Thus Far On My Paper......

So,I have about 70 pages left to read, which I'll get done this week! As far as my paper goes,it's all still pretty general. Maybe something about 18th century British society and relationships. A lot of people like to write on the thesis that Jane Austen was a feminist, but I disagree, I don't think she was one at all. Maybe that's what I'll write about! Anyway this is my update! Have a nice week Mr. Coon!

Life in Death

In his poem, "Death Be Not Proud," John Donne takes one of man's worst fears and cuts it down to size. Addressing death directly, he claims that man has no rational fear of it. He then proceeds to explain why, using three main arguments: death's weakness, death in sleep, and life after death.

Donne's speaker charges death to be powerless. Claiming it to be subservient to fate and kings, or in short, to our choices: to events that consume us and the ways in which we choose to respond to such happenings. He reminds death that that it dwells in places of weakness rather than strength, and is therefore not as mighty as it would make itself seem. Those that are strong in sickness can not be compared to those who are strong in health. Because death holds power in a place of weakness, sometimes physically and sometimes morally, it has become arrogant and does not realize that that power is not a constant.

In the second argument, Donne's speaker compares death to sleep. He argues that death is like sleep, and that if sleep gives man such comfort, then such an eternal sleep must bring that much more relaxation for the body. Not only this, but if death be but sleep, what uniqueness does it possess? There are other such causes of sleep, so why does our fear of those, not equal that of death? If death is as sleep is, then when comes the awakening--for there must be one. It is this that connects the sleep argument to the life argument.

When contemplating the deaths of the "best men" in places such as war, where death resides, the speaker pauses on "the soul's delivery." Here, is the crux of his argument: life after death. His awakening comes not in the body, but rather with the soul. Therefore, death is a simple stage within life, and once past that physical stage, death itself is no more. If the soul is truly the person, and if the soul is what truly matters, the body is but a shell that houses the soul during our lives on earth. Then what is death, but simply the separation of the soul from the body?

Donne's speaker looks death in the eyes and exerts that man should not, and that he does not, fear death itself. Death is merely passing and one should contemplate on the path after death rather then death itself, for here is where, in today's society, one can rationalize a fear. In the end, death and its residing fear are creations of the living in their inexperience.

The Death of a Salesman

Arthur Miller's "The Death of a Salesman" is a play filled with interesting and complex characters. Characters, who change our feelings and opinions about throughout the course of the play. One such character, who has generated quite a discussion, is Biff.

To put it plain and simple: Biff is not lazy. If Biff were lazy, he would not be working at all. As it is, he has worked many jobs, and the only reason he does not maintain a job is the fact that he is restless; that he still feels the need to live up to his father's expectations rather than his own, rather than being lazy. Growing up, Biff was driven by his father. He idolized his father and never questioned him. This is why he got into the habits of cheating or stealing when necessary. This does not make these actions right, but at the same time, he was never really taught right from wrong in these aspects. It is this heightened view of his father that led Biff not to go to summer school in order to graduate. His father essentially died to him when he went to Boston. Biff was now utterly lost, and so, in a sense, Linda turns out to be right about him in the end, Biff's struggle, in its basic form was really to find himself.

The Doll House

The Doll House examines the role of women in society through the character of Nora. In the end, Nora shows herself to be much more thatn the reader may expect upon first introductions; although, still rather self-absorbed. It is this quality, however, that generates and interesting argument concerning the role of modern women. Nora does, indeed, represent the modern woman in all of her glories as well as her tragedies. Although she breaks free from the styreotype that is her prison and strives to expand her mind and give herself experience, she does so at the cost of her children. That she could cast off her children so easily and so permenantly was extremely disturbing to me. Does she not have maternal instincts? What effect will this have on her children? What will this teach them? I think that this final scene in the Doll House truely shows the struggle and conflict of the modern woman. What good are our achievements if we sacrifice our children in the process?

Ophelia

Ophelia's role in the play Hamlet is an interesting one. This role is one of two female roles and a relatively minor one at that. She could be basically described as a damsel in distress. She is pretty meek and obedient. She doesn't take her future into her own hands, but is shaped by the events occurring around her. It is interesting; therefore, that such an easily influenced character would be so critical to the plot. In many ways Ophelia drives the plot forward or reveals aspects of other characters. It is through Ophelia's experiences that Polonius comes to the conclusion that Hamlet is mad for her love and goes to the king. It is through observation of that next Ophelia/Hamlet encounter that the king comes to the conclusion that it is not love that makes Hamlet mad, but that there is danger to him from Hamlet. Finally, it is Ophelia's death that leads to the dual between Laertes and Hamlet, leading to multiple deaths. In many ways Ophelia can be construed as a literary tool within Hamlet for the purpose of the plot and character development.

Antigone and Ismene

The contrast and conflict presented in the first scene through the argument of Antigone and Ismene shows us much about their characters. Each sister depicts a different perspective on the subject at hand: the burial of their brother, which has been outlawed under penalty of death. Though each conclusion can be rendered reasonable, this conversation also depicts their flaws, and even perhaps the reasons for the development of these flaws.

Antigone is a very strong woman. She sees in black and white, has her convictions, and acts upon them. Ismene, on the other hand, is more complacent than her sister. It is not, perhaps, that she doesn't distinguish right from wrong, but rather that she is unwilling to act upon those convictions. Her most prominent character flaw is that she has no backbone. She is simply accepting of the conditions presented to her. It could be argued that Antigone's character flaw is her sense of superiority. She places herself above the law; however, this not really born out of self, but more so of necessity. It is her nature to do what is right, and is thus made to make an impossible decision: should she follow the law of Creon or the law of the gods. She chooses to obey the gods and I completely agree with her. She realizes that the human law is not always going to be good and right. None of this is to impugn Ismene. She acted as many of us would -- to preserve her life. I think that it is simply fascinating that in one simple conversation between sisters, Sophocles can examine the issue of right versus wrong, of right versus easy, of survival versus sacrifice; and, that he was able to examine so completely both perspectives.

Thoughts on the Life and Death of Ivan Illych

Ivan Illych's life was a perfect model in the eyes of society. It was materialistic and proper. However, it was emotionless. He showed no real concern for others and thus received none in return. His friends were not truly friends and even his relationship with his wife was rather platonic. The only emotion and concern he really had was always always connected to himself. Having lived putting himself first, it is rather appropriate that he should die alone and rather dimminished. If he had put himself last during his life and loved, he would have died with love and a release from his suffering. Ivan Illych's death confronts the concept of change. I think the commentary here is that Ivan couldn't change until he faced death. People don't like to change because it is different and it scares them; it makes them uncomfortable -- and Ivan's life was extremely comfortable, there's no arguing that!It took a change that was as big, as strong, and as out of control of humanity as death to make Ivan change himself. This change was a true transformation even though he didn't have the chance to act on it, and that is the core problem. His heart changed, but he was unable to leave this change behind him in the world when he passed on. So the question in the end is: if this cycle continues, as it very well will, and the people in society don't change, how can we implement change in society as a whole?