The Author
Edgar Allan Poe (January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American writer, poet, editor and literary critic, considered part of the American Romantic Movement. Best known for his tales of mystery and the macabre, Poe was one of the earliest American practitioners of the short story and is considered the inventor of the detective-fiction genre. He is further credited with contributing to the emerging genre of science fiction. He was the first well-known American writer to try to earn a living through writing alone, resulting in a financially difficult life and career.
He was born as Edgar Poe in Boston, Massachusetts; he was orphaned young when his mother died shortly after his father abandoned the family. Poe was taken in by John and Frances Allan, of Richmond, Virginia, but they never formally adopted him. He attended the University of Virginia for one semester but left due to lack of money. After enlisting in the Army and later failing as an officer's cadet at West Point, Poe parted ways with the Allans. Poe's publishing career began humbly, with an anonymous collection of poems, Tamerlane and Other Poems (1827), credited only to "a Bostonian".
Poe switched his focus to prose and spent the next several years working for literary journals and periodicals, becoming known for his own style of literary criticism. His work forced him to move between several cities, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York City. In Baltimore in 1835, he married Virginia Clemm, his 13-year-old cousin. In January 1845, Poe published his poem "The Raven" to instant success. His wife died of tuberculosis two years later. He began planning to produce his own journal, The Penn (later renamed The Stylus), though he died before it could be produced. On October 7, 1849, at age 40, Poe died in Baltimore; the cause of his death is unknown and has been variously attributed to alcohol, brain congestion, cholera, drugs, heart disease, rabies, suicide, tuberculosis, and other agents.
Poe and his works influenced literature in the United States and around the world, as well as in specialized fields, such as cosmology and cryptography. Poe and his work appear throughout popular culture in literature, music, films, and television. A number of his homes are dedicated museums today.
It is very ambitious for a student like me to do an analysis on such a complicated story but there was a lot of curiosity going on inside my head while I was reading it and to dissect it element by element, probably would, if not eradicate, diminish some of the questions.
The Analysis
The story is a First-person Narrative and starts in Medias Res. The narrator seems talking to someone and seems so insistent about his sanity. There were no pronouns used to clarify the gender of the narrator, I would assume that the narrator is a male because no woman, even so strong, would manage to drag a man to the floor and pull the heavy bed over him.”
The prominent characters of the story are the narrator and the old man. I wonder what relationship they have, I have speculations though:
a. The narrator may be a servant to the old man and he might have hated him because he’s strict, bossy, irate, and abusive.
b. The narrator may be the old man’s son and there is a discord between them, and the son’s madness has made him kill his own father.
The narrator was barely characterized. The only characterization we get from the literary piece about him, through self characterization, is that he is sane and the entire story runs about his proving of his sanity and not by his innocence upon the old man’s murder. But this, however, is self destructive because in his attempt to disprove his sanity he, at the same time, fully admits the crime.
The old man too was barely characterized. The repeated description mentioned that is associated to him is his “Vulture eye.” The narrator, through his clearance that he has no motives upon his murder of the old man, has in some way done a characterization on him:
“It is impossible to say how first the idea entered my brain; but once conceived it haunted me day and night. Object there was none. Passion there was none. I loved the old man. He had never wronged me. He had never given me insult. For his gold I had no desire. I think it was his eye! Yes it was this! He had the eye of a vulture – a pale blue eye, with a film over it. Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees – very gradually – I made up my mind to take the life of the old man, and thus rid myself of the eye forever.”
So what then does the “vulture eye” symbolizes?
a. If the narrator is indeed a servant to the old man, the eyes could be an intimidating power that he wanted to get rid of.
b. If the narrator is a son, the eyes could symbolize parental surveillance and the removal of the eye is freedom from it.
For a week the narrator meticulously goes to the old man’s room at nights to find the perfect time to find the perfect time to commit the murder but he was always unsuccessful for the old man’s eyes were always closed. The old man does not annoy him but his “vulture eye” does and it is the narrator’s driving force to kill him, thus making it the most significant symbol in the narrative.
The policemen who were deputed to search the house also played an important contribution to the story. The narrator claims that amidst the officers presence he hears the heartbeat of the old man coming from under the floorboards and as the noise grows louder he sets into paranoia that the officers also hear the sound and suspect him so he confesses to killing the old man and tells them to tear up the floorboards to reveal the dismembered body.
The narrator claims to have a disease which causes hypersensitivity in his senses. A similar motif is used for Roderick Usher in “The Fall of the House of Usher” (1839) and in “The Colloquy of Monos and Una” (1841). It is unclear, however, if the narrator actually has very acute senses or if he is merely imagining things. If his condition is believed to be true, what he hears at the end of the story may not be the old man’s heart but death watch beetles. The narrator first admits to hearing death watches in the wall after startling the old man from his sleep. According to superstition, death watches are sign of impending death. One variety of death watch beetles raps its head against surfaces, presumably as part of mating ritual, while others emit a ticking sound. Henry David Thoreau had suggested in 1838 that the death watch beetles sound similar to a heartbeat. Alternatively, if the heart beating is really a product of the narrator’s imagination, it is that uncontrolled imagination that leads to his own destruction.
The climax of the story happened at the 8th night of surveillance upon the old man’s slumber. He was awaked; the “vulture eye” was seen…
“…until at length a simple dim ray, like the thread of spider, shot from out the crevice and fell full upon the vulture eye. It was open – wide, wide open – and I grew furious as I gazed upon it. I saw it with perfect distinctness – all a dull blue, with a hideous veil over it that chilled the very marrow in my bones; but I could see nothing else of the old man’s face or person: for I had directed the ray as if by instinct, precisely upon the damned spot.”
He uses his claim of having hypersensitive senses to deny his madness…
“And I have not told you that what you mistake for madness is but over-acuteness of the sense? – Now, I say, there came to my ears a low, dull, quick sound, such as watch makes when enveloped in cotton. I knew that sounds well, too. It was the beating if the old man’s heart, it increased my fury, as the beating of a drum stimulates the soldier into courage.”
The theme of the story is Denial of Truth. Even though there was a strong denial of the protagonist upon his madness, it is nevertheless proven he is. It is a fact that we, people, have qualities that we can’t believe we possess; we have feelings we can’t accept we feel; we sometimes refute facts because we can’t accept it. But what happens? The truth always comes out, and the worse part is, it sometimes springs from our own mouths.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬________
WAIT! --- Innocently speaking, how indeed would a madman commit such systematic murder down to the concealment and washing out the evidences? If not for a single shrieked made by the old man he could have escaped the crime. Just a thought…
Friday, April 9, 2010
The lottery ticket: An Analysis
The Author
Anton Chekhov was a Russian short-story writer, playwright and physician, considered to be one of the greatest short-story writers in the history of world literature. His career as a dramatist produced four classics and his best short stories are held in high esteem by writers and critics. Chekhov practised as a doctor throughout most of his literary career: "Medicine is my lawful wife", he once said, "and literature is my mistress."
Chekhov renounced the theater after the disastrous reception of The Seagull in 1896; but the play was revived to acclaim in 1898 by Constantin Stanislavski's Moscow Art Theater, which subsequently also produced Uncle Vanya and premiered Chekhov’s last two plays, Three Sisters and The Cherry Orchard. These four works present a challenge to the acting ensemble as well as to audiences, because in place of conventional action Chekhov offers a "theatre of mood" and a "submerged life in the text."
Chekhov had at first written stories only for the money, but as his artistic ambition grew, he made formal innovations which have influenced the evolution of the modern short story. His originality consists in an early use of the stream-of-consciousness technique, later adopted by James Joyce and other modernists, combined with a disavowal of the moral finality of traditional story structure. He made no apologies for the difficulties this posed to readers, insisting that the role of an artist was to ask questions, not to answer them.
Who are in the story?
The only characters in the story are Ivan Dmitrich and Masha, his wife. Ivan was barely done a characterization, neither by the narrator nor the other character. His persona in the beginning was revealed limitedly in the description:
“…he was a middle class man who lived with his family on an income of twelve hundred a year and was very well satisfied with his lot…”
But as you read on with the story, through the so-many narrated monologues, it is gradually disclosed that he has qualities within himself that entirely contradict the description made of him by the narrator that he is very well satisfied with his lot in the opening of the story.
Masha, on the other hand, was not described in any way in the story but her thoughts, also through the narrated monologues, unveiled her qualities. At first, the couple’s reaction on the thought of winning the lottery is a delight, they still share to each other about buying an estate and putting the money left in the bank to gain interest and travelling, however, as the excitement of daydreaming and imagining that they actually won the 75,000 prize heightened up they were withdrawn into their own worlds and began feeling paranoia and resentments towards each other.
Ivan is the protagonist in the story and, in my opinion, although the conflict with Masha arose only within his thought, Masha can still be considered as his antagonist. She also serves as foil to Ivan in such a way that her taking chances in lottery luck, thus, her dissatisfaction in her way of living highlights Ivan’s “satisfaction” with his lot, as it was told, and vise versa.
The characters are multi-dimensional or dynamic because they both developed in the course of the narrative.
Minor characters such as the children who mere mentioned only twice and both showing their playfulness highlights Ivan’s love for serenity:
“…his little boy and girl are crawling about near him, digging in the sand or catching ladybirds in the grass. He dozes sweetly, thinking of nothing, and feeling all over that he need not to go to the office today, tomorrow, or the day after.”
“…the children would come running from the kitchen-garden, bringing a carrot and a radish smelling of fresh earth…and then, he would lie stretched full length on the sofa, and in leisurely fashion turn over the pages of some illustrated magazine, or, covering his face with it and unbuttoning his waistcoat, give himself up to slumber.”
The relatives, whom Ivan imagined would “whine like beggars”, highlights his unwillingness to share the wealth.
Setting
The setting of the story is the house of the couple. In the statement,
“…was very well satisfied with his lot, sat down on the sofa after supper and began reading the newspaper…”
it connotes that Ivan is comfortable with the house he is living in but at the end of the story, after the fall of the high hopes and daydreams, the house was revealed to be dark and low-pitched. It does not necessarily mean that the house is indeed as bad as how they described it; probably the huge disappointment, paranoia, and hatred towards each other have wiped off their optimism toward their current living condition.
Theme
Money does not buy love; it destroys it. Before and in the beginning of the couple’s exciting moments of anticipation regarding the possible fortune, it was somehow pictured in the line,
“…she clears the table while he reads the newspaper on the sofa…”
that they are married long enough to have fallen into their respective routines and there was respect and love amidst the relationship. However, in the course of their daydreaming, because of Masha’s hope to travel too, Ivan’s feelings diverted into resentment towards her.
Plot
The climax of the story is where Ivan and Masha’s hatred towards each other stirred up in their hearts, and for Ivan to annoy Masha he quickly checked on the newspaper and disappointed her by reading out triumphantly that the winning combination was not alike to hers. The conflict was not actually resolved for though it was stated that, “…hope and hatred both disappeared at once…,” Ivan’s emotions was still in heat that he spoken out complaints which did dispute the statement that he is, “…very well satisfied with his lot.”
Reflection
“The Lottery Ticket” is an open-ended story because the conflict was not really resolved in the ending. I wonder what happened next: did they just disregard or ignored all the pessimistic notions they had for each other? Were they able to really share to one another all of it?
In any relationships there are contributory factors that may better or worsen it. People involve are still in control of how and in what way they will allow these factors to affect their relationship. Anton Chekhov could have ended the story in such a way that will edify openness, respect, and selflessness to the readers, especially to married people.
Anton Chekhov was a Russian short-story writer, playwright and physician, considered to be one of the greatest short-story writers in the history of world literature. His career as a dramatist produced four classics and his best short stories are held in high esteem by writers and critics. Chekhov practised as a doctor throughout most of his literary career: "Medicine is my lawful wife", he once said, "and literature is my mistress."
Chekhov renounced the theater after the disastrous reception of The Seagull in 1896; but the play was revived to acclaim in 1898 by Constantin Stanislavski's Moscow Art Theater, which subsequently also produced Uncle Vanya and premiered Chekhov’s last two plays, Three Sisters and The Cherry Orchard. These four works present a challenge to the acting ensemble as well as to audiences, because in place of conventional action Chekhov offers a "theatre of mood" and a "submerged life in the text."
Chekhov had at first written stories only for the money, but as his artistic ambition grew, he made formal innovations which have influenced the evolution of the modern short story. His originality consists in an early use of the stream-of-consciousness technique, later adopted by James Joyce and other modernists, combined with a disavowal of the moral finality of traditional story structure. He made no apologies for the difficulties this posed to readers, insisting that the role of an artist was to ask questions, not to answer them.
Who are in the story?
The only characters in the story are Ivan Dmitrich and Masha, his wife. Ivan was barely done a characterization, neither by the narrator nor the other character. His persona in the beginning was revealed limitedly in the description:
“…he was a middle class man who lived with his family on an income of twelve hundred a year and was very well satisfied with his lot…”
But as you read on with the story, through the so-many narrated monologues, it is gradually disclosed that he has qualities within himself that entirely contradict the description made of him by the narrator that he is very well satisfied with his lot in the opening of the story.
Masha, on the other hand, was not described in any way in the story but her thoughts, also through the narrated monologues, unveiled her qualities. At first, the couple’s reaction on the thought of winning the lottery is a delight, they still share to each other about buying an estate and putting the money left in the bank to gain interest and travelling, however, as the excitement of daydreaming and imagining that they actually won the 75,000 prize heightened up they were withdrawn into their own worlds and began feeling paranoia and resentments towards each other.
Ivan is the protagonist in the story and, in my opinion, although the conflict with Masha arose only within his thought, Masha can still be considered as his antagonist. She also serves as foil to Ivan in such a way that her taking chances in lottery luck, thus, her dissatisfaction in her way of living highlights Ivan’s “satisfaction” with his lot, as it was told, and vise versa.
The characters are multi-dimensional or dynamic because they both developed in the course of the narrative.
Minor characters such as the children who mere mentioned only twice and both showing their playfulness highlights Ivan’s love for serenity:
“…his little boy and girl are crawling about near him, digging in the sand or catching ladybirds in the grass. He dozes sweetly, thinking of nothing, and feeling all over that he need not to go to the office today, tomorrow, or the day after.”
“…the children would come running from the kitchen-garden, bringing a carrot and a radish smelling of fresh earth…and then, he would lie stretched full length on the sofa, and in leisurely fashion turn over the pages of some illustrated magazine, or, covering his face with it and unbuttoning his waistcoat, give himself up to slumber.”
The relatives, whom Ivan imagined would “whine like beggars”, highlights his unwillingness to share the wealth.
Setting
The setting of the story is the house of the couple. In the statement,
“…was very well satisfied with his lot, sat down on the sofa after supper and began reading the newspaper…”
it connotes that Ivan is comfortable with the house he is living in but at the end of the story, after the fall of the high hopes and daydreams, the house was revealed to be dark and low-pitched. It does not necessarily mean that the house is indeed as bad as how they described it; probably the huge disappointment, paranoia, and hatred towards each other have wiped off their optimism toward their current living condition.
Theme
Money does not buy love; it destroys it. Before and in the beginning of the couple’s exciting moments of anticipation regarding the possible fortune, it was somehow pictured in the line,
“…she clears the table while he reads the newspaper on the sofa…”
that they are married long enough to have fallen into their respective routines and there was respect and love amidst the relationship. However, in the course of their daydreaming, because of Masha’s hope to travel too, Ivan’s feelings diverted into resentment towards her.
Plot
The climax of the story is where Ivan and Masha’s hatred towards each other stirred up in their hearts, and for Ivan to annoy Masha he quickly checked on the newspaper and disappointed her by reading out triumphantly that the winning combination was not alike to hers. The conflict was not actually resolved for though it was stated that, “…hope and hatred both disappeared at once…,” Ivan’s emotions was still in heat that he spoken out complaints which did dispute the statement that he is, “…very well satisfied with his lot.”
Reflection
“The Lottery Ticket” is an open-ended story because the conflict was not really resolved in the ending. I wonder what happened next: did they just disregard or ignored all the pessimistic notions they had for each other? Were they able to really share to one another all of it?
In any relationships there are contributory factors that may better or worsen it. People involve are still in control of how and in what way they will allow these factors to affect their relationship. Anton Chekhov could have ended the story in such a way that will edify openness, respect, and selflessness to the readers, especially to married people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)