Drugs and Insanity

There went my pharmacists, my former pharmacists. He was being laid to rest by six of his friends, or at least people who he claimed as friends, (I was not invited) slowly walked down an aisle of mourning townspeople. It was a small town, with a name bland as could be, Blanding. There was only one pharmacy, and now no pharmacist. What would happen, would the town dry up and disappear as so many do, without the aid of prescription drugs to keep the populace calm. Without a pharmacy misery would be inescapable. The thought of driving the 17 minutes to the next down is ridiculous, how can any town survive without the essential role of the pharmacist being fulfilled.

As the funeral continued, thoughts unregulated and out of control raced through my mind. Already I was low, so very low.

No one knew how this tragedy could have happened, he was found alone with a Y cut into his forehead. He was so invaluable in keeping depression from us, but who regulated his emotions? As evidenced by what happened, no one did.

With such a large supply of so many helping chemicals, the irony of his death is seen in its manor.

He had an uncontrollable gambling addiction, got in so deep with the Yakusa that their investment could never be returned, so they finished him off. The term uncontrollable addiction seems redundant yet fitting. Surely there is a drug to help, why couldn't he find it.

It makes no sense, Blanding is over a thousand miles from the ocean, and Japan is several thousand more, yet the Yakusa followed him here. My geography isn't at its best, I spent more time in school playing with small animals.

All I can conclude is life is unfair, now I will have a more difficult life, without a pharmacist.

Maybe this is the spark, the hint or message from life that I needed. It is time for me to make a change, a move. I've always wanted to see Japan, and now I have a reason.

Revenge will be my cause and my end, There will be few survivors.

The plane ride was nice, I had never been in a plane before.

Apparently the Yakusa is a large organization, as when I landed and asked directions to their headquarters no one seemed willing to help me.

I decided that those who wouldn't help me were as culpable as those who killed my dear pharmacist. I started to lay waste to those in my path, assuming that all roads would lead to my satisfaction. After my first victim (this time) the police caught me, and extradited me back to America. It turns out I had some skeletons in my closet that I didn't feel were related to this narrative.

Now I have a new pharmacist, and he makes sure I get my pills. The padded walls are nice as well...

The misery is gone, replaced with a blessed numbness.

During the trial I also learned the Yakusa didn't kill my former pharmacist, he was in a car accident coming home from a sports game, and merely painted a Y on his forehead, hindsight sure is nice.

This Blog is New

I just started this, and so far I have included several of my essays from the past several years.  I will add more. Let me know if you have any thoughts

Richard III Rhetorical Analysis

If heaven have any grievous plague in store

Exceeding those that I can wish upon thee,

O, let them keep it till thy sins be ripe

And then hurl down that indignation

On thee, the troubler of the poor world's peace!

The worm of conscience still begnaw thy soul!

Thy friends suspect for traitors while thou liv'st,

And take deep traitors for thy dearest friends!

No sleep close up that deadly eye of thine,

Unless it be while some tormenting dream

Affrights thee with a hell of ugly devils!

Thou elvish marked, abortive, rooting hog!

Thou that was seal'd in thy nativity

The slave of nature and the son of hell!

Thou slander of they heavy mothers womb!

Thou loathed issue of thy fathers loins!

Thou rag of honor!

(Richard III, I, iii, 216-232)

In Shakespeare's Richard III Queen Margaret is not cast as a great person. She has endured great personal tragedy and has not come through it unscathed. She does not blame her misfortune on the nature of war or kings, but on a single individual named Richard. Through cursing Richard Margaret becomes the living consequence of civil war between members of the same royal family. She is angry or bitter over the harm that has been done to her and she directs that vitriol towards a single individual. She wants vengeance for her pain to the extent that she wants to have precedence over God's punishment. She does not feel any responsibility for her current state in life, and does does see any way she could better her life but through the punishment of Richard, the apparent source of her pain. She feels justified in this response as she was the victim of his violence. No thought of forgiveness or acceptance seems to enter her mind. Her character is simple but powerful. She is a symbol of consequence or repercussion. She foreshadows what will happen as the civil war continues, more broken families will be left to hate their fellow survivors. Her curses are even predictive. She speaks of his conscience, which we learn has or will be pricked through some of his monologues. She speaks of his friends leaving him, and him dealing with his friends treacherously, both will happen. She speaks of his nightmares and he will be visited by the ghosts of those he murders.

Her anger and bitterness towards Richard is evident through the list of insults near the end of her curse (accumilatio and anaphora). These insults grow in potency and she keeps adding the list. It starts of calling him “elvish marked” (227), which implies a magical force had made him evil so it may not be entirely his fault. She also compares him to a “rooting hog” (227), an animal, again denying some aspect of intelligence or choice in his actions (metaphor). She continues this theme of his lack of choice saying he was “seal'd” (228) “the slave of nature and the son of hell” (229), he did not seal himself but was sealed. She almost seems to be excusing him, except this excuse is one more insult. He is not even capable of controlling his own life, that is how weak and powerless he really is. He is only a tool for others. She finishes this list of insults with very personal ones. She claims he is the “slander”, or that he slanders his mother, by coming from her “heavy womb” (230). His very existence remarks badly on his mother. She also calls him the “loathed issue” of his “fathers loins” (231) implying even his father did not love him. This list of increasingly personal insults evidences Margaret deep anger and bitterness towards Richard.

Margaret's great need for vengeance from Richard is shown the the language and nature of the actual curses she wishes upon him (ara). She begins her curses by saying “the worm of conscience” (Prosopopoeia) implying that she thinks some small piece of conscience is living deep in his soul. However she wishes it to “begnaw [his] soul” (221). She does not curse him to remember crime and become better, but to have his soul destroyed. She wants punishment not rehabilitation (emphasis). The structure of the next curse follows a chiasmus type pattern, as it begin and end with the same object. She curses his friends to be “suspect[ed] for traitors” by him (222) while he “take[s] deep traitors” (223) for his friends. She wants him to betray his friends and be betrayed by his friends. Again these are wishes of a vengeful person, she does not want him to change to be better but to be destroyed in his wickedness. The final curse that “no sleep close up that deadly eye” (224) because she does not want him to rest easily. She extends this to “unless . . . some tormenting dream / affrights thee” (225-226) where she allows for some sleep, as long as he has nightmares while sleeping. She finishes this with specifically calling for nightmares of a “hell of ugly devils” (226) (ominatio). These three curses are the curses of vengeance not justice. Margaret does not want life to be fair or for Richard to be forced to pay back society for his crimes. She wishes him misery and pain. She is a vengeful person.

Margaret has had many tragedies in her life and this has caused her to feel victimized. She does not feel any personal responsibility for her current life or more importantly her current attitude. She feels completely justified in her anger and desire for vengeance. As she begins her curse Margaret references heaven and its curses. She says “if heaven have any grievous plague” (216) implying that it obviously does, and it is “exceeding those that I can wish” (217) then “let them keep it till thy sins be ripe” (218) (metaphor). She wants her curses to take effect first. She claims precedence over heaven. She is the victim of Richards injustice and has first claim on his punishment. She hopes and wants heaven to punish him too, but only after she has completed her curses. Due to her status as a victim she feels justified in seeking personal vengeance before any other punishments might be administered to Richard.

Margaret is a simple character. She fits a type and is not an individual or well rounded character. She is introduced early in the play and is used to show the consequences of the action that happen before the play started, and the future of the characters actions in the play. She is Shakespeare’s judgment and critique of the civil war among this royal family. He added her into the story for this purpose. She shows both the characters of the play and the readers how easily vengeance comes for violence and how cyclical this pattern can become.  

Paying Homage

“Homage to a Government” is a poem written by Phillip Larkin. As a poem it is open to multiple interpretations due to questions in tone, style, and the meaning of references or allusions. Two major interpretations of the poem contradict in meaning but have strong evidence in the text for their argument. Understanding both these interpretations allows a reader to understand the conflicted nature of events being described and reevaluate personal thoughts and feelings about similar issues.

Knowing something about the literary climate of the author helps reinforce an interpretation that the poem is clear and means literally what it says. The “Movement” was a term used to describe poets who rejected the multilayered and experimental forms of the modernist movement, a return to a clearer diction and style. This poem starts, “Next year we are to bring the soldiers home / For lack of money, and it is all right” (1-2). This can mean exactly what it says, war is expensive and it is all right to stop paying for it. There is no need to know the specifics of where the soldiers are coming home from as there always seems to be violence somewhere in the world. He continues “Places they guarded, or kept orderly, / Must guard themselves, and keep themselves orderly” (3-4). This points out the unnecessary expense of these soldiers as it asks the question of why can not these places be guarded and protected by the people there. This sentence does not need any deep analysis of its possible implications to be a meaningful statement. The first stanza is clear in its endorsement of the Government bringing soldiers home to save money and leave people in the world to take care of themselves.

The second stanza continues this endorsement. “It's hard to say who wanted it to happen / But now it's been decided nobody minds” (7-8). In a democratic or republican governmental system it can be difficult to trace a policy to its origins. It could be a reaction to popular sentiment or a promise made during a campaign or an idea of someone in power. Regardless of its origins this troop recall has become policy and as such is accepted. He finishes this thought with the lines, “The soldiers there only made trouble happen. / Next year we shall be easier in our minds” (11-12). The troops were not solving any problems by being stationed so far from home and were costing the people at home monetarily and likely emotionally. When they get home life will be easier as there will be more money spent locally and less duress of separated families and direct involvement in a violent cause. Support for this new policy is clear to understand as it will allow people to feel more at ease in the world.

In the final stanza this clear support of the new policy continues. “The statues will be standing in the same / Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same” (15-16). The physical world is unchanged by the movement of the soldiers. The world where they were stationed and the world they are returning to will remain the same despite the change in locale. The world is not impacted at large by the policy of governments. He continues, “Our children will not know it's a different country” (17). Not only is the physical world not impacted, but the social world that children inherit, the traditions and customs of the rising generation likewise will remain unchanged. Children growing up will not realize their soldiers used to be involved in the situations of the world. He concludes, “All we can hope to leave them now is money” (18). This line might be pragmatic, but that does not deny its accuracy or meaning. Children do not really need to know their fathers are fighting throughout the world, they need the stability and physical things that money provides. The action of the government in recalling its troops is supported in this poem as it reflects on how the place they are in will be better, the lives at home will be easier, and the children will benefit.

This interpretation is clear and meaningful. It needs no special skill to understand or apply in the life of the reader. It resonates and elucidates thoughts that can be hard to articulate. However there is equal evidence that the poem means almost exactly the opposite. In seeing and understand the implications of many of the phrases and connections a more negative interpretation is reached.

Larkin uses repeated phrases to add more dire implications. The phrase “is all right” (2, 6, 10) is repeated three times throughout the poem. All three times it follows a statement that describes a morally debatable issue, “For lack of money” (2), “Instead of working” (6), and “The places are a long way off, not here” (10). The need to add the defense of these things being alright implies that they are not alright, or that their correctness is open to question. In line two he is not questioning the idea of bringing soldiers home, but he implies a question of the reason that the government is low on funds necessitates ending involvement in a foreign affair. In line six he is not disagreeing with the idea of having more money available at home, but implies a disagreement with having more money so that people do not have to work. In line ten he is not disputing that the conflict is somewhere removed from himself or the local world, but he implies a dispute in the idea that because it is far away it loses importance or meaning. This repeated phrase adds a layer of implication to the poem, in which a criticism of the planned action is found. He is not directly critical of the conclusion to bring the soldiers home, but definitely implies a criticism of the reasons for doing so.

In the second stanza he continues to use phrases to add a strong implication that the people are kept uninformed or mislead is made. He begins with “It's hard to say” (7) in reference to who wanted this. He implies that he nor no one he specifically knows thought of this idea. It is not something that people wanted, but as “it's been decided nobody minds” (8). This means that after the fact no one is willing to argue, however it also implies that it was decided that no one could mind. The decision was made, and the consensus forced. He continues with this implication, “from what we hear” (10) about the soldiers actions. There is an implication of no direct contact with these soldiers, the truth of their actions is not clear to him. All he knows is what he has been told. He has been told that they not accomplishing their mission and so they should come home. The conclusion to this implication lies in “Next year” (12) as this leads to the realization that for now people are not happy with this action, people do not support it, but as it has been made no argument can defeat it and time will force acceptance of it. Again Larkin uses phrases next to his positive statements to cast doubt on their validity.

He does not only use short phrases to connote these implications, but sometimes complimentary statements or sentences. The first two lines of the final stanza are written to imply a negative response to the governments actions. “Next year we shall be living in a country / The brought its soldiers home for lack of money” (13-14). This implies that the governments actions not only affect now, but the future, and that their reason for action is insufficient. The obvious tone and pedantic message carry this implication forcefully. He uses this same style in the final two lines and sentences of the poem. “Our children will not know it's a different country. / All we can hope to leave them now is money” (17-18). Here the implication matches the overarching implication of the entire poem. He is disparaging the idea that money should be an overriding factor in the decision making of what international policies a country should endorse, and what domestic ones they should support. The future children will not know how the world could be difference, they will only know the world they grow up in. It is not good when all a people can leave their next generation is money. Through implication Larkin is strongly opposed to the reasons the government has for recalling their soldiers.

Two contradictory interpretations have been elucidated. However in understanding both they work together for a fuller understanding of Larkin's message. He agrees with the idea of bringing the soldiers home and not being involved in the wars of the world. War is violent and destructive, and no matter the moral claims made on it still ends with chaos and tragedy. He disagrees with the reasons he has been given or that he lists for this end. Money should not be the reason to end their involvement. Whatever reason there was for beginning they are not sufficiently resolved by the loss of income. As a reader the question is forced, what conflicts is our society involved in, should we continue to stay involved, and do we have a better reason for being involved or ending involvement then money.

Work Cited:

Larkin, Phillip. “Homage to a Government.” The Norton Anthology: English Literature Eighth Edition Volume 2. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2006. 2571-2572. Print.

Tolerating Our Misfortune, Not Only Other Peoples Misfortunes

Maya Angelou in All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes records an integral aspect of human nature.

When her son is involved in a nearly fatal car accident she goes to his hospital bed daily and sits with him. 

While there the man who she felt was responsible for the accident comes to visit, who she describes as “[d]runk again, or, two months later, still drunk” (5). He expresses remorse: “I'm sorry, Sister Maya. So sorry. If only it could be me, there on that bed . . . Oh, if only it could be me. . .” (6). Maya's responds, nonverbally, “I agreed with him” and “[t]he slurred words made me hate him more” (6). Her son hears this interchange and seems to guess her thoughts. He asks her to come talk to him and says, “Didn't you mean all those sermons about tolerance? All that stuff about understanding? About before you criticize a man, you should walk a mile in his shoes?” (7). She again responds nonverbally, “Of course I meant it in theory, in conversation about the underprivileged, misunderstood and oppressed miscreants, but not about a brute who had endangered my son’s life” (7). This event occurs early in the narrative but overshadows much of what happens in her next few years. Maya uses her life to show us, the readers, the difficult challenge of not only being tolerant of people who hurt others, but people who hurt us individually.

Maya does not seem to completely learn this lesson from her son. Sometime later she is working and hears an exchange between some college professors. Maya felt insulted by their conversation, and as an intelligent and somewhat educated person she felt responsible to disagree with their derision of her people. However her anger made her yell and lose track of her argument. She leaves in a rage and is stopped by a steward who heard the whole conversation. He is calm and explains to her, “This in not their place, in time they will pass. Ghana was here when they came. When they go, Ghana will be here. They are like mice on an elephant's back. They will pass” (52). Her response, once again nonverbal, is, “In that second I was wounded. My mind struck a truth as an elbow can strike a table edge. A poor, uneducated servant in Africa was so secure he could ignore established White rudeness. No Black American I had ever known knew that security. Our tenure in the United States though long and very hard-earned, was always so shaky we had developed patience as a defense, but never as aggression” (52). This new truth she is stuck with echoes the truth her son presented to her. In both she is presented with an opportunity to take the ideals and theories she tries to live by and practice them in a real situation. In both events her anger and indignation cause her to see the situation in such a way that those ideals do not apply. In both events a third person, who manages to stay calm, causes her to recognize the truths of the situations, and rethink her response. The truth in both is the same. It is much more difficult to practice tolerance when the situation is one you are directly involved in.

In trying to better understand an afromystical context that Maya's work can be read in, the theme of healing seems to be of critical importance. Bridging the gap between the ideals of tolerance, and the reality of daily living a life of forgiveness seems definitely tied to the theme of healing. Applying the ideas of tolerance to the harsh realities of the daily lives of Black Americans is something that Maya did not see as true earlier in her life. She left the employ of Dr. King because he was preaching this truth. But it does seem to be a course of action she begins to make in the journey described in this book. This transformation is something that readers should be able to see through her life, and apply in their own.

On “The Rights of Woman”

Anna Barbauld's “The Rights of Woman” is a poem of many contradictions. The title starts plural, with “Rights” but the same clause ends singular with “Woman” which seems contradictory. The poem's message follows this pattern by beginning in support of a female revolution, but ending with a warning call about results of such a revolution. The phrasing of several of the lines continue this theme of contradiction, such as “Thou mayst command, but never canst be free” (20). The issue of feminism was and continues to be full of controversy and contradiction. It seems plausible that Barbauld was intentional in her poem to present her views carefully on this topic; however it is also plausible that such contradiction stem from her own internal conflicts on the subject. She may have enjoyed the popularity she had and not felt as strongly on the subject as other female authors did. In examining the internal conflicts of the poem it does not matter if this was intentional or not. From its title to overall thematic structure the internal conflicts resonant with the overarching divisive theme of man versus woman.

The poem begins with internal conflict in the first stanza, calling to “[w]oman” (1) not women, like the title. She continues with, “O born to rule in partial Law's despite, / Resume thy native empire o'er the breast!” (3-4) which shows a contradiction in implication. Ruling in law implies ruling in logic and intelligence, but then having empire over the breast implies ruling over emotion and matters of the heart. Which one is she calling for, she seems to lament that woman is born to rule over the mind, but implores that woman should resume ruling over the heart. She is presenting conflict in ideology over what exactly it is that women should rule over and she does not make it clear which is more important.

In the second stanza the internal conflicts continue as she commands, “Go forth arrayed in panoply divine” (5) implying beauty and ornamentation. She then adds, “[g]o, bid proud Man his boasted rule resign, / and kiss the golden sceptre of thy reign” (7-8). The contradiction here is calling men to resign their pride and boasts, while comparing woman to the divine. If men can not boast in their rule why can the woman proudly declare their likeness to divinity, again an implied conflict in her argument.

She also adds to the implied conflicts of ideology by comparing the tools of woman, “[b]lushes and fears” (12) to the tools of war, “artillery” (10) and “cannon” (11), implying a connection and conflict between the weapons of man's wars amongst each other and woman's war again men. She compares the rights of woman to be “[f]elt, not defined, and if debated, lost” (14) much like “sacred mysteries” (15) which “[s]hunning discussion, are revered the most” (16). She claims that the rights of women have been treated like the mysteries of the gospels, things that can not be talked about, because their power and import is lost if discussed. However this shows the difficulty she has in writing this poem, as it may devalue the very things she is trying to claim and prove. Each line and clause is filled with conflict in tone, meaning and content.

Despite these internal conflicts the first six stanzas do seem overall connected in theme. They all present a similar and complex argument. The time is right for woman to assert herself into society and have some sort of dominance. The major conflict of the poem in entirety happens with a shift in the theme in the last two stanzas. She argues that if all that she has wished for in the first six stanzas comes true, then: “hope not, courted idol of mankind, / On this proud eminence secure to stay” (25-26) and continues with, “[s]ubduing and subdued, thou soon shalt find / Thy coldness soften, and thy pride give way” (27-28). She concludes that even if women manage to gain dominance they can not hold it, they will soften their rule and let go of their pride. She is implying that to want to rule over men is something that only men want, that women do or should desire something else. Her final line ends, “separate rights are lost in mutual love” (32). She is showing that for women to desire rule over men is not natural and will not lost. The conflict is temporary and nature's will is not for women to rule. There are many good reasons for women to cast of the dominance of men, but if women try to rule in their place nature will not let it last long, woman’s love will overcome their pride and anger.

Nearly every clause, idea, and theme of this poem is in conflict. There are various contradictions present throughout the entire text. Whether this is intentional or it stems from the authors own internal conflicts does not matter. What matters is that a seemingly simple poem becomes a perfect microcosm for a complex issue. The subject of woman's rights versus male rights, or even the subject and natural genders and their characteristics is something that has been and will continue to be debated across a variety of mediums. Seeing the complexities in this poem and the conflicts in those complexities enables a reader to see a broader spectrum of ideas about causes and solutions to this issue.  

Something About Phillis Wheatly

'Twas mercy brought me from my pagan land,

Taught my benighted soul to understand

That there's a God, that there's a Savior too:

Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.

Some view our sable race with scornful eye.

“Their color is a diabolic dye.”

Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,

May be refined, and join the angelic train.

In the poem “On being brought from Africa to America” Phillis Wheatly seems to be indicating a measure of gratitude for her and her people being brought to America as they can now find Christianity. She describes her enslavement as “mercy” (1) and her home as “pagan” (1) indicating she recognizes her new home (America) as a source of truth and better teachings. She indicates her nonchalance towards slavery with “some view. . . with scornful eye” (6) suggesting only a portion of slavers are bad and again reminds the reader that through this slavery “Negroes. . . May be refined,” (7-8). However by examining the words she chooses to use and how she employs those words in specific relations to each other other ideas may arise. Phillis actually condemns Christians who proliferate slavery through her use of nouns for her people. She decries the ideology that her people are being saved through slavery.

Phillis describes slaves in a variety of ways. She uses the word “pagan” (1), indicating polytheism and more particularly a delight in sensual pleasure and material goods. This seems to support the view that she approves of Christians taking slaves and teaching them the gospel. However the word pagan to describe her native people, who lived without the conveniences of Europe, may indicate that the slavers are being pagan as they are undertaking slavery for material reason. She then uses the word “benighted” (2) to describe her soul. This can show a contrast in that her words seem to indicate that her African culture lacked the light of Christianity but the travel from Africa the America, the middle passage, is historically seen as one of the most horrific sea voyages imaginable, done at the will of Christian slavers bringing her from the darkness of Africa to the light of America. She also uses the word “sable” (5) to describe her color. This word denotes the color black, evidently, however it also connotes the black worn while mourning. She is describing the color of her race as the color of mourning implying that Christianity has brought a knowledge of the afterlife to her people, but also a deep mourning for so many lost to slavery. This self description is contrasted in the next line where she quotes an anonymous speaker calling her race the color of “diabolic dye” (6) or colored by the devil. The same people who are using Christianity as a justification for slavery are calling the slaves devilish. By doing so she questions the motives of the supposed Christians thus engaged. She then uses a well known allusion, that of “Negroes, black as Cain,” (7) wherein people from Africa are linked to the first murderer of the Bible. This final phrase about her race is the most poignant. Only a Christian would know enough to make the claim, but any true Christian would not link an entire race millennium later to a biblical event as justification for perpetrating new sins on that people.

In her exploration of the flawed ideology of the slavers she uses phrases to communicate her ideas. Every line of her concise poem can be understood to establish the falseness of her Christian slavers ideals. “Twas mercy brought me from my pagan land.” As previously explained the word pagan connotes materialism. Her slavers consider it a mercy to be brought from Africa to America. They may have a variety of reasons to believe so. However if pagan (or the idea of materialism) is applied to the slavers, then the mercy can be as well. So the falseness of their belief is the claim they are bringing mercy to the Africans, when they are seeking mercy for European economic crisis. Plantation farming could be incredibly profitable but it needed a cheap labor resource. The enslavement of Africa was a mercy to the plantation owners looking for that labor. The second line is coupled with the first, and linked by the idea of mercy. However the third line completes the point of the second, somewhat breaking literary tradition. “[Mercy] Taught my benighted soul to understand / That there's a God, that there's a Savior too:” (2-3). These lines claim that mercy taught her dark soul about God. However understanding that the mercy is referring to the mercy that the slavers are enjoying results in a different comprehension. She seems to be pointing out the vast hypocrisy of the Christian slavery experience. The people who were enslaving her for their own benefit were claiming a belief in a greater being, not just a God but a Savior too. A personal example of excellence and moral correctness, obviously being ignored by the people teaching her. She closes this thought with the line “Once I redemption neither sought nor knew” (4). Redemption from sin was not something she considered before being enslaved, before seeing the sins of the Christians who taught her their better way.

The next lines leave the subtle condemnation for a more direct critique. “Some view our sable race with scornful eye. / 'Their color is a diabolic dye,'” (5-6) wherein she directly references to the slavers. They look at black people as devilish. As previously mentioned she uses the word sable indicating her feelings of mourning in this statement. The supposed statement made by some is that the color is a dye. This suggests something was done to them, that they are the same underneath the dye. The slavers by making this statement are acknowledging they are the same as their slaves, just with a different dye. They may not even conscientiously recognize this similarity but by their statement their true feelings are clear and another hypocrisy is made clear. They look at their slaves as devils but know that any devilishness is a result of an outside force and see the common humanity. In the line “Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,” (7) the Christians are finely referenced. In this she alludes to the mark of Cain as a mark of darkness. Some Christians used this idea, that Negroes are descendents of Cain, as justification for ill treatment. They reasoned that God still wanted them to punish these descendents. However Phillis uses the phrase black as Cain, not black like Cain. Here she cast doubt on this idea, as there was little evidence to support it. The color similarity was at most coincidental and a weak justification. Her final line finishes this idea. She first compares Negroes to Cain, but finishes by comparing them to angels. “[Negroes] May be refined, and join the angelic train” (8). Here she asserts that her people, like white people, may be refined and find a place in heaven. She extends this to claiming a place among the angels, the highest servants of God. This honor and glory is something she know her white, Christian, slavers will never be extended.

Some readers reason that Phillis started the female literary tradition in America as well as the African-American literary tradition. By reading her work closely her skill is made evident. She writes poetry so that interpretation is possible and many meaning are made clear. The timelessness of her work gives credence to her work being influential enough to start a tradition. She was historically forgotten for a number of years, but she was remembered and has been a part of the cannon since that time. Her writing is fascinating and deserves to be read.   

Contextualization Essay

Geoffrey Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales during the fourteenth century in Middle English. As the language is different than modern English the words he used sometimes have different or variable meanings. The story is about a group of pilgrims traveling to Canterbury; their general description and disposition is included in the writing. Each pilgrim agrees to tell a story to the rest of the group. One of the characters is the Wife of Bath, a women who is married to her fifth husband. Her story is similar in setting and style to a medieval romance, as it include knights, King Arthur and a fairy hag. In this story a young knight is out traveling and, “he saugh a mayde walkynge hym biforn, / Of which mayde anon, maurgree hir heed, / By verray firce birafte hire maydenhed” (886-888). The word to focus on in this opening scene is “maydenhed” or maidenhood. Chaucer does not use the word of virgin here, but chooses to use maidenhood, perhaps to add a deeper level of complication to the tale. According to the Middle English Dictionary, “maidenhood” is not just virginity but can also be celibacy chosen for a specific religious reason. When Chaucer chose to describe the victim as a maiden he may have intended the readers to understand that not just any woman was raped here but a religious one who was likely never intended to be married or choose to have intercourse. By understanding better the character of the maid the answers the Knight finds on his quest are better contextualized, and his eventual transformation has a different connotation.

The Knight is caught and tried for his crime. He is sentenced to death by his King. The women of the court take an interest and plead that they may have power to choose his punishment instead of the King. He agrees and allows the women complete authority over the Knights life. The women, led by the Queen, send him on a quest saying, “I grante thee lyf if thou kanst tellen me / What thyng is it that wommen moost desiren” (904-905). These women, especially the queen, all seem to be married and not to be maidens. There are few other mentions of maidens in the kingdom, and in the beginning of the story it is made clear that there is no established church; instead there are elves and magical creatures. So when Chaucer describes the first woman as a maiden he may be drawing special attention to the fact that she is celibate by choice, not just a virgin due to young age. The women who judge her attacker have not made the same choice which foreshadows the difficulty of the task. Already we see women who desire to be celibate (the maid) and women who desire to have authority and power through marriage (the queen). The quest begins by the seeming impossibility of explaining this disparity in desire between just two women.

As the Knight travels he finds an even greater variety of things that women desire, “Somme seyde wommen loven best richesse; / Somme seyde honour, somme seyde jolynesse, Somme riche array. / Somme seyden lust abedde” (925-927). He spends a whole year talking to women and people about women and adds variety to the list of female desires. Some women desire riches, some honor, some humor, and some clothes. The most antithetical to the previously mentioned desire for celibacy is the women who desire lust in bed. The woman he had raped was celibate and by definition of her maidenhood did not have this desire, but on his journey he meets women who do. Chaucer seems to be making a point here about intercourse, the Knight must have realized that if he found one of these later women he may not have had to rape them as the intercourse could have been consensual. Then he would not have the threat of death hanging over him. Chaucer may be contrasting all these different types of women with the original pure and chaste one, again drawing attention to the fact that the maid was not only a virgin but chaste by religious choice.

When the Knight finally has an answer for his quest he speaks in front of the noble wives, maids, and widows. Here the word “mayde” (1026) may again refer to a women of religious celibacy or just to a young virgin. It seems either view of the word works, as the court would have young unmarried women in attendance. However, even though the court ostensibly was not Christian, medieval romances often had anachronisms, so the court may have had more cloistered women similar to the original maid in the story, come to see the man who raped their sister. The Knight tells the court that the thing that women most desire is sovereignty, or the power to make choices in their lives. Looking back at the answers women gave to his question the underlying cause of all their desires can be seen as a desire for power and control. This may be control in their relationships or in their societies. In the case of the Maid it was control over her body, she possibly chose to give it to religion, but that choice was made null and void by the Knight's power over her.

The Knight claims that women most desire control over their lives, and the women of the court agree. The Knight seems to realize his title and authority should not give him control over the women that he meets. When the Knight realizes this he, married to the hag who taught him the answer, agrees to her having control over her life and she magically becomes beautiful so they can live happily ever after. The Maid who was raped is not mentioned again, having served her part in the tale. However considering the interaction between the Knight and the Maid in the context of the desire for power adds interesting insight. The Maid made choice to stay celibate and was doing, presumably, everything in her power to stay true to her choice. The Knight comes by and violates her physically, then leaves to face his punishment. The Maid is left alone to face the reality that through no action of her own, her choice has been made void. In the end she has no power and no control over her life. This typifies, more then if she was just young virgin, the disparity in power in this society and why the women most desire for the dynamic to be more equal. A young virgins rape, though tragic, still could be made right through marriage. She would eventually lose her virginity either way, the rape quickened the process and would have likely changed her potential mate. The King may even have forced the Knight to marry her or find her a husband. However if she had chosen celibacy then the comfort of a husband would only make her situation worse as she only wanted to dedicate her virginity to religion. Nothing the Knight can do would give her power back, she made a choice, and he erased it.

Understanding Chaucer to have chosen to call her a maid because of her religious choice makes the story more relevant to a modern discussion of power dynamics between genders. If she is a young virgin then the rape is tragic and shows the Knights power over her physically and will affect her choices after the fact. However if they maid had chosen celibacy as a lifestyle then the Knight's violation and power over her is much more absolute, as he is then able to completely nullify the choices she has made up till the time of the rape. This makes the act of his violation a better example of the imbalance of power between the genders and possibly social classes of the time. This story thus understood is well able to enter into a discussion of how power has been allocated throughout history and lends itself well to even a current understanding of how people with power can affect and nullify the power of those around them. In a world rife with corruption it should be important to realize that people who have been given power have the opportunity to affect the choices of other people, and by doing so can in a real way nullify the choices and power of people that they come into contact with. Chaucer may have written this retelling of a medieval romance more then six hundred years ago, but by understanding and contextualizing how he chose to describe his characters the story is relevant in the current discussion of power dynamics and gender relationships.

Works Cited:

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Wife of Baths Tale. The Broadview Anthology of British Literature: The Medieval Period. Ed. Joseph Black et all. Ontario: Peterborough, Broadview Press. 2009. 399- 551. Print.

Translating Beowulf

 He came in the night, it was dark because it was night. He was gliding and seemed to walk in the shadows. There was this horn-gabled hall and all the people who lived there were sleeping instead of guarding. Actually there was one guy still awake, he was pretty angry and looking forward to a battle. The rest of the men seemed to believe that they could only be killed if God willed it, and if God willed it they couldn't stay alive, so why bother trying to protect themselves. So it is to this hall that Grendel comes. He lived in the moors under the misty slope, no one had seen it so it's somewhat a guess exactly where. Since Grendel is ugly he must bear God's wrath and was certainly an enemy to mankind. He even come this particular night just to ensnare a specific person, the one who is awake, in the high hall. Grendel advanced under the clouds to the point where he readily recognized the golden-hall. It wasn't all gold, but did have a lot of wine and was decorated with fine ornaments. Grendel had been there before, obviously, and knew it was Hrothgar's home. However unfortunately for him he never before had such a fight as he was about to, and obviously never would again have such a fight. Subtle hint, he's going to die tonight.

When translating this passage I first attempted to do so line by line. This lead to massive confusion in who was doing what action to whom. I had the idea that I wanted to keep the form of the poem alive and consistent. By the time I had finished a translation that was readable and sensible I realized that my idea of keeping it in a poetic form didn't seem to carry the connotations that I felt were important in the original. It seems that this poem, about heroes, kings, religion, and just general epicness had many meanings. It was possibly remembered orally by many people, with passages recited around campfires and quotes passed back and forth in conversation. The more I thought about it the more it reminded my of “Star Wars” the movie cycle. Both are purported to be stories about men a long time ago in a place far away. Both feature humans and monsters. Both managed to involve christian ideals into a very much non christian society. As I reflected on this I decided that to truly show people today the impact this poem may have had on its original readers I needed to update the syntax and style of the poem.

My first decision was to abandon the conventions of poetry. I chose no line breaks, and stylistic features except those of standard English. The poem was not originally read by many as most were illiterate, it was heard and remembered, and I find it easier to read lines of prose. Poetry can try to establish subtle connections and express emotions through it form, however Beowulf is an epic story, and has little need for subtlety. To modernize it the story must be told clearly. There is some subtle possibly humorous moments by the narrator of the original, with foreshadowing and certain descriptions, which are easily missed to a modern reader. In the prose I was able to make small asides to point out these moments.

I am an avid reader of modern fantasy and a popular trend is to inject a portion of wry humor, and maybe some sarcasm into the text. In my translation I somewhat followed this model. I added the word :obviously” to two places as I felt that the original was presenting information that was obvious. We know that Grendel had seen the hall before, as his killing people there is what got Beowulf summoned in the first place. So it becomes humorous to add this detail. By explicitly pointing out these small moments of humor I feel that the work becomes much easier to understand and enjoy. Great moral lessons can be tedious to learn, so by interspersing humor and sarcasm a reader has more to look forward to. I firmly support my addition in that I think the humor existed originally, it was only harder to spot.

The syntax and sentence structure of the original was convoluted and confusing, as least to me. I changed it quite a bit, but I feel like the meaning and flow of events was unchanged. I chose to use words and phrasing that is easily understand, as per my stated goal of making the piece current and modern. I feel that the poem has a lot to offer, but most translations of it are extremely dry and difficult to follow. This puts the casual reader off from reading it, when the story and events are epic enough that any fan of “Star Wars” or “Lord of the Rings” and similar works should love this one too.

Christian Allusions in A Long and Happy Life

“All my childhood stories, I see now, were mysteries. I heard them as mysteries, whatever they were. What they were at first was Bible stories” (“Needed” 211). The author Reynolds Price explains his interest in reading and writing stories in terms of the Bible stories he heard and read as a child. He shares examples from his life and “suggest[s] that the normal life around [him] and [his] first encounters with storybooks worked strongly together to create both [his] further curiosit[y] as a reader and [his] compulsion to manufacture stories as a life's occupation” (212). The reason for the stories that he heard and then writes is to answer the question “Why are they doing this? – Abraham to Isaac? Jesus to Mary? My father and mother to their lovely selves?” (212). Stories are meant to explain why people do what they do. His first novel, A Long and Happy Life, is about a woman, Rosacoke Mustian. Her story involves premarital sex, pregnancy, and the eventual decision to marry the child's father, Wesley Beavers. Perceiving allusions in this story to the stories from Price's childhood (the Bible) invites insight into why the characters involved in the novel made their choices, and what lessons may be learned from them. The Bible stories that Price grew up with were not directly from the Bible, but from the biblical interpretive community he grew up in, so they include more then direct biblical quotations. The epigraph and four events from the novel allude to particular events from the Bible or strong Christian themes and lend significance to them. Knowing the significance of these events should elucidate the mysteries of the characters presented in the novel.

The epigraph is found prior to the beginning of the novel, and may be used to introduce a theme. Allen Shepherd examines the epigraph in this novel and writes that it merely consists of “three lines from the Divine Comedy, in the original tongue,” and “doubtless smacks of elitist presumption” (12) due to its esoteric nature. However, when examining this novel in relation to Christianity it should not be ignored. Shepherd presents a translation of these lines: “for I have seen first, all the winter through, the / thorn display itself hard and forbidding, and / then upon its summit bear the rose;” (12). He comments about this translation, “[b]ut with the conclusion [of the novel] freshly in mind, [the reader] may well find that the epigraph raises a number of enlightening possibilities as to how one should read the novel and interpret the fate of its heroine, Rosacoke Mustian” (12). The Divine Comedy is not from the Bible and may seem unrelated to a pursuit of how the this novel relates to Bible stories. However, this epic poem draws heavily from Christian lore and represents a major interpretation and understanding of biblical knowledge. The connection between the epigraph and the novel may not be explicit, but it certainly exists. Shepherd offers two possible connections: it may, “intimate a good life, a happy future. . . for Rosacoke” (13), or it could be interpreted to be, “the thesis which Dante illustrates in the passage is essentially that one should not be deceived by false appearances or come to hasty conclusions” (13) meaning that the story is not finished at the end of the novel. This warns the reader to not assume that Rosa's agreement to marriage means that her life with Wesley will be long or happy. He then finishes with, “The question, or the answerable question, however, relates not so much to her future, but to how she blooms in the course of the novel. What the story means is the way she changes, what she discovers, and what she can do with what she learns” (13). By understanding that the story may not be intended to describe Rosa's future but just her journey through life, new interpretations of the novel can then be applied to individual understanding and response. These lines allude to the Christian idea that only God knows all things as the next lines of the poem include a horrific destruction of a vessel right before it makes a safe harbor. Perhaps we can see that the consequences of actions are not always clear, we can only choose well and hope for the best.

Shortly into the story Rosacoke is asked by a pastor (not her pastor) what her favorite scripture passage is, she replies, “Then Jesus asked him what is thy name and he said Legion” (57). This verse comes from the following episode:

And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea. (Mark 5:2–13)

Rosacoke thinks about this scripture at a time when she knows she will soon be alone with Wesley, her “maybe” boyfriend. The passage is about a man possessed by demons, not just one, but a multitude of them. After the pastor leaves Wesley leads her into the woods and, “did what he generally did around her face and lips and her white neck. And she let him go till he took heart and moved to what was underneath, trying for what he had never tried before” (63). He wants to have sex with her, and even brought protection so they would be safe, but she refuses and the night ends. This scripture doesn't seem to bring out any particularly useful information unless the verse is connected to a later event. In contrast to this first night the next night they are alone together, three months later, they have sex. Their copulation is described from Rosa's view: “. . .soon taking heart and oaring her as if he was nothing but the loveliest boat on earth and she was the sea that took him where he had to go, and then multiplying into what seemed a dozen boys swarming on her with that many hands and mouths and that many high little whines coming up to their lips” (emphasis added 111–112). The connection here is the multiplying into a dozen boys. The scripture Rosa thinks about describes a man possessed by a multitude of demons, enough to fill 2,000 swine. When she has sex with Wesley, she perceives him as a boy multiplied into a dozen boys. Wesley “who whispered to her softer than ever, 'I thank you, Mae' (which wasn't any part of her name) and not knowing what he had said, rolled off her and straightaway threw his flashlight on the sky” (112), is so possessed by something he does not even say Rosa's name or realize he says Mae's. By connecting Rosa's verse to the events that later transpire, Wesley (or any man) can be seen as possessed while in the act of sex. A man thus engaged is controlled by his hormones and physical drives, not his mind, and so will do and say things without conscious realization, showing that men, by nature, can be possessed (by demons or hormones) and lose their rationality. That Rosacoke thought of this scripture shortly before she would be alone with Wesley may imply she knew that he would lose control of himself, and only she would have a voice of reason in their physical relationship.

James Schiff also noted an interesting correlation between the Bible and this novel. He writes “[t]hough Wesley is steering the motorcycle, Rosacoke has determined their destination, the church at Mount Moriah, which seems fitting since Rosacoke's unstated objective throughout the novel it so get Wesley to a church to marry him” (31). He then connects this idea from the novel to the Bible: “[p]erhaps Moriah, the place of Isaac's near-sacrifice by his loving father, Abraham, is significant. Rosacoke too will have to offer a sacrifice, ceding a part of herself and her ideals in order to be with Wesley” (31). It may seem a stretch to connect the story of Rosa and Wesley to Abraham and Isaac; however, the parallel is insightful. Abraham is commanded to sacrifice his favorite son. He submits to the will of God and takes his son to the mountain to be sacrificed, and through an angelic visitation the command is retracted and a lamb is sacrificed instead. Abraham is willing to give up what (who) he loves in order to do what an external force dictates, and only through a last minute miracle is he able to continue following this command and keep what he loves. Rosacoke first sacrifices her virginity to “hold” Wesley, and no miracle saves her from this sacrifice. However, upon Wesley's marriage proposal, Rosa at first intends to reject him. She thinks: “He hasn't got to take no share of this load I brought on myself. I am free from him. God knows I am free” (188). She then attends the pageant, intending to sacrifice the marriage she had worked towards because she felt it right; however, at the last minute she changes her mind because, “it was her duty, for all it would mean. But also it was her wish” (209). She changes her mind while holding another baby, whose influence may affect her changing will. She realizes she has a responsibility to her child, and so instead of sacrificing her dream (Abraham's favored son, Isaac) she sacrifices her feelings of freedom and individual will (a last minute find of something else, a lamb). By doing so she does what an external force commands (society recognizing the baby's name), but also gets what she wished to have from the beginning (holding Wesley).

Even before the widely known story of Abraham comes the story of Eve succumbing to the snake's temptation. She lives in paradise, presumably happy, until approached by the serpent: “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day you eat thereof, then you eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4–5). She then eats the forbidden fruit, convinces Adam to eat, and they both are cast from paradise. In the novel a strong parallel to this story is found. Rosa plays Eve as she lives in adolescence free from the responsibilities of marriage or children, not directly involved in sexual matters. Wesley must then be Adam, maybe not innocent, but certainly involved in Rosa's fall from innocence. He is seduced by Rosa when she discovers a way to "hold" him. The role of the snake must then be played by Rosa's brother Milo. He claims: “Sissie, [his wife] come tell Rosa what your uncle said was the way to get old Milo” (86). He sings those instructions: “Pull up your petticoat, pull down your drawers, / Give him one look at old Santy Claus” (86). Rosa then goes to her room and, “cried over Wesley for the first time in her life” (86). She asks herself, “What must I do about Wesley Beavers?” (87). Her answer is: “[i]t was the second time she had asked the question, and the only answer anyone had offered was Milo's jingle. Milo was the closest kin she had that was grown. . . and he had sung that to her” (87). The only answer she receives in her pursuit of Wesley is to seduce him. With these thoughts in her head, she goes to take a picture of a child, and stop by Wesley's house, not sure if Wesley would be there. Wesley is home and asks to drive her home; they walk into the woods and end in the broomstraw field. Possibly with Milo's song echoing in her head, Rosa initiates sex with Wesley, completing Rosa's loss of innocence and resulting in pregnancy. Both could be seen to have been cast out of the garden (youth), forced to mature with the impending responsibility of childbirth. The garden is not sexual innocence but freedom from the responsibility of child-rearing. Eve only knew she was commanded not to eat the fruit, and when confronted with an opportunity and a good reason to do so, did eat. Rosa did not know how to keep Wesley interested, and when presented with a way to do so, acted upon it. Price may not have intended this similarity between Eve and Rosa, but the parallel is clear nonetheless. From both, perhaps, a reader can learn that when faced with the opportunity to fulfill desires the knowledge of how to do so coupled with the opportunity creates a nearly irresistible temptation.

The pageant mentioned earlier is to celebrate Christmas and is held at Rosa's church. Lynn Sadler writes: “Price's earliest experiences, then, draw visual and biblical narrative together,” continuing with:

Elsewhere, he [Price] describes such pictures as enabling him to imagine significant deeds by children and recalls his near epiphany at his first Christmas pageant, when he was four or five: 'I wouldn't have been able to state my personal logic, but the substance was something very much like this---A child is the center of Christmas. All these adults are gathered to watch him. A child is the center of an entire faith. I am a child. I matter in the world'” (Sadler 2).

She finishes this thought with “Rosacoke Mustian works out what to do with her life as she plays Mary in the Christmas pageant” (3). The birth of Jesus is an event celebrated throughout the world through various pageantry; it is the focal point of the Christian religion, and it has greatly affected world history. Such an important Biblical story is not without a parallel in Price's book, as pointed out by Sadler. While Rosacoke is playing Mary in her town's Christmas pageant, she decides what her future will be. She is no doubt influenced by her unborn child and the future she wants for it. She describes her final decision (similar to Reynolds epiphany), “And she knew that was her answer, for all it meant, the answer she would have to give when the pageant was over and Wesley drove her home and stopped in the yard and make his offer again– 'Are we riding to Dillon tonight?' –because it was her duty, for all it would mean. But also it was her wish” (209). Her realization during this Christmas celebration may also echo the actions of Mary: “And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2:18–19). To both women their child was central to their lives and decision making, and, to Price, a child was central to faith. While Rosacoke's pregnancy may not have world-reaching ramifications, to her (and likely any pregnant woman) it is something that will change the course of her life and all future decisions.

One of the great questions literature seems to answer is why people do what they do. By drawing on the Bible and Christian interpretation of it, whether intentionally or not, Price is able to craft a work that gives good insight into why his fictional characters make their choices. This is not an exhaustive comparison of the Bible and this book, merely an introduction. The Bible has a long tradition of Christian interpretation and has been interpreted in almost as many ways as it has readers, so a story written with it in mind seems to also be open to interpretation enabling many readers to find meaning in it. A Long and Happy Life is a novel ready to enter in, with the Bible and Christian literature, the ongoing conversation of what makes a happy life. By presenting the characters in a Christian context the mystery of their actions it made clearer. While this novel does not necessarily give guidance to the reader, by understanding the characters in it, a reader can have a better understanding of the choices they make, the ways they grow, and the consequences of their actions. A reader with the knowledge of biblical stories and their Christian interpretations will see them echoed in this novel and be better able to see the truthfulness of the characters' actions and the application of both the Bible and this novel into real life.

Works Cited

The Holy Bible. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1979. Print. 2003. Reprint. Authorized King James Vers with Explanatory Notes and Cross References to the Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Price, Reynolds. A Long and Happy Life. 1962. New York: Scribner, 2009. Print.

----. “You Are Needed Now and Always Will Be.” A Common Room: Essays 1954–1987. New York: Atheneum, 1989. 210–217. Print.

Sadler, Lynn Veach. “Reynolds Price and Religion: The “Almost Blindingly Lucid” Palpable World.” The Southern Quarterly 26.2 (1988): 1-11. Print.

Schiff, James A. Understanding Reynolds Price. Columbia: UP of South Carolina. 1996. 24–39. Print.

Shepherd, Allen. “Reynolds Price's A Long and Happy Life: The Epigraph.” Notes on Contemporary Literature. Georgia: West Georgia College. 12–13. Print.

Why I write about “The Yellow Wallpaper”

Imagine a writer, they have some idea in their mind, a story. They then write this story down, the act of writing is an act of translation. They take an immaterial and language-less idea and translate it into English. The written story and the idea in their head are no longer the same, so they rewrite, re-translate, until the two match as closely as possible, however no matter how much editing they do they will never be the same exactly. One is an idea, the other is a written English text. Now a reader comes in and reads this text. They begin the process of interpreting the work, or translating it from English to an idea in their mind. They are good reader, so they edit the idea in their mind by rereading or by searching for alternate translations of words from the text. They even start a conversation with their fellow readers where they each attempt to take the idea that they translated from the text and re-translate it back in to English to share with each other. So as they discuss they may break into several groups who share similar translations in their minds. The author then finds these groups and attempts to share his original idea. This may help these readers rework the ideas in their minds, however at this point it would have little more strength to edify then any other readers translation of the work. Because the written text is not the same as the authors original idea, when it comes time to discuss the text the author is no more important then any other reader engaged in the discussion.

I will use “The Yellow Wallpaper” to show how information from or about an author may give unique insight and interpretation about a literary work but is not integral to understanding or receiving enrichment from that work.

Charlotte Gilman states, “For many years I suffered from a severe and continuous nervous breakdown,” continuing with “During about the third year of this trouble I went. . . to a noted specialist. . . This wise man put me to bed and applied the rest cure, to which a still-good physique responded so promptly that he concluded there was nothing much the matter.” This draws an obvious parallel to the character Jane in “The Yellow Wallpaper” who was having nervous breakdowns and is enduring the rest cure. So “I went home. . . and come so near the borderline of utter mental ruin that I could see over. Then. . . I cast the noted specialist's advice to the winds and went to work again. . . ultimately recovering some measure of power”(YW 1463). Jane again mimics this, however instead of finding work she crosses the border into ruin. This comes from an article written by Charlotte entitled “Why I wrote 'The Yellow Wallpaper'” where she explains her motivations for writing “The Yellow Wallpaper.” This additional knowledge about the story's inspiration adds interesting context. However if Charlotte had not written this article the story would still speak for itself, the characters would be unchanged and the lessons it shares would be no less effective.

“Mary Perkins’ life became an emblem for all that was wrong with the lives of nineteenth-century women. Relegated solely to the domestic sphere, fated to endure one pregnancy after another, dependent upon a husband for one’s livelihood and social status, a woman like Mary Perkins had little for which to hope when the marriage contract failed or went awry. It was a flawed system of which young [Charlotte] Gilman wanted no part”(AW 195). It is easy to see how Charlotte was influenced by her mother's tragic life and connections can be made to characters and ideas in the story. Jane, the narrator of the story, has recently given birth and has been asked to rest instead of doing any useful work. Her husband is caring, but very much in charge and unwilling to heed his wife's concerns. However while knowing this fact about Charlotte's childhood may bring supposition about the inspiration of the story it does not give meaning to it. By reading the story a careful reader would know to put the characters in their cultural context and does not need the specifics of the authors life to see the validity of the actions in the story.

“After the birth of her one daughter, [Charlotte] experienced a severe depression”(BL 265). Today this would be called postpartum depression. Jane in the story is first introduced as recently given birth, and as having been especially emotional since. Even that “Gilman's first marriage ended in amicable divorce”(BL 265) can be seen in Jane's husband John who was never mean or cruel to his wife, just not understanding of her. The more I learn about Charlotte's life the more connections to I see to her story, even the simple fact that Jane is a writer as Charlotte is. However like any great text “The Yellow Wallpaper” does not need any of this information.

A close reader does not need to be aware of Charlotte's life, of the ideas of feminism, or of psychological principles to understand and appreciate this story. To connect this story to these ideas helps place it in a literary movement, an ideological sphere and into the intellectual debate. But as an individual reader, which is what everyone is, I can see the character's, primarily Jane, John and Jennie, interact and liken them to my life. I can use it to model my personal morals. This is the power of literature. This story can be seen to have risen out of a growing concern in the culture it was written in, and can be applied to the morals of persons today, and the ethics of culture for as long as the story is read. This transforming power over morals and ethics does not require direct knowledge of the culture it was written in, nor does it require personal knowledge of it's author. This premise is based on the assumption that literature, and art in general, exists to edify and enlighten. Again the wondrous power, “Now why should that man have fainted? But he did, and right across my path by the wall, so that I had to creep over him every time!”(BL 278) showing that to truly expose ourselves to the mind or madness of another is not for the weak. Or to truly understand the idea's presented by in author in written text is not for the weak-minded. I do not include very much information or interpretation of the work itself, I leave that to you as a reader to find and enjoy.

The Role of Emilia

While reading “Othello” many characters are important and do memorable things. Iago's constant slander and diabolical persuasion grabs the readers attention. Othello's earnestness and jealousy give consternation to anyone seeing his actions. Cassio's honesty and naivety. Desdemona's purity and tragic end. I read the play in terms of these characters, their interactions and story. Through them I learned about the principles of honesty and forthrightness. I learned of how easily purity can be polluted. I saw how easily misunderstanding leads to jealousy and tragedy. However reading the play again through the lens of feminism I saw something else. I noticed a character who seemed so peripheral, Emilia. She seemed to just be an extension of Iago, as his wife and unwilling accessory to his perfidy. Through Emilia's words and actions Shakespeare takes women from their traditional roles and shows them to be people; able to be whomever they choose to be.

Emilia is introduced in Act II Scene i wherein she is with her husband and Desdemona and greeted by Cassio: “Welcome, mistress. / Let it not gall your patience, good Iago, / That I extend my manners; 'tis my breeding /That gives me this bold show of courtesy” (II.i.98–101). Iago responds cruelly insulting how much his wife talks, while Emilia defends herself, “You have little cause to say so” (II.i.110). They continue in this vein for a few more lines, Iago picking out terrible things to say and Emilia not eloquently defending herself, almost ignoring him. As this is the first encounter with Emilia it becomes almost normal to relegate her character to the background of concern. However when closely read this small passage gives important information about the character. We know that she has been married to Iago for some time, and apparently receives this type of mocking and condemnation from her husband frequently. Yet in her responses and actions we do not see anything that bears resemblance to a victim, she is strong enough to endure these attentions.

After Cassio's drunken brawl he seeks to be forgiven by Othello and at Iago's counsel he calls on Desdemona to hear his plea. He meets Emilia and asks: “Yet, I beseech you, / If you think fit, or that it may be done, / Give me advantage of some brief discourse / With Desdemona alone” (III.i.49–52). She allows him with: “Pray you, come in; / I will bestow you where you shall have time / To speak your bosom freely” (III.i.52–54). Emilia again seems of little importance in these lines. Cassio is merely asking her to take him to Desdemona and let him make a request of her. However because of this we learn that Emilia must be the companion of Desdemona, if not a friend. She is not a servant but a lady like Desdemona. She has to power to grant or deny this request, she does not have to leave if she does not desire to. Once again to a close reader information is given. Emilia has some autonomy in this social group, Iago may be outranked by Othello, but Emilia is not necessarily outranked by Desdemona, they are both ladies and wives, equal companions.

As the story progresses, Emilia gets more lines, and more powerful lines. Othello begins to exhibit his jealously and while Desdemona and Emilia discuss this Emilia says, “'Tis not a year or two shows us a man: / They are all but stomachs, and we all but food; / They eat us hungerly, and when they are full, / They belch us. . .” (III.iv.97–100). We already know that Emilia and her husband do not live blissfully and here Emilia shows the wisdom she has gained from their interactions. She is not young or naive and does not see the world full of love or hope. She knows that marriage makes the man the ruler and gives him the power. These lines speak directly to the reader teaching that a unequal relationship leads to misery. Over time, no matter how good the more powerful partner, one will consume the other.

Othello then confronts Emilia about Desdemona hoping to find more proof of infidelity in his wife. Emilia defends Desdemona with: “I durst, my lord, to wager she is honest, / Lay down my soul at stake: if you think other, / Remove your thought; it doth abuse your bosom. / If any wretch have put this in your head, / Let heaven requite it with the serpent's curse! / For, if she be not honest, chaste, and true, / There's no man happy; the purest of their wives / Is foul as slander” (IV.ii.12–19). This is among Emilia's longest passages. She knows her companion Desdemona well and knows there is not sin in her conduct. She is willing to stake her soul on this. She was willing to steal from Desdemona, but knows that accusations of infidelity will ruin the honor and life of Desdemona and blacken the name of all women and so defends her completely. Emilia's character and importance is again further illuminated by these lines. She is a woman who supported her husbands desires, but defends her fellow women from their husbands. Complex and able to make decisions, just like the men in this play.

The final lines I saw in new understanding are during Emilia's and Desdemona's conversation about infidelity and whether their honor has a price. Emilia's revelation: “In troth, I think I should; and undo't when / I had done. Marry, I would not do such a thing for a /joint-ring, nor for measures of lawn, nor for gowns, / petticoats, nor caps, nor any petty exhibition; but for / the whole world,--why, who would not make her / husband a cuckold to make him a monarch? / I should venture purgatory for't” (IV.iii.70–76). Emilia would not cheat for anything less then the world, but for the world she would gladly do so. This shows the honesty and wisdom of her character. For the world most anyone would do anything, and she is honest enough to own it, and wise enough to see the advantages of doing so.

Emilia's character is complex and subtle. She does not seem to be supremely important. However her voice, words, and actions show a perspective on women that seems current and modern. Emilia is not weaker or less intelligent then any of the men in this play. She often shows wisdom beyond that of the men. By paying close attention to Emilia a reader will see women as unique and complete individuals, not just extensions of their husbands.