I Accidentally Read a 12 Page Paper and Loved It!

After being assigned our literature circles for Winesburg, Ohio, my group decided to make me the criticism challenger. This weekend, I set out to find my critical article; however, in a momentary brain lapse, went looking for critical articles about The Picture of Dorian Gray instead of about Winesburg, Ohio. It was only after I finished reading a 12 page paper titled "A Portrait of Child Abuse in 'The Picture of Dorian Gray'" by Esther Rashkin that I realized I was supposed to read an essay on the chapter "The Philosopher" in Winesburg, Ohio. Although the Dorian Gray essay helped me little with my Winesburg, Ohio lit circle, it did give me considerable incite into The Picture of Dorian Gray which I will discuss in this blog.
The author of the article argues that the "invasive influence...does not appear to originate with Lord Henry, who seems only to awaken influences already present within Dorian." The author draws this conclusion from various quotes in the novel, including the quote when Dorian Gray said that the influences "seem to him to have come really from himself," page 20. The author believe such influences actually came from Dorian Gray's grandfather of whom Dorian Gray has "hateful memories." (page 92)
At this point in his argument, the other draws from the writings of psychologist Sandor Ferenczi in "Confusion of Tongues between Adults and Children." Ferenczi teaches that a child subjected to sexual abuse creates "an image of itself as a desirable love object to the adult." In other words, if the adult consistently tells the child that they are worthless, as does Dorian's grandfather, the child will act as though it is vile and worthless. Rashkin writes, "If Lord Kelso imprisoned this isolated boy and persistently treated him as vile and despicable, Dorian, in his inability to resist such aggression and his lack of any mitigating, kindly, adult influences, could well have identified with the image of him created by Kelso and incorporated it as his own."
In the novel, Wilde says that Lord Kelso hated his grandson for his "strange likeness to his mother," (page 95) Margaret Devereux. Devereux, in French, means decayed, vile, and rotten. Because Lord Kelso saw his own daughter as a rotten creature because she married a poor man, he also saw her son, Dorian Gray, as vile and rotten because he came from Margaret Devereux. Thus, because Lord Kelso consistently told Dorian Gray he was like his horrible mother, Dorian Gray, as taught by Ferenczi, began to act as he thought his mother would have acted.
His grandfather's influence, thus led him to fall in love with Sybil Vane and murder Basil Hallward. Because Dorian's mother married a penniless man, he reflected her actions by becoming enamored with Sybil Vane, a poor actress. He also identified with Sybil because, like him, she "lived by assuming other personae." Later, when Dorian murders Basil Hallward, the author argues that he is actually killing his grandfather Lord Kelso. When Basil comes to visit Dorian that fateful night, be consistently reprimands him for acting in vile ways, and when Basil sees Dorian's true self in the portrait, Basil reacts violently, accusing Dorian of being an evil, retched creature. These accusations evoke memories of Dorian Gray's childhood abuse by Lord Kelso, so in a moment of passion, Dorian kills Basil because to him, Basil has turned into his evil grandfather.
This is the argument made by the author of the article. I thought it was a very interesting take on the novel and highly suggest you read the article. It provides tons of evidence and completely changed by views on the The Picture of Dorian Gray.

The Book of the Grotesques

Many critiques of Sherwood Anderson’s Winesburg Ohio, argue that the book is a collection of short stories rather than a novel; however, quit to the contrary, Winesburg Ohio is a novel detailing the growth and development of a boy named George Willard. Each story in the novel contributes to the maturing of George Willard, and in the end, the boy leaves on an “adventure” that could lead to his eventual development from an adolescent to a man.
The first chapter of the novel sets up the theme for the story of George Willard. In this primary chapter, “The Book of The Grotesque,” Anderson develops the idea of omnipresent “truths.” These truths can destroy people; however, they do not destroy the narrator because a bit of his youthful innocence remains. This example suggests that the truths are only destructive if you let them destroy your hopes and dreams, but if you let the truths help you grow and become more alive and interesting, then the truths will help you become a mature, functional adult.
Each chapter subsequently either makes mention of George Willard or of a person somehow connected to or involved with George Willard. These supporting chapters each present a unique truth, a truth that has ruined the subject of the chapter. The subjects of these chapters, or those close to the subjects of these chapters, then try to teach George Willard the truth that has destroyed them. Not only do these people attempt to explain the truth to young George Willard, but they also try to clarify the means by which these truths destroy them. In this manner, these people hope to save George Willard from destruction by the truths; however they don’t want to protect him from the truths either. Like the narrator in the first chapter, they want George to understand the truths in order to grow and become a more interesting, life-loving person.
In the final chapter of the novel, Willard leaves for his final adventure. Anderson writes that, as Willard was preparing for his departure, “He thought of little things –Turk Smollet wheeling boards through the main street of his town in the morning, a tall woman, beautifully gowned, who had once stayed overnight at his father’s hotel, Butch Wheeler the lamp lighter of Winesburg hurrying through the streets on a summer evening and holding a torch in his hand, Helen White standing by a window in the Winesburg post office and putting a stamp on an envelope.” Willard is thinking of the “little things” because these little people, these inconsequential, obscure people, are the people who changed his mindset and subsequently, his life. The lives of these virtually unknown people showed George Willard the sadness of the truths, the depressing nature of a world ruled by truths, but they also showed him that there was hope. Not for them but for George Willard, who was young and vibrant, who had time to understand all that life held in store. So, with these people in mind, George leaves for his adventure to become a master of the truths.
Understanding this, it is very likely that George Willard is, in fact, the narrator in the first chapter. After he has completed his adventure, he understands the nature of the truths and how to live without the truths destroying him. In understanding this, he remembers everyone who taught this to him—“the grotesques”— his friends from Winesburg, Ohio. From these flashbacks, George Willard writes his novel –“The Book of the Grotesques”—to show others how they to can save themselves from destruction by the truths.

The Failure to Adventure

Adventure, an idea that is prominent in three chapters (so far) of Winesburg, Ohio, seems to be detrimental to those who attempt such a feat. George Willard, his mother, and Alice Hindman all fail in their quests, causing each individual to lose a part of themselves.

This idea is first expressed in the chapter titled, "Mother," when "plunged in gloom, Elizabeth Willard had an adventure." (page 27) Before her failure even occurs, the imagery of the passage sets the tone for future events. Nearly every paragraph makes a mention of the darkness or gloom of the hallways through which Mother Willard travels. The overbearing darkness seems to choke any possibility of success out of the adventure, foreshadowing the events that are to come. Elizabeth travels to her son's room, only to hear her husband giving George advice that "infuriated the women." (page 28) In her rage, Mrs. Willard decides to stab her own husband but fails in the resolution of the adventure when, "the strength that had been a miracle in her body left." (page 32) This failure to complete her mission, the goal derived from her adventure, represents Elizabeth's inability to counteract her husband's overly-ambitious and hateful nature. In the end, "the expression of joy" (page 33) becomes impossible for her. She loses all hope she originally possessed and becomes a completely empty, soulless creature.

Similarly her own son, George Willard, loses parts of himself in his adventure that takes place in a later chapter titled “Nobody Knows.” In this chapter, George Willard embarks on an adventure that brings him close to a woman named Louise Trunnion. During their meeting, he becomes “wholly the male, bold and aggressive. In his heart there was no sympathy for her.” (page 46) The two then escape into rural parts of the town, after which George returns alone, wishing to speak to “some man” (page 47). The “aggressive” nature George develops suggests that he feels possession over Louise Trunnion. This, combined with the secrecy of their meeting, suggests that Louise is a prostitute. When the two sneak away, Louise being a prostitute, it is likely that they have sex. Thus, George’s adventure is supposed to make him into a man by his sexual possession of Louise. This idea of his rebirth into a man is compounded by the picture of rain falling when he returns as well as his desire to be in the presence of another man. While all seems to have gone smoothly in George’s adventure, his apparent nervousness on page 47 suggests that the adventure was actually a complete failure. Also, George continuously tries to convince himself that Louise has nothing on him. This fear and overcompensation demonstrate the control Louise has over George, and thus demonstrate that George failed in his adventure’s goal –to become a man –by becoming the servant to a woman.

The final example, presented in the chapter actually titled “Adventure” has many of the same ideas expressed above; however, because I believe it could connect with other parts of the book, I will save the discussion of this section for a later time.

Mother! Oh God, mother! Blood! Blood! (Psycho)

Just this week, I have begun to read Winesburg, Oho, a book that seems to bring endless fascination to me. Although it does not have a gripping plot, the novel is so shrouded in mystery the reader can never become bored. Every sentence presents a new enigma, something that the reader must not only interpret but also connect to the rest of the novel. The story is a labyrinth; although it appears there are many monstrous truths in the middle of the maze, not just one ugly giant. I could spend hours discussing the numerous connections I have found in just the five chapters I have read; however, because I have not finished the novel, I feel I do not know the true depth and meaning of each of these connections. Instead, let’s focus on an allusion in the chapter titled “Mother” that, as Foster in How to Read Literature Like a Professor promised, has contributed significantly to my overall understanding of the story.
“Mother,” the story of the very ill mother of Wing Biddlebaum’s friend George Willard, seems to share many qualities with the ever-popular Alfred Hitchcock movie “Psycho" (which in turn was based on the 1959 novel Psycho by Robert Bloch). In case you’re unfamiliar with the horror film, it is a black-and-white classic about a disillusioned hotel keeper who has an extremely odd relationship with his mother. A series of murders plague his hotel, and many of the guests fear that his mother is the psychopath behind the horrid events. It isn’t until the close of the movie where everyone realizes that his mother is actually dead; however, because he is the one that murdered her, he has developed a split personality and believes his mother is still alive.
Similar to the movie, “Mother” takes place in a run-down hotel that was “unprofitable and forever on the edge of failure.” (p. 23) The mother, although alive in the book, seems to take on many characteristics of a corpse, thus baring many similarities to the dead mother in Psycho. Author Sherwood Anderson describes her as a “tall, ghostly figure” (p. 23) who had hands that are “white and bloodless,” (p.26) and she always appear to be sitting “listlessly.” (p. 23) Also, bearing a chilling resemblance to Psycho, Willard’s mother’s life seems dependent on that of her son. Just as the hotelkeeper’s mother only survives in his mind, Willard’s mother only survives for the sake of her son. She even says that she “‘will come back’” (p. 25) to save her son from failure, and later, on page 28, she experiences renewed, even murderous strength, when she senses that her son is in danger. She resolves on page 30 to kill her own husband in the name of her son. Thus, as in Psycho, this mother becomes murderous due to the influence of her son. In Psycho the son is the killer; however, it is the dominance of his mother that forces him to this end, and in Winesburg Ohio, it is the mother’s obsession with her son that almost forces her to murder. However, as if sensing that her son will leave her, “the strength that had been as a miracle in her body left.” (p. 32) She is unable to kill her husband because of a sudden bout of weakness. Shortly after she loses all strength, readers learn of her son’s departure. Similar to Psycho’s storyline, Willard’s mother can only live through him, and when he leaves, she loses her strength.
The similarities –murder, obsession, protectiveness—between Psycho and “Mother” provide a chilling backdrop to the chapter’s storyline. Not only does it accentuate the “grotesque” nature of the chapter’s events, it also highlights the extremely intimate relationship between Willard and his mother. Although it never seems to turn sexual, her obsession with her son borders on creepiness, and it makes readers wonder, what truth destroyed Willard’s mother?

All The King's Men--a different spin on things

During our few discussions in class, thus far, about All the King's Men, many people have emphasized the presence of corruption throughout the story. While I do recognize that corruption had a significant role in the plot line, I truly believe it was only a device used by Robert Warren Penn to get at the true meaning of his words. My observations lead me to believe that Penn wrote this book, not to highlight the corruption of mankind, but to highlight the complexity of mankind --which includes the good and the bad alike. Its seems that throughout the stories, the so-called villains have many redeeming qualities while Penn's little angels have their own demonic undertones.

First of all, Willie Stark, the classic corrupted politician, proves to have his own soft spots. This is best seen through his attempt to create the perfect hospital. He refuses, at first, to taint the sacred building with the corrupt hands of contractor Gummy Larson. Willie wants to design this legacy, a free hospital, so people would remember him for the good deeds he did. While the act is apparently selfish, there are a few moments when Willie seems genuinely concerned with the quality of the hospital for the people's sake-- especially when he chooses to hire Adam Stanton as the manager of the hospital. Also, Willie's devotion to his son, however misguided, demonstrates his truly loving nature. When Willie's son is injured in a car accident, Jack reports that the "Boss, pale as a starched sheet, and with his hair hanging and his eyes wild and sweat running down his cheeks, paced the floor of the waiting room and ground one fist into the palm of the other hand while his breath made a labored sound like the breath of his son in the room beyond." The Boss is clearly very worried for his son's safety. His love for his son is further demonstrated when, after Tom's death, he decides to name the hospital in memory of Tom Stark. From these examples, I believe that despite Willie's corruption, he had a desire to help his people and a devotion to those he cared about. Maybe this is what Anne was referring to when she told Jack (talking about Willie), "‘you’ve known him all these years and you don't know him at all.'"

On the other end of the spectrum, Judge Irwin, a supposedly honorable and caring man, has a very dishonorable past, as Jack finds out. Following a late night visit to the Judge, Willie asks Jack to uncover some dirt on Judge Irwin as a way to discredit the Judge after he sided with Willie's opponent. Jack doesn't believe that there is anything to find about the man, however, as Willie states, "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something." As it turns out, Judge Irwin was quite a shady character in his early days. "He had cuckolded a friend, betrayed a wife, taken a bribe, driven a man, though unwittingly, to death," Jack says on page 532. This respected Judge was filled with as much evil as Willie. Everyone thought him an angel; however, in truth, he was "conceived in sin and born in corruption" just like everyone else. Yet, staying true to his theme, Penn also demonstrates the good side of Judge Irwin. He was not only been a fair judge and a proud man, he also helped raise Jack after the scholarly attorney left. "After Ellis Burden went away [Judge Irwin] was more of a father to me than those men who had married my mother and come to live in Ellis Burden's house. And the Judge was a man." (page 61)

These two examples, and many more, emphasize an even greater theme in Penn’s All the King’s Men –man can be corrupt and evil or beautiful and spotless, but even the worst or the best of men generally have a little angel or demon in them. In other words, the world isn’t a black and white movie; it’s filled with color, and you have to remember to look at characters with that mindset.