#3

While sitting inside the crowed Ghiradelli Ice Cream and Chocolate Shop, many people eagerly gobble down their ice cream sundaes with fudge dripping off their chins and peanuts stuck in their teeth; however, many of these happy and satisfied visitors are unaware of the story behind those delicious sundaes. The actual facts behind Ghiradelli Square are what make up a quintessential American success story. Domenico Domingo Ghiradelli first learned about chocolate making in his home town of Rapallo, Italy when he apprenticed as a young boy. While living in Peru, Domingo caught wind of the California Gold Rush and, leaving his family behind, he ventured off like many men in the hopes of discovering gold. Upon arriving in California, Domingo first attempted prospected but eventually ended up opening a general store in Stockton followed by a hotel in San Francisco. However, it was The Great San Francisco Fire of 1851 that destroyed Domingo's Europa Hotel as well as everything else he owned in San Francisco. Unfortunately, a second fire a few days later burnt down his Stockton business. A clever business man, Domingo put his remaining assets to good use and decided to open up another store once more in San Francisco. With an established business, Domingo sent for his family who were still living in Peru. After several location changes, Ghiradelli finally found home on Jackson St. circa 1856. Upon becoming one of the largest chocolate factories in western North America, Ghiradelli's sons, who now owned the company, expanded and created the famous Ghiradelli Square during the late 1890s and early 1900s.
In the 1960s, The Golden Grain Macaroni Co. bought Ghiradelli Chocolate and relocated the factory across the bay. However, two San Franciscans, William Roth and his mother, feared the destruction of history and purchased the entire Ghiradelli block. The Roth's managed to complete one of the first successful adaptive reuse projects in America by salvaging the old Ghiradelli buildings as well as incorporating modern stores and restaurants which make up the Ghiradelli Square visited today.
It is important to understand the history, not only of Ghiradelli Square, but of all landmarks. They are landmarks for a reason! Domingo is a perfect example of an immigrant creating a better life for himself and his family. After two fires that destroyed nearly all that he owned, Domingo chose not to be defeated. I bet he never even dreamed of people more than a hundred years later to still be greedily munching down on his divine chocolate. Obviously the Roths felt that Ghiradelli Square was important to San Francisco. Domingo chose to start his business in the city of San Francisco and that's where it should stay after all these years. I can't think of a time in my childhood when my family and i would travel to San Francisco and not stop by Ghiradelli Square to eat a piece of chocolate. Visitors to Ghiradelli Square should not only enjoy the wonderful deserts offered, but should also keep in mind that this San Francisco landmark serves a reminder that America is a country built by immigrants and their dreams.



Question: After watching "Alcatraz Is Not An Island" in class I started thinking about the history between Native Americans and the city of San Francisco. Maybe I missed it, but I feel like Brechin didn't really discuss this issue. I guess my question is, why do you think that is?

#2

Entitled Trout Fishing in America, Brautigan never clarifies exactly who or what "Trout Fishing in America" is. At times the phrase is personified as in "Another Method of Making Walnut Catsup": "And Trout Fishing in America said, "The moon's coming out."" (12). The phrase is capitalized, like a proper name, when Brautigan personifies the term, giving "Trout Fishing in America" human emotions and body descriptions as well as the ability to speak such as in "The Last Mention of Trout Fishing in America Shorty": "Trout Fishing in America Shorty was instantly alerted, then he saw it was a baby and relaxed. He tried to coax her to come over and sit on his legless lap. [...] "Come here, kid,"he said. "Come over and see old Trout Fishing in America Shorty."" (96-97). Brautigan grants "Trout Fishing" the ability to feel emotions ("alerted") when he sees the child as well as uses the pronoun "he" numerous times when referring to the phrase. Based on such descriptions, and because of the fact that Brautigan never clarifies who or what "Trout Fishing in America" is, the reader may assume that the phrase is in fact the name for a person. As joked about in class, the book is not a handbook or how-to guide on to fish for trout; however, Brautigan never makes it definitely clear what he means by 'trout fishing in America'. He does write about incidents as well as experiences that happen to occur while fishing for trout. However, following the counter-culture style of the 1950s and 60s, Brautigan twists the stories out of the norm and personifies the phrase in a persistent attempt to deny the reader satisfaction of understanding who and/or what "Trout Fishing in America" is.


Question: Can Brautigan's "short" poems really be considered poems?

#1

While both of their poetry is populated with “extremes”, Allen Ginsberg and Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s poetry deals with the issue of fighting against conformity. Despite their different tastes in language, Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti warn against losing the “old” San Francisco to a more industrial city that lacks artists. Ferlinghetti bluntly addresses this fear in “The Poetic City That Was”: “Fifty years ago the city seemed an ideal place for a poet and artist to live […] Fifty years later, […] Corporate monoculture had wiped out any unique sense of place, turning the “island city” into an artistic theme-park, without artists.” Ferlinghetti’s choice of diction is perfect in describing his views of San Francisco, then and now. Once described as an “island city” because of its unique distinction of residents from the rest of America; Ferlinghetti writes of San Francisco as now an “artistic theme-park” where tourists can visit and see the once thriving artistic community. His writing suggests that he still believes that San Francisco is still an artistic and unique city, however it lacks the unique people that once thrived there (“without artists”). Just as Ginsberg accuses America for giving itself over to the worship of oil and industries in Part II of “Howl”, Ferlinghetti agrees that contemporary artists and poets only create for the industry and not the love of it. Sharing in Ferlinghetti’s fear of “corporate monoculture,” Ginsberg’s “Howl,” written in what many consider blunt and profane language, clearly displays the poet’s frustration with America’s commercialism. His use of exclamation marks at the end of every statement overwhelms the reader with his emotion. Despite different uses of language, Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti write about a similar topic: the conflict of loosing the unique American artist/poet.

Question: What caused Ferlinghetti to think that “corporate monoculture” had taken over San Francisco’s artists? What was his reasoning, other than the age of Beat Poetry to be over with? Is he just a stubborn old man stuck in his ways? (which is what is sounds like to me from Professor Wilson’s encounter with him…)