For the book assignment, I am reading Lolita. I have really enjoyed the novel and am almost finished it. I was initially hesitant about it because of the subject matter (it is hard to empathize with such a sick and twisted narrator). The more I read though, the more I got sucked into Humbert’s world, as scary as it was.
One of the most interesting aspects of Lolita is the way in which it is told. If it had been written as a mere sequence of events, the book would be about twenty pages long. It is the narrator, with his long asides about his love and lust for nymphets, who makes the story unique. It is also interesting to sort the actual events from Humbert’s memory. In some places, his memory is uncannily accurate (he describes an entire letter verbatim) while at other times it falters (during Humbert and Lolita’s trip across the country, he can only vaguely recall the various places that they visited). The narrator has a weird sense of the reality. He creates in his mind a fictitious island of Nymphetdom where girls between nine and twelve are seen as goddesses with an ability to please him. But often he contradicts himself about who is defined as a nymphet and how appealing different nymphets are to him. Any young girl that he is around for a long period of time seems to become a nymphet, suggesting that his concept of nymphets is not purely about love as he claims it is. One thing that can be said for Humbert is that he is trying to be honest in the book. He does not show much remorse about what he does, even when it is clear that he is hurting others (for example, Charlotte’s death, which was indirectly caused by her finding out about his sick fantasy, is seen by him as just a lucky opportunity to be with Lolita). But to his credit, he does not make excuses for his actions or blame them on something else.
I have done some research into possible interpretations of the book. One interpretation that I found (and that is repeated on the book’s flap) is that Humbert symbolizes civilized Europe and Lolita symbolizes crass America. This interpretation had not occurred to me, but I do think that it does make a certain amount of sense: Humbert (like Europe) has a very specific vision of how Lolita and everyone else is supposed to act and behave, and he is also very set in his ways. Lolita, on the other hand, does not always fit into Humbert’s vision of her, and is both rebellious and multi-faceted (like America).
I am currently taking a psychology course, and the psychological elements of this book are something that I would like to focus on in my paper. The book begins with the narrator discussing his childhood love and loss of a young nymphet. From there, all he wants to do is be with other nymphets. And every little girl he sees seems to be transformed by him into a possible nymphet, or a replacement for his first lover. This is similar to ideas put forth by Freud, because Humbert is reliving an unfulfilled childhood memory later in life. Humbert’s case is made more interesting by the fact that he himself has studied psychology. He even alludes to Freud later in the book when he compares a situation Lolita and he get into with a situation that he and his first lover experienced.
In conclusion, Lolita has given me a lot to think about and many avenues for my paper. It is a strange novel with strange language and a strange plot but I have enjoyed reading it. (623)
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Big Brother Writes a Poem: Conformity as a Virtue in Auden’s “The Unknown Citizen”
Big Brother Writes a Poem: Conformity as a Virtue in Auden’s “The Unknown Citizen”
In “The Unknown Citizen,” Auden creates an expansive and frightening dystopia as seen through the eyes of a dictatorial ruler.
Auden gives subtle clues about the world that “The Unknown Citizen” inhabits by playing with the meaning of certain words and phrases. For example, the second line, “That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint,” illustrates several important things. First of all, the fact that “saint” is an old fashion word suggests that religion is no longer a part of this new world. But the heart of the poem comes from what the narrator deems as the “modern” definition of a saint. Today, a saint is defined in the Catholic faith as a person in Heaven who lived a life of “historic virtue,” and was “holy” and “reverent.” In contrast, the unknown citizen is not necessarily any of those things; because a saint is described in his world as someone who “served the greater community.” There is a great contrast in the two definitions, which shows that the society he lives in values not great individuals but nameless parts of a whole. Also, in the tradition of other dystopian novels such as Fahrenheit 451 and 1984, words are perverted to show a society that is itself perverted. In Auden’s poem, “The Press” is responsible for giving information to the government about individuals; whereas in real life the press is responsible for giving individuals knowledge about their government. Additionally, Auden capitalizes certain words (like the “Greater Community”) to show the emphasis society has placed on them. Finally, the tense of the poem— the royal “we”— suggests an adherence to some sort of “groupthink.”
The structure of the poem; a neat, organized checklist; adds a humorous and ironic tone. The humor results because Auden mixes two dissimilar elements (a balance sheet and an individual’s life) to an odd effect. No human being, who is filled with contradicting emotions and thoughts, can be reduced to a matter-of-fact laundry list. The irony exposes a government trying to run people like parts of a machine.
The opening to the poem showcases what a strange, sad world the unknown citizen inhabits. The fact that the monument was “Erected by the State” (as opposed to family or friends) suggests that loved ones play less of a role in one’s life than the government does. The fact that it is in the public view suggests that the government is openly emphasizing community over the individual. Also, the citizen is not given an identity save for some numbers and letters because he is not significant to the government as a person with a unique name.
What is left out of this man’s epitaph is as significant as what is put in it. Although it deals with his family in a scientific, biological sense (he contributed the right number of children to help his community), it does not deal with it in a social sense. In our world, obituaries are focused on the deceased’s family and friends. The exclusion of such facts on the unknown citizen’s grave shows how deemphasized a person’s family is in Auden’s world.
The point of dystopian writing is to serve as a cautionary tale for a society. Most famously, George Orwell’s 1984 stretched the ideals and practices of the Communist party in Russia to their frightening conclusion. Although there are numerous parallels between Auden’s poem and Orwell’s novel, Auden seemed to be using a different society as a model. In the poem, Auden hints at a capitalist system (the citizen works at an incorporated company whose name sounds suspiciously similar to Ford Motors and belongs to a union) that is not unlike our own. Therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that Auden is cautioning the U.S.A. just as Orwell cautioned the U.S.S.R.
Auden’s choice of company (Fudge Motors, which, as mentioned, is obviously an allusion to Ford Motors) is also significant. After all, Ford is famous for creating factories with assembly lines, and cutting costs by using interchangeable parts. This could be a metaphor for the man in the poem: he himself is an interchangeable part.
In conclusion, it is made clear through Auden’s language, tone, and descriptions that the unknown citizen is celebrated by his government because of his conformity and his function as a consumer. The government’s cruel ideals are dealt with explicitly in the final line: they believe that the unknown citizen has had a fulfilling life because he has fit into a preset role. His value as a free and happy individual is irrelevant to them.
In “The Unknown Citizen,” Auden creates an expansive and frightening dystopia as seen through the eyes of a dictatorial ruler.
Auden gives subtle clues about the world that “The Unknown Citizen” inhabits by playing with the meaning of certain words and phrases. For example, the second line, “That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint,” illustrates several important things. First of all, the fact that “saint” is an old fashion word suggests that religion is no longer a part of this new world. But the heart of the poem comes from what the narrator deems as the “modern” definition of a saint. Today, a saint is defined in the Catholic faith as a person in Heaven who lived a life of “historic virtue,” and was “holy” and “reverent.” In contrast, the unknown citizen is not necessarily any of those things; because a saint is described in his world as someone who “served the greater community.” There is a great contrast in the two definitions, which shows that the society he lives in values not great individuals but nameless parts of a whole. Also, in the tradition of other dystopian novels such as Fahrenheit 451 and 1984, words are perverted to show a society that is itself perverted. In Auden’s poem, “The Press” is responsible for giving information to the government about individuals; whereas in real life the press is responsible for giving individuals knowledge about their government. Additionally, Auden capitalizes certain words (like the “Greater Community”) to show the emphasis society has placed on them. Finally, the tense of the poem— the royal “we”— suggests an adherence to some sort of “groupthink.”
The structure of the poem; a neat, organized checklist; adds a humorous and ironic tone. The humor results because Auden mixes two dissimilar elements (a balance sheet and an individual’s life) to an odd effect. No human being, who is filled with contradicting emotions and thoughts, can be reduced to a matter-of-fact laundry list. The irony exposes a government trying to run people like parts of a machine.
The opening to the poem showcases what a strange, sad world the unknown citizen inhabits. The fact that the monument was “Erected by the State” (as opposed to family or friends) suggests that loved ones play less of a role in one’s life than the government does. The fact that it is in the public view suggests that the government is openly emphasizing community over the individual. Also, the citizen is not given an identity save for some numbers and letters because he is not significant to the government as a person with a unique name.
What is left out of this man’s epitaph is as significant as what is put in it. Although it deals with his family in a scientific, biological sense (he contributed the right number of children to help his community), it does not deal with it in a social sense. In our world, obituaries are focused on the deceased’s family and friends. The exclusion of such facts on the unknown citizen’s grave shows how deemphasized a person’s family is in Auden’s world.
The point of dystopian writing is to serve as a cautionary tale for a society. Most famously, George Orwell’s 1984 stretched the ideals and practices of the Communist party in Russia to their frightening conclusion. Although there are numerous parallels between Auden’s poem and Orwell’s novel, Auden seemed to be using a different society as a model. In the poem, Auden hints at a capitalist system (the citizen works at an incorporated company whose name sounds suspiciously similar to Ford Motors and belongs to a union) that is not unlike our own. Therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that Auden is cautioning the U.S.A. just as Orwell cautioned the U.S.S.R.
Auden’s choice of company (Fudge Motors, which, as mentioned, is obviously an allusion to Ford Motors) is also significant. After all, Ford is famous for creating factories with assembly lines, and cutting costs by using interchangeable parts. This could be a metaphor for the man in the poem: he himself is an interchangeable part.
In conclusion, it is made clear through Auden’s language, tone, and descriptions that the unknown citizen is celebrated by his government because of his conformity and his function as a consumer. The government’s cruel ideals are dealt with explicitly in the final line: they believe that the unknown citizen has had a fulfilling life because he has fit into a preset role. His value as a free and happy individual is irrelevant to them.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Willy's Success
In class last week, we devoted a significant portion of the discussion to the question: what does it mean to be successful? We also talked about the relationship between success and happiness. I would like to expand on both of these questions in my blog:
One point that was argued in class was how success could be measured. Should it be by how much money one makes? How prestigious/well respected one’s job is? Or does it come from raising a happy family? I think the question of how to measure success can be broken down in to success in one’s career and success in one’s personal life. Willy seems to place most of the importance on his job; yet, his proudest accomplishment appears to be his son Biff. I believe Willy’s identity and feeling of self-worth are based on two different things: his ability as a salesman and Biff’s respect. The first thing, his ability as a salesman, is never really understood by Willy or by the reader. It is hard to tell whether or not Willy was ever actually a good salesman, although it is made very clear that at the end of his life he was not. His son’s respect is more clear-cut: he has it until his son seems him with The Woman, and then he loses it completely. Because by the present day neither of the things that give him a feeling of self-worth exists, it is understandable that he becomes so depressed and disconnected from reality. Willy is a failure no matter how he measures it; after all, he has been unsuccessful in both his home and his work.
We also talked about the relationship between happiness and success. I think Willy sees being happy as a natural offshoot of being successful. If it is true that Willy sees Biff’s respect as a sign of his own success, then we can clearly see how happy being successful makes Willy. After all, he is at his happiest when he talks to young Biff. Also, whenever he reminisces about how well he has done in sales, he is upbeat. In fact, these are just about the only two instances where Willy appears satisfied. One of Willy’s problems may be that he places too much importance on being successful.
One point that was argued in class was how success could be measured. Should it be by how much money one makes? How prestigious/well respected one’s job is? Or does it come from raising a happy family? I think the question of how to measure success can be broken down in to success in one’s career and success in one’s personal life. Willy seems to place most of the importance on his job; yet, his proudest accomplishment appears to be his son Biff. I believe Willy’s identity and feeling of self-worth are based on two different things: his ability as a salesman and Biff’s respect. The first thing, his ability as a salesman, is never really understood by Willy or by the reader. It is hard to tell whether or not Willy was ever actually a good salesman, although it is made very clear that at the end of his life he was not. His son’s respect is more clear-cut: he has it until his son seems him with The Woman, and then he loses it completely. Because by the present day neither of the things that give him a feeling of self-worth exists, it is understandable that he becomes so depressed and disconnected from reality. Willy is a failure no matter how he measures it; after all, he has been unsuccessful in both his home and his work.
We also talked about the relationship between happiness and success. I think Willy sees being happy as a natural offshoot of being successful. If it is true that Willy sees Biff’s respect as a sign of his own success, then we can clearly see how happy being successful makes Willy. After all, he is at his happiest when he talks to young Biff. Also, whenever he reminisces about how well he has done in sales, he is upbeat. In fact, these are just about the only two instances where Willy appears satisfied. One of Willy’s problems may be that he places too much importance on being successful.
Monday, February 23, 2009
My Most Sacred Duty
I am answering the question about the play’s crisis and how it marks a turning point:
The play’s crisis is Helmer’s discovery of the letter and his subsequent reaction. As we find out in the final act, it is the one moment that Nora has anticipated ever since she discovered how much trouble she was potentially in for borrowing money by forging her father’s signature. It marks a turning point because it is in that moment that Nora sees her life with a clarity that she seemed not to have possessed previously. She sees her life so clearly, in fact, that her realization spans not only her eight years of marriage but also her previous years living with her father. She finds in that moment that the miracle that she had hoped for did not come true: namely, that Tovlav was not going to try to sacrifice everything for her. It is also, of course, an enlightening moment about the character of Helmer. The thing Tovlav holds most dear was his honor: and he is not willing to give that up for her. In fact, he has kept her from having any honor, happier to treat her like a subordinate being, for their entire marriage. Because Nora now understands her husband’s nature so well, she can see that her role in their marriage is unnatural and unjust. In fact, I believe that Nora’s discovery of her husband’s character in that moment serves as the catalyst for her decision to leave him. In a way it was not even a decision. Because she saw that the only role she could play in a relationship with a man like Tovlav was one of a docile doll and not a person with an identity, Nora realizes that she will never be able to fix her marriage. The fact that she will never be able to fix her marriage shows the readers (or viewers) that Nora is someone who needs to her own identity and be her own person.
The play’s crisis is Helmer’s discovery of the letter and his subsequent reaction. As we find out in the final act, it is the one moment that Nora has anticipated ever since she discovered how much trouble she was potentially in for borrowing money by forging her father’s signature. It marks a turning point because it is in that moment that Nora sees her life with a clarity that she seemed not to have possessed previously. She sees her life so clearly, in fact, that her realization spans not only her eight years of marriage but also her previous years living with her father. She finds in that moment that the miracle that she had hoped for did not come true: namely, that Tovlav was not going to try to sacrifice everything for her. It is also, of course, an enlightening moment about the character of Helmer. The thing Tovlav holds most dear was his honor: and he is not willing to give that up for her. In fact, he has kept her from having any honor, happier to treat her like a subordinate being, for their entire marriage. Because Nora now understands her husband’s nature so well, she can see that her role in their marriage is unnatural and unjust. In fact, I believe that Nora’s discovery of her husband’s character in that moment serves as the catalyst for her decision to leave him. In a way it was not even a decision. Because she saw that the only role she could play in a relationship with a man like Tovlav was one of a docile doll and not a person with an identity, Nora realizes that she will never be able to fix her marriage. The fact that she will never be able to fix her marriage shows the readers (or viewers) that Nora is someone who needs to her own identity and be her own person.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Tedious Old Fools
I would like to talk about Polonius for this blog entry. Specifically, the interactions between Hamlet and Polonius. Polonius’s role in the second act of Hamlet is quite large, especially towards the end. I believe that he functions in the play as the adult that doesn’t quite get it. Hamlet and Polonius’s talks are reminiscent of those awkward interviews on the Colbert Report where the interviewee is only vaguely aware that the show is a comedy and that Colbert is acting. They earnestly assert their point of view, and are forever frustrated when everything they say is used as fodder for jokes, or, worse, sarcasm. Obviously, Hamlet loves toying with Polonius, who he views as a vastly inferior intellect and person. Hamlet pokes fun at him right to his face (i.e. Hamlet says that nothing will make him happier after Polonius declares that he is leaving) because he assumes that Polonius will never understand him. The fact that Hamlet uses his insanity as an excuse to tease Polonius shows what little respect Hamlet has for the man. In contrast, he at least has the courtesy to act completely insane in front of others, such as Polonius’s daughter Ophelia. His deception of Ophelia seems like an indirect complement to her: she at least is worth taking the time to properly deceive.
Nevertheless, Shakespeare is more willing to give Polonius credit than Hamlet. Certainly, Polonius is smart. He even vaguely understands what Hamlet is getting at with his riddles and jokes. His famous line “though this be madness, yet there is a method in ‘t.” reveals that he at least partially comprehends what he is hearing.
Obviously though, Hamlet is right in that Polonius does not deserve too much in the way of credit. There is an undercurrent of jealousy in Polonius’s dealings with Hamlet: after all, as we discussed in class, Polonius is an unapologetic suck-up and social-climber. Despite his constant effort to please the King, he is still less powerful and important than an insane college kid, which has to drive him crazy. Because Hamlet is smart enough to understand this, he does his best to knock Polonius from his pedestal. When Polonius asks Hamlet if he recognizes him, Hamlet replies, “you are a fishmonger.” In this way, Hamlet makes a mockery of Polonius’s air of self-importance. Also, in act three, Hamlet accidentally kills Polonious, marking a serious turning point in their relationship. And all of Polonious's relationships. The only remorse Hamlet can muster is that he killed a lesser man than the king.
In conclusion, Polonius plays to perfection the role of the serious adult that doesn’t quite get the wit of a younger character.
Nevertheless, Shakespeare is more willing to give Polonius credit than Hamlet. Certainly, Polonius is smart. He even vaguely understands what Hamlet is getting at with his riddles and jokes. His famous line “though this be madness, yet there is a method in ‘t.” reveals that he at least partially comprehends what he is hearing.
Obviously though, Hamlet is right in that Polonius does not deserve too much in the way of credit. There is an undercurrent of jealousy in Polonius’s dealings with Hamlet: after all, as we discussed in class, Polonius is an unapologetic suck-up and social-climber. Despite his constant effort to please the King, he is still less powerful and important than an insane college kid, which has to drive him crazy. Because Hamlet is smart enough to understand this, he does his best to knock Polonius from his pedestal. When Polonius asks Hamlet if he recognizes him, Hamlet replies, “you are a fishmonger.” In this way, Hamlet makes a mockery of Polonius’s air of self-importance. Also, in act three, Hamlet accidentally kills Polonious, marking a serious turning point in their relationship. And all of Polonious's relationships. The only remorse Hamlet can muster is that he killed a lesser man than the king.
In conclusion, Polonius plays to perfection the role of the serious adult that doesn’t quite get the wit of a younger character.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Was Blind, But Now I See: Shifting Fates in Sophocles's Oedipus the King
First of all, I would like to talk about Sophocles's effective use of the theme of vision in Oedipus the King. When Oedipus and Teiresias argue, Oedipus is quick to mock Teiresias’s blindness. Teiresias in turn calls Oedipus the one that is really blind. As we discussed in class, the scene is ironic because the blind man (Teiresias) sees something that the sighted do not (that Oedipus killed Laios, married his mother, etc.). But one line in particular stood out. It occurs when Teiresias talks in riddles to Oedipus about his past. He remarks that the killer who Oedipus is seeking is a “blind man who has his eyes now; a penniless man, who is rich now.” This quote highlights an important theme in the story and an issue relevant to human life. Namely, that life can bring about shifting fates. Oedipus thinks that he has complete control of his destiny, but really he is woefully unaware of what is happening in his life. He thinks that he can outsmart the oracle and set his life on a straight, unwavering course. This turns out to be hubris. Despite his best efforts to avoid his fate, he ends up fulfilling it. With one (giant) revelation, his fate changes completely, and he goes from rich to poor, seeing to blind. Ironically, as Teiresias points out, he also goes from the city’s greatest riddle solver to being unable to solve Teiresias’s riddle. I think the takeaway that Sophocles wants the reader to get from the story is that one can never be sure where one stands with regards to fate.
I originally thought that Sophocles message was: because we cannot guess what fate has in store for us, we should try to live an honorable and decent life without worrying about it. After all, one thing Oedipus could have done to avoid his fate was not kill anybody. But obviously the Oracle took into account that it was not in Oedipus’s character to have shown mercy instead of killing. If Sophocles is arguing that fate is responsible for everything, then there really is no take away, because then the story would assert that we as humans can not learn lessons if we have not already been predetermined to do so. So I guess I can’t add “…so try to live a decent life.” to my assertion that the takeaway of the story is “that one can never be sure where one stands with regards to fate” because Sophocles doesn’t seem to say that living a decent life will help any. I guess the most important point Sophocles was highlighting was how ridiculous it was of Oedipus to think that he had escaped fate. No one can do that, no matter how much they think they see.
This lesson would be even more significant if the audience already knew the story. It was probably almost comical watching Oedipus vow revenge on a murder that he himself had committed. The audience familiar with the story must have found Oedipus struggles against a predetermined fate laughably futile. In a way, the people who were watching the play but already know the story were watching from the gods’ point of view.
I originally thought that Sophocles message was: because we cannot guess what fate has in store for us, we should try to live an honorable and decent life without worrying about it. After all, one thing Oedipus could have done to avoid his fate was not kill anybody. But obviously the Oracle took into account that it was not in Oedipus’s character to have shown mercy instead of killing. If Sophocles is arguing that fate is responsible for everything, then there really is no take away, because then the story would assert that we as humans can not learn lessons if we have not already been predetermined to do so. So I guess I can’t add “…so try to live a decent life.” to my assertion that the takeaway of the story is “that one can never be sure where one stands with regards to fate” because Sophocles doesn’t seem to say that living a decent life will help any. I guess the most important point Sophocles was highlighting was how ridiculous it was of Oedipus to think that he had escaped fate. No one can do that, no matter how much they think they see.
This lesson would be even more significant if the audience already knew the story. It was probably almost comical watching Oedipus vow revenge on a murder that he himself had committed. The audience familiar with the story must have found Oedipus struggles against a predetermined fate laughably futile. In a way, the people who were watching the play but already know the story were watching from the gods’ point of view.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The Unexamined Life
For my blog, I would like to talk about two of the prompts, number three and number five. I think they highlight significant points in The Death of Ivan Ilych. First of all, the fact that Tolstoy condemns Ivan is significant. The reader can infer Tolstoy’s condemnation from a variety of sources. I believe the most notable example is the fact that Ivan is unable to face death, which shows that he has not truly lived. As we discussed in class, part of living a full life is being prepared for death, which Ivan obviously is not.
Blythe also notes that despite his flaws the reader sympathizes with him and with his death. I found myself initially liking Ivan: he had an admirable career and a respectable life. But, as Blythe mentions, it was filled with vanity. Because Tolstoy gives the reader such a thorough description of Ivan’s life, one can examine it to find where Ivan goes wrong.
One of the most striking things about Ivan’s life is how unremarkable it is. His suffering is not some poetic justice for a life of debauchery, just a life of insignificance. Ivan chose to focus on superficial things like furniture, so he is unable to cope when he is forced to face a significant thing like dying. This brings me to prompt number five, where Blythe suggests that Ivan is “a man. . . who had not taken the trouble to grow up, morally speaking, while he was passing through [life], and. . then [shows] how salvation could overtake a slowing pulse rate, bringing maturity at the last.” I do not know about the end part of that quote, whether in dying Ivan finally finds salvation, but the beginning part makes a lot of sense. He is so proud of moving on up the bureaucratic ladder that he never stops to ponder his true position in life. Ivan is shallow because he equates doing what others perceive as appropriate or proper to be a fulfilling life. Obviously, the way he equates success with his job and his house as opposed to how well he has lived his life is the ultimate showcase of his vanity. Another equally important example though is his marriage. Tolstoy makes Ivan’s marriage another source of poetic justice for Ivan. His marriage, which Tolstoy makes clear is nothing more than a marriage of convenience, is, ironically, anything but convenient. His wife, who he never really got to know, turns out to be annoying and possibly psychotic. Ivan, true to his character, marginalizes the problem instead of fixing it, disconnecting him from his wife further. Their utter lack of affection for each other adds more misery to Ivan’s life when he is dying.
The Death of Ivan Ilych reminds me of the Socrates quote “the unexamined life is not worth living,” which (I think) means that a person who does not question their existence is living an unfulfilled life. Ivan does not make any attempt to think about his life; instead, he seems content to skim the surface. Therefore, when he realizes as he is dying how empty his life was, it seems as though Tolstoy is giving the reader the ultimate example of this quote.
Blythe also notes that despite his flaws the reader sympathizes with him and with his death. I found myself initially liking Ivan: he had an admirable career and a respectable life. But, as Blythe mentions, it was filled with vanity. Because Tolstoy gives the reader such a thorough description of Ivan’s life, one can examine it to find where Ivan goes wrong.
One of the most striking things about Ivan’s life is how unremarkable it is. His suffering is not some poetic justice for a life of debauchery, just a life of insignificance. Ivan chose to focus on superficial things like furniture, so he is unable to cope when he is forced to face a significant thing like dying. This brings me to prompt number five, where Blythe suggests that Ivan is “a man. . . who had not taken the trouble to grow up, morally speaking, while he was passing through [life], and. . then [shows] how salvation could overtake a slowing pulse rate, bringing maturity at the last.” I do not know about the end part of that quote, whether in dying Ivan finally finds salvation, but the beginning part makes a lot of sense. He is so proud of moving on up the bureaucratic ladder that he never stops to ponder his true position in life. Ivan is shallow because he equates doing what others perceive as appropriate or proper to be a fulfilling life. Obviously, the way he equates success with his job and his house as opposed to how well he has lived his life is the ultimate showcase of his vanity. Another equally important example though is his marriage. Tolstoy makes Ivan’s marriage another source of poetic justice for Ivan. His marriage, which Tolstoy makes clear is nothing more than a marriage of convenience, is, ironically, anything but convenient. His wife, who he never really got to know, turns out to be annoying and possibly psychotic. Ivan, true to his character, marginalizes the problem instead of fixing it, disconnecting him from his wife further. Their utter lack of affection for each other adds more misery to Ivan’s life when he is dying.
The Death of Ivan Ilych reminds me of the Socrates quote “the unexamined life is not worth living,” which (I think) means that a person who does not question their existence is living an unfulfilled life. Ivan does not make any attempt to think about his life; instead, he seems content to skim the surface. Therefore, when he realizes as he is dying how empty his life was, it seems as though Tolstoy is giving the reader the ultimate example of this quote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)