Henry David Thoreau

I liked how Emerson’s ideologies showed through in Thoreau’s writing; his writing exuded a sort of spiritual/meditative reflection on how better live out one’s life. One of my favorite quotes from the reading ended up being "nature is the opposite of the soul".  It was intriguing how he could find pleasure in the act of simple, life-preserving tasks, such as, chopping wood for material to build his house with or taking a plain meal for lunch among the wood chips. I think it’s even more intriguing that Thoreau felt calm and got a sense of tranquility from building his house, especially after reading his exploration on the purpose of a house; his inquires on this is what struck me the most, while reading. He delves into why are we so focused on furnishing and cleaning our homes, and in the process making them bigger and better, instead of going outside and living; Thoreau makes a humorous comment about how there is no dust on grass that seemed to sum up this notion of living and taking in the world we live in to the fullest, instead of focusing on gathering more and more material possessions to collect dust. I also liked his idea on how books are noble and how they are "best of things, well used; abused, among the worst." He adds that they always look backward and not forward, and that genius always looks forward.  

Emerson: Nature

While, Emerson’s Nature was richly interesting in the manner of thinking deeper on philosophical level, I found many parts of it daunting and difficult to follow at times. I would find myself re-reading passages and still wondering what it was that I just read. It was only through our class discussions that I was able to gain a firm grasp on some of the ideas Emerson was exploring. The main idea or aspect to his writing in Nature that seemed to gather and repeat itself was the notion of living and interacting with life rather than just following or going through the motions. Emerson wanted to encourage the idea of taking an active part in life, all of which he categorized as a part of nature. I liked he take on the difference between the idea of farming and man farming, and how we are not simply what we do, if we believe that it makes us less than what we are. I found that interesting because it seems to reflect off onto the notion people have today of putting a label on everything and everyone. Whether its through games, text messaging, Facebook, or Twitter, there seems to be push to compartmentalizing the whole lives and personalities of people into a single post or twit. I think Emerson was getting at the idea that we can’t shove our beings, our nature’s into one word or phrase; it devalues ourselves and doesn’t begin to due justice to the meaning of our lives. I think this spoke to me because my social, educational, or occupational statuses are not what solely define me as a person. I don’t think labels like that can sum an entire person’s life, nor should they. Emerson’s view on this made me really think about what kind of world our generation lives in today. 

Rip Van Winkle

I have to say that I really enjoyed reading Irving’s Rip Van Winkle. Many of the details in the story share similar characteristics to that of old folktales and the fairytales of the brothers Grimm. The colonial village seems to be pretty isolated with rocky terrain and a thick forest, that adds to the “magical-like” atmosphere of the story. Even Van Winkle seems to exude the personality of a typical fairytale character. While he is friendly helpful to the women in the village, doing many of their chores, his own wife cannot for the life of her get her husband to do anything of use at their own homestead. Besides helping people, the only Van Winkle seems to want to do is slack off with his faithful dog by his side-You just now something is going to happen to him. Of Course, it’s when Van Winkle meets the strange men in the forest that story reaches the height of its fairytale-like quality. While I enjoyed the first half of the story best, it isn’t until Van Winkle wakes up that I believe the story holds any real significance. Many things have changed once Van Winkle wakes up, revealing much about the evolving nation and Van Winkle’s place in the world. When he approaches the old inn, Van Winkles notices the change of the sign-it hints at the he slept through the Revolutionary War, in which time King George was replaced by another George (Washington). The fact that this doesn’t seem to faze Van Winkle seems to be important, as his life wasn’t really affected by either ruler. In the end, the reader learns that his wife has passed away and his son has become a younger version of himself; Van Winkle seems troubled at first, not knowing who he is anymore as a person. I find it interesting though that once Van Winkle accepts his fate and the time he lost, he’s just as happy as before if not more; his daily carefree behavior hasn’t changed, but now it’s acceptable for him to be lazy because he’s an old man. He even seems relieved that he doesn’t have to deal with his nagging wife anymore. The misfortune of his long sleep turned out to be a blessing, bringing back that magic-like, fairytale quality in the last bit of the story. 

Olaudah Equiano

Having reading Equiano's personal narrative in a previous class, it was interesting to read through it again. I discovered some things that I had not thought of before on my first read through. For example, after reading the introduction it discusses that some scholars believe that Equiano may have been born in the Carolinas; it never occurred to me that the beginning description of his life in Africa might have been generalized and fictionalized of the majority of Africans forced into slavery. If this were true, I think it would make a huge difference, shedding light on the context of his narrative. If Equiano had not written he was born in Africa, whether it is true or not, the tale of his journey to claim his freedom would have had, perhaps, a different tone. Albeit, I think his writing would still have been effective in bringing awareness to the the horrors of slavery; it just would have a different impact, that is to say a different perspective. Instead of having a story of a free-born African forced into slavery and working his way up to achieving freedom, it would have been a tale of a man of African ancestry born into slavery in America, working his way up to achieving freedom. Regardless of where Equiano was born, his story is full of interest and complexity. Such as, working on a ship that transports slaves. It is this kind of context that brings depth and a sense of the cruel reality of those times.

John and Abigail Adams

I really enjoyed reading the letters that transpired between John and Abigail Adams; I think I enjoyed it so much because it was different from anything we had read up to this point. While I found it interesting to be reading letters written by out country's second president and the content within them discussing the current affairs and predicaments our country was dealing with, I found my attention drawing more to Adam's personal life. The introduction says that John Adams and his wife wrote over 300 letters to each other over the course of the marriage. I find this incredible in itself, as I can count the number of letters I've written by hand on less than ten fingers. It is evident that this couple had a strong and mutual trust for each other, when you look at all the political information John discloses to his wife in a time where any leaked information could be politically disastrous. One of the aspects that I liked most was that the letters between John and Abigail contained ordinary discussions along side the more historically important ones. For example, when Abigail discusses the loss of her husband's favorite horse or when John writes of his crossed disposition at learning of his family's sickness through that of others. What makes it even more interesting is that Abigail writes back to reprimand her husband that he has also been lacking in writing about his personal welfare and being. It is passages like these that ground and humanize historical figures like John Adams that making reading about them that much more enjoyable.

Benjamin Franklin

I do not imagine there is many people who have not heard of Benjamin Franklin, and yet it was not until I read the passages from his autobiography that I realized how little I actually knew about the life of such a prominent historical figure that is rooted in our country's history. I did not have to read far into his  autobiography to get the impression that Franklin was a man of great ambition and intelligence. Franklin, who was not satisfied with the station he was born into, worked his way up to become a successful business man whose opinions were highly valued in politics. 

Because of this Franklin reminds me a lot of John Smith's idealism for the "New World" or "American" dream. He character exudes a smart business/customer service sense that is used in the corporate world. For example, Franklin mentions how it is prudent when working with your clients to not appear smarter than them; the purpose is to give the client a sense of control while doing business with them. 

Franklin is also like modern-day Americans in the fact that he was very organized and tried to compartmentalize his life with the use of a rigid schedule. While looking at his daily routine charts, I found them to be highly ambitious and admirable. Realistically though, they are not achievable and seem to be utterly exhausting. Speaking for myself, I find myself lacking time throughout the week without the added stress of mentally marking my daily faults. 

Having drawn these little snippets of this historical figure's life was incredibly interesting to discover and gave me perspective on how little I actually knew of one of our Founding Fathers. 

Cotton Mather

Even though the reading on Cotton Mather was a lot shorter than previous readings, I must say, I really enjoyed reading the writing of someone who was witness to the Salem witchcraft trials; a historic event in one of the darker and troublesome times in American history. Starting off, I do not believe that Mather was the unbiased historian he makes himself out to be. While the introduction explains that he never condone  any of the proceedings in the Salem witch trials, he never opposed them either. Add the fact that he shows some obvious enmity to the woman, Martha Carrier, whom he calls a "rampant hag", I think its safe to assume he is not completely unbiased.
What I found really curious was how accurate all of the testimonies in terms of Hollywood and novels have portrayed the Salem witch trials. There was villagers feigning pain in court until Carrier was bound, villagers spouting tales of sour-inflicting curses, spectral visions of Carriers, and a lot of cows of dying of unnatural deaths. A LOT of cows. A part I did not quite get. Perhaps the villagers ran out of ideas.
One thing I did not understand was how Martha Carrier's own children could testify against her, claiming that she was a witch and that she had made them into witches too. The only thing I can figure is that they must have been scared for their own lives just like everyone else. In that regard, it is not surprising that Mather or anyone else would be hesitant to speak out against the atrocities taking place.