In Our Time (Masculinity) -Andrew

P.105 "When he started to kill it was all in the same rush. The bull looking at him straight in front, hating. He drew out the sword from the folds of the muleta and sighted with the same movement and called to the bull, Toro! Toro! and the bull charged and Villalta charged and just for a moment they became one. Villalta became one with the bull and then it was over.Vilallta standing straight and the red hilt of the sword sticking out dully between the bull's shoulders. Vilallta, his hand up at the crowd and the bull roaring blood, looking straight at Villalta and his legs caving."


A recurring theme we see in Hemingway's In Our Time is the idea of masculinity. Being a novel centered around World War !, this isn't surprising. What is surprising is the way that Hemingway presents masculinity through the characters in the book. Bullfighting was an excellent way for Hemingway to portray the connection between two masculine enemies, just as it was in WWI on a larger scale. What is significant in this quote is the part which describes the matador and the bull, just prior to the bull's demise, as being one. I think this is Hemingway's way of conveying the strange bond between all men, a silent interconnectedness if you will, even as they stare down the barrel of a gun at each-other. 


This quote precludes a chapter regarding Nick and George skiing in the Alps. The same idea of an "unspoken" bond between the two is quickly noticed as they enter a bar, in stark contrast to Hemingway's portrayal of women as bonding through lots of spoken word, and even through crying in some parts. This masculine way of relating to each-other could probably be best described as a silent enjoyment of things, and a quote from the chapter Cross-Country Snow portrays this perfectly. 


P.109 "There's nothing really can touch skiing, is there?" Nick said. "The way it feels when you drop off on a long run."  "Huh," said Geroge, "It's too swell to talk about."

Katrina's In Our Time Post

"While the bombardment was knocking the trench to pieces at Fossalta, he lay very flat and sweated and prayed oh jesus christ get me out of here. Dear jesus please get me out. Christ please please please christ. If you'll only keep me from getting killed I'll do anything you say. I believe in you and I'll tell everyone in the world you are the only one that matters. Please please dear jesus. The shelling moved farther up the line. We went to work on the trench and in the morning the sun came up and the day was hot and muggy and cheerful and quiet. The next night back at Mestre he did not tell the girl he went upstairs with at the Villa Rossa with about Jesus. And he never told anybody."¹

This is the interchapter before "Soldier's Home in Chapter VII. This passage is interesting because it provides the reader with a vivid emotional picture of a soldier fighting in a trench during WWI. It is interesting because in this soldier's time of need he desperately turns to religion when he feels devoid of hope. It seems implied in this passage that the soldier is not otherwise a religious man, but now that he finds himself in the most hopeless and frightening moments of his life, he turns to Christ. While considering these things, here is an exerpt from "Soldier's Home" that follows:

" 'Would you kneel and pray with me, Harold?' his mother asked. They knelt down beside the dining-room table and Krebs's mother prayed. 'Now, you pray, Harold,' she said. 'I can't,' Krebs said. 'Try, Harold.' 'I can't.' 'Do you want me to pray for you?' 'Yes.' So his mother prayed for him and then they stood up and Krebs kissed his mother and went out of the house. He had tried so to keep his life from being complicated."¹

This passage shows a different soldier's sentiments about religion that strongly contrast with the first passage. In this case, Krebs finds it difficult to pray with his mother because, perhaps, he feels strongly he should not lie when he evidently does not believe in praying.

This raises several questions:

First, why did Hemingway choose to juxtapose these two stories. What relationship do these two stories have, if any?

Second, in the first passage, why do you think the soldier pleaded to Christ so adamantly when he apparently feels no connection to Him? Do you believe that in the soldier's moment of need he truly felt some connection to Jesus? How do you explain his feelings at the end, when he is safe again?

Third, how do you explain Krebs's reaction to his mother's request of prayer? Why do you think Krebs chooses not to pray with his mother, rather than to give in and pray with her? Additionally, what do you think Krebs is implying when he says "He had tried so to keep his life from being complicated"?

Finally, what do these two passages together say about the role of religion in a soldier's life?

1. Ernest Hemingway, In Our Time (New York: Scribner, 2003), 67-77).

Heather's In Our Time Post

“They were all black. They were not the big grasshoppers with yellow and black or red and black wings whirring out from their black wing sheathing as they fly up. They were just ordinary hoppers, but all a sooty black in color. Nick had wondered about them as he walked, without really thinking about them. Now, as he watched the black hopper that was nibbling at the wool of his sock with its fourway lip, he realized that they had all turned black from living in the burned-over land. He realized that the fire must have come the year before, but the grasshoppers were all black now. He wondered how long they would stay that way. … “Go on hopper,” Nick said, speaking out loud for the first time. “Fly away somewhere.””


Hemingway includes this description of the grasshopper because it is a metaphor suggesting that the grasshopper and Nick are similar. The hoppers are not the same as they were before the land was burned over, as Nick is not the same as he was before the war. However, the effects on the grasshopper of the land being burnt are physical, while the effects of the war on Nick are psychological/ emotional. His wondering how long the grasshoppers will remain that way is reflective of his frustration of dealing with the effects of the war.


Both Nick and The Narrator in Surfacing struggle because of events from their past. How is it that their situations differ?

How does the last sentence ““Go on hopper,” Nick said, speaking out loud for the first time. “Fly away somewhere,”” relate to Nick?

Becky's In Our Time Post

p. 63 "Nick sat against the wall of the church where they had dragged him to be clear of machine-gun fire in the street. Both legs stuck out awkwardly. He had been hit in the spine. His face was sweaty and dirty. The sun shone on his face. The day was very hot. Rinaldi, big backed, his equipment sprawling, lay face downward against the wall. Nick looked straight ahead brilliantly. The pink wall of the house opposite had fallen out from the roof, and an iron bedstead hung twisted toward the street. Two Austrian dead lay in the rubble in the shade of the house. Up the street were other dead. Things were getting forward in the town. It was going well. Stretcher bearers would be along any time now. Nick turned his head carfully and looked at Rinaldi. 'Senta Rinaldi. Senta. You and me we've made a separate peace.' Rinaldi lay still in the sun breathing with difficulty. 'Not patriots.' Nick turned his head carefully away smiling sweatily. Rinaldi was a disappointing audience."

Despite the situation being described in this passage Hemingway uses direct, emotionless prose and very few vivid descriptions to create this scene. Instead of dark or shadowy language one would expect to detail the scene of two injured soldies there is a motif of sunlight rather than darkness. Hemingway discusses the sun shining on Nick's face yet chooses to note that Rinaldi's face was "downward against the wall." This shows how Nick seems to be indifferent to the pain and trauma he has just been through. Intead of being slumped against the wall like Rinaldi he is upright, facing the street with the sun shining on his face. His description of his injuries is equally as detached as he merely states, "He had been hit in the spine." There is no discussion of pain or trauma, just the simple fact of his injury.

Hemingway also includes that "Nick looked straight ahead brilliantly," showing that he doesn't feel the need to hide his face from the death or destruction around him. In this situation of destruction, pain, and loss Nick looks straight ahead brilliantly. He seems to take in what he sees without actually processing what it means. He only seems focused on the fact that the stretcher bearers would be coming by soon.

The observance that, "It was going well," is juxtaposed with the previous sentence's discussion of the loss of human life Nick is observing. He describes the dead Austrian's around him as being "in the shade of the house" that has been destroyed by the battle. The house is the only object that is described in detail showing that it has significance to this scene. The house could perhaps represent a war torn Europe with dead soldiers lying in the shade of it's destruction. The image of this house could also represent a fellow soldier. By describing the "pink" insides of the house Hemingway could be connecting this symbol to one of death. The inside of the house is twisted and parts of it have fallen out. The house is the reader's only physical description of the surroundings, besides the fact that Nick is leaning up against the wall of a church which has not been destroyed. This could also relate to the idea of a church's significance to the mindset of a warrior. In a time of stress he is propped up against a church for stability.

Nick does not focus on the events that lead to his injuries but only seems concerned with the next step, his life had become fragmented into clips that exclude the actual cause of the violence that has disturbed him and left him broken. He seems oddly optimistic about his situation and tries to engage Renaldi in a conversation about how they have now made their peace. "Senta" could be referring to a city in Serbia where they were fighting in the war (yes, I did Google it). The war effort has reached this city and is moving forward through it. Despite the effects of this Nick still proclaims that things were going well. This strange optimism despite the death that surrounded him reminded me of a passage in an earlier chapter titled 'Indian Camp' in which Nick went along with his father as he performed a C-section on an Indian woman who was having trouble with her child birth. At the end of this gruesome story Nick asserts that, "...he felt quite sure that he would never die." (p 19) Nick seems to have an irrational view of his own mortality and therefore can't access feelings of fear, pain, or loss in his life.

The fact that Nick doesn't relate emotions to what he visually sees anymore would gives an explanation as to why he can remain sitting upright with his face in the sun. He is disconnected from what occurs around him. He becomes measured and calculated in his movements and only moves his head "carefully" which is the only way he shows caution or prudence in the whole seen. He doesn't even fear for Rinaldi or his injuries, but instead he remarks how they no longer have to be patriots. His duty is paid in his mind, releasing him from the horror he finds himself in.

This passage details a scene of war that is atypical. No fear or remorse is present in the description. This shows the affect of the trauma and the loss of continuity of thoughts and emotions brought about by war.

Question #1:
What do you think the church or house signify in this passage?

Question #2:
What does Nick's onesided conversation with Rinaldi signify? Why is this dialogue included?

Question #3:
The passage after this paragraph is titled "A Very Short Story" and discusses a romance between a nurse and a patient that was very short lived. Why do you think this paragraph preceeds that story?

Hemingway Interview from The Paris Review

INTERVIEWER

Finally, a fundamental question: as a creative writer what do you think is the function of your art? Why a representation of fact, rather than fact itself?

HEMINGWAY

Why be puzzled by that? From things that have happened and from things as they exist and from all things that you know and all those you cannot know, you make something through your invention that is not a representation but a whole new thing truer than anything true and alive, and you make it alive, and if you make it well enough, you give it immortality. That is why you write and for no other reason that you know of. But what about all the reasons that no one knows?

For more see: 

http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4825/the-art-of-fiction-no-21-ernest-hemingway

An' Surfacing Blog Post

“She must have heard the door opening and closing in the night; she produces a smile, warm conspiratorial, and I know what circuits are closing in her head: by screwing Joe she’s brought us back together.”

In the above sentences, I think Atwood has one more time emphasize the current problems of the Western civilizations. The idea of being others’ savior has been deeply implanted into everyone. She seems to even put it further and alludes that this heroic idea appears to be root from the sense of fairness that has been distorted by a misplaced sense of self-righteousness and physical tendency. In the stories, Anna after learning that the Narrator has refused Joe’s proposal has had sex with Joe and believe that she can save Joe and the Narrator’s relationship by doing so and judge that her course of action was a spot on by invoking the idea of retaliation/sense of fairness that she thought the Narrator also has a similar idea about that.

“Saving the world, everyone wants to; men think they can do it with guns, women with their bodies, love conquers all, conquerors love all, mirages raised by words.”

Professor Steele once remarked in a lecture that the thing that is most feared by western civilization is chaos. The ideas of conquering and being conquerors may serve the role to help establishing the systematic rules in society to restraint people. But would those ideas ultimately give rises to chaos? The Western civilization nurtured individuals from the early age to appreciate themselves and with that their self-belief in their judgments emerges.

Would the physical and violent tendencies of current civilization along with emerging sense of self-righteousness further distorted the sprit of fairness in civilization and lead to chaotic conditions, when people start to consider them above the laws and start acting beyond the social restraints?

If the idea of heroes is not correct, what could we possibly do to first protect ourselves and afterward help to fix the idea of conquerors that is at heart of current civilization?

Library Location Change

There's been a last minute change in our library-day location. I apologize for the suddenness of this, but please meet at: 

COLLEGE LIBRARY 

Classroom 1193D 

Today 

At the normally scheduled classtime (3:30 or 4:35pm)

To reach 1193D: enter the front doors of the college library, turn left, go through the Ethnic Studies collection, and you'll see the door. If you can't find it, ask a friendly librarian!

Because of the immediacy of this change, if you see your classmates today, please remind them of the change so that everyone gets to College Library on time. We'll do our historical society visit next Thursday.

Emma's Surfacing Blog Post

"The shape of the heron flying above us the first evening we fished, legs and neck stretched, wings outspread, a blue-gray cross, and the other heron or was it the same one, hanging wrecked from the tree. Whether it died willingly, consented, whether Christ died willingly, anything that suffers and dies instead of us is Christ; if they didn't kill birds and fish they would have killed us."
-- Ch 17 PG 141

At this point in the novel the main character is alone and searching the swamp for places her father may have visited. Being alone gives her time to reflect on her surroundings without having to put up a front for the people that she is continuously feeling a larger and larger disconnect with.

This passage is very interesting because not only does it revisit the concept of religion it also further illustrates her disconnect from civilization. She is continuing to see people as violent aggressors and it is apparent here that she is beginning to feel threatened by people invading her space. It seems like the more time she spends at her father's cabin the more distant she feels from other people and the closer she feels towards the land around her.

In this passage she is falling back on religious teachings that she wasn't ever directly taught. Earlier in the book, the main character explains that her family didn't take her to Sunday school, which is why I find it intriguing that she is using very religious language here. So, my first question is why do you think that the character is using religious diction here? What compels her to fall back on religion when her family never preached its importance?

The last line, "if they didn't kill birds and fish they would have killed us," evokes very strong emotion in the narrator. What do you think the narrator means by this? Is she talking about literal killing? Or is she referring to the destruction of nature by the corruptive and invading disease called "civilization"?

Monday Notes

First

On the assignment sheet I handed out on thursday it said we were meeting monday/today for our library tour. I very much hope you recognized that as a bit of idiocy on my part (it happens oh-so-often). TOMORROW we will meet in the historical society (in the atrium on the ground floor) at the normal class time. 

Second

We are going to talk about Hemingway on Thursday, but we're also going to wrap up Atwood. In particular I want to reflect with you about the title of the book (Surfacing), so if you have thoughts about that, bring them in to share. 

Third

Keep the blog posts and comments coming. Keep them as involved/thoughtful as you can. We are already making great strides in our discussions, analyses, and reading so far and I am excited to see what we can do with these next couple of terrific texts. 

Finally

Let me know if you have any questions. I'll be around email all day today. 

-matt

John's Post (Surfacing)

"One of its eyes is bulging out and I feel a little sick, it's because I've killed something, made it dead; but I know that's irrational, killing certain things is all right, food and enemies, fish and mosquitoes; and wasps, when there are too many of them you pour boiling water down their tunnels" (Atwood 62).

So far throughout this whole book, the main character has yet to show really any feelings toward anybody. Her best friend as of now is Anna whom she has known for only two months, and the thing that she likes about Joe is that he is quiet and doesn't like to talk about his feelings. Then throughout the book so far her own father is missing and potentially dead, but she hardly shows any emotion of sadness towards this.

During this passage she kills a fish, and begins to feel a little sick about killing it. This sickness she feels is one of the only times throughout the book so far that she has any sort of feelings or emotions for anything. Then after realizing that it is ridiculous for her too feel this way, she starts to say that certain things are alright to kill. All of the things she names are animals, except for one. She mentions that it is also alright to kill enemies. This is just another hint that she has no feelings and that she may be a little crazy, if she thinks its ok to kill another person, even if it is an enemy.

1.) Why do you think she feels she is rationalized in saying that it is alright to kill an enemy?

2.) Why do you think it took her this long to actually have some feelings for an object or person?

Surfacing

“This is the fifth book I’ve done; the first was the Department of Manpower employment manual, young people with lobotomized grins, rapturous in their padded slots: Computer Programmer, Welder, Executive Secretary, Lab Technician.” (Atwood 50)

At this point in the novel the protagonist is describing to the reader her profession as a corporate artist, a profession whose pursuit she attributes to ex-husband’s advice. She reveals that she originally aspired to be what she calls a “real artist,” a distinction that suggests a compromise the protagonist was compelled to make.

What I find particularly interesting in this passage is the protagonist’s apparent discomfort with the labels, in this case referred to “padded slots,” of the young people she mentions. The concept of organization and labels is one we encountered in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, and Atwood seems to similarly comment on society’s need to arbitrarily classify individuals. In the same way that Conrad described “the Manager” or “The Russian” as exclusive and definitive terms, Atwood presents the idea of labels as a means of confining the individual. The reader can easily identify the conspicuous reference to some sort of solitary confinement in the words “padded slots,” which implies the protagonist’s negative view of the classifications.

An equally interesting aspect of this passage is the hypocrisy that it reveals in the protagonist’s point of view. The use of the word lobotomy, for example, carries with it a negative connotation of an emotionally inert individual. However, the protagonist earlier in the novel describes how “To be deaf and dumb would be easier” (7), suggesting that the inability to fully interact with those around her would be a welcome change.

1. Can the inconsistent outlook of Atwood’s protagonist be paralleled to Marlow’s evolving outlook in Heart of Darkness?

2. In a statement directly prior to the passage provided the protagonist admits she find comfort in the job title of “corporate artist.” How do you think she can reconcile her view of labels as means of confinement with the mental security they seem to provide?

Margaret Atwood Interview

Interviews can be a great way to get (maybe just a little ways) into the head of a writer. A way of seeing there words in new ways. 

And the Paris Review does the best interviews. 

Here's one of M.A.

https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/hooley/10311454.pdf

Courtney's Blog Surfacing Ch. 1-5

"The lake is tricky, the water shifts, the wind swells up quickly; people drown every year, boats loaded topheavy or drunken fishermen running at high speed into deadheads, old pieces of tree waterlogged and partly decayed, floating under the surface, there are a lot of them left over from the logging and the time they raised the lake level. Because of the convolutions it's easy to lose the way if you haven't memorized the landmarks and I watch for them now, dome-shaped hill, point with dead pine, stubble of cut trunks poking up from a shallows, I don't trust Evans."

The narrator first mentions how the lake is dangerous. I feel like this is building up to when her brother's drowning was mentioned. She mentions how people drown every year and logs float under the surface of the water. This was then how she described how her brother was seen by her mother when he died. Irony is used when the narrator describes how easy it is to get lost on the lake. She states that she memorized the landmarks and knows what to look for now, but when it comes to her emotions and love she is very lost. She has a very hard time trusting anyone and this is shown through her statement that she doesn't trust Evans. She is still very upset about her divorce so she has a hard time letting anyone in too close and her best friend has only known her for two months.

Ryan W's Post (Heart of Darkness)

We were within thirty yards from the nearest fire. A black figure stood up, strode on long black legs, waving long black arms, across the glow. It had horns-antelope horns, I think-on its head. Some sorcerer, some witch-man, no doubt: it looked fiend-like enough. ‘Do you know what you are doing?’ I whispered. ‘Perfectly,’ he answered, raising his voice for that single word: it sounded to me far off and yet loud, like a hail through a speaking-trumpet. If he makes a row we are lost, I thought to myself. This clearly was not a case for fisticuffs, even apart from the very natural aversion I had to beat that Shadow-this wandering and tormented thing. ‘You will be lost,’ I said-‘utterly lost.’ One gets sometimes such a flash of inspiration, you know. I did say the right thing, though indeed he could not have been more irretrievably lost than he was at this very moment, when the foundations of our intimacy were being laid-to endure-to endure-even to the end-even beyond.” (Conrad

, 79-80)

This selection takes place when Kurtz leaves the ship and attempts to crawl back to the natives. Marlow follows Kurtz’s trail and finds him within a short distance from a group of natives.

To me, the excerpt represents the darkness as described by the book. The native sorcerer, who was described using the word ‘black’ several times, represents the darkness that Kurtz had fallen to and yearned to return to. This is further demonstrated with the phrase “…I had to beat that Shadow”, describing the Shadow that has fallen over Kurtz’s soul. 

Marlow also called Kurtz “lost”, which could be taken as his soul is on the brink between the light of the civilized world, and the dark that was seen to be the natives. I also felt that the phrase “to endure”, though not literally meant as such, can be seen as Marlow himself trying to endure the darkness. 

1. Why would Kurtz want to return to the native tribesmen when there was so much to look forward to back home?

2. What could Kurtz’s battle with his inner darkness represent? 

Heart of Darkness Close Reading for September 9th

“Kurtz—Kurtz-- that means short in German—don’t it? Well, the name was as true as everything else in his life—and death. He looked at least seven feet long.” (Conrad, 74)

Seen here is almost a displeasure in Marlow’s “voice”. This short passage comes shortly after Marlow’s conversation with Kurtz’s admirer, and Marlow’s recognition of disbelief that Kurtz has ever conversed humble things with any man. Marlow says himself to the admire that “…Kurtz is no idol of [his],” (73) and that is reiterated here in the above passage. It also shows the irony/sarcasm that has frequented among Conrad’s writing. I say sarcasm because you can almost read the passage with an attitude that mocks the meaning of Kurtz’s name, like Marlow is actually scoffing at the thought that anything said about Kurtz by other men is considered real, or the truth.

1. In the first half of the book Marlow was so “excited” to meet Kurtz, or at least it seemed that way. This changes throughout the book. What events or thoughts contribute to this change of feeling towards Kurtz?

2. The whole passage that this part is taken from discusses Marlow’s genuine disgust of Kurtz and the way Marlow’s crew has been treated by Kurtz’s company. Do you think Marlow, deep down, still has admiration for Kurtz, perhaps hoping that Kurtz might “spare them”? (at this point in the story, not reading further)

Heart Of Darkness - Thurs Sep 8

Selection – “I remember his abject pleading, his abject threats, the colossal scale of his vile desires, the meanness, the torment, tempestuous anguish of his soul. And later on I seemed to see his collected languid manner, when he said one day, ‘This lot of ivory now is really mine. The Company did not pay for it. I collected it myself at a very great personal risk. I am afraid that they will try to claim it as theirs though. H’m. It is a difficult case. What do you think I ought to do – resist? Eh? I want no more than justice.’ … He wanted no more than justice—no more than justice.“ (Conrad, 91-92)
This selection begins by displaying Marlow’s disgust with Kurtz – his recognition of wrongdoing and disregard for the lives of the natives (enemies). It is this dissociation from justice which the book embodies. The reuse of the word abject shows his deep disgust with Kurtz’s mindset, and furthers that with the rest of his description.
Kurtz's quote is a strong use of Conrad’s sarcasm, which as was spoke of in lecture is a very prominent element in the text. His calmness of the situation is glorified, as he develops little anger for the fortune which may be taken away from him upon his (possible) return. This gentleman-like quality shows that he is an icon of the Imperialist movement, as can be seen in Marlow’s statement “Your success in Europe is assured in any case.” (Conrad, 83) The heartless blindness to the true injustice which has been done is Conrad’s depiction of the “White Man’s Burden,” and the atrocities which it caused.
Questions to ponder upon

1. What does Marlow’s loyalty to Kurtz represent, given the contrasting loathing he holds toward him?

2. What does Kurtz’s concern with his ivory stock parallel in real-world events? Furthermore, does his death represent the end of Imperialism or the bloodshed caused during the Imperialist movement? Why?

Ryan S.'s Post on Heart of Darkness

“I missed my late helmsman awfully,—I missed him even while his body was still lying in the pilot-house.  Perhaps you will think it passing strange, this regret for a savage who was of no more account than a grain of sand in a black Sahara.  Well, don’t you see, he had done something, he had steered; for months I had him at my back—a help—an instrument.  It was a kind of partnership.  He steered for me—I had to look after him, I worried about his deficiencies, and thus a subtle bond had been created, of which I only became aware when it was suddenly broken.  And the intimate profundity of that look he gave me when he received his hurt remains to this day in my memory—like a claim of distant kinship affirmed in a supreme moment.” (Conrad, 62)

This excerpt is from shortly after a battle with the natives along the bank of the river, in which Marlow’s helmsman, a black native, was killed.  Marlow tells of his sorrow over the loss of his helmsman and of the bond that they developed during their months of working together.

This passage demonstrates the themes of dehumanization and contradiction.  Throughout his tale, Marlow describes the natives as brutes and savages, more as animals than humans.  In this passage, he tells of the connection he had developed with the helmsman that he only realized after losing him.  He also describes the look the dying helmsman gave him that exemplified their intimate connection.  However, while describing their partnership and bond, Marlow still refers to the helmsman as a savage and an instrument.  This brings up a contradiction between Marlow’s beliefs and his current feelings.

Furthermore, this revelation of compassion from Marlow may foreshadow a change in Marlow’s beliefs: that perhaps the Africans are not sub-human.  He may begin questioning their abuse and servitude brought by the ivory trade and colonialism.

1. Marlow describes his sorrow of losing his ‘partner’, the helmsman, while still referring to him as a savage and an instrument.  What do these conflicting views of native Africans tell us about Marlow and about 19th century colonialists and traders? 

2. What effects might the Europeans’ dehumanization of the natives have on the colonialists and traders during their activities in Africa?

Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness & Selections from The Congo Diary. New York:  Modern Library, 1999.

Heart of Darkness: Frosty's Close Reading

"We could have fancied ourselves the first of men taking posession of an accursed inheritance, to be subdued at the cost of profound anguish and of excessive toil." (Conrad 43)

The phrase "first of men" is interesting because of the many Biblical allusions and references made throughout the novel. Does Conrad mean to imply that they are like the "first of men" in that "[their] wickedness was great... and every intent of [their] heart[s] was only evil continually" (Genesis 6) ? If so, then are they destined for destruction as in the Great Flood of the Bible? Or are they like Adam in that the river "resembling an immense snake" (9) led them to the metaphorical forbidden fruit at the center of the garden (ie earth)? Marlow states earlier in the novel that, "I felt as though, instead of going to the centre of a continent, I were about to set off for the centre of the earth." (15)

Also, the phrase "accursed inheritance" is ironic because often an inheritance is associated with something of value; something precious. Furthermore, an "inheritance" does not generally have a "cost" associated with it. What are the men in the company hoping to "inherit" through their "profound anguish" and "excessive toil"? Clearly with such strong language, the cost of what is being sought is higher than the value of it.

Blogging Calendar

Close Reading Blog Post (Blog Assignment #1)


Sept 7
Ryan Szaroletta, Ethan Frost

Sept 9
Ryan Wunsch, Emily Crain

Sept 14
Coutnry Allen, Emily Blessing

Sept 16
John Supple, Roberto Corozza, Morgan Heller

Sept 21
Emma Molinare, An Tran

Sept 28
Heather Kotten, Becky Gaffer

Oct 5
Jake Paker, Paul Stevenson

Oct 14
Shane McCauley, Kayla Beckwith




Research Blog Post (Blog Assignment #2)


Oct 19
Shane M., Kayla B.

Oct 21
Ryan S., Ryan W.

Oct 26
Emily B., An T., Roberto C.

Oct 28
Heather K., Becky G., John S.

Nov 16
Jake P., Courtney A., Morgan H

Nov 18
Emma M., Paul S., Emily C.

Section Calendar

Week One
Tuesday (8/31) no section meetings
Thursday (9/2)         Conrad

Week Two
Tuesday (9/7)         Conrad
Thursday (9/9)         Conrad

Week Three
Tuesday (9/14) Atwood
Thursday (9/16) Atwood

Week Four
Tuesday (9/21) Library orientation session
Thursday (9/23) Hemingway

Week Five
Tuesday (9/28) Hemingway
Thursday (9/30) Historical Society orientation session

Week Six
Tuesday (10/5) Robinson
Thursday (10/7) Robinson

Week Seven
Tuesday (10/12) Midterm exam
Thursday (10/14) Morrison

Week Eight
Tuesday (10/19) Morrison (Paper 1 prompt distributed)
Thursday (10/21) Morrison


Week Nine
Tuesday (10/26) Morrison
Thursday (10/28) Silko

Week Ten
Tuesday (11/2) Silko
Thursday (11/4) Paper 1 draft due in section

Week Eleven
Tuesday (11/9) Silko
Thursday (11/11) Silko Paper 1 final due in section

Week Twelve
Tuesday (11/16) DeLillo (Paper 2 prompt distributed)
Thursday (11/18) DeLillo

Week Thirteen
Tuesday (11/23) no section; thanksgiving
Thursday (11/25) no section; thanksgiving

Week Fourteen
Tuesday (11/30) DeLillo
Thursday (12/2) Paper 2 draft due in section

Week Fifteen
Tuesday (12/7) Gibson
Thursday (12/9) Paper 2 final & Portfolio due in section

Week Sixteen
Tuesday (12/14) Gibson
Thursday (12/16)         no class
(Final Exam: 12/22)