For my final blog on East of Eden, I will talk about the third important Biblical parallel in the book: the relationship between father and son. More specifically speaking, the parallel is about a parent’s rejection of one child and the favoring of another.
Most of us are familiar with the story of Cain and Abel in the Bible, but let’s refresh to clarify the point. Adam (first guy) had two sons, Cain and Abel. God, however, is the real father figure to the two boys. When the boys are older, they both bring sacrifices to God. For no apparent reason, God prefers Abel’s gift above Cain’s. Cain, enraged and jealous, kills Abel in the wilderness. God, in turn, banishes Cain to the land east of Eden (wow that sounds familiar don’t it?).
So on to the novel. Like in the Bible, the father figures (Cyrus and Adam) favor one son over the other. Cyrus’s situation closely mirrors the story of the Bible. Both of his sons bring him presents on his birthday: Adam a stray puppy he found, Charles a knife he saved for and bought. Steinbeck actually even directs us to be sympathetic for Charles in this section because Charles really works for his present and is rejected by his father. Ironically, though, Adam says at one point that he was frustrated with God when reading that section of the Bible.
Later on, Adam reenacts the same situation with his own sons. For their whole lives, Adam favors Aron over Cal. Again we are lead toward sympathizing with the Cain character in the story. From the beginning, we don’t like Aron because of his naivety, helplessness, and cowardice. Cal, on the other hand, works hard to stay on a straight path and is the older brother type, looking out for Aron even to the point where he keeps the secret of their mother’s true identity. Even so, Adam still favor Aron over Cal. :ike God, Adam favors the one son over the other for no obvious reason. After Aron dies, Adam outwardly blames Cal, still oblivious to how blindly he favored his one son over the other. Indeed, he doesn’t even treat Cal like a son. Also, it wasn’t really Cal’s fault that Aron died. Aron still made the choice to go into the army. Cal caused Aron’s break down, but it is unfair to say that Cain’s murder and Cal’s revealing of his mother’s identity are exactly the same, even if they had similar cruel intentions. Finally, though, Cal is given his happy ending with Abra and with Adam’s blessing on his deathbed. In a way, he is freed of the Cain curse of sin and discrimination.
Lastly, I want to respond to Mr. Coon’s comment on my blog last week. He asked if Cathy as more of a figure that was meant to represent Cain in the novel rather than evil human nature itself. I personally still think she is more an embodiment of human evil. Cain felt rejected by God and was jealous of Abel, so he killed him. He had motivation for what he did, bad motivation but still. Cathy doesn’t seem to have a reason for any of the bad things she does. We don’t know anything about her parents except for that she killed them. So there’s nothing there to compare her to Cain. Because her evil is so inhumane and she acts without any apparent guilt or motivation, I think it is hard to compare her to Cain. It would almost be doing Cain an injustice to do so. Cathy is evil for the sake of being evil. (607)
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
I Will Follow You into the Dark
According to Stafford’s poem “Traveling Through the Dark,” the lives of dozens of drivers are more important than the life of a single baby deer. I would definitely agree, but it’s still natural to hesitate to condemn a fawn to death. The speaker of the poem faces this same moral conflict and chooses to protect other drivers. Stafford uses the broken-up form and imagery to make this moral conflict more powerful by putting readers inside the tragedy of the scene.
Stafford uses a carefully laid-out form to present the speaker’s moral dilemma. The format follows the an outline of eighteen lines organized in four quatrains with a concluding couplet. The poem has no rhyme scheme but has lots of similar sounding words to end lines as well as interspersed alliteration. Even so, the structure is ideal because it allows the dilemma to be presented slowly and therefore immerses the reader in the story.
In the first and second stanzas, we are introduced to the moral conflict in a benign way so don’t question the speaker as he prepares to throw the dead deer in the canyon. We aren’t lead to question the “usually best” way of handling the problem at all. In the third stanza, however, we realize the situation is more complicated when the speaker realizes the dead doe’s fawn is still alive inside her. In the fourth stanza, the tension builds as we and the speaker wonder what he’ll do now that he would be taking a life himself. In the concluding couplet, in English sonnet style, the speaker’s moral dilemma is cleared and he decides to roll the deer into the canyon in order to save other people driving on the road. Stafford uses the English sonnet form to break up this progression, which allows the reader to process the moral dilemma fully and be more immersed in the speaker’s conflict as it progresses. As we read the poem, we follow the same line of thought as the speaker and, like him, conclude that the right thing to roll the deer into the canyon.
Stafford also uses imagery to touch several of our senses and immerse us in the poem’s story and conflict. Firstly, he prods our sense of sight with descriptions of the mountain road. We can picture the road so narrow that “to swerve might make more dead;” the “glow of the tail light,” and the plump figure of the dead doe. He also stimulates our sense of touch. The sadness of the speaker’s predicament becomes more real when we can nearly feel the warmth of the fawn within the doe’s cold body and the warmth of the car’s exhaust. The final sense he arouses to submerge us in the poem is the sense of hearing. In the decisive moment of the poem, we can “hear the wilderness listen” as if waiting to hear the fawn’s fate while the car engine purrs in the background. We can feel the cold and suspense. The imagery makes the poem feel real and we hesitate with the speaker as the sadness of the moment becomes clear.
With any ethical dilemma, the inner-conflict is always hardest for the people involved. By using detailed imagery and pointed structure, Stafford puts us in the speaker’s shoes and forces us to enter in the same internal conflict. Because of the imagery, we are there on the mountain road with the swallowing silence and helpless fawn. The structure allows us to process the scene and the conflict without losing us in a feuding or hurried stream of consciousness. Our reading experience mirrors the speaker’s experience as we are all forced to make a heartbreaking decision to choose many lives over one. (620)
Stafford uses a carefully laid-out form to present the speaker’s moral dilemma. The format follows the an outline of eighteen lines organized in four quatrains with a concluding couplet. The poem has no rhyme scheme but has lots of similar sounding words to end lines as well as interspersed alliteration. Even so, the structure is ideal because it allows the dilemma to be presented slowly and therefore immerses the reader in the story.
In the first and second stanzas, we are introduced to the moral conflict in a benign way so don’t question the speaker as he prepares to throw the dead deer in the canyon. We aren’t lead to question the “usually best” way of handling the problem at all. In the third stanza, however, we realize the situation is more complicated when the speaker realizes the dead doe’s fawn is still alive inside her. In the fourth stanza, the tension builds as we and the speaker wonder what he’ll do now that he would be taking a life himself. In the concluding couplet, in English sonnet style, the speaker’s moral dilemma is cleared and he decides to roll the deer into the canyon in order to save other people driving on the road. Stafford uses the English sonnet form to break up this progression, which allows the reader to process the moral dilemma fully and be more immersed in the speaker’s conflict as it progresses. As we read the poem, we follow the same line of thought as the speaker and, like him, conclude that the right thing to roll the deer into the canyon.
Stafford also uses imagery to touch several of our senses and immerse us in the poem’s story and conflict. Firstly, he prods our sense of sight with descriptions of the mountain road. We can picture the road so narrow that “to swerve might make more dead;” the “glow of the tail light,” and the plump figure of the dead doe. He also stimulates our sense of touch. The sadness of the speaker’s predicament becomes more real when we can nearly feel the warmth of the fawn within the doe’s cold body and the warmth of the car’s exhaust. The final sense he arouses to submerge us in the poem is the sense of hearing. In the decisive moment of the poem, we can “hear the wilderness listen” as if waiting to hear the fawn’s fate while the car engine purrs in the background. We can feel the cold and suspense. The imagery makes the poem feel real and we hesitate with the speaker as the sadness of the moment becomes clear.
With any ethical dilemma, the inner-conflict is always hardest for the people involved. By using detailed imagery and pointed structure, Stafford puts us in the speaker’s shoes and forces us to enter in the same internal conflict. Because of the imagery, we are there on the mountain road with the swallowing silence and helpless fawn. The structure allows us to process the scene and the conflict without losing us in a feuding or hurried stream of consciousness. Our reading experience mirrors the speaker’s experience as we are all forced to make a heartbreaking decision to choose many lives over one. (620)
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Seprpent, Thy Name is Woman
As those who are familiar with the Bible know, Eve was the woman who put the stain of sin on the human race. As you may recall, while still living in the Garden of Eden, Eve came upon a serpent near the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (there’s a name for you). Adam and Eve had been forbidden by God from eating from this tree but, as we all know, the serpent convinced Eve to take fruit from the tree and eat it. When God found out that she and Adam had eaten the fruit, he banished Adam and Eve from Eden. (On a side note, banishment was a common punishment in the Bible as God also banished Cain to live east of Eden, so there’s the true story of the title).
Now to the untrained eye, the East of Eden character Cathy Ames may seem like the parallel to Eve in the novel. Eve, however, had redeeming qualities: mother of mankind, for example. Cathy has none. Everything we learn about her in novel suggests she has nothing resembling a conscience nor does she do anything to help other people. Eve had no instinct for sin until the serpent actually suggested it. Cathy, on the other hand, commits evil for no reason or sometimes just to entertain herself (like when she sleeps with her husband’s brother). Cathy accepts sin as inevitable and therefore just embraces it in everything she does.
Eve’s sin was also not a malicious sin but a sin of curiosity. Cathy’s sins, on the other hand, are all malicious and none can rightfully be attributed to human instinct. She attempts to kill her unborn children, shoots her husband, and abandons her infant twins. We even learn that she killed her parents before joining a brothel in Massachusetts. She doesn’t seem to do these things because it was part of a certain agenda, but just because she could. The same can be said about her actions when she arrives at the brothel. Just as she exploits Adam’s good nature early in the novel, she exploits the semi-good nature of Faye, the madam at the brothel, who takes her in as a sort of apprentice. She cruelly poisons her and takes control of the brothel. We don’ really learn why, she just does it because she can.
Cathy is easily the most evil character in the novel, so how can she be a parallel to Eve? Eve may have committed the original sin of humanity, but it was, despite the title of sin, fairly innocent. Cathy murders and attacks people at the very heart of their existence. She is actually such a terrible person, that critics argue that she is a flaw in Steinbeck’s novel. She is an unrealistic character, they say, since she is just so cruel for absolutely no reason. I believe that Steinbeck was actually dead on in his depiction of Cathy. The critics have the mistaken impression that Cathy, like Eve, needs to have motives or guilt for her evil. I theorize, however, that Cathy is actually the embodiment of evil in the novel, not the embodiment of human sin. Cathy is not the character who shows us what sin is and how it punishes humanity. Cathy is the character who shows us the true face and depth of evil. It’s too simple to assume that Cathy would be Eve’s parallel since she is Aron and Cal’s mother. She is no parallel to a humanly flawed, apple-eating mother of humanity. She is the parallel to the snake, evil itself. (595)
JStor Articles:
John Steinbeck: Novelist as Scientist
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1345452
Human Relations in Literature
http://www.jstor.org/stable/813685
The Friend at the Round Table: A Note on Steinbeck's ActsThe Friend at the Round Table: A Note on Steinbeck's Acts
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2924782
Now to the untrained eye, the East of Eden character Cathy Ames may seem like the parallel to Eve in the novel. Eve, however, had redeeming qualities: mother of mankind, for example. Cathy has none. Everything we learn about her in novel suggests she has nothing resembling a conscience nor does she do anything to help other people. Eve had no instinct for sin until the serpent actually suggested it. Cathy, on the other hand, commits evil for no reason or sometimes just to entertain herself (like when she sleeps with her husband’s brother). Cathy accepts sin as inevitable and therefore just embraces it in everything she does.
Eve’s sin was also not a malicious sin but a sin of curiosity. Cathy’s sins, on the other hand, are all malicious and none can rightfully be attributed to human instinct. She attempts to kill her unborn children, shoots her husband, and abandons her infant twins. We even learn that she killed her parents before joining a brothel in Massachusetts. She doesn’t seem to do these things because it was part of a certain agenda, but just because she could. The same can be said about her actions when she arrives at the brothel. Just as she exploits Adam’s good nature early in the novel, she exploits the semi-good nature of Faye, the madam at the brothel, who takes her in as a sort of apprentice. She cruelly poisons her and takes control of the brothel. We don’ really learn why, she just does it because she can.
Cathy is easily the most evil character in the novel, so how can she be a parallel to Eve? Eve may have committed the original sin of humanity, but it was, despite the title of sin, fairly innocent. Cathy murders and attacks people at the very heart of their existence. She is actually such a terrible person, that critics argue that she is a flaw in Steinbeck’s novel. She is an unrealistic character, they say, since she is just so cruel for absolutely no reason. I believe that Steinbeck was actually dead on in his depiction of Cathy. The critics have the mistaken impression that Cathy, like Eve, needs to have motives or guilt for her evil. I theorize, however, that Cathy is actually the embodiment of evil in the novel, not the embodiment of human sin. Cathy is not the character who shows us what sin is and how it punishes humanity. Cathy is the character who shows us the true face and depth of evil. It’s too simple to assume that Cathy would be Eve’s parallel since she is Aron and Cal’s mother. She is no parallel to a humanly flawed, apple-eating mother of humanity. She is the parallel to the snake, evil itself. (595)
JStor Articles:
John Steinbeck: Novelist as Scientist
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1345452
Human Relations in Literature
http://www.jstor.org/stable/813685
The Friend at the Round Table: A Note on Steinbeck's ActsThe Friend at the Round Table: A Note on Steinbeck's Acts
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2924782
Friday, April 11, 2008
Is it only East of Eden becuase of the repeating vowels? Why not north?
Given the title of the novel, it's pretty obvious that East of Eden is going to follow an interesting biblical pattern. From very early on in the book we can see that certain characters parallel biblical characters in many more ways than just their names.
Adam’s biblical counterpart, obviously enough, is Adam from the Garden of Eden story in the Bible. Steinbeck seems to give Adam to us as a starting point: “Ok same name, same qualities, if nobody else, they’ll figure him out.” Adam, like his biblical counterpart, has two sons (again with the similar names) and a wife who, in the end, leads to his downfall. In many ways, Adam is too idealistic and innocent. He falls for a downright evil woman and is too blind to see the danger that lives inside her. It’s also important to note that Adam also fits the Abel role in the first generation Cain and Abel parallel. He is the “good son” compared to his brother Charles after all. But throughout the novel, he more largely plays the role of Adam, the father of two seemingly polar opposite sons.
Adam’s son Aron is the second generation Abel of the Cain and Abel parallel. Like his father and biblical parallel, Aron is the good son. He works hard and has a good heart. His father also has a large and obvious preference for him over his brother Cal—just as God and Adam favored Abel in the Bible. However, Aron has the same flaws as his father; he is too idealistic, crippling him by making him morally hypersensitive. That sensitivity is ultimately Aron’s downfall and he is eventually killed as a twisted result, realizing his paralleled destiny of a young death. The knowledge that his mother runs a brothel and left his family is too much for his idealistic mind and he, for all intensive purposes, kills himself by enlisting in the army during World War I. Like Abel, Aron dies because of his overly good qualities and the intense jealousy of his brother.
Adam’s son Cal (note the Aron-Abel, Cain-Cal name relationship) is the second generation parallel to Cain. Like Cain to Abel, Cal is intensely jealous of his twin brother and cannot compete with his extremely likeable brother. He is looked down upon by the people around him because of his manipulative and mischievous behavior and he is dubbed the “bad son” at an early age. He seems to have inherited his mother’s sin (just as Cain inherited the inevitable sin of man from Eve). Like Cain, Cal directly causes his brother’s death by setting Aron up to discover their mother’s true identity. His pivotal line “Am I supposed to look after him,” an obvious allusion to the famous “Am I my brother’s keeper” line from the Bible. Clearly, Cal is meant to parallel the infamous Cain, a comparison that allows the deeper meaning of Cal’s story to come to life.
We’ve shown that Cal is an obvious parallel to the biblical character of Cain, who likewise kills his brother out of jealousy and is forever tainted by the sin of humanity. The people around him write him off as his mother’s child and therefore incapable of being a good person. But Cal differs from Cain in extremely important ways. Cal wants to live a moral life, unlike Cain. He even prays to God to lead him on the path to good. By the end of the novel, he excepts the idea of timshel, that everyone can choose his or her own moral destiny, despite who they are or who their parents are. Unlike the other characters in the novel, Cal does not fully fulfill his biblical destiny. He instead becomes the one character to break out of the parallel and determine his own life. As the most doomed and redeemed character, he becomes the instrument by which Steinbeck sends his central message: everyone, no matter who they are related to or what they are destined to do, can make their own decisions and can live the life that they choose. (681)
Adam’s biblical counterpart, obviously enough, is Adam from the Garden of Eden story in the Bible. Steinbeck seems to give Adam to us as a starting point: “Ok same name, same qualities, if nobody else, they’ll figure him out.” Adam, like his biblical counterpart, has two sons (again with the similar names) and a wife who, in the end, leads to his downfall. In many ways, Adam is too idealistic and innocent. He falls for a downright evil woman and is too blind to see the danger that lives inside her. It’s also important to note that Adam also fits the Abel role in the first generation Cain and Abel parallel. He is the “good son” compared to his brother Charles after all. But throughout the novel, he more largely plays the role of Adam, the father of two seemingly polar opposite sons.
Adam’s son Aron is the second generation Abel of the Cain and Abel parallel. Like his father and biblical parallel, Aron is the good son. He works hard and has a good heart. His father also has a large and obvious preference for him over his brother Cal—just as God and Adam favored Abel in the Bible. However, Aron has the same flaws as his father; he is too idealistic, crippling him by making him morally hypersensitive. That sensitivity is ultimately Aron’s downfall and he is eventually killed as a twisted result, realizing his paralleled destiny of a young death. The knowledge that his mother runs a brothel and left his family is too much for his idealistic mind and he, for all intensive purposes, kills himself by enlisting in the army during World War I. Like Abel, Aron dies because of his overly good qualities and the intense jealousy of his brother.
Adam’s son Cal (note the Aron-Abel, Cain-Cal name relationship) is the second generation parallel to Cain. Like Cain to Abel, Cal is intensely jealous of his twin brother and cannot compete with his extremely likeable brother. He is looked down upon by the people around him because of his manipulative and mischievous behavior and he is dubbed the “bad son” at an early age. He seems to have inherited his mother’s sin (just as Cain inherited the inevitable sin of man from Eve). Like Cain, Cal directly causes his brother’s death by setting Aron up to discover their mother’s true identity. His pivotal line “Am I supposed to look after him,” an obvious allusion to the famous “Am I my brother’s keeper” line from the Bible. Clearly, Cal is meant to parallel the infamous Cain, a comparison that allows the deeper meaning of Cal’s story to come to life.
We’ve shown that Cal is an obvious parallel to the biblical character of Cain, who likewise kills his brother out of jealousy and is forever tainted by the sin of humanity. The people around him write him off as his mother’s child and therefore incapable of being a good person. But Cal differs from Cain in extremely important ways. Cal wants to live a moral life, unlike Cain. He even prays to God to lead him on the path to good. By the end of the novel, he excepts the idea of timshel, that everyone can choose his or her own moral destiny, despite who they are or who their parents are. Unlike the other characters in the novel, Cal does not fully fulfill his biblical destiny. He instead becomes the one character to break out of the parallel and determine his own life. As the most doomed and redeemed character, he becomes the instrument by which Steinbeck sends his central message: everyone, no matter who they are related to or what they are destined to do, can make their own decisions and can live the life that they choose. (681)
Thursday, March 6, 2008
As Fairy Godmother from Shrek Would Say, I'm Holding Out for a Hero
While reading “Fences”, I was bothered by the lack of a clear “hero” character. Usually in a story I can find at least one character to latch onto and force all of my hopes upon, but there is no such character in “Fences” (or at least not one who gets the job done).
The first character we meet is Troy. It is pretty obvious from the beginning of the story that Troy is not going to be much of a hero. He’s a brute, crude, and a little too rambunctious to trust with our confidence as a hero. Furthermore, he fails at the pivotal point in the story that determines his fate as a good or bad character. When Bono tells him to be good to Rose because she is good for him, Troy then admits to Rose that he has fathered a child with another woman. At that moment, August Wilson eliminates Troy as a hero possibility for us.
Our second, and more realistic, hero possibility is Rose. Initially she seems like a good candidate. She is caring and forgiving, even taking in her husband’s illegitimate child. She stands up for her son even in the face of an angry Troy. But the one problem I have with her as a hero character is that she stays with Troy or at least that she doesn't seem to get as angry as she should about his infidelity. She takes in his child with another woman and stays married to him. On the one hand, I think she is extremely admirable for those actions. But the modern-day feminist in me still wanted to see her walk away from him or at the very least give him a harder time. I think in a way that Wilson meant for her to be the strength behind the family and the only reason it endures. For some reason, though, she still does not seem like the hero of the story to me.
If I had to pinpoint the so-called hero of this story, it would be Corey. He starts out as the talented and full-of-potential teen who is struggling to overcome his father's expectations and ridicule. He has a sort of Cinderella story of sorts in that he leaves home without any prospects and returns as an accomplished man. It's probably partly my teen bias that draws me to Corey's story but I definitely sympathized with him and his story.
The only problem with considering Corey as the hero of the story is that he is clearly not the main character. We learn about Troy's life, Troy's actions, and Troy's problems. We do not witness Corey's transformation at all. He leaves home essentially the same boy we meet in the beginning of the story and returns completely differently without us knowing the full story. That, however, brings us back to Troy. Perhaps it is my sympathy for Corey that does not allow me to have any sympathy for Troy. He is a lonely and unfortunate person who essentially misses out on some of the better things in life. But he does have good times with his wife and baseball and he was given every opportunity to have a good family life. But he doesn't.
All in all, I'm still waiting for a hero to emerge from this story. Even though Wilson seems to point to Troy as the hero, I cannot accept Troy as a good enough character to warrant the title of "hero of the story". And Corey cannot really be the hero since the story does not center around him at all. So there we are--left without a hero. Now I'll just have to listen to that voice in the back of my head saying, "Does every story really need a hero?" (631)
The first character we meet is Troy. It is pretty obvious from the beginning of the story that Troy is not going to be much of a hero. He’s a brute, crude, and a little too rambunctious to trust with our confidence as a hero. Furthermore, he fails at the pivotal point in the story that determines his fate as a good or bad character. When Bono tells him to be good to Rose because she is good for him, Troy then admits to Rose that he has fathered a child with another woman. At that moment, August Wilson eliminates Troy as a hero possibility for us.
Our second, and more realistic, hero possibility is Rose. Initially she seems like a good candidate. She is caring and forgiving, even taking in her husband’s illegitimate child. She stands up for her son even in the face of an angry Troy. But the one problem I have with her as a hero character is that she stays with Troy or at least that she doesn't seem to get as angry as she should about his infidelity. She takes in his child with another woman and stays married to him. On the one hand, I think she is extremely admirable for those actions. But the modern-day feminist in me still wanted to see her walk away from him or at the very least give him a harder time. I think in a way that Wilson meant for her to be the strength behind the family and the only reason it endures. For some reason, though, she still does not seem like the hero of the story to me.
If I had to pinpoint the so-called hero of this story, it would be Corey. He starts out as the talented and full-of-potential teen who is struggling to overcome his father's expectations and ridicule. He has a sort of Cinderella story of sorts in that he leaves home without any prospects and returns as an accomplished man. It's probably partly my teen bias that draws me to Corey's story but I definitely sympathized with him and his story.
The only problem with considering Corey as the hero of the story is that he is clearly not the main character. We learn about Troy's life, Troy's actions, and Troy's problems. We do not witness Corey's transformation at all. He leaves home essentially the same boy we meet in the beginning of the story and returns completely differently without us knowing the full story. That, however, brings us back to Troy. Perhaps it is my sympathy for Corey that does not allow me to have any sympathy for Troy. He is a lonely and unfortunate person who essentially misses out on some of the better things in life. But he does have good times with his wife and baseball and he was given every opportunity to have a good family life. But he doesn't.
All in all, I'm still waiting for a hero to emerge from this story. Even though Wilson seems to point to Troy as the hero, I cannot accept Troy as a good enough character to warrant the title of "hero of the story". And Corey cannot really be the hero since the story does not center around him at all. So there we are--left without a hero. Now I'll just have to listen to that voice in the back of my head saying, "Does every story really need a hero?" (631)
Thursday, February 21, 2008
And Now Thou Hast Your Mother Much Offended to Boot
SCENE IV. The Queen's closet.
Enter QUEEN GERTRUDE and POLONIUS
He will come straight. Look you lay home to him:
Tell him his pranks have been too broad to bear with,
And that your grace hath screen'd and stood between
Much heat and him. I'll sconce me even here.
Pray you, be round with him.
Lines said hastily, since he is trying to instruct Gertrude quickly before Hamlet arrives
[Within] Mother, mother, mother!
I'll warrant you,
Fear me not: withdraw, I hear him coming.
At this point, Gertrude still has the mistaken notion that she can reason with Hamlet and it gives her a false sense of confidence when she says “Fear me not” to Polonius.
POLONIUS hides behind the arras
Enter HAMLET
Now, mother, what's the matter?
Said very unassumingly
Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended.
Mother, you have my father much offended.
A tone of irony and sarcasm in this line but also “with an idle tongue by the next line”
Come, come, you answer with an idle tongue.
Still trying to play the stern mother card here, thinking she can scold him in a way
Go, go, you question with a wicked tongue.
Rude tone. Maybe walking away from her and then turning around as he says the line.
No, by the rood, not so:
You are the queen, your husband's brother's wife;
And--would it were not so!--you are my mother.
Definitely using cheap shots and sarcasm to talk “daggers” to his mother in this line.
Nay, then, I'll set those to you that can speak.
An uneasy tone here, since she is realizing his anger and sensing his tone.
Come, come, and sit you down; you shall not budge;
You go not till I set you up a glass
Where you may see the inmost part of you.
Most likely motioning his mother to sit down and sounding very insistent and talking quickly and intensely, judging by her fear in the next line.
What wilt thou do? thou wilt not murder me?
Help, help, ho!
Obviously an alarmed tone here.
[Behind] What, ho! help, help, help!
[Drawing] How now! a rat? Dead, for a ducat, dead!
Realizing they are being watched and assuming the man is Claudius, Hamlet here thinks he finally has his chance to kill Polonius in a sinful act.
Makes a pass through the arras
Falls and dies
Gasping for breath and shocked
Nay, I know not:
Is it the king?
As Hamlet realizes what he has done, he is shocked at his own brutality
O, what a rash and bloody deed is this!
A bloody deed! almost as bad, good mother,
As kill a king, and marry with his brother.
Rising from his shock, he shoots this comment at his mother as almost an accusation.
She is shocked by not only his comment itself but also the timing of his harshness towards her.
Lifts up the array and discovers POLONIUS
Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell!
I took thee for thy better: take thy fortune;
Thou find'st to be too busy is some danger.
Leave wringing of your hands: peace! sit you down,
And let me wring your heart; for so I shall,
If it be made of penetrable stuff,
If damned custom have not brass'd it so
That it is proof and bulwark against sense.
As Hamlet realizes whom he has killed, he turns his anger toward Polonius and starts yelling at his corpse.
What have I done, that thou darest wag thy tongue
In noise so rude against me?
Losing her tone of innocence, Gertrude is actually angry in this line.
Such an act
That blurs the grace and blush of modesty,
Calls virtue hypocrite, takes off the rose
From the fair forehead of an innocent love
And sets a blister there, makes marriage-vows
As false as dicers' oaths: O, such a deed
As from the body of contraction plucks
The very soul, and sweet religion makes
A rhapsody of words: heaven's face doth glow:
Yea, this solidity and compound mass,
With tristful visage, as against the doom,
Is thought-sick at the act.
These lines are said very quickly as his emotion and anger come out and he slowly moves towards his mother as he yells at her.
Ay me, what act,
That roars so loud, and thunders in the index?
Look here, upon this picture, and on this,
The counterfeit presentment of two brothers.
Using gestures like holding out both hands like a scale to measure the worth of the two
See, what a grace was seated on this brow;
Hyperion's curls; the front of Jove himself;
An eye like Mars, to threaten and command;
A station like the herald Mercury
New-lighted on a heaven-kissing hill;
A combination and a form indeed,
Where every god did seem to set his seal,
To give the world assurance of a man:
This was your husband. Look you now, what follows:
Volume and passion increases as he talks about Claudius.
Here is your husband; like a mildew'd ear,
Blasting his wholesome brother. Have you eyes?
Walking or pacing as though he can’t sit still, turning and yelling the lines.
Could you on this fair mountain leave to feed,
And batten on this moor? Ha! have you eyes?
You cannot call it love; for at your age
The hey-day in the blood is tame, it's humble,
And waits upon the judgment: and what judgment
Would step from this to this? Sense, sure, you have,
Even though he is technically addressing her, it’s almost as if he is rambling on as if she is not there, senseless in his anger.
Else could you not have motion; but sure, that sense
Is apoplex'd; for madness would not err,
Nor sense to ecstasy was ne'er so thrall'd
But it reserved some quantity of choice,
To serve in such a difference. What devil was't
That thus hath cozen'd you at hoodman-blind?
Eyes without feeling, feeling without sight,
Ears without hands or eyes, smelling sans all,
Or but a sickly part of one true sense
Could not so mope.
O shame! where is thy blush? Rebellious hell,
If thou canst mutine in a matron's bones,
To flaming youth let virtue be as wax,
And melt in her own fire: proclaim no shame
When the compulsive ardour gives the charge,
Since frost itself as actively doth burn
And reason panders will.
O Hamlet, speak no more:
Thou turn'st mine eyes into my very soul;
And there I see such black and grained spots
As will not leave their tinct.
This is the first point where she acknowledges her own mistakes. She therefore loses any sternness or confidence in her voice and manner
Nay, but to live
In the rank sweat of an enseamed bed,
Stew'd in corruption, honeying and making love
Over the nasty sty,--
He is still thinking that he has not dealt the final blow to Gertrude and so uses these lines as the final jabs to her character.
O, speak to me no more;
These words, like daggers, enter in mine ears;
No more, sweet Hamlet!
Crying out in grief and sincerely begging him. The daggers almost signifies that Hamlet has accomplished his goal and she is visibly and audibly torn by his words.
Voice starts quieter and then increases in intensity with each line, building up to the last accusation.
A murderer and a villain;
A slave that is not twentieth part the tithe
Of your precedent lord; a vice of kings;
A cutpurse of the empire and the rule,
That from a shelf the precious diadem stole,
And put it in his pocket!
This is her loudest and most passionate/desperate line, yelling it louder than anything else so far.
A king of shreds and patches,--
Tone completely altered as he sees the ghost
Enter Ghost
Save me, and hover o'er me with your wings,
You heavenly guards! What would your gracious figure?
She is utterly shocked by his change of tone and words.
Do you not come your tardy son to chide,
That, lapsed in time and passion, lets go by
The important acting of your dread command? O, say!
Ghost’s voice is calm and soft, directly contrasting the tone of the rest of the scene.
Do not forget: this visitation
Is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose.
But, look, amazement on thy mother sits:
O, step between her and her fighting soul:
Conceit in weakest bodies strongest works:
Speak to her, Hamlet.
His tone is also calm now, confusing Gertrude further.
Alas, how is't with you,
That you do bend your eye on vacancy
And with the incorporal air do hold discourse?
Forth at your eyes your spirits wildly peep;
And, as the sleeping soldiers in the alarm,
Your bedded hair, like life in excrements,
Starts up, and stands on end. O gentle son,
Upon the heat and flame of thy distemper
Sprinkle cool patience. Whereon do you look?
She speaks to him very very questioningly and the thought seems to creep back into her mind that Hamlet may not be entirely stable mentally.
On him, on him! Look you, how pale he glares!
His form and cause conjoin'd, preaching to stones,
Would make them capable. <Speaks to the ghost now>Do not look upon me;
Lest with this piteous action you convert
My stern effects: then what I have to do
Will want true colour; tears perchance for blood.
He finally realizes she cannot see the ghost. His tone is very puzzled at first.
Nothing at all; yet all that is I see.
Increasingly upset that she cannot see the ghost.
Why, look you there! look, how it steals away!
My father, in his habit as he lived!
Look, where he goes, even now, out at the portal!
At this point, he is desperate for his mother to see the ghost. Not only to allay his own concerns but also to prove that he is not hallucinating to his mother.
Exit Ghost
This the very coinage of your brain:
This bodiless creation ecstasy
Is very cunning in.
Gertrude is almost insistent and hopeful as she says these lines. Even though she thinks Hamlet is hallucinating, part of her still hopes his hurtful comments toward her are due to his insanity.
Ecstasy!
My pulse, as yours, doth temperately keep time,
And makes as healthful music: it is not madness
That I have utter'd: bring me to the test,
And I the matter will re-word; which madness
Would gambol from. Mother, for love of grace,
Lay not that mattering unction to your soul,
That not your trespass, but my madness speaks:
It will but skin and film the ulcerous place,
Whilst rank corruption, mining all within,
Infects unseen. Confess yourself to heaven;
Repent what's past; avoid what is to come;
And do not spread the compost on the weeds,
To make them ranker. Forgive me this my virtue;
For in the fatness of these pursy times
Virtue itself of vice must pardon beg,
Yea, curb and woo for leave to do him good.
O Hamlet, thou hast cleft my heart in twain.
In his closing words to his mother, Hamlet turns back to his father’s ghost’s advice about his mother. He finally feels satisfied that he has taken enough jabs at his mother and so passes on the ghost’s advice as well as some of his own. He thinks she will listen since she is so mentally exhausted from their conversation.
O, throw away the worser part of it,
And live the purer with the other half.
Good night: but go not to mine uncle's bed;
Assume a virtue, if you have it not.
That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat,
Of habits devil, is angel yet in this,
That to the use of actions fair and good
He likewise gives a frock or livery,
That aptly is put on. Refrain to-night,
And that shall lend a kind of easiness
To the next abstinence: the next more easy;
For use almost can change the stamp of nature,
And either [ ] the devil, or throw him out
With wondrous potency. Once more, good night:
And when you are desirous to be bless'd,
I'll blessing beg of you. For this same lord,
Pointing to POLONIUS
I do repent: but heaven hath pleased it so,
To punish me with this and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister.
I will bestow him, and will answer well
The death I gave him. So, again, good night.
I must be cruel, only to be kind:
Thus bad begins and worse remains behind.
One word more, good lady.
Hamlet does know he has sinned by killing Polonius but he is also certain that he will pay for that sin only after he has done what he feels is just.
Not this, by no means, that I bid you do:
Let the bloat king tempt you again to bed;
Pinch wanton on your cheek; call you his mouse;
And let him, for a pair of reechy kisses,
Or paddling in your neck with his damn'd fingers,
Make you to ravel all this matter out,
That I essentially am not in madness,
But mad in craft. 'Twere good you let him know;
For who, that's but a queen, fair, sober, wise,
Would from a paddock, from a bat, a gib,
Such dear concernings hide? who would do so?
No, in despite of sense and secrecy,
Unpeg the basket on the house's top.
Let the birds fly, and, like the famous ape,
To try conclusions, in the basket creep,
And break your own neck down.
Hamlet gives his mother these instructions not only to make a final insult to her behavior but also to set up the “climax” of his plot to kill Claudius. He knows with Polonius’s death, the motions of his and Claudius’s plans will be accelerated. Also on another level, though, he probably knows his mother is unlikely to share this conversation with Claudius.
Be thou assured, if words be made of breath,
And breath of life, I have no life to breathe
What thou hast said to me.
Gertrude still doesn’t know how to face what she has done and it is far too hard for her to relay Hamlet’s harsh words about her character to anyone, let alone her co-conspirator.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Some Poems
Hold You In My Smile
Sweet moment, stay with me,
and pray do not flee so soon,
Let me enjoy the bliss of that
first kiss beneath the moon.
I wish to cradle this feeling,
that has only just been found,
A feeling that has unexpectedly
turned my world around.
Do not depart, Oh please remain
within my heart awhile,
So that I can savour you once more,
and hold you in my smile.
© Ernestine Northover
First Lesson
Lie back daughter, let your head
be tipped back in the cup of my hand.
Gently, and I will hold you. Spread
your arms wide, lie out on the stream
and look high at the gulls. A dead-
man's float is face down. You will dive
and swim soon enough where this tidewater
ebbs to the sea. Daughter, believe
me, when you tire on the long thrash
to your island, lie up, and survive.
As you float now, where I held you
and let go, remember when fear
cramps your heart what I told you:
lie gently and wide to the light-year
stars, lie back, and the sea will hold you.
Philip Booth
Sweet moment, stay with me,
and pray do not flee so soon,
Let me enjoy the bliss of that
first kiss beneath the moon.
I wish to cradle this feeling,
that has only just been found,
A feeling that has unexpectedly
turned my world around.
Do not depart, Oh please remain
within my heart awhile,
So that I can savour you once more,
and hold you in my smile.
© Ernestine Northover
First Lesson
Lie back daughter, let your head
be tipped back in the cup of my hand.
Gently, and I will hold you. Spread
your arms wide, lie out on the stream
and look high at the gulls. A dead-
man's float is face down. You will dive
and swim soon enough where this tidewater
ebbs to the sea. Daughter, believe
me, when you tire on the long thrash
to your island, lie up, and survive.
As you float now, where I held you
and let go, remember when fear
cramps your heart what I told you:
lie gently and wide to the light-year
stars, lie back, and the sea will hold you.
Philip Booth
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The Greeks: Always Letting You Know that Your Life Could Be Worse
As though Sophocles wanted to give us hints about the end of the play, he uses blindness as a constant theme throughout. But blindness and its connotations serve a much greater purpose in the story that just foreshadowing. Blindness, Sophocles shows us, is actually the flaw that brings Oedipus to his end, what we may call his tragic flaw.
One of the largest representations of blindness in the play is Oedipus’s blindness to his actions and true identity. The scene with Teiresias is particularly ironic because even though Teiresias is blind, it is Oedipus that cannot see the truth of his own life. Teiresias insists that Oedipus is better off not knowing the truth about who killed Laius. But Oedipus is “blind” to what the seer is implying and flies into a rage at the man for refusing to disclose what he knows. He even goes so far as to accuse Teiresias himself of plotting the murder. Even when Teiresias flat out tells him the truth, Oedipus still refuses to believe it. He instead turns his anger toward Creon, who initially suggested sending for the seer. He enters into a “blind” rage, throwing accusations and harsh words at everyone to try to deny what he has done. This blindness to his past, his predicament, and his rage eventually manifests itself in his actual blindness. But as is custom in tragedies, Oedipus does morally redeem himself. By blinding himself, he gives himself a symbolic punishment for being ignorant and denying his identity.
Another way that Sophocles hints at Oedipus's fate is through talking about seeing and sight constantly throughout the play. For example, when Teiresias accuses Oedipus of being ignorant of his past, he says that Oedipus "see'st not in what misery" he will fall. While this is extremely slight in meaning, Sophocles could have just as easily written that Oedipus did not understand or know of his past, but he instead uses the imagery of sight to describe it. Even as Teiresias is introduced, the chorus says, “if any man sees eye to eye/With our lord Phoebus, 'tis our prophet.” Oedipus, too, foreshadows his own doom. When he is talking to Jocasta about his fears, he asks the gods to “Forbid, forbid that I should see that day!” Oh the irony. Even looking into Oedipus’s background, we would almost expect his fate. Oedipus is extremely regarded for his clear sight, or insight, but because he is so ignorant to his past, it undermines this reputation. In a way, his physical blindness just symbolizes the full death of his sight in the non-physical sense. For those who are paying special attention to the language of this story, Oedipus’s fate is not entirely surprising; we knew he rambled on about sight and seeing and blindness for some reason.
In a large sense, Oedipus’s fate in the play is fairly predictable. His behavior seems to be strongly associated with the concept of blindness; he is blinded by rage and essentially blind to his true identity. The story also hints at the ending by following the theme of sight and blindness in the language and background of the story. Even if you hadn’t read the mythology that accompanies this play, the characterizations, language, and background of the story all help the reader to predict Oedipus’s tragic fate. (555)
One of the largest representations of blindness in the play is Oedipus’s blindness to his actions and true identity. The scene with Teiresias is particularly ironic because even though Teiresias is blind, it is Oedipus that cannot see the truth of his own life. Teiresias insists that Oedipus is better off not knowing the truth about who killed Laius. But Oedipus is “blind” to what the seer is implying and flies into a rage at the man for refusing to disclose what he knows. He even goes so far as to accuse Teiresias himself of plotting the murder. Even when Teiresias flat out tells him the truth, Oedipus still refuses to believe it. He instead turns his anger toward Creon, who initially suggested sending for the seer. He enters into a “blind” rage, throwing accusations and harsh words at everyone to try to deny what he has done. This blindness to his past, his predicament, and his rage eventually manifests itself in his actual blindness. But as is custom in tragedies, Oedipus does morally redeem himself. By blinding himself, he gives himself a symbolic punishment for being ignorant and denying his identity.
Another way that Sophocles hints at Oedipus's fate is through talking about seeing and sight constantly throughout the play. For example, when Teiresias accuses Oedipus of being ignorant of his past, he says that Oedipus "see'st not in what misery" he will fall. While this is extremely slight in meaning, Sophocles could have just as easily written that Oedipus did not understand or know of his past, but he instead uses the imagery of sight to describe it. Even as Teiresias is introduced, the chorus says, “if any man sees eye to eye/With our lord Phoebus, 'tis our prophet.” Oedipus, too, foreshadows his own doom. When he is talking to Jocasta about his fears, he asks the gods to “Forbid, forbid that I should see that day!” Oh the irony. Even looking into Oedipus’s background, we would almost expect his fate. Oedipus is extremely regarded for his clear sight, or insight, but because he is so ignorant to his past, it undermines this reputation. In a way, his physical blindness just symbolizes the full death of his sight in the non-physical sense. For those who are paying special attention to the language of this story, Oedipus’s fate is not entirely surprising; we knew he rambled on about sight and seeing and blindness for some reason.
In a large sense, Oedipus’s fate in the play is fairly predictable. His behavior seems to be strongly associated with the concept of blindness; he is blinded by rage and essentially blind to his true identity. The story also hints at the ending by following the theme of sight and blindness in the language and background of the story. Even if you hadn’t read the mythology that accompanies this play, the characterizations, language, and background of the story all help the reader to predict Oedipus’s tragic fate. (555)
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Now Where'd I Put That Giant Shoe...
It is important to note that the title of this story, "The Metamorphosis", does not only apply to Gregor Samsa. Yes our notice quickly is drawn the transformation of man to giant bug but he is not the only character that undergoes a significant transformation. Other members of his family, namely his father and sister, also undergo profound change because of Gregor's state.
Gregor's sister, Grete, goes through profound change after Gregor's own transformation. Initially, Grete is the most supportive member of the family. She becomes Gregor's caretaker in many ways, even taking special note of his new dietary likes and dislikes. As time goes on, however, Grete begins to lose faith that Gregor's state could improve and even that the giant bug in her house is truly her brother. In the end, she even goes so far as to say that the bug could not possibly be Gregor, because Gregor would have tried to spare them of this misery. We see through this chain that Grete makes more of a negative transformation in the story. She starts out as a loving and sweet sister and even manages to maintain her caring state after Gregor's transformation. But in the end she too transforms, into a selfish person who couldn’t care less about her brother’s unfortunate state. She goes through this extremely negative transformation as a result of Gregor’s state and ends up making his existence even worse.
Gregor’s father also undergoes a profound change after Gregor’s transformation, but his is much more positive than Grete’s. Before, when Gregor was supplying the family’s income, his father was lazy and depressed, sitting at home all day while Gregor works to support the family. When Gregor transforms and obviously stops working, his father is forced to return to work. Rather than making him bitter, however, working returns the father’s vitality and confidence. He transforms back into a full person. For someone, Gregor’s transformation actually has positive impact on life. His positive changes still take tolls on Gregor’s life, but he does manage to become a stronger and better person out of necessity.
Gregor is by no means the only member of the family that goes through a profound transformation in this story. Grete, his sister, changes for the worse, beginning as a caring maternal figure and evolving into a selfish jerk like the rest of her family. His father changes for the better, becoming a more confident and stronger person than he was when Gregor was working. Positive or negative, the family’s changes only mean bad things for Gregor, who suffers from his father’s aggression and his sister’s lack of faith. In many ways, we have to consider that the title “the Metamorphosis” encompasses much more than one man’s transformation into a bug. (460)
Gregor's sister, Grete, goes through profound change after Gregor's own transformation. Initially, Grete is the most supportive member of the family. She becomes Gregor's caretaker in many ways, even taking special note of his new dietary likes and dislikes. As time goes on, however, Grete begins to lose faith that Gregor's state could improve and even that the giant bug in her house is truly her brother. In the end, she even goes so far as to say that the bug could not possibly be Gregor, because Gregor would have tried to spare them of this misery. We see through this chain that Grete makes more of a negative transformation in the story. She starts out as a loving and sweet sister and even manages to maintain her caring state after Gregor's transformation. But in the end she too transforms, into a selfish person who couldn’t care less about her brother’s unfortunate state. She goes through this extremely negative transformation as a result of Gregor’s state and ends up making his existence even worse.
Gregor’s father also undergoes a profound change after Gregor’s transformation, but his is much more positive than Grete’s. Before, when Gregor was supplying the family’s income, his father was lazy and depressed, sitting at home all day while Gregor works to support the family. When Gregor transforms and obviously stops working, his father is forced to return to work. Rather than making him bitter, however, working returns the father’s vitality and confidence. He transforms back into a full person. For someone, Gregor’s transformation actually has positive impact on life. His positive changes still take tolls on Gregor’s life, but he does manage to become a stronger and better person out of necessity.
Gregor is by no means the only member of the family that goes through a profound transformation in this story. Grete, his sister, changes for the worse, beginning as a caring maternal figure and evolving into a selfish jerk like the rest of her family. His father changes for the better, becoming a more confident and stronger person than he was when Gregor was working. Positive or negative, the family’s changes only mean bad things for Gregor, who suffers from his father’s aggression and his sister’s lack of faith. In many ways, we have to consider that the title “the Metamorphosis” encompasses much more than one man’s transformation into a bug. (460)
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Well...You Could Have at Least Cried at the Funeral!
Selfishness is a constant theme in “The Death of Ivan Ilyich”. Throughout the story, characters continually prove that more often than not, people are more likely to worry more about themselves and their own problems. Ilyich too is selfish throughout his entire life. Unlike the others, however, Ilyich suffers because of his selfishness. Tolstoy uses Ilyich and the characters around him to illustrate the damaging effects of selfishness.
From the very first chapter, we see that the people all around Illyich care more about themselves than the dying Ivan. One example of this is Peter Ivanovich and Ilyich’s other “friends”. You would expect a dead man’s closest friends to be grieving and inconsolable after their friend’s death. But alas, no. There are much more important things, like bridge, for them to worry about. Peter and the others care much more about how his death affects their own lives. After all, their positions in society will change and they will have to go through the grueling agony of consoling the widow.
Ah yes…the widow. Of all people in the entire world, we would most expect her to be crushed by her husband’s death. However, she too is more worried about how his death affects her own life. She asks Peter if she can find a way to get more widow’s compensation and laments over how hard the last three weeks of his life were for her. In the later chapters that take place before his actual death, she again isn’t sympathetic or concerned for him. During much of that time, in fact, she is impatient for his death and only feigns worry for him. Again the people closest to Ilyich fail to care about him even in his dying days.
Ilyich, too, is a selfish, uncaring character but unlike the other characters, he is hurt by his selfish behaviors. In the descriptions of his life, Tolstoy shows that Ilyich also doesn’t put in the effort to worry about other people. He never truly seems to care about anyone else. He doesn’t marry his wife for love and later doesn’t put in the effort to fix problems in their relationship. Like his friends, Ivan won’t do anything uncomfortable or unpleasant even if it is to help someone he supposedly cares about. By the time Ilyich figures out his mistakes, he is too isolated and sick to repair the damage. When he dies, he is lonely and full of regret. He only wishes for someone to care about him and pity him, but with all that he has done, nobody does. Not only does this show the consequences of his own selfishness but also the selfishness of the people around him. Ilyich, however, is the only one we see suffer for his selfishness. Tolstoy uses him as an example of how selfishness creates loneliness in the end. Even though he uses many characters to show the ugliness of human selfishness, Tolstoy uses Ilyich as the specific example of its consequences.
In the entire story of Ivan Ilyich, Tolstory creates a pattern of people who are extremely selfish to warn readers away from being selfish. He starts by creating a dislikeable cast of secondary characters who only care about themselves even in light of their friend’s death. Next he presents Ilyich’s life story and shows how his selfish behavior eventually lead to his suffering at the end of his life. By presenting Ilyich as the selfish characters who suffers and falls into a lonely death, Tolstory warns readers that selfishness is one of the most damaging flaws for anyone to have.
From the very first chapter, we see that the people all around Illyich care more about themselves than the dying Ivan. One example of this is Peter Ivanovich and Ilyich’s other “friends”. You would expect a dead man’s closest friends to be grieving and inconsolable after their friend’s death. But alas, no. There are much more important things, like bridge, for them to worry about. Peter and the others care much more about how his death affects their own lives. After all, their positions in society will change and they will have to go through the grueling agony of consoling the widow.
Ah yes…the widow. Of all people in the entire world, we would most expect her to be crushed by her husband’s death. However, she too is more worried about how his death affects her own life. She asks Peter if she can find a way to get more widow’s compensation and laments over how hard the last three weeks of his life were for her. In the later chapters that take place before his actual death, she again isn’t sympathetic or concerned for him. During much of that time, in fact, she is impatient for his death and only feigns worry for him. Again the people closest to Ilyich fail to care about him even in his dying days.
Ilyich, too, is a selfish, uncaring character but unlike the other characters, he is hurt by his selfish behaviors. In the descriptions of his life, Tolstoy shows that Ilyich also doesn’t put in the effort to worry about other people. He never truly seems to care about anyone else. He doesn’t marry his wife for love and later doesn’t put in the effort to fix problems in their relationship. Like his friends, Ivan won’t do anything uncomfortable or unpleasant even if it is to help someone he supposedly cares about. By the time Ilyich figures out his mistakes, he is too isolated and sick to repair the damage. When he dies, he is lonely and full of regret. He only wishes for someone to care about him and pity him, but with all that he has done, nobody does. Not only does this show the consequences of his own selfishness but also the selfishness of the people around him. Ilyich, however, is the only one we see suffer for his selfishness. Tolstoy uses him as an example of how selfishness creates loneliness in the end. Even though he uses many characters to show the ugliness of human selfishness, Tolstoy uses Ilyich as the specific example of its consequences.
In the entire story of Ivan Ilyich, Tolstory creates a pattern of people who are extremely selfish to warn readers away from being selfish. He starts by creating a dislikeable cast of secondary characters who only care about themselves even in light of their friend’s death. Next he presents Ilyich’s life story and shows how his selfish behavior eventually lead to his suffering at the end of his life. By presenting Ilyich as the selfish characters who suffers and falls into a lonely death, Tolstory warns readers that selfishness is one of the most damaging flaws for anyone to have.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Some Poems!
THE MASTER SPEED
Robert Frost
No speed of wind or water rushing by
But you have speed far greater. You can climb
Back up a stream of radiance to the sky,
And back through history up the steam of time.
And you were given this swiftness, not for haste,
Nor chiefly that you may go where you will,
But in the rush of everything to waste,
That you may have the power of standing still-
Off any still or moving thing you say.
Two such as you with such a master speed
Cannot be parted nor be swept away
From one another once you are agreed
That life is only life forevermore
Together wing to wing and oar to oar.
^Favorite poem EVER
Devotion by Robert Frost
The heart can think of no devotion
Greater than being shore to ocean -
Holding the curve of one position,
Counting an endless repetition.
Acquainted with the Night by Robert Frost
I have been one acquainted with the night.
I have walked out in rain -- and back in rain.
I have outwalked the furthest city light.
I have looked down the saddest city lane.
I have passed by the watchman on his beat
And dropped my eyes, unwilling to explain.
I have stood still and stopped the sound of feet
When far away an interrupted cry
Came over houses from another street,
But not to call me back or say good-bye;
And further still at an unearthly height,
A luminary clock against the sky
Proclaimed the time was neither wrong nor right.
I have been one acquainted with the night.
Robert Frost
No speed of wind or water rushing by
But you have speed far greater. You can climb
Back up a stream of radiance to the sky,
And back through history up the steam of time.
And you were given this swiftness, not for haste,
Nor chiefly that you may go where you will,
But in the rush of everything to waste,
That you may have the power of standing still-
Off any still or moving thing you say.
Two such as you with such a master speed
Cannot be parted nor be swept away
From one another once you are agreed
That life is only life forevermore
Together wing to wing and oar to oar.
^Favorite poem EVER
Devotion by Robert Frost
The heart can think of no devotion
Greater than being shore to ocean -
Holding the curve of one position,
Counting an endless repetition.
Acquainted with the Night by Robert Frost
I have been one acquainted with the night.
I have walked out in rain -- and back in rain.
I have outwalked the furthest city light.
I have looked down the saddest city lane.
I have passed by the watchman on his beat
And dropped my eyes, unwilling to explain.
I have stood still and stopped the sound of feet
When far away an interrupted cry
Came over houses from another street,
But not to call me back or say good-bye;
And further still at an unearthly height,
A luminary clock against the sky
Proclaimed the time was neither wrong nor right.
I have been one acquainted with the night.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
One of the biggest mysteries in Love in the Time of Cholera is how two acutely different characters can become dedicated to the same woman. Though they are very different people, they do have one thing beyond Fermina in common: they follow a strict set of principles that eventually breaks down because of passion.
Dr. Urbino lives by, or tries to live by, the set of principles that govern his profession and social class but allows himself to disregard this standards because of love. We first see this when he courts Fermina Daza. He befriends Fermina’s father and gains his favor in order to get closer to the family and Fermina. He also hires a famous pianist to serenade her at night. As would be typical for a member of his social class, he courts Fermina by trying to impress her with everything he can offer as her husband. When Lorenzo Daza’s conflicted past arises, Urbino, in a less romantic but still commanding Darcy fashion, covers up the story to protect the honor of his wife and the whole family. However, this set of class and professional standards break down when he meets Barbara Lynch. Ironically he directly breaks his professional standards first by initiating a relationship with a patient. He also breaks his class and moral standards by having an ongoing affair with Barbara Lynch even though he is married to Fermina. Before his affair, Urbino obsessively followed a strict set of principles but he disregards it almost carelessly when he falls in love with Barbara.
Florentino Ariza also lives by a strict set of moral principles until he loses Fermina’s love and must find a replacement for his passion. When he meets Fermina Daza, Florentino falls instantly in love with her and, subconsciously, creates a set of principles that he believes he must live by in order to stay faithful to Fermina. The biggest part of this commitment is eternal fidelity and the promise to save himself for Fermina. He also believes that he should shower Fermina with letters and attention as a sign of his love for her. He also serenades Fermina and tries to make money so that he can impress and support her. He lives by a set of guidelines because he wants to be fully dedicated and faithful to Fermina. When Fermina breaks off their engagement, however, circumstances change drastically. After he is “robbed of” his virginity, Florentino begins to realize that he doesn’t have to keep to his guidelines because he can replace his passion for Fermina with a passion for women in general. He sleeps with tons of women and lies to most of them about his past and hides his history with Fermina. Arguably, he doesn’t see these things as a betrayal to Fermina but they are a betrayal of his moral code that he followed when he was courting her. When he and Fermina were involved, Florentino followed a standard of behavior to honor her, but after their engagement ends and he finds passion elsewhere, he abandons his guidelines altogether.
Both Florentino and Urbino initially dedicate themselves to a set of standards but abandon them after their loves and passions change. These standards directly tie in with the effects that Fermina has on men since they are set and eliminated as her relationship with each man changes. In a way, the way that both men change their standards shows how Fermina, Florentino, and Urbino are all impacted by love and passion.
Dr. Urbino lives by, or tries to live by, the set of principles that govern his profession and social class but allows himself to disregard this standards because of love. We first see this when he courts Fermina Daza. He befriends Fermina’s father and gains his favor in order to get closer to the family and Fermina. He also hires a famous pianist to serenade her at night. As would be typical for a member of his social class, he courts Fermina by trying to impress her with everything he can offer as her husband. When Lorenzo Daza’s conflicted past arises, Urbino, in a less romantic but still commanding Darcy fashion, covers up the story to protect the honor of his wife and the whole family. However, this set of class and professional standards break down when he meets Barbara Lynch. Ironically he directly breaks his professional standards first by initiating a relationship with a patient. He also breaks his class and moral standards by having an ongoing affair with Barbara Lynch even though he is married to Fermina. Before his affair, Urbino obsessively followed a strict set of principles but he disregards it almost carelessly when he falls in love with Barbara.
Florentino Ariza also lives by a strict set of moral principles until he loses Fermina’s love and must find a replacement for his passion. When he meets Fermina Daza, Florentino falls instantly in love with her and, subconsciously, creates a set of principles that he believes he must live by in order to stay faithful to Fermina. The biggest part of this commitment is eternal fidelity and the promise to save himself for Fermina. He also believes that he should shower Fermina with letters and attention as a sign of his love for her. He also serenades Fermina and tries to make money so that he can impress and support her. He lives by a set of guidelines because he wants to be fully dedicated and faithful to Fermina. When Fermina breaks off their engagement, however, circumstances change drastically. After he is “robbed of” his virginity, Florentino begins to realize that he doesn’t have to keep to his guidelines because he can replace his passion for Fermina with a passion for women in general. He sleeps with tons of women and lies to most of them about his past and hides his history with Fermina. Arguably, he doesn’t see these things as a betrayal to Fermina but they are a betrayal of his moral code that he followed when he was courting her. When he and Fermina were involved, Florentino followed a standard of behavior to honor her, but after their engagement ends and he finds passion elsewhere, he abandons his guidelines altogether.
Both Florentino and Urbino initially dedicate themselves to a set of standards but abandon them after their loves and passions change. These standards directly tie in with the effects that Fermina has on men since they are set and eliminated as her relationship with each man changes. In a way, the way that both men change their standards shows how Fermina, Florentino, and Urbino are all impacted by love and passion.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Already in the first two sections of the novel, we encounter many different types of love from the three main characters. In the relationship between the elderly Dr. Urbino and Fermina, we see love that is merely convenient and passionless even at the very end. In the affair between Fermina and Florentino, however, we see love that is based on passion and fascination, as well as a touch of unrequited love. Even early on in the novel, Marquez shows us the many different shades of love and how they can entrance and control the people who fall into them.
The love between Fermina and Urbino in the first section shows the less romantic side of love. On the surface, the couple may appear to be still in love. As Marquez describes, they are dependent on one another and cannot be apart without thinking of the other. However, it quickly becomes clear that her love is not so pure, as Fermina is often annoyed by Urbino’s habits and inability to care for himself. Because they are both growing old and he is several years older, she has to care for him now that he is weakening. Fermina is contemptuous of her aging husband’s frailty and often will pretend to be asleep so she will not have to help him in the morning. There is also hidden resentment between them that comes pouring out in their only argument over soap. This argument, while over something trivial, becomes an outlet for any tensions or repressed anger. The tension skyrockets into a multi-month argument until Urbino finally lies and says that there was actually soap in the bathroom. She also becomes annoyed by how he urinates and finally pressures him into using the toilet like a woman. If there was any doubt before, we know that Fermina does not truly love Urbino because she thinks more about Florentino than about her deceased husband after the funeral. After all that time, loving her husband was more convenient and easy rather than passionate and deep. Even though she stays married to him for fifty years, Fermina does not love Urbino in the passionate, romantic way that we see Florentino loving her in the second section.
The love between Florentino and Fermina is vastly different and more romantic than her marriage to Urbino, except that, once again, he seems more in love than she does. Florentino’s love is passionate and instantaneous. After meeting her, he thinks of her constantly and writes a note that turns into a seventy-or-so page letter. Fermina notices him in the park every day and starts to pine for him as well. They both are in love but the intensity of his love is extreme and begins to frighten her after she reads the letter and their love becomes unequal. Even so, their love seems much more passionate and true than what we see of Fermina’s marriage to Urbino. For Fermina, this “relationship” is more passionate and deep. Through her eyes, we get to see the other, exciting side of love that we do not see in the first section of the novel.
In the first two sections of the novel, Marquez contrasts two types of love using the contrasting relationships in Fermina’s life. On the one hand, we see how love can be passionless and empty. In the other section, we see how love can be exciting and caring. Using Fermina’s life to contrast these two sides, Marquez builds anticipation in the book in a unique way. We as readers want to know which love affair was really the better one and what happened that Fermina ended up with “the wrong guy”. It is an effective tool that not only builds suspense but also shows readers the dual side of love and its power. (632)
The love between Fermina and Urbino in the first section shows the less romantic side of love. On the surface, the couple may appear to be still in love. As Marquez describes, they are dependent on one another and cannot be apart without thinking of the other. However, it quickly becomes clear that her love is not so pure, as Fermina is often annoyed by Urbino’s habits and inability to care for himself. Because they are both growing old and he is several years older, she has to care for him now that he is weakening. Fermina is contemptuous of her aging husband’s frailty and often will pretend to be asleep so she will not have to help him in the morning. There is also hidden resentment between them that comes pouring out in their only argument over soap. This argument, while over something trivial, becomes an outlet for any tensions or repressed anger. The tension skyrockets into a multi-month argument until Urbino finally lies and says that there was actually soap in the bathroom. She also becomes annoyed by how he urinates and finally pressures him into using the toilet like a woman. If there was any doubt before, we know that Fermina does not truly love Urbino because she thinks more about Florentino than about her deceased husband after the funeral. After all that time, loving her husband was more convenient and easy rather than passionate and deep. Even though she stays married to him for fifty years, Fermina does not love Urbino in the passionate, romantic way that we see Florentino loving her in the second section.
The love between Florentino and Fermina is vastly different and more romantic than her marriage to Urbino, except that, once again, he seems more in love than she does. Florentino’s love is passionate and instantaneous. After meeting her, he thinks of her constantly and writes a note that turns into a seventy-or-so page letter. Fermina notices him in the park every day and starts to pine for him as well. They both are in love but the intensity of his love is extreme and begins to frighten her after she reads the letter and their love becomes unequal. Even so, their love seems much more passionate and true than what we see of Fermina’s marriage to Urbino. For Fermina, this “relationship” is more passionate and deep. Through her eyes, we get to see the other, exciting side of love that we do not see in the first section of the novel.
In the first two sections of the novel, Marquez contrasts two types of love using the contrasting relationships in Fermina’s life. On the one hand, we see how love can be passionless and empty. In the other section, we see how love can be exciting and caring. Using Fermina’s life to contrast these two sides, Marquez builds anticipation in the book in a unique way. We as readers want to know which love affair was really the better one and what happened that Fermina ended up with “the wrong guy”. It is an effective tool that not only builds suspense but also shows readers the dual side of love and its power. (632)
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Jason Compson Needs to Be Kicked in the Shins, Just Hold Back a Little Bit
Jason Compson is a jerk. It’s indisputable. You can probably justify his actions by pointing out that his mother is psychotic and his family is torn apart but you can’t deny it altogether. It is so easy to hate Jason, but there is a catch to every jerk on the planet, and Jason’s is one that makes him a philosophical problem in his own right. It doesn't quite change the fact that he's a jerk, but you might hesitate as your foot goes to kick him.
Jason is an outright jerk. He is cruel, racist, controlling, manipulative, and disrespectful. From the start we get the sense that Jason is the nicest person: “Once a bitch always a bitch” (180). Good first impression! His attitude toward other people is probably his worst quality. We see this attitude best in his interaction with Quentin and Luster. He is always cold and degrading to Quentin, even stealing the money her mother sends and calling her a slut. He taunts Luster with the show tickets and refuses to give him the tickets even though he has no reason not to let Luster use them. His behavior toward Caddy, though perhaps more understandable, is also openly hostile and cruel. He refuses to let Caddy see Quentin even when she offers him money and continuously sends money to support her daughter. He even implies that her money comes from prostitution. And while a small part of us cheers every time Jason tells off his mother, he is still being disrespectful to the one person that gives him credit. He is obviously a bluntly distasteful person.
We do have to give Jason a little credit for being smart. He has devised a scheme where he embezzles Caddy’s money gifts to Quentin without his mother or niece having the slightest idea of how much money he is acquiring. Now we can’t hate him for being stupid, but hating him for scheming his family is even better. As we learn more about him, we discern that Jason’s problems go far beyond irritability and bitterness. He also has a control complex that has become intertwined with his obsession with money and the stock market. He is acutely aware and quick to remind the family that he is the man and sole provider of the family, in a sense also reminding them that he is in charge. He plays mind games with his mother and Quentin, further bursting his ego. There is Jason in a nutshell. But with every bitter, emotionally disturbed sociopath there is a catch that redeems him ever so slightly.
So what could possibly redeem Jason in anyone’s eyes? Despite his open hostility toward his family, he works every day for money that not only feeds his stock addiction but also supports his family. So why do we care? Because he doesn’t have to do it. He obviously has no strong emotional ties to Quentin or his mother, so we know supporting his family is more for his benefit than theirs. In essence, he supports his family to cater to his own controlling and manipulative nature. But he still supports them. Oddly enough, he reminds me of Mrs. Joe from Great Expectations, who likewise supports a family she treats terribly. Now the debate begins. Is Jason at least sort of a good guy because he supports the family? If you are a member of Kant’s school of thought, Jason is still a jerk. According to Kant, it’s the intentions that matter. Jason’s intentions are obviously not honorable, so to the Kants of the world, Jason is still a jerk. Then there are the more…Machiavellian types. In their eyes, the ends justify the means. Therefore, Jason is a good guy in the sense that the family stays “afloat” because Jason brings home money. Both points of view have decent philosophical arguments going for them.
So it begs the question, who is really right? I agree with Kant personally—it’s about the intentions. Jason uses his family relative well-being to support his addiction to control, which, in my opinion, disqualifies him as a good person. He also counters any economic help with his constant battery of the family’s emotions, defeating the purpose of keeping them economically healthy in the first place. I admit that there is something to be said that he continuously works for and lives with people he doesn’t care about, but it is not enough to redeem him in my eyes. Jason is still a jerk, but maybe I’ll hold back just a bit when I get the chance to kick him in the shins. (747).
Jason is an outright jerk. He is cruel, racist, controlling, manipulative, and disrespectful. From the start we get the sense that Jason is the nicest person: “Once a bitch always a bitch” (180). Good first impression! His attitude toward other people is probably his worst quality. We see this attitude best in his interaction with Quentin and Luster. He is always cold and degrading to Quentin, even stealing the money her mother sends and calling her a slut. He taunts Luster with the show tickets and refuses to give him the tickets even though he has no reason not to let Luster use them. His behavior toward Caddy, though perhaps more understandable, is also openly hostile and cruel. He refuses to let Caddy see Quentin even when she offers him money and continuously sends money to support her daughter. He even implies that her money comes from prostitution. And while a small part of us cheers every time Jason tells off his mother, he is still being disrespectful to the one person that gives him credit. He is obviously a bluntly distasteful person.
We do have to give Jason a little credit for being smart. He has devised a scheme where he embezzles Caddy’s money gifts to Quentin without his mother or niece having the slightest idea of how much money he is acquiring. Now we can’t hate him for being stupid, but hating him for scheming his family is even better. As we learn more about him, we discern that Jason’s problems go far beyond irritability and bitterness. He also has a control complex that has become intertwined with his obsession with money and the stock market. He is acutely aware and quick to remind the family that he is the man and sole provider of the family, in a sense also reminding them that he is in charge. He plays mind games with his mother and Quentin, further bursting his ego. There is Jason in a nutshell. But with every bitter, emotionally disturbed sociopath there is a catch that redeems him ever so slightly.
So what could possibly redeem Jason in anyone’s eyes? Despite his open hostility toward his family, he works every day for money that not only feeds his stock addiction but also supports his family. So why do we care? Because he doesn’t have to do it. He obviously has no strong emotional ties to Quentin or his mother, so we know supporting his family is more for his benefit than theirs. In essence, he supports his family to cater to his own controlling and manipulative nature. But he still supports them. Oddly enough, he reminds me of Mrs. Joe from Great Expectations, who likewise supports a family she treats terribly. Now the debate begins. Is Jason at least sort of a good guy because he supports the family? If you are a member of Kant’s school of thought, Jason is still a jerk. According to Kant, it’s the intentions that matter. Jason’s intentions are obviously not honorable, so to the Kants of the world, Jason is still a jerk. Then there are the more…Machiavellian types. In their eyes, the ends justify the means. Therefore, Jason is a good guy in the sense that the family stays “afloat” because Jason brings home money. Both points of view have decent philosophical arguments going for them.
So it begs the question, who is really right? I agree with Kant personally—it’s about the intentions. Jason uses his family relative well-being to support his addiction to control, which, in my opinion, disqualifies him as a good person. He also counters any economic help with his constant battery of the family’s emotions, defeating the purpose of keeping them economically healthy in the first place. I admit that there is something to be said that he continuously works for and lives with people he doesn’t care about, but it is not enough to redeem him in my eyes. Jason is still a jerk, but maybe I’ll hold back just a bit when I get the chance to kick him in the shins. (747).
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Twenty Paces to the Right....OUCH was that a golf ball?!
In the first two sections of The Sound and the Fury, the narrators use certain key indicators that give us insight into the sometimes impenetrable parts of the novel. Benjy and Quentin are both mentally unstable in their own ways. Quentin is severely depressed and Benjy is developmentally challenged. These difficulties make it hard to understand their trains of thought. Luckily for us, both narrators repeat phrases and details that help us follow the complex thought processes of the first two narrators.
Repeated phrases in Benjy’s narrative serve the dual purpose of helping us follow the story as well as revealing his mental state at key moments. Skimming the first pages of Benjy’s narrative is a scary thing as a reader. Horrified thoughts of “hey why is that in italics?!” come to mind. Luckily, we have key phrases to guide us. For example, in the first pages of his section, Benjy’s consciousness switches between the present time and a memory with Caddy. We can discern which time period is which by noting that Luster only appears in the present time, while Caddy is only present in Benjy’s memories. Because Benjy cannot talk or comprehend the things around him, we do not gain much insight into Benjy’s thoughts or emotions through his own voice. Whenever Benjy is upset, however, other people are always telling him to hush or stop moaning, so we know something unsettled him—another indicator. Repeated phrases in Benjy’s narrative also prepare the readers for events later in the novel. The most important of these phrases is “Caddy smelled like trees”. We know that Benjy likes when Caddy smells like trees and always notices when she does since he repeats the phrase whenever he thinks about her. It makes sense to us then, later, when Benjy freaks out when Caddy is wearing perfume. The repeated phrase helps us understand that Benjy associates “his” Caddy with the smell of trees and dislikes Caddy’s changing life. Benjy’s narrative is so convoluted that Faulkner had to give us hints that help us to follow the complex narrative style.
Special indicators also help us follow Quentin’s erratic narrative. In Quentin’s narrative, the indicators are usually repeated phrases that show the things that are tormenting him. Without reading the clues, we would never know why Quentin is driven to suicide. Quentin repeats the phrase “no sister” over and over so we learn that Caddy is one of the things that is weighing on his conscience. He also repeats the phrase “Dalton Ames” endlessly throughout the narrative. When we find out about his confrontation with Dalton Ames later on, we already understand that the experience weighs on Quentin’s mind. He also dwells on the fact that the family sold Benjy’s pasture to pay his Harvard tuition. Because he repeatedly thinks about this fact, we infer that he may feel guilty or spiteful toward his education since it hurts his brother. The plot indicators in Quentin’s narrative help us understand the reasons for Quentin’s depression.
In a complex novel like The Sound and the Fury, authors try to plant key hints that help us understand the plot and characters. Without character indicators, we wouldn’t be able to follow the direction of Benjy’s consciousness. Without repeating phrases, we wouldn’t be able to understand Quentin’s depression. Luckily for us, Faulkner thought to use hints and italics to help us understand and enjoy the complexities of The Sound and the Fury. (573)
Repeated phrases in Benjy’s narrative serve the dual purpose of helping us follow the story as well as revealing his mental state at key moments. Skimming the first pages of Benjy’s narrative is a scary thing as a reader. Horrified thoughts of “hey why is that in italics?!” come to mind. Luckily, we have key phrases to guide us. For example, in the first pages of his section, Benjy’s consciousness switches between the present time and a memory with Caddy. We can discern which time period is which by noting that Luster only appears in the present time, while Caddy is only present in Benjy’s memories. Because Benjy cannot talk or comprehend the things around him, we do not gain much insight into Benjy’s thoughts or emotions through his own voice. Whenever Benjy is upset, however, other people are always telling him to hush or stop moaning, so we know something unsettled him—another indicator. Repeated phrases in Benjy’s narrative also prepare the readers for events later in the novel. The most important of these phrases is “Caddy smelled like trees”. We know that Benjy likes when Caddy smells like trees and always notices when she does since he repeats the phrase whenever he thinks about her. It makes sense to us then, later, when Benjy freaks out when Caddy is wearing perfume. The repeated phrase helps us understand that Benjy associates “his” Caddy with the smell of trees and dislikes Caddy’s changing life. Benjy’s narrative is so convoluted that Faulkner had to give us hints that help us to follow the complex narrative style.
Special indicators also help us follow Quentin’s erratic narrative. In Quentin’s narrative, the indicators are usually repeated phrases that show the things that are tormenting him. Without reading the clues, we would never know why Quentin is driven to suicide. Quentin repeats the phrase “no sister” over and over so we learn that Caddy is one of the things that is weighing on his conscience. He also repeats the phrase “Dalton Ames” endlessly throughout the narrative. When we find out about his confrontation with Dalton Ames later on, we already understand that the experience weighs on Quentin’s mind. He also dwells on the fact that the family sold Benjy’s pasture to pay his Harvard tuition. Because he repeatedly thinks about this fact, we infer that he may feel guilty or spiteful toward his education since it hurts his brother. The plot indicators in Quentin’s narrative help us understand the reasons for Quentin’s depression.
In a complex novel like The Sound and the Fury, authors try to plant key hints that help us understand the plot and characters. Without character indicators, we wouldn’t be able to follow the direction of Benjy’s consciousness. Without repeating phrases, we wouldn’t be able to understand Quentin’s depression. Luckily for us, Faulkner thought to use hints and italics to help us understand and enjoy the complexities of The Sound and the Fury. (573)
Sunday, October 14, 2007
This is Why Chores Are Dangerous
In her short story “I Stand Here Ironing”, Tillie Olsen follows a busy mother as she reflects on her relationship with her eldest daughter, Emily. We quickly learn that the mother cannot always connect with her daughter when she says, “You think because I am her mother I have a key, or that in some way you could use me as a key?” (3). We also sense that she feels that she has made mistakes with her daughter when she says “I will become engulfed with all I did or did not do, with what should have been and what cannot be helped” (4). The big question for the mother is whether or not she could have done more for her daughter, whose life is a constant struggle. We follow the mother as she reflects on Emily’s life and strongly questions whether she has failed her now nineteen-year-old daughter.
After Emily was born, her mother saw her as a “miracle”. She loved Emily for her beautiful, baby-ish qualities and dedicated her life to Emily’s happiness. Unfortunately the family’s poor circumstance caused Emily’s father to leave and forced her mother to work while Emily stayed with a neighbor, “to whom Emily was no miracle at all” (9). Eventually, the mother had to send Emily to live with her ex-husband’s family until she earned more money. Instead of living with her mother who was dedicated solely to her, Emily stayed with people who did not care for her in the way only her mother could. As we might expect, this separation takes a terrible toll on Emily.
The mother remembers that when Emily returned home, she had lost her childlike qualities, even though she was still only two-years-old. The mother sent Emily to nursery school because Emily was “old enough, so they said” and because she herself had to work (12). The mother says that even though she sensed the school was a bad place for Emily, she had no choice of schools and sent her anyway. As the mother feared, Emily was miserable at school and even feigned sickness to avoid going. The mother at this point in her thoughts notes the difference between Emily and her other children. Again, the mother feels guilty that Emily was unhappy and she could do nothing. Unlike her other children, however, Emily never threw tantrums about going to school nor openly said she didn’t want to go. This recollection disturbs the mother. She wonders why Emily was different and fears that she scared Emily into obeying her. She then remembers what another neighbor once said to her: “you should smile at Emily more when you look at her” (17). From there, she reflects on how she was different with her children. With Emily, she didn’t smile as she did with the others and now neither did Emily. When she was left alone at night, she would call out to her mother and once threw the clock into the hall because its ticking made her nervous. When she had nightmares, her mother was stern and told her to go back to sleep because she was too tired to sit with her. Emerging from her reflections, the mother regrets how she treated Emily now that Emily refuses to be comforted at night. She feels that Emily now resists comfort because she was denied it for so long. We see that Emily’s mother had no idea how to help her and, in desperation, sometimes made matters worse for her daughter.
Eventually, people at a clinic convinced the mother to send Emily to a group home in the country where she will better cared for Despite her mother’s best intentions, Emily did not improve at the home. The mother was not even allowed to be near Emiliy when she visited and, after eight months of struggle, the mother and her new husband got Emily released from the home. With Emily back, the mother tried to give her more love, but Emily was unreceptive. At this point, the mother could not even make up for the love she never gave. Emily again struggled in school and tried to stay home, and sometimes her mother let her now that she was not working. Even with the mother not working, Emily is emotionally detached and resents her new baby sister, who breaks and loses her things. Looking back at the children, the mother says, “I have edged away from it, that poisonous feeling between them, that terrible balancing of hurts and needs I had to do between the two, and did so badly those earlier years” (40). It seems to the mother that Emily shrank away from her family even more once the other children were born. She could not give Emily the love she needed and manage the household at the same time. With more children and less time, we expect to hear that Emily’s situation worsened as the distance between her and her mother grew.
Instead of worsening, though, Emily’s situation actually improved slightly as she got older. Her mother remembers how she discovered her talent for impressions, even winning a talent show and being asked to perform at other schools. She also remembers how strong and confident Emily seemed on stage and that she could hardly recognize her daughter who was usually so shy. Despite the improvements, Emily was “as imprisoned in her difference as she had been in anonymity” (47). But as we emerge from the mother’s memories, it seems that Emily is now a stronger person than she was as a child.
At the end of the story, the mother escapes from her reflections and we meet the teenage Emily. The mother says “this is one of her communicative nights and she tells [her] everything and nothing as she fixes a plate of food” (51). When she sees Emily, the mother wonders why she was worrying in the first place, because Emily is happy now. She summarizes every bad thing in Emily’s life in her head, everything she did wrong and everything that was beyond her own control. In the end, the mother decides to let Emily be, because even if she does not reach her full potential, she is still a beautiful person. In this decision, she also lets herself be with happy with her daughter, without regret and without guilt.
Discussion Questions:
1. Do you think the mother was responsible for Emily’s problems as a child?
2. Do you think Emily would have had problems had she not been sent away?
3. Could the mother have done more to help or prevent Emily’s problems?
4. The narrator refers to a “you” who suggested that she help with Emily. Who do you think the “you” is?
5. The reaching question. The story seems somewhat unfinished at the end. Do you think Emily’s state will continue to improve or will she always struggle with her anxiety?
After Emily was born, her mother saw her as a “miracle”. She loved Emily for her beautiful, baby-ish qualities and dedicated her life to Emily’s happiness. Unfortunately the family’s poor circumstance caused Emily’s father to leave and forced her mother to work while Emily stayed with a neighbor, “to whom Emily was no miracle at all” (9). Eventually, the mother had to send Emily to live with her ex-husband’s family until she earned more money. Instead of living with her mother who was dedicated solely to her, Emily stayed with people who did not care for her in the way only her mother could. As we might expect, this separation takes a terrible toll on Emily.
The mother remembers that when Emily returned home, she had lost her childlike qualities, even though she was still only two-years-old. The mother sent Emily to nursery school because Emily was “old enough, so they said” and because she herself had to work (12). The mother says that even though she sensed the school was a bad place for Emily, she had no choice of schools and sent her anyway. As the mother feared, Emily was miserable at school and even feigned sickness to avoid going. The mother at this point in her thoughts notes the difference between Emily and her other children. Again, the mother feels guilty that Emily was unhappy and she could do nothing. Unlike her other children, however, Emily never threw tantrums about going to school nor openly said she didn’t want to go. This recollection disturbs the mother. She wonders why Emily was different and fears that she scared Emily into obeying her. She then remembers what another neighbor once said to her: “you should smile at Emily more when you look at her” (17). From there, she reflects on how she was different with her children. With Emily, she didn’t smile as she did with the others and now neither did Emily. When she was left alone at night, she would call out to her mother and once threw the clock into the hall because its ticking made her nervous. When she had nightmares, her mother was stern and told her to go back to sleep because she was too tired to sit with her. Emerging from her reflections, the mother regrets how she treated Emily now that Emily refuses to be comforted at night. She feels that Emily now resists comfort because she was denied it for so long. We see that Emily’s mother had no idea how to help her and, in desperation, sometimes made matters worse for her daughter.
Eventually, people at a clinic convinced the mother to send Emily to a group home in the country where she will better cared for Despite her mother’s best intentions, Emily did not improve at the home. The mother was not even allowed to be near Emiliy when she visited and, after eight months of struggle, the mother and her new husband got Emily released from the home. With Emily back, the mother tried to give her more love, but Emily was unreceptive. At this point, the mother could not even make up for the love she never gave. Emily again struggled in school and tried to stay home, and sometimes her mother let her now that she was not working. Even with the mother not working, Emily is emotionally detached and resents her new baby sister, who breaks and loses her things. Looking back at the children, the mother says, “I have edged away from it, that poisonous feeling between them, that terrible balancing of hurts and needs I had to do between the two, and did so badly those earlier years” (40). It seems to the mother that Emily shrank away from her family even more once the other children were born. She could not give Emily the love she needed and manage the household at the same time. With more children and less time, we expect to hear that Emily’s situation worsened as the distance between her and her mother grew.
Instead of worsening, though, Emily’s situation actually improved slightly as she got older. Her mother remembers how she discovered her talent for impressions, even winning a talent show and being asked to perform at other schools. She also remembers how strong and confident Emily seemed on stage and that she could hardly recognize her daughter who was usually so shy. Despite the improvements, Emily was “as imprisoned in her difference as she had been in anonymity” (47). But as we emerge from the mother’s memories, it seems that Emily is now a stronger person than she was as a child.
At the end of the story, the mother escapes from her reflections and we meet the teenage Emily. The mother says “this is one of her communicative nights and she tells [her] everything and nothing as she fixes a plate of food” (51). When she sees Emily, the mother wonders why she was worrying in the first place, because Emily is happy now. She summarizes every bad thing in Emily’s life in her head, everything she did wrong and everything that was beyond her own control. In the end, the mother decides to let Emily be, because even if she does not reach her full potential, she is still a beautiful person. In this decision, she also lets herself be with happy with her daughter, without regret and without guilt.
Discussion Questions:
1. Do you think the mother was responsible for Emily’s problems as a child?
2. Do you think Emily would have had problems had she not been sent away?
3. Could the mother have done more to help or prevent Emily’s problems?
4. The narrator refers to a “you” who suggested that she help with Emily. Who do you think the “you” is?
5. The reaching question. The story seems somewhat unfinished at the end. Do you think Emily’s state will continue to improve or will she always struggle with her anxiety?
Monday, October 8, 2007
This Stuff's Gettin Pretty Heavy Guys....Guys?
In “The Things They Carried”, Tim O’Brien describes the double nature of soldiers at war, exposing both the feeling and unfeeling sides of humanity at war. By showing both of these sides through the men and Jimmy Cross, O’Brien shows the reality that most soldiers embrace their unfeeling sides as a self-defense mechanism.
The soldiers obviously have what we might consider a more humane and feeling side. The most obvious example is Jimmy Cross and his affection for his men and Martha. After Ted Lavender’s dies, Jimmy is overcome with shame and even starts to cry as he mulls over the “fact” that Lavender’s death is his fault because, as he sees it, “he had loved Martha more than his men” (42). Furthermore, he cries because he realizes that he and the woman he loves are in two completely different worlds, a fact that hurts him to the bone. The other soldiers commonly feel shame as well. After particularly terrifying skirmishes, the soldiers often emerge from their battle spots ashamed of the horror and weakness that they submitted to during battle: they “stupid promises to themselves and to Go and to their mothers and fathers, hoping not to die” (65). However, after both of these events, Cross’s and the soldiers’ breakdowns, the characters retreat to their unfeeling sides to avoid the pain and suffering that comes with feeling the full pain of the war.
The other side, the unfeeling side, of the soldiers’ personalities is the emotionally numbing response to the horrors of the war. It’s not that the soldiers don’t actually feel anything, but sometimes just separate themselves from the death and pain around them. Immediately after Lavender’s death, for example, the men don’t let themselves mourn for their comrade. They, including Cross, instead sit around smoking his cigarettes and then burn a nearby village. Kiowa later admits that he can’t be sad about Lavender’s death, even though he wants to be, and is mostly just “pleased to be alive” (60). They also hide their fear from each other. As the narrator describes it, “they carried the soldier’s greatest fear, which was the fear of blushing. Men killed, and died, because they were embarrassed not to” (76). After even the worst skirmishes, the men won’t admit how afraid they were to each other. They make jokes that hint how scared they were, only to be countered with another joke that allows them to pretend it wasn’t that scary. The soldiers all put on “poses” to mask their fear: “Some carried themselves with a sort of wistful resignation, others with pride or stiff soldierly discipline or good humor or macho zeal” (67). They also act cruel to separate themselves from the war. Mitchell Sanders, for example, cuts off the thumb of a dead boy to have as a keepsake and the other men also kick corpses and talk about death insensitively, making it less real and terrifying.
We get insight into how the men convert themselves to feel this way through Jimmy Cross. After Lavender dies and he tries to disconnect from Martha, Cross realizes why the men act the way they do—it hurts too much not to. In the end, Cross embraces this unfeeling side, rejecting, or simply hiding, his emotions. He represents, in certain ways, the path of every soldier who has to let go of the pain and suppress his emotions, often for his own sake.
(570)
The soldiers obviously have what we might consider a more humane and feeling side. The most obvious example is Jimmy Cross and his affection for his men and Martha. After Ted Lavender’s dies, Jimmy is overcome with shame and even starts to cry as he mulls over the “fact” that Lavender’s death is his fault because, as he sees it, “he had loved Martha more than his men” (42). Furthermore, he cries because he realizes that he and the woman he loves are in two completely different worlds, a fact that hurts him to the bone. The other soldiers commonly feel shame as well. After particularly terrifying skirmishes, the soldiers often emerge from their battle spots ashamed of the horror and weakness that they submitted to during battle: they “stupid promises to themselves and to Go and to their mothers and fathers, hoping not to die” (65). However, after both of these events, Cross’s and the soldiers’ breakdowns, the characters retreat to their unfeeling sides to avoid the pain and suffering that comes with feeling the full pain of the war.
The other side, the unfeeling side, of the soldiers’ personalities is the emotionally numbing response to the horrors of the war. It’s not that the soldiers don’t actually feel anything, but sometimes just separate themselves from the death and pain around them. Immediately after Lavender’s death, for example, the men don’t let themselves mourn for their comrade. They, including Cross, instead sit around smoking his cigarettes and then burn a nearby village. Kiowa later admits that he can’t be sad about Lavender’s death, even though he wants to be, and is mostly just “pleased to be alive” (60). They also hide their fear from each other. As the narrator describes it, “they carried the soldier’s greatest fear, which was the fear of blushing. Men killed, and died, because they were embarrassed not to” (76). After even the worst skirmishes, the men won’t admit how afraid they were to each other. They make jokes that hint how scared they were, only to be countered with another joke that allows them to pretend it wasn’t that scary. The soldiers all put on “poses” to mask their fear: “Some carried themselves with a sort of wistful resignation, others with pride or stiff soldierly discipline or good humor or macho zeal” (67). They also act cruel to separate themselves from the war. Mitchell Sanders, for example, cuts off the thumb of a dead boy to have as a keepsake and the other men also kick corpses and talk about death insensitively, making it less real and terrifying.
We get insight into how the men convert themselves to feel this way through Jimmy Cross. After Lavender dies and he tries to disconnect from Martha, Cross realizes why the men act the way they do—it hurts too much not to. In the end, Cross embraces this unfeeling side, rejecting, or simply hiding, his emotions. He represents, in certain ways, the path of every soldier who has to let go of the pain and suppress his emotions, often for his own sake.
(570)
Thursday, September 27, 2007
One Man's Adulterous Wife is Another Man's Dream Girl
In his novel Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy continually switches the perspective of the narrator, following the deeds and thoughts of different characters and, in doing so, making the dramatics of the novel even more interesting. Throughout all of "Part One" the perspective changes from that of Stepan to Levin to Princess Shcherbatskaya to Kitty to Vronsky to Anna and back again. In many cases, the characters who give us the most insight into the inner workings of the plot and characters are he ones who are not yet directly involved in the novel’s central conflict, like Stepan and Kitty. We as readers reap the benefits of these different perspectives by seeing, from all sides, the approaching conflict between Anna, Vronsky, and the characters that surround them.
The story starts from the perspective of Stepan Arkadyevich. For the first few chapters, we follow Stepan and discover the background of the Oblonsky family, including their tainted history of adultery. Quickly we are introduced to the theme of adultery that will obviously become a central theme as the story progresses. Through Stepan's own descriptions of his past and personality, we learn that he is, in many ways, a simple aristocrat. He admits that his beliefs are not based off of substantial and also that he is a man of habit, reading the same newspaper columns every day. He does state, however, that he is rather intelligent and naturally gifted but was often too lazy in school to be a really exceptional student. In fact, we do catch a glimpse of his thoughtful side when he reflects on his infidelities and becomes angry with himself for the little things he has done to hurt his wife. Though sometimes learning about a character through his or her own perspective can bear false impressions, the impressions we get from Stepan of his own character are honest to the point of even being self-critical, which in itself tells more about his personality.
Another character who we learn about through Stepan’s eyes is Dolly, his wife. As Stepan describes her, she is “forever fussing and worrying” as well as “rather simple” (5). She also cares deeply about her children, at one point saying to Stepan, “I think of the children, and for that reason I would do anything in the world to save them” (16). Because she is so dedicated to her children, her marital problems with Stepan plague her even more because she does not know how to save the children from the pain of their parents’ feud. While she is certainly a very complex character, we initially see Dolly as Stepan sees her, concerned and broken by her husband’s infidelity.
Through Stepan’s perspective we learn about another complex character, Levin. Our first impression of Levin is that he is very shy, making him appear somewhat weak, especially compared to the outgoing Stepan. Even Stepan is aware of his friend’s “sensitive and irritable shyness” (21). It quickly becomes clear that Stepan and Levin are very different in their personalities and lifestyles though “it seemed to each of them that the life he led himself was the only real life, and Th. life led by his friend was a mere illusion” (22). Levin, unlike Stepan, is a hardworking farmer who lives in the country, making him odd company for an aristocratic socialite like Stepan. The two men often see ridicule in the other’s lifestyle, both laughing at the life and priorities of the other. “The difference,” Oblonsky says, “was that Oblonsky, as he was doing the same as everyone did, laughed complacently and good-humoredly, while Levin laughed without complacency and sometimes angrily” (22). Levin also appears to be somewhat child-like from Stepan’s perspective due to his new “phases”, as Stepan calls them, and his undying love for Kitty. It is not until we follow the story from Levin’s perspective that we see him in a new light. From his own perspective, we see that Levin is under confident in many ways, especially when it comes to his love for Kitty. Also, we get the sense that Levin is shy only because he dislikes the city and feels uncomfortable around city folk, which goes along with Stepan’s descriptions of their friendship. These varying impressions of Levin demonstrate the benefit of having multiple perspectives early in a novel--we get to see the characters from many different angles, not just how one person sees them or how they see themselves.
In the first section of the novel, Tolstoy continually changes the perspective of the narrator to that of several different characters, allowing us to see the characters as “whole people” and not just as specific impressions. Stepan Arkadyevich’s descriptions of himself and other characters become our first look at the characters and how different people in this Russian society see each other differently. Stepan’s descriptions of Levin and Levin’s description of himself also show us how different or misconstrued these first impressions can be. In a novel like Anna Karenina, where social classes and standards play a key role in the plot, the different perspectives allow us to see not only who a character really is, but also, and possibly more importantly, how he or she is viewed in society. (871)
The story starts from the perspective of Stepan Arkadyevich. For the first few chapters, we follow Stepan and discover the background of the Oblonsky family, including their tainted history of adultery. Quickly we are introduced to the theme of adultery that will obviously become a central theme as the story progresses. Through Stepan's own descriptions of his past and personality, we learn that he is, in many ways, a simple aristocrat. He admits that his beliefs are not based off of substantial and also that he is a man of habit, reading the same newspaper columns every day. He does state, however, that he is rather intelligent and naturally gifted but was often too lazy in school to be a really exceptional student. In fact, we do catch a glimpse of his thoughtful side when he reflects on his infidelities and becomes angry with himself for the little things he has done to hurt his wife. Though sometimes learning about a character through his or her own perspective can bear false impressions, the impressions we get from Stepan of his own character are honest to the point of even being self-critical, which in itself tells more about his personality.
Another character who we learn about through Stepan’s eyes is Dolly, his wife. As Stepan describes her, she is “forever fussing and worrying” as well as “rather simple” (5). She also cares deeply about her children, at one point saying to Stepan, “I think of the children, and for that reason I would do anything in the world to save them” (16). Because she is so dedicated to her children, her marital problems with Stepan plague her even more because she does not know how to save the children from the pain of their parents’ feud. While she is certainly a very complex character, we initially see Dolly as Stepan sees her, concerned and broken by her husband’s infidelity.
Through Stepan’s perspective we learn about another complex character, Levin. Our first impression of Levin is that he is very shy, making him appear somewhat weak, especially compared to the outgoing Stepan. Even Stepan is aware of his friend’s “sensitive and irritable shyness” (21). It quickly becomes clear that Stepan and Levin are very different in their personalities and lifestyles though “it seemed to each of them that the life he led himself was the only real life, and Th. life led by his friend was a mere illusion” (22). Levin, unlike Stepan, is a hardworking farmer who lives in the country, making him odd company for an aristocratic socialite like Stepan. The two men often see ridicule in the other’s lifestyle, both laughing at the life and priorities of the other. “The difference,” Oblonsky says, “was that Oblonsky, as he was doing the same as everyone did, laughed complacently and good-humoredly, while Levin laughed without complacency and sometimes angrily” (22). Levin also appears to be somewhat child-like from Stepan’s perspective due to his new “phases”, as Stepan calls them, and his undying love for Kitty. It is not until we follow the story from Levin’s perspective that we see him in a new light. From his own perspective, we see that Levin is under confident in many ways, especially when it comes to his love for Kitty. Also, we get the sense that Levin is shy only because he dislikes the city and feels uncomfortable around city folk, which goes along with Stepan’s descriptions of their friendship. These varying impressions of Levin demonstrate the benefit of having multiple perspectives early in a novel--we get to see the characters from many different angles, not just how one person sees them or how they see themselves.
In the first section of the novel, Tolstoy continually changes the perspective of the narrator to that of several different characters, allowing us to see the characters as “whole people” and not just as specific impressions. Stepan Arkadyevich’s descriptions of himself and other characters become our first look at the characters and how different people in this Russian society see each other differently. Stepan’s descriptions of Levin and Levin’s description of himself also show us how different or misconstrued these first impressions can be. In a novel like Anna Karenina, where social classes and standards play a key role in the plot, the different perspectives allow us to see not only who a character really is, but also, and possibly more importantly, how he or she is viewed in society. (871)
Friday, September 21, 2007
So I Found a Good Man, but then He Shot Me
In “A Good Man Is Hard to Find”, Flannery O’Connor presents a cast of unlikable characters to build up our hopes of finding “a good man.” The family whose story we follow is everything we wouldn’t want, but would probably expect, in a family. It is the stereotypical “road trip story” family, with characters who cannot get along and bicker incessantly. This story’s stereotypical family is made up of the starry-eyed grandmother, the over-stressed parents, and the hyperactive children. They make for one hell of a road trip.
They do, however, serve a purpose in how much they annoy us as readers. They drive us so crazy that we join the grandmother in her everlasting search for “a good man”. Like the grandmother, we as readers long to find a character to latch onto and relate with, something we cannot do with any member of the family. In this longing, however, we too become blind to the true nature of the characters we meet.
There is another reason, however, that this family makes us more vulnerable to sympathize with the “bad guy” of the story. Every member of the family is a “one-dimensional” character whereas the Misfit has depth and many dimensions to his personality. The father, for example, is only the character we expect him to be. He is annoyed by his mother, impatient with his children, and sharp-tempered, like for example when he yells at the children to shut up in the car. Each member of the family fits perfectly into his or her own stereotype, leaving us yearning for a complex, interesting character whose life and actions surprise us.
So here we are, readers craving a character who not only is “a good man” and we like, but also one that has to break out of his stereotype and be an intriguing presence in the story. Enter the Misfit.
The Misfit first appears when the family is at its most vulnerable. When he and his lackeys first arrive on scene, the Misfit appears to be a kind stranger who fortunately came to the family’s aid after the crash. Surprisingly, the grandmother’s attitude, and even our attitudes, toward the strangers don’t change even when we find out that the kind stranger is actually the Misfit that the grandmother saw on television. The grandmother quickly assumes that the Misfit is just misunderstood and would never hurt her. We as readers hesitate to trust him once we learn his real identity, but we still are inclined to trust him, probably because the grandmother still does. O’Connor portrays the grandmother as a child-like character, sweet and innocent. As anyone who has read The Emperor’s New Clothes knows, children are famous for their ability to perceive the true natures of people. Since the grandmother is so child-like in her own naïve way, we assume that she must be able to see into the soul of the Misfit, beyond his sins and obviously dangerous qualities. However, as the events of the story continue to unfold, this hope for “a good man” fades and can no longer keep us attached to the Misfit.
When it becomes obvious that the Misfit is not actually “a good man” and does actually mean to kill the family, we as readers can no longer so readily accept the grandmother’s hope and faith, but we can still hold on to the idea that the Misfit could be the complex character we’ve been looking for. The Misfit is not your average, everyday “let’s rob and kill them ‘cause we can” kind of criminal. As he starts talking about his past, that fact becomes clear. While talking to the grandmother, he acknowledges that his parents were the “finest people in the world” (90). This conversation is the first sign that the Misfit does not fit his respective stereotype as the other characters do. Next, he tells the grandmother about his first arrest and how he was thrown in jail for killing his father (who actually died from the flu). He is the first character whose past is revealed, which gives him yet another dimension more than the other characters.
After Bobby Lee returns with Bailey’s shirt, our hopes are nearly completely gone that the Misfit will turn out to be the good man we’ve all been waiting for. Our perceptiveness, however, is still clouded when the Misfit and the grandmother start to talk about religion and punishment. The Misfit confesses that the reason he kills people is he “can’t make what all I done wrong fit what all I gone through in punishment” (130). We also gain insight into his cynical religious convictions when he says, “If [Jesus] didn’t [raise the dead] then it’s nothing for you do but enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you can—by killing somebody or burning down his house or doing some other meanness” (135). His complexities and depth are so clear and so attractive because we see his potential for good and again start to hope that, even though he has killed people, he can still undergo a change of heart and redeem himself as a character. These hopes seem realized as the Misfit’s rough exterior starts to crack and he nearly begins to cry. The grandmother goes to far, however, by touching his shoulder and waking him up from his trance-like state where his true nature was being revealed.
So our hopes get shot down along with the grandmother, as gruesome as that sounds. O’Connor sets us up to long for “a good man”, running a parallel course with the grandmother into the hands of the very person we are told to fear from the first paragraph. We are fooled, however, by his complex nature and atypical past into thinking that he may actually be the character we have been looking for all along. But as the story ends, we are ruined in exactly the same way as the grandmother, by thinking we could trust a man who may just be that “good man” that is so hard to find. (1,011)
Updated: Add the word count
They do, however, serve a purpose in how much they annoy us as readers. They drive us so crazy that we join the grandmother in her everlasting search for “a good man”. Like the grandmother, we as readers long to find a character to latch onto and relate with, something we cannot do with any member of the family. In this longing, however, we too become blind to the true nature of the characters we meet.
There is another reason, however, that this family makes us more vulnerable to sympathize with the “bad guy” of the story. Every member of the family is a “one-dimensional” character whereas the Misfit has depth and many dimensions to his personality. The father, for example, is only the character we expect him to be. He is annoyed by his mother, impatient with his children, and sharp-tempered, like for example when he yells at the children to shut up in the car. Each member of the family fits perfectly into his or her own stereotype, leaving us yearning for a complex, interesting character whose life and actions surprise us.
So here we are, readers craving a character who not only is “a good man” and we like, but also one that has to break out of his stereotype and be an intriguing presence in the story. Enter the Misfit.
The Misfit first appears when the family is at its most vulnerable. When he and his lackeys first arrive on scene, the Misfit appears to be a kind stranger who fortunately came to the family’s aid after the crash. Surprisingly, the grandmother’s attitude, and even our attitudes, toward the strangers don’t change even when we find out that the kind stranger is actually the Misfit that the grandmother saw on television. The grandmother quickly assumes that the Misfit is just misunderstood and would never hurt her. We as readers hesitate to trust him once we learn his real identity, but we still are inclined to trust him, probably because the grandmother still does. O’Connor portrays the grandmother as a child-like character, sweet and innocent. As anyone who has read The Emperor’s New Clothes knows, children are famous for their ability to perceive the true natures of people. Since the grandmother is so child-like in her own naïve way, we assume that she must be able to see into the soul of the Misfit, beyond his sins and obviously dangerous qualities. However, as the events of the story continue to unfold, this hope for “a good man” fades and can no longer keep us attached to the Misfit.
When it becomes obvious that the Misfit is not actually “a good man” and does actually mean to kill the family, we as readers can no longer so readily accept the grandmother’s hope and faith, but we can still hold on to the idea that the Misfit could be the complex character we’ve been looking for. The Misfit is not your average, everyday “let’s rob and kill them ‘cause we can” kind of criminal. As he starts talking about his past, that fact becomes clear. While talking to the grandmother, he acknowledges that his parents were the “finest people in the world” (90). This conversation is the first sign that the Misfit does not fit his respective stereotype as the other characters do. Next, he tells the grandmother about his first arrest and how he was thrown in jail for killing his father (who actually died from the flu). He is the first character whose past is revealed, which gives him yet another dimension more than the other characters.
After Bobby Lee returns with Bailey’s shirt, our hopes are nearly completely gone that the Misfit will turn out to be the good man we’ve all been waiting for. Our perceptiveness, however, is still clouded when the Misfit and the grandmother start to talk about religion and punishment. The Misfit confesses that the reason he kills people is he “can’t make what all I done wrong fit what all I gone through in punishment” (130). We also gain insight into his cynical religious convictions when he says, “If [Jesus] didn’t [raise the dead] then it’s nothing for you do but enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you can—by killing somebody or burning down his house or doing some other meanness” (135). His complexities and depth are so clear and so attractive because we see his potential for good and again start to hope that, even though he has killed people, he can still undergo a change of heart and redeem himself as a character. These hopes seem realized as the Misfit’s rough exterior starts to crack and he nearly begins to cry. The grandmother goes to far, however, by touching his shoulder and waking him up from his trance-like state where his true nature was being revealed.
So our hopes get shot down along with the grandmother, as gruesome as that sounds. O’Connor sets us up to long for “a good man”, running a parallel course with the grandmother into the hands of the very person we are told to fear from the first paragraph. We are fooled, however, by his complex nature and atypical past into thinking that he may actually be the character we have been looking for all along. But as the story ends, we are ruined in exactly the same way as the grandmother, by thinking we could trust a man who may just be that “good man” that is so hard to find. (1,011)
Updated: Add the word count
Friday, September 14, 2007
The Rolling Stones Are Always Right...Always
In numerous stories and one Rollings Stones song, we are told that “you can’t always get what you want.” In “Interpreter of Maladies”, Jhumpa Lahiri plays with this concept using the attractions of her two main characters to show that you can’t always get what you want from other people as well. The characters are attracted to each other because of what the other can offer, even though they don’t realize that they want different things. The author does such a wonderful job of creating characters who are leading unhappy lives for different reasons that she leaves readers equally longing to see them happy through their connection (even if it gives them different kinds of happiness). Because we as readers sympathize with their longings for happiness, the end of the story is heartbreaking because neither character gets the happiness they long for, but they learn that they are probably happier without the other.
The attraction between Mr. Kapasi and Mrs. Das develops and flourishes largely because of their differences and equally dissatisfying spouses. Our first impression of Mr. Das is of him arguing with his wife and constantly having his nose in his travel guides (1, 4). Next, we see him and his wife unable to get along or control their children, acting more like siblings than parents (45). Mr. Das is, in many ways, arrogant and uninteresting so it isn’t surprising that Mr. Kapasi’s jobs, as a tour guide and an interpreter, attract Mrs. Das’s attention, but not in a romantic way. Instead, she sees him as her own “interpreter of maladies” who can help her with her unhappiness, though to her this means telling her that her unhappiness is because of her marriage and husband, not her. When she starts asking questions about his interpreting job, Mr. Kapasi is flattered by her interest and that she calls his job “romantic” (79). Her interest also draws a sharp contrast to his own wife, who does not ask about his job, for good reason, and even resents the people he helps (78). Before this conversation, Mr. Kapasi is further attracted by Mrs. Das’s air and mannerisms. Unlike his own wife, who has never even been fully naked in front of him, Mrs. Das is like the typical American tourist who wears shorts and paints her nails. Mr. Kapasi is attracted to this different type of woman but sees her in a romantic way, far different from how she sees him. Whether aware of this difference or not, both characters want to “use” each other to fill gaps in their own marriages: for Mr. Kapasi a want of romance and love, for Mrs. Das a confidant to whom she can confess her unhappiness. The pivotal moment where both essentially choose to reach for what they want is when Mr. Kapasi gives Mrs. Das his address, forging a connection that they intend to continue. Mr. Kapasi chooses to have a connection with a woman that attracts and interests him and Mrs. Das chooses to have a connection with a man that can console and listen to her. In their own ways, the two choose a life they believe will be better than the lives they lead.
Like in any wives’ tale with a similar message, the two main characters must learn to face the fact that they can't expect to get what they want from other people. In this story, the breakdown of the illusion occurs when Mr. Kapasi realizes that Mrs. Das is not romantically interested in him and, in turn, breaks her delusions of him as well. After Mrs. Das confesses her infidelity and lasting unhappiness, Mr. Kapasi is realizes that she wants him as a confidante instead of a lover and disturbed that “she thought of him as a parent” (147). It dawns on him that his illusions of her love were based on hope for a better relationships, rather than reciprocated attraction. As he realizes his true worth in her eyes, he feels “insulted that Mrs. Das should ask him to interpret her common, trivial little secret” (161). Despite his disappointment, he is willing to give her the advice she seeks but he asks the blunt question, “Is it really pain you feel, Mrs. Das, or is it guilt?”, and deeply insults her in addition to depriving her of what she wants to hear. By doing so, Mr. Kapasi breaks her illusion of a better life through him. She no longer sees him as someone who will give her what she wants, a reason to leave her husband, her children, and her unhappy life. Though it is sad that both characters will not be truly happy after their encounter is over, it slowly becomes clear to both of them and the reader that their own lives would not be better with their connection. Mr. Kapasi would long to have a real relationship and Mrs. Das would long for the advice she wanted to hear. It is only a matter of time before their illusions of each other and their potential happiness break down as it their true intentions become clear. As they both walk away from the jungle and each other, they realize that, in their case, you can’t always get what you want. (875)
The attraction between Mr. Kapasi and Mrs. Das develops and flourishes largely because of their differences and equally dissatisfying spouses. Our first impression of Mr. Das is of him arguing with his wife and constantly having his nose in his travel guides (1, 4). Next, we see him and his wife unable to get along or control their children, acting more like siblings than parents (45). Mr. Das is, in many ways, arrogant and uninteresting so it isn’t surprising that Mr. Kapasi’s jobs, as a tour guide and an interpreter, attract Mrs. Das’s attention, but not in a romantic way. Instead, she sees him as her own “interpreter of maladies” who can help her with her unhappiness, though to her this means telling her that her unhappiness is because of her marriage and husband, not her. When she starts asking questions about his interpreting job, Mr. Kapasi is flattered by her interest and that she calls his job “romantic” (79). Her interest also draws a sharp contrast to his own wife, who does not ask about his job, for good reason, and even resents the people he helps (78). Before this conversation, Mr. Kapasi is further attracted by Mrs. Das’s air and mannerisms. Unlike his own wife, who has never even been fully naked in front of him, Mrs. Das is like the typical American tourist who wears shorts and paints her nails. Mr. Kapasi is attracted to this different type of woman but sees her in a romantic way, far different from how she sees him. Whether aware of this difference or not, both characters want to “use” each other to fill gaps in their own marriages: for Mr. Kapasi a want of romance and love, for Mrs. Das a confidant to whom she can confess her unhappiness. The pivotal moment where both essentially choose to reach for what they want is when Mr. Kapasi gives Mrs. Das his address, forging a connection that they intend to continue. Mr. Kapasi chooses to have a connection with a woman that attracts and interests him and Mrs. Das chooses to have a connection with a man that can console and listen to her. In their own ways, the two choose a life they believe will be better than the lives they lead.
Like in any wives’ tale with a similar message, the two main characters must learn to face the fact that they can't expect to get what they want from other people. In this story, the breakdown of the illusion occurs when Mr. Kapasi realizes that Mrs. Das is not romantically interested in him and, in turn, breaks her delusions of him as well. After Mrs. Das confesses her infidelity and lasting unhappiness, Mr. Kapasi is realizes that she wants him as a confidante instead of a lover and disturbed that “she thought of him as a parent” (147). It dawns on him that his illusions of her love were based on hope for a better relationships, rather than reciprocated attraction. As he realizes his true worth in her eyes, he feels “insulted that Mrs. Das should ask him to interpret her common, trivial little secret” (161). Despite his disappointment, he is willing to give her the advice she seeks but he asks the blunt question, “Is it really pain you feel, Mrs. Das, or is it guilt?”, and deeply insults her in addition to depriving her of what she wants to hear. By doing so, Mr. Kapasi breaks her illusion of a better life through him. She no longer sees him as someone who will give her what she wants, a reason to leave her husband, her children, and her unhappy life. Though it is sad that both characters will not be truly happy after their encounter is over, it slowly becomes clear to both of them and the reader that their own lives would not be better with their connection. Mr. Kapasi would long to have a real relationship and Mrs. Das would long for the advice she wanted to hear. It is only a matter of time before their illusions of each other and their potential happiness break down as it their true intentions become clear. As they both walk away from the jungle and each other, they realize that, in their case, you can’t always get what you want. (875)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
