The Yellow Wallpaper Charlotte Perkins Gilman was more than a writer. She was an advocate for feminism and social reform in an era that was stifling for any woman much less an outspoken one seeking to change the status quo. She wrote from examples in her own life that showed the lack of equality in society—particularly focused on marriages—and the horrifying methods of “treatment” for the mentally ill in the early 20th century. The Yellow Wallpaper, a pseudo-autobiography, showed in glaring detail the injustices suffered by women and the ill. It has been called a gothic comedy and a horror story but the real horror is that her writing is a reflection on real life. Charlotte was born in Hartford, Connecticut on the 3rd of July in 1860. After being abandoned by her father, her family led an early life of poverty. However, they were rich in strong and intelligent women including her aunt Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin. In 1884, she married the artist Charles Walter Stetson (Simkin). This marriage marked the start of her mental deterioration, very much like that she wrote of in her famous short story, and where facts of her life and the fiction of the story start to blur. The Yellow Wallpaper begins with an unnamed young bride who was diagnosed with “a slight hysterical tendency” (Gilman) shortly after her child was born. They have vacationed to a remote house where the narrator can rest in the way prescribe to her for her female hysteria. She is to refrain from “mental excursion” and all forms of creativity while residing almost entirely in a single room in the country. The narrator disagrees with this method and secretly continues to keep a journal that she hides from her husband. It is through this device that we follow the first-person story. All of this was experienced by Charlotte personally who developed a serious case of postpartum psychosis in addition to the strain and depression she felt in her marriage. In the beginning of the piece, the narrator is coherent and seems to be aware of the unfairness in the way she is treated. She describes how her no-nonsense husband laughs at her but dismisses this as just another part of marriage. Even though she disagrees with her husband and the other men in her life she writes:
John is a physician, and PERHAPS—(I would not say it to a living soul, of course, but this is dead paper and a great relief to my mind)—PERHAPS that is one reason I do not get well faster. You see he does not believe I am sick! And what can one do? If a physician of high standing, and one's own husband, assures friends and relatives that there is really nothing the matter with one but temporary nervous depression—a slight hysterical tendency—what is one to do? My brother is also a physician, and also of high standing, and he says the same thing. So I take phosphates or phosphites—whichever it is, and tonics, and journeys, and air, and exercise, and am absolutely forbidden to "work" until I am well again. Personally, I disagree with their ideas. Personally, I believe that congenial work, with excitement and change, would do me good. what is one to do? I did write for a while in spite of them; but it DOES exhaust me a good deal—having to be so sly about it, or else meet with heavy opposition. I sometimes fancy that my condition if I had less opposition and more society and stimulus—but John says the very worst thing I can do is to think about my condition, and I confess it always makes me feel bad. (Gilman) This passage shows many things. One is that the narrator is obviously an intelligent woman who writes well and though she accepts the injustices, she at least sees them. Another is the social standard of the time; women with mental illness could simply be dismissed as weak and hysterical leading John and the other men to patronize her. This leads to the final thought in which it seems that their lack of understanding or care of her condition is to fault for her later complete mental break. All of this was true of the time period and it would take women like Charlotte to change. In the country estate, the narrator is exiled to the former nursery which is far separated from everyone else which should help her refrain from mental and physical activity. It is not only cruel to confine the narrator the nursery while depriving her from the ability to care for her own child, but it also shows how she is considered little more than a child in her own life. Locked away in the nursery, her mental state only continues to slip away and, having nothing else to focus upon, she stares at the yellow wallpapering in the room. As the story goes on, the tone and writing style becomes more erratic and even a bit more juvenile as she starts to see and then obsess about the image of a woman in the patterns of the wallpaper. Her sentences become brief and she sees less of a point in writing any more. It could be the woman she sees in the paper is the woman within her that is disappearing under the oppressive care. She is angry when other look at it and suspects foul play when John’s sister so much as touches it as the narrator is insistent that she be the one to solve the puzzle she believes is locked in the paper. “Life is very much more exciting now than it used to be. You see I have something more to expect, to look forward to, to watch. I really do eat better, and am more quiet than I was.” (Gilman). Of course society knows now that these are not signs of getting better, but it was what was considered healthy for a woman.
Finally the narrator starts to lose memories. She wonders where the “SMOOCH” low on the wall came from which we later learn it is from her circling around and around the room. She now sees the woman in the wallpaper shake the pattern as if it is a jail and she is wishing to be free—a reflection of the narrator and, indeed, Charlotte herself. She rips away all the paper, “freeing” all the women behind it…but she now believes herself to be one of them. “I wonder if they all come out of that wall-paper as I did... But here I can creep smoothly on the floor, and my shoulder just fits in that long smooch around the wall, so I cannot lose my way…” and finally when John and is sister open the room to see the now mad woman: “I’ve got out at last," said I, "in spite of you and Jane. And I've pulled off most of the paper, so you can't put me back!" 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!” (Gilman) The woman lost her mind due to the nature in which she was treated which was quite normal for the time. Surely, Charlotte felt she was quite lucky to have left her husband and disobeyed the physician’s orders. It was only after she left male oppression and continued to write that she started to feel better. She took this lesson as well as her cautionary story of how it could have been and used it to empower women—at times to the opposite extreme. When she was diagnosed with incurable breast cancer, she opted to overdose on chloroform rather than suffer for years. Even her suicide note was supporting her campaigns (specifically the right to death in terminal cases), independence, and beliefs (Simkin). While it is sad what she did, her personal strength in spite of her time is admirable. ------------------------------------------ Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Yellow Wallpaper. Kindle ed. Public Domain Books, 1892. eBook. Simkin, John. "Charlotte Perkins Gilman." Spartacus Educational. Web. 14 Oct 2011. .
For this assignment, the short story “The Masque of the Red Death” by Edgar Allen Poe is being deconstructed using the critical methods Historical and Biographical Criticism. Using this method, there are a number of clear connections between the author’s life, history, and the short story. Using a combination of Biographical Criticism and Marxist Criticism, we also find that although Poe was poor all his life, and actually advocated for higher wages (Poe’s life), he wrote a story about a rich Prince who could not escape what had been tormenting Poe all his life. Through deconstruction this text, we see that this short stories holds very strong historical and life connections to the author during the 1800’s, the time in which the story was written. In Edgar Allen Poe’s “Masque of the Red Death”, the main character, Prince Prospero, decides to lock himself in one of his “castellated abbeys” (Poe) along with a thousand of his friends. The events that fostered such a decision dealt with the “Red Death” that was spreading throughout the country like wildfire. Prince Prospero had come to the conclusion to let “the external world take care of itself” (Poe). Meanwhile, he and his friends would celebrate life without fear of contracting this horrible disease that had plagued his land. Despite the fact that Prince Prospero had locked himself and his friends in his “castellated abbey” (Poe), the “Red Death” was the cause of everyone’s demise. The “Red Death” could easily be considered a fictitious disease. Taking a closer look at what was happening during this time however, we find that Tuberculosis killed more people than any other disease in the 19th Century. Towards the late 19th Century, up to 90% of people in Europe and North America were infected with the disease, and about 80% of those people died from it. (Tuberculosis, n.d) Tuberculosis is an airborne disease, and it can only be spread by people who already have it in their lungs (TB Alert, 2005). Despite the fact that Prince Prospero had locked himself away, the disease was still able to reach him, most likely because it was airborne. According to TB Alert, to contract Tuberculosis from someone you have to have very close daily contact with someone who has the disease. This also goes along with the story because Prince Prospero and his friends were locked together for months. The most common symptom of Tuberculosis is coughing, according to TB Alert. In the later stages of the disease, the patient coughs up blood and this is a sign that they are dying. This may be the reason why the short story is named as it is. When red is seen, death will surely follow. Since “Masque of the Red Death was published in 1842, one would find it surprising that Poe’s young wife Virginia contracted Tuberculosis the very same year, and died in 1847 (Poe’s Life, n.d.). Another surprising fact is that Poe’s mother, brother, and foster mother had already died from this disease (Poe’s Life, n.d.). This shows a clear connection to Poe’s personal life, and a reason for him to write the story. Poe moved a lot during his life time, and regardless of that fact, this disease took everything from him. He may have written the story as a warning. No matter what material items you have, or how far away you remove yourself, it will always find you.
Although this short story is relatively short, most of it is used to describe the extravagances Prince Prospero’s money can afford. Poe goes into detail about the ballet dancers the Prince has hired to entertain him and his friends, the band that plays at all the parties, the different colors that envelope each room, and the ebony clock that counts down their demise. Poe himself was relatively poor all his life and he was “a champion for the cause of higher wages for writers” (Poe’s Life). Using Marxist Criticism, one can assume that although Poe was part of an oppressed society for most of his life, he used this story to show that the elite can suffer as well. Connecting this to Historical Criticism as well, Tuberculosis “was also considered to be a sign of poverty” (Tuberculosis, n.d.). This can be another reason why Poe made this short story about a Prince, once again to show that it can affect anyone. Using the critical method, Historical Criticism, Biographical Criticism and Marxist Criticism, the reader is allowed to make connections to time periods, the author’s personal life, and perhaps hidden motives in writing about a prince. Edgar Allan Poe was one of the greatest writers of his time, his stories being full of mystery and death. It is surprising to realize that maybe his stories were just outlets for him to express feelings about what was going on in his life and not just his imagination, as it is believed.
Fisher, B. F., IV (2011, June 2). Edgar Allan Poe (1809–1849). Retrieved READ_DATE, from Encyclopedia Virginia: http://www.EncyclopediaVirginia.org/Poe_Edgar_Allan_1809-1849. Pforzheimer, C. (n.d.). Tuberculosis in europe and north america, 1800-1922. Contagion: Historical Views of Disease and Epidemics, Retrieved from http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/tuberculosis.html Poe, E. A. (n.d.). The masque of the red death. Retrieved from http://www.online-literature.com/poe/36/ Poe's life: Who is edgar allan poe?. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.poemuseum.org/life.php Tb alert: Frequently asked questions. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.tbalert.org/general/faq.php
Marxist Critical Theory and The Hunger Games The Hunger Games, a trilogy by Suzanne Collins, is a series of books depicting an extreme world where society has been polarized into the “haves”—the rich—and the “have nots”—the poor workers. This series is a perfect example of the socialist revolution prophesied by Karl Marx; through the three books, the reader gets to watch the peak of capitalism, the rebellion raised by the workers, and the final outcome of a more peaceful—and possibly socialist—society. I will briefly examine the workings of this transition through the critical method known as Marxist criticism, a style of literary criticism where the critic examines the class differences illustrated within the work, the conflict between the oppressing entity and the oppressed, and whether the work is a reflection of the state of society outside of the text. Immediately upon starting the first book, the reader is thrown into a world that is capitalist to a shocking extreme. The world of the Hunger Games, obviously based on the United States through its reference to Appalachia, has been divided into thirteen sections known as “districts”; twelve of these districts work hard under terrible conditions so the people of the Capitol have all the resources they need to live in luxury. The Capitol is the highest power in the land, controlling all of the districts through a police force known as “Peacekepers” who are allowed to use violence whenever and however they like to uphold the “peace.” The mysterious thirteenth district has apparently been wiped out for disobedience by the forces of the Capitol. Most of the twelve working districts are desperately overworked and are forced to live on rations while the Capitol thrives (a select one or two other districts are provided small luxuries for their proximity to the Capitol). Right away, one sees similarities between the Hunger Games world and the polarized society of Marx’s theories. The Capitol is the bourgeoisie, or the money owners, while the districts are the proletariat, or the working class. In this case, the proletariat has been viciously exploited; however, with the introduction of Katniss, the protagonist of the trilogy, the reader sees a spark of hope for the working class. Katniss is a headstrong girl driven by the need to right the wrongs of the Capitol—she is the catalyst that will ultimately bring the uprising of the oppressed against the oppressor. She states in the third book, Mockingjay, “The Capitol’s fragile because it depends on the districts for everything… If we declare our freedom, the Capitol collapses” (169). This is true of any capitalist society—if the workers stop working no goods are made, and the upper class suffers. The world of the Hunger Games does eventually reach a place where there is no higher class or oppressor; each district has its own special resources (which is why the Capitol was exploiting them in the first place) that are now spread equally through all the districts. It was a long road to get to this point, however; many lives were lost during the war against the Capitol, though the final outcome of a peaceful and respectable world seems to be worth all the sacrifices. This is Marx’s final prediction: once capitalism has been overthrown, society will settle down into socialism and all major conflict will cease.
As was previously mentioned, it is clear that the Hunger Games setting is modeled after the United States. However, there is more of a similarity between America and the Hunger Games than geography. The author of the book has modeled the society in the text after real-world culture, admittedly with some exaggeration. In the book, the entire point of the Hunger Games is people of all ages are thrown into a Colosseum-esque setting and must kill the other contestants before they are killed themselves, purely for the entertainment of the Capitol. It is true that here in America people are not literally thrown into a ring and told to fight to the death, but is that not the state of the U.S. in metaphor? America throws its children into schools and tells them to duke it out; the best go on to college and get scholarships to help pave the way to a job. College is a whole new level of competition; one has to do well in college to get a high-paying job, and the application process to different jobs is a battle all its own. It might as well be a fight to the death, since without a job—especially one with medical insurance—one’s quality of life decreases tremendously. The Hunger Games merely shows the truth of America through a fantastic three-book exaggeration. So, is Collins warning the United States of what will happen if it continues to take power from the working and middle classes? Today we see the government and its officials, whom citizens are trusting to take care of their beloved country, taking advantage of its constituents and blatantly ignoring the Constitution to hoard more and more power. It is hard to predict exactly what will happen; only time will tell if America will follow the path of The Hunger Games or right itself before the tension explodes into a second civil war. The Hunger Games is a series that is fueled powerfully by Marxist ideas. It shows the conflict of the bourgeoisie versus the proletariat to an extreme, as well as the events that lead up to the final settling into socialism as Marx predicted. It is possible that this trilogy is meant to model the capitalist United States and warn it of its shortcomings and the consequences of its greed. There is no doubt that The Hunger Games holds a strong political message within its pages, though whether real events will play out similarly leaves to be seen.
Collins, Suzanne. Catching Fire. New York: Scholastic, 2009. Print.
Collins, Suzanne. Mockingjay. New York: Scholastic, 2010. Print.
Collins, Suzanne. The Hunger Games. New York: Scholastic, 2008. Print.
Nationalism and Women in Joyce’s Dubliners At the turn of the twentieth century, a surge in the nationalist movement in Ireland resulted in the expansion of a working, middle class and a change in the perceived roles of women in society. James Joyce accurately depicted this change in cultural dynamics, even though his portrayal of women in his collection of short stories, Dubliners has been criticized as anti-feminist and contemptuous of women (Brown 89). Such accusations stem from his placement of women in secondary roles to their male counterparts, as well as in vocations that allowed women little, if any, independence or hope of self-motivated upward social mobility. Although James Joyce’s Dubliners does not present a flattering depiction of women, his self-termed “scrupulous meanness” and realistic style reveal the actual social disadvantages imposed upon women by Irish nationalism. James Joyce’s short stories were published in the early twentieth century when a new wave of nationalist propaganda surfaced and reshaped Irish female gender roles. In the nationalist publication, Sinn Fein, the writers proclaimed that “housework was ‘a step in nation building,’” and Joanna Bourke cited a column directed towards women that said, “No Irishwoman can afford to claim a part in the public duties of patriotism until she has fully satisfied the claims her ‘home’ makes on her” (Kelly 371-372). This new standard emerged as the nationalist campaign urged middle-class men to get married and encouraged the women to stay home and tend to the house. According to a study by Joanna Bourke, “The propaganda of the British state and of both the nationalist and unionist causes divided and gendered the public and private spheres” (Kelly 371). More specifically, Bourke argues that a “broad-based ideological campaign in the 1890s and early 1900s supported this shift towards unpaid, home employment” (Kelly 371). This concept prevented women from earning decent wages and made them dependent upon their husbands. Unfortunately for many women, the poor economy prevented many from getting married, resulting in the increase of “working celibates” (Kelly 371). The women who did not conform to the role of the housewife were expected to find some employment, but their options were few and far between. These working celibates appear throughout Dubliners, but the most unusual is Maria of “Clay.” Maria, one of the few female protagonists, is working for small wages at “Dublin by Lamplight laundry” (Joyce 83). Maria’s tale revolves around a Hallows Eve tradition in which the player’s fortune is told through the selection of one of several objects. Women that she cares for at the home say, “She’s sure to get the ring” – meaning that there will be a marriage in her future (Joyce 84). However, among the other options are church service and death. As the title suggests, Maria chooses clay, foretelling the latter of the two.
The meager number of possible outcomes demonstrate how limited the opportunities were for women at this time. Throughout the story, there are situations in which the women that Maria encounters suggest the favorability of marriage. When purchasing cakes for her great-nieces and nephews, she was originally asked, “was it a weddingcake she wanted to buy” (Joyce 85). While playing the game with the young girls at the party, one of them actually got the ring, and “Mrs. Donnelly shook her finger at the blushing girl as much as to say O, I know all about it!” (Joyce 87-88). The ring is mentioned consistently throughout the text, hinting at its desirability and suggesting the best possible future for many of these young girls depended upon their marriage to a man that could support them. This was not an uncommon belief in early twentieth century Ireland, where “nationalist representations of Ireland as a victimized woman popularized an ideal of femininity predicated on women’s passivity, including their dependence on male rescuer figures” (Morgan 450). By presenting Maria’s limited options and the societal predisposition towards marriage, Joyce implicates the necessity of a “male rescuer” that was propagated by Irish nationalists. “Male rescuer figures” did not only come in the form of husbands, as Maria’s case explains that she had a nephew who was willing to support her. Even though Maria declined his offer, Bourke explains the instability of her situation thus: “the unmarried elderly woman without a kinship network – especially without a network of unmarried brothers or uncles – was vulnerable” (Kelly 376). This statement can be further applied to other women in Dubliners, including Lily and the Flynn sisters. Gabriel Conroy says to Lily, the maid at the Morkan sister’s house, “I suppose we’ll be going to your wedding one of these fine days with your young man, eh?” (Joyce 154). Richard Brown characterizes Gabriel’s attitude towards Lily as “patronizing,” suggesting his own underestimation of his aunts’ maid. It’s almost as if he expects Lily to improve her situation through a “rescue” marriage, but he is surprised by the “forwardness and self-possession of her manner” (Brown 92-93). While Gabriel does not subscribe to nationalist doctrine in the text, his expectations regarding the roles of women suggest the incontrovertible influence of the movement. Molly Ivors in “The Dead” provides a stark contrast to the other female characters. Ivors is an educated, female nationalist, and yet her behavior contradicts the “new nationalist standards of decorum” (Morgan 457). “Nationalist standards of decorum” relate to the passive, helpless female image often depicted in nationalist propaganda (Morgan 450). These standards would further confine Molly to “unpaid, home employment” but she is actually Gabriel’s equal as a teacher and refuses to be dependent upon men (Kelly 371). She insists on walking home by herself, saying, “I’m quite well able to take care of myself” (Joyce 170) and accuses Gabriel of being a “west Briton” (Joyce 163).
It is clear that Gabriel is unnerved by her even though their “careers had been parallel, first at the university and then as teachers, he could not risk a grandiose phrase with her” (Joyce 163). Florence Walzl argues that Gabriel is wary of his colleague because “she is his professional equal” (Walzl 40), and his relief at her absence is mentioned when he rises to give his speech (Joyce 177). In his speech, he also makes condescending remarks that are supposedly directed toward her, implying the outlandish behavior of a “new generation, educated or hypereducated as it is” (Joyce 177). The satirical nature of Gabriel’s speech, as well as that of Ivors’s character, suggests the ridiculous nature of the nationalist movement. Molly Ivors is enthusiastic about the movement and preserving all things Irish, but she is a contradiction of nationalist ideals because she is a woman. Is it Molly’s gender that makes her “hypereducated,” or is it her advocacy of the nationalist movement? Joyce’s short stories reveal the “divided and gendered” middle class that resulted from the nationalist movement (Kelly 371). The women of the middle class were encouraged to pursue housework and have a secondary role in what Joyce would term “public life.” Although many of Joyce’s women are able to take care of themselves, the social restrictions placed on women through the nationalist movement prevented them from reaching their full potential and made them dependent upon “male rescuer figures.” Their social progress was further impaired by nationalism’s representations of women as “victims” and passive individuals, reliant upon the aid of a man. Works Cited Brown, Richard. James Joyce and Sexuality. Cambridge Cambridgeshire: Cambridge UP, 1985. Print. Joyce, James, and Margot Norris. Dubliners: Authoritative Text, Contexts, Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006. Print. Kelly, Joseph. "Joyce's Marriage Cycle." Studies In Short Fiction 32.3 (1995): 367. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. Morgan, Eileen. "Mapping Out A Landscape Of Female Suffering: Edna O'brien's Demythologizing Novels." Women's Studies 29.4 (2000): 449. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. Walzl, Florence L. "Dubliners: Women in Irish Society." Women in Joyce. Ed. Suzette A. Henke and Elaine Unkeless. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1982. 31-56. Print.
The War within America: An Analysis of “Lift Every Voice and Sing” America has always prided itself on being a democracy, a place where everyone has the rights of life, liberty, and property. The Founding Fathers of America included this in the Declaration of Independence, making it an important foundation of the United States of America. Historically, however, this has not held true to most people in this country, as their rights were denied and they were unable to make personal decisions or have any form of power. Women and “black” American’s had their rights suppressed from the beginning, and this is often times overlooked as America celebrates the present times of equality. Poetry enables one to feel the struggles that some American’s once felt as they struggled to obtain their basic rights. The poem “Lift Every Voice and Sing” by James Weldon Johnson exemplifies the struggles that black American’s suffered and the desire these American citizens had for their rights. History can be embedded within literature due to the fact that the writer is personally living that history. James Weldon Johnson lived from 1871-1938, which was a period in which black American’s were not given their basic human rights in America. Although Johnson grew up in an area where black American’s were accepted to some extent, it is important to note that Weldon was involved in the Civil Rights movement in America and therefore held strong opinions toward the suppression of basic human rights. Johnson’s mother was the first black female school teacher, and Johnson graduated from the school where his mother taught (University of South Carolina). Johnson later became a principal at this school, where his goal was to educate black adults in the community (University of South Carolina). The life of Johnson clearly shows his determination for success and his dedication to the advancement of black American’s in America. The poem “Lift Every Voice and Sing” epitomizes the feelings held by so many people during a time in American history when a “democracy” was not a “democracy,” by definition. In lines 7-10, “Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us, Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us; Facing the rising of our new day begun, Let us march on till victory is won,” (Johnson) one can feel a sense of war. This war is actually the fight for equality among black American’s during this time in American history. The “dark past” refers to the inequality that these American citizens have suffered throughout their lives and that late ancestors suffered as well. The “rising of our new day begun” defines the continuous struggle that these American’s have fought to receive what is rightfully theirs. The “victory” is the rights of an American that these people are fighting, or “marching” towards.
In the next stanza, there is a continued feeling of struggle. Line’s 11-13 read, “Stony the road we trod/Bitter the chast’ning rod/Felt I the days when hope unborn had died,” (Johnson). The word “stony” gives a sense of roughness and pain. The phrase “hope unborn had died” refers to the fact that these black American’s never even had the right to freedom and equality, therefore meaning there right was taken away before it was even present. The following lines, “Have not our weary feet/Come to the place for which our father sighed,” (Johnson, 15-16) explain the anguish which these citizens are feeling. Their fathers came to America, a democracy, and yet they are unable to live free or equal to their white counterparts. Why is this so? These members of America have fought long and hard to earn their rights which, under a democracy, are supposedly promised to them. The rest of stanza two reads, “We have come over a way that with tears has been watered, We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered, Out from the gloomy past, Till not we stand at last, Where the white gleam of our bright star is cast,” (Johnson, 17-21). “Tears has been watered” reveals a sense of sadness, gloom, and depression. Families have shed so many tears throughout history because of unfair treatment. The defense for this unfair treatment at this time in history was based solely on skin color. Almost all American’s were immigrants at one point, all different than each other, yet black American’s were singled out due to the color of their skin. Black American’s were killed fighting for their rights, whether it be that they were wrongly accused of a crime and therefore executed or whether they were treated unfairly by someone else or whether they were solely fighting for their rights and were killed by a white man, these black American’s were targets for death. These fighters are continuing their fight until the battle for freedom and equality is won. The last stanza of this poem is similar to a religious prayer. The first six lines of this stanza refer to God and the will of God to help these individuals continue to fight for what is theirs. These individuals who are fighting believe they have been put on a certain path in order to obtain what is rightfully theirs, their God-given rights. The last four lines of the poem read, “Shadowed beneath Thy hand, May we forever stand, True to our God, True to our native land,” (Johnson, 30-33). These lines indicate a sense of patriotism towards the United States, which is bold considering that black American’s were fighting against the restrictions placed upon them in the United States. Although black American’s were being suppressed and treated unequally in America, America was their homeland, and they respect the country for this reason. In order to understand the meaning behind this poem, one must uncover the history that surrounded it. Because Johnson was involved in the Civil Rights movement throughout his life, it is reasonable to conclude that this poem reflects the struggle that Johnson and many others faced in history. Without historical background, one may interpret this poem to be about a war, maybe the Civil War or another war of significance. Historical information embeds itself within literature, which is why one can see the meaning of this poem. Without history, this piece may not hold the meaning to the reader that it once held to the author or that it once held in history.
Johnson, J. W. (1900). Lift every voice and sing. Retrieved from http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/lift-every-voice-and-sing/ University of South Carolina. (n.d.). University of South Carolina libraries rare and special collections. Retrieved from http://library.sc.edu/spcoll/amlit/johnson/johnson1.html
Mini Critique of “The Fields of Athenry” Using Historical Criticism An excellent case of historical struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat, tradition, literary history, epochal context, and the oppression of the subaltern is Pete St. John’s song “The Fields of Athenry”. The song was written in the 1970s. It reminisces about the historic Great Famine (between 1845 and 1850). The struggles and dilemmas of the poorer people in Ireland during this time are depicted by St. John (a Dubliner himself) in small detail but with great force. The images and emotions played out are indicative of the importance of Irish ethnic and cultural identity both of the author and characters in the song. The imperative historical context of the relationship between Britain and Ireland are also important to consider when criticizing “The Fields of Athenry”. The song starts out with lyrics about a man named Michael, who is in prison for stealing corn for his starving family. He is forced into doing so because the Famine prevents him from providing for his family by his own severely limited means. Because of his theft, he is awaiting a prison ship to ship him to Botany Bay, Australia, as the English justice system dictates. His wife, Mary, narrates the first verse establishing these unfortunate facts. The second verse is narrated by the incarcerated Michael. Michael laments the occasion and the predicament he finds himself trapped in. The lines he narrates are
Nothing matters, Mary, when you’re free Against the Famine and the Crown I rebelled they cut me down Now you must raise our child with dignity Michael is evidently in a struggle against the ruling classes – namely, the British Crown, government and the aristocracy. Specifically, the song references Michael’s stealing “Trevelyan’s corn”. This is a reference to Charles Edward Trevelyan. Trevelyan was a British colonial administrator charged with assisting Ireland with food during the Great Famine (bbc.co.uk). Trevelyan believed that the Irish could subsist on corn, which was, of course, not the staple crop of Ireland. So, while the colonial power of England administered corn for the relief of Ireland, the Irish people knew very little about the crop. Here, in this verse, there are evident Marxist underpinnings of the subjugation of Ireland by the ignorant colonial powers of England. England evidently does not fully understand the situation of the people of Ireland. This is a significant example of fruitless colonial influence that pervades Irish literature (as well as much postcolonial literature). Here is a particular example that is, in Foucaultean terms, an episteme. Listeners here can see moments such as the corn stealing as being a small but immensely important example of a specific moment in time in the relationship between Ireland and England. The well-intentioned, but nonetheless misguided, administering of corn is part of a vast system of misunderstandings between the two national entities.
What is also interesting to note is that the speaker of the song is neither Mary nor Michael. Rather, it is an unknown person who simply refers to him- or herself as “I”. The listeners may think of this third person as either an unknown speaker, St. John, or an implied author. The implied author here hears the voices of the lovers through “lonely prison wall[s]”. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that the speaker of this song is another prisoner awaiting trial or shipment to Botany Bay. This adds an immensely personal feel to the song, as the speaker is probably going through an experience of equal or greater pain than Michael and Mary. Since the song is so personal, it adds a dimension to the tragedy and sadness experienced by the Irish people during the Great Famine. This is important because of the oftentimes rather impersonal feel of textbook readings of the time period. Pete St. John is also a native of Ireland. Since he is a Dubliner, he has identifies personally and intimately with the plight of his ancestors. Writing in the 1970s, though, is significant. The culture of the 1970s was that of rebellion and revolt against the established authority. This is especially evident in the music culture of the era. St. John is a musician, and so he must have been allured to this movement of cultural insurrection. However, what is interesting to note here is that St. John wrote a song about rebellion against the order by necessary stealing (due to circumstances). He realizes, though, that rebelling does not always have a positive, liberating side to it sometimes. In cases such as this, rebelling against the authority has led to prison and separation from loved ones – even half a globe away. St. John is not advocating blind conformance to governmental authority, though. Rather, he is suggesting the government is unjust and does not help when the people need it most. When someone like Michael is driven to steal or face the alternative of starving, he naturally chooses to try and live. The government, though, crushes his aspirations to live, though, and strips him of his freedom. In “The Fields of Athenry”, St. John is embracing the dangers of rebellion, but also establishes the justification for it. He is a product of the culture of his day. As such, St. John discredits both the governments of the distant past and the present day, and maintains that their practices of injustices are consistent.
Works Cited "BBC History." BBC.org. BBC , 2012. Web. 6 Feb 2012. . (2009). The fields of athenry (lyrics). (2009). [Print Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1rzSSMsac
Marxist Critiqe: Animal Farm One of George Orwell’s most famous works is Animal Farm. Created at the tail end of World War II in England of 1945, it was written to warn people of Stalinism and expose the dangers of Totalitarianism (Orwell xix). Its characters reflect several important personalities at the time, and most of its content and character actions reflect Marxist ideas. The character of Old Major is described as “stout… but still a majestic looking pig” (1-2) who, “understand[s] the nature of life on this earth as well as any animal now living” (4). Old Major represents the ideas of Karl Marx, the original creator of Communism in its purest and best intended form. In the first part of the story, Old Major calls the animals of the farm to a meeting and speaks about rebellion and revolution against the humans, and embracing “Animalism” or the idea that humans are enemies and all animals are equal (13). This is very similar to Marx’s ideas about collective effort and rejection of the class and capitalist systems. Another character is Mr. Jones, the farm caretaker. He is ruthless, always drunk, and negligent of the farm animals. He rations the animals’ food and treats them poorly. This leads the animals to a revolt by the animals later in the novel, as encouraged by Old Major’s successors: Snowball and Napoleon, two pigs who make the ideals of Animalism concrete in “The Seven Commandments of Animalism” and later on fight for the top ruling position on the farm (19). Mr. Jones represents the higher ruling class of society, mainly the owners of big industry and the government that employ the lower working class, practice exploitation, and give low wages to their workers. Mr. Jones is pictured as “drunken and lousy at his job” and shows how the higher class throws their money away on luxury and barely do anything to compensate for their workers’ hard labor (1). The employers do what they can to keep their profit to themselves and release only a little to wages, thus making it hard for workers to fend for themselves, much like the animals of the farm. With the death of Old Major just days after the first meeting at the barn, Napoleon and Snowball take it upon themselves to take over the governing of the animals. They create and post seven commandments under Animalism:
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. 2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend. 3. No animal shall sleep in a bed [with sheets]. 4. No animal shall wear clothes. 5. No animals shall drink alcohol [in excess]. 6. No animal shall kill any other animal [without cause]. 7. All animals are equal. (20, 57, 91,77) Eventually, the pigs encourage the other animals to continue Old Major’s legacy and overthrow Mr. Jones’ reign. This is “The Battle of Cowshed” (36). They drive out Mr. Jones, injuring him and running him out of the farm. A sheep dies in battle, and it gets a hero’s burial. Boxer and Snowball each receive medallions engraved: “Animal Hero: first class” (55). The animals eventually discover Mr. Jones’ gun, which he has dropped in the mud. They place the gun by the flagpole and agree to fire it on the anniversary of the rebellion. The gun represents a successful but violent way of overthrowing Mr. Jones. This is contradictory to Marx/Old Major’s teachings that the revolution is to be accomplished with integrity, virtue, and instinctive resolve. Soon after this, Napoleon and Snowball rise to power, with the animals entrusting them with the power to ratify laws and proposed during the meetings in the barn. Napoleon is presented as a corrupt character, never contributing much to the revolution. He attends the meetings but does not contribute to them. Napoleon represents the political tyrants that have emerged throughout human history and with particular frequency. Snowball is a character truly dedicated to Animalism. This, however, leads to his downfall because he is no match for Napoleon’s use of brute force. He may have used his intelligence and logic to gain loyalty, but this changed when he is driven out of the farm by Squealer’s black propaganda against him. This piece has so much to think about in it, but the main question that Orwell and Marxism ask is: why did Animalism fail? During a first brief reading, one would think that totalitarianism is inevitable and that social classes are deeply rooted in society so much that they cannot be pulled up, but when looking deeper, the animals actually did get what they wanted. Old Major gathers the animals to revolt and free themselves from the humans, and this was achieved with the “dethroning” of Mr. Jones. The animals being freed, they are too incompetent in making a true equality amongst themselves, and they are therefore unable to prevent a new regime of oppression. This is reflective of how there is no genuine classless society today, and all attempts to have this have failed. Eventually, Napoleon opens the farm to trade with humans, with Squealer making excuses for his actions. Trade with humans and the use of money was something that Old Major had always contradicted. This is a clear deviation to Animalism. Again, the animals respond lightly, believing what the pigs say because they are too blind to understand and think they should work for the pigs. The book ends with Napoleon and a human fighting over a poker game. The animals stare at Napoleon in disbelief as the light reveals that his face has changed, and that he looks much like a human; they realize that there is no difference between Napoleon and the humans at all, and that they are not really free from that power: “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which” (112).
The Yellow Wallpaper
ReplyDeleteCharlotte Perkins Gilman was more than a writer. She was an advocate for feminism and social reform in an era that was stifling for any woman much less an outspoken one seeking to change the status quo. She wrote from examples in her own life that showed the lack of equality in society—particularly focused on marriages—and the horrifying methods of “treatment” for the mentally ill in the early 20th century. The Yellow Wallpaper, a pseudo-autobiography, showed in glaring detail the injustices suffered by women and the ill. It has been called a gothic comedy and a horror story but the real horror is that her writing is a reflection on real life.
Charlotte was born in Hartford, Connecticut on the 3rd of July in 1860. After being abandoned by her father, her family led an early life of poverty. However, they were rich in strong and intelligent women including her aunt Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin. In 1884, she married the artist Charles Walter Stetson (Simkin). This marriage marked the start of her mental deterioration, very much like that she wrote of in her famous short story, and where facts of her life and the fiction of the story start to blur.
The Yellow Wallpaper begins with an unnamed young bride who was diagnosed with “a slight hysterical tendency” (Gilman) shortly after her child was born. They have vacationed to a remote house where the narrator can rest in the way prescribe to her for her female hysteria. She is to refrain from “mental excursion” and all forms of creativity while residing almost entirely in a single room in the country. The narrator disagrees with this method and secretly continues to keep a journal that she hides from her husband. It is through this device that we follow the first-person story.
All of this was experienced by Charlotte personally who developed a serious case of postpartum psychosis in addition to the strain and depression she felt in her marriage. In the beginning of the piece, the narrator is coherent and seems to be aware of the unfairness in the way she is treated. She describes how her no-nonsense husband laughs at her but dismisses this as just another part of marriage. Even though she disagrees with her husband and the other men in her life she writes:
John is a physician, and PERHAPS—(I would not say it to a living soul, of course, but this is dead paper and a great relief to my mind)—PERHAPS that is one reason I do not get well faster. You see he does not believe I am sick! And what can one do? If a physician of high standing, and one's own husband, assures friends and relatives that there is really nothing the matter with one but temporary nervous depression—a slight hysterical tendency—what is one to do? My brother is also a physician, and also of high standing, and he says the same thing. So I take phosphates or phosphites—whichever it is, and tonics, and journeys, and air, and exercise, and am absolutely forbidden to "work" until I am well again. Personally, I disagree with their ideas. Personally, I believe that congenial work, with excitement and change, would do me good. what is one to do? I did write for a while in spite of them; but it DOES exhaust me a good deal—having to be so sly about it, or else meet with heavy opposition. I sometimes fancy that my condition if I had less opposition and more society and stimulus—but John says the very worst thing I can do is to think about my condition, and I confess it always makes me feel bad. (Gilman)
ReplyDeleteThis passage shows many things. One is that the narrator is obviously an intelligent woman who writes well and though she accepts the injustices, she at least sees them. Another is the social standard of the time; women with mental illness could simply be dismissed as weak and hysterical leading John and the other men to patronize her. This leads to the final thought in which it seems that their lack of understanding or care of her condition is to fault for her later complete mental break. All of this was true of the time period and it would take women like Charlotte to change.
In the country estate, the narrator is exiled to the former nursery which is far separated from everyone else which should help her refrain from mental and physical activity. It is not only cruel to confine the narrator the nursery while depriving her from the ability to care for her own child, but it also shows how she is considered little more than a child in her own life. Locked away in the nursery, her mental state only continues to slip away and, having nothing else to focus upon, she stares at the yellow wallpapering in the room.
As the story goes on, the tone and writing style becomes more erratic and even a bit more juvenile as she starts to see and then obsess about the image of a woman in the patterns of the wallpaper. Her sentences become brief and she sees less of a point in writing any more. It could be the woman she sees in the paper is the woman within her that is disappearing under the oppressive care.
She is angry when other look at it and suspects foul play when John’s sister so much as touches it as the narrator is insistent that she be the one to solve the puzzle she believes is locked in the paper. “Life is very much more exciting now than it used to be. You see I have something more to expect, to look forward to, to watch. I really do eat better, and am more quiet than I was.” (Gilman). Of course society knows now that these are not signs of getting better, but it was what was considered healthy for a woman.
Finally the narrator starts to lose memories. She wonders where the “SMOOCH” low on the wall came from which we later learn it is from her circling around and around the room. She now sees the woman in the wallpaper shake the pattern as if it is a jail and she is wishing to be free—a reflection of the narrator and, indeed, Charlotte herself. She rips away all the paper, “freeing” all the women behind it…but she now believes herself to be one of them. “I wonder if they all come out of that wall-paper as I did... But here I can creep smoothly on the floor, and my shoulder just fits in that long smooch around the wall, so I cannot lose my way…” and finally when John and is sister open the room to see the now mad woman: “I’ve got out at last," said I, "in spite of you and Jane. And I've pulled off most of the paper, so you can't put me back!" 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!” (Gilman)
ReplyDeleteThe woman lost her mind due to the nature in which she was treated which was quite normal for the time. Surely, Charlotte felt she was quite lucky to have left her husband and disobeyed the physician’s orders. It was only after she left male oppression and continued to write that she started to feel better. She took this lesson as well as her cautionary story of how it could have been and used it to empower women—at times to the opposite extreme. When she was diagnosed with incurable breast cancer, she opted to overdose on chloroform rather than suffer for years. Even her suicide note was supporting her campaigns (specifically the right to death in terminal cases), independence, and beliefs (Simkin). While it is sad what she did, her personal strength in spite of her time is admirable.
------------------------------------------
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Yellow Wallpaper. Kindle ed. Public Domain Books, 1892. eBook.
Simkin, John. "Charlotte Perkins Gilman." Spartacus Educational. Web. 14 Oct 2011. .
For this assignment, the short story “The Masque of the Red Death” by Edgar Allen Poe is being deconstructed using the critical methods Historical and Biographical Criticism. Using this method, there are a number of clear connections between the author’s life, history, and the short story. Using a combination of Biographical Criticism and Marxist Criticism, we also find that although Poe was poor all his life, and actually advocated for higher wages (Poe’s life), he wrote a story about a rich Prince who could not escape what had been tormenting Poe all his life. Through deconstruction this text, we see that this short stories holds very strong historical and life connections to the author during the 1800’s, the time in which the story was written.
ReplyDeleteIn Edgar Allen Poe’s “Masque of the Red Death”, the main character, Prince Prospero, decides to lock himself in one of his “castellated abbeys” (Poe) along with a thousand of his friends. The events that fostered such a decision dealt with the “Red Death” that was spreading throughout the country like wildfire. Prince Prospero had come to the conclusion to let “the external world take care of itself” (Poe). Meanwhile, he and his friends would celebrate life without fear of contracting this horrible disease that had plagued his land. Despite the fact that Prince Prospero had locked himself and his friends in his “castellated abbey” (Poe), the “Red Death” was the cause of everyone’s demise.
The “Red Death” could easily be considered a fictitious disease. Taking a closer look at what was happening during this time however, we find that Tuberculosis killed more people than any other disease in the 19th Century. Towards the late 19th Century, up to 90% of people in Europe and North America were infected with the disease, and about 80% of those people died from it. (Tuberculosis, n.d) Tuberculosis is an airborne disease, and it can only be spread by people who already have it in their lungs (TB Alert, 2005). Despite the fact that Prince Prospero had locked himself away, the disease was still able to reach him, most likely because it was airborne. According to TB Alert, to contract Tuberculosis from someone you have to have very close daily contact with someone who has the disease. This also goes along with the story because Prince Prospero and his friends were locked together for months. The most common symptom of Tuberculosis is coughing, according to TB Alert. In the later stages of the disease, the patient coughs up blood and this is a sign that they are dying. This may be the reason why the short story is named as it is. When red is seen, death will surely follow.
Since “Masque of the Red Death was published in 1842, one would find it surprising that Poe’s young wife Virginia contracted Tuberculosis the very same year, and died in 1847 (Poe’s Life, n.d.). Another surprising fact is that Poe’s mother, brother, and foster mother had already died from this disease (Poe’s Life, n.d.). This shows a clear connection to Poe’s personal life, and a reason for him to write the story. Poe moved a lot during his life time, and regardless of that fact, this disease took everything from him. He may have written the story as a warning. No matter what material items you have, or how far away you remove yourself, it will always find you.
Although this short story is relatively short, most of it is used to describe the extravagances Prince Prospero’s money can afford. Poe goes into detail about the ballet dancers the Prince has hired to entertain him and his friends, the band that plays at all the parties, the different colors that envelope each room, and the ebony clock that counts down their demise. Poe himself was relatively poor all his life and he was “a champion for the cause of higher wages for writers” (Poe’s Life). Using Marxist Criticism, one can assume that although Poe was part of an oppressed society for most of his life, he used this story to show that the elite can suffer as well. Connecting this to Historical Criticism as well, Tuberculosis “was also considered to be a sign of poverty” (Tuberculosis, n.d.). This can be another reason why Poe made this short story about a Prince, once again to show that it can affect anyone.
ReplyDeleteUsing the critical method, Historical Criticism, Biographical Criticism and Marxist Criticism, the reader is allowed to make connections to time periods, the author’s personal life, and perhaps hidden motives in writing about a prince. Edgar Allan Poe was one of the greatest writers of his time, his stories being full of mystery and death. It is surprising to realize that maybe his stories were just outlets for him to express feelings about what was going on in his life and not just his imagination, as it is believed.
Fisher, B. F., IV (2011, June 2). Edgar Allan Poe (1809–1849). Retrieved READ_DATE, from Encyclopedia Virginia: http://www.EncyclopediaVirginia.org/Poe_Edgar_Allan_1809-1849.
Pforzheimer, C. (n.d.). Tuberculosis in europe and north america, 1800-1922. Contagion: Historical Views of Disease and Epidemics, Retrieved from http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/tuberculosis.html
Poe, E. A. (n.d.). The masque of the red death. Retrieved from http://www.online-literature.com/poe/36/
Poe's life: Who is edgar allan poe?. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.poemuseum.org/life.php
Tb alert: Frequently asked questions. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.tbalert.org/general/faq.php
Marxist Critical Theory and The Hunger Games
ReplyDeleteThe Hunger Games, a trilogy by Suzanne Collins, is a series of books depicting an extreme world where society has been polarized into the “haves”—the rich—and the “have nots”—the poor workers. This series is a perfect example of the socialist revolution prophesied by Karl Marx; through the three books, the reader gets to watch the peak of capitalism, the rebellion raised by the workers, and the final outcome of a more peaceful—and possibly socialist—society. I will briefly examine the workings of this transition through the critical method known as Marxist criticism, a style of literary criticism where the critic examines the class differences illustrated within the work, the conflict between the oppressing entity and the oppressed, and whether the work is a reflection of the state of society outside of the text.
Immediately upon starting the first book, the reader is thrown into a world that is capitalist to a shocking extreme. The world of the Hunger Games, obviously based on the United States through its reference to Appalachia, has been divided into thirteen sections known as “districts”; twelve of these districts work hard under terrible conditions so the people of the Capitol have all the resources they need to live in luxury. The Capitol is the highest power in the land, controlling all of the districts through a police force known as “Peacekepers” who are allowed to use violence whenever and however they like to uphold the “peace.” The mysterious thirteenth district has apparently been wiped out for disobedience by the forces of the Capitol. Most of the twelve working districts are desperately overworked and are forced to live on rations while the Capitol thrives (a select one or two other districts are provided small luxuries for their proximity to the Capitol).
Right away, one sees similarities between the Hunger Games world and the polarized society of Marx’s theories. The Capitol is the bourgeoisie, or the money owners, while the districts are the proletariat, or the working class. In this case, the proletariat has been viciously exploited; however, with the introduction of Katniss, the protagonist of the trilogy, the reader sees a spark of hope for the working class. Katniss is a headstrong girl driven by the need to right the wrongs of the Capitol—she is the catalyst that will ultimately bring the uprising of the oppressed against the oppressor. She states in the third book, Mockingjay, “The Capitol’s fragile because it depends on the districts for everything… If we declare our freedom, the Capitol collapses” (169). This is true of any capitalist society—if the workers stop working no goods are made, and the upper class suffers.
The world of the Hunger Games does eventually reach a place where there is no higher class or oppressor; each district has its own special resources (which is why the Capitol was exploiting them in the first place) that are now spread equally through all the districts. It was a long road to get to this point, however; many lives were lost during the war against the Capitol, though the final outcome of a peaceful and respectable world seems to be worth all the sacrifices. This is Marx’s final prediction: once capitalism has been overthrown, society will settle down into socialism and all major conflict will cease.
As was previously mentioned, it is clear that the Hunger Games setting is modeled after the United States. However, there is more of a similarity between America and the Hunger Games than geography. The author of the book has modeled the society in the text after real-world culture, admittedly with some exaggeration. In the book, the entire point of the Hunger Games is people of all ages are thrown into a Colosseum-esque setting and must kill the other contestants before they are killed themselves, purely for the entertainment of the Capitol. It is true that here in America people are not literally thrown into a ring and told to fight to the death, but is that not the state of the U.S. in metaphor? America throws its children into schools and tells them to duke it out; the best go on to college and get scholarships to help pave the way to a job. College is a whole new level of competition; one has to do well in college to get a high-paying job, and the application process to different jobs is a battle all its own. It might as well be a fight to the death, since without a job—especially one with medical insurance—one’s quality of life decreases tremendously. The Hunger Games merely shows the truth of America through a fantastic three-book exaggeration.
ReplyDeleteSo, is Collins warning the United States of what will happen if it continues to take power from the working and middle classes? Today we see the government and its officials, whom citizens are trusting to take care of their beloved country, taking advantage of its constituents and blatantly ignoring the Constitution to hoard more and more power. It is hard to predict exactly what will happen; only time will tell if America will follow the path of The Hunger Games or right itself before the tension explodes into a second civil war.
The Hunger Games is a series that is fueled powerfully by Marxist ideas. It shows the conflict of the bourgeoisie versus the proletariat to an extreme, as well as the events that lead up to the final settling into socialism as Marx predicted. It is possible that this trilogy is meant to model the capitalist United States and warn it of its shortcomings and the consequences of its greed. There is no doubt that The Hunger Games holds a strong political message within its pages, though whether real events will play out similarly leaves to be seen.
Collins, Suzanne. Catching Fire. New York: Scholastic, 2009. Print.
Collins, Suzanne. Mockingjay. New York: Scholastic, 2010. Print.
Collins, Suzanne. The Hunger Games. New York: Scholastic, 2008. Print.
Nationalism and Women in Joyce’s Dubliners
ReplyDeleteAt the turn of the twentieth century, a surge in the nationalist movement in Ireland resulted in the expansion of a working, middle class and a change in the perceived roles of women in society. James Joyce accurately depicted this change in cultural dynamics, even though his portrayal of women in his collection of short stories, Dubliners has been criticized as anti-feminist and contemptuous of women (Brown 89). Such accusations stem from his placement of women in secondary roles to their male counterparts, as well as in vocations that allowed women little, if any, independence or hope of self-motivated upward social mobility. Although James Joyce’s Dubliners does not present a flattering depiction of women, his self-termed “scrupulous meanness” and realistic style reveal the actual social disadvantages imposed upon women by Irish nationalism.
James Joyce’s short stories were published in the early twentieth century when a new wave of nationalist propaganda surfaced and reshaped Irish female gender roles. In the nationalist publication, Sinn Fein, the writers proclaimed that “housework was ‘a step in nation building,’” and Joanna Bourke cited a column directed towards women that said, “No Irishwoman can afford to claim a part in the public duties of patriotism until she has fully satisfied the claims her ‘home’ makes on her” (Kelly 371-372). This new standard emerged as the nationalist campaign urged middle-class men to get married and encouraged the women to stay home and tend to the house. According to a study by Joanna Bourke, “The propaganda of the British state and of both the nationalist and unionist causes divided and gendered the public and private spheres” (Kelly 371). More specifically, Bourke argues that a “broad-based ideological campaign in the 1890s and early 1900s supported this shift towards unpaid, home employment” (Kelly 371). This concept prevented women from earning decent wages and made them dependent upon their husbands. Unfortunately for many women, the poor economy prevented many from getting married, resulting in the increase of “working celibates” (Kelly 371). The women who did not conform to the role of the housewife were expected to find some employment, but their options were few and far between.
These working celibates appear throughout Dubliners, but the most unusual is Maria of “Clay.” Maria, one of the few female protagonists, is working for small wages at “Dublin by Lamplight laundry” (Joyce 83). Maria’s tale revolves around a Hallows Eve tradition in which the player’s fortune is told through the selection of one of several objects. Women that she cares for at the home say, “She’s sure to get the ring” – meaning that there will be a marriage in her future (Joyce 84). However, among the other options are church service and death. As the title suggests, Maria chooses clay, foretelling the latter of the two.
The meager number of possible outcomes demonstrate how limited the opportunities were for women at this time. Throughout the story, there are situations in which the women that Maria encounters suggest the favorability of marriage. When purchasing cakes for her great-nieces and nephews, she was originally asked, “was it a weddingcake she wanted to buy” (Joyce 85). While playing the game with the young girls at the party, one of them actually got the ring, and “Mrs. Donnelly shook her finger at the blushing girl as much as to say O, I know all about it!” (Joyce 87-88). The ring is mentioned consistently throughout the text, hinting at its desirability and suggesting the best possible future for many of these young girls depended upon their marriage to a man that could support them. This was not an uncommon belief in early twentieth century Ireland, where “nationalist representations of Ireland as a victimized woman popularized an ideal of femininity predicated on women’s passivity, including their dependence on male rescuer figures” (Morgan 450). By presenting Maria’s limited options and the societal predisposition towards marriage, Joyce implicates the necessity of a “male rescuer” that was propagated by Irish nationalists.
ReplyDelete“Male rescuer figures” did not only come in the form of husbands, as Maria’s case explains that she had a nephew who was willing to support her. Even though Maria declined his offer, Bourke explains the instability of her situation thus: “the unmarried elderly woman without a kinship network – especially without a network of unmarried brothers or uncles – was vulnerable” (Kelly 376). This statement can be further applied to other women in Dubliners, including Lily and the Flynn sisters. Gabriel Conroy says to Lily, the maid at the Morkan sister’s house, “I suppose we’ll be going to your wedding one of these fine days with your young man, eh?” (Joyce 154). Richard Brown characterizes Gabriel’s attitude towards Lily as “patronizing,” suggesting his own underestimation of his aunts’ maid. It’s almost as if he expects Lily to improve her situation through a “rescue” marriage, but he is surprised by the “forwardness and self-possession of her manner” (Brown 92-93). While Gabriel does not subscribe to nationalist doctrine in the text, his expectations regarding the roles of women suggest the incontrovertible influence of the movement.
Molly Ivors in “The Dead” provides a stark contrast to the other female characters. Ivors is an educated, female nationalist, and yet her behavior contradicts the “new nationalist standards of decorum” (Morgan 457). “Nationalist standards of decorum” relate to the passive, helpless female image often depicted in nationalist propaganda (Morgan 450). These standards would further confine Molly to “unpaid, home employment” but she is actually Gabriel’s equal as a teacher and refuses to be dependent upon men (Kelly 371). She insists on walking home by herself, saying, “I’m quite well able to take care of myself” (Joyce 170) and accuses Gabriel of being a “west Briton” (Joyce 163).
It is clear that Gabriel is unnerved by her even though their “careers had been parallel, first at the university and then as teachers, he could not risk a grandiose phrase with her” (Joyce 163). Florence Walzl argues that Gabriel is wary of his colleague because “she is his professional equal” (Walzl 40), and his relief at her absence is mentioned when he rises to give his speech (Joyce 177). In his speech, he also makes condescending remarks that are supposedly directed toward her, implying the outlandish behavior of a “new generation, educated or hypereducated as it is” (Joyce 177). The satirical nature of Gabriel’s speech, as well as that of Ivors’s character, suggests the ridiculous nature of the nationalist movement. Molly Ivors is enthusiastic about the movement and preserving all things Irish, but she is a contradiction of nationalist ideals because she is a woman. Is it Molly’s gender that makes her “hypereducated,” or is it her advocacy of the nationalist movement?
ReplyDeleteJoyce’s short stories reveal the “divided and gendered” middle class that resulted from the nationalist movement (Kelly 371). The women of the middle class were encouraged to pursue housework and have a secondary role in what Joyce would term “public life.” Although many of Joyce’s women are able to take care of themselves, the social restrictions placed on women through the nationalist movement prevented them from reaching their full potential and made them dependent upon “male rescuer figures.” Their social progress was further impaired by nationalism’s representations of women as “victims” and passive individuals, reliant upon the aid of a man.
Works Cited
Brown, Richard. James Joyce and Sexuality. Cambridge Cambridgeshire: Cambridge UP, 1985. Print.
Joyce, James, and Margot Norris. Dubliners: Authoritative Text, Contexts, Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006. Print.
Kelly, Joseph. "Joyce's Marriage Cycle." Studies In Short Fiction 32.3 (1995): 367. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Nov. 2011.
Morgan, Eileen. "Mapping Out A Landscape Of Female Suffering: Edna O'brien's Demythologizing Novels." Women's Studies 29.4 (2000): 449. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.
Walzl, Florence L. "Dubliners: Women in Irish Society." Women in Joyce. Ed. Suzette A. Henke and Elaine Unkeless. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1982. 31-56. Print.
The War within America: An Analysis of “Lift Every Voice and Sing”
ReplyDeleteAmerica has always prided itself on being a democracy, a place where everyone has the rights of life, liberty, and property. The Founding Fathers of America included this in the Declaration of Independence, making it an important foundation of the United States of America. Historically, however, this has not held true to most people in this country, as their rights were denied and they were unable to make personal decisions or have any form of power. Women and “black” American’s had their rights suppressed from the beginning, and this is often times overlooked as America celebrates the present times of equality. Poetry enables one to feel the struggles that some American’s once felt as they struggled to obtain their basic rights. The poem “Lift Every Voice and Sing” by James Weldon Johnson exemplifies the struggles that black American’s suffered and the desire these American citizens had for their rights.
History can be embedded within literature due to the fact that the writer is personally living that history. James Weldon Johnson lived from 1871-1938, which was a period in which black American’s were not given their basic human rights in America. Although Johnson grew up in an area where black American’s were accepted to some extent, it is important to note that Weldon was involved in the Civil Rights movement in America and therefore held strong opinions toward the suppression of basic human rights. Johnson’s mother was the first black female school teacher, and Johnson graduated from the school where his mother taught (University of South Carolina). Johnson later became a principal at this school, where his goal was to educate black adults in the community (University of South Carolina). The life of Johnson clearly shows his determination for success and his dedication to the advancement of black American’s in America. The poem “Lift Every Voice and Sing” epitomizes the feelings held by so many people during a time in American history when a “democracy” was not a “democracy,” by definition.
In lines 7-10,
“Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us,
Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us;
Facing the rising of our new day begun,
Let us march on till victory is won,” (Johnson)
one can feel a sense of war. This war is actually the fight for equality among black American’s during this time in American history. The “dark past” refers to the inequality that these American citizens have suffered throughout their lives and that late ancestors suffered as well. The “rising of our new day begun” defines the continuous struggle that these American’s have fought to receive what is rightfully theirs. The “victory” is the rights of an American that these people are fighting, or “marching” towards.
In the next stanza, there is a continued feeling of struggle. Line’s 11-13 read, “Stony the road we trod/Bitter the chast’ning rod/Felt I the days when hope unborn had died,” (Johnson). The word “stony” gives a sense of roughness and pain. The phrase “hope unborn had died” refers to the fact that these black American’s never even had the right to freedom and equality, therefore meaning there right was taken away before it was even present. The following lines, “Have not our weary feet/Come to the place for which our father sighed,” (Johnson, 15-16) explain the anguish which these citizens are feeling. Their fathers came to America, a democracy, and yet they are unable to live free or equal to their white counterparts. Why is this so? These members of America have fought long and hard to earn their rights which, under a democracy, are supposedly promised to them. The rest of stanza two reads,
ReplyDelete“We have come over a way that with tears has been watered,
We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered,
Out from the gloomy past,
Till not we stand at last,
Where the white gleam of our bright star is cast,” (Johnson, 17-21).
“Tears has been watered” reveals a sense of sadness, gloom, and depression. Families have shed so many tears throughout history because of unfair treatment. The defense for this unfair treatment at this time in history was based solely on skin color. Almost all American’s were immigrants at one point, all different than each other, yet black American’s were singled out due to the color of their skin. Black American’s were killed fighting for their rights, whether it be that they were wrongly accused of a crime and therefore executed or whether they were treated unfairly by someone else or whether they were solely fighting for their rights and were killed by a white man, these black American’s were targets for death. These fighters are continuing their fight until the battle for freedom and equality is won.
The last stanza of this poem is similar to a religious prayer. The first six lines of this stanza refer to God and the will of God to help these individuals continue to fight for what is theirs. These individuals who are fighting believe they have been put on a certain path in order to obtain what is rightfully theirs, their God-given rights. The last four lines of the poem read,
“Shadowed beneath Thy hand,
May we forever stand,
True to our God,
True to our native land,” (Johnson, 30-33).
These lines indicate a sense of patriotism towards the United States, which is bold considering that black American’s were fighting against the restrictions placed upon them in the United States. Although black American’s were being suppressed and treated unequally in America, America was their homeland, and they respect the country for this reason.
In order to understand the meaning behind this poem, one must uncover the history that surrounded it. Because Johnson was involved in the Civil Rights movement throughout his life, it is reasonable to conclude that this poem reflects the struggle that Johnson and many others faced in history. Without historical background, one may interpret this poem to be about a war, maybe the Civil War or another war of significance. Historical information embeds itself within literature, which is why one can see the meaning of this poem. Without history, this piece may not hold the meaning to the reader that it once held to the author or that it once held in history.
Johnson, J. W. (1900). Lift every voice and sing. Retrieved from
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/lift-every-voice-and-sing/
University of South Carolina. (n.d.). University of South Carolina libraries rare and special
collections. Retrieved from http://library.sc.edu/spcoll/amlit/johnson/johnson1.html
Mini Critique of “The Fields of Athenry” Using Historical Criticism
ReplyDeleteAn excellent case of historical struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat, tradition, literary history, epochal context, and the oppression of the subaltern is Pete St. John’s song “The Fields of Athenry”. The song was written in the 1970s. It reminisces about the historic Great Famine (between 1845 and 1850). The struggles and dilemmas of the poorer people in Ireland during this time are depicted by St. John (a Dubliner himself) in small detail but with great force. The images and emotions played out are indicative of the importance of Irish ethnic and cultural identity both of the author and characters in the song. The imperative historical context of the relationship between Britain and Ireland are also important to consider when criticizing “The Fields of Athenry”.
The song starts out with lyrics about a man named Michael, who is in prison for stealing corn for his starving family. He is forced into doing so because the Famine prevents him from providing for his family by his own severely limited means. Because of his theft, he is awaiting a prison ship to ship him to Botany Bay, Australia, as the English justice system dictates. His wife, Mary, narrates the first verse establishing these unfortunate facts.
The second verse is narrated by the incarcerated Michael. Michael laments the occasion and the predicament he finds himself trapped in. The lines he narrates are
Nothing matters, Mary, when you’re free
Against the Famine and the Crown
I rebelled they cut me down
Now you must raise our child with dignity
Michael is evidently in a struggle against the ruling classes – namely, the British Crown, government and the aristocracy. Specifically, the song references Michael’s stealing “Trevelyan’s corn”. This is a reference to Charles Edward Trevelyan. Trevelyan was a British colonial administrator charged with assisting Ireland with food during the Great Famine (bbc.co.uk). Trevelyan believed that the Irish could subsist on corn, which was, of course, not the staple crop of Ireland. So, while the colonial power of England administered corn for the relief of Ireland, the Irish people knew very little about the crop. Here, in this verse, there are evident Marxist underpinnings of the subjugation of Ireland by the ignorant colonial powers of England. England evidently does not fully understand the situation of the people of Ireland. This is a significant example of fruitless colonial influence that pervades Irish literature (as well as much postcolonial literature). Here is a particular example that is, in Foucaultean terms, an episteme. Listeners here can see moments such as the corn stealing as being a small but immensely important example of a specific moment in time in the relationship between Ireland and England. The well-intentioned, but nonetheless misguided, administering of corn is part of a vast system of misunderstandings between the two national entities.
What is also interesting to note is that the speaker of the song is neither Mary nor Michael. Rather, it is an unknown person who simply refers to him- or herself as “I”. The listeners may think of this third person as either an unknown speaker, St. John, or an implied author. The implied author here hears the voices of the lovers through “lonely prison wall[s]”. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that the speaker of this song is another prisoner awaiting trial or shipment to Botany Bay. This adds an immensely personal feel to the song, as the speaker is probably going through an experience of equal or greater pain than Michael and Mary. Since the song is so personal, it adds a dimension to the tragedy and sadness experienced by the Irish people during the Great Famine. This is important because of the oftentimes rather impersonal feel of textbook readings of the time period.
ReplyDeletePete St. John is also a native of Ireland. Since he is a Dubliner, he has identifies personally and intimately with the plight of his ancestors. Writing in the 1970s, though, is significant. The culture of the 1970s was that of rebellion and revolt against the established authority. This is especially evident in the music culture of the era. St. John is a musician, and so he must have been allured to this movement of cultural insurrection. However, what is interesting to note here is that St. John wrote a song about rebellion against the order by necessary stealing (due to circumstances). He realizes, though, that rebelling does not always have a positive, liberating side to it sometimes. In cases such as this, rebelling against the authority has led to prison and separation from loved ones – even half a globe away. St. John is not advocating blind conformance to governmental authority, though. Rather, he is suggesting the government is unjust and does not help when the people need it most. When someone like Michael is driven to steal or face the alternative of starving, he naturally chooses to try and live. The government, though, crushes his aspirations to live, though, and strips him of his freedom. In “The Fields of Athenry”, St. John is embracing the dangers of rebellion, but also establishes the justification for it. He is a product of the culture of his day. As such, St. John discredits both the governments of the distant past and the present day, and maintains that their practices of injustices are consistent.
Works Cited
"BBC History." BBC.org. BBC , 2012. Web. 6 Feb 2012. .
(2009). The fields of athenry (lyrics). (2009). [Print Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1rzSSMsac
Marxist Critiqe: Animal Farm
ReplyDeleteOne of George Orwell’s most famous works is Animal Farm. Created at the tail end of World War II in England of 1945, it was written to warn people of Stalinism and expose the dangers of Totalitarianism (Orwell xix). Its characters reflect several important personalities at the time, and most of its content and character actions reflect Marxist ideas.
The character of Old Major is described as “stout… but still a majestic looking pig” (1-2) who, “understand[s] the nature of life on this earth as well as any animal now living” (4). Old Major represents the ideas of Karl Marx, the original creator of Communism in its purest and best intended form. In the first part of the story, Old Major calls the animals of the farm to a meeting and speaks about rebellion and revolution against the humans, and embracing “Animalism” or the idea that humans are enemies and all animals are equal (13). This is very similar to Marx’s ideas about collective effort and rejection of the class and capitalist systems.
Another character is Mr. Jones, the farm caretaker. He is ruthless, always drunk, and negligent of the farm animals. He rations the animals’ food and treats them poorly. This leads the animals to a revolt by the animals later in the novel, as encouraged by Old Major’s successors: Snowball and Napoleon, two pigs who make the ideals of Animalism concrete in “The Seven Commandments of Animalism” and later on fight for the top ruling position on the farm (19).
Mr. Jones represents the higher ruling class of society, mainly the owners of big industry and the government that employ the lower working class, practice exploitation, and give low wages to their workers. Mr. Jones is pictured as “drunken and lousy at his job” and shows how the higher class throws their money away on luxury and barely do anything to compensate for their workers’ hard labor (1). The employers do what they can to keep their profit to themselves and release only a little to wages, thus making it hard for workers to fend for themselves, much like the animals of the farm.
With the death of Old Major just days after the first meeting at the barn, Napoleon and Snowball take it upon themselves to take over the governing of the animals. They create and post seven commandments under Animalism:
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
ReplyDelete2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall sleep in a bed [with sheets].
4. No animal shall wear clothes.
5. No animals shall drink alcohol [in excess].
6. No animal shall kill any other animal [without cause].
7. All animals are equal. (20, 57, 91,77)
Eventually, the pigs encourage the other animals to continue Old Major’s legacy and overthrow Mr. Jones’ reign. This is “The Battle of Cowshed” (36). They drive out Mr. Jones, injuring him and running him out of the farm. A sheep dies in battle, and it gets a hero’s burial. Boxer and Snowball each receive medallions engraved: “Animal Hero: first class” (55). The animals eventually discover Mr. Jones’ gun, which he has dropped in the mud. They place the gun by the flagpole and agree to fire it on the anniversary of the rebellion.
The gun represents a successful but violent way of overthrowing Mr. Jones. This is contradictory to Marx/Old Major’s teachings that the revolution is to be accomplished with integrity, virtue, and instinctive resolve. Soon after this, Napoleon and Snowball rise to power, with the animals entrusting them with the power to ratify laws and proposed during the meetings in the barn. Napoleon is presented as a corrupt character, never contributing much to the revolution. He attends the meetings but does not contribute to them. Napoleon represents the political tyrants that have emerged throughout human history and with particular frequency. Snowball is a character truly dedicated to Animalism. This, however, leads to his downfall because he is no match for Napoleon’s use of brute force. He may have used his intelligence and logic to gain loyalty, but this changed when he is driven out of the farm by Squealer’s black propaganda against him.
This piece has so much to think about in it, but the main question that Orwell and Marxism ask is: why did Animalism fail? During a first brief reading, one would think that totalitarianism is inevitable and that social classes are deeply rooted in society so much that they cannot be pulled up, but when looking deeper, the animals actually did get what they wanted. Old Major gathers the animals to revolt and free themselves from the humans, and this was achieved with the “dethroning” of Mr. Jones. The animals being freed, they are too incompetent in making a true equality amongst themselves, and they are therefore unable to prevent a new regime of oppression. This is reflective of how there is no genuine classless society today, and all attempts to have this have failed.
Eventually, Napoleon opens the farm to trade with humans, with Squealer making excuses for his actions. Trade with humans and the use of money was something that Old Major had always contradicted. This is a clear deviation to Animalism. Again, the animals respond lightly, believing what the pigs say because they are too blind to understand and think they should work for the pigs.
The book ends with Napoleon and a human fighting over a poker game. The animals stare at Napoleon in disbelief as the light reveals that his face has changed, and that he looks much like a human; they realize that there is no difference between Napoleon and the humans at all, and that they are not really free from that power: “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which” (112).