Категория ◊ Английска филология ◊

Author: Yanina
• Friday, November 20th, 2009


Наскоро ми попадна много ценна информация за всички, които преподават английски, интересуват се от педагогика и методики на преподаване, отворени са за нови идеи и нестандартни подходи. Тези линкове са незаменими помощници – ще ви спестят много време за подготовка, а освен това ще ви помогнат да превърнете ученето  в забавление.

 

Section 1 Pedagogy articles

 

Ways of using cartoon and comics in the classroom

http://www.eslbase.com/articles/comics.asp

Using comics and cartoons in ESL classroom

http://www.makebeliefscomix.com/How-to-Play/Educators/

Language teaching with cartoons – good article

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/38/33/ac.pdf

Use of cartoons in the classroom

http://jpnperak.edu.my/portal/download/KajianTindakanWeb/2005/rumusan/bahasa/16_Verakumar_smk_raja_shahriman.pdf

Cartoons are magic

http://oregonread.org/conf_handouts_08/Artell_small_gp.pdf

Cartoon and comics

http://www.esa.co.nz/files/samplepages/SampleSGEn10.pdf

Cartoon language through laughter – excellent summary of suggestions

http://elt.schule.at/downloads/gill.language.thru.laughter.pdf

Using comics with ESL/EFL students

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Derrick-UsingComics.html

Comics in the multilingual classroom

http://college.heinemann.com/shared/onlineresources/E00475/chapter2.pdf

Teaching reading through humour

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/22/ef/37.pdf

Comics a multi-dimensional teaching aid

http://www.esl-lab.com/research/comics.htm

Using comics to encourage reading writing

http://eslincanada.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/use-comics-to-encourage-reading-writing-storytelling/


Comic book as a course book: Why and How

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/14/4e/72.pdf

Book introduction – general

http://www.geocities.com/dreampsycles/Big_16_page_preview.pdf

Teaching with comics

http://www.flummery.com/teaching/

Comics – effective teaching tool

http://www.joe.org/joe/1979january/79-1-a3.pdf

CDisplay – often needed to view comics. Easy to download and use.

http://www.geocities.com/davidayton/CDisplay

http://www.toggle.com/lv/group/view/kl39723/CDisplay.htm

http://www.4shared.com/file/88962238/95c4b4db/CDisplay.html

Section 2 General MegaWebsites for Cartoons and Comics

Thousands of comic strips and similar resources – absolute treasure

http://allthingsger.blogspot.com/search/label/Mort%20Meskin

Over 200 cartoon resource including many videos – fantastic

http://cool-mo-dee.blogspot.com/search/label/cartoon

Over 500 comic resources – another sizzler

http://cool-mo-dee.blogspot.com/search/label/comics

The premier site with lots of suggested activities and links for cartoons and comics

http://www.ac-nancy-metz.fr/enseign/anglais/Henry/cartoon.htm

http://www.ac-nancy-metz.fr/enseign/anglais/Henry/comics.htm

100 top cartoon sites – brilliant links to site in one place

http://www.100topcartoon.com/

Animal cartoons

http://www.ac-nancy-metz.fr/enseign/anglais/Henry/cartoon.htm

cartoons about teachers and language

http://www.langwichscool.com/english.html

Fishing cartoons

http://www.landbigfish.com/caption/default.cfm

Cartoons under many categories – good source

http://www.glasbergen.com/

Education cartoon for teachers

http://www.glasbergen.com/edu.html

Comic clip art of every variety

http://www.clipartguide.com/_search_terms/comic.html

Cartoon clip art

http://www.mrfreefree.com/free_graphics/free_cartoon_comic_clipart.html

Telling stories through comics

http://www.tmotley.com/images/Classsketches/Beginner’s%20Lesson.pdf

Strips – useful

http://main.complicatedcomic.com/

Writing a comic strip

http://www.weltschmerz.ca/blog/Notes_Comic_Strip.pdf

Creating cartoons, comics, puzzles, slide shows, videos etc etc –

http://www.michellehenry.fr/create.htm

Comic strip printables

http://www.donnayoung.org/art/comics.htm

http://www.ontariotimemachine.ca/pdf/comicstrip.pdf

http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson_images/lesson790/Assessment-Comic-Strip.pdf

Comic strip rubric

http://www.bsu.edu/myvisit/downloads/A02B05L01comicstriprubric.pdf

http://www.wesleyanschool.org/life/highschool/chapmanlibrary/Documents/7th/7thSRWrittenAssignment2009.pdf

Promoting the use of high quality comic literature in the classroom – excellent reviews and suggestions for use.

http://graphicclassroom.blogspot.com/

Using cartoons and comic strips

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/language-assistant/teaching-tips/using-cartoons-comic-strips

Comic strip syndicated collection – useful collection

http://www.stus.com/3majors.htm

Chris Altham collection – lots of clip art ass well

http://www.altham.com/html/strip_cartoons.html

Free registration _ Lots of Good comic strips

http://comics.com/

Celebrating children achievement – kids comics

http://www.amazing-kids.org/akcomics.htm

The man who broke 1000 brains – plenty of comic strips

http://www.russell-richardson.com/

lesson ideas from eslcafe

http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?t=2203

100s of image makers and sign generators – you can really liven up your worksheets with these.

http://www.sparesomechange.com/funny/

Section 3 Ideas, Activities and Lesson plans

Grammar man comic – excellent free resources

http://www.grammarmancomic.com/freestuff.html

Funny comic strip lesson

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805217/21554/excerpt/9780521721554_excerpt.pdf

Comic life lesson plans

http://naticluster.wikispaces.com/file/view/comic_life_lesson_plans.pdf

Cartoon analysis worksheet

http://www.educationoasis.com/curriculum/Social_Studies/his/pdf/cartoon_analysis_worksheet.pdf

Cartoon lesson

http://www.breakingnewsenglish.com/0602/060213-cartoons-e.html

14 visual lesson plans that exploit cartoons

http://www.eslcafe.com/idea/index.cgi?display:923411630-14178.txt

Comic strip writing prompt

http://www.bookrags.com/plans/SCH0439159776/

Cartoon videos for intermediate listening

http://mondosstudybycartoons.blogspot.com/

Immigration cartoons lesson

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8768887/Immigration-Cartoon

http://www.asdk12.org/depts/socialstudies/clio/6th%20Grade%20Unit/Immigration/cartoon%20commentary.pdf

Analysing a political cartoon

http://www.tennessee.gov/tsla/educationoutreach/worksheet_politicalcartoon.pdf

Editorial cartoon lessons

http://712educators.about.com/cs/edcartoons/a/edcartoons.htm

ESL and Archie comics – you can download some cartoon strips.

http://www.archiecomics.com/podcasts/?p=71

Humorous collective noun cartoons

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/c/collective_nouns.asp

Humorous adjective cartoons

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/cartoon

Cartoons for the classroom

http://www.nieonline.com/cftc/pdfs/eval.pdf

Communication through cartoons

http://www.montshire.org/teams/teams3/get-the-message/program_materials/cartoons.pdf

Lessons with cartoons

http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/lp/lessonplans/UsingComicsAndPoliticalCartoons.pdf

Motivation through cartoons

http://www.rainbowhorizons.ca/teaching_units/pdf_samples/A21D.pdf

Cartoon debate

http://www.nieonline.com/cftc/pdfs/officialenglish.pdf

http://nieonline.com/cftc/pdfs/replicators.pdf

Cartoons for the classroom – many lessons

http://nieonline.com/aaec/cftc.cfm?cftcfeature=archive

Comic strip Punctuation

http://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/edit/pdfs/edit1009.pdf

Comic strip grammar – google book just for viewing

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=stmsVMjGhCoC&dq=cartoons+strips+for+grammar&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=BFIgwC78_R&sig=2HY39y75PtUikpFVCak38hX3uHA&hl=en&ei=CC8fSszaCsSMjAet-ISIDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA9,M1

Greeting through comic books

http://www.tjf.or.jp/eng/content/ideacontest/pdf/1_s12e.pdf

Grammar for ESL class

http://www.funnytimes.com/playground/gallery.php?tag=grammar

Multimedia Cartoon for kids

http://www.multimedia-english.com/htm/kids/cartoons/menu1.htm

Learning English with cartoons – many other audio/videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7m0xJ7wna4

Visual literacy cartoons

http://www.iol.co.za/matric_matters_pdfs/vol15pdf/vol-15_page11.pdf

Conversation questions comic books

http://iteslj.org/questions/comics.html

A hole in my pocket

http://eslcomics.blogspot.com/2007/10/hole-in-my-pocket.html

Dana’s tomato caper

http://eslcomics.blogspot.com/

Comic strip game

http://bogglesworldesl.com/speaknbubble/esl_games/esl_comic.htm

Making a comic book

http://www.helenparocha.com/ukay_ukay/topics/comicbook.pdf

Using comics as writing prompts

http://www.uiowa.edu/~amreads/teaching_resources/writing/garfieldwritingprompt.pdf

http://estore.homeschoolbuyersco-op.org/estore/files/samples/HBC_estore/SCH/sch0439159776is.pdf

ESL archie podcast directory – excellent

http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podcasts/17741

Create you own comic strips

http://www.makebeliefscomix.com/

Sources of comic strips

http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/safehavn/about.htm

Comics in the classroom – interesting links and articles

http://comicsintheclassroom.net/oonews_reviews.htm

Simpson clip art

http://simpsons6.netfirms.com/cgi-bin/imageFolio.cgi?direct=simpsons/homer-clip

http://eightpawsclipart.3lmt.com/simpsons.htm

Lesson on stereotype with Simpson’s

http://iteslj.org/Lessons/Meilleur-Simpsons.html

Cartoon lesson

http://www.helenparocha.com/ukay_ukay/fluency/cartoons.pdf

Tons of comic strips – making worksheets and activities entirely down to your imagination.

http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/

Free Spiderman archives – dozens of strips.

http://macam2komik.blogspot.com/2006/10/free-spiderman-comic-archives.html

Spiderman downloads – great. You usually have to wait between each download but its worth it. Full length comics.

http://rapidshare.com/users/HKMXAN

Same site as above with same wait time but you have access to some 888 comics of all kinds. Absolute must bookmark. This site also provides lots of other useful materials too.

http://allfreedownloadlinks.com/category/free-ebooks-downloads/free-comics-downloads/

The very first Superman comic. You need to free register to download.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/197fde2a-f757-4994-bb57-530ffac67694/Dc-Comics—Action-Comics-1—Superman-1938

Simpson 2003/2004 comic strip – dozens to download

http://www.lardlad.com/comicstrip.shtml

Dilbert site – has over 800 strips for your perusal.

http://www.dilbert.com/

British comics – provides the front page of many comics.

http://www.bookpalace.com/UKComics/UKGeneral/INDEX.HTM

Creating vocabulary mental maps through comic super heroes.

http://scottishboomerang.wordpress.com/teaching-resources/

Creating a comic strip

http://www.oli.org/education_resources/documents/comicstripcreationearlnew.pdf

Comic strip

http://artsedge.kennedy-center.org/content/2337/2337_allthenews_comicstrip.pdf

Comic strip conversation

http://www.abiq.org/2008%20Conference/Completed%20PDF%20handouts/GRAY-%20Comic%20Strip%20Conversations.pdf

Comic strip book review

http://mrvandkate.com/Documents/Comic%20Strip.pdf

Lesson on cartoons – reading comprehension

http://www.det.nt.gov.au/education/teaching_and_learning/assessment_standards_reporting/nap/practice_tests/docs/2005/reading/band2_cartoons.pdf

Garfield – collection of strips

http://garfieldcartoons.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2006-02-08T01%3A56%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=7

Garfield lesson plan

http://www.mediafire.com/?yy4cammqyt1

A few lessons and links

http://www.kimskorner4teachertalk.com/writing/general/cartoon.html

Comic Makeovers: Examining Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Gender in the Media + others advanced lessons

http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=207

http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=188

http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=223

http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=1056

http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=236

http://artsedge.kennedy-center.org/content/2126/

Comic strip lesson plan

http://www.mediafire.com/?im2odrzyzzo

Cartoons

http://www.mediafire.com/?w1yztldoyyw

Comics for writing practice

http://www.mediafire.com/?edfmnutiio4

Section 4 Books and Comics

Complete Peanut 1980-1989

http://www.mediafire.com/?2d0zm11v0y2

Complete Peanut 1990-2000

http://www.mediafire.com/?vqizmgzgzlv

Spiderman – lesson plans

http://www.mediafire.com/?tdnjznwdyie

The Amazing Spiderman – vintage 1st edition

http://www.mediafire.com/?ijfzgjlrc4f

Comic Archie PPT

http://www.mediafire.com/?ijfzgjlrc4f

Comic Dilbert zip

http://www.mediafire.com/?55ztzz5dame

Cartoons PPS

http://www.mediafire.com/?rknmnrgjyjn

Cartoons 1 PPS

http://www.mediafire.com/?2aazwutgmjm

Star Trek 1

http://www.mediafire.com/?zyty4t0tmnq

Star Trek 3

http://www.mediafire.com/?awmzjzmduyd

Star Trek the next generation

http://www.mediafire.com/?ijtwk31nkfk

Superman vs Spiderman Comic

http://www.4shared.com/file/13708025/3655162c/DC_Marvel_Comics_-_Superman_vs_Spiderman.html?s=1

Superman Comic 1

http://www.mediafire.com/?bzqdxyttgtj

Author: Yanina
• Tuesday, September 09th, 2008

Romanticism, Realism, Naturalism, and Local Color
The Literary Context of The Awakening


Four major literary movements can claim some aspect of The Awakening, for in this “small compass . . . [is illustrated] virtually all the major American intellectual and literary trends of the nineteenth century” (Skaggs, 80).
The Romantic movement marked a profound shift in sensibilities away from the Enlightenment. It was inspired by reaction to that period’s concepts of clarity, order, and balance, and by the revolutions in America, France, Poland, and Greece. It expressed the assertion of the self, the power of the individual, a sense of the infinite, and transcendental nature of the universe. Major themes included the sublime, terror, and passion. The writing extolled the primal power of nature and the spiritual link between nature and man, and was often emotional, marked by a sense of liberty, filled with dreamy inner contemplations, exotic settings, memories of childhood, scenes of unrequited love, and exiled heroes.
In America, Romanticism coalesced into a distinctly “American” ideal: making success from failure, the immensity of the American landscape, the power of man to conquer the land, and “Yankee” individualism. The writing was also marked by a type of xenophobia. Protestant America was faced with an influx of Catholic refugees from the Napoleonic Wars, of Asian workers who constructed the railroads, and the lingering issue of Native Americans. An insular attitude developed, the “us and them” in Whitman. The major writers of the period were Irving, Cooper, Emerson, Poe, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Whitman, Dickinson, and Melville.
There are various romantic elements in The Awakening. Perhaps the most obvious and elemental are the exotic locale, use of color, and heavy emphasis on nature (click here). The overriding romantic theme in the novel is Edna’s search for individuality and freedom: freedom to decide what to be, how to think, and how to live. This search amounts to her own romantic quest for a holy grail, a grail of self-definition. In the process two classic motifs of the Romantic movement occur: rebellion against society and death. Ringe points out that Edna lies between two extremes in life and is completely alone in the universe (204-05): a condition that is a hallmark of romanticism. As are the other prototypical romantic elements of the text: frequent inner thoughts, memories of childhood, the personified sea and its sensuous call, the fantastic talking birds, the mysterious woman in black, the romantic music playing almost constantly in the background, the dinner party, the gulf spirit, and the desire to express herself through art.
Realism developed as a reaction against Romanticism and stressed the real over the fantastic. The movement sought to treat the commonplace truthfully and used characters from everyday life. Writers probed the recesses of the human mind via an exploration of the emotional landscape of characters. This emphasis was brought on by societal changes sparked by The Origin of Species by Darwin, the Higher Criticism of the Bible, and the aftermath of the Civil War. A deeper, more pessimistic, literary movement called Naturalism grew out of Realism and stressed the uncaring aspect of nature and the genetic, biological destiny of man. Naturalists believed that man’s instinctual, basic drives dominated their actions and could not be evaded. Life was viewed as relentless, without a caring presence to intervene. Twain, Crane, London, Norris, Howells, James, and Dreiser were the major writers of this movement.
The aspect of naturalism most evident in The Awakening is the portrayal of Edna as hostage to her biology. She is female, has children, and is a wife in a society that dictates behavioral norms based on those conditions. These factors drive the novel and drive Edna. She makes “no attempt to suppress her amatory impulses” (Seyersted/Culley, 180), she bases her decisions on the welfare of her children, and she is in her difficult situation because of the men in her life: father, husband, lover, and would-be-lover. The inherited biological aspect continues with the idea that her character traits may have been tainted by bad stock. The novel is also true to the real life aspects of Realism and Naturalism in its forthright dealing with sexual matters: Arobin’s seduction, the hot kisses she gives to Robert, Leonce’s allusion that they no longer sleep together, the naked man on the rock. This type of description was actually advanced for both movements; Chopin provided a more detailed and full range of sexual emotions and activities than most other American novelists had. (Seyersted/ Culley, 181). The relationship between men and women and the economic aspects that go along with that issue are also realistic. Edna is “owned” at various points in the novel by her father, husband, Arobin, and Robert. Victor speaks of women in terms of possession, and Leonce is shown to class her as property, and to see her as a symbol of his social status. Edna herself remarks that as she moves into the pigeon house she feels she is lower on the social rank. Another naturalistic element in the novel is the portrayal of Edna as a victim of fate, chance, of an uncaring world, pulled into a consuming, but indifferent sea. In the end, despite her developments into selfhood, the only escape from her biological destiny as a woman in society, possessed, sexual, and ruled, is death.
Local Color writers were an offshoot of the Realistic movement. They sought to preserve a distinct way of life threatened by industrialization, immigration, the after effects of the War, and the changes in society. Their writing concentrated upon rendering a convincing portrait of a particular region and delving below the surface picture to reveal some universal aspect. A local color work “is one in which the identity of the setting is integral to the very unfolding of the theme, rather than simply incidental to a theme that could as well be set anywhere” (May, 195). Women local colorists were concerned with the place of women in society and the moral designs called for in a life. Freemen, Stowe, Harris, Chesnutt, and Cable were all important local colorists.
Local Color aspects of The Awakeninginclude the characterizations of the people, the descriptions of places and fundamental meaning in the story, the Creole society and its social mores, and the aspects of women making choices that create a life. The characters are important to the plot, but also to the feeling of place: Mlle. Reisz is a bad-tempered spinster, Arobin is a Don Juan, the old men fussing in the boat and Mariequita are “typical” of the island people, the woman in black is a “good Catholic Creole,” and Adele is the “perfect” women. The settings of the story are integral with their meaning: New Orleans has to be a hothouse of societal rules, Grand Isle has to be distant and isolated, Cheniere Caminada needs to be magical in order for the symbolic aspects of each place to complement the story. The use of a foreign language and the focus on Edna’s decisions in life are also elements of local color. Perhaps the most essential element of the story, and the most important reflection of local color, is the Creole society and its rules. These rules allow Edna to flirt with Robert with Leonce present, while later, these same rules cause Robert to leave.
© Neal Wyatt (1995)  [contact at nwyatt@leo.vsla.edu]
Kate Chopin Study Text

Author: Yanina
• Tuesday, September 09th, 2008
Author: Yanina
• Tuesday, September 09th, 2008

Copyright Sarah Klein, 1998
Contact at sklein2@aol.com

Do not plagiarize this paper. For information on how to properly cite the information provided here, click here.
This paper is provided for research purposes; not for a free cheat. You will fail any course where your teacher catches you plagiarizing, and he/she probably will.


WRITING THE ‘SOLITARY SOUL’: ANTICIPATIONS OF MODERNISM & NEGOTIATIONS OF GENDER IN KATE CHOPIN’S THE AWAKENING
        Kate Chopin’s 1899 novel The Awakening depicts a woman’s struggle to find and to assert her essential “self” within the cultural constraints of late 19th century America. Chopin’s protagonist experiences a new sense of independence, of individual freedom and expression, paralleled by her corresponding sense of conflict and despair. The novel chronicles Edna Pontellier’s journey toward a new vision of female “self” at the turn-of-the-century and consequently explores, examines and challenges boundaries.
        In constructing her heroine’s journey, Chopin enriches the text with the curious complexities of multiple literary traditions, each of which she both asserts and undercuts within the novel. Although the novel at times alternately embraces the traditions of realism, naturalism, and romanticism for example, Chopin’s work also diminishes the tradition of each within the text. In doing so, Chopin refuses to exclusively and conclusively adopt one clear literary stance. This complexity lends itself to various critical interpretations of “what Chopin is trying to do” in the novel and opens the critical conversation to multiple avenues of exploration.
        Specific to my particular discussion is the way in which The Awakening embodies elements of Modernism, foreshadowing the major movement in literature that dominated the early 20th century. Indeed, Chopin’s novel represents a pivotal literary construct, a vital expression of an evolving literary consciousness in turn-of-the-century America. The Awakening clearly reflects the early stirrings of a transition in literature that takes place full-force after 1900. At the same time, it is important to note that Chopin’s approach excludes the text from a strictly Modernist interpretation, anticipating but not fully embracing the markings of this early 20th century movement. In the same way that Chopin undercuts the expectations of other traditions, she also eludes any exclusive Modernist interpretations of the novel.
        The successes and complexities of this novel include but exceed those recognized by contemporary feminists who seek to reclaim this piece of the American women’s literary tradition, citing its protagonist’s revolutionary response to the expectations of gender and period. Clearly, Chopin’s text confronts the female experience of the late Victorian era, its double standards, its limitations and its possibilities. But the novel is built on an even richer canvas than has been recognized by most scholarship, representing not only an exploration of turn-of-the-century American womanhood but a gutsy moment at the crossroads of literary history — and women’s literary history, in particular. For feminist scholars, the text is especially rich because its female author explores and negotiates a fluid border of literary tradition — examining and playing with, alternately embracing and backing away from, the Victorian literary foremothers’ version of “domestic fiction” and the up-and-coming, largely male-dominated, Modernist movement. Chopin as an author, like Edna as a character, is a woman caught in the borderlands between the literary traditions assigned to her as a nineteenth century female writer and the mores of a new era. As a writer, Chopin grapples with the old models and looks for her possible place among the new. As a woman and a hopeful artist, Chopin’s questions about her position in literary history are not unlike those more naively confronted by her protagonist: Should we discard the old models? Should we discard them in their entirety? And if so, how? If we discard the old models, what will replace them, and why? Will the new models work for us? Is there a place, a voice, for Woman, and Artist, and Woman-Artist, in this new territory? If we as women want to embrace a new world, will it welcome us with open arms? How do we navigate without true models for a changed reality? The novel offers few, if any, comforting answers to these questions, and at times seems fraught with contradictions — But this is its very richness, I believe. The text is particularly ripe for feminist scholarship because of its bravery in every respect — a bold, if difficult, forging ahead not only in terms of theme and characterization, but equally in exploration of genre, tone and style.       
        This novel, then takes part in a remarkable dialogue of transition — the transition between the Victorian world of the 19th century and the Modern world of the 20th century, with a particular eye on gender. Faulkner notes that the early years of the 20th century focus on a “breaking up of the 19th century consensus”, a period dominated by the social efforts of groups such as feminists, seeking to improve their status within the culture (14). Cultural and literary shifts that characterize the 20th century undoubtedly begin in the years immediately preceding the turn-of-the-century and evolve into what is commonly constrained under the label “Modernism,” typically relegated exclusively to the post-1905 world.
        The title of Chopin’s novel itself connotes a process of evolution, of change and transition. An “awakening” inherently implies a transition between full consciousness and sleep. The awakening subject exists as if between two worlds, not fully imbedded in either but in the process moving towards the more concrete. Chopin’s protagonist is clearly symbolic: “Like her name (”Pontellier” . . . means “one who bridges”) Edna herself is one whose mission is to begin the painful process of bridging two centuries, two worlds, two visions of gender. So appropriate as a turn-of-the-century piece, “The Awakening is about the beginning of selfhood, not its completion” (Dyer 116). Chopin’s novel portrays this process within Edna just as it takes part in a similar transition as a work of literary art. The novel is proven to be transitional and revolutionary by the defensive uproar it produces at the time of publication, even among the ranks of literary peers such as Willa Cather.
        The Awakening then tentatively explores, and from a gendered point of view to be sure, the uncharted waters of Modernism, foreshadowing the “. . .world of 1910 that was much more complex than the world as it had been known before, and especially more complex than the orderly world that had been presented to the reader in Victorian literature” (Faulkner 14). This fundamental complexity distinguishes Modern literature from its predecessors. In Chopin’s work we see anticipation of concerns that will dominate Modernism. As Faulkner notes, “Accepting one’s place, loyalty to authority, unquestioning obedience, began to break down; Patriotism, doing one’s duty, even Christianity, seemed questionable ideals. Man’s understanding of himself was changing” (14). Writers typically identified as belonging to the Modernist tradition (although none standing alone defines the expectations of this label), including Hemingway, Joyce, Faulkner, Eliot, Woolf, Stevens, Lawrence, and Auden, certainly address these concerns within their works. Kate Chopin also grapples with such issues throughout The Awakening, never losing her awareness of what it means to be female in the midst of these shifting sands. As Gilmore observes, “Chopin’s feminist narrative marks a turn toward the anti-naturalist, self-referential agenda of Modernism” as a mode of behavior in life and art (60). Eble agrees, suggesting that The Awakening is “. . . advanced in theme and technique over the novels of its day, and . . . it anticipates in many respects the Modern novel (8).”
        Chopin’s representation of her tragic heroine is clearly entwined with the social context of the modern, post-Victorian period in Western culture. The Awakening portrays the events and consequences surrounding a time of significant change occurring at the macro level and trickling down to invade the life of the individual. The turn-of-the-century, as Panaro notes, brings modification in the roles of women, beginning the gradual decay of old roles and expectations (3150). During such a period, women experience confusion and conflict. Panaro aptly describes Edna as a true turn-of-the-century woman, facing crises related to issues of autonomy, selfhood and gender roles (3151).
        One of Modernism’s chief tenets, and one that turns up in Chopin’s text, refutes the Victorian era’s rigid system of normative ethics. In the 19th century, sharp definition exists to divide “good” versus “bad” and “right” versus “wrong”, a moral grounding sharply opposed to relativism. For Victorians, the “right way to behave” is clearly differentiated from the “wrong way to behave”, and these ethical standards are institutionalized. As Cantor points out, Victorian society embraces a highly structured, clear system of ethics and the 20th century has “. . . spent much time undermining it” (17). While the Victorians embrace absolutes and polarities that offer a degree of stability and security, Modernism fundamentally rejects these absolutes. Victorians seek safety in polarities of male and female, of object and subject, of “higher” and “lower”, in contrast to Modernism, which “. . . [is] not committed to the separation of the male and the female on moral, biological or psychological grounds as the Victorians had been (Cantor 39).”
        Modernism essentially brings about the shift toward moral relativism, moving away from this 19th century normative code of ethics. According to Faulkner, “The modern western world is less sure of its values than most previous cultures with which we are familiar; relativism and subjectivity are facts of every day experience (15).” Indeed, Modernism is associated with the suspicion of “system” and a rebellion against previously established norms.
        Religion represents one well-defined system of norms that Modernism begins to undermine. We are told that Edna Pontellier abhors church services both as a child and later as an adult, and that she rejects organized religion as a source of solace and valid truth. Reflecting on a childhood memory of wandering “impulsively” through a field of tall grass, Edna tells Madame Ratignolle: “Likely as not it was Sunday . . . and I was running away from prayers, from the Presbyterian service, read in a spirit of gloom by my father that chills me yet to think of” (Chopin 60). Again we witness Edna’s aversion to the trappings of religion when she attends a church service with Robert: “A feeling of oppression and drowsiness overcame Edna during the service. Her head began to ache, and the lights on the altar swayed before her eyes . . . her one thought was to quit the stifling atmosphere of the church and reach the open air” (82). As Gilmore observes, “Religion is just one of the certainties Edna unsettles in the course of her development ” (61).
        Religion is inherently tied to the structure of the nuclear family, another Victorian institution later to be undermined by Modernism. According to Gilmore, “. . . [Edna's] instinctive antipathy to Christianity . . . derives in part from her awareness of its alliance with the traditional family structure . . . Religion lends its authority to the ‘devout belief’ that one-half of humanity ought to surrender all other human interests and activities to concentrate its time, strength and devotion upon the functions of maternity” (61). The mother-women surrounding Edna at Grand Isle renounce their individual identities with an intensity approximating religious conviction: “They were women who idolized their children, worshipped their husbands and esteemed it a holy privilege to efface themselves as individuals and grow wings as ministering angels” (51). The ideal embodiment of the Victorian mother’s role, Madame Ratignolle, is even likened to the holy mother of Christ: “Mrs. Pontellier liked to sit and gaze at her fair companion as she might look upon a faultless Madonna” (54).
        For the Victorians, the structure of the nuclear family and its clearly defined gender roles is, like religion, a device for averting social pathology. Ethics in the 19th century remain firmly attached to the concept of family. Cantor concludes that “Above all, Victorian morality fostered the nuclear family . . . It was essentially made possible by strenuous moral teaching, which the Modernist movement began to unravel after 1900″ (17). He adds that the decline of the nuclear family begins at the turn-of-the-century due to a web of complex causes, the rise of Modernism being the most critical (40).
        Because Edna refuses to live without what she perceives to be her full humanity and rejects the Victorian philosophy of motherhood in the sense that it requires constant self-effacement and self-denial, Chopin’s text aligns itself with the movement toward Modernism. Dyer recognizes that “For Edna, there is, ideally, a truth greater than that of motherhood. . . That final truth, that greater truth, cannot coexist with the social, the moral, or even the biological obligations of motherhood” (105).
        Edna’s stance, then, in many respects rejects Victorian expectations and is more closely aligned with Modernist expectations, which begin to de-emphasize rigid roles of the nuclear family. She is described as the antithesis of the “mother-woman” and we are told that Edna is “. . . fond of her children in an uneven, impulsive way. . . Their absence was a sort of relief, though she did not admit this, even to herself. It seemed to free her of a responsibility which she had blindly assumed and for which Fate had not fitted her” (51, 63). Edna and Madame Ratignolle do not even “talk the same language” when it comes to the concerns of the maternal realm, and clearly Edna values selfhood above motherhood: “I would give up the unessential;. . . but I wouldn’t give myself” (97). Edna actually pities Madame Ratignolle’s state of maternal self-definition: “. . . a pity for that colorless existence which never uplifted its possessor beyond the region of blind contentment, in which no moment of anguish ever visited her soul, in which she would never have the taste of life’s delirium” (107).
        Chopin’s revolutionary stance on motherhood fostered much of the negative publicity surrounding the initial publication of the novel. As Dyer documents, “It is not surprising that Edna’s shirking of her maternal duty was a prime target of Chopin’s contemporary reviewers. The reviewer for the New Orleans Times-Democrat saw Edna as a woman so absorbed in her personal relation to her own world that she ‘fails to perceive that the relation of a mother to her children is far more important than the gratification of a passion’” (101).
        Related to expectations of female roles is, of course, the issue of sexuality. Modernism is frequently cited as creating greater openness with regard to sexuality, as the sexual realm becomes a subject that may be acknowledged and discussed (Cantor 39). This openness stands in stark contrast to the norms of the 19th century, with its prohibitions against expressions of flagrant sexuality. The Awakening represents the Modernist stance in opposition to Victorian prudery. Chopin’s novel not only includes, but makes pivotal, sexual themes, in addition to the author’s use of a richly sensuous language throughout the work.
        For the most part, Edna frees herself from the female guilt surrounding sexual seduction often portrayed in 19th century fiction (Dyer 106). She freely chooses and pursues a sexual affair with Alcee Arobin for the sake of sensuous adventure, not because she loves him and not because she is his wife. Chopin clearly defines her protagonist as a sexual being: “Alcee Arobin was absolutely nothing to her. Yet his presence, his manners, the warmth of his glances, and above all the touch of his lips upon her hand had acted like a narcotic upon her” (Chopin 132). When Edna chooses to sleep with Arobin, Chopin does not veil or avoid the sexual act according to standard Victorian devices. Instead, she takes a literary step forward when she tells us that Edna “. . . looked at him and smiled. His eyes were very near. He leaned upon the lounge with an arm extended across her, while the other hand rested upon her hair. . . When he leaned forward and kissed her, she clasped his head, holding his lips to hers . . . It was a flaming torch that kindled desire” (139).
        Again, with Robert, we see Edna not only as an overtly sexual being, but also in the role of the pursuer rather than of the victimized woman damaged by seduction: “She leaned over and kissed him – a soft, cool, delicate kiss, whose voluptuous sting penetrated his whole being – then she moved away from him” (166).
        Chopin’s use of sensuous language and imagery throughout the novel also acts to de-stigmatize sexuality. This act in itself refutes 19th century expectations and in its frank openness about sexuality more closely aligns the text with Modernist tendencies. Edna’s body and the environment around her take on, in this novel, a frank and highly sensuous description as compared to most 19th century fiction. For example, Chopin describes Edna’s nudity and her sexualized union with the ocean:
When she was there beside the sea . . . she cast the unpleasant, pricking garments from her, and for the first time in her life she stood naked in the open air, at the mercy of the sun, the breeze that beat upon her, and the waves that invited her . . . how delicious! . . . The touch of the sea is sensuous, enfolding the body in its soft, close embrace. (176)
Again, Chopin’s transitional (and therefore revolutionary) stance made her novel a prime target for the defensive criticism of late 19th century society. The transitional nature of Chopin’s more openly sexualized literary approach is made clear by the shocked responses of turn-of-the-century readers and critics. Eble observes that “It is not surprising that the sensuous quality of the book, both from the incidents of the novel and the symbolic implications, would have offended contemporary reviewers” (14).
        Another transitory element of The Awakening that may have caught the critical eye of late 19th century audiences is Chopin’s treatment of Art and the artist. Modernism, according to Cantor, embraces “the conviction that humanity is in its most authentic, truly human condition when it is involved in art”, in contrast to the Victorians who “retained the Christian Augustinian conviction that humanity achieves hits highest and purest nature in moral action” (40). Edna’s “awakening” is associated with her emotional experience while hearing Mademoiselle Reisz perform at the piano. The artful music transforms and re-humanizes Edna. In later stages of Edna’s development as a new human being, she is drawn to Mademoiselle Reisz time and time again, particularly when she feels a lack of artistic drive or becomes despondent: “It was during such a mood that Edna hunted up Mademoiselle Reisz . . . she felt a desire to see her – above all, to listen while she played upon the piano” (109). Chopin’s text comes down on the side of the Modernist notion that art can save humankind from an increasingly confusing, fractured world – at least in part, by implying that art is central to a full and meaningful human existence. Yet, is Edna saved? While she may have gained her soul, she certainly loses her physical life, seeing no viable option for survival. For women at the turn-of-the-century, the Modernist conclusion about “selfhood,” salvation and Art is fraught with peril, contradiction, and ultimate despair, as the novel demonstrates. Chopin remains brutally mindful of the constraints particular to women who attempt to chart this new territory.
        As Edna’s sense of autonomy and “selfhood” further unfolds, she emphasizes a need to return to her interest in creating visual art. She determines that she must paint once more and tells Madame Ratignolle, “Perhaps I will be able to paint your picture some day . . . I believe I ought to work again” (106). The use of art to define an autonomous, meaningful self is, not surprisingly, perceived as a threat by Edna’s husband, who exclaims, “It seems to me the utmost folly for a woman at the head of a household, and the mother of children, to spend in an atelier days which would be better employed contriving for the comfort of her family” (108). Edna responds to his attack on her newfound independence by attempting to use her art as a symbol of liberated selfhood, saying, “I feel like painting . . . Perhaps I shan’t always feel like it . . . Let me alone; you bother me” (108).
        We see Edna respond for the first time to her “inner self”, and this remains closely tied to art. As Gilmore observes that “In responding to the demands of her inner nature, Edna discovers the sensibility of an Impressionist painter and dissolves the external structures of her world” (65). Gilmore likens Edna to the Impressionists by suggesting that they converge “in their transfer of allegiance from the outer world to the personality and freedom of the individual . . . [Edna and Chopin] strive to achieve something approximating the Modernist escape from everyday reality” (65).
        Rather than focus her energies upon domestic expectations, Edna spends huge amounts of time painting, engaging the grudging help of her children and servants. Through painting, Edna begins to fully experience human emotion and creativity, the real meaning of being alive: “It moved her with recollections . . . A subtle current of desire passed through her body, weakening her hold upon the brushes and making her eyes burn . . . She was happy to be alive and breathing, when her whole being seemed to be one with the sunlight, the color, the odors, the luxuriant warmth of some perfect Southern day” (109).
        In addition, because Edna represents the aspiring artist and the lover of art, she is associated with change and transition of a revolutionary magnitude. Mademoiselle Reisz tells Edna, “To be an artist . . . you must possess the courageous soul . . . the brave soul. The soul that dares and defies” (115). This “daring and defiance” allude to the place of art in opposition to the predominant values of Mademoiselle Reisz’s (and Edna’s) current context – 19th century America. In Modernism, art is given a more revered status and is even at times hailed as the saving grace of all mankind. Although Edna falls short of embodying the image of the ideal and fully-realized artist, Chopin’s text does revere art, its power to transform and its capacity to invigorate individuals with a fully-realized humanity. Chopin’s work demonstrates the hypocrisy and difficulty of these clashing models as they are acutely experienced by women. Chopin is aware that attaining the “courageous soul” of the artist is a far more difficult and contradictory calling for women than it is for men — That its sacrifices and consequences are doubled and magnified. “Courage” must consequently be doubled and magnified in the woman artist, Chopin intuits. And even then, the text asks, will art shelter her?
        Perhaps most important to my discussion of The Awakening as a precursor to the Modernist movement is the issue of “selfhood.” Chopin’s original title for the novel illustrates her desired emphasis on seeking and illuminating the individual “self” — the novel is initially titled A Solitary Soul. Modernism itself “. . . gave a new authenticity to individualism and to the individual search for values” (Cantor 39). As articulated by Marcel Proust in 1918, the purpose of Modernist novel is the discovery of a “different self”, with the focus less on telling a story or offering a moral and instead aimed toward achieving a breakthrough. “The self sought is different from the ordinary familial and social being known in everyday life. The burden of the Modernist novel is existential discovery of a deeper, mythic, more human self (Cantor 43).”
        As Faulkner expresses it, the general tendency in Modern literature is “to focus on the contents of a character’s mind, the inner, mental life of the experiencing subject,” thereby turning from a 19th century focus on representations of the external world (31). This new approach, as developed in Modernist literature, generally reflects more heavily upon issues of consciousness, perception and the inner world.
        Throughout The Awakening, Chopin makes strides toward emphasizing what occurs inside Edna’s individual consciousness, and toward portraying the ways in which her essential “self” unfolds and gains prominence. Seyersted points out that “The attitude [Chopin] lets Mrs. Pontellier illustrate comes close to that of existentialism. She seems to say that Edna has a real existence only when she gives her own laws, when she through conscious choice becomes her own creation with an autonomous self” (147).
        Edna gradually discovers and asserts this sense of autonomous, valuable “self” in the process of her awakening. In fact, the warring and the unfolding within Edna comprises the heart of the novel. She shocks the quintessentially Victorian Madame Ratignolle by announcing that even for her children, she will never sacrifice her essential being. Edna comes to see her husband and children not as the reason for existence but rather as “. . . antagonists who seek to thwart her growth, dragging her into ‘the soul’s slavery for the rest of her days’” (Gilmore 62). Edna refuses to subordinate her newfound “self” to socially mandated, traditional expectations or the desires of others. Skaggs suggests that Chopin “creates one tragic heroine who refuses to settle for less than a full and satisfying answer to Lear’s question : ‘Who am I?’” and that Edna is “More honest in her self-awareness than Adele, more dependent upon human relationships than Mademoiselle Reisz . . . [and] will not settle for living as less than a complete person” (88, 96).
        Edna recognizes her existence and value as a human being, transcending the definitions of “mother,” “wife,” and “daughter” that are in this text understood as limiting and stifling because they are the only choices deemed socially acceptable for women. Chopin suggests that women such as Madame Ratignolle who do not at any level look beyond the constraints of such labels are living idyllic but unrealized, unfulfilled lives. In discovering and fully experiencing the pleasures of art, sensuality, sexuality, and solitude, Edna discovers a sense of self separate from patriarchal demands. Yet for this there is, Chopin is acutely aware, a weighty price to be paid. Where does the female protagonist at this particular crossroads turn? To what end does her awareness lead her? Can she survive, and how? Chopin concedes, in the end, that Edna’s world is not survivable. It may be negotiated and explored, but it may not yet be won.
        Within the limitations of late 19th century culture, of course, Edna’s tragic mistake is in her striving to achieve the full ideal of “self-possession,” to live on the borderlands of time, and history, and gender. As Gilmore observes, “Edna’s drive to experience and articulate her inner life dooms her to incomprehension because the very idea of a wife having a separate and unique identity is alien” (67). It is this realization that ultimately leads Edna to her “last swim”, wherein she loses her physical life but embraces the only option she can envision to maintain control of her “essential self.”
        In seeking a full realization of the “self” as emphasized in Modernism, Edna inherently rejects Victorian expectations. Seyersted aptly illustrates that “‘Pontellierism’ . . . represents a wish for clarity and a willingness to understand one’s inner and outer reality, besides a desire to dictate one’s own role rather than to slip into patterns prescribed by tradition” (139). As Edna moves toward self-realization, she attempts to discard or devalue symbols of society’s conventions and expectations. She tries to destroy her wedding ring, discontinues her “reception day”, and comes to devalue the beautiful contents of her upper-class home. Gilmore notes that “. . . Edna’s discovery of her suppressed being, a discovery pitting her against her culture’s celebration of fidelity, in all the senses of that word, unfolds as a process of shedding social conventions and becoming ‘like’ herself, the authentic Edna Pontellier. . . The awakened Edna ceases to comply with others’ expectations and follows the promptings of her own nature, and Chopin describes this change as a growth in the heroine’s authenticity, her reality as a person” (81-82). The novel’s narrator clearly defines Edna’s response to her self-realization:
Every step which she took toward relieving herself from obligations added to her strength and expansion as an individual. She began to look with her own eyes; to see and to apprehend the deeper undercurrents of life. No longer was she content to ‘feed upon opinion’ when her own soul had invited her. (151)
Chopin illustrates the process of Edna’s gradual awakening by suggesting that Edna defines her “self” through contrasting her own reality with the identity of Madame Ratignolle — a woman who exemplifies all that Edna is expected by society to be, but essentially is not:
At a very early age she had apprehended instinctively that dual life – that outward existence which conforms, the inward life which questions. That summer at Grand Isle she began to loosen a little the mantle of reserve . . . There may have been . . . influences working in their several ways to induce her to do this; but the most obvious was the influence of Adele Ratignolle. (57)
The contrast between the two is best exemplified when Edna, in conversation with Madame Ratignolle, attempts to delve into and express her own consciousness, saying
I was really not conscious of thinking of anything; but perhaps I can retrace my thoughts.” Her companion does not understand the value of doing so and becomes impatient, responding, “Oh! never mind! I am not quite so exacting . . . It is really too hot to think, especially to think about thinking. (60)
Unlike Madame Ratignolle, as Edna discovers a self independent of gender-defined identities and roles and begins to experience the full depths of human experience, she awakens to a new consciousness — one that her friend apparently never approaches. We see Edna’s new response to her husband’s domestic demands:
Another time she would have gone in at his request. She would, through habit, have yielded to his desire; not with any sense of submission or obedience to his compelling wishes, but unthinkingly, as we walk, move, sit, stand, go through the daily treadmill of the life which has been portioned out to us. (78)
Along with its emphasis on the self and on individual consciousness, Modernism also displays a tendency toward cultural despair and frequently depicts the alienation of the individual. This tendency reflects Modernism’s recognition of the fragmented and the fractured. According to Cantor, “Modernism foregrounded the disharmonious and the unfinished, the splintered world, the piece that had broken off, the serendipitous, and pursued this preference to the point of making it an aesthetic principle” (37). In contrast to a Victorian climate which was comparatively optimistic, or at least transcendental, “Modernism tends towards pessimism and despair” (40). Cantor adds the important observation that
The modernist novel is a study in frustration and disappointment. It rarely presents an epiphany, but is an examination of the disappointments of modern life, the difficulty of achieving ambitions, fulfilling love and even of communicating. . . of loneliness, alienation and defeat that often enervates the individual. Moments of triumph are brief, when they occur (44)
Chopin’s text recognizes that for women, this sense of frustration and disappointment reaches its most acute incarnation, with the most dire consequences and contradictions.
        Chopin gives us a protagonist who chooses suicide because she is unable to find a place for her newly conscious, fully recognized self within the constraints of the present social system (Gilmore 62). Edna’s suicide is completely “valid” within the context of her time, when her act of self-recognition is condemned. Seyersted recognizes that her awakening “. . . is accompanied by a growing sense of isolation and aloneness, and also anguish. . . If the process of existential individuation is taxing on a man and freedom a lonely and threatening thing to him, it is doubly so for a woman who attempts to emancipate herself” (148). Gilmore rightly concludes that
Her quest for self-fulfillment, though it ends in death, is an insurrectionary act because it calls a civilization into question; it has to end in death because there is no way for the world she inhabits to accommodate the change in her . . . her disaffection proves so total that she takes her life instead of allowing herself to be reintegrated into the existing order. (62)
Edna despairs when she recognizes what she is up against, becoming increasingly alienated. She confides to her physician, “There are periods of despondency and suffering which take possession of me” (171). We are told that “. . . the voices were not soothing that came to her . . . They jeered and sounded mournful notes without promise, devoid even of hope. . .”, and as Edna moves toward her final swim we are told that “Despondency had come upon here there in the wakeful night, and had never lifted” (175). Even early in Edna’s awakening, we see hints of the alienation to come. Edna, while listening to Mademoiselle Reisz perform, envisions “. . . the figure of a man standing beside a desolate rock on the seashore. He was naked. His attitude was one of hopeless resignation as he looked toward a distant bird winging its flight away from him” (71). We are told that at times, life “appeared to her like a grotesque pandemonium and humanity like worms struggling blindly toward inevitable annihilation” (109).
        Interestingly enough, while Modernism’s protagonist typically reacts with alienation and despair to an increasingly fractured world, Edna primarily reacts against the stable yet constricting boundaries of the 19th century world — And in particular, as they apply to women. As Gilmore observes, both Chopin and Edna are grounded in expectations and constructs of the Victorian era: “It would be an error to overstate the ‘Modernism’ of either Chopin’s fiction or Edna’s awakened consciousness [because] the very strategies the two women use to achieve autonomy are what implicate them in the value systems they oppose” (80).
        This distinction prevents placing Chopin’s novel definitively within the bounds of Modernism. However, the novel maintains many alliances with Modernist constructs and serves as a literary precursor of what will come early in the 20th century. It operates on one level as a fascinating study of the female experience in two divergent cultural contexts and on the fringes of these two periods, examining the contradictions and dilemmas that seem to follow and haunt women on all fronts. In this way, The Awakening remains an important transitional (and certainly revolutionary) text, a significant forerunner of Modernism and a real gem in American women’s’ literary history. As Gilmore recognizes, although Edna and Chopin ultimately do not reach full transcendence of 19th century constructs and ideals, they nonetheless
strive to go beyond it and to achieve something approximating the modernist escape
. . . Both women wish to find a way out of the “fettering tradition of nature” and both aspire to speak, like the brightly colored parrot introduced on the novel’s first page, “a language which nobody understood.” (65)

Works Cited
Cantor, Norman F. Twentieth Century Culture: Modernism to Deconstruction. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1988.
Chopin, Kate. The Awakening and Selected Stories. Fwd. Sandra M. Gilbert. New York: Penguin, 1984.
Dyer, Joyce. The Awakening: A Novel of Beginnings. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1993.
Eble, Kenneth. “A Forgotten Novel.” Kate Chopin: Modern Critical Views. Ed. Harold  Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987.
Faulkner, Peter. Modernism. London: Methuen & Co., 1977.
Gilmore, Michael T. “Revolt Against Nature: The Problematic Modernism of The      Awakening.” New Essays on The Awakening. Ed. Wendy Martin. Cambridge:      Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Panaro, Lydia Adriana. “Desperate Women: Murders and Suicides in Nine Modern      Novels.” Dissertation Abstracts International 42 (1982): 3150A – 3151A.
Seyersted, Per. Kate Chopin: A Critical Biography. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1969.
Skaggs, Peggy. Kate Chopin. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1985.

Author: Yanina
• Tuesday, September 09th, 2008

Ways of Interpreting Edna’s Suicide: What the Critics Say
Neal Wyatt, Virginia Commonwealth University
There are many ways of looking at the suicide, and each offers a different perspective. It is not necessary that you like the ending of the novel, but you should come to understand it in relation to the story it ends. One way to come to terms with her death is to construct a different ending. How would you have ended the story? What would you have Edna do? Would you have her reconcile with her husband? Have Robert stay with her and they be lovers? Have her divorce her husband and marry Robert? Have her move away from New Orleans and live alone? Have her do this, but with a chosen lover? These options are just some of the paths Edna could have followed.
Try to fit your ending into one of these categories: she can be with her lover (in any manner she wishes), she can be married (to a man of her choice), she can live alone. Each of the first two hypothetical endings would betray the point of the novel. Edna does not awaken to sex. She is liberated and does become a very sensual woman, but it is not to sexual expression that she wakens. Therefore, all options involving a lover fall short of fulfilling the meaning of her awakening. If she remains married or marries another, this would put her back (in terms of Webb) at the start of her circle: all the learning and struggling would be for naught. She would once again be a man’s possession. Before rejecting the idea that marriage is equivalent to ownership in the world of the novel, remember how Robert speaks to her about their future together. He does not see her living an awakened life with him; he sees her leading the traditional life of a wife with him. The final option is the most difficult to reject. It would be nice to imagine her living and painting alone in a small house somewhere far away from New Orleans. This is not a real option: to see why, think back to the text. Who lives their life this way in the novel? Mademoiselle Reisz does. Is that life shown to be exemplary? No, by portraying Mlle. Reisz in the way Chopin does, she is instructing the reader that Mademoiselle’s life is not one to which Edna should aspire.
The fact that readers do not like the ending, that they struggle to make sense of it, is reflected in the body of criticism on the novel: almost all scholars attempt to explain the suicide. Some of the explanations will make more sense to you than others. By reading them you will come to a fuller understanding of the end of the novel (and in the process the entire novel) and hopefully make the ending less disappointing.
Joseph Urgo reads the novel in terms of Edna learning to narrate her own story. He maintains that by the end of the novel she has discovered that her story is “unacceptable in her culture” (23) and in order to get along in that culture she must be silent. Edna rejects this muting of her voice and would, Urgo maintains, rather “extinguish her life than edit her tale” (23). To save herself from an ending others would write or an ending that would compromise what she has fought to obtain, she has to write her own end and remove herself from the tale. As she swims out, the voices of her children come to pull at her like little “antagonists,” and there are others on shore who would also hold her down: Robert, Adele, Arobin, and Leonce. Edna finds a way to elude them all, and narrates in her suicide the conclusion to her tale. In this type of reading, her suicide can be understood in terms of societal pressure. What is the result of silencing a person’s voice? Urgo maintains, on a symbolic level, that it is equivalent to death. Symbolism made real by the ending of the novel.
Peggy Skaggs’ reading of Edna’s suicide is one of despair. Edna had awakened, found her selfhood, only to have that process and victory denied by Robert. His wanting her to be his “mother-woman,” his wife with all the social conventions in place, denies her identity. Edna could not face this reality and chose not to exist if existence meant living in the societal cage in which all men wanted her to reside. Her life has become inseparable from the role her husband, lover, and society choose for her. Her identity is intertwined with the maternal nature that others decree should be her world. She has been denied by her father, husband, and Robert, the right to be what she wishes, and must place her sense of self inside their roles. Edna cannot do this, her sense of self was too hard won, too important to her now, to accept the role of wife and mother alone. As Skaggs’ points out, “Edna’s sense of self makes impossible her role of wife and mother as defined by her society; yet she comes to the discovery that her role of wife and mother also makes impossible her continuing sense of independent selfhood” (364). So as she walks into the water and swims away from the shore she thinks of “Leonce and the children. They were a part of her life. But they need not have thought that they could possess her, body and soul.” Margit Stange explores the same idea of motherhood but sees it in terms of ownership. She believes that when Edna witnessed Adele’s labor, she came to understand “extreme maternal giving” (117) and that this giving, a form of ownership, is what she wanted to avoid. The suicide reversed the exchange; by taking her life, withholding motherhood, she owns herself again.
George Spangler addresses the issue from a different perspective, not why she killed herself but would she have? He thinks that the action was inconsistent and inappropriate. He believes that after Edna overcame so much, demonstrated such strength of will and determination, she would not let something like Robert’s incomprehension of her advances push her into a state of suicidal despair. Portales takes issue with Spangler and points out the very undetermined nature of Edna’s personality. He maintains that the suicide is not surprising and is in keeping with Edna’s desire not to think of the consequences of her actions or about her future. From these examples, Portales contends that Edna’s suicide is a result of her desire not to think of the consequences because those consequences are so unattractive. She does not want to be like Adele, Mrs.Highcamp, or Mlle. Reisz. She does not want to live with Leonce or Arobin, or even with Robert. She wants an undefined, unexpressed, ineffable life that she cannot articulate or shape. Rather than live one of these options, or live a life that society dictates, “Edna chooses to live self-forgetfully in the moment. In following this unexpressed creed, Edna knowingly places herself in a position where the consequences of her swimming out are inescapable; her final act simply cannot be obviated” (Portales, 436).
Manfred Malzahn offers two interesting reasons for Edna’s suicide: that she was becoming mentally unbalanced or that she was carrying Arobin’s child. These are two very different reasons and few other critics have even suggested the second option. Malzahn offers some thoughtful evidence for the first and suggests a reason for the second. Edna does behave in erratic ways, in one passage stomping on her wedding ring, and in another feeling sorry that her husband is leaving for New York. She behaves in an inappropriate manner at the dinner party when she practically falls apart when Victor sings Robert’s song. There are also several passages where she contends she has inner thoughts or secret ideas, which when viewed in this manner, could be construed as a step toward mental illness. Additional support for this position can be gathered from the many times Edna is described as giving up all ideas of reality and abandoning herself to fate.
The pregnancy idea is harder to prove. She was sleeping with Arobin and there is no mention of birth control. Malzahn arrives at this pregnancy idea based on Edna’s reaction to Adele’s labor – remember that she was horrified. The memory of the pain of her own labor had faded, until seeing Adele recalls it. Therefore, Edna revolts against nature by “destroying herself as a means of procreation” (38).
Marina Roscher takes a Jungian approach to Edna’s death by examining her psyche. In this she agrees somewhat with Malzahn [and the others] and suggests that Edna was immature, “often unclear about her own feelings, motives, and morals. She acted on impulse rather than forethought. The dreamlike maze in which her thinking was trapped only here and there evolved into patterns” (291). Her approach provides one answer to the question, why did Edna behave that way all the time, especially why did she not try to change her life in a positive way? According to Roscher, because she was starved for love as a child she grew into a woman who fell in love with unattainable men. The reason she was starved for love was that her father was a pathetic excuse for a man, who harassed his wife into her grave and did not offer love to his daughters. In Jungian psychology the idea of an animus, inner-self, is defined by a girl’s father with “unarguable convictions” (295) that reside in the girl’s inner-mind. Remember that Edna often mentions her own inner feelings. The animus, at its lowest form, becomes personified. Jung also believed that dreams or incidents in youth are often foreshadowing of future events. He also believes that they should provoke fear and that a lack of fear is abnormal. Edna’s animus is the naked man on the rock, looking out to sea while a bird flies away (click here). Her fearless memory is walking through the ocean-like fields of grass. According to Roscher, she behaves the way she does because her childhood prevented any emotional connection. She could not tell Leonce what was wrong, so to bring peace to her animus, she committed suicide.
Helen Emmitt approaches Edna’s death from a male/female point of view. She believes that women commit suicide, especially by drowning, because the world lacks a proper “reflection of women’s needs and desires” (317). She contends that Edna’s suicide was the “ultimate act of the novel, and as a culmination, solves [her] problems and fulfills [her] needs” (317), the drowning is read as a liberation from the cage of marriage, societies’ rules, and family. For a woman who was searching for love, she gets the “engulfing attention she craves” (317) by diving under the waves.
She does not view Edna’s death as a real suicide, because suicide has as a prerequisite the taking of one’s life into one’s hands and Edna never did this, she never made a conscious choice. “Suicide rights [a] tentative balance; it is an assertion of the will not to be swept away” (317). Throughout the novel, Edna is swept away (refer back to Portale’s section for examples). So why does Edna swim out to her death according to Emmitt? Because she was in search of that proper reflection and found it in the sea. For men, water is self-reflecting, giving back a narcissistic image, but for women, who have no proper reflections, the sea is an embrace of self-fulfillment. Emmitt reads The Awakening as a parable of “female development and liberation” (320-21). She has seen the choices in her life and runs from them: Adele, Mlle. Reisz, and the woman at the dinner party, the regal woman who rules (see Aphrodite and Psyche). She runs to the ocean, an entity that has been seducing her throughout the novel, and that is the perfect lover, “speaking to the soul while caressing the body” (321). She was not acting on self-will, but instead acting as the woman in her story did (click here) traveling out to sea and never coming back. She wants to re-create her childhood images and adult fantasies, walking through a sea of Kentucky grass or riding out to sea with a lover, but she wants too much, “because to want at all is to ask too much, unless what [is wanted] is a traditional marriage, the happy ending . . . novels [allow] for a woman” (329). She does not want this so she escapes into the embrace of a long-remembered idyllic lovers arms and dies.
Joyce Dyer concentrates upon the maternal aspects of the novel, and sees these as the cause of the suicide. Edna visits her children and sees Adele’s labor prior to learning that Robert has left her. It is the motherhood element, more than his betrayal that leads to her death. Edna has said that she will give up her life but not her essence for her children, and that is the crux of the issue. “She sees no way for a mother to keep the freedom of her soul – no way, that is, except to dissolve her attachment to her children” (101). Edna understands that what is expected is for her to give up her life for her children: society means this figuratively; Edna acts on it literally. She “cannot reconcile her responsibility to her two young sons with her responsibilities to herself . . . She chooses not to live in a world that forces her to value herself first as a mother and second as a human being” (17). Edna understands that her actions will impact her children and she will not allow that. During the novel, Edna is at best an affectionate but vague mother, but by cycling through some examples, it is clear that Edna thinks about the importance of her children at the same time she realizes what their attachment means to her selfhood, “Motherhood and selfhood were incompatible in Edna’s century, and in some ways . . . incompatible in Edna herself . . . the moral implications of her role are so deeply a part of Edna’s psyche that there is no way to remove them, except through death” (103).
The fact that suicides were the “craze,” an expected Victorian convention, of the time would offer one extra-textual reason for her death. Female heroines were being killed off in major literary works during the eighteen hundreds, and especially popular were women who killed themselves. It is a standard retribution for women who commit adultery. Gustave Flaubert wrote Madame Bovary in 1857 and his heroine, Emma, killed herself after a story much like Edna’s. The Awakening has been termed a ‘Creole Bovary’ by some. In 1875, Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy was published; Anna throws herself under a train after an ill-fated romance. Maggie Tulliver, in Mill on the Floss by George Eliot, actually drowns herself. That novel was published in 1860. In 1891, Thomas Hardy wrote Tess of the D’Urbervilles and Tess was killed after she committed an act colored with suicidal intent.
As to the “why” of drowning in particular, Elaine Showalter points out in “Tradition and the Female Talent,” that drowning conjures up the similarities between “femininity and liquidity.” Women’s bodies are “prone to wetness, blood, milk, tears, and amniotic fluid, so in drowning the woman is immersed in the feminine organic element” (52). Therefore, for Edna who had once found liberation in the sea, drowning brings her back inside herself.
© Neal Wyatt (1995)  [contact at nwyatt@leo.vsla.edu]
Kate Chopin Study Text

Author: Yanina
• Tuesday, September 09th, 2008

Copyright, Russ Sprinkle, 1998.
English Department
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio
Contact at: sprinkle@glasscity.net

Do not plagiarize this paper. For information on how to properly cite the information provided here, click here.
This paper is provided for research purposes; not for a free cheat. You will fail any course where your teacher catches you plagiarizing, and he/she probably will.

KATE CHOPIN’S THE AWAKENING: A CRITICAL RECEPTION

      The late nineteenth century was a tumultuous time for the United States. The social, scientific, and cultural landscape of the country was undergoing radical changes. Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection had called into question established views concerning humankind’s origins (theories in which Kate Chopin had more than a passing interest); urbanization and restoration of the country following the Civil War ushered men and women into a new social identity; and, perhaps most importantly, the women’s rights movement had been gathering momentum since 1848, when the first woman’s rights conference was held in Seneca Fall, New York.
       What this means is that for almost 50 years before Chopin published The Awakening, society had been engaged in a struggle over social ideologies and equal rights issues. As a result of this struggle, women as a whole had, to a certain extent, already experienced mobilization and emancipation from their socioeconomic fetters. For the first time in America, women began to bring the heretofore private issues of home and family into the public arena.
       Mari Jo Buhle notes that women during the post-Civil War era “regularly participated in the marketplace, gained their own sources of support, and broke once and for all with humiliating forms of financial dependency on men” (51). Women “at all levels of society were active in attempts to better their lot, and the ‘New Woman,’ the late nineteenth-century equivalent of the ‘liberated woman,’ was much on the public mind” (Culley 117). In mid-1899, nearly a half-century after the women’s movement officially had begun, the cultural and social soil seemed fertile for the literary introduction of Kate Chopin’s fictional character, Edna Pontellier.
      Choked by the cloistering, moralistic garb of the Victorian era, yet willing to give up everything–even her own life–for the freedom of unencumbered individuality, Edna Pontellier epitomized the consummate New Woman of the late nineteenth century. She embodied the social ideals for which women of that era were striving. She was individualistic–a maverick; she was passionate; she was courageous and intrepid–she was the definitive persona which thousands of women during the late nineteenth century exalted as a role model. This, combined with the fact that Chopin was already an established author, seemed an indicator that The Awakening was destined for success. One month before Chopin’s novel was published, Lucy Monroe reviewed The Awakening for the March 1899, issue of Book News. Monroe’s review praises Chopin’s work as a “remarkable novel” and applauds it as “subtle and a brilliant kind of art” (Toth 329). Monroe further depicts the novel as “so keen in its analysis of character, so subtle in its presentation of emotional effects that it seems to reveal life as well as represent it” (Toth 328). Monroe’s was a glowing review indeed, and undoubtedly heightened the mounting anticipation with which Chopin, her colleagues, and her publisher eagerly awaited the release of The Awakening.
      Although Monroe was the chief reader and literary editor for Chopin’s publisher and undoubtedly had a vested interest in the success of The Awakening, her favorable review nonetheless undoubtedly hyped the unveiling of what Chopin expected to be a tremendous boost to her literary career.
      After Herbert S. Stone & Company published The Awakening on April 22, 1899, Chopin anxiously awaited the response of critics; unfortunately, while Chopin anticipated a warm reception in the days following the novel’s release, critics were already sharpening the literary knives with which they would dissect both the amoral disposition of Edna Pontellier and the prurient theme of The Awakening.
      During the weeks immediately following its release, critics roundly condemned Chopin’s novel . Despite Monroe’s pre-publishing promotion and the mounting momentum of the women’s movement, both Chopin and The Awakening were bombarded with an onslaught of unfavorable reviews. Most critics regarded the novel as vulgar, unwholesome, unholy, and a misappropriation of Chopin’s exceptional literary talent. Many reviewers regarded the novel’s aggrandizement of sexual impurity as immoral, and thus they condemned the novel’s theme.
      That Chopin was already a successful and popular writer further fueled the awkward consternation with which critics viewed The Awakening. In fact, because of Chopin’s success with her earlier works, “Bayou Folk,” “At Fault,” and “A Night in Acadie,” critics expected more of what Chopin was known for as a regionalist writer–realism and local color. They expected to read a novel rich in descriptive language, colorful characters, and the sights and sounds of Louisiana Creole life. Instead of local color, however, critics were shocked and dismayed at Edna Pontellier’s behavior and considered Chopin’s novel morbid and lacking literary value. In most cases, critics were at a loss to explain the reasons why an artist with Chopin’s undisputed literary talent would contribute to what one reviewer called “the overworked field of sex fiction” (Seyersted 219).
      Because Chopin’s earlier works had met with substantial success, however, most critics acknowledged Chopin’s gifted writing style while at the same time utterly condemning The Awakening’s theme. For example, in the May 4, 1899, issue of the Mirror, Francis Porcher writes, “And so, because we admire Kate Chopin’s other work immensely and delight in her ever-growing fame and are proud that she is ‘one-of-us St. Louisans,’ one dislikes to acknowledge a wish that she had not written her novel” (Culley 145).
      In addition to her role as critic, Porcher was also a published writer in her own right. She shared an interest with Chopin in the work of the French novelist, Guy de Maupassant; Porcher, however, “believed firmly in a writer’s responsibility to avoid ‘morally diseased’ characters and ‘adult sin’ ” (Toth 339). Porcher concludes her critique saying that the novel “leaves one sick of human nature” (Culley 146).
      Appearing just twelve days after The Awakening was released, Porcher’s review set the pace for the avalanche of unfavorable reviews that sounded what appeared to be the death knell for both The Awakening and Chopin’s literary career. Most critics didn’t pull any punches in their condemnation of Edna Pontellier, the theme of The Awakening, and, occasionally, even Chopin. The strongest critics couched their enmity toward the novel within a religious and Biblical framework. Using words like “sin,” “temptation,” “unholy,” “grace,” and “repent” to describe Edna’s plight, critics stood united and inflexible in their devotion to religious and moral conservatism.
      For example, the May 13, 1899, edition of the Daily Globe-Democrat calls Edna’s suicide “a prayer for deliverance from the evils that beset her, all of her own creating” (Culley 146). The May 20, 1899, issue of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch calls Edna’s an “unholy passion” (Culley 148). And the June 4, 1899, edition of Literature says that Edna “is one who has drifted from all right moorings, and has not the grace to repent” (Culley 151-2). Considering the restrictive and suffocating role which Chopin ascribes to religion and the Church in Edna’s life (not to mention the blatant departure from traditional views on sexuality), one can readily see why critics of the late nineteenth century might interpret Chopin’s novel as an attack on morality and religious values. Perhaps the most vehement objection to the novel’s anti-religious implications comes from the June 18, 1899, issue of the New Orleans Times Democrat. Glaringly apparent in this review is the adamant moral and religious code which prevailed during the late nineteenth century and the fastidiousness with which critics strove to uphold it.
It gives one a distinct shock to see Edna’s crude mental operation, of which we are compelled to judge chiefly by results– characterized as ‘perhaps more wisdom than the Holy Ghost is usually pleased to vouchsafe to any woman.’ The assumption that such a course as that pursued by Edna has any sort of divine sanction cannot be too strongly protested against. In a civilized society the right of the individual to indulge all his caprices is, and must be, subject to many restrictive clauses, and it cannot for a moment be admitted that a woman who has willingly accepted the love and devotion of a man, even without an equal love on her part–who has become his wife and the mother of his children–has not incurred a moral obligation which peremptorily forbids her from wantonly severing her relations with him, and entering openly upon the independent existence of an unmarried woman. (Culley 150)
As apparent through the tone of this reviewer, Puritan morality was, to a large degree, responsible for much of the resistance against Chopin’s novel. It was the plumb line against which the value of Edna Pontellier, The Awakening, and Chopin herself were evaluated. Lois K. Holland notes that in response to the religious and social turbulence of the late nineteenth century, “Puritan morality became a rigid stronghold… imposing its repressive influence on artistic endeavors as well as on practical aspects of life” (7). Indeed, as women began to unite and organize as part of the women’s suffrage movement, both the liberal and conservative elements dug their heels in for a battle that would ultimately end in victory for the suffragists in 1920, but only by one vote.
      In addition to religion, Puritan morality in the late nineteenth century also showed itself in other ways. According to Toth, other novels of the time were successful because “all were considered ‘healthy,’ with ‘kindly sentiment,’ suitable for a young person to read; and all promoted the traditional values that Kate Chopin, in The Awakening, had questioned” (Toth 357). In other words, literature in the late nineteenth century was deemed valuable if it proved beneficial–or appropriate–for young people or if it contained a moral lesson of some sort.
      Other reviewers confirmed this moralistic criterion by referencing the unwholesome impact of The Awakening and its negative effect on the youth. For example, the May 21, 1899 issue of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch printed a review of The Awakening calling it “too strong drink for moral babes. . .” and that it “should be labeled ‘poison’” (Toth 355). Charles L. Deyo, a journalist and friend of Chopin’s, also refers to the impact on children as a literary acid test. He notes that “…everybody knows that the young person’s understanding should be scrupulously respected” (Culley 147). Finally, William Dean Howells, a widely respected critic and editor for Harper’s and Atlantic, also argued that American authors should avoid “certain facts of life which are not usually talked of before young people, and especially young ladies” (Toth 278).
      What distressed critics was not that Chopin published a steamy and controversial novel which was inappropriate for young people, for that type of literature was available in plenty. Rather, what sparked their fury was that Chopin was an established author and respected member of the higher echelons of society. Critics took offense that Chopin condoned (or at least did not condemn) Edna’s immoral behavior. Holland notes that, “The awakening of a respectable woman to her sensual nature might have been acceptable in 1899 if the author had condemned her” (48).
      Although Chopin appears to condemn Edna by selecting a method popular in nineteenth century literature to “punish” Edna–that of drowning–neither Edna nor Chopin demonstrate any outward signs of remorse or shame at Edna’s infidelity and social deviance. Chopin’s lack of remorse concerning Edna’s behavior especially stirred the religious ire of critics. For example, a review in the June 25, 1899, edition of the Los Angeles Sunday Times says the following:
It is true that the woman in the book who wanted her own way comes to an untimely end in the effort to get what she wants, or rather, in the effort to gratify every whim that moves her capricious soul, but there are sentences here and there throughout the book that indicate the author’s desire to hint her belief that her heroine had the right of the matter and that if the woman had only been able to make other people ‘understand’ things as she did she would not have had to drown herself in the blue waters of the Mexican Gulf. (Culley 152)

Critics invariably agreed that the actions of Edna were iniquitous. They condemned Edna’s infidelity and self-centered narcissism as reprehensible. But what especially invoked their wrath was that Chopin seemed to approve of Edna’s behavior.
      In a literary sense, critics viewed Chopin as the responsible genitor of Edna. As author of The Awakening (originally titled “A Solitary Soul”), Chopin had the final say on what actions Edna did or did not take. Thus, critics relegated to Chopin the responsibility to “discipline” Edna as a mother would discipline a wayward child, the same way other authors of the same time period “disciplined” their froward and malcontent characters to assuage the moral and religious elements. When Chopin failed to effectively reprimand Edna according to the religious, moral, and literary conventions of the era, critics reacted. Had Chopin acquiesced to at least a few of the cultural and social mores still prevalent in the late nineteenth century, critics might have tolerated Edna’s wanton ways with a sense of forgiveness and clemency. To their indignation, however, Chopin was willing to do no such thing.
      By concluding the novel with Edna’s drowning, Chopin gives the appearance of punishing Edna without really doing so. Most critics were able to read between the lines and decipher that Chopin was not really punishing Edna, but rather confirming Edna’s freedom and, in fact, thumbing her nose at the traditional values of the lifestyle Chopin saw as restrictive and repressive. In what has become a well-known response to the attack on her novel, Chopin insinuates that Edna and the rest of the novel’s characters were simply beyond Chopin’s control:
Having a group of people at my disposal, I thought it might be entertaining (to myself) to throw them together and see what would happen. I never dreamed of Mrs. Pontellier making such a mess of things and working out her own damnation as she did. If I had had the slightest intimation of such a thing I would have excluded her from the company. But when I found out what she was up to, the play was half over and it was then too late. (Culley 158)
Intended as a “retraction,” Chopin’s comments appeared in the July issue of Book News, some three months after critics had ravaged The Awakening. Perceived as a coy display of literary helplessness, Chopin’s comments didn’t fare well with critics. In fact, they provoked their hostility even further, for only four months after publication, The Awakening had been condemned nation wide by reviewers who agreed that it was “unwholesome” (Holland 42). In fairness, a few critics did print an occasional less-than-scything review of The Awakening. Although these critics didn’t wholly condemn the novel, they didn’t praise it either. These reviewers simply recorded synopses of the novel’s theme and withheld moral judgment. For example, the April 1899, issue of The Book Buyer reported that The Awakening “is said to be analytical and fine-spun, and of peculiar interest to women” (Toth 329). The March 25, 1899, issue of the St. Louis Republic praised the style of the book saying only that The Awakening “is the work of an artist who can suggest more than one side of her subject with a single line” (Toth 329). Charles L. Deyo, in one of The Awakening’s few positive reviews, lauded Chopin’s style and defended Edna as a victim of ignorance in the May 20, 1899, issue of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
It is not a tragedy, for it lacks the high motive of tragedy. The woman, not quite brave enough, declines to a lower plane and does not commit a sin ennobled by love. But it is terribly tragic. Compassion, not pity, is excited, for pity is for those who sin, and Edna Pontellier only offended–weakly, passively, vainly offended. (Culley 147)
Deyo postures against Chopin’s critics and defends Edna’s actions by vilifying Leonce Pontellier, portraying Edna as a victim–”a poor, helpless offender” (Culley 148)–and ascribing to Edna’s circumstances the responsibility for her actions. Unfortunately, as with Lucy Monroe’s review, Deyo’s review was also tainted by self-interest and bias (Toth 342).
      Despite the swirling social atmosphere surrounding the reception of Chopin’s novel, many people in the United States–and especially the media–were not ready in 1899 to face the social, religious, and moral implications of The Awakening. However, if Chopin’s novel were to have been published just 20 years later, when the women’s movement experienced a revival in its momentum, The Awakening might have been met with overwhelming acceptance. But, as history notes, Chopin’s novel fell into relative obscurity after only a few short years.
      In 1899, when the novel was published, Chopin earned $102 in royalties (Toth 367). However, in 1900 Chopin “collected a total of $49.77 in royalties from “Bayou Folk,” “A Night in Acadie,” and The Awakening” (Toth 374). It was clear that although the social, cultural, and scientific climates of the country were changing, the general public was not ready to embrace the strong theme of The Awakening. In fact, interest in The Awakening lay dormant for thirty years after it was published. Since that time, however, the novel has been aroused from its literary slumber on several occasions.
      Ironically, the first to revive Chopin’s work following its banishment into obscurity was Daniel S. Rankin, a Roman Catholic priest. In 1932 he published Kate Chopin and her Creole Stories, the first book-length work on Chopin (Skaggs 5). Although Dorothy Anne Dondore praised Chopin two years earlier saying that she “unveiled the tumults of a woman’s soul,” Rankin is credited as the first serious revivalist of Chopin’s work (5).
      After Rankin briefly revived The Awakening in the 1930’s, the spotlight of literary interest wouldn’t shine again on Chopin’s work until 1953, when Cyrille Arnavon wrote a serious essay to introduce his translation of The Awakening into French. This again ignited a spark of interest in Chopin’s work, but it was extinguished almost immediately (Skaggs 5). In 1969, however, almost three-quarters of a century after The Awakening was published in 1899 (and Chopin’s subsequent death in 1904), Chopin’s novel began its hearty ascent into literary distinction. Per Seyersted, one of Chopin’s biographers, published Kate Chopin: A Critical Biography and The Complete Works of Kate Chopin. Seyersted’s books helped land the work of the late novelist on the literary map. They depicted the complete range of Chopin’s artistry, and brought to the burgeoning field of feminist literature a new champion in Edna Pontellier.
      Just as the social context and cultural confinements of the late nineteenth century worked against Chopin’s unique and advanced artistry, the liberal and progressive social culture of the late 1960’s worked in its favor. In 1969 the literary community was ready–even hungry–to embrace the theme that Chopin had so eloquently articulated seventy years earlier. What was held in the field of literature as amoral and without literary value in 1899 was considered artistic and noble in 1969. Thus, Chopin’s novel began to receive the acclaim it had been so vehemently denied nearly three-quarters of a century earlier.
      As Chopin’s popularity spread like wildfire, her novel also served as ammunition in the fight to bring insight and awareness to women’s issues. Indeed, as feminist literature struggled to fashion itself into an accepted and legitimate genre, the works of numerous women writers suddenly emerged from the past to carry the banner of women’s issues. Over the past few decades the study of women writers has been characterized by “scholarship devoted to the discovery, republication, and reappraisal of ‘lost’ or undervalued writers and their work. From Rebecca Harding Davis and Kate Chopin through Zora Neale Hurston and Mina Loy. . . reputations have been reborn or remade and a female countercanon has come into being, out of components that were largely unavailable even a dozen years ago” (Robinson 156). Indeed, as long as social and cultural forces continue to play upon the definition and content of the literary canon, forgotten and obscure works from the past will continue to be unearthed as tools for the propagation of specific social and cultural causes.
      Since the resurrection of Chopin’s novel in 1969, countless classrooms across the United States have found in The Awakening a superb example of the transcendent New Woman. Bernard Koloski, in the preface of his anthology, notes that The Awakening has become “one of the most often taught of all American novels” (ix). A compilation of teaching approaches to Chopin’s novel, Koloski’s anthology reflects the versatility of The Awakening in terms of literary study. He notes that Kate Chopin and the recent re-emergence of The Awakening have helped “satisfy Americans’ suddenly discovered hunger for a classic woman writer who addresses some of contemporary women’s concerns” (ix).
      Included in the Norton Anthology of Literature by Women, Chopin’s novel captures the essence of the struggle for freedom, equality, and independence in which women have been formally engaged for almost 150 years. Consequently, The Awakening has earned its long-awaited accolades in the world of literature. Perhaps as much a testimony to the influence of changing social contexts on literary criticism as the deftness of Chopin’s writing, The Awakening has nevertheless found its way into the canon. Indeed, in light of the novel’s continuing widespread success and growing use in the classroom, the message in Chopin’s novel will undoubtedly be carried well into the twenty-first century.

Author: Yanina
• Sunday, September 07th, 2008

Context

Long Day’s Journey into Night is one of Eugene O’Neill’s later plays. He wrote it for his wife on the occasion of their 12th wedding anniversary in 1940. The play was written in part as a way for O’Neill to show the world what his family was like and in what sort of environment he was raised. O’Neill wanted to create a play that would lay forth his own background in a forgiving nature, which is why he strove not to bias the play against any one character. The drama is very similar to O’Neill’s family situation as a young man, but more importantly, it has become a universal play representing the problems of a family that cannot live in the present, mired in the dark recesses of a bitter, troubled past. Because of its deeply personal nature, O’Neill requested that the play be published posthumously, which meant that the play was not revealed to the world until O’Neill’s death in 1956.

To be sure, O’Neill has always been seen as one of the greatest American playwrights. He was the only American dramatist to be awarded the Nobel Prize, an honor not bestowed upon either Arthur Miller or Tennessee Williams, two other great American playwrights. He won the Pulitzer Prize for four plays, including Long Day’s Journey into Night. His other best known plays are The Iceman Cometh,Mourning Becomes Electra,Ah Wilderness!,Strange Interlude, and The Hairy Ape. O’Neill was a huge Broadway success during his own adult life.

For information on what his childhood was like, one does best to read Long Day’s Journey into Night and examine the character of Edmund, who is partly autobiographical. O’Neill was the son of a Broadway actor and a mother who disliked Broadway. He suffered from tuberculosis, which caused him to have a nervous breakdown early in life. He was born in 1888, but he did not achieve success as a playwright until his 30th play, Beyond the Horizon, appeared in 1920. Around the same time, his father died, which devastated O’Neill, who had admired his father tremendously despite their differences.

After achieving success in 1920, O’Neill remained a dominant figure of American theater throughout his life. He had numerous personal problems, including failed marriage, but he was most captivated by his troubles and experiences growing up, before he found fame. The early part of his life is the subject of Long Day’s Journey into Night, which will forever remain O’Neill’s goodbye to the world–the play that showed America who O’Neill was and where he came from.

Summary

The play is set in the summer home of the Tyrone family, August 1912. The action begins in the morning, just after breakfast. We learn as the first act unravels that Mary has returned to her family recently after receiving treatment in a sanatorium for morphine addiction. Edmund, meanwhile, has in recent weeks begun to cough very violently, and we learn later on in the play that, as Tyrone and Jamie suspect, he has tuberculosis. Throughout the course of the play, we slowly find out that Mary is still addicted to morphine, much to the disappointment of her family members.

The gradual revelation of these two medical disasters makes up most of the play’s plot. In between these discoveries, however, the family constantly revisits old fights and opens old wounds left by the past, which the family members are never unable to forget. Tyrone, for example, is constantly blamed for his own stinginess, which may have led to Mary’s morphine addiction when he refused to pay for a good doctor to treat the pain caused by childbirth. Mary, on the other hand, is never able to let go of the past or admit to the painful truth of the present, the truth that she is addicted to morphine and her youngest son has tuberculosis. They all argue over Jamie and Edmund’s failure to become successes as their father had always hoped they would become. As the day wears on, the men drink more and more, until they are on the verge of passing out in Act IV.

Most of the plot of the play is repetitious, just as the cycle of an alcoholic is repetitious. The above arguments occur numerous times throughout the four acts and five scenes. All acts are set in the living room, and all scenes but the last occur either just before or just after a meal. Act II, Scene i is set before lunch; scene ii after lunch; and Act III before dinner. Each act focuses on interplay between two specific characters: Act I features Mary and Tyrone; Act II Tyrone and Jamie, and Edmund and Mary; Act III Mary and Jamie; Act IV Tyrone and Edmund, and Edmund and Jamie.

The repetitious plot also helps develop the notion that this day is not remarkable in many ways. Instead, it is one in a long string of similar days for the Tyrones, filled with bitterness, fighting, and an underlying love.

Characters

James Tyrone  -  The husband of Mary and the father of Jamie and Edmund, he was once a famous actor who toured the U.S. with his wife. Because his Irish father abandoned him at age 10, forcing him to work immediately to support himself, he has a strong work ethic and an appreciation for money that leads to strong financial prudence–bordering on stinginess.

Mary Tyrone -  The wife of Tyrone and mother of Jamie and Edmund, she struggles from a morphine addiction that has lasted over two decades. While she has broken the addiction several times, she always resumes her morphine use after spending more time with her family. She is on morphine in each scene of the play, and her use increases steadily as the day wears on. Although she loves Tyrone, she oftentimes regrets marrying him because of the dreams she had to sacrifice of becoming a nun or a concert pianist.

Jamie Tyrone  -  The elder Tyrone son, he is in his early thirties. Because he squanders money on booze and women, he has to rely on his parents for support. He dropped out of several colleges and has very little ambition, much to the dismay of his parents.

Edmund Tyrone -  The younger Tyrone son, he is ten years younger than Jamie. An intellectual and romantic dreamer, he learns during the play that he is afflicted with consumption (tuberculosis), which means that he will have to spend up to a year in a sanatorium. Like his brother and father, he is partially alcoholic, and he has a tendency to squander money, although he works harder than Jamie. Mary always holds out hope that he will become a success one day.

Cathleen -  The Tyrone family maid. She appears in the play only briefly. She is flirtatious and, by Act III, drunk.

Act I, Part One

Summary

The play begins in August, 1912, at the summer home of the Tyrone family. The setting for all four acts is the family’s living room, which is adjacent to the kitchen and dining room. There is also a staircase just off stage, which leads to the upper-level bedrooms. It is 8:30 am, and the family has just finished breakfast in the dining room. While Jamie and Edmund linger offstage, Tyrone and Mary enter and embrace, and Mary comments on being pleased with her recent weight gain even though she is eating less food. Tyrone and Mary make conversation, which leads to a brief argument about Tyrone’s tendency to spend money on real estate investing. They are interrupted by the sound of Edmund, who is having a coughing fit in the next room. Although Mary remarks that he merely has a bad cold, Tyrone’s body language indicates that he may know more about Edmund’s sickness than Mary. Nevertheless, Tyrone tells Mary that she must take care of herself and focus on getting better rather than getting upset about Edmund. Mary immediately becomes defensive, saying, “There’s nothing to be upset about. What makes you think I’m upset?” Tyrone drops the subject and tells Mary that he is glad to have her “dear old self” back again.

Edmund and Jamie are heard laughing in the next room, and Tyrone immediately grows bitter, assuming they are making jokes about him. Edmund and Jamie enter, and we see that, even though he is just 23 years old, Edmund is “plainly in bad health” and nervous. Upon entering, Jamie begins to stare at his mother, thinking that she is looking much better. The conversation turns spiteful, however, when the sons begin to make fun of Tyrone’s loud snoring, a subject about which he is sensitive, driving him to anger. Edmund tells him to calm down, leading to an argument between the two. Tyrone then turns on Jamie, attacking him for his lack of ambition and laziness. To calm things down, Edmund tells a funny story about a tenant named Shaughnessy on the Tyrone family land in Ireland, where the family’s origins lie. Tyrone is not amused by the anecdote, however, because he could be the subject of a lawsuit related to ownership of the land. He attacks Edmund again, calling his comments socialist. Edmund gets upsets and exits in a fit of coughing. Jamie points out that Edmund is really sick, a comment which Tyrone responds to with a “shut up” look, as though trying to prevent Mary from finding out something. Mary tells them that, despite what any doctor may say, she believes that Edmund has nothing more than a bad cold. Mary has a deep distrust for doctors. Tyrone and Jamie begin to stare at her again, making her self-conscious. Mary reflects on her faded beauty, recognizing that she is in the stages of decline.

As Mary exits, Tyrone chastises Jamie for suggesting that Edmund really may be ill in front of Mary, who is not supposed to worry during her recovery from her addiction to morphine. Jamie and Tyrone both suspect that Edmund has consumption (better known today as tuberculosis), and Jamie thinks it unwise to allow Mary to keep fooling herself. Jamie and Tyrone argue over Edmund’s doctor, Doc Hardy, who charges very little for his services. Jamie accuses Tyrone of getting the cheapest doctor, without regard to quality, simply because he is a penny-pincher. Tyrone retorts that Jamie always thinks the worst of everyone, and that Jamie does not understand the value of a dollar because he has always been able to take comfortable living for granted. Tyrone, by contrast, had to work his own way up from the streets. Jamie only squanders loads of money on whores and liquor in town. Jamie argues back that Tyrone squanders money on real estate speculation, although Tyrone points out that most of his holdings are mortgaged. Tyrone accuses Jamie of laziness and criticizes his failure to succeed at anything. Jamie was expelled from several colleges in his younger years, and he never shows any gratitude towards his father; Tyrone thinks that he is a bad influence on Edmund. Jamie counters that he has always tried to teach Edmund to lead a life different from that which Jamie leads.

Commentary

O’Neill’s opening stage directions immediately give the audience some clues as to what the Tyrone family is like. The bookshelves, for instance, show that the family is both educated and worldly; there are books by a wide range of famous European authors. The Irish literature on the bookshelf clues us in to the family’s pride in its Irish heritage. The character descriptions also foreshadow some of the play’s conflicts. Mary is described as decaying, yet she stills retains a “youthfulness she has never lost.” We see that she is in a transition period in her life, on the verge of becoming an old woman. The description of Tyrone and his shabby, utilitarian clothes suggests his financial prudence. He has obviously taken care of himself, because he looks ten years younger than his age. In fact, Tyrone does not seem to be affected physically by the passage of time; he maintains the digestion of a 25-year-old, for instance. His impervious body may support the idea that Tyrone has not changed very much throughout his life despite Mary’s continual efforts to make him reform some of his attitudes and habits. Notice that O’Neill uses stage directions more than many other playwrights to provide insight into what the characters ought to look like and what their central interests are.

It is also important when beginning the play to notice that O’Neill does not condemn any one of these characters more than any other. Instead, he feels a great sympathy for all four Tyrones, as he wrote to his wife in 1940 when he completed the play. All the characters have severe faults, and all are capable of great cruelty. At the same time, they are all part of one family that has stayed together throughout many years of hardship, and they can all be very loving and compassionate. One cannot single out any particular character as the protagonist or antagonist; one can instead see the themes that create strife in the family and the ways the family mends itself when it falls into disorder.

There are two major health problems in the play, which will slowly be uncovered over the course of the four acts, but they are both hinted early on. The first is Edmund’s consumption. We see that he is having coughing fits in the morning, and, even though Mary insists that he has merely a bad cold, we will learn later on that he is undoubtedly inflicted with tuberculosis and will have to live in a sanatorium in order to be cured. The second problem in the play is Mary’s addiction to morphine, which began when a doctor prescribed the drug to her after she gave birth to Edmund as a means of stopping her intense pain. As this play opens, Mary has just returned from a long treatment program designed to break her addiction. She shows signs of recovering–she is gaining weight again–but we will learn later on in the play that she has quickly become a full-blown morphine addict once again.

These two problems and how each character reacts to them provide a medium for bringing out the family’s most cruel and painful conflicts. It is obvious from the first, for instance, that one of Mary’s central flaws is her refusal to admit that there is a problem with herself or Edmund. She lies to her family countless times about being cured, and she chastises them for suspecting her. She also will not accept that Edmund is really sick. Her husband and sons, not wishing her to get worried while she is supposedly recovering, help her delude herself by keeping Edmund’s sickness from her as best they can. Mary, we see, likes to live in a fantasy world, and the morphine helps her accomplish that. We also see that bad side of Tyrone through these conflicts when we learn that he may be partly responsible for Mary’s initial addiction, having refused to pay the high costs for a good doctor, hiring instead a cheap quack who solved Mary’s pain without regard to the long-term consequences. Tyrone, we will see later, is also overly hesitant about spending money on a good doctor to treat Edmund’s illness. The two boys have their own problems as well, most of which will be fleshed out more in upcoming scenes.

Act I, Part Two

Summary

Tyrone and Jamie continue their discussion about Edmund, who works for a local newspaper. Tyrone and Jamie have heard that some editors dislike Edmund, but they both acknowledge that he has a strong creative impulse that drives much of his plans. Tyrone and Jamie agree also that they are glad to have Mary back. They resolve to help her in any way possible, and they decide to keep the truth about Edmund’s sickness from her, although they realize that they will not be able to do so if Edmund has to be committed to a sanatorium, a place where tuberculosis patients are treated. Tyrone and Jamie discuss Mary’s health, and Tyrone seems to be fooling himself into thinking that Mary is healthier than she really is. Jamie mentions that he heard her walking around the spare bedroom the night before, which may be a sign that she is taking morphine again. Tyrone says that it was simply his snoring that induced her to leave; he accuses Jamie once again of always trying to find the worst in any given situation.

Between the lines, we begin to learn that Mary first became addicted to morphine 23 years earlier, just after giving birth to Edmund. The birth was particularly painful for her, and Tyrone hired a very cheap doctor to help ease her pain. The economical but incompetent doctor prescribed morphine to Mary, recognizing that it would solve her immediate pain but ignoring potential future side effects, such as addiction. Thus we see that Tyrone’s stinginess (or prudence, as he would call it), has come up in the past, and it will be referred to many more times during the course of the play.

Mary enters just as Tyrone and Jamie are about to begin a new argument. Not wishing to upset her, they immediately cease and decide to go outside to trim the hedges. Mary asks what they were arguing about, and Jamie tells her that they were discussing Edmund’s doctor, Doc Hardy. Mary says she knows that they are lying to her. The two stare at her again briefly before exiting, with Jamie telling her not to worry. Edmund then enters in the midst of a coughing fit and tells Mary that he feels ill. Mary begins to fuss over him, although Edmund tells her to worry about herself and not him. Mary tells Edmund that she hates the house in which they live because, “I’ve never felt it was my home.” She puts up with it only because she usually goes along with whatever Tyrone wants. She criticizes Edmund and Jamie for “disgracing” themselves with loose women, so that at present no respectable girls will be seen with them. Mary announces her belief that Jamie and Edmund are always cruelly suspicious, and she thinks that they spy on her. She asks Edmund to “stop suspecting me,” although she acknowledges that Edmund cannot trust her because she has broken many promises in the past. She thinks that the past is hard to forget because it is full of broken promises. The act ends with Edmund’s exit. Mary sits alone, twitching nervously.

Commentary

The latter part of Act I introduces us to the central conflict between Tyrone and Jamie. Tyrone believes that Jamie does not appreciate the value of money or the importance of hard work; Jamie has taken too much for granted. Jamie, on the other hand, thinks that his father is a penny-pincher, and he never shows his father any gratitude. Nevertheless, we see in this conflict an optimistic side of Tyrone, who maintains that his son still has the chance to become a great success. Their relationship and Tyrone’s bitter disappointment suggests a thematic link between the two. Jamie is an example of the prodigal son who could have been like his father but instead chose to rebel. One of the strengths of the play is the presence of both Tyrone and Mary in their two children. In Act II, for instance, Edmund will criticize Jamie for thinking suspiciously by asking, “Can’t you think anything but. . .” and cutting himself off before finishing. This is the same wording Tyrone uses in Act I to criticize Jamie’s negative attitude. Similarly, we see towards the end of the act that Edmund and Mary share a common romantic vision. They dream of life in high society and comfortable living. Edmund concerns himself with Romantic authors and drunkenness while Mary entertains sublime fantasies about the role of the home and the success of her children. The character links come up several times throughout the play and affect the play’s internal cohesion.

Jamie’s comment that he “can’t forget the past” introduces another central concern of the play: the role of the past in the events of the present. Each character in this play is at least partially controlled by his or her memories of the family’s history. None of the men, for instance, are willing to believe Mary, because she has broken so many promises in the past. Both sons and Mary hold deep-seated grudges towards Tyrone for refusing to pay for a quality doctor for her, and the problems that created are still very much alive. Perhaps most importantly, Mary can never let go of the dreams she had as a young girl of being a professional pianist or a nun, both of which were destroyed when she got married. We see throughout the play her tendency to question whether she made the right decision, and this tendency fosters a resentment towards Tyrone, who she thinks was complicit in the destruction of her dreams. All these characters are haunted by all sorts of events from the past, none of which they can forget, as Jamie says. Thus, much like Mary’s body as described at the beginning of the play, the family is slowly decaying because it is trapped by suspicions and problems resulting from mistakes made long ago which can neither be forgiven nor ignored.

We also see in this act Mary’s specific idea of what a “home” is. More importantly, we learn that she does not feel like her house is any kind of a home, that she believes that she has never actually had a home with Tyrone, because they have lived their lives touring on the road. This is one of the manifestations of Mary’s romantic vision of life that has been destroyed by the reality of her present situation. Unfortunately for her, Mary was never able to voice her concerns until too late in life; she always went along with Tyrone with little comment. Thus, we see that communication within the family is deeply flawed. This is also evident in Mary’s continual refusal to admit the truth, and in the men’s refusal to tell her the truth. We are left with a family who can easily argue and fight, but can never really communicate what they feel and want until it is too late. The play will move towards a resolution of this conflict towards the end of Act IV, when Jamie tells Edmund of his desire to see him fail, and when Mary and Tyrone discuss their old hopes.

Mary’s concern over having a “home” introduces the concern over language into the play. Notice that the characters each command their own particular vocabulary that is highly politicized. Tyrone, for instance, is constantly calling his attitude towards money “prudent,” while the other three call him “stingy.” Likewise, Mary has a different definition of the word “home” than the three men. There is also a hesitancy on the part of all characters to say the word “consumption” in reference to Edmund. O’Neill’s world is one in which language is politicized, where characters can claim language for themselves, and where other characters place a great stake in which particular words are used to describe which experiences.

Act II, Scene i

Summary

The curtain rises again on the living room, where Edmund sits reading. It is 12:45 pm on the same August day. Cathleen, the maid, enters with whiskey and water for pre-lunch drinking. Edmund asks Cathleen to call Tyrone and Jamie for lunch. Cathleen is chatty and flirty, and tells Edmund that he is handsome. Jamie soon enters and pours himself a drink, adding water to the bottle afterwards so that Tyrone will not know they had a drink before he came in. Tyrone is still outside, talking to one of the neighbors and putting on “an act” with the intent of showing off. Jamie tells Edmund that Edmund may have a sickness more severe than a simple case of malaria. He then chastises Edmund for leaving Mary alone all morning. He tells him that Mary’s promises mean nothing anymore. Jamie reveals that he and Tyrone knew of Mary’s morphine addiction as much as ten years before they told Edmund.

Edmund begins a coughing fit as Mary enters, and she tells him not to cough. When Jamie makes a snide comment about his father, Mary tells him to respect Tyrone more. She tells him to stop always seeking out the weaknesses in others. She expresses her fatalistic view of life, that most events are somehow predetermined, that humans have little control over their own lives. She then complains that Tyrone never hires any good servants; she is displeased with Cathleen, and she blames her unhappiness on Tyrone’s refusal to hire a top-rate maid. At this point, Cathleen enters and tells them that Tyrone is still outside talking. Edmund exits to fetch him, and while he is gone, Jamie stares at Mary with a concerned look. Mary asks why he is looking at her, and he tells her that she knows why. Although he will not say it directly, Jamie knows that Mary is back on morphine; he can tell by her glazed eyes. Edmund reenters and curses Jamie when Mary, playing ignorant, tells him that Jamie has been insinuating nasty things about her. Mary prevents an argument by telling Edmund to blame no one. She again expresses her fatalist view: “[Jamie] can’t help what the past has made him. Any more than your father can. Or you. Or I.” Jamie shrugs off all accusations, and Edmund looks suspiciously at Mary.

Tyrone enters, and he argues briefly with his two sons about the whiskey. They all have a large drink. Suddenly, Mary has an outburst about Tyrone’s failure to understand what a home is. Mary has a distinct vision of a home, one that Tyrone has never been able to provide for her. She tells him that he should have remained a bachelor, but then she drops the subject so that they can begin lunch. However, she first criticizes Tyrone for letting Edmund drink, saying that it will kill him. Suddenly feeling guilty, she retracts her comments. Jamie and Edmund exit to the dining room. Tyrone sits staring at Mary, then says that he has “been a God-damned fool to believe in you.” She becomes defensive and begins to deny Tyrone’s unspoken accusations, but he now knows that she is back on morphine. She complains again of his drinking before the scene ends.

Commentary

Act II introduces us to alcohol, one of the great motifs in the play. In the drinking of alcohol, we see an attempt by the male characters to escape the problems that haunt them. However, notice that this makes them no different from Mary, who uses a different drug to escape the pains of the world. In fact, by the end of Act IV, all three men are drunk, Cathleen is drunk, and Mary is mentally drifting after consuming a huge dose of morphine. The play begins in sobriety but ends in complete inebriation. All the characters are to some degree addicted–to alcohol, or, in Mary’s case, to morphine. Thus we see that life for the Tyrone family is very conducive to the desire to escape from the world. Life in the Tyrone family is also conducive to addiction, which we see particularly in Mary, who was on her way to recovery until she came home to her family and could no longer resist the urge to escape mentally. The use of alcohol, furthermore, suggests also that the day on which this play is set is just one of many similar days filled with fighting and excessive drinking until everyone goes to sleep. There is a cycle of alcoholism present in each day for the Tyrones, which leads to the pessimistic conclusion that the family’s problems in this play do not resolve themselves, that their conflicts do not lessen. Each family member spends the day working towards inebriation, arguing along the way, and then goes to bed only to wake up the next day and begin the cycle over again.

In this scene, we see clearly Mary’s tendency to blame the problems of the family on fate. She initially criticizes Jamie for his tendency to look for weaknesses in other people, but then she attributes the flaw to the way Jamie was raised, which he cannot help. Mary’s fatalistic view is one of her character flaws, because it always provides her with an easy way out. Rather than really confronting Jamie about his malice, she simply excuses him. Likewise, she blames much of her own problems on her crushed dreams and disappointment, which in her mind leaves her with very little choice in her actions. The fatalistic outlook, in its removal of responsibility, is a barrier to solving problems, which Mary does not seem to have the ability to do.

One of the ways she hides from these problems is by failing to communicate effectively with her family, which also comes up in this scene. Jamie begins to confront her about her appearance, which we are to believe is somewhat haggard because she is on morphine. Mary, however, immediately decries the supposition and pretends not to understand what Jamie is saying. She will not admit even to her own sons that she has regained her addiction, but at the same time, her sons will not confront her fully about it and force her to confess, even though they know that she is back on morphine. Notice that both sides are to blame for this communication failure; O’Neill is not condemning any one character.

Act II, Scene ii

Summary

The scene begins half an hour after the previous scene. The family is returning from lunch in the dining room. Tyrone appears angry and aloof, while Edmund appears “heartsick.” Mary and Tyrone argue briefly about the nature of the “home,” although Mary seems somewhat aloof while she speaks because she is on morphine. The phone rings, and Tyrone answers it. He talks briefly with the caller and agrees on a meeting at four o’clock. He returns and tells the family that the caller was Doc Hardy, who wanted to see Edmund that afternoon. Edmund remarks that it doesn’t sound like good tidings. Mary immediately discredits everything Doc Hardy has to say because she thinks he is a cheap quack whom Tyrone hired only because he is inexpensive. After a brief argument, she exits upstairs.

After she is gone, Jamie remarks that she has gone to get more morphine. Edmund and Tyrone explode at him, telling him not to think such bad thoughts about people. Jamie counters that Edmund and Tyrone need to face the truth; they are kidding themselves. Edmund tells Jamie that he is too pessimistic. Tyrone argues that both boys have forgotten Catholicism, the only belief that is not fraudulent. Jamie and Edmund both grow mad and begin to argue with Tyrone. Tyrone admits that he does not practice Catholicism strictly, but he claims that he prays each morning and each evening. Edmund is a believer in Nietzsche, who wrote that “God is dead” in ##Thus Spoke Zarathustra# He ends the argument, however, by resolving to speak with Mary about the drugs, and he exits upstairs.

After Edmund leaves, Tyrone tells Jamie that Doc Hardy say that Edmund has consumption, “no possible doubt.” However, if Edmund goes to a sanatorium immediately, he will be cured in six to 12 months. Jamie demands that Tyrone send Edmund somewhere good, not somewhere cheap. Jamie says that Tyrone thinks consumption is necessarily fatal, and therefore it is not worth spending money on trying to cure Edmund since he is guaranteed to die anyway. Jamie correctly argues that consumption can be cured if treated properly. He decides to go with Tyrone and Edmund to the doctor that afternoon then exits.

Mary reenters as Jamie leaves, and she tells Tyrone that Jamie would be a good son if he had been raised in a “real” home as Mary envisions it. She tells Tyrone not to give Jamie any money because he will use it only to but liquor. Tyrone bitterly implies that Mary and her drug use is enough to make any man want to drink. Mary dodges his accusation with denials, but she asks Tyrone not to leave her alone that afternoon because she gets lonely. Tyrone responds that Mary is the one who “leaves,” referring to her mental aloofness when she takes drugs. Tyrone suggests that Mary take a ride in the new car he bought her, which to Tyrone’s resentment does not often get used (he sees it as another waste of money). Mary tells him that he should not have bought her a second-hand car. In any case, Mary argues that she has no one to visit in the car, since she has not had any friends since she got married. She alludes briefly to a scandal involving Tyrone and a mistress at the beginning of their marriage, and this event caused many of her friends to abandon her. Tyrone tells Mary not to dig up the past. Mary changes the subject and tells Tyrone that she needs to go to the drugstore.

Delving into the past, Mary tells Tyrone the story of getting addicted to morphine when Edmund was born. She implicitly blames Tyrone for her addiction because he would only pay for a cheap doctor who knew of no better way to cure her childbirth pain. Tyrone interrupts and tells her to forget the past, but Mary replies, “Why? How can I? The past is the present, isn’t it? It’s the future too. We all try to lie out of that but life won’t let us.” Mary blames herself for breaking her vow never to have another baby after Eugene, her second baby who died at two years old from measles he caught from Jamie after Jamie went into the baby’s room. Tyrone tells Mary to let the dead baby rest in peace, but Mary only blames herself more for not staying with Eugene (her mother was babysitting when Jamie gave Eugene measles), and instead going on the road to keep Tyrone company as he traveled the country with his plays. Tyrone had later insisted that Mary have another baby to replace Eugene, and so Edmund was born. But Mary claimed that from the first day she could tell that Edmund was weak and fragile, as though God intended to punish her for what happened to Eugene.

Edmund reenters after Mary’s speech, and he asks Tyrone for money, which Tyrone grudgingly produces. Edmund is genuinely thankful, but then he gets the idea that Tyrone may regret giving him money because Tyrone thinks that Edmund will die and the money will be wasted. Tyrone is greatly hurt by this accusation, and Edmund suddenly feels very guilty for what he said. He and his father make amends briefly before Mary furiously tells Edmund not to be so morbid and pessimistic. She begins to cry, and Tyrone exits to get ready to go to the doctor with Edmund. Mary again criticizes Doc Hardy and tells Edmund not to see him. Edmund replies that Mary needs to quit the morphine, which puts Mary on the defensive, denying that she still uses and then making excuses for herself. She admits that she lies to herself all the time, and she says that she can “no longer call my soul my own.” She hopes for redemption one day through the Virgin. Jamie and Tyrone call Edmund, and he exits. Mary is left alone, glad that they are gone but feeling “so lonely.”

Commentary

All the characters in this play try to muster an optimistic outlook at times. Tyrone always hopes that Jamie will one day make a success of himself. Mary still hopes that Edmund will get better and that her husband will finally make her a real home. In this scene, we see that Edmund, in keeping with his youthful romantic outlook, has hope for the whole family to make amends. At the time of his “heartsick” entrance, he appears truly troubled by the fighting occurring within the family. Notice that Edmund also has a tendency to avoid conflicts by laughing them away when they appear. He has his outbursts, but he is less responsive to baiting from his father than this brother is. Mary, in a similar vein, tries to hold the family together in part through imminent talking. She seems to dislike silences, because whenever she is onstage, she is usually making meaningless chit chat simply to create noise, such as at the beginning of this scene. Some of her talking constitutes an attempt to smooth over conflicts and also to change the subject away from conflict between the men.

The second scene of Act II reinforces the idea that in terms of structure, the play is built around meals. Act I is set just as the family returns from breakfast; Act II, Scene i occurs as the family prepares for lunch; Act II, Scene ii is set as the family returns from lunch; Act III is set as the family prepares for dinner; Act IV takes place late at night when the men are having their last drinks waiting to pass out. The structure of meals indicates the centrality of meals to the Tyrone family because meals bring all four people together in a traditional family setting. Nevertheless, we never actually see the Tyrones at one of these central meals. Thus, the play has a sense of waiting and recovering in each of the scenes. In the first part of Act II and in Act III, there is a constant sense of waiting for the main event, a meal, to happen. In Act I and the later part of Act II, the characters are all satisfied and search out activities to do until the next meal. This meal structure, like that structure of alcoholism, is very repetitive, and it further suggests the unchanging nature of life for the family.

In this section we begin to see more clearly that Edmund is an intellectual who reads extensively. He is well versed in the German philosopher Nietzsche, for example, and in Act IV we will see him quote extensively from famous French poets such as Baudelaire. Edmund’s intellectualism is a source of conflict between him and Tyrone, who thinks that the writers Edmund reads are leading him astray and turning him into towards a cynical, morbid outlook. This is one of the ways in which we see the autobiographical side of the play emerge; O’Neill himself was the intellectual son in the family who went on to be a literary great. Interestingly, Tyrone himself also has an intellectual streak in his love of Shakespeare. He knows the fine details of every Shakespearean play, and he holds the Shakespearean canon up at the highest form of art. In his praise of Shakespeare and condemnation of almost all other authors whom Edmund enjoys, Tyrone with futility tries to assert his control over Edmund, who despite what he hoped does not respect his father as a model for intellectual thought. Tyrone, ever the actor, tries his best to play as many roles as he can.

Nevertheless, religion is particularly important to Tyrone as well as to Mary, as we see in this section for the first time. Although neither practice Catholicism, Tyrone and Mary both claim to pray on a daily basis, and they say that they fear God. The two sons, by contrast, are skeptics. We see then the breakdown of the Tyrone family values from one generation to the next. Whereas Tyrone was raised on Shakespeare, Irish writers and the Bible, his sons have spurned that same upbringing, turning towards a different type of literature and a lack of faith. The rejection of the old way by the second generation is something that Mary and Tyrone both have difficulty accepting, and it further reminds the reader that they are an aging couple being replaced by new Americans.

Finally, Mary’s comments that she cannot forget the past because “the past is the present” further suggests the repetitive nature of life in the Tyrone family. The events of the past are continually repeated in the present, just as the events of each individual day are repeated in a cyclical fashion based on alcohol or morphine. Note that the title, Long Day’s Journey into Night, suggests that the day is not really unique; it is just another day in the life of the family, not too much different from most other days except that it is the day that Edmund learns he has consumption.

Act III

Summary

The scene opens as usual on the living room at 6:30 pm, just before dinner time. Mary and Cathleen are alone in the room; Cathleen, at Mary’s invitation, has been drinking. Although they discuss the fog, it is clear that Cathleen is there only to give Mary a chance to talk to someone. They discuss briefly Tyrone obsession with money, and then Mary refuses to admit to Edmund’s consumption. Mary delves into her past memories of her life and family. As a pious Catholic schoolgirl, she says that she never liked the theater; she did not feel “at home” with the theater crowd. Mary then brings up the subject of morphine, which we learn Cathleen gets for her from the local drugstore. Mary is becoming obsessed with her hands, which used to be long and beautiful but have since deteriorated. She mentions that she used to have two dreams: to become a nun and to become a famous professional pianist. These dreams evaporated, however, when she met Tyrone and fell in love. She met Tyrone after seeing him in a play. He was friends with her father, who introduced the two. And she maintains that Tyrone is a good man; in 36 years of marriage, he has had not one extramarital scandal.

 

Cathleen then exits to see about dinner, and Mary slowly becomes bitter as she recalls more memories. She thinks of her happiness before meeting Tyrone. She thinks that she cannot pray anymore because the Virgin will not listen to a dope fiend. She decides to go upstairs to get more drugs, but before she can do so, Edmund and Tyrone return.

They immediat

Author: Yanina
• Sunday, September 07th, 2008

On The Great Gatsby
[1]
Title: Carraway’s Complaint. (The Great Gatsby) (Critical Essay).
Author(s): George Monteiro.
Source: Journal of Modern Literature 24.1 (Fall 2000): p161. (5748 words)
In one of the most familiar passages in twentieth-century literature, Nick Carraway thinks
back on the late Jay Gatsby, who had suffered so grievously from the hard malice of the
Buchanans and their like in the inhospitable East. It begins as an elegy but turns into a
lament for humankind’s capacity for wonder and awe in the face of the hard truths of
history. Disillusioned, sad, sentimental, this child of the Midwest looks out, through the
mind’s eye, across Long Island Sound and re-imagines the “old island” as it must have
looked four centuries earlier to the Western sailors who were but the advance guard of
the adventurers, immigrants, and settlers to come. Like the psalmist who sits by the rivers
of Babylon, lamenting the lost Zion, he, too, weeps for what is past and will not return. It
bears repeating.
Most of the big shore places were closed now and there were hardly any lights except
the shadowy, moving glow of a ferryboat across the Sound. And as the moon rose higher
the inessential houses began to melt away until gradually I became aware of the old island
here that flowered once for Dutch sailors’ eyes-a fresh, green breast of the new world. Its
vanished trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby’s house, had once pandered in
whispers to the last and greatest of all human dreams; for a transitory enchanted moment
man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an
aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time
in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder…. Gatsby believed in
the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then,
but that’s no matter–to-morrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther…. And
one fine morning–
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.(1)
These final sentences of The Great Gatsby take on a strange and surprising significance
when they are read against Fitzgerald’s immediate sources for them in the literature about
Columbus and the New World. Behind Nick’s words and sentiments lies a vast body of
Western literature on notions of a terrestrial paradise. Since Fitzgerald ties this “fresh,
green breast of the new world” to a New York island that “flowered once,” as Carraway
imagined, for “Dutch sailors’ eyes,” it is possible to pin down his principal if not sole
source for Nick’s last rueful vision.
1
Washington Irving’s A History of New York, from the Beginning of the World to
the End of the Dutch Dynasty, first published in 1809 and attributed to the fictional
persona of “Diedrich Knickerbocker,” is a problem for the genre purist. While the book
often mocks history and historical writing, it otherwise suits perfectly Fitzgerald’s
fictional imagination. For among other matters, it demonstrates how one fabulating writer
confronts the stuff of history, drawing on his considerable folkloristic ability to turn
historic materials into the romanticized stuff of national legend and Western myth.
Irving’s history describes the first look which those “honest Dutch tars” had of the New
World when their ships “entered that majestic bay which at this day expands its ample
bosom before the city of New York, and which had never before been visited by any
European.”
The island of Manna–hata spread wide before them, like some sweet vision of fancy
or some fair creation of industrious magic. Its hills of smiling green swelled gently one
above another, crowned with lofty trees of luxuriant growth, some pointing their
tapering foliage towards the clouds, which were gloriously transparent, and others
loaded with a verdant burden of clambering vines, bowing their branches to the earth,
that was covered with flowers.(2)
Irving’s description echoes earlier accounts of what the so–called “terrestrial paradise”
might look like. In Voyages and Discoveries of the Companions of Columbus (1828),
Irving places Columbus’ considerations of this theme within a greater tradition of such
speculation, beginning with the “Grand Oasis of Arabia,” where, he writes, “exhausted
travellers, after traversing the parched and sultry desert, hailed this verdant spot with
rapture; they refreshed themselves under its shady bowers, and beside its cooling streams,
as the crew of a tempest tost vessel repose on the shores of some green island in the
deep.”(3) He also summarizes St. Basilius’ discourse on “Paradise”:
There the earth is always green, the flowers are ever blooming, the waters limpid
and delicate; not rushing in rude and turbid torrents, but welling up in crystal
fountains and winding in peaceful and silver streams. There no harsh and boisterous
winds are permitted to shake and disturb the air and ravage the beauty of the groves;
there prevails no melancholy nor darksome weather, no drowning rain nor pelting
hail, no forked lightning nor rending and resounding thunder; no wintry pinching
cold nor withering and panting summer heat, nor any thing else that can give pain or
sorrow or annoyance; but all is bland and gentle and serene; a perpetual youth and
joy reigns throughout all nature and nothing decays and dies.(4)
Later, in A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving
summarizes Columbus’ own thinking about the shape of the earth and the nature of the
2
vast new world before him. “Philosophers had described it [the earth] as spherical,” he
wrote,
but they knew nothing of the part of the world which he had discovered. The
ancient part, known to them, he had no doubt was spherical; but he now supposed
that the real form of the earth was that of a pear, one part much more elevated than
the rest, and tapering upwards toward the skies. This part he supposed to be in the
interior of this newly found continent, and immediately under the equator…. He
beheld a vast world, rising, as it were, into existence before him; its nature and
extent unknown and undefined, as yet a mere region for conjecture. Every day
displayed some new feature of beauty and sublimity. Island after island, whose
rocks he was told were veined with gold, whose groves teemed with spices, or
whose shores abounded with pearls. Interminable ranges of coast; promontory
beyond promontory, stretching as far as the eye could reach; luxuriant valleys,
sweeping away into a vast interior, whose distant mountains, he was told,
concealed still happier lands, and realms of still greater opulence. When he looked
upon all this region of golden promise, it was with the glorious conviction, that his
genius had, in a manner, called it into existence; he regarded it with the triumphant
eye of a discoverer.(5)
Irving’s major source for Columbus’ speculations, theories, and convictions were
Columbus’ letters reporting on his four voyages to the New World. It was in his third–
voyage letter that Columbus explained that the earth was in “the form of a pear…. or like
a round ball, upon one part of which is a prominence like a woman’s nipple, this
protrusion being the highest and nearest the sky, situated under the equinoctial line, and
at the eastern extremity of this sea.”(6) So important did he think his discovery to be that
he repeated it in the same letter, in pretty much the same terms, only a few sentences
further on. Therefore, when he reached the island of Trinidad, he was not surprised to
find “the temperature exceedingly mild; the fields and the foliage likewise were
remarkably fresh and green,” adding:
all this must proceed from the extreme blandness of the temperature, which
arises, as I have said, from this country being the most elevated in the world, and
the nearest to the sky. On these grounds, therefore, I affirm, that the globe is not
spherical, but that there is the difference in its form which I have described; the
which is to be found in this hemisphere, at the point where the Indies meet the
ocean, the extremity of the hemisphere being below the equinoctial line. And a
great confirmation of this is, that when our Lord made the sun, the first light
appeared in the first point of the east, where the most elevated point of the globe
is….(7)
3
That Fitzgerald was acquainted with Columbus’ letters may be confirmed further by his
account of hardships suffered on his fourth voyage. As echoed later in Fitzgerald, he
writes of “currents [that] were still contrary,” “currents still oppos[ing]” the progress of
ships “in the worst possible condition” but “always beating against contrary winds.”(8)
If the finale of The Great Gatsby owes a good deal to Washington Irving, it is
curious to note that Fitzgerald’s novel might have had its own small share in a later
historian’s rendering of Columbus’ Spanish in his letter on the third voyage. Samuel Eliot
Morison, finding the existing translations of Columbus’ letters into English to be
unsatisfactory, informs readers of his Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher
Columbus (1942) that he has made his own translations of the original Spanish. Morison
renders “de la forma de una pera … o como quien tiene una pelota muy redonda, ye en un
lugar della fuese como una teta de muger alii puesta’”(9) as “the earth was not round after
all, but `in the shape of a pear,’ or, like a round ball `on one part of which is placed
something like a woman’s breast.”(10) “This breast,” continues Morison, “reached nearer
Heaven than the rest of the world, and on the nipple the Terrestrial Paradise was
located.”(11) Interestingly, the English scholar Stephen Reckert, who quotes Morison’s
explanation for Columbus’ miscalculations, also provides his own translation of the
passage from Columbus’ third voyage letter, which reads in part: “I began to think this
about the world: I find it is not round …, but the shape of a quite round pear, and in one
place like a woman’s breast…. and this nipple part is the highest and nearest to
Heaven….”(12)
Foreshadowing Fitzgerald’s Nick Carraway, Columbus sets down his impressions
on first looking at what would come to be called the New World:
All these islands are very beautiful, and distinguished by a diversity of scenery;
they are filled with a great variety of trees of immense height, and which I believe to
retain their foliage in all seasons; for when I saw them they were as verdant and
luxuriant as they usually are in Spain in the month of May,–some of them were
blossoming, some bearing fruit, and all flourishing in the greatest perfection,
according to their respective stages of growth, and the nature and quality of each. …
The nightingale and various birds were singing in countless numbers….(13)
For the dreamer, as Dick Diver learns in Tender Is the Night, the nightingale of the
imagination knows no spatial limitations. It has no natural habitat. But it does for Nick
Carraway, of course, whose plaintive anthem evokes Columbus’ vision as it is replayed
for Dutch sailors, first in Irving, then in Fitzgerald. Gatsby embodies a twentieth–century
version of their dream–it was William Butler Yeats’s notion, it will be recalled, that man
embodies truth but cannot know it–but he cannot get past the green light at the end of
Daisy’s dock, which has signaled from the start the absolute barrier to the realization of
his dream of Daisy and the recoverable past.(14)
4
Of course what is problematic about Gatsby’s dream is that it not only has roots in the
past but that it is intended to remake the past. In short, it is temporally disoriented, for the
dreams of Columbus and the others, including the Dutch sailors, are keyed to the
possibilities of the future. Henry David Thoreau quotes Humboldt’s words on Columbus
as he first faces the New World:
The grateful coolness of the evening air, the ethereal purity of the starry firmament,
the balmy fragrance of flowers, wafted to him by the land breeze, all led him to
suppose (as we are told by Herrara, in the Decades) that he was approaching the
garden of Eden, the sacred abode of our first parents. The Orinoco seemed to him
one of the four rivers which, according to the venerable tradition of the ancient
world, flowed from Paradise, to water and divide the surface of the earth, newly
adorned with plants.(15)
Thoreau reveals his own wonderment, as he looks out over the beach at Cape Cod, that
“men do not sail the sea with more expectation. Nothing remarkable was ever
accomplished in a prosaic mood. The heroes and discoverers have found true more than
was previously believed, only when they were expecting and dreaming of something
more than their contemporaries dreamed of, or even themselves discovered,” he
continues, “that is, when they were in a frame of mind fitted to behold the truth.” Thus,
even the quixotic “expeditions for the discovery of El Dorado, and of the Fountain of
Youth, led to real, if not compensatory discoveries.”(16) Such quests differ from Jay
Gatsby’s, though, for there can be nothing compensatory when, as in his case, the risk is
absolute.
Washington Irving’s History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus also
anticipates Carraway’s simile connecting the egg to Columbus in the first chapter of The
Great Gatsby:
Next to the countenance shown him by the king and queen, may be mentioned that
of Pedro Gonzalez de Mendoza, the grand cardinal of Spain, and first subject of the
realm; a man whose elevated character for piety, learning, and high prince–like
qualities, gave signal value to his favours. He invited Columbus to a banquet, where
he assigned him the most honourable place at table, and had him served with the
ceremonials which in those punctilious times were observed towards sovereigns. At
this repast is said to have occurred the well known anecdote of the egg. A shallow
courtier present, impatient of the honours paid to Columbus, and meanly jealous of
him as a foreigner, abruptly asked him whether he thought that, in case he had not
discovered the Indias, there were not other men in Spain, who would have been
capable of the enterprize? To this Columbus made no immediate reply, but, taking an
egg, invited the company to make it stand upon one end. Every one attempted it, but
in vain; whereupon he struck it upon the table so as to break the end, and left it
5
standing on the broken part; illustrating in this simple manner, that when he had once
shown the way to the new world, nothing was easier than to follow it.(17)
Irving then adds a footnote: “This anecdote rests on the authority of the Italian historian
Benzoni…. It has been condemned as trivial, but the simplicity of the reproof constitutes
its severity, and was characteristic of the practical sagacity of Columbus. The universal
popularity of the anecdote is a proof of its merit.”(18) Interestingly enough, Mary Shelley
borrowed the anecdote of Columbus and the egg from the 1828 edition of Irving’s
Columbus. In her 1831 preface to Frankenstein, she writes:
Invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist in creating out of void, but
out of chaos; the materials must, in the first place, be afforded: it can give form to
dark, shapeless substances, but cannot bring into being the substance itself. In all
matters of discovery and invention, even of those that appertain to the imagination,
we are continually reminded of the story of Columbus and his egg. Invention
consists in the capacity of seizing on the capabilities of a subject, and in the power of
moulding and fashioning ideas suggested to it.(19)
This is not a bad explanation for what encourages Jay Gatsby to think that he can re-
fashion the factual past, bringing it into line with his clear dreams and hazy ideals, much
like the Dutch sailors with all time and place seemingly opening out before them. So too,
Jay Gatsby, that young student of “needed inventions,” succeeds in becoming both his
own Dr. Frankenstein and his own creation. He is, after all, to Nick’s amazement, his own
best invention: the product of his Platonic conception of himself. Like Mary Shelley’s
monster, he is not accepted by the villagers, from whose ranks will come his murderer.
Behind Fitzgerald’s story of New York and the East, however, lies still another
major source, this time not for the anecdote about Columbus’ triumph over his carping
critics, but for the fable of failure that is the story of the two Eggs, West and East. Into
the mix out of which emerged The Great Gatsby had gone Sherwood Anderson’s “The
Triumph of the Egg.” Published in The Dial in March 1920 and collected in 1921 in a
volume bearing the same title as the story, Anderson’s story, from one point of view at
least, offers a major criticism of that version of the American Dream promising success
to those who work honestly, hard, and long, especially to those independent souls who
strike out on their own into the adventurous but dangerous realm of small business.
Like The Great Gatsby, “The Egg” (its final title) is a first-person retrospective
narrative. A son recalls his boyhood, his mother and father, his father’s attempts to
succeed. He meditates on the dark metaphysics of raising chickens and the darksome
effects on a child of living among the daily dying of chicks and chickens. Not so
mysterious diseases decimate the population, and the stupid chicken has a predilection,
like a character in Gatsby, for running out into the road and being struck dead by passing
6
vehicles. The chicken farm fails (compare the Uncle Sol of E.E. Cummings’ poem
“Nobody Loses All the Time,” who, after committing suicide, finally starts a successful
business, a “worm farm”), and the father starts a restaurant. But chickens and eggs are in
his blood. He has a collection of monster chicks, with two heads, multiple legs, and the
like, preserved in jars, and he has learned to perform tricks with eggs. Anxious to satisfy
his ambition for himself and his family (when single he had his own horse), his
desperation takes a singularly American turn toward Barnumism. He will attract
customers to his restaurant by exhibiting his chicken wonders and doing magic tricks that
he will not hesitate to explain to his customers. The showing of his exhibits is doomed
from the start. It would take a rare bird, indeed, to order a fried egg sandwich or a
Western omelet as a bizarrie of chicken freaks before him suspended in preservative
alcohol stare out at him.
The father on this day, to amuse and bemuse his only customer, moves anxiously
and excitedly to his magic tricks. He promises to do the real trick that Columbus said he
would do but did not.
“Well,” he began hesitatingly, “well, you have heard of Christopher Columbus,
eh?” He seemed to be angry. “That Christopher Columbus was a cheat,” he declared
emphatically. “He talked of making an egg stand on its end. He talked, he did, and
then he went and broke the end of the egg.” My father seemed to his visitor to be
beside himself at the duplicity of Christopher Columbus. He muttered and swore. He
declared it was wrong to teach children that Christopher Columbus was a great man
when, after all, he cheated at the critical moment. He had declared he would make an
egg stand on end and then when his bluff had been called he had done a trick.(20)
The father proceeds to his trick. He will make the egg stand alone by rolling the egg
between the palms of his hands, claiming that he was coaxing the electricity from the
human body into the egg. When he does bring off the trick, however, his customer is not
looking, and by the time the latter looks back, the egg has fallen over.
It does not seem to be far-fetched to think here of Gatsby’s grand entertainments
designed to attract Daisy, weekend parties that have no other meaning for Gatsby beyond
that one purpose. Of course, they too fail ultimately. Nick Carraway early on
foreshadows the notion of the Columbian sham that so angers the father in Anderson’s
story “The Egg” when he describes West Egg and East Egg, “a pair of enormous eggs,
identical in contour and separated only by a courtesy bay, jut out into the most
domesticated body of salt water in the Western hemisphere, the great wet barnyard of
Long Island Sound. They are not perfect ovals,” he continues, “–like the egg in the
Columbus story, they are both crushed flat at the contact end.” With Columbus on his
mind, it is no wonder that Nick describes himself as “a guide, a pathfinder, an original
settler.”(21) For all of his Barnum-like tricks and Columbus-like antics, Gatsby will fall
7
before the “hard malice” of others. Fitzgerald was, of course, not rewriting Anderson’s
story. But it might have been one of its starting points, not the least of which was the
ironic, elegiac, rueful tone of its retrospective narration.(22)
Nick is carried away with his narration, his mythologizing, his defense of Gatsby
the criminal with an impossibly sentimental ideal that fails to recognize both the
incarnation in Daisy of the grail which he is in the quest of and the realities of the human
condition, among the contingencies of which is inevitable mutability and the passage of
time. The battle of East Egg and West Egg is over, and there is no winner.
The Columbus and egg story surfaces also in the William Faulkner story “The Bear.”
“Cass” McCaslin Edmonds presents his cousin Isaac McCaslin with a global overview of
an exhausted Old World just before the New World is discovered. For a “thousand years
… men fought over the fragments of that collapse until at last even the fragments were
exhausted and men snarled over the gnawed bones of the old world’s worthless evening
until an accidental egg discovered to them a new hemisphere.”(23) That new hemisphere
provided him with opportunity, but at a cost, as Faulkner reported to the Delta Council, a
Mississippi group honoring him in 1952:
By remaining in the old world, we could have been not only secure, but even free
of the need to be responsible. Instead, we chose the freedom, the liberty, the
independence and the inalienable right to responsibility; almost without charts, in
frail wooden ships with nothing but sails and our desire and will to be free to move
them, we crossed an ocean which did not even match the charts we did have; we
conquered a wilderness in order to establish a place, not to be secure in because we
did not want that, we had just repudiated that, just crossed three thousand miles of
dark and unknown sea to get away from that; but a place to be free in, to be
independent in, to be responsible in.(24)
Yet, as “The Bear” indicates, this continent was already owned by men “while He–this
Arbiter, this Architect, this Umpire–condoned–or did He? looked down and saw–or did
He? Or at least did nothing: saw, and could not, or did not see; saw, and would not, or
perhaps He would not see–perverse, impotent, or blind: which?”(25) Faulkner’s
indifferent or uncaring deity is an avatar of Fitzgerald’s Dr. T.J. Eckleberg, whose vacant
eyes overlook the valley of ashes on the way to Mana-hatta. So Faulkner joins the story
of Columbus’ egg with arguably Fitzgerald’s most famous Modernist image, dropping the
entire matter, in all its aspects, into heady ruminations about history and divinity in
Yoknapatawpha.
Just as his use of the Columbus anecdote emerges in Faulkner’s great hunting story,
so Fitzgerald’s sorrowful look into the past for the green light and the paradisal hopes the
Dutch sailors saw in the promised land of New York shores has lived on, one imagines,
in the breasts of many, each manifestation taking its own form and seeking out its own
8
expression. One of the more striking versions of Nick Carraway’s vision is wonderfully
emblematic–the words of a professor of literature later turned university president and,
still later, baseball commissioner:
[Baseball] is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when
everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and
evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the
fall alone…. It breaks my heart because it was meant to, because it was meant to foster
in me again the illusion that there was something abiding, some pattern and some
impulse that could come together to make a reality that would resist the corrosion; and
because, after it had fostered again that most hungered-for illusion, the game was
meant to stop, and betray precisely what it promised. Of course, there are those who
learn after the first few times. They grow out of sports. And there are others who were
born with the wisdom to know that nothing lasts. These are the truly tough among us,
the ones who can live without illusion, or without even the hope of illusion. I am not
thatgrown-up or up-to-date. I am a simpler creature, tied to more primitive patterns
and cycles. I need to think something lasts forever, and it might as well be that state of
being that is a game; it might as well be that, in a green field, in the sun.(26)
In this piece, published in the Yale Alumni Magazine in 1977 when he was president of
the university, Bart Giamatti gives a new emphasis and a re-focused meaning to Gatsby’s
dreaming, and he does so in a voice that sounds a bit like Nick Carraway’s. It was not
inappropriate that the young Angelo Bartlett Giamatti, the author of a doctoral
dissertation later published as The Earthly Paradise and the Renaissance Epic, had served
an apprenticeship at Princeton, teaching Dante, Petrarch, and Spenser, before journeying
home to New Haven. “Columbus thought he had found the blessed land across the wide
waters,” Giamatti had written in the Earthly Paradise, “and he was certainly not the last
man to search.”(27)
In notes toward his last novel, now known as The Love of the Last Tycoon: A
Western (note, a “Western”), Fitzgerald has his female narrator, a young woman named
Cecilia, tell of her first sight of sheep in the flesh:
I thought of the first sheep I ever remember seeing–hundreds of them, and how
our car drove suddenly into them on the back lot of the old Laemmle studio. They
were unhappy about being in pictures but the men in the car with us kept saying:
“Swell?”
“Is that what you wanted, Dick?”
“Isn’t that swell?” And the man named Dick kept standing up in the car as if he
were Cortez or Balboa, looking over that grey fleecy undulation. If I ever knew what
picture they were in I have long forgotten.(28)
9
It is the narrator who refers to “Balboa or Cortez” as the one who first looks out over the
Pacific Ocean. One of them is commonly accepted as the first European to do so. The
narrator confesses to confusing the two Spaniards. Her confusion recalls John Keats, of
course, whose poem mistakenly credits this primary experience to Cortez. The confusion
in The Love of the Last Tycoon is not, of course, Fitzgerald’s. That he introduces it into
his fiction, however, suggests that he found the confusion meaningful or at least
suggestive of meaning.
There are, for example, the parallels between the Spaniards (represented by Balboa
and Cortez) and the Dutch sailors who first saw in wonderment the greenness of Mana-
ahatta. It is the wonder that each experiences at new discovery which each feels brings
them together. Just as the whole of the Pacific Ocean lies before the Spanish Europeans,
the whole of the North American continent lies before the Dutch Europeans. Just as Keats
can imagine how Balboa (or Cortez) felt, along with his men, so too can Nick Carraway
imagine how the Dutch sailors felt. But what is more important is the parallel between
Keats and Carraway. Each has had to resort to a simile to define his amazement. Keats’s
“discovery” of Chapman’s translation of Homer is like Carraway’s discovery of Gatsby
and his intransigent dream. Only the discovery of a new planet or the sight of a new
ocean can reveal the depth and magnitude of discovering Chapman’s Homer. Only the
one-time awe of the Dutch sailors can reveal the depth and magnitude of Gatsby’s
American dream. So Carraway has to reach for a new loop in the coda to his narrative to
put that narrative in its proper historical-mythic perspective.
Interestingly, the effect that Fitzgerald achieves is, in a funny way, something like
that of the Dutch girl pictured on the cleanser container. Fitzgerald as author stands to
Carraway as Carraway as author stands to Gatsby, while Gatsby stands to the East Egg
world as, in history, the first Dutch sailors stand to the green islands before them. Keats
saw in Balboa silence and in his men “wild surmise.” History has told us what such “wild
surmise” led to with the brutal violence and bloody conquests of Cortez. Yet the Gatsbys
stay the course. They will not learn the lessons of history. If they are doomed to repeat
the mistakes, they will keep the dreams (though they be violent and destructive) both
alive and verdant. They shall persist if not prevail, like the boats beating against the
current, doomed to fail at the last.
Of course, in Keats’s time, Europe’s “discovery” of the Western hemisphere was not
much deplored, nor was Britain’s still-expanding empire much questioned except by her
rivals in empire building. For Fitzgerald, however, who would soon discover Oswald
Spengler’s Decline of the West, the discoverer’s egg turned out to be the great humpty-
dumpty. It could never be put back together again any more than Gatsby could fix the
past or Sherwood Anderson could abandon the hopeful mystery he cast over his “almost
beautiful,” single-truth grotesques. (29)
(1) F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby (Scribners, 1925), pp. 217-18.
10
(2) Washington Irving, A History of New York, from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty
(Author’s rev. ed.) (David McKay, 1891), pp. 80, 81.
(3) Washington Irving, Voyages and Discoveries of the Companions of Columbus, ed. James W. Tuttleton (Twayne,
1986), p. 333.
(4) Irving, Voyages and Discoveries, p. 337.
(5) Washington Irving, History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (G. and C. Carvill, 1828), II, 184,
187-88.
(6) I quote from Christopher Columbus: Four Voyages to the New World, Letters and Selected Documents, ed., and
trans. R.H. Major, intro. John E. Fagg (Citadel, 1992), p. 130. This is a bilingual edition of Select Letters of
Christopher Columbus, with Other Original Documents, Relating to his Four Voyages to the New Worm (Hakluyt
Society, 1847).
(7) Fagg, Four Voyages. pp. 132-33.
(8) Fagg, Four Voyages, pp. 180, 188.
(9) Fagg, Four Voyages, p. 130.
(10) Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus (Little, Brown, 1942), p. 557.
(11) Morison, Admiral, p. 557. In a later translation of the same passage, Morison substitutes “teat” for “breast”
(Journals and Other Documents of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, trans., ed. Samuel Eliot Morison
[Heritage Press, 1963], p. 286).
(12) Stephen Reckert, Beyond Chrysanthemums: Perspectives on Poetry East and West (Clarendon Press, 1993), p.
179, n. 40.
(13) Fagg, Four Voyages, p. 5.
(14) In the same year that saw the publication of The Great Gatsby, William Carlos Williams rendered Columbus’
vision: “[W]e saw the trees very green, and much water and fruits of divers kinds…. Bright green trees, the whole land
so green that it is a pleasure to look on it. Gardens of the most beautiful trees I ever saw…. I walked among the trees
which was the most beautiful thing which I had ever seen” (In the American Grain, intro. Horace Gregory [New
Directions, n.d.], pp. 25-26).
(15) Henry David Thoreau, Cape Cod, intro. Paul Theroux (Penguin, 1987), pp. 139-40.
(16) Thoreau, Cape Cod, pp. 139-40.
(17) Irving, Life and Voyages, I, p. 275.
(18) Irving, Life and Voyages, I, p. 275. See William A. Fahey, “Fitzgerald’s Eggs of Columbus,” ANQ, VIII (1995),
pp. 26-27. Girolamo Benzoni’s anecdote appears as an epigraph to Columbus’ Egg: New Latin American Stories on the
Conquest, ed. Nick Caistor (Faber and Faber, 1992).
(19) Mary Shelley, Introduction(1831), in Frankensteinor the Modern Prometheus, Volume I of The Novels and
Selected Works of Mary Shelley, ed. Nora Crook, intro. Betty T. Bennett (William Pickering, 1996), pp. 178-79.
(20) Sherwood Anderson, “The Egg,” in The Portable Sherwood Anderson, ed., and intro. Horace Gregory (Viking,
1949, p. 459.
(21) Fitzgerald, Great Gatsby, pp. 5-6, 4.
(22) Until Anderson’s “collapse” with the publication of the novel Dark Laughter, Fitzgerald’s attitude toward his work
had always been laudatory. In 1923, he had reviewed the novel Many Marriages favorably, and even as late as 1925 he
still considered Anderson, as he wrote to Maxwell Perkins, “one of the very best and finest writers in the English
language today” (The Letters ofF. Scott Fitzgerald, ed. Andrew Turnbull [Scribners, 1963], p. 187). By 1927, however,
he had changed his mind. It was Hemingway who, since “Anderson’s collapse,” was “the best we have, I think,” as he
informed Mencken (Correspondence ofF. Scott Fitzgerald, ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli and Margaret M. Duggan [Random
Houses, 1980], p. 210).
(23) William Faulkner, “The Bear,” in Go Down Moses (Random House, 1963), pp. 257-58.
(24) William Faulkner, “Address to the Delta Council” (Cleveland, Mississippi, May 15, 1952), in Essays, Speeches &
Public Letters, ed. James B. Meriwether (Random House, 1965), p. 128.
(25) Faulkner, “The Bear.” p. 258.
(26) A. Barlett Giamatti, “The Green Fields of the Mind,” in A Great and Glorious Game: Baseball Writings of A.
Bartlett Giamatti, ed. Kenneth S. Robson, foreword by David Halberstam (Algonquin Books, 1998) pp. 7, 12-13.
(27) A. Bartlett Giamatti, The Earthly Paradise and the Renaissance Epic (W. W. Norton, 1989), p. 4.
(28) F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Love of the Last Tycoon: A Western, ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli (Cambridge University
Press, 1993), pp. 9-10.
11
(29) Sherwood Anderson, Winesburg, Ohio, intro. Glen A. Love (Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 8.
GEORGE MONTEIRO has two books out in the fall of the year 2000: Fernando Pessoa and
Nineteenth-Century Anglo-American Literature and Stephen Crane’s Blue Badge of Courage.
Source Citation:Monteiro, George. “Carraway’s Complaint.” Journal of Modern Literature 24.1 (Fall
2000): 161. Academic OneFile. Gale. Cengage Learning (EMEA) Trial. 20 Mar. 2008
[2]
Title: The Great Gatsby.
Author(s): John A. Pidgeon.
Source: Modern Age 49.2 (Spring 2007): p178 (5). (3082 words)
I AM ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that The Great Gatsby (1925) is one of the finest
pieces of American literature. It is such because F. Scott Fitzgerald has displayed not
only insight into the American psyche but also a magnificent grasp of “The American
Dream” which Jay Gatsby represents.
Much of America was settled by people who brought with them the doctrines of John
Calvin. The Calvinist belief with which we are most concerned today is the “Doctrine of
the Elect” that essentially proposes that mankind is doomed to eternal damnation, for it is
burdened with original sin. Calvin held out no hope that man could be saved; as a matter
of fact, he thought it impossible except for those few whom God had predetermined
would be spared. This group, whose identity was known only to God, was called “The
Elect.” Calvin suggested that a member of The Elect could be “dropped” by God if he
failed to live a proper life of hard work and atonement, hoping that, if he should be one of
the Elect, he would not lose this station.
When the Puritans settled in America, they brought with them these beliefs, and as
time passed became more and more obsessed with learning who the Elect really were,
despite the fact that they had been taught that this was impossible. In looking for a sign,
they came to believe that the possession of material things might be an indication, since it
was likely that one who had such objects must have worked and prayed hard and long. Of
course, it is often true that those who do work hard frequently amass a considerable
number of material things. Since hard work was associated with God, and since hard
work often resulted in wealth, it was not long before these two things became associated.
Wealth came to be a sign of goodness, since it indicated membership in the Elect.
From this, it is easy to see where snobbery in American life is derived. A person who
was not well-to-do and who did not belong to the right club or attend the right school was
considered not only poor, but sinful. The pursuit of wealth came to have a meaning which
transcended the mere desire to be more comfortable. It served in an attempt to erase
original sin and earn eternal salvation. Striving for wealth has become a way for
12
Americans to ease their consciences, while one’s morality is often measured by the ability
to acquire material possessions.
In America, however, several other factors have been at work. They combine with
the Puritan ethic to create what we can call “The American Dream.” This dream is
founded upon the philosophical fundamentals on which our nation was built, summed up
in Thomas Jefferson’s expression that all men are created equal and are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. In other
words, America was to be a place where men were politically free to pursue whatever
goal they wished.
The second factor incorporated into the American Dream resulted from the legacy of
the Transcendental revolt that took place from about 1830 to 1860, a revolt which
attempted to free man from the burden of the old Puritan conscience, by imparting the
idea that man and God were not separate entities, but one. Therefore it was essential that
each individual should behave as an individual in order to represent faithfully the
elements of God within him. The Puritan wealth/goodness concept gave Americans a
goal to pursue; our political philosophy freed us to pursue this goal, and
Transcendentalism showed men that they, as individuals, were to lead the way.
Out of the combination of puritanism, democracy and transcendentalism has emerged
the term “rugged individualism” that describes an inner-directed, individualistic approach
to the acquisition of material wealth, an approach which every man is free to take. And
out of this comes the idea of the American Dream, the idea that one can, if one wishes,
make a fortune, rise to great heights, and achieve. However, always in the background is
the belief that the only truly worthy achievement is that leading to material gain. Perhaps
the most famous literary example of this is the Horatio Alger stories which in their time
were perhaps the most widely read literary endeavors in America. These stories all follow
the same pattern; a poor boy perseveres through hard work, goes from rags to riches,
climbs the ladder of success, and earns not only wealth but also acceptance from the
“better people,” the wealthy in our society.
There is a general understanding by readers of The Great Gatsby that it is a
commentary on the American Dream and not simply a documentary on the Jazz Age. It is
a criticism of American experience–not only of our manners, but of our basic historic
attitude toward life. The theme of Gatsby is the withering of the American Dream. The
dream is essentially anti-puritanical (to go from rags to riches and therefore from
rejection to acceptance). In the book lies the tension between faith and reality. The reality
is the distrust of mankind as expressed by the puritanical obsession with determinism
arising from a belief in original sin. The tension between faith and reality is symbolized
by two of our nation’s great political leaders: Jefferson who trusted the American people,
and Hamilton, who did not. Jefferson advocated a pure democracy and Hamilton
preferred a republic. Hamilton won out. This tension between faith and reality and
13
idealism and practicality are the heart of American art and American politics, and Jay
Gatsby personifies this conflict.
Gatsby is an idealist. He has the faith that one can “recapture the past.” He evokes
from Nick a memory which “remind[s] … [him] of something, an elusive rhythm, a
fragment of lost words that … [he has] heard long ago.” Gatsby, as a boy, had faith. His
copy book in his own handwriting says, “study electricity, study needed inventions,”
characterizing the faith that the perfection of the individual is possible in America.
The reality, however, is grounded in Gatsby’s experience with the Buchanans and
others. It lies in the tragedy of his never knowing that Daisy, the “green light,” the green
money, the “voice full of money” that Gatsby pursues is not the ideal that he imagines. In
reality Daisy is a “bitch.” She and Tom are “careless people” who hide behind their
wealth and come out to mix with others only long enough to hurt them. When the going
gets rough, they retreat back into their world of money and security. They leave others to
clean up the messes they make and pick up the broken pieces from their destructive
behavior.
Gatsby never succeeds in seeing through the sham of this world. It is the essence of
his romantic American vision that it lacks the seasoned powers of discrimination and he
dies faithful to the end. The novel, of course, is of the tragedy of that vision. Fitzgerald
perfectly understood the inadequacy of Gatsby’s romanticism. The scene in which Gatsby
shows his pile of shirts to Daisy is not vulgar but pathetic. These are the tangible
evidence of his salvation; they are the sacramentals. Sacramentals, as those brought up in
the Catholic church know, are outward signs of inner grace, and I submit that Gatsby is
showing these shirts to Daisy to show her that he has been “cured” of poverty. He is not
showing them out of vanity or pride, but in humility and reverence, much the same as that
which must have exemplified those who were miraculously healed by Christ.
The literary critic Lionel Trilling has said that America’s archetype of the young hero
has come from European culture. This hero generally comes from obscure or humble
beginnings, and there is a mystery about his birth (i.e., perhaps he is a foundling prince).
A product of poverty, pride, and intelligence, along with a sense of his own destiny, he
passes through a series of adventures. His purpose is to enter life by subduing the world
which considers him an outsider. Gatsby is an American version of this archetype in the
tradition of Natty Bumpo, Huckleberry Finn, even in the character of “The Virginian,” or
the hero of High Noon, or Matt Dillon or that western hero which Gary Cooper played so
well. Indeed, it is even in Gatsby’s flyleaf of his copy of Hopalong Cassidy that he has
written the schedule that his father shows Nick. This list, of course, is the one in which
“study needed inventions” is located. Gatsby does not seek to master or understand
society. He does not pass from innocence through experience to sophistication, but
retains innocence throughout his life.
According to Nick there is “something gorgeous about him.” Gatsby wears this
gorgeousness with the same elegance that Gary Cooper, alone and unafraid in the movie
14
High Noon, wears it, saving townspeople, who have shown by their cowardice that they
are not worthy of him. Fitzgerald has created Gatsby with a sense of his own election. He
bears himself with the dignity of this. His speech and his dress touch the imagination. In
his “white flannel suit, a silver shirt and a gold tie” there really is something Olympian in
him. This Olympian stature shows in his attitude toward all of his guests. He remains
aloof while providing them with the base material things he instinctively knows they
want. Fitzgerald makes it clear that Gatsby does not enjoy these things for himself. They
are merely being used to realize his dream … the acquisition of Daisy.
The masterful passage wherein Fitzgerald chronicles those who accepted Gatsby’s
hospitality emphasizes the gulf between Gatsby and his guests. It is a list written by Nick
on the back of the timetable, ironically dated July 5th, the day after the festival of
America’s birth date, the birth date of the American Dream. The writing is splendid as
Fitzgerald manages to create an impression of this society without actually describing it.
The list creates an atmosphere of vulgar American fortunes and vulgar American
destinies. Fitzgerald describes Gatsby saying farewell, and writes, “A wafer of a moon
was shining over Gatsby’s house surviving the laughter and sound. A sudden emptiness
seemed to flow from the windows and great doors, endowing with complete isolation the
figure of the host who stood on the porch, his hand up in a gesture of farewell.”
Mythic characters are by definition impersonal and in this sense Gatsby is mythic. He
has no private life, no meaning or significance that depends on his fulfilling his private
destiny. Daisy’s love for Tom was “only personal” Gatsby says to Nick and believes that
what he and Daisy shared was outside the realm of real life. But Gatsby experiences a
personal relationship with Daisy throughout their affair, which would have been actually
rather sordid had he not turned it into a romantic crusade in which he was the hero.
Daisy exists on two levels as Gatsby’s idealized vision and as the reality that
Fit

Author: Yanina
• Sunday, September 07th, 2008

Absalom or Avshalom (??????????? “Father/Leader of/is peace”, Standard Hebrew Av?alom, Tiberian Hebrew ?A???l?m), in the Bible, is the third son of David, king of Israel. He was deemed the handsomest man in the kingdom.

His sister Tamar had been raped by David’s eldest son, Amnon, who was in love with her. Absalom, after waiting two years, revenged by sending his servants to murder Amnon at a feast to which he had invited all the king’s sons (2 Samuel 13):

 The following article can also be found at www.sparknotes.com

Context
William Faulkner was born in New Albany, Mississippi, in September 1897; he died in Mississippi in 1962. Faulkner achieved a reputation as one of the greatest American novelists of the 20th century largely based on his series of novels about a fictional region of Mississippi called Yoknapatawpha County, centered on the fictional town of Jefferson. The greatest of these novels–among them The Sound and the Fury,Light in August, and Absalom, Absalom!–rank among the finest novels of world literature.
Faulkner was especially interested in moral themes relating to the ruins of the Deep South in the post-Civil War era. His prose style–which combines long, uninterrupted sentences with long strings of adjectives, frequent changes in narration, many recursive asides, and a frequent reliance on a sort of objective stream-of- consciousness technique, whereby the inner experience of a character in a scene is contrasted with the scene’s outward appearance–ranks among his greatest achievements. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1949.
Absalom, Absalom! is perhaps Faulkner’s most focused attempt to expose the moral crises which led to the destruction of the South. The story of a man hell-bent on establishing a dynasty and a story of love and hatred between races and families, it is also an exploration of how people relate to the past. Faulker tells a single story from a number of perspectives, capturing the conflict, racism, violence, and sacrifice in each character’s life, and also demonstrating how the human mind reconstructs the past in the present imagination.

Summary

In 1833, a wild, imposing man named Thomas Sutpen comes to Jefferson, Mississippi, with a group of slaves and a French architect in tow. He buys a hundred square miles of land from an Indian tribe, raises a manor house, plants cotton, and marries the daughter of a local merchant, and within a few years is entrenched among the local aristocracy. Sutpen has a son and a daughter, Henry and Judith, who grow up in a life of uncultivated ease in the northern Mississippi countryside. Henry goes to college at the University of Mississippi in 1859, and meets a sophisticated fellow student named Charles Bon, whom he befriends and brings home for Christmas. Charles meets Judith, and over time, an engagement between them is assumed. But Sutpen realizes that Bon is actually his own son–Henry and Judith’s half-brother–from a previous marriage which he abandoned when he discovered that his wife had negro blood. He tells Henry that the engagement cannot be, and that Bon is Henry’s own brother; Henry reacts with outrage, refusing to believe that Bon knew all along and willingly became engaged to his own sister. Henry repudiates his birthright, and he and Bon flee to New Orleans. When war breaks out, they enlist, and spend four hard years fighting for the Confederacy as the South crumbles around them. At the end of the war, Sutpen (a colonel) finds his son and reveals to him that not only is Bon his and Judith’s half-brother, he is also, in part, a black man.
That knowledge makes Henry revolt against Bon in a way that even the idea of incest did not, and on the day Bon arrives to marry Judith, Henry murders him in front of the gates of the Sutpen plantation. Sutpen returns to a broken house, and becomes a broken–though still forceful–man; he slides slowly into alcoholism, begins an affair with a fifteen-year-old white girl named Milly, and continues in that vein until, following the birth of his and Milly’s daughter, he is murdered by Milly’s grandfather Wash Jones in 1869.
Decades later, in 1909, Quentin Compson is a twenty-year-old man, the grandson of Sutpen’s first friend in the country (General Compson), who is preparing to leave Jefferson to attend Harvard. He is summoned by Miss Rosa Coldfield, the sister of Sutpen’s wife Ellen (and briefly Sutpen’s fiancee herself), to hear the story of how Sutpen destroyed her family and his own. Over the following weeks and months, Quentin is drawn deeper and deeper into the Sutpen story, discussing it with his father, thinking about it, and later telling it in detail to his Harvard roommate Shreve. The story is burned into his brain the night he goes with Miss Rosa to the Sutpen plantation, where they find Henry Sutpen– now an old man–waiting to die. Months later, Rosa attempts to return for Henry with an ambulance, but Clytie, Thomas Sutpen’s daughter with a slave woman and now a withered old woman herself, sets fire to the manor house, killing herself and Henry, and bringing the Sutpen dynasty to a fiery end.

Characters
Thomas Sutpen  -  Owner and founder of the plantation Sutpen’s Hundred, in Yoknapatawpha County, near Jefferson, Mississippi. Married to Ellen Coldfield; father of Henry, Judith, and Clytemnestra Sutpen, also of Charles Bon. An indomitable, willful, powerful man, who achieves his ends through shrewdness and daring, but who lacks compassion. Murdered by Wash Jones in 1869.
Charles Bon  -  Son of Thomas Sutpen and Eulalia Bon, the part- black daughter of the owner of the Haitian plantation on which the young Thomas Sutpen was overseer. After Sutpen renounced his wife and son upon learning of Eulalia’s negro blood, Bon and his mother moved to New Orleans, where Bon lived until deciding to attend the University of Mississippi in 1859. A laconic, sophisticated, and ironical young man.
Ellen Coldfield Sutpen  -  Thomas Sutpen’s second wife, mother of Henry and Judith Sutpen. A flighty and excitable woman.
Rosa Coldfield  -  Ellen Coldfield’s much-younger sister, younger aunt of Henry and Judith Sutpen. Briefly engaged to Thomas Sutpen following Ellen’s death, but left him after he insulted her. Spent the rest of her life as a bitter spinster, obsessed with her anger and hatred of Thomas Sutpen.
Mr. Coldfield -  A middle-class Methodist merchant and father of Ellen and Rosa.
Henry Sutpen  -  Thomas Sutpen’s son with Ellen. Grew up on Sutpen’s Hundred, then attended the University of Mississippi beginning in 1859. There he befriended Charles Bon, whom he later murdered. A well- meaning and romantic young man, with his father’s strength of purpose but lacking his father’s shrewdness.
Judith Sutpen  -  Thomas Sutpen’s daughter with Ellen. Grew up on Sutpen’s Hundred, where she was engaged to Charles Bon in 1860. Strong, indomitable, and, like her father, swift to action.
Clytemnestra Sutpen (”Clytie”)  -  Daughter of Thomas Sutpen and a slave woman. Grew up on Sutpen’s Hundred as subservient to Judith and Henry; remained at the plantation until burning the manor house down in 1910, an event which caused her death.
Wash Jones  -  A low-class squatter living in the abandoned fishing camp at Sutpen’s Hundred. Performed odd jobs for and drinks whiskey with Thomas Sutpen. Milly’s grandfather; murdered Sutpen with a rusted scythe in 1869.
Milly Jones -  Wash Jones’ young granddaughter, who at fifteen gave birth to Thomas Sutpen’s child. Murdered, along with Sutpen and the baby, by her grandfather shortly after the birth.
Charles Etienne de St. Valery Bon -  Son of Charles Bon and his octoroon mistress- wife. Taken by Clytie to Sutpen’s Hundred in 1871. Married a negro woman in 1879. A tormented, violent man.
Jim Bond -  Son of Charles Etienne de St. Valery Bon and his negro wife. Raised by Clytie on Sutpen’s Hundred, from which he disappears following the fire in 1910. A slack-jawed, oafish man.
Quentin Compson  -  A young man from Jefferson, Mississippi, who is preparing to attend (and later does attend) Harvard in the first part of the 20th century.
General Compson  -  Quentin’s grandfather and Thomas Sutpen’s first friend in Yoknapatawpha County. A Brigadier General for the Confederacy during the Civil War, and a distinguished citizen of Jefferson, Mississippi.
Mr. Compson  -  Quentin’s father and General Compson’s son, a man who believes in the power of fate to destroy human lives. Relays to Quentin many of the stories he heard from his father about Thomas Sutpen.
Shreve -  Quentin’s roommate at Harvard, a young man from Edmonton in Alberta, Canada.

Chapter 1
Summary
In September 1909, in Yoknapatawpha County, near Jefferson, Mississippi, Quentin Compson is sent a handwritten note from an old woman named Miss Rosa Coldfield, summoning him to meet her that afternoon, so that he can hear the story of her youth and of the destruction of her family. Quentin, a young man from a prominent Jefferson family–his grandfather was a general in the Civil War–is perplexed as to why she would want to talk to him, and asks his father about it. Mr. Compson explains that Quentin’s grandfather had been involved in the story, because he was a friend of a man named Thomas Sutpen, whom Rosa Coldfield considers the demon responsible both for her family’s ruination and her own.
Quentin goes to see Rosa Coldfield; they sit in the musty room she calls the “office,” with the shutters shut so tightly that only thin slits of light shine into the room, and he listens to her story. She explains to him that she has heard he is preparing to attend Harvard–perhaps he will have literary ambitions, and perhaps he would like to write down the story one day. Quentin realizes that she wants the story to be told, so that its hearers will understand how God could have let the South lose the war–because the South was in the hands of men like Thomas Sutpen, who had valor and strength but neither pity nor compassion.
Miss Rosa’s narrative is told with an intense, smoldering bitterness: she has spent the last four decades burning up in her obsession with the events she now recounts. In 1833, she says, Thomas Sutpen descended upon Jefferson with nothing more than a horse and two pistols and no known past (with a group of savage slaves and a French architect in tow, Sutpen at their forefront like a demon–this is how Quentin pictures the event). Through violent force of will Sutpen had managed to raise up a house the size of a courthouse on an estate he carved out himself and named Sutpen’s Hundred. Sutpen was little better than a savage himself, holding fights between his slaves–fights in which he often participated–and horse races, luring men to his plantation for events undescribable to young girls. Thirsting for respectability, Sutpen married Ellen Coldfield, the older sister of Miss Rosa, who was yet to be born), and the daughter of a local Methodist merchant. Sutpen had two children by Ellen, Henry in 1839 and Judith a year later, but being a father did not temper his wild, violent behavior. One night Ellen discovered her husband participating in a fight with a negro before a bloodthirsty crowd, with the children watching–Henry crying and upset, Judith (who had snuck there to watch with a little negro girl) in rapt attention. Judith seemed to possess her father’s temperament: when his reckless carriage races before the church were stopped by the minister’s complaints, the six-year-old girl began to cry insensibly.
Later details in the story become somewhat vague in Miss Rosa’s narration: Thomas Sutpen and his son Henry each fought in the war, she says, and she describes Ellen on her deathbed. Just before she died, Ellen asked Rosa, then a young girl, to look out for Judith–even though Judith was older than Rosa. Rosa replied that the only thing the children needed protection from was themselves. But other than these glimpses, details are scarce– except for one central event which Rosa refers to several times: on Judith’s wedding day, just before the wedding was to take place, her brother Henry killed her fiance in front of the gates of Sutpen’s Hundred.
Commentary
Absalom, Absalom! is an unusual book in that its first chapter summarizes nearly the plot of the rest of the book. The events Miss Rosa recounts in the life of Thomas Sutpen and his family are the same events that subsequent chapters will examine in depth and from many different perspectives and angles. Part of Faulkner’s project in this novel is to show the way in which people relate to, think about, and interpret the past; to achieve that end, he eschews a straightforward chronological narration in favor of a sequence of events–Sutpen building the house and marrying Ellen, the war, Henry Sutpen killing Charles Bon just before Charles would have married Judith–that will be repeated and deepened throughout the novel. The events will be held up to the light by many different characters, each of whom will give the characters in the Sutpen saga different motivations, and will read a different meaning into the story as a whole.
Most of the first chapter is narrated by Miss Rosa, whose relationship to her past is one of frantic and traumatic bitterness, in which everything has intensified and grown out of proportion: Sutpen is a demon, an ogre, a monster; his slaves were savage animals; and so forth. In addition to exploring the nuances of man’s relationship to the past, Faulkner sets out in Absalom, Absalom! to present a metaphor for the history of the South. It is important to note that even at this early stage, Quentin (who will supply the consciousness that unifies the whole book, just as Sutpen is the figure that dominates it) connects the story of Sutpen to that of the South itself, speculating that the South lost the war because shrewd, strong men like Sutpen lacked compassion or pity, and so earned the enmity of God. Later, Quentin’s roommate at Harvard will ask him to explain the South, and Quentin will tell the Sutpen story in answer. As the novel progresses, Quentin’s and the other characters’ interpretations of the Sutpen story become increasingly a struggle with the larger questions (family, race, honor, violence, morality, power, innocence) that define the history of the South.
Chapter 1 is also the reader’s first encounter with Faulkner’s long-lined, recursive narrative style in which events and sequences are interspersed and jumbled, clauses piled on clauses and adjectives on adjectives. Narrators change sometimes without much warning, and characters are introduced as though the reader were already familiar with them. This style, particularly in the early chapters of the novel, can be dauntingly difficult. It is important to remember that Faulkner does not mean for his reader to understand everything at once, so some confusion is to be expected. His technique is to gradually clarify the story as the novel progresses, causing it to emerge piece by piece until finally, the reader begins to understand.

Chapter 2
Summary
Mr. Compson tells Quentin, as they sit on the front porch waiting for Quentin to depart for Sutpen’s Hundred with Miss Rosa, the details of Thomas Sutpen’s early years in Jefferson:
On a Sunday morning in June 1833, Sutpen, a young man of twenty-five, had the look of someone who had been through a violent illness which he survived at enormous mental cost–as though he had been burned up by a tropical fever. He rode into Jefferson with nothing but two pistols and a horse and took a room in Holston House. Practically the whole town was staring at him. He kept the room, but every morning locked his door and rode away before daylight; and so he remained a mystery. There was little chance for the men of the town to learn more about him; he never drank with them at the bar (Quentin’s grandfather later learned it was because he lacked the money to do so), and evaded questioning. But it was obvious that he was consumed by some secret urgency. No one knew how or why, but he purchased from the Indians one hundred square miles of prime virgin land, and paid in Spanish coin–his last money. He then disappeared for two months, and when he returned he brought with him a crew of mud-covered slaves and a French architect.
The legend of Sutpen’s wild negroes emerged slowly over the next few months, brought by men riding in the wilderness who could observe Sutpen sending them to drive the swamp like dogs while he hunted. Though Sutpen and his slaves comminicated in a dialect of French, the town came to believe they spoke a dark tongue from some mysterious country. Over the next two years, advised by the architect, Sutpen and the slaves slowly raised a mansion from the soil, working naked and covered in mud–even Sutpen, who was saving his clothes for his final assault on respectability once he was installed in his house. Finally it was finished, though it still lacked windows, paint, and furniture. For the next three years, Sutpen settled into a perplexing stasis–only General Compson, who loaned him the seed cotton with which he began his plantation, claimed to know his motives; the rest of the town was baffled. He began inviting groups of men to his empty house to hunt and drink and play cards, and to stage fights with his slaves. But the women of the town gradually began to suspect that Sutpen would seek a wife.
One Sunday morning at the end of the three years, dressed again in the clothes he had worn when he first arrived in Jefferson, he returned to the town and went to church. To the utter bafflement of the town people, he seemed to have set his sights on marrying the daughter of Mr. Coldfield, a middle-class Methodist merchant with little to offer him. The hunting and drinking parties ceased, and Sutpen began devoting all his time and energy to Ellen Coldfield’s father.
Then one day, Quentin’s father says, Sutpen disappeared again. When he returned, he brought wagonloads of furniture and crystal for his mansion; and he returned to the vague enmity of the town, which had at last begun to realize that he was becoming inextricably involved with them. Moreover, the town suspected that he had acquired his wealth through criminal and possibly violent means. Finally a party of men from the town, led by the sheriff, rode out to confront him.
Sutpen met them halfway. He rode into the town, the men of the town slightly behind him, and took a room at the Holston House. He came out wearing a new hat, and the assembled crowd (numbering fifty, according to the General) watched in tense silence as he walked across the square to Mr. Coldfield’s house with a bundle of flowers under one arm. A good while later, he emerged with no flowers, and by that time–though the crowd did not know it–he was engaged to be married. The vigilance party arrested him. He was arraigned before a justice, but by that time General Compson and Mr. Coldfield had arrived, and had him released on bond. Two months later, in June 1838, he married Ellen Coldfield.
Ellen wept on her wedding day, and was taken by carriage to Sutpen’s Hundred. Mr. Coldfield had wanted a small wedding, but Sutpen had desired–and received, through the intervention of Ellen’s aunt (though he had refused to openly support her efforts)–a large wedding. A hundred invitations were sent out. Only ten people came. But a large crowd assembled outside the church, and as the newlyweds emerged from their wedding, the groom was pelted with dirt and vegetable refuse. But the scandal quickly blew over.
Commentary
Mr. Compson’s speculative description of the eary years of Thomas Sutpen in Jefferson serves two purposes: first, it begins to humanize the character of Thomas Sutpen, so that he becomes less the monomaniacal demon of Miss Rosa’s testimony and more a driven and charismatic human being willing to do anything to achieve his ends; second, it introduces us to a new means of interpreting the past–that of Mr. Compson. More detached than Miss Rosa, whose relationship to her past is governed by the pain and betrayal she experienced, Mr. Compson only heard about the story from his father, the General; he did not live through it himself. He has clearly had the leisure to ponder and speculate upon the meaning of the events surrounding Sutpen’s Hundred, and seems fascinated by them more for the lesson they offer than for anything intrinsic to his own experience. As Mr. Compson continues to narrate over the next two chapters, it becomes increasingly clear that he believes in a force like fate which guides and controls human behavior; he does not believe individuals are in control of their own destinies. In the Sutpen story, he sees an example of a great and powerful man brought down by a hostile fate that had doomed him from the very beginning. Mr. Compson reads signs of doom into many of the early events of Sutpen’s life (as do many characters–Rosa seems to think that the course of history was set for the children as soon as they were born). Furthermore, he thinks that the characters in the story knew they were doomed, but continued to struggle against fate regardless.
The picture of Thomas Sutpen that Mr. Compson presents is one of a mysterious, driven, potent man determined to see his will carried through. He arrives with nothing and raises a palace. He is accused of having robbed steamboats to finance his exorbitant scheme, and ends by marrying the daughter of a respectable local citizen. Where in Miss Rosa’s account, Sutpen seemed a supernatural force of evil, in Mr. Compson’s account his human characteristics begin to appear. Specifically, Sutpen’s courage and strict refusal to spend more than he can afford seem admirable, while his apparent flight from his past is disconcerting. It is important to remember that Mr. Compson got his impressions of Thomas Sutpen from his father, General Compson, Sutpen’s friend; Mr. Compson’s picture is not always accurate, as we shall see in the next chapter.

Chapter 3
Summary
Quentin asks his father why Miss Rosa would want to tell the story of her betrayal at the hands of Thomas Sutpen. Mr. Compson answers by describing Rosa’s life: her mother died while giving birth to her, after Ellen had already been married for seven years; Rosa was raised by the spinster aunt who had insisted on Ellen having a large wedding, and grew up hating her father for her mother’s death. When Mr. Coldfield died by suicide (ostenstibly because he did not wish to go to war, but possibly also motivated by feelings of guilt connected to the aborted criminal venture he had nearly undertaken with Sutpen), and after Ellen died, Rosa moved to Sutpen’s Hundred to try to save Judith from the Sutpen fate–by marrying Thomas Sutpen herself. Mr. Compson says that Sutpen returned from the war to find the twenty-year-old Rosa living at Sutpen’s Hundred with Judith and Clytie–Sutpen’s daughter by one of his slaves- -and that he named all the children born on the plantation himself.
Mr. Compson describes Rosa’s childhood and her infrequent, traumatic visits to the Sutpen plantation, where she was forced by her aunt to play with her niece and nephew, each of whom was several years older than she was. After her aunt ran off with a man, Rosa went to Sutpen’s Hundred just once a year, and observed her sister’s gradual withdrawal from herself and from her father as she began to seem proud of her marriage to Sutpen. Ellen gradually became a giggling country lady, taking Judith on elaborate shopping trips and generally playing her role to perfection. Eventually, Mr. Coldfield stopped going to the plantation altogether, and Rosa went for years without seeing Sutpen at all. Finally, Mr. Compson tells Quentin, some time after Henry Sutpen killed Charles Bon (the day Bon was to marry Judith), Rosa found it in herself to move to the plantation–after her father’s suicide. She had spent some of the time leading up to that writing heroic poetry about the Confederate soldiers who would have hung her father for avoiding military service if they had found him.
But before Rosa moved to the plantation, while she was still keeping house for her father and after her aunt left, there was a time when she would see Ellen and Judith several times a week–when Henry was at the state university, and had begun to be friends with Charles Bon, bringing him home for the holidays before Bon went to New Orleans on a steamboat. After Bon left, Sutpen disappeared on a business errand. No one but General Compson and Clytie knew that he had followed Bon to New Orleans. During this time, Sutpen had amassed so much money (he was the richest single planter in the county) that he had gained social acceptance, and Rosa heard stories of the balls and parties at Sutpen’s Hundred during the holiday season when Charles Bon visited–Charles Bon, Quentin’s father elaborates, was a strange and sophisticated man from a foreign city who was several years older than his new friend Henry Sutpen. At this time, though it was not spoken of, it began to be assumed that Bon would marry Judith Sutpen. Also at this time, Ellen began to disappear from Rosa’s life.
Then word got to Rosa that something had happened–no one was quite sure what–and Henry and Bon disappeared. Eventually the word came from the slaves–not from Sutpen or Judith, who kept a stony silence–that Henry and his father had had a falling-out, and that Henry had renounced his birthright and left Sutpen’s Hundred with Bon. But Rosa continued to sew clothes for Judith’s wedding, and she was still doing so when Mississippi seceded from the Union and Sutpen rode off to war. After the war broke out, Mr. Coldfield climbed into his attic and nailed the door shut, eventually starving himself to death.
Afterward, and after Ellen’s death, Rosa was alone and penniless. She did not move into Sutpen’s Hundred (which was slowly being ruined by the hardships of the war) at once, though, even though Judith may have urged her to do so. Rosa may have felt, Mr. Compson says, that Judith did not yet need her protection, and that Judith was sustained by her love for Charles Bon. But at the same time, Rosa had no idea whether Bon was alive or dead, or where Henry was, until one day when she looked out the window and saw the squatter Wash Jones, sitting on an unsaddled mule in the street outside, calling her name.
Commentary
To answer Quentin’s question, Mr. Compson stops telling the story of Sutpen’s early years and tells a later story from Rosa’s perspective. This section cuts back and forth through time more haphazardly than most other chapters in the book, and further complicates itself by introducing character such as Charles Bon and Wash Jones as though the reader is already familiar with them. Faulkner never really introduces these characters properly; as the novel progresses, it simply becomes clear who and what they are.
Telling the story from Rosa’s perspective allows Mr. Compson to solidify his idea that the Sutpen story was simply a puppet show staged by fate; and it allows Faulkner to expand and clarify the story of Judith’s engagement and Henry’s slaying of Judith’s fiance, while simultaneously leaving most of the important details obscure and maintaining the aura of mystery that hangs over the Sutpen story. (We are not yet told, for instance, why Henry would have renounced his father or why he would have wanted to shoot his sister’s groom.)
During this section Clytie begins to emerge as a character who, while behind the scenes and powerless–virtually a slave–nevertheless shrewdly manages to ascertain the truth of what is happening. Among the Sutpens, for instance, only Clytie knows that Thomas Sutpen followed Bon to New Orleans instead of going on a business trip, as his wife and his other children assume. Why he would have followed Bon to New Orleans is still a mystery to the reader; in this way, Faulkner brilliantly recreates the sense of ignorance and confusion experienced by Rosa and everyone else in Jefferson who got their only information about Sutpen’s Hundred through the gossip of the slaves. In the next chapter, Mr. Compson will present his theory, which he infers from what he knows Sutpen found in New Orleans. But, as we find out later, his knowledge will be incomplete, and his theory will be wrong.

Chapter 4
Summary
It is still too dark for Quentin to depart on his mysterious errand, so he sits on the front porch imagining Miss Rosa sitting in the dark in her black bonnet and shawl. Mr. Compson comes out of the house with a letter–a letter from Charles Bon to Judith Sutpen that Judith entrusted to Quentin’s grandmother many decades ago. Mr. Compson tells Quentin about the relationship between Charles Bon and Henry Sutpen, how they met at the university, where Charles was a debonair, ironic, and indolent man, looked up to by the local students, and how Henry fixated on him and imitated his appearance and behavior. When Charles went home for Christmas with Henry in 1859, speculation began–originating largely with Ellen–that Charles and Judith were to be engaged. Then Charles left for New Orleans, followed closely by Thomas Sutpen, and the next Christmas, Henry Sutpen was renouncing his birthright and fleeing Sutpen’s Hundred with his friend.
Mr. Compson tries to imagine the confrontation between Henry and his father that led to the break, and describes a scene, behind closed doors, in the library at Sutpen’s Hundred, during which Thomas announced to Henry that he refused to allow Charles to marry Judith, because he had discovered in 1859 that Bon was secretly keeping a octoroon (a woman with a “drop” of negro blood; technically, a woman who was one-eighth black) mistress in New Orleans, to whom he was probably already married. Henry refused to believe it, sided with his friend over his father, and abandoned Sutpen’s Hundred. He went to New Orleans with Charles, who slowly indoctrinated him into the pleasures and corruptions of life in the sultry French-influenced city before revealing to him that he was, in fact, married to a French-negro courtesan, whom he also owned, and whom he had obtained in a strange underground circle of women raised specifically to be won by wealthy men. Bon discounted the marriage as a sham and reminded Henry that the woman, as a “nigger,” was without rights–she did not “count” as his wife. But Henry was nevertheless shattered and enraged: he wanted to believe his friend, but felt pulled apart by inner conflict.
Then the war broke out. Henry and Charles Bon enlisted in a company, where Bon was quickly promoted to lieutenant. Henry remained a private, and refused to allow Bon to write to Judith while he tried to decide what to do. Mr. Compson hints to Quentin that Henry’s fascination with Bon had sexual overtones, which may have spurred him to see Bon married to his sister; and also hints that Henry’s deep connection with his sister had overtones of incestuous desire, which may have spurred him to see her married to his friend. In any event, after four years of fighting, life at Sutpen’s Hundred, like life all over the South, was reduced to a scrabble for food and sustenance: Sutpen, a colonel, was off fighting; Judith kept a garden to feed herself and Clytie; Wash Jones squatted in the rotten fishing camp by the river and occasionally brought food to them.
After four years of fighting, Bon finally wrote Judith a letter–the enigmatic document that Quentin now holds. The letter, which Quentin reads, is a statement of Bon’s intention to find Judith and marry her (”We have waited long enough,” he wrote)–though he also wrote that he could not say when he would come, because he did not know himself. Mr. Compson describes how Judith and Clytie made a wedding gown out of scraps and rags after Judith received the letter; and Quentin imagines the scene before the gates at Sutpen’s Hundred, Henry warning Bon not to come past the shadow of the post, Bon warning Henry that he was going to pass it. The next thing Mr. Compson describes is Wash Jones sitting on his mule outside Rosa Coldfield’s house, shouting to Miss Rosa that Henry Sutpen has killed Charles Bon.
Commentary
This section is important because it clarifies and deepens our understanding of the relationship between Charles Bon and Henry Sutpen, and further clarifies our sense of Mr. Compson as a speculative, analytical thinker to whom everything is a sign of the predestined doom of men great and small. But this is also the most difficult section in the novel in some ways, because Mr. Compson’s description of events is based on incomplete information, and is therefore misleading. As we will learn in subsequent chapters, Thomas Sutpen did not ride to New Orleans simply to investigate Bon, and did not merely discover that he was keeping an octoroon mistress or wife whom he also seemed to “own.” Sutpen rode to New Orleans because he recognized Charles Bon as his own son, his child with the part-negro daughter of the Haitian plantation owner and Sutpen’s first wife; if Bon married Judith, Sutpen’s daughter would be marrying not only a man with negro blood, but her own half-brother.
Mr. Compson is also wrong when he imagines Henry’s confrontation with his father to be centered on the problem of Bon’s mistress; the break actually occurred, as Quentin and Shreve later realize, when Sutpen told Henry that Bon was his brother. During their subsequent trip to New Orleans, then, Bon was unlikely to have worried much about showing Henry his mistress/wife; Henry probably would have taken her as lightly as Bon did. But Mr. Compson does not know at this point that Bon was Sutpen’s son, or that Bon’s mother had negro blood, and his analysis is limited by his lack of knowledge. He tries to construct a whole picture but cannot.
Faulkner does not mislead his readers simply to complicate his plot, or even to preserve the mystery surrounding the story. Part of his project is to show how the past is reconstructed by those who come after it, how the examination of the past is in some sense a creative act on the part of the examiner, who must provide motives, thoughts, and feelings for the people whose lives he examines. Mr. Compson reconstructs the past no more imaginatively than do Quentin and Shreve later, but his factual framework is based on less information. Furthermore, the reconstruction of the past in the individual’s mind is dependent on the personality of the individual, and on the relationship of the individual to the past. So Rosa, who lived through what was to her a nightmare, can stew in her own bitterness for decades, constantly recreating Sutpen in her imagination as a demon from hell and an ogre; Mr. Compson, more distant from the events of Sutpen’s life, can view the story as proof of the role of fate in human life; and Quentin, quite distant from the Sutpen story but still strangely preoccupied with it, can construct the most factually accurate version of the story, and then connect the story abstractly to the overall history of the fall of the South. But he also ranges further into speculation than either his father or Miss Rosa.

Chapter 5
Summary
Miss Rosa now bitterly tells Quentin the story of what happened after Wash Jones, astride a saddleless mule, yelled to her through her window that Henry had shot Charles Bon. Then nineteen, Rosa slid into a kind of frenzied hurry, ordered Wash Jones to hitch the mule to her carriage, and sat in wild frustration as he drove slowly back down the twelve miles of road leading to Sutpen’s Hundred. When they arrived, Rosa ran inside, crying out for Henry, and finding Clytie instead, standing, Rosa says, like some dark extension of the ogre Thomas Sutpen’s monstrous will.
Rosa began to run upstairs to find Henry and Judith. Clytie told her to stop; Rosa ignored her, and Clytie grabbed her by the wrist. All of Rosa’s frustration and revulsion, and all the weight of her slighted past, seemed to hinge on the moment. “Take your hand off me, nigger,” she said. Clytie did not move; suddenly Judith’s voice called “Clytie,” and the hand was gone. Judith was standing in front of the closed door at the top of the stairs, holding a photograph of herself that she had given to Bon.
Judith calmly told Clytie that Rosa would be staying for dinner, and proceeded down the stairs to consult with Wash Jones about the funeral arrangements. Judith then made dinner while Wash and another man built a coffin with planks torn from the carriage house. Then the whole group carried the coffin out to bury it, and Rosa moved into Sutpen’s Hundred to wait for Thomas Sutpen to come home. All three of them–Clytie, Rosa, and Judith–could do nothing but wait for Sutpen: they knew that when he returned from the war he would begin to rebuild his plantation with the indomitable will with which he built it in the first place. They waited for the day of that new beginning patiently, even amicably, Rosa tells Quentin.
One day the war ended; soon after that Sutpen arrived at the front door of his run-down mansion. When he asked Judith about Henry, she told him that Henry had shot Charles Bon, and she then began to weep. Sutpen greeted Clytie, then looked quizzically at Rosa, not recognizing his nineteen-year-old, orphan sister-in-law, whom he had so seldom seen during her childhood. As they had known he would, Sutpen immediately began rebuilding the plantation. Although there seemed to be something curiously empty about him now, he still seemed invincible, and corralled Wash Jones and other men into helping him reclaim what could be reclaimed. One day Rosa noticed him looking at her; soon after that she found herself engaged to him. He promised he would not be a worse husband to her than he had been to her sister. Soon after, on the day when Sutpen finally determined how much of the plantation was salvageable from the ruination of the war (when he realized the plantation could not be saved), he insulted her savagely (she does not specify what he said, though she implies that it carried a sexual overtone). The insult cut Rosa to the bone, and two months later, she fled Sutpen’s Hundred to return to her small house in town, openly stealing her food from her neighbors’ gardens but refusing to accept direct offers of charity. She tells Quentin of the disbelief she felt later when she learned that Thomas Sutpen had died.
But Quentin is not listening anymore; he is picturing Henry storming into Judith’s room after killing Charles Bon, announcing to his sister that she would not be able to marry Bon because he, Henry, had killed him. Lost in this thought, Quentin has to ask Rosa to repeat herself when she tells him that something–someone–is now living hidden at Sutpen’s Hundred. Quentin thinks she means Clytie, who continues to live on the ruined plantation; but Rosa says that is not who she means. Someone else is living hidden at Sutpen’s Hundred, someone who has been hiding there for the last four years.
Commentary
The most chilling moment in all of Absalom, Absalom! occurs at the end of this chapter, when Rosa tells Quentin that she knows “something” is hiding at Sutpen’s Hundred. By now, the Sutpen story has assumed almost mythological proportions in its telling and retelling, and the manor at Sutpen’s Hundred has come to be a symbol of the fortunes of the Sutpen dynasty. As Rosa and Quentin ride slowly toward the plantation, creating in the reader the sense that one is approaching a site almost too fraught with history to be real, Rosa suddenly reveals this new plot twist. The implication is that the story is not over after all–that its ending awaits Quentin and Rosa in the darkened house in the wilderness, miles from town.
The rest of this chapter is taken up by Rosa’s narration of her betrayal at the hands of Thomas Sutpen–the events which so embittered her, and which motivate her to speak to Quentin now. Since the last time we heard Miss Rosa speak, we have heard three chapters of Mr. Compson’s narration, have read Charles Bon’s letter, and have developed a more factual impression of the powerful man named Thomas Sutpen than we had at the beginning of the novel. Where in Chapter 1 we could do no more than accept Rosa’s portrayal of Sutpen as a smoldering demon surrounded by his wild-eyed naked slaves, we are now in a position to see through that view; we can understand why Rosa might feel as she does, but also recognize that the truth about Thomas Sutpen is much more complex than she acknowledges– that he was not in fact a demon sent to ruin the Coldfield family, but a highly complex and flawed man acting in the only way he knew.
This section deals with events that have not had much explication before, and it is crucially important, both for its presentation of the betrayal from Rosa’s perspective and for its development of Thomas Sutpen’s character. In this chapter the man begins his decline: he is no longer the force of nature he once was, but a man left empty by war, who cannot save his plantation. Sutpen is still a charismatic and impressive figure, but Faulkner has laid the groundwork for his eventual slide into alcoholism and despair.

Chapter 6
Summary
Now in his room at Harvard, Quentin is handed a letter from his father by his roommate, a young Canadian named Shreve; in the letter, Quentin reads that Miss Rosa is dead, having lingered for two weeks in a coma before finally succumbing. Quentin has to explain to Shreve that Miss Rosa was not a relative, and then Shreve–who, like everyone else at Harvard, constantly wants Quentin to explain the South– wants to know the story of Miss Rosa, Thomas Sutpen, Henry, Judith, and Charles Bon. Quentin tells him, and then has to listen to Shreve’s bemused retelling of the tale, which reminds Quentin of the way his father would have told the story on that night before Quentin rode out to Sutpen’s Hundred with Miss Rosa–had his father known everything that Quentin learned that night.
Quentin listens to Shreve asking him about Thomas Sutpen’s later years, after the day when he realized the plantation could not be rebuilt, and desperately opened a store which sold supplies and candy to freed slaves. Sutpen spent his days drinking with Wash Jones, his anger often escalating into a drunken fury, and eventually began spending his nights with Jones’ granddaughter Milly. Then, in 1869, Milly gave birth to Sutpen’s child; the child died, Milly died, and Wash Jones killed Sutpen with a rusted scythe in front of the shack in which the child had been born.
Quentin remembers seeing the graves of Sutpen and Ellen in a family plot where Judith had also had a stone erected for Charles Bon, and where Judith herself was buried by the time of Quentin’s childhood. Another grave was for Charles Etienne de St. Valery Bon, Charles Bon’s son with his French-negro mistress/wife in New Orleans. One day that woman had brought her son to see his father’s grave, and not long after that Clytie went to New Orleans and returned with the boy, whom she and Judith raised at Sutpen’s Hundred. But Charles Etienne de St. Valery Bon grew up into a reckless, tormented man, who looked like a white man but could not escape the knowledge that he was not. He was finally arrested for instigating a fight in a gambling house and dance parlor for freed slaves. General Compson got him out of jail and sent him away from the town; but he returned a few months later with a negro wife, whom he defiantly thrust in the face of everyone he saw. She gave birth to a son, Jim Bond, a big, hulking saddle-colored idiot boy; two years later Charles Etienne de St. Valery Bon and Judith died of yellow fever, and Jim Bond, only a few years older than Quentin, was raised by Clytie, with whom he continued to live, farming in the shell of Sutpen’s Hundred.
Shreve again summarizes in apparent astonishment the story of Quentin’s excursion to Sutpen’s Hundred with Miss Rosa that September: how, not having been to the plantation for forty- three years, Miss Rosa nevertheless knew that someone or something was hiding there, and not only found someone to believe her story but, in Quentin, found an escort; how, when she and Quentin arrived at the plantation they found only Clytie and Jim Bond, as Quentin had thought they would; and how Miss Rosa had still believed something was hidden in that house, and so pressed on, and found– something else.
Commentary
This section fills in some information about the final years of Thomas Sutpen: his slide into alcoholism, his affair with fifteen year-old Milly, his death at the hands of Wash Jones. It then traces, through Quentin’s childhood recollections of the funeral plot, the later history of Judith and Clytie; the raising of Charles Etienne de St. Valery Bon (Sutpen’s unacknowledged grandson) at the plantation, his later collapse into fury and ruin, and the plight of the idiot mixed-blooded child Jim Bond.
These sections begin to cast a sharper light on the question of race (which must have occurred to Quentin once he began to adjust to life in New England), as Charles Etienne de St. Valery Bon self-destructs based on the knowledge of his negro blood, though he looks like a white man. When the women find the shard of mirror and imagine him gazing at himself as a child, wondering what his racial makeup meant, it becomes clear that Charles Etienne de St. Valery Bon has been born with a monstrous perversion: he is a racist forced to hate himself. The reverse has been carried out by his father, a man with negro blood who nevertheless fought as an officer in the Confederate Army, defending the system of racism and slavery which ultimately led to his death.
Structurally, Chapter 6 divides the first part of the novel (when Quentin is in Mississippi listening to others tell the Sutpen story) and the second (when Quentin is at Harvard telling the Sutpen story himself). It is the first major section of the novel Quentin has narrated, and it is interesting to note how his personal recollections intermingle with the story he tells. For his part, Shreve begins with an idle, abstract interest in the nature of the South, and ends up, over the next few chapters, becoming as passionately drawn into the Sutpen story as Quentin was.

Chapter 7
Summary
A cold New England evening falls outside their cold Harvard room as Quentin tells Shreve about the time when Sutpen and his naked slaves were still raising the mansion of Sutpen’s Hundred from the earth, when the architect tried to escape through the swamp and Sutpen and General Compson tracked him down with the slaves and a pack of dogs. During the foray Sutpen told General Compson something of his early life–and thirty years later, after his wife died during the war, he went to see General Compson and told him some more about his early life; General Compson passed the stories down to Quentin’s father, who told them to Quentin, who now augments them for Shreve with the added knowledge he gained that night in September when he rode to Sutpen’s Hundred with Miss Rosa.
He tells Shreve how Thomas Sutpen had been born in a crowded log cabin in the hillbilly backwater country that is now (it is 1909) West Virginia, to a drunken father who, when Sutpen was a child, moved the family down into southern Virginia to work on a plantation. It was there, Sutpen told Quentin’s grandfather, that he learned the difference between white men and black men, and the difference between white men who owned things and white men who didn’t; and it was there that he conceived his design to found his dynasty. He ran away from home at fourteen, and by the age of twenty was in the West Indies, where he managed to learn French and patois and became the overseer of a sugar plantation. After singlehandedly subduing a slave revolt on the plantation, he was engaged to the landowner’s daughter, and he married her and had a son. That son, as Quentin learned the night he rode out to Sutpen’s Hundred with Miss Rosa (and which neither Quentin’s father nor Miss Rosa had known before), was Charles Bon.
But Sutpen learned something about his wife which made it impossible for him to remain with her: she had negro blood, and so did their child. Sutpen renounced her and the boy, made arrangements for them with the plantation owner, and left for America, taking only twenty slaves with him–the twenty with which he founded Sutpen’s Hundred. When Charles Bon showed up on his doorstep with Henry in 1859, Sutpen could foresee the future that awaited him: as he told Quentin’s grandfather in his office, he could either choose to do nothing, in which case the world would know nothing, and his dynasty would be founded to the satisfaction of everyone besides himself; or he could stop the marriage, in which case he feared he would bring ruin to the dynasty. The night he had his break with Henry, he tried to stop the marriage: not by telling his son about Bon’s black wife in New Orleans, as Mr. Compson had thought, but by telling him that Charles was his brother, and therefore Judith’s brother as well. But Henry refused to believe him, though deep down he knew it was true. And so at the end of the war, after Bon sent Judith the letter announcing his intention to marry her soon, Sutpen sought out his son and played, as he called it, his final trump card: he told Henry about Bon’s mixed-race background. Henry, who loved his sister so closely and intensely that he may have felt incestuous sexual feelings for her himself, felt that he had to stop the marriage by any means possible, and so he killed Bon, his brother, just as Sutpen must have known he would.
And so when Sutpen came home from the war (as Quentin tells Shreve, and as Quentin’s father told Quentin), he came home to a truncated family tree: the acknowledged son vanished, the secret son murdered, the daughter widowed before she could become a bride. And when he tried and failed, despite his daring and shrewdness and force of will, to save his plantation, and when he lost his chance to marry Rosa and continue his line with her, he took to drinking and to sleeping with Milly, the low-class squatter Wash Jones’ fifteen year-old granddaughter, ostensibly in secret but practically in the open. Jones knew about it, but preserved a wary complacency, believing that this man–”the Kernel,” as he called him–whom he had served and idolized for fifteen years, would not betray him, and would treat his granddaughter well. Even when Milly became pregnant Jones remained quiet, only telling Sutpen once that he knew he would do right by Milly. When Milly’s baby was born, Jones thought he would see his great-grandchild taken into the mansion. But when Sutpen rode out to see his child, on the same day when one of his mares had foaled, he only looked at his child impassively. telling Milly it was too bad she was not a mare, because then he could at least give her a stable; he then walked out. Outside the shack, having overheard this dialogue, Jones accosted him. Sutpen lashed the old squatter twice with his riding whip, and that was when Jones took up the rusted scythe and cut him down.
Later, on the night when the search party found the body lying where it had fallen, they rode to arrest Jones. He told them to wait a moment; then he took his sharpened butcher knife and slit his granddaughter’s throat, slit the throat of her child, and started attacking the riders with the scythe before they finally brought him down.
As Quentin tells the story, Shreve is aghast. He wants to know why, if all Sutpen ever wanted was a son, and now he had a son, he insulted the son’s mother and walked away, provoking Jones into murdering both Sutpen and the son–and thereby ending any possibility for the continuance of his line. But Quentin tells him he has that part of the story wrong: Milly’s baby was a girl.
Commentary
Chapter 7 is one of the most important sections of Absalom, Absalom!, at last showing Thomas Sutpen in his own words (albeit fourth-hand: General Compson repeats Sutpen’s words to his son, who tells Quentin, who tells Shreve). The insight into Sutpen’s early history brings his character into sharper focus. We learn where he got his attitudes toward strength and power and fear, where he conceived the idea that there are differences between men, how he formulated his attitudes about slaves and slavery, and what impelled him to begin his quest to establish a dynasty.
The image of Sutpen as a boy, being turned away from the front door of a plantation and afterward determining fiercely that no offspring of his would ever be turned away from any door, becomes one of the symbolic moments of his life. Quentin recognizes that at the heart of Sutpen’s ego-driven and vicious campaign to establish a dynasty remained something like innocence. Probably, in Sutpen’s deepest nature, he always wanted to believe that actions undertaken in good faith without deceit or condescension should produce the results he wanted; and so he was able to visit General Compson after the Charles Bon revelation to ask what he had done wrong, believing that if he could rectify what must have been a simple mistake, he could salvage his family and save the situation.
The revelations about Sutpen’s early life also casts an interesting light on his relationship with Wash Jones. By the time he began drinking whiskey with Jones, Sutpen was a rich and successful aristocrat, and Jones was merely a white-trash squatter in his fishing camp. But the tone of Jones’s speech and the flavor of his character resembled nothing so much as the hillbillies among whom Sutpen had been raised; it was natural, then, that Sutpen would feel as comfortable around Jones as around his fellow aristocrats. When Sutpen fathered a child with Milly, it almost seems he had reverted to the behaviors and appetites by which he was surrounded in childhood. And when Jones kills Sutpen, it begins to seem that the great man, the demon, is destroyed by the inescapable nature of his origin.

Chapter 8
Summary
Completely swept away by the story, Shreve and Quentin speculate about how the same events must have progressed from Bon’s perpective. With Shreve talking, but both of them thinking along the same lines, they imagine Bon’s childhood in New Orleans: with an embittered mother obsessed with the wrong perpetrated upon her by her once-husband Thomas Sutpen; the lawyer who handled their affairs, parcelling money out to Bon as he grew older and carefully negotiating his position between the indolent son and the distracted, astringent mother; the pleasures and pastimes to which Bon eventually became addicted and by which he was eventually corrupted, including the octoroon courtesan whom he not-quite married; and his decision to leave for school at the age of twenty-eight. They think about his first meeting with Henry, his first trip to Sutpen’s Hundred, Ellen’s attempts to engage him to Judith, the creeping realization that Thomas Sutpen was his father and that he himself was the doom his mother had sent to ruin Sutpen. They imagine Henry’s confrontation with his father in the library in 1860, his refusal to believe that Bon was his brother even as he knew it was true; they imagine Bon and Henry’s lives in New Orleans following the break, and their lives during the war–when, tormented, Henry demanded to know what Bon (whom he now acknowledged as his brother) planned to do about Judith, and Bon’s blank refusal to make up his mind.
Increasingly speculative, they imagine Bon saving Henry from wounds in battle and Henry asking Bon to let him die; they imagine Sutpen telling Henry the only thing he could to see the marriage stopped: the secret of Bon’s mixed racial background. In their imagined version, when Henry confronted Bon, now determined that his half-brother could not marry his sister, Bon asked, “So it is the miscegenation, not the incest, which you can’t bear.”
Toward the end of this fantasy, Shreve begins to retell to Quentin what happened the night Quentin and Miss Rosa rode out to Sutpen’s Hundred to find whatever Miss Rosa believed was hidden there. He describes Clytie trying to stop Rosa from going up the stairs, the old woman Rosa striking old Clytie for trying to stop her, storming her way up the stairs as Quentin helped Clytie to her feet. After this, they think about how Judith discovered Bon’s wife and child in New Orleans: the picture Bon carried of his other family in the metal case she found in his pocket after Henry shot him. They wonder why Bon would have removed the picture of Judith he had once carried in the case and replaced it with the picture Judith found. Then Shreve thinks he understands: he believes that Bon knew Henry was going to kill him, and could find no other way to tell Judith that he had betrayed her, that he did not deserve her grief. Quentin agrees that Shreve is right, and Shreve suggests that they stop talking and go to bed.
Commentary
In this section, the creative acts individuals undertake to reconstruct the past become emphatic and obvious. Swept along by the momentum of Quentin’s story, Shreve begins to narrate, and the two of them invent–largely out of their own imaginations–a plausible childhood for Charles Bon. They explain everything to their own satisfaction, and they may well be right–but it should be remembered that Mr. Compson explained everything to his own satisfaction as well, and was clearly not right. After all, Quentin and Shreve depart from the known facts and into the realm of pure conjecture. The compelling figure of the lawyer, compounding the interest of the hurt inflicted by Thomas Sutpen upon Charles Bon’s mother, is entirely conjectural; there may never have been such a person. But the vivid scenes they imagine, such as the battle where Henry asks Bon to let him die (another fanciful conjecture: before, they had always been told that Bon, not Henry, was wounded in the battle, a detail they change to suit their own story), are almost irresistible.
Committed to the focus of their imaginations, they may augur some truths in the midst of a general error–just as Mr. Compson, wrong about so much, hit upon a psychologically persuasive explanation for Henry’s feelings for both Charles and Judith when he read a glimmer of homosexual attraction into the first and a hint of incestuous desire into the second. In Quentin and Shreve’s case, the imagined motive for Bon’s switching the photograph of Judith with the photograph of the octoroon mistress and child–that Bon wanted to communicate to Judith his wrongdoing, so she would know he was not worth mourning–is extremely persuasive.
The crushing tragic ironies of the story begin to fall fast and furious in this chapter, as Shreve, motivated by a desire to understand the South generally, takes over the narration. There is Bon’s role as a part-negro man fighting as an officer in the Confederate Army. There is the role of Sutpen’s embittered first wife, who destroys her son’s life in order to destroy her former husband. Most painfully, there is the attitude of Henry Sutpen–poor, romantic Henry Sutpen, who always wanted to do the right thing and was more sensitive than his younger sister to violence–about his father’s final revelation: he would have been willing to consider letting Judith marry Charles when he only knew Charles was her brother, but he killed Charles once he learned about his negro blood. He could have reconciled himself to incest before allowing his sister to marry a man he now thinks of as a negro. As Charles Bon tells Henry in Quentin and Shreve’s imagined version of the confrontation: “I’m the nigger that’s going to sleep with your sister.”

Chapter 9
Summary
Quentin lies shivering in his bed, intermittently talking to Shreve and thinking about the night in September 1909 when he went to Sutpen’s Hundred with Miss Rosa. As they made their way to the porch, Rosa trembling with anticipation and fear, Quentin realized it was midnight; when they reached the house he snuck inside through a window and was about to open the door for Rosa when a match struck behind him: Clytie. Miss Rosa entered and headed for the stairs. Clytie asked Quentin to stop her, but Quentin did not move. Clytie told Rosa to stop, then grabbed her wrist; Rosa brushed her hand away. Clytie made to grab for her again, and Rosa struck Clytie with a closed fist, knocking her to the floor. Rosa went upstairs. The hulking, slack- jawed Jim Bond appeared as Quentin helped Clytie up, and helped her to sit on the stairs. Rosa returned, her eyes wide and unseeing. Clytie told Jim Bond to escort Rosa back to her carriage. Quentin made as if to follow, then realized that he, too, needed to see what Rosa had seen; he walked past Clytie up the stairs.
In a bedroom he found Henry Sutpen. Quentin asked him his name, and asked why he had come home, to which the old man replied: “To die.” Shaken, Quentin returned downstairs and drove Rosa home, then drove himself home. He ran from the stable indoors, ran into his room, felt a powerful urge to bathe, and scrubbed himself with his shirt while thinking about what he had seen.
Three months later, Rosa returned to the house with an ambulance for Henry. Shreve asks why it took her three months, but answers his own question: once Rosa returned to the house, it was over; she would have to let go of the hatred she had lived with for so long. But at last she decided to return, to save Henry if she could; and the ambulance made its way slowly up the long driveway to the dilapidated manor of Sutpen’s Hundred. Watching from the window, Clytie saw the ambulance coming, and thought they were coming to arrest Henry for the decades-old murder of Charles Bon. She had prepared for just this occasion; and so she set fire to the closet she had stuffed with rags and stocked with kerosene; and the house began to burn. Rosa ran into the conflagration and had to be restrained from rushing up the burning stairs; Jim Bond began to make an inhuman wailing but ran away from anyone who tried to come near him. Clytie and Henry died in the fire; Jim Bond remained on the grounds of the estate, but all but disappeared.
Shreve says he thinks the presence of Jim Bond ruins the tally; it makes the record book unbalanced. He speculates that the Jim Bonds of the world will one day overrun everything, so that in the future everyone will have negro blood. In the cold New England night, as they prepare to go to sleep, Shreve asks Quentin one final question: “Why do you hate the South?” Immediately, defensively, Quentin replies “I don’t hate it,” then thinks to himself over and over: “I don’t! I don’t hate it! I don’t hate it!”
Commentary
And so the story ends: Rosa finds Henry hidden in the house, waiting to die; she tries to save him, and Clytie, thinking she means to have him arrested, burns down the house, killing herself and Henry, literally and symbolically bringing to final ruin the dynasty of Thomas Sutpen–sending the house he lifted out of the earth back to it in ashes. The only shoot of the Sutpen tree left living (unless Henry has had children in the forty- four years since he disappeared) is the idiot mixed-race Jim Bond. As Shreve crudely notes (saying, “It takes two niggers to get rid of one Sutpen”), the ending to the story brings a kind of wretched symmetry that roughly mirrors that of the demise of the South

Author: Yanina
• Sunday, September 07th, 2008
 

http://idealist-bg.com/media/Troubling Our Heads about Ichabod The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.doc Troubling Our Heads about Ichabod The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.doc  293.00 KB  15.07.2008 13:59
Please contact me in case you have further inquiries about The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

Author: Yanina
• Sunday, September 07th, 2008
 

http://idealist-bg.com/media/a marriage of opposites.pdf a marriage of opposites.pdf  285.62 KB  15.07.2008 13:50
http://idealist-bg.com/media/a reading of the carpet.pdf a reading of the carpet.pdf  235.11 KB  15.07.2008 13:53
http://idealist-bg.com/media/deadly figure.pdf deadly figure.pdf  181.56 KB  15.07.2008 13:53

http://idealist-bg.com/media/hassan.pdf hassan.pdf  413.42 KB  15.07.2008 13:54

Това са едни от най-добрите статии, които имам за разказа.

Ако цитирате тези статии, моля отбележете автора и издателството, за да избегнете плагиатство :)

Author: Yanina
• Sunday, September 07th, 2008

http://idealist-bg.com/media/house of mirrors the fall of the house f usher.pdf house of mirrors the fall of the house f usher.pdf  71.85 KB  15.07.2008 13:38

This is an outstanding view of the House of Usher. It really gives an insight about the intentions of Poe in writing the short story.

A masterpiece of Poe’s is The Raven. Here you can find a brilliant reading of the poem by Christopher Wallken. Enjoy! And remember, read it at one sitting, as Poe advises in his critical essay on the Raven.

Author: Yanina
• Sunday, September 07th, 2008

 BENITO CERENO.pdf  314.70 KB  15.07.2008 13:31Ако някой се интересува от още материали за Бенито Серено и Мелвил, моля да се свърже с мен.  Готова съм да споделя цялата информация, която имам.

Author: Yanina
• Sunday, September 07th, 2008

http://idealist-bg.com/media/general info.doc general info.doc  440.50 KB  15.07.2008 13:22 This file will provide you with general information about Franklin’s work, life and overall influence.

Please, if citing these files, give credit to the their authors, who are mentioned at the bottom of each text.

Overview:

The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, by Benjamin Franklin

Author: Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) also known as: Richard Saunders
Genre: Autobiographies
Date: 1791 -1818

Nationality:  American

Genre(s):  Autobiographies

Benjamin Franklin’s life of eighty-four years (17061790) spanned most of the eighteenth centurya period in which the American colonies grew from small, isolated communities to a united nation of thirteen states. Franklin contributed greatly to the political founding of the nation and did much to help shape the American character. He thus became known by many as the first American. In his autobiography, which stops almost twenty years before he helped to draft the Declaration of Independence and over thirty years before his death, he describes the formation of his own character as an example to others in the newly emerging nation.

Events in History at the Time the Autobiography Takes Place

Proprietary Politics

Decades before hostilities broke out between the English government and the American colonies, a small-scale conflict was already raging in the colony of Pennsylvania, where Franklin resided. Founded as a proprietary colony by the Penn family of England in the seventeenth century, Pennsylvania had served as a haven for religious tolerance and a home to hard-working Quakers for half a century when Franklin arrived there. The Penns had advertised the colony as a land of wealth and opportunity, attracting a large number of English and German tradesmen and farmers. Settlers did, in fact, find wealth and opportunity there, but as their population mounted and the elected assemblies of the colony became more active, the inequalities in the distribution of this wealth and opportunity became noticeable. The origin of much of the disagreement over these inequalities lay in what the colonists viewed as unfair taxes. The Penn family, which governed mainly from England but maintained estates in Pennsylvania, had pulled strings to exempt themselves from the responsibility for paying colonial taxes. Unwilling to ignore this perceived injustice, the local assemblies fought over this tax exemption for years. In 1757 Franklin finally achieved a royal ruling in favor of the local assemblies.

Puritan Virtue and Quaker Individualism

The two cities in which Franklin spent the first half of his life were centers of religion. His birthplace was Boston, Massachusetts, a city founded by Puritans (also known as Congregationalists) in search of a place to practice their pure lifestyle of simplicity and religious strictness. His parents were devout Puritans, and Franklin’s father was known to quote passages from the Bible about such subjects as the virtue of hard work. Striking out on his own, Franklin ran away from home to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a refuge for Quakers, who rejected professional ministers and political hierarchies.

For Puritans in New England, religion was not just something to think about on Sundays; it was an important part of everyday life. Whether they were farmers, doctors, or sea captains, they believed God had called them into their professions just as he had designated them his chosen people. Interestingly, although most Puritans attended church services faithfully, worked hard at their jobs, shunned the consumption of alcohol, and viewed untruthfulness and pride as terrible sins, their behavior was not driven by a desire to work their way into heaven. In their view, God had already made up his mind about who was fit to join him after death: God’s unknowable will, not their own virtue, determined where all would spend their afterlives.

Franklin himself was not a particularly religious man. He valued the practicality of Puritan moderation, industry, and humility, but felt that good works should be the goal, not just a byproduct, of any religion or moral code. In a letter written in his mid-forties, he explains his sentiments:

I wish [faith] were more productive of Good Works than I have generally seen it; I mean real good Works, Works of Kindness, Charity, Mercy and Publick Spirit; not Holiday-keeping, Sermon-Reading or Hearing, performing Church Ceremonies, or making long Prayers, fill’d with Flatteries and Compliments, despisd even by wise Men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity.

(Franklin in Lopez, p. 197)

The Quakers with whom Franklin lived and worked in Philadelphia were of a different breed than the Boston Puritans, although they had descended from the same roots in England. In Boston, the sermons of Puritan ministers were the highlight of every week. The Quaker communities of Philadelphia, on the other hand, had neither sermons nor professional ministers. Quakers, who sought to establish individual relationships with God, rejected the power structure of most churches. They believed that each Friend (as Quakers were called) could act as his or her own priest. As a result, Sunday gatherings of Quakers in living rooms or meeting houses did not follow a program of worship. Instead, those who had gathered sat in silence until someone was moved to speakabout scripture, religious concerns, or personal experiences. The Quaker emphasis on individual initiative and human equality made its way into the political structure of Philadelphia and into Franklin’s own philosophy.

Colonial Schooling and the Self-Educated Man

For most colonial children in the eighteenth century, school started and ended in the home. Organized schools were rare and costly to maintain, so middle- and lower-class families often had to depend on educated relatives and friends to pass along their knowledge to the young. Luckier middle-class children who lived close to schools or tutors, and whose parents could afford the expense, received more formal primary education. But few young people went on to gain a secondary education, the equivalent of high school. Fewer still attended college. Those students who did receive a college education usually entered the clergy, as Franklin’s father originally intended for him to do.

One alternative to academic education was apprenticeship. Boys in their early teens would agree to work for a masteran expert carpenter, candlemaker, printer, or other tradesman. An apprentice learned his trade through a course of on-the-job training that typically spanned several years. Franklin’s two years of school and five years of apprenticeship were typical in his day. A lifelong devotion to learning, however, set him apart from many other colonists.

The Public Printer

In 1730, the year after Franklin took control of the Pennsylvania Gazette, seven newspapers were being published regularly in four American colonies. By 1800, ten years after his death, the United States was home to over 180 newspapers. Printing, a struggling industry in the first quarter of the 1700s, developed into a thriving business during the years that Franklin ran his print shop. A wide variety of printed material became common in this period: newspapers; public documents (in high demand, with thirteen busy colonial governments in America); advertisements; political and religious pamphlets; and almanacs, which helped farmers decide when to plant their crops and provided all readers with pithy tidbits of advice and wisdom. Because of the popularity of their publications, printing shops became town hangoutsespecially when the building also served as a general store and post office, a common occurrence in the colonial era. Politically-minded citizens would gather at the printing press to see election results printed. Townspeople would stop to chat while collecting their mail or shopping. Public printers like Franklin and his counterparts emerged as men of great influence in their communities.

Love, Marriage, and Dowry

Marriage was the cornerstone of society in eighteenth-century America. As a result, men were encouraged to find wives for themselves. Bachelors were considered dangerous, prone to rowdy behavior and disgraceful behavior in regard to women. Franklin’s actions during his single years confirmed this view of unmarried men; he later admitted that he was involved in intrigues with low Women during his youth (Franklin, Autobiography, p. 128). In Puritan Massachusetts, bachelors were viewed almost as criminals. If they had difficulty finding a wife, the community encouraged them to lodge with a family until they were successful in finding a mate. Financial factors also contributed to the pressure to marry. In seventeenth-century New Haven, Connecticut, for instance, taxes specifically targeted at bachelors were instituted. An additional inducement to marry was the dowry, a payment made by the family of a wife-to-be to her new husband

Franklin thus felt plenty of social pressure to find a wife when he settled in Philadelphia. When he speaks about his frustrations in trying to find a wife with a dowry, Franklin may sound sungy and unromantic to modern readers but his businesslike approach to marriage was typical for his time; marriage was a contractual agreement. The presence of love in a marriage was certainly valued, but its absence was not seen as a major deterrent.

In Franklin’s arrangement with Deborah Read, who eventually became his wife, it seems that loveor at least affectiondid play a part, because he did not receive a dowry. Their relationship began long before they were married, but then Franklin left for a trip to England While overseas, he seemed to lose interest in Read. He eventually returned to Philadelphia and again took up his search for a wife. Meanwhile, Read had married a man during Franklin’s absence, but her husband disappeared. Franklin’s guilt about having abandoned her while he was in England, his frustration with efforts to find a proper wife, and his fondness for her and her family were all reason enough to endure the risk he describes in the first part of the Autobiography: that Read’s first husbandor his debtorswould reappear and make a claim on Read or on Franklin’s money. If the man had returned and Franklin and Read had been married under Pennsylvania law, they could have been imprisoned for life as bigamists. Mindful of that scenario, the couple chose instead to be joined unofficially in common law marriage. Read’s former husband did not return.

American Science in the Age of the Enlightenment

While Philadelphia’s colonists were busy building a new home for themselves, scientists in England and the rest of Europe were riding the wave of excitement generated by the discoveries of the Enlightenment. The Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus had discovered that the earth revolved around the sun. The English physicist Sir Isaac Newton had formulated the theory of gravity. All through Europe, scientists were building on these discoveries and many others, constructing a clearer picture of how the world worked. The prevailing notion of the Enlightenmentthat human reason could understand anythingfueled research and theory-building and created an elite community of European scientists. They read the works of Newton and other scientific leaders, held international meetings, and established exclusive societies. Americans, meanwhile, faced a disadvantage in conducting scientific research. With scholarly books hard to come by and European gatherings difficult to attend, some of them could only conduct experiments on their own.

Franklin was one of many amateur inventors in the colonies who were far removed from the scientific dialogue of Europe. In fact, most of them, with the limited knowledge available on their side of the ocean, understood only a small portion of the theories under discussion in European laboratories. In Franklin’s case, however, ignorance had its advantages. Unaware of the complex theory of electricity that was popular in Europe at the time, Franklin embarked on his own series of experiments. He tested and developed his own theory of electricity, which proved to be simpler and more accurate than the fashionable European one. Franklin’s interest in science was based largely on practical concerns: protecting homes from lightning, for example, with a lightning rod. In scientific as in other pursuits, his main tool was his own practical reasoning rather than complicated mathematical formulas or extremely involved calculations Franklin’s work marked a triumph for practical reasoning. In fact, common sense became known as the American form of reason during the Enlightenment due largely to the works of Franklin

The Autobiography in Focus

The Contents

Franklin’s Autobiography is divided into four parts that follow the order of Franklin’s life. The first, written in 1771, is the most personal: it focuses on the formation of Franklin’s character. He explains that he is writing his autobiography both to provide his son and other descendants with a model life to emulate and to relive his happy experiences by recording them. Franklin proceeds to describe what he knows of his family tree, all the while pointing out similarities between himself and his ancestors. The discussion then turns to his young life. Franklin relates a series of stories about his childhood mistakes and accomplishments. Gradually a picture of a studious, hardworking, and independent-minded young man emerges

Working as an apprentice under his older brother James, Franklin learns the tools of the printing trade while still a teenager in Boston. Frustrated by his brother’s strict treatment of him, he leaves home at seventeen, arriving in Philadelphia with only a few coins in his pocket and no job. After a few false starts, including an eighteen-month stay in London, Franklin establishes himself as a printer and shopkeeper. In his early twenties, he forms the Junto, his famous discussion club. Its members, local artisans and tradesmen, debate issues such as capital punishment and slavery and discuss social news of the day. He also marries Deborah Read and embarks on his first act of community betterment: the founding of a public library in Philadelphia.

In 1784, thirteen years after writing part one, Franklin wrote part two of the autobiography. In this section, he resumes the discussion of his library project and briefly touches on his relationship with his wife. The bulk of the section, however, is devoted to a list of virtues and an explanation of the importance of each one; Franklin even includes a picture of a checklist he used to keep track of his progress on the path to moral Perfection (Autobiography, p. 148).

Part three, begun in 1788, is the longest of the four sections and marks a gradual change in focus from personal anecdotes and advice on virtue to a comparatively dry rendering of his public activities and Philadelphia’s political concerns. After charting the rise of his success as a printer and local politician, he discusses in depth his involvement in the French and Indian War (which included a stint as a colonel) and his participation in the debate that raged between the city’s assembly and its proprietors, the Penn family. Although his discussion of these topics lacks the intimate tone of the first and second parts the third part does have its moments of humor. For example, at one point Franklin relates his wartime strategy for encouraging soldiers to attend prayer services: tell the minister to give out rum. This section is also interspersed with fascinating tidbits about Franklin’s inventions, his experiments with electricity, and his involvement in the international scientific community in the later period of his life

The very brief part four was probably written in the winter of 178990. It focuses entirely on Franklin’s first diplomatic mission to England, where he served as a colonial agent charged with establishing a fair taxing policy for the Penn family’s estates in Pennsylvania. His mission successful, Franklin returns to Philadelphia in 1762, and the Autobiography ends.

Franklin’s American Dream

The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin is believed by many to be the first literary rendering of the American Dream Franklin’s life is a rags-to-riches story, a chronicle of one man’s rise from pennilessness to power. Many readers saw his autobiography as a testament to the success that can come from hard work and high hopes. Since its discovery, America had long been linked in the European mind to the notion of new possibilities. Franklin’s memoirs advertised the reality of this vision to the world. The land in which he rose to success was a land where people were not limited by class origins, where the son of a candlemaker could succeed as a diplomat, where a self-educated man could emerge as a great scientific mindwhere, in short, common people could become extraordinary

Despite his success, Franklin is realistic about the societal factors that contribute to one’s success or failure. He knows the importance of a good reputation and acknowledges that appearance can be a crucial factor in attaining success. In the first part of the Autobiography, Franklin describes his initial strategy for business success:

In order to secure my Credit and Character as a Tradesman, I took care not only to be in Reality Industrious and Frugal, but to avoid all Appearances of the Contrary. I drest plainly; I was seen at no places of idle Diversion; I never went out a-fishing or shooting; … and to show that I was not above my Business, I sometimes brought home the Paper I purchas’d at the Stores, thro the Streets on a Wheelbarrow.

(Autobiography, pp. 12526)

Another aspect of Franklin’s American Dream is that it focuses on the rise of the individual. The Autobiography emphasizes Franklin’s younger years and the early shaping of his character. Even in the second half of the memoirs, Franklin continues to convey a feeling of progress when he describes his activities. Moving from one area to another with easefrom Philadelphia politics to the postal service to war on the frontier to diplomacy in EnglandFranklin is constantly challenging himself and continually learning. Even his observance of his personal improvement program, complete with a system for tallying his errors and achievements in each of thirteen categories of virtue, lasts for years. He finally becomes too busy to complete his list every night; yet he continues to carry the book of virtues with him as a reminder to aim for good behavior.

Sources

Franklin’s Autobiography tells a new story with a fresh style in an old format. The structure of his memoirs follows patterns well established by the eighteenth century. The ancient Greek general Xenophon and the philosopher Aristotle wrote lists of virtues that were studied by many colonial schoolchildren. Plutarch, another Greek philosopher whom Franklin read as a boy, recorded the lives of great men in order to teach morality by example. A few decades before Franklin’s birth. Cotton Mather, a Massachusetts Puritan, published a series called Essays to Do Good (1710) containing practical advice on how to do good. Also, two major autobiographies preceded Franklin’s work; one, written by an English lord (Lord Herbert of Cherbury), may have even inspired Franklin to write his own. Finally, rags-to-riches stories had already been written in England prior to Franklin’s effort, although the main character’s success in the English stories was generally attributed not to hard work and initiative, but rather to a stroke of luck or success in battle.

Franklin’s book was different from many of its predecessors, however, because it told its story with a twist of irony and humor. Compare the excerpts belowone from the preface to a moral guide by Cotton Mather and the other from Franklin’s Autobiography. Both deal with the topic of humility, but from very different perspectives.

Cotton Mather’s Bonifacius

I have not been left altogether uninformed, that all the rules of discretion and behavior, are embryoed in that one word. MODESTY But it will be no breach of modesty, to be very positive in asserting, that the only wisdom of man lies in conversing with the great GOD, and His glorious Christ, and in engaging as many others as we can to join with us in this our blessedness, thereby promoting His Kingdom among the children of men; and in studying to do good unto all about us.

(Bonifacius, p. 6)

Franklin’s Autobiography

In reality there is no one of our natural passions so hard to subdue as Pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive, and will every now and then peep out and show itself. You will see it perhaps often in this History. For even if I could conceive that I had compleatly overcome it, I should probably [be] proud of my Humility.

(Autobiography, p. 160)

Using the simple language that is his trademark, Franklin brings the ideal of virtue within reach of the common person. His honesty and directness draw in his readers, allowing them to laugh at their faults even as they strive to improve themselves. Franklin may have followed the examples of other writers like Mather, but his voice and his story are all his own

Events in History at the Time the Autobiography Was Written

What Franklin Left Out and Why

Benjamin Franklin lived to be eighty-four years old, a rare accomplishment in colonial times. Strangely, however, the last thirty-three years of this remarkable lifeyears in which he signed The Declaration of Independence and participated in the founding of the United Statesare not discussed in his autobiography. Some scholars speculate that Franklin may have simply run out of time. Franklin’s final installment of the autobiography is thought to have been composed only a few months before his death, during which time he was too weak to write and had to dictate his thoughts to his grandson. But why did he wait until the last years of his life to finish his memoirs? Why the long period of procrastination between 1771 and 1784?

Certainly Franklin was preoccupied with other concerns such as the fate of his fledgling nation and his hectic social and political life as a diplomat in England and France. A major player in world politics, his responsibilities were numerous and often time-consuming. Some historians claim that he might also have become disillusioned about his hopes of influencing the younger generation. In the time between writing the first and second parts of the Autobiography, the Revolutionary War had rent a painful tear in his family. While his own loyalties lay with the Americans, his only son had supported the British. If he could not even succeed in convincing his son of the need for independence, the historians contend, he may have grown discouraged about his ability to shape the hearts and minds of America’s youth. Franklin may have ended the bulk of his autobiography in 1757 (though it mentions briefly later events) as a result of a combination of all these factors. Others point out, however, that perhaps Franklin felt he had finished what he set out to do.

Delay, Reception, and Impact of the Autobiography

Stories about Benjamin Franklin were told around the world long before he died, so his memoirs were eagerly awaited. Unfortunately for the reading public, the complete and original version was not printed until 1868. The delay was caused largely by Franklin’s grandson William Temple Franklin, whom the elder Franklin had entrusted with the manuscript. For unknown reasons. Temple Franklin failed to print his edition (complete except for the fourth part) of the Autobiography until 18171818. By then, many copies of the first part had already been printed and read. This first printing, though, was a retranslation of a pirated French version that was probably based on a copy sent to Europe by Benjamin Franklin.

Most early reviews were overwhelmingly positive. Business people praised the Autobiography’s principles of hard work and practical goals, and instructors used it in their classrooms to teach virtue. Copies were printed in England, Ireland, and Canada, and translated into Danish, Dutch, French, German, Polish, and Spanish.

There were, however, some negative responses to Franklin’s work. John Adams, the second president of the United States, had been one of Franklin’s rivals in his lifetime. He remained a critic after Franklin’s death. In an 1811 essay. Adams wrote that Franklin had enough faults of character to deserve neither applause nor condemnation. Mid-nineteenth-century preacher Theodore Parker summed up the complaints of others in a remark in the introduction to the Autobiography: Franklin thinks, investigates, theorizes, invents, but never does he dream (Parker in Autobiography, p. 13).

Despite such criticism, the work established Franklin as America’s first symbol of the self-made man, and people heeded his advice. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin inspired many of its readers. Thomas Mellon left his Pennsylvania farm after reading the book and became a prosperous banker, while the Italian printer Gaspero Barbera, who described himself as a lost man before reading the book, afterwards became healthy, cheerful, and rich (Barbera in Autobiography, p. 11). A chronicle of a man on the rise in a nation on the rise, the Autobiography became a handbook for those around the world who wanted to better themselves.

FURTHER READINGS ABOUT THE AUTHOR

  • Boorsun, Daniel J. The Americans: The Colonial Experience. New York: Random House, 1958
  • Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Edited by Leonard W. Labaree, et al New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964.
  • Lopez, Claude-Anne, and Eugenia W. Herbert. The Private Franklin: The Man and His Family. New York: W. W. Norton, 1975.
  • Mather, Cotton, Bonifacius: An Essay upon the Good. Edited by David Levin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.
  • Quimby, Ian M. G. Apprenticeship in Colonial Philadelphia. New York: Garland, 1985.
  • Sweet, William Warren. Religion in Colonial America. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1942.

Source:  Benjamin Franklin: The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, in Literature and Its Times: Profiles of 300 Notable Literary Works and the Historical Events that Influenced Them, Volume 1: Ancient Times to the American and French Revolutions (Prehistory1790s), edited by Joyce Moss and George Wilson, Gale Research, 1997.

Source Database:  Literature Resource Center