Harper's 19th century magazine

I was a little surprised to find similarities between today's Haper's magazine and the one in the 19th century.  I had expected to find poems or stories, but I found a few pages that resembled a fashion magazine in some sense.  The pictures are hand drawn, but that's to be expected of the earlier issues.  The descriptions go into great detail about the clothing, and boy did they wear layers back in the day.  I did find other things in the magazine such as poetry, but I found this part interesting.  The way they presented clothes was different.  They gave a lot of attention to one outfit and described it in full.  Mass production would just have been invented during this magazine's first issue. I'm sure that had something to do with it.   
In the same volume, there was an article in the magazine about Longfellow and his influences.  It talked about his love interest and how he wooed her with poems.  I thought this kept in line with the time period and the idea of the Romantics. I doubt it would work today, but this time period had the environment and the natural surroundings necessary for this kind of mood.  Fellows who could write poetry were like rock stars, probably.  Another thing that struck me was how the magazine was arranged.  It wasn't in a big paragraph or essay.  It was broken almost like a newspaper.  I'm not sure if this was easier to read or if it looked better on the page.                                 
The magazines in the old days were much more committed to literature.  In today's magazine it's celebrity gossip or new scientific findings.  There's been a shift in the magazine industry over the last century.  I've never really seen a poem in a magazine.  Most of the pages look like the ones below, except with more pictures and many more accessories.  I realize that images are easier to sell and market, but it seems like we're not exercising our brains.  Newspapers are going out of print. Magazines are full of pictures.
Another thing is that the cover on Harper's was plain.  It had the name of the magazine, volume number, and issue.  People didn't need to be flashed with airbrushed covers to want to buy the magazine.  It really shows how our culture has changed. 

Emily Dickinson

Before I took a poetry class, I had little understanding of the complexity of poems.  I always thought that if it sounded pretty enough then it was considered a good poem.  Now, I see that there are many components that go into writing just one poem.  Because poems are so compact and dense, each line can carry as much weight as a whole essay.  The process of writing a poem is meticulous and difficult at times, so it amazes me how Dickinson wrote so well.  Her poems have the lyrical quality to them but they also have deeper meanings.

  Most of Dickinson's poems seem to be about death.  "Because I Could not Stop for Death" is a poem about dying and death. The first two lines of the poem are my favorite. It reads, "Because I could not stop for Death / He kindly stopped for me."  I think these lines have a powerful message in them.  Death, who is personified, not only waits for her (most likely Dickinson) but he stops.  It's as though even Death could not keep Dickinson dead.  In a way, she has lived on , as many writers do, because of her writing.  I thought it was perceptive of her to think Death could not stop her.  I think she knew, in some way, that her writing would live past her.  The way she personifies Death is also interesting.  Death seems to be kind and civil.  This differs from the usual depiction of black hooded figure with a scythe. Perhaps Dickinson was saying that Death is not something to fear.  Many have portrayed Death as something fearsome and scary, but Dickinson has decided that Death is kind. It seems true that authors and poets do not become immortal until they die.  There's this irony of being alive after death.

"I heard a Fly Buzz" is also another one of her famous poems. It's also about death surprise!  Anyways, it goes through the thoughts of someone who's about to die.  In their last moments, all they focus on is this one insignificant fly.  Flies have been a source of nuisance for me.  When they buzz at night when I'm trying to sleep, I make it my mission to whack it with my shoe.  In any case, the narrator says that everyone has cried and he has given away his property, but at the absolute last moment, there's this fly.  This fly is the last thing the narrator sees before he/she closes their eyes.  It becomes a symbol of life and death.  On one hand, it makes noises and it's something that has life inside of it.  On the other hand, it comes in between the narrator and the light.  It is also a reminder of what will be there after the narrator dies.
What impressed me most about this poem was it's rhythm and structure. It changes between 6 and 8 syllables in each line mimicking a pattern, in this case, life and death.  Dickinson's use of structure to make the poem resonate more is impressive.  Her use of form is fantastic.

I had one question that I noticed when reading the poems.  I always thought the first lines of these poems were the official titles of the poem, but it seems not the case.  I wonder why Dickinson did not title her work because titles are important and they can be used to enhance the poem.
Overall, Dickinson is one of my favorite poets in terms of structure and rhythm.         

Poe

Reading  "The Tell Tale Heart" again has deepened my appreciation for Poe. Before, I didn't understand his technique or his mastery of suspense.  I just thought it was a odd story.  Now I see that how he is able to get into the mind of a killer and explain how they think.  He takes a reasonable argument and makes it unreasonable and insane.  For example, in the "Tell Tale Heart" the narrator asks why anyone would call him mad.  He claims he is sane because can wait patiently to kill the old man and also cover the body in a way that nobody else would be able to notice.  Because he is able to think clearly, on the surface, he is sane.  What makes him absolutely insane is his deed and that very same rationing.  He kills the old man yet rationalizes he is still sane. This narrator has this obsession with the old man's eye.  He claims it's evil, so that is why the man must die.  The interesting thing is that the eye does nothing; it's just a bit creepy.  What the man perceives is his reality.  In his mind, the eye is the source evil and not himself.
When reading this story, the man's nervousness is apparent, especially in the first paragraph.  It gives this feeling that his heart is racing and pumping fast.  Poe has a way with using the Gothic style of writing.  As a writer, I admire how he is able to create the dark, morbid atmosphere.  I believe it's the kind of thrill people get when they watch a psychological, suspense thriller today.  It's as though the reader's senses are honed and refined in the darkness.
As for the "The Cask of Amontillado," I found it more sad than disturbing.  I really pitied how Fortunato was betrayed because of Montresor couldn't get past his own inadequacies.  Montresor lead Fortunato, while he was drunk, into a tomb and built a wall to block the entrance.  He felt it was wrong but ignored his feelings.  He makes himself believe that it is nothing.
One of the things I found interesting about this piece was the title.  I searched the definition of cask because I thought it was closely related to 'casket.'  It turns out that a cask is meant for holding alcohol.  Fortunato is a wine expert, who gets drunk at the carnival. Montresor has used this weakness of his to kill him.  I'm not too sure of the connection, but I found the link to the title interesting.  Overall, this story wasn't as suspenseful, but I do think it says something about human nature.  Montresor says his friend insulted him and that is the reason he has to die.  The motives for killing in these two stories don't make sense to us.  In the mind of an insane person, however, they are somehow rationalized.  I think the reader can see how things make sense even if we know they aren't right.  Poe has allowed a unique insight even though these stories are fiction.          

Thoreau

Some quotes and passages in this rhetoric really resonated with me.  I thought I preferred Emerson, but reading the two works again, I see that Thoreau's philosophy is much more agreeable.  Thoreau's minimalistic and simplistic attitude works well with  the nature he lives in.  His mellow views flow smoothly with his surroundings. Thoreau believes that we should improve our surroundings and not ourselves.  I think he values action and progress more than selfish, personal endeavors.  In a way, it's the opposite of Emerson, who promoted the self and the individual.  Thoreau seemed to be more focused on getting everything out of life and learning from nature.

He writes, "it is far more glorious to carve and paint the very atmosphere and medium through which we look, which morally we can do. To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts" (892). 
 In this quote, he talks about perspective.  He says that we can change how we see the world, and we can make it beautiful according to our own discretion.  Perspective is a powerful thing because it changes meaning and definitions.  It can cause misunderstandings and chaos.  If we could see how beautiful nature is on its own, we probably wouldn't try to change it: "to paint a particular picture, or to carve a statue."  We only see how we want to see and not how things are.  That has been the history with mankind.

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately...and see if I could not learn what it had to teach , and not, when I came to die, discover I had not lived" ( 892).
Nature breathes on its own.  It's biological processes happen without any machines or any pretenses.  Nature is the best teacher, according to Thoreau.  Our world is overrun with stress that we've created for ourselves.  We tend to focus on money and success more than just living.  Our values have changed over time, so we believe we live to work and do other unnecessary things. Thoreau returned to nature so that he could get to know the basics, what truly mattered.  The woods have always been a place for discovery in literature.  It is where people can get lost amongst the trees.  I guess that's where they get the proverb "can't see the forest for the trees."  I don't think people see the forest, the big picture.  They are too focused on the details.

On the same page, Thoreau mentions simplicity.  His abandoning of material things reminds me of Buddha.  Thoreau's concept coincide with many of the ideas in Buddhism.  His meditation of nature and keeping to only essential things makes Thoreau a very enlightened and free person.  I sense that he is not bound to anything.  He wonders around , and he's okay with that.  His mind is truly free to explore.          

Emerson: Self Reliance

Emerson insists upon trusting one's own thoughts and not copying anyone.  He believes that by copying others we are conforming to others and in the process, we lose the courage to have our own thoughts. I have always adhered to this concept of his. "Self Reliance" is one of my favorite essays because it got me into believing in original thought.  The concept of originality is appealing, although, I doubt something can be completely original.  Even the "saints and sages" must have gotten inspiration from somewhere.  It's difficult not to imitate when we consider how people learn. We learn by imitation.  In our early stages, we learn by copying our parents and other people who are around us. This is just a natural tendency that young children have.  This takes Emerson's words literally, which is probably skewed from his original meaning.  However, I believe we learn by imitation and that there isn't any way to to avoid it.  There are ways to teach people to think for themselves, but to be truly self reliant is nearly impossible.  I find it profoundly ironic whenever I think of Emerson's "Self Reliance" to promote originality.  Emerson probably got as many original thinkers as he did conformists to his philosophy.        

Moving on, Emerson says in one part of his essay that God is inside us. The reasoning is that  because imagination is infinite and God is infinite, then the two must be linked or the same things. By using our imagination and originality to generate thought, we are closer to God ( or something to that effect).  This explanation explained Transcendentalism to me.  I didn't understand the connection to the universe or the reach of the movement until I heard this. There are parts in Emerson's essay that he shuns institutions such as churches for their corruption.  He believes in God within oneself and not in any institutionalized, man-made form. 
As for Emerson's view on charity and helping other people, I have to partially agree.  Some people take advantage of charity , and because charity exists, they don't work as hard.  I do a plethora of volunteer work.  In over 200 hours of volunteer work, I have never thought I was being taken advantage of, but even these people I was helping didn't completely rely on volunteers.  They actively sought to better there lives and help themselves.  Concern about others isn't a terrible thing, and I think Emerson is also talking about charity in terms of helping other people think.  Helping others think is the same as thinking for them. 
         

Rip: a Lazy Bum's Idol

"Rip Van Winkle" is the truly inspirational story of how a man was able to sleep for twenty years and do nothing.  Rip uses his ingenuity to outsmart hardworking people.  Rather than working on his own farm, he does other people's small errands so that he'll be liked by everyone, except his wife.
Rip Van Winkle was able to gain his independence by doing nothing.  The Revolution didn't happen for Rip, and it wasn't a part of his life.  This part struck me most.  I'm sure there were people who were active in the Revolution and fought, but there were also probably people who waited around to see what happened.  Rip was in his own egocentric world, and he never quite got out of it.  His character remained static throughout the story. The twenty years that could have changed Rip went missing.  I think if people didn't have major changes then their lives would become routine and stale much like Rip's life.  The phrase, "life just passes you by"  comes to mind.  The world moved on without Rip Van Winkle, and it's sad in reality.  He missed out on all the important parts of his children's lives.  His wife died, but Rip never liked her much anyways.
After his nap in the mountains, Rip Van Winkle wakes up to find things a little different.  This story seems to be one big metaphor for life. I think many people can relate to him here.  Many changes seem like they happened in a instant or over night.  The reality is different from what the mind sometimes projects.  Rip's overall philosophy of life is similar to a great deal of other people's philosophy.  I think Rip Van Winkle is a universal character, a classic archetype.   
When I was younger, I thought this was a sad story about a man who had lost twenty years of his life.  I empathized with old Rip.  Now I see that he doesn't do much, and that he prefers his new life, without his wife.  Rip just likes telling stories and drinking without being bothered.
We never actually learn much about Rip.  He doesn't speak often, so his character is just a stand-in for something else.  We learn about some of his actions, but these are all external.  In most folklore of this type, there's a moral or a lesson to be learned, so deep character development gets overlooked.  Rip Van Winkle has no agency of his own, and that's how it was meant to be.
"Rip Van Winkle" the fantastically true story of how a man go drunk and passed out.  He is to many an idol, a wise sage for generations to follow.        

Declaration of Independence Changes

The Declaration was drafted by Jefferson, but it went through major revisions before it was approved by the Continental Congress.  Most of the deletions mentions cutting Great Britain out of the colonies entirely.  The Congress seemed to believe that they shouldn't antagonize the king or Great Britain.  I believe this is why they use the word "Independence."  It is not as provocative a word as "freedom."  The colonies had ties with Great Britain, and I believe they are acknowledging the fact.  The Congress was not trying to deny that their mother country was Great Britain.  Instead, they wanted to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another."
One marked change was the word '"inherent' inalienable rights" to "certain."  This seems like an odd change to make.  The original would imply that these were rights every human was entitled to or born with.  Perhaps they wanted to say that we had to work for our rights, and that the Revolution wasn't a moot point because man was owed those rights from the beginning.  If these rights were so "inherent," then there was no point in fighting the Revolution.  I think that the Founding Fathers wanted people to view life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as valuable things.  If they are fought for, they aren't taken for granted.
Most of Jefferson's personal biases are taken out of the document.  Without these additions, the Declaration is more focused and neutral. 
The Declaration of Independence was a document that helped form a country.  It is the basis of American doctrines, and it named the rights of man.  The lines "all men are created equal" have been the cause of many wars and conflicts within America.  This one phrases sums up the Revolution, the Civil War, and basically all other wars that followed.  It's a bit of a haunting phrase, and it is unmistakeably a powerful one.
In the footnotes, Garry Willis says that Jefferson meant all men were equal in a moral sense.  If the Declaration had gone with Locke's idea of "property" as human right, it would have been a little easier to define equality.  But Jefferson takes it out of the physical realm, and he talks about something far beyond what even he comprehended.
I wonder if Jefferson knew her would write the Declaration for future generations.  I'm sure he had an idea of the magnitude of its importance.  His original draft wasn't as polished, but it probably resonated with the public.  The revised copy encompasses all of man. It could be applied to people who weren't from the colonies.  I'm not sure that he knew how much change and debate his words brought, but there's no doubt it's a great piece of history.