Does Billy Pilgrim find happiness in SH5?

Billy Pilgrim is a ridiculous character. From his silly toga, to his sparkly Cinderella boots, he is a ludicrously crafted idiot. But I wonder if he finds happiness? I believe Billy rejects reality because he cannot handle the terror and carnage of such a world. He accepts an ignorant bliss (Tralfamadore and time travel) as a new reality, instead of facing a grim world. I don't know if adopting Tralfamadorian philosophy make Billy happier, but I would argue that Tralfamadorian ideals bring him comfort. He makes peace with what he cannot change, but in doing so, he seems to absolve himself of all responsibility in his life. His attitude makes him life's plaything, even though he, by knowing the future, has the ability to change its outcome. It's ironic that Billy has the power to control his life, because he seems to surrender all control. Still, I think he makes peace with his life. He believes there is no difference between what he can and cannot change; he cannot control what happens in the world and in his life because all events are part of the unchangeable movement of time. The Tralfamadorians also seem to turn away when something displeases them. They simply close their eyes to avoid looking at whatever they dislike (Montana Wildhack screaming in the human zoo). Billy reacts in a similar (yet more complicated manor). What is accomplished by turning away from the bad and shutting out the unbearable?

Thoughts on Beloved

Beloved. What a strange novel. When I think of Beloved, I think of a twisted web, with thousands of intertwining strands of mysticism, historical fiction, redemption, forgiveness, grief, pain, and so much more. Beloved. What a journey. There are countless directions to take when thinking and blogging about this novel, and I am still trying to figure out where to begin.

Happiness in Beloved seems to be an unattainable dream. Before Paul D came to 124, the future was about "keeping the past at bay," as if the past was a ravenous monster waiting to swallow Sethe up. Paul D does offer Sethe the chance to "make a life", but the unsatisfied past comes back in human form to feed on Sethe's life. I think Beloved almost sucked all the life out of Sethe, and whether Beloved's parasitic presence was caused by her need for vengeance or by her nature, Beloved's character represents powerful truths. It is difficult for anyone to understand Sethe's life, for she experienced horrors that hopefully many will never face. I don't believe that failing to suppress the past cannot be counted as a failure when a person's past is violated with baby's blood, mossy teeth, and a cracking whip. Learning about Sethe's life, I have to wonder if happiness is attainable. I know the ending of Beloved is hopeful, with Denver liberating herself and her town, Paul D's return, and Sethe's realization that she is "her own best thing." Still, picking up the pieces after such terror and pain seems impossible, and I can see how easy it would be to let your heart die, and simply try to fight off pain, rather than put it to rest. Perhaps happiness is a journey, and achieving happiness is a learning process. Sethe seemed content to live out her life, constantly shoving her past down, until Paul D arrived and changed everything. Perhaps we should not be content. "Something coming back from the dead hurts", and maybe we shouldn't shy away from this pain. Maybe we should, "let the monsters see [us] smile, let them see [us] smiling" (Vega4Life). Happiness can be found, but finding it is not always easy; we must persist.

The Stranger

I think I finally began to understand Meursault after our discussion on Monday. Camus' Preface was the final piece in a puzzle I have struggled with since we started reading The Stranger. But before I begin my commentary, I want to share the lyrics from "Existentialism on Prom Night", a song by Straylight Run. I could not help thinking of this song as I read Camus' novel.


"Existentialism On Prom Night"

When the sun came up,
We were sleeping in,
Sunk inside our blankets,
Sprawled across the bed,
And we were dreaming,

There are moments when,
When I know it and
The world revolves around us,
And we're keeping it,
Keep it all going,
This delicate balance,
Vulnerable all knowing,

Sing like you think no one's listening,
You would kill for this,
Just a little bit,
Just a little bit,
You would, kill for this

Sing like you think no one's listening,
You would kill for this,
Just a little bit,
Just a little bit,
You would, you would...

Sing me something soft,
Sad and delicate,
Or loud and out of key,
Sing me anything,
we're glad for what we've got,
Done with what we've lost
Our whole lives laid out right in front of us,

Sing like you think no one's listening,
You would kill for this,
Just a little bit,
Just a little bit,
You would,

Sing like you think no one's listening,
You would kill for this,
Just a little bit,
Just a little bit,
You would, you would....

Sing me something soft,
Sad and delicate,
Or loud and out of key,
Sing me anything.

I think the two lines that remind me of Meursault the most are, "We're glad for what we've got, done with what we've lost' (Existentialism). As a sensory person, I think Meursault is glad for what he has. He enjoys Marie's company, his smokes, and the beach; he is content with his life, and he doesn't seem to ask for anything more. During his imprisonment, Meursault reflects on his life, and seems to appreciate what he had before he went to jail, but he doesn't live with regret. He has lost his freedom, and he doesn't want to die, but he makes peace with his death. I think this is because Meursault doesn't linger on the past. He doesn't linger on the ambitions he once had as a student, or Maman's death, or anything in the past; he is "done with what [he's] lost" because he decides none of it really matters.

I was quick to judge Meursault in the beginning. I didn't understand his lifestyle, and I wondered if he was disconnected from society and lived without purpose. However, as I moved through the novel, I began to wonder if Meursault understood something about life that society fails to grasp. As a student, I am always busy thinking about the present and the future. I am striving for some greater purpose, or at least I think I am. But Meursault makes me question the purpose of life. His philosophy of life seems depressing, but enjoying a summer day on the beach, not worrying about getting ahead in life, or getting the highest paying job possible, doesn't sound too bad. In our discussions, we criticized Meursault for not having a purpose and not living life to the fullest, but what if living life to the fullest doesn't always include striving for more? What if happiness can be found when we enjoy the moment, instead of throwing ourselves into preparation for "the future"?

At first, I could not wrap my head around Meursault's crime. I could not understand how anyone could simply kill another human being without feeling regret or remorse. Once again, Camus' Preface brought clarity to my muddled thoughts, and I understood that the murder isn't necessarily the most important part of The Stranger. I find Meursault's unfailing dedication to the truth incredible. He ultimately perishes for this dedication, but I wonder if his dedication allows him to finally make peace with the world and its "gentle indifference"? (The Stranger)

The Metamorphosis

I found this story to be so strange. I see Gregor as a victim of his family’s dependency and a victim of the demanding world. Eventually, I think Gregor is pushed to his limit; he is drained, and he can give no more. I understand that, before his transformation, he chose to remain loyal to his family, and he carried the burden of his father’s debt because he cares for his family. Still, happiness doesn’t seem to factor into this story at all. To me, I see the characters are people who just exist. For Gregor, life was about taking care of his responsibilities and caring for his family. His existence was centered on his job. I think he just existed. He was like a well oiled machine; he functioned without emotion or thoughts. He was not human.
Even though Gregor’s change seems to make him more of a human than before his “metamorphosis,” I probably wouldn’t argue that Gregor finds happiness. He is so contained within his own world, and if he could find a way to escape his confinement, I do believe he could find happiness. Even the story takes place almost completely within Gregor’s home. The setting and the characters are contained within the flat, and life beyond the walls of the home seems so far away. I think happiness cannot even be considered until Gregor breaks free of his confinement.
Ironically, I think Gregor’s family finds happiness after Gregor dies. They go for a walk, and they all seem to feel lighter, as if a great burden has been lifted from their shoulders. I think the family’s reliance and dependence on Gregor withheld them. They chose to burden Gregor with responsibility, and I think they chose to contain themselves. However, once Gregor is gone, they are finally free of their dependence on him, and they can happily live their lives.

Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man

Happiness is a strange concept in Portrait. Stephen's character seems so complex, and to him, happiness means more than marrying the girl of his dreams or having daughters that love him.

Stephen's soul appears to be in turmoil for the first half of the book. I think he has thoughts and emotions that he can't make sense of, and he has no companion that understands his personality. Also, Stephen seems to enjoy solitude. He doesn't relate to his family or his school mates; for this reason, he faces the prospect of becoming an adolescent alone. Throughout the novel, I wanted to dislike Stephen because he seems to brood over his conflicted and unhappy emotions; I wanted him to take responsibility for himself. Yet, I continued to remind myself that as an artist, Stephen thinks differently from most people. I think Stephen does achieve happiness eventually when he stops trying to fit society's norm and allows himself to be himself. My favorite part of the novel was when Stephen is on the beach, and he is elated with life after he refuses the offer to become a clergy member. To me, this signified Stephen's decision to remain true to his artistic soul and allow his artful life to unfold.

The Playboy of the Western World

I think this play is rather strange. It does offer different ideas about happiness that contrast the ones I explored after reading Lear.

I think Christy challenges the idea that only those who "Let be" (and live for others) achieve true happiness, and those who interfere with their "destiny" and live for themselves never taste happiness. At the beginning of the play, Christy is a meek young man who cannot even stand up to his aged father. Christy describes his father as a terrible, dangerous man, and he paints his home life as one worth escaping. It sounds as if Christy only cares for his father, and never for himself. However, instead of facing his father like a man, Christy takes a cowardly escape, killing his father and running from the scene. I believe a real man would not hit his father from behind and run away. Still, if Christy had stayed with his father, he would have lived a very unhappy life. He would have been forced to marry a less-than desirable woman solely because his father wanted her money. Thus, Christy's actions suggest that sometimes we must interfere with the direction our life is taking because we know that the future will not bring happiness. I agree with this idea, but I disagree with the way Christy obtains his freedom from his father.

Ultimately, I think Christy does achieve happiness because he finally takes control of his life. He does not end up with Pegeen, but he feels assured that he, "will go romancing through a romping lifetime" (pg 110) after escaping the hangman's noose. In taking a twisted journey to find happiness, Christy becomes a man and realizes that his happiness can expand beyond marrying Pegeen and living his life out in Mayo.

In the end, we cannot seize control of our lives and live only for ourselves; however, we cannot sit back and watch life wash over us, allowing its tide to carry us where it may. I think happiness is about finding a balance between ensuring our own happiness and the happiness of others. We should not live life only to please ourselves, but we should remember our own desires and dreams because life does not just hand us happiness.

The Very Tragic Tragedy of King Lear

First, I think Cordelia's death is unfair and I personally did not expect it. Even though I knew King Lear was a tragedy, I secretly hoped that Cordelia and Lear would make it out alive in the end. She was so innocent and hardly deserved to die. Also, where was France in all of the madness that took place? He was kind enough to marry her without a dowry; why couldn't he save her life?

Anyways, happiness is an interesting concept when thinking about Lear. Many of the characters (Lear, Goneril, Edmund, Regan, Cornwall) take actions that they believe will make them happier or help contribute to an overall goal. For example, Goneril plans to poison her husband and marry Edmund for (I believe) several reasons, one being her belief that marrying Edmund will make her happy. Similarly, Edmund takes several steps to gain power, using several people as pawns (Cornwall, Goneril, Regan) along the way. Lear divides up his kingdom between his two terrible daughters after exiling Cordelia, the only daughter who truly cares for him. He also expects his Goneril and Regan to care for him, not realizing that their pledge of love is completely false. Still, Lear tries to quantify love, perhaps to flatter himself or reinforce his decision to pass his kingdom to his daughters.

Ironically, each character who acts solely on his own behalf dies at the end of the play. In fact, I would argue that the characters’' steps towards their personal happiness led to their death's. Of course, this argument has holes, because the story would have flat lined if life had remained static and Edmund, for example, had not tried to seize power. Nevertheless, if Edmund had not chased Edgar away and pursued a path of deceit, maybe Edgar would never have killed Edmund (nor had a need to). If both Goneril and Regan decided not to compete for Edmund, perhaps Goneril would not have poisoned Regan and then killed herself. Or if Cornwall had never joined forces with Edmund, naming him Duke of Gloucester, maybe he would not have died while torturing Gloucester. Who is to say?

I also noticed that the two characters (aside from perhaps Gloucester) who serve those who wronged them keep their lives at the end of the play. Kent is exiled by Lear, but due to his love for the kind, he returns in disguise. Kent accompanies Lear when the king is thrown out by his daughters. Maybe helping Lear made Kent happy. Regardless, Kent risks discovery to serve his King, and I believe he has more on his mind than personal gain. Similarly, Edgar is chased out of the kingdom by his father, Gloucester, and condemned to death. Although Gloucester is tricked by Edmund into believing Edgar wishes to kill him, he quickly accepts Edmund's story and proof. Calling for Edgar's death, Gloucester heatedly reacts to Edmund’s accusations, forcing his son to flee. Though Edgar sticks around, disguising himself as Poor Tom, I suppose he plays it safe when interacting with Gloucester because Gloucester has lost his eyes. But, by this time, I believe Gloucester knows the truth about Edmund's lies and Edgar's innocence. The point is, despite his father's cruelty, Edgar cares enough for his father to act as his guide and prevent Gloucester from committing suicide. It appears that self-preservation is far from Edgar's mind, and his only concern becomes his father's safety.

When I think about happiness, I always wonder where it manifests itself. If we live purely for ourselves, do we find happiness? Can we trust ourselves to actually know what makes us happy, or is our perception of happiness misguided? I think Lear communicates many important messages, including the nature of happiness. Maybe death is a harsh consequence for people who live only to please themselves, but perhaps Shakespeare is trying to convey that this path does not truly lead to happiness. It is possible that in living for others we discover happiness because our lives extend beyond ourselves. Could the effort we put forth to make others smile be more valuable than making ourselves happy?