Forming a final connection...

As I conducted my research this semester, I began by searching a broad variety of periodicals and presenting on the article that interested me the most that specific day. I did not have a plan so to speak; rather, I freely explored a variety of periodicals, articles, topics, etc. with minimal attention to creating a unified thread over the course of the semester. However, I did begin to focus mid-to-late semester, as I realized that I was drawn to searching within a rural/farmer/agriculture context. By beginning my search broadly, my focus developed holistically if you will, and though I enjoyed my random searches in the beginning of the semester, I became more intrigued to see what was out there in my new narrowed focus and specifically, in the specific periodical that I chose to explore.

In November, I began to focus on searching under "farmer" in addition to the various other search terms for each week. On November 1st, our search terms were "execution[s], murderer[s], robbers, thieves, and highwaymen." I chose to search broadly - not limiting to a specific periodical at this point - under "farmer" and "highwaymen." I found an article titled, "Boy and Highwayman," in The Atheneum; or, Spirit of the English Magazines (1817-1833) and dated Aug 1, 1821. "Boy and Highwayman" is a brief account of a young boy who sold a cow and was on the way back home with his profit. He was overtaken by a highwayman, but being a quick and swift young fellow, the boy threw the money up in the air, and as the highwayman was attempting to gather the cash, the boy grabbed the highwayman's horse and took off for home. The story gets even better when the boy gets home and realizes that "there were found twelve pounds in cash, and two loaded pistols. The horse was also valuable." Though this is a brief account, the author clearly relates the message that the highwayman got what was coming to him. There is also an interesting point here that though it seemed to be okay that the boy stole the highwayman's property, it was not okay that the highwayman attempted to rob the boy. Perhaps theft is only acceptable if it is against the antagonist of the story?

On November 15th, I searched under "rural" and "miracles." At this point, I had narrowed down my target periodical, The Rural Magazine and Literary Evening Fire - Side (1820-1820), and I was quite surprised to actually find an article from June 1, 1820 that included both of these terms, given that this magazine only ran for a single year. In complete disclosure, though, the article only included "miracles" and "rural" was in the title of the magazine. This article, however, is my absolute favorite of the entire semester. Titled, "A curious phenomenon," the article presents a story about a young preacher's wife who had twins, and due to her nervous condition, could not nurse both of the babies. So, the grandmother - the new mother's mother, if that makes more sense - prayed for a miracle that she would be able to nurse one of the babies. Yes, this story seems as though it is straight out of the Old Testament. Her prayers were answered, and she nursed one of the babies for her daughter for over a year, traveling with the child to tell of the wonders wherever she went and "giving her friends ocular demonstration of the lactiferous miracle." The last sentence of this story makes the whole article! There seem to be many points of extraction here, primarily the presence or account of a divine miracle, the role of women as nurturers and caregivers, the mental state of new mothers, and perhaps even the resurgence of females values and responsibilities in this 1820's context. How interesting it is to think about this simple story as a representation of the very roles and responsibilities of women inside the home beginning again in this decade. Well, that and the lactiferous miracle!

Finally, in the same periodical, The Rural Magazine and Literary Evening Fire - Side (1820-1820) I searched under "liberty" for our November 22nd search term. I gave up the continual search under "farmer," as I limited my search enough given my focus on a periodical that had a broad appeal to the rural and that satisfied my initial focus on specific search terms. In the May 1st publication, I found an article, "Sentiments of an Old Soldier," that takes on a very different focus on liberty than I was expecting. I anticipated finding an article that promoted republican values, highlighted the fight for liberty, and appealed to these core American values; however, the article that I found does exactly the opposite. The writer appeals to parents - probably the obvious readers - to prevent their children from joining the military, to oppose war and the horrors that it entails, and to preserve peace and virtue of the new republic. Sparing no words, the writer claims that he was "dupe my whole life," seduced by the seductions of the plume and the sword," establishing his ethos as a veteran of what we can assume was the Revolutionary War. Interestingly, the focus towards the end of the article suggests that the writer is writing about a conflict between the states: "these states should stop and reflect before it is too late. We have escaped from one war with a crippled constitution; the next will probably destroy it; therefore, let the motto of the state be - PEACE." I can assume that the writer is alluding to the conflict over slavery and the growing division between the North and South, and this warning is interesting, as the writer is appealing to parents at the beginning but states at the end. Is there something to be said about voting here? Perhaps there is an appeal to citizenship and personal involvement in the state's actions? I hesitate to proceed further in my assumptions without additional research, but this is certainly an interesting connection that deserves a thorough exploration.

What did I find this semester? I found my focus, and as I pour through the pages researching for my periodical presentation, I realize that I really enjoy looking at articles that no one else might find remotely interesting in an magazine that had a limited run and appealed to a small audience. I began this search without an idea of where I was going, but I am actually quite please with what I found and what I want to continue exploring.

11/22 Response

Though the reading on novels was not lengthy, I found myself taking a bit of time to get through the brief eight pages. Yes, the material was fairly familiar; it was challenging to be a novelist in the early republic, and it was only around the mid-nineteenth century when technology propelled the ease of publication and distribution that novels and works of fiction increased and were more accessible. This was not new news to me.  What was intriguing to me in this chapter is the exploration of female susceptibility and the fear of female reader response as created and promoted by novels during this era. The novel was considered "dangerous to society" but why (444)? If the readership was primarily female and if the novels, like sentimental literature attempted to "teach by a negative example," (444) then this implies the potential susceptibility that women during this era had and the need to control what they read and how they read it in order to contain the accepted roles of women in the home and in a larger context, in society (445).

I have read Charlotte Temple and Weiland, and my previous attention has been on the role of the characters and the exploration of sentimental fiction in both texts.  However, I am now prompted to reread looking primarily at the reader response and the potential PR spinning, so to speak, that was necessary to convince readers how not to behave. For to convince readers of what not to do implies that reader - women in particular - could have choices in how to act, think, or behave and that there was a need to reign in this impressionable readership. This is powerful, for it implies that women did have potential agency during this time, though there was a need to control and manipulate what was appropriate behavior. If nothing else, the early novel worked to express cautionary tales, which fundamentally allowed women to experience and reject behaviors that would be deemed inappropriate or unconventional.

Barnes makes a valuable point that, "impressionable women readers represented a potentially seducible American citizenry;" thus, there is a larger context at play here, specifically in how Americans began to recognize their own national identity and the need to contain or mold this perception (445). Perhaps, as Barnes' suggests, women were only a representation of the larger influential American population during these early years of establishing a national identity. Perhaps, in a way all Americans were easily influenced in this time period, as there was a recognition of what they weren't (English) but not yet a firm understanding of what they were (Americans). In this way, observing female readership of the novel provides a nice analogy for observing the larger citizenry as a whole and the influential nature of this time period. This was the time for agency, but as we saw in previous readings this semester and as represented by the female readers in this chapter, there was a need/desire/power struggle to compose a new identity and to conform a vast citizenship into Americans. Just as important, though, is observing and analyzing these readers as having potential choices to some degree.

I have to wonder though if we aren't in some way still experiencing this struggle to establish ourselves in whatever "American" context we so choose as print and media publications attempt to guide us to identifying in certain ways that reinforce traditional or accepted roles, especially as women, but as the "Novels" chapter shows, women are only a representation here of a larger social body. As Thanksgiving approaches, we are bombarded with material influencing us to uphold the traditions so carefully established and upheld by a hegemonic power. Yes, I've been just waiting to insert that here, but I have not the time nor the energy to detail what/who I think this power is. I just saw Martha on TV explaining how to create the perfect Thanksgiving dinner, and while I plan to enjoy this holiday, and I appreciate a day devoted, or in least in my family, to celebrating family and giving thanks for our blessings, I have to question how far we've actually come in being influenced to continue to create and uphold an identity uniquely "American." Food for thought, or is that too corny of a term given this holiday season? :)

Side note: Though The Power of Sympathy; or, The Triumph of Nature "failed miserably" in the late eighteenth century, I have just added it to my "to read" list, provided that it is still in print. Nothing says fun Christmas reading like a half-brother and half-sister planning to marry and then dying of humiliation, especially if it was based (or partially based) on a true story!

11/15 Response

Since Jen and I are presenting on "Women Writing in the Early Republic" tonight, I hate to give too many thoughts/questions away ahead of time.  However, I'll spare a section about today's reading that really made me ponder my whole view of women's writing during this time.  I will admit that I have often thought of women's writing as totally under the sphere of domesticity during this era.  Perhaps more specific, I generalized my view of "this era" as a mainly nineteenth-century approach, where women were the "nation's moral axis" (366) and where women were limited to "domestic agendas and subject matter" (374).  I suppose that this is a result of my focused attention on nineteenth century works and writers; however, after reading and pondering on Dobson and Zagarell's chapter, I now realize that I have paid minimal attention to the role of women in the eighteenth century, specifically in the role that they played in establishing this new national identity.

Yes, I have heard of Warren, Morton, and Murray, and I have read Wollstonecraft - different subject matter and continent but still prevalent for an eighteenth century discussion - but I had not realized the Enlightenment principles that these women embraced and the role of their writing - I'm speaking of American women writers here - in the creation of a national identity.  These women had a unique role through print, as they had a voice in letters, poetry, essays, education treaties, histories, novels, and plays (367) and post-revolution, their writing ventured to politics, history, religion, and the concept of new nationhood (369).  To assume - as many people might - that women writers were confined to the domestic realm during this time period is to overlook their influence through print on a vast number of cultural and political issues, as these women were addressing content that is considered public and male-dominated.  Moreover, the very fact women began to acknowledge themselves as writers (369) suggests an important shift in this era of the new republic, as women are able to participate through print in a way that makes them not only a participant in the conversation of social and public matters but as creators of discourse about these subjects.

As I am now self-reflecting on this material, I realize that I had yet to connect my understanding of works like "On the Equality of the Sexes" in relation to the role that women were also playing in the new republic.  Somehow, we tend - I understand I am generalizing here - to focus on the fight for women's rights and the realm of domesticity, while skipping over the role that women did have in print during the early years of the new republic.  Yes, I do think it is important to talk about the lack of female agency in the public domain; however, if we solely focus on the domestic sphere of the nineteenth century, then we are overlooking an important aspect of the role of women in print culture before the 1830's, though Harriet Beecher Stowe and Harriet Jacobs clearly found a way to continue to contribute even past the 1830's landmark.  I now realize that I have gone on more than I intended, but I just find it fascinating that I have missed this crucial period up until this point.  And, because apparently I just cannot stop writing now, I think there is much to be said about the role that female editors played in defining the role of female authorship in the 1820's; however, I will save comments on that for our class discussion.

11/8 Response

I must admit that it took me quite a long time to read for today.  Though the chapter was brief, I found myself taking my time, marking up my book, and pondering on each paragraph.  Granted, this was quite productive, as I have focused much of my attention in the past on the idea of womanhood, not manhood.  Perhaps I am admitting my ignorance here, but I will spend more time thinking about and reflecting on my own womanhood/wifehood/motherhood/etc.  I suppose my attention to the role of the female in the private and public sphere bears a direct relation to my own gender, and my need to connect or relate to the forerunners of my sex.  However, this chapter certainly made me stop and think about the men writing in the early republic, especially in terms of their need to establish themselves as men of a new country. 

I found it interesting that in the early years (1790-1840), men crossed the gender line, using pseudonyms for their writing (350).  It is fairly easy to understand the rational behind this.  These early writers were still attached – though increasingly distancing – to their heritage from England.  At this point, authorship was related to a “gentlemanly leisure, distanced from the commerce, conflicts, and profits that secured the social position of many members of the post-revolutionary elite” (351).  At this point, writers are still – though I am generalizing here – holding on to this idea of the “gentleman” writer, the notion that to put one’s name on a work was to vulgarize the text and commit the lowest of offenses for a man of the genteel class.  Though this is not the idea of authorship that we associate with, it makes sense that using a pseudonym would have been the proper way to approach writing.  It is, after all, what they understood as appropriate from their European past.

However, men began to distance themselves from the English tradition of genteel authorship, as they began to conceptualize what exactly it meant to be an American man.  While the majority of my interest has been on womanhood, the thought that men now had to situate themselves in a new country, in a new role, in a new society completely unfamiliar with their past certainly deserves attention.  Moreover, the very definition of authorship changed with, or as a result, of this increasing movement to define the American man.  One of my favorite literary characters is Natty Bumppo, but how did a man/character like this emerge?  How did this representation of an American man like Natty Bumppo – wild and competent in the wilderness – develop?  How did the American man evolve from genteel heritage to the wilderness? 

I do realize that I began talking about authorship, and I have now transitioned to the conceptualization and evolution of the American man as represented by a literary character.  However, I think that there is a direct connection here; though, I will surely not get this all fleshed out in this one blog post.  What did it mean to be a successful author in America?  What did it mean to be a successful man as well?  How do we define this?  How do we evaluate it?  I have no answers, just rampant curiosity at the moment.  Fear not; I am not abandoning my interest in women’s studies, especially as I am presenting with Jen next week on “Women Writing in the Early Republic.” But, I do think that I have a new interest here as well.

11/1 Response

I must admit that I am a bit agitated with Andie Tucher's chapter in A History of the Book in America, primarily due to the brief section on the country press.  Perhaps my main complaint is as simple as I disagree with the writer's slant that is evident in Tucher's rhetorical choices.  To me, it seems as though Tucher has little appreciation for the expansion of the country press and the purpose that they served.  I thought that this section was really going to highlight the role of the press in localized regions - as our past readings have - especially when Tucher begins with a quote from Daniel Webster, which stresses that knowledge during this time has "triumphed, and is triumphing over distance" (395).  At this point, the chapter seems to be off to a positive start!

That positivity does not last long however, as in the next sentence, Tucher states: "Yet, grand ideas aside, most of the ragamuffin little country papers lived so close to the edge of disaster that mere survival was often their most pressing concern" (395).  Well, yes, it may be a vital point that rural papers had a difficult time surviving; however, the urban vs. rural importance or privileging here is evident in his use of "ragamuffin" and "little" to describe the small, rural press.  I am not arguing his point that survival was difficult for the small, rural press, but it is off-putting to read such obvious preference to the large, urban presses.  This is especially apparent just a few pages over where Tucher refers to the "exemplary Harvard men" who edited New England publications.

Moreover, instead of focusing on the positive aspects of the rural press, of the great strides in the desire to print and distribute information - whatever type it may be - to the public, Tucher chooses to focus on what the printers did wrong and how it did not work.  Using the example of a printer from Kentucky who produced a "skimpy" first issue, Tucher focuses on the printer's ignorance rather than explaining why there might have even been a need to start this publication.  Surely there is more to this story than just a single focus on ignorance!  As a reader, I would appreciate more depth in this section on the country papers, instead of a heavy-handed and overt writer's preference for the larger, more metropolitan areas.  The country papers may have had their difficulties, but in my opinion, this small section just did not do them justice.