. This must intrigue Felipe even more, for someone so analytical and structured to follow someone so crazy and befuddled, would seem to be like a science experiment. How can someone live like this? Is he stark mad? these questions haunted Felipe the narrator and kept him watching, studying, researching throughout the night. So un-orderliness, his need to be able to figure everyone out, and curiosity, are all reasons why N.F. (narrator felipe) followed the man in the crowd..
One last little morsel that one must look at is pure boredom. Felipe had just gotten over a sickness, was alone, sitting in a coffee shop, reading the paper and people watching alllll dayyyy. Therefore when an interesting oppurtunity presented itself, why would he not take it with all exuberance? An adventure is more thrilling than an “ad for velvet gloves.” lol.