Tag: short essays

Introduction to Iago’s Motivation

While uncovering Iago’s motivation to plot against Othello and Cassio, it is pertinent to mention “motiveless malignity” of A. C. Bradley that Iago simply hates for the sake of hatred and does not tolerate any good, loving “evil purely for itself” (139). But at the same time, he is also a human being who has hatred against Othello that springs from various motives such as stopping his money-making drive from Roderigo in the name of Desdemona. Roderigo says that Iago “hast had my purse” (Shakespeare 1.1.3). The second reason could be the superseding of his post that Othello awards to Cassio who is not superior to him in skills but only in loyalty to the Moor. There could be other reasons for his diabolical machinations but they all mostly spring from the hatred that has emerged from the reason that Othello is becoming a threat to his money he gets from Roderigo. Although he is considered an innocent and good person by all other characters to whom he causes serious harm by involving in one or the other plot, he has harbored the single aim of destroying Othello and all others who are coming his way, but at the same time Bradley’s views seem to have some support, for he is against everything that seems good. The formal analysis reveals that Iago’s motivation is money from Roderigo, and his jealousy against Othello for causing him bad repute and promoting Cassio while jealousy and hatred against Cassio stems from his undue promotion and his loyalty to the Moor.

Money as Iago’s Motivation

As far as money is concerned, it seems Iago’s motivation of this is clearly involved in manipulating the infatuation of Roderigo for Desdemona. Roderigo is madly in love with Desdemona and has met failure in wooing her. To top it all, he finds that she has already eloped with the Moor, whom he hates for his battlefield experience. When he talks to Iago about it, Iago reveals in the very first lines that Iago is taking from him money as if it is all his, and the last line that he “shouldst know of this” (1.3) seems a sort of warning for Iago that it would stop, if he does not succeed. This Iago does not verify, as he alludes Roderigo into making him believe that he truly despises the Moor the reason that he is collaborating with Roderigo. It also seems that he is informing Roderigo about other motivation that seems to make Roderigo believe that Iago is with him and that he will woo back Desdemona for him or plot something against the Moor. This shows that Iago hates Othello but he is also jealous of him due to his having many “war epithets” to his name (1.1. 14). Here it becomes a double hatred, but it seems a jealousy of the position of Othello, too.

Jealousy of Iago’s Motivation

The situation becomes even more frustrating for Iago though none other character speaks about Othello’s illicit relations with his wife except himself as he reveals in his soliloquy that the people are talking about Othello that he has “that ‘twixt sheets / He has done my office” (1.3.388). This clearly alludes to the cause of jealousy as Iago’s motivation which could be a point that he is constantly plotting against Othello and everything that is connected with him in some or the other way. Although there is nothing mentioned about this second affair, it could be a machination of Iago’s mind to convince himself that he should turn his attention to plotting against the Moor who has made the string of his purse tight in an indirect way. The laughing matter over this motivation is that even Iago himself says that ” I know not if’t be true” (1.3.389). He, on the other hand, makes it sure that he would consider it confirmed. This points to the very first sentence where he has stated that he hates the Moor. After this, he has contrived reasons. Once he has made up his mind that he starts making plans to make Othello pay for it, and it is surely the creation of the previous motive of stopping his money as well as causing him to have low self-esteem by having a good reputation of a warring general. Although overall, due to his own confession, this is another Iago’s motivation, the prime hatred due to the promotion of Cassio seems genuine.

Promotion of Cassio as Iago’s Motivation

In fact, Cassio’s promotion is more due to Cassio’s fidelity and closeness with the Moor rather than due to his ability of knowing battle tactics or the art of warfare. Iago clearly says that Cassio has “never set a squadron in the field / Nor the divisions of the battle knows” (1.1.21-22). On the other hand, Cassio also has motive of jealousy for Iago that is a “fair wife” (1.1.21). It could be that Emilia, his own wife is not fair, but it is a motive of jealousy here that his wife is already in a relationship with the Moor, while both the Moor as well as Cassio have good and beautiful wives. This is, perhaps, linked to the jealousy he is feeling from Cassio’s promotion but it has transformed into hatred against the Moor and jealousy against Cassio. It has also become hatred against Cassio too, for if he harms the Moor and leaves Cassio, it indirectly means to give Cassio a chance to get another promotion leaving him far behind. He expresses his misgivings about Cassio when in the Second Act, they all arrive in Cyprus and Cassio greets his wife Emilia. He says, “I fear Cassion with my night-cap, too” (2.1.307). This somewhat raises the suspicion that he suspects his wife for having relations with Cassio, too which another sub-motive within the broad range of motives, but it could be otherwise too. However, one thing is pertinent to mention here that he again suspects his wife of having slept with the Moor at this point which clarifies his earlier lie and seems that he is convincing himself again. This seems another Iago’s motivation.

Levels of Iago’s Motivation

His motive of ensnaring Cassio goes on two levels. The first is that Cassio is promoted over him un-deservingly and unjustly and second is that his wife is fair, as it has already been stated. The third motive is also stated that is fear. However, what is not stated is that it is also jealousy due to his own handsome features. And second is that Cassio has been a cause of his misery, the reason that he sets Roderigo to kill Cassio or vice versa, thinking that “Every way makes my gain” (5.1.12). This means he is merely jealous of Cassio more than the Moor, for he also thinks that Cassio “has daily beauty in his life” (5.1.19). This is an indication that he contrasts himself with his beautiful nature as well as his handsome features and thinks that he cannot come close to Cassio. This also points to his bad nature that in this way he cannot come close to goodness, the reason that goodness must be destroyed in every way, so that he could replace the Moor.

Conclusion

Concluding the essay, it could be stated that though Iago is an evil-incarnate, he is still a human being, but the problem with him is that he is caught in the net of hatred, jealousy, money-making drive and so many things that he is set to hate or feel jealous. His only option is to hate and then plot likewise. Therefore, Iago’s motivation is, at first, just hatred which leads to second, and then so on. The web spreads into jealousy against the black Moor for winning Desdemona which moves forward into having suspicion of the Moor and his own wife for illicit relations, then jealousy of promoting the inferior Cassio ignoring him. All these motives amalgamate into one another, leading him to convince himself more and weaving more plots to kill all whoever comes his way until all the people are at each other’s throats and Iago himself is wiped out in these machinations. This also proves that he has hatred against the Moor for his success not only in war but also in love which sets him to move plots against him. Moreover, Iago is also a greedy person who has set eyes on Roderigo, which is a sort of corruption and this corruption sets him on the course to other motives. All in all, whatever the motive is, they all become secondary to the prime motive of money-making and then feeling hatred against the Moor, leading to planning against all whoever is associated with him.

Works Cited

1. Bradley, A. C. “1904 “Othello” from Shakespearean Tragedy. ” Bloom’s Shakespeare Through the Ages: Othello edited by Harold Bloom. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2008.
2. Shakespeare, William. Othello.” Minnesota: Paradigm Publishing, 2005.

Relevant Questions about Iago’s Motivation for Plotting Against Othello and Cassio

1. What are the underlying reasons and personal motivations that drive Iago’s motivation to plot against Othello and Cassio, and how do these motivations evolve throughout the play?
2. How does Iago’s manipulation of other characters, such as Roderigo and Emilia, serve to further his agenda and advance his motives against Othello and Cassio?
3. What psychological factors or character traits contribute to Iago’s willingness to orchestrate a complex and destructive plot against individuals he interacts with on a daily basis, and what does this reveal about his nature as a villain in the play?

Introduction to Dumpster Driving

            On Dumpster Diving is simply a small piece of Lars Eighner’s memorial called Travels with Lizbeth: Three Years on the Road and on the Streets. Published in 1993, On Dumpster Diving is based on Eighner’s own personal experiences of being homeless and surviving out of a dumpster. The first few lines of the essay itself are enough to capture the interest of the reader since majority of the people have remotely heard of the word ‘dumpster diving’ or ‘scavenging’ before. In this essay, Eighner gives the reader a detailed overview of how to survive simply on a dumpster. As one reads through the essay, he or she is forced to ask themselves whether teaching us these survival rules was the only objective of this essay. However, as the essay as well as the story progresses, one realizes the actual message and concept behind Eighner’s essay. Eighner’s essay explains and elaborates the wasteful and the selfish nature of the vast population living in America. Through this essay, Eighner tries to deliver a very important message to his readers – the immorality and the selfishness involved in throwing out food that can be used by the wealthy and the rich when thousands of people living in America are suffering from poverty and starvation. According to Eighner, this selfish nature found within the American Society is based upon three different aspects – materialistic values, ignorance and the inability to understand.

Materialism and On Dumpster Diving

            Everyone has met materialistic people at some point in their life. Materialistic individuals always want the best of the best – whether it is the latest car or the most expensive phone. However, even when their demands are met, these individuals are seldom happy. These individuals tend to focus on all those things that they do not own and forget about the latest gadgets that they do possess. According to Eighner, materialistic people are lost, unsure and uncertain of what they actually want in life. In some way or the other, Eighner has tried to deliver a message to his readers that in order to be happy and content, one needs to know exactly what he or she wants from life. Materialistic people are often confused with those who are clever and intelligent and think in a very sentimental way. It is only natural to be smart enough to realize what the things that provide personal benefit are and the others must be left for the benefits of others. There were times when Eighner only collected those things that added value to his life and left the others for the use of the other individuals. Studies and researches have shown that materialistic individuals tend to be more sad and depressed than others. It is true that the twenty first century has brought with itself huge technological advancements. However, such advancements and modernism has made people in secure and now everyone wishes to get the latest product launched in the market – it does not take long for the most valuable asset to become valueless. Eighner has also mentioned the very same point in his essay On Dumpster Diving and states “Almost everything I have now has already been cast at least once, proving that what I own is valueless to someone” (Eighner).

Ignorance and On Dumpster Diving

            Another very selfish and common trait found amongst the American society is ignorance. The reason why people are still dying of poverty and starvation in America is not because the country is not rich enough to support the less fortunate ones, but in fact, the people of the United States are very ignorant. A very common practice shown by the rich people within the American society is that even food that can be used is usually thrown out just because such families have enough money to buy new food. These people do not even stop for a minute to think about the less fortunate ones. They do not put in any effort to change their ignorant attitude to a considerate one. Eighner has also talked about this particular unreasonable and ignorant attitude of the American society. The biggest contributor to this trait are the college students who do not have any sense of responsibility individually as well as when it comes to being a citizen of a country. Eighner’s statement that “Students throw out many good things including food…the item was thrown out of carelessness, ignorance, or wastefulness” is sufficient proof to support the argument that college students in fact contribute the most to make poverty in America even worse. Scavengers like Eighner can get hold of many different and valuable goods in the dumpsters such as “boom boxes, candles, bedding, toilet paper, medicine, books, a typewriter, a virgin male love doll, change sometimes amounting to many dollars” (Eighner). The point that Eighner is trying to make over here is that despite knowing the fact that people are indeed poor and suffering and even dying due to starvation, the wealthy and rich are extremely unreasonable and inhuman.

Work, Responsibility and On Dumpster Diving

The rich claim that they have gathered this amount of wealth through their own hard work and responsibility. However, when people have more than what they need, they are socially responsible to help the less unfortunate ones as well. Unfortunately, more than 60 percent of the American society lacks such sort of understanding. It is not wrong to think about your own family’s future before thinking about the future of other families; however, if you are financially strong enough to help the poor and the needy, then you are socially obliged to do so. If such an understanding is somehow drilled into the minds of the rich and the wealthy, the problem of poverty within America can eventually be solved.

Conclusion

Even though On Dumpster Diving is an individual’s personal story of being homeless and surviving on dumpsters, it does represent thousands of poor and needy people within the American Society. People surviving on dumpsters are similar to the rich and wealthy in one aspect – they both can get whatever they like. However, money does not stand in the way of only one of them. If only the rich and the wealthy can be a little considerate, the problem of poverty within America can be easily solved. Poverty and death toll due to starvation in America has increased over the years because the people of this nation are ignorant, materialistic and do not have the ability to understand their social responsibilities.

Works Cited

1. Eighner, Lars. “On Dumpster Diving.” Readings: An Anthology. Ed. Santi V. Buscemi and Charlotte Smith. 9th ed. Boston: McGraw, 2004. 161-173. Print.

Introduction to Theme of Blindness in Oedipus

The play Oedipus the King opens with the people supplicating before the palace of King Oedipus due to the plague, which was ruining the city, showing the theme of blindness in Oedipus. The story of the search which started with Oedipus to find out the culprit who killed the previous king Laius unraveled several mysteries for him in that he left this and started looking for his own parents which culminated in a circuitous way finding himself as the culprit. His journey for the search of the murdered took a full circle and he came to the place from where he started. In a way, this play is a search for the self that Oedipus finds in himself after having full circle but has been blind to this until he does not start this search. The play, in fact, shows that the blinders are seers while the seers are blind to the realities. Not only Oedipus is blind spiritually and physically, but Chorus is also blind to the realities of life staring in their faces, adding to further to the theme of blindness in Oedipus.

Blindness of Tiresias and Theme of Blindness in Oedipus

 Although Tiresias is a blind old man, he is a seer of what is hidden from others. It means, metaphorically, all others are blind to his prophecies. When Oedipus calls for him to interpret the predictions of Oracle brought by Creon, his brother-in-law, he asks Tiresias to tell him the truth. However, when Tiresias does not say what he wants, he calls him a blind old man who cannot see the truth at which Tiresias states “You blame my temper, / but do not see the one which lives within you” (Sophocles 401-402). He is referring to his blindness in a way that he does not see that he has killed his father and married his mother. He also does not see that he is father of his own sisters and daughters. In this sense, Oedipus is blind. Tiresias tells him that he should not accuse him of blindness as he himself is a blind one.

Real Blindness of Oedipus

Secondly, Oedipus becomes blind at the end when he comes to know that he has committed all from which he was escaping. He not only killed his father but also married his own mother. He came to know when he called for the shepherd of Jocasta who gave him to the shepherd of Corinth. Then he ran to the palace to find that Jocasta has killed herself in desperation. He could not brook this anymore and gouged out his own eyes with the brooches. When Chorus taunts him for blinding himself, he states “Though I am blind, I know that voice so well” (1578).

Blindness of Chorus and Blindness of Oedipus

Chorus is also blind though not physically but symbolically. The chorus represents the elders or common people of that time. The commoners were mostly unaware of the state of affairs as the tragedy was mostly concerned with the life of the characters having stature, grandeur, and honor. However, here Chorus does not know anything about what is happening and in a sense is blind to what is before him. Chorus states “I want to ask you many things—there’s much / I wish to learn” (1308)– a hint that Chorus does not know anything about anything and is virtually blind to the realities to be faced by Oedipus. This could be a symbolic blindness in Oedipus.

Conclusion

Concluding the argument, it could be said that there are two types of blindness; one of the general eyesight and the other of the inner eye. Oedipus is blind in both ways when he accuses Tiresias of blindness, who is physically blind but inwardly he could see destiny. Similarly, as a representative of commoners, the Chorus is also blind to the events happening to Oedipus. Therefore, there are three blinds; Chorus, Oedipus, and Tiresias but Oedipus is blind in two days.

Works Cited

Sophocles. “Oedipus The King”. Trans. Ian Johnston. n. d. Web. 15 Sep. 2014. < https://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/sophocles/oedipustheking.htm>

Relevant Questions

1. How does the physical blindness of Oedipus at the end of the play symbolize the Theme of Blindness in Oedipus the King?
2. How do characters like Tiresias and Jocasta, who exhibit metaphorical blindness, contribute to the exploration of the Theme of Blindness in Oedipus the King?
3. In what ways does the theme of familial blindness, where generations of characters fail to see their roles in their tragic destinies, emphasize the Theme of Blindness in Oedipus the King?

Introduction to Oedipus Controversies

Only one play that won great criticism, admiration, appraisal, and interpretation is none other than Oedipus creating Oedipus controversies. It still is the center point of criticism, attention, and wonder. Greek drama was a regular ritual of the annual Greek festival presented in honor of Dionysus at Delphi. The plays presented over there not only set the stage for enlightenment but also put questions before the audience about morality, the political situation and the role of the political authority, the role of the public, and above all the education of the community in terms of morality and politics. Although by making King Oedipus the model of his critique of the Greek tragedy and setting canons for the tragedy, Aristotle has also questioned its structure. However, leaving aside structure it was the actual presentation of the hero as a great sufferer and educator in terms of presenting himself for punishment, which makes the society and the public at large aware of the role of the authority and the role of the public. The people are getting aware of “because we thought of you as God” (Sophocles 35) that they look upon Oedipus, and he in turn, tries to console them by saying “My spirit groans for city and myself and you at once” which highlights the role of the authority. However, it is interesting that Oedipus controversies are intertwined.

Oedipus Controversies and Aristotle

However, as it was also the foray of Aristotle that Greeks held the passions of pity and fear very high, moralizing, educating, and civilizing, the objective of Oedipus was to teach these passions. Hence, the Sophoclean objective of teaching these passions seems to be fulfilled through Oedipus controversies. In this connection, Alford has stated that it was the strategy of the Greek tragic poets to teach these finer feelings, considering them enlightenment of the society on moral and political fronts as pointed out earlier. He said that the “Poet’s strategy is to unleash pity and compassion as civilizing forces in such a way as to educate these powerful passion, so that they will not be dangerous” (Alford 1993 262). This clearly shows that pity and fear were both central emotions of the Greek tragedies and the objective was to put these emotions in such a perspective before the public that they would learn them. However, on the political front, their objective was to prepare the youth for battles. However, it was more of the poet than that of the philosophers, the reason that Aristotle is not considered as democratic as Sophocles as Alford has also pointed out at another place that they intended to share these sentiments among the general public and so helped in spreading democracy among the general public.

Hero and Oedipus Controversies

The tragedy of Oedipus still seems to be relevant in that it still presents the themes of victory and failure of a hero and a king who is more than a democratic person, rational and loving. The theme of the polemics that it raised over the role of religion and gods in the destruction of an individual have been highlighted so much so that they have given birth to an atheistic section (Rocco 1997). Although actually it was the universal appeal that was intended at that time though now it is read for enlightenment not only about that civilization but also about edification and dialectic in this modern age.

Oedipus Controversies: Pity and Fear

Despite presenting the finer feelings of pity and fear, Oedipus Rex raises a debate over whether he was responsible for his own downfall due to some of his tragic flaws, or whether fate acted against him or was it the wrath of Gods that led to his fall. There is still a raging controversy in literary circles among which some are of the opinion that it was his excessive pride in his knowledge and problem-solving approach that led to his downfall when he made a wrong decision about the investigation. The pride was given to Oedipus by the people, who even when they were stricken with pestilence, were saying “Once you have brought us luck with happy omen, be no less now in fortune” (Sophocles 60-61) that he considers as his right that he has resolved that riddle of the Sphinx when he opens up saying “Oedipus whom all men call the Great” (6) that he takes pride over it. However, it is also that he is biologically destined to do so as he has been fated by the Oracle of Delphi that he would kill his father and marry his own mother. However, there is also a question of when he was predicted to do so, he should have tried to find out his biological parents instead of fleeing to Delphi, but again it was his fate that he was destined to do so. However, new studies have questioned this as Havi Hannah Carel has quoted Segal in order to refute the charges that Oedipus has any tragic flaw that Aristotle has deduced as he states that “From an honest and respected leader determined to find the cause of the plague, Oedipus is transformed into a criminal, an incestuous murder, blind to the identity of his mother and father” (Carel). This rather leads to more Oedipus controversies. His opinion is that whatever Aristotle has said about Oedipus, this is totally against modern rationality does not support this. He is of the opinion that even if he was destined to act like this or his forefathers were cursed, it was not his fault. Even if he is accused of taking pride, “there is no causal link between this behavior and his horrific predicament” (Carel) which he is highlighted and interpreted in so many ways.

However, as far as the Aristotelian criterion is concerned, Oedipus controversies meet his requirements of a towering personality who commits wrong against his own family and thus evokes the finer and educating feelings of pity and fear. Hence, he meets his requirements as he outlined in his Poetics and stated by Marjorie in support of Aristotle that it was only Oedipus that have could achieve such a status of arousing pity and fear but “fails to attain happiness, and fails in such a way that his career excites, not blame, but fear and pity in the highest degree” (Barstow).

Oedipus Controversies: Paradox of Blindness and Knowledge

However, as far as the paradox of blindness and knowledge is concerned, it is clear from the tussle that between Oedipus and Tiresias who is seeing the future of Oedipus but does not utter a single word, but Oedipus is not seeing and is speaking a lot. This tension and conflict takes Tiresias to the point where he feels compelled to speak the truth and show the knowledge of what he has told it clearly “blindness for sight and beggary for riches his exchange” (Sophocles 531) when he tells him that he is a blind and nothing else. However, the impact of his role in the making of the play and demonstrating knowledge and ignorance is very important despite having in contradiction with the general public which says “One man may pass another in wisdom, but I would never agree with those that find fault with the king” (583-585) thinking that only the King holds the greatest wisdom. It was because he had already resolved the riddle of Sphinx and Thebans thought only Oedipus could pull them out of this crisis of pestilence and he did but in a very different sense.  However, one thing is quite intriguing Tiresias gets provoked which is quite unusual to his character elsewhere in literature. However, it has not been much debated upon as he only highlights and accentuates ignorance of Oedipus as his character is a “discrepancy between two types of knowledge – knowledge of the world versus knowledge of the self – is usually treated in connection with” (Roisman) the name of Oedipus and other with Tiresias who holds a great place in Sophocles’ Oedipus.

Oedipus Controversies: Towering Persona

However, the knowledge that has made a person like Oedipus arrogant, is the ability to resolve and seek things and resolutions where none is seen. Sphinx’s role in making Oedipus an arrogant king is very important. It is because it is the Sphinx that makes him resolve the riddle that it puts before Oedipus. It used to put the same riddle before every Theban and has proved for them an old pestilence that has taken its toll. However, it has made him arrogant, haughty, and knowledgeable as he himself says “When the dark singer, the Sphinx, was in your country, did you speak a word of deliverance to its citizens?”(Sophocles 452-455). This clearly shows that Oedipus is chiding Tiresias to make him things clear that he has a lot of knowledge of things that he has not. He also gets provoked and taunts him saying “You, have your eyes but see not where you are” (485). But it is the whole work of that singer or whatever they call, the Sphinx, and that riddle that it put before Oedipus that made Oedipus disrespect the blind seer and be cursed, leading to Oedipus controversies. Hence, its role gets prominence among the roles of things apart from human beings.

Oedipus Controversies: Religion

However, in the midst of these things and riddles, gods stans tall, because Zeus had has a central place in the Greek religion and this play rather created a hot debate on the role of gods and destiny and gods and fate. It also raised questions whether gods and destiny or gods and fate are the same things or different ones. The entire moral structure or religion gave way in front of controversies that were raised by this play and the issues it raised. The blasphemy committed by Jocasta “So Apollo failed to fulfill his oracle to the son” (824) adding that “So clear in this case were the oracles, so clear and false” (831-832) that even Oedipus has to say to her that “I could run mad” (838). That is why immediately after that Chorus reflects on their blasphemous remarks about gods and their prophesies and it states that destiny should find it pious to not to oppose those divine laws but it is Apollo that works in that direction that Oedipus is to be destroyed through his destiny that he communicates through “oracles which require a human response for their fulfillment and immanently through such external events as the confidence of the Corinthian’s arrival” (Lawrence).

Oedipus Controversies: Modern Interpretations

However, it is quite another thing that the modern period has interpreted Oedipus and his myth quite differently specifically Sigmund Freud who has put it into a psychological perspective calling his unconscious marriage to his mother as Oedipal Complex, though there is some truth behind it too. However, there does not seem to be any trace of this in the play, except that Jocasta urges him for blasphemy against gods and he also takes part in that. However, except this, there is nothing of as Oedipal Complex in the whole play as there is no mention of any genital and explicit sexual terms that Sigmund Freud used in his paper. In a nutshell, there are as many interpretations of this classic as its translations and even translations differ on the translation of several terms and words. Even its criticism in poetics is no less controversial. Therefore, there is nothing definite about what this classical masterpiece has given rise to as it is still being interpreted as a great source of knowledge.

Works Cited

1. Alford, Fred. “Greek Tragedy and Civilization: The Cultivation of Pity.” Political Research Quarterly 46.2 (1993): 262-264.
2. Barstow, Marjorie. “Oedipus Rex as the Ideal Tragic Hero of Aristotle.” Classics Weekly 6 (1912): 3-4.
3. Carel, Havi Hannah. “Moran and Epistemeic Ambiguity in Oedipus Rex.” 2006. 24 November 2014 <http://www.janushead.org/9-1/carel.pdf.>.
4. Lawrence, Stuart. “Appollo and His Purpose in Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus.” n.d. 24 November 2014 <www.ut.ee/klassik/sht/2008/lawrence1.pdf>.
5. Rocco, Christopher. “Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannos .” Rocco, Christopher. Tragedy and Enlightenment. Los Angeles: Univeristy of California, 1997. 220.
6. Roisman, Hanna M. “Teiresias, the seer of Oedipus the King: Sophocles’ And Seneca’s Versions.” Leeds International Classic Studies (2003): 1-9.

Relevant Questions Oedipus Controversies: Aristotle and Freud

1. How do Aristotle’s and Freud’s interpretations of the Oedipus controversies differ, and what insights do their respective theories offer into the complex dynamics of human behavior and family relationships?
2. In the context of modern psychology and literature, how have contemporary scholars and theorists reexamined the Oedipus controversies, and what new perspectives and interpretations have emerged regarding Oedipus complex and its relevance in understanding human psyche and literature?
3. Can the Oedipus controversies be seen as a timeless theme that transcends historical and cultural boundaries, and how do modern adaptations and interpretations of the Oedipus narrative shed light on evolving societal norms and taboos related to familial and sexual relationships?

Introduction to “The Brown Wasps”

        In his essay, “The Brown Wasps”, Loren Eiseley has shown a myriad features of life, which if explored in depth, demonstrate something hidden in the deep recesses of the psyche of living things. These could be desires for food, a refuge from looming threats, or mind-jolting memories of the past. He has beautifully compared and contrasted human life with that of brown wasps, of field mice, and pigeons, concluding that certain features are common in the lives of human beings and animals, for they are rooted in their respective natures. The mortality demands that all living things should strive for comfort and for illusions to cling to having a sense of protection and for prodding of the memories of the past, Eisely argues. However, the world changes fast from the present to the past and welcomes the future. Amid this change and cacophony of transformative voices, life continues to live by the ruins of the past, trying to mold itself to the changes of the future. This essay argues that living things do not leave their comfort zones, their memories of the past and their illusions to live by even if there is no hope.

“The Brown Wasps” and Nature of Animals

        Every living thing passes a certain time of its life at a certain place that becomes its home. It is the same with animals, insects, and human beings. They never leave this comfort zone even with impending doom. Loren Eiseley has cited examples of wasps that are not ready to leave their hive despite freezing temperatures and the risk of being dropped “away into the white oblivion of the snow” (Eiseley pr. 1). It is the same case with human beings. The officer shoves away the old man from the station, but he never leaves and comes again. It is his comfort zone or home. The field mouse, he says, is not ready to leave the room of the author, for it has been living at that place, which Eiseley says, matters the most. Eiseley argues, “It is the place that matters, the place at the heart of the things” (6). The same is the case of pigeons that have been living at the station, a home for them. Therefore, they are not ready to leave it. Even, we, as human beings, do not become ready to leave the comforts of our homes until there is a dire need to do so.

“The Brown Wasps” and Memories

        Another feature of human beings and living things is to be attached to memories. It is surprising that memories work for human beings as well as animals. It is the nostalgia that makes a person or an animal feel a need for the past event or home. For example, Eiseley argues that “We cling to a time and place because without them man is lost, “for he has known that he is referring wasps, slugs, mice and pigeons too and that they are also part of this journey of life (pr. 7). The wasps cannot go anywhere, for it is snowing and it is the only place they know. The field mouse sees that the place is taken over. Therefore, it leaves to take refuge in the author’s room but does not leave the place, for “It was the only place he knew” (pr. 11). The arrival of the pigeon again on the railway station, when it witnesses ruination, is a “curious instance of the memory of living things” (pr. 18). And above all, Eiseley himself returns to his old home to see the tree for his and his father’s memories. Therefore, the memories and nostalgia of the past is the mainstay of the mortal life on this earth, which provides an impetus to live by. The same is the cause with other human beings too. It is because a person always gives importance to his memories. He keeps in his mind where he has passed his life. This association with memories and nostalgia about the past makes him revert to his past again and again like animals.

“The Brown Wasps” and Dreams

           Illusions and fantasies play an important role in making a person continue living with the hope of finding them one day exactly like he lives by his dreams. If there are no illusions and no fantasies, a person becomes disillusioned and desperate. Life does not look worth living. These are dreams to live one’s life sticking to them for his entire life. Eiseley argues in “The Brown Wasps”, in the case of a field mouse, these are invisible dreams which come to use in every other shape (pr. 15). He says these dreams are necessary to live peacefully and hopefully in this world. The pigeons return after a few days with the illusion that the river would have flown after a “momentary drought” (pr. 17). In the same way, about the blind man, he says that he continues sitting over there in hopes that all will be well. The writer himself continues harboring the same illusion for the cottonwood sapling he and his father watered when he was a boy. He comments that “Life disappears or modifies its appearances so fast that everything takes on an aspect of illusion” that is to fade quickly (pr. 9). Sampling, in his mind, is a “part of [his] orientation” without which he could not have survived (pr. 23). This has been an illusion for him. He has passed his entire life for it. These illusions make up almost half of the life of human beings.

Conclusion

          Loren Eiseley has beautifully summed up the role of the comfort zone, memories, and illusion in the life of living things in “The Brown Wasps”. However, he has created a little distinction in that the animal world only sees comfort and food, but human beings have unique feelings of nostalgia that drive them madly in love with their past. His visit to his former home, around 2,000 kilometers away, just to see that tree is part of the same nostalgic feelings he had had for his father and that place. Maybe the pigeons have the same feelings, the reason they return, but it is not proven. In fact, he is of the view that time passes quickly, but living things continue living with memories, with the love of the place they get food from and the memory of that loving place. It is how life continues on this earth.

Works Cited

Leiseley, Loren. “The Brown Wasps.” The Naturalist. n. d. Web. 05 Aug. 2016.

Introduction to Survival in Maus

The name of first chapter of the novel shows the theme of survival in Maus through its title “Mouse Hole”, which gives an impression that the characters are trapped like mice in the holes, which was exactly what happened to Valdek in that village. The scene described in these pages is that of the escape of the hero, Valdek, who is a courageous man, making efforts for his family’s survival from the Nazis, who are on the lookout for the Jews to exterminate them. The scene takes place in a ghetto, where they all have been imprisoned to be segregated. Anja, the wife of Valdek is hysterical before they leave this place. These comics show how they leave this ghetto to Sosnowiec, presenting theme of survival in Maus.

Escape of Valdek is Survival in Maus

This page gives a full picture of the escape of Valdek for his survival in Maus. All the panels on this page are arranged in a sequence except the first two where the first one is a bit smaller than the second one, which is a bit larger than all of the rest. Almost all the panels have borders, separated with a gutter, and descriptions in captions given with some as in the case of first five where the dialogue is clear “Anja and I did not have where to go.” The dialogues are clearly given in the speech bubbles as in the sixth panel “It was nowhere we had to hide.” However, there is no tier as it is on some other pages in the novel. The captions are very short as supposed to be to give voice to what Valdek says in this episode.

Images of Survival in Maus

As far as the images are concerned, the characters are the same Valdek and his wife, Art himself and Miloch, while Art’s father appears in the last penal, showing theme of survival in Maus. They are also engaged in survival from this ghetto. They are trying to find a way out. The images resemble the characters throughout the novel. However, the Nazi symbol given in the second last panel, shows that wherever they may go, everything is under the feet of the Nazis who are constantly in search of them.

Narrative of Survival in Maus

As far as narrative elements are concerned, first page tells a story of a desperate escape. The context of this story is that the Nazis are bringing all the Jews to Auschwitz to put them into gas chambers. This is the village of Srodula where the ghetto is located. Valdek along with his wife and fifteen others are imprisoned over there. Some have been killed in their attempt to flee this prison. Pesach tells the other members that they have bribed guards to flee, but that is not easy. This page opens with Valdek saying that they are only a handful, and there are no guards, but they need to leave it. Therefore, they would have to arrange clothes and IDs for them to escape. Miloch meets them on the way to where Valdek leaves a letter to fix the next meeting place. It also shows that one of them, Avram and his wife, were deceived, when their money was finished, while Valdek and his wife Anja did not find any place to go.

Dialogue and Survival in Maus

The dialogues in this narrative are beautiful and tell the whole story, while the rest is done by the captions which fill the gaps. The dialogues are not only short and crispy but also full of meaning. They show that they are desperate in search of some safe place, some shelter but they find nothing to go. Specifically, the situation of Avram and his wife tells us that even friends cannot be trusted. The second last image shows the image of the Gestapo police of the Nazis, which shows how they were spread in all directions to hunt for the Jews. This is a symbol of cruelty and barbarism. The overall theme of this page is escape from oppression and barbarism which is amply clear from the dialogues.

Conclusion

In short, the page shows a full picture of the cruelty committed against the Jews in Auschwitz, showing their survival in Maus at stake. It shows how they are hunted down by the Nazis in their own villages. The images of the characters in animal faces, the dialogues, and the symbols create a powerful impact on the readers and the audiences about the barbarism committed against the Jews during the Holocaust. Captions also contribute to this acute sense of oppression the Jews had to go through these troubling times.

Works Cited

1. Hutcheon, Linda. A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory and Fiction. New York, Routledge. 1988. Print.
2. Spiegelman, Art. Maus. New York: Penguin, 2001. Print.

Relevant Questions about Survival in Maus by Art Spiegelman

1. How is the theme of survival in Maus portrayed differently for Vladek and Art Spiegelman, shedding light on their unique perspectives on surviving the Holocaust?
2. What specific survival strategies and coping mechanisms are exemplified in survival in Maus, and how do they shape the characters’ resilience in the face of the Holocaust?
3. In what ways does survival in Maus delve into the emotional and psychological aspects of survival, offering insight into how characters like Vladek and Art navigate the enduring impact of their traumatic experiences?

Introduction Postmodernism in Maus

Postmodernism in Maus shows the presence of the multiplicity of thematic strands, making it the most popular graphic novel. Yet, it seems very hard to understand this abstruse text of animal images representing human beings and then presenting the theme of the holocaust through these images; a colossal event of human history being represented through animal images in such a broken way. This, itself, becomes a postmodern technique where the text or presentation becomes a symbol of the avant-garde about which Linda Hutcheon has talked much in her book saying it offers a model of “contesting the fixity of the borders between art and life” (218). Art Spiegelman manipulated the same avant-garde of art and exploited it to write this graphic novel on the pattern of weaving some narratives to dislodge the reader about his faith in a master narrative that drives the characters (229). Maus even shows various other features of postmodern fiction even during a single reading. Leaving aside the comics and use of images, the stories within this story emerge after the first reading that a reader forgets that it is talking about the Holocaust and gets interested in the story of Vladek and Art but when it comes back to the Holocaust, then it makes readers startle over this story within a story and then within a story technique, which is truly modern. Not only does postmodernism in Maus peeps through, but also shows the author’s search for truth and reality, use of various narratives, search for identity, and use of pastiches; to name a few postmodern features of a work of fiction.

Postmodernism in Maus as Manipulation of Avant-Garde

One of the features of postmodern fiction is that it manipulates the modern concept of literary avant-garde which Linda Hutcheon says having no borders for literary genres (218). It means that one genre is mixed and merged into another and vice versa or many genres are mixed into each other in such a way that they try to present meanings of historical events. Art Spiegelman has tried to derive meanings of the Holocaust through the comical narrative of his father merged with his own narrative of writing this comic. For example, when Vladek is telling Art about Haskel, and how he survived the war, he feels short of breath and has to tell his son that he is have feeling difficulty though he has nitrostate, a type of medicine. This is the narrative of Art Spiegelman and how he tackles getting master narrative from his father which he into comics. To come back to the master narrative again, his father asked Art “What was I telling you” to which he reminded him of the incident of Haskel (111). At another place, he says it clearly that he visited his father to get more information which means to continue his narrative (42). Even his story of visiting his psychiatrist, too, is a merger in the master narrative, though the psychiatrist is also a Holocaust survivor. However, it is also a point that this entire game of narratives within narratives without applying specific genres is due to man’s eternal search for truth as shown in the novel when analyzed through postmodernism in Maus.

History and Postmodenrism in Maus

The search for truth through such a method and reference to history is not new, but it is a specific feature of postmodernism in Maus. Art Spiegelman has applied this feature to his novel Maus. Although he wants to know the truth about his father’s survival and escape, his mother’s death, and his brother’s life, he gets involved in his own truth about his own life and how he feels guilty of neglecting his father. The art of mixing different genres and then continuing with them parallel with the master narrative is just the same search for truth. It is because Art Spiegelman is looking for morality behind the past events by presenting them in the present through oral telling of the real characters. This is a sort of search for reality behind another reality where reality is blurred in the present. That is why Linda Hutcheon has stated that this is the problem of modern fiction that it questions the relationship between history and reality and then even of both with the language (15). Perhaps that is the very reason that Spiegelman has tried to present the reality of history through comic figures to make it presentable when it is analyzed through postmodernism in Maus.

Postmodernism in Maus through Metanarrative

However, the problem of modern fiction is that not only there are many sides of the story and story within a story with a metanarrative, but also that the narrators are sometimes unreliable. Art Spiegelman interviews his father at different times to construct the real story of his survival but then turns to his own story of neglecting his father at times when he needs Art the most. Even both fight over smoking and pedaling blaming each other that the problem of shortness of breath is due to the one’s smoking or the other’s pedaling. This builds up a tension where Art sometimes feels that he has neglected his father abut at other times tries to use him to get notes for his comic story (Spiegelman 91-92). This, somewhat builds tension in which he visits his psychiatrist and the story takes a new turnabout familial relations and guilt, another tension. Both of these conflicts lead to the unreliability of the main narrator as well as the secondary narrator. This is feature of the postmodern that a story is inserted with the more stories or a metanarrative is interrupted through various other narratives going on parallel with the metanarrative. In fact, this is a search for identity that the Jews lost during their escape.

Identity and Postmodernism in Maus

Although Art Spiegelman seems to be in search of his Jewish identity, this is not a specific trait of postmodernism in Maus. In fact, it is the loss of identity that postmodern fiction portrays. Jews lost their identity when the German soldiers were looking for them and killing them on one or the other pretext. Although during the initial stages of the German occupation and segregation of the Jews, they mostly helped each other as Ilzecki helps Vladek in setting up business. However, as soon as life becomes uncertain, the Jews stopped showing themselves as Jews and helping each other. The instinct of survival overcame the identity of being Jewish. Several Jews became informers of the police on the promise that they would be spared. Even Haskel, his cousin, refused to take Jews to Auschwitz without money (114-115). The only answer Vladek to his cousin’s hunger for money was “You don’t understand” as it “was everybody to take care of himself” (114). Now to find his Jewish identity, Spiegelman tries to revisit history and build the same narrative. It is, however, very important to know that Spiegelman has tried to build his identity in this modern age when nothing seems real, even the language. Therefore, the use of pastiche in narrative a la art comes in handy to him and peeps through when postmodernism in Maus is specifically explored.

Although pastiche is used in art, Spiegelman has employed this technique through comics in this novel. As he has used two narratives at the same time, it blurs a difference between the past history and the present history, making him merge both in panels. For example, at one place, he is hearing his father telling him tale of his escape, but at the next moment, he asks “Art you ready for walk again?” and then start the story again (119). Furthermore, the use of only two colors and animal, mouse, to show Jewish people and their situation as mousetrap. In the same way, he has presented Germans as cats which points to the cat and mouse game of the Jews and their escape for survival. The way of presenting this historical even through comic symbols of animals is truly a show of postmodernism in Maus.

Conclusion

In short, Maus is a representative postmodern fiction display various postmodern traits used in fiction as well as art. It is because it is the demand of the time and age to use these techniques to convey this to modern readers. It is also that the colossal events of the Holocaust could not be conveyed so impressively and effectively only through language which has become an unreliable medium and the situation of Jewish suffering could not be conveyed just through the depiction of human beings undergoing torture until they are further belittled to animals and then treated like animals. This is the search for reality which has been blurred and it could be narrated through various narratives. This is also a search of identity when it is lost. The use of pastiche and comic animals has further strengthened the postmodernism in Maus.

Works Cited

1. Hutcheon, Linda. A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory and Fiction. New York, Routledge. 1988. Print.
2. Spiegelman, Art. Maus. New York: Penguin, 2001. Print.

Relevant Questions about Postmodernism in Maus by Spiegelman

1. How does the graphic novel Maus by Art Spiegelman subvert conventional narrative structures and historical representation through its postmodern elements?
2. What is the role and significance of metafiction within the context of Maus by Art Spiegelman, and how does it contribute to the work’s postmodern character?
3. In what ways does the use of animal allegory in Maus challenge established notions of identity and representation, reflecting its postmodern narrative?

Introduction to Marriages in Hard Times

The advent of the Industrial Revolution not only played havoc with human emotions but also with conjugal lives as marriages in Hard Times show. The family lives and characters faced disruption in the shape of incompatible marriages as well as spoiled marriages along with heartless and emotional flirtations. Although some people emerged as prosperous and well-to-do with newly earned wealth, the moral values lost their strength. The major thematic strand of marriages in Hard Times by Charles Dickens is the devastation of the conjugal lie, relationships, and matches as well as the elimination of human emotions even outside of married lives.

Marriages in Hard Times and Wealth

The first attack of the newly acquired wealth is on the conjugal life. This includes the existing marriages as well as the marriages that are yet to take place, new marriages, and divorces to get rid of unhappy marriages. The example of the existing marriage is that of Mr. Gradgrind with Mrs. Gradgrind where there is no love and no emotion. Mr. Gradgrind’s philosophy of “nothing but Facts!” (Dickens 06) runs in his married life including his relationships with his kids to whom he does not want to learn poetry when Mrs. Gradgrind suggests about it. His reply is that it must be the bad influence of the presence of circus girl, Sissy Jupe. He is so much blinded by his mantra of facts that he is ready to marry his daughter Louisa to Mr. Bounderby, the man more than double of her age, merely because he is a self-styled wealthy bachelor. However, what he fails to understand is that he has not taught humanistic feelings to his children, the reason that his daughter fails to adjust to new married life with Mr. Bounderby, and his son becomes rather a thief. This shows the impact of wealth on marriages in Hard Times.

Common Marriages in Hard Times

The second example of marriage, devastated by the onslaught of industrialism and newly acquired wealth leading to exploitation of others, is of Stephen Blackpool who, despite finding a very good and compassionate friend Rachael, cannot get rid of his old wife. It also counts among the worst marriages in Hard Times. It is because divorce was very difficult to get during the Victorian period, for the laws are legislated to benefit the rich, while the poor are reeling under the debt. Mrs. Blackpool is not only very lascivious but also bad-tempered, and this Hand, who works hard and honestly, has no way out except her death or his own death, which happens in any case before he could experience the blissful conjugal life with Rachael. Still another example is the marriage of Louisa with Bounderby which is based on the convenience of the business world but proves disastrous for Louisa, for she does not have any feelings for the old self-made factory owner who claims to have “born in a ditch” (47). Although it shows another disastrous or must-have-been disastrous marriage, for his claim that his mother “ran away from me” (47) proved wrong by the end when it is proved that the old beggar lady is his mother, Mrs. Pegler and that she has not left him; rather he has thrown her out after acquiring wealth. However, this marriage has not been shown in the novel.

Other Marriages in Hard Times

The example of Louisa’s marriage with Bounderby proves disastrous. She does not know romance and passions involved in conjugal life, as she does not express her emotions when she is told, “you are subject of a proposal of marriage” (132), but then the subject of love is debated in such a hard-facts manner that it proves entirely useless until Mr. Gradgrind has to ask her to “consider this question” (133). The interesting thing is that even after living for sometime together, Louisa is devoid of any emotions to her husband. That is why she is lured to Mr. James Harthouse to whom she goes to meet and is implicated by Mrs. Sparsity. By the end, she is so much devasted that Mr. Gradgrind refuses to send her to Mr. Bounderby, showing utter failure of the marriage.

The episode of Mr. Harthouse showing and showering love on Louisa is an example of emotionless and amoral youths of the Victorian period who are hellbent on enjoying life instead of establishing the institution of married life. He himself is not aware of this flirtation with Louis and leaves after required by Sissy Jupe. Therefore, his example of love is the example of not-happened marriages in Hard Times.

On the other hand, the circus people and Sissy Jupe has been placed in contrast to marriages in Hard Times. Sissy Jupe displays not only compassion and understanding of emotions, but also munificence and generosity in forgiving. Her marrying somebody and having children to be taken care by Louisa shows that circus life represents a world of human beings devoid of “facts” (06) and money represented by Mr. Gradgrind and Bounderby. Her arrangement for Tom to leave the town and the help she gets from the circus people Mr. Sleary to make his escape possible shows that salvation lies not in hard facts, money and mechanized life. It rather lies in helping and being helped and loving and being loved. Initially hated and spurned in the household of Mr. Gradgrind, Sissy Jupe becomes a cynosure of the eyes of all the characters whom she saves in the end from going to the prison and helping to have feelings. For both of his children, Mr. Gradgrind finds a helping hand which he has spurned his entire life.

Conclusion

To cut the argument short, almost all marriages in Hard Times ar based on money, social status, lasciviousness and greed produced by the ravishing industrialism utterly fail. However, the poor fellows who are spurned, exploited and even tortured prove successful in marriage and having children, which is an example that life lived in wealth and devoid of feelings is an utter disaster. However, those who have exploited the poor but lived a seemingly successful married life prove utter failure in making their children’s conjugal lives or careers a success. Tom and Louisa’s lives are a case in point. Louisa ends up serving Sissy Jupe and Tom ends up living abroad, away from his homeland as well as his parents. Bounderby proves a hoax, having left his mother after getting wealth. In short, only the circus people seems to have succeeded in winning hearts of the readers due to their help and service in saving the prime institution, the married life.

Works Cited

1. Dickens, Charles. Hard Times. Adelaide Library, Ebook. 2014.

Relevant Question about Marriages in Hard Times by Dickens

1. How do the different marriages in “Hard Times” reflect the societal norms and values of the Victorian era, and what commentary does Dickens provide on the institution of marriage during that time?
2. The marriage of Mr. Bounderby and Louisa Gradgrind is central to the novel’s plot. How does this marriage serve as a critique of utilitarianism and its impact on personal relationships, and what consequences does it have on the characters involved?
3. In “Hard Times,” there is a stark contrast between the marriages of the factory workers, such as Stephen Blackpool and Rachael, and those of the upper classes, like Mr. and Mrs. Gradgrind. How does Dickens use these different marriages to highlight the class divide and the struggles of working-class individuals in matters of love and family?

Introduction to Lulu Lamartine

Despite having various faults as seen from the social comments about and against her “as a flirt” with “Tongues less kind” (105), Lulu Lamartine reconnects the males in various indigenous Indian ways. She expresses it herself that “I was in love with the whole world,” (272) demonstrating the passion lying behind her supposed or real promiscuity. It has moved the tongues and stirred commentaries about her. Her feminine power, however, lies not in her promiscuity or loving nature; rather, it lies in that she has “never shed one solitary tear” and not felt “sorry” for what she has done (273). These moves reassure not only her but also others as she has demonstrated it when dealing with her different lovers and her eight sons who “were of one soul” (114) with her. She also demonstrates her sagacity in choosing her husband between Bev and Henry when they met the first time. The centrality of her role about different characters shows her multidimensional Indianness. In fact, not only does Lulu Lamartine provide necessary love medicine to different Indians by demonstrating her traditional Indian femininity and empowerment, but she also tries to reconnect the people when it comes to her relationship with Bev and Lipsha Morrisey.

Love of Lulu Lamartine

As far as love is concerned, Lulu Lamartine seems an embodiment of love who not only seeks love for herself but also showers love on others. In her narrative, Lulu asserts, “I was in love with the whole world” (272) including nature as well as men. She further adds that “I loved what I saw” (273). It means that she is hungry for love as she did it during her childhood when she could not win Nector. She demonstrates this love that attracts men, provides them comfort, reconnects them as well as heals them. When it comes to attracting men, she goes for Moses Pillager when she sees that Nector Kashpaw, her “first love” (273), has left her for another woman. She demonstrates this love again when she marries Henry, for she gets the reaction when dealing with both brothers in a card game (112). She demonstrates it again through her gestures which are “subtle magnets” (113) that Bev immediately forgets his mission of getting Henry back and enters her bedroom which is “the sacred domain of her femininity” (116). He even does not feel that he has lost his mission of dealing with her diplomatically (116) that he has come with determination. This is a specific Indian trait of loving that if you do not win one love in one way, you go after it another way. Although she becomes the talk of the town in this effort of her to find love, it does not matter to her. Therefore, it must have happened in the choice of her husband that she is pragmatically loving, for she must have seen her survival in marrying one after the other. In one way, this also shows her courage in dealing with them.

Courage of Lulu Lamartine

Where courage is concerned, it is Indian courage of femininity that Lulu Lamartine demonstrates in love as well as in providing a healing touch of love to others. For example, she has clearly provided this healing touch to Bev who almost forgets his mission when he visits her to bring his son but gets entangled in her love. He automatically enters her bedroom (113) after forgetting everything about his mission of taking his son. Again, when they talk about things and their first meeting, he is shocked when he hears that it was Lulu who decided to marry which brother and it was “bold even for Lulu” (111) herself. He again observes this femininity when he sees the boys. In the case of boys, this love mixes with respect as well as obedience and Bev sees that “the younger boys obey” her “perfectly” (114). This femininity also goes into providing a healing touch to Lipsha Morrisey who does not know his real mother but when Lulu drags him to tell this fact about who his real mother was, he says, “I’ll respect her from now on” (299). He comes to know her sincere and true motive after this. Not only is this a bold move on the part of Lulu, but also this provides real healing touch to Lipsha who has all along been entirely ignorant of his real father and mother. This entirely depends on the courage of Lulu and only Lulu could do it. It is also that Lipsha starts believing that Lulu has a “near-divine healing touch,” (299) the reason that she has provided it to him on time. This shows the courage that Lulu has due to her Indian femininity that reaches out to all others who encounter her.

Relationships of Lulu Lamartine

In both of her relationships with Bev and Lipsha, Lulu Lamartine also provides a link to them to reconnect to their families. In one way, these prove healing touches, and, in another way, both reconnect to their loved ones and their Indian roots. For example, in the case of Ben, she has waited for him for so long that when she hugs him as he enters, he feels this love. She proves this when he senses “some sweet apprehension of their kinship” (114) and when he seems to have “no plans at all” (115) for his son, Henry Juniors, though he has plans to take him with him before meeting her. This is purely her presence that reconnects Bev to his family of nephews and his son in a way that it “hardly mattered who was what” (116). For Bev, it is a reconnection as well as a healing touch. Almost the same is the case of Lipsha Morrisey who believes in her divine healing touch after he comes to know about his real father and mother. He becomes fully convinced of her divine powers like that of another lady, Germain, as he says, “If she had some kind of power, I wasn’t one to doubt” (299). Bev, too, sees that Lulu has connected all her sons into one soul as they act together. He enviously looks at them working and obeying her “bound in total loyalty” (114) like they were in their youthful period. This tradition of reconnection runs deep into the Indian femininity demonstrated by Lulu and identified as well as appreciated by Bev. He sees that they were also connected to their siblings in the same way though he does not mention the femininity that held them together – which of course is his own mother. Lipsha, too, appreciates the same when he comes to know about his family.

Conclusion

Putting it briefly, the pure Indian character of Lulu Lulu Lamartine or Nanapush proves her Indianesses when it comes to providing love, showering love, attracting men, asserting femininity, and reconnecting the Indians to their Indian roots. She has demonstrated her love for everything be it, men, or women. She has showered love on her first love, Nector, and turned to Moses when Nector flees. She, then, provides the loving comfort of a wife to her every husband even if it means a title of flirt for her with some additional comments against her. She has demonstrated this love toward her siblings, creating a sense of unity and love among them that they act like they are part of a single organism. She again demonstrates this love when she deals with Bev when he comes to take his son away. In a way, she has always shown love to attract men or patriarchy toward her feminine power. This feminine power emerges to unite the Indian males as well as inform them about their family and family roots. She reconnects both Bev and Lipsha to their families and both acknowledge it. This reconnection of people having lost family connection and consequently Indianness is in a way an Indian indigenous act of reconnecting the individuals to the organism – the Indianness. It proves a healing touch to those whom she connects. Bev feels it when he comes to meet her and sees the boy acting in unison with love as they have acted in their childhood. Lipsha feels gratitude for her when she reconnects him to his family. In short, Lulu Lamartine is a magnet around whom the entire Indian culture revolves, and she provides it necessary subtlety, resilience, and surviving power to overcome the deracination of modern US culture.

Works Cited

1. Erdrich, Louise. Love Medicine. 1984. New and Expanded Version. New York: Holt, 1993.

1. How does Lulu Lamartine’s Ojibwe heritage and cultural background influence her relationships with other characters in “Love Medicine,” and what role does her Indianness play in shaping her identity within the story?
2. Throughout the novel, Lulu Lamartine is depicted as a symbol of sensuality and allure. How does her Indianness contribute to the portrayal of her as a powerful, magnetic figure, and how do others in the narrative respond to her as a result?
3. Lulu Lamartine’s character navigates the complexities of preserving Ojibwe traditions while existing in a world influenced by white American culture. How does her struggle to reconcile these two worlds highlight the challenges faced by Indigenous individuals in maintaining their cultural identity in a rapidly changing society?

Introduction to Infanta in Le Cid

Infanta in Le Cid, a great play, is a highly important character as se serves as a catalyst for the occurrence of numerous events. It needs to be stressed that her actual name is Donna Urraque. She the aughter of an esteemed Don Ferdinand. Despite the fact that in most modern stage enactments, her character is either not highlighted or eliminated altogether, Infanta remains a pivotal character of Le Cid. In fact, an in-depth analysis of the play reveals that Infanta can be regarded as Chimene’s foil — the female protagonist of the play. Her personality attributes serve as a direct contrast to Chimene’s behavioral traits. As opposed to Chimene, Infanta is not driven by passion or impulse; rather she is pragmatic and places high value on integrity and social responsibility. In other words, Infanta endorses a collectivistic social system and hence, she makes decisions that would serve the interests of her community. Due to this emphasis on social responsibility, Infanta does not pursue or profess the immense love she feels for Don Rodrigue — the protagonist. As opposed to her emotions, she follows logic and reason. Although Infanta could have easily pursued and lured Don Rodrigue, her personal values and social conscience prevents her from doing so. Therefore, Infanta can be regarded as a prototype of all those individuals who possess foresight and social wisdom. As a devoted citizen, Infanta in Le Cid believes that retribution should be ordained in order to safeguard social or communal interest and not merely for satiating one’s desire for vengeance.

Awareness of Infanta in Le Cid

Infanta’s awareness of the overpowering appeal of love becomes evident when she acknowledges to her governess, Leonor that “Love is a tyrant who spares none, I fear / This young knight, this lover, aided here, / I love” (L e Cid Act-I Scene-I) which itself is an admission of an extraordinary determination.Nonetheless, as asserted earlier, Infanta desists herself from pursuing a love that is bound to be doomed. She is acutely conscious of her royal stature that of a princess; hence, her loyalty and her strong sense of duty towards her state compel her to renounce her quest of the young warrior, thereby willfully abandoning herself to her duties as a royal member. It is actually this sense of duty that urges her to unite the esteemed warrior, the object of her desire- Don Rodrigue — with Chimene. She says to Chimene, “Dry your tears, Chimene, and free of sadness” (Act-V Scene-VII) adding “receive him from the hands of your princess” (Act-V Scene-VII). When Chimene is consumed by the desire to avenge her father’s murder by penalizing Don Rodrigue, Infanta advises her against it. She attempts to persuade Chimene to reconsider her desire for revenge by stating that if she complies with the law, the good of the country lies in this.

Royal Character of Infanta in Le Cid

Like a devoted member of the state, Infanta in Le Cid manifests perfection in terms of both personal and royal integrity. Instead of ensuring her own happiness at the expense of the happiness of the majority, she adheres to the belief that it is far more honorable to safeguard the happiness of another. Thus, she does not use her stature and influence as a princess to perpetuate her self-interest rather she wants to “seek in the good of another” in the very first scene adding further that this “marriage means so much to all three” (Act-I Scene-I).Thus, like a devout princess or a considerate monarch, she believes in the spirit of self-sacrifice when it comes to the prosperity of her subjects.

Rationality of Infanta in Le Cid

There are numerous instances in the play where instead of resorting to manipulative tactics, Infanta in Le Cid adopts a more rational and moderate approach vis-à-vis her love for Don Rodrigue. However, being human, Infanta suffers from instances of weakness. During one of these moments of weakness, she states to her governess, Leonor “the effect of reason, / When the heart is touched by subtle poison!” (Act-II, Scene-III) is quite weak and not strong. What she means is that reason does not work. When Chimene is undergoing extreme anguish and turmoil with regard to whether she should forgive Don Rodrigue- the chivalrous hero who has saved the kingdom of Castille, she says to Chimene, “Be calm, Chimene, calm your mind’s disturbance, / Be steadfast in the face of this mischance, / You’ll find fresh peace after this brief storm”  (Act-II Scene-III).Thus, instead of exploiting Chimene’s anger and benefitting from it to form a union between herself and Don Rodrigue, Infanta advises Chimene to be patient and to postpone making any decision till her anger subsides.

Actions of Infanta in Le Cid

 Furthermore, Infanta persuades Chimene to vanquish her desire of seeking Don Rodrigue’s blood in return for her father’s slaying and also expresses her determination that “I’ll help you quench your desire” ( Act-V Scene II). Thus, Infanta plays a quintessential role in minimizing the feelings of aversion and animosity between the two lovers and insists that “Even the King agrees, the truth is plain,/ That in Rodrigue your father lives again; / If you’d have me explain it in a breath, / You pursue public ruin through his death (Act-IV Scene-II).  In fact, she has made her realize that “What was right then is not so today. / Rodrigue is now our sole support” (Act-IV Scene-II). And she Chimene demurs, she makes it clear that “But it’s a deed of a higher order / To put the public good before a father” (Act-IV Scene-II). Moreover, she tries to rip to pieces Chemine’s rigid notions about reclaiming family honor by advocating forgiveness and asserting;

“Why should this public notice so pain you?

This young Mars, they praise, once pleased you;

Possessed your soul; was subject to your law”. (Act-V Scene-II) 

It is noteworthy that although she herself does not adhere to the emotional demands her heart places upon her, Infanta urges Chimene to follow her heart’s desire stating that therein lies true honor that is in honestly acknowledging the desires of one’s heart as opposed to one’s adherence to societal and familial notions of honor. This shows that for Infanta, love can only be pursued between individuals who belong to relatively compatible social classes. 

Conclusion

In the final analysis, it can be asserted that Infanta upholds the status quo. She acts as a mediator between Le Cid, the renowned warrior and Chemine. She does not let herself get swayed by her passionate love for Don Rodrigue. Acting in a manner that would guarantee her subjects’ prosperity, she deliberately tries to extinguish her feelings of love, and instead channelizes her energy in convincing Chemine to forgive Don Rodrigue thereby preventing the loss of an integral state hero. For Infanta, the existence of a state hero- an ideal and exemplary warrior- is more significant than retribution. Therefore, she questions and redefines the entire notion and theoretical framework of preserving family honor. For Infanta, the state supersedes personal and familial interests. Her rational self persistently reminds her that as a princess, she can only cherish a long-term union with a member of another royal family. Thus, Infanta in Le Cid shows rationalism and pragmatism. This enables her to use her persuasive skills and her worldly wisdom to prevent the occurrence of unnecessary bloodshed. Therefore, she can be regarded as a central character of Le Cid, without whom the play would lose its coherence.

Works Cited

1. Corneille. “Le Cid.” 06 June 2007. Poetry In Translation. Translation by A. S. Kiln. Web. 20 March 2014 <http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/French/LeCid.htm>.

Relevant Questions about Infanta in Le Cid

1. What is Infanta’s role in the plot of Le Cid and how does she influence the story’s events?
2. How does Infanta’s character develop or change as the play Le Cid progresses?
3. What is the nature of the relationship between Infanta and Rodrigue, and how does it impact the overall narrative of Le Cid?