Author: nvroman20

The American Dream is one of the most polarizing ideas of American Literature. A novel either goes along with the dream, defends it, praises its worth, or tries to shine a light on the many holes that the American Dream has after two centuries of its existence. In the novel Revolutionary Road, the author, Richard Yates, paints a “picture perfect” couple living with their two children in Suburban Connecticut. But even though the couple, Frank and April, are living in 1950s suburbia, the Golden Age of the American Dream, they run into/ cause many problems that make them doubt the authenticity of their lives/The American Dream. As seen through the eyes of Revolutionary Road, I would argue that the American Dream is either dead or dramatically different then what it was decades or centuries ago.

Frank and Aprils lives, according to their thoughts throughout the novel, are very dull and leaves the two very displeased with their lot in life. They had planned to live in New York City during their 20s, and live a generally free loving life while they were still young, and then have a family. Their plan is derailed when April gets pregnant, which forces the two, still both younger than 25, to move to Connecticut to be able to afford to raise the child. To support his family, Frank gets a perfectly boring desk job at the old company where is father used to work, somewhere that Frank promised to himself that he would never work at when he was a child himself. However, Frank and April are very displease with how their lives have gone, and look at the American Dream as empty shell that doesn’t fulfill their wants or desires. In addition, throughout the book Revolutionary Road, both Frank and April are so displeased with each other that they both start extramarital relationships, which snowballs into being more and more problematic as the novel goes on. Neither trust each other, as Frank thinks April questions him and doesn’t love him anymore, and April questions Franks dullness of character. They both blame their relationships problems on the failure of the American Dream, however. it seems that their failures to connect with each other may be more responsible for destruction of their marriage. However, it might actually be that the American Dream what was actually did start the harmful nature of their relationship. The American Dream of the 1950’s was to settle down after marrying, have two kids, guy works a white collar job, drives nice car, and the house has a white picket fence, etc. That is what Frank and April do, it’s just not what they WANT to do. One could argue that the need for conformity forced them to move out to the suburbs, or maybe the costs to raise a family in New York City proper were really too much to bear. The move away from what the two wanted to do with their lives definitely hurt their marriage.

The American Dream is strange topic today. Writers wrote in the 20th century about how the American Dream wasn’t enough, too old, or hijacked by a conformity culture. But most of the arguments used by these 20th century authors just cant be used today, as the US technologically, socially, and politically have radically and rapidly shifted, so much so that the arguments just don’t apply. Not everyone works a boring 9 to 5 job, and with tech, even those jobs just don’t function as the boring 1900s type. More often then not women work outside the home in the 21st century, and suburbia is not always seen as the “key” to happy living. I would say that Revolutionary Road says that the American Dream is dead, but I don’t know if it is. Our modern society is constantly changing, and since a 50/50 split exists in Americans culturally and politically, the goals and ambitions of the entire population aren’t 100% the same anymore.

Mid-way through the book Revolutionary Road, the main characters mention Joseph McCarthy, a Wisconsin senator during the 1950’s that was so anti-communist that his actions created the term “McCarthyism.” McCarthyism includes the creation of false claims of anti-US activity to incriminate random US citizens, and also the use of the FBI to monitor US citizens to make sure nobody was against the US Government. Now while McCarthyism faded and disappeared completely by 1960, today we have a new brand of Surveillance, The Patriot Act. The Patriot Act’s full definition is “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.” Now this sounds great and all, and after the tragedy of 9-11, the country did need to beef up security in some areas, (you could walk up to the gate at an Airport before 2001,) however, The Patriot Act today monitors everything that we do. The Government agents working for the FBI can seize information without warrant, which might not sound bad, but sometimes the government doesn’t have its citizens needs prioritized where they should be. (For example, Amazon Echo is never really off/not listening, it listens to you to say the work to reactivate it. And the government can listen in to any Echo without any warrant. You are literally putting government wiretaps into your house) The even scarier thing is that the last three US presidents, Bush, Obama, and Trump, have all renewed the bill, with approval each time from Congress. And some people can say with a straight face that Republicans and Democrats are vastly different from each other. They seem to love working together to restrict civil liberties, so that in the future they can arrest anyone that steps out of line. Joseph McCarthy would have loved to see how much Americans are watched today, and it leaves me wondering how long it is until we end up living in 1984.

An increasing number of books are being banned (or threatening to be) in our public school systems today. Books like to Kill a Mockingbird and 1984 are (being) removed from school curriculums in order to not “offend” students. (Even Fahrenheit 451, a book about the dangers of banning books, is in some districts in danger of being banned.) In my opinion, this is absolutely ridiculous, and not even that, it’s incredibly dangerous. More often than not, the reasons that school boards want to ban these books are the exact reason the books were written in the first place.

For example, to Kill a Mockingbird has numerous racial slurs in the text. To remove these lines or the book itself removes the purpose of the book, to teach what was once done to other humans and why it should never happen again. 1984 is a book where the government has complete control over everyones life, and people think that the government should ban this book? Books, no matter how offensive or morally repugnant to one side of the isle should never be banned from the classroom, or from the nation as a whole.

Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”- Orwell

The American author Tom Clancy lived from 1947 to 2013, and published 17 bestsellers, most in his Jack Ryan series. After President Ronald Reagan praised Clancy’s first book, The Hunt for Red October, Clancy’s future books gained widespread popularity, and he wrote until he died in 2013. In this post, I will discuss if Tom Clancy’s 11 book Jack Ryan series should be considered a Great American Novel, using examples from his first and last books, The Hunt for Red October and The Bear and the Dragon respectively. For grading a book a Great American novel. I have three criteria. To be considered a Great American Novel, one, it contains an American setting and American Characters, two, it must grapple with a distinctive American problem or ideal, and three it must be held in high regard by the majority of the “intellectual” population of the United States.

In regards to the first criteria, I believe that Tom Clancy’s novels do contain American Characters and ideals. Tom Clancy’s main character, Jack Ryan, is an American from Baltimore that was at one point a marine, then a stockbroker, a teacher, and finally a CIA analyst. Most of the supporting characters that he meets and works with are Americans. As for ideals, the character of Jack Ryan is religious and for a large portion of the US today, (82%) religion is a part of their lives. For these reasons, I believe Tom Clancy’s novels do satisfy criteria #1.

In regards to the second criteria, I believe that it must grapple with a distinctive American problem or ideal. The one big point of conflict in Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan series is the Cold War. In fact, it is pretty much the only conflict present in all the novels. At the end of the series, in the last book, The Bear and the Dragon, Jack Ryan is seen as an old Cold War Relic, as to quote “It was a long-standing CIA joke from Ryan’s time in the Bad Old Days of the Cold War.” Although only present in the aforementioned novel, a new conflict appears to the readers. China. The whole novel revolves around a new, “Cold War” with the PRC. Side note, but this is very interesting, as this novel was published in 2000. It seems that Tom Clancy had guessed and written correctly that the US would be in conflict with China in the 21st century. For these reasons, I believe Tom Clancy’s novels do satisfy criteria #2.

Criteria number three is debatable, “three it must be held in high regard by the majority of the “intellectual” population of the United States.” Tom Clancy’s works are seen as very conservative, and creates a bit of controversy over its “greatness.” Also, with the book average word count somewhere around 260,000 words, the pure amount of reading required to finish just one book (not all 11) is outside what many modern day Americans want to read. (Not that some read at all besides their twitter feeds.) Also, while Tom Clancy published his first book in 1984, he published the Bear and the Dragon in 2000, so the series, in my opinion, is very hard to rate a “classic,” because it has only been around for a generation. Another issue is the amount of books, well, they only are as great as the rest. They all are amazing books, but each one really builds on another, so they would all have to be classified as a Great American Series. So I do not pass Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan series on the 3rd criteria.

Based on the above argument, even though Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan series is maybe of my favorite book series, I do not rate it or any of its singular books as a Great American work. Even though I graded it 2/3 criteria-wise, the 3rd criteria just wrecked any notion of it G.A.N. status. Maybe in a few generations (or a few 100 years) they will be considered a great collection of works, but it is very hard to call any contemporary literature Great American Novels.

An Epigraph is a quote or phrase that is presented at the beginning of a new chapter in literature. In the case of the novel “The Last of the Mohicans,” Cooper uses quotes from what for him was old literature and quotations, (which for us is doubly as old.) For example, the most recent Epigraph that I read was from the Iliad which was written in the 8th century, BC. The Epigraph for chapter one is by Shakespeare, and states as follows ““Mine ear is open, and my heart prepared: The worst is wordly loss thou canst unfold:— Say, is my kingdom lost?”—Shakespeare.” (Many of the epigraphs are from Shakespeare, at least 5 so far in my readings.) Cooper spends the entirety of Chapter One discussing the situation of the two emperors fighting over the Eastern Sea Board of N. America. “Say, is my kingdom lost?” Cooper uses this quote to foreshadow the topic of the upcoming chapter. I like it when authors use Epigraphs, as they add and additional layer of background to each chapter, in the case of this novel, it adds to the historical depth of the plot. Any book that can connect well to historical philosophies and stories immediately improves its own story and contextual elements.

(Short Blog Post)

An interesting quote that I just read today in my choice GAN book is as follows, “Without removing the safeguards form his ears, the master of song complied, and together they pursued their way toward what David was sometimes wont to call the “tents of the Philistines.” The context of the quote is the two characters talking, Major Duncan Heyward (A British Major) and David Gamut (A Psalm singer from Connecticut), are going into the enemy Native American villiage to try and rescue one of the daughters of the local British Colonel. The quote is comparing the village of the Huran Native American tribe as the Philistines, the enemy of the Israelites out of the bible. As noted above, David is a very religious Puritan type from New England, and a lot of his quotes throughout the book are very religious. A major theme so far in the book has been to refer to and portray the main characters and their civilized British ways as good, and the French and their Native Allies as savages. And even though religious warfare had factored out of the European mind during the 1600’s, it is interesting to note how the two sides, Protestant British and Catholic French, still view each other as less holy then the other. I think that this conflict is still a minor one, but one that needs to be understood in the novel,(and in the real world,) in order to completely understand the plot.

During the novel “The Last of the Mohicans,” the idea of a guides helping their foreign European “overlords” has remained constant so far. Concerning the main characters and their party, the guides (Uncas, Chingachgook, and Hawkeye) have led the Europeans through the forest. This is because the guides are “native” to the area, and are much more in touch/ knowledgeable to nature around them and the motives of the enemy tribes. It has been a constant throughout the novel so far. If I was to split what I have read so far into two sections, one when the group (with all the main characters) are traveling to Fort William Henry, and the second the three guides and the two British officers chase after the three members of their band that have been taken captive by the enemy. In both cases, Uncas, Chingachgook, and Hawkeye continually amaze the British characters in their party with their skill and knowledge of the outdoors and its ways. It is a forgone conclusion that without their help, the British characters would have been captured and scalped back in chapter two. The guides have tracked, found hidden places to rest, and fought off enemies for the entirety of the book so far. It is interesting to note how the European nations fighting in the 7 years war all over the world have their own proxies to fight off the other European nations proxy. Even today, the US has its proxies fighting Russian/Chinese/etc. proxies. War has not changed in the last 3 hundred years, very interesting.

So far in the book The Last of the Mohicans, the English and their Indian allies (the main characters included,) have spoken the English language. Even speech between the English aligned Native American characters, talking in their own language, the author has assisted the reader by translating their language to English. This way the speech among the traveling party of main characters flows and leaves the reader in with the characters, which creates a sense of familiarity and comradeship with the reader. In chapter Fourteen, the main traveling crew of characters ran into a French soldier, and when the soldier spoke, the author did not translate into English, but instead left it in French. The party conversed and tricked the French scout into not raising the alarm, but even “good guys” did not have their speaking translated when conversing in French. Realizing this, I went back through the novel and found that conversations between enemy Indians wasn’t translated either. This stands out to me, as it shows another way how Cooper (the author) displays both the French and their Indian allies as savages, and the English and their allied Natives civilized. The enemy’s portrayal as evil is assisted by the fact that the (typical English reader) is left out of their conversations, and therefore can’t understand the motives or plans of the enemy. Its just another way that the author has used to contrast the two rival European nations and their allies to create a deeper context in their fight in the French and Indian War.

Now here me out. The Last of the Mohicans, a book about the last of a Native American tribe fighting in the 7 Years War, compares well to the travels of a hobbit, Frodo Baggins. Both Uncas, the son of Chingachgook, the last two Mohicans, and Frodo Baggins, are called to adventures they are not aware/involved in at all. Gandalf and Bilbo by earlier adventures leave Frodo the ring of power, and Frodo, a hobbit that should have no involvement with the greater world or the ring itself, has to go himself destroy the pinnacle piece of evil of that world. Uncas and his father just randomly run into party of Major Heyward, Cora, and Alice. They decide to help them after seeing that they are one, completely lost, and two, being led by an enemy of all parties concerned. I guess that it could be said that both are fighting the evil of their respectful worlds (Sauron and the French.(Ah yes, comparing the evil spirit of a demon to the French )) Another connection in the two groups in the first parts of their respective books are that they are both made up of a motley assortment of characters. The Fellowship, had 2 men, 1 elf, 1 dwarf, 1 wizard, and 4 hobbits. (Where Im at in LotM, chapter 6,) The band has 1 english major, 2 daughters of an english commander, one psalm singer from Connecticut, 2 Native Americans from the Mohican tribe, and a random American outdoorsman named Hawkeye. This creates a degree of mistrust while they are getting to know each other, an interesting dynamic that can be seen in both books.

While reading the Grapes of Wrath, I noticed that the term “Okies” is often used as a derogatory term by the California natives to refer to the migrant workers from Oklahoma. While I feel that this is more of class charged comment, (well off, bought off Californians talking down to poor migrant Okies,) it is interesting to note that these two groups of people are much more similar to each other vs lets say New Englanders. More-so Classism then racism. Another angle is that we as a human race are growing more and more connected and alike during the 21 century. While in the 1930’s Californians were racist towards Okies, (and at the same time Germans to Poles, Japanese to Chinese,) now in the 2020’s I’d say that 98% of the US populace isn’t racist at all. (Not counting 1% of the crazy goons on either side of the political spectrum,) Is that because of the lessons from history that we have learned as a people, or because of the interconnectedness of the globe today? Kids today are born and by age 5 or 6 are enrolled in schools that thankfully aren’t organized by race or gender. Kids today just aren’t taught to be racist, which I think is a very good, large step in the right direction for our society. (Big tangent there)