[Maya Merberg]

I agree that whether or not we decide to read certain aspects of paratext depends on what we want to get out of the text, as Casey said, but I also think it depends on the nature of the work itself. One example I can think of is the novel Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace, which famously includes 388 endnotes (some of which themselves include footnotes). Since this is a work of fiction, it seems more likely that its readers would read the endnotes, in an attempt to get the full literary experience of the novel, and to aid in understanding its complex plot. In a work of nonfiction, I can see how a reader might just be searching for specific information and so disregard paratext if it seems irrelevant. But in a fictional work with so many endnotes, the paratext is more central and connected to the story and is key to understanding the book.

[Maya Merberg]

I would point out that though prejudices like racism and sexism do continue to inhibit our education, I think public education is improving rapidly in this regard. It has historically been true, and is still somewhat true, that much of what students are assigned to read was written by old, rich, white men. But now programs like Black Studies and Women’s Studies are on the rise, and people are being assigned works written by women and racial minorities. Next semester Geneseo is offering courses on Native American literature, Black Atlantic novels, and women writers. Even in high schools, students are now reading more by underrepresented authors. Prejudices are still a huge problem in education, but it seems to me like we are at least somewhat headed in the right direction.

[Maya Merberg]

As was previously mentioned, a notable change between versions is the switch from “those who died here” to “those who here gave their lives.” This does change the rhythm of the speech, but I think it also makes for a significant change in meaning. Part of the theme of this speech is that the soldiers who died during the battle did not die in vain— rather their deaths had important and far-reaching consequences. When someone dies, it could be for any reason (an accident, an illness, etc.) that doesn’t necessarily have significant meaning attached to it, but when a person gives their life, you know that they have made a sacrifice of utmost nobility. The verb “gave” also assigns an intentional action to the soldiers, to render their deaths more purposeful, as though the choice was in their hands.

I think when Lincoln made that change he was considering the different connotations of “died” and “gave their lives” and went with the latter, as it more appropriately fit his goal of assuring his audience that the soldiers didn’t merely die in some tragic or regrettable accident, but rather gave their lives to intentionally help the still-living in a common goal.

As for the change that most affects rhythm, one of the sentences that is most important to this speech is “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.” This sentence has has an easy and memorable rhythm to it— in fact it’s almost iambic. But in the Nicolay version it reads, “The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.” This isn’t a huge change obviously, but the semicolon in place of the comma impedes the rhythm slightly. The only other notable difference is that Lincoln changed “while” to “but,” as “while” is a longer and more difficult word to say, and using “but” instead also eliminates the alliterative “w” sounds in the sentence.

[Maya Merberg]

It may seem like we can divide people based simply on whether or not they fit into society, but I think in reality it is a bit more complicated than that. I think that though Thoreau advocates for rejecting society, it’s actually really difficult if not impossible to completely ignore society and one’s surrounding culture. Thoreau still interacted with villagers, he wore typical clothing and ate somewhat typical food, he wrote in English, etc. There are all traits that were determined by society. So much of who we are is determined by our culture and society that it’s hard to even imagine what someone would be like if they didn’t have these influencing factors.

[Maya Merberg]

To be honest, I’m still a little unclear as to what exactly Thoreau is trying to convey with this passage. In one of the analyses that Walter Harding points us to in a comment Francis Ross writes, “…it reveals to us exactly what Thoreau intends to say about war: when it comes right down to dirt reality, war is grotesque and horrible.” So I would agree, then, that Thoreau is trying to point out the animalistic nature of human war. But this seems inconsistent with the typical transcendentalist view that nature and humanity are inherently good.

When Thoreau uses the mock-epic strategy and compares the ant war to Greek mythology and real human wars, it seems like he is trying to heighten the humanistic qualities of the ants, rather than the animalistic qualities of humans. He points out to the reader the vastness of nature and the fact that there is so much going on that we don’t pay attention to. This seems more aligned with what we would expect from Thoreau’s transcendentalist views.

[Maya Merberg]

I think the biggest concern regarding digital publication is the sheer number of voices. (This is also basically what I wrote my blog post on.) The internet is fairly undiscriminating, so most people with a computer have a fair chance to be heard online. It’s also largely unmoderated, so anyone can post anything they want. Anyone can even publish an ebook and try to sell it online. Obviously, this amounts to an overall increase in the amount of information available online, but it makes it harder to find exactly what you’re looking for on the internet. It may seem like a good thing that everyone can have a voice on the internet, but that also means that it will be harder for individuals to be heard.

[Maya Merberg]

I don’t think it’s really possible to come to a final consensus regarding the question of whether or not Thoreau was really prejudiced against the Irish. I didn’t read the “inherited Irish poverty” reference to be as horrible as it seems a lot of people interpreted it– just as Thoreau was born into privilege, one can be born into poverty. Writing that Field was “born to be poor” and can’t ever rise up in the world is more problematic, but I still think it’s ambiguous as to whether Thoreau was simply acknowledging the difficulty of social mobility or if he was trying to insult the Field family. Then again, he also refers to John Field several times as simply “the Irishman,” indicating an inability to separate Field’s nationality from his identity.

As for the larger question here, I think the relationship between our preconceived notions and how we read people and text is incredibly significant. This is evident all the time, and is why people even have differing opinions on passages of text like the one in question here.

[Maya Merberg]

Something Thoreau notes on the topic of communicative space is, “We were so near to each other that we could not begin to hear…as when you throw two stones into calm water so near that they break each other’s undulations.” I think the idea of people being so close together that they can’t hear is even more applicable now, in the digital age. It seems that the thing about the internet is that the space is unlimited, yet at the same time, we all share it as a common space. Maybe this is why online discussion so frequently seems unproductive– there’s room for everyone, but not enough room for us to hear each other. Of course it’s possible to engage in intellectual discourse online (this forum being a good example). Maybe we just need to seek out smaller spaces– within the infinite space of the online world– in which “to utter the big thoughts in big words.”

[Maya Merberg]

Like a lot of people have already said, I definitely think that the digital age has impacted our reading ability but I’m not convinced that it’s in a negative way. It does seem like fewer people spend time reading full novels these days, and instead spend that time online. But I would argue that most people probably read more words per day now than ever before. Most of us could read probably thousands of words in tweets in one sitting and not think anything of it. This is a lower caliber of reading than reading a novel would be, obviously, but I think we are really probably becoming more literate than ever before.

This isn’t necessarily positive– I still think it’s important to read full books– but I don’t think it’s as serious a crisis as some people make it out to be. It seems like more people and reading and people are reading more now in the digital age.

[Maya Merberg]

I definitely agree that authors should not be held responsible for different ways in which their work is interpreted. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that any work of literature can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, all of which are equally acceptable. This is an extreme example, but it reminds me of The Catcher in the Rye and the murders associated with it. It might be easy to say that you can interpret art any way you want, but if you read The Catcher in the Rye and understand it to mean that you should go out and kill someone, you have misinterpreted The Catcher in the Rye.  Obviously, Salinger shouldn’t be blamed for such a misinterpretation.

Wake Up Now is a completely different caliber of literature than most novels, and what they put out seems more like false advertising than anything else. The morality of that is questionable, but it is all over the place today. It seems like companies like this lack empathy and prey on weakness, but I still think it’s up to the individual to sort through this information and judge it for themselves. If Damien read Wake Up Now’s literature (he was aware of the 4% success rate) and decided that the reasonable thing to do was to quit his job and jump right in, I feel that was a misinterpretation on his part.

[Author]

Posts