Video Version HERE
December 3, 1999
“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism,” (Orwell in Brander). Although Orwell is best known for his anti-Communist works such as “1984” or “Animal Farm”, it is important to remember that Orwell was a democratic socialist. Orwell, throughout his life, struggled with the question of socialism, and what it means to be a socialist. “Keep the Aspidistra Flying”, published in 1936, continues this struggle.
Orwell was born in 1903 in Motihari Bengal. In 1917, he was given a scholarship to Eton College, which he attended until 1921. Orwell was a poor boy in a setting where poverty was despised, and this helped to make him a youthful radical. He served in Burma with the Indian Imperial Police from 1922 to 1927, and came to detest his role as an agent of imperialism. He ended up identifying with the Burmese more and in 1927 he retired and decided to live among the least privileged members of society. These experiences provided much of the material for his early works, including “Keep the Apsidistra Flying”. In 1936, Orwell was sent by the Socialist Left Book Club to study the living conditions of the unemployed in England. Orwell angered his sponsors by writing “The Road to Wigan Pier” in which he criticized orthodox socialism.
Orwell went to Spain during the Spanish Civil War, and joined the militia unit of the Marxist Workers Party. Orwell was seriously injured in the war. He was also involved in the fighting between the communists and anarchists in Barcelona. The communist secret police sought out Orwell, and he fled from Spain.
One question that Orwell faces is: how does a socialist function in a capitalist society? This is taken in the person of Gordon Comstock. Gordon is not a socialist. However, Orwell uses Gordon to convey the message to socialists.
Gordon is a man who is disgusted by the capitalism he sees around him. As a student, Gordon writes an underground newspaper in which he advocates global socialism (although he will later in his life reject socialism) and the dismemberment of the British Empire. However, once Gordon graduates from school and enters the work force, the question of how he reacts to capitalism must become clearer.
Gordon works in an advertising company, where his literary talents are discovered and he is put in a very profitable position with a very optimistic future. However, Gordon can not escape the feeling that he has sold his soul to the money god. To the consternation of all his relatives, Gordon leaves the company.
Gordon at first has an overly romanticized view of poverty. Coming from a dreary middle class family, Gordon thinks poverty is where one feels one is alive; the excitement of living on the streets. Gordon finds out otherwise, that poverty is having to sneak away from the landlady, and always having a hungry feeling in one’s stomach. Gordon ends up taking a job in a second hand bookshop where he can barely make ends meet and where there is no chance of advancement.
Orwell presents some interesting paradoxes in “Keep the Aspidistra Flying”. Through Gordon’s eyes we are allowed to see the despicable character of capitalism. However, Gordon’s attempt to rebel against capitalism only brings misery to himself and to his girlfriend Rosemary. If Orwell approves neither of capitalism nor of Gordon’s rebellion against it, what is Orwell trying to say in this book?
Critics have differed in their interpretation. Some argue that Orwell agreed with Gordon’s moral conviction, but the purpose of the book was to show how deeply our society revolves around money, and it is impossible not to be obsessed with money in our society. In this light, the book becomes almost more of a critique of society than of Gordon. Gordon has noble ambitions, but he was defeated by an evil society (Guild in Oldsey and Browne 144). While there is some appeal to this point of view, I think it ignores the fact that much of Gordon’s misery is self-inflicted. Another variation on this is that it is foolish for Gordon to even try to rebel against capitalism in the first place, and his whole quest to escape the money god is foolish.
Let us assume for a moment that this is indeed what Orwell is trying to show. If this is the case, I believe Orwell has made a poor argument. Orwell could have designed a book about a man who recognized how hollow the value of wealth and possessions are, and decided to give everything he had away and live in poverty. This man would then come to take pride in his poverty. He would shun the traditions of the middle class. This is not, however, the situation that Orwell sets up.
The character of Gordon is obsessed with the social value of money throughout the whole book. In fact, Gordon does not even want other people to know he is living in poverty. He is forever concerned about whom he borrows money from, and how people treat him because of his poverty.
If in fact the argument of Orwell’s book is that one can not escape the money god in a capitalistic society, then this would fit in with that argument. In trying to escape from money, Gordon ends up becoming obsessed with it. I would argue however that many individuals have successfully escaped the quest for accumulating wealth, and are able to simply not care about money.
There is much in the character of Gordon Comstock that is autobiographical to Orwell. Like Orwell, Gordon is a writer. Like Gordon, Orwell worked in a bookstore in London, and hated it. Orwell himself knows what it is like to be poor. In his travels in Paris, described in his book “Down and Out in Paris and London”, Orwell had to make ends meet on one Shilling a day (five times less than the fictional Gordon). Orwell actually describes many of the same feelings Gordon has. Orwell describes how women are repulsed by him because he has no money (Guild in Oldsey and Brown 147). Orwell also describes what a good feeling it can be to slide all the way into the very bottom of poverty because there is a relief that accompanies the realization that one is still surviving. Gordon also expresses a number of the same views that Orwell is expressing.
To Orwell, Gordon is not simply an abstract character he uses. Gordon is very much a reflection of Orwell. I believe that “Keep the Aspidistra Flying” is a difficult book to interpret because Orwell himself is ambivalent. He understands the problem all too well, but he is unsure of the solution. Orwell seeks to show through the character of Gordon his own experience in revolting against capitalism.
Of course, Gordon is not the only character Orwell sets up. Orwell realizes there is more than one way of rebelling against capitalism, and so he shows Phillip Ravelston as an alternative war.
Orwell sets up Ravelston as a foil for Gordon. Although both men are anti-capitalists, they take different approaches. Gordon lives in self-imposed poverty and is miserable because of it. Ravelston is a rich man, living in luxury, yet is a socialist. Ravelston’s optimism is a contrast to Gordon’s pessimism; however, the reader often gets the sense that Ravelston does not know what he is talking about. Orwell uses Ravelston to critique the “Cadillac Communist”.
At the beginning of chapter five, Orwell describes Ravelston. Ravelson lives in Regent Park which to him “was practically the same thing as living in the slums” (Orwell 80). “It was part of a life-long attempt to escape from his own class and become, as it were, an honorary member of the proletariat. Like all such attempts, it was foredoomed to failure” (Orwell 80). Orwell also states that Ravelston had the habit of dressing unconventionally. “He made a point of going everywhere, even to fashionable houses and expensive restaurants, in these clothes just to show his contempt for upper-class conventions; he did not fully realize that it is only the upper classes who can do these things” (Orwell 80-81). Orwell goes on to say about Ravelston: “in every moment of his life he was apologizing tacitly, for the largeness of his income. You could make him as uncomfortable by reminding him that he was rich as you could make Gordon by reminding him that he was poor” (Orwell 81). In these quotes, Orwell is able to describe Ravelston as somebody whose entire life is a contradiction. His attempts to make himself a socialist only make his wealth more glaring.
In chapter five, Gordon and Ravelston go to a pub and have some drinks and talk. Orwell attempts to show the folly of both Ravelston’s approach to capitalism and Gordon’s approach. Gordon’s approach, which is the subject of the rest of the book, is shown to be self-destructive, as it makes Gordon miserable and separates him from the one he loves. Ravelston’s approach is not shown in this way. He is always depicted as happy. His approach, as a young rich man playing socialist, is shown as harmless. However, Ravelston’s approach is hypocritical, where at least Gordon faces the reality of his decision to make war on money.
During the course of the conversation, Ravelston mentions several times that Gordon should read Marx, while Gordon indicates his distaste for Socialism. Orwell presents somewhat of an irony here in that the rich man should be defending Marx against a poor man. However, Orwell is also trying to make a point. Ravelston is incapable of understanding what he is talking about because he has never known what it is like to be poor. It is Orwell’s critique of the intellectual rather than the experimental socialist. At one point Gordon is talking about how miserable life in London is and how it is all a result of poverty. Ravelston responds with “Of course…After all, it’s only a reflection of what Marx said. Every ideology is a reflection of economic circumstances.” Gordon then answers, “Ah, but you only understand it out of Marx! You don’t know what it means to have to crawl along on two quid a week” (Orwell 90).
In the same chapter that Orwell contrasts Ravelston with Gordon, he also contrasts Ravelston with Hermione Slater. Hermoine is Ravelston’s lover, and he adores her. On one hand, the same Ravelston who looks hypocritical when contrasted with Gordon looks much better when contrasted with Hermione. Just as the reader is beginning to get disgusted with Ravelston, Orwell shows how so many rich people, like Hermione, do not even care about the poor at all. “Don’t talk to me about the lower classes” Hermione says to Ravelston. “I hate them. They smell” (Orwell 93).
At the same time, however, Orwell also raises the question of why Ravelston is so in love with Hermione if he takes his beliefs seriously. Ravelston adores her, and yet it does not seem to bother him that Hermione laughs at all his principles. “Why do you have to live in such a dreadful way? Pretending you’re poor when you’re not and living in that poky flat with no servants, and going about with all these beastly people” (Orwell 98). In this way, Orwell uses Hermione both to make Ravelston look more favorable and to further point out his hypocrisy.
Hermione, in one of her speeches, shows she does not understand what a Socialist really is. “Of course you’re a Socialist. So am I. I mean we’re all Socialist nowadays. But I don’t see why you have to give all your money away and make friends with the lower classes. You can be a Socialist and have a good time, that’s what I say” (Orwell 98). Orwell obviously intends to satirize this belief because, of course, giving your money away and making friends with the lower classes is what Socialism is all about. However, Orwell is making another point too. If Ravelston can call himself a Socialist, and still live in such luxury (compared to Gordon), then what is to stop Hermione from calling herself a Socialist.
Orwell shows how Ravelston, for all his good intentions, does not really sympathize with the poor. “In the taxi she lay against him, still half asleep, her head pillowed on his breast. He thought of the unemployed in Middlesbrough, seven in a room on twenty-five bob a week. But the girl’s body was heavy against him, and Middlesbrough was so far away” (Orwell 97). Ravelston is able to think of the poor only in the abstract sense, and so they do not seem real to him. He is able to dismiss them so easily in favor of his life of luxury, which is very real to him.
Orwell uses chapter five to set up Ravelston as an alternative way to make war on money, rather than the self-destructive way Gordon has chosen. However, Orwell also shows the meaningless in Ravelston’s war. For all the misery Gordon’s own war brings him, at least it is honest.
The book ends with Gordon getting his girlfriend Rosemary pregnant. Gordon gives up his war on money and becomes, in the words of one critic, a “disastrously defeated Rebel” (Richard Rees*1 in Oldsey and Browne). Many critics have criticized the ending. Again it brings up questions about what Orwell was trying to say. Does the failure of Gordon’s war means Orwell views a war against capitalism to be fatal? One must either delude one’s self as Ravelston does, or end in defeat as Gordon. Again, I believe the ending is supposed to be ambivalent. Orwell himself is still struggling with these questions, so rather than give the audience an answer, he just throws out the topic for them to think about.
Bibliography
Bander, Laurence. George Orwell. London: Longmans, Green and Co. 1956.
Calder, Jenni. Critical Essays in Modern Literature—Chronicles of Conscience: A Study of George Orwell and Arthur Koestler. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 1968.
Crick, Bernard. George Orwell: A Life. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1980.
Hammond, J.R. A George Orwell Companion: A Guide to the Novels, Documentaries and Essays. London: Macmillan Press. 1982.
Hollis, Christopher. A Study of George Orwell: The Man and his Works. London: Hollis and Carter. 1956,
Oldsey, Bernard, Joseph Browne. Critical Essays on George Orwell. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co. 1986.
Orwell, George. Keep the Aspidistra Flying. London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1936.
Woodcock, George. The Crystal Spirit: A Study of George Orwell. Boston: Minerva Press. 1966.
Professor’s Comments: Joel, you have several good insights into Orwell’s book in this paper, but you needed to focus and organize these insights into a more compelling argument about the book. In particular, you needed to suggest the importance of his ambiguous response to capitalism. Why should we be concerned about working through this response? You also needed to use your paragraphs to give a better sense of the development of your argument.
Grade: B-
Showing posts with label English Class. Show all posts
Showing posts with label English Class. Show all posts
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Sunday, December 11, 2005
King Henry IV Part 2
December 4, 1998
Video Version HERE
It is considered no secret to the avid film viewer that sequels usually disappoint. Whether the sequel follows too closely to the original, or deviates too much from the original format, it is often hard for film makers to give the audience a work they feel is worthy of its predecessor. The writers of sequel have to work with characters and a format already established, and often the restrictions take their toll on the work. All too often a sequel will leave the viewers wishing they had found a better way to spend their time.
Although I was aware of the dangers a sequel faces in the theater today, I was not expecting that Shakespeare would face the sequel problem in the Renaissance Theater. Surely the “immortal bard” would not be subject to the same problems that plague ordinary writers. However the problem of sequels is one that even Shakespeare and his contemporaries had to deal with.
“The Play in two Parts is a fairly frequent phenomenon in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Sometimes, as we have seen, a Second Part was added because the First was popular, sometimes the two Parts were planned together. But in either case it often happens that the dramatist resuming his task with the same characters, taking their story further along the time-dimension, is impelled to look more detachedly at his subject than before” (Leech 28).
After Reading “King Henry IV Part 2" (along with some commentaries to help me understand it) I became aware that Shakespeare did indeed suffer from the sequel syndrome. Although “King Henry IV Part 2" contains much that is admirable, it is inferior to its predecessor because it repeats much of Part 1 and its structure is lacking.
Before beginning to point out the flaws in this work, it is worth mentioning that “King Henry IV Part 2" has much about it that is enjoyable. To hold it up against “King Henry IV Part 1" is to compare it to “one of Shakespeare’s most popular plays” (Abrams 822), and to say it falls short of this piece is to leave plenty of room for excellence. As one critic put it, “It is, however, inferior to its predecessor as a work of dramatic art, though, in my judgement, not at all so as a work of genius” (Rolfe 13). As with “King Henry IV Part 1", Shakespeare’s true genius shows through in the comic scenes, more specifically the scenes centering on Falstaff. There is one scene in which Prince Hal and Poins disguise themselves as servants (drawers) at the Tavern in Eastcheap to see how Falstaff will act unaware of their presence. When they discover him badmouthing them, and reveal themselves, Falstaff must quickly explain what he has said in a manner very similar to when he was caught in his own lies in “King Henry IV Part 1". Another interesting scene finds Falstaff in battle against the rebels. When he challenges one of them, John Coleville to a fight, the latter yields to Falstaff, afraid of him because he believed Falstaff to be behind the death of Hotspur at Shrewsbury.
Shakespeare also introduces several new characters who are of great interest. There is Ancient Pistol, a friend of Falstaff, about whom one of the other characters exclaims, “Hang him, swaggering rascal, let him not come hither: it is the foul-mouth’dst rogue in England” (2.4.69-70). Pistol “speaks almost entirely in borrowed phrases, orts, and shards of theatrical language...Pistol speaks so like a character in a play that none of the play’s other characters are able to communicate with him” (Pearlman 129). Also fascinating are two elderly justices who are “corrected and corrupted by Falstaff” (Pearlman 131).
Despite the genius of this play, Shakespeare falls into one of the same pitfalls many modern film sequels do. The play repeats too much of the first. The scene described above with Falstaff is caught badmouthing the Prince and Poins is hilarious, but in many respects the same gag that Shakespeare used earlier in the first play. Although it certainly succeeds in bringing laughs, it indicates a lack of creativity on Shakespeare’s part.
More grating is the replay of the Prince Hal and King Henry IV theme. At the end of the first play, the audience is under the impression that Prince Hal has proven himself to his father, shown his true character, and laid aside any worries about what kind of a man he will turn out to be. “However ‘unfinished’ the characterization of Hal may be in Part 1, all doubts about his princeliness are erased at Shrewsbury; and even before Shrewsbury there are hints that his relation with Falstaff will not continue” (Ornstein 153). In “King Henry IV Part 2" the relationship of Prince Hal and his father deteriorates to what it was at the start of the first play, and the audience is forced to watch the path to reconciliation all over again. Things begin to go wrong again between the two when the King learns that Hal, instead of hunting at Windsor as he expected, was “With Poins, and his other continual followers” (4.4.53). The King is once again filled with sorrow over his son’s actions. “The audience knows that King Henry has once again thoroughly misjudged his son and can only hope that the misunderstanding will soon be resolved” (Pearlman 134). The circumstances are different this time than in the first play (King Henry IV is on his deathbed at the time of reconciliation) yet it is essentially the same stuff. “Hal’s conversion from wastrel to exemplary prince has been enacted once before; now Shakespeare must try to vary action and meaning even as he stays within the lines of the pattern. Shakespeare is ingenious and imaginative but just as Hal’s relapse is less than convincing so his second conversion presents problems of great moral and dramatic complexity” (Pearlman 133).
“King Henry IV Part 2" is also lacking in structure as compared to part one. In “King Henry IV Part 1", Shakespeare carefully sets everything up to fit in a neat framework. Hotspur and Hal are perfect as foils for each other, even if Shakespeare does have to take some historical liberties to achieve this. The play ends climatically with a battle. Even though there is no sense of finality, the play closes with a climax that the plot has been building up to all along. In fact, one critic argues: “Pleading that Part 1 is incomplete because it does not represent the whole story of Hal’s ‘redemption’ is rather like arguing that “Richard III” is incomplete because it does not document the redemption of England under Henry Tudor” (Ornstein 153).
In “King Henry IV Part 2", the characters are neither paired up as nicely nor presented as smoothly. Granted things are obviously not as easy for Shakespeare here, since many of his characters are held over from the previous play. Pistol is introduced rather suddenly, and there is no account of where he had been during Part 1. This can be taken as an example that Shakespeare was not planning ahead to Part 2 when he wrote the highly structured “King Henry IV Part 1" (Pearlman 88).
Shakespeare opens Part 2 with Rumor, who sets the mood for the play. Rumor claims that he misleads the multitudes and this can be taken as Shakespeare’s claim that he will confuse his audience by filling the play with confusing falsehoods. However once Shakespeare has set the stage like this, he seldom returns to his original purpose (Pearlman 123).
Also, although in some ways Shakespeare intends for his play to take place directly after “King Henry Part 1", (the play opens with Northumberland finding out about the death of his son), Shakespeare leaves some gaps. When the work opens, we find out from a conversation between Falstaff and his page that Hal had recently been imprisoned by Lord Chief Justice for hitting him when the two got into an argument. “Sir, here comes the nobleman that committed the Prince for striking him about Bardolph” (1.2.55-56). Shakespeare gives no time frame for when this might have occurred.
In writing “King Henry IV Part 2", Shakespeare faces “the perennial problem of sequels-how to repeat without repeating” (Pearlman 123). Given the difficulty of this task, it is not surprising that Shakespeare’s work experiences the problem of many film sequels of today. Although it is interesting to note these deficiencies, one should not allow them to take away from what otherwise is a most intriguing play. Despite the small flaws mentioned in this paper, Shakespeare still presents a work of genius, and an exciting conclusion to “King Henry IV Part 1".
Bibliography
Abram, M. H., ed. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 6th ed. Vol. 1. New York: W W Norton & Company, 1993. 2 vols.
Leech, Clifford. William Shakespeare: The Chronicles. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1962.
Ornstein, Robert. A Kingdom for a Stage. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
Pearlman, E. William Shakespeare: The History Plays. Denver: University of Colorado, 1992.
Rolfe, William J. Introduction. King Henry the Fourth Part II. By William Shakespeare. 1600. New York: Harpers & Brothers, 1899.
Shakespeare, William. King Henry IV Part 2. 1600. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.
Professor’s comments: I thought a few times you flirted with being captured by the critics. But on the whole you found ways to integrate their conceptions into a consistent pattern of interpretation. You do have a substantial task to comment on a whole play–and in relation to another one , no less–in one short paper and, at the same time to bring in supporting details from the text that are specific and concrete while illustrating large matters of design. This is what you do best. I thought a couple of parts as marked, were particularly strong in this regard. In sum, you show considerable grasp of Part 2. But, now, what am I to do with the embarrassing errors (to/too, then/than) and the signs of shoddy, if any, proofreading? They certainly make easy the decision not to grant the highest grade, and they probably should bring the grade down another notch. But senility is setting in....
Grade: A-
Video Version HERE
It is considered no secret to the avid film viewer that sequels usually disappoint. Whether the sequel follows too closely to the original, or deviates too much from the original format, it is often hard for film makers to give the audience a work they feel is worthy of its predecessor. The writers of sequel have to work with characters and a format already established, and often the restrictions take their toll on the work. All too often a sequel will leave the viewers wishing they had found a better way to spend their time.
Although I was aware of the dangers a sequel faces in the theater today, I was not expecting that Shakespeare would face the sequel problem in the Renaissance Theater. Surely the “immortal bard” would not be subject to the same problems that plague ordinary writers. However the problem of sequels is one that even Shakespeare and his contemporaries had to deal with.
“The Play in two Parts is a fairly frequent phenomenon in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Sometimes, as we have seen, a Second Part was added because the First was popular, sometimes the two Parts were planned together. But in either case it often happens that the dramatist resuming his task with the same characters, taking their story further along the time-dimension, is impelled to look more detachedly at his subject than before” (Leech 28).
After Reading “King Henry IV Part 2" (along with some commentaries to help me understand it) I became aware that Shakespeare did indeed suffer from the sequel syndrome. Although “King Henry IV Part 2" contains much that is admirable, it is inferior to its predecessor because it repeats much of Part 1 and its structure is lacking.
Before beginning to point out the flaws in this work, it is worth mentioning that “King Henry IV Part 2" has much about it that is enjoyable. To hold it up against “King Henry IV Part 1" is to compare it to “one of Shakespeare’s most popular plays” (Abrams 822), and to say it falls short of this piece is to leave plenty of room for excellence. As one critic put it, “It is, however, inferior to its predecessor as a work of dramatic art, though, in my judgement, not at all so as a work of genius” (Rolfe 13). As with “King Henry IV Part 1", Shakespeare’s true genius shows through in the comic scenes, more specifically the scenes centering on Falstaff. There is one scene in which Prince Hal and Poins disguise themselves as servants (drawers) at the Tavern in Eastcheap to see how Falstaff will act unaware of their presence. When they discover him badmouthing them, and reveal themselves, Falstaff must quickly explain what he has said in a manner very similar to when he was caught in his own lies in “King Henry IV Part 1". Another interesting scene finds Falstaff in battle against the rebels. When he challenges one of them, John Coleville to a fight, the latter yields to Falstaff, afraid of him because he believed Falstaff to be behind the death of Hotspur at Shrewsbury.
Shakespeare also introduces several new characters who are of great interest. There is Ancient Pistol, a friend of Falstaff, about whom one of the other characters exclaims, “Hang him, swaggering rascal, let him not come hither: it is the foul-mouth’dst rogue in England” (2.4.69-70). Pistol “speaks almost entirely in borrowed phrases, orts, and shards of theatrical language...Pistol speaks so like a character in a play that none of the play’s other characters are able to communicate with him” (Pearlman 129). Also fascinating are two elderly justices who are “corrected and corrupted by Falstaff” (Pearlman 131).
Despite the genius of this play, Shakespeare falls into one of the same pitfalls many modern film sequels do. The play repeats too much of the first. The scene described above with Falstaff is caught badmouthing the Prince and Poins is hilarious, but in many respects the same gag that Shakespeare used earlier in the first play. Although it certainly succeeds in bringing laughs, it indicates a lack of creativity on Shakespeare’s part.
More grating is the replay of the Prince Hal and King Henry IV theme. At the end of the first play, the audience is under the impression that Prince Hal has proven himself to his father, shown his true character, and laid aside any worries about what kind of a man he will turn out to be. “However ‘unfinished’ the characterization of Hal may be in Part 1, all doubts about his princeliness are erased at Shrewsbury; and even before Shrewsbury there are hints that his relation with Falstaff will not continue” (Ornstein 153). In “King Henry IV Part 2" the relationship of Prince Hal and his father deteriorates to what it was at the start of the first play, and the audience is forced to watch the path to reconciliation all over again. Things begin to go wrong again between the two when the King learns that Hal, instead of hunting at Windsor as he expected, was “With Poins, and his other continual followers” (4.4.53). The King is once again filled with sorrow over his son’s actions. “The audience knows that King Henry has once again thoroughly misjudged his son and can only hope that the misunderstanding will soon be resolved” (Pearlman 134). The circumstances are different this time than in the first play (King Henry IV is on his deathbed at the time of reconciliation) yet it is essentially the same stuff. “Hal’s conversion from wastrel to exemplary prince has been enacted once before; now Shakespeare must try to vary action and meaning even as he stays within the lines of the pattern. Shakespeare is ingenious and imaginative but just as Hal’s relapse is less than convincing so his second conversion presents problems of great moral and dramatic complexity” (Pearlman 133).
“King Henry IV Part 2" is also lacking in structure as compared to part one. In “King Henry IV Part 1", Shakespeare carefully sets everything up to fit in a neat framework. Hotspur and Hal are perfect as foils for each other, even if Shakespeare does have to take some historical liberties to achieve this. The play ends climatically with a battle. Even though there is no sense of finality, the play closes with a climax that the plot has been building up to all along. In fact, one critic argues: “Pleading that Part 1 is incomplete because it does not represent the whole story of Hal’s ‘redemption’ is rather like arguing that “Richard III” is incomplete because it does not document the redemption of England under Henry Tudor” (Ornstein 153).
In “King Henry IV Part 2", the characters are neither paired up as nicely nor presented as smoothly. Granted things are obviously not as easy for Shakespeare here, since many of his characters are held over from the previous play. Pistol is introduced rather suddenly, and there is no account of where he had been during Part 1. This can be taken as an example that Shakespeare was not planning ahead to Part 2 when he wrote the highly structured “King Henry IV Part 1" (Pearlman 88).
Shakespeare opens Part 2 with Rumor, who sets the mood for the play. Rumor claims that he misleads the multitudes and this can be taken as Shakespeare’s claim that he will confuse his audience by filling the play with confusing falsehoods. However once Shakespeare has set the stage like this, he seldom returns to his original purpose (Pearlman 123).
Also, although in some ways Shakespeare intends for his play to take place directly after “King Henry Part 1", (the play opens with Northumberland finding out about the death of his son), Shakespeare leaves some gaps. When the work opens, we find out from a conversation between Falstaff and his page that Hal had recently been imprisoned by Lord Chief Justice for hitting him when the two got into an argument. “Sir, here comes the nobleman that committed the Prince for striking him about Bardolph” (1.2.55-56). Shakespeare gives no time frame for when this might have occurred.
In writing “King Henry IV Part 2", Shakespeare faces “the perennial problem of sequels-how to repeat without repeating” (Pearlman 123). Given the difficulty of this task, it is not surprising that Shakespeare’s work experiences the problem of many film sequels of today. Although it is interesting to note these deficiencies, one should not allow them to take away from what otherwise is a most intriguing play. Despite the small flaws mentioned in this paper, Shakespeare still presents a work of genius, and an exciting conclusion to “King Henry IV Part 1".
Bibliography
Abram, M. H., ed. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 6th ed. Vol. 1. New York: W W Norton & Company, 1993. 2 vols.
Leech, Clifford. William Shakespeare: The Chronicles. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1962.
Ornstein, Robert. A Kingdom for a Stage. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
Pearlman, E. William Shakespeare: The History Plays. Denver: University of Colorado, 1992.
Rolfe, William J. Introduction. King Henry the Fourth Part II. By William Shakespeare. 1600. New York: Harpers & Brothers, 1899.
Shakespeare, William. King Henry IV Part 2. 1600. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.
Professor’s comments: I thought a few times you flirted with being captured by the critics. But on the whole you found ways to integrate their conceptions into a consistent pattern of interpretation. You do have a substantial task to comment on a whole play–and in relation to another one , no less–in one short paper and, at the same time to bring in supporting details from the text that are specific and concrete while illustrating large matters of design. This is what you do best. I thought a couple of parts as marked, were particularly strong in this regard. In sum, you show considerable grasp of Part 2. But, now, what am I to do with the embarrassing errors (to/too, then/than) and the signs of shoddy, if any, proofreading? They certainly make easy the decision not to grant the highest grade, and they probably should bring the grade down another notch. But senility is setting in....
Grade: A-
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
A Tale of Two Cities
Video Version HERE
A Tale of Two Cities: High School Book Review
1. Book: A Tale of Two Cities
2. Author: Charles Dickens
3. Genre: Historical Fiction
4. Setting: The Book takes place in France and England during the late seventeen hundreds. Dickens probably described the mood of the book best himself when he wrote, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...” The book shows both hope and joy contrasted with violence and hate.
5. Characters
Lucie Manette: A young English lady, with long golden curls. She has a forehead that moves when she thinks too hard, and most men find this attractive. Perfect in almost anything, she is extremely devoted to her father, and to a lesser extent her husband. She cries easily and doesn't take shocking news well.
Charles Darnay: A perfect gentleman. He is a French nobleman by nature, but lives in England. He is unique among his kind in that he cares for the poor. A very caring person, as evidenced by his attitudes towards Lucie.
Sydney Carton: He looks exactly like Darnay. He feels like his life has been wasted. He has an excellent memory, and is a valuable asset to his friend Stryver. Dickens frequently compares Carton to a Jackal
6. Theme: The theme is that all life is important. In the beginning, the aristocrats treat the peasants’ life as nothing. After the revolution, the peasants see the aristocrats life as nothing, but Sydney Carton, whose own life is wasted, makes the ultimate sacrifice to protect the life of his friend.
7. Rating: On a scale of one to ten, I would give this book an eight. Most of it was very interesting, such as the French Revolution bits and all the spies. I did, however, find some parts to be dry (described more fully in #8).
8.
“A Tale of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens, was overall a good book. As Dickens himself states when the book first opens, these were turbulent and interesting times, and his story of lovers caught in them is fascinating. If this review ends up giving a negative impression of the book, that is only because it is easier to be negative than positive. I did like the book.
The book takes place in both London and Paris (hence the title) in the late seventeen hundreds. The French Revolution is the background against which the story unfolds, so the book is historical fiction. I suspect Dickens has taken a lot of liberties with the history involved. I haven’t done any research, so I can’t say for certain, but I’m pretty sure most of his characters are fictitious, and so the important role they played in the French Revolution in Dicken's book never actually occurred in real life.
Throughout the book, Dickens had an eye for detail that sometimes irritated me. I would be anxious to get on with the story, and Dickens would be describing something in more detail than I cared to know about. His lengthy descriptions about how old fashioned Tellson's Bank is, for instance, something I could have done without. It also seemed terribly inconsistent to me. Here Dickens would describe a few minutes in great detail, here he would cover six years in a few paragraphs (such as when he is telling about how Lucie and Charles had one daughter, and a son who died only a few years after he was born). But, better too much description than too little, I suppose. And compared with some other books I have read, Dickens wasn't really all that bad.
As too the plot, the ending was painfully obvious even from the beginning of the book. The fact that Sydney Carton felt his life was a waste was emphasized so much it became obvious he would perform some great act of self-sacrifice before the end of the book to redeem himself. Also, the fact that he told Lucie he would gladly sacrifice his life for someone he loves adds to the feeling of inevitability. And, of course, the incredibly coincidence that Carton and Darnay look exactly alike (which I felt was a bit of an unbelievable coincidence) was too big of a coincidence not to be used in some way that would affect the plot.
While I may have seen that part coming, Dickens did have plenty of other surprises that I did not expect. For example, I did not expect that Misses Pross's brother Solomon would turn out to be John Barsad. Nor did I expect that Roger Cly was still alive. Or the whole story about why Dr. Manette had been locked up in the Bastille in the first place. And finally, the biggest surprise to me was that Madame Dafarge was the last surviving member of the peasant family victimized by the Evremondes.
Without a doubt, my favorite sections of the book were those dealing with Defarge, Jacques, and the rest of the French Revolution. The secret signals the Jacques had, such as Madame Defarge putting a rose in her hair to indicate when a spy was present, and the way they had hidden contacts all over to obtain information, reminded me of cold-war era spy movies. The noble cause for which they worked made me feel sympathetic to them, and even near the end of the book when they become the antagonists of Charles Darnay I never quite grew to hate them. I think I would have enjoyed the book immeasurably more if it had featured the Jacques as its main subject, instead of Lucie Mannette and Charles Darnay.
As to those to characters, they were, in my opinion, the most boring of the whole book. Jerry Cruncher was humorous, Carton was a likeable scoundrel, even Mr. Lorry was amusing as a man who dedicated his whole life to business. Every character in the whole book has some sort of quirk to make them interesting except for the main characters Charles and Lucie. When they spoke, it was much too formal and polite, and not at all like real people talk. Also, they were much too perfect. They could always be counted on to do the right thing, and didn’t have any signs of human fallibles in their moral character. Take for instance Lucie’s extreme devotion to her father, or Darnay’s sense of responsibility. I guess the only time you could fault either of them was on Darnay’s unwise decision to return to France.
This decision reminded me of many of the horror movies I have seen. In a horror movie, the audience knows that great danger awaits a character if they go to a certain place or do a certain thing. And all logic seems to scream at the character not to go to this place or do this thing. However ultimately the audience knows that the character must make this choice, and suffer the consequences, if for no other reason than to keep the plot moving in its intended decision.
So it was with Darnay’s decision to return to France. From the moment the Defarges were talking about what great danger would await Darnay if he ever returned to France, I knew he would somehow end up back there. Darnay’s decision does not seem particularly logical either. The narrator states Darnay felt shamed by the remarks made by the aristocrats and Stryver, but Darnay never seemed worried about their opinions before. He had rejected his life with the aristocrats and his life with them, and he had turned down Styrver’s children as pupils. Sure, Gabelle was in danger, but as a member of the aristocracy Darnay must have realized there was precious little he could do to save him. Finally, Darnay was taken by surprise by the extreme political situation and the new laws in France. Why didn't he bother to find out more before he left England?
Having expressed the book’s faults, I think it wise to close the same way I started, restating that the book was very good, and I enjoyed reading it. The above negatives are but a slight complaint for an overall good thing.
Grade: A
Teacher’s Comments: Your review was delightful Joel! I appreciate your honesty and forcefulness. Well done!
A Tale of Two Cities: High School Book Review
1. Book: A Tale of Two Cities
2. Author: Charles Dickens
3. Genre: Historical Fiction
4. Setting: The Book takes place in France and England during the late seventeen hundreds. Dickens probably described the mood of the book best himself when he wrote, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...” The book shows both hope and joy contrasted with violence and hate.
5. Characters
Lucie Manette: A young English lady, with long golden curls. She has a forehead that moves when she thinks too hard, and most men find this attractive. Perfect in almost anything, she is extremely devoted to her father, and to a lesser extent her husband. She cries easily and doesn't take shocking news well.
Charles Darnay: A perfect gentleman. He is a French nobleman by nature, but lives in England. He is unique among his kind in that he cares for the poor. A very caring person, as evidenced by his attitudes towards Lucie.
Sydney Carton: He looks exactly like Darnay. He feels like his life has been wasted. He has an excellent memory, and is a valuable asset to his friend Stryver. Dickens frequently compares Carton to a Jackal
6. Theme: The theme is that all life is important. In the beginning, the aristocrats treat the peasants’ life as nothing. After the revolution, the peasants see the aristocrats life as nothing, but Sydney Carton, whose own life is wasted, makes the ultimate sacrifice to protect the life of his friend.
7. Rating: On a scale of one to ten, I would give this book an eight. Most of it was very interesting, such as the French Revolution bits and all the spies. I did, however, find some parts to be dry (described more fully in #8).
8.
“A Tale of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens, was overall a good book. As Dickens himself states when the book first opens, these were turbulent and interesting times, and his story of lovers caught in them is fascinating. If this review ends up giving a negative impression of the book, that is only because it is easier to be negative than positive. I did like the book.
The book takes place in both London and Paris (hence the title) in the late seventeen hundreds. The French Revolution is the background against which the story unfolds, so the book is historical fiction. I suspect Dickens has taken a lot of liberties with the history involved. I haven’t done any research, so I can’t say for certain, but I’m pretty sure most of his characters are fictitious, and so the important role they played in the French Revolution in Dicken's book never actually occurred in real life.
Throughout the book, Dickens had an eye for detail that sometimes irritated me. I would be anxious to get on with the story, and Dickens would be describing something in more detail than I cared to know about. His lengthy descriptions about how old fashioned Tellson's Bank is, for instance, something I could have done without. It also seemed terribly inconsistent to me. Here Dickens would describe a few minutes in great detail, here he would cover six years in a few paragraphs (such as when he is telling about how Lucie and Charles had one daughter, and a son who died only a few years after he was born). But, better too much description than too little, I suppose. And compared with some other books I have read, Dickens wasn't really all that bad.
As too the plot, the ending was painfully obvious even from the beginning of the book. The fact that Sydney Carton felt his life was a waste was emphasized so much it became obvious he would perform some great act of self-sacrifice before the end of the book to redeem himself. Also, the fact that he told Lucie he would gladly sacrifice his life for someone he loves adds to the feeling of inevitability. And, of course, the incredibly coincidence that Carton and Darnay look exactly alike (which I felt was a bit of an unbelievable coincidence) was too big of a coincidence not to be used in some way that would affect the plot.
While I may have seen that part coming, Dickens did have plenty of other surprises that I did not expect. For example, I did not expect that Misses Pross's brother Solomon would turn out to be John Barsad. Nor did I expect that Roger Cly was still alive. Or the whole story about why Dr. Manette had been locked up in the Bastille in the first place. And finally, the biggest surprise to me was that Madame Dafarge was the last surviving member of the peasant family victimized by the Evremondes.
Without a doubt, my favorite sections of the book were those dealing with Defarge, Jacques, and the rest of the French Revolution. The secret signals the Jacques had, such as Madame Defarge putting a rose in her hair to indicate when a spy was present, and the way they had hidden contacts all over to obtain information, reminded me of cold-war era spy movies. The noble cause for which they worked made me feel sympathetic to them, and even near the end of the book when they become the antagonists of Charles Darnay I never quite grew to hate them. I think I would have enjoyed the book immeasurably more if it had featured the Jacques as its main subject, instead of Lucie Mannette and Charles Darnay.
As to those to characters, they were, in my opinion, the most boring of the whole book. Jerry Cruncher was humorous, Carton was a likeable scoundrel, even Mr. Lorry was amusing as a man who dedicated his whole life to business. Every character in the whole book has some sort of quirk to make them interesting except for the main characters Charles and Lucie. When they spoke, it was much too formal and polite, and not at all like real people talk. Also, they were much too perfect. They could always be counted on to do the right thing, and didn’t have any signs of human fallibles in their moral character. Take for instance Lucie’s extreme devotion to her father, or Darnay’s sense of responsibility. I guess the only time you could fault either of them was on Darnay’s unwise decision to return to France.
This decision reminded me of many of the horror movies I have seen. In a horror movie, the audience knows that great danger awaits a character if they go to a certain place or do a certain thing. And all logic seems to scream at the character not to go to this place or do this thing. However ultimately the audience knows that the character must make this choice, and suffer the consequences, if for no other reason than to keep the plot moving in its intended decision.
So it was with Darnay’s decision to return to France. From the moment the Defarges were talking about what great danger would await Darnay if he ever returned to France, I knew he would somehow end up back there. Darnay’s decision does not seem particularly logical either. The narrator states Darnay felt shamed by the remarks made by the aristocrats and Stryver, but Darnay never seemed worried about their opinions before. He had rejected his life with the aristocrats and his life with them, and he had turned down Styrver’s children as pupils. Sure, Gabelle was in danger, but as a member of the aristocracy Darnay must have realized there was precious little he could do to save him. Finally, Darnay was taken by surprise by the extreme political situation and the new laws in France. Why didn't he bother to find out more before he left England?
Having expressed the book’s faults, I think it wise to close the same way I started, restating that the book was very good, and I enjoyed reading it. The above negatives are but a slight complaint for an overall good thing.
Grade: A
Teacher’s Comments: Your review was delightful Joel! I appreciate your honesty and forcefulness. Well done!
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Foundation by Isaac Asimov Book Report
[This was originally submitted in the fall of 1994 for a high school Modern Fiction class. We were assigned to pick a book from a list of approved authors. (Isaac Asimov was not originally on that list, but when I requested to read an Asimov book, the teacher allowed it). We were supposed to write 6 journal entries, written while reading the book, and then finally submit one final formal report at the end on December 21, 1994. The formal report was supposed to be a re-working of some of the themes we had previously explored in the journal entries, and reads accordingly.]
Video Version HERE
Journal Entry 1
Isaac Asimov, the author of Foundation, was influenced by many things that helped him to come up with the book.
To start with, the book is science fiction and so a large part of it is based on science. Isaac Asimov has several degrees in chemistry, including a P.h.D. He is also a professor of chemistry at Boston University.
Asimov has loved science fiction since he was nine and has been writing science fiction stories since he was eleven, submitting one to be published at eighteen. Four years later, he got his first story published.
Asimov developed the idea for Foundation in a hurry, since he had an appointment to discuss the plot of a story he had not even thought of. He opened a book at random to do free association and saw a picture of soldiers. That gave him the idea to write about a galactic empire and its fall since he had read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire twice.
All of these things influenced Asimov's writing in Foundations.
Journal Entry 2
One of the many themes in Foundation is that of how a culture can become stagnated. Like the Roman Empire, and many nations before and after it, Asimov shows the cultural deterioration of the Galactic Empire.
When Lord Dorwin comes to visit from Trantus, he talks about his interest in archaeology. When trying to solve the question of human origin, he read all the books by master archeologists and weighed their points against each other. When Hardrin suggested he go to the sites himself, he only laughed.
Nuclear power was also in danger. It had been lost in the Periphery. A power plant under went meltdown in Gamma Andromeda because of poor repairs. There is a complaint about the scarcity of nuclear technicians, but instead of training more, nuclear power is restricted.
The men at Foundation are caught in a trap. When faced with attack by Anacreon, they rely on the long dead Hari Seldon for an answer instead of finding one themselves. They didn't seem to realize they could find a solution just as well.
Asimov showed how this lack of responsibility led to the downfall of the Galactic Empire. His message serves as a warning for the United States today.
Journal Entry 3
Besides showing how the Galactic Empire became stagnated, another theme in Foundation is that problems can always be solved without violence.
When in a disagreement with the Foundation leaders, Yate Fulham said that Salvor Hardin suggested that violence was the only solution to the Anacreon threat. Hardin retorted that violence "is the last refuge of the incompetent" (p. 48). Thirty years later, when Sef Sermak demanded violence against Anacreon, Hardin had him read a framed statement on his wall: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" (p. 103). Sermak accuses it of being an old man's philosophy, but Hardin reminded him he had first applied it as a young man.
Hardin sticks to his doctrine as well. When accused of using violence in his coup, he points out that not one life was lost. The transfer of power went very smoothly. When Anacreon tries to set up a base on Foundation , Hardin responds by convincing Anacreon's neighbors not to allow it. When Anacreon tries to attack Foundation, Hardin appeals to the morals of the Anacreon soldiers.
The fate of those who follow violence is also shown. Wienis, who killed his brother so he could rule Anacreon, who tried to attack Foundation and tried to kill Hardin through trickery, ends up destroyed. His son, who supported him, was beaten senseless by angry soldiers. He was to be imprisoned before he committed suicide.
Through these examples, Asimov shows how there is always an alternative to violence.
Journal Entry 4
In Foundation Asimov shows the simplicity, and therefore the danger, of mob control. The ability of political leaders to convince the populace of many things leads to their success. Even Hari Seldon's psycho history is based on mob reactions.
Salvor Hardin used the actions of the common people to control the four kingdoms. By turning science into a religion, he made Foundation the center of this religion. When Wienis tried to conquer Foundation, he is defeated when Hardin is able to convince the people it is sacrilegious.
Another example is that of Askone. It didn't want to trade with Foundation, fearing it would cause them to be under the control of the religion. Yet despite their efforts, once trade began with Foundation, they were quickly overtaken.
In a conversation with Jorane Sutt, Mallow points out how dangerous this policy is. He calls it, "An insecure overlordship, based on the hated supremacy of a foreign spiritual power, which once it weakens ever so slightly, can only fall entirely, and leave nothing substantial behind except an immortal fear and hate," (p. 257). Sutt intends to sue this religion against the Foundation. To illustrate the situation, Mallow quotes Hardin, "A nuclear blaster is a good weapon, but it can point both ways."
When Sutt hopes to ruin Mallow, taking him to court not with the intent of convicting him, but with the intent of turning the people against him, Mallow responds by turning the tables. With the wrath of the people on him, Sutt is ruined.
Throughout the book, mob control plays a big part in the plot. It is used for good and for evil by various characters.
Journal Entry 5
The setting plays a very important part in Foundation. It is from this setting that allows most of the action in the book to take place. The setting in Foundation is somewhat unusual.
The location of Foundation is out in space. It begins on the capital planet of the Galactic Empire, Trantor. It then moves to a planet on the edge of the galaxy, Terminus. After some of the provinces revolt, Terminus finds itself surrounded by powerful kingdoms and is cut off from the Empire, providing much of the story lines. Also Terminus has almost no metals, making it hard for the planet to defend itself.
The time period of Foundation is very far into the future. A specific date is not given, but the Galactic Empire has already been in existence for twelve thousand years, and humans have been in space so long they've forgotten which planet they originated from. This time allows for space travel, new technology, and allows the author to create a world of his own.
The occupation of many of the characters are scientists. Their knowledge allows them leverage over the neighboring barbaric kingdoms. Many of the other characters are politicians. This allows a political drama to take place.
All of these factors give Foundation some interesting twists that other books might not have. It allows the characters opportunities otherwise not available, and makes an interesting book.
Journal Entry 6
In addition to the setting of the planet of Foundation, the setting of its neighboring planets is also important. This setting contributes to the plot of the book as well.
Trantor, the capital of the Galactic Empire, is so greatly covered with metal that its inhabitants can't even see the sky. This will be later contrasted against Terminus, which has a shortage of metals. Because it is encased in metal, Trantor can produce little of its own necessities, and has almost everything imported. Also, being the capital makes everyone who lives on Trantor more aware of current events then the colonies, whose news is censored.
Anacreon is a monarchy. This leads to some struggles for the throne. It is also the home of the Nyakbird, a favorite hunting sport. "Accidents" involved in its hunting allow for a king to be assassinated, and his son threatened.
Although called a republic, Korell is actually a dictatorship. The commander, Asper, has absolute power and uses it. More importantly, the Foundation has no contact with what is left of the Galactic Empire, but Korell does. Asper has married the daughter of a powerful man in the Galactic Empire, and receives several ships from him with which he tries to conquer Foundation. The Galactic Empire philosophy of bigger and better, however, gives Foundation the advantage when it comes to portability.
All of these planets and countries the Foundation interacts with, is the basis for most of the plot. The setting of these planets allows for the interaction.
Teacher's Grade: A+
Teacher's Comments: From his tone or his plot, what does Asimov seem to feel/think about the various forms of government?
Final Paper, Modern Fiction, December 21, 1994
A Long Time from Now, On a Planet Far, Far Away
To say the setting of a book is important would be pointless, as it is a statement everyone knows is true. The setting is essential to all plots. However, in some stories it can truly be said that the setting plays a greater role than in others. Some stories could not exist in a different setting, and Foundation is one of those stories. Through the time period, the jobs of the characters, and the location, the setting of Foundation plays a significant role.
Time is the most obvious of these three. The date of the story is not given in our years, but on page 3 we learn that the Galactic Empire has been in existence for twelve thousand and sixty nine years. Lord Dorwin reveals humans have been in space so long that they forgot which planet they originated on, or are not even sure they originated from a single planet. He says (in his peculiar affected noble way of talking): "Suahly you must know that it is thought that owiginally the human wace occupied only one planetawy system. ... Of cohse, no one knows exactly which system it is-- lost in the mists of antiquity." (p. 73)
The future allows Asimov to create his own universe, so to speak. He is able to make up all the nations, all the political systems, all the cultures, and all the technology of the future. He utilizes this fully, creating various kingdoms which must deal with each other. Asimov also writes a scene in which Hari Seldon is attacked (in court) by the Commission of Public Safety. Salvor Hardin expresses his frustration with the government by saying, "the board of Trustees of the Encyclopedia Committee has been given full administrative powers. I, as Mayor of Terminus City, have just enough power to blow my own nose and perhaps to sneeze if you counter sign an order giving me permission," (p.49). This leads to him changing the government in a coup. Throughout the book, the technology also plays an important part, giving Foundation an edge over its more powerful neighbors, and making the Galactic Empire the most dangerous threat to Foundation.
Another important element of setting is the job of the characters. At the beginning of the book, most of the main characters are scientists. This turns out to be very important later in the novel, because when the Galactic Empire falls, much of its knowledge is forgotten, except for that preserved by the Foundation. Foundation's scientific advancement over its neighbors proves to be its only defense. Later in the book, many of the main characters are politicians. This is also essential to the plot, as the reader must follow their struggles to get re-elected, and the delicate negotiations they must make with other nations. Near the end of the book, the main characters are mostly traders. A whole new perspective is given, since the first priority of a trader is profit, and helping Foundation is done only if it is convenient. The traders often bend the laws of Foundation, or tradition, to be able to sell their goods. Since travel is a major part of the traders' lives, through them we get to see other planets and nations besides the Foundation, such as Askone or the Korellian Republic.
A third part of the setting is, of course, the location. Most of the book takes place on the planet of Terminus. Terminus has very few metals. This is very important, because without metals, weapons can not be made. Foundation is left to rely on its wits when faced with enemy attack rather than fight back. Also, Terminus is located on the edge of the Galactic Empire. When the provinces revolted, Foundation was cut off from the rest of the Empire, and so was on their own against the new kingdoms. It is not till the end of the book, almost two hundred years later, that Foundation discovers the Galactic Empire still exists in the center of galaxy.
There are many other ways the setting of Foundation makes the story possible. If I had the room, I would talk about the space travel, or perhaps the setting of the various nations Foundation interacts with. I do not feel this is necessary, as I believe the above paragraphs sufficiently show my point. Without the setting it has, Foundation simply could not exist. The setting is certainly very important in this book.
Teacher's comments: Keep focus on your topic, not yourself. Define topic in thesis and develop it, without explaining/apologizing for not dealing with ideas not covered by thesis.
Video Version HERE
Journal Entry 1
Isaac Asimov, the author of Foundation, was influenced by many things that helped him to come up with the book.
To start with, the book is science fiction and so a large part of it is based on science. Isaac Asimov has several degrees in chemistry, including a P.h.D. He is also a professor of chemistry at Boston University.
Asimov has loved science fiction since he was nine and has been writing science fiction stories since he was eleven, submitting one to be published at eighteen. Four years later, he got his first story published.
Asimov developed the idea for Foundation in a hurry, since he had an appointment to discuss the plot of a story he had not even thought of. He opened a book at random to do free association and saw a picture of soldiers. That gave him the idea to write about a galactic empire and its fall since he had read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire twice.
All of these things influenced Asimov's writing in Foundations.
Journal Entry 2
One of the many themes in Foundation is that of how a culture can become stagnated. Like the Roman Empire, and many nations before and after it, Asimov shows the cultural deterioration of the Galactic Empire.
When Lord Dorwin comes to visit from Trantus, he talks about his interest in archaeology. When trying to solve the question of human origin, he read all the books by master archeologists and weighed their points against each other. When Hardrin suggested he go to the sites himself, he only laughed.
Nuclear power was also in danger. It had been lost in the Periphery. A power plant under went meltdown in Gamma Andromeda because of poor repairs. There is a complaint about the scarcity of nuclear technicians, but instead of training more, nuclear power is restricted.
The men at Foundation are caught in a trap. When faced with attack by Anacreon, they rely on the long dead Hari Seldon for an answer instead of finding one themselves. They didn't seem to realize they could find a solution just as well.
Asimov showed how this lack of responsibility led to the downfall of the Galactic Empire. His message serves as a warning for the United States today.
Journal Entry 3
Besides showing how the Galactic Empire became stagnated, another theme in Foundation is that problems can always be solved without violence.
When in a disagreement with the Foundation leaders, Yate Fulham said that Salvor Hardin suggested that violence was the only solution to the Anacreon threat. Hardin retorted that violence "is the last refuge of the incompetent" (p. 48). Thirty years later, when Sef Sermak demanded violence against Anacreon, Hardin had him read a framed statement on his wall: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" (p. 103). Sermak accuses it of being an old man's philosophy, but Hardin reminded him he had first applied it as a young man.
Hardin sticks to his doctrine as well. When accused of using violence in his coup, he points out that not one life was lost. The transfer of power went very smoothly. When Anacreon tries to set up a base on Foundation , Hardin responds by convincing Anacreon's neighbors not to allow it. When Anacreon tries to attack Foundation, Hardin appeals to the morals of the Anacreon soldiers.
The fate of those who follow violence is also shown. Wienis, who killed his brother so he could rule Anacreon, who tried to attack Foundation and tried to kill Hardin through trickery, ends up destroyed. His son, who supported him, was beaten senseless by angry soldiers. He was to be imprisoned before he committed suicide.
Through these examples, Asimov shows how there is always an alternative to violence.
Journal Entry 4
In Foundation Asimov shows the simplicity, and therefore the danger, of mob control. The ability of political leaders to convince the populace of many things leads to their success. Even Hari Seldon's psycho history is based on mob reactions.
Salvor Hardin used the actions of the common people to control the four kingdoms. By turning science into a religion, he made Foundation the center of this religion. When Wienis tried to conquer Foundation, he is defeated when Hardin is able to convince the people it is sacrilegious.
Another example is that of Askone. It didn't want to trade with Foundation, fearing it would cause them to be under the control of the religion. Yet despite their efforts, once trade began with Foundation, they were quickly overtaken.
In a conversation with Jorane Sutt, Mallow points out how dangerous this policy is. He calls it, "An insecure overlordship, based on the hated supremacy of a foreign spiritual power, which once it weakens ever so slightly, can only fall entirely, and leave nothing substantial behind except an immortal fear and hate," (p. 257). Sutt intends to sue this religion against the Foundation. To illustrate the situation, Mallow quotes Hardin, "A nuclear blaster is a good weapon, but it can point both ways."
When Sutt hopes to ruin Mallow, taking him to court not with the intent of convicting him, but with the intent of turning the people against him, Mallow responds by turning the tables. With the wrath of the people on him, Sutt is ruined.
Throughout the book, mob control plays a big part in the plot. It is used for good and for evil by various characters.
Journal Entry 5
The setting plays a very important part in Foundation. It is from this setting that allows most of the action in the book to take place. The setting in Foundation is somewhat unusual.
The location of Foundation is out in space. It begins on the capital planet of the Galactic Empire, Trantor. It then moves to a planet on the edge of the galaxy, Terminus. After some of the provinces revolt, Terminus finds itself surrounded by powerful kingdoms and is cut off from the Empire, providing much of the story lines. Also Terminus has almost no metals, making it hard for the planet to defend itself.
The time period of Foundation is very far into the future. A specific date is not given, but the Galactic Empire has already been in existence for twelve thousand years, and humans have been in space so long they've forgotten which planet they originated from. This time allows for space travel, new technology, and allows the author to create a world of his own.
The occupation of many of the characters are scientists. Their knowledge allows them leverage over the neighboring barbaric kingdoms. Many of the other characters are politicians. This allows a political drama to take place.
All of these factors give Foundation some interesting twists that other books might not have. It allows the characters opportunities otherwise not available, and makes an interesting book.
Journal Entry 6
In addition to the setting of the planet of Foundation, the setting of its neighboring planets is also important. This setting contributes to the plot of the book as well.
Trantor, the capital of the Galactic Empire, is so greatly covered with metal that its inhabitants can't even see the sky. This will be later contrasted against Terminus, which has a shortage of metals. Because it is encased in metal, Trantor can produce little of its own necessities, and has almost everything imported. Also, being the capital makes everyone who lives on Trantor more aware of current events then the colonies, whose news is censored.
Anacreon is a monarchy. This leads to some struggles for the throne. It is also the home of the Nyakbird, a favorite hunting sport. "Accidents" involved in its hunting allow for a king to be assassinated, and his son threatened.
Although called a republic, Korell is actually a dictatorship. The commander, Asper, has absolute power and uses it. More importantly, the Foundation has no contact with what is left of the Galactic Empire, but Korell does. Asper has married the daughter of a powerful man in the Galactic Empire, and receives several ships from him with which he tries to conquer Foundation. The Galactic Empire philosophy of bigger and better, however, gives Foundation the advantage when it comes to portability.
All of these planets and countries the Foundation interacts with, is the basis for most of the plot. The setting of these planets allows for the interaction.
Teacher's Grade: A+
Teacher's Comments: From his tone or his plot, what does Asimov seem to feel/think about the various forms of government?
Final Paper, Modern Fiction, December 21, 1994
A Long Time from Now, On a Planet Far, Far Away
To say the setting of a book is important would be pointless, as it is a statement everyone knows is true. The setting is essential to all plots. However, in some stories it can truly be said that the setting plays a greater role than in others. Some stories could not exist in a different setting, and Foundation is one of those stories. Through the time period, the jobs of the characters, and the location, the setting of Foundation plays a significant role.
Time is the most obvious of these three. The date of the story is not given in our years, but on page 3 we learn that the Galactic Empire has been in existence for twelve thousand and sixty nine years. Lord Dorwin reveals humans have been in space so long that they forgot which planet they originated on, or are not even sure they originated from a single planet. He says (in his peculiar affected noble way of talking): "Suahly you must know that it is thought that owiginally the human wace occupied only one planetawy system. ... Of cohse, no one knows exactly which system it is-- lost in the mists of antiquity." (p. 73)
The future allows Asimov to create his own universe, so to speak. He is able to make up all the nations, all the political systems, all the cultures, and all the technology of the future. He utilizes this fully, creating various kingdoms which must deal with each other. Asimov also writes a scene in which Hari Seldon is attacked (in court) by the Commission of Public Safety. Salvor Hardin expresses his frustration with the government by saying, "the board of Trustees of the Encyclopedia Committee has been given full administrative powers. I, as Mayor of Terminus City, have just enough power to blow my own nose and perhaps to sneeze if you counter sign an order giving me permission," (p.49). This leads to him changing the government in a coup. Throughout the book, the technology also plays an important part, giving Foundation an edge over its more powerful neighbors, and making the Galactic Empire the most dangerous threat to Foundation.
Another important element of setting is the job of the characters. At the beginning of the book, most of the main characters are scientists. This turns out to be very important later in the novel, because when the Galactic Empire falls, much of its knowledge is forgotten, except for that preserved by the Foundation. Foundation's scientific advancement over its neighbors proves to be its only defense. Later in the book, many of the main characters are politicians. This is also essential to the plot, as the reader must follow their struggles to get re-elected, and the delicate negotiations they must make with other nations. Near the end of the book, the main characters are mostly traders. A whole new perspective is given, since the first priority of a trader is profit, and helping Foundation is done only if it is convenient. The traders often bend the laws of Foundation, or tradition, to be able to sell their goods. Since travel is a major part of the traders' lives, through them we get to see other planets and nations besides the Foundation, such as Askone or the Korellian Republic.
A third part of the setting is, of course, the location. Most of the book takes place on the planet of Terminus. Terminus has very few metals. This is very important, because without metals, weapons can not be made. Foundation is left to rely on its wits when faced with enemy attack rather than fight back. Also, Terminus is located on the edge of the Galactic Empire. When the provinces revolted, Foundation was cut off from the rest of the Empire, and so was on their own against the new kingdoms. It is not till the end of the book, almost two hundred years later, that Foundation discovers the Galactic Empire still exists in the center of galaxy.
There are many other ways the setting of Foundation makes the story possible. If I had the room, I would talk about the space travel, or perhaps the setting of the various nations Foundation interacts with. I do not feel this is necessary, as I believe the above paragraphs sufficiently show my point. Without the setting it has, Foundation simply could not exist. The setting is certainly very important in this book.
Teacher's comments: Keep focus on your topic, not yourself. Define topic in thesis and develop it, without explaining/apologizing for not dealing with ideas not covered by thesis.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Richard II by William Shakespeare Reflections
Reflection paper 1: drive, docs, pub
Reflection Paper 2: drive, docs, pub
After having read Henry IV part one in British Literature, and then Henry IV part two on my own, I began Richard II with great interest in light of that. It was interesting to see how many of the same characters were presented here (for the first time presumably) to Shakespeare’s audience.
I do not know if anyone has done this before or not, but I think it would be a neat idea to make a movie out of all four episodes of the tetralogy. Filmmakers could get decent actors, and have things very well done. The actors would of course stay the same from movie to movie. There are not many characters who would last all the way through all four plays, but there are a couple. (For instance, The Shakespeare A-Z book informs me that Aumerle appears in Henry V as the Duke of York. Maybe this is the only one, I don’t know).
The big problem is that of all these plays, I think Richard II would be the most boring. I mean in terms of mass appeal, I think the other three could do pretty well on there own, but how would you get people back to the movie theater after having seen Richard II. It is a somewhat confusing play, and there is no comic relief, nor tense action.
There are a couple scenes, which I think lend themselves to filming. The first of these is Richard’s death scene. It almost seems like it was written for a movie. You could really keep the audience on the edge of their seats. Richard kills two of the men in an exciting sword duel, almost escapes but just when you think he’s safe Exton stabs him in the back. Plus, the line “Go thou, and fill another room in hell”, is equal with any tough one liner Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis could say today.
The second scene, which I think would lend itself well to filming, is the dual between Bolingbroke and Mowbray at the beginning. My only worry would be that the audience, after what would be a confusing first scene if it were presented with out footnotes, would have no idea what the duel was about. At any rate though, the film could have dramatic music, and it could cut back and forth between Bolingbroke and Mowbray, each looking like they couldn’t wait to cut each other to pieces, as all the preliminary stuff was being said. Throughout this whole scene shots of Richard are also being interspersed, and the audience can see him sweating and looking nervous and fidgeting, until he can not stand it any longer and he yells out to stop the duel.
The third scene, which I think would be filmed very well, would be the scene in which The Duke of York is pleading against Aumerle, and the Duchess and Aumerle are pleading for Aumerle’s life. Again, it could be very dramatic, with everyone pleading and being very emotional and shouting. The camera would have lots of quick shots, and it would not be clear until the end whether Aumerle would be pardoned or not.
The character of the queen is an interesting one in Richard II. The Queen is portrayed as someone, in spite of what might be thought of as a powerful position, who has no power.
The scene in the garden is interesting, because that shows how little the queen actually knows. The queen is a character who, one would think, would have a pretty good idea of what was happening. However, the queen is left to obtain information from the gardener. There is a lot of irony that the gardeners know more about politics than the queen.
Another scene, which portrays the powerlessness of the queen, is the emotional scene in which she is parted from Richard. The queen’s pleading goes unheeded, and though Shakespeare shows the emotion well, the queen ultimately makes no impact on any of the rest of the characters.
Another woman who is portrayed in a powerless manner is the Duchess of Gloucester. Although her husband was killed, she is powerless to avenge him, and must plead with John of Gaunt to do so instead. When John of Gaunt refuses to, she is left with no recourse.
The character of the Duchess of York is in some ways different. She is able to make a difference. Although, if King Henry had decided not to listen to her, she would have been powerless as well. She is powerless to stop her husband, the Duke of York, from going to accuse Aumerle. She is also powerless over what Aumerle does, although it is on her advice that Aumerle pleads for his life before his father gets to Henry, thus ultimately saving his own life.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Letter to the School Board: 10th Grade English
This letter was never sent. It was simply an English assignment to practice writing a formal letter of complaint. We were instructed to choose a school policy we disliked, and write to the school board about getting it changed.
October 8, 1993
The School board
2300 Plymouth Road
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Dear school board members,
Greetings. I appreciate the time you have committed to this school and the positive results there-of. I am a student at the school and am always amazed by your refusal to get discouraged.
However, there are several rules which I think are bureaucratic and do more harm to the education received than good. Foremost among them is the tardy policy. I realize you can not put up with late students, but some revising would defiantly be in order. The first problem of the policy is that it is too legalistic. If your fingers are sticking through the door your safe, but if you are one foot away you are tardy. What the message you are sending to the kids is that flexibility is bad, and brittleness is good. Secondly, the rule leaves no room for human error. If someone forgets to bring a book, notebook, paper, or any other materials to class, they must take a tardy to get them. These kinds of mistakes are neither intentional nor avoidable. How could you stop yourself from forgetting something? Thirdly, the policy often makes people later then they all ready are. For instance, several times last year my bus arrived at school two minutes before classes started. To get to my locker, put my stuff away, and then get to my class in two minutes was impossible. I instead had to go to the attendance office, wait in line, get an excuse, and then put my stuff away and then get to class. Instead of being one minute late, I ended up being about five. Fourthly the policy underestimates the time it takes to get from one end of the school where your last class was, to your locker, and then back to the same end where your next class is. The five minutes allotted may be adequate, except for the crowded halls. It is in many cases impossible. The halls are full of many people standing around talking, or walking slowly. They do not have as far to walk as others. And what if a student needed to make a stop along the way. The policy also encourages, sometimes forces, running in the hall. Now I realize that you need some sort of tardy policy to keep students from arriving ten minutes late everyday, but the existing one could use some changes. First of all, be flexible, if a student is thirty seconds late, so what? Second, increase the allotted time between classes to 7 minutes. Third, allow a student one trip back to his locker per week, without a tardy.
Thank you for taking the time to hear me out. Together, we can make Christian High a better educational facility. The tardy policy is good, but I think my corrections could go a long ways.
Sincerely Yours
Joel Swagman
Friday, September 16, 2005
Much Ado About Nothing: Book and Movie
google: drive, docs, pub
Video Review HERE
Video Review HERE
After having read the play “Much Ado about Nothing”, and seeing the movie, it is an interesting comparison. Although I did not follow the movie with a copy in hand of “Much Ado about Nothing”, as far as I could tell, no lines were added, and the movie remained pretty faithful to the play.
A couple of scenes were added to the movie. The opening scene when Beatrice was reading the poem I thought was stupid (to put it bluntly). I mean, the poem wasn’t funny and everyone was laughing at it. Yet, I recognize Shakespeare’s opening is rather abrupt, and the filmmakers needed something to ease the audience into the movie. My main criticism of the added scenes is that obviously some editing needs to go into Shakespeare to fit him into the time frame of the a movie. This being the case, it seems stupid to me to add extra scenes, when you are pressed for time as it is. I can understand the added scene with Don John running away, because that helps to understand the movie. Likewise the added scene when Claudio sees what he thinks is Hero on the balcony. However the bathing scene, how does one justify that? Perhaps the filmmakers were looking to break up Shakespeare and make him less tedious, but this was right at the beginning of the movie, so there wasn’t anything to break up yet. Perhaps they wanted to have something they could flash the opening credits on top off, but in that case it was too long, and not all that interesting. I have the same criticisms of the dance scene at the end. I think the added scenes make the movie more, not less, tedious. That scene wear Claudio was reading the poem to Hero’s grave, the filmmakers unnecessarily extended that scene. It’s right near the end of the movie, so the audience is getting restless anyway.
Of course, another interesting difference between the movie and the play is that the movie has a more modern setting. It seems very popular these days to put Shakespeare’s plays in modern settings. I could list off pretty much all of the recent Shakespeare movies that have come out (well, okay not Hamlet), and I’ve seen more than one Shakespeare play with in the past ten years that has done this as well. I’m not quite sure why this is so popular (to save money on costumes, perhaps?). However, for some reason Shakespeare’s plays seem less boring when they are put in a modern setting. I don’t know why that is, but that seems to be the case. Perhaps people have bad connotations associated with the Elizabethan costumes, and get turned off before they even give Shakespeare a chance. However, with the modern costumes the audience is deceived on some sub-conscious level into thinking there not watching Shakespeare (even though they know consciously they are), and therefore do not let all their nightmares of high school English classes turn them against the story. I realize I am just making wild guesses here, but it seems like a plausible theory to me.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Looking back on 1936
[I originally posted this together with my paper on the Ten Harkels. But I've decided to also publish it separately here.]
Joel Swagman
Mrs. Walters
English 100
October 30, 1996
Looking back on 1936
On March 11, 1936, the Ten Harkels were married. Though I doubt either of them paid much attention to the newspapers that day, 1936 was a year that saw many changes. In the middle of the depression, events were happening that would have far reaching consequences in such areas as international relationships, politics, the arts, and civil rights.
Outside the United States, the seeds of World War II were already being planted. Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, which it had lost during World War I (Carruth 504). Italy formally annexed Ethiopia, which it had invaded the year before, and in doing so crippled the League of Nations as an international peace keeper (Carruth 504). Civil war broke out in Spain between the Republican government and the facist army, a war which the fascists were destined to win. France and the Soviet Union ratified the Franco-Soviet Pact for mutual defence (Bandi 14). The Soviet Communist Party began its Great Purge. By 1938, ten million would have been killed under this act (Bandi 14). On July 11, Italy and Germany concluded a secret agreement, in which Italy agreed to let Germany take over Austria. Italy and Germany cemented their alliance on October 25, in the Rome-Berlin Axis (Bandi 15). Germany and Japan signed the anti-cominterm pact, agreeing to mutual protection from the Soviet Union. On January 15, Japan denounced the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and withdrew from the London Naval Conference (Websters 458). On February 14, several prominent Japanese were assassinated in an army uprising (Bandi 14).
Back home, 1936 was an election year. The New Deal was a fierce subject of debate, as its opponents never tired of pointing out that the national debt had increased by twelve billion since 1932. Those in favor of the New Deal would respond that the national income had incrased by 30 billion in the same time (Carruth 504). Polls showed that on June 28, 55% of Americans thought the New Deal was helping recovery, although 90% of Republicans were convinced the New Deal was only making things worse (Gallup 47). The Republicans pitted Alfred Landon, the governor or Kansas, against Roosevelt while the Socialists nominated Norman Thomas (Carruth 504). In an election that holds the record for voter turnout, Roosevelt won in a landslide, taking every state but Maine and Vermont (Carruth 504). After the election, there were only 83 Republicans in the House, and 16 in the Senate (Carruth 504).
Roosevelt's popularity was already causing speculation about a third term. On June 14, 43% of Americans said a President should be eligible ofr a third term (Gallup 44). When asked if they thought Roosevelt should run again in 1940, only 31% of Americans were in favor of it (Gallup 44).
Despite the depression, 1936 proved to be an important year for the arts. Rober Frost wrote A Further Range, but he was over shadowed by Marget Mitchell's Gone with the Wind which sold one million copies in the first six months (Carruth 506).
About five hundred films were released in the United States. It was the most prosperous year for film making since the depression began, despite the fact that four out of every five films were deemed financial failures (Carruth 505). The Academy Awards selected Mutiny on the Bounty as the most outstanding movie (Carruth 505) and The Informer won both the best actor award for Victor McLaglen and the best directoro for John Ford (Carruth 505). Bette Davis received the best actress award for her performance in Dangerous. Walt Disney was given his fourth consecutive award in the cartoon category (Carruth 505).
Progress was also made in civil rights. On December 8, the NAACP filed Gibbs V. Board of Education, which would result in the Supreme court ordering that black school teachers receive the same salaries as white school teachers (Bandi 215). In the case of Murray V. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Maryland Law School must either admit Donald Murray, an African American student, or create a separate school just for him. Murray was admitted (Bandi 141).
As the events of 1936 passed by, we can only wonder how many people really realized their significance. The Ten Harkels freely admit to not having the slightest idea what sort of ramifications many of the events that happened in 1936 would have. Sixty years later we have a much broader perspective on things, but at the time, things weren't so easy to see. No matter how you look at it, 1936 was certainly an important year.
Bibilography
Bandi, Victor. American Decades 1930-1939. Detroit: Gale Research Incorporated. 1995.
Benton, William. The Annals of America. Vol. 15. Chicago: Encylopedia Britannica Incorporated, 1968. 16 vols.
Carruth, Gorton. The Encyclopedia of American Facts & Dates. New York: Harpers & Row. 1987.
Gallup, George H. The Gallup Poll 1930-1960. New York: Random House. 1972.
Webster, William. Webster's Guide to American History. Springfield: G&C Merriam Company. 1971.
Comments:
Professor's Assistant: OK, you've dona good job of researching events of 1936. And you write in clear sentences. Now...be selective with what you include in your paper. I appreciate you're following a construction established in the first paragraph (international events, politics, arts, etc.), but you never come to any conclusions. Don't just tell us about the "New Deal"--tell us what it was- tell us why it mattered. Tell us that Margaret Mitchell's book would one day be made into the most popular movie of all time (which the Ten Harkels would see on their 5th anniversary?...)
Don't just tack the Ten Harkels into your paper-organize the events around their lives, or their life together.
Professor's Comments: Good, Joel. This is your best work so far--which is unusual for a research paper. Keep it up. There is lots of good material here that you can use in the larger paper.
Joel Swagman
Mrs. Walters
English 100
October 30, 1996
Looking back on 1936
On March 11, 1936, the Ten Harkels were married. Though I doubt either of them paid much attention to the newspapers that day, 1936 was a year that saw many changes. In the middle of the depression, events were happening that would have far reaching consequences in such areas as international relationships, politics, the arts, and civil rights.
Outside the United States, the seeds of World War II were already being planted. Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, which it had lost during World War I (Carruth 504). Italy formally annexed Ethiopia, which it had invaded the year before, and in doing so crippled the League of Nations as an international peace keeper (Carruth 504). Civil war broke out in Spain between the Republican government and the facist army, a war which the fascists were destined to win. France and the Soviet Union ratified the Franco-Soviet Pact for mutual defence (Bandi 14). The Soviet Communist Party began its Great Purge. By 1938, ten million would have been killed under this act (Bandi 14). On July 11, Italy and Germany concluded a secret agreement, in which Italy agreed to let Germany take over Austria. Italy and Germany cemented their alliance on October 25, in the Rome-Berlin Axis (Bandi 15). Germany and Japan signed the anti-cominterm pact, agreeing to mutual protection from the Soviet Union. On January 15, Japan denounced the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and withdrew from the London Naval Conference (Websters 458). On February 14, several prominent Japanese were assassinated in an army uprising (Bandi 14).
Back home, 1936 was an election year. The New Deal was a fierce subject of debate, as its opponents never tired of pointing out that the national debt had increased by twelve billion since 1932. Those in favor of the New Deal would respond that the national income had incrased by 30 billion in the same time (Carruth 504). Polls showed that on June 28, 55% of Americans thought the New Deal was helping recovery, although 90% of Republicans were convinced the New Deal was only making things worse (Gallup 47). The Republicans pitted Alfred Landon, the governor or Kansas, against Roosevelt while the Socialists nominated Norman Thomas (Carruth 504). In an election that holds the record for voter turnout, Roosevelt won in a landslide, taking every state but Maine and Vermont (Carruth 504). After the election, there were only 83 Republicans in the House, and 16 in the Senate (Carruth 504).
Roosevelt's popularity was already causing speculation about a third term. On June 14, 43% of Americans said a President should be eligible ofr a third term (Gallup 44). When asked if they thought Roosevelt should run again in 1940, only 31% of Americans were in favor of it (Gallup 44).
Despite the depression, 1936 proved to be an important year for the arts. Rober Frost wrote A Further Range, but he was over shadowed by Marget Mitchell's Gone with the Wind which sold one million copies in the first six months (Carruth 506).
About five hundred films were released in the United States. It was the most prosperous year for film making since the depression began, despite the fact that four out of every five films were deemed financial failures (Carruth 505). The Academy Awards selected Mutiny on the Bounty as the most outstanding movie (Carruth 505) and The Informer won both the best actor award for Victor McLaglen and the best directoro for John Ford (Carruth 505). Bette Davis received the best actress award for her performance in Dangerous. Walt Disney was given his fourth consecutive award in the cartoon category (Carruth 505).
Progress was also made in civil rights. On December 8, the NAACP filed Gibbs V. Board of Education, which would result in the Supreme court ordering that black school teachers receive the same salaries as white school teachers (Bandi 215). In the case of Murray V. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Maryland Law School must either admit Donald Murray, an African American student, or create a separate school just for him. Murray was admitted (Bandi 141).
As the events of 1936 passed by, we can only wonder how many people really realized their significance. The Ten Harkels freely admit to not having the slightest idea what sort of ramifications many of the events that happened in 1936 would have. Sixty years later we have a much broader perspective on things, but at the time, things weren't so easy to see. No matter how you look at it, 1936 was certainly an important year.
Bibilography
Bandi, Victor. American Decades 1930-1939. Detroit: Gale Research Incorporated. 1995.
Benton, William. The Annals of America. Vol. 15. Chicago: Encylopedia Britannica Incorporated, 1968. 16 vols.
Carruth, Gorton. The Encyclopedia of American Facts & Dates. New York: Harpers & Row. 1987.
Gallup, George H. The Gallup Poll 1930-1960. New York: Random House. 1972.
Webster, William. Webster's Guide to American History. Springfield: G&C Merriam Company. 1971.
Comments:
Professor's Assistant: OK, you've dona good job of researching events of 1936. And you write in clear sentences. Now...be selective with what you include in your paper. I appreciate you're following a construction established in the first paragraph (international events, politics, arts, etc.), but you never come to any conclusions. Don't just tell us about the "New Deal"--tell us what it was- tell us why it mattered. Tell us that Margaret Mitchell's book would one day be made into the most popular movie of all time (which the Ten Harkels would see on their 5th anniversary?...)
Don't just tack the Ten Harkels into your paper-organize the events around their lives, or their life together.
Professor's Comments: Good, Joel. This is your best work so far--which is unusual for a research paper. Keep it up. There is lots of good material here that you can use in the larger paper.
Christian Examples: A History of John and Elizabeth Ten Harkel
(Retrospection)
[My first semester at Calvin, my English 100 teacher had a really cool idea for our final paper. Each of us would be paired up with a couple in an old folks home, interview them for one hour every week, and then at the end of the semester write up their life story.
Actually, I say it was a really cool idea, but that's in retrospect. At the time I thought it was a huge pain in the ass to bike out every week and talk to these old folks for an hour.
Maybe this is the kind of project you really just don't appreciate at 18, I don't know. In some area of the brain, where subconscious feelings are stronger than rational thought, I had the feeling that I would always be young, and that old people had always been old and boring. On some level it hadn't yet fully registered to me that life is a process we all have to go through, and I wasn't quite as interested in hearing about people's life stories as I am now.
Anyway, I didn't have a choice in the matter, so I did it. I biked out to the rest home once a week. I don't remember the exact name of it or exactly where it was, but it must have been somewhere around Aquinas College because I remember passing Aquinas on my way out there.
One time biking out there (or biking back, I don't remember) I got caught in a downpour and got soaked (as I related in this e-mail here).
Another time, I witnessed a car accident while waiting for the light. Not a big accident. Some car turning left hit another at the intersection.
Calvin did actually have a transportation service for students. I forget the name of it, but it was pretty cheap. You had to pay something like $1 per trip or something, and I think it was free if you carpooled with another student. Most (all?) of my classmates used this service when going out to the rest home. I never did, partly because I couldn't be bothered making an appointment in advance (typical me) and partly because I was always intimidated figuring out the rules of a new service (typical me). So I just biked. I justified it as getting exercise anyway.
The couple I was paired up with were John and Elizabeth Ten Harkel, who were really nice people and happy to talk to me. John Ten Harkel was suffering from Parkinson's disease, and was not always altogether there. Some days I got more information out of him than others, so he must have had good days and bad days. (Although I don't remember exactly.) Some days his wife just did most of the talking.
I didn't think I would, but over the semester I did actually grow fond of the Ten Harkels. I enjoyed talking to them. And over the semester they became familiar faces that I became used to, and fond of.
Our class hosted a party at the end of the semester in which we presented our papers to our respective old couples. I don't remember much of the party except being happy to see the Ten Harkel's there, and talking to them.
Our English professor had encouraged us to stay in touch with our old couple after the semester finished. At the beginning of the semester this sounded like the last thing I wanted to do, but by the end of the semester I felt like I had developed enough of a bond with them that I genuinely wanted to stay in touch. The Ten Harkels had encouraged me to drop by after I finished the paper and I promised them I would.
And at the time I said it, I had every intention of doing so. But (typical me), it just never happened. I just never got around to making an appointment, or heading out there.
Who knows what happened to that paper I wrote for them. It could be a cherished piece of family memoriablia, or it could have gotten thrown out.
I still have my copy though, so I thought I'd post it here. It has it's faults to be sure (it was, after all, a freshman paper), but it still documents a little piece of local history. And, like my own Grandfather's memoirs, it's probably useful to preserves these things for future generations.
There are two papers below. The first one is the Ten Harkels' life story. This is the version I submitted to my English professor for a grade. She and her assistant marked it up, and returned it back to me. I made some changes that they suggested, and then I presented the final version to the Ten Harkels. (I didn't save that final version, so this isn't exactly the same as the one the Ten Harkels received, but aside from a few minor changes should be nearly the same.)
The second paper is a research paper we did for the same English class. Our professor instructed us to find out what was the most important thing in the lives of our old couple, and then write a research paper around that. (This was an introductory English class in which we were learning to write a wide variety of papers. This paper here, in which I had to write about a life experience in which I learned a lesson, was also part of the same class.)
I asked the Ten Harkel's what was the most important thing in their life. Elizabeth Ten Harkel told me that their marriage had been the most important thing. I didn't really know what to do with this. I briefly considered trying to do a research paper on the institution of marriage, or wedding ceremonies, but after some consultation with my professor I just did my research paper on the year they got married. This suited me fine because I was a history nerd anyway, although it had absolutely nothing to do with the actual lives of the Ten Harkels. In retrospect the topic may have been a bit of a cop-out. Looking over the Ten Harkel's life story now, I'm not sure why I didn't do something related to the printing industry, because that clearly seemed to be an important part of John Ten Harkel's life. Oh well.
For better or for worse, below are my papers.]
Christian Examples
(A History of John and Elizabeth Ten Harkel)
as told to Joel Swagman
A lot of memories can accumulate in eighty years, some of them pleasant, some not. For the Ten Harkels, fate has certainly not failed to make their lives interesting. They've seen a lot of changes go by, but they have retained a fresh and optimistic view of life throughout them.
John Arind Ten Harkel was only nineteen when he came to the United States from the Netherlands, leaving his family behind. He learned to speak English while working for the GR&I (Grand Rapids and Indiana) railroad in the freight house. His brother Henry came over separately and settled in Los Angeles, while his other brother Garitt went to Muskegon.
John married Jenny Oliver, who was born in the United States. On January 26, 1913, the Ten Harkels had a son. They named him John after both his father and his grandfather (Jahn (sic) Oliver). He was the only child. Although John and Jenny Ten Harkel had two other boys, one born before John and one after, both were still born.
The young John lived next door to his grandpa Olivier, where he remembers his grandpa's dog Karlo.
When Emerald Road was built, it separated the property of the elder John Ten Harkel from that of his father-in-law Olivier, taking forty feet (about half) off of each property.
When the younger John was eleven years old, the Ten Harkel family traveled to join Uncle Henry in California. Henry Ten Harkel, who had settled in Los Angeles, liked it there so much that he convinced his brother to come out and join him. Henry Ten Harkel remained a bachelor all his life, and was grateful to have his brother's family as company. The younger John still remembers the beauty of California. Jenny, however, didn't like being away from her family, so after a year the Ten Harkels set off to return to Grand Rapids.
Aside from this brief excursion, John spent his grade school days at Creston Christian School, where he went to school through the eighth grade. Although John didn't know her well at the time, Elizabeth Koy also attended the same school. One memory John has of his grade school years is the celebration of birthdays. Unlike today, John didn't go out to eat on his birthday, since there were no places to go. Instead he got together with his relatives at his grandpa Olivier's for a celebration. He also got together with the Olivier family on Christmas and on New Years, which was his mother's birthday.
John started Creston High School in ninth grade. He ran Cross Country and Track his freshman year, but head to give those activities up in favor of the job his uncle, Walk Olivier, got him at the White Printing Company, working for twenty five cents an hour. Starting in tenth grade, he was able to get out of school at 2:30, one period earlier than everyone else. He would work at White Printing Company until 5:30 each school day and on Saturday mornings as well. White Printing Company was not his first job, however. He had already peddled papers for two years when he was younger, working two paper routes, the first set of papers coming at 2:30, the second at 4:30.
John got his first car in tenth grade. His uncle, Frank Yoken, who had married Jenny's sister, Lena, died suddenly. John's aunt Lena and his cousin Ruth moved in with the Ten Harkel family, and John was given exclusive use of Frank Yokem's Pontiac because he was the only one who knew how to drive.
In High School, John Ten Harkel Studied printing, typing for a year, Algebra for two semesters, and Latin.
***
Martin Henry Koy came over from the Netherlands with his family at the age of five. He married Dora Stob, who had been born in the United States. Elizabeth Koy, born on July 29, 1915, was named after Dora's mother. She was one of four children: Hank was three years older than she, Tressa was five years younger, and James was seven years younger.
When Elizabeth was growing up, there were four children living in one house. The one yard contained a big garden so there was no room for pets. Elizabeth lived next door to her grandparents, but they didn't have a pet either.
On her birthdays, Elizabeth would gather with her cousins and grandparents, who lived in the duplex next door. Cookies and cake were made for the occasion, but ice cream was not served because it was too expensive. Since her birthday was in July, they had the gathering outside. The best gift she ever received was an old firm wood piano at the age of eleven. It was largely because of this gift that she became such a great piano player, and later on in her life gave piano lessons for eleven years.
Another memory of Elizabeth's childhood is the conflict over her name. Saying "Elizabeth" proved to be more effort than her friends were prepared to exert every time they wanted to address her. To solve the problem, they called her Liz or Lizzy. Elizabeth's mother was less than pleased by this practice, and insisted that her daughter be addressed as Elizabeth, or if the name had to be shortened, that it be shortened to Betty.
Elizabeth went to Creston Christian grade school through the eighth grade. Elizabeth was left handed, which became a misfortune since she was the only lefty in her class. In fourth grade her teacher Ms. Veenstra disapproved of Elizabeth writing left handed. During penmanship class, Ms. Veenstra would get a black rag out of the closet and tie up Elizabeth's left hand. Elizabeth was very embarrassed by this, and still remembers how cries of "tie her up!" would herald the beginning of penmanship. Ms. Veenstra remained firm in her decision to change Elizabeth's hand by what ever method necessary, even rejecting an embassy by Elizabeth's mother. "She'll thank me afterwards," Ms. Veenstra insisted. Ms. Veenstra's efforts did not go unrewarded--Elizabeth now writes with her right hand.
Elizabeth went to Davis Tech High School. She played volleyball there, but didn't go out for any other sports. She wanted to be a nurse. Her parents supported her, but there wasn't enough money to go to college.
At high school, Elizabeth studied what was then known as a commercial course, taking two years of commercial typing, and two years of shorthand, and no foreign language.
While in high school Elizabeth worked for Ms. Dekorne at Dekorne's furniture shop for two years, earning about two dollars a week. When she heard about an opening at Kresze's five and dime store that paid twelve dollars a week, she successfully applied for a job there.
***
John and Elizabeth first encountered each other at Creston Christian grade school, but it wasn't until much later that they got to know each other. When Elizabeth was working at Dekorne Furniture Store, which was located on the same street where John lived, they saw a lot of each other. They were attracted to each other because of all they had in common, both coming from Christian homes and school, and both sharing a love for sports, and the desire for an active social life. They went together for two years before they became engaged. Six months later they were married at Elizabeth's home, 922 Lafayette on March 11, 1936. John's cousin, Don Olivier, played the piano for the wedding. They went to Washington D.C. for their honeymoon and had a good time, even though they didn't see President Roosevelt.
Their first house was on Union street, where they lived for two years. In 1938, they moved to Dyker Street, and lived there for ten years. It was while they were living in this house that they had their first child, Marylin Beth Ten Harkel, born on April 26, 1938. Four years later, Robert John was born on February 17.
While they were living on Dyker Street, World War II broke out. At first, because John did his part by printing out material for the government at the Printing Press, he was deferred from the draft. As the war escalated, however, and more people were needed, he was called to Detroit for a physical, passed it, and was put into the navy. Then, it was announced that anyone thirty-five or older didn't have to join. John was thirty-five at the time, and since he had two children at home, he was happy to be saved from the draft. "Don't go if you don't have to," John advised me.
In 1940, when Harry White, who owned White Printing Company, retired, John bought the company from him. At that time, White Printing Company was located on Division and Lion, in the same building as Dickenson Printing Company. The two companies were separated only by a wall. Dickenson was run on offset press, while White was run by the old fashioned letter press. It was only a matter of time before White Printing Company would have to replace all of its equipment to keep up with the times. Instead, in 1945, John decided to merge with Dickenson. John was given a large amount of Dickenson stock and made vice-president of Dickenson. The wonderful thing about this merger was that not a single employee was laid off in the process.
In 1948, the Ten Harkels moved from their house on Dyker to Tamarrak. Also that year Carol Jean Ten Harkel was born on January 26, sharing the same birthday as her father. The year also saw the introduction of a dog to the family, a toy Manchester named Teddy. He was a year old and fully trained when they got him. He was well behaved and never tried to climb into any of the beds. He was able to tell when it was Sunday because on that day the whole family would be eating breakfast. He would go to the door and wait for John to take him on a walk around Richmond Park. Once the walk was over, Teddy would look at the Ten Harkel family as if to say, "you can go to church now, I've had my walk." The Ten Harkels had Teddy for fifteen years, at the end of which he died of cancer. Besides Teddy, the Ten Harkels had one other pet, a bird Trixy, who greet the family with "Merry Christmas" all year long.
Although the exact date has long been forgotten, sometime in the late fifties, someone set fire to Dickenson Printing Company. John was contacted at church Sunday evening and rushed to Dickenson. Whoever started the fire was never caught, but insurance covered most of the damage. People rescued what equipment they could from the flames, and Dickenson press moved its location to Myrtle Street on the West Side. Much later, Dickenson was moved again and is now located near the airport on Patterson.
Another memory of the Ten Harkels is their first television, which they got in 1951. Before then, they listened to radio programs, but television took over things. Over the years they've enjoyed watching "All in the Family," news, and sports.
The Ten Harkels have done more than their share of traveling over their lives. With the exception of Alaska, they have been to every state once and they even went to Europe on the 1978 De Vries tour. Although they did not see the fabled England, they did see Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, et cetera. They had hoped to see the pope in Italy, but he was on vacation. They rode boats in Venice instead. They remember that Germany was beautiful, despite its crowds, and that France was beautiful aslo, especially the Eiffel Tower.
Another memorable trip was the one taken to California and Mexico in the summer of 1965. Driving down there in a car that had no air conditioning was rough, but they still enjoyed themselves. John Ten Harkel was given a good opportunity to see how little things had changed since he had been there as a boy. The trip took a whole month in all.
The Ten Harkels made plans to go to the Holy Land, in 1980, with Doctor Hendrikson, but the trip was cancelled due to a violent uprising there.
The Ten Harkels didn't have to go far away, however, to have a good vacation. They often went camping at Gun Lake with other families. They had a deluxe tent, complete with a kitchen. They would buy food in advance, and go up north for a week. They had a little boat, and John and the children would enjoy water skiing.
***
Reflecting on their children, the Ten Harkels comment that they tried to raise their children like they had been raised, sending them to a Christian school and to catechism. They never had any big problems with their children, and left the choice of college up to them. Both Marylin and Carol are graduates of Calvin, and both are teachers. Carol teaches at Sylvan Christian. Robert never went to college, but took to printing in high school, and has been working at Dickenson for many years. They are very thankful that all three married Christian people. The Ten Harkels repeatedly emphasized the importance of a Christian environment, but they also mentioned it is important to let their children make their own decisions. "You can't just say 'no no' all the time."
In addition to their strong Christian beliefs, the Ten Harkels have been good Republicans all their lives. They have voted faithfully in all elections, and they very seriously their responsibility to be concerned about government. They support the Republicans because they are opposed to abortion, because Republicans support Christian projects, and because their parents were Republicans. They did vote for Carter, however, because they believe he was a good Christian.
Throughout their life, the Ten Harkels have had many good friends, most of which are from high school and church. The Ten Harkels look for good Christians as friends. Mark and June Meyer, for instance, took many trips with the Ten Harkels, including trips to Europe, Hawaii, and all over the United States. A friend of John's was Peter Wieland, who lived across from him when he met Elizabeth, and attended Christian High.
Many of the Ten Harkel's friends, including the Meyers, were made at church. John Ten Harkel started attending Creston Christian Reformed Church as a young boy. When Elizabeth started dating John, she joined his church. They have never left since and lament that John's present condition prevents them from attending.
In 1987, John retired from Dickenson. Shortly afterwards, he was afflicted by Parkinson's disease. He started to become forgetful, and would not be able to find places when he went driving. In January of 1994, the Ten Harkels moved into Fulton Manor. They are very happy there, and remark how time has flown by in the time they've been there.
The Ten Harkels have survived some pretty amazing events and times. They have taken all of life's bumps and turns with good humor, and have remained dedicated Christians through it all. With thre children, ten grandchildren, and three great grandchildren, the Ten Harkels have been blessed with a wonderful family. They have come through life triumphant.
Professor's Comments: Lots of good information, Joel. I think the Ten Harkels will be pleased.
I've rearranged some sentences, trying to vary structure or iron out bumps.
Professor's Assistant's Comments: I agree. These are good stories and your paper is clearly organized. Nice work
Grade: B
**************************************************
Joel Swagman
Mrs. Walters
English 100
October 30, 1996
Looking back on 1936
On March 11, 1936, the Ten Harkels were married. Though I doubt either of them paid much attention to the newspapers that day, 1936 was a year that saw many changes. In the middle of the depression, events were happening that would have far reaching consequences in such areas as international relationships, politics, the arts, and civil rights.
Outside the United States, the seeds of World War II were already being planted. Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, which it had lost during World War I (Carruth 504). Italy formally annexed Ethiopia, which it had invaded the year before, and in doing so crippled the League of Nations as an international peace keeper (Carruth 504). Civil war broke out in Spain between the Republican government and the facist army, a war which the fascists were destined to win. France and the Soviet Union ratified the Franco-Soviet Pact for mutual defence (Bandi 14). The Soviet Communist Party began its Great Purge. By 1938, ten million would have been killed under this act (Bandi 14). On July 11, Italy and Germany concluded a secret agreement, in which Italy agreed to let Germany take over Austria. Italy and Germany cemented their alliance on October 25, in the Rome-Berlin Axis (Bandi 15). Germany and Japan signed the anti-cominterm pact, agreeing to mutual protection from the Soviet Union. On January 15, Japan denounced the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and withdrew from the London Naval Conference (Websters 458). On February 14, several prominent Japanese were assassinated in an army uprising (Bandi 14).
Back home, 1936 was an election year. The New Deal was a fierce subject of debate, as its opponents never tired of pointing out that the national debt had increased by twelve billion since 1932. Those in favor of the New Deal would respond that the national income had incrased by 30 billion in the same time (Carruth 504). Polls showed that on June 28, 55% of Americans thought the New Deal was helping recovery, although 90% of Republicans were convinced the New Deal was only making things worse (Gallup 47). The Republicans pitted Alfred Landon, the governor or Kansas, against Roosevelt while the Socialists nominated Norman Thomas (Carruth 504). In an election that holds the record for voter turnout, Roosevelt won in a landslide, taking every state but Maine and Vermont (Carruth 504). After the election, there were only 83 Republicans in the House, and 16 in the Senate (Carruth 504).
Roosevelt's popularity was already causing speculation about a third term. On June 14, 43% of Americans said a President should be eligible ofr a third term (Gallup 44). When asked if they thought Roosevelt should run again in 1940, only 31% of Americans were in favor of it (Gallup 44).
Despite the depression, 1936 proved to be an important year for the arts. Rober Frost wrote A Further Range, but he was over shadowed by Marget Mitchell's Gone with the Wind which sold one million copies in the first six months (Carruth 506).
About five hundred films were released in the United States. It was the most prosperous year for film making since the depression began, despite the fact that four out of every five films were deemed financial failures (Carruth 505). The Academy Awards selected Mutiny on the Bounty as the most outstanding movie (Carruth 505) and The Informer won both the best actor award for Victor McLaglen and the best directoro for John Ford (Carruth 505). Bette Davis received the best actress award for her performance in Dangerous. Walt Disney was given his fourth consecutive award in the cartoon category (Carruth 505).
Progress was also made in civil rights. On December 8, the NAACP filed Gibbs V. Board of Education, which would result in the Supreme court ordering that black school teachers receive the same salaries as white school teachers (Bandi 215). In the case of Murray V. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Maryland Law School must either admit Donald Murray, an African American student, or create a separate school just for him. Murray was admitted (Bandi 141).
As the events of 1936 passed by, we can only wonder how many people really realized their significance. The Ten Harkels freely admit to not having the slightest idea what sort of ramifications many of the events that happened in 1936 would have. Sixty years later we have a much broader perspective on things, but at the time, things weren't so easy to see. No matter how you look at it, 1936 was certainly an important year.
Bibilography
Bandi, Victor. American Decades 1930-1939. Detroit: Gale Research Incorporated. 1995.
Benton, William. The Annals of America. Vol. 15. Chicago: Encylopedia Britannica Incorporated, 1968. 16 vols.
Carruth, Gorton. The Encyclopedia of American Facts & Dates. New York: Harpers & Row. 1987.
Gallup, George H. The Gallup Poll 1930-1960. New York: Random House. 1972.
Webster, William. Webster's Guide to American History. Springfield: G&C Merriam Company. 1971.
Comments:
Professor's Assistant: OK, you've dona good job of researching events of 1936. And you write in clear sentences. Now...be selective with what you include in your paper. I appreciate you're following a construction established in the first paragraph (international events, politics, arts, etc.), but you never come to any conclusions. Don't just tell us about the "New Deal"--tell us what it was- tell us why it mattered. Tell us that Margaret Mitchell's book would one day be made into the most popular movie of all time (which the Ten Harkels would see on their 5th anniversary?...)
Don't just tack the Ten Harkels into your paper-organize the events around their lives, or their life together.
Professor's Comments: Good, Joel. This is your best work so far--which is unusual for a research paper. Keep it up. There is lots of good material here that you can use in the larger paper.
Update
On a whim, searched Google to see what had happened to the Ten Harkels. I found this video:
[My first semester at Calvin, my English 100 teacher had a really cool idea for our final paper. Each of us would be paired up with a couple in an old folks home, interview them for one hour every week, and then at the end of the semester write up their life story.
Actually, I say it was a really cool idea, but that's in retrospect. At the time I thought it was a huge pain in the ass to bike out every week and talk to these old folks for an hour.
Maybe this is the kind of project you really just don't appreciate at 18, I don't know. In some area of the brain, where subconscious feelings are stronger than rational thought, I had the feeling that I would always be young, and that old people had always been old and boring. On some level it hadn't yet fully registered to me that life is a process we all have to go through, and I wasn't quite as interested in hearing about people's life stories as I am now.
Anyway, I didn't have a choice in the matter, so I did it. I biked out to the rest home once a week. I don't remember the exact name of it or exactly where it was, but it must have been somewhere around Aquinas College because I remember passing Aquinas on my way out there.
One time biking out there (or biking back, I don't remember) I got caught in a downpour and got soaked (as I related in this e-mail here).
Another time, I witnessed a car accident while waiting for the light. Not a big accident. Some car turning left hit another at the intersection.
Calvin did actually have a transportation service for students. I forget the name of it, but it was pretty cheap. You had to pay something like $1 per trip or something, and I think it was free if you carpooled with another student. Most (all?) of my classmates used this service when going out to the rest home. I never did, partly because I couldn't be bothered making an appointment in advance (typical me) and partly because I was always intimidated figuring out the rules of a new service (typical me). So I just biked. I justified it as getting exercise anyway.
The couple I was paired up with were John and Elizabeth Ten Harkel, who were really nice people and happy to talk to me. John Ten Harkel was suffering from Parkinson's disease, and was not always altogether there. Some days I got more information out of him than others, so he must have had good days and bad days. (Although I don't remember exactly.) Some days his wife just did most of the talking.
I didn't think I would, but over the semester I did actually grow fond of the Ten Harkels. I enjoyed talking to them. And over the semester they became familiar faces that I became used to, and fond of.
Our class hosted a party at the end of the semester in which we presented our papers to our respective old couples. I don't remember much of the party except being happy to see the Ten Harkel's there, and talking to them.
Our English professor had encouraged us to stay in touch with our old couple after the semester finished. At the beginning of the semester this sounded like the last thing I wanted to do, but by the end of the semester I felt like I had developed enough of a bond with them that I genuinely wanted to stay in touch. The Ten Harkels had encouraged me to drop by after I finished the paper and I promised them I would.
And at the time I said it, I had every intention of doing so. But (typical me), it just never happened. I just never got around to making an appointment, or heading out there.
Who knows what happened to that paper I wrote for them. It could be a cherished piece of family memoriablia, or it could have gotten thrown out.
I still have my copy though, so I thought I'd post it here. It has it's faults to be sure (it was, after all, a freshman paper), but it still documents a little piece of local history. And, like my own Grandfather's memoirs, it's probably useful to preserves these things for future generations.
There are two papers below. The first one is the Ten Harkels' life story. This is the version I submitted to my English professor for a grade. She and her assistant marked it up, and returned it back to me. I made some changes that they suggested, and then I presented the final version to the Ten Harkels. (I didn't save that final version, so this isn't exactly the same as the one the Ten Harkels received, but aside from a few minor changes should be nearly the same.)
The second paper is a research paper we did for the same English class. Our professor instructed us to find out what was the most important thing in the lives of our old couple, and then write a research paper around that. (This was an introductory English class in which we were learning to write a wide variety of papers. This paper here, in which I had to write about a life experience in which I learned a lesson, was also part of the same class.)
I asked the Ten Harkel's what was the most important thing in their life. Elizabeth Ten Harkel told me that their marriage had been the most important thing. I didn't really know what to do with this. I briefly considered trying to do a research paper on the institution of marriage, or wedding ceremonies, but after some consultation with my professor I just did my research paper on the year they got married. This suited me fine because I was a history nerd anyway, although it had absolutely nothing to do with the actual lives of the Ten Harkels. In retrospect the topic may have been a bit of a cop-out. Looking over the Ten Harkel's life story now, I'm not sure why I didn't do something related to the printing industry, because that clearly seemed to be an important part of John Ten Harkel's life. Oh well.
For better or for worse, below are my papers.]
Christian Examples
(A History of John and Elizabeth Ten Harkel)
as told to Joel Swagman
A lot of memories can accumulate in eighty years, some of them pleasant, some not. For the Ten Harkels, fate has certainly not failed to make their lives interesting. They've seen a lot of changes go by, but they have retained a fresh and optimistic view of life throughout them.
John Arind Ten Harkel was only nineteen when he came to the United States from the Netherlands, leaving his family behind. He learned to speak English while working for the GR&I (Grand Rapids and Indiana) railroad in the freight house. His brother Henry came over separately and settled in Los Angeles, while his other brother Garitt went to Muskegon.
John married Jenny Oliver, who was born in the United States. On January 26, 1913, the Ten Harkels had a son. They named him John after both his father and his grandfather (Jahn (sic) Oliver). He was the only child. Although John and Jenny Ten Harkel had two other boys, one born before John and one after, both were still born.
The young John lived next door to his grandpa Olivier, where he remembers his grandpa's dog Karlo.
When Emerald Road was built, it separated the property of the elder John Ten Harkel from that of his father-in-law Olivier, taking forty feet (about half) off of each property.
When the younger John was eleven years old, the Ten Harkel family traveled to join Uncle Henry in California. Henry Ten Harkel, who had settled in Los Angeles, liked it there so much that he convinced his brother to come out and join him. Henry Ten Harkel remained a bachelor all his life, and was grateful to have his brother's family as company. The younger John still remembers the beauty of California. Jenny, however, didn't like being away from her family, so after a year the Ten Harkels set off to return to Grand Rapids.
Aside from this brief excursion, John spent his grade school days at Creston Christian School, where he went to school through the eighth grade. Although John didn't know her well at the time, Elizabeth Koy also attended the same school. One memory John has of his grade school years is the celebration of birthdays. Unlike today, John didn't go out to eat on his birthday, since there were no places to go. Instead he got together with his relatives at his grandpa Olivier's for a celebration. He also got together with the Olivier family on Christmas and on New Years, which was his mother's birthday.
John started Creston High School in ninth grade. He ran Cross Country and Track his freshman year, but head to give those activities up in favor of the job his uncle, Walk Olivier, got him at the White Printing Company, working for twenty five cents an hour. Starting in tenth grade, he was able to get out of school at 2:30, one period earlier than everyone else. He would work at White Printing Company until 5:30 each school day and on Saturday mornings as well. White Printing Company was not his first job, however. He had already peddled papers for two years when he was younger, working two paper routes, the first set of papers coming at 2:30, the second at 4:30.
John got his first car in tenth grade. His uncle, Frank Yoken, who had married Jenny's sister, Lena, died suddenly. John's aunt Lena and his cousin Ruth moved in with the Ten Harkel family, and John was given exclusive use of Frank Yokem's Pontiac because he was the only one who knew how to drive.
In High School, John Ten Harkel Studied printing, typing for a year, Algebra for two semesters, and Latin.
***
Martin Henry Koy came over from the Netherlands with his family at the age of five. He married Dora Stob, who had been born in the United States. Elizabeth Koy, born on July 29, 1915, was named after Dora's mother. She was one of four children: Hank was three years older than she, Tressa was five years younger, and James was seven years younger.
When Elizabeth was growing up, there were four children living in one house. The one yard contained a big garden so there was no room for pets. Elizabeth lived next door to her grandparents, but they didn't have a pet either.
On her birthdays, Elizabeth would gather with her cousins and grandparents, who lived in the duplex next door. Cookies and cake were made for the occasion, but ice cream was not served because it was too expensive. Since her birthday was in July, they had the gathering outside. The best gift she ever received was an old firm wood piano at the age of eleven. It was largely because of this gift that she became such a great piano player, and later on in her life gave piano lessons for eleven years.
Another memory of Elizabeth's childhood is the conflict over her name. Saying "Elizabeth" proved to be more effort than her friends were prepared to exert every time they wanted to address her. To solve the problem, they called her Liz or Lizzy. Elizabeth's mother was less than pleased by this practice, and insisted that her daughter be addressed as Elizabeth, or if the name had to be shortened, that it be shortened to Betty.
Elizabeth went to Creston Christian grade school through the eighth grade. Elizabeth was left handed, which became a misfortune since she was the only lefty in her class. In fourth grade her teacher Ms. Veenstra disapproved of Elizabeth writing left handed. During penmanship class, Ms. Veenstra would get a black rag out of the closet and tie up Elizabeth's left hand. Elizabeth was very embarrassed by this, and still remembers how cries of "tie her up!" would herald the beginning of penmanship. Ms. Veenstra remained firm in her decision to change Elizabeth's hand by what ever method necessary, even rejecting an embassy by Elizabeth's mother. "She'll thank me afterwards," Ms. Veenstra insisted. Ms. Veenstra's efforts did not go unrewarded--Elizabeth now writes with her right hand.
Elizabeth went to Davis Tech High School. She played volleyball there, but didn't go out for any other sports. She wanted to be a nurse. Her parents supported her, but there wasn't enough money to go to college.
At high school, Elizabeth studied what was then known as a commercial course, taking two years of commercial typing, and two years of shorthand, and no foreign language.
While in high school Elizabeth worked for Ms. Dekorne at Dekorne's furniture shop for two years, earning about two dollars a week. When she heard about an opening at Kresze's five and dime store that paid twelve dollars a week, she successfully applied for a job there.
***
John and Elizabeth first encountered each other at Creston Christian grade school, but it wasn't until much later that they got to know each other. When Elizabeth was working at Dekorne Furniture Store, which was located on the same street where John lived, they saw a lot of each other. They were attracted to each other because of all they had in common, both coming from Christian homes and school, and both sharing a love for sports, and the desire for an active social life. They went together for two years before they became engaged. Six months later they were married at Elizabeth's home, 922 Lafayette on March 11, 1936. John's cousin, Don Olivier, played the piano for the wedding. They went to Washington D.C. for their honeymoon and had a good time, even though they didn't see President Roosevelt.
Their first house was on Union street, where they lived for two years. In 1938, they moved to Dyker Street, and lived there for ten years. It was while they were living in this house that they had their first child, Marylin Beth Ten Harkel, born on April 26, 1938. Four years later, Robert John was born on February 17.
While they were living on Dyker Street, World War II broke out. At first, because John did his part by printing out material for the government at the Printing Press, he was deferred from the draft. As the war escalated, however, and more people were needed, he was called to Detroit for a physical, passed it, and was put into the navy. Then, it was announced that anyone thirty-five or older didn't have to join. John was thirty-five at the time, and since he had two children at home, he was happy to be saved from the draft. "Don't go if you don't have to," John advised me.
In 1940, when Harry White, who owned White Printing Company, retired, John bought the company from him. At that time, White Printing Company was located on Division and Lion, in the same building as Dickenson Printing Company. The two companies were separated only by a wall. Dickenson was run on offset press, while White was run by the old fashioned letter press. It was only a matter of time before White Printing Company would have to replace all of its equipment to keep up with the times. Instead, in 1945, John decided to merge with Dickenson. John was given a large amount of Dickenson stock and made vice-president of Dickenson. The wonderful thing about this merger was that not a single employee was laid off in the process.
In 1948, the Ten Harkels moved from their house on Dyker to Tamarrak. Also that year Carol Jean Ten Harkel was born on January 26, sharing the same birthday as her father. The year also saw the introduction of a dog to the family, a toy Manchester named Teddy. He was a year old and fully trained when they got him. He was well behaved and never tried to climb into any of the beds. He was able to tell when it was Sunday because on that day the whole family would be eating breakfast. He would go to the door and wait for John to take him on a walk around Richmond Park. Once the walk was over, Teddy would look at the Ten Harkel family as if to say, "you can go to church now, I've had my walk." The Ten Harkels had Teddy for fifteen years, at the end of which he died of cancer. Besides Teddy, the Ten Harkels had one other pet, a bird Trixy, who greet the family with "Merry Christmas" all year long.
Although the exact date has long been forgotten, sometime in the late fifties, someone set fire to Dickenson Printing Company. John was contacted at church Sunday evening and rushed to Dickenson. Whoever started the fire was never caught, but insurance covered most of the damage. People rescued what equipment they could from the flames, and Dickenson press moved its location to Myrtle Street on the West Side. Much later, Dickenson was moved again and is now located near the airport on Patterson.
Another memory of the Ten Harkels is their first television, which they got in 1951. Before then, they listened to radio programs, but television took over things. Over the years they've enjoyed watching "All in the Family," news, and sports.
The Ten Harkels have done more than their share of traveling over their lives. With the exception of Alaska, they have been to every state once and they even went to Europe on the 1978 De Vries tour. Although they did not see the fabled England, they did see Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, et cetera. They had hoped to see the pope in Italy, but he was on vacation. They rode boats in Venice instead. They remember that Germany was beautiful, despite its crowds, and that France was beautiful aslo, especially the Eiffel Tower.
Another memorable trip was the one taken to California and Mexico in the summer of 1965. Driving down there in a car that had no air conditioning was rough, but they still enjoyed themselves. John Ten Harkel was given a good opportunity to see how little things had changed since he had been there as a boy. The trip took a whole month in all.
The Ten Harkels made plans to go to the Holy Land, in 1980, with Doctor Hendrikson, but the trip was cancelled due to a violent uprising there.
The Ten Harkels didn't have to go far away, however, to have a good vacation. They often went camping at Gun Lake with other families. They had a deluxe tent, complete with a kitchen. They would buy food in advance, and go up north for a week. They had a little boat, and John and the children would enjoy water skiing.
***
Reflecting on their children, the Ten Harkels comment that they tried to raise their children like they had been raised, sending them to a Christian school and to catechism. They never had any big problems with their children, and left the choice of college up to them. Both Marylin and Carol are graduates of Calvin, and both are teachers. Carol teaches at Sylvan Christian. Robert never went to college, but took to printing in high school, and has been working at Dickenson for many years. They are very thankful that all three married Christian people. The Ten Harkels repeatedly emphasized the importance of a Christian environment, but they also mentioned it is important to let their children make their own decisions. "You can't just say 'no no' all the time."
In addition to their strong Christian beliefs, the Ten Harkels have been good Republicans all their lives. They have voted faithfully in all elections, and they very seriously their responsibility to be concerned about government. They support the Republicans because they are opposed to abortion, because Republicans support Christian projects, and because their parents were Republicans. They did vote for Carter, however, because they believe he was a good Christian.
Throughout their life, the Ten Harkels have had many good friends, most of which are from high school and church. The Ten Harkels look for good Christians as friends. Mark and June Meyer, for instance, took many trips with the Ten Harkels, including trips to Europe, Hawaii, and all over the United States. A friend of John's was Peter Wieland, who lived across from him when he met Elizabeth, and attended Christian High.
Many of the Ten Harkel's friends, including the Meyers, were made at church. John Ten Harkel started attending Creston Christian Reformed Church as a young boy. When Elizabeth started dating John, she joined his church. They have never left since and lament that John's present condition prevents them from attending.
In 1987, John retired from Dickenson. Shortly afterwards, he was afflicted by Parkinson's disease. He started to become forgetful, and would not be able to find places when he went driving. In January of 1994, the Ten Harkels moved into Fulton Manor. They are very happy there, and remark how time has flown by in the time they've been there.
The Ten Harkels have survived some pretty amazing events and times. They have taken all of life's bumps and turns with good humor, and have remained dedicated Christians through it all. With thre children, ten grandchildren, and three great grandchildren, the Ten Harkels have been blessed with a wonderful family. They have come through life triumphant.
Professor's Comments: Lots of good information, Joel. I think the Ten Harkels will be pleased.
I've rearranged some sentences, trying to vary structure or iron out bumps.
Professor's Assistant's Comments: I agree. These are good stories and your paper is clearly organized. Nice work
Grade: B
**************************************************
Joel Swagman
Mrs. Walters
English 100
October 30, 1996
Looking back on 1936
On March 11, 1936, the Ten Harkels were married. Though I doubt either of them paid much attention to the newspapers that day, 1936 was a year that saw many changes. In the middle of the depression, events were happening that would have far reaching consequences in such areas as international relationships, politics, the arts, and civil rights.
Outside the United States, the seeds of World War II were already being planted. Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, which it had lost during World War I (Carruth 504). Italy formally annexed Ethiopia, which it had invaded the year before, and in doing so crippled the League of Nations as an international peace keeper (Carruth 504). Civil war broke out in Spain between the Republican government and the facist army, a war which the fascists were destined to win. France and the Soviet Union ratified the Franco-Soviet Pact for mutual defence (Bandi 14). The Soviet Communist Party began its Great Purge. By 1938, ten million would have been killed under this act (Bandi 14). On July 11, Italy and Germany concluded a secret agreement, in which Italy agreed to let Germany take over Austria. Italy and Germany cemented their alliance on October 25, in the Rome-Berlin Axis (Bandi 15). Germany and Japan signed the anti-cominterm pact, agreeing to mutual protection from the Soviet Union. On January 15, Japan denounced the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and withdrew from the London Naval Conference (Websters 458). On February 14, several prominent Japanese were assassinated in an army uprising (Bandi 14).
Back home, 1936 was an election year. The New Deal was a fierce subject of debate, as its opponents never tired of pointing out that the national debt had increased by twelve billion since 1932. Those in favor of the New Deal would respond that the national income had incrased by 30 billion in the same time (Carruth 504). Polls showed that on June 28, 55% of Americans thought the New Deal was helping recovery, although 90% of Republicans were convinced the New Deal was only making things worse (Gallup 47). The Republicans pitted Alfred Landon, the governor or Kansas, against Roosevelt while the Socialists nominated Norman Thomas (Carruth 504). In an election that holds the record for voter turnout, Roosevelt won in a landslide, taking every state but Maine and Vermont (Carruth 504). After the election, there were only 83 Republicans in the House, and 16 in the Senate (Carruth 504).
Roosevelt's popularity was already causing speculation about a third term. On June 14, 43% of Americans said a President should be eligible ofr a third term (Gallup 44). When asked if they thought Roosevelt should run again in 1940, only 31% of Americans were in favor of it (Gallup 44).
Despite the depression, 1936 proved to be an important year for the arts. Rober Frost wrote A Further Range, but he was over shadowed by Marget Mitchell's Gone with the Wind which sold one million copies in the first six months (Carruth 506).
About five hundred films were released in the United States. It was the most prosperous year for film making since the depression began, despite the fact that four out of every five films were deemed financial failures (Carruth 505). The Academy Awards selected Mutiny on the Bounty as the most outstanding movie (Carruth 505) and The Informer won both the best actor award for Victor McLaglen and the best directoro for John Ford (Carruth 505). Bette Davis received the best actress award for her performance in Dangerous. Walt Disney was given his fourth consecutive award in the cartoon category (Carruth 505).
Progress was also made in civil rights. On December 8, the NAACP filed Gibbs V. Board of Education, which would result in the Supreme court ordering that black school teachers receive the same salaries as white school teachers (Bandi 215). In the case of Murray V. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Maryland Law School must either admit Donald Murray, an African American student, or create a separate school just for him. Murray was admitted (Bandi 141).
As the events of 1936 passed by, we can only wonder how many people really realized their significance. The Ten Harkels freely admit to not having the slightest idea what sort of ramifications many of the events that happened in 1936 would have. Sixty years later we have a much broader perspective on things, but at the time, things weren't so easy to see. No matter how you look at it, 1936 was certainly an important year.
Bibilography
Bandi, Victor. American Decades 1930-1939. Detroit: Gale Research Incorporated. 1995.
Benton, William. The Annals of America. Vol. 15. Chicago: Encylopedia Britannica Incorporated, 1968. 16 vols.
Carruth, Gorton. The Encyclopedia of American Facts & Dates. New York: Harpers & Row. 1987.
Gallup, George H. The Gallup Poll 1930-1960. New York: Random House. 1972.
Webster, William. Webster's Guide to American History. Springfield: G&C Merriam Company. 1971.
Comments:
Professor's Assistant: OK, you've dona good job of researching events of 1936. And you write in clear sentences. Now...be selective with what you include in your paper. I appreciate you're following a construction established in the first paragraph (international events, politics, arts, etc.), but you never come to any conclusions. Don't just tell us about the "New Deal"--tell us what it was- tell us why it mattered. Tell us that Margaret Mitchell's book would one day be made into the most popular movie of all time (which the Ten Harkels would see on their 5th anniversary?...)
Don't just tack the Ten Harkels into your paper-organize the events around their lives, or their life together.
Professor's Comments: Good, Joel. This is your best work so far--which is unusual for a research paper. Keep it up. There is lots of good material here that you can use in the larger paper.
Update
On a whim, searched Google to see what had happened to the Ten Harkels. I found this video:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
