Small Group Blog Discussing Irony

Like Whitney this week, I had a hard time finding verbal irony because of how situationally ironic the whole story was. As Whitney describes here, "I found the story entirely ironic because Dick Owens tried so hard to free Grandison and he appeared to be a faithful slave. It was not until the final paragraphs that we learn Grandison wasn’t content being a slave like the Colonel led us all to believe, and the joke was on him."

This story kept plunging deeper and deeper into irony. I found that I always thought I was one step ahead of the characters only to find out that were one step ahead of me. I thought I was so clever reading along and "knowing" what was going to happen. I too felt a little duped by Grandison and Dick, especially after last Friday's discussion.

Dennis on the other hand, seemed to be all over the verbal irony. I loved this line, which I had not even paid attention to before reading Dennis blog. "The funniest line to me is when the narrator tells of the way that Colonel Owens made his riches. '.... and had laid the foundations of his fortune by hard work.' This has a bit of sarcasm in it doesn't it? 'Hard work??'" Dennis then goes on weighing in his opinion of what makes this ironic, " From personal experience I do not believe that hard work would be under the definition of 'slave driver.'"

I feel like this was the main kind of verbal irony found in "The Passing of Grandison" in that most of the time the characters themselves weren't being ironic. However, based upon what we learned about Charles Chesnutt before reading the story it was east to pick up his sarcastic tone seeping through.

Isn't it Ironic? Yah, this time I actually do think.

"The Passing of Grandison" by Charles Chesnutt (what a name!) was oozing with irony in both of its forms. First off let's discuss verbal irony because it seems more specific as opposed to situational irony which seems to be more big picture.

The first time I recognized super blatant verbal irony was when the colonel went to talk to Grandison before he embarked on his North bound journey. Upon hearing that Grandison is very happy being a slave and has no intention of leaving, the colonel beams and think to himself regarding the abolitionist, "What cold-blooded heartless monsters they were who would break up this blissful relationship of kindly protection on the one hand, of wise subordination and loyal dependence on the other!"

Although this may be what the character is convinced of it's highly unlikely that Chesnutt a major advocate for ending racial discrimination felt this same way. Therefore, I believe this is a great example of verbal irony in which the author writes something he does not mean to be true. He's almost mocking this mind state with a sarcastic tone.

Another example I found is more subtle and even though I feel like there is a strong sense of sarcasm coming from the author, Dick the character speaking the line, firmly believes it. This line is found on pg. 240 of the text. Charity has just finished telling Dick that she will marry him because he clearly cannot make good decisions and needs to be taken care of (why I date all my boyfriends). Dick replies quickly, "It's the most remarkable thing that your views correspond exactly with my profoundest convictions. It proves beyond question that we were made for one another."

Once again I just really doubt that Chestnutt thought a union for this reason was a good idea. I think this line is Chestnutt showing how clueless Dick is and that perhaps Charity better run the other way from his proposal. But at the same time if Charity thinks a good reason to marry a man is his inability to take care of himself maybe they are made for each other.

This leads into one of the many examples of situational irony that I found in this story. Charity agrees to mary Dick only after he does something of value. Little does she know that all Dick did was leave Grandison in Canada. Poor Charity. When Grandison returns I wonder if she felt that feeling in your stomach that indicates, "I've made a huge mistake."

Grandison's return in this story in itself is extremely ironic. Dick finally thinks he has succeeded in ditching Grandison after months of giving him excessive access to freedom and even alerting the abolitionist in Boston with a letter reading, "A wicked slaveholder from Kentucky... had dared to insult the liberty-loving people of Boston by bringing his slave into their midst." He continues to encourage the abolitionist of the area to take this slave (Grandison) in the name of liberty.

Grandison, however, refuses to leave Dick and even talks about how crazy the abolitionist are. The fact that Grandison stays with Dick is ironic too. Dick takes Grandison on this trip hoping to loose him, convinced that once he taste freedom he will surely eat the whole feast. Grandison does not fall for it in turn creating situational irony with the gap between what Dick thinks is going to happen and what actually does.

So when Grandison returns, the reader (or at least) I thought, "Oh, how funny. Jokes on you Dick." But Grandison is not done creating situational irony with reversals of expectation. So when he returns the colonel is like, "YES! My slave does love me." And Grandison tells him of how he was kidnapped and taken to Canada where he was kept in a shack and fed bread and water for days. The colonel celebrates and rest well knowing in his heart that he treats his slaves way better than a free black man could ever treat himself. He expects Grandison never to leave his side.

However the poor colonel's "faith in sable humanity was rudely shaken" when one Monday he awoke to find not Grandison gone but also cherished member of Grandison's family such as his wife, sister, brothers, mother, father, uncles, and aunts. Grandison once again does the opposite of what one thinks he will do, creating situational irony.

Response to my small group blog

I feel like after reading "The Storm" I searched and searched for words to describe the overall message I was left with. Unfortunately I rarely sum up morals of the stories as eloquently as Whitney when she wrote that perhaps Chopin was trying to imply that, " Hey, two people “sinned” and the world didn’t collapse.”

I also agree with Whitney when she wondered if perhaps "Maybe this story spawned from the unequal responsibilities of men and women in marriage during the time this was written in 1898?" I feel as though Calixta was burdened with the obligation to constantly give and provide for her family, which I imagine was a common feeling for women then and now. When Alcee rode up during the storm she finally had something that was just for her. All in all, I think for being such a short little story it sure did say a lot.

I really think that Dennis nailed the main similarity between "Chickamauga" and "Private History" with this statement, "that the characters find out the harsh reality of war in about the same way." Aside from the characters finding out that war is not just a game that you can play with a wooden sword, these two stories really told how war affects people on an individual basis. Like we talked about in class, soon after the Civil War people began filing it away as a noble war that it was a tragedy but at the same time held a sense of glory. Both these stories kind of called the reader out on any false illusions they may have had. It is always easier to romanticize things, and both of these stories do a good job at reminding you of the plain gruesome truth.

What Happens in a Storm, Stays in a Storm.

"The Storm" by Kate Chopin is a super short, super sexy story and by far my favorite thing I read this semester.

I think that the last line of "The Storm"-- "So the storm passed and everyone was happy" -- means exactly what it says it means. I like the idea that something so big can happen between two people and they can keep it as their little secret. I'm sure for other people they would read this and think, "That's impossible! Surely they would feel guilty and nothing would ever be the same again."

When I was in fourth grade I stayed home from school and went to the mall with my Mom. Later on that evening while we were eating Mexican food I confessed that I felt a little guilty for staying home from school. My Mom told me that guilt was optional. It's true and I hope these two characters never really feel bad for what they did. What would be the point? They did it. They may never do it again. So why beat themselves for a selfish moment of passion. I don't think her sleeping with Alcee means she loves her family any less.

I don't think Chopin is advocating adultery. I don't think she's implying that marriage doesn't mean anything. Perhaps she just saying that infidelity doesn't have to. Regardless she must have known that this story was controversial for it's time because according to the text she never even tried to get it published. It suggest that readers would have been "outraged by other aspects of the story, from Calixta's frank enjoyment of her sexual encounter with Alcee to the fact that they suffer no consequences for their adulterous act."

I was also wondering if perhaps things weren't that great before the storm for Calixta and her husband Bobinot. When Bobinot and the son Bibi were walking home from the store after the storm Bobinot was worried that Calixta would be angry at how dirty the boy was. Maybe Calixta was super uptight and all she needed was little "me time" with another man. And Alcee and his wife were obviously having some problems since she was living away from him and "more than willing to forego" "their intimate conjugal life." Maybe after the heated affair Alcee and Calixta loosened up a little and they really were happier with their significant others.

My two question regarding literature and whole lot more!

When reading my post-antebellum packet I struggled to get through both pieces by Walt Whitman. For some reason I just didn't care. I tried to, but I didn't. I'm searching deep in my soul to relate and value these poems because I feel like in order to be an intellectual "cool" person I need to like Walt Whitman. This leads to my first question, is it bad that I don't get it? I get the general ideas of what he saying, yet something in his wording really turns me off. I like the idea behind the line about how every sprout reminds there is no such thing as death but at the same time resent him for saying it. I feel like if I met Walt Whitman at a party I would think, "that guy is annoying and pretentious." When I expressed these thoughts to my boyfriend he was confused explaining that Whitman is one of his favorites. Am I ignorant? Incapable of understanding great writing? Or is it okay that Walk Whitman is just not up my alley?

What draws us to the writing that we enjoy? Is it wrong to embrace what we like and accept what we don't? How do we train or brain to think differently? Except new styles of writing? I could talk someone's ear off about themes that run through Jacqueline Susann books. I think she's brilliant. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't say so. Should I embrace my taste in writing and accept the fact that I may never like many of the great authors of our time? I feel conflicted because as much as my brain wants to grow and learn and appreciate new things a big part of it is stubborn and rooted in the fact that I like what I like.

In general though I am super excited about the time period we are going to be covering in this class. My History class left off last semester right after the Civil War. I am so interested in the Reconstruction Era. The Civil War surely did not end on the battle fields and perhaps continues in many parts of the country today. By no means I am a Southern sympathizer but I was watching a documentary once where a man said something along the lines of that during the Civil War if you lived in the North you didn't necessarily feel the effects of the War. If you lived in the South, however, everyone felt it. I think it is not surprising that the South acted the way it did after the War. Their whole economy had been destroyed. This doesn't excuse their cruel viscous actions, but it somewhat explains it. Perhaps Lincoln would have been up for the challenge of bringing the country back together but it seems to me like Andrew Johnson didn't really care.

Sorry for the Reconstruction rant. I just watched a couple Netflix documentaries this winter break and apparently get passionate about it...