Commentary of The Narrative of Frederick Douglass

            Within the context of the reading the topic and interpretation of sexual overtones cannot be missed. On page 49, “…administer their own lusts, and make a gratification of their wicked desires profitable as well as pleasurable.” The idea of these slave owners gaining a sense of sexual satisfaction as they deliver punishment to the slaves in question is something that Douglass witnesses and can comment on. The act itself seems to be some kind of sexual release for the owners and the only way to gain this is to in fact punish the slaves. The act of whipping is indeed something that we can view as horror but to Douglass it seems that he recognizes the slave owners’ true intentions behind it. Whether or not being able to look back and analyze the situation gave Douglass the gift of hindsight is unsaid, yet looking through some kind of Freudian lens before the id even was clearly described, he could see the true meaning behind these kinds of beatings.

            During discussion last week the topic was brought up that the inevitability of owning a slave was going to be cruelty. Within the Narrative, the readers do have examples of this but I wasn’t completely sold on taking the idea as all or nothing. There has to be some kind of grey when it comes to the topic of the treatment of a slave. The reader is given examples of two women in a few rapid pages (78-81). Within the text itself Mrs. Auld may represent the good and the bad represented by Mrs. Hamilton. Now if the evolution of a slave owner were to hold true, Auld would indeed become Hamilton at some point of ownership of a slave. Now, it could be my tendency to look at a glass as half full, but I believe that humans themselves have the capacity to be the better person in any situation and not fall into the “normality” of the time. Not every person who owned a slave would eventually become violent towards him or her. I understand that this is a topic that is full of cultural influence and also geographical location, but the decent treatment of one human to another is something I still hold on to. This is not to say or be blind to that owning a slave could be justified, because the very definition of slavery is something that sickens me. However, what is the true difference between a butler in this day and age versus a slave. It is still establishing a hierarchy within a house where one person is clearly identified as being “better” than another. Although someone could easily argue that pay is the difference, the morality of each scenario is the point I would attempt to argue.

            At the end of class last week, Professor Oster recommended that we do a Google search for the “Cult of True Womanhood.” The idea of the cult was a simple one, that a woman should possess four cardinal virtues; piety, purity, domesticity and submissiveness. The problem with this idea of womanhood is that it only applied to women in a certain class and location, a woman would normally have to be white, Protestant and live in the New England area. My confusion of the topic came about how we were applying these to slavery in general or was it just to the idea of womanhood? If indeed we were applying the Cult to women in general, then the amount of females that would not be considered is a staggering amount. Working class, immigrant women and black women all would fall outside the category of true womanhood. If a majority of women were also to invest into this kind of cult, it would cripple women’s ability to find or even look for work thus preventing a footing in any kind of labor industry. I’m sure that the Cult of True Womanhood saw themselves as ways to identify what it means to be a real woman, yet in fact all the group accomplished was to hold the female gender back.

In this entry I wanted to play around with the idea of the slaves constant presentation of power over Don Benito. Also How Delano id so oblivious to the idea that slaves could have overtaken the Spanish and how that might correlate to stereotypes and or racism.

            One encounter we have with this that we discussed in class is the significance of Atufal, a mountainous man brought out every two hours or so to beg for pardon. However, Atufal just remains silent in the scene and is then dismissed. What is most intriguing about this scene is Don Benito’s body language and tone of voice. When Atufal begins approaching Don Benito, “At the first glimpse of his approach, Don Benito had started, a resentful shadow swept over his face; and, as with the sudden memory of bootless rage, his white lips glued together.” (pg. 182).  When I read this it came off as completely submissive almost like a puppy that knows it did something wrong. Not till his servant in my eyes almost cued Don Bonito to say his line as if they were scripted. This seemed even more evident when Delano tells the reader, “Thus reminded, Don Benito, nervously adverting his response, in a disconcerted voice” (pg. 182). When Delano tells us that Don Benito was “thus reminded” it displayed for me how Don Benito is almost completely under the “servants” control. Atufal is brought out as a reminder to Don Benito to submissively tell him that if he gives word that the slaves have taken over, then they will release this monstrous man on him. Another major scene where I believe the slave’s power is physically displayed in the story is when Don Benito is telling “his story

            Even though this seems obvious to the reader, Delano refuses to believe any notion of slaves taking over a Spanish ship. Whenever he sees any sort of sign that there may be a shift in power he almost immediately brushes it off and just assumes that that is how things are run on this ship. After all it is not his ship and who is he to step in and tell another person of the same rank that he is doing everything wrong. Or could it be his assumption that blacks are always inferior to the white man? So Melville begins to play with this idea on an anti-slavery theme in the story. Where the black slave is overpowering the white man in many ways however Delano (society) doesn’t always see it or just blows it off. So is this Melville’s attempt to rectify this problem in society? Personally I believe it is and he does a great job at it through the interactions between characters in the story.

Location and Maritime Law?

The physical locations and the state that these locations are in is something to examine more deeply within the context of Benito Cereno. As Captain Cereno tells the initial story of what had happened as he rounded Cape Horn, one thing is for certain, this path is one of the most dangerous the ocean has to offer. It is a passage of blistering winds, the roughest of waves and a general danger set forth by its physical impediments. This was an area where ships were known to have accidents and be lost as a common occurrence. Even so, when Cereno is discussing the length of his journey around the Cape, the amount of time it takes to make the trip doesn’t add up to what would be the “normal” amount. This being one of the many factors contributing to the sense that not every aboard the San Dominick.

            As a reader we also have to realize that nearly the entirety of the story happens on two ships completely off shore. The kinds of laws that the crews would have on land, don’t apply here. Does that leave the sense that anything could go? Or as we discussed in class, a sense of gray to the entire idea of “law” on the ocean. If that were the case, would the captains of the Bachelor’s Delight and the San Dominick be the actual lawmakers and enforcers of what would be described as a moral code rather than a strict set of laws. We briefly touched upon this on class this last Tuesday, but is it the responsibility of a captain to make sure that all order is in accordance to these codes or is the crew capable of self governing themselves and it’s only when things get out of hand that the a leader must step forward. The hierarchy of a ship can be closest compared to that one of a military structure, which furthers the question, how bad would things have to get aboard a ship in order for the captain to come in. Now as the story progresses we learn that the slaves overthrow the white crewmembers but keep Cereno and a few crewmembers alive. Should Cereno have been informed of a rising tide of discourse before the actual overthrow occurred?

            On a different topic altogether, Captain Delano was given more than enough signs to stay away from the San Dominic, yet his character was unable to leave the ship alone, his more code could not let another vessel sit idly if he thought assistance would be welcome. The initial warning that the ship was “on the verge of the leaded-hued swells, with the shreds of fog here and there raggedly furring her,” paints the picture of something completely ominous and not worth inquiring about. The idea that something is not completely shown to a character marks that a sense of warning should be under consideration. Upon boarding the San Dominick still, the description of something horrifying is given to the ship itself, “The spars, ropes and great part of the bulwarks, looked wooly, from long acquaintance with the scraper, tar and the brush. Her keep seemed laid, her ribs put together, and she launched, from Ezekiel’s Valley of Dry Bones.” The imagery of a skeleton and death itself hangs about all aspects of the ship, foreshadowing the things to come in the rest of the story. Also another example of death being the comparison to a “hearse-like roll of the hull,” of page 165. Another question I have though is a historical context issue; did a hearse represent the same thing in 1855 as it does to modern readers?

Nelson Glendinning

English 130

11 February 2014

Blog #1

            For class we recently read the short story “The Birthmark” by Nathaniel Hawthorne. The story seems to portray a scientist’s (Aylmer) pursuit of perfection. Through all of his science experiments and tests he is in a constant struggle to find perfection. This seems to be another theme of the story, that science has many pit falls as Aylmer is met with failure in almost all of his experiments.

            Early on in the story Aylmer meets his soul mate and “persuaded a beautiful woman to become his wife.” (pg84). The particular use of language in this statement poses a very big question, which is, Does/did Aylmer really love his wife? Or did he just see something worth investing in? The questions seem to heighten the situation when you get deeper into the story. In particularly when he notices this birthmark that she has on her cheek. He begins to obsess about this mark and completely forgets about the beautiful woman behind it. He even goes as far as to suggest removing the mark through scientific experiment. So here Aylmer is attempting to correct this imperfection that he sees. Perhaps this is rooted in his brain due to his amazing obsession with perfection and trying to achieve it.

            The setting also seems to suggest that Aylmer might just see his wife as a lab experiment and not his actual soul mate. The story takes place two places, his lab where only he and his assistant Aminadab can go, and his wife’s boudoir, a converted piece of his lab dressed up to suit his wife’s taste. So the entire scenery is under Aylmer’s complete control. One could almost go as far as to say that Georgiana is quarantined within her boudoir. When put into those terms it is almost evident that she is his science experiment on his pursuit to perfection.

Here Aylmer talks about the mark as a terrible flaw put on by nature, “It was the fatal flaw of humanity which nature, in one shape or another, stamps ineffaceably on all her productions, either to imply that they are temporary and finite, or that their perfection must be wrought by toil and pain.”(pg. 86). He Aylmer even goes as far as to call the mark fatal. Which could be foreshadowing for her imamate death down the road. However, it also seems to express his struggle with nature and how it is hindering his “Wife” from perfection. So in the end is she really the one he loves or does she represent his love and pursuit of perfection through the desperate act to fix this fatal mark on perfection.

Another interesting question that could be asked is; why would Georgiana consent to go along with his experiment? At one point in the story she read Aylmer’s journal, which contains all of his scientific experiments and notes. Then Georgiana becomes aware that, “Much as he had accomplished, she could not but observe that his most splendid successes were almost invariably failures” (pg. 94). So after reading about all of his countless failures she still concedes with the experiment to rid her of her mark. Is this a sign of trust or a sign of insurmountable love for Aylmer? Or has she been brainwashed into believing that she cannot live without ridding herself of this fatal hand. Georgiana goes, as far as to say, “life is a burden which I would fling down with joy. Either remove this dreadful hand, or take my wretched life.” (pg.88). Here she makes it clear that Aylmer has convinced her that her life is worth nothing unless this fatal crimson hand is removed. 

           

The Nature of this Allegory

            I would just like to point out that Hawthorne brilliantly plays with the elements of both the fictional and the allegorical of this story. Much like Aylmer’s world of science and the power of man overlaps with Georgiana’s world of nature and man’s mortality, so does the moral aspect with the narrative.

The main overlapping I’ll discuss can be found within the first two pages.

“He had devoted himself, however, too unreservedly to scientific studies ever to be weaned from them by any second position. His love for his young wife might prove the stronger of the two; but it could only be by way intertwining itself with his love of science, and uniting the strength of the latter to his own.” (Hawthorne 84)

The wording used is paralleled with the description of Georgiana’s birthmark on the following page: “To explain this conversation it must be mentioned that in the centre of Georgiana’s left cheek there was a singular mark, deeply interwoven, as it were, with the texture and substance of her face.” (85) The use of such vocabulary can’t be a coincidence.

Of course, this could be an interpretive problem, but I see the first quote as Hawthorne’s foreshadowing of Aylmer’s (potential) downfall. I say potential because it seems as though the narrator implies there is hope for Aylmer, that if he keeps his love for his wife strong enough it could counteract his passion for this pursuit in science. A questionable thing about this though, “His love for his young wife” is mentioned, which seems difficult to believe due to Aylmer’s acquiring of a wife. Why then would this be said, if not for the fact that he did actually love her and could have overcome his ambitious nature? As for the second quote, it seems to point all too clearly to the fact that the only way of being rid of the birthmark is to be rid of Georgiana as well. The birthmark is a part of this human creature, the woman he loves. However, similar to how Georgiana’s boudoir was joined with (and a type of disguise for) Aylmer’s lab, science proved to have a stronger hold over him. Control. Another parallel, like Aylmer’s control over his wife and later a projection of his feelings as his scientific world is invaded by the all too human Georgiana.

Speaking of control, when we first discussed Georgiana’s being controlled by Aylmer a poem by Marge Piercy came to mind “A Work of Artifice” : <http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/marge-piercy/a-work-of-artifice/>. I find it interesting that in both works the woman is synonymous to nature while the man is the destroyer of life (with the interpretive perspective of improving/perfecting nature). Unlike in the story though, the poem provides no indication that nature prevails.  

Since nature does prevail in The Birthmark I would argue that Nature is a willful force (as demonstrated through Aminadab, who is the personification or embodiment of earth), and perhaps Aylmer was destined to this fate. He may have loved her at first; he didn’t notice the birthmark until after they were married. But, it is left up to the reader to muse about these ideas thanks to Hawthorne’s writing.

Hanging Questions.

Supernatural vs. Natural

During The Transformation there are signs that supernatural forces are always at work in our world and the fiction world that the book takes place in. However, the problem with the world in the novel is that there is no other explanation for these supernatural forces or voices or specters or whatever we decide to call them other than these are messages from God. The book should have addressed that these forces might have some other explanation other than this is God communicating directly with his followers and believers in different ways. Why wouldn’t the eerie occurrences be a simple supernatural trope to move the pieces (characters) into place? I understand that this wasn’t the message of the novel itself and the novel blatantly is focused on the relationships with God and what it would mean to have a direct line to the man upstairs but at the same time, looking back at this novel in a 21^st century world we are used to examining the supernatural in different ways. We live in a world filled with “scary” movies and television shows that examine the paranormal and have the equipment to somewhat measure these kinds of findings. I am definitely not saying that I am a believer of these supernatural elements, what my stance is in fact that there just needs to have more explanations of what is going on and it makes the characters too ignorant to the other explanations of what is going on.

The Problem With God

The novel itself has a strong connection to the Puritan world and it’s very hard-nosed belief to God and religion itself. I also completely understand that someone who would not have other kind of “God” influence writes the book. Yet, like the other point I brought up, the book is so focused on one kind of God that it misses an opportunity to perhaps blame Satan for the events going on with the family. If murder and these ominous voices are something that are driving the characters to question morality, an example being Pleyel losing faith in the kind of person Clara is, why couldn’t it be the dark force in the universe? I don’t know much of the bible and what Satan’s true intentions are when it comes to the stealing of souls, persuasion and temptation, but I do know the persuasion of committing murder sounds like something an evil and perhaps the most evil of characters would be interesting in doing.

Not Explaining the Father Wieland’s Death

The biggest issue I have with Brown’s Wieland is that every occurrence of the supernatural is explained in one way or another except perhaps the most ominous and interesting death, Father Wieland. If a character actually contains physical repercussions with having an encounter with the supernatural, it is far more interesting that just hearing voices. This was a man that saw a light, and it wasn’t just something to warn him, this was an occurrence of malicious intent. The kind of violence wasn’t seen anywhere else in the novel and for it to be brought up so quickly and then forgot on is such a shame for the book itself. The mystery surrounding the Father Wieland’s death is touched upon throughout the book but the injuries sustained and what they could mean are not.