Comparing Rowlandson And Herman Melville

Equiano wrote to help show society the evils that lie in slavery. He used writing, to tell the truth of conditions of life for slaves, making readers feel every word he used through their senses: “The stench of the hold, while we were on the coast, was so intolerably loathsome, that it was dangerous to remain there for anytime” (Equiano 364). While they both wrote with different purposes in mind, Rowlandson and Equiano managed to paint a picture so vivid that it invoked emotions that edified society.

During the early formation of our nation, many great authors were putting their thoughts and feelings down on paper. These early American writers were the foundation upon which the literary culture of America was founded. Among these are the early writings of John Smith, Anne Bradstreet and Thomas Jefferson. Their writings were completed during a time of exploration and colonization characterized by many historical political and cultural transitions, and their literature accurately describes the events of that period. The literary works of these important authors convey the hardships that they experienced in a new land, as well as the evolution of the government and culture.

In this paper I will compare the writings of Harriet Jacobs and Frederick Douglass. I will touch on their genre, purpose, content, and style. Both authors were born into slavery. Both escaped to freedom and fought to bring an end to slavery, each in their own way. Both Jacobs and Douglass have a different purpose for their writings.

For the longest time, Americans have celebrated Columbus day, commemorating the admiral’s supposed discovery of America. But, in “The Inconvenient Indian”, Thomas King shatters this idea and develops a new thought in the mind of the reader about natives. By using excellent rhetoric and syntax, King is able to use logos, ethos and pathos in his chapter “Forget Columbus”, where he develops the argument that the stories told in history aren’t always a true representation of how it actually happened.

Much of European criticism of Native American was based on differences in religion, land use, and gender relations. Most Europeans reasoned that Indians needed to be converted to the “true religion” of Christianity (Give Me Liberty, 11). In fact, Verrazano concluded that the Indians had “no religion or laws” (Voices of Freedom, 10). The Europeans did not understand the Indians’ use of the land and thus justified overtaking it, reasoning that they did not truly “use” it. Some Europeans criticized gender relations, claiming that women lacked freedom due to their work in the fields (Give me Liberty, 12-13). Others, like Verrazano, criticized the Indians for having “absolute freedom” in which they did not abide to any laws due to ignorance (Voices of Freedom, 10). Regardless of

In John Smith’s, “Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles,” and William Bradford’s, “Of Plymouth Plantation,” they discuss their lifestyle and adventure in the colonies. They also use specific literary styles and techniques to describe to the reader of their unbelievable experiences. In addition, both passages have many similarities and differences amongst each other involving their writing. They are similar because they both tell a story, have a narrative style, use imagery and repetition, and discuss religion. On the other hand, they are not alike because they have different styles, tones, and purposes.

The author John Smith, a pilgrim who arrived to the Americas, wrote a description of the new land in his book “ A Description of New England ”. In this book Smith shows a wonderful world of vast food and pleasure. Also, William Bradford another pilgrim who arrived to Plymouth on the coast of Massachusetts, wrote a book called “ Of Plymouth Plantation ” in which he describes what really happened, how the pilgrims actually lived. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast both authors and their books. John Smith wrote about the wonderful place the New World was, on the other hand, William Bradford wrote about the realities and difficulties of the New World.

When the first colonists landed in the territories of the new world, they encountered a people and a culture that no European before them had ever seen. As the first of the settlers attempted to survive in a truly foreign part of the world, their written accounts would soon become popular with those curious of this “new” world, and those who already lived and survived in this seemingly inhospitable environment, Native American Indian. Through these personal accounts, the Native Indian soon became cemented in the American narrative, playing an important role in much of the literature of the era. As one would expect though, the representation of the Native Americans and their relationship with European Americans varies in the written works of the people of the time, with the defining difference in these works being the motives behind the writing. These differences and similarities can be seen in two similar works from two rather different authors, John Smith, and Mary Rowlandson.

It proves not solely that this "common law" wedding between history and anthropology works, however conjointly that in several respects, it appears almost indispensable to a full understanding of early american history itself. The essays specialize in, and are for the most part held together by, the sole factor that mattered on the first yankee frontiers: the social and cultural interactions and competition between white and red peoples. And here we mean mostly between French, English, (and to a way lesser extent, Spanish), and eastern Native

The phrase “art imitates life” can be used to describe many works of literature. Authors and the stories they write are often influenced by the changing world around them along with the evolution of new perspectives and ways of thinking regarding a subject. While this may sound simply like a common literary trope, it is of great importance and significance in many genres of literature. None has this been more apparent than in both the anti-slavery and women’s empowerment movement of the early to mid-1800s. Two major influence authors in their respective subjects, Frederick Douglass and Fanny Fern, were heavily influenced by the changing societal trends of the time of which they expressed through their writing. Douglass’s speech in particular “What to a Slave is the 4th of July?” was heavily influenced by Douglass’s own personal experience as a slave as well as the rising prominence of the abolitionist movement in the United States. By referencing the contradictory nature of the Constitution relegating personal freedoms exclusively to white, property owning males, Douglass bluntly references the systematic inequalities faced by people of color in the United States. Never would the works of an African American author, especially one challenging the established institution of slavery, gain so much attention if not for the anti-slavery movement and shifting perspectives surrounding it.

Harriet Jacobs and Frederick Douglass both wrote narratives that detailed their lives as slaves in the antebellum era. Both of these former slaves managed to escape to the North and wanted to expose slavery for the evil thing it was. The accounts tell equally of depravity and ugliness though they are different views of the same rotten institution. Like most who managed to escape the shackles of slavery, these two authors share a common bond of tenacity and authenticity. Their voices are different—one is timid, quiet, and almost apologetic while the other one is loud, strong, and confident—but they are both authentic. They both also through out the course of their narratives explain their desires to be free from the horrible practice of slavery.

In, A Severe and Proud Dame She Was, Mary Rowlandson recounts the treatment she received as prisoner of war from Natives in the Wampanoags and Nipmuck tribes written in her perspective. In 1675, Mary Rowlandson found herself and children held captive in the hands of Massachusetts Native Americans. Mary writes with a bias that seems to paint the Native Americans as a species different than her own, but her tone suggests she tried her best to understand their tribe. The purpose of this article appears to be written with the intent of persuading the masses on account of personal experience; that is the interaction among Natives and their customs to be seen in a light of hypocritical behavior. Through the lens of the captured author, she details the experience of her captivity with merciful gestures on the Native’s behalf, despite them keeping her for ransom. Rowlandson suggests traditional Native warfare surrounds a central recurring theme of manipulating mind-games; psychological warfare.

The Europeans, therefore, described the indigenous people as savage, polytheistic pagans and heathens, who were doomed to damnation for the worship of animals and nature. The Europeans, within their understanding of the will of God, believed it their duty and their responsibility to teach these indigenous people the “correct” way to live, and were determined to impose their own religion upon the indigenous people by enforcing the worship of the God of the Christian Bible through any means deemed necessary, including slavery, coercion, and the threat of, or actual maiming or death. Europeans chose to dismiss the religious and cultural practices of the indigenous peoples because the indigenous peoples did not engage in scheduled worship services as the Europeans did, or call their deities by the names that the Europeans used, nor did the indigenous peoples perform their worship ceremonies in the same manner as the Europeans.

The works of Herman Melville and Frederick Douglass are both centered on the topic of slavery. Although both texts are similar in the sense that they focus directly on the theme of slavery, the functions of each work differ drastically. The differences in the works stem from both the style of the text, and the way that this style functions in accordance with the reader. Although Herman Melville’s Benito Cereno is drawn from an actual event, Melville embellishes and alters the event in the style of prose. The prose style used by Melville invites the reader to question the story while understanding that the majority of the work is fictional. The confusion of Captain Delano is brought onto the reader, and therefore engages the reader because of the limited point of view the story is told in. Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass tells of actual events that occurred using twentieth and twenty-first century plain style. This style of writing does not ask the reader to question what he is saying, but feel his emotions as they read the narrative. Although readers may understand both works to be stories about slavery written differently in terms of style, I argue that the way the texts are written sets up the readers interpretation of them. Melville and Douglass differ because Melville’s work invites the reader to think, whereas Douglass’s work invites the reader to feel.

American writers have expressed their political and social views through their writing by attempting to establish a voice separate from Britain’s. Their fear of individual and national failure and their thirst for power consumes them and is evident in their writing. Washington Irving and Herman Melville involve the occupation of lawyers and Justices to bring in a patriotic element to influence residents of the young country as a way to share their concerns and inspire ambition. Their usage of metaphors and metonymy subtly convey a message of hope to white residents while, deflating the optimism of the soon to be freed slaves. This essay will prove that a critical reading of Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener,” and Irving’s “The Legend of