"Do I get the gold chariot? Do I float through the ceiling?"

In “Death be not proud”, John Donne discusses the solemn topic of certain death. However, in personifying death as the desired recipient, Donne belittles it through several clever logical and spiritual arguments and ends with the seemingly paradoxical statement that death “shalt die.” It is the speaker’s certainty in the power of religion that makes death an insignificant foe and one even deserving of pity.

Donne begins his argument with an apostrophe chastising death for its “pride” and informs death that it is not nearly as “[m]ighty and dreadful” (line 2) as it is believed to be. According to Donne, this is because that those that die in the mortal world “[d]ie not” and that he himself cannot be defeated by death. Although this statement is seemingly a paradox, it is explained near the end of the poem when Donne states, “One short sleep past, we wake eternally” (line 13), of course referring to the Christian belief in heaven or an afterlife. John Donne himself was a very religious man, being raised a Roman Catholic and ordained as an Anglican priest in 1615 due to the king’s wishes, and “Death be not proud” was originally entitled “Holy Sonnet X.” In affirming the power that religion holds over the state of death, Donne begins to chip away at the established power that death holds over man.

Once the seed of doubt of death’s unlimited power is planted in the reader’s mind, Donne expands on it by removing death’s greatest weapon: fear. In the second quatrain, Donne reasons that death itself is a pleasurable experience since its only relatable synonyms in the human condition are rest and sleep, which are far from terrifying. If death itself is only an amplified version of these experiences, then it too must be pleasurable and therefore not worthy of being feared. This statement is only strengthened by the common belief that the good die young, which Donne alludes to, and he argues that death should not cause the innocent to suffer and therefore must be desirable. Donne completes the sentence by once again reminding the reader of faith’s power over mortality, since the virtuous must simply wait for “soul’s delivery” upon judgment (line 8).

Donne builds on his argument and continues to belittle death by revealing it as inferior and subordinate to other powers. Death, instead of being an autonomous entity, is a “slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men” (line 9). He goes further by associating death with undesirable company such as “poison, war, and sickness” (line 10) and stating that death’s powers are inferior to those of charms or poppy (opium) since death itself is just another form of sleep due to the Christian belief of resurrection. These statements serve to empower the reader into thinking that he is greater than death itself, which is reflected in both Donne’s pity for death, “poor death” (line 4), and his scolding of death, “why swellest then?” (line 12). In conclusion, Donne decided that the power of religion is enough to make death obsolete as a menacing force, therefore saying, “death, thou shalt die” (line 14).

The arguments of this Elizabethan sonnet fit perfectly into four sentences which in turn make the sonnet’s three quatrains and single couplet. What is unusual about the sonnet, however, is that the rhyme scheme in the quatrains is that of a Petrarchan sonnet (abba) and the poem’s rhythm deviates from the standard iambic pentameter in order to stress certain points, for example “Death be not proud” (line 1). Yet, in this simple poetic form, Donne is able to preach a sermon and look past even death to comment on the continuity of life.

Tender is the Night

For my final paper I have begun reading F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Tender is the Night and am exactly one-third of the way through the book at the moment (page 105 out of 315). This being said, I feel that I am at the perfect point to be sharing some opening impressions. I originally chose this story because I loved The Great Gatsby and have honestly enjoyed this story so far primarily because it is character-driven rather than plot-driven. This approach fits in well with Fitzgerald’s writing style and tendency to interject generalizations about situations and the human condition inside of the story’s narration.

The story (at least on the back cover) claims to be the tragedy of Dick Diver, but the narration centers around a young actress named Rosemary, who falls in love with Dick upon meeting him in France. The drama of the story comes from the fact that Rosemary goes about attempting to have an affair with Dick, who happens to be married. Overall, both seem to be sympathetic characters even though the plot of the novel so far has been predictable, the ending could be a surprise (though I’m guessing that it will end melancholic atmosphere and some large statement applicable to life as a whole –let’s face it, it is Fitzgerald- but that does happen to be my favorite type of ending). In fact, the plot itself at times does not even matter since the most interesting parts of the story seem to revolve around the personalities of Dick’s group of friends and the interactions between them – this story had a duel in the first fifty pages, what more could a reader want?

the "Salieri Theory"

In our class discussion of Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, the idea came across the table -I’m pretty sure from Beller (to give credit where it is due)- that Willy’s struggle and eventual loss of a connection with reality could stem from his failure to accept mediocrity. This theory, which was quickly named the “Salieri theory” by Mr. Coon, is shown to be plausible by the actions and dialogue in the story and could, in fact, explain the majority of Willy’s failings.

First off, any feeling of unease from mediocrity would have to grow out of high expectations. These expectations can be easily explained through the character of Willy’s brother, Ben. Through dialogue, it is apparent that Willy idolizes his brother and constantly asks for his opinion and seeks his approval through the raising of his son Biff. This idolization is dangerous for Willy; however, since he believes that he can use the same strategies of wishful thinking and personality to gain success in the business world, as his brother did under highly unusual circumstances in Alaska. As Willy starts to fail in the business world, he attempts to keep his sprits up by exaggerating his sales and making himself seem greater than he is in order to give off a supernatural-aura while at home. Linda, being a caring wife, plays along with the charade and their children grow up revering their father. But Willy does not fool himself, and therefore attempts to live vicariously through his son Biff. This venture, however, is doomed to fail because Willy instills many of the same values that he has into his son without giving him any discipline or diversity. Even when Biff seems to be destined for great things, his lack of any value for education begins to hold him down though Willy himself deals the final blow that destroys Biff’s path to success. When Biff goes looking for his father’s guidance and finds him with the woman, Willy’s illusion shatters. Biff no longer looks up to his father and sees him for what he really is: human. It is at this point that Willy faces his failings and begins to lose his connection with the real world since he cannot accept them. This self destruction continues until Willy sees his final opportunity to be great. As Biff confronts Willy and breaks down, Willy realizes that his son still loves him and that he can give him the means to become successful if he dies and leaves his children money. In creating a legacy, Willy thinks that he can escape mediocrity by being the catalyst of something great: the success of his sons. However, this ending is left bitter since Hap decides that he will continue his father’s real legacy and attempt to create something out of nothing by attempting to become something great in the same manner his father did (481).

Sacrifice

The true “crisis” in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House is not the suspenseful tragedy centered on Nora’s actions in attempting to save her family from disgrace, but rather simply a conflict between Nora’s societal and personal identities. In the start of the play, Nora and Torvald’s relationship is introduced as being shallow and primarily based on material possessions. In fact, it is the lack of substance to their initial conversation –along with the obnoxious excess of pet names- that makes the dialogue difficult for the reader to digest without being nauseated. At this point of the story, Nora is content to fit the mold of societal norms because she simply knows no other lifestyle and, in fact, believes herself to be truly happy. To this melodramatic character, the tragedy of the story is a public disgrace that, in her naïve outlook, she finds to be equivalent to death. The only character in the story to see the absurdity of this situation is Mrs. Linde, who allows Tarvold to receive the letter from Krogstad revealing Nora’s debt. She explains herself in doing this by remarking that after what she had seen in the Helmers’ residence in the last days made it necessary for the truth to come out, meaning that the fairytale that they had constructed on a bed of lies should not be allowed to last for all of their sakes. In this sense, Mrs. Linde was justified in her actions by the transformation that Nora undergoes in the final scene of the play. In her preparations to kill herself over her “disgrace,” Nora frees herself of her responsibilities to the society along with her possessions. Although she is saved by circumstance, she begins to look at the world with a radically different mindset, finds her life to be empty and chooses to leave on her own accord. She finds that her marriage is not based on true love – a discovery that Mrs. Linde had already made earlier in her life-, and that through following what is deemed “appropriate” by the people around her she has no real experiences or thoughts of her own. Up to this point she had been essentially a one dimensional “baby doll” to be played with by others. It is only through sacrificing everything and taking a stand in order to separate herself from her society that she finally becomes her own person (399).

"Feel, don't think. Trust your instincts"

It is often said that someone is his or her “own worst enemy” through counterproductive thoughts and actions. In reading Hamlet thus far, it has become clear that Hamlet –through his constant wavering in character, decision, and relative sanity- serves as the embodiment of this phrase.

Hamlet’s mistakes are mostly due to the fact that he is himself an intellectual and “over-thinks” his circumstances, thereby complicating them. This complication is shown best in Act III Scene III where Hamlet stays his hand in slaying Claudius for the sole reason that Claudius is praying and therefore “seasoned for his passage.” It does not occur to Hamlet that if he were to confront Claudius, an unforgivable vice would soon manifest itself. Hamlet, in this situation, thinks his way out of his responsibilities and leaves with so much haste that he does not hear that Claudius’s repentance was far from sincere (“Words without thoughts never to heaven go”). Moreover, instead of simply gathering sufficient evidence of the king’s guilt and then confronting him quickly, Hamlet desires to know every last piece of information before taking action. His analytical abilities and tireless mind causes him to question and find flaws in everything and therefore, he believes in nothing –including himself. This trait is what sets him apart from Oedipus, who was confident in both his abilities and the righteousness of his cause due to his faith in the gods, since Hamlet at some point doubts everything in his life: love, loyalty, and even instructions from a supernatural realm. Hamlet’s suspicions are what make him so dangerous, as he is able to disconnect from anyone or anything at will –as shown by his sudden and cold detachment from Ophelia, a woman to whom he had consistently sworn his love prior to the start of the play.

Eventually, Hamlet’s charade of insanity gets the better of him. When confronting his mother, Hamlet sees the ghost of his father another time. On this occasion, the ghost is not visible to then other characters and is most likely an illusion that he created in his own mind. Hamlet at this point has lost control, after the doubt he had experienced in the king’s chambers he then switched entirely –not wanting to miss another opportunity deliberating over the circumstances- and strikes out rashly at the figure in the curtain. It is the shock of this act that changes him; he is horrified by his own actions and then at this point allows the insanity to no longer be just an act, but an aspect of his personality (429).

Oedipus Rex

The story of Oedipus is one that is well known throughout the ages as a myth of a man who is tragically bound by fate to kill his own father and sleep with his mother. Sophocles’s play, Oedipus the King, expands on this story –already well known to the audience of his time- to show Oedipus’s strength and heroism through how he bears his suffering and uses logic –a characteristic valued so highly by educated Greeks- in his investigations.

The first evidence of Oedipus’s integrity is his immediate desire to consult an oracle concerning the recent disasters in his city –an action that shows not only his piety, but also his devotion to his citizens’ well being. Oedipus also truly empathizes for his people, a fact that he reveals when he says that he cries regularly and loses sleep over their troubles and vows to do whatever is necessary in order to spare them more suffering. In this case it meant exercising the most severe punishments possible, death or exile, to the king’s murderer when he should be discovered. He then exercises his reason when he believes that Creon is making an attempt to steal the throne with the blind oracle Tiresias. Although this accusation is false, it is perfectly understandable given the circumstances –Oedipus has no knowledge of killing his predecessor and such a charge against him could only serve to dishonor him in front of his people and thereby lose his kingdom. The argument that follows between Oedipus and Creon is the only moment where Oedipus lets his reason give way to his emotion, but this mistake is soon corrected by his wife Jocasta. From this point forward, Oedipus serves as a detective, putting everything aside in order to find out the truth behind Laius’s death. Oedipus is tireless in this quest, and even after being begged by several loyal subjects and those closest to him, who have figured out that the conclusion of the investigation will bring nothing but shame for Oedipus, he continues to show loyalty to his people –for in ridding himself of his ignorance, he is also ridding the curse upon his city.

Finally, in the conclusion of the story, Oedipus gives Apollo justice by avenging the king’s death upon himself. In the horror of what he had unknowingly done, Oedipus actually punishes himself in a most fitting manner. By blinding himself, he has made a physical representation of his ignorance – as he was called blind by Tiresias earlier in the story- and by sentencing himself to exile and then death, he will appease the gods and undo the wrongs which he has committed. However, it is putting the needs of his community above his own personal well-being that makes Oedipus a hero, and is the greatest moral to be taken from this story (470).

On his Deathbed....

In Ronald Blythe’s introduction to The Death of Ivan Ilyich by Leo Tolstoy he states that it “is the tragedy of a man who is a death illiterate and who has to make his way out of the world through the ranks of other death illiterates.” In many regards, this statement is a reflection on Tolstoy’s use of social commentary in the story on how the lifestyle of Ilyich and his associates leaves them unfulfilled during their last moments and meaningless to the world as a whole.

Ivan’s government career placed him among a class of materialistic, social-climbing professionals, and in accordance to his life strategy to live “easily, pleasantly, and decorously,” he conformed to their values and ideals. An early example of this behavior is when Ivan commits actions and affairs that he believes to be morally questionable but upon those actions being approved by his colleges and superiors he pays them no more thought. This corruption continues in the workplace not through abuse of his powers -for that would be an inconvenience- but through Ivan’s new found hobby of turning his “humanity” on and off in order to accomplish his work and further his social career. His desire to appear normal also invades his personal life: Ivan takes time off from his personal leave to go to St. Petersburg in order to ambitiously seek out a new position, he buys the stereotypical house of a rising middle-class professional for his family and gloats over it and when experiencing uneasiness with his family he simply invites guests over to his home so that his family must act in an appropriate manner or avoids them altogether by escaping with his “associates” to play bridge.

It is only when Ivan Ilyich falls fatally ill that be begins to see the errors in his way of life. When in meetings with his doctor, Ivan feels isolated by the disinterest in which the doctor takes over his case – when, in fact, he is using the exact indifferent judgment that Ivan himself used when approaching many legal cases. Ivan also becomes extremely irritable and argues frequently with his wife because he feels alienated from the world and is dissatisfied with his life. Ivan’s final realization comes when looking at Gerasim’s face, the one character in the book that truly cares for others and is able to confront death because of his abilities to meaningfully connect with others. Ironically, in the final moments of his life, Ivan realizes how he should have lived –unfortunately, his knowledge cannot be passed on to the countless others just like him, who simply are thankful that they are not dead and continue on to collect from the demise of their fallen "friend" (453).