Elaboration on how A Devoted Son short story can be analyzed through the idea of literary criticism. Next, it is the writers aim to see to what extent these short story can be linked to real life events in order to confirm the suitability of Marxism Criticism theory for such an analysis.

1.2 AUTHOR

Anita Desai is a famous female author from India. She was born as Anita Mazumdar on June 24, 1937 to an Indian father, D.N Mazumdar and a German mother, Toni Nime in Mussoorie, India. She grew up speaking five different languages German, Hindi, Urdu, Bengali and English which became her literary language. She has happy marriage with Ashvin Desai and has four children including the winning novelist of Booker Prize, Kirai Desai.

Her educational background was Queen Mary's Higher Secondary School, New Delhi; Miranda House, University of Delhi, B.A. (honours) in English literature 1957. Some of her career experience and awards are since 1963 writer; Purington Professor of English, Mount Holyoke College, 1988-93; professor of writing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1993—. Helen Cam Visiting Fellow, Girton College, Cambridge, 1986-87; Elizabeth Drew Professor, Smith College, 1987-88; Ashby Fellow, Clare Hall, Cambridge, 1989. Since 1972 member of the Sahitya Academy English Board. Royal Society of Literature Winifred Holtby prize, 1978; Sahitya Academy award, 1979; Guardian award, for children's book, 1982; Hadassah Magazine award, 1989; Tarak Nath Das award, 1989; Padma Sri award, 1989; Literary Lion Award, New York Public Library, 1993. Fellow, Royal Society of Literature, 1978; Girton College, Cambridge, 1988; Clare Hall, Cambridge, 1991.

The world of Desai's fiction is largely a domestic one. Even thou her works as well can be seen from literature criticism multi point of view; depend on what the readers’ interested to analyze on, she is interested mostly in the lives of women in India since Independence, the lives of women in the modern Indian nation state, and not historical or political matter; like quoting her comment about her stunning success,

“My novels are no reflection of Indian society, politics, or character. They are part of my private effort to seize upon the raw material of life—its shapelessness, its meaninglessness, that lack of design that drives one to despair—and to mould it and impose on it a design, a certain composition and order that pleases me as an artist and also as a human being who longs for order”.

Besides becomes a great novelist, Anita Desai also an excellent short-story writer and children’s author. Some of her famous masterpiece like novels, uncollected short stories and fiction for children are;

“Cry, The Peacock. Calcutta, Rupa, n.d.; London, Owen, 1963; Voices in the City, London, Owen, 1965; Bye-Bye, Blackbird, New Delhi, Hind, and Thompson, Connecticut, InterCulture, 1971; Where Shall We Go This Summer?, New Delhi, Vikas, 1975; Fire on the Mountain, New Delhi, Allied, London, Heinemann, and New York, Harper, 1977; Clear Light of Day, New Delhi, Allied, London, Heinemann, and New York, Harper, 1980; In Custody, London, Heinemann, 1984; New York, Harper, 1985; Baumgartner's Bombay, London, Heinemann, 1988; New York, Knopf, 1989; Journey to Ithaca, New York, Knopf, 1995; Fasting, Feasting, London, Chatto & Windus, 1999, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 2000; Games at Twilight and Other Stories, New Delhi, Allied, and London, Heinemann, 1978; New York, Harper, 1980; Diamond Dust: Stories. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 2000; Circus Cat, Alley Cat, in Thought (New Delhi), 1957; Tea with the Maharani, in Envoy (London), 1959; Grandmother, in Writers Workshop (Calcutta), 1960; Mr. Bose's Private Bliss, in Envoy (London), 1961; Ghost House, in Quest (Bombay), 1961; Descent from the Rooftop, in Illustrated Weekly of India (Bombay), 1970; Private Tuition by Mr. Bose, in Literary Review (Madison, NewJersey), Summer 1986; The Peacock Garden, Bombay, India Book House, 1974; Cat on a Houseboat, Bombay, Orient Longman, 1976; The Village by the Sea, London, Heinemann, 1982.

After all, Anita Desai is an exquisite writer. Her stories which mostly use charismatic symbolization and carries philosophical meaning bring essential thing on demonstrating assimilation between traditional and modern Indian portrait that can translate to the reader’s perspective.

1.3 PROBLEM FORMULATION

1.3.1 PROBLEM STATEMENTS

1. How can A Devoted Son can be fitted into the idea of Marxism Critism through the analysis of the main characters

2. What is the symbol use in A Devoted Son attach to the meaning to the content which makes Marxism Critism Theory being most ideal approach to this analysis

1.3.2 DATA ANALYSIS

1. The result of the research is a qualitative as part of literature study

2. The writer will take note on important events and information relating to the topic discussed

3. This project will be finished within two weeks in compliance with university standard for midterm paper project.

CHAPTER II

THEORITICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.1.1 THEORY & CONCEPT

There are many ways to interpret Marxism. On the writer opinion, Marxism is an approach to understand of solidity link between the ideologies of Marxist society which on economic constitution men work defined their existence unequally in real life. Some expert may say that,” Marxism regards history as a series of conflicts between the dominated majority and the dominating minority to gain power over the means and excess of production. After people have exited from their first state of nature, where they have been equal by default; they have found themselves cast into two main categories. The category of those who spend all their lives laboring in the fields and other places of production; and the category of those who usurp the labor of the working class to increase their capital. If we examine history carefully, we see how the economies of ancient and modern societies are based on slavery and exploitation.” http://bachelorandmaster.com/criticaltheories/marxism-and-literature.html

The theory formed originally based on philosophy knowledge that human being must be develop what appears in their experience or what it’s famous called Hegel’s Mode of Reasoning from the phenomenologist Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) and introduced by Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883) transferred from German since 1884 and was widespread by philosophical community. Some of famous Marxist are; Karl Marx, George Lukacs and Theodor Adorno.

To understand Marxism, there are some aspects of work can be used as key term according to Ann B. Dobbie in Theory into Practice: An Introduction to Literary Criticism, Thomson 2002; “1. Commodificaion - "the attitude of valuing things not for their utility but for their power to impress others or for their resale possibilities" (92); 2. Conspicuous consumption - "the obvious acquisition of things only for their sign value and/ or exchange value" (92); 3. Dialectical materialism - "the theory that history develops neither in a random fashion nor in a linear one, but instead as struggle between contradictions that ultimately find resolution in a synthesis of the two sides. For example; class conflicts lead to new social systems" (92); 4. Material circumstances - "the economic conditions underlying the society. To understand social events, one must have a grasp of the material circumstances and the historical situation in which they occur" (92); 5. Reflectionism - associated with Vulgar Marxism - "a theory that the superstructure of a society mirrors its economic base and, by extension, that a text reflects the society that produced it" (92); 6. Superstructure - "The social, political, and ideological systems and institutions--for example, the values, art, and legal processes of a society--that are generated by the base" (92). “Dr. David Miralles, Universidad Autonomia de Queretaro, Department de Ingles, Literary Criticism pg. 5. The key terms have mentioned only one of options as an approach for portraying the analysis.

2.1.2 THEORICAL FRAMEWORK

The organization of theory used for analysis in this essay is Marxism as fundamental theory to elaborate an idea of short story, A Devoted Son. The function of theory is to reflect of social life that the ideological function of Marxism is human as product of economic organization, not versi versa and in fact that it has not really existed.

CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Aspects of oppressing of class struggle and shifting power on general perspective of economic on A Devoted Son short story is reflecting awareness in modern society. Some periods in the event influenced specific societies and may the behavior arouse in cross cultural point of view. Marxism and the elements of the short story are used in the paper to help identifying how in a real life, the issues of restructuring the system to be an utopian society through the personal roles, sometimes force the low class society for a survival, because unawareness of the high class society on different perception moral and cultural knowledge; and most often ending in destructive and self-afflicting result. On the different point of view of reading, the story gives real example of production of humanity.

3.2 SUMMARY

The story background is in a small village of India. Rakesh who is on the story what society called a devoted son, a son that every parents wish had for, is a son of Varmaji. His father was a worker in the kerosene dealer's depot. Being poor did not stop him from achieving his dream; being a great doctor. He worked very hard and passed every examination in first division. The family and people in the village celebrated his success with great festivities and joy. His M.D. thesis was much appreciated and he went to the U.S.A. for scholarship to acquire professional skill and expertise in his field.

The lifetime achievement of his hard work paid with so much joy all around him. He has a happy marriage with his mother choice, a great father for his children and had an excellent on his career. He climbed from low class society to high class one, but he did not change a bit being what he was before to his family. That was very humble behavior from a successful man who has a car and began his practice as a surgeon became the best and the richest doctor in the town.

As years passed by, his mother died. He took great care of his father. He brought his morning tea; read newspaper for him; took him to the garden in the evenings for a breath of fresh air. During summer he helped his father sleep in the open lawn. He and his wife took care well of him and no doubt about his devotion as a son.

Then came a time when his role as a doctor for his father and he had to restrict his father’s diet. Due to his father condition, rich and fatty foods like oil, ghee, butter, cheese etc. had to be cut down. Sweets were completely forbidden; but Varmaji could not help for his food craving. Knowing his power is useless for his son, he used it to his grandchildren by bribe him, but Rakesh caught it. Since then there was heavy restriction on Varma’s food besides heavy supervision of the same.

Mr. Varma felt insulted by all these activities and questioning his manner as a son. Though from Rakesh’s point of view, he was only doing his duty as a doctor who responsible to his patient condition. And on the son’s point of view, that he does all this for his fathers benefit and not out of discourtesy so his father could live longer and enjoying the good life. But his father was dissatisfied with everything. He shared his grief on his own perception with his neighbor Bhatia who was also old and adamant. Bhatia who was not aware of the background of the conflict did not believe that a devoted son like Rakesh in public society could treat his own father in that such manner.

The number of pills, medicines and tonic increased. Though Rakesh did them all with affection and care for his old father, Varma was denied it. His loneliness deepened and came to an end that Varmaji died on grieving that his son is not devoted son after all and Rakesh was ended up self-afflicting on might he had done wrong to give the best for his beloved father.

3.3 ANALYSIS

The Marxist critic is referring to analytical reader. Some questions that the writer wants to consider for achieving the point in this essay are; 1. What role does class play in the work; what is the author's analysis of class relations?; 2.How do characters overcome oppression?; 3. In what ways does the work serve as propaganda for the status quo (to keep the things the way they presently are); or does it try to undermine it?; 4. What does the work say about domination; or are social conflicts ignored or blamed elsewhere?; 5. Does the work propose some form of utopian vision as a solution to the problems encountered in the work?

The role Rakesh and Varmaji take a place in poor class society in the beginning, and shift to the high class society since Rakesh become the richest man in their village “ How one man— and a man born to illiterate parents, his father having worked for a kerosene dealer and his mother having spent her life in the kitchen—had achieved, combined and conducted such a range of virtues, no one could understand, but all acknowledged his talent and skill.”

Being a great doctor and fine surgeon brought Rakesh and Varmaji to a fame and fortune. Varmaji which was only worked for a kerosene dealer and illiterate person was fulfilled with so much proud when his son achieved his dreams and glorious excellent career, The changing class in a society which changing his point of view in health care, not in cultural values. In the story, stage of introducing proletarian is by Rakesh took the education in the United States of America, which one of the biggest capitalist country in the world. Yet this fact did not change him personally being an arrogant social class climber like many people usually does. On the contrary, he still keep the cultural value like keeping his manners and being good-natured man which a lot of other parents do not see it anymore on theirs;

“To everyone who came to him to say “Mubarak, Varmaji, your son has brought you glory”,

the father said, “Yes, and do you know what is the first thing he did when he saw the results this morning? He came and touched my feet. He bowed down and touched my feet.”

This moved many of the women and men in the crowd and they shook their heads in wonder and approval of such exemplary behaviour. “One does not often see such behaviour in sons any more,” they all agreed.”

The traditional valued as devoted son is never leave him regarding he was away in foreign modern country; still touched his father feet as showing his respect and subservience. However, one important aspect related to this gesture is that the person's whose feet are being touched is always superior in age and position; even for choosing a wife which is very personal and crucial in a person’s life. His acknowledgment as devoted son, great husband and a father also being excellent doctor in fact never change him a bit in control of a general social practice.

The characters experienced the overcome oppression when the family dynamic changed by Rakesh dual responsibilities, as a son and doctor at the same time. As a son, Rakesh attitude was exemplary,

”It was Rakesh who brought him his morning tea in the old man’s favourite brass tumbler. He sat at the edge of the bed and discussed or, rather, read out the morning news to his father…”

“ …All this was very gratifying for the old man.”

With the deterioration of the father`s health came the deterioration of their relationship. Varmaji as a proud father of what his son has achieved thought that he has been treated badly in consequences of his illness.

“What was not so gratifying was the strict supervision of his diet.”

“He opened his eyes and stared at his son in disbelief. A son who actually refused his father the food he craved?”

Modern health care treatment is gaining wrong perception on Varmaji point of view. He is deeply depressed of the change of authority figure from parent to child and as well from father to patient.

“, Rakesh marched into the room, not with his usual respectful steps but with the confident strides of the famous doctor, and declared, “No more halwa for you, Papa. If you must have something sweet, Veena will cook you a little kheer, just a little rice and milk. But nothing fried, nothing rich. We can’t have this happening again.””

This change is lead on to negative effect on their relationship.

In what ways does the work serve as propaganda for the status quo (to keep the things the way they presently are); or does it try to undermine it. His desperation of being obeyed and the only man who used to have power, created conflict both internal and external. Internally he did not gaining good sign of feeling better and externally he used his power as elder to bribe his grandchild to get what he craved of.

“The old man tried to bribe his grandchildren into buying him sweets. “Run down to the shop at the crossroads and buy me thirty-paise worth of jalebis, and you can spend the remaining twenty paise on yourself. Eh? Understand? Will you do that?””

“Look after me?” cried Varma, his voice cracking like an ancient clay jar. “He does not even give me enough to eat.”

Domination in the work are social conflicts ignored. Rakesh still keep his authority power as doctor to push Varmaji obeyed his command as a professional medical person,

“You must take it, it will make you feel stronger again. Here it is. Promise me you will take it regularly, Papa.”

but actually given another victim (Rakesh son) as two characters could not scanned it;

“Now, Papa, are you trying to turn my little son into a liar? Quite apart from spoiling your own stomach, you are spoiling him as well—you are encouraging him to lie to his own parents. You should have heard the lies he told his mother when she saw him bringing those jalebis wrapped up in a filthy newspaper.”

Treatment in modern health care propose some form of utopian vision as a solution to the problems encounter in the work. Pills, medicine and tonic is utopian vision on the point of view proletarian. That shows anything modern and what he had learned from his education is correct, which can not to be blamed. Modern ways mostly used on a sense, logic and science result.

“I’ve brought you a new tonic to make you feel better. You must take it, it will make you feel stronger again. Here it is. Promise me you will take it regularly, Papa.”

Approaching in psychological cultural value to the old fashioned people like Varmaji usually omitted, for example by given him an option to use traditional medicine or combining little bit of those. On the other hand Varmaji can not to be blamed either, because the way he had seen of the more of being old, the more you had to gaining more respect and get away almost about everything. At the end he just wanted to have a good life before he died.

“Halwa was only the first item to be crossed off the old man’s diet. One delicacy after the other went—everything fried to begin with, then everything sweet, and eventually everything, everything that the old man enjoyed.”

““Never,” murmured Bhatia in disbelief. “Is it possible, even in this evil age, for a son to refuse his father food?”

Old Varma nodded. “That is how he treats me—after I have brought him up, given him an education, made him a great doctor. Great doctor! This is the way great doctors treat their fathers, Bhatia.”

Diet and limiting his craving for his favorite food on his opinion was just blocked his happiness, and lack of happiness means giving up life faster.

“They kept him alive and even gave him a kind of strength that made him hang on. It was as though he were straining at a rope, trying to break it, and it would not break. It was still strong. He only hurt himself, trying.”

This different perception on knowledge was misunderstood by two different generations and ended on destructive and self-afflicting result.

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

From the analysis have explained above, can be concluded that A Devoted Son can be fitted as example of ideological hegemony that can be linked to real life events in order to confirm the suitability of Marxism Criticism theory for such an analysis. And after all, Marxism is only a model-based of possible interaction between different classes social that all of the participatory accept the harmony and a self-motivating factor for people to believe in and raise themselves out of difficult situations; which is not exist. The result of the project will provide information as possible narrative in literature study and can be accessed as intensive reading as well as guideline of competence Marxism Criticism for future studies.

CHAPTER V

REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY

5.1 Works Cited

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://biography.jrank.org/pages/4264/Desai-Anita.html

(n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2010, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Desai

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/marxist.crit.html

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.textetc.com/theory/marxist-views.html

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.textetc.com/theory/hegel.html

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://bachelorandmaster.com/criticaltheories/marxism-and-literature.html

5.2 Bibliography

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://biography.jrank.org/pages/4264/Desai-Anita.html

(n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2010, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Desai

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/marxist.crit.html

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.textetc.com/theory/marxist-views.html

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.textetc.com/theory/hegel.html

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://bachelorandmaster.com/criticaltheories/marxism-and-literature.html

Deconstruction Theory in Much Madness is Divinest Sense

by Emily Dickinson

I.             INTRODUCTION

            Understanding on deconstruction theory often can be interpreted as against the universal meaning because it’s vague on what the real truth is. The main idea in this theory that the way we frame of our mind does not seem like what we have seen. Finding complicated language factors is a key to understand what the figural meaning than the literally one. Famous deconstructive figures are Jacques Derrida, Rolland Barthes and Jacques Lacan. According to them, the key term of understanding deconstructive theory are Aporia (natural contradictions found in a text), Differance (to describe different word using another word to get the sense of it), Erasure (metaphorically speaking on the main idea), Metaphysics of Presence (what we believe as beliefs), Logo-centrism (on what the universal principles beliefs is not present anymore), Supplement ( the idea of logic but represent in contradictory ideas), Trace (meaning in words), Transcendental Signifier (understanding error-disagreement which may build a new perception). On my point of view, those key terms have mentioned above, summit on absurdness and that is the art of deconstruction theory.

II.           BACKGROUND

         Emily Dickinson is one of my favorite poets with her mysterious dark language; it formally known as metaphysics. Rich of figurative language used in her literary work, very absurd indeed, that for it most of the people questioning of her sanity.

         Much Madness is Divinest Sense is fitted the characters of deconstruction theory and it is perfect practical word against universal truth. The meaning of the poem is simplicity attack on public opinion and it is still to be an argument on how we see ourselves in the society; for what our behavior towards it. It is very interesting to take a look deeply.

III.        MUCH MADNESS IS DIVINEST SENSE

Much Madness is divinest sense

Much Madness is divinest Sense

To a discerning Eye

Much Sense -- the starkest Madness

'Tis the Majority

In this, as all, prevail;

Assent -- and you are sane,

Demur -- you're straightway dangerous --

And handled with a chain

By Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

Literal Meaning:

Much madness : a lot of mentally ill, wild, excited

Divinest : of like God or a god

Sense : one of the five powers (sight, hearing, smells, taste and touch)by which person is conscious of things, feeling about something important, become aware of something even though you cannot see, hear it, etc

Discerning : showing judgment about the quality of something

Eye : either of the two organs of sight, calm area in the storm

Starkest : looking severe (very bad, difficult) without color or decoration, unpleasant and impossible to avoid, completely

‘Tis : a contraction of it is

Majority : largest part of people or things

Prevail : exist or happen generally, win, most common

Assent : agreement, agree to do something

Sane : having a healthy mind, sensible and reasonable

Demur : (of woman) quiet, serious and shy

Straightway : immediately

Dangerous : likely to cause danger

Handled : deal with or control somebody/something

Chain : length of metal rings joined together, series of connected things

Figural Meaning:

"Much madness is the divinest sense to a discerning eye" could be representing of meaning it's mad to do what society would call "the divinest sense" or being single (God is only one, individual)

"Much Sense the starkest madness, Tis the Majority" could be represent of meaning the majority's "much sense" is actually Mad (crazy or insane).

"In this as all prevail, assent and you are sane" represent of meaning Society appears to rule, and the majority will win, if you agree with them, then you are not labeled crazy.

“Demure you're straightaway dangerous and handled with a chain" represent of meaning If one disagrees with society, or the norm, what has been established by the majority, they are perceived as a threat, and persecuted.

Conclusion:

That poem sounds like reflection for her independence and expression for her thoughts on religion and womanhood, which for her what’s society has been judge for being different person are normally persecuted. Individualism does not exist anymore since what mad or sane are often become a society foresight or exist rules is become conventional, which doesn’t mean that’s right. What society does often holding back of someone identity, make them thing that actually become mad or sane is not so much differences.

Figurative language:

Paradox: Much Madness is divinest Sense (since when much madness is become sense of God?)

Personification: To a discerning Eye (only people can judge, eyes are for seeing)-

Visual Imagery: Much Sense -- the starkest Madness

'Tis the Majority

In this, as all, prevail;

Visual Imagery: Assent -- and you are sane, (it could be Metaphor)

Metaphor: Demur (metonymy)-- you're straightway dangerous --

Irony: And handled with a chain (symbol)

IV.        SUMMARY

Aporia (natural contradictions found in a text):

Much Madness is divinest Sense (since when much madness has become sense of God?)

To a discerning Eye (only people can judge, eyes are for seeing)

Assent -- and you are sane (agreeing on most of public opinion have-even thou it may be an error-is a character of animal and we are human, our brain so much developed than those creature)

Differance (to describe different word using another word to get the sense of it):

Divinest represent single, the only one, minority, extraordinary which from root of understanding appearance of God

Chain represent lose your freedom on one-selfness, tied to society norm, rules; acquaintance between one to another which from root of understanding bond or attach on something

Erasure (metaphorically speaking on the main idea), Metaphysics of Presence (what we believe as beliefs):

Much Madness is Divinest Sense means individualism does not exist anymore since what mad or sane are often become a society foresight or exist rules is become conventional.

Logo-centrism (on what the universal principles beliefs are not present anymore) & Supplement (the idea of logic but represent in contradictory ideas):

Being extraordinary is either ones are inacceptable in the society because considered as a threat or ones considered as a genius. Comprehensible category about the line of sane or insane is indistinguishable.

Trace (meaning in words):

"Much madness is the divinest sense to a discerning eye" could be representing of meaning it's mad to do what society would call "the divinest sense" or being single (God is only one, individual)

"Much Sense the starkest madness, Tis the Majority" could be represent of meaning the majority's "much sense" is actually Mad (crazy or insane).

"In this as all prevail, assent and you are sane" represent of meaning Society appears to rule, and the majority will win, if you agree with them, then you are not labeled crazy.

“Demure you're straightaway dangerous and handled with a chain" represent of meaning If one disagrees with society, or the norm, what has been established by the majority, they are perceived as a threat, and persecuted.

Transcendental Signifier (understanding error-disagreement which may build a new perception):

Different perception on interpreting personality as unique human character does change from generation to generation; as an example autism. Long time ago, public devote that an autistic was a round the bend; there was because society saw the link between the personality and outside world were not there. An autism person usually lives in one own world, creates and thinks an obsession beyond ordinary imagination and that then prejudice; a kiss of the death, becomes visible.

Nowadays, a person with an autism syndrome may be considered as genius; Daniel Tammet as an example. He has savant endowment on mathematics and language. Then public eye shift from disagreement on minority judgment as a threat to become a great appreciation. On my opinion, this key term gives an explanation how Emily Dickinson who was considered as insane personality to be one of the greatest poet. She is an extraordinary person.

Quoting from Richard Gerrit Bernhard Dikkers, an average Joe whom I know, but he is kind of a still tongues keeps a wise head of person, “ I like an extraordinary things because too many normal ones around. That makes my world goes around.” Deconstruction theory is a one way to understand that every human is unique, and it is acceptable to think reverses than ordinary one.

Essay “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen

Realism & Feminism as A Part of Society Issues

The first time I heard about “A Doll’s House”, what captured in my mind is a beautiful doll with gorgeous party gown, golden hair with pale look in the petite body traps in a wonderful house. A doll however pretty she is will not talk to you about her opinion or have any idea about anything her master she wants to be. She is only a pity creature which follows whichever comes to her. What a waste of beauty. Then, I was wrong. This Henrik’s doll has more hidden secret than I have ever thought. And that is dark, intelligence, unexpected story of a imagination human being called a woman. Once a again, drama as one of language art where a playwright like Henrik Ibsen shows his beyond expectation genius idea on wrapping human issues to one entertaining acts.

“A Doll’s House” divides in three acts. It begins with the scene of Christmas Day celebration in Helmer Torvald residence. Nora makes preparation for Christmas. While she eats macaroons, Dr. Rank who is Torvald’s family friend and Mrs. Christine Linde who is Nora’s old friend enter the room. Rank goes to speak with Torvald while Linde speaks with Nora. Linde explains that her husband has died and that she needs to find a job. Nora agrees to ask her husband to give Linde a job at the bank which Helmer Torvald, her husband just got elected as a bank manager. Nora makes a confession to Linde about borrowing money to pay for the trip to Italy for her and her husband to save his life from his illness. She explains that Torvald doesn’t know that she paid for it and she feels like a man. For Linde, that’s a woman scandal. Krogstad who knows that Nora did a crime of forgery by faking her late dad signature blackmailed her to ask Helmer to keep him working for the bank. Nora asked her husband for not firing Krogstad, but Rank comments that Krogstad is one of the most morally corrupt people in the world. Torvald says that he must fire him because of his dishonesty and because he gave Krogstad’s job to Linde. The ball is coming, so Nora has been busy preparing her ball gown. Linde is helping stitching the dress while they talking for a while about Dr. Rank. Nora tells Linde that Dr. Rank is her secret admire. Rank tells Nora about his worsening illness while they talk and flirt for a while. Rank tells Nora that he loves her, but she never loved Rank and only had fun with him.

On the other scene, Krogstad is angry about his dismissal and leaves a letter to Torvald explaining Nora’s entire crime in the letter box. Nora is frightened and tells Linde about the matter. Linde assures Nora that she will talk to Krogstad and set things straight. Matters of the ball party, Rank and Torvald help Linde practice the Tarantella, the Italian dance which generally danced by couple or line of couples. After practice, Linde tells Nora that Krogstad left town, but she left a note for him. Nora tells her that she’s waiting for a miracle to happen. That night, during the dance, Linde talks to Krogstad in Helmer’s apartment. She explains to him that she left him for money, but that she still loves him. They get back together and Krogstad decides to forget about the whole matter of Nora’s borrowing money. However, Linde asks Krogstad not to ask for his letter back since she thinks Torvald needs to know of it. Both leave and Torvald and Nora enter from the dance. Torvald checks his letter box and finds some letters and two Business cards from Dr. Rank with black crosses on them. Nora explains that they mean that Rank is announcing his death. After the bad news, Torvald enters his study and Nora prepares to leave. However, before she can get out the door, she is stopped by Torvald who read Krogstad’s letter. He is angry and disavows his love for Nora. The maid comes with a letter. Torvald read the letter which is from Krogstad. It says that he forgives Nora of her crime and will not reveal it. Torvald burns the letter along with the IOU that came with it. He is happy and tells Nora that everything will return to normal. In this scene, Nora comes to realize and returns talking to Helmer that everything is too late. She tells him that they don’t understand each other; she handed her beloved kids to him and left him to reach her freedom.

Henrik Ibsen was born on March 20, 1828 in Skien, Norway. He was born into wealthy family, but his father's bankruptcy in 1836 led family to relative poverty. He was on his own at the age of 15 and after troubled by the aftermath of the revolution in 1848, he became a druggists' apprentice. He failed the Greek and arithmetic parts of the entrance exam at the University of Christiana in 1850, but efforts at playwriting brought him an appointment as co-director and author for the Norwegian Theatre in Bergen; where he learned a lot about the theatre. He saw first Shakespearean play in 1852. Some of his major accomplishments are Peer Gynt (1867), A Doll's House (1879), and Hedda Gabler (1890). Henrik Ibsen is called the 'Father of Modern Drama' because most of his works are unique; they all are written around a central theme of the individual's search for meaning. He often used realistic ideas and themes throughout his works. He died on May 23, 1906. (http://712educators.about.com/cs/biographies/p/ibsen.htm)

Why I choose “A Doll’s House” as my essay, both of a theme of the play is very interesting and the message wants to deliver is still exist in a gender issues. Characters of the plays are Torvald Helmer, Nora Torvald, Doctor Rank, Mrs. Christine Linde, and Nils Krogstad, Helmer's three young children, Anne- the Nurse, a housemaid and a Porter. The action is a single scene, taking place in Helmer's house. As most major theme Henrik Ibsen has on his works, the individual’s search for meaning and the role of woman in society is very thick shows on a Doll’s House. The theme of A Doll’s house is about a woman, Nora who finally found her freedom as a human being and as a smart woman. She came to realize that what she wants in life is more than being a wife and mother which has to be fit in their society. She had a confuse marriage for years; thought what is really her role in the family. Then when she came into a realization what she wants; she had to deal with a dilemma of her duties as a mother or her enthusiasm, but at the end she knew what to choose. That decision which make this play very controversial not only for that century, 1879 when the society too perceptive about the gender functions but it still happening today. Then the message as the result of the play besides still true after those long years, as well a challenging opinions for us to thinking it deeper. How I am going to present my essay is in territory of realism and feminism genre in the play as well the theme influence of the society development.

“A Doll’s House” shows the realism genre in the society especially in marriage problems and how society has point of view on it. Mrs. Linde was freer than married ones, in that they had a right to the money they earned and did not have to hand it over to the man of the family. After her husband died and didn’t leave any heritance, she has to be able to survive. But the employment open to women was restricted and poorly paid, as we see in Mrs. Linde's case: there was clerical work, teaching or domestic service. Also, women's work was grindingly dull, and likely to leave an intelligent woman like Mrs. Linde "empty" inside;

“Nora: You look down upon me altogether, Christine—but you ought not to. You are proud, aren't you, of having-worked so hard and so long for your mother?

Mrs. Linde. Indeed, I don't look down on any one. But it is true that I am both proud and glad to think that I was privileged to make the end of my mother's life almost free from care.

Before that, Henrik brought up the marriage issue that in a society (at that time), would not necessary of two people married based on love;

“Nora: …You mustn't be angry with me. Tell me; is it really true that you did not love your husband? Why did you marry him?

Mrs. Linde: My mother was alive then, and was bedridden and helpless, and I had to provide for my two younger brothers; so I did not think I was justified in refusing his offer.”

In case of Mrs. Linde, her reason to get married was clearly of financially; in matter to support her family. She left her beloved one, Korgstad just to be able to help out of her family difficulty.

“Krogstad: (wringing his hands). So that was it. And all this—only for the sake of money.”

On the other hand, often a married couple has never been discussed an important matter about their relationship issue which it likes taboo conversation subject. Henrik came to a very shocking ending which by likely petite problem results a separation of a very noble couple;

“Nora: We have been married now eight years. Does it not occur to you that this is the first time we two, you and I, husband and wife, have had a serious conversation?

Helmer: What do you mean by serious?

Nora: In all these eight years—longer than that—from the very beginning of our acquaintance, we have never exchanged a word on any serious subject.”

Then, the play brought up a point of discussion that the reason a person deceit her partner is not always of disgusting lust, but it might a reason that could save her partner’s life. In this case, Nora’s little secret that she borrowed money two hundred and fifty pounds to make a journey to Italy so Torvald could recover from his serious illness;

“Nora: Come here. (Pulls her down on the sofa beside her.) Now I will show you that I too have something to be proud and glad of. It was I who saved Torvald's life.

Nora (sits up straight). Is it imprudent to save your husband's life?

Mrs. Linde: It seems to me imprudent, without his knowledge, to—“

Nora can’t say frankly what she did, because it’s forbidden for a wife to make do something without any approval from her husband;

“Mrs. Linde: No, a wife cannot borrow without her husband’s consent”

As well, in that time, helping husband and done anything like what a man duty does could have impression of a shame and disgrace towards society eyes. In Henrik’s time, a family should a place to show how power and control and man’s first self-fulfillment is an honor. Woman should not equal with man nor more clever or smarter;

“Nora: (tossing her head). Oh, if it is a wife who has any head for business—a wife who has the wit to be a little bit clever—“

Disobeying that rules often means breaking boundaries and society standards not agree with it. That is sad realism, indeed. Henrik also showing how Krogstad blackmailed Nora to show of his capability as a man which has such a control on a woman who is fragile and helpless;

“Krogstad: Then it is because you haven't the will; but I have means to compel you.

Nora: You don't mean that you will tell my husband that I owe you money?

Krogstad: Hm!—suppose I were to tell him?

Nora: It would be perfectly infamous of you. (Sobbing.) To think of his learning my secret, which has been my joy and pride, in such an ugly, clumsy way—that he should learn it from you! And it would put me in a horribly disagreeable position—“

Henrik is giving imagination to the audience how a woman, a wife for him only like “a little” thing. Helmer always thinks and treats that Nora is only a child. He always calls her “little squirrel”, “little darling”, “little bird’ or “skylark”;

Helmer: … My little song-bird must never do that again. A song-bird must have a clean beak to chirp with—no false notes! (Puts his arm round her waist.) That is so, isn't it? Yes, I am sure it is. (Lets her go.)…

Helmer: …my skylark does that anyhow.

Helmer:…Nora, my little darling,…

Helmer: …my little squirrel…

Rank: Macaroons? I thought they were forbidden here.

Nora:…You couldn’t know that Torvald had forbidden them. I must tell you that he is afraid they will spoil my teeth”

All of the realism happen in a marriage account brings vivid thought to the audience and created a waking up call to a portrayed problems occur.

Feminism is certainly one of object of discussion. At the end she found her identity, she transformed being independent mature woman. Women have made great pace in gaining the choice to determine their role in relation to the family and society. However, the briefest examination the fact of the issues that caused such a stir in the nineteenth century continues to touch our sense today. Henrik exploring the story by giving Nora confession of a crime in able to help her husband;

“Krogstad: Your father died on the 29th of September. But, look here; your father dated his signature the 2nd of October. It is a discrepancy, isn't it? (NORA is silent.) Can you explain it to me? (NORA is still silent.) It is a remarkable thing, too, that the words "2nd of October," as well as the year, are not written in your father's handwriting but in one that I think I know. Well, of course it can be explained; your father may have forgotten to date his signature, and someone else may have dated it haphazard before they knew of his death. There is no harm in that. It all depends on the signature of the name; and that is genuine, I suppose, Mrs. Helmer? It was your father himself who signed his name here?

Nora: (after a short pause, throws her head up and looks defiantly at him). No, it was not. It was I that wrote papa's name.

Krogstad: Are you aware that is a dangerous confession?”

Then she feels like a man of that satisfying;

“Nora: …It was like being a man.”

It’s hard to imagine that a woman like Nora who was being seductive, immature and often use her sexual gravity to influence people and get what she wants;

“Nora: And when she heard you had been appointed manager of the Bank—the news was telegraphed, you know—she traveled here as quick as she could, Torvald, I am sure you will be able to do something for Christine, for my sake, won't you?”

“Nora: I would play the fairy and dance for you in the moonlight, Torvald.”

“Nora: …silk stockings..” (to Dr. Rank)

transformed being an independent woman and has a strong personality.

“Nora: …There is another task I must undertake first. I must try and educate myself—you are not the man to help me in that. I must do that for myself. And that is why I am going to leave you now.

“Nora: I must stand quite alone, if I am to understand myself and everything about me. It is for that reason that I cannot remain with you any longer.”

Nora: Duties to myself.

“Nora:…Exactly as before, I was your little skylark, your doll, which you would in future treat with doubly gentle care, because it was so brittle and fragile…”

Nora: Sit down. It will take some time; I have a lot to talk over with you.

Nora: No, that is just it. You don't understand me, and I have never understood you either—before tonight. No, you mustn't interrupt me. You must simply listen to what I say. Torvald, this is a settling of accounts.”

Nora found herself in awareness that being a wife and her obsession about money are what Helmer actually wants from her. Being a slave of her own weakness is probably the most sense way for him to keep Nora being his “little darling”. And when she understands the whole matters, she refused to give up her dignity;

“Nora:…But our home has been nothing but a playroom. I have been your doll-wife, just as at home I was papa's doll-child; and here the children have been my dolls.

“Nora: Alas, Torvald, you are not the man to educate me into being a proper wife for you.”

Helmer: But at least let me send you—

Nora: Nothing—nothing—

Helmer: Let me help you if you are in want.

Nora: No. I can receive nothing from a stranger.”

Her duty as a mother being questioned when she decided to leave her kids who actually shouldn’t be victims of her rebellion, but she clearly says to Helmer when she’s leaving how before he made statement that she is not capable on raising them up;

“Nora: didn’t you say so yourself a little while ago__ that you dare not trust me to bring them up?”

And she hands over her duties as a mother to Helmer;

“Nora: …I won’t see the little ones. I know they are in better hands than mine. As I am now, I can be of no use to them.”

Not only that, Christine Linde as well showing a significant step of being active at making prompt on relationship, which is at that time was very uncustomary.

“Mrs. Linde: Nils, how would it be if we two shipwrecked people could join forces?”

Mrs. Linde: ….Nils, give me someone and something to work for…”

Krogstad: …prompts you to make such an offer of yourself.”

In this play, the playwright carefully avoids judging Nora's actions. He is concerned to place social problems and makes the audience to identify it. On my opinion, that’s why Henrik Ibsen gave ending to Mrs. Linde takes the opposite journey from Nora and gives up her independence to be with Krogstad, but ending in Nora’s story even thou after finding her identity has to leave Torvald and her kids. Realism in where we are today is easily meets through the characters, that life is not always a happy ending story.

The relation of theme of the play with the society issue clearly shows in the area of society morality with their judgment the role of woman. In Henrik’s time, Victorian society is represented by moral standards. What is society defines as a life is being acceptable and respectable. Helmer thinks that his reputable in the society eyes is more important showing by his possession, beautiful wife and house. His wife happiness is not cared much because the society thought that personal wounded will not be harmed.

“Rank: Why do you laugh at that? Have you any notion what Society really is?

Nora: What do I care about tiresome Society? I am laughing at something quite different, something extremely amusing.”

In the nineteenth century, gap between huge social and economic changes created uncompromised in treating unequal society. High class society differ their moral based on code, like language or topics of conversation;

“Nora: When I was at home, of course I loved papa best. But I always thought it tremendous fun if I could steal down into the maids' room, because they never moralized at all, and talked to each other about such entertaining things.

Rank: I see—it is their place I have taken.”

That’s why on my opinion Nora more open to speak with Dr. Frank almost about everything than her with her husband. There’s any territory that prescribed mentioned as “partially control” by man. And belong to her high social class, pushing her to obey the codes. At the end of Helmer and Nora argument, Nora implies how her husband society morality judgment over her commitment in religion is only appearance. No one actually understands it, because she cannot prove it on her consequences; helping his husband is a crime;

“Helmer: …have you no religion?

Nora. I am afraid, Torvald, I do not exactly know what religion is.

Nora: …I am learning, too, that the law is quite another thing from what I supposed; but I find it impossible to convince myself that the law is right.

Nora: that most people would think you right, and that views of that kind are to be found in books; but I can no longer content myself with what most people say, or with what is found in books. I must think over things for myself and get to understand them.”

Role of women is concerned in this play. Even thou three characters, Nora, Mrs. Linde and the Nurse, Anne looked like bringing up different role; actually they represent their background social class. Mrs. Linde came from position that woman could not conduct their own money like a man does. After she sacrificed to get married with a man she did not love just because of financial reasons, she ended up poor after her husband died. She could not take care of business and has to work for domestic service with low salary for surviving. And she represents as a character who still owned social principles. She found herself met her truly love, Krogstad and would rather have another relationship than live alone. The Nurse is a mother who has to leave her own child to survive financially. Her only option to survive represents how people in lower class society often have to be dishonored. In their class, morals is compromised due to pursue their necessities, includes gave up looking after her own child;

“Nora: Nurse, I want you to tell me something I have often wondered about—how could you have the heart to put your own child out among strangers?

Nurse: I was obliged to, if I wanted to be little Nora's nurse.

Nora: Yes, but how could you be willing to do it?

Nurse: What, when I was going to get such a good place by it? A poor girl who has got into trouble should be glad to. Besides, that wicked man didn't do a single thing for me.”

On the other side, Nora represents her role as a woman in high class society which every move and morals she carried being judge. She doesn’t suffer from lack of money, other possession or even attention. What she cannot accept that society is mostly takeover of her passion being free with her opinion, being smart and intelligent like what she is and get noticeable of it, not only because how her husband is. She feels injustice and takes a shocking movement to prove that she could live independently and free from “committed responsibilities”; as a mother, creating a beautiful home, meet her husband’s needs, singing & dancing to make her family happy and no more than that;

“Helmer: …To desert your home, your husband and your children! And you don't consider what people will say!

Nora: What do you consider my most sacred duties?

Helmer: Before all else, you are a wife and mother.”

“Helmer: My dear, I have often seen it in the course of my life as a lawyer. Almost everyone who has gone to the bad early in life has had a deceitful mother.

Helmer: It seems most commonly to be the mother's influence, though naturally a bad father's would have the same result. Every lawyer is familiar with the fact. This Krogstad, now, has been persistently poisoning his own children with lies and dissimulation; that is why I say he has lost all moral character. (Holds out his hands to her.)”

“Nora: That is quite right, Christine. Torvald is so absurdly fond of me that he wants me absolutely to himself, as he says. At first he used to seem almost jealous if I mentioned any of the dear folk at home, so naturally I gave up doing so. But I often talk about such things with Doctor Rank, because he likes hearing about them.”

“Nora: (undisturbed). I mean that I was simply transferred from papa's hands into yours. You arranged everything according to your own taste, and so I got the same tastes as you—or else I pretended to, I am really not quite sure which—I think sometimes the one and sometimes the other….”

Helmer: (standing at the open door). Yes, do. Try and calm yourself, and make your mind easy again, my frightened little singing-bird. Be at rest, and feel secure; I have broad wings to shelter you under. (Walks up and down by the door.) How warm and cozy our home is, Nora. Here is shelter for you; here I will protect you like a hunted dove that I have saved from a hawk's claws; I will bring peace to your poor beating heart. It will come, little by little, Nora, believe me. To-morrow morning you will look upon it all quite differently; soon everything will be just as it was before. Very soon you won't need me to assure you that I have forgiven you; you will yourself feel the certainty that I have done so. Can you suppose I should ever think of such a thing as repudiating you, or even reproaching you? You have no idea what a true man's heart is like, Nora. There is something so indescribably sweet and satisfying, to a man, in the knowledge that he has forgiven his wife—forgiven her freely, and with all his heart. It seems as if that had made her, as it were, doubly his own; he has given her a new life, so to speak; and she is in a way become both wife and child to him. So you shall be for me after this, my little scared, helpless darling. Have no anxiety about anything, Nora; only be frank and open with me, and I will serve as will and conscience both to you—.

Nora: …Torvald does understand how to make a house dainty and attractive.

Nora: (walking about). Pooh! When you have three children, you get visits now and then from—from married women, who know something of medical matters, and they talk about one thing and another.”

A Doll’s House is very amusing besides controversial in a modern drama history. Henrik Ibsen is genius created such a shard investigation how society gives that dull and often senseless in their acceptable circumstances. Women questions when they are going to be ‘morally” equal with men is given by Henrik for us to answer from our differences society thought spectacles without judging the image. He already brought to us an example how morality and society have a terrible price to pay for everyone. That is realism in our life; notify it or not. By this essay, I hope we could learn something from the story that role of women is not only a tend to barter sexual favors in return of financial fulfillment but more than that society has to nod for every heroic actions every woman has done. Like Nora says,

“Nora: No, I don't. But now I am going to try. I am going to see if I can make out who is right, the world or I.”

Women could develop their individual sacrificial, conduct to be smart and intelligent as a men do, and fulfill their society’s moral standards at the same time. Henrik Ibsen’s - realistic ideas were beyond expectation.

The Essay Comparison and Contrast

Trifles by Susan Glaspel (1882 1948)

and

The Bear: A Joke in One Act by Anton Chekhov (1860 – 1904)

A play is more than entertaining subject for people in this era. In the process of defining correlation in every scene, it’s carrying a lot of message about life values to dig deeper in every elements it has. Plays not always an imagination story based on human unique life, many plays created from personal life experience and became a lifetime masterpiece, such as Trifles by Susan Glaspel and The Bear by Anton Chekov. In certain context, both of plays has similarity, thus also has some differences.

Like I’ve mentioned, both Trifles and The Bear was created based on the source true experience in life. Trifles by Susan Glaspel is loosely her experience when she’s a young reporter. Glaspell covered a murder case in a small town in Iowa and then crafted a short play inspired by her experiences and observations on that case. While in The Bear is Anton Chekov experience of his Russian society finding love between man and woman. But in the plot, there’s a difference. Trifles is a modern classic play about a murder case happen in contemporary time that has background in a farmhouse lower class about a wife facing murder custody of her husband, Mr. Wright. The husband died caused of someone strung a rope around his neck in the middle of the night while he was sleeping. The arguments about the reasons she might do or don’t taken in the kitchen of the crime house between two main characters, a sheriff’s wife, Mrs. Peter, and a neighbor’s wife, Mrs. Hale. The two characters meet in the exact point for difference necessity, but in the end they had one aim to eliminate the evidence as an act of loyalty to their sex and defiance against a coldhearted men society. Their gloom housewives experience leads them to raising action when they found some clues to solve the crime puzzle that men would not care about. There are such as ruined fruit preserves, unfinished bread that has been left out of its box, a half clean / half messy table, unfinished quilt, and empty bird cage. The resolution is opened by the scene Mrs. Hale put her hand against her pocket to hide the evidence box of the dead bird while answering Mr. George Henderson, the Count Attorney, “ We call it – knot it, Mr. Henderson.

We don’t know what is going to happen to poor Mrs. Wright; either she’s going to go to jail or released innocent. The connection between the title and the contents is hiding behind plot, but the message is spoken out loud by the scene and dialogues;

MRS. HALE. Not having children makes less work--but it makes a quiet house, and Wright out to work all day, and no company when he did come in. Did you know John Wright, Mrs. Peters?

MRS. PETERS. Not to know him; I've seen him in town. They say he was a good man.

MRS. HALE. Yes--good; he didn't drink, and kept his word as well as most, I guess, and paid his debts. But he was a hard man, Mrs. Peters. Just to pass the time of day with him. (Shivers.) Like a raw wind that gets to the bone. (Pauses, her eye falling on the cage.) I should think she would 'a wanted a bird. But what do you suppose went with it?

MRS. PETERS. I don't know, unless it got sick and died. (She reaches over and swings the broken door, swings it again; both women watch it.)

MRS. HALE. She--come to think of it, she was kind of like a bird herself--real sweet and pretty, but kind of timid and--fluttery. How--she--did--change. (Silence; then as if struck by a happy thought and relieved to get back to everyday things.) Tell you what, Mrs. Peters, why don't you take the quilt in with you? It might take up her mind.

While in The Bear by Anton Chekov is a play about a middle age widow landowner in Russia who live in high class society. The arguments that take place between Mrs. Popov and Smirnov serve both to provide the wit objects for the play and as groundwork to build Smirnov's growing realization that he surrendering to the crucial debt of love. Popov has kept her commitment to her husband long after his death has released her from that debt. Smirnov is a landowner who had lent money to Mr. Popov's husband before his death and who has now shown up to demand repayment. He’s in a trouble, facing down his own creditors. The cyclical nature of debt and repayment serves as a symbol for relationships between men and women. The play takings from a point of Popov's refusal and Smirnov's reactions which leads onto progression key to understanding his character. The resolution is closed by kissing scene between Mrs. Popov and Mr. Smirnov. The connection between the title and the content is expressed out loud by dialogue.

Mrs. Popov: "You're nothing but a crude, bear! A brute! A monster!".

But to realize who is the truly bear was hiding on the plot.

In Trifles, it’s kind of heroic drama with the tragedy touch in feminism critical thinking. Even thou the center character in this play, Mrs. Wright never show up on stage, but her reputation brings the message that women could do so much better in crime because they pay attention in details; and also the characters of the sheriff’s wife, Mrs. Peter, and the neighbor’s wife, Mrs. Hale, tried to hide the evidence of the crime because of emotionally based. They can feel how to be in Mrs. Wright position that lives without any life after married to Mr. Wright. Mrs. Wright indirectly being a heroin to Mrs. Peter and Mrs. Hale with the crime she did. Opposite in The Bear that it’s kind of the comedy play what we called farce; introduced with a sense of desire as well as a indifference from reality, ironically, should provide to make it all the more realistic. In this point of view the hate and love which could appears almost in a short time line action, and realization to the spectacles that there’s only a thin contour separates between hate and love. As well that two difference things could come up after one and another in a very limited time without we knowing it. It’s visibly shows from beginning of the play those two main characters, Mrs. Popov and Mr. Smirnov who had conflict after Mrs. Smirnov death caused of debt discussion leads into personal argument battle, both of them were in anger and giving nasty words war, but in the end the two characters find the love. The similarity between the two of the play is that the center of the conflict actually never appears on the stage. It sends the message by the interpretation from the spectacles from the progression of the play.

The progression of the play in Trifles is more in action than in dialogue. The location focus on one focus place in the Wright’s a gloomy kitchen in the day time on the day after the crime occurred, in the winter which the temperature sudden drop to zero. The society setting in the play is lower class, shows that they are only a farmer family with crime scene in an abandoned farmhouse; and modern era which shows the attorney and sheriff to handle the crime duty. The location of the play moves to create the conflict and show how the characters tried to find the clues in the persist area. Opposite in The Bear, the progression of the play is more in the dialogue than the action. Dialogues moves fast to create a conflict and describe the characters. The setting place is in Mrs. Popov country house with high class society background; shows clearly by the servant ownership, horses, the drawing room and it’s more classic play with the feudalism style of life. The similarity to describe the characters in both plays is the limited third person point of view so they actually know how to describe the characters based on their perceptive and the setting is focus in one persist area in a day time.

The central of the theme in both Trifles and The Bear is a death of the backstage character comes to realization onto something, with the touch of feminism critics. In the Trifles, a death comes to a realization that a man does not appreciate a woman. The death of the backstage character, Mr. Wright is a ground of the story as the result of the man action in the past treated his wife without respect and love. The wife kept her suffers, unhappiness being alone and desperate housewife, and disappointing marriage dull time for so long until she lost her grasp to control herself to not do a crime. And the result of it, she’s facing of execute custody of her husband. Even thou it’s a crime what she did, but it’s a heroic expression what a human do to another human who robbed freedom. It makes a feminism critics clearly draw on the theme matter, at least she’s a hero for the two of psychologically desperate housewives; Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peter. Mrs. Wright dealt with emotionally destruction, conflict with her husband behaviors driven into internal conflicts. This message clearly shows on the dialogue Mrs. Hale describes Mrs. Wright life;

MRS HALE: (examining the skirt). Wright was close. I think maybe that's why she kept so much to herself. She didn't even belong to the Ladies' Aid. I suppose she felt she couldn't do her part, and then you don't enjoy things when you feel shabby. She used to wear pretty clothes and be lively, when she was Minnie Foster, one of the town girls singing in the choir. But that--oh, that was thirty years ago. This all you was to take?

Also referring to the Sheriff statement;

Sheriff: Nothing here but kitchen things was a hint of woman limited authority.

While opposite in The Bear, which a death comes to realization of love. The death of Mr. Popov, the backstage character is a ground of the story for main characters, Mrs. Popov and Mr. Smirnov finding love in a certain point as the result of Mr. Popov having debt before his death. Mrs. Popov is a noble women and her dead husband treated her badly, but she stays still of her true love;

POPOV. The man! [Laughs bitterly] Men are faithful and constant in love! What an idea! [With heat] What right have you to talk like that? Men are faithful and constant! Since we are talking about it, I'll tell you that of all the men I knew and know, the best was my late husband. . . . I loved him passionately with all my being, as only a young and imaginative woman can love, I gave him my youth, my happiness, my life, my fortune, I breathed in him, I worshipped him as if I were a heathen, and . . . and what then? This best of men shamelessly deceived me at every step! After his death I found in his desk a whole drawerful of love-letters, and when he was alive--it's an awful thing to remember!--he used to leave me alone for weeks at a time, and make love to other women and betray me before my very eyes; he wasted my money, and made fun of my feelings. . . . And, in spite of all that, I loved him and was true to him. And not only that, but, now that he is dead, I am still true and constant to his memory. I have shut myself for ever within these four walls, and will wear these weeds to the very end. . . .

After nasty arguments between Mrs. Popov and Mr. Smirnov which turned into a gun battle challenge, and agreed by Mrs. Popov, we can draw the line that feminism appears strongly in her character. The basic idea of her emotion is the pride. She insists being treated well not only because she’s a woman, but also she’s a devoted wife who only know how to love truly and unconditionally, but men always shows their over power. She can’t stand it any longer. This strong character changed a man like Mr. Smirnov who behaves rudely in the beginning becoming wise, respectful and growing love to Mrs. Popov. The moral message in this play is a pride not always result a destructive effect, but could result an excellent thing; in this matter is a love.

In both plays, Trifles and The Bear the characters defined into two major characters and some minor characters in their middle age, also central figure by on-stage characters. In Trifles, two main characters are Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peter and minor characters are Mr. Peter, Mr. Hale and Mr. George Henderson. Mrs. Hale is a wife of farmer who live neighborhood with Wright family. She hasn’t visited that neighbor for quite sometimes because of depressing atmosphere in that house. She feels regret about it because she’s thought it might one of the reasons Mrs. Wright committed murder her husband; no friends to have conversation with and talk about her lonely life. The other main character is Mrs. Peter, the sheriff’s wife who’d like to take some clothes for investigated Mrs. Wright. Mrs. Peter has some characteristic with Mrs. Wright as a wife who prefers pleasing than confronting. She could feel how lonely Mrs. Wright life is after her baby death and also how terrible feeling loosing something important in life; in this matter Mrs. Wright’s bird. The minor characters are Mr. Peter, the Sheriff, Mr. Hale, the farmer man and Mr. George Henderson the County Attorney. The characters are static, there’s no changing characterization during the play. In Trifles, the on-stage characters are Mr. Wright who is a key conflict and Mrs. Wright as the centre conflict. Mrs. Wright was Minnie Foster before married to John Wright. She was more cheerful in her youth. Her clothes were more colorful. She loved to sing. Those attributes was gone after her wedding day. Mrs. Hale describes Mrs. Wright’s personality like the bird herself; while Mr. Wright was described as a good man but a hard man. He only paid attentions on work and paid the debts abut avoid treating his wife nicely, like robbed freedom of her. In The Bear, the two main characters are Mrs. Popov and Mr. Smirnov and there are minor characters Luka, Gardener, Coachman, and Workmen. Mrs. Popov, a widow landowner who is mourning after her husband death. She is a small and pretty with dimples. She is a noble woman, who always keep her truth to her husband even her late husband treated her badly. Her experience in taking bad delicacies turned her into a strong character that would do anything to show to her opposite gender that they don’t have any rights to treat woman as they pleased. Mr. Smirnov is a middle age older than Mrs. Popov, a landowner and a gentleman farmer of some substance. He is easily angered and loud, but he is a true man. The minor character is Luka who is Mrs. Popov footman, a servant whose main tasks were to wait table and attend the carriage, in addition to general duties. He is old enough to feel secure in telling Mrs. Popov what he thinks. There are as well the Gardener, Coachman and Workmen, who enter at the end of scene. Mr. Popov is on-stage key conflict character who was unfaithful, untrue man, liar, has a lot of debt and paid no respects to women. The main characters are dynamic. It’s visibly sees from Mrs. Popov grave love of her death husband, to emotional woman and surrender on love desire of Mr. Smirnov; and Mr. Smirnov character change from easily angered, loud, rude to be a very honest, kind hearted and surrender on love desire of Mrs. Popov.

The style of play in Trifles is more symbolic while in the Bear is more metaphoric with vivid statement. In Trifles we can see the symbolic meaning of the bird, the kitchen, the colorful skirt, the box, and as well in the language of to quilt it or to knot it. In The Bear, the arguments with personal point of view, paying debt is metaphoric relationship between men and women. It’s spoken out loud of the meaning “The Bear” without any other interpretation, even thou the person who labeled the bear himself is a hidden message.

The Trifles and The Bear are really great plays. Both of the plays have its unique elements to show the strength to convey the message to the spectacles. There are some similarity found but as well the differences, but at the end we have to admit that the value delivered is for us to learn is enjoyable to pick and interesting to dig deeper.

CHEZ MEI

Pages

MY BOOKSELVES

MARXISM CRITICISM IN REFFLECTION OF A DEVOTED SON
BY ANITA DESAI

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 TOPIC