The Old Maid, Part Two
Part One of this story was a little slow for my taste, especially the beginning where there was a lot of description of New York society. A lot of important plot points happened, but not much in the way of story progressed. In contrast to this, Part Two had a lot of plot developments including the death of Jim Ralston at the beginning of chapter six. This changed the story from one where Charlotte tries to raise her child in secret to one where there is a conflict over who is Tina's mother. The characters of Delia and Charlotte are developed quite nicely and I found myself struggling over who I thought Tina should look at as her mother. On one hand, Charlotte is her birth mother and has a right to be called mother, but on the other hand, Delia has provided a lot for Tina and by the end of the story, has “saved” her twice. I find Delia to be a much more likable character because Charlotte is rather boring and strict with her daughter, but I used quotes around the word “saved” because Delia's actions are really quite selfish.
In Part One she rescues Tina by taking her into her house and preventing the marriage of Charlotte and Joe Ralston so Charlotte could raise her child in secret. Delia has an ulterior motive though. Joe admits that Charlotte only had to ask and he would allow her to continue looking after the orphans, but Delia decides that this would bring shame to the Ralston name and never tells this to Charlotte. In Part Two, Charlotte decides she wants to leave with Tina, but Delia adopts her so she can get some inheritance in order to marry Lanning Halsey. She does this only to keep Tina at her house though. She does it so Tina can still be hers, as if Delia was actually her real mother.
Charlotte, while hard to like, gets some sympathy for her situation. Tina loves Delia's conversations and material gifts and sees Charlotte as a strict, grumpy, old maid. Yet Charlotte does nothing to change this. Only on a few occasions does she mention to Delia that she hates it when Delia is called “mother” and she resents Delia for speaking to Tina about her as an old maid. You almost want Charlotte to go away with Tina and I was mad for a moment when Delia adopted Tina without telling Charlotte. Throughout the story you could feel the tension building between Charlotte and Delia, and I found it difficult to decide who I wanted to win.
The ending, I thought, was perfect for this story because Delia finally realizes Charlotte's situation. I didn't want Charlotte to tell Tina the truth on her wedding night, but at the same time, I was glad Charlotte was finally doing something that she wanted. I was relieved and disappointed when Charlotte didn't go through with it. Disappointed that Tina wouldn't know the truth, but relieved that Tina's wedding wouldn't be crushed. In the last line, Delia asks Tina to promise to, “give your last kiss to Aunt Charlotte. Don't forget – the very last.” I thought this was an excellent ending because it showed Delia's effort to bridge the gap between Tina and Charlotte so that one day Tina may finally know the truth.
Pride and Prejudice, Chapters 32-444
Even though there are many characters in this book, there are only two important ones - Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. These two characters are the only ones in the book that have any depth to them. Every other character in the book is extremely one dimensional and their entire existance seem to revolve around Elizabeth and Darcy. For example, Mrs. Bennet is the same throughout the book. She is loud, obnoxious, pushy, and embarassing. We, as readers, are never offered any look into her emotions or character - but that's the point. Austen treats her and others as simple characters because that is all they're needed for. Mrs. Bennet is reduced to a characiture of a pushy mother because that is all that's needed from her. She helps Elizabeth in Chapter 42 by helping her realize that her mother and father are completely miss matched. She then decides she will not end up like them. Mrs. Bennet's attitude and disposition are one of the reasons Darcy tells Mr. Bingley to forget about Jane. All of the characters are used to set the stage for events that happen to Elizabeth and Darcy. Jane talks to Elizabeth, but she never offers her any good advice. Jane is there simply to provide a way to introduce Darcy and she, like her mother, show Elizabeth how not to fall in love.
When I first started reading this book, I didn't understand that the characters were intentionally shallow and annoying. Mrs. Bennet, Miss Bingley, Lydia, Kitty, Lady Catherine, and Mr. Collins are all very aggrevating characters and are also extremely one dimensional. Others are simply boring: Jane, Mr. Bingley, Mr. Bennet, and Miss Lucas are there simply to move the plot along. At first I thought the book was just boring and filled with these stupid characters. It wasn't until our first class discussion that I began to see the book differently and it wasn't until Mr. Darcy's letter that I fully understood that everyone except for Darcy and Elizabeth are intentionally shallow. We are meant to dislike Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine because we are supposed to know that Elizabeth hates them.
Mr. Darcy's letter brought everything together for me. It acted like a roadmap for why each character was written into the story. Mr. Wickham intentionally tries to make Elizabeth dislike Darcy; the entire Bennet family acts as a reason for Darcy to take Mr. Bingley out of the country;, Miss Lucas marries Mr. Collins as an example of a mismatched couple. These are just a few examples. Every character and every event in the book lead up to the events of Chapters 43 and 44 when Elizabeth finally starts to move past her prejudiced views of Darcy and begins to fall in love with him. I still find the book to be a little long and wordy, but I've never seen characters used solely as foreshadowing and this, more than anything keeps me interested in the story.
Essay #1 Topic B
At first glance, A Farewell to Arms seems like a love story taking place in a battlefield of World War I. However, throughout the book you are exposed to subtle and blatant references to war and how it affects people. Fredric Henry deals with the war by running from the brutality of the battlefield and hiding in the arms of his lover. For a short time he is happy, but the reality of the world catches up to him and the story ends in tragedy. Hemingway is trying to tell us something here. The message is subtle and indirect, but he is telling us that nothing good comes of war. The war brought Catherine and Henry together, coerced them into falling in love, and then tore them apart. Hemingway’s other references aren’t so subtle. His character’s comments and observations are not solely about World War I though; he speaks about war in general. Although the book was written about a war that took place almost ninety years ago, his messages are relevant to the events taking place today. Through direct quotes taken from the novel, I will demonstrate that Hemingway thinks of war as an unnecessary, futile, and terrible event.
The soldiers in this book are usually depicted as young men only looking for a good time. When these same men are suddenly placed into a battlefield, they become excellent sources for opinions about the war. Passini, another ambulance driver, states: “War is not one by victory…Did you see all the far mountains to-day? Do you think we should take them too? ...One side must stop fighting. Why don’t we stop fighting?” (Hemingway, 50) The message here is clear. Hemingway is saying that war is not as simple as wining or losing. More specifically, he is saying that war can go on with no end in sight. In the book, Passini is talking about the Austrian advance into Italy. The battle he is referencing is a common type of battle during World War I – one side advances until they meet resistance and they fight each other until one of them retreats or is defeated. Passini sees the futility of this and realizes that this could go on forever. He knows it’s possible that Austria would defeat them, but he acknowledges this is futile too when he says, “If they come down into Italy they will get tired and go away. They have their own country.” (Hemingway, 51) The overall message that Hemingway is telling us is that once war has begun it will keep going, regardless of victory. Once one side has accomplished what it set out to do, they don’t stop. In his example, Austria won’t stop until all of Italy is conquered – even though they don’t need the land. Passini is saying it is better to stop the killing and destruction because otherwise the fighting will continue indefinitely. He is saying if one side just stops, the other will have no one to fight and the fighting will stop. Even if the other side continues to advance, the fighting will end.
This philosophy does have some obvious flaws, such as opening yourself to domination, but the basic principle of it is sound – if you want the fighting to stop, someone needs to step down. This is more than applicable to today’s war in Iraq. The overall reasons for America’s occupation of Iraq are somewhat cloudy and always seem to be changing. Retaliation for September 11, finding weapons of mass destruction, ending Saddam’s regime, and establishing democracy in Iraq are all reasons for why we are there, but they seem more like excuses for us not to leave. Every day I read about car bombings that claim the lives of more American soldiers. The death toll keeps rising and has now reached approximately 1,948 deaths since 2003 (Sun News). Iraqi insurgents continue to fight the American troops, but they retaliate only when we apply more pressure. At this rate, how long will we occupy Iraq in order to establish democracy? This is a similar situation to the one Hemingway described in his book. If one side doesn’t stop fighting, this war could go on for a long time. Iraqi insurgents won’t stop attacking as long as there are Americans there and America won’t leave until they feel it’s safe to do so. It’s a difficult situation and I’m not sure if pulling out of Iraq will bring peace, but it could initiate the end to the fighting.
As idealistic as ceasing to fight may seem, it is perhaps better than the other option of fighting until one side gives up. On page 133, Fredric Henry is in Milan speaking to a British major when he has the following discussion with him: "He said we were all cooked but we were all right as long as we did not know it. We were all cooked. The thing was not to recognize it. The last country to realize they were cooked would win the war." (Hemingway) This comment is closely related to the previous quote in that it refers to the battles of attrition that took place during World War I. The constant cycle of fighting, advancing, and retreating has a very strong impact on the resources of the fighting countries – most notably manpower. The British soldier is saying that at one point a country realizes they cannot continue to fight and surrenders to the attacking country. This often comes at a point when the country has sustained heavy losses in both money and lives of its citizens. All countries in a war lose men and money, but the point the major was making is that no one realizes it until it is too late. The last country to realize they have suffered losses wins the war – everyone else has already given up. This is another blatant attempt by Hemingway to show the futility of war. Everyone keeps fighting until they absolutely have to stop and in the end, no one wins because every side has lost so much money and men. This is especially true of the “winning” country. They would have to suffer incredible losses to fight that long, the only reason they won is because they didn’t realize how much they’ve lost.
In Iraq, the American death toll keeps rising as both the Americans and the Iraqi insurgents fight on. There is no attempt to reach negotiations with them. The fighting will continue until one side realizes they’ve lost too much. The death toll is out of control and America borrows money from other countries to finance this war – at some point someone has to realize that we may not be able to recover from these losses. I’m not saying that America should just give up and surrender, but we can’t afford to continue fighting. World War I ended when the majority of Europe decided they’ve lost too much and the Treaty of Versailles was signed (Duffy). In order for the war in Iraq to end, perhaps negotiations with the Iraqis need to be established. Or perhaps we need to help Iraq without such a strong military presence. In either case, both sides can’t continue fighting and it doesn’t need to reach a point where one side is forced to give up.
Along with this line of thinking is the realization that being the last one to “realize they’re cooked” has its drawbacks. Hemingway once again stresses the futility of war through his characters and in this case, he references the aftermath of such futility. On page 179 Henry is having a conversation with the priest and they breach the topic of the war. The conversation leads to a talk about what they had hoped for during the war. It is clear they both want it to end, but the priest says he wants something more than defeat. To this, Henry makes a realization when he says, “There isn’t anything more. Except victory. It may be worse.” (Hemingway, 179) This comment ties in very nicely with Hemingway’s opinion of futility, especially regarding his opinion that the winner of the war is the last to realize their losses. To be the victor of that war meant to fight until the very end, regardless of the consequences. Henry realizes that if Italy won, it would mean the war would continue for a very long time and there would only be more death. If they were defeated the fighting could end. Being conquered is by no means a pleasant experience, but they wouldn’t continue to fight – at least that would end.
Once again, this relates heavily with the war in Iraq. If America stays in Iraq and aims to “win,” they will be fighting for a very long time. If we keep fighting the Iraqi insurgents until they give up, our losses would also be great. At the rate the war is going, thousands more will die and billions more will be spent. After the war ends we may feel like we accomplished something, but the human loss and financial consequences will be enormous. This quote from Henry is a realization that the current administration needs to recognize. It needs to be decided if the cost of winning is worth the reward. However, there could be severe consequence for abandoning a war in which we are already involved.
On page 49, Henry’s men urge him to tell his opinion of the war. Henry says, “I believe we should get the war over. . .It would not finish if one side stopped fighting. It would only be worse if we stopped fighting." (Hemingway) This comment is contrary to the opinion of war expressed in this book, but it is important to understand what Henry is saying. If Italy stopped participating in the war, one of two things could happen. Austria will see that Italy has ceased fighting and they will leave since they have no one to fight and have no interest in Italy. This was Passini’s argument which I described earlier. The second thing that could happen is Austria could easily take over the now undefended country of Italy. In other words, pacifism can promote peace or it can make you an easy target.
Ending the war in Iraq is an option that many people see as a viable one. This would certainly end the fighting, but what would happen as a consequence? Is Iraq’s new government strong enough to defend itself? Will the insurgents take over the country and return it to a dictatorship? A violent takeover is possible if we stop fighting and is something that needs to be considered. It’s true that fighting would end, but the risk of being conquered is real. Now that we’ve changed Iraq so much, we have a responsibility to stay in order to let the country adapt to these changes. If the insurgent attacks don’t stop, then America might have to stay in Iraq until a strong Iraqi army can defend their country. Deciding whether it is more important to leave or stay in Iraq is not easy and ultimately comes down to whether or not leaving is worth the risk of domination.
Is it more important to leave and endanger Iraq or to stay at the cost of American lives and money? There is no easy answer to this question, but Hemingway would have voted to leave Iraq. His message is made quite clear through his characters. He thinks that continuing to fight is pointless because the war will not end through victories in battle. It will only end when everyone has suffered too much and is forced to quit. If we leave Iraq, the insurgents may continue fighting Iraqi citizens, but Hemingway would say that the loss of life may be even greater if we stay – making the fighting completely pointless. It is interesting to see how his feelings towards World War I are so applicable to the war today. Perhaps we have to realize that all wars, despite their cause, are the same. Since World War I there have been five wars involving America. Five wars taking place in less than ninety years clearly indicates that fighting doesn’t solve anything. Perhaps Hemingway is right, if we don’t stop fighting – if we continue to fight until someone gives up, the war will never end.
Works Cited
Hemingway, Ernest. A Farewell to Arms. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc: 1929.
Sun News National/World. 8 Oct. 2005. Ottawa Sun. 8 Oct. 2005. http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2005/10/08/1253335-sun.html
Duffy, Michael. War Timeline. 27 Sept. 2003. FirstWorldWar.com. 7 Oct. 2005. http://www.firstworldwar.com/timeline/1919.htm
Nella Larsen Short Stories
The three short stories by Nella Larsen don't have much in common as far as plot goes, but the author's style can definitely be felt through all of them. All three stories seem to begin in the middle of a longer story. By that I mean we are placed into the middle of an ongoing story with established characters with little or no explanation of what's going on. In “The Wrong Man” we don't know the connection between Julia and Ralph, in “Freedom” we don't know why the main character hates his wife, and in “Sanctuary” we don't understand the connection with the main character and Annie Poole. By the end of the story, everything comes together, but I found myself very confused as I was reading all three stories. It felt like I was missing something I should have already known. I'm not that familiar with short fiction, but I think this style adds a lot of depth to these stories. Confusion led to curiosity, and I found myself eager to find out what happens next. While some of the stories were better than others, I was disappointed when each one of them ended.
My favorite of the three stories is “Freedom.” This story stood out from the rest because it involved only one character and we, as readers, experience his thoughts and emotions as he spirals towards insanity. The main character (who is never named) feels such intense guilt for his wife's death that he can think of nothing else until he goes completely insane. This process is described to us from a unique perspective. Its told in third person, but our view of what's going on is very limited. It's as if we are simultaneously inside his head and watching him on TV. For example, “A nameless dread sized him; she would not come!” and “He sat wrapped in immeasurable sadness. He knew that she would not come” both have third person description followed by a thought from the main character. This limited perspective is very effective because it completely draws the reader in by keeping it interesting. We get to see the thought process of someone losing their mind without the explanation an external narrative would provide.
Larsen is able to create a believable story for her characters and create a conflict for them in less than ten pages for each story. Her method of placing her characters into situations without any character development is interesting and effective. Unlike most things I've read, we must learn about her characters only through how they interact with their environment. This, mixed with her ability to keep the plot well hidden, kept me reading and wanting more.
