American Literature: Romanticism   Student Midterm Samples 2013 midterm assignment 1. Long Essay

Kristine Vermillion

"Why the General Dislike for American Literature?"

            One particular problem that I have found in relation to the area of American Literature in general is how many people just do not like it.  I have heard this said and seen it written several times over the past few months. I, too, have found myself wandering in and out of that conclusion in my studies, and I must admit that at the present, I find myself quite ambivalent to it even though through the readings I have found that there is plenty to like.  In the context of American Romanticism I find my ambivalence as particularly disturbing because I have recently discovered that I am a Romantic, as defined by the course materials, and an American one at that. This being so, one would think that I would enjoy it more.  This being said, I need to explore what personally makes me a romantic; not because I want to talk about myself, but because I think it is relevant to the discussion.  Then I will go over what I think are two of the reasons I've come up with for the discomfort with and dislike for American Literature. 

Born and raised in a rugged and remote region of Wyoming, the constant exposure to the great expanse of the rugged wilderness, the magnificent scenery in every direction, and the lack of people really produces an effect on the mind that is very unshakable.  I have wandered through mountain forests, stood at the foot of raging rivers thundering down mountain cliffs, and I have sat on the top of mountains that I have just climbed to see the magnificence of the wilderness and the smallness of myself.  The paintings of the Hudson School artists are similar scenes to what I have experienced.  These are the scenes that have struck the chord of wonder in my soul, which in this class would be labeled as the sublime.  These are the moments and movements which have made me a believer in God more than any other event in life because they scream of the Transcendent.  Even now, in the Texas region, I frequent the wilderness, where my favorite activity is to walk down country lanes and trails, trying unsuccessfully to photograph the morning light streaming through the trees and the aura that it gives.  My soul experiences what Emerson was making reference to, how the fields of the landscape are one and glorious. I want to write a poem about some cows, just as James Wright wrote of horses in "A Blessing."  I know of "The Jacob's Ladder" that Denise Levertov, writes of, poems that ascend, and yes Walt Whitman, "There Was A Child Who Went Forth," many children in fact, of which I am one.  I spend my time working and loving the land with my people, and we are independent and really live many of the ideals that Emerson and Thoreau exemplify.   I have personally experienced the sublime, the wonder that these men were beckoning others through their writing to partake of, because once experienced, it is truly powerful.  This is what makes me an American Romantic--my own personal experiences of the sublime in the wilderness; the constant walking in nature, experiencing the wonder of nature and the correspondence of that wonder in my person.

            That being said, now it is time for the two main reasons that I think American Literature is not a favorite among many.  The first reason is I want to explore for the chagrin with our nation's literature is due to literary criticism and criticism in general.  The environment in which we are introduced and respond to this material, in the academic setting is usually charged politically or religiously, and therefore it is uncomfortable. Literary criticism and criticism in general for the past century has been a reaction against the Romantic mindset of this period.  The romantic ideals of the Transcendent, the creativity of the Author, the power of the imagination, the importance of individuality, the supremacy of Nature and the overarching emphasis on meaning, have been systematically destroyed by the critical theorists.  After reading Emerson's The American Scholar along with all his other writings, I can hear Nietzsche, Barthes, Derrida, Saussure, Foucault and Marx (just to name a few) reeling against Emerson with all the power of their intellects to say it isn't so.   Therefore, in their wake, since literary study seems to have accepted their arguments and presuppositions that none of these are real or relevant how are we left to go about studying this period in which all these things are a fundamental part?   Well, we are left with the study of race relations, power struggles, gender topics, and all of this is done with an element of hyper-criticism that is at times irritating.

            An example of this hyper-critical bent that I found to be quite irritating happened during our discussion on the Narrative and Captivity of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson.  This bent toward talking about race relations and power struggles leads to a preoccupation for wanting to expose hypocrisy, especially the hypocrisy of the settlers, many of whom are Christians.  In Rowlandson's narrative, she tells her story of how she was captured and then held captive by some Indians. The details she gives of the event are some of the most gripping in our reading list.  Many people are killed.  Their houses are destroyed.  Her children are taken from her, except her six year old child who is fatally wounded.  Then for the next few days, she holds her dying child, for which there is nothing she can do to help or save.  After her child's death, she is then led through the wilderness through swamps and all sorts of land, freezing and starving much of the time, amongst a people she knows little to nothing about, a people who had just destroyed her home, killed her child and separated her from her other children--a people whose language and customs she does not understand. Then it happens, when one of the children of her captors dies for unknown causes, and she doesn't properly articulate sympathy for the child in her narrative, the topic of our conversation is her hypocrisy.  The conversation even went so far as to hold her somehow responsible for the death of this child because of the greater conflict being fought between the settlers and Indians.  So while there is much more to be said about the condition of starvation, the psychology of grief and mourning over the loss of so much, and the reality of culture shock just to name a few, and all we get are comments on her apparent hypocrisy fueled by the favorite race question.  These types of observations are the direct results of our new critical approaches, and though they are very insightful and not without merit, they do tend to destroy, and criticize and tear apart much more than they build up, and to this practice I will always be put off.

            So how is this Wyoming now Texan romantic respond critically to this American Romanticism literature in a scholarly way when I have not embraced all the critical presuppositions driving theory?    I purposefully set forth to learn and to appreciate it for what it is, respecting the voices of the actual people and characters we find within it.  I will learn and participate in the criticism and theory, yet I highly doubt that anything I learn will be able to kill or sway the power of the wonder that I have experienced in Nature or to kill the imagination or the romance that is experienced through texts, or rather through works of art.  I poke.

            The second reason for the dislike of American Literature is simply because of the absence of powerful narrative.  Looking over the syllabus, there's a long list of readings, none of which has been a truly great story or narrative.  We have read some great, what I can "Wisdom Literature" in Emerson and Thoreau, but these are not narrative.  They are a bunch of thought provoking statements and maxims, but they do not a story make, and in this respect they are not as powerful.  For example, after reading and then taking part in a discussion on Emerson's "Self-Reliance," I heard a comment of disdain in reference to Emerson's advice against giving to charity (paragraphs 9-11).  The complaint was spoken with an edge of disbelief, "He's even against giving to charities!"   However, when I read this, I immediately thought of Mrs. Jellyby in Dickens' Bleak House.  In the fourth chapter of this book, titled "Telescopic Philanthropy," Dickens introduces us to a character that is doing exactly what Emerson is against.  Mrs. Jellyby is introduced as a "great" lady who is devoted to the public good, especially to those in Africa.  In Dickens' narration, we see exactly what Emerson was against, foolish philanthropy whose "love afar is spite at home," for her home is in utter shambles, and Mrs. Jellyby's husband and children despise her.  No one reading Dickens' narrative and characterization of Mrs. Jellyby could mistake the message of "Telescopic Philanthropy," while in the absence of narrative and in the presence of pure maxims, the message was misunderstood.  There are a great many narratives that could be spun from the maxims that Emerson writes!  Another maxim, not Emersonian, that I believe captures ‘the essence’ (oh what a rebel I am) of Hawthorne’s “The Minister’s Black Veil” is found in G.K. Chesterton’s answer to a reporter who asked him what he thought the main problem with the world was.  Chesterton answered him simply, yet profoundly, “I am.”  I think this is the conclusion that Reverend Mr. Hooper came to, and the black veil is a symbol of that.  Although Chesterton's response is provocative, Hawthorne's narrative is more powerful. 

            Our reading list also includes captivity narratives, personal letters and a mighty, mighty sermon, and though these may be great in their own right, they are not the captivating narratives that make English Literature the favorite.  So, while these undoubtedly contain the elements of the sublime, gothic, desire, loss and the transcendent, i.e. the Romantic elements that we are on the lookout for in American Literature, they are not as captivating in that they lack narrative; intriguing and masterfully woven plot lines, well developed characters in their various roles, etc.   We do, however, start get glimpses of the development of powerful storytellers in the fiction readings on our list.  Irving, Cooper, Poe and Hawthorne all exhibit great skill at writing and storytelling.  They all have intriguing characters, plots and interesting twists that are to be admired and even remembered.   Yet in this absence of an abundance of “great” narratives, and in the materials we have that are so saturated with religious, gender and race questions, we seem to go straight to the new breed of critical approaches.  In the meantime, the best part of being into Literature, i.e. the enjoyment of good stories, poems, plays, is largely lost, and this leads to the angst and dislike as we are so quickly led into these charged fields of criticism.  Or at least, this is what I think at the moment.