The End or a New Beginning?

Michael Drayton’s “Since there’s no help, come let us kiss and part” is a heartbreaking poem about the termination of his relationship with a woman. Throughout the poem the speaker is deeply suffering because he sees no solution to issues in his love life, and he literally foresees the death of Love, unless his woman objects and relights the fire of Love.

In the first section, the speaker surrenders to the burdens of his ailing love. Desperately, he finalizes the end of their relationship and decides the only option is to kiss and go their separate ways. Although the speaker himself, states “I am glad, yea glad with all my heart/ That this so cleanly I myself can free,” it is not convincing that he can severe all ties so easily and walk away undamaged (3-4). By the repetition of the word glad, the speaker may simultaneously be trying to convince himself and the reader that his current situation is anything to be pleased about. In the next line, he says “shake hands for ever, cancel all our vows,” and this provides evidence that the break up is mutual between the man and woman (5). Shaking hands is a sign of an end to intimacy and agreement. Oddly, canceling all of their vows follows shaking hands. This is heartbreaking because so much of a relationship is based on promises of spoken words and trust that these intangible words hold concrete tangible value. Vows are a declaration that cannot be so easily disposed of by lovers. Immediately following the dismissal of all previous agreements, the speaker presents a new agreement to be followed. He declares that when they see each other again, they must not show any expression or evidence that they have or ever had feelings for one another. By the end of the octave it seems that the speaker is distraught over his once strong love, but ready to put an end to his hopeless relationship.

Surprisingly, the poem takes a turn from complete certainty of termination to the possibility of resolution with the word now. In this section of the poem, Love is personified as a helpless man who the female lover may save if she truly desires. Love is taking his last breaths because Passion, Faith, and Innocence (the inner components of Love and his friends at his sick bed) are weak as well, and Love has nothing left to live for. Passion is an intense emotion that can mean enthusiasm, outburst of emotion, or even strong sexual desire in a relationship. When Passion is speechless, it is not passion at all, and therefore it, like Love, is dying. Faith, the second friend of Love, should be strong and upright, but it is described as kneeling by Love’s deathbed. Therefore, Faith has lost its confidence and by taking a kneeling position, it appears half its size. It can be of no use for the dying Love. Lastly, Innocence associated with children and naiveté usually is wide-eyed and eager, but when exposed to the harsh reality it must shield its eyes. In the poem, it says “Innocence is closing up its eyes,” and this means that the speaker’s innocence is being taken away (12). He used to have pure strong love, but he now learns the utter pain of a broken heart.

Then, in the last couplet, it is as if a miracle potion is discovered that could save the dying Love. The miracle potion is the love and determination of the female lover to save Love. When Passion, Faith, and Innocence are too weak to help Love, the female lover is the only hope left for Love. When the poem ends, the speaker has just planted a seed of hope for the relationship. If the female lover wants to salvage their love she has the final say.

The poem is quite melancholy throughout it, it seems as though there is no Hope and all of Love’s greatest wonders are weak and failing. It appears that the love will end and there is no way to prevent it, but in the last couplet, the sadness is lessened. A staple ingredient of love is replenished: Hope. After the speaker has poured out his heart, he realizes that Love is still fighting to survive and that he still has a chance of becoming healthy and strong if his lover acts quickly.

 

Thoughts on Madame Bovary

I am currently reading Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert. I have read about 140 pages and it is a 400-page novel. I intend to do a lot of reading over this Easter weekend. So far, I have found the novel to be slow paced, but intriguing. It is different than the usual books that I read because it is packed full with description that drags on a little. As a read, Flaubert paints an extremely detail picture of each setting that I am reading about. When I think about the plot, not very much has happened thus far. Emma married Charles, and he is deeply in love with her. The problem is that Emma desires something more exciting and she wishes she were in love with Charles. The couple originally lives in Tostes, but then they move to Yonville because Emma is unhappy/sick. There, Emma meets someone that she falls in love with, and by the reading the back of the book, I am fairly confident they will have an affair. Although, little has “happened” the rich detail (and the necessity for me to write a paper) keep me reading.

As far as a paper goes, I’m not exactly sure what I will write about. Maybe I could focus on how Emma’s education and desire to travel and learn about the world put deep strain on the marriage because Charles was content with a small town and a simple life. In a time period where many woman were not educated, it could we interesting to look into the effect education has on a marriage. I also think it could be interesting to write about how Emma’s high expectations put her in a position that made happiness impossible to achieve. She constantly daydreams about the past, her unmet potential, and her husband’s dullness and lack of excitement. Emma, who desires splendor and riches, is forced to be thrifty and plain. Thirdly, another interesting topic would be pointing out how Charles is in many ways unlucky. His first wife was very in love with him, but he was not in llove with her. His second wife does not love him, but he loves her. Talk about bad karma! I don’t think that could fill 5-7 pages though. I’m sure that as I read more, I’ll get new ideas. I’ve read a little over 1/3 through the novel, and I’m sure the best parts are still to come!

Willy's Fathering

In class we discussed how Willy’s fathering causes the future failure of his two sons, Biff and Happy. Many suggestions were made about why the sons lead the life they do.

Some people thought that Willy is the cause of the failure. Willy pays much more attention to Biff, inflating his ego, than he does to his other son Happy. This may cause Happy to feel unloved and Biff to rely on his father’s constant praise. Willy encourages Biff to cheat because he believes that Biff has a great personality and he doesn’t need to waste time studying. Willy encourages Biff to play football and dedicate his life to that. Then when Biff does what his father instructs, he does not graduate high school. Willy teaches Biff to cheat his way through life and to cut corners, but Biff learns that his father’s method is fake and unreliable. Now, at this point many people would see their parent’s misguided lifestyle and change their ways, but Biff cannot do that because he relied on everything Willy said being the truth and the pillars of life. When Biff learns that Willy is cheating on Linda, Biff’s whole world shatters and he can no longer live the dream his father desired for him. Happy on the other hand never felt good enough for his father and when he saw that Biff couldn’t succeed, he thought that there must not be any hope for him either.

Another idea is that the sons had no future regardless of if Willy had cheated on Linda or if he hadn’t encouraged bad behavior such as cheating. It is interesting to look at the possibilities for the sons. Even if they grew up in the perfect household they may not have been rich or famous. It is hard to believe that a son would throw his whole life away just to spite his father because that hurts the son even more than it hurts the father.

I have come to believe that I think the failure of the sons was a combination of having a bad father, bad circumstances, and lack of potential. The failure cannot be attributed to just one factor because all aspects must be considered to see the big picture.

Act III- # 6 How do you interpret her final slamming of the door?

The final conversation between Torvald and Nora and slamming of the door reveals the true nature of both characters and their deepest desires in life. The couples goals in life appear to be obvious throughout the story, but it is not until Nora “slams the door” on Torvald that the reader completely understands the hidden principles of each character. On the surface, it appears that Nora simply wants to keep her husband happy (by protecting his health and doing whatever he wants her to do). Torvald appears to strive for wealth, pleasing his delicate unknowledgeable wife, and always doing the right thing. In the final scene leading to the final slamming of the door, Nora reveals that her head does great deal more of intellectual contemplation than she is given credit for. Because she learns that law would not take motive into consideration and that she would be condemned in court, she tells Torvald that she “must try to discover who is right, society of me” (1732). In a sense Nora is maturing as an individual, but she is also abandoning her family. While it is true that Torvald is not the man that she expected him to be, he is her husband and she should try to work things out with him. It is not completely his fault that she let all of her anger resentment build up inside to the point of explosion. At this time, men were in charge of the house so Nora may have worried about the consequences of speaking up. Unfortunately by not speaking up, Nora and Torvald’s marriage shattered into millions of pieces which is symbolized by the final slamming of the door. Torvald reveals that his top priorities are not being moral and ethical, rather it’s his reputation. Throughout the play, Torvald prides himself in his high morals and condemns people such as Krogstad as immoral and therefore unbearable to be around. By automatically deeming his wife incapable of raising his children due to one mistake, Torvald reveals a hidden radical and self-centered nature within him. Both Nora and Torvald hold one thing in their life higher than each other: Nora holds her education and self investigation higher than her husband and Torvald holds his reputation higher than the importance of his wife. The final slamming of the door signifies the clash between Nora and Torvald that cannot be solved. While a door is closed on Torvald’s dream life, a new one is opened for Nora.

To be, or not to be, that is quite a famous question!

Before I read Hamlet, I had often heard the quote “To be, or not to be, that is the question,” (57) and wondered where the quote had originated and what exactly it meant. It is easy to misinterpret when it is heard out of the context of the Hamlet story. In fact, it is easy to misinterpret within the story or not acknowledge the depth of meaning in the quote.

To my surprise the famous quote came from one of Hamlet’s soliloquies spoken to Ophelia. Hamlet’s soliloquy investigates questions regarding life and death and the fear of the unknown. Hamlet verbally tries to sort out his feelings by speaking of suicide as a subject not directly relevant to himself. When he is discussing death, he could also be referring to the pending murder of Claudius. Hamlet never uses I, rather in his most famous quote he says “to be, or not to be” which could be referring to anyone. Hamlet struggles to understand “whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer” (58) or the “conscience does make cowards of us all” (84). Hamlet does not know if he should stay alive and carry out revenge for his father’s death as his father’s ghost directed him, or if he is being a coward by being scared of the unknown (his own death). Hamlet reasons that man is only scared of death because “no traveler returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have,” (82). Sometimes a negative situation is easier to deal with than a future that is uncertain. While the unknown could be better than the present predicament, it may also be worse.

Another element of the soliloquy that should be analyzed is what Hamlet’s intentions are as he is speaking. Depending upon if the reader thinks Hamlet is acting crazy as an act to fool everyone or if Hamlet has indeed gone mad, the scene will be interpreted differently. If Hamlet is not mad, he may anticipate that he is being spied upon. Then Hamlet would know people were listening, and he may deliver the speech with the intention to get a particular reaction. If Hamlet is crazy, the speech shows an inside look at the convoluted brain of a mad man. He is trying to reason the best way to lead his life or find excuses to put an end to it. Regardless, Hamlet’s thoughts focus on the subject of death and the mysteries around it.

The Unfortunate Oedipus

Oedipus The King is a tragic story for various reasons and it does not serve to teach a lesson. The main character, Oedipus, is fated to have a horrible life full of upsetting surprises. Initially Oedipus is set out to find the murderer of Laius, and he is willing to do whatever it takes to exile the killer. There is no reason that Oedipus should be punished, yet he is soon faced with a startling discovery. When Oedipus finds out that he has slept with his mother, and he killed his own father (Laius), he is heartbroken and destroyed. He knows that he must stay true to his promise and exile himself. Oedipus does not stop at exile; by his realization that he was blind to the atrocities of his life, he physically blinds himself.

There does not seem to be any apparent reason for Oedipus’s unfortunate destiny, and it therefore the story carries no moral. Had Oedipus’s life been full of wrongdoings or had he learned something from his bad fortune, the story would be educational. Instead, the reader can still enjoy the story, but cannot sense a moral. Even when Oedipus is true to his word, no good comes to him. Ever sense birth Oedipus was fated to a life of problems and he had no choice but to fall into the trap fate set in his path.

Ivan Ilych's Character

Leo Tolstoy sets up the story of The Death if Ivan Ilych in such a way that first the reader comes to an understanding of the society in which Ivan lives, second he/she develops a negative/neutral picture of the self-centered Ivan, and finally he/she empathizes with Ivan as he approaches death. When I read the first chapter of The Death of Ivan Ilych, there were many signs that his friends did what they did because they thought it was the proper action and that the society was based on promoting one’s own well-being and social status. When someone died it was not too traumatic on their friends because the friends were simply happy that they remained in good health. Even Ivan’s supposed best friend is upset that by going to Ivan’s funeral, his regular game of bridge is delayed. Also, at Ivan’s funeral, Praskovya is more upset about her current financial situation, rather than the death of her husband. As I learned more about Ivan though the story of his own life, I saw him in a negative light. He did not desire to do jobs that helped anyone or that followed his interests, rather he chose his career by what he thought the proper thing to do. All the choices in his life were made by consideration of what he should be doing not what he wanted of what was best for his family. He is neither compassionate towards others, nor a particularly good man in any sense. Yet, when he becomes sick it is easy to forget that Ivan got himself into his predicament by living a life empty of human compassion and full of false friendships. Ivan’s inner issues that he only begins to sort out in a time of desperation are self induced. Ivan resents the false nature of his friends and family concerning his illness. Everyone pretends that he will get better and that he is not nearly death daily. The reader feels bad for Ivan and also becomes frustrated with his family, but Ivan is only breaking through his falsity shell when he is faced with death. Had Ivan’s wife been the one sick, I believe that Ivan would show equally little compassion toward her that she shows toward him, and he would never undergo the realization brought on by his terminal illness that his life “had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible” (55).
404