There's nothing quite so offensive as a room full of foul-mouthed, twenty-something, college boys, especially in the presence of a more demure audience whom they bewilderingly assume will be impressed by such jibberish. I can't imagine why someone would want to proudly display that their vocabulary is clearly limited to 500 words, 450 of which are foul. As boorish as my mother assures me that I am, I have always, at the very least, known when to keep a civil tongue. I can confidently say that my sons will grow up endowed with more civility. I have certainly been forthright enough to bestow upon them a sense of politeness and propriety and superior sociolinguistic skills. Indeed, the heights of my ivory tower have become loftier with age and education. Nevertheless I would like to invite all of the some ten or fifteen of them that descended upon the 7-11 late at night while my pregnant wife and I were obtaining a pregnancy-motivated craving snack, and who both terrified and offended her in her delicate state, to proceed with having sexual relations with themselves, and I can only hope there is enough justice left in the world, and enough discriminating taste and common sense left in the women of the world, that it is the only relations they will ever have.
See you in hell,
Shakes.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
A Brief E-mail About a Brief Review of A Brief History
Hi David,
I’d like to request a copy of your wonderful book review for inclusion in our class portfolio. Congratulations on a fine achievement! I’m sure the class will very much enjoy reading it, as I did.
Many thanks!
Monika Rydygier Smith
Writing Instructor
Department of English
University of Victoria
Book Review: Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"
Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" is well titled and well worth the read. Hawking begins by tracing our most fundamental understandings of the heavens from ancient Greece to modern day. However, the true appeal of the text goes beyond mere historical exposition, and lies in Hawking's reiterating the questions that have dominated philosophy, religion, and even the curiosity of the common man, since the dawn of intelligence. In the 20th and 21st centuries, people have become suspicious of, and disillusioned with archaic pre-enlightenment religious explanations in the face of mounting, logical and irrefutable scientific evidence. Unfortunately, the other end of the spectrum, modern science, has progressed into the world of the academic elite so far that the common man, still curious, has been alienated by mathematical explanations and the jargon of physics in such a way that the only people qualified to explain what we now understand, lack the simple common vocabulary to address the public outside of the elite. Stephen Hawking has finally produced a literary bridge between these two factions that speaks in accessible language to explain some of the loftiest scientific explorations, primarily between the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, and on his own work primarily regarding black holes. All of this is packaged in a conversational style that revisits personal anecdotes and has a tenor of humility against a cosmos that is unforgiving in its expanse and complexity and still allows for the possibility of 'god'.
The very first chapter of the book outlines the largest names of historical relevance in the exploration of the Universe: beginning in Ancient Greece with Aristotle, he moves through Ptolemy, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Kant, Einstein, and Hubble. Most people have heard of these great names but, without formal education, may have been intimidated to even pretend they understood the most fundamental aspects of their relevance. Hawking connects them all in a historical timeline as his point of departure to advance into more modern theories. He even manages to set the tenor for explaining contradictions in modern theories by forgivingly pointing out what was valuable about theories that are now considered incorrect, rather than merely touting them as wrong. For example, he notes how Copernicus was the first to posit the idea that "the planets moved in circular orbits around the sun", and that nearly 100 years later "the German, Johannes Kepler, and the Italian, Galileo Galilei-started publicly to support the Copernican theory, despite the fact that the orbits it predicted did not quite match the ones observed" (Hawking 4). Hawking continues to point out that Kepler "modified Copernicus's theory, suggesting that the planets moved not in circles, but in ellipses [. . .] The predictions now finally matched the observations" (Hawking 4). The example shows how science has built upon the theories of the past, rather than dogmatically abandoning them at the first sign of error, and Hawking reports these connections in a delightfully simplistic and accessible prose style.
As valuable as his connections and simplification are, the quality of the text doesn't end there. Hawking weaves into this fascinating history an unexpected levity. At the very outset of the first chapter, Hawking captures his audience with a comic anecdote about an elderly woman challenging a scientist in saying, "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise [. . .] You're very clever young man, very clever, [. . .] But it's turtles all the way down" (Hawking 1). Herein lies the charm of the text. Each topic is put into a conversational style that is highly inclusive, and often humorous.
From this humorous anecdote, Hawking launches into the primary appeal of the text by listing those fundamental questions of cosmic curiosity that are universal amongst all that have ever gazed at the heavens and wondered. "[W]hy do we think we know better? What do we know about the universe, and how do we know it? Where did the universe come from, and where is it going? Did the universe have a beginning, and if so, what happened before then? What is the nature of time? Will it ever come to an end? Can we go back in time?" (Hawking 1). These questions invoke many popular-culture science fiction texts and movies with the philosophical curiosities that spawned them. These monumental images and questions are then firmly grounded in explanations of the most current scientific debates and discoveries. Often these require more than one read because, even in their simplest form, they can become complex. However, Hawking never fails to bring the language back to the reader with a mundane example. "It will be like the ripples that spread out on the surface of a pond when a stone gets thrown in. The ripples spread out as a circle that gets bigger [. . .] This cone is called the future light cone" (Hawking 26). He uses simple images such as playing cards to demonstrate complex atomic structures (Hawking 69), and he interjects personal anecdotes on his 'bets' in competition with contemporaries to prove or disprove theories.
In the heart of the text, Hawking deeply examines modern ramifications of the general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes, and wormholes. Although this subject matter is heady, Hawking gently builds one topic on to another in a very efficiently chronological manner. He carefully avoids any presupposition of knowledge or terminology that he has not yet introduced. His chapters move seamlessly from one topic to the next while the reader is both fascinated and entertained and unaware of the increasing complexity of the subject, and their own surprising ability to understand what was formerly exclusive to the highest elite of physics. Interspersed with diagrams, his text reads like the lecture of a talented raconteur who is a master at both explaining the complex and using the chalkboard to do so.
Hawking approaches his audience with humility and respect, while questioning dogmatic perspectives. In one memorable anecdote, he states that "I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican [. . .] At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the Pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference - the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation" (Hawking 120). Inherently, Hawking is clear that his talk represented only a "possibility" and he infuses scientific jargon into his anecdote so contextually, that the reader is not alienated.
Leaving the theological doors open and his humility intact, Hawking finishes where he began: he lays down the very questions that make the text interesting - philosophical, not scientific - which remain admittedly unanswered. "What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it and where did it and we come from? Why is it the way it is?" (Hawking 187). The fascination of the topic remains intact with the satisfaction of a greater understanding and a hope that it will continue to increase and be more fascinating yet. The fundamental human quest for knowledge is not resolved; the thirst remains unquenched. Hawking has merely simplified all that history and science has revealed so far and shown how the grand-scale general theory of relativity (primarily ascribed to Einstein) and the miniscule theory of quantum mechanics give rise to contradiction and the current search for reconciliation. This search in itself has revealed many new questions and fascinatingly unexpected scientific truths, or theoretical probabilities. As a reader you will be left with a thirst to know more, but the pride and satisfaction that your point of departure for examining the great questions of the universe is now much more well informed.
Works Cited
Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time - The Updated and Expanded Tenth Anniversary Edition. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1998.
I’d like to request a copy of your wonderful book review for inclusion in our class portfolio. Congratulations on a fine achievement! I’m sure the class will very much enjoy reading it, as I did.
Many thanks!
Monika Rydygier Smith
Writing Instructor
Department of English
University of Victoria
Book Review: Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"
Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" is well titled and well worth the read. Hawking begins by tracing our most fundamental understandings of the heavens from ancient Greece to modern day. However, the true appeal of the text goes beyond mere historical exposition, and lies in Hawking's reiterating the questions that have dominated philosophy, religion, and even the curiosity of the common man, since the dawn of intelligence. In the 20th and 21st centuries, people have become suspicious of, and disillusioned with archaic pre-enlightenment religious explanations in the face of mounting, logical and irrefutable scientific evidence. Unfortunately, the other end of the spectrum, modern science, has progressed into the world of the academic elite so far that the common man, still curious, has been alienated by mathematical explanations and the jargon of physics in such a way that the only people qualified to explain what we now understand, lack the simple common vocabulary to address the public outside of the elite. Stephen Hawking has finally produced a literary bridge between these two factions that speaks in accessible language to explain some of the loftiest scientific explorations, primarily between the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, and on his own work primarily regarding black holes. All of this is packaged in a conversational style that revisits personal anecdotes and has a tenor of humility against a cosmos that is unforgiving in its expanse and complexity and still allows for the possibility of 'god'.
The very first chapter of the book outlines the largest names of historical relevance in the exploration of the Universe: beginning in Ancient Greece with Aristotle, he moves through Ptolemy, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Kant, Einstein, and Hubble. Most people have heard of these great names but, without formal education, may have been intimidated to even pretend they understood the most fundamental aspects of their relevance. Hawking connects them all in a historical timeline as his point of departure to advance into more modern theories. He even manages to set the tenor for explaining contradictions in modern theories by forgivingly pointing out what was valuable about theories that are now considered incorrect, rather than merely touting them as wrong. For example, he notes how Copernicus was the first to posit the idea that "the planets moved in circular orbits around the sun", and that nearly 100 years later "the German, Johannes Kepler, and the Italian, Galileo Galilei-started publicly to support the Copernican theory, despite the fact that the orbits it predicted did not quite match the ones observed" (Hawking 4). Hawking continues to point out that Kepler "modified Copernicus's theory, suggesting that the planets moved not in circles, but in ellipses [. . .] The predictions now finally matched the observations" (Hawking 4). The example shows how science has built upon the theories of the past, rather than dogmatically abandoning them at the first sign of error, and Hawking reports these connections in a delightfully simplistic and accessible prose style.
As valuable as his connections and simplification are, the quality of the text doesn't end there. Hawking weaves into this fascinating history an unexpected levity. At the very outset of the first chapter, Hawking captures his audience with a comic anecdote about an elderly woman challenging a scientist in saying, "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise [. . .] You're very clever young man, very clever, [. . .] But it's turtles all the way down" (Hawking 1). Herein lies the charm of the text. Each topic is put into a conversational style that is highly inclusive, and often humorous.
From this humorous anecdote, Hawking launches into the primary appeal of the text by listing those fundamental questions of cosmic curiosity that are universal amongst all that have ever gazed at the heavens and wondered. "[W]hy do we think we know better? What do we know about the universe, and how do we know it? Where did the universe come from, and where is it going? Did the universe have a beginning, and if so, what happened before then? What is the nature of time? Will it ever come to an end? Can we go back in time?" (Hawking 1). These questions invoke many popular-culture science fiction texts and movies with the philosophical curiosities that spawned them. These monumental images and questions are then firmly grounded in explanations of the most current scientific debates and discoveries. Often these require more than one read because, even in their simplest form, they can become complex. However, Hawking never fails to bring the language back to the reader with a mundane example. "It will be like the ripples that spread out on the surface of a pond when a stone gets thrown in. The ripples spread out as a circle that gets bigger [. . .] This cone is called the future light cone" (Hawking 26). He uses simple images such as playing cards to demonstrate complex atomic structures (Hawking 69), and he interjects personal anecdotes on his 'bets' in competition with contemporaries to prove or disprove theories.
In the heart of the text, Hawking deeply examines modern ramifications of the general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes, and wormholes. Although this subject matter is heady, Hawking gently builds one topic on to another in a very efficiently chronological manner. He carefully avoids any presupposition of knowledge or terminology that he has not yet introduced. His chapters move seamlessly from one topic to the next while the reader is both fascinated and entertained and unaware of the increasing complexity of the subject, and their own surprising ability to understand what was formerly exclusive to the highest elite of physics. Interspersed with diagrams, his text reads like the lecture of a talented raconteur who is a master at both explaining the complex and using the chalkboard to do so.
Hawking approaches his audience with humility and respect, while questioning dogmatic perspectives. In one memorable anecdote, he states that "I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican [. . .] At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the Pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference - the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation" (Hawking 120). Inherently, Hawking is clear that his talk represented only a "possibility" and he infuses scientific jargon into his anecdote so contextually, that the reader is not alienated.
Leaving the theological doors open and his humility intact, Hawking finishes where he began: he lays down the very questions that make the text interesting - philosophical, not scientific - which remain admittedly unanswered. "What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it and where did it and we come from? Why is it the way it is?" (Hawking 187). The fascination of the topic remains intact with the satisfaction of a greater understanding and a hope that it will continue to increase and be more fascinating yet. The fundamental human quest for knowledge is not resolved; the thirst remains unquenched. Hawking has merely simplified all that history and science has revealed so far and shown how the grand-scale general theory of relativity (primarily ascribed to Einstein) and the miniscule theory of quantum mechanics give rise to contradiction and the current search for reconciliation. This search in itself has revealed many new questions and fascinatingly unexpected scientific truths, or theoretical probabilities. As a reader you will be left with a thirst to know more, but the pride and satisfaction that your point of departure for examining the great questions of the universe is now much more well informed.
Works Cited
Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time - The Updated and Expanded Tenth Anniversary Edition. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1998.
Blah-blah-blah Jeans
Reading Response to Umberto Eco's Blue Jeans
Umberto Eco, in his essay Blue Jeans, engages an exploration of the physiological response to types of clothing, and how they have reflected and formed social and societal "morality". He delineates two categories of historical clothing - those that guide thought internally and those that guide thought externally. He, in turn, likens these to the characteristics of what he refers to as thinkers and warriors respectively. He claims that clothes that are physically liberating foster thought and philosophy, while armor (as he calls it) that is physically constraining contradicts such internal thinking. He goes on to make a feminist conclusion that the physically constraining clothing imposed on women (concerned with the exterior physicality of appearance) is a chief cause in feminine "enslavement". After lengthy rhetorical reflections, and specious reasoning, he makes a final observation and conclusion. He observes that "clothes are semiotic devices" and feels that he has demonstrated "how many mysterious paths the dialectic between oppression and liberation must follow".
This last observation is truly relevant and worth exploration. At the very least it is easy to agree that fashion impositions have been a part of the oppression of women throughout history. Unfortunately, Eco's ambiguous sarcastic tenor makes it difficult to understand if he supports such a notion seriously or not. Much pivots on the reader's interpretation of one of his opening statements in which he posits "no everyday experience is too base for the thinking man". He follows with a metaphoric pun on the nature of modern philosophy and the human "loins" which does little to clarify whether or not he is serious with a poor sense of humour, or quite sarcastic overall.
The essay uses lofty language and is replete with historical allusion in an apparent attempt to elevate the topic of clothing to a worthy and viable academic consideration. For example, he describes jeans as having a primarily "utilitarian" function and he alludes to crucifixion in describing his experience with the "calvary" of fitting them. He discusses having "achieved heteroconsciousness" as "an epidermic self-awareness". He talks of "impos[ing] an etiquette" and refers to the "stiff collars" of the "Victorian bourgeois". He references Freud's Oedipal theories in relation to Viennese fashion and he discusses the historical "habit" of monks in contrast to the "cuirasses and tunics" of "Warriors". He goes so far as to extend his reasoning beyond the ecclesiastic into philosophical realms by mentioning "the beautiful mantles Erasmus wore". All these examples coalesce into what appears to be an attempt at witty repartee with his conclusion that "[t]hought abhors tights".
Eco's effort to canonize his topic is marred, however, by specious reasoning and a penchant for humour of the loins. He posits that the "Victorian bourgeois was stiff and formal because of stiff collars". He suggests that Freud's theories might never have been realized if he had been subject to the fashion of Bermuda shorts. He states that women have been "enslaved chiefly because [of] the clothing counseled for her". He ludicrously and frivolously mentions Hegel's exploration of phrenology as a point of credibility.
Furthermore, Eco has an insensitive and almost adolescent preoccupation with sexualized word play. He belittles serious and painful afflictions such as orchitis or urethritis by likening them to a "garment that squeezes the testicles". He almost passionately lists the sexualized fashions of women and later describes them as requiring women "to be pretty and stimulating" and "sex object[s]"; he ambiguously uses the highly connotative word "dirty" to describe monks in loose clothing; and he concludes that the only serious exploration of fashion he has posited must proceed "[e]ven via the groin".
Eco's confusing rhetoric fails to carry the reader along sympathetically, but rather cynically. One might conclude, then, that his essay intends to be a sarcastic poke at academia and its habit of rhetorically exploiting the most mundane reality as a highly relevant social or historical advent. However, since his final statements have some highly politically-charged, controversial validity, Eco also fails to be convincing in any sarcastic endeavour.
In the absence of a satisfying resolution to the problem of his seriousness or sarcasm, the reader is left outside of Eco's subject matter and only with his voice. Although he begins humbly enough with a simple anecdotal story of revelation in blue jeans, even this use of scene does not generate much sympathy. Unlike Van Herk's In Visible Ink, it is lacking in poetic style and rhythm, which in turn fails to cause any romantic literary effect on the reader. His writing does not sensually or emotionally engage the reader. His historical references, unlike those in Ladd's Berlin Walls, are marred with tasteless, shallow wit. His cultural literary allusions, unlike those in Love and Sex in the Life of an Arab, lack the honest passion of the writing of El-Saadawi as to their origin, significance and relevance.
Ultimately Eco's essay comes across as a pretentious, self-aggrandizing celebration of his own witty ability to philosophize intellectually using only a mundane subject base, entirely written from the first person perspective, "I". A demonstration of the disdainful effect of his writing style is perhaps best given by concluding with word-play modeled after his own irreverent language, which is sure to make everyone reading/listening smile politely but feel less than humourously sympathetic. The ultimate feeling left to the reader is that Eco has made an interesting simple point about the association between clothing, social morality, and suffrage - and that it is unfortunate that it took three pages of his verbally 'massaging his loins' to get there.
Works Cited
Eco, Umberto. "Blue Jeans." The Writing of Expository Prose - Course Readings.
Ed. M. Smith. University of Victoria: UVic Printing Services, 2008. Pp. 20 - 22.
Umberto Eco, in his essay Blue Jeans, engages an exploration of the physiological response to types of clothing, and how they have reflected and formed social and societal "morality". He delineates two categories of historical clothing - those that guide thought internally and those that guide thought externally. He, in turn, likens these to the characteristics of what he refers to as thinkers and warriors respectively. He claims that clothes that are physically liberating foster thought and philosophy, while armor (as he calls it) that is physically constraining contradicts such internal thinking. He goes on to make a feminist conclusion that the physically constraining clothing imposed on women (concerned with the exterior physicality of appearance) is a chief cause in feminine "enslavement". After lengthy rhetorical reflections, and specious reasoning, he makes a final observation and conclusion. He observes that "clothes are semiotic devices" and feels that he has demonstrated "how many mysterious paths the dialectic between oppression and liberation must follow".
This last observation is truly relevant and worth exploration. At the very least it is easy to agree that fashion impositions have been a part of the oppression of women throughout history. Unfortunately, Eco's ambiguous sarcastic tenor makes it difficult to understand if he supports such a notion seriously or not. Much pivots on the reader's interpretation of one of his opening statements in which he posits "no everyday experience is too base for the thinking man". He follows with a metaphoric pun on the nature of modern philosophy and the human "loins" which does little to clarify whether or not he is serious with a poor sense of humour, or quite sarcastic overall.
The essay uses lofty language and is replete with historical allusion in an apparent attempt to elevate the topic of clothing to a worthy and viable academic consideration. For example, he describes jeans as having a primarily "utilitarian" function and he alludes to crucifixion in describing his experience with the "calvary" of fitting them. He discusses having "achieved heteroconsciousness" as "an epidermic self-awareness". He talks of "impos[ing] an etiquette" and refers to the "stiff collars" of the "Victorian bourgeois". He references Freud's Oedipal theories in relation to Viennese fashion and he discusses the historical "habit" of monks in contrast to the "cuirasses and tunics" of "Warriors". He goes so far as to extend his reasoning beyond the ecclesiastic into philosophical realms by mentioning "the beautiful mantles Erasmus wore". All these examples coalesce into what appears to be an attempt at witty repartee with his conclusion that "[t]hought abhors tights".
Eco's effort to canonize his topic is marred, however, by specious reasoning and a penchant for humour of the loins. He posits that the "Victorian bourgeois was stiff and formal because of stiff collars". He suggests that Freud's theories might never have been realized if he had been subject to the fashion of Bermuda shorts. He states that women have been "enslaved chiefly because [of] the clothing counseled for her". He ludicrously and frivolously mentions Hegel's exploration of phrenology as a point of credibility.
Furthermore, Eco has an insensitive and almost adolescent preoccupation with sexualized word play. He belittles serious and painful afflictions such as orchitis or urethritis by likening them to a "garment that squeezes the testicles". He almost passionately lists the sexualized fashions of women and later describes them as requiring women "to be pretty and stimulating" and "sex object[s]"; he ambiguously uses the highly connotative word "dirty" to describe monks in loose clothing; and he concludes that the only serious exploration of fashion he has posited must proceed "[e]ven via the groin".
Eco's confusing rhetoric fails to carry the reader along sympathetically, but rather cynically. One might conclude, then, that his essay intends to be a sarcastic poke at academia and its habit of rhetorically exploiting the most mundane reality as a highly relevant social or historical advent. However, since his final statements have some highly politically-charged, controversial validity, Eco also fails to be convincing in any sarcastic endeavour.
In the absence of a satisfying resolution to the problem of his seriousness or sarcasm, the reader is left outside of Eco's subject matter and only with his voice. Although he begins humbly enough with a simple anecdotal story of revelation in blue jeans, even this use of scene does not generate much sympathy. Unlike Van Herk's In Visible Ink, it is lacking in poetic style and rhythm, which in turn fails to cause any romantic literary effect on the reader. His writing does not sensually or emotionally engage the reader. His historical references, unlike those in Ladd's Berlin Walls, are marred with tasteless, shallow wit. His cultural literary allusions, unlike those in Love and Sex in the Life of an Arab, lack the honest passion of the writing of El-Saadawi as to their origin, significance and relevance.
Ultimately Eco's essay comes across as a pretentious, self-aggrandizing celebration of his own witty ability to philosophize intellectually using only a mundane subject base, entirely written from the first person perspective, "I". A demonstration of the disdainful effect of his writing style is perhaps best given by concluding with word-play modeled after his own irreverent language, which is sure to make everyone reading/listening smile politely but feel less than humourously sympathetic. The ultimate feeling left to the reader is that Eco has made an interesting simple point about the association between clothing, social morality, and suffrage - and that it is unfortunate that it took three pages of his verbally 'massaging his loins' to get there.
Works Cited
Eco, Umberto. "Blue Jeans." The Writing of Expository Prose - Course Readings.
Ed. M. Smith. University of Victoria: UVic Printing Services, 2008. Pp. 20 - 22.
Biotext: Dog Images in Ondaatje's "Running in the Family"
In the collection of excerpts making reference to dogs and in relation to Ondaatje's father, mother, and family, there are clear connections but no specific cohesion. Much like the nature of biotext in general, which requires interpretive labour on the part of the reader, so too are the potential cohesions of these excerpts left in ambiguity for exploration and interpretation by the reader.
Each member of our group seemed to take note of a different pattern or connection providing an opportunity for discussion of potential reasons for overlap in a broader interpretation of the patterns as a whole.
Ondaatje seems to have an inherent fear of dogs. They are a part of a nightmare including his father in which their mutual noise prompts Ondaatje to awaken "hot, sweating" (15). Later in the episode entitled "The Bone" dogs are described as threatening to his naked father. After his mother encounters "a different breed of dog" in his father in the tunnel she is changed (124). She seems to have been violently ravaged causing her to become strong and independent and yet somehow physically injured, exemplified in the labours of her new style of writing.
In "The Bone" the number of dogs which his father has collected blatantly coincides with the five family members of Ondaatje, his siblings, and his mother. The magnetic behaviour of the dangling dogs is a remeniscent of the description of a family that later magnetically repelled from each other and specifically from their father, "[t]he north pole" (146).
Ondaatje states that his father "loved dogs" (153) and yet in his nightmare and in "The Bone" his father is threateningly surrounded by their cacophony but also involved in the noise as in some strange communication. Perhaps his father, although loving his family, was undone by the 'cacophony' of responsibility to them. As such, in "The Bone", he collects them to keep them close, but holds them safely at bay. Even when they are cut loose, perhaps alluding to their various departures from their life with him on the island, he still holds the leashes at bay. This may symbolize their inability to ever be in his presence again.
It is easy to see the metaphor of a dog in his father. A dog can be gentle and loving, or vicious and unpredictable much like his father in states of sobriety or drunkeness respectively. His father's love of both dogs and his family coupled with the bewildering metaphor of either being a threat to him or a collected "evil" (154) is perhaps why Ondaatje begins his retelling of this anecdote by stating "[t]here is a story about my father I cannot come to terms with" (153).
The description of the dogs "splash[ing] to the ground, writhing free and escaping", invokes the notion of fish perhaps worthy of further exploration as a metaphor for the fishing industry of the island (154). As a metaphor for his family, perhaps to save themselves from watching his self destruction, they all writhed free and escaped him.
Works Cited
Ondaatje, Michael. Running in the Family. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, Ltd., 1993.
Each member of our group seemed to take note of a different pattern or connection providing an opportunity for discussion of potential reasons for overlap in a broader interpretation of the patterns as a whole.
Ondaatje seems to have an inherent fear of dogs. They are a part of a nightmare including his father in which their mutual noise prompts Ondaatje to awaken "hot, sweating" (15). Later in the episode entitled "The Bone" dogs are described as threatening to his naked father. After his mother encounters "a different breed of dog" in his father in the tunnel she is changed (124). She seems to have been violently ravaged causing her to become strong and independent and yet somehow physically injured, exemplified in the labours of her new style of writing.
In "The Bone" the number of dogs which his father has collected blatantly coincides with the five family members of Ondaatje, his siblings, and his mother. The magnetic behaviour of the dangling dogs is a remeniscent of the description of a family that later magnetically repelled from each other and specifically from their father, "[t]he north pole" (146).
Ondaatje states that his father "loved dogs" (153) and yet in his nightmare and in "The Bone" his father is threateningly surrounded by their cacophony but also involved in the noise as in some strange communication. Perhaps his father, although loving his family, was undone by the 'cacophony' of responsibility to them. As such, in "The Bone", he collects them to keep them close, but holds them safely at bay. Even when they are cut loose, perhaps alluding to their various departures from their life with him on the island, he still holds the leashes at bay. This may symbolize their inability to ever be in his presence again.
It is easy to see the metaphor of a dog in his father. A dog can be gentle and loving, or vicious and unpredictable much like his father in states of sobriety or drunkeness respectively. His father's love of both dogs and his family coupled with the bewildering metaphor of either being a threat to him or a collected "evil" (154) is perhaps why Ondaatje begins his retelling of this anecdote by stating "[t]here is a story about my father I cannot come to terms with" (153).
The description of the dogs "splash[ing] to the ground, writhing free and escaping", invokes the notion of fish perhaps worthy of further exploration as a metaphor for the fishing industry of the island (154). As a metaphor for his family, perhaps to save themselves from watching his self destruction, they all writhed free and escaped him.
Works Cited
Ondaatje, Michael. Running in the Family. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, Ltd., 1993.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Unlikely Candidate
Angry, hurt, bitter, foul-mouthed, sarcastic, sardonic, sexual, selfish, aspirations of Wall St. . . . the last person in the world you would expect to be anywhere near children. It's funny how life and fate come together in the most unexpected ways. One shattered dream, failed aspiration and broken heart after another slowly gave way to massive depression. And yet, as fate would have it, it seems the world was not done with me. Every tear I shed was overwrought, overcome, and overthrown by the smile of a child.
I am surrounded by children in my life, which has made many gasp in horror that such a man as me would even be allowed near them. Of course, I have never been one to care much for the indignities of the self-righteous. Nevertheless, I certainly didn't try to argue with them. I neither liked kids, nor wanted the job. But hidden under the seething anger, and the selfishness, and the sadness, somehow, by accident, there was a good father. Not perfect, but good.
A penchant for Shakespeare and a talent for acting exposed the kids to the canon of literature in its best light. A sardonic sense of humour kept them all laughing and endowed them with superior vocabularies and a heightened sense of the inappropriate. The ability to survive the most adverse situations with the heaviest heart filled the children with awe and respect, even in the face of severe poverty which children never really understand. And the love, . . . the unexpected LOVE - all my hatred, rage, fear, lust, and vengeance could not defeat the overwhelming love.
Success has become subjective. Failure has become a way of life. As unlikely as it seems, and for all my faults, a plethora of little people unquestioningly, unwittingly, and with total trust, call me, "Dad". Happy Father's Day!
See you in hell,
Shakes.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Shades of Lord of the Rings - the first version of Taffan the Elf
Taffan was short, even for an elf. Standing barely four feet tall had made him the shortest in his age-range all through his life by a full two inches: a significant sum of height for a creature as small as an elf. His light feathery black hair had been trimmed, by himself, in a very unfashionable and matter-of-fact method in a straight line over his ears and eyes strictly for function. His sleek little stature looked as though it had never and could not ever support anything as heavy as a muscle. He had great circular eyes that were as dark as mahogany wood and that made him look all the meeker for their babyish appearance. But they had warm curling lines on the outside which made them appear to twinkle when he smiled and could put even the hardest heart at ease.
He had always dreamed of being the biggest or the fastest or the strongest or the bravest, but after many years of being none of these he had humbly subscribed himself to the stinging reality that he was quite insignificant in every way, and would be required to live out his days lacking the glory or fame he had so long desired. As such, he retired to more pragmatic pursuits such as reading and studying and had been even further separated from the popular whole of the community who largely regarded him as strange and irrelevant. He reflected on this truth as he let his tiny toes dangle loosely in the warm rippling waters of the pond beyond the meadow behind his cottage.
He knew he was supposed to be elsewhere. It was the time of the monthly village council meeting and all elves within the community were expected to attend. Taffan knew, however, that his opinion would be ignored if he were to be foolish enough to offer it and that his absence would likely be overlooked, as it usually was. One of the great advantages of being a lesser member of the community was the knowledge that he would scarcely be missed from such communal activities and that the governing of the community was better left in the wise hands of the King and his politicians.
Instead, he decided to make the best of such a beautiful summer afternoon by daydreaming lazily on his back in the sun-warmed short-grass of the meadow, with the water spiders tickling his feet as they dipped in and out of the pond water. As he looked skyward, the trees which encircled the little meadow seemed to tower gloriously above him. They created a hole in the foliage towards the sunlit heavens in an otherwise seemingly impenetrable forest wall to his semi-inverted point of view in this horizontal position. He felt cozy and protected in his little circle and felt that no danger or evil could ever reach him in this happy fortress.
That is what made the events that ensued all the more shocking.
And that is where his journey took a definitive turn for the worse. In all of his fumblings he had gotten quite turned about and in what he thought to be the direction back to the path, he headed in what was exactly the opposite direction and deep into the forest. He would not see his village again for much longer than even his worst fears had imagined.
Having the map was one thing, but following it to its end was quite another. What all of the other elves had overlooked in the excitement of its discovery was the final location of the wizard’s prophecy. It was very obviously located within the desolate region of the mountain forests beyond the great water. Not even a bird could safely navigate such a perilous journey, much less a tiny band of helpless elves. Taffan began feeling that overwhelming fear of futility come over him again, when suddenly he had an idea. It was an idea that was as fearful as it was obvious. Clearly, the map had been written by, and would require the assistance of, a Dragon!
“Trust me, Elf. You don’t want to trouble yourself with a dragon.”
“What is your name, Dragon?”, asked Taffan.
“What?!”, snorted the dragon, quite in disbelief. No one had ever bothered to ask him his name. “What care you for my name, elf?! You need only worry about the terrific suffering thou shalt undergo at the hands of my hungry vengeance.”
“What vengeance canst thou have for me, Dragon?”, asked Taffan quite innocently. “Why, I have never met you in this life or any other I can remember. For what crime against you could an insignificant elf such as myself possibly be worthy of your vengeance? The whole idea seems perfectly ridiculous to me, I’m sure.” Taffan checked his boldness and decided to hold his tongue for the moment. Although he was still full of wonderment at the Dragon’s anger towards him, he remembered that stories of Dragons rarely lead to any prosperity for the individual encountering them and decided to give the Dragon an opportunity to respond without enduring any further of Taffan’s inquisitive verbal assault. To the surprise of Dragon and Elf alike, there was a long silent pause. The once confident and powerful Dragon had been fully disarmed by the pure innocence of this tiny elf that was hardly wise enough to know his place. In the long silence, Taffan suspected that his end had come and that the Dragon would surely gobble him down presently. But instead, in what sounded like a much friendlier voice to Taffan, a very different response presented itself.
“Aminon”, puffed the Dragon. Again, Taffan was surprised enough to respond directly.
“What does Aminon mean?”
“My name”, the Dragon quickly and uneasily quipped. “You asked me my name. My name is Aminon. It has been ages since I have heard it spoken by myself or anyone else. To be honest, I had almost forgotten it.”
“I assure you Drag..Aminon. I will not soon forget it.” Of course, Taffan meant he would not forget due to his current terror, but whether or not the Dragon knew that was unimportant. He was merely pleased to let himself believe that the little elf would not forget because he chose not to rather than from dread fear.
“You will live through this night, elf, and if you’re lucky...”
“Taffan”, interrupted Taffan, again to the surprise of both Dragon and Elf alike.
“What?”, asked the Dragon.
“My name is Taffan, not ‘elf’”. The Dragon chuckled and realized his own error. He began again.
“You will live through this night, Taffan, and perhaps through tomorrow if you keep me company by my fire for a time and do not try to kill me while I sleep.”
“I have had no such desire or intention to try and kill you, Aminon, as I shall soon tell you, and I am beginning to suspect that you have no great desire to kill me. I will be your companion by your fireside tonight, and tell you of my journey thus far, if you do not try to kill me while I sleep.”
“You have my word, Taffan”, promised the Dragon and Taffan believed him.
He had always dreamed of being the biggest or the fastest or the strongest or the bravest, but after many years of being none of these he had humbly subscribed himself to the stinging reality that he was quite insignificant in every way, and would be required to live out his days lacking the glory or fame he had so long desired. As such, he retired to more pragmatic pursuits such as reading and studying and had been even further separated from the popular whole of the community who largely regarded him as strange and irrelevant. He reflected on this truth as he let his tiny toes dangle loosely in the warm rippling waters of the pond beyond the meadow behind his cottage.
He knew he was supposed to be elsewhere. It was the time of the monthly village council meeting and all elves within the community were expected to attend. Taffan knew, however, that his opinion would be ignored if he were to be foolish enough to offer it and that his absence would likely be overlooked, as it usually was. One of the great advantages of being a lesser member of the community was the knowledge that he would scarcely be missed from such communal activities and that the governing of the community was better left in the wise hands of the King and his politicians.
Instead, he decided to make the best of such a beautiful summer afternoon by daydreaming lazily on his back in the sun-warmed short-grass of the meadow, with the water spiders tickling his feet as they dipped in and out of the pond water. As he looked skyward, the trees which encircled the little meadow seemed to tower gloriously above him. They created a hole in the foliage towards the sunlit heavens in an otherwise seemingly impenetrable forest wall to his semi-inverted point of view in this horizontal position. He felt cozy and protected in his little circle and felt that no danger or evil could ever reach him in this happy fortress.
That is what made the events that ensued all the more shocking.
And that is where his journey took a definitive turn for the worse. In all of his fumblings he had gotten quite turned about and in what he thought to be the direction back to the path, he headed in what was exactly the opposite direction and deep into the forest. He would not see his village again for much longer than even his worst fears had imagined.
Having the map was one thing, but following it to its end was quite another. What all of the other elves had overlooked in the excitement of its discovery was the final location of the wizard’s prophecy. It was very obviously located within the desolate region of the mountain forests beyond the great water. Not even a bird could safely navigate such a perilous journey, much less a tiny band of helpless elves. Taffan began feeling that overwhelming fear of futility come over him again, when suddenly he had an idea. It was an idea that was as fearful as it was obvious. Clearly, the map had been written by, and would require the assistance of, a Dragon!
“Trust me, Elf. You don’t want to trouble yourself with a dragon.”
“What is your name, Dragon?”, asked Taffan.
“What?!”, snorted the dragon, quite in disbelief. No one had ever bothered to ask him his name. “What care you for my name, elf?! You need only worry about the terrific suffering thou shalt undergo at the hands of my hungry vengeance.”
“What vengeance canst thou have for me, Dragon?”, asked Taffan quite innocently. “Why, I have never met you in this life or any other I can remember. For what crime against you could an insignificant elf such as myself possibly be worthy of your vengeance? The whole idea seems perfectly ridiculous to me, I’m sure.” Taffan checked his boldness and decided to hold his tongue for the moment. Although he was still full of wonderment at the Dragon’s anger towards him, he remembered that stories of Dragons rarely lead to any prosperity for the individual encountering them and decided to give the Dragon an opportunity to respond without enduring any further of Taffan’s inquisitive verbal assault. To the surprise of Dragon and Elf alike, there was a long silent pause. The once confident and powerful Dragon had been fully disarmed by the pure innocence of this tiny elf that was hardly wise enough to know his place. In the long silence, Taffan suspected that his end had come and that the Dragon would surely gobble him down presently. But instead, in what sounded like a much friendlier voice to Taffan, a very different response presented itself.
“Aminon”, puffed the Dragon. Again, Taffan was surprised enough to respond directly.
“What does Aminon mean?”
“My name”, the Dragon quickly and uneasily quipped. “You asked me my name. My name is Aminon. It has been ages since I have heard it spoken by myself or anyone else. To be honest, I had almost forgotten it.”
“I assure you Drag..Aminon. I will not soon forget it.” Of course, Taffan meant he would not forget due to his current terror, but whether or not the Dragon knew that was unimportant. He was merely pleased to let himself believe that the little elf would not forget because he chose not to rather than from dread fear.
“You will live through this night, elf, and if you’re lucky...”
“Taffan”, interrupted Taffan, again to the surprise of both Dragon and Elf alike.
“What?”, asked the Dragon.
“My name is Taffan, not ‘elf’”. The Dragon chuckled and realized his own error. He began again.
“You will live through this night, Taffan, and perhaps through tomorrow if you keep me company by my fire for a time and do not try to kill me while I sleep.”
“I have had no such desire or intention to try and kill you, Aminon, as I shall soon tell you, and I am beginning to suspect that you have no great desire to kill me. I will be your companion by your fireside tonight, and tell you of my journey thus far, if you do not try to kill me while I sleep.”
“You have my word, Taffan”, promised the Dragon and Taffan believed him.
An Unfinished Autobiography
The following is the complete unfinished text of a self-serving autobiofiction that I began in 2001. Like so many things in my life, the advent of my devastating divorce, and the need to care for my children while so emotionally distraught found this artistic endeavour lost and abandoned. While sifting through old computer files I came across it. Ultimately, the idea for its 'plotline' became the premise of this entire blog. As I perused it, I noticed that some of the text was amusing and some of it caused the recall of lost but fond memories. Some of the text is fragment and some is just point form - ideas that were intended to be expanded in the ongoing completion of the book. For the sake of posterity of a piece of text that was unfinished and is destined to remain unfinished I have left it exactly as it was left in 2001 without any revisions, modifications, or completions.
A Novel: Written In The First Person Singular. by David Christopher.
Chapter One: Why bother?
I would suppose the best place to begin a tale of this sort would have to be at the beginning of my post secondary education. In fact, this is really not a tale at all, per se, but merely a series of episodes and fantasies, some funny, some terrifying and some just unbelievable, to which I have tried to lend as much cohesion as possible. There is no beginning or end or climax, as such, and if you’re looking for such things, the Danielle Steele section is just down the aisle.
I could waste countless verbs recounting the events of my childhood, but that would, of course, be irrelevant. I will, therefore, try to summarize those years leading to my university years with as much brevity as I am capable of. I am not capable of much brevity.
I was always the shortest kid in my class and suffered the normal assaults of unchecked bullies common to social behaviour of children of the 1970's and 1980's. Add to that a vocabulary far advanced to most and an ego to use it, you can imagine that I was not always treated with love and kindness by other students. In retrospect, I guess I had it coming. I was quite selfish, self-righteous, hyperactive and verbally annoying. High School was a turbulent time for a high-strung teenager like myself. I would become very well educated in human social tendencies and would begin down a long path of hatred for that species. Nevertheless, I did have my share of positive social experiences and academic successes and grew up fairly normally considering . . . well, considering all that is in the story I am about to tell you. Actually, it’s quite surprising to many, including myself, that I am not some sort of deranged, disgruntled, postal-worker-type clock-tower sniper that has one eye twitching and a penchant for drinking blood.
In high school, I spent most of my energies trying to have sex. Fortunately, one of the ways to impress girls was to get good grades. Therefore, I accidentally got relatively good grades and, again, fortunately for myself, with little or no effort. Most of the people with whom I have discussed the subject all agree that they learned nothing academically in high school. I must be the exception to the rule because I learned a lot. To be honest, I don’t understand how you couldn’t, even by accident. If you have even the remotest ability to listen, you would have picked up something by osmosis. High school wasn’t that hard.
Intro to Shakespeare
High School was also the place where I was introduced to the wonderful world of marijuana. That habit would carry far and wide for many years to come before I finally decided to clear the purple haze. After my sister died, I inherited a breast-pin (among other things) that read “drugs saved my life”. Of course, it was meant as some medical credo, but I wore it as a proud badge of my engagement in the culture of hallucinogens. When asked by a friend how they had saved my life, I responded by saying that they gave me something to look forward to. He expressed how profound he thought my response was. He wasn’t too bright. He was probably stoned.
I have long held the contention that if pot-smoking did not have such an adverse effect, both social and monetary, and if it didn’t destroy health, mental functions and emotional stability, I would smoke it forever. Truly, it is fun and makes everything more interesting and it did offer me some enlightenment on the amazing integrity of my own father and the idiocy of the common man at large.
My Dad was not very well attuned to the habits and realities of young teenage men. In fact, if you had met him, you would be hard-pressed to believe that he had ever been one and bewildered at what he had done for fun when he was. I was, and am, and to this day.
My father wore a suit and tie to work everyday as a function of social necessity, but at days’ end, he was obviously more comfortable in generic tan pants, a colorless and featureless collared shirt and what my memory sees as non-descript hush-puppies on his feet (although I’m sure he never actually wore them). Complete with a pair of ’average-person’ glasses and a voice like Kermit the Frog, he was a man of mostly intellectual appeal. But he would become one of my heroes and I love him as much.
He proved himself to be refreshingly open-minded when on one occasion, he offered to join in smoking a ‘reefer’ with me before condemning such behaviour. Much to his surprise, I’m sure, he quite liked the experience. He proved his lack of exposure to the culture when I laughed at how his eyes had become “penny-slits” to which he responded, “Oh sure! I suppose it makes me feet smell too.” You might think he was kidding, but he was dead serious and truly believed that it was a physiological impossibility for such a thing to happen merely from inhaling a little smoke.
I remember a time when I was about seventeen years old. - bottle toker incident
I was living alone with my brother in what had been the family home before the effects of a widespread dysfunction took hold. My brother, Peter, was a handsome gazelle. Somewhere between my Dad’s averageness and my mother’s sharp orangeness, they managed to produce a beautiful boy. He was tall, angular and handsome with broad shoulders, sandy-blonde hair and blue eyes. Had it not been for his own social awkwardness and voluntary introversion, he would have been a lady-killer. He spent most of his time angry at my personality which he described as “representing everything he hates about people”. As such, he tended to completely avoid me at all times.
My sister Barb was equally beautiful, but a little too pragmatic for her own good.
Nonetheless, my father was a great source of knowledge for me. He was a man of great patience, integrity and wisdom. I say wisdom overlooking his knowledge of pot but I never really considered that knowledge to be characteristic, nor a very good scale of measure, of the very wise. Some of the wisest things he ever told me include his opinion that golf is a great way to ruin a good walk and that the only thing wrong with a beautiful country like the United States of America are the americans. He once related to me one of the simplest and most profound truths I have ever known: “You can wake up tomorrow and change your life forever.” That would become a theme in my existence on more than one occasion. Believe me, as complicated as your life may seem, it is true.
On the other end of the enlightenment spectrum, I never ceased to be amazed by the number of right-wing police-officer-minded idiots that would quite philosophically expound on the evils of engaging in such an under worldly drug-using activity as smoking marijuana and then quite freely pour themselves another 40-proof glass of brandy, . . . on a workday, . . . at lunch, . . . before firing me.
And that brings us to my entrance into university - believed I would conquer the world - beginning of the end of my arrogance - a few well-placed failures would open my eyes. I was a bright enough kid, but lazy at times. I’m sure that if I had had any more desire than to drink the bong-water and get A’s without trying I would have been the next Albert Einstein or Thomas Edison. Barring that, I was pretty much like every other average kid on the planet. - learned about myself - be true to self
The most difficult thing I ever had to learn and accept about myself was that I was NOT a super-hero. In fact, I’m not a super-anything. I’m average; very average. Maybe I’m super-average. My anagnorisis came when my very dear friend Todd pointed out to me that I was only five feet, six inches tall, I had never won a fistfight, and that I had a chest like the inside of a spoon. He had a poignant eloquence about his dialogue that I always envied. I did, however, have what appeared to be a talent for words. It was my one shot at being a hero.
I have been told by many that I should write a novel. I agreed that it was a great idea, but never had the faintest glimmer of an idea what to write about. The result was a huge population of scattered premises and half-written paragraphs that petered out as soon as my momentary inspiration was lost. Those were the episodes where an unknown, tiny, little man like myself got to be the romantic male lead; the white knight in shining armor; the pathetic, dark and tragic fallen hero; the time-traveler; the elf-king and the dragon-tamer. They were the episodes where an average guy had his wonderful and average fantasies.
Lost in my own imagination. Story of guy that has lived an adventurous life vicariously through his own imagination. Theme: few of us are action-heroes but most average people live exciting and sometimes heroic lives.
My own Great Expectations and subsequent revelation at what was real and what I really wanted. My failed attempt to be Jay Gatsby and my actual existence as Boo Radley.
Eleven siblings / only child.
Patience for self-righteous people / nasty people
scathing review of Kim and Debbie - Debbies / Joneses.
High school: Mr. Bonisteel - bad advice
Dad - 'should' not 'what is'
Mom - bible-thumping delusional. Heart in the right place but her head up her ass. To this day she is trying to determine what disease or mental dysfunction that I MUST suffer from so that she might find a cure. She has no idea how offensive is her onslaught of suggestions at what I should do in order to ‘get better’. All of this is offered behind a firm belief in modern Christianity to undermine her credibility even further.
peeler-club DJ: In my self-righteousness, I, of course, convinced myself that I was only there as a function of bad luck and out of the necessity to make money. In retrospect, it is obvious that I quite enjoyed the experience, for a while, and have long since come to accept the reality that I was there because I wanted to be and, much like most young men, quite enjoyed the image of naked women writhing in suggestive and copulous ways.
I’m sure that truth is much to the chagrin of the militant radical feminists of the world. On the other hand, here’s a truly RADICAL feminist point of view: being confident and proud of your sexuality is not only acceptable but evolutionary. When did it become a sin for men to admit they like seeing beautiful women naked. That would be like a woman saying she hopes she never gets to enjoy sex. I am a huge proponent for the equality and equal treatment of women but fail to see the connection to sexuality. As long as a woman is not forced into anything sexual that she is not comfortable with, it should be mutually exclusive of her equality.
I offer a newsflash to all the puritans in the world: Regardless of your religious or ethical background, it is normal for young men (and women) to enjoy sex and that it has been an integral part of the proliferation of our species since the dawn of time. Whether or not said proliferation has been positive is a subjective question, but I assure you that any intelligent man views the human species (both male and female) as the plague to the planet that it has been.
Americans - Dennis Honeycutt - did little to change opinion - figured, after all, people are people
My immediate reaction was to question his parentage and spit in his face. However, being a man of my particular stature facing a man of his particular intellect (and probable violence), I chose a different retort.
James the bartender is the prettiest tough-guy I have ever met. His last name is far too ridiculous to mention here.
Pip’s fireplace / the military warren / Badger’s home - spots of time:
Star Trek Motion Picture - glow of the room - carpet floors walls - discovering my own company
Brown couch / woodstave - little colour TV - overlooking snowy backyard - King Kong 3-D - no cable / better memories - envious at the time but in retrospect my memories are warmer and their houses seem rather clinical to me now
Winter Briargreen skating rink
Halloween - electric fall air - movie Kill a Mockingbird.
Summer Beaches - Jacob Have I loved -
Every day is a battle against life itself. We must attack each day with the intention and desire to win that battle. Once you’ve won, you’ll know you’ve lived.
A Novel: Written In The First Person Singular. by David Christopher.
Chapter One: Why bother?
I would suppose the best place to begin a tale of this sort would have to be at the beginning of my post secondary education. In fact, this is really not a tale at all, per se, but merely a series of episodes and fantasies, some funny, some terrifying and some just unbelievable, to which I have tried to lend as much cohesion as possible. There is no beginning or end or climax, as such, and if you’re looking for such things, the Danielle Steele section is just down the aisle.
I could waste countless verbs recounting the events of my childhood, but that would, of course, be irrelevant. I will, therefore, try to summarize those years leading to my university years with as much brevity as I am capable of. I am not capable of much brevity.
I was always the shortest kid in my class and suffered the normal assaults of unchecked bullies common to social behaviour of children of the 1970's and 1980's. Add to that a vocabulary far advanced to most and an ego to use it, you can imagine that I was not always treated with love and kindness by other students. In retrospect, I guess I had it coming. I was quite selfish, self-righteous, hyperactive and verbally annoying. High School was a turbulent time for a high-strung teenager like myself. I would become very well educated in human social tendencies and would begin down a long path of hatred for that species. Nevertheless, I did have my share of positive social experiences and academic successes and grew up fairly normally considering . . . well, considering all that is in the story I am about to tell you. Actually, it’s quite surprising to many, including myself, that I am not some sort of deranged, disgruntled, postal-worker-type clock-tower sniper that has one eye twitching and a penchant for drinking blood.
In high school, I spent most of my energies trying to have sex. Fortunately, one of the ways to impress girls was to get good grades. Therefore, I accidentally got relatively good grades and, again, fortunately for myself, with little or no effort. Most of the people with whom I have discussed the subject all agree that they learned nothing academically in high school. I must be the exception to the rule because I learned a lot. To be honest, I don’t understand how you couldn’t, even by accident. If you have even the remotest ability to listen, you would have picked up something by osmosis. High school wasn’t that hard.
Intro to Shakespeare
High School was also the place where I was introduced to the wonderful world of marijuana. That habit would carry far and wide for many years to come before I finally decided to clear the purple haze. After my sister died, I inherited a breast-pin (among other things) that read “drugs saved my life”. Of course, it was meant as some medical credo, but I wore it as a proud badge of my engagement in the culture of hallucinogens. When asked by a friend how they had saved my life, I responded by saying that they gave me something to look forward to. He expressed how profound he thought my response was. He wasn’t too bright. He was probably stoned.
I have long held the contention that if pot-smoking did not have such an adverse effect, both social and monetary, and if it didn’t destroy health, mental functions and emotional stability, I would smoke it forever. Truly, it is fun and makes everything more interesting and it did offer me some enlightenment on the amazing integrity of my own father and the idiocy of the common man at large.
My Dad was not very well attuned to the habits and realities of young teenage men. In fact, if you had met him, you would be hard-pressed to believe that he had ever been one and bewildered at what he had done for fun when he was. I was, and am, and to this day.
My father wore a suit and tie to work everyday as a function of social necessity, but at days’ end, he was obviously more comfortable in generic tan pants, a colorless and featureless collared shirt and what my memory sees as non-descript hush-puppies on his feet (although I’m sure he never actually wore them). Complete with a pair of ’average-person’ glasses and a voice like Kermit the Frog, he was a man of mostly intellectual appeal. But he would become one of my heroes and I love him as much.
He proved himself to be refreshingly open-minded when on one occasion, he offered to join in smoking a ‘reefer’ with me before condemning such behaviour. Much to his surprise, I’m sure, he quite liked the experience. He proved his lack of exposure to the culture when I laughed at how his eyes had become “penny-slits” to which he responded, “Oh sure! I suppose it makes me feet smell too.” You might think he was kidding, but he was dead serious and truly believed that it was a physiological impossibility for such a thing to happen merely from inhaling a little smoke.
I remember a time when I was about seventeen years old. - bottle toker incident
I was living alone with my brother in what had been the family home before the effects of a widespread dysfunction took hold. My brother, Peter, was a handsome gazelle. Somewhere between my Dad’s averageness and my mother’s sharp orangeness, they managed to produce a beautiful boy. He was tall, angular and handsome with broad shoulders, sandy-blonde hair and blue eyes. Had it not been for his own social awkwardness and voluntary introversion, he would have been a lady-killer. He spent most of his time angry at my personality which he described as “representing everything he hates about people”. As such, he tended to completely avoid me at all times.
My sister Barb was equally beautiful, but a little too pragmatic for her own good.
Nonetheless, my father was a great source of knowledge for me. He was a man of great patience, integrity and wisdom. I say wisdom overlooking his knowledge of pot but I never really considered that knowledge to be characteristic, nor a very good scale of measure, of the very wise. Some of the wisest things he ever told me include his opinion that golf is a great way to ruin a good walk and that the only thing wrong with a beautiful country like the United States of America are the americans. He once related to me one of the simplest and most profound truths I have ever known: “You can wake up tomorrow and change your life forever.” That would become a theme in my existence on more than one occasion. Believe me, as complicated as your life may seem, it is true.
On the other end of the enlightenment spectrum, I never ceased to be amazed by the number of right-wing police-officer-minded idiots that would quite philosophically expound on the evils of engaging in such an under worldly drug-using activity as smoking marijuana and then quite freely pour themselves another 40-proof glass of brandy, . . . on a workday, . . . at lunch, . . . before firing me.
And that brings us to my entrance into university - believed I would conquer the world - beginning of the end of my arrogance - a few well-placed failures would open my eyes. I was a bright enough kid, but lazy at times. I’m sure that if I had had any more desire than to drink the bong-water and get A’s without trying I would have been the next Albert Einstein or Thomas Edison. Barring that, I was pretty much like every other average kid on the planet. - learned about myself - be true to self
The most difficult thing I ever had to learn and accept about myself was that I was NOT a super-hero. In fact, I’m not a super-anything. I’m average; very average. Maybe I’m super-average. My anagnorisis came when my very dear friend Todd pointed out to me that I was only five feet, six inches tall, I had never won a fistfight, and that I had a chest like the inside of a spoon. He had a poignant eloquence about his dialogue that I always envied. I did, however, have what appeared to be a talent for words. It was my one shot at being a hero.
I have been told by many that I should write a novel. I agreed that it was a great idea, but never had the faintest glimmer of an idea what to write about. The result was a huge population of scattered premises and half-written paragraphs that petered out as soon as my momentary inspiration was lost. Those were the episodes where an unknown, tiny, little man like myself got to be the romantic male lead; the white knight in shining armor; the pathetic, dark and tragic fallen hero; the time-traveler; the elf-king and the dragon-tamer. They were the episodes where an average guy had his wonderful and average fantasies.
Lost in my own imagination. Story of guy that has lived an adventurous life vicariously through his own imagination. Theme: few of us are action-heroes but most average people live exciting and sometimes heroic lives.
My own Great Expectations and subsequent revelation at what was real and what I really wanted. My failed attempt to be Jay Gatsby and my actual existence as Boo Radley.
Eleven siblings / only child.
Patience for self-righteous people / nasty people
scathing review of Kim and Debbie - Debbies / Joneses.
High school: Mr. Bonisteel - bad advice
Dad - 'should' not 'what is'
Mom - bible-thumping delusional. Heart in the right place but her head up her ass. To this day she is trying to determine what disease or mental dysfunction that I MUST suffer from so that she might find a cure. She has no idea how offensive is her onslaught of suggestions at what I should do in order to ‘get better’. All of this is offered behind a firm belief in modern Christianity to undermine her credibility even further.
peeler-club DJ: In my self-righteousness, I, of course, convinced myself that I was only there as a function of bad luck and out of the necessity to make money. In retrospect, it is obvious that I quite enjoyed the experience, for a while, and have long since come to accept the reality that I was there because I wanted to be and, much like most young men, quite enjoyed the image of naked women writhing in suggestive and copulous ways.
I’m sure that truth is much to the chagrin of the militant radical feminists of the world. On the other hand, here’s a truly RADICAL feminist point of view: being confident and proud of your sexuality is not only acceptable but evolutionary. When did it become a sin for men to admit they like seeing beautiful women naked. That would be like a woman saying she hopes she never gets to enjoy sex. I am a huge proponent for the equality and equal treatment of women but fail to see the connection to sexuality. As long as a woman is not forced into anything sexual that she is not comfortable with, it should be mutually exclusive of her equality.
I offer a newsflash to all the puritans in the world: Regardless of your religious or ethical background, it is normal for young men (and women) to enjoy sex and that it has been an integral part of the proliferation of our species since the dawn of time. Whether or not said proliferation has been positive is a subjective question, but I assure you that any intelligent man views the human species (both male and female) as the plague to the planet that it has been.
Americans - Dennis Honeycutt - did little to change opinion - figured, after all, people are people
My immediate reaction was to question his parentage and spit in his face. However, being a man of my particular stature facing a man of his particular intellect (and probable violence), I chose a different retort.
James the bartender is the prettiest tough-guy I have ever met. His last name is far too ridiculous to mention here.
Pip’s fireplace / the military warren / Badger’s home - spots of time:
Star Trek Motion Picture - glow of the room - carpet floors walls - discovering my own company
Brown couch / woodstave - little colour TV - overlooking snowy backyard - King Kong 3-D - no cable / better memories - envious at the time but in retrospect my memories are warmer and their houses seem rather clinical to me now
Winter Briargreen skating rink
Halloween - electric fall air - movie Kill a Mockingbird.
Summer Beaches - Jacob Have I loved -
Every day is a battle against life itself. We must attack each day with the intention and desire to win that battle. Once you’ve won, you’ll know you’ve lived.
Nightingale
David Christopher.
Student Number: 198480.
British Literature: II.
ENGL 3502 (18.352) Section V.
October 4th, 2002.
Poetry Analysis 1: John Keats’ “Ode to A Nightingale”
John Keats’ in his “Ode to a Nightingale” examines the therapeutic effect of poetry on the imagination and the harsh reminder of reality that such flights of imagination stimulate by contrast. Using extensive imagery, verse, meter, and sibilance, Keats successfully creates a lyrical opiate of the mind which enjoins the reader to accompany him through his dreamy experience and its oscillation back into lucidity. Images of Bacchic revelry and Greek mythology facilitate the reader’s descent into the author’s dream-state and commune with nature. No matter how lost in nature the author becomes, however, his ecstasy is constantly interrupted with moments of lucidity that the reader experiences through the images and form of the poem. Keats concludes with specific images of death and a lamenting of his own mortal condition as he says farewell to the nightingale and questions the reality of his experience.
The first stanza is a microcosm for all the techniques the author will use throughout the poem to create the feeling of sliding into an ecstatic dream-state. He immediately mentions his opiated state of mind as a “drowsy numbness” (Keats) brought on by the song and environment of the nightingale. He uses the image of sliding “Lethe-wards” (Keats) to give the reader the sense of a descent into the fantasy dreamworld but also to introduce the first interruption to the ecstasy as he moves toward death. The mythological Greek image of “Lethe-ward”(Keats) is complemented by metaphorically describing the nightingale as a “dryad.”(Keats) The imagination of the reader further descends into the dreamworld. The nightingale itself as it “singest of summer in full-throated ease” (Keats) is merely a vehicle by which the author engages the imagination to ascend into the dreamy state of opiated reprieve from his anguish. Combined with the dreamy sibilance replete in these lines such as “My heart aches and a drowsy numbness pains” (Keats) or “Lethe-wards had sunk” (Keats) and the smooth rhythm of the iambic pentameter, Keats manages to create both an image and feeling of the sense of ecstasy one experiences in the dreamy moments of transition between being fully awake and fully asleep.
Keats’ use of images from ancient Greek mythology and religion is pervasive. The ideas used in stanza one to help the descent into the dreamworld are extended by the mention in stanza two of his desire for a “draught of vintage” (Keats) or a “beaker” (Keats) full of bubbling wine from the Hippocrene. Not only is the Hippocrene the Greek image of a ‘fountain of the muses on Mt. Helicon’, it is used in conjunction with the idea of summer mentioned in stanza one, the nighttime world of the nightingale, and the desire for deleterious wine to create an emotion that is distinctly one of Bacchic revelry as described by Euripides in his classical works.
In stanza four, Keats actually mentions Bacchus as the mind of the reader has now been conditioned to expect his presence from stanza one and two. The personification of the “Queen-moon” (Keats) is obviously an allusion to the Greek deity Artemis, and is a strong contrast to the very concrete description of the image of the moon in Wordsworth’s “Strange Fits of Passion I Have Known.” All of these images from the author’s imagination, in which the reader is sharing, strongly remove the reader from the world of reality and into the imagined world of communing with nature typical of Bacchus and the ancient Greeks.
Building on the image of revelry in nature, the author now begins to revel himself in his imagined surroundings. Stanza five is highly reminiscent of Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” The image is one of being surrounded by the blackness of night, with a warm summer breeze relaxing the senses and being enchanted by the scents of a summer forest and the carefree, siren-like song of the nightingale against an otherwise silent and sleeping natural setting.
In the “embalmed darkness,” (Keats) the author is actually blind, but rich in imagination and his escape from reality is complete. Using imagery, he again allows the reader to engage in his experience. The reader is equally blind to the scene but can access it through images that have a universal emotional appeal.
Access to the pain-free world of the imagination created by the nightingale, however, can be intruded upon. In stanza three the descent and participation in a dreamy state of mind that the author has been creating to this point abruptly oscillate back to the world of reality. Here, Keats takes note of the difference between the world of the nightingale and his own. He asks the nightingale to “forget What . . . (it) hast never known.” (Keats) The mortality of youth and world of disease that is “full of sorrow”, “Where Beauty cannot keep” (Keats) is exclusive to man’s reality. The irony of forgetting what he has never known suggests that the nightingale, in this sense, is really the author’s imagination, part of which is a painless world of immortality, and another part of which is vividly aware of harsh reality. The stanza maintains the use of sibilance and meter, however, and, in turn, maintains some of the dreamy quality previously established. As such, the imagination and reality are shown as not mutually exclusive, but that reality imposes on the dream-state as an ever-present interruption.
Bacchus merits further mentioning as a dichotomous representation. The idea that the fantastical escape-world of the imagination and the harsh world of reality are not mutually exclusive is supported by the choice of Bacchus as an image. Note that in Euripides’ play, one of his major themes was that a balanced mind requires both mental flights of fancy as well as logical thought. Stanza six and seven represent this dichotomous notion well as they are not clear in which world the author’s mind is residing. He muses about his own death and welcoming it, while maintaining the sleepy sibilance and dreamy iambic pentameter. He then pursues a flight of fancy about the travels of the immortal nightingale through the lives of other mortals throughout history and mentions such pastoral fantasy images as “Charmed magic”, “faery lands”, and fancy as a “decieving elf.” (Keats) Clearly the author is lost somewhere between fantasy and reality.
Interruptions to the ecstatic dreamworld are not only by the stanzas as a whole, but as fleeting images of death throughout the poem such as “spectre-thin” (Keats) or “embalmed darkness” (Keats) and as reflected in the structure of the poem itself. I find it interesting to note that the author uses an iambic pentameter to mimic the dialogue of a wandering mind. The meter is very simple and rhythmic and has a distinctly relaxing effect on the reader. However, every eighth line of every ten-line stanza carries only three beats in contrast to the five beats of every other line. The halting contrast of this line within the stanza has an abrupt effect on the relaxed rhythm the reader is otherwise enjoying. The line is a reflection in form of the constant interruption of the dream-state the author experiences by his own imposing lucidity.
It is further interesting to note that in many of these lines the author chooses vocabulary that either directly or through imagery suggests death. In stanza one, the definition of the word “plot” (Keats) includes a connotation to a piece of land set aside for burial. Likewise, in stanza two, the reader might interpret the phrase “purple-stained” (Keats) as an image of a bloodstained cloak as perhaps the one worn by Caesar, again contrasting with the painless immortality of the nightingale.
In stanza two, he pines for some sort of vintage that has been fermented in nature, or a “beaker full of the warm South” (Keats) that he might drink to fade away with the nightingale into the dreamy night. He wants to capture and contain nature in a bottle to be used as some sort of modern medicine that he might drink off and be cured of the pains of his illness. My historical impression of Keats as “Ill with tuberculosis” and “haunted by premonitions of early death” (Rosenthal) is at least remotely relevant here. He is obviously grappling with his mortality and his condition as he struggles through the pain of his disease. As such, he is able to very passionately express his escape from that world (through the nightingale and the environment it represents) to the reader through his images and form, but incessantly returns the reader to the horrors of his reality as he would experience in an oscillating dream-state. He recognizes the medicinal effect of his imagination as it engages in the environment of the nightingale and wants to bottle it or package it for convenient use so that it is available not only when the mind is unexpectedly so able to escape its reality. He proceeds to say that he will fly to the nightingale on “viewless wings of poesy” (Keats) suggesting that he has perhaps found the method by which he can bottle and voluntarily access the dreamy anaesthesia of the experience: through poetry.
The last stanza of the poem is a full combination of the ecstasy of the dream and the reality of mortality. The stanza commences with the lucid word “Forlorn!” (Keats) The author suggests that the word tolls him back from the nightingale and the dreamworld it represents, as perhaps day approaches, to his sole self. He is no longer communing with nature but alone. As the sound fades away, he chooses the blatant death image of “buried deep” (Keats) to describe the final disappearance of the bird’s song. However, the dream world is still present. The smooth iambic pentameter has not been abandoned and such sleepy sibilant phrases as “Past the near meadows, over the still stream” (Keats) are also still very obvious. In fact, the poet concludes by asking the question of perfect summary: “Do I wake or sleep?”(Keats) As such, he has returned the reader indefinitely to that elusive place of ecstasy between slumber and lucidity. He points out in stanza one that he has not actually taken any sort of hallucinogen but feels as though he had. The effect of the nightingale (and its environment, all of which engages the imagination) on the author is tantamount to the effect of the poem on the reader. It is anaesthetic, but only temporarily as the dream is interrupted by harsh reality.
Works Cited
Keats, John. “Ode to a Nightingale.” The Heath Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alice S. Landy and Dave Martin. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath Canada Ltd., 1982, 842-845.
Rosenthal, M.L. “John Keats.” Poetry in English - An Anthology. Ed. M. L. Rosenthal. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1987, 603.
Student Number: 198480.
British Literature: II.
ENGL 3502 (18.352) Section V.
October 4th, 2002.
Poetry Analysis 1: John Keats’ “Ode to A Nightingale”
John Keats’ in his “Ode to a Nightingale” examines the therapeutic effect of poetry on the imagination and the harsh reminder of reality that such flights of imagination stimulate by contrast. Using extensive imagery, verse, meter, and sibilance, Keats successfully creates a lyrical opiate of the mind which enjoins the reader to accompany him through his dreamy experience and its oscillation back into lucidity. Images of Bacchic revelry and Greek mythology facilitate the reader’s descent into the author’s dream-state and commune with nature. No matter how lost in nature the author becomes, however, his ecstasy is constantly interrupted with moments of lucidity that the reader experiences through the images and form of the poem. Keats concludes with specific images of death and a lamenting of his own mortal condition as he says farewell to the nightingale and questions the reality of his experience.
The first stanza is a microcosm for all the techniques the author will use throughout the poem to create the feeling of sliding into an ecstatic dream-state. He immediately mentions his opiated state of mind as a “drowsy numbness” (Keats) brought on by the song and environment of the nightingale. He uses the image of sliding “Lethe-wards” (Keats) to give the reader the sense of a descent into the fantasy dreamworld but also to introduce the first interruption to the ecstasy as he moves toward death. The mythological Greek image of “Lethe-ward”(Keats) is complemented by metaphorically describing the nightingale as a “dryad.”(Keats) The imagination of the reader further descends into the dreamworld. The nightingale itself as it “singest of summer in full-throated ease” (Keats) is merely a vehicle by which the author engages the imagination to ascend into the dreamy state of opiated reprieve from his anguish. Combined with the dreamy sibilance replete in these lines such as “My heart aches and a drowsy numbness pains” (Keats) or “Lethe-wards had sunk” (Keats) and the smooth rhythm of the iambic pentameter, Keats manages to create both an image and feeling of the sense of ecstasy one experiences in the dreamy moments of transition between being fully awake and fully asleep.
Keats’ use of images from ancient Greek mythology and religion is pervasive. The ideas used in stanza one to help the descent into the dreamworld are extended by the mention in stanza two of his desire for a “draught of vintage” (Keats) or a “beaker” (Keats) full of bubbling wine from the Hippocrene. Not only is the Hippocrene the Greek image of a ‘fountain of the muses on Mt. Helicon’, it is used in conjunction with the idea of summer mentioned in stanza one, the nighttime world of the nightingale, and the desire for deleterious wine to create an emotion that is distinctly one of Bacchic revelry as described by Euripides in his classical works.
In stanza four, Keats actually mentions Bacchus as the mind of the reader has now been conditioned to expect his presence from stanza one and two. The personification of the “Queen-moon” (Keats) is obviously an allusion to the Greek deity Artemis, and is a strong contrast to the very concrete description of the image of the moon in Wordsworth’s “Strange Fits of Passion I Have Known.” All of these images from the author’s imagination, in which the reader is sharing, strongly remove the reader from the world of reality and into the imagined world of communing with nature typical of Bacchus and the ancient Greeks.
Building on the image of revelry in nature, the author now begins to revel himself in his imagined surroundings. Stanza five is highly reminiscent of Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” The image is one of being surrounded by the blackness of night, with a warm summer breeze relaxing the senses and being enchanted by the scents of a summer forest and the carefree, siren-like song of the nightingale against an otherwise silent and sleeping natural setting.
In the “embalmed darkness,” (Keats) the author is actually blind, but rich in imagination and his escape from reality is complete. Using imagery, he again allows the reader to engage in his experience. The reader is equally blind to the scene but can access it through images that have a universal emotional appeal.
Access to the pain-free world of the imagination created by the nightingale, however, can be intruded upon. In stanza three the descent and participation in a dreamy state of mind that the author has been creating to this point abruptly oscillate back to the world of reality. Here, Keats takes note of the difference between the world of the nightingale and his own. He asks the nightingale to “forget What . . . (it) hast never known.” (Keats) The mortality of youth and world of disease that is “full of sorrow”, “Where Beauty cannot keep” (Keats) is exclusive to man’s reality. The irony of forgetting what he has never known suggests that the nightingale, in this sense, is really the author’s imagination, part of which is a painless world of immortality, and another part of which is vividly aware of harsh reality. The stanza maintains the use of sibilance and meter, however, and, in turn, maintains some of the dreamy quality previously established. As such, the imagination and reality are shown as not mutually exclusive, but that reality imposes on the dream-state as an ever-present interruption.
Bacchus merits further mentioning as a dichotomous representation. The idea that the fantastical escape-world of the imagination and the harsh world of reality are not mutually exclusive is supported by the choice of Bacchus as an image. Note that in Euripides’ play, one of his major themes was that a balanced mind requires both mental flights of fancy as well as logical thought. Stanza six and seven represent this dichotomous notion well as they are not clear in which world the author’s mind is residing. He muses about his own death and welcoming it, while maintaining the sleepy sibilance and dreamy iambic pentameter. He then pursues a flight of fancy about the travels of the immortal nightingale through the lives of other mortals throughout history and mentions such pastoral fantasy images as “Charmed magic”, “faery lands”, and fancy as a “decieving elf.” (Keats) Clearly the author is lost somewhere between fantasy and reality.
Interruptions to the ecstatic dreamworld are not only by the stanzas as a whole, but as fleeting images of death throughout the poem such as “spectre-thin” (Keats) or “embalmed darkness” (Keats) and as reflected in the structure of the poem itself. I find it interesting to note that the author uses an iambic pentameter to mimic the dialogue of a wandering mind. The meter is very simple and rhythmic and has a distinctly relaxing effect on the reader. However, every eighth line of every ten-line stanza carries only three beats in contrast to the five beats of every other line. The halting contrast of this line within the stanza has an abrupt effect on the relaxed rhythm the reader is otherwise enjoying. The line is a reflection in form of the constant interruption of the dream-state the author experiences by his own imposing lucidity.
It is further interesting to note that in many of these lines the author chooses vocabulary that either directly or through imagery suggests death. In stanza one, the definition of the word “plot” (Keats) includes a connotation to a piece of land set aside for burial. Likewise, in stanza two, the reader might interpret the phrase “purple-stained” (Keats) as an image of a bloodstained cloak as perhaps the one worn by Caesar, again contrasting with the painless immortality of the nightingale.
In stanza two, he pines for some sort of vintage that has been fermented in nature, or a “beaker full of the warm South” (Keats) that he might drink to fade away with the nightingale into the dreamy night. He wants to capture and contain nature in a bottle to be used as some sort of modern medicine that he might drink off and be cured of the pains of his illness. My historical impression of Keats as “Ill with tuberculosis” and “haunted by premonitions of early death” (Rosenthal) is at least remotely relevant here. He is obviously grappling with his mortality and his condition as he struggles through the pain of his disease. As such, he is able to very passionately express his escape from that world (through the nightingale and the environment it represents) to the reader through his images and form, but incessantly returns the reader to the horrors of his reality as he would experience in an oscillating dream-state. He recognizes the medicinal effect of his imagination as it engages in the environment of the nightingale and wants to bottle it or package it for convenient use so that it is available not only when the mind is unexpectedly so able to escape its reality. He proceeds to say that he will fly to the nightingale on “viewless wings of poesy” (Keats) suggesting that he has perhaps found the method by which he can bottle and voluntarily access the dreamy anaesthesia of the experience: through poetry.
The last stanza of the poem is a full combination of the ecstasy of the dream and the reality of mortality. The stanza commences with the lucid word “Forlorn!” (Keats) The author suggests that the word tolls him back from the nightingale and the dreamworld it represents, as perhaps day approaches, to his sole self. He is no longer communing with nature but alone. As the sound fades away, he chooses the blatant death image of “buried deep” (Keats) to describe the final disappearance of the bird’s song. However, the dream world is still present. The smooth iambic pentameter has not been abandoned and such sleepy sibilant phrases as “Past the near meadows, over the still stream” (Keats) are also still very obvious. In fact, the poet concludes by asking the question of perfect summary: “Do I wake or sleep?”(Keats) As such, he has returned the reader indefinitely to that elusive place of ecstasy between slumber and lucidity. He points out in stanza one that he has not actually taken any sort of hallucinogen but feels as though he had. The effect of the nightingale (and its environment, all of which engages the imagination) on the author is tantamount to the effect of the poem on the reader. It is anaesthetic, but only temporarily as the dream is interrupted by harsh reality.
Works Cited
Keats, John. “Ode to a Nightingale.” The Heath Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alice S. Landy and Dave Martin. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath Canada Ltd., 1982, 842-845.
Rosenthal, M.L. “John Keats.” Poetry in English - An Anthology. Ed. M. L. Rosenthal. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1987, 603.
Russian Economics and Drama
BOOK REVIEW
Adam Smith Goes To Moscow
by Adams and Brock
David C. Long
(198480)
Carleton University
Economies in Transition: USSR 43.371*
Instructor: C. H. McMillan
December 2, 1994
Economic problems are often trivialized and easily solved with models and mathematical solutions that conveniently ignore real world dilemmas with such words as, 'assuming'. The situation in the former Soviet Union faced by political leaders and economists has all but eliminated these 'utopian' models and disillusioned the most pompous of transition-specialist economists. Walter Adams and James W. Brock are the two authors of the book "Adam Smith Goes to Moscow", published by the Princeton University Press in 1993, a date well into the transitionary period. Together, they have created a brilliant synopsis of the problems facing the transition economies of Russia and its newly formed sister states. The major issue examined by the book is the question as to whether a gradualist approach to the transition should be implemented or a policy of abrupt and extensive change. Both approaches are laced with problems that make them difficult at best, and downright impossible at worst. Perhaps its greatest strength is the fact that virtually every aspect of the transition known to us today is at least touched upon. The problems, some possible solutions, and their inherent dangers are thoroughly examined. Within the framework of a diametrically-opposed, two-person dialogue, solutions are evasive and inconclusive. In fact the only conclusion the play seems to purport is that there are no solutions, and the road to economic prosperity will be a dynamic learning process, where hastily implemented economic models and gradual sociological change will be tempered, one with the other.
Before the actual topics of transition are discussed, the first thing that strikes the reader is the structure of the book. Surprisingly, it is a piece of dramatic prose. Certainly a departure from traditional economics literature, the author of the introduction coined it the "rara avis in economics books" (Adam xvii). The book presents problems in a fashion that is both riveting and universal. Its value as a play may be questionable to the scholastic literary elite, but its structure can involve and intrigue even the most economically uninformed reader, save the problem of terminology. One of the ways it achieves universality is through the use of wit, available to the dramatic author, but completely absent in economic theory and non-fiction. In this sense it is both valuable and important. The need, particularly in the new Russia, for understanding of economics to motivate political support and to facilitate a new information-rich capitalist economy, is well served by a book that interests everyone. That is to say that as far as being a learning tool for economics, and not literature, this play works.
The two characters in the play are unnamed but play specific roles against one another. This play is about the points of discrepancy and intersection between economics and politics. The "Prime Minister" is politically inclined towards a gradual change approach. He seems to understand that if people don't realize the need for sacrifice, he will lose support and his ability to implement change will diminish. He is empathetic to the plight of the people, but also open-minded enough to understand that abrupt change may be necessary in order to entrench a new system before it can be overthrown. The other character, the "Advisor", is not so open-minded, but rather adamant in his blind faith to economic theory. He seems to ignore the sufferings of an economically bereft people in favour of a 'get it over with quickly' approach. Nonetheless, his suggestion that economic institutions are interdependent and must all emerge together is true. Both characters make valid points on all of the major transition categories that must be examined.
The chapters of the book are divided into seven 'days' of dialogue, each representing a different topic of the imminent reform, as follows: the agenda, marketization, the monopoly dilemma, privatization, stabilization, government and the market, and lastly, inherent tensions. These topics are not fictitious. Some of these things have already occurred, such as privatization through voucher auctions, and certainly hold true to what has been observed in reality. The book opens with a chronology of actual historic events that have occurred to date. Placing the book in such a historical context lends credibility to the characters, as they frequently use actual events and statistics to reify their arguments.
The 'agenda' chapter presents much more than a mere outline of what is to come. In addition, one other major point emerges. The economic problems posed by universal institutional shortcomings, allow universal models that solve these problems to be developed. This point is refuted by the fact that every economy has a history unique to itself. Therefore there are unique conundrums that the universal model did not consider and cannot contend with. The Advisor maintains that "the basic principles of economics are applicable in all nations. The most essential of these principles is the relationship between economic prosperity and private property rights" (Adam 5). The Prime Minister argues: "You seem to be saying that the same...advice is relevant to all nations, irrespective of their history, culture, traditions, or stage of development - that there are iron laws of economics, which are universal and eternal. I don't believe that" (Adam 5). The Prime Minister reminds us that the transition "is not taking place in a vacuum" (Adam 7). He proceeds to list military crises, crises arising from ethnic and nationalist strife, and constitutional crises whereby there is a lack of a legal infrastructure in which private property is legitimized. He points out that "After decades of communist rule, few people have any idea what private property means" (Adam 9). The agenda chapter suggests that history and similar economies provide economic concepts, albeit concepts that must be altered to meet the needs of a specific country.
The Advisor lists the components of the transition model according to the International Monetary Fund in the first chapter. The first component discussed is 'marketization'. The Advisor outlines the model of the market, described by Adam Smith as the 'invisible hand'. He says, "we can depend on free market forces of supply and demand" and extends with an example of tractor production (Adam 24). He argues that overproduction will cause excess supply for which producers will compensate by lowering prices to sell unsold inventories and in turn, reduce current production. He rationalizes that an increase in demand for steel, by manufacturers other than tractor producers, "will trigger a rise in steel prices, in order to allocate now scarce steel supplies among buyers who value them most, who can put them to the most profitable use, and hence who are willing to pay the highest price for them" (Adam 25). He insists that this calls for the elimination of ineffective government control plans over production decisions. "You must eliminate state planning, which tries to balance more than fifty thousand inputs...a task requiring the handling of some seven million documents annually, and some eighty-three million calculations, half of which subsequently have to be changed" (Adam 10). He continues, "You must eliminate the State Price Committee, which sets about two hundred thousand prices per year - some at ... perversely ridiculous levels" (Adam 11). His argument for the freeing of prices is justified by his faith in the working market model.
The Prime Minister is hesitant to accept the practical reality of such a proposal. He realizes that such a policy "would ignite skyrocketing price inflation: Our state has held prices low for decades; a sudden and precipitate abolition of these state controls would trigger an explosion of prices...pushing our people into literal starvation" (Adam 36/40). "These are people struggling to survive - citizens capable of inciting political insurrection" (Adam 41). He cites "Price liberalization by Latin American nations during the 1970s" as a real life example (Adam 36).
The Advisor, of course, has a rebuttle. He insists that inflation would not increase so much as it would change from repressed to overt. He exemplifies his idealism with a maxim: "You can't cross a chasm in two jumps. Piecemeal price decontrol would inevitably become politicized ... The result would be ... continued obstruction ... and undermine your efforts to restructure" (Adam 40). His argument here is valid but perhaps somewhat impractical. The debate is unsettled as they move on to the next day.
The third day of the dialogue is an explanation and discussion of 'the monopoly dilemma'. The prime minister is quite explicit as he explains that, "Supply and demand will operate in the public interest only in a competitive framework - ... no barriers to the entry of newcomers, ... no collusion ..., and if firms do not wield monopoly power over markets" (Adam 46). He quotes Nikolai Petrakov: "the first thing to do before deregulating prices is to create the right conditions for competition, without which there can be no price freedom. One of the first measures to be taken is therefore to demonopolize our economy, which is the most highly monopolized in the world" (Adam 54). The model for transition is once again clear, but questionable as to its viability.
The Prime Minister cites another true example as "the nub of the problem": "Our major manufacturing industries are totally devoid of competition. Our industrial landscapes are densely populated with giant monopolies" (Adam 46). He knows that "Breaking up such monopolistic enterprises will be one of the most difficult challenges in our transition" (Adam 52). In reality, the dilemma seems insurmountable.
Once again, the Advisor is more optimistic. First he suggests that "monopoly prices are preferable to prices controlled by the state. Such prices will clear markets" (Adam 54). He also suggests that competition may emerge if some of the monopoly enterprises could "broaden their product lines", as well as allowing the entry of foreign markets (Adam 58). The Prime Minister is quick to list the destruction of inefficient domestic industry by foreign competition, price conspiracies, boycotts of firms by suppliers, and the fact that "In some of the former Soviet republics, the cartels are essentially mobsters", as barriers to such a plan (Adam 61). Again, the problem remains unresolved as they move to the next component.
'Privatization' is the topic of discussion on the fourth day. The advisor explains that "The simple fact is that no economic system can provide proper economic incentives unless individuals have the right to buy, own, and sell property as they see fit. Self-interest and voluntary exchanges won't be successful motivators unless there is private ownership of the means of production" (Adam 71/72). He mentions the two general theoretical methods of privatization. "The first is privatization 'from above', by which enterprises operated by the state are transferred to private ownership and control. The second is privatization 'from below', by which completely new, privately owned businesses are encouraged to form" (Adam 77). Both methods are only concepts, however, and not practices.
The Prime Minister sees "the enormity of the challenge that privatization presents" (Adam 76). He presents the example of "the total number of all state enterprises privatized in all countries around the entire world since 1980" at 6800 (Adam 77). His logic is somewhat irrelevant, however, as it can be noted that no intentional massive privatization programs had been undertaken during this period.
The ownership discussion is a 'tennis match' of arguments and rebuttles between the two characters. On privatization from above, the Advisor suggests giving away ownership to the populous. "Assign the ownership of each enterprise to its current workforce" (Adam 78). The Prime Minister is appalled. Inequity and riots would emerge out of firms that are more modern and competitive than others. There is a problem with dividing up working capital amongst individuals, such as dividing up thirty tractors, designed for cultivating vast tracts of land, to thirty families. 'Apparatchiks', those most advantaged in spontaneous privatization, would write the rules to advantage themselves most. Moreover, the idea of giving the ownership away does not begin the implementation of a price system.
The Advisor suggests the selling of state enterprises to which the Prime Minister inquires, by whom? The state, as owner, is no longer defined as either the people or the government. Holding true to economic rhetoric, the advisor says, "let's assume someone or something owns them", and continues to describe an auction much like the voucher auctions that have actually been carried out in the former Soviet Union (Adam 83). He foresees an automatic price development. "Ignore the value of the enterprises carried on the accounting books ... The top bid is the only relevant economic value" (Adam 85). This ideology conveniently ignores the problem that the top bid may be worthless in a matter of hours in the face of hyperinflation.
The issue of privatization from below is equally problematic. The Advisor sees the process in overly simplistic general terms. "All that's required is for your government to get out of the way", a task easier said than done (Adam 89). He proceeds, "Dismantle the bureaucratic barriers that obstruct private enterprise, abolish the misguided measures you enacted in the past to suppress the private sector, and private firms will sprout like mushrooms" (Adam 89). The Prime Minister is not convinced, and retorts, "powerful appartchiks will ... retain ... control over key materials and sources of credit ... they will refuse to make those resources available to independent entrepreneurs, who may compete with them and erode their profitability" (Adam 89). He adds, "the financial holding companies ... may refuse to lend funds to new firms, which might compete with their clients and reduce the value of their stock holdings" (Adam 89). The Advisor concludes the chapter on a less-than-encouraging point: "the alternative of not privatizing is far worse", and continues his belief that government must avoid microeconomic planning into the next chapter (Adam 91).
The subsequent two chapters deal with government intervention with the market. The first intervention is of a directly economic nature dealing with fiscal and monetary policy in the chapter entitled 'stabilization'. The Advisor says, "You must move away from detailed, intricate microeconomic controls, and to broad macroeconomic controls" (Adam 93). "You must adopt a stringent fiscal and monetary policy to avert ... hyperinflation ... (and) budget deficits" (Adam 15). The Prime Minister is concerned that "If we agree to balance the budget in economies that have produced virtually no wealth in years, half our people will starve" (Adam 16). It is interesting to note his reliance on theoretical models in this case. The former Soviet Union has produced wealth, albeit not much, that has been hidden under government deficits, much like in Canada today. His argument is only valid if the region was totally devoid of productivity, as he suggests, which it has not been.
The Advisor explains the concept of fiscal policy. "Government expenditures and taxes affect total employment and production by influencing the total volume of spending for goods and services ... stimulating consumption and investment" (Adam 94). He speaks of the need for government to increase or decrease its expenditures in order to stabilize the economy at full employment and output. The Prime Minister says that there is a practical paradox which makes this tool impossible. The state firms which were "cash cows" for government revenues are virtually all gone. There is no form of income or sales tax, and implementation would be undermined by tax evasion as privatization spreads. Therefore it would be impossible for the government to make an expenditure injection without increasing the stifling national debt as there is currently no government revenue, save that which is borrowed. The Advisor can only agree, "Sure it's difficult" (Adam 96).
Monetary policy is a stabilization tool which is not exempt from similar dilemmas. Defined by the advisor as "all government actions affecting the liquidity of the economy and the availability and cost of credit", the increase or decrease of available credit will act as expansionary or contractionary policies to the economy respectively (Adam 96). The Prime Minister discusses the traditionally "negligible role" of credit as a "bookkeeping" function. He calls financial markets and instruments "woefully undeveloped" (Adam 97). He continues to describe "pseudocredit": an interdependent system of credit amongst firms that is never collected. The Advisor prescribes the "hard budget constraint" as the remedy. "Allowing ten major bankruptcies should make the point" (Adam 98). Of course, this remedy is, again, a quick route to massive unemployment and riots.
The stabilization chapter ends with the perennial economic joke, which, with invective wit, exemplifies the uncertainty of economics. The Prime Minister poses a seemingly simple question as to which policy tool, fiscal or monetary, is most effective. The response of the Advisor is unsatisfying as he flounders in it. He explains that it is an issue amongst economists presently up for debate, and concludes with a 'fence-sitting' answer that they are both effective together. The Prime Minister chides, quoting Truman: "Frustrated by economists framing their advice with 'on the one hand' and 'on the other hand', he expressed longing for a 'one-armed' economist" (Adam 99).
The discussion on government intervention is maintained in the following chapter, entitled 'government and the market'. The Prime Minister outlines the role of government as prescribed by Adam Smith. These duties include national defence, justice, and public works. The major topic in the chapter obviously deals with welfare economics. Amongst the specifics within these topics are economic welfare problems common in our advanced market societies. They discuss consumer protectionism, and how the market may be more effective than government due to competition. The Advisor describes the internalization model for pollution, that maximizes social welfare, and imposes a price on the right to pollute. They discuss the problem of 'free riders' on public goods, and lastly the problem of state enterprises no longer financing social safety nets. The chapter concludes on an ironic note put forward by the Prime Minister: The ultimate objective is to create an economy where government has very limited powers, but to achieve the reforms advocated requires a government of almost unlimited powers.
The last day of the dialogue is a further discussion of some of the 'inherent tensions' mentioned contextually in previous chapters. The economic transformation is described as "a struggle to determine who will control resources, who will allocate them, and who will employ them for what purposes" (Adam 143). All this occurring in a society that has been "taught for decades to believe that private ownership of the means of production is the root of all evil" (Adam 71). The Prime Minister sums up his concerns by saying, "I am beginning to wonder if it's really possible to achieve ... in the midst of ... hyperchaos" (Adam 91). This statement poses a striking contrast to the optimistic faith of the Advisor: "Because you are starting from scratch in building your political, economic, and social structures, your postcommunist society has a unique opportunity to lead the way in this endeavour for the rest of us" (Adam 147). Clearly, this is "a time of conflict between theory that plays fast and loose with practice and theory that learns from practice" (Adam 149).
The play enacts the real life economic problem of models and plans leading to further questions and speculations, rather than the pure, market-clearing solutions that static economic models often suggest. It also takes into account the fact that the transition is not occurring in a vacuum, but rather in a politically motivated and sociological atmosphere, where people and welfare are qualitative as well as quantitative. Every solution offered in the book is almost immediately tempered with a subsequent problem. Every philosophy is equally thwarted with a model that solves it. The book is most effective, because it discusses the entire situation without bias. The conclusion it comes to is that there is not a utopian solution that should be implemented, but rather a set of possibilities that must be explored. The feeling the reader is left with is that we are not at the beginning, and we are never at the end, but we are always in the middle.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Walter and Brock, James W. Adam Smith Goes To Moscow. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Adam Smith Goes To Moscow
by Adams and Brock
David C. Long
(198480)
Carleton University
Economies in Transition: USSR 43.371*
Instructor: C. H. McMillan
December 2, 1994
Economic problems are often trivialized and easily solved with models and mathematical solutions that conveniently ignore real world dilemmas with such words as, 'assuming'. The situation in the former Soviet Union faced by political leaders and economists has all but eliminated these 'utopian' models and disillusioned the most pompous of transition-specialist economists. Walter Adams and James W. Brock are the two authors of the book "Adam Smith Goes to Moscow", published by the Princeton University Press in 1993, a date well into the transitionary period. Together, they have created a brilliant synopsis of the problems facing the transition economies of Russia and its newly formed sister states. The major issue examined by the book is the question as to whether a gradualist approach to the transition should be implemented or a policy of abrupt and extensive change. Both approaches are laced with problems that make them difficult at best, and downright impossible at worst. Perhaps its greatest strength is the fact that virtually every aspect of the transition known to us today is at least touched upon. The problems, some possible solutions, and their inherent dangers are thoroughly examined. Within the framework of a diametrically-opposed, two-person dialogue, solutions are evasive and inconclusive. In fact the only conclusion the play seems to purport is that there are no solutions, and the road to economic prosperity will be a dynamic learning process, where hastily implemented economic models and gradual sociological change will be tempered, one with the other.
Before the actual topics of transition are discussed, the first thing that strikes the reader is the structure of the book. Surprisingly, it is a piece of dramatic prose. Certainly a departure from traditional economics literature, the author of the introduction coined it the "rara avis in economics books" (Adam xvii). The book presents problems in a fashion that is both riveting and universal. Its value as a play may be questionable to the scholastic literary elite, but its structure can involve and intrigue even the most economically uninformed reader, save the problem of terminology. One of the ways it achieves universality is through the use of wit, available to the dramatic author, but completely absent in economic theory and non-fiction. In this sense it is both valuable and important. The need, particularly in the new Russia, for understanding of economics to motivate political support and to facilitate a new information-rich capitalist economy, is well served by a book that interests everyone. That is to say that as far as being a learning tool for economics, and not literature, this play works.
The two characters in the play are unnamed but play specific roles against one another. This play is about the points of discrepancy and intersection between economics and politics. The "Prime Minister" is politically inclined towards a gradual change approach. He seems to understand that if people don't realize the need for sacrifice, he will lose support and his ability to implement change will diminish. He is empathetic to the plight of the people, but also open-minded enough to understand that abrupt change may be necessary in order to entrench a new system before it can be overthrown. The other character, the "Advisor", is not so open-minded, but rather adamant in his blind faith to economic theory. He seems to ignore the sufferings of an economically bereft people in favour of a 'get it over with quickly' approach. Nonetheless, his suggestion that economic institutions are interdependent and must all emerge together is true. Both characters make valid points on all of the major transition categories that must be examined.
The chapters of the book are divided into seven 'days' of dialogue, each representing a different topic of the imminent reform, as follows: the agenda, marketization, the monopoly dilemma, privatization, stabilization, government and the market, and lastly, inherent tensions. These topics are not fictitious. Some of these things have already occurred, such as privatization through voucher auctions, and certainly hold true to what has been observed in reality. The book opens with a chronology of actual historic events that have occurred to date. Placing the book in such a historical context lends credibility to the characters, as they frequently use actual events and statistics to reify their arguments.
The 'agenda' chapter presents much more than a mere outline of what is to come. In addition, one other major point emerges. The economic problems posed by universal institutional shortcomings, allow universal models that solve these problems to be developed. This point is refuted by the fact that every economy has a history unique to itself. Therefore there are unique conundrums that the universal model did not consider and cannot contend with. The Advisor maintains that "the basic principles of economics are applicable in all nations. The most essential of these principles is the relationship between economic prosperity and private property rights" (Adam 5). The Prime Minister argues: "You seem to be saying that the same...advice is relevant to all nations, irrespective of their history, culture, traditions, or stage of development - that there are iron laws of economics, which are universal and eternal. I don't believe that" (Adam 5). The Prime Minister reminds us that the transition "is not taking place in a vacuum" (Adam 7). He proceeds to list military crises, crises arising from ethnic and nationalist strife, and constitutional crises whereby there is a lack of a legal infrastructure in which private property is legitimized. He points out that "After decades of communist rule, few people have any idea what private property means" (Adam 9). The agenda chapter suggests that history and similar economies provide economic concepts, albeit concepts that must be altered to meet the needs of a specific country.
The Advisor lists the components of the transition model according to the International Monetary Fund in the first chapter. The first component discussed is 'marketization'. The Advisor outlines the model of the market, described by Adam Smith as the 'invisible hand'. He says, "we can depend on free market forces of supply and demand" and extends with an example of tractor production (Adam 24). He argues that overproduction will cause excess supply for which producers will compensate by lowering prices to sell unsold inventories and in turn, reduce current production. He rationalizes that an increase in demand for steel, by manufacturers other than tractor producers, "will trigger a rise in steel prices, in order to allocate now scarce steel supplies among buyers who value them most, who can put them to the most profitable use, and hence who are willing to pay the highest price for them" (Adam 25). He insists that this calls for the elimination of ineffective government control plans over production decisions. "You must eliminate state planning, which tries to balance more than fifty thousand inputs...a task requiring the handling of some seven million documents annually, and some eighty-three million calculations, half of which subsequently have to be changed" (Adam 10). He continues, "You must eliminate the State Price Committee, which sets about two hundred thousand prices per year - some at ... perversely ridiculous levels" (Adam 11). His argument for the freeing of prices is justified by his faith in the working market model.
The Prime Minister is hesitant to accept the practical reality of such a proposal. He realizes that such a policy "would ignite skyrocketing price inflation: Our state has held prices low for decades; a sudden and precipitate abolition of these state controls would trigger an explosion of prices...pushing our people into literal starvation" (Adam 36/40). "These are people struggling to survive - citizens capable of inciting political insurrection" (Adam 41). He cites "Price liberalization by Latin American nations during the 1970s" as a real life example (Adam 36).
The Advisor, of course, has a rebuttle. He insists that inflation would not increase so much as it would change from repressed to overt. He exemplifies his idealism with a maxim: "You can't cross a chasm in two jumps. Piecemeal price decontrol would inevitably become politicized ... The result would be ... continued obstruction ... and undermine your efforts to restructure" (Adam 40). His argument here is valid but perhaps somewhat impractical. The debate is unsettled as they move on to the next day.
The third day of the dialogue is an explanation and discussion of 'the monopoly dilemma'. The prime minister is quite explicit as he explains that, "Supply and demand will operate in the public interest only in a competitive framework - ... no barriers to the entry of newcomers, ... no collusion ..., and if firms do not wield monopoly power over markets" (Adam 46). He quotes Nikolai Petrakov: "the first thing to do before deregulating prices is to create the right conditions for competition, without which there can be no price freedom. One of the first measures to be taken is therefore to demonopolize our economy, which is the most highly monopolized in the world" (Adam 54). The model for transition is once again clear, but questionable as to its viability.
The Prime Minister cites another true example as "the nub of the problem": "Our major manufacturing industries are totally devoid of competition. Our industrial landscapes are densely populated with giant monopolies" (Adam 46). He knows that "Breaking up such monopolistic enterprises will be one of the most difficult challenges in our transition" (Adam 52). In reality, the dilemma seems insurmountable.
Once again, the Advisor is more optimistic. First he suggests that "monopoly prices are preferable to prices controlled by the state. Such prices will clear markets" (Adam 54). He also suggests that competition may emerge if some of the monopoly enterprises could "broaden their product lines", as well as allowing the entry of foreign markets (Adam 58). The Prime Minister is quick to list the destruction of inefficient domestic industry by foreign competition, price conspiracies, boycotts of firms by suppliers, and the fact that "In some of the former Soviet republics, the cartels are essentially mobsters", as barriers to such a plan (Adam 61). Again, the problem remains unresolved as they move to the next component.
'Privatization' is the topic of discussion on the fourth day. The advisor explains that "The simple fact is that no economic system can provide proper economic incentives unless individuals have the right to buy, own, and sell property as they see fit. Self-interest and voluntary exchanges won't be successful motivators unless there is private ownership of the means of production" (Adam 71/72). He mentions the two general theoretical methods of privatization. "The first is privatization 'from above', by which enterprises operated by the state are transferred to private ownership and control. The second is privatization 'from below', by which completely new, privately owned businesses are encouraged to form" (Adam 77). Both methods are only concepts, however, and not practices.
The Prime Minister sees "the enormity of the challenge that privatization presents" (Adam 76). He presents the example of "the total number of all state enterprises privatized in all countries around the entire world since 1980" at 6800 (Adam 77). His logic is somewhat irrelevant, however, as it can be noted that no intentional massive privatization programs had been undertaken during this period.
The ownership discussion is a 'tennis match' of arguments and rebuttles between the two characters. On privatization from above, the Advisor suggests giving away ownership to the populous. "Assign the ownership of each enterprise to its current workforce" (Adam 78). The Prime Minister is appalled. Inequity and riots would emerge out of firms that are more modern and competitive than others. There is a problem with dividing up working capital amongst individuals, such as dividing up thirty tractors, designed for cultivating vast tracts of land, to thirty families. 'Apparatchiks', those most advantaged in spontaneous privatization, would write the rules to advantage themselves most. Moreover, the idea of giving the ownership away does not begin the implementation of a price system.
The Advisor suggests the selling of state enterprises to which the Prime Minister inquires, by whom? The state, as owner, is no longer defined as either the people or the government. Holding true to economic rhetoric, the advisor says, "let's assume someone or something owns them", and continues to describe an auction much like the voucher auctions that have actually been carried out in the former Soviet Union (Adam 83). He foresees an automatic price development. "Ignore the value of the enterprises carried on the accounting books ... The top bid is the only relevant economic value" (Adam 85). This ideology conveniently ignores the problem that the top bid may be worthless in a matter of hours in the face of hyperinflation.
The issue of privatization from below is equally problematic. The Advisor sees the process in overly simplistic general terms. "All that's required is for your government to get out of the way", a task easier said than done (Adam 89). He proceeds, "Dismantle the bureaucratic barriers that obstruct private enterprise, abolish the misguided measures you enacted in the past to suppress the private sector, and private firms will sprout like mushrooms" (Adam 89). The Prime Minister is not convinced, and retorts, "powerful appartchiks will ... retain ... control over key materials and sources of credit ... they will refuse to make those resources available to independent entrepreneurs, who may compete with them and erode their profitability" (Adam 89). He adds, "the financial holding companies ... may refuse to lend funds to new firms, which might compete with their clients and reduce the value of their stock holdings" (Adam 89). The Advisor concludes the chapter on a less-than-encouraging point: "the alternative of not privatizing is far worse", and continues his belief that government must avoid microeconomic planning into the next chapter (Adam 91).
The subsequent two chapters deal with government intervention with the market. The first intervention is of a directly economic nature dealing with fiscal and monetary policy in the chapter entitled 'stabilization'. The Advisor says, "You must move away from detailed, intricate microeconomic controls, and to broad macroeconomic controls" (Adam 93). "You must adopt a stringent fiscal and monetary policy to avert ... hyperinflation ... (and) budget deficits" (Adam 15). The Prime Minister is concerned that "If we agree to balance the budget in economies that have produced virtually no wealth in years, half our people will starve" (Adam 16). It is interesting to note his reliance on theoretical models in this case. The former Soviet Union has produced wealth, albeit not much, that has been hidden under government deficits, much like in Canada today. His argument is only valid if the region was totally devoid of productivity, as he suggests, which it has not been.
The Advisor explains the concept of fiscal policy. "Government expenditures and taxes affect total employment and production by influencing the total volume of spending for goods and services ... stimulating consumption and investment" (Adam 94). He speaks of the need for government to increase or decrease its expenditures in order to stabilize the economy at full employment and output. The Prime Minister says that there is a practical paradox which makes this tool impossible. The state firms which were "cash cows" for government revenues are virtually all gone. There is no form of income or sales tax, and implementation would be undermined by tax evasion as privatization spreads. Therefore it would be impossible for the government to make an expenditure injection without increasing the stifling national debt as there is currently no government revenue, save that which is borrowed. The Advisor can only agree, "Sure it's difficult" (Adam 96).
Monetary policy is a stabilization tool which is not exempt from similar dilemmas. Defined by the advisor as "all government actions affecting the liquidity of the economy and the availability and cost of credit", the increase or decrease of available credit will act as expansionary or contractionary policies to the economy respectively (Adam 96). The Prime Minister discusses the traditionally "negligible role" of credit as a "bookkeeping" function. He calls financial markets and instruments "woefully undeveloped" (Adam 97). He continues to describe "pseudocredit": an interdependent system of credit amongst firms that is never collected. The Advisor prescribes the "hard budget constraint" as the remedy. "Allowing ten major bankruptcies should make the point" (Adam 98). Of course, this remedy is, again, a quick route to massive unemployment and riots.
The stabilization chapter ends with the perennial economic joke, which, with invective wit, exemplifies the uncertainty of economics. The Prime Minister poses a seemingly simple question as to which policy tool, fiscal or monetary, is most effective. The response of the Advisor is unsatisfying as he flounders in it. He explains that it is an issue amongst economists presently up for debate, and concludes with a 'fence-sitting' answer that they are both effective together. The Prime Minister chides, quoting Truman: "Frustrated by economists framing their advice with 'on the one hand' and 'on the other hand', he expressed longing for a 'one-armed' economist" (Adam 99).
The discussion on government intervention is maintained in the following chapter, entitled 'government and the market'. The Prime Minister outlines the role of government as prescribed by Adam Smith. These duties include national defence, justice, and public works. The major topic in the chapter obviously deals with welfare economics. Amongst the specifics within these topics are economic welfare problems common in our advanced market societies. They discuss consumer protectionism, and how the market may be more effective than government due to competition. The Advisor describes the internalization model for pollution, that maximizes social welfare, and imposes a price on the right to pollute. They discuss the problem of 'free riders' on public goods, and lastly the problem of state enterprises no longer financing social safety nets. The chapter concludes on an ironic note put forward by the Prime Minister: The ultimate objective is to create an economy where government has very limited powers, but to achieve the reforms advocated requires a government of almost unlimited powers.
The last day of the dialogue is a further discussion of some of the 'inherent tensions' mentioned contextually in previous chapters. The economic transformation is described as "a struggle to determine who will control resources, who will allocate them, and who will employ them for what purposes" (Adam 143). All this occurring in a society that has been "taught for decades to believe that private ownership of the means of production is the root of all evil" (Adam 71). The Prime Minister sums up his concerns by saying, "I am beginning to wonder if it's really possible to achieve ... in the midst of ... hyperchaos" (Adam 91). This statement poses a striking contrast to the optimistic faith of the Advisor: "Because you are starting from scratch in building your political, economic, and social structures, your postcommunist society has a unique opportunity to lead the way in this endeavour for the rest of us" (Adam 147). Clearly, this is "a time of conflict between theory that plays fast and loose with practice and theory that learns from practice" (Adam 149).
The play enacts the real life economic problem of models and plans leading to further questions and speculations, rather than the pure, market-clearing solutions that static economic models often suggest. It also takes into account the fact that the transition is not occurring in a vacuum, but rather in a politically motivated and sociological atmosphere, where people and welfare are qualitative as well as quantitative. Every solution offered in the book is almost immediately tempered with a subsequent problem. Every philosophy is equally thwarted with a model that solves it. The book is most effective, because it discusses the entire situation without bias. The conclusion it comes to is that there is not a utopian solution that should be implemented, but rather a set of possibilities that must be explored. The feeling the reader is left with is that we are not at the beginning, and we are never at the end, but we are always in the middle.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Walter and Brock, James W. Adam Smith Goes To Moscow. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
A Baum's Worth of Self in Emily Bronte’s “Wuthering Heights”
Have you ever read Wuthering Heights? It is a great tale of abuse, selfishness, revenge, ghosts and wealthy Victorian life. I once enrolled in a course on Carleton University's ITV about Romantic and Victorian Literature right around the time Milo was a baby. I loved it. We studied the history, culture and literature of the Romantics and the Victorians including Dickens' Great Expectations, Wordsworth's Prelude, a dramatic monologue by Browning entitled My Last Duchess, and, of course, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Another one of the course highlights was Wuthering Heights. Unfortunately, I had struggled to get course materials submitted on time because of my family life and work responsibilities. As such, my professor invited me to submit a 'make-up' essay on a book from the course of my choice. He was a ridiculous looking short, chubby man with a tremendously disproportionately huge ass compared to the rest of his body. His name was Arnd Baum and I will leave your imagination to figure out the hilarity of his physical appearance when combined with the various possible pronunciations of his last name. The original essay was supposed to be about four pages long, but as it was a 'make-up' for the course, I decided to let slip the dogs of passion and write until my heart was content. Big mistake. Baum wrote right on the paper after the fourth page, "I STOPPED READING HERE, MR. LONG - 4 PAGES!!" I believed him because his red pen marks ended abruptly on that page and he gave me a near failing grade - the bastard! Having re-read it, though, I don't think it is half-bad, at least in its entirety, and I thought you might like to read it - but please, read the whole thing. "Mr. Baum" - haha!
David Christopher.
Student Number: 198480.
British Literature II: The Romantics and the Victorians
ENGL 3502 (18.352) Section V.
March 14, 2003.
Essay #4, Self in Emily Bronte’s “Wuthering Heights”
Wuthering Heights is clearly a novel that deals with the epistemology of one’s self-identity as it is developed by their social and physical environment. Bronte extensively demonstrates that if the environment is naturally imbalanced to include only negative stimuli such as abuse, starvation, neglect, isolation, lack of moral education and hatred it leads to a deluded state of self-misunderstanding and a resultant lack of fulfilment. Bronte incorporates such concepts as narrator reliability, bildungsroman, authenticity and appearances, to exemplify ‘selves’ which are reflections of the lacking environment from which they respectively hail. Wuthering Heights is a horrific tale of woe and revenge which Bronte uses to act as a warning to the reader not to succumb to our external environment but to make peace with our authentic selves. She does so mildly with the characterization of her narrators, Lockwood and Ellen Dean, and much more severely with such characters as Catherine and Heathcliff.
In order to access these characters, however, the reader must first navigate Bronte’s complex narrative structure. The words of the characters such as Heathcliff come to the reader through a pivotal narrator (Nelly Dean) and again through a primary narrator (Lockwood). By so doing, Bronte exemplifies the concept of self-delusion on several levels. Since the narrators are inherently involved in the story, they must be analyzed on two levels: first as pertaining to reliability as a narrator and secondly as to how they are affected by their surroundings.
The first narrator to whom the reader is introduced is Lockwood. He is the primary narrator in that he directly addresses the reader. Naturally, the reader is lead to question his motives for telling the story. After all, it is not his own. As he never reaches any anagnorisis as to the real motives of the characters around him, he is an example of self-delusion further to the characters in Nelly Dean’s story. As such, he is the example provided by Bronte to embody her warning of not being overly influenced by your environment and to remain loyal to your authentic self.
Lockwood’s reliability comes into question almost immediately. Early in the novel he demonstrates various inaccuracies in his assumptions about the residents of Wuthering Heights. He initially refers to Heathcliff as “A capital fellow!” because of his dwelling “so completely removed from society.”(1) The isolation is a living condition with which Lockwood has convinced himself he can sympathize. Being an external individual that has come to Wuthering Heights, he has the advantage of an external and, one would assume, normal socialization. Therefore, Lockwood should naturally be objective in his observations. On the contrary, his upbringing away from Wuthering Heights is exactly the cause for his inaccurate assumptions. He talks of his comprehension in chapter one: “Possibly, some people might suspect (Heathcliff) of a degree of underbred pride; I have a sympathetic chord within me that tells me it is nothing of the sort: I know, by instinct, his reserve springs from an aversion to show displays of feeling.”(3) He assumes the motives and behaviours of Heathcliff are for reasons similar to his own. Surely, the reader does not inevitably come to agree with his initial evaluation. Therefore he is unreliable in the sense that he is unable to properly interpret the significance of Heathcliff’s behaviour.
Lockwood further shows a lack of reliability in his own self-delusion. He has fully convinced himself that he desires to exclude himself from society to enjoy some solitude. The reader can see this as entirely inaccurate. He is so desperate for society that he braves the weather that he loathes so much to visit the unkindly Mr. Heathcliff at Wuthering Heights on at least two separate occasions. Furthermore, he spends the entire period of the novel reveling in the company of Nelly Dean to hear her gossip about the history of the fascinating people who populate her stories. Obviously, he is fooling himself as to the true nature of his character and is, therefore, somewhat unreliable.
However, he redeems himself quickly in the eyes of the reader and begins to show glimmerings of understanding. He re-evaluates his opinion of Heathcliff in light of his full knowledge, having heard Nelly Dean’s full story in the present in which he relays the story to the reader. He suggests that he has gotten ahead of himself and says, “I bestow my own attributes over liberally on him. Mr. Heathcliff may have entirely dissimilar reasons for keeping his hands out of the way when he meets a would-be acquaintance, to those which actuate me.”(3/4) The word “may” is very important here in that it points out that Lockwood has not entirely come to understand Heathcliff’s motives as separate from his own. As such, he is left to the reader as an ambiguously reliable narrator.
Ellen Dean, or Nelly, is the pivotal narrator in two senses: first in that she is the teller of the main story, and second in that our understanding of Heathcliff and Catherine as well as our faith in Lockwood’s reliability are dependent entirely upon her. That is to say that if she is lying we lose faith in Lockwood for being gullible and we can have no veritable understanding of Catherine and Heathcliff. However, if she is telling the truth Lockwood becomes more reliable and we can trust the facts pertaining to the story of Catherine and Heathcliff. Therefore, she is made fairly trustworthy and likeable.
Nevertheless, Ellen Dean is also a mildly unreliable narrator. She directly compares herself and her self-delusion to Lockwood when she says, “Mr. Lockwood; you’ll judge as well as I can all these things: at least, you’ll think you will, and that’s the same.”(159) As she tells her story, she admits in several places to Lockwood that she “was deceived completely, as you will hear.”(33)
She is much more implicitly involved in her story and, therefore, as affected by her surroundings as the other characters. We know that she has been within the environment of Wuthering Heights from the introduction to her story. She states, “Before I came to live here . . . I was almost always at Wuthering Heights . . . and I got used to playing with the children: I ran errands too.”(29) Undoubtedly, she is implicitly entrenched within the environment of the story.
She will begin to display more negative feelings as her time in the environment grows longer and she begins to lose sight of other environments. For example, just as Nelly Dean begins to find solace in her caring for the infant Hareton, she is stripped of him. She says, “Much against my inclination, I was persuaded to leave Wuthering Heights and accompany her here.”(76) She clearly blames Cathy for this unwanted departure and sees Cathy as a spoiled brat when she continues, “When I refused to go, . . . (Catherine) went lamenting to her husband and brother.”(76) It is at this point that the reader becomes aware of a feeling of malice toward Cathy from Nelly. Nelly begins to describe Catherine as a “thorn.”(78) Her disposition toward Catherine becomes impatient as with a tiring and petty brat. She chastises Cathy with the words, “They humour you: I know what there would be to do if they did not. You can well afford to indulge their passing whims as long as their business is to anticipate all your desires.”(84) Later, Nelly then goes so far as to facilitate Catherine’s death. She openly states her awareness that “Another encounter between (Heathcliff) and (Linton) would kill her altogether.”(127) Nevertheless she admits Heathcliff to see her anyway. She is in no imminent danger to carry out Heathcliff’s plan but allows herself to be convinced by him that she is. Quite obviously, Nelly has been affected by her situation.
The reader tends to sympathize with her opinion and treatment of Catherine. Her maternal loss of Hareton makes her all the more sympathetic as the only character engaged in any authentic love. Even so, she is still a victim of self-delusion in the face of an imbalanced environment. Her compliance with Heathcliff’s demands is due to his pathetic plea. He says, “I swear that I meditate no harm”(131) and refers to her as “my friend, as you have been hitherto.”(132) In her indifference toward Heathcliff’s brooding silence as a child, she has inadvertently played a role in creating the self that is Heathcliff. Evidently she was sympathetic toward him and malicious toward Catherine. Her environment is entrenched with Heathcliff and Wuthering Heights and she is unable to appreciate the consequences of her actions.
Her entire motive for telling the story would appear on the surface to be simply at the behest of Mr. Lockwood. However, she tells her story with particular detail and gusto as though she had been waiting for an opportunity to release it as a form of confession for the guilt she feels for her part played in the tragedy of the people whom she discusses. She goes out of her way to overwrite her own motives in an attempt to convince Lockwood to forgive her for her behaviour as a further victim of Heathcliff. In chapter fourteen for example she interjects, “Well, Mr. Lockwood, I argued and complained, and flatly refused him fifty times, but in the long run he forced me to an agreement.”(133) The text does not support her suggestion of having been compelled and she is clearly deluding herself.
In order to accept literally what is said to be the history of Catherine and Heathcliff, we must examine the reliability of the two narrators. With an unreliable narrator, the reader must be careful to take the factual reporting of events at face value (as is necessary for the author’s story to be told at all) but to analyze the insights or assumptions as a form of dramatic monologue intended by the author to render an opinion of the narrator based on how or why he or she is wrong: Lockwood by showing he is external to Wuthering Heights and therefore unable to accurately interpret what he sees and Nelly by her inability to see her own significance as a function of her inherent involvement with the surroundings at Wuthering Heights. Both narrators are factually accurate in their reporting of events and the reader can safely assume that Lockwood’s version of what he has been told by Ellen Dean is, therefore, correct. Having faith in a certain degree of verity in the tale of the unreliable narrators, the reader can access the true nature of the other characters Bronte uses to achieve her goal of negative socialization and characterization.
Catherine is a pathetic and selfish character who is entirely motivated by selfish opinions of herself based on what she experiences within two separate environments: namely, Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange. At Wuthering Heights, she seems to be developing honestly to herself, spending her joyful time with Heathcliff and chastising her brother for his abusive cruelty. Unfortunately, she loses her father’s guidance at a young age and her education is left to Joseph and Hindley. Joseph is the medium through which she is supposed to achieve a religious education where one would assume she would also receive a moral education. However, Joseph is grossly unqualified. He shows little affectation for his teachings and the lessons are described as more like punishments. His almost unintelligible mumbling makes her access to morality even more limited. Furthermore, Joseph is a hired servant and she is perpetually reminded by Hindley as to her superiority to servants such as Joseph, and particularly Heathcliff, as mistress in the Earnshaw household. Her isolation at Wuthering Heights exacerbates the situation as she has no other stimuli by which to compare her environment or rank.
Ironically, it is her escape to the separate environment of Thrushcross Grange which is the turning point in her self-delusion. It is the pivotal moment in her young impressionable life where her education about herself is completed. Her vanity and selfishness are catered to during her initial five week stay and she quite shuns her former life of joy with Heathcliff. Nelly reports that “The mistress visited her often in the interval, and commenced her plan of reform by trying to raise her self-respect with fine clothes and flattery, which she took readily.”(43) She has obviously seen what she ‘should’ be by the company at the Grange and has fooled herself into believing it is true of herself. Her environment as a child helped this development. Nelly points out in the introduction to her story that she played with the children at Wuthering Heights and assisted with chores. As such, both Hindley and Catherine have been conditioned to see playmates turn into servants. Upon Catherine’s return to Wuthering Heights, she is much more dismissive of Heathcliff with unthoughtful inquiries such as “Well Heathcliff, have you forgotten me?”(44) She demonstrates her selfish self-preoccupation when Nelly points out that “she could not comprehend how her remarks should have produced such an exhibition of bad temper.”(45) Her interpretation of appearances in her surroundings has left her completely selfish and self-deluded.
She finally convinces herself that Heathcliff is beneath her and offers proof that she doesn’t believe it herself. Her speech to Nelly about Heathcliff and her reasons for marrying is particularly revealing and has the double function of driving the final nail in the coffin of any hope of redeeming Heathcliff’s self-image. She says, “I’m convinced I’m wrong”(67) and “I’ve no more business to marry Edgar Linton than I have to be in heaven; and if the wicked man in there had not brought Heathcliff so low, I shouldn’t have thought of it. It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff now.”(68) Although she is aware that she identifies with Heathcliff, in her selfish vanity to be “the greatest woman of the neighbourhood”(66) she deludes herself into believing that she “shall be proud in having such a husband.”(66) Catherine is quite a ‘dandy’ in her desire to achieve appearances over substantial love. She denies her authentic self and is correct only in that she will be proud.
Her petty selfishness is poignantly demonstrated through her treatment of Nelly. In chapter ten, Nelly describes Catherine’s behaviour when she wants to talk, regardless of the feelings of others: “About the middle of the night, I was wakened from my first nap by Mrs. Linton gliding into my chamber, taking a seat on my bedside, and pulling me by the hair to rouse me.”(83) Clearly Catherine has become a selfish brat who cares only for herself and her wants and needs. She shows no concern for the treatment or respect of Nelly as she has been conditioned to treat servants as underlings.
The depiction of selfish vanity in young women as developed by their environment is echoed by Bronte in the second Catherine. In chapter eighteen, Nelly reports that young Catherine had “A propensity to be saucy . . . and a perverse will, that indulged children invariably acquire”(163) Nelly goes on to note that “If a servant chanced to vex her, it was always - ‘I shall tell papa!’”(163) The reader immediately recalls Catherine’s tantrum in which she ran to her brother and husband to compel Nelly to meet her demands to accompany her to Thrushcross Grange. The repetition of such similar situations is striking evidence of Bronte’s intention to show disdain for such petty selfish behaviour. The second Catherine's environment as created by her father fosters her developing selfishness. Nelly notes, “I don’t believe he ever spoke a harsh word to her.”(163) She has been doted on extremely which results in her having an imbalanced education. That imbalance is a stark contrast to the imbalanced education Heathcliff received in his environment of abuse and neglect.
The most shocking self in the novel is Heathcliff. He becomes a villainous individual completely obsessed with robbing everyone around him from any little happiness they might achieve. Nelly notes that Catherine and Edgar “were really in possession of a deep and growing happiness”(78) in Heathcliff’s absence. She states openly that “It ended”(78) as a function of Heathcliff’s return. It is this dedication to malevolence in his life that makes him unable to accept a benevolent (or at least ambivalent) guest such as Lockwood when he arrives. That is to say that in his life he has dedicated no time to civility and all to hatred and simply does not know how to do the former.
Heathcliff is destined to fail. Bronte quite clearly states his initiation to life at Wuthering Heights. His first introduction to the family leaves his status unclear. He is described as Mr. Earnshaw’s favourite and to be cared for as a peer of the other children, but he is rejected by Mrs. Earnshaw when she questions “how he could fashion to bring a gipsy brat like that into the house”(30) and Catherine “showed her humour by grinning and spitting at the stupid little thing.”(31) Furthermore, they don’t give him his own identity. They “christened him ‘Heathcliff’: it was the name of a son who died in childhood.”(31) His status remains unclear throughout the novel to himself and others. As such, he never identifies a place for himself and begins to identify himself by the verbal assaults of others.
His self-identity becomes seriously damaged by the population at Wuthering Heights. The effect on Heathcliff’s development is explicitly stated by Nelly: “the kinder amongst us did not wish to fret the master, so we humoured his partiality (to Heathcliff); and that humouring was rich nourishment to the child’s pride and black tempers.”(34) The description given him by Mrs. Earnshaw is never abandoned by Hindley. As a child Hindley assaults Heathcliff when he calls him a “dog” and says “I pray that he may break your neck . . . you beggarly interloper . . . only afterwards show him what you are, imp of Satan. - And take that, I hope he’ll kick out your brains!”(33) Heathcliff is perceived by Hindley as an encroachment on his authentic aristocracy. Nelly says, “the young master had learnt to regard his father as an oppressor rather than a friend, and Heathcliff as a usurper of his father’s affections and his privileges, and he grew bitter with brooding over these injuries.”(32) His love for Heathcliff does not improve in adulthood. Nelly says, “Hindley became tyrannical . . . deprived (Heathcliff) of the instructions of the curate, and insisted that he should labour out of doors.”(38) The self-righteous opinion of the aristocracy is clearly aimed at Heathcliff when Mrs. Linton refers to him as a “naughty, swearing boy.”(45) To modern sensibilities, this opinion sounds very much like the segregation rather than integration of students with underdeveloped mental or physical abilities. Mrs. Linton makes him something to be marginalized as a petty servant, rather than to be pitied and understood as an equal.
Heathcliff spends his early years suffering from cold, starvation, abuse, neglect and hatred. He is a starving little wretch when discovered by Mr. Earnshaw. He is abused regularly by Hindley. Nelly says he was “hardened, perhaps, to ill-treatment: he would stand Hindley’s blows without winking or shedding a tear.”(31) He is again mistreated by the Linton’s when they eject him after Catherine’s accident with their dog, and he is neglected by Nelly, the only viable mother figure left in the house. Starvation, abuse and hatred are not conducive to the development of a healthy self. Heathcliff’s surroundings result in an underdeveloped self that can engage in nothing but malevolence and vengeance.
Heathcliff is very isolated pushing him further and further into a development of seething hatred. The environment at the Heights is physically isolating but he is regularly denied contact with those he loves. Firstly, he loses his only parental ally other than Nelly when Mr. Earnshaw dies. Unfortunately, Nelly is a poor comparison as an ally in her neglect. Later, he is systemically kept separate from Catherine by Hindley, then by Catherine herself when she chooses to spend more time with the Linton’s and finally by Edgar when he bars Heathcliff from the house. Experiencing the malice of Hindley, the isolation of the Heights and the lack of moral education that plagued Catherine, he becomes a victim of his environment and develops into a creature of almost pure evil.
The reader, however, is occasionally inclined to sympathize with him. The question brought to mind upon his initial introduction and behaviour toward Lockwood is, “Why is he this way?” Implicit to the question is a suggestion that there is a reason for his malevolence that might not be entirely his fault. Certainly Nelly has shown that she sympathized with him on more than one occasion. Early in his life at Wuthering Heights, she says, “The difference between him and the others forced me to be less partial. . . . (Heathcliff) was as uncomplaining as a lamb; though hardness, not gentleness, made him give little trouble.”(32) Nevertheless, she admits that her attention toward him might have been lacking when she says, “still I couldn’t dote on Heathcliff.”(32)
Most important is the way in which Heathcliff betrays his own benevolent instincts. He is quite capable of feeling compassion. When Mr. Earnshaw dies, Heathcliff “set up a heart-breaking cry.”(36) When he is physically abusive to the already bereft Isabella as his wife, he returns saying, “I have no pity! I have no pity! The more the worms writhe, the more I yearn to crush out their entrails! It is a moral teething; and I grind with greater energy, in proportion to the increase of pain.”(131) As shocking as his words and behaviour are, it seems as though he is repeating phrases like a mantra in order to convince himself that his malevolence is genuine. The most pivotal scene that reveals Heathcliff’s positive characteristics occurs when he catches the falling baby from the hands of his drunken nemesis, Hindley. Instead of natural malevolence, “by a natural impulse, (Heathcliff) arrested his descent, and setting him on his feet, looked up to discover the author of the accident.”(63) Later, Heathcliff displays self-loathing for his act of kindness when he showed “the intensest anguish at having made himself the instrument of thwarting his own revenge.”(63) It is important to note his natural motives as benevolent and his considered motives as vengeful.
His malevolent behaviour begins manifesting itself at an early age when he begins practicing unprovoked cruelty. Catherine, in her typically self-centred way, quite calmly describes how she “saw its nest in the winter, full of little skeletons. Heathcliff set a trap over it, and the old ones dare not come.”(105) His behaviour stuns the reader as to his malevolence and again makes one consider, “Why?” Bronte chooses to echo this blind malevolence in the next generation just as she echoed Catherine’s petty selfishness in her daughter. Hareton seems to be engaged in an equally malicious activity when Isabella notices him “hanging a litter of puppies from a chair-back.”(157) There is a clear repetition of abuse toward the young of any species.
Hareton’s behaviour is in turn blatantly a function of his environment. When Hindley dies, Heathcliff says, “Now, my bonny lad, you are mine! And we’ll see if one tree won’t grow as crooked as another, with the same wind to twist it!”(161) Heathcliff is vividly aware that an abusive environment will be detrimental to the development of Hareton’s character and yet he fully intends to turn Hareton into his own evil self by providing a similarly negative environment as a revenge upon Hindley.
His awareness of his own malice is interesting. He could have stayed away from Wuthering Heights during the creation of his fortune but he returns to his seething cauldron of hatred. It would appear that his only motive for bettering himself was revenge. He is the paradigm example of the failed bildungsroman. As a child, his efforts to improve himself were thwarted, mainly by Hindley, and as an adult, his efforts to better himself stem entirely from malevolent motives and therefore he dooms himself to remain in a world of hatred. In this sense, the novel acts as an essay on how the unnatural increase in wealth and squalor of the Victorian era have allowed unnatural courses of the ‘self’ to be achieved. Even the natural inspirations of the Romantics, namely the sublime nature about Wuthering Heights, and even when isolated from society the effects cannot be reversed.
Heathcliff perceives his authentic self to be entrenched with malevolence and hatred and cannot escape it. His return was unnecessary. Surely, he was experiencing more success in the wide world than at Wuthering Heights. He returns anyway, permanently denying himself any chance of a more complete self evolving away from the Heights. This self destructive behaviour raises a question as to his true authentic self. Can he escape or is he inextricably identified with the Heights?
He learns to view superficial appearances as a method of achieving goals. Catherine chooses Linton over himself based on his slovenly appearance as a servant as opposed to Linton’s elegant and gentle appearance. In his malevolence he will use appearances to achieve his own vicious ends. Upon his return, he presents himself as a civilized gentleman in order to gain access to Catherine at Linton’s house. He later presents himself as quite a dandy to Isabella. In his defense, he is quite honest with Isabella when he says, “And I like her too ill to attempt it . . . except in a very ghoulish fashion. You’d hear of odd things if I lived alone with that mawkish, waxen face: the most ordinary would be painting on its white the colours of the rainbow, and turning the blue eyes black every day or two: they detestably resemble Linton’s.”(91) It is only Isabella’s vanity that makes her assume his words were in vain and that he would develop a genuine attraction to her. Heathcliff openly states his ulterior motive to Catherine for courting Isabella. He reminds us that he has been taught by her to be cruel. “You are welcome to torture me to death for your amusement, only allow me to amuse myself a little in the same style.”(96) He had already stated, “thank you for telling me your sister-in-law’s secret: I swear I’ll make the most of it. And stand you aside.”(96) He is in full appreciation of how to use appearances to manipulate the people around him.
Heathcliff has money and power but an unloved, unromantic heart. He has learned to view people as chattel and to use them uncompassionately for his own cruel desires. That developed characteristic does not allow him to explore his authentic self. As a “gipsy,” as he is variously described by the other characters, one might assume that he should love the moors and be in harmony with the sublime natural setting of Wuthering Heights. Even his name suggests a connection with the sublime. It is a compound of the nouns of heath and cliff, both parts of a mountain. But, as mentioned earlier, he never manages to identify himself through this name and remains at odds with it for his entire life. He becomes stagnant in his motives of revenge and does not allow himself to realize his true potential.
Bronte’s theme of self-delusion is most poignantly ironic in that each character seems able to accurately evaluate their companions, but never themselves. Heathcliff sees Catherine as a selfish brat and tells her so on her deathbed, but cannot see his own true self. Catherine quite clearly expresses her opinion of Heathcliff to Isabella when she expresses a fantasy in him, but she never accurately evaluates herself, as is obvious in her conversation about her motives for marrying Linton before Heathcliff leaves. Even Nelly describes Heathcliff negatively throughout the story, but cannot see her own sympathy for him as it is manifested in her assistance to his whims and desires to be with Catherine. The characters never identify with themselves but succumb to what others see them as. They become what is expected of them and are examples of self-fulfilling prophecies. When we identify the self through the teachings of others, we cannot achieve our authentic selves, but only the appearance of self.
In the end, does his connection with Cathy in death finally complete his self? The answer is no. He is still in his environment, one from which they both can now permanently never escape. They have destined themselves to an eternity with each other and convinced themselves that it is what they are and what they want. In reality, one wouldn’t want to spend an eternity with either of them. She must be with a malevolent and vengeful villain, and he must be with a petty selfish brat: hardly an escape from the purgatory of Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange. As such, the novel concludes as a warning not to do succumb to the influences of our environment but to stay true to ourselves. Therefore, Lockwood is redeemed. He has convinced himself that he wants solitude due to his normal crowded and presumably urban surroundings, but he manages to stay true to himself and remain social with the characters in the novel.
Conclusively, the novel depicts selves that are negatively impacted by their environment. Indeed, the environment of the characters is at the very heart of what Bronte was writing. One need not stray farther than the title to find evidence. Comparing the novel to contemporary novels, we see a noticeable difference. The title of “Frankenstein” is that of Victor’s person. The development of the wretch is directly affected by the actions and motives of Frankenstein himself and it is his inability to come to terms with his own self that ultimately dooms the wretch to a life of vengeance. The title of “Great Expectations” deals with Pip’s situation and perception of the future. It is the mystery of the unknown source and purpose of these great expectations that lead to Pip’s underdevelopment. His expectations and assumptions as to the solution to this mystery stagnate the development of his authentic self. Only when he learns the truth does he begin to understand that he has behaved like a greedy, selfish snob when he admits, “my repugnance to (Magwitch) had all melted away, . . . I only saw a man who had meant to be my benefactor, and who had felt affectionately, gratefully, and generously towards me. . . . I only saw in him a much better man than I had been to Joe.”(Dickens 377) The title of “Wuthering Heights” obviously refers to the location. However, the novel is certainly a tale of people. Therefore one can assume that the location of Wuthering Heights is of paramount relevance to the development of those people. Otherwise the tale might have just as well been called “Heathcliff’s Revenge.”
A comparison of narrators supports this superficial assumption. In “Frankenstein,” the narrator addresses his letter to his sister. Since she is a particular person, the novel can be seen as a novel that focuses on individual persons. In “Wuthering Heights,” the narrator, Lockwood, is addressing a reading audience at large as though the focus is on anyone who might be within his environment. Either way, the novel of Wuthering Heights is certainly preoccupied with location and environment as opposed to specific individuals.
In Wuthering Heights, Bronte shows how each ‘self’ is seriously and negatively impacted by their environment. The bleak and isolated surroundings of Wuthering Heights, both physical and social, lead to a population of individuals characterized by such attributes as self-delusion, selfishness, cruelty and revenge. Her characters all show a basic lack of understanding of themselves. As such, each character is unable to recognize their authentic selves and achieve a balanced development of self.
Works Cited
Bronte, Emily. Wuthering Heights. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
Dickens, Charles. Great Expectations. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions, 1994.
David Christopher.
Student Number: 198480.
British Literature II: The Romantics and the Victorians
ENGL 3502 (18.352) Section V.
March 14, 2003.
Essay #4, Self in Emily Bronte’s “Wuthering Heights”
Wuthering Heights is clearly a novel that deals with the epistemology of one’s self-identity as it is developed by their social and physical environment. Bronte extensively demonstrates that if the environment is naturally imbalanced to include only negative stimuli such as abuse, starvation, neglect, isolation, lack of moral education and hatred it leads to a deluded state of self-misunderstanding and a resultant lack of fulfilment. Bronte incorporates such concepts as narrator reliability, bildungsroman, authenticity and appearances, to exemplify ‘selves’ which are reflections of the lacking environment from which they respectively hail. Wuthering Heights is a horrific tale of woe and revenge which Bronte uses to act as a warning to the reader not to succumb to our external environment but to make peace with our authentic selves. She does so mildly with the characterization of her narrators, Lockwood and Ellen Dean, and much more severely with such characters as Catherine and Heathcliff.
In order to access these characters, however, the reader must first navigate Bronte’s complex narrative structure. The words of the characters such as Heathcliff come to the reader through a pivotal narrator (Nelly Dean) and again through a primary narrator (Lockwood). By so doing, Bronte exemplifies the concept of self-delusion on several levels. Since the narrators are inherently involved in the story, they must be analyzed on two levels: first as pertaining to reliability as a narrator and secondly as to how they are affected by their surroundings.
The first narrator to whom the reader is introduced is Lockwood. He is the primary narrator in that he directly addresses the reader. Naturally, the reader is lead to question his motives for telling the story. After all, it is not his own. As he never reaches any anagnorisis as to the real motives of the characters around him, he is an example of self-delusion further to the characters in Nelly Dean’s story. As such, he is the example provided by Bronte to embody her warning of not being overly influenced by your environment and to remain loyal to your authentic self.
Lockwood’s reliability comes into question almost immediately. Early in the novel he demonstrates various inaccuracies in his assumptions about the residents of Wuthering Heights. He initially refers to Heathcliff as “A capital fellow!” because of his dwelling “so completely removed from society.”(1) The isolation is a living condition with which Lockwood has convinced himself he can sympathize. Being an external individual that has come to Wuthering Heights, he has the advantage of an external and, one would assume, normal socialization. Therefore, Lockwood should naturally be objective in his observations. On the contrary, his upbringing away from Wuthering Heights is exactly the cause for his inaccurate assumptions. He talks of his comprehension in chapter one: “Possibly, some people might suspect (Heathcliff) of a degree of underbred pride; I have a sympathetic chord within me that tells me it is nothing of the sort: I know, by instinct, his reserve springs from an aversion to show displays of feeling.”(3) He assumes the motives and behaviours of Heathcliff are for reasons similar to his own. Surely, the reader does not inevitably come to agree with his initial evaluation. Therefore he is unreliable in the sense that he is unable to properly interpret the significance of Heathcliff’s behaviour.
Lockwood further shows a lack of reliability in his own self-delusion. He has fully convinced himself that he desires to exclude himself from society to enjoy some solitude. The reader can see this as entirely inaccurate. He is so desperate for society that he braves the weather that he loathes so much to visit the unkindly Mr. Heathcliff at Wuthering Heights on at least two separate occasions. Furthermore, he spends the entire period of the novel reveling in the company of Nelly Dean to hear her gossip about the history of the fascinating people who populate her stories. Obviously, he is fooling himself as to the true nature of his character and is, therefore, somewhat unreliable.
However, he redeems himself quickly in the eyes of the reader and begins to show glimmerings of understanding. He re-evaluates his opinion of Heathcliff in light of his full knowledge, having heard Nelly Dean’s full story in the present in which he relays the story to the reader. He suggests that he has gotten ahead of himself and says, “I bestow my own attributes over liberally on him. Mr. Heathcliff may have entirely dissimilar reasons for keeping his hands out of the way when he meets a would-be acquaintance, to those which actuate me.”(3/4) The word “may” is very important here in that it points out that Lockwood has not entirely come to understand Heathcliff’s motives as separate from his own. As such, he is left to the reader as an ambiguously reliable narrator.
Ellen Dean, or Nelly, is the pivotal narrator in two senses: first in that she is the teller of the main story, and second in that our understanding of Heathcliff and Catherine as well as our faith in Lockwood’s reliability are dependent entirely upon her. That is to say that if she is lying we lose faith in Lockwood for being gullible and we can have no veritable understanding of Catherine and Heathcliff. However, if she is telling the truth Lockwood becomes more reliable and we can trust the facts pertaining to the story of Catherine and Heathcliff. Therefore, she is made fairly trustworthy and likeable.
Nevertheless, Ellen Dean is also a mildly unreliable narrator. She directly compares herself and her self-delusion to Lockwood when she says, “Mr. Lockwood; you’ll judge as well as I can all these things: at least, you’ll think you will, and that’s the same.”(159) As she tells her story, she admits in several places to Lockwood that she “was deceived completely, as you will hear.”(33)
She is much more implicitly involved in her story and, therefore, as affected by her surroundings as the other characters. We know that she has been within the environment of Wuthering Heights from the introduction to her story. She states, “Before I came to live here . . . I was almost always at Wuthering Heights . . . and I got used to playing with the children: I ran errands too.”(29) Undoubtedly, she is implicitly entrenched within the environment of the story.
She will begin to display more negative feelings as her time in the environment grows longer and she begins to lose sight of other environments. For example, just as Nelly Dean begins to find solace in her caring for the infant Hareton, she is stripped of him. She says, “Much against my inclination, I was persuaded to leave Wuthering Heights and accompany her here.”(76) She clearly blames Cathy for this unwanted departure and sees Cathy as a spoiled brat when she continues, “When I refused to go, . . . (Catherine) went lamenting to her husband and brother.”(76) It is at this point that the reader becomes aware of a feeling of malice toward Cathy from Nelly. Nelly begins to describe Catherine as a “thorn.”(78) Her disposition toward Catherine becomes impatient as with a tiring and petty brat. She chastises Cathy with the words, “They humour you: I know what there would be to do if they did not. You can well afford to indulge their passing whims as long as their business is to anticipate all your desires.”(84) Later, Nelly then goes so far as to facilitate Catherine’s death. She openly states her awareness that “Another encounter between (Heathcliff) and (Linton) would kill her altogether.”(127) Nevertheless she admits Heathcliff to see her anyway. She is in no imminent danger to carry out Heathcliff’s plan but allows herself to be convinced by him that she is. Quite obviously, Nelly has been affected by her situation.
The reader tends to sympathize with her opinion and treatment of Catherine. Her maternal loss of Hareton makes her all the more sympathetic as the only character engaged in any authentic love. Even so, she is still a victim of self-delusion in the face of an imbalanced environment. Her compliance with Heathcliff’s demands is due to his pathetic plea. He says, “I swear that I meditate no harm”(131) and refers to her as “my friend, as you have been hitherto.”(132) In her indifference toward Heathcliff’s brooding silence as a child, she has inadvertently played a role in creating the self that is Heathcliff. Evidently she was sympathetic toward him and malicious toward Catherine. Her environment is entrenched with Heathcliff and Wuthering Heights and she is unable to appreciate the consequences of her actions.
Her entire motive for telling the story would appear on the surface to be simply at the behest of Mr. Lockwood. However, she tells her story with particular detail and gusto as though she had been waiting for an opportunity to release it as a form of confession for the guilt she feels for her part played in the tragedy of the people whom she discusses. She goes out of her way to overwrite her own motives in an attempt to convince Lockwood to forgive her for her behaviour as a further victim of Heathcliff. In chapter fourteen for example she interjects, “Well, Mr. Lockwood, I argued and complained, and flatly refused him fifty times, but in the long run he forced me to an agreement.”(133) The text does not support her suggestion of having been compelled and she is clearly deluding herself.
In order to accept literally what is said to be the history of Catherine and Heathcliff, we must examine the reliability of the two narrators. With an unreliable narrator, the reader must be careful to take the factual reporting of events at face value (as is necessary for the author’s story to be told at all) but to analyze the insights or assumptions as a form of dramatic monologue intended by the author to render an opinion of the narrator based on how or why he or she is wrong: Lockwood by showing he is external to Wuthering Heights and therefore unable to accurately interpret what he sees and Nelly by her inability to see her own significance as a function of her inherent involvement with the surroundings at Wuthering Heights. Both narrators are factually accurate in their reporting of events and the reader can safely assume that Lockwood’s version of what he has been told by Ellen Dean is, therefore, correct. Having faith in a certain degree of verity in the tale of the unreliable narrators, the reader can access the true nature of the other characters Bronte uses to achieve her goal of negative socialization and characterization.
Catherine is a pathetic and selfish character who is entirely motivated by selfish opinions of herself based on what she experiences within two separate environments: namely, Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange. At Wuthering Heights, she seems to be developing honestly to herself, spending her joyful time with Heathcliff and chastising her brother for his abusive cruelty. Unfortunately, she loses her father’s guidance at a young age and her education is left to Joseph and Hindley. Joseph is the medium through which she is supposed to achieve a religious education where one would assume she would also receive a moral education. However, Joseph is grossly unqualified. He shows little affectation for his teachings and the lessons are described as more like punishments. His almost unintelligible mumbling makes her access to morality even more limited. Furthermore, Joseph is a hired servant and she is perpetually reminded by Hindley as to her superiority to servants such as Joseph, and particularly Heathcliff, as mistress in the Earnshaw household. Her isolation at Wuthering Heights exacerbates the situation as she has no other stimuli by which to compare her environment or rank.
Ironically, it is her escape to the separate environment of Thrushcross Grange which is the turning point in her self-delusion. It is the pivotal moment in her young impressionable life where her education about herself is completed. Her vanity and selfishness are catered to during her initial five week stay and she quite shuns her former life of joy with Heathcliff. Nelly reports that “The mistress visited her often in the interval, and commenced her plan of reform by trying to raise her self-respect with fine clothes and flattery, which she took readily.”(43) She has obviously seen what she ‘should’ be by the company at the Grange and has fooled herself into believing it is true of herself. Her environment as a child helped this development. Nelly points out in the introduction to her story that she played with the children at Wuthering Heights and assisted with chores. As such, both Hindley and Catherine have been conditioned to see playmates turn into servants. Upon Catherine’s return to Wuthering Heights, she is much more dismissive of Heathcliff with unthoughtful inquiries such as “Well Heathcliff, have you forgotten me?”(44) She demonstrates her selfish self-preoccupation when Nelly points out that “she could not comprehend how her remarks should have produced such an exhibition of bad temper.”(45) Her interpretation of appearances in her surroundings has left her completely selfish and self-deluded.
She finally convinces herself that Heathcliff is beneath her and offers proof that she doesn’t believe it herself. Her speech to Nelly about Heathcliff and her reasons for marrying is particularly revealing and has the double function of driving the final nail in the coffin of any hope of redeeming Heathcliff’s self-image. She says, “I’m convinced I’m wrong”(67) and “I’ve no more business to marry Edgar Linton than I have to be in heaven; and if the wicked man in there had not brought Heathcliff so low, I shouldn’t have thought of it. It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff now.”(68) Although she is aware that she identifies with Heathcliff, in her selfish vanity to be “the greatest woman of the neighbourhood”(66) she deludes herself into believing that she “shall be proud in having such a husband.”(66) Catherine is quite a ‘dandy’ in her desire to achieve appearances over substantial love. She denies her authentic self and is correct only in that she will be proud.
Her petty selfishness is poignantly demonstrated through her treatment of Nelly. In chapter ten, Nelly describes Catherine’s behaviour when she wants to talk, regardless of the feelings of others: “About the middle of the night, I was wakened from my first nap by Mrs. Linton gliding into my chamber, taking a seat on my bedside, and pulling me by the hair to rouse me.”(83) Clearly Catherine has become a selfish brat who cares only for herself and her wants and needs. She shows no concern for the treatment or respect of Nelly as she has been conditioned to treat servants as underlings.
The depiction of selfish vanity in young women as developed by their environment is echoed by Bronte in the second Catherine. In chapter eighteen, Nelly reports that young Catherine had “A propensity to be saucy . . . and a perverse will, that indulged children invariably acquire”(163) Nelly goes on to note that “If a servant chanced to vex her, it was always - ‘I shall tell papa!’”(163) The reader immediately recalls Catherine’s tantrum in which she ran to her brother and husband to compel Nelly to meet her demands to accompany her to Thrushcross Grange. The repetition of such similar situations is striking evidence of Bronte’s intention to show disdain for such petty selfish behaviour. The second Catherine's environment as created by her father fosters her developing selfishness. Nelly notes, “I don’t believe he ever spoke a harsh word to her.”(163) She has been doted on extremely which results in her having an imbalanced education. That imbalance is a stark contrast to the imbalanced education Heathcliff received in his environment of abuse and neglect.
The most shocking self in the novel is Heathcliff. He becomes a villainous individual completely obsessed with robbing everyone around him from any little happiness they might achieve. Nelly notes that Catherine and Edgar “were really in possession of a deep and growing happiness”(78) in Heathcliff’s absence. She states openly that “It ended”(78) as a function of Heathcliff’s return. It is this dedication to malevolence in his life that makes him unable to accept a benevolent (or at least ambivalent) guest such as Lockwood when he arrives. That is to say that in his life he has dedicated no time to civility and all to hatred and simply does not know how to do the former.
Heathcliff is destined to fail. Bronte quite clearly states his initiation to life at Wuthering Heights. His first introduction to the family leaves his status unclear. He is described as Mr. Earnshaw’s favourite and to be cared for as a peer of the other children, but he is rejected by Mrs. Earnshaw when she questions “how he could fashion to bring a gipsy brat like that into the house”(30) and Catherine “showed her humour by grinning and spitting at the stupid little thing.”(31) Furthermore, they don’t give him his own identity. They “christened him ‘Heathcliff’: it was the name of a son who died in childhood.”(31) His status remains unclear throughout the novel to himself and others. As such, he never identifies a place for himself and begins to identify himself by the verbal assaults of others.
His self-identity becomes seriously damaged by the population at Wuthering Heights. The effect on Heathcliff’s development is explicitly stated by Nelly: “the kinder amongst us did not wish to fret the master, so we humoured his partiality (to Heathcliff); and that humouring was rich nourishment to the child’s pride and black tempers.”(34) The description given him by Mrs. Earnshaw is never abandoned by Hindley. As a child Hindley assaults Heathcliff when he calls him a “dog” and says “I pray that he may break your neck . . . you beggarly interloper . . . only afterwards show him what you are, imp of Satan. - And take that, I hope he’ll kick out your brains!”(33) Heathcliff is perceived by Hindley as an encroachment on his authentic aristocracy. Nelly says, “the young master had learnt to regard his father as an oppressor rather than a friend, and Heathcliff as a usurper of his father’s affections and his privileges, and he grew bitter with brooding over these injuries.”(32) His love for Heathcliff does not improve in adulthood. Nelly says, “Hindley became tyrannical . . . deprived (Heathcliff) of the instructions of the curate, and insisted that he should labour out of doors.”(38) The self-righteous opinion of the aristocracy is clearly aimed at Heathcliff when Mrs. Linton refers to him as a “naughty, swearing boy.”(45) To modern sensibilities, this opinion sounds very much like the segregation rather than integration of students with underdeveloped mental or physical abilities. Mrs. Linton makes him something to be marginalized as a petty servant, rather than to be pitied and understood as an equal.
Heathcliff spends his early years suffering from cold, starvation, abuse, neglect and hatred. He is a starving little wretch when discovered by Mr. Earnshaw. He is abused regularly by Hindley. Nelly says he was “hardened, perhaps, to ill-treatment: he would stand Hindley’s blows without winking or shedding a tear.”(31) He is again mistreated by the Linton’s when they eject him after Catherine’s accident with their dog, and he is neglected by Nelly, the only viable mother figure left in the house. Starvation, abuse and hatred are not conducive to the development of a healthy self. Heathcliff’s surroundings result in an underdeveloped self that can engage in nothing but malevolence and vengeance.
Heathcliff is very isolated pushing him further and further into a development of seething hatred. The environment at the Heights is physically isolating but he is regularly denied contact with those he loves. Firstly, he loses his only parental ally other than Nelly when Mr. Earnshaw dies. Unfortunately, Nelly is a poor comparison as an ally in her neglect. Later, he is systemically kept separate from Catherine by Hindley, then by Catherine herself when she chooses to spend more time with the Linton’s and finally by Edgar when he bars Heathcliff from the house. Experiencing the malice of Hindley, the isolation of the Heights and the lack of moral education that plagued Catherine, he becomes a victim of his environment and develops into a creature of almost pure evil.
The reader, however, is occasionally inclined to sympathize with him. The question brought to mind upon his initial introduction and behaviour toward Lockwood is, “Why is he this way?” Implicit to the question is a suggestion that there is a reason for his malevolence that might not be entirely his fault. Certainly Nelly has shown that she sympathized with him on more than one occasion. Early in his life at Wuthering Heights, she says, “The difference between him and the others forced me to be less partial. . . . (Heathcliff) was as uncomplaining as a lamb; though hardness, not gentleness, made him give little trouble.”(32) Nevertheless, she admits that her attention toward him might have been lacking when she says, “still I couldn’t dote on Heathcliff.”(32)
Most important is the way in which Heathcliff betrays his own benevolent instincts. He is quite capable of feeling compassion. When Mr. Earnshaw dies, Heathcliff “set up a heart-breaking cry.”(36) When he is physically abusive to the already bereft Isabella as his wife, he returns saying, “I have no pity! I have no pity! The more the worms writhe, the more I yearn to crush out their entrails! It is a moral teething; and I grind with greater energy, in proportion to the increase of pain.”(131) As shocking as his words and behaviour are, it seems as though he is repeating phrases like a mantra in order to convince himself that his malevolence is genuine. The most pivotal scene that reveals Heathcliff’s positive characteristics occurs when he catches the falling baby from the hands of his drunken nemesis, Hindley. Instead of natural malevolence, “by a natural impulse, (Heathcliff) arrested his descent, and setting him on his feet, looked up to discover the author of the accident.”(63) Later, Heathcliff displays self-loathing for his act of kindness when he showed “the intensest anguish at having made himself the instrument of thwarting his own revenge.”(63) It is important to note his natural motives as benevolent and his considered motives as vengeful.
His malevolent behaviour begins manifesting itself at an early age when he begins practicing unprovoked cruelty. Catherine, in her typically self-centred way, quite calmly describes how she “saw its nest in the winter, full of little skeletons. Heathcliff set a trap over it, and the old ones dare not come.”(105) His behaviour stuns the reader as to his malevolence and again makes one consider, “Why?” Bronte chooses to echo this blind malevolence in the next generation just as she echoed Catherine’s petty selfishness in her daughter. Hareton seems to be engaged in an equally malicious activity when Isabella notices him “hanging a litter of puppies from a chair-back.”(157) There is a clear repetition of abuse toward the young of any species.
Hareton’s behaviour is in turn blatantly a function of his environment. When Hindley dies, Heathcliff says, “Now, my bonny lad, you are mine! And we’ll see if one tree won’t grow as crooked as another, with the same wind to twist it!”(161) Heathcliff is vividly aware that an abusive environment will be detrimental to the development of Hareton’s character and yet he fully intends to turn Hareton into his own evil self by providing a similarly negative environment as a revenge upon Hindley.
His awareness of his own malice is interesting. He could have stayed away from Wuthering Heights during the creation of his fortune but he returns to his seething cauldron of hatred. It would appear that his only motive for bettering himself was revenge. He is the paradigm example of the failed bildungsroman. As a child, his efforts to improve himself were thwarted, mainly by Hindley, and as an adult, his efforts to better himself stem entirely from malevolent motives and therefore he dooms himself to remain in a world of hatred. In this sense, the novel acts as an essay on how the unnatural increase in wealth and squalor of the Victorian era have allowed unnatural courses of the ‘self’ to be achieved. Even the natural inspirations of the Romantics, namely the sublime nature about Wuthering Heights, and even when isolated from society the effects cannot be reversed.
Heathcliff perceives his authentic self to be entrenched with malevolence and hatred and cannot escape it. His return was unnecessary. Surely, he was experiencing more success in the wide world than at Wuthering Heights. He returns anyway, permanently denying himself any chance of a more complete self evolving away from the Heights. This self destructive behaviour raises a question as to his true authentic self. Can he escape or is he inextricably identified with the Heights?
He learns to view superficial appearances as a method of achieving goals. Catherine chooses Linton over himself based on his slovenly appearance as a servant as opposed to Linton’s elegant and gentle appearance. In his malevolence he will use appearances to achieve his own vicious ends. Upon his return, he presents himself as a civilized gentleman in order to gain access to Catherine at Linton’s house. He later presents himself as quite a dandy to Isabella. In his defense, he is quite honest with Isabella when he says, “And I like her too ill to attempt it . . . except in a very ghoulish fashion. You’d hear of odd things if I lived alone with that mawkish, waxen face: the most ordinary would be painting on its white the colours of the rainbow, and turning the blue eyes black every day or two: they detestably resemble Linton’s.”(91) It is only Isabella’s vanity that makes her assume his words were in vain and that he would develop a genuine attraction to her. Heathcliff openly states his ulterior motive to Catherine for courting Isabella. He reminds us that he has been taught by her to be cruel. “You are welcome to torture me to death for your amusement, only allow me to amuse myself a little in the same style.”(96) He had already stated, “thank you for telling me your sister-in-law’s secret: I swear I’ll make the most of it. And stand you aside.”(96) He is in full appreciation of how to use appearances to manipulate the people around him.
Heathcliff has money and power but an unloved, unromantic heart. He has learned to view people as chattel and to use them uncompassionately for his own cruel desires. That developed characteristic does not allow him to explore his authentic self. As a “gipsy,” as he is variously described by the other characters, one might assume that he should love the moors and be in harmony with the sublime natural setting of Wuthering Heights. Even his name suggests a connection with the sublime. It is a compound of the nouns of heath and cliff, both parts of a mountain. But, as mentioned earlier, he never manages to identify himself through this name and remains at odds with it for his entire life. He becomes stagnant in his motives of revenge and does not allow himself to realize his true potential.
Bronte’s theme of self-delusion is most poignantly ironic in that each character seems able to accurately evaluate their companions, but never themselves. Heathcliff sees Catherine as a selfish brat and tells her so on her deathbed, but cannot see his own true self. Catherine quite clearly expresses her opinion of Heathcliff to Isabella when she expresses a fantasy in him, but she never accurately evaluates herself, as is obvious in her conversation about her motives for marrying Linton before Heathcliff leaves. Even Nelly describes Heathcliff negatively throughout the story, but cannot see her own sympathy for him as it is manifested in her assistance to his whims and desires to be with Catherine. The characters never identify with themselves but succumb to what others see them as. They become what is expected of them and are examples of self-fulfilling prophecies. When we identify the self through the teachings of others, we cannot achieve our authentic selves, but only the appearance of self.
In the end, does his connection with Cathy in death finally complete his self? The answer is no. He is still in his environment, one from which they both can now permanently never escape. They have destined themselves to an eternity with each other and convinced themselves that it is what they are and what they want. In reality, one wouldn’t want to spend an eternity with either of them. She must be with a malevolent and vengeful villain, and he must be with a petty selfish brat: hardly an escape from the purgatory of Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange. As such, the novel concludes as a warning not to do succumb to the influences of our environment but to stay true to ourselves. Therefore, Lockwood is redeemed. He has convinced himself that he wants solitude due to his normal crowded and presumably urban surroundings, but he manages to stay true to himself and remain social with the characters in the novel.
Conclusively, the novel depicts selves that are negatively impacted by their environment. Indeed, the environment of the characters is at the very heart of what Bronte was writing. One need not stray farther than the title to find evidence. Comparing the novel to contemporary novels, we see a noticeable difference. The title of “Frankenstein” is that of Victor’s person. The development of the wretch is directly affected by the actions and motives of Frankenstein himself and it is his inability to come to terms with his own self that ultimately dooms the wretch to a life of vengeance. The title of “Great Expectations” deals with Pip’s situation and perception of the future. It is the mystery of the unknown source and purpose of these great expectations that lead to Pip’s underdevelopment. His expectations and assumptions as to the solution to this mystery stagnate the development of his authentic self. Only when he learns the truth does he begin to understand that he has behaved like a greedy, selfish snob when he admits, “my repugnance to (Magwitch) had all melted away, . . . I only saw a man who had meant to be my benefactor, and who had felt affectionately, gratefully, and generously towards me. . . . I only saw in him a much better man than I had been to Joe.”(Dickens 377) The title of “Wuthering Heights” obviously refers to the location. However, the novel is certainly a tale of people. Therefore one can assume that the location of Wuthering Heights is of paramount relevance to the development of those people. Otherwise the tale might have just as well been called “Heathcliff’s Revenge.”
A comparison of narrators supports this superficial assumption. In “Frankenstein,” the narrator addresses his letter to his sister. Since she is a particular person, the novel can be seen as a novel that focuses on individual persons. In “Wuthering Heights,” the narrator, Lockwood, is addressing a reading audience at large as though the focus is on anyone who might be within his environment. Either way, the novel of Wuthering Heights is certainly preoccupied with location and environment as opposed to specific individuals.
In Wuthering Heights, Bronte shows how each ‘self’ is seriously and negatively impacted by their environment. The bleak and isolated surroundings of Wuthering Heights, both physical and social, lead to a population of individuals characterized by such attributes as self-delusion, selfishness, cruelty and revenge. Her characters all show a basic lack of understanding of themselves. As such, each character is unable to recognize their authentic selves and achieve a balanced development of self.
Works Cited
Bronte, Emily. Wuthering Heights. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993.
Dickens, Charles. Great Expectations. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions, 1994.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)