You may answer this for Wednesday or for Monday's class as well. Please answer one of the following questions, or supply your own questions or responses.
--Fuller goes to Niagara Falls expecting a sublime experience like so many before her. Does she get that experience or not? What seems to stand in the way or help her have this experience?
--Compare her discussion of sublimity with Thoreau's meditation on the sublime in "Ktaadn."
Since Fuller had obsessed over the Falls, reading all accounts and looking at pictures of the waters, the experience for her was lackluster. Seeing the Falls with her own eyes for the first time was only a meek confirmation of what she had read and seen before. There were no new feelings, simply a weak echoing of the ones she had read.
ReplyDeleteIn this sense, Fuller seems to be countering the argument made in "Essay on American Scenery" by Thomas Cole. In the essay, Cole essentially believes people need to be taught how to look at and appreciate nature. Fuller tries to learn how to appreciate the Falls by reading other accounts on how she should feel when she does see them. Yet with her writing, it is easy to see that Fuller does not agree with Cole's argument. By trying to learn how to appreciate Niagara, Fuller actually lost the raw appreciation she should have undergone and could only agree that, yes, that was Niagara Falls. If Fuller would have gone to see the Falls blindly with no guide to help her, her experiencing the power of the rushing water might have had the natural effect the travel narratives claimed it would have.
-Heather Hobbs
Though she mentions the word "sublime" in her writing, Fuller's overall attitude towards seeing Niagra Falls is not one of someone who has been inspired by their surroundings. Fuller's attitude towards the Falls is that it is very beautiful but other than that, she does not see what else is special about it. She uses simple wording to describe the scenery like "The whirlpool I like very much" and then gives an average explanation on why.
ReplyDeleteThe reason for her uninspiring narrative is that Fuller was captivated by others stories of Niagara Falls, she built them up so much that when she finally arrived there, she was let down by what she saw.Fuller even mentions in her writing that when she finally saw Niagara she said to herself "ah, yes, here is the fall, just as I have seen it in picture". She took other authors and painters sublime experiences and made them her own and when she tried to write about her experience, nothing could compare to what she read. In the end Fuller includes those certain writings in her narrative because they are better than anything she could write.
At the beginning of the passage, Fuller states that she is “quite willing to go away,” making us think that she is not impressed with Niagara (3). However, what seems to be standing in Fuller’s way is travel guides, paintings or even just essays that give a description of the place she is visiting. These representations offer her an almost exact replica; she claims that “I knew where to look for everything, and everything looked as I thought it would” (4). There was nothing new for her to discover, at least at first glance. Her expectations for the scene stood in the way of her actual experience. Later, though, with time to reflect, she claims that the landscape creates “its own standard by which to appreciate it,” giving her more room for interpretation and admiration.
ReplyDeleteHer most disapproving tone surfaces when she speaks of people at Niagara, most notably the guide to the falls. She compares Niagara to a “great” in literature, Shakespeare, wondering why we need someone to point out something so obviously beautiful (10). Her argument here sways me; I began to wonder myself why we need these authority figures, a sort of lens through which to see a sight that, in Fuller’s sense, could knock us out with its own immensity. Tourists feel this need to be told what they should appreciate, just as the pictures and travel essays do for Fuller. But Fuller has a point when she laments that her experience was subpar at best because she was told what she was going to see and how to experience it. When she first stands on the bridge, she claims that she “thought only of comparing the effect on [her] mind with what [she] had read and heard” (12). The picture a travel book or a tour guide paints creates a limited view through which we can see that which we came to see. It frames it just as the picturesque movement framed scenes with a Claude glass; it alters our perception and Fuller seems to think that it is only through a deeply personal lens—one that puts previous ideas, pictures, and expectations aside—that we can get a truly sublime and complete experience. Finally, however, she returns at night and sees the falls as they have not been described to her and is able to have a sublime experience. The absence of tourists also seems to fit neatly with this idea that Fuller needed a solitary, personal time so that she could fully appreciate the beauty and magnificence of Niagara (12).
Her final line encompasses this idea of coming to a place free of expectations in order to fully appreciate its beauty: “happy were the first discoverers of Niagara, those who could come unawares upon this view and upon that, whose feelings were entirely their own” (13).
Just as a final thought: What I found most interesting, and in direct opposition to Cole’s fear of progress, was Fuller’s nonchalant attitude about it. Buildings adorning the landscape, something that people of this time period would believe to detract from and make a landscape lose that which makes it so sublime, only enhances her feeling that the space is sublime. She says that “the spectacle is capable to swallow up all such objects,” comparing the buildings of Niagara to earthworms in a field (7).
Margaret Fuller does seem to experience the sublime that she is expecting when she visits Niagara Falls. She recalls, as she was sitting on the top of the falls, a man coming up and spitting into the water. Fuller seems to regard this as profane, and hopes that this will not be “seen on the historic page to be truly the age or truly the America. If Fuller perhaps had thought of the fact that animals do much more than just spit into any body of water, she would’ve had a more grounded perspective on the man spitting over the falls. Yet, in response to some people’s complaints of the buildings springing up around Niagara Falls, she says she “cannot sympathize with such an apprehension” because the spectacle of Niagara is “capable to swallow up all such objects”, comparing the buildings to an earthworm in a wide field. This indifference to the commercial usurpation of beauty and the sublime seems out of line with any view of nature in a respectful way. It also makes Fuller’s previous condescension to the man spitting seem hypocritical and unwarranted, or maybe just unexamined. But one moment she wishes for the spit of the man to be forgotten by history, and in the next embraces the spit in the water of modern society, namely turning something naturally beautiful into another tourist trap. In this way, the context of the natural beauty is what most defines the experience of sublimity by Margaret Fuller. A quote that illustrates this best is about the rainbow seen around Niagara Falls, “the imperial presence needs not its crown, though illustrated by it”. For her, the rainbow that she has only seen a few times is the crown of the sublimity of the falls. She also describes the falls in terms of Goat Island’s flowers, seemingly exaggerating their beauty. She seems mostly content with her experience of sublimity at Niagara, though I am not.
ReplyDelete-Ethan Matchett
Well, I just spent 45 minutes typing a really detailed response to this question, but when I tried to post it, the computer ate it and it is now lost in cyberspace somewhere...
ReplyDeleteThis is what I remember from its original thoroughness.
Fuller seems to suffer from sensory overload when she goes to see the Falls. Not only is she overwhelmed by the various stimuli that surround her - the light reflecting off the water, the wind stirring the air, the roar of the water, the continuous motion of the rapids - but she is also somehow blocked by her preconceived ideas of what the Falls were going to look like.
She says she was so prepared by drawings and panoramas of the scene that she knew beforehand what all the elements would be and how they would come together. In this way, seeing Niagara face to face is a bit of a let down for her - or at least not as novel as it could have been. She's missing a bit of the surprise and the awe that generally accompany an experience with the sublime.
On the one hand, this is a great compliment to the artists of the time, who were able to capture so adeptly the power and magnificence of the subject they copied; on the other, it's disappointing to have some of the fun ruined for you by knowing what to expect from your vacation beforehand.
I wouldn't say the trip was a complete wash out though; the thing that really seems to get her are the rapids. They have what she calls an "accidental beauty." This line struck me as a really effective way of describing the wonders Nature can come up with, seemingly at random and with no effort at all.
As Fuller stands looking over the rapids, she feels a thrill rush through her veins and catch in her throat. This, I think, is definitely an experience of the sublime. She encountered a magnificent phenomenon of Nature, which in turn produced in her a visceral reaction. She felt its power and grandeur, and she also felt a little fear.
This may not have been exactly what she was expecting to feel, or from the particular source she expected, but it was a memorable experience for her.
As a concluding thought, my favorite part of this piece was Fuller's comparison of the "guide to the falls" to commentaries written about Shakespeare or the Gospels. One, this implies that Niagara is as great and impressive a contribution to the general splendor of Nature as those works are to literature; and two, it makes the guide seem so silly and insignificant standing in front of all that greatness.
I agree with some of what Hayley said in her post about the guide being just another thing attempting to adorn that which needs no other decoration. Something so imposing hardly seems to need pointing out. But then, why did Cole have to write an essay teaching people how to notice their own landscapes?
I think there must be a happy median somewhere between having a virginal experience of sublime works of nature and having your own experiences painted over or limited by the experiences of others. Ideally, I think, it would be nice to be informed enough ahead of time to get the most out of the new experience, while still leaving room for personal impressions.
I am now copying this before I hit post, just in case...
- Grace Lillard
Margaret Fuller’s trip to Niagara Falls, and subsequent discussion on the sublime, compares to Thoreau’s expedition to Ktaadn in that they both have mind-altering occurrences as a result of viewing the landscape.
ReplyDeleteFor Thoreau, as we explained in class, he slowly disconnects himself from reality. It is not until as he descends the peak that the experience of climbing to the top of Ktaadn sets in. He tries to rationalize Nature as Matter, much like his own body is made up of Matter. But, the overwhelming experience is too much for his mind to process, as he searches for answers or some sense of control: “Contact. Contact. Who are we? Where are we?”
Fuller has a similar experience with Niagara Falls. When she arrives at the falls, the feeling that we associate with the sublime feeling does not hit her immediately. She says, “When I first came I felt nothing but a quiet satisfaction,” much like Thoreau who has little to say about the mountain peak compared to the rest of his description of the expedition. Gradually, as time goes by, the scene begins to strike her as no ordinary experience. Fuller states, “I got, at last, a proper foreground for these sublime distances...I think I really saw the full wonder of the scene,” losing her place in the natural order much quicker than Thoreau. She became filled with a feeling of “undefined dread...such as may be felt when death is about to usher us into a new existence,” which “seized (her) senses.” Her fear is different from Thoreau’s in that she refrains from becoming too philosophical.
Where Fuller’s feelings of the sublime compare to those of Thoreau are through the loss of control, and the fear that accompanies it. It is not necessarily a fear of physical harm, but that of an inability to place oneself within the rest of nature or the universe as a whole. The sublime can then be viewed as anything overwhelming, or specifically ‘nature’ in the case of these two writers. For Fuller it is a waterfall, and for Thoreau it is a mountain; the only thing each seems to have in common is that they are wonders of nature, untouched by humanity, created by some unknown force. The power created by this force puts humanity in perspective, it appears, allowing Fuller, Thoreau, and many others to have this experience while at these sites. Their sublimity becomes an inability to understand or place meaning to not only a natural wonder, but the world as a whole.
Fuller did experience sublimity at Niagara Falls, yet not at all in the way she had expected. Before embarking on her journey to the various lakes of the (then considered) western frontier, Fuller had seen many paintings, heard many stories, and read numerous publications depicting Niagara Falls as an incomparable Earth-wonder. Upon her arrival in the neighborhood of the falls, her expectations had peaked. She describes how “a solemn awe imperceptibly stole over me, and the deep sound of the ever-hurrying rapids prepared my mind for the lofty emotions to be experienced” (11). However, her feelings altered drastically after reaching the hotel, where Fuller explains how she “felt a strange indifference about seeing the aspiration of my life’s hopes” (11). The view of the fall itself had become a disappointment, even before she had the opportunity to witness the actual scene. That being said, it is not within the scene of the fall where Fuller experienced sublimity. Because the fall itself was the sole object of approbation by artists and authors alike, Fuller was able to experience the sublime in the aspects of the scenery that were overlooked, such as the rapids. Following her initial sighting of the rapids, Fuller clarifies: “my emotions overpowered me, a choaking sensation rose to my throat, a thrill rushed through my veins, my blood ran rippling to my finger’s ends” (11). She even admits that this was the climax of the effect the falls had on her, for “neither the American nor the British fall moved me as did these rapids” (11).
ReplyDeleteDoes this necessarily mean that Fuller experienced sublimity? I believe she did. Earlier in the essay, when describing the rhythms of the vibrations coupled with the wind, she bluntly states: “It is very sublime, giving the effect of a spiritual repetition through all spheres” (4). She describes experiencing grandeur and feeling infinite, but she also mentions fear: “After awhile it so drew me into itself as to inspire an undefined dread, such as I never knew before, such as may be felt when death is about to usher us into a new existence” (5). Her experience could also be deemed a religious one. At the close of her essay, Fuller expresses “a genuine admiration, and a humble adoration of the Being who was the architect of this and of all” (13). Because aspects of Niagara Falls (just not the fall itself) evoked mixed emotions of grandeur and fear within Fuller, as well as religious feelings for nature, I find it hard to believe that Fuller did not experience sublimity at Niagara Falls. She was, quite simply, “moved in the wrong place” (12).
Compared to Thoreau's meditation of Ktaadn, Fuller seems rather deflated about her trip to Niagara. Instead of using passionate language describing her experience, she sums it up in the sentence "It is good to be here" and says that she is ready to go leave after spending eight days there. It seems that she had experienced something great when she first arrived, but that feeling is long gone. The first paragraphs sound as if she is not enjoying the weather, and that she is stressed. She doesn't like some of the people she encounters there, like the man who spits. Thoreau never complained about his conditions, even when they were almost out of food, or traveling companions (besides the Native Americans, who he never really travelled with).
ReplyDeleteWhen Fuller first arrived at Niagara, she seemed to be pretending to enjoy it. She could that is was beautiful ("well enough") but it didn't affect her on a sublime level immediately. It took her a few days to lower her expectations and to view the falls freely. When she did experience her version of sublime, she sounded like a text book definition. When that happened, she felt dread, as she might feel if she were dying. She described a "solemn awe" coming over her. She says that greatness affects everyone in a different way, that it is not a universal experience. Despite these textbook descriptions of her experience, she did not seem to be overall changed by the experience.
Thoreau was constantly amazed at how little humans had interacted with the nature around him at Ktaadn. He likes that he doesn't have to travel far to see new places, places that, possibly, no one else has ever seen. He finds sublimity in that distance. Fuller is experiencing her version of sublimity at a popular tourist destination. She believes that the beauty of Niagara is so powerful that it would swallow up any buildings. The interaction of humans with this land would not be noticeable.
Despite that view, Fuller's experience was clearly tainted by humans. She had so many expectations when she arrived that she couldn't just experience Niagara as it was. She ends the chapter claiming that the people who saw the falls first must have been truly happy because they got to experience them with only their own feelings. They did not have to hear about others' experiences and emotions like Fuller did. While buildings may not harm the Niagara experience, hearing about it from others clearly does.
Fuller’s description of Niagara Falls and its rapids do show the level of sublimity she experience, which, seems to fit the exact definition of the word. Although she did not experience the sublime when she first saw the Falls, her “emotions overpowered me, a chocking sensation rose to my throat a thrill rushed through my veins,” when she stood on a bridge over the rapids. Although she did use rather simplistic language when describing how she liked the whirlpool “very much,” I would rather call it straightforward. She does not employ the fairly bombastic language Thoreau did in his “Ktaadn,” and instead gets to the point. (I would compare this to Thoreau’s, at times, ridiculous comparisons. For example, the beer they drank “was as if we sucked at the very teats of Nature's pine-clad bosom in these parts.” (Part 3 Par. 2))
ReplyDeleteI would like to address the way in which Progressivism and Utilitarianism are presented by Fuller, and Cole for that matter. They seem to have similar outburst of dislike for people who promote a progressive outlook. Fuller writes about a man she saw spit into the Falls. Somehow, she concludes that this man and his spitting epitomizes the age of “utility” and that, this trait (the spitting) will eventually lead to people using their dead parent’s bodies as fertilizer. Cole, in his “Essay on American Scenery” frequently launches into rants about a “meager utilitarianism [which] seems ready to absorb every feeling and sentiment” and “the tender flowers of the imagination shall all be crushed beneath its iron tramp” and that people are “toiling to produce more toil” (3). The way in which these two people write about utility and progress identifies them with the philosophical underpinnings of Transcendentalism and Romanticism (where, of course, sensing, feeling, intuition, imagination, and spirituality are of the utmost importance). The philosophical bases for Romanticism are really counter-points to the Enlightenment.
For Fuller to seriously suggest that a man spitting into the Falls is a sign that people will soon use their parent’s dead bodies for fertilizer shows her alliance with the Romantics, a frequently irrational and (dogmatically) anti-reason group. Cole, to make generalizations and fear-mongering statements in regard to “meager utilitarianism” is as equally ridiculous as Fuller’s digression in her tale of her trip to the Falls.
A question that I can’t help but ask is “Why do Fuller and Cole feel the need to counterbalance their description of the sublime with something (they see as) horrible?” I think the answer could be that they feel the need to create a sense of threat. People place more importance on things that are threatened (especially things one would call “pretty” or “majestic” and at the time an appeal to God’s authority “the architect of this and of all” (Fuller)).
Their digressions appealing to people’s ethos characterize their dogmatic opposition toward any time of technological progress (even though, they have little reason to decry a checked and balanced Industrial Revolution). In this way, I can see that their characterization of the sublime could be a tool for them to promote an ideological political standpoint against progressive ideals and the Enlightenment in general. I would suggest that their opinions and conclusions are based on misunderstanding, whether deliberate or not, of the ideals they seem to oppose.
This idea would be better explored in a paper, rather than a blog post.
- Adam Khalil
Fuller goes to Niagara with the assumption that an experience with the majestic falls will produce a sublime encounter. However, the presupposition that a sublime encounter will ensue in response to viewing such a spectacle, is based on the writings of others who have had such an experience. For Fuller, The very anticipation of this type of episode seems to be what prevents it from occurring. Upon viewing the falls she states, “ah, yes, here is the fall, just as I have seen it in picture.” Because she had previously immersed herself in the literature and artwork of the falls, she built up an anticipation and expectation that reality was unable to meet. She was so familiar with the landscape that she was essentially unmoved by the scene.
ReplyDeleteLater in her journey, Fuller does have what seems to be a sublime experience, but it occurs upon seeing the rapids, which she had not been prepared for via literature or images. She states that upon seeing the rapids, “...my emotions overpowered me, a choking sensation rose to my throat, a thrill rushed through my vein, ‘my blood ran rippling to my finger’s ends.’” She had not encountered the rapids that she was viewing before. She lacked a foreknowledge of the landscape and previous experience that may have been had by others, and she was consequently overwhelmed by the scene. For fuller, an authentic sublime experience required the element of surprise, or shock to remain effective. Perhaps, at least partially, this is because "surprise" often produces turbulent emotional responses devoid of a magnificent landscape. When a magnificent landscape is introduced and combined with said surprise, then true sublimity can be realized.
What I found most interesting about Fuller’s response to Niagara Falls was that, as many of the other comments have noted, the literature she has already read regarding the Falls somehow seems to stymie her emotional appreciation for them. While she does seem to experience the sublime, like Thoreau it seems to be in the wrong moment. While Thoreau’s emotional revelation came after the summit, while crossing the “Burnt Lands,” Fuller seems to experience the sublime when crossing the bridge leading to Goat Island. It is there that Fuller places “the climax” (11) of her trip to the Falls, and lists many of the effects often associated with the sublime; both the emotional and the physical. In contrast, the American and British Falls seem unimpressive. It almost seems as though the Falls were more a reflection of the paintings she has seen and the descriptions she has heard, rather than the other way around.
ReplyDeleteAs such, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in Fuller’s narrative. On the one hand, she seems almost to present descriptions of sublime landscapes as being dangerous, since they were obviously potent enough to halt her appreciation of the Falls. But on the other hand, she argues at the beginning that the details she provides are mere “foot-notes” (3), suggesting that her words can at most be an imperfect reflection of the natural images she wishes to convey. Restricted to telling her tale “in dull words” (1), she suggests that her narrative can at most be “a hint” (1) of the true nature of the area. She even goes so far as to question the usefulness of such descriptions; by mocking the “guide to the falls” (9) she seems at the same time to be mocking her own attempts. After all, if the guide is truly as useless as a man attempting to “point out the moon” (9), then surely her attempts at description just as meaningless.
Fuller’s opinion on the ultimate nature of such travel narratives is therefore complex. While they seem unable to recreate the complex emotions inspired by the sublime, and may in some way cheapen the actual experience, Fuller argues that she, at least, has still been interested in things written about Niagara Falls in the past. While they may not always be accurate (such as when her experience differed from Mr. Greenwood’s), one might infer that it was this interest which first convinced her to visit the area. Such narratives are of some worth, therefore, as an impetus for travel and a way of gaining knowledge about the world, but still pale in comparison to the feeling one gets from being the first to behold a sublime sight such as the Falls, when one’s feelings can be “entirely their own” (13).
--Nick Cobblah
Margaret Fuller gets an experience at Niagara, but it does not seem to be what she was expecting. From the beginning of the piece it seems as though her desire was to merely gaze at the landmark and hope. Who can say? In that sense, she did not witness the sublime. It may be this tourist’s approach that kept her from having a more visceral experience. While “It is good to be here” seems a bit underwhelming, I cannot help but think it is the disposition/mood of the author that generating the ho-hum feelings more than it is a reaction to the falls. If someone is mentioning “nerves” and weather as sticking points on a trip there is a chance that the internal and external noise is going to negatively color the experience. She also suggests that familiarity with the subject may be to blame, “drawings, the panorama &c. had given me a clear notion of the position and proportions of all objects here.”
ReplyDeleteIn some ways her experience seems to have come to her too easy, almost as if it would be impossible for the actual to measure up to the expectations, which were ideals. The notion that she is having a discussion about the sublime vs. Thoreau’s meditation pretty much shows that she is not speaking from personal experience. She did not fight her way up river, and net her meals to get where she was. This read more like it was just another stop on an extended holiday, like so many corn palaces and roadside attractions that would cover the country in the next century. I wonder how Thoreau would react if his travel literature was just encouraging people to go out and have these sort of lukewarm experiences. The idea of taking leave of everyday surrounding to go see something uncanny, only to find other petulant fops on holiday is vexing to most people I imagine.
Fuller’s experience at Niagara is strangely conflicted, a mixture of awe and disappointment. I think the most telling evidence that she has experienced something sublime is reflected in her inability to accurately describe her feelings towards this spectacle. She is both amazed and conflicted, and can sum it up only with a simple expression like “It is good to be here”. There are moments that affect us beyond words. These are, ironically, both the moments we wish most to share with others and the ones that we simply will never be able to share. Her experience of the sublimity of Niagara is greatly affected by her having to share it with others (those who have seen it and drawn it and written of it before, as well as those around her at the time of her viewing Niagara). There is an undertone of envy when she reflects on those who first discovered Niagara without their experience being polluted by other people’s recollections of their experience, and is impacted most when she finally gets the chance to experience Niagara alone at night. She finds sublimity in Niagara’s ability to swallow the environment around it and in its perpetuity, and in the fear (an “undefined dread”) that she is struck with of also being absorbed, of not being able to escape. The waterfall has not just an external impact, but an internal impact as well, as she notes that there is a “rushing round you and through you”. The wind and the water create an almost spiritual music and the whirlpools exude mystery, exposing and swallowing things in an almost murderous manner. She feels unworthy of being a part of this spectacle, and has a hard time returning back to ordinary life after experiencing something so extraordinary.
ReplyDeleteAlthough initially Fuller appeared underwhelmed by her experience at Niagara Falls, I do believe that she had a sublime experience during her trip there. This is first evident where she states, "Before coming away, I think I really saw the full wonder of the scene." Although sublimity is supposed to be spontaneous and almost out of control, I think that an experience complex enough to be considered sublime may require some time to process. It simply took time for her to realize how greatly the experience affected her.
ReplyDeleteThe rapids were what solidified her sublime experience and "enchanted her far beyond what she expected." She mentioned that it was a kind of beauty she may never see again. This is where it was clear that she was overwhelmed by what she saw.
Although it was a sublime experience, I think that it was different that she expected. Throughout the reading, it is obvious that she is questioning the grandeur of the experience. As others mentioned in class, I think that her previous readings about Niagara tainted her experience. Her expectations before going were built up so much that the actual experience almost did not meet or exceed them. However, I do think that the experience was ultimately able to exceed her expectations as she later states that "thou art not to be got rid of as easily as the stars."
-Emily David