When comparing the selected works of Johnson and Dunbar, the most obvious difference was the language the two men used. While Johnson wrote in proper english, Dunbar wrote the way freed slaves spoke at that time.
This distiguishes Dunbar's work from any other poetry I've ever read, but in my opinion it made it more difficult for me to comprehend. I was focused more on understanding what he was saying rather than the meaning behind his words. Not a fan.
As far as Johnson's poetry, I found it to be boring. Sorry Johnson.
When comparing the two writings, I decided that the yellow wall paper was more exciting. The two stories had major similarities. For example, each of the main characters is a woman who has to manage some kind of mental distress inside of a secluded room with a window.
ReplyDeleteEach of the two main characters had someone to care of them and guide them through their tough times. The yellow wall paper had me more excited than the other due to its build up of insanity and how it keeps you guessing "what in the world is going on". The story of an hour gave me more of a feeling of wonder and easy reading, whereas the yellow wall paper had me scared and confused.
Both stories had a woman who is believed to be hysteric, a window of opportunity (so to speak), and a tragedy. If I had to choose to read one of them again, I would choose the yellow wall paper
I would have to agree with the post. I think that Johnson told an epic tale more of like a novel than poetry. At least that is what I felt, and I also thought it was very boring, I actually had trouble getting through both poems of his. I think Dunbar was all right but his ghetto language is far superior than the ghetto language hipsters use these days. I give Dunbar a 10 out of 10 for best use of apostrophes. OUT WITH REAL LETTERS!!
ReplyDeleteDunbar writes in a "Negro dialect" on purpose and I'm wondering if he did it to be able to express himself so that slaves could understand him as most were not educated enough to be able to read and completely understand any concepts he was trying to communicate. I also wonder if he wrote in the dialect as a way to rebel. His poems are very interesting and have a way of catching your attention.
ReplyDeleteJohnson on the other hand has long boring stories and I agree with the other comments it just made it difficult to finish reading.
I also agree with the comment. I had a hard time understanding the meaning of Dunbar's stories that were written in the freed slave dialect, which also made me not much of a fan of his writings. Jonhnson on the other hand, was written in proper english, and I enjoyed reading his poems way more than those of Dunbar, even though they were both kind of boring. I also agree with the statement above about how Johnsons poems were more like a novel in that they told a story.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHave you ever considered that Dunbar wanted his poetry to be hard to understand? Think about the most beautiful song you have ever heard sung. Now imagine a song with the same emotional impact in a foreign language. Wouldn't you want to know what the lyrics were? I would go immediately to the internet and google it.
DeleteBy writing in a style that is common to a select group Dunbar not only inspired those inside the group to write and speak but also created interest in a dialect that was (and to some still is) seen as a lower form of language. Neither of these goals could possibly be achieved if his poems were written in a more formal style (which he was more than capable of doing).
James Hester
I feel Dunbar wanted to educate whites that even an uneducated black person could understand and communicate powerful stories from the bible and apply meaning to their specific lives. I don't think he would use the dialect to strengthen a negative stereotype against what Johnson may have thought about him.
ReplyDeleteJohnson on the other hand seemed to portray a strong black view on the creation and relationships. I too found his work to be kind of bland and not real interesting.
Dunbars diction was definitely a tough one to grasp. I found myself sitting and sounding out his words more than I found myself actually picturing what was going on in the story. Though it was hard to read, once you got the hang of the way the words were set up, I feel like it almost pulls you further into the situation you're reading. You almost feel as if you were listening to someone from the late 1800's.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the Dialect in Dunbar's work is more vital than most realize. I see how it's easy to throw the concept of this diction to the side and say it's too difficult. I know I find myself thinking, "Write it normal so I can understand what he's trying to say." Then I realize, with this dialect Dunbar is actually trying to say something. He's painting a picture of his narrator. He's neatly placing in your mind the images of the clothing the narrator wears, the mouth that breathes these words, and maybe even a face in images you've seen past that relate to the time period of this dialect. The dialect gives you a character; someone to look at as you inspect the words on the page and I feel like a picture says so much more than words ever could.
ReplyDelete