Sunday, April 12, 2009
Thoughts on Obasan
I have selected the novel Obasan by Joy Kogawa for my final AP writing assignment. The novel, which I read over spring break, is a fictional account of the plight of Japanese-Canadians during World War II. The story is the account of the Kato-Nakane clan, a Japanese-Canadian family, and is told from the point of view of Naomi Nakane, a school teacher in Alberta who was a child during the war. I wrote a research paper for AP US History junior year on the Japanese American Internment and I was surprised to learn that the plight of Japanese Canadians was far worse than that of the Japanese Americans. Even after the war ended, Japanese-Canadians were unable to return to British Columbia and were forced to do agricultural labor on farms in the interior of Canada. I really enjoyed reading this book especially since the dialogue was in both English and Japanese, a language I am fluent in. The mix of Japanese and English elements in the novel made the story come to life for me. I particularly liked how Joy Kogawa countered Naomi’s personal narrative with actual historical data and news-clips from the war and after. They provide a contrast between accepted historical facts and the reality of the situation. The notion that facts can be used to distort the truth is a constant theme throughout the novel. My paper will focus on the key theme of the novel, that knowledge alters identity and responsibility. It is the same theme in Adam and Eve and Oedipus and it is a reality that the protagonist Naomi must face. Naomi has silently endured the pain of what she and her family suffered during the war. Now she must face her fears so that she can speak out against the injustice suffered by her people. As her aunt Emily tells her, to remain silent in the face of injustice is to allow Canadians in the future to suffer a similar fate (325).
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Black Lies
Natasha Tretheway’s poem “White Lies” is a story of innocence, childhood, and the struggle for personal identity in America. Tretheway uses the techniques of irony and double meaning in her poem to explore racial identity through the first person narrative of a bi-racial black woman looking back on her childhood.
The speaker of the poem employs a double entendre to explore her struggle as a child uncomfortable with her racial identity. In this poem, the speaker, a woman whose skin is “light-bright, near white” looks back on her childhood as a little bi-racial girl who would pretend to be white in order to fit in with the white children of her community. She uses the double entendre “white lies” to portray both the innocence and nature of her “lies.” As she states at the beginning, “[t]he lies I could tell, when I was growing up…were just white lies.” They are “white lies” because she is deceiving white society into believing she is white but also because the deception is done with a certain innocence. White lies are innocent lies, lies that children tell, fibs that harm no one. The speaker told these “white lies” as a little girl, because she was simply trying to fit in and escape the racial prejudices of white society. She is ashamed of her black heritage and wants to "pass for white" because she is growing up in a society where African Americans are viewed as inferior to white people. Looking back, the speaker believes they are white lies, perhaps because she was young and innocent and unaware of the implications of her actions. However, these lies are anything but harmless.
Tretheway utilizes the play on words “White Lies” to show the irony of the speaker’s situation and actions. Although the speaker of the poem insists that pretending to be white was “just” a white lie, Tretheway uses irony to show that these lies were indeed detrimental to both the speaker and her society. By telling these “innocent” white lies, the speaker is denying her own racial identity. Instead of accepting her bi-racial heritage she is ignoring her black ancestry and preventing herself from developing a mature personal identity. Her lies are also damaging to her society. By denying her black identity, the speaker propagates the institution of racial segregation and prejudice. If bi-racial children are ashamed of their own racial identities, they prevent their respective groups from one day gaining an equal place in white society. The speaker’s mother in the poem represents this mature racial identity which the speaker still lacks.
Tretheway uses irony and double meaning in the final stanza to show the speaker’s continuing inability to accept her bi-racial identity. In the final stanza, the speaker talks about the punishment she faced every time her mother caught her telling white lies. The speaker’s mother washed out her mouth with Ivory Soap to “purify…and cleanse [her] lying tongue.” However, there is both double meaning and irony in the speaker’s acceptance of her punishment. The soap that the mother uses is Ivory, a symbol of the whitest of whites. The speaker swallowed the white suds hoping “they’d work from the inside out,” underscoring her desire to be white. In accepting her punishment, the speaker is trying to cleanse herself in the hopes of becoming white. She does not understand her mother’s insistence to stop the white lies because she is ashamed of the black part of her racial identity. The ultimate irony of the poem is as an adult the speaker is still unable to accept her bi-racial identity because of the white lies she told throughout her childhood.
On the surface, “White Lies” seems to be a simple poem about a little bi-racial girl pretending to be white. A deeper look into the poem reveals many layers of irony and double meaning that touch on the sensitive and complex issue of racial identity within a bi-racial America. (660)
The speaker of the poem employs a double entendre to explore her struggle as a child uncomfortable with her racial identity. In this poem, the speaker, a woman whose skin is “light-bright, near white” looks back on her childhood as a little bi-racial girl who would pretend to be white in order to fit in with the white children of her community. She uses the double entendre “white lies” to portray both the innocence and nature of her “lies.” As she states at the beginning, “[t]he lies I could tell, when I was growing up…were just white lies.” They are “white lies” because she is deceiving white society into believing she is white but also because the deception is done with a certain innocence. White lies are innocent lies, lies that children tell, fibs that harm no one. The speaker told these “white lies” as a little girl, because she was simply trying to fit in and escape the racial prejudices of white society. She is ashamed of her black heritage and wants to "pass for white" because she is growing up in a society where African Americans are viewed as inferior to white people. Looking back, the speaker believes they are white lies, perhaps because she was young and innocent and unaware of the implications of her actions. However, these lies are anything but harmless.
Tretheway utilizes the play on words “White Lies” to show the irony of the speaker’s situation and actions. Although the speaker of the poem insists that pretending to be white was “just” a white lie, Tretheway uses irony to show that these lies were indeed detrimental to both the speaker and her society. By telling these “innocent” white lies, the speaker is denying her own racial identity. Instead of accepting her bi-racial heritage she is ignoring her black ancestry and preventing herself from developing a mature personal identity. Her lies are also damaging to her society. By denying her black identity, the speaker propagates the institution of racial segregation and prejudice. If bi-racial children are ashamed of their own racial identities, they prevent their respective groups from one day gaining an equal place in white society. The speaker’s mother in the poem represents this mature racial identity which the speaker still lacks.
Tretheway uses irony and double meaning in the final stanza to show the speaker’s continuing inability to accept her bi-racial identity. In the final stanza, the speaker talks about the punishment she faced every time her mother caught her telling white lies. The speaker’s mother washed out her mouth with Ivory Soap to “purify…and cleanse [her] lying tongue.” However, there is both double meaning and irony in the speaker’s acceptance of her punishment. The soap that the mother uses is Ivory, a symbol of the whitest of whites. The speaker swallowed the white suds hoping “they’d work from the inside out,” underscoring her desire to be white. In accepting her punishment, the speaker is trying to cleanse herself in the hopes of becoming white. She does not understand her mother’s insistence to stop the white lies because she is ashamed of the black part of her racial identity. The ultimate irony of the poem is as an adult the speaker is still unable to accept her bi-racial identity because of the white lies she told throughout her childhood.
On the surface, “White Lies” seems to be a simple poem about a little bi-racial girl pretending to be white. A deeper look into the poem reveals many layers of irony and double meaning that touch on the sensitive and complex issue of racial identity within a bi-racial America. (660)
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Measure of Success
In class this week we sought to answer some very intriguing questions in our discussion of Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller. What defines success? And can Biff and Willy be defined as successful? In our discussion of what defines success, two sides of the issue emerged and both were argued vehemently. Many in the class believed that success is defined by how much money you make, how famous you are, and whether you are at the top of your profession. These class members argued that only the unsuccessful believe that “success is relative.” The others side of the argument was that you are successful in life if you are happy. I see validity in each argument which is why my definition takes in a much broader view of success. I believe success is not only professional and financial achievement but also happiness and contentment with your life whatever that might be. In this way success goes beyond the obvious criteria society assigns to it.
I do not believe Willy can be considered successful. Although he is moderately good at his job, has been able to support his family, and is about to pay off the last loan on his house, he is unhappy with his life. However, in Willy’s flawed view of success, he forever feels inadequate because he is not fabulously wealthy like his brother Ben. If Willy could see that success comes in many forms and be satisfied with his modest existence, he too would be able to feel successful. In this way, success is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Conversely, Biff is happy with his aimless life, but cannot be considered successful. Unlike his father, Biff is happy roaming the country and performing odd jobs. He becomes bothered when he is occasionally reminded of his father’s definition for success. When Biff is needed to support his father who is too old to take care of himself, he is unable to do so. Willy is getting forgetful and too old to be a travelling salesman but he cannot retire because Biff is incapable of getting a desk job and earning some real money. In this way, happiness is not the only prerequisite for success. The characters of Willy and Biff in Death of a Salesman demonstrate the multifaceted nature of what can be considered successful. (393)
I do not believe Willy can be considered successful. Although he is moderately good at his job, has been able to support his family, and is about to pay off the last loan on his house, he is unhappy with his life. However, in Willy’s flawed view of success, he forever feels inadequate because he is not fabulously wealthy like his brother Ben. If Willy could see that success comes in many forms and be satisfied with his modest existence, he too would be able to feel successful. In this way, success is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Conversely, Biff is happy with his aimless life, but cannot be considered successful. Unlike his father, Biff is happy roaming the country and performing odd jobs. He becomes bothered when he is occasionally reminded of his father’s definition for success. When Biff is needed to support his father who is too old to take care of himself, he is unable to do so. Willy is getting forgetful and too old to be a travelling salesman but he cannot retire because Biff is incapable of getting a desk job and earning some real money. In this way, happiness is not the only prerequisite for success. The characters of Willy and Biff in Death of a Salesman demonstrate the multifaceted nature of what can be considered successful. (393)
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Misunderstood Man
The most intriguing person in A Doll’s House, is not the main character but Nils Krogstad a supporting character. In the first two acts of the play he is the despicable villain who threatens to destroy the Helmer household through the blackmail of Nora. However, in the final act he has a complete change of heart, and gives Nora back her IOU so she can destroy it and the primary conflict of the play is resolved. Why does Krogstad abruptly change and then is never again mentioned in the play? What is Krogstad’s true persona? Is he the despicable villain or a man whose intentions were misunderstood? Initially, there is no sign that Krogstad is anything but an unsavory character. Not only does he attempt to blackmail Nora Helmer in order to keep his job at the bank, but the audience later learns of his moral depravity, committing forgery and cleverly escaping any prosecution.
However, in the second act, the audience is introduced to a slightly different side of Krogstad when threatens Nora a second time. Krogstad actually feels a connection to Nora and pities her because of what she is going through. They both committed forgery, and although Nora did it to save her husband, they situations are still similar. In addition, they both have considered suicide to escape their problems. In this association with Nora the audience is allowed a brief glimpse of a very different person than the evil Krogstad.
Finally in the third Act we are once again shown another side of Krogstad a compassionate side. A declaration of love and trust by Kristine Linde is the catalyst of his change. She tells him, “we two need each other. Nils, I have faith in what, deep down, you are.” With these words, Nils Krogstad finds redemption and tells Kristine “I’ve never been so incredibly happy before.” As a result he sends Nora’s IOU to her husband and he brings the whole sordid affair to an end. Krogstad’s progression from villain to changed man is proof of the power of love.(345)
However, in the second act, the audience is introduced to a slightly different side of Krogstad when threatens Nora a second time. Krogstad actually feels a connection to Nora and pities her because of what she is going through. They both committed forgery, and although Nora did it to save her husband, they situations are still similar. In addition, they both have considered suicide to escape their problems. In this association with Nora the audience is allowed a brief glimpse of a very different person than the evil Krogstad.
Finally in the third Act we are once again shown another side of Krogstad a compassionate side. A declaration of love and trust by Kristine Linde is the catalyst of his change. She tells him, “we two need each other. Nils, I have faith in what, deep down, you are.” With these words, Nils Krogstad finds redemption and tells Kristine “I’ve never been so incredibly happy before.” As a result he sends Nora’s IOU to her husband and he brings the whole sordid affair to an end. Krogstad’s progression from villain to changed man is proof of the power of love.(345)
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Duality of Insanity
The Shakespearean play, Hamlet is a fascinating examination of insanity and the human mind. Shakespeare approaches the concept of insanity in his two principal characters: Hamlet and Ophelia. However, there are stark differences in their situations. Hamlet’s insanity is for the most part feigned, although one can argue that he slips into true insanity at various points during the play. In contrast, Ophelia’s insanity is real. Ophelia loses her mind after Hamlet scorns her love and kills her father by accident. The way Shakespeare portrays the feigned insanity of Hamlet and the real insanity of Ophelia is perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of this play.
There is no doubt from the beginning of the play that Hamlet is feigning his madness. In Act I after the ghost of his father comes to him to inform him that he was murdered by his brother it is clear that Hamlet is already planning his next move. When Horatio and the guards ask him what the ghost revealed to him, he tells them “there’s never a villain dwelling in all Denmark / But he’s an errant knave.” This strange response is not the first sign of Hamlets madness but rather a calculated ploy to keep the king’s murder from the guards. Indeed, Hamlet sanity is apparent when he makes the three men promise not to talk about the ghost regardless of how strange he might behave. Hamlet’s pretend madness continues in the same pattern of this strange response to the three men. He speaks in riddles and veiled language and rarely responds coherently to questions. In addition Hamlet reinforces the notion of his madness when he runs into Ophelia’s room half undressed. It is clear through most of the play however that Hamlet is in total control of his mental facilities. He cleverly plots the murder of his uncle with insanity as a shield to remove any suspicion or attention to himself.
In contrast to Hamlet, it is quite clear that Ophelia truly has lost her mind. She tells everyone that she can hear her father talking, she makes strange sounds, she beats at her breast, and she speaks incoherently. Unlike Hamlet, the audience does not hear or see her father’s ghost, which reaffirms the nature of her true insanity. In addition after Ophelia goes insane her conversations for the most part are conducted in song. Unlike Hamlet’s strange responses these songs have no meaning or relevance to the situation whatsoever and they highlight Ophelia’s insanity. The final way Shakespeare demonstrates Ophelia’s mental instability is in her suicide. Hamlet contemplates suicide in many of his soliloquies but is never close to acting on his thoughts. In contrast, Ophelia takes her life over her inconsolable grief at the death of her father by Hamlet’s hand. With Ophelia there is no rational contemplation of her situation, just an irrational response.
One of the most compelling aspects of the play Hamlet is how Shakespeare exploits insanity. Ophelia is a victim whose insanity is the result of the tragedies that befall her. Conversely Hamlet uses insanity to cover his clever and calculating mind to further his agenda. Shakespeare’s genius as a playwright is evident when he brings this duality of insanity to life in his play. (541)
There is no doubt from the beginning of the play that Hamlet is feigning his madness. In Act I after the ghost of his father comes to him to inform him that he was murdered by his brother it is clear that Hamlet is already planning his next move. When Horatio and the guards ask him what the ghost revealed to him, he tells them “there’s never a villain dwelling in all Denmark / But he’s an errant knave.” This strange response is not the first sign of Hamlets madness but rather a calculated ploy to keep the king’s murder from the guards. Indeed, Hamlet sanity is apparent when he makes the three men promise not to talk about the ghost regardless of how strange he might behave. Hamlet’s pretend madness continues in the same pattern of this strange response to the three men. He speaks in riddles and veiled language and rarely responds coherently to questions. In addition Hamlet reinforces the notion of his madness when he runs into Ophelia’s room half undressed. It is clear through most of the play however that Hamlet is in total control of his mental facilities. He cleverly plots the murder of his uncle with insanity as a shield to remove any suspicion or attention to himself.
In contrast to Hamlet, it is quite clear that Ophelia truly has lost her mind. She tells everyone that she can hear her father talking, she makes strange sounds, she beats at her breast, and she speaks incoherently. Unlike Hamlet, the audience does not hear or see her father’s ghost, which reaffirms the nature of her true insanity. In addition after Ophelia goes insane her conversations for the most part are conducted in song. Unlike Hamlet’s strange responses these songs have no meaning or relevance to the situation whatsoever and they highlight Ophelia’s insanity. The final way Shakespeare demonstrates Ophelia’s mental instability is in her suicide. Hamlet contemplates suicide in many of his soliloquies but is never close to acting on his thoughts. In contrast, Ophelia takes her life over her inconsolable grief at the death of her father by Hamlet’s hand. With Ophelia there is no rational contemplation of her situation, just an irrational response.
One of the most compelling aspects of the play Hamlet is how Shakespeare exploits insanity. Ophelia is a victim whose insanity is the result of the tragedies that befall her. Conversely Hamlet uses insanity to cover his clever and calculating mind to further his agenda. Shakespeare’s genius as a playwright is evident when he brings this duality of insanity to life in his play. (541)
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Rebel or Martyr?
Antigone is perhaps one of the most strong-willed women in Greek literature. Her unwavering self-confidence and spirited nature cannot be but admired. However, her single-minded commitment to burying her brother can be seen as either an honorable act of love for her family or a rebellious teenage act against authority. Is Antigone a rebel or a martyr? The evidence points both ways at first. When Creon decrees that Polyneices should not be buried because he died a traitorous death, there is never any sign that Antigone has faltered in her decision to disobey Creon. The play starts with Antigone trying to convince Ismene to join her in burying their brother. Either Antigone is extremely close to her brother or she has been waiting for a reason to defy Creon. The first sign that Antigone’s motives are perhaps rebellious is when she becomes angry with Ismene because she is too timid to break the law. Instead of forgiving Ismene or understanding her sister’s hesitant nature, Antigone accuses her of being a traitor to the family. On the other hand, if Antigone truly loves her brother as strongly as she professes, Ismene’s refusal to help her could have upset her deeply. Indeed Antigone insists, “I will bury him; and if I must die, / I say that this crime is holy; I shall lie down / With him in death, and I shall be as dear / To him as he to me” (1326).
However, when she is captured, she is more intent on lecturing Creon and criticizing his policies than professing her love for her brother. This Antigone is more concerned with becoming a martyr than the peace she supposedly wants to secure for her brother’s soul. Indeed Creon accuses her of this when he declares, “[t]he girl is guilty of a double insolence, breaking the given laws and boasting of it” (1334). And she reveals her real intention when she says, “I should have praise and honor for what I have done” (1334). If she really was breaking the law because of love for her brother, she would not want praise and honor and attention. Finally, when Ismene is brought in and accused by Creon of having a part in Antigone’s plan, Antigone refuses to allow Ismene to share in the blame. Ismene is now ready to share responsibility for Antigone’s actions because she realizes her duty to her brother and does not want to live if Antigone is dead. Antigone however refuses to let her be condemned to death as she does not want Ismene “to lessen [her] death by sharing it” (1336). These actions are a demonstration of Antigone’s self-centered motives. She will not allow Ismene to share her death, because she wants all the glory a martyr’s death will bring.
This arrogant and selfish Antigone is not representative of the traditional strong-willed martyr of Greek mythology. Yet her personality flaws make Antigone a more believable, if imperfect heroine. Regardless of her motives, Antigone still sacrifices herself for her family, and is able to give her brother peace in the Underworld. Indeed it is Antigone as the imperfect heroine that makes her one of the most fascinating women in Greek drama.
However, when she is captured, she is more intent on lecturing Creon and criticizing his policies than professing her love for her brother. This Antigone is more concerned with becoming a martyr than the peace she supposedly wants to secure for her brother’s soul. Indeed Creon accuses her of this when he declares, “[t]he girl is guilty of a double insolence, breaking the given laws and boasting of it” (1334). And she reveals her real intention when she says, “I should have praise and honor for what I have done” (1334). If she really was breaking the law because of love for her brother, she would not want praise and honor and attention. Finally, when Ismene is brought in and accused by Creon of having a part in Antigone’s plan, Antigone refuses to allow Ismene to share in the blame. Ismene is now ready to share responsibility for Antigone’s actions because she realizes her duty to her brother and does not want to live if Antigone is dead. Antigone however refuses to let her be condemned to death as she does not want Ismene “to lessen [her] death by sharing it” (1336). These actions are a demonstration of Antigone’s self-centered motives. She will not allow Ismene to share her death, because she wants all the glory a martyr’s death will bring.
This arrogant and selfish Antigone is not representative of the traditional strong-willed martyr of Greek mythology. Yet her personality flaws make Antigone a more believable, if imperfect heroine. Regardless of her motives, Antigone still sacrifices herself for her family, and is able to give her brother peace in the Underworld. Indeed it is Antigone as the imperfect heroine that makes her one of the most fascinating women in Greek drama.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Loveless
Ronald Blythe’s statement in his introduction to the Death of Ivan Ilyich that “[Love] could have rescued Ivan Ilyich from all the fright and despair which terrorized him during the final two weeks had he allowed it to. . . Love masters death [only at the end],” intrigued me. It was not until I read this statement that I realized that Tolstoy does not use the word “love” or “loving” to describe any of Ivan Ilyich’s relationships. When he marries Praskovya Fedorovna it is not because he loves her but because she “came of a good family, was not bad-looking, had some little property,” and because she fell in love with him” (289). Indeed the narrator points out that “to say Ivan Ilyich married because he fell in love with Praskovya Fedorovna” would be incorrect (289). Nor does he grow to love his wife in the seventeen years they are married; instead he spends most of his time in the “fenced-off world of official duties” away from the unpleasantness of his marriage (290). In addition he views his son and daughter more as nuisances and added responsibilities instead of family to be loved. On his deathbed Ivan recalls his happy childhood, but does not reminisce about his love for his family. He only remembers a pleasant joy to which he wishes he could return. Ivan Ilyich’s life was most terrible not only because it was “most simple and most ordinary” but because it was conspicuously lacking in love (286).
The reader gets a taste of this lack of meaningful relationships in Ivan Ilyich’s life in the first chapter when his “nearest acquaintances” are more concerned with what promotions his death might occasion for them than his actual death (282). Tolstoy chooses his words carefully in this chapter. He describes Ivan Ilyich not as loved or respected by these men but rather “liked by all” (281). Indeed his description of Peter Ivanovich and Fedor Vasilievich as “nearest acquaintances” and not something more meaningful help the reader form initial impressions about the nature of the relationships in Ivan Ilyich’s life. I agree with Ronald Blythe’s statement that love could have rescued Ivan Ilyich in his final days however I do not believe that Ivan was ever aware of the absence of love in his life. In his final weeks, Ivan Ilyich does not want his family to show him love but rather honesty and pity. One of the reasons Ivan Ilyich enjoys Gerasim’s company is that the butler’s assistant recognizes that he is a dying man and does pretend otherwise. Ivan Ilyich resents his family and doctor because they refuse to confront his pending death. Another reason Ivan Ilyich enjoys Gerasim’s company is that he craves his pity. Ivan Ilyich wishes to be pitied “as a sick child is pitied” and once again does not grasp the fact that the suffering of a sick child would be eased with love (306). Because his life has been devoid of love, Ivan is unable to recognize his subconscious yearning for love in his final days.
In the end, it is his grieving son, who sneaks into the room in his father’s final moments, and demonstrates love in a simple gesture which convinces Ivan Ilyich that he can still rectify the mistakes in his life. He feels sorry for the boy and he tells his wife that he is sorry for both of them and to forgive him. He realizes that he must “act so as not to hurt them: release them and free himself from these sufferings” (316). So in his last moments, Ivan finally accepts the existence of love in his life and is able to embrace his death in peace. (618)
The reader gets a taste of this lack of meaningful relationships in Ivan Ilyich’s life in the first chapter when his “nearest acquaintances” are more concerned with what promotions his death might occasion for them than his actual death (282). Tolstoy chooses his words carefully in this chapter. He describes Ivan Ilyich not as loved or respected by these men but rather “liked by all” (281). Indeed his description of Peter Ivanovich and Fedor Vasilievich as “nearest acquaintances” and not something more meaningful help the reader form initial impressions about the nature of the relationships in Ivan Ilyich’s life. I agree with Ronald Blythe’s statement that love could have rescued Ivan Ilyich in his final days however I do not believe that Ivan was ever aware of the absence of love in his life. In his final weeks, Ivan Ilyich does not want his family to show him love but rather honesty and pity. One of the reasons Ivan Ilyich enjoys Gerasim’s company is that the butler’s assistant recognizes that he is a dying man and does pretend otherwise. Ivan Ilyich resents his family and doctor because they refuse to confront his pending death. Another reason Ivan Ilyich enjoys Gerasim’s company is that he craves his pity. Ivan Ilyich wishes to be pitied “as a sick child is pitied” and once again does not grasp the fact that the suffering of a sick child would be eased with love (306). Because his life has been devoid of love, Ivan is unable to recognize his subconscious yearning for love in his final days.
In the end, it is his grieving son, who sneaks into the room in his father’s final moments, and demonstrates love in a simple gesture which convinces Ivan Ilyich that he can still rectify the mistakes in his life. He feels sorry for the boy and he tells his wife that he is sorry for both of them and to forgive him. He realizes that he must “act so as not to hurt them: release them and free himself from these sufferings” (316). So in his last moments, Ivan finally accepts the existence of love in his life and is able to embrace his death in peace. (618)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)