Lewis Carroll was the pseudonym of Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, a lecturer in mathematics at Christ Church, Oxford, who lived from 1832 to 1898.In 1856, Carroll became close with the Liddell children and met the girl who would become the inspiration for Alice, the protagonist of his two most famous books.
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland received mostly negative reviews when first published in 1865. Critics and readers alike found the book to be sheer nonsense,Carroll proposed a sequel to his publisher in 1866 and set to work writing Through the Looking-Glass. By the time the second book reached publication in 1871, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland had found an appreciative readership.
sparknotes
In 1856, Carroll became close with the Liddell children and met the girl who would become the inspiration for Alice, the protagonist of his two most famous books. It was in that year that classics scholar Henry George Liddell accepted an appointment as Dean of Christ Church, one of the colleges that comprise Oxford University, and brought his three daughters to live with him at Oxford. Lorina, Alice, and Edith Liddell quickly became Carroll’s favorite companions and photographic subjects. During their frequent afternoon boat trips on the river, Carroll told the Liddells fanciful tales. Alice quickly became Carroll’s favorite of the three girls, and he made her the subject of the stories that would later became Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass. Almost ten years after first meeting the Liddells, Carroll compiled the stories and submitted the completed manuscript for publication.
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland received mostly negative reviews when first published in 1865. Critics and readers alike found the book to be sheer nonsense, and one critic sneered that the book was “too extravagantly absurd to produce more diversion than disappointment and irritation.” Only John Tenniel’s detailed illustrations garnered praise, and his images continue to appear in most reprints of the Alice books. Despite the book’s negative reception, Carroll proposed a sequel to his publisher in 1866 and set to work writing Through the Looking-Glass. By the time the second book reached publication in 1871, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland had found an appreciative readership. Over time, Carroll’s combination of sophisticated logic, social satire, and pure fantasy would make the book a classic for children and adults alike. Critics eventually recognized the literary merits of both texts, and celebrated authors and philosophers as James Joyce .
Alice
Alice is a sensible prepubescent girl from a wealthy English family who finds herself in a strange world ruled by imagination and fantasy. Alice feels comfortable with her identity and has a strong sense that her environment is comprised of clear, logical, and consistent rules and features. She has confidence in her social position, education, and the Victorian virtue of good manners.Alice maintains a superior attitude and behaves with solicitous indulgence toward those she believes are less privileged.
The tension of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland emerges when Alice’s fixed perspective of the world comes into contact with the mad, illogical world of Wonderland. Alice’s fixed sense of order clashes with the madness she finds in Wonderland. The White Rabbit challenges her perceptions of class when he mistakes her for a servant, while the Mad Hatter, March Hare, and Pigeon challenge Alice’s notions of urbane intelligence with an unfamiliar logic that only makes sense within the context of Wonderland. Most significantly, Wonderland challenges her perceptions of good manners by constantly assaulting her with dismissive rudeness. Alice’s fundamental beliefs face challenges at every turn, and as a result Alice suffers an identity crisis. She persists in her way of life as she perceives her sense of order collapsing all around her. Alice must choose between retaining her notions of order and assimilating into Wonderland’s nonsensical rules.
The Cheschire cat unique among Wonderland creatures. Threatened by no one, it maintains a cool, grinning outsider status. The Cheshire Cat has insight into the workings of Wonderland as a whole. Its calm explanation to Alice that to be in Wonderland is to be “mad” reveals a number of points that do not occur to Alice on her own. First, the Cheshire Cat points out that Wonderland as a place has a stronger cumulative effect than any of its citizens. Wonderland is ruled by nonsense, and as a result, Alice’s normal behavior becomes inconsistent with its operating principles, so Alice herself becomes mad in the context of Wonderland. Certainly, Alice’s burning curiosity to absorb everything she sees in Wonderland sets her apart from the other Wonderland creatures, making her seem mad in comparison.
The Queen of Hearts
As the ruler of Wonderland, the Queen of Hearts is the character that Alice must inevitably face to figure out the puzzle of Wonderland. In a sense, the Queen of Hearts is literally the heart of Alice’s conflict. Unlike many of the other characters in Wonderland, the Queen of Hearts is not as concerned with nonsense and perversions of logic as she is with absolute rule and execution. In Wonderland, she is a singular force of fear who even dominates the King of Hearts. In the Queen’s presence, Alice finally gets a taste of true fear, even though she understands that the Queen of Hearts is merely a playing card. The Gryphon later informs Alice that the Queen never actually executes anyone she sentences to death, which reinforces the fact that the Queen of Hearts’s power lies in her rhetoric. The Queen becomes representative of the idea that Wonderland is devoid of substance.
The Garden
Nearly every object in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland functions as a symbol, but nothing clearly represents one particular thing. The symbolic resonances of Wonderland objects are generally contained to the individual episode in which they appear. Often the symbols work together to convey a particular meaning. The garden may symbolize the Garden of Eden, an idyllic space of beauty and innocence that Alice is not permitted to access. On a more abstract level, the garden may simply represent the experience of desire, in that Alice focuses her energy and emotion on trying to attain it.
The Caterpillar’s Mushroom
Like the garden, the Caterpillar’s mushroom also has multiple symbolic meanings. Some readers and critics view the Caterpillar as a sexual threat, its phallic shape a symbol of sexual virility. The Caterpillar’s mushroom connects to this symbolic meaning. Alice must master the properties of the mushroom to gain control over her fluctuating size, which represents the bodily frustrations that accompany puberty. Others view the mushroom as a psychedelic hallucinogen that compounds Alice’s surreal and distorted perception of Wonderland.
venerdì 5 novembre 2010
giovedì 4 novembre 2010
the turn of the screw H. James
Universalmente riconosciuto come una pietra miliare dello sperimentalismo formale, questo romanzo è basato sulle diverse connotazioni conferite alla narrazione dalla scelta del punto di vista, in grado di rappresentare gli eventi in maniera diametralmente opposta, rispetto alle altre prospettive possibili. Al punto che per la prima volta la storia narrata, non è più LA storia, ma solo UNA delle storie realmente possibili, perchè ogni cosa cambia e si trasforma a seconda del punto di osservazione, trama e personaggi sono mutevoli, cangianti, ingannevoli e come fantasmi sembrano dissolversi e rapidamente riapparire sotto multiformi vesti di momento in momento. Tanto che il lettore una volta chiuso il libro, non è più nemmeno in grado di dire egli stesso a quale delle possibili rappresentazioni abbia appena assistito, riuscendo comunque solo a riconoscere che, qualsiasi storia fosse delle tante possibili, ne è rimasto magicamente ammaliato subendone il fascino senza neanche sapere come.
Oltre ad essere un gran romanzo gotico, questo testo si presta a molteplici analisi essendo in esso tutto appositamente studiato per stupire, meravigliare ed irridere. Ogni dettaglio, la pur minima sfumatura, la più sottile percezione, sono stati concepiti per ottenere un determinato risultato, che sorprendentemente muta a seconda della chiave interpretativa con cui viene esaminato.
Vediamo il titolo per esempio, siamo in un’epoca letteraria in cui i titoli sono mediamente molto lunghi e tendono a descrivere l’oggetto della narrazione in maniera esaustiva, tipo Il Giro del Mondo in Ottanta Giorni, Frankestein o il Moderno Prometeo, Alice nel Paese delle Meraviglie, o semplicemente ricalcano il nome del protagonista, Jane Eyre, Moll Flanders, Michele Strogoff, Dorian Gray, questo titolo sorprendentemente moderno, Giro di Vite, sembra alludere o precludere a consuetudini letterarie ancora da venire.
A una prima interpretazione il titolo, come spiegato dallo stesso autore nel prologo, anzi nell’antefatto, sta a simbolegggiare una situazione aggravante, il dramma che si aggiunge al dramma, la goccia che fa traboccare il vaso: all’inizio della storia, troviamo un gruppo di persone riunite attorno al fuoco intente (come accadde alla famosa compagnia di Byron, Polidori, Percy e Mary Shelley) a raccontarsi storie per passare il tempo, storie intense, storie terrificanti, storie spaventose, insomma storie di fantasmi, e uno dei presenti esordisce dicendo, cosa ci può essere di più orrorifico di una storia di fantasmi in cui sia coinvolto un bambino?
Semplice: una storia di fantasmi in cui appaiono non uno ma ben due bambini. In pratica un giro di vite.
Ed ecco spiegato il titolo, o meglio così iniziamo a credere, ma sarà poi vero? E’ davvero questa l’interpretazione corretta che possiamo dargli? Cos’è in definitiva una vite? Un oggetto metallico costruito ed ideato in maniera tale da conficcasi profondamente nel legno man mano che ruota su se stesso. Se ci soffermiamo su questa immagine cosa possiamo vedere da un’altro punto di vista? Qualcosa che si fissa girando su sè stessa e che penetra lentamente e inesorabilmente nella superficie che ha davanti, un atteggiamento psicologico e pscicotico, una debolezza umana, un attaccamento selvaggio a un’idea fissa, una volontà pervicace, ottusa, ed ostinata.
Siamo nel giusto? Non lo sappiamo, e non lo sapremo mai per tutta la durata del racconto, come non lo sapremo una volta che lo avremo terminato, e come non potremmo saperlo nemmeno se lo rileggessimo altre mille volte.
Ma qual’è l’io narrante scelto per realizzare questo innovativo stile letterario?
Molteplice anche questo: uno dei personaggi riuniti attorno al fuoco inizia raccontare una storia, a suo dire riportata da un suo amico, che a sua volta l’aveva letta in un diario.
Dunque un triplo passaggio. E chi è poi questo io narrante?
La protagonista diretta degli accadimenti, colei che è stata presente in ogni momento dello svolgimento, è una persona di tutta prova, di solida moralità, un’istitutrice, sufficientemente colta da non essere facile preda di isterismi o vittima di visioni, essa ci viene presentata, anzi si presenta da se stessa, come un soggetto degno della massima considerazione, tale per cui siamo costretti e quasi obbligati a prestare fede a ciò che dice, ciecamente, senza nulla chiedere nè domandare. E pure gli eventi riportati sono di una tale “non credibilità” da lasciarci perplessi, anche perchè quel che ci viene prospettato dalla giovane donna non è tanto la narrazione oggettiva, ma la interiorizzazione dei fatti, la sua visione personale quindi, la sua proiezione singola ed individuale. Allora non ci resta altro che rivolgerci nel dubbio agli altri attori della narrazione scenica per avere conferme da loro sulla realtà dei fatti.
Già, ma chi sono poi gli altri? Abbiamo un capostipite, che però appare distante, lontano nella sua casa di città, che si limita ad assumere un’istitutrice col preciso intento di non essere nè coinvolto nè disturbato per la gestione delle necessità quotidiane, e che dopo il primo capitolo non compare praticamente più se non per dire, a mezzo lettera “per cortesia non voglio essere disturbato, sbrigatevela da Voi”. Dunque non è un attore quanto piuttosto un “deus ex machina”, colui che mette in moto gli avvenimenti, e poi si mette in disparte ad osservare, e su di lui non possiamo far conto, non interverrà.
Poi abbiamo una governante, e il personale di casa, ma chi sono questi elementi? Personaggi appartenenti a una classe inferiore (il romanzo rivela tra le altre cose anche insospettate connotazioni sociali, se non socialiste), poco affidabili, emotivi, influenzabili, rozzi, ignoranti, chiaccheroni e creduli: che aiuto possiamo mai aspettarci da loro?
Chi altro allora? Ci sono gli altri due protagonisti, i bambini sui quali l’istitutrice deve vegliare, ma sono bambini appunto, creature deboli, in balia degli eventi, inconsapevoli vittime, al centro di un arcano mistero, di cui non hanno consapevolezza, e come potrebbero?
Non ci resta dunque nulla altro che riaffidarci nelle mani della giovane donna, che ci narra la storia, ed assistere con lei ai misteriosi eventi, e con lei schierarci quando essa ne rimarrà coinvolta e drammaticamente sconfitta.
Anche la prosa di James è infida, i suoi stessi passi narrativi traggono in inganno, dicono e non dicono, e al contempo dicono tutto e il contrario di tutto, questo testo, a ben guardare somiglia a un gioco di puzzle montato male, non c’è un pezzo che si incastri bene con gli altri, ma tutti fluttuano vorticosamente senza mai fermarsi, tanto che non riusciamo nemmeno a vederne bene la forma nè il colore nè la dimensione.
L’istitutrice arriva nella casa di campagna, con il tipico entusiasmo dei giovani, e si accinge a prendere in mano la conduzione della casa e l’educazione dei ragazzi con tranquilla e disinvolta sicumera, certa che le sue fragili spalle siano perfettamente in grado di reggere tale peso, ma ecco che, quasi subito, vede una figura spettrale, oscura e misteriosa, uno sconosciuto che la osserva con malanimo, e poi scompare. Chi è costui? Indagando e chiedendo scopre presto che le fattezze da lei descritte si attagliano perfettamente all’intendente di casa, morto tragicamente anni prima, anzi scomparso…
Bene, non importa: i ragazzi sono graziosi, docili e arrendevoli, apprendono con facilità e si prestano volentieri a collaborare con la nuova maestra, la governante offre il suo valido aiuto, il personale di servizio è efficiente ed affidabile, tutto scorre per il meglio, l’andamento della casa procede a meraviglia, l’educazione dei ragazzi è posta su solide basi, il compito sembra dunque essere più semplice del previsto, se non fosse… se non fosse per quest’uomo subdolo ed oscuro che continua ad apparire e a scomparire.
Ma presto qualcosa si inceppa, il meraviglioso meccanismo perde dei colpi, il pacifico progredire dei giorni esce dai consueti binari della tranquillità quotidiana, le apparizioni si moltiplicano, si insinua prima il dubbio, e poi la terrificante certezza che anche i bambini sappiano, che anche i bambini vedano… ma che per qualche oscuro motivo essi non dicano nulla.
Anche la governante sa, anche la governante vede, e confidandosi narra di malefiche influenze, di oscure malvagità che a tratti affiorano nel comportamento di quelle angeliche creature, di parole irripetibili proferite dalla piccola, di comportamenti indecorosi tenuti dal ragazzo, si insinua presto l’ombra di un maleficio, i ragazzi sanno, i ragazzi vedono, essi sono posseduti, vittime di un maleficio, colpiti da una maledizione.
Ed i fantasmi che appaiono ora sono due, la precedente istitutrice e l’intendente, colpevoli di una bieca relazione amorosa che infrangeva e i limiti di classe e i confini della decenza, fuggiti, morti, defunti, scomparsi, eppure vivi, tornati a prendere possesso dei ragazzi, o forse a rivivere attraverso essi e dentro di loro.
Ma sono veri questi fantasmi? Ci sono davvero? O sono un frutto della mente malata dell’istitutrice?
Forse le troppe responsabilità, il peso eccessivo che grava su di lei, forse la gioventù, l’inesperienza, un supposto amore ideale e impossibile per il suo austero datore di lavore, un eccesso di romanticismo, il forzato isolamento, forse tutto questo ha avuto ragione del suo equilibrio mentale, e la posseduta, la folle, la visionaria potrebbe alla fine essere solo lei? Ma allora perchè questi ragazzi sono così angelici, così perfetti nella loro arrendevolezza, così assolutamente candidi e innocenti, al punto da apparire quasi sospetti? Non sappiamo e mai potremmo dire da che parte sta la verità.
Quando ecco nelle pagine finali il mistero sembra svelarsi, dal fondo del tunnel cominciamo a intravedere una luce, che si avvicina, ora sta per illuminarci, quasi vediamo, quasi crediamo di capire, quasi comprendiamo il macabro gioco di prestigio di cui sicuramente siamo stati vittime ( e vi assicuro che a questo punto nemmeno un allarme antiareo o un incendio in salotto riuscirebbero a schiodarvi dalla vostra poltrona) e un attimo prima che la soluzione ci venga svelata, o forse giusto un attimo dopo, ricadiamo perplessi nelle tenebre più oscure della più impenetrabile non conoscenza.
Perchè alla fine ne sappiamo meno di quanto credevamo di sapere all’inizio, il vento ha girato e ha riportato l’imbarcazione in mare aperto, i flutti e i marosi ci sballottollano di qua e di là, le vele sbattono implacabali contro l’alberatura, gli spruzzi ci colpiscono sul viso, e noi vaghiamo senza meta in questo oceano sconfinato e non troveremo mai la strada. Perchè sapete cosa succede alla fine? Che la giovane e coraggiosa istitutrice, colta in fondo anch’essa dal dubbio di essere pazza, decide di uscire allo scoperto, e costringe le piccole creature ad affrontare le inquietanti visioni, di cui ovviamente davanti alla loro possibile o supposta innocenza prima non si era mai parlato, e gli chiede, non senza devo ammetterlo, un certo tono da invasata, allora li vedi? Dimmi che li vedi anche tu… Ottenendo dalla bimba un collasso immediato e una fortissima crisi di febbri epilettiche, che la costringono ad allontanarla e a mandarla sollecitamente dal medico di città accompagnata dalla governante. Fatto questo l’istitutrice resta ovviamente sola col ragazzo, il quale a momenti appare un bimbo sprovveduto ed ingenuo, ancora rivestito dei candidi panni dell’infanzia, a tratti invece appare un semi-adolescente inquieto e spavaldo, quasi in tentazione di sedurla. Messo a confronto anch’esso, brutalmente e con violenza, con l’ennesima apparizione, al reiterato: dimmi che anche tu la vedi… egli crolla folgorato tra le braccia della povera sconsolata avventata folle e coraggiosa istitutrice e, ci dice l’autore, il suo povero cuore ora non batte più.
Potete leggerlo e rileggerlo questo romanzo, e anche copiarlo parola per parola se credete che questo vi possa aiutare, e setacciare tutte le biblioteche alla ricerca di prefazioni, interpretazioni e recensioni, tutto quello che troverete sarà sempre e soltanto un grande, meraviglioso, incomparabile gioco di alchimia letteraria, mai tentato prima, e devo dire, mai eguagliato dopo.
Anche se, ve lo confesso, se solo Henry James fosse stato vivo gli avrei scritto o telefonato, per avere le mie risposte.
English
The phrase works as a metaphor that compares tale's effect on its recipients to a screw boring (perfora) into a hole. With each turn of the screw, the story's point is driven home, and its readers are pierced( trapassati) further and on a deeper level.
The Corruption of the Innocent
consider removing the children from the ghosts or trying to expel the ghosts from the house. Instead, the governess’s fears focus almost entirely on the potential “corruption” of the children—whether they were corrupted by Quint and Jessel when the latter were alive and whether they contiue to be similarly corrupted by the ghosts. Before she even knows about Quint, the governess guesses that Miles has been accused of corrupting other children. Although the word corruption is a euphemism that permits the governess to remain vague about what she means, the clear implication is that corruption means exposure to knowledge of sex. For the governess, the children’s exposure to knowledge of sex is a far more terrifying prospect than confronting the living dead or being killed. Consequently, her attempt to save the children takes the form of a relentless quest to find out what they know, to make them confess rather than to predict what might happen to them in the future.
ldren. Notably, while the governess is the character most fearful of and vigilant for corruption, she is also the least experienced and most curious character regarding sex. Mrs. Grose is married, and the uncle, though a bachelor, seems to be a ladies’ man. The governess is singularly horrified by Miss Jessel’s sexual infraction and apparently fascinated by it as well. We might conclude that the governess’s fear of the children’s corruption represents her projection of her own fears and desires regarding sex onto her charges.
The Destructiveness of Heroism
Whether or not the governess was correct in thinking that the children were being haunted, she was definitely wrong in thinking she could be the hero who saves them.
The fact that the governess was misguided in adopting a heroic stance suggests several interpretations. One possibility is that the forces of corruption are too powerful for one person to oppose. Perhaps the governess could have succeeded only with the concerted efforts of the school and the uncle, and perhaps the children could not have been saved. Another possible reason why her heroism might have been inappropriate is that childhood and innocence may be too fragile to be protected in such an aggressive fashion. The governess’s attempt to police and guard the children may have proven to be more damaging than the knowledge from which she wanted to protect them.
Forbidden Subjects
One of the most challenging features of The Turn of the Screw is how frequently characters make indirect hints or use vague language rather than communicate directly and clearly. The headmaster expels Miles from school and refuses to specify why. The governess has several guesses about what he might have done, but she just says he might be “corrupting” the others, which is almost as uninformative as the original letter. The governess fears that the children understand the nature of Quint and Jessel’s relationship, but the nature of that relationship is never stated explicitly. The governess suspects that the ghosts are influencing the children in ways having to do with their relationship in the past, but she isn’t explicit about how exactly they are being influenced. This excessive reticence on the part of the characters could reflect James’s own reticence (which was marked), or it could be interpreted as a satiric reflection on Victorian reticence about sex. More straightforwardly, it could be a technique for engaging the imagination to produce a more terrifying effect.
Silence
Sound acts as a signal of life and nature in The Turn of the Screw, and its absence is a predictor of the governess’s supernatural visions. Prior to the governess’s ghostly encounters, she experiences a hush in the world around her. When she first sees Quint in the tower, the sound of birds stops and the rustling of leaves quiets. The governess takes the scene to be “stricken with death.”
Oltre ad essere un gran romanzo gotico, questo testo si presta a molteplici analisi essendo in esso tutto appositamente studiato per stupire, meravigliare ed irridere. Ogni dettaglio, la pur minima sfumatura, la più sottile percezione, sono stati concepiti per ottenere un determinato risultato, che sorprendentemente muta a seconda della chiave interpretativa con cui viene esaminato.
Vediamo il titolo per esempio, siamo in un’epoca letteraria in cui i titoli sono mediamente molto lunghi e tendono a descrivere l’oggetto della narrazione in maniera esaustiva, tipo Il Giro del Mondo in Ottanta Giorni, Frankestein o il Moderno Prometeo, Alice nel Paese delle Meraviglie, o semplicemente ricalcano il nome del protagonista, Jane Eyre, Moll Flanders, Michele Strogoff, Dorian Gray, questo titolo sorprendentemente moderno, Giro di Vite, sembra alludere o precludere a consuetudini letterarie ancora da venire.
A una prima interpretazione il titolo, come spiegato dallo stesso autore nel prologo, anzi nell’antefatto, sta a simbolegggiare una situazione aggravante, il dramma che si aggiunge al dramma, la goccia che fa traboccare il vaso: all’inizio della storia, troviamo un gruppo di persone riunite attorno al fuoco intente (come accadde alla famosa compagnia di Byron, Polidori, Percy e Mary Shelley) a raccontarsi storie per passare il tempo, storie intense, storie terrificanti, storie spaventose, insomma storie di fantasmi, e uno dei presenti esordisce dicendo, cosa ci può essere di più orrorifico di una storia di fantasmi in cui sia coinvolto un bambino?
Semplice: una storia di fantasmi in cui appaiono non uno ma ben due bambini. In pratica un giro di vite.
Ed ecco spiegato il titolo, o meglio così iniziamo a credere, ma sarà poi vero? E’ davvero questa l’interpretazione corretta che possiamo dargli? Cos’è in definitiva una vite? Un oggetto metallico costruito ed ideato in maniera tale da conficcasi profondamente nel legno man mano che ruota su se stesso. Se ci soffermiamo su questa immagine cosa possiamo vedere da un’altro punto di vista? Qualcosa che si fissa girando su sè stessa e che penetra lentamente e inesorabilmente nella superficie che ha davanti, un atteggiamento psicologico e pscicotico, una debolezza umana, un attaccamento selvaggio a un’idea fissa, una volontà pervicace, ottusa, ed ostinata.
Siamo nel giusto? Non lo sappiamo, e non lo sapremo mai per tutta la durata del racconto, come non lo sapremo una volta che lo avremo terminato, e come non potremmo saperlo nemmeno se lo rileggessimo altre mille volte.
Ma qual’è l’io narrante scelto per realizzare questo innovativo stile letterario?
Molteplice anche questo: uno dei personaggi riuniti attorno al fuoco inizia raccontare una storia, a suo dire riportata da un suo amico, che a sua volta l’aveva letta in un diario.
Dunque un triplo passaggio. E chi è poi questo io narrante?
La protagonista diretta degli accadimenti, colei che è stata presente in ogni momento dello svolgimento, è una persona di tutta prova, di solida moralità, un’istitutrice, sufficientemente colta da non essere facile preda di isterismi o vittima di visioni, essa ci viene presentata, anzi si presenta da se stessa, come un soggetto degno della massima considerazione, tale per cui siamo costretti e quasi obbligati a prestare fede a ciò che dice, ciecamente, senza nulla chiedere nè domandare. E pure gli eventi riportati sono di una tale “non credibilità” da lasciarci perplessi, anche perchè quel che ci viene prospettato dalla giovane donna non è tanto la narrazione oggettiva, ma la interiorizzazione dei fatti, la sua visione personale quindi, la sua proiezione singola ed individuale. Allora non ci resta altro che rivolgerci nel dubbio agli altri attori della narrazione scenica per avere conferme da loro sulla realtà dei fatti.
Già, ma chi sono poi gli altri? Abbiamo un capostipite, che però appare distante, lontano nella sua casa di città, che si limita ad assumere un’istitutrice col preciso intento di non essere nè coinvolto nè disturbato per la gestione delle necessità quotidiane, e che dopo il primo capitolo non compare praticamente più se non per dire, a mezzo lettera “per cortesia non voglio essere disturbato, sbrigatevela da Voi”. Dunque non è un attore quanto piuttosto un “deus ex machina”, colui che mette in moto gli avvenimenti, e poi si mette in disparte ad osservare, e su di lui non possiamo far conto, non interverrà.
Poi abbiamo una governante, e il personale di casa, ma chi sono questi elementi? Personaggi appartenenti a una classe inferiore (il romanzo rivela tra le altre cose anche insospettate connotazioni sociali, se non socialiste), poco affidabili, emotivi, influenzabili, rozzi, ignoranti, chiaccheroni e creduli: che aiuto possiamo mai aspettarci da loro?
Chi altro allora? Ci sono gli altri due protagonisti, i bambini sui quali l’istitutrice deve vegliare, ma sono bambini appunto, creature deboli, in balia degli eventi, inconsapevoli vittime, al centro di un arcano mistero, di cui non hanno consapevolezza, e come potrebbero?
Non ci resta dunque nulla altro che riaffidarci nelle mani della giovane donna, che ci narra la storia, ed assistere con lei ai misteriosi eventi, e con lei schierarci quando essa ne rimarrà coinvolta e drammaticamente sconfitta.
Anche la prosa di James è infida, i suoi stessi passi narrativi traggono in inganno, dicono e non dicono, e al contempo dicono tutto e il contrario di tutto, questo testo, a ben guardare somiglia a un gioco di puzzle montato male, non c’è un pezzo che si incastri bene con gli altri, ma tutti fluttuano vorticosamente senza mai fermarsi, tanto che non riusciamo nemmeno a vederne bene la forma nè il colore nè la dimensione.
L’istitutrice arriva nella casa di campagna, con il tipico entusiasmo dei giovani, e si accinge a prendere in mano la conduzione della casa e l’educazione dei ragazzi con tranquilla e disinvolta sicumera, certa che le sue fragili spalle siano perfettamente in grado di reggere tale peso, ma ecco che, quasi subito, vede una figura spettrale, oscura e misteriosa, uno sconosciuto che la osserva con malanimo, e poi scompare. Chi è costui? Indagando e chiedendo scopre presto che le fattezze da lei descritte si attagliano perfettamente all’intendente di casa, morto tragicamente anni prima, anzi scomparso…
Bene, non importa: i ragazzi sono graziosi, docili e arrendevoli, apprendono con facilità e si prestano volentieri a collaborare con la nuova maestra, la governante offre il suo valido aiuto, il personale di servizio è efficiente ed affidabile, tutto scorre per il meglio, l’andamento della casa procede a meraviglia, l’educazione dei ragazzi è posta su solide basi, il compito sembra dunque essere più semplice del previsto, se non fosse… se non fosse per quest’uomo subdolo ed oscuro che continua ad apparire e a scomparire.
Ma presto qualcosa si inceppa, il meraviglioso meccanismo perde dei colpi, il pacifico progredire dei giorni esce dai consueti binari della tranquillità quotidiana, le apparizioni si moltiplicano, si insinua prima il dubbio, e poi la terrificante certezza che anche i bambini sappiano, che anche i bambini vedano… ma che per qualche oscuro motivo essi non dicano nulla.
Anche la governante sa, anche la governante vede, e confidandosi narra di malefiche influenze, di oscure malvagità che a tratti affiorano nel comportamento di quelle angeliche creature, di parole irripetibili proferite dalla piccola, di comportamenti indecorosi tenuti dal ragazzo, si insinua presto l’ombra di un maleficio, i ragazzi sanno, i ragazzi vedono, essi sono posseduti, vittime di un maleficio, colpiti da una maledizione.
Ed i fantasmi che appaiono ora sono due, la precedente istitutrice e l’intendente, colpevoli di una bieca relazione amorosa che infrangeva e i limiti di classe e i confini della decenza, fuggiti, morti, defunti, scomparsi, eppure vivi, tornati a prendere possesso dei ragazzi, o forse a rivivere attraverso essi e dentro di loro.
Ma sono veri questi fantasmi? Ci sono davvero? O sono un frutto della mente malata dell’istitutrice?
Forse le troppe responsabilità, il peso eccessivo che grava su di lei, forse la gioventù, l’inesperienza, un supposto amore ideale e impossibile per il suo austero datore di lavore, un eccesso di romanticismo, il forzato isolamento, forse tutto questo ha avuto ragione del suo equilibrio mentale, e la posseduta, la folle, la visionaria potrebbe alla fine essere solo lei? Ma allora perchè questi ragazzi sono così angelici, così perfetti nella loro arrendevolezza, così assolutamente candidi e innocenti, al punto da apparire quasi sospetti? Non sappiamo e mai potremmo dire da che parte sta la verità.
Quando ecco nelle pagine finali il mistero sembra svelarsi, dal fondo del tunnel cominciamo a intravedere una luce, che si avvicina, ora sta per illuminarci, quasi vediamo, quasi crediamo di capire, quasi comprendiamo il macabro gioco di prestigio di cui sicuramente siamo stati vittime ( e vi assicuro che a questo punto nemmeno un allarme antiareo o un incendio in salotto riuscirebbero a schiodarvi dalla vostra poltrona) e un attimo prima che la soluzione ci venga svelata, o forse giusto un attimo dopo, ricadiamo perplessi nelle tenebre più oscure della più impenetrabile non conoscenza.
Perchè alla fine ne sappiamo meno di quanto credevamo di sapere all’inizio, il vento ha girato e ha riportato l’imbarcazione in mare aperto, i flutti e i marosi ci sballottollano di qua e di là, le vele sbattono implacabali contro l’alberatura, gli spruzzi ci colpiscono sul viso, e noi vaghiamo senza meta in questo oceano sconfinato e non troveremo mai la strada. Perchè sapete cosa succede alla fine? Che la giovane e coraggiosa istitutrice, colta in fondo anch’essa dal dubbio di essere pazza, decide di uscire allo scoperto, e costringe le piccole creature ad affrontare le inquietanti visioni, di cui ovviamente davanti alla loro possibile o supposta innocenza prima non si era mai parlato, e gli chiede, non senza devo ammetterlo, un certo tono da invasata, allora li vedi? Dimmi che li vedi anche tu… Ottenendo dalla bimba un collasso immediato e una fortissima crisi di febbri epilettiche, che la costringono ad allontanarla e a mandarla sollecitamente dal medico di città accompagnata dalla governante. Fatto questo l’istitutrice resta ovviamente sola col ragazzo, il quale a momenti appare un bimbo sprovveduto ed ingenuo, ancora rivestito dei candidi panni dell’infanzia, a tratti invece appare un semi-adolescente inquieto e spavaldo, quasi in tentazione di sedurla. Messo a confronto anch’esso, brutalmente e con violenza, con l’ennesima apparizione, al reiterato: dimmi che anche tu la vedi… egli crolla folgorato tra le braccia della povera sconsolata avventata folle e coraggiosa istitutrice e, ci dice l’autore, il suo povero cuore ora non batte più.
Potete leggerlo e rileggerlo questo romanzo, e anche copiarlo parola per parola se credete che questo vi possa aiutare, e setacciare tutte le biblioteche alla ricerca di prefazioni, interpretazioni e recensioni, tutto quello che troverete sarà sempre e soltanto un grande, meraviglioso, incomparabile gioco di alchimia letteraria, mai tentato prima, e devo dire, mai eguagliato dopo.
Anche se, ve lo confesso, se solo Henry James fosse stato vivo gli avrei scritto o telefonato, per avere le mie risposte.
English
The phrase works as a metaphor that compares tale's effect on its recipients to a screw boring (perfora) into a hole. With each turn of the screw, the story's point is driven home, and its readers are pierced( trapassati) further and on a deeper level.
The Corruption of the Innocent
consider removing the children from the ghosts or trying to expel the ghosts from the house. Instead, the governess’s fears focus almost entirely on the potential “corruption” of the children—whether they were corrupted by Quint and Jessel when the latter were alive and whether they contiue to be similarly corrupted by the ghosts. Before she even knows about Quint, the governess guesses that Miles has been accused of corrupting other children. Although the word corruption is a euphemism that permits the governess to remain vague about what she means, the clear implication is that corruption means exposure to knowledge of sex. For the governess, the children’s exposure to knowledge of sex is a far more terrifying prospect than confronting the living dead or being killed. Consequently, her attempt to save the children takes the form of a relentless quest to find out what they know, to make them confess rather than to predict what might happen to them in the future.
ldren. Notably, while the governess is the character most fearful of and vigilant for corruption, she is also the least experienced and most curious character regarding sex. Mrs. Grose is married, and the uncle, though a bachelor, seems to be a ladies’ man. The governess is singularly horrified by Miss Jessel’s sexual infraction and apparently fascinated by it as well. We might conclude that the governess’s fear of the children’s corruption represents her projection of her own fears and desires regarding sex onto her charges.
The Destructiveness of Heroism
Whether or not the governess was correct in thinking that the children were being haunted, she was definitely wrong in thinking she could be the hero who saves them.
The fact that the governess was misguided in adopting a heroic stance suggests several interpretations. One possibility is that the forces of corruption are too powerful for one person to oppose. Perhaps the governess could have succeeded only with the concerted efforts of the school and the uncle, and perhaps the children could not have been saved. Another possible reason why her heroism might have been inappropriate is that childhood and innocence may be too fragile to be protected in such an aggressive fashion. The governess’s attempt to police and guard the children may have proven to be more damaging than the knowledge from which she wanted to protect them.
Forbidden Subjects
One of the most challenging features of The Turn of the Screw is how frequently characters make indirect hints or use vague language rather than communicate directly and clearly. The headmaster expels Miles from school and refuses to specify why. The governess has several guesses about what he might have done, but she just says he might be “corrupting” the others, which is almost as uninformative as the original letter. The governess fears that the children understand the nature of Quint and Jessel’s relationship, but the nature of that relationship is never stated explicitly. The governess suspects that the ghosts are influencing the children in ways having to do with their relationship in the past, but she isn’t explicit about how exactly they are being influenced. This excessive reticence on the part of the characters could reflect James’s own reticence (which was marked), or it could be interpreted as a satiric reflection on Victorian reticence about sex. More straightforwardly, it could be a technique for engaging the imagination to produce a more terrifying effect.
Silence
Sound acts as a signal of life and nature in The Turn of the Screw, and its absence is a predictor of the governess’s supernatural visions. Prior to the governess’s ghostly encounters, she experiences a hush in the world around her. When she first sees Quint in the tower, the sound of birds stops and the rustling of leaves quiets. The governess takes the scene to be “stricken with death.”
sabato 21 agosto 2010
G.B.Shaw
Life force
Shaw believed in evolution, in existence as part of a continuing process which goes beyond individual gratification and corresponds to a superior design. He believed that individual will a striving (sforzo) are essential factors in achieving progress. Evolution is brought about by a force that is to be located within the individual and that responds to a universal design of progress. Divinity expresses itself in the individual, but no every individual is divine, not evey individual posesses the life force, that collective, historical force of will power that drives humanity on to more advanced states. Higgins and Eliza are expression of the Life Force
Ibsenism
Ibsen’s plays constituted a radical break with that fashion. Ibsen wanted to photograph society and people as they really were. He faced up problems as sex, incest and venereal diseases, the role of woman and marriage in society. His theatre was not celebrating the status quo, but denouncing bourgeois hypocrisy. Following these ideas Shaw introduces the drama o ideas, a drama which is based neither on the development of plot or character, but prinicipally on a dialectic debate of political, social and moral ideas.Shaw wants you laugh here and feel pain but his aim is to gret you to think and debate topics and issues
THE FABIANS were Socialists who believed in gradual rather than sudden revolutionary progress. This was achieved through education and parliamentary reforms
Pygmalion derives its name from the famous story in Ovid's Metamorphoses, in which Pygmalion, disgusted by the loose and shameful lives of the women of his era, decides to live alone and unmarried. With wondrous art, he creates a beautiful statue more perfect than any living woman. The more he looks upon her, the more deeply he falls in love with her, until he wishes that she were more than a statue. This statue is Galatea. Lovesick, Pygmalion goes to the temple of the goddess Venus and prays that she gives him a lover like his statue; Venus is touched by his love and brings Galatea to life. When Pygmalion returns from Venus' temple and kisses his statue, he is delighted to find that she is warm and soft to the touch--"The maiden felt the kisses, blushed and, lifting her timid eyes up to the light, saw the sky and her lover at the same time" (Frank Justus)
Myths such as this are fine enough when studied through the lens of centuries and the buffer of translations and editions, but what happens when one tries to translate such an allegory into Victorian England? That is just what George Bernard Shaw does in his version of the Pygmalion myth. In doing so, he exposes the inadequacy of myth and of romance in several ways. For one, he deliberately twists the myth so that the play does not conclude as euphorically or conveniently, hanging instead in unconventional ambiguity. His added noisome details keep the story grounded and decidedly less romantic. Finally, and most significantly, Shaw challenges the possibly insidious assumptions that come with the Pygmalion myth, forcing us to ask the following:
-Is the male artist the absolute and perfect being who has the power to create woman in the image of his desires?
-Is the woman necessarily the inferior subject who sees her lover as her sky?
-Can there only ever be sexual/romantic relations between a man and a woman? -----Does beauty reflect virtue?
-Does the artist love his creation, or merely the art that brought that creation into being?
In this way, he draws our attention to his own art, and to his ability to create, through the medium of speech, not only Pygmalion's Galatea, but Pygmalion himself. More powerful than Pygmalion, on top of building up his creations, Shaw can take them down as well by showing their faults and foibles. In this way, it is the playwright alone, and not some divine will, who breathes life into his characters. While Ovid's Pygmalion may be said to have idolized his Galatea, Shaw's relentless and humorous honesty humanizes these archetypes, and in the process brings drama and art itself to a more contemporarily relevant and human level.
Two important themes in Pygmalion that may be traced back to Shaw’s family history are his oedipal complex (casued by hatred of his drunken father, and a frustrated love for unaffecionate mother)and the frustratios and snobbishness deriving from a shabby-genteel upbringing. The first is reflected in Higgin’s lack of interest in young ladies and his love for his mother
Pygmalion old and new
1) P. hates women; Higgins is a convinced bachelor
2) P.and Higgins are both creators
3) Both protagonists create a woman from discouraging material
4) P. creates a statue whoch represents an ideally beautiful woman; Higgins teaches Eliza to talk and act like an automaton. This is a crucial difference because H. Gives Eliza the means(language) that can use to turn against him. Since articulate speech was traditionally associated with intelligence, Higgins gives Eliza the gift of intelligence that will cause Eliza to seek her indipendence from Higgins
5) Galatea comes to life in answer to P’s prayers and they marry , Elizacomes to life of her own freee will and will refuse to marry Higgins
Pygmalion is about the construction of social class through language .In this play ,language is seen from two different perspective. For Higgins, it is a way of demonstrating that the difference between classes is merely a question of education , while for his pupil , Eliza, at the beginning it rapresents a real possibility for social advancement. The socio-scientific experiment at the centre of the play, however, is not a real success. The scientist Higgins hasn't taken into account its consequences. Eliza's transformation, after which she cannot go back to her old life. She is now truly a lady, but having neither money nor the right family background, there is no place for her in high society. Yet at the same time she has become alienated from her own working-class community. She finally rebels against Higgins because she fels he has betrayed her hopes. Her initial aspirations have revealed the limited role women can play in society.
Characters
Higgins He is a spoilt baby. He plays with people and used all means to achieve his goal. He is extremely clever; his desire to improve Eliza’condition corresponds to Shaw’s political views because he wished to elevate everybody’s condition of life
Eliza She is about 20 and she is HONEST: this is the root of her fundamental aspiration: to become a middle-class citizen Shaw imparts a lesson that everybody can learn-social progress is possible through education. Higgins wants to change the world, Eliza to change herself
Mrs. Warren's Profession
Play in four acts by George Bernard Shaw, written in 1893 and published in 1898 but not performed until 1902 because of government censorship. The play's subject matter is organized prostitution.
Vivie Warren, a well-educated young woman, discovers that her mother has attained her present status and affluence by rising from poverty through prostitution and that she now has financial interests in several brothels throughout Europe. For years, an aristocratic friend of the family has been her partner. Vivie also discovers that the clergyman father of Frank, her suitor, had once been a client of her mother's.
Mrs. Warren states her position that poverty and a society which condones it are the true immorality. She asserts that life in a brothel is preferable to a life of grinding poverty as a factory worker. Vivie acknowledges her mother's courage in overcoming her past but rejects her continued involvement in prostitution. She severs her relationship with her mother, also rejecting Frank and the possibility of other suitors.
Apparire dunque significa essere? A questa domanda George Bernard Shaw, in riferimento a più di uno dei suoi capolavori, risponderebbe in maniera pirandelliana, che la necessità di sembrare quel che in realtà non si è, è dovuto ai rapporti con un tipo di società che non apprezza più le virtù, ma i vizi dovuti al benessere. La prostituzione, i matrimoni combinati , il facile guadagno sono fattori di una società malata che non apprezza più l'essere individuale: l'amore vero, i valori genuini, non esistono più, perché tutto è legato in qualche modo al denaro, la prima fonte per il quale l'uomo è disposto a tutto, anche a vendere il proprio io. Nelle sue commedie Shaw attacca in maniera dura e diretta il capitalismo inglese e i problemi connessi direttamente ad esso: la povertà , la prostituzione, l'emarginazione. E' utile a tal proposito prendere in esame la prefazione ad una delle sue famosissime opere "Mrs Warren's Profession":
L' "essere" che differenzia l'uno dall'altro, e tante volte "mascherato" dalle convenzioni del sistema, non ha in tutti i casi la passibilità di esprimersi a causa delle gerarchie sociali, talvolta insormontabili.Queste infatti tendono a favorire nella stragrande maggioranza chi non merita:chi "ha"; precludendo così ogni possibilità per chi invece ne è degno: chi "è". I problemi della Victorian age di Shaw non differiscono molto da quelli attuali. Ancora oggi si parla infatti di "raccomandati": crollano edifici, muoiono persone a causa di cure sbagliate: è solo il caso? Tante volte chi "sembra" purtroppo non è in realtà ciò che ci si aspetta: é opportuno allora l'aforisma di Shaw tratto dalla commedia Pygmalion:
... la differenza tra una signora e una fioraia non consiste nel modo in cui si comporta ma nel modo in cui viene trattata. I valori reali, quelli puri, non vanno cercati scalando i gradini della piramide sociale, ma dentro se stessi:l' "essere" di ogni uomo non deve poggiarsi sulle apparenze ma guardare oltre: una fioraia può così risultare una persona più "vera" e più "sana" di una, invece, benestante che forse non vale la pena neanche conoscere e imitare.
· L'opinione di Oscar Wilde
Mentre la critica di Shaw verso la società è una accusa diretta , altri autori per evitare censure cercano di giocare sul comico, genere fraintendibile e meno controllato, pur ottenendo lo stesso risultato : ammonire un mondo fatto di sole sembianze. Tra questi, l'autore che incarna meglio il ruolo è senza dubbio Oscar Wilde. Egli attraverso paradossi, malintesi, giochi di parole, fraintendimenti, sottolinea come la famiglia, l'amore, l'istruzione non siano altro che false verità, o meglio assurdità. Non esistono, ognuno pensa esclusivamente ai propri interessi di natura prettamente economica, svalutando al massimo ciò che conta in realtà: la vita. Cosi nella commedia " The importance of being Earnest", un nome può diventare più importante della persona stessa, può far innamorare e litigare, l'individualità al contrario non può che ridursi ad un ruolo marginale di passività e incompiutezza
Shaw believed in evolution, in existence as part of a continuing process which goes beyond individual gratification and corresponds to a superior design. He believed that individual will a striving (sforzo) are essential factors in achieving progress. Evolution is brought about by a force that is to be located within the individual and that responds to a universal design of progress. Divinity expresses itself in the individual, but no every individual is divine, not evey individual posesses the life force, that collective, historical force of will power that drives humanity on to more advanced states. Higgins and Eliza are expression of the Life Force
Ibsenism
Ibsen’s plays constituted a radical break with that fashion. Ibsen wanted to photograph society and people as they really were. He faced up problems as sex, incest and venereal diseases, the role of woman and marriage in society. His theatre was not celebrating the status quo, but denouncing bourgeois hypocrisy. Following these ideas Shaw introduces the drama o ideas, a drama which is based neither on the development of plot or character, but prinicipally on a dialectic debate of political, social and moral ideas.Shaw wants you laugh here and feel pain but his aim is to gret you to think and debate topics and issues
THE FABIANS were Socialists who believed in gradual rather than sudden revolutionary progress. This was achieved through education and parliamentary reforms
Pygmalion derives its name from the famous story in Ovid's Metamorphoses, in which Pygmalion, disgusted by the loose and shameful lives of the women of his era, decides to live alone and unmarried. With wondrous art, he creates a beautiful statue more perfect than any living woman. The more he looks upon her, the more deeply he falls in love with her, until he wishes that she were more than a statue. This statue is Galatea. Lovesick, Pygmalion goes to the temple of the goddess Venus and prays that she gives him a lover like his statue; Venus is touched by his love and brings Galatea to life. When Pygmalion returns from Venus' temple and kisses his statue, he is delighted to find that she is warm and soft to the touch--"The maiden felt the kisses, blushed and, lifting her timid eyes up to the light, saw the sky and her lover at the same time" (Frank Justus)
Myths such as this are fine enough when studied through the lens of centuries and the buffer of translations and editions, but what happens when one tries to translate such an allegory into Victorian England? That is just what George Bernard Shaw does in his version of the Pygmalion myth. In doing so, he exposes the inadequacy of myth and of romance in several ways. For one, he deliberately twists the myth so that the play does not conclude as euphorically or conveniently, hanging instead in unconventional ambiguity. His added noisome details keep the story grounded and decidedly less romantic. Finally, and most significantly, Shaw challenges the possibly insidious assumptions that come with the Pygmalion myth, forcing us to ask the following:
-Is the male artist the absolute and perfect being who has the power to create woman in the image of his desires?
-Is the woman necessarily the inferior subject who sees her lover as her sky?
-Can there only ever be sexual/romantic relations between a man and a woman? -----Does beauty reflect virtue?
-Does the artist love his creation, or merely the art that brought that creation into being?
In this way, he draws our attention to his own art, and to his ability to create, through the medium of speech, not only Pygmalion's Galatea, but Pygmalion himself. More powerful than Pygmalion, on top of building up his creations, Shaw can take them down as well by showing their faults and foibles. In this way, it is the playwright alone, and not some divine will, who breathes life into his characters. While Ovid's Pygmalion may be said to have idolized his Galatea, Shaw's relentless and humorous honesty humanizes these archetypes, and in the process brings drama and art itself to a more contemporarily relevant and human level.
Two important themes in Pygmalion that may be traced back to Shaw’s family history are his oedipal complex (casued by hatred of his drunken father, and a frustrated love for unaffecionate mother)and the frustratios and snobbishness deriving from a shabby-genteel upbringing. The first is reflected in Higgin’s lack of interest in young ladies and his love for his mother
Pygmalion old and new
1) P. hates women; Higgins is a convinced bachelor
2) P.and Higgins are both creators
3) Both protagonists create a woman from discouraging material
4) P. creates a statue whoch represents an ideally beautiful woman; Higgins teaches Eliza to talk and act like an automaton. This is a crucial difference because H. Gives Eliza the means(language) that can use to turn against him. Since articulate speech was traditionally associated with intelligence, Higgins gives Eliza the gift of intelligence that will cause Eliza to seek her indipendence from Higgins
5) Galatea comes to life in answer to P’s prayers and they marry , Elizacomes to life of her own freee will and will refuse to marry Higgins
Pygmalion is about the construction of social class through language .In this play ,language is seen from two different perspective. For Higgins, it is a way of demonstrating that the difference between classes is merely a question of education , while for his pupil , Eliza, at the beginning it rapresents a real possibility for social advancement. The socio-scientific experiment at the centre of the play, however, is not a real success. The scientist Higgins hasn't taken into account its consequences. Eliza's transformation, after which she cannot go back to her old life. She is now truly a lady, but having neither money nor the right family background, there is no place for her in high society. Yet at the same time she has become alienated from her own working-class community. She finally rebels against Higgins because she fels he has betrayed her hopes. Her initial aspirations have revealed the limited role women can play in society.
Characters
Higgins He is a spoilt baby. He plays with people and used all means to achieve his goal. He is extremely clever; his desire to improve Eliza’condition corresponds to Shaw’s political views because he wished to elevate everybody’s condition of life
Eliza She is about 20 and she is HONEST: this is the root of her fundamental aspiration: to become a middle-class citizen Shaw imparts a lesson that everybody can learn-social progress is possible through education. Higgins wants to change the world, Eliza to change herself
Mrs. Warren's Profession
Play in four acts by George Bernard Shaw, written in 1893 and published in 1898 but not performed until 1902 because of government censorship. The play's subject matter is organized prostitution.
Vivie Warren, a well-educated young woman, discovers that her mother has attained her present status and affluence by rising from poverty through prostitution and that she now has financial interests in several brothels throughout Europe. For years, an aristocratic friend of the family has been her partner. Vivie also discovers that the clergyman father of Frank, her suitor, had once been a client of her mother's.
Mrs. Warren states her position that poverty and a society which condones it are the true immorality. She asserts that life in a brothel is preferable to a life of grinding poverty as a factory worker. Vivie acknowledges her mother's courage in overcoming her past but rejects her continued involvement in prostitution. She severs her relationship with her mother, also rejecting Frank and the possibility of other suitors.
Apparire dunque significa essere? A questa domanda George Bernard Shaw, in riferimento a più di uno dei suoi capolavori, risponderebbe in maniera pirandelliana, che la necessità di sembrare quel che in realtà non si è, è dovuto ai rapporti con un tipo di società che non apprezza più le virtù, ma i vizi dovuti al benessere. La prostituzione, i matrimoni combinati , il facile guadagno sono fattori di una società malata che non apprezza più l'essere individuale: l'amore vero, i valori genuini, non esistono più, perché tutto è legato in qualche modo al denaro, la prima fonte per il quale l'uomo è disposto a tutto, anche a vendere il proprio io. Nelle sue commedie Shaw attacca in maniera dura e diretta il capitalismo inglese e i problemi connessi direttamente ad esso: la povertà , la prostituzione, l'emarginazione. E' utile a tal proposito prendere in esame la prefazione ad una delle sue famosissime opere "Mrs Warren's Profession":
L' "essere" che differenzia l'uno dall'altro, e tante volte "mascherato" dalle convenzioni del sistema, non ha in tutti i casi la passibilità di esprimersi a causa delle gerarchie sociali, talvolta insormontabili.Queste infatti tendono a favorire nella stragrande maggioranza chi non merita:chi "ha"; precludendo così ogni possibilità per chi invece ne è degno: chi "è". I problemi della Victorian age di Shaw non differiscono molto da quelli attuali. Ancora oggi si parla infatti di "raccomandati": crollano edifici, muoiono persone a causa di cure sbagliate: è solo il caso? Tante volte chi "sembra" purtroppo non è in realtà ciò che ci si aspetta: é opportuno allora l'aforisma di Shaw tratto dalla commedia Pygmalion:
... la differenza tra una signora e una fioraia non consiste nel modo in cui si comporta ma nel modo in cui viene trattata. I valori reali, quelli puri, non vanno cercati scalando i gradini della piramide sociale, ma dentro se stessi:l' "essere" di ogni uomo non deve poggiarsi sulle apparenze ma guardare oltre: una fioraia può così risultare una persona più "vera" e più "sana" di una, invece, benestante che forse non vale la pena neanche conoscere e imitare.
· L'opinione di Oscar Wilde
Mentre la critica di Shaw verso la società è una accusa diretta , altri autori per evitare censure cercano di giocare sul comico, genere fraintendibile e meno controllato, pur ottenendo lo stesso risultato : ammonire un mondo fatto di sole sembianze. Tra questi, l'autore che incarna meglio il ruolo è senza dubbio Oscar Wilde. Egli attraverso paradossi, malintesi, giochi di parole, fraintendimenti, sottolinea come la famiglia, l'amore, l'istruzione non siano altro che false verità, o meglio assurdità. Non esistono, ognuno pensa esclusivamente ai propri interessi di natura prettamente economica, svalutando al massimo ciò che conta in realtà: la vita. Cosi nella commedia " The importance of being Earnest", un nome può diventare più importante della persona stessa, può far innamorare e litigare, l'individualità al contrario non può che ridursi ad un ruolo marginale di passività e incompiutezza
Inglese: David Copperfield
Inglese: David Copperfield: "David Copperfield Although David narrates his story as an adult, he relays the impressions he had from a youthful point of view. We see how ..."
sabato 24 luglio 2010
David Copperfield
David Copperfield
Although David narrates his story as an adult, he relays the impressions he had from a youthful point of view. We see how David’s perception of the world deepens as he comes of age. We see David’s initial innocence in the contrast between his interpretation of events and our own understanding of them. Although David is ignorant of Steerforth’s treachery, we are aware from the moment we meet Steerforth that he doesn’t deserve the adulation David feels toward him. David doesn’t understand why he hates Uriah or why he trusts a boy with a donkey cart who steals his money and leaves him in the road, but we can sense Uriah’s devious nature and the boy’s treacherous intentions. In David’s first-person narration, Dickens conveys the wisdom of the older man implicitly, through the eyes of a child.
David’s complex character allows for contradiction and development over the course of the novel. Though David is trusting and kind,sometimes his behaviour towards Mr. Dick is not so good. David also displays great tenderness, as in the moment when he realizes his love for Agnes for the first time. David, especially as a young man in love, can be foolish and romantic. As he grows up, however, he develops a more mature point of view and searches for a lover who will challenge him and help him grow. David fully matures as an adult when he expresses the sentiment that he values Agnes’s calm tranquility over all else in his life.
Uriah Heep
Uriah serves a foil ( fa da contrasto)to David and contrasts David’s qualities of innocence and compassion with his own corruption. Though Uriah is raised in a cruel environment similar to David’s, Uriah’s upbringing causes him to become bitter and vengeful rather than honest and hopeful. Dickens’s physical description of Uriah marks Uriah as a demonic character. He refers to Uriah’s movements as snakelike and gives Uriah red hair and red eyes. Uriah and David not only have opposing characteristics but also operate at cross-purposes. For example, whereas Uriah wishes to marry Agnes only in order to hurt David, David’s marriages are both motivated by love. The frequent contrast between Uriah’s and David’s sentiments emphasizes David’s kindness and moral integrity.
While David’s character development is a process of increased self-understanding, Uriah grows in his desire to exercise control over himself and other characters. As Uriah gains more power over Mr. Wickfield, his sense of entitlement grows and he becomes more and more power-hungry. The final scenes of the novel, in which Uriah praises his jail cell because it helps him know what he should do, show Uriah’s need to exert control even when he is a helpless prisoner. But imprisonment does not redeem his evil—if anything, it compounds his flaws. To the end, Uriah plots strategies to increase his control. Because he deploys his strategies to selfish purposes that bring harm to others, he stands out as the novel’s greatest villain.
James Steerforth
Steerforth is a slick (flaso), egotistical, wealthy young man whose sense of self-importance overwhelms all his opinions. Steerforth underscores the difference between what we understand as readers and what David sees—and fails to see—in his youthful naïveté. David takes Steerforth’s kindness for granted without analyzing his motives or detecting his duplicity. When Steerforth befriends (aiuta) David at Salem House, David doesn’t suspect that Steerforth is simply trying to use David to make friends and gain status. Though Steerforth belittles (minimizza)David from the moment they meet, David is incapable of conceiving that his new friend might be taking advantage of him. Because Steerforth’s duplicity is so clear to us, David’s lack of insight into Steerforth’s true intentions emphasizes his youthful innocence. Steerforth likes David only because David worships him, and his final betrayal comes as a surprise to David but not to us.
The Plight ( condizione)of the Weak
Throughout David Copperfield, the powerful abuse the weak and helpless. Dickens focuses on orphans, women, and the mentally disabled to show that exploitation—not pity or compassion—is the rule in an industrial society. Dickens draws on his own experience as a child to describe the inhumanity of child labor and debtors’ prison. His characters suffer punishment at the hands of forces larger than themselves, even though they are morally good people. The arbitrary suffering of innocents makes for the most vividly affecting scenes of the novel. David starves and suffers in a wine-bottling factory as a child. As his guardian, Mr. Murdstone can exploit David as factory labor because the boy is too small and dependent on him to disobey. Likewise, the boys at Salem House have no recourse against the cruel Mr. Creakle. In both situations, children deprived of the care of their natural parents suffer at the hands of their own supposed protectors.
The weak in David Copperfield never escape the domination of the powerful by challenging the powerful directly. Instead, the weak must ally themselves with equally powerful characters. David, for example, doesn’t stand up to Mr. Murdstone and challenge his authority. Instead, he flees to the wealthy Miss Betsey, whose financial stability affords her the power to shelter David from Mr. Murdstone. David’s escape proves neither self-reliance nor his own inner virtue, but rather the significance of family ties and family money in human relationships.
Equality in Marriage
In the world of the novel, marriages succeed to the extent that husband and wife attain equality in their relationship. Dickens holds up the Strongs’ marriage as an example to show that marriages can only be happy if neither spouse is subjugated to the other. Indeed, neither of the Strongs views the other as inferior. Conversely, Dickens criticizes characters who attempt to invoke a sense of superiority over their spouses. Mr. Murdstone’s attempts to improve David’s mother’s character, for example, only crush her spirit. Mr. Murdstone forces Clara into submission in the name of improving her, which leaves her meek and voiceless. In contrast, although Doctor Strong does attempt to improve Annie’s character, he does so not out of a desire to show his moral superiority but rather out of love and respect for Annie. Doctor Strong is gentle and soothing with his wife, rather than abrasive and imperious like Mr. Murdstone. Though Doctor Strong’s marriage is based at least partially on an ideal of equality, he still assumes that his wife, as a woman, depends upon him and needs him for moral guidance. Dickens, we see, does not challenge his society’s constrictive views about the roles of women. However, by depicting a marriage in which a man and wife share some balance of power, Dickens does point toward an age of empowered women.
Wealth and Class
Throughout the novel, Dickens criticizes his society’s view of wealth and class as measures of a person’s value. Dickens uses Steerforth, who is wealthy, powerful, and noble, to show that these traits are more likely to corrupt than improve a person’s character. Steerforth is treacherous and self-absorbed. On the other hand, Mr. Peggotty and Ham, both poor, are generous, sympathetic characters. Many people in Dickens’s time believed that poverty was a symptom of moral degeneracy and that people who were poor deserved to suffer because of inherent deficiencies. Dickens, on the other hand, sympathizes with the poor and implies that their woes result from society’s unfairness, not their own failings.
Dickens does not go so far as to suggest that all poor people are absolutely noble and that all rich people are utterly evil. Poor people frequently swindle David when he is young, even though he too is poor and helpless. Doctor Strong and Agnes, both wealthy, middle-class citizens, nonetheless are morally upstanding. Dickens does not paint a black-and-white moral picture but shows that wealth and class are are unreliable indicators of character and morality. Dickens invites us to judge his characters based on their individual deeds and qualities, not on the hand that the cruel world deals them.
Mothers and Mother Figures
Mothers and mother figures have an essential influence on the identity of the characters in David Copperfield. Almost invariably, good mother figures produce good children while bad mothers yield sinister offspring. This moral connection between mothers and children indicates Dickens’s belief that mothers have an all-important role in shaping their children’s characters and destinies.
The success of mother figures in the novel hinges on their ability to care for their children without coddling them. Miss Betsey, the aunt who raises David, clearly adores him but does not dote on him. She encourages him to be strong in everything he does and to be fair at all times. She corrects him when she thinks he is making a mistake, as with his marriage to Dora, and her ability to see faults in him helps him to mature into a balanced adult. Although Miss Betsey raises David to deal with the difficulties of the world, she does not block those hardships. Instead, she forces David to confront them himself. In contrast, Uriah’s mother, Mrs. Heep, dotes on her son and allows him to dominate her. As a result, Uriah develops a vain, inflated self-regard that breeds cruel behavior. On the whole, Dickens’s treatment of mother-child relationships in the novel is intended to teach a lesson. He warns mothers to love their children only in moderation and to correct their faults while they can still be fixed.
Accented Speech
Dickens gives his characters different accents to indicate their social class. Uriah Heep and Mr. Peggotty are two notable examples of such characters whose speech indicates their social standing. Uriah, in an attempt to appear poor and of good character, consistently drops the “h” in “humble” every time a group of Mr. Wickfield’s friends confront him. Uriah drops this accent as soon as his fraud is revealed: he is not the urchin-child he portrays himself to be, who grew up hard and fell into his current character because of the cruelty of the world. Rather, Uriah is a conniving, double-crossing social climber who views himself as superior to the wealthy and who exploits everyone he can. Mr. Peggotty’s lower-class accent, on the other hand, indicates genuine humility and poverty. Dickens uses accent in both cases to advance his assertion that class and personal integrity are unrelated and that it is misleading to make any connection between the two.
Physical Beauty
In David Copperfield, physical beauty corresponds to moral good. Those who are physically beautiful, like David’s mother, are good and noble, while those who are ugly, like Uriah Heep, Mr. Creakle, and Mr. Murdstone, are evil, violent, and ill-tempered. Dickens suggests that internal characteristics, much like physical appearance, cannot be disguised permanently. Rather, circumstances will eventually reveal the moral value of characters whose good goes unrecognized or whose evil goes unpunished. In David Copperfield, even the most carefully buried characteristics eventually come to light and expose elusive individuals for what they really are. Although Steerforth, for example, initially appears harmless but annoying, he cannot hide his true treachery for years. In this manner, for almost all the characters in the novel, physical beauty corresponds to personal worth.
The Sea
The sea represents an unknown and powerful force in the lives of the characters in David Copperfield, and it is almost always connected with death. The sea took Little Em’ly’s father in an unfortunate accident over which she had no control. Likewise, the sea takes both Ham and Steerforth. The sea washes Steerforth up on the shore—a moment that symbolizes Steerforth’s moral emptiness, as the sea treats him like flotsam and jetsam. The storm in the concluding chapters of the novel alerts us to the danger of ignoring the sea’s power and indicates that the novel’s conflicts have reached an uncontrollable level. Like death, the force of the sea is beyond human control. Humans must try to live in harmony with the sea’s mystical power and take precautions to avoid untimely death.
Flowers
Flowers represent simplicity and innocence in David Copperfield. For example, Steerforth nicknames David “Daisy” because David is naïve. David brings Dora flowers on her birthday. Dora forever paints flowers on her little canvas. When David returns to the Wickfields’ house and the Heeps leave, he discovers that the old flowers are in the room, which indicates that the room has been returned to its previous state of simplicity and innocence. In each of these cases, flowers stand as images of rebirth and health—a significance that points to a spring like quality in characters associated with their blossoms. Flowers indicate fresh perspective and thought and often recall moments of frivolity and release.
Mr. Dick’s Kite
Mr. Dick’s enormous kite represents his separation from society. Just as the kite soars (vola in alto)above the other characters, Mr. Dick, whom the characters believe to be insane, stands apart from the rest of society. Because Mr. Dick is not a part of the social hierarchies that bind the rest of the characters, he is able to mend the disagreement between Doctor and Mrs. Strong, which none of the other characters can fix. The kite’s carefree simplicity mirrors Mr. Dick’s own childish innocence, and the pleasure the kite offers resembles the honest, unpretentious joy Mr. Dick brings to those around him.
Although David narrates his story as an adult, he relays the impressions he had from a youthful point of view. We see how David’s perception of the world deepens as he comes of age. We see David’s initial innocence in the contrast between his interpretation of events and our own understanding of them. Although David is ignorant of Steerforth’s treachery, we are aware from the moment we meet Steerforth that he doesn’t deserve the adulation David feels toward him. David doesn’t understand why he hates Uriah or why he trusts a boy with a donkey cart who steals his money and leaves him in the road, but we can sense Uriah’s devious nature and the boy’s treacherous intentions. In David’s first-person narration, Dickens conveys the wisdom of the older man implicitly, through the eyes of a child.
David’s complex character allows for contradiction and development over the course of the novel. Though David is trusting and kind,sometimes his behaviour towards Mr. Dick is not so good. David also displays great tenderness, as in the moment when he realizes his love for Agnes for the first time. David, especially as a young man in love, can be foolish and romantic. As he grows up, however, he develops a more mature point of view and searches for a lover who will challenge him and help him grow. David fully matures as an adult when he expresses the sentiment that he values Agnes’s calm tranquility over all else in his life.
Uriah Heep
Uriah serves a foil ( fa da contrasto)to David and contrasts David’s qualities of innocence and compassion with his own corruption. Though Uriah is raised in a cruel environment similar to David’s, Uriah’s upbringing causes him to become bitter and vengeful rather than honest and hopeful. Dickens’s physical description of Uriah marks Uriah as a demonic character. He refers to Uriah’s movements as snakelike and gives Uriah red hair and red eyes. Uriah and David not only have opposing characteristics but also operate at cross-purposes. For example, whereas Uriah wishes to marry Agnes only in order to hurt David, David’s marriages are both motivated by love. The frequent contrast between Uriah’s and David’s sentiments emphasizes David’s kindness and moral integrity.
While David’s character development is a process of increased self-understanding, Uriah grows in his desire to exercise control over himself and other characters. As Uriah gains more power over Mr. Wickfield, his sense of entitlement grows and he becomes more and more power-hungry. The final scenes of the novel, in which Uriah praises his jail cell because it helps him know what he should do, show Uriah’s need to exert control even when he is a helpless prisoner. But imprisonment does not redeem his evil—if anything, it compounds his flaws. To the end, Uriah plots strategies to increase his control. Because he deploys his strategies to selfish purposes that bring harm to others, he stands out as the novel’s greatest villain.
James Steerforth
Steerforth is a slick (flaso), egotistical, wealthy young man whose sense of self-importance overwhelms all his opinions. Steerforth underscores the difference between what we understand as readers and what David sees—and fails to see—in his youthful naïveté. David takes Steerforth’s kindness for granted without analyzing his motives or detecting his duplicity. When Steerforth befriends (aiuta) David at Salem House, David doesn’t suspect that Steerforth is simply trying to use David to make friends and gain status. Though Steerforth belittles (minimizza)David from the moment they meet, David is incapable of conceiving that his new friend might be taking advantage of him. Because Steerforth’s duplicity is so clear to us, David’s lack of insight into Steerforth’s true intentions emphasizes his youthful innocence. Steerforth likes David only because David worships him, and his final betrayal comes as a surprise to David but not to us.
The Plight ( condizione)of the Weak
Throughout David Copperfield, the powerful abuse the weak and helpless. Dickens focuses on orphans, women, and the mentally disabled to show that exploitation—not pity or compassion—is the rule in an industrial society. Dickens draws on his own experience as a child to describe the inhumanity of child labor and debtors’ prison. His characters suffer punishment at the hands of forces larger than themselves, even though they are morally good people. The arbitrary suffering of innocents makes for the most vividly affecting scenes of the novel. David starves and suffers in a wine-bottling factory as a child. As his guardian, Mr. Murdstone can exploit David as factory labor because the boy is too small and dependent on him to disobey. Likewise, the boys at Salem House have no recourse against the cruel Mr. Creakle. In both situations, children deprived of the care of their natural parents suffer at the hands of their own supposed protectors.
The weak in David Copperfield never escape the domination of the powerful by challenging the powerful directly. Instead, the weak must ally themselves with equally powerful characters. David, for example, doesn’t stand up to Mr. Murdstone and challenge his authority. Instead, he flees to the wealthy Miss Betsey, whose financial stability affords her the power to shelter David from Mr. Murdstone. David’s escape proves neither self-reliance nor his own inner virtue, but rather the significance of family ties and family money in human relationships.
Equality in Marriage
In the world of the novel, marriages succeed to the extent that husband and wife attain equality in their relationship. Dickens holds up the Strongs’ marriage as an example to show that marriages can only be happy if neither spouse is subjugated to the other. Indeed, neither of the Strongs views the other as inferior. Conversely, Dickens criticizes characters who attempt to invoke a sense of superiority over their spouses. Mr. Murdstone’s attempts to improve David’s mother’s character, for example, only crush her spirit. Mr. Murdstone forces Clara into submission in the name of improving her, which leaves her meek and voiceless. In contrast, although Doctor Strong does attempt to improve Annie’s character, he does so not out of a desire to show his moral superiority but rather out of love and respect for Annie. Doctor Strong is gentle and soothing with his wife, rather than abrasive and imperious like Mr. Murdstone. Though Doctor Strong’s marriage is based at least partially on an ideal of equality, he still assumes that his wife, as a woman, depends upon him and needs him for moral guidance. Dickens, we see, does not challenge his society’s constrictive views about the roles of women. However, by depicting a marriage in which a man and wife share some balance of power, Dickens does point toward an age of empowered women.
Wealth and Class
Throughout the novel, Dickens criticizes his society’s view of wealth and class as measures of a person’s value. Dickens uses Steerforth, who is wealthy, powerful, and noble, to show that these traits are more likely to corrupt than improve a person’s character. Steerforth is treacherous and self-absorbed. On the other hand, Mr. Peggotty and Ham, both poor, are generous, sympathetic characters. Many people in Dickens’s time believed that poverty was a symptom of moral degeneracy and that people who were poor deserved to suffer because of inherent deficiencies. Dickens, on the other hand, sympathizes with the poor and implies that their woes result from society’s unfairness, not their own failings.
Dickens does not go so far as to suggest that all poor people are absolutely noble and that all rich people are utterly evil. Poor people frequently swindle David when he is young, even though he too is poor and helpless. Doctor Strong and Agnes, both wealthy, middle-class citizens, nonetheless are morally upstanding. Dickens does not paint a black-and-white moral picture but shows that wealth and class are are unreliable indicators of character and morality. Dickens invites us to judge his characters based on their individual deeds and qualities, not on the hand that the cruel world deals them.
Mothers and Mother Figures
Mothers and mother figures have an essential influence on the identity of the characters in David Copperfield. Almost invariably, good mother figures produce good children while bad mothers yield sinister offspring. This moral connection between mothers and children indicates Dickens’s belief that mothers have an all-important role in shaping their children’s characters and destinies.
The success of mother figures in the novel hinges on their ability to care for their children without coddling them. Miss Betsey, the aunt who raises David, clearly adores him but does not dote on him. She encourages him to be strong in everything he does and to be fair at all times. She corrects him when she thinks he is making a mistake, as with his marriage to Dora, and her ability to see faults in him helps him to mature into a balanced adult. Although Miss Betsey raises David to deal with the difficulties of the world, she does not block those hardships. Instead, she forces David to confront them himself. In contrast, Uriah’s mother, Mrs. Heep, dotes on her son and allows him to dominate her. As a result, Uriah develops a vain, inflated self-regard that breeds cruel behavior. On the whole, Dickens’s treatment of mother-child relationships in the novel is intended to teach a lesson. He warns mothers to love their children only in moderation and to correct their faults while they can still be fixed.
Accented Speech
Dickens gives his characters different accents to indicate their social class. Uriah Heep and Mr. Peggotty are two notable examples of such characters whose speech indicates their social standing. Uriah, in an attempt to appear poor and of good character, consistently drops the “h” in “humble” every time a group of Mr. Wickfield’s friends confront him. Uriah drops this accent as soon as his fraud is revealed: he is not the urchin-child he portrays himself to be, who grew up hard and fell into his current character because of the cruelty of the world. Rather, Uriah is a conniving, double-crossing social climber who views himself as superior to the wealthy and who exploits everyone he can. Mr. Peggotty’s lower-class accent, on the other hand, indicates genuine humility and poverty. Dickens uses accent in both cases to advance his assertion that class and personal integrity are unrelated and that it is misleading to make any connection between the two.
Physical Beauty
In David Copperfield, physical beauty corresponds to moral good. Those who are physically beautiful, like David’s mother, are good and noble, while those who are ugly, like Uriah Heep, Mr. Creakle, and Mr. Murdstone, are evil, violent, and ill-tempered. Dickens suggests that internal characteristics, much like physical appearance, cannot be disguised permanently. Rather, circumstances will eventually reveal the moral value of characters whose good goes unrecognized or whose evil goes unpunished. In David Copperfield, even the most carefully buried characteristics eventually come to light and expose elusive individuals for what they really are. Although Steerforth, for example, initially appears harmless but annoying, he cannot hide his true treachery for years. In this manner, for almost all the characters in the novel, physical beauty corresponds to personal worth.
The Sea
The sea represents an unknown and powerful force in the lives of the characters in David Copperfield, and it is almost always connected with death. The sea took Little Em’ly’s father in an unfortunate accident over which she had no control. Likewise, the sea takes both Ham and Steerforth. The sea washes Steerforth up on the shore—a moment that symbolizes Steerforth’s moral emptiness, as the sea treats him like flotsam and jetsam. The storm in the concluding chapters of the novel alerts us to the danger of ignoring the sea’s power and indicates that the novel’s conflicts have reached an uncontrollable level. Like death, the force of the sea is beyond human control. Humans must try to live in harmony with the sea’s mystical power and take precautions to avoid untimely death.
Flowers
Flowers represent simplicity and innocence in David Copperfield. For example, Steerforth nicknames David “Daisy” because David is naïve. David brings Dora flowers on her birthday. Dora forever paints flowers on her little canvas. When David returns to the Wickfields’ house and the Heeps leave, he discovers that the old flowers are in the room, which indicates that the room has been returned to its previous state of simplicity and innocence. In each of these cases, flowers stand as images of rebirth and health—a significance that points to a spring like quality in characters associated with their blossoms. Flowers indicate fresh perspective and thought and often recall moments of frivolity and release.
Mr. Dick’s Kite
Mr. Dick’s enormous kite represents his separation from society. Just as the kite soars (vola in alto)above the other characters, Mr. Dick, whom the characters believe to be insane, stands apart from the rest of society. Because Mr. Dick is not a part of the social hierarchies that bind the rest of the characters, he is able to mend the disagreement between Doctor and Mrs. Strong, which none of the other characters can fix. The kite’s carefree simplicity mirrors Mr. Dick’s own childish innocence, and the pleasure the kite offers resembles the honest, unpretentious joy Mr. Dick brings to those around him.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)