A Zuckerberg in Yankee Connecticut

I awoke in a panic – couldn’t miss that executive meeting. Only… Everything around me looked different. The air was musty. The wooden boards of my bed creaked. I heard the rhythmic clacking of horse-hoofs.

In total confusion, I went outside, scratching my head. People were looking at me like I was crazy – I looked down – my shirt was a day old, but no one could have known. My tie was decent… Except no one else was even wearing a tie. I told myself that I must have gotten smashed last night and ended up in Colonial Williamsburg. My phone was about to die, but I quickly tried to send a text that I would be late to the meeting. No service. I would be stuck here for a while.  

It took me about a week to realize (and accept the fact that) I had been transported back in time to the late 19^th century. But without knowing how or why, I, in my pragmatist ways, set out to utilize that which I had become famous for – fulfilling the American Dream.

One morning, I bought a newspaper; Mark Twain had written an article. People were chuckling at it in appreciation, but I resisted the urge to roll my eyes. It was too wordy. You see, in my world, eloquence doesn’t stem from one’s ability to construe an artful sentence. Instead, we judge literary prowess by one’s ability to encrypt computer code.  In addition, we value a “less is more” kind of approach when it comes to digital communication, which is basically the only kind of communication we use. Abbreviations, acronyms and brevity are commodities. Sure, literature exists in art forms; but those are practically obsolete; or worse: bookish. I used to be considered a nerd, until the nerd became the new jock. But Bookish –well, that won’t secure you a spot, grassy and green as money, in the Valley of Silicon.

Twain’s Patriotic article got me thinking… His pride in the democracy of his day was, to put it mildly, kind of cute. For our democracy today is far superior to that of his time. Our ability to globalize democracy using technology, now that’s something to be proud of. We’re better at democracy because we can sell it, not by inciting wars and revolutions, but by exploiting the freedom of expression with the click of a button. A Syrian war refuge can leak footage on Facebook, a North-Korean citizen can Instagram a picture. Our democracy today is the democracy of the First Amendment. It’s a step above from the mere liberation from a tyrant.

So is Twain deluding himself into thinking that his America boasts a utopian democracy? What kind of system turns a blind eye to slavery, or prevents women from voting, or getting an education? Sure, Twain himself and his contemporaries had the freedom to write whatever they wanted; but now, with the advancement of an online civilization, where country borders are blurred and bridges made out of computer code are constructed across continents, democracy can really flourish. The first amendment of the United States can be upheld globally. And technology is the answer. It will solve our problems.

So I set to marry technology and democracy, for I knew, based on my knowledge of the future, that it’d prove a happy and fruitful union. I began to set up networks across the town. I didn’t have the know-how to do this alone, but I knew enough algorithms to get the right kinds of minds started. My team and I worked tirelessly and endlessly for years on end.

And it was a massive success. Just as I knew it would be, social media began to reign. And it evolved quickly, almost too quickly.

Eventually, the global society running under my thumb became a world that was entirely virtual. But I was pleased with the result because that was the future of technology – people wouldn’t have to exist in the real world any longer. People were in love with the concept of being avatars, creating identities online and living virtually through them. I blurred the lines between reality and fantasy. Until finally, everyone was so hooked, that my world imploded.

Robert Frost once said that the world may end in “fire or ice.” Well, technology had frozen the world of human interaction. I had gotten civilization to the point where I wanted it to be, in the name of globalizing democracy; but in the end, I killed the need for a democracy at all, because I had no civilization left to work with; only a population of cyborgs.

Fire or ice, it doesn’t matter. Hank’s with fire, mine with ice. I thought his democracy was primitive, but looking at mine, I realize that society hasn’t advanced at all. 

A Credible Site with Information about Connecticut Yankee

The University of Virginia Libraries host a quality site on Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. There's a lot of shallow and even factually inaccurate information on the web about Twain and this novel, so I thought I would point you to a site you can trust.

Check it out.

Hank the Yank

There were a few questions that bothered me while I was reading A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. First of all, why is Hank so ridiculously resourceful? After all, he had woken up in a different century, for no apparent reason. Yet he reacts quite calmly, rationally discounts the theory of a circus troupe or asylum escapees, and definitively proves for himself that he is in Middle Ages, and that is all that is said on the matter. He never doubts his own sanity, never suspects an involved dream, doesn't get sidetracked with idle thoughts on the superstitious occurrence. Without wasting time, in the space of a few chapters, he makes himself Boss of the country, and creates an underground Industrial Revolution, with time left over to engage in some marketing (in the form of Ye Olde Gilt Sandwich Boards). He takes over a country and starts an impromptu Enlightenment in the span of a few years. How? Yankee pragmatism. Obviously, any Yankee worth his brass knows how to build a national infrastructure; After all, we built up our country. We can fix England right up too. [Cue American national anthem and national pride.] 

Twain is writing a satire. Hank isn’t meant to be a realistic person, instead, he’s the American voice, representative of American revolutionism and resourcefulness, “as American as apple pie,” so they say. The juxtaposition of Hank to the coarse Arthurian nobility becomes funny with a tinge of feel-good American patriotism. 

Alright, I can understand a nationalistic tale with satiric overtones. 

But that led to my led to my next question. Why interpose comedic scenes full of monarchial mockery with dark episodes of torture, slavery, and murder?After hearing how the people of Camelot are just like a bunch of children, it comes like a slap in the face to hear of lines of chained slaves, inherited prisoners who haven’t even a name left to them, and cries from the basement being wrested out of the man on the rack, all at the whim of these children. 

The reader is forcibly reminded why America fought a revolution, and how wrong “taxation without representation” can really go. A monarchy subjugates human beings without having the authority to do so. Monarchy is historically anti-American, and by extension enslavement is anti-American. In this way, Twain inexorably leads his readers to question the morality of slavery.

Twain establishes a nationalistic theme, harks back to the Revolutionary War and anti-monarchial sentiment, then expresses the idea of monarchy, the enslavement of human beings. He forces American readers to sympathize with the downtrodden Arthurian masses, and associate themselves with them. Once that empathy is established, the question that logically follows is then how could Americans be slaveowners, and be a cause of human subjugation after having fought to throw off the yoke of a king. The blatant Americanism that is Hank, the forthright, intellectual, compassionate rational Yankee, is Twain’s attempt to wake the country to do as they preach.

After all, what’s a Yankee? 
To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast. (attributed to E. B. White)

Sci-Fi or fantasy

When I hear about Time-Travel books, I automatically assume they are sci-fi, someone created a time machine and is using it to time travel. Dr. Who, Back to The Future, etc. However, in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, the time travel aspect is complete fantasy, there is no science behind it. The time-travel aspect is conducted via pure fantasy, with the protagonist falling asleep and waking up in this new time, not via the sci-fi methods of current day, which include a time machine like   or etc etc.
This may be in part because in Twain's time there was not enough scientific understanding for him to even imagine that to be scientifically possible, as Stephen Hawking says, "Time travel was once considered scientific heresy." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1269288/STEPHEN-HAWKING-How-build-time-machine.html). There is an important aspect in Science Fiction that there needs to be that science aspect, and in a lack of any possibility of that, the genre is now fantasy. Now we have enough understanding of science to think this:

could be possible, and extended to time travel, but then, it was impossible. Twain did not even try to come up with a plausible machine that could lead to time travel, and rather chose to stick with Washington Irving's method of "just fall asleep and wake up in a different time". While this is a classic method of time travel, it is much more in the fantasy realm than science fiction. However, despite it being fantasy, it may have led to the burst of time travel science fiction, because once you are given this great idea, it is easy to turn it into science, as many later authors did.

However, there is a totally different sense of the blend between science fiction and fantasy in this novel. The protagonist uses the science of his time to simulate fantasy, or magic. Two prime examples of this are when he "darkens the world" using his knowledge of the solstice and when he strikes down Merlin's tower using gunpowder and a lightning rod. This is an early form of Science Fiction, but instead of Twain coming up with possible advances in technology as modern science fiction does, he moved the time period of the story back and used "modern" technology from his own time that was futuristic for the setting of the story. The confusion that the people have, thinking this is magic, or what we would call fantasy, is similar to the confusion we might have with modern Science Fiction about if it is sci-fi or fantasy when something is so beyond our own reality.
This is a lesson in showing us that just because something is unheard of now, does not mean it is impossible or must be magic, rather we must further our development of science until we get to that point. As Twain was a proponent of technological advances, this lesson is taught well through the use of existing technologies that we see the uses of today instead of creating new ones that can only exist in our minds. Twain is telling the reader that our technology is so useful and can do great things that were unthought of in previous generations, and through that, encouraging his, and future, generations to continue this development and create more for their times. Instead of giving the ideas for new technology like Asimov or Star-Trek, Twain is giving the motivation for new technology through his "backwards" sci-fi.

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court

             When I was younger one of my favorite book series was the Magic Tree House, written by Mary Pope Osborne. I loved going on adventures with the two main characters, Jack and Annie, as they traveled through time in their magic tree house. As the series develops it becomes clear that the magic tree house that Jack and Annie travel in is courtesy of Morgan le Fay, who in the story is the magical librarian of King Arthur’s ancient library. She sends Jack and Annie on multiple adventures to collect certain objects or accomplish certain tasks in order to ultimately save the ancient library from being destroyed. Through the adventures, Jack and Annie, and thus the reader as well, learn about different time periods in earth’s history, ranging from the age of the dinosaurs to Shakespeare and beyond.

In A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Morgan le Fay is characterized as an evil sociopath. She is a queen who is sweet as can be to those who find favor in her eyes, yet simultaneously she is a complete tyrant to those who displease her. For example, even for the slight offense of accidentally losing his balance and lightly touching her, the handsome page serving Morgan le Fay, is killed instantly, by the queen herself.

The contrast is quite striking. Morgan le Fay in the Magic Tree House is portrayed as this famous librarian attempting to act righteously as she tries her best to save King Arthur’s library. Yet, in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Morgan le Fay is a crazed queen willing to hurt and kill whomever she wants. Due to this stark distinction between portrayals of her character I decided to research who Morgan le Fay really was with regards to the King Arthur legend. I discovered that according to legend she was an extremely powerful magician and sorceress (which does coincide with the Jack and Annie stories), yet she was not on good terms (an understatement) with King Arthur. This is where legend and A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court) differ to the Magic Tree House.

I read the Osborne series when I was much younger and thus, in my mind, Morgan le Fay is a morally good character. Osborne wrote a book directed towards children and therefore could not design a character who killed others for entertainment. I find it extremely interesting that she would use a character who did behave in such unscrupulous ways as the basis for her good character, as opposed to using a more ethically neutral individual. Perhaps it was her way of portraying the good in humanity—a positive idea that is important to imbue in children in order to encourage optimistic thoughts. Mark Twain, on the other hand, portrays Morgan le Fay with her true colors—an evil sorceress who kills for pleasure. It appears to me that Twain has written a sort of satire for human nature. He mocks the stupidity of the nobility, perhaps insinuating that the wealthy and powerful personages are in reality not as sophisticated as they seem as they are actually rather dimwitted and driven by power and greed. He portrays the wickedness and selfishness of humanity through this character of Morgan le Fay as she places individuals in prison and kills whenever she feels like. She is the epitome of selfishness as she hurts anyone who dares to irritate her or who appears as an obstacle to her power.

  Osborne, in writing a children’s book, could not possibly represent mankind as legend would dictate-- in such a dark and morbid manner. As a result, the very character that depicts pure malevolence in legend, is transformed into the mysterious, beautiful and kindhearted Morgan le Fay of the Magic Tree House.

Blog Update and Links

Please check out all of the new blog posts below and add your comments. I even posted one myself. Also, here are links to two other blogs created by former students in my classes:

Modernism Blog

This blog was for another honor's course, this one focused on modernist writers including James Joyce, Gertrude Stein, Wallace Stevens, Samuel Beckett, and others.

Literature and Culture of the Roaring Twenties

This blog was for a non-honor's course focusing on the literature and culture of 1920s-era America.

Myth and Magic in Washington Irving

Starting with Irving makes sense in some ways. He is historically recognized as the first internationally respected American author. Especially in terms of short fiction, he is a legitimate grandfather-figure for future writers in the United States. It is worth observing, however, that there was certainly writing with elements of myth and magic in it in the colonial New World prior to Irving. Myth and magic pervades Native American traditions, and European immigrants brought with them the ghost stories and magical tales of their home countries. Washington Irving approaches this background of myth and magic with wit and sophistication in the two stories we read for our course.

Washington Irving

I am especially interested in the paratext surrounding "Rip Van Winkle." Irving goes to pains to set up his story as based on a real document, a " tale ... found among the papers of the late Diedrich Knickerbocker, an old gentleman of New York." After it is completed, he further contextualizes the story in terms of Native American folklore (via the post-script about the Indian Spirit or Manitou of the "Catskill Mountains"). The implication here seems to be that the European colonialists in the New World lived midst a world of fable and magic that they did not understand (except perhaps Irving himself) but which nonetheless could affect them. Magic, in this context, comes from the unknown and exotic (to Irving) world of the Native Americans living in rural upstate New York.

"The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" is more sly in its depiction of magic. The magic is revealed as a mere practical joke, which nonetheless fools the superstitious villagers. It is primarily a story in which an oddball intellectual and strict schoolmaster gets his comeuppance by the village bully, but it is told from a position sympathetic to Ichabod (and to superstitious American villagers), so the dread and magic are taken seriously for a while. The idea is to portray superstitious Americans in a humorous way, while maintaining a suave and controlled distance through the sophistication of the narrator and the lyrical elegance of his prose. The magic may be phony in this story, but the portrayal of foolish American Dutch immigrants is not.

This narrative distance from superstition and magic is an aspect of what I called in class, "cosmopolitanism," an idea which I opposed to "provincialism." Irving uses the elegance and control of his prose style, combined with his gently mocking tone toward foolish small town Americans as a way of lending himself credibility with the readers he sought--as a way of making himself out to be cosmopolitan and worldly, despite the fact that he was an American. I assume part of this is mere defensiveness on Irving's part. Being a literary writer at this early stage in the history of the United States meant risking judgment and scorn from Europe, which at the time dominated and defined "high" cultural concerns like literary fiction. An American writer would be assumed to be rough and uncouth--in short, a provincial.

Irving implicitly defends himself against such European skepticism by himself portraying Americans as provincial. He delights in his subject's naiveté and superstition, having much fun with it at the expense of the Dutch Villagers he wrote about. This could potentially come off as narrow and mean-spirited, but part of Irving's gift is his ability to also express compassion and understanding towards his subjects, even as he mocks their childishness. Irving doesn't so much sneer at characters like Ichabod Crane and Rip Van Winkle, though he does have some fun at their expense.

As readers, we are invited to participate in this fun and, for the time we are reading his stories, to share Irving's perspective on his fellow Americans of the early nineteenth century. Irving encourages us, his readers, to see the world through his own cosmopolitan outlook, and in doing so, he promotes such an outlook and the assumptions that go along with it. In this way, his stories are part of a cultural movement to promote sophistication, awareness, and skepticism--among other cosmopolitan values--on the part of emergent American literary audiences.

As more and more Americans became literate, the market for fiction broadened. Perhaps the most important aspects of this cultural education for the United States was the emergence of a middle class readership, one that included increasing numbers of women and young people. As we shall see as the course proceeds, this change in audiences has had a profound effect on subsequent literature. Myth and magic persist but in excitingly diverse new forms.

Poe and Hawthorne: A Dialogue in Pictures

Although Poe and Hawthorne were contemporaries and often reviewed each other’s’ work, they never met face-to-face or put their minds together in collaboration over a work. That being said, times have changed. Even if correspondences today are confined to brief emails and witty tweets, a picture is still worth a thousand words. Therefore, a snapchat conversation between the two greatest American writers of the time could have spoken dictionaries of dialogue.

In a review of Hawthorne’s “Twice-Told Tales,” Poe says that there had been no “American tales of high merit… no skillful compositions – nothing which could bear examination as works of art,” save for a select few, until Hawthorne came along. Before him, bookshelves across American homes housed a “superabundance” of “melodramaticisms” –a “nauseating surfeit of low miniature copying of low life…” In generous praise for Hawthorne however, Poe says that within Hawthorne’s work, “there is not a single piece which would do dishonor to the best of the British essayists.” He deems Hawthorne’s style as “purity itself.”

While Hawthorne is generally thankful for the favorable reviews, he confesses to Poe that “I admire you rather as a writer of tales than as a critic upon them. I might often… dissent from your opinions in the latter capacity, but could never fail to recognize your force and originality.”

Just as Hawthorne releases a new work, “Mosses from an Old Manse,” and sends Poe a request to review it, he moves to Concord, Massachusetts, into the Old Manse house, where Ralph Waldo Emerson had formerly lived.  

Poe, antagonistic toward Emerson’s Transcendentalist work, then criticizes Hawthorne’s new piece and says, “Let [Hawthorne] mend his pen, get a bottle of visible ink, [and] come out from the Old Manse.”

However, Hawthorne rejected Transcendentalism as well. He, like Poe, was a Dark Romantic, a writer who wrote of individualism and imagination rooted in passion and emotion. Unlike the Romantics and Transcendentalists, he and Poe weren’t optimistic about humanity. They did not find the beauty in human nature. Instead, they explored the darker sides of man, the primordial evil that exists in every man’s chest and ultimately causes his own destruction.

For example, in “Young Goodman Brown,” Goodman Brown acknowledges that “evil is the nature of mankind.” After finding his wife in cohorts with the devil along with the rest of his town, he becomes “maddened with despair” and rushes onward “with the instinct that guides mortal man to evil.” In this story, evil is the ultimate equalizer. The hierarchy that society had established – the church deacons, the reverends, the court leaders – are all at the mercy of the desire to sin, for “the deep mystery of sin… supplies more evil impulses than human power.” The devil reveals to Goodman Brown that though “Ye had still hoped that virtue were not all a dream, now are ye undeceived… Evil must be your only happiness.” This quote in particular can perhaps be taken as a manifestation for Hawthorne’s contempt for the Transcendentalists and traditional Romanics. In this honest revelation about the truth of human nature, Hawthorne, like Poe in The Black Cat, draws on the disappointment, that loss of innocence that accompanies the realization that evil, not inherent goodness, is at the crux of the human identity.

The two writers were more like-minded than they knew. Therefore, had they communicated in the 21^st century today, perhaps they could have been friends, if not snapchat buddies. Below is summary of their dialogue above, represented for the generation of pictures. Had they possessed such a medium in their day, who knows what kinds of magnificent (if not downright depressing) works they could have collaborated to produce. 

Blog #1 Nathaniel Hawthorne: “Young Goodman Brown”

Tamara Levy

While I was reading Hawthorne a few major themes grabbed my attention. Firstly Hawthorne’s play on words is quite amazing. When Goodman Brown cries out in the forest, “my Faith is gone,” this phrase can be interpreted in a few different ways. One way would be the literal understanding: Goodman Brown’s wife, Faith, is gone. He has found the pink ribbon that she was wearing when he last saw her. Something must have happened to her as the ribbon is present but it is not being worn by Faith herself.

Another way of understanding the term “Faith” in this short story would be to realize that when Young Goodman Brown says, “my Faith is gone,” he is referring to his actual faith in the goodness of humanity. We see that Goodman Brown believes his wife to have been involved in the communion in the forest. As a result, he loses all faith in humanity; if his very own wife is involved in sin, evil, and the devil, then how can he trust any other human being? It becomes clear later on in the story that this is exactly what occurs. Goodman Brown does not trust people after this adventurous night, and he spends the rest of his life being wary of those around him.

The word “Faith” could also be referring to Goodman Brown’s faith in G-d. After such a terrifying night, Goodman Brown is at a loss as to what to believe is truth and what is false and evil. He becomes entirely confused between reality, superstition, good, and evil. Consequently, he looses faith in G-d. He does not have any sense of direction and he is waging a constant battle within himself that ultimately results in his loss of faith in G-d. He gives himself over to the devil, “come devil! For to thee is this world given.” He now believes that there is no such thing as G-d and in reality the devil is in charge of the world. Thus, his “Faith (in G-d) is gone!”

            When writing short stories, or any type of literature, an author has to design his/her writings in a way that will appeal to the audience he/she would like to address. Hawthorne lived in an extremely devout Puritan community in New England and therefore his writings tend to be more religiously based. From the two short stories that Hawthorne wrote (and that we have read so far) I can see that Hawthorne seems to have incorporated a lot of symbolism in his writings. I think that in “Young Goodman Brown” Hawthorne is exploring the idea of purifying oneself internally. Young Goodman Brown goes on this journey—to an unknown destination—alone. Self examination is exactly this. One can engage in introspection only on one’s own. No one can do it for someone else. Additionally, the destination remains unclear. When a person engages in self purification and introspection, what the individual will find cannot be predicted. The results can be startling to even the person himself just as it was in “Young Goodman Brown.” Goodman Brown discovers to his utter dismay that his “faith is gone.” He realizes that despite the fact that he lives and immerses himself in such a religious environment, with faith and G-d all around him, he actually lacks the faith within himself. He even lives with “Faith” in the same house (in the form of his wife)! Goodman Brown’s self introspection ends tragically. After this adventurous night he then spends the rest of his life searching for this faith that he wishes he had, as he exclaims in the story, “But, where is Faith?” The fact that he lacks an internal faith eats away at Goodman Brown until his last moments on earth. He lives his life feeling constant despair as he lacks meaning in life and in his everyday actions, as seen by his claim that “for thee (the devil) is this world given.”

            I believe that Hawthorne may be attempting to convey an extremely ironic message to his fellow Puritans. Perhaps Hawthorne felt as if his fellow community members were so involved in their day-to-day rituals and religious services that they had forgotten what the actual point was. Maybe Hawthorne was trying to convince other Puritans to engage in introspection and see what they could discover about themselves. If they find that they are lacking “Faith,” then what, Hawthorne seems to ask, is the ultimate point of all the rituals. These “rituals” are depicted in the “Young Goodman Brown” story via the extreme example of the communion that Goodman Brown witnesses. To Goodman Brown he is the outsider watching the rituals taking place. The participants all seem to be truly meaning what they are doing, yet Goodman Brown cannot understand this can be so, when they all lack inner faith.

It is quite amazing how no matter what time period people live in, individuals are grappling with similar day-to-day struggles. A major part of Judaism involves introspection. Every “ritual” and day-to-day activity that we engage in has an explanation. Part of our Judaic studies education is to learn the reasons behind the many things that we do, in order so we don’t become lost in the actions and forget the ultimate purpose—to demonstrate our faith in G-d and bring us closer to Him. Perhaps Hawthorne was trying to point out a major flaw in the Puritan culture—that people become so involved in doing the rituals that they forget why they are doing them in the first place. People become so committed to the actions that the procedures turn into automatic habit and “Faith” and inner belief are never developed. Hawthorne is explaining how if an individual were to actually take a moment to stop and think he/she could possibly realize the frightening truth: that he/she lacks internal “faith” completely. If this occurs and one does not take the time to establish this inner “faith,” one has the potential to live out the rest of his/her life in “gloom,” as Goodman Brown does. Perhaps Goodman Brown was forced to live this way because of the Puritan mentality that one must just do and believe. Hawthorne may have been pointing out what he felt to be a major defect in the Puritan culture—they do not spend time on developing internal faith and instead demand it from every individual no matter what. As a result, those few thoughtful, introspective individuals, such as Goodman Brown, are then subjected to empty lives full of despair and doubt; they feel as if their actions are worthless and pointless. Perhaps Hawthorne was trying to ignite in the Puritans a desire to develop “faith” itself, instead of just performing the empty “rituals.” 

Whinny-the-Pooh has always been an adorable fun companion for Christopher Robin and all kids who watched (or, on the occasional nostalgic binge, still watch) his show. That being said, for him to be juxtaposed with Edgar Allan Poe is pretty funny. Especially considering the character he has trapped beneath his floorboards is Eeyore who is quite the Poe-ish character.

Eeyore is such a mopey character that he literally has a personal rain cloud that follows him around. He sort of reminds me of Poe and characters Poe created (anyone else imagine Usher moping around that G-d forsaken house with a rain cloud hovering a few feet above his head?). Retroactively I can see myself watching the show and imagine Eeyore going home and writing depressing or creepy poetry. Eeyore, to me, is the image I associate with depression. Well Eeyore and now a Raven.  

Eeyore is the character in the show that reminds us just how pleasant everything else is. Without him the whole show would be sunshine daisies and honey and we wouldn't realize that it was pleasant because the atmosphere would be taken for granted. It takes a depressing donkey for us to realize that the other characters are happy (most of them anyway). He may not have written with this intention but with his stories and poems Poe achieves this same idea. By showing us how creepy the fictional world can be Poe reminds his readers how pleasant the actual world can be. 

 Pooh who is cute, fun and child friendly, can not be further from Edgar Allan Poe. 

Happens to be that they do have one commonality: Whinny-the-Pooh is not only characterized as a "hunny" loving, polite, kind bear, but also as a poet. Throughout the show Pooh writes cute and sometimes motivational poems and recites or even sings them to his animal friends and Christopher Robin. He even convinces Piglet to get him and Owl out of a bind by bribing him with an original Pooh poem (in an episode when Owl's house caves in and Piglet is the only one small enough to get out). However this makes the comparison to Edgar Allan Poe even funnier. Edgar Allan Poe's poems are incredible, but they can not be further from cute. Poe's temperance stories and poems certainly sparked some sort of reaction but they are not motivational in the adorable good-natured way the Pooh's are. 

All in all it's hard to see this comic and laugh at least a little. Poe's influence on American culture has expanded so far it has even reached Whinny-the-Pooh. That would be funny even if characters he was being imposed (pun very much intended) on were not ironic.