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.