In many of the stories we have read thus far there exists a prevalent thematic element of the illusory realm of what wealth can bring. The unobtainable elite status that some so desperately desire is represented in the intangibility of their methods for trying to gain it; their place in this world only exists in their minds.
In the House of Mirth this struggle to grasp high status is especially obvious in the character of Lily Bart, who has fallen from grace. Her solutions are not fruitful and she finds solace in sleep but not reality. Lily has such an extreme dread of poverty and discomfort that she steals Ms.Hatch's prescription sleeping drops so that she can get some rest in the night instead of lying awake worrying about the future. These nights of "artificial comfort" are symbolic of the artificiality of the world she wants to be a part of. The aspects of life that she finds soothing are not genuine, much like her medicine induced sleep. What is interesting is her willingness to "cheat" her way into sleep by taking a drug, but her incapability of cheating her way back into high society by exposing the wickedness of Mrs.Dorset with the proof of the letters. Perhaps she realizes that conning her way back into the world she once knew will not give her the satisfaction she needs in life, just as inducing slumber with drugs does not truly cure her insomnia; it is only putting a band-aid on the problem.
This same type of illusory realm also exists in The 30,000 Dollar Bequest. Alek and Sally both conjure a perfect image of the life-style they can have when they inherit a fortune. They get so caught up in this illusion that they lose sight of their family and even themselves. In thinking that this money will be the catalyst that brings them ultimate happiness, they a blind to the parts of life that truly make them happy. Both characters have a warped sense of reality in the face of vast riches. Alek grows particularly fond of investing and stocks, seeing this as a way to accumulate more wealth. However, this gambling with money in stocks and trade is also an illusion. They invest money they do not have and risk losing it all. The bonds are not tangible, there is little to prove they are truly there, making the whole concept of wealth and money a rather precarious imaginative product.
Silas Lapham's misfortunes corroborate the perilous nature of the market, and how unstable such an elusive form of currency is. In The Rise of Silas Lapham he loses himself in trying to fit in with high society, throws large sums of money into the labyrinth of the stock market, and generally attempts to embody an identity which makes him and his family miserable. Overall, all of these characters express the false comforts that society takes in luxury, and how little tranquility it really gives their lives because money has no real value except for what communities decide to stamp on it. This value is in fact a man-made construct and provides nothing of true worth.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Appearances and Female Cliques in Society. "House of Mirth"
I thought the conversation topic of Lily Bart being an archetypal character after which many modern television characters are modeled was a very interesting point that would be fun to elaborate on. The social constructs of female cliques and the wickedness that every person is capable of, and that exclusive social groups especially tend to exercise, is of great relevance throughout Edith Wharton's novel. These upper class cliques and mean girl attitudes are the formula for many modern television shows and movies. Think of Gossip Girl, The Hills, Laguna Beach, and Mean Girls as prominent examples. The promotion of being a bitch (to put it plainly) and appearing a certain way, even if it's a facade, is apparent in todays pop culture. Most "upper tier" social groups, particularly of females, revolve around their capacity to be exclusive and their focus on generally irrelevant things such as social connections, parties, looks, and relationships (both sexual and non-sexual). This article from the New York Times provides some keen insight on high society and how it is a glossier version of high school. It is amazing to scrutinize these behaviors on the big screen and see how distorted the female perception is of what is valuable in a friend, and realize this is the manner in which many of us conduct our own social circles. It's a bit shameful to come to terms with how cliche our own social behavior is, and to comprehend that it is not just the wealthy who act in such a way. The evil and manipulative nature of communities is simply more poignant and entertaining in the context of the upper class. This article definitely would be applicable to an analysis of Lily Bart and the social circle she is ousted from and desperately wants to rejoin. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/arts/television/18stan.html
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Limited Options of Poor Women in "The Rise of Silas Lapham"
The lack of options available to impoverished women is astounding and consistent throughout this novel. The Rise of Silas Lapham depicts young women as very constricted by society's expectation that a woman's identity and well-being is determined by her relations with men. Women are already more limited than men in their choice of lifestyle, and particularly those of a lower class standing are doubly oppressed. Miss Dewey is an exemplary character in the context of this phenomena. Her husband is an unruly sailor and makes her life chaotic. She has no father and an entirely disillusioned mother who drinks and spends all the money Miss Dewey tries to save. Both of these women depend on Silas for their necessities such as food and rent money, and seem to be incapable without him. Miss Dewey believes that if she could only divorce Hen (her husband) and then quickly move onto another man who has promised to marry her, her life would soon become more stable.
""I know it," said Miss Dewey. "If I could get rid of Hen, I could manage well enough with mother. Mr. Wemmel would marry me if I could get the divorce. He's said so over and over again."
"I don't know as I like that very well," said Lapham, frowning. "I don't know as I want you should get married in any hurry again. I don't know as I like your going with anybody else just yet."
"Oh, you needn't be afraid but what it'll be all right. It'll be the best thing all round, if I can marry him.""
She believes that marrying this man would fix all her problems. However, this dependence on a male figure seems to be limited in its effects. Having a husband seems to determine the ability to survive financially and acquire stability, but it does not necessarily help the characters progress socially.
Marriage is key for impoverished women, and it does not depend upon love, but it is imperative to survival. Pen marries for love and as a result her life is held in a rather precarious state. Her marriage does not allow her to progress socially despite her husband's descent from a more refined family than her own and they depart for an entirely foreign place, Mexico. The difference between marrying out of desire as opposed to marrying out of sensibility is very intriguing. Pen marries for more romantic reasons, and for what many consider the right reasons, but her life is incredibly unpredictable after her union. Miss Dewey feels the need to marry out of necessity with a desire for stability. Can we really fault a woman of a lower class for depending on a respectable marriage for survival? Who has the better deal, the woman who seeks sense and stability or the woman who has committed to love and instability? Do people of different classes marry for different reasons, and as a result are women of a lower class truly more oppressed than those that are socially above them?
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Nouveau Riche in Modern Day
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/class/NANTUCKET-FINAL.html?scp=7&sq=Nouveau%20riche&st=Search
The concept of the chasm that has and continues to develop between people who have "new money" and people who come from old money is very prevalent in The Rise of Silas Lapham. It made me think about the disconnect between the two groups that occurs in the novel, and the separation that exists now. I did a bit of research on the nouveau riche and found a very interesting article from 2005 which I think many of us can find familiar.
Nantucket is a popular destination for many New Englanders. For some it is home, or a second, third, or even fourth home. Such is the case with the people interviewed for the New York Time's article "Old Nantucket Warily Meets the New". The article delves into the behaviors and appearances, particularly in logic and use of money, that differentiate the "new" and "old" money of Nantucket. In a place where people buy a 15 million dollar summer house, and the two million dollar one next-door for the help, questions of how their individual wealth was accumulated arise. The answers to these questions, and many others with regard to possessions, are where a significant difference lies between money and class. Kittredge, a man of the new moneyed community, made his fortune when he sold his Yankee Candle Company for $500 million. His lifestyle is lavish and flashy, which is the case for many people of new money who use their possessions as trophy signs of wealth. Kittredge describes interactions between the two types of money at a cocktail party: "You meet someone and they start telling you about their boat. He has a 45-foot boat and he is very happy with it. Then he'll say, 'Do you have a boat?' And you say, 'Yes.' 'Well, what kind of boat do you have?' And you say, 'A Fed Ship.' And he says, 'How big is it?' That's how people rank them. So I have to say, 'It's 200 feet.' It's the end of the conversation. Is there envy? Yes, could be. Was he a wealthy guy in his day? Absolutely, but relative to today - no. The two worlds can mix as long as they don't talk too much." Kittredge takes clear notice of the contrast between the material objects that each group owns, those of new money typically being bigger and more expensive than those of old money. People from new money have founded their own sort of community "creating a self-enclosed world where the criterion for admission is not the Social Register, but money". Is it truly envy, or the values that each group has which separates them? Are the values of one group better than the other's? Or are they both ridiculous?
Nina Chandler Murray goes into the details of why coming from old money, inherited from an old elite investment credit rating firm, clashes with new. Her emphasis lies on class versus money, and how the two do not go hand-in-hand.
"Wealthy people dressed down. Women eschewed heavy jewelry. The uniform for a man was a plain shirt, faded "Nantucket red" Bermuda shorts and Topsiders. Now, Dr. Murray suggested, the rule is: If you've got it, flaunt it.
"What has happened in America is that achievement is so important that everyone wants everyone else to know what they have done," she continued. "And in case you don't know, they want to tell you with a lethal combination of houses, cars and diamonds.""
In some ways she puts what might otherwise be discerned as arrogant quite eloquently. Her assessment of the American obsession with wearing your achievement rather literally on your sleeve, sheds a light of desperation on the attempts to be noticed on account of material gain. However, is this obsession with showing off wealth via possessions any more obnoxious than the hierarchy created by family history and having the "right" name? When it comes to the rift between old money and new money it is hard to see a right and a wrong, more of a bad and worse.
Kittredge comes of as almost desperate to let people know how rich he is through his ostentatious boats, houses, and planes. Reading his dialogue is almost as painful as reading Silas Lapham's own words in which he raves about his paint business. Unlike Silas, Kittredge is not seeking the approval of those with old money. He exemplifies a new community of the wealthy which is just as full of itself as the old but simply measures itself by a different standard. Is it understandable that these people would want to form their own prestigious new money country club, or as a group that has been snubbed should they know better than to be so condescending? There now exists arrogance based on class and arrogance based on wealth. Will a new type of condescension emerge? Or will the cycle continue as today's old money dies out, today's new money ages into old money, and the nouveau rich experiences rebirth after rebirth only to be brushed off by an old money community which started off in the same place? When will the class and taste associated with old money disappear altogether and be newly characterized by the values of new moneyed peoples?
All the possibilities and all the potential answers leave me with very few conclusions except one: no matter what occurs the standard which is used to measure social status will always be obnoxious, whether it's based on family history or how much money you spent on a car that you don't drive but leave in the drive-way for everyone to see.
The concept of the chasm that has and continues to develop between people who have "new money" and people who come from old money is very prevalent in The Rise of Silas Lapham. It made me think about the disconnect between the two groups that occurs in the novel, and the separation that exists now. I did a bit of research on the nouveau riche and found a very interesting article from 2005 which I think many of us can find familiar.
Nantucket is a popular destination for many New Englanders. For some it is home, or a second, third, or even fourth home. Such is the case with the people interviewed for the New York Time's article "Old Nantucket Warily Meets the New". The article delves into the behaviors and appearances, particularly in logic and use of money, that differentiate the "new" and "old" money of Nantucket. In a place where people buy a 15 million dollar summer house, and the two million dollar one next-door for the help, questions of how their individual wealth was accumulated arise. The answers to these questions, and many others with regard to possessions, are where a significant difference lies between money and class. Kittredge, a man of the new moneyed community, made his fortune when he sold his Yankee Candle Company for $500 million. His lifestyle is lavish and flashy, which is the case for many people of new money who use their possessions as trophy signs of wealth. Kittredge describes interactions between the two types of money at a cocktail party: "You meet someone and they start telling you about their boat. He has a 45-foot boat and he is very happy with it. Then he'll say, 'Do you have a boat?' And you say, 'Yes.' 'Well, what kind of boat do you have?' And you say, 'A Fed Ship.' And he says, 'How big is it?' That's how people rank them. So I have to say, 'It's 200 feet.' It's the end of the conversation. Is there envy? Yes, could be. Was he a wealthy guy in his day? Absolutely, but relative to today - no. The two worlds can mix as long as they don't talk too much." Kittredge takes clear notice of the contrast between the material objects that each group owns, those of new money typically being bigger and more expensive than those of old money. People from new money have founded their own sort of community "creating a self-enclosed world where the criterion for admission is not the Social Register, but money". Is it truly envy, or the values that each group has which separates them? Are the values of one group better than the other's? Or are they both ridiculous?
Nina Chandler Murray goes into the details of why coming from old money, inherited from an old elite investment credit rating firm, clashes with new. Her emphasis lies on class versus money, and how the two do not go hand-in-hand.
"Wealthy people dressed down. Women eschewed heavy jewelry. The uniform for a man was a plain shirt, faded "Nantucket red" Bermuda shorts and Topsiders. Now, Dr. Murray suggested, the rule is: If you've got it, flaunt it.
"What has happened in America is that achievement is so important that everyone wants everyone else to know what they have done," she continued. "And in case you don't know, they want to tell you with a lethal combination of houses, cars and diamonds.""
In some ways she puts what might otherwise be discerned as arrogant quite eloquently. Her assessment of the American obsession with wearing your achievement rather literally on your sleeve, sheds a light of desperation on the attempts to be noticed on account of material gain. However, is this obsession with showing off wealth via possessions any more obnoxious than the hierarchy created by family history and having the "right" name? When it comes to the rift between old money and new money it is hard to see a right and a wrong, more of a bad and worse.
Kittredge comes of as almost desperate to let people know how rich he is through his ostentatious boats, houses, and planes. Reading his dialogue is almost as painful as reading Silas Lapham's own words in which he raves about his paint business. Unlike Silas, Kittredge is not seeking the approval of those with old money. He exemplifies a new community of the wealthy which is just as full of itself as the old but simply measures itself by a different standard. Is it understandable that these people would want to form their own prestigious new money country club, or as a group that has been snubbed should they know better than to be so condescending? There now exists arrogance based on class and arrogance based on wealth. Will a new type of condescension emerge? Or will the cycle continue as today's old money dies out, today's new money ages into old money, and the nouveau rich experiences rebirth after rebirth only to be brushed off by an old money community which started off in the same place? When will the class and taste associated with old money disappear altogether and be newly characterized by the values of new moneyed peoples?
All the possibilities and all the potential answers leave me with very few conclusions except one: no matter what occurs the standard which is used to measure social status will always be obnoxious, whether it's based on family history or how much money you spent on a car that you don't drive but leave in the drive-way for everyone to see.
Monday, February 14, 2011
"The 30,000 Dollar Bequest" and Moral Decay as a Result of Money
Aleck and Sally become infatuated with money, at the expense of a strong family structure and their sense of rationality. They have such huge dreams for their future, based upon the inheritance they are waiting on, that they lose sight of many aspects of their life that were important to them before. They become slightly lesser people in terms of morality, seeming only to care about the potential palace they imagine and the illusion of their high society life-style. This lack of logic that comes with the desire for money can result in extremely unfortunate behavior, which reminded me of the show American Greed.
American Greed is aired by CNBC, publicizing the lengths people go to in order to gain wealth or maintain wealth. One sad story involves a man who turns to bank robbery as a result of losing his job in the trading pits. He still acts as if he is going to his regular job every day, leaving his wife and children at home unaware of his true profession. Not only is this man living a double-life and thus confusing the reality of his life with fantasy, he has also sunk into a state of moral decay in order to achieve a certain lifestyle. A similar story is told in another episode where a man who appears to be a very wealthy and esteemed philanthropist is revealed to be running a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme. It is truly incredible to view the reality of the horrendous acts people commit in order to fulfill a dream of success and wealth. How can this wealth be respected and help someone achieve an elevated social class when it is built upon immorality and greed? If the money is dirty is the person really gaining the image they desire or is it soiled by the process through which they attain their goals? If Aleck and Sally would have become permanently corrupt people with access to riches, would their quality of life really benefited?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/18057119/
American Greed is aired by CNBC, publicizing the lengths people go to in order to gain wealth or maintain wealth. One sad story involves a man who turns to bank robbery as a result of losing his job in the trading pits. He still acts as if he is going to his regular job every day, leaving his wife and children at home unaware of his true profession. Not only is this man living a double-life and thus confusing the reality of his life with fantasy, he has also sunk into a state of moral decay in order to achieve a certain lifestyle. A similar story is told in another episode where a man who appears to be a very wealthy and esteemed philanthropist is revealed to be running a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme. It is truly incredible to view the reality of the horrendous acts people commit in order to fulfill a dream of success and wealth. How can this wealth be respected and help someone achieve an elevated social class when it is built upon immorality and greed? If the money is dirty is the person really gaining the image they desire or is it soiled by the process through which they attain their goals? If Aleck and Sally would have become permanently corrupt people with access to riches, would their quality of life really benefited?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/18057119/
Sunday, February 13, 2011
"Maggie: A Girl of the Streets" and the Use of Irony to Enforce Naturalism
Stories of poverty are frequently embellished with dramatic scenes of death and other hardships. This grim dramatization further isolates most readers from what tends to be an already unfamiliar situation. The use of irony in "Maggie" makes the events of death and violence come off as so commonplace that the reader gains access to a more realistic view of destitution through the perspective of how the people living in impoverished communities perceive events.
The opening scene of the text describes a young boy in a fight with other "urchins". He is portrayed as having an "infantile countenance" which is "livid with fury". The depiction continues, assessing his "small body...writhing in the delivery of great, crimson oaths". The image of a small "infantile" boy, so outraged that he is ferociously cursing, is so ironic that it is quite laughable. He is a scrappy fighter and it is conveyed that he is involved in these quarrels often. Creating such an ironic image in which the boy's innocent physique is turned into a vehicle of rage provides the reader with a glimpse at how common-place violence was in this poor community, even amongst children. Instead of making him a terribly tragic figure, which would only result in the reader's pity but not understanding, he is characterized as a bit of a martyr whose cause the reader can grasp. This scene is given even more meaning as the characterization of Jimmie as a boy is paralleled with that of a monkey that Pete observes at a museum. He is intrigued by "the spectacle of a very small monkey threatening to thrash a cageful because one of them had pulled his tail". After this event "Pete knew that monkey by sight and winked at him, trying to induce him to fight with other and larger monkeys". The monkey is a clearly animalized replica of a young Jimmie and thus helps build a stronger comedic relief while emphasizing the barbaric violence between those of a single community. These forms of irony and allegory detract from the typical melancholy of this type of narrative and permit the reader to truly reflect upon the tropes of narratives about poverty.
This same perspective is offered through Maggie's perception of Pete. She views him as a "cultured gentleman who knew what was due". Directly following this assessment of Pete his gruff dialogue is introduced, causing a confusion as to where the cultured gentleman before Maggie disappeared to. He harasses a waiter, chiding "Say, what deh hell? Bring deh lady a big glass! What deh hell use is dat pony?". To someone of a higher class his speech is full of flaws and atrocities of grammar and pronunciation, but to Maggie his condescension is elegant and impressive. Not only does her distorted view of Pete further add to the irony of her tale, it also shows what high class is to her and how different our view is of appropriate behavior for what we consider socially elite.
Irony in characterization and perception performs a valuable service throughout the story. It serves as a mechanism through which the reader can engage with the characters and narrator without a cloud of pity overshadowing important thematic elements such as common violence and naivety about social hierarchy. Overall, Crane constructed an effective narrative which encouraged me to wrap my mind around the every-day nature of these events instead of viewing them as isolated incidents of tragedy within an otherwise mysterious community.
The opening scene of the text describes a young boy in a fight with other "urchins". He is portrayed as having an "infantile countenance" which is "livid with fury". The depiction continues, assessing his "small body...writhing in the delivery of great, crimson oaths". The image of a small "infantile" boy, so outraged that he is ferociously cursing, is so ironic that it is quite laughable. He is a scrappy fighter and it is conveyed that he is involved in these quarrels often. Creating such an ironic image in which the boy's innocent physique is turned into a vehicle of rage provides the reader with a glimpse at how common-place violence was in this poor community, even amongst children. Instead of making him a terribly tragic figure, which would only result in the reader's pity but not understanding, he is characterized as a bit of a martyr whose cause the reader can grasp. This scene is given even more meaning as the characterization of Jimmie as a boy is paralleled with that of a monkey that Pete observes at a museum. He is intrigued by "the spectacle of a very small monkey threatening to thrash a cageful because one of them had pulled his tail". After this event "Pete knew that monkey by sight and winked at him, trying to induce him to fight with other and larger monkeys". The monkey is a clearly animalized replica of a young Jimmie and thus helps build a stronger comedic relief while emphasizing the barbaric violence between those of a single community. These forms of irony and allegory detract from the typical melancholy of this type of narrative and permit the reader to truly reflect upon the tropes of narratives about poverty.
This same perspective is offered through Maggie's perception of Pete. She views him as a "cultured gentleman who knew what was due". Directly following this assessment of Pete his gruff dialogue is introduced, causing a confusion as to where the cultured gentleman before Maggie disappeared to. He harasses a waiter, chiding "Say, what deh hell? Bring deh lady a big glass! What deh hell use is dat pony?". To someone of a higher class his speech is full of flaws and atrocities of grammar and pronunciation, but to Maggie his condescension is elegant and impressive. Not only does her distorted view of Pete further add to the irony of her tale, it also shows what high class is to her and how different our view is of appropriate behavior for what we consider socially elite.
Irony in characterization and perception performs a valuable service throughout the story. It serves as a mechanism through which the reader can engage with the characters and narrator without a cloud of pity overshadowing important thematic elements such as common violence and naivety about social hierarchy. Overall, Crane constructed an effective narrative which encouraged me to wrap my mind around the every-day nature of these events instead of viewing them as isolated incidents of tragedy within an otherwise mysterious community.
Friday, February 11, 2011
The 30,000 Dollar Bequest and Money's Ability to Distort Moral Codes
Throughout The 30,000 Dollar Bequest there is a transition between a focus on religion to a focus on money, showing that with money comes a distortion of values. The story begins in Lakeside, described as having "church accommodations for thirty-five thousand, which is the way of the Far West and the South, where everybody is religious, and where each of the Protestant sects is represented and has a plant of its own". Lakeside is characterized as a distinctly religious town and Aleck and Sally seem to be religious people. Aleck often determines that certain behavior is not "Christian" or "moral". However as the promise of fortune comes into their lives an interest in money begins to become as prominent as their spirituality.
Aleck and Sally spend their evenings planning out how to spend their money and how to increase their capital through investment. This focus on wealth gradually takes up more and more of their time and "By and by Aleck subscribed to a Chicago daily and for the WALL STREET POINTER. With an eye single to finance she studied these as diligently all the week as she studied her Bible Sundays". The term "an eye single for finance" suggests that she is totally consumed by the idea of investing this imaginary inheritance, taking it as seriously as her bible studies. Eventually the couple places themselves on a holy pedestal, imagining a home for themselves fit for gods. They conjure an illusion of a palace in Newport, Rhode Island which they deem the "Holy Land of High Society, ineffable Domain of the American Aristocracy". High society becomes their holy land and the concept of religion is overcome by their dependence upon a false financial status.
Perhaps this is Twain's attempt at exposing the evils of riches and the foolishness of social hierarchy. As Aleck and Sally become increasingly intoxicated by dreams of being amongst the elite, they start to appear to the reader as incredibly irrational characters whose lives are a mockery. A theme is emerging which conveys that too much money or too little money both lead to a warped sense of moral values. This story exemplifies the ways in which those who possess excess monetary gain can have as distorted priorities as those who live in poverty. Impoverished people twist and tweak an ethical code for the sake of self-preservation and wealthy people simply service their own illusory value of material things.
Aleck and Sally spend their evenings planning out how to spend their money and how to increase their capital through investment. This focus on wealth gradually takes up more and more of their time and "By and by Aleck subscribed to a Chicago daily and for the WALL STREET POINTER. With an eye single to finance she studied these as diligently all the week as she studied her Bible Sundays". The term "an eye single for finance" suggests that she is totally consumed by the idea of investing this imaginary inheritance, taking it as seriously as her bible studies. Eventually the couple places themselves on a holy pedestal, imagining a home for themselves fit for gods. They conjure an illusion of a palace in Newport, Rhode Island which they deem the "Holy Land of High Society, ineffable Domain of the American Aristocracy". High society becomes their holy land and the concept of religion is overcome by their dependence upon a false financial status.
Perhaps this is Twain's attempt at exposing the evils of riches and the foolishness of social hierarchy. As Aleck and Sally become increasingly intoxicated by dreams of being amongst the elite, they start to appear to the reader as incredibly irrational characters whose lives are a mockery. A theme is emerging which conveys that too much money or too little money both lead to a warped sense of moral values. This story exemplifies the ways in which those who possess excess monetary gain can have as distorted priorities as those who live in poverty. Impoverished people twist and tweak an ethical code for the sake of self-preservation and wealthy people simply service their own illusory value of material things.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
"Maggie: A Girl of the Streets"
Maggie's story is one of the past. Following her brief life exposes the conditions that many suffered through in the tenements. The reader encounters images of violence, poverty and filth, and hopelessness. However, because this story is placed in a time removed from our own and Crane writes with such irony that the tale is nearly humorous, it is difficult to develop a strong emotional response or sense of sympathy towards the characters. It felt as though a story that ended so tragically should have left some sort of deep impression upon me that would elicit sorrow when I thought about Maggie's fate, but this was not the case. So, I tried to relate the story to something more modern, something that I might be able to better connect with.
Stories of poverty can make me feel as though it is some far off concept that doesn't really exist in my own world because it is occurring in the realm of literature, and is sometimes placed in a time other than my own or in a country so far away I can not grasp the reality of the culture. I do have some experiences though that bring a modern day Maggie to light and help me sympathize with the plight of people who have lives and struggles so foreign to me.
A little over a year ago I worked as a camp counselor at a YMCA camp in the suburbs. Many inner-city children and young adults attended the camp. I headed up a group of troubled high school students, one of whom was from the city. One morning, within the first week of camp, she came to me and told me she did not feel like participating in group activities. She went on to explain that her brother had been killed the night before. I was in shock. Her brother had been involved in a violent lifestyle, like Jimmie, but of a more organized manner. He was in one of Hartford's most notorious gangs, the Latin Kings. In order to leave the gang he had to take what they call a "blood ticket". Earning a "blood ticket" consists of gang members lining up across from each other and forming a tunnel which departing member has to go through while being beaten and stabbed. If the member trying to withdraw makes it through without dying they have received their "blood ticket" out. This girl watched her brother die before he made it all the way through the tunnel, and because he did not survive she was being pressured to join in his place.
Like Maggie and many of the people living in the tenements, she and her brother were trapped in an unwanted life-style and it seemed that the only way out was death. This girl was only 14 and had already lived life with an abusive mother who was addicted to crack and traded her for a fix to drug dealers. During the time that she was in the dealer's possession she was raped and beaten. After being recovered by authorities and turned over to foster care she continued to live in a less than safe home and in a threatening urban neighborhood. She had no choice of where to live and her opportunities were limited.
This is one of the few people I have encountered who could make a life of poverty and limitations real to me. Stories such as Maggie are great reminders of the horrors of the past tenements, but this girl reminded me that places as terrible as the tenements and even worse still exist close to home. There are very young people who must walk out their front door and simply try to survive every day as upper class citizens remain as ignorant and unaware as in previous times.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/25/nyregion/a-violent-battle-of-wills-besieges-hartford.html
Stories of poverty can make me feel as though it is some far off concept that doesn't really exist in my own world because it is occurring in the realm of literature, and is sometimes placed in a time other than my own or in a country so far away I can not grasp the reality of the culture. I do have some experiences though that bring a modern day Maggie to light and help me sympathize with the plight of people who have lives and struggles so foreign to me.
A little over a year ago I worked as a camp counselor at a YMCA camp in the suburbs. Many inner-city children and young adults attended the camp. I headed up a group of troubled high school students, one of whom was from the city. One morning, within the first week of camp, she came to me and told me she did not feel like participating in group activities. She went on to explain that her brother had been killed the night before. I was in shock. Her brother had been involved in a violent lifestyle, like Jimmie, but of a more organized manner. He was in one of Hartford's most notorious gangs, the Latin Kings. In order to leave the gang he had to take what they call a "blood ticket". Earning a "blood ticket" consists of gang members lining up across from each other and forming a tunnel which departing member has to go through while being beaten and stabbed. If the member trying to withdraw makes it through without dying they have received their "blood ticket" out. This girl watched her brother die before he made it all the way through the tunnel, and because he did not survive she was being pressured to join in his place.
Like Maggie and many of the people living in the tenements, she and her brother were trapped in an unwanted life-style and it seemed that the only way out was death. This girl was only 14 and had already lived life with an abusive mother who was addicted to crack and traded her for a fix to drug dealers. During the time that she was in the dealer's possession she was raped and beaten. After being recovered by authorities and turned over to foster care she continued to live in a less than safe home and in a threatening urban neighborhood. She had no choice of where to live and her opportunities were limited.
This is one of the few people I have encountered who could make a life of poverty and limitations real to me. Stories such as Maggie are great reminders of the horrors of the past tenements, but this girl reminded me that places as terrible as the tenements and even worse still exist close to home. There are very young people who must walk out their front door and simply try to survive every day as upper class citizens remain as ignorant and unaware as in previous times.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/25/nyregion/a-violent-battle-of-wills-besieges-hartford.html
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
"How the Other Half Lives" & The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vus4b8FRTKM
This is a compilation of first-hand accounts of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. You may have heard about it before in American History classes, it is pretty well known. It came to mind while I was reading "How the Other Half Lives" and contemplating the poor conditions of the tenements many immigrants lived in and how little value their well-being held in the hands of the upper class. This brief documentary provides a little perspective on how the poor conditions many immigrants experienced extended into the work place as well. There is a particular interest in gender in this piece. You can tell from the voiceovers (with notable foreign accents) and the images that this incident primarily involved women, although I'm sure men faced similar obstacles. I believe the statistic reports that 146 people died. The Shirtwaist Fire would not have been so hazardous had the safety standards not been so low, as they were in the tenements that Riis wrote about. It is just another example of how at risk the lives of the lower class were because they were unfairly perceived to have less significant lives.
Chapter 1 of the Other Half text states, "Yet so illogical is human greed that, at a later day, when called to account, "the proprietors frequently urged the filthy habits of the tenants as an excuse for the condition of their property, utterly losing sight of the fact that it was the tolerance of those habits which was the real evil, and that for this they themselves were alone responsible"". The consequences of the Factory Fire support Riss's claim in disproving the dismissive comments of the upper class that the squalid living conditions of tenements were a result of the lower classes' irresponsibility and uncleanliness. The conditions were so terrible because low-income communities were taken advantage of by the overseeing class, whether it be on nearly unlivable property with unfair taxes or in unsafe factories with minimal pay and unsatisfactory conditions in which the workers took no part in designing. After the tragedy of this fire legislation required improvement in safety standards and a union for female garment workers was created. Unfortunately, as in the tenements, high death tolls were the main catalyst for public reform.
This is a compilation of first-hand accounts of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. You may have heard about it before in American History classes, it is pretty well known. It came to mind while I was reading "How the Other Half Lives" and contemplating the poor conditions of the tenements many immigrants lived in and how little value their well-being held in the hands of the upper class. This brief documentary provides a little perspective on how the poor conditions many immigrants experienced extended into the work place as well. There is a particular interest in gender in this piece. You can tell from the voiceovers (with notable foreign accents) and the images that this incident primarily involved women, although I'm sure men faced similar obstacles. I believe the statistic reports that 146 people died. The Shirtwaist Fire would not have been so hazardous had the safety standards not been so low, as they were in the tenements that Riis wrote about. It is just another example of how at risk the lives of the lower class were because they were unfairly perceived to have less significant lives.
Chapter 1 of the Other Half text states, "Yet so illogical is human greed that, at a later day, when called to account, "the proprietors frequently urged the filthy habits of the tenants as an excuse for the condition of their property, utterly losing sight of the fact that it was the tolerance of those habits which was the real evil, and that for this they themselves were alone responsible"". The consequences of the Factory Fire support Riss's claim in disproving the dismissive comments of the upper class that the squalid living conditions of tenements were a result of the lower classes' irresponsibility and uncleanliness. The conditions were so terrible because low-income communities were taken advantage of by the overseeing class, whether it be on nearly unlivable property with unfair taxes or in unsafe factories with minimal pay and unsatisfactory conditions in which the workers took no part in designing. After the tragedy of this fire legislation required improvement in safety standards and a union for female garment workers was created. Unfortunately, as in the tenements, high death tolls were the main catalyst for public reform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)