Hi All,
Please post a question or area of interest for discussion on 5/13 here by Wednesday @ 6 pm. Texts we'll potentially cover for section include: Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivner," Hawthorne's "Rappaccini's Daughter" and "The Birth Mark," Chacon's Calm After the Storm, and Sollors and Shell's "Introduction." Feel free to pose questions/areas of inquiry around one or several of the texts, in relation to larger class themes, or in response to each others' posts.
Edit 5/11: Because of the change in reading schedule (announced today - "La Belle Zoraide" postponed until Friday) we'll save Chopin's "La Belle Zoraide" for next week when we'll also discuss The House of Mirth. Please save any discussion questions about that text for next week's post! Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In "Rappacini's Daughter" the elements of nature and science are tampered with in a strange way. Through natural elements like plants, a medicinal potion is concocted within the sister plant of Beatrice that kills, whereas Baglioni's vile of medicine that is made from herbs "purifie[s] from evil". Each reciprocates the other in a strange fashion and I know not what to make of it. Does this mean that both science and nature act similar yet possess a strange quality that shades a steady ground between the two? What do we make of this theme?
ReplyDeleteWhen reading "Bartleby the Scrivner" I saw many similarities between William Wilson(the alter ego) and Bartleby in the role they played in their respective stories. Im wondering if any one else saw those same echos? Also if there is something to the commonly seen, relentless antagonizing character that adds to a short story since they seem to pop up so very often? What role does this character play and why is it important?
ReplyDeleteIn "Rappacinni's Daughter" Rappaccini views poisoning his daughter as a gift rather than a curse. I viewed it as being somewhat romantic in a “back in the day when your dad picked your suitor” sort of way, because Rappacinni had to poison Giovanni in order for her to be with him, so he purposely wanted her to be with him (he could have just let them fall in love then let her kill him if he didn't like him). This would make their relationship all the more, say, “safe” because if anyone of them cheated on the other, they would kill that person. So what I'm wondering is why can't these characters see more than 5 minutes into their future: Giovanni when finding out that he is now poisoned (yet can now be with his dream girl) curses Beatrice, Beatrice who felt so heart broken because Giovanni was cursing her (even though he just found out he is a walking bio-weapon) drinks the “cure” thus rendering herself unable to be with Gio, or Baglioni who just triumphantly killed a young girl for the purpose of “one upping” Rappaccini (and will probably end up in jail for murder or face blow-back for killing the daughter of a man who can make walking bio-weapons). What the heck is Hawthorne up to? That silly guy.
ReplyDelete-Daniel I.S.
I want to talk about Bartelby. I know that this isn't a very deep question, but what is his deal? What would make a person say "I prefer not to" to everything? Obviously this wouldn't be accepted now, and it wasn't accepted then, so why does he do it? Is the reader meant to assume that he is insane? or just eccentric?
ReplyDeleteI know that Professor Gruesz has spoken in class about how we will never know what exactly an author was reacting to or influenced by in their writing and that it's a little pointless to try and make conjectures as to what certain works symbolized to the author. Still, I think that an author's viewpoint and why they were writing what they were writing is essential to the actual story. In my Imagining America class, we discussed Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener" as a possible commentary on Transcendentalists like Emerson who called for a certain level of disobedience which Melville may have manifested in the character of Bartleby. Does this view make for a different type of implied paratext and does is imply that Melville had a negative view of transcendentalists?
ReplyDeleteI would like to discuss the way that Rappacinni's Daughter renounces power for love and chooses the traditional woman's role over the role of an empowered, untouchable woman. Professor Gruesz mentioned this issue in lecture, but I was wondering what other people thought of the decisions of the women in "Rappacinni's Daughter" and "The Birthmark" and what Hawthorne wanted the reader to think about it.
ReplyDeletecan Bartleby's disconnection from reality be seen as a play on the repetitive nature of work and the drone that work makes you. The only light that we see Bartleby in is that of work. Even at the end the only other perspective we get on Bartleby is that he worked at a dead letter office which is another repetitive and dreadfully boring job
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the texts "Rappaccini's Daughter" and "The Birth Mark," I was wondering what others think about the idea of the beauty being a form of power or serving as a tool for power of both Georgiana and Beatrease
ReplyDelete***estournal - Im glad you raised that question because I was also wondering the same thing. I think that Beatrease renounces power for love and chooses the traditional woman's role over the role of an empowered, untouchable woman because she felt like her father was so controlling of her and this was a way for her to rebel against him and in part to rebel against the image that the society had of her.
ReplyDeleteI am curious about the subtitle to Melville's Bartleby: A Story of Wall Street. Do you think there is any greater significance to this than the fact alone that the narrator has an office on wall street? How do people interpret this title?
ReplyDeleteHey Melissa,
ReplyDeleteMy question is regarding the two Hawthorne stories we read this week. Does the implication of the objectification of women in the stories suggest the relation of women to nature. And, if so, does that suggest man's inability to connect with nature? Is this why man must strive to control both women and nature?
-Laura Weiss
The symbol of the human hand plays heavily in both Hawthorne stories this week. When Beatrice touches Giovanni for the first time to pull him away from the poisonous plant, her fingers leave burning imprints on his hand. Beatrice has poisoned Giovanni because her father has given her the power in the hopes of improving her humanity and womanhood.
ReplyDeleteGeorgiana was born with a red handshaped birthmark on her cheek, which is referred to by some as the "bloody hand." It becomes the symbol of human imperfection to her husband who then tries to extricate it.
The woman in each story becomes representative of humanity and is coerced into being changed and amended according to the whim of the male authority in her life. What does the junction of these stories tell us about the female power of touch? Is it a caution against the male desire to fix things?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would really like to continue the discussion from lecture about Hawthorne's stories and how they are allegories. Why would Hawthorne choose this style of writing? Is it just because he didn't want to write like "the mob of scribbling women"? I have a hard time believing that. Does making his stories and characters allegories add or take away from them? Hawthorne seems to be pressing at deeper issues in his writing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in "The Birth Mark" does Georgiana's final words really give her superiority over Alymer? Is the desire to remove the birthmark a way of expressing sexual dominance? Or is this more a story of the impossibility of human perfection?
-Alexis Robles
Hi Melissa,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to talk more about Bartleby. I was interested in talking more about what allegory Bartleby embodies. Also, what peoples views are as to what kind of story they think Bartleby can be interpreted as, as a comedic work on the banality of office life, as a Christian text, etc.
-Rebecca
I also thought it would be interesting to discuss Bartleby. More specifically, I would like to hear what people have to say about his character and how they interpreted the story, but not necessarily just what kind of story this is (as mentioned by Rebecca-which still would be interesting) but more about what was going on with Bartleby as a person and what caused him to end up the way that he did.
ReplyDelete-Holland
I enjoyed reading Bartleby, but found it a bit challenging once it got to the "I'd prefer not to" part. I'd just like to hear what other's felt about this section and how they approached/ interpreted it.
ReplyDeleteI don't really buy into the professor's reading of the latest Hawthorne texts as providing two definitions of feminine figures; First the monstrous female and second the beauty and power dynamic. The stories to me seemed to be more about how the male figures dealt with their own imperfections and self loathing and just impressed those feelings onto the rest of the world. I'm not saying that these readings can't be present it's just that I don't see it.
ReplyDelete