DERRIDA’S Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences

DERRIDA’S Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences 

Derrida, in his “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” talks about a certain “event” or the “rupture” in the history of thought. I believe this event has reference to the series of deconstruction pioneered by thinkers like Nietzsche, Freud and Heidegger. They were criticizing the concept of a “center” in the philosophical systems of the West, the center which assures theunity of a discourse. I could speak a little about Martin Heidegger since I read a few things about him. Heidegger was critical of metaphysics, whose source of unity or “center” was the concept ofessence. For example, when Heidegger spoke about “truth,” his language was no longer of “connaturality” between the mind and the objective real things, but rather of the mind’s encounter with the unfolding of the thing’s Being. There was no longer a presupposition of an objective essence of a thing that could measure the truthfulness or falsity of an idea. Rather, Heidegger says that truth is the projection of a thing’s Being to an observer’s mind. In effect, truth is but the mind’s determination about the present state of an outside reality. Truth is one’s interpretation or consciousness of a thing or reality. 

Heidegger’s criticism against metaphysics counts among the events which Derrida refers to when he spoke about the rupture. Derrida was well aware that there are emerging philosophical thoughts that question the existence of a “center” which in the history of metaphysics was equated with essence and presence. Derrida even says, and I think Heidegger has also said the same, that the center or essence has received several names in the history of metaphysics. It was once called as arche, telos, energeia, ousia, consciousness, trascendentality, God or the Spirit. The rupture was basically the moment or event when these previously held cornerstones of metaphysical – or philosophical – thinking are stripped of their previously held privileged status. 

The talk about the strong center is a basic requirement for a durable building. Carpenters have their so-calledcornerstone which holds the entire structure, and without which the entire structure collapses. In our mention of structuralism in our past lectures for example, the meaning of a story rests on a kind of structure or unity that can actually be discerned even in seemingly varied plots of novels or stories. The structure remains more or less the same even if the details are changed. 

Yet, with the rupture that Derrida talks about, thedurability and even thepossibili ty of a center is questioned. Derrida, taking his cue from Strauss contends about theillusionary character and even theimpossibility of the center. Derrida noted Strauss’ mythological studies that point out the weaknesses of the epistemological search for unity of a structure. Derrida observes that Strauss’ work criticizes structuralism as it becomes the critique of itself. He cited for example Strauss’ work on The Raw and the Cooked where Strauss uses the concept of a “reference myth.” This “reference myth,” the Bororo myth, is supposedly the center of the structure of his mythology. However, Derrida observes that theBororo myth deserves no more than any other myth its referential privilege. Then, he surmises that the 

Bororo myth was favored by Strauss not because of its special character but rather by its 

irregular position in the midst of a group of myths. This is in itself a criticism of the concept of a structure for in the search of a center, it was shown that there is no valid basis for choosing a particular center. The choice of a center is ultimately still an arbitrary choice. 

1 

Pointing out the origins of the critique or denial of a center, Derrida also realizes that words are but mere signifiers void of any real content. The sign is denied of a presence. Language could no longer demand for a unifying center. As already mentioned, the center becomes an impossibility not just because of the breadth of the reality that it tries to signify, but rather also because of the language’sfreeplay character. Signs are polysemic or not just polysemic, but its signification is unlimited or undefined. It is the nature of language to defy pre- defined signification. Once the message is out, it becomes susceptible to infinite interpretation. 

Hence, here is the entry of post-structuralism. Derrida drags the name of Strauss in order to show that structural analysis of reality is already under investigation and is already facing a possible criticism. 

Practically, we can inquire as to why structures undergo strong criticisms in our time. Poststructuralism can be said to be a reaction or even a hoped corrective to the weaknesses inherent in structuralism. First, structuralism cannot deny the fact, that the structures it imposes are arbitrary structures. It can even be noted that even the “center” as authority that is operational in our ordinary dealings are not really objectively present in reality but rather are alsoconstructions and in themselves can even betyrannical and offensive to 

human persons’ freedom. I remember one heated debate among my co-teachers who were 

discussing about the need for a textbook in a classroom instruction. The pro-textbook teachers are structuralist in their belief about the textbook as an assurance for a quality instruction. At least, they argue, a textbook assures us that the teacher is telling the students the things that the students need to know. The textbook somehow assures that the lessons are in line with the demands for orthodoxy. However, the unbelievers of textbooks find the imposition of the use of textbooks offensive to their academic freedom. The textbook limits the teacher. The textbook dictates to the teacher. The textbook diminishes the interest for research. It kills the teachers’ eagerness to update their lessons. The structure, in this case, has become both arbitrary and tyrannical. 

Another example is the implementation of the U-turn slots in our main avenues. The structuralist agendum behind this is the smooth flow of the metropolitan traffic. But for taxi drivers, the structure is a disservice for them. It requires them to burn more gas as they take extra meters just to reach the next turn. They complained that in the past, they could just simply cross the street and save more gas in the process. Of the taxi drivers I consulted about the value of the U-turn slots, majority of them claimed that these structures did less help than to reduce their much needed income. 

I also remember a friend of mine who is a Secondary School teacher. Their school is currently applying for an accreditation and hence several structures were implemented. They have weekly meetings, they are asked to regularly submit several reports, and they are required to attend several other activities. These are structures that are thought to be assurances of the quality of education that the school would offer. But on the part of the teachers, these structures are arbitrary (for one, they were unsure whether the implementation of auniform improves their performance in class). The structures are arbitrarily imposed, and in effect, have also become tyrannical. 

2 

With these growingcriticisms against structures, many people have begun to shy away from it. Many people, for example, hate the structure that implements the use of IDs. These IDs are rather perceived as means for a more efficient control and manipulation. Structures for all their value, are oftentimes arbitrarily implemented and they can oppress the people. Hence, oftentimes, structures are criticized. 

Derrida warns us about these problems of structures, and he suspects that the potential consequence of oppressive structures is the total rejection of it. He saw the birth of poststructuralism that denies any center and any form of control. Though, he calls this growing phenomenon as a birthing of a monstrosity, he recognizes that poststructuralism is something that can hardly be prevented or avoided. 

In this so-called manifesto, Derrida tries to show to us that indeed the denial of our structures is coming. It comes from the perspective of freeing people from the tyranny of structures. It liberates those who were once excluded because of structures. Poststructuralism is a liberation for those whom the structures regard as abnormal, as insane, as sick, as sinful, as weak, as ugly, and many other pejorative categories. With the denial of structures, the lesser members of the old society are freed of their old stigma, and so they would welcome the coming of a freer society. In this free society everything is possible. Hence, Derrida calls itfreeplay. Everything is acceptable. Anything can be done. A poststructuralist criticizes a basketball game saying: why should these idiots fight for just one ball when they could get a ball for each? Why should they limit themselves to that rectangular court when in fact there are wider spaces at the sides? For poststructuralists, there is freedom in not limiting oneself to structures. The more a person adheres to structure, the more a person limits himself, and hence, the more he loses his opportunity to grow and perfect himself. 

Derrida believes that there is no way to prevent this increasing appreciation of a non- structured existence. It would come regardless of the vehement objections of big institutions and authorities. Freeplay is growing, and it has become the more acceptable paradigm or rule (if we are allowed to use these terms in poststructuralism) in our contemporary time. 

However, Derrida is also worried about the possible outcome that freeplay would bring. If poststructuralism is an undeniable force, it remains to be seen as to what kind of a community an absolute freeplay would bring. If a basketball game would no longer be played in the way it’s done today, and should there come a time when anyone who wills to play could just simply enter the court, bring his/her own basketball and play his/her own undefined game, what kind of basketball games would we then have? If every driver could simply drive in our streets in an absolute freeplay that is, disregarding the structures we set through our traffic rules, what kind of traffic would we have? 

Derrida is aware that poststructuralism or the denial of structures is coming. But should this denial of structures become absolute, what kind of civilization would we have? Derrida could hardly find any better description than to call it amonstrosity. 

Read More

twelfth night Olivia's Garden Act II Scene 5 summary and analysis

Act II: Scene 5

Olivia's Garden

Summary

Sir Toby, Sir Andrew, and Fabian (another of Olivia's servants) have agreed to meet in Olivia's garden, and as the scene begins, the three men enter, Sir Toby urging Fabian on. But Fabian, as we quickly realize, needs no urging; he is more than anxious to relish every minute of their plan to make a fool of Malvolio. Like Sir Toby and Sir Andrew, Fabian has his own quarrel with the prudish, sharp-tongued Malvolio. It seems that Malvolio reported to Olivia that Fabian was "bear-baiting," a popular (if cruel) Elizabethan sport and one which Fabian enjoys. Sir Toby predicts that very soon Malvolio will be the "bear," for the bait will soon be set. They do not have long to wait, for, as Sir Toby points out, "Here comes the little villain."

Before Malvolio comes onstage, however, Maria rushes in and makes sure that they are all well concealed in a "box-tree" (a long hedge trimmed to look like a box). Satisfied, she puts the forged love letter in the garden path, where Malvolio will be sure to find it. "The trout" (Malvolio), she vows, will be caught with "tickling" (having his vanity tickled).

When Malvolio enters, he is greedily weighing the possibility that Olivia may be falling in love with him. Maria herself, he says, confirmed such a notion, and he himself has heard Olivia say that if ever she should choose a husband, that man would be someone very much like Malvolio; also, Malvolio believes that Olivia treats him with more respect than she does any of her other suitors. The thought of Malvolio's being "Count Malvolio" overwhelms him. He conjures up visions of himself — married to Olivia for three months and lovingly letting her sleep in the morning while he, robed in a "velvet gown," rises from the bed and calls his officers to him. He imagines himself reminding his officers to remember their place. Then he would call for his "Cousin Toby," and while he is waiting, he would "frown the while," and toy with his watch or with "some rich jewel." He envisions Sir Toby approaching, curtsying and quaking, as Malvolio reminds him that because "fortune" has given Malvolio "this prerogative of speech," he will austerely command his "kinsman" to "amend [his] drunkenness." He will also inform Sir Toby that he "wastes the treasure of . . . time with a foolish knight" — a contemptuous slur at Sir Andrew.

At this point, Malvolio spies the "love note." He reads it and is absolutely convinced that it was written by Olivia. The script and the phraseology are Olivia's, and the note also has her stamp that she uses for sealing letters. As he reads the poem of love, Malvolio ponders over its mystery. Olivia confesses that only "Jove knows" whom she truly loves; her lips cannot say and "no man must know." The first stanza is unclear, but Malvolio finds hope in the second stanza that it is indeed he whom Olivia loves, for she writes that she "may command where I adore." Surely she refers to him; he is her steward and is at her command. He reads on and finds that the author of the poem says that because she cannot speak the name of her beloved, that "silence, like a Lucrece knife / With bloodless stroke my heart doth gore." Such passion thrills Malvolio, but his emotions are stilled by the poem's puzzling last line: "M, O, A, I, doth sway my life." He reasons that "M" could stand for "Malvolio," but it should logically be followed by "A," and not by "O." And what of the "I" at the end? Yet the letters could feasibly be pieces of an anagram of his name because his name does contain all those letters, albeit in a different sequence.

Then enclosed with the poem, Malvolio discovers a prose letter, which he reads aloud. The author of the letter says that if this letter should, by accident, "fall into [her beloved's] hand," he should be aware that the woman who loves him is, because of the stars (fate) "above" him (meaning that she is socially superior to him), but she begs him not to fear her "greatness." She then states words that have been much-quoted ever since: ". . . some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em." Maria, despite being a mere maid, has done a masterful job of composing exquisite, apologetic modesty, coupled with the tenderness of a love that cannot speak its name.

The author of the love letter continues: Fate beckons to her beloved; he is urged to cast off his usual garments and, instead, he is "commended" to wear yellow stockings, cross-gartered. And, in addition, he should be more "surly with servants"; his tongue should have a "tang." If he does not do all of these things, he will be thought of as no more than a "steward still" and "not worthy to touch Fortune's fingers." The note is signed with a popular Elizabethan lover's device — an oxymoron: "The Fortunate Unhappy." The incongruity of combining one mood with its opposite was considered the epitome of epigrammatic wit.

Malvolio is exultant after reading the letter. He vows, as he was "commended," to be proud and to baffleSir Toby. To him, there can be no doubt that Olivia wrote the love letter, and if she desires him to wear "yellow stockings . . . cross-gartered," then yellow stockinged and cross-gartered he shall be. His joy is so rapturous that he almost overlooks a postscript: the author is sure that her beloved, if he finds her letter, will recognize himself as her heart's secret treasure; if so, he is to acknowledge his own affection. He is to smile; she repeats the command three times: he is to smile and smile and smile. In other words, Maria is going to make the usually sober and uppity Malvolio look like a grinning fool.

Malvolio exits, and Sir Toby, Sir Andrew, and Fabian emerge from the hedge, just as Maria enters. They are all in excellent spirits. Sir Toby is prepared to marry Maria for her cleverness; he even offers to lie under her and allow her to put her foot upon his neck in the classical position of the victor and the vanquished. She has succeeded beyond all their expectations. Maria says that they won't have long to wait to see the results of their prank. Malvolio is sure to try to see Olivia as soon as possible, and, Maria says, Olivia detests yellow stockings, and cross-garters are a fashion which Olivia abhors; in addition, Olivia is usually so melancholy about the fact that she cannot choose a husband for herself that Malvolio's endless smiling will drive her into a fury. So off the pranksters go, arm in arm, eagerly anticipating their comic revenge on the officious Malvolio.

Analysis

In contrast to the romantic plot of the preceding scene, we return now to the comic subplot focusing on the duping of Malvolio. This gulling of Malvolio is one of the most comic scenes in the entire play. Sir Toby and Sir Andrew are joined by a new character, Fabian, who has been the victim of Malvolio's sanctimoniousness when he protested to the Lady Olivia that Fabian was involved in the cruel game of "bear baiting," a form of sport in which dogs barked and snapped at a bear chained to a post. As a moral puritan, Malvolio had reported Fabian for "bear baiting" because Olivia disapproved of this cruel sport. Now, however, they hope that this "niggardly rascally sheep-biter" will soon come along, and they will make Malvolio into the "bear" and will "bait" (tease) him.

They intend to fool him "black and blue." Yet, there is no genuine malevolence in their actions. They resent Malvolio's lack of human sympathy and his puritanical arrogance towards them, and furthermore they will use his own arrogant and egotistical nature to play the trick upon him. If he weren't so self-centered and egotistical, it would be impossible to play this trick upon him. Because of this, we find it difficult to sympathize with Malvolio. At this point, Malvolio is like a man who looks down the wrong end of a telescope and sees everything in the world as being diminished in stature.

When Malvolio opens the letter, he thinks that he recognizes Olivia's handwriting; we know, of course, that it is Maria's handwriting. As Malvolio recognizes certain letters, he mouths them aloud; this is a superb comic example of "echo comedy." All through the scene, as Malvolio tries to decipher the letter, the characters in the box-elder hedge continue to make humorous and derogatory remarks. When Malvolio reads in the letter, "If this fall into thy hand, revolve," he turns around on the stage, evoking roars of laughter from those in the box-hedge.

The instructions in the letter will be the source of future comedy; we should remember that Maria conceived the letter knowing full well Lady Olivia's likes and dislikes. Malvolio is instructed to be surly and distant to the servants, and especially to Olivia's uncle, Sir Toby. Moreover, Malvolio is to wear yellow stockings, an old fashioned symbol of jealousy, already a laughable joke and also a symbol of a low-class serving person; in addition, yellow is a color that Maria knows that the Lady Olivia detests. Malvolio is also to wear the stockings "cross gartered" — that is, he is to wear the garters both above and below the knee, making a cross behind, another custom practiced only by the lowest menials. The irony is that when Malvolio is dressed in this outrageous garb, he hopes to woo a countess! Furthermore, he is to smile continuously at Olivia, and Maria knows that Olivia cannot countenance smiles because she is in "mourning." This is doubly ironic because Malvolio has never smiled before; now he will walk around with a foolish smile constantly upon his face.

As a final note, the duping is so perfect that Sir Toby says of Maria: "I could marry this wench for this device" — that is, because of her plan for the duping. When Maria returns, she tells the others to wait until Malvolio first appears before Olivia. He will wear and do everything Olivia detests, and Malvolio's smiling will be so unsuitable to her melancholy disposition that she will probably have him sent away. The comedy lies in the audience's anticipation of this forthcoming scene.

Read More

The Cask of Amontillado Theme of Freedom and Confinement

The contrast between freedom and confinement is extreme in “The Cask of Amontillado.” For one character to be free, another must die. Most of the story takes place in a vast and incredibly foul smelling catacomb, or underground graveyard. Dead bodies (or at least bones) abound. Freedom becomes less and less of a possibility as the characters move into smaller and smaller crypts, each one more disgusting than the last. Such confinement makes both the readers and the characters appreciate the deliciousness of fresh air. Hopefully, it makes us, the readers, think more deeply about what makes us feel trapped, and what makes us feel free.

Questions About Freedom and Confinement

1. Is Montresor free at the end of the story? If so, why do you think so? If you think he’s trapped, why?
2. Did Fortunato ever really have a chance to escape? If so, when? If there was a moment when it became too late for Fortunato to get away, when do you think it was?
3. How does this story comment on psychological freedom and psychological confinement?
4. Who is more psychologically trapped, Fortunato or Montresor? Why?

Chew on This

Try on an opinion or two, start a debate, or play the devil’s advocate.

Even though Fortunato dies and Montresor lives, Fortunato is still the freer character of the two

The Cask of Amontillado Theme of Betrayal

Betrayal drives the action in “The Cask of Amontillado." One character’s betrayal sets off a hideous chain of retribution, enacted below ground in a mass grave. Behind all this revenge and death, the story is about trust. Without trust there can be no betrayal. The story has much to do with the lengths human being will go to feel better when they feel betrayed – and the tragedy that comes when those lengths hit murderous extremes.

Questions About Betrayal

1.    Montresor doesn’t describe exactly how Fortunato betrayed him. Do you think this matters to the story? Is there anything Fortunato could have done to deserve that punishment?

2.    If Montresor was indeed betrayed by Fortunato, do you think this means he once trusted him? Do you have to trust someone before they can betray you?

Chew on This

Try on an opinion or two, start a debate, or play the devil’s advocate.

Fortunato betrays himself by not paying enough attention to his surroundings.

The Cask of Amontillado Theme of Drugs and Alcohol

The only literal drug we see in “The Cask of Amontillado” is wine. But there are many other drugs circulating between the lines. “Drugs,” in this story, can be anything the characters want badly enough to do awful or foolish things for. The story’s author, Edgar Allan Poe, struggled with drugs and alcohol. His struggle is carefully woven into this complicated narrative, which can be read as a gruesome allegory for addiction.

Questions About Drugs and Alcohol

1.    What is Montresor addicted to, if anything, in the story?

2.    What about Fortunato? Don’t restrict yourself to the obvious.

3.    What do you think of the first sentence of paragraphs 76 and 77? If Fortunato isn’t drunk any more, then unless Montresor snuck some wine and didn’t tell us, Montresor is sober, too. Why does Montresor take his torture of Fortunato to a new level when they are both sober?

4.    Is the story trying to tell us something about drugs and/or alcohol? If so, what are some of the possible messages?

Chew on This

Try on an opinion or two, start a debate, or play the devil’s advocate.

Pride is a drug in “The Cask of Amontillado.”

Fortunato is addicted to wine; but Montresor has his drinking under control.

The Cask of Amontillado Theme of Mortality

“The Cask of Amontillado” has a frightening fixation on death, corpses, and bones. Edgar Allan Poe’s last short story, written only a few years before his death, is a precise and compact expression of anxieties concerning mortality. But don’t worry – Poe injects plenty of humor into all the doom and gloom. And in the end, we all feel a little happier to be alive.

Questions About Mortality

1.    Does “The Cask of Amontillado” make you think about your own mortality? If so, what are some of the thoughts it provokes?

2.    Why do you think Montresor chooses that specific way to kill Fortunato? If he had stabbed Fortunato instead, or fed him some poisonous wine, how might the story be different?

3.    How do you feel about the descriptions of the Montresor family catacomb, and the crypts within it? Do you get clear images, or are things murky? Either way, how does this contribute to or detract from the story as a whole?

Chew on This

Try on an opinion or two, start a debate, or play the devil’s advocate.

It’s ironic that, for Montresor to enjoy his own life, he has to take Fortunato’s.

The Cask of Amontillado Theme of Foolishness and Folly

In “The Cask of Amontillado” foolishness and folly can cost you your life. The story amplifies human foolishness and folly to extremes so hideous and cruel they become vices. ”The Cask” only has two characters. By the end of the story, their combined silliness culminates in tragedy and pain for them both. The tragedy is what makes us think more profoundly about their foolish ways – in the hopes that we can avoid ending up, even in some metaphorical way, like them.

Questions About Foolishness and Folly

1.    Is Montresor a foolish character? If so, how? If not, why?

2.    Does Montresor make mistakes? If so, what are they?

3.    Montresor tells us that Fortunato’s one weakness is arrogance about his knowledge of wine. It’s this flaw that makes Fortunato vulnerable to Montresor’s Amontillado strategy. What other possible weaknesses in Fortunato’s character lead to his death? If you had to choose his biggest flaw, which would you choose, and why?

4.    Fortunato is dressed like a fool, or a court jester. Is he simply a fool, or are there some aspects of his personality that contrast with his fool’s image?

Chew on This

Try on an opinion or two, start a debate, or play the devil’s advocate.

Montresor is the real fool in the story

Read More

Cat In The Rain Analysis and symbolism By Ernest Hemingway

Cat In The Rain Analysis and symbolism 

By Ernest Hemingway

There were only two Americans stopping at the hotel. They did not know any of the people they passed on the stairs on their way to and from their room. Their room was on the second floor facing the sea. It also faced the public garden and war monument. There were big palms and green benches in the public garden. In the good weather there was always an artist with his easel. Artists liked the way the palms grew and the bright colors of the hotels facing the sea. Italians came from a long way off to look up at the war monument. It was made of bronze and glistened in the rain. It was raining. The rain dripped from the palm trees. Water stood in pools on the gravel paths. The sea broke in a long line in the rain. The motor cars were gone from the square by the war monument. Across the square in the doorway of the cafe a waiter stood looking out at the empty square.

The American wife stood at the window looking out. Outside right under their window a cat was crouched under one of the dripping green tables. The cat was trying to make herself so compact that she would not be dripped on.

“I’m going down and get that kitty,” the American wife said.

“I’ll do it,” her husband offered from the bed.

“No, I’ll get it. The poor kitty is out trying to keep dry under the table.”

The husband went on reading, lying propped up with the two pillows at the foot of the bed.

“Don’t get wet,” he said.

The wife went downstairs and the hotel owner stood up and bowed to her as she passed the office. His desk was at the far end of the office. He was an old man and very tall.

“Il piove,” the wife said. She liked the hotelkeeper.

“Si, si, Signora, brutto tempo. It is very bad weather.”

He stood behind his desk in the far end of the dim room. The wife liked him. She liked the way he wanted to serve her. She liked the way he felt about being a hotel-keeper. She liked his old, heavy face and big hands.

Liking him she opened the door and looked out. It was raining harder. A man in a rubber cape was crossing the empty square to the cafe. The cat would be around to the right. Perhaps she could go along to the eaves. As she stood in the doorway an umbrella opened behind her. It was the maid who looked after their room.

“You must not get wet,” she smiled, speaking Italian. Of course, the hotel-keeper had sent her.

With the maid holding the umbrella over her, she walked along the gravel path until she was under their window. The table was there, washed bright green in the rain, but the cat was gone. She was suddenly disappointed. The maid looked up at her.

“Ha perduto qualque cosa, Signora?” 

“There was a cat,” said the American girl.

“A cat?”

“Si, il gatto.”

“A cat?” the maid laughed. “A cat in the rain?”

“Yes,” she said, “under the table.” Then, “Oh, I wanted it so much. I wanted a kitty.”

When she talked English the maid’s face tightened.

“Come, Signora,” she said. “We must get back inside. You will be wet.”

“I suppose so,” said the American girl.

They went back along the gravel path and passed in the door. The maid stayed outside to close the umbrella. As the American girl passed the office, the padrone bowed from his desk. Something felt very small and tight inside the girl. The padrone made her feel very small and at the same time really important. She had a momentary feeling of being of supreme importance. She went on up the stairs. She opened the door of the room. George was on the bed reading.

“Did you get the cat?” he asked, putting the book down.

“It was gone.”

“Wonder where it went to,” he said, resting his eyes from reading. She sat down on the bed.

“I wanted it so much,” she said. “I don’t know why I wanted it so much. I wanted that poor kitty. It isn’t any fun to be a poor kitty out in the rain.”

George was reading again.

She went over and sat in front of the mirror of the dressing table looking at herself with the hand glass. She studied her profile, first one side and then the other. Then she studied the back of her head and her neck.

“Don’t you think it would be a good idea if I let my hair grow out?” she asked, looking at her profile again.

George looked up and saw the back of her neck, clipped close like a boy’s.

“I like it the way it is.”

“I get so tired of it,” she said. “I get so tired of looking like a boy.”

George shifted his position in the bed. He hadn’t looked away from her since she started to speak.

“You look pretty darn nice,” he said. 

She laid the mirror down on the dresser and went over to the window and looked out. It was getting dark.

“I want to pull my hair back tight and smooth and make a big knot at the back that I can feel,” she said. “I want to have a kitty to sit on my lap and purr when I stroke her.”

“Yeah?” George said from the bed.

“And I want to eat at a table with my own silver and I want candles. And I want it to be spring and I want to brush my hair out in front of a mirror and I want a kitty and I want some new clothes.”

“Oh, shut up and get something to read,” George said. He was reading again.

His wife was looking out of the window. It was quite dark now and still raining in the palm trees.

“Anyway, I want a cat,” she said, “I want a cat. I want a cat now. If I can’t have long hair or any fun, I can have a cat.”

George was not listening. He was reading his book. His wife looked out of the window where the light had come on in the square.

Someone knocked at the door.

“Avanti,” George said. He looked up from his book. In the doorway stood the maid. She held a big tortoise-shell cat pressed tight against her and swung down against her body.

“Excuse me,” she said, “the padrone asked me to bring this for the Signora

Analysis and symbolism

In "Cat In The Rain", the American girl's husband treats her with a lack of affection, apathy and indifference. When she starts telling him all the things she desires, he just tells her to shut up. She wasn't asking much, simple things, little things, and most of the times little things are what count most. He thinks she's acting like a spoiled child, he doesn't understand her, and he makes no efforts to make her feel loved, wanted, to make her feel like a real woman. 

She claims to feel like a boy, because she needs physical and emotional attention, which her husband doesn't provide her. 

The hotel keeper was the man who made her feel important, she admires his will to serve her, he gave her the attention she needed and that she's not getting from her husband. In other words, he made her feel like a lady. 

Just like the cat, the American girl feels lonely and she needs to be "pet". She hides from the rain, she tries to keep safe and dry. So, in my opinion, the girl is the cat, her husband is the rain that makes her feel unsafe and unfulfilled, and the hotel keeper is the table under which she hides. She needs someone to hold her, to love her and take care of her, and those are qualities that her husband doesn't have.

__________________________________________________ ________________________

The Cat in the Rain by Ernest Hemingway is a story of an American couple in Italy. Hemingway portrays this couple as having differences of priorities and also a difference in the amount of attention they give to one another. This story takes place over a short few hours, and even though we only know these characters for a brief period of time, we can predict the type of relationship they have. Most likely if we observed George and his wife a week or so from this day, their conversation would not be about a cat, but the underlying causes would be very similar.

George and his wife (also known as the American girl) are in their hotel room in Italy. George seems very ******* and comfortable sitting on the bed reading. His wife on the other hand gives us the idea that she is very bored, not only in the hotel room, but with their relationship, and herself, her physical appearance especially. Wanting to be anywhere besides stuck in a hotel room do to the rain, the American girl looks out the ******** Outside there is the sea, a public garden, and a war monument. Out in the garden we are also told that there are palm trees and benches for visitors to sit on. The Italians also liked to come and visit this garden because of 

. . . 

The hotel owner then goes on to have a brief conversation with her about the bad weather they are having. By this we again see the hotel owner giving George’s wife the attention she wishes to have from him. George and his wife have forgotten those things, which had brought them together in the first place. 

They walk back to the hotel doors and the maid takes down the umbrella as George’s wife heads back up to her room. As soon as his wife says it was gone and follows by complaining about the poor kitty, he picks the book back up again. Anyone that crossed her path every so slightly and recognized her was noticed and greatly appreciated. His wife complains about her shout boyish haircut, and for once George has been giving her his undivided attention. ” 

We can see from this conversation that George is used to his wife’s unusualiaty and quite bothersome adventures. George also offers his wife help that he knows she will not take, after all he has not intention of getting off the bed to leave his reading. She goes on talking of having her hair long enough to put up in a bun, while a kitty sits on her lap to stroke. The pardone made her feel very small and at the same time really important. “Excuse me, the padrone asked me to bring this for the Signora,” said the maid. These two need to have time with each. 

Read More

Macbeth Act 3, Scene 6: Forres. The palace summary and analysis

Act III: Scene 6

 

Summary

Meeting with a rebel lord, Lennox reveals his doubts concerning Macbeth. His argument is that those who might be immediately suspected of murdering their kinsmen are less likely to have done so than Macbeth, who had killed the guards of Duncan's chamber so hastily. Although Lennox is prepared to accept Macbeth's actions, he cannot help feeling deeply suspicious of him. The other lord reveals to Lennox that Macduff has fled from Scotland to join forces with Malcolm in England. Moreover, they have requested help from England's King Edward the Confessor. Both Lennox and the other lord pray that God's vengeance may swiftly fall on the tyrannical Macbeth and that Scotland may return to peace once more.

Analysis

Some of the language of this scene is difficult. Its lines are full of pauses, half-spoken thoughts, and fragments of reported speech. Its function is twofold: first to convince the audience of Lennox's real thoughts about Macbeth. Even though Lennox appears loyal to Macbeth at the end of Act IV, Scene 1, here he divulges his concerns in lines such as "Men must not walk too late" and, more directly, the phrase "the tyrant's feast."

The primary function of the other lord is to confirm the news of Macduff's flight to England and to introduce the names of other rebel leaders, Northumberland and Siward, who will combine against Macbeth in the final act. But his words "That . . . we may again / Give to our tables meat, sleep to our nights" (32-34) also recall, ironically, the words of Macbeth to his wife in Act III, Scene 2: "But let the frame of things disjoint . . . / Ere we will eat our meal in fear, and sleep / In the affliction of these terrible dreams."

Glossary

marry (4) indeed

want the thought (8) help thinking

straight (11) straightaway

the two delinquents (12) that is, the guards of Duncan's chamber

an't (19) If

with Him above . . . work (33) with God's help

The cloudy messenger . . . clogs me with this answer The surly messenger refuses to report to Macbeth the news of Macduff's desertion for fear of punishment.

Read More

Macbeth summary and analysis Act 3, Scene 1: Forres. The palace.

Act III: Scene 1

 

Summary

Banquo suspects Macbeth but gains comfort from the second part of the Witches' prediction — that his own children will be kings. Having announced his intention to go riding with Fleance, Banquo is persuaded by the Macbeths to return later that evening to their new palace at Forres for a special feast. However, Macbeth realizes that the Witches' prophecy regarding Banquo represents a threat to his own position. Unable to endure the thought of Banquo's descendants claiming his position, Macbeth summons two hired murderers and confirms with them prior arrangements for the killing of Banquo and Fleance.

Analysis

Banquo's short soliloquy has two purposes: It reminds the audience of the details of the Witches' prophecy in Act I, and it reveals his own suspicion that Macbeth is Duncan's murderer. Ironically, his tone also recalls the ambitious tone of Macbeth in earlier scenes.

Macbeth and his wife make arrangements for the feast with all the confidence of their new rank. Note particularly Macbeth's adoption of the royal "we," The use of the plural in place of the singular pronoun is a traditional figure of speech by which the monarch expresses not only unity with his people but also his absolute authority over them. Banquo, once equal in status with Macbeth, acknowledges Macbeth's new position by addressing him throughout the scene as "my lord."

Other aspects of language confirm Macbeth's new status: strong verse rhythms, for example, appear in lines such as "Here's our chief guest" and "Fail not our feast." Macbeth's apparent disregard for time — of which he now has plenty — is clear in expressions such as "but we'll take tomorrow" and "But of that tomorrow." The word "tomorrow," like "hereafter," is full of irony in Macbeth. Tomorrow should be full of hope for the future, but the word comes back to haunt him later in the play. His use of the word here foreshadows the famous "Tomorrow and tomorrow" speech in Act V.

Even with his new title and robes of office, Macbeth does not feel entirely at ease: The security of his kingship rests partly on his own children's succession to the crown of Scotland. However, because he has no children of his own, his treacherous act of regicide — the murder of a king — appears pointless and has been committed on behalf of Banquo's promised successors. The soliloquy that Macbeth delivers is filled with the language of contrast. His split with Banquo is emphasized by opposing pronouns: "They hailed him father to a line of kings: / Upon my head they placed a fruitless crown, / And put a barren sceptre in my grip . . . " (60-62).

The line "To make them kings, the seed of Banquo kings!" (70) is almost incredulous, as if Macbeth is trying to convince himself that the Witches could not possibly have spoken the truth. Whereas Banquo still trusts in the fateful prophecy, Macbeth is all too ready to dismiss it. In Act I, Scene 2, the wounded captain reported that Macbeth the warrior-hero was prepared to disdain Fortune. Now Macbeth the murderer goes one step further by literally challenging Fate itself to a tournament (or "list"): "Rather than so, come, fate, into the list / And champion me to the utterance" (71-72). Note that the verb "to champion" here has its original meaning: to fight against, not for.

The entry of the hired murderers is a crucial element in the development of Macbeth's character. His use of others to do his dirty work presents him as politically powerful but morally weak. Long gone are the days when Macbeth would meet his enemy "front to front." Now he must commit murder with the seeming protection of distance — "something [distant] from the palace" (133). Shakespeare also contrasts ironically the murderers' pragmatic reaction to the idea of murder with Macbeth's conscience-stricken one.

The dialogue of the first part of the scene reveals that Macbeth has met the murderers before. Both then and now, he must convince them to work on his behalf. Whether true or not (we have no evidence), he kindles, or re-kindles, in them, a hatred of Banquo: "Know that it was he . . . ," "This I made good to you in our last conference," "Do you find your patience so predominant in your nature that you can let this go?" The tone of these quotations is more than simply interrogative; Macbeth must ensure that the men are not persuaded by the slightest moral scruple, the slightest sympathy for Banquo, to betray the plan. Such a reaction would be entirely natural and human, but that humanity is precisely what Macbeth cannot now allow. Therefore, when the First Murderer replies, "We are men, my liege," Macbeth cuts off his speech and, in a sequence of powerful metaphors, reduces the humanity of these murderers to the level of beasts: "Ay, in the catalogue ye go for men, / As hounds and greyhounds, mongrels, spaniels, curs / . . . and demi-wolves are clept [called] / All by the name of dogs" (93-96).

Although Macbeth flatters the Murderers by suggesting that the business of Banquo's murder will elevate them above the common rank, his ironic tone reveals that he thinks of them as little more than beasts. Doubly ironic, then, is that this entire speech is admission to himself of his own inhumanity and imperfection: Macbeth himself is acting like a "demi-wolf." The lines are triply ironic when we see that indeed the murderers are, themselves, imperfect in carrying out his instructions for the "perfect" crime.

This notion of perfection is one that now comes to dominate Macbeth's thoughts. Banquo's death would make Macbeth's "health . . . perfect"; and the crime must be committed at "the perfect'st spy of the time" (the exact hour). Both of these quotations foreshadow Macbeth's line in Act III, Scene 4, when, hearing of the botched attempt to kill Fleance, he remarks "I had else been perfect." The tragic assumption that one can commit a perfect crime and escape the consequences is about to be tested.

As if to impress us with the connection between the killing of the king (the blame for which could, after all, be laid at the door of Fate) and the killing of Banquo (blame for which most definitely cannot), the final couplet ("It is concluded: Banquo, they soul's flight, / If it find heaven, must find it out tonight") ironically recalls the words spoken by Macbeth immediately prior to his killing of King Duncan: "Hear it not Duncan, for it is a bell / That summons thee to Heaven, or to Hell."

Glossary

verities (8) true predictions

parricide (31) murder of a parent

rebuked (55) mocked

fil'd my mind (64) defiled my guiltless conscience

rancours (66) bitterness

eternal jewel (67) immortal soul

Enemy of Man (68) the Devil

list (70) tournament

utterance (71) utmost

probation (79) approval

borne in hand . . . cross'd (79) deceived, double-crossed

half a soul (82) a half-wit

shoughs, water-rugs (93) rough-coated dogs

particular addition (99) a specific title

avouch (119) justify

Read More