Final Transcendental Blog

I feel that this blog helped me record my thoughts in a style and medium that allowed a further exploration of those thoughts. At times I may have struggled with depicting the complexity and grasping the jist of the reading. At times I had a hard enough time reading! However, I feel that this blog allowed me to grasp a deeper feeling of the movement and works associated with transcendentalism. I wish to retain these thoughts and ruminations and revive them in the future, outside in the "uncommon school" when my mind is most at ease to try and absorb them. I can think of Thoreau's Walden while up hiking or camping and really work at noticing and appreciating some of the more delicate and microscopic occurrences of nature and realize how they compete the most epic events in human history. When studying different interpretations of gender and the struggle for equality I can use Fuller as a reference and consider her progressive building blocks. I can use many of the other writings we read in my pursuit of a more complete understanding of American literature and literature as a whole. With the good taste of transcendentalism in my brain I wish this blog to end. I am excited to see the progression from transcendentalism to the thought processes that will have its traces throughout the fictional works we are to read. I am excited to leave the transcendentalists depiction of the world-creatively and enter the creative world. So, with a positive note of the transcendentalists, and feeling relieved to move on, I wish this blog not to end here but in further thought considering more topics of 19th century lit.

Parker, Emerson, Thoreau

Theodore Parker's work was pretty inspiring. I really liked the image of him reading the Bible with a loaded pistol at one hand and a sword in the other. I felt like this type of religious fervor was perhaps both admonished and admired in his day. It was good to see someone who believed in their cause so much to go to physical means of bringing it about and defending his beliefs rather than munching on the wafer, sipping the wine, and calling oneself holy. Parker's willingness to publish these thoughts must have made him a multi-vulnerable target for many opponents. They could attack his religious fervor, his personal opinions regarding slavery, and his militaristic style of belief. For some, I can imagine how he was a complete success with this persona but with others I can see how he would have been a failure.

Emerson, despite some of the conviction he writes with in his other works, really lacks the passionate response I would have liked from him. Like we talked about he only seems to do this to get it off his shoulders; it inconveniences him too much. This is very disappointing from a figure who had so much influence in the public spheres, especially in ones that could give the abolitionist movement a greater advantage. I was also very sad to note how he didn't really seem to be against slavery as much as he was against slavery affecting his life. For me, his attitude towards this issue of human rights was too "out of sight, out of mind." One would expect, coming into the lecture, that Emerson could provide a more illuminating philosophical argument against slavery. Instead, he pretty much just bashes the Webster guy and not really the institution as need be done. I feel like the rhetoric of his speech leans too much towards giving the people what they want rather than his own thoughts to really be very effective. In fact, it is kind of sad to see how he is forced into the political field and then behaves just like a politician.

In Thoreau's "A Plea for Captain John Brown" I felt the whole time like John Brown was one of the biggest badasses ever. I realize that Thoreau, who here is advocating some extremist action, really liked what John Brown was trying to do. At times he may take it overboard-- especially in his likening of John Brown to Jesus. "Some eighteen hundred years ago Christ was crucified; this morning, perchance, Captain Brown was hung. These are the two ends of chain which is not without its links" (377). I have some problems with this analogy. Jesus was pretty peaceful. He didn't really butcher people and hold hostages (those are the people that come AFTER him). Rather than liken the character of John Brown to Jesus I would liken it to something else; something a little more war-like.

I was very intrigued by the point Dr. Leubner made that in the biography about John Brown the claim was made that he, of all people in the nineteenth century, appears to have been one of the most not racist. This claim, if true, really puts a positive spin on his actions. For John Brown to be such a progressive thinker is quite a feat. It is hard even in our own enlightened time to avoid many of the stereotypes and subtle forms of racism that still plague our language and speech.


As we all debated about our feeling and thoughts surrounding Brown I really was at a loss how to feel. It seems like the only way to consider . To defend Brown would be like defending anyone else who commits what can be considered terrorist acts. Perhaps the veil of history veils the atrocities while accentuating the positives. If this is the case I wonder who else in the future will have a plea for the remembrance of other terrorists?

I would like to think that he will be remembered in a good way, but not for his actions. If John Brown should be admired it should be because of his progressive mindset regarding the equality of all races of people.

Blog On "Reading"

"The book exists for us perchance which will explain our miracles and reveal new ones."

"The works of the great poets have never yet been read by mankind, for only great poets can read them."

"A written word is the choicest of relics. It is something at once more intimate with us and more universal than any other work of art. It is the work of art nearest to life itself"

"Books are the treasured wealth of the world and the fit inheritance of generations and nations."

I found that this essay was, among the chapters in Walden, my favorite one. It contained a wealth of information, discussion and interpretation about the importance of reading and the power that reading affords to an individual. He pursues the importance of education with a passion that is very convincing of his argument. This essay, like the others, was very similar in the way that it seemed as if you could go in at any point, grab a sentence of two, and it would be a sentence or comment worthy of quotation and possible eventual fortune-cookie status. I posted some of my favorites here on the blog as somewhat of a commonplace book just for this chapter. These quotes are nothing short of revelations. Each quote has a great confidence in making you feel that it is a valid point, even without the support argument.

Thoreau makes the call for a reform to the educational system when he calls "It is time we had uncommon schools, that we did not leave off our education when we begin to be men and women. It is time that villages were universities, and their elder inhabitants the fellows of the universities, with leisure-- if they are indeed so well off-- to pursue liberal studies the rest of their lives." I really enjoyed our class interpretation of an "uncommon school" by doing the "uncommon classroom". Going outside to saunter in front of Roberts or take a walk down to our local Walden Duck pond made the phrase come alive in practice. I could see how many people would be abrasive to this concept of an "uncommon" education. It would take the right kind of scholar, one with motivation and drive, to make the most of this system. I'm not really sure if it is being done... I know that some schools (if not all) claim to be uncommon in some aspect but I don't know if Thoreau would align himself with the methodology of any school. It seems ironic to me that the place that wishes to listen to Thoreau's words the most (the academy/University) is also the place that seems to have a most rigid view on the proper education. Perhaps the microscope should examine itself...

At one of my favorite points in the essay he pokes fun at a criticism given to this thought of elevating scholarship among the masses. He says how the country is very willing to spend money on things that are of less value by "it is thought Utopian to propose spending money for things which more intelligent men know to be of far more worth." It's kind of funny how he uses the word "Utopian" to give a sense that we often treat knowledge and wisdom as if they are some unattainable goals. From one point he seems to be saying that wisdom and elevated thoughts are not out of any individuals reach but that it takes an exceptional individual to become wise. This is a sort of contradiction. To offer a way of understanding this it is perhaps his emphasis here might not be in the ability of the individual to be educated but on the ability of an individual to educate him/herself.

At the very end of the essay, in the second to last line, I found a quote which, I believe, defines the very reason I strove to become an English Major. "Instead of noblemen, let us have noble villages of men." I feel that, had I been keeping a commonplace book, this passage would be inscribed inside the front cover. In this short, simple, and sweet passage I feel that Thoreau lines up his values of Scholarship above and beyond monetary worth. This is how I feel. This is why I choose this path (instead of being a dull engineer!) I would much rather be considered a man wealthy in knowledge than a man wealthy in paper dollars and cents. Having an informed and learned perspective on the world is a privilege that money will never be able to buy.

Thoughts on Thoreau... while not reading Thoreau

I had a hard time reading Thoreau's Walden, much harder than I thought it would be. I didn't read once or twice, once due to $1 microbrew pint night at the Bozeman grill & tavern. I tried to justify this beer-drinking to myself by saying that perhaps Thoreau would have wanted me to sip on some brew instead of burying my head in a book. I got pretty enmeshed in this argument thinking what he would feel about me skipping assigned reading in his book. I felt he might view it as a stand of individualism, or defiance, or experiencing nature! Plus, I think that $1 is good economy :) However, no matter how hard I tried (and I tried hard) I just couldn't bring myself to think that Thoreau would condone my choice of evening among other beer drinkers watching a sports game in a loud bar area. I feel he would have looked at me and said "Adam, you think it is essential that you have commerce, and drink beer, and talk loudly in the bar, and ride here at thirty miles an hour... Adam, you don't drink upon the bar, the bar drinks upon you." Okay, so perhaps I'm taking some liberties with his statements in "Where I Lived and What I Lived For" but isn't that what happens when you try and apply an individual's individualist-based philosophy? How can we, who only have access to his books, chapters, and words, pin-point his philosophy and say what he wants? It seems to me that perhaps he, knowingly or not, is proposing that people

On the other hand maybe he is saying "be yourself! and here is how I did it!" This seems to make more sense to me. I can see Thoreau saying "whatever floats your boat, as long as it doesn't interfere with mine." For me, this view of Thoreau gels a lot more. I like to think of "nature" in a much broader sense than a pond, some trees, grass, etc. Why is it that in the bar, surrounded by my fellow man that I too should not feel as though I am in a state of Nature? If any where I should feel at one of the hearts of HUMAN NATURE in the bar! It seems that that the academy wouldn't quite agree with me. Taking time for oneself? "Poor time-management?"NO! You must be reading Thoreau! Even myself, an individual, feels the regret of not reading and drinking some beer instead. So, somewhere in the academy's and the individual's efforts to pin-point Thoreau and live exactly by his philosophy we have lost sight of our own needs as individuals.

Short Response to "The Great Lawsuit"

I found the essay "The Great Lawsuit" by Margaret Fuller to be very fascinating. As I am interested in Cultural Studies including race theories and Feminism this essay was right up my alley. For this short blog I would like to highlight a couple of strategies and quotes that really made this memorable.

On page 303-304, right at the beginning of this section, Fuller provides a playful, and surprisingly funny, simulated discourse between a common man and her more equal-minded self. When reading this I was struck by Fuller's ability to flow around . Many authors, providing such potentially inflammatory and revolutionary discourse, would not deploy a playful strategy with the reader (for example see picture of John Brown, the author of another text we read "The Laboring Class"-- he pretty much beats the reader to death with visions of an apocalypse of armed workers). In Fuller's case though, she really gets to the heart of her essay by using humor, a very human technique, to help the reader feel that she is in control of herself and the ability to make an intelligent argument about equality. This technique, enjoyable to read, helps frame her as an intelligent, powerful, knowledgeable, and equal partner of her men readers.

I also liked her attack and dismissal of the phrase "women and children". This shows that Fuller was very aware of the rhetoric of language and the way it could be used to paint members of a society in a lesser and diminished light. To recognize this potential flaw in thinking about terms displays her deftness at not just confronting sexism on the more obvious levels but also in some of the shadows that sexism operated (and operates) in. To attack this subtlety of this power is to take a strike at it's most potentially dangerous part.

Another key in her essay is her discussion of the "sphere" that women occupy. I was really attracted to her understanding that human kind and the individuals that make it up need the ability to pursue "expansion". This "expansion" was not limited to political, social, traveling, or any other thing. Rather, it encompassed all of these varying areas and opened up an understanding that expansion in all areas is not only valuable but necessary for individuals to exist. This essay wasn't just an extremist place men in the woman's limited sphere like it could have been, but rather a call for men and women to consider themselves more equal and work at expanding both their spheres for the good of all.

Finally, to end my discussion I would like to end with a highlighting of a concept she points out on 319. "Male and female represent the two sides of a great radical dualism. But, in fact, they are perpetually passing into one another. Fluid hardens to solid, solid rushes to fluid. There is no wholly masculine man, no wholly feminine woman." This short paragraph is very exciting in the prospects it puts forth. I feel as though she is opening up the grounds for a more individualistic interpretation of how men and women should be considered. She is debunking the essence of man and woman. She is challenging the supposed male vs. female conflict. By exposing the fluid nature of people to flow from one to the other she is accomplishing much in elevating her sex as well as the cultural awareness of humanity.

I would have to conclude what I intended to be a "short" blog post by noting that I think this selection from Margaret Fuller may have been my favorite reading of the semester so far. She wrote with such conviction, such awareness of style and language, that I feel she has been the shining light in my feelings towards transcendentalism thus far... something quite impressive for a man who supposedly shouldn't identify to say!

*LINK to Margaret Fuller Society!

Furthering the Discussion about Thoreau

In class today we talked for a while about how we perceived Thoreau, especially focusing in on him through the lens of his work "Resistance to Civil Government". One student in the class brought up the point that they felt as if Thoreau was somewhat whinny and complaining about his lot. However, it was countered by the class that perhaps what he saw could more accurately be understood as smugness. Despite his . I feel as though I should like Thoreau. He is traditionally understood as one of those . In his essay he doesn't wish to prescribe to anything that he didn't sign up for himself. I feel that we, as readers, should take this to heart when considering his status as an overall "good" progressive thinker. Simply because history, somewhat of an institution, believes and considers him so excellent doesn't mean that we should automatically believe that. Instead we should leave him open for criticism to prove that disobedience isn't just to government.

After some interior deliberation I finally settled on the fact that I have conflicting views of Thoreau, especially in regards to his essay. Impulsively I feel I should worship what he sets forth, mainly because that is what I've been taught. I really have a problem with other people bailing him out. If he had been somewhere where he wasn't somewhat of a local figure people wouldn't have bailed him out and then he REALLY could have felt sorry for all the other people outside the jail for longer than one night. To me, I just feel like he is coming from a place of privilege that others don't have. He didn't travel. He was somewhat of a local figure. What he reminds me of are the types of people who can get away with various things on the local level just because they are somewhat "local celebrities". This privilege doesn't come from his monetary status but it is fairly undeniable that he has more acknowledgment in various social circles that have power-- think of the Henry Louis Gates case. If a "normal" person had been stereotyped would it have been as big of a deal... no.

I guess I just feel what he sets forward he does with too much ease. I would have liked to see what he had to say had his skull been cracked by a bludgeon, bitten by police dogs, sprayed with hoses, tear gassed, etc. like other protesters. He makes some pretty bold statements for a guy who simply gets locked in a comfy jail for the night and let out in the morning.

I got in a discussion about the "West" with a friend the other day. At one point in our debate he said that one of the characteristics of the "West" is people giving other people the space to do more or less what they want-- a more liberal view of freedom. However, I countered that it also seems that in the "West" freedom and individualism are supported AS LONG AS you have the same ideals of individualism and freedom that other westerners have. I guess I feel that the same criticism applies to Thoreau. He seems to be saying "Be and individual... as long as you do it the way I do it." This conditional freedom and individualism really, for me, leave a bad mark on his philosophy and writings.

Would I join a commune?

*"Brook Farm" by Ruth Franklin





Having read the Constitution of Brook Farm by George Ripley and then asking the question in class I really got thinking about if I would join a commune or not. Upon impulse I was tempted to say "yes" but really thinking about it got me considering the question deeper. I mean some of the articles in their constitution sound great! Employment based on my interests and capacities, education for my children, no religious persecution, Hoo-rah! But then there are some things that kind of slap me in the face, back to reality. Asking for money? Admitting some flaws? The Association (cultish)? The Association can change the constitution for the worse? Woah woah woah... I don't know about it now.

Communes have got people into trouble. I wouldn't want to join a commune that made me do various things that I didn't sign up for (drink the kool-aid). It seems that when joining a commune people often subscribe their reason over to the commune. As things get progressively weirder and weirder, less free and less free, some people lose sight of the beginning and just let their commune leaders tell them whatever they want. I really wouldn't want to be in a commune where I couldn't get out. Permanently binding myself to a commune would worry me way too much to do.

However, to simply write off all communes as suicidal and crazy is to ignore the capacity they have to spark hope in people. For some sectors of society, namely the outcast and the poor, the thought of a commune with it's rigidly promised equality is a step up from their regular lives. Communes in literature and theory have often been seen as utopias where society is at its peak function. The commune serves the people, the people serves the commune and everybody thrives. One of my personal favorite communesque places proposed in literature is the island of Pala from Auldous Huxley's novel "Island". Rock-climbing for education, eating mind-altering mushrooms, and being in touch with ones inner self? What's not to like!

Overall, I guess I would have to say that I probably wouldn't join a commune unless it had a really good attraction for me to join. Simply calling something a commune and actually striving for the good of all people are two, very very very different things. Making my OWN commune however... now that's a different story.




*Good Commune











































*Bad Commune