Empty-handed and empty-hearted

After finishing the book, The Crying of Lot 49 is on some levels very dissatisfying. With a cliff-hanger ending like that, it makes the reader very suspicious as to what actually happened during the crying of lot 49. Did Oedipa find the answer to her conspiracy? Who is this mysterious bidder who she is waiting upon? I think that the answer to these questions lie within the reader. An ending like this demands an answer and therefore the reader will fabricate one. Since Pynchon has not finished the plot, I feel like it gives the reader freedom to finish the story however he or she pleases. I personally believe that the whole conspiracy Oedipa is trying to solve is actually a conspiracy against herself.
I may even go as far as to say that the mysterious bidder could be Pierce himself. Every company, store, or theater that Oedipa visited was, in some way, linked to Pierce. In addition, he was a very whimsical man, for whom something this elaborate would not be out of character. He could have, as far as Oedipa was concerned, faked his death. He could have paid off Metzger and all of the other "actors" in his plot. Also, Oedipa was constantly having hallucinations that made it that much easier for her to be fooled.
Whether the mysterious bidder was Pierce or simply a mysterious bidder ultimately does not matter. I feel like the point of the ending implemented by Pynchon conveys a sense of futile searching. Oedipa is constantly searching for an answer to her questions. Whenever she finds information, it does not lead to answers at all, but rather to more questions. Her constant journey did not only take a toll on her health, but it also pulled her from her friends and family leaving her alone and confused. In a way, this ending may do something similar for the reader. It is an ending that forces the reader to search for an answer that he or she will never find. Oedipa poured all that she had into finding what the Tristero was and conclusively ended up empty-handed and empty-hearted.

The weight of the world

The first chapter of The Crying of Lot is very interesting and contains a lot to translate and digest. After reading it twice, it seems as if all the characters have underlying emotional or physical problems. Oedipa, however, seems the most in control of herself, but she still apparently struggles with hallucinations that keep her up all night. When prescribed medicine (which happens to be LSD) she says, "I am having a hallucination now, I don't need drugs for that." It is also apparent that Oedipa has a lot of trouble with men.
First, there is Pierce Inverarity. He is a boyfriend of Oedipa's from the past who seemed to be very whimsical. Later in the chapter, Oedipa, while looking at a tapestry, imagines herself as Rapunzel. Pierce begins to climb her hair but it ultimately falls off like a wig. He then uses a credit card to get into the tower, but ultimately nothing comes of it. I feel like Oedipa really liked the audacity and capriciousness of Pierce, but could not bring herself to accept his lifestyle. She ended up breaking up with him and marrying Wendell ("Mucho") Maas. One evening, a year before she had received the letter that she was the executor of Pierce's will, she had received a phone call from him. Mucho tells Oedipa to hang up, but the reader gets a sense that she is intrigued by the phone call and perhaps a bit flattered. Pierce went through all of his vocal impersonations which it stirred up all of those feelings that Oedipa once held for him.
In speaking of Mucho, he was a very insecure man. He had worked at a used car lot that he despised. He constantly saw the destitute lives of those who came to trade in cars. Five years of the dirt, the grunge, and the impurity caked upon those cars caused him to approach having a nervous breakdown. He tried to dissociate from that image by keeping himself obsessively clean. However, he still saw himself in every car that he sold--dirty and broken.
It was stated that, "he could see the way each owner, each shadow, filed in only to exchange a dented, malfunctioning version of himself for another." It is ambiguous here as to whether "himself" refers to the one trading in the car or to Mucho. After he quit this job, he began to work for KCUF radio station. At this point, one must pause and look at what KCUF actually spells backwards.
Not only did Oedipa have to deal with her husband's insecurity but she also had to deal with the family lawyer's, Roseman, attraction towards her. Not only does he try to play footsie with her, but he also asks her to run away with him. Oedipa, being level-headed, constantly combats his fronts with facetious, but hard hitting responses. The first chapter does not give us anything solid as far as motifs or themes, but it does give us a solid foundation for the issues that are going to be addressed in the novel. Oedipa has a lot to deal with on her plate, and I am looking forward to see how she digests it all.

Not seeing the light

I am going to be honest, when reading Faulkner's, "There was a Queen," I had no epiphanies or moments of making connections that were crucial in the story. Reading through it, I simply saw it as a sort of odd story. Although I did not find some great deeper meaning within the story, I did come across a few points worthy of discussion. The first is Elnora. The story begins with her walking up to the house from her cabin. Being a servant of the house (by this time slavery had ended), it was implied that she didn't ask questions about what Narcissa, the young white woman living in the house, did or why. It seemed that throughout this story, there was a constant stress of the black servants not listening to or questioning what the white people did. For instance, when Elnora was questioning Isom in order to find out what Narcissa had spoken about with the old Aunt, he responded, "I don't know'm. You the one taught me not to listen to white folks." Although they both had it in their head that it was unacceptable to eavesdrop or question "white folks," Isom still had the answer to her question and Narcissa still desired to know. It's as if they felt as if they shouldn't listen, but it was something they consistently did anyways.
In addition, Elnora harbored a lot of bitterness an enmity toward Narcissa. It seemed as if Elnora was angry at the laziness of Narcissa, or perhaps there could have been more to the story. Elnora even goes as far as to call Narcissa, "Trash. Town trash." One part that I did not understand was how the entire family tree fit together. I did not understand what made someone a Sartoris man or woman and what the significance of that was. However, Elnora, with her enmity toward Narcissa stated that, "She won't ever be a Sartoris woman." I have received the connotation that being a Sartoris man or woman is something of prestige or personal pride. I feel as if one must understand how this entire family tree is put together in order to understand the true significance of a Sartoris man or woman.
I am not really sure what themes Faulkner is trying to convey in this story. There are so many dynamics running at once in the story that I am not quite sure how to translate them. I see Narcissa's struggle with her self image because of certain explicit letters written about her. I also see Elnora's struggle with herself as a half-black woman. She is constantly dictating who is "quality" and who is "trash." I also did not understand the significance of Aunt Jenny's death in the end or who the "old woman" was sitting next to the "dead widow." I'm sure once this is discussed in class I will gain a better understanding of how Faulkner put all of this together. However for now, I am still a bit in the dark.

If Only

After reading through the essays posted about "The Young Housewife," I have gathered that most base this poem's substance on sexual lust. As Marjorie Perloff stated in her interpretation, "In his erotic fantasy, the poet wants to make this attractive housewife a 'fallen leaf' to the 'noiseless wheels of his car...'" This seems to be a valid interpretation, but the connotation I received from the poem was a sense of respect, and perhaps a bit of tender pity.

Initially, the wife is not only seen, "behind the wooden walls of her husband's house," but also, "in negligee." As Barry Ahearn claims, "The poem focuses attention on various tangible barriers and containers." This conveys a sense that the young housewife is bound by her homely clothing and the wooden walls of her husband's house--indicating that he has control over her. I view the narrator as playing on the word negligee and is intending to channel the impression that the wife is not only bound by her husband but neglected by him also. He sees into her true beauty despite that she is not only un-kept but also unavailable. I feel that the narrator desires to give her the respect that she deserves as woman of beauty--not simply an object of attraction.

Towards the end of the poem, the housewife is distinctly compared to a fallen leaf. In autumn, when leaves start to change colors and fall, it indicates an end to a time of growth and cultivation. However, autumn, because of its brilliant colors, is also considered to be one of the most beautiful times of the year. I feel the narrator here is indicating that, although the housewife is a fallen leaf and perhaps a bit past her prime, she is still beautiful. He is aware that she is married and has a life of her own. He continues to drive on soundlessly except for the crunching of the leaves beneath his wheels--the breaking and scattering of his momentary daydream of what things could be. He continues to drive and passes smiling leaving behind him the fragments of a short-lived whimsical inkling.

I feel that the narrator, for a few seconds, began to daydream about this woman and let his mind sprint off almost subconsciously. Most of this fantasy stemmed from his desire of something he knew he couldn't have. Would the narrator have truly desired the housewife if she wasn't married? In speaking of her husband, how does one know if he actually neglected or confined her? She could have been perfectly content where she was. This whole poem seems to have been derived from a cursory glance and from a series of thoughtless assumptions that ultimately translated into a futile longing for something that the poet could not have.

Heart of a Child (in response to Chris' post)

I believe that the very last two lines of Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in some sense entail what Chris is trying to convey. Huck states that, "I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me and I can't stand it." This statement shows that Huck, despite all the growing up that he has had to do, is still a child at heart and desires to build his life upon that. I believe that Huck doesn't want to be tainted by the ill-will and depravity of this world and would rather grow up unbound by society's standards. There is something in the faith of a child, and perhaps the naivety of child, that we lose as we grow up. We forget to enjoy and to embrace the freedom and the simple pleasures life has thrown at us.

Twain, throughout the novel, has constantly striven to convey this sense of child-like innocence in Huck. Perhaps he is trying to remind his readers of the child we all used to be—or still are—and to never fully let go of that. Even though every human being must at some point grow up and take responsibility for his or her actions—that is not to say that he or she must let go of the freedom learned in childhood. If one looks hard enough and opens their heart wide enough, there is always something to be taken to heart from the candidness and innocence of a child.

Tunnel Vision

Throughout Chesnutt's, "The Passing of Grandison," it is interesting to see the consistent conflict between the Colonel's apparent acknowledgement of the slaves' humanity and his desire to continue to keep his slaves as monetary objects. It is said that, "his negroes were the outward and visible sign of his wealth and station, and therefore sacred to him." Built up in this statement are two starkly different connotations. The first is his apparent need to have slaves as a symbol of wealth and power, and the other is the high level of esteem he carries for his slaves denoted by the word "sacred." The Colonel continues on to talk about how he is going to allow Grandison and Betty to get married--indicating that he is completely aware of the humanity with Grandison and the love that he can have for a woman.
When charity speaks of the slaves, it seems that she is more sided with the abolitionists--perhaps only out of apathetic naivety. When a slave-stealer was on trial for "stealing" a slave away, Charity said that, "He dared something for humanity." She also says that she wishes, "that all Sam Brigg's negroes would run away." Perhaps she is only saying this because she was caught up in the moment of Briggs' violence and that was her gut instinct. Later on when Dick is speaking of stealing on of his father's slaves she replies, "What nonsense! You must be losing your wits... what you are talking about is merely absurd." It seems that she only speaks for the moment--what she feels for the then and there.
In contrast with Charity, the Colonel seems to want to keep his slaves happy, at least the ones he likes, but at the same time, keep them well under lock and key. He tries to convince himself that his slaves are genuinely happy being enslaved to him. He even goes as far as to say that, "Just think of their [The abolitionists] locking the poor, faithful nigger up, beating him, kicking him, depriving him of his liberty." The Colonel almost truly believes that his slaves would rather live with him under the yoke of slavery (his “liberty”) than live a life of freedom. It is unquestionable as to whether the Colonel sees humanity in his slaves. When he cares for Grandison after returning from his time of captivity, there is a genuine compassion in his eyes--it almost brings him to tears. This however does not overcome the Colonel’s need to keep the slaves under his tight fist--making sure that he lives up to his outward and visible sign of wealth.

Drifting to Freedom

Throughout the novel, the Mississippi River represents for Huck and Jim a sense of freedom--not just a physical sense of freedom but a deeper freedom that has broken their obligations to live up to the expectations of those in the outside world. The river gave them a chance to genuinely explore who they were apart from the "sivilized" society imposed by those back home. The Mississippi forced them to make decisions that would further chisel away all the domesticated cladding that was hiding their true nature. Not only did it free Huck from the authoritarian Miss Watson, but it also revealed to the reader the compassion, intelligence, and utter humanity within Jim.
However, the river is not just a place of soul searching; it is also a place of solace and solitude. Huck describes the river as having, "nothing to hear nor nothing to see--just solid lonesomeness." Because it was so imperative for Huck and Jim to hide from the outside world, it forced them to grow closer to each other and to rely deeply on the friendship that had formed between the two. This friendship can be seen in Jim's response to the separation in the fog when he states that his, "heart wuz mos' broke bekase you [Huck] wuz los'." When Jim and Huck are on land, this deep friendship is in some ways truncated because of the pressure to conform to mainstream society.
It is apart from the river when Huck regresses back to dictating his actions in order to live to the standards of others--namely Tom Sawyer. Huck states that, "Tom told me what his plan was, and I see in a minute it was worth fifteen of mine for style, and would make Jim just as free a man as mine would, and maybe get us all killed besides. So I was satisfied, and said we would waltz in on it." It is away from this flow of freedom that Huck becomes sucked back into living his life based upon the feelings of others. After all is said and done, Huck ultimately chooses to leave this "sivilized" society in order to make choices on his own and to carry on the spirit of the Mississippi. He says, "But I reckon I got to light out for the territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she’s going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can’t stand it. I been there before." Huck understands the pressures that were placed on him and his willingness to give into those pressures. He constantly yearned for the freedom and individuality that ran so deep and wide along the depths of the Mississippi.

Time Heals

When Dickinson writes, she packs every line with such depth of meaning. In, "After great pain, a formal feeling comes," her imagery and metaphors are so tactfully chosen and placed. This poem goes into detail about how one naturally chooses to deal with their experiences of pain and suffering. It explores how time and progression through life have a slow, but definitive effect on one's perspective of the experiences he has undergone.

When she speaks of the, "Feet, mechanical," going round, one can almost see the "feet" of a clock slowly turning. As this clock turns and life progresses on, one's "regardless" begins to grow for the pain he has encountered. The memories begin to fade and the experience has been transformed from something traumatic to a lesson learned. When Dickinson speaks of a, "Quartz contentment," perhaps she is speaking of a contentment that is commonly found as quartz is such a commonly found stone. This contentment slowly begins to deepen and root itself into the heart of one who has faced hardships until it becomes something solid. Dickinson's language is so metaphoric that many times it is hard to pin down what she is trying to say.

In the last stanza, she has written of how, "Freezing persons, recollect the Snow--/ First--Chill--then Stupor--then letting go--." This phrase is so applicable to one's life. It speaks of remembering those hardships we have faced and the "chill" that follows thereafter. We are then, in a way, dumbstruck which causes confusion and misunderstanding. But ultimately we conclude that sometimes obstacles faced are simply part of life--and to hold on to them is to prevent ourselves from continuing on our journey. Letting go takes effort, but as time progresses, it empowers us to make that decision and to see things objectively.

In Response to Jen...

Although Whitman never directly calls his readers to a war for union, this whole poem seems to be indirectly attempting to unite the American people against division and war. Some might say that this, in and of itself, is a call toward open opposition of the war—which may include active resistance. I feel as if Whitman, at this point, is trying to spur his readers on toward action by making them resent the war that is being fought upon their lands. Jen sees this as a complete disdain for war in general, but I see it as a method of reverse psychology to inadvertently push the American people into fighting against that which divides their nation—which, at this point, is war itself.
I do, however, agree with the fact that there is no reference to emancipation in this poem. Where Whitman is very adamant against the civil war, he provides no other alternatives or means of escape. Because this poem facilitated civil unrest about the ongoing war without providing any solutions, it was probably, in the end, more antagonistic towards Whitman’s cause than it was progressive. He does not address the source of the war and nor does he provide his readers with a way to find their way out of the curse of war.
I also agree with Jen’s description of the authors’ attitudes. They seem to view the blood and suffering as something to be observed and studied rather than soaking in the true inhumanity of it all. Both Horton and Whitman seem to be simply taking note of what is happening, and although they do expose the horrors of war, it seems to be on a journalistic level rather than on a personal level. Jen made some very good points and I do stand beside most of them.

A Call for Unity... but How?

In "Beat! Beat! Drums!" Whitman is playing directly on the emotions and grievances of his readers. I see this as a means to incite a broken nation to unity by banding its people together against a common malady. There is, as far as I can see, no reference in this poem to slavery or the things of slavery. Even when speaking of farmers, Whitman states, "Nor the peaceful farmer any peace [must he have], ploughing his field or gathering his grain." This does not even acknowledge the fact that farmers, at this time, had slaves plowing their fields and gathering their grain. Neely described Whitman's writing as interpreting the Civil War as a "war for Union," rather than, "a war of liberation."
Although the poem is clearly denouncing war as an acceptable means to ending the division between the north and the south, it respectively does not offer any satisfactory solutions on how to peaceably end this disunion. It never addresses the causes of the war (i.e. slavery, difference in ideals, etc..), but rather condemns the war as unacceptable. Whitman, here, is attempting to raise awareness of the atrocities of the war and, in his readers, is trying to provoke a catharsis of the inhumanity displayed by the war. It is not his goal to burrow into its causes and foundations, but rather to display in full color its negative consequences and ramifications.
Like Whitman, it seems as if Horton also strives to unveil the, "Terrors of War," rather than actually attempting to understand what adds fuel to the fire. In, "The Spectator of the Battle of Belmont," he manifests the cruelty and bloodiness of the battle and even states that a "spirit" alone can consummately convey the barbarity displayed on this battlefield. Once again, there is no solution provided or cause targeted, but rather a condemnation of the elements of the war rather than the source of its beginnings. It can be concluded then, that Neely was correct in his assertion. The atrocities of slavery are not uncovered, nor are they even mentioned in these poems. Whitman is ultimately trying to lead a war-torn nation out of a battle on ideologies without providing his followers with any viable avenues of escape.

Beat! Beat! Drums!... Wait... no... don't do that!

I think it is interesting to see how Whitman has written this entire poem in imperative form. He, in a literal sense, is telling the drums to keep beating and the bugles to keep on blowing. He is commanding the troops to continue ravaging the cities and to make unhappy the lives of those living there. "Mind not the timid--mind not the weeper or prayer." He, by using this form of speech, is almost personifying himself as the General of all things raucous and belligerent. Whitman is placing himself into the persona of that which he despises, and magnifying the militant, mercenary ambitions that he believes to exist there.
He moves his readers by commanding his supposed infantry to destroy and to disregard all things common folk hold dear. He tells them to, "leave not the bridegroom quiet--no happiness must he have now with his bride." Whitman knows where his readers invest their emotions, and he exploits that compassion and charity by transforming it into contempt for those that threaten this lock box of love. He seems to be, however, very careful as to how far he is willing to take this role-play. He never completely oversteps his bounds and is very tactful in drawing the line to demarcate how far is too far.
Whitman was a man very in touch with the his own sentiments and was therefore able to play on the sentiments of others. Perhaps the whole meaning of this poem is summed up in the last line, "So strong you thump O terrible drums--so loud you bugles blow." This and the last line of the first stanza are the only phrases of the poem that are not compulsory or inciting. Here, we are able to see a bit of Whitman break through the persona he has drawn up in order to embody. His method of persuasion in this poem is not only well thought out, but is commendably executed.

Thinking outside the box...

Benito Cereno, being written from the protagonist perspective of Captain Delano, can sway the readers' by giving them a very negative connotation of the slaves aboard the San Dominick. With the conclusion of the story, the reader generally will have garnered a sense of satisfaction knowing that the slave revolt on the ship was put down by the valiant efforts of Captain Delano and Don Benito. It is very interesting to take a gander into this story from the perspective of the slaves and to understand how they felt during these events.
In Benito Cereno, it is often overlooked that these slaves were wrenched from their homeland and forced into submission by the Spaniards. The narrator conveys an image of unrelenting cruelty and lack of pity when describing the actions of the slaves whereas this very description can be used to characterize the actions of the Spaniards. When Delano had the epiphany of perceiving the macrocosm of the slaves hidden scheme, it was said that, "the scales dropped from his eyes, [he] saw the negroes, not in misrule, not in tumult, not as if frantically concerned for Don Benito, but with mask torn away, flourishing hatchets and knives, in ferocious piratical revolt." It seems most likely that the majority subjected to these aforementioned conditions would do their best to formulate a plan in order to overthrow their oppressors. The narrator also says via Don Benito's account that, "Don Alexandro; that, yet half alive and mangled, they dragged him on deck; that they were going to throw him overboard in that state..."
This all being said, it is hard to read this story with empathy towards the slaves. It intrigues me to think how easily this story could have been shifted from satisfying to tragic by switching protagonist aspects. Authors have so much power in controlling the readers' emotions and their response to works of literature simply telling the story from the perspective of their choosing.

An affinity for pain.

Throughout "The Raven," the narrator seems to be in a constant need to feel misery for himself. He has lost his love, "Lenore," and seems to be in a state of mourning for her. It is a bleak night in December, and he is sitting in his chamber alone trying to console himself by reading. When he rises and opens the door in response to a tapping he whispers, "Lenore," in hopes that his love has returned. Even though he knows she is gone, he cannot let go of her and, in a way, seems to ravish himself in his lonely pain.
In addition to opening of the door, he also, "flung the shutter," to seek out a tapping on the window. Immediately a Raven, which is considered a dark omen, flies in and ironically lands on a bust of Athena who is the Greek goddess of wisdom. This here may indicate that what the bird has to say is indeed veritable. Contrary to common instinct, the narrator is actually enchanted by the bird rather than being put off. Perhaps his "smile" is a smile made despite his instinct of knowing that the bird will not be the bearer of auspicious conditions--a smile of hopeless naivety. The bird's only uttered word is "nevermore," yet the narrator still asks questions such as, "is there balm in Gilead?" Why would the narrator ask such a question if he knew the response would be "nevermore"? He also goes on to ask whether he will ever be able to forget Lenore which of course the raven replies to with, "nevermore."
It seems as if pain is something the narrator at this time indirectly desires in his life. It is interesting to see how the bird initially intrigues him, but ultimately brings fear and hopelessness into his life. Perhaps the readers are suppose to relate the raven to ominous things that they let fly into their lives all the while knowing that they will only bring sorrow and heartache. The narrator certainly knew what kind of responses he was to hear from the Raven, and yet he continued to seek answers that he knew would bring him to new depths of pain. He knew that his, "soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor shall be lifted--nevermore!"

Warren

I am going to be honest, after reading the play, I am still in the dark as to a lot of what is happening. It seems to me that there are a lot of cultural and temporal references that we as twenty-first century Americans will not easily catch. But I do get a sense of Warren's drive to portray Tories as very self-seeking. There seems to be a constant, underlying theme of man's drive to gain riches and fame. This is evident when Monsieur states that he will, "feel but slight remorse to sell my country for a grasp of Gold." It is interesting to see how, when stripped down, it is ultimately a struggle to see who can have the highest social position when everything is said and done.
In addition, Beau-Trumps states that, "there's naught on earth that has such tempting charms as rank and show, and pomp, and glittering dress..." He says this in response to Monsieur's desperate need of, "some honorary post, some small distinction, to save my name from dark oblivious jaws..." Although the group doesn't always agree, they all fundamentally have the same agenda.
Simple Sappling, when speaking of letting troops use his house as barracks, says that that he, "somehow think[s] it would ear a noble sound, to have [his] mansion guarded by the King." He doesn't really have any other motivation behind this other than to gain personal fame and respect. Warren is trying to portray the utter depravity of the Tories and the lack of true patriotism that they have. Beau-Trumps also goes on to say that he, "might attain a splendid glittering car... and leave [his] low competitors behind." Not only is this evident when speaking of political matters, but it is also clearly evident when the men are speaking of their wives. They speak of them as simple tools from which are only useful when productive. They don't truly love their wives as equals, but only use them for personal gain. Warren is making a clear point to unveil the degeneracy and corruption of the Tories.

A haughty spirit

Throughout Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, it is clearly evident that it is his utmost concern to be in good standing with the people surrounding him. It is interesting to see how throughout his work, not only does he write about his ambition to make sure his colleagues and friends see him as upstanding, but he also attempts to persuade the reader to look up to him by constantly edifying himself. Many times, Franklin will nonchalantly make references to his own greatness by using accolades incorporated into his anecdotes. Although it is generally subtle, it occurs often enough so that the reader cannot simply disregard it.
As I was reading through part three, I began to highlight every statement that was carefully contrived to better Franklin's reputation. Eventually, I began to highlight almost two statements within ever page. His creation of the sect that would only select the few upstanding and morally consummate citizens (which of course included himself) was almost painfully self-righteous. When speaking of the "young gentleman's" failed attempt to run against and replace him as clerk of the Assembly, he blatantly states that he was "chosen again unanimously as usual." When it came to the decision to choose a representative for the hall that was built to house speakers of all persuasions, he states that he was chosen, "with the observation that I was merely an honest man."
Often times, Franklin will speak of all of these "intimate" friendships he had with so many respected and famous people. How many "cordial and affectionate" friendships can one have over the course of his lifetime? Franklin, again, seems to be trying to woo the crowd's admiration by attempting to gain popularity by association. He will many times drop in statements such as, "Mine happened to be prefered..." which is trying to indirectly lure the readers into seeing him as infallible in his decisions.
What I see this all boiling down to is Franklin's need of confirmation and reassurance from others in order to gain any self esteem. It seems as if he cannot be content with himself unless all his friends and acquaintances (even his enemies) see him as just and upright. Although Franklin is unequaled in his role as an American, it would have been prudent for him to be confident in who he was rather than looking to others for approval. Humility is a virtue that is difficult to attain, but once achieved, produces more respect from others than any other means.

The good, the bad, and the ugly

Throughout the passage, Byrd is constantly analyzing and making generalizations about all the different people groups he encounters. Overall, he tends to bring much disdain upon men who lavish in passivity--both the Indians and the Englishmen. He also sheds a light of approval upon the work ethics of the women. But there is one generalization that he tends to be inconsistent with--namely his view of the Native American People.
In the beginning of the passage, he remarks on how the Indians have, "Constitutions untainted by lewdness." He also states that with, "Morals and all considered, I can't think the Indians were much greater Heathens than the first Adventurers..." At this point it seems that he has much respect for the Indians and their way of life. There is a stark contrast between his view of the Natives in this quote and with a quote found towards the end of the passage which reads as follows: "They are very cunning in finding out new ways to torment their unhappy captives, though, like those of hell, their usual method is by fire." He also goes further about their torture methods and how they are, "so far from being touched with tenderness and compassion..."
It is interesting to try to break down Byrd's motivation in being so ambivalent in his representation of the Natives. Although there are times where he praises the Indians for their efficiency and their respect for nature, there are also times where he represents them as malicious, barbaric, and inhuman. Perhaps Byrd is attempting to show that, like Englishmen, all Natives cannot be put into one stereotypical group. There are tribes who are welcoming and cordial while there are also tribes who are unrelentingly warlike and hostile.
Thankfully, whenever there is dark side to a certain people group, there is also a bright side. Where he labels most of the English settlements that he comes across as indolent and unproductive, he does come across one settlement called Edenton. He states that, "not a soul has the least taint of hypocrisy or superstition, acting very frankly and aboveboard in all their exercises." Throughout the passage, this is one of the times that he actually approves of a certain settlement or village. In the same way, although the Indians were often described as inhuman, he does give the natives his stamp of approval on a few occasions. Overall, Byrd's biases and standards are very evident in this passage. He has high expectations set for at what level settlements and tribes should be.

Uncovering Divine Light

It is interesting to see how Edwards goes through great lengths to specify what is and what is not considered divine light. The main point that he emphasized throughout the passage is the fact that we as humans are naturally void of divine light. Divine light comes solely from God. Although we are actively involved in the implementation of this gift, there is nothing we can do to produce divine light on our own.
Edwards states that this light does not entail being inspired to develop new truths, but rather developing wisdom to understand the Bible on a new level. This new level gives us a true conviction of who God is rather than just simply knowing and regurgitating what we have been told about God. To have divine light means to have a genuine sense of love and zeal for God rather than just knowing who He is. Edwards also makes a metaphor of divine light to natural light. It is understood that the brighter the sun shines upon the earth, the more clearly and easily we are able to see things. In the same way, the more divine light we are exposed to, the more elementary it becomes for us to have a true visualization of God’s nature and His excellency.
Perhaps what Edwards is ultimately targeting is to let the common folk know that it is not exclusively trained philosophers and religious leaders who are able to see and understand God’s excellency. When he noted that the twelve disciples, ordinary and many of them unlearned, were called the most blessed, it became evident that anybody could receive God’s divine light. It is a condition of the heart rather than an achieved level of mental sophistication. It is not by reason that one attains divine light, but rather by a humbling of the heart and a genuine pursuit of God.

About Me

Greetings,

My name is Matthew and am a Freshman here at Chapel Hill. I was born in Raleigh, North Carolina and lived there up until I moved in to college. Here at school I am involved in Intervarsity, Photography club, and club swimming. I am unsure of what my major is going to be, but am planning on heading in some sort of business-marketing-design direction and will also be minoring in music. I am excited about this class and the potentials there are to become a better writer, reader, and analyst.