Struggle in Poetry: Personal Conflict in Theodore Roethke's "My Papa's Waltz"

                 Poetry is a unique art. Nowhere else can twenty-six simple characters be organized into relatively few carefully-worded lines to create innumerable perspectives on the parts of life and the world that we hold most dear—all at the will of a single person. In poetry, hardships, struggles, passions, and desires come alive as they embrace loaded words and a special array of metaphors, rhyme, and figurative language that not only depict them but also serve to elicit a higher meaning not explicitly mentioned in the text. A fantastic example of the power and intensity of this extraordinary art form is Theodore Roethke’s “My Papa’s Waltz.” This short but impressive work utilizes the creative effects of diction, contradictory imagery, and extended metaphor to illustrate the troubled relationship between a young child and his father. Through their elicitation of emotions and their overall creation of a rather violent, but satiric tone, these devices ultimately work together throughout the sixteen short lines to create a central contrast and theme within the poem that keeps the reader thinking and questioning until the very end.

                  Roethke’s diction begins this slow and carefully-orchestrated effect by utilizing the connotations of various key words in order to form a variety of imagery and feelings that, as a whole, contribute to the overall tone of the poem. For example, throughout the poem we see the presence of words such as “romped”, “unfrown,” and “hung,” alluding to a sense of fun and playfulness. Right next to those words, however, we happen to find opposing, more negative words, such as “scrapes,” beating,” and “death,” whose connotations give the reader a sense of violence and cold fear and directly contrast with the feelings evoked by the happier words around them. Similarly, words such as “dizzy” and “missed” give way to feelings of confusion and disorientation, serving to add a third volatile emotion into the battle. As a result, the poem develops a particular tension that then allows Roethke’s other important devices to take shape and begin taking effect.

                  Among the most important of these devices is imagery. Due to the various emotions involved in the words and the tension existing between the respective groups, the text begins to develop vivid images that help to create a visual depiction of the relationship between the boy and his father. We are shown the boy “[hanging] on to [his father] like death.” We witness “[romping] until the pans slid off the kitchen shelf” and the father “beating time on [the boy’s] head.” We also hear about the boy’s “right ear [scraping] a buckle” whenever something went awry in their relationship. As a result of these images, we begin to notice that abuse is a problem and that violence is very much a part of their relationship.

Yet, while these examples seem to clearly demonstrate the situation between the two, we as readers are still thrown off by the use of the happier words by the speaker and are simply left with a tone of tension and confusion. With such contradictory feelings, we are left to question if this poem is supposed to have a positive or negative tone and if the speaker is comfortable or upset about his relationship with his father. In turn, we begin to perceive a certain struggle between happiness and fear of violence within the speaker’s tone and in the speaker himself and slowly begin to see the hardship that Roethke is trying to illustrate. Torn between every man’s natural tendencies to love his father and the instinctive ways in which we all avoid physical injury, Roethke’s speaker in the poem is consumed with a fight within himself of which there is no obvious solution and is thus placed in a vicious cycle that never really ends. As a result, the struggle forms the central theme of the poem and the primary character conflict whose mere nature causes us as readers to question ourselves and our motives during similar situations.

Furthermore, this central struggle is finally lodged into place by the extended metaphor of the waltz, which puts all of Roethke’s imagery into a context that keeps the poem organized and effective through a number of clever effects. For one, the idea of a waltz, or any dance for that matter, suggests a certain intimacy and partnership, two ideas that directly contrast with the violent imagery that the speaker utilizes.  Consequently, this contradiction thus helps to further develop the tension and confusion experienced by the speaker and thus enhances the central theme of his struggle. Furthermore, the dance metaphor also implies the idea of rhythm, giving the reader a sense of repetition, which, in many ways, describes the pattern of the relationship between the speaker and his father as everlasting and cyclical. This makes sense when the first and last quatrains are brought into consideration. In both, there exists the imagery of holding on, using phrases like “but I hung on like death” and “still clinging to your shirt.” Furthermore, the image of going to bed in the last quatrain suggests that the end of the waltz, or struggle, is only temporary and that there is no guarantee the following day will present a  solution to the speaker’s problem. In the end, the waltz provides a unifying factor throughout the poem that ultimately keeps Roethke’s message clear and unobstructed.

In conclusion, “My Papa’s Waltz” is a poem about hardship, pain, and making tough decisions. Describing a cyclical conflict of emotion within the speaker regarding his father, the poem demonstrates how hard life can be sometimes and how difficult those issues can be to handle. Yet, despite the accurate description of struggle, we, as readers, are ultimately left with no conclusion and knowledge of how the speaker resolves these problems. Does he finally work something out with his father? Does he choose to forgive him? Does he choose to love him?  In the end, we don’t know, but that’s the point. Roethke’s message is simply that things don’t always get fully resolved and that sometimes it’s best merely to deal with one’s issues rather than try to resolve them. As a result, “My Papa’s Waltz” leaves us with the important lesson that not everything in life is easy or has an answer, but as long as we keep focused on our issues, the best possible outcome can always happen. 

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest--Final Paper

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)