Anna Christie by Eugene O’Neill | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Anna Christie was a drama by the American playwright Eugene O’Neill that won him his second Pulitzer Prize for Drama in the year 1922. It is a four-act play that was first performed in 1920. Unlike his previous play (Beyond The Horizon) which had a tragic ending, Anna Christie ends on a promising happy note. Yet, the titular character and the protagonist of the play represent the marginalized weak section of society.

Characters:

Anna Christopherson (Anna Christie) is a young girl who was abandoned by her father at the age of five. She decides to meet her father who is a sea Captain. Chris C. Christopherson (Old Chris) is her father. Mat is a young man who is among the rescued people from a shipwreck. He comes close to Anna. Johnny the Priest is the barkeeper in whose bar, Anna reunites with her estranged father after many years. Marthy is a grown-up woman, the current girlfriend of Chris. She shares a barge with Chris.

Summary of Anna Christie

The play begins as Anna Christie, a young girl knocks on the door of a bar. Chris is a barge captain who is having some drinks in the same bar. He is well known to the barkeeper Johnny the Priest and shows him a letter that he recently got. He says that this letter is from his estranged daughter whom he hadn’t seen since she was five years old. He says that since he used to be on the sea most of the time, his wife decided to live on a farm in Minnesota with her family members, and Chris never visited them there. He discusses the matter of the letter with Johnny the Priest. His daughter Anna is coming to New York City to meet him. Chris is a bit nervous about it as he hadn’t seen his daughter for years and he doesn’t know how to react. He is also worried that he isn’t leading a settled life. As Chris leaves the bar, Anna enters in. She is a confident girl who reveals herself as a tough cynical prostitute. She meets Mathy at the bar and soon the two become friendly with each other. Marthy is the girlfriend of Old Chris but Anna doesn’t know that. She reveals her reason to visit New York City to Marthy. She informs that the brothel she was working for in Saint Paul was arrested. She was given a choice of freedom if she leaves the town. She was feeling a bit ill so she decided to take a leave and visited New York City where her father lives. She is planning to stay and rest with her father for a while. She further reveals her past to Marthy and says that she doesn’t expect much from her father because she hasn't seen him since she was five. She informs her how her mother took her to a farm to live with her family where one of Christie’s cousins raped her. To save herself from further exploitation, she chose to run away to Saint Paul. She got some help in the new town and got a job as a nanny. However, she did not like caring for children and became a prostitute instead.

As Old Chris returns to the bar, he meets his daughter. Both cautiously greet each other and are optimistic about each other. Anna decides to hide her past life from her father and agrees to live with him and Marthy on his barge.

At sea, Anna feels a new sense of freshness. She tells her father that she is liking life at his barge as it makes her feel clean and healthy. Chris isn’t happy about it. He worries that Anna may decide to marry some sea captain like him because he doesn’t want his daughter to feel the same loneliness that his wife and Anna’s mother suffered.

Later that night, Chris sees some people trapped in the sea. He rescues four shipwrecked sailors. One of them is Mat who is young, good-looking, and flirtatious. When he sees Anna at the barge he tries to flirt with her. As Mat attempts to seduce Anna, she resolutely resists him. Mat gets impressed by her tough and determined nature. He feels she is the girl he should marry and settle with. However, he is a sailor and Chris doesn’t want her daughter to be with a sailor. Thus, Chris tries everything to keep them apart. This develops tension between Chris and Mat and ultimately they argue about Anna. Their argument soon gets the heat and they get involved in a fistfight. Mat is younger and stronger while Chris is getting old. Mat easily beats and defeats Chris. When Anna comes to know this, she gets very upset. She doesn’t like the fact that two such people who barely know her are fighting to decide her fate. She straightforwardly approaches Mat and says that though she likes him, she cannot marry him. Mat is adamant and he insists that Anna should accept his proposal. To this, Anna angrily reveals her past to him in presence of her father. She tells him that back in Saint Paul, she used to be a prostitute. As Chris and Mat listen to this, both get upset at Anna and criticize her. However, Anna isn’t ashamed of her past. She says that it is her father’s fault who abandoned her at such an early age. She informs how she was raped at the farm by her cousin and what forced her to become a prostitute. Anna further says that she decided to keep it a secret from her father but Mat has forced her to reveal her past. Mat gets furious and stomps out of the barge and starts drinking alcohol. On the other hand, Chris realizes that Anna became a prostitute only because of her situation while she has strong feelings for Mat. He decides to go behind Mat to convince him about Anna.

Chris continues to search for Mat for two days but fails to find him. He returns to his barge and finds that Anna is packing her belongings as she is preparing to return to Saint Paul. He informs her that he has signed on a ship project heading to South Africa. He says that he will make good money from it and will send it to Anna. Anna soothes him and says that she knows that he left her and his mother only to provide money for his family.

At the same time, Mat visits the barge through a steamer. He asks Anna to tell him that she lied about her past. But Anna isn’t ready to tell any lie and deny her reality. She says that she did work as a prostitute but now she has changed and swears that she will never go the same way she was in past. Mat realizes her toughness and believes in her. He forgives her and asks her to marry him the very next morning as he is also going to the same ship project headed to South Africa. He tells her that Anna won’t have to live alone for long as soon she will have his kids with her.

Chris tries to warn Anna again about the consequences of marrying a sailor. However, Anna convinces her that everything will be fine between her and Mat. Both Chris and Mat leave Anna as the play ends promising they will return soon to fill her life with all happiness she deserves. The play ends on a bittersweet note as it is suggested that Anna is making the same mistake that her mother did, years ago.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

Christopher Marlowe’s Barabas, The Last Jew | Understanding the Character

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Christopher Marlowe was one of the most conflicted figures of the Elizabethan era. Nobody knows about his family or his date of birth, but he was baptized on 26 February 1964. It's just a coincidence that William Shakespeare was also baptized in the same year. Marlowe is known to set the blank verse as a standard for the literature of the Elizabethan era. Right from a young age, he was frequently in trouble for accusations of homosexuality, atheism, brawling, and other transgressions. And this notoriety continued to grow as he came to be known as a spy backed by the Queen herself and then there were rumors that he was a crypto-Catholic and double agent. Anyways, his life was short as he was murdered on 30^th May 1593 at the age of 29. Imagine being an atheist in a society full of Puritan, Presbyterian, and Protestant zealots. Unlike other eccentric figures of later times, like John Wilmot, he wasn’t a libertine, he wasn’t looking for pleasure and fun in transgressions. Rather he was a sort of libertarian, looking, at and establishing his freedom as an individual, and for that, he was rebellious and was always at risk of suffering, pain, and attacks and that’s how he ended. He knew he was different from the whole pack of other lots in London and that prompted him to experiment through his dramas. He continuously used the stage to raise questions about racial, religious, and sexual inequalities in the British society of his time. This is why he successfully portrayed many diverse characters that were marginalized on fringes of the society or were completely alien to the people of England. The three most important Marlovian characters are Tamburlaine, Barabas, and Dido and all these three were alien to the British people. Except for The Merchant of Venice which was first performed in 1605, one will find it difficult to name any drama or piece of literature of that era depicting a Jew as the main character. Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta was however already performed in 1592 and established itself as a long-going successful drama, the play remained popular for the next fifty years until England's theaters were closed in 1642.

Barabas, The Jew of Malta

Marlowe was a rebellion against the norms and society in general. He used the stage to reprimand society for its ills. His creation of Barabas was to show the mirror to the British people in such a manner that they would accept it without any ruckus. Marlowe chose Barabas as a Jew, different from the common people of Britain that was his audience, and that offered narrative freedom to his Hero that any other character of the dramas of the Elizabethan era could not enjoy. Consider the protagonist of an English drama abusing his Christian neighbors in his scathing monologue at the beginning of the play as Barabas says, “Who hateth me but for my happiness? Or who is honour'd now but for his wealth? Rather had I, a Jew, be hated thus. Than pitied in a Christian poverty. For I can see no fruits in all their faith. But malice, falsehood, and excessive pride. Which me thinks fits not their profession”. Barabas recognizes that he is being hated and discriminated against for being a Jew, and wealthy. And he hits at the hypocrisy of the majority Christians among whom he lives as he asks Why on earth would anybody want to be a Christian? If you ask Barabas, all they do is talk about how righteous they are and then turn around and do the opposite. And they don't make good money.

Barabas could say something like that and still, get cheers from the Christian audience because he was behaving as was expected from a typical Jewish man. He is presented as a parody figure with a grotesque and laughable physical figure while Marlowe used this to ridicule and chastise all the others, who were the majority in the Audience. And this was the reason why Machiavelli offers the Prologue. Marlowe’s Machevill introduces Barabas as a comic glutton who "smiles to see how full his bags are crammed" and that his "money was not got without my means." There is nothing common in between Barabas and Machiavelli but he depicts all the personality traits that the Elizabethan audience could recognize as Machiavellian. He is strategic, dishonest, power-hungry, and irreligious. As Barabas was recognizable and acceptable to the Christian audience as an alien, Marlowe exposes the rest of the characters in Christian-dominated Malta through Barabas. This alienness of Barabas allows him to connive and scheme until he succeeds in his goals. He is so stigmatized that the audience doesn’t feel a sense of disgust or revolt while he does all the mean things. It was a general perception of Jewishness that they are nothing but money-grubbing friends. So when Barabas wants to be a money-grubbing fiend, the Protestant audience wouldn’t find it off the mark. Replace Barabas with someone from any other religion, who will be questioned and criticized for loving money more than their own daughter. “My gold, my fortune, my felicity. Strength to my soul, death to mine enemy! Welcome, the first beginner of my bliss! O Abigall, Abigall, that I had thee here too!” Barabas says to Abigail. Barabas treats his daughter as nothing but a tool to get his fortune back and yet, he gains applause as a hero for succeeding at his trick because it is normalized that Abigail is nothing but another piece of property, another means to end. However, she is not as profitable property as Barabas could otherwise have. Instead of standing with her father for his revolt and revenge, she prefers her love for other men and when he is murdered, she prefers to turn to Christianity. In doing so, she becomes forfeit property, a replaceable that can be sacrificed. Barabas does not feel the need to humanize his daughter, because he does not feel the need to humanize anyone. If flesh and blood are property to him, then Barabas has nothing to lose but his fortune, a recoupable commodity. Marlowe makes the most of Barabas’ Machiavellianism, and his ability to act without restraint.

Barabas convinces Abigail, to pose as a convert and gain access to the nunnery now taking up residence in his home. “Who’s this? Fair Abigall, the rich Jew’s daughter Become a nun? Her father’s sudden fall Has humbled her and brought her down to this” Friar Barnadine makes fun of Barabas when Abigail goes to the nunnery. Instead of recognizing the discrimination and exploitation, Barabas faces for being a jew, an alien, the Friar forces him to convert. Barabas utilizes his alienness as a way to fly under the radar of the Christians persecuting him so that he can lay his trap. A Christian character, no matter their class, could never have crafted the plan’s inverse scenario, in which they converted to Judaism as a cover-up, simply because a European Christian converting to another faith would be outside of expectation and draw too much attention. Thus, Abigail’s turn to Christianity was applauded. This allows her and her father to carry out their plan in secret, aided by their differences rather than hindered by them.

Barabas then shakes hands with the attackers and acts as a traitor to his own city. However, this accusation of being a traitor appears mild because right from the beginning, he was never accepted as a citizen of Malta from the start. He was taxed more than what could be called appropriate for not only just being a jew but for being a straightforward person who could demand equality in eyes of the law. He was forcefully made to realize that he is alien to society, and to the land, thus the accusation of being a traitor doesn’t sully the character of Barabas, and he succeeds in appearing as the Hero. His end is also no less Heroic. Marlowe’s final act in The Jew of Malta gives the audience a choice when Barabas is caught in his own trap. “And, villains, know you cannot help me now. Then, Barabas, breathe forth thy latest fate. And in the fury of thy torments strive. To end thy life with resolution”. Barabas dies with an unusual gracefulness as if he is a noble character. He accepts his fate and takes responsibility for the actions that have led him here, all while staying true to his prior beliefs and moral code.

Marlowe makes the audience think if Barabas was the bad guy, or if was he one of the bad guys among many others engulfing him. He was a money-grubbing jew but he could use the greed of Friars to instigate them and quarrel. The men in service of God had so much greed for Barabas’s gold that Friar Zocomo gets killed and Friar Barnadine is accused of the murder. The false letters of a girl could make two close friends enemies of each other to the extent that they kill each other. Marlowe uses Barabas and offers him the freedom to express everything that Marlowe himself wished to comment on. He brings forth the corruption of the clergy, the immoral discrimination of the state against the marginalized section of the society, and all other immoral behavior hidden in the Christian society of England as Barabas ridicules them and make use of them.
So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected to the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

William Wycherly’s The Country Wife | Summary, Analysis

 Hello and welcome to the Discourse. William Wycherly was an English dramatist of the restoration period. He was born on April 8, 1641, and died in the year 1716. Like George Etherege, he was influenced by French writers and admired Moliere’s comedies of mannerism. During his visit to France, he chose to accept Catholicism. After returning to London, he again was influenced and returned to the Protestant fold only to become a Catholic again as he got favors and patronage of James II, the Duke of York who later became the King. He was known for his straightforward attitude that acquired him the nickname Manly Wycherly which might have been based upon his main character Captain Manly from one of his plays titled The Plain Dealer. Wycherly joined the Inner Temple to learn law but soon realized that his only interest is a pleasure and the stage. He left his studies and decided to be a playwright. His chosen subject was societal hypocrisy that he expressed through the means of comedy of manners. His first drama Love in a Wood was first performed in 1671. He came up with his second comedy in the same year which was titled The Gentleman Dancing Master. After that, he chose to go on sea journeys. Later on, he joined the army and fought during the Third Anglo-Dutch War as he was commissioned "Captain-Lieutenant" in the company of the Duke of Buckingham's regiment. Meanwhile, he continued producing comedies every now and then. However, he gained the most fame with the last of his two comedy plays which were titled The Country Wife which was performed in 1673 and was published in 1675, and The Plain Dealer, which was performed in 1675. Wycherly is attributed to the word nincompoop which means a foolish person, as he used the word in The Plain Dealer for the first time. He is also the first person to use the phrase ‘Happy-Go-Lucky.’

The Country Wife

The Country Wife is a comedy of manners that reflects an anti-Puritan ideology. It was produced and performed during the period when Puritanism was being backlashed while British society was becoming more tolerant. The play shows Moliere’s influence on Wycherly as it is based on some very famous French comedies by Moliere. Wycherly mastered the subject and added certain features to suit the British audience and that made it a huge success. Wycherly uses colloquial prose dialogues in his play along with some explicit sexual innuendos and many sexual jokes. The play deals with two main plots while a third plot continues to grow in between. The first plot of the play is that of a rake whose only aim is to sleep with as many women as he could. To achieve this, he uses the impotency trick. He pretends he is impotent so that he may safely have secret relationships with married women as their men won’t doubt him. The other plot is about an inexperienced country girl who is married to a middle-aged gentleman in London. Her husband believes that since she is from a village, city life won't affect her and she will remain loyal to her. However, the country wife is too enthusiastic about city life and especially the sophisticated, fascinating, and virile men of London. The third plot involves a love story.

Harry Homer is an upper-class rake who decides to pretend to be impotent so that he may get closeness to married women. He spreads a rumor that during his visit to France, he contracted an illness while dealing with a common woman and the only cure that the physician suggested was to surgically reduce the size of his manly organ. Now, when he is impotent and unable, he is no threat to any man’s wife. This impotency trickery is based on the classical Roman comedy Eunuchus by Terence. Wycherly uses this plot to satirize the hypocritical upper-class women who are immoral at heart and willing to mingle with others at the back of their husbands. The trick not only helps Homer to safely seduce as many reputed rich ladies seduce as he could while cuckolding their husbands but also, helps him to target the women as the married women who are looking for an extramarital affair will be disgusted by an impotent. He uses this trick to recognize the women who are interested in an extra-marital affair and then he would trap them. Homer gains success with his plan as he succeeds in sleeping with many high-class aristocratic women. Three such women who make an entry on the stage are Lady Fidget, her sister-in-law Mrs. Dainty Fidget, and her friend, Lady Squeamish. One other conquest of Homer is Margery, the young country wife of Mr. Pinchwife. The story of Pinchwife and Margery is based on Moliere’s two plays titled The School for Husbands, and The School for Wives. Pinchwife knowingly marries a young unsophisticated girl Margery from a village in hope that being innocent, she will remain loyal to him. However, Margery is full of life and curiosity. She is enthusiastic about city life and sophisticated London men. And whom she meets in closeness is Homer. Pinchwife couldn’t doubt Homer as he is known as impotent. Homer teaches Margery and she quickly learns everything about the issues and fun of upper-class married life and seduction. In Moliere’s drama (The School for Wives), the innocent character Agnes is naturally virtuous and pure and hence she denounces any extramarital affair. On the other hand, Wycherly’s Margery decides to take the opportunity in both her hands. Pinchwife is an insecure and jealous man who funnily continues to offer the same knowledge to Margery that he wishes she shouldn’t know. The third story involves Harry Homer’s friend Harcourt who is in love with Pinchwife’s younger sister Alithea. Alithea belongs to an upper-class aristocratic family in London, yet, she is virtuous, honest, and pertinent. Pinchwife engages her with Sparkish who is a shallow fop and continues to show his foolishness. However, despite his stupid and cynical behavior, Alithea, being a virtuous girl respects her engagement with him and remains loyal. Harcourt continues to pursue Alithea in vain. As Homer is in contact with Margery and is cuckolding Pinchwife, he has easy access to Alithea’s home. Situations turn in such a manner that Alitheia while being virtuous and loyal is found by Sparkish and Harcourt in a misleadingly compromising situation. Alithea vows her sanctity and virginity but Sparkish denounces her as he couldn’t trust her. On the other hand, Harcourt has no doubt about Alithea. This leads Alithea to accept Harcourt’s love. Meanwhile, Homer faces the situation of being caught for his false trick of being impotent as when Sparkish accuses Alithea, Pinchwife claims that he is impotent. To this, Margery, known for her frankness feels sad. She personally knows that Homer is not impotent but a better man than Pinchwife. As she decides to counter Pinchwife and tell the truth about Homer, homer saves himself with the help of his other lovers. Pinchwife, who is jealous of Homer’s closeness with so many beautiful women, tends to believe that he is impotent and his wife is innocent. The play ends with the happy ending of Alithea’s re-engagement with Harcourt.

The Plain Dealer

The Plain Dealer was another comedy of manners that won praise for Wycherly. It was again based on one of the very famous plays of Moliere titled Le Misanthrope. Wycherly also used the Shakespearean plot of The Twelfth Night, turning a girl into a male pageboy. Captain Manly is the protagonist who is a misanthrope and doesn’t like other people. He doesn’t trust anyone except his friend named Vernish and Olivia, the girl he loves too much. However, while Olivia responds to his love with love, she gradually finds Vernish more attractive. She ditches Captain Manly and marries Vernish. Captain Manly feels cheated and wishes to take revenge on Vernish and Olivia. He takes the help of one of his pageboys who has earned his trust to go to Vernish and Olivia. He advises the pageboy how to seduce Olivia and thus, break her marriage with Vernish. However, the pageboy is no boy, he in reality is a beautiful girl who desperately loves Captain Manly and chose to disguise herself as a boy to be close to him. In the end, Captain Manly forgives Vernish and Olivia and marries the girl who became a pageboy for her.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the History of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

Criticism of the American Dream in Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. In a third-world country, a common man often leads a laborious life, struggling for his bread and butter, facing the consequences of the pandemic alone, and dying an incongruous death from frustration and failure. To an American citizen, such a life is difficult to imagine. He is a citizen of the land of plenty and wealth. He is the one who can proudly reject the government-aided vaccination for Corona of his suspicion of the government and vaccination in general. While in a third-world country, like Pakistan, people face a dearth of medicines and vaccines, where Polio is still an endemic, even during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-vaccine activism in the USA accelerated, amplified, and formed an alliance with political groups and even extremists.

Arthur Miller’s "Death of a Salesman" offers a similar scenario of the land of the plenty and hence, offers a challenge to the American dream, shattering it, and showing the face of reality in the shards of the broken dream. He challenged the common belief that to be an American is to enjoy a life of excess, equality, and ecstasy. No American should die an unlamented death.

The idea of the American Dream oozes from the "Declaration of Independence" which says, 'We believe that all men are born with these inalienable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

This idea, this dream is based on the genuine and determining ground of belief that in America, there can be no exploitation, no partialism, and thus, all things are possible to all men, regardless of birth or wealth; if you work hard enough you will achieve anything.

However, Arthur Miller artistically describes how people have been misguided and have misunderstood the idea of the American Dream in his play Death of a Salesman. He offers moving destruction of the whole farce around the American Dream.

The tragedy of Willy Loman, says Arthur Miller, is:

“Willy gave his life, or sold it, in order to justify the waste of it…”

Willy represents a common man in America, it is a tragedy of every low man in America. Death of a Salesman is a social tragedy. A Social Tragedy is a modern genre of tragedy that depicts the conflicts between the protagonist as an individual and society as a whole. The protagonist becomes a victim of society’s ill-treatment. The salesman Willy Loman is the victim of social injustice and this social injustice causes his tragedy. But he had his own flaws too. He was the one who mistook the meaning of the American Dream and lead his life following the falsehood around the American Dream. Willy believes in the American falsehood that “Success is obtained by being well-liked”. His dream ends up in a nightmare. Like the American Dream, the idea of Capitalism has also been tarnished and mutilated in America and the play equally challenges the wrong perception of Capitalism too.

To Willy, American Dream means becoming rich overnight. For him, the success of merit is money, big houses, costly cars, immoral affairs, and other material things. Willy gives two hoots to nobility, truth, honesty, and other virtues. Willy is not only a victim of this fraud based on the American Dream, but he also traps his sons Biff and Happy in the same fraud. For Willy, instead of hard work and courage, there is salesmanship. He considers salesmanship a trick to fraud. For Willy, it is the ability to sell a commodity irrespective of its intrinsic values or uselessness. For a salesman, the goal is to earn a profit, he doesn’t care for the trust of the buyer.

Willy is the victim of this falsehood which makes him spiritually hollow. He is unable to understand the difference between good and bad. When Linda complains about Biff’s bad behavior towards girls, he scolds Linda and asks if she wants her son to be a worm like Bernard. Bernard for Willy is liked but not well-liked.

Miller offers the characters of Charley and Bernard to show that despite all the fraud and falsehood surrounding the American Dream, not everyone is fooled by that. Charley is a man of virtues and hardship, he teaches his son the same, and despite being ‘liked but not well-liked’ they attain success. Charley and Bernard attain material success too though that wasn’t their main goal because material success cannot be a goal, it is the consequence, the end result of gaining success at being a good human.

Willy, on the other hand, ceases to be a man and spiritually, he is hollow. When Charley objects to Biff stealing from a nearby construction site, Willy totally ignores it, rather encourages Biff by claiming that his sons are a couple of “fearless characters.” His downfall isn’t sudden. Willy had high hopes for Biff but stealing became a habit of Biff that caused his downfall. Charley realizes that Willy isn’t an evil man at heart, he is a victim of the falsehood around the glorious idea of the American Dream. He tries to offer reason to Willy again and again but Willy isn’t ready to listen as his dream is so dear to him that he becomes blind to the truth. Charley continues to help him and Willy recognizes that even though they dislike one another, Charley is the only friend he has. Charley fails to save Willy and his downfall reflects the total breakdown of the concept of salesmanship which has been an integral part of the capitalist setup of America.

Willy feels that being “Well-liked” is not only the key to success, but he believes that life’s all problems can be solved by looking 'well-liked'. He fails to understand that in the real world, good looks don’t matter, what matters is your worth, skills, and wealth you have. Money can let you buy anything. The dollar rules the real world and overshadows every other human feeling. Willy had the skills, he worked for his company for more than 36 years. He introduced the business to many new cities and made the firm successful. He believes he is a vital man for the company. However, he fails to understand that in a capitalist setup, a man is vital only till he can raise profit for the firm. As soon as you appear weak in your skills at making a profit, you get fired. This fact falls on Willy in a brutal manner. When he gets old, weak, and ill, he asks for a settled desk job on humanitarian grounds. But Howard, his boss rejects his plea. Rather he fires him for a minute mistake as he says,

“I cannot take blood from a stone.”

Willy realizes that forget being vital, he isn’t even a man for the firm at all. For the capitalist boss, no moral or legal binding obligates him to help Willy with the work he did in past. For him, Willy is commercially useless in present and thus, is trash to be thrown.

“Death of a Salesman” offers an alert to American society. Through this story, Miller essentially says that a man is not a machine and that society needs to respect human values as should an individual. Willy’s suicide is the death of the American Dream. Arthur explains this through Biff, the elder son of Willy who says at his father’s funeral,

“He had the wrong dream. All, all wrong.”

Charley, though realizes that the American Dream in itself isn’t wrong, the wrong is in how Willy or a common American man perceives it. Charley says that a salesman must dream and that for a salesman there is no rock bottom in life. His younger son Happy understands the situation at a deeper level. He realizes that though tragic, his father was no evil man. He knows his father always tried to do something for his boys and never wished to depend on them. He commits suicide as it will bring twenty thousand dollars of insurance which will help Biff to make a good fortune. Happy is the younger son who never got the same attention and affection from Willy that Biff easily got. Yet, apart from Linda and Charley, he is the only one who understands his father and respects him for what he was. He decides to stay in the town, settle and work hard. He rejects the farce and false around the American Dream while embracing it in a true sense as he says,

“Willy Loman did not die in vain. He had a good dream. It’s only dream you can have-to come out number-one man.”

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American Literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

Beyond the Horizon by Eugene O’Neill | Summary and Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Eugene O’Neill was a popular American playwright who won the Nobel prize for literature in 1936. Apart from that, he won three Pulitzer prizes for his dramas Beyond the Horizon (1920), Anna Christie (1922), and Strange Interlude in 1928. Heis autobiographical drama Lond Day’s Journey into Night was published posthumously in 1956 and it won the Pulitzer prize in 1957. Thus, Eugene O’Neill is the only such author who won four Pulitzer prizes and a Nobel prize for literature. Eugene was born on October 16, 1888, and he died on November 27, 1953, at the age of 65. He attended Princeton University for his graduation but was thrown out after the first year for throwing a beer bottle into the window of a professor, allegedly Woodrow Wilson, who later became the President of the United States.

O’Neill enjoyed marine life and he spent many years at the sea during which he suffered alcoholism, depression, and dereliction, yet, his love for the sea didn’t cease. Many of his plays include sea life as a theme. In 1912, he suffered a contagious attack of Tuberculosis and was sent to a sanatorium when he decided to invest his time in writing. He wrote some of his plays during his time in the sanatorium. In 1916, he went to Provincetown town for his summer vacation where he met Susan Keating Glaspell. Eugene read one of his plays titled Bound East for Cardiff for Susan Glaspell and she liked his writing style. Later on, many of Eugene O’Niel’s early plays were performed by the Provincetown town players.

His first published play was Beyond the Horizon which was first performed on Broadway in 1920. The play got a huge success and was declared the winner of the Pulitzer prize for the drama of 1922. Eugene O’Neill was deeply influenced by Swedish playwright, novelist, and poet Johan August Strindberg and he mentioned this influence during his Nobel prize acceptance speech. His other important works include Emperor Jones (1920), The Hairy Ape (1922), Desire Under the Alms (1924), and The Iceman Cometh (1939). While most of his plays and dramas depict the themes involving characters on the fringes of society struggling to maintain their dignity and aspirations and thus involve tragic pessimism, he wrote some comedies too and one such was Ah Wilderness which was first performed in 1933. It differs from a typical O'Neill play in its happy ending for the central character, and depiction of a happy family in turn of century America.

Beyond the Horizon Plot Summary and Analysis

Beyond the Horizon was Eugene’s first published play that he copyrighted in 1918. It was first performed in 1920 on Broadway and the drama won Eugene’s first Pulitzer prize in 1922. Before this, many of Eugene’s One Act plays have been performed but Beyond The Horizon was his first full-length play. The main theme of the play is the necessity of the dream or vision for the sustainability and success of a man.

In this play, Euegene depicts the progressive disillusion of Mayo’s family with clear realistic details. The play begins at a farm in Spring and then shifts to Summer three years in the future. Again the play moves to late Fall, five years later. While the play focuses on the Mayo family, the main characters are the two young brothers Robert Mayo and Andrew Mayo. Both are different in nature and temperament. Robert Mayo is a sea-lover who dreams of exploring and journeying ‘Beyond The Horizon.’ Andrew Mayo is a homely guy who is in love with a girl in the neighborhood. Andrew wishes to marry the girl whose name is Ruth and settle there with his parents. However, when Andrew proposes to Ruth, she rejects him and shows interest in Robert instead. Andrew is heartbroken but he is happy for his brother. The two brothers discuss the matter and decide to exchange their dreams. Robert, who wished to explore far places, suddenly throws himself into the new dream of marital happiness with Ruth. Andrew, on the other hand, could not bear the burden of seeing the girl he loved with anyone else. So he decides to take the sea route in place of Robert.

As the two brothers exchange their dream, Robert is expected to settle with Ruth and remain at their home with his parents, while Andrew tries to seek a new life and purpose Beyond The Horizon.

Five years later, they realize that both brothers are failures. The two brothers are forced to suffer the consequences of betraying their respective dreams. Robert, who gave up his dream of being a sea explorer finds himself depressed and unsatisfied at home. He turns alcoholic and the romance between him and Ruth evaporates. He dies on the farm in disillusionment. Andrew, who took the sea route, finds it difficult to cope with the sea challenges and decides to give up the life of a seaman. He tries to settle with a South American business venture but that too fails and he suffers penury. Ruth, who initially was happy having married the man she desired, realizes that she made a huge mistake and committed a wrong choice. Her romantic dreams are soon shattered as she faces the stark realities of farm life.

As Robert continues his quest for beauty and poetry in life, he realizes that he cannot sail beyond the horizon on any ship because beyond the horizon can only be achieved through death. As he realizes that the happiness that lies beyond the horizon is unattainable for living people, he prefers death.

Robert’s death explains the need for the dream for the sustainability and success of a person. His struggles and suffering at the farm make him realize the purpose of his life, which he couldn’t achieve as he gave up his dream. Like in other stories of Euegene O’Neill, happiness through love is an illusion in this drama while suffering not only offers salvation but results in peace.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

George Etherege | The Man of Mode Or Sir Fopling Flutter and Other Works

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Theaters were banned during the Interregnum under the reign of Oliver Cromwell as the Protector. Charles II returned as the King in 1660 and one of his first moves after becoming the king was to reopen the theaters and grant a letter patent to the theater owners and managers to handle the theatres again. During the same time, George Etherege began his career as a playwright. His first play to be performed was The Comical Revenge, or Love in the Tub. The Comical Revenge was performed at the Duke’s Theatre in 1664. Lord Buckhurst was among the audience and he was impressed by Etherege’s comic work. The Comical Revenge was written in partly rhymed heroic verse like a tragedy but it was a comedy with certain new and fresh scenes and perspectives. Lord Buckhurst, who later became the Earl of Dorset, became a friend of George Etherege. While Etherege enjoyed substantial success with his very first drama, he was not sure of his skills as a dramatist and he took four more years to present his second drama, She Would If She Could, in 1668. Meanwhile, he gained a reputation as a poet and became a poetic Beau. He became friends with Lord Rochester and Charles Sidley. Soon he gained further fame and became closer to the king and was announced as one of the king’s wits. George Etherege was very friendly and genteel in behavior and often his colleagues and collaborators used to call him ‘genteel George’ and ‘easy Etherege.’ "She Would If She Could" was again a comedy full of action, wit, and spirit. However, it was considered frivolous, immoral, and vulgar by the then-English public. The play takes the audience into a dreamy fantasy world where the only serious work of life is to flirt. While the comedy made many laugh, some people were agitated. Etherege himself was leading an unprincipled and frivolous lifestyle along with the Earl of Rochester. It was a comedy with no incongruous romantic verse and hence attained unity of tone in the play. Etherege wasn’t very serious about his career as a playwright and he took eight more years to present his third play which was titled The Man of Mode in the year 1676. The subtitle of the play was Sir Fopling Flutter.

The Man of Mode or Sir Fopling Flutter became an instant hit and proved to be the best comedy of George Etherege. It is still considered the best comedy of the restoration period before the works of William Congreve began to appear. One of the major reasons for the success of this play was the fact that many of the characters of the play were based on real-life people of that time. The subtitle of the play, Sir Fopling Flutter is one of the main characters of the play and this character was based on Beau Hewit, the reigning exquisite. The hero of the drama is Dorimant and this character was based on the earl of Rochester. Another character in the play is Medley who was based on George Etherege himself. That is, Etherege caricatured himself too along with some of his friends in this play. There is a minor character of a drunken shoemaker in the drama which was also based on a real-life shoemaker in London at that time. John Wilmot, the earl of Rochester, and George Etherege were very close friends. Both lived their life in excesses as libertines. Etherege and Wilmot both had a daughter by the unmarried actress Elizabeth Barry. The play got successful and famous because of its wit and charm.

Summary of The Man of Mode or Sir Fopling Flutter

The drama is based on the theme of the restoration of order in love and marriage. The two main characters are Dorimant and Harriet around whom the story revolves. They are deeply in love. However, before Dorimant meets Harriet and falls in love with her, he is already flirting with a lady Mrs. Loveit. Dorimant is trying to get rid of Mrs. Loveit but he is not clear about his intentions and keeps fooling her. Mrs. Loveit is deeply in love with Dorimant but her unrequited love only brings her scorn and ridicule. Having long since lost interest in her, Dorimant continues to lead her on, giving her hope but leaving her in despair. On the other hand, Harriet’s mother Mrs. Woodwille also doesn’t like Dorimant as he has got bad fame. She is totally against Harriet meeting Dorimant ever and opposes her. Mrs. Woodville arranges Harriet’s marriage to Bellaire. Bellaire on the other hand doesn’t want to marry Harriet as he is in love with Emilia. However, his father threatens him of disinheriting him from his fortunes if he doesn’t marry Harriet. Bellaire and Harriet meet and they pretend to like each other while both of them confess to each other that they wish to marry someone else.

Bellaire comes to know that his father is in love with Emilia and wishes to marry her. His father doesn’t know that Bellaire and Emilia are in love. As Bellaire's father pressurizes Emilia, Bellaire and Emilia elope and secretly marry against their parent’s wishes. Harriet and Dorimant help them through their battle of wits and in the end, everybody accepts the marriage of Bellaire and Emilia. The wits and tricks of Harriet and Dorimant remind the audience of Shakespeare’s Beatrice and Benedict in Much Ado About Nothing, from 1598.

Mrs. Loveit offers an element of tragedy to the play as she is defenseless against the cruel acts and words of Dorimant. In the end, she loses any hope of being with Dorimant as he succeeds in gaining Harriet’s love. Mrs. Loveit says, "There's nothing but falsehood and impertinence in this world. All men are villains or fools," as she leaves the stage. Everyone offers good wishes to the new couple of Bellaire and Emilia as Bellaire’s father accepts their marriage. Dorimant proposes to Harriet who happily accepts him while her mother is now in no mood of resisting their love. The drama ends as all the characters, except Mrs. Loveit are happy in life and in love. Sir Fopling Flutter is also the main character whom Dorimant uses to fool Mrs. Loveit by establishing that she is flirting with Sir Fopling Flutter so that he may accuse her of disloyalty and get rid of her. Etherege presented Sir Fopling Flutter as a comedy character with eccentric mannerisms. It was one of the first dramas depicting comedy of manner. The Man of Mode is the drama in which George Etherege pioneered comedy of intrigue and comedy of manner. William Congreve further mastered this art in his dramas.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

Thomas Rymer | Reflections on Aristotle’s Treatise on Poesie and Other Important Works

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Thomas Rymer was an English poet, critic, and Historian of the Restoration age. He was a new-classicist, that is, he was a strong critic of contemporary and current dramas and poetry while he supported and worked for the revival of the many styles and spirit of classic antiquity inspired directly by the classical period. Thomas Rymer was strongly criticized by Thomas Babington Macauley in the 19^th century. Macauley ridiculed Rymer and termed him the ‘worst critic that ever lived.’ However, Rymer had his influence during the 18^th century, the age of Enlightenment.

Thomas Rymer began as a translator and the first major work that he translated was Rene Rapin’s Aristotle’s Treatise on Poesie. This translation was first printed in 1674. Rene Rapin was a French writer who also promoted neo-classicism. He wrote an essay on Aristotle’s Poesie and while writing the essay, Rapin added his own ideas too while supporting Aristotle. Rymer, being a neo-classicist himself, found Rene Rapin’s essay worthy and inspiring and translated it. Rymer too, not only translated Rapin’s original essay, he added a few ideas of his own. Rymer added a preface in defence of the classic rules for unity in drama. Aristotle never used that term, nor did Rene Rapin or other scholars who studied and analyzed Aristotle’s original work. Thomas Rymer coined the term Poetic Justice and used it in his translation. Thomas Rymer not only translated Rymer’s essay on Aristotle’s Poesie, but he also imbibed it and tried to emulate it in his own dramas and criticism of other dramatists.

In his translation, Rymer says that according to Aristotle, characters should behave “either as idolized types or as an average representation of their class.” What it means is that if a dramatist is presenting a villainous character in a play, or novel, then the character must represent and exhibit the characteristics of an idolized villain. If the character is that of a hero, then the character must have all the traits of an idolized hero. Or, the character should represent the average character of his class. That is, if the dramatist or writer is presenting a middle-class man, then the representation should be as close to reality as it can be, that is, the character should have all the major traits of a middle-class man. Such characterization avoids confusion, juxtaposition, and contradictions in the minds of the audience or readers.

In 1678, Rymer again expressed his ideas on drama in the form of a printed letter he wrote to Fleetwood Shepheard which was titled The Tragedies of the Last Age Consider'd. Fleetwood Shepheard was a close friend of Mathew Prior. One of the most talked about contributions of Rymer to the theory and ideas of Aristotle’s Poesie is the term, Poetic Justice. The idea of poetical justice is that in a drama, novel, poem, or story, ultimately virtue is rewarded and misdeeds or vices are punished. In his letter, The Tragedies of the Last Age Consider’d Rymer coined the term poetical justice while talking about the drama Rollo Duke of Normandy by John Fletcher, Philip Massinger, Ben Jonson, and George Chapman. In this letter, he heavily criticized the plays by Jacobean playwrights Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher. Rymer’s complaint against Fletcher and Beaumont was that they didn’t adhere to the principles of classical tragedy. He mentions how these playwrights reduced the importance of poetic justice in their dramas.

In 1680, Ovid’s Epistles was translated by various artists. The preface of this translation was written by John Dryden and Thomas Rymer contributed Penelope to Ulysses. In 1692, Rymer translated the sixth elegy of the third book of Ovid's Tristia for Dryden's Poetical Miscellanies.

In 1693, Thomas Rymer again published his views on dramas in his letter titled A Short View of Tragedy. In this letter, Rymer scathingly criticized William Shakespeare, and Ben Jonson, the two of the most celebrated dramatists of the Jacobean age. In this letter, Rymer suggests that all modern dramas (Restoration period) should be rejected and we should return to the Greek tragedy of Aeschylus. In this work, he strongly criticized Shakespeare’s famous tragedy titled Othello. Rymer said that it is “a bloody farce without salt or saviour.” According to him, Shakespeare hugely deviated from the Greek principles of tragedy in Othello.

In the same year, another renowned critic of the Restoration period John Dennis wrote an epigram on Thomas Rymer strongly rebutting his criticism of dramas of the Restoration period including those of Ben Jonson and Shakespeare. The title of this epigram was The Impartial Critik.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.