Summary of The Garden Party by Katherine Mansfield

"The Garden Party" opens with frantic preparations being made. The cloudless summer day is perfect for the garden party at the home of Sheridan family. Before breakfast ends, four workmen arrive to set up the marquee. Because Meg has just washed her hair and Jose is still in her petticoat, Mrs. Sheridan assigns the task of supervising the men to Laura. Taking a piece of buttered bread with her, Laura goes outside to begin her task.

The protagonist, Laura, is an idealistic and sensitive young girl. She is surrounded by her more conventional family: her sister, Jose, who, as the narrator tells us, "loved giving orders to servants"; her mother, Mrs. Sheridan, a shallow old woman whose world consists of having enough canna lilies; her father, a businessman; and her brother, Laurie, to whom she feels most similar in feeling and ideals.

When she suggests that the men–all smiling and quite friendly–set up the marquee on the lily lawn, a fat man asks her. "You want to put it somewhere where it'll give you a bang slap in the eye." Laura wonders whether it is respectful of a laborer to speak to a girl of her upbringing in the simple language of the common people.
Another man suggests placing the marquee against the karaka trees. Laura dislikes the idea of hiding the broad leaves and yellow fruit of the karakas, but the workmen are already heading toward them with the staves and rolls of canvas. She is impressed that one workman stops to smell purple. She considers that she would get along well with these simple workmen and wouldn’t let class distinctions get in the way.
After sometimes later a voice from the house calls Laura to the phone, so she goes back across the lawn, up the steps, across the veranda, and into the hallway. There she found her father and brother Laurie who are about to leave for work. Laurie asks her to press a coat for him before the party. On the phone is her friend Kitty Maitland. They chat and agree to have lunch together. After hanging up, Laura delights in the busy sounds of the house.
A man then informs everyone that a young cart driver was killed that morning when his horse reared on Hawke Street. His last name was Scott, and he had lived in a cottage just down the road from the Sheridans in a settlement of commoners. He left a wife and five children.
Hearing this Laura feels pity to the man and she thinks the atmosphere is negotiated. Struck by the inappropriateness of throwing a garden party when a neighbor has been killed, Laura immediately suggests that they cancel the party. The rest of the story is structured around Laura's understanding of her concern for the dead laborer and her family's reactions to his demise. Laura attempts to convince Jose of the necessity of canceling the party. Jose's response is indicative of the family's overall view of the impoverished laborers. She chastises Laura for her desire to cancel the party, saying, ‘‘you won't bring a drunken workman back to life by being sentimental.’’
But her mother and all of the members of her family disagree with her. She says, “It’s not very sympathetic to spoil everybody’s enjoyment as you’re doing now,” So, Laura goes to her room. But when she glimpses “this charming girl in the mirror, in her black hat trimmed with gold daisies, and a long black velvet ribbon,” she wonders whether her mother is right. Yes, she decides, her mother is right.
...After lunch the band members arrive, all wearing green coats.  When Laurie arrives and heads toward his room to dress, Laura thinks again about the accident and calls to him when he is halfway upstairs to tell him about it. He turns and looks at his sister. .A short while later; the guests begin arriving, the band starts playing, and people shake hands and kiss cheeks. Everyone who greets Laura tells her how striking she looks and how becoming her hat is.
The hired waiters serve tea and passion-fruit ices, the band plays on, and “the perfect afternoon slowly ripened, slowly faded, slowly its petals closed.” The party had gone perfectly. Everyone gathers in the marquee. While eating a sandwich, Mr. Sheridan talks about the “beastly accident,” saying that the victim “leaves a wife and half a dozen kiddies.” Seeing all the leftover food–sandwiches, cream puffs, cakes–Mrs. Sheridan suggests Laura to send it down to the family.
.......Laura walks down the road. As she enters the run-down neighborhood, children play in doorways, men lean on fences, and women in shawls hurry hither and thither. She wishes she hadn’t come. At one house, “a dark knot of people” were standing outside. Laura, nervous, asks a woman whether it is Mrs. Scott’s house. Then a woman invites her into the house. Laura just wants to leave the basket, but the woman leads her into a small kitchen. Laura observes that there lay a young man, fast asleep - sleeping so soundly, so deeply, that he was far, far away from them both. He was dreaming. Never wake him up again. His head was sunk in the pillow, his eyes were closed; they were blind under the closed eyelids. He was far from all the things. She leaves immediately. On the way, home Laurie comes toward her and says their mother was beginning to worry. But Laura, though crying, says everything went well and begins asking a question that she can’t finish: “Isn’t life– isn’t life?” Her brother understands, saying, “Isn’t it, darling?”


Laura

This is Laura’s story. Although there are some general, impersonal passages and several scenes without her, we see the world through Laura’s eyes. We observe others how she sees them, especially their response to her own behaviour.
Laura is still a child. She doesn’t fully understand what is happening; her reaction to the workman’s death is a mixture of instinct, upbringing and egotism. She sees the workman’s death in an emotional way, torn between her own instinctive feelings and the powerful dominance of her mother and older sisters. She finally reaches her own personal understanding of life, which is left ambiguous in the final sentence. She does not reject the social life of the upper-class but comes to her own serious kind of maturity.
Being still a child, and not fully aware of the power of class distinctions and her own place within the social structure, Laura acts as a bridge between the upper and lower classes. She decides ‘it’s all the fault… of these absurd class distinctions’. Unlike Mrs Sheridan, she sees the workmen as individual people, indeed, as attractive ones.
When the carter dies, again, Laura sees him as another human, with the frivolity of their party exposed.

Jose Sheridan

Jose is Laura's class-conscious older sister. She takes a dim view of Laura's wish to cancel the garden party when she tells Laura that she "won't bring a drunken workman back to life by being sentimental."

Laura Sheridan

Laura Sheridan is an idealistic and impressionable young person who struggles with her own and her family's perceptions of class difference. Learning that a working-class neighbor was accidentally killed, Laura wants to cancel the garden party planned for that afternoon. The narrative centers on Laura's vacillation between feelings of empathy for the dead laborer and her vanity and class elitism. She unsuccessfully tries to convince her mother to cancel the party...

Narrator

If you remember one thing about this narrator and one thing only, let it be this: he carries a torch. Big time. We're talking Joey-for-Dawson (in the early days, at least), Ross-for-Rachel, Jim-for-Pam. This crush is serious business. He's not into his friend's older sister because she's nice and pretty. He notices all the details, like her hair is a "soft rope […] tossed from side to side" (Araby.3).
When it comes to Mangan's sister, this is no laughing matter. He develops daily rituals to follow her to school, and tells us that he cries because of her. Maybe it's just not fair to call this a crush. After all, the kid "pressed the palms of my hands together until they trembled, murmuring: 'O love! O love!" many times" (Araby.6). He's so plumb head over heels for this girl that everything around him becomes a backdrop—Dublin, the dead priest's room, it's all a blur.
When he finally talks to Mangan's sister, it's actually kind of a bummer. They don't say anything particularly interesting to each other, and he doesn't exactly sweep her off her feet. His true feelings come out in his promise to get her something from the bazaar—something he hopes will win her over.

Love Hurts

But here's the problem. For all his swooning and wooing and, um, stalking, his love isn't really anything special. Mangan's sister doesn't even seem aware of it. And when he finally gets to Araby, it's not like the clouds part to cast a ray of sunshine on the perfect gift. Nope. Instead, he encounters surly salesmen, to whom he's just another late customer, preventing them from closing up shop for the day.
Along with the narrator, we're starting to feel upset that the aunt and uncle and shopkeepers are so insensitive. But are they? Probably not. The real problem is that the world isn't conforming to the narrator's grand expectations. He wants sweeping romance, and he winds up in a half-empty bazaar.

Love Stinks

Cue major revelation:
Gazing up at the darkness I saw myself as a creature driven and derided by vanity; and my eyes burned with anguish and anger. (Araby.36)
Um, that's not exactly the response we were expecting, right? You want to impress someone you like by buying them a gift, but your uncle, and the mall (let's say) are conspiring against you. Who gets the brunt of your anger? Your uncle and the mall, right? Well, not in this case. The narrator turns back almost all of that feeling on himself. But why?
The narrator is really aware that he's in love with Mangan's sister, but it's something he holds inside himself: he doesn't tell a single person. So it's not like anyone else has his back with this. And even worse, it's not like his uncle kept him from going to the bazaar. At least not entirely. He had a chance to get a gift. A small chance, sure, but a chance. And he totally blew it. When it comes to love, he already knows, no one else can take the blame but you.
Or you could look at it another way. The bazaar hasn't lived up to his expectations. Maybe Mangan's sister won't either. After all, isn't his crush a kind of "vanity"? Hasn't he blown up its significance to crazy proportions? And the fact that it might all blow up because he couldn't get to market on time shows that it's all on shaky ground to begin with. He's no knight in shining armor, and Mangan's sister's no princess. They're kids in a city with forgetful uncles and surly shopkeepers and a whole bunch of other stuff just ready and waiting to burst their bubble.

Minor Characters

Mangan's sister

The narrator's would-be girlfriend doesn't even have a name of her own. She's just his friend's big sister, and she lives in the house directly across from his. In some ways, the story is all about her, but we only get a couple of descriptions of her in the story, and only one chance to hear her talk. As a presence in the narrator's mind, she's the most major figure there could be; but in "Araby," she a minor character.
One pattern emerges whenever Mangan's sister appears in "Araby." Like a religious icon or a painting of Money, there's always some reference to light. When the narrator sees her on the railing outside her house calling her brother to dinner, "her figure [was] defined by the light from the half-opened door" (Araby.3). Later, in a similar situation, when she finally speaks to him, light makes the whole scene possible: "The light from the lamp opposite our door caught the white curve of her neck, lit up her hair that rested there and, falling, lit up the hand upon the railing […] just visible as she stood at ease" (Araby.9).
Check out the contrast between the light that shines on Mangan's sister and the "darkness" that encloses the bazaar once it's closed. That darkness—when they turn out the lights—means there's no hope for him anymore. He can't buy the gift, and can't win her, and basically can't possibly be happy (yes, he's being dramatic).
On the other hand, the light that allows him to see and appreciate Mangan's sister provides some hope that this narrator will, miraculously, escape his cage. Remember North Richmond Street, where he lives, is "blind:" for the narrator, Mangan's sister allows him light enough to see a way out.

Aunt and Uncle

The narrator lives with his aunt and uncle (just like in "The Sisters"), and he portrays them as distant but not all that bad. It's not like they're the Dursleys or anything. They're not terrible as parents, but they definitely don't understand why it's so important for the narrator to get to Araby. And come on, aunt and uncle, it seems kind of obvious. Can't they just be cool for a second?
The title holds the key to the meaning of Joyce's story. Araby is a romantic term for the Middle East, but there is no such country. The word was popular throughout the nineteenth century -- used to express the romantic view of the east that had been popular since Napoleon's triumph over Egypt. And, of course, the story is about Romantic Irony, for the unnamed boy has a romantic view of the world.
Joyce finished "Araby" in October of 1905: the eleventh in composition of the stories that would become Dubliners.
The story is about Orientation: notice how we derive that word from the Orient, from the East, originally meaning that, to orient yourself means to know in which direction the sun rises. The boy in "Araby" is disoriented, but will know the true compass of the world at the end of his journey -- a traditional form in literature (the German term Bildungsroman is so commonly used that it often appears in English dictionaries).

Mangan's sister :Joyce could count on readers making the connection with the popular, but sentimental and romantic 19th century Irish poet, James Clarence Mangan (1803-1849). Mangan was himself fond of writing about "Araby," and even though he knew no Arabic he claimed that some of his poems were translations from Arabic. Joyce's use of "Mangan" is one of the strongest supports for the theme of romanticism in the story, while at the same time it serves to strengthen previous instances of hypocrisy and false sentiment. Mrs Mercer:

Joyce selects this name to continue the imagery and theme of the mercantile and the mercenary, in the story. This effect is further supported by making her the widow of a pawnbroker, as well as the fact that she collects used stamps to sell for money to be given to the church. Again, money is being associated with religion, as it was in the paragraph in which the boy's shopping trip with his aunt is presented as a religious quest. The ultimate irony at the conclusion of the story is that what the boy thought of as a holy quest, to get a gift for the girl, was actually a sordid mercantile affair based on the sexual rather than the spiritual.

Share:

Use of Symbols in Sons and Lovers by D. H. Lawrence

  D. H. Lawrence makes an extensive use of symbols in his Sons and Lovers. Symbolism means investing a remark or a situation or an incident or an object or even a person with a double significance or a two-fold meaning. One meaning lies on the very surface and is easily understood by the reader. The other or symbolic meaning is hidden in the writing and becomes known to the reader only after a good deal of thought. D. H. Lawrence probes deep into the consciousness of his characters with a clever use of symbols. A proper understanding of these symbols leads to a better understanding of the novel and arises appreciation from the reader. Symbolism is an essential feature of Lawrence’s art, because a symbol “is the expression of a thing not to be characterized in any other better way.” Thus, in order to clearly describe the hidden and the concealed, Lawrence makes use of symbols which in their turn also increase the expressiveness of his language.


There is an abundance of symbols in Sons and Lovers; and practically all the symbolism here has consciously been introduced by the author. Now let’s turn to some of the symbols used by D. H. Lawrence.

The symbol of the Ash-Tree
The ash-tree has been effectively used by Lawrence to describe the sinister and dark aspects of life. It is symbolic of the dark, mysterious forces of nature which are the foreboders of tragedy in human-life. It is symbolic of the disharmony that exists between the husband and wife in the Morel family. The persistent bickering of the parents becomes a terror for the children, who lying awake upstairs are unable to coherently apprehend as to what would happen ultimately. The tree becomes a symbol of the inner terror of children who strike and moan inwardly. It also prophesies the future doom which is to beset the Morel family.

The Symbol of the Coal-pits
The entire life of the mining community depicted in the novel depends upon the coal-pits which stand on the horizon. The coat-pits are not indispensable for a better understanding of the novel but they are symbolic of a particular attitude towards life. Walter Morel with his irrational life principle has a close association with them. The descent and ascent of the coal pits is a symbol of the sexual rhythm or a rhythm of sleep and awakening. The naturalness of the coal pits stand in contrast against the artificial way of life of the sophisticated people.

The symbol of the Swing
The Swing at Willey Farm is symbolic of the love-hate relation that is characteristic of Paul-Miriam relationship. Similar to the background and forward movement of the swing, Paul loves Miriam for one thing but suddenly hates her for another. Though, his hatred for her is also transitory and is soon replaced with love. Hence, the movement of the swing symbolizes, the two extremes of their attitude towards each other i.e. love for one moment and hate the other moment. It is also expressive of their inability to hold on to each other for a very long time.

Miriam’s inability to attain a certain height on the swing as Paul does is significant of her sexual frigidity. As on the swing she fails to attain the sexual heights in her physical relationship with Paul and performs it as a religious duty. Thus, she fails to provide Paul with the physical fulfillment that he is desirous of.

The symbol of the Hens
The symbolic pecking of the hens at the hands of Paul and Miriam stands in juxtaposition to the sexuality thwarted relationship that Miriam is going to have with Paul in the later part of the novel. Miriam’s sexual inhibition is emphasized here; in spite of Paul’s persistence that it does not hurt it only nips, Miriam is afraid to let the hen peck at her hand. This scene symbolically forecasts the disastrous failure that Miriam is going to face in attaining sexual fulfillment with Paul.
The Symbol of the blood tie between Paul and Mrs Morel
In the very beginning of the novel when Mrs. Morel has a quarrel with her husband, in an outrage of anger she is hit with a drawer which is flung at her. The wound bleeds profusely and two drops of blood fall on the hair of Paul who is in the hands of Mrs.Morel at the moment. The blood is not cleared away but it gets soaked in to the scalp of Paul. This small incident is symbolic of the disillusioned and tattering relationship of the husband and wife and the subsequent reversal of attitude of Mrs Morel towards her husband and the ultimate substitution of her sons in place of her husband.  The scene is also symbolic of the contract of soul between the mother and son which is sealed with a blood tie.

The symbol of the Orange Moon
The emotional lives of the characters of Lawrence are much influenced by the active participation of nature. Walking together one evening Paul and Miriam witness a large orange moon staring at them. The passion in Paul is aroused by the sight of the moon. Though Miriam is also deeply moved but Paul fails to get across to her. Violent sexual passion is aroused in Paul, thus the orange moon becomes a symbol of the aroused passion in Paul.

Nature’s Benediction
Lawrence makes nature send its benediction on his characters who wish to live willfully or upon those who wish to attain happiness through their vital instinct. Before the birth of Paul, Mrs Morel is once shut out  of the house after a quarrel, by her husband into the garden, here she feels the presence of nature under the “blinding” August moon. She is expecting Paul and she feels herself melting away I the moon light along with the child. Later when she is allowed into the house by Morel, she smiles upon herself seeking her face smeared with the pollen dust of lilies. The yellow dust is symbolic of the kiss of benediction for both the mother and hild and it also confirms their vitality.

Similarly on another occasion Paul rises after making love to Clara on the bank of the river. There lie on the ground many scarlet, carnation petals like splashed drops of blood, and red small splashes fall from her bosom, streaming down her dress to her feet. This is again symbolic of the benediction of flowers showered upon them for their perfect union. In still another occasion, the rose bush is used as a symbol of the witness to the spiritual communion of Paul and Miriam which they achieve while watching the rose bush together in perfect harmony.

Symbols of Flowers
The most important of the flower symbols are presented in the scene where Clara has just been introduced to Paul by Miriam. All three of them walk in an open field with its many “clusters of strong flowers” they begin to pick flowers. Though, there is natural beauty in flowers that Paul picks, yet he picks them scientifically. He has a spontaneous and direct contact with the flowers. Miriam, though she picks the flowers lovingly and reverentially yet she seems to derive the life out of them. Her bunches lack elegance. But Clara does not pick them at all, defiantly asserting that flowers should not be picked because it kills them.

Thus, on a closer reading of these floral symbols one feels, that it depicts the attitude of various characters towards life. Mrs. Morel has a vital and healthy attitude towards flowers. The scenes where Paul brings her flowers are warm and gay. Since the love of Paul and Miriam develops in the midst of natural surroundings, the flower is symbolic of its freshness and innocence. They also symbolize the beauty ad youth of Miriam.

There are various other symbols of the burned potatoes symbolizing Miriam’s total absorption in Paul. On the other had the charred bread symbolizes Paul’s total absorption in Miriam. Hope and optimism are symbolized at the end of the novel with the help of the gold phosphorescence of the city. Hence, the symbolism uses in Sons and Lovers is quite simple and easy to understand. They are in no way complex but rather help to a better understanding of the novel.
Share:

Comment on Oedipus complex as reflected in Sons & Lovers

  Sons and Lovers belongs to the category of psychological fiction. The remarkable development of psychological novel is a notable phenomenon of the twentieth century literary scene. The psychology of the characters and the typical problems, emanating from a particular psychological pattern form the staple of a psychological novel. This psychological novel has been ushered in by Virginia Woolf and James Joyce. The analysis of the psychology of the characters is what constitutes the motif of a psychoanalytical fiction. The novelist goes deeper and deeper into the innermost crevice of the psychology of his characters and he brings out or externalizes the subtle psychological framework of the characters. 

It was undoubtedly the great creative fecundity of D. H. Lawrence, which was responsible for the intention of psychological novel. The psychological theories and concepts enunciated and disseminated by Freud and Jung revolutionized the world of conventional human thought. According to these eminent thinkers and stalwarts of psychology, the human thought is operative at three levels conscious, sub-conscious and unconscious. The mass of human thought lies dormant in the subconscious and the unconscious minds; but it sometimes comes out into the surface. Lawrence as a psychological novelist has sought to externalize the recondite thoughts which lie hidden in the inner recesses of the sub-conscious and unconscious minds.

Instead of portraying the life and activities of an Augustan hero in a vast and Aeschylean scale, the psychological novelist concentrates on the subtle shades of the psyche of his characters. Hence, Lawrence was preoccupied with the inner life of his characters. He set himself to the task of portraying the psyche or ‘the shimmeriness’ and not the hard facts. M.I. Muller also subscribes to the view that in the modern psychological novel, as that of Lawrence, we notice ‘a withdrawal from external phenomena in the flickering half-shades of the author’s private world’.

The modern novelists including Lawrence take the readers straight into the psychological plane of the characters and in so doing they allow the readers to discern the incessant flow of sensations and impressions which rise up in the minds of the characters. This ‘stream of consciousness’ technique has made it possible for the novelists of experimenting on time and place. The plot is rescued from the bondage of time. But this resultant incoherence or inconsistency of structure has been more than compensated by the exquisite delineation of subtle psychology of the characters. In order to suit the artistic purpose, the novelists make the action move forward and backward. In this context, the pertinent observation of David Daichess merited:

“The stream of consciousness technique is a means of escape from the tyranny of the time dimension. It is not only in distinct memories that the past impinges on the present, but also in much vaguer and more subtle ways, our mind floating off down some channel superficially irrelevant, but really having a definite starting off place from the initial situation, so that in presenting the characters’ reactions to events, the author will show us states of mind being modified by associations and recollections deriving from the present situation, but referring to a constantly shifting series of events in the past”.

Lawrence’s bold originality is exemplified by his style, which is impressionistic. His style is more poetic than the prosaic style of others. He has used plants of vivid images and symbols for giving expressions to the complex thought process of psyche of his characters. Long before the efflorescence of ‘the stream of consciousness novels’, Lawrence foreshadowed the style of consciousness novels’, Lawrence foreshadowed these style of is type novels. Later on James Joyce and Virginia Woolf perfected it with their mature artistry.

The ‘Oedipus Complex’ constitutes a psychological problem and this forms the nucleus of the novels, Sons and Lovers. The possessive character of Mrs. Morel was great stumbling block in the life of Paul, the hero of the piece. She was terribly dissatisfied with her married life and then subsequently. He failed to establish a becoming relationship both with Miriam and Clara. The mother-image was deterrent to the emotional life of Paul who himself was also a highly sensitive person and in his attachment with mother we notice the warmth and passion of a lover. This complex psychological problem has been treated or delineated by Lawrence with the consummate art of a poet and an unfailing observation and insight of a true psychologist.

Share:

Anna Karenina: A Novel of Love, Sex and Marriage

   "All happy families resemble one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" (1).

This aphoristic sentence is the beginning of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina which gives the reader an introduction to the entire novel: the novel is about the happiness or unhappiness in family life. There are stories of three married couples illustrating their attitude and Tolstoy’s views on love, sex and marriage. Therefore, it is often said that Anna Karenina is a novel of love sex and marriage.

          The character vigorously driven by love is Anna married to Karenin, 20 years older than her, a bureaucrat, always cold and formal, whom she can not love. She is only in chain with the fetters of a social system. Therefore whenever she finds her demands of her soul, and probably of body also, in Vronosky, Anna, an unfulfilled lady decides to possess him at any cost. She transgresses all familial, social and religious bounds. The result of this unlawful love is devastating:
“Yes, to die! Alexis Alexandrovich’s shame and disgrace, and Serezha’s, and my own terrible shame-all will be saved by my death.”

Sex especially adultery has got a critical treatment in the novel. Tolostoy has never approved of adultery but the sanctity of marriage. The accusation of adultery is directed against two persons Obnosky and Anna. But the treatment has been different on the standards of male and female. Anna suffers, and ultimately throws herself before the running wheels of a train, thinking
“I shall … escape from everybody and from myself.”
But Oblonsky doesn’t suffer, rather he asks Levin to “consider” his extra marital relationship with a woman “sacrificing everything” for him. Moreover, he thinks that his duty is to look after her, even though he has his own family:
“oughtn’t one to pity her and provide for her and make things easier?”
Again, Vronosky’s mother is “pleased” at her son’s adulterous relationship with Anna, because,
“in her opinion nothing gave such finishing touches to a brilliant young man as an intrigue in the best Society” (part2, chapter 18)
         
          Anna Karenina is important for its detailed analysis of marriage and family life: love and sex are its ingredients. There are mainly three couples, either married or living together, that illustrate the contemporary social picture and Tolostoy’s views on marriage.
         
          Tolstoy depicts the divided, hopeless and incomplete marriage patterns in urban society. Such relationships are exemplified by Stiva-Dolly and Karenin-Anna couples. Tolstoy shows us that Stiva, Vronsky, and Karenin, unlike Levin, divide their lives sharply between their homes and amusements keeping themselves outside the home, whereas women, like Dolly, center their existence on the family, since family unity depends on the woman.

However, the divided pattern of these marriages and the double standard of the family allow the dissatisfied partner to seek outside fulfillment of social, emotional, or sexual needs. Anna is the strikest example of the divided nature of an unfulfilled spouse: Anna does not hesitate to declare her pregnancy contributed by Vronosky:
“I am pregnant”
Again, she declares her determination to Vronosky:
“[I] Become your mistress and ruin my…everything.”

Without solving these marital problems, Tolstoy develops his characters in such a surrounding that they adjust to their incomplete relationships.

On the contrary, Tolstoy shows that Levin and Kitty have the only mutually complete union of the novel. Their marriage is a fulfillment, not a compromise, because his outside interests and his love are vehicles which aid him to discover the truth of inner goodness. Levin is disgusted at the outward show of love of Dolly-Oblonosky relationship:
“Of course she does not believe in his love. Then why is she so pleased? Disgusting! thought  he.

Tolstoy portrays Anna’s husband, Karenin, as a symbol of maintaining strictly social decorum even compromising with adultery. To him, marriage is not only a personal union rather strictly a social institution. His objections against Anna are that she has shocked public opinion and social code of morality; has grossly transgressed the religious sanctity of marriage with her adulterous relationship. Yet he can not divorce his wife for some social reasons: the separation would prove to be shocking to his son; she herself would be in public scandal, because in that society divorce happens either for any of the spouses’ impotency or adultery:
“I warned you of the consequences from the religious, civil and family points of view. You have not listened to me. Now I can not allow my name to be dishonoured…”(p.189)



Kitty’s parents’s attitude to choosing her husband shows two types of tendencies. The mother selects Vronsky attracted by his outward grandeur. She does not like Levin’s “strange and hard criticisms”, “awkward manner” and “strange way of life in the country”, while,
“Vronsky satisfied all the mother’s desires; he was very rich, cleaver, distinguished…an enchanting man…attentive to Kitty”
On the contrary Kitty’s father seeks inner goodness in Levin:
”Levin is a thousand times better man. This one [Vronsky] is a little Peters burg fop. They are machine-made by the dozen, all to one pattern, and all mere rubbish.”


It must be safely concluded that Anna Karenina is not only the love story of Anna, rather it actually a story of happiness and unhappiness of family life which includes love, sex and marriage. IN this case, critics have persisted in Tolstoy’s contrasts between Anna’s story and Levin’s. W. Gareth Jones comments,
Anna is supposed to illustrate the physical, Levin is spiritual; Anna is affirming personal fulfillment, Levin of the contrary, sees the meaning of life outside himself and a higher plane.
Actually Tolstoy advocates for the sanctity of marriage and the individuals quest for “immanent goodness” which may be weakened by the mere sex-based relationship. And the result in the novel is, as Anthony Thorlby states,
          “hers [Anna’s] ends in disaster whereas his[Levin’s] ends in happiness.”

Works Cited:

Jones, W. Gareth. “Introduction”.  Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy. Oxford University Press, 1995
 
Thorlby, AnthonyLeo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina. Cambridge University Press, 1987
Share:

A Doll’s House: Individual freedom of Nora

 Individual freedom is a fundamental theme of Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. Through the character of Nora Ibsen shows the necessity of individual freedom. Without it one can’t flourish oneself and establish oneself as equal partner with other (Nora – Helmer relationship). The protagonist, Nora always wants to be an independent person. Though she got her success, she paid a good price for herself liberty. The present paper investigates and discusses how Nora led her life before achieving her self-liberty and her passion for individual freedom.

Life of Nora before her revolution:
Actually Nora is literally trapped in Torvald’s family. She hasn’t been happy in her marriage, living as a “doll-wife” for Torvald. They never have any serious conversations. As Helmer’s wife, she is expected to obey his wishes. Even she suppresses her desire to please him. Helmer forbids her to have macaroons though this conflicts with her freedom. Helmer wants to keep her wife attractive. She had to obey Helmer which took place during the fancy dress party. She wants to stay at the party and enjoys herself but Helmer forces her to go back home early after tarantella dance. Actually Helmer’s motive was to sex with her. Thus he controls her life. When Nora refused, he reacted with the word won’t! won’t! He reminds her duty as a wife. The repetition of the word “won’t” shows his anger. In this way she was treated by her husband. Helmer expects to be obeyed when he wants to make love to her, regardless of whether she wants it or not.

All these examples reveal an imbalance in the power distribution between Nora and Torvald. Helmer is the dominant authority. Their conflict is reflected even in letterbox episode. Nora is unable to see her letter. The letterbox is locked and Helmer possesses the key. This implies that Nora does not have the freedom to see her own letters without going Torvald. As a married woman, she was not allowed to work and had to depend on her husband to pay off her debts. She has to use to flattery to manage a job for Mrs. Linde. It seems that Nora was passive and had no individual opinion. Her own opinions are shaped by her father and her husband.



Passion for freedom:
Nora had great passion for freedom. She suppressed it became she was eagerly waiting for a miracle. Nora reveals to Dr. Rank and Mrs. Linde that she would love to say, “Damn” to her husband. She seems to be willing to go against the tradition that women are not supposed to use coarse language. However, as soon as her husband appears, she tells Dr. Rank, who is encouraging her to say it, to keep quiet. This incident demonstrates Nora’s freedom to say whatever she wishes. Nora also requested Dr. Rank to share some Macaroons. Then Dr. Rank reminds her about her husband. She said that he would not tell her anything. Even she said that she didn’t care him. It is revealed that in order to pay off debts, Nora manages to get quite a bit of copying to do. Nora tells Mrs. Linde that it is almost like being a man. She enjoys working. She is forced to do it secretly because of social tradition. This shows her love for self liberation. At the end of the play, she told Torvald that she hasn’t been happy in her marriage. She decides to be free from the rules that have been imposed upon her. When Torvald tells her duty as a wife and a mother. Nora says that she is first and foremost a human being.

Ibsen creates a female protagonist who chooses to leave her family to gain freedom. Nora believes that Torvald’s new managerial position at the bank will solve all of her troubles and make her free. She says “Oh, Christina, I feel so light-hearted and happy. Its delightful to have lots of money, and no need to worry about things, isn’t it?”(Ibsen 36). This incident shows that Nora was always freedom loving.
As a stereotypical wife, Nora did not work outside. As a result, she did not know the outside world. Torvald used this chance to rule over her. Being ignorant of the external world, Nora was compelled to take what Torvald imposed upon her in the name of love. Social convention interrupts her to achieve self-liberty. To control Nora, Helmer said, “ Oh,in your blind inexperience”(Ibsen 166) Being a home maker, Nora had to depend on her husband for money. Torvald controlled the economy of his family. So it was easy for him to subjugate Nora by dint of his economic power. Thus societal expectations and monetary needs have influenced Nora’s life.

Social convention clearly shows the rule of gender, more specifically the role of husband and wife. As a wife Nora is expected to obey his husband’s wishes and tries to please him. The event of Macaroons shows that she has no freedom of choice. Her choice of freedom thus interrupts by Torvald. Nora wears the fancy dress according to the direction of Helmer. She wants to stay at party but Helmer forces her to go back home early after tarantella dance. He wants to have sex with her. Even he became angry, when she refused his appeal. This reveals that women are not supposed to have the freedom to decide when to have sexual intercourse. Helmer’s authoritative mentality is responsible for this.

Relationship between Nora and Helmer is not based on equal power distribution. As a result Helmer is the dominant partner who hinders the freedom of Nora. This typical power imbalance conflicts with Nora’s freedom.

It is a conventional for a woman to be passive and have no individual opinion. Nora utters “But our house has been nothing but a playroom. Here I have been your doll-wife as I used to be papa’s doll-child” (Ibsen 164).
Nora’s own opinions are to a certain extent, shaped by her father and her husband. Nora says that at home her father had to tell what her father thought. She kept quiet about her different opinion. She was her father’s doll. In this way patriarchal society hinders her freedom of expression. After her manage her opinions are shaped by Torvald.
Women are never thought of an in dependent individual. They are thought as mother, wives and daughters Nora’s decision to abandon her husband and children to discover her real self. Torvald tried to convince her in the name of social rules.

Torvald is the stereotypically strong husband while Nora is little sky lark. Torvald used bird image for addressing Nora. In the first act, Torvald refers to Nora as his little feather brains, his little scatter brain and his squirrel sulking. Thus he depicts the weakness of Nora. It is seen that if a person heard his weakness continuously she started to believe that she / he is weak. It is a way to control a person which Torvald used.
Actually Torvald threats Nora like a child for example as a child forbidden by her mother from eating candy. Nora hides macaroons from Torvald. Acting as a parent-husband Torvald controls her easily.

Nora’s self deception prevents her from understanding the social prejudices that limit her independence. Nora does not initially question her situation. Even she sees her husband’s possessiveness as an expression of his love for her.  Torvald loves me beyond words. He would feel jealous if she even mentioned any of her old friends back home. So of course she dropped that. In this way, to some extent, she is also responsible for her subjugation.

Why she departs from Torvald’s home:
In Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House the protagonist took a crucial decision to leave her family. Nora decides to leave because she understood that she had lived in illusion so many years in Torvald’s home. So she wants to face reality.

Comforts can often blind someone from the real truth. It is very true in Nora’s case. She is utterly trapped in domestic comfort. She gets everything in her doll’s house. she eventually loses touch with the outside world and consequently realises truth. When Torvald chastises her because of her lies, she finally notices that she is confined. She is not truly loved. Nora recognized that she had lost sight of the truth. So she takes a radical action.  Torvald told about her ignorance of the world.  She replied that she didn’t have an experience. But now she is going to make out who is right the world or she. It is the realization that forces Nora to take such a radical action.

Nora was expecting for a miracle. The miracle was that her husband would save her from the coming danger. She thought that Torvald would forgive her for her forgery. When she saw its opposite scenario, she revolted against her husband and left him. She always obeyed his wishes and tried to please him because of the expectation of a miracle from him. She says “I have so patiently all these eight years; for of course I saw clearly enough that miracles don’t happens everyday”(Ibsen 170). She was sure that Torvald would step forward to take the blame on himself.

Nora found that she had no identity. Her identity is shaped by her husband and father. Then she revolts against her husband who represents patriarchal society. Being deprived of speech, action and performance, she decided to leave Torvald. When her forgery was revealed, Nora found that her relation with her husband is not mutual. She also found an imbalance in the power distribution between her husband and her. Helmer is the dominant partner. Nora finally realized that for eight years she did not understand her husband at all. She has made nothing out of her life because she has been constantly living in the shadow of men. She has been deprived of her freedom to grow to become an individual. She says that Helmer and her father have done her a great wrong. So she decides to leave Helmer and her children in order to experience the world.

Actually Nora wants to discover who she really is. She wants to educate herself. At the same time she wants to gain experience and knowledge to find out things like religion and morality. She is not content with any second hand experience or what is written in books. She is willing to break up her marriage to fulfil her sacred duty. These things help her to take decision to depart from Torvald’s family. When Nora learns that her marriage was not effective, she decided to leave Torvald. Her marriage was playful wedlock.

In A Doll’s House Nora’s independent nature is a direct contrast with the tyrannical authority of Torvald. Nora and Torvald are not truthful to each other. When Torvald is proved as disloyal and ungrateful, Nora departs from his home.

Self-awakening:
In acts 3 Nora’s illusions about her family life are shattered by Helmer’s selfish and insensitive reaction to the news of Nora’s forgery. He said, “oh, what an awful awakening!” In all these eight years she who was my pride and joy a hypocrite, alien worse, worse – a criminal! How infinity disgusting it all is! The shame!”(Ibsen 154).  Helmer’s outburst grows her self-awakening. It is not until she sees the truth of Torvald’s character. She finally breaks free as a lark from his grasp. Her long expected miracle never took place because of Torvald’s selfish character. In fact, he said that no man world sacrifice his honour for his criminal wife. She finally comes to a much longer understanding of women’s plight. She replies “thousands of women have”. This four words statement shows that she had many achievement and she is worthy of a larger award than what she has been given. Thus Nora discovers her situation in Torvald’s family.

Moreover Nora found that society norms and forms are also against a woman. So she refused to believe these social norms. She said “I don’t believe in that anymore. I believe that, before all else, I am a human being, as much as you are or at least that I should try to become one. I know that most people agree with you, Torvald and that they say in book. But henceforth I can’t be satisfied with what most people say, and what is in books”.(Ibsen 168) I have to think over this things myself and try to understand them.

Pain of getting individual freedom:
 Her departure from Torvald’s family will help Nora to gain her freedom as an individual. Though the Kristine’s statement we got the idea of Nora’s coming future. Kristine said that she had to work for living.  Christine had worked all day long which was her only joy. She was completely alone in the world. Actually Nora lost her husband children, social status and security but she gained her freedom as an individual.

The ending of the plays makes the situation ambiguous. We are unsure that she will return to her husband’s home or not. But she proves it clearly that she failed to flourish herself in Torvald’s house. Through the weapon of resistance one can establish one’s identity and equal right. Nora’s actions and decisions prove that only the resistance can establish a person’s true identity.


Work cited:
Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Trans. William Archer. Dhaka: Friends Book Corner, 2009. Print
Share:

"A Doll's House" - Henrik Ibsen - Critical Analysis

 "A Doll's House" - Henrik Ibsen - Critical Analysis

Introduction:

Ibsen is called the father of realistic drama. He perfected the drama of conversation. He was the first man to show that high tragedy could be written about ordinary people and in ordinary everyday prose. His plays deal with the problems of contemporary everyday life situations. “A Doll’s House” is the best known and one of the most popular of Ibsen’s works. It is a play about women’s freedom, which deals with the liberation of the individual from the shackles and restraints of custom and convention.



Problem in Husband-Wife Relationship:

The play deals with the problem of marriage, of husband-wife relationship. It deals with the condition of a married woman under the excessive control of a husband, and shows the method which the woman employs in order to get out of that predicament. The play’s central idea is that a woman is not given to a man as a commodity but as a human being to be respected and treated affectionately by her husband.

Nora’s wifely Devotion to her Husband:

Nora is full of devotion to her husband. She loves him and is very faithful to him. To save his life she borrows money and has to commit forgery. She hides the act of forgery only because of his love for her. She signed in place of her father as she was compelled by circumstances. Even though she is blackmailed, she tries to keep the secret of helping her husband. She enjoys doing something extraordinary for her husband. And, in return, she expects her husband to love her equally.  But atlast she finds that her husband does not love her as an equalmate, but only as an inferior being. She has made all possible sacrifices for Helmer, but Helmer proves to be selfish.

Nora’s Treatment as a Pet:

When the play opens, we find that Nora has been leading the life of a pet in her husband’s home. There is no doubt that her husband is very fond of her, but the loving expressions that he employs when addressing her clearly shows that he regards her as a kind of pet. He addresses her as “my little squirrel”, “little skylark” etc.

Helmer’s Possessive Attitude towards Nora:

Helmer regards Nora as his property. He has a possessive attitude towards her. He believes that she belongs to him completely. His treating her as a pet only manifests his possessive attitude. In the end, as the danger from Krogstad has been avertd, Torvald compares her to a hunted dove whom he has rescued from a cruel hawk.

Nora’s Desire for Her Own Identity:

Nora thus develops a desire to find her own identity. She decides to leave Helmer and tells him that first her father and then her husband had wronged her. Under the parental roof, she had to adopt the views and opinions of her father; and under her husband’s roof she had to adopt the ideas and the tastes of her husband. Her father treated her as a baby doll, and her husband treats her as a doll-wife. Now, she realizes her duty towards herself. Besides being a wife and a mother, she is an individual. So, she takes back her wedding ring and steps out of the house, slamming the outer door behind her. Thus she becomes a woman who is in search of her own identity.

A Doll’s House – A Feminist Play:

The play thus deals with the problem of feminine liberty. A woman after her marriage does not lose her identity and individuality. She can maintain her freedom as an individual and can refuse to act as a slave to her husband. Ibsen championed for the right of women. Hence, without doubt, “A Doll’s House” can be called a feminist play. It advocates the rights of the women, and especially of wives in relation to their husbands.

 Conclusion:

Thus, by the end of the play Nora becomes an independent individual, to discover her own potentialities and achieve self-awareness and self-reliance. Though she will be facing an uncertain future yet she is ready to take the risk. She has now matured. She has achieved self-confidence. Hence, “A Doll’s House” is a suitable title thematically and structurally. The play deals with the making and unmaking of a woman as a doll.

Share:

Characteristics of Modernism in Literature

  

Modernist writers proclaimed a new "subject matter" for literature and they felt that their new way of looking at life required a new form, a new way of writing. Writers of this period tend to pursue more experimental and usually more highly individualistic forms of writing. The sense of a changing world was stimulated by radical new developments, such as:

* new insights from the emerging fields of psychology and sociology

* anthropological studies of comparative religion

* new theories of electromagnetism and quantum physics

* a growing critique of British imperialism and the ideology of empire

* the growing force of doctrines of racial superiority in Germany

* the escalation of warfare to a global level

* shifting power structures, particularly as women enter the work force

* the emergence of a new "city consciousness"

* new information technologies such as radio and cinema

* the advent of mass democracy and the rise of mass communication

* fin-de-siècle ["end-of-the-century"] consciousness

 

Some other characteristics of Modern Poetry:

* Development of science and technology

* Rapid industrialization and urbanization

* Expression in trade, commerce and economic activities

* Lack of faith on religion and critical outlook towards life

* Spread of education and literature

* Rise and growth of middle-class

* Women empowerment

* Acute frustration and pessimism

* Experimental tendency in art and literature

* Dominance of various ‘isms’ like imagism, Dadaism, symbolism, realism etc.

* Complexity and obscurity in thought and expression

* Rejection of orthodoxy

* Psychological approach

Share:

Search

Menus

Visitor Counter