After reading over one issue of
the New York Aurora (Clink the
LINK)(from either March 16, March 23, or April 1 1842), I'd like you to reflect in a meaningful and substantial way (20 sentences or so) on what you take away from engaging with a newspaper from the 1840s. (It may take a few minutes to load the link, but it's worth it… Check out one copy of this old newspaper!) What insight(s) does this experience give you into daily life in 1840s New York City? How does reading this newspaper change the way you view the time period? How is this newspaper different from the newspapers of today? How does Whitman's contribution fit into the overall experience of the newspaper? Please use at least two direct quotes (if not five!) in your response. Please, also, response to something said earlier in the comments stream. The purpose of this exercise is to provide you with a window into early American life, and into the early writings of Walt Whitman. The more you engage with the newspaper and with each others' thoughts, the more you will get out of the exercise.
If the internet is slow, these pages may take a while to load. Be patient. If they don't work on Safari, try another web browser.
How to find Whitman's writing:
- March 16th edition: Page 2, column 2: "Life in a New York Market"
- March 21rd edition: Page 2, column 2: "The Last of Lively Frank"
- April 1st edition: Page 2, column 2: "Scenes of Last Night"
**In addition to Whitman's column, please make sure that you look through the rest of the issue. You do not have to read every word in the edition; however, I'd like you to read through a good portion of the edition. Please get a good feel for the newspaper as a whole, and get a sense of how this newspaper of the 1840s differs from newspapers of today.
I read all three of the articles, and it appears that the people in New York then were much more trusting than people in New York today. An example of this is in the article "The Last of the Lively Frank" where the author and a friend follow a gentleman they don't know very well into a somewhat suspicious looking house without a second thought. The people were also a lot friendlier and polite. They acknowledged the people they passed. People knew each other. In the article 'Life in a New York Market' the author is able to identify a few people and what they do for a living. "Here comes the journeyman mason (we know him by his limy dress) and his wife." Newspapers then focused more on smaller events but elaborated on them. A newspaper today would probably describe the 'Scenes of Last Night' more monotoned and to the point, "A fire started between seven to eight o'clock last night on Broome and Delancy street. This number of houses burnt down, this number of people were killed." The older newspaper describes the scene more, there's even a fancy title that make people interested. "Scenes of Last Night" immediately makes me ask, "ooh, what happened last night?" And I want to read more to find out what happened. Overall, the older newspaper is much more descriptive, "We entered. What an array of rich, red sirloins, luscious steaks, delicate and tender joints, muttons, livers, and a long list of various flesh stuffs, burst upon our eyes!"
ReplyDeleteI read all three of the readings. The writing style itself seems different. They go from the point of the people instead of telling the story as an observer. Life itself seemed nice and cheery in the first two readings but the third described a burning building. In the second reading "The Last of Lively Frank" it said "A second look at the stranger brought him to our recollection as one whom we had met in other scenes and other places". Nowadays nobody would follow a guy who just looks familiar. Newspapers today seem like they are all about the fact and important happenings, not a story of people following people through a city. Also in the first reading "Life in a New York Market" it said "What an array of rich, red sirloins, luscious steaks, delicate and tender joints, muttons livers, and all the long lis of various flesh stuffs, burt upon your eyes!" This is when some people were walking through the market and what they saw. You would not see this in todays newspaper unless it was some add or new store opening.
ReplyDeleteI read every one of the three readings. There are many contrasts in the writing styles of all three different writers. The people of New York of this time period seem to have had a much more positive outlook on life. They take little things that New Yorkers of today would take for granted and make them grand and awe inspiring, even something as simple as a meat market is made inspiring and wonderful when in the eye's of an old New Yorker. In the eyes of a New New yorker, a meat market would likely be described as "grungy, smelly, and nasty."
ReplyDeleteI read all of the readings. People in New York at this time where a lot nicer. People were a lot more greatful than they are today. They didn't really take that much for granted. Today people take almost everything for granted and don't care. Also people are not nearly as trusting as people back then. This news paper is a lot different from the news papers today because it is written in a person who lives in New York perspective rather than it just being a writer telling us what is happening.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the three articles and a few more, one thing became very clear to me. The joy and wonder that the articles seemed to contain was much more upbeat than today's modern papers. For example, in "Life in a New York market" the author (or person who's point of view it was) acted like it was the most amazing thing ever though it was just a meat market. In modern papers we seem to care more about the bad news in life than the good things. I Challenge anybody to find a paper that is filled with stories like that, where it is from the view of the people and that upbeat. That also brings up another point where modern papers and this differ. The point of view is different, for example, in "scenes of last night" the entire article appears to be from the point of view of a person walking down the street where there was just a disaster. In modern day papers they really don't focus on what it's like for the individual but more about the story as a whole which is both good and bad. Also in papers today they only focus on the biggest most important story's there is very few stories like "Life in a New York Market" or especially "the last of lively frank" it's all about the big things and there is no time for the smaller things. The only exemption is if there is a new shop opening or something similar in which case it may get a small review article but nothing significant. So from what I have gathered I can say that the biggest difference between modern day papers and old papers are, the old are more community based telling what's going on locally. Papers now only focus on the biggest problems and not on the small community things.
ReplyDeleteWhat I noticed from reading this newspaper on March 16, 1842, “Life of a New York Market,” was the way the journalists reported. They described their news as in a storyteller way that included personal opinions and the usage of “us” and “we.” “A short distance brought us to that large dirty looking structure…” The language is descriptive though they are not reporting- but creative writing, or writing about a personal experience. “They hung, tempting, seductive…” I see modern day newspapers to be quite vague and less descriptive. Reporters in my town papers do not often introduce themselves in their reports using “us” and “we.” Similar to what Kenzie noticed, I saw the simplicity in their reports. For example- the journalists wrote about their visit to a Market and the people who they saw. They seem to be able to predict information about the people through how they look. “He is evidently the member of one of those trades which require a man to stay cooped up in the house in some constrained bodily position.” This paper gave me a positive view on the society in this time period because of all the familiarity the writers seem to show. As a mentioned above, the journalists were very opinioned, writing things like “perhaps, you may search the whole land through, you will not find a handsomer, more manly looking set of men than our butchers.” The way the newspapers are written and the personal opinions introduced in them remind me of modern blogs. The storyteller theme of the papers makes me appreciate the older papers more than our modern ones; it keeps me interested- especially “The Last of Lively Frank” because throughout the article, I was interested in knowing what would happen, i.e. suspense. “We were sickened and shocked by the sight that met our eyes.” I am a reader, and modern news papers don’t appeal to me because they don’t look at the smaller picture and always seem to focus on the larger events going on in the country, world, or town. I believe that if I lived back in the 1840s, I would be more persuaded to read news papers because I would enjoy the stories and the first person point of view instead of reading facts.
ReplyDeleteI read all three of the news paper articles, and found them very intersting. Each article was about life in New York, but each one was a different situation of daily life in New York. I found these articles to have much different writing styles than today's news articles would have. Back in this time period the paper's seemed to be much more positive than today. I found it weird how they found anything to talk about other than gossip because that is all you see in the news now a days. This article gave me insights on how the people of this time period felt about where they lived. This paper changes my veiws on the time period by giving me a much better understanding of how it was back then and how much more positive it was. The article "Life in a New York Market,' had a quote where he said "What an array of rich, red sirloins...and all the long list of various flesh stuffs, burst upon our eyes!" That quote just showed how people of that time period were so much more appreciative of the little things, like food. "...At the same time casts saucy, lovable glances at her pretty face," Whitman states in "Life in a New York Market," and this quote just goes to show how much more attentive writers were, and how much more detailed they were back then. Whitman's contribution fit into the overall newspaper by giving it a feel of everyday New York in a positive way, but also a breaking story about a fire. He gives the paper and ver detailed feel of New York and makes the people who read the article, feel like they are there in their mind. And I'd have to agree with what Quast had said about how the newspaper back then was written by some one living the situation, rather than just writing about it from the outside, like how things are written in the present.
ReplyDeleteThe three Walt Whitman articles are all similarly written, but they are all very different from newspapers today. First of all, the writing style and wording is very different from today. Secondly, like some other people said, each of the articles were set up like the writer was telling a story, whereas today articles are written from a more informative standpoint. One of the articles didn’t even have a point, really. It just talked about some people who meet a stranger and walk around the city. Newspapers today wouldn’t have an article like that. Two of the articles had very positive tones, which is what I had expected, but the article “Scenes of Last Night” talked about something sad, which I hadn’t expected. In the article it says, “In every direction around, except the opposite front, there was one compact mass of human flesh—upon the stoops, and along the side walks, and blocking up the street, even to the edge of where the flames were raging.” This quote is not a happy or positive one. It actually talks about something serious, unlike the first two. For example, in the article “Life in a New York Market” there is a quote that says, “What an array of rich, red sirloins, luscious steaks, delicate and tender joints, muttons, livers, and all the long list of various flesh stuffs, burst upon our eyes!” This quote describes the people in the article walking into a butcher shop. It is much more happy and positive—especially considering they are walking into a butcher shop—than the article about the fire. It doesn’t talk about anything important, like the fire article did.
ReplyDeleteEverything about this reading was different than previous ones. Everything from the diction of the sentences to the form of the paragraphs was different, and not necessarily in a way that is easier or harder to read, but just different. Up to this point we have been reading essays about transcendentalism and realism among many other things but I think that there were two new styles of writing in the reading last night. One of the articles did not have a purpose, it was really just a story, and the other style is old fashioned newspaper article which is very different from what we see today. One of the differences in this writing is that it makes you feel like you are in the setting that the story/newspaper takes place in unlike Thoreau who gives advice among other things and Tom Sawyer who tells a story about the changing opinions and views of America in his story The Adventures of Huckelberry Finn.
ReplyDeleteI read all three of the Whitman articles. I think that they described a lot of different part of an average New Yorker's life. They also revealed that they were really different people back before you could see anything you wanted with one click of a TV button. People were much more excitable. A quote from the article is, "In every direction around, except the opposite front, there was one compact mass of human flesh". There were people stopping to gawk at this great fire and looking at it, amazed. There is a Jack Johnson song that I really like called "Good People" and it's talking about how he is tired of seeing all of these tragedies on the news. This reminded me of the scene that Whitman sets up because it shows how desensitized people are nowadays from seeing all of the brutality on the TV. I think that New Yorkers were also much more friendly. You see in both of the other articles that not only are they more friendly, but they are more trusting. I think that ever since the whole stranger danger movement people are more cold, detached, and distrusting than they used to be and the attitude of this is only amplified in cities. The Market article reminded me of the farmers market that I grew up going to at home, and the market in London. It sounded like people were all happy to be there and excited to try new thing and meet new people. The food sounded like it had actual quality (something that doesn't exist as much today). New York sounded all in all better than it is today. Maybe it is cause these articles are picked to describe the good parts of New York, but these articles just sounded like despite the racism, sexism, and the unnaccepting nature of the people New York as a whole sounded better than it is today.
ReplyDeleteI read the articles, and something that really stuck out to me was that people were a lot friendlier back then. It didn’t surprise me but it was blatantly visible that as a society we are really different now, almost more meaner than back then. Also less trusting but that’s because times changed and people steal things and people become more guarded. An example of the differences between New York now and then would be in the article "The Last of the Lively Frank" where the author follow a man they don't know into a creepy looking house without a second thought. People were just a lot more trusting, they didn’t have fears because terrorist weren’t around back then. They were trusting because nothing bad ever happened.
ReplyDeleteI read all her articles and it's really interesting. The life she described was really different from what I thought in that period. I thought that I that period, people should be very conservative and careful, but in her description, for example in her article " Life in a New York Market" she describe that the market was really prosperous and crowd, the items are pretty rich. People are pretty happy inside. This is really different from that in my mind. In the other hand, people in that period was really friendly and cute. In her second article, a man invited them to his house, even they are stranger. I can not imagine it now! This is an article in a newspaper in 1842 and the style of writing is really different from now. I thought it because in that period, the traffic was not convenient, so the printers and the writers can not get some big news, they could only write some interesting things happen to them.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading of all of the articles I am very intrigued by the different styles from then to know. People know are what ever they are on TV. But back then they weren't what ever was on TV there was no Botox back then were you could change your image to look like a barbie. Which in my eyes is extremely cool because people excepted who they were and didn't change it. Of course the most obvious is the actuall paper its self has changed an it is much more white know. Also the actual ink is different much darker and there isn't as much eye popping lettering or pictures. but over time technology changed all of this. Personally I think with newspaper display is huge. These didn't pop out in any way very plane. The lettering also is much different cursive writing which is my personal favorite type of writing. It is much harder to read and the style is different the words are much older and there isn't any slang. This news paper comes off as very proper more of a essay less than a message. Know people just want to see the information and as fast as possible. They don't need linked perfect sentences.
ReplyDeleteAfter I read the following articles I would describe all of them as being very different but interesting. Indeed almost everything from eaach sentence in each paragraph seemed to differ between one another. The writings seem to almost just suck you in to feel as if you are really there in the event but in different ways, most factual based.
ReplyDeleteI read the first two articles and skimmed through the third one.'all,I can say is wow. The times have really changed. It really makes you think about how trusting and honest people were back then. In the article last of lively Frank, in the first paragraph a complete stranger ask the two men if they have an hour to take a stroll with him. In today's world that person would have the cops called on him. I have been to the city many times and never have I been approached by anyone as nicely as the two did in this article. In all three articles you are out into different situations in New York. Which would all be completely different today. In a way it's very fascinating how wildly the times have changed. I know a few people have already used this quote from the first article, but I really like it and thinks it is a great example of the time period in the 1840's. "What an array of rich, red sirloins, luscious steaks, delicate and tender joints, muttons livers, and all the long lis of various flesh stuffs, burt upon your eyes!" The quote I think works very well because it exemplifies the openness of the time period. Today that wouldn't fly so well, would be considered a health problem. Impersonally think that is the biggest difference between our time period and the one we read about. Back then people had nothing to hide, today the people do everything they can sometimes to avoid being open.
ReplyDeleteI think that Walt’s writing was very intriguing. He used a neat combination of simplicity and sophistication. He also has a great vocabulary of adjectives. He uses the word “jovial” to describe a butcher. I think that that is very unique because most people would not describe a Butcher as Cheerful and Friendly as his job is to slaughter animals. It gives you a very positive look at life. He is very happy about New York and makes it sound very happy like there is no bad even though of course there must be some people must not have a perfect life he still makes it seem like a very frolic-y place. I would have thought that because it was a new country and after war there would be more depression and struggle. Clearly Walt Whitman disagrees. This news paper is different from those today for many reasons. It is full of happy pieces of writing describing certain events or place. It also does not have a lot of long articles about tragedies. Whitman contribution to the news paper fits in swimmingly. He is making the life of everyday people have some positive taste to nourish their day as they read it so if there is some bad news, his writing will show you that there is still much great in the city.
ReplyDeleteI read all three of Whitman's articles and I think they gave a very different view of current events then what we see now. People seemed more intrigued in the articles because you couldn't just watch these current events on the news like you can now. The newspaper changed pretty much my whole view on a typical life back then, it seemed like Walt Whitman gave what we call a panoramic view to his article. Another change I noticed from current newspaper articles are the way they're written, diction and wording being a couple of those differences. One of the other things that really pulled me into the article (although the article was very bland overall) was the fact that Whitman did such a good job of making the article feel like you were actually there, experiencing it with him. I especially noticed this in the article 'Life In A New York Market' because right away Whitman started off by using short phrases and sentences that felt as though you were with him or you even were him at some points. Overall I think that Whitman wrote his articles in a more proper and more thought out way then most newspaper writers do in modern times.
ReplyDelete