Emerson and the Work of Melancholia

I think "Emerson and the Work of Melancholia" was actually kind of interesting. Although it was very lengthy, it was quite informative. When reading works by Ralph Waldo Emerson such as "Nature" and "Self Reliance," it seemed very evident to me, and to other readers I am sure, that Emerson was a Romanticist. The flowery way he wrote, the way he related to nature so vividly, and his thoughts on human greatness all contributed to this thought. However, according to Mark Edmundson, Emerson rejected Romanticism later on in his life (Emerson). While Emerson was certainly considered a Romanticism writer, he gradually began to write against it until he rejected it completely (Emerson).

One thing I found interesting was that Emerson started using a Transcendentalist writing style after initially just using a Romanticist style (Emerson). Although Transcendentalism is just a break off of Romanticism, in my opinion it allowed Emerson to expand his thoughts a little bit more than he had, which I think in turn led to his complete rejection of Romanticism. Some might argue this point of view, but it makes sense to me. Since Emerson began drifting the slightest bit away from the general idea of Romanticism, maybe he began to see what it was like to not completely look at the world in a straight Romantic way.

In his later years, Emerson completely began rejecting Romanticism (Emerson). He began to act almost morose, writing about nature not in fact being the most important aspect of life. He wrote that the imagination was so incredibly powerful and dangerous; it was more powerful and compelling than even nature (Emerson). This shows such a change in him because before he had been so in love with nature and everything about it. His realization that imagination was more powerful than nature seemed to make him sad and depressed, and it led to his overall rejection of Romanticism. Emerson writes, "Thus we trace Fate, in matter, mind, and morals,—in race, in retardations of strata, and in thought and character as well. It is everywhere bound. or limitation. But Fate has its lord; limitation its limits; is different seen from above and from below; from within and from without. For, though Fate is immense, so is power, which is the other fact in the dual world, immense. If Fate follows and limits power, power attends and antagonizes Fate. We must respect Fate as natural history, but there is more than natural history" (Emerson)

This passage describes his view on nature as opposed to fate. Again, it is portrayed that nature is no longer the most important aspect of life. Fate is more powerful than natural history, which Emerson had previously ranted and raved about to no end. Emerson reached the dismal understanding that fate and a dreadful imagination can lead one down the wrong road, and it certainly ruined him. I think that "Emerson and the Work of Melancholia" is a sad but accurate representation of the literary life of Emerson, and it is both interesting and very compelling to think about.

Journal #21

The views between Ralph Waldo Emerson and Benjamin Franklin were very different. Benjamin Franklin, or as his friends call him, Benjie, believed that we should do all these different virtuous things so that we would better ourselves as well as bettering the community. He believed in things like respect and honor; he thought that we should show these things to other people so that they could see our greatness, and at the same time we would be honoring them and doing good deeds towards the greater good. We would be bettering others and bettering ourselves at the same time! This is a great way to think in my opinion. However, it is very hard to do. Our class had to do a little thing about it where we would demonstrate those virtues every day and then journal about them, kind of like he did. It was not an easy task, I will tell you that. I do not really know how Benjie managed to do it for such a long time; he must have not been a very exciting person.

Ralph Waldo Emerson had a different way of thinking. He thought that we should basically just live for ourselves. He also had an interesting way of viewing death. His whole idea thing revolved mostly around nature; he said that we were created by nature, we lived in and with nature, and when we died our body would go back to nature. Since he thought like this, death really did not upset him very much. He had some close family members die, but he did not even mourn. He thought that since our bodies went back to nature, it was just how it was supposed to be and it should be thought of more as a beautiful thing than a sad thing. I guess this makes sense to me, but it would be difficult to truly believe that when faced with a challenge. Both men were very different, but they were both inspirational and influential.

Journal #20

I think self reflection is a pretty important thing. One needs to look back on their behavior every now and then just to kind of check themselves out. I think it could potentially be really eye opening. Sometimes, people might not know that he or she is doing something idiotic, annoying, or just plain ignorant, but my doing a little self reflection they might realize it and be able to change. This is definitely a good thing. Self reflection can get out of hand, though. Some people "self reflect" way too often. These people become self conscious; they are forever trying to analyze their every move and it becomes all they can think about. That is definitely not a good thing. Those people usually become extremely insecure and and may suffer all the time. On the mic is a queen, now listen to me sing. This is just not a good thing! Too much self reflection can be destructive and potentially even fatal.

Personally, I do make it a point to self reflect every now and then. I am a really talkative person and I get really annoying. I am aware of this fact, but sometimes I do not realize when I am doing it until it is too late. For me, it is good to self reflect because it allows me to see when I just need to cool it. It also allows me to see what I need to change or what I should keep the same. Sometimes it is hard to do because I am obviously biased, but I still think it is helpful. I write a lot, and for me that is my form of self reflection kind of. I have a little journal thing that I occasionally write in, and that allows me to get my feelings out. Sometimes later I will then read through what I have written, and I will do a little self reflection. I will look back on my feelings and actions and see if I think they were understandable and reasonable at the time. This is a surefire way to make me a better person, and I really think that I benefit from it.

Journal #19

I think the United States is far from being ideal. People try to say that we are this perfect country because we are free and have such a diverse culture and there is no segregation or sweatshops or things that other countries have. We are this free country run by an amazing, powerful man who is going to change the world.

Frankly, I think that is horse poop. People that think like that do not know what they are talking about; they have obviously just been holed up in their own perfect lives or something. I doubt they think about the war that has been going on for almost ten years now. I doubt they consider all the changes that Obama has not made. Everybody hated Bush, and people thought he was our worst president and screwed everything up. Again, those people are idiots. Obama has done absolutely nothing positive for our country; he is just a great speaker and, to be put bluntly, is black. Because of these things, the younger generations seem to be in love with him, which I find ridiculous. We are definitely not living in an idea United States. People are ignorant and uninformed, and even though we supposedly have all these rights and freedoms, sometimes it seems that they do not apply to everybody. Personally I think our government is corrupt and should probably be cleaned up a little bit before our country is in shambles.

In an ideal United States, like I said, everybody would be informed and there would be no blockheads. Honestly though, I do not think the "ideal" United States is even possible to come upon. There is always going to be that one person who disagrees or tries to screw everything up. Just look at a high school class. There really is not an ideal way to be, because you have to be realistic. There is always going to be someone who is disruptive or argumentative, which ruins the "idealness" of it, but then if there was no person to bring upon that second opinion, we would basically be thinking and living in a box. There is no ideal way for the United States to be because we need that differentiation at times, but not all the time.

Journal #18

The sun shines so bright.
Does it ever get burned?
Does it ever start to cry
When away it has turned?
A beautiful sight
Until one looks too close
And sees not want they want to.
And although it's supposed
To bring light to the darkness,
Does the sun ever need
Someone's hand to hold onto
Or a shoulder to lean
Its sad, lonely head on?
But this never could work.
Once the sun's guard is let down,
The world goes berserk.
Everyone needs the sun
To shine bright just for them,
Retreating back to the sky,
The sun is alone once again.

"In Peace" Poem Analysis

Literally, the poem "In Peace" by John Greenleaf Whittier is very descriptive. It tells of a riverside blooming with flowers and colors. It describes a very peaceful setting, filled with waterfalls and beautiful sights. Whittier uses many colors to describe the setting, and he creates a very peaceful scene. When reading this poem with a literal on look, one would understand that Whittier finds nature to be peaceful; it is a comfortable place for him. Towards the end of the poem, Whittier writes about death, and he describes it as not terrible, but instead as a way of connecting with nature. He says that if one realizes the beauty of nature, dying is not all that terrible.

Figuratively, this poem can be taken in a different direction. When I read the poem, I had an image of someone finally finding peace in the nature. In a crazy and hectic world, sometimes it is good to just step back and enjoy what God has given you. The waterfalls and beautiful flowers symbolize the serenity and wonder of the earth, and it is important that we realize that. When we see the creations God has given to us, we will learn to appreciate God and maybe see Him as a higher creation; He is someone that can truly create everything. Through this, maybe one could learn to believe in God. If this happens, dying is actually not a bad thing. They will go to Heaven with God and be in peace. Figuratively, I think this poem is about finding peace on Earth so that when it is your time to die, you will have peace with God.

This poem uses many different literary devices. Whittier is extremely descriptive; he describes all the different colors and shapes of the nature. Whittier also uses imagery, which allows the reader to truly see what Whittier was seeing when he wrote the poem. This is incredibly important because otherwise a reader might interpret the poem in a way that was unintended by Whittier.

"In Peace" is a beautiful poem about finding your inner peace both on Earth and with God. Its literal and figurative meanings are somewhat different, yet each portrays a beautiful and peaceful idea.

Thanatopsis Analysis

Poems can have many different meanings. A poem can be taken literally. It can also be taken figuratively. These two different methods are incredibly different from each other.

In Bryant's poem, he writes about death and becoming one with the world. From a literal perspective, one will see that Bryant believes that humans die and are buried. When this happens, they become one with nature. It does not matter what your social or monetary status on Earth while you were alive had been; every single person winds up with the same fate. When a person is dead and buried, they are mixed in with the soil and eventually become "one" with the Earth. Therefore, all the nature we see around us today are the remains of those people who have lived before us. I think that this is kind of a beautiful perspective; however, it is also kind of creepy. I think it is definitely an interesting way to look at things. Literally, Bryant writes that we will all become a part of nature one day and live on together forever through its beauty.

This poem can also be taken figuratively. Although it says pretty plain and simple that everyone will be immortal though nature, one might take it even further. When understanding something figuratively, the reader must take the information that is given to them and infer things from it. When I read Bryant's poem, I thought that he meant that since everyone will wind up in the same place anyway, do not spend time worrying about everything around you. Do not waste time trying to be better than someone else, but instead enjoy the life that you are given and make the most out of it while you still can. I also think that, figuratively, the poem is saying not to fear death. While it portrays it as a cold, sad, lonely thing, the poem also talks about how you will never be alone, and you will become of a beauty that people for years to come will enjoy.

There are many poetic devices in this poem. Overall, I think Bryant uses a lot of imagery. He describes the trees and the nature very vividly, which gives the reader a deeper insight and a better image of what he is trying to portray. He also uses metaphors, which I think adds to the overall scheme of the poem; it makes it more interesting and captivating.

I actually enjoyed this poem. I think both the literal and figurative meanings of the poem were insightful and strangely beautiful. It made me think, which I think means that the author did his job well.