Saturday, September 25, 2010
American Literature 1820-1865 Response Question
How does the language in the sections "The Aesthetics of a National Literature" and "The Writers and Their America" on pages 341-342 help to define the American Literary History? In other words, how does the writing style help to convey the strides American writers made in the mid 1800's which helped to define American Literature?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In these sections, the author discusses American writers with a sense of pride and independence, as though they strived to individualize against the confines set by traditional values. Basically, American writers started to create their own identity and rely on their own willpower and intelligence to write good literature. The author states, "Most of the writers ... were pretty much on their own when they were solving their crucial aesthetic problems". Each writer had his own struggles, and that seemed to define the beauty of American literature. Finally, the Americans were set apart from the British, instead of following their example and "literary heritage". American pride continued to emerge and American authors began to establish their own traditions: there was "the infusion of an American 'spirit' [which] guaranteed Americanness".
ReplyDeleteWhile the American authors were inspired to individualize, they also craved to spread this individualization and independence to their readers. They "devoted much of their artistic effort to analyzing conditions of life in America and to exhorting their fellow citizens to live more wisely". American authors began to create their own ideas about the world before them and use writing as a medium of conveying their ideas; they wanted to inspire their readers with their thoughts and teach them how to live successfully. Again, this follows the establishment of the American identity: each author wanted his reader to "find encouragement and inspiration in the present condition of things". American authors embraced the new "American spirit" created by the transition away from the tradition, and urged their readers to do the same. It seems as though American literature is no longer following tradition, but creating your own; each author was inspired to add his own scope to the literary example spread through each generation of writers.
In this section, the problem is brought up that American writers had not yet been "squarely faced" by the "difficulty of how to keep from being secondhand English writers". The author brings forth the issue that it had been primarily addressed by painters and sculptors, like Thomas Cole, who had been unable to "reconcile...European notions...with Americanness".
ReplyDeleteThe author also brings up the issue that while American writers attempted to create a distinct American Literary History, most of the american writers of that time "were on their own when ...solving their crucial aesthetic problems". This shows that the writers were each attempting to define an "American" tradition alone. As a result, most of the 19th century writers "felt a profound alienation". Here, the author reveals this information to underscore the separation of each american author, which in turns highlights the independence that these writers demonstrates in try to individualize american writing. Though this point, the author conveys how even in the 19th century, a sense of independence (a key aspect of being american) resounds within these writers; in their attempts at defining American, they simultaneously embody what it means to be american.
American writers of the transcendental period held the shared belief that they had to find their own unique position and not become "secondhand English writers". They set out to capture the "spirit" and the "setting". However, these concepts are very "[vague]". What was the American spirit and was it too diverse to define? The "artists and sculptors" were the first to find America as an artistic muse. The diversity of American landscapes from European ones provided plenty of inspiration. Eventually this wonder about "exotica" would find its way to American literature. American writers tried to push boundaries and "unify" what was "mutually repellent" as Americans themselves unified from all different backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteThe "spirit" and "setting" of America, sorry.
ReplyDeleteLike T.S. Eliot emphasized in his essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent," creators are defined by the creations that came before them. Thus American art can only be a continuation of the art of all the cultures America contains.
ReplyDeleteAll artists struggle to find their outlets, their voices, their mediums. American artists in the mid 1800s had an even harder time with the self-discovery dilemma because not only did they have to define themselves, but their time and place in history.
In our reading, specific struggles of prominent writers are mentioned. Emerson, for example, had "difficulty in achieving unity from the mutually repellent particles of his thought," and Dickinson desperately attempted "to walk the hairline between mere coyness and psychological precision," (342).
Chelsea mentioned the "profound alienation" in these difficult times for American writers that led to their independence as artists. I think it is precisely that differentiation between writers (all American writers have distinct styles because we are influenced by an overwhelming amount of materials) that sets American writers apart. Each art work stands alone. While its inspirations can be tracked down, it itself is a new piece of art.
This, in part, might be due to Emerson's call for originality-- to not fear ideas that are unlike those of the past (although no new ideas could exist without the old). In Emerson's close of "The American Scholar" he says "Help must come from the bosom alone...We will walk on our own feet; we will work with our own hands; we will speak our own minds."
The writers of America, as said by Thoreau (except I'm not 100% sure because there is a hole punch in my packet eliminating all letters of the name after "T") "find their encouragement and inspiration in the precisely the present condition of things, and cherish it with the fondness and enthusiasm of lovers." It is the embrace of the present (America) and disregard of the past (Europe) that I think ultimately set American writers apart.
Very well said, everyone! I especially agree with the internal 'trial and error' concept that Carolyn touched upon. Does anyone else have any ideas about the last part of "The Aesthetics of a National Literature" on page 342? What do all the "attempts" of famous writers say about American Literature? Does it benefit from it?
ReplyDeleteThe last part of The Aesthetics of a National Literature" on page 342 basically just lists all of the attempts of American authors to establish a sense of "Americanness" in their writing. Just as many of you have touched upon, all of these writers were "pretty much on their own when they were solving their crucial aesthetic problems"(342). I also agree with Carolyn's statement about the internal 'trial and error' concept that the author is trying to put forth, and I think that such trial and error in itself embodies the "American Literary Tradition."
ReplyDeleteIn that time period, the writers were trying extremely hard to define America and themselves as writers in America. The fact that there was nothing for these authors to base their "Americanness" off of is precisely how this individuality and "eccentricity of Americans" came about in their society. Each writer was forced into a cycle of trial and error, in which they tried to establish themselves as writers. Just as the author writes: "the best literature that emerged in the United States was distinctively new"(340)because the writers were forced to come up with a signature type of writing that would define America.
Personally, I thought that it was interesting how the author played on the word "aesthetics" (when discussing the Aesthetics of a National Literature) by exploring the plight of "painters of sculptors" (341). These artists (who dealt specifically in aesthetics) were attempting to break free from "their European notions of noble subject and style" in order to pursue a new sort of style in art - "American-ness" (341). Just as the artists find new inspiration in the "majesty [of] American landscapes" as opposed to the "history filled landscapes of European painting" (341), American writers embraced the emotional, confronting their "trauma from rapid change" (341) as well as other distinctly American feelings in their new literature. Both writers and artists sought to depart from traditional and history European work in their American creations, focusing on the wild and emotional state of America.
ReplyDeleteMeagan, in response to your question: What do all the "attempts" of famous writers say about American Literature?
ReplyDeleteI thought that the repetition of the word "attempt" made American authors look incompetent. It was as if they could only attempt to "solve crucial aesthetic problems" by themselves. The author describes Emerson as having difficulty and Whitman struggling to accomplish these literary goals.
This patronizes the American literary tradition significantly. Great American authors can only "attempt" to solve the problems of literature, without actually accomplishing them.
That last section really establishes the fact that Americans were just secondhand englishmen.
It is definitely possible to view both sides of this argument. On one hand, I see these attempts as strides towards ingenuity, paving a pathway for future writers to embark on these attemts.For example, "Thoreau's attempts to unite the Transcndentalist and the naturalist in himself" is an extremely difficult task (342). I think that what makes literature American is the desire to push the limits and walk the thin boundaries of literature-for that is what Americans did in colonizing. Risk taking has been in America's history forever. On the other hand, Mike, your position is also well supported. It also matters whether or not these writers ever were successful, or if their ideas had impact on the world. Can they be "secondhand Englishmen" but still regarded as good writers? Or is originality the only judging factor is what makes a good writer?
ReplyDeleteThe "attempts" at the end of "The Aesthetics of National Literature", remind me of Emerson's: "The American Scholar". In the short passage we were given to write an in class rhetorical analysis, conveys similar meanings to that of Irving's claims. Emerson states: "I read with some joy of the auspicious signs of the coming days, as they glimmer already through poetry and art, through philosophy and science, through church and state" (Emerson TAS). Emerson uses conflicting opposites like church and state, and philosophy and science in order to show the progression, and benefits that change has brought. How the gap between theses conflicting opposites has begun to shrink. Similarly in Irving's essay, he portrays the writers of the time trying to bridge gaps: "Hawthorne's attempts to strike a balance between the allegorical and the realistic, Emerson's difficulty in achieving unity from the mutually repellent particles of his thought, Thoreau's attempts to united the transcendentalist and the naturalist in himself, Whitman's struggle to domesticate the epic catalogue with out falling into self- parody, Melville's attempt to create a tragedy in a democracy, and Dickinson's attempt to walk the hairline between mere coyness and physiological precision" (Irving 342). So although Irving states that the writers of this era were very close in that "most of the writers in this period knew each other, often intimately, or else knew much about each other" (Irving 336). However when it came to solving aesthetic problems they were automatically abandoned and left to answer these questions on their own. These author's writing was therefore influenced tremendously by there attempts to find a balance between the opposites that plague their minds.
ReplyDeleteThe Aesthetics of a National Literature is written to show the difficulties American writers faced while trying to become American writers. As Irving says, “the primary difficulty of how to keep from being secondhand English writers had not been squarely faced by the theorists of nationality in literature, who most often seemed to think that adoption of an American setting or, more vaguely, the infusion of an American ‘spirit’ guaranteed Americanness” (Irving 341). This “Americanness” that Irving talks about is a lot harder to accomplish then most people think. He writes this section to prove this idea that these writers had a lot of talent to create a whole type of writing called “The American Literature.” He describes some authors who “pleasantly but unchallengingly [continued] the Dutch tradition” (342). This point was made to emphasize that the true American writers did not take the easy way out, but made their writing different. These writers “were pretty much on their own when they were solving their crucial aesthetic problems” (342). Ultimately what Irving is trying to say is that these men and women who broke away from the common traditions and became their own individual self deserve much more credit then they receive.
ReplyDeleteThis is very similar to the question I posed! It is interesting how different opinions have been expressed from two similar questions.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it seems to have already been established that American writers continually feared being identical to that of their English predecessors. As they struggled with this, it seemed that a very simple way to escape from being rip offs of English writers was to study the "painters and sculptors" who mingled in somewhat of the same community of writers (341). These painters and sculptors, though, recieved "training abroad" therefore a cyclical pattern of being forced to use the past in some way to aid in new creature for the future can be noted (341). Now this may seem obvious, of course you need to use the past--how could I be writing this without my foundation of spelling and grammer from previous years? It was more than being part of that cycle for these Transcendentalist writers, they were stuck in that cycle and exeeding reason and physical writing for something more spiritual was there best attempt at breaking free--creating something that was American. It may have been written in the style of English counterparts, but the ideas these authors were proposing that are much more significant; the ideas that began in America. All the author's stuggled to find balances between their old thinking and new Transcendantalist ideals, those balances were the foundation of true American writing.
Looking at these two sections as a separate piece reveals a sense of growth in the writing that the American authors experienced. It begins with talk about American painters and mentions that, "...the most prominent of whom had received their training abroad, then had found it impossible to reconcile their European notions of noble subject and style with Americaness" (341). On another question tonight we discussed an idea this quote relates to, Americans breaking away from traditional writing of other countries. Their is a sense of uneasiness in this quote that American artists must have felt about creating a new style for a new culture."... A landscape with primeval power both to awe and destroy" (342). Going further into that unknowing feeling of what to do about being in control of a new style for a New World. The first section goes from there to discuss achievements met by American authors and the second section begins with "...took stock in their [great American writers] country" (342). By using "their" when refereeing to the writers views on America the author conveys a sort of conquering of that prior felt doubt that creating a style for America would be nearly impossible.
ReplyDelete