egoose

Not only did the Age of Reason writers wrote a lot differently than the puritan writers did, they also had a different "point" to their writing. They sought out a logical explanation and looked more deeply into a topic that the puritans had probably established for them. The puritans were the beginnings of so much thought and idea-making, while the age of reason time period was "building" on these thoughts, or even perhaps disagreeing with the established points. The Puritans seemed to take to what they had heard all their lives, rather than examining and formulating their own opinions. Both the Puritan and Age of Reason writers discuss the topic of religion. While the puritan writers often spoke about religion in a way that made it seem that it completely took over their life and directed them to do each and every thing they did, writers like Franklin took a deeper look and focused on coming up with an idea that was more "logical" to him. I found the age of reason writers a lot easier to compare to than the puritans, but this was a personal connection that I found. Both age of reason writers and puritanism writers used different vocabulary than today, but a lot of their main principles are still the same. For example, the importance of family and religion in a culture, and the importance to stand up for what you believe in were core topics and themes in the writing - as exhibited by Rowlandson and Wheatley both, two strong women from the different time periods.

Wow. I found this second poem very hard to understand. I read it over a couple of times, but I'm still lost. I logged on to the blog to check up on what others had written, so I could knock ideas off of theirs. Unfortunately it seems that not many had gotten past the general ideas that I had formulated. Wheatley seemed to look up to Washington and really be thankful for him. Why, though, is the question. This is not to say that Washington wasn't a one-of-a-kind leader, but it seems like Wheatley was not actually against her being taken from her country at all. Perhaps the purpose of her writing was to catch the eye of the "big guy" and maybe use some reverse phsycology on him. Hmm...

Wheatley referred to George Washington as some sort of Saint, or king. This was not what he was!!! Maybe Wheatley thought a little old-fashioned "brown nosing" would do some good. ;-)

Wheatley has a real talent with writing, though, and poetic techniques. I noticed her rhyme scheme and use of metaphors. Also - this is for you, Mrs. Clark Evans - she was very "descriptive." By this I mean she did a good job "creating the scene" in the reader's head. She seemed to be well educated, also, for a slave.

I'd like to do some discussing of this poem, because it seems like a lot of us were left in the dark.

PS: A general question --- IS Phyllis Wheatley a man or a woman?!!!!! I only referred to "her" as a "she" because I know one Phyllis who is a woman. Keep me posted. :) thanks.

It is said that during rough times, people often look to religion, God, and the sanctuary of heaven. Phyllis Wheatley's poem titled "On Being Brought from Africa to Ameria" is a perfect example of this. She describes that when she was brought "from her pagan land" she was taught a very important lesson - this lesson was that there was such a thing as God and a Saviour. Although she may have never viewed God as a huge part of her life, this experience had brought her to seek out redemption in the Lord. She realizes that many view her race as worthless and below all, but believes that she still has the ability to end up in heaven along with everyone else. Therefore she will work to end up there. Perhaps heaven was the one thing she had to look forward to. Her spirits were high and that was likely what kept her going.

It's hard, after reading so much, to think of what to write in a blog -- how to pull out the main aspects, etc.

This reading has given me the impression that as time went on, writing styles shifted a lot. However, main ideas like religion, stay uniform in writing. The Puritan readings were so different from Paine's writing. While the first reading from The Puritan Reader was written pretty blandly, with words that barely kept us reading - I found that Paine wrote with descriptive and explanatory words. (Thank goodness!). While it was a hefty amount of reading -- and while I just finished at 10pm -- I found it interesting.

Paine's point of writing this was to persuade (maybe we should get some pointers...) the Americans to do whatever they could to help with the Revolutionary War. He used good tactics and reasoning to do so. He referenced God, saying that he was on "our side," making any task seem more plausible.

At times when I was reading this, I'll admit - I was a little confused. Maybe because I'm sleepy, but some of his word usage seemed off to me. It must be the time period J. I'll get used to it, hopefully!

All in all, Paine was a strong writer and knew how to keep his reader interested. He did a great job intelligently showing the reader what he wanted/needed to happen. He strategically did this by giving the reader reasons to comply with what he was saying.

All in all, I don't think that these readings will be among my favorites of the year. However, I do think that they did a great job setting us up for what to come. It gave us a good history and background of what went on towards the beginning of American history. The readings gave us a few different views, opinions, and types of writings. My favorite was Mrs. Rowlandson's excerpt, and I think this was because of how personal she made it seem. She put real feeling into her writing that was easily understood and comprehended by the reader. The Puritan readings seemed to have had a reoccuring theme of courage. The first reading showed us how brave the first Puritans were to start fresh in a new area and build on it. Mrs. Rowlandson showed the reader her courage throughout her entire story, particularly standing up to the Indians and not giving up. While the sermon was, as agreed by all, a little over the top, it took Edwards a lot of courage to say the things he said, because he was so sure of the opinions he had. He must've known what the reaction to his sermon would be, but he did it anyway. I think that the theme of courage will be constant throughout American Literature. Although these readings didn't interest me entirely, I think that with this "backbone" of history and a general understanding of the time, American Literature should come easier.

Jonathan Edwards was a bit over the top in his proclamations. While I could easily discuss what I agree with, don't agree with, or believe in - I will try to refrain from it. However, this is not to say that I won't stand strong in my opinion that Edwards went a little overboard with his statements. He made God seem a lot less holy, understanding, comforting, and good-natured than most have been exposed to and, at some times, "expected" to believe in. I felt like the constant reference to hell and the somewhat "inevitable" damnation that Edwards repeatedly spoke of was overkill. In the bible we read that sins can be accepted and made up for, right? People make mistakes -- but according to Edwards, if you're one of the less-than-perfect individuals, then, looks like you're headed for hell along with the rest of us! He also emphasized the fact that, essentially, if everyone doesn't convert to Christianity, then you're doomed for hell again. Edwards's attitude was one that made me feel like he knew everything there was to know, and that he was better than or above those he was speaking to. Though he may've not sounded like it - he was human, too!

            I found this quick read very helpful. Many of these easy, small tasks could really improve my writing. While I'm almost positive I've got a good understanding of the correct usage of dialect expressions, there were a few other areas that I picked up some tricks. As for colloquial language - I'm a fan! While it is said to be informal, I learned that it really is OK to use it in some types of formal writing, especially to set a tone or a desired emphasis on a certain phrase or word. I also learned about euphemisms. I would've previously assumed that using these words was vital, but I now know that there is only a real need to use them when I know that the more blunt word may hurt or offend the reader. The stereotype portion of the reading was also helpful. Through reading the examples, I realized how easy it is to come off as though you're prejudice, without even thinking about it. The same goes for avoiding sexist comments. I learned to use words like "humankind" as opposed to "mankind." However, I think the most important lesson I learned was to not get carried away with the big, "smart-sounding" words. While they may really make me think I'm making the teacher think I'm smart, they are distracting, overkill, and unneeded. I will keep this handout handy and try to make good use out of it in all the writing I do this year (and in years to come!).