Wie eine Schlange im Käfig
Ich erinnere mich an eine Zeit, in der ich ein Mädchen gern
hatte. Ich konnte sie nur aus Ferne anschauen. Mein letztes Jahr in der
Grundschule gab mir diese fürchterliche Lage. Jeder Tag würde
ich sie mit großer Zärtlichkeit anschauen. Und jeder Tag wurde
sie ohne meine Liebe existieren. Endlich, wenn ich meinen Mut fasste, dann
habe ich meine Gefühle enthüllt. Nachdem ich mein Herz ausgestrmt
hatte, haben sie und die anderen Mädchen über mich gelacht. Tränen
standen mir in Augen und ich lief weg. Ein ahnliche Lage ging für
Tonio Krsger. Tonio hat dem Object seine Liebe nie gesagt. Er stand in
der Ecke und litt. Er war klug und auch nicht so klug. Weil, wenn er sie
nicht kennenlernt, dann konnte er ihre Eigenschaften definerien. Und in
dieser Situation ksnnte er auch wie den Ritter von Glaube sein, der an
die Dame nur denken konnte, obwohl er sie nicht habe ksnnte. Tonio ist
auch ziemlich blsd wann er seine Gefühle ihr nicht gesagt. Was passiert,
wenn ihre Gedanken gleich sind. Sie ksnnten eine Paare werden. "Treue!
dachte Tonio Krsger. Ich will treu sein und dich lieben, Ingeborg, solange
ich lebe! So wohlmeinend war er." (288) Tonio hat Inge sehr schsn gefunden
und er liebte sie. Tonio bestraft sich selbst, weil sie ihm unerreichbar
ist. Tonio bestraft sich, weil er seine Gefühle nicht ausdrücken
kann. Tonio hat sich selbst "in seliger Selbstverleugnung" (287) gestellt.
Dann würde er immer in der Ecke stehen. Tonio äragert sich. Je
länger die Gefühle in ihm herumschwimmen, desto zorniger wird
er. Tonio ist wie eine Schlange im Käfig, an den Kinder schlagen.
Das Schlagen macht die Schlange zornig. Die Schlange schlägt an das
Glas zurück, so daß die Schlange ihre Nase brach. Wie Tonio
leidet die Schlange, weil beide ihre Gefühle nicht ausdrücken
ksnnen.
TonioKrsger
Tonio Krsger ist ein Junge, der mit dem Herzen denkt. Er ist voll
emotionaler Schwärmereien. Am Anfang liebt Tonio Hans und später
liebt er Inge. Hans "war außerordentlich hübsch und wohlgestaltet,
breit in den Schultern und schmal in den Hüften" (272). Tonio wollte
wie Hans sein. Obwohl Tonio Hans nicht sein wollte, und sind die folgenden
Gründe von Tonio's Gefühle für Hans. Deise Gefühle
sagen nicht, daß er homosexuel ist. Er wollte die Eigenschaften von
Hans besitzen, die er selbst nicht besaß. Tonio wüßte,
da diese Qualitäten für ihn unerreichbar sind--hübsch, wohlgestaltet,
blondes Haar, blaue Augen, breite Schultern, und schmale Hüften. Tonio
hatte dunkels Haar, und er konnte seine Haarfarbe nicht änderen. Er
braucht einen anderen Ksrper damit seine nordischen und südlichen
Eigenschaften zuzammenkommen würden: Geist und Fleisch, Vater und
Mutter. Diese Trennung in seinem Leben ist der Gründe, daß er
so oft leidet. "Tonio sprach nicht. Er empfand Schmerz." (272) Tonio setzt
viel Hoffnung auf Hans, einem Menschen, der ihn er immer weider veräte.
"Ich nenne dich Krsger, weil dein Vorname so verrückt ist, du, entschuldige,
aber ich mag ihn nicht leiden" (279). [Diese Lage sheint man Dinge zu anglauben
exsitert], und man sollte nie an einem Menschen glauben.
Sonderbare Bezauberung
"Fällt aber diese sonderbare Bezauberung von mir ab" (p.17)
Diese Phrase ist sehr schsn und sie zwingt mich, an Liebe zu denken. Er
spricht über Liebe nicht, sondern darüber, wie er sich fühlt.
Die Läge des Autors ist nicht so klar. Man kann diese Phrase im viele
Zustände benutzen. Wenn man eine schsne Frau sieht und in Liebe fallen,
wenn man zu vieles Bier trinkt, wenn eine Idee fasst, wenn mann ein traurigen
Gedicht hsrt. Ich denke, gibt es andere wichtige Dinge für ihn, die
ksnnen wir noch nicht wissen. Jedenfalls, allmählich versteht er sich
diese Bewegungen nicht erklaren kann. Diese Idee, die man selber nicht
erklaren kann, ist sehr erschreckeden. Diese stellt den Schaden der Sprache
aber finden wir keine andere Weise, zu miteilen. Es interessant mich, wie
er beschäftigt sich mit diesen Verbindungen von komischen Wirklichkeite
und Liteatur. Diese Phrase ist sehr sehr interessant fur mich. Der Audenblick
ich habe sie gelesen, viele Dinge liefen durch meinen Geist.
Tagebuch
Der alte Mann im vorbeifahrenden Auto schaute mich an, als ich aufgewacht
hatte. Der Schlaf stand mir in den Augen. Ich legte mich wieder auf den
Autositz. Ich dachte nur an mein Zimmer--Mein bequemes Bett und meine entspannendes
Musik. Das Rasseln des Auto auf den Autobahn hypontisierete mich. Der Schlaf
in meinen Augen wurde grsßer. Der melodische Lärm von der Stereo
fütterte meinen Schlaf. . . Stille wurde gehsrt. Stell dir mal vor,
du zwangst von Schlaf aufgestanden. Dann siehst du, im Auto, auf dem Sitz
deinen Ksrper mit anderen Leuten. Der Wind fließt durch deinen Geist.
Du hast Augen, aber keine Augen. Du krallst deinen Stern ohne Hände
oder Kopf. Du siehst deinen Ksrper im Auto, aber du fühlst den Wind
und siehst deinen Ksrper, andere Autos, und die andere Leute im diesen
Autos. 'Eine Lüge. Eine Traüm. Bin ich tot?' Hast du gefragt.
Wozu dieses Bestrafen? Du schreist, nichts--keine Stimme. Die Wut der Verlegenheites
besitzt dich. Unsichtbare Kette, ahnlich nichts erdelich entsteht. Die
Kette erweitert langsam herum dich mein Geist, der siehst du wie einziges
Leben. Die verbindende Kette zeiht fest--die Wut wird grsßer. Du
denkst, 'Du mußt ins Auto steigen'. Du weißt nicht warum, aber
in das Auto steigen, daß die Antwort muß. Wie steigst du ins
Auto mit der Kette herum und ohne Hände oder Ksrper. Das Nachdenken
über dienes Leden schmerzt dich. Du denkst, es lohnt sich nicht, und
dieses Bestrafness ist verdiensvoll. Die Wut hat dich geü:berzeugt.
Kämpfst du nie mehr. Du wirst nie lieben. Dein ganzes Leben fortsetzt
von deine draustig. Ich denke ich verstehe mich wirklich nicht.
Tagebuch #2
Was ist ein Stein? Was ist Will? Ksnnen wir heir nicht wirklich
sein? Warum mussen wir die Frage stellen? Ist das unser Job? Wenn wir keine
Frage stellen, glauben wir dann allem. Schließlich werden alle jede
Nacht bei einem Stein schlafen. Was ist ein Stein? Warum müssen wir
so idiotisch sein? Ksnnten unser Zweck klar sein? Warum sind wir blind?
Warum sind wir diese Art von Teir, das sein Leben nicht versteht? Neulich
habe ich auf lieder von der Gruppe Rammstein geschaut. Werden wir Gedichte
in dieser Vorlesung lesen? Ich glaube Gedichte sind leichter als Texten
zu verstehen und zu lesen. Auch ist es besser, darüber zu sprechen,
weil Musik und Gedichte nicht so frei mit der Interpretation sind.
Tagebuch #3
Ich bin mein perssnlicher Käfig Sehnsucht den zu sein macht
mich kleiner. Lauf', Lauf' schneller. Warte. Wohin gehst du? Warum arbeitest
du so schwerig, für keine Vollendung? Du wirst durch dein eigenes
Wachstum ergänzt. Lebe für dich selbst, nicht ihn. überheblichkeit
ist eine blinde Dunkelheit. Halte Zeit in der Nähe von sich selbst
und du wirst vervollkommen. Verlieren das, was du besitzt, gibt dir weniger
als nichts. Lächele, weil wir nicht wirklich hier sind. Müss
jeder froh sein wegen deines Glückes? Dem Mann erlauben, den Zug zu
fahren. Nur reite. Finde dich selbst in einer selbauferlegten Absonderung.
Frohlocke. Einsamkeit ist ein Geschenk. Ich bin, was ich bin auch, wenn
ich nicht bin, was ich will. Aber sie finden keine Wahrheit in meinen Worte.
Ich heiße Lügner. Das, was ich gemacht habe, zerstsrte Sie.
Und ich dachte, daß Sie waren der schreckliche Mensch.
Poem
Die Bäume wurden gefällt Ruhe wurde gehsrt Der Erde greift
die Bäume Ruhe wurde gehsrt Hsren Sie das Schreien von den maullosen
Bäumen nein, Ruhe wurde gehsrt Mutti Erde umarmte ihre Kinder als
sie trauret Ruhe wurde gehsrt Siehst du die Männer, die Bäume
fällen Kennst du sie der Bäume Msrder Ruhe wurde gehsrt Mund
geschlossen, und du kannst nicht in meine Augen schauen Mutti Erde schreit
"Msrder verboten" Ruhe wurde gehsrt
Final '98
1. Nietsche sagte durch seinen tollen Menschen, "Gott ist tot."
Viellicht war Gott wirklich tot, und diese Idee von Gottes Sterben ging
nicht so gut bei mir. Zuerst, Gott mußte einen Amfang haben und muß
für uns existeren. Wenn Gott nicht existeirt, dann ksnnte er nicht
sterben. Nietsche meinte etwas mehr als, daß Gott tot ist. Nietsche
meinte, daß Menschen in jener Zeit an Gott nicht mehr glaubt. Diese
Menschen hatten ohne schlechtes Gewissen Gott getstet. Sie hatten Gott
vergessen. Sie vergassen ihn nicht ganz, aber dachte an ihn nicht genüg.
Obwohl hat Gott in ihrem Herzen gestorben. Gott war nicht wirklich tot.
Gott kann nicht geboren werden oder sterben. Gott existert immer noch.
Wenn Nietsche "Gott ist tot" sagte, sprach er über den Glauben der
Menshen an Gott. Nietsche glaubte nicht, daß Gott nie existert, aber
er glaubte, daß der Glauben an Gott eine Krankheit machen konnte.
Will Brown 2. Tonio entdeckt, daß Liebe eine Verallgemeinung und
eine Absolut ist. Die bedeutung der richtigen Liebe wird durch sich selbst
verstanden. Vorher man kann lieben, ein starke Eigenschaft und selbst Erkenntnis
sind nstig. Tonio fand, daß es unglaublich ist, wenn man jemand liebt,
ohne dein sich selbst zu lieben. Tonio fand auch, wenn man mit einem anderen
Menschen eins werden will, dann müssen Sie zwei unabhänige Individen
sein. Etwas einzigartiges zwingt Sie zusammen. Dieses etwas muß eine
achte reaktion auf einander sein. Die andere person ergänzt ihn. Diese
Ergänztsein kommt von Tonios Verständis. Die kommt auch durch
eine Erkenntis von der anderen Menschen und seinem selbst. Naturlich, werden
Sie e i n Fleisch, ein Wesen werden. Endlich verstand Tonio, daß
Liebe etwas Universelles und Individuelles ist. Und man kann nur lieben,
wenn er mit seinem Selbst aufrichtig und treu ist. Will Brown 3. Ohne Gott
alles ist msglich. Wenn man diesen Satz hort, denkt man, daß er nicht
so gut klingt. Man erinnert sich an die Bibel und denkt an den Gegensatz.
Mit Gott alles ist msglich. Naturlich, ist die nächtse Frage ,,wie
kann man das denken?" Beide sind acht, weil wenn wir an diesen vorbeigegangenen
Semester schauen, sehen wir, daß Kafka, Nietzsche, und Chandos das
schon gesagt haben. Ohne Gott stehen weder Gesetz noch kein struktur. Nun
weiß man keinen Zweck seines Lebens. Hier sind die Probleme: Was
ist der Zweck des Menschen wenn Gott nicht existert? Wer unterscheidet
zwischen richtig und falsch oder naturlich und unnaturlich? Kafka schriebt
über einen Mann und seinen Vater: Das Urteil. In dieser Geschichte
hat der Vater viele komischen Dinge getan. Dieser Mensch handlet ohne
Maßstäbe.
Er springt auf den Tisch hinauf. Nietzsche schriebt über ein tollen
Menschen, der Gott suchte. Nachdem er nach Gott gesucht hat; dann sagte
er "Gott ist tot." Nietzsche brauchte die Idee von Gotts beseitig, dann
konnte er seine Ziele ereicht. Er wollte die Krankheit des Christentums
zu sterben, damit die individuellen Vslker stärker werden ksnnten.
Wie die zwei andere, schriebt Chandos über eine Situationen, daß
nie existeren wird. Er erzählte uns über Ratten im Keller hatten.
Chandos dachte, daß die Ratten Gefühle gehabt. Wenn jemand weiß,
daß Ratten noch nur Tiere sind, und die ohne Gefühle existert
. Wenn wir durch die Augen von Kafka, Nietzsche, und Chandos schauen, sehen
wir, daß der Weltblick etwas anderes sein kann. Naturlich wir denken
an Gott wie unseren Vater im Himmel, aber was passiert wenn diese drei
Männer die Sieger sind? Dann haben wir keine Maßstäbe,
Gott ist tot und Ratten haben Gefühle. Diese Welt braucht Gott, weil
wir schutz vor dem unmsglichen brauchen.
German Final '97
Ich war einmal ein junger Kerl und ich heisse Stürmer der Großer.
In diesem Tag meine Großmutter war krank. Meine Mutti hat gesagt
"sie war müde" und meine Großmutti brauchte Sorge. Und diese
Verantwortung hatte zu mich bekommen. "Stümer! Nimmst du den Korb
zu Großmutter." schrie meine Mutti wie sie legte sich auf das Sofa.
"Ja Mutti." sagte ich. Ich fand den Korb schon geladen, der auf den Tisch
lag. Wenn man in dem Korb gucken, fand man funf Flasche Jägermeister,
drei Joints, und einer Tasche voll des Pilzs. "O Je! O Je! Geh' Oma. Geh'
Oma. Großmutter ist eine Frau, die gerne auf Feste geht." dachte
ich. Tja, griff ich meine roten Hut und ging durch den Wald zu Oma. Wenn
ich war durch den dunkele Wald gefahren, fand ich ein alten Freund, WOLFgang.
Er hat gesagt "Morgen, hatte ich eine Jungfrau mit goldenes lockiges Haare
gefressen." "Schmeckt sie gut?" fragte ich. "Tja, ein bißchen wie
Hühnerfleisch" "Ach. Komm mit mir zu Oma. Wir werden eines Fest feiern."
Dann gingen wir zuzammen durch den Wald. Später, kammen wir an unseren
Partiplatz, der war in der Nähe von einem Bild. Das Bild las "Achtung.
übertretunger Verboten!" Für immer lachten wir. "Was trugst du
im Korb?" fragte Wolfie. "Dinge für meine Großmutter" "Wie kann
man mit Oma Dingen feieren?" "Siehst du für deine selbst." sagte ich.
Wolfie nahm den Korb und schrie "Ach Gott! Mein Leib und Seele freuen sich!
Wir sollen zu Oma laufen. Warum sagst du nichts über dieses Parti
im Korb?" Tja, nach unserem Lauf, kammen wir auf das Haus. Ich klopfte
an die Tür und hsrten wir eine kleine schwache Stimme "Komm. Komm."
Wir standen vor dem Bett und Oma sah uns wie sie lächlte. Dann sprang
sie los und griff den Korb und sagte "Alle herauskommen. Es war die Polizei
nicht." wie Menschen haben die Zimmer, den schrank, kühlschrank, und
Boden heraus gekommen. "Großmutter. Was machst du? Ist sie verrückt?"
fragte ich. "Nein, Nein meine Liebling. Ich bin alt, nicht tot. Nun, wollen
sie trinken, rauchen, oder Pilz essen?" Und nachdem Parti wieder begann,
vergaß ich alle. Aber, ich erinne mich an etwas. Der nächtse
Morgen, hatte ich mit einen schsner Putzfrau auf gestanden.
English
- GermanEnglish
- Why did Cordelia die?Final
King LearFinal GenXFear, Love,
or DanteNature and the availability of Christ"Everthing
That Rises Must Converge, but is the sequence Cauchy?S¿ren
and FlanneryS. KK applied to FlanneryHard
to find a good man, but easy to find one who will shoot you in the chest.
Why did Cordelia have to die?
The story of King Lear is of a man who has everything, tangible
and intangible, but cannot see his intangible possessions until they are
removed from his ownership. Lear is unable to understand his intangible
losses until they are given or taken away. Lear does not know what he has
lost until he has nothing, and realizing he has nothing brings his death
immediately. Cordelia's death enlightens King Lear to this realization
of having nothing. Her death shows him that the possessions worth having
are often intangible. King Lear through the entire play Lear is either
giving away and placing worth on the items in his household. A prime example
coming in the first scene of the first act where he is attempting to given
Cordelia's hand away in marriage.
Will you, with those infirmities she owes, Unfriended, new adopted to our hate, Dow'red with our curse, and strangered with our oath, Take her or leave her? . . . Then leave her, sir; for by the pow'r that made me, I tell you all her wealth. . . . I would not from your love make such a stray To match you where I hate (Shakespeare 1:1 Lines 204- 212)
Final King Lear
WC: 1284
King Lear is one of William Shakespeare's great tragic pieces. Not
only is it seen as a tragedy in itself, but the play also contains two
tragic heroes. The play displays how a requirement of a tragic hero to
be all good or all bad does not exist, and by only mere misfortune or an
error in judgment, does the hero suffer a loss of something valuable. First,
a required identification with the tragic hero is necessary so he is able
to inspire fear in those empathizing with him. The realization of King
Lear's prevailing situation is essential to clearly understand the perspective
of the tragic hero, and an understanding of his situation may be found
in the lives of modern people. If Lear was completely evil, then his plight
would not cause one to be fearful of what happens to him; he would be repulsive.
Lear does inspire fear because he is not perfect, nor is he entirely corrupt.
He is foolish and arrogant, but later he is humbled. Since Lear possesses
good qualities, pity for him is experienced such that, with ones identification
with him, one thinks he does not deserve such a severe punishment. His
actions are not a result of any corruption in him, but by his error in
judgment, which results from a defect or tragic flaw in his character.
Lear's tragic flaw is egotism, in turn his failure to serve his community
by fulfilling his duties as king. It is his own egotism in the first scene
that causes him to make his error in judgment--the division of his kingdom
and the loss of Cordelia. "Tell me, my daughters / (Since now we will divest
us both of rule, / Interest of territory, cares of state), / Which of you
shall we say doth love us most" (I,i. 50-4). IThroughout the remainder
of the play the consequences of him deciding to turn his back on the community
and serve himself slowly increase until Lear is destroyed. There must be
a change in the life of a tragic hero; he must pass from happiness to misery.
Lear, seen in Act I, has everything: wealth, power, peace, and well being.
Since a tragic hero must pass from happiness to misery, he then must be
seen at first as a wealthy man, who is surrounded by everything that could
possibly be imagined. In addition, the disasters that befall him will be
unexpected and will be in direct contrast to his original state. This plight
is quite similar to that of a biblical tragic hero, Abraham. In the beginning
of Abraham's ordeal with Issac it was shown that Abraham was by no means
a poor man. "Abraham rose in good time, had the asses saddled and left
his tent" (Kierkegaard 45). Poor men often do not have servants to saddle
their asses. Then, by following Gods instructions to sacrifice Issac, Abraham
became silent. "They rode in silence for three days; on the morning of
the fourth Abraham still said not a word" (45). This state of silence contrasted
his original behavior, because people who have been blessed with children
and such love for one another at a very old age are not usually quite.
In the play King Lear there were two tragic heroes, a king and an earl.
To have a man endure suffering brought about because of his own error is
unreal. The fear aroused for this man results from his exalted position,
because in modern society people of great wealth and power tend to find
ways of defying the earthly laws. Specifically, the way Don Juan would
never be punished for his wrong doings. This exclusion was only a result
of Don Juan's family status. Therefore, the fall of a powerful man is awesome
and overwhelming. To intensify the tragedy of his play King Lear, Shakespeare
has not one, but two tragic characters. This fall of two very powerful
men only enhances the disaster. The subplot of the play concerning Gloucester,
Edmund, and Edgar only adds to the main plot. Gloucester's physical and
mental torment is a result of his making the same mistake Lear does. Like
Lear, Gloucester is neither completely good nor bad, but a coarseness is
seen in the earl. As side from this part of his character, he too has good
qualities; such as his concern for Kent, and he risks his life to help
Lear. Gloucester's punishment, blindness, parallel's Lear's death. These
two stories unfolding at the same time give the play great standing. The
important element in this Shakespearean tragedy is the action, not characters.
The deeds of the men bring about their demise. In reality the calamities
that fall on both Lear and Gloucester occur because of their ignorance
concerning the results of their actions, not thinking about what the repercussions
of their actions would bring. Their actions grow out of their similarities
in character: both being rash, vengeful, and powerful men. The men behave
as they think they should, not suspecting these actions will be the beginning
of their agony. These actions start a chain of events that leads ultimately
to catastrophe. A tragic hero gains insight through suffering. Neither
the king nor the earl realizes he has committed an error until he has suffered.
This is where these tragic heroes differ from Abraham. Lear's suffering
is so intense that it breaks his heart killing him. It is on the desolate
health that he fully realizes his mistake in giving his kingdom to his
two savage daughters and cursing the one daughter who truly loves him.
"Hear, Nature, hear; dear Goddess, hear: / Suspend thy purpose if thou
didst intend / To make the create fruitful. / Into her womb convey sterility,
/ Dry up in her the organs of increase, / And from her derogate body never
spring / A babe to honor her...How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
/ to have a thankless child. Away, away!" (I,iv. 282-96). It is not until
Gloucester had been blinded that he learns the truth about his two sons.
These two characters learn of their mistakes and are punished. Abraham,
who also learns by suffering, acted in a way contrary to the ways of the
ethical, but he was still made to suffer. Even though Abraham reflected
the ethical, he would have continued to reflect it, but God compelled Abraham
to go step from the ethical into the universal. "[I]t is after all better
that he believe me a monster than he lose faith in Thee" (Kierkegaard 45-6).
God asked Abraham to turn his back on duties to the ethical and follow
his instructions, and Abraham did so for the good of Issac. Lear also turned
his back on the ethical, but he was serving himself and did not move to
the universal with his actions until he was made to suffer. King Lear is
a timeless tale of honor, betrayal, usurpation of power, and greed. Clearly
Shakespeare was not only a great poet, but he was also a great observer.
He balanced the fiction of King Lear and his daughters and Gloucester and
his two sons with the truth and realities of greed and power. He also recognized
the qualities and emotions that all humans identify with. The reason the
tragedy of this play was so great was because there was not only one tragic
hero, but there was two. Given the status of the two heroes in the beginning
of the play and then the final result, one is shown the severity of these
two men's error in judgment. King Lear parallels the story of Abraham in
Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling shown by the initial resignation in the
ethical, then ignoring of the responsibility to the ethical, and finally
the vision of understanding and the leap to the absolute.
Final GenX
WC: 1560
Clad in chunky-soled combat boots and ripped and faded baggy clothes,
with tattoos and body piercings glaring from the bare skin left showing,
they have been labeled as "slackers," "losers," "whiners." They can be
found everywhere from nightclubs to libraries, their shaved heads and unnaturally
dyed hair catching the eye, compelling one to try to get a closer look.
No, they're not a cult or a fanatic religious group; they are the X generation--the
42 million young men and women born from 1963 to 1978. As the first generation
born after the baby boomer generation, generation Xers have been labeled
as "baby busters." They are a generation unique in their situation in that
they are the first of the digital age--the first to master the PC, the
laptop, fax machines, modems, and CD-ROM. They are told they have it easy
since they have not yet had to face a depression, a world war, or a threat
of nuclear attack; but what they are facing is a multi-trillion dollar
debt, environmental destruction, AIDS, high unemployment rates, and the
crumbling of our faithless society before their eyes. (Every generation
wishes they had this easy) This ignorant, faithless society appears frequently
in the writings of Flannery O'Connor. O'Connor discusses faith of 20th
century people in the characters of her works such as: the Misfit, Mrs.
May's boy Wesley, O.E. Parker, Julian; all in their respective stories.
O'Connor reflects small parts of the generation Xers in all of the afore
mentioned characters. The term "Generation X" comes from Douglas Copeland's
1991 novel of the same name. It has become the label of choice for the
generation that refuses to be labeled. It suggests an unknown variable,
a generation still in search of its identity. "[I]f you know who you are,
you can go anywhere" (O'Connor 407) says O'Connor through Mrs. May of "Everything
That Rises Must Converge." Much like if O'Connor's characters Misfit, Wesley,
Parker, and Julian understood their role in society they would not be the
same characters in O'Connor's stories. "My daddy said I was a different
breed of dog from my brothers and sisters...some can live their whole life
out without asking about it and it's others has to know why it is, and
this boy is one of the latters." (128-9) Both the Misfit's father and he
knew the Misfit was of a strange breed, one that searches for their purpose
in life. Therefore, it is understood that the Misfit has an idea of his
identity, but not entirely. "Wesley was an intellectual," (314) he taught
at the University in a near-by town; eventhough he was not happy with his
job, he was in a position that resulted in security, tenure. Also, Parker
possessed lack of attachment or responsibly paid to anything. Parker not
knowing his identity "will be forever running errands in his life" (Kierkegaard
72), because of this Parker is obviously weak in understanding his societal
placement. Although, Julian was not certain of who he was, he knew he was
never going to become anything better; "'Someday I'll start making money,'
Julian said gloomily--he knew he never would" (O'Connor 406) Xers tend
to look for solidarity and authenticity in everything that is relevant
to their lives rather than short-lived solutions to enduring problems.
Xers know not to put their faith in things they cannot see or control.
The Misfit puts this notion into perspective when he reveals his lack of
faith in things he cannot see, "'I wasn't there so I can't say He didn't...if
I had of been there I would of known and I wouldn't be like I am now.'"
(132) Even the "slacker" image does not seem far feached to some Xers.
Perhaps the lack of drive or motivation is due to the circumstances under
which the Xers were raised. In a society where television and video games
are the baby-sitters, and disciplinary roles have shifted from the parents
to the educators. Teachers are expected to regulate children's behavior
and stimulate the desire to become productive members of society. Julian
exemplifies this because he recieved an education, but is still not in
a job where he is able to support himself. In addition, Julian understands
he will never become anything more, Julian thinks he has no hope of finding
a decent job so he does not even attempt to support himself. He continues
to live with his mother never attempting to strike out on his own. This
results in a contempt for his mother, which drives him away from society.
He retreats from society and his mother into a state solitude in his mind,
"Behind the newspaper Julian was withdrawing into the inner compartment
of his mind where he spent most of his time" (411). Observing the workings
of society from day to day, Xers see the evening news show government officials,
parents, and religious leaders "falling from grace" every day, no wonder
they do not want any part of society. Those people who should be setting
an example for our youth are exposed of failures, crimes, and wrongdoings.
Rules and authority figures do not carry much weight with the Xers as they
should, or as the would, had better examples been set for them from the
beginning. Young people have been raised in a society preoccupied with
violence, and have fallen victim to it themselves: according to 13th Gen
by Howe and Strauss, every day 13 youths commit suicide; 16 are murdered;
1,500 begin using drugs and alcohol; and 80 are raped. This excessive violence
seems to be a natural reaction to their surroundings, observations, and
upbringing. "You can do one thing or you can do another, kill a man or
take a tire off his car" (131), the Misfit states in reaction to his experiences.
50% of Xers come from broken homes (Parker, Wesley, and Julian came from
a single parent environments); many are from two-job families where parents
often were not around. This has created a generation unwilling to commit.
Parker, "[H]e couldn't understand why he stayed with her now" (510), could
not believe he was tied down to one woman. In addition, as Copeland wrote
in Life After God, "I think the price we paid for our golden life was an
inability to fully believe in love; instead we gained an irony that sorched
everything it touched". The modern epidemic of tainted love and moral compromise
has created a hard-edged cynicism in our youth, nothing a simple rebellion
could ever rectify. Parker clearly shows the disruption of family ethics
in O'Connor's "Parker's Back" where he (Parker), coming from a single parent
home, has trouble with his conscience when he thinks about his marriage
to Sarah Ruth. Xers grew up watching their parents striving for years to
succeed and attain the good life, only to end up downsized, in debt, and
unemployed. That lifestyle does not make sense for most Xers: before taking
a job, they have to be convinced that it will be challenging and productive,
with good chances of promotion and permanence. Now that computers are taking
over the work force, job security is nearly impossible to find. Automation,
foreign competition, and job shifting has caused a loss of high paying
jobs. With the stress of violence, lost values, attaining higher education,
and scarcity of jobs, one would think Xers would welcome spiritual guidance,
but it seems the opposite is true. Sadly, the skepticism Xers have for
the world applies to religious beliefs as well. Parker actually ran from
church (Startzman), and would never take a religion "'Not on your life,'
Parker said" in response to someone stating that he had taken on a religion
(O'Connor 526). In addition, the Misfit would have been able to believe
if he were only there to see and understand with his own eyes. There has
been a great loss of spiritually in our youth, and the daily evidence of
lost morals and values reflects it. Xers need to see the teachings of religion
carried out in society in order to take them seriously; otherwise the teachings
seem false, so how could Xers be expected to accept anyone one of these
teachings or representations as an absolute truth? For the most part, Xers
regard religion with no modern day purpose and as outdated, overrated,
and obsolete. Eventhough without religion their fate is already defined
as shown by Julian, "The tide of darkness seemed to sweep him back...postponing...his
entry into the world of guilt and sorrow" (420). Generation X is a generation
in crisis, with no miracle cures or sudden relief in sight. Tax increases
are inevitable, pollution's damage has already been done, political decisions
that incorporate the US in other countries bloody civil wars, domestic
violence, and drugs. Flannery O'Connor discusses faith and reflection of
the 20th century in her work, but will the Misfits, intellectuals (Wesley),
tattoo gathers (Parker), and slackers (Julian) of this generation ever
look back, sigh and say, "Those were the days...?"
Fear, Love, or Dante
Word Count: 425
To be loved and feared, and then ultimately go to heaven seems to
be the ideal situation for our authors of Mid- evil thinking. Machiavelli
understands that all humans are naturally evil ,and to run a country, kingdom,
or principality successfully, as a ruler, you must realize this resident
evil. Dante speaks about an instance in his metaphoric tour of hell, and
tries to convey an ambiguous message that humans are evil, but are often
unconscious to it. Thus, living their lives as if they are heaven bound,
and finally finding themselves in one of the nine circles of hell. First
of all, the similarities of these two works are just apparent as their
differences, they are not clear. The primary thread that would relate these
two pieces is the basic evil residing in humans. Machiavelli is attempting
to create guidelines for dealing with humans, and Dante is showing the
end behavior of humans unable to defeat their evilness. I understood Machiavelli's
work because of the realism running along with his written words. He was
incredibly cruel when he spoke of human nature; specifically when he stated
all humans will, indeed fail you so you should fail them first. Also, when
talked about how human relationships were some kind of investment, and
you will never receive your moneys worth. These paraphrased statements
are sad, but true and honest. This work was a great observation of the
past, and with this observation Machiavelli was able to aide his homeland
in the most effective manner possible. The Dante was difficult to deal
with because of my lacking in background for this genre. I have many questions
about this work that would have aided my interpretation. This work was
a dream or dream like state for these two travelers who happen to find
themselves in hell. These two men are in hell talking to resident and listening
to his past life story. This story reveals his natural evil, fraud, and
then in addition his concealment of damnation. The work was hard to work
with and relate to the Machiavelli. The ideas behind both of these works
are good in theory, but the Machiavelli has more meat or realism to it.
The Dante is far-fetched because if the fictitious realm it is placed in,
but the ideas are still good and relevant to human kind. These two works
are put together well in their own respect, but they seem, for the most
part, to be unrelated.
Nature and the availbity of christ.
WC:732
When applying S¿ren Kiekegaard's Fear and Trembling to Flannery
O'Connor's "Greenleaf" one realizes that along with a representation of
an ever present christ Mrs. May lives in a world unique in itself. This
world, which resides in the ethical, finally allows her to pierce her way
into a relationship with the absolute. First of all, the bull escaped from
the Greenleafs property and then appeared on the property of Mrs. May.
From the beginning of the story to end, the bull was always on Mrs. May's
land. In this short story, the bull represents christ to draw a parallel
to modern lives. This parallel shows how christ is always available for
people to receive him.
like some patient god come down to woo her. . . Presently they passed and he appeared again in the same spot, chewing steadily, with a hedge-wreath that he had ripped loose for himself caught in the tips of his horns. . .light slide across him . . .He took a step backward and lowered his head as if to show the wreath across his horns. --O'Connor 311
She thought the word, Jesus, should be kept inside the church building like other words inside the bedroom. She was a good Christian woman with large respect for religion, though she did not, of course, believe any of it was true. --O'Connor 316
A name="eve">"Everything That Rises Must Converge", but is the sequence
Cauchy?
WC:1010
In Flannery O'Connor's "Everything That Rises Must Converge" the
main character's level, on the Kierkegaardian scale of faith, is certainly
different than that of those in the previous readings, specifically: "Greenleaf",
"Revelation", and "Parker's Back". These stories differ from "Everything
That Rises Must Converge" in the sense that the characters in the previous
readings made the leap into the relationship with the absolute, but Julian's
mother never took the step towards the absolute. First, by the given scale
in which the story applies, Julian's Mother, who will be referred to as
Mother, reflected the characteristics of those who reside in the ethical.
This location in the ethical is obviously shown by her not changing herself
and her ideas about where she lived and who she was. "Only lower natures
forget themselves and become something new. Thus the butterfly has altogether
forgotten that it was a caterpillar, perhaps it can so completely forget
in turn that it was a butterfly that it can become a fish. Deeper natures
never forget themselves" (Kierkegaard 72). Julian's mother never admitted
to who they, Julian and herself, were in their present lives. She never
understood the passage of time had and effect on economics and status.
"The sky was a dying violet and the houses stood out darkly against it,
bulbous liver--colored monstrosities of a uniform ugliness though no two
were alike. Since this had been a fashionable neighborhood forty years
ago, his mother persisted in thinking they did well to have an apartment
in it" (O'Connor 406). This quote demonstrates how naive and unaware of
her environment Mother was. The neighborhood they were living in was an
upper class dwelling place forty years before their residency. Not only
was she unchanging in respect to the ethical, but she was also unchanging
with respect to time. In addition, when Mother said "if you know who you
are, you can go anywhere" (407) she was confirming her place in the ethical.
She has already realized her own existence, but this statement confirms
she does not really know who she is now. She remembers how she and her
surroundings were and is attempting to force that knowledge on her present
life. Throughout the short story Mother resides in her timewarped ethical,
and even after being slapped by the large, black woman she is still unable
to make the leap into a relationship with the absolute. Julian understands
his mother's dilemma and tries to get her to step into reality, "'Will
you look around you,' he said tensely, 'and see where you are now?'" (407)
Even with the persistence of her son she remained in her world. Her unwillingness
to change was shown by Julian's ability to predict her actions, "Julian
was thankful the next stop was theirs. He reached up and pulled the cord.
The woman reached up...at the same time...He had a terrible intuition that
when they got off the bus together, his mother would open her purse and
give the little boy a nickel" (417). Then as he attempted to relieve her
of her bag, "'No...I want to give the little boy a nickel" (417). Julian
tried again to relieve her of this idea, but she remained stubbornly unchanged.
Mother's reluctance to change is what causes the woman to strike her. Julian
did not protect his mother from herself because he was hoping his mother
would see the error in her blindness. For "Ignorance is a blinding darkness"
(Pandora's Box #3), and her blindness is that which finally conveys her
remaining in the ethical. "Julian saw the black fist swing out with the
red pocketbook. He shut his eyes and cringed" (418). The large, black woman
struck her to the floor, embarrassing her. Mother was speechless for a
moment, and after regaining her feet she wanted to return home. "Home"
(419) she said as she was desiring to sink back into her world where she
was who she thought she was, a person of high society. Mother did not welcome
reality when offered by Julian, and obviously did not enjoy the real world
when the black woman gave her a small portion of it. Thus, Mother needed
to run to a place where she felt secure, her home. Unfortunately, Mother
never made it back to her secure place without falling victim to the reals
of this reality, the reality outside of Mother's. "A tide of darkness seemed
to be sweeping her away from him...Crumpling, she fell to the pavement"
(420). The text does not make the reason behind the fall clear to the reader.
One is unable to distinguish whether she collapsed because of the trauma
or the actual blow to the head. Nevertheless, she fell and "He turned her
over. Her face...distorted. One eye, large and staring, moved slightly
to the left...The other remained fixed on him, raked his face, found nothing
and closed" (420). She continued not understanding what was required of
her to make the leap to the absolute. He told her to wait there and he
then attempted to help by running after the lights in the distance, but
they "drifted farther away the faster he ran" (420). The lights or opportunity
to make the leap had passed by, and Julian could not retrieve the chance
for his mother. It has been shown that Mother had the chance to make the
leap into the absolute, but remained in the ethical. Mother had the opportunity
to reach this goal, but was unable to because of her inability to understand.
She, in her last few moments, looked for the answer on Julian's face, but
was unable to see anything. In addition, it is also seen she did not make
the leap because she never had the vision of light as in the three previous
works; she was swept away by darkness (420). Julian chased the lights to
no avail leaving his mother alone, crumpled in the ethical.
A name="sandf">S¿ren and Flannery
WC: 580
To look at Flannery O'Connor's "Parker's Back" through the eyes
of S¿ren Kierkegaard with my understanding of Kierkegaard's work
Fear and Trembling would reveal the relationship between O. E. Parker and
not the knight of the universal resignation, nor the knight of the faith,
nor the tragic hero, but the relation of him as a being of lower nature.
First of all, Parker was a man who was very unsure of himself. Throughout
his life he was slow to realize he had responsibilities. Specifically,
his Naval career, when took an illegal leave and spent the entire time
drunk in an inn of sorts. Finally, the Navy found him and jailed him for
his disorderly conduct. In addition to O. E. not concerning himself with
his responsibilities to the Navy, he nearly forgot his responsibilities
to his pregnant wife, "he couldn't understand why he stayed with her now.
She was pregnant and pregnant women were not his favorite kind" (O'Connor
510). These two items show how irresponsible Parker is, obviously a result
of living and be cared for by his mother for so long. Parker's lack of
attachment or responsibly paid to anything displays Parker's mental weakness,
lack of concentration. Also, this lack of concentration shows a lack of
strength in himself or something else. This something else surely being
Kierkegaard's idea of the absurd. Parker has no faith and throughout the
story he refuses to take a faith or religion. Kierkegaard conveys in his
book that faith in the absurd is the ultimate display of strength. If Parker
has no strength in the absurd, then he cannot be a one of the knights of
universal resignation, knights of faith, nor a tragic hero. Therefore Parker
must be located in the area of lower natures. Kierkegaard describes lower
natures by saying:
Only lower natures forget themselves and become something new. Thus the butterfly has altogether forgotten that it was a caterpillar, perhaps it can so completely forget in turn that it was a butterfly that it can become a fish. Deeper natures never forget themselves. . . --Kierkegaard 72
S. KK applied to Flannery
With an understanding of the work of 19th Century author S¿ren
Kierkegaard, it is possible to make connections between his work of a century
ago and that of 20th Century authors one, specifically the work of Flannery
O'Connor, Kierkegaard's ideas of faith and levels thereof are undeniably
present in numerous 20th Century works. These Kierkegaardian ideas, found
in Fear and Trembling, can be applied in a reading of O'Connor's "Revelation",
"Parker's Back" and then "Greenleaf". First of all, "if one hopes to make
sense of Kierkegaard's thought in general...it will be best to take him
at his word,...as to his own intentions and emphases" (Fletcher 6), and
realizing this about the Kierkegaardian perspective we must first look
at his work. In Fear and Trembling Kierkegaard, the "asocial thinker [that]
ignor[es] the social and political aspect of human existence" (Fletcher
1), peers into a Biblical story concerning Abraham and his son Isaac. He
uses this story to convey his definitions of lower natures, the ethical,
and the absolute. Kierkegaard tells us lower natures forget themselves
and their concerns, but those who reside in the ethical are those who posses
the ability of rational thought. "[Abraham] has no inclination to become
another...Only lower natures forget themselves and become something new...Deeper
natures never forget" (Kierkegaard 72). In this story Abraham is required
by God to kill Isaac as a sacrifice to Him. "The ethical expression for
what Abraham did is that he was willing to murder Isaac" (60). The rational
thinkers that reflect the ethical would definitely see this act as murder,
but this is where, in the view of Kierkegaard, that the universal surpasses
the ethical. Isaac is merely a sacrifice to the Absolute. Sacrificing Isaac
is a display of strength in the absolute, God, and is what enables this
murder to glorify God. Surely Abraham's paradox is seen, without faith
in absolute Abraham is a murder, but with faith he is hero and above the
ethical. This enables one to understand "as a spiritual being, man has
a need 'for a certainty other than number,' that is, to be primarily related
to God," (Fletcher 67)
Faith is namely this paradox that the single individual is higher that the universal...For if the ethical--that is, social morality--is the highest and if there is in a person no residual incommensurability in some way such that this incommensurability is not evil... --Kierkegaard 55
Only lower natures forget themselves and become something new. Thus the butterfly has altogether forgotten that it was a caterpillar, perhaps it can so completely forget in turn that it was a butterfly that it can become a fish. Deeper natures never forget themselves. . . --Kierkegaard 72
like some patient god come down to woo her...Presently they passed and he appeared again in the same spot, chewing steadily, with a hedge-wreath that he had ripped loose for himself caught in the tips of his horns...light slide across him...He took a step backward and lowered his head as if to show the wreath across his horns. --O'Connor 311Initially O'Connor writes "like some god"; this statement is the beginning of a few influential sentences convincing one that O'Connor makes this bull a chirst-like figure. Also, the wreath is the most significant piece of evidence. The wreath pulling on the idea of a crown, and then to the thought of a crown of thorns, "menacing prickly crown" (O'Connor 312). This parallel between the bull and christ is only reinforced with these words of steadfastness and illumination: "same spot", "steadily", and then "light slides across him"; both of these qualities are found in christ. The obvious presence of this christ-like figure lingering near Mrs. May is significant. Mrs. May is trapped inside her self created life. This trap is what prohibits her from understanding that christ was all around her, but did not reside within her. She thought the word, Jesus, should be kept inside the church building like other words inside the bedroom. She was a good Christian woman with large respect for religion, though she did not, of course, believe any of it was true. --O'Connor 316 She understood everything to have its own place in her existence. Jesus had his place, in the church, and religion largely remained out of her life. "She was a good Christian woman", this statement about her affiliation with Christianity shows that she had some understanding of right and wrong and the concept of God. With this understanding of God, from the Kierkegaardian stand point, it would be said she stands in the ethical. The ethical being the ability to differentiate between right and wrong with rational thought. She may not always live correctly, but she is able to determine what is not the right way to live. "Mrs. Greenleaf was enough to make her ill. . .The yard around her house looked like a dump and her five girls were always filthy" (O'Connor 315). In addition, Mrs. May somehow knows that "[Jesus] would tell you to wash your children's clothes." (317) There is much to be said about those "who have never succeeded in practicing [their beliefs] but who nevertheless know how to explain everything" (Kierkegaard 80). In other words, she primarily lived the way she expected everyone else to live, but she never had to question who and what were proper at any given time. This quality alone raises her above the level of the lower natures, because lower natures tend to forget themselves. This consistent life is what leads her to her final leap. She takes Mr. Greenleaf in pursuit of the bull. Much like the Biblical account of christ, the bull is going to be put to death for committing no crime. Ultimately, the bull has disappeared from sight and then reappears charging Mrs. May. The bull "buried his head in her lap. . .One of the horns sank until it pierced her heart" (O'Connor 333). Christ had finally entered her heart, "and she had the look of a person whose sight has been suddenly restored but who finds the light unbearable" (O'Connor 333). The bull killing her acknowledged her desire to make that leap from the ethical to the absolute. She was ready to make the resignation of herself to the absolute, "I'll die when I get good and ready." (321). This showing she was only going to accept christ when she decided the time was correct. Unfortunately, she recognized the presence of christ in a most painful way. But, it was this experience that assured her "'ein seliger Sprung in die Ewigkeit'" (Kierkegaard 71). Therefore with the information given, it is clear to see that Mrs. May did indeed make her jump from the ethical to the ultimate relationship with the absolute. Therefore, a close reading of these three works of Flannery O'Connor: "Revelation", "Parker's Back", and "GreenLeaf" have shown that the qualities of S¿ren Kierkegaard's levels of faith can still be found within the characters of 20th Century literature. It also shows to what degree these characters have progressed on the Kierkegaardian scale, initially reflecting the qualities of lower natures or the ethical. Then leaping into the highest level of the Kierkegaardian scale, the relation with the absolute.
Hard to find a good man, but easy to find one who will shoot you in the chest.
WC: 814
With a Kierkegaardian reading of Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man Is Hard to Find", the grandmother in the story reflects the ethical and the Misfit, who reflects the aesthetic, is a divine tool used to compel the grandmother to make the leap to relating absolutely with the absolute. First, the grandmother resides in ethical. This item is shown by her obedience of authority, and also her determination to coax the family to forget about their vacation to Florida and use that time to go to Tennessee. "The Grandmother didn't want to go to Florida. She wanted to visit some of her connections in east Tennessee" (O'Connor 117). The first line of the short story clearly shows the grandmother's feelings about going to Florida with the rest of her family. This ability to make choices for oneself is a characteristic of the ethical. In the Kierkegaardian view, lower natures have the reasons behind their actions lying in someone else (Kierkegaard 73). The grandmother is clearly attempting to manipulate the remainder of the family for personal reasons, therefore thrusting herself into the ethical. In addition to Grandmother reflecting the ethical, the Misfit reflects the order of the lower natures. The Misfit does this by rejecting the codes and morals of those in the ethical; he acknowledging he has no faith. "'I found out the crime don't matter. You can do one thing or you can do another, kill a man or take a tire off his car, because sooner or later you're going to forget what it is you done and just punished for it'" (O'Connor 130-1). With this quote the Misfit admits his rejection and realizes his on fallibility. The only problem with this, in the eyes of those in the ethical, is he is not going to change his ways. The Misfit will not disregard his lower nature status to reside in the ethical. "[H]e will be forever running errands in his life, never enter the eternal" (Kierkegaard 72). Since the Misfit has made his choices, he will now run away from the law of the ethical forever. He will never be safe. The Misfit will never get a moments peace while he is running from the police. While he understands how will always be on the run, likewise he realizes he has no faith. "'[I]f I had of been there I would of known and I wouldn't be like I am now'" (O'Connor 132). The Misfit tells that if he would have been there to see Jesus, then he would believe and have faith. Therefore, he would not be a criminal. The Misfit not only embodies the aesthetic, but he is also a divine tool used to compel the grandmother to make the final leap. Since the Misfit is a divine tool, the grandmother is a "worker of wonders" (76) in the same respect. This may be concluded by understanding how the divine tool is used to propel her into the absolute:His voice seemed about to crack and the grandmother's head cleared for an instant. She saw the man's face twisted close to her own as if he were going to cry and she murmured, 'Why you're one of my babies. You're one of my own children!' She reached out and touched him on the shoulder. The Misfit sprang back as if a snake had bitten him and shot her three times through the chest. Then he put his gun down on the ground and took off his glasses and began to clean them. --O'Connor 132 When "the grandmother's head cleared" she realized what was going on and what must occur. She understood she was now going to make the leap into the absolute, and the Misfit forced her into this leap. Then she reaches out for him, but like any other demonic being when faced with the absolute; he was afraid and "sprang back" away from it. He rejected the higher order again. As he was running from the ethical, he kills her, and therefore allows her to leap into the absolute. As if his purpose was served, the Misfit cleans his glasses to signify the job was finished. . "[I]sn't it true here... that those whom God blesses he damns in the same breath" (Kierkegaard 94). The ending result of the tool being used is that the entire family must die in order for the grandmother to be saved. The Misfit, surely of the lower order class, is shown to be a tool of divine power used in this story. Also the Misfit compels the grandmother, who initially reflected the ethical, to make her leap into relating absolutely with the absolute.
