Final

The human condition requires that we search for our purpose.  No matter how old, what race, or what social class, every person on this planet searches for purpose in some way or another.  Some find purpose through belief in a deity.  Some search for purpose in power over others, or simple relationship with the world around them.  Literature has found a way to discuss this search for purpose – all literature has. The primary link that connects the literature we have looked at in class, and all time, is the common desire of all humans to have a purpose in this life. 

            In Modiano’s work, Afterimage, we see a photographer who searches for purpose.  He looks in his memories, in images, and in his lack of attachment to any worldly locations.  We see people searching for purpose through the contrasting motifs of religion and love in Love and Other Demons.  It is written “For you was I born, for you do I have life, for you will I die, for you am I now dying.”  Speaking of reasons for why people live, what they live for.  The Rod of Justice provides an example of a man who eventually finds peace in finding his purpose at the end of his life.

            Kraukauer refers to purpose throughout his book, we see McCandless giving up what many people would consider great purpose (career, love interests, etc) for what he considers to be important.  In Candide, Voltair writes "it was love; love, the comfort of the human species, the preserver of the universe, the soul of all sensible beings, love, tender love."  Purpose, meanings, and search for what we are here for is the motif for all these pieces and more. 

            Each piece of literature throughout history is an example of a way that humans have searched for meanings.  Whether this is a single human searching for meaning for his life or a group of people looking for their future, all literature is about meaning.  All literature is about people searching for purpose.

The Deep River

     There is strength and significance in unity and togetherness.  There is also a power in independence, uniqueness, and making a choice for oneself.   In Bessie Head's "The Deep River," there is a sense of the differences between communal thinking and individual thoughts.  There are positive and negative aspects to each of these ideas.  In the story, some pros and cons of the two ways of living and thinking are discussed.

     The story starts out with the people all living together as one.  The author says, “the people lived together like a deep river. In this deep river which was unruffled by conflict or a movement forward, the people lived without faces”  The statement is a powerful image of the good parts of living this way.  The people do not have conflict - they do not face adversity.  This image of a deep river is one of peace, tranquility, and easy living.  The image is brings some less savory thoughts to mind (especially for a 21st century American).  The image also brings to mind a people with no personality, no choices, and no fitting in if anyone disagrees.

     By the end of the story there is division among the village - people are disagreeing and there has formed a dichotomy.  This story also emphasizes the pros and cons of this individuality.  While there was conflict, arguments, and a marked lack of peace - there was also forward movement.  The individuals in the end of the story were able to make their own choices and live their lives based on choice.  Suddenly, there were faces and individuals.
     There are pros and cons to living together and as living as an individual.  To live completely by yourself is lonely, confusing, and breeds conflict between us.  To live entirely as one stagnates life and reminds me of just about every dis-utopian novel I know. It is important to maintain a balance.  I think that the story "The Deep River" does a great job of demonstrating this.  

Hedda Tesman (A I and II)

     Hedda Gabler is a strange story about a strange woman.  More than just strange, I would go so far as to say, I believe Hedda to be literally insane.  Hedda is complicated, intelligent, controlling, manipulative, and mad.
     While she clearly seems to be the most intelligent person in the play, even surrounded by learned men, she also displays some rather eccentric tendencies.  We do not gain insight into the thoughts of Hedda, due to this being a play, not a story.  When Hedda pretends to shoot at Brock, it may be jocular in nature - but it could be pointing to an underlying mental brake down.
     She seems to have little in the way of interest - except for control.  Perhaps this is based on a lack of control over her own mind - this lack of control in herself is causing her to want to control others.  The relationships she has are not strictly sexual - nor do they seem to be based on how she appreciated or likes others - but instead based solely on her ability to control another person.  For instance, she does not marry for happiness or benefit, but apparently because Tesman is easy to control and manipulate.
     Her madness seems to also manifest itself in an inability to actually care about anything.  She remains unhappy, despite having everything she wants, and a large amount of control over the people (especially men) around her.

Barbarian

     Often we think of the past with rose colored glasses.  "The 1920's must have been so fun!" or "I wish I could have lived when art was so great in the renaissance period!"  Barbarian, by Arthur Rimbaud uses repetition and harsh contrast to remind us of the difference between oft false ideas we have of the past.
     Throughout the poem we see very different ideas contrasted - soft, feminine and idealized views of the past, with harsh, grotesque views of the same past.  Words like "raw meat" sitting directly next to "silk of seas."  These images are repeated, bringing to mind very contradictory ideas of the same events.
     The author also uses repetition of words like "Bliss!"  The repeated nature of positive ideas does not remove the negative imagery "wind of diamonds," "veering of chasms" or "white tears boiling."  This is an accurate representation of how we think of the past - no matter how much we try to sugar coat and remember things differently, the pains of the past still exist,


Long after the days and the seasons, and people and countries. 
The banner of raw meat against the silk of seas and arctic flowers; 
(they do not exist). Recovered from the old fanfares of heroism,-- 
which still attack the heart and head,-- far from the old assassins. 
-- Oh! the banner of raw meat against the silk of seas and arctic flowers; 
(they do not exist).-- Bliss! Live embers raining in gusts of frost.-- 
Bliss!-- fires in the rain of the wind of diamonds
flung out by the earth's heart eternally carbonized for us.
-- O world! (Far from the old retreats and the old flames, still heard, still felt.) 
Fire and foam. Magic, veering of chasms and clash of icicles against the stars. 
O bliss, O world, O music! And forms, sweat, eyes 
and long hair floating there. And white tears boiling,-- 
O bliss!-- and the feminine voice reaching to the bottom of volcanoes 
and grottos of the arctic seas. The banner... 

God sees the truth

     Sometimes I read a story or poem or piece of writing, and I think "wow, this has so many awesome points."  These types often keep me bouncing around from idea to idea, wondering and thinking about new concepts.  These types of literature are cool, well written and can act as a catalyst for change.  In "God Sees the Truth but Waits" there is one line that stuck out to me.  The story did not have me bouncing around thinking about ideas, but instead had me stuck on a single thing, a phrase the main character says at the end of the story.
     The phrase is "maybe I am 100 times worse than you."  Interestingly, the main character declares that the murdered who condemned him to 26 years in prison (after trying to kill him), might not be as bad a person as he was.  Is this a revelation to his personal character?  What he might have done if he had not been put in prison?  We see no reason to think that, based on evidence early in the story.  Perhaps instead, this is a revelation of fate.
     The main character, if having lived the same life as Makar, may have lived to be worse.  Fate is cruel, and weird.  Who knows why events are played out the way they are.  Life isn't fair, and there is no reason to believe that it would be.  Who knows how much worse I might have been, if our roles had been reversed.
      After living his life with so much hatred and anger, Aksinov reached a level of contentedness in the last part of his life by settling on one simple truth, "maybe I am 100 times worse than you."  This phrase and this concept has been the one lingering piece that stays.  Where other artists may have given me many concepts, Tolstoy leaves me one - without rhyme or reason, life is unfair.

Of Love and Other Demons

     In modern life we rarely deal with events that are not able to be explained by science or reason.  Miracles are all but eliminated from our lives and instead have been drafted into an obscure part of our vocabulary only brought out directly after a bad motorcycle accident or perhaps a particularly conservative church message.  In "Of Love and Other Demons" Gabriel Garcia Marquez uses Magical realism to contrast two very different characters.  The Bishop de Caceres y Virtudes, a Bishop of the Catholic church and Abrenuncio de Sa Pereira Cao, a strange Jew with a less-than-savory reputation.  The author uses creativity to paint an unexpected contradiction in both of these characters.  While not directly at odds, their characters represent contrary ideas to the reader - which is a fun way play magical realism in the story.

     The Bishop is first introduced to us as a rich and distant individual; " The Marquis had seen him on very few occasions, always at a distance and in public, but the memory he had...was at mass...and [he] was carried in a sedan chair by government dignitaries."  Upon hearing of the bishop, the reader initially thinks of a pious man - God fearing, Bible believing, and perhaps even loving.  His speech and mannerisms show a different idea of who he is.  He is a complaining, arrogant, and selfish soul.  He seems to care more for his own standing than he does for the wellbeing of a small girl.  He is, strangely enough, not a character who believes in miracles.  He does not seem to care for what God wants in a situation.  The bishop is described as, "not a man given to celestial visions, or miracles, or flagellations.  His Kingdom was of this world."  This last sentence is in opposition to biblical teachings, which leads me to believe he perhaps does not believe in God at all.

     Abbrenuncio, in contrast, is a jocular man.  We first meet him sitting by his dead horse, a horse he believed to have lived for over 100 years.  Abbrenuncio believes in miracles, alleviating the suffering of the less fortunate, and all manner of unbelievable things.  We see that his is regarded as unclean - not only a jew, but with the last name meaning dog, and generally dabbling in things that church deems bad.  Despite this, his character seems more inclined to believe in God than does the Bishop.  He advices the Marquis on several occasions in matters of faith, saying "you mean you have recovered you faith," among others.  He frequently speaks of God, perhaps indicating he has an intimate relationship (though, clearly he has been burned by faith in the past).  

     Abbrenuncio's character plays with the imagination in a way that the Catholic Bishop does not.  He joking talks about having sex with a horse, and on the same page challenges the readers understanding of mercy.  The Bishop is purposefully written without an once of magic - where the strange doctor is nothing but magic.  It is obvious to the reader that Marquez believes in magic and miracles, and the unexplained.  These things, in the authors mind, are not necessarily in line with what the church believes or feels - but could ever be found in the lowest of places.  

Into the Wild

     Into the Wild is a book that easily divides people who would otherwise be perfectly content to agree on most points.  My mother and I, for instance, agree on most everything.  We both love hunting, fishing, camping and hiking.  Where my mother agrees with Gallien that McCandless was one of the "crackpots from the lower forty-eight who [would] come north to live out ill-considered Jack London fantasies," I am more of the opinion that McCandles makes a major change in his life that leads him to adventure, challenge, and happiness.
     While McCandless does die as a result of his actions, the same can be said for each and every person.  Perhaps many die late in life, with family all around - but many die having never having realized many of the dreams we wish we would have.  The same cannot be said for McCandless.  He clearly saw something that he wanted - and he went after it.  In many ways, his testimony sticks up for itself.  He writes "make a radical change in your lifestyle and begin to boldly do things which you may previously never have thought of doing, or been too hesitant to attempt. So many people live within unhappy circumstances and yet will not take the initiative to change their situation because they are conditioned to a life of security, conformity, and conservation."  
     For McCandless, you have to look and see how the last years of his life were so much more enjoyable than the first.  He lived life, learned new things, and learned about himself.  He did this in a way that he could not have done had he gotten a job, married, and lived a 'normal' life.  Living this life would have left him in regret.  Where others tend to knock McCandless for his decisions, I tend to support him, understand him, and sometimes even wish I had as much courage as he.  

Tartouffe

     In class it was discussed that perhaps Dorine or Cleante is the wisest or smartest of the characters in Tartouffe.  I have a tendency to believe that the most intelligent of characters in Tartouffe is none other that Tartuffe himself.
     While Dorine is clearly wise, and sees through all pretenses of Tartouffe's.  Clearly, she has all her wits about her, and regularly seems smarter than those around her.  "You see him as a saint.  I'm far less awed; In fact, I see right through him.  He's a Fraud."

Cleante spends most of his time telling Orgon how wrong he is.  He is right about so many things - it would be near impossible to list them all.  Even Orgon recognizes his wisdom "I see dear brother, that you're profoundly wise..."

Tartuffe however, even in opposition to these intelligent folk, is somehow able to best the entire family, in what I would deem a battle of wits.  His superiority is in his ability to see the weaknesses of each individual and then exploit these weaknesses for his gain.  He isn't a hypocrite in the way I think of one - someone who knows the truth and speaks it but has a hard time following through.  He is a person who deliberately does the wrong thing for self gain.  In the end, if it wasn't for the Kings interference, Tartuffe would have pulled off yet another beautiful heist.

Candide Chapter 1-10

My first impressions of Canidide are of surprise, humor (a rare emotion for me in classic comedies), and horror.

My feelings of surprise mainly come from the extremely unlikely events that occur around our main character, but also of his involvement in so many unfortunate events.  Not only is it unlikely that he would be around so many events, it is also unlikely that he would survive so many events.  I suppose at some level the reader is expected to suspend their disbelief - at another level the writer of the play does not expect that you will.  Voltaire knows how unlikely these events are, and knows that the reader knows too.  It still surprises me though, that entertainment has changed as little as it has.  This kind of egregious misrepresentation of reality still occurs, mainly in modern comedy.  It reminds me of a cartoon, in fact, I propose that Candide be rewritten as a cartoon, perhaps starring bugs bunny.

My feelings of humor come from the sheer contradiction that is create within the ideas of optimism and tragedy.  I know that this is one aspect of the satirical work, but I normally recognize these elements of satire without genuinely thinking they are funny.  I actually laughed out loud when reading the end of chapter 6.  "My son, be of good cheer and follow me."  The juxtaposition of horrendous feelings of sorrow and tragedy clashing against enthusiastic optimism and joy is literally laughable.  

My horror comes from the events themselves.  In the first ten chapters of this story, Voltaire introduces, war, rape, false accusations, drowning, hanging, multiple earth quakes of apparently great caliber, fire, looting, disembowelment, and murder (take note, an incomplete list).  These events are not to be taken lightly.  While these events are meant to be satirical, the enormity of their weight also should not be lost upon the reader.  While it is supposed to be humorous, and surprising, Candide is also meant to be taken seriously.  The "vices" that Voltaire is attempting to point out with his satire are hiding behind these interesting and challenging literary techniques.

As we move through the story more, I hope that surprise, humor, and horror continue to be motifs for Candide.  I am excited to learn where Candide travels, and what awful things are coming to him - I also am excited to see how his optimism either continues to serve him poorly, or comes through in the end.