Charles Chesnutt's Dave's Neckliss and The Goophered Grapevine

I don't know about anyone else, but after reading Dave's Neckliss I will never look at ham/pork the same way ever again!
I actually liked the story and thought that it gave an adequate representation of a slaves life. 
I also liked that it was written from a slave's perspective, even if that slave was not Dave.
The story itself had some great moments, such as when Dave got caught learning to read and the way his Master allowed him to continue to read the Bible and then asked him to preach to the others.  I know that it was allowed to keep the slaves under control, yet it was also empowering to Dave. 
To allow a slave to read even though it was illegal and to actually encourage it took great courage on the part of his Master.  Plus his Master Dugal was a kind man when he purchased Dilsey and Aunt Mahaly so that they could stay together.  Most slave owners of the time wouldn't have cared one way or the other if a slave was sold away from someone they knew and loved. 
I think the story really gives a good representation of how much harm people can cause one another, regardless of the color of their skin.  The slaves were all extremely cruel to Dave when they thought he stole the ham, when in reality they should have known that he would never have done such a deed.  Likewise, Master Dugal should have known that he would not have done this either and looked for other culprits. 
I did think that it was quite sad that Dave ended up killing himself, due to being driven mad by the fact that he had to caring the burden of the ham (his innocence) around his neck.  I think it may have been due to having everyone, especially the woman who was supposed to love him, turn their backs on him and assume that he had perpetrated the crime.
Perhaps the moral of this story is that one should look for the truth, before passing judgment on others.

I thought The Goophered Grapevine was hilarious.  First off you get this image of a black man sitting there with a bunch of grapes that he is obviously going to eat.  Then you get this tale of witchcraft and how the farm is cursed.  Yet if you look at the man who has the grapes, you know that the tale has to be false, otherwise he wouldn't be able to eat the grapes.  Plus you get the image of the slave who eats the grapes, then ends up growing hair in the shape of grapes and then losing it when the vines begin to whither.  The whole story is meant to throw fear into the northerner and his wife who wish to purchase the farm.   At this point you get the impression that perhaps the story made them decide not to purchase the farm, and then you get the northerner going nope I did not fall for this and that the truth was that the black man had been selling the grapes to others and was worried about losing money.  It was rather fitting when we learn that the northerner helped the black man by hiring him to work the farm and that the people he hired to work the farm all wanted to eat the scuppernong grapes, but they didn't dare for fear of the curse.  This gave the original tale some credibility, but it could have been that since the northerner treated this man with kindness and gave him a job, that this male spread the tale to the new workers to keep them from eating the scuppernong grapes.  Either way the story shows how fear of the unknown can be a very powerful deterrent.

Long Arm By Freeman

I really liked The Long Arm story by Mary Wilkins Freeman.

The story kept me wanting to discover who had actually killed her father. 

I think that it is interesting that the sheriff and others were very quick to lay blame to Rufus even though there was not sufficient evidence to convict the man.  And then after Rufus was cleared the blame then went to Henry.  It made me think that perhaps in those days, people would not think about a woman as being a killer.  Perhaps it is because they were suppose to be so fragile that a woman could not possibly have done such a deed.

I also found it interesting when without any real evidence, aside from no other suspects, the sheriff and the town blamed Sarah for her own father's death.  And even then they found no evidence to convict her.  Under normal circumstances I would have thought that the sheriff would have done a thorough examination of the clues left in the house.  Perhaps this, searching for real evidence, was normal for the time period.

I love that Freeman made Sarah a detective!  The character showed that women have more to offer than simply childbearing and taking care of the home.  She showed that women of the time period had brains!  To have the character go so thoroughly through the home looking for the tiniest clues was a true testament to the way in which a woman's mind can work.  To me, she had done the majority of the work in finding the crucial clues that would help Dix to discover who had actually perpetrated the murder of her beloved father.  This made his job easier.

I wonder if Freeman was taking on stereotypical images of women when she wrote this story.  I also wonder why, after making Sarah so strong she made her a bit weak (having her pass out) upon the revelation that Phoebe had killed her father.  I am also curious as to why she threw in the line about Demonic possession.  Was she saying that demonic possession was the only way a woman could do such a dreadful deed?  I hope this is not the case, because this line takes power away from the character and makes the woman appear to be a weaker sex.

  The fact that Phoebe was willing to kill to keep her family intact took on the typical stereotype of family.  I wonder if Freeman was actually intending this when she wrote the story or if it was unintentional?  Any ideas?

~Amy N.

Emily Dickinson-dark poetry

Emily Dickinson appears to write poetry that is dark in nature.  I have to wonder if she was a bit depressed during her lifetime, which may have caused her to write the way she did.  She was after all a recluse which could be a symptom of depression, either that or she was simply unsociable.  Or maybe she simply had a fascination with death, etc. that fueled her desire to write her poetry. 

In poem 764/754 she deals with what appears to be womanhood or I should say the ideology of womanhood.  In her poem she says that the woman is in essence the gun and that she cannot function without the man controlling her.  Yet, the gun/woman has more power than the man, because in a sense she can kill and not die, which would make her stronger than god and the man who believes he controls her. 
She even gives a stanza that depicts how women are below men when she discusses guarding her Master's head.  The word Master is a good clue that says she is below him.

I thought the last stanza was saying that she knows that she will out live him,but he should really be outliving her, because that is how it should be, because in this time period a man was suppose to be stronger than a woman.
Although this poem deals with death, I also think that it deals with the conflict within women.  The women, especially during this time, were suppose to be household fixture-the homemakers, etc. and yet at the same time these women were stronger than the men because they had to ensure that their men, children, and households were all taken care of.  The conflict comes into play when a woman is suppose to be fragile, yet in reality she has great strength, thus she is both when she is in the eyes of the males of the time suppose to be just fragile.

The poem brings to mind the old saying...."Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!"  In other words don't mess with the woman, because she can be way deadlier than any gun!

Mark Twain- Do we really want heaven to be that way?

     In Mark Twain's Letters from the Earth, Satan describes what people believe heaven is going to be like.  It made me wonder if that is truly what we want heaven to be like.  Do we all want to be playing harps and singing the same old song over and over?  That to me means that there is no individuality, which is something humans pride themselves in.  Perhaps that is what Twain was saying in this story.  Does anyone have any thoughts on this?  To me that is what he was saying.  He had Satan say that humans only think that they think.  I believe he was trying to get us to question whether we believe what we are told or if we can actually think for ourselves.  I'm sure that my idea of heaven is not the same as everyone else, which means that I do actually think. 
     I think the one part of heaven that I did agree with in the story was that every human being was there and that the color of skin or religious background did not matter.  I think this is important because in heaven everyone would be the same due to everyone being created in the likeness of one God, so there could be no prejudices.
      I wonder to if by having Satan as the main character the view of human beings and of God were skewed.  It would make complete sense, because Satan and God are always at odds with each other.  And Twain also shows how Satan's mouth has a tendency to get him into trouble.  This too may have been a way for Twain to inform the reader that a person should think before they speak, because sometimes words really can get you into trouble.
     All in all, I really liked the story and found myself questioning elements that I usually do not think much about.  I'm curious as to whether anyone else who has read the story, found themselves questioning what the ideal heaven would be like or if humans, being such complex creatures, really do think for themselves?