‘Waiting for Him’ – HA on Serena Joy

Waiting For Him – The Wife in The Handmaids Tale

In The Second Sex, de Beauvoir writes that as a woman gets married she “breaks with her past more or less brutally, she is annexed to her husband’s universe; she gives him her person” and through the marriage union “ensures the even rhythm of the days and the permanence of the home she guards with locked doors; she is given no direct grasp on the future, nor on the universe.” The traditional role of the wife is a woman anew, given and created for a man – what is a ‘housewife’ if not something owned, belonging to the home, tasked only with keeping the days at an ‘even’ kilter? In The Handmaid’s Tale, there is not the housewife de Beauvoir talks of. In the Commander’s household there is not a singular woman who takes on all the tasks of this particular role rather, the ‘housewife’ becomes a hareem of women who’s sole purpose is creating comfort for their patriarch. Offred there to bear children, the Martha’s there to cook and clean and tidy, and Serena there for… well for not much at all.

What role does Serena Joy play for the commander in the traditional understanding of a housewife? She doesn’t clean nor cook nor sleep with nor bear children for. In the hyper traditionalist landscape of Gilead, where does she fit? She is a simulacrum of a wife, not a true one in any sense but she holds the hole in the middle of wifedom that has been pitted out by the Martha’s and the Handmaids. Left over is a woman who waits. Central to Serena Joy’s vacuous relationship with the Commander is the fact that she waits for him to come home from work. The 1950s housewife aesthetic which makes up her character in most on-screen adaptations proves the power that a woman waiting for a man has over almost all interpretations of her character. A woman waiting for a
man, lounging around the house for her husband to return to her, lazing and gardening and knitting are often falsely attributed symptoms of housewifery. The domestic shift is an arduous process – maintaining a house isn’t easy. Often this literary device of the Betty Draper housewife is misplaced and inaccurate, domestic duties are not as easy as media would have people believe. However, for Serena Joy this stereotype is at least accurate. She has nothing to do, nothing to read and is absolved of both wifedom and the traditional servile positions that she would be placed in. Even the sex drive
given to wives, the Tennessee Williams’ esque women pining for her husband to sleep with her like he used to that is so often associated with housewives, is taken from her. Sexless, jobless, hobbyless, activityless – it has hard not to feel sorry for Serena, who’s days stretch out endlessly and cyclically before her. What can she do, then, but wait for her husband to come home?

The robotic women of Ira Levin’s Stepford Wives are a longsighted comparison to the life of a housewife. Cooking and cleaning and doing everything which their husband desires have, for a long time, been traits culturally ascribed to women who are less intelligent or less worthy of autonomy. Somehow, the message of Levin’s novella has been baked down to a modern day insult for the housewife. The real tragedy of Serena Joy is that she is not a robot, not an unintelligent woman, not a Stepford Wife but has been forced to play the role of the robot that has so convincingly become
the idea of what women who long to be housewives are looking for. She is fiercely ambitions, intelligent, well-spoken and, critically, she still IS those things, regardless of her reduced social mobility. Literally forced to walk with a cane, to stay within a home, to be trapped alone in a house with people she cannot talk to about anything beyond ‘gossip’, lest she be punished at the hands of the colonies or the cane or the noose. Arguing that Serena Joy self-willed this is only half true. Her character was a campaigner for women going back to the kitchen, of course, yet considering the enormous and painful experience of women in the workplace, it is not hard to see exactly why so
many women have been looking to return to the home. Specifically in the 80s but still applicable today is the fact that, in places of work, women are likely to be sexually harassed, mistaken for a junior employee, not credited for their work, not given promotion, passed up for further job opportunities, and not taken seriously. Why should Serena not see the return to the home an alternative to this life?

Her visions of domesticity were not visions of Gilead. They were of housewife-dom, but even the promise of that especially female freedom – to laze and to read and to cook and to clean – has been destroyed by the patriarchy of Gilead.

All that is left for Serena is to wait for her husband.

Gilead is a failed utopia for EVERYONE

The commander (A.K.A, everyone’s least favourite character…like ever) relishes his actively contradictory nature as both an active Gileadean figurehead and a scrabble demon. It is apparent, that even under a state he constructed, he is also a victim of the consequences. The commander’s utopia, is in actual fact, his very own dystopian hell.

‘He isn’t supposed to be here’ – Offred

Serena Joy (A.K.A, the woman hater that we can’ quite seem to hate) and her potential, is squashed by a regime that is out to get her. The demon under her bed doesn’t look like the rebels, they look like her husband. A televangelist, a wife, a daughter, a sister, a commander’s property: the woman in blue. Serena Joy waters dead plants, but she can’t cheat nature.

‘How furious she must be now that she has been taken at her word‘ – Offred

Moria (A.K.A, our favourite smoking lesbian) is a disappointing, to say the least, product of repression at the hands of a regimented state. A woman we learned to love through Offred’s minds eye, a women we learned to idealise at the times we thought there were no such thing, at a time all we could see was red walls and burnt pornography. But who’s to say red is an ugly colour? Who’s to say a ‘glen’ isn’t something you can drink from.

‘butch paradise you might call it’ – Moira

Class Comments

Love the idea of The Commander being a scrabble demon, and also the idea that the commander has created his own oppression, very ironic. – Lara

I agree that The Commander is a very ironic character but he also is very unhappy with the way things are. Serena Joy seems to also detest the Handmaids perhaps because of their rebellious nature as she clearly lacks it. Moira is a very rebellious character but obviously not rebellious enough to escape to the regime. – Georgiana

Love your satiric style of writing, it brings a lot of personality to your work! Also, it was a great way to answer the question based on the interpretation of the characters. I would only add how some aspects of Gilead affect all of its civilians, such as how the hierarchy is clearly male dominated but the ceremonies can either attack men or women. This could suggest it is less of a dystopian for men. – Dylan

The scrabble demon did create his own dystopian hell, in the walls of Gilead. But you could say the existence of Jezebels as a place for him to go and break rules proves that men in Gilead are allowed perks and inconsistencies within the regime, therefore contradicting the idea that, for the scrabble demon, this place is dystopian hell? – Imogen

Offred uses storytelling and memory as her principal tool of determination for survival

Much like a bored school student may daydream in order to make their maths lesson hurry up, Offred uses memory and retrospection as an escapism from the totalitarian society of Gilead. Even from the very first chapter, we see her reminisce on her time in the Red Centre when her and the other handmaids clung onto their individuality by defying the aunts and exchanging names. Something so simple that we may take for granted is about to be stripped from them.

“Alma. Janine. Dolores. Moira.
June.”- Chapter 1

One person who keeps showing up in Offred’s memories is her former best friend, Moira. She stands as a figurehead of hope for Offred as she subverts traditional societal norms as she is a strong-willed Lesbian with an eccentric sense of style. Such individuality would be frowned upon in Gilead as it strives for Puritanical beliefs such as the heteronormative nuclear family and collective purpose of serving one end goal.

“Moira, sitting down on the edge of
my bed… in her purple overalls, one
dangly earring, the gold fingernail she
wore to be eccentric’ – Chapter 7

Not only does retrospection and storytelling serve as a tool of escapism, but they also work as a way of making reality more palatable. Within works of fiction, readers may find
comfort in the fact that it isn’t real, and you can walk away at any point. Therefore, Offred pretending that her story is fictive may give her hope for survival and escapism. Storytelling is therefore a survival tool.

“If it’s only a story, it
becomes less frightening” – Chapter 24

Class comments:

• I love the choice of quotes in the boxes and definitely agree that memory is a key
  tool for Offred when coping with the regime. Maybe you could also look at how this
  psychological tool never really establishes itself as a physical tool (overt protest) and
  why that might be? – Emma
• I really love how you responded to the viewpoint! Even though there are so many
  series of retrospection you chose the perfect moments that encapsulate Offred’s
  storytelling! I love the first paragraph in particular as you took a fragmented moment
  and illustrated its importance. Maybe you could discuss the importance of her story
  telling as a warning, at the end you suggested the story not being real is comforting,
  maybe you could tackle an opposing perspective? –
  Molly

Is Serena Joy a sympathetic or a selfish character?

Right from her introduction Serena Joy’s hostility is evident, even in her appearance. Whilst mirroring her uniform, Serena Joy’s eyes – a feature often thought of as a window to the soul and true intentions – show no sympathy towards Offred’s plight. Before the two characters have a chance to get to know one another, Serena Joy’s cool stare warns Offred away and “shuts her out”.

“A blue that shuts you out”

Offred, Chapter 3

In reference to her husband’s ability to impregnate, Serena Joy says “maybe he can’t”. This slander appears sympathetic towards Offred at first, as she shifts the blame for the lack of child from Offred to the Commander. However, her motives may be more selfish: the child benefits her and she knows that without her offer Offred’s future will remain an undetermined danger.

“Maybe he can’t”

Serena Joy, Chapter 31

Serena Joy then bribes Offred with information regarding her daughter but she leaves it as an open possibility rather than a promise. Because of this, she gives the illusion of sympathy but as Offred realises, she must have been keeping this knowledge to herself for a while and had refrained from mentioning it. Therefore her apparent sympathy seems to be merely a tool she uses for her own benefit and selfish gain.

Your little girl. But only maybe”

– Serena Joy, Chapter 31

“She’s known all along”

– Offred, Chapter 31

In orchestrating Offred’s meetings with Nick, Serena Joy takes another step towards her end goal. She creates a situation that benefits Offred not out of sorority, comradeship or sympathy but in order to fulfil her biological destiny through Offred’s body and to take the fruitful rewards in Offred’s place.

Class comments:

A Martyr of the Mind

• A character analysis of Willy Loman, from Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman

Martyrdom is defined as subjecting one’s self to the ultimate sacrifice, death, as an act driven by a greater purpose, higher belief or a cause of paramount importance. The very skeleton of the play confirms that Willy fulfils at least half of this criteria, with his death being foretold in the work’s title, so attention must be turned to the latter of the definition when attempting to decipher Willy Loman’s eligibility for the role of the martyr. It might take a village to translate what Miller’s intention was when crafting this production; Death of a Salesman is a labyrinth of half-truths and open-ended conversations between the characters, culminating in a tangled mess of fraying, loose threads that are never tied up. It makes it difficult then, as readers, to determine the true standing of Willy Loman. He is an unreliable narrator at the best of times, and as the play largely revolves around Willy’s point of view, positioning the other characters as extensions of his experience, it becomes near impossible to establish an objective opinion of any personality or moral compass within the play’s reality. Arguably,
this element of incoherence is a driving force of the case for Willy being considered a martyr: he is so infatuated in his worship of The American Dream that he is beyond functioning as a grounded member of society, instead turning to a borderline religious devotion to the capitalist ideology that he undoubtedly values as a cause of paramount importance. It is this devotion that ultimately results in his death.

It’s interesting to evaluate Willy Loman from a psychological standpoint; many critics have considered the variety of mental disorders or illnesses that Willy could be interpreted as suffering from. However, even when leaving an explicit diagnosis ambiguous, the idea of Willy’s psychological instability, shown through his fractured existence, strewn between dream-like memories and his uncomfortable present reality, is an important factor when considering his self-image. This idea provides further evidence for the case of Willy’s martyrdom, because even if Willy’s cause is one of imagined greatness, does it not still stand just as greatly in Willy’s reality?

As witness to the defining chapter of Willy’s life, we as an audience primarily gain insight into the life of the Lomans through the vessel of Willy, invited into his retrospective sequences in a manner unlike any other character in the play. This gives us a greater understanding of Willy’s rationale, and we are able to grasp how he comes to the decision of suicide as a solution. In this respect, the audience are able to see
what Biff, Linda and Happy are unable to in the requiem: why Willy’s death has occurred,
and the honour to be found in it.

Miller wrote Death of a Salesman in play-form, with intent to meet audiences as a theatre production, so I feel that analysing a theatre character without discussing at least one theatrical portrayal would be a disservice. The casting of Dustin Hoffman as the titular character in the 1984 Broadway production of Death of a Salesman is possibly one of the most artful pieces of casting in the play’s history. Known for his antihero, emotionally vulnerable roles and described by famed actor Robert De Niro as “an actor with the everyman’s face who embodied the heartbreakingly human”, Dustin Hoffman makes a perfect choice for the likes of Willy Loman, whose story is not tragedy of great injustice; rather, he is a victim of the decidedly dull reality of suburban capitalist America, designed to represent the average human and his average hardships, which is cited by many critics and audiences as the ingredient of Miller’s play which makes it quite so poignantly miserable.
Willy Loman is not likeable, as martyrs rarely are. Instead, he is a reflection of the
undesirable part of ourselves, that which is driven by a feeling of superiority and an
unforgiving want to be liked and respected, even admired, by those around us.

Ultimately, it is Willy’s belief that he is owed something more than he has received which leads to his demise, as he sees in death the only way to access the reward he deserves and truly make his point. And so, it is hard to deprive Willy Loman of the title martyr; he dies for his beliefs, and in this twisted sense, Death of a Salesman’s protagonist holds the legacy he dreamed of in life, in death.

With thanks to IB – year 13 2022

‘Othello’s love of Desdemona is the love of possession. She is a prize, a spoil of war.’

Othello’s love for Desdemona can easily be recognised as the most important factor in the play’s tragic progression, and is the centre around which all of the plays characters orbit.

With this in mind, understanding the exact nature of their relationship is crucial in understanding the play as a whole. The strength of Othello’s feelings is made clear very early in the play, during his confrontation with Desdemona’s father; “She loved me for the dangers I had passed, and I loved her that she did pity them” demonstrates not only that their love was born out of a mutual understanding for each other, but implies that Othello finds something in Desdemona that he is unable to find anywhere else. Her admiration of his past and acceptance of his identity stands out among the Venetian officials who treat Othello with suspicion and mistrust, and the intimacy that Othello claims to have with Desdemona is not shared with any other characters.

However, while the authenticity of Othello’s feelings cannot be questioned, the ways in which these feelings manifest themselves are less than ideal. There is ample evidence in the play to suggest that Othello sees Desdemona as an object to be possessed, another “spoil of war” who has no autonomy of her own, seen primarily in the way that the actions of the play unfold entirely without input from Desdemona herself, despite her supposed unfaithfulness being the motivating force of the play’s conflict.

While it is first and foremost an element of Shakespeare’s tragic storytelling, (being in this case unawareness, blindness, helplessness etc.), Desdemona’s voicelessness regarding conflicts that directly involve her is typical of an archetypal female object of desire. It could even be said that Desdemona’s importance to the play’s story relies on her voicelessness and her inability to act. Furthermore, it could easily be argued throughout Othello, Shakespeare presents love itself as something to be possessed, which is given to one person at the expense of another. This is represented primarily by Desdemona’s handkerchief, given to her as a symbol of Othello’s complete devotion, which upon being misplaced, leads Othello to believe that Desdemona has given her love away to Cassio, meaning that it no longer belongs to him. The use of the handkerchief is important as it illustrates the way in which Othello views love as something which is to be owned and protected, like a sacred object, and while this defensiveness isn’t uncommon in many romances, Othello’s love of Desdemona is presented as being intensely possessive.

The love present in Othello is not free or empowering, but is one of insecurity, ownership, and defensiveness.

The abundant love that Othello feels for Desdemona finds its foil in his crippling lack of certainty, transforming something pure and compassionate into a catalyst for destruction and chaos. The potency of Othello’s love is not diminished by its harmful expression, but is actually the prerequisite for the obsession that Drives Othello to madness. Ironically, Othello finds himself possessed by his own love for Desdemona, and is eventually destroyed by it.

With many thanks to BF – year 13 2022

Marriage in ‘Othello’

“Othello and Desdemona’s passionate love and progressive marriage poses a threat to the established order, it challenges ideas about class, race and the conformity of women and is thus dissolved for the social order to continue.”

As opposed to modern day views and beliefs, the Shakespearean era was the pinnacle of discrimination, predominantly pinpointed on class, race and women in which in this play, all elements of this are displayed which inevitably results in Othello and Desdemona’s marriage posing a threat to the established order.

Very early on in the play, we can see the imminent threat that is Othello and Desdemona’s marriage as Desdemona speaks words that only serves to foreshadow the fate of their marriage later on in the play. Desdemona speaks of having a:

“noble father, I do perceive here a divided duty. To you I am bound for life and education. My life and education both do learn me how to respect you. You are the lord of my duty; I am hither to your daughter. But here’s my husband.”

Her speech shows her thoughtfulness, as she does not insist on her loyalty to Othello at the expense of respect for her father, but rather acknowledges that her duty is “divided.” Because Desdemona is brave enough to stand up to her father and even partially rejects him in public, these words also establish for the audience her courage and her strength of conviction. As an implication of this strength and courage, it encourages her to want to help Cassio later in the play which will then fuel Othello’s jealousy, and because of this, Iago’s poisonous words will blind that of Desdemona’s honesty, resulting in Desdomona’s death and Othello’s tragic downfall.

Secondly, because of the strong relationship that Othello and Desdemona have, it diverts Othello’s attention, making the order weaker and vulnerable. Othello must:

“beware… of jealousy! It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock, the meat it feeds on.”

 Again, the theme of jealousy plays a vital role here as Iago makes insinuations about Desdemona’s adultery and Othello pressures him to reveal what he knows, Iago warns Othello against succumbing to jealousy. Of course, Iago issues this warning with a false earnestness. That is, he knows that saying the word “jealousy” and conjuring an offensive visual image will intensify Othello’s concern. This jealousy that is brewing inside Othello makes him much more vulnerable as his strong feelings for Desdemona makes him blind and therefore, results in him ‘ending’ the relationship.

In essence, Othello is made weak by Desdemona and therefore, due to Othello’s responsibilities, Iago’s lies result in him throwing everything away due to his ignorance, reinforcing the fact that Othello and Desdemona’s relationship must be dissolved for the social order to continue.

• With thank to Jordan Roberts (year 13)

An exercise in a clarity: model essay for 4-week test.

Explore the view that Keats presents innocent victims who suffer entirely at the hands of devilish villains. 

Within tragedy, characters are so often presented as either good or evil; they are placed at two ends of a dichotomy. The innocent victim, completely outside of responsibility, experiences suffering at the hands of a ‘devilish villain’, a figure entirely devoid of human morality. However, within his poetry Keats chooses not to follow Aristotle’s system of tragic heroes and villains and instead creates characters for which the line between innocence and evil is far more unclear. This may be to criticise wider societal issues such as the Age of Enlightenment rather than the individual. Through this lack of absolutes, Keats explores the liberating notion of negative capability – the willingness to exist in mystery, a distinctly Romantic ideal. 

In ‘La Belle Dame sans Merci’, Keats created a contrast between the sublime world of dreams and the harsh reality of the quotidian world. A reader comes to associate the sublime world with the mystical “faery’s child”, and the reality with the “Knight-at-arms”. Since the poem is explored through the opinions of the “Knight”, the main poetic voice, it appears that he is the suffering victim as he is left “alone and palely loitering” by the “faery’s child”. However, due to the poem being only from his perspective and the “faery’s child” speaking in “language strange”, a reader may question the authenticity of his account. A feminist critic may consider the presentation of the “faery’s child” to be similar to that of a femme fatale as she is blamed by the “Knight” for his “ails”. Through abandonment, Keats inverts the traditional gender norms leaving him vulnerable and therefore in “anguish” as he waits in a purgatory state, unable to move on. In addition to this, he attempts to pin the blame on her seductive actions as she “looked at (him) as she did love” and “she led me” to her “elfin grot”. By painting her as the evil temptress after their encounter, the “Knight” demonstrates post sexual gratification disenchantment as the illusion of the dream is broken and he sees the “cold” world as lacking and disenchanting. Despite his accusations, the “Knight” admits that they were unable to communicate due to her language being “strange”, because of this a reader may question the consensual element of their encounter and consider this may be the reason for her sudden departure. As well as this, in places the Knight illustrates himself as the traditional masculine savoir as he “set her on his pacing steed”. The verb “set” here is in the active voice, demonstrating his pro-active involvement in their interactions. His decisive actions here leave her with no choice or freedom as she appears unable to resist his advances. This could be used to mirror the lack of autonomy for women during the mediaeval period where the poem takes place as well who were viewed as commodities owned by the men around them. It may also represent the confining judgments on the women of the 1800s that were forced to adhere to expectations such as meekness in order to please society. Subsequently, the Knight cannot be seen as an entirely innocent victim in the events as he facilitates his own disillusionment. 

Similarly, to the “Knight-at-arms”, the “faery’s child” is also spoken of in the active voice. She “took” him to her “elfin grot”. This illustrates that she cannot be seen as wholly innocent either resulting in them both being partially responsible for the suffering in the narrative. The cyclical structure of the poem created by the repeated refrain “no bird’s sing” may be used to present the idea that the blame cannot be placed on an individual but rather an expectation. Within Keats’ life he found suffering to be worth the small and fleeting amount of joy. A reader could interpret the idea that the villain of the narrative may in fact be the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment. Despite it bringing a sense of knowledge, the inability to live in mystery destroys the already ephemeral dream and creative imagination that Keats – and other Romantic poets such as William Blake – believed to be so valuable. 

It is commonly assumed that the brothers of “poor simple Isabel!” are the villains of ‘Isabella; or, The Pot if Basil’. As caricatures of evil the brothers exploit those around them and are the cause of many kinds of suffering. However, as representations of a capitalist mindset, they turn the “easy wheel” of exploitation to abuse their power over humanity and nature in order to fill their “red-lined accounts”. Keats’ use of colour imagery here conjures a picture of blood which further illustrates the idea that the brothers profit from the suffering of others. Regardless of this, it may be that Keats presents these “ledger-men” as caricatures of villainy to criticise the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ that was thriving in the 1820s which promoted science and reason – and therefore industry – over creativity, freedom and joy.  

Despite the brothers being seen as villainous, Isabella and the “young palmer” Lorenzo cannot be seen as purely innocent victims due to their tragic flaws – specifically myopia. Due to their greed and pride, the two brothers are unaccepting of anything that causes them a financial loss. As their sister, Isabella is a commodity to be sold through a contract of marriage. Therefore, her romantic involvement with Lorenzo prevents them from benefiting from the objectification of her femininity. Additionally, as a “servant of their trade designs”, Lorenzo is aware of his social status in comparison to Isabella who ranks higher than him deeming them incompatible in the eyes of society. Their inability to anticipate the “covetous and sly” brothers’ disapproval presents them as wearing ‘rose tinted glasses’ therefore resulting in their tragic downfall as a direct consequence of their self-willed blindness. 

Through the eye of an eco-critic, the brothers are destructive villains who treat the natural world as a source of profit. This is portrayed through the disturbing imagery of the seal “full of darts” which confronts the exploitation of animals for monetary gain. As representatives of a capitalist industrialised world, the “money-bag” brothers might also be viewed as villainous as they are in direct opposition to the freedom of nature. Similarly, as a symbol of the quotidian world, the “Knight-at-arms” can also be associated with the death or decay of nature. Keats combines the lexical field of consumption and illness with natural metaphors when describing the Knight’s “anguish”. The “fading rose” and “fever-dew” “lily” are both illustrative of the Knight’s downfall from grace and subsequently the death of the dream and wonder that surround nature. Because of the Knights’ refusal to accept living in negative capability, the mystical and mysterious element of the natural world cannot thrive. Therefore, despite the brothers being an overtly destructive force against nature and the villainy of the Knight being ambivalent, both characters portray a conflict with the sublime world of nature which may be Keats’ way of expressing his displeasure with the ways in which humanities fixation on industrialization and science cause damage to the natural world – a place representative of creativity, mystery and freedom for the Romantic poets. 

Ultimately, Keats blurs the lines between victim and villain in characters. By choosing not to comply with Aristotle’s traditional victim and villain format, Keats causes a reader to question the root cause for the suffering. He uses his characters to represent a larger issue within society through which he can protest against the injustices or grievances that surround him, specifically the unwillingness to live in negative capability. As Keats famously said, “Beauty is truth, truth is beauty”. This reinforces the idea that it is acceptable to enjoy life without needing to truly understand it, therefore demonstrating that characters can represent different attributes of Keats’ Romantic views without being categorised into definite illustrations of victim or villain. 

With thanks to LS – year 13 2022.

Gilead is full of hypocrisy. Even the supposed figureheadsdo not abide by the rules set out!

Despite its obsession with appearing perfect and flawless, (“neatly mowed lawns) the rules they create are broken. “All Flesh” is a butcher’s shop. Gilead quoted this from the story of Noah’s ark in the bible, focused on saving the animals, not slaughtering them for dinner. Similarly Gilead preaches the word of God is accessible (despite reading being illegal for most people trapped in the regime) but only through “peepholes”. “Soul scrolls” display that there are “five different prayers”, uncovering Gilead’s obsession with control and selectivism. Last but certainly not least, The Ceremony displays a horribly gut-wrenching act of state sanctioned rape, justified by the selected bible quote “give me children else I die”. Gilead later orders the handmaids during the “particicution” to slaughter a man for supposedly raping someone, yet they should arguably be slaughtering the commanders for raping the handmaids monthly. Shedding light on Gilead (in reality), reveals inconsistency after inconsistency. Gilead is full of hypocrisy.

“God is a national resource”.

The Commanders are arguably the most powerful people in Gilead, as men. They display the appearance of obedience and compliance within the regulations of the regime, however protest peeps through the veneer. “Jezebels” is a key setting within THMT, but one that embodies hypocrisy. It is a place that Gilead allows to thrive because its sole purpose is to serve and keep men happy. Similarly The Commanders and their wives have access to the “black market” because Gilead’s system of trade is failing under religious extremism. Such figureheads of authority break the rules when it suits them. Their supposed protest is a selfish kind.

“What do you think of our little club?”
“It’s only for officers”.

The aunts seem to be the only characters in “The Handmaid’s Tale” who wholeheartedly follow Gilead’s rules. Even the most gruesome of the rules: the aunts participate and force handmaids to participate in acts of extreme violence all while wielding ‘electric cattle prods’ and the so-called word of God. These are arguably the only group of people who do not display moments of hypocrisy.

“A return to traditional values”.

Whether this is strictly true or not…well read ‘The Testaments’ to find out!

With thanks to IB – year 12 2022

‘The women Keats creates are simultaneously goddesses and demons’ to what extent doyou agree?

 The name of Keats’ poem ‘Lamia’ is titled after the poem’s protagonist – a ‘serpent’
who deceives Hermes with her ‘full born beauty new and exquisite?’. This is a
reference to a Lamia itself which means a monster who devours humans.
Keats uses a question mark to show his own uncertainty on whether this is her true
form and beauty – which the reader knows it isn’t.

 Lamia is said to be ‘striped like a zebra, freckled like a pard, eyed like a peacock’,
which in itself combines characteristics of both predator and prey. Keat’s also
describes her head to be ‘serpent’ but ‘she had a woman’s mouth with all its pearls’.
This juxtaposition used can display Lamia as either a beautiful woman or a snake –
potentially showing her to be ‘the demon’s self’.

 Keats also creates this contrast in his female character, the faery’s child, in ‘La Belle
Dame sans Merci’. She is ‘full beautiful’ but her ‘eyes were wild’ which can create
an image of her being part of the natural world, and not a complete woman. There is
also a certain ambiguity surrounding this character due to the ‘death-pale’ victims
The Knight sees, which could show the true demon-like intentions of the faery’s
child.

 The faery’s child is ‘full beautiful’ which suggests the Knight becomes myopic and
unaware of these true intentions, which makes his downfall inevitable – leaving him
to ‘sojourn’ alone at the end of the poem. This could show this woman to be
malevolent by nature, and not as her appearance would suggest, which could be
described as goddess-like. This agrees with the statement that the women Keat’s
creates as simultaneously goddess and demon – the line is blurred, as with victims and villains in tragedies.

 Keats may create this ambiguity/ enigma for a reader to reinforce negative capability, an enjoyment of the mystery of things.

With thanks to KP year 13 2022

Sacrifice, status and subsumation; Dave Singleman and competitive identity

“After all the highways, and the trains, and the appointments, and the years, you end up
worth more dead than alive.”

Central to the American dream is excessive, unending and consistently complimented “hard work”. The term used often, with such gravitas and force that it has formed a new meaning: to give one’s entire being – entire self – to competition. Miller grapples with this topic through the title of his play. It is the ‘Salesman’ that dies. No longer a man, no longer Willy, there is but a ‘Death of a Salesman’. In such a way, Death of a Salesman can be understood as a play deeply entangled with the loss of identity forced by frenetic capitalistic markets and the hyper-individualised cultural landscape of America.

“I’m gonna show you and everybody else that Willy Loman did not die in vain. He had a good dream. It’s the only dream you can have – to come out number-one man. He fought it out here, and this is where I’m gonna win it for him.”

Through a story told by Willy, the roots of such belief can be uncovered. When we look to the story of Dave Singleman, we see the complete and entire subsumation of identity to the game that is the capitalist markets. Singleman, an eighty four year old man, still works every day to make money for those above him. Singleman, in his old age, is forced to work even though he cannot leave the house. Singleman, who is entirely alone in the world, dies in the exact same vehicle he used to work in. His method of provision (his work) becomes a symbol of his own death. The ‘green velvet slippers’ he worked in become those that he died in. in this way, it can be understood that the entirety of the characters life is entangled with his work. He cannot be separated from the act of being a Salesman, so much so that he dies trapped into his work.

“Nobody dast blame this man. You don’t understand: Willy was a salesman. And for a
salesman, there’s no rock bottom to the life. He don’t put a bolt to a nut, he don’t tell you the law or give you medicine. He’s a man way out there in the blue riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. And then you get yourself a couple spots on your hat and your finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream boy, it comes with the territory.”

When examined closely, the reality of the story which Willy tells is clear and Miller’s messaging obvious; this is a man who was ruled by capitalism and destroyed by it – his death entangled into his life, both wrapped in his career. The fruits of his labour, the luxuriously described slippers, are ultimately of no use, he ends up dead and alone with but material goods as comfort. Yet Willy does not tell the story in this way. For Willy the death of Dave Singleman is not tragic but a fairy tale intended to inspire. Singleman, in the eyes of the character, is a hero, triumphing not through anything other than material possessions and an obsessive, unflinching commitment to his work. In
such a way the story of Dave Singleman becomes the blueprint of Willy’s attitudes; the ultimate good for Loman comes not from personal fulfilment, but instead the intensity of the intertwinement of ones identity with their productivity. In Willy’s story, Singleman deserves valorisation not because he is good at what he does, but because he unwavering.

“The only thing you’ve got in this world is what you can sell.”

In such a way, sacrifice becomes undeniable entangled with Willy’s psyche and therefore suffering in all its forms becomes something worthy of praise. To suffer is a mode of finding success, to be in pain or to struggle or to give up some of ones self is commendable – an absolute positive – as it proves ones dedication to the system. In other words, from the vantage point of Willy, his own death is not the symptom of anything wrong with society, but a symbol of a final success. When Willy kills himself, it is not because of a structural failure, but because he himself failed to provide in
life and must join with the machine that is capitalism in death to finally provide. In the same way Dave Singleman’s life is entangled with capital, so too is Willy’s death.

“To devote your whole life to keeping stock, or making phone calls, or selling or buying. To suffer fifty weeks of the year for the sake of a two-week vacation, when all you really desire is to be outdoors, with your shirt off. And always to have to get ahead of the next fella. And still — that’s how you build a future.”

In a society that valorises sacrifice, destroys family time together (Willy is constantly away), relationships (Willy’s cheating on Linda to move boxes), and sleep (Willy gives up so much time for his job), it is no surprise that the titular character has no problem ultimately sacrificing his life rather than ask for help. Willy died a preventable death that could have been stopped had he just taken a job with Charlie. But he cannot do this, he cannot take something, he must only give. The story of Dave Singleman has ultimately become that of scripture for Willy. A man who gave everything, lived alone and died alone but died rich and – if our only metric is capitalistic gain – died successful, is a hero for Willy Loman. Sacrifice in Death of a Salesman becomes an integral part of capitalism, a necessitated section of the world in which Willy Loman lives and, ultimately, the reason he feels he must take his own life rather than take a job. The American Dream demands the death of Willy Loman.

“He died the Death of a Salesman”

With thanks to HA – year 13 2022

‘In all three tragic texts, a sense of resolution and emotional catharsis is not always clear – there is often a terrible sense of waste’

‘Death…’

At the end of DOAS, after Willy has made the ultimate sacrifice (the ‘diamond’ of his life is sold). Indeed, the audience are hoping that this is the moment where the Loman family progress, however, instead we are left with Happy wanting to make his father ‘proud’, by completing his ‘legacy’, leaving us to feel as if Willy’s sacrifice was a waste – the cycle continues.

Arguably, Willy’s sacrifice ensures that his family are debt free (‘we’re free’) and thus they have been given a second chance. The audience could feel there is a sense of resolution – however, Biff will always feel as if he has fallen from an ‘imagined height’: once the school jock, now a failure in the American society where by 30 you should have a stable career path and a family – which Biff and Happy have not secured.

Happy will continue to be ‘lost like his brother’ and believe that popularity is the key to success, as he would tell Biff he is ‘well-liked’ – showing his inability to escape his fathers flaws.

‘Othello’

There is not much debate for whether or not this play has a sense of resolution – of course, the order of things are restored, however, the blood that is spilled throughout leaves the audience feeling a terrible sense of waste – Othello’s myopia, regarding Iago as ‘honest’ throughout, is his fatal flaw as it leads to a chain of events that ultimately kills his wife, as well as himself.

Iago’s manipulation comes into full effect by the end of the play, the audience sees how Othello mind has been completely warped by the ideas planted by Iago – ‘Iago keeps his word’, ‘Honest Iago’, ‘She (Desdemona) is like a liar, gone to burning hell’, ‘She (Desdemona) was a whore’

Shakespeare exploits Othello’s jealousy through the characterisation of Iago who is the source of this idea of ‘waste’, as his hatred for ‘the moor’ kick starts the tragic suffering throughout the play.

Keats’ poems

‘Isabella and the Pot of Basil’- The ‘moneybag brothers’ with their ‘red-lined
accounts’, exploit the lower class – Lorenzo, Isabella’s lover, is exploited by
her brothers, and is murdered by them because the brothers are myopic to
societies expectations where they feel they have to secure their business by
sending their sister to some ‘high noble’ – End of this poem has no resolution –
the brothers flee whilst Isabella’s alienation, due to her love and loss of
Lorenzo, causes her death – However, there is debate whether the audience is
left with no resolution, as, ‘from mouth to mouth through all the country
passed… still is the burthen sung’ – Their love is immortal – They were
restricted to love in the physical world, however, their love remains alive so
long as their story is alive.

With thanks to RRE – year 13 2022