Homework for Thursday

We will not have class on Thursday, but your blog posts and comments are still due as usual.

1) Read Ellison, Invisible Man, p. 1-97.
2) Group B post on Invisible Man by 9am Thursday.
3) Group A comment by 11:59pm Friday.
4) Read the assignment for paper 2 and think about what event you want to write about. I would rather not read 30 papers about September 11, so try to think of a different event if at all possible. The first draft of your paper (at least 3 pages) is due in class on 4/14. The paper is due on 4/21.

She paints with words

The thing I noticed most about Stein's writing style is that is feels messy. While I'm reading, I get the feeling that her writing is very informal, almost like a diary. Her jumping from place to place reminds me of Poe's NAGP in that it could stand for more organization and could be more thought out. Her dialogue has a chatty air to it and sometimes I get the feeling that we are simply one of her friends she is having a conversation with. One of the things I was thinking about in class tuesday during our discussion was that Stein writes much like a painter paints. Her writing is not just simply black and white, but full of color. I've painted before, and the instances where she begins describing someone or some event and then stops and says she'll come back to it later remind me of painting. Sometimes you reach a certain point in your painting where you stop and paint a bit of something else and then come back to that spot. Painting is not a uniform process and there is no correct format or guidelines to follow. Sometimes we think of writing as having this process that you need to follow, and to me Stein has broken free of this process and created something different.

Gertrude Stein, Genius.

I would definitely equate this reading with The Education of Henry Adams in a few ways. They both are observing people who are famous (at least now). They both speak in a nonchalant manner about these people. Stein talks about how Picasso was usually prompt, or Matisse was disliked by the cook because he was rude. While she does mention other things pertaining to their art, the funny anecdotes surprised me while reading and gave me a different picture of some of the artists mentioned. Sometimes these anecdotes did tend to take away from the plot. They made it more complicated for me to follow the actual plot line, as Stein used the stream of consciousness and would just change topics freely.
Also something that struck me about the book is the amount that Stein talks about herself, through Alice Toklas. I realize that they had a close relationship and were partners for a long time, but I feel like Toklas should be offended because often all she did was praise Stein and talk about how much of a genius she was. Through outside research I have read that Stein apparently wrote the book for profit. While this might not take away from the literary value of the story (as we saw earlier in the semester with Poe’s Pym), I think it is possible to see that she wrote it for that purpose. Her free flowing form of stream of consciousness, in the ways in which it simply leaves points, only to return to them later, reminds me of a college student who has waited until the last minute to write a paper

If I wrote this post written here, would you would you write beneath here would you you would write here beneath this post?

My favorite part about reading Gertrude Stein is experiencing her flow of words. The way she writes draws me in as if the whole book were poetry about all-too-common geniuses and an overabundance of nascent art. Her writing surprises me and is soothing like a beautiful song.

However, like a beautiful song, I get so caught up in the words and their construction that I have a hard time keeping track of the story. I think perhaps Gertrude may have, too. When she lists off all these people she knows, I feel like they are woven in and out of her life fluidly. While Henry Adams was dedicated to concrete events and conventional grammar, Stein follows a meandering path with Toklas. At first I thought it was just the style of Toklas that Stein was imitating but perhaps there is a lot of Stein’s voice here also. Like many other posters, I am not sure where Toklas ends and where Stein begins. Also, I feel like the relationships she has with the artists is as recursive as one of her poems – the artists flow in and out of her life without making a significant impact, or am I missing something> All in all, living in Stein’s (or Toklas’s) worldwould be much more compelling if she organized it more linearly, but to linearize Stein’s work would be to take away the beauty of the meandering.

Due to the high volume of famous people talked about in “The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas” I find that I have to remind myself that this book is actually an autobiography of sorts and not fiction. However, I did not have that same problem with “The Education of Henry Adams” I guess because the famous people mentioned are spoken about on a much less personal level than those in Gertrude Stein’s novel. Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t think I like this book much more than that of Henry Adams. I am more fond of Stein’s writing style, which is gossipy in nature and therefore more interesting to me, but I feel as though thus far nothing of substance has really been said. Although not all of Adams’s intentions when writing his autobiography are immediately apparent, there seems to be much more substance in his book than in this one. So far I feel as though Stein has only written about very inconsequential events that do not particularly reflect more on the time period than a history book could as Adams’ did, nor has it so far provided a unique perspective. Perhaps her novel provides a unique perspective into the lives of the famous people mentioned, such as Picasso, as she knew them on a personal level. Furthermore, I find that her gossipy writing style is just as difficult to follow as Adams was because she tends to shift who she is talking about with no warning or transition. 

Carly, Stein post

Conversational style:
Stein’s style of conversational writing struck a cord with me. As a Journalism major in the electronic sequence (broadcasting), we are beat over the head repeatedly with the phrase “make it conversational.” Needless to say, this autobiography read much more smoothly than Henry Adams. For example, “Now he is against his will called Menalkas but he might be gratified if he knew that legally he is Raymond. However that is another matter.” (44) I found the lack of commas and colons intriguing, and I thought they were needed initially. After I while, I realized I was naturally filling them in as I read. Gertrude wanted to emulate Alice, and the conversational style went well with Alice’s continuing opinions about people. I’m not sure how many works exist that talk about the personalities of Picasso, Picassos’ girlfriend Fernande, Matisse, and the others, but she definitely adds color to their stories.
Narrative voice:The narrative voice as told through Toklas but (really) Gertrude makes me wonder if she didn’t feel like anyone would read it if it had her name on it. Like Henry Adams, she hides her voice under the mask of Tolka’s first person voice, which makes it more readable and less presumptious. I was familiar with the name Gertrude Stein before reading this book, but I didn’t know what she was known for.
Similarities between two books:Henry Adams and Stein are similar in that their life revolves around knowing important people, and they have written a book about it. Having connections during a major artistic movement and smartly buying paintings to hang in the Rue de Fleurus put Gertrude in the right place, much like Henry Adams’ situation. Also, Henry puts down Harvard and says his class wasn’t especially brilliant. Furthermore, he didn’t really learn anything at Harvard. Stein brings up a similar point when she attends John Hopkins Medical School; she laments that she is “bored” the second two years, and all but one of her teachers pass her.

Cute Couple?

As mentioned in an earlier post, I too find myself lost within Stein's stream of words. I don't know if it's her writing style or her detailed, artistic life that is making me enjoy this book so much. I do believe that the daily activities of Gertrude and Alice would be so intriguing as to attain my interest. I love the artists she meets and who she becomes friends with. Alice is so lucky to have a friend like Gertrude. She has been acquainted with Pablo Picasso, Ernest Hemingway, and Henri Matisse. One thing I am questioning is the type of relationship Alice and Gertrude had. While Alice does go everywhere with Gertrude and sees all that she sees, I am curious to see a more intimate relationship between the two. All literature I've read about the couple make them seem like the quintessential couple, though they were gay. I find it difficult how "Alice" can recall all these moments with fame and Paris, yet there is rarely an intimate moment between the two. Let's get our minds out of the gutter, because that is not the intimacy I am referring to. I just want "Alice" to describe a time when just the two of them, Gertrude and her enjoy a moment that relates to how they truly enjoy each other's company. I see pictures of them together and they look so perfect and happy together. That is the dream relationship; they cooperate, and are in love. Or are they? I wish to see a caring couple do something alone so I can really get a sense of just how their relationship was. How can we know that’s really what they were; a couple, unless we read something circling around the idea that they were together. Odds are that at this time, being a gay woman was not a common thing, so of course publicizing their relationship may not have been her desired effect. But what made them feel as if they should be together as life partners?
Maybe it's just a romantic's desire to see more romance and mush and love, but I just feel strongly that Gertrude, or Alice, at some point needed to have said something about how she felt. Maybe what I need to read is Alice's diary, not her "autobiography".

** I am sorry I don't have much textual evidence in this, but I feel frustrated with this point. How do we know that they cared for each other? and I am sorry for being pessimistic about their relationship. I shouldn't judge or expect something fantastic about them, but I am just curious. Is there harm in that?

Gertrude Gertrude Gertrude!!!

I must say that I think that it was kind of cool and unique that Gertrude Stein decided to write an autobiography through the speech of Alice Toklas. It just brings another dynamic that I have certainly not seen before. I totally understand this book better than The Education of Henry Adams. This book throws out a lot of names just like Henry Adams does but I feel that they work better in this book because of the way that she presents them.

Her writing style, I believe people are calling in “stream of conciseness” (sorry missed class on Tuesday) is awesome as well. I like reading books about peoples past like this because it makes you feel like you are there with them. It made it very easy to follow and easier to read. The time spent in England at the breakout of the war was interesting. It had me thinking how I would feel if I were in another country while a war is going on and I could not go home. She wrote that she did not care about her pictures or manuscripts but the thing she cared about was Paris. I don’t quite understand this concept but whatever works for her. Another interesting part of the book that got me was she was talking about the geniuses that she met during her trip. It was interesting to see what these genius thought about the war, however misguided it may have been. This is my thoughts on The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas.

Too much Gertrude. Not enough Alice... amongst other things.

I feel like my initial statement will not be original; I am becoming really tired of Gertrude discussing only Gertrude Stein. While she is certainly an interesting character, I really want to know more about Alice B. Toklas than I do how much people raved about Gertrude's novel. I feel like she is kind of exposing herself as insecure rather than confident in her genius by pointing it out so much.
That said, I have two other points, I feel like toward the end of the assigned reading for Thursday, Stein started to make more of an effort to make the work more about Alice; I see significantly more "I" and a pleasant amount less "Gertrude Stein." So, thanks Gerty!
Ok, now for my most major point regarding the writing style of the novel: It, once more, does not fail to incorporate a lot of Gertrude into it, even if she is trying to take on Alice's conversational style. On page 90, there is a line that goes:
"In these pictures he first emphasised the way of building in spanish villages, the line of the houses not following the landscape but cutting across and into the landscape, becoming undistinguishable in the landscape by cutting across the landscape."
I think this is the perfect example of what we were talking about in class on Tuesday; Gertrude's style is the written form of cubism. And, inevitably, it came through in writing The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas. Just based on the majority of the work, I cannot imagine that this is a sentence Alice herself would have said. She might have, indeed, been appreciative of such a sentence but it is highly unlikely that she would have said it (in my opinion, of course).
Also, that Gertrude put in this little clue that she was writing the Autobiography is very fitting to what seems to be her personality. She needs the attention to be on her "genius." Ah!

I don't understand why she called this The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, when it is actually her autobiography. Honestly, it annoys me. I think that it makes the book unique because Stein attempts to recreate Alice's voice and thoughts while still discussing her (Stein's) actual life. However, at this point, I don't really see how it adds to the book. Stein glorify's herself by supposedly speaking through her lover, and it takes away from it, for me at least.

The stream of consciousness format works for the book, but I had difficulty staying aware of what was a flashback and what was merely going through Gertrude's life in order. There are a lot of details and names that throw me off easily, but I like the explanation offered by Stein. Her anecdotes are often very amusing, such as the one about when she was frightened out of her hiccups. I think the anecdotes add to the story and make it much more conversational and personal and an overall easy to digest book.

six degrees of separation from kevin bacon and Gertrude stein

has anyone else experienced the feeling of being completely saturated in Gertrude stein's world and for only a second be distracted by something else (telephone ringing, traffic, etc) and suddenly you feel out of place? I know it's a really weird feeling, but i keep having it every time i try to read Alice B. Toklas in a noisy place. I think it may be the way she is organizing it chronologically as well as the content matter that makes it seem that it's not her life story so much as it is one of her dinner parties. She has the book organized into chapters which represent large chunks of time (several years at a time)... but that doesn't seem to be how she's organizing her life. It seems that she is doing it by the people she knows. She'll mention person A, briefly describe them and the circumstances of their meeting and then she'll meet person B who she met through person A and the cycle continues. I remember reading today pages upon pages of just introductions of people. It's a very uncomfortable feeling because you do feel like you're meeting these people in some capacity and you feel like the polite thing to do would be to respond in some way... which of course is silly and impossible... but you none the less feel like you are being rude and will somewhere down the line get a plate of fried egg instead of omlet because you snubbed these literary figures. Never has an autobiography given me such social anxiety before! It's just a really interesting experience because it evokes the physiological exhaustion of meeting a lot of people at once but it's really just her writing style.

Oh, so witty!

I think Stein's idea to write her own autobiography as though it was the autobiography of someone else is simply genius. There is no doubt her life was full of interesting people, places, and events, and incredibly worthy to be written about; however, there are just so many tidbits of information to digest. It almost feels like a tidal wave of names hits you with every turn of the page.

It is undeniable that her writing style is innovative, which coincides with the groundbreaking generation of artists she lived amongst in Europe. One of my favorite passages so far is a critique of Gertrude's writing and her witty retort.

"Haweis had been fascinated with what he had read in manuscript of The Making of Americans. He did however plead for commas. Gertrude Stein said commas were unnecessary, the sense should be intrinsic and not have to be explained by commas and otherwise commas were only a sign that one should pause and take breath but one should know of oneself when one wanted to pause and take breath" (132).

This quote is just one of many quips found throughout The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas that exemplifies Stein's wit and ability to remain charming even when being obstinate. I think it provides a bit of insight to the inner workings of Stein's mind, and why she chooses to ignore the usage of commas, which is something most professional writers would frown upon. Obviously, Stein enjoys writing outside of the box and is throwing syntax out the window.

Her opinions are enigmatic and her anecdotes are brilliant. Gertrude Stein is unlike any other author I have read thus far, and I am really looking forward to reading the rest of this autobiography to see what education I will be able to garner from the mass amounts of information on every page.

1 more thing

the narration scheme is really cool though and different, and i really do appreciate that. points for you Stein, but not too many

Just Not A Fan of Stein

I guess its my turn to take the role as class pessimist. Though it was difficult and dense, I truly felt Henry Adams gave so much information and depth to digest that at the end of the novel, I could take a lot away. It also seems many of you enjoy Stein's "stream of conscious" writing style, but to me it really just gets frustrating to read "paintings Cezanne, oh but now ill get to the real point 10 pages later". Yet I still think small parallels can be drawn between Henry Adams and Stein, for instance they both don't consider their top-notch educations too valuable. The intricacies and politics of painters and their paintings get dull; as if I am almost listening to a gossip radio show. But digging through the random dialogue I do enjoy learning about the subtle historic progression and account from realistic art to impressionism/cubism; it is also interesting to see a young Picasso, as most of what you hear about him is a dead famous artist.

Ill try my best to keep an open mind for Stein, but its closing fast. I guess after digesting a dynamic theory of history, pondering on what education really means, and examining why women vs. machinery hold power of man, I can't really find what to REALLY take out of this book- or I guess my basic request is for Stein to explicate what is so great about herself (the oh so humble genius) and Tolkas for me to keep reading?

Form in The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say it's difficult at times to understand why Stein writes the way she does. As mentioned in an earlier post, the long chapters and fragmented writing create a situation in which there is no good point for the reader to stop. The effect of this is that the book seems to be moving endlessly ahead, with little time for introspection or reflection. Since we know that Stein seemingly crafted every sentence and every word for a precise purpose, I believe that she structured the chapters in a way to project the momentum and excitement she felt at the time.

Another aspect of form I wanted to comment on was the crafting of the individual sentences themselves. Stein writes complex sentences and often removes the cues we are accustomed to using to decipher their meaning. Sentences with dialogue can be especially confusing, as there are never any quotation marks used. The descriptors she uses in the middle of the sentence are often ambiguous. By crafting her sentences in such a way, Stein is forcing us to be critical readers and to establish meaning and judgment independently. In challenging the artistic norms of the times, both Stein and Picasso are encouraging the individual to focus on form and structure, and to be more critical.

On a side note, I really liked the image on page 90 where Eve, Piccasso, Alice, and Stein are walking down the street and see the cannon:

"All of the sudden down the street came some big cannon, the first any of us had seen painted, that is camouflaged. Pablo stopped, he was spell-bound. C'est nous qui avons fait ca, he said, it is we that have created that, he said. And he was right, he had. From Cezanne through him they had come to that. His foresight was justified."

While much of the beginning of the book is filled with the possibilities (in a good way) and eagerness to be in a new different modern era, the image of the cannon camouflaged is as shocking to Picasso as his works must have been to people in that New York show discussed in class. Even though he considered himself on on the forefront of new ways of modern thinking, the world was moving quicker (like in Henry Adam's law of acceleration). Anyways, I thought it was a cool image.

Reading The Autobiography of Alice B Toklas was a new experience for me as I have never read any of Stein's work before. I really liked the stream of consciousness style and that the book felt like a conversation. This style engages the reader more and makes them feel privy to private information. I found it hard to stop in the middle of a chapter because I wanted to see each little "conversation" end and there was really no good stopping point in the middle of a story.
I also think it is interesting how Stein self-promotes herself and her work in this "autobiography" of Alice. At one point she even says that a publisher finally figured out that he should print Stein's own work and not just commentary on it. I have honestly never had an interest in reading Gertrude Stein before but after reading this book I want to look at her poetry. I think many other readers have also felt this way and Stein intentionally put "plugs" for her writing in the work.
Stein's Autobiography can also be read as a memoir of a very interesting time in the world. While some students accused her of name dropping, Stein was just writing about the people she knew. She also included Helene and other "less important" people than Picasso, Matisse, et al. However, by including accounts of everyday interactions with these famous artists Stein shows a different shade of famous men to the world. It helps the reader to understand their art better since they have a deeper understanding of the artists as people. Also, by seeing Stein's interactions with her contemporaries, the reader begins to see that Stein was not just a crazy author who could not grasp simple concepts of grammar but wrote everything a certain way for a purpose.

The Mystery of Alice

Throughout the reading, it constantly slipped my mind that our narrator was a woman named Alice B. Toklas. I kept thinking it was Gertrude Stein or even some unnamed omniscient person. As I continually reminded myself of Alice, I became more intrigued by her and wanted to find out more. Why would Stein choose her and what value does she bring to the book? Well, I did some online research and found some very interesting information on our lovely narrator. According to the hopefully reliable Wikipedia, Alice was Stein’s “confidante, lover, cook, secretary, muse, editor, critic, and general organizer.” Wait a minute…lover? Apparently the two were a couple for quite some time, but Alice was always sort of overshadowed by Gertrude and her writing. I find it interesting that although Alice is the narrator of this novel, she is still often forgotten by the reader. One very telling section of the book is on page 14, where Alice tells us of all the “wives of geniuses” she has sat with. If it is true that Alice and Gertrude were a couple, Gertrude likely considered Alice the wife of a genius (and herself, of course, the genius). In my opinion, this characterization of Alice speaks volumes about Stein and reveals her egotistical attitude. Despite her unabashed love of herself, I find Gertrude Stein’s writing very interesting and I’m glad we’re reading this book.

Homework for Thursday

1) Read Stein, p. 86-192
2) Group A post by 9am Thurs.

Here's Stein reading "If I Told Him" and several other poems.

Homework for Tuesday

1) Read Stein, p. 3-85 (I wrote 95 on the board in class today but that was a mistake--sorry!).
2) Group A comment on a blog post by 11:59pm Friday night.

Also, please see Nyssa's challenge (posted below). She makes a compelling case!

Henry Adams: Friend or Foe

I hope that everyone has been finding the end of the book much better than the beginning as I have. We have been claiming a lot that Henry is emotionless but I think that is much more difficult to argue now. He's become so much more in touch with his emotions toward the end which, in my opinion, is due to his struggle with religion. Henry is getting caught up in this battle of education and religion and I find myself feeling sorry and understanding him because I have had this same problem so many times in my life. He's going back and looking at all this education and doubting its credibility if religion were what everyone has made it out to be. The battle doesn't much allow modern science and religion to play equal roles. To me, it seemed like Adams wanted so much to be religious but for education purposes, he couldn't quite make it work it. I just found it interesting to see that he was addressing such a common issue. It goes back to what Kelly mentioned about Henry speaking to our generation. Think evolution. This is still such a problem to today and Henry definitely, if not anyone else, spoke to me.
I also hope that Henry managed to get some credit from those who didn't care much for him. He subtly admits that difficulty of reading this a couple of times approaching the end of the book and I respect him for that. From the text, you could look at the quote "With the help of these two points f relation, he hoped to project his lines froward and backward indefinitely, subject to correction from any one who should know better." Here he is basically acknowledging the fact that he goes back and forth a lot and changing his mind and talks about things repetitively but for me it became more acceptable upon reading that. I mean if Henry can recognize his chaotic writing style then who I am to judge him for it? Speaking of chaos, he also wrote about that obsessively in the last few chapters and I couldn't help but to link it to the writing style he's been pursuing. Everything is thrown about because he's trying to find a logical order but for such a subject, there may not be a good one.
Henry comes off much more human in the last few chapters. I hope some people have changed their minds!

In regard to my statement in class that we don't use the blog correctly, I issue a challenge to my classmates: Read all of the blog posts. Every single one.
My compelling argument:
1. Reading every blog post would make us better readers.
I admit that when it is my week to comment, I scan every post until I find one that works. Our professor has impressed me by her comprehension our writing that, to be fair, is sometimes as rough (inexperienced maybe) as the Edgar Allan Poe of Arthur Gordon Pym. It is a stretch of our attention to force ourselves to read something difficult, but a skill worth developing - especially when confronting something as daunting as The Education of Henry Adams
2. It would make us better writers.
When we approach blog posting as something that is going to be read instead of something that we must do to get a grade, it assumes that what we say must be worth reading. Our posts might experience a tightening of focus and clarity of delivery if we are more conscious of audience (instead of writing into an internet abyss).
3. It would give us a better education.
Henry Adams insists that education is lifelong and constant, and that the most vital component is the individual who seeks it out. I cannot blame a school or a class for a bad education, but I can rebuke myself for wasting my time by not using a resource to be educated when I have it.
We have a tool to utilize the knowledge of our peers. We are compelled to capitalize on it.

Henry is Educating us too

I actually enjoyed this part of the book more than the previous ones. Being able to focus on smaller sections allowed me to take in more of his purpose and notice things that I probably would have otherwise missed. The most intriguing chapter from this section was XXV. It really gave the reader a look at Henry Adams and more of his reasoning behind the way he thought or why he did what did certain things. He mentions that “nothing in education is so astonishing as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts” (285). This is his way of rejecting his formal education, and focusing more on life’s lesson and the application of those. In this section, he also looked at women and their role when it comes to society and force. I think this is the first time that actually includes women in the book and thinks about them on another level, besides his interaction with his wife, although he tried to write less about that.
Overall, I think Adam’s use of third person is actually his way of making the book more applicable and not just his autobiography. This last section makes me feel like The Education of Henry Adams is also more about educating his reader about the issue of the past vs the future and how to deal with making that transition and learning new things.

POV

At first when reading through this work...I felt like his choice of 3rd person point of view made him seem very narcissistic, cocky, and self-absorbed. Since I knew he was writing this work about himself, choosing to write in third person created a distance between the reader and Henry. I interpreted this distance to come off as snobbery, that Adams was so high and mighty of what he though education was and the amazing story of his education through life was so inspiring and unconventional that he wanted to correct the world in what they interpreted education to be.

As I've continued to read, I've tried to not keep myself limited to my initial reactions to the text so I could try to appreciate other things about it. Now, I can see how choosing a 3rd person point of view can help Adams look back on his life and reflect objectively on his educational experience. Yes, emotions are removed, but that could be a strategy to be able to engage with his experiences in the most unbiased way he could have managed. This type of objective reflection could have led him to being more capable of changing who he was over the years. Because he's taking his experiences from and outside point of view, he can better detect his patterns of change in education he experiences.

I haven't read a lot of autobiographies, much less ones that are in third person, so I think that choosing this POV is an interesting tactic of Adams. The distance I feel from the character is a little discouraging to continue reading, but hopefully I will be able to keep pushing to see past these initial thoughts

Who in the world is Henry Adams?

Perhaps my problems with The Education of Henry Adams lie in my obsession with characters. Going into screenwriting, I already see everything as a film- not to be confused with seeing the world tritely, but really more that I see events with clear cut beginnings, middles and ends. Similarly, I need everyone I encounter to embrace their own character. Specifically with Henry Adams, this does not seem like to much for me, as a reader, to ask. In my experience, I’ve taken to understanding “education” in the broad sense (what the world teaches you) as strong character development. The world tells you who you are- it may generally takes a lifetime to learn, but that is what memoirs and autobiographies are for. They are very elaborate character developments.
That said, who is Henry Adams? I’m sure he was a very nice man, and clearly of unusual intelligence and perspective. But what made him tick? In one chapter, Henry is a careless adventurer, in the next he is an intense poet. Move on and Henry will become a serious politician, and even further, an always-experimenting scientist. All these opportunities that we as readers understand to yield great life lessons. But where are they, Hank? What on earth did you learn?!?

education!

I originally wanted to write about what I felt about the book but then realized I'd fallen into the trap! I agree with Nyssa that this is not the best way to go, so I'll make a real comment on the book and (try to) spare you my silly ramblings!

Henry Adams is intriguing to me in that he is taking scientific and political theories and applying them to his life, creating the most dynamic education for himself. Typically, scientific theories are used to describe science and processes separate from the mind. Adams seems to bridge the gap between scientific theories of the universe and the way humans interact with each other. Other Emma touched on it: when he is talking about theory of gases, he is relating it to the way one is educated. This depth is fascinating. While we are not getting a personal account of Henry Adams' life, we are getting so much more. Sure, we may not feel an attachment to the character that will compel us to read, but I don't think that's what Adams sets out to do. The mere fact that it is in 3rd person separates us from personal relation to the character himself. It's not "the life of Henry Adams," it's "the education of Henry Adams." Therefore, I will forgive him for not telling me all of his emotions throughout his life. Adams even says it himself: "Once more! this is a story of education not of adventure! It is meant to help young men -- or such as have intelligence enough to seek help -- but it is not meant to amuse them." (beginning of chapter 21)

I get fired up about science, so I love to hear him wrestling with these scientific theories that we take for granted. He was around when these ideas were still volatile and fresh. While we take Darwin's theories as fact nowadays, he had the choice between a lot of things to explain the way the world is. His education is not about the facts he learns, but rather what it means given his experiences. I just find those parts really cool. Overall, I think Henry Adams did a fantastic job, but I think this book is one to come back to and read snippets. It is so dense that I think it will take a while for me to fully immerse myself in it (which is unfortunate because we only gave it a couple of class days!)

The roots of Adams' chaos theory and use of third person

Like others have mentioned, I think that in this last section Henry Adams did a great of summing up his point about education. He describes the pains which men go to in order to understand the world around them in a disdainful manner and continuously asserts that the true nature of the world is chaos. It is futile to try to understand chaos. This idea connects back to the beginning of the narrative where Adams explains why he likes Quincy more than Boston. Boston represents formal education; it is structured and its focus is on memorization and rules. Quincy, however, is freedom and summertime. It represents a more natural education, where one learns through action in the world instead of trying to separate oneself from the world and define every part of it. Adams sums this up nicely as a need to enter into the chaos instead of turning away from it.
I think that Adams’ first began to concretely develop this view when his sister died. This is one of the few, maybe the only, times in the book where his narrative is openly emotional. Throughout his narrative, Adams writes about women in very high esteem. He says early on that women have always steered him right, but no man ever has. Later in the book he writes about the noble acts of women, who are wise and are greatly responsible for the creation of society. He also says, however, that women could not protect against the forces of nature, they did not anticipate the chaos of the universe. Indeed, I think that Henry Adams views the downfall of women, such as the death of his sister and his wife’s suicide, as the ultimate examples of the chaos of the universe. Despite the inherently strong nature of women like his sister, they can be easily done in by a random accident of nature.
On a different note, I found the frequency with which Adams mentioned women interesting considering that none of the other authors we have read thus far have breached that topic. I’m curious to know whether or not Adams’ opinion of women was common for his time.
Finally, in regards to Adams’ use of third person narration, I think he does this because he is making a point that not only is the universe chaotic, but people are constantly changing, too. He refrains from constantly referring to himself as I throughout the narrative to show that he is no longer that same person. Henry Adams the boy failed to learn any civil law in Germany, not Henry Adams the narrator. This is in keeping with Adams’ disposition to the psychological idea that everyone has multiple personalities in some way. He thinks it would be incorrect and unproductive to pretend that a person can be easily defined in one way, let only that he can be defined as that same being for his whole existence, and objects to doing so of himself in his autobiography.

What struck me most in our conversation on Tuesday was that many people felt that Adams’ narrative was not a good book – or good autobiography because he gave us no personal connection to his life. However, I found that through his writings he gives us not only his own views – which is extremely personal – but he also writes for the generation. His work, for me, does not seem to be about “ I am Henry Adams and I feel blah blah” but rather by writing in the third person he makes his own character the personification of western thought that is being constantly challenged and pulled in different directions. Adams writes, “ he was led to think that the final synthesis of science and its ultimate triumph was the kinetic theory of gases” (page 431 in my book). The final summary of science as the theory of gases mirrors Adams (and the time periods) constant movement of thought, just as the world was realizing all matter was in constant flux Adams points out that all thought is too, we are all never still, never concrete. Adams examines every aspect of life, religion, politics, science, history, art – all in this seemingly non personal third person, but really he is showing to us our own world and giving his observations so that we might, in our own right, be educated by his thoughts. Further I think this piece is terribly complex and deep, so much so that it seems to be applicable to many time periods, and so complex that I really am having trouble expressing my ideas. I hope this made some semblance of meaning…

Assertin' and Rationalizin'

This is mainly a response to our class discussion on Tuesday, especially pertaining to Nyssa's point about substantiating our reasoning for liking or disliking Adams' book.

That really struck a chord with me, because I feel like it's a habit we should all get into if only because it'll keep us from wasting our time on arguments that people don't take seriously.

Anyway, in terms of The Education of Henry Adams, here is how I feel (read on for the rationale): 

The assertion: I think that Adams leaves the term "education" largely undefined because he wants us to delve further into what it means on a personal level; he wants the reader to question the textbook, Webster-style meaning and further ponder whether that traditional standard has ever really served us with useful knowledge. Adams experiences a plethora of opportunities to learn from books-- studying at Harvard, teaching at Harvard, etc.-- but somehow this doesn't satisfy him or, according to Adams, provide him with skills he can use in everyday interactions. 

The (book-based) justification: Looking at the numerous opportunities Adams has to define his view of education point-blank, he has to have a reason for failing to do so. Why would an author do that? One choice that seems evident to me is the aforementioned reason (that he wants us to figure out our own notions of the concept first). Also, Adams' choice to include chapters that deal primarily with what society considers education (versus less traditional definitions, like "life experience") shows that these specific, traditional experiences are NOT what he considers practical and/or useful. All his studying doesn't amount to his satisfaction or, in his eyes, success, so he's definitely pointing to the fact that we need to realign our societal definition.

I hope this makes sense, and that the justification section isn't just a repeat of my assertions.

Au revoir.

ADAMS>>>

I actually liked this part of the text! I felt as though Adam’s writing style evolved throughout the course of his book, and in the end it was very clear how well-educated he truly was. It makes more sense now, why Adam’s started the book as he did, writing as though growing up and going to prestigious schools did not provide him with good education. I really liked his point that he makes evident in the end that people are constantly learning and improving upon previous generations. For instance, Bill Gates may have seemed like a super genius when he first shared his revolutionary ideas in technology, but the pace of improvements in our society is so great and so rapid that a century from now, who knows what will be invented, easily overshadowing Gates’ discoveries! Some parts in the end really confused me, especially when Adams was talking about all of those scientific notions. Like the historical contexts, I felt like these scientific references required somewhat previous understanding in order to take out Adam’s fullest intentions of the text. However, all of those scientific references and such really made me see how well-educated Adams did become during his lifetime.

historical bits that were interesting; extra post

Henry Adams’ view of England
While this book is full of facts and quite a slow read, some parts are interesting because they are historically important. For instance, the chapter on Diplomacy (starts on page 81), brought up aspects of diplomacy I was not familiar with. Before reading this book, I had not heard much about England’s relationship with the US during the Civil War. In history class, I remember the focus being on North vs. South…because obviously it was a domestic dispute. The way Adams framed it, England recognizes the Confederacy because it makes the US less of a threat. In addition to that, England needed the Southern exports. I suppose breaking up one big power (the US) would also leave England more powerful --- only two smaller countries would be left. While Adams viewed certain English diplomats as either completely against the North or subtly against the North, his reaction to their treatment of his family was interesting. I found it ironic that he felt alienated when present in English society, and then acted like he didn’t care to be a part of any private social circles. He then quickly contradicted himself because his job as a private secretary is to make connections for his father to use.
Henry also acted as if his education didn’t mean anything, partly because according to Henry his father had little power as a diplomat. Furthermore, he acted humble but he actually submitted a number of letters and stories to major newspapers such as the Boston Courier. This seemingly continual irony and attitude of humility also led him to say that his life would be more pleasant being in the army in the US. He doesn’t want to miss out on the war, but it begs the question: does he actually know what he is saying? Henry Adams is an intellectual who travels and tries to become educated… So again, the irony.
On another subject, I looked up a few events to refresh my memory. Here is a little bit (in addition to my blog post) about the Trent Affair, which was mentioned in this chapter. Thank you Wikipedia:

“The Trent Affair, also known as the Mason and Slidell Affair, was an international diplomatic incident that occurred during the American Civil War. On November 8, 1861, the USS San Jacinto, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet Trent and removed two Confederate diplomats, James Mason and John Slidell. The envoys were bound for Great Britain and France to press the Confederacy’s case for diplomatic recognition by Europe.
The initial reaction in the United States was enthusiastically in support of the capture, but many American leaders had doubts as to the wisdom and the legality of the act. In the Confederate States, the hope was that the incident would lead to a permanent rupture in Union-British relations, diplomatic recognition by Britain of the Confederacy, and ultimately, Southern independence. In Great Britain, the public expressed outrage at this apparent insult to their national honour. The British government demanded an apology and the release of the prisoners while it took steps to strengthen its military forces in Canada and in the Atlantic.
After several weeks of tension during which the United States and the United Kingdom came dangerously close to war, the issue was resolved when the Lincoln administration released the envoys and disavowed Captain Wilkes’ actions. No formal apology was issued. Mason and Slidell resumed their voyage to England but failed in their goal of achieving diplomatic recognition”

Lots of issues...

It is quite obvious that Henry Adams had a well-rounded education. Yet, he seemed dissatisfied with all of it. Somehow, it was never enough for him. While some commented today in class that this classifies as arrogance, I regard Adams with more respect knowing that he always strives for more education. I admire him for his want to learn more and his refusal to give up.
Also today I class I was quite bothered by some of the harsh comments made about the book. I admit, this is a difficult book to get through, but it is not that bad! In fact, I am somewhat glad that this book was assigned because I surely would not have picked it up otherwise. And while Henry Adams doesn’t immediately pop into my mind when I think of major American authors, I appreciate the opportunity to learn about the mark he made in American literature. Whether we think he did or not, Henry Adams made a big contribution!
An element of the autobiography that I wrestled with was how Adam’s skips over 12 years of his life. During this time, his wife committed suicide and both of his parents died. Surely these were important events that he should include. I came to the conclusion that while Henry probably did regard these events with importance, they were too traumatic to include in his autobiography. This is perhaps why the entire work is void of any emotion. All of the emotion was sapped during the time he was dealing with all the death in his family.
One more thing I am having trouble with is why he wrote in third person. It is really confusing for me. Does anyone have any ideas?

"Born-Rich"

While reading "Henry Adams" I have come to believe that his endless search for education is nothing more than perhaps a search for purpose. Adams was born into a life of old wealth. Neither he or even his father earned the extreme wealth that they possess. Therefore, unlike most of us, Adams did not have to work for money, status or survival. Whether we like it or not, most of us will have to work for most of our life because we have bills to pay and lack the money to pay them, because we were not born royalty and must climb the ladders to get respect, and because if we do not work for our own survival, no one else is going to. In a sense, we are given a path and a purpose through our means to survival. However, Adams, like many other rich kids, does not have a set purpose.
I watched this documentary in Sociology 140 called "Born-Rich". It was made by the heir to "Johnson and Johnson" and, basically, interviews kids from very wealthy families such as the Vanderbilts, the Trumps and the Johnsons. Many of the kids/teens will never have to work in their lives and find purpose in other things such as fencing, horseback riding, modeling, or collecting artwork. I feel that Adams uses his search for education to validate his wealth. I compare his search to a line from the interview of Stephanie Erchlentz (a finace heiress), "I've been raised in the lap of luxury, totally lucky going to private schools my entire life, but always knowing that if you ever lose it all, all you have it your [knowledge]".

p.s I posted the doco below. I thinks its pretty interesting, but its really long, about 67 minutes. If you get a chance to watch it, you might want to start at minute 25:30 or so, where they start talking about education, why they go to college and how they view education.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7457140802142500840

Better Appreciation

I still greatly dislike Henry Adams's writing style. I think its superfluous and just boring. But I do have a greater appreciation for the author as I delve deeper into the book. The parts of the book that really stand out for me are Adams's political commentary. The quote that was mentioned in class today (about a priori government) was one that caught my eye last night. These are the same words one can hear on CNN or Fox News almost nightly. He speaks of how politicians are only in office because someone wanted them there and not necessarily on merit. I'm sure this struck a cord with all of us as you would have been brain dead to miss all the lovely campaign commercials during the past year.
Once I realized that Adams's views can be applied to today's issues I became a little less frustrated with the book. It really, really bothered me that he just kept telling us random events but not really summing them up, telling am oral, or anything one might expect. However I now think this is so the reader may form their own opinions. Adams thought his trip to Germany was useless when he originally took it. However while he was a professor at Harvard he used his time spent in Germany to influence his lessons. Adams may realize that he learns different things from the same experience over time and wants to share this with the reader. The first time I read about Germany I thought "Wow, lucky man. Blowing your father's money and doing nothing." But when I rethought about his trip I realized that Adams had given up a formal education to get a truly eye opening cultural experience. I believe reconsiderations, such as the one I had about his trip, are the reason that Adams does not explicitly tell the reader what can be learned from any situation.

Henry Adams discussion summary

You all raised a wealth of interesting and important points in class today, and since we didn't have a chance to summarize them at the end of class I wanted to post them on the blog.

What does education mean? You suggested some preliminary answers:
- Formal education: e.g. Latin School, Harvard College, Civil Law study in Berlin
- Facts (“they could have learned from books or discussion in a day more than they could learn from him in a month” [55])
- Experience
- Skills, like technical knowledge (e.g. how to build a railroad: "society dropped every thought of dealing with anything more than the single fraction called a railway system. This relatively small part of its task was still so big as to need the energies of a generation, for it required all the new machinery to be created---capital, banks, mines, furnaces, shops, power-houses, technical knowledge, mechanical population, together with a steady remodeling of social and political habits, ideas, and institutions to fit the new scale and suit the new conditions" [181])
- Emotional knowledge: e.g. his sister’s death (216-218)
- Relevant knowledge or usable knowledge

What genre is this book? How would you classify it?
- Historical? But it doesn’t give us a coherent timeline, and it doesn’t treat the most important historical events of the period. For example, Lincoln’s assassination gets one paragraph (158).
- Autobiographical? But it excludes what most people would consider significant experiences like his wife’s suicide and his younger brother’s death. It doesn’t focus on the protagonist’s emotional or personal growth.
- Scientific or philosophical? Why write it in the form of a 3rd-person narrative rather than a treatise?

The book's generic instability, or resistance to classification, gets at the point several of you made about reading strategies. When you read a text you bring certain assumptions to it (e.g. autobiographies will be about the life and growth of an individual); those assumptions shape your interpretative strategies. What happens when you encounter a text that resists and confounds your expectations? How do you know how to read and interpret it when your old, accustomed methods don't work? That is, what happens when your education fails you? Does this dilemma sound familiar at all? Does it sound a lot like Henry Adams's dilemma?

For next class:

1)Why does Adams write in the 3rd person?

It is extremely important to separate Henry Adams (i.e. the protagonist of The Education of) from the author, Henry Adams. For convenience’s sake we were collapsing the two in class today, but Adams (the writer) actively discourages us from doing that by writing in the 3rd person.

2)Think about Adams’s use of humor and irony.

Here’s just one example (this was in the slide show, but we didn’t get a chance to talk about it): In “The Battle of the Rams” chapter, Adams uses martial language and imagery to describe the diplomatic controversy between his father and the English government (Earl Russell and Lord Palmerston). There was never “a campaign more beautiful” than his time in London in the spring of 1863 (126). He refers to the controversy over the ironclads as “the English campaign” (130) and notes that Minister Adams “would never fight another campaign of life and death like this” (130); it was “a long and desperate struggle” (130). His father sends a note to Russell that ends with “the famous sentence: ‘It would be superfluous in me to point out to your lordship that this is war!’” (129); Henry Adams calls this note “Mr. Adams’s declaration of war” (132). Even the title of the chapter “The Battle of the Rams” is martial, and perhaps alludes to the two battles of BULL Run.

Why would Henry Adams, safe in London while thousands of men his age are fighting and dying in the US, write about this diplomatic controversy using martial language?

How to Handle Henry

Most striking to me about the Education of Henry Adams is its almost plotless narration style. Most autobiographies I've read have more detailed vignettes with dialogue and imagery. Henry Adams reveals his past with very little by way of stories and anecdotes. His style is to mention an obscure historically important member of his society and then explain in 4 paragraphs why this person was important to his education. I was very surprised by this -- I almost am angry with him that he does not want to sit down and regale me with his travel stories in Europe or his friendships with greats like Charles Sumner and Governor Seward. I would have liked to hear his personal opinions on individual events, not time periods of 2-5 years.

Is this approach the result of an author's oversight to the reader's curiosity, affected modesty, or merely the mundane events that happened in his life? Did Henry Adams not realize how important his social circle was; he does admit early on in the book that he thought every family had a President and that it was quite natural to live in the White House. So far in this book, I'm just not sure how to handle Henry Adams' and his very humble storytelling.

Extra Post for Adams

I will agree with most others and say that this book is complex and multifaceted. While attempting to read The Education of Henry Adams, I found it at times most helpful to focus less on the historical references and more on his overall “lessons” from the experiences. Adams constantly brings up the point that he is from the 18th century and he has a hard time visualizing the future and consequences of events to come. I find this partly ironic, especially since his writings are completed long after the actual events have taken place. I also think it represents his inability to accept change. Often times when he is faced with something new, he wavers back and forth, giving the reader a philosophical spill, before he comes to a decision.
I also noticed Adams seems to reject the education, which occurs in many different forms. He constantly comments on how none of the experiences he goes through fulfill the purpose of providing him with an education. This leads the reader to question what he values as education and if he actually knows what his is ultimately trying to obtain. In chapter XXI, Adams finally defines the purpose and goal of education- “…education should try to lessen the obstacles, diminish the friction, invigorate the energy, and should train the minds to react, not haphazard, but by choice…” (237). I think that most of the experiences he has endured fit his description, although he disregards any education before 1870.

The Diary, I mean Education, of Henry Adams

Aside from the fact that The Education of Henry Adams is not much of a lazy day at the beach read, I am getting something out of reading the novel. I struggle with his vocabulary some but am familiar with many of his historical (mostly the American ones, not so much British) references. The trends that I find throughout reading it sometimes frustrate me and other times excite me.
The first trend that I've noticed is that Henry constantly says something to the affect of "And this is the end of my education." and goes on to talk further about his education while later calling the end something else. A classic example of this (though there are MANY) is on page 79, "...and there, in fact, the young man's education began; there it ended." I kept saying things in my mind like "You sure Henry?", "Done this time?", or "Again?". I just got so annoyed with it. Despite that fact that he used the word education in about a hundred different ways and contexts and then talks about its beginning and end constantly just suggest chaos.
Getting past all that annoyance, I am enjoying the novel so far because I find that it reads very much like a diary. I've kept a diary for many years (since I was 11) and have finished up 12 of them working on the 13th. I know that when I write, I write for a selfish purpose and not much else and I write it all down quickly and unorganized, usually ranting, and don't ever worry about technical things. I try to sound as intelligent as I can without fearing repetition and I feel that Adams does this as well. He will go on and on telling the same story a hundred times. A great example of that is how he drug on that story of diplomacy regarding Russell, Gladstone, Palmerston, etc. and whether or not he believed them. I thought he explained the same story and situation from many different view points and as a diary, that is more than acceptable for me. He also comes off to be incredibly biased and yet at the same time trying really hard not to be. I have the tendency to the same thing when I write. I write it thinking I sound so open-minded but if I read it later I just sounded like a jerk. Adams' writing style came off to me in this way quite often.
I also love the way he is so quote-worthy. Whoever wrote the summary on the back of the book noticed the same thing so I don't attribute any amount of clever thought to all of the quotes I keep pulling from his text BUT you all should write some down. That Henry Adams is one sensitive guy, really.

Extra Post for Henry Adams

First off, I must say and agree with the fact that The Education of Henry Adams is a very hard book to read due to the fact that it is a very slow read. I am not ready to say whether I like it or not, but I am leaning towards not. The historical references that Henry Adams uses in this book are astonishing. I must say that I did recognize a lot but, as I read some of the other posts, I can see where it can be frustrating because I had to go and look up several of these references. It just shows the type of life that he was able to live and the fact that his family had power. His political career was very interesting to me especially his dealings with Great Britain.

One thing that I did not like in this book is the attitude that he took towards Great Britain during the civil war. He has many biases and tends to stereotype people, and in this case Great Britain. In chapter XII, he describes the people in this country as being eccentric and illogical. This is his reasoning for them trying to help the confederacy. This is one thing that I did not like with the story, along with it being a slow read.

Extra Post

Since I am constantly working on being a positive person, I'm going to focus on my favorite part of the book, the chapter called "Failure." His quote "A parent gives life, but as parent, gives no more. A murderer takes life, but his deed stops there. A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops" immediately stuck out to me, and I agree with it. Any person has many "teachers" throughout their life, and it is true that in the task of teaching someone something, there is no definite end to it.
I also found it interesting that Adams was learning more from the students he taught at Harvard than he was probably teaching them since he was no master in the subject he taught. I have had teachers in the past say that they learned from their students, but I never imagined it as anything substantial compared to what they were teaching. Obviously, there's no way to compare the importance of a lesson taught by a teacher vs. a lesson learned from a teacher's students, as suggested by the previous quote.

This was the most memorable part of the book for me, I can't really add on much to what Adams said since I agree with it, but it evoked thought more so than other parts of the book did.

extra, extra read (post) all about it

So far the trend of these posts has been of confusion and dislike. Maybe I am crazy, but although it has been taking me a VERY long time to sort through the material, I am quite enjoying Henry's slow and painstaking education. His biased and brutal opinions of others make me laugh. For example, Henry Adams notes that a woman who dressed in style is either "an American or 'fast' " and that "a southerner, with his slave-owning limitations, was as little fit to succeed in the struggle of modern life as though he were still a maker of stone axes [and] living in caves." Ouch.

Young Adams has many judgmental opinions of others and tends to hold himself in high esteem. It is evident in the first third of the book through his restlessness in Boston, Harvard, Berlin, and especially London as his father's private secretary. As a man of privilege and wealth from birth, he tends to take his travels and formal training for granted. He kind of seems like a spoiled brat to me, nevertheless an entertaining brat. Eventually, his family moves back to the United States after the end of the Civil War and he continues to add to his education. Darwin's scientific theory of evolution and the US currency serve as sources of education for the older Henry Adams, and he is also blossoming into a well-respected writer/ professor. The lack of death in the earlier chapters seems to be balanced by the death of his sister and suicide of his wife in the middle section.

extra post - what I am embarassed to know about Henry Adams

Though my eyes glaze over at long stretches of The Education of Henry Adams, I am glad to see a consistent trend at least in the narrative. Is it absolutely ridiculous that Henry Adams writes about his life in grandiose, retrospective third person? Yes, it is absurd. I can only imagine Henry Adams the old man hunched over his writing pad, fondly remembering Mrs. Frank Baxter for the first time in nearly sixty years, and how he never quite forgave her for her marriage, and painting a session in Rome as a “bewildering complex of ideas, experiments, ambitions, energies…” (93). Henry Adams breaks every rule to make a text approachable in Stephen King’s guide “On Writing” that I had to read in the eleventh grade, including extensive and (now) obscure historical references, sentences a mile long, and untranslated quotes of another language. (“Quantula sapientia naundus regitur”? - Google helped me with that one: “With how little wisdom is the world governed”) Henry Adams, how does your impenetrable story supersede the conventions of the modern attention span? Why is it that with minimal aid of spark notes and google, I still have a story that I can enjoy on my own?
The reason that I like the Education of Henry Adams, by Henry Adams, is because I find how hard the author tries to be extremely endearing. Also, his youth and development is nothing new. Henry Adams is a restless, inquisitive boy who was not challenged by the standardized procession of public education. This is how he rationalizes making bad grades, and that is how I do the same thing. (“It’s the system!”) Society frowns then and now on breaks from formal education and careers to do something as selfish as “become a tourist”, but Adams is not afraid to quell his own unrest at breaking from public pressure by giving being bum the legitimacy of “absorbing knowledge.” (93). He has ambitious dreams with no particular direction, so he stretches half-heartedly for greatness (or dramatics) by talking of joining the Army or by writing invective letters. Constant analysis of himself, his location, and others is most touchingly human, along with the author’s preference for big words. Freud wrote about this very thing and called it “scientification”, a coping mechanism to remove yourself from society and its pressures by becoming superior to the whole thing.
I most like Henry Adams the person for these reasons because he is just like me. I say this reluctantly, because I know that Henry Adams is quite boring. With the benefit of having his whole life bound in my hands, and if mine and his lives are any indication of the future, I can continue reading this autobiography with the knowledge that I also will grow to be quite boring. This is what I have thus gathered from The Education of Henry Adams.

(I have a different version of the book, so my page quotes might be off.)

Extra Post- Up and Down

I find myself really having a wavering opinion about The Education of Henry Adams. On the one hand, it is really interesting to learn about the more political and foreign policy areas of the Civil War. Also, Adams' opinion on education and religion do very get interesting, when he talks about them. Its hard not to fall into a mode of skimming the text when he literally just lists name, after name, after name; it seems more of a biography of their stories than his. He then makes a minute connection about these other charachters and their vain effect on his progress in education, which is none. I get a bit frustrated at the end of each chapter when essentially, Adams says 'I learned nothing. And my education has not begun.' YES IT HAS. You are in your twenties (up to the page I've read at least) and have learned to walk, read, and write (at least). You have also learned how to, even though you are a grown man, pout and throw away opportunities to learn abroad and be of no use as a 'deputy secretary' to your father.

I know I sound a bit harsh now, but here I will begin to credit Adams. Though they are little in context of the superfluous details Adams provides, the stipulations and requirements for what Adams would call a "real education" are quite interesting. Though he sounds bitter the whole book (which is probably my influence for sounding bitter this whole post) Adams ironically discovers that "the more he is educated, the less he understood" pg. 34 and argues that a real education is not in school. Though his detail tedious, Adams argues that real education is more in the form of memories and moral judgments than anything else; which is interesting to think about in the context of my own education.

Extra Post? Maybe? On Adams, anyway.

So, I'm not sure if I'm doing the extra post but I'm hoping so... Kind of unclear on that? Anyway.

One element of the text in particular struck me as interesting. I was really intrigued by how Adams describes his siblings and himself as fortunate to have escaped the issues connected to their New England/Bostonian education. (See, "By some happy chance they grew up to be decent citizens..." pg. 26). He makes it seem like they were lucky to have emerged unscathed. I don't feel that he ever clarified what evils they escaped-- complacency? Submersion in aristocratic Boston society? An obsession with politics? The only clarification I can find is on page 25:

"The children reached manhood without knowing religion, and with the certainty that dogma, metaphysics, and abstract philosophy were not worth knowing. So one-sided an education could have been possible in no other country or time, but it became, almost of necessity, the more literary and political."

So I guess I understand that he feels his education was too cut-and-dry, but I'm confused about how this could have tainted him; in a way, he seems to say that a Bostonian education spoils good minds and people. So what changes is he proposing? What problems is he saying are innate within such a "literary and political" education?

Henry Adams hypertext

Since several of you have expressed frustration with the historical references in The Education of Henry Adams, here is a site that includes links to some explanatory material (newspaper articles, bios, etc.). It's sort of like online footnotes. Unfortunately, many of the links are broken, but I thought you might find it semi-helpful.

Extra Post--- I don't like this one very much...

Throughout the beginning of the novel to where I am now, I am finding it impossible to get through. I am of course reading about the education of Henry Adams, but I do not find myself understanding the main points and meaning behind what he is saying. It is probably the fact that there are so many historical references and names to remember that it just felt so overwhelming to read. I really hate to say I don't like a book before I've finished it, but I feel as if this book is not going anywhere, especially since I know the overall ending with the Civil War.
It seems as if Adams' desire to become educated is fruitless. I feel as if he is searching too hard, and that there are plenty of times, especially in the beginning of his life, where he should have taken life as it is and learn from that. Times with his grandfather or with important people should have been remembered as life changing. Overall I find the book elaborate and confusing at times. In the beginning the repetition of the word “Adams” made me confused as to which Adams was the subject. While the history aspect is at times exciting, keeping track of information and names and wondering if these names should be remembered for later purposes are what my main issues are.

Extra Post

At the start of reading The Education of Henry Adams, I really enjoyed it. It did not take me long to lose interest and get overly caught up in the trying to figure out all the historical references. At this point, I did not have much hope that I would enjoy the rest of the read. However, I plugged through and found out that I began to not only enjoy the way Henry Adams wrote, but gained an appreciation for his desire to become educated. I was especially intrigued by his interest in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Although Adams was skeptical of the theory, he appreciated the scientific theory behind it. In addition, the historical references became easier to sort out. I liked how I could relate it back to my history class and knew what Adams was referring to by pulling what I have learned from other classes.
I was also amazed at Adams uneasiness when he returned to Harvard to teach. Here, this very well-educated man was unsure that he knew enough to teach the students. It was as if he always knew he could do more or learn more. In the end, I admired Adams for his will to continue to learn even in old age.

Homework for Tuesday

1) Read Adams p. 125-272
2) Group B comment on a blog post by 11:59 pm Friday night
3) Optional extra post (to make up a missed post or to get ahead so you can skip one later) on Adams due by 9am 3/17

Have a wonderful break, everyone!

I’ll be honest and admit I’ve only gotten through about the first 30 pages of The Education of Henry Adams. However, they provide more than enough interesting topics. I find it extremely odd that Adams keeps mentioning how he was an “eighteenth century child.” It reminds me of those families that have fallen for glory but people still say “Well my great- great- grandfather was the cousin of a son-in-law of a duke.” From what I can gather, Adams’s family was influential in the national politics of the Revolutionary period and shortly thereafter. Maybe this is the reason he is stuck in the eighteenth century.
It is also odd to me that Henry Adams wrote in the third person. He might want the reader to forget that autobiographies are instinctively biased. He may just want to sound more authoritative on life in Boston and Washington, like an outsider’s view rather than the inborn liking of the city of one’s childhood or the instant dislike of somewhere a child is removed to.
I was wondering why we were reading this novel until I got to his antislavery tirade in the section about Washington. I found it interesting that he said slave states were ragged, dirty, and in every way inferior to free states. I would think with a millions strong free labor source that slave states would have been more pristine. This made me wonder if he was speaking literally or metaphorically about the cleanliness of Washington DC.

Unusual but Interesting

So far, I would have to say I like The Education of Henry Adams. I found the beginning portion of the book, where Adams talks about his life as a child in Boston and Quincy a little odd. It's not bad, but the fact that Adams only tells his story from third person makes it feel a lot like a history book. I thought the development of Adam's relationship with his grandfather was important, and there was a definite contrast between the cold, disciplined Boston and the happy-go-lucky feel of summer with his grandfather. I immediately noticed the irony of the title and Adam's feelings about formal education. I thought it was funny how he criticized such a widely renowned school as Harvard and I got the feeling that the title isn't referring to education as we normally think of it or formal education. It's funny to me later when Adam's is sixteen and says that he "has as yet no education at all." Another oddity I found in the story was Adam's complete opposition to slavery. Given the time period and the stature of his family its unusual that he would be so grossly opposed to slavery. The book has some unusual things about it but I can't help but feel that I will learn a lot from Henry Adam's education.

first impressions

I'm sort of torn as to how i feel about this book so far. Typically, Adams' writing style would have about driven me up the wall. I remember that everyone in the class had very strong feelings about Melville's use and abuse of comas... and it seems that Adams has also taken a vendetta against succinct writing. But the thing is... i really find myself enjoy his writing style. While Melville's writing would become congested with many (seemingly disconnected) thoughts separated by a parade of commas and run-ons, Adams' writing seems far more easy going. It seems to be a stylistic choice that forces the reader to read slowly and really concentrate on what he's saying. I'm a major speed reader and it took me 2o minutes to read ~15 pages (which is kind of slow for me).

My other semi-issue with Adams' writing style is his lack of dialogue. He relies completely on his narration to keep the story going... which is fine except without dialogue it doesn't seem to be a story, rather a collection of very brief biographies in one (or at least within the first chapter or two this is the case). This is not necessarily a bad thing it's just not typical of many writing styles that I've seen.

It's so interesting that Adams' can reflect, as an adult, the way he felt as a child. He doesn't seem to even try to clean up his childhood for his reader. He came out several times and said "hey, i was kind of a jerk..." (he did this far more poetically). I really enjoy his very wide eyed perspective of all the historical events and historical people that surround his life. He is so completely immersed in this political lifestyle that he doesn't understand the big picture of who these people are. They are just Grandpa President and Grandma Madame President. It actually kind of reminds me of Forrest Gump in that he experiences (or his family experiences) all of these really important events in history, but doesn't fully grasp their significance the way that we as an outside source do.

so that was my initial impression of the book....

Carly - Henry Adams

First off, I felt that The Education of Henry Adams was a slow read due to the intense
amount of detail packed into every sentence. More specifically, I found myself reading
paragraphs posing as sentences with numerous semi-colons and one period. While I enjoy
Jane Austen, who similarly writes long sentences, I didn' t find the Education of Henry
Adams to be a book that I couldn't put down. The book is easier to understand than Jane
Austen in that the wording is simpler, but the subject matter was not as gripping for me.
Furthermore, after reading about death during the Civil War, the book provides a
contrast because there is so much lead up to the beginning of the Civil War.
I find it odd that Henry Adams is writing about himself in the third person. It took me
a little ways into the book to realize that he wrote the book.. He repeats certain
themes in the book, including the theme of Quincy vs. Brooks...also known as winter vs.
summer or the "double" life. Another theme - the old vs. new (18th century vs. 19th
century) intrigued me and confused me because I wanted to go find a history book and
learn more about the contrasts of Boston society versus American society.
Henry Adams takes himself very seriously; I thought it was interesting that a ten year
old boy is choosing the path of his life (winter or summer, for Boston or against the
famous State Street) so early. I also found it intriguing that he breaks up years of his
life based on which family member intrigued his life during the said time period. For
example, his father Charles Francis Adams had an affect on his life from 1848 to 1854
with the establishment of the Free Soil Party.
As far as liking Henry Adams for his own character, he has self-described himself as weak
in nature, and idolizes prior generations and the society that those said ancestors
associate with. He also feels that being educated is a vital part of everyone's being, and I liked when he described the walk to school with his grandfather John Quincy Adams. He is studying society because he was born among great men, and he is fascinated with their characters and knowledge.

I know that I jumped around a bit in this post, but it's because a few things from this
book got me curious. :) I definitely prefer Melville and Dickinson to Henry Adams... but
who knows, maybe his writing will grow on me.

Organized consciousness

I found reading The Education of Henry Adams much like reading a stream of consciousness. Even though his thoughts are very organized into certain time periods and there are not the random flashbacks characteristic of streams of consciousness, his flow of thoughts and introspection have the essence of entering into Adams' brain and memories. His references to many historical people and events without explanation is extremely confusing and gives me the sense of this being an organized flow of his personal thoughts and knowledge. Also, the lack of dialogue contributes to this sense of being completely in Adams' head as he writes.
I don't agree with or enjoy reading his criticisms and dislike towards formal education. While I do like that he mentions again and again his acquirement of education through informality, such as learning language and appreciation for music in Germany and other "accidental education," I don't understand the point in discounting formal education all together quite yet. This is obviously an important pillar of the book, as indicated by the title, and I think that I will understand his position on formal education more by its conclusion. I feel like it will be something like how informal education is more memorable and useful than formal education, or at least that's the sense I get right now.

Education: the difference between knowing and knowing.

So far I am enjoying this narrative; not because of it's intriguing plot line but for what it reveals about true learning. It has always been my belief that learning is more than the reiteration of facts and justified opinions, but rather to learn is to experience what one already has familiarity with in the external world. Because experiences are infinite and overflowing, it is impossible to maintain a static interpretation of ideas. Relating these ideas to one's external experiences allows for a greater understanding of concepts and in fact these concepts will generate even more meaning. Having an understanding of concepts without applying it is quite foolish; I believe this is what Adams meant when he considered his time at Harvard as a waste. I really do enjoy how he seeks knowledge at an age where most would settle down and consider their acquisition of knowledge complete. More importantly, the fact that he rejects the "proper" educational style really impresses me for with me, like him, I do believe the "proper" way limits creativity and imagination and takes the fun out of learning a bit. I cannot wait to see how the story pans out.

So far I’ve really enjoyed reading “The Education of Henry Adams”. I find it very humorous that everywhere Henry goes to learn, so far Harvard and Berlin, he insists that he’s getting a really bad education while he is actually learning a lot the whole time. In Berlin especially, he was able to see how terrible the living conditions are there and according to him he was able to learn an appreciation for Beethoven. Furthermore, when Henry’s grandmother takes him through Maryland and Virginia he got to witness slavery first hand and be appalled by it, “it was a nightmare; a horror; a crime; the sum of all wickedness! Contact made it only more repulsive”. I think that this is a crucial part of his education because he learns about slavery and abhors it and has the ability to witness it, which is much different from both Captain Delano and Mr. Listwell who are both quite naïve when it comes to slavery. I’ve liked this book so far because I think a crucial part of everyone’s education is what is learned outside of the classroom, which is what is happening to Adams. This book is also reminding me a lot about American History that I have forgotten in recent years.

Washington was wrong?

Once again, we are reading a book against slavery. Thankfully, this time, the speaker makes his stance quite clear. I found Adam’s visit to Washington’s Mount Vernon very interesting. Many times, people acknowledge that, yes, the founders of our country owned slaves, but they also retort that even valiant men aren’t perfect. However, Adams seems outrage at such an act stating, “Slavery was wicked, and slavery was the cause of the road’s badness which amounted to social crime- and yet, at the end of the road and product of the crime stood Mount Vernon and George Washington” pg 33. Adams does not excuse Washington from his “sentence” simply because he was a founder of our country. Rather, he is angry at Washington, because he believes that the founders are suppose to be the example of equality, not the exception.
I also found it interesting how Adam’s referrers to his teachers at formal schools as masters. This almost references the relationship between a slave and “master”. However, what is ironic is that as Adams compares formal education to slavery, Fredrick Douglass saw education was the key to freedom. Its also kind of funny how Adams states that Harvard college, which is considered to be this fantastic, ivy league, best-school-in-the-country type school, was a waste of time, partially due to its social life.

Oh, Henry!

While I find the book to be really well-written, I'm finding it hard to keep focus without any dialogue! I know that is really horrible but I genuinely think that dialogue helps to progress a story. However, that being said, I give him props for not just making up dialogue that was similar to the dialogue he actually experienced in his life. This really adds to the credibility of the story.
Something I really like about the novel (?) thus far is the fact that it's about his "education." I don't know why but I just get this really endearing image of one of those movies that are about a person's life and the old person is narrating and it opens with everything in that orange-y tinted lighting with the sun glaring on the outline of a little boy. I know this wasn't the book's intention because (obviously) they didn't have such movies back then, but, still. It really gives me kind of a warm and fuzzy feeling in the beginning of the novel, at least.
A critique I have of it is that it is SOOOO jam packed of historical references. I mean, I'm (ahem) a history major (supposedly.. i'm only a freshman so what does that major even mean?) and I am having trouble keeping track of all the references he is making. I understand them it's just that they are all coming at me so quickly and so in so concentrated a fashion that it kind of makes my head spin... I think, though, this probably wouldn't have been an issue when it was written, so... maybe that's an invalid criticism. I don't know.

Humble Henry Adams the High-Achiever

Last semester, I took a first-year seminar taught by a seventy-three-year-old African law professor -- he also served as the former Attorney General for the Ethiopian government, wrote the charter for the OAU (now the African Union), helped win his homeland's (Eritrea's) independence, and later authored their national constitution. With these incredible accomplishments, one would think that each lecture would be life-changing or profound, but instead we heard mainly stories from his childhood. I had to read his autobiography to even know most of his accomplishments.

This book reminds me a lot of Dr. Selassie -- Henry Adams, the old man, looking back on his life and wondering what it was and how he got to places he'd been. I particularly like the quote "everyone must bear his own universe" in the first chapter. Adams does a fantastic job capturing his puzzlement at his existence without becoming terribly existential, egotistical, or boring. The introduction to my book (which I was again too cheap to buy and have on loan from the library) has a section on how Adams used the third person to better control the reader's viewpoint. This approach really makes me feel better about autobiographies, which in general are tend to be self-absorbed. My hope is that as this book progresses we will get to see how Adams got where he did rather than face a constant barrage of super-introspectivity. On the whole, I am very excited to read this book.

A New Universe

Early on in the novel, Adams proclaims, "For him, alone, the old universe was thrown into the ash-heap and a new one created". This quote sums up the experience of 'education' that Henry Adams is grappling with. Born into high status, Adams is constantly trying to figure out what precisely that means for him in a world that is vastly changed from the world of his grandfather. From the beginning, Adams creates a taxonomy to make sense of his world. We see this through the constant references of things or places as belonging to the 18th century, or the 16th century etc... Implicit in this is that Adams is on the precipice of experiencing something completely new, and completely unique in human history. His search for education then, is a search for the tools that will make meaning of this new world.
At the same time, the idea of education for Adams seems to be distinctly linked to his own identity. No longer can his identity be based on the family he was raised in, or the town from which he came. Adams is searching for what values make him who he truly is. An early example of this is when Charles Sumner is elected Senator in a somewhat shady deal with the Democrats. Adams is taken aback by the moral standards of his childhood, but is excited that his friend has been elected senator. This first lesson in moral ambiguity is a critical part of Adams' education and his search for identity.

Homework for Thursday

1) Read pgs. ix -124.

2) Group A post on Adams by 9 am Thurs.

For the exam, are we given two questions and asked to answer one or is it three questions and we have to answer two?