The Original Ending of A Doll's House

The final scene of A Doll’s House dictates how you read the play. The whole plays builds up to the ending in a way.  The final scene represents a moment of enlightenment for Nora who realizes that in trying to meet the social expectations of her, she has given up her own individuality. Torvald even tells her, “you are a wife and mother before you are anything else”, which exemplifies that society expects her to put her husband and children before herself. At this point Nora probably feels like a slave to a family and society that takes her for granted; she dedicates her whole life to serving her father and her husband. Of course Torvald, a man who has strictly obeyed his gender role in society, is baffled by Nora. A woman leaving her husband was something that was unheard of in 1800 society. It is ironic that while the man is expected to be the enlightened one who guides the ignorant wife who blindly follows him, Nora is the one who is enlightened about the true nature of their relationship and thus guides Torvald who has been blindly following society. Nora leaving Torvald represents her breaking the societal chains that have kept her from developing as an individual. Yet this raises the question, can you really break free from society? I mean unless you on a mountain by yourself, everyone is shaped by the society they live in. Sure Nora has left her societal obligations to Torvald and her children, but she will still be confined by how the outside world judges her. She will be looked down upon as a woman who left her husband and she will have difficulty finding work.  So is she truly free of society? Will Nora, who has lived her whole life sheltered by the warmth of the doll’s house, be able to survive in the harsh, outside world? I think implies that she won’t. Kristine, a foul for Nora, is pushed back into marriage. Nora says for her to return, “the most wonderful of all would have to happen”.  The wonderful represents when Torvald can treat her as his equal which would allow them to have a “true marriage”, one not based on lies or pretending. However I don’t think the most wonderful thing will happen. Torvald’s last line in the play, “The most wonderful -?!” ends with a question mark, meaning that he still questions what the wonderful is.  If Torvald doesn’t even know what the most wonderful thing is, how can he ever achieve it? Though Ibsen seems to imply that Nora will be unsuccessful in breaking free of her societal expectations and possibly changing society, history tells a different story. Women’s rights was achieved by independent who forcefully went against the grain such as by entering the work force and showed the world that women can operate in society without being babied by their husbands. Some women like Kristine did so out of necessity while others like Nora did so for personal development. The unresolved fate of Nora is what makes this play so thought provoking, possibly implying that the struggle between the individual and society is forever on going. 

Analysis of Ars Poetica by Archibald Macliesh

Archibald Macleish in “Ars Poetica” uses paradoxical imagery to potray that a poem should evoke a part of human experience by tapping into our senses rather than trying to answer some philosophical question or have a deeper meaning. The first line, “a poem should be palpable” says that the purpose of a poem should be obvious and easily perceived by the senses or the mind. The reader should just be able to get it when he or she reads the poem. This suggests that poems should aim to be simple and direct without complexities that could cause the meaning to be misinterpreted and maybe that the reader should aim to find paradoxical simplicity within any complexities of a poem. Also, a poem should be interpreted through the senses by which we experience life. This understanding should be evident like “globed fruit” as no one needs to explain the taste of fruit to someone for them to be able perceive the flavors. Taste is also something that can be innately sensed.  The meaning of the poem should also be nourishing and natural like the taste of a fruit. Additionally, they should be “Dumb as old medallion to the thumb” which is contradictory as medallions are items that awarded for past accomplishments and thus have vivid memories attached to them. “Silent as the sleeve-worn stone of casement ledges” evokes the sense of touch.  Poems also should be “silent” or “wordless” which is contradictory as poems are comprised of words. However by being wordless, it implies that a poem is instead comprised of parts of human experience that influenced it rather than just by words and thus the meaning of the poem should be easily understood with any explanation.  “A poem should be motionless in time” and convey a universal meaning that will be applicable throughout time like the moon which can be seen no matter where in the world you are. Like the changing stages of the moon, poetry should also changes from one era to the next so that it always retains relevance.  In doing so, a poem “releases twig by twig the light-entangled trees” and sheds light on parts of life that otherwise would have been shrouded in night like darkness.  Similarly, the title of the poem means the Art of Poetry in Latin which is a dead yet relevant language that even today influences many of the world’s languages today. However the speaker states that “A poem should be equal to: Not true” and thus isn’t searching for truth, but instead is simply trying to capture the essence of human experience such as grief which he portrays as an empty doorway or a maple leaf or love. A poem is a representation of a certain part of life.  The poem ends with the lines that “a poem should not mean but be” suggesting that a poem should not seek to have a hidden meaning that the reader much search for or try to decipher within the text, but should  represent that meaning in way that the reader simply grasps it as he or she reads the poem.

Analysis of Ellen Olenksa

Ellen Olenska is a cultural hybrid who was influenced by French culture during her marriage with the Count but has returned to America where the social customs are very different.  French society is driven by experience and understanding while the Old New York society remains in a perpetual state of innocence which is most prominent among the women. The Old New York society is driven by old fashioned customs that society blindly obeys without understanding why or questioning them, “inexorable conventions that tied things together and bound people down to the old pattern”. The lack of understanding leads to a very superficial society. This disgusts Ellen Olenska who asks “Does no one want to know the truth here, Mr. Archer? The real loneliness is living among all these kind people who only ask one to pretend!”. Because Ms.Olenska moved away with the Count, she was not conditioned to forever remain in a state of innocence like her fellow American women as Mr. Archer states, “the Polish Count must have robbed her of her fortune as well as her illusions”. As a result she is able to see parts of the society that the other women have to been taught to remain blind too. This difference as she states is the reason for her loneliness. Newland Archer also sees through the “illusions” of the American social system.  Like Countess Olenska, he is “sick of the hypocrisy that would bury alive a woman of her age if her husband were to live with harlots”. He believes “women ought to be free – as free as we are”; an unconventional viewpoint that Countess Olenska embodies in many ways.  She doesn’t need to be constantly accompanied by a man. For example, she ended a conversation with a gentlemen even though “etiquette required that she should wait, immovable as an idol, while the men who wished to converse with her succeeded each other at her side.” However she doesn’t purposely going against the customs, she was “unaware of having broken any rule”. Because of this, Newland Archer and Countess Olenska have a special bond, “there are only two people here who make me feel as if they understood what I mean and could explain things to me: you and Mr. Beaufort”. The contrast between a society based on experience(the French) and  a society of innocence(The Old New York society) is highlighted by the contrast of Countess Olenska and May Welland who are foils of each other.  Mr. Archer is fascinated with the Countess who represents the realism that is lacking in the superficial Old New York Society. In fact, when thinking of his fiancée,  Mr. Archer is “discouraged by the thought that all this frankness and innocence were only an artificial product”. However with Countess Olenska he knows she will say what’s on her mind and won’t be “oppressed by his creation of factitious purity, so cunningly manufactured by a conspiracy of mothers and aunts and grandmothers and longdead ancentresses”. Through the countess, Mr.Archer identifies the “illusions” that everyone else is blinded to and he says she is “opening my eyes to things I’d looked at so long that I’d cease to see them”.

William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience

William Blake contrasts the innocent  Lamb in “Little lamb” with the dangerous tiger in “The Tyger” and asks the question, “Did he who made the lamb make thee?”. Aspects of both the lamb and the tiger can be seen in humanity and the world in the general.

“Little Lamb” begins with a child questioning the origin of the lamb, “Dost thou know who made thee?”. The seemingly obvious answer would be some god or deity. The lamb here represents innocence and purity as it has “clothing of delight”, “softest clothing” a “tender voice”. Now in the second stanza, the child answers the questions that he just previously asked the lamb. He reveals that the one who created the lamb also “calls himself a lamb”. However this time the connotation of a lamb refers not to the creation but to the creator, Jesus Christ. By referring to both the creation and the creator as a lamb, the creation is shown to be a reflection, or mirror image of the creator. The poem ends with the line, “Little Lamb God bless thee”, however to whom the lamb refers to remains ambiguous as it could refer to the creation or the creator.

While the lamb that is described in “Little Lamb” represent innocence and purity, the tiger in “The Tyger” is characterized by violence and terror. The tiger represents an investigation into the existence of evil in the world. It raises the question, would the same God who made the innocent lamb also create the dangerous tiger? Throughout the work the speakers asks a series of questions about the origin of the tiger. The poem begins with the contrasting description of a “Tyger burning bright” and “the forest of the night”. Burning has the connotations of energy, power, and danger which differs from the placidity of the night. And though the tiger is evil, it has “fearful symmetry” and thus is beautiful. The fact that the tiger’s creator must “twist the sinews of thy heart” implies the corruption that exists inside the tiger but not in the lamb. The poem continues with the portrayal of forging the tiger to create it which seems like an unnatural method to create life, like victor when he created the creature in Frankenstein.  The speaker asks the question, “Did he who made the Lamb make thee?”. The lamb represents the goodness in world and the tiger represents the evil in it. This leaves the unanswered question that did the same god who made all things good in the world also make all the evil things in it as well. The first and last stanza of the poem are the same except for the last line of each and it changes; It changes form “What immortal hand or eye/Could frame thy fearful symmetry” to “Dare frame thy fearful symmetry”.  This one word change shifts the meaning from is possible to would God venture to do so. And if the creation is a reflection of the creator as suggested by “Little Lamb”, is the evil that the tiger represents present in our creator?

Picture Analysis

“2.7 million children in Egypt don’t have a childhood.” This compelling public print ad wants to bring awareness to millions of Egyptian children who must forgo childhood in order to begin working a make enough money for their families. The ad depicts a young boy working in a repair shop fit for a grown man. He is shown to be a boy who is already living the life of a grown man. Robbed of his childhood, he spends much of his time working; he has no time to play. The boy is so small that he wouldn't be able to reach many of the tools without climbing on a ladder. The shop is dirty and many of the tools in the background appear dangerous. This is not a fit location for a young boy to be. The boy on the left side of the picture who is seen wearing a blue and white flannel shirt is already growing patches of gray hair on the sides of his head, symbolic of the stress and hard work that this boy has to endure. The skin on his face is worn like that of a grown man who does laborious work. On his forehead, the boy has a scar, likely from an accident while working, an indication of the dangers of his job. Bags are apparent under his eyes due to the lack of sleep. However, despite his body showing signs of stress and overwork, the boy’s eyes still retain the innocent look of a young boy. As he looks the viewer in the eyes, he sparks a sense of awe that would make anyone feel bad for flipping the page of their magazine without doing anything to help him.  The colors in the picture are very washed out which give the picture a very dreary tone. The lack of vibrant colors indicates the lack of fun which is instead is replaced by dull times. What’s powerful about this ad is that it reads, “2.7 million children in Egypt don’t have a childhood.” The sheer number of children who are working in these conditions and deprived of their childhood because of work shows that this is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. In the bottom right of the ad, it says, “Call Us. 012 1817 555” The font is so small however that it is difficult to read the number which hurts the cause if those who want to help can’t do so because they can’t read the number to call.  This ad speaks to everyone, including people who have lived a privileged childhood and now from firsthand experience the joys that it should bring and people who come an underprivileged background and understand the hardships that you must endure to survive in similar situations. Similar incidents of child labor used to happen in the United States before child labor laws were passed that prohibited employers from working young people in unsafe conditions. Though Egypt has similar laws, they seem to be ineffective in solving the problem.

The Snow Man

The Snow Man

“One must have a mind of winter 

To regard the frost and the boughs 

Of the pine-trees crusted with snow;

And have been cold a long time 

To behold the junipers shagged with ice, 

The spruces rough in the distant glitter

Of the January sun; and not to think 

Of any misery in the sound of the wind, 

In the sound of a few leaves,

Which is the sound of the land 

Full of the same wind 

That is blowing in the same bare place

For the listener, who listens in the snow, 

And, nothing himself, beholds 

Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.”

                                ~Wallace Stevens

            While reading Grendel, we have discussed illusion vs. reality. On page 22, Grendel says “I create the whole universe blink by blink.—An ugly god pitifully dying in a tree!” which suggests that one’s reality is based upon perspective and that everyone is the creator of their reality. As a result many ideas aren't necessarily universal such as good or evil. Similarly, in “The Snow Man”, Wallace Stevens suggests that your idea of reality is influenced by your perspective. In the poem, Wallace compares the different descriptions of winter from the viewpoint of a person whose reality is just what he sees and a person who uses their perspective to understand and form his own reality .

            The first stanza of the poem describes winter in a very non-objective way.  There are no interpretations. It is just a description of what is simply there. However to do this, “One must have a mind of winter”. I believe this means that for someone to see winter for what it is without casting judgment on it such as whether or not they like winter, they must view it with detachment and indifference.

             Now the description of winter in the second stanza sharply contrasts the description of it in the first stanza. While in the first stanza Stevens depicts winter with a very cut and dry description, in the second stanza he offers interpretations and analysis of winter. He describes winter as “cold” and the spruces as “rough” and thus he is offering his judgments of winter. The second line of the stanza begins with “To behold” which gives winter a wondrous and mystical representation.  The reason why this stanza differed so much from the first was because he allows his own perspective and interpretations of reality to influence his description of winter.  This reveals the impact that our own beliefs and viewpoints have on our interpretation of reality. For example, in Grendel, the Shaper doesn't change what actually happens, he changes the Dane's perception of the events. 

              The third stanza however suggests that it is human tendency to try to interpret the world around us. Rather than just observing, humans analyze and try to give meaning to things. As a result our own perception is always shaping our perceived reality and thus two people can have different understandings of reality even in the same situation. However if we didn't do this, we would simply be observing without interpreting and understanding what we see.

              The fourth stanza suggests that we still observe the same things even though we interpret them differently. There is a universal “sound of the land” that we all share. Also there is “the same wind that is blowing in the same bare place” and no matter where you are, you experience that same wind.

              The poem closes by indicating the necessity of our own perspective and interpretations when observing the world. Without it, we observe without understanding. In doing so we see “Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is” and instead end up seeing nothing. 

The Similarities between the "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" and Winesburg, Ohio

Although not apparent to me upon initially reading “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” after reading Winesburg, Ohio, I now see many similarities between the works. In many ways for example Prufrock is portrayed like a grotesque as defined in “Book of the Grotesques”.

Firstly, the structures of both works are very fragmented. Prufrock can be divided up into six sections that each appear to have their own meaning. Each fragment of the poem reveals another aspect of Prufrock’s story; however, there are reoccurring themes that are present throughout the story that connect the fragments together. To gain a full understanding of the text, each fragment must be read in context of the rest of the poem interpreted with the greater meaning of the whole poem in mind. Similarly, Winesburg, Ohio, which is a short story cycle, is told in fragments of bits and pieces of time in George Willard’s life.  Again, though each chapter is a separate story of its own, each story adds to the greater meaning of the work as a whole. In both works, this fragmentation is indicative of the isolation experiences by characters—Prufrock in “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” and the grotesques in Winesburg, Ohio. They are unconnected parts whose separateness is contrasted by their desire to be part of a whole.

            Consistent with the fragmentation, a lack of understanding is also a reoccurring theme throughout both works. Throughout the poem, Prufrock seeks understanding so that he can answer the “overwhelming question”. Prufrock presents the dilemma of the meaning vs meaninglessness of life in a mundane world. Prufrock also seeks understanding from others and he feels alienated because he is unable to properly communicate. He says “That is not what I meant at all/That is not it, at all” on line 97 and “it is impossible to say just what I mean!” on line 104 which reveals his desire to not only gain a personal understanding, but to also be understood by others.  Likewise, the grotesques in Winesburg, Ohio are characterized by a lack of understanding and the inability to communicate. Many of the grotesques for example don’t fully understand what makes them grotesque such as Wing Biddlebaum who says “There’s something wrong, but I don’t want to know what it is. His hands have something to do with his fear of me and of everyone.” Due to their lack of understanding of the nature of their grotesqueness, the grotesques are stuck in this state as they are unable to break free from it. They can't free themselves from it because they don't know what causes it. In addition to this, like Prufrock, the grotesques also are unable to effectively communicate with others. Enoch for example, “knew what he wanted to say, but he knew also that he could never by any possibility say it” which strongly represents Prufrock’s quote where he says that “It is impossible to say what I mean”. This lack of communication leads to the alienation of Prufrock and the grotesques and ultimately limits them from gaining the fully understanding that they seek.