A Streetcar Named Desire: Literary Version vs Film Version

In regard to the thematic content of A Streetcar Named Desire, it is apparent that there are various differences within the literary and film version of the play. In the literary work it can be seen that Tennessee Williams’s main purpose is that one must learn to deal with hardships in life rather than fantasize solutions because false fantasies hinder a person's development. Whereas, in the film version, Eliza Kazan’s main purpose is very similar yet different, the play visually imparts the notion of accepting the truth even though one may have to make crucial sacrifices within their life. The audience is able to recognize the minor difference between the two versions by comprehending the significance of the ending within both forms of the play.

The literary version focalizes the play around the complexity of characters, specifically Blanche Dubois. Blanche was unable to deal with the social and financial issues that occurred within her past, leading her to create a fake persona. In Scene Four, Blanche states, “I have an idea of some kind...Shep Huntleigh...someone with a million dollars” (Williams 66). The reader is able to see that the author is calling attention upon her tragic flaw. Rather than understanding and learning how to deal with her economic problems, Blanche decides to create a false solution. She fantasizes about a married millionaire man randomly acknowledging her and relieving her from all her financial restraints. For this reason, Blanche becomes seen a mentally unstable character. Conclusively, portraying the fact that her false imaginations hindered her success and development. Although, Blanche is the main focus, Williams utilizes literary strategies such as allusion to convey the main purpose of the play. In Scene One, Blanche states, “They told me to take a street-car named Desire, and then transfer to one called Cemeteries and ride six blocks and get off at-Elysian Fields” (Williams 18). The author utilizes this literary strategy to foreshadow the tragedy that Blanche will undergo within the story. Williams introduces Blanche as a woman that aspires to live a healthy and wealthy lifestyle. Thus, explaining the reasoning as to why her first vehicle was named “Desire.” Her main goal is represented by the name of her destination, “Elysian Fields,” which is known as a lavish resting destination for Greek heroes. But, in order to reach her initial destination, Blanche must take a vehicle that is named “Cemeteries.” Therefore, representing the tragic downfall that she brings upon herself throughout the story.

The film version, however, focalizes the play around the life of Stella Kowalski. Stella throughout the entire screening of the play is caught up in issues between two important figures within her life: Stanley her husband and Blanche her sister. As a result, Stella becomes the main focal point since she is the one that is being the most effected. A visual performance of the play allows the audience to identify the significance of the characters. Stella and Stanley can be seen as a representation of the real world (reality), while Blanche can be seen as a representation of her false illusions. For such a reason, there is always tension between Stanley and Blanche (reality vs fantasy) when they collide. However, since Stella is always in the middle of the suspense, she much like Blanche, must learn to accept her own reality which is that both her sister and husband serve as negative figures within her life. Kazan directed the ending differently by showing Stella’s reaction after Blanche is taken away. Stella can be seen responding to Stanley’s calls by running upstairs with her newborn baby and saying “No I’m not going back...not this time.” Displaying the fact that she is willing to let go of her sister and passionate relationship with her husband to live a better lifestyle for not only herself, but her newborn as well. Hence, the fact that in order for one to develop as a person, one must learn to make crucial sacrifices when accepting reality.

Even though, both the literary and film version similarly portray the thematic content of the tragic play, they convey slightly different purposes. By reading the literary work, readers are able to understand the complexity of Blanche, along with the functions of literary devices; such as allusions within the film. Through this version, scholars are able to understand that the play mainly revolves around Blanche, along with her delusions, since they were the main reasoning for her tragedy. However, through a visual presentation of the theater piece, the audience is able to comprehend the importance of Stella. Scholars are able to recognize the fact that the play revolves around Stella since she is capable of accepting the truth even though she must sacrifice valuable relationships. Ultimately, showing that minor fixtures within the ending of the play lead people to perceive the significance of the thematic content differently.

Word Count: 809

Cultural Perspective Of Insanity: Vladimir and Estragon

Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” (1954) is crafted from post-world war European society. Both world wars verify the philosophical insurgence of absurdism and existentialism in this play, which supports how Beckett subjects his main characters to questionable sanity Oxford English Dictionary defines insanity as “madness” or “extreme foolishness or irrationality”.  Totalitarian governments, colonization, economic reparations, and genocidal war are illogical actions, yet embedded by Western Europe, the United States of America, Japan and the Soviet Union in the first half of the 20^th century. This play confronts the insanity of this cultural period with the characters of Vladimir and Estragon.

            Vladimir’s storytelling of the thieves serves as general distrust in Christianity as well as a model of a specific societal flaw. This Bible story has several discrepancies between the four Evangelists who are said to have witnessed the fate of the two thieves. Two don’t mention the thieves at all, one says they were both damned and the fourth said one was saved (Beckett; 6-7). Estragon reflects “People are bloody ignorant apes.”, confirming he and Vladimir agree upon the troubling fact that everybody only believes on version, which is the only version taught (Beckett; 7). Skepticism increased due to the devastation of the war, leading to alternative philosophies not dependent on a deity’s existence, thus existentialism and absurdism emerged. Ashkan and Azadeh Shobeiri, authors of “Samuel Beckett’s Absurdism: Pessimism or Optimism?” assert many critics hold absurdist interpretations of this play because Vladimir and Estragon are relentlessly attempting to divulge meaning to their lives. Vladimir and Estragon are considered insane for Biblical doubt by Christian view. This initial incident is one of many, but it mirrors the societal break from a Christian world view held in much of Western Europe, and perhaps many other involved countries, during the world wars. Vladimir’s and Estragon’s distrust mirrors the attitudes of Beckett’s society.

            Is it more insane for Vladimir and Estragon to make life meaningful in a meaningless world or to live as though life is not meaningful? The meaning of their lives succumbs to the pressures of time, pleasure, and repentance. Following Lucky and Pozzo’s departure, Vladimir comments that the encounter passed the time and Estragon objects it would have passed regardless, which Vladimir responds “Yes, but not so rapidly.” (Beckett; 51). This line is representative of a fear of running out of time. His response makes meaning out of Estragon’s proposal, setting up polar ideologies that are problematic in determining a correct one. To Vladimir and Estragon, there is value in passing time as quickly as possible while they wait for Godot. Furthermore, the wait for Godot is peculiar in that Vladimir, Estragon, and the audience do not know what Godot’s arrival will do for the characters. This problem transposes to the cultural relevance of the play as the wait for a god to fix human war and oppression. Vladimir and Estragon also depict how such a wait affects the drive of pleasure and repentance.

            Vladimir and Estragon indulge in pleasure when possible. They want to hang themselves from the tree for an erection. Estragon becomes hungry, and exercises preference of carrots over turnips and radishes. He acquires Pozzo’s leftover chicken bones, sleeps in a ditch, and takes off his tight boots at his own choosing. Vladimir embraces Estragon’s company. They are only engrossed by their pleasures for a page or two at most, before asking what to do next. Temperance of pleasure therefore becomes a significant theme in Beckett’s play. The value of each character’s pleasures changes between philosophical and societal perspectives, therefore further complicating their sanity in relation to making life meaningful.

            Vladimir and Estragon concern repentance early in the play. Estragon asks if “our being born” is the sin that triggers Vladimir’s proposition (Beckett; 4). Beckett refers to original sin in a culturally obvious way. His characters ask themselves the same question millions of people have asked throughout Christian history. Would repentance make these characters sane? Vladimir laughs then suddenly stops, and Estragon responds, “dreadful privation” (Beckett; 4). Beckett leaves the subject of the dreadful privation ambiguous to the belief of original sin and/or if there is sanity for its repentance; and/or Vladimir and Estragon expect to be affected by this belief.

            There are several more moments in the play that illustrate the cultural effects of the world wars. For example, the symbolic nature of the other characters provides additional perspectives that parallel the widespread despair and confusion of global war atrocities. Vladimir and Estragon’s sanity could then be further explored by comparison.

Narration in Jazz

Toni Morrison’s Jazzutilizes a very unique narration style that significantly influences how the text is interpreted as well as the reader’s opinions of the characters. Throughout the first section of the novel it becomes apparent that the narration style is not constant. It seems to switch between third person omniscient and first person perspective that occasionally provides their personal input in a gossip-like manner. The anonymity and the objective manner of speaking the narrator employs, creates a sense of authority and trust with the audience. Therefore, impacting the reader’s opinions on events and characters within the text, causing them to take opinions as factual information.

            The text begins with the first person narrator establishing their credibility by stating that they know the main characters, Violet and Joe personally, “I know that woman...Know her husband, too…her name is Violet” (Morrison, 3). Although the narrator is not involved in the characters’ lives, they make it clear that they are interested in the lives of others and gather their information through observation, thus creating the idea that they are knowledgeable on the subject. The narrator proceeds to demonstrate their expertise on Violet and Joe’s lives by revealing personal details and feelings about the characters. For example, the narrator states, “He fell for…a girl…spooky loves that made him so sad and happy he shot her to keep the feeling going” (Morrison, 3).  By giving insight to Joe’s inner thoughts and feelings, the narrator is letting the audience know how well informed s/he is. This instant also begins to blur the line between the first person narrator and the third person omniscient narrator because the readers begin to take everything the narrator is stating as facts since they are giving details only a well-informed person would know. 

            Throughout most of the novel, the details and descriptions provided by the narrator are told from the perspective of a third person omniscient narrator. For example, in an instance in which Violet has a public argument when getting accused for kidnapping a baby, the narrator describes Violet’s thoughts on the event as “she thought of it…remembering the incident as an outrage to her character” (Morrison, 22). Due to the straightforward tone and credibility the narrator had established earlier in the novel, the readers take these thoughts as facts. However, the first person narrator interjects, providing biased commentary that is also taken as facts due to the subtle shift between narration styles. For example, after the public incident Violet caused, the first person narrator states, “Her private cracks…were known to him. I call them cracks because that's what they were” (Morrison, 22). Despite the fact this statement is clearly the narrator’s opinion, the audience is expected to believe their comment as fact, thus degrading Violet’s image to an unpredictable, mentally unstable woman in the eyes of the reader. 

This elusive transition between narration styles is once again witnessed when the narrator is retelling Dorcas’ life story. The third person omniscient narrator describes the situations Dorcas had to face under Alice’s care and stating, “by the time she was seventeen her whole life was unbearable” (Morrison, 63). This is stated in a matter-of-fact manner, which causes the audience to understand how unhappy Dorcas was while living by her aunt’s rules. However, the first person narrator provides additional—and more personal—commentary that produces sympathy for Dorcas among the readers. The first person narrator causes the audience to feel empathy for Dorcas by expressing their own empathy for her, “and when I think about it, I know just how she felt…it doesn’t matter because you are not doing the thing worth doing which is lying down…enclosed in arms, and supported by the core of the world” (Morrison, 63).  By depicting this generalizable situation and bringing up heavy emotions humans feel when being or wanting to be with another human, the narrator deepens the readers’ sympathies for Dorcas and her decision to engage in intimate relations with a married man. Although the narrator never outwardly excused Dorcas’ behavior, they did provide their opinion which instigated a deeper thought process for the audience that was more likely to guide readers toward sympathizing with Dorcas and perhaps go as far as justifying her bad decisions.

Overall, the narrator does not explicitly express a negative or positive attitude toward the story’s events. The third person omniscient point of view provides neutral details and descriptions regarding the characters and their thoughts. However, the first person point of view interjects in specific instances and provides opinionated commentary. Although the first person narration provides personal commentary, it does not openly state any biases toward any character. Instead, the commentary appears to be stated in a gossip-like manner, meaning it is said with a certain amount of judgment but it does not take any particular side. Due to this type of narration, the audience is prompted to go beyond simply understanding the novel’s events, and leads them to develop their own sympathies and biases rather than influencing them toward any specific idea.

The Narrator and Their Impact

            The first section of Toni Morrison’s novel, Jazz, leaves the reader curious as to who is narrating this story. The narrator does not disclose their name, gender, or age, but the reader is able to get a sense as to who this narrator is through the opinions, personal likes, and dislikes that they reveal about the City. In the first eight paragraphs of the novel, the narrator spends time telling the story of Violet, Violet’s husband named Joe, and the eighteen year old girl Joe becomes involved with. In this section, the reader gets a sense that this narrator may be close to Violet and Joe since s/he states “Sth, I know that woman” and “Know her husband too” (1). But once the reader reaches the ninth paragraph, the narrator begins to talk about him/herself, and gives the reader reasons to speculate that the narrator is actually a spirit that roams New York City and has merely taken interest in the lives of this couple. In this portion of the text, in which the narrator takes over, s/he states “I’m crazy about this City” and just like the city, s/he is strong and “alone, yes, but top notch and indestructible” which makes it seem as though the narrator is immortal (7). As the narrator begins to describe the dangers that the City may be bring, s/he shares that s/he “haven’t got any muscles” and that “no one knows all there is to know about [him/her]”, and creates an image of a bodiless or rather invisible speaker (8). The narrator also reveals that s/he “watch[es] everything and everyone and [tries] to figure out their plans, their reasonings, long before they do” and though “the City makes people think they can do what they want and get away with it” s/he sees them (8). Since the narrator is all seeing and knowing, the narrator seems to hold a superior and supernatural standing. Though one may argue that the narrator may in fact be a human being since s/he is told to “come out more”, the spirit may be reflecting the ideals of the city’s people since the City makes the narrator “dream tall and feel in on things” (7-9). 

            The opening sentence of the novel begins with the pronoun “I”, which makes the reader believe this story will solely be told using first person point of view. However, as the story progresses, the reader begins to notice that the narrator knows the thoughts and feelings of Violet and Joe, introducing a third person omniscient point of view. The narrator states that Joe’s relationship with the eighteen year old girl “made him so sad and happy”, indicating that s/he knows the feelings Joe had toward this person (1). When the narrator begins to talk about Violet and her attempt to punishing her husband by having a boyfriend, s/he states “She thought it would dry his tears up and giver her some satisfaction as well”, demonstrating that the narrator has access to Violet’s thoughts (4). Later on in this section, as mentioned previously, the narrator raves about the City for eight paragraphs in which she continuously uses first person point of view. S/he later returns to third person omniscient when s/he continues to tell Violet’s story and introduces other characters such as Armistice and goes into depth with Dorcas Manfred’s character for example. Since the narrator’s point of view interchanges throughout this portion of the novel, the reader gets more information as to who these characters are as individual’s, giving the reader the ability to make their own judgements about them. It also gives the text an intimate feel, as if the narrator was speaking directly to the reader about these events. It makes the narrator seem as a direct and trustworthy source since it seems as though s/he knows everything that happened, the characters’ thoughts, who was present at the time in which these events occurred, as well as the aftermath of it all. 

            For the majority of this section of the novel, the narrator remains neutral toward the story’s events. The most shocking event is revealed when the narrator states that Joe shot the eighteen year old “just to keep the feeling going”, though the reader might expect the narrator to say Joe was wrong for doing this, the narrator moves on to speak about Violet and what she did at the funeral without any commentary (1). However when s/he discusses the meeting of the Salem Women’s club, the reader hears the voice of the narrator when s/he includes in parentheses that Joe was “a more or less able husband (who needed to stop feeling sorry for himself)” (4). The narrator also comments on Violet’s actions at the funeral stating, “You’d think that being thrown out of church would be the end of it -the shame and all- but it wasn’t” (4). The narrator also speaks on Violet’s boyfriend and s/he knowing “that mess [that] didn’t last two weeks” (5). In all of these events, the narrator does not sympathize with Joe nor Violet. The narrator does not care for the feelings Joe is undergoing after having shot Dorcas and wants him to stop. The narrator also does not support Violet’s actions and finds her rather foolish. 

word count: 883

Societal Influence on the Meaning of Insanity

Having initially emerged in the 1600s from a combination of the Latin word “insanitas” and the English word “insane” and being defined as the “state of being insane and having a seriously impaired state of mental functioning”, the word insanity has since evolved to encompass more meanings from various scholarly resources. According to Law.com, insanity is a noun describing a “mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.” In today’s world, what one categorizes as “insanity” is subjective. For example: if you convince others that the most popular person in a region is the most fit to rule, then you have a republican-style government; and if you convince others that they should obey a person who wears a metal piece on his or her chest and can shoot them for failing to comply, then you have a law enforcement agent. Behaviors and cultural structures like these may seem like madness, however, when a large group of people are acting the same way, it is only sensible to accept actions like these as being legitimate. In this sense, society can be viewed as being the arbiter of sanity, having the right to judge an individual as being sane or not based on what behaviors are widely accepted. Based on Law.com’s definition of insanity, Blanche’s behaviorisms in “A Streetcar Named Desire” are insane in the eyes of others since she continues to cling onto the decaying romanticized values of the Old South despite the world around her embracing the newly emerging age of urban industrialism.

By having the play take place in a cramped, two-room flat in New Orleans, Tennessee Williams is able to draw upon the historical context of the time period to set the stage for the complex drama that takes place. “A Streetcar Named Desire” takes place in 1947, which is two years after World War II. The war had instigated numerous changes to American society. During this time, millions of men had traveled overseas to fight as soldiers and as a result, women contributed to the war efforts by joining the workforce. After the war however, most of the men reassumed their previous job positions, forcing women to return to being homemakers. Moreover, during the war period, the once white-dominated suburbia became increasingly populated by broader groups of people-African Americans, the poor, different ethnic groups, immigrants, the elderly. The play’s atmosphere reflects this change in attitude towards a more diverse community, as can be seen at the beginning of the play when two female characters -one who is colored, and the other, Eunice, who is white- are casually chatting on the steps of a building. Stella and Stanley’s realm of seemingly non-existent segregation is a sharp contrast to Blanche’s childhood in the elitist world of the old South. Blanche is accustomed to divisions of class and often makes intolerant remarks about sexuality -such as when she confronts her homosexual husband about his negative behavior- and ethnicity-calling Stanley a Polack rather than  American or Polish-American.

The decline of aristocratic families traditionally associated with the South following World War II leads to Blanche’s descent into madness. Blanche and Stanley represent two conflicting American societies; Blanche symbolizes the old, romanticized Southern culture while Stanley signifies the newly emerging norm of an industrialized and urban culture. In the play, it is revealed that Blanche has a history of depending on men. However, when she moves in with Stanley and Stella, Blanche’s old habits no longer fit in with the behavior of the new generation of southerners, further symbolizing both her and the Old South’s destruction. Williams also uses light and dark to illustrate Blanche’s insanity. In the story, Blanche repeatedly makes up excuses such as, “turn that over-light off! Turn that off! I won’t be looked at in this merciless glare” (p. 19). Since the light represents the uncovering of the truth behind Blanche’s lies as well as the circumstances of the real world, Blanche prefers to reside in the shadows which represent the fantasy that she deludes herself into believing. Blanche struggles to adjust to the new societal attitudes around her which greatly contrast with her childhood conditions of growing up on a big plantation with slaves to attend to her needs. At one point, Blanche cries, “I don’t want realism. I want magic!” (p. 117), thus showing her love of imagination which clashes with the practical routine of the utilitarian world that Stanley embodies.

Blanche’s infatuation with maintaining a perfect appearance in front of others is a result of her continued belief in the traditional ideal that women must be “soft and attractive” (p. 79) in order to remain relevant in society. Her downwards spiral of insanity stems from her inability to grasp her changing surroundings and to discern fantasy from reality. Furthermore, Blanche’s degree of insanity is emphasized when she is compared to most other American citizens since she expresses views that are not within the norms for her culture and its expectations; because Blanche does not conform to this new open-minded, and urbanized America, she is seen as an outsider with crazy views.

Word Count: 866

How Pynchon Creates Worldview

word count: 750

While readers read Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49, there is at first a seemingly feeling of despair. Thomas Pynchon creates a worldview through an unreliable narrator that travels throughout California with a seemingly questionable motive. Furthermore, the behavior of characters that Oedipa Maas encounters seemingly allows the reader to experience the despair that comes with the paranoia that Oedipa and other individuals within that time period have adopted. Despite this, though, it is arguable that the text actually showcases an ironic atmosphere or a parody towards the lifestyle of highly non traditional values found within California. The text is actually calling attention towards the ludicrous experience of more modern times. By analyzing the text once more, it may be seen how the text is mocking or ironically setting an idea of postmodernism.

Readers may first see an example of this towards the introduction of the use of drugs. The use of LSD shows the new experience that the new generation is willing to try. It further extends into the medical field as it illustrates Oedipa’s doctor calling her (8). This demonstrates the possibility of a new drug because every other drug has already been experimented with. Then, as Oedipa voices her worry to Mucho, her worries are discarded. Mucho explains that there is no possibility of getting addicted (117). He then explains that it is taken “because the world is so abundant” (118). This illustrates how Pynchon is mimicking or mocking the world views at the time. He sets a worldview that shows that people are care-free and have no worries such as getting addicted to a mysterious drug.  

Then, the illustration of different character’s behavior further shows the irony of mocking within the worldview. Several character such as Oedipa herself or Hilarius. There behavior demonstrate paranoia within the text such as when Hilarius takes Oedipa hostage (111). Instead of contributing to the world and for a better future for themselves, readers are instead able to find the characters being afraid of their own past actions. Even the narrator engages herself in the past actions of her ex-boyfriend throughout the entire text. It showcasing how Pynchon is making an ironic statement that shows that individuals within this time period have done everything all in the past, they can no longer pay attention towards a future.

Pynchon, however, continues to joke around with these characteristics by including names of individuals that contain ironic meanings. Towards the beginning of Pynchon’s short novel, he depicts Oedipa encountering a character named Miles that is apart of a band or group that named itself “the Paranoids” (17). As she requests him to play a song, Miles “closes the door behind them” thinking that Oedipa inferred to having sex with him. This situation in particular calls attention towards the irony found within the name. It demonstrates a characteristic that is seemingly being portrayed. Then, the character of Hilarius is another example of the ironic meaning behind a name. His behavior is showcased as wild and without any meaning. He believes that the police is searching for him, takes Oedipa hostage and then suddenly turns against her for believing that she is working against him (111). His erratic behavior is explicitly made fun of through the characteristics of how he interacts with Oedipa.

Lastly, the demonstration of how each different location is portrayed showcases a worldview of irony and parody. The locations that Oedipa travels to are seemingly not suppose to contain any significant by the events that partake within them. The name of locations themselves set an almost fantasy and child-like work. For example, San Francisco is switched to “San Narciso”, and Oedipa travels there in search of what she believes is an underground secret that is meant to be kept away from the government. It demonstrates an ironic and parody of the worldview inside the short novel.

In an overall analysis, these literary details showcase how Pynchon does not take the lifestyles within the 60’s and 70’s seriously. Similarly, Pynchon showcase the adoption of paranoia that came within this time period and presents it in an exaggerated manner. The worldview of the short novel seemingly creates the entire plot and setting as a comedy. It is nontraditional and the erratic behavior can become ironic. However, the illustrates of these various elements do not enforce an argue for change. Instead, Pynchon is illustrating the paranoia and adoption of drugs that found within the time period and takes it to an extreme.

And All That Jazz: The Voice Shaping the Novel

If Toni Morrison’s Jazz is a musical piece in the form of a novel, the narrator is the conductor, evaluating all the different characters and their roles in the band, creating liveliness in the piece. Within this novel, however, there is no set narrator, and instead, focus seems to shift between the different characters’ point-of-views and that of an omniscient spectator. Remaining in the first person, the narrator acts as though they are a person from within the town a majority of the time, but occasionally switches perspectives to reflect that of the characters, creating an unclear perspective on morality and on events that take place. Most notably, the narration takes on the cadences of the jazz music for which it is named; it does not follow the typical rules of storytelling dictated by norms of writing, and instead seems to freely move around in order to create a story that nonetheless comes together as a whole in the end.

The switching perspectives of the narrator throughout the piece make for moral ambiguity within the novel, and add a degree of depth to characters that might be dismissed as unimportant in other works. Because of this, there is no character in which sympathies are explicitly supposed to be directed towards, as readers must rely on each individual’s perception of the events that have occurred and their reactions to them. The novel begins with the informal “Sth” (p. 3), a seemingly disapproving sound condemning Violet and Joe. Because of this, most readers jump to the conclusion that the novel will take on the perspective of denouncing the Traces for their crimes. Instead, the book skews itself in accordance with the character that is being examined at the current moment. For example, Dorcas is initially presented as unsympathetic for having had an affair with a married man, especially because one of the first descriptions offered of her comes from Violet viewing a picture of her as “greedy, haughty, and very lazy” (p. 12). To this end, Dorcas is not likeable in any way, and the only empathy felt towards her is due to the fact that she lost her life too soon, and not because of who she might have been as a person. However, when Joe remembers his time with Dorcas, or when the narration reflects on the beginning of their affair, she is described as “both bless[ing] his life and mak[ing] him wish he had never been born” (p. 40). The contradictions in this statement alone speak to varying perspectives held about Dorcas, and soften the light cast upon her, making her out to be someone extremely cherished to Joe, and someone who was similarly broken that he could confide in. The indefinite and constantly moving points of views and opinions of the narrator make it difficult to extend sympathy towards any one character, as they are all immensely complicated, and have shortcomings. It is also hard to choose what piece of narration is the most reliable, and so readers must work with the information they’ve gathered from the different viewpoints in order to come up with their own conclusions about who, if anybody, is in the right and wrong within the scope of the story.

Just as the qualities and meaning behind music depend upon its listener, so too does the narration of the novel bend itself in accordance with the perspectives of those it is currently focused upon. Appropriately titled, the writing style of Jazz reflects the style of music for which it is named, especially in its focus upon improvisation. The narration of the novel does not follow any set rules or confine itself to one voice, as is typically expected; instead it breathes a life into itself and its characters by making them all into unreliable narrators, offering their part of the tale. Because the text switches so often between different viewpoints on events, it is hard to pinpoint a person’s true character in a definitive manner; the reader knows how they perceive themselves and how others view them, but are in no way exposed to the entirety of the individual. The narrator freely moves and seems almost to make up opinions and assertions on the spot depending upon who is the main focus of the moment. To this end, the sympathies of the book are left entirely to the judgement of the reader, with the narrator never explicitly taking a side, and instead just resolving to play the tunes of everyone and see where the melody is taken.

Word Count: 755

The Dark Irony of Society in The Crying of Lot 49

Word Count: 881

The Crying of Lot 49 views society with irony, evident through the absurd events and characters throughout the novel. Some of the most prominent examples include the odd names of the characters, the conflict with Pierce Inverarity’s use of soldier’s remains, and Oedipa’s relentless search for patterns or conspiracies within the world around her. Although, the novel’s view of society is less than ideal, it does not seem to argue for change. The novel seems intent on pointing out and mocking some of the more absurd aspects of society, but it does not seem to offer any solutions to these absurdities or very much hope that there is anything redeeming about it. The most evident example of the novel’s lack of an argument for change is the lack of resolution or validation of the main protagonist’s ideas/suspicions at the end of the novel.

            One of the most evident aspects of the novel that seem to mock society is the naming of the characters, both main and peripheral characters. For example, the main character, whose point of view is traditionally able to be somewhat, if not the most, trusted in a novel, being named Oedipa reveals an ironic twist to the typical treatment of the main character of a story. Oedipa is strikingly similar to the name Oedipus, originally known by the Greek tragedy, but became more widely known for Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytical diagnosis termed the “Oedipus Complex,” in which a child desires their opposite-sex parent and hates/is in rivalry with their same-sex parent. The fact that the main, and supposedly most trustworthy character of the novel shares a similar name to a psychoanalytical diagnosis, and such a widely controversial one, is a strong indicator that the novel views widely accepted ideas, such as those surrounding main protagonists in a story, of society with irony and mockery. Another example of this irony is Oedipa’s therapist, revealed to have been a Nazi who experimented cruelly on Jews (112), named Dr. Hilarius. Not only is the name kind of distasteful and insensitive, especially with how close to the Holocaust this novel was published ( Fountain, Lecture), but it turns society’s view of doctors as the most sane or trustworthy public servants on its head; the doctor in this novel is not only a former Nazi trying to get Oedipa on LSD (8), but he is also literally, and ironically, named something strikingly close to a joke.

            One of the more shocking and ironic events of the novel is when Di Presso, the lawyer of Tony Jaguar, confronts Metzger about Inverarity not paying his client for human remains he supplied to make “bone charcoal” or filters for cigarettes (45-46). This new conflict is shocking in its casual treatment of disturbing and destroying soldiers’ bones to make something as trivial, and temporary, as cigarette filters, but it also sheds light on the society’s casual overlooking of the suffering necessary to produce their comfortable, convenient life (such as child labor and exploiting poorer countries to make the commodities sold in America for a much larger profit). The irony is that readers can see the offense in disturbing the remains of American soldiers, but most do not blink at (or choose to ignore) the many adults and children in other countries who suffer, and even die, to produce even the most trivial of products, like toys and designer clothes. The characters of the novel also reflect this irony in their concern over payment and contracts, rather than over the idea that a man went digging up cemeteries in Italy (46).

            Finally, although the novel depicts a dark, irony-filled society, it also does not offer much of an argument for change or hope for change. There can be an inferred argument for change by depicting society in so obviously mocking terms (i.e pointing out the flaws in anything is implicitly saying it should be improved), but the lack of resolution or tying up loose ends at the end of the novel seems to dispute this “implicit” argument. Rather than the reader coming to understand the true meaning of “tristero” or the muted-horn symbol or realizing the connection between all of the odd events and people Oedipa comes across, the reader is left with an abrupt ending; Oedpia sitting at the auction of Inverarity’s estate, “to await the crying of lot 49” (152). Thus, the reader is not only left with remaining questions regarding Oedipa’s theories and conspiracies, but also with an incomplete and unsatisfying explanation for the novel’s title – why is the crying of this lot so significant? This ending puts an ironic twist to the traditional expectations of ending supplying understanding and the significance or reason for a novel’s title being revealed at some point in the story. Additionally, this abrupt ending that lacks resolution or understanding seems to symbolize the novel’s view of society and the possibility for its change or improvement. If the novel is supposedly arguing for a change in society or depicting some superior method or way of life, then the ending does not make sense. If this were the case, it should have, if not provided a resolution, at least some hope that Oedipa was on to something and not simply doomed to forever be finding odd connections and conspiracies in the world.

Existentialism in The Crying of Lot 49

Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49 documents Oedipa Maas’ growing obsession with the possibly imagined conspiracy involved in her newfound role as executor of a will, which her late ex-boyfriend assigned to her. While the protagonist is often used as a device for the reader to feel comfort and familiarity, this novel has an obvious lack of those qualities, which ultimately may lead one to question whether Oedipa is in any way distinct from anyone else here. It is this deliberate combination of randomness, paranoia, and existentialism that culminates in a tone of pointlessness and a conscious disregard for conventional novel features.
The story’s instances of randomness and existentialism are exemplified from the beginning when both the plot and Oedipa’s reaction are detailed. The first thing she does after discovering her newfound responsibility is to stand “in the living room, stared at by the greenish dead eye of the TV tube, [speak] the name of God, [try] to feel as drunk as possible. But this [does] not work” (Pynchon 1). Here, she appeals to multiple forces of the world she lives in: technology, religion, and intoxication, all as different forms of escapism. A few complexities come together here to set the tone for the novel. First, there is the element of casualness with which she does these things, which is contrasted by the gravity they hold in reality; for example, the dangers of alcoholism and addiction to technology, as well as the formality of religion. The writing, then, makes light of potentially serious subject matter. This is a world in which people seem to have been desensitized to important matters, and so the writing reflects that by mentioning three of them in a row with nearly no context. To add to this effect, she achieves nothing through her effort, suggesting either that these forces hold no power or that her character is somewhat apathetic, lacking the desire to follow these routes of peace to their end. It is even possible that the words were nothing more than a joke; a sort of performance put into the novel to emphasize this fiction’s chaos rather than provide profound insight into the state of the world. In any case, Pynchon’s choice of making this Oedipa’s first specific action makes it clear that the novel involves a struggle for meaning and purpose that does not necessarily get resolved by the end. 

The bulk of the novel, however, follows Oedipa’s obsession with the fictional history of the opposition between Thurn and Taxis and Trystero, both competing postal services, though the latter of which is portrayed as very secretive. Throughout her pursuit of the truth behind it all, she comes across many side characters that serve to both move the plot forward and explore the idea of existentialism in the novel further. One of the first instances of this is when Oedipa meets with a lawyer named Metzger at a motel, where their dynamic focuses much more on the sexual tension between them than on the business their meeting is meant for. Though the main irony lies in how easily that transition happens, the situation allows for some briefer examples of absurdity that further pervert the idea of a business meeting. One such occurrence is when Metzger suggests a game he calls Strip Botticelli, with the goal of getting Oedipa to strip, which she agrees to before putting on every article of clothing she has. This choice is followed by her own initial reaction when she “made the mistake of looking at herself in the full-length mirror, saw a beach ball with feet, and laughed so violently she fell over, taking a can of hair-spray on the sink with her” (24). The image of this is obviously intended to be ridiculous and continues the scene’s tone of informality in a situation that is supposed to be considerably more formal. The scene, then, is a prime example of how the novel takes typically serious situations and removes that element from them, therefore contributing to the sense of existentialism via the questioning of tradition.
Although the whole scenario seems to be prompted by Metzger, it is apparent that Oedipa is not the most traditional protagonist by virtue of her reactions. In a more general sense, however, it is repeatedly suggested that the entire plot of the novel could be nothing more than a fantasy in Oedipa’s mind, which at one point is explained as follows: “either Trystero did exist, in its own right, or it was being presumed, perhaps fancied by Oedipa, so hung up and interpenetrated with the dead man’s estate” (88). It is suggested here that Oedipa wants to believe in this huge conspiracy left to her by such an unlikely person after his death as if it is little more than a game for her at this point. Once again, there is a juxtaposition between the formal and the lighthearted, as Oedipa is much more interested in fantastic possibilities than in the real responsibility of being named the executor of a will. Even this dynamic is reversed before the end of the story, however, as Oedipa becomes so obsessed with the conspiracy that she acts in ways that hold potential harm for her well-being, thereby transforming her fantasy mystery into an unnecessarily dangerous task. The possibility that none of it is real makes her character seem all the more eccentric, and arguably no different than any of the impulsive or mysterious people she meets along the way. This blurring of conventional lines between protagonist and supporting character breaks down one more traditional novel element, resulting in a story that is ultimately less about one central figure with a purpose and more about many figures, indistinguishable in their strangeness, with no strong sense of purpose.
The end of the novel sees Oedipa sitting in an auction room to “await the crying of lot 49,” which supposedly holds the potential to solve her mystery (152). Pynchon’s choice to withhold the answer once again subverts the point behind the novel. Instead of providing a clean mystery and solution, we are given a mystery, dense with other subversions, and no satisfying conclusion. If one cannot find the point of the novel in the ending, and the premise itself is not entirely certain, then one of the few remaining possibilities is that the novel is designed to lack meaning, which it achieves through the constant perversion of traditional novel elements.

Narration Takes On More Than One Face in Toni Morrison's Jazz

Word Count: 1112

The narration in the first section of Jazz becomes more complicated as the story progresses. It’s certain that Morrison incorporates first person and third person omniscient narration; however; the first person narrator is Violet and the third person omniscient is solely an unknown presence who’s more subjective than traditional third person omniscient narration. The fusion of two types of narration floods the reader with  subjective and objective information,  illustrating the characters and events in a more versatile manner. Thus far in the novel, the main narrator, (the unknown third person presence) pays special attention to each characters’ efforts to acquire love that is fulfilling enough to feel alive or fill a void, a crucial and recurring theme in the novel.  

 First person narration is noteworthy because Violet occasionally takes the mic, exposing her internal conflicts, transforming feelings toward the city, and feelings about Joe. In the very beginning, Violet is the narrator because she lengthily describes several aspects of the City and expresses her love for it. This may not be known at the moment, but as soon as Joe and Violet’s origin story is told, it’s confirmed that “they stared out the windows for first sight of the City that danced with them, proving already how much it loved them. Like a million more they could hardly wait to get there and love it back” (32). Although Violet’s initial feelings may have been love and excitement for the City, she ironically illustrates how “unbelievable” the city sky is and explains that it “presses and retreats, presses and retreats, making [her] think of the free but illegal love of sweethearts before they are discovered”, (35) referring to her husband, Joe, who was unfaithful to her. She then describes a rather unpleasant depiction of the sky with money that is “soaked and salty”, aeroplanes “nose down in the muck”, flowers “that eat water beetles”, and “children who made a mistake in the parents they chose” (35). The City is no longer as beautiful and hopeful to Violet as it once was when she was madly in love with Joe; now, it is quite the opposite. Without Violet taking the mic as a first person narrator, the audience would not understand why the City’s descriptions begin to conflict. 

 Because of her complicated marriage with Joe, Violet admits in the beginning of the novel that she doesn't know “when to love something and when to quit” (9), establishing her biggest confliction. Her voice surfaces again when she sympathizes for Dorcas: “By the time she was seventeen her whole life was unbearable. And when I think about it, I know just how she felt” (63). Violet met/fell in love with Joe when she was seventeen, the beginning of a profound heart-break, which is why she feels than she can understand Dorca’s pain. 

The third person omniscient presence is fueled by one narrator only. Interestingly enough, the third person omniscient presence is not conventionally objective, but subjective as well. The presence is unknown at this point in the novel, but s/he attempts to understand situations from everyone’s perspective, resulting in sympathy, pity, or scorn depending on the character being addressed. S/he is especially sympathetic towards women because s/he acknowledges that “[women] are busy and thinking of ways to be busier because such a space for nothing pressing to do would knock them down [and]... in slips a sorrow they don’t know where from” (16). The presence expresses empathy for Violet because s/he justifies her kidnapping by revealing “comfort settled itself in her stomach and a king of skipping, running light traveled her veins” (19). The narrator understand Violet’s attempt at kidnapping  because she needs a child to make her feel alive, something her husband has failed to do. S/he even justifies Violet’s questionable qualities by calling “them cracks because that is what they were. Not openings or breaks, but dark fissures in the globe light of the day” (22), defusing the gravity of the deeds Violet committed. Instead of depicting her as an insane woman, the narrator is able to descend to her level in order to understand the internal demons Violet faces.   

The narrator  holds a degree of sympathy for Joe as well; but, s/he still criticizes him for his actions. S/he acknowledges that Violet and Joe were “drawn together because they had been put together” and “he had not chosen [to get married] but was grateful [to]... escape all the redwings in the country and the ripe silence” (30); in other words, for Joe the marriage occurred out of convenience instead of love. In addition, Violet’s “silences annoy [Joe], then puzzle him, and finally depress him” (23); therefore, the narrator understands Joe’s need for Dorcas in order to have someone to talk to and fill the void Violet cannot. In fact, Dorcas “filled [the nothing] for him, just as he filled it for her, because she had it to” (38), except hers stemmed from a difficult childhood involving the tragic deaths of her mom and dad. Despite the narrator’s understanding of Joe’s motives to cheat on his wife , s/he still criticizes him for being unfaithful. Since Joe is one of the men who utilize Thursdays as a means to obtain “satisfaction pure and deep, for balance in pleasure and comfort” (52), the narrator throws shame on him for doing so and equates him to these sleazy, manipulative men. Furthermore, s/he recognizes that he “counted on flirty laughing women” (71) to sell them products and/or seduce them, exposing his manipulative disposition, especially since “he knew wrong wasn’t right, and did it anyway” (74).  

Although the narrator expresses sympathy and/or judgment for each character, s/he does not discriminate when it comes to how almost every character experiences heartbreak. Thus far, this is the one thing most of the characters have in common. Although Joe is unfaithful to Violet, the narrator understands that they are heart broken in their own way despite their follies in the relationship.  Dorcas is heart broken as well and feels that she has “decayed on the vine at budding time” because her body was deemed unworthy by boys. Same with her friend Neola who “closed her arm and held the pieces of her heart in her hand” (67). Even Alice, a seemingly prudish character, was left at the altar and “the pain of his refusal was visual, for over her heart, curled like a shell, was the hand on which he had positioned the ring” (62). By playing a mostly neutral role in the topic of heartbreak, the narrator highlights Morrison’s position that fulfilling, unconditional love is hard to find.  

The Insanity of "Waiting for Godot"

Katie Nguyen

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word 'insanity' as "the condition of being insane; an unsoundness of mind as a consequence of brain-disease; madness, lunacy." In this regard, insanity is a state of mind that is often linked to mental deficiencies due to in some part to mental illness. Concerning Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot,” I would make a case stating that Vladimir and Estragon are not meant to be seen as mentally ill. Their deficiencies are more representative of the world in which they inhabit rather than personal issues of coherence or soundness of mind. Of course, the OED also offers a more colloquial understanding of the term, denoting it as "extreme folly or want of sense," which somewhat downplays the implication of mental illness to more generally refer to a kind of senselessness. This definition has more resonance within the play because much of Vladimir and Estragon’s actions are inane. However, I would like to note that senselessness or mania or crazed behavior can only be understood or identified in the context of society. An unsound mind is defined by a sound mind. That is to say, the markers of insanity, or insane behavior, can only be understood as what lies outside of what is socially deemed as acceptable in that world.

With that in mind, Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” is an absurdist play appears to encapsulate existential dread and the fear of an indifferent universe that casts human behavior as trivial and directionless. It is difficult to pinpoint definitively whether Vladimir and Estragon are insane within the world of the play because that world is markedly different from that of our modern society. A key marker of this being the relationship between Pozzo and Lucky, which is extreme and strange. It’s difficult to find concrete footing in the world of the play. With such a stripped down and minimalist production, there is no obvious societal presence. There is no city infrastructure or societal mentions within the play that would lend toward an understanding of the society they are in. Moreover, the few characters present in the play don’t necessarily seem to represent social conventions. However, none of that matters. The theatre of the absurd eschews the validity of social orders as it purports a larger, deeper sense of existentialism wherein absolutely nothing has meaning.

So, in true absurdist theatre fashion, the play puts forth a tremendous atmosphere of uncertainty and mindlessness that exhibits no signs of progression or resolution. Though governed by a vaguely linear sense of time, the play’s actions are completely circulatory, unfolding in repetitive cycles that land Vladimir and Estragon in the same familiar place, both spatially and symbolically. The absurdist world of the play suggests the lack of an overarching or coherent meaning to their actions. So, are Vladimir and Estragon insane for lacking sense in a senseless world? I would argue that they are not. It is almost tragically noble of them to await Godot and the impetus for change or meaning that he represents. Though they fluctuate in conviction throughout the play, Vladimir and Estragon continue to lie in wait for Godot because it’s something to look toward, the illusion, or delusion, of progress. Even the mindless fiddling with their clothes and the inane bits they perform serve to distract from the looming sense of cosmic insignificance. In Act 2 of the play, it is Estragon that surprisingly sheds light on the bleakness of their existence, saying “We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the impression we exist?”. Perhaps the performance of waiting for Godot is a way to stave off insanity.

 Another interesting thread to follow is in the common adage that is often randomly attributed to Albert Einstein, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.” Going back to constructing a definition of insanity, the expression suggests that this madness is derived from a lack of understanding and adjustment or more commonly, not learning from your mistakes. Vladimir and Estragon certainly seem guilty of this kind of insanity. The end of the play concludes with them remaining in the same spot, implying that they will continue to wait for Godot despite no real indication that the next day will bring a different outcome than the one before. Of course, within this definition, insanity and faith or hope have a complex relationship. Maybe we can hold out hope that the sprouting leaves that appear between Acts 1 and 2 could denote change and new life. Or, perhaps more appropriately for the genre, it’s a natural event that doesn’t have any other larger meaning or implication.

Jazz's Omniscient Narrator

Stephanie Brand

WC: 827

A books narrator changes usually based on the literary genre and the message the author is trying to convey. Many modern books are written in the third person—either limited or omniscient—which hint at an impassive narrator who is simply watching the story unfold from a bird’s eye view. The lesser used point-of-views are the second person and the first person narratives. Second person narratives insert the reader into the action through the use of “you” as a point of reference for the main protagonist. First person narratives read like a story being told through the perspective of the narrator, this causes them to usually be biased. The narrator is limited to their own experiences of the events that happen throughout the story. Jazz by Toni Morrison is written in the first person, but, unlike other books, it is written in first person omniscient—instead of limited. Hence, the narrator’s sympathies and attitude towards the story reflect what the other characters are feeling about the events taking place and each other. 

Morrison doesn’t make it easy to pin down what point of view Jazz is written in, but, ultimately, the first person is the option that fits the best. The first sentence of the book is what gives this away: “Sth, I know that woman,” (Morrison 1). This line is written in the first person; it sets up the rest of the page to be read as the first person too, even as it switches to a more third person perspective. Through the use of “I” in the first sentence, the whole narrative now sounds like a story being told by the narrator. Even as it switches to other perspectives, the first person takes precedent as the main style of narration throughout the story.

However, this style of first person narration is peculiar. This is especially true when considering how often the narration seems to change to other points-of-view or hint to the actual thoughts that specific characters are feeling. An example of this can be found in the quote,“In the photograph and from what Violet could remember from the coffin…” (Morrison 15). This is very strange. There is no reason for a first person narrator to know what Violet is thinking, when she thinks of Dorcas. A first person narrator should be limited to their own perspective of events, but Jazz’s narrator knows that Violet thinks that Dorcas needs her roots trimmed, or how Joe feelings when he first met Dorcas, and so on. Hence, the narrator has a type of omniscience that allows them to see all the characters perspectives. This also explains why the narration style changes so often—it reflects the thinking style of the character whose thoughts are being intruded on. 

First person perspectives tend to be biased. However, since the narrator is omniscient, the sympathies within Jazz come from the character’s own feelings towards each other while the narrator remains fairly neutral. A prime example of this is Joe. He shot Dorcas, yet he is never really held accountable for this or really described as a murderer. This seems to be a blip on his record and nothing else. This is because none of the other characters really blame Joe for what happened. Violet is angry about the affair, but most of her anger revolves around Dorcas’ part in it, not Joe’s. Alice directs most of her anger towards Violet rather than Joe: “The woman who ruined the service…” (Morrison 74). This is most likely caused by Alice’s own, seemingly, internalized hatred of women and because she sees Violet so often. Even Joe, himself, doesn’t really seem to acknowledge his part in Dorcas’ death—besides that fact that she’s dead and he misses her. Since the narrative is based on the characters thoughts towards each other, the murder becomes a minor thing in relation to Joe’s part in it. Violet and Dorcas end up taking more of the blame, which is due to the opinions the other characters have about them. Throughout all of this, the narrator never expresses their own thoughts on the matter, with the exception of a few clarifying points or random thoughts. The narrator never truly interjects with an opinion about who the reader should sympathize with or points out the bias the characters have against one another. They let the characters decide what is important and who is to blame. 

In conclusion, Jazz is narrated by an unknown, objective, omniscient being. The characters have free-reign of the story and their opinions about each other are allowed to sway the reader to their side. The narrator remains an impassive observer and occasionally relates to one of the character’s inner thoughts. Mostly, they tell the events that took place, give background information, and let the character’s do the rest. Once this understanding is reached, the question that remains is: who is this being that is relaying these events to the reader?

Insanity? Victims of the Stanley Hegemony

My understanding that insanity can be a relative state of mind came to me through the lyric of a pseudo-profound Smashing Pumpkins song I enjoy many years ago. In the Smashing Pumpkins hit, Luna, Billy Corgan sings, with a lugubrious tenor, ‘Who belongs? Who decides who’s crazy? Who rights wrong, where others cling?’ For my fourteen year old highbrow amateur philosopher self, I found these lyrics to possess some sort of enlightening magic within them. Maybe those in asylums aren’t actually crazy… I thought. Maybe those in prisons aren’t all criminals? I pondered. These thoughts, doubled with my recent viewing and reading of ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest,’ a text dealing with the issues of power dynamics in mental asylums, I felt equipped to finally engage in difficult discourse regarding the complex and difficult issues of madness, laws, manipulation, and the exploitative powers that the ones in power hold. Jokes aside, Corgan’s lyrics were a nebulous depository in which I found an impetus for a certain type of critical thinking. Who really does decide who is crazy? I feel this question is paramount when setting forth to examine the mental states of Blanche and Stanley in Tennessee Williams’ play, ‘A Streetcar Named Desire.

As stated by the Merriam Webster Dictionary, the definition of insanity goes as follows: ‘exhibiting a severely disordered state of mind: affected with mental illness.’ Thesaurus.com says, ‘mentally ill; foolish.’ Lastly, our good and ancient friend, oxford dictionary says, ‘In a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.’ Throughout these definitions, ‘mentally ill’ is an all-present definition. Just to extend upon that definition, I looked up some symptoms of being ‘mentally ill,’ According to ‘Mentalhealhyamerica.net,’ some symptoms of mental illnesses are: confused thinking, prolonged depression, feelings of extreme highs and lows, excessive fears, worries, anxieties, delusions, social withdrawal, strong feelings of anger, etc. Examining each symptom mentioned above, would it be an exaggeration to say that most people feel all these mentioned characteristics? One issue with these dictionary definitions is that they are all encompassing and too broad. Literally anyone can align with these symptoms. Another issue is that the word has been watered down and trivialized, muttered in everyday conversation without much consideration for its purpose, but that is not too related. The term insane, it being a type of category that one is designated to, has blurry lines. A person can exhibit all symptoms mentioned above, but still be mentally sane. It is difficult to exactly delineate who is either insane or not insane. I also check off many of the aforementioned symptoms. Does that mean I’m necessarily insane? I don’t think so. In the upcoming paragraphs, I will be examining across which sides of the insanity line the characters of Blanche and Stanley fall under.

For the sake of my argument, let’s assume that Blanche is actually insane. She certainly sometimes exhibits habits or tendencies that would allow a reader to assume so. Towards the end of the story, Blanche says, “You know what I shall die of? I shall die of eating an unwashed grape one day out on the ocean. I will die – with my hand in the hand of some nice-looking ship’s doctor, a very young one with a small blond mustache and a big silver watch. […] And I’ll be buried at sea sewn up in a clean white sack and dropped overboard – at noon – in the blaze of summer – and into an ocean as blue as my first lover’s eyes!” This quote demonstrates Blanche’s delusions with her current situation. These delusions arise from the fact that she is unhappy with her current self. She is insecure that she is aging, she is insecure about her wealth, and she is also insecure about her looks. Her insecurities manifest into delusions, depression, and anxieties. But does her depression episodes really amount to insanity? Can they not be attributed as after effects of a greatly traumatizing experience? Is she not a recent widow? Although Blanche demonstrates insane tendencies, at least her insanity is justifiable. For Stanley’s case, it is harder to justify.

For Stanley, his illnesses are portrayed through his violent and sexually inappropriate actions. Even from early in the play, Stanley’s domineering sexuality was introduced and discussed. ‘He sizes women up at a glance, with sexual classifications, crude images flashing into his mind and determining the way he smiles at them.’ At the end of the novel, Stanley rapes Blanche. The way Stanley approaches sex is most definitely a mental illness. He exerts a hegemony by violent means, even beating his wife, and raping Blanche. It is clear as day that Stanley is more mentally ill than Blanche is. So why is Blanche the only one being lambasted for her insecurities? Reminiscent of Billy Corgan’s lyrics, the answer has to do with who exactly decides who is crazy. Stanley is not deemed ‘insane’ because he is the authority of his own domestic hegemony. In his household, he punishes his violators through violent means. Stella is an example. Stanley has beaten Stella multiple times, and even has domesticated her to stay with him. Stella says to Blanche, when asked about what kind of person Stanley is, she replies, “Oh, you can’t describe someone you’re in love with!” Stella has been manipulated to the point that she is completely blind to Stanley's oppressive power structure. As for Blanche, she was a character that was not able to be domesticated by Stanley. Her personality rebelled against his strict power hegemony, so Stanley pinned her as crazy, and institutionalized her. Who was really crazy here?

As mentioned above, it’s hard to justify Stanley’s insane personality. In the power structure that is demonstrated in ‘A Streetcar Named Desire,’ the house is run under a Stanley hegemony. Stanley, one who demonstrates his power through violent actions, exercises his dominance throughout the house in inappropriately violent ways. Therefore, Blanche, among other people, who are nowhere near as insane as Stanley is, are conditioned into thinking that Blanche is the mentally ill person. Both characters portrayed unhealthy habits, but Blanche was not the one that deserved to be institutionalized. In summary, ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’ can be a story that portrays the contradictory standards that are present under an unfair power hegemony. Although Blanche was the victim of this relationship, Blanche was the one institutionalized because she did not hold any physical or political power within Stanley’s hegemony.

word count: 1097

Insane behaviors but still sane

            Albert Einstein is broadly credited with defining insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Many attribute this overused cliché to Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot as a means to prove that the characters Vladimir and Estragon, otherwise known as Didi and Gogo, are insane. Beckett exemplifies the idea of meaninglessness through their repetitive actions, but as foolish as these characters seem, they are not insane. Vladimir and Estragon continue to wait not because they are "expecting different results" but hoping for just one: Godot. Additionally, Beckett's play revolves around the philosophical concept of existentialism, and these characters are only victims of the emptiness of life. Despite their seemingly insane behaviors, Vladimir and Godot do not demonstrate insanity but eccentricity and boredom.

            Set in a seemingly hopeless environment, Vladimir and Estragon can easily be seen as mentally ill and, therefore, their actions insane; however, their unique characteristics are not stemmed from insanity. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines insanity as an "unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that releases one from criminal or civil responsibility". Through this definition, Vladimir's and Estragon's sanity can be seen through their various interactions:

            Vladimir: Off we go again. (Pause.) Do you not recognize me?

            Boy: No Sir.

            Vladimir: It wasn't you came yesterday.

            Boy: No Sir.

            Vladimir: This is your first time.

            Boy: Yes Sir. (Beckett, Act 2)

The formal definition of insanity states an inability to "enter into a particular relationship... or transaction". However, this dialogue between Vladimir and the boy reveal Didi's ability to understand that he has interacted with the boy before; he recognizes his encounters and "transactions" and questions why he is not remembered. Although strange, the interactions between Vladimir and Estragon display sane behaviors as defined by Merriam-Webster. Furthermore, insanity prevents a "relationship" but there is one between Vladimir and Estragon:

           Vladimir: (vexed). Then why do you always come crawling back?

            Estragon: I don't know.

            Vladimir: No, but I do. It's because you don't know how to defend yourself. I wouldn't have let them beat you. (Beckett, Act 2)

Despite being irritated and questioning Estragon's constant return, Vladimir is protective of Gogo. Their friendship is not a typical one, but Didi and Gogo have a clear relationship with each other. Although the play portrays these two characters in a peculiar manner, they differ from the given definition of insanity.

            Additionally, the commonly accepted idea that patients with mental illnesses are considered insane is not accurate. A Psychology Today article states that "insanity is a concept discussed in court to help distinguish guilt from innocence... the term today is primarily legal, not psychological" (Howes). However, even if readers were to view this play in a psychological context, Vladimir and Estragon are still not insane. Suicide is often seen as a mental illness and an act of someone who is insane. However, suicide itself is not a mental illness but often a result from those who suffer from a mental illness such as depression. Vladimir and Estragon's desire to commit suicide is not one that stems from depression, however, but from boredom:

            Estragon: Why don't we hang ourselves?

            Vladimir: With what?

            Estragon: You haven't got a bit of rope?

            Vladimir: No.

            Estragon: Then we can't. Silence.

            Vladimir: Let's go.

            Estragon: Wait, there's my belt.

            Vladimir: It's too short.

            Estragon: You could hang onto my legs.

            Vladimir: And who'd hang onto mine?

            Estragon: True. (Beckett, Act 2)

A central theme in Beckett's play is existentialism, and the author portrays a life of utter meaninglessness. This concept seeps into what would be an otherwise serious conversation and makes the topic of suicide into a shameless and empty bantering. Estragon offers his belt as a rope to hang themselves but Vladimir comments that "it's too short." Estragon replies with an absurd solution and tells Vladimir to "hang onto [his] legs". While suicide is often viewed as the climax of emotional turmoil, there are no obvious signs of distraught or logical reasoning in their discussion. It is simply a careless conversation between two men who struggle from pure boredom. Vladimir and Estragon do not suffer from insanity but from lack of excitement in their humdrum life.

            It is difficult to define what is sane or insane as there is such a fine line between these two terms. To determine sanity or insanity is based on whether the behaviors are rational or irrational, but these characterizations are heavily influenced by an individual's unique culture. The common beliefs that mental illnesses and a stray from norms are characteristics of insanity cause readers to assess Vladimir's and Estragon's actions as insane. But that is not the case. These literary figures are foolishly hopeful and extremely eccentric but not insane. They are just different.