This image is of Herman Melville's home, Arrowhead, in the Berkshires of Massachusetts. Like Willis, Melville moved out of the city to live in a rural district that was transitioning from agricultural use to more residential use.--Willis' letters deal extensively with the kinds of manipulations of the landscape to make it more pleasing that Downing advocated. Downing sees this as a service to the community: how does Willis present or understand it?
--Compare the tones and personas of the narrators of Willis's letters and Melville's stories. What are their similarities and/or differences? If Melville's story is a commentary on Willis (and his ilk), what is it saying?
--What is the 'lesson' of the narrator's experience with Marianna in "The Piazza"? Is he in any way affected or changed by his encounter with her by the story's end?
--What is the 'lesson' of the narrator's experience with Marianna in "The Piazza"? Is he in any way affected or changed by his encounter with her by the story's end?
ReplyDeletein the story of the "The Piazza" the narrator seems to present himself as one who does not consider his life to have much value. In a way, the narrator was very depressed and sad. This theory is made recognizable near the final parts of the story when he is having a conversation with Marianna, a woman who lives near him. During the meeting she sees a house in the distance and notices how beautiful and rich it looks (like a palace instead of a farmhouse). She mentioned that the person who lives there MUST be very happy. When Marianna is mentioning the view of the house and saying that it is so beautiful; "Rich or not, I never thought, but it looks so happy, I can't tell how, and it is so far away. Sometimes I think I do but dream it is there. You should see it in a sunset." He continues to say, "No doubt the sunset gilds it finely, but not more than the sunrise does this house, perhaps." She states that her house is rotting and old. In a way they both seem to fancy eachother's lifestyle more than that of their own.
The story goes on to continue by Marianna saying that she would love to visit "the happy being that lives" in the house that she sees from her window. Although it is the narrators house he tells her he continues to say, "I, too, know nothing, and therefore cannot answer; but for your sake, Marianna, well could wish that I were that happy one of the happy house you dream you see; for then you would behold him now, and, as you say, this weariness might leave you." This here is telling the reader that the narrator actually puts more value in this woman's life than in his own. This goes along with the idea of whatever someone else has and owns always looks better than that of your own. There is always something else that someone wants, something else that seems better but the truth is the thing that you want, such as the house in the story really would not make you happy because in that house that she sees as "happy" really is not all that happy at all. From a distance, literally, the house seems to be a great fantasy or escape from Marianna's own life but as for the person living in it... it's far from.
-Jessica Lipp
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1:
ReplyDeleteIn the writings of Downing and Willis, modification of the natural landscape is discussed. The primary difference between the two works is what type of modifications are most worthy of promotion. Each author seems to have a different reasoning behind why they feel their type of manipulation is most beneficial.
For Downing, the modification of one’s dwelling place is a innately essential behavior that naturally follows one’s ascension of class in society. There is a distinct aura of “cultural capital” running thematically throughout his writing. He seems to believe that as one progresses intellectually and civilly, that individuals natural inclination is to surround themselves with capital that demonstrates their respective social standing. He states that the mind of the, “...civilized and cultivated man as naturally manifests itsel fin fitting, appropriate, and beautiful forms of habitation and costume, as it does in fine and lofty written thought and uttered speech.” Downing believes that this element of refinery permeates the whole of society and produces a place for further intellectual and civic growth. The betterment of the self, as seen in the creation of abodes appropriate to ones social standing, not only serves to create a fitting dwelling, but also creates a healthy covetous that ultimately serves to refine society as a whole. He states, “...he who gives to the public a more beautiful and tasteful model of a habitation than his neighbors, is a benefactor to the cause of morality, good order, and the improvement of the society where he lives.” He believes that surrounding one’s self with beauty manifested in ones dwelling, causes others who survey such a dwelling to strive for their own betterment both socially and intellectually. Ultimately, this results in a better society all together.
Willis has a similar idea in regard to the manipulation of nature. The primary difference seems to lie in what is being manipulated and how. He also has different opinions on who is truly being bettered by said alterations. Willis sees in nature, a beauty that cannot be replicated by humanity. Consequently, rather than create for himself a dwelling that is aesthetically pleasing based on the standards of propriety, he merely places what nature already provides in proximity to himself. In doing so, he realizes the complexity and inherent beauty of the natural world. He merely changes the landscape by incorporating a multitude of natural items into a set space. He explains, that although nature is often incorporated into the industrial processes of his milieu, they often allow the, “sculptor to create.” Essentially, the modification becomes so great that the natural beauty of it is all but eliminated. However, by merely examining the didactic ways of nature, one is able to better one’s self. That is Willis’s primary motive. He believes that self betterment is much more pertinent than that of society all together. He states, “to notice him (a stranger on the street in the city) with propriety, I must remember what he is-what claims he has to my respect, my civility.” Willis understands that the cultural capital mindset does nothing but create a striving and a constant sizing up of other members of society. Ones obligation to observe others demonstrations of class via personal belongings does nothing but create a passive aggressive tension which does not necessarily improve society at large. What he knows for sure is that the observance of the natural world and the natural matter within it creates an elevation in thought. For Willis, nature is able to create on a completely different level than humanity. Consequently, he seems to infer that observant contemplation of nature will produce a recognizable progress in the mind of the individual that he does not see happening necessarily through Downing’s methods.
As a response to Jessica Lipp's interpretation that the narrator in Melville's story does not reveal himself to Marianna as the owner of the house because he values her life more than his own:
ReplyDeleteI also get the whole "the grass is always greener on the other side" lesson from this story, but I am not sure that the narrator, at the end, values Marianna's life more than his own. I think that he realizes just how sad her life is and how wholly dependent her happiness is on her ability to daydream. He has been regrettably informed of the not-so-ideal reality of the fairyland that he had ventured to find and seems to be trying to prevent Marianna from suffering the same disappointing fate. I believe that he does not expose himself as the owner of the house because he has learned that some things are meant to be appreciated for what they are and not to be analyzed further. There is beauty in mystery and this particular instance of mysterious beauty has been ruined for him. His innocence in observation may never be the same again, but in choosing not to reveal the reality of Marianna's daydream, he has perhaps preserved her ability to observe innocently and romantically. The sad thing is, she will never know the greatness of the favor he has just performed for her, and will continue to view her life as inferior to that of the owner of the other house.
--What is the 'lesson' of the narrator's experience with Marianna in "The Piazza"? Is he in any way affected or changed by his encounter with her by the story's end?
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Jessica's reasoning above. The narrator has little sense of self worth, and I think Marianna is like him but in a different way. The narrator seems more focused on self worth in regards to the inner self, while Marriana focuses on outward appearances. She frequently comments on the aesthetics of the "palace" she can see from her window and says that the being that lives there must be happy.
The lesson here is not quite as simple as "everyone wants what they can't have" but more so that people will often look fondly at what other people have and assume that it brings them happiness. "If only I could have what they have, THEN I will be happy!" But it rarely, if ever, works that way. This can also be seen as a sort of philosophical critique: can we ever truly achieve happiness? The anticipation and the longing are what make us excited, give us hope. But once we finally get what we want, what happens? We are never fully satisfied. Perhaps the narrator realizes he will never be fully satisfied, since the house is his own. Maybe he chooses not to reveal to Marriana that it is his house so she can keep her hope alive.
Willis' letters appear to reflect his easy and carefree lifestyle. He writes pleasantly, and allows his thoughts to wander, just as he describes himself meandering through his property. This is interesting because he calls himself a farmer, though he places his "spring work" (Willis 1) in parenthesis. While Willis comments on, and thoroughly describes, his surroundings and accompanying creatures, he does so with an air of amusement and contentedness. He seems exceedingly comfortable living amongst nature and natural beings because he has manipulated his environment so that it is perfectly picturesque, where humans, animals, and nature live in harmony, like in a Disney movie.
ReplyDeleteMelville’s persona in “The Piazza” also appreciates nature’s beauty, so much so that he builds a piazza to better admire the scene. Contrastingly, Melville’s persona seems removed from the natural environment, which results in his sickness and the story’s melancholy tone. Melville’s story does seem to be a critical commentary on men that mean to manipulate nature for their domestic comfort. Melvill’e protagonist lives in a beautiful home with a piazza looking out onto a mountain range. Yet, this man is not happy and constantly dreams, as seen through the numerous mythological allusions, in order to escape his unsatisfied reality. Perhaps the constant allusions to mythology and the foreign title, “The Piazza,” reflect the man’s heightened taste, which results in his insatiability.
After reading "The Piazza" I am left with a sense that the narrator has changed in some sense, but I don't feel like I could assert one central lesson to be learned from the story. Clearly the narrator is disillusioned by his visit to Marianna's cottage. The glimmering cottage where the "fairy queen" was supposed to live is now a run-down dwelling with a human inhabitant who has a sad story. This kind of disillusionment seems like a common experience in life. I read a short story by Steven Millhauser in which the protagonist has romantic notions similar to the protagonist of this story, about women he meets and he quickly finds that the closer acquainted he gets, the more he dislikes them. At the least this story observes the human tendency to project romanticized ideas on people or things we don't know very well, and to be disappointed by the truth about these people or things.
ReplyDeleteSo perhaps the message is: the grass looks greener from a distance, rather than the grass is greener on the other side. The key difference being that this isn't a story about jealousy as much as admiration that leads to curiosity that leads to disappointment. In a way I think this narrative could be paralleled by seeing a picture of a place then being disappointed when you go to see the place yourself. Melville describes the piazza at the end as a theater box, a place of observation, of illusion. A pretty picture of the countryside will not give the viewer any sense of its hot and humid climate, or the insects buzzing in your ear or crawling on your skin. So when the narrator is forced to confront the sad reality of the fairy cottage he does not seem willing to make the same mistake twice afterward. "Launching my yawl no more for fairyland. I stick to the piazza."
I noticed the distinctions between the narrator and Marianna, and I think they have an important role in the significance of the story. First, I don't think the narrator is really very sad or very weary, certainly not the way Marianna is. In coming to her cottage he does not seek a chance to be happy or to feel better, which is what she sees in his house. Furthermore he does not seem nearly as pessimistic about the state of his own home, in fact he talks about the wisdom of its builder for picking such a fine location, and he remarks all the great views he can choose from before he builds the piazza. These characters are looking for two different things, and it seems to me that one of them should have stayed in, and the other should get out more.
I am intrigued by the narrator's decision to stay more or less neutral when he realizes it is his home Marianna is romanticizing. It seems to me his words simply left her fantasy as it was, as though he didn't want to alter her ideas about seeing his home in any way. This fits with the notion that the lesson he learned was in fact just to stay at home next time- he didn't want her to feel the same disillusionment.
Some brief comments on Willis' manipulation of the landscape:
ReplyDeleteFirst, his discussion of what it is like to plant trees.
"In planting a tree (I write it reverently,) it seems to me working immediately with the divine faculty... Yet how little is my part in the glorious creatures they become!" (6)
This act of "arranging" nature artificially seems to have a moral or emotional impact on Willis himself, as the instigator of these motions. This seems to coincide partly with what Downing believed about bettering landscapes and edifices in order to better the people that lived in them - Willis is somehow brought closer to something grand and good by his act of helping a living thing to grow.
His further comment about what little part his role actually is in this process of nature seemed, to me, like an almost sublime experience. Through a very small action of his own - planting a tree - he realizes the power of Nature to grow and create and live, which puts him in awe of a force greater than anything he might be able to accomplish.
Second.
I couldn't help but thinking that when Willis takes a "liberty" with nature and digs a channel so the little brook can make it all the way to the river, he probably destroyed an entire little ecosystem of plants and animals that survived merely by the fact that the water DID end there, in a stagnant spot, instead of rushing all the way on to the river.
This is one thing I simply don't understand about Willis. He obviously has a great love of nature, and even comments on the wonders one can discover when he makes himself a silent, still observer of nature (demonstrated in the first letter, as he sits under the canopy by the brook). But then he goes and imposes his own human/civilized ideas of order and aesthetics and design on this thing that had a natural course already. Can he not see the contradiction he makes?
The worst was when, after just having spent several pages lauding the magnificence of trees and foliage for companionship, he has a tree chopped down because it "shuts out the village spire, and must come down." (13) Really?? Must man's needs always carry the favor?
Willis, I don't understand you. Your letters are beautiful, and you describe these scenes with such loving detail and reflection. So what makes you do these stupid things like all the rest of the "civilized" folk?
- Grace Lillard
I would like to build on Evan's comment that the moral of The Piazza is the grass is greener on the other side. I agree completely. The narrator spends his descriptive journey through nature focusing on the cottage of the "fairy queen" he sees in the distance. His imagination runs away from him and the possibility of magic in nature takes hold of him. Yet when he finally arrives at the cottage and only sees Marianna, the illusion is shattered and he sees all the sadness and run down qualities of the cottage that, from a distance, seemed so magical.
ReplyDeleteMarianna carries the same misconception of the grass being greener on the other side. She sits in her depressing cottage, looking out into the distance at the "palace." She comments on how it is made of marble, how the sunlight shines on it perfectly, and how she is certain someone happy lives there. As the narrator knows the "palace" is simply his farmhouse, he can see the concept of the grass being greener played out in front of him. While he understood why he thought the cottage was magical, even after his illusion was shattered, it is strange for him to understand how Marianna looks upon his farmhouse, imagining the grandeur of living there, when he never saw the magic of his home and took for granted what it would be like to live there.
The moral could be saying how the grass is not really ever greener anywhere, that people are generally giving the same lot of life and it is all about a person's perception of the world to determine whether life is as magical as one would want it to be.
--Heather Hobbs
What is the 'lesson' of the narrator's experience with Marianna in "The Piazza"? Is he in any way affected or changed by his encounter with her by the story's end?
ReplyDeleteI believe the moral of this story to be not everything is how it appears from a distance. Both characters admired each other's houses from a distance, longing to visit the beautiful home and meet the luckily individual that gets to call it home. The narrator trekked to the fairyland expecting to find a beautiful home, with beautiful, happy people. He thought that just by looking at whoever lived there, he would be able to cure his weariness.
However, after arriving at the "fairyland" he met the lonely girl. The girl was pale, and the house full of bugs.
The girl explained that she used to love the view, but now she realized that that was not enough to make her happy. Instead, she would love to visit the narrators house and meet the happy person who must live there.
I believe this is where the narrators view changes. At this point, he realized that the girl admired his house just has he had admired hers. Neither one realized the redeeming qualities someone else might see in their homes. At the end, he decides to stick to the piazza.
-Emily David
The lesson that the narrator in Melville's "The Piazza" learns is really that the grass isnt always greener on the other side. When we first read about the narrator, he seems unsatisfied with his life at home. To make up for this he daydreams about a house up the mountain which belongs to Marianna.
ReplyDeleteHowever, once he meets her and begins to talk with her, I think he is surprised that she doesn't view her home as he does, but rather Marianna views his house with the same admiration he does for hers. The way the narrator sees her house, the sun gilds it, when he asks her this question she responds, "The sun is a good sun, but this roof, it first scorches and then rots." I think this shows that Marianna has been up in that house for too long that not even the sun can lift up her mood, it just ruins the house more. When the narrator realizes that he is just like Marianna, I think it does cause some sort of change in the way he views things now. His house now becomes his "box-royal" and "the scenery is magical" to him. I think when the narrator discovered that the person living in the house he admired was more or less a mirror image of himself, it changed his point of view of his own surroundings and made his realize that his own house is good enough for him.
In the story “The Piazza” by Melville, I noticed a few key aspects that I thought were important considering the time period. Melville gives us a very vague narrator, and we are not really sure who (assuming it is a he) he is, where he is from, and what brings him to the country. In the story, there are so many picturesque characteristics that make me wonder if our narrator is experiencing sublimity during his adventure. Also, the point that our Melville puts our narrator within the country/mountains and then has him eager to explore what he has observed really seems appropriate for what our class discussion has been thus far regarding Americans and their acceptance of nature and the sublime.
ReplyDeleteOur narrator is a very interesting character that seems to be fortunate to be staying in this old house in the wilderness. He describes the house as being wide, and his fortune is not, so that tells me that he does not have quite a lot of money, however he really wants to build this piazza so he can gaze at the scenery better. He has these carpenters work for him for little or no pay, and soon his piazza is built. Melville obviously know that nature was a key element in 19th century society, otherwise he would have not written this story centered around a piazza that over looks nature.
As our narrator goes on his adventure to find the fairyland, he encounters so many specific elements of nature: the blueberry bushes, wild strawberries, shadows, yellow birds, etc. Once he reaches his destination, which he has been gazing at for some time, he finds a girl. He speaks with her and soon realizes how depressing her life is, and how unbeautiful her life and home is. She tells him how she is always looking yonder at a house in the mountains that was so far away all she could do was imagine who would live there. He soon realizes that it is his home she is referring to.
At this point, I think the narrator realizes that he is so fortunate. The sun grazes his home every day. He longed to see a fairyland because he thought it would be magnificent, and he did, but learned how rotted it really was.
I think Melville makes a great point in this story. He wants to get across that just because something looks so perfect from afar, maybe it is not be best idea to go and explore it; it could ruin your sublime outlook on it. Melville could be saying to Americans that it is easier to enjoy nature from afar, and not get saturated in it because it could forever ruin your outlook on the sublime and nature.
In response to Jessica's post, I took the narrator's comments not as being depressed about his own life and belongings, but more or less the refusal for complacency. I don't necessarily believe that the narrator was this sulking, depressed person—I just think he was simply noting how beautiful the house in the distance was compared to his and Marianna's.
ReplyDeleteI, in fact, believe that the narrator was merely dissatisfied with complacency because [obviously, the entire piece centers around his complaint about his own house lacking a piazza], he was determined enough to find carpenters to build him one—a proactive move to overcome his own frustration with his home. Just because he's recognized that a beautiful home may equal happiness, it doesn't mean he's completely on the other side of the mood spectrum in an abysmal depression, it just means that he sees what he needs to do to achieve a greater state of being and sets out to do it.
The reader could even argue that for the narrator, a beautiful house isn't that big of a component of his happiness, as he points out to Marianna that he is unsure if a beautiful house equates to real happiness, but hopes that she finds whatever it takes to make her happy. The fact that he is wishing her well, shows—to me—that he's not in the same emotional predicament as she is. As the saying goes, misery loves company, and it's Marianna who is making company with the narrator, while the narrator is eying his own upward mobility. With that said, while the narrator admires the house, instead of tolerating the status quo in which he is not most satisfied, he takes the steps to achieving what he wants—that doesn't sound like symptoms of depression to me, just strong self-determination.
To me, Willis and Downing seem in conflict with one another both in theme and in form. This could be due in part to the fact that the Downing essay was published for a wide audience and is, by nature, meant to be more of an explanatory or persuasive piece and the Willis is a letter to a very specific person. Still, these men seems to take fundamentally different approaches to the landscape.
ReplyDeleteIn the Downing, the "civilized man" is directly connected to the "civilized landscape" and there's the implied idea that the landscape is there for man to manipulate. Failing to do so limits you to a "savage" and inferior characterization. Ultimately, the landscape should reflect not only the progress of man, but his virtue as well: "we would encourage a taste for beautiful and appropriate architecture, as a means of promoting public virtue and general good."
In contrast, Willis completely down plays the importance of man in the landscape. For example, he writes, "We flatter ourselves, thought I, that we drink first of the spring. We do not know always whose lips were before us." Here it seems that Willis is acknowledging that this landscape existed long before men. Then again, after planting trees, Willis exclaims, "Yet how little is my part in the glorious creatures they become!" Even in the deliberate cultivation of land, Willis concedes that Nature is the true shaper of the landscape.
I think in the Willis, I see more of a harmony between man and nature. He calls even the smallest creatures around him his "company" and at one point, he connects the farmer's life to the manufacturer's, highlighting how similar they can be. Downing, on the other hand writes, "We believe in the bettering influence of beautiful cottages and country houses--in the improvement of human nature necessarily resulting to all classes, from the possession of lovely gardens and fruitful orchards." The use of the word "possession" shows that land is meant to owned by man, not simply appreciated.
As mentioned in previous posts, the lesson of “The Piazza” is that age old cliché: the grass is always greener on the other side. Melville scours the land to find “fairyland.” The first time he mentions this voyage is after talking about his surroundings. He uses words like “vastness” and “lonesomeness,” which to me, gives the story a very sublime-like nature. It also suggests that the reason he leaves in the first place is because he is lonely.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a definite comparison between the narrator and Marianna. She speaks of her loneliness to him. They had the same longing and that is, to unknowingly find each other. They both fantasize an ideal life for the other. He creates a personality for this fairy and fairy-house and associates everything of magnificence with her (for example, the “sparkle” he mentions). Marianna believes the occupant of the narrator’s house is “a happy one.” The difference between the two is that the narrator left to figure it out while she sat and looked out her window.
I disagree with the posts that the narrator values Marianna’s life more than his. I think originally, before he meets her, he does. I think when he meets her he realizes that even someone he could imagine as the happiest person is just as weary as him. It wasn’t a sad ending, but more that he should appreciate the life he has. I base that on the following quote: "I, too, know nothing, and therefore cannot answer; but for your sake, Marianna, well could wish that I were that happy one of the happy house you dream you see; for then you would behold him now, and, as you say, this weariness might leave you.” I think the quote suggests that his weariness has left him because he sought the house he dreamed of and found her.
I think Evan’s suggestion of the narrator’s neutrality is important to mention. I had that same instinct after reading the work. He is changed because he finds he is disillusioned, but I don’t necessarily believe that made him weary.