Letter to Emerson

Letter to Emerson

Peter Joelson

12/17/08

July 23, 1846

Dear Waldo,

My confinement is over, Waldo! I am happy to report that my two year experiment at Walden was an extreme success! I guess that is why I am laughing as I write to you. Just a day after my experiment finished, before I could even write to you about my marvelous revelations and new ideas, I was arrested for refusing to pay my tax, and brought to a place a person may conceive as a “prison”. You have taught me valuable lessons in life, in fact, you changed my life when I first met you and heard you preach. But highlighted in your “doctrine” (as some people would call it), is to live life for what you believe in and not subside to people who hold the power or the money. Well, I certainly have followed that lifestyle faithfully. But old friend, do not feel the slightest tinge of guilt for me and my current predicament. This prison is actually an almost luxury of a kind. I look out and see the sun set brilliantly over concord, and I realize that this feeling I have in the pit of my stomach is in no way a reaction to my own predicament, but rather it is a feeling of great pity that I feel for the rest of concord. For they are imprisoned in a way I will never be, they are imprisoned within their own minds. My experiment in Walden has taught me a good many things, one of which is that exploring one’s own mind is the key to salvation! Never have I thought so clearly then the days in which I spent at Walden. I journeyed to the corners of my brain, discovering new ideas and new places, to which I have never been! Waldo, you’d love the experience! You must explore your own mind; it will shed light into your life like never before!

I find myself quite enjoying my imprisonment, for I have the self-knowledge that I am just and that the government is wrong. In fact, “under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison” (that sounds pretty good, maybe I’ll include it in one of my essays!). As I told you before, I had refused to pay my tax. You might find that strange, but think for a second, don’t you see? I am walking down the path that you created (yes I realize I have said that man should make paths through woods, not walk down them, don’t throw my own words back at me). I have sought to refute this government for their unjustly policies, policies which I am sure you have recognize. “I do not wish to be regarded as a member of any society which I have not joined!” Their policies in treating blacks, as well as their war with Mexico, none of this should be tolerated by us. But, what do we do? We sit and do nothing, we watch as our own government destroys their own citizens, whether it is through war or through racism. Well I say that we should revolt and that we should fight our own government! Our only chance is through “peaceable revolution.” We must do no harm, yet “enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.” Do not sit around and do nothing as you have done so often in the past. Please, join me in a revolution against our own government.

Sincerely, your friend,

Henry David Thoreau

P.S. Say hello to Lydian for me

Civil Disobedience (Response 2)

Civil Disobedience 2

Peter Joelson

12/16/08

Dear Mr. Thoreau,

Once again I find myself writing to you. After reading the second half of your “Civil Disobedience” essay I once again find your ideas interesting, yet once again have clear, sensible, logic, as to why your ideas do not work. Your ideas on rebelling against your government by not paying taxes in a “peaceable revolution” would not work. Your idea is that, “if a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.” Your theory is correct, but you chose the wrong battle to fight. After your time, there have been a few people who have followed your example, such as Martin Luther King Jr. (fighting for black civil rights). He used and tried to enact other protestors to use the tool of a “peaceable revolution.” The only difference between his revolution and your theoretical revolution, is that his had heart behind it. His revolution inspired hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions), to take part in a rebellion. Your idea of people not paying taxes has a few flaws. For one, the majority of your rebels will only be poor people, who are not paying taxes, not because of principal, but because they do not have the money to do so. Such a rebellion will not go far unless there is heart behind it. It also will not work because a government can strike you down and “shed innocent blood” without any effect. To the average civilian, the government taking actions against a person who hasn’t paid a tax is only a government that is punishing a lawbreaker. However, as it was in the Civil Rights Movement (a point in history I wish you could have seen), the people saw innocent blacks being attacked by dogs or destroyed by fire hoses. Such an image will bring a revolution closer to their objective, for they have the pity of the public people. This is unlike your idea in which not many people will take pity with you, thus bringing you and your revolution nowhere.

P.S. I hope that you take my letters as “constructive criticism” and not contempt.

Walden Conclusion Response

Conclusion Response

Peter Joelson

12/12/08

After reading your book (or rather excerpts from it), it seems that while you give mixed messages, one of your biggest ideals, which you highlight in “Conclusion” is that a man should “direct your eye sight inward, and you’ll find a thousand regions in your mind yet undiscovered.” You believe that discovering oneself is all one needs, and that traveling abroad is thus pointless when you have yourself to travel, “What was the meaning of that South-Sea Exploring Expedition, with all its parade and expense, but an indirect recognition of the fact, that there are continents and seas in the moral world…” I have continued to admire your mind Mr. Thoreau, but I do not envy your mind. While some scholars might think otherwise, I find you to be a very close-minded person. This inner exploring is a concept most will not be able to grasp. The idea is at their fingertips, they understand what they can do, but they cannot hold onto your idea into their hand. Most people do not have the mental ability to achieve your suggestions. Exploring oneself will require a kind of meditation and few people possess the inner strength to achieve it. People explore the world to drink in new surroundings and new ideas. This exploration is odd to you, but just because it is odd, does not mean it is wrong. You must be willing to accept ideas that are different or contrast to your beliefs, just as you hope your readers will be able to accept your ideas. The road to your head is a two lane road, and you do not possess the power to create a road block, no matter how much arrogance you possess.

Response on Higher Laws

Response on Higher Laws

Peter Joelson

12/10/08

Mr. Thoreau, previously I have condescended and I have asked questions that were somewhat sarcastic. But upon reading your “Higher Laws” chapter, I would like to give you some advice. You stated that when you fish, you feel a little bit of “self-respect,” yet afterwards, you feel “that it would have been better if I had not fished.” You feel ashamed for your actions, and believe that it is going against your beliefs. But I feel that you are not at fault, nor should you destroy yourself over your inner conflict. Your urge that when you “live in a wilderness I should again be tempted to become a fisher and hunter in earnest,” is natural. Your belief that “this instinct in me which belongs to the lower orders of creation,” is a false pretense. Everyone has these urges to fish or to hunt. Do you consider yourself a higher order of creation? You said yourself that hunting was “one of the best parts of my education,” and if a boy asked permission to hunt, you would respond “yes.” Your lure to fishing (no pun intended) or hunting is, if not human nature, your childhood calling. Do not destroy your inner self over a childhood memory. But at the same time, you must not forget your childhood memories. The best way to achieve this is by accepting your nature.

Where I lived, What I live for

Where I lived, What I Lived for

Peter Joelson

12/9/08

As a man of nature, you live a life among trees, water, and animals. With your lifestyle, what do you do with your daily life? Obviously self-reflection is one of the inevitable outcomes, which you chose to express by writing books. But apart from that, what is it that you actually do? Living on the outskirts of town, you have no immediate access to any luxuries. Thus your only option of work would be to self-provide. Something that is not made clear in your writings is what happens when you are satisfied with your work? Do you sit back and admire your achievement for days, until you must go back to diligent work? Or, do feel that there is never anything that can be fully completed, and working is your life? Apart from that, you mention that the closest you came to having a “possession” was when you almost bought that house in Hollowell. If this is true, then mentioning the fact that you only have 10 cents is moot; what is the point in possessing money when you don’t buy any possession with that money? If that farm was the closest thing to a possession, did you never buy anything in town? Or do you define possession a different way then I do?

Thoreau's Economy

Response to Thoreau's Economy
Peter Joelson
12/8/08
English 400
Hans Richter



Mr. Thoreau your ideas that you right in your book are quite interesting. However there is a kind of hypocrisy within your words. You say that there are poor men in the world who have inherited farms, cattle and other such items. You then move on and proclaim that men "are so occupied with factitious cares superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them." As a transcendentalists (which I know you refuse to call yourself), to be in touch with nature is one of the most important aspects of life. How can men, who have inherited farms and livestock, live their lives without the slightest grasp or "plucking finer fruits" of nature. Their life is abiding by the rules of nature. They grow crops, for trade or for themselves, but either way they are working with the earth around them. How dare you judge that those people are obsolete to you. You constantly are talking down to them, yet they have grasped the meaning of life more that you ever will. Those peoples or those commoners have families. They are entangled with nature far more than your narrow mindlessness will ever be able to grasp. Having a family is part of nature, possibly the most important part of nature. They have joined the cycle of nature by having kids. An experience you have yet to experience. Mating is the purest form of nature. How dare you suggest that these people are living a life of impurity.

I admire your lifestyle Mr. Thoreau, such simplicity must have a bliss many cannot understand, but I admire your criticism of people. Their life will never be like yours, yet just because their lifestyle is different does not give you the right to condescend them.

The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail

I found the reading to be extremely intriguing. While I do not know much about Thoreau, it seems like the writers were really in his head. The play represents what kind of man Thoreau was. The fact that Thoreau is a transcendentalist is clearly apparent from the play. Henry's "classroom," is the nature and the world around him; a perfect depiction of transcendental idealists. It seems to be a simple and wonderful life to be able to sit down and observe. I would pay wonders to be able to sit in a "classroom" with John and Henry Thoreau as my teachers. We could discuss nature for an endless amount of time. We could ponder the meaning of life and the relationship between man and nature, and not have a care in the world. I would be free from the worry of bad grades or college admission. This is a dreamland that would be wonderful to live (only in short periods of time). Within the first half of the act, Thoreau has revealed who he is, and what he wants to do. It's significant because it's a very simple, yet interesting life.

Sinners in the hands of an Angry God

The sermon written by John Edwards was a last desperate attempt to cling to the Puritan period when Transcendentalism was becoming popular. His sermon is eighteen pages of the same message: You will go to hell and nothing can stop you. His audience feared his words, and probably caused some people to even believe his message. The sermon repeats the symbols of a spider or some other insect as the only chance of salvation (in other words, a small chance).

McCain;s Speach

John McCain's "losing" speech, contained words that were neither original nor unexpected. His speech simply congratulated Obama, and preached about how good America is and how lucky we are. If one were to read the transcript for his speech, one would fall quickly to sleep. But his delivery made the words perfect; his voice displayed an unprecedented amount of emotion. His eyes held true to his voice, people saw, perhaps for the first time, true compassion. His gratitutde was undeniably real. McCain's change of character from the campaign to his speech was a drastic change. At first he would break out, and yell out of order, but now, he seems calmer, more composed and changed many people's initial percepetion of McCain.

14-16 Analysis

Chapter 14-16

Peter Joelson

These chapters highlight the relationships between Dimmsdale and Hester, as well as Chillingworth and Hester. Hester is in-between the two men trying to intertwine them in a social relationship, but is not successful when she quails under the evil eyes of Chillingworth when she threatens to tell his identity to Dimmsdale. Meanwhile, Pearl is becoming more aware of her mothers situation, but is still ignorant as to the meaning of the scarlet “A” on her mother’s bosom.

In chapter 14 Chillingworth’s suspicion of Dimmsdale becomes confirmed when Hester tells him. Chillingworth’s features turn dark and evil, so much so, that Chillignworth is self-aware of his change of character, and yearns to be like he was when he was younger (a scholar-like personality). When Hester informs him of her plans to tell Chillingworth’s identity to Dimmsdale, he quickly responds that if that be the case, then his faith should be determined via revenge (or Chillingwroth’s revenge).

Chapter 15 is a transition between 14 and 16, yet it still holds significant symbols. The light coming between the trees hold Hester in a dark shadow, while brightens Pearl with magnificent beauty. Once again, the contrast of sin and darkness regarding Hester, yet white and beautiful from Pearl is present. Pearl reveals more of her intelligence when she connects the scarlet “A” to Dimmsdale’s constant clutching of his heart. She even tries to outsmart her mother by planting an A on her own chest, to see if Hester will react and tell her the meaning of it.

Chapter 16 reveals more symbolism of dark versus light. Dimmsdale is referred to the “black man,” yet Pearl asks if the “black man” hurt Dimmsdale, rather than connecting the fact that Dimmsdale is the “black man.” The irony is that Dimmsdale hurt himself with his affair with Hester; Pearl’s question is not too far from the truth.

Chapter 9: The Leech

Chapter nine marks a definitive moment in the story. It is the point where the adulterer and the husband meet each other. Ironically, neither of them know each other’s secret. By the end of the chapter, Chillingworth discovers Dimmesdale’s secret. The change in Chillingworth’s expressions lack subtlety; so much he changes, that even the town sees his new dark complexion. His expression was “calm, meditative and scholar-like.” Now he has “something ugly and evil” (144). Chapter nine set the scene of the tension between the characters in the next chapter. The chapter builds their relationship so that one could call them friends. Now with the new information, they have become enemies. But the irony is, the minister does not know that they are enemies, thus, tension builds between the characters, only the tension is on one side of the rope.

Final Essay (The Crucible)

John Proctor: A Tragic Common Man

By Peter Joelson

Tragedies have been written throughout history; from the ancient times with Aristotle, to the sixteenth century of Shakespeare, through the twentieth century with Arthur Miller. Since the beginning, people have been trying to analyze and understand them. Aristotle first defined tragedies and is considered the father of tragedies. There is also “Tragedy and the Common Man” by Arthur Miller, a modern interpretation of tragedy. Miller’s own tragedy, The Crucible, contains characters that act consistently with his essay, but his play also roughly follows the outline of Aristotle’s definition, as delineated in Freytag’s Pyramid. However, the two writers do not agree fully on what a tragedy is, who a tragic hero is, and what they should contain. One of the key differences between Aristotle and Miller is in the endings of a tragedy. Miller believes the ending should be optimistic, leaving the audience upset, but with the knowledge that the protagonist came to know himself, or died on his own terms. Meanwhile, Aristotle believes tragedies should end pessimistically, leaving the audience upset and the protagonist without a heroic ending. The Crucible is a tragedy which includes aspects from both Aristotle’s definition and Miller’s essay. But the play proves to be more consistent with the latter than the former; in fact, John Proctor defies the ancient playwright’s opinion of a tragic character, or hero, and supports a “tragic hero” from “Tragedy and the Common Man.” But it is important to recognize that The Crucible is parallel to Aristotle’s definition regarding structure.

Aristotle suggests that a tragedy should have a full plot. This includes the introduction or incentive moment, a climax followed by a quick falling action, and concluding with a resolution. He strongly advises that the plot must have no coincidences (unless they are thematic); the plot must play out so that events in the play are all connected (Aristotle 2). Miller’s, The Crucible, follows Aristotle’s syllabus as delineated in Freytag’s Pyramid. Arthur Miller also follows Aristotle’s suggestion that the plot should be complex for the best results. According to Aristotle, a complex plot is a plot which includes characters that have a “‘reversal of intention’ [known as] peripeteia and ‘recognition’ or anagnorisis” (Aristotle 2). Peripeteia is “when a character produces an effect opposite to which he intended” (Aristotle 2). While anagnorisis occurs when a character changes by then end of the play, “‘from ignorance to knowledge’” (Aristotle 2). The Crucible includes both aspects: Elizabeth Proctor follows anagnorisis, while John Proctor follows peripeteia. In fact, these are the only similarities between Miller and Aristotle pertaining to characters. Ironically, Miller uses John Proctor’s peripeteia to make the ending optimistic; Aristotle mandates that endings must be pessimistic.

John Proctor is a character who, by definition of Arthur Miller, is a “tragic hero.” He is a common man, which is inconsistent with Aristotle’s definition of “tragic hero,” who is living a “flawed” (Miller) life. Arthur Miller defines a “tragic hero” as a character’s “unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status” (Miller). John Proctor fits this definition; he challenges many different events throughout the play that are not recognized by the other characters. He challenges them because he regards pride as an important characteristic, and recognizes that he would be shamed if he were to be passive towards the events. In the beginning, he exclaims that he “see[s] no light of God in [Mr. Parris]” (65). His lack of faith in Parris is outspoken, and because of his opinion of the minister, he does not go to church. He remains active when he acknowledges that going to church would symbolize his support in Parris. His action against Parris quickly shows the audience that John Proctor is different; or compared to the village of Salem, he is active.

He continues to prove that he is the “tragic hero” when he attempts to act against the accusations of witchcraft. While other characters, such as Giles, rebut the accusations, he is the first to do it before his wife is accused; However, Proctor’s most definitive action, and thus his biggest “tragic flaw,” occurs at the resolution of the play.

To conclude the play, John Proctor remains silent to die with honor and his name, rather than confess lies to save his neck. This noble and tragic event proves, John Proctor follows Aristotle’s definition of peripeteia. He has an epiphany and realizes that confessing to a lie would admit he is a wizard and would soil his name. He already admits to being an adulterer, and does not want to continue destroying his name. In his final speech of the play, John Proctor announces,

I do think I see some shred of goodness in John Proctor. Not enough to weave a banner with, but white enough to keep it from such dogs [the town of Salem, and the judge]…Show honor now, show a stony heart and sink them with it!

(144)

After this speech, he is carried to the gallows and hanged. This ending is consistent with Arthur Miller’s belief in ending tragedies with optimism. The “tragic hero” is killed, but he clears his name, and dies with honor; tragic for a character with such high morals to die, but necessary for the play to possess such emotion. In the end, Proctor is a martyr and his death is optimistic.

John Proctor proves himself a “tragic hero” by Miller’s definition. He is a man that acts what he believes is right, rather than standing by and watching. The cost of such nobility results in a tragedy. He is the “tragic hero’ and is not a high king or big official of the church. He is a farmer, he is a regular civilian, and he is a common man. His story proves Aristotle’s definition is outdated for the 20^th century; tragedies are not limited to “tragic heroes” that have a high power or nobility. Miller agrees with Aristotle’s analysis of the plot and structure of a tragedy, but they could not disagree more on the central attributes needed by a “tragic hero.” A tragic hero must be a common man, and his downfall must evoke optimism.

Response to Tragedy and the Common Man

Tragedy and the Common Man

I agree with Arthur Miller on his essay; tragedies, can, and should apply to everyday people. Miller describes that the tragic hero is trying to find his “rightful” place in society. In most cases, this objective would be a prince trying to be a king, or someone involving the high powers of a hierarchy. In this case, a common man is more apt for the role of “tragic hero.” He or she is more apt because the common man can become more tragic then a high king. They are more apt because the audience members can relate to them. They also have more to prove, being a low status man in a world of kings, makes their need to be in a higher position more dramatic.

Miller also states that a tragic hero’s “tragic flaw” is only a character’s, “unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status,” which is a simplistic reality of tragedies. These “flaws” are more of a person’s stupidity and how his honor holds him prisoner. Even in modern literature, such simplistic writing enables heavy emotions. For example, in the book Ender’s Game, Ender Wiggin has only one flaw, which is his absolute thirst to win at everything. Such an attribute destroys Wiggin from the inside out. Until, by the end of the book, he is crazy, and is only saved from his grieving. No one is killed, but the tragedy in Ender’s loss of innocence and purity, is the tragedy.

Tragedies should not depend on high kings, but rather common people. The tragic hero’s flaw should also not depend on full destruction of his surroundings; but rather his relations to everyone, and how that can affect everything.

Act Four Response

Act four concludes the play, but also represents a strong theme through John Proctor. The theme is pride; John Proctor must choose to live with himself as a liar, an outcast from the town (in a social matter), or choose to remain silent and die with honor. At first, John tries to go in between; he is reluctant to sign any confession on paper, and would only confess verbally. In the end, when Danforth is not persuaded, he decides to hold his head up high. “Because it is my name!...Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on my feet of them that hang!...I have given you my soul; leave my name!” (Page 143). He wants his name to be cleared, for he cannot live with himself in a lie (the lie of being a wizard). John Proctor even says that honor is important, and to die with it, is even more important. “…Show honor now, show a stony heart and sink them with it!” (Page 144). John Proctor is finally facing himself. He now realized the great dishonor of adultery. He did not want his name to be spoiled any more than it was; thus, he was hanged before he would to confess a lie.

Act Two Response

Crucible Response: Act Two

Peter Joelson

9/24/08

Act two sets place in a single room in a single house on the outskirts of Salem, Massachusetts. The beginning of the act sets the tone of lifestyle in the time period. The men did the labor, while the women stayed home to care for the kids and the house. It also showed the way men treated women. Even to his own wife, Proctor yelled at her as if she is being out of line, and out of order; it was as if she talked poorly to an officer in the army when she was a mere private.

It is interesting to note that John was furious with his wife for accusing of adultery (or the temptation of adultery), yet later on in the scene he was fighting furiously to try and keep his wife from being arrested. He grew extremely protective and promised her that he’ll keep her safe.

The tensions between the villagers in the previous scene exploded in between the first and second act (time passed in between the acts). At the beginning of this act, the audience learns that of thirty women were arrested and accused of being witches. Many, if not all, were accused by a jealous friend, or over a quibble the accused had with a neighbor. A prime example of this was John Proctor’s own wife, who was accused by Abigail. Abigail, who then set her up by looking like Mary used a “Voodoo doll” (even though it wasn’t referred to that in the play). It is ironic, that many of these women are found jailed next to women who accused them of witchcraft.

The ends wit Abigail being taken to jailed. But it is important to note that she believed that if she can be accused of witchcraft, then it must be unreal. Her pride may prove to be an interesting aspect in the upcoming acts.

Act One Response

The Crucible

Act 1 Response

Peter Joelson

9/23/08

The first act showed the audience the setting for the story. It obviously shows a small village in the Middle of Nowhere, Massachusetts, but it also shows the setting of the characters. It introduces all the main characters who each have a secret, an emotion that will become significant in the following acts. For example, it tells of John Proctor’s unwilling passion for Abigail. He knows it is bad to act the way he did toward her, but he cannot help himself, for tis the curse of Darwinism on man. It also tells of betrayals and hatred that runs in the history of certain people and their neighbors, such as the Putnam’s and the Nurse’s.

One of the first lines on the subject of witchcraft in the play is, “…for everyone so inclined to express publicly his guilt and sins, under the cover of accusations against the victim.” (Act One, page 7). In other words, people that have a grudge with a women, can just call her a witch, and in most cases she would be put to death, leaving the accuser with his or her spoils.

“The Crucible” while is not a true story, depicts realistically, the lives of people during the witch hunts in the 1600’s. There was so much fear during those times, that anyone being accused had a speedy, but unfair trial, if they’re lucky. Many were hanged, or burned without trial.

In Act One, the fear of witches builds among the people. Many unyielding rumors were going around, until everyone had a distilled fear that the devil were among them. All it takes is one push, and the village will run mad.

Upon the Distemper of Body

Upon Some Distemper of Body

The poem references the pain of life and that when the narrator is mourning her life, she looks “up unto his Throne on high.” (Line 7) The line is a reference to god, she looks to god for help and healing. “Throne” (Line 7) is capitalized, signifying a name, a stock epithet, or a metaphor for the high place of god. Her pains are then dried away as she see the light. The poem underlines the importance of religion, and how god can save our souls. People today, who lack the belief in religion, can relate. Everyone looks up to someone for help, whether it’s a friend, or a parent, everyone has guidance.

Upon a Spider Catching a Fly

Upon a Spider Catching a Fly

This poem is an allegory. It goes into great detail of how a spider catches his prey, and cannot escape, But on lines 41-43, he writes “But mighty Gracious Lord,/Communicate/ Thy Grace to break the Cord;…” The writer is instructing the reader that one that makes contact with God, may be repented and be set free from the “Cord(s)” (Line 43) of sins. This poem, written during the Puritan times, obviously shows religious references and guidance. It tells the reader not to be afraid to talk to god, for if you don’t then you should be afraid.

Ragtime Essay

Out of the essays that I have written for English, this one took me the longest. I had "writer's block" and could not compose a great essay. So not only did it take me the longest amount of time, it is probably one of my worst.

Without further ado

Ragtime is a story that takes place in the early 1900’s, and follows the story of many different people. By the end of the book, the life (and death) of all the people tie in together. The book uses many different themes, one of which is black rights. Many of the characters in the book are black, and most of them become civil rights activists. One of them, Coalhouse Walker, becomes more violent then the others. Coalhouse experiences an epiphany, when he is discriminated at a volunteer fire station, changing his life forever.

Coalhouse is a simple piano player, but his life took a radical turnaround when volunteer fireman bar his path on the street he is on. He is required to pay a fee to drive on the road. It infuriated him when he saw a white driver pass without being charged; at that moment, he decided that something should be done. He blatantly refused to pay the toll, and when the fireman didn’t move, he ran to the police. At their refusal to help, he went back to his car defeated, only to find his car had been wrecked by the firefighters.

The incident is a symbol for black rights all across America at the time of the early 1900’s. It proves that even though the civil war was over for about 40 years, incidents were still occurring (even in the Union States). This particular event of racism changed Coalhouse’s life forever. He wanted a lawyer, but no one would take his case. Alone in the legal world, he had nowhere to turn. He decided to take violent actions, and he began to cause terror on the city, one such act, was threatening to bomb J.P Morgan’s library. Most people thought he went too far, that his ideas were too extreme, even Booker T. Washington, famous Black civil rights activist, tried to stop him. Eventually Coalhouse was shot, for (according to police) attempting to escape.

From the point where Coalhouse went to the firehouse, all the characters came together. Each character is now fully developed, and the story begins to come together into a climatic ending. This event changes the story’s theme of family, to a story where the characters meet the bigger community of the world.

Before the fire station incident, the story followed Coalhouse, and his love and relationship with Sarah. It was also about the narrator’s family (Mother, Father, Mother’s Younger Brother, ect.), and their relationship with Sarah and Coalhouse. But after the incident, the story turns to the community. Mother moves abroad and meets Tateh, Coalhouse goes into the city as a terrorist, rather than a musician, and Sarah moves to help Coalhouse, and is killed in the process.

The significance of Coalhouse’s story was to show, just how devastating racism was. Doctorow wrote about a character that is at such inner peace with himself. A man that is polite and extremely caring. But one event changed that man into an extreme radical that could be titled, a terrorist.

The author, E.L. Docotrow, makes the reader emotional, by killing, not only Coalhouse but also Mother’s Younger Brother, who died indirectly because of the death of Coalhouse. This gives the story a certain tone, a gloom, that pulls the reader in. The characters grasp the reader, so that if a character dies, the reader cares and is affected by his death, giving the story a certain resolution.

Without the scene at the firehouse, the story would have had no backbone. The book would not have been as meaningful, because everything that precedes the incident was centered on that scene.

Welcome

Welcome to the inner thoughts of Joelson. Here my mind will be open, and I shall share with you my thoughts on texts, poems and random articles. Visitors, you will soon realize my distaste to over analyzing poems. By over analyzing, I mean making so many obscene and minute connections and calling the poet a genius, for something that he didn't think of.

I wish you luck, and let you be lost in my insightful and extremely genius writings.