Here is a film version of Julius Caesar done in less than 10 minutes:) This is a way that you can see the juxtapositional allusion in action:) http://www.schooltube.com/video/fb8186142f2e5784dce0/Julius-Caesar-412
Marriage theme?? Here is a blog regarding a college level assignment with Spoon River. You may find some interesting connections: http://spoonreader.blogspot.com/2008/05/spoon-river-anthology-and.html
Hi..so I hope I did this right. I just did how one of the epitaphs felt about what was most important in life and what a life well-lived meant.
The epitaph of Albert Schirding left a significant impression on me because of the topic that it dealt with, success. Albert says that what is most important in life is that those who you are close to remain close, unlike his children who became successful and left him alone. One might assume he would be happy that his children are successful, but none of them remain faithful in their relationships with him because they have forgotten where their roots come from and who helped them reach their heights. It is ironic that he would be dissatisfied with his childrens’ successes, but it makes sense because he receives no credit for their achievements. Schirding learns to value relationships more than success because he realizes that when people become successful, they do not remember those who got them to that place. To Albert, a life lived well is one that involves deep relationships with those he loves. He misses what he had with his children before they found success and almost wishes he could trade their success for a strong relationship with them. Ultimately, Albert Schirder learns that what is most important in life is the relationship cultivated with loved ones and a well-lived life is one that establishes long-lasting, loving relations with the most important people in one’s life.
Kelsey. I think that you are dead on on many points; however, consider the two epitaphs together to gain the full impact of the epitaph. Each is about a father. Notice that the epitaphs are across from one another (think grave plots); Masters does this, hoping that we will compare the two voices and draw a greater insight. The great irony is that each father (Jonas and Albert) see each other's triumphs but fail to see their own. Note the end of Keene's epitaph; the last three lines convey what happened to Albert (he killed himself). Therefore, the lesson learned is one that we learn via the two stories. Remember the idea of cross reference and how it plays a role in determining Masters' message regarding life. It is more "indirect" than it seems.
I am going to discuss the epitaphs of Cooney Potter and Fiddler Jones together: In Potter's epitaph, he works extremely hard to gain as much material possession as he possibly can. He starts with 40 acres and works his way up to 1000 acres. He did not enjoy the little pleasures of life, as evidenced by the fact that he gulped down his hot coffee. He could not wait for it to cool because he needed to get back to work. He died very young, before 60, and the only relationships he formed were working ones between his wife and children. Jones, on the other hand, lived life to the fullest. He started with 40 acres and never gained another acre in his life. He took every chance to go to picnics or enjoy other activities. Jones lived to be 90 years old and died with "not a single regret". I think the statement on what makes a successful life when these two are considered together is that material possessions do not lead to happiness and success. Potter had much more in terms of physical possession that Jones, yet Jones lived longer and happier because he enjoyed the relationships and pleasures of life
Kevin. Excellent. It is good that you paid attention to cross reference. I notice that you also looked at "The Hill" to get the age that Fiddler Jones died (90). Also, look at the "shape" of the two poems; one is substantially shorter than the other, conveying the idea of a shorter life and a lack of varied focus during his lifetime (Potter). Good job!!!!!
Both Robert Fulton Tanner and Franklin Jones are bitter and categorize life as cruel and death inevitable. Tanner chooses an ogre to symbolize the course of life. As with rat traps, the ogre sets out bait like women and ambition to lure man in. Then the ogre amuses himself as man struggles in the trap of death. Tanner thinks everything in life is futile because it is leading up to death. This view on life is extremely cynical, but considering the dishonorable way he died, it is understandable. Franklin Jones shares this philosophy by comparing life to a chicken. From birth, we are let loose onto the world like chickens in the yard. Humans just run around, wasting time until we die by the axe. While Tanner is bitter about the way he died, Jones is bitter about the way he was commemorated. Jones berates the workman who carved his dove because it looks more like a chicken. A chicken makes a joke out of his life, just like being killed by a rat is a joke. Both epitaphs are examples of what is not important in life. These men are complaining about petty things when they should be reflecting on the good things in life like a loving family or friends.
Nicole. This is very good. I really apprecuate your connections between the two inventors.Both of these inventors die before they enjoy the success to their inventions. Interestingly, we have an allusion with the Tanner selection; Robert Fulton is the inventor of the steamboat, an example of mechanization. The idea of the "society as a machine" is further investigated by the fact that individuals are in a rat race. Both ideas reflect an idea of lack of emotion. The free will aspect is interesting as well; the ogre and rats in a trap explore the idea that there are unseen forces that control individuals. This reflects the idea of fatalism: actions are pointless because fate is predetermined. The cynical tone that you have identified is further supported by Jones being immortalized by the "chicken" on his tombstone. I am intrigued by your ideas involoving running around "the coop." Both of these selections are dark and really prove the author's tone regarding mechanization and the idea that man can become ensnared in the inevitable fate that awaits him.
All. Be smart about this;) Vary your points of discussion so that you can get as much information as possible. Make relationships among the poems. Pairing the epitaphs is an excellent approach. That being said, you can address more than two poems at a time, speaking to themes and author's tone. Note that the poems are grouped; use that as a guide, but by no means a limitation. Think of the anthology as a living, breathing entity. Note the graphic associated with the blog. It is about "voices" and viewpoints; these will give way to identification of author's tone (attitude) toward subjects. This is a COMPLEX book; you must think of it as more than words on a page. It has a definite physicality to it.
I was quite affected by Sarah Brown’s epitaph. Not only is it beautiful, containing marvelous imagery, but it makes a powerful statement about religion and the hypocrisy of our faith. As Sarah addresses her lover, she sounds not like an adulteress, but more like a philosopher. She embodies the theme within the book that people are not what they seem, along with the idea that with death comes silence, and with silence comes wisdom and profound understanding. Sarah’s insight regarding love is enlightening. She does not speak ill of her husband, but speaks lovingly to her partner. When she quotes the bible in her last line (Mathew 22:23-30), this wise spirit reveals the hypocrisy of the “holy book”, and the truth that love is love, and cannot be a sin. In addition, Sarah depicts her life after death as an environment where “The balmy air of spring whispers through the sweet grass, the stars sparkle, the whippoorwill calls…”. This description of “heaven” is unconventional, and much closer to scenes available on earth than the orthodox image of vast, white bliss. Sarah Brown’s epitaph contains views uncharacteristic of someone of her gender and position in society. Her opinions about morality’s subservient position to love, along with her controversial thoughts on the hypocrisy of religion inspire and empower me.
Audrey. What a beautiful, sensitive response! I agree with you on all points. It seems that Masters may be making a statement about marriage as a barrier to true happiness. This is a wonderful focus to explore. The anthology is full of stories about unrequited love or lovers spurned... those that love the wrong person...those that are blinded by love to the serious faults of others...those that allay their own happiness for someone that they love. You have hit upon a wonderful topic! Can you discover any other relationships between Sarah's most eloquent, before-her-time response and the voices of other females among those on "The Hill" that sought "unconventional relationships? What do you make of the fact that Sarah and her husband are on "The Hill" while Maurice is not there? Take a look at "Jim Brown," both its location in the text and the lack of mention of Miss Sarah; some critics support the idea that this is her husband,and perhaps you will discover why Sarah may have sought attentions elsewhere;)I support this viewpoint; it makes no sense that she is "alone." Also, it allows the readership to "demonize" her less. Well done:)
I chose to analyze the family dynamics of Thomas and Ralph Rhodes
Thomas is the distant father of Ralph Rhodes. The Rhodes are a wealthy, upper class family in Spoon River and the source of their income is the family bank. A situation took place, in which Ralph made a financial mistake and a lowly cashier took the blame, landing the cashier in jail and leaving his wife to care for the family alone. Meanwhile, Ralph traveled to New York and tried very hard to drown his guilty conscious in alcohol, parties and women. Ralph was eventually overcome by his guilt and committed suicide while, Ralph’s father, Thomas, experienced absolutely no guilt. Thomas was well aware of the situation that took place at the bank and thought nothing of it. Thomas is the epitome of materialism. His main concern is money and this is evident through his poem. He speaks of people wasting their lives on philosophy and wisdom and shows no remorse or regrets toward his life, which he spent growing his family fortune. It is evident that Thomas did not spend a great deal of time teaching his child moral lessons and positive character traits because of the way Ralph deals with his wrong-doing. Also, Thomas did not punish his son but rather, let him do as he wished after the mistake had been made. It seems that Thomas may not have had a very big role in Ralph’s life because he was too busy with his work. If Thomas and Ralph had kept a better relationship, perhaps Thomas would have taught Ralph to take the blame for his wrong-doing, rather than hiding from it and letting the guilt consume him. It could be argued that the Rhodes’ family dynamics indirectly caused Ralph’s suicide. Another bit of evidence that shows that Ralph and Thomas did not have a healthy relationship is the placement of their graves, in the anthology. Generally family members who played a role in one another’s lives have gravestones in the same proximity of one another, while the Rhodes’ graves are nearly thirty pages apart from one another.
I am going to post about Elsa Wertman and Hamilton Greene. One main aspect that was illustrated through these epitaphs was that where the one person is continuously thinking or talking about the other, while the other doesn’t even acknowledge them. This would be pertaining to how Elsa was continuously reminded about her illegitimate son throughout her life. In her epitaph she says, “But--- as political rallies when sitters-by thought I was crying,” this line really speaks to the thought that Elsa cared deeply for her son even though he never knew about her or acknowledged her throughout his life. Also she loved him unconditionally even though he was her child through a tragic event in her life, when Mr. Greene raped her. In Hamilton Greene’s epitaph he does not mention Elsa because he does not know her; especially not that she is his biological mother. This is evident when he speaks very highly about all the traits and attributes he has inherited from his biological “mother” and father. These characteristics that he says he has inherited from his father “will, judgment, logic” are all things that he really inherited from his mother Elsa. This is ironic because it’s obvious Hamilton respects his parents very much when in reality he has lived a life in the delusion of what he perceives to be true. And the people he finds so great have lied to him and handed him the truth that he was to live throughout his life. Another aspect that made me happy was that even though throughout her life Elsa was never able to be with her son whom she loved so greatly in the end she would always be with him, up on the hill in Spoon River cemetery.
I chose to respond to the epitaphs of George Gray and John Horace Burleson. George Gray’s epitaph conveys his feelings of regret while looking back on his life. The boat at rest in the harbor carved forever onto Gray’s tombstone is a metaphor for his wasted potential and missed opportunities during his life. Like a boat that never left the harbor to experience the rest of the world, Gray never took risks during his life and therefore never found the meaning or love that he craved. The fact that his surname is “Gray” is also important symbolically. Masters may have chosen this name to convey the lack of ‘color’, or meaning, in Gray’s life experiences. He never loved, never took risks, and never left the safe ‘harbor’ of Spoon River to discover what else the world has to offer. George Gray’s epitaph serves as a poignant warning to the reader to live life fully and passionately in order to avoid regret like Gray’s after death. George Gray’s epitaph can be compared to John Horace Burleson’s. Although, unlike Gray, Burleson was materially successful during his life, he did not fully achieve the fame or recognition that he always desired. Burleson was forgotten in the big city of Chicago after his death, and was ultimately buried in Spoon River, just like Gray. While Gray never left the ‘harbor,’ Burleson did, but ultimately was made to return to his home after death. The last line of Burleson’s epitaph, a quote from Lord Byron’s Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, is also significant. It is a reference to the fact that no man ever leaves a true mark on the world, and will ultimately be forgotten. I think that the fact that both poems contain nautical references ties them together, along with the fact that both deal with the disillusionment associated with ‘success.’
Melissa. Thanks for your choice of topic; it is one of the more powerful aspects of the novel and a definite "push" on the part of the author.
This is a great overview of the sketchy Rhodes family and their shady past in the town. Thomas Rhodes is one of the most reprehensible figures in the entire anthology. His "no regrets" personality grates against the forlorn (and sometimes angry) statements of those "little people" that fell by the wayside due to his race to be the one that "dies with the most stuff." It makes the reader stop and give pause to our society's devotion to materialism. I think that Miller and Masters would have much to talk about;)
I like how you touched on the physicality of the book as well, treating it as a literal graveyard and speaking about the placement of plots. Also, notice how much shorter the father's statement is in relation to those in the same category of discussion.
Some other aspects to consider:
1. The capitalization of Theft (Ralph Rhodes) 2. Connection to Mrs. George Reeves (Ralph and Thomas Rhodes) 3. Statement on the spiritual and the intellectual (Thomas Rhodes) 4. Father figures (Thomas Rhodes and connections with Kelsey's post/my response) 5. Consider the church/business/personal gain relationships 6. SUICIDES!!! There are so many in the anthology, both addressed directly and those that are implied...but notice the ones associated with the Rhodes family...interesting
Ariana. These two epitaphs tug at my heart strings! Notice the placement of the two poems- across from one another, implying that fate would have it that they are united in death. (Note: look at my discussion on fatalism in response to Nicole's post). There is the idea that fate will have it way, despite the actions of man. However, the implications of free will and the great equalizer, death, plays a part in the human drama as well. Notice how Masters treats women, even those that are demonized by the judgemental residents of Spoon River; he often generous with them, without becoming schmaltzy. P.S. Yes, this IS a word;)LOL
Emily. Your discussion regarding Gray is impressive and oh-so-true. Notice the Romantic points (reference to nature, art, look to the past...). We see the transcendentalist influence here. The idea that we are fortunate as a readership to have the ability to "hear" these voices is reinforced by epitaphs, such as Gray's. The directive is to "unfurl" our sails! I like how Masters gets this across without becoming too preachy! It is so conversational and easily appreciated! Also, cross reference this one with Bone, the stonecarver.... It makes you become more thoughtful about how Bone feels about his role in this "hypocrisy." Note the discussion on "fatalism" (Nicole's post/my response) Does truth find its way??? Interesting...
Burleson does have relationship with Gray. I do appreciate the connections. You articulated this in supreme fashion!! Consider comparing Burleson and Petit; they are both writers. This adds a complexity to your observations. Consider that Petit desired to have an impact like Whitman or Homer; he feels that he has wasted his talents. What "conversation" would Burleson have with Petit regarding success? An interesting thought...
ALL: You are building up quite a treasure of thoughts and insights here. Can you make any cross reference connections between the posts? I know that my voice here has been a little heavier than usual; I want to try and model how the possibilities are limitless with this anthology. This novel does demonstrate the idea that "No man is an island"(Donne). Each man's life touches another, in good ways and bad.
Thomas Rhodes was the ruler of the business world in Spoon River and was truly, in a materialistic sense, successful. However, he had a reputation of a very vile and wicked man. His he was ruthless uncaring and was purely focused on one thing, money. in Ralph Rhodes epitaph it was said that Thomas has a relationship with the church, but Thomas, in his own, clearly shows that he is uninterested in religion in lines 6-10. This shows him as a hypocrite and shows how unethical he is and by ending his epitaph with "Even to the end," shows that he has no regrets. Edgar Lee Masters, by using a man of his character, was proving that materialism is evil and currupt, and that an endless pursuit of money will inevitably bring hatred and ruin.
I chose to do my discussion on Thomas Rhodes and all the "little people" he affected. Thomas Rhodes is a very conceited and materialistic man. He is extremely powerful in the small town of Spoon River. Not only in the business aspect but he is powerful in the church too. He doesn't care about who he hurts as long as he gains benefit. He believes the end justifies the means. He also is compelled to die with the most "stuff" and money because that symbolizes his success in life. I believe that Ralph Rhodes could be considered one of the "little people" that was adversely affected by Thomas. Ralph is Thomas' son and they did not share a positive relationship. Thomas was too involved with money that Ralph was left in the background. I feel that if Thomas was more involved in Ralph's life then Ralph wouldn't have felt the urge to escape to New York. Later, Ralph's conscience catches up to him and he commits suicide. Another one of the "little people" is Eugene Carman. Eugene was essentially Thomas' slave. He worked far too hard and earned far too little. Even on the given day of rest, Sunday, when you go to church, Eugene didn't get a break because Rhodes was part of the church too. Eugene was worked so hard that he had an aneurism. Clarence Fawcett was another person that was hurt by Thomas. After Eugene died Clarence was promoted and took his place. Rhodes suspected him of stealing to pay for his daughter's medical bills. When he was threatened he confessed. He only asked that Thomas save his name, but the next day all the newspapers had published how he was a thief. Rhodes truly thought of no one but himself. He died with no respect from his family and just the company of materialistic items. He would gain power for himself by stepping on others.
I choose to analyze the epitaphs of Lambert Hutchins and his daughter, Lillian Stewart.
Lambert and his wife are quite fond of their mansion on the hill, as well as his one in Chicago. They are both very proud of their homes. Lambert believed that by using his vote in the House of Representatives, he could be a major benefactor for the upcoming generations. He also believed that his status would grant his children a sense of security; however, he was mistakenly wrong. Lillian hated the mansion and saw it as a curse instead of a safe haven. She saw the mansions as a mask because her father did not have much money and the money he had had been put into the mansions. Lillian wanted to get away from the mansion and the life that her father had established. Lillian's husband married her under his assumption that she was wealthy and when he found out, her marriage ended and she returned to her accursed mansion. Lambert's materialistic believes lead to his daughters unhappiness. His ideals pushed her away and lead her to a shallow marriage. In the end Lambert realized that he caused his daughter sorrow and pain instead of joy and happiness. Her short and quick marriage was the result of trying to break away from materialism; however materialism was the cause of her divorce. Lambert and Lillian are examples of how materialistic ideals can break a family apart and ruin their happiness. Family is more important than wealth and social status and is something that should be kept dear to all. Family should come before anything else and Lambert and Lillian are prime examples of the consequences of placing wealth and status before family.
My two that I am choosing to analyze are Albert Schirding and Jonas Keene. Although these to men may seem as if they are complete opposites, I feel like they are, in the end, the same. Albert is a man who was never successful and saw that his children were becoming greater than he ever imagined he would be. Instead of feeling the happiness of bringing his children up to become respectable and important citizens, he chooses to look on the negative side of life and becomes depressed that he knows he will be less intelligent than his offspring. Jonas, on the other hand, knows his children will never be the citizens he hoped they would become. He could have looked at this problem and told himself, "Well I guess they were never meant to be more intelligent than this because I have done all I can and still they are dumb." But no he just gives up on his children and life (this reminds me of Willy Loman). In both epitaphs, both characters cannot understand why the other was so distraught with his life and his children. They both wanted each other lives, but they were united in a similar death. I guess what i am getting at is that no matter how opposite people's lives are, their end could very well be the same, as in the occurence between Albert and Jonas. Just as an afterthought, I think it is interesting that these two tombstones are side by side, sort of symbolizing the the closeness in death even though they lead different lives.
ALL: Vary your responses. Avoid restating what someone has already said. In order to max points, you need to be original. Check Progress Book to see if your response meets AP level criteria. You still have time to do another post and regain your points:)
I'm choosing to analyze the epitaph of Nellie Clark.
Nellie was only eight when she was raped by a fifteen year old boy, named Charlie. Later in life she married a newcomer into the town who was a widower. After two years of marriage he found out about her rape and believed he had been cheated because she was not a "virgin", a "fact" to which the town agreed. He deserted her and she died the following winter. In her epitaph Nellie is solemn and seemingly tense about the subject, but she chooses to speak it in order to help send a message about her plight, and the plight of women overall. Masters uses some of his subjects to help portray the plight of women. Nellie's is a plight of sorrow. She was demonized because of an event that occured years before, and it was an occurance that she could not control. She is seen as an object for sex by men, and she is considered "spoiled" because of the rape that she underwent. This shows the audience just how shallow some people can be. Her husband had married her supposedly out of love, then right when he finds out she is technically not a virgin anymore he leaves her. This epitaph shows how women do not believe in their worth. Through her entire life Nellie thought of her story. Just when she begins to have a happy life with a husband he turns around and leaves her because he sees her as worthless. She believes him because only a few months later she resigns to her death.
I chose Lucinda and Davis Matlock, Edgar Lee Masters’ grandparents. The two were brought together by chance at a dance. They switched partners and found each other, leading the reader to believe that fate brought them together. Their marriage lasted for 70 years and was successful. Lucinda spent her time raising her children and taking care of their home. She lived to be 96 years old and died peacefully. Lucinda chose to accept her role as the typical housewife, thus her marriage with Davis was filled with happiness. Lucinda feels that she lived happily and has no regrets. Davis’s poem compares humans to bees. He says that people should take care of their responsibilities. Through this metaphor, Davis expresses his belief that every person should live his life to the fullest, the way he and his wife did. Even though the couple lost 8 of their 12 children, a heartbreaking circumstance, they still feel content with their lives. Davis also expresses that “culture and wisdom” are of greater value than materialism, another reason that he and Lucinda led such satisfying lives. They were not focused on tangible wealth, but realized the value of the family and love they shared.
I really liked Ernest Hyde's epitaph. First of all his name alludes to Mr. Hyde, implying the duality that exists in all people. A person has both evil and good in them and can choose to embrace either one. Perhaps because of his name reflecting Mr. Hyde, Ernest Hyde may have embraced evil more over the years.
It was so interesting how he compared his mind to a mirror. His youthful mind "reflected" everything he heard. It seems like as a young man he was very naive and basically reiterated everything he was ever told. But as life continued on, his experiences created scratches in his mirror. He could no longer "reflect" what he used to because the scratches hindered this action. But, from his experiences Hyde gained wisdom and transitioned from being a young naive boy to a more aged and wise man.
Also, the mind and soul are described as completely seperate in this poem. The mind was remains as it was it seems since a man is born in that it is what processes any information, but the soul is created through the many experiences of a person. What a person learns from these experiences is what seems to create a person's soul. I think the poem may be saying that the soul created from the scratched mirror reflects not what is seen at first glance, but allows for the viewer to fill in the broken gaps in the mirror with what should be seen. Instead of seeing the world as it is, like the mind does, the soul sees what the world should be, from the wisdom the person has acquired.
Petit tells of a life spent writing about the "snows and roses of yesterday" and how they vanish along with love. He never experienced true love because of the way that he looks at life. He was so absorbed with his poetry that instead of seeing something for its simple beauty, he could only focus on the rhythms and poetic aspects of it. In latin, petit ironically means "he seeks" and this is true to who he was in life because he was always searching for ways to create and hear poetry in every aspect of his life. He also talks about characteristics of humanity and how he was not able to see these "patterns" such as heroism, tragedy, courage, and failure. Petit was blinded by his poetry to the simple pleasures in life. Therefore, he was not able to weave the threads of love or heroism into his own life story, and this is what he regrets most.
I chose the Triangle of Love between Aner Clute, Lucius Atherton, and Homer Clapp. Here we have two cases of love, where Homer loves Aner in a true way, but she never seemed to realize it. Aner is "In Love" with Lucius but only because he is good-looking and has money (gold digger). As described by Aner "That makes the boy what he is", when referring to an apple thief and comparing it to the way she lived her life. In Lucius' case, he seems to have no regard for anyone but himself. He sees himself as a lady's man, a regular Don Juan, but as soon as he gets a little grey hair he becomes severely insecure and focused on how to make his life more exciting to impress other women. Then there's Homer, the classic good boy who wants to get the girl, but never does. He tries to show Aner a good time by taking her out and showing her that he is "the one", but Aner's focus is on Lucius.
I would like to discuss the Edith Conant poem in regards to the hypocrisy of success and gender roles.
Edith Conant was very young when she died, only 21 years of age. However, this does not mean that life was easy one her. She bore the burden of a losing a child and a husband, living far from the rest of her family, and her only relations being with her disabled father who no longer remembers her. The reader notices that the only visitors at Edith's grave are her own memories. The memories reflect on the tragic notion that they will be the only things to remember Edith. Essentially she is completely alone in death, and for the most part lived a solitary life. To contrast this, in Spoon River Anthology Masters describes Edith as having an 'exquisite face' and a 'lyric voice.' Being young, beautiful and talented, Edith's life should have been pleasant for her and success should have come naturally. Yet, she suffers so much in her life, then in death is left with nothing but memory. This alludes to the hypocrisy of success. In Hawley's epithet Edith Conant is paired with Chase Henry, the town drunkard. In life, Henry was a screw up, yet in death he was given an ideal grave plot next to honorable company. Thus, though Edith should have been successful due to the fact that, except for rotten luck, she was the ideal woman, she existed in a state of weariness. Despite her looks and youth she ends up rotting in a graveyard all alone. She should have had many healthy babies and a loving husband, but both were ripped from her. This speaks to the anthology’s emphasis on gender roles and what woman should accomplish in life. Edith, who was set up for success failed to maintain it. This resulted in immeasurable grief and weariness for her.
I chose to discuss the Merritt situation. Mrs. Merritt had a lover when she was nineteen, and his name was Elmer Karr, however, she was married to Tom Merritt. Mrs. Merritt feared that Elmer would go mad so she asked him to go far away. Obviously, he did go mad and killed Tom 16 years after his affair with Mrs. Merritt. He was convicted of murder and sent to prison for 14 years, while Mrs. Merritt who claims to have nothing to do with the murder was sent to jail for 30 years for adultery. This is a statement on the gender roles of the time. Mrs. Merritt (no first name) received a sentance more than twice as long as the man who murdered her husband. During this time period, a woman committing adultery was punished more harshly than a man who committed murder. Mrs. Merritt was silent during this whole situation, "silent before the jury" and "silent for thirty years in prison!" thus reemphasizing the role of women as calm, forced to accept life in a male dominated world. She said nothing of the unfairness of her sentence while standing before the jury and accepted it with silence. After Elmer's sentence, the peopl of Spoon River welcomed him back and forgived him as he joined the church. I find it interesting that Elmer, the murderer, wound up better off in life than Mrs. Merritt who died after 30 years in prison. I also find it interesting that these three poems lie together. Tom's first, then Mrs. Merritt, then Elmer. I really liked these poems and am curious about what more could have been going on with their stories, especially referring to Elmer.
I chose to analyze the Rhodes family as well, but with a focus on the cross referencing between the poems. As stated by Kaela, the Rhodes family adversely affected many people in Spoon River. However, I believe it is important to note the variety in ways that Thomas Rhodes affected the community, for his negative influence was not restricted to a certain group of people. Furthermore, Rhodes had multiple vehicles of abuse: his business ventures and his authority at the church. The corruption of the Rhodes banking business is demonstrated in Eugene Carman, Clarence Fawcett, Mrs. George Reece, and Henry Phipp’s epitaphs. Carman and Fawcett’s experiences with the Rhodes demonstrate Thomas’ lack of compassion in regards to the business world. Likewise, Mrs. George Reece’s story shows the greater affects of his inhumanity. Her situation in which her own husband, a lowly cashier, was blamed for the bank’s demise demonstrates how the Rhodes family’s actions were felt throughout the community as a whole, creating an even greater negative impact on the city. Henry Phipps, Thomas’ right-hand man, was not even immune to the abuse. Thomas exploited Phipps, just as he did all the other workers in his business, to get ahead. Thomas’ impact on the community is further demonstrated by Jack McGuire and Nicholas Bindle’s epitaphs. With McGuire, Rhodes’ impact is clear as his affluence is used to sway a judge’s ruling, lessening McGuire’s sentence for murder. Bindle is wronged by Rhodes through his dedication to the church. Bindle gave his life to the church, giving to the poor and the city constantly, and in the end was pulled down with the bank as it collapsed. Both the diversity of people and of ways in which the people were influenced by the Rhodes family speaks greatly to the power that riches bring. By examining the epitaphs not individually, but together as a whole, it is easier to see the way in which the stories intertwine, and in this case, the way in which the Rhodes family abused the power that they gained through wealth.
I am comparing W. Lloyd Garrison Standard and Kinsey Keene. W. Lloyd Garrison Standard is a very driven person who does not accept defeat. He is uncompromising, much like his namesake, the formidable abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, was regarding the issue of slavery. This unwavering attitude towards any obstacles makes him a proud man. He is simultaneously many things that juxtapose and contradict each other: a christian and a pagan, a carnivorous man and a vegetarian, etc. These demonstrate his duality of character: he is good sometimes and other times, he is bad. His pride gets the best of him, and his apathy towards anything except his accomplishments makes him a cold person, whose heart has been carved out of him. He has no morality nor humanity to him, which makes him willing to represent arsonists in court. He believes he can win, but he is beaten by Kinsey Keene, who shattered through his cardboard life and facade of greatness. He is revealed for what he is: a pathetic human living an equally dismal existence. Kinsey Keene references the Battle of Waterloo to show how he disposed of the supposedly great Standard, who was elevated to the status of the great Napoleon. He tells of how he easily crushed and caused Standard to scuttle away, wounded in pride and image. Kinsey Keene makes sure that all of the respected people know of his great accomplishment. Standard represents false pride driven by a fake life and Keene represents the truth of genuine pride that is grounded in real accomplishments. Keene achieves the ultimate truth, while Standard wallows in a fallacy.
I chose to compare Ralph and Thomas Rhodes. Thomas, a very wealthy bank owner, is so concerned with wealth and greed that he never thinks of the affect he has on the lower-class people. He is an incredibly materialistic person and, even in death, does not realize the bad reputation he is giving himself. He thinks greed is a good thing and that money equals power, and he actually states that "Getters and hoarders of gold, / Are sefl-contained, compact, harmonized, / Even to te end." This shows that he does not think he has wasted his life in search of money and does not regret harming people the way he and his family did. Thomas's son Ralph, on the other hand, is very regretful of his wasted life. He caused his fathers bank to fail, yet the one who got blamed for it was a lowly cashier. Ralph walked free and went to New York with lots of money while George Reece went to jail and the Reece family was left broken. One can see how much this affected Ralph's consciousness though because when he went to New York, he drowned himself in alcohol and women just to try to forget what he did. In life, he thought he was happy, but in death he realized what he did and completely regrets it. Ralph's mind was always in Spoon River, too, even when he was in New York. He defaulted on loans in Spoon River, and when he went to New York, he was always thinking about what he did to George Reece, and once he killed himself, his body was shipped back to Spoon River. He could never escape the fact that he ruined the lives of a whole family.
I chose to analyze Samuel Gardner's epitaph becaues I feel that this poem reflects an important comment on life. Gardner was the greenhouse man, and his beautiful poem is so wonderfully developed: Gardner says how much he was a "lover of trees and flowers" representing his true passion and love of life (nature) in general, which will ultimately lead to his happiness. He later goes on to tell about how the soil was so well enriched and warm, which I also saw as a statement about planting beautiful things in your life based on your own individual decisions: you can either choose to cherish and support life, or be bitter and therefore unhappy. Furthermore, he emphasizes this natural beauty and life reflected in human life when he talks of the braches and leaves "wherefrom the breeze took life and sang"; reflecting the celebration and jubilation that is life, and not seeing life as a dismal and worthless process as some other people of Spoon River saw it (particularly juxtaposed to Dow Kritt). But the most powerful statement in Gardner's epitaph is the last 4 lines, "that the branches of a tree/Spread no wider than its roots./And how shall the soul of a man/Be larger than the life he has lived?" which truly exemplifies Gardner's optimistic and powerful outlook on life: life is what you make it and you have the power to make it as good as you want it to be. If you live your life to the fullest, and just laugh, love, and enjoy yourself and your precious time here, the soul will expand to fit your happiness. That in itself is a true testament to Masters' poetic power in his beautiful anthology.
I chose to discuss the epitaph of Harold Arnette and his suicide. It can be interpreted that Arnette was a pessimist, as before his suicide he uses depressing words such as "failure," "Weak," "Mournfully," and "disgust." He saw everything from a negative perspective, exagerating the words of his wife as being violent when she was simply talking about cooking potatoes. However, after he "pulled the trigger," he immediately experienced regret. He expresses his desire to breathe, and the elipses used could possibly represent his shortness of breath and his struggle to hang on to life. Arnette then warns against the futility of suicide. He describes death as the "eternal destiny of life" which cannot be escaped. From his suicide he learns that there is no reason to cut your already short life shorter when you will be eternally locked in death.
I chose Chase Henry. His poem was about how the Catholics refused him a burial, so he was buried in a Protestant graveyard. In his poem he talks about how he was the town drunk, and that he lived a shameful life. Death, however, has brought him the honor that was denied to him by the living. I picked this poem because it reminded me of a more bitter, angrier version Thanatopsis by William Cullen Bryant. They both talk about how your social status in life really has no effect on how you are seen when you are dead. In life, people may have separated someone from the rest, but in the end, death does not discriminate.
I chose to analyze Richard Bone. His job was to engrave all of the townspeople's epitaphs once they had passed on. People would bring him what they wished to have chisled on the stone. At "[he] chilsed for them whatever they wished / All in ignorance of its truth". Later on though he learned what the townspeople were truely like, but he continued to chisle whatever was given to him even though he never it was not true. By not questioning these epitaphs Richard Bone becomes the center of hypocrisy. He immortalizes Spoon River's hypocritical society because all that anyone will remember of the dead is what they read upon their headstones.
I have no idea if this is correct, but I saw something typical of most human beings in John Horace Burleson. He reminds me of your usually Anderson Township resident. We start off doing well in school with big dreams for our future. Sure, most of us will find some success, but nothing compared to the dreams and extraordinary ambitions. Burleson has fallen in the mold of a comfortable, pre-planned life. Just like a lot of us will grow up and do exactly as our parents did (go to college, get married, have kids, live in a suburban town), Burleson couldn't break the pattern of a usual life. He regrets not taking risks during his life, but it is too late. His potential will never truly be known because he was kind of "brainwashed" into believing he had to complete certain societal tasks (marriage, work, etc.). His story is almost a warning for all of us stuck in suberbia to break the mold and actually achieve our goals.
One poem that captures a reoccurring tone and feeing among the dead in Spoon River is the epitaph of Harold Arnett. Like many of the other dead, I felt like Harold expressed sentiment over his decisions in life and remorse over opportunities lost. He sees his flaws and mistakes as his choices resulted in negative consequences for him. Harold is like this in death as he became so overwhelmed with the duties and hardships of life that he decided to shoot himself in alleviation of this stress. However, he sees that this stress that life brings follows in death as now the hardships that drove him to suicide probably do not look as bad and the regret of his suicide is haunting him still in the afterlife. Harold most likely cherishes what good he had in life now that these things are denied him and shows that an experience of life is inescapable. Life can only affect you negatively if you let it and Harold Arnett sees this now in death.
With a focus on Elsa Wertman, I found it interesting to compare and contrast the familial relationships of Elsa Wertman and her son Hamilton Greene to the relationship between Thomas Rhodes and his son. One of the obvious differences between the two is the physical separation in life and death. Elsa and her son have their plots beside one another, while they were separate in life. Thomas and his son on the other hand were very involved in one another's lives and were separated in death. The statement here may be that even though Elsa was unable to be with her son in his lifetime, she was closer to him in heart, than the Rhodes were, and then death finally allowed for a reunion long awaited. The irony of these two situations is that Elsa cared more for her son's happiness and therefore provided for him a better life, while Thomas was self-centered and although he was very much involved in his son's life, he created nothing but destruction. Another comparison one might do would be to acknowledge the different classes of the families. Despite that Elsa was poor, she provided a rich life for her son, whereas Thomas was quite wealthy and did just the opposite. The statement Masters may be making here is that money corrupts the individual, and that people who have to work harder appreciate things more. An example of this would be in observing Thomas and Elsa's application of faith. Thomas controls the church and manipulates people through this for his gain, while Elsa has little and therefore relies on the little good that has been brought into her life, her son. One may also look at the fact that Elsa is a woman and Thomas is a man. Elsa has to silence her voice in order to benefit the life of her son, and Thomas escapes the consequences of all his actions. Elsa was the victim of a man and yet was the one to suffer, by means of the loss of her ability to claim her son. Thomas on the other hand, made everyone else his victims. Therefore we can see that Elsa is the ideal role of a parent, while Thomas represents those parents who neglect their responsibilities as a leader and guardian.
Alexis. Your response is outstanding! The multilevel connections really drive home the point regarding author's tone toward parental responsibility/relationships. Have you considered the cross reference between Elsa and Nellie? Can you add to the complexity and look at the other women that have suffered due to male subjugation? I am very impressed by the depth of your analysis; it is among the best here:)
ALL: All of the responses exhibit the type of thinking that you need to do in regard to the anthology. You demonstrate, not only the ability to read the individual epitaphs/poem/stories, but also show that you can "web" among the voices, noting the author's TONE.
That being said... try to steer away from the singular focus to more of a multidimensional appreciation for the poetry/stories/themes. The overlay IS the richness of this work. TEXTURE!!! Look for it!!! My voice will lessen as of this point. I can tell that you are ready to talk to each other.
Voices that I appreciate are those that internalize the meaning of the selections. I appreciate Courtney's outrage in regard to Nellie's plight. I appreciate the warmth of Audrey's very sincere response to Sarah. Brooke's insights demonstrate that she has experienced the "Voila" in regard to universality. I feel Kaela's "air quotes" and hear her voice in regard to Rhodes...despicable individual that he is. PLEASE keep writing:) YOU are making me more and more excited about this anthology...thank you:)
Thinking toward the test, depending on the level of reflection that I see here, I MAY consider making at least part of the test open book. I am looking for depth and multiple levels of comparison. If I can see this on the blog, I can rest assured that you are reading. Allowing you to use your book will get you digging deep and becoming reflective. I think we can do it; don't let me down:)
Brooke, you actually taught me something! I remember that Mr. Clutter always said that it was more important to learn something about life in his class than getting the grade, and I've just learned something. :) It is okay to be unconventional, follow my dreams, shoot for the stars, and taking risks are all a part of doing that. Because you compared Burleson to an Anderson Township resident, I was completely able to relate and apply what he says in his poem to my life. :) Thank you!
I also wanted to make a statement about Aner Clute while dipping into Lucius Atherton and Homer Clapp. We discussed in class that Aner isn't too interested in him and we pulled from his last name that no one really wants him. She seems to lean more towards Lucius, as said above. We also discussed Aner's possible occupation during class. I interpreted that last three lines in a much different way as it would pertain to her job. We inferred that she was most likely a prostitute as she travelled farther and farther from Spoon River. In the last few lines it talks about stealing the apple. In a biblical sense, the apple or fruit was the temptation for Eve. In stealing that purity of the forbidden tree, Aner was stealing that same purity from various boys. As said in the last line of her epitaph, thats what makes a boy what he is.
I'm not sure if this is the correct angle to have taken, but based on our class discussion, that is what I pulled from it.
ALL: We need some discussion on the political aspect. Discuss Prohibition, lawyers and judges. Come on! We want to earn that open book aspect to the test!
Alison. Good analysis in regard to the biblical allusion aspect. Note that her innocence was taken by Atherton, and she in turn took the innocence from others. Ironically, keeping with the ideas of fatalism, they ended up on "The Hill." Interesting;) I wish that Christine would talk about "Clapp" and her observation on his name! I don't know if it is true, but it was clever and fun to entertain the possibility:D
A great hypocrisy of the legal system is shown with the story of Jack McGuire and the town marshal. As the prohibitionists were gaining momentum, they voted Logan as the town marshal. They thought he was a hater of drinkers because he had killed a Swede. After striking the drunken Jack McGuire, the marshal dies when McGuire strikes back with a gun shot. Instead of getting hanged for murder, McGuire gets off with 14 years in jail as a result of the judge’s desire to save Rhodes. The marshal sees this sentence as a fitting punishment for his murder, maybe because he thinks he was never punished for the Swede he killed. Spoon River’s legal system is completely corrupted because they made a murderer the town marshal. The judge is also corrupted because he is biased in favor of Thomas Rhodes. Since he didn’t want to charge Rhodes for the collapse of the bank, he agreed to let McGuire, a murderer, get off with only 14 years in jail. More hypocrisy was in Carl Hamblin’s epitaph, which described the judicial system as a beautiful woman. She is blinded, so her sentences are dealt out by chance or by money (gold being dropped into her scale). This is just like Rhodes, whose financial influence over the judge saved him from charges. --By the way, I was having trouble with Carl Hamblin, and this website explained the allegory really well! http://everything2.com/title/Carl+Hamblin
Nicole. You are a powerhouse, my dear! Excellent observations!! People, get this into your notes. Love the attached website as well. This will be a great asset to you when you go to college; the ability to go OUT and FIND what you need is power. By doing so, you have deeper understanding and you have added a discussion of device! Outstanding:)
To add another cross reference... think of the statement about "killing a Swede" and the inference based on Elsa's story. Obviously we have a statement about narrowminded, small town people and views on "immigrants." Another layer to the onion;)
Keep going...give me more on politics. What statement do we have on Prohibition, based on who is supportive? Also, is there a statement on a Puritanical government and what they choose to demonize about human behavior? By the same token, what do they choose to condone? Just a few places that you could go...
I chose to dwell on the similarity in the epitaphs of Edith Connant and George Gray, each of which focused primarily on their lack of success and acknowledgement after death. Edith died at the age of 21 during childbirth, and this was all that she was remembered for. She feels alone in death, and is prominently concerned with the fact that no one will remember "[her] exquisite face" or her "lyric voice," pointing out that in her case, only the tragedy of her death will be recalled. She desires to be remembered as something more than just the 21 year old girl who died, suggesting a sort of lack of success in her life with nothing to be remembered by. In addition, she is troubled and weary because everyone will move on without her and she is the only one to hold on to her memories. Masters makes a point of connecting the stories of Edith Connant and George Gray to emphasize the fact that the dead are isolated and end any possibility of success in life. In George Gray's epitaph, he is troubled with the fact that he spent his whole life as "A boat with a furled sail at rest in a harbor," suggesting that he held back from love, sorrow, and ambition. Gray thus sought for meaning in life and failed to discover it. In Masters' poem concerning George Gray, he is strongly advising the reader to go out and live life, questioning what is a successful life without a leap of faith and taking risks? Who is George Gray to think that the meaning of life is something one will stumble across without any effort of going to discover it? How can one achieve remembrance in life without taking bold steps to distinguish one's self? Who are they to be remembered by if they have nothing distinct about them other than their death? (referring specifically to Edith Connant) These are a few things I considered when reading their unfortunate stories.
I noticed a common theme concerning corruption in business and its effects on both the working class and the powerful upper class. In the epitaphs of Carman, Fawcett, McGuire, Bindle, and Phipps, each is negatively impacted by the corruption of the Rhodes family. Each one of these people loses their jobs and any chances of success in life through the corruption of Rhodes. However, Rhodes never suffers any consequences. He is let out of jail in exchange for George Reece being put in jail, again demonstrating the corruption in both the business and legal systems. This also shows the amount of power that is delegated to the upper classes in society, while the lower classes are subjugated and exploited. I believe Masters is using a negative tone regarding the Rhodes family to emphasize to the reader the amount of corruption present and how unfair it is.
I am responding to the epitaphs of Lambert Hutchins and his daughter Lillian Stewart.
These two epitaphs speak to the corruption in politics during this time period. Hutchins is very materially successful in his career in the House of Representatives, and is able to buy a mansion for his family. Hutchins does not obtain his wealth honestly, however, but by "selling his vote." This dishonesty brings about shame to his daughter, whose husband leaves her when he finds out she is actually poor. This shows that Hutchins had the wrong values in his life. Instead of caring about teaching his daughter good morals and caring for her, he tries to provide her a "sense of security in life" through material success. This does not pay out in the end, however, as both Hutchins and Stewart die unhappily. The combination of these two poems shows Masters' views about political corruption during his time. He believed that many politicians valued materialism and "success" more than the aspects of life that truly matter, such as family. Hutchins tried to have a good reputation by being successful in the political world, but instead earned a terrible reputation due to his dishonesty and corruption. This hurt his innocent daughter, representing the innocent people that are negatively affected by political corruption.
The epitaph of Mrs. George Reece exemplifies the corruption of the legal system and the immoral character of lawyers and judges. She talks about how her husband was sent to jail instead of Thomas Rhodes, and this is further clarified and emphasized in the epitaph of Jack McGuire. McGuire's lawyer trades jail time for McGuire for Rhodes going free. This story, brought about because the judge was a friend of Rhodes(another example of corruption) depicts the author's negative tone toward legal figures allowing themselves to be bought.
In the concept of war I find it interesting to analyze the positive look in entering a war, in comparison to the resulting opinion after being in the war. The epitath titled "Many Soldiers" gives the reader a gaze into the motivations behind a war, as implied by the title, of many soldiers. The idea is emblazed as an honor, and Masters clearly critizes this idea in his discussion of those who once believed in this and then suffered due to their gullibility. War was described as "A dream of duty to country or to God," and this statement is weakened by the reality of individual's true reasoning at times. In the epitath Knowlt Hoheimer, the character had gone off to war to escape the consequences of committing a crime. A side note on this would be the irony of the statement created by Masters in this, that by escaping one jail he locked himself in the prison that is war. He wished after joining the war, that he would have stayed and been imprisoned. This provides an outlet into the darkness and cruelty of war. In Wasson's epitath we observe that war is not only cruel on the field, but cruel to one's family. Wasson left his wife and children to go off to war, and when he returned his daughters were dead. Masters may be hinting at the idea that war destroys families, and that by choosing to go to war one would be neglecting their responsibilities to the natural order. Another proof of this lies within John Goodpasture's epitath. His son was killed in battle and he decides that this was unjust, and while he understands the glorified image war represents, he believes that war is unkind. From these characters, one can assume that Masters' more than likely agrees that war is an ugly and without compassion. One may concur that the flag these soldiers chase called pride, is burned by the wretched stench of death and regret.
I think one of the most interesting and shocking plots I have read so far is that of Tom and Mrs. Merritt and Elmer Karr. Tom Merritt came home one day to a man (Elmer Karr) running out of his house and he knew his wife (Masters gives no name) had been cheating on him. He wanted to kill Elmer, but was the better person. Elmer ended up killing Tom and went to jail for 14 years. Even though Mrs. Merritt pleaded that she had nothing to do with it and Elmer was the one that actually killed Tom, she was sent to prison for 30 years and eventually died there. In her Epitaph, Mrs. Merritt actually says that she begged Elmer not to do anything and to just go away, but the law sent her to jail longer that Elmer anyway. This shows prejudice against women because they would not listen to her arguement in court. Now that she is dead, she can be trusted with her honesty because she says "...I had nothing to do, before God!" Also, Masters hits home with the oppression of women concept by not giving her a name. She is just a blank soul in the eyes of the public. The placement of the graves is particularly interesting because they are all next to each other, with Mrs. Merritt in the middle of Tom and Elmer. This solidifies the tragic triangle and emphasizes the fact that Mrs. Merritt was stuck in the middle of the feud between Tom and Elmer. Yes, it was her decision to cheat on Tom, but she begged Elmer to go away and he just didnt listen. Mrs. Merritt is a lost soul that died in prison and was forever forgotten and ashamed.
Discussing the theme of prohibition in Spoon River, I noticed Masters negatively depicting drinking in several epitaphs. In Clute's case, she wastes her life going from bar to bar. Jack McGuire shot the marshall because he was drunk, another example of negative actions resulting from drinking. I believe Masters' opinion on prohibition and alcohol is most clearly spelled out in the epitaph of Jacob Godbey. He is supporting the idea of prohibition by saying that personal liberty is liberty of the mind, which is lost under the effects of alcohol.
A recurring theme in Master’s Spoon River Anthology is the hypocrisy of the legal system and the disfunctionality of the town’s courts. This returning idea as well as a historical allusion to prohibition is thoroughly demonstrated in the poems on Jack McGuire and The Town Marshal. Their plots’ proximity to one another is ironic since each character ultimately finishes the other. Jack McGuire is walking home with his, “jug, a little drunk” when he is approached by The Town Marshal who proceeds to berate him and beat him for the alcohol he is carrying. In self defense, Jack shoots the Marshal, killing him. McGuire is later tried for this “crime” and uses Kinsey Keen as his lawyer. Not only does this tale reflect the insincerity of the system evidenced by the Town Marshal’s overreaction to a minor transgression, but it demonstrates the backward ways of the court as well. The same lawyer who defends McGuire is attempting to put Thomas Rhodes, the owner of the failed bank, in jail. Thomas Rhodes just happens to be a good friend of the Judge who is supervising the McGuire trial. As a result of this connection, in an act of pure corruption, Keen buys off the Judge, and because of Kinsey’s promise to let Rhodes go, McGuire is spared death, and sentenced to 14 years in jail. This convoluted tale properly exhibits the ease with which people exchange justice for personal interests. The Judge’s disturbing willingness to let Jack McGuire slip through his fingers is yet another example of the sad façade of criminal law established in this small town.
Also, Mrs. Merritt blames herself for the killing even though in reality she is innocent. Masters does an excellent job at making the reader feel sympathy for Mrs. Merritt because she punished herself and feels that she caused it even though in reality, she did not cause it. She contemplated this all through the 30 years in prison and is haunted by it even in death. Masters clearly cares for women, especially ones who are wronged in life and still punish themselves in death.
Going along with Emily's post, John M. Church's epitaph compares to Hutchins. Church was a corrput lawyer who was materially successful during his life. He made deals with judges and juries in order to win his cases. After his death, he realized he had lived his life focusing on the wrong things. His life revolved around materialism and tangible wealth. He died unhappy. This compares to Hutchins because both of their lives were centered on a materialistic goal. Both were corrupt in order to gain their goals and both died unfulfilled. These epitaphs display corruption in both politics and the legal system. This is appropriate since politics and law and closely related.
I’ve chosen to write about ideas of war from Harry Wilmans’ perspective with respect to Henry Phipps. Harry Wilmans is a young man who goes off to war as a result of a speech by Henry Phipps. He is taught to follow the flag and thus, in spite of his father’s wishes, chooses to dedicate himself to a life of risky service in order to follow and honor the flag. This is yet another of Henry Phipps’ evil acts that causes “his years…to be shortened.” He glorifies war and makes it seem like something exciting and worthwhile. Instead, as Harry Wilmans discovers, war is a disgraceful and frightening experience as he highlights bugs, dirty water, heat, and terrible food as being among the worst plights. In the end, Wilmans is “shot through the guts” in battle, and meets his fateful end. I find it to be quite ironic that Harry Wilmans is buried next to Henry Phipps because of what occurred between them, if only indirectly. While Wilmans was prepared to die a glorious and honorable death in war, he instead was met with a certifiably ungraceful death. In extension, Henry Phipps brought about the death of Harry Wilmans because he manipulated him into thinking that war was exciting rather than terrifying and ultimately into enlisting and sacrificing himself. This is very ironic because Henry Phipps can be seen as the figurative killer of Harry Wilmans and yet, the two are buried right next to each other. This same idea can still be seen today in our own society. Many men often enlist in armed forces because they have a sudden passion to fight for their country, such as in the aftermath of the 9/11 catastrophe, and soon realize that war is not what they expected it to be like. These men die terrible deaths and are brought back to the country that truly killed them, their own. While foreign men kill these soldiers, the country that ignited their desire to fight actually killed them, and they are forever buried in the land that brought about their deaths. Masters addressed the idea of men being enticed into fighting because he saw it in his own life which is still seen today.
The town is filled with hyprocracy and bought judges. The circuit judge aknowledges the fact that he is bought by his statement "deciding cases on the points the lawyers scored, not on the right of the matter." He knows that his judgement is wrong and that it should not have been based solely on money instead of the facts and evidence. Justice in this case is not righteously served and is corrupted. His grave as a result of his lying and bought decisions is eroding and dissappearing. John M. Church is also in on the act. He is an attorney and has bought judges, including the circuit judge, and jury members. His connections have allowed him to be victorious in many cases for companies and he has achieved wealth through these victories. He ensures his victories by paying the judges and the jury. Church recieves praises from the companies he has represented due to his ways to sway the court's decision and win big money. Justice and politics are both corrupted.
A common theme in the epitaphs of Hutchins, Stewart, and Scates is corruption in politics. Hutchins was a politition who was bribed into keeping a railroad in Chicago,which with the money earned would give his daughters a better life after he was gone. What really happened was he got all of his money, but people found out why he kept the railroad, so he was shunned from society, and his daughters distanced themselves from him. His daughter, Lillian Stewart, gave her side of the story, how her life was ruined by the corruption of her father, and she died in the house that her father built with the corrupt money. Finally, Hiram Scates, a polition running for president of the County-board. Hiram felt he had an advantage over his opponent, for he told his followers and potential voters that he would stand up for the little man, and would represent them equally. He ended up losing, but the man he lost to offered himi a seat in his cabinet, a part of his staff. Because Hiram accepted, he had to give up his values of the representation of the little man, as supported by when Scates says "... of the Golden Mountain with the door/Which closed at my heels just as I entered." The Golden Mountain sybolizes the benefits of success, but the door closes behind him, allowing only those on the mountain already to recieve the benefits, not everyone, including the lower class.
The problems within the legal system are a large part of Spoon River Anthology. One particularly interconnected case begins with Harmon Whitney (p. 150). Whitney came to Spoon River after leaving a big city in order to “hide a wounded pride,” which started with an affair he had with a woman. He describes how he hates being loathed by the community and has resorted to being “a picker of rags in the rubbish of spites and wrongs.” As a “picker of rags,” Whitney went to Felix Schmidt (p. 177) about a discrepancy over land. Schmidt describes being almost in poverty: he lives in a two-room house with his wife, who sick, and five children. Schmidt goes to the courts to decide who owns what land (his neighbor is Christian Dallman, who is not on the Hill), and ends up losing everything to Dallman. Carl Hamblin laments cases like these in his epitaph, where he describes how Justice (portrayed as a woman) strikes at children, laborers, women, etc. with her sword, and those who escape her wrath pay her. This shows how the legal system is fundamentally corrupt. It allows people like Harmon Whitney to incite such arguments, while Felix Schmidt loses everything to people like Christian Dallman (who owns three thousand acres of land—he isn’t in poverty). The legal system worked as it was supposed to, but it was injust. This story suggests that the legal system is basically flawed, and needs to be rebuilt.
I noticed a theme of the corruption in the court system expressed in the epitaphs of the Circuit Judge (84) and John M. Church (93). The Circuit Judge admitted that he did not decide cases "on the right of the matter," but rather was more of a score keeper and decide based on which attorney made more points. He realized his error and was filled with remorse, expressing that the guilty criminals recieving their sentences were more righteous than he, for his wrong doings were left unpunished. Similarly, John M. Church admitts to increasing his wealth at the expense of "the crippled, the widow, and orphan" in court. Church states that the bar association praised him, symbolizing the corruption throughout the legal system as a whole. Both Church's and the Circuit Judge's wrong doings were left unpunished, which can be interpreted as defying the natural order. Nature then puinished them in death, as the Judge's tombstone was being eroded by wind and rain, thus erasing any memory of him, and also Church's body was devoured by rats and snakes. This aspect of nature taking correcting its course can be seen as a romantic influence. Lastly, the names of both these individuals are ironic. The Circuit Judge does not have a name, which represents the institution of the corrupt judge throughout society. John M. Church's name serves as irony, as the divine refference in his last name contrasts his wicked actions.
The corruption of Spoon River’s legal system is again shown in the story of Felix Schimdt and Harmon Whitney. (I’m not sure I interpreted this correctly.) Felix owned a small house on only 5 acres of land, and one day Harmon Whitney brought to his attention that Dallman had bought a bunch of adjoining land while Felix’s father was dying. Felix’s case is that Dallman bought land from a sick man who might have not understood what was going on. Whitney is a corrupt lawyer from the city and persuades Felix to sue because he wants a case to earn money on. Whitney is completey aware that the case is a lost cause and places money above morality. I also noticed a connection between Christian Dallman and Thomas Rhodes. Although Dallman does not have his own epitaph, he is described in Felix’s as a greedy man. With already 3 thousand acres, Dallman chooses to take Felix’s tiny plot when Felix was misdirected into sueing. Dallman has completely bought into the material aspect of success, just like Rhodes. Rhodes never hesitates to step on the little guys to increase or maintain his wealth.
I wrote a response on the legal system, referring to The Circuit Judge and Judge Selah Lively The Circuit Judge compares to Judge Selah Lively in that they both presented corruption in the legal system. In The Circuit Judge’s epitaph he admits that he decided cases not on what was right but by how many “points the lawyers scored”. In deaths he feels guilty about these crimes he committed saying that “even Hod Putt, the murderer…Was innocent in soul compared with me.” He considers being an unjust lawyer a worse sin than the criminals who he condemned. He feels that he is being punished in death symbolized by the weather eroding his head-stone. Judge Selah Lively is also a hypocritical judge, yet in a different way. He felt that he was treated unfairly by the wealthy in the community, and now he has the power to control their fates. He abuses this power by treating the wealthy in the community unfairly and more harsh than others. Masters uses these two judges to present the corruption and hypocracy in the legal system of Spoon River.
Another comparison that I realized as I read through some of the discussions above, was between George Gray and Harold Arnett. Both died and the later regreted their actions. George Gray, as mentioned by Corie, never found something to hold onto to be happy with in his life, whereas Arnett committed suicide and then regreted it once it was too late. They are both victims of their own choices and brought about the sorrow that is connected to their lives. Although both die with regret, Gray's epitath has a much weaker tone than that of Arnett's. Gray even is physically a softer name than Arnett, and this suits them well. Gray spent his life in fear of life, whereas Arnett took his life through a bold action....will continue when I get back ....
On Probition: A cross reference in noticed was between the epitaphs of The Town Marshall and Jack McGuire. From reading these two epitaphs, I was able to gather a story that connects these two people as The Town Marshall was killed by a drunk McGuire after The Marshall hit him with a loaded cane. Such an act was precipated by The Marshall and his hate for drinking, as he had been a violent drinking man before converting to religon. What is interesting in his message is the fact that he is an unnamed entity, prehaps reflecting this Marshall for lawmen in general. The lawman was guilty of murder just like his killer McGuire was and reflects the hypocriscy that exists in law enforcement and prohibition in general. What connects both epitaphs furthur is the fact that both men are murderers, but are released from paying the full price for their crimes. McGuire is able to escapea hanging for his murder due to the law's corruption, but also because of the unpopularity of prohibition. The Marshall states how "Prohibitionists spent money in vain to hang him" and no others sought to bring McGuire to justice for his actions. Like The Marshall, McGuire gets a pardon for his actions and actually benefits in the end, for in prision he learns how to read and write. The Marshall's tone is full of defeat as he knows that his killer will not hang, but he does so due to the guilt he harbors from his free pass. The Marshall states how "fourteen years were enough for killing me", a further evidence of his defeatist attitude.
I am going to discuss the relationship between Judge Somers and Chase Henry, in terms of the legal system. Judge Somers, in his epitaph, is lamenting that he has not been treated with the reverence due to him for his legal success. He proceeds to pompously tell of his interactions with the famous Justice Breese and Sir William Blackstone and Edward Coke. When he has been involved with figures of this caliber, he is puzzling why Chase Henry, the town drunkard, is better than him in death, as far as having a marked grave. Chase Henry has a slothful life, as he is always drunk. Therefore, when he dies, the priest refuses his burial in holy ground, as he lived a shameful life. However, he eventually gets laid to rest there, with a marked grave. Through these two epitaphs, true justice comes to light. Judge Somers may have been an influential legal figure who met many impressive people, but Death did not heed this in his decisions. No matter what mistakes are made in life, or flaws acquired in life, the final leveler is death. Chase Henry may have lived a life devoid of honest work or accomplishments, but even he finds honor in death, in direct juxtaposition to Somers' inglorious fate. This alludes to the fact that the legal system is corrupt and not as innocent or helpful as it seems. Judge Somers may have been involved in questionable decisions that break the limits of acceptable human morality.
Every soldier has a motive that makes him leave behind all that he knows to fight in a foreign land. On examining what motivates Knowlt Hoheimer one notices that he blames his enlistment in the army on avoiding the law. He claims to have stolen the pigs of Curl Trenary and thus he ran away to war to avoid being thrown in jail. Yet, on the very next page Lydia Puckett contradicts Hoheimer by suggesting that it was because she was unfaithful to him and then told him to never come around her again. Thus, he leaves because of a broken heart as demonstrated by Puckett saying, “back of every soldier is a woman.” This shows that she feels she has the strongest influence on the reason he left for war. The man that Puckett is adulterous with is Lucious Atherton. This seems sad that Puckett would be unfaithful with a man that is so notorious for fooling around. We see this aspect of Atherton in his relation with Aner Clute as well. Here, he also draws the woman he is fleetingly interested in away from a man that genuinly cares for her. Homer Clapp is in love with Clute before Atherton steals her away. Therefore, Clapp’s situation is comparable to Hoheimer’s and the feelings the two men experience must be similar. However, in the end Hoheimer is reflecting on his choices and feels that no matter what the consequences may have been would have rather remained at home than to fight in a war for which he did not even know the meaning. This speaks to the futility of war as well as the futility of love for no one in this ‘love pyramid’ ends up fulfilled and the war does not fulfill Hoheimer.
In Hod Putt's story, Masters clearly exemplifies the corruption of society. Putt tells of Bill Piersol, who made his wealth trading with the Indians. Bill declared his bankruptcy in order to keep what money he had under the law. Accordingly, Hod is encouraged by Bill's success and unrightly chooses to rob and kill an Indian traveler, which he believed was fair solely because the man was an Indian, proving society's degradation. Putt says that the only way he escaped his debt was through his death, after he experienced the corruption of the law system at the hand of the unjust Circuit Judge. In saying that "[This] was [his] way of going into bankruptcy," (13) he is suggesting that everyone ends up bankrupt at some point in their life, thus acknowledging the fact that everyone ends up 'on a hill' because of their choices.
I think we definitely see some massive corruption through Barry Holden (p88), his sister Nancy Knapp (p87), and their mortgage broker, Thomas Rhodes (p115). Barry’s story begins with mention of his crazy sister, who set her own house on fire because her husband's actions sent her to madness. Her husband had sneakily swindled his siblings into getting the greatest inheritance, and nature came back and punished the Knapps. Their farm failed and everyone in their family and even their neighbors hated them. Nancy reveals that her husband gets nervous about their situation after they are forced to mortgage their farm, and things didn't get better. In the end Nancy couldn't handle the rejection from the community and stress of their failing life and killed her husband. Similarly, Barry Holden went mad after discovering he couldn't handle the struggles in his life. He, too, had a farm mortgaged to Thomas Rhodes, and after being a member of the jury for a murder trial, killed his wife because of stress. The trial compares perfectly to Barry's situation: Dr. Duval couldn't handle the stress of his life and the idea of having another child, and his only solution was death. The tragedies of Nancy Knapp and Barry Holden reflect the ignorance of Thomas Rhodes. Because of Rhodes' lack of compassion for his clients, the worries of his clients were never-ending and became fatal. It's clear Rhodes had more blood on his hands than he was aware of. His corrupt mind and selfish nature contributes to devastating fates.
In reference to the duality legal system, John M Church (pg 93) is a orime example. He seems to have defended the criminals or the theives. He was a star lawyer for the bar, as it appears that he won numerous cases because he "pulled the wires with judge and jury" showing that he was a sharp lawyer and able to do what he needed to win his cases. He was a criminal himself as he took advantage of the impoverished. He was not above "beating" a win out of the widowed, the crippled, or the orphaned if it helped him. While his actions were completely corrupted, his conscience has pure of heart. He abhorred his actions in the courtroom and it was eating at his conscience. In the last few lines of his epitaph, he said he got many floral tributes but "the rats devoured my heart and a snake made a nest in my skull." It is obvious that he has good morals in his life outside the courtroom but he is rather ruthless in the courtroom.
On war, referring to Knowlt Hoheimer and Lydia Puckett.
Hoheimer left Spoon River to join the Civil war but not for a glorious reason like many of the young men had. In his epitaph he states that he ran away from punishment for stealing the hogs of Curl Trenary. However, Puckett states otherwise saying that he left because he caught her with Atherton, which gave him a reason to steal the hogs. She states "Back of every soldier there is a woman" meaning that there is a reason for men to go to war and that reason is a woman. Hohiemer never admits to this in his epitaph, only saying that he regrets going to war. At the end of his epitaph he tells the audience that his gravestone has the words "Pro Patria" engraved on it. This is ironic because these words are translated to "for one's country". He did not fight for his country, he only fought to run away, whether it was from a woman or from punishment. Also he does not know the language so he has no idea what these words above him even mean. These epitaphs show how war is not always seen at the beginning as glorious. Sometimes it is a way to run away from the problems of life, especially in the small town of Spoon River.
My post interacts with Kelsey’s earlier post on Henry Phipps and Harry Wilmans. I made a connection between Harry Wilmans (208), John Wasson (209) and Godwin James (211). First off, Harry Wilmans and Godwin James are two men who have devoted their lives to the war and the flag. They both struggle through the hardships of war and end up dying while fighting in the war. They both persevere to accomplish their goals of winning the war. Wilmans and James are both caught up in the ideal of the “glorious war,” all they care about is a victory against their enemies and how they can honor the flag. Also, both of their epitaphs make no references to any other people such as family or friends. This demonstrates that they are consumed within the war and have nothing else to show for their lives besides a flag. John Wasson is also categorized as a soldier and fought in the same war as these other two men. Contrastingly, Wasson did not become consumed within the ideal of the “glorious war”. In his epitaph he only briefly mentions his time during the war but is more concerned with his wife and children and the life he left behind. This is evident that he did not pursue the flag as faithfully through the lines, “If Harry Wilmans who fought the Filipinos, Is to have a flag on his grave, Take it from mine!” This shows that Wasson knew he was not an important aspect of the war and was just another pawn to get played in the game. Another connection that can be found in these three men is where they died. Both Wilmans and James died while on the battlefield, this is because they had nothing else to live for. They became ruled by the war and the upholding the honor of the flag that they had nothing else in their lives. With Wasson he set his sights higher than just the war and because he had a family to fight for and live for he was able to make it out of the war and go back to his life. Eventually he ended up dying but he was with and doing what was important to him, and that was being with his family. The placements of these graves are also interesting to look at. Harry Wilmans is right next to John Wasson then there are “many soldiers” which could signify numerous amounts of graves then Godwin James is buried. This is ironic because Wilmans and James were much more similar on their outlooks on life than Wilmans and Wasson were. But then this also plays into the theme that everyone is equal in death so even though Wilmans and James strove to be better soldiers than Wasson tried, in the end they are all soldiers.
All: Thoughts on the subject of Prohibition. Masters comments on the "effects" of Prohibition. Think of the "forbidden fruit" analogy when considering this aspect. Prohibition came into place as a Puritanical reaction to the demon of alcohol, blaming the drink and not the drinker. Sometimes when you flat out deny a person the "right" to something, it becomes the focal point of their existence. Also, some people were able to manipulate the circumstances of Prohibition and make a fortune. Some of you may be aware that the Kennedy family made a fortune in alcohol sales; there is a connection between this "fortune" and the Prohibition laws. Think back to your discussions regarding Gatsby. he was a bootlegger that made a fortune selling his product in "drugstores." This anthology is from the same time period. Currently there is a discussion regarding the legalization of marijuana. Some feel that legalization would allow the government to control the sales and keep it out of the hands of drug dealers; therefore, alleviating the "forbidden" context. This is a very controversial subject, but one that is well suited to the discussion of Spoon River.
The Town Marshall: Notice that he is in office because he is a "reformed" drunk. (consider the flawed resoning there!!!) His "loaded cane" is another aspect to notice. Literally, a loaded cane is one that has a metal core and is used to reinforce the Prohibition laws. The "loaded" idea can be continued in the Marshall's discussion that HE feels thatr HE was able to get McGuire a lighter sentence because he shares his story with the jury. However, we know that the lighter sentence came from a deal between Kinsey Keene (a dirty lawyer) and the judge (who wants to go easier on Rhodes). Isn't it intere4sting- the connection between power/money, the legal system, and a "persona" that feels that he has a "loaded" effect on the situation! Of course, there is a play on the word "loaded" and its connotation of drunkeness. As you can see, there is a "perfect storm" aspect with this selection, connecting it to Rhodes (power) and the legal system. Interesting.
I am going to discuss the connections between Harry Wilmans, John Wasson, Godwin James, and Henry Phipps. Three of these people give different views on war and they are all slightly different and Phipps influences all three. Harry mentions Phipps in his epitaph and he says that the Sunday school teacher inspired him to go to the war. As we have already discussed in class Phipps was part of the machine that brought so many people misery and he felt guilty for that. Harry is yet another person whose death he had a hand in. Phipps glorified war in church and Harry went in spite of his father. In death he feels wronged by Phipps because he followed that flag to war, died for it and now it is on his grave. He does not like that he fell for the false glory that was presented to him. He is very unhappy with war and those who preached it to him, but he still fought and did everything that the others did. James, on the other hand, saw war as a way to express one's faith and loyalty. To die for god and one's country is a great honor and he is angry with Harry because of his beliefs of war. Instead of making war sound like a horrible thing, James tells of the struggle that they had on the battle field. There is a tone of respect when he talks of the sick and broken following the flag of heaven. Harry is also mentioned in John Wasson's epitaph. John is angry at the war for destroying his life. He lost two children and he and his wife lived in poverty until the day that they died. Before his family was happy and after it was in ruin. John relates Harry with war so, in his eyes, Harry ruined his family. Harry bought into the war and fought just to be fighting, with no real reason. At the end of John's epitaph he says that if Harry has a flag on his grave then he has no wish for one to be on his. John despises war, which is what he sees when he looks at Harry. All four of these men have relationships with each other, even if they did not realize it in life. Phipps influenced Harry, and John and Godwin are both angry at Harry. Ironically enough they are all buried next to each other. The closeness of graves in Spoon River is usually to show how close the people were to each other. However, these men all had problems with each other in life and now they are grouped together. They don’t like this stereotyping and that is why they are resentful and bitter toward one another.
Jacob Godby- Godby wants to BE God. He supports Prohibition. There is a reference there regarding "insolent giants" that control "saloons from afar"...mobsters/bootleggers.
Hiram Scates/Solomon Purple- Look at this epitaph and notice the play on names. They are political opponents. Think biblical allusion with Solomon (the winner of the election). Solomon is the wealthiest king in history. What can you do with this idea if I changed the spelling of Scates to SKATES? Notice that Hiram changes his tune and goes along with Solomon, leaving his party behind...
John Church- The last name is totally ironic. He is a lawyer for a big money railroad company that caused an explosion that killed many people. This lawyer, seen as a refuge for those wounded/killed, manipulates the system and saves money for the "company" and causing further pain to the wounded and dead.
War. Notice how many VARIOUS war vets are among the dead (revolutionaries- Phillipine-American War...) This anthology puts a voice to the individuals involoved in war, instead of just looking at the "army" as a whole. Masters does a great job of "humanizing" war for the populace. However, some members of Masters' society were not ready to hear the "truth" that these individuals had to say. Think about this as you look through the various selections. Sometimes the flag shifts in connotation between an inspiration to fight and a reminder of what was lost and the horrors of the war experience.
A common occurence throughout the epitaphs that concern war is the concept of a flag. The Many Soldiers epitaph, as well as Harry Wilman's and John Wasson's epitaphs, explore the idea of the flag in both life and death. In each story the flag embodies the enthusiastic spirit and patriotic fervor that the young men feel prior to joining the wars. Each soldier seems to refelct on his enlistment as a moment of blind excitement. However, in many cases, most notably Wilman's account of war, the soldiers discover the experience of each war is not as glorious as the idea of the flag suggests. Not only did the soldiers experience adversity during the war, they also dealt with hardships after the war. For example, John Wasson explains how after the war he attempted to rebuild his life and lived in poverty. This rough life after the war further demonstrates the hardships of war. As the flag is used to hide the truth about war during life, in death it is similiarily used. As expressed in the Many Soldiers epitaph, the flag, or the emotions that it represents, could not withstand the adversity of war. Copmared to an iron band that holds up a hammock, the excited spirit does not last for the duration of war. Also, both Wilmans and Wasson explore the idea of placing a flag on the grave of a soldier. Through these epitaphs the reader sees how the representation of a flag for war impersonalizes the soldier and does not appropriately respresent their lives or experiences in the wars.
Kevin, I know you posted a long time ago, but something you said in your first blog post made me think of something. The general lesson learned from the epitaphs of Fiddler Jones and Cooney Potter is an ironic one indeed. I think that what we can learn from this is "Those who gain nothing, gain everything" meaning those who may not be successful in terms of money find happiness in their lives because they live it not for themselves, but for others as Fiddler Jones did always playing his fiddle to make others happy.
The irony of Knowlt Hoheimer... According to Knowlt Hoheimer, he went off to the Civil War to avoid being thrown into jail for stealing hogs in spoon river. This story is cross referenced by a woman named Lydia Puckett who claims that Hoheimer went to the war after he found out that she was seeing another man. Both of these epitaphs are discussed during the introduction in which Masters speaks of the irony of the latin phrase engraved in Knowlt's grave stone. Holheimer does not understand the meaning of the words on his grave, similarly, he and many other soldiers from Spoon River do not understand the real meaning of why they went to fight in the war. Both Lydia and Knowlt offered up different explanations for why Knowlt enlisted, yet the introduction questions the very moral reasoning for war itself. Why do Americans consider it patriotic and respectable to die fighting for one's country, abandoning family and friends? Knowlt Hoheimer and other soldiers who died in the same "patriotic" way will be left questioning their rationale, like Hoheimer will be left forever wondering the very meaning of the words "Pro Patria," which have become the last memory of his life for the living.
Edgar Lee Masters uses the stories of "Butch" Weldy and Ralph Rhodes to make a statement on the justice system. "Butch" Weldy was once an appalling man who raped Minerva Jones, killed Blind Jack and also caused many other miserable happenings in others' lives. But he “found religion” and was striving to become a better man. He began working and making an honest living instead of being the burden in other people’s lives. But he suffered ill fortune and had his legs broken and his eyes fried in an accident on the job. He, after this tragic accident, he takes Ralph Rhodes, who was in charge of his father’s business and was, at the time, an extremely influential and prosperous man, to court to allow justice to make amends. Yet in the end The Circuit Judge ruled that Ralph was not obligated to pay Butch. Master's, with these stories, is making a statement on the hypocrisy of our justice system. He uses the blinding of a once bad man striving for redemption to represent the blind justice and the claims that in America everyone is equal under the eyes of the law and he uses the prosperous Ralph Rhodes to show that money and influence will give justice perfect vision, meaning that you can escape any wrong doing if you are affluent. So with these two stories Edgar Lee Masters is saying that justice is corrupt and there is only equality in death.
The court of law seems to be a very corrupt, unmoral place driven by money in Spoonriver. The Circuit Judge, for instance, made his rulings based on which lawyer performed the best in court. Not all of those the chosen lawyer represented, though, were those who were either innocent or correct in the case; many times the better lawyer represented the richer client, so the richer man normally beat the poorer opponent. This shows how the law, and therefore justice, favored those who had money. The judge knows he is corrupt by favoring the rich and feels the wieght of his many sins. All the notches he gained from all of his corrupt verdicts came back to him in the form of the pieces lost from his headstone due to destructive erosion. One of those sentenced mentioned by the Circuit Judge in his epitaph was Hod Putt. The poor Hodd Putt was hanged for theft while the richer Bill Piersol was not, implying the prominent role of money in these rulings. Although the two's crimes were equal in severity, one emerged richer than ever from the ruling while the other went to death as poor as ever. Despite the idea that justice is blind, an extra coin or two seems to tip the scale in the favor of one side or another in Spoonriver.
I think that Masters speaks to the idea of law and accusing and hurting the innocence. I looked at the poems of Mrs. Meyers and Mrs. George Reece, whos stories are very similiar but at the same same different. Both of their husbands are accused of a wrong that they did not actually commit. Doctor Meyers performed an abortion on a woman who was raped by Butch Weldy, the true colprit. And Mr. George Reece was blamed for the fall of the bank when it was actually Rhodes and his son's fault. What ties these two together is how the the wives in each story, along with Minerva, were innocent victims and had to deal what the law dealt their life. Mrs. Meyers blames her husband for what happened to him and is bitter about the situation. Performing an abortion for a rape victim, such as Minerva, is a very questionable idea in itself, deciding whether or not it is acceptable under the given circumstances. And when the patient dies, the situation just gets even more terrible. Mrs. George Reece, however, does not blame but sympathizes with her husband who had to die in jail. She copes with this unjust act of law by living her life with the truth she knows and persevering while the law tried to bring her down. Both of these innocent women are victims of the unlawful society they live in, but they go about it in different ways. Two things that I found interesting about these poems were their names and placement in the book. Mrs. Meyers, who is placed in between Doctor Meyers and Butch Weldy, let the situation affect her, particularly the two men who surround her, one being the villain (Weldy) and one being the person she believes is the villain (the doctor). Mrs. George Reeves kept her husband's name because she stills respects him, even though he was taken out of her life completely. She is not buried next to him, nor is he in the cemetery. But still she honors and pities his poor fortune and still has a part of him in her. This is just another way to show how law and its actions also affect people in the afterlife. Tell me if this does not make since or doesn't tie into the law theme enough for you. I promise it does work, I just don't know if I explained it well enough.
Pat- I like the connection you made with blindness and justice! It also goes along with the ironic Greek theme of those who cannot see being the most insightful as well as the tragic idea of being punished with sightlessness.
I am going to discuss the relationship between Amos Sibley and Mrs. Sibley. Minister Sibley thinks that his wife is promiscuous and thus holds her in disdain. He says he hates her and wants to divorce her, but this would put him in an awkward position, as he is a preacher. Through his epitaph, one can easily tell that he is not an especially pious person, even though he is a minister. He does not care so much about worshipping God; he is more worried about making money. This alludes to the fact that religion can corrupt you, as you warp it to fit your perceptions and achieve your goals. When I read Mrs. Sibley's epitaph, I am reminded of Medea. I think that she killed herself and by extension, her unborn child, because it was Amos's baby. However, much like Jason, he scorned and spurned her for no reason other than to get ahead in life. In order to get revenge on him and to not subject her child to punishment from the minister and the town (as people would talk of illegitimacy frequently), she takes her life and saves the baby from torment. Thus, Amos never knows the baby and consequently the truth. His warped image of God's work blinds him to the truth of his wife's pregnancy. The very institution of religion clouds his senses as he shapes it to accomplish his agenda. Overall, Amos was nasty to his wife, and his wife made him ultimately pay for it, even though he does not realize it.
I found some powerful statements and connections when studying the legal system in this anthology, and was particularly moved by Carl Hamblin's epitaph. The use of metaphor was particularly striking here; the poem so vividly describes this corrupt sense of "lady" justice that America has developed in that she does not protect against the minorities that need her the most but instead strikes "a child, again a laborer/ Again a slinking woman, again a lunatic," all groups that face suppression from the overpowering wealthy citizens. The epitaph then goes on to tell of her focus not on justice itself, but of the money that can be manipulated out of people, thus forcing the poor to suffer while the rich can get away with anything. The wealthy are empowered by their money because Lady Justice "held a scale;/Into the scale pieces of gold were tossed/By those who dodged the stroke of the sword." This an important realization the Masters make that will be prevalent in many of the other people's stories on the Hill. And though justice should be blind to any signs of gender, political party, sexual orientation, race, or class, it is highly corrupt and Masters notes the horrifying decisions that are made on prejudices and money, something that is still present today, and something that I have even experienced first hand with my family: my cousin was convicted of a crime and had to serve 4 years, while a quarterback in Pittsburgh committed the same crime on even worse terms and got a couple of months of house arrest. This inconsistent injustice is a major flaw of the American legal system, as it is today, and as it was in Masters' time as evidence by Felix Schmidt. Not only is Schmidt manipulated by the money-hungry lawyer Whitney to sue, but also loses what little he has in life in a time that he cannot afford to lose anything, to the dominant power of wealth. In the end, he "lost [his] case and lost [his] case;" the scales could not be tipped into his favor and so he lost even more than the little that he had and it all being fueled by a thirst for wealth by a corrupt lawyer; Schmidt is manipulated and destroyed by two different powers of wealth. A huge symbol of this power is exemplified by Thomas Rhodes, who exerts his status to bring everyone around him down and force them to be subjects to his wealth, such as Clarence Fawcett and Eugene Carman. These people were common workers and "slaves" to Rhodes manipulation and were virtually powerless; Masters superbly develops the connection between being poor and being a woman, as both distinctions carry great hardships and must suffer to dominant forces, that Masters many times has destroy them. Lillian Stewart has her marriage fall apart because her husband discovers the she is actually poor and angrily leaves her, telling her he feels "betrayed." Lillian's situation is most sensitively tragic; she is both poor and a woman, and therefore, ultimately powerless. Her husband uses the power of wealth against her, claiming she has none, and then deserts her, thus enforcing his masculine power that society has enabled him to have. This is a reflection from society on both personal and legal means; a corruption that Hamblin notes as the "madness of a dying soul."
Within Soon River, Edgar Lee Masters uses the effect of interloping stories and characters to let readers discover a greater revelation about society and the world they live in. Through this technique one can tell Masters statement on topics such as war, law, lawyers, and judges. For example, this can be demonstrated through Jefferson Howard and Judge Selah Lively. Upon reading the two poems, the reader can get a sense that both of these men are outsiders to Spoon River or expectations of that society. Both individuals must conform to small town mentality in order to achieve what they want in their own careers. Judge Selah Lively came into his position in an honest matter, but his power corrupted him and made him turn against his own co-workers. I believe this is a statement on Masters part, demonstrating that no matter your circumstance; even if you are a honest/hardworking individual, too much power is not a good thing and it will corrupt you. In addition, a line where Lively is referring to Howard: "Well, don't you think it was natural that I made it hard for them" illustrates that Justice is never objective. This also furthers the idea that with too much power and responsibility, one may loose their moral standards and set of principals. Within Jefferson Howards poem, you may get the sense that he came to his position in a more sinful matter, and this led to his downfall. Although this seems rather fatalistic, the line "Tangled with fates all alien to me" shows that Howard was fated to this life and there was no escaping his destiny. Both of these mens lives were betrayed by their actions. I believe taking a deeper insight into these two characters we can better understand more about ourselves and society
Here is a film version of Julius Caesar done in less than 10 minutes:) This is a way that you can see the juxtapositional allusion in action:)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.schooltube.com/video/fb8186142f2e5784dce0/Julius-Caesar-412
Marriage theme?? Here is a blog regarding a college level assignment with Spoon River. You may find some interesting connections:
ReplyDeletehttp://spoonreader.blogspot.com/2008/05/spoon-river-anthology-and.html
Spoon River's comments on social hypocrisy:
ReplyDeletehttp://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/lsf/orth16.htm
Please feel free to post other links! This anthology, which reads like a high quality soap opera of sorts, has quite the following:)
ReplyDeleteHi..so I hope I did this right. I just did how one of the epitaphs felt about what was most important in life and what a life well-lived meant.
ReplyDeleteThe epitaph of Albert Schirding left a significant impression on me because of the topic that it dealt with, success. Albert says that what is most important in life is that those who you are close to remain close, unlike his children who became successful and left him alone. One might assume he would be happy that his children are successful, but none of them remain faithful in their relationships with him because they have forgotten where their roots come from and who helped them reach their heights. It is ironic that he would be dissatisfied with his childrens’ successes, but it makes sense because he receives no credit for their achievements. Schirding learns to value relationships more than success because he realizes that when people become successful, they do not remember those who got them to that place. To Albert, a life lived well is one that involves deep relationships with those he loves. He misses what he had with his children before they found success and almost wishes he could trade their success for a strong relationship with them. Ultimately, Albert Schirder learns that what is most important in life is the relationship cultivated with loved ones and a well-lived life is one that establishes long-lasting, loving relations with the most important people in one’s life.
Kelsey. I think that you are dead on on many points; however, consider the two epitaphs together to gain the full impact of the epitaph. Each is about a father. Notice that the epitaphs are across from one another (think grave plots); Masters does this, hoping that we will compare the two voices and draw a greater insight. The great irony is that each father (Jonas and Albert) see each other's triumphs but fail to see their own. Note the end of Keene's epitaph; the last three lines convey what happened to Albert (he killed himself). Therefore, the lesson learned is one that we learn via the two stories. Remember the idea of cross reference and how it plays a role in determining Masters' message regarding life. It is more "indirect" than it seems.
ReplyDeleteI am going to discuss the epitaphs of Cooney Potter and Fiddler Jones together:
ReplyDeleteIn Potter's epitaph, he works extremely hard to gain as much material possession as he possibly can. He starts with 40 acres and works his way up to 1000 acres. He did not enjoy the little pleasures of life, as evidenced by the fact that he gulped down his hot coffee. He could not wait for it to cool because he needed to get back to work. He died very young, before 60, and the only relationships he formed were working ones between his wife and children. Jones, on the other hand, lived life to the fullest. He started with 40 acres and never gained another acre in his life. He took every chance to go to picnics or enjoy other activities. Jones lived to be 90 years old and died with "not a single regret". I think the statement on what makes a successful life when these two are considered together is that material possessions do not lead to happiness and success. Potter had much more in terms of physical possession that Jones, yet Jones lived longer and happier because he enjoyed the relationships and pleasures of life
Kevin. Excellent. It is good that you paid attention to cross reference. I notice that you also looked at "The Hill" to get the age that Fiddler Jones died (90). Also, look at the "shape" of the two poems; one is substantially shorter than the other, conveying the idea of a shorter life and a lack of varied focus during his lifetime (Potter). Good job!!!!!
ReplyDeleteBoth Robert Fulton Tanner and Franklin Jones are bitter and categorize life as cruel and death inevitable. Tanner chooses an ogre to symbolize the course of life. As with rat traps, the ogre sets out bait like women and ambition to lure man in. Then the ogre amuses himself as man struggles in the trap of death. Tanner thinks everything in life is futile because it is leading up to death. This view on life is extremely cynical, but considering the dishonorable way he died, it is understandable. Franklin Jones shares this philosophy by comparing life to a chicken. From birth, we are let loose onto the world like chickens in the yard. Humans just run around, wasting time until we die by the axe. While Tanner is bitter about the way he died, Jones is bitter about the way he was commemorated. Jones berates the workman who carved his dove because it looks more like a chicken. A chicken makes a joke out of his life, just like being killed by a rat is a joke. Both epitaphs are examples of what is not important in life. These men are complaining about petty things when they should be reflecting on the good things in life like a loving family or friends.
ReplyDeleteNicole. This is very good. I really apprecuate your connections between the two inventors.Both of these inventors die before they enjoy the success to their inventions. Interestingly, we have an allusion with the Tanner selection; Robert Fulton is the inventor of the steamboat, an example of mechanization. The idea of the "society as a machine" is further investigated by the fact that individuals are in a rat race. Both ideas reflect an idea of lack of emotion. The free will aspect is interesting as well; the ogre and rats in a trap explore the idea that there are unseen forces that control individuals. This reflects the idea of fatalism: actions are pointless because fate is predetermined. The cynical tone that you have identified is further supported by Jones being immortalized by the "chicken" on his tombstone. I am intrigued by your ideas involoving running around "the coop." Both of these selections are dark and really prove the author's tone regarding mechanization and the idea that man can become ensnared in the inevitable fate that awaits him.
ReplyDeleteAll. Be smart about this;) Vary your points of discussion so that you can get as much information as possible. Make relationships among the poems. Pairing the epitaphs is an excellent approach. That being said, you can address more than two poems at a time, speaking to themes and author's tone. Note that the poems are grouped; use that as a guide, but by no means a limitation. Think of the anthology as a living, breathing entity. Note the graphic associated with the blog. It is about "voices" and viewpoints; these will give way to identification of author's tone (attitude) toward subjects. This is a COMPLEX book; you must think of it as more than words on a page. It has a definite physicality to it.
ReplyDeleteI was quite affected by Sarah Brown’s epitaph. Not only is it beautiful, containing marvelous imagery, but it makes a powerful statement about religion and the hypocrisy of our faith. As Sarah addresses her lover, she sounds not like an adulteress, but more like a philosopher. She embodies the theme within the book that people are not what they seem, along with the idea that with death comes silence, and with silence comes wisdom and profound understanding. Sarah’s insight regarding love is enlightening. She does not speak ill of her husband, but speaks lovingly to her partner. When she quotes the bible in her last line (Mathew 22:23-30), this wise spirit reveals the hypocrisy of the “holy book”, and the truth that love is love, and cannot be a sin. In addition, Sarah depicts her life after death as an environment where “The balmy air of spring whispers through the sweet grass, the stars sparkle, the whippoorwill calls…”. This description of “heaven” is unconventional, and much closer to scenes available on earth than the orthodox image of vast, white bliss. Sarah Brown’s epitaph contains views uncharacteristic of someone of her gender and position in society. Her opinions about morality’s subservient position to love, along with her controversial thoughts on the hypocrisy of religion inspire and empower me.
ReplyDeleteAudrey. What a beautiful, sensitive response! I agree with you on all points. It seems that Masters may be making a statement about marriage as a barrier to true happiness. This is a wonderful focus to explore. The anthology is full of stories about unrequited love or lovers spurned... those that love the wrong person...those that are blinded by love to the serious faults of others...those that allay their own happiness for someone that they love. You have hit upon a wonderful topic! Can you discover any other relationships between Sarah's most eloquent, before-her-time response and the voices of other females among those on "The Hill" that sought "unconventional relationships? What do you make of the fact that Sarah and her husband are on "The Hill" while Maurice is not there? Take a look at "Jim Brown," both its location in the text and the lack of mention of Miss Sarah; some critics support the idea that this is her husband,and perhaps you will discover why Sarah may have sought attentions elsewhere;)I support this viewpoint; it makes no sense that she is "alone." Also, it allows the readership to "demonize" her less. Well done:)
ReplyDeleteI chose to analyze the family dynamics of Thomas and Ralph Rhodes
ReplyDeleteThomas is the distant father of Ralph Rhodes. The Rhodes are a wealthy, upper class family in Spoon River and the source of their income is the family bank. A situation took place, in which Ralph made a financial mistake and a lowly cashier took the blame, landing the cashier in jail and leaving his wife to care for the family alone. Meanwhile, Ralph traveled to New York and tried very hard to drown his guilty conscious in alcohol, parties and women. Ralph was eventually overcome by his guilt and committed suicide while, Ralph’s father, Thomas, experienced absolutely no guilt. Thomas was well aware of the situation that took place at the bank and thought nothing of it. Thomas is the epitome of materialism. His main concern is money and this is evident through his poem. He speaks of people wasting their lives on philosophy and wisdom and shows no remorse or regrets toward his life, which he spent growing his family fortune. It is evident that Thomas did not spend a great deal of time teaching his child moral lessons and positive character traits because of the way Ralph deals with his wrong-doing. Also, Thomas did not punish his son but rather, let him do as he wished after the mistake had been made. It seems that Thomas may not have had a very big role in Ralph’s life because he was too busy with his work. If Thomas and Ralph had kept a better relationship, perhaps Thomas would have taught Ralph to take the blame for his wrong-doing, rather than hiding from it and letting the guilt consume him. It could be argued that the Rhodes’ family dynamics indirectly caused Ralph’s suicide. Another bit of evidence that shows that Ralph and Thomas did not have a healthy relationship is the placement of their graves, in the anthology. Generally family members who played a role in one another’s lives have gravestones in the same proximity of one another, while the Rhodes’ graves are nearly thirty pages apart from one another.
I am going to post about Elsa Wertman and Hamilton Greene. One main aspect that was illustrated through these epitaphs was that where the one person is continuously thinking or talking about the other, while the other doesn’t even acknowledge them. This would be pertaining to how Elsa was continuously reminded about her illegitimate son throughout her life. In her epitaph she says, “But--- as political rallies when sitters-by thought I was crying,” this line really speaks to the thought that Elsa cared deeply for her son even though he never knew about her or acknowledged her throughout his life. Also she loved him unconditionally even though he was her child through a tragic event in her life, when Mr. Greene raped her. In Hamilton Greene’s epitaph he does not mention Elsa because he does not know her; especially not that she is his biological mother. This is evident when he speaks very highly about all the traits and attributes he has inherited from his biological “mother” and father. These characteristics that he says he has inherited from his father “will, judgment, logic” are all things that he really inherited from his mother Elsa. This is ironic because it’s obvious Hamilton respects his parents very much when in reality he has lived a life in the delusion of what he perceives to be true. And the people he finds so great have lied to him and handed him the truth that he was to live throughout his life. Another aspect that made me happy was that even though throughout her life Elsa was never able to be with her son whom she loved so greatly in the end she would always be with him, up on the hill in Spoon River cemetery.
ReplyDeleteI chose to respond to the epitaphs of George Gray and John Horace Burleson.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Gray’s epitaph conveys his feelings of regret while looking back on his life. The boat at rest in the harbor carved forever onto Gray’s tombstone is a metaphor for his wasted potential and missed opportunities during his life. Like a boat that never left the harbor to experience the rest of the world, Gray never took risks during his life and therefore never found the meaning or love that he craved. The fact that his surname is “Gray” is also important symbolically. Masters may have chosen this name to convey the lack of ‘color’, or meaning, in Gray’s life experiences. He never loved, never took risks, and never left the safe ‘harbor’ of Spoon River to discover what else the world has to offer. George Gray’s epitaph serves as a poignant warning to the reader to live life fully and passionately in order to avoid regret like Gray’s after death.
George Gray’s epitaph can be compared to John Horace Burleson’s. Although, unlike Gray, Burleson was materially successful during his life, he did not fully achieve the fame or recognition that he always desired. Burleson was forgotten in the big city of Chicago after his death, and was ultimately buried in Spoon River, just like Gray. While Gray never left the ‘harbor,’ Burleson did, but ultimately was made to return to his home after death. The last line of Burleson’s epitaph, a quote from Lord Byron’s Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, is also significant. It is a reference to the fact that no man ever leaves a true mark on the world, and will ultimately be forgotten. I think that the fact that both poems contain nautical references ties them together, along with the fact that both deal with the disillusionment associated with ‘success.’
Melissa. Thanks for your choice of topic; it is one of the more powerful aspects of the novel and a definite "push" on the part of the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great overview of the sketchy Rhodes family and their shady past in the town. Thomas Rhodes is one of the most reprehensible figures in the entire anthology. His "no regrets" personality grates against the forlorn (and sometimes angry) statements of those "little people" that fell by the wayside due to his race to be the one that "dies with the most stuff." It makes the reader stop and give pause to our society's devotion to materialism. I think that Miller and Masters would have much to talk about;)
I like how you touched on the physicality of the book as well, treating it as a literal graveyard and speaking about the placement of plots. Also, notice how much shorter the father's statement is in relation to those in the same category of discussion.
Some other aspects to consider:
1. The capitalization of Theft (Ralph Rhodes)
2. Connection to Mrs. George Reeves (Ralph and Thomas Rhodes)
3. Statement on the spiritual and the intellectual (Thomas Rhodes)
4. Father figures (Thomas Rhodes and connections with Kelsey's post/my response)
5. Consider the church/business/personal gain relationships
6. SUICIDES!!! There are so many in the anthology, both addressed directly and those that are implied...but notice the ones associated with the Rhodes family...interesting
and there are MANY other topics....
Ariana. These two epitaphs tug at my heart strings! Notice the placement of the two poems- across from one another, implying that fate would have it that they are united in death. (Note: look at my discussion on fatalism in response to Nicole's post). There is the idea that fate will have it way, despite the actions of man. However, the implications of free will and the great equalizer, death, plays a part in the human drama as well. Notice how Masters treats women, even those that are demonized by the judgemental residents of Spoon River; he often generous with them, without becoming schmaltzy. P.S. Yes, this IS a word;)LOL
ReplyDeleteEmily. Your discussion regarding Gray is impressive and oh-so-true. Notice the Romantic points (reference to nature, art, look to the past...). We see the transcendentalist influence here. The idea that we are fortunate as a readership to have the ability to "hear" these voices is reinforced by epitaphs, such as Gray's. The directive is to "unfurl" our sails! I like how Masters gets this across without becoming too preachy! It is so conversational and easily appreciated! Also, cross reference this one with Bone, the stonecarver.... It makes you become more thoughtful about how Bone feels about his role in this "hypocrisy." Note the discussion on "fatalism" (Nicole's post/my response) Does truth find its way??? Interesting...
ReplyDeleteBurleson does have relationship with Gray. I do appreciate the connections. You articulated this in supreme fashion!! Consider comparing Burleson and Petit; they are both writers. This adds a complexity to your observations. Consider that Petit desired to have an impact like Whitman or Homer; he feels that he has wasted his talents. What "conversation" would Burleson have with Petit regarding success? An interesting thought...
ALL: You are building up quite a treasure of thoughts and insights here. Can you make any cross reference connections between the posts? I know that my voice here has been a little heavier than usual; I want to try and model how the possibilities are limitless with this anthology. This novel does demonstrate the idea that "No man is an island"(Donne). Each man's life touches another, in good ways and bad.
ReplyDeleteThomas Rhodes was the ruler of the business world in Spoon River and was truly, in a materialistic sense, successful. However, he had a reputation of a very vile and wicked man. His he was ruthless uncaring and was purely focused on one thing, money. in Ralph Rhodes epitaph it was said that Thomas has a relationship with the church, but Thomas, in his own, clearly shows that he is uninterested in religion in lines 6-10. This shows him as a hypocrite and shows how unethical he is and by ending his epitaph with "Even to the end," shows that he has no regrets. Edgar Lee Masters, by using a man of his character, was proving that materialism is evil and currupt, and that an endless pursuit of money will inevitably bring hatred and ruin.
ReplyDeleteI chose to do my discussion on Thomas Rhodes and all the "little people" he affected.
ReplyDeleteThomas Rhodes is a very conceited and materialistic man. He is extremely powerful in the small town of Spoon River. Not only in the business aspect but he is powerful in the church too. He doesn't care about who he hurts as long as he gains benefit. He believes the end justifies the means. He also is compelled to die with the most "stuff" and money because that symbolizes his success in life. I believe that Ralph Rhodes could be considered one of the "little people" that was adversely affected by Thomas. Ralph is Thomas' son and they did not share a positive relationship. Thomas was too involved with money that Ralph was left in the background. I feel that if Thomas was more involved in Ralph's life then Ralph wouldn't have felt the urge to escape to New York. Later, Ralph's conscience catches up to him and he commits suicide. Another one of the "little people" is Eugene Carman. Eugene was essentially Thomas' slave. He worked far too hard and earned far too little. Even on the given day of rest, Sunday, when you go to church, Eugene didn't get a break because Rhodes was part of the church too. Eugene was worked so hard that he had an aneurism. Clarence Fawcett was another person that was hurt by Thomas. After Eugene died Clarence was promoted and took his place. Rhodes suspected him of stealing to pay for his daughter's medical bills. When he was threatened he confessed. He only asked that Thomas save his name, but the next day all the newspapers had published how he was a thief. Rhodes truly thought of no one but himself. He died with no respect from his family and just the company of materialistic items. He would gain power for himself by stepping on others.
I choose to analyze the epitaphs of Lambert Hutchins and his daughter, Lillian Stewart.
ReplyDeleteLambert and his wife are quite fond of their mansion on the hill, as well as his one in Chicago. They are both very proud of their homes. Lambert believed that by using his vote in the House of Representatives, he could be a major benefactor for the upcoming generations. He also believed that his status would grant his children a sense of security; however, he was mistakenly wrong. Lillian hated the mansion and saw it as a curse instead of a safe haven. She saw the mansions as a mask because her father did not have much money and the money he had had been put into the mansions. Lillian wanted to get away from the mansion and the life that her father had established. Lillian's husband married her under his assumption that she was wealthy and when he found out, her marriage ended and she returned to her accursed mansion. Lambert's materialistic believes lead to his daughters unhappiness. His ideals pushed her away and lead her to a shallow marriage. In the end Lambert realized that he caused his daughter sorrow and pain instead of joy and happiness. Her short and quick marriage was the result of trying to break away from materialism; however materialism was the cause of her divorce. Lambert and Lillian are examples of how materialistic ideals can break a family apart and ruin their happiness. Family is more important than wealth and social status and is something that should be kept dear to all. Family should come before anything else and Lambert and Lillian are prime examples of the consequences of placing wealth and status before family.
My two that I am choosing to analyze are Albert Schirding and Jonas Keene. Although these to men may seem as if they are complete opposites, I feel like they are, in the end, the same. Albert is a man who was never successful and saw that his children were becoming greater than he ever imagined he would be. Instead of feeling the happiness of bringing his children up to become respectable and important citizens, he chooses to look on the negative side of life and becomes depressed that he knows he will be less intelligent than his offspring. Jonas, on the other hand, knows his children will never be the citizens he hoped they would become. He could have looked at this problem and told himself, "Well I guess they were never meant to be more intelligent than this because I have done all I can and still they are dumb." But no he just gives up on his children and life (this reminds me of Willy Loman).
ReplyDeleteIn both epitaphs, both characters cannot understand why the other was so distraught with his life and his children. They both wanted each other lives, but they were united in a similar death. I guess what i am getting at is that no matter how opposite people's lives are, their end could very well be the same, as in the occurence between Albert and Jonas.
Just as an afterthought, I think it is interesting that these two tombstones are side by side, sort of symbolizing the the closeness in death even though they lead different lives.
ALL: Vary your responses. Avoid restating what someone has already said. In order to max points, you need to be original. Check Progress Book to see if your response meets AP level criteria. You still have time to do another post and regain your points:)
ReplyDeleteI'm choosing to analyze the epitaph of Nellie Clark.
ReplyDeleteNellie was only eight when she was raped by a fifteen year old boy, named Charlie. Later in life she married a newcomer into the town who was a widower. After two years of marriage he found out about her rape and believed he had been cheated because she was not a "virgin", a "fact" to which the town agreed. He deserted her and she died the following winter. In her epitaph Nellie is solemn and seemingly tense about the subject, but she chooses to speak it in order to help send a message about her plight, and the plight of women overall. Masters uses some of his subjects to help portray the plight of women. Nellie's is a plight of sorrow. She was demonized because of an event that occured years before, and it was an occurance that she could not control. She is seen as an object for sex by men, and she is considered "spoiled" because of the rape that she underwent. This shows the audience just how shallow some people can be. Her husband had married her supposedly out of love, then right when he finds out she is technically not a virgin anymore he leaves her. This epitaph shows how women do not believe in their worth. Through her entire life Nellie thought of her story. Just when she begins to have a happy life with a husband he turns around and leaves her because he sees her as worthless. She believes him because only a few months later she resigns to her death.
I chose Lucinda and Davis Matlock, Edgar Lee Masters’ grandparents.
ReplyDeleteThe two were brought together by chance at a dance. They switched partners and found each other, leading the reader to believe that fate brought them together. Their marriage lasted for 70 years and was successful. Lucinda spent her time raising her children and taking care of their home. She lived to be 96 years old and died peacefully. Lucinda chose to accept her role as the typical housewife, thus her marriage with Davis was filled with happiness. Lucinda feels that she lived happily and has no regrets. Davis’s poem compares humans to bees. He says that people should take care of their responsibilities. Through this metaphor, Davis expresses his belief that every person should live his life to the fullest, the way he and his wife did. Even though the couple lost 8 of their 12 children, a heartbreaking circumstance, they still feel content with their lives. Davis also expresses that “culture and wisdom” are of greater value than materialism, another reason that he and Lucinda led such satisfying lives. They were not focused on tangible wealth, but realized the value of the family and love they shared.
I really liked Ernest Hyde's epitaph. First of all his name alludes to Mr. Hyde, implying the duality that exists in all people. A person has both evil and good in them and can choose to embrace either one. Perhaps because of his name reflecting Mr. Hyde, Ernest Hyde may have embraced evil more over the years.
ReplyDeleteIt was so interesting how he compared his mind to a mirror. His youthful mind "reflected" everything he heard. It seems like as a young man he was very naive and basically reiterated everything he was ever told. But as life continued on, his experiences created scratches in his mirror. He could no longer "reflect" what he used to because the scratches hindered this action. But, from his experiences Hyde gained wisdom and transitioned from being a young naive boy to a more aged and wise man.
Also, the mind and soul are described as completely seperate in this poem. The mind was remains as it was it seems since a man is born in that it is what processes any information, but the soul is created through the many experiences of a person. What a person learns from these experiences is what seems to create a person's soul. I think the poem may be saying that the soul created from the scratched mirror reflects not what is seen at first glance, but allows for the viewer to fill in the broken gaps in the mirror with what should be seen. Instead of seeing the world as it is, like the mind does, the soul sees what the world should be, from the wisdom the person has acquired.
I chose to discuss Petit the Poet's epitaph.
ReplyDeletePetit tells of a life spent writing about the "snows and roses of yesterday" and how they vanish along with love. He never experienced true love because of the way that he looks at life. He was so absorbed with his poetry that instead of seeing something for its simple beauty, he could only focus on the rhythms and poetic aspects of it. In latin, petit ironically means "he seeks" and this is true to who he was in life because he was always searching for ways to create and hear poetry in every aspect of his life. He also talks about characteristics of humanity and how he was not able to see these "patterns" such as heroism, tragedy, courage, and failure. Petit was blinded by his poetry to the simple pleasures in life. Therefore, he was not able to weave the threads of love or heroism into his own life story, and this is what he regrets most.
I chose the Triangle of Love between Aner Clute, Lucius Atherton, and Homer Clapp. Here we have two cases of love, where Homer loves Aner in a true way, but she never seemed to realize it. Aner is "In Love" with Lucius but only because he is good-looking and has money (gold digger). As described by Aner "That makes the boy what he is", when referring to an apple thief and comparing it to the way she lived her life. In Lucius' case, he seems to have no regard for anyone but himself. He sees himself as a lady's man, a regular Don Juan, but as soon as he gets a little grey hair he becomes severely insecure and focused on how to make his life more exciting to impress other women. Then there's Homer, the classic good boy who wants to get the girl, but never does. He tries to show Aner a good time by taking her out and showing her that he is "the one", but Aner's focus is on Lucius.
ReplyDeleteI would like to discuss the Edith Conant poem in regards to the hypocrisy of success and gender roles.
ReplyDeleteEdith Conant was very young when she died, only 21 years of age. However, this does not mean that life was easy one her. She bore the burden of a losing a child and a husband, living far from the rest of her family, and her only relations being with her disabled father who no longer remembers her. The reader notices that the only visitors at Edith's grave are her own memories. The memories reflect on the tragic notion that they will be the only things to remember Edith. Essentially she is completely alone in death, and for the most part lived a solitary life. To contrast this, in Spoon River Anthology Masters describes Edith as having an 'exquisite face' and a 'lyric voice.' Being young, beautiful and talented, Edith's life should have been pleasant for her and success should have come naturally. Yet, she suffers so much in her life, then in death is left with nothing but memory. This alludes to the hypocrisy of success. In Hawley's epithet Edith Conant is paired with Chase Henry, the town drunkard. In life, Henry was a screw up, yet in death he was given an ideal grave plot next to honorable company. Thus, though Edith should have been successful due to the fact that, except for rotten luck, she was the ideal woman, she existed in a state of weariness. Despite her looks and youth she ends up rotting in a graveyard all alone. She should have had many healthy babies and a loving husband, but both were ripped from her. This speaks to the anthology’s emphasis on gender roles and what woman should accomplish in life. Edith, who was set up for success failed to maintain it. This resulted in immeasurable grief and weariness for her.
I chose to discuss the Merritt situation. Mrs. Merritt had a lover when she was nineteen, and his name was Elmer Karr, however, she was married to Tom Merritt. Mrs. Merritt feared that Elmer would go mad so she asked him to go far away. Obviously, he did go mad and killed Tom 16 years after his affair with Mrs. Merritt. He was convicted of murder and sent to prison for 14 years, while Mrs. Merritt who claims to have nothing to do with the murder was sent to jail for 30 years for adultery. This is a statement on the gender roles of the time. Mrs. Merritt (no first name) received a sentance more than twice as long as the man who murdered her husband. During this time period, a woman committing adultery was punished more harshly than a man who committed murder. Mrs. Merritt was silent during this whole situation, "silent before the jury" and "silent for thirty years in prison!" thus reemphasizing the role of women as calm, forced to accept life in a male dominated world. She said nothing of the unfairness of her sentence while standing before the jury and accepted it with silence. After Elmer's sentence, the peopl of Spoon River welcomed him back and forgived him as he joined the church. I find it interesting that Elmer, the murderer, wound up better off in life than Mrs. Merritt who died after 30 years in prison. I also find it interesting that these three poems lie together. Tom's first, then Mrs. Merritt, then Elmer. I really liked these poems and am curious about what more could have been going on with their stories, especially referring to Elmer.
ReplyDeleteI chose to analyze the Rhodes family as well, but with a focus on the cross referencing between the poems. As stated by Kaela, the Rhodes family adversely affected many people in Spoon River. However, I believe it is important to note the variety in ways that Thomas Rhodes affected the community, for his negative influence was not restricted to a certain group of people. Furthermore, Rhodes had multiple vehicles of abuse: his business ventures and his authority at the church. The corruption of the Rhodes banking business is demonstrated in Eugene Carman, Clarence Fawcett, Mrs. George Reece, and Henry Phipp’s epitaphs. Carman and Fawcett’s experiences with the Rhodes demonstrate Thomas’ lack of compassion in regards to the business world. Likewise, Mrs. George Reece’s story shows the greater affects of his inhumanity. Her situation in which her own husband, a lowly cashier, was blamed for the bank’s demise demonstrates how the Rhodes family’s actions were felt throughout the community as a whole, creating an even greater negative impact on the city. Henry Phipps, Thomas’ right-hand man, was not even immune to the abuse. Thomas exploited Phipps, just as he did all the other workers in his business, to get ahead. Thomas’ impact on the community is further demonstrated by Jack McGuire and Nicholas Bindle’s epitaphs. With McGuire, Rhodes’ impact is clear as his affluence is used to sway a judge’s ruling, lessening McGuire’s sentence for murder. Bindle is wronged by Rhodes through his dedication to the church. Bindle gave his life to the church, giving to the poor and the city constantly, and in the end was pulled down with the bank as it collapsed. Both the diversity of people and of ways in which the people were influenced by the Rhodes family speaks greatly to the power that riches bring. By examining the epitaphs not individually, but together as a whole, it is easier to see the way in which the stories intertwine, and in this case, the way in which the Rhodes family abused the power that they gained through wealth.
ReplyDeleteI am comparing W. Lloyd Garrison Standard and Kinsey Keene. W. Lloyd Garrison Standard is a very driven person who does not accept defeat. He is uncompromising, much like his namesake, the formidable abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, was regarding the issue of slavery. This unwavering attitude towards any obstacles makes him a proud man. He is simultaneously many things that juxtapose and contradict each other: a christian and a pagan, a carnivorous man and a vegetarian, etc. These demonstrate his duality of character: he is good sometimes and other times, he is bad. His pride gets the best of him, and his apathy towards anything except his accomplishments makes him a cold person, whose heart has been carved out of him. He has no morality nor humanity to him, which makes him willing to represent arsonists in court. He believes he can win, but he is beaten by Kinsey Keene, who shattered through his cardboard life and facade of greatness. He is revealed for what he is: a pathetic human living an equally dismal existence. Kinsey Keene references the Battle of Waterloo to show how he disposed of the supposedly great Standard, who was elevated to the status of the great Napoleon. He tells of how he easily crushed and caused Standard to scuttle away, wounded in pride and image. Kinsey Keene makes sure that all of the respected people know of his great accomplishment. Standard represents false pride driven by a fake life and Keene represents the truth of genuine pride that is grounded in real accomplishments. Keene achieves the ultimate truth, while Standard wallows in a fallacy.
ReplyDeleteI chose to compare Ralph and Thomas Rhodes. Thomas, a very wealthy bank owner, is so concerned with wealth and greed that he never thinks of the affect he has on the lower-class people. He is an incredibly materialistic person and, even in death, does not realize the bad reputation he is giving himself. He thinks greed is a good thing and that money equals power, and he actually states that "Getters and hoarders of gold, / Are sefl-contained, compact, harmonized, / Even to te end." This shows that he does not think he has wasted his life in search of money and does not regret harming people the way he and his family did. Thomas's son Ralph, on the other hand, is very regretful of his wasted life. He caused his fathers bank to fail, yet the one who got blamed for it was a lowly cashier. Ralph walked free and went to New York with lots of money while George Reece went to jail and the Reece family was left broken. One can see how much this affected Ralph's consciousness though because when he went to New York, he drowned himself in alcohol and women just to try to forget what he did. In life, he thought he was happy, but in death he realized what he did and completely regrets it. Ralph's mind was always in Spoon River, too, even when he was in New York. He defaulted on loans in Spoon River, and when he went to New York, he was always thinking about what he did to George Reece, and once he killed himself, his body was shipped back to Spoon River. He could never escape the fact that he ruined the lives of a whole family.
ReplyDeleteI chose to analyze Samuel Gardner's epitaph becaues I feel that this poem reflects an important comment on life. Gardner was the greenhouse man, and his beautiful poem is so wonderfully developed: Gardner says how much he was a "lover of trees and flowers" representing his true passion and love of life (nature) in general, which will ultimately lead to his happiness. He later goes on to tell about how the soil was so well enriched and warm, which I also saw as a statement about planting beautiful things in your life based on your own individual decisions: you can either choose to cherish and support life, or be bitter and therefore unhappy. Furthermore, he emphasizes this natural beauty and life reflected in human life when he talks of the braches and leaves "wherefrom the breeze took life and sang"; reflecting the celebration and jubilation that is life, and not seeing life as a dismal and worthless process as some other people of Spoon River saw it (particularly juxtaposed to Dow Kritt). But the most powerful statement in Gardner's epitaph is the last 4 lines, "that the branches of a tree/Spread no wider than its roots./And how shall the soul of a man/Be larger than the life he has lived?" which truly exemplifies Gardner's optimistic and powerful outlook on life: life is what you make it and you have the power to make it as good as you want it to be. If you live your life to the fullest, and just laugh, love, and enjoy yourself and your precious time here, the soul will expand to fit your happiness. That in itself is a true testament to Masters' poetic power in his beautiful anthology.
ReplyDeleteI chose to discuss the epitaph of Harold Arnette and his suicide. It can be interpreted that Arnette was a pessimist, as before his suicide he uses depressing words such as "failure," "Weak," "Mournfully," and "disgust." He saw everything from a negative perspective, exagerating the words of his wife as being violent when she was simply talking about cooking potatoes. However, after he "pulled the trigger," he immediately experienced regret. He expresses his desire to breathe, and the elipses used could possibly represent his shortness of breath and his struggle to hang on to life. Arnette then warns against the futility of suicide. He describes death as the "eternal destiny of life" which cannot be escaped. From his suicide he learns that there is no reason to cut your already short life shorter when you will be eternally locked in death.
ReplyDeleteI chose Chase Henry. His poem was about how the Catholics refused him a burial, so he was buried in a Protestant graveyard. In his poem he talks about how he was the town drunk, and that he lived a shameful life. Death, however, has brought him the honor that was denied to him by the living. I picked this poem because it reminded me of a more bitter, angrier version Thanatopsis by William Cullen Bryant. They both talk about how your social status in life really has no effect on how you are seen when you are dead. In life, people may have separated someone from the rest, but in the end, death does not discriminate.
ReplyDeleteI chose to analyze Richard Bone. His job was to engrave all of the townspeople's epitaphs once they had passed on. People would bring him what they wished to have chisled on the stone. At "[he] chilsed for them whatever they wished / All in ignorance of its truth". Later on though he learned what the townspeople were truely like, but he continued to chisle whatever was given to him even though he never it was not true. By not questioning these epitaphs Richard Bone becomes the center of hypocrisy. He immortalizes Spoon River's hypocritical society because all that anyone will remember of the dead is what they read upon their headstones.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea if this is correct, but I saw something typical of most human beings in John Horace Burleson. He reminds me of your usually Anderson Township resident. We start off doing well in school with big dreams for our future. Sure, most of us will find some success, but nothing compared to the dreams and extraordinary ambitions. Burleson has fallen in the mold of a comfortable, pre-planned life. Just like a lot of us will grow up and do exactly as our parents did (go to college, get married, have kids, live in a suburban town), Burleson couldn't break the pattern of a usual life. He regrets not taking risks during his life, but it is too late. His potential will never truly be known because he was kind of "brainwashed" into believing he had to complete certain societal tasks (marriage, work, etc.). His story is almost a warning for all of us stuck in suberbia to break the mold and actually achieve our goals.
ReplyDeleteOne poem that captures a reoccurring tone and feeing among the dead in Spoon River is the epitaph of Harold Arnett. Like many of the other dead, I felt like Harold expressed sentiment over his decisions in life and remorse over opportunities lost. He sees his flaws and mistakes as his choices resulted in negative consequences for him. Harold is like this in death as he became so overwhelmed with the duties and hardships of life that he decided to shoot himself in alleviation of this stress. However, he sees that this stress that life brings follows in death as now the hardships that drove him to suicide probably do not look as bad and the regret of his suicide is haunting him still in the afterlife. Harold most likely cherishes what good he had in life now that these things are denied him and shows that an experience of life is inescapable. Life can only affect you negatively if you let it and Harold Arnett sees this now in death.
ReplyDeleteWith a focus on Elsa Wertman, I found it interesting to compare and contrast the familial relationships of Elsa Wertman and her son Hamilton Greene to the relationship between Thomas Rhodes and his son. One of the obvious differences between the two is the physical separation in life and death. Elsa and her son have their plots beside one another, while they were separate in life. Thomas and his son on the other hand were very involved in one another's lives and were separated in death. The statement here may be that even though Elsa was unable to be with her son in his lifetime, she was closer to him in heart, than the Rhodes were, and then death finally allowed for a reunion long awaited. The irony of these two situations is that Elsa cared more for her son's happiness and therefore provided for him a better life, while Thomas was self-centered and although he was very much involved in his son's life, he created nothing but destruction.
ReplyDeleteAnother comparison one might do would be to acknowledge the different classes of the families. Despite that Elsa was poor, she provided a rich life for her son, whereas Thomas was quite wealthy and did just the opposite. The statement Masters may be making here is that money corrupts the individual, and that people who have to work harder appreciate things more. An example of this would be in observing Thomas and Elsa's application of faith. Thomas controls the church and manipulates people through this for his gain, while Elsa has little and therefore relies on the little good that has been brought into her life, her son.
One may also look at the fact that Elsa is a woman and Thomas is a man. Elsa has to silence her voice in order to benefit the life of her son, and Thomas escapes the consequences of all his actions. Elsa was the victim of a man and yet was the one to suffer, by means of the loss of her ability to claim her son. Thomas on the other hand, made everyone else his victims. Therefore we can see that Elsa is the ideal role of a parent, while Thomas represents those parents who neglect their responsibilities as a leader and guardian.
Alexis. Your response is outstanding! The multilevel connections really drive home the point regarding author's tone toward parental responsibility/relationships. Have you considered the cross reference between Elsa and Nellie? Can you add to the complexity and look at the other women that have suffered due to male subjugation? I am very impressed by the depth of your analysis; it is among the best here:)
ReplyDeleteALL: All of the responses exhibit the type of thinking that you need to do in regard to the anthology. You demonstrate, not only the ability to read the individual epitaphs/poem/stories, but also show that you can "web" among the voices, noting the author's TONE.
ReplyDeleteThat being said... try to steer away from the singular focus to more of a multidimensional appreciation for the poetry/stories/themes. The overlay IS the richness of this work. TEXTURE!!! Look for it!!! My voice will lessen as of this point. I can tell that you are ready to talk to each other.
Voices that I appreciate are those that internalize the meaning of the selections. I appreciate Courtney's outrage in regard to Nellie's plight. I appreciate the warmth of Audrey's very sincere response to Sarah. Brooke's insights demonstrate that she has experienced the "Voila" in regard to universality. I feel Kaela's "air quotes" and hear her voice in regard to Rhodes...despicable individual that he is. PLEASE keep writing:) YOU are making me more and more excited about this anthology...thank you:)
Thinking toward the test, depending on the level of reflection that I see here, I MAY consider making at least part of the test open book. I am looking for depth and multiple levels of comparison. If I can see this on the blog, I can rest assured that you are reading. Allowing you to use your book will get you digging deep and becoming reflective. I think we can do it; don't let me down:)
I will check in on you now and then...
Brooke, you actually taught me something! I remember that Mr. Clutter always said that it was more important to learn something about life in his class than getting the grade, and I've just learned something. :) It is okay to be unconventional, follow my dreams, shoot for the stars, and taking risks are all a part of doing that. Because you compared Burleson to an Anderson Township resident, I was completely able to relate and apply what he says in his poem to my life. :) Thank you!
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to make a statement about Aner Clute while dipping into Lucius Atherton and Homer Clapp. We discussed in class that Aner isn't too interested in him and we pulled from his last name that no one really wants him. She seems to lean more towards Lucius, as said above. We also discussed Aner's possible occupation during class. I interpreted that last three lines in a much different way as it would pertain to her job. We inferred that she was most likely a prostitute as she travelled farther and farther from Spoon River. In the last few lines it talks about stealing the apple. In a biblical sense, the apple or fruit was the temptation for Eve. In stealing that purity of the forbidden tree, Aner was stealing that same purity from various boys. As said in the last line of her epitaph, thats what makes a boy what he is.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if this is the correct angle to have taken, but based on our class discussion, that is what I pulled from it.
ALL: We need some discussion on the political aspect. Discuss Prohibition, lawyers and judges. Come on! We want to earn that open book aspect to the test!
ReplyDeleteAlison. Good analysis in regard to the biblical allusion aspect. Note that her innocence was taken by Atherton, and she in turn took the innocence from others. Ironically, keeping with the ideas of fatalism, they ended up on "The Hill." Interesting;) I wish that Christine would talk about "Clapp" and her observation on his name! I don't know if it is true, but it was clever and fun to entertain the possibility:D
A great hypocrisy of the legal system is shown with the story of Jack McGuire and the town marshal. As the prohibitionists were gaining momentum, they voted Logan as the town marshal. They thought he was a hater of drinkers because he had killed a Swede. After striking the drunken Jack McGuire, the marshal dies when McGuire strikes back with a gun shot. Instead of getting hanged for murder, McGuire gets off with 14 years in jail as a result of the judge’s desire to save Rhodes. The marshal sees this sentence as a fitting punishment for his murder, maybe because he thinks he was never punished for the Swede he killed. Spoon River’s legal system is completely corrupted because they made a murderer the town marshal. The judge is also corrupted because he is biased in favor of Thomas Rhodes. Since he didn’t want to charge Rhodes for the collapse of the bank, he agreed to let McGuire, a murderer, get off with only 14 years in jail.
ReplyDeleteMore hypocrisy was in Carl Hamblin’s epitaph, which described the judicial system as a beautiful woman. She is blinded, so her sentences are dealt out by chance or by money (gold being dropped into her scale). This is just like Rhodes, whose financial influence over the judge saved him from charges.
--By the way, I was having trouble with Carl Hamblin, and this website explained the allegory really well! http://everything2.com/title/Carl+Hamblin
Nicole. You are a powerhouse, my dear! Excellent observations!! People, get this into your notes. Love the attached website as well. This will be a great asset to you when you go to college; the ability to go OUT and FIND what you need is power. By doing so, you have deeper understanding and you have added a discussion of device! Outstanding:)
ReplyDeleteTo add another cross reference... think of the statement about "killing a Swede" and the inference based on Elsa's story. Obviously we have a statement about narrowminded, small town people and views on "immigrants." Another layer to the onion;)
Keep going...give me more on politics. What statement do we have on Prohibition, based on who is supportive? Also, is there a statement on a Puritanical government and what they choose to demonize about human behavior? By the same token, what do they choose to condone? Just a few places that you could go...
I chose to dwell on the similarity in the epitaphs of Edith Connant and George Gray, each of which focused primarily on their lack of success and acknowledgement after death. Edith died at the age of 21 during childbirth, and this was all that she was remembered for. She feels alone in death, and is prominently concerned with the fact that no one will remember "[her] exquisite face" or her "lyric voice," pointing out that in her case, only the tragedy of her death will be recalled. She desires to be remembered as something more than just the 21 year old girl who died, suggesting a sort of lack of success in her life with nothing to be remembered by. In addition, she is troubled and weary because everyone will move on without her and she is the only one to hold on to her memories. Masters makes a point of connecting the stories of Edith Connant and George Gray to emphasize the fact that the dead are isolated and end any possibility of success in life. In George Gray's epitaph, he is troubled with the fact that he spent his whole life as "A boat with a furled sail at rest in a harbor," suggesting that he held back from love, sorrow, and ambition. Gray thus sought for meaning in life and failed to discover it. In Masters' poem concerning George Gray, he is strongly advising the reader to go out and live life, questioning what is a successful life without a leap of faith and taking risks? Who is George Gray to think that the meaning of life is something one will stumble across without any effort of going to discover it? How can one achieve remembrance in life without taking bold steps to distinguish one's self? Who are they to be remembered by if they have nothing distinct about them other than their death? (referring specifically to Edith Connant) These are a few things I considered when reading their unfortunate stories.
ReplyDeleteI noticed a common theme concerning corruption in business and its effects on both the working class and the powerful upper class. In the epitaphs of Carman, Fawcett, McGuire, Bindle, and Phipps, each is negatively impacted by the corruption of the Rhodes family. Each one of these people loses their jobs and any chances of success in life through the corruption of Rhodes. However, Rhodes never suffers any consequences. He is let out of jail in exchange for George Reece being put in jail, again demonstrating the corruption in both the business and legal systems. This also shows the amount of power that is delegated to the upper classes in society, while the lower classes are subjugated and exploited. I believe Masters is using a negative tone regarding the Rhodes family to emphasize to the reader the amount of corruption present and how unfair it is.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to the epitaphs of Lambert Hutchins and his daughter Lillian Stewart.
ReplyDeleteThese two epitaphs speak to the corruption in politics during this time period. Hutchins is very materially successful in his career in the House of Representatives, and is able to buy a mansion for his family. Hutchins does not obtain his wealth honestly, however, but by "selling his vote." This dishonesty brings about shame to his daughter, whose husband leaves her when he finds out she is actually poor. This shows that Hutchins had the wrong values in his life. Instead of caring about teaching his daughter good morals and caring for her, he tries to provide her a "sense of security in life" through material success. This does not pay out in the end, however, as both Hutchins and Stewart die unhappily.
The combination of these two poems shows Masters' views about political corruption during his time. He believed that many politicians valued materialism and "success" more than the aspects of life that truly matter, such as family. Hutchins tried to have a good reputation by being successful in the political world, but instead earned a terrible reputation due to his dishonesty and corruption. This hurt his innocent daughter, representing the innocent people that are negatively affected by political corruption.
The epitaph of Mrs. George Reece exemplifies the corruption of the legal system and the immoral character of lawyers and judges. She talks about how her husband was sent to jail instead of Thomas Rhodes, and this is further clarified and emphasized in the epitaph of Jack McGuire. McGuire's lawyer trades jail time for McGuire for Rhodes going free. This story, brought about because the judge was a friend of Rhodes(another example of corruption) depicts the author's negative tone toward legal figures allowing themselves to be bought.
ReplyDeleteIn the concept of war I find it interesting to analyze the positive look in entering a war, in comparison to the resulting opinion after being in the war. The epitath titled "Many Soldiers" gives the reader a gaze into the motivations behind a war, as implied by the title, of many soldiers. The idea is emblazed as an honor, and Masters clearly critizes this idea in his discussion of those who once believed in this and then suffered due to their gullibility. War was described as "A dream of duty to country or to God," and this statement is weakened by the reality of individual's true reasoning at times. In the epitath Knowlt Hoheimer, the character had gone off to war to escape the consequences of committing a crime. A side note on this would be the irony of the statement created by Masters in this, that by escaping one jail he locked himself in the prison that is war. He wished after joining the war, that he would have stayed and been imprisoned. This provides an outlet into the darkness and cruelty of war.
ReplyDeleteIn Wasson's epitath we observe that war is not only cruel on the field, but cruel to one's family. Wasson left his wife and children to go off to war, and when he returned his daughters were dead. Masters may be hinting at the idea that war destroys families, and that by choosing to go to war one would be neglecting their responsibilities to the natural order. Another proof of this lies within John Goodpasture's epitath. His son was killed in battle and he decides that this was unjust, and while he understands the glorified image war represents, he believes that war is unkind. From these characters, one can assume that Masters' more than likely agrees that war is an ugly and without compassion. One may concur that the flag these soldiers chase called pride, is burned by the wretched stench of death and regret.
I think one of the most interesting and shocking plots I have read so far is that of Tom and Mrs. Merritt and Elmer Karr. Tom Merritt came home one day to a man (Elmer Karr) running out of his house and he knew his wife (Masters gives no name) had been cheating on him. He wanted to kill Elmer, but was the better person. Elmer ended up killing Tom and went to jail for 14 years. Even though Mrs. Merritt pleaded that she had nothing to do with it and Elmer was the one that actually killed Tom, she was sent to prison for 30 years and eventually died there. In her Epitaph, Mrs. Merritt actually says that she begged Elmer not to do anything and to just go away, but the law sent her to jail longer that Elmer anyway. This shows prejudice against women because they would not listen to her arguement in court. Now that she is dead, she can be trusted with her honesty because she says "...I had nothing to do, before God!" Also, Masters hits home with the oppression of women concept by not giving her a name. She is just a blank soul in the eyes of the public. The placement of the graves is particularly interesting because they are all next to each other, with Mrs. Merritt in the middle of Tom and Elmer. This solidifies the tragic triangle and emphasizes the fact that Mrs. Merritt was stuck in the middle of the feud between Tom and Elmer. Yes, it was her decision to cheat on Tom, but she begged Elmer to go away and he just didnt listen. Mrs. Merritt is a lost soul that died in prison and was forever forgotten and ashamed.
ReplyDeleteDiscussing the theme of prohibition in Spoon River, I noticed Masters negatively depicting drinking in several epitaphs. In Clute's case, she wastes her life going from bar to bar. Jack McGuire shot the marshall because he was drunk, another example of negative actions resulting from drinking. I believe Masters' opinion on prohibition and alcohol is most clearly spelled out in the epitaph of Jacob Godbey. He is supporting the idea of prohibition by saying that personal liberty is liberty of the mind, which is lost under the effects of alcohol.
ReplyDeleteA recurring theme in Master’s Spoon River Anthology is the hypocrisy of the legal system and the disfunctionality of the town’s courts. This returning idea as well as a historical allusion to prohibition is thoroughly demonstrated in the poems on Jack McGuire and The Town Marshal. Their plots’ proximity to one another is ironic since each character ultimately finishes the other. Jack McGuire is walking home with his, “jug, a little drunk” when he is approached by The Town Marshal who proceeds to berate him and beat him for the alcohol he is carrying. In self defense, Jack shoots the Marshal, killing him. McGuire is later tried for this “crime” and uses Kinsey Keen as his lawyer. Not only does this tale reflect the insincerity of the system evidenced by the Town Marshal’s overreaction to a minor transgression, but it demonstrates the backward ways of the court as well. The same lawyer who defends McGuire is attempting to put Thomas Rhodes, the owner of the failed bank, in jail. Thomas Rhodes just happens to be a good friend of the Judge who is supervising the McGuire trial. As a result of this connection, in an act of pure corruption, Keen buys off the Judge, and because of Kinsey’s promise to let Rhodes go, McGuire is spared death, and sentenced to 14 years in jail. This convoluted tale properly exhibits the ease with which people exchange justice for personal interests. The Judge’s disturbing willingness to let Jack McGuire slip through his fingers is yet another example of the sad façade of criminal law established in this small town.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Mrs. Merritt blames herself for the killing even though in reality she is innocent. Masters does an excellent job at making the reader feel sympathy for Mrs. Merritt because she punished herself and feels that she caused it even though in reality, she did not cause it. She contemplated this all through the 30 years in prison and is haunted by it even in death. Masters clearly cares for women, especially ones who are wronged in life and still punish themselves in death.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with Emily's post, John M. Church's epitaph compares to Hutchins. Church was a corrput lawyer who was materially successful during his life. He made deals with judges and juries in order to win his cases. After his death, he realized he had lived his life focusing on the wrong things. His life revolved around materialism and tangible wealth. He died unhappy. This compares to Hutchins because both of their lives were centered on a materialistic goal. Both were corrupt in order to gain their goals and both died unfulfilled. These epitaphs display corruption in both politics and the legal system. This is appropriate since politics and law and closely related.
ReplyDeleteI’ve chosen to write about ideas of war from Harry Wilmans’ perspective with respect to Henry Phipps. Harry Wilmans is a young man who goes off to war as a result of a speech by Henry Phipps. He is taught to follow the flag and thus, in spite of his father’s wishes, chooses to dedicate himself to a life of risky service in order to follow and honor the flag. This is yet another of Henry Phipps’ evil acts that causes “his years…to be shortened.” He glorifies war and makes it seem like something exciting and worthwhile. Instead, as Harry Wilmans discovers, war is a disgraceful and frightening experience as he highlights bugs, dirty water, heat, and terrible food as being among the worst plights. In the end, Wilmans is “shot through the guts” in battle, and meets his fateful end. I find it to be quite ironic that Harry Wilmans is buried next to Henry Phipps because of what occurred between them, if only indirectly. While Wilmans was prepared to die a glorious and honorable death in war, he instead was met with a certifiably ungraceful death. In extension, Henry Phipps brought about the death of Harry Wilmans because he manipulated him into thinking that war was exciting rather than terrifying and ultimately into enlisting and sacrificing himself. This is very ironic because Henry Phipps can be seen as the figurative killer of Harry Wilmans and yet, the two are buried right next to each other. This same idea can still be seen today in our own society. Many men often enlist in armed forces because they have a sudden passion to fight for their country, such as in the aftermath of the 9/11 catastrophe, and soon realize that war is not what they expected it to be like. These men die terrible deaths and are brought back to the country that truly killed them, their own. While foreign men kill these soldiers, the country that ignited their desire to fight actually killed them, and they are forever buried in the land that brought about their deaths. Masters addressed the idea of men being enticed into fighting because he saw it in his own life which is still seen today.
ReplyDeleteThe town is filled with hyprocracy and bought judges. The circuit judge aknowledges the fact that he is bought by his statement "deciding cases on the points the lawyers scored, not on the right of the matter." He knows that his judgement is wrong and that it should not have been based solely on money instead of the facts and evidence. Justice in this case is not righteously served and is corrupted. His grave as a result of his lying and bought decisions is eroding and dissappearing. John M. Church is also in on the act. He is an attorney and has bought judges, including the circuit judge, and jury members. His connections have allowed him to be victorious in many cases for companies and he has achieved wealth through these victories. He ensures his victories by paying the judges and the jury. Church recieves praises from the companies he has represented due to his ways to sway the court's decision and win big money. Justice and politics are both corrupted.
ReplyDeleteA common theme in the epitaphs of Hutchins, Stewart, and Scates is corruption in politics. Hutchins was a politition who was bribed into keeping a railroad in Chicago,which with the money earned would give his daughters a better life after he was gone. What really happened was he got all of his money, but people found out why he kept the railroad, so he was shunned from society, and his daughters distanced themselves from him. His daughter, Lillian Stewart, gave her side of the story, how her life was ruined by the corruption of her father, and she died in the house that her father built with the corrupt money. Finally, Hiram Scates, a polition running for president of the County-board. Hiram felt he had an advantage over his opponent, for he told his followers and potential voters that he would stand up for the little man, and would represent them equally. He ended up losing, but the man he lost to offered himi a seat in his cabinet, a part of his staff. Because Hiram accepted, he had to give up his values of the representation of the little man, as supported by when Scates says "... of the Golden Mountain with the door/Which closed at my heels just as I entered." The Golden Mountain sybolizes the benefits of success, but the door closes behind him, allowing only those on the mountain already to recieve the benefits, not everyone, including the lower class.
ReplyDeleteThe problems within the legal system are a large part of Spoon River Anthology. One particularly interconnected case begins with Harmon Whitney (p. 150). Whitney came to Spoon River after leaving a big city in order to “hide a wounded pride,” which started with an affair he had with a woman. He describes how he hates being loathed by the community and has resorted to being “a picker of rags in the rubbish of spites and wrongs.” As a “picker of rags,” Whitney went to Felix Schmidt (p. 177) about a discrepancy over land. Schmidt describes being almost in poverty: he lives in a two-room house with his wife, who sick, and five children. Schmidt goes to the courts to decide who owns what land (his neighbor is Christian Dallman, who is not on the Hill), and ends up losing everything to Dallman. Carl Hamblin laments cases like these in his epitaph, where he describes how Justice (portrayed as a woman) strikes at children, laborers, women, etc. with her sword, and those who escape her wrath pay her. This shows how the legal system is fundamentally corrupt. It allows people like Harmon Whitney to incite such arguments, while Felix Schmidt loses everything to people like Christian Dallman (who owns three thousand acres of land—he isn’t in poverty). The legal system worked as it was supposed to, but it was injust. This story suggests that the legal system is basically flawed, and needs to be rebuilt.
ReplyDeleteI noticed a theme of the corruption in the court system expressed in the epitaphs of the Circuit Judge (84) and John M. Church (93). The Circuit Judge admitted that he did not decide cases "on the right of the matter," but rather was more of a score keeper and decide based on which attorney made more points. He realized his error and was filled with remorse, expressing that the guilty criminals recieving their sentences were more righteous than he, for his wrong doings were left unpunished. Similarly, John M. Church admitts to increasing his wealth at the expense of "the crippled, the widow, and orphan" in court. Church states that the bar association praised him, symbolizing the corruption throughout the legal system as a whole. Both Church's and the Circuit Judge's wrong doings were left unpunished, which can be interpreted as defying the natural order. Nature then puinished them in death, as the Judge's tombstone was being eroded by wind and rain, thus erasing any memory of him, and also Church's body was devoured by rats and snakes. This aspect of nature taking correcting its course can be seen as a romantic influence. Lastly, the names of both these individuals are ironic. The Circuit Judge does not have a name, which represents the institution of the corrupt judge throughout society. John M. Church's name serves as irony, as the divine refference in his last name contrasts his wicked actions.
ReplyDeleteThe corruption of Spoon River’s legal system is again shown in the story of Felix Schimdt and Harmon Whitney. (I’m not sure I interpreted this correctly.) Felix owned a small house on only 5 acres of land, and one day Harmon Whitney brought to his attention that Dallman had bought a bunch of adjoining land while Felix’s father was dying. Felix’s case is that Dallman bought land from a sick man who might have not understood what was going on. Whitney is a corrupt lawyer from the city and persuades Felix to sue because he wants a case to earn money on. Whitney is completey aware that the case is a lost cause and places money above morality.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed a connection between Christian Dallman and Thomas Rhodes. Although Dallman does not have his own epitaph, he is described in Felix’s as a greedy man. With already 3 thousand acres, Dallman chooses to take Felix’s tiny plot when Felix was misdirected into sueing. Dallman has completely bought into the material aspect of success, just like Rhodes. Rhodes never hesitates to step on the little guys to increase or maintain his wealth.
I wrote a response on the legal system, referring to The Circuit Judge and Judge Selah Lively
ReplyDeleteThe Circuit Judge compares to Judge Selah Lively in that they both presented corruption in the legal system. In The Circuit Judge’s epitaph he admits that he decided cases not on what was right but by how many “points the lawyers scored”. In deaths he feels guilty about these crimes he committed saying that “even Hod Putt, the murderer…Was innocent in soul compared with me.” He considers being an unjust lawyer a worse sin than the criminals who he condemned. He feels that he is being punished in death symbolized by the weather eroding his head-stone. Judge Selah Lively is also a hypocritical judge, yet in a different way. He felt that he was treated unfairly by the wealthy in the community, and now he has the power to control their fates. He abuses this power by treating the wealthy in the community unfairly and more harsh than others. Masters uses these two judges to present the corruption and hypocracy in the legal system of Spoon River.
Another comparison that I realized as I read through some of the discussions above, was between George Gray and Harold Arnett. Both died and the later regreted their actions. George Gray, as mentioned by Corie, never found something to hold onto to be happy with in his life, whereas Arnett committed suicide and then regreted it once it was too late. They are both victims of their own choices and brought about the sorrow that is connected to their lives. Although both die with regret, Gray's epitath has a much weaker tone than that of Arnett's. Gray even is physically a softer name than Arnett, and this suits them well. Gray spent his life in fear of life, whereas Arnett took his life through a bold action....will continue when I get back ....
ReplyDeleteOn Probition:
ReplyDeleteA cross reference in noticed was between the epitaphs of The Town Marshall and Jack McGuire. From reading these two epitaphs, I was able to gather a story that connects these two people as The Town Marshall was killed by a drunk McGuire after The Marshall hit him with a loaded cane. Such an act was precipated by The Marshall and his hate for drinking, as he had been a violent drinking man before converting to religon. What is interesting in his message is the fact that he is an unnamed entity, prehaps reflecting this Marshall for lawmen in general. The lawman was guilty of murder just like his killer McGuire was and reflects the hypocriscy that exists in law enforcement and prohibition in general. What connects both epitaphs furthur is the fact that both men are murderers, but are released from paying the full price for their crimes. McGuire is able to escapea hanging for his murder due to the law's corruption, but also because of the unpopularity of prohibition. The Marshall states how "Prohibitionists spent money in vain to hang him" and no others sought to bring McGuire to justice for his actions. Like The Marshall, McGuire gets a pardon for his actions and actually benefits in the end, for in prision he learns how to read and write. The Marshall's tone is full of defeat as he knows that his killer will not hang, but he does so due to the guilt he harbors from his free pass. The Marshall states how "fourteen years were enough for killing me", a further evidence of his defeatist attitude.
I am going to discuss the relationship between Judge Somers and Chase Henry, in terms of the legal system. Judge Somers, in his epitaph, is lamenting that he has not been treated with the reverence due to him for his legal success. He proceeds to pompously tell of his interactions with the famous Justice Breese and Sir William Blackstone and Edward Coke. When he has been involved with figures of this caliber, he is puzzling why Chase Henry, the town drunkard, is better than him in death, as far as having a marked grave. Chase Henry has a slothful life, as he is always drunk. Therefore, when he dies, the priest refuses his burial in holy ground, as he lived a shameful life. However, he eventually gets laid to rest there, with a marked grave. Through these two epitaphs, true justice comes to light. Judge Somers may have been an influential legal figure who met many impressive people, but Death did not heed this in his decisions. No matter what mistakes are made in life, or flaws acquired in life, the final leveler is death. Chase Henry may have lived a life devoid of honest work or accomplishments, but even he finds honor in death, in direct juxtaposition to Somers' inglorious fate. This alludes to the fact that the legal system is corrupt and not as innocent or helpful as it seems. Judge Somers may have been involved in questionable decisions that break the limits of acceptable human morality.
ReplyDeleteEvery soldier has a motive that makes him leave behind all that he knows to fight in a foreign land. On examining what motivates Knowlt Hoheimer one notices that he blames his enlistment in the army on avoiding the law. He claims to have stolen the pigs of Curl Trenary and thus he ran away to war to avoid being thrown in jail. Yet, on the very next page Lydia Puckett contradicts Hoheimer by suggesting that it was because she was unfaithful to him and then told him to never come around her again. Thus, he leaves because of a broken heart as demonstrated by Puckett saying, “back of every soldier is a woman.” This shows that she feels she has the strongest influence on the reason he left for war. The man that Puckett is adulterous with is Lucious Atherton. This seems sad that Puckett would be unfaithful with a man that is so notorious for fooling around. We see this aspect of Atherton in his relation with Aner Clute as well. Here, he also draws the woman he is fleetingly interested in away from a man that genuinly cares for her. Homer Clapp is in love with Clute before Atherton steals her away. Therefore, Clapp’s situation is comparable to Hoheimer’s and the feelings the two men experience must be similar. However, in the end Hoheimer is reflecting on his choices and feels that no matter what the consequences may have been would have rather remained at home than to fight in a war for which he did not even know the meaning. This speaks to the futility of war as well as the futility of love for no one in this ‘love pyramid’ ends up fulfilled and the war does not fulfill Hoheimer.
ReplyDeleteIn Hod Putt's story, Masters clearly exemplifies the corruption of society. Putt tells of Bill Piersol, who made his wealth trading with the Indians. Bill declared his bankruptcy in order to keep what money he had under the law. Accordingly, Hod is encouraged by Bill's success and unrightly chooses to rob and kill an Indian traveler, which he believed was fair solely because the man was an Indian, proving society's degradation. Putt says that the only way he escaped his debt was through his death, after he experienced the corruption of the law system at the hand of the unjust Circuit Judge. In saying that "[This] was [his] way of going into bankruptcy," (13) he is suggesting that everyone ends up bankrupt at some point in their life, thus acknowledging the fact that everyone ends up 'on a hill' because of their choices.
ReplyDeleteI think we definitely see some massive corruption through Barry Holden (p88), his sister Nancy Knapp (p87), and their mortgage broker, Thomas Rhodes (p115). Barry’s story begins with mention of his crazy sister, who set her own house on fire because her husband's actions sent her to madness. Her husband had sneakily swindled his siblings into getting the greatest inheritance, and nature came back and punished the Knapps. Their farm failed and everyone in their family and even their neighbors hated them. Nancy reveals that her husband gets nervous about their situation after they are forced to mortgage their farm, and things didn't get better. In the end Nancy couldn't handle the rejection from the community and stress of their failing life and killed her husband. Similarly, Barry Holden went mad after discovering he couldn't handle the struggles in his life. He, too, had a farm mortgaged to Thomas Rhodes, and after being a member of the jury for a murder trial, killed his wife because of stress. The trial compares perfectly to Barry's situation: Dr. Duval couldn't handle the stress of his life and the idea of having another child, and his only solution was death. The tragedies of Nancy Knapp and Barry Holden reflect the ignorance of Thomas Rhodes. Because of Rhodes' lack of compassion for his clients, the worries of his clients were never-ending and became fatal. It's clear Rhodes had more blood on his hands than he was aware of. His corrupt mind and selfish nature contributes to devastating fates.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the duality legal system, John M Church (pg 93) is a orime example. He seems to have defended the criminals or the theives. He was a star lawyer for the bar, as it appears that he won numerous cases because he "pulled the wires with judge and jury" showing that he was a sharp lawyer and able to do what he needed to win his cases. He was a criminal himself as he took advantage of the impoverished. He was not above "beating" a win out of the widowed, the crippled, or the orphaned if it helped him. While his actions were completely corrupted, his conscience has pure of heart. He abhorred his actions in the courtroom and it was eating at his conscience. In the last few lines of his epitaph, he said he got many floral tributes but "the rats devoured my heart and a snake made a nest in my skull." It is obvious that he has good morals in his life outside the courtroom but he is rather ruthless in the courtroom.
ReplyDeleteOn war, referring to Knowlt Hoheimer and Lydia Puckett.
ReplyDeleteHoheimer left Spoon River to join the Civil war but not for a glorious reason like many of the young men had. In his epitaph he states that he ran away from punishment for stealing the hogs of Curl Trenary. However, Puckett states otherwise saying that he left because he caught her with Atherton, which gave him a reason to steal the hogs. She states "Back of every soldier there is a woman" meaning that there is a reason for men to go to war and that reason is a woman. Hohiemer never admits to this in his epitaph, only saying that he regrets going to war. At the end of his epitaph he tells the audience that his gravestone has the words "Pro Patria" engraved on it. This is ironic because these words are translated to "for one's country". He did not fight for his country, he only fought to run away, whether it was from a woman or from punishment. Also he does not know the language so he has no idea what these words above him even mean. These epitaphs show how war is not always seen at the beginning as glorious. Sometimes it is a way to run away from the problems of life, especially in the small town of Spoon River.
My post interacts with Kelsey’s earlier post on Henry Phipps and Harry Wilmans. I made a connection between Harry Wilmans (208), John Wasson (209) and Godwin James (211). First off, Harry Wilmans and Godwin James are two men who have devoted their lives to the war and the flag. They both struggle through the hardships of war and end up dying while fighting in the war. They both persevere to accomplish their goals of winning the war. Wilmans and James are both caught up in the ideal of the “glorious war,” all they care about is a victory against their enemies and how they can honor the flag. Also, both of their epitaphs make no references to any other people such as family or friends. This demonstrates that they are consumed within the war and have nothing else to show for their lives besides a flag. John Wasson is also categorized as a soldier and fought in the same war as these other two men. Contrastingly, Wasson did not become consumed within the ideal of the “glorious war”. In his epitaph he only briefly mentions his time during the war but is more concerned with his wife and children and the life he left behind. This is evident that he did not pursue the flag as faithfully through the lines, “If Harry Wilmans who fought the Filipinos, Is to have a flag on his grave, Take it from mine!” This shows that Wasson knew he was not an important aspect of the war and was just another pawn to get played in the game. Another connection that can be found in these three men is where they died. Both Wilmans and James died while on the battlefield, this is because they had nothing else to live for. They became ruled by the war and the upholding the honor of the flag that they had nothing else in their lives. With Wasson he set his sights higher than just the war and because he had a family to fight for and live for he was able to make it out of the war and go back to his life. Eventually he ended up dying but he was with and doing what was important to him, and that was being with his family. The placements of these graves are also interesting to look at. Harry Wilmans is right next to John Wasson then there are “many soldiers” which could signify numerous amounts of graves then Godwin James is buried. This is ironic because Wilmans and James were much more similar on their outlooks on life than Wilmans and Wasson were. But then this also plays into the theme that everyone is equal in death so even though Wilmans and James strove to be better soldiers than Wasson tried, in the end they are all soldiers.
ReplyDeleteAll: Thoughts on the subject of Prohibition. Masters comments on the "effects" of Prohibition. Think of the "forbidden fruit" analogy when considering this aspect. Prohibition came into place as a Puritanical reaction to the demon of alcohol, blaming the drink and not the drinker. Sometimes when you flat out deny a person the "right" to something, it becomes the focal point of their existence. Also, some people were able to manipulate the circumstances of Prohibition and make a fortune. Some of you may be aware that the Kennedy family made a fortune in alcohol sales; there is a connection between this "fortune" and the Prohibition laws. Think back to your discussions regarding Gatsby. he was a bootlegger that made a fortune selling his product in "drugstores." This anthology is from the same time period. Currently there is a discussion regarding the legalization of marijuana. Some feel that legalization would allow the government to control the sales and keep it out of the hands of drug dealers; therefore, alleviating the "forbidden" context. This is a very controversial subject, but one that is well suited to the discussion of Spoon River.
ReplyDeleteThe Town Marshall: Notice that he is in office because he is a "reformed" drunk. (consider the flawed resoning there!!!) His "loaded cane" is another aspect to notice. Literally, a loaded cane is one that has a metal core and is used to reinforce the Prohibition laws. The "loaded" idea can be continued in the Marshall's discussion that HE feels thatr HE was able to get McGuire a lighter sentence because he shares his story with the jury. However, we know that the lighter sentence came from a deal between Kinsey Keene (a dirty lawyer) and the judge (who wants to go easier on Rhodes). Isn't it intere4sting- the connection between power/money, the legal system, and a "persona" that feels that he has a "loaded" effect on the situation! Of course, there is a play on the word "loaded" and its connotation of drunkeness. As you can see, there is a "perfect storm" aspect with this selection, connecting it to Rhodes (power) and the legal system. Interesting.
I am going to discuss the connections between Harry Wilmans, John Wasson, Godwin James, and Henry Phipps. Three of these people give different views on war and they are all slightly different and Phipps influences all three. Harry mentions Phipps in his epitaph and he says that the Sunday school teacher inspired him to go to the war. As we have already discussed in class Phipps was part of the machine that brought so many people misery and he felt guilty for that. Harry is yet another person whose death he had a hand in. Phipps glorified war in church and Harry went in spite of his father. In death he feels wronged by Phipps because he followed that flag to war, died for it and now it is on his grave. He does not like that he fell for the false glory that was presented to him. He is very unhappy with war and those who preached it to him, but he still fought and did everything that the others did. James, on the other hand, saw war as a way to express one's faith and loyalty. To die for god and one's country is a great honor and he is angry with Harry because of his beliefs of war. Instead of making war sound like a horrible thing, James tells of the struggle that they had on the battle field. There is a tone of respect when he talks of the sick and broken following the flag of heaven. Harry is also mentioned in John Wasson's epitaph. John is angry at the war for destroying his life. He lost two children and he and his wife lived in poverty until the day that they died. Before his family was happy and after it was in ruin. John relates Harry with war so, in his eyes, Harry ruined his family. Harry bought into the war and fought just to be fighting, with no real reason. At the end of John's epitaph he says that if Harry has a flag on his grave then he has no wish for one to be on his. John despises war, which is what he sees when he looks at Harry. All four of these men have relationships with each other, even if they did not realize it in life. Phipps influenced Harry, and John and Godwin are both angry at Harry. Ironically enough they are all buried next to each other. The closeness of graves in Spoon River is usually to show how close the people were to each other. However, these men all had problems with each other in life and now they are grouped together. They don’t like this stereotyping and that is why they are resentful and bitter toward one another.
ReplyDeletePlay on Names:
ReplyDeleteJacob Godby- Godby wants to BE God. He supports Prohibition. There is a reference there regarding "insolent giants" that control "saloons from afar"...mobsters/bootleggers.
Hiram Scates/Solomon Purple- Look at this epitaph and notice the play on names. They are political opponents. Think biblical allusion with Solomon (the winner of the election). Solomon is the wealthiest king in history. What can you do with this idea if I changed the spelling of Scates to SKATES? Notice that Hiram changes his tune and goes along with Solomon, leaving his party behind...
John Church- The last name is totally ironic. He is a lawyer for a big money railroad company that caused an explosion that killed many people. This lawyer, seen as a refuge for those wounded/killed, manipulates the system and saves money for the "company" and causing further pain to the wounded and dead.
War. Notice how many VARIOUS war vets are among the dead (revolutionaries- Phillipine-American War...) This anthology puts a voice to the individuals involoved in war, instead of just looking at the "army" as a whole. Masters does a great job of "humanizing" war for the populace. However, some members of Masters' society were not ready to hear the "truth" that these individuals had to say. Think about this as you look through the various selections. Sometimes the flag shifts in connotation between an inspiration to fight and a reminder of what was lost and the horrors of the war experience.
ReplyDeleteA common occurence throughout the epitaphs that concern war is the concept of a flag. The Many Soldiers epitaph, as well as Harry Wilman's and John Wasson's epitaphs, explore the idea of the flag in both life and death. In each story the flag embodies the enthusiastic spirit and patriotic fervor that the young men feel prior to joining the wars. Each soldier seems to refelct on his enlistment as a moment of blind excitement. However, in many cases, most notably Wilman's account of war, the soldiers discover the experience of each war is not as glorious as the idea of the flag suggests. Not only did the soldiers experience adversity during the war, they also dealt with hardships after the war. For example, John Wasson explains how after the war he attempted to rebuild his life and lived in poverty. This rough life after the war further demonstrates the hardships of war. As the flag is used to hide the truth about war during life, in death it is similiarily used. As expressed in the Many Soldiers epitaph, the flag, or the emotions that it represents, could not withstand the adversity of war. Copmared to an iron band that holds up a hammock, the excited spirit does not last for the duration of war. Also, both Wilmans and Wasson explore the idea of placing a flag on the grave of a soldier. Through these epitaphs the reader sees how the representation of a flag for war impersonalizes the soldier and does not appropriately respresent their lives or experiences in the wars.
ReplyDeleteKevin, I know you posted a long time ago, but something you said in your first blog post made me think of something. The general lesson learned from the epitaphs of Fiddler Jones and Cooney Potter is an ironic one indeed. I think that what we can learn from this is "Those who gain nothing, gain everything" meaning those who may not be successful in terms of money find happiness in their lives because they live it not for themselves, but for others as Fiddler Jones did always playing his fiddle to make others happy.
ReplyDeleteThe irony of Knowlt Hoheimer...
ReplyDeleteAccording to Knowlt Hoheimer, he went off to the Civil War to avoid being thrown into jail for stealing hogs in spoon river. This story is cross referenced by a woman named Lydia Puckett who claims that Hoheimer went to the war after he found out that she was seeing another man. Both of these epitaphs are discussed during the introduction in which Masters speaks of the irony of the latin phrase engraved in Knowlt's grave stone. Holheimer does not understand the meaning of the words on his grave, similarly, he and many other soldiers from Spoon River do not understand the real meaning of why they went to fight in the war. Both Lydia and Knowlt offered up different explanations for why Knowlt enlisted, yet the introduction questions the very moral reasoning for war itself. Why do Americans consider it patriotic and respectable to die fighting for one's country, abandoning family and friends? Knowlt Hoheimer and other soldiers who died in the same "patriotic" way will be left questioning their rationale, like Hoheimer will be left forever wondering the very meaning of the words "Pro Patria," which have become the last memory of his life for the living.
Edgar Lee Masters uses the stories of "Butch" Weldy and Ralph Rhodes to make a statement on the justice system. "Butch" Weldy was once an appalling man who raped Minerva Jones, killed Blind Jack and also caused many other miserable happenings in others' lives. But he “found religion” and was striving to become a better man. He began working and making an honest living instead of being the burden in other people’s lives. But he suffered ill fortune and had his legs broken and his eyes fried in an accident on the job. He, after this tragic accident, he takes Ralph Rhodes, who was in charge of his father’s business and was, at the time, an extremely influential and prosperous man, to court to allow justice to make amends. Yet in the end The Circuit Judge ruled that Ralph was not obligated to pay Butch. Master's, with these stories, is making a statement on the hypocrisy of our justice system. He uses the blinding of a once bad man striving for redemption to represent the blind justice and the claims that in America everyone is equal under the eyes of the law and he uses the prosperous Ralph Rhodes to show that money and influence will give justice perfect vision, meaning that you can escape any wrong doing if you are affluent. So with these two stories Edgar Lee Masters is saying that justice is corrupt and there is only equality in death.
ReplyDeleteThe court of law seems to be a very corrupt, unmoral place driven by money in Spoonriver. The Circuit Judge, for instance, made his rulings based on which lawyer performed the best in court. Not all of those the chosen lawyer represented, though, were those who were either innocent or correct in the case; many times the better lawyer represented the richer client, so the richer man normally beat the poorer opponent. This shows how the law, and therefore justice, favored those who had money. The judge knows he is corrupt by favoring the rich and feels the wieght of his many sins. All the notches he gained from all of his corrupt verdicts came back to him in the form of the pieces lost from his headstone due to destructive erosion.
ReplyDeleteOne of those sentenced mentioned by the Circuit Judge in his epitaph was Hod Putt. The poor Hodd Putt was hanged for theft while the richer Bill Piersol was not, implying the prominent role of money in these rulings. Although the two's crimes were equal in severity, one emerged richer than ever from the ruling while the other went to death as poor as ever. Despite the idea that justice is blind, an extra coin or two seems to tip the scale in the favor of one side or another in Spoonriver.
I think that Masters speaks to the idea of law and accusing and hurting the innocence. I looked at the poems of Mrs. Meyers and Mrs. George Reece, whos stories are very similiar but at the same same different. Both of their husbands are accused of a wrong that they did not actually commit. Doctor Meyers performed an abortion on a woman who was raped by Butch Weldy, the true colprit. And Mr. George Reece was blamed for the fall of the bank when it was actually Rhodes and his son's fault. What ties these two together is how the the wives in each story, along with Minerva, were innocent victims and had to deal what the law dealt their life. Mrs. Meyers blames her husband for what happened to him and is bitter about the situation. Performing an abortion for a rape victim, such as Minerva, is a very questionable idea in itself, deciding whether or not it is acceptable under the given circumstances. And when the patient dies, the situation just gets even more terrible. Mrs. George Reece, however, does not blame but sympathizes with her husband who had to die in jail. She copes with this unjust act of law by living her life with the truth she knows and persevering while the law tried to bring her down. Both of these innocent women are victims of the unlawful society they live in, but they go about it in different ways.
ReplyDeleteTwo things that I found interesting about these poems were their names and placement in the book. Mrs. Meyers, who is placed in between Doctor Meyers and Butch Weldy, let the situation affect her, particularly the two men who surround her, one being the villain (Weldy) and one being the person she believes is the villain (the doctor). Mrs. George Reeves kept her husband's name because she stills respects him, even though he was taken out of her life completely. She is not buried next to him, nor is he in the cemetery. But still she honors and pities his poor fortune and still has a part of him in her. This is just another way to show how law and its actions also affect people in the afterlife.
Tell me if this does not make since or doesn't tie into the law theme enough for you. I promise it does work, I just don't know if I explained it well enough.
Pat- I like the connection you made with blindness and justice! It also goes along with the ironic Greek theme of those who cannot see being the most insightful as well as the tragic idea of being punished with sightlessness.
ReplyDeleteI am going to discuss the relationship between Amos Sibley and Mrs. Sibley. Minister Sibley thinks that his wife is promiscuous and thus holds her in disdain. He says he hates her and wants to divorce her, but this would put him in an awkward position, as he is a preacher. Through his epitaph, one can easily tell that he is not an especially pious person, even though he is a minister. He does not care so much about worshipping God; he is more worried about making money. This alludes to the fact that religion can corrupt you, as you warp it to fit your perceptions and achieve your goals. When I read Mrs. Sibley's epitaph, I am reminded of Medea. I think that she killed herself and by extension, her unborn child, because it was Amos's baby. However, much like Jason, he scorned and spurned her for no reason other than to get ahead in life. In order to get revenge on him and to not subject her child to punishment from the minister and the town (as people would talk of illegitimacy frequently), she takes her life and saves the baby from torment. Thus, Amos never knows the baby and consequently the truth. His warped image of God's work blinds him to the truth of his wife's pregnancy. The very institution of religion clouds his senses as he shapes it to accomplish his agenda. Overall, Amos was nasty to his wife, and his wife made him ultimately pay for it, even though he does not realize it.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Edwards or anyone else who knows,
ReplyDeleteWill we be tested on the vocabulary tomorrow?
Rachel, vocab is always separate from the test.
ReplyDeleteAll. No vocab on the test. Vocab is always separate from the test. We are out of time for vocab. I will save it for the exam.
ReplyDeleteI found some powerful statements and connections when studying the legal system in this anthology, and was particularly moved by Carl Hamblin's epitaph. The use of metaphor was particularly striking here; the poem so vividly describes this corrupt sense of "lady" justice that America has developed in that she does not protect against the minorities that need her the most but instead strikes "a child, again a laborer/ Again a slinking woman, again a lunatic," all groups that face suppression from the overpowering wealthy citizens. The epitaph then goes on to tell of her focus not on justice itself, but of the money that can be manipulated out of people, thus forcing the poor to suffer while the rich can get away with anything. The wealthy are empowered by their money because Lady Justice "held a scale;/Into the scale pieces of gold were tossed/By those who dodged the stroke of the sword." This an important realization the Masters make that will be prevalent in many of the other people's stories on the Hill. And though justice should be blind to any signs of gender, political party, sexual orientation, race, or class, it is highly corrupt and Masters notes the horrifying decisions that are made on prejudices and money, something that is still present today, and something that I have even experienced first hand with my family: my cousin was convicted of a crime and had to serve 4 years, while a quarterback in Pittsburgh committed the same crime on even worse terms and got a couple of months of house arrest. This inconsistent injustice is a major flaw of the American legal system, as it is today, and as it was in Masters' time as evidence by Felix Schmidt. Not only is Schmidt manipulated by the money-hungry lawyer Whitney to sue, but also loses what little he has in life in a time that he cannot afford to lose anything, to the dominant power of wealth. In the end, he "lost [his] case and lost [his] case;" the scales could not be tipped into his favor and so he lost even more than the little that he had and it all being fueled by a thirst for wealth by a corrupt lawyer; Schmidt is manipulated and destroyed by two different powers of wealth. A huge symbol of this power is exemplified by Thomas Rhodes, who exerts his status to bring everyone around him down and force them to be subjects to his wealth, such as Clarence Fawcett and Eugene Carman. These people were common workers and "slaves" to Rhodes manipulation and were virtually powerless; Masters superbly develops the connection between being poor and being a woman, as both distinctions carry great hardships and must suffer to dominant forces, that Masters many times has destroy them. Lillian Stewart has her marriage fall apart because her husband discovers the she is actually poor and angrily leaves her, telling her he feels "betrayed." Lillian's situation is most sensitively tragic; she is both poor and a woman, and therefore, ultimately powerless. Her husband uses the power of wealth against her, claiming she has none, and then deserts her, thus enforcing his masculine power that society has enabled him to have. This is a reflection from society on both personal and legal means; a corruption that Hamblin notes as the "madness of a dying soul."
ReplyDeleteWithin Soon River, Edgar Lee Masters uses the effect of interloping stories and characters to let readers discover a greater revelation about society and the world they live in. Through this technique one can tell Masters statement on topics such as war, law, lawyers, and judges. For example, this can be demonstrated through Jefferson Howard and Judge Selah Lively. Upon reading the two poems, the reader can get a sense that both of these men are outsiders to Spoon River or expectations of that society. Both individuals must conform to small town mentality in order to achieve what they want in their own careers. Judge Selah Lively came into his position in an honest matter, but his power corrupted him and made him turn against his own co-workers. I believe this is a statement on Masters part, demonstrating that no matter your circumstance; even if you are a honest/hardworking individual, too much power is not a good thing and it will corrupt you. In addition, a line where Lively is referring to Howard: "Well, don't you think it was natural that I made it hard for them" illustrates that Justice is never objective. This also furthers the idea that with too much power and responsibility, one may loose their moral standards and set of principals. Within Jefferson Howards poem, you may get the sense that he came to his position in a more sinful matter, and this led to his downfall. Although this seems rather fatalistic, the line "Tangled with fates all alien to me" shows that Howard was fated to this life and there was no escaping his destiny. Both of these mens lives were betrayed by their actions. I believe taking a deeper insight into these two characters we can better understand more about ourselves and society
ReplyDeletewilding
ReplyDelete