Weblog 5

After reading the three Mary Wilkins Freeman stories that were assigned for class, I really wasn't sure what to write in my blog. I was going to wait and hope that something in our discussion of them in class sparked my interest and led me to what I would post, like it usually does, but we did not really talk about them today, so I ended up looking a little into Freeman's history and life story.

Something I found pretty interesting in our anthology book was the fact that the man Freeman married, after only a few years together, turned to drinking and became such a horrible alcoholic that he had to be institutionalized. I feel like this makes sense in context of her stories we've read where the men are portrayed as less than great. Freeman continues to put the control of the situations in the hands of her women characters and I can't help but wonder if this has something to do with trying to be in power during her true to life situations where men may not have granted this to her.

I also felt it was interesting to see how much distaste was show towards alcohal in the stories, namely "Old Woman Magoun." The men who the grandmother is attempting to save her granddaughter from were described as drunkards and it is clear how the grandmother feels about this. Is this maybe a reflection of the way that Freeman personally felt about drinking?

Lastly, I'm not sure how I responded to the characters in these stories beside that of Sarah Penn in "The Revolt of Mother." I thought that she was a brave and creative character who deserved the position of heroism that Freeman gave to her. The other women Freeman introduced to us in these stories didn't thrill me. I felt that Louisa in "A New England Nun" was a bland girl who was scared to make changes and take chances. And then we have Old Woman Magoun who lets her sweet grandaughter die becuase of her own prejudices and beliefs. I personally felt that these characters distracted from the idea of women being in control just becasue they were not the types of women I would prefer to see with power.

Weblog 4

A couple people today brought up the fact that Twain wrote Fennimore Cooper’s Literary Offenses after Cooper had already died and was not able to offend himself, especially when some of the claims Twain made about his stories were stretching the truth pretty far. I feel like this reflects more on Twain as a person than it does on Cooper as a writer. Though I have liked Twain since beginning this class (the only other piece of his work I’ve read prior to English 481 was A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court and I really didn’t like it too terribly much) this latest one was my least favorite. That isn’t to say that it wasn’t funny, because I was laughing as hard as I could at certain parts. I just don’t connect much with someone who takes to critiquing other people’s work like Twain did in Fennimore Cooper. Dr. Campbell acknowledged in class that no one approached any of Twains pieces as harshly as he did Coopers, so maybe he didn’t know what it would feel like. I’m sure there are people who do not feel fondly about Twain, but they are not picking his writing apart and masking it under humor.
I feel at some point the war between these ‘labels’ of literature, like the war between realism and romanticism, takes away from the art. I’m not so sure how important it is to try and classify a piece a literature or to analyze what makes it fit under which genre or something James wrote is better than something Hawthorne wrote. At some point, maybe these critics were paying to much attention to fighting about the ‘isms’ and not enough time just letting people chose what they like to read without insulting the writers.

Weblog 3

So, in class today, there was quite a bit of discussion (and maybe even some disagreement) about Daisy’s character in James’ “Daisy Miller: A Study” character in James’ “Daisy Miller: A Study.” There were some of us who felt that Daisy was simply an innocent, naïve young girl and others who thought she was, well, not so innocent. I was leaning toward her just not understanding the things she was doing, but then—as a group pointed out in class today—she ignored everyone who tried to explain it to her. Then, I honestly came to the conclusion that maybe James was trying to confuse his readers as much as Winterbourne was confused about Daisy’s integrity.

On the handout Dr. Campbell gave us in class, there is a quote from James himself who says “ Poor little Daisy Miller was, as I understand her, above all things innocent. It was not to make or scandal, or because she took pleasure in a scandal, that she went on with Giovanelli. She never took the measure really of the scandal she produced, and had no means of doing so: she was too ignorant, too irreflective, too little versed in the proportions of things. She was a flirt, a perfectly superficial and unmalicious one…I did not mean to suggest that she was playing off Giovanelli against Winterbourne—for she was too innocent for that.”

If James himself intended to write Daisy as an innocent character who is simply “ignorant” of the commotion she causes, then I guess we have to believe him. I just figure that he could have done a little better in helping imply that to his readers. Or maybe Winterbourne’s ideal of Daisy is reflected in him somehow; in the way that he cares about this character and will always see her as innocent. Then again, he said “as I understand her” and he might not even understand her better than any of us do.
My last question about this reading, which I will post for Dr. Campbell’s response is: What is the meaning behind the second part of the story’s title, “A Study”?