Good Hunting

Oh how I love a good hunting story. The Bear reminds me of old hunting stories told by my grandfather in his many experiences. This story hit home to me. I hunt, and it was fun to read about the scenarios that went on throughout this part of The Bear. From the calling of the dogs to the rush that comes from hunting the game that has made a reputation of itself, not much has really changed between the 1800s and now as far as hunting goes. Sure, we have far advanced our arsenal, like scopes and cameras, but that only better captures the stories of "the big one". Stalk hunting, at its finest, can connect you with nature and with a untamed feel. This wild chase has been described by some as feeling like part of a nomadic tribe, where the hunter/gatherer philosophy was at an all time high. Needless to say, I enjoyed the Good hunting of Isaac and his companions...


p.s. I commented on jannah lyons post

    So I find myself, once again, remembering at the last minute that I have not posted my blog post. Anywho... I must confess I did not get to actually read much of 'The Bear".  However I did enjoy what little I got to read, and found the story very interesting to hear. I had some very nice classmates help me out :)

   "The Bear" seemed a bit confusing, but then again what Honor's Lit. Assignment isn't somewhat confusing? What I took from the story was that there was a man, Isaac, who did not want to take responsibility for his inheritance. That Isaac also wanted to live a life more imbedded in the natural ways, he wanted to learn to hunt and survive like the Native Americans did.  The is also this bear, Old Ben, who is like the oldest bear, the legend of the forest. Their is almost something human found in him, he's not some ordinary animal, a man must have a level of respect to even see Old Ben. There is Sam Fathers, Boon and Lion.  Through the whole story the author deals with issues of slavery, reconnecting with nature, ownership, and (from my view) responsibility.
     I think Faulkner wanted his readers to question ownership. Can humans really own anything? Can we own the land, animals, other humans, our spouses, or even our children? Why do humans feel comfort from owning things? I think through nature he wanted to show his readers, we don't have to own things, that we can live peaceably without titles or deeds. Also think that he felt we don't need modern technology to solve our problems, which is why he killed off "Old Ben" with a knife instead of a gun.
   I hope this doesn't confuse to many people myself. Does anyone else agree with me? Or offer different perspective?

P.S. commented on Rachel's post

Bear

Callie and I read and read Saturday night trying to understand the confusing work of Faulkner. Then while trying to link together Isaac's name with where it may have come from we had a small revelation. We discussed Abraham's promise land, and that as well as Isaac having an illegitimate brother and the other obvious similarities the BIG one is that Isaac's descendants receive the "Promise Land" after being slaves in Egypt for a little while (*only a couple of generations). And Ishmael does not receive the promised land. And just as quickly as the Israelites receive being to live in this new land flowing with milk and honey they find themselves being punished for neglecting to recognize who brought them to the land and who truly owns the land. This is exemplified as they are carted off to other places (Like Babylon) and then brought back to their original settlements, and today the land of Israel is still brutally fought over by the descendents of Ishmael and Isaac. What an interesting comparison between the middle east land and the land in the United States, however, it all really comes back to the question discussed in class. Can we really own land? Can we really own anything?

Sure, we can walk around with a computer believing that we own it, but how easy is it to lose the computer? Someone could steal it, it could break, but I think in a lot of ways it comforts us as humans to believe that things beyond ourselves can belong to us...

I am pretty sure that was a stream of consciousness rambling.

And I can't figure out how to spell descendents!!

Rabid Run-ons ;)

My opinion coming into class today was that I did not like Faulkner’s stream of consciousness writing because it was hard to follow, and the English language has rules about run-on sentences for a reason. However, the discussion we had in class about the reasons behind this writing style helped me to understand and appreciate it a little more. If you compare Faulkner’s style with poetry, you can see the unformed, uncontained beauty of his ideas. Poetry has some form whereas this style has none, capturing an essence of the wilderness of nature and the human brain on paper. Our brain works this way, but rarely do we write this way because it is so hard to follow. I believe that was Faulkner’s point. We aren’t supposed to know exactly what Ike thinks about all this. Faulkner doesn’t come out and tell us, he gives us the thought process behind it. We can’t follow his thought process but it definitely sparks a personal train of thought. I don’t know if you have ever written in stream of consciousness- I thought about doing it for the blog, but I knew it would be really random and incomprehensible- but it is fun. It captures an essence of humanity that otherwise goes unexplored: how the human brain doesn’t just think along one line of here and now but is constantly pulling from past experiences, senses, hearsay, knowledge, emotions, plans, dreams, to-do lists, worries, relationships, passions… all “talking” at once at any given moment about whatever topic is paramount. Some people organize their thoughts more easily than others, so they don’t notice the semi-chaos taking place in their brain. I, however, have trouble organizing my thoughts into orderly categories unless I write them down. So, the stream of consciousness method gave Faulkner a freedom to go places with his writing that would have been out of place or disjointed otherwise.
P.S. commented on Callie’s “So Much Allegory”

Language as Related to Sin and Our Sin Nature

So maybe this doesn’t exactly pertain to the discussion we had in class, but it kind of does. In class today, Dr. Mitchell made a comment about sin, and I can’t remember what that comment was at the moment, but it led to a discussion after class between Regis, Dr. Talmage, Dr. Mitchell, and I. Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Talmage are of the opinion that language is intrinsically linked to sin. I happen to agree with them.

So the question is, when does the sinful nature develop in a person? The answer, when language develops. Now this is where the theory gets interesting. When does the knowledge of language develop in a person? Is it the same time as we are held accountable for our sins? I believe that our knowledge of language develops before we held accountable for our sins. I could be VERY wrong here. But this is my opinion.

We have knowledge of language and the ability to sin long before we understand what it means to sin. I babysit a family back home with an 18 month old who, last time I was there, was not yet speaking in an understandable way. I observed her interactions with her siblings, mother, and me while I babysat her and was surprised to see that, while she couldn’t speak, she was able to sin. She could understand what we told her to do, but she chose to disobey us. Because she couldn’t speak yet, sometimes it seemed like she couldn’t understand what we told her to do, but after much observation, I saw that she could.

Children begin to understand what you are telling them much earlier than is apparent. It’s the reason babies are able to learn, and use, sign language from about the age of 6 months. So the question is: when does this knowledge of language, turn into a knowledge and awareness of our sin nature? This is a question I can’t necessarily answer. But it’s a question I shall definitely be pondering for a while.

I know this doesn’t necessarily relate to our readings or discussions in class, but I thought it posed some interesting questions. I also thought there were some interesting ideas brought up.

I will see you all in class Thursday and I hope everyone has an incredible Spring Break!

Until next time

~Meghan

P.S. Commented on Josh Spell's post Life is Beautiful

So Much Allegory

The bear is definately one of my favorite pieces of literature we have done in Honors. I love the poetic nature of Faulkner's prose.

I would like to comment on the rich allegorical nature of Faulkner's work. Every little detail with faulkner has a meaning, significance. There is no choice that is made without a reason behind it. Take for instance when Boon asked Ike for a dollar while they were in town. Ike initially was reluctant to give Boon the dollar, but then he decided to. Faulkner could have summed up the whole moment in this one sentence, but instead he goes into great length as to how Ike would not give him the dollar, but then is reminesing about some past event which changes his mind which results in him giving Boon the dollar. Everything in The Bear is like this, there is always a reason as to why something is done the way it is done, Faulkner always provides an expanation. Moreover, there is no part to the story that does not relate to Faulkner's true purpose. Even the bear's footprint fading away into the dirt is given an allegorical meaning. Faulkner speaks of this fading as a "healing," suggesting his belief that letting nature take its course is the best, the therapeudic remedy to all of the problems of the world. Moreover, this theme is continued throughout the whole work. When the Bear is killed Sam Fathers falls over and a few days later, just "quits." It is as if when Old Ben, the symbol of nature and his whole way of life dies, Sam Fathers no longer has any reason to live, or put another way, the death of the Bear sucked the life and purpose out of Sam Fathers. There is no end to the allegorical meaning that we can pull out of Go Down Moses.

PS. I commented on Joy's "Bad Title I know"

Bad title I know - Blog 6

So I finished reading the Bear and must say that it did not end the way I thought it would. The story had many details that can catch you up. I thought it was interesting though because I looked at the word healing like Dr. Abernathy said and it is not the same type of healing we would think of. The tree had decayed into the ground and the tin can had been covered with what was natural. The end of this story was a bit boring compared to the start. Not to mention everyone is dying and going slightly mental. I actually liked chapter 4 despite its tediousness. Overall it was an alright story. I just hope I am ready for this quiz! See you guys on Tuesday.

PS - Amanda G

Moral of the story: get pumped about heaven

I know my post last week was about The Hedge, but there are a few other ideas that I've been thinking about that might make more sense to me if I put them in writing. I understand that the reading was not necessarily a Christian allegory, but for my purposes, it will be.

The question we were asked at the end of class is really what got me thinking about this idea. "Would you be happy on the other side of the hedge?" When I first thought about this, my answer was indefinitely yes. However, if I get down to some of the details about that situation, my answer becomes a little foggy.

The garden, in this case representative of the garden of eden or of heaven, was characterized more than anything by its lack of progress or even purpose. The road began in the garden and ended in it, and was seen as altogether pointless because of that. However, there are several questions I began to struggle with when I thought about if I would be happy in the garden or not. Its true that in the garden, all the struggle, pain, and hardship of striving to progress would not exist, but is that because it is a better place or simply because those within do not strive for such ends?

To answer this, I think that both are true. Because of that, I think an interesting perspective to take on this reading was that Forster was making an allegory about the human perception of heaven. As Christians, we sometimes doubt that heaven will be all it's made out to be. We see this possibility of the rest of eternity spent with God, and, I'm ashamed to admit, we can only focus on the fact that its just a really long time and that anything, no matter how amazing, can get old after too long.

I know that sounds really bad so I'll try and wrap this up. Like I said when talking about Heidegger, I think our problem is our perception. We are only humans and thus can only grasp things within our understanding. It would make sense then, that a concept like an eternity with and infinitely loving and wise God would be far beyond our understanding. This sounds almost like a cop-out, but I believe we sometimes doubt whether or not we would like it on the other side of the hedge, or whether heaven will be that great, simply because we truly can't comprehend the possibility that it will be infinitely greater than anything we could imagine. Knowing that, the whole argument pretty much becomes moot. Once we get to the other side of the hedge, we'll know what we've been missing, and God will have been right all along.

ps i commented on Amanda's

Oh hey, Faulkner. We meet again.

My first encounter with Faulkner in As I Lay Dying was less than pleasant. The Bear was a little more BEARable, but not by much.

I didn't really get much out of this reading besides man's attempt to control nature. Then once nature is conquered, we realize it was not our's to conquer in the first place. Isaac (and Faulkner) follow the Native American ideology about land ownership and respect for nature. Old Ben was majestic and powerful and seemed to have authority over all nature. Isaac had opportunities to kill Old Ben but didn't because he respected him.The hunters even seemed to think they had an understanding with him, as if they could negotiate with a bear!  Isaac believed that nature was for the benefit of everyone and should not be owned by any one person, and hunting Old Ben with the intention to kill was an attempt to own and conquer him.

Commented on Lane's

The Bear...

"He seemed to see it entire with a child’s complete divination before he ever laid eyes on either—the doomed wilderness whose edges were being constantly and punily gnawed at by men with axes and plows who feared it because it was wilderness, men myriad and nameless even to one another in the land where the old bear had earned a name, through which ran not even a mortal animal but an anachronism, indomitable and invincible, out of an old dead time, a phantom, epitome and apotheosis of the old wild life at which the puny humans swarmed and hacked in a fury of abhorrence and fear, like pygmies about the ankles of a drowsing elephant: the old bear solitary, indomitable and alone, widowered, childless, and absolved of mortality—old Priam reft of his old wife and having outlived all his sons."

I think this passage really goes along with the theme of our recent discussions. In the allegory 'The Other Side of the Hedge,' there is a stark contrast between the road of progress and the garden of tranquility. Faulkner likewise contrasts the 'men with axes and plows who feared it because it was wilderness,' with the raw power and mystery of the bear. Though it almost sounds like Faulkner is a hippy at first glance, one can see that he is getting at the real beauty of the earth, the original intent of and power of wilderness. It's as if he is ok and is promoting the wilderness. Both Faulkner and Forster seem to have similar stances on progress, they perhaps have a different view of the alternative. Forster's garden is vastly different from the kind of forest Faulkner portrays.

So I would like to offer the difference between the road, the garden, and the forest; I call forest.

--Commented on Tori's, yo.

Is the "Grass" Really "Greener"???

Would you be happy on the other side of the hedge? This is question that I thought about for a couple days after discussing Forster’s story in class last week.

To answer this question, I look at our society today and see that the people in it would probably never be satisfied on either side of the hedge. On one side, Forster shows people running a rat race to try and find something great at the end of the road only to never get anywhere which would make people of our day extremely disappointed. After crossing through the hedge, we see people who are stagnant and never get anything done. These people seem happy and relaxed, but this also would not be an acceptable lifestyle in our postmodern time.

Therefore, no matter what side someone from our day is on, chances are, they would not be thrilled with either option.

PS I commented on Cameron White’s “Isn’t It Ironic”

Through the Hedge, the Moat and onto....

      GAS PRICES ARE STUPID! That is why the narrator left the Road! Well not really, but I just needed to get that off my chest.
      So anyways from the reading, I got that the Road represented life, our fast-paced self absorbed life. The Hedge in a way represented Christ, and the Moat represented Baptism. However to me the other side of the hedge, represents heaven in a way. It seems perfect and endless, also time stops there. The pedometer the narrator carries cannot work on the other side of the hedge.
      My question is does the other side of the hedge represent the garden of Eden or heaven? I know that it represents where man first started off. It is the origins of mankind, our urge to 'walk' represents some downfall. We leave 'paradise' the walk a road which never ends, it continually loops and doubles over. We leave a lush green land of plenty, for a dusty dry burdensome road. We yearn for our own discovery, only to discover what we left behind.
   Maybe this is confusing but this is some of what I got out of it.

To Narnia!!!! Through That Hedge!!!

Was I the only one who thought a little bit about Narnia when the narrator was going through the hedge? Pushing through the coats that turn into trees to get to the back of the wardrobe. Pushing through the branches to get through the hedge. I'm just saying I see a little similarity there. Then when they both get through to where they're going they find lands that are the exact opposite of where they are. After being pulled out of the water the narrator finds himself in a fertile green land opposite of the dusty cement sidewalk he was on before. Lucy finds herself in a land of ice and snow that is the opposite of the green lands that she was living in before. The man finds himself having to adjust to people not constantly being in competition with each other while Lucy has to learn to deal with talking animals. There is no direct correlation from one to the other at all but I thought they did share a little in common in a strange way so I thought I would share it with everyone.

I commented on Justin's post

.................

I almost always end up doing my blogs on the class discussion we have, but I do want to talk about The Other Side of the Hedge. I liked that there were some sort of Biblical illusions that where possible, with the garden being much like The Garden of Eden. I guess what I took out of it was that it wasn’t necessarily supposed to be strictly Biblical, but that it had those elements without that being its sole purpose. I think the main focus is the idea of progress and how it’s this never ending cycle. Humankind can’t really escape this need to continually progress, and that’s what the narrator proves when he returns back to the road. In the garden there is no progress and that’s why when he enters his pedometer stops because there is no real progress to track. There is mention that there was a gun that someone brought in and it wouldn’t work, and I thought it possible that it was meant to subtly reference the same concept that progress can’t be made in the garden. What I’m getting at is when you shoot a gun there’s an end and a purpose to it and I think that’s why it won’t work there. That’s just my take on what happened.

The Bear is hard for me to follow, I’m not opposed to hunting by any means but I don’t fully understand the lingo. With its whole hunting theme it’s just not my cup of tea, I first started it and I was reminded of reading The Nick Adams Stories in high school and I absolutely hated that semester of English where we read all these hunting, fishing, stereo- typically masculine stories that, might I add, had very few female characters at all. Sorry to go off about Nick Adams but I really hated that little unit we did… just know I have a very serious nickname for them that I shall not say here.

-commented on Meghans

I loved our discussion about The Hedge and how Ms. Bear discussed the allegories that lie within it. The irony of how we can search our entire lives for something "more" and when we find what it is we think we are looking for, we realize it still isn't enough. The fact that we have a desire to search endlessly instead of being content is, in my opinion, the definition of original sin. When we sin, it is our way of saying that we are not content with the way our lives are at the present. The desire for contentment can only be satisfied through a relationship with God, and those who are inside of the Hedge seem to be realizing this, while those on the outside constantly run to find more and more of nothing. If we could find contentment with what God has given us, we could live our lives with a more definite purpose and sense of joy. I think that living with joy and contentment is really how God created us to be, and that we have perverted this is the ultimate sin.

P.S. posted on Cameron White's

Going On a Bear Hunt!

    I have to be honest, I didn't really like “The Bear” (not “The Bear” as in  Dr. Bear who is quite cool, but the “The Bear” as in the reading by W. Faulkner which is not-so-cool). After a few pages, it started to remind me of when I had to read The Call of the Wild in 9th grade: extremely boring and reminding me of the other more interesting things I’d rather be reading, like The Hunger Games! So instead of typing about surviving in the wilderness, I’m going to type about No Exit, which I thoroughly enjoyed! 
I think I mentioned in a previous blog how I like it when things from different areas of my life line up with something I learned in a class. Last Sunday at North Mobile, Pastor Ed started talking about how we are always looking for something else to fill the void that only God can fill. That made me think about when we were discussing “No Exit”. How each of the three people were looking for someone to affirm what they had done while they were alive. They were all looking for someone to tell them that they mattered even though they were dead. The pastor said that unless you are profoundly sure of your own worth, you will always be looking for someone or something to affirm you. The only way to gain that certainty is through the love of God. I know that Sartes probably wasn’t a Christian, but I think he’s kind of opening his readers mind to a greater truth. It is impossible to find your true worth through human beings or actions. It’s like Inez said to Estelle, “Suppose the mirror started telling lies?” You could never truly trust another human to tell you of the true you. The only One who could do that is the one who built the model and wrote the manual-- the Creator. Sort of feels like I’m rambling, but that’s what was on my mind tonight.


P.S.: I commented on Jamie's "The Road vs. The Other Side"

Seeing God in The Bear, at Least in My Mind.

“Because he recognised now what he had smelled in the huddled dogs and tasted in his own saliva, recognised fear as a boy, a youth, recognizes the existence of love and passion and experience which is his heritage but not yet his patrimony, from entering by chance the presence or perhaps merely the bedroom of a woman who has loved and been loved by many men. So I will have to see him, he thought, without dread or even hope. I will have to look at him.”

Originally I had thought to focus on Faulkner’s use of descriptive words in The Bear, of which there are many, since I spent all night last night writing about descriptive words in poetry. But then, this passage caught my attention, and stuck with me. The emotion he seems to be experiencing me, reminds me of the emotions we experience when we as Christians think about meeting God. It seems that he is yearning to see the bear, even if he isn’t going to kill it. It’s almost an obsession with seeing the majesty of the creature.

It’s the same with us and God. We long to see God, and yet we fear Him because His majesty is more than we can comprehend. Yet, like and unlike the boy, when we think about seeing God there is no dread, but there is hope. We hope for something we know nothing about, we hope to see our creator. The boy made the decision that he HAD to see the bear, but there was no assurance he would. We as Christians know that we WILL see God one day since we have accepted the gift He gave us by sending His Son to die for us.

I realize that this is probably not what Faulkner was trying to get at with that passage, but these are the thoughts that popped into my head when I read the passage, and they refused to leave me alone. I’m looking forward to discussing this tomorrow, because this is a very intriguing story that will be fun to delve into.

Until next time,

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Will’s post “Control”

Control

While there is a plethora of meanings in "The Bear," one seems especially important. Faulkner places an evident difference between the narrator's thoughts when living in nature and when observing man's creations. In this passage, he is experiencing nature:

The boy listened, to no ringing chorus strong and fast on a free scent but a moiling yapping an octave too high and with something more than indecision and even abjectness in it which he could not yet recognise, reluctant, not even moving very fast, taking a long time to pass out of hearing, leaving even then in the air that echo of thin and almost human hysteria, abject, no sense of a fleeing unseen smoke-colored shape.

(Chapter 1)

This is one long sentence. He uses this style quite often, but it definitely in stark contrast to the form used when addressing the human accounts and records in chapter 4. It is also an obvious difference when compared to the dialogue so often used between human characters. This parallels the issue of human control that Faulkner is driving at throughout the short story. Humans desire to cut down and dissect nature in order to control it.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

P.S. Commented on Hunter's "William Faulkner's Sausage Festival!"

"BIG" "FAT" "UGLY" BEAR

I am not really up for the challenge to decipher meaning behind "The Bear", in fact I have to be honest I did do a little internet research to help me understand exactly what this bear thing is all about. And after all that internet research I can't say that I am a whole lot more ready for understanding Faulkner. I felt a lot like I was running through thick sticky mud. It wasn't that it was so unpleasant to read as much as it is a thick and murky and sticky and there is a lot of it. Further, I find/found (my tenses are getting CRAZY) it hard to draw conclusions after reading this piece. However, I suppose everyone who made an attempt at reading "The Bear" this week would really understand and begin to wonder if I am not just writing nonsensical phrases so as to lengthen my blog post....OR to make Hunter laugh. But you are all wrong, I am using this extremely long introduction to think about what I am really going to write about-

I have never had a desire to hunt. My sister likes to shoot things. I think this in some ways is due to some sort of teen angst that I missed out on, but none the less her and my father share a kindred enjoyment of guns and such. In Faulkner's "The Bear" hunting is pivotal. The characters are only explored during their time hunting. The "narrator" begins very young and progresses into a young man. I believe Faulkner uses this common avenue to paint a vivid picture of simplistic life which as the years pass on becomes more and more modern. In some ways the reason they are able to kill the Bear is because there isn't room left in the world for such a tall majestic unknown. In some ways our culture has knowledge at its fingertips and we no longer marvel at the majesty of the unknown.

I commented on "The Road" by Mallory Searcy

It's always a little hard to blog when there hasn't been a class discussion but I will try!

Despite all the hunting lingo in "The Bear" I have really enjoyed it. When I say enjoyed it I mean I was pretty much biting my fingers during the part when they finally catch the bear and all the drama therein.

That being said- I'm not sure how to respond as far as the literary sociological significance at this point. This definitely seems to be one of Faulkner's cleaner readings in my experience with him. In addition to that experience, he seems to be interested in the human phychi and what the interaction with humans (or lack there of) seems to do to someone.

One interesting thing I noticed was the interracial relationships that were displayed. This seemed like this would have not been common and also, it was hard for me to distinguish who was who. To me, all of the characters treated each other well. Knowing that Faulkner was a white man who spent a good portion of his life in Mississippi, which as we know is where a lot of oppression to our black brothers took place, it is surprising to see the black men of the story in such a equal and positive light.

commented on Rachel's