Donne's Struggle: World vs. Spirit

“Batter my heart, three-personed God, for you” by John Donne is the fourtteenth of his many famous Holy Sonnets, published between the years 1609 and 1611. In the poem, John Donne makes a personal address to God seeking forgiveness for his recent descent into sin. Rather than adopting the accepted method of addressing God with humility and respect, however, Donne bluntly makes his requests, with almost a sense of entitlement, but yet without arrogance; rather the speaker’s directness adds to his sense of desperation. His poem reflects both the realism of his metaphysical background and his deeply religious background both as a Catholic and later as an Anglican. Donne’s use of strong, vivid imagery gives the reader a brief glance into the tortured state of his soul, one torn between his duty to God and the outer pull of the world’s sins that direct him away from divine guidance.

Throughout the poem, Donne employs harsh images of destruction to demonstrate the hopelessness of his situation, one he believes he can only overcome with the violence and wrath of God. The sonnet was written at the peak of Donne’s struggle between the material and spiritual world, immediately before his ordainment, and his attempts to flee the temptation of carnal love. The employment of the destructive diction refers to Donne’s strong conviction that he himself must be punished into order to gain forgiveness from God. God’s past attempts, presented in the second line, to save his soul from superficiality have been “knock, breathe, shine and seek to mend,” none of which have been strong enough to heal the speaker’s ailing soul. With these peaceful words, Donne implies the inadequacy of God’s past attempts; breathing and shining are involuntary while seeking and knocking truly produce no change. Donne therefore asks Him to make full use of His almighty Power, so that the force of God in the speaker's soul can outweigh that of material enticement. The speaker takes the form of fortress under siege; he asks God to “batter his heart” as an army would batter down the gates of a city. Donne wants God to take complete control of his soul, to “imprison” him, to be “captive” under God’s force. The juxtaposition of the frail diction of the second lines next to the heavy language of Donne’s entreaty, words such as “batter” and “o’erthrow” in the rest of the poem, creates intensity in the speaker’s desperate tone. However, it is the complex subject matter that prevails in the mind of the reader.

In the second half of “Batter my heart” after the turn of the poem, the speaker employs paradoxes in order to justify his begging for violence. First, he professes his love for God but then immediately confronts his betrothal to the “enemy.” But is his enemy the pull of the earthly world, Satan himself, or reason? Though reason generally protects man from evil, Donne sees his self-proclaimed foe as the force that fooled him into trust and abstract betrothal, the entity that now prevents Donne from complete submission to God’s power, causing Donne to enter an even more helpless state. Though Donne entered into the relationship with reason, he now begs God to “divorce him, untie or break that knot” so that he can be completely won over by divinity. However, simple divorce from sin and reason cannot completely separate Donne from the temptation of carnal desire. To express the true nature of his needs, Donne uses paradoxes in the final couplet to form a solution of sorts. The speaker must be “enthralled,” or enslaved, to be free; be “ravished,” or raped, in order to be pure. Donne pleads for ways to forget about earthly pleasures, for substitutes for his human desires, such as the company of his wife. Not only reason prevents him from total surrender to God’s love; the inability to cease desire also hinders the process. Donne wants a relationship with God, but he wants a reciprocal relationship, and he is unsure God can give the love and pleasure he yearns for. In order for him to abandon reason, he needs proof his sacrifice is worth it, however sacrilegious that is.

“Batter my heart” is filled with images of love, sex, and destruction, but at its core lies Donne’s life-long devotion to religion. The diction drives Donne’s poem to new levels, allowing interpretation to abound and the real emotion of his struggle to be evoked. The thought-provoking metaphors and paradoxes add a completely different dimension unavailable with straight-forward language. Overall, the poem is about a man struggling between two strong forces as he moves unto a new path; though divinity won in the end, he never truly gave up the pleasures of earthly love and gratification in his marriage, or most significantly the reason to guide him in his daily life. (803)

Lolita: Creeper Status

I have decided to read and analyze Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov for my paper. I chose this book because it sounded like a unique, dark topic that would provide many interesting topics to focus on. The back cover of my copy especially intrigued me during the period of time I was deciding between Lolita, Love in the Time of Cholera, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. The back cover drew me in with its brief allusions to obsession, devouring, heartbreak and doomed passion and the novel’s discussion of the many good and evil effects of love.

I am a little more than half way through the novel at this point, just entering Part II. My initial reaction was one of disturbance but intrigue, and these feelings only grow as I delve further into its contents. Obviously Humbert Humbert is a troubled man with endless love and amazement for nymphets, especially his own. However, I think there is also a lot to be said about his lack of real human connection. Though his life revolves around his obsession with his connection with his little nymphet Lolita, he lacks any real appreciation for any of the other human life in his daily existence or past and shows little emotion in regard to the loss of past seemingly-important individuals in his life. Also, through the relationship between Lolita and Humbert, Nabokov explores the nature and limitations (or lack of thereof) of desire and obsession. Obviously, I do not know exactly what I am talking about, just a few ideas, but I have entire section to finish and I hear it the more interesting and “action-packed” of the two. (276)

Lies Lies Lies

Biff. Willy. Linda. Happy. All have one thing in common. They are stuck not only in the past, but are surrounded by self-made illusions. Throughout the play, all seek to deal with the repercussions of such illusions on their selves and the rest of their family. In the play “Death of a Salesman” by Arthur Miller, the entire Loman family is prevented from moving forward in their lives and from gaining true success by their inability to escape the lies that keep them jailed in their past.

Each family member lives a different lie, but all for the same season: to comfort Willy’s state of near-insanity or to satisfy the expectances of Willy’s dream for them. Even Willy cannot gain success because of his overpowering dedication to the “American Dream” and his incapacity to accept Biff’s personal failures and his associated guilt in such failures. Willy travels between present and past, fighting against reality in favor of a Biff’s past football stardom and the hope associated with his success. He is unable to move on and therefore unable to attain success or happiness in his life. His miserable state transcends upon the rest of his family and leaves them unable to achieve happiness in their life, no matter the method they choose to pursue it. Happy and Linda everything in their power to satisfy Willy and at least provide some comforts to their internally-ailing father and husband.

Biff, however, heads west to escape the grasp of his father and start his own life on his own terms. The overbearing shadow of his father follows him and though he loves his work on the farm, he is never satisfied due to conflicting definition of success. The Loman family does not link success with happiness; success is rather a measure of wealth and prominence within society, neither of which Biff gains. Because he cannot satisfy his father’s expectations, he continually evades happiness and returns to the family home of similar discontent. He cannot escape his father’s web of lies and continues on the same path of stealing, discontent and a life revolved around satisfying another instead of his own needs. Only when he realizes and accepts the eternal life of lies he had lived in since adolescence can Biff move on to a life of success based on happiness and satisfaction with his job rather than the “traditional” wealth and fame. Happy, on the other, is unable to see the lies and instead devotes his life after his father’s death to “show everybody that Willy Loman did not die in vain,” and to prove “he had a good dream…the only dream you can have to come out number-one man.” His narrow-mindedness and constant need to live for his ungrateful father leave him without any chance to gain happiness; he will forever be stuck in his unhappy life of superficiality.

All of the Loman family’s failings teach us the age old lesson: “the truth will set you free.” Only after Biff accepts the true commonality of his existence is he free to start anew and live his own life. Happy, however, is forever barred from such a life by the web of lies he refuses to give up. (535)

What's in a Name?

Question #2: At what moment in the play do you understand why it is called A Doll’s House?

(Keep in mind I had not read Act III when I wrote this)

When a doll house comes to mind, I think of a perfect house, with perfect Barbie-and-Ken-like inhabitants completely in love, and the perfect life to accompany both the people and the house itself. With the title “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen seeks to provide the perfect frame to outline material existence that is the Nora’s day-to-day life by focusing on her childish appearance while also glimpsing into inner imperfection of the Helmer’s relationship.

To unknowing bystanders, the life of the Helmer’s would seem almost-overly perfect, a doll’s life. The relationship of Nora and Torvald appears filled with cute pet names such as “my little squirrel” and Nora’s constant praise of the unbreakable love that exists in their relationship with Mrs. Linde. Nora acts as the perfect adoring mother, playing with her children who can’t seem to get enough her loving attention, and the faultless friend, always willing to lend a hand. Just as in a doll’s life, her primary concern regards her clothing and dancing skills. In this way Ibsen sets Nora up as a doll, living in a doll’s house. Though she tries to prove her meaning and hardship of her life to Mrs. Linde through her behind-the-scenes dealings, Nora’s daily life may not be one of true love but in every sense it is material, like a doll’s life. Her life is consumed by Torvald “watching her dance, or get[ting] dressed up, or recit[ing].” Mrs. Linde and Rank help unravel the true nature of the Helmer’s built-up existence and lead us partially out of the doll house to make the members of the Helmer family more human.

Behind the great life of wealth and happiness, lies the Nora the doll, but in another sense; Nora is a doll, a puppet to be exact, in the hands of her husband. She acts only as the perfect child because she knows this role pleases her husband. When exposed to the serious side of her personality in their conversation regarding Krogstad’s job in Act II, Helmer attempts to revert to back to Nora’s childish status by disregarding the serious nature of her inquiries and calling her “my little frightened dove” then immediately leaving her behind in the room to further ignore her distress. Their marriage bases itself more upon necessity than love; they provide an air of comport and duty, but neither serves as a confident or best friend for their spouse. He controls the relationship and never allows it to go beyond his position as the authority figure.

Either way you look at it, Nora is the doll, in the hands of her husband or simply stuck in a material existence. As the truth of her forgery surrounds her life, her perfect doll-esque world slowly crumbles around her as she realizes the faults of her marriage and the life her husband and she have created. (470)

The Ghost: Good vs. Evil

Last Friday, I went to see my friend play the role of Afi (Ofelia) in Revenge of a King, the hip-hop rendition of Hamlet. Though few similarities exist between Shakespeare’s version and this new-age adaptation other than a somewhat comparable plot, one resounding likeness was the existence of the ghost of Hamlet’s father. Its presence in both versions forced me to begin to question the true significance and purpose of the ghost in Hamlet’s mental decay. After much thought, I reasoned the apparition, only audible to Hamlet himself, exemplifies the inner struggle of good versus evil, his own personal angel and devil on his shoulders, within Hamlet’s mind that leads to his fall into madness.

The d(evil): Throughout the first two acts of Hamlet, the ghost catalyzes the beginning of Hamlet’s descent into madness. By filling Hamlet’s head and heart with thoughts of anger and hatred, mostly directed towards his treacherous uncle Claudius, the ghost sets Hamlet on a one way path of revenge. The ghost of Hamlet’s father guilt trips Hamlet, however unnecessary to fulfill his ultimate goal, in order to further his person ambition of avenging his murder. “If thou dist ever thy dear father love --/Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.” Not only does the meaning of ghost’s words compromise Hamlet, but the ghost’s diction (unnatural, foul, incestuous, etc.) also worsens the turmoil within Hamlet by playing on already his weak emotions. Though it is a common trend throughout history for a son to carry out his father’s “unfinished business,” in this particular case, it seems as though the ghost plays upon Hamlet’s weak state to fulfill his own goals, without care to how detrimental it may be to Hamlet. In the end, the vengeful instructions of the ghost allow evil to overthrow the once-innate goodness of his mind and permit madness to overcome, as he nears his last breath.

The angel (good): Though the ghost’s inherent evil is easier to argue, the apparition of the dead Hamlet’s soul also serves as a representation of truth and a figure to ease Hamlet’s loneliness in the first two acts of Shakespeare’s famous work. By uncovering the truth of the ex-king’s murder, the ghost provides Hamlet with an explanation to his ever-increasing speculations regarding the rotten state of Denmark. The truth also gives Hamlet a purpose, thus providing him a motive to continue his life on earth. This increased connection with his lost father provides him with not only purpose but also a mental connection, someone to at least partially understand his inner suffering. Though the ghost’s intentions are dishonorable, his presence at least provides Hamlet with a “human” connection, someone who he can reach out to in his time of need. The truth and sense of purpose afforded Hamlet by the ghost save Hamlet, at least for a short period of time, from falling into complete madness.

By Act III, it seems the evil of the devil occupying Hamlet’s mind has defeated the once-inherent good of the noble prince. The ghost’s true purpose is still undecided, however; only time and the rest of the Shakespeare’s play will uncover the truth of the ghost. (528)

You Better Watch Out, He's Gonna Get Ya, Sophocles Style

In Oedipus Rex, Sophocles clearly establishes his religious beliefs through the use of Oedipus and his foils Creon and Choragos. Though the exact ideologies of Sophocles regarding religion are unknown, many sources cite Socrates’s controversial religious views, especially those regarding the higher power of the gods. Though Sophocles did not believe in the conventional religious forms of worship or popular legends, he still firmly held the belief of the gods’ power of all facets of life, especially humanity’s fate. Through the use of the three main characters of the play, Sophocles asserts his belief in the omnipotent power of the gods or God over the entire earth and his refusal to place any human above the reigns of the gods, an innovative belief system for the era of near-complete conformity he lived in.

Every aspect of the story, from the plot to the characters themselves, aids in the establishment of Sophocles unique religious views. The most obvious, concrete use of plot to declare his moral and religious ideas takes the form of the entire Theban royal family’s attempts to evade the gripping claws of fate. Laois and Iocaste attempt to evade their intertwined destiny by killing their potentially dangerous son, Oedipus. Later in life, seemingly because of a genetic flaw, Oedipus seeks to escape the same fate by departing his adoptive family in order to save them and then again mentally tries to avoid the realization of the fulfillment of his fate by ignoring all propositions of such an occurrence, though in the end the truth prove too factual to discount. Like in most ancient Greek tales, the divine governance of the gods in humanity’s predestination proves too overpowering to escape.

While this view was shared by all minds of his time, his exploration of man’s efforts to reign over the gods was unique to his individual being. To explain the unthinkable effects of such acts, Sophocles uses a contrast between the actions and words of Oedipus and those of the character Creon. Oedipus’s pride, his tragic flaw caused by the reverence the Theban people afford him after the saves them from the oppressive power of the Sphinx, is the main source behind his disregard for the ultimate supremacy of the higher powers. In his role as the powerful king of Thebes, he begins to see himself as the true source of power, order, justice and all things good in his kingdom. Sophocles emphasizes the consequences of Oedipus’s disregarding the gods’ power in Ode II: “any mortal who dares hold no immortal Power in awe will be caught up in a net of pain.” Though generally Oedipus’s tragic flaw, pride, is the definitive force that leads to his downfall, his self-triumph over the gods did not exact help in the gods’ final decision as to his fate. Through Oedipus, Sophocles makes a general critique on the fact that in his society he feels that true and honest “reverence for the gods has died away,” in place of an obligatory notion of simply appearing reverent. Contradictorily, Creon serves as the perfect example of reason and worship of the gods, at least in Oedipus Rex. Not only does Creon remain free of the corruption of the royal family and never allow his awe for the gods waiver, he also leads Oedipus towards God and the truth after his final realization of his fate. At the end of story instead of being guided primal emotion or Oedipus’s declaration, he allows god to determine his actions and therefore the future of the destroyed Oedipus. Unlike his fellow characters, Creon never seeks to escape fate but rather lets god guide his every move and in the final lines almost acts as the gods’ representation on Earth, acting to recreate true devotion in the audience.

Sophocles’ strong convictions span far beyond the sole belief of the gods’ supreme power and humanity’s inability to escape it; however, this ideology stands out throughout the entire tragedy. On the other hand, this pessimistic belief in fate does protect the innocent from the fate of Oedipus. Even pious devotees of God are not safe in the face of God’s plan. Though Oedipus’s tragic flaw overthrew him in the end, the last line of the play affirms the fact that anyone could face the same fate. “Let none presume on his good fortune until he finds life, at his death, a memory without pain.”

Get Your Fears in Order

Throughout the story of Ivan Ilych, Tolstoy criticizes the Russian bourgeois view of death. Tolstoy opens the novel with an examination of the accepted view of denial and slowly transitions into the eventual reverse of belief through Ivan Ilych’s own personal decay into the acceptance of death. The first chapter of “The Death of Ivan Ilych” introduces the unique attitude towards death, one of disbelief and a feeling near indifference. What I found interesting was the bourgeois class’s evident lack of any fear towards death. While in today’s society death ranks ten among common fears, I doubt if the acquaintances and even Ilych himself would recognize any fear of death simply because of the sheer denial of any such inevitability. The acquaintances of Ilych in Tolstoy’s story shun death as an enigma and refuse to recognize it as an inevitable fate, even after the death of Ivan. To them, death is something that cannot and will not befall them, “an accident natural” to the dead but not to the living. The question is why? Why does today’s society possess more of a fear of death or even a greater acceptance of human mortality than Russian bourgeois society? But on the other hand, why is the fear of vomiting more common than the fear of death? (I’m sorry but that’s just weird!) Though I do not have enough training in psychology considering my two days so far in the class, I believe the customary sense that death is a far-off fear of the distant future in contrast to the less serious, yet current prospect of vomiting may explain their respective ranking. In this sense, Tolstoy’s criticism still applies today, though not as drastically or directly.

The character Ivan Ilych’s downward spiral past the denial of death into the fear and eventual acceptance of its occurrence provide a unique perspective into the triumph over these social beliefs. As his body decays and his mind subsequently follows suit, the prospect of death finally enters his newly- vulnerable mind. Ivan transcends from his immortal state atop some imaginary cloud of denial and realizes that just like Caius he is mortal and therefore has the ability and will die. Tolstoy demonstrates through the use of Ilych’ s condition that man, especially in his society, only is able to confront the prospect of his own personal death when faced with it himself. Yet his aloneness in this realization leaves him without anyone to understand him or pity his state and therefore he begins to separate himself from those around him because of a mix of envy, hate, and paranoia at their lack of care. Yet his loneliness is not only mental; there are actually few who care about him. His colleagues seek only to take his job; his wife desires only his income from the marriage; and his kids seem far-off and distant throughout the story. Though he pushes them away, there is no need; they have already left his side. His journey through the stages of death allows Tolstoy to criticize the insensibility of society’s views on death, not only then but also now.

That is not to say death should be the constant fixation of life, only that it should be recognized as a real, legitimate thing. No one should live in constant fear of death, but maybe an indirect recognition of the possibility of death, such as a my fear of my driving that with my skills will inevitably lead to my death, can actually create a greater appreciation of life. If humans cannot accept their mortality and live with the notion that time does not limit their dreams, then dreams will go unfulfilled. Maybe thoughts of death can only us to live life to its fullest. And I will end with a cheesy quote by James Dean: “Dream as if you’ll live forever, live as if you’ll die today.” (647).