Based on what I have read in “The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain” as well as Cullen’s comments, I personally find more grounding and sense in becoming part of the western canon. I don’t say this to say that the black community should always write with some part of a white audience in mind, because they certainly should be able to have full control of their audience and style, but I say this to attempt to rectify Langston Hughes’ depiction of the young black poet. Hughes argued that the poet wanted to just be considered a poet rather than a black poet because he was ashamed of his heritage, but I would say the best goal for the western literary world would be to put this new demographic of artist into the already established ethos that is the western canon.

In addition, shouldn’t the timeline of western art reflect the societal changes happening within? The American Revolution contributed to the portion of the western literary timeline that is American Romanticism in the same way that World War I contributed to the Modernism movement. Why, then shouldn’t black authors become part of the western canon to show the early signs of progress and onwards?

I can understand the argument that Hughes puts forth for wanting to create a separate, distinct, and equally as valuable literary canon, but I cannot envision how this attitude of keeping writing locked to a certain audience on a factor as arbitrary as race would be the ideal method. From my point-of-view, it would seem that the best way to make the change would be to show their conditions, thoughts, feelings, and overall being to the world through their art and to chip away at the racism-hardened stone that was, as still is to a lesser extent, in the people with the funds to do something about it. This is just one person’s opinion however and I am far from an expert on this subject.

While being very similar philosophers, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau seem to be differentiated by their ideas for how a person should interact, both physically and spiritually with Nature. This is best seen in the “transparent eyeball” moment from Emerson’s Nature and the opening paragraph of Thoreau’s “Solitude.”

The first key distinction I find between these transcendentalists is to what degree an individual, as both authors intently focus on being an individual, should be spiritually immersed in Nature. Emerson seems to have believed that the most ideal state a person could achieve was to lose all essence of oneself and to become a part of the all-encompassing entity that is both simultaneously God and Nature. Thoreau, on the other hand, seems to state that a person is called to move in tandem with Nature as opposed to being a part of the whole. This distinction seems the most apparent with this quote from “Solitude:” ‘Sympathy with the fluttering alder and poplar leaves almost takes my breath away; yet, like the lake, my serenity is rippled but not ruffled.’ There, he shows that same connection that Emerson would wish for, but not to the expense of the individual’s identity.

Another distinction would be something along the lines of their differing reasons for their awe with Nature. Emerson seems to look at Nature as something which only the few can actually appreciate beyond it’s self-evident majesty. ‘To speak truly, few adult persons can see nature. Most persons do not see the sun. At least they have a very superficial seeing. The sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and the heart of the child.’ To counter Emerson’s point from Nature, Thoreau claims to himself be one who cannot see fully beyond the superficial as he says, ‘As I walk along the stony shore of the pond in my shirt sleeves, though it is cool as well as cloudy and windy, and I see nothing special to attract me, all the elements are unusually congenial to me.’ Here, Thoreau seems to claim that there is no distinction between the sights that Emerson mentions as he sees the mundane Nature in front of him and is still able to see the transcendent as he continues in his essay.

According to Hawthorne scholar Nina Baym, it is quite likely that the author of The Scarlet Letter was a feminist or, at the very least, had feminist themes throughout some of his works. She argues that this is shown through the way that “Hawthorne represented women simultaneously as embodiments of misogynistic male fantasies about women and as ‘real’ women struggling against these fantasies….” One example of this can be found in his short story “The Birth-Mark.”

Based on what I read of “The Birth-Mark” and the lens by which we were introduced to the work, I would agree with Baym about the opinions of the author. Most of this belief, however, stems from my assumption that the titular birth mark found in this work is a symbol for the burden of childbirth as well as the biological, social, and personal burdens that accompany this trait. This symbol seemed apparent to me for a few reasons. First, it is a birth mark which creates an association in the reader’s mind with childbirth. Secondly, Georgiana, the bearer of the mark, seems to have no problem with this mark as she has probably lived her whole life expecting that she will always have to deal with this facet as just one more burden on her shoulders. Finally, with this being my own convincing factor, Hawthorne explicitly draws a distinction between Aylmer, the driving force behind removing the birth mark, and Aminadab, his lab assistant, as spiritual and physical symbols respectively. With this in mind, a quote from Aminadab highlights one aspect of Hawthorne’s depictions when he says, “If she were my wife, I’d never part with that birth-mark.” The physical aspect would never part with the burden on his own wife because it didn’t harm him any and he might even gain some enjoyment out of the mark. However, the spiritual aspect is currently seeking to remove this “harmless” burden from her so that she might not be forced to bear it. Maybe I am mistaken and there are a thousand other reasons to believe Hawthorne is a feminist writer, but these are the major reasons that convinced me.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton