dying of the light

Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night- Dylan Thomas

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,

Because their words had forked no lightning they

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright

Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,

And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight

Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,   

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,

Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Exploring a topic universal to all living creatures, this poem confronts the subject of death. It’s an inevitable end for all of us, yet every human reacts differently to the concept. In “Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night,” Dylan Thomas discusses the end of life, suggesting that humans often feel that opposing death results in the treasuring of life though this is not necessarily true.

Throughout the poem, the speaker mentions the “dying of the light” and the “night” that follows. Coupled with terms such has “old age,” these bring to mind the end of not “light” but of life. The “dying of the light” comes to represent the fading of vitality as a person’s life nears its end just as the light fades as the day nears its end. Thus, the “night” follows to represent what comes after life: death. The speaker describes the actions of men faced with this “night,” speaking of how they “burn,” “rave,” and “rage” against the approaching of the end of light and life. As displayed by these words, the men described face not only going “against” death, but they do so with an aura of anger, the emotion brought to mind by such passionate and fiery words as “burn” and “rage.” Such anger suggests an opposition to death so strong that it borders on hatred, an explanation for the statement “Do not go gentle.” This direct command conveys the strong conviction of mankind’s opposition to death, as it suggests that one should not be “gentle” and go into the “night” that waits at the end of our lives. The connotations of the rage and command come together to characterize death as an enemy that must be fought against, or “[raged] against.” The poem develops to suggest that this characterization of death is spurred on by a desire to treasure life. The men that “rage” against death think of how their deeds “might have danced,” indicating a preoccupation with what could have been during life as opposed to accepting the reality of death.

However, veiled under support for the fight against death, the speaker suggests that perhaps accepting death is the better option. The speaker expressly states that “dark is right,” suggesting that darkness, undeniably connected to the death and “dying of the light” that men are resisting, is in fact the “right” path that should be taken as opposed to the enemy that mankind has made it to be. Even in hidden in the command to “not go gentle,” the speaker emphasizes that fact that it is not simply “night” or death, but “good night,” once again bringing in the connotation that this path, the path towards death, should be accepted instead of rejected. The truth that mankind seem to have accepted, that death is the enemy, becomes questionable and is even characterized as a “blinding sight” that comes near death. As death has not quite been reached, the men are still in the “light” providing them with the “sight” which brings to mind the concepts of truth and understanding. However, this “blinding sight” is not the actual truth, but a fake truth that leads to blindness and a lack of understanding. Therefore, the characterization of death as the enemy takes on the role of a fake truth merely obscuring the actual truth that death should be accepted.

Despite this veiled encouragement to accept death, the speaker does not suggest that mankind completely accept the darkness. Rather, the speaker suggests that mankind must find the light within the darkness, search for life within death. This concept is brought up as the speaker discusses the “blind eyes” that are contrasted with the “blinding sight.” While the “blinding sight” took on the meaning of false truth and the rejection of death, “blind eyes” create a world of darkness, linking them to the death of which the speaker encourages acceptance. However, these eyes, though linked to the darkness, are not caged in darkness. Instead they “blaze like meteors” a phrase that automatically brings in the image of light, suggesting that within the darkness of death, the light of life still exists. The “eyes” linked to death are also characterized as being “gay,” suggesting that the light within darkness, a life that can only be obtained by accepting the death that contains it, leads to happiness. Therefore, while the speaker expresses a sympathy and understanding for the men that resist death in order to cherish life, the speaker ultimately supports that idea of accepting death to find a new life within it.

fantasy

The Age of Innocence- Edith Wharton

“At that, as if it had been a signal he waited for, Newland Archer got up slowly and walked back alone to his hotel”

As simple as that. After a couple hundred pages of Newland Archer trying to find a way to be with Ellen Olenska, when he finally get a chance he walks away. He no longer has a wife. She no longer has a husband. Nothing is stopping them from being together, but after almost thirty years since parting, Newland can’t bring himself to see Ellen, believing instead that their relationship is “more real” if they don’t meet each other. To Newland, Ellen has long since ceased to be reality. She was nothing but a dream, a desire, but perhaps that was why he held her so dear.

Even before they were separated when Ellen returned to Europe, Newland already considered her a fantasy. When he sees her for the first time after his marriage with May, he reminds himself that Ellen is merely his “dream” and that May if his “reality.” However, in that picturesque moment, Ellen framed against the water, Newland’s dream is clearly defined as not only something that he can never have, but also something that he can never give up. Even after that moment on the tier, after Newland makes his decision that May will be his reality, he still seeks refuge in the perfect world that he has created, “thinking of Ellen” even as he lays next to May. From there Newland goes on the actively pursue a future with Ellen, determined to be with her even if it means going against society’s expectations and leaving May.

What he loves about Ellen, as he later tells his son, is that she was “different.” She was the foreigner that was not bound by the confines of society’s rules (though that may have been a result of ignorance), the one that went against all of the expectations that had been ingrained in Newland since he was a child. The very act of accepting her would be yet another rebellion against society as he would be bypassing the role of ‘cheating husband’ that could get away in high New York society and instead taking on the unforgivable role of ‘deserting husband.’ For a man that feels suffocated by a wife “incapable of growth” and so limited in her view of the world, Ellen is the perfect respite, which is why Newland turns her into an eternal fantasy.

But what is key is the fact that he never gets her. Despite Newland’s multiple efforts to be with Ellen, both before and after his wedding, he never manages to be with her, solidifying her role as the fantasy. Because he can never have her, especially after he finds out that May is pregnant, the only place he can preserve her is in his mind. He is forced to accept reality and play the part of a good husband, but he keeps Ellen as a “vision.” Yet in the end, when he finally has an opportunity to change fantasy into reality, he chooses to hold on to the fantasy in his mind. Why? Perhaps because Ellen was never meant to be a reality. She was the perfect possibility, what could have been, that kept him motivated and hopeful, but that was it. To turn her into a reality would be to accept that there was nothing as perfect as his fantasy. Better to hold on to the fantasy as the last remnant of hope than destroy with what would invariably be the disappointment of reality. And so Newland “walked back alone,” leaving behind the future and walking back into the fantasy of the past.

mrs. manson mingott

The Age of Innocence- Edith Wharton

Mrs. Manson Mingott. At once a curiosity in upper class New York society as well as the very definition of it. She is seen as the most powerful of the Mingott Clan, the one that everyone must please and the one that gives the final say on any significant decisions in the family. It is because of her and her fondness for Ellen that the family begrudgingly takes on the responsibility of bringing Ellen into upper class New York society even though everyone else is convinced that Ellen does not belong. It is through her influence that Newland archer is able to convince his future mother-in-law to hold his wedding with May earlier despite her earlier adamancy that the proper preparation could not be completed without more time. When she holds so much power within her own family and is also well-known in society in general, she is surely force to be reckoned with, as well as someone to be looked at closely.

Despite her influence in the upper class New York society that is so particular about rules and conformity, Mrs. Manson Mingott’s ways are a far cry from conformity. She herself was not originally a member of the upper class, having married into it from a poor family with no powerful title. From there, she continued to walk the fine line between accepted and eccentric. She sent married her daughters to foreigners. She built a house in the “middle of nowhere” as everyone in the upper class society saw it. She backed Ellen Olenska when everyone else had given up on her. Strangest of all was the fact that her actions were accepted, even “admired” by Newland, even though she was a woman, a fact that seems completely contrary to everything that upper class New York society believed in. In this society, where women’s eyes were “bandaged” from when they were little and these women were given in this ignorant state to a husband almost as property with no real power speak of, Mrs. Manson Mingott had risen in power to head a family of considerable prestige. Her husband had died when she was fairly young yet she managed to hold together the family and build it up, and she was not considered audacious for invading what one would think to be the world of men at the time. Instead Newland describes her as admirable. Such a character seems to have to place in the conservative upper class society of New York.

Yet at the same time, she seems to represent everything about that society, even in her physical appearance. She’s described as having become so obese that she had turned “vast and august as a natural phenomenon.” She isn’t even able to move up and down stairs, restricted to one floor and only a few rooms. Her figure has become large to the point that she can no longer move freely, cemented into one position in the same way that the society she lives in is set in their ways and is almost fearful of change as is seen in Mrs. Archer’s “annual pronouncement” of all the changes that had occurred in society and her conviction that it was “changing or the worse.” Her life of opulence also perfectly reflects the upper class New York society. When everything is judged by how things look and whether or not your wealth has been adequately displayed, as seen in the continuous efforts of the Beauforts to broadcast their wealth, Mrs. Manson Mingott fits right in with her house modeled after aristocratic hotels and filled with only the finest of furniture.

But with one side that is so revolutionary and daring, going up against every expectation that society has of her, and another side that adheres to conformity and what is acceptable to those around her, Mrs. Manson Mingott is woman of what seems to be irreconcilable opposites. But at the same time, that seems to be exactly Newland’s position as well. Split between the newness and eccentricity of Ellen Olenska and the comfort and familiarity of May Welland, Newland may admire the dichotomy he sees in Mrs. Manson Mingott because he too is searching for that perfect balance.

false hope

The Second Coming- William Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre   

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst   

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.   

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out   

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert   

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,   

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,   

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it   

Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.   

The darkness drops again; but now I know   

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,   

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,   

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Through the poem “The Second Coming,” Yeats explores the idea that we often search for hope in desperate times, but that very hope can lead to our down fall. As the poem opens, it creates an image of being trapped. The subject is “turning and turning in the widening gyre,” as if repeatedly turning around in an attempt to search for a method of escape. The repeated use of turning creates a sense of panic and desperation, adding to the sense of being trapped. This sense is augmented by the disaster that is portrayed in the following lines. The tide floods “everywhere,” displaying the widespread destruction that it brings, while it’s “blood” brings to mind death, emphasizing the extent to which everything has been destroyed. In this situation, the “best” are described as “[lacking] all conviction,” suggesting that this absence of hope in the face of disaster is favorable. Directly contrasted with the “best” are the “worst” that are characterized by “passionate intensity.” Through the similar structure used, “best” is automatically contrasted to “worst” which causes “passionate intensity” to take on the role of being the opposite of “[lacking] all conviction,” suggesting that the “worst,” the least favorable quality, is that of having the hope that the “best” lack.

The fact that hope is so unfavorable and a symptom of ignorance is foreshadowed at the beginning of the poem as those that have hope can be compared with the “falcon” that is unaware of the “falconer.” Assuming that the danger is the disaster that is occurring, they dare to hope. However, the “falconer” that they are unaware of suggests that their hope results from ignorance and that the real danger, the “falconer” is something else. This idea is strengthened as the speaker notes that “mere anarchy” has come upon the world. Anarchy is generally a concept that immediately brings to mind fear and is associated with the disaster that is occurring. However, right before it comes the word “mere,” belittling the power of anarchy and once again suggesting that the true danger lies elsewhere.

As the poem continues, that real danger is seen to be the hope itself. The words used to describe the hope of the “worst” are “the Second Coming,” bringing in the idea of a savior, the Second Coming being the time at which Jesus, the savior in the Christian faith, returns. Through this phrase it becomes clear that the “worst” are hoping that a savior will come to pull them out of the disaster. The “Second Coming” is their hope. However, that very “Second Coming” that is supposed to be their hope is immediately associated with a very different image: “A shape with lion body and the head of a man.” A sphinx. According to Greek mythology, the sphinx was a terrifyingly ruthless monster, an idea supported by the characterization of the sphinx’s gaze a “pitiless.” This new danger is also associated with “darkness,” connecting it to evil and disaster, as well as a “nightmare,” giving it an ethereal quality, as if its terror and “darkness” are so great that it cannot even be considered real.

The fact that the hope, the “Second Coming,” of the people was actually an even greater danger that made the original disaster seem like “mere” anarchy shows the hazard that can be created through hope. The people were waiting for their hope which came to them in the form of a monster, conveying the message that if our hope proves to be false, that hope can cause even greater destruction.

blake

Grendel-John Gardner

The Tyger- William Blake

Little Lamb- William Blake

Throughout Grendel, a constant struggle is seen in our beloved main character.  First introduced to the life-changing ideas of the Shaper, Grendel is then ‘enlightened’ by the words of the dragon. These seemingly opposite ideas both tug at his mind, tempting him toward them and pulling his mind apart at the same time…which is completely the world of Blake.

For Blake, nothing was certain; everything was made into a dichotomy of two seemingly reconcilable ideas. “Little Lamb” and the “The Tyger” represent this world of halves quite well, the former representing the lack of knowledge of the Songs of Innocence while the latter provides a more aware and knowledgeable view of the word. But lack knowledge and knowledgeable once again bring up the world of opposites the Grendel lives in. How can there be a lack of knowledge while being knowledgeable? But that is exactly the concept that Blake begin to illustrate in these two poems.

They both discuss a greater “creator,” uniting them into a common world of one subject, but in that uniting they bring those two very different experience levels into one world. Even within the poem “Little Lamb” this dichotomy is seen as the speaker tells the Little Lamb, curious about who his creator is, “I’ll tell thee.” In that phrase alone, the conveying of knowledge is implied, even though the innocence that the lamb represents shouldn’t be involved with the gaining of knowledge. Nonetheless, Blake brings the two worlds together in this impossible coexistence.

The same is seen in “The Tyger” as the speaker describes the acts of the creator of the Tyger. The Tyger is constantly associated with the world of ‘experience’ through phrases such as “fire of thine eyes.” Fire in itself can be seen to represent knowledge as it was the ‘knowledge’ that Prometheus brought down to the humans. At the same time, it has the destructive, corrupted quality that often is seen in the world of experience. Later on in the poem, a connection is also made between the two poems, once again a seemingly impossible bridge. “Did he smile his work to see,” the speaker muses, “Did he who made the lamb make thee!” Through this phrase, the topic of creator that dominated both poems envelopes both the world of innocence and experience. The creator that molded the innocence of the lamb was also able to use the same hands, now a “dread hand,” in order to shape the terrorizing form of experience in the Tyger. Not only was this unlikely relationship made real within the creator of the two animals, but even in the creation of these opposites, on his face lays a “smile,” suggesting he knew very well what it was that he was doing. It was not an accidental uniting, but rather an intentional one, possessing all of the previous planning that is embodied in the “symmetry” and thought put into the creation of the Tyger.

Then, since the ideas fit so well, it seems a given that Grendel is littered with references to Blake’s work. Just as the world of “The Tyger” and the “Little Lamb” are torn apart and reconciled under the very concept that separates them, Grendel’s mind undergoes united division. During his battle with Beowulf, this mental state is reflected physically as Grendel is literally “torn” apart by Beowulf. Yet in that instance, Grendel seems to find clarity and understanding of the world as he says his “sight clears.” Just as Blake described, Grendel found unity in the division.

the stranger

Grendel- John Gardner

After ten long chapters of waiting in Grendel, BEOWULF ARRIVES! Or at least “the stranger” arrives…who is Beowulf. But this Beowulf is definitely completely different from the Beowulf found in Beowulf -- so different, in fact, that it begs the question, “Who is he really?” He clearly had some purpose in coming, but was it to hurt or help Grendel?

At times, it seemed very much as if Beowulf meant to harm Grendel, particularly as he seemed to fulfill the ‘prophecy’ of Grendel’s mother. “Beware the fish,” she said (or communicated in some way…maybe mother-son ESP). Following the zodiac signs that match up to the chapters of Grendel, Beowulf’s arrival coincides with Aquarius and Pisces, both aquatic zodiac signs. Not only that, but Beowulf also travels to the land of the Danes over water, and one of Grendel’s first observations about him is the fact that “he has no more beard than a fish” – a direct comparison with a fish. Following Grendel’s mother’s warning, it seems that Beowulf does present a harmful presence.

There are also, of course, the multiple connections between Beowulf and the dragon. Even before Grendel compares Beowulf to a fish, he notices that Beowulf’s eyes “slanted downward, never blinking, unfeeling as a snake’s.” This only the first of several comparisons Grendel makes between Beowulf and snakes, creatures that automatically bring to mind the similarly scaly, reptilian dragon. The dragon appears once again through Beowulf during his battle with Grendel. Grendel describes visions of “terrible fiery wings” sprouting out of Beowulf’s back while “flames slip out of the corners of his mouth” imagery that is impossible not to compare to the flying, fire-breathing dragon. Not only is the dragon as a whole connected to Beowulf, but during the battle it is the ‘fiery’ side of him that is brought out. Considering the destructive power of fire and the way in which the dragon used it to threaten Grendel when they first met, Beowulf’s association with this element hardly makes him look harmless. There are also the connotations of the dragon in general that Beowulf is associated with. The dragon was the one the reminded Grendel that his existence was pointless, the perfect candidate for someone that would squash Grendel into nothingness without a second thought. Once again, not exactly making Beowulf look like an angel.

Or is it?

In our discussions as a class, the idea came up that the wings that Beowulf sees sprouting from Beowulf are actually the wings of an angel, making a Beowulf a savior. After all, although fire can be seen as the dangerous weapon that the dragon wielded, it can also be seen as a saving force considering its power is so integral to the functioning of our society -- even more so in Grendel’s times. Moreover, Beowulf’s purpose did not seem to be to help the Danes as Grendel notices that Beowulf knows that Hrothgar’s kingdom is a “doomed house.” If Beowulf knows and accepts the fact that the people he’s working to save cannot be saved, it seems illogical that he is still trying to save them…unless he’s not actually trying to save them. This leads us to the conclusion that Beowulf may have arrived with a goal much more centered on Grendel’s needs, perhaps, even, to save him.

If this is the case, hopefully Beowulf’s goal was not to save Grendel’s physical body. If he was, then he failed miserably at his task considering he himself led to Grendel’s death. However, if his saving grace was meant for Grendel’s mind then it’s possible that he was more successful. After all, Beowulf does seem to be strongly tied to water as discussed earlier, and Joseph Campbell did describe water as being a symbol of one’s unconscious, suggesting that Beowulf may be forcing Grendel to face his own unconscious and understand his true beliefs and true self. This seems to be exactly what Beowulf is doing when he whispers in Grendel’s ear, “You make the world by whispers, second by second,” a phrase eerily similar to Grendel’s own, “I create the whole universe, blink by blink.” Was it perhaps that Grendel was running away from himself causing the endless war inside him between the Shaper and the dragon? If this was the case, was his battle with Beowulf an opportunity to set his mind free -- a blessing rather than a curse? Maybe. Or maybe Beowulf was just a “stranger” seeking glory.

dragon

Grendel- John Gardner

A major shift in Grendel comes with the appearance of the dragon. So what exactly does that mean for Grendel? Has he found ‘truth’ and ‘enlightenment’? And whatever he’s found, does he accept it?

What the dragon gives to Grendel is often compared to what Grendel gives to the people, fright and, in a very twisted way, ‘enlightenment.’ The dragon himself says it when he teases Grendel with the words, “Now you know how they feel when they see you, eh?” (50). Yet, whenever I look back, there seem to be too many differences. Even when Grendel terrorizes the humans, he does so in confusion and also what he feels is necessity, thinking that eating a human once in a while is “only natural: kept them from over populating, maybe starving to death, come winter” (52). He is searching for some sort of meaning.

On the other hand, the dragon is merely playing with Grendel, laughing at him constantly and, as previously mentioned, teasing him. From his actions, the dragon seems to get very little out of the exercise except for entertainment. Once again the dragon himself supports such an idea by saying, “I do not change the future” (54). If his actions hold no power, why call out to Grendel to impart on him these “truths” of the universe? He also points out to Grendel that “nothing” will come out of what is happening, acknowledging that his own actions are meaningless. All he wishes to do is “to seek out gold and sit on it” (63). The lack of interest in anything else suggests that Grendel is the same, just another treasure that would be fun to observe and play with. Given that, it wouldn’t be surprising if the dragon lied to Grendel about what he knew simply to watch Grendel’s reaction. Even Grendel thinks of this possibility stating that the dragon “was evil enough.” Such lies would hardly be considered enlightenment.

Even if the dragon was telling the truth, it’s likely that his words were not truths, but perspective. Throughout the dragon’s speech to Grendel, he never tells him everything he knows. Of course he doesn’t. If he does know everything including the future, it would be impossible for his to relate it to Grendel anyway. Therefore, whatever he tells Grendel is what he has interpreted the world to be and what he has learned from the knowledge he has access to. However, just like Plato suggested in his allegory of the cave, our interpretations of reality are not actually the truth of reality but only the limited knowledge we understand by seeing it from one perspective. Grendel knows that the dragon can see the future and takes what he says to be truth, but he’s really only been exposed to another perspective of the world he has already developed a perspective on.

Despite this, it seems that Grendel realizes that the ‘truth’ the dragon gave him was not necessarily true. He says to himself that what the dragon said is “what is” and even his aura becomes darker as a result, but Grendel is still not completely comfortable following the dragon’s words. Had he completely trusted the wisdom of the dragon, he shouldn’t be so plagued with worry about whether he should or should not be doing what he is doing, However, Grendel states after his violation of Wealtheow, an action the dragon probably looked upon with amusement, that he “resolved, absolutely and finally, to kill myself, for the love of the Baby Grendel that used to be” (95). Far from sounding enlightened, Grendel seems to look at his experience with the dragon as a corruption of his innocent younger self. He’s drawn to it, yet at the same time he’s repulsed. The dragon very possibly did not pass on anything enlightening to Grendel, but he’s started a war of confusion within him.

power

Ozymandias- Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

In “Ozymandias,” Percy Shelley points out that power, no matter how great, is often only temporary. He discusses a commanding leader, Ozymandias, but contrasts his greatness with the decay of a toppled statue. The name Ozymandias refers to Ramses II, the third pharaoh of the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt and one of the most powerful and most influential of the Egyptian pharaohs. As the poem itself says, Ozymandias describes himself as the “King of Kings,” almost as if to put himself above human power in saying that he was even above the rulers of the humans, the kings. This attitude if further displayed in the following line of the inscription. Ozymandias took pride in his “works,” as can be seen by his flaunting of them on his statue. These works are representative of his mark on the world – his power.

However, the traveler shows how completely that power has vanished in his description of the statue’s state. He starts at the base of the statue, describing the legs as “trunkless,” suggesting that they have no solid base, a description extended to the power of Ozymandias. Although the statue was once stable standing tall and capable of holding its own weight, like the empire and leader it was meant to celebrate, it has crumbled to the ground, inevitably worn down by the ruthless minions of nature and time.

The traveler continues with the face of the statue, mentioning its “shattered visage.” Just as the head of a government or country is thought to be the embodiment of that government or country, this visage does the same. The head of the statue can be associated with all of the power that Ozymandias and his empire possessed. However, like the visage shattered on the ground, the power has also fallen to pieces. What used to look down on others, flaunting a high position above them, has fallen, both figuratively and literally, to the ground, the lowest of the low. However, it’s important to note that the visage has not disappeared completely, merely been shattered. The power the Ozymandias wielded has been shattered, unable to hold its original authority, but it a shadow still remains. The shattered face is not the same as a face, but it still brings back the memory of the face and everything that the face represented. In the same way, Ozymandias’ power lives in the influence it had on modern culture, but it continues in such a way that cannot be considered true power, regardless of how fearsome it may have been before.

By drawing on Ozymandias’ statue to bring out the essence of Ozymandias’ power, Shelley makes an important connection. Power is just like any other material good. At the moment, it may be exquisite, enviable, unrivaled. Despite this, very few material goods can withstand the ultimate power of time unscathed. In the same way, power very rarely withstands time. Whether it be power within a household, school, city, state, country, or planet, time changes and authority changes constantly, an endlessly ticking clock that never stays in the same place for long.

reality

Grendel- John Gardner

Allegory of the Cave- Plato

Plato’s allegory of the cave discusses reality – our own personal realities. Grendel deals with quite a similar topic, making them perfect for comparisons. When we first began our comparisons in class, some characters and objects seemed to be clear cut parallels, while others seemed fuzzy. But looking back even the clear cut comparisons have begun to turn fuzzy and those that were already fuzzy have caused me to spiral down in confusion.

There were several symbols in particular that we examined: the prisoners, the cave, the shadows, the light, and the sun. The prisoners we agreed to be those that are child-like and unenlightened, just like the men in the cave that were not privy to the secrets of the ‘real’ world. They exist in a reality that encompasses only one aspect of a greater, more complete reality. The cave was then the limitation of their reality, perhaps resulting from close-mindedness that prevents ‘prisoners’ from seeing through to the true situation or their perception of what they see inevitably limiting what they understand of the situation. The shadows that danced across the cave walls were identified as the prisoner’s perception itself. Although the object itself was behind them, all the prisoners could see was the shadow in front, clearly representing a difference between the ‘truth’ of the environment and how the ‘prisoners’ understand and perceive that truth. The light that allows the freed man to see and understand the real objects is the truth of the world, how it really is outside of any single person’s interpretation. It then follows that the sun, the source of light in the world that is necessary for the survival of the world, was the source of all truth, comparable to a god. Not just someone or something that knew what the truth was, but the one that had created truth itself.

So how does all of that appear in Grendel? Naturally we began with the prisoners, matching them almost automatically with the nature that surrounded Grendel, as well as the people the Grendel looked down upon for all their “theories” and religion. However, as I thought about it more, I recalled a passage near the end of Plato’s allegory. When the freed man returns to cave, his perspective has been changed in what we would identify as a positive way. However, the men who remained in the cave, because of their lack of enlightenment, believed themselves to be the enlightened ones while the man who returned from the outside world was below them. Could that not also be the case with the nature and humans that Grendel looked down upon? What if it was, in fact, Grendel that did not truly understand, not privy to the truth, and because of that he saw those surrounding him as unenlightened? All of a sudden, nature did not seem like such an obvious prisoner.

The light and sun brought about even more confusion, in particular, the shaper. The shaper was the one that created the truth for the humans, telling them what happened, yet what he tells them is not always what really happened. He is the creator of truth, but his truths…are not actually true. So is he the sun, creating what truth is and shaping the world of the humans? Is he even the light, the truth of the world? Or is maybe the fire that burned in the cave, shedding light on what happened, but in the process distorting the truth, just as the fire shed light but created the shadows that became a false reality? We also entertained the thought that perhaps it was the mysterious presence that Grendel felt around him that was truly the sun, the creator of truth who had yet to fully reveal himself. As you may have noticed, there are very few statements at this point, instead replaced by questions and musings. But perhaps this confusion too is caused by my own cave keeping me from understanding the greater reality. Or maybe, just maybe, it is a sign that I’m being freed.

wakariaeru

Winesburg, Ohio- Sherwood Anderson

Naked- Spyair

Throughout Winesburg, Ohio, Sherwood Anderson explores the concepts of loneliness and an inability to communicate. I was recently listening to music when I was struck by several phrases with an extremely similar message in a song that began to play. The song was “Naked” by Spyair, which begins with:

「誰にも会いたくはない」

そんな夜が僕にだってあるけど

ひとりが好きなわけじゃない

ただ、誰といても　分かり合える気がしなくて

“I don’t want to see anyone”

I’ve had those kinds of nights.

It’s not that I like one person,

It’s just that no matter who I’m with, I feel like we can’t understand each other.

This feeling of being unable to be understood is a plague that affects a large number of the residents of Winesburg, Ohio. It starts at the very beginning of Winesburg, Ohio with Wing Biddlebaum in “Hands.” Since his hands and their actions had been so misunderstood when he was a teacher, Wing Biddlebaum does not have the courage to communicate. He symbolically “wanted to keep [his hands] way.” Considering that Wing’s method of communicating with others is by passing his dreams on through his hands, by hiding his hands he is hiding his thoughts and dreams because, as the song lyrics so aptly phrase it, he feels he can’t be understood. “Mother” contains a similar example with Elizabeth Willard. She spends most of her time coped up in her house, not interacting with anyone since no one would be able to understand her. The examples continue in “Teacher” with Kate Swift. The teacher frequently walks around at night all alone, not interacting with anyone, which makes her quite a mystery to the rest of the town. As Anderson says, “no one in Winesburg would have suspected” what kind of person Kate Swift was. As that line implies, the residents of Winesburg don’t understand Kate, leading to her to be isolated just like the speaker in the song “Naked.”

But these examples, both in the book and in the song, aren’t people who are content to be isolated. The lyrics of “Naked” continue later on in the song with the phrases:

なぜだろう？　こんなに人恋しいのに. . .

少しづつ　僕のハートを話せるかな？

Why is it? I long for people this much . . .

Little by little, I wonder if you’ll be able to understand my heart.

Just as the lyrics show, Wing Biddlebaum, Elizabeth Willard, and Kate Swift all try to find someone, anyone, that will understand them. For all of them, that person happens to be George Willard. Wing Biddlebaum tries to convey his dreams to George, saying, “You must begin to dream. From this time on you must shut your ears to the roaring of voices.” Wing himself was defeated by the opinions of others. Fearing what others might think, he hid away his expressive hands. By conveying that message to George, he attempts to send his dreams to someone that will understand so that his dreams will continue to live on. Elizabeth similarly tries to communicate with her son and live vicariously through him when she prods him to interact with others and be understood, saying “I think you had better go out among the boys. You are too much indoors.” As Elizabeth herself feels trapped by staying indoors the vast majority of the time without anyone to talk with and understand her, she tries to convey that loneliness to her son with her words and hopes that her loneliness will be understood by someone. Kate Swift is the same, hoping to be able to lean on someone and be understood, she goes to George Willard and “[lets] her body fall heavily against him.” Contrasted with her usual nights of walking alone, Kate’s dependence on George is an attempt to finally be understood by someone.

However, the song has one more phrase that once again matches Winesburg perfectly.

なぜだい？ こんなに近くにいるるのに遠い

言葉をかわすたびに　ひとりになる

Why is it? We’re so close yet so far

When we talk, I become alone.

Although Wing, Elizabeth, and Kate all try to connect with George and be understood by him, just like the speaker of the song, they are unable to truly communicate. When Wing realizes that he’s touching George with his hands in his excitement, his way of communicating, he becomes frightened, dreading misunderstanding, and withdraws back into himself as he “[thrusts] his hands deep into his trousers pockets.” Anderson is even clearer in the lack of proper communication between George and his mother, outright stating, “The communion between George Willard and his mother was outwardly a formal thing without meaning.” They were unable to get past the outer appearance of understanding. In the case of Kate Swift, George himself realizes that there is something missing in their communication as he says, “I have missed something Kate Swift was trying to tell me.”

This idea of a need to communicate runs through both the song and the book, yet in both, the characters don’t always find the happy understanding that they’re searching for.

love song and winesburg

Winesburg, Ohio- Sherwood Anderson

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock- T.S. Eliot

Although Winesburg, Ohio and “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” seem very different, closer comparison shows that they share some striking similarities. One idea that reoccurs in both works is the contrast between youth and age. Throughout Winesburg, many of the stories center around people who have already grown old, looking back on their experiences and youth.

In “Hands,” Wing Biddlebaum recalls his youth as a teacher and the dreams he had and wished to transfer to his students. These hopes and dreams are contrasted with his current aged state through his hands. When he was youthful, his hands were free and expressive. However, now in his age he finds himself self-conscious of his hands, hiding them away as if they were something to be afraid of. As he looks back on the freedom of youth, he regrets to some extent, but at the same time is over taken by nostalgia, which becomes yet another comparison between youth and age when Wing, in his old age, imparts his wisdom to the young George Willard, saying “You must begin to dream. From this time on you must shut your ears to the roaring of the voices.”

Reading “Mother” reveals a similar pattern. Elizabeth, now in her later years, does little more than sit by her window, watching the world go by but never actually participating in it or interacting with anyone outside of her home. This inactive, almost trapped, lifestyle is completely different from the freedom she possessed as a young girl. She thinks of her life before marriage, roaming free with “the traveling men” and trying to find what exactly she wanted to with her life. However, despite the fact that Elizabeth no longer lives that youthful life, she still expresses a longing for that lifestyle. She says to her son, George Willard, “I think you had better fo out among the boys. You are too much indoors.” Too Elizabeth, who is trapped by the decaying house she lives in, still value and longs for the outside world, as is shown by her belief that being engaged in that outside world is what is best for her son.

The speaker of “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” describes a similar situation, contrasting between the youth the speaker longs for and the old age that the speaker is experiencing. This can particularly be seen in the last section of the poem, where the speaker says outright “I grow old…I grow old.” However, the speaker then conveys a longing to return to his days of youth. “I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled. . . Do I dare eat a peach?” As rolling the bottoms of your trousers was a very youthful thing to do, by doing so, the speaker hopes to return once again to his days of youth. Yet at the same time, the speaker, like Wing and Elizabeth, realizes the futility of pursuing a vanished passed, causing the uncertainty in the question “Do I dare eat a peach?” A peach, juicy and full of flavor and life, perfectly symbolizes youth, and it this symbol of youth that the speaker is unsure about biting into, knowing that there can be no true return to youth. However, just as Wing and Elizabeth express their nostalgia to George, the speaker does the same with the reader, talking of mermaids, yet another symbol of youth, being mythical creature that always seems to be young and breathtakingly beautiful. However, in the end, he acknowledges that it is his fate to be old. “I do not think that they will sing to me,” the speaker says of the mermaids, knowing that their youthfulness will not reach him.

This contrast between youth and age in both works brings to mind both defeat and hope. The defeat comes in the form of the aged acknowledging their age and inability to return to the youth that they long for. However, because of their nostalgia, they are able to see the hope for the current youth and encourage them, because age has yet to overcome them.

death of imagination

I felt a Funeral, in my Brain- Emily Dickinson

I felt a Funeral, in my Brain,

And Mourners to and fro

Kept treading - treading - till it seemed

That Sense was breaking through -

And when they all were seated,

A Service, like a Drum -

Kept beating - beating - till I thought

My mind was going numb -

And then I heard them lift a Box

And creak across my Soul

With those same Boots of Lead, again,

Then Space - began to toll,

As all the Heavens were a Bell,

And Being, but an Ear,

And I, and Silence, some strange Race,

Wrecked, solitary, here -

And then a Plank in Reason, broke,

And I dropped down, and down -

And hit a World, at every plunge,

And Finished knowing - then -

In the poem “I felt a Funeral, in my Brain,” Emily Dickinson describes the process of succumbing to reality and reason and the negative effect that can have on a person. At the very beginning of the poem, the speaker describes a “funeral, in my brain,” suggesting that something within the speaker is changing or vanishing. Dickinson ten uses the word “treading” twice to describe the “mourners” inside the speakers head, representative of the state of the authors mind. This repetition as well as the word “treading” which, given the solemn tone created by the funeral setting, creates an image of repeated heavy footsteps, couple together to suggest a repetitive, constant wearing down of the speakers mind. Immediately after, “sense [breaks] through,” implying that the wearing down of the mind caused the sense to break through. By discussing sense breaking through immediately after describing a change in the mind by using the image of a funeral, the “sense” that is discussed is contrasted with the original state of the mind before the “funeral” occurred. “Sense” can carry the connotation of common sense and recognition of the outside world and reality. Therefore, the original state of the mind that is contrasted with that “sense” would be a state of creativity, fantasy, and imagination. Dickinson is describing the wearing down of the speaker’s creativity until reality conquers the speaker’s imagination.

Dickinson describes this victory of reality as a tragedy, beginning with the first stanza of the poem. By describing the affair as a “funeral” and something that would bring “mourners,” Dickinson immediately establishes that this event is a depressing one, not one to be celebrated. This mood continues in the third stanza with the phrase “I heard them lift a Box/And creak across my Soul.” Given the funeral setting, the creaking noise coupled with the word “Box” immediately brings to mind the image of a coffin, suggesting that because of the destruction of her imagination, her "Soul," which is her life beyond pure biological survival, has been lead to die as well. Dickinson creates this scene to show that because of the vanishing of the imagination, the speaker can no longer be himself/herself but instead is controlled by the “sense” that broke through. This is supported by the phrase in the second stanza “my mind was going numb.” Considering the mind is the part of the human that defines the individual and sets one human apart from the other, the numbing of the mind shows the disappearance of individual creation and defeat at the hands of the reality and common sense that is uniform for all humans.

The fourth stanza changes to a more direct description of the consequences of the ruin of the speaker’s imagination. The speaker is described as being “wrecked.” The word “wrecked” brings in a physical connotation, suggesting that the negative effects of the destruction of the imagination are serious to the point that they have created a physical manifestation, which is possible as the mental state is important in maintaining physical health. The process of the destruction of the individual which started with the end of the speaker’s imagination is completed in the last stanza. The speaker describes being “dropped down and down” and then mentions a “plunge” which causes her to “[finish] knowing.” The word “plunge” brings up imagery of water and drowning, which leads to the idea of death when coupled with the word “finished” in the next line. The speaker also notes that the cause of this death is the breaking of a “Plank in Reason” once again reiterating the idea that it is reality and reason that have killed the speakers imagination and in doing so have killed the speakers individuality. The speaker also describes the now-gone imagination as positive and its disappearance as a misfortune in the phrase “finished knowing.” This phrase is used to describe what happened to the speaker at the plunge, when reality finally completely won the battle against the speaker. However, considering it was the individuality that was vanquished and the reality that won over the mind of the speaker, “finished knowing” implies that it was when the speaker had his/her imagination that the speaker truly knew the world and when reality finally took over, the speaker stopped “knowing.”

By describing this destructive end to the speaker whose imagination had been destroyed by reality, Dickinson illustrates the importance of imagination and creativity to humans. She shows that without creativity we are unable to keep our “Soul,” what defines an individual as that individual. Reality can help our body survive, but without our imagination, just as the speaker, we too will lose our true self.

wife and lover

Winesburg, Ohio- Paper Pills, Death- Sherwood Anderson

Sherwood Anderson visits Doctor Reefy’s love life twice in Winesburg, Ohio. He first explores Doctor Reefy’s relationship with his wife in the story “Paper Pills.” Later on in the book, in the story “Death,” Anderson describes the love affair Doctor Reefy had with Elizabeth even before he had met his wife. Each relationship is unique with its own beginning and consequence, yet both are significant events in the life of Doctor Reefy and the two girls he was in love with. But what exactly did these relationships mean to each of them?

For the tall dark girl, Doctor Reefy’s wife, her relationship with the doctor seemed to be an escape. Their first meeting itself was the result of an attempt to escape a mistake. She was “in the family way and had become frightened,” leading her to visit Doctor Reefy to find a solution to her unplanned pregnancy. Afterwards, however, it was not his treatment, but Doctor Reefy himself that seemed to be the girl’s escape. From her relationship with her two suitors, the white-handed boy and the black-haired boy, it seemed that she was frightened of purity. The white-handed boy who spoke of virginity scared her, almost as if the perfection he was obsessed with was too much for her to bear. However, she more readily accepted the black-haired boy, symbolic of darkness and secrets, despite the fact that he at times did the very things that she feared the white-handed boy would do, like biting her. Having endured the consequence of such a decision, Doctor Reefy provided her with the escape to purity without the perfection that the white-handed boy forced on her. Although Doctor Reefy was surrounded by white and purity (white horse, white beard), he still possessed the lovable grotesqueness that allowed the tall girl to fall in love with him. He was compared to the “sweetness of the twisted apples.” He was imperfect, like the twisted apple, but that was exactly what caused the addicting sweetness that kept her with him. Because she was able to find in Doctor Reefy this sweetness that perfectly matched her, he was able to become her refuge.

Like Doctor Reefy’s wife, Elizabeth also sought out Doctor Reefy as an escape, but an escape from the loneliness of marriage. Doctor Reefy and Elizabeth “were a good deal alike.” It was precisely because of this that Elizabeth found herself able to communicate so easily with Doctor Reefy. Compared to her husband Tom who barely knew what she was thinking, being able to have someone that could simply understand her was a respite from her normal world and brought her even closer to Doctor Reefy. However, one of the main differences between Doctor Reefy’s relationship with his wife and with Elizabeth was one of the main reasons for the success of the former and failure of the latter. Elizabeth was already married. This caused her entire relationship with Doctor Reefy to become a secretive affair. She was unable to freely build the communication between the two of them. Instead she was only able use the snatches of understanding Doctor Reefy gave her to keep her going during her normal life with her husband. The love that brought Doctor Reefy and his wife together is what drove him and Elizabeth apart. Knowing that they were in love made their relationship forbidden and therefore robbed the relationship of the free exchange it had. At the same time, Doctor Reefy still served the purpose he was meant to in Elizabeth’s life. He was not a refuge to her, but a release. As Anderson describes, it was a “release that after all came to her but twice in her life, in the moments when her lovers Death and Doctor Reefy held her in their arms.”

hands

Winesburg, Ohio- Hands- Sherwood Anderson

Hands are everywhere in our lives. We use them for almost everything that we do. Eating food, opening a book, typing a blog. We wouldn't be able to function properly without the use of our hands. It’s exactly because our hands are so involved in what we do on a daily basis that they say so much about us and who we are. In “Hands,” Sherwood Anderson uses hands and the secrets that hands can reveal in order to develop characters.

In building the basic impression of his character Wing Biddlebaum, Anderson uses Biddlebaum’s hands to reveal his personality. He describes Biddlebaum’s hand as being “expressive” and “forever active” in order to describe Biddlebaum himself. However, it is not a description of Biddlebaum’s outer appearance and actions, but the action of his mind. His mind, like his hands, is forever active, and because this action and energy growing and developing in his brain overflows but isn't transferred into movement of his body as a whole, his hands become his outlet of expression, illuminating a part of him that cannot otherwise be physically seen. However, this expression is not limited to his personality, but also includes more short term forms of expressions such as emotions. Anderson notes that as he waits for George Willard, Biddlebaum’s hands are “nervous,” once again a display of the mind inside. Biddlebaum, very aware of the unique expression of his hands (to the point of scaring him later on in his life), uses his hands as a method of communication. Through touch he “[carries] a dream into the young minds” of his school children. Through the motions of his hands he’s able to communicate his state of mind.

Because of his heavy reliance on his hands to communicate what he’s thinking, his hands become even more representative of him as a person as compared to other people. Anderson once again uses this to explore Biddlebaum’s character. He describes the hands’ motions as “the beating of the wings of an imprisoned bird.” Like the bird, Biddlebaum is trapped, not by a physical cage, but rather the opinions of those around him. This cage of fear was one placed on him by the parents of his schoolchildren that accused him of inappropriate behavior. However, Biddlebaum does not only resemble the bird in the fact that he is imprisoned. He also takes on the characteristic of the bird’s beating wings. The bird does not just quietly accept its fate, but struggles against the cage, trapped nonetheless. Biddlebaum is the same. His thoughts and ever active mind keep his hands just as expressive as always and he longs to break free of his cage, but in the end the fear prevails and constrains his actions.

For Biddlebaum, George Willard is his escape. His cage of fear is removed, if only momentarily, and allows him to fly free. Anderson describes the incident saying, “Wing Biddlebaum became wholly inspired. For once he forgot the hands.” Through his hands he finds confidence again and, as he himself is inspired, is able to convey the inspiration of the Willard. However, only moments later the cage comes crashing down, the opinions of other once again trapping Biddlebaum. Just as the actions of the hands were misunderstood, causing them to be restrained, the mind behind the hands was also misunderstood. The cage that restricts Wing Biddlebaum comes crashing down not only on his hands, but also on his mind. The active mind of Biddlebaum and the thoughts that could inspire the world are trapped with his hands.

past and present

Frankenstein- Mary Shelley

Tintern Abbey- William Wordsworth

After Frankenstein promises his creature that he will create a female creature to accompany him, Frankenstein sets off on a trip with his best friend Henry Clerval. As they travel, they cross through majestic landscapes and breathtaking scenery, yet, while Clerval rejoices in the beauty, Frankenstein finds himself focusing on the gravity of the task he has agreed to complete for the creature. It is in this situation that Shelley inserts a section of Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey” using the reflective voice of Frankenstein (Ch. 18). “Tintern Abbey” itself is built upon the foundation of a comparison between past experiences and how the same experience changes with time. In the quote that Shelley uses in Frankenstein, Wordsworth says, “Their colors, their forms, were then to him an appetite; a feeling, and a love, that had no need of a remoter charm.” He compares how his younger self views that same scenery to how his present self sees it, describing the former experience as more innocent, filled with pure joy, as compared to the “sad music of humanity” that tinges the experience of his present self.

Frankenstein finds himself in a similar situation, though in Frankenstein, the short experpt of the poem brings together comparisons between Frankenstein’s experience during his travels with Clerval and the reactions of Clerval, representative of Frankenstein’s younger self. Frankenstein describes Clerval as being “alive” and “joyful” at the opportunity to see such awe-inspiring scenes. Frankenstein even uses the phrase “transported to Fairyland” in order to describe the perfect world that Clerval resided in, much like the younger version of Wordsworth in “Tintern Abbey.” He was only able to enjoy the experience so simply, only taking in the beauty and joy, because the world he knew at that time was nothing short of perfect. Everything had a positive twist; negative feeling had no place in his experience. Just as Wordsworth said, in that perfect world, there was “no need of a remoter charm.”

This was directly compared to Frankenstein’s view of the experience, as he describes himself saying, “I [was] haunted by a curse that shut up every avenue to enjoyment.” Like the older Wordsworth, Frankenstein is unable to see the landscape as flawless in its beauty because he has become too familiar with the less perfect side of life. These views that he has become familiar with, particularly as a result of his association and interactions with the creature, have given Frankenstein an added perspective that changes how he interprets and reacts to the scenery in front of him, giving him an entirely different experience despite the fact that he is looking at the same thing that Clerval sees. However, he does not see the scenery as ugly because of his new perspective. He himself says, “Even I, depressed in mind, and my spirits continually agitated by gloomy feelings, even I was pleased.” He was still able to recognize the beauty of the scenery, just as the older Wordsworth was still able to enjoy the view of Tintern Abbey five years after his original visit. However, once again like the older Wordsworth, his perspective was changed to include a more diverse range of emotions that extended beyond happiness and enjoyment.

Shelley uses this poem to compare the experiences of Clerval and Frankenstein but also uses is it as a path to explore Frankenstein’s understanding of the world around him and to illustrate the dramatic changes that have overcome him as a result of his ambition and creation of life from inanimate objects.

hidden inside

Winesburg, Ohio- The Book of the Grotesque- Sherwood Anderson

On the outside we are whoever we are, but on the inside are we different? Perhaps hidden inside is a grotesque, an existence we may not even be aware of. But there is one man who is aware. A writer, created by Sherwood Anderson.

The writer is described as old, decorated with a white moustache. Wise with age, graced with the purity and wholesomeness that is encompassed by the color white. Yet inside of him lies not a soul shriveled with age, but a “youth.” The wisdom he has acquired through his years is accompanied by the vitality and innocence of the youth inside of him. Yet the youth isn’t just a youth. It’s described also as “a woman, young, and wearing a coat of mail like a knight.” It’s motherly, comforting, gentle, yet at the same time, this youth is not one to back down from a fight. Like a knight, it will protect what is important to it.

And then there are the grotesques. Everyone, other than the writer that is, seems to be a grotesque. Inside of them, regardless of what they look like on the inside, is a distorted, abnormal figure. But, as the writer realizes, the distorted figures weren’t originally distorted, but made to be distorted not long after the world itself had been born. And what was is it that had twisted us humans into these unusual forms? Truths. Truths about everything. Yet the humans “snatched” these truths for themselves, calling them their own, stealing it, in a way, from their brothers and sisters. And this made them ugly. Not only them, but the truth itself lost its beauty. Somewhat like the apple in the Garden of Eden. Everything had been beautiful, perfect, the ideal world for man. But then the desire of humans invaded. It was the attempt of Adam and Eve to make knowledge their own by eating the fruit that God had expressly forbidden them from eating that changed the world around them. The fruit itself was not evil, just as the truths were not. In fact, they were both pure and good. However, the humans’ actions, snatching the truths and eating the apple for their own personal gain, took away the value from the truths and the apple and also changed the humans themselves. Adam and Eve were ashamed of themselves, infected with original sin that they passed down to all their descendants. And the humans that stole the truths, they became grotesques.

But this fact was not painted across their foreheads. It was only on the inside, and it was only the writer that was able to see them, much like a God, able to see the faults of all humans though they may not be obvious to others. It is also only the writer that is not a grotesque. It is the youth inside of him that saves him and also the youth inside of him that leads the grotesques before his eyes. So is the writer God? Or perhaps he’s a prophet occupied by the youth, the vitality and purity of God. Or then again, maybe he’s God and the youth inside of him that leads the grotesques before him is the Holy Spirit.

And then we have the carpenter. He is quite like the writer. Old. Possessing a white mustache. Wise, pure. The writer calls upon him to work for him, but ends up allowing the carpenter to resolve the issue as he saw fit. The carpenter is also a grotesque, but he is “the nearest thing to what is understandable and lovable of all the grotesques.” Perhaps….Jesus? Jesus was born a man, yet he was the son of God, just as the carpenter was a grotesque but the most perfect grotesque there was, if there can be such a thing as a perfect grotesque. It was also Jesus that worked for his Father to save mankind, just as the carpenter worked for the writer, although on a more ordinary task (or was it…).

But of course, not all of us can be the carpenter. All of us are left to find the grotesque within us and maybe change it, little by little, to find the truth that it originally was.

losing control

Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress- Dai Sijie

Through Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress, Dai Sijie constantly reminds us that not everything in life is within our control. At times, as occurs several times in the novel, when a situation seems most within our control is when we realize that, in fact, we were never in control at all, quite a jarring realization.

The first example that Dai presents is the Chinese government, though perhaps it can’t be called a realization. It’s made quite clear to the audience that the Chinese government’s power is being evaded, yet the government itself never comes to this realization. But it is this secrecy that makes the government’s lack of control all the more enjoyable. The government has taken away both the narrator and his friend Luo from their parents and sent them to a mountain known as Phoenix of the Sky in order to be re-educated by the villagers. This program was usually reserved for young men and women who had attended high school, but the narrator and Luo were forced into the same program despite their lack of a high school education because of their parents’ poor relationship with the government. This situation, however, made it even harder for them to escape re-education. Stuck in a predicament forced upon them by a government they had little respect for, anything to go against that suffocating authority was welcome, and the two friends found just such an outlet in forbidden books that they were able to obtain and read. Not only was this going completely against the government’s wishes, but it was doing so while the government was trying to force them to follow the government’s wishes and it was right under the noses of the government’s minions. Such a controlled environment, yet, as the two young men showed, so little true control.

The acquiring of the books itself was yet another example of a perception of control that comes tumbling down, though this time the person that loses control is very much aware of it. Originally, the books that the narrator and Luo wanted were in the possession of their friend, who they called Four-Eyes, another young man that had been sent to be re-educated because of his parents. Upon discovering their friend’s stash of books, they offer to do various chores for him in order to read the books, and Four-Eyes begins to look upon the books as a way of using the narrator and Luo. He dangles the promise of a book in front of them in order to get them to find mountain songs for him that he can send to be published, possibly securing him a job that will allow him to escape re-education. In order to get the job, Four-Eyes edits the songs to support the government which angers the narrator and Luo, but Four-Eyes cares very little about their opinions when he finds his efforts successful. Leaving the mountain and re-education behind and heading towards a new job, Four-Eyes has every reason to believe that he is in control of his destiny. However, this completely changes when he discovers that his entire suitcase of forbidden books has been stolen. Of course he knows it is the narrator and Luo that have stolen the books. No one else knows about them. Yet he’s absolutely powerless to do anything about it. Accusing them of the theft would mean admitting to the fact that he possessed books banned by the government. In such a way, Four-Eyes was controlled by the very objects that he had thought he was using to control the narrator and Luo.

But the two protagonists, who relished the helplessness caused by their actions, find themselves faced with a similar situation. Soon after they arrived on the mountain, they met a girl they fondly called the Little Seamstress. It wasn't long before she became Luo’s girlfriend, but Luo didn't consider a “simple mountain girl” to be good enough for him. After first meeting her, he even commented, “She’s not civilised, at least not enough for me!” However, using the books they stole from Four-Eyes, Luo thought that he, the superior city boy, would be able to fix his simple mountain girl. As he read to her book after book, he always considered himself in the process of bettering the Little Seamstress for himself, as if he owned her. However, the Little Seamstress showed him how little he truly controlled her by leaving to go to the city, ironically enough inspired by the books Luo had read to her. In the end, it was not the Little Seamstress who had been controlled, but Luo, left chasing after her and upset to the point of burning the books he treasured so much, the books that had represented control over their own lives. The narrator and Luo had so many times seen others trapped in the perception of their own power and control, yet, in the end, they too fell victim to that perception.

fire and ice

Frankenstein- Mary Shelley

Throughout Frankenstein, there’s a constant battle between fire and ice, both in the environment around the characters and within the characters themselves.

Frankenstein’s creature first encounters fire in the woods during his confusion following Frankenstein’s escape and abandonment. In that moment, he not only receives the warmth of the fire, but he also symbolically receives knowledge. In a similar way, the creature itself is fire, created by a spark of life initiated by, once again, knowledge, this time the forbidden knowledge discovered by Victor Frankenstein. This fire is constantly at odds with the ice in the story. As the creature ventures into the world for the first time, he travels through devilishly cold terrain, defenseless against the climate. As he recounts to Frankenstein, “Before I had quitted your apartment, on a sensation of cold, I had covered myself with some clothes; but these were insufficient […] feeling pain invade me on all sides, I sat down and wept”. The creature also has to deal with the icy coldness of the human society he encounters. Their hearts refuse to melt at the warmth of the creature’s efforts to help them and instead seek to extinguish his life by attacking him violently and driving him away from human society. Frankenstein, the creator himself, is also included in the ice of the story, as he abandoned the creature he created and later attempted to end him. As the story comes to a close, we once again see fire and ice seeking to destroy. The creature decides to take his own life, stating that he will burn himself. The fire, the last remnants of the life given to him by Frankenstein, is swallowed up by the ice of the Arctic, leaving only the cold.

This begs the question: Was the fire the evil plaguing the earth, or was it the ice? When spark of life created by forbidden knowledge was vanquished, was the ice a savior, or was it simply a murderer? Perhaps what Mary Shelley wished to say was that it was neither. The fire was not evil, nor was the ice. They were both a confusing mix of both good and bad. The fire was introduced as warmth and saving, a lifeline to the creature that had no other protection from the cod. Yet at the same time, only pages later, it became the cause of destruction, reducing the cottage of the De Laceys to ashes. The creature described the scene saying, “[W]ith a loud scream, I fired the straw, and heath, and bushes, which I had collected. The wind fanned the fire, and the cottage was quickly enveloped in flames, which clung to it, and licked it with their forked and destroying tongues”. The force was capable of salvation and destruction. Ice was no different. Throughout the story, icy climates eat at the well being of the characters. The creature realized this from the moment he was “born.” Yet at the same time, it was ice that saved Watson. Although his ship was originally trapped by ice, not only did he and his crew survive, but it was because of the danger encountered that Watson realized and was able to avoid even greater dangers had the voyage been continued.

Similarly, the creature and the human society he hates so completely cannot be easily categorized into good or evil, but are composed of a mix of both. The creature at first refrains from injuring anyone, even saving a girl from death at the hands of a river, but once he’s experienced the rejection of human society so many times, he turns to the murder of innocent people (William, Clerval, Elizabeth) as a way of seeking revenge against his creator and human society in general. Human society, on the other hand, was good in its determination to catch the murder, yet even before the murders, it subjected the creature to complete rejection due to fear. Both sides were at times on the side of justice and at times the one causing harm, though for their own reasons. Just like fire and ice, Shelley shows us that nothing is definite when it comes to human nature.