A Quick Review of Jack Kerouac's Dharma Bums

Responding to Jack Kerouac's Dharma Bums

In Jack Kerouac’s, Dharma Bums, Ray recounts how Jaffey mentions “Hsuan Tsang the great Chinese monk who walked from China”.Hsuan Tsang actually traveled to India on a seventeen year long trek in the 600s in search of sacred Buddhist texts in order to gain more complete translations, to rectify misinterpretations, and gain more information on the Buddha’s teachings for the people of China. His epic trek was so momentous that it became mythologized in the tale Journey to the West. Journey to the West is not a true rendering of Hsuan Tsang’s travels, yet it serves as an allegory for an individual’s personal journey towards enlightenment.

Ray’s trip from North Carolina to California is similar to Journey to the West in that Ray goes west to meet with Jaffey who maintains a better understanding of Buddhism than Ray’s piecemeal constructions of it. At the same time, Ray seems to claim that his goal is for enlightenment since he calls himself a Bodhisattva regardless of his lax use of the term. Jaffey may be more kindred to Hsuan Tsang since he traveled west to Japan attempting to get closer to the source of Zen Buddhism. At the same time, unlike Ray, Jaffey does not seem to only follow precepts which resonate with him. Instead, he maintains a more encompassing view of the Buddhist teachings, especially the seventh aspect of the Four Noble Truths, right Mindfulness. While Ray’s mind is continually drifting off to other things and places, Jaffey is always living in the moment, drawing his attention to the here and now, the things and people surrounding him.

At the end of Dharma Bums, Ray realizes that he must return to the world of people and cinemas, ”the world to which” he must eventually return, as if that world is not as real as the world that he has been occupying. Yet, in the poem “Really the Real”, Gary Snyder recognizes “what you might call,/ really the real, world” may be found within the cinema world. Perhaps just “forty miles, forty minutes” distance and time away. Ray seemed unable to realize that even while he sees the whole world as illusion the whole world is real as well, and even “really the real” is always within reach even if you are not secluded on a mountain.

Arthur Miller's "The Crucible": A Character Analysis of Mary Warren

Guilt and Peer Pressure Expressed in the Character Mary Warren

In Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible, the character, Mary Warren, is bereft with inner turmoil. She is exceedingly confused at times. When Miller first introduces Mary Warren she is a seventeen year old girl. Miller describes her as “naïve”. Yet, Mary understands the danger that she and the other girls are in for their midnight dancing. She pleads with Abby that “Witchery’s a hanging error…We must tell the truth, Abby”. Mary Warren understands the necessity for herself and the others to confess. Mary argues with Abigail that “It’s a sin to conjure…”. Although Mary is naïve she is not willfully malicious and realizes that her actions and the actions of the other girls were wrong.

Mary obviously feels guilty for participating in the midnight dancing, or she would not feel the need to confess her actions. When she becomes one of the accusers she seems to feel guilty for that as well. She cries profusely while informing the Proctors that “Goody Osburne-will hang”. Mary may not fully understand her own feelings at this time. She argues that the court is right in condemning Goody Osburne as a witch. Yet, why should Mary cry for the life of a witch who has done her harm? Mary’s feelings are obviously mixed.

Miller portrays Mary as a “lonely girl”. As such, Mary’s involvement with the other accusers probably provides her with the fulfillment of some need to be part of a group. However, Mary is caught in the midst of peer pressure. She is especially fearful of Abby, and refuses to speak out against her. “She’ll kill me for sayin’ that”, cries Mary to Proctor when he demands that she confess. When Mary tries to confess herself to Danforth the other girls mimic her, and they accuse her of witchery. In weakness, Mary complies with the pretense of the other girls and accuses Proctor of being a fiend.

Mary also seemed to be suffering from emotional contagion. Many times Mary was able to make her body go cold and faint. However, when Mary was not in the midst of Abigail and the other girls shrieking and fearfulness Mary was unable to do these things. Mary was either consciously or unconsciously mimicking the emotions and behavior of the other girls. When the girls were not influencing Mary, she simply stated “I have no sense of it now”.

Mary finds a new sort of power in being an accuser. She is no longer treated like a child. She dines with judges, and people listen to her. Mary gets a taste of what it is to be respected, and begins to demand respect from Proctor. “I would have you speak civilly to me”, says Mary. Yet, Mary stamps her foot childishly while elucidating Proctor of her womanhood, and informing him that “I’ll not be ordered to bed no more”. Mary may be eighteen years old and the court may treat her well, but Mary is still a weak, “naïve”, and compliant child who lacks the strength of will to do what is right.

Male and Female Relationships in Adrienne Rich's "Aunt Jennifer's Tigers"

Adrienne Rich is an astonishing woman who has used her writings to confront matters of women’s oppression and the need for women’s liberation from a world of male domination (Pope, “Rich’s Life and Career”). “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers” was an early attempt by Rich to define male and female relationships. In “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers”, Rich uses formalism to not sully herself with this topic (“When We Dead Awaken” 22). She eloquently voices the poem in a third-person narrative which sets herself apart from Aunt Jennifer. The prevailing theme of “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers” is Aunt Jennifer’s oppression through marriage, and her utilization of embroidery as her only form of self-expression.

In the first stanza of “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers”, the speaker describes the tigers. They “prance across a screen”. This implies that the tigers move in a lively fashion, perhaps arrogantly. They are “topaz denizens of a world of green”. The ancient Greeks believed that topaz had the ability to increase the strength of those who wore it, and Egyptians thought that it could protect people from physical harm (“Topaz”). The speaker may be using the word topaz for its golden color, or topaz may be a representation of the strength and impenetrability of the tigers. The tigers certainly seem to be aware of their own power since they have no fear of “the men beneath the tree”.

In the last line of the first stanza the tigers “pace in sleek chivalric certainty”. The pacing of the tigers may represent fluid and controlled motion, as compared to the frolicking movement of the first line. However, the tigers may be pacing back and forth, because their movement is restricted to their tree top since there are men present below them. The use of the word “sleek” is a quandary. The tigers may be attractive and healthy, or they may contain that male quality of suaveness which is so often insincere. Yet, it is a “sleek chivalric certainty”. To be chivalrous is to be honorable and unwaveringly brave including behavior towards women. Being honorable often implies sincerity. Therefore, “sleek chivalric” is either meant as an oxymoron, or the tigers are attractive and considerate towards women.

In the second stanza Aunt Jennifer is doing needlework. Her fingers are “fluttering through her wool” as she stitches. This fluttering may be the graceful movement of her fingers as she works. On the other hand, Aunt Jennifer’s fluttering fingers may be a sign of agitation within Aunt Jennifer. In this case, the latter seems more likely, because Aunt Jennifer is having difficulty pulling her needle as she stitches. Yet, what does Aunt Jennifer have to be nervous about?

Uncle, perhaps? His wedding ring “sits heavily upon” her hand. The ring itself is certainly not so heavy as to impede her stitching. The ring seems to be symbolic of Uncle. Therefore, he is the one who is hampering Aunt Jennifer. If the ring represents Uncle then how is he heavy? He cannot possibly be sitting on her. Is he demanding, severe, violent, oppressive, or even a villain? Any of these options are plausible since the speaker does not provide any information for them to be contested. However, Uncle is conceivably having negative effects on Jennifer’s emotional state if she is displaying physical signs of agitation.

In the third stanza, the speaker describes the grim image of Aunt Jennifer’s corpse having “terrified hands” which are “still ringed with ordeals she was mastered by”. The speaker is stating that Jennifer has true fear of something in order to be terrified. By utilizing the word “ringed”, the speaker seems to be referring back to the wedding ring or “Uncle” as it were. Uncle seems to be the master who put Jennifer through ordeals and “mastered” her leaving her “terrified”. These ordeals may be why Jennifer chose to use ivory needles for her creations. After all, the Chinese believe that ivory protects the physical body (Kapadiaat). However, ivory comes from animals which are mastered and destroyed by men as well.

It has been discerned that Uncle causes Aunt Jennifer anxiety, and that he is dominating her through his mastery. Therefore, Uncle is oppressive. Yet, Uncle is synonymous with Aunt Jennifer’s wedding ring. Is the speaker trying to explicate that marriage is oppressive? The first line of the second stanza states that Aunt Jennifer is working with wool. Wool is a material that often comes from sheep. Sheep is a term which is often used to describe people who are conventional or traditional. Marriage itself is a convention, a tradition. Perhaps, Aunt Jennifer is anxiety-ridden, because of her choice to be traditional and get married into an oppressive institution.

Also, there is the familiar saying to “pull the wool over somebody’s eyes”. Maybe Aunt Jennifer feels deceived in her belief of what marriage is supposed to be. The wool is no longer covering Aunt Jennifer’s eyes. It is now in her hands, a material for her to work with and continuously ponder as she stitches. Aunt Jennifer may have regrets about her marriage, and her lack of understanding how oppressive it would be to her. Yet, she puts her energy into creating an ideal in her tigers, “the tigers in the panel that she made”. Aunt Jennifer’s needlework allows her to express her thoughts and feelings which she cannot otherwise express. Her tigers are strong and chivalrous, rather than weak and oppressive. Her tigers will continue “prancing, proud and unafraid” after she is gone. The tigers represent what Jennifer believes marriage and men should be, while at the same time representing the strength which Jennifer wishes that she possessed. The needlework which seems to consume Aunt Jennifer is her way of coping with her lot in life.

In The “Split” in Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers, Michael Rizza draws attention to an interesting point in line three of “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers”. He asserts that “The definite article “the” suspiciously draws attention to “the tree”, signaling that we should already know it, as if it were something as familiar as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Rizza contends that women were first subordinated to men when Eve was declared the “weaker sex”. However, Rizza also makes the case that “the tree” may be a tree of lineage with the men as fruit, in which case the women may be grafted onto the tree by marriage. Rizza does not take a stance on these options (64). However, the former proposal seems more rational since the speaker is in fact not talking about “a tree”, but the speaker is describing “the tree” in the panel.

Yet, arguing that “the tree” is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil complicates the poem even more. If the tigers are “denizens of the tree of knowledge do they possess that knowledge? Would that be why they have no fear of the men beneath them, or would that not be more reason to fear the men? Yet, in the last line of the poem the tigers are “proud” which would imply that they do have knowledge of good and evil. Could the speaker then be implying that Eve was right in eating the forbidden fruit and not in fact weak, or vice versa? Do the tigers then represent the ideals that knowledge allows us?

Rizza continues dissecting “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers” by highlighting the line “When Aunt is dead, her terrified hands will lie”. Rizza calls this line enjambled and asserts that it is saying one of two things or both; that Aunt’s hands will “lie” still in death, or that they will not be truthful. Rizza argues that the hope and escapism which is enveloped in the tigers continuous “prancing, proud and unafraid” is destabilized by the speaker’s knowledge that it is a falsehood (65). If Rizza is correct and Jennifer’s hands do not impart the truth about her life then the poem may not be hopeful, but if that is the case then perhaps Jennifer’s hands have been dishonest in their “fluttering” as well. If the poem has any basis in dishonesty then it might not convey anything which has been assumed. In Aesthetics of Power, Claire Keyes offers a different reason for Jennifer’s hands to be dishonest. Perhaps they will deny being terrified, or deny that the glorious tigers were a woman’s creation. Keyes considers the speaker’s use of the word “lie” to be a “sly ambiguity” (23). In which case, let Aunt Jennifer’s “terrified hands” rest.

Keyes emphasizes the traditional theme that art survives long after its creator is gone. Keyes asserts that in the first stanza of the poem the tigers represent Jennifer’s creative powers and in the last stanza they “represent her unfulfilled longings”. The tigers have a strength which Jennifer lacks. Keyes argues that Jennifer never truly associates herself with the tigers, because to do so would “unwoman” her (22). Keyes is making a strong point here, since the tigers maintain male characteristics. There is no implication in the poem that Jennifer is unhappy with being a woman, only her dissatisfaction with men who do not live up to her male ideal.

“Aunt is not compelling, her creation is”, states Keyes (23). Yet, what does Keyes mean by “compelling”, does Jennifer not attract attention, or does she not force action or belief? If Keynes means the former then it can be agreed that Jennifer’s tigers do strike more interest with readers since the speaker places them at the beginning, and the end of the poem. The tigers are also vibrantly described while Aunt Jennifer seems drab. However, Aunt Jennifer and her situation certainly are compelling in action and belief. Who can consider her suffering and escapism without being compelled to empathize or sympathize with her plight? Aunt Jennifer’s “ordeals” are a warning to women against the oppression of marriage.

Rich’s poem, “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers”, is beautifully written. It provides stunning imagery with an excellent rhyming scheme. Yet, beyond the perfect wording of her poem and the beautiful images it provides lies a dark and significant truth. Aunt Jennifer is trapped within an oppressive marriage. She is a victim whose only form of self-expression is through needlework. Aunt Jennifer creates a lovely screen depicting glorious tigers who maintain the strength and assertiveness which she lacks. The tigers are masculine, but they maintain the qualities of honorable men which Uncle lacks. “Aunt Jennifer’s Tigers” is a commentary on marriage, women’s oppression, and the use of art as a coping mechanism.

A Practical Analysis of Richard Eberhart's "The Groundhog"

If you are unfamiliar with Richard Eberhart's poem "The groundhog," here is a youtube link for you to listen to it being read aloud alond with visuals of groundhogs. You might enjoy this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-kdtGnngNw

In Richard Eberhart’s, “The Groundhog," the underlying theme is the mortality of living creatures. In the poem the speaker comes across “a groundhog lying dead”. During this confrontation with death the speaker’s “sense shook." The groundhog’s corpse had an effect on the speaker’s emotions. The speaker is filled “half with loathing." Loathing can mean that a person has an extreme aversion to something. Often times, people dislike or fear that which they cannot comprehend. It is also apparent that the speaker does not fully understand the sight of the dead groundhog’s decomposition, because he calls it a “senseless change."

When the speaker first views the groundhog his “mind outshot our naked frailty."This seems to imply that the speaker came to the realization that living things are fragile, lacking in strength, and do not maintain their solid forms. Living things are mortal including himself/herself. At the same time the speaker is very aware of the “vigour” of nature even as his/her “senses waver dim” losing their own vigour. The speaker later revisits the groundhog’s body and observes the lack of “sap” or vigour in it.

When again the speaker visits the corpse in the summer, he/she takes note of the strength and energy in the summer fields. Yet, there is little left of the groundhog’s body. Upon the speaker’s final visit to the groundhog he/she can locate no sign of it. The speaker clasps at his/her own “withered heart."The withered heart seems to represent the speaker’s own heart as being as sapless and lacking in vigour as the groundhog. The imagery of the groundhog changes throughout the course of the poem which parallels the speaker’s evolving perspective towards mortality.

Eberhart also utilizes the opposition of emotions and wisdom. During the first encounter with the groundhog the speaker experienced mixed feelings of love and aversion. He/She then attacked the groundhog with an “angry stick." The stick is an inanimate object which is being personified to express the speaker’s anger at being confronted with the reality of mortality. However, the speaker managed to rein in his/her emotions and remain respectful of wisdom. In autumn when the speaker once again visits the groundhog he/she is no longer consumed by emotions of love or loathing. Instead, the speaker is bound by knowledge, and rather than wielding an “angry stick” the speaker creates a walking stick. The walking stick also aids in creating the image of a wise old man.

Finally, Eberhart seems to be making a statement about human mortality. The groundhog’s bones are “beautiful as architecture."Yet, even the bones will disappear. When most creatures on earth die they do not leave a sign of their existence. On the other hand, the speaker’s thoughts wander to China and Greece where human architecture has existed for thousands of years. Humans may be mortal, but they do leave an impact on the earth whether it be religious like Saint Theresa, intellectual like Montaigne, or worldly like Alexander the Great.

Birds as Metaphors in the Poetry of Percy B. Shelley and John Keats: Skylarks and Nightengales

            In “A Defence of Poetry,” Percy Bysshe Shelley stated, “A poet is a nightingale, who sits in darkness and sings to cheer its own solitude with sweet sounds; his auditors are as men entranced by the melody of an unseen musician.”  (843)  Fitting his own definition of a poet, Shelley must have found some solace in composing poetry.  The same may be said of John Keats who stated that he would fly away on “the viewless wings of Poesy.”  Both of these poets were “nightingales”.  Shelley and Keats derived poetic inspiration from fowls, nature’s winged songstresses.  Keats published “Ode to a Nightingale” in 1819 while Shelley published “To a Sky-Lark” in 1820.  Keats and Shelley use the birds in their poems as metaphors for their speakers’ differing personal desires.

            In “To a Sky-Lark,” Shelley’s speaker calls the skylark “blithe Spirit!”  The capital “S” seems to demand extra attention to the word “spirit.”  The speaker also claims that the skylark is not actually a bird, but that it is “from Heaven, or near it.”  The speaker may deem the skylark as an angel or God since it may be from heaven.  God and angels are unseen, but people still believe in them.  The skylark is unseen as well, but the speaker knows that it is there since he can hear its “shrill delight.”  People may believe in God, because they have his words in the Bible.  Yet, faith is necessary to believe in that which is unseen.

            The speaker says to the skylark, “What thou art we know not.”  At the same time, people do not actually know what God is.  Terms like omniscient and omnipotent are often used to describe him.  The speaker uses similes in his attempt to describe what the bird is.  It is “Like a high-born maiden.”  Her music is “sweet as love-which overflows her bower.”  She is in a garden which may represent the Garden of Eden.  The bird is also “Like a glow-worm golden/ In a dell of dew,/ Scattering unbeholden/ Its aerial hue.”  The glow-worm has no obligation, nor does the bird.  If the skylark is representative of God, then God may have no obligation to man.  The speaker also compares the bird to “a rose embowered/ In its own green leaves-/By warm winds deflowered.”  The rose shelters itself just as God does.  Finally, the speaker proclaims, “All that ever was/ Joyous, and clear and fresh, thy music doth surpass.”  The skylark is the essence of these things, far greater than joy itself, just as God is the essence.

            The speaker beseeches the bird, “Teach us, Sprite or Bird.”  It is as if the speaker were begging God to teach him something.  The speaker has “never heard/ Praise of love or wine/ That panted forth a flood of rapture so divine.”  The speaker may be seeking a mystical, rapturous experience with the divine God.  Yet, the speaker goes on by stating, “Matched with thine would be all/ But an empty vaunt,/ A thing wherein we feel there is some hidden want.”  The speaker may be saying that for a man to think that he may be able to match with God is meaningless boastful desire.  Yet, the desire remains.

            The speaker contemplates the skylark with the questions, “What love of thine own kind? what ignorance of pain?”  The speaker may be questioning God’s love of humanity.  What kind of love is it?  Is God’s love of humanity truly without obligation?  What of God’s obligation for creating man?  The speaker may also be questioning God’s understanding of human pain.  Is God ignorant of human suffering?  As Jesus, God claimed human suffering, and suffered for man’s sin.  The speaker may also be aware that the skylark has often been used as a symbol of Jesus Christ, and the skylark has been deemed like Christ as a mediator between heaven and earth.  Jesus did not fret over the human condition.  Instead, he placed all of his faith in God.

            The speaker says to the skylark, “Thou lovest-but ne’er knew love’s sad satiety.”  Perhaps God loves mankind, but mankind has a different kind of knowledge about love.  Love may be accompanied by suffering and grief that is overwhelming.  Yet, Jesus may have known “love’s sad satiety.”  He was executed on the cross unjustly, having committed no sins.  Yet, he suffered, because of his love for mankind.  Jesus’ love was one of self-sacrifice, so it may be that God knows only too well what the speaker is referring to.  It becomes more apparent that the speaker may be treating the skylark as a representation of Christ as he states, “Waking or asleep/ Thou of death must deem/ Things more true and deep/ Than we mortals dream.”  The skylark itself is not dead, nor is it symbolically related with death.  Instead, the speaker may be referring to Christ’s death.  At the same time, the bird is separate from “we mortals” which must mean that the skylark is being considered immortal like God.

            The speaker continues, “Yet if we could scorn/ Hate and pride and fear;/ If we were things born/ not to shed a tear,/ I know not how thy joy we ever should come near.”  Even if mankind were able to avoid feeling hate, pride, fear, and suffering, the negative aspects of humanity, the speaker seems unable to imagine mankind achieving the same rapture as the skylark.  The speaker states, “Better than all measures/ Of delightful sound-/ Better than all treasures/ That in books are found-/ Thy skill to poet were, thou Scorner of the ground.”  These lines may reflect that the speaker does not believe that the treasures within the Bible are enough.  Yet, he also may be saying that the real fault with humanity is that it is too engrossed in earthly things, whereas, Jesus Christ or the skylark, are able to reject earthly things.  This may be why the skylark’s song is greater beyond all measures of anything else the speaker has heard. 

            In the end, the speaker in “To a Sky-Lark,” reveals his true desire.  He requests that the skylark, “Teach me half the gladness/ That thy brain must know,/ Such harmonious madness/ From my lips would flow/ the world should listen then- as I am listening now”.  The speaker yearns for the essential joy or happiness which is unknown to him.  He recognizes that the skylark as Christ has the enthusiasm which he lacks.  It may be that this enthusiasm is derived from faith, and that is what the speaker is really lacking and desires.  Yet, it may also be that the skylark is the epitome of natural goodness.

            In “To a Sky-Lark”, Shelley’s speaker yearns for faith and eternal happiness.  Yet, the speaker in Keats’ “Ode to a Nightingale” inclination is different.  The speaker begins the poem by describing his suffering.  He avows, “My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains/ My sense.”  The speaker’s pain is personal since he uses the word “my.”  Yet, this first line is contradictory.  Even as the speaker feels emotional pain (since it is his heart which is effected), he somehow does not feel pain due to “numbness”.  However, this “numbness” also causes him pain.  The speaker converses with the nightingale.  He is not jealous of the bird’s joy.  Instead, he is happy for the nightingale’s ability to be so joyous while he is not.  The speaker states, “Tis not through envy of thy happy lot,/ But being too happy in thine happiness.”  The nightingale is able to “Singest of summer in full-throated ease.”  The beauteous song of the bird is joyous and natural. 

In the second stanza, the speaker seems to wish that wine could transmute into the inspirational waters of the fountain of the Greek muses.  He cries, “O for a beaker full of the warm South/ Full of the true, the blushful Hippocrene.”  The speaker wishes that he “might drink and leave the world unseen/ And with thee fade away into the forest dim.”  The speaker is fantasizing himself having the ability to escape the shackles of his human life, and enter the natural world represented by the forest.  By stating “with thee”, the speaker may wish to learn the simple joy of the nightingale.

It becomes more apparent that the speaker desires an escape as he describes the human suffering which does not exist for the nightingale.  He states, “What thou among the leaves hast never known,/The weariness, the fever, and the fret.”  He then alludes to the human condition, man’s knowledge of his own mortality.  He asserts, “Where youth grows pale, and spectre-thin, and dies.”  This may also be a reference to the grief that accompanies the loss of a loved one since Keat’s own brother had recently died.  In any case, the speaker desires an escape from all the human suffering whatever its form.  He wishes to forget, as he states, “Fade far away, dissolve, and quite forget.”  This may also be a connection to the fourth line of the poem where the speaker mentions the river Lethe.  Yet, the speaker may also desire his own non-existence when he states “dissolve.” 

In spite of this gloomy outlook, the speaker is able to find some solace.  He claims that he will join the nightingale “on the viewless wings of Poesy.”  Poetry is an outlet for the speaker to release his suffering, such as through the poem “Ode to a Nightingale.”  This may also be why the speaker desires the muses’ fountain.  He dreams of the “coming musk-rose”, a flower which has been an inspiration to numerous poets.  Yet, even with this poetry the speaker is still contemplating life and death.  Since ancient times, oil from the musk-rose has been considered the “elixir of youth.”  At the same time, hawthorns were used by the Druids to combat old age.  Yet, the speaker also mentions the “fading violets”.  Not only are the violet flowers themselves dying, but violets were often used as a funeral flower.  Also, “in embalmed darkness” may have a double meaning.  It may be the sweet scent of perfume of the fragrance of spring, but it may also be the preservation of a corpse.

The speaker’s preoccupation with his own mortality continues as he describes how “I have been half in love with easeful Death,/Call’d him soft names in many a mused rhyme.”  To the speaker, death would be easy compared to the suffering of life, and poetry seems to make it easier for him to contemplate and accept death.  This is also apparent when the speaker states, “Now more than ever seems it rich to die,/ To cease upon the midnight with no pain.”  Again, the speaker appeals to the nightingale, “While thou art pouring forth thy soul abroad/ In such an ecstasy!”  The bird is free from the human condition, and able to be exalted while the speaker is not.  This is also expressed in the line, “Thou was not born for death, immortal Bird!”  Yet, to the speaker the bird’s song may be a “requiem” while he becomes a “sod.”  The nightingale may sing his own death mass.

The speaker cries, “Forlorn! the very sound is like a bell/ To toll me back from thee to my sole-self!”  The speaker may be forlorn in that he desires what the bird has and is unable to gain it.  Yet, he may also be forlorn since the word itself is like a bell toll, or a death toll, calling him back to his mortal self. 

Finally, the speaker proclaims, “Adieu? the fancy cannot cheat so well.”  The speaker recognizes that his imagination cannot change the reality of his mortal situation, the inevitability of death.  It only provides him with moments of reprieve.  The speaker cries “Adieu” to the nightingale and ponders, “Was it a vision, or a waking dream?/ Fled is that music:-Do I wake or sleep?”  In the end, the nightingale’s music fades.  The speaker seems to realize that nothing in life is permanent.  Things fade out just like the nightingale’s song.  In the end, the speaker recognizes that he has two options.  He may wake and deal with reality through acceptance.  Otherwise, he may continue to sleep, dreaming with his imagination to numb his suffering, providing him with an escape. 

Keats and Shelley are both poetic nightingales, and they both derived solace from composing poetry.  They also both used the speakers in their poems to analyze their personal beliefs.  While Shelley may have had atheistic tendencies, he was still knowledgeable about Christianity.  In “To a Skylark”, Shelley may have used the skylark as a metaphor for Christ, or as a metaphor for the natural goodness he desired for himself and others.  On the other hand, Keats was preoccupied with human suffering, and he used the nightingale as a metaphor for escaping the mortal coil that is life.

Shakespeare's Sonnet 55: Alliteration and Love

            William Shakespeare’s sonnet 55:

                        Not marble, nor the gilded monuments

                        Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme;

                        But you shall shine more bright in these contents

                        Than unswept stone, besmeared with sluttish time.

                        When wasteful war shall statues overturn,

                        And broils root out the work of masonry

                        Nor Mars his sword nor war’s quick fire shall burn

The living record of your memory.

‘Gainst death and all-oblivious enmity

Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room

Even in the eyes of all posterity

That wear this world out to the ending doom.

                                    So, till the judgment that yourself arise,

                                    You live in this, and dwell in lovers’ eyes.

includes elements of alliteration, such as “wasteful war,” “shall statues,” “Even in the eyes,” and “wear this world.”  Shakespeare’s rhyme scheme is abab cdcd efef gg.  For example, “monuments” rhymes with “contents,” for the a  and “overturn” rhymes with “burn,” for the c, and “rhyme” rhymes with “time” for the b.  Also, “memory” rhymes with “masonry” for the d, and “enmity” rhymes with “posterity” for the e. Also, “room” rhymes with “doom” for the f, and “arise” rhymes with “eyes” for the g.

            The imagery of Shakespeare’s 55^th sonnet includes the dirt and grime of time polluting the natural beauty of marble and gold.  There are the images of stones, swords, fire, and battles.

The speaker states it not possible for “monuments/ Of princes” to “outlive this powerful rhyme.”  He claims that battles and wars shall destroy human architecture.  However, “the living record of your memory” shall survive.  The speaker informs the reader that they shall “pace forth” against death and forgotten enemies.  The speaker claims, “your praise shall still find room.”  Possibly, the person for whom this sonnet is intended is strong since he/she can move forward against death, and since the person is deserving of praise.

The speaker also provides hope of returning to life after death on Judgment Day, but until Judgment Day arrives the reader must live in the mortal world which is impermanent and cannot withstand the tests of time.  Also, the reader must be satisfied with dwelling “in lovers’ eyes.”  It may be that the reader is loved by many since “lovers’” is plural.  It may also be that the reader or the sonnet itself shall be remembered and appreciated throughout time since the speaker states, “Even in the eyes of all posterity.”  Future generations may look back with loving eyes upon the person for whom the sonnet is intended or upon the sonnet itself.  However, I do not see how the sonnet can arise on Judgment Day, so the speaker must be speaking to an intended individual. Perhaps, this is the young man described in the Shakespeare biographical section of the text.

Epic Similes of Greek Mythology in The Faerie Queen and Paradise Lost

            Greek mythology consists of numerous stories about man’s feats and battles between the gods.  Edmund Spenser had extensive education and prolific knowledge on Greek mythology, as was John Milton.  Spencer wrote The Faerie Queen in 1590, and Milton wrote Paradise Lost in 1674.  Both of these authors utilized numerous epic similes within these works, and both of them turned to Greek mythology for inspiration.

            In these lines of Paradise Lost, John Milton creates an epic simile as a comparison between Satan and the other fallen angels and the Greek myth of Zeus and other Greek gods overthrowing the Titans:

Thus Satan talking to his nearest mate

With head uplift above the wave, and eyes

That sparkling blazed, his other parts besides

Prone on the flood, extended long and large

Lay floating many a rood, in bulk as huge

As whom the fables name of monstrous size,

Titanian, or Earth-born, that warred on Jove,

Briareos of Typhon, whom the den

By ancient Tarsus held  (lines, Book 1, 192-200)

Milton illustrates the immense size of Satan by describing his huge bulk which was “extended long and large.”  The “monstrous size” of Satan is comparable to the massive size of the Titans (Buxton, 29).  Also, the Titans were overthrown by the high-god Zeus and the other gods lower in the Greek pantheon, just as Satan was cast down to hell by the Almighty God.  However, in Greek myth, Zeus not only defeated the Titans, he actually swallowed them up into his being and then cast them down to earth (Buxton, 30), while God cast the fallen angels down to hell.  This is intriguing since God created the angels, but Zeus had not created the Titans.  Also, God created the earth, and Zeus did not (Buxton, 28).  This simile is also interesting since Milton mentions Tarsus which is where some of the Titans were, and the myths of them probably originated with the ancient Babylonians or Hittites who are considered pagans in the Bible.

            In these lines of Spenser’s The Faerie Queen, an epic simile is drawn between the knight, Redcrosse, and Hercules, a Greek hero:

Not that great Champion of the antique world,

Whom famous Poetes verse so much doth vaunt,

And hath for twelve huge labours extold,

So many furies and sharpe fits did haunt,

When him the poisoned garment did enchaunt

With Centaures bloud, and bloudie verses charmed,

As did this knight twelve thousand dolours daunt,

Whom fyrie steele now burnt, that earst him armed,

That erst him goodly armed, now most of all him harmed. (lines, Book 1, Canto 11, 235-243)

In Greek myth, Hercules had to complete twelve labors including the daunting task of claiming Hippolyte’s poison girdle. Hercules also had to deal with constant meddling from the Furies who would punish anyone who swore a false oath (Buxton, 158).  Hercules did not swear a false oath and completed his tasks, just as Redcrosse swore an oath and he did not fail to keep it.  Redcrosse also had to overcome great labors on his journey with Una.

            Both Milton and Spenser utilize Greek myth to forge epic similes as comparisons for the characters in their narratives.

Responding to Terry Eagleton's "The Meaning of Life"

In The Meaning of Life, Terry Eagleton explains that “the meaning of life is interestingly close to meaninglessness”. This leaves people free to apply meaning to their own life experiences, beliefs, and lives as they wish. This is completely postmodern in that people are able to create meaning for themselves. Everyone is free to choose their own beliefs and if they are unable to find something suitable that already exists they may imagine and design their own. Yet, life would only be meaningless if people refuse to assign it any meaning. There may be no external meaning to life. The only meaning in life may be what people bring into their own individual lives. This seems to be consistent with Eagleton’s “hat” and “pain” analogy.

Eagleton spends a great deal of time arguing over the meaning of meaning. He describes how meaning may be expressed through signs, symbols, acts, and structures. However, I think he spent far too much time explaining linguistics and semantics as compared to meaning. People express and understand meaning in their own ways. People who speak the same language may not fully comprehend one another. Analyzing language and communication too in-depthly may merely hinder it by causing greater confusion. If people only converse over what everything means they will never be able to actually say anything of pertinence. That is why language exists with words representing symbols that everyone can understand. Ambiguity serves a purpose in communication, but perhaps it should distinctly be the philosopher’s job to destroy the ambiguity of language.

Eagleton spends a lot of time discussing how difficult it can be to identify meaning. Yet, he barely touches on things of worth and meaning which are highly ineffable. How many things of beauty, wonder, and joy are simply indescribable not for lack of vocabulary but lack of words. There are certain things in life which are simply too intense or perfect to express in words. Just because people may not be able to express the meaning of something does not make that thing meaningless. Is it not possible that the most meaningful things or experiences in life are the ones that are unutterable or overwhelmingly inexpressible?

Why do some people feel the need to define everything so explicitly that there is no room for interpretation? Eagleton certainly seems to have a desperate need to do this. However, people are free to their own interpretations of meaning. This may be seen as a fault of language. On the other hand, it may be seen as an example of individual subjectivity which cannot be denied. Everything a person believes and the meaning that they assign to things is all based on their past knowledge and experiences. These things help define who a person is and what they will believe and help form a basis for how a person will interpret something. In the end people will seek or not seek the answer to the meaning of life as they choose.

Personally, my feelings on this topic have been altered, modified, and slowly evolved as I have lived through more experiences and gained more information on the subject. I assume that this shall continue to be the case as I follow my chosen path through life. Eagleton has offered me various ideas on the subject of the meaning of life. In the end I shall decide through my own interpretations what that meaning truly is. You should too.

Character Analysis for Woody Allen's Film "Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Crimes and Misdemeanors is a cerebral film laced with philosophical drifts of morality. One of the characters in the film, Judah, has an ego which is suffering over the gambits between his id and super-ego. Judah’s ego attempts to find a common ground between the two. However, Judah’s super-ego doesn’t hold enough influence to make him behave in a moral way. Instead, Judah makes an immoral choice which ends up haunting him as his super-ego plagues him with guilt for his misdeed. The torment he suffers from his decision fades though. Judah eventually accepts the concept that morality is subjective as he escapes punishment for his crime.

At one point, in the film, Judah recalls his father speaking of basic goodness within humans. Is it possible that the super-ego may be compared to an inherent synergism? Yet, if this is the case why is there an id? Is that where free-will lies, or the impulses towards vice? Whatever the case, my understanding is that Freud wished for people to break through the moral barriers of the super-ego and allow more power to the id through the ego. Yet, does this then mean that people decide their own morality and God shall be flushed, or people may chose to flush God but suffer the consequences later if there are any? I certainly do not know. However, I would prefer to err on the side of caution and behave in a moral fashion.

Sections of Crimes and Misdemeanors correlate with writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson made the case that true men do not conform to society. In Crimes and Misdemeanors, Cliff was an unconventional director. His works were based on things he deemed important, whereas Lester created things which appealed to the masses. Yet, Lester was highly successful and Cliff certainly was not. However, perhaps Cliff’s brilliance would have been recognized later (maybe when his life expired). In any case, Cliff remained true to himself regardless of society’s desires. Emerson also claims that virtues are often only a penance. This is reflected in Judah’s philanthropic activities. Judah may really just have been trying to make up for his financial improprieties and adultery. In addition, Emerson describes travelling as an unwise escape from life’s reality. Judah’s mistress, Delores tries to convince Judah to go on a trip with her as a way for her to deny that their relationship has faded. Unfortunately, she did not seem to realize that their troubles were not going to dissipate by attempting to evade them.

While Judha is discussing his plight over Delores with a friend he ponders questions similar to those that Job asked of God. He wonders if what Delores is doing to him is what he justly deserves. However, Job did not sin against God, and Judah committed adultery with Delores. In Job’s situation, Emerson would probably say that he should follow his heart. Job did do this by confronting God, and asking him what he had done to deserve the misfortunes bestowed upon him. Also, Job did not heed his friends argument that he must have done something to offend God, because he knew it to be incorrect. Job was also a nonconformist which Emerson would most likely appreciate. Job did not concern himself with other people’s criticisms and spoke his mind freely. He did not conceal his transgressions from others. He openly admitted them and repented. Whereas, other people would have done their utmost to mask their transgressions, rather like Judah did.

Crimes and Misdemeanors is an excellent thought-provoking film with many layers of symbolism and various philosophical themes. Emerson provides many poignant and enlightening concepts which can be applied to this film, as well as human life. However, what I appreciate the most from Emerson is his deep respect for nature and how enlightening it can be to study it. There is nothing more peaceful than basking in the beauty of nature while contemplating the cycles of life and how they are reflected in all living things.

Altruism and Baggini's "What's it all about?"

In his book, What’s it all about?, Baggini engages in the concept of altruism. He contends that altruism is not the meaning or purpose of life, but that it is certainly a path that can lead to self-fulfillment in life. Auguste Comte originated the term “altruism” in 1851. Since then the term has been utilized by Christians, Buddhists, psychologists, sociologists, and neurologists.

Catholicism teaches that altruism may be seen as a virtue, and personal desires should be subordinate to benevolent acts. Christ said “Love they neighbor as thyself”. However, this does not mean that an individual must love others more than themselves. People should never aid others when it leaves them enveloped in a guilt complex. Self-sacrifice should be applied only when morally appropriate.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama asserts that altruism is a necessary part of human happiness. He maintains that true altruism is the result of love and compassion which are at the core of Buddhist teachings. The Dalai Lama believes so strongly in this that he has donated $150,000 to the Stanford School of Medicine. Stanford is using these funds to create a Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education. This center has already collected data that shows that certain areas of the brain are associated with compassionate thoughts and empathy. It will also research whether or not people can be taught compassion and why some people lack it. The Stanford Center is searching for a neurological basis for compassion.

Empathy is the basis for learning compassion and altruism. From a psychological and sociological perspective, Erik H. Erikson developed a psychosocial theory which described a person’s development as being set up in stages where people learn skills, become members of society, and develop their own personal identity. Erikson contended that empathy is an important factor in altruistic behavior that begins to develop in early childhood. However, some children do not respond to their own feelings of empathy with altruistic behavior. Parental influence can help children develop empathy. When parents behave empathically they are modeling the behavior for their children. Apparently, if children do not develop altruism on their own parents can teach it to them.

On a neurological level humans are designed to experience empathy. In 1996, mirror neurons were discovered within the brain of a scientific test monkey. While probing the monkey’s brain, neuroscientists discovered an interesting arrangement of cells. These brain cells, mirror neurons, fired whenever the monkey performed a task, as well as when it merely viewed someone else performing the task. These cells were later found within human brains as well. The firing of these mirror neurons shows that perception and production of movements are associated with the same brain areas. These mirror neurons offer an effective means for comprehending other people’s behaviors, as well as a potentially neurological origin for empathy.

Altruism and caring for others may not provide the meaning of life. However, these concepts appear to be inherent within humanity. Compassion and altruism may not be the purpose of life, but they can give life purpose. This purpose does not simply stem from a need for survival or self-fulfillment. It is based upon a sincere love of others, not just the saying that we are our brother’s keeper. True altruism is meaningful because it is selfless.

References

14^th Dalai Lama, (n.d.). The Medicine of Altruism. Retrieved March 4, 2009 from http://www.dalailama.com/page.65.htm

Berk, L.E., (2008). Infants, Children, and Adolescents. New York: Pearson Education Inc.

Brosnahan, Timothy. "Altruism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 5 Mar. 2009 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01369a.htm>.

Than, K. (2005). Scientists Say Everyone Can Read Minds. Retrieved November 20, 2008 from http://www.livescience.com/health/050427_mind_readers.html

Thoughts on Natalie Angier's "Men, Women, Sex, and Darwin"

In “Men, Women, Sex, and Darwin”, Natalie Angier writes that one of the premises of evolutionary psychology is that “Women are naturally attracted to high-status men with resources”. Angier argues that this statement is not accurate for all women. However, she does not describe how it is inaccurate or offer any examples on the subject. I would like to contend that while certain parts of human attraction are affected by biology, such as pheromones, who a woman is attracted to is largely a matter of preference.

Some women are attracted to money and power. There are certainly gold-diggers out there, but there are male ones as well. Yet, when a woman first meets a man is she already or immediately aware of the size of his pocket book? There are some occasions where the answer is yes, but there are also plenty where that is not the case. A man may be wearing a five-hundred dollar suite, but they may be the only one he owns or he could have rented it. I certainly had no idea that my husband’s grandparents were filthy rich and he would receive a large inheritance. I did not find this out until we had already fallen for each other and were quite serious.

There are plenty of other things that play into attraction including attitude, appearance, intelligence, creativity, and common values which all women judge the importance of when selecting a mate. Some women may prefer an intelligent philosopher whose ideas cannot pay the bills. Other women may prefer a man who has a lower income than themselves so that they can have the power in the relationship. It’s a woman’s prerogative and she can follow her heart rather than her genes if she so chooses.