The Birthmark left me torn between thinking Aylmer was a total jerk and admiring his insight. On the one hand he is degrading to his wife because of the slightest of imperfections. On the other hand he makes an insightful speech on the inherent imperfection of humanity.
Of course being a girl he is a frustrating character to me because he is picking out the imperfections of a beautiful woman. Basically, he is implying that she is not good enough because of one tiny imperfection. One would like to think that beauty should not be the only thing that matters to a man; but he is entirely obsessed with how his wife looks. Never once does he mention anything about her personality, but instead implies she is inadequate, saying her birthmark “shocks me, as being a visible mark of earthly imperfection” (2276). It should not matter to a husband whether his wife looks perfect or not, some merit should be placed on her personhood. He drives her to hate herself, shuttering at the birthmarks mention, and even being willing to die if only to be rid of it, telling him “either remove this dreadful Hand, or take my life”(2278)! In the end he is willing to kill her to rid her face of it. On the surface this paints Aylmer as shallow and unappreciative, unable to look past his wife’s physical imperfection to love the real her.
However, Aylmer’s hatred of the birthmark goes deeper than the physical imperfection. Aylmer expresses a deeper meaning of the birthmark as a sign of his wife’s mortality. He says the mark is “the fatal flaw of humanity, which Nature, in one shape or another, stamps ineffaceably on all her productions, either to imply that they are temporary and finite, or that their perfection must be wrought by toil and pain” (2277). It is here that he loses the illusion of perfection. He sees that his wife is mortal and that nothing in life is ever perfect. His attempt to remove the birthmark is a deeply seeded human desire to control. He wants to find a way to control mortality, to control imperfection. Humans fear death because it is out of their control. It strikes inevitably, when it chooses. That scares people. Removing the birthmark is Aylmer’s recognition of the temporariness of life, and his effort to control it.
On the surface the character of Aylmer comes across as shallow, and evokes dislike with the constant criticism of his wife. One would think a husband would be able to look past his wife’s physical attributes and appreciate her for who she is. However, on a deeper look, it is clear Aylmer actually sees the birthmark as a symbol of his wife’s mortality and a reminder that nothing in life is perfect. His attempt to remove it is really his attempt to control that part of life he cannot control. It is a coping mechanism.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Young Goodman Brown
Hawthorne uses many small symbols throughout his story to match the broader message of his loss of “faith”. The theme of the story, shown with Goodman’s experience in the woods, is clearly about the battle of religion and questioning of faith. Hawthorne uses characters that are created to display the different aspects of his faith journey, and the dream experience in the woods to be symbolic for a lifelong battle with belief.
Hawthorne does this first with the characters by naming his wife Faith. Faith is coherent with God, which is seen as the good side, and his wife embodies this image. She has pretty pink ribbons in her hair, and has a sweet and loving disposition. She is the reason he goes to the ceremony, and he tells her to stay away in the end. In essence he lives for her, as one would live for God. He even names her Faith, which in a biblical sense is the way to God. The “devil” in the story plays to opposition to this. He has a cane with a serpent that seems to slither with life. He is painted in a dismal, almost creepy way, meeting Goodman in the dark words, and leading him astray on a side path. This is exactly what this character does symbolically, he leads away from God.
These characters fall into a broader struggle of religion and faith. While Goodman’s experience was implied to be some kind of a dream, it is these kinds of experiences that effect humans throughout life. Things like the devil that shakes ones faith, and people like Faith, who give people hope and something to live for. And as Goodman ends up bitter and wary of people so do some of the toughest of life’s experiences leave people scarred. When Goodman saw the deacon woman he had thought to be a good Christian he was shaken by the fact that things may not always be what they seem. This is similar to someone being betrayed by someone they once trusted.
Hawthorne does an excellent job of painting characters to fit the story, making Goodman’s experience in the woods lively. He also uses these characters as symbols for some of the greatest battles with religion, faith, and how the hardships of life and effect people. He tells a story that is entirely human and insightful.
Hawthorne does this first with the characters by naming his wife Faith. Faith is coherent with God, which is seen as the good side, and his wife embodies this image. She has pretty pink ribbons in her hair, and has a sweet and loving disposition. She is the reason he goes to the ceremony, and he tells her to stay away in the end. In essence he lives for her, as one would live for God. He even names her Faith, which in a biblical sense is the way to God. The “devil” in the story plays to opposition to this. He has a cane with a serpent that seems to slither with life. He is painted in a dismal, almost creepy way, meeting Goodman in the dark words, and leading him astray on a side path. This is exactly what this character does symbolically, he leads away from God.
These characters fall into a broader struggle of religion and faith. While Goodman’s experience was implied to be some kind of a dream, it is these kinds of experiences that effect humans throughout life. Things like the devil that shakes ones faith, and people like Faith, who give people hope and something to live for. And as Goodman ends up bitter and wary of people so do some of the toughest of life’s experiences leave people scarred. When Goodman saw the deacon woman he had thought to be a good Christian he was shaken by the fact that things may not always be what they seem. This is similar to someone being betrayed by someone they once trusted.
Hawthorne does an excellent job of painting characters to fit the story, making Goodman’s experience in the woods lively. He also uses these characters as symbols for some of the greatest battles with religion, faith, and how the hardships of life and effect people. He tells a story that is entirely human and insightful.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Mercy Warren Otis
This reading was one of the most challenging so far this year. When reading the head note introduction it stated that Mercy Otis Warren was pro-revolutionary, and used her plays to promote the revolution. Therefore, I went into the reading assuming the characters would be revolutionists fighting Britain. The poetic style of the writing made it even harder to decipher Warren’s message so I was totally confused for the first half. Finally, I realized she was writing as the Tories who were in support of the British and it started to make more sense. The thing that confused me was how the people of the time, who were not very well educated, understood Warren’s plays. If college students today have trouble reading them, and people are much better educated today, then how did the majority of the population understand them in the past? I guess that old English was easier to understand back then when people were used to reading it.
The thing that Warren did make clear was the spectrum of positions people could hold. The Tories had extremists, such as Hateall, who wanted to go straight to war to fight for the British cause. The name Hateall is strategically chosen describing his character as one that is narrow minded and headstrong. He said “compassion never shall seize my steadfast breast” showing he will not be swayed or have compassion for anyone else’s position. He stands his ground and hates all, meaning he hates the independence cause.
Crusty Crowbar for example is a different character that is also a Tory, but feels some guilt. Underneath he knows his cause is morally wrong. He says he “blindly swore obedience to his will” implying that he agreed to defend Britain but may not actually believe it. He feels guilt over the cause, but not enough to leave it. This puts him on the opposing end of the spectrum from Hateall, but still a Tory.
Warren’s poetic style and use of satire to convey her message at first made the play hard to understand. She used a very creative method of using Tories to promote the cause of the revolution. She used extremists that were ridiculous, like Hateall and then people like Crusty who had the conscience to know they were wrong. This use of Crusty’s conscience was a subtle way to prove her point as to why the revolution was right.
The thing that Warren did make clear was the spectrum of positions people could hold. The Tories had extremists, such as Hateall, who wanted to go straight to war to fight for the British cause. The name Hateall is strategically chosen describing his character as one that is narrow minded and headstrong. He said “compassion never shall seize my steadfast breast” showing he will not be swayed or have compassion for anyone else’s position. He stands his ground and hates all, meaning he hates the independence cause.
Crusty Crowbar for example is a different character that is also a Tory, but feels some guilt. Underneath he knows his cause is morally wrong. He says he “blindly swore obedience to his will” implying that he agreed to defend Britain but may not actually believe it. He feels guilt over the cause, but not enough to leave it. This puts him on the opposing end of the spectrum from Hateall, but still a Tory.
Warren’s poetic style and use of satire to convey her message at first made the play hard to understand. She used a very creative method of using Tories to promote the cause of the revolution. She used extremists that were ridiculous, like Hateall and then people like Crusty who had the conscience to know they were wrong. This use of Crusty’s conscience was a subtle way to prove her point as to why the revolution was right.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Ben Franklin
Benjamin Franklin was indeed a master of his image. Image is more than putting on an act to fool people. It is about having a subtle understanding of the world around oneself. To control one’s appearance, one must understand the people around him. To know what people like to hear, and likewise, what will upset people, is a gift that allows one to be what everyone else wants them to be. With this ability comes power and influence. People love someone they can relate to. They will look to follow someone they agree with. Benjamin Franklin was very influential and he did this because he knew how to relate to the public and make himself into someone others wanted to listen to. He was careful to not just arbitrarily say everything he thought, but was diplomatic, and mastered the art of saying the things he knew people wanted to hear, gaining influence and power. He, himself said he used his newspaper The Almanac, as “another means of communicating instruction” (96).
Benjamin Franklin understood that having a good virtue did not mean it had to be naturally instilled, but more that “virtue was not secure till its practice became a habitude, and was free from the opposition of contrary inclinations” (96). This meant someone must practice a virtue until it comes naturally, and convince everyone else of its genuineness, for it to be a real virtue. He was also careful about what he included in his paper saying he, “carefully excluded all libelling and personal abuse, which is of late years become so disgraceful to our country” (96). But, even as he refused to put in some poeple's writing, he managed to keep those people happy by saying he would be happy to print their work and hand it out separately. He was genius at dealing with people, preserving his own image, but not upsetting the other side. To younger writers who wanted to prove rash points he mentions, “a caution to young printers, and that they may be encouraged not to pollute their presses and disgrace their profession by such infamous practices, but refuse steadily, as they may see by my example that such a course of conduct will not, on the whole, be injurious to their interests” (96). Franklin knew that although one would like to go running their mouth, in the long run one must use self control and diplomacy, for it will get you further if people like you.
When people today speak of Benjamin Franklin they often mentioned his deep interest in his reputation and character. This is because he understood that how one looks to people around them is crucial to influence. He had a gift of knowing what people wanted, and delivering it. He showed this as he filtered out of his paper, knowing what things would do more harm than good in the long run. He knew how to compromise to keep people happy. This is why he was such a successful leader and influential person; he knew how to work people. This is a gift politicians must have. It is not fake, it is getting the job done.
Benjamin Franklin understood that having a good virtue did not mean it had to be naturally instilled, but more that “virtue was not secure till its practice became a habitude, and was free from the opposition of contrary inclinations” (96). This meant someone must practice a virtue until it comes naturally, and convince everyone else of its genuineness, for it to be a real virtue. He was also careful about what he included in his paper saying he, “carefully excluded all libelling and personal abuse, which is of late years become so disgraceful to our country” (96). But, even as he refused to put in some poeple's writing, he managed to keep those people happy by saying he would be happy to print their work and hand it out separately. He was genius at dealing with people, preserving his own image, but not upsetting the other side. To younger writers who wanted to prove rash points he mentions, “a caution to young printers, and that they may be encouraged not to pollute their presses and disgrace their profession by such infamous practices, but refuse steadily, as they may see by my example that such a course of conduct will not, on the whole, be injurious to their interests” (96). Franklin knew that although one would like to go running their mouth, in the long run one must use self control and diplomacy, for it will get you further if people like you.
When people today speak of Benjamin Franklin they often mentioned his deep interest in his reputation and character. This is because he understood that how one looks to people around them is crucial to influence. He had a gift of knowing what people wanted, and delivering it. He showed this as he filtered out of his paper, knowing what things would do more harm than good in the long run. He knew how to compromise to keep people happy. This is why he was such a successful leader and influential person; he knew how to work people. This is a gift politicians must have. It is not fake, it is getting the job done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)