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)