"Ivan Ilych's life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible." There is a judgement being made on simple and ordinary. So what is considered simple and ordinary? In order to understand Ivan Ilych we need to examine the times in which he lived; What was socially acceptable? What was expected of him? How did he live his life?
Ivan Ilych was the pride of the family. He was intelligent, lively, pleasant and capable. He adopted values that people in high society deemed necessary. As a young man Ivan gave into vice but once he discovered this was the status-quo among highly placed people, he never reconsidered the morality of the acts. By all accounts he was a pleasant person. As were the customs of high society he would frequent the bordellos, play card games, and engage in relations with his superior's wife. A phrase that reoccurs is comme il faut or as it should be, suggesting that this behavior was expected of him. It was a rite of passage which he accepted without questioning the ethics of his conduct. In his professional life he never got emotionally involved and anything not pertaining to his service was omitted. He failed to make a connection with anyone and reveled in the fact he had the power to grant freedom or condemn those who came before him. Ivan Ilych's sole concern was to advance and he took pleasure in moving in the best circles of magistrates and the rich nobility. He wore elegant attire, dined with the right people, married the right girl, and did everything that was socially expected of him. He did not marry his wife because he loved her but out of necessity to climb the social ladder. It was a business proposition. Having a wife and children were essential to those who aspire to high positions. When Ivan's married life began to interfere with the pleasantness he tried so hard to create he spent more time at work.
It is a hollow existence. Ivan Ilych lacked a moral constitution and was obsessed with appearances. He avoided anything that would disrupt his world. He never really loved anyone or made a significant impact and thus Tolstoy would conclude he lived a terrible life. It's really an indictment on society and its values. All the good qualities he lost on his way to the top finally took their toll. He gained status but at what price? Was it worth his soul? He does redeem himself a little at the end when he endures the pain for his son and takes pity on his wife but it seems too little too late.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Post-Pardum Blues
The first-person point of view in "The Yellow Wallpaper" allows the reader to see the wife's steady decline into insanity and how it was brought about. It also let the reader sympathize with the wife. The story predates the suffrage movement, and therefore gives us a glimpse into how women were treated and the challenges they had to overcome during those times.
We learn from the main character that she has a vivid imagination. She likes to think the house is haunted and compares the gardens to those "English places you read about...". She is intelligent, has a sense of humor, and is a bit neurotic. We find out she has just given birth and she has a "condition" which is the reason they are occupying the estate.
You can see the steady descend into insanity as the narrator is held hostage in the room with the yellow wallpaper. At first she hates it, then she begins to relate to it. Without any interaction from the outside world she begins to make her own. Her husband warns her not to give in to her inclinations but it is all she has. The rest cure is suppose to eliminate all distractions and restrict any form of activity which is ironic because it is the reason she goes mad. You start seeing the descend when she describes the wallpaper as something evil and hideous. With each entry she loses touch with reality, becomes more anti-social, and begins to exhibit bizarre behavior. At the end of the third entry you realize how advanced her psychosis has become when she tries to determine whether the front or the back patterns are moving together or separately.
The story takes on a new meaning when she begins to see a woman in the wallpaper. She draws parallels from her life to the woman trapped in the paper and begins to understand her own situation. The woman in the paper is her alter-ego. At this point she has totally lost touch with reality and ultimately goes insane. Seeing her progression into madness is disturbing but you understand how it came about. Society at the time severely restricted women, her husband treated her like a child patient, her every suggestion is disregarded and she is held captive in an asylum. I would probably go insane too.
We learn from the main character that she has a vivid imagination. She likes to think the house is haunted and compares the gardens to those "English places you read about...". She is intelligent, has a sense of humor, and is a bit neurotic. We find out she has just given birth and she has a "condition" which is the reason they are occupying the estate.
You can see the steady descend into insanity as the narrator is held hostage in the room with the yellow wallpaper. At first she hates it, then she begins to relate to it. Without any interaction from the outside world she begins to make her own. Her husband warns her not to give in to her inclinations but it is all she has. The rest cure is suppose to eliminate all distractions and restrict any form of activity which is ironic because it is the reason she goes mad. You start seeing the descend when she describes the wallpaper as something evil and hideous. With each entry she loses touch with reality, becomes more anti-social, and begins to exhibit bizarre behavior. At the end of the third entry you realize how advanced her psychosis has become when she tries to determine whether the front or the back patterns are moving together or separately.
The story takes on a new meaning when she begins to see a woman in the wallpaper. She draws parallels from her life to the woman trapped in the paper and begins to understand her own situation. The woman in the paper is her alter-ego. At this point she has totally lost touch with reality and ultimately goes insane. Seeing her progression into madness is disturbing but you understand how it came about. Society at the time severely restricted women, her husband treated her like a child patient, her every suggestion is disregarded and she is held captive in an asylum. I would probably go insane too.
Timeline for "A Rose for Emily"
Time is used as literary device in "A Rose for Emily" to help us understand Emily and the period in which she lived. Time does not move in a linear progression but rather appears as a patchwork of moments throughout Emily's life. Through this approach we gain insight into Emily's neurosis and feelings of abandonment.
The story begins at Emily's funeral feeding the readers' curiosity about this dead woman. Who was she and what happened to her? The story is presumably told through the townspeople and begins with recollections of when they tried to reinstate the taxes that Colonel Sartoris rescinded twenty years prior. Miss Emily refuses to give any legitimacy to the matter and demands they see the Colonel or look up the town records to resolve the matter. The initial impression we get of Emily is one of a stubborn woman who lives in her own world, perhaps one out of touch with reality.
Next the narrator goes further back to when Emily "vanquishes" the townspeople about the smell that is emitting from her house. We begin to sense something sinister about Miss Emily that maybe everything isn't so harmless and she is in fact delusional or worse. Her reality is the only one she is willing to accept.
The story jumps back again to when Emily's father dies. We find he was a domineering man who drove away all possible suitors for Emily, not because no one was good enough for her but out of fear of being left. He exhibited total control over her and refused anyone from taking her away from him. When he died, Emily denied he had passed and kept him for three days, perhaps, in her own way, exerting her control over him.
From here the story moves in linear sequence and we learn about Emily trying to relive her past when she was of prime age for suitors and her encounter with Homer Baron. You are aware of her stubborn tendencies when the federal postal service begins posting numbers on houses. Emily refuses to let them number her house because that is too modern. She is entrenched in her old ways and nothing will change her. The use of time in the story gains relevance when we hear about Homer and what happened to him. The three pieces in the beginning were a preface for the real story of their "courtship" and the murder. From the start we know Emily is stubborn and lives in her own reality. She has issues of abandonment from her father which probably was the motive behind the murder. The past is ever-present which is why, I believe, it was told simultaneously. The past affects the present.
The story begins at Emily's funeral feeding the readers' curiosity about this dead woman. Who was she and what happened to her? The story is presumably told through the townspeople and begins with recollections of when they tried to reinstate the taxes that Colonel Sartoris rescinded twenty years prior. Miss Emily refuses to give any legitimacy to the matter and demands they see the Colonel or look up the town records to resolve the matter. The initial impression we get of Emily is one of a stubborn woman who lives in her own world, perhaps one out of touch with reality.
Next the narrator goes further back to when Emily "vanquishes" the townspeople about the smell that is emitting from her house. We begin to sense something sinister about Miss Emily that maybe everything isn't so harmless and she is in fact delusional or worse. Her reality is the only one she is willing to accept.
The story jumps back again to when Emily's father dies. We find he was a domineering man who drove away all possible suitors for Emily, not because no one was good enough for her but out of fear of being left. He exhibited total control over her and refused anyone from taking her away from him. When he died, Emily denied he had passed and kept him for three days, perhaps, in her own way, exerting her control over him.
From here the story moves in linear sequence and we learn about Emily trying to relive her past when she was of prime age for suitors and her encounter with Homer Baron. You are aware of her stubborn tendencies when the federal postal service begins posting numbers on houses. Emily refuses to let them number her house because that is too modern. She is entrenched in her old ways and nothing will change her. The use of time in the story gains relevance when we hear about Homer and what happened to him. The three pieces in the beginning were a preface for the real story of their "courtship" and the murder. From the start we know Emily is stubborn and lives in her own reality. She has issues of abandonment from her father which probably was the motive behind the murder. The past is ever-present which is why, I believe, it was told simultaneously. The past affects the present.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Critical Thinking in Main Stream Media
It's alarming, to say the least, what people can get away with saying without being challenged, especially when it comes to pertinent issues. The public relies on the media, to a certain extent, to present factual evidence in order to make informed decisions.
What was most surprising to me was the lack of cross-examination whenever one of the politicians made a claim. What was needed was a judge not a mediator. No one pressed the issue or asked tough questions when it was most needed. It is hard to pick out one instance in the clip because it happened throughout the entire segment. You couldn't get away with that in a court of law so why is it acceptable that politicians be given a pass when it comes to discussing health care, gun control, and other government policies. If anything these are the issues we need the most debate on.
The lack of follow-through renders the news corporation useless because it goes against the service it is suppose to provide, which is to educate. I pulled nothing of value from the clips except what a hollow network CNN really is. In the end though it is the fault of the viewers. If the public advocated for a more formal debate and a less argumentative forum we would have some intelligent dialogue. Most people would rather watch people yelling at each other than get informed, which is why shows like the O'Reilly factor dominate the ratings.
What was most surprising to me was the lack of cross-examination whenever one of the politicians made a claim. What was needed was a judge not a mediator. No one pressed the issue or asked tough questions when it was most needed. It is hard to pick out one instance in the clip because it happened throughout the entire segment. You couldn't get away with that in a court of law so why is it acceptable that politicians be given a pass when it comes to discussing health care, gun control, and other government policies. If anything these are the issues we need the most debate on.
The lack of follow-through renders the news corporation useless because it goes against the service it is suppose to provide, which is to educate. I pulled nothing of value from the clips except what a hollow network CNN really is. In the end though it is the fault of the viewers. If the public advocated for a more formal debate and a less argumentative forum we would have some intelligent dialogue. Most people would rather watch people yelling at each other than get informed, which is why shows like the O'Reilly factor dominate the ratings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)