Filed under: English II
A short analysis of Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Tell-Tale Heart”.
Through his portrayal of the conflict between the reality of the actions of the narrator in “The Tell-Tale Heart” and the reality manufactured by said narrator, Edgar Allen Poe shows his reader that the line between sanity and insanity is indeed a fine one.
The narrator, in order to prove his sanity, characterizes himself as calm and even-minded, painting a picture of sanity through his explanation of the manner in which he planned the murder. The narrator speaks of how he “was never kinder to the old man than during the whole week before [he] killed him,” taking logical precautions that might just as well have been taken by a sane man as an insane one. The arguments given are the products of a contrived reality, a façade of sanity. The narrator also engages in assertions of his mental health, bidding his listener to “Hearken! and observe how healthily—how calmly I can tell the whole story.” Would not the protestations of an innocent man wrongly accused and completely sane sound similar? The defensiveness and conviction of the narrator’s arguments are not synonymous with insanity, indeed they are characteristics of the arguments of the sane as well, which is the horrifying point of the story: the protestations of clearly insane men are not so different from those of a completely sane man, forcing the reader to identify with a psychopath and proving that the line between insanity and sanity is, to all appearances, a thin one.
However, this façade of sanity breaks down when the actions of the narrator begin to belie his own characterization of himself. There is a clear conflict between the manufactured reality of his arguments and the actual reality betrayed by his reactions. The unmotivated murder of the old man is clearly not the act of a sane man. On the contrary, the gruesome description of the dismemberment of the corpse dispels, for the reader, all thoughts of his sanity, though not to those around him. The narrator manages to convince several policemen of his lucidity when they visit his residence, a disturbing event in and of itself, but when one considers the idea that this psychopath might have gotten away with his deed had it not been for his cry of “I admit the deed!—tear up the planks!—here, here!—it is the beating of his hideous heart!” the line between the sane and the insane blurs even further. The heart symbolizes the narrator’s conscience, which, unlike his mind, recognizes the atrocity of the crime he has committed and leads him to turn himself in. Had it not been for his admission, the policemen would never have known of the narrator’s insanity, demonstrating the tenuous line between sanity and insanity.
And a 1953 short film based on “The Tell Tale Heart,” which upon its release was the first cartoon ever to be rated X in Britain. But X in the 1950′s. . . well. . .
Short analyses of lines in Macbeth. Mainly as an excuse to post this picture.
Macbeth C&A’s:
Having momentarily freed himself from the influence of Lady Macbeth’s entreatments to murder Duncan, Macbeth attempts to sort out his conflicting feelings and decide upon a course of action. While thus engaged, Macbeth asks himself what Duncan has done to deserve a premature death and goes on to describe how, if he were to kill the king, “pity, like a naked newborn babe / … / Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye” (1.7.21-24). Through the personification of pity as a baby, an object whose connotation is one of helplessness and innocence, Shakespeare indicates Macbeth’s guilt at having grim intentions towards such a harmless subject as Duncan. This characterizes Macbeth as a man seemingly ruled by his morals (at least when left to his own devices) rather than by fear or other motivation as demonstrated by his change from balking at the murder of his king only because it presented potential danger to his own person to a moral obligation to his king and country. This is, so far, in keeping with what little else has been learned about Macbeth thus far: his performance in battle is a testament to the fact that he is not ruled by his fear and his resistance to his “fate” and his wife’s suggestions shows that he is largely motivated by morals. However, Macbeth remains a conflicted character, easily swayed, and at a loss to obey his own feelings.
Following Banquo’s departure at the beginning of Act III of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, the play’s titular character soliloquizes about his growing fear of Banquo. Macbeth finds the reason for his apprehension in the Weïrd Sisters’ prophecy, claiming that “Upon [his] head [the witches] placed a fruitless crown / And put a barren scepter in [his] grip,” (3.1.66-67). Shakespeare uses the connotation of the word “barren” (childless or unable to bear children) to create a metaphor for Macbeth’s lack of an heir to carry on his newly formed line, a predicament placed on him by the prophesy which heralded Banquo’s, not Macbeth’s, children as kings. Such a situation completely denies Macbeth power—the object of his designs. Possessing progeny means having a method of perpetuating oneself, which, to Macbeth, constitutes ultimate power, as kingship for a mere lifetime cannot satisfy his new insatiable ambition. Banquo gains immortality through the granting of a legacy and moreover a royal one, while Macbeth gains nothing from ruling as king as his line will not continue: hence the second metaphor of the fruitless crown which bears him no benefit (even after the “labor” he underwent to secure the position represented by the crown). Furthermore, Macbeth does not blame himself for his plight as he indicates that these useless and unrewarding symbols of kingship were “placed” and “put” in his hands, supporting earlier evidence characterizing him as quick to complain and spot peril, but slow to act. This paranoia reflects also in Macbeth’s identification of Banquo as a threat because he wields the power of progeny, a paranoia which leads Macbeth to plan a second murder—a murder which signifies that his character has passed the point of no return as he designs to murder a father and son without the slightest compunction or indeed any moral objection.
My copy of Macbeth
After reading Macbeth in school, we were assigned to get together in groups of 3 and write our own mini-plays exploring a character. Thank goodness we could choose groups (friend 1, friend 2) because this project involved a) writing an analysis of the character b) writing a script (at least 75 lines in iambic pentameter, ours was about 150), and c) making a movie of your script. All in less than 2 weeks. Teachers are insane sometimes often.
Thankfully, my group got Macduff. For those who haven’t read the Scottish Play, Macduff is a Scottish lord who (rightly) suspects Macbeth of regicide and ends up killing him. So he’s a cool character. With a lot of potential.
Now the assignment told us to “explore” his character. That’s what my English teacher calls “nerdy teacher language.” A little bit more probing revealed that as long as we could back up anything we said about Macduff’s character with interpreted evidence of the text, we could do anything. So we could interpret the evidence any way we liked as long as long as we made a strong argument. Already allows us a lot of freedom. So we start brainstorming.
Has anyone ever seen “All About Eve”? Well our eventual idea has a lot of similarities to the cyclical quality of that brilliant movie. I noticed this after we had the idea and got really excited about it and my friends asked me what on earth I was talking about.
Anyway. Our basic idea was that Macduff would follow the same path as Macbeth. Think about it. It does fit. Or it could.
Macbeth becomes a hero in battle and receives the titles and lands of Cawdor, a traitor to Duncan, King of Scotland. Macbeth hears a prophecy that he will become king. It eats and eats away at him. It drives him to kill his own king (and a bunch of other people) and set himself up as a dreadful and paranoid tyrant. He is murdered by Macduff and Macduff becomes a hero.
Though Macbeth did not kill the traitor Cawdor, he does receive his title and gains his fame in battle around the same time. In the play, Cawdor’s only importance is that his titles are given to Macbeth, something which the witches prophecy to Macbeth before he knows of it, lending the prophecy believability. But the presence of traitor at the moment of Macbeth’s rise to heroism parallel’s Macduff’s case. Macduff who gains fame through the killing of the traitor Macbeth.
Really all we know of Macduff in the play is that he is insanely loyal to Scotland. Was not the same true of Macbeth prior to the prophecy? He that was so trusted by Duncan?
And so went our thinking. Macbeth and Macduff were at different stages in a progression from heroic loyalty to tyrannical treachery. In our mini-play we filled in the gaps of Macduff’s existence with his own prophecy (similar to Macbeth’s) that prophecied he would become king. Macduff declares his loyalty to Malcolm, but ponders the prophecy while he sleeps restless the night after killing Macbeth. Unable to sleep, he rises and still pondering the murder of Malcolm, has two visions, which purposefully mirror the hallucinations Macbeth had in the play, even (with our teacher’s permission) using some of the same lines. First he sees a group of lords around a table, Macbeth and Cawdor among them, and is beckoned to take a seat at the table among these traitors by a silent Malcolm, who casts his scepter at Macduff’s feet.
Macduff, of course, takes this as a sign that he should kill Malcolm and has the same dagger vision that Macbeth famously has.
And so, without further ado, Macduff:
MACDUFF Scene 1 Macduff riding to England. MACDUFF, to himself Scotland cries, yet her pleas go unanswered. Where is Malcolm, the truest issue Of her throne? The cure to her accursed blight? ‘Midst the darkness of the storm, Malcolm! Hope by Malcolm shines, our guiding light. Haste, haste, something must be done, and soon! Macduff reaches Malcolm, dismounts. MACDUFF Hail, Malcolm, undisputed heir and king! MALCOLM Hail, friend of Scotland, hail Macduff! How go’st it? MACDUFF The same for us as for the lambs left Unprotected, their shepherd running From the wolf: they look only to their own coats. Worthy heir, do you return to Scotland? MALCOLM Nay. Were I to hang the tyrant’s head Up on my castle wall, my sad country Would be more ill-placed than it was before. I would, in my loathsome succeeding, Make Black Macbeth seem pure as snow. MACDUFF How say’st so? There is not a fiend in Hell To compare to the evil that calls Itself Macbeth and rules in your stead. MALCOLM But my sins are as infinite as stars In the black expanse of my fetid heart. Your wives, your daughters, Your matrons and your maids, could not fill up The cistern of my lust. Better Macbeth Than such a one to reign. MACDUFF All men must, at at time, succumb to lust, But fear not to take upon you what is yours. Scotland boasts dames aplenty to sat'sfy The needs of one whose blood flows blue as yours MALCOLM My vices stop not at lust: were I king I would oust the nobles from their lands, Covet one man’s wealth and another’s house: And my more-having would be as a sauce To make me hunger more. MACDUFF O Scotland, Scotland! Nation miserable, With an untitled tyrant bloody-scepter'd, When shalt thou see thy wholesome days again, Since that the truest issue of thy throne By his own interdiction stands accursed, And does blaspheme his breed? O my breast, Thy hope ends here! MALCOLM Fear not true Macduff, this noble passion Cleanses my mind of clinging doubts and fears. All that I laid upon myself is false: As yet I have never had my way with woman; I covet not the fortunes of others. As we speak, gracious Siward approaches With 10,000 men, ready to aid us In the struggle ‘gainst Scotland’s oppressor. Enter Ross MACDUFF My ever-gentle cousin, welcome hither. ROSS I thank thee, Macduff. Hail Malcolm, my king. MALCOLM What’s the newest grief? ROSS Let your ears not despise my tongue forever, Which shall possess them with the heaviest sound That ever they heard. Your castle is surprised, your wife and babies Savagely slaughtered. To relate the manner Were on the quarry of these murdered deer To add the death of you. MACDUFF I cannot but remember such things were That were most precious to me. Did heaven look on And would not take their part? MALCOLM Hold hard! Be this the whetsone of your sword. MACDUFF, to himself The noble Malcolm has spoken sooth, Pray Macduff, withhold your tears of mourning, That you may unseat the damnéd tyrant And avenge those the tyrant slaughtered. Turn your grief to rage, Harden your heart to the task ahead, Engulfed by rage, let grief spark your fury. Be wary vile serpent! The hell-kite circles, Its prey in sight. North to Scotland I ride, With Siward and ten thousand at my side. Scene 2 Macduff encounters the witches while riding to Malcolm’s coronation. WITCH All hail the great and loyal Macduff, true And rightful lord of Glamis, Cawdor, Fife, And noble born, deserving of the throne, A place for thee, worthy king hereafter. MACDUFF Fiend, hold your treach’rous talk of titles false, For worthy Malcolm soon sits on the throne, And after bringing traitor’s head, I may Begin the mourning of my flesh and blood. Pray, stop enticing fools here to their doom, And leave, ‘fore I turn and behead thee too. Witch disappears and Macduff rides on. MACDUFF, to himself These simple words within me spur a fire, But hush my thoughts: temptations burn the soul. Macduff arrives at Malcolm’s camp. MACDUFF Hail, King! For so thou art. Behold where stands Th’ usurper’s cursed head. The time is free. I see thee compassed with thy kingdom’s pearl, That speak my salutation in their minds, Whose voices I desire aloud with mine. Hail, King of Scotland! Malcolm crowned king. MALCOLM My loyal Macduff, henceforth known as Earl Of Glamis, Cawdor, Fife for service done. Bring glory back to Scotland, my servant. MACDUFF I thank thee, sir, and live in service yours. Malcolm and Macduff exit. Scene 3 Macduff in his bed chamber. MACDUFF, to himself (lying awake, twisting and turning on his bed) Blesséd sleep that does heal the maladies Of brightest day, pray, seek me out this night, For darkness does bring new light to the mind And traitor’s blood not washed from hands of mine. More tossing and turning. This supernatural soliciting Cannot be ill, cannot be good. If ill, Why hath it given me earnest of success Commencing in a truth? If good, why do I yield to that suggestion Whose horrid image doth unfix my hair And make my seated heart knock at my ribs Against the use of nature? My thoughts whirl and twist, solving me nothing. Why is it that nature’s sweet valerian Doth o’er pass me when I need it most? ‘Tis no use! Macduff rises and begins to pace about his castle. If fate will have me king, why, fate may crown me Without my stir. But scheming hold, bold mind. In firmer circumstance shall the issue Be examined. Macduff does a double-take as he passes a doorway. He enters. Around a table sit a number of murderers. There is one empty seat. Malcolm stands at the door bearing his kingly scepter. MACDUFF, out loud What treachery is this? Malcolm? In my house? What brings thee here and in such vile vestments? And who are these who dine at silent table? The murderers at the table gesture for Macduff to take the only remaining seat. But no, there sits Macbeth, and Cawdor too! What madness hast thou arranged, Malcolm? Macduff takes a step towards Malcolm. Do mine eyes speak sooth? Art thou but a specter, Escaped from some dream I knew not I had? Get thee hence! Away I say, lest I draw My blade and have thee done straightway So that you may join these dead at their bench. He draws his blade and slashes at Malcolm with no effect. Malcolm hold his scepter high before throwing it at the feet of Macduff. The figures at the table beckon one last time before disappearing. Macduff is left alone. MACDUFF, to himself Whether ‘twas a strange imagining or Some other hated image of the night, This dream hath confirmed all that I had thought: The kingdom shall be mine. Dagger appears. But what is this I see in front of me? Handle toward my hand as vision ‘fore? Reaches for dagger. I have thee not, and yet I see thee still. Dagger moves away. The tip beckons on, forward in the dark. Cloak me, thick night. Let not a star shine save That which twinkles at the hilt of mine guide. By thrusting steel into that heart of his I must murder, if I should gain the throne. So guide me, ghostly dagger, lead me to The power that I crave. I come for thee, Malcolm, feel metal cold, for it will soon Send thee seeking heaven or hell. Exit, following dagger. [finis]
An English II essay on free will in the Bible.
I think it’s from early October.
It’s pretty much the same as when I turned it in, except for that I broke up the paragraphs, added some useful little things (!), and deleted a pointless paragraph which came after the introduction (you know the part where you introduce what you ARE going to talk about?) which basically introduced what I WASN’T going to talk about. If I remember correctly, my teacher put a large X through it with the question: “Why include all this?”
And so, without further ado, I give you. . .
A Paper on Free Will in Exodus!
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows” (Orwell 72) George Orwell claims in his dystopian novel, 1984. No one knows this better than Big Brother and God (who might well be one and the same) as demonstrated by the lengths they go to in order to prevent their people from possessing any type of freedom.
In the Bible, God applies Orwell’s principle to the trivialities of life in order to control the rest of His congregation’s existence. Particularly well demonstrated in His treatment of the Israelites in the Torah, this concept lays the foundation for the Almighty-controlled Biblical society and strengthens the image of an insecure Lord established in Genesis. It is on the principles examined by Orwell in 1984 that God bases his doctrines, insofar as though He recognizes free will, He does not promote it, for He sees it only as a threat to Himself and His position.
Simply, free will is the ability to make choices. More complexly, it is a term “for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Free Will). It boils down to the same issue: choice. In fundamentals, this makes sense, but the world knows nothing of fundamentals.
The world has laws and rules and suggestions and codes which are meant to restrict choice or at least guide a person down one path while tricking their mind into believing that they made the choice themselves. With such limitations on choice can free will really be free? It is common knowledge that it is wrong to kill, but is a person born knowing that or must they be told or shown after birth and then have it drummed into their heads that the result of the action of murder is a life of exile? With such a knowledge of cause and effect imposed on people by restriction, can free will really exist? Perhaps so, if only concretely in trivialities and vaguely in the greater matters of life.
Whatever God might think of free will, He at least recognizes it for He must do so in order to restrict it. Early on in the Exodus story this is demonstrated by God’s complete restriction of the Pharaoh’s free will. As God explains His plot to Moses for releasing the Israelite people from Egypt, He explains to Moses that He “will harden [the Pharaoh’s] heart, so that he will not let the people go” (Ex. 4.21). In choosing the modal auxiliary “will”, God indicates that He has obligated the Pharaoh to prevent the people from leaving Egypt, presenting fully that God restricts his free will. Indeed, it is likely that the Pharaoh is completely unaware of the fact that he is not in control at all for in this extreme case, God does not merely command but take control of completely, making up the Pharaoh’s mind for him.
Of course, it may be argued that such an episode only occurred because the Pharaoh is Egyptian, not of the chosen people who are privileged with their own set of rules. And this may be true as far as issues of extremity go, however it cannot be denied that God must recognize the concept of free will in some form to restrict it so completely even in someone outside His congregation.
It is also not as if this were the only example of restriction on free will by the Lord. As God explains to Moses and Aaron how the people will finally exit Egypt he lays down a set of expansive rules regarding the actual release of the people as well as their generations to come. “Tell the whole congregation of Israel” (Ex. 12.3) God commands the two chosen ones, “that on the tenth of this month they are to take a lamb for each family … [they] shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month; then the whole assembled congregation of Israel shall slaughter it at twilight” (Ex. 12.3-6). He goes on to describe the complicated ritual of Passover and the smallest details that the people must remember to obey to the letter or else they “shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel” (Ex. 12.19). And that is only for eating leavened bread at a certain time of the year!
It is clear from this that God seeks to control every facet of his people’s lifestyle as well as that He knows He has something to restrict. For why bother making the rules if the people were not in some way free to disobey them?
True, it is a very dreary kind of free will that allows one to go against the grain only to be thrown out forever, but the idea is still intact. Still, it seems absurd for the omnipotent Lord to worry about the restriction of free will, particularly in such matters as the type of bread his followers consume.
It is because God feels threatened by the free will the Israelites posses that He attempts to stamp it out of them through a series of restrictive edicts regarding every aspect of their lives. During the forty days and forty nights Moses spends on Mount Sinai with God, Aaron and the Hebrews grow restless and, without God breathing down their necks, are given a chance at making their own decisions.
Unsurprisingly they make the choice to turn from a god who has seemingly abandoned them, and place their faith in a golden calf Aaron creates as their new deity. God, upon learning of this, reacts extremely violently saying “‘Now let me alone, so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them’” (Ex. 32.10), for He, being a jealous God as He Himself admits, worries that His power will be diminished if the people exercise their free will to worship a different god.
Born from this fear is a desire to control His flock so that they may not utilize their free will and make their own choices, guaranteeing God’s position at their head. The Ten Commandments (and their numerous counterparts so often forgotten) are God’s main solution to the problem. Big Brother-type Laws governing every angle of a person’s life from the morally obvious to the day-to-day obscure ensure that the people do not do as they like but what God wants, eliminating the prospect of dangerous free will.
In order to maintain these laws and also out of His fear of the people’s free will, God strictly punishes those who violate His edicts, going so far as to punish “children for the iniquity of their parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject [Him]” (Ex. 20.5). Such extremity is hardly necessary; God clearly worries about His position to such an extent that He feels He must go to great lengths to protect it, punishing those not even responsible for the offense to make a point. From this behavior it must be assumed that free will threatens God more than anything else for it jeopardizes His controlling position.
On the other hand, there is an argument that posits that God never even recognizes free will and therefore He cannot promote or value it for the soul reason that He is unaware of its existence. According to this theory, recognition of free will involves allowing people a chance at it, which God never does throughout the Exodus story, preferring to control the Hebrews like pieces on His own personalized chessboard.
To really recognize free will, in situations like that of the introduction of the manna God would not have immediately set down such an extensive set of laws from “‘Gather as much of it [the manna] as each of you needs’” (Ex. 16.16) which is really quite reasonable, to “‘let no one leave any of it over until morning’” (Ex. 16.19) which is a completely unnecessary rule, instigated only to assert God’s authority.
Even in the most everyday matters, God insists on imposing himself on the Israelites, never once handing them a taste of freedom or at least the freedom to make a choice beyond life and death, inclusion and exile. It seems unlikely that He would really find it necessary to dictate such simple matters as His flock’s breakfast, so it follows that not only does God not recognize free will in the sense that he does not acknowledge it, but also in the more literal sense that He cannot identify the idea at all. Therefore the question of whether or not He promotes or values free will is hardly valid, for it is more the case that He cannot recognize them.
The ideas of free will and freedom of choice, though known to God, only cause Him trepidation for He fears that He might lose His standing to the Israelites as well as His control over them. This presents an interesting take on the usually almighty, omnipotent, and just representation of God so well known across the world. Who is this cowardly, insecure, domineering tyrant introduced so abruptly the moment Exodus begins? Surely this cannot be the God little children ask their souls to keep on bended knees every night before bed!
Unfortunately or fortunately as the case may be, He is the very same. But now His true nature is revealed as He unhesitatingly deprives His own people—willing and steadfast believers in his own faith—of their once-thought-to-be basic right of free will. On the most principal level, free will can be equated with freedom of choice, a seemingly obvious entitlement.
Not so for God however, who, in His unveiled form, ensures that His people are denied basic, every day freedoms such as choice regarding needs like food, water, or shelter. He goes to such trouble in order to allay His fears that the people might rise up against Him if they were given an inch to move, displaying His insecurity as well as divine megalomania. Such a God goes against all that He and His religion stand for, cheating the people once again. Exodus demonstrates that God is not the best of people, having more flaws than most and choosing to inflict these flaws on those around Him out of insecurity.
