“He has bequeathed his nation a body of imperishable verse from which Americans will forever gain joy and understanding” That is what President John F. Kennedy said about Robert Frost, the man nearly synonymous with American poetry. Frost is most famous for instituting the use of colloquial “Yankee” words into poetry which had previously been dominated by (Redcoat?) formal language. His work was marked by a unique ability to infuse conversational language with poetic qualities. Frost’s “The Silken Tent” is no exception. It is a painstakingly crafted metaphor of love and admiration with hidden layers of meaning. In Frost’s single sentence sonnet, the speaker finds significance in the most lackluster of objects. Indeed, Frost utilizes his characteristic vivid imagery and simple vocabulary to draw a surprisingly profound comparison between a woman and, yes, a tent. However, behind the idle affection in the poem, lies a more serious, more consequential revelation about life.
The speaker finds an apt comparison to the woman in the form of a silken tent rustling softly in the wind. Like the tent, the woman lives a life “at ease” (line 4), existing in harmony with the world around her, never once out of sync with the billowing wind. Frost actually allows the rhythm of the poetry to demonstrate this calm atmosphere with soothing phrases such as “sunny summer breeze” (line 2). The carefully selected language of the poem allows us to infer that the speaker holds the woman in high regard. He notes that the tent is supported by a “central cedar pole” (line 5). Her core is one of a strong and rich wood, which does not yield to outside forces. She is a woman of true character, her principled lifestyle bridging the gap between heaven and earth as a “pinnacle to heavenward” (line 6). In fact, her upright nature “signifies the sureness of the soul” (line 7).
For all her personal strength and integrity, the woman does not truly stand on her own, but rather is “loosely bound / By countless silken ties of love and thought” (line 9-10) to the rest of the world. She is not only braced by others, but is literally tied to them in an enormous web of mutual support. Through the grounding force of others, the woman is capable of withstanding the gusting of the wind. Similarly, others are sustained by the woman’s vigor and made stronger by it. Tiny threads of silk, a fine yet resilient fiber, are the means by which the woman is connected to all others.
Nevertheless, those connections which allow the woman to “sway at ease” demand something from her. She is liberated by those links and yet she is dependent on them. Thus, when one thread goes “slightly taut” (line 12), the woman is reminded of the limiting aspect, the “slightest bondage” (line 14), of her connections. By binding herself to others, the woman has acquired the freedom and ability to achieve things she never could have alone. Yet she has made a very real sacrifice. She will never again be fully independent and no achievement will ever belong entirely to her. The capricious wind of circumstance will always hold sway over her life.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Go Tell It On the Mountain
As years of library overdue fines prove, I have trouble choosing just one book to read at a time. So, after a long and drawn-out process of whittling down the list of books to a "manageable" ten or so that I wanted to read, I headed to the local Borders. It was there that I began my ritual of cracking open a copy of each novel and reading a given page or two. If I was drawn into the narrative, it stayed on the list. If I found myself bored, it was crossed off.
The only problem was that after reading snippets of each book, I still had ten choices. Finally, after recalling our many class discussions (and recent political discussions) about the nature of race, I chose to read James Baldwin's Go Tell It On The Mountain. While I must admit that I have not yet completed it, I have so far enjoyed Baldwin's insightful writing. I look forward to completing it in the coming days.
The only problem was that after reading snippets of each book, I still had ten choices. Finally, after recalling our many class discussions (and recent political discussions) about the nature of race, I chose to read James Baldwin's Go Tell It On The Mountain. While I must admit that I have not yet completed it, I have so far enjoyed Baldwin's insightful writing. I look forward to completing it in the coming days.
Monday, March 9, 2009
What's Wrong With Willy? (and other words beginning with "W")
Willy Loman is a sad and pathetic character. According to many, including Arthur Miller, he is a tragic one. As I read Death of a Salesman, I felt little sympathy for Willy, due to his coldness with his children as well as his affair. He treats Biff and Happy poorly, which on some level can be excused – not everyone makes a great father. However, when he betrays Linda, who is truly loyal to him, trusts him, and defends him, I no longer feel much pity for Willy at all. So I must ask: what is wrong with Willy?
Perhaps he does not see that he will never be a great father or a great salesman and is so deluded that he never has a chance to consider his real situation. Or perhaps he has simply poisoned all of his relationships one by one, until he is left with no one but Linda – a woman who does not know the extent of her husband’s transgressions. Personally, I believe that Willy has such high expectations of himself and the world that he is never able to achieve them. He is therefore constantly disappointed, never happy with what he has. This cycle of disappointment is what will ultimately lead to Willy’s suicide.
Willy thinks that he is a strong man and a first-rate salesman. Yet he is always tired, constantly forgetting things, and cannot even make the drive along his sales route. Willy idealizes the past, thinking that if only men of good principle and proper values, like his old boss Frank, were still around, then he would be appreciated for his innate value. He feels that the world owes him something, that because of his actions decades ago, he deserves some grand justice. In a perfect world, he would have gotten it, but instead Willy blows his contribution to the company way out of proportion, fully expecting to receive commendations and the reward of his long sought-after desk job. It never occurs to him that he might be denied his just recompense because he has once again set his expectations far too high.
Perhaps he does not see that he will never be a great father or a great salesman and is so deluded that he never has a chance to consider his real situation. Or perhaps he has simply poisoned all of his relationships one by one, until he is left with no one but Linda – a woman who does not know the extent of her husband’s transgressions. Personally, I believe that Willy has such high expectations of himself and the world that he is never able to achieve them. He is therefore constantly disappointed, never happy with what he has. This cycle of disappointment is what will ultimately lead to Willy’s suicide.
Willy thinks that he is a strong man and a first-rate salesman. Yet he is always tired, constantly forgetting things, and cannot even make the drive along his sales route. Willy idealizes the past, thinking that if only men of good principle and proper values, like his old boss Frank, were still around, then he would be appreciated for his innate value. He feels that the world owes him something, that because of his actions decades ago, he deserves some grand justice. In a perfect world, he would have gotten it, but instead Willy blows his contribution to the company way out of proportion, fully expecting to receive commendations and the reward of his long sought-after desk job. It never occurs to him that he might be denied his just recompense because he has once again set his expectations far too high.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Where Does the Responsibility Lay?
In what ways do you find Nora a victim? In what ways at fault?
Henrik Ibsen’s A Dolls House reveals a woman trapped in an unpleasant situation. Nora is a victim of circumstance, of society, and of her own misconceptions. She is married to a man who does not understand her as a person, who alternates between treating her as a child and treating her as a possession. She tries to do the right thing, to help her husband in his time of need and does not seek any sort of recognition for her actions. Rather, she is forced to hide her good deed, feeling only guilt for doing what needed to be done. The fact that she does not understand the real world and her role within it – she thinks she won’t be found guilty of fraud because she has a good reason – is not her fault. She has no real education and is denied the ability to handle financial transactions on her own. She transgresses society’s gender boundaries to save the life of her husband, the most subservient of acts, and yet she is vilified as a rebellious woman. Even her husband turns on her, rather than deal with Krogstad himself. Nora’s actions might have seemed to be sinful at the time, but the entire moral of the play is that the standards of the time were wrong. A woman was denounced for daring to do something a man would normally do. She attempts to save her husband’s life the only way she knows how and yet she is forced to feel guilty for it. Society tells her that she is wicked for acting boldly, seeking to experience things beyond the dollhouse that she has been confined to. She acts as a woman rather than a doll, and civilization simply tries to dehumanize her all over again. No, Nora is not guilty of much beyond dishonesty. Society must bear the blame in Ibsen’s play.
(332).
Henrik Ibsen’s A Dolls House reveals a woman trapped in an unpleasant situation. Nora is a victim of circumstance, of society, and of her own misconceptions. She is married to a man who does not understand her as a person, who alternates between treating her as a child and treating her as a possession. She tries to do the right thing, to help her husband in his time of need and does not seek any sort of recognition for her actions. Rather, she is forced to hide her good deed, feeling only guilt for doing what needed to be done. The fact that she does not understand the real world and her role within it – she thinks she won’t be found guilty of fraud because she has a good reason – is not her fault. She has no real education and is denied the ability to handle financial transactions on her own. She transgresses society’s gender boundaries to save the life of her husband, the most subservient of acts, and yet she is vilified as a rebellious woman. Even her husband turns on her, rather than deal with Krogstad himself. Nora’s actions might have seemed to be sinful at the time, but the entire moral of the play is that the standards of the time were wrong. A woman was denounced for daring to do something a man would normally do. She attempts to save her husband’s life the only way she knows how and yet she is forced to feel guilty for it. Society tells her that she is wicked for acting boldly, seeking to experience things beyond the dollhouse that she has been confined to. She acts as a woman rather than a doll, and civilization simply tries to dehumanize her all over again. No, Nora is not guilty of much beyond dishonesty. Society must bear the blame in Ibsen’s play.
(332).
Monday, February 2, 2009
This is the Question
Hamlet finds himself in quite a moral quandary as he decides whether to avenge his father’s murder. He is able to dodge the question as long as he can doubt the word of the ghost, but following Claudius’s reaction to the play, Hamlet no longer has the luxury of debating his uncle’s culpability. Hence, we find Hamlet struggling to make himself act, unable to overcome his own hesitation. The entire rest of the play acts only to draw out Hamlet’s internal struggle and add more pressures to the already beleaguered young man.
Hamlet finds reasons to let Claudius off the hook repeatedly. First he cannot convince himself to believe his father’s ghost, then he “cannot bear” to have his uncle’s soul go to heaven. So he waits and hesitates. Once he has made up his mind, however, nothing will stop him. The inadvertent death of Polonius is no problem for Hamlet; in fact (in a scene that would be farcical if it weren’t for the death involved) Hamlet continues conversing with both his mother and his deceased father’s ghost while Polonius’s body lies next to him. After all of his vacillation, Hamlet comes to the conclusion that “my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!” He is no longer afraid to act and will stop at nothing – not the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, nor the alienation and insanity of Ophelia – to exact his retribution.
Once Hamlet gives himself permission to act, he acts decisively, dropping his pretenses and taking meaningful, if brash, action. However, even his charade of insanity was really exposing the truth. He used his “madness” to tell the truth boldly without having to manage the consequences of such words. It allowed him to get the deeper truth of the situation before he was forced to confront that truth.
Hamlet not only drops his personal pretenses, he permits no one else to hide behind theirs. Ophelia can no longer hide behind Polonius; she is forced to recognize that she chose her father over Hamlet. Hamlet compels her to live with that choice, something that proved impossible for her. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, whom Hamlet already condemned for their deceit, are sentenced to death. Queen Gertrude is forced to recognize both her son’s murderous deeds and her own role in Claudius’s foul crime. Even Claudius is exposed as the coward and murderer he really is. Finally, Hamlet receives the recognition he deserves from the unlikely source of Fortinbras. His search for the truth led him to act, and his action ultimately led to his demise. Hamlet, while certainly flawed, did not hide from the difficult question posed to him. He met his duty head-on and performed admirably. (453).
Hamlet finds reasons to let Claudius off the hook repeatedly. First he cannot convince himself to believe his father’s ghost, then he “cannot bear” to have his uncle’s soul go to heaven. So he waits and hesitates. Once he has made up his mind, however, nothing will stop him. The inadvertent death of Polonius is no problem for Hamlet; in fact (in a scene that would be farcical if it weren’t for the death involved) Hamlet continues conversing with both his mother and his deceased father’s ghost while Polonius’s body lies next to him. After all of his vacillation, Hamlet comes to the conclusion that “my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!” He is no longer afraid to act and will stop at nothing – not the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, nor the alienation and insanity of Ophelia – to exact his retribution.
Once Hamlet gives himself permission to act, he acts decisively, dropping his pretenses and taking meaningful, if brash, action. However, even his charade of insanity was really exposing the truth. He used his “madness” to tell the truth boldly without having to manage the consequences of such words. It allowed him to get the deeper truth of the situation before he was forced to confront that truth.
Hamlet not only drops his personal pretenses, he permits no one else to hide behind theirs. Ophelia can no longer hide behind Polonius; she is forced to recognize that she chose her father over Hamlet. Hamlet compels her to live with that choice, something that proved impossible for her. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, whom Hamlet already condemned for their deceit, are sentenced to death. Queen Gertrude is forced to recognize both her son’s murderous deeds and her own role in Claudius’s foul crime. Even Claudius is exposed as the coward and murderer he really is. Finally, Hamlet receives the recognition he deserves from the unlikely source of Fortinbras. His search for the truth led him to act, and his action ultimately led to his demise. Hamlet, while certainly flawed, did not hide from the difficult question posed to him. He met his duty head-on and performed admirably. (453).
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Sophocles, Truth Seeking, and Knowledge
In his Oedipus the King, Sophocles sends a strange message about the power of knowledge. The Theban society both rewards and punishes knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are what allow Oedipus to answer the riddle of the Sphinx and consequently attain greatness in Thebes. Regardless of his tragic methods, Oedipus pursues knowledge of Laios’s death even against Teiresias’s advice. Indeed, his dogged pursuit of the truth leads to his downfall. Oedipus was revered for his intelligence and just rule, but his pursuit of additional knowledge was deemed inappropriate by the gods. Thus, Sophocles appears to suggest that there is a limit to what Oedipus – or any man – should know. Perhaps Oedipus’s brash invective against Teiresias and Creon was rooted in a desire to understand something that humans were not meant to comprehend. If that is true, then Oedipus’s flaw is less of ruling unjustly (without any facts to support his accusations) than it is of hubris. Oedipus thinks he knows better than Teiresias – a messenger of the gods – and is entitled to the seer’s knowledge of Laios’s murder.
However, following the definition of a tragic mistake, that would mean that Oedipus would not have reached his terrible downfall if he had not blindly lashed out at Teiresias and Creon. Iocaste seems to support that hypothesis when she begs Oedipus not to continue searching for the truth of Laios’s death. It is understood that Oedipus should have respected Teiresias’s decision to withhold information. If Oedipus had not sought the truth of his father’s death, he would still have unwittingly fulfilled the initial prophecy of killing his father and marrying his mother, but he would never have suffered the disgrace of finding out. He would not have been forced to confront his incestuous relationship and would not have shamed his family. Teiresias would never have had occasion to predict Oedipus’s humbling fall to become a “blind man / who has his eyes now; a penniless man, who is rich now / and he will go tapping the strange earth with his staff…” In short, Oedipus would never have been fated to disgrace and therefore, he would never have fulfilled that prophecy.
Oedipus was loved in Thebes and could probably have remained a popular and effective leader if he had not allowed his pride to cloud his judgment. However, even with his sight, Oedipus was not able to see what lay right in front of him. He sought a truth denied to him and it cost him his sight, his honor, and his family.
However, following the definition of a tragic mistake, that would mean that Oedipus would not have reached his terrible downfall if he had not blindly lashed out at Teiresias and Creon. Iocaste seems to support that hypothesis when she begs Oedipus not to continue searching for the truth of Laios’s death. It is understood that Oedipus should have respected Teiresias’s decision to withhold information. If Oedipus had not sought the truth of his father’s death, he would still have unwittingly fulfilled the initial prophecy of killing his father and marrying his mother, but he would never have suffered the disgrace of finding out. He would not have been forced to confront his incestuous relationship and would not have shamed his family. Teiresias would never have had occasion to predict Oedipus’s humbling fall to become a “blind man / who has his eyes now; a penniless man, who is rich now / and he will go tapping the strange earth with his staff…” In short, Oedipus would never have been fated to disgrace and therefore, he would never have fulfilled that prophecy.
Oedipus was loved in Thebes and could probably have remained a popular and effective leader if he had not allowed his pride to cloud his judgment. However, even with his sight, Oedipus was not able to see what lay right in front of him. He sought a truth denied to him and it cost him his sight, his honor, and his family.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Ilych's Epiphany
The detailed account of Ivan Ilych’s last moments is simultaneously chilling in its realism and reassuring in its final message. The reader identifies directly with the man who seeks advancement and small pleasures in meaningless activities. Despite his awareness that Ivan Ilych is an extreme case, the reader recognizes in himself Ilych’s ability to focus on trivialities. Tolstoy thus uses both the reader’s innate fear of death as well as a sympathetic protagonist to carry his message. Tolstoy reminds the reader that in spite of Ilych’s agony, redemption is possible.
In his final moments, Ivan realizes that his inability to move forward towards death is due to his insistence that he had lived a moral life. Ivan feels that he must justify his life as an upright one and prove that he is undeserving of his misery. He had observed all the niceties of society and did what he grasped to be the “right thing.” Therefore, his actions cannot be the reason for his suffering. Ivan wants to hold onto life until he finds a reason for his early and painful demise. Ironically, Ivan clings to real life only once it is leaving him. He eschewed human connection so long as it was in his grasp.
He can only move on peacefully when he comes to terms with the fact that he has not done anything to merit the evasion of human suffering. By acknowledging the pettiness of his own life, he is able to understand the actions of his family and no longer hold them accountable for it. His realization that his family acts the way he used to allows him to feel a compassion that he had not even known during his life. Tragically, Ivan does not feel true empathy until the moments before his death. His hatred disappears and he no longer feels the need to fight death, because he now knows that he did not lead a proper life. Having examined Gerasim’s actions, Ivan is now able to admit to himself that he did not live a good life. Ilych realizes the futility of changing his wife and daughter’s actions, knowing full well that they may someday have the epiphany that he is experiencing at that moment. Nevertheless, the reader sees hope for Ilych’s young son, who still knows compassion, and for himself now forewarned by Tolstoy’s powerful story.
In his final moments, Ivan realizes that his inability to move forward towards death is due to his insistence that he had lived a moral life. Ivan feels that he must justify his life as an upright one and prove that he is undeserving of his misery. He had observed all the niceties of society and did what he grasped to be the “right thing.” Therefore, his actions cannot be the reason for his suffering. Ivan wants to hold onto life until he finds a reason for his early and painful demise. Ironically, Ivan clings to real life only once it is leaving him. He eschewed human connection so long as it was in his grasp.
He can only move on peacefully when he comes to terms with the fact that he has not done anything to merit the evasion of human suffering. By acknowledging the pettiness of his own life, he is able to understand the actions of his family and no longer hold them accountable for it. His realization that his family acts the way he used to allows him to feel a compassion that he had not even known during his life. Tragically, Ivan does not feel true empathy until the moments before his death. His hatred disappears and he no longer feels the need to fight death, because he now knows that he did not lead a proper life. Having examined Gerasim’s actions, Ivan is now able to admit to himself that he did not live a good life. Ilych realizes the futility of changing his wife and daughter’s actions, knowing full well that they may someday have the epiphany that he is experiencing at that moment. Nevertheless, the reader sees hope for Ilych’s young son, who still knows compassion, and for himself now forewarned by Tolstoy’s powerful story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
