Battle of Literature

I have an urge to write, but only nebulous ideas for a subject. This sudden outburst of undefined creativity is inspired by Edgar Allen Poe, whom I have more or less despised since 4th grade.

For at least a few months now, I've been reading through American Tradition in Literature: Volume 1. It's an overview of our country's history through the writings of of its prominent citizens. Currently I am at Poe, and it's highly fascinating in some ways. See, I view literature as a chance to  become acquainted with the author, and Poe is definitely a study! His writings range from slightly dark/strange poetry, to grotesque stories of the occult/insane, to perfectly rational critiques of other authors' works. And I think I've figured him out.

Poe has a decent helping of PTSD, plenty of bipolar to go around, and a pinch of Satan worship.

In any case, I just finished an article Poe wrote- a favorable critique of Nathaniel Hawthorne's Twice-Told Tales. It piqued my interest because some of their styles have a bit of overlap, in fact, some of their writings are super similar, but I prefer Hawthorne WAY more.

And of course, since I'm (borderline) obsessed with introspection and psychology, I had to delve into my own psyche.

Both Poe and Hawthorne wrote stories of the darkly mysterious, where reality and symbolism are all tangled up together until you start to question both. But Hawthorne's stories always have an insinuated point/moral, or a slight glimmer of hope, or both. On the other end of things, Poe, at least in his darker writings or emotional states, just ends his stories at the bleakest, most confusing moment. I think this style was designed to create a certain, strong emotional effect, but for me the emotion is too straightforward (always gotta complicate things!) and somehow incomplete. Poe can horrify and confuse me, but Hawthorne can hold me, hovering halfway between hope and despair with horror; he can let his characters into my head/heart where they find our commonalities. Their evil reflects my own, their struggles mirror mine. And this second effect is much more powerful for me. It's just way more captivating and well-rounded.

And you should read The Scarlet Letter.

I also think I trust Hawthorne more. While he dives into the supernatural realm, he does it with a bit of balance. He writes of fiends (demons) and Satan and witches, but with at least a vague sense of the Divine (God) in the background. Wrong and right are kept firmly in place even while they are tested and questioned. Poe's exploration into the invisible is off-kilter. Rationality is thrown unceremoniously out the window and hope is entirely dismissed. He chokes up his own talent by choosing to write with fear and confusion rather than the much more powerful literary tool of contrast.

Of course, I'm not an expert, just a nerd. 😅 And since my English IV class this past year went through The Scarlet Letter, I've studied Hawthorne much more than Poe. I'll probably go back and reread some of Poe's stories to see if I can understand them (and him) better, and then update you of any changes in my opinions stated here.

Happy Reading! (Remember the assignment I gave ya'll? 😉)

~Dolly

P.S. After some rereading, I'm only slightly less confused than I was originally. My point still stands, as far as I'm concerned.

On Reason and Reactions

Well, that last post didn't do so well. Apparently me writing a big, long thing about my animals isn't the quality content you've gotten used to on this blog. So this is a deep, emotional and intellectual post, as you can see by the scholarly-sounding title. 😄

First, though, I might as well give you a little background.

We are studying Fyodor Dostoyevsky in English. Our class just started Crime and Punishment, but I read The Dream of a Ridiculous Man as well, just to cover my bases. I'd definitely advise everyone to read The Dream of a Ridiculous Man, since it's super short and pretty intriguing. Anyway, Dostoyevsky was a romanticist Christian in a Russia full of nihilists. The two views contrast each other pretty sharply: Romanticism involves looking towards a goal of perfection, and nihilism sees everything as hopeless and meaningless, and perfection as impossible. Obviously, I'm not a well-researched philosopher or anything. These are just my generalized views of nihilism and romanticism.

As far as I can tell, Dostoyevsky's writing seems to involve a satirical view of nihilism that points to romanticism as the answer to the problems he sees in nihilism. The Dream of a Ridiculous Man shows this writing technique very obviously and concisely.

Moving on: Another belief system we've discussed in English class is that of Utilitarianism, which pretty much states that whatever pleases the majority becomes morally right. It's apparently closely related to nihilism. Our teacher posted this question:

In Tuesday's class, we discussed how Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote in an anti-nihilistic style. We also discussed that utilitarianism is closely linked to nihilism. Again, utilitarianism is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. In this discussion post, describe some of the pitfalls of utilitarianism.

I'm actually pretty satisfied with my response. On a high-school level only, of course. I still would love to have a LOT more knowledge about argument styles and making a strong argument for or against any subject. Anyway, here's my response:

Utilitarianism can sound good on the surface, especially to people whose natural tendency is to try to keep everyone happy. After all, no one can please everyone, so a majority's happiness is kind of the best one can hope for.

However, (and it's a big however) utilitarianism, as all human attempts to reconstruct morality, has at least one very big problem. Here's one problem for this belief system to answer: What if the minority in a specific setting is a majority in a larger sense?

One example of the problem this presents is the Salem Witch Trials, a gruesome and tragic historic event. The majority of people in Salem were living in terror of witchcraft. This fear was alleviated by the legalized murder of anyone thought to be a witch. However, the witch-hunting craze in Europe was ending, and in other parts of the world, witchcraft was viewed as powerful and not to be messed with; people went to witch doctors for help with their physical, emotional, or spiritual problems. So the 'majority' in Salem that wanted to kill "witches" was probably really a minority in the bigger scope of things.

On which would a utilitarian base his or her morality?


Obviously definitely not beyond a high-school level. But for where I'm at in life, I think it's not TOO bad. 😁 I mean, for once in my life, I made a point somewhat concisely! 😆

What do you guys think? This stuff majorly fascinates me, for sure! In fact, when I finish Crime and Punishment, you just might hear more on the subject. This is more of an introduction-to-the-subject post. 😉

Hope you have a wonderful day! And please, keep a balanced view of life. If you're a romanticist or nihilist, I'd love to know! Because we need to talk, hahaha! 😅

Writing from the heart (or mind?),

~Dolly