Slaughterhouse-Five

Periods of war no doubt affect society and its individuals. Too often people focus on the positive sides of war and glorify it. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut carefully strives for the opposite. His protagonist, Billy, is a weak and unheroic victim who is haunted by his experience at the Dresden massacre. He (presumably) imagines becoming "unstuck" in time, uncontrollably traveling to various parts of his life, and being abducted by and learning the ideas of the Tralfamadorians. Yet as the novel progresses, it gradually becomes clear that Billy's memories from the massacre have haunted him and driven him mad. A generation of war has caused Billy to struggle and eventually simply close his eyes to avoid looking at his war hero son.

Meanwhile, numerous characters in the novel attempt to be war heroes, but Vonnegut slams each of them down. They all wish to maintain dignity and be seen positively by society. Both Weary and Wild Bob dream of a respected/heroic status after the war, yet both die of illness, not even in glorified battle. The Englishmen prisoners of war, Billy's son, and Rumfoord are viewed as war heroes by society, yet Vonnegut shows his readers the unheroic side of each of those characters. Society shaped these characters into something they were not.

Beloved

Does a generation represent its people, or do people represent their generation? I would argue that it isn't just one or the other but, rather, a sort of mutual relationship between the two. In Beloved, however, Toni Morrison emphasizes the latter in order to illustrate true freedom.

In the novel, Beloved is born into slavery while Denver is born "free." As a result, Beloved represents a generation of slavery while Denver represents one of newly-found freedom. For the majority of the novel, both Beloved and Denver (as well as the other characters) struggle with issues of possession, the past, and identity. Beloved views herself as linked to Sethe and tries to claim/possess Sethe completely. She also cannot forgive Sethe and seek vengeance for her murder. Meanwhile, Denver struggles with being an individual and has also dealt with fear for the majority of her life.

Unlike Beloved, however, Denver eventually becomes a strong, independent woman after she finally leaves 124 by herself for the first time in years. Reflective of her generation, Beloved remains captive to her past and almost completely loses her identity. Denver represents her generation of new, achieved freedom by struggling but ultimately reaching independence.

The Stranger

With Albert Camus' The Stranger, I have my first example of a character who seems to be free of society's vast influence. Meursault, the novel's protagonist, is an amoral character who is not concerned with societal values and ideas, such as love ("it didn't matter") and God ("it seemed unimportant"; "it didn't interest me"). Many of Meursault's actions are simply based on the fact that there was no reason not to do them.

Through his recognition of the indifference of the universe and the inevitability of death, Meursault effectively triumphs society. He defies its attempts to reason through people's actions, as so many of the characters did during his trial. He defies its hope, which tortured him and made him restless in his prison cell after he received his death sentence. He defies its system of justice, which attempted to make him succumb, feel remorse, and recognize the murder as wrong. Meursault recognizes how society shapes people and their standards and thus happily remains an outsider, accepting his mutual indifference with the world.

Crime and Punishment

Initially, Rodya, the main character in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, seems like a rare figure who is alienated from society. He is so set on proving himself an "extraordinary" man, believing himself to be superior to the general population,("Freedom and power, but above all, power! Power over all trembling creatures, over the whole ant-heap! . . . That is the goal!") and therefore separates himself from society. It seems that Rodya is an example of how society doesn't always shape an individual into who he is.

After he commits his crime, however, Rodya begins to fall victim to the unrelenting nature of guilt. At first his guilt launches him deeper into isolation. He pushes away Razumihin, Donya, Sonya, and everyone else who tries to help him. Eventually, Rodya begins to realize what such alienation has turned him into. He finally recognizes that he is not an "extraordinary man" ("I am certainly a louse.") and that the essential reason that he murdered Alyona was his desperate and impoverished condition. Rather than the justifications he provided himself with ("I didn't kill a human being, but a principle!"), it was Rodya's desperate nature that initially drove him to commit his crime.

It isn't until the Epilogue that Rodya finally breaks himself away from his need for "extraordinary" existence. When he, at last, fully realizes his love for Sonya, he comes back to society, ready to repent and for renewal. With the influence of Sonya, Rodya no longer separates himself from society and is now willing to allow society to reshape his character.

King Lear

Many of the characters in Shakespeare's King Lear undergo a change and are forced to see society from a different angle. Initially proud and somewhat ignorant, King Lear begins to see the poverty and austerity of the world. Lear's banishment introduces a "new" society to influence him, allowing him to realize his foolishness and lose much of his pride. Gloucester only begins to see the truth and the world for what it really is when he physically loses sight; this new perspective of society sheds light onto the true nature of the characters of the play.

Despite these significant changes, when I consider my question, Edmund actually immediately comes into mind. At the core, Edmund's immoral scheming against his own brother and father, and eventually the king and his family, stems from his illegitimate birth and the societal stature of it. Edmund is first introduced in the play when he (in his mind) justifies his future actions in his soliloquy. Edmund is bitter about the fact that his title of "bastard," something completely beyond his own control, has cursed his entire life. Such "base" (1.2.10) social status (as well as being the younger brother) cause him to have no claim to his father's inheritance. Edmund states: "I stand in the plague of custom" (1.2.2-3). Because of the consequences of his birth, Edmund feels the need to defy social conventions, and to therefore claim his father's land and fortune in place of his brother. Edmund wishes to show the world that the legitimate son can be unfaithful, and the bastard loyal. Society and its morals are ultimately what cause Edmund to do all of the deeds he does throughout the play. Without these supposedly justified reasons, it is difficult to see what reason Edmund may have had to betray those who were close to him.

"Oedipus Rex"

Oedipus is the epitome of a character who tries to counter the fate that society/the gods have set upon him. When he learns that he is to kill his own father and marry his mother, Oedipus attempts to do all that he can to escape such a dreadful future. Yet despite all his efforts, he ultimately unknowingly falls into that exact fate. Does this mean that there is no way to resist societal influences?

Even throughout this journey, Oedipus's character changes, according to his role in society. He starts off as a sort of prince, but he beings to hear rumors of him not actually being his "parents'" son. Pressured by these rumors, he seeks out an answer for the Oracle. When he learns of the fate that has been bestowed upon him, he immediately runs away out of fear for the disgrace of such acts. Oedipus then transitions to the role of a king, developing into a prouder and more confident character, as, according to society, a king "should be." Then when he finally realizes that he has indeed fulfilled his prophecy, Oedipus once again withdraws in disgrace, knowing that society "should" and will condemn him.

With this, it seems that it is very difficult and even often un-thought of for one to counter society's influence on his character.

Proposal and Atonement

"Lissa. You need to concentrate!"

As I heard my mother's voice, my mind moved out of its trance, out of the bleak universe of The Road.

"What?" I asked, as I removed my right earphone.

"You need to concentrate. How can you read while you're listening to music? That's too distracting."

But she was wrong -- it was as simple as that. I needed the music in order to concentrate. If I read in complete silence, my mind would not go past three sentences without drifting off of the page and into my own thoughts. Buzt with the beat of music playing softly in the background, I could begin to read the words in a sort of rhythm, until the beat became subconscious and the world of the novel materialized into its place.


My need for music in order to read is only one example of how I cope with my relatively short attention span. I am no exception to the claims that countless modern news articles are making: people's attention spans are decreasing as modern technology becomes more and more prevalent. Various researchers are making the assertions that technologies like television and the internet are diminishing people's focus time. Shorter attention spans seem to be a larger trend in my generation than in, say, my grandparents'. Though I don't have much evidence to build upon personally, I firmly believe that I would have a longer attention span had I been born in a previous generation. I would be able to read in silence. I would be able to do all of my homework in one sitting. I would be able to be on one website and have one browser tab open at a time.


This causes me to wonder, "To what extent does a generation and/or society shape a person?"


With my personal example, it seems that my generation has shaped some of my characteristics. However, can it do more than that? I think so. I think society can shape people's beliefs and even determine their identity.


Ian McEwan's Atonement, for example, subtly illuminates the injustices of social class underneath its main plot. Both Cecilia and Robbie acknowledge to themselves that they hardly ever spoke or came across one another at Cambridge because of their differences in class. They found the situation awkward, one thinking, "that's our cleaning lady's son", and the other "there goes my mother's employer's daughter" (McEwan 74).

One reason Briony feels the need to prevent her sister Cecilia from being with Robbie is because of his obvious low rank in society. Briony, who seems to be very practical when it comes to love, sees the danger in Cecilia falling beneath her class.

But what I found the most interesting was how Cecilia and Robbie both instinctively assumed that Danny Hardman, another servant, had been the actual criminal. The novel's society's establishment of social class was engrained in every citizen's mind, including the servants. It never even occurred to either Cecilia or Robbie that a wealthy man like Lord Marshall could have actually been the guilty party, despite the overwhelming physical evidence that was visible on his face. The generation that Atonement takes place in has caused Robbie to know himself as a person of lower class. And despite his own honest character, he has been conditioned by the society to automatically associate crime and guilt with a member of lower class.


So if this is the case -- if society can have such a significant impact on one's identity, then how much of a person is his own individual, inherent self?