Was leaving the best choice?

It is obvious to the reader within the first few pages of the play that Nora is not the superior in this household. Her husband Torvald calls her demeaning names such as "lark" or "squirrel" and she seems to push it off as if it does not matter. For nearly the entire play she is allowing others to think for her and at the end, when she finally brings about ideas of her own, she leaves. This occurrence struck me as very strange. She has finally revealed her deepest secret to Torvald, who minutes later forgives her and at the time of her departure has already offered to change for her and respect her more. At the time of her departure Torvald has already offered to change for her as proved by his statement, "I have the strength to make myself over."(Ibsen 113) At this point in the story I felt a shift in power. Nora has changed from her carefree, spendthrift ways to a seemingly more confident and knowledgeable woman just by discovering and acting upon her current situation. She however, seeing her husband begging for her to stay, should have seized control, demanded more authority in decisions, and dropped the previous restrictions placed on her outside the house. It seems rash and selfish to leave her children when she could have easily stayed. I found myself slightly disappointed with the ending involving her withdrawal from her family and I think several options could have worked to achieve her goal of education and control, better than the one she chose.

The Unequal Relationship of Torvald and Nora

      In Act Three, Torvald says, "From now on, forget happiness. Now it’s just about saving the remains, the wreckage, the appearance" (Ibsen 105).Torvald has superficial and shallow characteristics. Krogstad is a threat to Nora, but Torvald is consumed by other people's perceptions of him and his marriage. He is so focused on his business and social standings that he refuses to acknowledge Nora's feelings about her situation. He would rather Nora live unhappily in a facade of content than she ruin his image. His marriage is important to him, but not because of emotional ties; he only loves Nora for her beauty. Unconcerned with her well-being, Torvald proves himself to be selfish. 
       This is significant because it is an example of Ibsen's critique of 19th century marriage and gender roles. During the 19th century, women were still second-class citizens. They were denied rights and were often in unequal relationships, as men held more power. Marriages were often not for love, rather they were for social standing. Women were not valued for their potential, and men were seen as the only worthy people to hold a family or marriage together. Because of the nature of their relationship, Nora is expected to sacrifice her happiness in order to protect Torvald's ego, as she is a woman in a male-dominated society. Torvald is not to help her recover from her situation; he is only to look out for his own best interests. Roles in the relationship are valued more than trust, equality, and ethicality, proving Nora and Torvald's relationship to be an embodiment of the relationships that commonly existed during the 19th century. 

"My Little Songbird"

 Throughout the book "A Doll's House" I feel as if Nora is seen as a very incapable woman that does whatever her husband tells her to do. Torvald, Nora's husband, touches Nora playfully and calls her many names like "songbird" and "skylark". Calling Nora names that refer to birds are just ways that Torvald would play around with her to make her feel happy and make him feel as if he is enjoying his time with her and to show that he "loves" her. When Nora needs a real husband and someone to discuss serious matters with Torvald does not seem to know how to change his ways. What I wonder is how Nora and Torvald even first met and felt it was right to become married. It is possible that Nora was forced into it or that she found his playfulness fun and nice at the beginning.

 I find it interesting when it is brought up that Nora had to find someone to loan her money so that she could take a trip to Italy to cure her husband. Krogstad, the person who loaned her over 4,000 dollars uses the thought of Torvald finding out that Nora tried to cure him as a threat. I would think that Nora going out of her way to cure her husband would be seen as a good thing but considering the setting and timing of this book I can understand how it is seen that women should not be helping their husband in large cases like the one presented to Nora. It is also weird to see that traveling to somewhere like Italy could cure someone.

The book shows how a Woman changes from being the play doll for men to standing up for herself and really changing things for the better. Nora was tolerating her husband but she really had no real love for him. Her finally making a stand and moving is definitely the best thing she could have done.

Nora Helmer: A Different Kind of Women in Her Age

Throughout the duration of the play, A Doll House, Nora Helmer exposes herself to the reader as a cunning and capable woman, which is contradictory to the way her acquaintances view her. In the opening act Nora is portrayed as a spoiled housewife who dotes on her husband in the hopes of receiving money in return. At this point in the play one has the notion that Mrs. Helmer is a gold digger, and married Mr. Helmer so he could provide for her shopping addiction; however, this idea is refuted when Nora confesses to Mrs. Linde that her love for Mr. Helmer is so strong that when his life was in danger, she borrowed 4,800 crowns in order to save him. In the end of Act I it is revealed that Nora borrowed this large sum of cash from Nils Krogstad who works at the bank with Nora's husband. Krogstad threatens to tell Mr. Helmer of Nora's debt to him if she fails to convince her husband to allow Krogstad to keep a job a the bank. This in turn results in Nora using her only skill of feminine charm to her advantage, and distracting her husband from reading the mail, which contains proof of her debt to Krogstad. In the end of Act III when Nora's lie is exposed, the play has a drastic change of events. After Mr. Helmer yells at Nora, telling her that she has ultimately ruined his life, Nora realizes that she does not love her husband at all. Nora informs Mr. Helmer how he has done her a disservice by viewing her as a toy which he could play with and love, but never see as an equal. She goes on to say how she plans to leave him and their children to explore and learn about the world, and how she refuses to be merely a play thing for him or anyone else.

The ending of this play was something that I found quite unique. Due to the fact that in the time Nora Helmer was living in, women were seen as mothers and wives and nothing else. Nora defies this stereotype by professing her desire to become educated. Once Nora stood up to her husband, I gained a new respect for her, and can only wonder what became of her after she left Mr. Helmer.

Nora: a product of her envronment

An examination of Nora as a product of her environment:

Our first impression of Nora is the stereotype of a light headed housewife. She comes off as greedy, insensible, and stupid. As a woman in the late 1870s she has been brought up her entire life with the roll models of other such seemingly unsubstantial women. I would like to consider the role of “flimsy housewife” as a kind of camouflage used by women in order to survive in their social environment.

As we see in Acts II and III, Nora is in no way lacking intelligence. Knowledge and wisdom may be at fault, but these are all things not taught to a woman of her time and stature. Nora uses her feminine charms and skills in ways that were most socially appropriate to her time. She was able to slip under the radar of the law and do what she felt needed to be done. She charms her husband into giving her money, and she fools Krogstad into giving her a loan which he later finds out to be false.

She used the options available to her to save her husband's life. Nora is a prime example of a master manipulator, a skill I believe many women of that time may of possessed. As a woman without direct access to political, social, or economic power it would have been of extreme importance to find someone with that kind of power and use it to their advantage.

I believe Nora left her husband, her children, because she realized for herself that she was just the sum of parts imbued into her by her environment. She no longer wanted to manipulate, she wanted to able to have a genuine conversation with her husband. In the end she left because she believed that Torvald would never be able to see her as anything other that what she had shown him. Nora says “You never loved me. You’ve only thought it fun to be in love with me, that’s all.” In this statement Nora is explaining how Torvald perceives her. Torvald sees her not as an equal capable of mature love and understanding, but as as the collection of parts society has given her. A pretty thing to keep on his shelf and admire.

Nora's Questioning Mind

In the play A Doll House, there are many questions to be raised about the main character Nora.  At the beginning of the play she seems to be dependent on her husband  for most things.  For example, she uses his money to purchase the Christmas presents,  the Christmas tree and items for herself.  She is also very happy that Torvald has become the new manager at the bank, for it means he will be making a bigger salary.  All she seems to care about is money.  As the play continues we find out that she has not depended on him for everything.  Nora states, “Papa didn’t give us a pin.  I was the one who raised the money” (A Doll House 53).  She worked small jobs on the side in order to raise money to save her husband's life, but in the end she had to borrow the money.  Now, without her husband knowing, she has been paying the money back.  Throughout the play she is worried that her husband will find out the truth, so she has Mrs. Linde help her keep this secret.  This does not work and when Torvald finds out the truth he is furious.  At this point in the play, Nora’s attitude changes drastically.  She becomes calm and suddenly knowledgeable about the circumstance of her life.  How could her thoughts on her life have changed in a matter of minutes?  After Torvald says he forgives her she tells him that she is leaving in order to educate herself.  She realizes that she does not love him and what they have is not marriage.  Is it possible to suddenly realize that the life you have been living is not one of truth?  How can one be content with leaving their husband and children behind for selfish reasons?    

Splatoon and the Post-Apocalypse

With The Road coming to an end, I thought I would discuss a game that adds a fun spin to the post-apocalypse: Splatoon.

 Splatoon is a 2015 third person shooter licensed by Nintendo. The objective is simple, use unique weapons to splatter ink onto a surrounding area in the hopes to have more than the opposing team.

Surprisingly, Splatoon shares many similarities with The Road. In fact, I believe that they both take place in the same universe. Both have similar backstories to them, an natural event has destroyed civilization, leaving the earth in shambles. In Splatoon, the cause of the destruction had been a global flood, due to rising sea levels. People in The Road (humane ones at least) are rarely seen because of a catastrophic event, though it is never directly stated what it is. 

In Hero Mode, there are several hidden scrolls found in various stages. One reveals that Inklings, the playable characters in Splatoon, have evolved past humans. This shows that the events of The Road took place thousands of years before those of Splatoon. 

The case seems to be that humans somehow have evolved with squids to become Inklings. They share many similarities, not just in appearance. It is stated that, like humans Inklings have competitive natures and will fight over territory. It seems with its infatuation with war that the species  has not evolved far enough just yet!

So what are anyone else's thoughts? Are there any games or media that remind you of The Road? 

Stay fresh!

A happy ending

The question that arises when reading a post-apocalyptic novel is, "Is death as tragic as it seems?"  When reading the adventurous story behind a protagonist, naturally as readers we enjoy the idea of the characters living with a happy ending.  However, in The Road is living the happiest ending for the boy and the man?  On page 154, it is stated, "Even now some part of him wished they'd never found this refuge.  Some part of him wished it to be over."  Before the man and boy found the bunker with all the food, they were on the verge of dying.  The man's inner monologue may have the right idea.  Although it's dark, maybe the best scenario is the man and the boy peacefully dying.  If they do live, what will happen to them?  They will always be alone (maybe they'll meet a few other people) and they will most likely be on the verge of starving until they grow old and die.  They will probably continue to live miserably even if they reach where they want to go.  Also, they live in constant fear of being eaten by cannibals or used as sex slaves.  It would be even worse to die at the mouth of another human being.  Their best option may honestly be to die of natural causes peacefully together. Even the man seems to realize this.  How long will it be worth it to struggle to survive? Is it even worth it at all?  The old man they meet seems to answer this when he says, "But I wish I had died." when asked, "Do you wish you would die?" by the man on page 169.  The old man seems to wish he had died when the apocalypse first occurred.  The death of the man and boy probably is dreadful to the two of them, but even the man has considered it a good option compared to the alternatives.

Feelin' the Breeze

          Throughout the story so far, the man and the boy's main goal was to travel along the road to reach the coastline in hope for a better life. When they finally reach the coast, it starts out to be very anti-climactic. Normal beaches usually have blue oceans and white sandy beaches, but when they reach this beach, it is completely covered in ash. Up to this point, the man has been telling the boy that he remembered the ocean to be a nice shade of blue, but once they see it, it looks just like a blob of gray slush. The mood is quite gloomy at this point because the whole description of the beach seems to be a total let down for the boy.

          However, the mood takes a huge jump upward when the boy asks his father if he can go into the ocean. At first, the man is slow to allow him to go in, but soon he allows him to go swimming even though it is very cold outside and in the water. The way McCarthy describes this event is great. He says, "He stood naked, clutching himself and dancing. Then he went running down the beach... Running naked and leaping and screaming into the slow roll of the surf" (McCarthy 218). This is pretty much most people often act when they first get to the beach after a long travel to finally get there. Even if it is not as he imagined it to be, the boy was still able to enjoy his first swim in the ocean. Like the boy, whenever I first get to the beach, my first instinct it to always go diving in the water just to see how it is. It doesn't matter what it looks like, the overall sight of a beach is usually an uplifting sight for most people.

          The beach has acted almost as a symbol of hope throughout the story so far. The boy and the man's constant goal was to reach the coast line, and now they finally did. Now that they are finally on the beach they can relax a little and do some lighter activities like searching the beach for washed up goods. Anything can wash up along the shore line so there is hope that something good may soon wash up right into the boy and the mans' hands. Hopefully this will be a turning point of more good things to come for the boy and the man.

Good Guys and Bad Guys

The dire circumstances the survivors of the society in The Road are presented with, molds them into ruthless people who are frequently described as animalistic. On page 63, a man who is a part of the truck people has eyes that are described as “Eyes collared in cups of grime and deeply sunk. Like an animal inside a skull looking out the eyeholes."  The truck person is described as having an animal stuck inside of his skull looking out on the world. The harsh environment of the world is causing people to resort to inhumane survival tactics which result in them taking on an animal-like mentality. On page 98 it states "He trudged out through the drifts leaving The Boy to sleep under the tree like some hibernating animal." At the boy's young age, he should look peaceful, young and childlike while sleeping. He should not resemble a hibernating animal while asleep. The society of The Road  has marred the morality of humanity and the line between good and bad had been drawn paper thin. In the novel The Boy constantly asks his father if they are the good guys. On page 137 The Man reassures the boy that they are the good guys and says, "Okay. This is what the good guys do. They keep trying. They dont give up." With circumstances of living in a post-apocalyptic world the citizens are forced to make hard choices and their faith in humanity wavers. Is it okay for someone to kill another person in order for them to live? It it okay for a person to give into their animalistic urges and  become heartless all in the name of survival? The truck people kill others and eat them to stay alive and The Man is willing to kill people to protect his son. The choices that are made in The Road  causes The Boy to question whether they really are good people and if what they have done to survive is acceptable.

The Sealed Hatch

As the two characters from The Road seek food and shelter, they find a large house on the outskirts of a town. The boy wants no part in exploring the house because he has a bad feeling about what could be inside, while the man wants to rummage through the house for resources. They attempt to listen for movement or peculiar sounds, and hear nothing. At this point the man seems to believe or hope that no one is inside. Entering the house was a bad decision on the man's part because if there was enemies inside the house, there would more likely be more than one. Considering the man only has one bullet left, the outcome more than likely would have been bad. To the man and the boy's advantage, there were no bad guys inside the house. What they found on the other hand was incredibly gruesome. Inside a hatch sealed with a steel padlock, were many naked men and women who were being held as food for the cannibals who put them there. These people were not just naked and foul-smelling, but some of them had limbs missing. The cannibals had been chopping off limb by limb as a source of food. How were these people captured, and how did they end up locked in a hatch? Should the man have let all these people go, or just lock them back in as he did? Would you result in cannibalism if there was no other source of nutrition?
       

Living Underground

As the man and the boy are prepare to face their death, they come across something that changes the entire story and saves them. In the yard of an abandoned house the man comes across a secret bunker. The bunker is filled with food and water, there is a toilet, gas, and even batteries to run a flashlight and torches. It is a gift from God, yet they cannot stay. The man believes this bunker will be found sometime soon by the "Bad Guys" and that he and the boy should leave in the next few days. This makes no sense to me. It is obvious that nobody has located the bunker besides them and if the man covered it up or hid it from the surface it would be virtually impossible to see. Not to mention that the bunker is capable of sustaining them for months, maybe even a year or two. It seems wrong, after all they have been through, to leave so soon. Even if someone did find them inside the bunker it would be very difficult to get them out. The walls of the bunker are solid concrete with only one entrance which, if blocked off in a time of need, would be impenetrable. Even if the bad guys managed to get in, it is possible that they would take the remaining food and let the father and his son go unharmed. Why eat a person when there is a large amount of food instead? If I were in this situation I definitely would not leave unless the food became scarce or someone forced me too.

We're Carrying the Fire

On page 83 of The Road, the Man tells the Boy that they will not die “because we’re carrying the fire”. This could be an allusion to Greek myth of Prometheus; in the legend, Prometheus steals the fire from Olympus and takes it down to the mortals living on earth. Until then, the humans had been suffering from the cold and hunger. The gods didn’t want the earthlings to have the fire because they saw it as a symbol of their godly power. However, Prometheus stole it and gave it to them in order to end their misery.

The fire is symbolic of hope in the book and the myth. In their opinion, The Man and Boy carry the fire; therefore, they are giving hope to the rest of the world. The symbolism of the fire is that as long as one ember is kept alight, it will be able to create a larger fire. The Man tells the Boy that they will not die as long as they still have hope. Along with this and the constant reassurance by the Man that they are the “good guys”, he is able to keep the Boy’s morale up.

  The Black Unicorn by Audre Lorde

  1  The black unicorn is greedy.
  2  The black unicorn is impatient.
  3  'The black unicorn was mistaken
  4   for a shadow or symbol
  5   and taken
  6   through a cold country
  7   where mist painted mockeries
  8   of my fury.
  9   It is not on her lap where the horn rests
10  but deep in her moonpit
11  growing.
12  The black unicorn is restless
13  the black unicorn is unrelenting
14  the black unicorn is not
15  free 

            Audre Lorde is a famous black poet who is known for her technical mastery and emotional expression in her poems.  She uses anger in many of her poems to express her feelings toward the civil and social injustices she had witnessed in her life.  Many of her poems dealt with civil rights issues, feminism, and the exploration of the female black identity. 

This poem describes the speaker’s attitude towards other’s struggle in life, and just the problems they had faced being a slave.  The use of comparing blacks to a unicorn is an important metaphor because unicorns are different in their physical appearance from all other animals similar to it, and how they are not treated the same way other animals are treated.  This relates to how the blacks are treated differently from all other people based on their physical appearance.  In lines 14 and 15, the speaker is directly explaining how this black unicorn is that of a slave, mainly because it describes the black unicorn as not having freedom.  Also, in the beginning of this poem, the unicorn is described as ‘greedy’ and ‘impatient’ which is how the slaves were thought of just because they weren’t born into a better life.

Racism in Post-Racial America

         While many still insist America has abolished every semblance of racism, it is obvious that this is not the case. Systemic racism is still very much in place. Black, as well as other racial minorities, are still disproportionately targeted for crimes. Statics for laws such as "Stop and Frisk" prove this point. Out of the 45,787 New Yorkers stopped in 2014, over 54% were black, 27% were Latino and only 12% were white. 82% of the suspects were innocent (New York Civil Liberties Union). 

        

 Groups such as Black Lives Matter are causing an uproar over these racist governmental practices. However, detractors who advocate the movement be All Lives Matter instead. This phrase may sound inclusive towards other races, but supporters of it only wish to derail the conversation away from the problems in the Black community. Yes, of course all lives matter, but discussing the issues a single race faces does not make those of another illegitimate. 

America has come very far since the days of slavery and Jim-Crow. However, there is still much progress to be made in deconstructing the oppressive systems still in place to one day create an America that civil rights activists had hoped for.

What are anyone else's thoughts on this? Do Black lives matter or do all?