When reading Turner’s excerpts, I was reminded of the fact that people experienced the frontier differently depending on where they were and when they arrived. We touched upon this topic in class, but I think it is something that requires more attention. In my mind, I think of the frontier as one thing: a place in the middle of the country with lots of prairies and Indian tribes. However, it is important we don’t have this singular image of the frontier stuck in our minds because it takes away the significance of the individualism that exists for each region. Turner talks about how, “it is evident that the farming frontier of the Mississippi Valley presents different conditions from the mining frontier of the Rocky Mountains” (4). We have to also remember that there were many different types of Indian tribes that inhabited these regions. Each encounter could pose a new challenge depending on who was already there. When the pioneers packed up their things to move out West, each person had a very different experience and I think that this is something that we should not discount.

In Turner’s essay it is especially interesting to read how he refers to the land, and how that compares to Cather. Overall Turner refers to the land of the frontier as an intense force, which is at first “too strong for the man” (2). The pioneer must adapt to the environment by adopting techniques of the Natives, and only then will they be able to transform the wilderness. However, because of this, and perhaps more importantly, Turner states that the resulting society (and indeed people) that survive and perform this process are very much different from the way they were (… but the outcome is not the Old Europe… [but is] a new product that is American” (3)). In this way the frontier environment is a formidable opponent to pioneers, but at the same time an agent of great change and the means by which the American identity was formed.

How does this view compare with Cather and O Pioneers! ?

Just as an aside, I find it also interesting how through page 2 Turner made many references to Indian things such as trails, birch canoes, moccasins and scalping but at no point mentions any actual Native Americans.

I found the section regarding the “three classes” of the farmer’s advance particularly interesting. The first class, especially, seemed to correlate to Alexandra. The piece suggests that the first class of the farmer’s advance maintains a strong sense of independence and personal freedom. This statement immediately made me contemplate not only Alexandra’s situation, but even that of her father early on. Despite her being in charge of her homestead and even becoming quite successful later on, was Alexandra free? Further, did her success on the frontier make her more or less free than her father, who experienced only hardship during his time there?

In “The Significance of the Frontier in American History”, Turner references the impact the wilderness has on the European colonist. Instead of directly talking about the land, as Cather does, Turner references moccasins, the Cherokee, and the Iroquois as changing the Europeans (2). What might Cather think of this portrayal of the West? Does Turner use the American Indian references as allusions to the West as a whole, or is he literally referencing “Indian” impact on the frontier?

In this essay, Turner addresses many aspects of the frontier from its historic significance, to its contrast to European traditions, to the pros and cons of its relationship to individualism. It was interesting to consider the eastern states as the frontier of Europe, and as independence was achieved how the frontier had physically moved. Again, as with ‘O Pioneers’ we see the struggle between society and the wild, with society eventually championing but only after considerable. Further he stresses the different manners in which society championed, that laws and order differed in each town. This speaks to the larger question of individualism, and how in land for which there are no societal restrictions each person is able to find their own way. Perhaps most interesting to me of the piece was the culture of the pioneer, one fraught with “restless, nervous energy.”

In “A Novel without a Hero”, Cather’s strong female characters are recognized, but ultimately, the text states that the tale is not a feminine one, and that “Miss Cather had nothing so inartistic in mind.” Does the writer believe a feminist novel would be inartistic because it would lack nuance, and thus miss the breadth of Cather’s arguments regarding the American dream? Is the term “inartistic” a function of the early 1900’s misogyny? Or, is it merely a reflection of Cather’s own pronouncement that the novel was not, in essence, feminist?

This review of O Pioneers contrasts Cather’s opinions in Nebraska which applauds the immigrant effect on the frontier and calls it distinctly European, by instead calls O Pioneers “a tale that is American in the best sense of the word.” The review does not elaborate on what it means by this, in fact it goes so far as to point out how much the story O Pioneers contradicts the average American’s aspirations which do not involve back breaking work on the field. One thing the review does observe is that the novel is a feminist piece, and points to Alexandra and Maria as the heroines of the novel in addition to Mother Earth.

In this writing, Cather addresses her European roots with potent emotion and champions the European mentality to American. Multiple times in “Nebraska” does she point out the cultureless United States, rather pointing the Europe as the cradle of civilization”. For this reason I find it interesting that she becomes such a contributor to the documenting of and understanding of American culture, which she repudiates so strongly in this text. Furthermore I think she points to a question which is applicable to many children of immigrants; that is, now that your parents have succeeded through work in this new world, what now? Immigrant parents express their hope that by settling elsewhere they would provide a better life for their children, one free of the burdens that they themselves have endured. Cather condemns the emphasis put on materialism by these children of immigrants, however she fails to find a substitute.

In Cather’s reflection of her novels and their respective successes, I thought it was not a unique opinion. Often times it is said that writers will write what is most familiar to them, whether it be regarding themselves or a place or community. I did wonder if this holds across other genres however: for example, in sci-fi or fantasy novels, how much does the author leave of themselves in the book in relation to other writers?

In the novel, Alexandra is known for conquering the land and securing a future for her family, the earth itself granted Alexandra this virtue. She did not succeed in spite of her femininity but because of it. At first it is “barren and stubborn” but is defeated by “the goddess of fertility” Alexandra. Though the concept of women being connected to land through the power of fertility is a dated and problematic, I still see this review having a powerful message in 1913. I don’t think Cather implied to forward feminist theory in her novel but still left behind some kind of model that women used to imagine new realities even if rigid compared to modern standards.

Cather’s focuses on Nebraska and the influx of European immigrants. She celebrates the cultures that each European place brings. Instead of having a huge sense of nationalism like most authors of her time, she seems to reject the products of the new world and uplifts the sense of culture that the European immigrants brought with them. An example of this would be when she compliments the immigrants’ food. She seems very impressed that, although it is not made in the location that it came from, the immigrants are able to still give it the authentic taste. Europe, during that time, was a model or pure country. Since people from European countries concentrated Nebraska, Nebraska became the purest state in America. In this essay she speaks of only the positive aspects of Nebraska. She doesn’t seem to speak of many people who were negatively affected during this time, such as African Americans or Native Americans. Although she does, for a brief moment, address Natives by saying they are “unbothered”, which is false, she doesn’t seem to include the harsh realities of life for everyone in Nebraska. This makes me question if she is so caught up in her fascination with European culture that she becomes ignorant to the world around her, or does she want her essay to match her racially utopian styled book?