Going back to Bradstreet for literature circles was helpful in understanding her as an author. I found the article interesting and revealing. It exposed the two worlds of Bradstreet: historian and "secret" writer. Just imagining a time when women writers were not embraced is difficult. My group talked a little bit about how Bradstreet was feeling in regards to her self-doubt. She was so critical of herself and appeared to have little faith that her writing was worth reading. It's kind of funny now to think that her writing is being studied in classrooms....
As a group, we also talked about how different her two types of writing was. She was uncensored in her personal writings. It would be interesting to see how she may have changed what she wrote if she knew people would be reading what she wrote. We also found it interesting that she basically gave up on her role as a historian because of the house fire. I could picture someone in bed head throwing a book down and saying, "the hell with it."
Edward Taylor wasn't exactly my favorite. I didn't find myself drawn into the reading, but I was able to appreciate his choice in words. I also like his distinction between body and soul in "Meditation 8." Choosing to relate communion and the body of Christ to sugar cake was a smart choice on Taylor's part. He was able to capture the sweetness of God by doing this. In all honesty, it even made me a bit hungry for some cake. :)
Cotton Mather was another one of the authors I have enjoyed. The Wonders of the Invisible World was no short of interesting. The fact that he claimed to be telling the story as a historian, yet give harsh opinions of the woman at the end was quite humorous to me. For some reason, I have always found it to be funny when someone claims to have no opinion on a subject when they clearly are expressing one to others. For that reason alone, I loved Mather.
I agree specifically with the paragraph about Edward Taylor. I did not find Taylor to be one of my favorites either, however, I did appreciate and understand his need to use the meditations for teaching purposes. He used strong metaphors to explain some tricky topics. To be honest, the cake part made me want some of your cake cookies!
ReplyDeleteI agree.
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't have much else to say. . . this post was a very nice review of everything we discussed in American lit-1700s. I thought it was funny how we are discussing Bradstreet in classrooms now too. . . what would she say if she knew we were? Would her writings have been different if they were written for an audience rather then just for personal satisfaction? Something tells me that the candid nature, and therefore its unique voice, would be destroyed had she been writing for an academic or general audience.
I suppose the only place I would disagree with you is on Taylor. He was probably my favorite author we looked at in this era. I enjoyed the structure and regularity of his poems, and his imagery was provocative. The language was a little lofty, and oftentimes sounded almost like a modern person trying to recreate that style of writing (stol'n? whilst? really?), but all in all, I really enjoyed his poetry.
Finally, of course you already know that we agree on Mather. If anything, his name will always make me laugh, so he is AT VERY LEAST good for that.