Passing for White

In Natasha Trethewey’s poem “White Lies,” the speaker is indeed the poet herself, revealing her childhood struggles with identity. Although the poem can be understood without knowledge about its author, it is best understood in terms of Trethewey’s identity struggles as a young, biracial girl in Mississippi who can “pass for white” but who cannot separate herself from her mixed racial identity. Although she preferred to and was given the means to escape the darker half of her identity that would cause her shame and exclusion in the racist white society, she could never be successful because each day, she came home to her mixed-race family and was forced to deal with her divided identity. The reader can see that the speaker’s desire to “pass for white” is not actually advantageous because she is attempting to pass up an important part of her identity and her background. Trethewey uses color-related words and double-meanings to highlight her message: there is no triumph in breaking apart one’s own identity.

Trethewey’s use of color-related words in the first stanza of the poem begins the use of double-meanings and sets the stage for the theme of racial identity. The speaker describes the lies she told as a child as “light-bright” and “near-white,” a statement with two intended meanings (line 3). This description refers to both her categorization of the lies as white lies, harmless lies told with only beneficent intentions, and also to the purpose of the lies – to convince white society that she herself is white. She says that she tells these lies “in a black place” (5). This could refer to either her being surrounded by the African-American part of her identity, which she deemed undesirable, or to the unpleasant experience of not being able to settle her own identity. The speaker believes that the lies that she tells are “just white lies,” but the reader knows otherwise; the speaker is denying herself a part of her identity that she needs in order to fully understand herself (6).

Although it is easy for the speaker to fool everyone outside of her home into believing that she is white, her mother will not tolerate the lack of respect for her family inherent in this deception. She is able to gain the trust and acceptance of the veritable white girls at school by pretending to live uptown among white society, but in doing so, she is denying association with her own mother and the part of her family’s past and culture that her mother represents. The mother naturally sees this as a significant infraction, even meriting a mouthful of Ivory soap for the young Trethewey in order to “purify…and cleanse [her] lying tongue out,” but the child does not give up her desire to be part of white society (24-25). As she swallows the Ivory soapsuds, she hopes that they’ll “work from the inside out,” turning her into the little white girl that she so ardently desired to be (27-28).

Although Trethewey says that the lies she told were “just white lies,” it is evident that the reader is expected to see otherwise (6). The futility of trying to change one’s identity is evident at the end of the poem when Trethewey reveals her childhood wish that swallowing the Ivory soapsuds could turn her skin the same color. The ridiculousness of this desire exposes the senselessness of wanting to be something other than oneself. The reader sees that although Trethewey would like to see her childhood deceptions as harmless, silly delusions of a young girl, her actions were, in actuality, significant and detrimental to her self-understanding. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said in “Self-reliance,” “He who travels in search of something which he has not got, travels away from himself.” (626)

Why Lolita?

I chose the novel Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov for my paper because I was curious as to how a book about such an unusual and even disgusting topic (an adult male's romantic fascination with a young girl) could be lauded as such a well-written and noteworthy literary achievement. I am currently nearly halfway through the book, and although reading it is not always the most comfortable experience, I must say that it does capture my attention and persuade me to read on and wonder about the fate of the unapologetically abnormal narrator, Humbert Humbert.

In my paper, I plan to focus on how the author is able to write about such an objectionable topic without turning off the literary public. The narrator has a very distinctive voice and thought process throughout the novel that allows the reader to at least partially understand the narrator's motives if not to empathize with him. There are even unexpected glimpses of humor in the novel that aid in distracting the reader from the unappealing parts of the narrator's mind. I will further explore this as I read the novel, and I anticipate seeing how the reader is supposed to view Humbert Humbert at the end of the novel.

The Character of Willy in Death of a Salesman

In the last English class that I attended, in which we were looking at Act I, we discussed Willy's role as a father and how it impacts his sons, and I would like to consider that question looking at the play as a whole. My class agreed that Willy has good intentions - he wholeheartedly wants to see his sons, especially Biff, succeed - but the positive aspects of his role as a father end there. The problem is that he simplemindedly believes that the only thing that a man needs to succeed is a charming and persuasive presence and popularity. He fails to consider that, while these attributes may be very beneficial for salesmen, they are certainly not the only ones required and additionally that being a salesman is not the only path to success in existence. He so ardently encourages Biff's success in football and in being popular with his peers that he fails to teach him hard work or ambition for something more. In this way, Willy sets himself up to be disappointed with Biff because he has given him a single tool for a life in which he requires an entire toolbox.

At the end of the play, Biff finally sees that no matter how hard he tries, he will not be able to live up to his father's expectations. He realizes that his entire life, his father has taught him to get what he wants the dishonest way, by lying and by stealing, and that although that worked for him during his childhood, it will not bring success in his adult life. Willy has always been building up both his own accomplishments and those of his sons until they all began to believe his exaggerations. We see that this style of parenting has led to Happy's habit of stretching the truth and has contributed to both Happy and Biff's inability to settle down and work at something in order to achieve gradual success. Only in the end is Biff able to define success for himself and discover that he is happiest on the farm even though his father does not see this endeavor as any sort of accomplishment or means of success. Willy was always able to inspire love and admiration in his sons when they were young, but gradually his sons became disillusioned with their unstable father who has always wished and dreamed more than he planned and worked (404).

Nora's Self-discovery

Question 2: "Try to state the theme of the play. Does it involve women's rights? Self-fulfillment?"

Nora, the main character of the play A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, experiences a prominent change in outward character from the beginning of the play to the end. As more is discovered about her, the more complex of a character she becomes. At the beginning of the play, the reader is likely to see Nora as a frivolous and carefree woman, but as Nora comes to take herself and present herself more seriously, the reader begins to understand her as a more well-rounded character. Nora's path to self-discovery and self-assertion is the focus of this play, and it reveals a society in which there is hardly a place for a woman to simultaneously be married and to be intellectually independent. Thus, this is a play about self-fulfillment and the lack of opportunity for women to find it during the time in which this play takes place.

When Nora discovers that her forgery of her father's signature on the loan paperwork was a serious infraction, the unfair circumstances for women in her situation become clear to her. Several times she expresses her frustration at there being laws preventing her from protecting the people whom she loves, her father and her husband, by not allowing her to complete any official independent actions. This society in which women are so clearly seen as subordinates has engendered romantic relationships in which women are rarely taken seriously. At the end of the play, Nora realizes that the men in her life have always seen her as a fragile, sweet, and quaint object who cannot think and act for herself. She has never been given the opportunity to discover her own likes and dislikes or to make her own decisions. In the end, she decides that the only path to self-fulfillment available to her is an independent one in which no man can claim possession over her (313).

Lost Hope

In class, we thoroughly speculated about the strange scene that occurred offstage between Ophelia and Hamlet and were not able to come to a definitive conclusion. For the most part, we agreed that this scene could most accurately be interpreted as an act of desperation on Hamlet's part, especially considering that Ophelia has been ignoring his attentions recently and that he has recently seen his father's ghost. The exchange between Ophelia and Hamlet in Act III does shed a bit more light on their relationship and Hamlet's current mindset, but unfortunately, Hamlet continues to use his wit to disguise his deeper thoughts and feelings.

Hamlet has become hardened by the many unfortunate events that have befallen him, and he is no longer in touch with the person he once was when his conditions were favorable. In the exchange between Hamlet and Ophelia in Act III, Hamlet does admit that he did love Ophelia, and Ophelia seems to have reciprocated this love, but it is clear that Hamlet is no longer capable of feeling any great emotions besides depression and anger. He seems to have completely lost his faith in the human race, as he tells Ophelia that it would be best that she goes to a nunnery rather than be a "breeder of sinners" (Act III, line 119). He has particularly lost hope in all women, shown when he says, "wise men know well enough what monsters you [women] make of them" (Act III, lines 132-133). His mother's betrayal has caused Hamlet to lose faith in love because the people who Hamlet has loved have hurt him the most.

Considering the circumstances, it makes sense that Hamlet feels that he can no longer trust anyone, particularly the women with whom he was in love. Hamlet is ashamed of his mother's ability to so easily and quickly forget his father and be seduced by his uncle, and the knowledge that his uncle - and possibly his mother - played a hand in his father's death is news from which very few people could recover. The people in whom he has placed so much trust have irreparably disappointed him. Since his mother's ties to his father have proven to be so tremendously fragile, Hamlet has only been exposed to a flawed romantic relationship and consequently, cannot see himself trusting very many people for fear of finding himself in a wretched downfall comparable to that of his father (405).

Making the Best of the Worst

The play Oedipus Rex by Sophocles is about the vulnerability and volatility of all human life. Oedipus's story raises the issues of humility and staying true to one's word because that is the only way in which Oedipus is able to find the moral high ground in the most repugnant of situations. The story is considered a tragedy because Oedipus, the main character, falls from the highest position of honor to the greatest disgrace without even being aware of the path that he had chosen.

Throughout his life, Oedipus believes that he is making the best choices for both himself and others. When he becomes aware of the prophecy that he will murder his father and lie with his mother, he moves away from Corinth in order to keep the prophecy from coming true. He is also unaware that the person that he kills in a skirmish on the way to Thebes is King Laios and that King Laios is his true biological father. All of the events that are part of his eventual downfall occur only because he is trying to save the people that he loves. Thus, when he marries Iocaste and becomes king in Thebes, he is content and believes that he deserves his success. This feeling of self-assurance and satisfaction makes it difficult for him to accept his ill fate told to him by Teiresias. The experience humbles him significantly because once he finally realizes that the prophecy had come true, it becomes clear that no type of prosperity guarantees a person a blameless and comfortable life.

Once Oedipus discovers his fate, he must not only accept it but also punish himself accordingly for being the murderer whom the city of Thebes has to eradicate. When he sets out to find the murderer, he promises the citizens of Thebes that he will exile him and that the perpetrator will not be welcome anywhere in Thebes, a promise that becomes very significant once he discovers that he himself is the guilty one. Instead of trying to save himself from this unfortunate fate, he accepts it without hesitation and feels so much guilt that he gouges his eyes out to prevent his looking at the stained life that he inadvertently created for himself. Because he takes full responsibility for his own actions, he engenders sympathy in the viewer, allowing the story to be an effective tragedy (398).

Accepting the Impossible

“Tolstoy shows us “a man. . . who had not taken the trouble to grow up, morally speaking, while he was passing through [life], and. . .then [shows] how salvation could overtake a slowing pulse rate, bringing maturity at the last.”
-Ronald Blythe in the Introduction of Leo Tolstoy’s “The Death of Ivan Ilyich”

In the end, Ivan Ilyich finds that the only time in his life in which he truly lived and was happy was during his childhood. He found that the further he went along in life the further he went down the wrong path. Ilyich also considers that he has lived his entire life “correctly” in the eyes of his peers. These observations are certainly not conflicting. The reason his childhood was the only time in which he could live freely and happily was not that it was a particularly idyllic childhood but rather that it was the only time that he lived free of social expectations and concerns. Once he became aware of his social duties, he submitted himself to them without hesitation and believed that his life was improving simultaneously with his reputation. Because he never thought for himself past his childhood, he never grew up morally, as Ronald Blythe says in the above quote, and thus could not have a beneficial impact on his community. His entire life, Ilyich believed that by perfectly living up to his expectations, he was living a blameless and productive life, but he only discovered how wrong he was as he was dying.

This final realization that his life was not as complete as he once believed it to be is what allows him to mature and to accept the inevitable, his fast-approaching demise. Ilyich realizes that his life has been missing true connections with the people around him because he has always been solely concerned with what is right and beneficial for him. He finds closure when he considers the feelings of his wife and son and acts on his concern for them. He tells them to go, and he expresses his sorrow for them. This final act of apologizing for the suffering he has caused them allows him to feel fulfilled in his last moments of life (370).