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?