13 April 2008

Announcement and excerpt from USH2 paper

After about half a million edits...

Last Tuesday, I began turning a number of scenes that I've had in my head for a while into a story which I hope could end as a novella, at least. I have only the first chapter written and know what I want to do with the last two chapters; unfortunately, I only know the direction I want to take with the middle section, not the storyline. So I'm not going to bind myself to a set deadline for posting the next chapter, but if you'd like to read the first chapter at least, I've posted it to my Fiction/Poetry blog. I also submitted it, with a few poems, to the PHC Stylus literary publication. Input and criticism (from fellow Lit Snobs and all of my other friends who put up with our delusion that we're the coolest) is appreciated. I'd especially like suggestions for a main title; I currently plan for "Where the Wind Wills" to be a subtitle (and it is, by the way, a reference to John 3, not "Bohemian Rhapsody"...).


Also, our US History 2 paper is a comparison/contrast of Whittaker Chambers's Witness and Booker T. Washington's Up From Slavery. Up From Slavery was written in the late 1800s with Southern Reconstruction and the plight of the former slaves in mind, Witness in 1952 about the attempt to expose American Communism, but "for all their differences, they were both tales which brought the epic struggle between good and evil to a human level and made the principles applicable to the ordinary man by showing how ordinary men had fought and struggled with specific manifestations of that war," as I wrote in my paper.

The chief difference, though, in the authors' respective outlooks is one that struck me deeply as I was writing, and I devoted about a page to exploring that facet of their works. I may post more of the paper later, but here is the relevant excerpt for now:

"Washington was inspirational because he extolled the ability of men to raise themselves up from the ashes, and warned them not to allow their circumstances to dictate their future in such a way that they would never improve themselves. He was optimistic that the problems could be resolved and that the American people could put their dark past behind them in the next few generations. While acknowledging the faults of both parties in the past, he truly believed that they could be overcome by hard work and virtuous living—he believed that his object was attainable and that success lay within the volition of him and his fellow man.

Chambers was inspirational for nearly the opposite reason: he acknowledged that he was weak, and insisted that his role was thrust upon him against his will—but it was precisely the knowledge that this was his mission, arranged for him by destiny, that gave him the strength to fulfill it, because he knew that the same Providence that had assigned this terrible ordeal to him would direct the results, whether or not those results included his destruction. Chambers was willing to abandon all for the sake of the world and for the sake of destiny--and for his witness against Communism and for truth. He was pessimistic that his sacrifice would result in the ultimate salvation of the world—if it was not destroyed by Communism, it would fall prey to something else—but was certain that the guiding hand of God would nevertheless have a purpose even in this.

He thus inspired to play their part even men who are all too conscious of their own weakness. Their part need not be so crucial as his, nor need it be successful in human terms—whatever their part was, no matter how seemingly large or small, it formed a cog in the plan of Providence. He disagreed with the idea that the world would linearly improve; his hope lay in the ultimate end of the world which no human eye could yet see. This fundamental difference between Washington’s and Chambers’s presentations goes as deep as the level of their worldview, and could be described in religious terms as running as deeply as the difference between the theological concepts of merit and grace, for this is precisely the difference between them."

6 comments:

Unknown said...

Looks like a couple of thought-provoking books. I've never read either of those; would you recommend them? Oh, was the paper topic assigned to you or did you pick it? Is Dr. Spinney still the history prof?

Take care

Anonymous said...

Hey, thanks for the comment, Miss Horst!

No, Dr. Lantzer is now the DL prof; Spinney moved on campus last fall and is teaching there in addition to being the head of DL. Spinney assigned the paper topic, though, for HWW 2 (he didn't for 1), and Lantzer has followed suit for the US History courses.

Both books were good, and I'd highly recommend Witness. It's a good 800 pages, but an excellent psychological and philosophical profile of a sensitive man who grew up in a middle-class home, in the midst of domestic turmoil, and eventually joined the American Communist Party, then the Communist underground. For him, Communism was a religion which offered a coherent worldview and a salvation of sorts; when he rejected it, he rejected it precisely as it was an atheistic religion. When he turned from it, he knew that he was bound to eventually bear witness against its hidden evil (this was before many Americans were aware of how far Communism had come into America), and had many struggles with that decision--or fate--on several different levels. I can't tell much more without telling the story, haha...

At least read his foreword, which was written as a letter to his children and provides an overview.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/chambersletter.html

I think that every American ought to read Witness, both as history and as literature--as history, it is a clarion call to an apathetic people, and as literature, it is at once epic and painfully human.

You, too!

Colin

Anonymous said...

Sorry, the full text of the foreword can be found here:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/chambers.html

Colin

Unknown said...

Thanks for the info. Yeah, sounds like Witness would make me mad... do you know incensed I am at politics these days?! Okay, not to rant, since no way am I changing my major to literature, thank you very much. (haha) I'm still convinced that government does not have to be political (in the sense of many blood-sucking leeches). Anyway! I think I'll add the book to my long list called "One Day I Should Read These Books." Everyone should have a list like that. Thanks again.

Oh, by the way! Have you taken Western Lit from PHC yet? If so, how is it? I've heard various opinions from others and I'm not sure if I want to take it DL due to the massive reading involved. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm...well, from our studies in US History, I don't think it's so much the polity that is at fault. Democracy/republicanism has its faults, yes (just like monarchy and aristocracy, and yes, even theonomy--as distinct from theocracy). American politics have never been that clean, and some could argue that they've gotten better. The same could be said for morals (I'd both disagree and agree in different respects). I'd say that it's more the fault of the people. Again, the American people as a whole are more moral and less moral in different ways (we may have immoral "civil unions," but we don't have slavery). Their fault is less in their morality, per se, as in their overall worldview. Many Americans are willfully ignorant and apathetic, concerned only with "personal peace and affluence," and THAT is inexcusable. Indeed, that is what most discouraged Chambers.

But that self-centeredness and individualism (an individualism very different from the independence of our forebears) is, of course, the reason that, as long as the government is leaving us alone (i.e., isn't doing something overt to restrain our freedoms and isn't requiring us to do anything), most people don't see any reason to challenge it.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is personal morality and personal...what's the word...public virtue? public-mindedness? There's a word there that Plato used, but I can't think of it at the moment. Basically, the person needs to think of the polity as more important than his own needs (though, paradoxically, the polity needs to have the happiness of its individual members as its mundane end).

John Adams said "This Constitution was written for a moral and religious people; it is sufficient to the government of no other." Though I said that, in some respects, Americans are more and less moral, they are certainly less religious, and I think overall less moral. I'd blame the people for the politics. (Which, of course, is why we Literature majors are taking aim at the people! :-D)

But I think that Witness is less concerned with politics, per se, as the worldviews that underly the politics. In any case, certainly add it to your list of "Books to Read Someday"!

Re: DL West Lit. Yes, I took it last year with Dr. Hake for the first semester and Prof. Filiatreau for the second. Both were excellent profs (I think that Filiatreau only is teaching the DL class now), and both classes were great. Yes, there is a lot of reading, and the ultimate writing requirements are fairly intense, too. You only write one short (2-3 page) paper and one long (4-5 page) paper, but also 2-4 posts a week each of which are about 40 lines (Ashton would know more exactly). I'm not sure if they're still doing this, but when I was in, we were in writing groups, in which we also submitted our papers for peer review--editing was really alot of fun, for me. :-D But that was another time-consuming facet. Like I said, I don't know if they're still doing that, but Ashton would know.
So...I didn't have a problem taking it DL (12 credits each semester), but I didn't have a job for 1 and most of 2, either, and really, the main thing that will make DL more time-consuming than on-campus is the lengthy weekly posts. Hope that helps!

Colin

Unknown said...

Yes, we are to blame. No surprise, either, based on human nature. But since you said a good piece, I don't really need to ramble. Plus, I can't think of high and lofty things right now. :)

I remember Plato's emphasis on the overall good of the Republic being more important than the good of the individual. The word? I don't know, even though it was just last semester!! Oh well, such is college.

Thanks a lot. That gives me a lot of good information about Western Lit.

Have a good day.