In the Comments section below, please post a response of at least one full paragraph (min. 5 sentences). Your assignment is twofold: 1) you are to demonstrate a clear understanding of the text by attempting to summarize the text's argument as precisely as possible, and 2) you are to use your comment to ask the text (or ask your peers) at least one thoughtful question.
Remember: your comment can respond directly to other students' posts on this text. The goal of this forum is to offer an opportunity for intelligent dialogue related to the works we are studying in class. Respectful debate is always welcome.
In my opinion, as this is a Naturalist text, Crane is writing about one of the essentials of Naturalism: suffering and evil are the natural state of the world. How I see it, Crane writes this as a follow up or criticism of Jesus' encounter with temptation in the desert (Matthew 4). The creature described in the poem is Satan, the most prominent manifestation of evil. The creature is consuming the heart as a metaphor for the way that evil and sin completely consume the very heart of humanity. The heart is inevitably tainted with sin, morphing the sweet flavor, that should ideally be of a "pure" heart, into a savory bitterness which appeals only to the pallet of the devil, himself. Through this, Crane proves the malevolence of God, as He watches evil consume His creation and has the power to intervene, but does nothing at all.
ReplyDeleteValerie Kilby
I agree with Valerie's view on this poem because this view accurately portrays a strong connection of ideas, in a prominent bases like idea of evil corrupting the heart. The main goal or idea of this poem that Stephen Crane is essentially pointing to is the fact that we humans who were once the "pure hearts," have now been devoured and consumed by the darkness and evil that lies within it. In this state the darkness has been continually eating away at us, now which it has been doing so for such a long time, allowing it to even claim us as "my heart." Due to this state that we live in Stephen conveys the friend of the beastly creature to be an onlooker who saw that beastly creature eating its heart, and was unconcerned to the point that all it asked the creature was if "Is it good, friend?" My question is who or what is Stephen intending the onlooker to truly be, Jesus (as Val stated to be in the desert) or some other god?
ReplyDeleteI think by writing "In the Desert", Stephen Crane was trying to show us what he thinks humans are like. The naked creature in the desert, could symbolize humans at its most basic--a vulnerable race that feels very passionately. When Crane says the creature ate his own heart and liked it because it was bitter, this could represent how humans are emotional and passionate creatures, who like to feel pain. This view could easily be interpreted as masochistic. Stephen Crane set this poem in the desert, to describe the depravity of man; the desert is often a symbol for the depths of depravity, for there is very little life there. According to Crane, humans wallow in our self pity, and make ourselves feel worse about situations because we think of all the terrible things that have happened to us in the past. Deep down, we like to feel this pain, because at least it makes us feel something. My question is, Do humans like to feel pain? (Molly Stallings)
ReplyDeleteI think Val makes a very good point in explaining this. Folarin, I believe that the onlooker might be Stephen himself and the creature is representing the world. I think he is trying to interpret that the world is a dark and horrid place. The onlooker asks the creature if his heart is good and the creature replies "It is bitter, but I like it because it is bitter and because it is my heart". This shows how bitter the world has become and that it becomes so evil its eating its own heart; which to me is not only a sick action but inhumane and sadistic. It proves just how heartless the creature is (literally). My question is why would Stephen call this creature "friend" when it is obviously an evil being?
ReplyDeleteMolly I think your point about humans liking pain is true when compared to this poem. Crane states "I like it, Because it is bitter, And because it is my heart." I think by this he is trying to get across to the reader that every one of us has a masochistic side. Not necessarily because we are self destructive, but that in feeling pain we feel the need for comfort. What need would there be for a god, or a friend if we weren't suffering without them? Even evil friends are companions. Humans thrive off of relationships and interaction. Without even the acknowledgment of another human being we would succomb to loneliness which is oftentimes more horrible than intense pain. If there was no pain, would man still need interaction? Or is loneliness a form of pain and without it we would need no one?
ReplyDeleteHolly, I really love what you said here: "What need would there be for a god, or a friend if we weren't suffering without them?" That is, to me, the perfect thing to say to a naturalist who is seeking God. Naturalists believe that God is distant and indifferent. Man is on his own and the struggles in his life are seen to originate in his environment and in his actions. As a naturalist, Crane understands that all men will struggle in life and the important thing is not to avoid struggle, but to avoid high degrees of struggle. This is why Crane, as the main character and narrator of the story, when he encounters the creature, he doesn't question the creatures appearance or why the creature is suffering so much that it would eat its own heart. He only asks "Is it good, friend." Here, he is only concerned about how difficult the struggle is, not the conditions by which the creature came to this struggle. Crane, the character, doesn't dehumanize the creature because of its struggle, but calls it friend. My question is why Crane the Author seems to dehumanize the creature by calling it a creature (not a man), by calling it naked, and by calling it bestial (or like a beast). Why do Crane the author and Crane the narrator seem to have different opinions of the same creature appearance and actions?
ReplyDeleteMike Lentz
I agree with what Val said, "The creature described in the poem is Satan, the most prominent manifestation of evil. The creature is consuming the heart as a metaphor for the way that evil and sin completely consume the very heart of humanity." It helped explain to me why someone was eating a heart because it was unclear to me why a man would eat his heart in the desert. But, in another angle, is the man really a man and is in fact eating his heart to end the pain he's enduring?
ReplyDeleteSam Domoracki
Holly, I agree that Crane is saying that all men have a masochistic side. I think the creature realizes that he is an evil creature and that no one wants to be around, which represented a large part of the world. Therefore he lives by himself in the desert and is lonely. I think that loneliness is a form of pain, mostly because the lonely desires to actively be with others. Then they don't feel liked and they feel that there existence is pointless. He eats his own heart because it is an awful thing to do, and finds pleasure in the pain. My question is, why does Crane address the creature as friend? Is the creature really lonely?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI did not look at this poem in such a way as Val did at first, but seeing that it is a naturalist poem, I believe she gave a very good interpretation to it. From Crane's own beliefs about God, I think that it would be right in saying that the onlooker, as Folarin called it, would be God. He did not do anything when his so called friend started eating his own heart but instead just asked how it tasted, which would reflect a naturalist's belief that God could really care less about us. The only thing I am not quite on board with is the creature being Satan. Yes, Satan tempts us and turns our hearts bitter, but why would Satan eat his own heart and not ours? I would be more likely to believe that it is us as humans, eating our own heart and enjoying its bitter taste because sin has overcome us and we often seem to enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Adam. I do not believe the creature is Satan. I believe it is us. In the beginning Adam and Eve were in fact naked and they realized this because of the fall. They were in fact clothed by God until that point. Man was no longer perfect after that point. People do in fact find pleasure in their sins thus enjoying the taste of their bitter hearts. I also agree with the idea of God being the onlooker because He is considered "malevolent." Why would the creature delight in his wickedness or his heart being bitter? Does he enjoy it because it is real?
ReplyDeleteI think the poem In the Desert by Stephen Crane does not necessarily have to do with the temptations of Christ in the desert or the fall of man. Rather, I think that this poem serves as an example of what Naturalists believe about religion and about God. I think Crane is meaning to represent the friend in the poem as God. The friend in this poem asks the creature eating his own heart, “ Is it good friend?.” The friend does nothing he does not intervene or tell the creature to stop eating of his own heart making him a perfect illustration for what naturalists believe about God. Naturalists believe that God exists and that he is malevelont, but that the presence of evil in the world suggests that God somehow has abandoned humanity and does not intervene. The creature most would say is Satan eating away it his own heart, however,the creature is massachistic when he says “ it is bitter-bitter..but I like it.” I think that creatures in poetry are supposed to signify Satan most of the time, but I wonder if this could be a portrayal of humanity instead. Humans have hearts and is this they might be represented as the creature eating away at his own heart. Humans are someties massachistic and the creature could be used in this poem to illustrate how God turns his eyes away from sin or evil in humanity and does not interfere. This would go along with the idea that Crane was trying to show what the Naturalist believe: that God is malevelont and that He turns His face away from sin and evilness which are part of human nature. My question is this could the creature be a representation of mankind instead of the devil?
ReplyDeleteLena Olea
My initial thought from reading Stephen Crane's poem "In the desert" is: "What kind of drugs is this guy on?" It reminded me instantly of Gollum from The Lord of the Rings, just saying'. After re-reading it a few times and trying to pry it apart I understood the story a bit more. When the creature says "It is bitter - bitter, but I like it because it is bitter, and because it is my heart" a big red flag went up in my mind that took me back to the discussion we had in class about masochism. This creature is inflicting self-pain, but in a weird twisted way is enjoying it. Something must have happened in its life to make it this way, but whatever that could have been has consumed it and turned it into a monster that is separate from the rest of society. I'm wondering what background this creature has that could have turned it into a bitter psychopath.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I struggled with this poem I believe that it is about the main character and his meeting with this inhuman creature in a desert. I believe that the desert my not be a real desert, but really a land void of anything and everything. Next, as the main character sees the creature eating his own heart, I think this describes the heart as the creatures nurishment and an entity all on its own. Then, when the main character is talking to the creature and calls it friend, I think that he may see something of himself in the creature and wants to understand it. I think that the creatures response means that although his heart is bitter causes him pain it is still part of him and he is happy with it. My question about this is; why would Crane write a poem like this? Does his heart (soul/mind) cause him pain?
ReplyDelete