Breakfast, John Steinbeck (Notes)

                                                                  Question # 1
                                             Describe the setting of the story?

       John Ernest stein beck is an articulate and socially conscious artist. He perfectly understands human feelings and aestheticises them as a consummate artist. “
                Breakfast” is a short story in which purity of living is described. It has been written in the background of rural ways of life. The venue of the event is a beautiful valley. The time is early in the morning before the sunrise. The wind is very raw and cold. The mountains at the eastern side look black- blue but there is a faint tinge of orange light behind them. The sky is dark but slightly turning in to gray and then white. The earth is gray like lavender. The writer is walking on a country road when he sees a dark gray tent ahead of him… Near the tent a rusty old stove is burning with orange flame flickering out and making a dancing reflection on the tent. Beside the stove a young girl is working with a baby in her lap. This is a beautiful pure and refreshing scene away from the polluted and corrupted environment of the cities. The air and landscape present a sense of unblemished nature with its true structure and worth. The purity of this scene makes an everlasting impression on the writer’s mind and it does not fail to make an impression on the reader either.

                                                                   Question # 2
                                                 What were the ways of the people?
           Once, early in the morning, the writer happened to come across a gypsy family. He was walking on a country road when he saw a tent erected on a distance. A stove was burning beside the tent. The air was too cold and the writer went closer to the stove to warm his hands. It was an old rusty stove with many cracks in it. The young women working on the stove was dressed in a faded cotton skirt and waist. She was carrying a baby who was nursing without interfering with her graceful movements. She had long hair plaited at the back that swung here and there when she moved about.
           A little later two men came out of the tent. They looked much alike except for their age. The older had a gray stubble beard while the younger had a dark one. Their hands and faces were wet and they stood facing the east… looking towards the lightening eastern horizon. They greeted the writer and invited him to have breakfast with them. Meanwhile the girl had set a packing box as a table and had placed tin cups, plates, and spoons on it. She served them with hot coffee, fried bacon, bacon gravy and high big biscuits. The writer said that it was the warmest, pleasantest odor he had ever known.
           Before starting the breakfast, both men thanked Christ and God for the blessing of good food. They ate with delight and were thanking God and Christ again and again. They told the writer that they had been working for twelve days in cotton fields and that’s why they had been eating well. They proudly told him that they had bought new dungarees even. They offered the writer to get him employed at the same fields but the writer politely thanked them. It was unexpected for the writer because in urban life, people are acquainted with a tough, cutthroat competition and they never offer anything to any one. But these were simple people who not only entertained him with a splendid food but also offered him an employment. This was the time of 1930’s trade depression when people had been unemployed, poor and hungry on a massive scale. Many people were reported to be murdered on question of only a little piece of bread. In all these conditions, the attitude of these nomads was shocking to the writer because they had behaved in an unusually simple, straightforward and sincere way. They were aliens to the calculated and cunning attitude of the urban folk. They lived in nature and they shared its purity and sincerity. They did not have any grudge or complaints against anyone. They were contented on what ever they had though they knew that cotton picking was a seasonal work. They were in sheer poverty before. Eating well for twelve days mattered a lot to them. This explicated John Steinbeck’s notion of “self sufficiency of every human being”. He is of the view that man does not need money or material advancement to be happy and contented. It is something that springs out of the soul and urges a man to realize and enjoy even the single grain of comfort in life. The characters of the story were simple God-fearing people who possessed the treasure of contentment and satisfaction in spite of their acute poverty.

                                                          Question # 3
                             Bring out the elements of universality from the story?

                      The experience of the writer with a family of daily labourers was very exhilarating and elevating. He had come face to face with a new dimension of life that is exotic to the urban folk living in dark congested industrial cities.

            The writer happened to come across a gypsy family who lived in tents and moved around in search of work. He did not name the area where they were present neither he mentioned the names of any of the characters. Thus making them universal in implications. The purity of living has been asserted through this short story and the writer narrates this event to appeal the whole world. People living in any area of the world are confronted with the problem of mad rush after the material gains. The urge to get more and more has hardened the hearts of people, making them apathetic and heartless. The human sympathy and compassion are the most alien words today. Every individual has focused on mounting up the ladder of social and economic development as soon as possible. The truth and simplicity have been trampled in this “marathon” of becoming wealthy. But… still there are some quarters of society that are away from these corrupted and sick practices.  Still there are some people who have a cocoon of contentment and satisfaction around them. The poor family of the story was so badly off that they were so proud at having good food and new clothes for just twelve days. This attitude contrasts strikingly with the attitude of the modern societies…. and here lies the thesis of the writer who wants to assert that satisfaction does not lie in material advancement rather it is an attitude that springs out of a contented soul. So he urges the whole world to recognize the truth of living and stop running behind the mere shadows of development and prosperity.

The Killers, Ernest Hemingway (Notes)

                                                                         Question # 1
                                                  What was the attitude of the killers?
                
                         Hemingway is the most popular and widely read of all modern American writers because of his simple literary style with its crisp “masculine” dialogue, and his insistence on the active, sensuous life.
                           “The Killers” is the story that makes a passive flow of frosty horror trickle down the spine. It masterfully presents the heartlessness and indifference of the modern man towards not only his fellow beings but even to his own future. He outlines a society where the killer is unacquainted with “the killed” and “the killed” doesn’t know his killer. Hemingway has presented such an event in this short story. The venue of this event was a small wayside lunchroom where two suspicious looking men came in. They were dressed in black overcoats and derby hats. Both of them were of the same size. Their faces were different but they were dressed like twins. One was called Max and the other one was Al. They came in and ordered some food. The staff of the lunchroom couldn’t comply with their demands as everything they wanted was to be served as dinner and at that time only light sandwiches or snacks could be had. This made the men angry and they behaved in a very rude way but then they agreed to have a light food that was served to them by the waiter, George. They started eating with their gloves on, George looked fixedly at them that irritated them. Max started to bluff and threaten them in a harsh voice.
                         After eating, Al and Max directed them to go back in the kitchen and then they tied Nick and the cook back to back and George was asked to remain on the counter. The staff of the lunchroom was really confused and none of them knew what was happening to them. Both the men were very casual and hasty. In the same careless tone they told George that they were going to kill a Swede called Ole Anderson. Ironically enough they had never seen or heard about Ole Anderson. It was only to oblige a friend that they were going to kill him when he came here to eat. Generally he came to the lunchroom about six o’ clock so they had to wait for an hour. In this one-hour occupancy they created an atmosphere of gloom and dread around them. Their motive, their style and their talk all indicated that they held the human life as something very trivial and worthless. They waited and when Ole Anderson didn’t come they went out and released the captive staff.

                                                                 Question # 2
                                     What was the reaction of George and company?

                                      Max and Al were the two hired assassins who were going to kill a man who used to visit Henry’s lunchroom. They came in the lunchroom at five o’ clock and ordered for dinner that of course wasn’t ready at that time. The lunchroom had only three people as staff; George was the waiter, Sam, the cook and Nick Adams was the counter boy. Nick Adams had been the main character of too many of Hemingway’s stories. All of them were initially very uneasy at the attitude of the killers who were behaving in a rude bossy style. They ordered and commented in very impolite manner. Max was a bit more talkative and he talked on many subjects to George calling him “bright boy” again and again. Then they started to eat with their gloves on, George watched them eat. This infuriated them and Max spoke in a bitterly aggressive way to him. When they started to direct them to come here and go there the staff was really baffled and they tried to question the motive of all this drama. The killers called Sam, the cook, and then Al took Nick and Sam to the kitchen and tied them together back to back. He gagged them with a towel. George was left in the room and was asked to dismiss any customer who came in. All of this was very intimidating and alarming for them and they were frightened at this situation. The killers had guns with them that further heightened the shadow of dread. In doing all that the killers were not at all bothered or confused. That showed it wasn’t their first attempt to kill some one. They were mercenaries who wanted to kill a man for none of their own enmity rather they only planned to do it because they wanted to oblige a friend. Their carefree manner depicted that they didn’t care for the sanctity of human life and they could kill anyone for no reason at all. After a long stay they went away without killing Ole Anderson who didn’t come that day. After their departure, the cook Sam was very nervous and he didn’t want to talk about all this but Nick and George decided to meet Ole Anderson and tell him about all this. Nick went to see Ole Anderson and told him in detail about the killers but Ole Anderson didn’t show any reaction. He lay on his bed unmoved and not caring a bit for this life threat.
                 Nick was very nervous and disappointed. He wanted to run away from such a place where a man could be killed by anyone at any moment. He didn’t want to stay in that town. But George told him to neglect all of it and better not think about it. On the whole they were frightened and nervous after this event.

                                                                          Question # 3
                                                            How did Anderson react?

                   Nick Adams went to meet Ole Anderson so that he could tell him about the people who had come to kill him. Ole Anderson had been a heavyweight prizefighter. He lived at Hirsch’s rooming house, a street away from the Henry’s. Nick walked in the autumn night and knocked at Ole Anderson’s door, a lady came down and took him upstairs to Ole’s room. He lay on his bed with all his clothes on. Nick told him that two people had come to the lunchroom to kill him. But for Nick’s wonder he didn’t show any reaction and remained looking towards the wall as disinterestedly as before. Then Nick asked if he should tell him about their appearance but Ole wasn’t concerned. Nick asked if he should report to the police but he refused. He didn’t show any interest in all that and was very indifferent. He had been involved in some shady affair like cheating some mafia people, and because of it he was running constantly to save himself.  He was tired of all this and wanted to accept his fate.
                           This was quite a shock for Nick who had expected a natural reaction from Ole Anderson but very incredibly he had not given any importance to all that. It really was pitiable to realize that a man was lying in his bed waiting for his assassins to come and kill him anytime. This indicates towards the modern man’s psychological problem related to “ death-wish” where he behaves in a sadistic way and urges badly to die. The problems and demands of the modern uneasy times make a man numb and he doesn’t value even his own life. The hard conditions of life and unexpected social calamities ruin his interest in life and he lets himself flow with the current of events that are beyond his control. So the reaction of Ole Anderson indicated that the quagmire of vicious activities had plunged him to such a depth that he wasn’t able to feel for his own death. The under-world mafias are like a sharp-clawed witch that never lets her victims to run away and this was what Ole Anderson knew and he subjugated before her powers.

                                                                  Question # 4
                      This story is about the modern insecure and lawless times. Give your views.

                           This story is representative of Hemingway’s typical realistic style. He presents the horror and alarm that is always present in the modern societies and especially in American society. Hemingway always remained interested in the bloodshed and violence. He often saw the horribly pitiless face of life and his career as a journalist supplemented his observations and gave him a deeper knowledge of unlawful activities that remain under the cover of civilized societies but generate a harrowing sense of insecurity in the general public.
            The present story too illustrates an event without any floral language or other accessories to embellish the fiction. He straightforwardly narrates an episode in which there is no practical violence or bloodshed but the ghost of an expected murder haunts over the whole story. The killers in the story are unidentified people and we aren’t told anything about their identity. Similarly the town is not identified except for its name, the workers of the lunchroom are also presented without any background. The killers don’t know the man they are going to kill and he as well is unaware of the killers. So the tinge of universality touches the story and it can be taken as the tale of anonymous people who come in an anonymous town with the intention to kill an anonymous man for anonymous reasons.  They go back after the time for Ole Anderson’s arrival is up but they leave an ominous gloom of chaos and horror behind them that automatically transfers to the restless mind of the reader.
          Hemingway masterfully portrays the insecure modern times where law and law-enforcing agencies have become totally ineffective and helpless. This entire situation prevailed in the first half of the twentieth century but today the conditions of law and order have gone from bad to the worse. The criminals are free to carry on any sort of atrocious activities. Today the criminals are coupled by another section of modern criminals called terrorists…and they have scared the people to such an extent that modern world is psychologically and physically very insecure. What so ever is their motive but their acts are always criminal and vicious. Today people don’t enjoy a single second’s peace of mind. The crime or attack from any side can be expected at any moment. Murders and robberies are the order of the day. In the third world countries the conditions are even worse as no law or court is effective there and justice is bought and sold at very cheap rates. The life and property of common public is quite unguarded and insecure.   The states are ruled over by Mafia gangs so they protect their criminal brethrens. The news of bomb blast, violence and bloodshed across the world are heard in every news bulletin.

                  Thus, the story outlines a universal situation in a simple style and the reader can directly relate this event to his own chaotic times. The character of Nick Adams has been used by Hemingway to present a lot of disturbed situations prevailing in the post-world war times. He made Nick travel across America and presented the situation of a “lost generation” that was sans any redeeming value or action. So here too an appalling situation met him and further aggravated his sense of desolation and dismay over the brutal face of the world.

King Arthur

King Arthur is a legendary British leader of the late 5th and early 6th centuries, who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against Saxon invaders in the early 6th century. The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.The sparse historical background of Arthur is gleaned from various sources, including the Annales Cambriae, the Historia Brittonum, and the writings of Gildas. Arthur's name also occurs in early poetic sources such as Y Gododdin.
The legendary Arthur developed as a figure of international interest largely through the popularity of Geoffrey of Monmouth's fanciful and imaginative 12th-century Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain). Some Welsh and Breton tales and poems relating the story of Arthur date from earlier than this work; in these works, Arthur appears either as a great warrior defending Britain from human and supernatural enemies or as a magical figure of folklore, sometimes associated with the Welsh Otherworld, Annwn. How much of Geoffrey's Historia (completed in 1138) was adapted from such earlier sources, rather than invented by Geoffrey himself, is unknown.
Although the themes, events and characters of the Arthurian legend varied widely from text to text, and there is no one canonical version, Geoffrey's version of events often served as the starting point for later stories. Geoffrey depicted Arthur as a king of Britain who defeated the Saxons and established an empire over Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Norway and Gaul. Many elements and incidents that are now an integral part of the Arthurian story appear in Geoffrey's Historia, including Arthur's father Uther Pendragon, the wizard Merlin, Arthur's wife Guinevere, the sword Excalibur, Arthur's conception at Tintagel, his final battle against Mordred at Camlann and final rest in Avalon. The 12th-century French writer Chrétien de Troyes, who added Lancelot and the Holy Grail to the story, began the genre of Arthurian romance that became a significant strand of medieval literature. In these French stories, the narrative focus often shifts from King Arthur himself to other characters, such as various Knights of the Round Table. Arthurian literature thrived during the Middle Ages but waned in the centuries that followed until it experienced a major resurgence in the 19th century. In the 21st century, the legend lives on, not only in literature but also in adaptations for theatre, film, television, comics and other media.

Role of Arthurian Legends in History of English literature

Arthurian Legends
In the 15th century a number of poets were obviously influenced by Chaucer but, in general, medieval literary themes and styles were exhausted during this period. Sir Thomas Malory stands out for his great work, Le morte d'Arthur (The Death of Arthur, 1469-1470), which carried on the tradition of Arthurian romance, from French sources, in English prose of remarkable vividness and vitality. He loosely tied together stories of various knights of the Round Table, but most memorably of Arthur himself, of Galahad, and of the guilty love of Lancelot and Arthur's queen, Guinevere. Despite the great variety of incident and the complications of plot in his work, the dominant theme is the need to sacrifice individual desire for the sake of national unity and religious salvation, the latter of which is envisioned in terms of the dreamlike but intense mystical symbolism of the Holy Grail.

The role of "The Dream of the Rood"

The Old English lyric The Dream of the Rood is the earliest English dream poem to be found in written form. The Dream of the Rood is an explicitly Christian poem that attempts to appeal to Anglo-Saxons from a pagan culture.

Origins and History of The Dream of the Rood:

The poem was first discovered on the Ruthwell Cross, a large stone carving dating to the early eighth century. Eighteen verses of The Dream of the Rood were carved into the cross in runic lettering. This was all that was known of the work to scholars until the complete poem was discovered, in 1822, in the 10th-century Vercelli Book in northern Italy.

Content of the Poem:

In The Dream of the Rood, an unknown poet dreams that he encounters a beautiful tree. It is the "rood," or cross, on which Jesus Christ was crucified. It is gloriously decorated with gold and gems, but the poet can discern ancient wounds. The rood tells the poet how it had been forced to be the instrument of Christ's death, describing how it, too, experienced the nails and spear thrusts along with the savior.

The rood goes on to explain that the cross was once an instrument of torture and death, and is now the dazzling sign of mankind's redemption. It charges the poet to tell of his vision to all men, so that they too might be redeemed of sin.

Historical Significance of the Dream of the Rood:

The poem has been the subject of literary and historical study for generations and has been interpreted in a variety of ways. Profound and moving of itself, The Dream of the Rood also provides a valuable window into early Christian England.

The dream vision uses strong, virile images of Christ in order to reach members of the Anglo-Saxon warrior culture, who valued strength above humility. This may have been a deliberate strategy to convert pagans to Christianity. It also reflects how the image of Jesus was adapted to suit different cultures.

King Lear Summary

How It All Goes Down
A long time ago, in ancient, pre-Christian Britain, King Lear decides it's time to retire – he's getting old and he's just not feeling as spry as he once was. Besides, Lear wants to avoid any family or political conflict that might arise after his death (There's no male heir to inherit the throne by lineal succession when Lear dies and he doesn't want anyone duking it out over who gets to be king after he's gone.) So, Lear decides it would be best to split up his kingdom between his three daughters – Cordelia, Goneril, and Regan. But first, Lear wants to play a little game called "who can say she loves daddy the most?" in order to determine which daughter will get the biggest piece of land.

Goneril and Regan slobber all over themselves professing how much they love Papa Lear (they don't really, by the way), but Cordelia (Lear's favorite and also the nicest of the bunch) refuses to play, insisting that words and language are insufficient to express the love she feels for her father. Lear takes this the wrong way and disowns Cordelia – he also refuses to give Cordelia a dowry for marriage, so she runs off and elopes with the King of France, who realizes that Cordelia's loving and kind. Lear ends up divvying the kingdom in two between the wicked Goneril (who is married to the Duke of Albany) and the mean and nasty Regan (married to the Duke of Cornwall), announcing that he'll be splitting his time between Goneril's house and Regan's pad. When Kent (Lear's main man) warns Lear that he's making a huge mistake, Lear banishes Kent for being sassy.

Meanwhile, Shakespeare develops the play's sub-plot, which involves a guy named Gloucester, who's in the habit of running around town calling his illegitimate son, Edmund, a "bastard" and cracking dirty jokes about Edmund's unmarried mom. (Did we mention that Gloucester says all of this in front of Edmund?) It's no big surprise when Edmund begins to scheme against his dad and his half-brother Edgar, who is Gloucester's "legitimate" son. ("Legitimate" just means Edgar's mom is married to his dad, Gloucester). The scheming Edmund manages to trick everyone into believing that Edgar (who is really a nice guy) is plotting to kill Gloucester. Fearing for his life, Edgar runs away and disguises himself as "Poor Tom," a homeless beggar. (Gee, there seems to be some serious family drama up in this play. Notice any parallels between Lear's dysfunctional family and that of Gloucester?)

Lear, now effectively retired, spends his time with his daughter Goneril and her husband, Albany. Lear also brings along his Fool (Lear's personal, stand-up comedian), a new servant ("Caius," who is actually the loyal Kent in disguise), and 100 rowdy knights. Goneril is soon fed up with entertaining all these people (Lear's a lousy houseguest and Goneril is just plain mean), so she tells Lear to get rid of 50 of his knights or she'll boot her father (and his 100 rowdy knights) to the curb. She points out that her palace is a home, not a tavern or a brothel. (Psst. Goneril's really afraid that Lear will decide he wants all his land – and power – back from her and her sister and that he might use his 100 rowdy knights to take it by force.)

Lear's pretty ticked off, so he says "Hmph" and runs over to Regan's house (with his 100 rowdy knights in tow). Goneril's not at home (she's at Gloucester's palace, trying to avoid her dad), so Lear goes to Gloucester's pad and complains to Regan that Goneril is an ungrateful brat. Regan's not having any of Lear's whining, so she and Goneril gang up on Papa Lear, demanding that Lear should now get rid of 75 of his 100 rowdy knights. (Notice we keep bringing up Lear and his knights? Since Lear's given up all his land, the knights are pretty much his only source of power.)

At this point, a light bulb goes off in Lear's head – he realizes that Goneril and Regan don't love him as much as they said they did back when Lear staged his silly love test. In fact, Goneril and Regan don't love him at all. What does Lear do in response? Why, he runs out into a storm and wanders around on the heath, of course. (Goneril and Regan go "Ha!" and lock the door behind him.)

Out on the heath during a violent thunderstorm, Lear runs into "Poor Tom" (Edgar disguised as a naked and mad beggar) and, after a little chat, Lear realizes that being homeless (and naked) really stinks. He also realizes that 1) he should have done more about Britain's homeless population when he was king and 2) all men (kings and beggars alike) are totally vulnerable in this world – "man is no more / but such a poor, bare, forked animal," he famously muses (3.4.10). Then Lear takes off all his clothes. (Did we mention that, despite Lear's new social insights, the aging king is also going insane out on the heath?)

Gloucester, meanwhile, decides to help Lear (despite Goneril and Regan's orders) and gives Lear and his little retinue some shelter in a little shack just outside Gloucester's palace. Gloucester says they should all run off to Dover, and join Cordelia, who is hanging out with her new husband and her new French army friends. (Turns out, Cordelia and the King of France are preparing for a little war against Goneril and Regan.) When Gloucester goes back to his palace, he is apprehended for being a traitor. Regan and Cornwall pluck out Gloucester's eyeballs as punishment for helping out Lear, and then one of Gloucester's loyal servants kills Cornwall for blinding his master. In response, Regan kills the servant. (Try to keep track of the rising body count – it's an important part of the genre of Shakespearean "Tragedy.")

Meanwhile, Edmund escorts Goneril back to her own palace and the two begin a torrid affair along the way. When Goneril and Edmund find out the Duke of Cornwall (Regan's husband) is dead, Goneril immediately begins to worry…that her newly widowed and now-available sister might hook up with her, Goneril's, secret lover Edmund!

Somehow or another, the blinded Gloucester ends up traveling to Dover in the care of "Poor Tom," who is really his good son, Edgar. (Gloucester is clueless about Poor Tom's true identity. We guess you could say that Gloucester is blind in more ways than one.) Gloucester, despairing over his missing eyes and his rotten, good for nothing son, Edmund, decides to attempt suicide. Poor Tom/Edgar says he'll help but ends up tricking Gloucester into thinking he's jumped off a cliff ledge, when really he's just leapt a very small distance onto flat ground. "It's a miracle!" Poor Tom/Edgar offers, clearly indicating this is a sign Gloucester should stop trying to commit suicide.

Now that everyone is in Dover, some seriously violent action goes down. Oswald (Goneril's manservant) tries to kill Gloucester, but Edgar intervenes and kills Oswald. Before he dies, Oswald gives up the letter he's carrying, which was en route from Goneril to Edmund, asking him to kill her husband (Albany) so they can be together. Edgar realizes his brother, Edmund, is a rat.

Finally, after a lot of fussing, Lear reunites with his loving daughter Cordelia (who says she doesn't hate Lear, even though he totally disowned her). Soon after, Cordelia's French forces lose the battle against Regan and Goneril's British army and Lear and Cordelia are captured. Edmund takes this opportunity to secretly order their executions.

(Remember that rising body count we asked you to keep track of? Well, now would be a good time to put on your rain slicker because things are about to get bloody.)

While Lear and Cordelia sit in prison, Regan and Goneril scuffle with each other over who gets the oh-so dreamy (and oh-so evil) Edmund. In a rage, Albany demands that Edmund and Goneril get arrested for treason – i.e., having an affair and planning to kill him. Before Edmund can be taken to jail, Edgar shows up and stabs his evil brother in the guts. Then Regan dies, having been poisoned by Goneril. Edgar reveals his true identity to his father Gloucester, who is surprised, has a heart attack, and promptly dies. Goneril commits suicide because, well, everyone else is dead. Before Edmund (who has been stabbed) dies, he says he's sorry for being so bad and reveals that he's sent someone to kill Cordelia and Lear – if they want to do something about it, they had better act quickly.

Alas, it's too late for Cordelia, who has already been hanged by Edmund's executioners. Lear enters with his dead daughter in his arms. When Lear realizes what has become of his family, he dies of a broken heart. Albany and Edgar are the only ones left to govern the kingdom, but Shakespeare leaves us with a sense that there's really no hope for the future.

King Lear Themes

King Lear Theme of Family

When it comes down to it, family relationships, especially those between fathers and children, are at the center of the play. (Characters who are mothers, as several critics have pointed out, are noticeably absent in King Lear but there's plenty of talk about moms in this play.) Lear is not only a king, he's also a family patriarch whose plans to divvy up his kingdom among his daughters backfires, causing a civil war that gets played out as a large scale family crisis. Lear's family isn't the only dysfunctional crew in the play – the drama between Gloucester and his sons heightens the sense that King Lear is a decidedly domestic tragedy.


King Lear Theme of Power

Much like Shakespeare's famous history plays, King Lear offers a meditation on kingship and power or, more accurately, the loss of power. After retiring and divvying up his kingdom among his ungrateful daughters, Lear discovers what it's like to lose the power and authority that come with the responsibilities of active rule. In addition to being a monarch, King Lear is also a family patriarch and Shakespeare asks us to consider the similarities between a father's relationship with his children and a king's relationship with his subjects.


King Lear Theme of Justice

The excessive cruelty and portrayal of human suffering in the play make the world seem terribly unjust. Throughout King Lear, characters constantly appeal to the gods for aid but are rarely answered. The play suggests that, either the gods do not exist, or they are unimaginably cruel. King Lear seems to argue that it is up to human beings to administer justice in this world.


King Lear Theme of Language and Communication

In King Lear, honest speech is admirable but language often falls short of being able to accurately express human emotion – a theme Shakespeare also explores in Sonnet 18 and Twelfth Night. King Lear opens with a "love test" staged by the aging monarch to determine which of his three daughters can say she loves him "most." This turns out to be a huge mistake—the daughters who say they love their father more than anything in life end up mistreating him, while the daughter who says her love cannot be expressed with mere words, turns out to be Lear's only loving and loyal daughter. King Lear, who has spent a lifetime being sweet talked by courtiers and subjects can't tell the difference between the truth and empty flattery. At other times, he simply does not want to hear the truth, as when he banishes the loyal Kent for speaking up about Lear's wicked daughters.


King Lear Theme of Gender

In King Lear, women are often seen as emasculating, disloyal, promiscuous, and the root of all the problems in the world. King Lear in particular has serious issues with women – when his daughters, Goneril and Regan, betray him, he begins a diatribe against women, particularly female sexuality, that echoes throughout the play.


King Lear Theme of Society and Class

King Lear offers some pretty insightful social commentary on everything from class and politics, homelessness, mental illness, the system of primogeniture, the tensions between youth and the older generation, and so on. For many, the play seems to challenge and critique some existing (sixteenth and seventeenth century) social and political structures while offering some radical solutions. For others, the play takes a good hard look at England's social ills but eventually winds up supporting the status quo.


King Lear Theme of Loyalty

In the harsh world of King Lear, loyalty is rare. Surviving in an unstable political situation means that many people focus on the bottom line: saving their own skins. But there are some characters in the play who demonstrate extraordinary loyalty, such as Kent and Cordelia. The play celebrates this virtue, but it also shows that it can be dangerous. Loyalty is not appreciated, but rather ignored. In some cases, loyalty means death, and in all cases, it means suffering.


King Lear Theme of Compassion and Forgiveness

King Lear is an incredibly cruel play, and many of the characters are absolutely pitiless. Yet a few characters show extraordinary sympathy towards others' suffering. The human capacity to feel for others survives even the most desperate of moments. Yet what we see in Lear is that compassion is usually based on some sort of obligation – such as loyalty or family ties. Interestingly, these loyalties and these ties are the same causes of the extensive treachery displayed in King Lear.

Oedipus the King Summary

How It All Goes Down
King Oedipus, aware that a terrible curse has befallen Thebes, sends his brother-in-law, Creon, to seek the advice of Apollo. Creon informs Oedipus that the curse will be lifted if the murderer of Laius, the former king, is found and prosecuted. Laius was murdered many years ago at a crossroads.

Oedipus dedicates himself to the discovery and prosecution of Laius’s murderer. Oedipus subjects a series of unwilling citizens to questioning, including a blind prophet. Teiresias, the blind prophet, informs Oedipus that Oedipus himself killed Laius. This news really bothers Oedipus, but his wife Jocasta tells him not to believe in prophets, they've been wrong before. As an example, she tells Oedipus about how she and King Laius had a son who was prophesied to kill Laius and sleep with her. Well, she and Laius had the child killed, so obviously that prophecy didn't come true, right?

Jocasta's story doesn't comfort Oedipus. As a child, an old man told Oedipus that he was adopted, and that he would eventually kill his biological father and sleep with his biological mother. Not to mention, Oedipus once killed a man at a crossroads, which sounds a lot like the way Laius died.

Jocasta urges Oedipus not to look into the past any further, but he stubbornly ignores her. Oedipus goes on to question a messenger and a shepherd, both of whom have information about how Oedipus was abandoned as an infant and adopted by a new family. In a moment of insight, Jocasta realizes that she is Oedipus’s mother and that Laius was his father. Horrified at what has happened, she kills herself. Shortly thereafter, Oedipus, too, realizes that he was Laius’s murder and that he’s been married to (and having children with) his mother. In horror and despair, he gouges his eyes out and is exiled from Thebes.

Oedipus the King Themes

Oedipus the King Theme of Fate and Free Will

A central theme of the Oedipus the King is the tension between individual action and fate. While free choices, such as Oedipus’s decision to pursue knowledge of his identity, are significant, fate is responsible for Oedipus’s incest and many of the other most critical and devastating events of the play. By elevating the importance of fate, Sophocles suggests that characters cannot be fully responsible for their actions. It becomes difficult, for example, to blame Oedipus for marrying mother given his ignorance.


Oedipus the King Theme of Wisdom and Knowledge

In Oedipus the King, Oedipus is a seeker of knowledge and truth. He struggles to uncover Laius’s murder and his own identity, despite numerous warnings that he should leave the truth alone. His pursuit of knowledge and truth, however, results in ruin as Oedipus uncovers his destiny, which he was better off not knowing. This suggests that knowledge is futile and limited in its ability to bring happiness to those who seek it.


Oedipus the King Theme of Determination

Determination is one of Oedipus's and his mother's primary character traits. Despite the important role of fate in the lives of the characters, Oedipus and Jocasta are all driven, at times stubbornly, to pursue their goals. Determination in Oedipus the King is linked to hubris and proves less an asset than a flaw to the characters who possess it.


Oedipus the King Theme of Power

Power both corrupts and metaphorically blinds characters in the Oedipus the King. As a ruler, Oedipus is arrogant, unperceptive, and downright mean to people around him. Assuming other characters are trying to steal his power, Oedipus doesn't listen to their wisdom.


Oedipus the King Theme of Memory and the Past

Memories of the past have a complex impact on the characters in Oedipus the King. One message in this play is that delving too far into the past – as Oedipus does against the warnings of nearly everyone around him – is dangerous and self-injuring.

Hamlet Summary

How It All Goes Down
Welcome to Elsinore, Denmark, land of a recently deceased King who likes to chill out in ghost form at night on the castle battlements. He has reason to be upset, though, since the new King Claudius, husband of Queen Gertrude, happens to be his own brother. (Must make family holidays complicated.) Claudius has problems, too: Norway's Prince Fortinbras has war on the brain, and his new stepson, Hamlet, is being a bit of a PITA about things, mostly because his mother (Gertrude) waited about two seconds to get married after his father died.

Hamlet's bud Horatio tells Hamlet about the ghost and arranges a meeting. The ghost claims to be his father's spirit, proving it by telling Hamlet that Claudius is the man who murdered his father by pouring poison in his ear while he (Old Hamlet) was snoozing in his garden—and then ordering his son to take revenge. Great, Dad.

Game on. Hamlet's master plan involves him putting on an "antic disposition" (acting like a madman, or a clown). Sure enough, the next time we hear about Hamlet, his girlfriend Ophelia declares that Hamlet is crazy. Polonius brings the news to the King, and they decide to spy on the youngsters to figure out if Ophelia is the source of Hamlet's "madness." Meanwhile, some Danish ambassadors return from Norway with the good news that there isn't going to be a war, after all.

Enter Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two childhood pals of Hamlet and Horatio. The King and Queen have called them to Elsinore to spy on Hamlet and find out why he's gone mad. While the duo fails to do this, some players (actors) come into town. Hamlet commissions them to perform a play in which a king is murdered in the same way Claudius murdered Hamlet's father. Hamlet plans to watch Claudius's reaction to see if the ghost is telling the truth.

The plan's in motion, and Hamlet delivers the big "to be or not to be" speech about suicide. Instead, he decides to act all creepy and gross with Ophelia before watching Claudius all but stand up and shout that he's guilty. Hamlet decides to kill him, obviously, but then … doesn't. Instead, he ends up accidentally killing Polonius, Ophelia's dad. In front of his mom. Claudius sends Hamlet off to England, but on the way, Hamlet sees Prince Fortinbras of Norway marching across the land to fight for some lost territories. That's all the inspiration he needs to head back to Denmark to kill Claudius.

Back at the castle, Ophelia has cracked. Meanwhile, her bro Laertes is super pissed at Hamlet (crazy sister; dead father), so Claudius convinces him to stage a "friendly" duel and kill the Prince by using a sharpened rather than a blunt sword. With some poison as backup.

The next thing we know, Ophelia is dead, possibly by suicide, which means she doesn't even get a nice burial. There's a big scene between Hamlet and Laertes when Hamlet randomly stumbles on this funeral, and then Hamlet gets Horatio up to speed on his return: on the boat to England, Hamlet opened the letter that his companions Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were carrying and found that it carried instructions to have him (Hamlet) killed. Naturally, Hamlet altered the letter to say "Please kill Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, thanks," and escaped on a pirate ship back to Denmark.

Hope you brought your rain gear, because this last scene is going to be a bloodbath. During the friendly duel between Hamlet and Laertes, everything goes according to Claudius's evil plan until, uh oh, Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine. Meanwhile, Laertes cuts Hamlet with the poisoned sword, and Hamlet, ending up with Laertes's sword, wounds him back. Dying, Laertes yells out, "It's all Claudius's fault!" So, Hamlet stabs Claudius with the poisoned sword and makes him drink the poisoned wine. Bloodbath complete.

Well, except that Horatio's feeling left out and wants to kill himself too but Hamlet says that it's his job to tell Hamlet's story. Just then, Fortinbras of Norway walks in, steps over the blood and guts and bodies strewn out all over the floor, and then helps himself to the Danish throne. At least someone gets a happy ending!

Hamlet Themes

Hamlet Theme of Madness

Obfuscating insanity —uh, faking madness to throw people off—is one of the oldest tricks in the book. In Hamlet, Shakespeare takes it up a notch: does Hamlet truly go "mad," or is the cuckoo-talk, like the play itself, all an act? And if madness is a form of theatricality (maybe with some "method" in it, as Polonius says) —does that mean that all actors are crazy?


Hamlet Theme of Revenge

Ghosts, perverse family drama, and a vow of revenge: Hamlet is all geared up to be a traditional bloody revenge play… and then it grinds abruptly to a halt. The play isn't about Hamlet's ultimately successful vengeance for his father's murder at all—that's taken care of in about two seconds during Act 5. Instead, most of the play is concerned with Hamlet's inner struggle to take action. Our point? The play is a lot more interested in calling into question the validity and usefulness of revenge than in satisfying the audience's bloodlust—although, sure, it does that too. Shakespeare had a theater to fill, after all


Hamlet Theme of Mortality

Hamlet may talk—and talk, and talk—about suicide, but what he's really concerned with is mortality, and the fact that the living world is made of death and decay. (Yeah, we know that life looks pretty grim when you put it that way. Sorry.). From Hamlet's initial confrontation with a dead man's ghost to the final bloodbath, the play is trying to come to grips with just this problem: if we all die eventually, then does it really matter who kills us?


Hamlet Theme of Religion

For a play about incest and murder, Hamlet registers many of the 16th century's religious anxieties, like the effects of the Protestant Reformation on Christian ideas about mortality and the afterlife. And it also seems to be in basic conflict with itself: how can a play about murder, suicide, and revenge square with Christian notions of acceptance, Providence, and forgiveness? Well, maybe they can't—and maybe that's why Hamlet drags his feet for so long.


Hamlet Theme of Art and Culture

You know how all of Stephen King's books are about writers? Or how an unlikely number of movies have writer characters? Sometimes people take the advice to write what you know pretty literally—like Shakespeare, who filled Hamlet with self-conscious references to the workings of the theater. But it's not just for lack of other material. Hamlet is self-reflexive: it constantly draws attention to the fact that it's a play. By taking on various theatrical roles, like "antic" or "revenge hero," Hamlet is pushing us to ask just how much of our identity is based on performance. Have you ever used a line from a movie as a Facebook status? Or quoted a song when a conversation gets a little too real? Then you know what we're talking about.


Hamlet Theme of Lies and Deceit

For someone who hates deception, Hamlet sure finds himself coming up with a lot of lies. Hamlet depicts a seamy political world, where deception is a necessary part of life and political "spin" rules the day. In other words, it's a lot like our world—and like pretty much every political court or congress in history. No wonder directors seem to think it's infinitely adaptable: lies and deceit aren't limited to one time or place.


Hamlet Theme of Sex

Hamlet is a perv. Really. Oh, not the kind of perv who goes around doing gross stuff—as far as we can tell, Hamlet isn't actually interested in girls at all—but the kind who just can't stop thinking about other people's sex lives. Including (especially) his mom's. The young prince is disgusted by his aging mother's sexual appetite, which eventually becomes the way he feels about all women in general. According to Hamlet, female sexuality makes the entire world seem like an "unweeded garden: in other words, it's associated with deception, sin, and a fallen world. No wonder he can't lay off the dirty jokes.


Hamlet Theme of Gender

"Frailty, thy name is woman" (1.2.6)—but Hamlet's men are pillars of stability and constancy, right? Right?? Well, maybe not. But Hamlet's attitude toward women is definitely sexist, and it stems from his disgust at his mother's sexuality and seeming unfaithfulness to his dead father. But the play doesn't seem to agree. Hamlet's mother's final guilt is left ambiguous, and we just end up feeling really bad about Ophelia. Hamlet's attitude toward women reveals more about him (and maybe men in general) than it does about women's true nature.


Hamlet Theme of Family

Blood is thicker than water, which is easy to see when it's spilled all over the floor at the end of the play. Hamlet dwells on issues of incest and revenge, both of which just might be taking the familial bond a little too far. You shouldn't have sex with your family—pretty much everyone can get behind that—but maybe, Hamlet says, you shouldn't be murdering for them, either. So, what's left? Normal families? Nah. This is Shakespearean tragedy; keep looking.

Doctor Faustus Summary

How It All Goes Down
Doctor Faustus sits in his study, trying to decide what he should become an expert in. Theology? Nah. Medicine? Nope. Law? As if. How boring. How pointless.

How about… magic? That sounds downright delightful. So it's time for Faustus to have a chat with renowned magicians Valdes and Cornelius—they'll know the ins and outs of the magical trade. His new teachers give him the scoop and it's time for Faustus to get his magical groove on, all on his own.

For his first trick, he calls the devil Mephistopheles (uh, does anyone else think this is the baddest of bad ideas?) and asks ol' Meph to be his servant. But Mephistopheles serves Lucifer first and foremost, so Faustus makes Lucifer an offer he can't refuse: he will sell his soul to the devil himself in exchange for twenty-four years of life with Mephistopheles at his beck and call. Okay, remember what we said about calling Mephistopheles being the baddest of bad ideas? We were wrong. This idea is way worse.

Especially when Lucifer is all, yeah that sounds awesome. He agrees to Faustus's bargain as long as he signs his soul away in a document written and signed in his blood, which Faustus promptly produces. We're thinking maybe he should have pursued that law degree after all…

Meanwhile, similar deals with the devil are going down among the town's peasants. Faustus's servant, Wagner, has already procured his own "devil familiar" in the form of an apprentice named Robin; now Robin and his friend Dick try their hand at conjuring, with free booze as their goal. Boys.

Back to the main plot: Faustus is starting to have second thoughts about this whole selling-his-soul-to-Satan shebang, so he considers repenting. He's even got a Good Angel and a Bad Angel to try and convince him one way or the other. But the devils that surround Faustus insist that he's already too far gone down the road to damnation, so they distract him with talk of astrology and a show put on by the Seven Deadly Sins.

Plus they woo him with travel. Mephistopheles takes Faustus on a wild chariot ride through the heavens and around the globe, finally stopping in Rome, where Pope Adrian is about to pass judgment on a rival German pope named Bruno. Faustus saves Bruno (he has a soft spot for Germans) and spirits him back to Germany, then torments the Pope by stealing his dishes and food during a feast. Not cool dude.

Meanwhile, Robin and Dick stole a cup from their local tavern and then called on Mephistopheles to protect them. Annoyed, he turns them into an ape and a dog (certainly not worth the booze).

Now in Germany, Faustus gets props from the Emperor for saving Bruno. In turn, Faustus impresses the Emperor with a few magic trucks, including putting horns on the head of a nearby naysayer, Benvolio. Enraged by his humiliation, Benvolio enlists his friends Martino and Frederick to help him kill Faustus in an ambush. Much to their dismay, after they chop Faustus's head off, he is very much undead and has his devil cronies drag Benvolio and crew through the mud. That'll teach 'em.

Back in Jolly Old England, Faustus sells an enchanted horse to a horse dealer. When the man rides his new horse over the water, it changes into a bale of hay. Whoops. As it turns out, the horse dealer is not the only townsperson Faustus has wronged.

Robin, Dick, and a dude named Carter are also pretty peeved at the magician, so they meet up in a tavern to plan their revenge. They demand to see Faustus while he's hanging with the Duke and Duchess of Vanholt, for whom he's produced a castle in the air and grapes out of season. It's not a good time for Faustus to handle his bitter buddies, so he charms them into silence before they can call him out for any wrong-doing.

Now nearing the end of his life, Faustus meets an Old Man (an allegorical figure) who counsels him to repent and turn to God once again. Faustus sends Mephistopheles to torment the Old Man, which is not exactly the nice-guy way to go.

On Faustus's last day of life, he confesses all his bad deeds to a group of scholars, who promise to pray for the guy as he meets his end. Faustus's Good and Bad Angels appear and show him a glimpse of heaven and hell. Terrified of Hell, Faustus longs for time to stop, or for his soul to be mortal so that he will not have to suffer eternally. But the clock strikes twelve and the devils who have followed him through life enter Faustus's study to claim his soul. Yikes.

The next morning, the scholars find his body torn to pieces (yuck), and they decide to give him a proper burial. After all, even though he was a major sinner, he was a promising scholar in his day. Finally, the Chorus ends the play by interpreting Faustus's story as a warning to the wise about the dangers of forbidden fruit. In other words, don't sell your soul to the devil because, you know, he's going to come collect at some point.

Doctor Faustus Themes

Doctor Faustus Theme of Philosophical Viewpoints: Predestination

Does man have a choice about whether or not he will reach heaven? Or is the fate of his soul decided from the get-go, with him powerless to change it? At first, it seems like Doctor Faustus is clearly in the latter camp. Our good-turned-bad doctor thinks he's damned no matter what he does. But as the play goes on, Faustus wavers, wondering if he still has time to repent, and if his sin is forgivable. The play never comes down on one or the other side of the debate, sometimes portraying Faustus's fall as his own choice, at other times letting him off the hook. In the end though, it just might be a little bit of both. Faustus's fall has been caused by his choice to believe that he's damned. That causes him to refuse to repent, and refusing to repent is the one sin that's truly unforgivable.


Doctor Faustus Theme of Religion

At the beginning of Doctor Faustus, the not-so-good doctor thinks the study of religion is a plain old waste of time. But we're betting that by the end of it, he'll be singing a different tune altogether. See, through all his conjuring exploits and exotic travels, Faustus just can't escape the subject of religion. He finds himself questioning the nature of hell and salvation, and even winds up smack dab in the middle of the papal court, where he does his fair share of mocking the Catholic church. Yet while religion follows him, step-by-step on his slow journey to eternal damnation, we can't help but think that Faustus never really gets just how important religion really is in his life, or the role it will eventually play in the fate of his soul.


Doctor Faustus Theme of Sin

Just as Faustus refuses to take religious issues seriously, he laughs at the parade of the Seven Deadly Sins in Act 2, Scene 3 of Doctor Faustus. But really, buddy, they're no laughing matter, which becomes all the more clear when the Sins start to tell Dr. F a bit more about themselves. This parade of sins should be a warning to Faustus to repent, but he has already decided he'd rather serve the devil than God, all so he can grab himself some wealth and power before his soul hits the road.


Doctor Faustus Theme of The Supernatural

Faustus hands over his soul for the ability to perform magic. Although he imagines using magic to make himself as powerful as a god and as wealthy as a king, when it comes right down to it Faustus's magic often amounts to little more than fancy tricks. He uses it to make the images of dead people appear in order to amuse himself and his friends, or to humiliate people, including peasants who have done nothing to harm him. And the townsfolk who use magic do silly things like steal dishes and bogart some booze. In the end, magic in Doctor Faustus, however incredible, appears to be no more useful than the man who wields it.


Doctor Faustus Theme of Wisdom and Knowledge

At the beginning of Doctor Faustus, Faustus takes a closer look at the collected wisdom of centuries of scholarship and has only this to say: codswallop! Instead, he turns to magic not only for the power and wealth it can bring him, but also because of the forbidden knowledge it promises to reveal to him. In the end, Faustus doesn't care about the knowledge itself—just what it can do for him, and that kind of thinking is exactly what winds him up in a pact with Lucifer. So while Faustus may be knowledgeable, the play suggests, he's certainly not wise.


Doctor Faustus Theme of Cunning and Cleverness

Despite being a skilled scholar, rocking debates with his buds, and having some serious chops in the medicine world, Faustus really wants to be known as a cunning magician. Yep, a magician. Hey, who are we to judge his dream? And lo and behold, when he gets that moto working, he becomes powerful, rich, and famous right quick. Yet the ability of simple peasants like Robin and Dick to read and practice from Faustus's magic books suggests that Faustus's skills might not be as rare and special as he likes to think. After his death, Faustus is remembered by the Scholars not for his magical powers and clever tricks, but for the very scholarly learning he rejected as unworthy of him at the beginning of Doctor Faustus.


Doctor Faustus Theme of Wealth

As Faustus does the whole should-he-or-shouldn't-he-deal-with-the-devil calculation (here's an idea, Faustus: you shouldn't), the wealth that such a deal can bring him factors considerably into his fuzzy math. He knows that, with Mephistopheles's help, he can get his grubby hands on the treasures of exotic places like India, Asia, and the Americas. Plus, he could use his considerable power to cheat peasants out of their money and possessions. Beyond demonstrating the cravenness of his character, Faustus's desire for wealth and his willingness to sell his soul to the devil shows us that in Doctor Faustus wealth and salvation don't exactly go hand in hand.


Doctor Faustus Theme of Power

A big motivator for Faustus's handing his soul over to the devil is his that he's jonesing for some power, big time. But here's the rub: in order to gain that power, Faustus has to give it all away—to Lucifer. Ultimately, the power Faustus dreams of could never be his. The power to rule not just men but all of creation belongs only to God in the world of Doctor Faustus. But the not-so-good doctor is not the only one in the play who has such high ambitions. Pope Adrian, too, uses his power to make all the world "stoop" (3.1.158). And we know that Lucifer fell from heaven because of his lust for power. So the Pope and Faustus are probably destined to wind up right where Lucifer is—in hell.

Poison Tree analysis

Repression of feelings in society

There is a huge difference between how we deal problems with friends and how we do it with people who are not. One of the aspects that make friendship grow stronger is our sincerity towards the others, we tell a friend when we are happy, but we tell him when we got mad as well. In front of other people it seems to be different though, we always try to show our best smile and most of the time we are hiding our real feelings, this is what makes that inner feelings grow, if we do not get rid of them quickly, after something has happened, then it will be harder to handle. We must not care so much about what will the others think, but about ourselves and our feelings. We have the key to keep them balanced, telling what we really think, and if we do not agree with somebody in something, we need to express it and try to fix it from the beginning or else we will not able to do so. (6), (5)

“We nurse our misunderstandings with fears and strengthen them with our wicked tricks. We make secret efforts to bring about the destruction of our rivals. We adopt many ways to tempt and deceive them. Sometimes they fail to see the dirty tricks and fall a victim to our evil designs. When we see them fallen and defeated, we feel happy and proud of our success” (13) As the quote says, Blake's poem shows this secret weapon the human being has as well. It is some kind of natural instinct which allows us to defeat our enemy by surprise, he does not expect us to be preparing a counterattack. We are hiding our true intentions in order to obtain advantage in our next move. Although it can be thought as an evil act, I think it its just another of the human being primary instincts to survive. We have been able to improve our defensive strategies throughout centuries of evolution . When it comes to deal with society we sometimes lack of strategies of immediate response, we are a thinking animal, we like to return to our house in order to prepare ourselves for an more appropriate response.


“Disgrace and destruction of one gives special pleasures to the other”(13)
We can say we are social and civilized persons, but we can't deny our animal origins or our innate hidden cruelty. Under certain circumstances every single human being can go completely mad and enjoy with the other's suffering. There is a hidden part of our brain that reminds us that not so long ago we were just animals fighting for food, females, etc. All this kind of strategies we have been learning can not be just erased from our DNA. Whilst Blake critics this kind of behavior, I think that these kind of instincts and actions are innate as well as other. Of course society would be better if we could erase some of them, but if we take away our revenge instincts and strategies we could get rid of other as well, we do not choose what we are.


Religious hypocrisy

If we look at the poem from a religious point of view, we will see a critic from Blake to some Christian ideas as forgiveness and punishment. Christianity, since its origins, has always tried to teach us how important the idea of forgiveness is. We are told to forgive always those who have offended us, whether they deserve it or not, we must not seek revenge. But it is curious how since its origins, Christianity has been obsessed with the idea of punishment and vengeance. We just have to go to the book of genesis and check the chapters two and three, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve are banished from the Garden of Eden after eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. God did not even think about forgive them, they were directly expelled forever without any chance to redeem themselves. God takes revenge but we are told to do just the contrary, this is rather contradictory. We must avoid any impure act if we do not want to end in hell, so what about the forgiveness? We cannot do something that the teachers themselves were not even able to. (6), (5)

“The attitude of the speaker himself is to be understood as a reflection of God's attitude. By showing the speaker of the poem acting in a way reminiscent of God, Blake is showing God to be not a god of love but a cruel god and is thus criticizing the commonly held idea of God.”(11)

“The very snake, it seems, that according to the Bible tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden to disobey God and eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, leads to Adam and Eve being cast out of paradise. In Genesis the serpent is described as the craftiest of God’s creatures, though tradition later made it into the Devil. In the poem, the poison tree of the speaker’s hatred stands in a hellish inversion of Eden, in a world governed by evil.” (14)

“Here, the garden is also a symbol of whatever grows from our actions, whatever view of reality we nurture, and becomes our habitual perspective. This reminds me of the opening of the Buddhist text, “The Dhammapada”: “We are what we think… With our thoughts we make the world.” Blake forces us to ask what kind of garden we’re planting each day with our thoughts, words and deeds. What blossoms at the center: a poison tree or a tree of life?” (14)

We can say we all have our own garden. It is something we are always feeding and molding in our way. (14) We are the ones responsible of every action we take. Therefore, we must know when we are dangerously approaching an attitude which could favour the growing of something poisonous. Our garden is not something that only affects to us, we must think of if as something which forms part of a whole. Only thinking that way we could someday be able to change the world. Nevertheless, the non existence of evil and poisonous gardens is just an utopia. Hatred, revenge, suffering have always being in our lives and it will not just disappear. The human being is a cruel animal, and that is something that, unfortunately, we cannot change.

“Blake called the original draft of "A Poison Tree" "Christian Forbearance," suggesting that what is meant to appear as a gentle attitude is often a mask for disdain and anger. Furthermore, Blake believed that attitudes of piety that Christians were taught to maintain actually led to hypocrisy, causing people to pretend to be friendly and accepting when they were not. The righteousness that the conventional religion prescribed, Blake believed, allowed people to hide evil intent and to perform evil deeds, such as stifling the healthy growth of children, under the cover of appearing virtuous” (11)

The title of the original draft gives us a great clue about one of the topics of the poem. We are talking here about the nonsense that “to turn the other cheek” and being friendly in the outside whilst we are blinded by your wrath in the inside is. It really makes no sense to hide your feelings if you are only hurting yourself. The only thing you can achieve by teaching this is to be at risk of exploding and therefore, to be an actual threat to society.
This kind of education does nothing but to encourage people to be more hypocritical. Every religion should be based mainly in sincerity towards the others, that could be the only way to achieve some positive result.

We are all surprised when we see in the news people talking about a murderer, “He always seemed a normal person, so kind and formal” but what that person has experienced is, in fact, an explosion of wrath as in the poem. People who does not show their feelings during a long time usually will have some kind of psychological problem later in life. Repression is a very dangerous thing. Unbearable situations can sometimes trigger madness. We all must be aware of this.

Christian Forgiveness, What would Jesus do?

Given the importance of the religious meaning that we can extract from the poem, we are going to analyze the principles regarding Christian Forgiveness in order to better understand what is Blake criticizing.

To do so, we will make use of the advices given in a web which is intended to guide and teach the Christian prayer in order to “develop the moment-by-moment prayer life that God desires for you to experience”(17)

“Defining Christian forgiveness is done with words and actions. The word “forgive” is a grace word in the English, as well as the Greek, meaning “to give or to grant.” The meaning is “to remit a debt, to give up resentment or claim for requital, or to pardon an offense.” (18)

“Christian forgiveness also encompasses action. Our confession with God involves us seeing our sins as He sees it, bringing God’s forgiveness. When we sin against others, we sin against God. For this reason, we ask God to forgive us of our sins, but we must also forgive our fellow man.” (18)

“But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from every wrong” (1 John 1:9). (18)

“What guides Christian forgiveness if an offender is not willing to repent, when the victim has done nothing wrong? The Lord commands us to forgive, releasing the offense and the offender to Him. This is done in prayer to the Lord. God recognizes these situations with this Scripture.”(18)

“Dear friends, never avenge yourselves. Leave that to God. For it is written, ‘I will take vengeance; I will repay those who deserve it,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). (18)


As we can see, this is completely contradictory. We are told to forgive those who offend us or sin against us keeping all our wrath and hatred within us. But on the other side, it says that although we sin against other people, we can always confess what we have done and everything will be fine again.

What comes next is even more contradictory. We have been told not to seek revenge, always forgive, but then we are told that God will take care of those who deserve a punishment. There is no way to understand it. God is the great example we are supposed to follow, he is compassionate , he will always forgive us if we confess (therefore we could live our lives killing and stealing for example and just by confessing it we would be forgiven), but then we find out that God himself is the supreme judge that will decide who will be punished.

What if the person deserve punishment but has decided to confess his/her sins to avoid it?

If we were actually following the example of God, we would have to punish those who deserve it (or at least those who we think they do) and forgiving every single person who confessed his/her sins.



“When we have been wronged, and know we did nothing to deserve harsh treatment from the offender, we normally begin to think of retaliation. Retaliation or revenge is not the right course of action. We no longer dwell on the offense when we relinquish forgiveness, allowing God to take care of the vengeance in a fair, just, and appropriate manner.”(18)

If retaliation “is not the right course of action”(18), how come God is the first in using retaliation to take care of sinners?
What we are actually told here is that we must not be worried if somebody does something bad to us because God will take care of him. If we think that way, we are putting our hope in a future vengeance carried out by God. No matter how religion tries to hide it, it itself is based on vengeance, So, how can we trust in such contradictory principles?

“Steps to Christian Forgiveness

-We recognize that we are sinners in need of forgiveness.
-We make the choice to forgive others.
-We believe and experience Christ’s loving forgiveness in our lives.
-Christ helps us to overcome negative thoughts that are blocking our ability to forgive.
-The Holy Spirit empowers us with the right attitude to forgive those who have hurt us.
-Trust that God will judge all the wrongs in the world.
-When struggling with forgiving others, talk with someone you respect and trust to give you wise counsel, such as your pastor or friend.” (18)

It is interesting to read the last step, “talk with someone you respect and trust “, it instantly reminds us of Blake's poem, where instead of talking with the person you should to (the foe) to fix the problem, you just ignore him and turn to your friends, leaving in God's hand the decision of whether to punish the foe or not.

God's wrath

“in Mark 3:29 Jesus says, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” This is a startling statement. It rules out all those thoughts of universalism that say, even if there is a hell, one day it will be emptied after people have suffered long enough. No. That is not what Jesus said. He said that there is sin for which there will never be forgiveness. There are people who will never be saved. They are eternally lost.” (19)

“After the teaching of Jesus, the apostle Paul put the eternity of God’s wrath this way in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9:

The Lord Jesus [will be] revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” (19)


Here we have another great contradiction. While Jesus says that we would be all forgiven is we confess, there seems to be some kind of sins that have no forgiveness. So, God is a vengeful being who will make those people suffer forever, they have no chance to redeem themselves but we are told to forgive always other people no matter what they do to us. How could not be the Christian prayer confused? If we were to follow this steps we would have to watch out for every single action we take so we do not accidentally commit one of these unforgivable sins, we would have to commit only those which are “forgivable” in order to avoid God's eternal wrath. But, of course, we must forgive every insult we receive , everything can be forgiven is we are the ones who get offended. It will come as a great relief to think that these people will suffer God's wrath forever.

Personal Opinion

At first, I did not notice how much could mean this poem. But after I read it over and over again I started to find out the richness and complexity which it is composed of. At first glance it seemed quite simple to me, but I was completely wrong. The great number of interpretations, the useful moral lessons you can extract from it, the ideas expressed by the author and the fact that you can always find new hidden meanings makes this poem a great example of how a short poem could be even more meaningful and complicated than other ones with much more extension. It is simply amazing to see how many things can be said without actually mention them.

What are 3 ideas of transcendentalism that presents itself in emerson's "self-reliance"?

Transcendentalism is a quest for truth. This is one of the main tenets of transcendentalists; Emerson and Thoreau both wrote extensively about it. Essentially, truth is anything which an individual judges to be correct out of their own intuition; generally accepted societal beliefs are tossed aside. And one of the best ways to find this truth is to communicate with Nature, and also to search inside one's self. Transcendentalism stresses individual introspection and finds society as a whole to be a destructive force towards personal freedom. Another belief is that God can be found in all things, especially Nature. Going to church or some other place of worship is not necessary, all that is needed is to be in tune with one's self and the natural world. Materialism is also looked down upon, this degrades true life. When one gets caught up in acquiring and taking care of possessions there's no time left to truly live.

Basic Beliefs:
1. Quest for truth
2. Individualism
3. Strong connection to Nature
4. Dislike of materialism
5. Must rely on intuition

Here's some quotes from transcendentalists:

"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth." - H.D. Thoreau

“Unless your heart, your soul, and your whole being are behind every decision you make, the words from your mouth will be empty, and each action will be meaningless. Truth and confidence are the roots of happiness.” -Emerson

"Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." -Emerson

"Men for the sake of getting a living forget to live." -Margaret Fuller

Self-Reliance By Ralph Waldo Emerson (1817-1862) Summary

.A man should believe in himself. When he has an original thought, he should embrace it and make it known to others rather than reject it simply because it is his own and therefore unworthy. "Else, to-morrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another."
.......It is better to exercise the power within yourself than to envy and imitate others. When you are young, you are bold and independent; you assert yourself. You listen to the voice within and express yourself without bias and fear. But as you grow older, you surrender your liberty to society. You want to be like others, act like others. And so you suppress yourself.
.......However, if you want to be a man, you must be a nonconformist. Unfortunately, though, we let others have too much influence over us. These may be men of vanity and malice who take up philanthropic or noble causes–a bigot, for example, who says he supports abolition but keeps black people at a distance. He loves from afar.
.......Many men think virtue is the exception rather than the rule. They perform acts of charity as if they were paying a fine or doing a penance."I do not wish to expiate, but to live. My life is for itself and not for a spectacle. I much prefer that it should be of a lower strain, so it be genuine and equal, than that it should be glittering and unsteady."
.......I do not need or want the approval of other men. What I believe I should do is what concerns me, not what other people think I should do. Of course, it is not easy to follow your own inner voice, for there are always those who will try to make you conform to the public will. It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great "man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude."
.......Conformity turns your life into a lie because in living according to the will of others you are not being true to yourself. To conform, to please others, you put on a false face, smiling when in the presence of people with whom you feel uncomfortable or pretending to be interested in dull conversation.
.......Consistency can also a problem. If you strive to be consistent in all things, you live according to a pattern—a pattern you are afraid to break out of because you are afraid that people will look down on you. Bosh!  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall." What if what you said today is not consistent with what you said yesterday? Why, then, people will misunderstand you. But is that so bad? Socrates and Jesus were misunderstood. So were Galileo and Newton and other wise men.
.......I wish we could do away with consistency and conformity. Men who listen to themselves rather than to the common herd are true men. And it is true men who leave their mark on history.
.......If all men became self-reliant, then all of their activities and institutions would be better: religion, education, the way they live, the way they think.

Notable Quotations From "Self-Reliance"

1.     Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.
2.     Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist.
3.     What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think.
4.     A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.
5.     Travelling is a fool's paradise.
6.     Insist on yourself; never imitate.
7.     Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other.
8.     The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet.
9.     An institution is the lengthened shadow of one man.
10.     Discontent is the want of self-reliance: it is infirmity of will.
11.     Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.

Self-Reliance By Ralph Waldo Emerson (1817-1862)

Type Work and Year of Publication
......."Self-Reliance" is an essay that urges readers to trust their own intuition and common sense rather than automatically following popular opinion and conforming to the will of the majority. "Self-Reliance" was published in 1841 in a collection entitled Essays. In 1844, Emerson published a second collection, Essays: Second Series. Consequently, in 1847, he changed the title of the first collection to Essays: First Series.
Themes
Trust Your Own Inner Voice
.......Emerson urges his readers to retain the outspokenness of a small child who freely speaks his mind. A child he has not yet been corrupted by adults who tell him to do otherwise. He also urges readers to avoid envying or imitating others viewed as models of perfection; instead, he says, readers should take pride in their own individuality and never be afraid to express their own original ideas. In addition, he says, they should refuse to conform to the ways of the popular culture and its shallow ideals; rather they should live up to their own ideals, even if doing so reaps them criticism and denunciation.
Avoid Consistency as an End in Itself
.......Being consistent is not always wise. An idea or regimen to which you stubbornly cling can become outmoded tomorrow.
Point of View
.......Emerson uses first-, second-, and third-person point of view. In the opening paragraph of the essay, he first writes in the first person, telling readers about an experience of his. Then, after only three sentences, he switches to second person, as if he is advising a listener sitting across the table from him. Later, in the paragraph, he switches to third person as he presents an exhortation about humankind in general. Following is the first part of the essay, in which Emerson uses all three points of view–first person in black, second person in red, and third person in blue:
I read the other day some verses written by an eminent painter which were original and not conventional. The soul always hears an admonition in such lines, let the subject be what it may. The sentiment they instil [Emerson's spelling of instill]is of more value than any thought they may contain. To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men,—that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,—and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment. Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. Yet he dismisses without notice his thought, because it is his.
Style
.......Among the most notable characteristics of Emerson’s writing style are these: (1) thorough development of his thesis through examples, repetition, and reinforcement; (2) coinage of memorable statements of principle, or aphorisms; (3) frequent references (allusions) to historical and literary figures, such as Socrates, Galileo, Copernicus, Napoleon, Shakespeare, Franklin, Dante, and Scipio (ancient Roman general who defeated Hannibal), who embody qualities Emerson discusses; (4) frequent use of figurative language to make a point, such as “An institution is the lengthened shadow of one man” (metaphor) and “They who made England, Italy, or Greece venerable in the imagination did so by sticking fast where they were, like an axis of the earth” (simile).
Promotion of American Creativity
Because Emerson eschewed imitation (as noted under Theme), he urged Americans to avoid mimicking art and ideas from abroad. He writes:
Our houses are built with foreign taste; our shelves are garnished with foreign ornaments; our opinions, our tastes, our faculties, lean, and follow the Past and the Distant....Why need we copy the Doric or the Gothic model? Beauty, convenience, grandeur of thought, and quaint expression are as near to us as to any, and if the American artist will study with hope and love the precise thing to be done by him, considering the climate, the soil, the length of the day, the wants of the people, the habit and form of the government, he will create a house in which all these will find themselves fitted, and taste and sentiment will be satisfied also.
Emerson and Transcendentalism
.......Emerson believed every human being has inborn knowledge that enables him to recognize and understand moral truth without benefit of knowledge obtained through the physical senses. Using this inborn knowledge, a gift of God, an individual can make a moral decision without relying on information gained through everyday living, education, and experimentation. One may liken this inborn knowledge to conscience or intuition.
.......Emerson and others who believed that this inborn knowledge served as a moral guiding force were known as transcendentalists—that is, they believed that this inner knowledge was a higher, transcendent form of knowledge than that which came through the senses. Because Emerson and his fellow transcendentalists trusted their own inner light as a moral guiding force, they were possessed of a fierce spirit of self-reliance. They were individualists; they liked to make decisions for themselves. If the government adopted a policy or a law that offended their consciences, they generally reacted strongly.
.......Transcendentalism, as Emerson’s moral philosophy was called, did not originate with him or his fellow transcendentalists in New England but with the German philosopher Emanuel Kant. He used the German word for transcendental to refer to intuitive or innate knowledge—knowledge that is a priori rather than a posteriori.
Epigraph
.......An ancient Latin quotation precedes the essay: Ne te quaesiveris extra (Do not look outside of yourself for the truth.) The Roman satirist and poet Aulus Persius Flaccus (AD 34-63)—usually referred to simply as Persius—wrote those words in Book 1, line 7, of his Satires. The quotation is an apt introductory aphorism for Emerson's essay, for it sums up the central idea of "Self-Reliance" and the transcendental philosophy behind it: that one should rely on his own inner voice—his own intuition and instinct—to make important decisions and put his life on a righteous path. In other words, the quotation says, rely on yourself. Emerson follows the Latin quotation with an English quotation from the epilogue of a verse drama by playwrights Franics Beaumont and John Fletcher, contemporaries of Shakespeare. That quotation, which begins with the words Man is his own star, reinforces the view expressed in the Latin quotation. 

Summary on Charles Lamb’S “Dream Children-a Reverie”

Summary on Charles Lamb’S “Dream Children-a Reverie”

The children of James Elia, John and Alice, asked him to tell them about his grandmother-their great grandmother- Mrs. Field who used to live in a great mansion in Norfolk. The house belonged to a rich nobleman who lived in another new house. Grandmother Field was the keeper of the house and she looked after the house with great care as though it was her own. The tragic incident of the two children and their cruel uncle had taken place in the house. The children had come to know the story from the ballad of ‘The Children in the wood’. The story was carved in wood upon the chimney piece. But a foolish rich person later pulled down the wooden chimney and put a chimney of marble. The new chimney piece had no story on it. Alice was very unhappy that the rich man had pulled down the chimney piece with the story. She looked upbraiding and her anger was like her mother’s.
When the house came to decay later, after the death of Mrs. Field the nobleman carried away the ornaments of the house and used them in his new house. The ornaments of the old house looked very awkward in the new house, just like the beautiful tombs of Westminster Abbey would look awkward if placed in someone’s drawing room. Things looked beautiful only if they are in harmony with the surroundings. John enjoyed the comparison and smiled as if he also felt it would be very awkward indeed. Grandmother Field was a very good lady. She was also very religious for she was well acquainted with ‘The Book of Psalms’ in ‘The Old Testament’ and a great portion of ‘The New Testament’ of ‘The Bible’. Alice here spread her hands as if she was not interested in the praise of a quality of the grandmother that she herself did not have. Children find it difficult to learn lessons by heart.
Grandmother Field did not fear the spirits of the two infants which haunted the house at night. So she slept alone. But Elia used to sleep with his maid as he was not so religious. John tried to look courageous but his eyes expanded in fear. When the grandmother died many people in the neighbourhood including the gentry or the aristocrats attended her funeral. She was also a good dancer when she was young. Here, Alice moved her feet unconsciously as she too was interested in dancing. Grandmother Field was tall and upright but later she was bowed down by a disease called cancer. She was good to her grand children. Elia in childhood used to spend his holiday there. He used to gaze upon the bust of the twelve Caesars or roam about in the mansion or in the garden. In the garden, there were fruits like nectarines, peaches, oranges and others. Elia never plucked them but rather enjoyed looking at them. Here John deposited a bunch of grapes upon the plate again. He was showing that he too was not tempted by fruits.
From all the grandchildren, Grandmother Field loved John the most. John was lively and spirited, fond of riding, hunting and outdoor activities. He was brave and handsome. He used to take James Elia upon his back out for outings as James Elia was lame footed. But James was not very considerate to him. He was sorry for it. John died later and James missed him much.
The children began to cry at the sad turn of events. They asked him to continue the story of Uncle John but to tell them about their dead mother. The father began to tell them how he had courted their mother, Alice for seven years. He was at times hopeful of winning her and at times in despair. He explained to them what coyness, difficulty and denial mean in an unmarried lady. When the father looked at Alice she looked at that time very much like her mother. Thereafter, the children began to grow fainter. They began to go away further and further till the father could hardly see them. From a great distance they seemed to say that they were not children of Alice nor of him, they were not children at all, they were only what might have been. When he woke up he found himself in an armed chair. He had fallen asleep and he had been dreaming. James Elia had vanished. On the chair was only Charles Lamb.