Realism vs. Modernism

The change from the Realism writing style to the Modernism writing style is a pretty significant part of the history and development of American Literature and writing. While these two literary genres are completely separate from each other, they still share many common characteristics. Both of these literary movements were shaped by what was going on in that country at the time, like World War I during the Modernism movement (Anderson). Realism also had connections with war and current events of the time period. The fact that the writing of both Modernism and Realism was so largely impacted by the good and bad parts of the time period is probably one of the biggest characters the two movements share, although not the only one. Both of these genres were shaped by the time periods they took place in, but also left an impact on that part of history as well. During the time period that Realism took place, there was a lot going on in the history of our country. The country was expanding westward all the way to the Pacific Ocean, the economy was at a high point- mostly because of new industries forming and developing, and social changes were happening as well. This topics were new and exciting, so writers took advantage to write about things that American people were interested in and would be able to relate to very easily. Mark Twain the most famous realism writer that I know off, and pretty much the only one I think people could name off the tops of their heads. He was focused mainly on the Regionalism branch of Realism, and brought local dialect and traditions of places like Missouri into his stories. He was known for writing about the things around him, and did not place as much emphasis on things like western expansion but more on descriptions and a lot of details. Being extremely detailed is a very distinctive part of Realism (Werlock) and can be found in Modernism works as well. Werlock describes Realism very simply as "the attempt to depict life as it actually exists". She goes on to say that is description is not of the past or the future (or your interpretation of the past or the future), but of what is going on in the present time. Realism is all about right here and right now, and what is really happening. The situations described in the works of the Realism movement are displayed very accurately and are a good portrayal of actual events (Wherlock). While both Modernism and Realism share some common qualities, there are of course some differences as well. Realism is much more accurate than Realism, because Modernism writers tended to manipulate and edit the things that were going on during the time period, and Realism writers were very accurate of the events going on around them during the time that they were writing. One very famous Modernism writer is John Steinbeck. His most famous novel, "The Grapes of Wrath" told about the effects of the Great Depression on the people of the United States, but he gave his characters a little more hope at the end of the novel than people actually had throughout the Great Depression. Even as Roosevelt became President and the New Deal began, many people were still very downtrodden, without hope and without any prospects as well. Steinbeck's ending of "The Grapes of Wrath" was a little disturbing as well as uplifting for the characters of the novel, which probably wasn't the most accurate thing. I kind of find it hard to believe that women during the Great Depression were willing to breastfeed random strangers to keep them from starving- but what do I know? I wasn't alive then and I have never experieneced anything like that. However, I know that I personally would not be breastfeeding a stranger no matter how close to dying he was. Works Cited Anderson, George Parker. "modernism." In Anderson, George P., Judith S. Baughman, Matthew J. Bruccoli, and Carl Rollyson, eds. Encyclopedia of American Literature, Revised Edition: Into the Modern: 1896–1945, Volume 3. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2008. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. Web. April 6, 2011. Werlock, Abby H. P. "realism." The Facts On File Companion to the American Short Story, Second Edition. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2009. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. Web. April 6, 2011.

Journal #43: Coltrane Instrumental

The song "Blue Train" by John Coltrane is very jazzy and uplifting. As I am listening to the first four minutes of the song, I immediately picture either a dark little club in the mid 1900s late at night or a modern-day Holiday Inn. The club because this song is jazz music which was pretty popular back in the day, and the Holiday Inn because this song also seems a little bit like elevator music. It does not seem like elevator music because it is bad (because it is not bad) but because it has a kind of calming factor as well as being peppy and uplifting. I feel as if I am in the middle of a club of ill repute during the prohibition, even though I'm pretty sure this song was not popular during that time period. Or maybe it was not even made up yet- I do not know.

I do not have much musical prowess, but I think there are a lot of instruments making up this song. I hear drums, saxophone, piano, and some other jazzy sorts of instruments going on there. The blend of these many instruments is rather nice and provides a calming quality although, as I said before, the music is still rather peppy and fun. I like it, but it definitely is not my favorite style of music.

This being said, usually I am not a big fan of jazz music, but this song was very nice. That being said, I will not be downloading this song onto my iPod or anything, even though I think it is a nice cute little song. It demonstrates modernism because it was a new kind of music back in the day, and probably came out of the Harlem Renaissance where African American music styles heavily influenced the music of the time and made a pretty big impact.

Journal #42: Whitman vs. Dickinson

When choosing between reading/analyzing a poem by Emily Dickinson or Walt Whitman, I would have to say that I definitely prefer Emily Dickinson to Walt Whitman, without any doubt. Although some of Dickinson's poems can be a little boring and seem to have little significance, I like how they are so simple and contain little parts of everyday life from broken hearts to frogs and insects. Dickinson's writing style is much more appealing to me because everything is laid out so that you can relate to the meaning of the poem. Even though there were hidden meanings in Dickinson's poems like there were in Walt Whitman's poems, I think it is a lot easier to figure out what Dickinson is saying. One major reason I dislike Walt Whitman is his focus on "self". Honestly, if I never hear anything about Walt Whitman's "self" ever again in my life, I will probably be very happy. I prefer Dickinson's less egotistical approach to poetry and I also think that Whitman was too concerned with his idea of self. The way that all of his poems were drawn back to that idea just really bothered me. I think one very interesting part of poetry, or writing in general, is to see the similarities and the differences between one authors various pieces of work. Whitman's constant message of self-importance and "If God is everything and everything is God, I'm God too" approach. This idea was present is basically every single one of Whitman's poems that I read and it started to get old really fast. Dickinson's simplicity is the main reason that I enjoyed her poems the most. Although there were implications and hidden meanings in her poems, for the most part everything was out in the open and fairly easy to understand and relate too. Even though I do not agree with some of Dickinson's beliefs (like that everyone else in the world is shallow and not worth her time), I think a lot of poetry readers are able to find some connection with her through her writing because she wrote about such simple and common things.

Job Shadowing Experience

When I was informed that all juniors would have to participate in job shadowing, I was not a happy camper. Mainly because I have no idea what I would like to do with the rest of my life and therefore it was pretty difficult to pick three places I would like to job shadow. Then my mother met someone during jury duty who works in radiology and she decided that I should job shadow someone in radiology. I was not feeling very motivated at that point, but figured that it couldn't hurt to learn more about a field I knew nothing about.

So after navigating the perilous streets of Springfield, I found Memorial Hospital and reported for duty. I had to park in parking lot 10, meaning I had to cross the street two times. It was rather dangerous but I found my way. After being assigned to my department, radiology, I was introduced to some rather nice nurses in doctors who showed me what was going to go down. It was all rather pleasant and I was learning quite a bit. The most interesting part was when the technician was going me how they prepare patients for biopsies. And that is when I started feeling unwell. About fifteen minutes later that doctor came in from doing the biopsy and he started talking about needing a bigger needle to chip through the patients sacrum and there was blood on his hands- that is when the experience went south and I had to go into the bathroom and vomit.

And then the nurse "suggested" that I leave because I was sick. Meaning she told me to leave because I was sick. I had made it about three hours into the experience at that point, and was still feeling rather ill. So I went home (after calling my mom and making sure it was okay) and that was it for me and my job shadowing experience at Memorial Medical Center.

All in all, I did not get to learn very much. But what I did learn was pretty interesting and was definitely new information. However, after that experience I have decided it would be best if I didn't go into the medical field. And on top of the whole vomiting thing, I found the information interesting but still do not think I would like to make a career out of it. After going on a college visit, I have actually been able to narrow down what I would like to do in the future and it definitely does not have anything to do with the medical field and definitely not radiology- I am leaning more towards business or something along those lines. While I did not get a lot of information and I did not get to stay very long, one thing I definitely learned is that I am not going to go into radiology or anything else in the medical field, so that is one useful thing that came out of the whole experience.

Dickinson Analysis

For my analysis of an Emily Dickinson poem, I chose "Poor Little Heart!", which is found under Part Two: Love in her book of complete works. The first time I read through the poem, it was pretty obvious to me what was going on, although I had to draw some of my own conclusions about the events. In the first stanza the speaker, who I am assuming is Dickinson herself because of her use of first person, is talking to a friend who has just had their heart broken. She is feeling pity for her friend, and basically asking her what happened, what went wrong, and if this person had been forgotten by their love. Dickinson then says that they must not have cared about her friend and his or her heart to do such a thing and break it to pieces (Dickinson). The second stanza follows a very similar direction as Dickinson and her friend continue to talk. Dickinson tells her friend to be proud and brave, and to be carefree as well, at least for a little while (Dickinson). Her friend's heart has been forsaken, so Dickinson is trying to give him or her some encouragement to still be active and to be a go-getter. I find this a little ironic because Dickinson was not the most outgoing lady around and was not much of a go-getter herself. But Dickinson could obviously be making up a cute little story for her poem or something logical like that. The third stanza continues in a fashion very similar to the first and second, and Dickinson tells her friend that she would do nothing to hurt him or her. She also asks her friend to believe her and trust her (Dickinson). In the last stanza, Dickinson is basically telling her friend that broken hearts are a way of life, and it is going to happen no matter what. She tells her friend to be happy and strong like a beautiful morning glory flower. All together, I think that this poem has a good message. It's about people believing in love and giving love more chances even after having their hearts broken, as well as showing how important and meaningful being comforted by a friend is. The speaker is very strong in this poem, giving the friend a lot of encouragement. Dickinson believed that women could take care of themselves, and this shows in the poem (Snodgrass). Although the friend is encouraged to give love another chance even if it means getting hurt all over again, it seems like the speaker is also saying that her friend does not need love to be happy with his or her life. Because Dickinson is a feminist (Snodgrass), she has very strong opinions about love. I am assuming that the person is a woman, and Dickinson is pretty much telling her that she does not need that man that broke her heart, and to get over it and move on. All in all, I quite enjoyed this poem and thought the meaning behind it is easy to relate to in any time period or circumstance, and I also enjoyed the straight forward simplicity. Works Cited: Dickinson, Emily. "Poor little heart!" Bartleby.com: Great Books Online -- Quotes, Poems, Novels, Classics and Hundreds More. 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2011. . Snodgrass, Mary Ellen. "Dickinson, Emily." Encyclopedia of Feminist Literature. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2006. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= EFL136&SingleRecord=True (accessed March 22, 2011).

Journal #41: Dickinson Poem

The poem "My Country Need Not Change her Gown" by Emily Dickinson is very simple and to the point.

The literal interpretation of this poem does not make a lot of sense, because countries do not wear gowns. But the more symbolic interpretation makes much more sense and seems to convey a message with more depth and meaning behind it. Dickinson is saying that the ways of the country should not change too much, because ever since the colonies began winning the war against British oppression, things had been working out fairly well. She also says that Great Britain does not approve of this, and that they are a little bitter about the thirteen colonies breaking away from the British empire and becoming the United States of America. The success and patriotic feel of America taunted the British, showing them that they could prosper and become a great country on their own.

Basically, the poem says that America has become a great country by its own means and that should not change for any reason. The British were defeated at Lexington and that was when America first started to show how strong they were. This poem does not have a lot of connections to religion or to nature, but was more about patriotism. Because of the patriotic tones of the poem, it can also relate to some of Walt Whitman's works as well. He was very devoted to President Lincoln and to the United States of America, and Dickinson seems very loyal to the country as well when she says that the United States is great and she doesn't want it to change.

Journal #40: Interpretation of "Self"

Because I still not totally sure what Walt Whitman's idea of "Self" really is, I think it is a little difficult to give my own interpretation of it. I am not a fan of Walt Whitman, and because of this I find his ideas a little ridiculous and pretty self-centered. Basically, Whitman is trying to tie religion, sexuality, and a whole bunch of other ideas into his poems by fitting them into his philosophy of true self. He takes the phrase "God is everything and everything is God" a bit too literally and thinks that because of this, he is God in a way. And I do not agree with this. Walt Whitman is not God. No one else is God, except for God himself. That's just the way it goes; at least that's how I see it. I also do not understand how Whitman can try and relate all of these poems back to God, especially the sexual ones. Although I personally do not have a problem with Walt Whitman's sexual orientation, homosexuality is not exactly accepted in the Bible and in a lot of religions.

Basically, I think that "Self" is something that started out as a simple idea and then became way too complicated and egotistical. It is about seeing yourself as who you really are, not just the perception of yourself that other people see. You cannot be totally sure which side of you is the real one, and which side is the one that you have adapted or changed to meet other people's standards or even your own standards. In my opinion, it is also about making realizations about your own religion and beliefs regarding God and applying those beliefs and ideas to your life in
every way that you realistically can.

I think that to understand "Self", it has to be interpreted in a way that you can understand. I do not think that you can understand the idea if you are trying to go through someone else's interpretation, and you really do have to see it in your own way to have any idea what is going on. Therefore, I do not think that there is really any correct definition of "Self", because it can change for every person.