Mr. Norton

Mr. Norton represents the many ways in which whites have control over lives of blacks and glorify what they do for them. However his motives for running the college don’t stem from his desire to help blacks that need it, but because it gives him control over the lives of the thousands of students that attend the college. He doesn’t seem to view the students as human beings, but as parts of the project he has invested his life in.  He says “And it has been my pleasant fate to return each spring and observe the changes that the years have wrought” which suggests that he views the college more as an empire or a company than the home of thousands of students.  It further proves this point when he says, “That way I can observe in terms of living personalities to what extent my money, my time and hopes have been fruitfully invested”. Investing has the connotation of putting in time or money now in order to receive a profit in the long run. So rather than investing in the college in order to help other, he is hoping to get a profit which suggests he is seeking personal gain. Mr. Norton’s motives for running the college are self –centered and he is more concerned about how the college will affect his life than how it will affect the lives of his students.  He takes ownership over the fate of his students when he says, “I felt even as a young man that your people were closely connected with my destiny. Do you understand?”; in taking ownership over the lives of his students, he gives himself control over their lives. He is also only concerned with how his students’ lives affect his own rather than how he can affect the lives of his students. The irony is that Mr. Norton believes he is helping his students and the students believe that the college liberates them by giving them freedom in their fate; however the college actually has the opposite effect because it gives Mr. Norton control over the lives of the students. The fact that he asks the narrator if he understands is indicative of the condescension he has towards him.  Also, while reading Hamlet in class we discussed the idea of the fool revealing truth and that there is often times truth in madness. This theme can be seen at the end of chapter three when one of the veterans who is supposed to be crazy reveals the truth about the nature of the relationship between Mr. Norton and the narrator. The veteran tells them that Mr. Norton sees his students as a “scorecard” or an “achievement” and that he doesn’t actually care about his individual students. On the other hand, the narrator and the other students view Mr. Norton as “not a man to him, but a God” and that they look up to him. The veteran also recognizes that Mr. Norton and the narrator are invisible and blind to each other. 

Poem analysis of "The Death of a Soldier" by Wallace Stevens

‘The Death of a Soldier’

Life contracts and death is expected,
As in a season of autumn.
The soldier falls.

He does not become a three-days’ personage,
Imposing his separation,
Calling for pomp.

Death is absolute and without memorial,
As in a season of autumn,
When the wind stops.

When the wind stops and, over the heavens,
The clouds go, nevertheless,
In their direction.

~Wallace Stevens

Wallace Stevens, in his poem, “Death of a Soldier”, compares death at war to autumn in order to reveal the unconditional and unavoidable nature at which war always results in death.  The poem opens with the line, “Life contracts and death is expected”. Though we try not to always think about it especially if it is our own loved ones at war, we know that someone will die on the battlefield. This creates a dreary description of war which isn’t place where soldiers prove their glory, but a graveyard of fallen men. Stevens metaphorically compares a soldier to the falling leave of a tree. Every autumn, we know that the leaves will fall off of the trees; it is an unavoidable process. Similarly, it is unavoidable for men to die at war. Also, each individual leaf is insignificant in relation to the whole tree as a whole just like each soldier is only pawn to the countries at war. Additionally, after the current leaves fall off the tree in the autumn, new leaves will begin to grow in the spring and replace the old ones; when men die in battle, the military replaces them with fresh soldiers. However despite that a soldier risks his life while he is fighting on the battlefield, he does not become a “personage”; as an individual he doesn’t have much significance to the war and thus he doesn’t gain any rank or distinction.  War is shown to be high risk but low reward. While a soldier commits to a very sacred duty and puts his life on the line, he will often be unrewarded for actions. Maybe being called ruthless or a killer by the very people he is defending. In fact his accomplishments do not warrant a “calling for pomp”, or a formal ceremony of dignity and importance which suggests that being a soldier isn’t something that others look up at. The first line of the third stanza, “Death is absolute and without memorial” suggests that a soldier is forgotten when he dies. He is but a speck in history in respect to all the other millions of soldiers who have died and will die in the future. Unlike some presidents or inventors who have something to leave behind so that they will be remembered in history even in death, a soldier has nothing to leave behind. Also, because death is “absolute”, there is no coming back to life when someone dies. Similar to “When the wind stops” in autumn, death is a natural occurrence and you will forget about a soldier’s life just like you would forget about the wind after it stops blowing. Wind may also be a metaphor for the breath of life.  The last stanza further drives home the idea that a soldier’s life is insignificant in the grand scheme of the war because even “When the wind stops” which represents the death of a soldier, “The clouds go” which represents that the war will go on and that individual soldier will be forgotten. 

Or is Hamlet the villain?

Claudius is often believed to be the villain in the play. He does kill King Hamlet and marries his dead brother’s wife. And Hamlet is the hero who wants to nobly find justice for his father and rid Denmark of corruption. However Hamlet can also be interpreted as the villain of the play. Firstly, if we are looking at sheer number, Hamlet kills more people than Claudius; Claudius kills only his brother while Hamlet kills Polonius with his own hands and sends a letter that dooms Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to die. Hamlets motives are also very sinister. He compares Claudius to satyr, a half man and half goat; However the difference between human and beast is that humans are to rationalize and think which makes Hamlet is also beastlike in the sense that he is driven by his emotion of revenge which clouds his rational thought. Also, Hamlet doesn’t simply want justice, he wants violent revenge – the difference being in that justice seeks out rightfulness or lawfulness order to maintain stability while revenge is to exact punishment in a resentful or vindictive spirit. Revenge is what is sought out by the villain while justice is what is sought out by the hero. Hamlet doesn’t want to set things right in Denmark or cure it of corruption; he wants exact harm on Claudius because he feels he was indirectly wronged through the murder of his father. Evidence of this can be seen in Act III Scene iii when Hamlet says “When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,/Or in th’ incestuous pleasure of his bed”,/ At game a-swearing, or about some act/ That has no relish of salvation in’t-/Then trip him, that his heels may kick at Heaven,/And that his soul may be damned and black/As Hell, whereto it goes” which reveals that Hamlet doesn’t want to kill Claudius, he wants to kill Claudius while he is partaking in a sinful and act so that Claudius can be sent to hell and suffer eternally.  At this point Hamlet isn’t simply in a fit of rage, he is calculated and is planning how he will kill Claudius; he appears psychopathic. Even when Hamlet accidently kills Polonius he shows no remorse; after Hamlet kills Polonius Gertrude exclaims, “Oh, what a rash and bloody deed is this!” in which Hamlet wittingly replies, “A bloody deed? Almost bad, good mother,/ As kill a king and marry with his brother” which suggests that Hamlet is not concerned with outcomes of his actions or the effect it might have on others but is only concerned with getting revenge on Claudius. Hamlet writes a new letter to England so that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern will be murdered. Depending on your interpretation of the play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern could be perceived as being uninformed about what was in the original letter.  This means that by killing them, Hamlet could have killed two innocent men. In the end, many people around Hamlet get hurt but if Hamlet truly is the villain to whom killing Claudius is paramount, that shouldn’t matter too much to him.  

Hamlet as the fool

          Your interpretation of Hamlet changes depending on how you interpret Hamlet's role in the play. One valid reading of the play is Hamlet as the fool. Throughout the play Hamlet embodies many different definitions of what a fool is. One definition of a fool is someone who lacks sense of judgment. By this definition, Hamlet is fool when he allows his emotions to dictate his action rather than rational thought or decision making. Hamlet is seen like this in the beginning of the play when he first encounters the ghost of his father. Hamlet had been suspicious of his mother and Claudius because they were quickly able to overcome the sorrow of King Hamlet’s death. When the ghost tells Hamlet that Claudius murdered Hamlet’s father, it enrages him. Hamlet makes a vows to avenge this father, “I’ll wipe away all trivial, fond records,/ all saw of books, all forms, all pressure past/ That youth and observation copied there,/ And thy commandment all alone shall live/ Within the book and volume of my brain,/ unmixed with baser matter”. In this state Hamlet is ruled by his emotions; he isn’t thinking of the implications that killing Claudius could have. He simply wants to rid the nation of what he perceives at the corruption in Denmark.  Hamlet is also a fool(lacking judgment or sense) when he stabs Polonius. Driven by heightened emotions, Hamlet stabs and kills him thinking that Polonius is Claudius. Hamlet envies Horatio because he is able to properly balance his emotions and his judgments, “ And blessed are those/ Whose blood and judgment are so well commedled/ That they are not pipe for Fortune’s finger/ To sound what stop she please”. These scenes where Hamlet lacks judgment contrasts Hamlet in the rest of the play when he is very calculated; He doesn’t immediately try to kill Claudius because he wants to prove that Claudius is guilty which shows that he is calculated yet he stabs at the figure hiding in the curtains before he know who it is which demonstrates his impulsiveness.

          Another definition of a fool is someone who subverts convention in order to bring about change or reveal truth. Hamlet fits this description in many ways; his goal throughout the play is to kill Claudius to not only avenge his father, but to rid the state of corruption. In doing so he would be able to bring about change by altering who is in leadership. While everyone one else openly obeys Claudius  or are manipulated by him, Hamlet chooses to appear to be mad and plans Claudius’s demise. It is ironic however that from the time he meets the ghost of his father he is bent killing Claudius; but by the time he kills him it is too late because Hamlet is already dead (he was already hit by the poison saber) and England had already began to attack Denmark.  The death of Claudius and the infiltration of England represents a new beginning and the change that Hamlet died for.

Invisible Man Chapter 1

I was planning to make my next Invisible Man blog about the rest of the prologue that I didn’t cover but I decided to skip ahead to Chapter one. Chapter one brings up many interesting themes that I think will be increasingly relevant as the novel progresses. Firstly, just like in Hamlet, we see the theme of seeming and “is’ing”/being. Seeming is what you appear to be on the outside. This is what others see or what they think they see. On the other hand, “being” is what you actually are. The old man tells the narrator that he has committed treachery when he gave up his gun in Reconstruction. In doing so, he gave up his ability to fight for the rights of blacks which meant he ultimately sided with the whites. He tells the narrator “I want you to keep up the up the good fight” but in a different, not with guns and fighting.  The narrator’s grandfather tells him to “Live in the lion’s mouth. I want you to overcome ‘em with yeses, undermine ‘em with grins, agree em’ to death and destruction, let ‘em swoller you till they vomit or bust wide open”. In other words, his grandfather wants the narrator to seem to be happy with the whites. Pretend like you agree and that you want to be obedient.  However deep down he wants the narrator to remember that white people are his enemy. In doing so he can work against the whites while appearing not to be. This idea reminds me of Polonius’s famous line from Hamlet in Act I scene iii, “This above all: to thine ownself be true” because the narrator must always remember to put his own intentions before the whites.

Hamlet’s relationship with his father parallels the narrators relationship with his grandfather. They are both given tasks to carry out even after the death of the person who ordered it to them. I also found it interesting that the narrator also viewed his task as a curse like Hamlet does.  

"Oh No" by Robert Creeley

If you wander far enough
you will come to it
and when you get there
they will give you a place to sit

for yourself only, in a nice chair,
and all your friends will be there
with smiles on their faces
and they will likewise all have places.

~Robert Creeley

Robert Creeley in his poem, “Oh No”, portrays the dangers of being trapped by a society that institutionalizes his citizens.  The people of such a society go out in search of a better life until they end up in a tedious job that they must maintain in order to keep up with the rest of society. As a result, they end up in a nine to five job that they go to five days a week. Eventually they end up living to work rather than working while living. The first two lines, “if you wander far enough / you will come to it” describes an innocent journey into the unknown.  People leave home or their hometown in search of a bigger life or something similar to the American dream. The word “wander” implies that those who come here are lost and don’t intentionally come here or that these people don’t know exactly where they going.  What and where “it” is not explained which makes the place appear very mysterious. I think Creeley does so to suggest that the wanders, like the readers, also don’t know what it is and unknowingly find themselves in it.  However “it” seems like a very nice place at first. They  are given a place to sit which represents the new luxuries that these people are able to afford. The chair is “for yourself only” because you are working for your own benefit, not the benefit of society as a whole. It seems great because “all of your friends will be there” so you feel safe and in communion with them. You guys are all there for the same reason which is comforting. The “smiles on their faces” suggests that they are happy to see you and happy to be there. In what appears to be a Utopian society, everyone is happy and has a place or way they can contribute to society.

However the title of the poem suggests otherwise, that this is not a Utopian society; something is wrong. The phrase “Oh No” implies that there is a sudden realization that there is something wrong. In reality, society has lured these people by promises of money, opportunities, and other luxuries to wander into their chair, or place in society. But this is a society based on the ideal of survival of the fittest and you must fight for the things society has promised.  And though “your friends will be there”, they are not your friends in this context. Just like you, they are fighting for the luxuries that society as promised. Rather than happy smiles, they wear deceitful smiles because though they appear to be your friend, they will be willing to throw you under the bus in order to help themselves in society. Now you all have places. However society has not done you a favor by giving you a place to seat. Your seat is what traps you and now you can’t get up. You have now been trapped in a tedious lifestyle that no longer benefits you, but the society that lured you there. 

Invisible Man Prologue

From very early on I could tell Invisible Man was going to be a very insightful book. The narrator introduces himself as an invisible but unlike the scientists from H.G. Well’s Invisible Man, the narrator of Ellison’s version isn't actually physically transparent. Instead, he is invisible because people “refuse” to see him for who he actually is. I marked this in my book because I think it is important to note that people chooses not to “see” him. One way people do this is that they see him through a stereotype that they think he fits into instead of for him as an individual. As a result they don’t see him, they see the stereotype. They judge him based on his surroundings and they don’t look at him as an individual “it is as though I have been surrounded by mirrors of hard, distorting glass. When they approach me they see only my surrounding, themselves, or figments of their imagination—indeed, everything and anything except me”.   They see what they want to see and not what is in reality there. This brings up the idea of illusion vs reality. People choose the illusion that they want to see and “refuse” the reality of what is there. From the prologue it is apparent that the book will touch on some existentialist ideas.

I thought it was interesting that the narrator doesn’t believe his invisibility to be a bad thing, “I am not complaining, nor am I protesting either. It is sometimes advantageous to be unseen although it is most often rather wearing on the nerves” ,and he even goes on to say later, “I myself, after existing some twenty years, did not become alive until I discovered my invisibility”. So does one want to be invisible? I don’t think the narrator necessarily wants to be invisible, but he accepts that he is invisible. See other people “refuse” to see him; it is there blindness that makes him invisible and not is inability to be seen. He knows that he can’t make himself be seen if others don’t want to see him and as a result he tries to remain invisible “I remember that I am invisible and walk softly so as not to awaken the sleeping ones. Sometimes it is best not awaken them; there are few things in the world as dangerous as sleepwalkers”.

My favorite scene in the book so far is when he nearly kills a man that he “bumped” into. The man is like a sleepwalker who the narrator rouses when he bumps into him. However as a sleepwalker, the man is still sleeping/ dreaming and thus still sees the world through the illusion of the dream rather the reality of what’s there.  The narrator realizes this before he is about to slit the man’s throat and he stops himself and lets the man live, “it occurred to me that the man had not seen me, actually; that he as far as he knew, was in the midst of a walking nightmare”.   Here we see the dangers of when reality and illusion mix together.

There is so much more to analyze in the prologue. However I will leave that for another discussion or blog.