A Beginning from an End

At the end of this novel, readers can't help but wonder whether Oedipa imagined the Tristero mystery, or whether it is a valid conundrum. While Oedipa sits and waits for the calling of lot 49, readers are left feeling unsatisfied about the open ending. But, is the Tristero mystery really the core of this novel's plot?

It can be argued that the 'meat' of this story is not, in fact, the mystery which Oedipa obsesses over, but rather the analyzing of why she chooses to obsess. Through miscommunication and drugs, Oedipa successfully isolates herself from those that she once considered close. She does this because she is unable to find meaning in her immediate surroundings, even mentioning her hopes that her interlude with Pierce will bring an escape reminiscent of Rapunzel's.

Oedipa is unhappy in modern society, and is a perfect example of the depression which is so common currently among those who seemingly have their lives handed to them on a silver platter. The truth of the matter is that Oedipa does not actually have any substantially problematic issues in her life, and because of this cannot find a meaning or a reason for her existence.

Because Oedipa can't find fulfillment in concrete life, she turns to something extraordinary, romanticizing events which normally would seem to be merely circumstantial. The fact that she is so interested in this mystery, and the fact that she blocks out key parts of her life (including her relationship with her husband) in order to pursue this mystery, should be a hint to readers that Oedipa has a skewed perception of the Tristero.

Through analyzing the reason for her obsession with the Tristero mystery, it can be deduced from Oedipa's obvious skewed view of the mystery that it is most likely a figment of her imagination.

Names in 'The Crying of Lot 49'

The symbolism of names and puns in “The Crying of Lot 49” is most certainly a significant part of understanding the text. Mucho Maas’ name and the name of his radio station are especially key parts to understanding the relationship between Oedipa and her husband.
Oedipa’s husband’s name (Mucho Maas) sounds very similar to the Spanish phrase ‘mucho mas’, which means ‘much more’. The full significance of this name will most likely be revealed later in the novel but, after reading the first chapter, this name already holds a certain amount of import. Perhaps this phrase ‘much more’ is in reference to Oedipa’s perception of her husband, and the plethora (‘much more’) of conflicting feelings that she feels towards him. She acknowledges that she had hoped to escape something through her relationship with Pierce, although she does not remember what she wanted to escape . This leads readers to believe that perhaps she wanted to escape her marriage with Mucho. She also questions Mucho’s mental capabilities; she is not only unsure about her relationship with Mucho, but also about Mucho himself. And yet, she still remains with him, demonstrating the conflicting emotions which she hold towards him.
The name of Mucho’s radio station is also demonstrative of Oedipa’s conflicting emotions and opinions towards her husband and things associated with him. His radio station (KCUF) is actually ‘fuck’ spelled backwards. Because this word generally has negative connotations, it can be concluded that Oedipa’s view of her husband is not entirely positive, and yet somehow she still remains with him.
By reflecting Oedipa’s opinion through the usage of names in this novel, I am of course making the assumption that Pynchon is portraying these other characters through Oedipa’s perspective. This idea is probable, as Oedipa herself has a name very similar to Oedipus, a renowned Greek hero, and this name reflects her status as the protagonist and main character of the novel. Assuming that this is true, and that she is indeed the main character of the novel, it can be concluded that the usage of names in this novel is representative of Oedipa’s conflicting emotions towards her marriage.

Female Oppression

Hierarchy plays a huge role in the structure of "There Was a Queen", by Faulkner. This hierarchy is not only found in racial dynamics, but also in the roles which males and females are expected to play. Two prominent examples of these gender roles are the young boys' societal position, and the perception of female sexuality.
It is mentioned near the end of the story that the boy has to move from his dead grandfather's place at the end of the table in order to sit next to his mother. This placement of seating is symbolic on many levels. The first, and most obvious, is that, by sitting in that seat originally, it is expected that one day the boy will take on the responsibilities of the grandfather and inherit the estate (he is, after all, the 'man of the house'). Another less obvious significance which can be taken from this movement is the fact that, by becoming closer to his mother and to women in general, he is in fact giving up some of his power. He is essentially moving down in status by becoming closer to his mother.
Narcissa's reaction to her niece's choice to sleep with a man who was not her husband (in order to have her anonymous love letters back in her possession), is to say the least, a very extreme response to an event which may seem quite frivolous to modern readers. This is representative of the value which was placed on the purity of females, even causing death through shock when it was discovered that pureness had been violated.
This value of purity is enforced by the fact that Narcissa’s niece found the love letters to be a source of embarrassment (although secretly she enjoyed them). It was, after all, not acceptable for women to feel lust during this time period. This sexual oppression is strongly linked to women’s perceived social inferiority to men. A man (which the boy one day will become) is allowed to sit at the head of the table, and is encouraged to accept his feelings of sexuality. This ideal most certainly does not hold true for women.

"The Young Housewife"

The Young Housewife", by William Carlos Williams, when first read appears to be a simple description of a beautiful girl standing inside her house calling the 'ice-man' (perhaps), and coming out to meet him on the curb. However, after analyzing this description, it becomes obvious that seemingly ordinary ideas in the poem may very well be significantly symbolic. Barry Ahearn remarks in William Carlos Williams and Alerity: The Early Poetry that perhaps the continuous barriers presented in the poem are representative of the barriers which divide the married woman and the man in the car. The walls of the house may very well represent the walls of society, while the curb represents spacial division.
But then the question that comes to mind is-why should it matter if these seemingly non-related individuals have barriers between them? The most logical answer that comes to mind is that these barriers could be said to be preventing, or hindering the man and the woman from having an affair. It would be logical to assume that they have some sort of intense personal relation, as the man is able to describe what the woman does inside of her house. Either he is fantasizing about her actions behind the walls, or he is intimately aware of how she acts in her house.
Perhaps, as Marjorie Perloff suggests in The dance of the intellect: Studies in the poetry of the Pound tradition, this whole interlude is indeed based on fantasy, and the man does not actually know what occurs behind her walls. Perhaps the man in the car is merely looking at a stranger, and imagining this moment to be more significant than it is. Perhaps, in his odd fantasy, he longs to crush the leaf which he compares the woman to under the wheels of his car, and craves the oppression of females.
Whether or not the man in the car knows the woman standing on the curb, the fact remains that this poem is more than a beautiful description; Williams’ work is rife with symbolism and makes the reader truly stop and question his intent behind his work.

The Wife of His Youth

In "The Wife of His Youth", by Chestnutt, readers are given an intimate view of the segregation and discrimination which is prevalent even among people of the same race.
It is undeniable that, in the Blue Veins, blacks with the lightest skin are more respected and hold positions of higher power. The more separated from their African ancestry the individuals become, the more social mobility they are given.
In this story, it is made quite clear that blacks can choose one of two choices. They can either integrate into white society, or they can become 'lost' in black society. According to this story, it is not an option for these individuals to combine these two options; in their eyes, the situation is literally black and white.
Even at the end of the story, when the main character accepts his past and his dark-skinned wife, readers are made to understand that, if he chooses to accept this past, he is giving up an opportunity to improve his social standing.
Not only are blacks and whites competing for social standing, but light and dark skinned blacks are also competing between themselves for a high position in the social hierarchy. Consequently, dark skinned blacks are not only at a disadvantage in society as a whole, but also within their race. Perhaps Chestnutt is attempting to capitalize on this point in this story, and to emphasize the fact that such social divisions are pointless and a waste of time and energy. If in this story African Americans were not divided amongst themselves, then they would be more apt to make progressive social change and advancement. If being something that they obviously are not were not a goal in their lives, then they would be more successful in developing with what resources they are given.

Huck's Moral Development

In “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”, by Mark Twain, the main character (Huck Finn) progresses through a unique moral development. Because he is not introduced to ‘proper society’ at a young age, he is given the liberty to view society’s standards in an objective manner. Pap’s removal of Huck from society also reinforces his ability to view society in a detached manner.
The river which takes Jim and Huck on their many adventures is often thought of as an alternate reality, a place which is separate from the customary constraints of society. This additional isolation lends to Huck’s ability to develop as an individual, rather than as a member of society. He is able to develop his own sense of morals and beliefs.
When Huck is faced with the decision of whether or not to report Jim to his ‘owners’, he is able to base that decision on his personal moral guidelines as a result of his detachment from proper society. He makes this decision based on what he personally believes is right, even though it might mean that he ‘goes to hell’. Although originally his decision to keep Jim as a traveling companion may have been heavily influenced by the practicality of the situation (Jim can help and protect him), eventually he does come to see Jim as an individual. Because Jim is an African-American and a slave, accepting him as a person would not have been typical of the ‘proper society’ which Huck chooses to shun.
It is thought by many that at the end of this novel, by agreeing to Tom’s elaborate scheme to free Jim (instead of taking the more sensible approach) that Huck is going against his newly developed morals. However, even though Huck may not appear to make a choice that aligns with his newly founded beliefs (which include respecting Jim as an individual and as a person), the fact remains that, in the end, Huck will accomplish his moral objective in the eventual freedom of Jim. It cannot be denied that, in order for him to function in society, it is necessary for him to make minor concessions (which include complying with Tom’s schemes).

Dickinson in Agony

Emily Dickinson's poem "I like a look of agony" explores the subject of death, and the inability to replicate the anguish of dying. Her approach to death is quite unique, as it is rare that poems are written about liking death; normally people tend to be afraid of the unknown, instead of looking forward to it.
In this poem, it is impossible to tell whether Dickinson is referring to her own death, to the death of someone she knows, or merely to death in general. The poem fails to be specific, saying things such as "The eyes glaze over..", leaving readers unsure whose eyes are being discussed. Perhaps this poem is purposefully ambiguous, and intends to revoke thought and reflection on the significance of one's own death and of those around you, and encourage them to truly remember her poem.
Because death is viewed as a positive thing in this poem, a reader can't help but wonder what the poet would view as a negative thing. A reader gets the idea from this poem that, in comparison to other things in the poet's life, the stability of death is a much needed anchor. Death, unlike other things, is not something that can be imitated.
Dickinson's recurring references to death in her poems are undoubtedly linked to war. Taking this into account, perhaps this poem is not written from Dickinson's point of view. Perhaps it is satirically written from the view of someone fighting in a war. Through this poem, Dickinson attempts to show what is required from war, and the fact that people fighting in a war not only look forward to the abstract concept of victory, but, on a more concrete level, must also look forward to death itself. In the long run, after all, death is victory.
Because the subject and narrator of this poem is ambiguous, all readers are able to relate to the content of this poem. Death, after all, is a goal which every individual works towards.

Whitman's ambivalence

Whitman’s approach to the civil war is perhaps the most neutral when compared to Timrod and Horton. His agenda in writing about the civil war seems to be nothing more than to discuss the disturbances and distastefulness of it, and most certainly not to encourage the idea of emancipation.
When classifying these three poets, Timrod is undeniably a Confederate, while Horton is undeniably aligned with the Union. This can be seen quite clearly in their works. In “The Cotton Boll”, Timrod expounds upon the beauty of the South in a rather long winded manner, capitalizing on the characteristics which make it uniquely southern, and claiming recognition as a separate entity from the North. In Horton’s works, even though they may not at first seem to be advancing the rights of African Americans, they most certainly do in the fact that the minority is writing history (instead of the leading class, which would be Caucasians). Even though Horton is undoubtedly catering to the whims of Caucasians in his poetry (which was often recited for entertainment) an underlying theme of racial equality can be seen throughout his works, and a desire for emancipation, although not prominent in his works, was most definitely a goal of his (as it would have been for most African Americans).
Whitman, on the other hand, can not be classified as easily as Horton and Timrod. His description of the war approaches conflict as a generally negative thing, and fails to take a particular side. Whitman cares more about the war being resolved in general, and no longer disturbing the “weeper or prayer” than about a particular side winning.
What makes Whitman able to approach war in such an ambivalent manner is the simple fact that he did not have to cater to a particular audience in order for his work to be successful. Whitman is a rare case of a poet whose literary decisions were not heavily influenced by his audience; his work was valued practically based on merit alone.

The rhythm of Whitman

Walt Whitman’s poem “Beat! Beat! Drums!” is eerily memorable and haunting, beating out a cadence that stays in a reader’s mind long after they have read it. The drums, like war itself, are unstoppable, not even pausing long enough for a wedding ceremony to be completed. In this poem, through his clever use of literary techniques, Whitman displays his own distasteful opinions of war, most likely influenced by his personal experiences with it.
When first reading this poem, it is easy to see it as merely a description of the beating of drums. However, upon closer examination, it can be seen that, in the act of describing the drums as something that never ceases, Whitman is in fact describing them in a negative light. This can be seen in the drums interrupting such things as ‘the peaceful farmer…ploughing his field’, which is most definitely an activity that benefits society. The events which Whitman lists as being interrupted by the drums (and by war) can also be classified as normal occurrences of everyday life. In this list, Whitman highlights the idea that all aspects of life are affected by war, and that everyone in some way is influenced by it. Perhaps they may not be influenced in such a direct way as their wedding being interrupted, but in some way every individual in a society at war with itself is affected by the turmoil in their country.
Whitman makes his potent messages memorable by his ingenious use of literary techniques. The cadence of the poem itself echoes that of a drum, leaving readers hearing the beat of these ceaseless drums as they read it. Repetition (specifically the use of anaphora) also makes the poem memorable, and is reminiscent of the rhythm of a drum. This poem is essentially a representation of the march of war, and the fact that the poem ends on an open note, with the lines ‘so loud you bugles blow’, hints at the idea that this war will never end. When it does end, another war will come to take its place. Life is, essentially, a ceaseless, unstoppable march of death.

Who is the real protagonist?

In Melville's "Benito Cereno" the roles of protagonist and antagonist are constantly evolving and changing, eventually resulting in ambiguous combinations of the two polar opposites, leaving readers to decide who truly plays which role. In the beginning of the story, readers are led to believe that the narrator is the protagonist of the story, and that Benito Cereno is the antagonist (an insane captain likely to take over the narrator's ship). However, as the story evolves, the roles soon abruptly change. It becomes obvious that Benito Cereno is the protagonist of the story (attempting to escape the evil clutches of the slaves) and that the narrator is just that: a narrator and an onlooker. Babo, on the other hand, is seemingly characterized quite clearly as the wicked and dastardly antagonist of the story, attempting to take over the narrator's ship and manipulate Caucasian people.
It may seem that Babo is characterized two-dimensionally, as merely an enemy and a 'bad guy'. However, upon closer examination, it can be seen that Babo is, in fact, not only the antagonist of the story, but perhaps the protagonist as well. When one reads between the lines of "Benito Cereno", it can be said that Melville does not characterize Babo as a bad person, but merely as a strong person. Subtly threatening Cereno with a razor blade, killing his former master, and attempting to take over a ship aren't necessarily bad things that Babo did, but merely actions that were necessary for his survival. His motives were not after all, greed-based; he only wanted to return home with his people. When Cereno dies and "follows his leader", perhaps Melville is insinuating that Cereno deserved to die for however he may have mistreated slaves (as his leader did). However, this quote is rather ambiguous, as readers are unsure whether 'leader' refers to Babo or to Babo's former master.
Melville could also be insinuating that Babo is the protagonist of the story (and superior to Caucasians) through the quote that the shadow of "the Negro" has been cast over Cereno. While this could be interpreted to mean that the shadow is representative of the 'Negro's' greater intelligence, it can also be interpreted to mean that Cereno feels guilty for his mistreatment of slaves in the past. Cereno's guilt could possibly be the shadow which has come over him, a shadow which is removed through his death as punishment.
While the narrator is most definitely neither the protagonist or antagonist of this story, the roles of Cereno and Babo are continuously changing and becoming intertwined. It cannot be decisively said which character plays the role of protagonist, and which character plays the role of anatagonist.

What is Faith?

“Young Goodman Brown”, by Hawthorne, is a thought-provoking short story that does not leave the reader’s mind for quite awhile after reading it. What is most haunting about this story is Goodman Brown’s wife, Faith. In the beginning of the story, Goodman Brown comments that his “wife was aptly named”, insinuating that faithfulness and loyalty are integral parts of her character. Readers automatically assume that this faithfulness is applicable to her marriage with Goodman Brown but, upon closer examination, it is seen that her faith could be applied to many different things.
If Goodman Brown truly believes that Faith was faithful to him, he would not have been so suspicious of her, and would have known that she had decided against joining the ‘witch clan’. There is a possibility that Goodman has reason to doubt Faith’s loyalty, as Faith may be investing her loyalty in the dark ‘religion’ which she was inducted into. This transferal of faith is only plausible, of course, if Goodman was accurate in his original “faithful” analysis of his wife’s character.
It is also possible, of course, that Brown’s lost faith in his wife is merely based on a figment of his imagination, and is self-induced. Brown’s lost faith, regardless of the validity of the mysterious nighttime excursion, nonetheless results in a divide between him and his wife, as he is ever after wary of her. When Brown loses his faith in his wife (and in humanity), he also loses Faith herself.
While it is possible that Brown may have imagined his wife’s lack of loyalty and faith towards him, it is also possible that Faith may have transferred her loyalties onto a different cause. This, however, seems less likely, as Brown died an elderly man, and Faith most likely would have poisoned him if she had been a “witch” (such a bitter, gloomy man could not possibly have been pleasant to live with).
Brown’s gloominess is not necessarily a result of his own brooding, though. The possibility remains that his depressed state of mind may be a result of Faith’s new witchery practices. Readers can not confidently ascertain whether Faith heard Brown’s words of caution or not, or whether Faith is truly a witch, or if the whole idea is merely a product of Brown’s imagination. And, it is the very ambiguity of this story that makes it so incredibly memorable.

Meagre, Warren's evil twin

Throughout Mary Otis Warren’s drama “The Group”, a wide array of anti-revolutionary political beliefs are expressed, ranging from apathy to vehement support of the Tories. However, one belief stands out from others; Meagre is exceptionally eloquent and engaging in articulating his opinion, although readers are left a bit confused at the contradictory language in his speeches. This can be seen when he states: “I hated Brutus for his noble stand Against the oppressors of his injured country. I hate the leaders of these restless factions, For all their generous efforts to be free.” In the same breath where Meagre claims that he hates someone, he also extols their virtues. Could it be that perhaps Warren imbued Meagre’s speech with some of her own opinions? Perhaps Warren really did hate Brutus (her brother) a bit for his “stand”, for the fact that he risked his life and was no longer there for her. Perhaps Meagre’s convoluted rhetoric is representative of Warren’s own tumultuous feelings towards the incident.
The idea that Meagre, ironically, represents Warren's hidden opinions is supported by the very name “Meagre” itself. As a woman in American society in the 1700’s, Warren was not given much respect. Although she did receive more respect than many other women in her society (her plays were the first of their kind to be published by a woman), the fact remains that it was hard for a woman to make herself heard in a world dominated by males. The name “Meagre” (the British spelling of ‘meager’) reminds one of someone who is easily ignored, and whose opinions are often brushed aside (if they don’t push them forward). This surely applies to women in the 1700’s.
Another fact that supports the idea that Meagre is representative of Warren’s alternate self is the cynicism evident in Meagre’s dialogue. This can be seen in his statement: “paramount to these ideal whims, Utopian dreams, of patriotic virtue, Which long has danced in their distempered brains” He refers to those who believe that they can change the world, and who believe that a utopia is possible as having “distempered brains”, and obviously having a faulty thought process. Although it is doubtful that Warren would actually say this herself in reference to the Patriot’s cause, it cannot be denied that this statement (and many of the other things which Meagre says) is reminiscent of the sarcasm and cynicism which Warren was known for.

Franklin's Maturity

Perhaps because of the praise and recognition which Franklin was consistently exposed to during his youth, he had a very high opinion of himself, which is most clearly shown in the value he placed on his judgment. However, as he matured, and as his autobiography progressed, he seemed more willing to admit that his judgment was not always foolproof.
This evolution is especially evident in his approach to religion and religious enterprises. During the second section of his autobiography, Franklin is so disgusted with preachers and with society’s approach to religion that he creates his own theory on how to achieve moral perfection. He fails to give preachers the respect which they have earned, considering that they have devoted their lives to studying religion and morals, and assumes that his view is undeniably more refined.
During the third section of his autobiography, Franklin has a completely different approach to religion and religious enterprises. On page 106 Franklin comments that he disagrees with Whitefield’s (a preacher) approach to a service project: “I did not disapprove of the design, but, as Georgia was then destitute of materials and workmen, and it was proposed to send them from Philadelphia at a great expense, I thought it would have been better to have built the house here, and brought the children to it.” However, once Franklin listens to Whitefield’s sermon, he realizes that the preacher’s ideas do, in fact, have some merit, and ends up contributing money to Whitefield’s cause. Perhaps Franklin’s eventual concession is related to the power which Whitefield’s name carried, as Franklin displays a rather obvious obsession with celebrities and status. And then again, perhaps his willingness to listen to Whitefield’s ideas is a result of his maturity and ability to be more open-minded.
This theory that Franklin’s intellectual development can be seen through his willingness to listen to other’s ideas is also supported on page 112, where he comments: “And I found that a much greater number of them than I could have imagined, tho’ against offensive war, were clearly for the defensive.” In this passage, Franklin willingly admits that his first impression of something proves to be incorrect. With age, Franklin seems to have learned the art of processing new information and forming new opinions that incorporate this information. He seems to realize that the world is not quite as black and white as youth would like to perceive it.

Saying That Jefferson Has A Way With Words Would Be An Understatement

Jefferson’s query “The different religions received into that state?”, a segment of “Notes on the State of Virginia”, is a blatant critique of the Virginian governments’ approach to religious freedom, even going so far as to insinuate that political officials may be hypocritical. It may seem that in critically evaluating his government, and the then-current practices of Christianity, that Jefferson was a progressive man for his time period. While it is true that he did indeed have a radical approach to religion, it is also true that Jefferson was without a doubt a man of his time. Jefferson’s work was most likely heavily influenced by the Age of Enlightenment, when people were encouraged to believe that a logical systematic approach could be used to analyze any type of human activity. This includes, as can be seen in Jefferson’s work, practicing religion. In “Notes on the State of Virginia”, he follows a progressive thought process to explain why people should be allowed to explore their individual interpretations of religion. His rhetoric, although rather repetitive, is undeniably extremely logical. In fact, readers are so engrossed in his argument, they don’t even notice that Jefferson has just compared believing in Christianity to believing that the Earth is a “globe”, a rather ludicrous comparison when taken out of context.
But it’s more than just Jefferson’s logic that makes him convincing. Even if he were the most convincing man on Earth, if his arguments were not given credibility, they would have minimal weight (which was obviously not the case). So, what gives Jefferson credibility? First and foremost, Jefferson chooses to identify himself with Christianity. Becoming part of this group identity makes him an insider, someone that his fellow Christians can relate to. Because they feel a connection to him, it allows him to make such controversial statements as: “The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.” If an outsider, or the Other, had made such a statement about the problems with an extremist Christian government, their arguments would have automatically been discarded. But, because Jefferson identifies himself as Christian, he has a chance of changing the then-current extremist practices of Virginia’s secular government.

"A Sermon" or Self-Glorification?

In reading “A Sermon” by John Edwards, one cannot help but think that John Edwards is inferring that he himself has seen the light of God. This is made particularly clear when he comments near the end of his sermon: “Reason may determine that a countenance is beautiful to others, it may determine that honey is sweet to others; but it will never give me a perception of its sweetness.” In stating that “it will never give me a perception of its sweetness”, Edwards infers that he has personally experienced this perception of sweetness. And, as “tasting the sweetness” is compared to seeing the figurative light, it follows that Edwards believes that he himself has seen the light.
Consequently, in his clergy members taking Edwards’ word on the light as authority in the matter, it can be assumed that they also believe that he has seen the light. Whether this mutual belief originated from Edwards fulfilling his clergy members’ expectations, or from Edwards convincing his clergy members remains a mystery.
What does not remain a mystery, however, is Edwards’ discreet (and perhaps entirely unintentional) veneration of himself and of others who have seen the light. In glorifying the virtues of the light of God, Edwards inadvertently glorifies those who are bestowed with the sight of such a light: “Common grace differs from special, in that it influences only by assisting of nature; and not by imparting grace, or bestowing any thing above nature.” Those that the light of God is revealed to are exposed to a “special” grace, a word which in and of itself echoes elitism.
This elitism which Edwards subtly refers to in his sermon seems nearly impossible to achieve. On more than one occasion Edwards mentions the likelihood of individuals believing that they have seen the light when they are actually only delusional. This light, which Edwards describes as not tangible, something that can be obtained either naturally or divinely, and is only attainable if one’s heart is pure, seems practically impossible to pin down. Even if an individual has indeed seen the light of God which Edwards speaks of, how are they to know that is what they have experienced? Furthermore, how can people be expected to search for something which cannot concretely be defined?
Instead of reinforcing a search for purity and goodness through this ambiguous search for the light, Edwards has instead designed a model for the perpetuation of divisiveness in society. Those that believe they have seen the light will naturally feel superior to those who they believe have not. Similarly, those with the potential to see the light will feel superior to those who they believe have no chance of seeing the light (i.e. Jews). This standard of judging an individual’s spiritual awareness and proximity to God inevitably devolved into a tool for reinforcing social hierarchy, most likely with little to do with the reality of a person’s spiritual wellbeing. And who will be at the top of that hierarchy? John Edwards (the harbinger of the idea that certain people are able to see the light, while others are not).

Hello, My Name is..

Hey all. I'm Courtney Ross from Garner, NC. Most people haven't heard of this town, so I usually say that I'm from Raleigh. I'm a freshman here at UNC, tentatively working towards a journalism major and Spanish minor. I'm taking this class not only to fulfill my literature requirement, but also because I have a passion for literature. I'm pretty excited about this class, ecspecially since finding out that we'll be approaching the subject in a rather unorthodox manner. (i.e. Einstein)

In my spare time, I love to read, draw, (both of which I haven't had much time to do since coming to college), go contradancing, attempt yoga (I'm not very graceful), learn sign language, spend time with my Best Buddy, and hang out with friends.