Poem – “Faith” Is a Fine Invention - Emily Dickinson

             Emily Dickinson, a 19^th century poet, is known for her short yet riveting poems. Living a largely reclusive life, Dickinson became an influential American poet that, after death, would is largely regarded as one of the greatest poets and writers in American history. Emily Dickinson did not experience fame nor wealth during her lifetime, this is due to the fact that nearly all of her poems were published after her death, although obviously written on during her lifetime. The majority of her poems deal with the idea of truth, death and immortality. This poem, “Faith” is a fine invention, deals with the broader idea of truth and science. Similar to most of her poems, this is a short, yet deep poem that is easily grammatically understandable which develops eloquently throughout the four short lines. Dickinson’s poem, “Fait” is a fine intervention, is a social and critical analysis of possibly her religious views which she seems critical it is developed as a crux for society.

            Emily Dickinson’s criticism of faith relies on the idea that it used being used as a crux for social and religious justification. Her use of the word faith as an invention is indicative of her view of religion as an abstract belief that is generally used by fools who justify their actions through religion. She implies that the use and belief in faith with proof is justified when it is not the sole justification for action. An overlooked connection between the lines is that she compares the use of faith to that of a tendency to ground the faith in evidence. While the main criticism lies on the notion that faith is used to dictate human actions in not only society but their everyday lives, she also notes that faith grounded in evidence fails to make a coherent explanation for certain issues, when necessary to be applied. This is most clearly shown in the use of the word microscope. Considering how short the poem is, her chosen words, and diction are very precise and used to convey the maximum meaning of her work. The use of microscope instead of a simile of science represents that people use faith as a microscope currently, but she is adamant about the inability for faith to be readily applied in some instances, specifically emergencies.

            The purpose of Dickinson’s work is to illuminate her criticism surrounding the combination of science and faith and blindly applying it to situations where it is unwarranted. The point of this argument centers around the idea that faith can be good, except when used with science and in emergency scientific (use of the “microscope”) fails to take into account the inability for humanity to shape the events which they have no control over, thus, trying to justify actions through faith and science provides an impossible solution to problems. In the overall spirit of her argument, it is not so much that, faith is bad and it shouldn’t be a guide, but rather a combination of spirit and faith in decisions, especially emergencies or ones where science cannot be applied, is dangerous.

Winesburg, Ohio

Only recently have I begun reading the novel Winesburg, Ohio. Novel is a misleading term, which I use loosely, as the author writes the novel as a compilation of short stories rather than a direct novel that is fleshed out in chapters. The beginning of the novel, or at least what I have read, attests to the idea that some scholars propose; the stories are actually connected and the book is more a novel than traditionally assumed. While possibly too earlier to know, my earliest thoughts seem to indicate that the collection of short stories can in fact be interpreted as loosely tired together novel. Anderson’s prolific use of symbols in the first couple chapters shows that the stories are interwoven through specific objects and repetition of specific motifs. The other aspect that ties the short stories together is the repetition of characters throughout the few stories I have already read. There are multiple indications that Sherwood Anderson intended the book to be a novel, this can be seen through his use of continued symbolism and character repetition.

            The first indication of the “novel” feature of Anderson’s short stories is the continued use of repeating themes that symbols that show the central feature of the events of Winesburg, Ohio’s daily life.  The first use of symbolism shown in the novel starts in the chapter Hands. In Hands Anderson portrays Wing Biddlebaum as a troubled old man who is affected by his past troubles. His trouble stem from an event in his past, this event which occurred sometime under his previous life, was ultimately a horrendous accusation of molestation of a young boy and was chased out town, he was forced to change is name and live a rather secluded life. The aftermath of these events results in Wing being unable to control violent shaking and trembling of his hands. This use of hands continues in the next chapter as well. Titled Mother, this chapter focuses on George Willard’s mother, whom, similar to Wing, lives a secluded life and is trouble by past experiences. The most significant piece of this short story that connects it to the other is his mother’s hands which also tremble, as she walks down the hallway. In both instances, characters are troubled by a past event which has shaped ultimately the rest of their lifestyle and the way they are viewed socially, and this is expressed through the mannerisms seen directly in the movement of their hands.

            The second piece of evidence that indicates that Winesburg, Ohio is actually a novel rather than a compilation of short stories is the use of widespread character repetition. In the first few chapters, George’s character is repeated in at least one part of each short story. This may represent his role as a larger character throughout the novel in its entirety. Taking into account that I have not yet completed the novel, the earliest indications seem to be that the repetition of characters, such as George may represent the significant role of the characters and how they interact in the rest of the novel.

Frankenstein

The reading of Frankenstein turned out to be one of my favorite experiences this summer. The romantic novel, authored by Mary Shelley, was a representation of Shelley's critique of her society's views and discrimination. Her critique of society also involves the idea of technology and knowledge being destructive. 

           In Frankenstein Shelly portrays Victor as the representation of the pursuit of knowledge and the destructive powers that it has. The struggle that Victor Frankenstein faces is one of divine proportions as he is a figure of intervention, analogous to that of Prometheus. His divine intervention is a self-destructive event which brings down the fabric of Victor's life and negatively affects society, regardless of the intent. Shelley's focus on the effects of destructive knowledge, her emphasis on natural events such as the climate, shows that she is ultimately critical of the unnatural intervention that modern scientists wish to achieve. Her opinion is not a rejection of these scientific advancements but more of a warning to people and society about the potential destructiveness of these advancements and what is characterized as unnatural science. While Frankenstein’s narrative is one of self-reflexivity, he still maintains his beliefs that the monster must be destroyed, thus proving that he didn’t learn anything. This specific event was Shelley’s most explicit example of scientists and the role unnatural science plays in individual ethical developments. Shelley speaks through Victor in the end of the book when Victor warns about becoming obsessed and the unhealthy role that his experiments ay in his societal development and the development of relationships in his life. Ultimately Victor reverts back to the destructive ways he had accustomed to as he still warns Walton and prompts Walton to kill the creature if given the chance to do so. This highlights Shelley’s harsh comments on the abdication of moral responsibility and the negative effects that intervention, and ultimately one’s ego, have one’s character development, in this instance it is Victor, but this is a much larger social critique that Shelley has surrounding these developments.

            Shelley’s second and more significant societal criticism in the novel is that of discrimination and unjust societal judgment. Her portrayal of the monster not as the victimizer, but as the victim thus paints society as the victimizer and shifts the blame from the monster to the actions of society. Portraying the monster as the protagonist and the society he was placed in as the antagonist, and ultimately the villain, allows Shelley to remain critical of the practices of the current society she was in. This still holds true today, as the monster would experience the same segregation and discrimination he faced in the novel, this necessarily societies fault, and there has been little indication of a social change since Shelley’s writing of the novel. This largely holds true due to the fact, that discrimination of the other is inevitable due to human psychology and basic human nature, which is why Shelley is not only critical of society but also of the unjust human nature within oneself.