Ah, but first we can learn something from baseball. As a Yankees fan, I am often accused by other Americans of supporting the "capitalist-nihilist" position in the Enlightenment poll. But this is false. The Yankees are an instance of "aesthetic-nihilism"; their business apparatus only serves their will to power as a baseball team. I think. Further, we can learn a lot about Americans by considering this hatred that many have of the Yankees. Aren't Americans the preeminent capitalists in the world? Why do they hate the wealthiest and most powerful team? Why this contradiction? Why this support for the "underdog" team? The Boston Red Sox, fittingly for the city's Puritan roots, are the best expression of American ideology. They represent the "underdog," yet their financial strength is nearly equal to that of the Yankees. "At least they're not the Yankees" is the Boston fan's explanation. And the Yankees, the imperialistic team, are then also the international team, because they are the first team that people in the imperial domain of the U.S. become familiar with; the word "Yankee" stands for Americans in general. And this is also true to many newer U.S. immigrants. So we have a strange phenomenon. The Yankees are the team of the most powerful members of U.S. empire, but also the least powerful. The Red Sox and the other teams operate in the middle, and therefore they claim to be more "American." Strange. The true explanation of my Yankees affiliation is regional as I was born in New York and my father grew up several streets from the old Yankee Stadium (his parents the first generation immigrants, Jews from Eastern Europe). I must give this as a sort of "apology" for being a Yankees fan when I talk to other Americans even though the Yankees are by far the most popular team in the U.S. overall. This is strange indeed; it has the appearance of the "self-denying" form of U.S. power. Interestingly, the third most popular team, the Atlanta Braves utilize aboriginals as a symbolic resource.
Reading assignment as follows.
- Norton headnote 431 - 440 ("An American Renaissance?," "American Literary Nationalism," "The Economics of American Letters")
- Irving biography + "Rip Van Winkle" (453-466... but you can skip the introduction on 455 and the concluding note on 466)
- Hawthorne biography + "My Kinsman, Major Molineux" (589-605)
- "The Big Bear of Arkansas" (very short biography of the author, T.B. Thorpe, available here)
- 41. Lucille You see on 431-32 a discussion of the so-called "American canon problem." Like a religious community, a political nation seeks a body of "holy texts" to define its identity. (We have already read some of these; the best example of an American holy text is the "Declaration of Independence.") You may see the present Norton Anthology similarly, as a collection of texts that seek to define American identity in a certain way. As the headnote indicates, during the 1800s many people desired a specifically American literature, but they did not deem most of the fiction and poetry that Americans were actually writing during this time to be adequate; for instance Irving was held in high esteem but deemed inferior to British writers, Hawthorne was generally disregarded, and Thorpe was considered a low culture entertainer, like today's television. At the beginning of the 1900s, when the U.S. was undeniably a world power, the first "canon" of American literature was created, but as the Norton editor indicates, most of the authors in this canon were unread or unappreciated during their own lives! This early 1900s canon emphasized the U.S. as a dynamic and creatively vital nation driven by a vision of democratic equality. It was then revised many times; the current edition of the Norton is particularly concerned to be pluralistic, inclusive, multicultural, etc. The literary canon for secondary and university study is a politicized issue in the U.S., but I would not say highly politicized at present. I am certain that the canon of Chinese/Taiwanese literature is more highly politicized in Taiwan at present. Discuss the "Taiwanese canon problem" and draw comparisons.
- 42. Zoe Why do you think Irving chose to adapt this particular story from the German folk tradition mentioned on 454 and 466. In other words, what is its "American" meaning? You may consider, for instance, what happens while Rip is asleep. How would you make a Taiwanese adaptation of this story?
- 43. Tady Let us consider the misogynistic (anti-female) undertone of the story; Rip even takes "a drop of comfort" when he learns his wife is dead! Given what you learn about the U.S. literary market on 437, why do you think Irving may want to insist that women are irrational?
- 44. Vincent Compare Hawthorne's handling of the theme of rebellion or revolution to Irving's.
- 45. Ken Give us some background information on the ritual of "tarring and feathering" in British political life.
- 46. Meg Compare Hawthorne's handling of the theme of humor or laughter to Thorpe's.
- 47. Winnie "The Big Bear of Arkansas" originally appeared in a magazine called Spirit of the Times. Because we have no Norton headnote, give use some background on this magazine, as well as on a similar publication called the Crockett Almanac. Who was the reading audience? Why were these magazines and these kinds of stories ("Southwest Humor") so popular in the 1830s-1850s? Is there any Chinese or Taiwanese equivalent to these stories and/or to the Doggett character?
- 48. Ted Analyze the story's narrator. What is his relationship to the reader?
What is his relationship to Jim Doggett (the bear hunter)? Do you believe Doggett's/Thorpe's educational theory (to "gain information by asking and listening," 83-84), or is there actually a different educational theory operating here? Do you find any similarity between Thorpe's fictional technique and Irving's?
- 49. Natalie What is Doggett doing when he's "sitting down... from habit" (91)? What are his "inexpressibles" (92)? Many critics consider this to be the punchline to Doggett's story and Thorpe's story, and indeed the main point of both. And, speaking of what is expressible and inexpressible, point us to a few of the unique characteristics of the language Doggett uses in his description of the bear hunt, of Arkansas, and of the region that was more generally called the frontier or "Old Southwest."
- 50. Carol Why does Doggett "love" the bear "like a brother" (87), and what does
this tell us about the Old Southwest? What would Crevecouer think of this story? Some critics say that the bear can be a symbol for aboriginal people. Why do they say this, and do you agree?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere is my answer to question 50:
ReplyDeleteI think on page 87, Doggett said he “love” the bear because for him, the bear is a reflection of himself—“I would see that bear in every thing I did," Doggett explains at one point (87). He and the bear are doubles for each other; the hunter and the hunted almost become one. It is “love,” but also “respect.”
As for the critics on saying that the bear being a symbol for aboriginal people, I think it is quite a reasonable guess. First of all, it is easy to connect “The Big Bear of Arkansas” to the wilderness of the land, and that in the story, many descriptions of “the bears” can also be used to describe aboriginal people—“how numerous bear were in his diggings (77)”/ “a timid little man near me inquired, if the bear in Arkansas ever attacked the settlers in numbers (77)”/ “’no, stranger, for you see it ain’t the nature of bear to go in droves; but the way they squander about in pairs and single ones is edifying (78).’” Of course there are some more examples to be found in the story. And I think most importantly, the bear’s death at last ultimately symbolizes the passing of the American wilderness.
Regarding Crevecoure’s point to the story, there are parts where he cannot agree to Thorpe more. For example, Thorpe similarly depicts the relationship between men and nature as Crevecoure did in his “Letters from an American Farmer.” Besides, in Crevecoeur’s point of view, he takes American society as a place that has principles of equal opportunity and is able take self-determination into practice; it is similar to what Thorpe writes in the story “The Big Bear of Arkansas”—“Where else could it have happened, but in the creation State, the finishing-up country.…Then its airs—just breathe them, and they will make you snort like a horse. It’s a State without a fault, it is (76).” However, there is one point where I find the two of them quite different, and that is the way they present this State. For Crevecoure, when he writes “Letters from an American Farmer,” though he wasn’t “blind to the ignorant frontier settlers or the calculating slaveholder (Norton p.310),” he somehow over-flatted American as to present a bright image to the readers. It is opposite to Thorpe’s case; Thorpe, instead, warns about the danger of the land, which Crevecoure does agree in heart but does not tell in his work.
Aaron, I have a question about Thomas Bangs Thorpe and the story “The Big Bear of Arkansas.” It is said that the story is “a prime example of Southwestern humor,” and that the influence of Thorpe and his story expended even to the later famous writer Mark Twain. But what exactly does this “Southwestern humor” mean? I do not understand that.
ReplyDeleteI have made some strange thinking about your baseball analysis...just want to post it here and see what might happen.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading professor’s baseball analysis, I think the situation of “detested Yankees” is a bit like what we learned and discussed in the last class. In my opinion, Yankees in MLB can somehow be treated as the Britain who obtains monstrous wealth (who have more “power” to recruit excellent players, and is famous for that.) Other baseball teams such as Boston Red Sox, Atlanta Braves, etc seems to form an alliance to condemn the brutality of Yankees have done. For me, what they are doing is just like the people did in revolutionary period. Because Yankees recruit good players with their dominant wealth, the other teams feel their rights are trenched (or maybe just feel jealous ;) therefore, the fans of other teams create a common hostility toward Yankees. In other words, “they want the [hostility] to defend their rights as [MLB] subjects.” (I mad some modification form professor’s words in Class #4.5) At this point, these “American baseball teams” are, in a certain degree, replaying the American Revolution in the MLB.
I will finish my answer ASAP :P
This is Ken speaking! I am assigned to answer Q45.
ReplyDeleteTarring and feathering is a form of punishment (or lynching) which was developed in 12th century England. The victim of tarring and feathering was stripped, immobilized, poured or painted with hot tar, and then covered in feathers which stuck to the tar. The main purpose was humiliation and physical threatening, not death. It is mainly practiced among mobs and vigilantes.
A famous example is the tarring and feathering of Boston Commissioner of Customs John Malcolm (a Loyalist) who had been tarred and feathered for two times, one is performed by sailors in Portsmouth, New Hampshire and the other one is performed by a crowd of people who are angry with his attack on George Hewes (a Patriot) and a young citizen.
Well I want to say that I was shocked when I saw the length of my question.
ReplyDeleteI’m going to answer question 41, about the Taiwanese canon problem.
First, I’d like to say that I don’t think there is any literary text written by Taiwanese is seemed as canon. There are some writers are famous, but none of their work was treated like a canon. I think one of the reason is our politic environment is vague, we aren’t like an independent country, but also not belongs to anyone. Most important, we are not strong enough to stand up and show our works to world. Frankly to say, everyone on earth know “America” (especially refer to US), but seldom knows about Taiwan. I think that’s one of the important problems we face, and it’s the crucial difference between Taiwan and US.
If you like to ask is our policy effect on our literary text taught in school? The answer is yes. After the party in power changed into DPP (Democratic Progressive Party), the policy made students in elementary school to read more the local literary text, which means make them to read text written in Taiwanese and local writers.
Answer to Carol's question. "Old Southwest" refers to the territory south and west of the original 13 U.S. states. Territory acquired by President Jefferson in 1803, purchased from Napoleon/France. The commercial center of this area was New Orleans, the main commercial route the Mississippi River. These later became the states Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, etc. We say "Old" southwest because the territory later expanded further, after the war with Mexico, and the "new" southwestern states are Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. I'll show you on a map Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteEsther sent a follow-up to the discussion of etymologies last week:
ReplyDelete------------
On Tuesday, you asked us what is the word revolution with same meaning in Chinese.
We all gave you the answer "革命", but it seemed that we all cannot give you an exact explanation of what does it mean either.
Therefore, I went to ask a professor in Chinese Literature Department.
The following is his reply for the word "革命:"
(and I translate them into English and I have tried as possible as I can to keep their original meanings).
If you take the word 革命 as "change the dynasty," then this word is not a modern word.
It can be traced back to 300-400BC, and ay that time, it seems that it's already not the first appeared in the historian records.
Furthermore, if you want to probe the particular meaning of the word 革命,
－in Chinese tradition or in ancient Chinese empires, always proclaim that the throne comes from Heaven－
especially from the view of a revolutionary,
the word 革命 means that "your god-given right to be an emperor is no longer leagl, and it is time for kick you out!"
Therefore, the word 革命 in ancient Chinese system is more likely to be the meaning of abolishing the throne of the emperor who is in power (because in usual times, the crown is inherited by the emperor's son).
But when this word 革命 appeared in the era of Ching Dynasty, what Dr. Sun Yet-sen meant was not the old meaning of 革命.
From the old definition, after 革命, the one who initiates the revolution will be the new emperor.
And that is also part of reason why he wants to make a revolution. He thought he himself can be a better emperor than the former.
But in the case of Sun Yet-sen, what he wants does not make himself a new emperor;
he wants to terminate the monarchy system.
(And this is also why my classmates told you that another meaning of 革命 is push and drive out.
The reason comes from this Ching Dynasty case.)
Apologize for my bad translating ability, but I still hope it would be a little helpful :)
Before I ask a question about Irving's short story "Rip Van Winkle," I'd like to say that I really like this work! Although this kind of fictional plot is common to see within the literary history or even nowadyas, I think it still has a strong attractive power to the readers not only for its imaginative room for people but also for its contexual implication of self-pursuing.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, my question is about the word "flagon," which literally means "a large container for especially alcoholic drink" or in the story it's a label of "Rip" himself. But I'm wondering whether the word "flagon" refers to Rip's "absent mind" also?
For example on page 461, after Rip woke up he says to himself "Oh! that flagon! that wicked flaon!" It seemed that all he remebered was his alcohol; on page 462, Rip also stated "That flagon last noght has addled my poor head sadly." It makes me relate the word "flagon" to Rip's idleness, or to say his "absent mind" all the time. The "flagon" is a container, and it will be empty if without liquid. Therefore, I'm wondering whether it implies Rip's state of mind under such circumstances, or it can have a better interpretation?
Besides, because I am curious about the name of "Rip Van Winkle," I've searched some knowledge about it and found some interesting dictionary allusions of the name "Rip Van Winkle." For example, someone who has remained oblivious to social and political changes over an extended period can be said to be "Rip-Van-Winkleish," Andrew Higgins wrote in The Observer, 1997. In addition, to be a Rip Van Winkle, means to awake suddenly to profound changes in one's surroundings. It is said that this may be due to physical absence or to absence of mind. This term was quoted on January 3, 1992, in the Christian Science Monitor by Laura Van Tuyl.
This is Joy LIN, sorry I didn't post any question last week. So as a compensation, I am going to raise 2 questions this week;) Both are about “Rip Van Winkle.”
ReplyDelete1. In the passage” I’m not myself—I’m somebody else…I’m changed, and I can’t tell what’s my name, or who I am!” (464) it is the question of self-identity not only for Rip Van Winkle, but also for the contemporary inhabitants in the newly-formed United States. Does Irving give his answer to this question?
2. Why does Irving portray the main character as a man who “attend[s] to any body’s business but his own” with an unhappy marriage, instead of someone who keeps his farm steady and has a loving family?
Hi this is Ting-Ju. I have two questions from the Norton headnotes as below:
ReplyDelete1. Why Matthiessen wants to call this period "renaissance"? It is a renaissance of what? Since the "America" is trying to find their national history and literacy tradition, does "renaissance" mean the Americans should track back their origins?
2. I still don't quite understand how "democratic energy" and "republican notion" work in this period. Why Jackson's success made him a democratic spirit of the age, which boasts the unlimited capacities of people, while republican notion tells people that "all mighty nations must eventually fall"? Are they two contrast ideas here?
This is Tracy to ask a Question.
ReplyDeleteIn the reading text we had this week, I found that Hawthorne and Irving’s works both have some applications about the dream or dream-like devices. Does these devices have any association with“dream vision(dream allegory)”device? And, can such devices be seen as the predecessor of the stream of consciousness?
This is Jenny. I come to ask a few somewhat remote and strange question.
ReplyDeleteIn the introduction, there mention a massive of emigration was landing in America from Ireland and elsewhere in Europe during 1840s-1850s. How soon would they identify themselves as an American? Also, how did they connect the American dream with their new identity? Also, the emigration remind me of the "American dream."
A question came to me when I read the last paragraph of the Hawthorne’s My Kinsman, Major Molineux, where the gentleman encourage Rob to walk out the traditional inheritance system and make his own life. Did Americans (not include emigrants at 1840s-1850s) believe in American Dreams?
This is Sherry asking questions after reading “The Big Bear of Arkansas.” It seems to me that it is a tale that emphasize (only) on the mysteriousness and the richness of the nature in the area. Is it a propaganda that simply exaggerates the beauty and natural resources of a certain place, just like the texts of Columbus and John Smith? If so, what is the purpose of our reading this tale? If not, what does the writer tries to say by telling tale in such a way?
ReplyDeleteQuestion from Emma:
ReplyDeleteIn "The Big Bear of Arkansas", why does the narrator italicize some of the bear hunter’s phrases? Is there any special idea that the narrator want to convey to his reader? Or does he mean to imply some irony?
This is Jane Hsu:”)
ReplyDeleteI have same question with Ting-Ju’s first question that why Matthiessen calls this period as “American Renaissance”? But I have another understanding on that point. The Americans at that time were trying to emphasize the culture part of the country and try to find their own identity. The word “renaissance” thus means the distinction from the authority and the tradition(British empire). Instead of tracing back to certain “ancient glorious past,” I think Matthiessen uses the word “renaissance” to refer to what those writers “had done” in the 14th century-Renaissance. What they accomplished is something rather fresh and new.
Speaking of finding the American’s identity, I think to find the most correct statement doesn’t really matter. But how these statements interact with each other and accumulate itself through history is something really important. For the process of the discussion, which is accumulated through time, is the identity they are looking for.
I have a question about Hawthorne’s “My kinsman, Major Molineux” Hawthorne writes the “preface” in his first person point of view and points out the dilemma for the colonial governor. Then, he uses the third point of view in the rest of the part to narrate the story of a young man. The speaker says “The reader, in order to avoid a long and dry detail of colonial affairs, is required to dispense with an account of the train of circumstances, that had cause much temporary inflammation of the popular mind.”(593) I wonder who is “the speaker” and who is “the reader” he is talking to? To the Americans? But he says they are “colonial affairs” instead of ...um..“independent evidences.” He is talking to the conservatives? But he ends up the story by opening a broad and free future to the young man."...you may rise in the world, without the help of your kinsman, Major Molineux."(605)
This is Alyssa asking questions about Rip Van Winkle:
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the story, Rip’s son inherited the indolent ‘business” of his father; he resembled his father exactly the same way that he idled around doing nothing. (except for the farm work he’s employed to do) By reading through the passage, it seems that Irving intends to highlight the patrimonial temperament of idleness that connects the two generations. (Irving spoke of Rip’s son as “son and heir”, and that Rip’s son showed the “hereditary disposition” of his father.) I wonder if there’s any implication made in this connection, and how can we adapt this implication to the American society during the time when Americans were inspired so much by their successful independence from Britain and by Franklin’s optimistic claim that the way to wealth can be achieved steadily by assiduous work.
In other words, does Irving's portrait of Rip Van Winkle contradict the American dream?
ReplyDeleteI'm Vincent, and here's my answer to question 44. In Hawthorne's narratives, he creates a grotesque atmosphere. The scenes, people and behaviors of them show great uncertainty and uncomfortableness.
ReplyDeleteHawthorne presents Robin as the pursuer of opportunities which soon break into risk and threaten. The punishment and humiliation of Major Molineux by the mob actually destroy Robin's opportunities to be sheltered from his kinsman, but there occurs another opportunity in the end for Robin to strive. I think Hawthorne considers the revolution as opportunity(or change) for individuals. It can be glimpse of lives or poison to descend, but you just cannot escape from it. The powerful "contagion" stirs people's appetites, provides possibilities and imposes temporary illusions upon them. But when the epidemic ceases, what's left? The change(revolution) is inevitable for humans, but opportunities are grasped by shrewd ones. Compared with Hawthorne, Irving builds the stage with ordinary characters and settings, bright and remote from the scent of revolution. There's no slight connection between opportunity and Winkle, but a chain of accidents just bump into his life without any sign or omen. Nobody prepares or expects any change to subvert their original lives. What's the differences between before and after the revolution? Nothing. You just change the flag, substitute the clothes and decorations of King George's for Washington's, even without changing the face, and get back to work, if you're still alive. So why don't you just sleep and wait for the insurgence ceasing? Don't dream of ascending or opportunity. Just wait and see, even had better not perceive it at all.
This is Natalie, and I'm here to answer Question 49.
ReplyDeleteDoggett is waiting for the 'big old male bear' when he was "sitting down....from habit"(91).
There are two 'inexpressibles',which made Doggett trip up. The first one is because of the habit that he sat there for too long so that his legs got numb. The other one was from the 'excitement of the moment' which referred to the the 'big old male bear'that Doggett found out and shot.
This is Winnie answering question 47.
ReplyDeleteSpirit of the Times, subtitled a Chronicle of the Turf, Agriculture, Field Sports, Literature and the Stage, was a weekly newspaper founded by William T. Porter. Its content was mainly about horse racing while it later included Southwestern humor sketches. Spirit of the Times aimed for upper-class reading audience and excluded political discussion (this, however, failed to be carried out). As to the Crockett Almanac, it was published in various cities in the United States from 1835 to 1856. Crockett Almanac featured a series of outlandish, racist, and brutal hunting stories as well as expansionistic anecdotes about Davy Crockett—a Congressman, an Indian-fighter, and a celebrated 19th-century American folk hero.
Southwest humor is humor relating to Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. These kinds of stories are usually masculine tales about the frontier as well as the inhabitants there and are mostly told in an extremely exaggerative way. I’m not sure, and yet I think that the reason why these magazines and stories were so popular may have something to do with the Westward Expansion at that time. The historical background here and the so-called “Southwest humor” are a little confusing for me, so…I still have some difficulty coming up with any Chinese or Taiwanese equivalent.
*References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_the_Times
http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/projects/price/spirit.htm
http://www.comedyontap.com/pantheon/crockett/almanacs.htm
http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/projects/price/southwes.htm
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/sw/american.html
Here's my answer to question 48:
ReplyDeleteI would say the occurence of the narrator is the most magnificent bondage between the reader and the Jim Doggett. The narrator starts out first by telling the reader a vast picture of his many steamboat experiences, or to say, his memory. After this brief introduction, he quickly narrows down to one specific event, which in this text, is the encounter of the bear hunter Doggett. At this point, readers somehow find that the narrator has disappeared and transfromed into one of the roles that participate in the act. In the whole story, the narrator stays in it until the time he departs with Doggett, then strangely, just jumps out of the picture and says "and I can only follow with the reader, in imagination, our Arkansas friend, in his adventures at the 'Forks of Cypress,' on the Mississippi." It seems like the narrator becomes one of the readers and shows doubt among this story he just told.
The technique used here causes a distortion of true experience and false storytelling, making the reader think once again over this exotic yet vivid experience. To make it easier to understand, I like to put it this way: imagine a investigator describing a series of cases on powerpoint presentation then suddenly pulls the audience into the happening crime scene of one significant case, and afterwards spitting himself together with the audience back to the powerpoint presentation. This reminds me of the Schwarzenegger movie "Last Action Hero" where the boy receives a magic ticket that sends him into a action movie.
Irving uses the same technique in "Rip Van Winkle" by describing many of Rip Van Winkles details as if they had been friends for many years. Then he leads the reader into an impossible time traveling experience with the character and at last pulls readers back to reality. So is the narrator a real person? Or is he a fictional character? The distortion between fiction and reality is what makes the story a thrilling excitement for readers.
At last, I agree with Doggett's educational theory to gain information by asking and listening. Isn't this what we've been doing throughout these weeks of discussion? HA~~
This is Meg, and I am going to answer question 46.
ReplyDeleteI am not quite sure about what it means as “the handling of the theme of humor or laughter,” but I observe in the text where “laughter” appears and try to get a conclusion.
In both work, the kind of laughter appears to me as mockery. However, in Hawthorne’s work, the one who is laughed at is the main character; while in Thorpe’s work, it is the main character who laughs. In Hawthorne’s work, the main character make people laugh at him without realizing that what he has done is way too naïve or infeasible. In Thorpe’s work, the main character laughs at people by talking some irrational things and keeps things as nonsense.
As I do the observation in these tow works, I find that my understanding to “humor” and “laughter” may be not well enough, and I cannot get the point quite well other than the mockery within the text, so I want to know more about how to define these two words, and how a work can develop under this theme.
Hello Aaron, this is Qian Yu. The following is my question.
ReplyDeleteIn Norton headnote, it mentions that Matthiessen avoids discussing some controversial issues, for instance, slavery, immigration, and political issues. I think many writers even now try to challenge the authority. They will find those tough issues and criticize or satirize the government. However, Mattiessen chooses not to discuss this kind of questions. Is he a supporter of the government? Is he afraid of provoking the authority? Why he avoids discussing those influential issues at that time?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is Tady, and here’s my answer to Q43. According to the Norton, there were few professional writers in the U.S. before the Civil War. However, there were growing numbers of self-supporting women writers who owns eager women readers. Their works were much more popular during that period, comparing to those male writers who mostly gained fame after a long time. I think the reason why Irving may want to insist that women are irrational may because he thinks his works and other male writer’s works are greater than those popular novels written by female writers. Male writers don't have many readers and they complain about the feminine structure of the literary profession.
ReplyDeleteAaron,
ReplyDeleteJust as to let you know, I do enjoy today's discussion, thanks!
However, here I still have one more question. Last week, when I was answering my question (question50), there is a part where I had no idea about and had no time to ask in class today; that is, when Doggett says he loves the bear like a brother, what does this "reflection of himself" has to do with the old Southwest? Can you provide me some more idea about this?
thanks,
Carol,
ReplyDeleteI think the answer to your question follows from our discussion of the "frontier" relationship between the American settlers and the aboriginals. The southwestern settler is "brother" to the aboriginal, as they culturally contaminate and interact with one another. But they are also enemies, hunting and killing one another because of the conflict over territorial control. It is this dual character of their relationship that we see by way of metaphor in "Big Bear."