For my final project in English, I have decided to read and write about Ken Kesey's classic One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. A big fan of Jack Nicholson and having seen the movie before, I chose this novel because I found the movie an absolute delight and really wanted to know the real story behind it as most books are better than the movies that are based on it. So far, I am not dissapointed in the least and find both the characters and the themes presented in the novel captivating and provoking. The ways in which McMurphy uses his wit and quick mind to constantly bring change into the mental ward is, for me, one of the most interesting things in the novel and certainly what drives it forward. His interactions with the Chief, Harding, and the other patients help to create a sense of chaos and disruption to a place that is largely structured around rigid and disciplined schedules and complete order. As a result, McMurphy seems to flip the foundation of the ward inside out, making the patients contained within seem more like prisoners and helpless rational beings than Miss Ratched totalitarian nursing staff. This thus drives the book forward and provides a strong basis for what much of the dialogue and action within is created.
For the paper, I am not entirely sure what I am going to write on, but the initial impressions I have witnessed above is along the lines of what I think would interest me the most in the composition of my essay. The kind of rebelliousness that McMurphy embodies through his character development is definitely a central part to the book and a part that I feel will create a backbone for a lot of the themes that the story conveys. Therefore, I hope that my paper will at least touch on this, if not present it entirely as it is a part of life I think is fundamental to every person and their natural impulses.
I look forward to finishing the book in the coming week and then getting to writing about is as soon as possible.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Death of a Salesman and the Subject of Success
During class discussion this week, we had a one quite-heated discussion that stuck out in my mind: success. Taking a cue from a question posed by Rob, my classmates and I took almost half our class time to discover a solid, concrete, and universal definition of success and in what ways that success could be measured, eventually channeling that into an agreeable answer as to why Willy was unsuccessful. Yet, much to our dismay, the class period ended before any reasonable solution could be agreed upon and the subject was left unresolved. Therefore, I would like to take this time here to contribute my two-cents upon the subject of success and its relation to "Death of a Salesman"
My answer is actually quite simple: success is ultimately based upon the interpretation of the individual in which that success is concerned. In other words, success can really only be determined on a case-to-case basis that almost entirely revolves around what drives that particular individual to become satisfied, meaning that one man's view of success is not necessarily the same view as another's. Just because a homeless man who spends his life on the street begging for money considers another man working at McDonald's successful does not necessarily mean that the McDonald's employee feels the same way and thus, this view of success is not universally accepted. Yes, it is probably safe to argue that the employee is more successful than the homeless man, but the homeless man's opinion of the employee does not directly tell us whether or not the employee is satisfied with his or her social condition and if he or she has reached the "favorable or desired outcome" in life (Webster.com). It is just as likely that the very employee the homeless man envies is completely unsatisfied with his or her job and is looking for something more out of life. As a result, it is quite likely the employee would consider himself or herself neither successful nor satisfied and would be continuously looking for new ways to obtain his or her goals in the future.Therefore, the only true way to find out if someone is successful or not is to gain insight into his or her own personal opinion on the matter.
In the case of Willy and Biff in The Death of a Salesman, the insight we gain into each of these characters through the dialogue that Miller presents gives us the ability to definitively judge whether or not these men are successful or not. For example, through the overall plot of the story and the vivid dialogue between Ben, Biff, Happy, Linda, and him at various part of the play, we as a reader can safely determine that Willy is unsuccessful. Consumed with suicidal thoughts, fed up with petty money matters, concerned about Biff's future, and trying to accept the fact he was fired from his firm after thirty-five years, Willy is clearly unsatisfied with his life and constantly regretting the decisions he made (such as not moving to Alaska with Ben). After trying everything he can to change his situation, from skewing the reality of his problems to helping Happy and Biff start up a new company, he meets failure and dismay, simply digging himself deeper and deeper into his eventual grave. In the end, he is pushed over the edge by an argument with his family that seems to have a happy ending, but only concludes when Willy crashes the car on-purpose and kills himself. Thus, due to unhappiness that leads to suicide and a complete unsatisfaction with his life, it is safe to assume that Willy would consider himself (and thus is) unsuccessful.
On a similar note, an adequate and informed evaluation of Biff's success can also be made through the book's plot and dialogue. Although a scholarly discussion could ensue about whether the he is successful or not, given the last scene where he finally admits his flaws and breaks free of his father's expectations, the play does give us plenty of info to make our respective case. For one, we know what Biff's perceptions are about the farm and how he doesn't really like any of the other jobs he has found. Furthermore, we also know much of the hardship he's been through, living half his life with the knowledge that his father cheated on his mother, an event that ultimately cost him his football scholarship at UVA and serves as the catalyst for much of Biff's social situation and disposition toward his family in the plot. As a result, Miller gives us the tools to judge him as a success or not, thus allowing us to make an informed and justified decision.
In the end, it thus seems that success is in the eye of the beholder and that finding it is a struggle different for each individual. The morals behind one's goals can be contested and the ways to pursue them can be suggested, but ultimately what defines success for that person can never be changed. Thus, Death of a Salesman teaches us the dangers of stubbornness on the road to success and what confusion and being overwhelmed can do to a man. From this, we learn that when finding success, achieving it is not whats important but rather the road one takes to get there because that will determine one's fate. (894, yeah, it's long)
My answer is actually quite simple: success is ultimately based upon the interpretation of the individual in which that success is concerned. In other words, success can really only be determined on a case-to-case basis that almost entirely revolves around what drives that particular individual to become satisfied, meaning that one man's view of success is not necessarily the same view as another's. Just because a homeless man who spends his life on the street begging for money considers another man working at McDonald's successful does not necessarily mean that the McDonald's employee feels the same way and thus, this view of success is not universally accepted. Yes, it is probably safe to argue that the employee is more successful than the homeless man, but the homeless man's opinion of the employee does not directly tell us whether or not the employee is satisfied with his or her social condition and if he or she has reached the "favorable or desired outcome" in life (Webster.com). It is just as likely that the very employee the homeless man envies is completely unsatisfied with his or her job and is looking for something more out of life. As a result, it is quite likely the employee would consider himself or herself neither successful nor satisfied and would be continuously looking for new ways to obtain his or her goals in the future.Therefore, the only true way to find out if someone is successful or not is to gain insight into his or her own personal opinion on the matter.
In the case of Willy and Biff in The Death of a Salesman, the insight we gain into each of these characters through the dialogue that Miller presents gives us the ability to definitively judge whether or not these men are successful or not. For example, through the overall plot of the story and the vivid dialogue between Ben, Biff, Happy, Linda, and him at various part of the play, we as a reader can safely determine that Willy is unsuccessful. Consumed with suicidal thoughts, fed up with petty money matters, concerned about Biff's future, and trying to accept the fact he was fired from his firm after thirty-five years, Willy is clearly unsatisfied with his life and constantly regretting the decisions he made (such as not moving to Alaska with Ben). After trying everything he can to change his situation, from skewing the reality of his problems to helping Happy and Biff start up a new company, he meets failure and dismay, simply digging himself deeper and deeper into his eventual grave. In the end, he is pushed over the edge by an argument with his family that seems to have a happy ending, but only concludes when Willy crashes the car on-purpose and kills himself. Thus, due to unhappiness that leads to suicide and a complete unsatisfaction with his life, it is safe to assume that Willy would consider himself (and thus is) unsuccessful.
On a similar note, an adequate and informed evaluation of Biff's success can also be made through the book's plot and dialogue. Although a scholarly discussion could ensue about whether the he is successful or not, given the last scene where he finally admits his flaws and breaks free of his father's expectations, the play does give us plenty of info to make our respective case. For one, we know what Biff's perceptions are about the farm and how he doesn't really like any of the other jobs he has found. Furthermore, we also know much of the hardship he's been through, living half his life with the knowledge that his father cheated on his mother, an event that ultimately cost him his football scholarship at UVA and serves as the catalyst for much of Biff's social situation and disposition toward his family in the plot. As a result, Miller gives us the tools to judge him as a success or not, thus allowing us to make an informed and justified decision.
In the end, it thus seems that success is in the eye of the beholder and that finding it is a struggle different for each individual. The morals behind one's goals can be contested and the ways to pursue them can be suggested, but ultimately what defines success for that person can never be changed. Thus, Death of a Salesman teaches us the dangers of stubbornness on the road to success and what confusion and being overwhelmed can do to a man. From this, we learn that when finding success, achieving it is not whats important but rather the road one takes to get there because that will determine one's fate. (894, yeah, it's long)
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Overall Theme of Freedom in Henrik Ibsen's "The Doll House"
Try to state the theme of the play. Does it involve women's rights? Self-fulfilment?
The story of "The Doll House" by Henrik Ibsen is a tumultuous and often confusing one about the life of a European housewife, Nora Helmer, and her struggles to escape both constant blackmailing by an old friend who she had taken out a forged loan with and her unsatisfactory life in the home; yet, underlying this intriguing and often-comical plot line is a myriad of valuable lessons and themes that help to give the play the high literary quality in which it is regarded. Ideas such as women's rights, self-fulfilment, and morality are all credible themes put forth by Ibsen's writing. Perhaps the most important and notable of these themes, however, is the theme of freedom and the belief that no one can truly be happy until he or she has full control of her life and nothing is standing in his or her way.
In Nora's case, this theme presents itself in many instances throughout the play. At the beginning of the novel, we see Nora joyful and happy, with seemingly lots to brag about, from a husband to supply her shopping habits to many children that she energetically plays with. Despite this, we can't help but get a sense of illusion in Nora's actions and are frequently caught off-guard by the extreme confidence, flamboyant behavior, and constant material focus. As a result, one does not feel that Nora is all that she seems and questions whether or not her un-realistic disposition is actually her true emotions.
Tainted with a bitter and unpleasant taste of the main character, the reader eventually makes his or her way to Act II and Act III, where he or she begins to realize their suspicions were right and that Krogstad, the antagonist, had once loaned Nora money to take her husband down to Italy. The trouble is that Nora forged her father's signature to approve the loan without the knowledge that forgery is a crime. Blackmailed by Krogstad to pay back the money and help him keep his job at the new bank that his now run by Mr. Helmer, Nora is sent into a fit of madness where she is desperately trying to negotiate with her husband and Krogstad, both of which are unrelenting in their agendas. As a result, she becomes controlled by both their wills and it is the decisions of the two men that determine the outcome to her problem. She can sway and negotiate with them all she wants, but ultimately the final decision is theirs.
Therefore, she is without freedom in much of the story's plot which makes her unhappy to the point of almost attempting suicide. Fortunately for her, as the end of Act III nears, the climax of the story occurs as Mr. Helmer finds out what Nora has done and becomes enraged and then experiences a huge shift in temperment upon receiving a letter from Krogstad stating that his previous letter informing him of Nora's mistake was premature and actually he had changed his mind about the matter. With Helmer much happier with his wife and the Krogstad situation solved, the ending would seem happy; however, it is here that Nora realizes that she has felt a lack of freedom in her life choices and decisions not only now, but throughout their entire marriage. She notices that she is merely a "doll" in their relationship and Helmer "plays with her" whenever we just wants to have some fun. She is not an equal nor a respected person, she feels, and because of that is unhappy. In her quest to find true happiness, she thus decides that leaving Helmer is the only way to be free and happy and conjures up the courage to tell him so, thus ending the story.
In the end, the play goes to show the relationship between freedom and happiness and that having the two is really the most important part of one's life. It teaches us no one will ever truly be happy and satisfied unless he or she is free, regardless of whether or not their personal affairs (i.e. the loan problem) is solved or not. As a result, we as humans should at all costs seek that happiness and free ourselves from the constraints that hold that happiness back. (726)
The story of "The Doll House" by Henrik Ibsen is a tumultuous and often confusing one about the life of a European housewife, Nora Helmer, and her struggles to escape both constant blackmailing by an old friend who she had taken out a forged loan with and her unsatisfactory life in the home; yet, underlying this intriguing and often-comical plot line is a myriad of valuable lessons and themes that help to give the play the high literary quality in which it is regarded. Ideas such as women's rights, self-fulfilment, and morality are all credible themes put forth by Ibsen's writing. Perhaps the most important and notable of these themes, however, is the theme of freedom and the belief that no one can truly be happy until he or she has full control of her life and nothing is standing in his or her way.
In Nora's case, this theme presents itself in many instances throughout the play. At the beginning of the novel, we see Nora joyful and happy, with seemingly lots to brag about, from a husband to supply her shopping habits to many children that she energetically plays with. Despite this, we can't help but get a sense of illusion in Nora's actions and are frequently caught off-guard by the extreme confidence, flamboyant behavior, and constant material focus. As a result, one does not feel that Nora is all that she seems and questions whether or not her un-realistic disposition is actually her true emotions.
Tainted with a bitter and unpleasant taste of the main character, the reader eventually makes his or her way to Act II and Act III, where he or she begins to realize their suspicions were right and that Krogstad, the antagonist, had once loaned Nora money to take her husband down to Italy. The trouble is that Nora forged her father's signature to approve the loan without the knowledge that forgery is a crime. Blackmailed by Krogstad to pay back the money and help him keep his job at the new bank that his now run by Mr. Helmer, Nora is sent into a fit of madness where she is desperately trying to negotiate with her husband and Krogstad, both of which are unrelenting in their agendas. As a result, she becomes controlled by both their wills and it is the decisions of the two men that determine the outcome to her problem. She can sway and negotiate with them all she wants, but ultimately the final decision is theirs.
Therefore, she is without freedom in much of the story's plot which makes her unhappy to the point of almost attempting suicide. Fortunately for her, as the end of Act III nears, the climax of the story occurs as Mr. Helmer finds out what Nora has done and becomes enraged and then experiences a huge shift in temperment upon receiving a letter from Krogstad stating that his previous letter informing him of Nora's mistake was premature and actually he had changed his mind about the matter. With Helmer much happier with his wife and the Krogstad situation solved, the ending would seem happy; however, it is here that Nora realizes that she has felt a lack of freedom in her life choices and decisions not only now, but throughout their entire marriage. She notices that she is merely a "doll" in their relationship and Helmer "plays with her" whenever we just wants to have some fun. She is not an equal nor a respected person, she feels, and because of that is unhappy. In her quest to find true happiness, she thus decides that leaving Helmer is the only way to be free and happy and conjures up the courage to tell him so, thus ending the story.
In the end, the play goes to show the relationship between freedom and happiness and that having the two is really the most important part of one's life. It teaches us no one will ever truly be happy and satisfied unless he or she is free, regardless of whether or not their personal affairs (i.e. the loan problem) is solved or not. As a result, we as humans should at all costs seek that happiness and free ourselves from the constraints that hold that happiness back. (726)
Monday, February 2, 2009
Polonius, the Father
In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the character of this legendary play provide many influential insights into the motivations and character traits that shape who we are and how they affect us. Representing different real-life roles, each character takes on a personality that we can all relate to and then teaches us the importance, struggles, and disposition of that personality through the plot of the story. Thus, the character of Polonius in this story is no different and serves to represent to us the ideal, caring father who looks out for and takes care of his daughter. To illustrate this role, Polonius makes numerous actions throughout the play that serve to illustrate the two key roles that all fathers must play in their families in order to be considered ideal: protector and facilitator of success.
For starters, Polonius first illustrates the role of protector in the very first scene he appears, Act I, Scene III. Here, Polonius confronts Ophelia about what her brother Laertes and she had discussed regarding Prince Hamlet a moment before he entered and, after a few careful prompts, Ophelia finally admits that she is in love with the prince and vise versa. Yet, instead of congratulating his daughter on finding someone she loves or expressing an overarching tone of indifference, Polonius advises Ophelia of the dangers of such actions and tells her to remove herself from the boy to avoid getting her heart broken or herself taken advantage of. Even though Hamlet could bring the man lots of money and certainly raise his social stature, Polonius still pressures his daughter to go against her heart’s urges and to take everything Hamlet says with a grain of salt, reminding her to “believe so much in him that he is young,/And with a larger tether my he walk/Than may be given you.” As a result, he is protecting his daughter at all costs regardless of the benefits her actions could possibly bring him and this selflessness to protect his family is what helps him fulfill his role as a good-to-do, ideal father.
Furthermore, as the plot continues, he also merges into the other role of the facilitator of success in a very similar fashion. Once it becomes apparent to him upon Ophelia’s telling of her encounter with Hamlet in her private chamber in Act II, Scene I, Polonius becomes fully convinced that Hamlet is actually in love with is daughter and finally accepts their feelings for one another. Upon realizing what has been taking place between the two, he quickly decides it best to inform King Claudius immediately, thereby establishing the children’s relationship to the King. Among other motivations, it seems fitting considering Polonius’s character that this notification to the King is solely for the intention to arrange some sort of marriage between the two, one that would certainly bring great glory to his daughter (as well to him) and would promote her in the greatest of ways. In this way, he is ultimately working for her, trying to make her life as much of a success as possible and abandoning his other premonitions about Hamlet that he had prematurely judged beforehand.
In these ways, Polonius begins to develop himself as a role model for the ideal father he will play throughout the rest of the novel, adding more and more pieces on until he forms the ultimate character Shakespeare wants him to perform. (564)
For starters, Polonius first illustrates the role of protector in the very first scene he appears, Act I, Scene III. Here, Polonius confronts Ophelia about what her brother Laertes and she had discussed regarding Prince Hamlet a moment before he entered and, after a few careful prompts, Ophelia finally admits that she is in love with the prince and vise versa. Yet, instead of congratulating his daughter on finding someone she loves or expressing an overarching tone of indifference, Polonius advises Ophelia of the dangers of such actions and tells her to remove herself from the boy to avoid getting her heart broken or herself taken advantage of. Even though Hamlet could bring the man lots of money and certainly raise his social stature, Polonius still pressures his daughter to go against her heart’s urges and to take everything Hamlet says with a grain of salt, reminding her to “believe so much in him that he is young,/And with a larger tether my he walk/Than may be given you.” As a result, he is protecting his daughter at all costs regardless of the benefits her actions could possibly bring him and this selflessness to protect his family is what helps him fulfill his role as a good-to-do, ideal father.
Furthermore, as the plot continues, he also merges into the other role of the facilitator of success in a very similar fashion. Once it becomes apparent to him upon Ophelia’s telling of her encounter with Hamlet in her private chamber in Act II, Scene I, Polonius becomes fully convinced that Hamlet is actually in love with is daughter and finally accepts their feelings for one another. Upon realizing what has been taking place between the two, he quickly decides it best to inform King Claudius immediately, thereby establishing the children’s relationship to the King. Among other motivations, it seems fitting considering Polonius’s character that this notification to the King is solely for the intention to arrange some sort of marriage between the two, one that would certainly bring great glory to his daughter (as well to him) and would promote her in the greatest of ways. In this way, he is ultimately working for her, trying to make her life as much of a success as possible and abandoning his other premonitions about Hamlet that he had prematurely judged beforehand.
In these ways, Polonius begins to develop himself as a role model for the ideal father he will play throughout the rest of the novel, adding more and more pieces on until he forms the ultimate character Shakespeare wants him to perform. (564)
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Oedipus's Struggle: Human Nature's Resistance Against the Inevitable in Sophocles's "Oedipus the King"
Sophocles's Oedipus the King, one of the Western Literature's most re-known tragic plays, the reader witnesses an ill-fated and doomed Oedipus, King of Thebes, slowly reach his fate as the one destined to kill his father, marry his mother, and start a family; yet, despite numerous warning signs from the beginning of the book, it is difficult to understand (and quite thought-provoking) as to why Oedipus, who is confronted with a mound of evidence prior to his realization and is so hellbent on finding the man who killed Laius and thus freeing his people from the deadly plague, waits so long to admit he is the one who must be ridden from the city. As one looks closer into this matter, it soon becomes quite plausible that in fact the one thing holding Oedipus back from his assertion of his fate is man's everlasting concept of hope.
Generally, when people are faced with situations that are quite disastrous to themselves, they usually hold out to hopefully hear a conclusion separate from the one they dread. Even if the evidence present points to that worst case scenario, the people involved never give up and always hold on to the hope of a miracle at the end. As a result, the truth is never fully admitted until the end is completely near and the horrible conclusion has been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. Innate within every individual that is born, this natural concept of hope is something that drives individuals to motivate themselves, push themselves, and stay alive, even when the odds are clearly against them and the ending is nothing other than inevitable to an outsider looking in.
Therefore, I believe the reason to which Oedipus was so stubborn in admitting to the fact he was the one who had killed is father and was, at that very time, filling out the prophecy was simply that common human notion of hope. Consumed with fear and dread, he never was able to step away from the situation and see what was going on from an unbiased, unaffected perspective, eventually ignoring the obvious evidence all around him simply because of his unstoppable hope. For example, when Teiresias first enters the story, he is regarded as a "student of mysteries, of all that that's taught and all that no man tells, secrets of Heaven and secrets of the earth" and as the only person that "can guard and save [the Thebians and their city]. (1293)" Yet, despite the honored introduction, within a few lines, Oedipus is disregarding Teiresias's information and accusing him of making it up because of a bribing scheme set up by Creon. Within only a few minutes it seems, Oedipus's opinion of Teiresias changes from one of respect and unworldly wisdom to one of hatred and disgust, simply because he does not tell what he wants to hear.
Furthermore, as this continues in similar fashion with people such as Jocasta and Creon, there is also ample evidence to suggest that, upon hearing about the Oracle's prophecy declaring that the killer of Laius should be expelled from the city, Oedipus knew it could be himself. In the beginning of the novel, as he explains to his people what he would be willing to give the person who came up and either admitted themselves as the murderer or pointed out who he was, he openly prays to the gods that "that man's life be consumed in evil and wretchedness," adding, "And as for me, this curse applies no less (1292)." Also, this occurs again as Oedipus reveals his story of leaving Corinth and coming to Thebes in hopes of outrunning the Delphi oracle's prophecy. He mentions the fact he killed a man at a place where three highways come together and that it could be Laius. As a result, he considers his involvement in the murder for the first time in the play, yet, still does not fully admit to doing it, even though there are too many coincidences to still render him innocent. Only until the messenger, the second messenger, and the shepherd arrive to tell him entirely of the prophecy he already knows does he finally decide that he must have been the one to commit the murder and that Jocasta has to be his mother. Thus, doomed to his fate and accepting his wretched existence, he runs off to the palace and later stabs his eyes out upon witnessing Jocasta's suicide.
As a result, it seems quite possible that Oedipus the King, among many other themes, also serves to give us an insight to the idea of hope and how that affects our acceptance of the inevitable. Whether dictated from a prophet or not, our fates are ultimately set in stone, but the hope that we can avoid the evil that might lie within it is a driving factor that shapes who we are as people and how we approach our problems. In the end, hope was what drove Oedipus to his gloomy blindness, so hellbent on his escape from what was his end that he had no other way to confront the pain when his fate came true and indirectly killed his mother, thus, serving as a lesson to all that hope is a double-edged sword that can shape the outcomes of our lives. (885)
Generally, when people are faced with situations that are quite disastrous to themselves, they usually hold out to hopefully hear a conclusion separate from the one they dread. Even if the evidence present points to that worst case scenario, the people involved never give up and always hold on to the hope of a miracle at the end. As a result, the truth is never fully admitted until the end is completely near and the horrible conclusion has been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. Innate within every individual that is born, this natural concept of hope is something that drives individuals to motivate themselves, push themselves, and stay alive, even when the odds are clearly against them and the ending is nothing other than inevitable to an outsider looking in.
Therefore, I believe the reason to which Oedipus was so stubborn in admitting to the fact he was the one who had killed is father and was, at that very time, filling out the prophecy was simply that common human notion of hope. Consumed with fear and dread, he never was able to step away from the situation and see what was going on from an unbiased, unaffected perspective, eventually ignoring the obvious evidence all around him simply because of his unstoppable hope. For example, when Teiresias first enters the story, he is regarded as a "student of mysteries, of all that that's taught and all that no man tells, secrets of Heaven and secrets of the earth" and as the only person that "can guard and save [the Thebians and their city]. (1293)" Yet, despite the honored introduction, within a few lines, Oedipus is disregarding Teiresias's information and accusing him of making it up because of a bribing scheme set up by Creon. Within only a few minutes it seems, Oedipus's opinion of Teiresias changes from one of respect and unworldly wisdom to one of hatred and disgust, simply because he does not tell what he wants to hear.
Furthermore, as this continues in similar fashion with people such as Jocasta and Creon, there is also ample evidence to suggest that, upon hearing about the Oracle's prophecy declaring that the killer of Laius should be expelled from the city, Oedipus knew it could be himself. In the beginning of the novel, as he explains to his people what he would be willing to give the person who came up and either admitted themselves as the murderer or pointed out who he was, he openly prays to the gods that "that man's life be consumed in evil and wretchedness," adding, "And as for me, this curse applies no less (1292)." Also, this occurs again as Oedipus reveals his story of leaving Corinth and coming to Thebes in hopes of outrunning the Delphi oracle's prophecy. He mentions the fact he killed a man at a place where three highways come together and that it could be Laius. As a result, he considers his involvement in the murder for the first time in the play, yet, still does not fully admit to doing it, even though there are too many coincidences to still render him innocent. Only until the messenger, the second messenger, and the shepherd arrive to tell him entirely of the prophecy he already knows does he finally decide that he must have been the one to commit the murder and that Jocasta has to be his mother. Thus, doomed to his fate and accepting his wretched existence, he runs off to the palace and later stabs his eyes out upon witnessing Jocasta's suicide.
As a result, it seems quite possible that Oedipus the King, among many other themes, also serves to give us an insight to the idea of hope and how that affects our acceptance of the inevitable. Whether dictated from a prophet or not, our fates are ultimately set in stone, but the hope that we can avoid the evil that might lie within it is a driving factor that shapes who we are as people and how we approach our problems. In the end, hope was what drove Oedipus to his gloomy blindness, so hellbent on his escape from what was his end that he had no other way to confront the pain when his fate came true and indirectly killed his mother, thus, serving as a lesson to all that hope is a double-edged sword that can shape the outcomes of our lives. (885)
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Comments on Leo Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich"
In Ronald Blythe's introduction to Leo Tolstoy's classic novella "The Death of Ivan Ilyich," Blythe notes that the book "evokes the sheer desolating aloneness of dying," referring to the fashion in which Ivan dies: with none of his loved ones by his side. At an first glance, this thematic observation may seem a relevant and noteworthy comment; however, if one steps back and re-examines the novella as a whole, it seems quite possible that maybe the story is much less about the isolation in death and much more about the importance having loved ones at one's side during that time of passing. Using Ivan's demise his method of delivery, Tolstoy sends a powerful and significant message, showing us that the more one is alone in his or her life, the more he or she will be alone in death.
Upon closer inspection to the downfall of Ivan, we witness many factors that lead to his being alone in death. Perhaps the most noticeable factor is his horrible relationship with his wife. Annoyed with her shallow disposition and constant nagging and realizing that he married the woman for all the wrong reasons, Ivan has much trouble getting along with his wife and consequently seeks refuge in his work. As a result, he becomes alienated from her throughout his life and, except for one brief period, they are not able to reconcile their differences.
As the plot carries on, we also learn that this detachment from Praskovya Fedorovna transcends his relationship with his daughter as well, who is, in many ways, much better connected to her mother than her father. This is probably mostly his fault, as is his marriage troubles are, but nevertheless, that absence of connection between his daughter and him further renders him alone and isolated at the time of his death.
Furthermore, Ivan's friendships, or lack thereof, are also another set of reasons why he finds himself without anyone at the time of his death. Due to his constant moves throughout Russia while taking new judicial positions, he never secures any deep friendships that last for long periods of time, despite his frequent use of work as an escape from his household troubles. In addition, he also constantly keeps his personal life separated from his official life, impeding his ability to form personal friendships in a professional setting. As a result, the relationships he does make with people happen to be shallow and without much meaning, leaving co-workers longing for his position rather than his survival when he falls ill.
In the end, all these factors lead to an alone and miserable Ivan, who remains confused as to why no one understands or cares for the fact he may die any day. In his confusion, he reacts only with anger, upset that no one has the common decency to at least try to show compassion for his condition; however, this anger simply pushes those around him further way, especially his wife and his daughter, to whom he constantly orders to go away and leave him alone in his last moments on earth. Only those who weren't so near to him before the illness, such as the young servant Gerasim, can become close to Ivan. Without any personal history to provide conflict, Ivan and Gerasim are able to develop a close relationship and Ivan is finally able to find someone who understands and cares for him in this time of need.
Therefore, in light of the incredibly sad and depressing death of Ivan, it seems quite apparent that Tolstoy's true intention was to demonstrate the importance of developing close ties with those one loves the most so that he or she does not meet a similar fate. And, thus, by learning from these mistakes, we can ensure ourselves a family-filled and intimate passing surrounded by those who truly care and love for us. (644)
Upon closer inspection to the downfall of Ivan, we witness many factors that lead to his being alone in death. Perhaps the most noticeable factor is his horrible relationship with his wife. Annoyed with her shallow disposition and constant nagging and realizing that he married the woman for all the wrong reasons, Ivan has much trouble getting along with his wife and consequently seeks refuge in his work. As a result, he becomes alienated from her throughout his life and, except for one brief period, they are not able to reconcile their differences.
As the plot carries on, we also learn that this detachment from Praskovya Fedorovna transcends his relationship with his daughter as well, who is, in many ways, much better connected to her mother than her father. This is probably mostly his fault, as is his marriage troubles are, but nevertheless, that absence of connection between his daughter and him further renders him alone and isolated at the time of his death.
Furthermore, Ivan's friendships, or lack thereof, are also another set of reasons why he finds himself without anyone at the time of his death. Due to his constant moves throughout Russia while taking new judicial positions, he never secures any deep friendships that last for long periods of time, despite his frequent use of work as an escape from his household troubles. In addition, he also constantly keeps his personal life separated from his official life, impeding his ability to form personal friendships in a professional setting. As a result, the relationships he does make with people happen to be shallow and without much meaning, leaving co-workers longing for his position rather than his survival when he falls ill.
In the end, all these factors lead to an alone and miserable Ivan, who remains confused as to why no one understands or cares for the fact he may die any day. In his confusion, he reacts only with anger, upset that no one has the common decency to at least try to show compassion for his condition; however, this anger simply pushes those around him further way, especially his wife and his daughter, to whom he constantly orders to go away and leave him alone in his last moments on earth. Only those who weren't so near to him before the illness, such as the young servant Gerasim, can become close to Ivan. Without any personal history to provide conflict, Ivan and Gerasim are able to develop a close relationship and Ivan is finally able to find someone who understands and cares for him in this time of need.
Therefore, in light of the incredibly sad and depressing death of Ivan, it seems quite apparent that Tolstoy's true intention was to demonstrate the importance of developing close ties with those one loves the most so that he or she does not meet a similar fate. And, thus, by learning from these mistakes, we can ensure ourselves a family-filled and intimate passing surrounded by those who truly care and love for us. (644)
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Comparisons of Motive in both Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" and J.M. Coetzee's "Waiting for the Barbarians"
John Conrad's Heart of Darkness and J.M. Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians are two quite similar books that portray a search for morals about colonization and that question the righteousness in the motives of huge imperial empires, from the Conrad's Imperial Africa to Coetzee's South-African police state, to colonize. Focusing on one character and his internal struggle between what his country thinks is right and what he thinks is right, the two novels ultimately arrive at the same conclusion: colonialism is a terrifying and horrific practice that blurs the line between the civilized and the uncivilized.
Both told from a first-person perspective, the novels ultimately reach this common theme through the way in which they present it. For starters, both novels begin at a restful state, one where the conflict of morals and the physical conflict that initiates it has not yet begun. In Heart of Darkness, this peaceful situation happens when Marlow is simply applying for the job, completing a typical transition from one job and a period of unemployment to the next. Similarly, in Waiting for the Barbarians, the magistrates post is relatively peaceful and, while he is a bit upset and curious about why Colonel Joll has locked up the man and the boy, who appear completely innocent, he himself is completely fine and any doubts about morality are simply pushed aside and the book moves forward.
Then, as the plots move along, a slow, but steady questioning of morality begins to enter the minds of the protagonist. In the magistrate's situation, it is the arrival and his subsequent affair with the barbarian girl that causes him to seriously question the morality of the Empire's actions. He realizes that he more or less has strong feelings for the girl, despite the fact she is of the "inferior race" or a "barbarian," and, as a result, begins to wonder why they are trying to launch a land-confiscating war against a people that can love and be loved just as much as any one of the Empire's citizens. With Marlow's case, this same situation arises as he notices the attitude taken toward the natives in the Congo and, because of his complete naivety to any and all culture of Africa, is quite shocked by the opinions he hears of people who are just as human as he is. For both these people, these situations eventually lead into that greater questioning, in which what each character's employer is doing seems quite wrong. For Marlow, this thinking predisposes him to a view that in arguably takes favor to the natives and sets himself up for the greater, physical challenge ahead. For the magistrate, sleeping with the girl and asking himself why he is so enthralled with her opens up the door to new inquiries, such as what happened in Joll's torture rooms and why the Empire is taking prisoners and torturing and killing them when, in his mind, there is clearly no offense being launched upon the frontier. These events ultimately set the stage for the climatic events that follow.
Finally, sooner or later, each story reaches that breaking point, where the main character is finally challenged in regard to what he believes and put through a test of both endurance and horror in order to see whether or not those beliefs will hold. This point is obvious in Waiting for the Barbarians, as the breaking point is undoubtedly the arrest of the magistrate upon his return from the moral act of returning the barbarian girl. Through torture and captivity, this period of the book is where his beliefs are challenged to the point of abandonment as he asks himself why does he care about the barbarians so much, was does he care about what is right, and why he is opposed to the colonization that the Empire has gone forth with. Luckily for the magistrate, his beliefs stay with him, regardless of the ends they are pushed to and as the story wraps up, they are able to resurface in a better light.
On the other hand, in Heart of Darkness, Conrad pushes Marlow to this point when he finally arrives at the station with Kurtz and Marlow decides that Kurtz's opinions toward the natives are more honorable and righteous than that of the Russian and the manager. As a result, he becomes almost vilified by the two white men, who regard Kurtz as a lost cause who has sadly been consumed by the savage way of thinking. This leads to further difficulties once Kurtz dies as Marlow is now faced with the prospect of figuring out the meaning of Kurtz's last words, while, at the same time, dealing with the death of the only person who had the same perspective on Africa as he did. Thankfully for Marlow, however, he soon becomes ill and it is not long until he is evacuated from the jungle and makes his return to the mainland of Europe.
In the end, both characters ultimately cleanse themselves of their moral dilemmas, with Marlow returning to Europe and the magistrate finally leading an autonomous town that lives at peace and without the moral ignorance of the Empire overhanging its streets, and thus the stories conclude.
From these outlines, it is quite apparent that the two stories are more or less the exact same and thus, their lesson that challenging authority and doing whats right ultimately works out in the end and so should be pursued no matter what is equally supported by both works. While both books may have a few different perspectives, this lesson is still prevalent in equal and whether a reader reads one or another is irrelevant: the message is still the same. Furthermore, the "hero's journey" that both characters go through also add to the theme by giving a process to moral questioning in order to give readers the ability to recognize it both in themselves and also in their own leaders. From this process, people can hopefully better identify the good and the evil in similar situations in the future, whether simply in one's own life or in the government of one's resident country. Therefore, because of these valuable lessons, Waiting for the Barbarians and Heart of Darkness are both amazing works and will continue to probe the topic of morality and empire for centuries.
Both told from a first-person perspective, the novels ultimately reach this common theme through the way in which they present it. For starters, both novels begin at a restful state, one where the conflict of morals and the physical conflict that initiates it has not yet begun. In Heart of Darkness, this peaceful situation happens when Marlow is simply applying for the job, completing a typical transition from one job and a period of unemployment to the next. Similarly, in Waiting for the Barbarians, the magistrates post is relatively peaceful and, while he is a bit upset and curious about why Colonel Joll has locked up the man and the boy, who appear completely innocent, he himself is completely fine and any doubts about morality are simply pushed aside and the book moves forward.
Then, as the plots move along, a slow, but steady questioning of morality begins to enter the minds of the protagonist. In the magistrate's situation, it is the arrival and his subsequent affair with the barbarian girl that causes him to seriously question the morality of the Empire's actions. He realizes that he more or less has strong feelings for the girl, despite the fact she is of the "inferior race" or a "barbarian," and, as a result, begins to wonder why they are trying to launch a land-confiscating war against a people that can love and be loved just as much as any one of the Empire's citizens. With Marlow's case, this same situation arises as he notices the attitude taken toward the natives in the Congo and, because of his complete naivety to any and all culture of Africa, is quite shocked by the opinions he hears of people who are just as human as he is. For both these people, these situations eventually lead into that greater questioning, in which what each character's employer is doing seems quite wrong. For Marlow, this thinking predisposes him to a view that in arguably takes favor to the natives and sets himself up for the greater, physical challenge ahead. For the magistrate, sleeping with the girl and asking himself why he is so enthralled with her opens up the door to new inquiries, such as what happened in Joll's torture rooms and why the Empire is taking prisoners and torturing and killing them when, in his mind, there is clearly no offense being launched upon the frontier. These events ultimately set the stage for the climatic events that follow.
Finally, sooner or later, each story reaches that breaking point, where the main character is finally challenged in regard to what he believes and put through a test of both endurance and horror in order to see whether or not those beliefs will hold. This point is obvious in Waiting for the Barbarians, as the breaking point is undoubtedly the arrest of the magistrate upon his return from the moral act of returning the barbarian girl. Through torture and captivity, this period of the book is where his beliefs are challenged to the point of abandonment as he asks himself why does he care about the barbarians so much, was does he care about what is right, and why he is opposed to the colonization that the Empire has gone forth with. Luckily for the magistrate, his beliefs stay with him, regardless of the ends they are pushed to and as the story wraps up, they are able to resurface in a better light.
On the other hand, in Heart of Darkness, Conrad pushes Marlow to this point when he finally arrives at the station with Kurtz and Marlow decides that Kurtz's opinions toward the natives are more honorable and righteous than that of the Russian and the manager. As a result, he becomes almost vilified by the two white men, who regard Kurtz as a lost cause who has sadly been consumed by the savage way of thinking. This leads to further difficulties once Kurtz dies as Marlow is now faced with the prospect of figuring out the meaning of Kurtz's last words, while, at the same time, dealing with the death of the only person who had the same perspective on Africa as he did. Thankfully for Marlow, however, he soon becomes ill and it is not long until he is evacuated from the jungle and makes his return to the mainland of Europe.
In the end, both characters ultimately cleanse themselves of their moral dilemmas, with Marlow returning to Europe and the magistrate finally leading an autonomous town that lives at peace and without the moral ignorance of the Empire overhanging its streets, and thus the stories conclude.
From these outlines, it is quite apparent that the two stories are more or less the exact same and thus, their lesson that challenging authority and doing whats right ultimately works out in the end and so should be pursued no matter what is equally supported by both works. While both books may have a few different perspectives, this lesson is still prevalent in equal and whether a reader reads one or another is irrelevant: the message is still the same. Furthermore, the "hero's journey" that both characters go through also add to the theme by giving a process to moral questioning in order to give readers the ability to recognize it both in themselves and also in their own leaders. From this process, people can hopefully better identify the good and the evil in similar situations in the future, whether simply in one's own life or in the government of one's resident country. Therefore, because of these valuable lessons, Waiting for the Barbarians and Heart of Darkness are both amazing works and will continue to probe the topic of morality and empire for centuries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
