The Crucible: Arthur Miller's Style

The Crucible: Arthur Miller's Style 

Arthur Miller had a reputation for being pedantic. He maintained, and his estate continues to maintain artistic control over his plays. Miller never ever let anyone else have more creative input than himself. He was a visually descriptive playwright both in his stage directions and settings. Miller’s plays, including The Crucible include pages of detailed information addressing the concerns of both the actors and the audience.

In preparation for writing The Crucible, he studied pages and pages of court transcripts of the Salem witch hunts in order to develop ideas and to create an authentic dialect. He took small ideas from the testimonies given in the courts and fleshed them out into stories. In fact, the basis for John Proctor’s and Abigail Williams’ affair was based on the tension he discovered that the two of them shared throughout the actual court proceedings. 

'This play is not history in the sense in which the word is used by the academic historian. Dramatic purposes have sometimes required many characters to be fused into one; the number of girls involved in the 'crying out' has been reduced; Abigail's age has been raised; while there were several judges of almost equal authority, I have symbolized them all in Hathorne and Danforth. However, I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history. The fate of each character is exactly that of his historical model, and there is no one in the drama who did not play a similar-and in some cases exactly the same-role in history.

As for the characters of the persons, little is known about most of them except what may be surmised from a few letters, the trial record, certain broadsides written at the time, and references to their conduct in sources of varying reliability. They may therefore be taken as creations of my own, drawn to the best of my ability in conformity with their known behaviour, except as indicated in the commentary I have written for this text.' 

Plays can be classified in two major varieties: plays of episodic action and plays of continuous action. Shakespeare's plays are episodic. No one scene is very long, and the action jumps from place to place, sometimes skipping over years in between. On the other hand, Greek tragedies like Oedipus Rex and some modern plays such as Eugene O'Neil's Long Day's Journey into Night, follow what are called the three unities: of time-the action usually takes place within a 24-hour period; of place- there is only one location,, and of action-there is no break in the action from beginning to end. 

The Crucible falls somewhere in between. The time span is about three-and-a-half months; the action occurs in four different places, although it never leaves Salem; and there is a gap of at least a week between each act (between Acts III and IV almost three months elapse). But within each act the action is continuous from curtain to curtain. 

One advantage of the continuous-action method is that it allows the author to build tension or suspense gradually. It also can be less confusing for an audience, because we don't have to stop and figure out where we are every few minutes. And, finally, it allows us to get to know the main characters very well, by letting us watch them for a long time at a stretch. This is especially important in The Crucible, where we come to understand what happened in Salem in 1692 through the experience of one man, John Proctor. 

The Crucible was written in an historical style, marking a shift in Miller's preferred writing style from the "naturalistic dialogue of the American middle class" in his first three plays, to a formal, New-England-Puritan style. Miller "makes exemplary use of this new style, its biblical echoes, its metaphorical richness, and its ethical basis". The Crucible concerns the dilemma of "making moral choices in the face of community pressure and about the irrational basis of that pressure". The similarity between the Communist and Puritan witch-hunts allows Miller to formulate an explanation for their inception, along with the destructive effect that speculations can have on individuals when brought before an unsympathetic, judgmental and irrational public. The public's trepidation toward the subject matter of The Crucible was due to the play's remarkable similarity to the political pulse at the time, causing critics to give it "polite, lukewarm reviews", and closed after only a few months. Ironically, The Crucible was successful in an off-Broadway production five years later and was given ample praise by the same critics who previously rejected it. This performance ran over six hundred shows, establishing it as Miller's second most popular play.

Miller’s style is very simple. He uses simple sentences and sentence structure with a simple vocabulary. While using the simple style, Miller does not take away from the suspense in he plot. The dialogues of his characters are like actual speech. His words are used effectively and does not include anything not necessary to convey the idea. He makes the plot and idea interesting by foreshadowing future events. 

In The Crucible, the characters do not speak in fragments, and some do occasionally string together phrases. Also, they do form their thoughts carefully before speaking. The sentences are simple and the structure does not vary too much. 

In the first passage spoken by Reverend Parris, the speech is more formal that speeches spoken by other characters. This displays that Reverend Parris is more educated than the others. It has a somewhat fatherly, yet commanding tone. 

The second passage spoken by Abigail is markedly different from the first passage. The sentences are less thought out and more fragmented. She repeats the phrase “I know you” several times. This shows less education but more deep emotion than the first passage. The tone for this line is moving, but when compiled with Abigail's character, becomes deceiving. 

The third passage spoken by Elizabeth shows a clearly though out idea. It shows that while Elizabeth may not be as educated as someone like Parris, this is a subject that she has thought about a long time. This gives a tone of something like a bottom line or an ultimatum. While Elizabeth does not give a specific choice to Proctor, it is obvious that he must make a decision on what to do. 

Miller does not rely too much on imagery. There are few cases of imagery in this play. One remarkably memorable one is the statement by Abigail about the way John Proctor “sweated like a stallion.” While this statement is also a simile, it provides an unforgettable image in the minds of the audience. 

The most memorable case of simile is the line, “I know how you clutched my back behind your house and sweated like a stallion whenever I came near!” This statement compares Proctor with a stallion. 

Miller rarely uses metaphors or personification in this work. His people generally referred to as people and items as items. Occasionally he alludes to some portion or person in the Bible, but rarely to anything else. For example, while John Proctor is speaking with Rebecca in prison, she alludes to the martyred apostles. Rebecca says, “Let you fear nothing! Another judgment waits us all.” This is an allusion to idea from the Bible that man is judged by God in heaven. 

Miller has few cases of verbal irony. He uses it in act 3 while Elizabeth tell she court that Proctor did not sleep with Abigail she knows that he did. 

All parts with the girls lying about witches and ghosts are cases of dramatic irony since, while the audience knows that the girls are lying, most of the characters do not. For example, in court, Abigail and the other girls pretend to be attacked by spirits and the people in court fear them to be in danger. However, the audience knows that they are faking it. 

Miller’s attitude towards witchcraft is satirical. The tone is serious, cynical, and formal. He achieves this tone by the terrible tragedy of the innocent people executed, and the mental struggles of John Proctor. Miller shows the irony and the unjustness of the witch trials, and thereby the irony and the unjustness of the McCarthy trials. 

Read more »

The crucible Themes

The crucible Themes

A crucible is a vessel in which metal is heated to a high temperature and melted for the purposes of casting. It can also refer, metaphorically, to a time in history when great political, social, and cultural changes are in force, where society is seemingly being melted down and recast into a new mold. The word is also remarkably similar to crucifixion, which Miller certainly intended in choosing it as the title of his play. The picture of a man and a society bubbling in a crucible and the crucifixion of Christ interweave to form the main themes of the play: the problem of making the right moral choice and the necessity of sacrifice as a means of redemption. Both these themes, of course, take place in the context of the larger struggle of good versus evil.

The choice John Proctor must make is between saving either himself or society. His failure to do good initially allows events to get out of hand and eventually forces him into a position where he must make a choice. Reverend Hale, while not subject to the same moral quandary as Proctor, also suffers a crisis of consciousness for his failure to strive hard enough to stop the proceedings of the court. In contrast to them both are Rebecca Nurse and Elizabeth Proctor, whose moral and emotional steadfastness represents society at its best.

In a society at odds with itself and where reason and faith in the society has been replaced with irrationality and self-doubt, a clever manipulator can cause chaos. The Reverend Parris, Danforth, Hathorne, and Putnam represent the corruption of society by self-interested parties preying on society's fears. Through them, Miller highlights the destruction that manipulation and weak-mindedness can thrust upon society.

Miller suggests that in such times good can only triumph through a sacrifice upon the altar of society, that the crisis might only be able to be rectified by the death of those who struggle to uphold society's values. The death of John Proctor, though it might seem a tragic waste, is necessary, both for his own personal redemption and that of his society. The sacrifice of Proctor, Rebecca Nurse, Giles Corey and others, recalls the sacrifice of Christ for the sake of humankind. In the end, The Crucible focuses on a historical event to drive home issues that essentially characterize all societies at all times, which makes the play both universal and enduring.

INTOLERANCE
The Crucible is set in a theocratic society, in which the church and the state are one, and the religion is a strict, austere form of Protestantism known as Puritanism. Because of the theocratic nature of the society, moral laws and state laws are one and the same: sin and the status of an individual’s soul are matters of public concern. There is no room for deviation from social norms, since any individual whose private life doesn’t conform to the established moral laws represents a threat not only to the public good but also to the rule of God and true religion. In Salem, everything and everyone belongs to either God or the Devil; dissent is not merely unlawful, it is associated with satanic activity. This dichotomy functions as the underlying logic behind the witch trials. As Danforth says in Act III, “a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it.” The witch trials are the ultimate expression of intolerance (and hanging witches is the ultimate means of restoring the community’s purity); the trials brand all social deviants with the taint of devil-worship and thus necessitate their elimination from the community.

GOOD VERSUS EVIL
The major theme in the play is that of good versus evil. Based on the Salem witch trials of the late 17th century, The Crucible explores the fragility of a changing society and the difficulty of doing good in the face of evil and tremendous social pressures, both at the social and personal level. John Proctor, the protagonist of the play, is faced with the choice of accepting responsibility for his actions and doing the right thing. In a similar vein, society as a whole must deal with the challenge of doing good when threatened by evil, even when it comes with the stamp of law, authority, and social opinion.

HYSTERIA
A minor theme of the play is that the hysteria of the witch trials can be easily duplicated, as seen in the hysteria surrounding the "McCarthyism" of the early 1950s. This link should be understood as a background to the play, not as a simple interpretation of the play.

Another critical theme in The Crucible is the role that hysteria can play in tearing apart a community. Hysteria supplants logic and enables people to believe that their neighbors, whom they have always considered upstanding people, are committing absurd and unbelievable crimes—communing with the devil, killing babies, and so on. In The Crucible, the townsfolk accept and become active in the hysterical climate not only out of genuine religious piety but also because it gives them a chance to express repressed sentiments and to act on long-held grudges. The most obvious case is Abigail, who uses the situation to accuse Elizabeth Proctor of witchcraft and have her sent to jail. But others thrive on the hysteria as well: Reverend Parris strengthens his position within the village, albeit temporarily, by making scapegoats of people like Proctor who question his authority. The wealthy, ambitious Thomas Putnam gains revenge on Francis Nurse by getting Rebecca, Francis’s virtuous wife, convicted of the supernatural murders of Ann Putnam’s babies. In the end, hysteria can thrive only because people benefit from it. It suspends the rules of daily life and allows the acting out of every dark desire and hateful urge under the cover of righteousness.

REPUTATION
Reputation is tremendously important in theocratic Salem, where public and private moralities are one and the same. In an environment where reputation plays such an important role, the fear of guilt by association becomes particularly pernicious. Focused on maintaining public reputation, the townsfolk of Salem must fear that the sins of their friends and associates will taint their names. Various characters base their actions on the desire to protect their respective reputations. As the play begins, Parris fears that Abigail’s increasingly questionable actions, and the hints of witchcraft surrounding his daughter’s coma, will threaten his reputation and force him from the pulpit. Meanwhile, the protagonist, John Proctor, also seeks to keep his good name from being tarnished. Early in the play, he has a chance to put a stop to the girls’ accusations, but his desire to preserve his reputation keeps him from testifying against Abigail. At the end of the play, however, Proctor’s desire to keep his good name leads him to make the heroic choice not to make a false confession and to go to his death without signing his name to an untrue statement. “I have given you my soul; leave me my name!” he cries to Danforth in Act IV. By refusing to relinquish his name, he redeems himself for his earlier failure and dies with integrity.

BETRAYAL
Poignantly, The Crucible explores much more than this theme alone. It is also the story of betrayal and, in particular, the betrayal between a husband and a wife within the sanctity of a conventional marriage. However, John Proctor who is guilty of infidelity is not alone. Many of the characters are guilty of betrayal. Abigail betrays her whole community in order to seduce John. Those who falsely confess to witchcraft betray their relationship with God and their church.

PERSECUTION
The Crucible is also about persecution. History has provided us with canons of documented information about the persecution of the Jewish people from the Bible up until the chronicles of the Second World War. Miller, who was Jewish, would surely have had an inescapable imprint of atrocities of the holocaust embedded firmly in his psyche.

Furthermore, this play insists that it is every individual’s responsibility to accept liability for the wrongs of the past. Miller’s plays, explore the American way of life but the themes, issues and concerns presented in The Crucible are a universal phenomenon.

EVIL AND EVENTS OF THE McCARTHY ERA
The Crucible's minor theme is the evils and events of the McCarthy era, which provided the initial inspiration for the play. Miller saw many parallels between the witch trials of Salem and McCarthy's hunt for Communists, which some critics at the time even referred to as a "witch hunt." Both were periods of dramatic social tensions and social change, marked by terror, suspicion, hysteria, and paranoia. While there were undoubtedly Communists in America in the 1950s, and perhaps witches in Salem in the late 1600s, the hunts for both destroyed many innocent lives and corrupted the accusers.

Perhaps the most striking parallel between the McCarthy era and events in the play occurs in the scene where Parris accuses the signatories of Francis Nurse's petition of attacking the court and suggesting that no innocent person could possibly be unhappy with the court. This was the same logic that McCarthy and his followers used to discourage dissent.

Although The Crucible can be read as a commentary on the McCarthy era, its location in actual historical events of another era, its emphasis on personal struggle and responsibility, and its aesthetic achievement as a work of literature and drama render it timely and relevant in any era. Indeed, as historical circumstances change, new historical parallels emerge. Miller has noted that when he wrote the play, he never could have imagined that people would see in it a commentary on the dangers of accepting children's testimony in sexual abuse cases, yet the parallel seems quite apparent now. It is The Crucible's timeless concern with the problems of ascertaining truth and obtaining justice, rather than its commentary on any one historic event, that has made it a lasting work of art.
Conformity, Imbalance of Power, And Social Injustice

Conformity has plagued mankind for ages. It is a strong theme in The Crucible, and Miller's audience can draw parallels to it in their own lives. In The Crucible, the need to conform to the church's views and that of its minister is quite evident. The characters in the play find themselves in a very difficult situation. They must either turn their backs on what they believe in and lie by admitting to having had "relations with the devil", thereby conforming with the church's wishes, or they must follow their individualistic beliefs and refuse to lie. The Crucible should be considered a great drama just because of it's all encompassing theme of conformity.

The Crucible has so much more to it that it needn't be considered great drama on the basis of a good theme alone. It also attacks the poor balance of power that we can see around us everyday. Miller shows us how much power a sole individual can have when that person defines the ideologies or beliefs by which we live. During the Salem Witch Trials religion was, much more so than now, the answer to what people didn't understand. So as a result, ministers and priests were extremely powerful because they were the only people that were "qualified" to interpret the rules of their religion. They were considered to be the voice of God. Back in Salem, how could anything have been more powerful than that? Nobody could question the priests because they would then be questioning God. Which of course was completely taboo. So a person in such a position of power could say nearly anything they wanted, such as deciding that "cleansing" was needed in Salem. And, as a result, people would listen and it would be done, but not necessarily deemed to be right.

In the 1950's the idea of an imbalance of power was still an issue. After just starting to recover from the Holocaust, which was fueled by the very same need for "cleansing" as in Salem but on a larger scale, Americans were bewildered as to how easily people could be manipulated by those in a position of great power. Hitler had just basically accused a few million people of being witches. Americans could see how weak they were. One could not question the government, the military, or the church. To this very day, a huge amount of people are still afraid of questioning the church - look at the issue of abortion and the Catholic Church's position upon it for example.

Miller portrayed the priests and judges in The Crucible as that certain type of people that Americans will always be up against in the struggle for power. While the Church and its' ministers isn't quite as powerful now because people can openly admit having no belief in God without fear of being hung, we now have a new group of people that decide what is true and what is not. Science is the new religion and scientists the new priests. Scientists are the only people capable of interpreting what all of the math and formulas mean. And as a result, the rest of us openly accept their conclusions to be the true. This is the same kind of reliance that people put on the church two hundred years ago. And at that time, you didn't question it. The church was always right. The Crucible is a great drama because it addresses the issue of conformity in American culture and questions the amount of power that we allow those to have whom are supposedly more educated than the majority of the population and are responsible for defining the ideologies and beliefs by which we live.

At the time when The Crucible was first being performed something was taking place that was very alike the Salem Witch Trials. In Hollywood, the House Un-American Activities Committee was investigating the film industry for communist activities. Actors, writers, and directors were interrogated as to whether or not they had involved themselves in any kind of relations with the Communist Party. If people didn't readily conform to the HUAC's line of questioning, and answer their questions regardless of whether or not they were deemed intrusive or not, it was assumed that they had been involved with the Communist Party. It was thought that the Communists were trying to gain control of the American film industry for propaganda purposes. As a result, those individuals that were thought to be in any way associated with the Communists were blacklisted in Hollywood and could no longer work there.

As history has shown us, the injustices that occurred during the Salem Witch Trials continue to go on. Most obviously by the HUAC in America at the time of Miller's The Crucible. We see parallels between the Salem Witch Trials and other issues even today. Most recently, the military wanted to discharge any gay men in service. These kind of injustices will always exist. The Crucible addresses the idea of a group of select people choosing another group for a scapegoat to a supposedly determined "problem" that exists. This is yet another reason why The Crucible should be considered to be great drama.

Arthur Miller's, The Crucible, addressed issues which were as important to Americans in the 1950's as they are today. The idea of conformity is one which any given individual will always face. People who define the ideologies and beliefs by which we live will also always exist. As will the accusations made by one group of select individuals towards groups of others in order to support their cause, or solve their problem. The House Un-American Activities Committee was doing exactly that in the 1950's which was why the idea of "cleansing" in The Crucible was so relevant to Americans. Arthur Miller's play took on very strong themes and took a stand against issues that are still pertinent to date. Great drama is something in which an audience can find relevance and relation. Great drama is drama that will always be important. The Crucible is a play that no one will ever be able to ignore because of Miller's ability to touch issues and themes that have plagued mankind throughout history and will continue to do so in the future.

Read more »

Character Analysis of Jack Worthing

Character Analysis of Jack Worthing

The play The Importance Of being Earnest is a bout two guys that get wrapped up in a web of lies due to bunburying. Bunburying is a term used throughout the play to describe lying about where you will be and what you will be doing there. Jack Worthing is a pretty important character in the play, and he bunburies under the name "Well, my name is Ernest in town and Jack in the country, and the cigarette case was given to me in the country," says Jack as he tries to get Algernon, the other main character who termed the word bunburying, to return his cigarette case to him (Wilde). By bunburying has his made up little brother Ernest, Jack can do whatever he wants in the town without destroying his reputation. Each of the men fall in love while pretending to be Ernest. Algernon falls in love with Cecily Cardew, Jack's ward. Jack falls in love with Gwendolen. Unfortunately for the guys, both girls have fallen in love with the name Ernest. "Jack?... No, there is very little music in the name Jack, if any at all, indeed. It does not thrill. It produces absolutely no vibrations... I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain. Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John! And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John. She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moment's solitude. The only really safe name is Ernest," Gwendolen tells Jack after he asked if the name Ernest was the only name she could love him by (Wilde). There is a big scene where all the lies being told, by both men, are made open, and then some surprising truths are found out. It turns out Jack's real Christian name is indeed Ernest. Throughout the story Jack is very deceitful with his actions.

Jack pretends to be Ernest. He tells people in the country, where he is Jack, that Ernest is his very troublesome little brother. He must pretend to be someone else so he will not be looked down on acting indecently. Mr. Worthing is very much respected in the country. "Your guardian enjoys the best of health, and his gravity of demeanor is especially to be commended in one so comparatively young as he is. I know no one who has a higher sense of duty and responsibility," states Mrs. Prism, Cecily's helper, about Jack (Wilde). People also think Jack is too serious. Cecily says this about Jack, "Dear Uncle Jack is so very serious! Sometimes he is so serious that I think he cannot be quite well." (Wilde). While being Ernest, Jack can do whatever he wants with no consequence. Throughout the story Jack is very deceitful with what he does.
Jack Worthing is looked down on because of where he comes from. Jack was found in a handbag a train station by Thomas Cardew. "The late Mr. Thomas Cardew, an old gentleman of a very charitable and kindly disposition, found me, and gave me the name of Worthing, because he happened to have a first-class ticket for Worthing in his pocket at the time. Worthing is a place in Sussex. It is a seaside resort," Jack explains to Lady Bracknell, trying to satisfy her so he can have permission to marry Gwendolen (Wilde). Then he tells Lady Bracknell that Thomas Cardew actually found him in a hand bag. She had some words to say about his origins and how he was found, "The line is immaterial. Mr. Worthing, I confess I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred, in a hand-bag, whether it had handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life that reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution. And I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to? As for the particular locality in which the hand-bag was found, a cloak-room at a railway station might serve to conceal a social indiscretion - has probably, indeed, been used for that purpose before now-but it could hardly be regarded as an assured basis for a recognized position in good society." (Wilde). Towards the end of the play Lady Bracknell reveals that Algernon and Jack are brothers. This makes Jack very happy because he had always told people he had had a brother, and after looking through the army listings, Jack finds out that his real name is Ernest. Mr. Worthing is a little flustered at first, with realizing he had been telling the truth his whole life. "Gwendolen, it is a terrible thing for a man to find out suddenly that all his life he has been speaking nothing but the truth," Jack said after finding out (Wilde). Being found in a handbag at a train station still didn't stop Jack from being very well liked and respected in the story, but still Jack was very deceitful throughout the whole story.
Throughout the story Jack is deceitful by pretending to be Ernest and lying about his origins. Bunburying all the time lets Jack have fun while he is doing it, but he almost lost the love of his life by to trying to be Ernest. He wasn't the only one bunburying though, he learned the term from Algernon, who also eventually bunburies as Ernest, and this almost cost him his love too. Jack is somewhat embarrassed about where he comes from. He was found in a train station inside a ordinary handbag. He was raised by Thomas Cardew, but his actual Dad's name was Ernest. Even though Jack was being deceitful throughout the story, he was actual telling nothing but the truth.


source---yahoo.com

Read more »

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST..SUMMARY

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST..SUMMARY

The play opens in Algernon Moncrieff’s home in London. Algernon and his manservant are discussing marriage. After Lane exits, Algernon remarks that it is the job of the lower classes to set an example.
Algernon’s friend, Ernest Worthing, whose real name is Jack, stops in for a visit. It becomes apparent that Jack wants to marry Algernon’s cousin Gwendolen. Algernon refuses to give consent because he has found a cigarette case that Jack previously left behind. The inscription reveals it is from a lady named Cecily to her Uncle Jack. Jack admits that he goes by the name Ernest in the city and Jack in the country. Cecily is his ward. To escape country life, he pretends that he has a brother, named Ernest, whom gets into trouble and needs his assistance. Algernon admits that he has the same habit, and he refers to it as Bunburying. He pretends to have an ill friend named Bunbury, whom he must visit, when he wishes to escape the country.
Lady Bracknell and her daughter Gwendolen arrive. Jack proposes to Gwendolen and she accepts, claiming also that she could not love him if his name were not Ernest, which she still believes it to be. However, upon questioning Jack, Lady Bracknell learns that he was found as an infant, abandoned at Victoria Station. She does not approve of this and will not consent to the marriage.
The remainder of the play takes place at Jack’s house in the country. Act II commences with Miss Prism and Cecily doing lessons in the garden. They discuss John’s poor, miserable, younger brother Ernest and wonder if he will visit. The lessons are interrupted when Dr. Chasuble, the reverend, takes Miss Prism for a walk-it becomes apparent that they admire one another. In the meantime, Algernon, claiming to be Jack’s younger brother, arrives and meets Cecily. They banter back and forth and become fond of one another. They enter the house in search of something for Algernon to eat. Miss Prism and Dr. Chasuble enter the garden. Jack unexpectedly appears (he was supposed to be out of town until Monday) and claims that his brother Ernest has died. He then asks if Dr, Chasuble will baptize him that afternoon and he agrees.
Cecily enters the garden and tells Jack that his brother has arrived for an unexpected visit. Jack claims not to have a brother, which Cecily mistakes as his anger at “Ernest’s” troublesome ways and defends him by saying that he has promised to change, which he has promised her earlier. Algernon enters; Cecily, Miss Prism, and Dr. Chasuble exit. Algernon and Jack argue; Jack tells the butler, Merriman, to order Algernon a dog-cart so that he can leave immediately.
Later, while alone, Algernon and Cecily profess their love for one another, and Algernon asks her to marry him. She agrees, and tells him that she has been writing about their engagement for three months in her diary. She tells him that she could not love him if his name were not Ernest. He leaves to make plans to be baptized.
Gwendolen appears, and Cecily sits with her for tea. After talking for a bit they realize that they are both engaged to Ernest Worthing and become hostile. The men return and clear up the matter. However, they must reveal their identities. The women reconcile and exit the garden, angry.
Jack and Algernon finally go after Gwendolen and Cecily. They tell their loves that they only faked their identities so that they would be able to see them more. The women love this idea, but are still upset about the men’s names. The men tell them that they have arranged to both be baptized as Ernest that very afternoon. Everyone reconciles.
All is well until Lady Bracknell arrives; she has gotten the address from Gwendolen’s maid. She asks Algernon if this is the residence of Bunbury. He tells her that Bunbury has died. Lady Gwendolen still will not allow the marriage of Gwendolen to Jack. Jack says that if she will not allow their marriage then he, as Cecily’s guardian, will not allow the marriage of Cecily to Algernon.
Dr. Chasuble arrives for the christenings. Jack tells Chasuble that his services are no longer necessary. Dr. Chasuble mentions that he is returning to Miss Prism, and Lady Bracknell, recognizing her name and subsequent description, demands to see her. Miss Prism arrives and it is revealed that twenty-eight years ago she was in charge of the son of Lady Bracknell’s sister-Mrs. Moncrieff, Algernon’s mother. Miss Prism accidentally placed the baby in her hand-bag and a novel she had written in the carriage. She lost the baby in Victoria Station. Jack is delighted to hear this and retrieves the bag that he was left in twenty eight years ago in Victoria Station-it is the same one. He is Algernon’s older brother. After reviewing army records they discover that his father’s name, therefore as oldest son, his name, was Ernest John Worthing. He has been, the whole time, inadvertently, living the truth. He is now able to marry Gwendolen and gives consent for Algernon to marry Cecily. All ends well.

SOURCE---thebestnotes.com

Read more »

Return of the Native Plot Summary

Return of the Native Plot Summary

Eustacia Vye, a beautiful, sensual nineteen-year-old "Queen of the Night," has one desire: to be loved to madness by a man who is worthy of her and who will take her to exotic places. Living in desolate, barren Egdon Heath, Eustacia considers only one man worthy enough to love--Damon Wildeve, a former civil engineer turned owner of an inn. She and Wildeve share a passionate, wild nature and enjoy toying with each other's affections. However, the sweet, simple Thomasin Yeobright has also caught Wildeve's attentions and is engaged to him. On their wedding day, the marriage license is discovered to be invalid, either by Wildeve's intent or mistake, leaving Thomasin utterly humiliated and Eustacia, who believes that Wildeve loves her more than he loves Thomasin--utterly joyous.

Thomasin's aunt, Mrs. Yeobright, tries to get Wildeve to marry Thomasin to save her niece from public disgrace, even though she has made it clear to her niece that Wildeve is not worthy enough. Diggory Venn, the heath reddleman, also vows to get Thomasin and Wildeve together, but secretly tells Mrs. Yeobright that he would like to marry her niece. Venn is in love with Thomasin, even though she had refused his marriage proposal two years ago. He is determined that Thomasin will marry the man she loves, Wildeve.

Meanwhile, Wildeve has proposed to Eustacia, but Eustacia believes that Wildeve is not good enough for her and rejects him. She is too proud to accept the marriage proposal of a man whom Thomasin, a rival she considers inferior, has rejected and who asked Thomasin to marry before he asked her. Eustacia then sets her sights on Clym Yeobright, Mrs. Yeobright's son and Thomasin's cousin and former sweetheart. Clym has returned to Egdon from Paris, where he's been making a living in the diamond trade. Eustacia believes that educated, genteel, handsome Clym is her match--and her ticket out of the heath.

However, Eustacia has to ensure that Clym does not fall for Thomasin again, so she joins Mrs. Yeobright and Venn in bringing about the wedding of Thomasin and Wildeve. She tells Venn that she does not want Wildeve, so Thomasin can marry him. Mrs. Yeobright turns to Wildeve and informs him that another suitor would like to marry her niece. Wildeve, faced with a romantic rival for Thomasin and rejected by Eustacia, proposes to Thomasin.

Thomasin and Wildeve marry. Wildeve believes that he is getting revenge on both Eustacia and Mrs. Yeobright--Eustacia for rejecting him and Mrs. Yeobright for believing him not worthy of Thomasin. Eustacia is satisfied that Thomasin and Wildeve are married, for Thomasin is now free from Clym's affections. She and Clym each scheme to meet each other; after a period of courtship, they marry despite Mrs. Yeobright's deep objections to their marriage. Mrs. Yeobright is opposed to Clym and Eustacia's marriage, for she thinks that Eustacia is not good enough for her son and that the villagers tend to think ill of her.

Although Clym makes it known that he plans to stay on the heath and become a schoolteacher, Eustacia does not believe that Clym's plan will go through. Despite his mother's and wife's wishes, Clym prepares for teaching by staying up late to study. When Clym's eyesight deteriorates, he takes on a furze-cutting job to keep him busy. His new job humiliates and shames Eustacia and shocks his mother. Both Mrs. Yeobright and Eustacia are horrified that Clym would degrade himself so as to be a furze-cutter, but he finds the job to be useful and comforting.

Venn manages to thwart Wildeve in his attempts to avenge Eustacia and cause ill for Thomasin. He wins back the money Mrs. Yeobright had sent over to Thomasin and Clym by a heath-boy, money that's been gambled from the heath-boy to Wildeve to Venn, and gives the money to Thomasin, not knowing that half the money belongs to Clym. Mrs. Yeobright mistakenly believes that Wildeve has given Eustacia half the money as a gift and demands to know why Eustacia never told Clym about the money. An enraged Eustacia declares that she does not have any money belonging to her husband and certainly not any money Wildeve has given her. Although the subject of the money is later cleared up, their argument is the climax of Eustacia's volatile, estranged relationship with her mother-in-law and leads to Eustacia and Clym's separation.

Mrs. Yeobright, determined to make up with her son, goes to call on Clym and Eustacia. Through a misunderstanding, no one answers the door when she knocks, even though she knows that Clym, Eustacia, and another man are inside. Feeling cast off by her son, Mrs. Yeobright heads back home in the sweltering heat, growing extremely exhausted and weary from the length of the walk and heat. When Clym finds his mother, she is exhausted and her weak heart is suffering, and she dies with Clym present. Her last words are that she is a, "broken-hearted woman cast-off by her son."

Ill and grief-stricken for weeks, Clym struggles to come to grips with his mother's death. He does not understand why his mother believed he would cast her off, until he learns from a neighbor that it was Eustacia who shut his mother out because she had another visitor. Outraged, Clym demands to know who the other visitor was, but Eustacia does not give in to his inquiries. Eustacia then accuses Clym of deceiving her, and Clym suddenly realizes that Eustacia wants to leave the heath. Eustacia then leaves Clym, returning to her grandfather's.

Eustacia meets with Wildeve, who agrees to help her escape the heath. He agrees to drive her to Budmouth, where she can find her way to Paris, but he really plans to flee with her. Having inherited a large amount of money, he plans to elope with her.

Thomasin suspects that Wildeve is eloping with Eustacia and tells Clym, so that he might stop them. Clym still cherishes a hope that Eustacia will return to him. He hurries to catch up with Wildeve, while Thomasin seeks the help of Diggory Venn to take her to Clym and Wildeve. When Thomasin and Venn arrive, they discover that Eustacia has fallen into the weir and Clym and Wildeve are trying to save her. Venn jumps in to help and drags in Clym's, Wildeve's, and Eustacia's bodies. Only Clym is revived; Eustacia and Wildeve are dead.

A year after the deaths of Eustacia and Wildeve, Diggory Venn comes to call on Thomasin and Clym, who live together at Blooms-End. Venn is no longer a reddleman, but a dairy farmer. He proves his love for Thomasin, who finally recognizes Venn as a worthy romantic suitor. Venn proposes to Thomasin, and she accepts. At first, Clym is against the idea of Thomasin and Venn marrying because he has contemplated marrying Thomasin himself, but he decides that Thomasin should marry who she loves.

Thomasin and Venn marry. Clym ends up alone, but he is content with his life: he finds his vocation as an wandering preacher.


source---bookrags.com

Read more »

GRAND STYLE AND DICTION OF 'PARADISE LOST'

GRAND STYLE AND DICTION OF 'PARADISE LOST'

INTRODUCTION

‘Paradise Lost’ was for Milton the fulfillment of a long cherished ambition. He had resolved that his ‘adventurous song’ intended to ‘soar with no middle flight’. Accordingly, after much deliberations he chose the epic form and a theme equally sublime. Milton himself tells us in Book IX that he could rise to the demands of his ‘sad task’ only.

‘If answerable style I can obtain

Of my careful celestial patroness.’

This ‘answerable style’ demanded a verse which admitted of dignity and flexibility and an ability to rise to the sublime heights. And no responsive readers of ‘Paradise Lost’ can fail to notice that Milton indeed did obtain such a style.

MILTON – THE INNOVATOR

According to Hamford, “Milton of all English writers is the greatest innovator in the matter of expression. It is not merely that forged out of various materials. It is marked by bold departures from English literary usage of his own or of any time. And yet it is this uniqueness of Milton’s style, its remoteness from ordinary English that has aroused a fierce controversy. If it is has found its admirers like M.Patilson, Bagehot, Saintsbury, Raleigh and in our own time C.S. Lewis, B.Rajan, Frank Kermod and L.Smith; the anti-Miltonians too are a formidable array – Ezra Pound, Middleton Murry, Herbert Reid, B. Debree and T.S. Eliot. Obviously, the best course would be to depend upon one’s own response.

INVOCATION

The very opening of the poem, the invocation reveals the grandeur of Milton’s style. It begins with a ‘syntactical leap’ by which we are kept suspended for thirty-six words without a verb. And even when we arrive at the word ‘sing’, we are once more deflected into a maze of subordinate clauses and phrases. Even at the full stop after ‘rhyme’ (line sixteenth) there is hardly any respite and the whole invocation really forms a single continuous statement. In fact, it can be looked upon as a ‘capsule summary’ not only of the theme and action of the whole poem but also of the most salient features of Milton’s grand style. This style is human for its unusual syntax, its exalted language and diction, rich allusions, remarkable epic-similes, formidable erudition and skilful handling of blank-verse.

LANGUAGE

Milton’s style has been called ‘grand style’ because it has always an unmistakable stamp of majesty in it. Milton’s language is not the language of ordinary life. His diction is grand and majestic and his language has a force and spontaneity of its own. He uses a lot of Latin words. He borrows words from Latin and employs them in his language in a befitting manner. He creates a language and diction which quite appropriate to his theme. The Miltonic diction follows the ancient models. Similes and metaphors abound; with the result that the impression that is left on our minds after reading his poetry is that of grandeur, majesty and dignity.

We can describe Milton’s grand style in the words of Matthew Arnold, who says, “In the sure and flawless perfection of his rhythm and diction, he is as admirable as Virgil or Dante, and in this respect he is unique amongst us. None else in English literature possesses the like distinction.” It is sometimes said that the language of ‘Paradise Lost’ is ‘no language’. But in the art of literature one often comes across several instances where the literary language is no spoken language. The Euphism of Lyly is one of the best examples. So is the prose of Milton. So too is the poetical vehicle of Milton. It is an artificial language but it is not the artifice of bombast.

VOCABULARY

The diction of Milton’s epic is a thing composed of many elements – all tending to result in a rich and varied medium. Milton’s vocabulary contains a large proportion of Latinized words such as ‘untamed reluctance’, ‘horrid here’, ‘prodigious’, ‘officious’ etc. Often Milton uses words in their Latin sense or sometimes in senses which have become obsolete. The best example is ‘influence’, which Milton uses in its old astrological sense of suitable fluid from the stars and planets, which was supposed to exorcise plants. Instances of this use are innumerable.

MILTON’S PECULARITIES

Milton prefers the Italian forms of words to forms of a French character such as ‘sovereignty’. Among other qualities of Milton’s style are his peculiar use of the Latin idiomatic participle construction (for example, the loss thus far recovered), the use of Nominative Absolute (for example, ‘I extinct’ meaning ‘I being extinct’); the use of past participle, the use of transitive verbs intransitively and vice-versa. Among other peculiarities of Milton’s diction is the use of adjectives as nouns, as ‘our stronger’ in the sense of ‘he who is stronger than us; a love for conciseness that compels Milton to compress the maximum meaning into few words in a characteristic passion with Milton. Milton is also famous for ‘Inversions’. For instance, take the sentence: “Where to with speedy words the archfiend replied”. Without inversion this sentence would read as: “The archfiend replied to this with speedy words”.

SIMILES AND METAPHORS

Among figures of similitude, of course, the simile and the metaphor abound, example of which stare up from every page.

In search of really remarkable comparisons he borrows from myth, legend, History, Science and travel and of course from contemporary events. And though sometimes, his similes seem to be carried away by prolific imagination, they have a definite purpose. In most cases they offer a changed perspective and are suggestive of Milton’s own attitude. For instance, Satan is at first depicted as of gigantic proportions. He is likened to the huge sea-beast Leviathan who may be mistaken for an island by the Pilot of “some small night-founded skiff”. But while this suggests Satan’s unusual dimensions Milton also implies the danger of taking shelter in Satan’s treacherous protection. Similarly Satan’s ‘ponderous’ shield is like the moon that Galileo scans through his ‘Optic glass’, his spear is like the mast of the ship, ‘shaped out of tallest pine’ growing on Norwegian heights’ what we are made to feel is Satan’s eye view. Yet a little later Satan and his crew are compared to ‘at Pygmian Race’ and to ‘autumnal leaves that strew the books in Vallambrose’.

Like dead leaves; these fallen angels are forever cut off from their source of life.

USE OF PATHETIC FALLACY

We must also refer to Milton’s use of the Pathetic Fallacy. It is an old device in poetry by which a poet attributes the feelings of living beings to inanimate things. In Paradise Lost, Book IX (782-784), for example, universal nature is represented as feeling a death-wound in the impending fall of Man at the moment when Eve eats the forbidden fruit:

“Earth felt the wound, and Nature from her seat

Sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe.

That all was lost.”

These are the various ways in which Milton uses the English language in poetry. He works magic with the language, distorts it in the way he likes, uses foreign idiom in an excellent manner and handles the language like a linguistic wizard.

VERBAL MELODY
There is an important characteristic yet to be mentioned – the solemn grandeur of his verbal melody. This melody is in consonance with general atmosphere of the poem – a mood of awe and majesty and sublimity. Milton’s style has been called the grand style as there is grandeur in his music and in his description. Milton chooses his words for the sake of their sound effect.
“farewell happy fields,
Where Joy forever dwells. Hail Horrors hail,
Infernal world and thou profoundest hell,
Receive thy new possessor, one who brings,
A mind not to be changed by place or time,
The mind is its place and itself,
Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.”

STYLE UNIFORM OR NOT

Infact, most of the critics who decry Milton’s style seem to suppose that Milton wrote a uniform style throughout. But as Pope has pointed out ‘Paradise Lost’ has not one but various styles, an ‘Infernal style’, a ‘celestial style’ and ‘style of Paradise’ before and after the fall. In any case the more acceptable view is that of C.S. Lewis, B. Rajan, Douglas Bush and E.M.W. Tillyard – that the sublimity of Milton’s style was necessitated by genre – that is by the epic form in which the style had to be dignified, ritualistic and formal. It was Milton’s great achievement that he attained this sublimity without sacrificing the intensity of an impassioned personal commitment.

CONCLUSION

In reading ‘Paradise Lost’ one has a feeling of vastness. One floats under illimitable sky brimmed with sunshine or hung with constellation. The abyss of space appears to be somewhere about as one hears the cadenced surge of an unseen ocean. In loftiness of thought, splendid dignity of expression and rhythmic felicities, Milton has few peers, no superior. In ‘Paradise Lost’ Milton has invented a type of poem, the divine epic superior to anything in antiquity. 

 

 

 

source--- literaryjewels.com

Read more »

MADAME, WITHOUTEN MANY WORDES

MADAME, WITHOUTEN MANY WORDES

Madam, withouten many words
Once I am sure ye will or no ...
And if ye will, then leave your bourds
And use your wit and show it so,
And with a beck ye shall me call;
And if of one that burneth alway
Ye have any pity at all,
Answer him fair with & {.} or nay.
If it be &, {.} I shall be fain;
If it be nay, friends as before;
Ye shall another man obtain,
And I mine own and yours no more.

—SIR THOMAS WYATT

 

Read more »

The Role of Women in Othello

In Othello by William Shakespeare, the role of Desdemona, Emilia, and Bianca portray how women were during the 15th century. Women were portrayed as being loyal to their husbands; doing what they are told, and not going against their husband’s judgment or actions. These women represent three different characteristics in which women are being recognized in Othello. The women in Othello represent various levels of class, virtue, and intelligence. Desdemona is aristocratic, virtuous, and makes her own decisions; Emilia is the middle class, a maid, manipulated by Iago and loyal to Desdemona; and Bianca is the bottom of the line, being represented as a strumpet. Iago states how women are weak, lazy, and inane and only desire physical pleasure.
Throughout the play Desdemona symbolizes innocence and helplessness. The first encounter with Desdemona, Shakespeare describes her as being mature and quite perceptive of events around her, especially when we meet Desdemona and how mature she is when she defends her love for Othello to her father Brabantio. Iago often tells Othello that she is unfaithful because Iago is implementing into Othello’s head that Desdemona is committing adultery with Cassio. She has a tendency to be sympathetic towards other people's situations, like Cassio. This also further inspired Othello's jealousy when Iago pointed out they were speaking in privacy. She often pays attention to other people’s thoughts yet remains cynical if they differ to her own. She’s loyal to her husband in all aspects of life, whether it is mental or physical.
Desdemona is like a peacemaker because when Othello wanted to “fire” Cassio, she wanted peace between them. Therefore she talks to Cassio in private, which this leads to her husband accusing her of cheating. After the fight between Othello and Cassio, Desdemona wants to make peace between them. In today’s society, Desdemona is known as a housewife who cares for her husband and is behind him every step of the way. However, when it comes to the arguing with Othello, she becomes a woman being emotional abused by her husband, leading her death by her own husband at the end.
Emilia is Iago's wife, which says something about her submissive character already. She is also Desdemona's handmaiden; this is a vital part in her role in the play. She is the wife of pure evil, Iago, and the maid of the most kind, Desdemona. Emilia unknowingly plays a large role in Iago’s plan and is never suspicious. Emilia is, in some cases, the opposite of Desdemona. Even though women should be faithful and loyal to their husband, she considers that women should have a voice; be more independent and not relying on their husbands’ all the time.
Emilia gets angry at the fact that Othello calls Desdemona an unfaithful wife, hence her stating, in Act 4, Scene 3, “But I do think it is their husbands' faults/ If wives do fall. Say that they slack their duties, /And pour our treasures into foreign laps; /Or else break out in peevish jealousies, /Throwing restraint upon us; or say they strike us, /Or scant our former having in despite: /Why, we have galls; and though we have some grace, /Yet have we some revenge…” (217). Here Emilia is questioning men and how men can’t be without women. Yes, men say that women are lazy and this and that, but women have more of a saying in this world then men do. The speech that Emilia gives talks about how women should not be a “slave” to their husbands. All women have a voice and that we should be independent and be respected.
Bianca is very obedient and sweet-tempered, leading her to have a good number of suitors. Bianca is the strumpet who Cassio is with; her role seems small but significant. Bianca, even though called a strumpet, she is also considering as a woman with a goal. Her goal is to feel love and trusted by a man, but she is deceived as a whore, especially from Emilia. Bianca is brought into this play as Cassio's jealous mistress; he gives her Desdemona's handkerchief, not realizing whose handkerchief it really was. She was aware of the great risk involved when she married a moor. All three characters feel that they, as women, should not be judge nor treated with any less respect as a man does because women have a voice and they need to be heard.
Desdemona, Emilia, and Bianca live in a society where women can't do the thing men do. Desdemona generously nature tries to help Cassio retrieve his spot as Lieutenant back. Emilia had illusions about men or love or marriage vows, even after Desdemona explains the importance of the handkerchief. But, these three women live by their own wills. As Iago reminded Othello in Act 3, Scene 3 the faithless wife is a well-known member of Venetian society. Somewhat like Iago, Othello also see women as strumpets and unfaithful after the Iago convinces Othello in the adultery that Desdemona is committing. In Act 4, Scene 2, Othello says “Was this fair paper, this most goodly book, /Made to write "whore" upon? What committed? /Committed? O thou public commoner. /I should make very forges of my cheeks, /That would to cinders burn up modesty, /Did I but speak thy deeds” (197). As mentioned in this quote, Othello see women as being unfaithful and mostly consider them as whores, especially his wife.
Both Desdemona and Emilia are loyal to their husbands, however, Desdemona is more of a person who hides her true self because she feels that a women should not argue with her husband, the one she loves because during the Renaissance women were seen more as being the house wife and do agree to every decision and action their husband make. Hence the reason why she doesn't defend herself as well as she suppose to when Othello believes that she has committed adultery. Emilia is also respectful and loves her husband Iago, but when Othello calls Desdemona a whore we see another side of Emilia in which she thinks that calling his own wife a whore, is basically crossing a line. She questions the role of men because once you're married a trust and loyal bond is born; there shouldn't be any type of disrespect within "soul mates". Bianca is just a woman who is looking for some affection, but is independent to be with whoever she wants because she is not really committed with anyone.
Women during the 15th century were considered more as being a house maid/house wife. Desdemona, Emilia, and Bianca represent the three different sides of women: the noble and loyal one, the one who believes in having a voice, and the one who wants affection from a guy who is easy (strumpet). These stereotypes, women are still being compared to in today's society. We learn something about each of these female stereotypes. Over a period of time, women have fought for the respect and equality; even though these stereotypes still exist today, women are stronger in defending themselves and more respected. I believe Shakespeare brings the theme of women roles because we learn how women felt during that time and how history brought women to be equal to men.

source---trcsseniors.wikispaces.com

Read more »

Women's Role in Othello.

Women's Role in Othello

In the play "Othello", Shakespeare presents us with another male dominated society where women are inferior. Desdemona, Emilia, and Bianca are rejected by their partners, but love them completely and unselfishly. All three women are in unbalanced relationships, feeling more for their self-centered men who appear unable to reciprocate. Nevertheless, these women display genuine feelings toward each other unlike any of the male-male friendships.
Desdemona and Emilia are both married to career military soldiers. Newly wedded Desdemona is inexperienced (innocent) in the "real world" despite being raised by a prominent Venetian Senator. In contrast, Emilia appears to have been married for some time. She is knowledgeable to the ways of a soldier, yet only believes a portion of what her husband tells her. Although Emilia has been Desdemona's attendant since the play's start (maybe much earlier), we really don't get an intimate view of their relationship until Act 4, Scene 3.
During this scene, Emilia is truly concerned for Desdemona and her problems with Othello. Desdemona tells her, "Even his stubbornness, his checks, his frowns – prithee, unpin me- have grace and favor in them (line 21)." She also tells Emilia if she should die before her to wrap her body using the sheets on the bed. At first, Emilia thinks this is only "talk", but Desdemona begins to tell her about the song she learned from her mother's maid
2

(Barbary). This becomes an intimate moment between the two, as Emilia is unpinning Desdemona's hair and preparing her for bed (like a mother helping her young daughter). This showing of affection is strictly among the women of this play. The men are the ones who are committing all the violence and most of the distrust. This conversation continues intimately throughout the rest of the scene, but heightens when Desdemona says, "O these men, these men (line 67)!" She can't believe women cheat on their husbands, and asks Emilia if she would cheat on Iago. Emilia attempts to soften her answer, and realizes Desdemona's view of love is "pure romance" and taken seriously. Act 4 ends with Emilia asking for equality between both sexes (this theme also appears in the other plays we read). If women don't receive respect and fidelity from their husbands, they aren't required to be obedient and faithful. Even though Emilia asks for equal treatment among the sexes, she is fully aware this will not likely happen. All they can do is confide in each other. Unfortunately, Bianca doesn't have this luxury.
Bianca is a woman who traveled from Venice to Cyprus (the same as Emilia and Desdemona) to be with Cassio. Like Emilia, she appears worldly and loves her partner without any reservations, but fully aware of her place in a male-dominated society. After Iago kills Roderigo in Act 5, he attempts to blame Bianca for Cassio's attack. Bianca is obviously upset by Cassio's injuries, but immediately responds to being called a strumpet. "I am no strumpet, but of life as honest as you thus abuse me (line 142)." Bianca is more honest than Emilia (who lied about the handkerchief that ultimately costs Desdemona her

3

life), and Iago (who accused her of being involved in Cassio's attack). How can we believe any of Iago's statements regarding Bianca when he is unreliable throughout the play?
Bianca also seems to be fully aware of her relationship with Cassio. They are both uncommitted to each other, and Bianca knows nothing will ever evolve. Cassio never talks with her about his demotion from Lieutenant, something you would confide in with your partner. Bianca also appears to break off her relationship with Cassio when returning the handkerchief to him (Act 4, Scene 1, line 177). *One thing that may shed some light on the many references to Bianca prostitution (even though there is no real evidence in this play that she is one) is at the beginning of Act 1, lines 20-22. "One Michael Cassio, a Florentine, a fellow almost damned in a fair wife." This is the only reference to Cassio's wife. Maybe he is a cheating husband. This could be the reason Bianca is viewed as a prostitute, a home wrecker. This would also explain why they have an uncommitted relationship.
The three women of "Othello" are similar to other female characters in Shakespeare's plays. They seek (or strive for) respect and equality between both sexes, and fall short in a male-dominated society. Again, Shakespeare allows us to view women as they did during the Elizabethan period. With this in mind, it isn't surprising our three women face a grim future by play's end: two die, and the other will be forgotten. 

 

 

 

source--123helpme.com

Read more »

Hardy's pessimism

 

 Hardy's pessimism

 

Hardy is known for his pessimism. Actually the factor that plays a very significant role in his novels is that of chance. The negative shades that are visible in his writings are an effect of what he had seen in his childhood. A sight of two hangings will definitely leave an imprint on the psyche of a child’s mind as it did on Hardy's mind.
The Victorian age was an age of doubt, of contradictions and conflicts. This fact too shows its impact on the writings of Hardy. People were to live by the Bible but many took it in the strict sense and followed the literal words strictly. We see in ‘Tess of the D’urbervilles’ how Tess is treated unjustly by the society, which followed the law in words and not in spirit.
In Hardy’s tragic drama of life a conflict between man and destiny is the centre of events. David Cecil remarks,”A struggle between man on one hand, and an omnipotent and indifferent fate, on the other hand goes on and that is Hardy’s interpretation of the human situation.”
Man is a mere puppet in the hands of an all powerful fate or destiny. Hardy’s novels remind us of Shakespeare’s lines from King Lear:

“As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods, —
They kill us for their sport.”

According to Hardy there is a mysterious force that is always hostile to human happiness and circumstances always conspire against him and lead him towards destruction.

“Happiness is but an occasional episode in the general drama of life”.

Hardy gives different shapes to fate and destiny. A change in the weather changes the fate of Henchard, the protagonist of ‘The Mayor of Casterbridge’. It could the death of a horse changing the life of Tess or a chance meeting with Alec, the villain turned into preacher in ‘Tess of D’urbervilles’.
Nature, in Hardy novels, too takes the form of cruel fate. Nature is not a source of joy or mysticism as in the poetry of Wordsworth. It is not at all benevolent.
And in the end as in ‘Tess of D’urbervilles’ Hardy is forced to comment:

“The President of Immortals, in Aeschylean phrase, had ended his sport with Tess.”

But inspite of all this Hardy’s novels are not totally dark. For instance, ‘Tess of D’urbervilles’ ends on a note of hope. There is a new beginning, something to look forward to.

source---literaryjewels.com

Read more »