american lit

[Dr. Hill]

Isn't world vs. man basically the same as man vs. world? Gatsby can be a hard ride but Moby Dick?! Reading the thing is an epic. It has long chapters on THE DIFFERENT SPECIES OF WHALE. The best bit was when Queequeg and Ishmael were in bed together.

A man cannot fight a world if it's not against him.

I meant that the world started it in the instances like in Moby Dick, whereas it seemed that Gatsby was the instigator for his own problems.

[Bitterfly]

I suppose that Henry James, with his equivocal attitude to sex, might be an example of puritanism in American writing but I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe you're right. I just finished Author, Author by David Lodge (a wonderful book about Henry James's last years), and it mentions the fact that James died a virgin, and obviously was, perhaps not puritanical, but wary of the body and sexuality.

Speaking about James, I was interested in what you said about the American voice being characterised by its innocence, Jozanny. If you read my post, would you care to explain? Do you mean there are many innocent narrators, or that there's a general wistfulness for a lost age of innocence? I would have said that innocence, its loss and its quest were themes rather than components of a voice, which is why I'm intrigued, actually. I imagined the American voice somewhat like Whitman's, but I'd be at a loss how to define it...

The American Dream was doomed to failure from the start because it runs contrary to human nature.

The Great Gatsby shows this quite well too - the last page, with its evocation of what you can imagine as a virgin continent being deflowered and thus robbed of its innocence by the very fact of its discovery.

[JBI]

The human nature argument is rhetoric to justify the "failure". the failure isn't because of "human nature" but of the nature of the system installed. Historically it never functioned, and the idea was a myth from its beginnings. One can approach the concept of Frontier Manifest Destiny by looking at those who died on the frontier. If we say that the Americans carved out names for themselves in the west, we must also realize that they carved it out on the corpses of a) the unmourned who died on the way, and b) the native population, that was destroyed.

The American dream has never, and was never a serious attempt at equality, or opportunity. It was merely a nationalist agenda attached to a fallacy. It isn't human nature that brought the "failure of the dream", but the nature of the dream itself - political propaganda.

[vega0508]

hey i'm stumped on a question for my hw on chapters 8-16"....Critic Kristin Boudreaux states that "Dimmsdale...becomes a victim precisly because he is unable to enter into the feelings and motives of others." Draw from the text at least 2 examples how each example supports the quote. thank you !!!

bump.

[Drkshadow03]

The human nature argument is rhetoric to justify the "failure". the failure isn't because of "human nature" but of the nature of the system installed. Historically it never functioned, and the idea was a myth from its beginnings. One can approach the concept of Frontier Manifest Destiny by looking at those who died on the frontier. If we say that the Americans carved out names for themselves in the west, we must also realize that they carved it out on the corpses of a) the unmourned who died on the way, and b) the native population, that was destroyed.

The American dream has never, and was never a serious attempt at equality, or opportunity. It was merely a nationalist agenda attached to a fallacy. It isn't human nature that brought the "failure of the dream", but the nature of the dream itself - political propaganda.

Except for all the people the American Dream has failed, it has just as many success stories, you know like my Jewish immigrant family from Russia, Poland, and Austria. And to only present one side of the story like you just did is itself a blatant form of political propaganda, not to mention inaccurate.

There is no denying that there are many problems in America, but there is also no denying many people who were suffering in the Old World from problems have flourished in America.

Getting this back on topic, I think the best literature that deals with this topic doesn't so much criticized the American Dream as recognizes the inherent problems with the dream and the realities of it given racism and the difficulty of social class movement. In other words, they almost always do so with both realities, the good and the bad, in mind.

[Virgil]

The American dream has never, and was never a serious attempt at equality, or opportunity. It was merely a nationalist agenda attached to a fallacy. It isn't human nature that brought the "failure of the dream", but the nature of the dream itself - political propaganda.

Says who? What in god's name are you talking about? Do I have to show you statistics in how people in the US rose from immigrants to middle class in a generation and then beyond if so lucky? Do you want to comapre the percentage of people in the US that have owned homes across the two centuries in comparison to anywhere including Europe? Do you want to see the statistics that the US has had the highest per capita GDP going back to at least the mid 19th century (with the possible exception of England, which was based on colonialization)? The US has had the highest standard of living for the possibly over 150 year if not longer.

Because a bunch of writers characterize what has been called "the American dream" as being a millionaire has nothing to do with the reality. The reality is that the American dream is ownership of a home (and not just these little flats that they have in Europe) and a middle class life.

It's very dangerous to judge reality by fiction.

[Jozanny]

Speaking about James, I was interested in what you said about the American voice being characterised by its innocence, Jozanny. If you read my post, would you care to explain? Do you mean there are many innocent narrators, or that there's a general wistfulness for a lost age of innocence? I would have said that innocence, its loss and its quest were themes rather than components of a voice, which is why I'm intrigued, actually. I imagined the American voice somewhat like Whitman's, but I'd be at a loss how to define it...

Mmm. I am honored to be asked about this, Bitter, but I need to ponder the question. For a start though, I don't think Jamesian narration itself is innocent, as it is usually either third person limited/omniscient. But I think it can be argued that James catches our irritating American naivete near perfectly. Maggie is not only shocked that the Prince would sleep with Charlotte--she refuses to accept that an evil such as this would corrode the excellent freedoms she and her wealthy father enjoy, so she out-maneuvers both her worldly titled foreign husband, and her persumably ex-friend (Charlotte). What her triumph amounts to is open to question--yet it is clear she would not "look the other way" as some women might to keep their status intact. We could also take Bessie, in a shorter, less complex work, who rejects an English Lord because he cannot meet her *ideal* of what an English Lord should amount to. It is radical stuff, within James's sphere, when one really thinks about it.

[mortalterror]

The human nature argument is rhetoric to justify the "failure". the failure isn't because of "human nature" but of the nature of the system installed. Historically it never functioned, and the idea was a myth from its beginnings. One can approach the concept of Frontier Manifest Destiny by looking at those who died on the frontier. If we say that the Americans carved out names for themselves in the west, we must also realize that they carved it out on the corpses of a) the unmourned who died on the way, and b) the native population, that was destroyed.

The American dream has never, and was never a serious attempt at equality, or opportunity. It was merely a nationalist agenda attached to a fallacy. It isn't human nature that brought the "failure of the dream", but the nature of the dream itself - political propaganda.

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. — D.H. Lawrence

God, I wish. — Mortalterror

As flattering as that hard eyed, unsentimental, pragmatic myth of American strength and dominance is, the truth is we're much softer than our enemies imagine us. I wouldn't say we are a paper tiger, but there's definitely a flabby white underbelly to the nation that likes to gingerly tiptoe around people's feelings and whip itself over every crushed flower. You've been reading too much Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky though, if that's what you really think.

Also, I'm a little surprised nobody mentioned Jack London or Henry David Thoreau when you claimed we didn't have the same kind of wilderness literature as Canada.

[Emil Miller]

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. — D.H. Lawrence

God, I wish. — Mortalterror

As flattering as that hard eyed, unsentimental, pragmatic myth of American strength and dominance is, the truth is we're much softer than our enemies imagine us. I wouldn't say we are a paper tiger, but there's definitely a flabby white underbelly to the nation that likes to gingerly tiptoe around people's feelings and whip itself over every crushed flower. You've been reading too much Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky though, if that's what you really think.

Also, I'm a little surprised nobody mentioned Jack London or Henry David Thoreau when you claimed we didn't have the same kind of wilderness literature as Canada.

The Amercian soul probably was closer to Lawrence's description when he made that quote. It's throughout post WW11 consumerism that the "flabby white
underbelly" has developed, and not only in America.

I was going to mention Jack London but I stupidly missed him out. However, I did mention Thoreau.

[kelby_lake]

I meant that the world started it in the instances like in Moby Dick, whereas it seemed that Gatsby was the instigator for his own problems.

Well, yes he's the tragic hero, but he gets sucked in to the horrible vacuous world. The American Dream has posioned him:

'Gatsby turned out all right at the end; it is what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust floated in the wake of his dreams that temporarily closed out my interest in the abortive sorrows and short-winded elations of men.'

[JBI]

Says who? What in god's name are you talking about? Do I have to show you statistics in how people in the US rose from immigrants to middle class in a generation and then beyond if so lucky? Do you want to comapre the percentage of people in the US that have owned homes across the two centuries in comparison to anywhere including Europe? Do you want to see the statistics that the US has had the highest per capita GDP going back to at least the mid 19th century (with the possible exception of England, which was based on colonialization)? The US has had the highest standard of living for the possibly over 150 year if not longer.

Because a bunch of writers characterize what has been called "the American dream" as being a millionaire has nothing to do with the reality. The reality is that the American dream is ownership of a home (and not just these little flats that they have in Europe) and a middle class life.

It's very dangerous to judge reality by fiction.

First of all, GDP is the most pointless statistic in this argument, as that doesn't show income inequality. Second of all, I don't think it is possible for you to come up with data tables that are unbiased from that time period, and would include everything.

To Drkshadow, when did your family come to the U.S.? During the 19th, or 20th century. I can't accurately respond without really knowing that, though I suspect you imply early 20th century? Or after the war?

When we talk about American development verses the "old world" we must keep in mind what the old world was. There wasn't the "uninhabited" (I use that word ironically) landmass to be taken and carved, but an already settled piece of land, with a history and a past, and I would say with less resources at disposal.

We can say that some families moved up in the social ranks, but I would say all families moved up. The economy of the States went to boom, and as a result, all prospered, or I should say most, since many didn't prosper.

When an economy goes into a boom, and has plenty of natural resources to sustain it, there is no doubt that the GDP and the average wealth of the population will increase. And, seeing as how the land only expanded, and more and more west, allowing for additional resources to be poured into the economy.


Be that as it may, sure the notion of no established classes early on was there, I won't deny that, but how long did it take for a rich elite to really form? How long did it take for Robber Barons to form in the economy? And did the lower classes really manage to "climb" as you suggest, or merely prosper. There is of course the idea that they went from nothing to perhaps millions, based on "hard work", yet did all make it so far, or just a few?


Who is to say how much of your thought on the subject is rooted in your schooling to? Perhaps there is an education bias, given that you guys say your pledge of allegiance, and read history from an American Perspective, founded on the American identity, and therefore have a nationalist sentiment from an early age. Who is to say my thought isn't biased too though, I'm sure it is to some extent, as I am sure the general American perspective is.

The point though is, the failure of the American dream. Is it a failure? Does hard work not always lead to a bettering of yourself? The 20th century in American literature would suggest that, from Gatsby to Miller, not to mention the works by various minority writers of today, which suggest a more nuanced approach to the question. I would say it is just propaganda.

I haven't even mentioned the fact that slavery existed until the 1860s, and the civil rights movement didn't come until the 1960s. Is it fair, to some extent, to say that the wealth in the southern United States came from exploitation? To what extent can we attribute the American "dream"'s truth in the raising of social status, when there were clear groups of people on virtually the bottom. It isn't a nice thought to think that the American Dream came at the cost of others, but I'm sure it is a little bit true.

Think on the scene in Gatsby when Nick sees a car drive by with an African American and a couple of white women and remarks "Only in America". Is that really true?


I'm actually surprised that there is such a defense of this "American dream", when there is actually so much literature going against it. Perhaps the historical reconfiguration of views on the past has not really taken a hold on the vision of the majority of Americans, as perhaps I suspect, or perhaps a more nuanced rejection of such attempts in fear of destroying the "national" image.

[Drkshadow03]

JBI, that's exactly my point. I want a nuance analysis that takes many factors into account, not one that automatically dismisses every aspect of America and the American dream because saying the American dream works for everyone and we have equality marginalizes lots of people such as blacks, the extremely poor, and Native Americans, but to make a claim that the American Dream is pure myth and has never worked for anyone marginalizes the history of many immigrants both yesterday and today.

Also, I would argue there is no such thing as literature that is against the American Dream. Almost all the literature that I suspect you would use as examples of works that are "against the American Dream" are in fact works that while criticizing it also rethink it. The second part is the key element I think.

As for the personal questions, it depends on which Great Great Grandparents. Some of them were here at the very tail end of 1800s, some got here in the earlier portion of 1900s. Both my grandfathers fought in WWII. I know the Russian side left because of the Russian pogroms against the Jews. I'm not sure about the relatives from Poland and Austria, though.

[JBI]

Oh, I would have guessed the moved on the Second Alliah that saw the large pouring of Russian and Polish Jews into New York, and the Birth of American Yiddish Culture, but you never know.

I just simply wanted to point out, that the American dream of anyone able to better himself is automatically a fallacy when you have people who are marginalized. If such a dream is to be "verified" as true at all, it must face the fact that not everyone had the opportunity that the dream promised, and I would say not everyone has the opportunity today that the dream promises.

I know Faulkner seems to be acting directly against the notion in Light in August. The Character of Joe Christmas seems to be somewhat reactionary to the notions of this sort. Steinbeck approaches it from a different angle, and Fitzgerald from another as well, though his is much softer, and doesn't really show the corruption as much as the others.

The I think the main point is that the market in general wasn't willing to accept contrary opinion at that point, in the sense that it was, after the second world war (though halted by Red Scare), and now today, where it has the most potential.

[Jozanny]

JBI-

I have not commented on the literary debunking of *the American Dream* because it is rather de classe at this point. All of us who have majored in literature know about *the dark side*--the long death of institutional slavery which later became de facto, the near wipe out of the Indian tribes, such that even today they have not fully joined in with our new-found rainbow coalition love chorus--pardon my mildly sardonic tone, because I really don't believe that diversity will bring on a new golden age--

We all know about the anti-hero, the shallowness of materialism, Faulkner's bleak agrarian fatalism and stark exposure of caste, which is also Steinbeck's concern, with a more utilitarian aspect, or Dos Paso's excellent exposition of the industrial speed race in the US, et al.

But most of these authors recognize, especially Henry James, the unique aspect of American optimism--including--and here I go--Barack Obama. I have not read his books yet, but I have read about them, and he is very much aware of American traditions and tropes, and steeps himself in the Ellison mold of Invisible Man, with one difference--Obama learned how to embrace his racial identity without the weight of Ellison's anguish. And we produced Obama. We, us, in these United States.

I think that speaks for itself, our capacity for renewal, rebirth, and exceptionalism; in my book the American Dream is alive--maybe not exactly healthy--but it is far from dead--and in the end I think we shall remain the global beacon for some time yet.

[Virgil]

I'm not even going to bother because I'm just going to get upset. I wonder if anyone here has even taken an economics class. I'm sure they haven't and frankly I don't feel like arguing with people who aren't even Americans about the American experience. I have no idea how a nonAmerican learns about America through literature. It's ludicrous. So I've been on forums talking to socialists who (a) think they know economics without taking an economics class and (b) think they know America from reading. I've been there, done that, and it leads to arguments. Screw it. They don't know what they're talking about.