Riddle

“Who killed the Jews?”  This question appears four times throughout Riddle, and four times it remains unanswered; and it is this question that forms the subject, or rather “riddle,” of the poem. Yet, these questions serve not to ask but rather imply an answer through the use of rhetorical questions.  Overall Riddle articulates the shared fault of all those involved in the Holocaust.  Therefore the speaker finds it impossible to answer the question he poses.  This clearly illustrates the mutual involvement of all parties, and not a single entity in this tragedy.  The author’s intent is further accentuated through other rhetorical questions in the work.   As he attempts to answer who killed the Jews he asks “Were they Germans?  Were they Nazis?/  Were they human?” (27-28).  In asking these rhetorical questions in sequence, the author demonstrates directly the various groups involved.  By listing these multiple groups, to which blame is directed, consecutively the author concisely demonstrates the inability to simply blame a single entity.

Furthermore repetition within the poem serves to identify the plurality of those responsible.  In the second stanza a response comes to the question “who killed the Jews”, “Not I, cries the typist, / not I, cries the engineer, / not I, cries Adolf Eichmann, / not I, cries Albert Speer” (5-8).  In this response four different individuals are presented, two general occupations and two specific people.  They all vary, and none directly killed the Jews, however the repetition of “Not I” associates all four individuals, and places their responsibility on equal grounds.  This repetition illustrates their collaborative fault, and distinguishes no single party that is responsible.  Additional repetition appears in describing the murder of the Jews referring to each action in the murder specifically, each perpetrated by “some men” “and some.” Not only are these subjects plural, as is the authors point, but they are also unnamed.  These indescript individuals represent the large whole of people responsible for the Holocaust and the repetition of their involvement, articulates the authors purpose that all those involved share responsibility for the Holocaust.

Richard Cory

“Gentleman from sole to crown” (3) Richard Cory is portrayed as a man of great status and nobility through the regal diction of the poem.  This directly associates Richard Cory with not only prosperity, but also respected royalty.  In this manner Richard Cory is portrayed as successful, but more importantly in high regards among the people.  Adverbs found within the poem also express the royalty of Richard Cory describing him as “imperially slim” (4) and “admirably schooled in every grace” (10).  These particular words, such as imperial and admirable all carry separate meanings; however their overall connotation is one of esteem.  Other examples of this regal diction are even more conspicuous describing Richard Cory as “richer than a king” (9) and portray Richard Corey as a man looked up to and admired among the people.

However the praise of Richard Cory serves not to pay tribute to the man, but rather to display the irony of his condition.  Characterized as nothing less than a king and a man of great nobility, those around him “thought that he was everything” (11).  Those beneath him view his life as perfect and Richard Cory draws the envy of all those around him, including the speaker.  In fact, the speaker does not speak of his admiration of Richard Cory singularly, never making use of the word “I”, only “we” and “us”, representing the mutual envy of all for this man.  All of these people look upon Richard Cory “wish(ing) that we were in his place” (12).  Yet, despite the perception of Richard Cory’s perfect life, and the desire of others to live like him, the poem ends as he takes his own life and commits suicide.  The irony of such an event points out the disparity between other’s perception of Richard Cory’s perfect life, success, and wealthy and his own perception of his life.  While others look on in envy and wish to have his life Richard Cory himself decides to end it.  In all actuality although others “curse” their life in relation to Cory’s, it is Richard Cory that truly curses his own life, unbeknownst to the envious people.

This disparity of beliefs is the central commentary of the poem, portraying the inability of power, money, and success to provide happiness.  Richard Cory is presented as a man with a perfect life in the view of those around him, a target of envy and jealousy, coveted for his “perfect” life.  Yet those envious of him, in far less favorable life conditions, unable to even purchase meat, continue to live their lives, and it is the successful Richard Cory who is unable to bear living.  In this respect all the success and wealth attained in life have in no way improved the quality of it.                                                                         

A Handmaid's Tale

Upon defining A Handmaid’s Tale’s meaning as a whole, many would be quick to say it denounces the establishment of religion.  This is a common theme within literature, and one that seems to fit the novel at first glance.  However, to say A Handmaid’s Tale is a commentary on religion in general is far too simple.  Certainly a satire such as this mocks the abuse of religious doctrine, but only by contrasting it with respect for religion in its pure form. This aim is accomplished most conspicuously through references to scripture. Biblical allusions referenced are misconstrued, chiefly those to the beatitudes and the eyes of the lord.  In both cases the true biblical texts offer comfort to the followers of God, always protected under God’s watchful eyes, and informed that the quiet and weak shall someday inherit the earth.  However these values are warped within the society, instilling fear within the novel’s characters.  First, the eyes of the lord, are not the lords at all, but instead a human controlled secret police that punishes those within the society.  Furthermore, the beatitudes are abridged in reference, defining only the submission of the week and meek, omitting any mention of inheriting the earth.  This blatant abuse of religion contrasts the teaching of scripture itself, and serves as the focus of the books disdain.  Furthermore, a significantly satirical representation of sex and prayer in religion is portrayed, once again fundamentally disconnected with religion itself.  In both sex and prayer, all personal aspects of these two acts are removed, instead dictated specifically in procedure by the society.  By doing so no religious connection remains with these too actions, and are subject to significant scrutiny. Finally, other religious institutions are presented as those persecuted by the society, creating a sense of empathy for these religious institutions.  Both the Quaker and Baptist religions are noted specifically, both religions focusing on self determination of faith and the importance of true belief originating from oneself.  These two religions are nearly exterminated by the society in the book, being contradictory to its oppressive conformity.  This clearly and definitely establishes the societies opposition to religion not concurrence.  Overall this society is shown as one having lost its bearing on faith and religion, distorting these ideals in an oppressive fashion, and contrasting religion on all fundamental levels.  Therefore, instead of condemning religion, religion in its purest form is heralded by the novel, providing a contrast that scrutinizes its abuse.

In A Handmaid’s Tale the oppression of women serves as a focal point on which the main character Offred’s conflict is established.  This conflict comes in the form of a continuous first person commentary, often utilizing symbolism to convey multiple meanings within a single word of action.  The primary example of this comes in chapter 29 as Offred reflects upon her situation through symbolism as “the pen between my fingers is sensuous, alive almost, I can feel its power, the power of the words it contains. Pen Is Envy… I envy the Commander his pen. It's one more thing I would like to steal” (Atwood 186).  Foremost, and most conspicuously a pen represents writing, a right not possessed by the women within the society.  Forbidden to read or write women such as Offred are jealous of their male counterparts who are afforded this right.  Even more significantly Offred is denied the opportunity for knowledge, something she desires dearly but cannot have without the pen.  An additional connotation further accentuates Offred’s envy of male power.  Effectively a child bearing object vital solely for her womb, Offred is objectified by society.  As a result she grows to detest her place as a woman, and her forced submission to men. Quite literally Offred is a possession, as her namesake “of Fred” or belonging to Fred.  It is thus no coincidence that the words “Pen is” appear consecutively, this anatomical aspect coming to symbolize the male gender and the power they possess over women.  The envy Offred exhibits stems fundamentally from her jealousy of male power.  Furthermore the “Pen is” pertains specifically to the primary manner in which Offred is oppressed.  As mentioned earlier women are but vessels for children, and the act of sex in the novel or “ceremony” comes to represent the dehumanization of women.  No choice is present, as each woman is assigned a partner, who then has sex with them as they are held down.  No personal connections, neither lust nor love, are permitted depriving yet another right from the women.  This exertion of power by men through sex is thus appropriately signified through their reproductive anatomy, and the pen. Through this dual symbolism, Offred’s envy of the pen serves as an indicator of her struggle under male oppression.

A Handmaid’s Tale offers a unique and innovative commentary on an equally unique and innovative topic.  By straying from the typical commentary on religion, the novel instead places specific focus on the literal interpretation of beliefs discounting emotions.  However, despite its inherent contradiction, narrowing the novel’s focuses broadens the scope and purpose.  Fundamentally A Handmaid’s Tale is a satire, poking fun at the distortion of a belief system, but more significantly, offering commentary on human nature.  In this manner all groups become the focus of analysis, as opposed to a singular entity.  The interaction and conflict among these groups and interests thus encompasses an often overlooked element of human nature, removing the selective focus of many works in place of a broader analysis.  This analysis comes in a largely connotated form, providing an additional depth to the novel.  The author makes careful use of the various meanings of words to provide various intended points with a singular word or phrase.  Thus, by concentrating the intent of the novel, a comprehensive analysis can be performed, determining the works overall purpose.  This seems to be the novel’s mantra, utilizing every character, action, or word for a specified task.  Through this, patterns in the text begin to emerge, most notably the contrasting of one aspect with that of the society.  Whether it is the Quakers, sex, or board games an ironic juxtaposition is made between the accepted value of an item and its role in the novel.  These particular techniques develop a tangible connection between the novel and human nature, something not nearly as distinct in other novels, and one that separates A Handmaid’s Tale from similar works and makes it pertinent and fascinating as a novel.

We

Confusing, at points, rambling, consistently, unfinished… And then those pesky ellipses.  No matter how it starts rambles or cuts off syntax possesses a significant purpose in We.  Presented as a continuous stream of thought dictated by the novel’s narrator, syntax parallels the main character D-503’s internal struggle with knowledge.  Unaccustomed to emotion, or anything undefined by logic or reason, D-503 struggles to analyze his emotions.  Failing to do so D-503 is tormented by the human desire to comprehend the world, and expresses this conflict in reflective internal argument.  Undeveloped and unrefined D-503 consistently is unable to articulate his state of mind.  Thoughts are abandoned midsentence, only to be picked up again before being contradicted pages later.  In this abridged manner the irrationality of emotions is established, further accentuating the impossibility of comprehending the world and the central conflict.  Forced to outwardly conform to society, D-503 is unable to outwardly express this conflict.  Instead the novel places this focus on the internal questioning which is represented in the books text.  No tangible answer can be achieved as none exists, instead leaving it unfinished open to future examination…   in addition, long conjoined sentences run together showing the fluidity of thought, outpouring unrefined by any filter and unlimited by imagination, while ideas begin to contradict one another tumultuously within the narrator.  In this manner, syntax produces a vivid and accurate representation of thought and its inconsistencies, embodying the novel’s central theme and conflict and the inability to explain rationally our world.

D-503’s struggle to understand his world and emotions is expressed vividly through his own words and reflections.  Yet, however skilled an analytical thinker D-503 may be, he lacks any ability to articulate clearly his emotions.  With no knowledge outside the literal he instead relies upon the only thing he knows, mathematics.  Trying to rationalize the unknown emotions he is experiencing and their affect, D-503 compares his situation to the imaginary i as “that irrational root grew in me like some alien thing, strange and terrifying, and it was eating me, and you couldn’t make any sense of it or neutralize it because it was completely beyond ratio” ().  Just like the irrational root of -1, D-503’s, emotions lack any rational basis and cannot be explained.  Literally this root is defined as imaginary, nonexistent in the literal realm yet still existent in some unexplainable sense. This number parallels D-503’s fascination with emotions, determined to explain what he cannot.  This torments D-503, as he is unable to accept anything that cannot be explicitly defined.  In a society where love and happiness have been derived through equations, this conflict strikes at the fundamental structure of D-503’s life.  Math is fittingly the only way D-503 can hope to express his struggles, purposefully and ironically the very reason why he cannot cope with his emotions.  Additionally, once the single break in conformity has entered D-503’s head he is forced to call into question everything in his life.  As conditioned in life, he must solve the problem or search for its answer forever.  This single mathematical analogy embodies D-503’s internal conflict, and further accentuates the mindset that has produced it, embodying the meaning of the text in the single most profound quote of the novel.

Surely a collective groan is audible to all students the moment the word “Utopian” is uttered in a literature class.  Quite simply, behind love and death authors seem to have a disproportionate affinity for writing novels about these societies, and English teacher seem to have an equal if not greater affection for these books.  However, despite the overwhelming multitude of works on this subject, the commentaries and plotlines are not nearly as numerous.  Therefore, the most intuitive and, well, interesting works develop a focal conflict that relates not only to utopia, but to human nature within that society.    A prime example of this is We, in which the author places the human desire to comprehend the world and the inability to do so as a focal point of the novel.  This broader relationship with human nature is what separates We from the otherwise endless stacks of utopian literature.  In this manner connections can be drawn between the book and modern life, provoking a more purposeful contemplation of the author’s intent.  Furthermore the novels conflict is intricately woven into the utopian society.  The main character, D-503, representing the ideals of “One State” is characterized as mathematician, highly esteemed, and charged with the construction of a space vessel that shall spread the ideals of the society.  Like his society, D-503 serves singularly in a literal capacity, defining everything from love to happiness in finite equations.  Centered on these mathematical principles the Utopian society manifests the conflict with certain knowledge, and as the main character begins to rebel he not only questions utopia but the ability to understand the world.  Additional characters and action within the novel tactfully develops this conflict that is expressed in its entirety.  Written in the first person the novel is a continuous stream of consciousness, reflecting upon D-503’s inner turmoil.  Passages are often confusing, left unfinished, or blatantly contradicted before being reaffirmed.  In this manner the conflict is accentuated and the struggle for understanding is expressed as the central theme. It is this focus on human nature that makes We a fantastic novel, with a thought provoking and unique premise hidden within “just another utopian novel”.