A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

Throughout Joyce's novel Stephen struggles to find his identity. In the beginning of the book he is innocent. He later becomes corrupted through women but repents and lives a strictly pious life. Once again Stephen alters his life, leaving the university to become an artist. At first Joyce's novel seems to argue that there is no such thing as individuality. Everything Stephen has come from others, from sinning women, from the Catholic Church. Stephen really begins to become aware of his conformity when talking to a priest about lighting a fire, "That? Is that called a funnel? Is it not a tundish? (168). In this passage Stephen is realizing that he has no language of his own, that his life has just been quotes and other's beliefs. At this point Stephen starts to become his own person while turning into an artist. It is here that Joyce advocates the idea of individuality and the freedom it brings.

Beloved

Personally I was not fond of Beloved, I found all the characters frustrating and one-dimensional. The plot relentlessly depicted miserable situations without offering the reader any sort cathartic breaks. The only parts I enjoyed reading were when the girls go ice skating and when Denver finds her independence. 

Despite my personal opinion I found Beloved does address my big question rather well. Slavery was about stripping the identity and worth of human being. It seems to me as though forcefully trying to take ones identity makes the individual fight even harder to keep it. Beloved's ghost represented the lives of many other slaves (quote) and even in death they fought to come back. I feel as though slavery both gives and takes identity from those it enslaves. Former slaves seem to define themselves on their history on not on their present. In this case the past continues influence long after the people involved have left their lives. Despite Sethe and Paul D.'s denial of the past it influences everything decision they make "This is worse than when Paul D. came to 124 and she cried helplessly into the stove. This is worse. Then it was for herself. Now she is crying because she has no self" ( Morrison,123). If I were to argue my big question only based Beloved I would have to say there is no such thing as individuality on a personal level but a unique cultural identity does exist among the African American people as a whole and although it sets apart from other cultures it prevents from them every being truly their own person (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Beloved supports the idea, derived from the other books we have read, that individuality comes from tragedy, sadness, and mental disorders. Is the road to individuality (if it exists) really worth it?

The Stranger

The Stranger seems to fully support the idea of individuality, almost as if Camus wrote it to answer my question. Learning about Camus' personal life was really fascinating. I believe that parents are one of the biggest influences in someone's life. With a father who passed away and a mother who choose to go mute I can't help but wonder who Camus really took after.

Camus character, Meursault, is very unusual and truly seems to be an individual but his life is nothing one would aspire to. Perhaps Camus is trying to say that in a world where conformity is expected individual's are not accepted. Meursault spends his days saying what others want to hear and trying to appear normal. Meursault only finds freedom in death where he lets go of his rigid composure and speaks his mind. Camus seems to be saying that death overcomes what society has done to us, that when the final moment comes,  and only then, we let go and become who we truly are. This definitely helps me understand those who've had a near death experience and then completely change their lives. It's as though they see the person they are with out the influence of others and strive to live in their own image.

Crime and Punshiment

To begin I would like to say how enamored I am with Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment , it is one of my favorite works of literature that I have ever read for a class. Dostoevsky creates a very unique character in Raskolnikov. His ideas of superior and inferior people are radical and very unique, no one else seems to share his views. He states in his article "I only believe in my leading idea that men are in general divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary)...and men who have the gift or the talent to utter a new word" (261).  Raskolnikov is unaware of the beliefs held by others as well as social norms. He commonly walks around in dirty clothing talking to himself. It seems as if Raskolnikov is, at least in the beginning of the novel, uninfluenced by others. Like I talked about in my last blog post, Raskolnikov's ability to resist conformity appears to stem from insanity. His moods are extremley volatile and he often blacks out and regains consciousness somewhere without knowing how he got there. As the novel continue Raskolnikov's emotions conflict between guilt and the feeling that he, being superior, had the right to commit murder. I believe that the guilt he is feeling only comes from his new interaction with others like Sonia, Razumihin, and his mother and sister who have come to town. They are susceptible to social norms and don't believe murder is justifiable and this belief translates to Raskolnikov. Before Raskolnikov began associating with all these people, he lived in a a state of isolation and felt that he had the right to murder because he was superior. I believe Dostoevsky would agree with the idea that individuality is possible through isolation and, again, insanity, but, when in the presence of others, it becomes almost impossible to retain. Raskolnikov's case makes me believe that individuality is not always a good thing but, possibly, a hindrance in the pursuit of happiness and justice.

Mad Girl's Love Song

Mad Girl's Love Song

By Sylvia Plath 

"I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead;
I lift my lids and all is born again.
(I think I made you up inside my head.)

The stars go waltzing out in blue and red,
And arbitrary blackness gallops in:
I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.

I dreamed that you bewitched me into bed
And sung me moon-struck, kissed me quite insane.
(I think I made you up inside my head.)

God topples from the sky, hell's fires fade:
Exit seraphim and Satan's men:
I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.

I fancied you'd return the way you said,
But I grow old and I forget your name.
(I think I made you up inside my head.)

I should have loved a thunderbird instead;
At least when spring comes they roar back again.
I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.
(I think I made you up inside my head.)"

     Sylvia Plath's poem "Mad Girl's Love Song" seems to both refute and support the idea that individuality is possible. This poem is about a woman who is longing for the husband who has left her. She demonstrates the influence others have on us through her depression and insanity brought on by this man. This suggests that our emotions are not truly our own but simply reactions brought on by others. If one was completely isolated and had never known of another's existence what would there be to be happy about? What would make them angry? What would bring on a flood of sadness? On the other hand the speakers insanity, though caused by her husband, becomes purely her own. She begins to doubt what is reality, "(I think I made you up inside my head)", and begins to exist purely in the dark world her head contains. She seems to embrace this transition, giving up our world by choice, "I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead". Can individuality only be found in insanity? Perhaps losing one's mind is not as negative an experience as public perception would suggest, it may just provide the key to letting go of inhibitions and becoming entirely your own person (though not without some unpleasant side effects). Maybe insanity is the cure for conformity. 

King Lear

While I found Shakespeare's King Lear to be a rather depressing play (enjoyable nonetheless) it actually advocates the potential for individualism. Through madness King Lear becomes an individual, stripping off social norms and outside influences. When Gloucester asks Lear to kiss his hand Lear replies "Let me wipe it first; it smells of mortality," (Shakespeare Act 4 Sc. 6,148), Lear has shucked off all traces of other's influence and has come to know himself so well that he can predict his own inevitable death. He is entirely his own person and the course of his life is not a mystery to him. While in a state of sanity, Lear is not aware of his impending doom. He is not truly himself and therefore his life is not his own. While madly raging into the storm Lear turns to his fool and says "Come on, my good boy. How dost, my boy? Art cold? I am cold myself... come your hovel," (Act 3 Sc.2 74-78). Through insanity Lear has regained the compassion that once came naturally to him but was lost to the power and responsibility that comes with being king.

Connections to Oedipus

Sophocles' Oedipus Rex depicts the tragic life of Oedipus, a man with no control over his own fate. Even before he is born Oedipus is destined to "stand and fail". Oedipus hears from a prophet that he is doomed to "lie with [his] own mother, breed children from whom all men would turn their eyes; and...be [his] father's murderer" and that is precisely the course his life takes.Oedipus doesn't accept this and flees his home only to run head first into the situation he most fears. The harder Oedipus tries to escape his fate the more rapidly it approaches. All of his attempts to take control over his life fail and he laments that Apollo "brought my sick, sick fate upon me". Oedipus has no choice in what happens to him but isn't it choice and free will what separate one person from another? Say what happened to Oedipus is normal and we've all had our lives mapped out for us since the day we were born than there is no such thing as an individual. Of course this begs the question does fate exist? Sometimes an event will occur where every factor lines up and it seems too perfect to be a coincidence, like going to Chipotle  only to run into the love of your life who happened to be getting a burrito at the exact same time in the exact the same place. Despite the strong argument these situations present I personally believe that the individual is always in control of their own fate though others actions and unforeseen circumstances may influence its course. Which is good news because it means that no matter the heart wrenching tales Sophocles spins for us there is still potential for individualism.


I choose this picture of Oedipus because the blood represents his unique struggle and destiny but the fact that none of his features are visible symbolize how fate his taken away all of his choice and consequently his individualism.