A Nail Stuck, An Analysis of Tennessee Williams’ “The Glass Menagerie” By Trudy A. Martinez

When reading The Glass Menagerie, one feels pity for Tom because his mother mistreats him; this is such a tragedy because she places the entire responsibility of the family upon his shoulders, as if to fulfill a fallacy that there has to be a man in the house if woman is to survive. Time changes with the World War, allowing women to enter the work force. However, Tom’s mother does not work toward finding suitable work herself as a means of remedying their situation. Instead, she lives in an imaginary world; wanting her children to remedy the situation for her so she can continue living her fantasy. The picture of the father symbolizes this obsession because it is in a most advantageous place: above them all--forever smiling.

The smiling father serves to remind Amanda of a tragic mistake. Yet, it is her "hawk like attention" at the dinner table, driving her son, which mostly catches a reader’s attention. How can anyone eat in peace with someone telling him or her how? ". . . Don't push with your fingers . . . And chew—chew . . . Eat food leisurely, son" is Amanda's dinner conversation (Williams 1464). It is surprising; Tom does not get indigestion. One might say, it is the mother's place to correct her children; but Tom is not a child. Amanda has obviously married beneath her class structure as not many of the lower class bother to stress "[Eating] food leisurely" (Williams 1464). The lower classes are like slaves to the bourgeois; they are fortunate to have time to eat at all, much less leisurely. Tom refers to being a slave to his mother's legacy during an argument with her. However, the children’s actions are a constant disappointment and never satisfying to the mother; she pre-judges them as failures. Even so, she is never discouraged from fulfilling her own goals through them.

On the other hand, the opposite is true of her offspring; both Tom and Laura are discouraged. They reject the goals their mother sets. What a tragedy Amanda cultivates through her constant search for perfection within her children. Her aggressive behavior toward fulfilling her own goals (remaining in the past--her imaginary world-- and regaining that higher status) has a reverse affect upon her children. This reflects her constant referral to "gentlemen callers" and through her fear of Tom not attaining higher money earning status and Laura not attaining a money earning status at all. She reminds Laura to ". . . study your typewriter chart . . . [and] . . . practice your shorthand . . .” While at the same time stating”, Stay fresh and pretty"[for men callers]! (Williams 1466). Knowledge is that “. . . aggression given full rein and allowed to run its course in a constant war of all against all, [jeopardizes] . . . survival. . . Clashing interests and social values underlie . . . human conflict"(Vander Zanden 370). Amanda's clashing interest and aggression is not an exception. Her interest clearly clashes with the interests of her children. She lives only in the memory of her "social roots" where "charm" and an aggressive nature rein in the bourgeois class, a hierarchical structure she secretly wants to re-gain. Nonetheless, by seeking to regain her privilege status through her children, she becomes her own gatekeeper.

When Amanda makes herself the gatekeeper, she becomes susceptible to fate. The theme of The Glass Menagerie is one of vulnerability. What constitutes this concept? When one is vulnerable, are they not both trusting and unsuspecting? This is not the case with Amanda; she is suspicious and non-trusting. She flaunts her suspicious and non-trusting nature in the direction of her son by way of her continual interrogations, assumptions and comparisons: "I think you've been doing things that your ashamed of . . . Nobody in their right minds goes to the movies as often as you pretend to . . . You remind me of your father [gone]" (Williams 1478-1492). Therefore, considering her vulnerable cannot be because of any action of Tom's. His action only brings about the inevitable.

The inevitable came into being only after imagination came into conflict with reality. The breaking of the glass unicorn symbolizes the shattering of imagination by reality. Jim, the only realistic character in the play, is the one who bears a message of truth. He says, "Being disappointed is one thing and being discouraged is something else"(Williams 1498). However, it is not until the unicorn loses its horn that Laura is able to accept the Glass Menagerie for what it is: a collection of ornaments. The glass pieces represent an imaginary world where she had been willfully imprisoned. At this point, her disappointment no longer discourages her. She is accepting of the realization that not only is the unicorn now like all the other glass ornaments but she is like everyone else. She is no longer a failure as her mother depicted nor does she need to rely on imagination or deception to feel she is special. Her mother implies, "All pretty girls are a trap, a pretty trap, and men expect them to be"(Williams 1486). Laura's perception of the situation differs. She acknowledges the difference when she says, "Maybe [breaking the unicorn's horn off] is a blessing in disguise" (Williams 1502). Then later, she gives the unicorn that has lost its uniqueness to Jim as a souvenir.

Not long before, her brother gives Laura a souvenir, ". . . a shimmering rainbow colored scarf . . . Tom had told her that it was a ‘magic scarf’." All "You [had to do was] wave it over a gold-fish bowl and they [would] fly away canaries...” (Williams 1474). The goldfish bowl is symbolic of the life Tom and Laura live in "human desperation" (Williams 1463) under the unchallenged hierarchy of their mother. Whereas, the "fly away canaries" suggest both Tom and Laura could become songbirds and fly away to escape from their mother's tyranny. All it would take to make it happen is for Laura to wave the "magic scarf". However, had Laura waved the scarp when she emerged from her imaginary world or Had Tom flew away too soon?

Tom shares with Laura his desire to leave so she is aware of his intent; she does not become vulnerable because he leaves. Instead, Tom is the vulnerable one because he flies away like a songbird without facing reality. He does not learn that "So long as boundaries and hierarchies go unchallenged, aggression is inhibited" (Vander Zanden 371). Tom is too trusting and unsuspecting of his own purpose. Therefore, he is unable to take an aggressive stand in his own freedom. Consequently, he becomes ". . . lost in space--"(Williams 1507).

In Tom's time space, his memories pursue him and his imagination takes control. The most amazing thing he sees is when a magician ". . . got [himself] out of the coffin without removing one nail". Tom wants to do the same. He tells Laura, ". . . it don't take much intelligence to get yourself into a nailed-up coffin . . . But who in hell ever got himself out of one without removing one nail?” (Williams 1474). There is the constant reminder of his father's smiling face that serves as a reminder: "If there is a will, there is a way". Even so, did Tom find the way by leaving when he did? Alternatively, does he carry on the family legacy? He appears to have a nail stuck in his heart, which keeps him imprisoned in a coffin (a trap) of his own making, an imaginary world where he envisions the "tiny transparent . . . 'colored glass' . . . bottles . . . [as] . . . bits of [his] shattered rainbow"(Williams 1507). The shattered rainbow is symbolic of the "magic scarf" he gives Laura. His mother tells him he manufactures illusions! (Williams 1507). Yet, he does not challenge her position. Consequently, he follows in her footsteps manufacturing illusions just as she has. As a result, he makes his own tragic mistake. If this is not the case, why does he continue to search for escapes or "--anything that [can] blow . . . out [the memories of Laura]"? (Williams 1507). The memories of Laura remind Tom of his tragedy just as the picture of his father's smiling face serves to remind his mother of her own.

Work Cited

Williams, Tennessee. "The Glass Menagerie". The Bedford Introduction to Literature. Michael Meyer, ed. Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press: Boston. 1990. 1462-1507.

Vander Zanden, James W. Social Psychology. Fourth Edition. Ohio State University. Random House: New York. 1987.

Noble Chivalry Shines, a Comparative Analysis of The Country Wife, The Mode of Man, and The Way of the World

By Trudy A. Martinez

The messages in the plays, The Country Wife, The Mode of Man, and The Way of the World, all communicate and center on a political universe. The supporting environment of the plays is not as obvious as the personal or social nature. Nevertheless, the representation of the characters is of a political nature. Through the comical characterizations of wit or lack of wit, the effectiveness, or weakness of an aristocratic perspective of honor, and respectability, (in regards to marriage and fidelity) falls upon public scrutiny. Each author contributes a viewpoint of the upper class populace deserving of corrective consideration. Only in Congreve's The Way of the World is the matchless disposition of a true noble reached, justifying social statue, and claim over the money elite.

Comparing and contrasting the maneuvers and the characters of all three plays reveals the genius of Congreve's complex Restoration comedy. Underneath Congreve's complex interaction of characters, there abides integrity of fair play, a perception of truth. Mirabell affirms this sense of truth. In the other two plays, there is not a solid match to Mirabell, although Dorimant comes close.

Where Dorimant lacks compassion for his former loves, Mirabell remains a friend, confidant, and an ultimate protector of Mrs. Fainall's reputation and wealth; he preserves a faculty of obligation. Through this sense of commitment, the association with noble chivalry shines and ultimately emphasizes responsibility of the noble ruling class.

Fainall, at first, appears as a perfect Restoration wit (in the same class as Mirabell). Nevertheless, later, he reveals himself as a villain, materialistic in nature with interests only in money and prestige. In his attempts to deceive, Mirabell (a true-wit in a noble capacity) out maneuvers him, leaving none of the demands he has made to Mrs. Wishfort fulfilled.

In the play The Country Wife, Wycherley explores the ideals of the city life versus country life. Ironic situations reveal the nature of the social and personal worlds of the characters. The demeanor surveyed is partially summed up by both Horner and Pinchwife in their discussion of what constitutes consideration in the taking a wife. Horner thinks "...Wit is more necessary than beauty..." for he considers "...no woman ugly that has it, and no handsome woman agreeable without it" (Wycherley 13). Dorimant shares a similar admiration for women possessing wit; he finds his match, and love in Harriet. On the other hand, Horner has no intention of limiting himself to one woman or of marrying. Instead, he fixes his intentions on enjoying his liberty and everyone else's wife. His elaborate scheme concocts to identify the willing and gain the confidence of the unsuspecting (the husbands). One of his prior statements sums up his ideology: "Wine gives you liberty” . . . and "love takes it away" (Wycherley 9).

In contrast to Horner's ideology, Pinchwife considers, the general truth of the matter to be, that ". . . he's a fool that marries, but he's a greater [fool] that does not marry a fool . . . .” Pinchwife's question reveals his reasoning, "What is wit in a wife good for, but to make a man cuckold? “ (Wycherley 13). Thus, Pinchwife justifies his method of chicanery by keeping a country wife as a whore. Through his actions, he believes he prevents himself from becoming cuckold by the deceitful practices of men like Horner.

The comedy of The Country Wife is set in motion in the opening line with an [aside] that confers clarity of meaning and necessity for the quack: "A quack is as fit for a pimp as a midwife for a bawd; they are still but in their way both helpers of nature.--"(Wycherley 4). The consequence of this line gives precedence to the technique of using [aside] (a device employed by the French playwright Moliere in Tartuffe) to succeed in the realization of the comical affect. In addition, Quack's verbal interaction with Horner furnishes the audience with first hand knowledge of Horner's devious purpose from the beginning of the play to the end.

As the play continues, a comical aspect of the social and personal worlds of the characters reveals the play’s direction by way of the cuckold dance.

Etherege's play, The Man of Mode, takes an altogether different direction when Dorimant opens the play with an articulate reference to the French Bourbon grandson of Louis XIV of France and great-grandson of Phillip IV of Spain:

"Now, for some ages, had the pride of Spain

made the sun shine on half the world in vain."

Thus, a focus of contrast between the French and English is set in motion. By proceeding in this manner, Etherege portrays the quality of nature following from a higher to lower level as if to suggest that political approaches are the cause of the deterioration of morales. Consequently, an achievement highlights through the portrayal of the characters a counter balance between the two ideologies. Sir Fopling’s characterizing astutely archetypes the augmentation of the French upper class. Whereas, the characterization of Dorimant portrays England's Prototype, born of title. Although Dorimant admits to the ideology of Hobbes that man is naturally depraved by saying, "Love gilds us over and makes us show fine things to one another for a time . . . soon the gold wears off, and then again the native brass appears"(Etherege 100), he does not accept the French King's adaptation of the concept. Instead, he sees through the false claim to nobility by Sir Fopling. The procurement of Sir Fopling's station in the social order (subjugated to Louis XIV) manifests through Sir Fopling's social blunders and recognizable, exaggerates elegancy and intelligence and then compares to the superior, natural wit and intelligence of the English noble through the interaction of the characters.

King Louis believes God gave him a divine right of power and declares, "I am the State". The theory of Hobbes, who states people are naturally brutal and nasty (and the government is established by them to protect themselves from themselves), gives Louis absolute power. The government is to govern the people; they have no choice but to be obedient. Stemming from this ideology, feudal nobles disappear as Louis gives honor and income to only those who earn his favor. As a result, the middle class purchase titles and are encouraged to do so through opportunity. Mannerism reign supreme over morales.

On the other hand, the English see intelligence and wit as superior qualities. The English exercising their choice with the restoration of the Stuart Line after Cromwell’s military dictatorship failed highlighted this difference. The belief was that the people gave the power to the King Charles II and the people had the right to take that power away. Intelligence and wit were the indication of notable worth, although the rising upper class put more significance in wealth than did the social class.

Etherege effectively conveyed the posture of the French and English through Dorimant (the true wit in The Man of Mode). Dorimant initiated the caricature significance of Sir Fopling's position by sharing his observation of Sir Fopling when he says, "...he affects in imitation of the people of quality of France"(Etherege 89). The significance of Sir Fopling appears to serve as a means of exaggerating the position of the money elite within the society, eager for fame and money--yet, irresponsible and somewhat ignorant. Like wise, in The Way of the World, Fainall imitates the people of quality in England. At first, he appears as a perfect Restoration Wit when he says, "...The coldness of a losing gamester lessens the pleasure of winner. I'd no more play with a man that slighted his ill fortune than I'd make love to a woman who undervalued the loss of her reputation"(Congreve 157). Dorimant had made a similar assertion when he said, "I would not have a woman have the least good thought of me that can think well of Fopling" (Etherege 101). They both exhibit jurisdiction, dominance, and control over their conquests. However, Dorimant is not greedy for wealth as is the case with Fainall. Fainall betrays himself. Consequently, his greed for money and prestige converts his characterization to a villain.

Sir Fopling's presentation of himself absolves Dorimant's delineation of Sir Fopling. For example, when errors made by mispronouncing words in an attempt to flatter Dorimant, Sir Fopling enhances the status of his own ignorance, "I have not met with any . . . who retain so much of Paris as thou dost--the very air thou hadst when the marquise mistook thee I' th' Tuileries and cried 'H'e, chevalier!’” (Etherege 109). Dorimant's reply, "I would fain wear in fashion as long as I can, sir. ‘ Tis a thing to be valued in men as well as baubles" (Etherege 109)) escapes the understanding of Sir Fopling. In other words, Sir Fopling is unable to cover up his ignorance with stylish clothes or mannerisms. Although Fainall is not as vain as Sir Fobling is in regard to mannerisms and dress, he lacks the integrity of that which is valued in men of quality and he exaggerates the relevance of material wealth.

In The Man of Mode, not much of the plot depends upon the interaction of the characters. Whereas, in The Way of the World, by the end of the first Act the whole plot is given away very cleverly through the interactions of Foible and Mrs. Fainall while the enemy listens in Lady Wishfort's closet in Act III. A rivalry between the characters disengages the movement the plot, enhancing the complexity, and distinguishing Congreve's style over the other playwrights.

For instance, a rivalry first begins in Act I with Mirabell and Fainall through Act V. In the final Act, the distinguishing qualities of both men are exposed. When Fainall takes his stand, his statement reflects his greed, "If it must all come out . . .'tis but the way of the world. That shall not urge me to relinquish or abate one title of my terms; no, I will insist the more"(Congreve 214). Nevertheless, Fainall is soon outwitted and surprised:

"What's here? Damnation! [Reads] 'A deed of conveyance of the whole estate real of Arabella Languish, widow, in trust to Edward Mirabell'. Confusion”! (Congreve 215). Mirabell answers, "tis the way of the world, sir, the widows of the world.”

Mirabell saves the day. His planning and execution of Waitwell's marriage to Foible has put him in control. Waitwell's disguise as Sir Roland conveys a message: Only a servant can affectively imitate the upper crust without detection.

Although all the plays to some extent depict both the personal world and social world, Congreve does not flaunt the sexual aspects of the situations. The concept he portrays extends more towards exposure of the misrepresentation of the aristocracy by the money elite.

In The Country Wife, the play gives direction and then ends and in The Man of Mode, the play is open- ended, leaving the audience guessing whether Dorimant really changes. However, The Way of the World, issues a warning:

"From hence let those be warned, who mean to wed,

Lest mutual falsehood stain the bridal bed;

For each deceiver to his cost may find,

That marriage frauds too oft are paid in kind" (Congreve 217).

This statement revives noble chivalry with its warning.

Bibliography:

Congreve, William. The Way of the World. The Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Comedy. A Norton Critical Edition. Scott McMillin, editor. W.W. Norton & Company: New York. 1973. 152-217.

Etherege, George. The Man of Mode. The Restoration and Eighteenth- Century Comedy. A Norton Critical Edition. Scott McMillin, editor. W.W. Norton & Company: New York. 1973. 79-151.

Wycherley, William. The Country Wife. The Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Comedy. A Norton Critical Edition. Scott McMillin, editor. W.W. Norton & Company: New York. 1973. 3-78.

"A Sense of Guilt” an analysis of Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener”

By Trudy A. Martinez

In the year 1853, Herman Melville writes "Bartleby, the Scrivener"; he subtitles it "A Story of Wall Street". This is an interesting subtitle, considering he writes the story just prior to the Civil War and the great boom of the industrial era in America.

The story depicts a man, Bartleby, whose earnings are meager, a man who slowly loses hope of bettering himself or his position in life. On Wall Street, where Bartleby works, riches abound; but Bartleby "prefers not to" strife in what he believes is a hopeless situation.

Bartleby's employer, the lawyer (the narrator of the story), brings insight to the situation through his concern (and feeling of responsibility) for Bartleby by failing to respond to Bartleby's continual reply "I prefer not to". In this way, the lawyer acknowledges responsibility for Bartleby's hopelessness; the lawyer's sense of guilt centers on the work arrangement. Thus in part, the story of "Bartleby, the Scrivener", by Melville gives an answer to the question: Why did America wait nearly one hundred years after Europe before industrializing?

When considering the impact of "hopelessness" upon France, the answer is apparent. The resulting corruption of the French Industrialization and the French Revolution is still fresh in the minds of the greedy, the social elite, and the entrepreneurs in the western world. America's elite wants to prevent revolution, to prevent the slightest threat of repetition of the "French" example.

In France and England industrialization is a revolution, unplanned, uncalculated. If America is to follow suit and progress, her entrance into industrialization requires planning, predetermining, and thinking-out and most of all controlling. Therefore, not only do the salves need to be freed and given "hope" but also all the people need "hope", and token justice. Education needs to be mandatory, thus allowing for the conditioning of an "American Dream" through the compulsory school systems and behaviorism.

When industrialization hits America, the common people are prepared; they have "hope" for a better tomorrow; they are willing to work hard to get ahead, to build a better future, if not for themselves for their children.

The social elite take a step backwards, allowing the rising money elite to manifest control of the industrialization, providing hope. The social elite spend more and more time on Wall Street at the Stock Market investing in the new enterprises and the new corporations that emerge; they effectively transfer their sense of guilt for the hopelessness of the struggling to the rising middle-class, while at the same time they give the magic ingredient, "hope".

A symbol of hopelessness is apparent in the story about Bartleby; the symbol of hopelessness is also a fear of the social elite, because hopelessness could mean revolution and the demise of the rich. Thus, Wall Street is the perfect setting for the lawyer's story about Bartleby. Perhaps, the story itself fuels the changes that alleviate a sense of guilt, giving reason and justification for the unjust practices of business.

"Woman in Isolation” An Analysis of Hawthorne's The Birth-mark

By Trudy A. Martinez

The title of Hawthorne's short story The Birth-mark, gives significance to a congenital mark. Splitting the word birthmark by using a dash causes segregation and a discernment of meaning and a fragmenting preference, symbolizing isolation. As such, birth comes to mean existence, whereas mark imposes a visible sign that severs continuation. Consequently, in the story, the mark becomes an inherent element that serves as a symbol, indicative of position, within the society and an object of scorn unworthy of consideration.

This perception of the birth-mark generates an irony. The Socratic irony becomes the reason the birth-mark not only surfaces on the face of Georgiana as a sign of imperfect beauty but also a symbol of woman within society. Consequently, the birth-mark's representation serves to isolate.

Nevertheless, not all men within the society chose to view the birth-mark as an imperfection. For instance, Aminadab, a minor character, makes his membership in this category known when he displays a prevailing characteristic conforming to standards clearly conveying a sense of what is right and good. Aminadab conveys this "spirit and even...heart" when "he muttered to himself:--'If she were my wife, I'd never part with the birth-mark'" (Hawthorne 1159-1163). On the other hand, Georgiana's husband, Aylmer, takes a distinctively different view of the birth-mark.

The narrator proclaims Aylmer's belief that the birth-mark is "...the fatal flaw of humanity. . . ." Because of this recognition, his strong convictions and urgent desires emerge, communicating his being one of the "ardent votaries" of society. This becomes apparent when he attempts to alleviate "his wife's liability"(Hawthorne 1159-1160). Consequently, Aylmer earmarks himself as a God; this distinction gives him "hope".

However, the only "hope" Aylmer has is to join the love for his wife ". . . with the love for his science" because society defines his ". . . congenial . . . pursuits . . . ." Although these pursuits mark an agreement in sentiment, there is a possibility they might also produce an "aliment" in the process (Hawthorne 1159). Hence, an illusion of a disturbed uneasy state occurs; this uneasy state or "aliment" becomes visible because the cultural society defines only two classes. Both of the classes are men. This inadequacy isolates Georgiana from Aylmer. Her isolation is evident because she is undefined. Therefore, she is without status or membership. Consequently, she is as one of the pursuits of her husband.

The narrator validates her as Aylmer's pursuit when the narrator implies the pursuit is a "must" that must be "...wrought by toil and pain". The only alternative Aylmer is given to save her from the "toil and pain" is to bring together the love of his wife "...with the love of his science"(Hawthorne 1159-1160).

The narrator’s statement--"it was not unusual for the love of science to rival the love of woman"--sets the atmosphere and tone of the story and brings about a theme of isolation that, in turn, brings about another rivalry in the form of a challenge (Hawthorne 1159). The theme of isolation intensifies what the challenge produces when Aylmer attempts to unite his love for science with his love for his wife. The challenge serves to isolate her because she is one of his pursuits. In this perspective, Aylmer is a hunter and Georgiana is his prey. She is challenged by a condition, demanding of a declining transition. He maintains superiority through his "glares" and "gazes" as if an animal is sizing-up his victim. In a sense, the society causes Aylmer's extreme actions because the society creates ". . . a passive affect, [whereby] man is driven [by the ideology of the society], the object of motivations of which he himself is not aware"(Fromm 18). As a result, Hawthorne's scientific man is able to accomplish his feat with very little difficulty because he is powerful and "more than a man . . . unwilling to grant the accessibility of other alternatives"(Baxter 231).

Aylmer is not willing to afford Georgiana alternatives because she symbolizes imperfection. Her birth-mark symbolizes the mark placed upon woman by the society when woman is left undefined. As a result, Georgiana has only the choice of "do or die". For what other reason would she submit, declare, and plead: "...Life is a [burden] which I would fling down with joy...for the sake of your...peace, and to save [myself]...from madness". Her questioning remark: "Is this beyond your power...?" removes blame from Aylmer and places blame on society because society produces him (Hawthorne 1162).

Because of the question, "Is this beyond your power?” (Hawthorne 1162), society emerges as if it is a structure of dominoes falling downward upon its members. In other words, the society is the ruler of man (a God-like ornamentation) that produces and reproduces man in specific patterns as if imitating an original mold. This realization brings to mind a warning of Cotton Mather's: "The mind of God in these matters, is to be carefully looked into, with due circumspection, that Satan deceive us not with his devices, who transforms himself into an angel of light and may pretend justice and intend mischief"(171).

If a society has the power to reproduce distinct patterns in men, then conceivably, man is (under the structure of the society) an image of the God-like ornamentation, which in effect establishes opposition to any imperfections that might threaten the perfection of the society.

Consequently, this reader tends to disagree with Fetterley's realization that Georgiana died as a direct result of Aylmer's "...ultimate goal [towards] the desire to create human life" or that "Hawthorne [wrote]...about the sickness of men, [or] ...about the flawed and imperfect nature of women" (27).

Even though the symbol of imperfection is what surfaces on the face of Georgiana to denote Aylmer's struggle towards obtaining superiority through the creation of perfection, the atmosphere and the tone of the story in the opening paragraph is what pushes the structure of dominoes downward and sets man and woman in opposition. The society defines rivalry; hence, rivalry becomes the consequential cause of the isolating effects, resulting in Aylmer's quest of pursuits. His wife is his pursuits because society does not define her within its structure. As a result, society may be the only motive for the isolating effects that occur.

Therefore, and in conclusion, the title of the story symbolizes the principles of society that sets the path of the characters in The Birth-mark by linking and defining man's choices. Thus, woman becomes a pursuit of man to rid society of imperfection. However, because the woman is his "love" he attempts to join her with "his love for science" to save her from "toil and pain"(Hawthorne 1159-1160). The structural image of society creates the image of man in the image of a God that flaunts his image downward towards woman and gives her no choice other than to surrender his will. Just as Georgiana surrenders her being to win acceptance of her husband, Hawthorne surrenders his written theme for acceptance and consideration of others. Hawthorne's literary maneuver gives the circumstance of justice and injustice, which in turn, defines and distinguishes them within the society. The difference between of the two classes of men becomes the distinguishable quality of justice. This quality is reflected by their ability to recognize the birth-mark for what it is or is not. Likewise, because Aylmer fails to recognize and act upon the need of "hope" by his wife, he achieves perfection only in Georgiana's death. She dies because she lacks "hope". Her lack of "hope" becomes the society’s failure through ignorance and exclusion. Society denies her the "magic ingredient of hope" and leaves her with "No Choice". The choice of "No Choice" is the gauge that serves to place man as a God over her in man's pursuit of a Goddess, free from imperfection, that will measure up to his own God like image (and that had been provided to him by society). Society is the pacifying agent that justifies the inconceivable quest for perfection. Therefore, perfection becomes inevitable because only in death can Georgiana ever achieve it.

Was the reason for her death because Aylmer views her birth-mark as a symbol of the imperfection in society? I believe so because it is only through the essence of the end of the story that Georgiana suddenly becomes a symbol of perfection. Her lack of "hope" forcefully imprisons her in a society awaiting death by the means of her husband's hand as the oppressor.

Bibliography:

Baxter, Annette K. "Independence vs. Isolation: Hawthorne and James on the Problem of the Artist". Nineteenth Century Fiction. Vol 10 (Dec. 1955). 225-231.

Fetterley, Judith. "Women Beware Science: The Birthmark". The Resisting Reader. Indiana University Press: Indiana. 1978. 22-33.

Fromm, Erich. The Art of Loving. Perennial Library Edition. Vol.IX of the World Perspectives Series. Ruth Nanda Anshen, Editor. Harper Row: New York. 1974.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. "The Birth-mark". Anthology of American Literature: Colonial Through Romantic. Vol I. Third Ed. George McMichael, ed. Macmillan Publishing Company: New York. 1980. 1159-1169.

Mather, Cotton. "The Wonders of the Invisible World: A Third Curiosity". Anthology of American Literature: Colonial Through Romantic. Vol I. Third Ed. George McMichael, ed. Macmillan Publishing Company: New York. 1980. 165-171.

"The Abyss of Solitude", An Analysis of Kate Chopin’s The Awakening

By Trudy A. Martinez

Reading and comprehending the novel, The Awakening, by Kate Chopin is an inordinately laborious experience, reminding the reader a woman's education is lacking during this period. The novel demands the mind of the reader to correspond the novel with appropriate grammar while interpolating and interpreting the historical progression of society from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century.  Anne Rowe cites Chopin's narrative as an "exploration . . . of such controversial topics as a woman's right to question society's expectation of her . . . "(232). This appears to be the reason Anne Rowe implies Chopin is ". . . assured her place . . . in the history of American literature . . . "(232). Anne Rowe states, "Kate Chopin's life began ordinarily enough giving little hint of controversy that would surround her" (228).  Rowe acknowledges a change came upon Chopin shortly after the American Civil War as Chopin "apparently underwent . . . withdrawal from most social activities during which she looked to escapist literature for relief"(229). Anne Rowe also acknowledges Kate Chopin is "ahead of her time in subject matter to a degree of her literary experimentation"(232). What Rowe does not recognize is the extent of Chopin's genius. Whereas, Mary Wollstonecraft says (and I tend to agree), "Rousseau declares . . . 'Opinion is the grave of virtue among the men; but its throne among women'. But, even with respect to the opinion of the world, I am convinced that this class of reasoners are mistaken" (133).

The theme of the novel concentrates on the marriage and life of a Southern American woman, Edna, who marries a man of a different religion in "violent opposition of her father . . . to her marriage with a Catholic" (Chopin 19). The belief is since ". . . the conduct of a woman is subservient to the public opinion, her faith in matters of religion should, for that very reason, be subject to authority"(Wollstonecraft 87).

As a consequential repercussion of Edna's marriage to Leonce Pontellier, Edna is subject to religious differences which leave her out of step with ". . . the order of nature . . ." (Wollstonecraft 87). Because women are "not in the capacity to judge for themselves", it is the feeling of a society of men that women should "abide by the decision of their fathers . . . as confidently as by that of the church" (Wollstonecraft 87).

Chopin uses Edna's father as a well-founded oracle, giving reason for consideration of the Civil War and the War's affects upon society. In this way, Chopin adds historical substance to the novel because Edna's father served in the Confederate army as a Colonel. The aftermath of the Civil war produces a force that causes a replacement or alteration of man's value system and thereby, woman's, the foundation for the "Love of Man" to conform to its purpose of "sameness", a concept of partnership (Fromm 12, 69, 70-89). This same force conditions the mind of the people to accept and withstand the cry of agony . . . while tilting the scales of justice in favor of social injustice; thus, affecting the status of women in marriage, in the family, and in the home, in all endeavors in a Jungle of progress (Martinez 1-5), the very heart of Chopin's novel.

There is an unnatural distinction within the society, in that, "...The private ...virtue of woman" is "...very problematical", for numerous male writers, including Rousseau, insist that woman "should...be subjected to a severe restraint, that of propriety" (Wollstonecraft 144). In the plot, Edna’s destiny is "to realize her position in the universe"; she is "to recognize her relationships as an individual" in her marriage, in her heart (Chopin 15), and in an unnatural society. It is a heavy "weight of wisdom" to bestow on such a young woman, "more wisdom than the Holy Ghost" normally confirms (Chopin 15).

Edna situation provides practical proof (Chopin 15). When she marries, she marries not for love; her marriage is more for prestige (Chopin 19). Edna marries outside of her class structure to a man of prominence, Mr. Pontellier, a French Creole, a member of the old social elite and an aristocracy (Culley 11). Edna weds with two strikes against her because not only does she marry a man from outside her religious beliefs but she also weds into a different culture. Although Edna considers her husband a kind and devoted man, she also weighs the emotional oppression she feels with uncertain anguish and without understanding in silence and solitude (Chopin 8). Edna's husband, Mr. Pontellier, demands Edna be a slave to his whims and that she understand his predominance; For example, he is to come and go as he pleases; she is not to question his actions; she is to be attentive to his desires at all times regardless of the time of day or night (Chopin 5-7). In short, Mr. Pontellier looks upon Edna as his property (Chopin 4).

Edna gains the knowledge she seeks, the knowledge few us find in the parables of the scriptures. "How many souls" perish from agitation? (Chopin 15). Edna's anguished feelings are a result of her husband's infliction of criticisms; Edna cannot explain it (Chopin 8). Nevertheless, she knew because of her husband's treatment towards her, she is effectively being stripped of her due benevolence as his wife as per the scripture I Corinthians 7:3. For instance, when Edna dares to discourage her husband through inattentive behavior one night, when her husband returns from Klein's hotel where he had joined other men for a game of cards, he immediately reciprocates with criticism finding fault where there is no fault, judging her quilt of neglect to him and to his children (Chopin 7-9). "How many souls" think their harassing works are the answer? (Chopin 15). Consequently, "Edna . . . lived her . . . life . . . within herself" in suffering, it is not her nature to complain. She is living a "dual life"; while outwardly she conforms inwardly she questions (and suffers) (Chopin 15). Of course, Mr. Pontellier justifies his actions through false implications of Edna being his "sole object of existence"; he is persistent and redundant (Chopin 7-9). Edna's inattentiveness is something Mr. Pontellier "felt rather than perceived, and he never voiced the feeling without . . . regret and ample atonement" (Chopin 9).

Because of his actions, Mr. Pontellier produces humanism in the form of materialism in restitution for the guilt he feels for his unnecessary harassment towards his wife. In other words since he is unable to justify his actions, he seeks forgiveness from his wife through the giving of money and materialism by way of gifts (Chopin 9).

As the recipient of such gifts, Edna is envied by the Creole women and is "forced to admit that she knew of none better", when her husband is declared "the best husband in the world" by them (Chopin 9). Therefore, materialism becomes the symbol of Edna's acceptance by the Creole women.

The Creole woman possess characteristics which differ from Edna as she grew up on a plantation; Edna is not subjected to living in close proximity to others until after her marriage to Mr. Pontellier; she was never exposed to women who spoke so frankly in mixed company (Chopin 6-11). Regardless of the fact that the married Creole woman is graceful and charming, there is a distinctive characteristic, which reflects an "absence of purity" about her. To Edna, the Creole woman has no freedom from evil or quilt, no innocence, no chastity (Chopin 9-11). In addition, the Creole woman worships her husband, a holy privilege that obliterates her individuality (Chopin 10).

In the ancestral past of Europeans, woman was subject to oppression, ridicule, torture, imprisonment, and death for inherent qualities said to be that of a witch, (the natural qualities of woman). With the sanction of the Catholic Church, women accused of witchcraft were tried, and burned at the stake. Persecution was a means of suppressing woman, controlling her, and causing her to change her nature to suit the purpose of man. As an indirect result of the historical experience, the Creole woman's nature differs; she is now like the Creole man; she demands perfection (Chopin 13). Consequently, this difference explains Adele's reasoning for demanding the adornment of her husband. "If Adele's husband did not adore her, he was a brute, deserving of death by slow torture" (Chopin 10). Because of being idolized, she, in turn, idolizes and overprotects her children leaving them unable to stand their ground among other children. Consequently, she over-emphasizes the role of the mother (Chopin 9-10).

In as much as there is a converse difference between Edna and the Creole women, a difference an observer might not recognize or distinguish without an emotional perception of a subjective point of view, Edna begins to form a close friendship with Adele with bonds of sympathy as well as love (Chopin 15-16). There is no distinction of class between Edna and Adele like that which arose in a new society between the social elite and the new money elite. The rising upper-middle class (the bourgeoisie) emerges with the industrialization following the Civil War to compete against the social elite. Evidence of this animosity presents itself in the novel when Mr. Pontellier (a member of the social elite) does not attend the soirees musicales with his wife because he considers the soirees musicales bourgeois (Chopin 68).

Edna begins to display a rebellious nature as the novel zeroes in on the values of specific members of the society during a historical period while at the same time sexism becomes a symbol of superiority over materialism (Martinez 2). Nevertheless, the question is "Would men...be content with rational friendship instead of slavish obedience"(Wollstonecraft 150). Chopin acknowledges Edna's rebellious protest when Mr. Pontellier says, "She's making it devilishly uncomfortable for me . . . She's got some sort of notion in her head concerning the eternal rights of women" (65). To symbolize rebellion and sexism, Edna's father, a Confederate Colonel of the Civil War, comes to visit (Chopin 67). In addition, the Pontellier household has a special guest for dinner, Dr. Mandelet, who responds to the invitation of Mr. Pontellier (Chopin 67). Dr. Mandelet told Mr. Pontellier: "Woman is a very peculiar organism . . . It would require an inspired psychologist to deal successfully with them" (Chopin 66). Thereby, Capitalism indirectly produces Freudianism as an answer to woman's dilemma (Martinez 5). Dr Mandelet, Mr. Pontellier, and Edna's father never consider the ramifications the after affects of a change in society has upon Edna (Chopin 64-71).

The Civil War had been a war where brother fought against brother, evolving America from an Agrarian society to a Capitalistic society. America's transformation causes to alter man's value system, the foundation for the "Love of man", to conform to the purpose of Capitalism (Fromm 6-76). A New Article of Faith within the society produces or introduces a family of new "hope", which allows subordination-ism of impersonal forces, which are dependent and reliant on the existence of the Imperial Force to guide all factions of society to their destiny (Martinez 2).

Edna is guided towards her destiny when she becomes disillusioned and begins to live for today (not thinking about tomorrow), a trait that is characteristic of the American society following war evolvement. "One of these days," she says, "I'm going to pull myself together for a while and think--try to determine what character of a woman I am; for, candidly, I don't know . . . I must think about it" (Chopin 82).

The Creole husband was never jealous, as there was an honor among men. To him the mortification of passion or the interruption of circulation of passion is one who has become diminutive by discontinuance or practice (Chopin 12). For another man to lust after her made him feel proud. On Grand Isle, Mr. Pontellier even encourages participation to an extent in the prevention of boredom by his wife of her situation (Chopin 4-12).

The main character of the novel, Edna, the southern American woman, is shown love as God, our Lord, had intended by way of a friend, a single man, Robert Lebrum. Robert lacks the desire to pursue or gain through endeavor for wealth; he gives forth sudden, brief utterances of repeated expressions of appreciation and of affection; and yet he is a perfect gentleman (Chopin 12). The reality of a changed society does not affect him; Robert remains a unique individual untouched by intense ambitions for materialistic gain (Chopin 61). The new individualism introduced to society with the industrialization of America had not replaced Robert's uniqueness (Martinez 2). As a repercussion of Edna's attraction for Robert, she alters her priorities.

"...When a woman is admired for her beauty, and suffers herself to be so far intoxicated by the admiration she receives, as to neglect to discharge the indispensable duty of a mother, she sins against herself by neglecting to cultivate an affection that would equally tend to make her useful and happy"(Wollstonecraft 142).

As an indirect result of Robert's unchanged values, his love is unobtainable (Chopin 111). The love for which Edna longs leaves her in state of un-fulfillment (Chopin 114). Edna's destiny is pre-ordained, that is, if Edna tries, if Edna struggles, if Edna works hard, but only, if Edna Conforms (Martinez 3).

"...The interest of each individual (is) to be virtuous; and thus private virtue becoming the cement of public happiness, an orderly whole is consolidated by the tendency of all the parts towards a common centre (Wollstonecraft 144).

The behavioral tactics of the forces within a changed society (Martinez 1-5) conditions Edna. Edna changes; she becomes more attentive to the children (Chopin 47). Edna had had hope for a better tomorrow; she is willing to work hard to get ahead, to build a better future, if not for herself for her children.

Edna loves her children:

"She wept for the very pleasure when she felt their little arms clasping her; their hard, ruddy cheeks pressed against her own glowing cheeks. She looked into their faces with hungry eyes that could not be satisfied with looking. In addition, what stories they had to tell their mother! About the pigs, the cows, the mules!...It was a thousand times more fun to haul real chips for...real fire than to drag painted blocks along the banquette on Esplanade Street!” (Chopin 93). "It was with a wrench and a pang that Edna left her children" (Chopin 94) with old Madame Pontellier.

Edna has a dream (Chopin 98); she wants to be with her love, Robert (Chopin 110). However, her best friend, Adele, the Creole woman, needs her. Chopin uses the opportunity of separating Edna from Robert with the pretence of helping a friend to acknowledge Edna's fear for her children. When her best friend, the Creole woman, says, "Think of the children, Edna. Oh, think of the children! Remember them!” (109) she reinforces Edna’s fear for her children. However, Edna has already thought of her children. As a result, she became lost in an unfulfilled dream; she gave into temptation. Edna reverts to materialism by promising the children "Bonbons" in restitution for her quilt of separating herself from them (Chopin 102) just as her husband did her in the past (Chopin 9). Conversely, Mr. Pontellier does not recognize his promises in the same manner (Chopin 7).

"Parents often love their children in the most brutal manner, and sacrifice

every relative duty to promote their advancement in the world" (Wollstonecraft 150).

Edna's knowledge of her own transgressions and the loss of her love, Robert, sent her in protest of the affects of historical progression upon her and her life. Women in general fled into the streets, into the work place, in flight from their home and family, in search of a truth, in search for the answer to their dilemma. Edna was no exception.

Edna repeatedly said, "The voice of the sea is seductive, never ceasing, whispering, clamoring, murmuring, inviting the soul to wander in abysses of solitude"(Chopin 15, 113). Edna soars like "'the bird above the level plain of tradition and prejudice"(Chopin 82). However, her wings are not strong enough; therefore, she becomes "a sad spectacle...bruised, exhausted " as she flutters "back to earth" (Chopin 82). Consequently, she is to find her peace in the solitude of the sea where "the voice of the sea speaks to the soul" (Chopin 15). Chopin attests to the significance of the Civil War when "Edna looked into the distance and the old terror flamed up..."(Chopin 114). Then "Edna heard her father's voice and... The spurs of the cavalry officer clanged..."(Chopin 114). The reader's imagination allows, "The touch of the sea" to become "sensuous, enfolding" [Edna's] "body in its soft, close embrace" (Chopin 15).

In conclusion, an analysis should reflect and acknowledge the historical progression, the after affects of the Civil War, and the war's consequential influence upon a society and its members. The implications of a societal change, class structure, and the values of man and woman that subsequently emerge following a war are a well-found revelation in consideration for what seems to be the author's intended message. Hence, historical progression contributes to a consequential, unabridged, revered understanding of the novel's theme and substance that, in turn, gives the novel historical significance.

Bibliography:

Chopin, Kate. The Awakening. A Norton Critical Edition. (Culley, M. ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1976.

Culley, M. Marginal Note. The Awakening. By Chopin, Kate. New York: University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1976.

I Corinthians 7:3. The Holy Bible. Kings James Version.

Fromm, Erick. The Art of Loving. World Perspective Series, Volume IX. Anshen, Ruth Nanda, ed. New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1959

Martinez, Trudy. "Birth of the Impersonal Forces and an Analysis of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle"(an interpretation of history for the period 1865-1900). Written for Dr. Don Rosenberg, History 17B, Cerro Coso Community College, .Summer,1990.

Rowe, Anne. "Kate Chopin". The History of Southern Literature: The War and After, 1861-1920, Part II. Rubin, Jackson, Moore, Simpson, and Young, Editors. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 185. 228-232.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of The Rights of Woman. A Norton Critical Edition. (Poston, Carol H., ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1975. 3-194.

An Analysis of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle,

By Trudy A. Martinez

In the year 1865, a drastic, calculated, change took place in America. The pre-destined change was domed to affect nearly every aspect of individuality for generations to come. It was learned from the past, ready to control the future and the destiny of millions. A special secret (their symbol) the Red, White, and Blue, which was guarded since the birth of their religion, had the purpose of joining the common man together, thus strengthening its falsified image, allowing them to go forward toward progressism. The force with such OVER-WHELMING strength would condition the minds of the common people to accept and withstand the cry of agony, hunger, death, while tilting the scales of justice in favor of social injustice. This was the Main Impersonal Force which would cause to replace or alter the common man’s value system so as to conform to its purpose of a new religion. It would create a New Article of Faith, undermined by Radicalism, fueled by greed, and chosen as an alternative to prevent revolution of the masses. It was a double standard, one for the individuals, and one for progressism; one for the rich and one for the poor. From the origin of the Main Impersonal Force would come the birth of a Myth (The American Dream) to strengthen the Red, the White, and the Blue, and give a continuing influx of internal Hope for a better tomorrow. Using revolution as an example and allowing progress through industrialization, it would produce or introduce a family of new Hope, allowing subordination-ism, of the Impersonal Forces, dependent and reliant on the existence of the Main Impersonal Force, to guide both the rich and the poor to their destiny.

For the rich it would introduce: Capitalism, and Conservatism, earned through the mastery of Behaviorism, justified through the practice of Darwinism, gained through application of Economic Expansionism, insured through Journalism, and ultimately reaffirmed through Freudanism. For the rich it would produce: Humanism as restitution for quilt, Sexism as symbol of superiority over maternal-ism.

For the poor it would introduce: Patriotism gained through citizenship,(membership) and reinforced by the Main Impersonal Force; to replace the uniqueness of man, gained through a falsified freedom and restricting common man’s free will and choice which was falsely guaranteed through their bible, the constitution; Optimism established by desire and reassured by achievements, and ultimately Consumerism (propaganda) as a reward for progressism and Materialism as a symbol of acceptance of the religion; it would produce Populism as a voice of hope for the common man’s despair, Narcissism as an explanation to common man’s dilemma, Socialism as an alternative to struggle, Marxism as an artificial retaliation to Capitalism, Alcoholism as an escape from reality; Sexism as a means of gain through despair for submission. The Main Impersonal Force produces a force with no end, infinite. It began with Nationalism but will come to be known as Natal-ism their heritage and future (from the cradle to grave). It will lead the poor through hope and achievements to their ultimate destiny, Capitalism (the temple of the rich). It will lead the rich through expansionism into Imperialism, to convert the world to their religion through propaganda of consumerism. Our destiny has been pre-ordained, that is if we try, if we struggle, if we work hard, but only, if we conform.

In Western Europe, Industrialization was a revolution, created by the rich, the chosen, the rising upper-middle class, the bourgeoisie; it was unplanned, uncalculated. The American Industrialization, on the other hand, differed from the European counterparts, in that, the creators of this Industrialization learned from the mistakes of both the English and the French counterparts. The French Revolution was the out-come of the first attempts of this new religion to conform and convert the masses. The reign of terror that resulted was the consumption of its own creation. The resulting corruption was still fresh in minds of greedy, social elite and the entrepreneurs in the western world. To prevent the slightest threat of repetition of the French example, the American industrialization had to be calculated, predetermined, and thought-out and most of all Controlled. Before the era of Industrialization could be entered, the slaves had to be freed, given hope and token justice. Education for the masses had to be forced, thus, allowing for conditioning of The American Dream through the mandatory school systems and Behaviorism. When Industrialization hit America, the common people had been prepared; they had hope for a better tomorrow; they were willing to work hard to get ahead, to build a better future, if not for themselves, their children.

A laissez-faire Conservatism predominated. Economic Expansion of railroads made it possible. Factories and industries sprung up almost overnight; people moved to the cities. Journalism capitalized with propaganda. Immigrants swarmed into America, seeking The American Dream giving the factories a steady over-abundant supply of fresh cheap-labor, paving the way for what was to still to come. The cities became The Jungle where the name of the game was survival, survival of the fittest, Social Darwinism.

The Impersonal Forces were guided by the rich, the social elite, as they sat back in their easy-chairs, read The Wall Street Journal and made decisions on investment risks, i.e., which common man protecting his materialism with a corporate image appeared most profitable and would gather more souls to be converted.

Buying and selling stock in his religion was his trade now, not slaves, but converters. Giving the magic ingredient, hope to the middle-class was their glory towards converting the common man. The ruthlessness employed in the struggle upward by the rising upper-middle class insured a quick return on their investments.

With Carnegie’s contribution of The Gospel of Wealth, and Spencer’s contribution of the social economic application of Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution, Social Darwinism, what more could the chosen ask. The off-spring of Calvinism, a step child of the Catholic Church, the chosen ones, the rich, the social elite, need only to keep control. With an influx of the magic ingredient (Hope), the Impersonal Forces, would divert, divide, conquer, and convert the struggling common man; he would deny his own values to survive the Hell of his existence. Proficiency in psychology was the key to manipulation (a natural inherent quality in woman, maternal-ism); the hidden secrets in history are the clue to the existence and goals of Paternalism.

The founders effectively changed the values of man from Oneness using capitalistic theology as basic knowledge and replacing it with Sameness, A concept of Partnership, in marriage, in work, in all endeavors giving man, Materialism, Narcissism, Alcoholism, Sexism, Darwinism, justifying the Paternalism“ of the Gospel of Wealth, the form of slavery that is so nice to society and murderous to the common man in The Jungle in the process. The Psychological knowledge of Behaviorism has helped the founders of Capitalism to shape Nationalism as their Idol through worship of a false religion. The fruit of the labor and the blood, sweat, and tears and suffering of the common man allowed the capitalistic society to flourish. The Jewish German, Sigmund (Sex) Freud, based his concept of psychology on Capitalism, called Freudanism; it so conveniently complimented Capitalism that it would become a temporary substitute for the Love of Man and parol evidence, to the Love of Man.

A Comparison of Sylvia Plath’s Original Work Versus the Film Version of The Bell Jar: If I am an Arrow

by Trudy A. Martinez

In the film, The Bell Jar, the prelude imitates a young girl’s position within society; this allusion is created through cinematic techniques and the girl’s symbolic actions that respond to a confining realm. As a result, restriction is implied and meaning is derived from the culminating points made by way of the lighting, the music, and the movement.

The culminating points correspond with the story line of Plath’s original work. For instance, as a monotone piano tone ushers in the figure of a young girl turning slowly in a circular motion, slight glimmers of light encase her form with the darkness of the set. As her hands extend outwardly and then upwardly, a strum of a harp is heard. The outward extension of her hands represent her striving for educational achievement, while the upward movement demonstrates she is not satisfied with education alone and wants to extend beyond those limits toward the American Dream. The arrangement of light denotes she has been enlightened to the American Dream; whereas, the darkness of the set signifies the dream is not possible for her. Consequently, because of the desire for upward movement, society’s restrictions are announced by way of the strum.

The strum recommends that the hands stay within allowable boundaries. After a few attempts are made to extend beyond the imaginary confines, the hands are placed within the pockets of the skirt and the defining light dims. Movement of the hands into a forward protrusion under the skirt renders the shape of a pregnant woman. Immediately, Gerald Fried’s music converts to a lullaby as the girl is seen swaying back and forth to the regular succession of sounds, chanting a villanelle, a “Mad Girl’s Love Song”:

I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead;

I lift my lids and all is born again.

(I think I made you up inside my head.) . . .

I dreamed that you bewitched me into bed

And snug me moon-struck, kissed me quite insane.

(I think I made you up inside my head.) . . .

(I think I made you up inside my head.) . . .

(I think I made you up inside my head.)

Before the framework of the opening sequence is complete, and underlying theme suggests that societal restraints force the girl to succumb to limitations and that the fear of pregnancy is the reason for her ultimate mental instability.

Under the direction of Larry Peerce, actress Marilyn Hassett, a Barbie doll double, introduces herself as Ester Greenwood. “I 'm an all American girl,” she says, “A girl wonder, a scholarship student.” And then she utters, “I think I made her up inside my head.” Consequently, she questions her status: “Me a poet? Are you kidding?” In this manner, an inferiority complex than wane her accomplishment is established, requiring her to justify her actions in order to bring herself back within the acceptable norms of society: “I am a very proper New England girl. I attend a very proper New England college where I win prizes.”

The main prize Ester wins is a trip to Ladies Day magazine. This prize erects the American Dream in others, announcing and enhancing the status of being an American citizen:

Look what can happen in this country, they’d say. A girl lives in

some out-of-the-way town for nineteen years, so poor she can’t afford

a magazine, and then she gets a scholarship to college and wins a

prize here and a prize there and ends up steering New York like her

own private car (2).

The film intensifies the American Dream aspect when the showering of gifts is announced at a meeting at the magazine’s headquarters. Then when company officials announce that they will even supply men, the camera switches to a view of excitement glowing on the young participants’ faces. But when the film attempts to dramatize Ester’s attraction to “a whole life of marvelous, elaborate decadence” of luxurious fashions that Doreen symbolizes for her (4), it adds a dimension that suggests the attraction to Doreen is magnified by a hidden lesbian tendency.

This hidden lesbian tendency dimension contradicts the initial underlying theme produced by way of the prelude. The lesbian inclination is inferred through Esther’s countenance in the sequence where she sits in the bar with Lenny (Robert Klien), Doreen, and Frankie. Her indifference to Frankie is highlighted when he asks her to dance and she replies with a firm “No.” The camera focuses on Doreen’s exhibitions that keep Lenny in awe, and then switches back to Ester, giving the impression that her apathy towards Frankie is a reflection of a more than a casual interest in Doreen. The film does not convey Plath’s intention that: “The thought of dancing with that little runt . . . made [Ester] laugh” (9). Later at Lenny’s apartment, the similitude is enhanced as Doreen and Ester is seen dancing together. Just outside their immediate circle, Lenny is seen in the background dancing by his self. Subsequently, all three of them are seen dancing wildly together. And then the camera switches to all of them tumbling on the bed. Ester is seen caressing Doreen, reinforcing the lesbian concept. Consequently, Ester runs away when she realizes the magnitude of her drunken deteriorating action.

The film frames the lesbian notion around Ester’s deteriorating life and makes it seem as if she is “. . . coming apart at the seams,” as she said in the introductory sequence, because she had not accepted the affinity. In order for the film version to communicate openly what is suppose to be Ester’s secret thoughts, Joan’s part in Ester’s life is expanded from a mere acquaintance who Ester only knew from “a cool distance” (160) to her best friend. Joan’s overly emphasized reaction to Ester’s every word and move as they both discuss the different modes of suicide suggests she has sexual designs on Ester. In a much later scene Joan learns after she makes an advance and requests sexual favors that Ester loathes this unnatural attraction. The film implies that Ester drives Joan to suicide and that Ester has to face her own lesbian desires to be free of her own suicidal drive.

In the original work, Ester’s suicidal drive is not stimulated by lesbian desires. Instead, her suicidal drive is stimulated by a feeling of inadequacy. She feels stupid for buying “all those uncomfortable, expensive clothes” (1). She feels stupid because she had been attached to Buddy Willard who went to Yale after she learned that Doreen thought “Yalies” were “so stoo-pet!”(6). She feels stupid because she “felt very low” after Jay Cee brought to the surface “all the uncomfortable suspicions” of inadequacy she has (24).

On the other hand, the film portrays Jay Cee (Barbara Barrie) as vindictive toward Ester. Her command, “We are looking to you for a certain kind of intellectual elevation,” followed by a snicker of laughter implies her vindictive intention. In a much later scene, Jay Cee makes Ester feel extremely inadequate when she says her views are “poison.” Jay Cee tells Ester that she needs to identify with other college students who never heard of Joyce. Ester is seen playing with her pencil in a manner that conveys she is unable to deal with the criticism. Jay Cee then asks her: “Did you think this was one of your cinch courses that you will get an “A?”

Ester isn’t getting “A’s” in her personal life either. Instead, indecisiveness takes over. She has difficulty making decisions of what she should or shouldn’t do, making her feel even more inadequate and sad (23-25). She feels Doreen serves as a “concrete testimony to [her] own dirty nature” (19). The bell jar symbolizes her fear of sex and pregnancy which has her imprisoned in a world of double standards: She had said, “I couldn’t stand the idea of a woman having to have a single pure life and a man being able to have a double life, one pure and one not” (66). She “. . . knew . . . what [Buddy] secretly wanted was for her to flatten out underneath his feel like Mrs. Willard’s kitchen mat” (69). The film obscures these concerns and completely ignores Ester’s sexual fears: She told Dr. Nolan, “What I really hate is the thought of being under a man’s thumb . . . A man doesn’t have a worry in the world, while I’ve got a baby hanging over my head like a big stick, to keep me in line” (181). The bell jar is an extremely significant symbol in Plath’s original work; whereas in the film, the bell jar only serves instrumentally to frame the ending.

The symbolization of the bell jar entraps Ester in the stereotypical domesticity of the roles of mother and housewife. Society’s expectation of woman’s domesticity is a condition which indirectly bears responsibility for Ester’s inferiority complex. Fear is the controlling factor. Even though Ester may want to experiment with sex, she feels she is not free to do so because of the fear of pregnancy. Individual female education goals and desires are secondary to society’s framework. This is apparent when her mothers (Julie Harris) stresses that women must be practical and learn shorthand. In other words, woman must be ready to heed what a society of man dictates. Learning shorthand serves as a message to Ester of her place within society. As a result, she feels inferior because even with all her education she does not have the knowledge needed to survive in the world:

“Not knowing shorthand meant not getting a good job after college. My mother kept telling me nobody wanted a plain English major. But an English major who knew shorthand was something else again. Everybody would want her. She would be in demand among all the up-and-coming young men, and she would transcribe letter after thrilling letter. The trouble was, I hated the idea of serving men in any way. I wanted to dictate my own thrilling letters”(61-62).

Plath suggests Ester’s inferiority complex is an extension of a societal norm, a norm that does not accept women as equal to men in any way. Regardless of a woman’s educational accomplishments, she can only hope to please a man by doing his bidding or serving him. The double standard extends not only to the workplace but also to personal choice, limiting a woman’s sexual freedom through fear by trapping her in the stereotypical role of mother and housewife. The introductory framework of the film also gives the allusion of entrapment. However, when the film introduces the abnormality of a lesbian sexuality into the story, it changes the original theme of fear and entrapment by serving lesbianism up as an avenue of escape from the bell jar hanging over head. The film is not brought back into perspective with the original work until after the death of Joan with Ester’s exclamation: “I am. I am. I am.” Then the film immediately diverges again, framing the beginning with the end by addressing the person in the bell jar: “To the person in the bell jar blank and stopped as a dead baby, the world itself is a bad dream” (193). Ester recounts, “I asked [Dr. Nolan] if I would survive. She said, yes. She at once freed me and condemned me back to life”. Then as if an after thought she says, ”If am the arrow, I cannot fly through darkness.” In other words, all the change and excitement she wants is null and void because she can’t “. . . shoot off in all directions [herself], like the colored arrows from a Fourth of July rocket”(68).

Bibliography:

Plath, Sylvia. The Bell Jar. Bantam Books (published by arrangement

with Harper & Row). 1972.

Kellog, Marjorie, The Bell Jar. Directed by Larry Peerce, Based on

The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath.

The Three Basic Ideas in Thoreau's Walden

The three basic ideas (Experience, Self-reliance, and Worship) in Thoreau's Walden deals specifically with one theme: "Simplicity". To Thoreau, simplicity in experience, simplicity in self-reliance, and simplicity in worship bred the finer things in life. In contrast, Thoreau saw complexity breeding only dissatisfaction. For example, a farmer might "get his shoestrings" [by speculating] in herds of cattle. But in the process the farmer does not "solve the problem of [his] livelihood", he just makes his life more complicated than need be. As a result, complexity becomes a complicated man's tomb.

Simplicity in experience to Thoreau meant learning to live without complication. To accomplish this, he suggested "[reducing]...things in proportion". In other words, he suggested getting rid of details so that your accounts could be "[kept on] ...your thumb-nail". Thoreau had said: "An honest man...[needs only]...to count...his ten fingers, or in extreme cases...his toes". By operating in such a manner, a man remains in control of his own life and "life [is driven] into a corner". Consequently, disparity is removed from life. Life becomes an experiment. The result of experimentation brings experience. And as a direct result of simplicity in one's experience, one learns what life has to teach.

In order to learn what life has to teach, Thoreau suggests one must learn to be self-reliant. To Thoreau simplicity was a major factor in this aspect too. Through the development of his self-reliance, he gained "the seeds of [his] virtues. This can be seen by "the results of [his] experience in raising beans". He did not rely on "horses or cattle, or hired men or boys" as the gentlemen farmer's did. Instead, he loved his rows of beans; they brought him closer to nature; they helped him to achieve his self-reliance through simplicity. "Daily the beans saw [him coming] to their rescue armed with a hoe . . . “. Consequently, he was rewarded for his endeavors. And as a result, the expense of his endeavors was slight in contrast to the "gentlemen farmers". In addition to earning enough to meet his necessary expenditures through the growth of his self-reliance, he attained character: truth, simplicity, and faith.

Through truth, simplicity, and faith Thoreau worshiped the flourishing life of the wilderness. He worshiped by responding to nature and nature's miracles. For instance, Thoreau saw "Walden [as] a perfect forest mirror". The lake served as the "earth's eye". In the earth's eye the refection of both "heaven and earth" could be seen through the colors of both blue and green. He saw spring as the season of the year where rebirth occurred. It was as if the creator was playing around with both variety and unity. The exposed banks of the railroad cut sported this concept. "The whole bank . . . [was] overlaid with a mass of foliage or sandy rupture . . . the [product] of one spring day." As a result responding to the rapture of nature, Thoreau was affected by the scenes he saw. The scenes caused him to feel "as if . . . [he was standing] in the laboratory of the Artist who made the world and [him] . . . " It was as if he "--had come to where [the creator] was still at work, sporting on [the] bank, and with excess of energy strewing his fresh designs about."

Consequently, it becomes understandable why Thoreau relied on "simplicity, simplicity, simplicity" in all his endeavors. Simplicity was the means he used to experience life. Simplicity was the method by which he gained self-reliance. And simplicity supplied the clarity of his response to the beauty he worshiped in nature and with nature. As a result, he bred oneness with nature and saw the beauty of his own experiments.

The Significance of Nature in George Eliot's Adam Bede

By Trudy A. Martinez

In Adam Bede nature is set against itself; this first becomes apparent on "the Green".  Here two roads fork off into two directions:  One up and one down.  The road upward depicts a gloomy picture while the one downward presents a bright picture.  For instance, the road that goes up is "overlooked by its barren hills" and described as a “a bleak treeless region" (28).   In contrast, the one that goes down is "under the shelter of woods" and is described as having "long meadow-grass and thick corn" (28).

The effect of nature leaves the reader wondering what is good and what is bad.  For instance, Mr. Irwine is described as harmonizing "extremely well with that peaceful landscape" (76-77).  What is peaceful about his landscape?  The church is on the upward road and the only brightness described in that landscape is the "dark-red" of the bricks on the church.  And then again, just as "the red sunlight shone on the brass nails" of a coffin, the color signifies a different sort of peacefulness, that of death (60).  The sun was shining on Hetty wearing a red cloak but she hardly knew it; she had lost hope (348).  With "two roads before her," she chose the downward path, the "one . . . which will take her into . . . shrouded pastures" (348).

On the downward path, nature is a non-benevolent force where day and night are at odds.  Gyp announces the non-benevolent nature when he gives out "a loud howl."  In response, Adam goes outside in the dark to investigate; he sees "nothing except a rat; but what he hears calls “up the image of the willow wand striking the door" and foretelling death (58).  However, instead of death being discovered in the dark of night, it is discovered only after "daylight quenches the candles and the birds begin to sing"(60).  And just as the birds sing, Gyp begins "to bark uneasily" after Seth asks, "What's that sticking against the willow?"  Then Adam and Seth discover the "watery death" of their father (61).  Instead of water being a symbol of life, water becomes a symbol of death.  Eliot reverses the symbols just as she reverses nature.

Mr. Irwine communicates the opposing force of nature when he says, "Nature is cleaver enough to cheat even you, mother."  His mother, however, disagrees and replies, "Nonsense, child!  Nature never makes a ferret in the shape of mastiff" (72).  In other words, she can tell by the outward appearance.  Nevertheless, the outward appearance of nature is different.  Instead of the rain pouring down drops and producing mud, "the sun.  .  . Is pouring down his beams . . . and turning . . . muddy water . . . into a mirror" (79).  And then again, a birthday feast is held at the time of year that is "Not the best time of year to be born in."  Instead, it is held at the time of year where "Nature seems to make a hot pause"(241).

Nature also foretells the depth of emotions.  For instance, when Hetty is in the wilderness wandering and looking for a pool of water, she finds it "black under the darkening sky:  no motion, no sound near . . .  The pool was at its wintry depth now" and so is Hetty for she is thinking of drowning herself in it (367).  "She had reached the boarders of a new wilderness . . . (360).  Her sky is no longer bright with sunshine.  For example, the sky is "gray" and "clear" on the morning when Hetty and Dinah are riding in the cart and nearing the fatal spot.  Suddenly, Arthur appears, "carrying in his hand a hard-won release from death (438).  Consequently, nature gives a hint of what is to come.

The consequence of nature keeps the reader reading and unknowingly questioning:  if the sunshine is representative of death, why is Dinah pictured sewing in the sunshine outside the house? (70-71). is this because she has not a hope of life as a single woman?  Later after Dinah marries Adam, she avoids the sunshine.  For instance, she shades "her eyes with her hands" and "turns away from the sunlight" (504).  In addition, she changes the color of her bonnet from grieving black to an innocent white.

The Effect of Illusion on the Reality of Emma's Life in Flaubert's Madame Bovary

by Trudy A. Martinez

Technorati Tags: analysis

Emma attempts to make the fiction she reads become her reality.  Real life bores her.  When she lives in the country, she dreams of living in a town.  As she walks and talks with Charles, reality and illusion merge.  Her voice is "suddenly laden with languor" one minute and the next "merry . . . Her eyes" open "wide and innocent, then half" close, submerge "in boredom, thoughts wandering" (36).

Emma's wandering thoughts surface when she attempts to mingle the plans for their wedding with fantasy.  For example, She wants "a midnight wedding with torches"(38), but her father will not hear of it.  But nevertheless, touches of fantasy make it through the planning stage:  "A little cupid" adorns the wedding cake (42).  And Emma's dress is out of place:  it is too long for a country wedding.  Consequently, the dress drags on the ground, picking up "course grasses and thistle burrs"(40) and bits of reality.

Reality strikes home when Emma sees her husband's first wife's bouquet.  The sight of him removing it starts her to "wondering what would happen to (her own bouquet) if she were to die" (45).  Eventually, she disposes of the bouquet herself:  She throws it in a fire and sits watching it burn and the shriveled paper petals (hover) like black butterflies" in the fireplace and "finally (vanish) up the chimney" (81).

When her life lapses into routine, she tries to liven it up.  She does this by reciting poetry to Charles in the moonlight or singing to him "slow melancholy songs," thinking that this will make him more loving and passionate (56).  When nothing works, she begins to question her reasons for marrying (57).  Her ideas of love affect her vision:  "Was not love like an Indian plant," She thought, "requiring a prepared soil, a special temperature?  Sighs in the moonlight, long embraces, and hands at parting bathed with tears, all the fevers of the flesh and the languid tenderness of love.  .  . “And luxury (72).  The effect of such thoughts causes her to dress and train her maid as a lady's maid.  And she, herself, dresses luxuriously and flaunts herself at the window (72-73).  Her day dreams of the ball and the Marquis.  Even though he is ugly, his lifestyle fascinates her.  Excitement fills his life, and he "was said to have been the lover of Marie Antoinette" (60-61).

Such daydreaming leaves her depressed.  For example, "She lets the house look after itself" and she grows "hard to please" and thinks only of her own wants and emotions.  What effect she had on others was of no consequence to her (79).  She said, "I hate commonplace heroes and moderate feeling such as are to be found in life" (96).

Having a girl child is commonplace to her.  "The thought of having a male child afforded her revenge for her past life of helplessness" (101).  With Emma there is no compromising:  either nothing is good enough for her or she is too good for everything.  Her daughter didn't really matter to her.  If she had, why did she place her in a nursemaid's home where she feels compelled to wipe "her feet at the door as she [goes] out" (106).

Emma thought she could love her husband Charles if he was famous, "but Charles had no ambition"(74).  Before her wedding she believes she is in love, but to Emma love means excitement, a continuous passion, and most of all luxury.  When Rodolphe comes into her life, she fails to recognize that his words: "I've stayed with you, because I couldn't tear myself away, though I've tried a hundred times" are just as the chairman exclaims to the crowd: "Manure!" (161).

A life with Rodolphe sums up her dreams of fantasy:  "I love you so much! . . . So much, I can't live without you!  I long for you . . . I am your slave, your concubine.  You are my king, my idol --you are good, handsome, intelligent, and strong!" (203). But she did live without him and even replaces him with her own molded model of a lover, Leon.   To uphold her life of fantasy, she needs money and luxury.  The reality of the debt she accumulates crushes her illusion and leaves her wishing "she could fly away like a bird and grow young again somewhere far out in the stainless purity of space" (303).  When she tries to regain some dignity, and seek help from her lost love, Rodolphe, the reality of her life becomes too much for her as she angrily  tells him of his faults and her own at the same time:  "You love yourself too much:  you live well . . . "(323).  She takes her own life to avoid facing reality (325).  "In a clear voice she asked for her mirror, and remained bowed over it for sometime, until big tears began to trickle out of her eyes" (336) for she must leave her fantasy behind.   However, a song rebukes her and she cries out, "The blind man!"  His song leaves her "laughing, a ghastly, frantic, desperate laugh, fancying she could see the hideous face of the beggar rising up like a nightmare amid the eternal darkness" (337).  Consequently, she dies as she lived in a fantasy world of illusion.

With the Stroke of a Pen

Add to Technorati Favorites

Technorati Profile

By Trudy A. Martinez

The first few lines of the novel A Tale Of Two Cities, a fictional historical novel, written by Charles Dickens presents a narrow view of history that sets the atmosphere and the tone of the era in which William Blake aspired. The novel's plot began in the year one thousand seven hundred fifty-seven, the year of Blake's birth.

"It was the best of times"

The nobles had maintained their sanctioned status; the church, the Catholic church, continued to support the corrupt government. The bourgeoisie, the upper-middle-class, had prospered, increasing in wealth and position; some of the upper-middle-class used foresight through the purchase of titles thereby exempting them from taxes and the dual standards employed within a society of classes. The Population increased as a result of the accomplishment of industrialization.

"It was the worst of times"

The middle class had begun to stagnate; the working class and the peasantry were oppressed and left to the mercy of the nobles and the bourgeoisie, the upper-middle-class, who abused them. Factory workers labored long hours for subsistence wages; the peasantry was like dirt under the feet of the upper classes; their human dignity stripped; they were like animals with no rights; their death meant nothing to the upper-classes. Stealing a piece of bread or a few pence to survive could mean imprisonment, torture, and possible death at the whim of an aristocrat. Cities were over crowded and so were the prisons.

"It was the age of wisdom"

The scientific community had made discoveries in the 17th century that revolutionized thought processes; those processes were carried further in the 18th century which saw further achievements in astronomy, chemistry, and biology. As a result, new ideas surfaced.

"It was the season of light"

Reaction to the age of wisdom and foolishness produced the age of reason; then subsequently a new idealism in opposition to materialism and finally humanitarianism and an increased emphasis on reform movements in answer to problems that faced society.

"It was the season of darkness"

The upper-middle-class on down to the peasantry had begun to lose their faith in the system. Over population had increased along with taxation. Oppression was on the rise, illness, disease, abuse, and death had increased dramatically. All hopes of improvement faded rapidly.

As hopes faded for the oppressed, William Blake began to address the issues of the time while at the same maintaining his faith in the Lord. One can only revere such a poet who appeared as a rebel in his own time, the era of the romantics. During this era, greed had become a virtue (greed was no longer seen as a vise) that lead the upper middle class to the pillars of society through the persecution of the lower classes. It was a age when man was not free to express openly his thoughts or the truth of all matters.

Blake's courage became a distinct mark upon time when he addressed his concerns for a society gone astray through his articulations in poetry. His mastery of technique may be seen in the poems. He wrote of what he heard and of what he saw as if in answer to the scripture of the Holy Bible (Ezekiel 22 verse 2): "Now, thou son of man, wilt thou judge, wilt thou judge the bloody city? Yea, thou shalt shew her all her abominations." And Blake, a man of God, surely did show the abominations of a bloody city. Blake spoke of a life, of misery, of death, of injustice and of infidelity; he wrote in such a manner as to grant the reader a perceptive scene to behold the grievance, to distinguish the injury upon the citizenry, and discern the encroachment power of industrialization. When Blake drafted his weapon, the all-powerful pen, he fought against the despotism of progress.

The despotism of progress appeared as a ". . . mark in every face. . . ". With Blake's execution of words, the "mark" emerges as if an expression of sadness, of pain, of suffering on the faces of everyone on the "chartered streets" of London, the streets where special privileges (sanctioned by government) were granted to business and to the church a immunity, an immunity from guilt. The immunity from guilt stretched out to encompass ". . . every infant's cry of fear,. . . every voice, . . .every ban, and The mind-forged manacles . . ."[Blake had heard]. In other words, Blake heard the babies cry of hunger, the fearful cry of not knowing where your next meal will come from or if it would be coming at all, the fear of imprisonment in an oppression of not only the body but of the soul with the freedom of thought prohibited, chained to the mind, a crime if voiced while the oppressors either ignored the situation or looked the other way.

Blake saw the crimes of the church as he heard "...the Chimney-sweeper's cry", the cry of innocence, the cry of horror upon becoming lost in the miles of tunnels "Every black’ning church appalls . . . ". Here Blake seems to imply that the church condoned the act of sending children into the miles of tunnels to clean the chimneys even though the church knew the children's innocence may be blackened not only by the soot of the chimney's but also by the crying agony of the death the tunnels might hold them and that the chimney tunnels might thus become their coffin and the church their pall bearer.

Blake heard "...the hapless Soldier's sigh" as he appears to envision the mark of the legless man's weariness, his sorrow, his regret for the blood all soldiers shed for their country, their government; and therefore the Soldier's sighs "[ran] in blood down Palace walls."

As the blood ran down the Palace walls, the blood seeped into the streets which had been darkened by the immunity pledged to industrialization through its charter. There Blake heard "...through midnight streets...the youthful Harlot's curse". In other words, Blake saw the disease, hunger, and death --the plight of young girls being forced into prostitution merely by the desire to survive the hell of their existence. Blake also saw the curse lived on in the cry of the young girl's offspring "[as the curse blasted] the new born infant's tear".

The infant's tear seemed to be cry out with the knowledge of its destiny to Blake; And Blake transferred the infant's appeal for life on to paper. In doing so, Blake bestowed upon others his benefaction of sight, his ability to examine the "...mark on every face" and therefore to detect and distinguish "...every infant's cry of fear", the hopelessly of their lives, the birth of the affliction of their death, "...blights with plagues the Marriage hearse." Blake with the courage of a warrior and as commanded by the Lord with the stroke of a pen showed the city: "all her abominations" and perhaps inspired the

". . . The Spring of Hope" and helped to prevent “. . . a winter of despair".

The previous winters had not been pleasant; in fact, they had been quiet rough for the oppressed with their subsistence existence, death, and the injustice within society. Their future had not promised much hope. Blake left very few stones un-turned when he also exposed the virtues of women who gave themselves willingly to men in secret only to have destroyed their purity and innocence in the poem, "The Sick Rose.”

While Dickens brought into focus the attitudes and climate of society by focusing attention on the individuals of each class within the society, Blake showed the City of London all its abominations. Thus the personal attitudes of the individuals were given logic and reason through their level of self-esteem, their suspicions, their beliefs, their mastery, and their behavior and through their association of religion, learning, achievement, and past experience. As a result of the perception of the individuals, the reader's personal, general, perception of attitudes and behavior of the rich and the poor and the practices and developments within the society were conceived. The literary maneuver of Dickens gave the structure of justice and injustice which in turn defined and distinguished the good and the evil that must have confronted the society and William Blake.

Perhaps, the writings of Blake inspired the English under the reign of George III to revitalize its middle-class with the hope of a better future and thus prevented the "topsy-turvy" effect the French experienced. One can only imagine what may have inspired the great poet to express his independent thoughts during a period of time when freedom of thought or speech was not apparent. But Blake seized the opportunity his quill afforded him and spoke out against oppression as he transcribed what he perceived in a fashion that marked his courage forever on the pages of time through the stroke of his pen.

gramashouse0ne.spaces.live.comTechnorati Profile"An Intricate Web": An Analysis of William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily”

By

Trudy A. Martinez

In the story "A Rose for Emily" written by William Faulkner, Faulkner establishes a historical morality of a southern heritage, a pattern, intricately woven within the story. The pattern engulfs Emily Grierson, the main character, a descendant of an old, southern, social elite family, who was breed to be accustomed to the best of everything; she demands the rights of her heritage. Determined to maintain her image, Emily acts above reproach, above change. Nevertheless, time changes everything.

Faulkner builds on an intricate web through his reference to change encompassing a southern town and its' inhabitants following the Civil War. As progress encroaches upon a once elite route in a small community, the route becomes an intermingled eyesore of decaying mansions and the ugliness of progression within a society.

The narrator portrays the significance of an illusion of decay and ugliness of a changing time and value by using the reference to we rather than to I. By resorting to this technique, Faulkner camouflages the accountability and neutralizes judgment for the putrefaction of the town, its inhabitants, and the abandonment of a once elegant southern heritage.

The Prospective of William Faulkner on “A Rose for Emily” (Meyer 54-55) acknowledges the neutralized judgment theme when Faulkner answers the question: “.could this story...be...classified as a criticism of the times?” (Meyer 55). Faulkner said, "The writer uses the environment--what he knows...It was not a conflict between the North and South so much as between...God and Satan"(Meyer 55).

At the end Civil War, the ideology of industrialization forces the south to change and conform. Industrial progression and the freeing of the salves is seen as a means of bettering the majority of the people or at least giving them hope for a better future through the introduction of industrialization. Instead, the tradition, heritage, and values of the typical southerner fade, decays, and gives way to the diabolic aggressive progression.

However, the War is not over, at least not for Emily; she fights on; she maintains her heritage; she avoids taxation gracefully, elegantly. Emily is not going to change! She is above this utter nonsense; "Colonel Sartoris had explained to [her]". Not"...even grief could...cause a real lady to forget noblesse oblige".

Emily held her head high in the tradition of her heritage until she meets the man of her dreams, Homer Barron; but "he was not a marrying man". Stubborn, Emily will not relinquish her traditional value to become the talk of the town. She plans and works out a solution to the problem; she sets everything straight in the eye of the gossips while at the same time ridding herself of a "Rat".

Because of her portrayal, Emily reaps her “Rose” for her distinguished execution of deceit. She relinquishes her values for a falsified image; she gives in to temptation and hides her indiscretion from the town. She accomplishes her performance with the suppleness of a woman while maintaining her stature in the old southern tradition. Emily joins the status-quo while defrauding everyone into believing she will not succumb to a changed society.

gramashouse0ne.spaces.live.com

Add to Technorati Favorites

gramashouse0ne.spaces.live.comTechnorati Profile

An Unspoken Message of Fear by Trudy A. Martinez:  An Analysis of Carolyn Forche's Poem "The Colonel"

Articles presenting psychological conjectures and theory have appeared in the Los Angeles Times over the years implying that the American society may be at fault for the deterioration of certain segments of the population.  In addition, some publicity centered around the unnecessary beating of a black man by law enforcement officers appears to relate and substantiate the psychologist findings.  Since the highly publicized beating of the black man, a connecting bond of black law enforcement officers have come forward to complain an present possible testimony of their unjust treatment within the police department.  The black officers say symbolism such as that used by the "KKK" and white supremacy groups serve as important determinants, leaving them with an unspoken message of fear from retaliation.

A similar unspoken message of fear is symbolized in the Carolyn Forche' poem entitled "The Colonel".  The symbols that materialize in the poem play a consequential role in an unabridged understanding in what appears to be the poem's intended theme as the theme is looped in a chain like construction of symbols that combine a pattern of discrimination that leaves a mark upon the aggressor in the form of an unspoken message of fear.

The importance of the characterizations that reinforce the chain like theme may be seen through the continual linkage of token symbols that create a fearful atmosphere.  The apprehensive environment that envelops is formulated through the significance of the descriptive setting of the Colonel's home.  For instance, a gun lay on the cushion beside the Colonel while he watched a "cop show"; "broken bottles were embedded in the walls around the house"; and "the windows . . . [had] . . . gratings [on them] like those [used at] . . . liquor stores"  (props designed and carefully linked together to keep the contents and occupants safe from unwanted intruders).  Within the surroundings, similar symbolic considerations may be recognized that distinguish the nationality, status, and the unspoken fear of the Colonel and his family.

The factors that encourage recognition and assist in securing Forche's propose of accenting a family of elements are inserted by author's clarifying statement that the cop show "was in English" and are strengthen by the colonel's "wife [taking] everything away" following a "brief commercial in Spanish".   the ". . . gold bell [that adorned the table like a charm on a bracelet] was . . . for calling the maid".  The gold bell stresses status and suggest dominance.

Dominance is underscored and repeatedly portrayed through the discussion "of how difficult it had become to govern" and by the "colonel [telling his parrot] to shut up after the parrot merely sang a polite greeting of "hello".  The uncalled for ring of verbal abuse ushered in violence through the action of the colonel when he "pushed himself from the table'.  The colonel's abrupt forceful movements weigh and anchor a chain of unspoken fears that are suddenly supported by the speaker when the eyes of the speaker's friend said, "say nothing".

By saying nothing, the unspoken fear is united and coerced into emerging as a triumphant acknowledgement that glimmers among the colonel's collection of "dried . . . human ears'.  The sequence is broken when one ear is singled out from the others, confronted by the colonel's indignation, and agitated.  The ear, like a dangling charm glimmering in a bright light, comes to life as it drinks up the colonel's demoralizing statements.  The dishearten assertions sprang forth, like the knife that had striped the ears from their rightful place, through the savagery combination of their meaning, provoking the necessity of the continuance in a chain of unspoken messages of fear.

 -Trudy A. Martinez-Technorati tags: analysis, poems

Add to Technorati Favorites

gramashouse0ne.spaces.live.comTechnorati Profile Farewell to Arms: Hemingway's "Puzzling Passage",

An Analysis by Trudy Martinez

When most males enter military service, they are boys on a quest for manhood. The same holds true for Frederic Henry in A Farewell to Arms. John Beversluis, however, declares, "He is a man . . . at the outset of the novel"(19). Not all critics would agree that Frederic "is a man" or that he even wants to reach manhood. For instance, Judith Fetterley, a feminist, insists "Frederic Henry's true aim . . . is to . . . [evade] . . . growing up . . . "(47). She contends that Frederic is so set on "remaining forever a boy" that he strives toward "eliminating the agent that threatens to force adulthood upon [him]" (47). In her estimation, that "agent" is none other than Catherine, Frederick's beloved. The intent of this paper is to explore Frederic Henry's position in relation to others within the social order of the novel. In doing so, his status of man or boy will be established and his vindictive or childish character uncovered. Both Beversluis and Fetterly support a portion of the narrative, contributing a retrospective clue. Beversluis calls the narrative "the puzzling passage". The passage hints of Frederic's shortcoming, disclosing his inner most thoughts, and a lesson he must learn:

. . . We were still friends, with many tastes alike, but with the differences between us. [The priest] had always known what I did not know and what, when I learned it, I was always able to forget. But I did not know that then, although I learned it later (14).

John Beversluis asserts what Frederic, the man, learned was "that spending his leave in the city instead of at the Abruzzi was symptomatic of his whole way of life" because "he continually failed to do what he really wanted to do" (24). Fetterley alleges, on the other hand, what the priest "knows" that Frederic "doesn't know" is "that sex is a dangerous and wasteful commodity and the best world is one of men without women"(52). I contend Frederic is a child on a pilgrimage toward manhood. Along the way, he learns the main difference between himself and the priest is that the "certain knowledge" the priest has: the words of truth build lasting relationships. Frederic tried to explain how wanting to do something made it "almost all right" (13). Frederic wanted to tell the truth but he also wanted excitement, this is evident when he tells himself:

There was more to it than that. Yes, father. That is true, father. Perhaps, father. No, father. Well, maybe yes, father. You know more about it than I do, father. The priest was good but dull. The officers were not good but dull. The King was good but dull. The wine was bad but not dull. It took the enamel off your teeth and left it on the roof of your mouth (38 - 39).

The wine serves as a symbol, paralleling the lies Frederic tells Catherine. The wine is not considered dull. Even though the wine works like a fire in Frederic's mouth, burning away the enamel, he considers it invigorating and continues drinking. Frederic wants to be invigorated. His lies, burning like a wild fire, bring about a similar furor in his relationship with Catherine. However, their relationship lacks truth and Frederic is left defiled. When Frederic learned not to defile himself by lying, "he was always able to forget" and continues to lie when it suits his purpose or gains him the acceptance he needs and the excitement he wants. As a result, he is made to suffer and sacrifice his beloved even though he willingly puts away his childish way to become a man.

Beversluis supplies no evidence of Frederic, the man, failing to do "what he really wanted to do" other than his not going to Abruzzi. Then again, how could he? Frederic never "failed to do what he really wanted to do." He "tried to explain" and the priest "understood" what Frederic offered were mere excuses that were anticipative of what he felt the priest wanted to hear. He maneuvered most people like pieces on a chessboard. In other words, his strategy was similar to the strategy used in war. To Frederic, a friend was someone who accepted him unconditionally while surrendering to his stratagem. In most cases, he got angry like a spoiled child when he didn't succeed by reaping an unconditional surrender. For instance, Miss Barkley slapped him because he ignored her refusals; he admits, "I was angry and yet certain seeing it all ahead like the moves in a chess game" (26). His maneuvers were planned and calculated, while at the same time, predictive of his opponent's strategy. When Miss Barkley expresses concern she may have hurt him, he lies and says, "I don't mind at all." He uses his speculative power to gain her pity by apologizing. When she accepts his apology and replies, "You are sweet," he tells the truth: "No I'm not." As a result, of practicing the old adage: "When all else fails tell the truth," he advances, gains consent, and ultimately seizes his objective: He positions his "arm around her as [he] had before and kissed her." Once he considers he has won and gets to do what "he really wants to do," he regards her as his friend (26 -27).

As Friends, Frederic and Catherine share passion in the form of romantic love. Their passion for each other is what Fetterley suggest the priest "knows" to be "a dangerous and wasteful commodity." She ascertains "the best world is one of man without women" by way of the priest's "asexuality." The assumption here appears to be that because the priest refrains from sexual passion and remains asexual he is able to love and that the only way Frederic can attain such a love is to live in a world without women. Fetterley attempts to justify her assertion by stating, "The priest has access to a certain knowledge and stature that the men who remain sexual do not have and secretly admire." She assumes because the men in the mess constantly bait their priest "they are expressing' not only "their sense of his difference and their uneasiness in face of it (51-52)" but also Frederic's sense of the priest's difference.  Consequently, she transfers the men's sense of the priest's difference on to Frederic even though he was not guilty of baiting the priest.

Although Fetterley is correct when she says, "The priest alone is able to carry out the full implication . . . ," she errs when she implies this is justification to assume it is because of the priest's cultural "attitude toward sex" (52). Evidence in the text suggests the priest's "attitude toward sex" is not a determinant of the difference between the priest and Frederic. Thus, to view it as such would be perverse. For example when the priest visits Frederic in the hospital, the topic of their conversation centers on some of their differences: The priest loves God where Frederic fears God "in the night sometimes." In addition, they are opposites in personal experience: the priest knows the meaning of love even though he has not experienced passion; in contrast, Frederic knows passion but has not experienced love (72). The priest considered the nights Frederic spoke of as "passion and lust." He told Frederic, "When you love, you wish to do things for. You wish to sacrifice for. You wish to serve" (72).

In this respect, the priest not only “wished to serve” he did serve: as a model for Frederic. The priest’s acceptance of the kidding from the men in the mess made it less difficult for Frederic not to let the men prevail upon his beliefs. The priest’s main concern was to safeguard Frederic from deterioration because the men’s words were like poison to his soul. Consider the conversation that took place in the mess:

“ . . . The major said . . . “I am an atheist.”

“Did you ever read the ‘Black Pig’? Asked the lieutenant. “I will get you a copy. It was that which shook my faith.”

“It is a filthy and vile book,” said the priest. “You do not really like it.”

“It is very valuable,” said the lieutenant. “It tells you about those priests . . . “he said to [Frederic]. [Frederic] smiled at the priest and he smiled back . . . “Don’t you read it,” he said.

“I will get it for you,” said the lieutenant.

“All thinking men are atheists,” the major said . . . (7 - 8).

Not until the men begin divulging to Frederic where he should go on his leave, did the priest mention: “I would like you to see Abruzzi . . . “(8). Hence, the priest was more interested in segregating the boy from the men who were without faith and who were striving to convert him to atheism.

Two characters, the priest and Rinaldi, vie to show Frederic distinct paths in life. The priest may be seen as simulating a Christ figure who is constantly being tempted through the harassments of Rinaldi to stray from the path of righteousness. Whereas, Rinaldi, the main instigator of the priest’s harassment, mimics Satan by way of inviting the priest to go against his morals.

Rinaldi admits he is “the snake of reason” in a conversation with Frederic (170). He says, “. . . I can say this about your mother . . . that about your sister . . . All my life I encounter sacred subjects” (169 - 170). The allusion drawn here is that of the Garden of Eden. Instead of “the snake” tempting Eve (Catherine), “the snake” is tempting Adam (Frederic). Frederic is not too cooperative; he tells Rinaldi, “You are better when you don’t think so deeply,” causing Rinaldi to reflect: “You puncture me. . . But I know many things I can’t say” (170). Rinaldi is wounded by Frederic’s over protectiveness of his love for Catherine, his “sacred subject.” Rinaldi reveals that he cannot maintain a friendship with a married couple “if they love each other,” suggesting he is incapable of love (170).

Later when Rinaldi tempts the priest, he shows he is unable to maintain a friendship with anyone capable of love. In addition, he builds on the “many things [he] can’t say” by drawing attention to St. Paul:

“Drink some wine, priest,” Rinaldi said. “Take a little wine for your stomach’s sake. That’s Saint Paul, you know.”

“Yes I know,” said the priest politely. Rinaldi filled his glass.

“That Saint Paul,” said Rinaldi. “He’s the one who makes all the trouble.” The priest looked at [Frederic] and smiled. [Frederic] could see that the baiting did not touch him now.

“That Saint Paul,” said Rinaldi. “He was a rounder and a chaser and then when he was no longer hot, he said it was no good. When he was finished he made the rules for us who are still hot. Isn’t it true Federico?”

The major smiled. . .

“I never discuss a Saint after dark,” [Frederic] said. The priest looked up from [his dinner] and smiled at him (173).

Consequently, the treatment of the subject of wine communicates through Rinaldi that the books of Corinthians, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle, establish “the rules” for those who are “hot”. Frederic is “hot”. Bebersluis claims that “Our first acquaintance with him discloses that he is a man. . . “(19). However, I Corinthians 13: 11 maintains if you speak, understand, and think like a child, you are a child--to become a man you must put away childish things. Frederic thinks, understands, and speaks, and even reacts like a child.

As a child, Frederic thinks he must lie to be accepted. For example, Rinaldi said, “Miss Barkley prefers you to me. That is clear. But the little Scotch one is very nice.” When Frederic answers in the affirmative: “Very,” the narrative uncovers the actual truth by way of his confession: “I had not noticed her” (21).

Not only does Frederic not notice things around him he also doesn’t understand. He confesses, “I did not understand the word” after his friend tells him: “You have that pleasant air of a dog in heat.” Then when Rinaldi calls him a “little puppy,” he reacts like a child: “I knocked over his candle with the pillow and got into bed in the dark” (27).

And then again, Frederic speaks like a child when Rinaldi teases him about Catherine. He tells Rinaldi to “Please shut up, if you want to be my friend” (169). In other words, he considers his friendship conditional: If he doesn’t get his way, he finds it necessary to resort to emotional blackmail. Rinaldi, however, doesn’t accept these childish maneuvers. This can be seen by his unconditional response: “I don’t want to be your friend . . . I am your friend” (169). Through Frederic’s behavior, his status of a child is confirmed. The character of Rinaldi clearly provides a contrastive view of the variation between the behavior a man and a boy.

But whether Rinaldi, the man, serves as the best mentor for Frederic, the boy is another matter. By his own admission, Rinaldi alludes to an impossibility of becoming better: “We are born with all we have and we never learn . . . “(171). Berversluis would agree “we need to be clear about the sort of person [Frederic] is . . . “(19). To determine what short of a person Frederic is may be accomplished through I Corinthians 03:13: Every man’s work shall be made manifest: the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work for what it is. The day that declares Frederic’s work is Catherine’s day of delivery and death. On that day, Frederic reminisces about the ants on the log:

I remember thinking . . . It was the end of the world and a splendid chance to be a messiah and lift the log off the fire and throw it out where the ants could get off onto the ground. But I did not do anything but throw a tin cup of water on the log, so that I would have the cup empty to put whiskey in before I added water to it. I think the cup of water on the burning log only steamed the ants (328).

Consequently, through Frederic’s thought, action, and lack of action in this scenario, it becomes clear that Frederic was selfish and interested only in himself; he envisioned himself as god in his thoughts.

The major had said, “All thinking men are atheists” (8). Frederic was always thinking although he was not yet a man. He had thought “the night was better.” After all, there was this “. . . strange excitement of . . . not knowing . . . not caring” (13). Through out the novel, he was constantly thinking, that is, until he was faced with the possibility of Catherine dying. Then he suddenly changed:

. . . I did not think. I could not think. I knew she was going to die and I prayed that she would not. Don’t let her die. Oh, God, please don’t let her die. I’ll do anything for you if you won’t let her die. Please, please . . . Please God . . . I’ll do anything you say if you don’t let her die. You took the baby . . . That was all right. . . Please, please, please, dear God, don’t let her die (330).

Frederic had stopped thinking. But what good was his prayer? The prayer was conditional, calculating, selfish, and self-serving.

Frederic had been just as self-serving when his anger was washed away in the river along with any obligation to the war. Then he said, “I was not made to think. I was made to eat, drink, and sleep with Catherine” (232-233). Here it appears Hemingway drew the words of Frederic from the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes 2: 24: There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labor. This also . . . Is from the hand of God. Paul Smith points out in “Almost All is Vanity: A Note on Nine Rejected Titles for a Farewell To Arms” that the first few words of this verse, Nothing Better For a Man, was considered by Hemingway as a title before choosing A Farewell to Arms (74-75). Ironically in Old Testament beliefs as well as in Frederic’s belief, God was to be feared. The fear of God arose because man placed obligations to himself over that of God. Frederic had done the same when he said to God. I will do this only “if” you will do what I want. Did he envision emotional blackmail working on God?

In the prayer, he told God it was all right that the baby died. But he had not sacrificed because of the baby’s death. The baby’s death did not matter to him. He was self-serving, living in a dream world and wishing his life away. His thoughts communicate he is a babe himself. This is reflected when he says, “. . . I wished the hell I’d been choked like that.” Then he counters his lie with the truth: “No I didn’t” (327). The admission disclosed somewhere in his background there is a Christian foundation that reinforces his fear of God. By virtue of his confession, there lies a sense of “hope” for him. “But he did not know what the priest knew then” that lies were “deadly poison” that desecrate all efforts toward real love and happiness “although he learned it later” when he was faced with losing his beloved.

When he left the restaurant it return to his beloved at the hospital, there was an allusion to baptism as he “walked through the rain” (329). Baptism didn’t change Frederic instantly; there was a learning process: A war was going on within him. In the war itself, Frederic said, “Well, I knew I would not be killed. Not in this war . . . “He reasoned:”. . . It did not have anything to do with me” (37). However, the other wars going on within himself and in his romantic love relationship with Catherine did have something to do with him. Fetterley recognized “love and war appear together” as twin themes “because romantic love is a form of war” (49). Here she is right. When Frederic interjects his thought: “maybe she would pretend that I was her boy . . . (37),” his childish war-like strategy emerges.

However, Frederic is not the only one that resorts to war-like strategic maneuvers. Catherine does too. She plays the game well, knowing he will conform to her rules if he wants to play house with her:

“And you love me?”

“Yes”

“You did say you loved me, didn’t you?”

“Yes,” I lied. “I love you.” I had not said it before . . . (30).

“Say, I’ve come back to Catherine in the night.’”

“I’ve come back to Catherine in the night.”

“Oh, darling, you have come back haven’t you?”

“Yes.”

“I love you so and it’s been awful. You won’t go away?”

“No. I’ll always come back.”

“Oh, I love you so . . . . “

. . . I turned her so I could see her face when I kissed her and I saw her eyes were shut. I kissed both her shut eyes. I thought she was probably a little crazy. It was all right if she was . . . I knew I did not love Catherine Barkley nor had any idea of loving her. This was a game, like bridge . . . You had to pretend you were playing . . . for some stakes (30-31).

Both acted like children bent on getting their way. Frederic didn’t want to go “to the house for officers where the girls climbed all over you . . . “and Catherine didn’t want to be lonely. She wanted to pretend Frederic was her lost love. She acknowledged awareness of the circumstances when she remarked, “This is a rotten game we play . . . .” And then she says, “I had a very fine little show . . .” and when Frederic presses “her hand” and says, “Dear Catherine,” she replies: “It sounds very funny now--Catherine. You don’t pronounce it very much alike (31),” it becomes apparent she manipulated Frederic into playing the part she wanted him to.

Much later, she tries to redeem herself through Frederic for where she felt she failed in her relationship with her dead lost love. She had previously told Frederic:

“I wanted to do something for him. You see I didn’t care about the other thing and he could have it all. He could have had anything he wanted if I would had known. I would have married him or anything. I know it now. But then he wanted to go to war and I didn’t know . . . I didn’t know about anything then. I thought it would be worse for him. I thought he couldn’t stand it and then of course he was killed and that was the end of it” (19).

In her relationship with Frederic, she wants things to be different. She also fears being sent away from the hospital where Frederic is a resident. She said, “They’ve too many nurses here now. There must be some more patients or they’ll send us away . . . I hope some will come” (103). Catherine wants only to please Frederic. Therefore, she questions him on what he wants and how he reacts when he is with other girls. She wants to be foremost in his mind. This becomes evident in their conversation when Catherine asks:

“She says just what he wants her to?”

“Not always.”

“But I will. I’ll say just what you wish and I’ll do what you wish and then you will never want any other girls, will you?” She looked at me very happily. “I’ll do what you want and say what you want and I’ll be a great success, won’t I?”

“Yes.”

Because of the pain she felt when she lost her love; she relinquished her individuality to Frederic to please him. But Frederic was also at fault because he allowed her to. Consequently, she became his “sacred subject” and he became her religion. (115).

It is not until Frederic returns to Catherine’s room to tell her good-bye after she dies that he realizes the magnitude of his error. Frederic had said, “God knows I had not wanted to fall in love with her” (93). But he did fall in love with her. Unfortunately, “Nobody had mentioned what the stakes were (31)” in the little war game of romantic love. When Frederic made himself glance back into the darkness after he “. . . turned off the light . . . [he saw] . . . It wasn’t any good . . . It was like saying good-bye to a statue” (332). He had worshiped Catherine like an idol. He had molded her into his own image as if she were a lump of clay. Therefore, he received his just reward for his labor.

His just reward was not the death of the baby that leaves Fetterley with “the nagging suspicion that Frederic Henry sees himself in the dead fetus which emerges from Catherine’s womb . . . “(52). Frederic had no feeling for [the baby] . . . [The baby like the war] did not seem to have anything to do with . . . [him]. . . He felt no feeling of fatherhood” (325). Therefore, how could he see himself in the dead fetus? The image of strangulation produced by the cord around the baby’s neck merely serves as an indicator that the romantic love relationship between Frederic and Catherine has no hope of living. Catherine’s death is not “. . . the fulfillment of his own unconscious wish, his need to kill her lest she kill him (52)” as Fetterley claims. He didn’t want Catherine to die; he begged God to let her live. Her death was Frederic’s just reward for his labor of molding her like clay into his own image. Frederic didn’t need to kill Catherine; he needed to kill his selfishness. Catherine was no longer Catherine. She had said to Frederic, “There isn’t any me. I’m you” (115). Hemingway’s portrayal of Frederic produced a mythological allusion of Pygmalion, molding the clay. Catherine was the clay; she turned “very gray” (326). Emotional Blackmail was the tool that reshaped her individuality. Their romantic love reflects what Frederic perceived love to be, selfish and self-serving. As a result, they both lost their identity: Frederic became a god; Catherine (the statue) became Frederic’s creation. Frederic was obsessed with his creation (a refection of himself, Narcissus). Catherine was just as much at fault as Frederic. She made the choice. She responded to him perfectly (just like Echo). But as she did, she lost her own identity. Their relationship was doomed--because in the end it was only one sided: Catherine no longer existed. She was dead long before she died.

Before Catherine died Frederic became a man because he put away childish things. His adulthood was not forced upon him by Catherine as Fetterley alleged. Instead, his decision was his own. Their last meaningful conversation is very enlightening:

“Do you want me to do anything, Cat?” Can I get you anything.” Catherine smiled, “No,” Then a little later, “You won’t do our things with another girl, or say the same things, will you?”

“Never.”

“I want you to have girls, though.”

“I don’t want them.”

Frederic didn’t lie when he answered her question with “Never;” he had no need to confess anymore. He was suddenly considerate of her needs because he learned what he “was always able to forget” that lies set on fire the course of nature. Rinaldi had said, “That Saint Paul . . . he made the rules for us . . . “(173). The books of Corinthians, The epistles of Paul the Apostle, establish “the rules” Rinaldi spoke of, something Rinaldi could not say. I Corinthians 7: 3-4 serve as an instruction for those wanting a lasting and loving relationship: Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. In other words, a lasting, loving relationship requires that both individuals retain their individuality. Now that Frederic was no longer hot. It was his obligation to follow “the rules: Consequently he discovers the kind of love the priest had spoke of: that “when you love you wish to do things for” your beloved. “You wish to sacrifice for” your beloved. “You wish to serve” your beloved (72). Gajdusek describes the results of the process “as an internal imperative” that harmonizes with “external actions and” necessitates “the virtue of selfless gestures” (26).

Unfortunately in their relationship, Catherine was not granted due benevolence or the benefit of selfless gestures until it was too late. In the end, the precept, “the rules,” eliminated the mythology of romantic love; the simile, “like a statue,” replaced the metaphoric allusion of the myth; and when Frederic left the hospital, “the rain” extinguished the fire that Frederic had set on the course of nature with his lies.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Technorati Profile

An Analysis of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle,

By Trudy A. Martinez Technorati Profile Birth of The Impersonal Forces: An Interpretation of History, An Analysis of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle.

In the year 1865, a drastic, calculated, change took place in America. The pre-destined change was domed to affect nearly every aspect of individuality for generations to come. It was learned from the past, ready to control the future and the destiny of millions. A special secret (their symbol) the Red, White, and Blue, which was guarded since the birth of their religion, had the purpose of joining the common man together, thus strengthening its falsified image, allowing them to go forward toward progressism. The force with such OVER-WHELMING strength would condition the minds of the common people to accept and withstand the cry of agony, hunger, death, while tilting the scales of justice in favor of social injustice. This was the Main Impersonal Force which would cause to replace or alter the common man’s value system so as to conform to its purpose of a new religion. It would create a New Article of Faith, undermined by Radicalism, fueled by greed, and chosen as an alternative to prevent revolution of the masses. It was a double standard, one for the individuals, and one for progressism; one for the rich and one for the poor. From the origin of the Main Impersonal Force would come the birth of a Myth (The American Dream) to strengthen the Red, the White, and the Blue, and give a continuing influx of internal Hope for a better tomorrow. Using revolution as an example and allowing progress through industrialization, it would produce or introduce a family of new Hope, allowing subordination-ism, of the Impersonal Forces, dependent and reliant on the existence of the Main Impersonal Force, to guide both the rich and the poor to their destiny.

For the rich it would introduce: Capitalism, and Conservatism, earned through the mastery of Behaviorism, justified through the practice of Darwinism, gained through application of Economic Expansionism, insured through Journalism, and ultimately reaffirmed through Freudanism. For the rich it would produce: Humanism as restitution for quilt, Sexism as symbol of superiority over maternal-ism.

For the poor it would introduce: Patriotism gained through citizenship,(membership) and reinforced by the Main Impersonal Force; to replace the uniqueness of man, gained through a falsified freedom and restricting common man’s free will and choice which was falsely guaranteed through their bible, the constitution; Optimism established by desire and reassured by achievements, and ultimately Consumerism (propaganda) as a reward for progressism and Materialism as a symbol of acceptance of the religion; it would produce Populism as a voice of hope for the common man’s despair, Narcissism as an explanation to common man’s dilemma, Socialism as an alternative to struggle, Marxism as an artificial retaliation to Capitalism, Alcoholism as an escape from reality; Sexism as a means of gain through despair for submission. The Main Impersonal Force produces a force with no end, infinite. It began with Nationalism but will come to be known as Natal-ism their heritage and future (from the cradle to grave). It will lead the poor through hope and achievements to their ultimate destiny, Capitalism (the temple of the rich). It will lead the rich through expansionism into Imperialism, to convert the world to their religion through propaganda of consumerism. Our destiny has been pre-ordained, that is if we try, if we struggle, if we work hard, but only, if we conform.

In Western Europe, Industrialization was a revolution, created by the rich, the chosen, the rising upper-middle class, the bourgeoisie; it was unplanned, uncalculated. The American Industrialization, on the other hand, differed from the European counterparts, in that, the creators of this Industrialization learned from the mistakes of both the English and the French counterparts. The French Revolution was the out-come of the first attempts of this new religion to conform and convert the masses. The reign of terror that resulted was the consumption of its own creation. The resulting corruption was still fresh in minds of greedy, social elite and the entrepreneurs in the western world. To prevent the slightest threat of repetition of the French example, the American industrialization had to be calculated, predetermined, and thought-out and most of all Controlled. Before the era of Industrialization could be entered, the slaves had to be freed, given hope and token justice. Education for the masses had to be forced, thus, allowing for conditioning of The American Dream through the mandatory school systems and Behaviorism. When Industrialization hit America, the common people had been prepared; they had hope for a better tomorrow; they were willing to work hard to get ahead, to build a better future, if not for themselves, their children.

A laissez-faire Conservatism predominated. Economic Expansion of railroads made it possible. Factories and industries sprung up almost overnight; people moved to the cities. Journalism capitalized with propaganda. Immigrants swarmed into America, seeking The American Dream giving the factories a steady over-abundant supply of fresh cheap-labor, paving the way for what was to still to come. The cities became The Jungle where the name of the game was survival, survival of the fittest, Social Darwinism.

The Impersonal Forces were guided by the rich, the social elite, as they sat back in their easy-chairs, read The Wall Street Journal and made decisions on investment risks, i.e., which common man protecting his materialism with a corporate image appeared most profitable and would gather more souls to be converted.

Buying and selling stock in his religion was his trade now, not slaves, but converters. Giving the magic ingredient, hope to the middle-class was their glory towards converting the common man. The ruthlessness employed in the struggle upward by the rising upper-middle class insured a quick return on their investments.

With Carnegie’s contribution of The Gospel of Wealth, and Spencer’s contribution of the social economic application of Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution, Social Darwinism, what more could the chosen ask. The off-spring of Calvinism, a step child of the Catholic Church, the chosen ones, the rich, the social elite, need only to keep control. With an influx of the magic ingredient (Hope), the Impersonal Forces, would divert, divide, conquer, and convert the struggling common man; he would deny his own values to survive the Hell of his existence. Proficiency in psychology was the key to manipulation (a natural inherent quality in woman, maternal-ism); the hidden secrets in history are the clue to the existence and goals of Paternalism.

The founders effectively changed the values of man from Oneness using capitalistic theology as basic knowledge and replacing it with Sameness, A concept of Partnership, in marriage, in work, in all endeavors giving man, Materialism, Narcissism, Alcoholism, Sexism, Darwinism, justifying the Paternalism“ of the Gospel of Wealth, the form of slavery that is so nice to society and murderous to the common man in The Jungle in the process. The Psychological knowledge of Behaviorism has helped the founders of Capitalism to shape Nationalism as their Idol through worship of a false religion. The fruit of the labor and the blood, sweat, and tears and suffering of the common man allowed the capitalistic society to flourish. The Jewish German, Sigmund (Sex) Freud, based his concept of psychology on Capitalism, called Freudanism; it so conveniently complimented Capitalism that it would become a temporary substitute for the Love of Man, parol evidence, to the Love of God Technorati tags: analysis, books

.

gramashouse0ne.spaces.live.com

Technorati Profile Outcast of Progress by Trudy A. Martinez:  An Analysis of Joseph Conrad's "The Outpost of Progress"

  A civilized society's failure can be seen in Joseph Conrad's short story, "An Outpost to Progress". The story serves as a window to gaze out upon the progressive deterioration of two men; while at the same time glaring back as a reflection upon the society that produces them. The two white men, Kayerts and Carlier, had not been prepared with an assortment of faculties required to achieve the goals of their employer and society. Nor did the "...men realize [as Conrad said] that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, [were] only the expression of their belief . . . in the safety of their surroundings [their society]. The courage, the composure, the confidence, the emotions, and principles every insignificant thought [belongs] not to [them as] individual[s] but to the crowd [their society]". (210)

     In other words, Kayerts and Carlier's faculties are fixed and deficient because limitations were placed upon them by their society.  Under these circumstances, the men are unable to cope with the diversities of the wilderness; hence, they become the outcasts of progress, destined for failure; and accordingly, the society that produced them unknowingly issues their death sentence. Thereby, it may be said, they are left to the mercy of their new surroundings, unprepared for the new freedoms suddenly placed upon them. 

            What is convincingly striking about the new freedoms that were suddenly placed upon Kayerts and Carlier is the new freedoms give them both an immense amount of leisure time, time they spend in an imaginary world discussing the "plots and parsonages" of some "wrecks of novels" their predecessor had left.  The characters in these novels become their friends; and thereby, the topic of their conversations (as scandalmonger's) and their vacuous judgments and suspicions. In the story, Conrad conveys all these things about the two men, and he adds that the men are "filled with indignation" from the "[discounting of] virtues, [suspecting of] motives, [descrying of] successes...or the [doubting of] courage (212-213). Carlier considers the virtues of the people in the books they read as utter "nonsense"; whereas, Kayerts said, "...I had no idea there were such clever fellows in the world"(Conrad 213) They also discover an old "home paper [that] spoke of. . . the rights and duties of civilization, of the sacredness of the civilizing work,...the merits of those who went about bringing light, and faith, and commerce to the dark places of the earth" (Conrad 213). The paper speaks of well-educated, independent men of status who seek gain through "Colonial Expansion", imperialism.  In contrast, Kayerts and Carlier are not of this caliber; they are not imperialistic nor are they working towards increasing colonial expansion. Their director even considers them "useless men", left in the wilderness to care for a "useless station" (Conrad 210).

             Nevertheless, the men take pride in the writing they find in the "home paper" and begin to gain a sense of self-worth.  The extension of the awareness of a self worth benefit can be seen in Carlier's resulting action. "[He] went out and replanted [a] cross" that stands above the grave of their predecessor (Conrad 213). But this endeavor is the only positive action taken. Conrad makes it apparent from the first day of their arrival that the men have no immediate object of thought in the simple apprehension of their own reality.

            Evidence to the fact there is an absence of a sense of reality is presented through the importance the men place upon the beautifying of their new home with pretty window dressings, an attempt they make to make themselves comfortable in their new surroundings.  Conrad says, this is an "impossible task" because "they could only live on the condition of machines, incapable of independent thought"(211).  In other words, they require repetitious work under supervision with conditions that leave them unable to choose alternatives.

            As a subsequent result of their inability to choose alternatives, the men lack initiative.  This lack of initiative is confirmed by their statement that they came to the Outpost only because of others in their life, not entirely of their own free will. Carlier gives credit to his brother-in-law for his presence. Whereas, Kayerts said, "If it weren't for my [daughter], you wouldn't catch me here"(Conrad 211).

            Perhaps then, the men make no progress because they are prisoners with no conception or knowledge of alternative options; and as a result, they are forced to remain within the confines and rules of the society. These facts are the major contributor to the reason why Kayerts and Carlier are unable to adapt or cope with their new environment, and the resulting reason why they lack initiative.

            Consequently, the two men find it necessary to rely heavily upon another man, Makola, "a Sierra Leone nigger". This man "worshiped evil spirits" and "despised the two white men" who are "left unassisted to face the wilderness"(Conrad 209-210) Because of the heavy reliance the two men place on the "Sierra Leone nigger", an illumination of a conflicting perspective is cast on the story through Makola's minor role.  He does not share the White man's contemplation that the world will improve merely by the white man's presence.

            Instead, Makola works hard proving the white men unworthy and ridding the wilderness of them. Indirectly through a trading maneuver, Makola works toward doing away with their presence.  The trading plan, the slave trading of ten men (men that Makola also considers worthless because they are lazy like the white men and do nothing to improve the station) is his method of accomplishing his goal. When a few natives of a neighboring village get caught up in the slave trade, the neighboring village chief bans trade with the trading post. The two white men are "... [to be] left alone with their weakness" so they can "...disappear into the earth" like their predecessor (Conrad 219-220).

            To be sure of their demise, Makola has only to gain the white man's acceptance of the evil deceitful trade he makes. So, he places his dependence on vice and greed in his efforts to sway the white man's deteriorating values away from the virtues of civilization. Once the two men accept vice as a method of gain over virtue, they begin to have an "inarticulate feeling something within them is gone, something that worked for their safety"(Conrad 219).  Then, they become fearful and distraught, totally dependent upon their own deficient faculties in a struggle for survival (The men effectively strip themselves of the values they previously clung to). Finally, Kayerts and Carlier become distrusting of each other, quarreling over any minuet trivial. In essence, they become savages.  Failure after failure besets them.

            All in all, because "society...had [forbade the two white men]...all independent thought, all initiative, all departure from routine; and [had forbade these virtues]...under pain of death"(Conrad 211), society did an injustice to the men. Since the same virtues, the same freedoms forbidden within society are needed for survival in the wilderness; society does not fulfill an ultimate duty bestowed upon it.  The freedoms are the necessary ingredient closely entwined with the individual faculty of the men that enables men to grow, to change, to adapt, and to blend in the wild. To put it differently, the necessary faculties, had they been present, may have provided the confidence and courage the men needed to succeed and to survive. But because the two white men are lacking these elements, in addition to the capability of independent thought, they become the outcasts of progress and a reflection that glares back upon the society that produces them.

            Thus when the meaningless death of Carlier emphasizes the extent of the deterioration of the two men's values Conrad says, "...life had no more secrets. . . So justice [has to] be done"(222-223); and Kayerts, in his last act, takes an initiative to see justice reign supreme.  He straps himself to the cross, the same cross Carlier replants in his brief display of self-worth. And then, Kayerts crucifies himself in defiance of his employer and of his society. The director, who thought of both men as useless, is now faced with his own indignation through the display of a method of justice.  Kayerts is "standing rigidly at attention...with... [his]...tongue" stuck out seemingly addressing "his Managing Director" (Conrad 224). "Progress [was] calling to [him] from the river. Progress and civilization and all the virtues. Society [was] calling to its accomplished child...to be judged...it [was] calling [Kayerts] to return [but he was not willing to return] to the "rubbish heap" of the society that inadvertently brought him to his ruin. (Conrad 223).

Bibliography:

 Conrad, Joseph. "An Outpost of Progress". The Bedford Introduction to Literature.   Ed. Michael Meyer. Second Edition. New York: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1990. 208-224.gramashouse0ne.spaces.live.com