Noteworthy Thoughts 
Age of Innocence vs. A Doll's House 

As we have recently transitioned into our unit involving the analyzing of literary works through different literary lenses, I have grown quite an attachment to the works Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton and A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen. While reading the novel and play simultaneously I came to recognize some interesting similarities and differences between the characters and literature itself. Noting both the exclusive and inclusive elements of the works helped me better understand the themes and ideas present.

Both Archer (from AOI) and Nora (from DH) were similar characters in that both had - to some extent - a sense of aloofness from the society they were placed in. Archer's aloofness spawned from his own belief in his "awareness" that the other members in society did not possess. He believed himself different from the other men in society because of his emotional and intellectual attachment with Countess Olenska. A passion described as one a "touch would sunder." In this same way, Nora feels herself different from others, perhaps even deserving of praise, because of the risk she took in forging a signature to spare her father and save her husband. In this way, Nora believed herself "aware" of the misdeeds that have led to this "happy" life she and her family are living. In Age of Innocence, Archer claims that women should have as much freedom as men should, an idea that Nora seems to adopt by the end of A Doll's House as well. Archer respects woman such as Ellen, who form their own opinions and stand up for themselves. By the end of the play, Nora is almost symbolic of this sort of person - the type that transforms into something beyond what a man provides for her. She holds her own stature and dignity in the face of pain and believes herself independent to fulfill her "sacred duties" to herself. 

As I continued the comparison between the two pieces of literature, I discovered that Archer reminded me a lot of Torvald throughout the duration of the novel, arguably Nora's oppressor. Although Archer claims he believes in the freedom of woman, he constantly undermines his own claims by the way he acts in the presence of May, often referring to her as a means of his possession rather than a woman - rather than a human. When May looks beautiful, he years to tell her that he is "proud" of her. Similarly, after Nora dances the tarantella at the costume party, Torvald takes her back home and flaunts her to Kristine as his own jewel. Both Archer and Torvald often take possession of the women in their lives as objects worth bragging about - they strip these women of their own independence in thought and capability of personal opinions. Further their similarities are the importance they put into conforming to society and upholding their reputation. When Archer talks to Ned Winsett he almost pities him and considers himself superior to such a middle class man. When Torvald interacts with Krogstad, he considers him inferior in the face of their accomplishments and Krogstad's past. Although Archer may deny it or seem rather liberal on such ideas, his need to show society that he approved of Countess Olenska in the face of his engagement of May shows his own inner instinct to remain on good grounds with the social codes in New York society. Torvald directly explains to Nora that he should not sacrifice his "honor" for Nora, even though she is his love. The importance Archer and Torvald put in societal conformity shows a stronger connection between the two than Nora and Archer, in this perspective. 

Through Archer's relevance with multiple characters, I found Archer to be a sort of balance between the two, again reminding us that not one extreme or the other could be categorized as "morally sound" on a universal scale. 

I thought these were noteworthy connections to make between the characters of these literary works as they relate the broader picture of the blurred lines between victim and victimizer, and help to relate two works to explore the questions both works pose as interrelated. 

We Real Cool
Gwendolyn Brooks

The Pool Players. 
Seven at the Golden Shovel. 

We real cool. We
Left school. We

Lurk late. We
Strike straight. We

Sing sing. We
Thin gin. We

Jazz June. We
Die soon. 

People that aren't well versed in poetry (not unlike myself) may
have read that poem and chuckled. I'm not going to lie - I did that
the first time I read it also. But after rereading the poem several
times, I became so immersed in the endless possibilities of this
poem's meaning, I did some research on the historical context of the
poem and the poet herself. Through some research and analyzing,
I was able to get my thoughts rolling immediately. 

Through some research, I learned that the poet Gwendolyn Brooks
was an American poet, and this poem was written in 1959.
Common knowledge of U.S. history places her right within the
Civil Rights Movement. Keeping this in mind, I reread the poem
and explored some possible meanings. 

The most prominent and visually apparent element of this poem is
the structure - short one syllable words spaced apart within the
poem. This immediately gives off the vibe of someone defeated,
tired, bored, or even uneducated. The beginning of the poem
describes seven pool players, perhaps linking the idea of the
"lucky" number seven. This could mean these pool players are
lucky, or maybe they need luck. The place they are playing pool at
is called "Golden Shovel," which almost seems like a juxtaposition.
Golden is typically associated with warmth, shine, happiness and
bliss whereas shovel is more often associated with hard work and
maybe even a grave and death. 

The narrator goes on to describe his group of friends as "cool"
because they have left school. This automatically gives off the vibe
of some sort of gang. He claims that his gang "lurks late" and strikes
"straight." These words connote a sort of sneaky and stealthy feel,
indicating some sort of illegal activity that maybe occurring. My
premier thoughts reading this in context was that is must have been
a description of many youths in that time period, in the midst of a
society that was predominantly people that gave them the feeling
that they did not belong. This feeling of not belonging anywhere
gave them the incentive to engage in activities that made them feel
rebellious and excited. The narrator claims that they "sing sin,"
probably alluding to the gang's boasting of their illegal activities, 
which is furthered by the idea of thinning gin. 

The last stanza, in my opinion, is the one of utmost importance,
especially in closing the poem. Jazz was a type of music that had its
roots in slavery, which reminded me of the way these boys have felt
enslaved - yet this is contrasted by the month of "June" which
oddly connotes summer and freedom. This contrast exemplifies the
inner struggles within the boys to break free of the shackles they
feel hold them back (perhaps most importantly, society). When the
narrator says that he and his gang will "die soon," we realize that
the gang is fully aware that their activities will eventually lead to
their own death, but they no longer care, as their lives have lost
meaning in the first place. Their limited means of pleasure come
from the small forms of rebellion that take place when they "lurk
late" into the night. 

Through this story the poet relates many struggles of the youth in
that time period. Reading this poem refreshens the affliction that
consumed the youths that attempted to live freely in a society they
were told they did not belong in. Because such powerful emotions
were condensed such in such a small number of words, I felt the
power of each word hit longer and harder. This poem is so short,
but tells such a meaningful story that is so widely relatable on a
variety of levels. When you think about it, the poem not only
relates to a story, but also coincides with many thoughts that take
place within our minds. Through this, I think the poet succeeds in
drawing a connection between the past and our own selves, which

intrigues me all the more. 

The Age of Innocence: SO WHAT? 

My first blog for December must be about something special 

something fantastic. It is for this reason I’d like to further my thoughts concerning the underlying message of The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton. For what it’s worth, no novel has ever unnerved me the way this one did – it’s abrupt and unsettling ending resulted in frustration and shock from my end. Because this novel was so powerful in affected me personally, I think it is only fair to give justice to the novel itself by discussing my jumble of thoughts. I haven’t decided whether I like the ending or not (and I doubt I will for a while), but the ending of the novel is very influential in determining the various “so whats” of the novel. Although there were many, there was a very important underlying message that spoke out to me, as I was reading the novel.

Wharton paints a disturbingly accurate portrayal of the setbacks of a society that glorifies itself based as a whole, rather than giving importance to individual freedom, thought, and opportunities. Through this portrayal she emphasizes the importance of personal expression and freedom, and highlights the idea that deviance from society is perhaps, if you will, morally sound. Archer is constantly undergoing a struggle between succumbing to his inner desires versus maintaining his own individuality within the elite class of his society. In the perspective of society, Archer’s desires to be with Countess Olenska would be wrong on multiple levels. The relationship would ruin Archer’s reputation, as Ellen is a woman with a scandalous history concerning her love life. But beyond that, Archer’s relationship with Ellen would simply be perceived as another typical affair that men engage in throughout their lives. Archer himself is very aware of this, and he attempts to hold on to his individual values in the midst of such a pervading society, in which actions are assumed and judged without measure. Although the nature of Archer’s attraction for Ellen was one that “seemed to have reached the kind of deeper nearness that a touch may sunder” (Wharton 195), Archer has to hold himself back from his desires because of the ugly assumptions and consequences that would lay in store for him from his surroundings. I thought this was very interesting, as Wharton depicts Archer’s lost opportunities as a loss of a part of Archer himself, and through this I was able to extract a deeper meaning of the novel. The key idea lies in the way Archer loses his own individuality by denying himself Ellen Olenska: Ellen Olenska was a part of him, one that gave him meaning, one that created passion. When Archer’s position in society hinders him from pursuing his love interest, the strict social codes of society also strip him of his own freedom and opportunity, through which the author portrays the setbacks of a society that denies the very essence of humanity.

Touched by all aspects of this novel, I must fully appreciate this novel as it gave me a whole lot to think about concerning our own individuality within the societies that have consumed us to this very day.  

Fire and Ice

Robert Frost

Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I’ve tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

I was first introduced to this poem when we conducted poetry

readings in class. After closing our unit involving literary works that

discussed the whole relationship between "good" and "evil," I

realize that I understand this poem a lot better than the first time I

encountered it. Just as we have been discussing the extremes of fire

and ice within the inner conflictions of the "monstrous" mind, this

poem employs fire and ice as symbols of larger ideas that

represent the human mind.

My perception of the poem read the poem as presenting two sides

of a universal argument. Fire represents passion, something that can

be kindled inside of humans - I perceive this as love, affection,

intimacy, desire, hate, anger, etc. Ice on the other hand represents

the lack of sort of "hot" desire, perhaps including cruelty, apathy,

indifference, solitude, or the lack of any intense emotion. Will the

crazy passion that consumes the human race be responsible for the

end of humanity? Or will the indifference and apathy that

condemns humans be responsible for the end of humanity? The

narrator claims that from what he has "tasted" of fire, he believes

that holds the upper hand in this argument. By using the word

"tasted," the narrator implies he has only experienced a small part

of this sort of "hot" and "passionate" emotion, and through this he

understands the overwhelming power of such a feeling. Because

this feeling is so powerful, he is convinced that it will be the more

"animal-like" side of the human race that will lead to its own

demise.

But as I continued reading this poem, the idea sort of shifted. The

narrator then claims if he had to "perish twice" (meaning if the

world were to end once again after it had already ended from the "fire" side of humans), he believes ice would be "suffice" in ending the world. But the difference here is seen in the way he backs his reasoning by saying he has seen enough of "hate" to know ice would be suffice in ending the world. Through that line, the implication shows that the word "ice" may not mean indifference and apathy the way I first perceived it to be, but rather it represents hate and negativity. This could mean fire represents love, and ice represents hate. The narrator essentially states that both extremes of love and hate are capable of ending the world - perhaps he is telling us we need balance to keep the world alive.

More importantly, the author shows us that both fire and ice have

the came capabilities, thus portraying them as one and the same.

Although fire and ice - love and hate (and whatever larger meanings

these connote), are treated as exact opposites, they may simply

both be extremes that are responsible for destruction. Through this,

the poem seemed to be stressing the importance of maintaining a

balance within our desires and actions.

The idea of balance is definitely an idea I saw repeated through

Frankenstein and Grendel, and due to this I was able to relate to

this poem more, and associate larger real life and literary examples

to give this poem deeper meaning.

Light vs. Dark - Blake and Gardner 

There is absolutely no way in which we can explore the idea of contradictions and paradox without the acknowledgement of artist and poet William Blake - a figure in a time of revolution, fixated upon the idea that without contraries, there is no progression. Frankly, after having recently discussed some of Blake's work in class, I'll warn you this guy may give you a headache (hopefully though, it'll be the good kind - the kind that make you think). 

While probing in and out of Blake’s various works, I gravitated most towards the two introductory pieces to his interrelated major works “Songs of Innocence” and “Songs of Experience.” Not only were they enlightening on their own, they also served as an interesting supplement to our previous novel, Grendel, exemplifying much of the same thematic components prominent within the novel.

The human is filled with contradictions in thought, in feeling, and in actions. Life itself becomes paradoxical – we live to die and die to live. In the introduction to “Songs of Innocence,” the piper – often a character that connotes enthusiasm and passion, a child “wept with joy to hear” the song the piper enthusiastically sings to him. By the end of the poem, the child asks the piper to write the songs in a book for all children to hear, yet when the piper describes this process he claims, “I stain’d the water clear.” Extracting these details made me think of the whole idea of a transformation from innocence to maturity. The songs represent something capable of staining the purity of innocence, and the child weeps with joy to hear them. The child, being innocent, is incapable of understanding that these songs foreshadow destruction, yet Blake hints at it by commenting on the way the child weeps, which connotes sadness and helplessness. This is relatable to Grendel as well, because this whole poem represents a perspective of the loss of innocence. Is transitioning into adulthood as positive as it may seem? Grendel was internally conflicted between the pull of gaining experience and being “enlightened” versus the idea of remaining in a state of blissful ignorance. It is interesting to see how both Blake and Gardner have elements of the others ideas within their own works, and the reason for which Gardner included part of Blake’s work in the beginning of his own novel was explained through the overlapping themes that both literary figures discuss.

In the introduction to “Songs of Experience,” the poem talks of a Bard who sees the “Present, Past, & Future.” Through this, I think the poem is almost referring to those who are experienced, and when relating to Grendel, those who are enlightened. This part of the poem actually reminds me very much of the dragon himself, who was able to see through all of time. The third stanza of this poem manifests the theme of light versus dark as it speaks of the magnificence of Earth, but follows it up with the worn sense that swallows the night. This light versus dark parallels knowledge verses darkness or good versus evil. This is similar to Grendel, as Grendel struggles with defining what is good and what is evil. He is torn apart by the beauty of the Shaper’s songs, yet he refers to the Shaper’s words as ridiculous. He is drawn by the dragon’s knowledge, but his attempt to follow the dragon’s advice leads to his own doom. The real question is what truly is good? And what truly is evil? 

Though universal questions with no universal answers, both Blake's works and Gardner's Grendel help us see the varying perspectives on these questions. 

Grendel & Unferth: An Ongoing Battle 

Today, I was able to experience an enjoyable and enlightening discussion led by my fellow class members on the various events and those events significance within Chapter 6 of Grendel. Through this discussion, I definitely gained a larger perspective of the chapter as whole, and delved further into the relationship between Grendel and Unferth - a significantly pivotal part of this novel. In today's class discussion, we discussed the meaning of this relationship, what one means to another, what one represents for the other, and how this connects to the larger sphere of comprehension for this novel. Perhaps one of my favorite chapters in the novel so far, I'd like to share my own thoughts about these topics. 

I think the first area of interest resides within the physical communication and closeness of the interaction between Unferth and Grendel. Isn't it odd that Grendel and Unferth reach such a "closeness" that Unferth is able to understand every word Grendel says? "Oh I heard what you said. I caught your nasty insinuations," (Gardner 87) Unferth whispers to Grendel, laying on the ground, helplessly and pathetically. When Grendel first encounters humans, they mistake his words for anger and attempt to hurt him in response to that. This is definitely significant is showing a transition within Grendel, and setting Unferth apart from the common man. 

After chapter 5, well identifiable for Grendel's encounter with the dragon, Grendel's actions really gave off dragon-like vibes. In the way the dragon attempted to "enlighten" Grendel of the truth about life, Grendel seems to want to "enlighten" Unferth. When he throws apples at Unferth (typically representative of knowledge), he is basically manifesting that attempt to "enlighten" Unferth. He embodies the dragon greatly in this scene. Why do I keep using quotations for the word enlighten? Here is where the next topic of discussion lies. 

Is Grendel truly enlightened? He says, "Whatever I may have understood or misunderstood in the dragon's talk, something much deeper stayed with me, became my aura" (Gardner 75). In my opinion, I do not truly think Grendel is enlightened, but I think that Grendel has convinced himself that he is enlightened. If Grendel was truly enlightened, I think he would be able to reach past the point at which he is right now. In the way the dragon told Grendel that Grendel's role helped men define themselves, I believe man's attitude is actually rubbing off on Grendel - he is using their "un-enlightenment" to appear superior to them. This can also be traced back to the whole ascend vs. descend idea. Almost God-like, he descends into the land of men, and ascends back up to watch from a tree. This is truly ironic - Grendel describes the words of the Shaper's song as "ridiculous, not light for their darkness but flattery, illusion..." (Gardner 48). Hasn't Grendel created an illusion of enlightenment for himself? Is Grendel really all that different than the men he mocks? 

These points further convince me that every time Grendel commits a malicious deed towards men, he is only highlighting the flaws of his own inner self, as the attitude of man exists within himself as well. From the beginning of this novel, he had a peculiar sense of similarity to man - feeling similar emotions and acting greatly human-like. Through his actions, he appears to be giving up bits of himself, more importantly, clouding up his own identity. 

Just something to be thinking about! 

Eldorado 
Edgar Allen Poe 

Gaily bedight,

A gallant knight,

In sunshine and in shadow,

Had journeyed long,

Singing a song,

In search of Eldorado.

But he grew old-

This knight so bold-

And o'er his heart a shadow

Fell as he found

No spot of ground

That looked like Eldorado.

And, as his strength

Failed him at length,

He met a pilgrim shadow-

"Shadow," said he,

"Where can it be-

This land of Eldorado?"

"Over the Mountains

Of the Moon,

Down the Valley of the Shadow,

Ride, boldly ride,"

The shade replied-

"If you seek for Eldorado!"

Edgar Allen Poe may not be the ideal choice when searching for cheerful sunshine-filled poetry, but he certainly isn’t considered one of the greatest poets of all time for no reason. I was specifically attracted to this poem because of the endless number of interpretations that could be made – and of course, the way it sounds to the ears. Another one of my all-time favorites, “Eldorado” is yet another poem that allows me to think beyond the average piece of literature.

There are definitely many aspects to consider when attempting to interpret and analyze this poem, but personally, the principle question lies in Eldorado itself. What is Eldorado? What does it represent?

Structurally and rhythmically, there was one particular aspect that supported the idea that Eldorado may constitute a fantasy. Edgar Allen Poe wrote this poem in a way that emphasizes the similarity between the sound of the words “shadow” and “Eldorado”.  On a subjective note, this indicated to me that both of these signify a similar meaning. Perhaps this denoted that Eldorado was comparable to a shadow – both were not real objects of the world. Curiosity soon consumed me, and I investigated further upon the matter.

Eldorado, literally, means “the gilded place”, connoting a place of great riches and opportunity. This is quite significant, simply because it enforces my belief that Eldorado wasn’t a real place at all – it was misconceived by many to be a specific place of riches. As evident through history, men are weak and greedy when faced with the prospect of material wealth. This knight, although bold and strong, was like many others of his time; he was so distracted by the prospects of riches that he lost sight of the realities that truly made Eldorado what it was.

Eldorado represented something far more precious that valuable jewels. Eldorado was the knight’s journey itself. Through his journey, the knight was exposed to the beauties and experiences of the vast world. He saw the great miracles that no man could accomplish – yet he was truly blinded the entire time through the all overarching need to find the riches of Eldorado. When the knight asks the “pilgrim shadow” where the land of Eldorado is, the shadow only replies to him telling him he must go on further. This shadow was a manifestation of the consequence of his death, appearing immediately after “his strength failed him at length”. This furthers the impression that Eldorado was never an actual place, and the knight wasted his entire life searching for something that was never there – and missing out on all the opportunity of exploration and beauty that accompanied him throughout his journey. He was only rightly enlightened when it was too late.

This emphasizes an idea that people are guilty of even today. It is a part mankind’s innate nature to search for something they wildly desire; they search so feverishly that they lose sight of reality and forget to live their own lives.

This was simply a personal interpretation of the poem, and I 

have definitely thought of numerous more every time I read this work. Feel free to comment and expand on your own thoughts!  

            

Winesburg and "Prufrock"

           

Embedded in literature of different times and forms are common ties that bind them together thematically. Two of the recent works we have read in class are an ideal representation of this idea. Both the novel Winesburg, Ohio by Sherwood Anderson and the poem “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” (which I will refer to as “Prufrock”) by T. S. Eliot consist of common elements that tie them together, although different forms of literature. Both literary works illustrate ideas of fragmentation, disillusionment, and question of the meaning of life.

The most prevalent similarity lies in the structure of the two literary works as well. The structure of Winesburg consists of various stories of different characters all tied together by a repeating character, George Willard. Similarly, “Prufrock” consists of different sections that each create a different image, but are tied together by a similar speaker. By having different parts to create a whole, the literary works call attention to the details within each individual section, allowing us to connect smaller details to the meaning of the work as whole.

But the thematic connection lies beyond the fragmentation itself, focusing upon what this fragmentation insinuates about dismemberment and disillusionment. A common demonstration of this concept is seen in how both works use body parts heavily – separating them from the individual as a whole and focusing on the specific body part. This is seen in Winesburg throughout the novel. It mentions the “slender expressive fingers” (Anderson 6) of Wing Biddlebaum, the “white beard and huge nose” (Anderson 10) of Doctor Reefy, and the “long white hands” of Elizabeth Willard (Anderson 14). This dismemberment takes place to divert the attention from the large picture to distinct details that help create a persona for the characters. Similarly, “Prufrock” exhibits this same sort of dismemberment of the individual:

“And I have known the arms already, known them all–

Arms that are braceleted and white and bare

[But in lamplight, downed with light down hair!]

It is perfume from a dress

That makes me so digress?

Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a shawl."

Instead of speaking about the women, Elliot refers to their arms and dresses, perfume and shawls. This shows a fragmentation and dismemberment of the individual and highlights these details to show that the speaker feels admiring, yet out of place. Furthering this similarity lies in the tone and message of the two works as well. Throughout most of “Prufrock” there is a sense of aloofness in the speaker and a sense of disillusionment. This disillusionment transfers itself into Winesburg as well within characters such as Elizabeth Willard who gradually becomes separated from herself, other people, and God. Another example of this would be Wash Williams, who appears to believe nothing in the world is worth noting other than himself. This brings the common idea of some sort of tragedy in the characters in Winesburg and the speaker in “Prufrock” that makes them feel separated from themselves, others, and God.

This disillusionment spurs the additional question of the meaning of life, and what an individual should seek to do with his life. In both Winesburg, Ohio and “Prufrock”, the overarching question of the meaning of life is prominent in enhancing the works thematically. In “Prufrock” there are many instances the speaker questions his current state of life and his future:

“In a minute there is time

For decisions and revision which a minute will reverse

….

And should I then presume

And how should I begin?”

In Winesburg, Ohio, George Willard is a young man that questions how he should go about his own life. This sort of question of development is apparent in the story of “Sophistication”, which ended with my own question of whether George had indeed matured. Both Winesburg and “Prufrock” display people that are struggling coming to terms with their existence and are unsure of what to do with their futures.

These thematic elements allowed for me to tie these overarching ideas to the larger scope of literature, something that brings out feelings I really can’t help but appreciate. 

Shortcomings of a "Grotesque" 

While reading Winesburg Ohio, the idea of the “grotesques” was mirrored throughout every short story within the novel. The narrator defines grotesques for us in The Book of the Grotesque as follows: the “notion that the moment one of the people took one of the truths to himself, called it his truth, and tried to live his life by it, he became a grotesque and the truth he embraced became a falsehood” (Anderson 3). Although this gives us a sense of what makes the grotesques who they are, I noted that there were some other common elements that made the inhabitants of Winesburg, “grotesque” in essence. One of the more important aspects that I perceived to be characterizing of the grotesques was their personal inability to express their thoughts, highlighting their ineffectiveness in thought and their unsuccessful attempts at communication.

The ineffective and indecisive nature of human thought and communication is visible in Paper Pills. In this story, Doctor Reefy relieves his thoughts on “scraps of paper that became hard balls and were thrown away” (Anderson 11). These scraps of paper represent the thoughts, and the truths that Doctor Reefy is unable to communicate to someone else. Doctor Reefy continually shoves these scraps of paper into his pockets, which he later throws onto the ground – these actions indicate an unwillingness or conflict in Reefy’s demeanor involving the acceptance of his own thoughts and his own truths. Even the peculiar way in which Reefy throws the round hard balls at the owner of the tree nursery expose his futile attempts to communicate in response to the sense of dismemberment Doctor Reefy feels from society. Also strange was the timing of the death of Doctor Reefy’s wife, consequently dying after Reefy read his the thoughts on the scraps of paper to her. This may even indicate that Reefy was unable or incapable of allowing his thoughts to exist anywhere besides these seemingly insignificant round hard balls. Through this internal conflict, Reefy portrays the human thought aspect of a “grotesque”.

A character that experiences this same shortcoming is Enoch Robinson, described as a character that “wanted to talk but didn’t know how” (Anderson 101). Similar to Doctor Reefy, Enoch has coherent and developed thoughts and ideas within his mind, but he is unable to communicate these to people, remaining quiet and awkward within a crowd of talkative people. He yearned to understand people and to have them understand him. To fill this void, he created for himself a world of his own, existing within the walls of his room in New York. These “shadow people” were invented by the child like mind of Enoch Robinson, who found no other outlet in expressing his thoughts. When a woman visits Enoch, Enoch feels that the woman is too big for the room – that her presence is driving his invented ghosts away. Simultaneously, he holds a deep desire for her to understand his own position in the room and understand himself. This internal confliction reflects the same one that haunts Doctor Reefy – a yearning to outwardly express personal thoughts countered by the inability to express or communicate such ideas.

When reading Winesburg, Ohio, many character relationships, similarities and contrasts helped expose a deeper meaning of the text, and further illuminated the overarching theme of the constitution of a “grotesque”. The comment made on human thought and communication was a strong influence on this overall message. 

[love is more thicker than forget]

    By e.e. cummings 

love is more thicker than forget
more thinner than recall
more seldom than a wave is wet
more frequent than to fail

it is most mad and moonly 
and less it shall unbe
than all the sea which only 
is deeper than the sea

love is less always than to win 
less never than alive
less bigger than the least begin
less littler than forgive

it is most sane and sunly
and more is cannot die
than all the sky which only
is higher than the sky 

E. E. Cummings, famous for his tendency to stray from typically accepted grammatical rules, is by far one of my favorite poets. His 'rebellious' nature, in sort, brings about a clean cut, down to earth, feeling about his poetry. Although short and precise, his poems are eccentric and interesting, and I can't help but enjoy his distinct personal style. 

Here, here! We run into that fickle little question once again - the question that exists among toddlers and adolescents, old people and young people. What is love? And here, I allow [love is more thicker than words] to come into play...this poem is the best definition I have ever encountered. 

In this poem, Cummings employs and emphasizes the use of comparisons to depict the nature of love, its vitality and flexibility, and what it truly encompasses. He begins his first stanza by comparing love to forgetfulness, perhaps indicating the changeable and inconsistent nature by which is it exists. Similar to the "forgetfulness", he introduces the concept of "waves", both words having the connotation of being inconsistent, coming and going, almost being erratic and capricious. Oddly, at the same time he counters both of these statements with their opposites, evident in the apparent contrast in the phrases "love is more thicker than forget" being followed by "more thinner than recall." By utilizing this sharp contrast, Cummings goes on to portray the fickle nature of love, and the idea that it may not always truly be as it appears. These elements of what makes love 'fickle' is seen in Cumming's diction, another example seen in the use of the word "moonly" (as moon phases are not constant). With the short phrases and abrupt changes in topic, Cummings allows for the structure of the poem itself to be representative of the meaning it is attempting to deliver. 

The end of the second stanza offers a transition in the tone and meaning of the poem. Preceded by a more playful tone about the whimsical nature of love, the stanzas subsequent to the second begin to take a deeper and more poignant tone, emphasizing the power and depth of this emotion. He proceeds to compare love to the depth of the sea, the vitality of being alive, and the immortality of being unable to die. The last stanza is most significant: 

it is most sane and sunly
and more is cannot die
than all the sky which only
is higher than the sky 

By using the phrases "cannot die" and "higher than the sky" Cummings acknowledges that love is something beyond the scope of human abilities, and although humans can feel it, they are incapable of consciously putting it into words or sensing the transition into the transcendent state of being. In addition to the interpretation of his work, his syntax and diction is reflective of the idea of love. The grammatical flaws that characterize his style have a significance to them. Creating words such as "sunly" and "moonly", and using phrases like "more thicker" and "less bigger", not only emphasizes the intensity and sensitivity of emotion, but also highlights the unavoidable sense of confusion that love is entangled within.   

Above all, E. E. Cummings is able to convey that love is, in essence, incomparable. Nothing can compare to love – not forget, nor recall, not death, nor the sky. And that folks, is what I consider the best definition of love. 

A Blessing in Disguise or Disguised as a Blessing? 

Having been unable to further discuss the role of peculiar character, Doctor Reefy in Winesburg Ohio throughout our recent panel group discussions, I thought this was the perfect opportunity to expand and share my thoughts on this extremely captivating subject. Throughout his significant roles in the personal lives of “the tall dark girl” (Anderson 11) and Elizabeth Willard in the inner narratives of both Paper Pills and Death, there was but a fundamental question that emerged through the clouds of confusion and connection in my mind. What is it concerning this old and oddly reserved man that supposedly “soothed” these women? Was he sane or insane, good or bad, moral or immoral, honest or dishonest?  

As I further analyzed both stories involving Doctor Reefy, I was able to draw connections and similarities between his relationships – connections that I simply couldn’t accept as mere coincidences. A similarity was drawn due to the way by which the narrator refers to both of these women. In Death, Elizabeth Willard is called a “tall beautiful girl” (Anderson 137) which happened to be identical to the description of Doctor Reefy’s wife of one year, described “quiet, tall, and dark, and to many people she seemed very beautiful” (Anderson 10). Both women came to Doctor Reefy in times of need and contemplation, simply to relieve the endless thoughts and afflictions of their minds. But the primary event corresponding to the other lies in the death of both the “tall dark girl” and Elizabeth Willard. An increasingly ironic – even suspicious – feeling emerged inside me as I realized that Doctor Reefy was unable to save these two women. Both scared and helpless women that became romantically attached to Reefy fell to death, arousing the question – Was Doctor Reefy indeed the comforting man we all perceived him to be?

From the get-go, Doctor Reefy’s character possessed strange attributes as he loved “filling his pockets with scraps of paper that became hard balls and were thrown away” (Anderson 11). Connecting this to the title of this short narrative, these paper balls are referred to as paper pills. Perhaps they contained some sort of medicinal quality that allowed Doctor Reefy to comfort himself. The truths written upon these scraps of paper were Reefy’s escape – they were secret. In Paper Pills it is said that, “During the winter he read to her all of the odds and ends of thoughts he has scribbled on the bits of paper” (Anderson 12). It is also said that “the tall dark girl” dies in the following spring. Was Doctor Reefy actually the one responsible for her death? Could he not stand that another individual had invaded on these truths that plagued his scraps of paper and essentially consumed his mind?

Additionally, I found myself pondering how Doctor Reefy “did not see the women he had held in his arms again until after her death” (Anderson 140) in Death. Why did Elizabeth leave him at the point they were to become true lovers? It was told she descended the stairs and did not visit him again – the stairs seemed to represent that Elizabeth Willard was descending onto a different level – the stairs essentially became a passage to her alternate mode of existence that characterized the remainder of her life. After her affair with Doctor Reefy, she became intensely obsessed with the release of death, she hungered for death, and she became more ill than ever before. And the question remains – Was Doctor Reefy indeed the comforting man we all perceived him to be?

The answer may never be certain or fully discovered but it offers a completely new angle in the two short stories, and on the comprehension of the idea of what truly comprises the grotesques in this novel. This was among my favorite mystery that characterized the novel – and believe me, there are plenty!

Drawing Connections

Although it may not be noticeable at first, in her novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley carefully crafts her novel through the inclusion of excerpts of other literary works in her own. By doing this she successfully creates a connection between the two literary works meanings, and a connection between the reader and comprehension of the novel as well.

One of her most significant displays of intertextuality is seen when she incorporates a part of Wordsworth’s Tintern Abbey in her own novel, simply changing it to the third person. This is included towards the close of chapter 18, when Victor is describing his beloved friend Henry Clerval as Clerval accompanies him on a trip to England. The excerpt included reads:

“The sounding cataract

Haunted him like a passion: the tall rock,

The mountain, and the deep gloomy wood,

Their colours and their forms, were then to him

And appetite; a feeling and a love,

That had no need of a remoter charm,

By thought supplied, nor any interest

Unborrow’d from the eye.”

In Tintern Abbey, Wordsworth is essentially in the process of relating two different aspects of himself: his past self and his present self when visiting Tintern Abbey. This process is both internal and external: combining the elements of nature and his personal feelings to speak for the transcendent sense of emotions that consume him. This specific excerpt refers to Wordsworth in the days of his youth, his days of an ardent love for nature, and his days of effusive admiration for the towering mountains, verdant lands, and rushing streams that characterized his visits to Tintern Abbey five years before the present time. This identical excerpt is used in Frankenstein to describe Henry Clerval, longtime companion of the severely conflicted Victor Frankenstein.

My theory for why Shelley included this particular passage from the poem lies within the idea that Shelley desired to portray the sharp contrast between Victor and Clerval, although their basic seeds of thought were essentially the same. Even as Victor begins to expand upon Henry he exclaims, “Alas, how great was the contrast between us” (Shelley 138). As Clerval, similar to Wordsworth in his youth, observes nature and the scenery with interest and delight, Victor is too preoccupied with the haunting thoughts of the creature’s request to appreciate what Clerval can fully take in. The contrast is so apparent – although both Clerval and Victor had started with a passion for ingenious thought and discovery they turned in two opposite directions. Henry represents something alive and lively, similar to the deafening sound of a cataract. Similar to various colors, feelings, and forms just like the excerpt in Wordsworth’s essay. On the opposite spectrum, Victor was, in essence, lost and gone, troubled by a curse that barred any opportunities of pleasure.

This excerpt immediately draws a parallel between Henry and Victor, and makes Henry a foil character. Henry sees nature as an appetite, a feeling and a love – he respects natural beauty in a way Victor does not. Victor represents the sharp contrast in his obvious attempts to manipulate nature through the application of science. When Victor uses these words to describe Henry, he is essentially commenting on Henry’s ability to appreciate what Victor felt the need to tamper with. Perhaps Victor, because he is actually telling this story after Clerval has already died, feels the need to include these words to emphasize the deep or hidden guilt he felt because something he created led to the destruction of his best friend. This subtle emotion seems to echo throughout the elongated description of Henry Clerval.

I definitely understand why Shelley chose that excerpt to include in her own novel. It successfully draws a parallel between minor character Clerval and major character Victor and illuminates the peculiar qualities that set Victor apart from the norm. I found this a strategic way to draw literary works together, and place them in a way the feelings and thoughts of one easily allow for the flow and characterization of the other. 

The Human Drive

What is it about the human condition that has us relentlessly yearning for meaning? It’s a theme, manifest throughout pages of literature that transform into social commentaries. The human soul is unremittingly searching for something to fill the void – for truth and knowledge. And lastly, it requires approval, a dangerous and longing approval.

Throughout all the different novels I read over the summer, it was a repeating theme, molded according to the story. In Frankenstein, Victor thirsts for knowledge and accomplishment hoping to allow inanimate object life. In The Great Gatsby, Gatsby spends his whole life trying to gain Daisy’s approval by involving himself into a lavish life that he was sure she would find impressive. In The Alchemist, young shepherd Santiago goes on a journey to find his treasure and true destiny. It’s almost peculiar that this idea shows up in different time periods over and over again. If this type of literature shows up time and time again, it must obviously represent something about the nature of the human condition. Maybe it’s something we don’t realize because it’s so inherent, or maybe it’s something we choose to ignore because it’s so conspicuous. 

Authors mold things – they morph them and distort them to make their point. They conceive what others do not – they’re revolutionaries in human thought. It must reflect something to come up numerous times, it’s something to contemplate about the human self. In much literature, the humans are pursuing their own ambitions of finding themselves, or finding their own meaning, of attaining what others may normally not. This human drive, from our surroundings to our own selves becomes such a deep part of us, so existent, that literature it written to reflect it. I thought it was definitely interesting to notice these handpicked themes that ran through many examples of literature.

But this has not only come to reflect ideas in literary fiction; commercial fiction grabs these ideas to publicize these qualities of human nature as well. These ideas come in the form of a journey, a mission, or a quest. They come through emotional changes, societal changes, and the change of nature. In the Harry Potter series, main character Harry is always searching to find the truth about his parents, and he is in the process creating his own destiny, and in essence, his meaning. In The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Charlie confides in an eventual truth that he had been unconsciously searching for about his aunt. These books reflect our nature, in the way our nature reflects our being.

With no doubt, literature is subjective. But its subjectivity allows the human mind to think differently, innovatively, and contemplate the meaning of someone else’s work. While reading Frankenstein, I realized how I found similarities in other books, books I could have never imagined. When someone thinks of Frankenstein, they don’t think of The Alchemist, and when someone thinks of The Alchemist, they probably don’t think of Harry Potter.

I definitely found this distinct connection between novels worth noting…and I’ll definitely be noting the next time I’m wrapped up in a good book.