Criticism of Thoreau

The criticism that i found that was over Thoreau's work of "Walden," i found to be very interesting. After i read the short story and then i read the criticism on it, i had to agree a lot about what the author had to say about the writing of Thoreau. For example, in the criticism, the author tended to state quite a bit that Thoreau spent a little too much time in the beginning of "Walden" describing how he wanted to simplify life and find its true meaning (Keck). According to the author of the criticism, the author, Thoreau, also spent much too much time telling the audience or the reader that he will definitely want to write about whatever he finds in the woods. What Thoreau is describing in the early parts of the passage is that he wants to go off into nature, alone, and he really wants wants find out what life and nature is really about (Keck). He wants to do this because the writer, Thoreau really wants to find out how simple life can be and if it is really easy going or if it is full of hardships (Keck). The author of "Walden" Thoreau, then goes on to claim that he will report his findings in nature, or what he experienced, and he will write about it and tell the audience what life is truly about. I would have to fully agree on the author with this one. In my opinion, i think that the author went on for far too long trying to explain this. It is literally a whole page and a half of the excerpt from "Walden." To keep the reader interested, if i were the author, i would try to get this point across within a page or a page just simply because i knew that the excerpt would bore or make my reader or audience want to put the book down. Later in the criticism though, the author describes how he really likes the type of language that Thoreau uses in "Walden." The author of the criticism begins this argument by giving many examples of the very pretty language that Thoreau uses in his famous work (Keck). The author of the criticism then follows up on his first argument by giving many examples of beautiful metaphors the Thoreau uses in his work (Keck). In all honesty, i would have to agree completely with the author of the criticism. The the short work "Walden", Thoreau uses some very pretty language. Throughout the story, Thoreau really does use pretty language in his story. In my opinion, he really proves that he is a romantic writer by the way that he describes nature in his writing and the positive and very romantic tone he uses when he describes it. Is seems like before he wrote this story, Walden had many past experiences with nature and he knew exactly how to describe it in his story. This is the main reason why i have to agree with the author of the criticism. (Keck)

Keck, Michaela. "Thoreau's Walden and the American Dream: Challenge or Myth?" In Bloom, Harold, ed. The American Dream, Bloom's Literary Themes. New York: Chelsea Publishing House, 2009. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= BLTTAD021&SingleRecord=True (accessed November 15, 2010).

Gandhi and Thoreau

One of the main differences that i noticed between the speech by Gandhi and the essay written by Thoreau. The main difference that i noticed between the two essays was basically just the tone that the essays were written in. For example, in the essay written by Thoreau, i tended to notice that in his essay, he tends to write with a much more aggressive tone in his work than Gandhi tends to have in his speech. For example, in his essay, the reader or audience, will find much more clear emotion and anger in his writing, or in the writing of Thoreau, than you will in the speech of Gandhi. In the speech written by Thoreau, some examples of Emotion that the writer will find in his work that the reader will not find in Gandhi's speech is the fact that the essay written has many exclamation marks, showing that Thoreau is using a lot of emotion to the point where he is almost shouting his words at the reader (Thoreau 223). Also in his writing, the reader or audience will tend to see that Thoreau is quite frankly, just simply saying what he thinks is wrong with the government and what is wrong with society (Thoreau 223). Basically, he is very up front about it and it almost seems like hedoes not care what other people think about it. His just wants people to know his opinion and to see his point of view with the government and also with society. Something that he also includes in his essay is that he basically gives his opinion on how he thinks that the government could be fixed and how he would change it if he could (Thoreau 223). This is much different than how the speech of Gandhi is written. I mean, sure, Gandhi also likes to show his emotion within his very own speech, but compared to Thoreau, the tome of Gandhi really is not as aggressive as the tone of Thoreau (Gandhi 229). Within the speech of Gandhi, the reader will tend to notice that there are not as many exclamation marks in his speech as there are within the writing of Gandhi. Also, within the speech of Gandhi, instead of telling the people of India what to do to stop or protest the tax on salt the the British had on India, they actually did protest it by taking sea salt from the ocean to protest the tax on salt (Gandhi 229). In a way, i believe that this makes Gandhi a much more powerful writer than Thoreau. I think this because all Thoreau really did in his speech was just be angry and just give his opinion on how the government could improve (Gandhi 229). By being angry, it almost seems like Thoreau almost seems helpless when he is writing because is seems like he is angry simply just because he knows that he cannot convince anyone that he is correct. On the other hand, Gandhi is very powerful because he influences all of India and is one of the most influential writers in India.

Gandhi, and Douglas Fisher. "On the Eve of Historic Dandi March." Glencoe Literature. New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill, 2009. 229-31. Print.

Thoreau, and Douglas Fisher. "Civil Disobedience." Glencoe Literature. New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill, 2009. 222-28. Print.

Journal #22 Using Romantic Philosophies

You know, in my opinion it is never ok to disregard the law. Even if you are a romantic writer, i just do not see when it is ever ok to disregard the law. O ok i understand it now since Mr. Langley explained it now, it actually makes quite a bit of sense to me now. Ok so, apparently, since the Romantic writers were very dedicated to the self and also to morals, i guess that for someone who believes in the romantic philosophy, it would probably be ok to disregard the law if you thought if it was morally appropriate. So, for example, if you are in a family and you do not have very much money and you had a son starving to death, it would be appropriate to a Romantic writer to steal food if it was for your son to survive. I guess what it really comes down is just a simple question of ethics. I mean, basically according to romantic writers, any law could basically be broken simply because of the romantic philosophy that any law can be disregarded if and only if it is morally acceptable to you. So, i guess that that is all i can really write about right now. I really do not know what else to say. I guess when talking about Romantic writing, it is not really ok to not obey the law, but i guess that it is acceptable if you face a tough moral dilemma or a tough obstacle in your life. So, that must be one of the only times when it is ok to break the law. I can only imagine someone going to court for theft or trespassing and their defense would be that to them, it was ok to do what they did simply because they are a romantic writer. That should be my excuse for everything now. I did it because i am a romantic writer.

Emerson and the Work of Melancholia

In this criticism of "Emerson and the work of Melancholia," Emerson's original style has soft of been lost because of the deaths of his wife and brother in the later years of his writing. This actually in all honesty explains why Emerson did not really believe in writing about romantic things or he did not really like the romantic point of view anymore because a main part of romantic writing is quite simply to pretend that mourning just does not exist(Edmundson). Now, as anyone can see, it was extremely hard for Emerson to do this because it is never easy at all to be able to not mourn the deaths of two loved ones, and so therefore he really did not like to believe in the point of view as the Romantic writers anymore because in all honesty, they like to pretend that everything in life is happy and that everything in life is very beautiful when really there are things in life in which we all must mourn over and there are things in life that are not beautiful like nature is and i it was extremely hard for Emerson to write about things such as these especially when it really was his first time experiencing not only one, but two deaths of two different loved ones(Edmundson). Now, after his brother and his wife had died, it was extremely hard for Emerson to keep an optimistic point of view when trying to write about things in which he formerly thought were happy. It is actually very easy for the author of the criticism to tell because the works of Emerson from there on really had a much different tone than his works before the two separate deaths in his life(Edmundson). For example, the author of the criticism states that in Emerson's writing, he usually presents two different viewpoints of what he is writing about to the reader of the poem. These points of view kind of represent the urge of jumping rather than being pushed off(Edmundson). In my opinion, it must have been extremely tough for Emerson to not just want to write about the point of view of being pushed off because of the recent tragedy he had experienced in his life, or at least he probably wanted to write from a much different point of view from then on out. Later in 1842, Emerson's son died(Edmundson). This obviously changed Emerson's writing to an even more depressing tone because he was not over the deaths of his wife and brother, but now his son dies. It changed his writing because usually, in the romantic style of writing, romantic writers are fine with everything that is going on and they really do not question much or challenge anything in their writing, but in the poem that Emerson wrote about his son, he basically says that to him, his son was brilliant and that he basically changed they world for him, or as Emerson describes in his poem, his son threw off the order of the world for Emerson (Edmundson).

"Emerson and the Work of Melancholia." Raritan (Spring 1987). Quoted as "Emerson and the Work of Melancholia" in Bloom, Harold, ed. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Updated Edition, Bloom's Modern Critical Views. New York: Chelsea House Publishing, 2006. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=1&iPin=MCVRWE007&SingleRecord=True (accessed November 7, 2010).

Journal #21 The Rationalist Point of View

The difference between the point of view of self reliance when it comes to rationalist writers and the point of view when it comes to romantic writers really is not much. Self reliance was one of Benjamin Franklins thirteen virtues i believe. The point of view from him and the point of view of romantic writers is the fact that in the society of rationalist when America was still young in certain ways, people were almost expected to be self reliant. Since they were expected to be this way within this society, they really were not rewarded at all. Rationalists were all about being happy with the good traits that you have and trying to follow them to the very end. When they did act self reliant in their society, they were respected by others and they also respected others as well. So, basically, if you do not act self reliant within the society of rationalists, you might be shunned and maybe not rewarded. In the society of Emerson and other romantic writers, this is not really the tendency that they have when it comes to self reliance. In the society filled with romantic writers, it is actually quite normal to reward people for having good habits and being self reliant. In the romantic era, people tended to try to get away from others and they also tended to try and experience nature much more than they did in the rationalist time period. So, i must admit that i actually tend to respect the idea of rewarding people for being very self reliant rather than kind of ignoring it and just assuming that all people should be extremely responsible and self reliant. Also, i do not like that point of view from the rationalist society because it just kind of seems like a bland idea when not rewarding people for anything they do well because in my opinion that would just make the society very boring.

Journal #20 Importance of Self-Reflectance

I really believe that self reflection and taking a break from society every once in a while can be a really good thing to do every once in a while. I guess that this journal is just about taking a break from your daily routines every once in a while and just do what you want to do. By saying just do what you want to do, i do not mean that you should do something stupid just for brief entertainment, but i mean, do something that you love to do and that relaxes you. I guess that it is also good to take a break from society. By saying this, i mean that every once in a while, it is good to just be alone for a specific amount of time and it is also good to to just stay away from people i guess. I think that that is what our teacher wants us to write about for this journal. Anyway, so yeah, it is always good to just be able to get away from people for a while because sometimes people can be pretty stressful and everyone needs to just get away and to do something that they enjoy because this makes life more enjoyable, if you will, and it can also make people much more happy because they become relaxed and very well rested and they are ready to return to society again. I really do not know what else i can possibly say about this topic. I am really honestly baffled. This is really what i call a serious writers block. So, basically, the moral of this blog is that no matter who you are, we all need to take a break every once in a while. It is also nice to just get away or do something that you love love because that honestly tends to make life a lot easier. And in the words of Forrest Gump, that is all i have to say about that.

Spamerica

My ideal United States of America would be the USSA. That is the United Space States of America. Also known as Spamerica. You see, in the future, when Kirk becomes the first person to establish a colony on Mars, he will be famous. That is when he will convince the entire population to migrate to Mars and live there permanently because by then, our planet will basically be destroyed because of people littering, overweight people taking up too much space because people will still refuse to eat healthy in the future and Google and McDonalds will set up a run the world, calling the planet Moogle. Moogle will obviously be a communist government and Ronald Mcdonald will be the dictator. Quite frankly, this would obviously be a nightmare for like anyone living on Moogle. For the people who were put under the spell of Ronald Mcdonald, Kirk would start an all out war with him and his army. The commander of the army of Moogle would be the Hamburgler, and the normal soldiers would be Umpa Loompas. This would be a fierce army, but Kirk would strike back by appointing Master Chief as commander of the Spamerican Army because after all, he is Master Chief, and the normal troops would be everyday people, but there is a catch. These people would all be wearing the V masks from V for Vendetta. This would be quite the battle, but the Spamerican Army would be victorious because Master Chief would make a special glowing blue hamburger that the Hamburgler could not resist. This would be delivered to The Hamburgler, and as soon as he bites into it, he would explode because it was not really a glowing blue hamburger, it was a plasma grenade. Game Over. So, the USSA would be established on Mars thanks to Kirk and this would be the most successful country in the world, obviously. I need eight more words for my blog to be finished.