Lost Love

At first glance, “When You are Old” by William Yeats seems tells a story of a old woman, who lost her chance at love, but after a few more readings, the meaning becomes unclear. This poem has no definite time frame. Is the speaker an omnipresent being warning the subject to not miss out on her chance at love? or is it a third party, who witnessed her failure to recognize her opportunity at hand. One thing that is definitive is that the poem has a sad tone, mainly concerned with loss.
In the first stanza the speaker establishes an old women siting by the fire reminiscing about her lost beauty. Whether this scene is in the present or the future is still unclear, and never established in the poem, The “old and gray” woman is sitting by a fire, reading a book and thinking about the her lost beauty. The “soft look” in her eyes has been replaced with “deep shadows” of old age. I think that these bags are physical bags under her eyes, distorting her beauty, but also emotional bags, which come with growing older. This stanza, which speaks of the loss of beauty, a somewhat trivial loss helps set up the third stanza, which speaks of the paramount loss of love.
The second stanza sets up the true tragedy of the story. Though this woman is beautiful and seems to be coveted by many men,indicated by the speaker asking her just “how may loved your moments of glad grace,” it seems that the men, who fell for her were only interested in her physical beauty, something that she will lose in old age. She could decipher if their love was “false or true.” However, one man saw her “pilgrim soul” and loved her relentlessly; he was aware of the fact that she would grow old, and that she would not retain her beauty in old age, yet he did not care. I think that the woman was so used to the other chauvinistic men, that she assumed this man was just like the rest, and could not see past his exterior.
The third stanza parallels the first in that it focuses on the woman by the fire. This time she is kneeling by the “glowing bars” almost in a gesture of prayer and sadly murmuring to herself how “Love fled.” I think that Love is capitalized because it related directly to the man, who loved her unconditionally, and not the general love the other suiters feigned for her. The last two lines were slightly confusing for me; I feel that they can represent two things. First, the man was ashamed that he was rejected and “hid his face among the stars” or the other suiters, or from the lofty “mountains overhead” and the star imagery, he dies.
Overall the general theme is loss, and the speaker's warning of the effects of lost love, either to the subject or the reader.

Wuthering Heights

I chose to read Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte. I chose it because I really enjoy 19th century literature, and it has been recommended to me many times. I have completely fallen in love with this novel. I love the dark complex romance that threads through the novel, and its somewhat complex plot for a 19th century novel. I'm going to write my paper on the religious imagery throughout the book, because religion in novels fascinates me, and Wuthering Heights in full of it.

Failure

Arthur Miller examines the darker side of the American Dream in his play Death of a Salesman through the protagonist, Willy. During the early stages of Willy's life, the American dream was that of being a rugged individual that Herbert Hoover presented to America in his closing speech; however, as Willy ages, the American Dream shifts to a more commercial view of the nuclear family. Willy is obsessed with both ideals, but his inability to achieve either foreordained dream, ultimately causes his downfall.

It seems as though Willy, belonging in the older generation, should have attempted the first of the Dreams; however, he feels the need to modernize and follow the commercial dream of the next generation. His frequent complaining of the recently urbanized Brooklyn, and his fantasies about the trees that used to grow in his backyard are symbolic of the original dream. He even instills the idea in his sons that it is more important to be athletic and "manly" like their uncle Ben, than be book smart. Willy idealizes his rugged brother Ben, but when given the opportunity to achieve his brother’s success out in the wilderness, Willy takes the modern route and becomes a salesman.

This is a scary path for someone like Willy, who would almost rather dream than succeed. In the jungle, he would have succeeded out of necessity; however, the urban world allows his to become passive in his actions for success. He is an ordinary man, who cannot keep up with the success-driven society, but who also cannot accept this fact. By having Willy be a regular middle-class man, Miller redefines the notion of a tragic hero in his play.

I think that his tragic flaw is that he cannot accept his ordinariness, and spends his life trying to achieve an unachievable goal, and when failing to achieve this goal, he passes on the burden to his sons, who in turn spend the majority of their tragic lives much like their father's. If Willy did not measure his happiness based on his level of success, or based on the way in which other people viewed him, then he could have lead a pleasant life; however, he saw himself as a failure in the eyes of those around him, and this obscured his own self-image and self-worth. According to Willy, success was being "well liked," living in the perfect nuclear family. Unfortunately, Willy was not dealt that hand, and could not win bluffing. (415)

Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus

In A Doll’s House Henrik Ibsen challenges the idea of gender roles of his time. Nora, the central character was programmed to be the perfect little housewife, first, by her father and then by her husband. She was forced to suppress her true self in order to please the men around her, to fulfill her duty as a wife and daughter. Society dictated her role on life’s stage, and men dictated society. Fearing the loss of their superior positions over women and “manly” authoritative status they treated women like subordinates both in the public domain and in the private realm.

A Doll’s House focuses on the domestic aspect of women's’ suppression. It is obvious that Nora has the least say in the relationship, because she is terrified that her husband will find out her secret as to how she saved his life (How could she? What nerve!) by forging her father’s signature, an example of women’s suppression in the public domain; however, most of Torvald's oppression is hidden behind kind words. He often calls her little animal names, which may, at first, seem sweet to the reader; however, they make me sick. I think that in calling her these “cute” names, he is laying the foundations for how she is to act. I know we live in a different time where women are no longer the subordinates in the relationship; actually, it’s debatable that we now wear the pants, just ask Britney; however; Torvald's mind games still anger me (and I think they are suppose to). I find myself thinking. “Nora snap out of it, stop acting like a twat, bitch slap him and leave his sorry ass!” .

Why is it that, because he isn’ t man enough to deal with an intelligent woman, Nora has to play the role of his little play thing, which he can manipulate as he pleases. Nora even stated that he would not be able to deal with the fact that she was the one who handled his medical bills. Honestly, if he cannot coup with her saving his life he must be really insecure. . Personally, I don’t even know why Nora saved him, I guess that speaks to her character, or to her brainwashing; I’m not quite sure, maybe it is a combination of both.

In conclusion, men have huge egos, and need their heads constantly inflated, and in 1879 they were legally allowed to take it out on women. However, things have changed, and now we, the women are in power, whether the men realize it or not. It’s simple we’re smarter, prettier, and more mature; therefore, our species should just forget about marriage, ditch the men, and leave them to deteriorate in their uncivilized ways.

Loss of Purpose

Life is Hamlet's serpent, gnawing at his soul; with each breath Hamlet plummets further into despondency, shielding his only light source. The loss of a father is monumental to most men, but to Hamlet, who had such an intimate relationship with his father, and who has rejected all surrounding women as whores, this lose is disastrous. The world is his prison, keeping him from death; had suicide not been deemed a sin by the Christian religion, Hamlet would have gladly taken his own life.
Ironically, Hamlet's father, who in a way unintentionally deprived Hamlet of his life, gives Hamlet another reason to live. The father asks his son to revenge his murder, by killing Claudius; however, this poses a problem for Hamlet, a devout Christian. Praying for God's protection, when the Ghost enters, Hamlet does not take the ghost's request without suspicion of its intentions; however, his heart is so weighed down by his lose and self-pity that he needs to find a purpose. Ultimately, acknowledging the Ghost as his true father, he accepts this task whole-heartidly. I think that the Ghost is an interesting character in that he, residing in purgatory, represents this abeyance between life and death much like his own son. King Hamlet is religious, speaking of earthly sins and God's wrathful judgment; however, he is also self-serving, asking his son to revenge his death. He is the embodiment of something between the holy ghost and man. Hamlet's promise to erase the contents of his life's book, and replace them with this new task is in essence a rejection of religion. But can he be held accountable for his hiatus from faith, when his mind is so darken with misery, that he can barely function? If his father's request presents Hamlet with even a brief diversion from the hell that is his own mind, I for one can not condemn him.
I think that some readers are quick to group his depression and genius together and label it as insanity. Hamlet is grief-stricken, and in order to relieve himself of this illness, he finds a cure, as most people would do. This cure, however, happens to be avenging the death of his father, through the murder of his uncle, the king. In order compete ambitious task, I do not think that killing a king is an easy feat, he feigns insanity, tricking the surrounding characters and even some readers. His emotions and outward appearance are completely different entities in Hamlet's case. I do not think that it is coincidental that Hamlet compares his mind to a book, saying he will erase all of its contents, and then, the next time he appears he is holding a book, about all the reasons why old men are flawed. His melancholia and willingness to depart from his physical body does not wholly disable his mind. It may cloud it and rid himself of self-control in his action towards himself, but it does not take away his ability to rationalize. Actually, I think the fact that he is still functioning is a testament to his sanity,
Hamlet's intermission from his faith, does not condemn him to hell; he tries to heal by not ignoring the pain, finding revenge to be his medicine, a remedy stopping him from committing the sin he is destined to commit. It's one evil or the other. His eternal turmoil has not caused him to lose faith completely, and any flicker of belief he retained during these impossible times is a tribute to its strength. The world in which Hamlet resides is corrupt, Shakespeare placed him in an environment, which he is the saint. The only sin Hamlet is guilty of is being human.

The Alpha Male?

In his article "On Misunderstanding Oedipus" E.R. Dodds states that readers misunderstand the meaning of Oedipus Rex, because they are too focused on its stifling and oppressive atmosphere, failing to see Oedipus' heroines as a symbol of truth, strength to endure such truth and human intelligence to solve life's riddles. Dodd's first points are obvious; Oedipus continues to open the wound that is his past, ultimately killing his future, making him a martyr to truth and justice; however, the latter is slightly less apparent and a little underdeveloped.

By making Oedipus come to the thrown by solving a riddle, Sophocles has placed intelligence over lineage and has made Oedipus, being the only one who can solve this riddle, the embodiment and epitome of intelligence. But, as in all Greek tragedies, the Gods make a mockery of the mortals, and even though Oedipus has the ability to piece the puzzle that is his downfall together, he does not have the ability to see of of the pieces, and has to rely on the gods to shine light on his dark project. However, Oedipus is placed above the other mortals because he is a strong believer in fate. His efforts to avoid his tragic fate only humanizes him and makes him a universal character that the reader is able to connect with and draw from his tale. Dodds argues that Oedipus represents human intelligence's strive to solve all life's riddles and that Oedipus finally accomplishes a higher state of being with his realization that "human happiness is built on an illusion." We have the illusion of happiness based on trifles of life, living each day interdependent of one another, because we do not have the vision of a higher power. Walking blindly into our fate, our happiness is based on the mentality that ignorance is bliss, and ultimately, after establishing Oedipus as the epitome of intelligence, he is reduced to ignorance, subordinate to the gods.

I think that Dodds over generalizes Oedipus and is too quick to sing his praises by saying the play is about human greatness and failing to recognize his flaws, which make him mortal in the first place. Yes, Oedipus exhibits extreme devotion to his kingdom by taking full responsibility for his unconscious actions; however, Dodds fails to illuminate his quick temper, rash judgement, and attempts to be a good king over a moral being. At one point, Oedipus accuses Creon of treason, and sentences him to banishment, but when Creon retaliates asking Oedipus, "suppose you are wrong?" Oedipus simply answers, "Still I must rule." Can one really generalize Oedipus as the alpha human in this scene? I would agree that his actions make him a great leader, but not human. Where does he use reason and show compassion as Iocaste does? He loves his kingdom and lives for truth and justice, but that is not true for all of mankind. (576)

Death of Mentality

As Ivan Illych tries to live up to the standards of propriety, dishonesty secretly gnaws on his soul, ultimately causing his death. His lose of innocence was progressively replaced with the poison that is society. Tolstoy begins his novella with an unbiased view in the third person of this poison in his first chapter to give the reader insight into the life Ivan lives before introducing the reader to Ivan himself. This technique is effective because without the context of this society so obsessed with propriety that morals are meaningless, the reader would not feel pathos towards the main character. In his first chapter Tolstoy indirectly attributes Ivan's death to the environment in which he lived.

The only pleasantry that Ivan remembers is from his childhood, before he lose his conscience; therefore,the majority of his life has been a road to his current miserable self. His downfall began in Law School, ironically, a place where students are taught both justice and how to get around the law. There he had done which "formerly...made his feel disgusted with himself," but as he continued to see such actions done by people who were in high positions, he losses this self hatred. He and the people around him feel that they are above mortality, and that truth does not apply to them. As a man of the law, Ivan sees himself as a God-like figure to those he is evaluating. Ivan never abused his power, but he also took pride in the fact that many people were "completely dependent on him." He and the men he surrounds himself with think that death is just a abstract idea that would never fall upon them. Ivan's realization that he is dying comes as a complete surprise, and those at his funeral, who are now closely exposed to death, act awkwardly and decide that because death came to Ivan, it cannot come to them.

In the midst of his downfall, Ivan marries Praskovya, for the equal reasons that he loved her and that it was socially correct. The love fades quickly, and the bond is left to hold on the basis of propriety alone. Ivan begins to hate every detail of his wife as the years progress. This hatred and the falsehood of their loving marriage to others disease his mind before he becomes physically ill. He is so consumed with negative thoughts that when his physical accident happens he cannot recover.

Instead of looking from within to cure his illness, he turns to doctors and medicine. The more he extends himself to the physical world, the worse his condition gets. At one point he seems to blame every problem in his life, even those that preceded his illness on the failure of his medication. But it is this physical world in which he lives in that will cause him the most pain. His injury was caused by his knocking his side on the window frame, which he took so much pride in, and his loved ones are so invested in their own lives that they do not take the time to pity Ivan. In the end Ivan only wants pity; however, no one will give him this pleasure, except Gerasim, the only person in the story not part of high society. Ivan feels as if there is no one to live for and ultimately gives up on life.

Ivan is so invested in this corrupt society that he cannot even see the injustice anymore, however, unlike the rest, Ivan has a conscience, somewhere, because as his life follows this awful path, his mind, struggling to hold onto what little morals are left, causes the downfall of his physical self. (620)

Justice or Knowledge

The major difference between the protagonists of Heart of Darkness and that of Waiting for the Barbarians is the level of submersion into the native culture they endure. In the Heart of Darkness, Kurtz drifts further and further from the civilization. Literally he has removed himself from the post and other European men, while metaphorically, proved by his relationship with the native girl and his intimate association with nature, he has become nature's spouse. He is so far removed from the idea of European civilization that he has assimilated into the African culture, taking his original statement as to be the natives' God-like figure in order to save them in a completely different direction. Kurtz has become the alpha native, while the Magistrate has only had a taste for the Barbarian culture. Unlike Kurtz the Magistrate does not wonder into the Barbarian territory save for a couple of days when he is giving away his strongest and only emotional connection with the Barbarians. His encounters with the Barbarians is strictly limited to the station, and while he spends a great deal of time excavating Barbarian ruins, watching and empathizing with the captives, and creating an intimate relationship with the Barbarian girl, he is never submerged into their native culture.

While the Magistrate can be looked upon as self-righteous and defender of the Barbarians, Kurtz, though neither defending nor helping them, actually knows the native culture. How can the Magistrate truly attempt to be the martyr of the Barbarian culture, when his knowledge is so limited? Yes, it is a fetal attempt, but he could never truly be successful without the Barbarian passion. In comparison, Kurtz, who could be seen as an immoral figure only interested in elevating his own native status to that of divinity, has been completely enveloped in the culture, and even launches an attach on his fellow Europeans, so that he may remain with the natives. His passion has driven him to madness. He has been without civilization, the European man, and laws for so long that he has long forgotten how to behave under these restrictions. Like a domesticated dog left to felt for himself in the wild, Kurtz has returned to his pre-domesticated roots. Native culture is now his norm, while European culture remains in the foggy distance of his past.

I'm not sure which is more justified though, not really knowing the culture one is fighting for, or knowing a culture and not fighting for it. It seems as though the former would be preferred; however, not knowing what he was fighting for, besides his love for the Barbarian girl, would he have been so quick to rise against the Empire? Though Kurtz does not defend the natives, and he was born a European, he died a Barbarian. (480)

Mystifying Mischief

Thus far in reading Waiting for the Barbarians by J.M Coetzee, I have found the most interesting aspect to be the theme of vagueness. Coetzee establishes this theme’s importance in the opening sentences of the novel, when the Magistrate does not understand the role of the Colonel’s sunglasses. To the Magistrate, whose knowledge of such inventions has been reduced to its primitive forms, the glasses serve as a barrier between the Colonel and the world into which he has stepped. They protect the most revealing part of the Colonel’s body from being deciphered by the Magistrate. The relationship between these two white men, both somewhat foreign to the land in which they have been placed, is unconcernable to the Magistrate. He refers to the Colonel as being cryptically silent and hidden behind “dark mysterious circles.” The essence of dreams and sudo-realism also surrounds the Magistrate. I think that this is way of cooping with his situation at hand, and ironically the only time he feels real in a world where his surrounding have been obstructed and his life turned completely bizarre. His first dream that the reader is revealed to is his dream of the dead girl, whose body has been matted with bees. At first glance, the Magistrate sees a girl with pubic hair described as “liquid black and gold,” a beautiful seductive image, but upon touching the girl the bees reveal themselves. His dream is a foreshadow to his encounter with the blind girl; the girl is presented as an innocent figure in his dream, while the bees a symbol for the empire, almost suffocate her with their presence and tease her with their power as they simply sit atop her. Magistrate clearly sees the blind girl’s essence, but at the same time, struggles with the issue of her vision and past. Nevertheless, he creates an intimate relationship, which he does not have with any other human in the Empire, which is synthesized through cleansing her body and falling asleep in the act. Thus far their relationship is the purest in the novel, though it is clouded by her lack of sight. The magistrate often struggles with the foggy morals of the Colonel and deals with this through clouding his own. (373)

Symbolism in The Heart of Darkness

Impressionism

-Watt suggests that Heart of Darkness is impressionist because it asserts the "bounded and ambiguous nature of individual understanding." This understanding is inward looking and based on experience; therefore, the narrative can be described as subjective moral impressionism.

-Marlow assumes reality is private and individual and that no other man can know what they are actually seeing.

-His text is also impressionist because of his methods of approaching visual descriptions. He is concerned with individual sense to give his text meaning. This technique is one of his innovations in Heart of Darkness.

-An example Conrad's impressionism is his use of fog and its relation to the story. The narrator established that Marlow's story would not be centered on the meaning, instead, its meaning will not be fully visible and possible unnoticed like "the presence of dust particles and water vapor in a pace that normally looks dark and void.

-However, Conrad probably was not an impressionist, because his tastes in music and painting were distinctly old-fashioned, and he apparently disliked Van Gogh. Conrad thought that impressionism was strictly concerned with visual appearances.

Symbolism

- Conrad had many letter's suggesting that he shared symbolic references of knowledge and expression with French Symbolists.

-Conrad wanted to make Heart of Darkness mostly straightforward to give "a true impression," but he connected the world of the ship to the greater world.

- Though his work is straightforward in meaning, he wanted the the novella to have wider and general implications; therefore the piece itself is symbolic as a whole/

- The symbolic meaning of events has a structure, rather than being strictly illustrative

- The title brings together the meaning of the novella. It is a combination of "inorganic darkness" containing an "organic center of life and feeling." It also suggests the notion of the good heart coming to control the evil darkness, but the the symbols of heart and darkness can not necessarily be clearly assigned.

Let There be Hope

Faulkner provides closure in The Sound and Fury thorough the setting of the last section, and the last scene itself. The fact that the last section takes place on Easter Sunday, the day of Jesus’ resurrections and a symbol of rebirth, provides hope for the Compson family. While Jason is trying to find Quentin and mother is ill in bed, Dilsey takes the true structure of the family, Luster, Benjy, and herself to church. I think that they are the only connecting characters in the story keeping the Compson family, a true family, because they are the only morally sound people in the family, not causing any trouble. It is also significant that all the others have been weeded out to go to church; Faulkner is trying to show that only the faithful are left, which gives the reader hope that even though most of the family has crumbled, maybe this structure will live on as a healthy family. This notion of a movement towards stability is also exemplified in the last scene. In an effort to show off to his friends, Luster goes let around the statue in town, as apposed to right, the way in which Benjy is accustomed to seeing the world. This change disturbs Benjy greatly, because he cannot cope with any disturbance of order in his life. After being yelled out by Jason, Luster turns around and the last sentence of the book explains that everything went back to its ordered place. The barely visible motifs of hope and order, suggest that the structured part of the Compson family will come together in the future. (270)

The Whole Truth?

I read the article “The Sound and the Fury: A study in Perspective” by Olga W. Vickery. Olga presents the idea that the theme is not explicitly stated in the novel but rather in the novel’s unconventional structure. By abstractly presenting the same events through the eyes of the three brothers, Faulkner gradually helps clarify the actually events, but at the same time the reader is left to cipher through the bias of each character, reconstructing the plot and deciding its meaning for himself. Since each section began with the true story and then was slightly obscured by bias, Olga believes that the theme of The Sound and the Fury is the “relationship between the act and man’s apprehension of the act, between event and interpretation, and since each man has a different interpretation of the events, it is not that he is explicably or consciously trying to spin the events to look favorable on his own view, but he is simple relating the events as they occurred in his mind. In a sense each man created his own truth. Olga’s first point, before she digs into deconstructing the structure of the novel, is that the children’s water splashing scene on the night of Damuddy’s death foreshadows the entire novel. The structure of the novel is parallel in this scene, because the reader sees the brother’s different reactions to Damuddy’s death, which as children none of them can quite grasp yet. This scene mainly focuses on the objective narrative of the dramatic event, while serving as a study on perspective of the boys. This event foreshadows not the rest of the plot, but how the rest of the plot will be presented, for Caddy’s soirée with Dalton Ames then becomes the focal point of the novel, which is presented both through concrete plot and dramatic narrative of the brothers.

I liked this article, because it presented the theme through unconventional ways. While it is quite obvious to the reader that the novel is being presented through the voices of the brothers, and therefore, each must have some amount of bias, it is not evident that one of the themes is presented in the novel’s structure. My favorite part of this article was Olga’s interpretation of the water-splashing scene, because I found the night of Damuddy’s death saturated with foreshadow, such as when Caddy stains her underwear, and Dilsey can not wash off the dirt before she goes to bed, foreshadowing her future sexual impurities. However, even though this night foreshadows the events of the novel, I never looked to it to foreshadow its unconventional structure. The article is insightful and at times confusing, but ultimately helped me to look at The Sound and the Fury from a new perspective. (460)

The Royal Race

Most of Battle Royal is concrete. A black boy feels honored and superior to his fellow black classmates, because he is asked to recite a speech at a white men’s smoker, but the white men only want his oration merely as an act in their circus, and force him to watch an erotic dance and take part in their Battle Royal. The narrator takes part in this fight so that he may deliver his speech latter on in the night and further gain the respect of the white men. While this plotline is interesting, the themes of racial superiority and the limitedness of the American dream are enforced by the imagery of the nation’s colors and the presence of smoke during the dancing and fighting scenes.

Representing the American ideals, negative red, white and blue imagery is dispersed throughout the story. The white oppressors are described as being ‘lily-white”, having blue eyes, and red faces. Though Ellison describes the men a “lily white,” suggesting purity, their red faces, due to alcohol consumption and excitement from watching the boys’ struggle, actually mocks their self-righteousness. The erotic dancing female, having blonde hair, blue eye shadow, red lips, and an American flag tattoo, represents a perverse version of lady liberty. Her tattoo is placed on a sensual part of her body, mocking the very ideas it represents. Enchanted by her performance the corrupted men’s inner beast is revived, as they proceed to hunt and toss their meat about the room. Their superiority of this delicate creature prepares the reader for their treatment of the black boys, whose eyes are immediately suffocated by the white bands like those of the American flag. The boys are literally and figuratively blinded by the white race. The red blood and blue light motifs emphasize their blindness to the fact that in the white man’s society the American dream does not pertain to them. Both colors literally cloud the narrator’s vision; through his blindfold the only distinct color the narrator sees is the blue light, while once he is knocked down, red slowly disperses over the band. Consumed by the idea of reciting his speech in front of the only people fit to judge it, the narrator is naive of the white mans’ corruption. They reduce the black boys to their ancestral status of savages. Upon removing the white cloth, the narrator has a slight epiphany, and directs his opponent to fake a loss and offers him the prize. It is the black boys’ first attempt to work as cohesive unit. Up until this point the white men have been able to weaken the boys by plotting them against each other, leading them to believe that they were being looked highly upon for doing the white man’s will. Their failure to compromise is the struggle that they will continue to face as a divided race, as the homogenous American colors are not strong when separated. Ellison mocks America by disrespecting the nation’s colors.

The white cigar smoke is emphasized during the most perverted scenes in the story as a symbol of white superiority. The smoke “clings” to the girl’s seductive body, just as the men’s “beefy fingers sink into her soft flesh.” Though the girl appeared to be unaffected by the smoke, her terrified and disgusted eyes reveal her true animosity towards the white men; therefore, she must have been forced to dance, or she is in desperate need of the money amongst the white man’s world. Both the men and the smoke are omnipresent, stifling her integrity. After being blindfolded, the narrator, also subjecting himself to the white man’s will, feels as though the smoke is a dagger piercing his body. This imagery foreshadows the narrator’s realization of the men’s indirect abuse. With each blow the smoke proportionately cuts off his ability to breath, just as the white men suffocate his race. Even when the narrator realizes that he can vaguely recognize figures, enough to be successful in the fight, the smoke is also visible, distorting his vision. A member of the pack shouts a bet against the narrator, who has to actually ask himself if he should lose the fight in order to submit himself to the white man. Rather than fight against the while man, he fights for him. Amorphous smoke has the ability to spread wherever it pleases, and if enough if present, suffocate its victim, just as the white men have uniformly asserted their superiority.

Ellison uses the American colors to reveal the white man’s corruption, and the smoke to reveal his superiority. The story hints at the narrator’s future ability to see the vivid colors, but his vision remains foggy; though, the fact that he is haunted by the dream and becomes invisible, a step above visibly abiding by the white man’s wishes, gives the reader hope that he will rise above the suppression and fight for, not against, what he believes in. (878)




What does the imagery of the circus represent?

What was the significance of the electric rug and fake gold coins?

How come the boys work against each other? Does it have to do with the cash prize or it is something deeper?

How do you feel about the narrator at the end of the story? Pathos? Resentment?

Contradictions

Often people hide behind their self-proclaimed, religious façades. The ardent church attendees and devout bible readers can also be hypocritical monsters. So wrapped up in the technicalities of religion are they that pure intentions are forgotten. In Revelations by Flannery O’ Connor, Mrs. Turpin is so enthralled in her own definition of righteousness that she is ignorant of her impiety. In her mind people are placed on a ladder to heaven by ascending class order. Her time is spent reviewing this line and struggling with those groups whom she sees misfit. She often speaks on God’s behalf and feels that she this omni knowledge of people. In Mrs. Turpin’s mind Jesus conscientiously rewarded her with being a respectable white woman and by doing so placed her closer to heaven. Turpin is forgetful of Christianity’s recurring theme that those who suffer prosper in heaven. She proclaims that her life’s philosophy is to help all in need, but her helping is for her own satisfaction. Her own religious self-righteousness has clouded even the most simply of Christian morals.

Mrs. Turpin is a bossy, judgmental and ungrateful woman. She is the superior figure in her marriage. Though Claud, her husband, has an ulcer on his leg, when Mrs. Turpin cannot find a seat he simply sighs and begins to rise. Rather than be flattered that he would give up his seat, she demands that he sits down, and has justify to her audience that he has an ulcer. In complete submission Claud rolles up his pant leg and reveals the purple swelling. In this scene Claud’s actions reveal that he is subordinate to Mrs. Turpin. Her next order of business is classifying the people, when she cannot sleep; she is comforted by reviewing the distinct classes and putting herself in line. Seated next to her is the blue-eyed fat girl, next to the girl is a “leathery old woman,” and across the room a “pleasant lady, the mother of the disrespectful child, and after an examination of their shoe selections, their castes defined them. Every aspect of the people was a result of their class.

In the disillusioned mind of Mr. Turpin, being black dirty or ugly is an impurity from God; therefore, as a white homeowner Jesus destined her to be a better person. Even Mrs. Turpin’s hogs are superior to most; they are raised on concrete and washed daily; almost like she is fearful that others will judge her on her on the cleanliness of her animals. After the reader learns about her hog washing, Mary Grace, the fat girl, calls her a hog, alluding to the fact that Mrs. Turpin is symbolically trying to cleanse herself of her impurities. But a hog cannot erase its identity; it may seem superior because of its lack of dirt but inside it remains a naturally dirty animal. Mrs. Turpin pretends to be a friend to the black help, but this falsehood is only for her own benefit. She even defends the race to the trashy lady saying that they are different kinds of black people, but had she believed this statement, she would not have lumped blacks into one category on her caste ladder. When the delivery boy enters the office her fist observation is that he is “colored,” and after a short description of his delivery, she returns to the fact that he is “very black.” Though she objects to the Christian notion that all people are equal, she considers herself holy.
O’Connor reveals Mrs. Turpin’s impiety not only through her actions but symbolically. In the waiting room gospel music is playing creating the illusion that the room is not only a waiting room for the doctor, but also to heaven. Like trying to jam the wrong puzzle piece into a space, Mrs. Turpin does not fit. O’ Connor opens the story with the fact that Mrs.Turpin is too large for the room, and the tension grows when the seat fits her like a corset. Her character is too inflated for heaven. Her name is not revealed until the last quarter of the story; by creating this formal situation, O’ Connor does not want the reader to feel a connections towards her. Even her name, Ruby, has a connotation of both beauty and impiety. Rubies are precious, expensive gems, the type of lady that Mrs. Turpin wants to emulate, but they are also red, which is associated with the devil, and is a representative of her true character.
Mrs. Turpin’s character can be summarized by saying that she is a character of contradictions. It is almost as though she looks at herself through a distorted mirror, for she is truly blind to her ignorance. As a reader her blindness is tough categorize. Because the reader is torn between sympathy and hatred, thorough out the story, her transformation at the end of the story is unexpected but realistic. The light is finally shown on Mrs. Turpin, ironically, in the hogs’ pen, and her foggy reflection is ultimately cleared, seeing herself as a true hypocrite, and vowing to become a true child of God.

Misconceptions

On the onset of Teenage Wasteland, Daisy, mother of Donny, appears to be well qualified for the position of mother, but as the story progresses one by one those qualifications diminish. The story opens with Daisy’s nostalgia to go back to a time when Donny was younger and more innocent. I think every mother has this feeling of wishing to go back to the simpler days, where her child’s departure was not in sight, but Daisy’s longing is different; it implies that she wants her son to revert back to his childhood self, because he was easier to govern. Every aspect of his description has connotations of his transformation from light to dark: his hair was once short and blonde, but now long and dark, those round cheeks, now sharp. As a former fourth grade teacher, Daisy knows how to deal with younger children, her comfort zone, but teenagers are more complex than the simple minds of fourth grades, and Daisy could not make the adjustment. Donny’s deviation from his younger characteristics appears to embarrass Daisy. Upon hearing the principal’s declaration of Donny’s laziness, disruptiveness, and disobedience her own insecurities consume her mind: what if he does not think her an adequate parent, or that she does not care, how must she, an overweight woman, appear? As a mother, it was her duty to decide how to punish and change Donny’s actions; this is the first time the reader sees Daisy fail, though only slightly, as a mother.

Daisy is blind to her failure as a mother; in her mind she followed every rule by enforcing curfew, making her son finish his homework before talking on the phone, or watching TV, but her Waterloo came through not understanding her son. This miscommunication disabled her to discipline her son’s manipulative ways, and aid his internal illness. Donny was a troubled kid, always acting out, and it is not clear if he was trying to get attention or if he was just hurting, but I think one reason for his disobedience was his the absence of his father without whom Donny lacked a male figure to look up to. When the counselor decided that Donny needed a tutor with a psychology background, the parents dutifully obliged, and in steprd Cal, Donny’s sudo-father figure, a middle aged kid who throughout the story is not associated with a single adult, except for his failed marriage. Donny’s parents notice his newfound happiness, but only at the expense of his failing grades and rude behavior. Cal persuades Donny’s parents to disregard their ideas of being a good parent by setting rules, and attributes these rules to Donny’s depression. His methods are absurd and unnatural, and Daisy even comments on the difficulty of following all of these rules. By allowing him to govern her son, she looses all of her authority, in a sense mirroring her relationship with Donny, becoming the child to an unprepared parent; but forgoing her authority was simple and complexity she could not handle.

Donny’s expulsion seems to cause Daisy’s awakening from this dream world of not having to deal with her son’s difficulties, and Cal is dismissed, but Donny was left without an adult to help him. At least Cal was someone to talk to and during those sessions his mental state was briefly lifted. Now, his mother is even farther from understanding his complex nature and put him into a school and watched him become the model student she always wanted but also suffer until he snapped and ran away.

I guess it is easy to blame the mother because the reader feels that the mother should share this bond with her son where she understands all of his incomprehensible emotions, of course, this is not realistic, but reality is often lost in the attempt to over simplify the characters in a piece of literature. (645)

Dichotomous Natures- The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

The plot is basic. Fyodor Pavlovich, who was often referred to as a buffoon by many characters and who had abandoned his three legitimate sons to be raised by distant relations, was killed. Two of his son hate him, one of which, Dmitri, shares his affection for the infamously promiscuous Grushenka, while the third, Alyosha, has dedicated his life to the monastery. Relatively speaking, for a 700-page book nothing happens. Dostoevsky could have easily condensed the plotline into 200 pages, but the significance of the novel is not a series of captivating evens, but rather, Dostoevsky’s attempt to reconcile his philosophy on life: the role and destiny of the poor, the human mind, and the existence of faith and God during severe times. I was partial to the latter and most frequently occurring theme.
Ultimately, the novel ended with a positive view on religion; however, that view was not expressed throughout. Some characters struggled with their beliefs, while tensions formed between devote Christians and non-believers. Sometimes, those who were considered religiously sound were admirable; other times they were not, and even though religion was victorious in the end the atheists, who repeatedly asked how God and evil could coexist, were not portrayed as awful, immoral creatures. Even those associated with the monastery questioned their devotion when injustices were prevalent, and some were willing to partake in dishonorable tasks to further such justice. The characters struggled with their dichotomous natures.
Dmitri was falsely convicted of his father’s murder on the basis that he notoriously denounced his hatred towards his father for stealing his inheritance and for loving the same woman as he. Alyosha, Dmitri’s brother and a symbol of purity throughout the novel had to decide whether or not to aid his brother’s escape. His instinctive brotherly affection led him to the resolution that his brother’s proclamation of innocence was true; nevertheless, does he brake the law and aid a supposed criminal, or does he follow his religious instinct and let the event take its course punishing where need be? The line between good and evil was quickly dissolved.
The Brother’s Karamazov is a book that necessitates multiple readings, for the characters tend to have long chains of ideas and dreams that are interspersed throughout confuse and enrich the plot simultaneously. I can best describe this experience as trying to read Plato for the first time with complete understanding. I appreciated Dostoevsky’s articulations; his artful wording captivated me. Written right before his death, this novel seems to be his way of answering his life’s most unnerving questions.

Reading List

• Jane Eyre Charllote Bronte
• When Engulfed in Flames David Sedaris
• The Kite Runner Khaled Hosseini
• Black Swan Green David Mitchell
• The Brothers Karamazov Fyodor Dostoevsky
• A Thousand Splendid Suns Khaled Hosseini (459)