Neruda's Explosive Passion

95133670
694

Pablo Neruda’s “One Hundred Love Sonnets (V)” is an elegantly constructed poem for his devoted lover, Matilde Urrutia. His vivid imagery evokes a tranquil and at times explosive scene to illustrate his love for his third wife. Pablo Neruda, born Neftalî Ricardo Reyes Basoalto was a writer, politician, activist, and Nobel Prize winner. Once called “the greatest poet of the 20th century in any language” by novelist Gabriel Garcîa Mârquez, Neruda is known for his imagery and beautiful language.

In Sonnet Five of One Hundred Love Sonnets, translator Stephen Tapscott carefully reconstructed Neruda’s poem which was originally written in Spanish. Even with an unconventional rhyme scheme, Neruda creates a rhythm and unique style. Although initially the meter of the poem may seem awkward, after reading the poem a few times, Neruda’s rhythm is clearly deliberate. Phrases such as “touching your hips” and “remembering your mouth” incorporate sensual and provocative undertones. “ One Hundred Love Sonnets (V)” is a fusion of simple yet sensory rousing diction and song like meter.

In the first stanza, the speaker describes a natural scene in which the subject takes on earthly characteristics. The repetition of “sweet” introduces the speaker’s loving tone toward his subject, as well as the possible distance there is between them through his admittance he “did not touch” her night, air, or dawn. The first stanza serves to introduce the admiring tone of the speaker, and his soft and delicate speaking style.

In the second stanza the speaker includes specific locations and memories. Perhaps when the speaker says the subject of the poem’s “eyes” began in Quinchimalí, she was born there, or in some way their journey together began there. The bond between the two lovers is clear when he proclaims the Frontera is where her “feet were made for [him].” This line’s meaning is not immediately clear, but the literal interpretation is not important. Rather, it is the beauty behind the thought that perhaps one human is in some way molded from a “dark familiar clay” for another. The speaker associates his lover with the earth as he calls her his “dark familiar clay.” Since Neruda was from Chile it is likely that whoever his love was, she had a darker skin tone. Yet, the more important part of this description lies in the familiar nature of this clay. As the poem continues the chronology of the two lovers’ relationship is convoluted; therefore, the familiarity of this woman is crucial to the poem. Even touching the woman, the speaker is reminded of another memory, one that takes him back to wheat fields. Were the two lovers together in another time and place? Perhaps the lovers have been apart or separated somehow and the mere feel of the woman’s hips reignites the flame that has always remained between them.

In the third stanza the speaker addresses his lover more demonstratively. In the second line he proposes that perhaps she did not know how before he loved her, “[he] forgot [her] kisses.” This line is puzzling and almost does not make sense. How could a man forget a woman’s kiss before he even loved her? The chronology appears to be backwards. Perhaps they were lovers in another life? Even before he had loved her, the memories of their past together in some other time had faded away. Yet, in the next line there is a transition in the speaker’s tone. He now remembers her mouth and kisses and persists on “like a man wounded.”

In the fourth and final stanza, the speaker comes to a conclusion and understanding of Love. The very thing he has felt and tried to describe throughout his entire speech. He finally arrives at his destination: “a land of kisses and volcanoes.” More obviously, the “volcanoes” can describe the anatomy of his lover. Yet, the juxtaposition of the words kisses and volcanoes offers a deeper definition and true feel of love. For the speaker, Love is tender as kisses, yet as emotionally explosive and passionate as a volcano. The mix of soft sensuous kisses and the heat and destruction of a volatile volcano serve to perfectly describe the speaker’s quest and arrival at Love.

NAAIP

One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest has so far been a great book. The narrator, Chief Bromden, is an elusive Native American, whose past the reader only sees through glimpses of his hazy perception of the world around him. We learn about the hospital and its inter-workings through the eyes of a seemingly relatable narrator. Yet, as the novel continues, it soon becomes evident that the Chief has a distorted view of the world around him. His descriptions of the "combine" and the passage of time are oddly believable. It is apparent that Kesey is making a larger point through the Chief's sometimes maniacal words about the machinery and controls of the Big Nurse and the hospital.

McMurphy is a lovable character. The moment he entered the novel it was clear that he had a depth to him that would be explored throughout the novel. At this point, I have read up to the fishing trip, and his antics up to this point are very entertaining. It takes a special type of character to turn an asylum into a casino-like baseball game watching hangout. One notion that has not yet been fully addressed is McMurphy's inability to leave the hospital, and his comrades choice to live there. I am waiting to see how McMurphy tries to escape (since I cannot imagine such a character leaving without quite the exit). I also am interested in learning more about the men in the asylum. It is clear that the hospital is a metaphor for something greater, perhaps the world. Some quotes characters make are obviously addressing a larger issue.

Thus far I have really enjoyed the novel and I anxiously await the final part III. It is a great book with detailed characters, yet each with his own mystique that Kesey skillfully creates. Kesey's thoughtfulness as a writer is clear in his multi-layered characters and their carefully depicted actions and reactions.

My Old Man, Dad, Daddy, Father, Pa

The father-son relationships and conflicts in “Death of a Salesman” are key elements to Arthur Miller’s play. The interaction between Willy Loman and his sons, Happy and Biff, illustrate Miller’s commentary on father-son relationships. Through the actions of Willy Loman, it becomes apparent there are certain times when a father strives to become more of a “player” in his son’s life than his son may like. For example, when Biff comes home to recollect himself, Willy sees his son’s return as a failure. Willy desperately wants his eldest son to succeed in every way, so he decides to take control. Willy states he will get Biff a job selling. Willy is certain that through his own actions, he can “fix” his son’s situation. Yet, Willy only further complicates Biff’s problem. Biff came home to reevaluate his life, and his father’s great concern only hurts Biff more.

Willy and Biff have conflicting views of the American dream. Willy believes hard work out on the road is the greatest job, but Biff is inspired by the outdoors. When these two ideals collide, Willy grows frustrated. Through this tension, Miller illustrates how the over-involvement of a father in his son’s life can cause conflict, not resolution. It is also clear Willy favors Biff over Happy. Miller shows how this favoritism has social affects on the neglected son through the character Happy. Since Willy almost lives through Biff and his dreams for his eldest son, Happy is often overlooked.

Throughout the play, Willy often comments on how remarkable Biff is …”You got greatness in you, Biff…” However, Happy is barely spoken to with this affection. Due to this neglect, Happy believes he must become Willy’s version of success by amassing wealth and popularity. Happy is convinced the only way he will be at peace with himself is by attaining the approval of his father through his wealth and social standing. Yet the more Happy strives to please his father, and the less results he gets, the more frustrated he grows. It becomes apparent Happy is more miserable trying to get his father’s attention, rather than following his own path. It is the father’s responsibility to instill sound values and leadership in his sons, yet with Willy’s favoritism he was unable to give these qualities to either of his sons. A father is one of the most important aspects in the maturation of a young boy. They relate to each other in a way that a son’s mother cannot. It is clear Willy cannot draw the live between active father and observer.

Like A Stupid Child

Is it not true that in many instances children are able to think more clearly than the adults surrounding them? Throughout "A Doll's House," the elitist Torvald constantly calls his wife a "child" or other inferior names. I was disgusted by his attitude towards his wife throughout the play, but in the final act I found that the "child" label may be fitting for Nora in a much different way than Torvald intended. Although Torvald behaves in a pompous way towards his wife, Nora almost accepts this "woman role." Nora does not seek anything beyond her role as undedicated mother and airhead wife. Through her actions in Act I and II it became clear to me that the facade Nora put on for Torvald was truly an act and the depth of her character had not been tapped into. Yet, it is clear in Act III that Nora realizes her potential as not only a woman but as a human being. Sometimes having it all, means having nothing at all.

Thus, Nora becomes a child once again. She removes the gates to her true capabilities that Torvald has carefully constructed. Nora returns herself to a childlike state, but in an optimistic sense rather than an inferior one. The mother and wife removes the shackles that have kept her isolated from her true self and sets upon a journey, much like a child does when growing up. Nora exhibits a youthful bravery that is much harder to develop as an adult. To me, Nora in Act III seems like a completely different character that Nora in Acts I and II. Ibsen thoughtfully gives the reader glimpses of a more independent thinking Nora in Acts I and II, but it is within the last few pages of the play that Nora speaks honestly about the timeless quest for self fulfillment. A story that begins with such fake words and facades concludes with searing honesty. Similar to the genuine nature of a child, Nora undergoes some sort of change that allows her to speak without fear or constraint.

“To punish me with this and this with me”

Act V of Hamlet is filled with dramatic irony and delivers a climactic ending to the traumatic and tense play. Shakespeare makes it clear to the reader that Claudius has poisoned the wine and Laertes has poisoned the tip of his sharpened sword, and also that Hamlet and his mother are ignorant to this scheme. Yet, Hamlet remains untouched by Laerte's sword and refuses to drink the tainted wine. During Act V, Hamlet appears to be recovered, composed, and resolute compared to the character Shakespeare creates in earlier scenes. Shakespeare possibly suggests that the what had before seemed inevitable tragedy could now be avoided. Yet, this is not the case because Hamlet has procrastinated for too long. Hamlet may have returned a healed, or more emotionally stable character, yet the exponential decay of Denmark cannot be halted. Due to the deterioration of their country, all the characters must die, each in their own way. Hamlet is slain by the poisoned sword, Laertes is murdered by Hamlet, Gertrude ingests the poisoned wine, and Claudius is killed by Hamlet. Horatio remains to recount the wickedness of Claudius and innocence of his dear friend Hamlet.

Fortinbras plays an important part in the return to order in Denmark. The arrival of Fortinbras signals the end of corruption in the failing state. How did this corruption occur? One pivotal reason is the need for revenge. Whether it is justified or not, revenge reveals a peculiar ugliness in characters. The idea of revenge is intrinsically connected to the notion of family honor, a deep running theme throughout the play. Fortinbras is initially the first taste of vengeance Shakespeare reveals to the reader. The late King defeated Fortinbras' father in battle and Fortinbras pledges to avenge the deed. Fortinbras acts quickly and resolutely; he will stop at nothing to recover his father's lost power, yet finds another avenue of revenge. In contrast, Hamlet fights his inner voices and conscience, delaying his acts of vengeance. Although Hamlet does avenge his father's untimely death, it is at the cost of the deterioration of the very state his father ruled and the destruction of many. Shakespeare illustrates his genius in the irony of Act V. Hamlet destroys the family whose honor he sought to recover and avenge. Laertes, like Hamlet, achieves revenge with a great cost. Unlike Hamlet, Laertes does not allow his thoughts to paralyze his action, although in the end, both characters cause major destruction. Hamlet and Laertes view murder as the only acceptable way to avenge their fathers' deaths, yet this perspective results in the deterioration of them both.

“Bravery never goes out of fashion.” - William Makepeace Thackeray

From the beginning of the play, Sophocles enlists the reader’s sympathies on the side of Antigone. It becomes obvious that Sophocles values morality over law. This idea sparked great interest in me. What is “right by law” and “right by me” are usually the as me, but what is, in the case of Antigone, they were not. To the reader it is obvious that Antigone is “right” and her desire to properly bury her dead brother is completely legitimate. Is Antigone made a hero by the gods for her bravery, or do they disapprove by letting her die? Is Antigone wrong to say that she would giver her life only for her brother but not a “replaceable” husband or child?

I believe that Antigone’s death is an important factor in her tragedy. If she had not had to risk her life to bury her brother, her situation would not be as dire or distressing. In opposition to Oedipus, she knows what she is doing will mean her death. I believe the bravery of Antigone to continue on with her act while fully knowing she is facing death is a bold statement Sophocles makes about women and about women standing up to men. Antigone is a strong women in today’s standards, I cannot imagine how shocking her actions were to readers of this story when it was written.

The idea that a husband or child can be replaced but not a sibling was an interesting notion that I had not considered before Antigone. I somewhat disagree with Antigone because although a husband can be “replaced” a child is your blood and your legacy. Yet, your sibling is your full blood and for that reason I can understand her hierarchal familial view. This statement resonated with me since I do have a sibling and although I cannot grasp having a husband or child, I cannot imagine comparing them in this way.

Antigone is a strong character who faces her death with a strong will and undying devotion to her brother. In a world where morals are at times easily swayed, I believe we have a lot to take from Antigone. We must not simply abide by laws and assume they are right, rather at times it is important to use our personal judgment, even if it means persecution. The risk of suffering for doing what is right is a situation one hopes to never find oneself in, but if ever it does arise, look to Antigone.

Our Struggle for the Raw

It is easy to look in on someone’s life and ridicule it. So many people are obsessed with picking apart celebrities’ lives, trying to constantly find problems in lives that aren’t perfect. I find myself finding faults in others, unfortunately. While reading Tolstoy’s Death of Ivan Ilych the narrator’s tone can be identified within the first few chapters. His disdain for Ivan’s pseudo-society aspirations is evident throughout the text. Yet, as I continued reading, I did feel sympathy for Ivan.

I couldn’t put my finger on my emotion as I finished the story, but when I read this prompt I instantly connected with it. It is as if all of Ivan’s life he has tried to live a life that he just cannot reach. Although he attempts to live extraordinary his life is nothing but ordinary. Once I came to this conclusion, my perspective of Ivan’s situation greatly changed. Rather than seeing Ivan as this self-centered, selfish patriarch, I saw him as a failed man trying to gain for the first time the love of his wife and the companionship of his friends. This is one of my greatest fears in life. To try my best to do the right thing and still not live a life that is fulfilling. It is so easy to try to marry the right person, decorate a nice house, and have a good job, but to still utterly fail.

It is not until Ivan’s death becomes increasingly imminent does his desperation to truly live seem sad to me versus aggravating. As Ivan’s death approaches, his goals are goals that are shared by all humanity: to live in the raw, in the honest world, guided by the love of family and the connection of friends. We all make mistakes, and to any given person we may appear to be as pathetic as Ivan (people in third world countries would probably view our $50 steaks as ridiculous), yet we can all connect on the level of living fully. It is sad to me that only when faced with death can Ivan realize this motivation, yet I believe Tolstoy is making a statement about Russian society through his character. I began to connect to Ivan and feel sorry for him as I began to connect to this timeless human tendency. By trying so hard to do right, Ivan set himself up for wrong -an event that so easily becomes reality.