One of the themes that resurfaces often in O Pioneers!, I think, is the theme of ownership and dignity of work. The novel suggests that being devoted to one’s work and loving the work for its own merit provides a kind of dignity, a feeling of rough individuality, and a sense of purpose that one cannot really attain by other means. It is the same with the land; to Alexandra, “the people who love [the land] and understand it are the people who own it” (122). In dignified work, there is a level of mutuality and of coexistence between the land and the person toiling upon it. We begin to see a fundamental difference between struggling with the land –– a formidable, unforgiving force of nature –– and struggling against it.

Throughout the novel, though, we see other characters in Alexandra’s life who fall short of Alexandra’s simple self-determination; they fail to appreciate their work as an opportunity to make something of themselves aside from material gain, and instead turn to other satisfactory egresses, like alcohol, restless travel, or illicit love –– often meeting undignified and tragic ends. Emil and Marie, hopelessly in love, are killed by Frank who is sentenced with 10 years in prison. Meanwhile, Lou and Oscar, who are distracted by their jealousy and resentment towards Alexandra’s success and her relationship with Carl, struggle to subdue the land, and never achieve the noble stature or success of their older sister.

I thought that I would motivate a question that has been on my mind for a while now (please enlighten me, because I can’t seem to find the answers): What significance does Alexandra’s recurring dream –– “an illusion of being lifted up bodily and carried lightly by some one very strong” (80), by a god-like figure of the pastures, who smells sweetly of ripe cornfields –– have? Is it possible that these fantasies are a manifestation of Alexandra’s inner desire to be mobile, to be light and detached enough to be taken away from the land which is she so rooted to? A few months after Emil’s death, she is carried, once again, in the arm of the “mightiest of all lovers,” (112), and even sees him upon returning to her room, a mysterious figure marked by a long, white cloak, shoulders “as strong as the foundations of the world,” and a dark and gleaming arm. This time, Alexandra seems surprisingly resolved –– she comes to know, at last, “from whom it was she had waited, and where he would carry her.” A few days later, she travels to Lincoln to see Frank, the murderer of her brother, with an unusual sense of purpose and clarity. Do you think there’s a connection there?

Alexandra seems to feel very disappointed in Marie after everything happened. As in page 117, Cather narrated about Alexandra blaming on Marie “She blamed Marie bitterly. And why, with her happy, affectionate nature, should she have brought destruction and sorrow to all who had loved her ,…” It appears to Alexandra that Marie was the main reason to cause all the troubles. Later in the chapter, when Carl came to meet her she said “Could you have believed that of Marie Tovesky? I would have been cut to pieces, little by little, before I would have betrayed her trust in me! (120)” It is hard for Alexandra to believe and accept the truth that Marie and Emil had a secret affair. However, at the end she did not put any blame on Marie.  As they both, Carl and Alexandra continued the conversation they agreed that “There are women who spread ruin around them through no fault of theirs, just by being too beautiful, too full of life and love. (121)”

Following the death of her brother and close friend, Alexandra grapples with the idea of death. She wonders if death is similar to the darkness you experience before you’re born. Subsequently, as Alexandra lays in bed, she feels tired of life and perhaps even envious of her dead brother. These feelings cause Alexandra to conclude that Frank, not the murder victims, was “paying the heaviest penalty” (112). Moreover, seeing Frank only furthers her “disgust of life” (118). Thus, her somewhat positive view of death seems to help propel her sympathy for Frank in this section.

In the final section of the book, I found it very interesting looking at the manifestation of blame among the characters, regarding the deaths of Emil and Marie. Lou and Oscar both blame Alexandra (which doesn’t surprise me based on their characters), Alexandra herself blames Emil and Marie for what happened to them, and Frank blames primarily himself, though he does say that he partially blames Marie, and that he hates her for “making [him] do [it]” (117).

However, does it seem as though Alexandra blames herself as well, but doesn’t speak of it? After all she has done a great deal to allow Emil to have (at least what she perceives as) more freedom in life and accomplish great things. Does she believe if she had done things differently this may not have happened? May that’s why she feels obligated to help Frank: the only person she can help now.

In the Turner’s article, he describes the west ward expansion “developing at each area of this progress out of the primitive economic and political conditions of the frontier…” The frontier is characterized as shifting wave of progress. Then there are the individuals that Turner describes as “expanding people.”

On the frontier lies the land and the people. The people strive for their individualism, their own improvement and progress. There is, the land that is full of opportunity for all. I noted that the two are often paired together. However, I find them to contradict one another. Although people settled in the frontier to seek individual freedom, they still were tied to the prosperity of their neighbors. Expansion was a national effort.

I was surprised that Alexandra had an interest in seeing Frank in prison. She forgave him and told him openly, “I hope you’ll let me be friendly with you. I understand how you did it I don’t feel hard toward you. They were more to blame than you.” (116)  She thought to herself that Marie brought the tragedy upon herself because of her overly loving nature. Do you interpret this as Alexander being “out of character?”

This conclusion to the novel left us with Cather’s interpretation of the frontier in the words of Alexandra: “The land belongs to the future… we come and go, but the land is always here. And the people who love it and understand it are the people who own it- for a little while.” She is describing the conquest or dominance of the land to equate to the future, that while we may strive to attain a goal or ‘dream’ it will always be fleeting and once one comes to terms with this is when possibilities open.

It also concludes with Alexandra succumbing to her love for Carl and admitting her loneliness- until this point in the novel Alexandra has alluded to solitude but has rather identified it as independence. Here we truly see the burden she has undergone in the years and its psychological effects on her.

There are only a few references to the displaced Indians in this novel, but one such reference comes on 95 while Emil is visiting Amédée’s baby and wife. Emil says,  “I say, Angelique, one of Médée’s grandmothers, ‘way back, must have been a squaw. This kid looks exactly like the Indian babies.” Angelique responds by making a face at Emil while Mrs. Chevalier lets out “a stream of fiery patois” (95) that prompts Emil to leave the kitchen. Clearly, Emil’s comment is taken as a severe insult, to which these women react in different ways. Thus, I assume that Emil meant this comment as an insult. Given Emil’s status as a somewhat likable character, why do you think Cather has him make an use the Indians to insult this family? What does that show about his character or perhaps about all characters?

“There was about Alexandra an impervious calm of the fatalist, always disconcerting to very young people, who cannot feel that the heart lives at all unless it is still at the mercy of it is still at the mercy of storms; unless its strings can scream to the touch of pain” (89). Alexandra’s impervious calm is a product of her complete submersion in to the land and devotion to its success, a way of life that she has claimed several times takes a toll on the mind and soul making them “grow hard and heavy” (48). Alexandra feels pain, perhaps not the same sharp, roller coaster like pain as Emil or Marie, but a slow, numbing loneliness that has resulted from her inherited obligations and self sufficient nature. Alexandra’s pain is not so much acute as it is a general burden that comes with her responsibilities which she has made a certain peace with. This quote is an interesting foresight towards the tragedy that occurs later on.

Having just finished the novel (no worries, I won’t give anything away), I am curious to see what everyone thinks about Alexandra’s ending. Do you think it’s fair to say the American Dream worked in her favor, or against? I’m still processing all that I read and I can’t seem to come to a declarative answer.

Cather expresses strong inner monologues which are interesting and genuine. For instance, in Part III section I at the scene of Marie’s monologue, it sparks my interest that Cather makes a well description on Marie’s life without using any conversation. Simultaneously, it seems that nothing happens to Alexandra and Carl’s relationship, but Emil and Marie make a big change in their affair. I am not curious about the relationship between Alexandra and Carl. In contrast, the affair among Frank, Emil and Marie is more likely complicated. I am eager to know the result of this triangle connection.

Throughout the novel, we begin to know more and more about Marie and Frank’s relationship. We know that Frank acts stubbornly and makes it hard for Marie to be happy, but does Marie blame herself for this sour relationship? On page 77, Marie talks about how Frank should be with a different type of wife, someone who can constantly be there to serve him. She then goes on to say “It seems as if I always make him just as bad as he can be,” (Cather 78). Does she think that because of the person she is, Frank has no other choice but to act out? Does this type of society and time period foster the idea that women are the ones to blame?

Throughout the novel, Alexandra makes sacrifices so that Emil can enjoy the life that she was never able to live. Does Emil’s act with Marie symbolize Emil living the impassioned life Alexandra worked so hard for Emil to indulge in?

Cather’s statements regarding love in this portion of the book are extremely pessimistic. The entire novel is filled with failed or unfulfilling marriages between mismatched individuals, and when  ‘true’ couples emerges, Emil and Maria or Amedee and Angelique, their stories end in tragedy. Perhaps Cather is attempting to normalize or support Alexandra’s decision to remain single, or perhaps Cather is shedding a light on her own opinions about love. Nevertheless, Alexandra is now facing a new challenge- the loss of her compass, Emil, for it was he that she worked for all these years. Will we see her return from his devastating death as she has dealt with other struggles in the past?

In this section of the novel there is much to discuss about Alexandra’s opinions on marriage and  societal norms. Upon her confrontation with Lou, Oscar and ‘everyone’, Alexandra is left to deal with her own emotions regarding Carl and their future. Several questions arose from this reading for me: Is it sexism or age-ism or both that motivate Lou’s and Oscar’s opinions? Is Alexandra’s sudden development of feelings for Carl genuine, or is it an act of defiance in response to her brothers beliefs that this is the one thing that she cannot do? Are the marriages and couples portrayed in this novel a result of love or convenience and societal expectation?

I would like to talk about how Cather further develops and dissolves three relationships in this section of reading.

The first is the complicated relationship that is never meant to be between Marie and Emil highlighted in chapter VIII.  I wonder about the symbolism of the trees in this section, especially the cherries and the white mulberry, as they discuss if trees bring good or bad luck.

The second is the familial relationship between Alexandra and her brothers developed in chapter X.  Their argument over Carl and Alexandra highlights the tension over their property and their sexist perceptions of who deserves the right to it.

Finally in chapter XII the termination of the potential relationship between Carl and Alexandra highlights the intersection of societal norms, wealth and love.

The content of these pages of O Pioneers! left me feeling both extremely angry and sad. To begin, the conversation between Carl, Lou, and Alexandra regarding Carl was enough to make me want to rip the pages out of my book! Alexandra’s brothers are ignorant, ungrateful, sexist, and represent the prevalent opinions among men of this time period. Further, it is apparent that Alexandra’s heart is breaking as the men she truly loves — Carl and Emil — plan to leave her. Her unhappiness is demonstrative of the fact that despite her success in business, what she truly wants is to have a companion.

Starting from a Swedish-American immigrant in the farm country of Hanover, Cather artificially writes a fiction, mirroring societal situation in the early 20th century. Bergsons’ family, taking as an example, partly shapes and builds the life structure in America. Specifically, Alexandra has devoted herself in young age, lifting up her family and confronting with the social pressure. At the same time of having hardship, this individual has never given up her intention to preserve what she already owned and striven to achieve her dream of developing her farmland. Cather also emphasizes on page 26, “The history of every country begins in the heart of a man or a woman.”

While every immigrant cannot deal with the economic issues then decide to leave their farmlands, Alexandra highly commits to stick with her land even though it is risky to own the bank’s contracts. She invests her time to go down among the river farms with Emil, trying to make sure her decision of staying up there is absolutely right. She goes to ask Ivar, seeking for advice to retrieve her family’s farmland as the father’s will. So to speak, she has tried all her best to save family’s heritage. Cather also shows that it is not necessary that only man can lead the family. Alexandra, who represents the potential women, is one of the good role model for eliminating discrimination against women in the society.

At this first half of novel, Alexandra’s dream comes true. Her hard work does pay off. I am very curious of what is going on after this scenario.

The conversation that occurs between Carl and Alexandra as they are reflecting on their different stations in life after 16 years of foraging their own paths is very intriguing in the way they discuss their sense of freedom. Freedom and the desire for it has been a constant theme in our discussion of the American dream so far. Carl and Alexandra’s contrasting opinions as to whether either of them have achieved the dream or not further shows the allusiveness of its definition and the extent to which what it means to “be free” is unique in some way to every individual. Alexandra responds to Carl calling himself a “failure” by insisting she would “rather have had [his] freedom than [her] land” (47), and later in the conversation admits that she “would rather have Emil grow up like that than like his two brothers” (48). Carl disagrees, sadly sharing his reality that “freedom so often means that one isn’t needed anywhere” (47). For Carl, his dream is not complete without the strong sense of purpose and deep connection that Alexandra possesses in her life. Carl’s ability to pursue whatever path he wants with minimal consequence comes with a price of feeling detached from what really matters in life, family. Alexandra understands this yet still prefers Carl’s way of life for Emil, saying “we grow hard and heavy here. We don’t move as easily as you do, our minds get stiff” (48). Alexandra’s deep sense of purpose comes from her being born into circumstances which forced her to have great responsibility. What she wants for her younger brother is to have the freedom to choose his purpose and responsibilities, regardless of his roots.