Midterm Essay

I was really interested in the trickster discussion we had in last class, so for my essay prompt I think I would like to work with prompt 8 and examine the roll of trickery and the trickster in The Passing of Grandison and An Antebellum' Sermon. What I would really like to cover is how the reader's perspective changes as the trickster presents themselves more throughout a text because that is what I found most interesting. I also found it interesting that when a story with a trickster begins usually the character(s) that hold power over the trickster think that their field of knowledge encompasses that of the trickster’s, however as the story progresses you learn that it is the other way around for if the trickster is to be truly successful  he has to know much about those in power.  I’m thinking maybe my thesis will be something like, “For the trickster to be truly successful, he must first be intimately familiar with his opponent.”

Taking Sides: Booker T. Washington & W.E.B Du Bois

When presented with Up From Slavery and The Souls of Black Folk, I would have to say that Booker T. Washington aligns more with the title of "conservative" and W.E.B Du Bois with "militant". Another notable pair of black men key to civil rights and attracting the classifications of “conservative” & “militant” would be Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr, with MLK being considered the more conservative in contrast to the more militant Malcom X, in light of this I find it peculiar that I see Du Bois reminding me of MLK. In contrast to Booker T. Washington,  Du Bois seems to emphasize urgency and less compromise when it comes to gaining first class citizenship. This emphasis on urgency seemed to remind me of Martin Luther King Jr. in his Letter From Birmingham Jail in which he states: "This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never.'" -King

In Booker T. Washington’s Up From Slavery, Washington seems to be very optimistic, showing that he believes that with an emphasis on education and hard work the formerly enslaved black race  in America will show their worth and gain more acceptance, “No race that has anything to contribute to the markets of the world is long in any degree ostracized.” (Washington, p. 444)  W.E.B Du Bois makes it clear that he thinks that Washington has some important points, but Du Bois seems to be saying that much of what Washington suggests isn’t exactly practical and that instead of just showing worth and having a willingness to compromise, demands must be made because those that are oppressed can only rise as high as those with the power will let them:

"The question then comes: Is it possible, and probable, that nine millions of men can make effective progress in economic lines if they are deprived of political rights, made a servile caste, and allowed only the most meagre chance for developing their exceptional men? If history and reason give any distinct answer to these questions, it is an emphatic No." (Du Bois, p. 466)

 I find myself siding more with W.E.B Du Bois and it’s hard for me to classify Du Bois as being “militant” because I tend to think of a militant person as someone so adamant in their beliefs that it can sometimes border on the unreasonable, and I don’t think anything that Dubois had to say or suggest seemed or had the potential to be unreasonable in the least.

Oh, Those Bleeding Heart Slave Owners

Basically everything the colonel thinks or says in Charles W. Chesnutt's The Passing of Grandison is somehow ironic, such as:

"What cold-blooded, heartless monsters they were who would break up this blissful relationship of kindly protection on the one hand, of wise subordination and loyal dependence on the other!" (Chesnutt, p. 234)

This is definitely an example of verbal irony used by the narrator while describing the colonel's outlook, seeing though this exclamation treats the unjust and evil institution of slavery as a fair and mutually beneficial relationship between slave and master.

Another example of verbal irony in the story would be:

"Yas, suh, I 's seen some of 'em. But I don' keer nuffin fer 'em, suh. Dey 're diffe'nt f'm de niggers down ou' way. Dey 'lows dey 're free, but dey ain' got sense 'nuff ter know dey ain' half as well off as dey would be down Souf, whar dey 'd be 'predated." (Chesnutt, p. 236)

At first, a reader might be unsure of this statement made by Grandison, but when the ending is presented we see that this statement is ironic for he does not believe this to be true at all.

The trip and return of Grandison is an example of situational irony. Dick is using Grandison and the trip North so that he can win the heart of Charity but the unexpected return of Grandison is certainly the opposite of what Dick would have liked to have happened. This also has the reader realizing that the trip really benefits Grandison, as he ends up using the trip as a means to become even more favorable in the eyes of the colonel and perhaps become more comfortable in finding a way to Canada resulting in Grandison not only freeing himself but his entire family as well.

Dear, Colonel.

The conclusion made me realize that situational irony is also present in the relationship between the colonel and Grandison. Even though the colonel is slightly fearful that the dastardly abolitionists could possibly sway Grandison, The colonel holds the belief that Grandison is simple minded and that his motives are transparent. The direct opposite of this turns out to be true for The colonel is actually transparent to Grandison, allowing Grandison to use the slave owner’s emotions to his advantage and play the part of the loyal and trustworthy slave that Grandison knows is expected of him.

Group Response

Responding to Beth Piper:

After reading most of the blog posts about The Storm, I’m glad that there really were such different opinions on it; it really helps open up new ways of thinking about and interpreting this story. Beth, I couldn't find much of what you think the story tried to convey in your first entry so I'm writing this concerning your response to Briana as well. In response to your reply post, I could agree that maybe the story seemed brief but I disagree with what happens between Calixta and Alcee being mostly meaningless. I can’t see Kate Chopin writing so carefully and using the metaphors she does with the intent of ending up saying, “Oh well, what happens just happens.” Also, you mentioned that you think maybe Chopin wrote this to vicariously experience the event through Calixta and I think you could be on to something however, I don’t think it would stop just there. For me, the meaning of this story shifts around the more I think about it. Do you think that in a way Calixta could be seen as a victim of circumstance? All the descriptors and usage of “white” surrounding Calixta point to purity, I think now that perhaps Kate Chopin’s meaning lies with Calixta being a victim of her circumstances and Chopin points out that after this act of infidelity Calixta still remains pure and good. As you can see, I'm still wrestling with The Storm. Anyways, hope this response was some sort of help.

Red Hot Cajun Love

The last line of Kate Chopin’s The Storm is a tricky one and I’m sure there will be varying degrees of interpretation and opinion from other classmates in their blog posts. “So the storm left and everyone was happy.” I think what Kate Chopin is essentially trying to say with this last line is that after their sexual encounter, Alcee and  especially Calixta, are happy, renewed, and don’t regret what has happened between them even though many would say that this act of infidelity should have them feeling shame and regret. In class, Scott mentioned that this could be seen as the start of more feminist writing and I can definitely see this story as supporting a more feminist attitude especially for when it was written because in a time where women still have nearly no political power or say this story highlights women as freethinking individuals with their own complex desires and needs. This line could also pertain to both Alcee and Calixta’s spouses, Bobinot and Clarisse, simply being happy because they are oblivious to what has happened and perhaps even that they will be happier now that they have Alcee and Calixta returning to them renewed just like the earth after a storm. What I find interesting is that usually an author that wrote over a hundred years ago hints at something that was controversial in the past and today it is not considered so controversial but this isn’t the case with The Storm, it is still controversial today since what I believe Chopin is expressing is that the confines of marriage shouldn’t always come before the needs of the individual.