Galway Kinnel’s Sound in Eating Blackberry

In his poem “Blackberry Eating” Galway Kinnel uses the sound and rhythm of each line to reflect the motion of a woman eating blackberry soundly, and then swallowing smoothly.  Especially when read aloud, “to eat blackberries for breakfast, the stalks very prickly, a penalty” (4-6) create a sense of the woman’s chewing in her mouth, slowly and soundly, which shows how delicious the blackberries are and she really enjoy eating them when he was working.

                The first stanza is constructed to depict how the manwho loves to eat blackberries, especially passionate to wait for the month when the blackberries ripe.  He can not wait to eat blackberries for breakfast, and blackberries make him feel comfortable and peace.  Even though it is hard to grab them because of its stalk, he is still enjoy it after trying to get it.  He depicts: “I love to go out in late September, among the fat, overripe, icy, black blackberries” (1-2).

                  The second stanza is built to describe how the man loves to write poems, especially when he eats blackberries.  His words will easy to produce after he eats blackberries, or it is easy to create sentences while blackberries accompany him.  He describes, “many lettered, one syllabled lumps, which I squeeze, quench open, and splurge well”  (11-12).  Here, he shows that without blackberries his words hard to construct, his idea is stuck.  But, when he eats blackberries, his job is running smoothly as smooth as he is eating the blackberries.

The Moor’s Irony in Shakespeare's Othello

I will round unvarnished tale deliver
Of my whole course of love – what drugs, what charms
What conjuration, and what mighty magic
(For such proceeding am I charged withal)
I won his daughter
            (Shakespeare’s Othello)

Readers of Othello who have fallen in love before will believe that the central theme of Shakespeare’s Othello is about a tragic love because they feel empathy and pity for both Othello and Desdemona.  However, if we read the play through a formalist perspective as Ann B. Dobie recommends when she says, “some of the main elements that call for attention are form, diction, and unity, as well as the various literary devices they subsume” (41), we will see that the major theme is not only a tragic love but also the irony that Othello must face so many difficulties in claiming his true love, and after he attains it, he does not believe that it is real, making it possible for him to destroy his love with his own hands. 

Othello and Desdemona’s love must struggle to survive from beginning, when it is challenged by her father and they both must declare it to be true to the Duke and senators in order to be married.  At midnight, they go to a church outside Venice.  The fact that they elope demonstrates Othello’s underlying belief that the marriage is some how unreal.  At the same time, Iago and Roderigo try to wake up and provoke Barbantio saying that, “Zounds, sir, y’ are robbed! For shame, put on your gown! Your heart is burst; you have lost half your soul” (1.1.86).  This provocation continues the conflict of Othello keeping his true love.  Even though he has married Desdemona and declares: “my parts, my title, and my perfect soul” (1.2.31).  The sound of ‘my and my’ echoes Othello’s need to reiteratethis love to himself in order to make it real and convince himself. 

The outward difficulties of the marriage continue, as Othello has to go to fight the Turks of Cyprus, fulfilling his duties as a general of Venician military.  Desdemona begs the Duke to follow him, saying: “that I did love the Moor to love with him, my downright violence, and storm of fortunes” (1.3.247).  She is willing to live on the ship with the soldiers and and conflict.  Even the image of “storm” does not frightened her will to live with her true love.  It is ironic that despite her repeated  demonstrations of devotions her true love killed her tragically in the final scene. 

Othello is destined to kill Desdemona when he receives evidence from Iago and says, “that handkerchief which I so loved and gave thee thou gav’st to Cassio” (5.2.48).  The handkerchief here is  a symbol, not only the symbol of their love, but also the symbol of the betrayal that Othello believes that Desdemona has committed.  The symbolic meaning of the handkerchief helps the play become real when readers can see the meaning of the handkerchief change from love to betrayal.  Othello gave it as a symbol of love, but in his mind it becomes a symbol of his cuckolding and the ironic instrument of the tragic end of their love.  So all the formalist elements in this play are ironic, just as Othello himself is an ironic character.   

There are many indications in the play that show how much Othello loves Desdemona, but it is difficult for him to win her love through so many challenges,  especially that her father will never agree to their love, since there are so many differences between them, including blood and religion.  Desdemona’s father, Brabantio, even implies that their love is the result of trickery, “For I’ll refer me to all things of sense, If she in chains of magic were not bound” (1.2.65).  For Brabantio, magic is Othello’s tool to achieve his goal.  But in fact, Desdemona truly loves Othello, initially because he has huge stories and adventures in his life.  But, even after Othello defends and proves his love and it is accepted by the Duke and senators, a part of him does not truly believe it.  The images of magic are in Othello’s awareness, as well, and  ultimately, he accepts the unreality of her love for him as if it had been based on magic all along, finally allowing him to kill it with her.

From the Formalist perspective, the images, symbols, sounds, and character elements of the play, it can be seen that Shakespeare’s Othello has a central theme, that both Othello and Desdemona’s loves are ironic.  On Othello’s side, he fights for his true love but kills it after he wins it.  On Desdemona side, she betrays her father’s expectation by marrying a man who is completely different from her, but eventually, after she proves her love, ironically, it is her love which kills her.

How to Read Poetry like Professor

A poem, as a manifestation of language and thus essentially dialogue, can be a message in a bottle, sent out in the—not always greatly hopeful—belief that somewhere and sometime it could wash up on land, on heartland perhaps. Poems in this sense are under way: they are making toward something.

~Paul Celan

Understanding and Explicating Poetry

Perhaps the most challenging material you will have to read in college is poetry.  While the message of some poems may be fairly simple—”Enjoy your youth while it lasts,” for instance—the way poets put words together often makes this message elusive.  Writers don’t write this way just to annoy you; rather, their sophisticated vocabulary and complex syntax help them to write with precision, to tease out the subtleties of nature and the human mind, and to create certain effects.  When you read a poem, you should begin by trying to figure what the poet is saying on the surface: the content of the poem.  When you can summarize this content in a few sentences, examine the way the poet conveys this content; in other words, analyze the poem’s form.  Finally, determine how the content and form work together to create the poem’s meaning.  Think of a poem as an equation: form + content = meaning.  The term for analyzing a poem in this way is “explication.” Here is a step-by-step method you might find useful when you explicate, or interpret, a poem:

1.  Find a quiet place, such as a study room at the library, where you will not be distracted or interrupted.  Put the following items on the table in front of you: your text book, your class notebook opened to a blank page, a pencil or pen, a hardback dictionary, and a subject encyclopedia such as Benet’s Readers’ Encyclopedia. Anything else on the table might distract you. Remove it.

2.  Take a deep breath and relax.  Read the poem once slowly aloud without writing or marking anything.  Don’t stop until you finish the poem, even if you don’t know the meaning or pronunciation of a word.  When you have finished, reflect for a moment on any words, images, and characters that caught your attention.  Jot down these items in your notebook, along with one sentence in which you try to summarize the poem.

3.  Now read the poem again silently.  When you come to a word you don’t know, look it up in the dictionary.  In your notes, write the word, its pronunciation, the meaning or meanings of it in this poem, and a clue to help you remember it.  Often information in the word’s etymology, or history, will give you a clue to remembering it.  Write a synonym for the word right above it in your textbook.  When you come to a proper noun, such as the name of a person or event, look it up in the literary reference work and record key details in your notebook, just as you did when you looked up unfamiliar words.  Concentrate on learning these words and allusions because many of them will appear again and again in literature, and you want to be ready for them next time.

4.  Rephrase sentences you don’t understand.  Almost every poem you will find in your text books is made up of complete sentences with subjects and verbs and, in many cases, objects, prepositional phrases, subordinate clauses, and other syntactical elements.  Even if you don’t know what a prepositional phrase or appositive is, you know how to read and understand them.  In fact, you do it all the time when you read ordinary sentences in newspapers, magazines, and textbooks.  The problem is that most poets don’t write the way reporters and textbook authors do.  Even though they write complete sentences, they change the order of words—placing, for example, the object, the thing receiving the action, before the verb instead after it, where we ordinarily put it in speech and prose.  This change in word order is called an “inversion,” and it is common in poetry, especially poetry written before 1900.  In the following passage, which comes from John Donne’s poem “The Sun Rising,” the word “season” is an object of the verb, even though it comes before the verb: “Love, all alike, no season knows.” We would say: “Love, all alike, knows no season.”  Rephrasing sentences so that they sound more like speech or at least prose will help you figure what the poet is saying.

5.  Identify the literal meaning of figurative language.  The other practice that distinguishes poets from writers of nonliterary prose is their heavy use of metaphors, personification, symbols, hyperboles, apostrophes, and many other forms of figurative language.  Figurative language does not mean exactly what it says; rather, it suggests meanings.  In the phrase quoted above, Donne does not literally mean that love is unfamiliar with spring, summer, fall, and winter.  As a thing, love cannot know anything at all; only people can know something—that is, be conscious of it.  Thus, Donne is personifying love, giving it human qualities. The figurative language in poetry helps us to understand new or complex concepts.  Thinking of love as a person who treats all seasons in the same way helps us to appreciate the universality of love.  Once you have completed the steps above, you may not understand every word or even every sentence, but you should have a fairly good idea of the poet’s overall message, or the content of the poem. Now you are ready to begin interpreting and analyzing it.

6.  Analyze the poet’s use of language.  You already have looked closely at the poet’s use of language as you were trying to understand the poem’s content.  Now you want to ask yourself what this use of language—the inversions, symbols, and so on--contribute to the poem’s meaning.  Why, for example, did the poet choose to compare his love to a “red, red rose” instead of tree or a bird?  One trick that will help you in this step is thinking about associations: we tend to associate roses with beauty, tenderness, passion, and love, but we also know that a rose bush has thorns that can be painful.  Not all of these associations may be appropriate for a particular poem, but many of them probably will.  Make a note of these associations in your notebook and jot down some ideas about what they contribute to the poem’s meaning.

7.  Scan the poem.  Scanning poetry is different from skimming it.  To scan a poem means to identify the rhythm, which in English poetry comes from the alteration of stressed and unstressed syllables.

i).  Begin by looking at the polysyllabic words—the words of more than one syllable. Say each word aloud and try to determine which syllable you stress.  If you are unsure, look up the word in the dictionary, where you will see an accent mark either before or after the stressed syllable.  In The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, the accent appears before the stressed syllable.  If you are using another dictionary, look up “pronunciation” in the dictionary’s guide to reading entries.  In your textbook, place an accent mark (/) over each stressed syllable and a horizontal line over the unstressed syllables (-).

ii).  Now look for all the one-syllable structure words—words that have little or no meaning, but rather serve to connect other words and show their relationships.  Structure words

include articles (a, an, the), conjunctions (and, or, but), prepositions (of, in, on, to, etc.), and auxiliaries (have, may, do, will, etc.).  Mark these words as unstressed.

iii). Mark one-syllable nouns and verbs as stressed.

iv).  Read the poem aloud, using your marks as a guide to which syllables to stress. Look for one of the following patterns: iambic (- /), trochaic (/ -), anapestic (- - /), and dactyllic (/ --).  Most English poetry that has a regular rhythm is iambic.  If you don’t see one of these patterns, try to change a few of the marks on the one-syllable words.  If you see a pattern now, write the name of the rhythm in your notebook.  You probably still will notice a few anomalies, places where the rhythm changes from the regular pattern, but ignore these anomalies for now.  If you still don’t see a pattern, count the number of stressed syllables in three consecutive lines.  If these lines do not have the same number of stressed syllables, the poem probably does not have a regular rhythm; in other words, it probably is written in free verse.

v). Draw vertical lines around each instance of a pattern.  Each one of these units is called a “metrical foot” or simply a “foot.”  For example, if the line you scanned has the markings - / - / - / - / - /, you would recognize the iambic pattern and mark the line this way: - / | - / | - / | - / | - /.  Count the number of units in each line.  In most cases, this number will be the same for every line of the poem.  In the previous example, you would count five units, or five feet. Use the following terms to identify the number of feet in the lines: dimeter (2 feet), trimeter (3 feet), tetrameter (4 feet), pentameter (5 feet), and hexameter (6 feet).  You now have identified the overall pattern of rhythm in the poem. In our example, the rhythm is iambic pentameter.

vi).  Now look back at the anomalies, the places where the rhythm changes.  A unit with two stresses is called a spondee, and a unit with two unstressed syllables is called a pyrrhic foot.

 Try to determine what role these anomalies play.  For example, many times spondees call attention to important words, images, or ideas. Jot down your ideas in your notebook.

8.  Look for rhyme.  Look at the final words in the first and second lines.  Do they rhyme with each other or any other final words?  If so, the poem probably has a rhyme scheme, a pattern of rhyme.  To label the rhyme scheme, place the letter “a” at the end of the first line.  If the final word in the next line rhymes with this word, label it “a” also; otherwise, label it “b.”  Continue this process, identifying rhyming words with the same letter.  Now look at the words that rhyme.  Are they similar in meaning, or are they contrasting words?  In your notebook, note any places where the rhyme is significant and suggest a way this rhyme contributes to the poem’s meaning.

9.  Finally, read the poem one more time aloud.  Practice using pauses and stress to make the poem’s meaning come alive in your recitation. In your notebook, make any final comments on the way the poem’s content and form work together to create meaning.

With thanks to: http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/markport/best/study/poetry.htm

And to my great Professor: Prof. Desmond Harding for this great lecture.

Nora’s Decision: A Revolt for both Women and Human Oppression

The topic of this paper is the pursuit of feminist autonomy in a marital relationship.  It will also raise the issue of whether feminist oppression in marriage is unique or is representative of other forms of human oppression.   The objective is to analyze, using feminist theory and other approaches, Ibsen’s A Doll House in order to come to some conclusions about depictions of gender expectations and the marital relationship. The research focuses on Nora’s psychological paradox in Ibsen’s A Doll House: an irreconcilable conflict between the individual’s need for autonomy and the emotional and social expectations of motherhood and marriage.  The questions on this aspect of this paper are the following: 1) how is Nora depicted initially in the play? 2) what are the forces that affect her? 3) what is the nature of her choice to leave?  Nora is depicted as passive and dependent and behaves as a good wife.  But Nora’s husband is an angry and self-absorbed man who is unkind to her and whom she believes will not change, and therefore her behaviors as a good wife cannot achieve a happy marriage for her.  This is the source of her irreconcilable conflict.  Ultimately, she “buys” her autonomy by sacrificing her relationship with her children.

In addition, this paper will include a discussion of the extent to which Ibsen’s play can be read on more than one level as being about feminist oppression or about human oppression.  Nora can be understood as a woman fighting against patriarchal oppression, or she can be understood as a representative of a broader class of victims of human oppression, whether male or female.  Do other victims of human oppression face similar paradoxes as Nora face? And do they have to make equally tragic decisions.    

Poetic conflicts in Julia Alvarez’s “Dusting”

            In her poem “Dusting” Julia Alvarez uses the poetic forms and different words to expose variations in repetition of each line to emphasize her conflict between her mother and herself. Particularly when she states, “practicing signatures like scales, while Mother followed squirting” (5-6) she wants to show that event though she has emotional problems with her mother, she keeps mapping her identity through her works.  

The second stanza continues shows that there are some contradicted principles between her mother and herself.  For example, “she erased my fingerprints from the bookshelf and rocker” (9-10), this exhibits that there is no harmonization between the mother and her daughter.   The other line, “scribbled with my alphabets” (12), shows that the mother intensely erases for whatever the daughter creates.

Eventually, for what the mother does exhibits that there are strong opposite attitudes between the two women, mother and daughter.  The daughter is searching her identity through writing, while, on the other hand the mother creates her identity through dusting.  This can be seen from the expression: “My name was swallowed in the towel with which she jeweled the table tops” (14).  This statement improves that the mother keeps dusting for whatever the daughter does.  While, on the other hand, the daughter keeps creating her painting ignoring for whatever the mother does.  Briefly, this poem shows the complexity emotion between her, a daughter, and she, a mother. The complexity comes from the way she call a mother till she change into she. 

“To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time”: Robert Herrick’s Urgent Advice

            Robert Herrick’s “To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time” uses strong diction and tone to address young women to choose marriage create clear meanings.  The “carpe diem” meaning promotes marriage as the goal for women of a certain age.  Also, the traditional and patriarchal meaning believes that women should get married if they want to be truly women and be happy. 

Moreover, the speaker looks at the virgins like they are flowers, sensitive and fragile, and urges them to act quickly because “tomorrow will be dying.”  He uses other clear diction to indicate what the virgins should do: “gather ye rose-buds while ye may” (1). In addition to this case, he asserts that for the virgin’s time will be taken away if they do not use it wisely: “But being spent, the worse, and worst” (10). 

Eventually, after describing his deep concerns to the virgins, the speaker reminds the virgins how to use their time to avoid regrets and depresses in the rest of their lives: “for having lost but once your prime” and ”you may nor ever tarry” (15-16).  As the same time he suggests strongly that these virgins are vulnerable, wonderful and have a very short time to seize their happiness; therefore, he advises all virgins to marry soon if they do not want to feel regret.  Based on this advice, the poet’s tone seems so subjective because he thinks that marriage can guarantee the virgins’ happiness.   

Clearly, the speaker chooses words that suggest the speaker is saying that the virgins are vulnerable and fresh.  For example, the poet uses the traditional metaphor of “rose-bud” to metaphor that the virgins are like “rose-buds,” which are not only love and romance, but also young and fragrant.  Also, the diction in the third line seems to personify the flowers can smile and laugh just like a human or a virgin: “And this same flowers that smiles today” (3).  Here, the virgins are a metaphor in the diction, “rose-bud” and “flowers,” to emphasize that the virgins are very sensitive and very young.   The tone of the poet in this first stanza seems that he is worry.  He is worry of the situation of the fragile of the virgins who lack of knowledge to understand about life because they are very young and sensitive.

In the next stanza, the speaker still focuses on some specific diction that emphasizes the speaker is stating that the virgins’ time is wonderful when they can get their soul mates.  For example, the poet invokes: “The glorious lamp of heaven, the sun” (4) as a metaphor that for the sun is a sparkling lamp in heaven, just like the virgins are a sparkling woman in a world.  Also, in this stanza, personification in the line: “The sooner will his race be run” (6) wants to personify the sun can run and race like a human.  The speaker continues to remind the virgins to use their time quickly till they get their loves: “And the nearer he’s to setting” (8).  Therefore, the poet’s tone reminds the virgins to use their time well when it comes to choosing a male to accompany them in spending the rest of their life and do not let the wonderful time passed away. 

The urgent tone of the second stanza continues, the speaker tries to give advice to the virgins that they must take the advantage of their golden time and do not let it becomes distraught. For example, the poet tells us: “when youth and blood are warmer” to emphasize that youth and blood are life, whereas the cold is related to death.  It means that the virgins are in a new and warm life just like a fresh food, so that they must eat their supper soon because soon it will be cold. The poet continues to select strong words to stress his attitude toward the virgins should not let their time becomes severe without any spouse in their life: “But being spent, the worse, and worst” (9).  Based on these strong dictions, the poet’s tone seems to remind the virgins that they have a very short time and should not let it become useless. 

Concisely, the speaker continues to use strong diction to convince the virgins.  He states his other important suggestions to the virgins; how to behave in their short time, and how to avoid their crying because of their faults.  For example, the speaker promotes the words “then be not coy, but use your time” (12) to make the virgins aware to not be shy because they will lose their chance to seize their loves, just be open minded and try to welcome every love that comes to them.  Again, in the next line, the speaker tries to continue to convince the virgins to get marry soon:  “and while ye marry, go marry” (13).  Also, the speaker claims that the virgins must be aware of their youth, which they have only once: “For having lost but once your prime.”  Here, the speaker retells the virgins that their time will never come twice.  Therefore, he wants to make sure that the virgins will not feel lonely and lament in their future life.   The speaker’s attitude toward the virgins is that they should not be shy and must get married to seize their happiness if they do not want to feel regret.  

In short, the poet’s tone toward the virgins is care and concern.  For example, the images of “coy,” “lost,” and “tarry” show the speaker’s care toward the virgins’ time and attitude.  He really cares to the virgins by reminding them that they should not be shy to seize their own happiness.  Also, they should not be lost their valuable chance to grab their truly love.  Other examples, the images of “marry,” and “prime” show the speaker’s concern to the virgins’ lives.  He thinks being married will make the virgins happier than being a single.  He also thinks that the prime time is the only time to get a man. Therefore, the virgins should not be late to get their men when they are in the peak time.  He really cares and concerns on the virgins lives, so he gives them some advice how to make their young, old, and future lives happier. 

William Blake's London: Bleak City

William Blake’s “London” (1714) describes a city on the edge of disaster.  The London depicted in poem is a depressed and horrible city.  Historical London at the time had complex and complicated problems where monarchal power is dictating, while, on the other hand, people are suffering.  One of the ways in which Blake portrays London as in crisis is through the use of images of weakness and despair.  London is described as a depressed city, where the people living there are sad and unsatisfied with their surroundings.  For example, in the first stanza, Blake says “And mark in every face I meet / Marks of weakness, marks of woe” (3-4).  A reader understands that the people who live in this London are distraught.  They feel hopeless and useless to themselves, their family, and to their country. 

Moreover, through the image of the words “crying,” “blood”, and “manacle,” London is described as a terrible city, since everyone is crying, and even the “hapless” soldiers just accept the horrible things as normal occurrence because they do not know and cannot imagine any other life.  According to Blake, “In every cry of every man, in every Infant’s cry of fear,” there is woe.  There is something horrible in the city that makes people pessimistic and feels no future.  An image like “the hapless Soldier’s sign runs in blood” (11) questions how the soldier can protect his people in these dire circumstances.  Eventually, from the imagery of “Harlot” and “hearse”, London is described as a dangerous city: “How the youthful Harlot’s curse, And blights with plagues the marriage hearse”, the reader imagines that in the city, there are some young women who earn a living as whores.  If a husband has a sexual intercourse with them, they will contract a disease that can be past to their wives and their children.  This kind of habit can jeopardize people’s personal lives.  

William Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew vs. John Fletcher’s The Woman’s Prize

            These two books are plays written early in the seventeenth century, William Shakespeare’s The Taming of The Shrew and John Fletcher’s The Woman’s Prize. Each depicts female characters, one of whom supports the masculine paradigm, while the other undermines it.  The plays also tell about the relationship between a husband and a wife in a family.  In The Taming of the Shrew, the wife, Katherine, is dominated by the husband, Petruchio, while, on the other hand in The Woman’s Prize, the husband, Petruchio (the same character), is dominated by the wife, Maria.  The difference between the two plays is that Shakespeare’s The Shrew has a pro patriarchal theme, whereas Fletcher’s The Prize has an anti-patriarchal theme. 

William Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew is the story about how to tame a shrewish woman, Katherine, who is an elder daughter of Baptista, a gentleman of Padua.  Katherine is depicted as a wild and sarcastic woman who needs to be taught to be a gorgeous woman as society demanded at the time.  Petruchio is depicted as a macho man, and he comes to Padua both to propose to Kate and to tame her.  

John Fletcher’s The Woman’s Prize is an inverted story from Shakespeare’s The Taming of The Shrew in which the tamer is tamed.  After Kate died because of her submissive marriage, Petruchio married again to his second wife, Maria, who is teaching Petruchio to be a tamed husband, just like Petruchio did to Kate before.  Maria withholds sex from Petruchio on her wedding night in order to conquer him.  There are some tricks Maria uses to defeat Petruchio, such as demanding Petruchio sign a marital contract and she pretends to cheat on Petruchio.  Eventually, Maria wins the game so that Petruchio is willing to sign the marriage contract, and to treat his wife better.  At the same time Maria promises Petruchio to be his perfect wife.

These two books are interesting because they provide an editor’s introduction, Sympa Callaghan in The Shrew, and Celsea R. Daileader in The Prize.  Both of them explain more about these plays, especially for today’s students who have difficulties in reading old English from sixteenth century.  Callaghan and Daileader write a brief history of the plays in their introductions.  They mention some scholar’s opinions about the plays. For example Daileader states that The Prize is “the misogynist rhetoric that likens women to animals, particularly horses, to be tamed and ridden by men” (16).    

The difference between the two plays is Fletcher’s play demonstrates an anti-patriarchal theme, where his heroine, Maria, is depicted as a vocal woman who can gather a troupe of other women who lock themselves in a chamber upstairs with food and wine.  In protesting against a patriarchal system,  Daileader explains how Maria succeeded in leading a rebellion against her tyrannous husband, Petruchio  (10).  Fletcher is showing his character having a more extensive and aware identity than the Shakespeare’s character, Kate in The Taming of the Shrew.

These plays also show unrecognized insights into the complex gender and marital relationships of the plays.  The Taming of The Shrew makes Kate unpleasant, which allows her husband, Petruchio, to punish her, so the audience can feel that she deserves to be treated improperly, which is against the feminist paradigm.  According to Dolan, marriage was represented in the early modern period as a struggle for dominance in which violence was the fundamental arbiter (165).  Especially in Shrew, one is dominated and one dominates.  Petruchio controls everything about Kate’s life, and Kate has no rights to decide. The marriage here, is described as a violent relationship between a wife and husband. Kate and Petruchio are depicted as combating sexes where there is almost no more proper communication except violence and physical domination of a husband who controls everything about his wife, including food, clothes, and money.

Fletcher’s play attempts to subvert Shakespeare’s depiction of marriage by criticizing the masculine paradigm which creates domestic rules for women. Fletcher describes a wife who controls the husband and behaves counter to the masculine tyranny that other woman of her era experience.  In The Woman’s Prize, the marital relationship is egalitarian, which allows Maria as a wife to make her own decisions. In The Taming of the Shrew, Kate is under her husband’s control.  Fletcher’s  Petruchio is in contrast to the Petruchio of The Taming of The Shrew wherein he controls everything.  But the Petruchio of The Woman’s Prize does not have the power he had in his first marriage since his second wife, Maria, made a bargain with him to provide her the power and authority to have the same rights as his to control the family.

Fletcher was willing to assert an anti-patriarchal theme because he did not like how English men from higher society treated women at the time.  For example, there were some girls who were not virgins anymore on their first wedding night because wealthy men had taken their virginity first.  Fletcher wanted to criticize his society.  He wrote The Prize, depicting the setting in London, whereas Shakespeare chose Padua as setting in the Shrew.  The reason Fletcher moved the setting is because he wanted to move from the village, which was a traditional view, to the city of London, which was a modern view.  He tried to make an elites realize that the old view of treating women improperly was not effective anymore.  Women have rights to be treated well.  Thus, he created his heroine, Maria, as a leader to conduct a revolt against a patriarchal system that was very powerful at the time.  

Another reason Fletcher supports an anti-patriarchal system is his protest against the misogynistic elements in the society and in the play at the time.  Modern audience and readers had debated, and controversy was developed as to misogyny in early modern English literature.  Especially in the Shrew, we can see some misogyny examples that depict Kate as a shrewish woman whom no men are willing to marry because of her wild and sarcastic verbosity.  In spite of this, Petruchio succeeded in taming her.  The act of taming can be linked to the taming of an animal. According to Daileder, “the misogynist rhetoric … likens women to animals, particularly horses, to be tamed and (sexually) ‘ridden’ by men” (16).  Therefore, women are associated with animals that can be fed and clothed at men’s discretion.  

By contrasting the two plays, the Shrew and the Prize, we can understand that in the Shrew,  misogyny is a central theme of the play, but in the Prize, the theme is anti-patriarchal . Even though they have similar themes,  the battle of the sexes between a wife and husband, the plot is described in different ways and purposes.  In the Shrew, the woman, Kate is passive and is silent and hidden to protest the male supremacy in marriage.  But in the Prize, the woman, Maria is active and gathers other women in rebellion to protest  male supremacy in marriage.  Therefore, The Shrew is rich with traditional perspective, which is  pro patriarchal , whereas The Prize is rich with more modern perspective, which is an anti-patriarchal.

I strongly recommend these books with their excellent introductions, especially for literature students, to get insight into Shakespeare’s and Fletcher’s works, which are not only romances but also in the social comedy genre. This book is published by Manchester University Press in 2006 with the price $12.00, and ISBN: 719053676 paperback.

The Soldier's Sacrifice in Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est”

Wilfred Owen uses strong imagery to not just tell but show the suffering of soldiers in World War I arena fighting for both their country and their survival.  Owen’s images represent and blend all the senses of sight, smell, and sounds, and tease out the visceralness of the soldiers’ dying against the gas explosions.  This is true, especially in lines, “but limped on, blood-shod / All went lame, all blind” (6-7), which show how difficult it was for the soldiers at the time to walk and even to move.  The images of limping, blood, and blindness express the weakness of people to struggle for their lives.  Moreover, in the line, “Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling” (9), expresses the soldiers’ terror in fighting to grope for the gas masks.  Everywhere is gas and gas, and the soldiers cannot see or breathe.  They keep trying to reach the edge of handle of the gas mask, but it is really awkward since much gas in there at the time. 

Eventually, the poet says that if we, as readers, really understood the soldiers’ suffering to survive the way he does, no one would say this, “dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori” (28), Mayer explains the meaning,  “it is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country” (649).  The soldiers rest in peace after sacrificing their lives for their country and people will not see their struggling to fight against not only the enemies but also for their lives.  In short, these images are so effective because they make me see, feel, hear, and smell the bodies of the soldiers in the field. The images really evoke my visceral senses.  They make the surrounding alive and take me to the real field to see the suffering of the soldiers dying.

Ibsen Nora’s Decision: A Revolt from Her Dance in Response to Her Husband

Introduction

The topic of this paper is the pursuit of feminist autonomy in a marital relationship.  It will also raise the issue of whether woman oppression in marriage is unique or is representative of other forms of human oppression.   The objective is to analyze, using feminist theory and Marxist approaches, Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House in order to come to some conclusions about depictions of gender expectations and the marital relationship. The research focuses on Nora’s psychological paradox in Ibsen’s A Doll House: an irreconcilable conflict between the individual’s need for autonomy and the emotional and social expectations of motherhood and marriage.  The questions on this aspect of this paper are the following: 1) how is Nora depicted initially in the play? 2) What are the forces that affect her? 3) What is the nature of her choice to leave?  Nora is depicted as passive and dependent and behaves as a good wife.  But Nora’s husband is an angry and self-absorbed man who is unkind to her and whom she believes will not change, and therefore she will not achieve a happy marriage and life with him.  This is the source of her irreconcilable conflict.  Ultimately, she “buys” her autonomy by sacrificing her relationship with her children.

In addition, this paper will include a discussion of the extent to which Ibsen’s play can be read on more than one level as being about female oppression or about human oppression.  Nora can be understood as a woman fighting against patriarchal oppression, or she can be understood as a representative of a broader class of victims of human oppression, whether male or female.  Do other victims of human oppression face similar paradoxes as Nora face? And do they have to make equally tragic decisions.   

Summary

A Doll House is a story about a wife, Nora, who is initially depicted as passive and dependent on her husband, Torvald. She always tries to behave as a good wife, serves her husband properly and takes care of her children.  The husband, Torvald, becomes sick with tubercolosis, and their doctor suggests that they move to a warmer city in the South to make him better.  But they do not have enough money to travel to the South.  Then, Nora forges her father’s signature and borrows money from the banker, Mr. Kogard.  Nora lies to Torvald and says that the money is form her father heritage.  Eventually, they move and Torvald health improves. 

Kogard blackmails Nora by saying he will tell her husband about her deception unless her husband does not fire him.  Torvald wants to fire Kogard because he was found guilty of manipulating money at the bank.  Nora tries to convince Torvald to accept Kogard again at his bank, but Torvald gets angry, writes a dismisal letter immediately and sends it to Kogard.  Because Kogard has been fired, he sends back the letter to Torvald, who then discovers his wife’s forgery. 

The plot becomes complicated when Torvald wants to read the letter from Kogard.  Nora tries to postpone his reading it until the event of the ball at their house is over.  After the ball, Torvald reads the letter, and Nora becomes afraid of her husband’s anger since she has lied and deceived him.  Ultimately, her fears come true.  Torvald is extremely angry at her, calling her a “hypocrite and criminal”, and saying she does not deserve to be a good wife and mother.  He claims that her dishonesty comes from her mother, who cannot teach her daughter to be honest, and goes on with the accusations that she will teach his children to lie, as well.  He believes she can never become a good wife and mother. 

Nora is so distraught to be called a criminal and incapable of being a good mother.  She tells Torvald that he is selfish to focus only on himself and his social status.  He has discounted her sacrifice in trying to find money to cure and save him.  Nora is tired of being treated as a doll with no decisions of her own, controlled by her husband.  She believes her husband will not change and that the only way to make her life free from her husband’s oppression is away from her doll house.  She decides to leave her husband and her children, as well.  

Review of Literature

According to Marxist feminist theory (Dobie, 120), there are some questions we can ask if we have chosen the text that we will examine for Marxist feminist critique.  We can start by examining the roles women play in work, the roles women play in raising children, shopping, and spending her husband’s money.  Nora says, “you could give me money, Torvald… then I will buy something with it” (1282).  A woman is depicted as weak, socially and economically, so that she depends on her husband.

In A Doll House, it is not only Nora who suffers socially and humanly, but also Mrs. Linde, her friend, who must support her brother and her mother by marrying a rich man, finally divorcing, and becoming a widow who tries to fight for herself and her family.  Another suffering woman is Ms. Anne-Marie, Nora’s maid, who earns a living by being a servant, cleaning Nora’s house, taking care of everything, and her children, too.  On the other hand, men’s roles are depicted as strong, socially and humanly. Torvald has received the promotion to be a manager in the bank, and Dr. Rank is a doctor who is falling in love with Nora.  Here, men are shown to be higher than women, socially and politically. 

The stereotypes of women in the plays are that they do not understand the world outside the home, what they know is only domestic things.  When Nora asks about the bank, Torvald replies, “Nora, Nora, how like a woman!” (1282), which implies that Torvald thinks that Nora does not understand about the bank at all, just as was custoAnne-Marie for women at the time.  

The way the male characters talk and treat the female characters is rude and disrespectful. Torvald is really angry at Nora when he learns that she lied about the money as he calls her, “worse, worse – a criminal! The shame!” (1322). In contrast, the way the female characters act toward the male characters is by accepting their behavior, and not replying rudely, as Nora answers, “when I’m gone from this world, you will be free” (1322).  Here we can see that the way that men talk to women is different.  Men talk loudly and rudely, but women speak softly and politely. 

We are also able to analyze the character who is the most socially and politically powerful in the play, a man. Torvald is socially powerful, as he works and fuels their domestic economy, and he is also really concerned with his social status, as he says, “now you’ve wrecked all my happiness – ruined my whole future” (1322).  Meanwhile, Nora is weak socially since she does not earn money, and when Torvald is upset, he blames her. 

The opinions about women expresses in the play are low, as men demand women to be perfect as wives and mothers.  Torvald believes that Nora “can’t be allowed to bring up the children; I don’t dare trust you with them” (1323).  Because Nora has lied to him, he thinks that Nora will teach his children to be liars. 

The assumption toward women in this play is materialistic. When her husband says, “Nora, guess what I have here” (1282), she replies, “money” (1282).  From this line, we can assume that women are obsessed with wealth and possessions.  But a man is assumed to make a lot of money and to have a prestigious job, as Torvald says, “it’s so gratifying to know that one’s gotten a safe, secure job, and with a comfortable salary” (1282).

A Marxist examination will be about who has power and who is powerless in the play. The answer is that the wife, Nora, is powerless, since she has no power to reject her husband’s will, even the way she dances is based on her husband’s preferences.  Torvald manages everything in Nora’s life, even her dance: “now you should run through your tarantela and practice your tambourine” (1305). 

Another analysis would be directed at the question of whether the two parties are depicted with equal attention. The author devotes equal attention to male and female characters, showing the unequal power of the two.  But the characters themselves have different attentions. Torvald’s attention is all about his job, and the most important for him is his career. On the other hand, Nora’s attention is paying her debt every month.  Here, we can see that Nora has a burden to pay her debt monthly, maybe even for the rest of her life, since the debt is really huge.

If I had to choose, I would choose to admire Nora, since she has sacrificed her life to make her husband secure and is driven to leave her children because she is oppressed by her husband.  Nora also has my sympathy, as she is brave enough to leave her family to make her life better and happier.  Her decision also encourages oppressed people to think about their oppression.  They can consider whether to stage the same revolt as Nora, or stay in suffering conditions.

Marxist analysis also asks why do the powerful people have their power? Since Torvald fuels his domestic economy he can do whatever he wants toward Nora and controls Nora’s life based on his desires.  He chooses Nora’s food, Nora’s clothes, and even Nora’s dance.  Nora, here, is exactly like a doll which is not able to do anything by itself, and even has no right to live.

A final question is: what are the values of the author’s time and place? According to Meyer, “A woman in upper class society of the time had few choices in an unhappy marriage.  Divorce or separation meant ostracism” (1336). If Nora can make this paradoxical decision, it means that she is prepared to be ostracized by her society than being oppressed in her doll house.   She comes to believe that money cannot guarantee her happiness. This paradox has come into being even though her husband is rich, and can give her money but she cannot share her feelings and her problems about her debt as she realize that Torvald will be angry at her, even though the debt for her husband’s security.

Those questions guide the researcher to find the answers how a wife and a husband are depicted in the play and how marital relationships are developed in the Victorian era, as well as its comparison to modern Marxist feminist theory.

Analysis

Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House tells a story about a woman, Nora, who feels submissive and oppressed in her family.  She is controlled by and dependent on her husband, Torvald.  Decisions are made by her husband, not by her.  When, she is dancing, her husband decides how she should dance in a way that her husband likes, instead of her own way.  Her husband even forbids her to eat candy because it will make her fat and ruin her teeth.  For almost eight years of marriage, she could not do anything unless her husband decided and told it to her.  Eventually, she becomes frustrated at being always controlled by her husband, and then she leaves her home.  She decides to leave home because she cannot control herself anymore and believes that her husband will not change. Her decision to leave her family becomes a symbol of revolt for both women and all oppressed people in the world. 

Moreover, according to Moi, A Doll House is “a play that calls for a radical transformation [forvandling], not just, or not even primarily, of laws and institutions, but of human beings and their ideas of love” (256).  Moi argues that the play is more than about a woman who suffers and is oppressed by her husband, but it is about human beings in the world.  Nora, here, represents oppressed people in this world, as Nora says to Torvald: “you’ve never understood me.  I’ve been wronged greatly, Torvald – first Papa, and then by you” (1324).  Nora thinks that her life is controlled by men for the whole of her life, and they treat her like a doll.  She cannot express her opinion and feelings, which is like a doll, silent and passive. 

Torvald’s role in marital relationship is to give orders and demands to Nora, mostly for what Nora does every day.  He always manages Nora, “now you should run through your tarantella and practice your tambourine” (1305).  And he treats her based on his desire and never asks for Nora’s opinion, even in the way of her dancing, “slower.  Slowdown.. not so violent, Nora!  Nora does not have the rights to show what she enjoys, but suffers and is oppressed by her husband’s total control of her life.  Ibsen presents Nora’s action as a symbol of freedom not only for women but also for all humans oppressed in the world.  For feminism, Nora is a symbol of oppression of women, that women must decide themselves how to stop their oppression at home.   

Initially in the play, Nora is depicted as a woman who can only have her needs met through the agency of a man.  She seems often to say, “Oh please, Torvald darling, do that! I beg you, please” (1282).  She often uses her persuasive language and her soft voice to seduce her husband to fulfill her needs, money and whatever she wants.  Even though sometimes her husband becomes angry at her seduction, she has no other choices.  She believes that her husband is the only one who can help her.  Therefore, in this case, she is oppressed because she  has no choice but to accept whatever her husband chooses to give her.  Her demands make her husband angry and he abuses her verbally: “this is the most incredible stubbornness!  Because you go and give an impulsive promise to speak up for him” (1303).  Nora’s husband’s role is that of a man who has “got a big salary and make piles and piles of money” (1281).  Because he is the one who can make money, he can abuse her verbally before he gives her money: “come on, don’t be a sulky squirrel.  Nora, guess what I have here” (1282) Torvald is not capable of returning love for her submission, but punishes her, first, before giving her what she asks of him. 

Nora is depicted as dependent and behaves as a good wife in her doll house.  She is unable to decide what the best thing is for her.  Her husband, Torvald makes all the rules for her.  For example: she is not allowed to eat candy because it will destroy her teeth and make her fat.  When she dances, she cannot express her own dance freely, but must always dance in response to her husband.  This metaphor applies as well to all oppressed people who have no choice but to be passive and dependent and behave as they should.   These are the characteristics of slaves.   

Nora’s role at home is that of a wife who “has been spendthrift been out throwing money around” (1281).  All she can do is beg for money from her husband and spend it on her family needs, but not for herself, since she has to pay her debt to cure her husband.  Here, we can see that Nora’s oppression is not only from the way her husband treats her but also from her role as wife who “hung onto the money” (1282), even though, tragically, the money is not for herself but for saving her husband.

Torvald always controls her, what she should eat, what she should wear, and how she should dance, until one day, Nora wants to say, “I have such a huge desire to say – to hell and be damned!” (1291) to her husband.  This statement show us that Nora has always felt oppressed in her marriage, but she does not dare to tell it to Torvald.  She just keeps it in her heart and does not realize how much she actually suffers and is not happy at all.

Torvald’s dominance in the marriage makes Nora afraid to tell him the truth and to discuss her opinions with her husband.  She realizes that “Torvald, with all his masculine pride – how painfully humiliating for him if he ever found out he was in debt to me” (1288).  From this excerpt, we understand that Nora’s situation in life is complicated.  Since she wants to save her husband’s life, she is additionally oppressed by her own lying.  I cannot see that Nora is selfish as Marvin Rosenrnberg argues that “Nora is selfish, frivolous, seductive, unprincipled, and deceitful. These qualities make her the remarkable dramatic charac-ter she is, and demonstrate Ibsen's capacity to turn po-lemic into play” (894). Nora is afraid to share her feelings and her problems with her husband because her husband has a patriarchal tyranny in their marriage. 

She saves her husband’s life by sacrificing herself – “I found other ways of making money… to get a lot of copying to do… Ah I was tired so often… but it was wonderful fun… earning money.  It was almost like being a man” (1289).  This excerpt demonstrates the paradox that Nora found her happiness through her suffering, being exhausted, working at night just to pay her debt to cure her husband.  It becomes a paradox because after she cures her husband, she leaves him.  According to Maroula Joannou, “Late Victorian and Edwardian society came to associate Ibsen’s work with progressive attitudes to contemporary sexual and social issues; divorce, the marriage laws, the “double standard,” and women’s desire for autonomy” (180). 

Ironically, Nora only substitutes her oppressions by one man with that of another man, Mr. Krogstad,  when she borrows money ’s oppression continues to other man, Mr. Krogstad, who is her husband’s employer and the one she borrows money for the trip to secure her husband.  Mr. Krogstad tries to blackmail her to tell her husband the truth about the money.  Joseph roach proposes, “the blackmail is pervasive and diffuse, hovering as a potential threat” (300).  Nora denies it saying, “you are trying to frighten me! I’m not so silly as all that.  No, but that’s impossible! I did it out of love” (1297), she still worries that if her husband finds out, he will be angry.  Here, what she did for love makes her vulnerable and Krogstad uses her weakness to blackmail her. 

Moreover, Torvald often undervalues Nora’s actions and contribution.  He says, “but Nora… you dance as if your life were at stake”.  He criticizes Nora’s efforts for their Christmas:  “making flowers for the Christmas tree…. But the outcome was pretty sorry, Nora” (1284).  Here, he does not show his respect for Nora’s hard work to please him, but only dismisses her creativity. 

Ultimately, when Torvald finds that Nora has lied, he becomes angry and abuses her again verbally by calling her “a hypocrite, a liar-worse, worse – a criminal… you will go right on living in this house… but you can’t be allowed to bring up the children” (1322). Torvald’s words make her realize how much she is suffering and is oppressed by his sarcastic words.  In defiance, she accepts his assessment of her, agrees that he is correct, that she needs to educate herself, and so she abandons him and her children.  John Templeton argues that A Doll House’s theme is “the need of every individual to find out the kind of person he or she is and to strive to become that person” (28). Nora leaves her house to claim her identity and to become more independent.

The heavy weight of her oppression forces Nora into her paradoxical decision to leave her family.  Torvald is an angry and self-absorbed man who is unkind to her and whom she believes will not change, and therefore her behavior as a good wife cannot achieve a happy marriage or life for her. Most importantly, Nora, through her sacrificial decision, becomes a model for other human beings who are oppressed, to become aware of their own rights to a better life, rather than remaining in an oppressive status quo.  Elliot explains that “Ibsen's A Doll House has helped open doors for women around the world that opened people's eyes to the evil of slavery” (194).  I believe that this play is not only about women oppressions, but also about human oppressions in the world.

According to Marxist critics (Fredric Jameson, 48), there are only three possible answers in A Doll House: “the play supports the status quo, argues the reform in an essentially sound system, or advocates a radical restructuring.  Ibsen’s intention is to support reform and revolution.  He wants to make his society realize that women suffer in their status quo as wives depend on her husband, have no right to choose, their rights are only to be blamed if their husbands upset.

According to Durbach, Henrik Ibsen discussed Norwegian Society for Women’s Rights, he states, “I thank for your toast, but must disclaim the honour of having consciously worked for women’s rights.  I am not even quite sure what women’s rights really are.  To me it has been a question of human rights.  And if you have read my books carefully you will realize that.   Of course it is incidentally desirable to solve the problem of women; but has not been my whole object.” (91).  From Ibsen’s explanation, we understand that A Doll House is not only written for women’s rights, but also for men and everyone’s in this world as Ibsen suggests us to refer to his previous books.

Rachel Ablow has asserted that the most importance of the Victorian novels on the grounds that “such texts can train us to identity sympathetically with individual members of marginalized or oppressed groups within our own society, and encourage us to act for their benefit” (3).  Ablow argues that Ibsen’s play will encourage us to be more sympathy to his heroin, Nora, since she is a symbol of oppressed groups.

A principal idea of Marxist criticism is that “human consciousness is a product of social conditions and those human relationships are often subverted by and through economic considerations” (Shafer, 77).  Shafer argues that the way of people interact with each other is influenced by their economic status.  For example, Mrs. Linde has to marry a rich man to support her brother and her mother.  Anne Marie is a victim of low economy, and she becomes a maid to support her family. And even Nora has to be a liar to secure her husband. From these depictions, we can say that the need for money is linked with the capability to be existed.  But, they do not realize that they are shaped by socioeconomic considerations.

Conclusion

Ibsen’s A Doll House is a play about women and human oppression.  Nora and other women in the play are depicted as submissive and oppressed.  Ironically, Nora has the burden to pay her debt even though she has a rich husband. Mrs. Linde has to marry a rich man to support her brother and her mother, but divorces eventually.  Mrs. Merry has to be a servant to support her family.  All women in the plays suffered and are marginalized economically, though the men have power, socially and economically, Torvald as a banker and Dr. Rank as a doctor.

In marital relationships, the women also suffer, where Nora is controlled by her husband in terms of food, clothes, dance, and everything in her life.  She has no rights to share her feelings and her emotions since she knows Torvald will be angry and does not want to be disturbed in his job.  They just talk about artificial things, not essential ones. 

In A Doll House, Ibsen demonstrates the value of freedom, and then it is not only for women but for everyone in the world.  Ibsen’s intent is to encourage society to be more aware of women and marital relationships, since during his time divorce was quite common in the higher classes, but in fact, led to women being isolated by society, as well.  Ibsen’s Nora creates a new way to escape her oppression, which is like that of a slave or a doll that cannot do anything by itself and does not even have the right to live.  Her action shows that freedom is more important than being rich without a meaningful life.