The Watergate scandal is typically not what I think of when I think of juicy historical instances. It is surely dramatic in its nature, but has always paled in comparison to historical love affairs, sex scandals, and various other controversial acts. It is no doubt important in America history, but is often kind of muddled in with lesser events especially in the public’s eyes. When Presidential scandals are brought up the first two most people likely think of is JFK’s numerous affairs (including Russian spies and Marilyn Monroe) and Bill Clinton’s famous rendezvous with Monica Lewinsky. Watergate just seems to be not as exciting to the average person. Obviously, it’s not an obscure event, most people know it occurred, but overall it just isn’t talked about as often or with the same passion that smaller scale political messes are talked about. This is why I believe it be a genius move on Thomas Mallon’s part to choose it as a subject for a historical novel. It’s a story that people are vaguely familiar with but on average do not know many details about, and the specifics they do know tend to be what came out at the end (Nixon’s involvement, Deepthroat being Mark Felt, etc.) There is the perfect opportunity to make it into a dramatic and scandalous story of political paranoia and confusion.

I loved the novel as someone who was not alive for the actually unfolding of the events. I knew the outcome of the Watergate scandal before I even knew anything about the original Watergate break-in, and have explored the subject in a backwards manner. The novel does a fantastic job of revealing the story to both people who cannot recall the events happening in real time and those who can. It appeared to me almost at times like a mystery novel, and I enjoyed it thoroughly despite it being spoiled for me (although one can’t exactly spoil a story based off of real life events)

The novel puts Watergate in a new light, making it significantly more exciting and dramatic than the event is usually represented as being to those who did not live through it. I think it being slightly fictitious with added characters and events helps advance the story and literary elements of the novel, and overall presents the Watergate to those who don’t know in the way it was presented to those who kept up with the story when it was originally unfolding.

Predestination is an odd topic for Wright in his 1940 novel The Native Son. Predestination is a concept typically associated with religion, it’s God (or whoever is in charge) plan that can not be changed. In this novel it does not take it’s usually form however, instead the plan is forced seen to be forced upon black folks in America by society (mostly white people.) Wright’s predestination is determined by a culture that allows racism to thrive and has nothing to do with religion. It also is avoidable, unlike normal beliefs of predestination, those in charge (whites) have the power to prevent men like Bigger from committing the crimes and leading the life he did.

This predestination is practically the foundation of Bigger’s legal defense. Bigger’s defense attorney, Boris, is the most sympathetic of the white characters to Bigger and black people in general. He argues in court not that Bigger is innocent of murder, but rather that his actions and overall being is a result of circumstances he had been forced to deal with ever since he was born black. How can he be guilty if he and his deeds were the natural product of the situation he was born into? If the common thoughts regarding black men and especially their relationship to white women were different than perhaps Mary would still be alive. But due to society’s views of black people and Bigger’s knowledge and experience with these views she ended up dying. Her death was a result of a natural reaction Bigger was conditioned to have from years of discrimination.

Wright’s version of predestination isn’t exactly predestination, but is in fact a comment on free will and how we control it. He kind of implies that nothing is fully in or out of our own hands, but instead believes that free will is yet a nothing privilege white people have over racial minorities. A white man would have been listened to and had much better options than Bigger in that situation and that is the real tragedy.

When people discuss and debate The Great Gatsby, three items/symbols in particular tend to always come up; the pool, the green light, and the billboard. The infamous billboard of a set of eyes advertising an oculist is an important aspect of Fitzgerald’s novel as it displays his thoughts on God’s role and feelings towards the 1920s society. The eyes are an omnipresent symbol that is described as staring and frowning at the characters as they partake in multiple love affairs, drive recklessly, and kill. The eyes watch, disapprovingly, upon the spectacle before them, never intervening, but always casting down judgement on the actions of the characters.

This is Fitzgerald’s way of conveying God’s presence in American society at the time. He watches as they engage in overindulgent behaviors, forgoing ethics, and instead becoming greedy, selfish, materialistic human beings. He never intervenes as Fitzgerald doesn’t think God has the power to do so, unable to truly understand what he created or how to control it, nor does he really want to. God watches and does nothing when Myrtle is gruesomely killed in a hit and run, and continues as simply a witness when Gatsby is murdered because he was believed to be the driver that killed Myrtle. God is detached from American society, not wanting/unable to create a bond with humanity.

God is perplexed, slightly disgusted, and overall, completely involved in his experiment of life on Earth. He’s uncaring, and cruel in Fitzgerald’s eyes, rather than the benevolent caretaker He’s usually depicted as. Most importantly, he’s just as confused about the behaviors of humanity as the rest of us.

What is interesting to me in regards to this novel is that while the differences between the past and present are clear to Julian, it isn’t until he has a nightmare that it truly sinks in how much better the present day scenario was. It wasn’t as if he lived in poverty in the past, he in fact lived quite comfortably in 1887, but even he appears to reap major benefits from the Socialist society he indulges in the present of 2000. His nightmare scene rips him from the reality, back into 1887 where he identifies the world as having been wrong and miserable. Living and surviving in the actual times he did not have much to complain about, but upon getting a taste of a better time he immediately wants to tell his loved ones of the horrors of their time.  The actual sleeping only to wake up 100 years later and the nightmare are the only plot points that are important to Bellamy’s point, most of the story and its themes are instead driven by Julian’s talks with Doctor Leete.

The Shelbys are a rough example of what the ideal slave holders were during this time. They tried their best to keep slave families together, treated their slaves relatively well (they described it as almost on a blood level, in the very beginning Mr. Shelby describing that they would just as soon sell his own children than the slave kids) and in general were patient and kind to their slaves. But, the novel shows that upholding certain ethics but still willingly participating in the Peculiar Institution that is slavery is impossible. Mr. Shelby breaks his own moral code by selling Tom and Harry. Despite his best efforts and beliefs that he is a good slave owner, and more importantly that he is above Haley, the slave trader, he still contributes to the system, and therefore can not live an ethical life like he believes he does. This is important because he is shown as an incredibly moderate slave holder, and is in the area of the most nonradical version of slavery according to Beecher,”Perhaps the mildest form of the system of slavery is to be seen in the State of Kentucky.” (Page 14.) Because he is not clean of the blood and dirt of slavery despite attempting to be kind and respectful to his slaves, it shows that there is no true way to participate in slavery and lead an ethical life. How could slavery be a positive good if even the most tolerant slave owners broke apart families and brought grief upon their life. The Shelbys are an example of there being no such thing as an ethical slave owner, as Mr. Shelby had to break his moral code to continue participating in the institution by selling Tom and Harry. Eventually, George frees his slaves after the death of his father, choosing morality over slavery.

St. Clare is possibly even more complicated as a character than Mr. Shelby because he seems to understand slavery to be an evil but is unwilling/unable to change. St. Clare is rather more concerned with what seems to be the easier route for him, make money off of slavery, don’t stir the pot. To further the complication of St. Clare’s morals versus actions is his cousin Ophelia, who is an example of anti-slavery versus abolitionism. When first introduced to her, Ophelia is anti-slavery, against the institution, but is not necessarily for the equality of blacks and whites. The cousins argue over the subject for a while, but are both changed by the death of Eva, pushing both to more progressive ideas, and St. Clare promising to free Tom.

The least moral slave holder encountered is Simon Legree who buys Tom after the death of St. Clare. He appears to have virtuality no morals and is a pretty uncomplicated character, seemingly having no redeeming qualities and appearing to be ruthless just because he can. He makes it his job to break Tom after he disobeys him by not punishing another slave, but is unsuccessful in his endeavors as Tom’s faith stays (though it did falter at times.) He orders for Tom to be killed in the end.

None of the slave holders could truly be ethical people while continuing to hold onto the title. For most of them, their main moral values are seen in their doubts and hypocrites towards the institution, and either have to give up participating in it completely or never truly live up to their own moral code.

John Smith’s minuscule play about a conversation between two gentlemen over tea as one’s wife and the other’s niece gossip is prefaced with a quote from Horace, “Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculous mus.”  translating roughly to “the mountains are in labor, an absurd mouse will be born” (Smith 9.) This quote comes from a letter written by Horace regarding The Art of Poetry, the quote is him mocking the way some poet’s open their work with a flowery explanation of what they will later be lamenting about in their poem, accusing the poet’s of never being able to live up to the expectations they set up themselves for the audience. The line itself is an allusion to an Aesop’s Fable regarding a mountain that was believed to be going into labor, exciting all the people who expected a grand thing to be produced from this event, but in the end everyone was let down when the mountain all gave birth to a mouse. It’s a tale about not living up to expectations and empty threats, a great set-up for A Little Teatable Chitchat. The satirical piece relays the consequences of inflation from the point of view of those benefitting from the depreciation of the dollar during the Revolution. Mr. Sharp, a farmer, brags nonchalantly about his new social power that came from his inflation, each statement getting a bit more ridiculous than the last until the end when he tells Mr. Pendulum that the assembly plans on “abolishing christianity” and then says that once the ministers are removed “you may kill half the town, and yourself into the bargain and nobody will care” (Smith 10.) These statements are juxtaposed with the lively tone of conversation and the setting of it being a casual tea table conversation between two men who had just met. It’s just two seemingly normal men casually discussing abolishing a religion, appearing to not be threats at all yet discussing quite a threat against society.

In Captivity and Restoration, Mary Rowlandson often looks to the Bible and God for the will to continue on. She sees the same restorative power in being around/near other Christians and very obviously values the presence of a Christian more than any other, especially a Native. Everything a Christian does is shed in a more positive light than when the Natives doing the same. Over the course of her captivity many Natives showed her a helping hand, offering food, water, shelter, and warmth. In these instances, Mary Rowlandson overwhelmingly attributes the generosity to an upper power, thanking God force again giving her strength to carry on, not just spiritually but by intervening and having supplies be given to her when she needed them most. She thinks of the Natives that do her favors more kindly than the other majority of the Natives, but still she does not nearly regard them in the same light as Christians. When her neighbors lent a helping hand to her husband and her to help buy her children back and furnish their home she describes the act with a specific word: “love” (Page 87.) The only people she ever mentions as having emotions this soft are Christians. I see this differentiation as being important because throughout the book there becomes an increasingly blurred line between what is “savage” and what is “civilized”, and this difference in her emotional attitudes towards Christians and toward Natives is the only distinction that remains strong for her at the end. She grew to enjoy or at least understand aspects of Native culture, explaining at one point that before she had some qualms against eating bear but when offered it in the wilderness found it to be tasty, and she had been a bit amazed at their ability to use every part of an animal’s body. When before she had seen the divide between savagery and civilized as clear, the more she was exposed to their ways the more her fews eased on the subject, except for the extent of their kindness in which Natives were outranked by the Christians’ “love” in the end.