An Unholy Mess

“Even now my blood boils at the recollection of this injustice. But it is true that I am a wretch. I have murdered the lovely and the helpless; I have strangled the innocent as they slept and grasped to death his throat who never injured me or any other living thing…You hate me, but your abhorrence cannot equal that with which I regard myself.”

-p 210

While mulling over the denouement of Shelley’s Frankenstein, I was finding it incredibly difficult to place sympathy with either Victor or his creation. Both are flawed in nature and morality; neither one is truly heroic. Victor is primarily driven by his senses of ambition and pride. He selfishly risks all those dear to him in favor of accomplishing his goals first. In the end, it is this obsession with ambition and pride which leads to the demises of his loved ones and, ultimately, of himself. The monster, on the other hand, seems to be benevolent at first. However, he becomes hardened by rejection and self-loathing. While this would initially evoke sympathy, his murderous acts of revenge turn off any possible sympathy that could have been devoted to him. In the end, the audience can only look on, shaking their heads as both beings blindly succumb to their tragic flaws in a vicious cycle of destruction that only ends in their mutual demises.

Loss of Goodness

“She was there, lifeless and inanimate, thrown across the bed, her head hanging down and her pale and distorted features half covered by her hair.”

-p 186

And with Elizabeth’s death ultimately comes the death of benevolence. One of my group’s themes is that of benevolence. Victor and his creation both have encountered several people who displayed benevolence toward them. In the end, however, these people’s benevolence always disappeared. In the monster’s experience, the family’s benevolence dissipated with the monster’s revealing of himself. In Victor’s case, however, benevolence disappears from his life. In each case, as benevolence disappears from their life, the monster and Victor choose to decrease their own benevolence. It seems that Victor’s and the monster’s benevolent feelings only originated from others’ benevolence. This differs from Henry, Elizabeth, and Victor’s father, whose benevolence came from their own kindness. Victor and the monster only mirrored benevolence, yet their internal intentions are not rooted in good.

A Moralistic Sense (Foil)

“[Clerval] came. Alas, how great was the contrast between us! He was alive to every new scene, joyful when he saw the beauties of the setting sun, and more happy when he beheld it rise and recommence a new day…In truth, I was occupied by gloomy thoughts and neither saw the descent of the evening star nor the golden sunrise reflected in the Rhine.”

-p 147

This passage aptly portrays the foil that Clerval serves to Frankenstein in each of his interactions with him. During their trip to Scotland, Henry constantly rejoices in nature’s beauty and revels in being alive. Victor, on the other hand, is a dismal wreck, unable to see beauty due to his morbid obligation to his creation. This is not, however, the only instance in which Henry serves as a foil to Victor. Frankenstein earlier commented on Henry’s fascination with morality rather than science. He seems to speak of Henry’s preference with bemusement at the apparent foolishness of choosing morality over science. Yet it is this lack of morality which led to Victor’s horrific predicament. Indeed, Henry’s presence emphasizes even more Victor’s sinfulness and flawed nature which created such a miserable situation. Shelley uses Henry to prove to the reader how flawed and foolish Victor's endeavors were without morality.

Any Questions? (Rhetorical Question)

“And now, with the world before me, whither should I bend my steps?...How was I to direct myself?”
-p 133

One of the creature’s more interesting mannerisms in telling his story is his penchant for asking rhetorical questions. Mary Shelley writes the creature’s monologue in this style to increase reader sympathy. This occurs because the creature repeatedly asks Victor these questions to appeal to his own sense of sympathy. The monster is not only telling his story; he is pleading for Victor’s understanding. He is hoping that by asking these questions, Victor will understand the monster’s sense of a lack of direction and helplessness. He hopes that Victor will sympathize with the monster’s lack of guidance and mercifully provide the monster with a benevolent protector. In doing so, the creature also evokes sympathy from the reader, who also is asked these same rhetorical questions. The unique aspect of the frame story allows Shelley to apply these rhetorical questions not only in a pragmatic view which carries function within the plot, but also evokes sympathy from the reader.

Through New Eyes (Theme)

“These wonderful narrations inspired me with strange feelings. Was man, indeed, at once so powerful, so virtuous, and magnificent, yet so vicious and base? He appeared at one time a mere scion of the evil principle and at another as all that can be conceived of noble and godlike…For a long time I could not conceive how one man could go forth to murder his fellow, or even why there were laws and governments; but when I heard details of vice and bloodshed, my wonder ceased and I turned away with disgust and loathing.”

-p 114

Mary Shelley seems to prefer to reveal a great portion of her thoughts on human life through the thoughts and struggles of the monster. Frankenstein’s creation seems to be used to express Shelley’s themes particularly well due to his relative innocence. He was just born about one year ago; he has only one year’s worth of experience and one year’s worth of understanding of human nature. It would do Shelley little good to convey her message simply through another human; inevitably, that human would contradict their own reflections on humanity because he is, first and foremost, human. Yet by imposing such themes on the monster, Shelley is able to ponder human nature through fresh eyes. Frankenstein’s monster dwells on mankind’s duality of conscience for the first time and in a way that most humans, who are used to this conflict, would not be able to think. Frankenstein’s creation provides Shelley with the only way she could properly convey her themes concerning the paradox of man.

To Be Human Again (Situational Irony)

“ ‘Abhorred monster! Fiend that thou art! The tortures of hell are too mild a vengeance for thy crimes. Wretched devil! You reproach me with your creation; come on, then, that I may extinguish the spark which I so negligently bestowed.’

[…]

He easily eluded me and said, ‘Be calm! I entreat you to hear me before you give vent to your hatred on my devoted head. Have I not suffered enough, that you seek to increase my misery?’ ”

-p 95

I found this passage to exemplify a rather odd case of situational irony. In this confrontation between Victor and his monstrous creation, one would assume that the monster would not actually be able even to communicate with Victor, let alone express human emotions. Yet surprisingly, the monster has learned to speak quite eloquently and seems to express a great sense of understanding of Victor’s rage, as well deep sorrow and misery. Victor, on the other hand, would be expected to be the more human of the two. Instead, however, Victor seems to be possessed by a wild rage against his creation. He makes no attempts to understand his monster, instead savagely threatening to commit the same crime which his creation had committed against his brother. Yet in being consumed by this blind rage, Victor seems to lose some of his humanity and compassion. This loss, combined with the monster’s newfound humanity, creates a reversal of expectation toward this scene. In a clever twist, the human acts like a monster, and the monster displays his humanity. By writing thus, Shelley poses an interesting question as to what exactly identifies man as being human: simple biological status, or true compassion and emotion?

Church and State

“ ‘I did confess, but I confessed a lie. I confessed, that I might obtain absolution; but now that falsehood lies heavier at my heart than all my other sins…Ever since I was condemned, my confessor has besieged me; he threatened and menaced, until I almost began to think that I was the monster that he said I was. He threatened excommunication and hell fire in my last moments if I continued obdurate.’ ”

-p 83

This passage seems to make a bit of a political and religious message about Mary Shelley’s culture. Shelley portrays the judicial system as one rather overbearing in nature. Justine’s interrogators, who now believe they have sufficient proof of Justine’s guilt, intimidate and threaten her savagely in order to get any sort of confession. Finally, completely broken down and dispirited, Justine lies and confesses guilt, despite her full knowledge that she is in fact innocent. What perhaps is even more startling than this reflection, however, is Shelley’s observation on the Church. It is not a mere city official who fiercely questions Justine; it is a priest, a “confessor” called in to hear her confession. This representative of the Church, who is supposed to offer consolation and peace of mind to Justine, instead reduces her to tears with his accusations and threats. Shelley seems to be hinting at a veiled attack on the Church of her time; I’m a bit curious as to how her contemporary readers took this criticism.

Murder!!!! (The Extra Exclamation Points Are Completely Necessary)

“A flash of lightning illuminated the object and discovered its shape plainly to me; its gigantic stature, and the deformity of its aspect, more hideous than belongs to humanity, instantly informed me that it was the wretch, the filthy demon to whom I had given life. What did he there? Could he be (I shuddered at the conception) the murderer of my brother? No sooner did that idea cross my imagination than I became convinced of its truth; my teeth chattered, and I was forced to lean against a tree for support.”

-p 73

I must admit I’m intrigued by this particular passage. I was rather perplexed initially by the relevance of William’s murder. Now, however, it appears that it was Frankenstein’s monster that actually killed him. Though we do not yet know the reason for this murder, I find it interesting that it was Victor’s brother whom the monster killed. Of all the possible people the monster could have killed, it was his creator’s brother. More significantly, I feel like this will create a deeper sense of despair and regret to Victor’s demeanor. He essentially brought about his brother’s death; I highly doubt he will be able to live well with that on his conscience. I’m interested to see how Victor lives with this truth in his heart, and if he will attempt to hunt down the monster.

The Game's Afoot! (Personification)

“Sometimes, on the very brink of certainty, I failed; yet still I clung to the hope which the next day or the next hour might realize. One secret which I alone possessed was the hope to which I had dedicated myself; and the moon gazed on my midnight labours, while, with unrelaxed and breathless eagerness, I pursued nature to her hiding-places.”

-p 53

For a scientist, Frankenstein is exceptionally adept at eloquent speech. In this passage, Shelley includes two separate cases of personification which work together to create a rather primal portrayal of a hunt. The moon appears as an indifferent onlooker, watching Frankenstein as he desperately and hopelessly attempts to defy nature in his creation. I find it interesting that Frankenstein describes his endeavor not as a pursuit, but as a hunt. If it were merely a pursuit, then Frankenstein would simply seek to attain the secrets of nature and capture it for his own use. Instead, his endeavor is a hunt: he does not seek simply to capture the secrets of nature; he seeks to kill nature itself. Although he does not realize it at the time—and to be honest, I doubt he realizes it even as he speaks—the true meaning of these words gives a sense of foreshadowing to the ungodliness of his scientific pursuit. Frankenstein does not simply seek to understand nature; he seeks to completely and utterly destroy it.

Talk to Me (First Person Point of View)

“I am by birth a Genevese, and my family is one of the most distinguished of that republic. My ancestors had been for many years counselors and syndics, and my father had filled several public situations with honour and reputation. He was respected by all who knew him for his integrity and indefatigable attention to public business…As the circumstances of his marriage illustrate his character, I cannot refrain from relating them.”

-p 31

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein employs a fairly unique version of the first person point of view. A great portion of this uniqueness rests in the interesting structure of the novel, which starts in the form of a series of letters and then continues as a frame story told by Victor Frankenstein. Though the letters and the frame story are told by different narrators, however, the style of point of view is actually the same in both structures. Robert Walton, the writer of the initial letters, writes to his sister with complete knowledge of who his audience is. Because of this, he often writes with an extremely relaxed, conversational tone. He even goes so far as to directly talk to the audience at times. In a similar way, the structure of the frame story allows Frankenstein to speak directly with Walton. He often poses rhetorical questions to Walton and even comments to him about the way in which he is telling his story. In writing in this way, Shelley creates a uniquely personal and intimate relationship with her readers. Few authors acknowledge their audience for fear that it will detract from the work, yet Shelley devises a way to use this style to her advantage.

Well, That's a Crummy Ending

“Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

-p 298

Those last sentences may make up the most depressing end of a novel that I’ve read. Orwell ends his novel rather abruptly, with a quick and painful shot to the gut. Orwell jumps from Winston’s submission to the Party straight to a scene some time later, showing Winston as a blubbery, pathetic shell of the independent man he once was. The reader can only observe in shocked disgust as Winston actually cries with joy at Oceania’s probably falsified victory over Eurasia. Winston has become completely in line with Party ideals, yet in doing so, the physical regression in his body is evident. Winston has become much more bloated and, to be honest, seems to have a somewhat slimy sense about him. Yet he is, as far as his now limited mind can tell, extremely happy over his ability to beat his free will into submission. With the absolute defeat of his protagonist, Orwell leaves a sobering message with his readers: the society of 1984 must be prevented, for if it does occur, no man will be able to stop it, no matter how resolute. Man will lose.

Betrayed!

“Mr. Charrington came into the room. The demeanor of the black-uniformed men suddenly became more subdued. Something had also changed in Mr. Charrington’s appearance…It occurred to Winston that for the first time in his life he was looking, with knowledge, at a member of the Thought Police.”

-p 224

I must admit, this little plot twist greatly surprised me. It did not surprise me that the Thought Police eventually caught Winston and Julia. Considering how few pages were left in the novel, it seemed unlikely that enough plot development would occur unless they were arrested. What did surprise me, however, was the fact that Mr. Charrington was the leader of the Thought Police squad. When we were first introduced to Mr. Charrington, I suspected that he would play the role of a spiritual guide and counselor, similar to that presented in a hero cycle. This guess was seemingly affirmed by Charrington’s support of Winston’s purchase of the upper room. This room, I thought, would allow Winston to gain a stronger belief in the humanity that he still held inside him. Instead, Charrington was actually a villain, not a guide. This reversal of expectation reflects one of Orwell’s favorite tools in this novel: like O’Brien, it is Winston’s supposed friends who turn out to be his greatest enemies. In Orwell’s world, Winston learns quickly that he can trust no one.

A Breaking Point (Climax)

“The mask was closing on his face. The wire brushed his cheek. And then—no, it was not relief, only hope, a tiny fragment of hope. Too late, perhaps too late. But he suddenly understood that in the whole world there was just one person to whome he could transfer his punishment—one body that he could thrust between himself and the rats. And he was shouting frantically, over and over:

‘Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don’t care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!’ ”

-p 286

This passage details the climax of Orwell’s 1984. Throughout the novel, Winston has constantly fought with his supposedly unorthodox ideals, beliefs that actually express humanity and a sense of morality. These beliefs fly directly in the face of Party ideals, and Winston tries desperately to hold to his beliefs while hiding them from the Party. As the novel progress, however, it becomes clearer and clearer that such rebellious thoughts simply cannot be kept by a man who expects to live much longer. Yet even when Winston is within the Ministry of Love, Winston still maintains his dwindling beliefs that love, compassion, and humanity are superior to any Party tents. This belief is evident when he breaks down and begins shouting Julia’s name and calling her “his love.” Even when Winston wholeheartedly attempts to lose his beliefs in humanity, he is unable to shake his morals. When he faces the rats, however, his own savage sense of self-preservation takes dominance: he sheds his loyalty to Julia and, in doing so, sheds his hopes in humanity. In this climactic scene, Winston loses the fight to protect his hopes for humanity and effectively succumbs to the inhuman savagery that the Party holds dear.

He Sees You When You're Sleeping...(Metonymy)

“ ‘Does Big Brother exist?’

‘Of course he exists. The Party exists. Big Brother is the embodiment of the Party.’

‘Does he exist in the same way as I exist?’

‘You do not exist,’ said O’Brien.”

-p 259

I thought that I should take the opportunity presented in this passage to discuss a rather obvious utilization of metonymy in Orwell’s 1984. This case of metonymy, which uses the figure of Big Brother as equivalent with the Party and its ideals, is different from most cases, however. Normally with metonymy, the object which is being used in lieu of the original object is actually real. As this passage hints at, however, Big Brother is not, in fact, real. While O’Brien does not actually state that there is no living Big Brother, his way of automatically equating Big Brother’s existence with the existence of the Party indicates that O’Brien knows Big Brother as a person does not actually exist. Yet despite this, in many ways O’Brien is correct in saying that Big Brother exists. Big Brother is, as O’Brien says, “the embodiment of the Party;” he is the personification of the Party, the figure which all people both fear and adore. That fear and adoration is frighteningly real. Those emotions expressed toward Big Brother—toward the party—are very much real. In this sense, Big Brother is real, as the Party has caused such strong emotions toward Big Brother that he might as well be real. As the Party philosophy likes to muse, the people believe Big Brother exists; therefore, Big Brother is in their midst.

A Not So Fiery Rhetoric (Rhetoric)

“The book fascinated him, or more exactly it reassured him. In a sense it told him nothing that was new, but that was part of the attraction. It said what he would have said, if it had been possible for him to set his scattered thoughts in order. It was the product of a mind similar to his own, but enormously more powerful, more systematic, less fear-ridden.”

-p 200

In his 1984, Orwell uses a rather unique technique to express a large part of his philosophy. Instead of having his protagonist Winston express his political views, Orwell includes passages from a secret book by Emmanuel Goldstein. In his writing, Goldstein tells of the main principles behind Oceania’s adoption of Ingsoc. Goldstein reasons that the Party developed as a result of growing fears about atomic warfare. According to Orwell, the nations of the world soon realized the potential stability from continuous yet controlled warfare, which uses up nations’ supplies, limits excess wealth available to all economic classes, and therefore ensures that the middle and lower classes do not rebel against the upper class.

Based on Winston’s reaction to the book, it seems that Goldstein’s writing is a perfect example of rhetoric. It is through this rhetoric that Orwell attempts to persuade the reader to think as he thinks. He has already convinced the reader that the society which he has created is completely undesirable. The reader has long come to the conclusion that whatever Orwell states caused this world to occur must be avoided at all costs. It is not until Goldstein’s rhetoric, however, that the reader finally discovers the cause of this dystopia: atomic warfare of the 1940s has ravaged the world. Considering Orwell wrote this novel in the 1940s, it is clear that Orwell is employing this rhetoric to attempt to convince his readers of the danger of atomic warfare and adjusted moralities.

The Beast Within, Part...4?

“As thought to harmonize with the general mood, the rocket bombs had been killing larger numbers of people than usual. One fell on a crowded film theater in Stepney, burying several hundred victims among the ruins…Another bomb fell on a piece of waste ground which was used as a playground, and several dozen children were blown to pieces. There were further angry demonstrations, Goldstein was burned in effigy…and a number of shops were looted in the turmoil; then a rumor flew round that spies were directing the rocket bombs by means of wireless waves, and an old couple who were suspected of being of foreign extraction had their house set on fire and perished of suffocation.”

--p 149

As I read this passage, my immediate suspicion was that it may actually be Big Brother who coordinated these bombings on Oceania. After all, these seem like rather civilian-oriented bomb drops; if Eurasia really was bombing Oceania, one would assume that they would attempt to bomb the separate ministries, yet instead they bomb the locations which would incite civilian rage against them. This uncannily unlucky placement makes me think that Oceania may in fact be bombing their own citizens in order to maintain fear and incite rage and support for the war effort against Eurasia. Regardless of whether this is true or not, however, the theme in this passage—one discussing the extremely violent and savage measures that fear can drive people to take—remains. In this passage, people have become so fearful of bombings that they are driven to take the law into their own hands. What is so frightening about this situation is that it is an old couple—a common symbol of innocence—that is killed by arson. Fear causes men to lose most common sense; they become fueled solely by the animalistic instinct to survive at all costs.

This animalistic instinct, as well as the lengths the people took to ease their fears, reminded me of the actions of the Jack’s group of boys in William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. Jack whips the boys into such a frenzied fear of the Beast that they savagely murder Simon due to blind suspicion that he was the beast. They then kill Piggy simply because he opposed them. In a way, this savagery has already occurred in Oceania. People kill those whom they fear to be traitors, yet the Thought Police already are immediately killing anyone who even thinks of opposition to Big Brother. Despite the Party’s supposed sophistication, the Party in reality consists of nothing but animals.

UPDATE: On page 153, Julia expresses her own belief that Big Brother is actually responsible for the air raids. Looks like I’m not so crazy after all!

That's Amore

“Eight minutes had gone by. He readjusted his spectacles on his nose, sighed, and drew the next batch of work toward him, with the scrap of paper on top of it. He flattened it out. On it was written, in a large unformed handwriting: I love you.”

--p 108

Well, this is a rather interesting plot twist, eh? Personally, I was more than a bit surprised when Winston read the note and discovered those three little words. Like Winston, I was expecting the note to entail details about where Winston could meet with a Brotherhood operative, or even with Goldstein himself. I thought that Orwell’s main focus in this book involved Winston’s attempt to rebel against Big Brother. Now, however, I have a feeling that Orwell’s plot is not as grandiose as I believed. Perhaps Orwell’s tale will turn out to be a romance story amid a harsh, unaccepting society (unlikely). Perhaps the tale is simply supposed to be that of a regular man in his futile life within an oppressive government. This possibility seems rather likely. I now doubt that Orwell’s intent is to write of Winston’s endeavor to bring down Big Brother; after all, Orwell’s intent in writing 1984 was not to teach how to overcome socialism, but rather to warn against accepting socialism before it is implemented.

Down the Memory Hole (Flashback)

“But this was concrete evidence; it was a fragment of the abolished past…it was enough to blow the Party to atoms, if in some way it could have been published to the world and its significance made known. He had gone straight on working….Then, without uncovering it again, he dropped the photograph into the memory hole, along with some other waste papers. Within another minute, perhaps, it would have crumbled into ashes. That was ten—eleven years ago. Today, probably, he would have kept that photograph.”

--p 79

Over the course of his writing, Orwell includes several flashbacks from earlier in Winston’s life. These flashbacks often reveal some aspect of Big Brother’s society which Winston struggles to accept. Winston is able to remember limitedly a time different from the present, or memories which contradict his current situation. Yet while he may briefly use these memories to fuel his temporary hatred for Big Brother, these memories inevitably fade back into memory. Like the photograph in his flashback, these flashbacks and memories are unable to convince Winston to act progressively, even in the face of such contradiction and oppression. These flashbacks only emphasize the fact that Winston is unwilling to take the risk in standing up to Big Brother. Sure, he walks in the bad part of town; yet that hardly makes him a hardened rebel. In reality, Winston is little more than a spineless subject to the Party like all the other mindless citizens of Oceania.

Be Oppressed Like an Egyptian! (Paradox)

“And what way of know that the dominion of the Party would not endure forever? Like an answer, the three slogans on the white face of the Ministry of Truth came back to him: WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

--p 26

These three slogans of Big Brother are all rather jarringly twisted paradoxes. I’m still not totally sure that I understand them well enough to argue their truthfulness or not, yet they seem unsettlingly incongruous with my beliefs. This is most likely due to the fact that I’ve grown up in a democratic country where freedom, peace, and knowledge are so strongly valued. To me, these slogans carry little if any truth or validity; they simply make no sense. Yet citizens believe them and abide by them. They have learned that two extremely different ideas are in fact the same, and their mental processes reflect this convolution. Despite Winston’s growing realization that these slogans are weak and that Big Brother is oppressive, he takes pride in his ability to fit into Big Brother’s system so well. He knows that Big Brother is always right and benevolent, yet simultaneously he knows that Big Brother is wrong and malevolent.

This condition, known as cognitive dissonance, was also experienced by the ancient Egyptians, who both trusted their Pharaoh to provide for them as a god, yet blamed him for not appealing to the gods when crops were meager. This cognitive dissonance led the Egyptians to become obsessed with religion and fanaticism. Perhaps the same will happen to Big Brother.

Things Are Looking Doubleplusungood (Vernacular)

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words….Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well—better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning, or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still…In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words—in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston?”

--p 51

This rather frustrating passage summarizes the entire concept behind Ingsoc’s vernacular, known as Newspeak. The interesting aspect of Orwell’s usage of a vernacular is that not only does he use it, but he explains it. If Orwell had simply written in the vernacular, including words such as “ungood” and “doubleplusgood”, the reader would infer that Big Brother has dumbed down society, creating a stupid—and almost illiterate of sorts—mass of citizens to obey them. By explaining why citizens speak in Newspeak, however, Orwell sends an even more frightening message. Big Brother has created Newspeak not to make it easier to express ideas, but actually to make it harder. By limiting people’s power of expression, Big Brother limits their power to think independently. The whole point of an expanding language is to accommodate for new ideas, opinions, and beliefs. By shrinking the language, Big Brother slowly but surely inhibits these ideas and opinions, getting a firmer grip on the minds of its subjects over time. Orwell explains his vernacular to emphasize the implications of “benevolent control.”

Raisins Are My Favorite

I must admit that thus far, Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun is definitely my favorite work of literature that we have read in class this year. This piece carries the most emotional charge of all the pieces we have read thus far. These raw emotions derive largely from a theme focusing on man's desire to pursue a better life, much like the theme of Tennessee Williams' The Glass Menagerie. Unlike Williams' play, however, Hansberry's play openly expresses the characters' search for a better life. When they discuss the insurance check, each member of the family divulges the dream for a better life which they hope to achieve with a portion of the insurance check. The Glass Menagerie never actually openly discussed its characters' dreams, which weakened its strength in comparison to A Raisin in the Sun.

Also present in A Raisin in the Sun are strong racial overtones which accurately reflect the troubles faced by the play's contemporary audience. Hansberry's play carried so much power primarily because of its groundbreaking nature; not only was the play the first written by a black woman, but it also was one of the first to openly discuss discrimination through the perspective of black people. Because of these reasons, there simply seems to be something about A Raisin in the Sun that sets it emotionally apart from the rest of the literature which we have read in class this year.

Nobody Knows... (p 1119 Question 4)

In her play A Raisin in the Sun, Lorraine Hansberry builds dramatic suspense through slightly unconventional methods. Normally, suspense is developed due to an inconsistency between the audience's knowledge of a situation and a character's knowledge of that situation. Suspense occurs because a character is acting upon knowledge that the audience is not privy to, creating intrigue and curiosity from the members of the audience who seek to find out what that unknown knowledge is. However, in A Raisin in the Sun, Hansberry causes the audience to feel suspense for the exact opposite reason.

The suspense in this play resolves around Walter's decision of whether or not to sell their newly purchased house. The audience is held in suspense as they wonder whether Walter will maintain his pride or accept a less fortunate fate. The key to this suspense, however, is that no one else, Walter included, knows which Walter will choose. Indeed, it is not until he mentions his own father and realizes his father's sacrifice that Walter realizes that he "come[s] from people who had a lot of pride" (p 148). Up until that moment, no one knows what Walter will choose, creating an increasingly suspenseful buildup to the plot's climax and denouement.

A Matter of Pride (p 1119, Question 1)

For the most part, Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun employs realistic conventions. The plot evolves within the normal, realistic context of the Youngers' apartment. The family's financial and social situation, their mannerisms and actions toward each other, their hopes and dreams--all of these are very much realistic and true to African American culture in Hansberry's time. Hansberry wrote this play to reflect upon the status of her people at the time of its writing; in order to serve this reflection proper justice, she entrenched the plot within reality.

Near the middle of the play, however, Hansberry briefly departs from reality through Walter and Beneatha's African ritualistic dance. Thus far in the play, the Younger family has acknowledged their African heritage but has not done much to show interest or pride in it. This lack of African culture vanishes, however, through the fervid (and in Walter's case, drunken) dancing to the Nigerian tribal music. This scene presents the audience with a significant glimpse into the strong pride held by the Youngers for their African heritage. Though they may not openly show their pride in their culture, that pride is still very much present.

Breaking Out

My main issue with Tennessee Williams' "The Glass Menagerie" lies in attempting to decide Laura's fate at the conclusion of the play. Obviously, the opening up and subsequent re-closing of herself to Jim causes a change of some sort within her. Williams, however, is unclear as to if this experience brings Laura to a maturation and a bit of confidence and strength, or if it causes her to seclude herself even more into her glass menagerie. Personally, I believe that Laura will become at least partially independent. This choice to accept her fate and take charge is reflected in her giving the glass unicorn to Jim. The unicorn symbolized her own feeling of being "freakish" (p 1283). When Jim accidentally breaks it, Laura is surprisingly at peace with it; Jim, a representation of reality and acceptance of oneself, breaks the unicorn, who is symbolic of Laura's own feeling of inferiority and her use of her physical condition to excuse her inability to make proper connections. Now, however, she accepts that her excuse is gone, leaving her just like everyone else. While Tom may remain plagued by guilt for leaving Laura and Amanda, Williams indicates that Laura will do just fine without him.

A Break from Fantasy (p 1290, Question 9)

Jim’s personality is certainly an interesting one, especially when looking at his treatment of Laura. Jim certainly seems to be the most genuine and cheerful of the four characters in the play. Unlike Tom and Amanda, who coddle Laura and treat her differently, Jim talks casually and sincerely with her. In fact, Jim seems to open up to Laura at an immensely fast pace, speeding up the supposed courtship and even kissing her. It is in the aftershock of that kiss where we learn the likely reason for his rushed interest in Laura: he is engaged to be married. Although Jim makes it clear that he is in love with fiancée, he naturally is slightly fearful of this commitment. This fear is focused under the light of Laura’s admiration of him. Laura allows Jim to reminisce about the time in his life when he was successful, when he “was bound to succeed in anything [he] went into” (p 1227). Jim feels attracted to Laura because she provides him an opportunity to dream of what could have been.

In the end, however, Jim sets himself apart from the family by being able to snap out of his delusions and move on with his life. He quickly leaves to pick up his fiancée and departs from the family’s life, assumedly forever. The other three characters, however, remain stuck in their own respective delusions: Tom’s dreamy delusion of being a successful poet; Amanda’s nostalgic delusion of the glitz and glamour which she experienced before her husband’s departure; and Laura’s desperate delusion of solitude and comfort amid her glass menagerie.

Tom's Guilt (p 1289, Question 3)

Tom's dilemma lies between his obligation to family and his obligation to self. Tom feels obligated as the man of the house in the absence of his father to provide for his mother and sister. At the same time, however, Tom wants to seek his fortune as a poet. He feels pinned down by his familial obligations and trapped by his controlling mother. This leads to a great amount of resentment toward his mother, who desperately clings to her son and attempts to manipulate him so as to prevent him from acting like his father and leaving the family. Without attempting to do so, Laura embodies Tom’s obligations to his family; while Amanda constantly reminds him of his responsibility, it is Laura’s mental and physical state that forces Tom to remain. He believes that Laura is mentally unstable, and responds accordingly, often acting extremely gently and cautious around her.

Ironically, it is Amanda’s controlling attempts to keep Tom at home that drives him to leave. Amanda’s accusations against Tom of drinking and lying to the family, despite the fact that he is the one providing for the family, ultimately wear on him. When he is fired from his job, he feels he is unable to provide for his family and leaves to seek his fortune elsewhere. In a rather poetic ending, Amanda’s actions—made out of fear of Tom leaving the family like his father—cause Tom to leave as she feared. By leaving however, he never truly resolves his dilemma, as indicated by his final soliloquy that details his regret and guilt. In avoiding his dilemma, Tom attempts to escape from it, yet he soon learns that he cannot escape his own guilt.

Thank You, A Promise to Keep Program, for This Blog Post Idea

After finishing Othello, I can't help but think that there was a bit of phoniness in a rather large plot point. Admittedly, I think this was my favorite of Shakespeare's plays which I have thus far read; yet it rather irritated me how fake and shallow Othello's love for Desdemona was portrayed. In the beginning, it seems that Othello is head-over-heels in love with Desdemona and is so happy that he "cannot speak enough of this content./ It stops me here, it is too much of joy" (II.i.191-192). Yet within three days at the most, he has become so jealous that he wants to "tear [Desdemona] all to pieces" (III.iii.432). It could just be me, but a love that can change from "I've never been so happy before" to "I'm gonna kill that woman!" in a matter of a couple days seems rather shallow.

Perhaps Shakespeare only did this because he was under a time constraint (although a five-act play seems like plenty of time to draw out this progression), but it adds another aspect to Othello's flaws. This rapid volte-face indicates the likelihood that Othello's love for Desdemona was not actually love, but infatuation (If you really want to know the differences between love an infatuation, I've got an entire packet from my APTK lesson to offer. No takers? Hmph. Fine then). This infatuation was exacerbated by his paranoia and doubts, leading to insecure jealousy without even open-mindedly hearing Desdemona's defense. Desdemona genuinely loves Othello; he, on the other hand, does not. This disparity between emotions shows that in reality, Othello and Desdemona's marriage was doomed from the start.

Common Vice (p. 1461, Question 5)

As the truth comes out concerning the events of the past couple of days, Othello becomes distraught and ashamed. He stabs and kills himself, but before doing so, Othello reestablishes a bit of his greatness through his final speech to Lodovico. In this speech, Othello honorably tells Lodovico to "speak of me as I am, nothing extenuate,/ Nor set down aught in malice" (V.ii.341-342). Instead of trying to cast blame for his deed upon Iago, as he very well could, he admits his guilt, yet points out that he was in truth a good and loving person who simply made foolish decisions and was stupidly influenced (V.ii.343-347). It is this extreme guilt and admission of his faults that brings some honor back to Othello. His acts of murder and revenge are inexcusable, yet he reminds the audience that he was as good a man as he could be, albeit a flawed one. This summary of his flawed humanity strikes a chord with the audience, who can relate to Othello's vices, as they too are viced. In revealing that Othello is no different from any of us, Shakespeare portrays Othello as an example of a great man who fell a long way down.

Today Feels Like a Black-Flag Day (p. 1119, Question 2)

Shakespeare's Othello is most definitely a tragedy. Othello's tragic flaw is his gullibility and excessive trust in Iago. This unfortunate misplacement of trust and confidence ultimately leads to his death. As with all Shakespearean tragedies, Othello dies as a result of his own doing.

This classification of Othello as a tragedy immediately tips off the audience concerning the play's darker tone, often more complex style of storytelling, and basic set of themes involving mankind's vices and their consequences. The audience knows from the beginning what to look for while viewing the action: the flaws of the main character, their gradual succumbing to those flaws, and the characters whom cause these flaws to grow within the hero. In Shakespeare's time at the Globe Theatre, a flag of a certain color was hung each day to indicate whether the play being performed that day would be a tragedy (black flag), a comedy (white), or a history (red). Because of this, the audience would always know what to look for. This allowed them to become more involved with the play's plot, as they are able to discern more easily the vital facets of the story.

Heroes and Villains

Right now, I am currently attempting to decide exactly who the main character of Othello truly is. Obviously, Othello is a prime candidate. Besides the fact that the play is named after him, Othello is the target of all of Iago's plans. It also appears that it will be Othello's flaw of "a free and open nature/That thinks men honest that but seem to be so" that causes trouble (I.iii.379-380). This has already occurred in his trust that Iago's "honesty and love doth mince this matter" of Cassio's actions and, because of this misplaced trust in Iago, he strips Cassio of his rank on the spot (II.iii.226-228). This flaw indicates that Othello will likely be the tragic hero.

Yet at the same time, it appears that Iago is the driving force of the action. Nearly everything that has occurred thus far in the play's action, from Brabantio's discover of his daughter's marriage to Cassio's dismissal and decision to appeal to Desdemona, has been a direct result of Iago's suggestion and manipulation. While it appears that Iago is Othello's antagonist, in a way, Iago thus far has actually been a more important character than Othello. It appears that this play might actually focus not on a hero's downfall, but on the man who created that downfall.

Stereotypical Green-Eyed Monster (p. 1119, Question 5)

Thus far, the main themes of Othello have been those of the effects of both jealousy and prejudgment. Iago is almost entirely consumed with jealousy of Cassio's promotion to the rankof lieutenant that Iago knows he is "worth no worse a place" (I.i.11). In addition, we learn that Iago is jealous of Othello, of whom he claims "that 'twixt my sheets/He's done my office" (I.iii.368-369)--that is, has slept with Iago's wife. This theme of jealous drives the majority of the play's action, as it is because of jealousy that Iago lays his plan for revenge.

At the same time, prejudgment is highly prevalent in the play. This theme in the form of racism is highly present in Iago's reference to Othello as a "horse" (I.i.111) and in Brabantio's assumption that Othello must have tricked Desdemona into marrying him (I.i.169-172). This idea of the effect of prejudgment is also displayed when Iago falsely tells Montano that Cassio is an alcoholic who would "watch the horologe a double set,/If drink rock not his cradle" (II.iii.111-112). This prejudgment of Cassio as a drunkard by Montano begins to set public opinion against Cassio; this notion is further supported by Cassio's drunken antics moments later. This theme, like the theme of jealousy, effectively encapsulates oft-present human vices and subtly hints at the serious consequences of such vices. These themes are what mold the story.

For Real, Man! (p. 1119 Question 1)

While analyzing Shakespeare's Othello, the authenticity of the play's plot struck me. The play's actions and insights are all employed by realistic conventions. There are no bizarre symbols or abstract ideas, no fantastical creatures are ingenious inventions. There is simply the story. It is this normalcy which causes the audience to feel so connected to Othello's and Iago's struggles. Tragedies just seem to be more effective in realistic settings. Shakespeare's tragedies in particular are so effective due to their realistic natures. Julius Caesar was particularly tragic because Brutus' ambition was so identifiable. The eponymous stars of Romeo and Juliet portray such powerful yet real love that the audience is greatly moved by their suicides. Even in Macbeth, which admittedly involves the unrealistic inclusion of witches, the power of the play lies in Macbeth's descent into madness. Shakespeare does not bother with fantastical trifles that would detract from his dark themes; instead, he restricts his plots to bare realism, providing a harsh and powerful reflection on man's vices.