Emerson’s “Transparent Eyeball”

In Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Chapter I. Nature,” he gives himself the title of the “transparent eyeball” (556). I think that in that moment, Emerson is engrossed in the calm beauty of the natural world around him. Instead of taking in complex details as many other adults do, he looks for the simplicity. When experiencing this beautiful serenity built by God by himself, he realizes his current emotions are more powerful and meaningful than anything he could feel in the world built by man kind. By sitting in the wilderness and basking in the beauty as the “transparent eyeball,” he does not have to put any effort into creating his own happiness because nature has do that for him.

What I found most intriguing about the passage is that it made me realize that the simplest of things can mean so much. We are all surrounded by new inventions and technology every day that we hardly ever see anything for what it truly is. Our buildings on campus hold the spots where beautiful trees and animals once resided before we came along and removed them. Now if we are given the chance to see an area of true nature, especially near such a large city, we should have more appreciation for it instead of writing it off as wasted space.

Before moving to college, I lived in Savannah, Georgia for all of my life. We lived in a beautiful neighborhood that only had maybe 20 houses total. Within the neighborhood there were tons of trails to ride our golf carts on through the woods, down our airstrip (we had a private landing strip for our neighbors’ private planes) and next to all of the lakes surrounding our houses. When I was in elementary and middle school, I would wake up almost every Saturday morning and ride the golf cart through the trails, just to enjoy the beautiful views. Everywhere I drove had a uniqueness and calmness that could not be matched. Sometimes I would stop and sit while the sun shown and the wind blew around me. I loved it when I was a kid and still occasionally ride around like that when I am home visiting for either the weekend or holiday breaks.

Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Birth-Mark”

After reading Nathaniel Hawthorne’s story, “The Birth Mark,” I agree with Nina Baym’s argument in which Hawthorne is a feminist writer. I got these vibes from him back when I read The Scarlet Letter in high school, but this story really exemplifies this and helps to solidify my stance on the topic.

Throughout “The Birth Mark,” it is clear that the main character, Alymer, is controlling of his wife, Georgiana, and does not approve of the birth mark etched onto her cheek. While Georgiana loves and accepts the mark at first, along with many others around her who feel it accentuates her beauty, she begins to fall prey to Alymer’s disapproving gaze. Hawthorne depicts Alymer as the bad guy in this story for his domineering behavior, instead of Georgiana and her independence from her husband. She goes from a free thinking, confident woman to an insecure, people pleasing wife who only wishes to make her husband truly love and accept her. As Alymer progressively becomes more and more controlling of Georgiana, the reader is able to sympathize with her because of her husband’s dark nature and seemingly superficial love.

While Nathaniel Hawthorne does write Alymer in such a way that would seem normal for the times, it is the way he portrays Georgiana’s character and the two’s relationship that brings out a feminist quality in his writings. While not explicitly saying it, Hawthorne gives his opinion on how Alymer’s behavior is disrespectful to women and how more women should be like Georgiana in the beginning of the story, more confident and willing to speak her mind against her husband. Nina Baym’s argument is well backed by many pieces of evidence throughout Hawthorne’s writings. This story of, “The Birth Mark,” is simply one example of his feminist beliefs among many more throughout his other works.

Fredrick Douglass

In his narrative, Fredrick Douglass voices his opinion on the Christian slaveholders, pointing out their cruelty and hypocrisy. He believes they are the worst of the worst, no matter which way one looks at it. However, this is put aside as a counter argument is developed in chapter ten as he recounts stories of his own Christian slaveholder, and the discrepencies between him and the other masters. Descriptions of his master are detailed throughout multiple paragraphs, leaving the reading with the conclusion that Douglass’s was different from the rest. While it was common practice for slaves to be regularly whipped, Douglass received none of this treatment, and was also given plenty of food & kindness on a regular basis. The other masters were constantly cruel to their slaves and showed no other feelings toward them besides authoritative anger and disgust. Douglass strongly believes that Christian slaveholders were quite literally the worst, and explains why throughout his narrative, but did not feel this hatred toward his own master. Instead, he felt the exact opposite, actually.

The moral center in this chapter is also very important. Douglass’s slaveholders were all cruel and hateful toward him and his fellow slaves during their time under their authority. Yet, this new, kind, almost respectable master gives the reader a glimmer of hope amongst the surrounding tragedies. The audience was able to see that although the practice of keeping slaves was still terrible, not everyone in the business was a complete monster. There were the exceptions to the stereotypical, incredibly rude slaveholder, although they were few and far between. With this chapter, Douglass allows the audience to understand this perspective, and hopefully wish him a bright, positive future. I think that this chapter alone really begins to shape the audience and their hope for a better future for current slaves.

The Harlem Renaissance

I wholeheartedly believe that black artisits should represent their community as faithfully as possible and not attempt to please white writers. These artists should be focusing on creatively expressing their true selves to the world and pleasing themselves, instead of worrying about pleasing those around them. If the white writers do not have to change their ways to appeal to and familiarize themselves with the black community, the black writers should not have to either.

Langston Hughes explains this argument beautifully in his essay, “From the Negro Artisit and the Racial Mountain.” He says no black artist should conform to society’s standards and that embracing their culture is the proper way to do things. His philosophy is equivalent to the general consensus of the Harlem Renaissance, the rapid growth of black artistry in the 1920s. This essay of his entails how he thinks black writers should speak out as black writers and not just writers. This is because he thinks they should use their voice to talk about their culture and ideas as blacks, allowing for more coverage in the community. The Harlem Renaissance gave the push that black artists needed to express their ways of life through art, dance, music, poetry, etc. Their success in this clearly shown through during this era in time. Hughes also wrote a poem, “The Weary Blues,” that fits so well into this era. This peom tells the tale of music bringing relief and peace to a black man in pain. Music allowed for this man’s pain from injustice at the time to be, even if only temporarily, washed away with the soul of the sound of music. Black writers should be proud of their culture and background and embrace it, not shy away from it and white wash themselves simply because society is telling them to.

Gwendolyn Brooks Poem Comparison

Gwendolyn Brooks’ two poems are both very similar and very different. The first of the two, “of De Witt Williams on his way to Lincoln Cemetery,” tells the short tale of a dead man’s travels through his town in his casket. No details are given about the death itself, but only about the man’s life prior to. If there was violence surrounding this man’s death, it is not acknowleged or mentioned. The second poem, “The Boy Died in My Alley,” is a stark contrast to the first, as the topics mentioned and not mentioned are completely reversed. This poem describes the boy’s death and immediate aftermath with the police investigating and asking questions. The boy’s life is not talked about, but only the violent demise of the young boy in the narrator’s alley. Also, this poem provides the viewpoint of someone else in the community that was affected by his death. The first poem did not show the reprecussions of the death quite like this poem does. The difference between these poems can be attributed to Brooks attending the Fisk University conference, which was a space dedicated to black artists and writers coming together in leadership and independence. Seeing other black artists who understood her struggles must have empowered her and gave her the confidence to write about topics that really mattered, even if they offended or did not pertain to non-blacks. You can see the confidence difference between the two poems, as Brooks creates a more realistic narrative in the second poem than the first. Due to this, I personally find the second poem to be more appealling than the first. Both are greats works from the talented poet, but it is clear that after that conference, her writing ability skyrocketed. The second poem envokes such a deep emotion that the first one only scrapes the surface of.

---

Follow My Blog

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.