Open Prompt Revision #4

In many works of literature, a physical journey - the literal movement from one place to another - plays a central role. Choose a novel, play, or epic poem in which a physical journey is an important element and discuss how the journey adds to the meaning of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.

                To journey is to go from one place to another. And separating these two places, nearly invariably, there are doors. Doors are barriers; gateways between rooms or even worlds. However, the significance of these barriers and by extension the journey is much less objective. In Noises Off, Michael Frayn argues that no matter how many doors one journeys through, one cannot truly get anywhere or find meaning, and any attempts to do so are a waste of time.
                Throughout the entire play, the stage is pandemonium as everyone seems to be trying to get everywhere all at once, but in the end nobody gets anywhere. Doors are constantly slamming and actors traipse across the stage, bumping into each other and passing by one another in a frenzy to get to yet another door. Everyone is fixated upon the singular task of going through doors in a symbolic attempt to GET somewhere. In the words of the director, "That's what it's all about: Doors and sardines." Sardines are obviously superfluous and of no importance, and the pointlessness of these doors is emphasized in this line by juxtaposing the two.  Despite everyone's fixation on doors,  nobody gets anywhere; every actor remains confused throughout the show and by the end hasn't learned anything or grown as a character.
                Every attempt to find meaning in the play is fruitless. Freddy, one of the actors, frequently stops rehearsal to inquire as to the meaning behind his character's actions. The god-like, seemingly omniscient director of the play, though, doesn't have answers, and even goes so far as to fabricate truth merely to placate the questioning spirit. It's easier to pretend to know the truth and go through the motions than to face the cold reality of utter ignorance that Frayne is convinced we're all amidst. There is one rather confusing scene in which a Sheik inexplicably resembles another character in the show. Nearly everyone is confused by this, and some brave sole dares to raise the question to the group: "Why does the Sheik look like Phillip?" This question of resemblance and relation clearly represents the deeper question of "What does it all mean?" as it is consistently brought up in times of uncertainty, even when the Sheik is nowhere present. Anytime someone asks this question, rehearsal is brought to a halt as everyone shares their opinion and nobody is convinced of anything in the end. Any attempts to find meaning are not only without success but hinder the troupe in their outward goal of putting on a show and their deeper goal of making sense of the world and finding truth.
                Hidden behind, and even within, the slapstick and scandal of a sex farce lies a post-modernistic view of the world which borders on nihilism. Frayn shows us a pointless struggle as the actors make journey after journey through countless doors but arrive nowhere, denying the existence of truth. Next time you go through a door, ask yourself: Where are you really going?

Open Prompt Revision #3

In retrospect, the reader often discovers that the first chapter of a novel or the opening scene of a drama introduces some of the major themes of the work. Write an essay about the opening scene of a drama or the first chapter of a novel in which you explain how it functions in this way.

While one often thinks of the opening of a novel or a play to simply serve as an introduction to characters or a peaceful spot to enter the action, often it can foreshadow a great deal about the themes and messages of the work as a whole.The opening scene of The American Dream expresses the messages about the futility of seeking satisfaction, the flaws of consumerism, and the incapability of the general public that exist within the play as a whole.

In the first scene of the play, Mommy expresses dissatisfaction with the hat she purchased and recounts her failed struggle to gain satisfaction. The entire purpose of her visit, as she mentions, is to indirectly gain sexual satisfaction through commercial means. The fact that she must go to these bizarre lengths suggests a clear flaw in the process of attaining satisfaction. Even within this commercial enterprise, the hat Mommy purchases fails to meet her expectations, and she must knowingly delude herself as to its color to gain even a glimmer of false fulfillment from her purchase. Mommy is not even the only one being denied satisfaction in this venture, though. Since Mommy is seeking sexual rather than commercial pleasure, we can assume that he cannot grant her sexual satisfaction and thus cannot get any himself. Daddy, arguably by this very lack of masculinity, does not have the drive to seek satisfaction through other means as Mommy does. This denial of satisfaction is the premise for much of the play's meaning, from Mommy and Daddy's lack of satisfaction from their adoption of the child to Daddy's inability to gain satisfaction from his own masculinity.

Mommy's argument over the hat with Mrs. Barker suggests that consumerism is a flawed system. Mommy isn't directly satiating a need she has in her life, but rather is obtaining something she doesn't need, and wants only because of her own misconceptions. She buys the hat because she likes what she perceives it to be, but when she learns that others (Mrs. Barker) do not perceive her object the way she does, it loses its value. The entire exchange is empty; there is no intrinsic value to the hat, so it might as well not even exist; it's worth noting that the hat never actually shows up in the play. This exchange suggests that consumerism isn't a system which distributes what people need, but rather a system to create artificial need, and fulfill it with artificial satisfaction. Throughout the rest of the play, Mrs. Barker serves as an amorphous commercial figure to continue to propagate this message of broken commercialism.

Daddy's role during all of this is to pretend that he cares, taking his cues from Mommy to provide her the artificial satisfaction of a listener while he is incapable of expressing or even having his own opinion. He is repeatedly emasculated and ridiculed by Mommy, whether she's discussing how she is always on top or manipulating him into opening a door. He is passive and yielding throughout the beginning scene, expressing the passivity he will exhibit throughout the rest of the book to demonstrate the behavior a group of society that simply follows trends and does what it's told.

One can almost view the opening scene as a condensed version of the play, with Mommy's purchase of the hat representing her adoption of the child, Mrs. Barker representing herself, and Daddy as usual getting pushed around. The themes of dissatisfaction are apparent in Mommy, while Mrs. Barker demonstrates the scornful view of consumerism and Daddy expresses traits of incompetence and passivity that the author wishes to bring to light.

Open Prompt Revision #2

1976. The conflict created when the will of an individual opposes the will of the majority is the recurring theme of many novels, plays, and essays. Select the work of an essayist who is in opposition to his or her society; or from a work of recognized literary merit, select a fictional character who is in opposition to his or her society. In a critical essay, analyze the conflict and discuss the moral and ethical implications for both the individual and the society. Do not summarize the plot or action of the work you choose.

               

            Most people, when thrust into a new environment, will adapt and blend in, altering their behavior to match that of those around them. Our culture values those who "fit in" to an extent that often drives individuals to deny their true nature. However, this cannot be said for Oliver Twist of the Dickens novel by the same name. Although Oliver's surroundings teem with dishonesty and ill will, he steadfastly holds to his own moral code, illustrating the novel's messages that good is resilient, innocence is powerful, and redemption is possible.

                Oliver's innocence is a trait which time and again serves exclusively to benefit. When questioned by Mr. Brownlow, it is Oliver's genuine innocence which convinces him that the boy was not to blame for thievery, and even convinces the man to take Oliver in. His innocence serves not only himself but others as well, starting a chain of events which puts Fagin to justice and enriches the life of a lonely Mr. Brownlow. The quality of life of not only Oliver but those around him, or at least those who aren't entirely corrupt, improves because of Oliver's innocence.

                Oliver's strong moral sense is unchanged by his total immersion into a society that operates on acts of thievery and perpetuates violence, even when this society directly attempts to corrupt him. In the clash between Fagin and his gang's cruelty and Oliver's purity, Oliver repeatedly wins:  Nancy's resistance against Fagin's and Syke's attempts to beat Oliver represents her finally resisting the evil that's surrounded her, and she was inspired to do so by the good she found in Oliver, and after being surrounded by a society of murderers and thieves, Oliver still has the goodness to give Monks a second chance. These events serve as a testament to the power of unyielding kindness for both Oliver and society in general.
             Paradoxically, the fact that so much of Oliver's world is greedy and corrupt serves the novel's purpose of expressing hope. Dickens clearly acknowledges that society is far from perfect by choosing to allow the bad characters to outnumber the good. However, the few lights of goodness and purity he chooses to include have a profound effect on the story. Oliver turns many an eye inward, causing characters to reflect on their misdeeds. Nancy changes for the better, and even Fagin considers finding a new life at one point in the story. Though he doesn't go through with it, this is nonetheless a strong indicator that redemption can be attained by anyone, no matter how far gone they may seem.

Open Prompt Revision #1

Trust is a very important part of any relationship; be it professional, romantic, or colloquial. If trust between individuals is broken, it is considered a serious breach which can drastically affect not only the relationship but the lives of those near to the betrayed. To betray someone says worlds about the individual who breaks the trust and in literature can even say something about the world in which the story takes place. In Treasure Island, Long John Silver’s betrayal of the crew’s trust serves not only to highlight his own greed but also explores the inherent evils of piracy itself.

                Long John Silver’s betrayal demonstrates a blatant lack of regard for the fate of anyone other than himself, showing him in an incredibly negative light. Jim’s voyage to seek the treasure begins on an optimistic note, with no clear antagonist in sight and gold on the horizon. However, when Jim overhears Silver speak of betrayal we immediately realize that there is now a clear enemy to the protagonists of the story, and blood will be shed. The fact that Silver plans to slaughter all those who won’t join him in a mutiny causes us to hate him all the more; a man who puts the lives of others below not his own life but merely his wealth is not a man to love.

                Long John Silver is in fact a representative for all pirates, and serves to subvert admiration for the seemingly glamorous trade of piracy by bringing out the truly despicable aspects of the profession. A common tactic that pirates use at sea is to disguise their ship as a merchant to get close to their targets before raising the Jolly Roger and opening fire. Silver’s introduction in the novel mimics this technique. When first mentioned, he is merely a deckhand seeking work, innocently pursuing labor on a ship whose purpose he seems not to know. However, as soon as the voyage is underway, he hoists his true colors and leads a bloody mutiny, seeking the treasure for himself.  By creating this parallel between Silver and pirates as a people, Stevenson allows Silver to represent all pirates and reveal that their adventure and enthusiasm is no excuse for their bloody, selfish nature.

                Pirates, while on the surface entertaining and adventurous, are violent and cruel, and Silver’s betrayal in Treasure Island illustrates this vividly. His breach in trust is inexcusable, and causes misery for nearly every character in the novel. Through establishing Silver as a symbol for all pirates, the novel subverts the admiration of those who make a living out of breaking trust. Betrayal is one of the few acts which is nearly universally negative; there is often a time for anger or misery in the face of tragedy, but betrayal is never excused.