A Doll House

It’s been one and a half year since I met a play with a striking ending, which forced me to rewind what I’ve been reading in my head, and then…I saw it differently from my first read. That was my previous experience with The Cherry Orchard; and now the same thing happened again when I finished A Doll House.

All the scenes take place in the Helmers’ residence. Torvald Helmer is an ex lawyer who, after having struggled financially, is fortunate to have been promoted as the manager of a bank. Nora, his wife, is a woman with loose moral and indifference over practical things. Excited by his husband’s promotion, she starts squandering money buying expensive things, taking for granted their future big salary. Unknown to her husband, she borrowed money from a man named Krogstad, a scoundrel who work in the same bank where Torvald is going to be the manager, who is right now struggling to clear his reputation. He blackmails Nora to persuade Torvald to promote him, or he would unveil her forgery secret to her husband. It is slowly revealed that Nora is keeping much darker secret from her husband, than only borrowing and spending money.

A Doll House is a story of typical family in 19^th century, when women were treated as household accessories, or in this play was symbolized as the husband’s doll, instead of an equal partner with the husband, where a wife should have been. After being treated like a doll by her father, Nora finds herself trapped in the same situation now with her husband. But Nora would have never realized anything wrong had not she been blackmailed by Krogstad, that her marriage is in the verge of destruction. Maybe Ibsen wanted to open the eyes of the society about this, although later he rejected the idea that this play was about feminism.

It is intriguing that this play’s title is originally translated to A Doll’s House. But some scholars call it simply A Doll House—an apostrophe that changes the context. The second version refers to Nora as a victim—which she is. She is never a wife; she is just the doll which Torvald keeps in the house, which he can play at his pleasure. So the ideal home of Helmers is actually a doll house. But with the apostrophe, it seems that Nora, the doll, is the owner of the house—which she is not. So maybe the simple version suits more what Ibsen wanted to say.

I have mixed feelings during and after reading this play. I’m so impatient with women like Nora—I can’t even decide whether she is simply naïve, stupid, or morally corrupted. Could it possible for a grown up woman to think she can do anything in the name of love, never feels guilty, and unless someone tells her, will never realize the risk? She is certainly not stupid, as she can act cunningly cleverly by forging her father’s signature to have the money in time. So, I believe it’s her moral. *spoiler alert* Her final action of leaving her family to “discover herself” only justifies my idea that Nora lacks of conscience; she only lives for herself. I can understand if she did it to prove to Torvald that she is not the beautiful doll he can keep and adore as accessories. But, again, she never thinks of the consequences, especially with her three children. How selfish it is to leave one’s children to improve oneself!*spoiler ends*

Although Nora should have been the protagonist here, I couldn’t help sympathizing with Torvald. I think he really loves Nora, and thinks spoiling her is the best way to show his feelings. Torvald is molded by the society, and he just acts like everybody else, without ever thinking that there is something wrong. Why, even his wife doesn’t think it wrong before the incident. So, I can imagine how shocked he is by Nora sudden decision.

Five stars for A Doll House; and I’d certainly read more from Ibsen.

~~~~~~~~~~

I read Signet Classics paperback

This book is counted as:

Play On Challenge 2015: March – Post-Renaissance

88^th book for The Classics Club Project

The Great Gatsby [Final Review]

If there are books I would love to read over and over again, The Great Gatsby must be one of them. This was my second read and I gained much more than my first one, and I have a feeling I would still find more in the future reads. Reading The Great Gatsby is really like peeling an onion, you must peel layer by layer to get what is inside. This book is full of metaphors, and Fitzgerald does not always reveal everything straight forward; he likes to speak his ideas in broken sentences, challenging the readers to catch the hidden meanings. And that is why this book provides never-ending debates and discussions, which make me love it more.

As I have done many chapter posts and tasks for WEM, I won’t waste time by writing what Gatsby is about. In short, it’s about Gatsby’s false dream—how a poor man fights persistently to win his dream lover, becomes wealthy by disrespectable businesses and ready to snatch the woman from his husband; but after an accident that has killed a woman, he finds that she is only an empty idea, and that lavish prosperity in the end only leaves traces of moral corruption [taken from my first level inquiry post].

I have also peeled many aspect of the story in my three levels inquiries, that I have almost nothing left now to make a decent review (LOL). But instead, I have challenged myself earlier to ask one important question, which I also invited others with whom I read this along to answer.

Do you think Gatsby is really ‘Great’? If yes, why? If no, why did Fitzgerald put it in the title?

--My answer--

First I must think about the criteria of ‘Great’; what do people usually mean when they say that someone is great? Success would be the answer. Great people are they who succeed in their fields. Now let’s apply this to Gatsby—does he succeed? A big no; he worked hard to reach his dream, not knowing that it has vanished. It’s not only failure; I can say he’s pathetic. So Gatsby must be far away from being great—although in a way, I admire his discipline, focus, and persistency to reach his dream. If we want to label him as ‘Great’, he is certainly great in accomplishing a personal target. Nonetheless, he is failed in the end; and one’s greatness is always defined by the result, right? Yeah, we are result-based generation. I can talk about this forever, but for now, let’s get to the second part of the question.

If Gatsby is not great, why is the book given The Great Gatsby as its title? What did Fitzgerald want to say to us? It came to me that maybe Fitzgerald wanted to emphasize that our way of defining greatness has been wrong. Maybe one’s greatness should not be valued only from the visible quality of success; it is merely the outer aspect of men; our old concept of success. I think Fitzgerald wanted us to look deeper into the inside of humanity. From the beginning Nick has been writing about morality: “A sense of the fundamental decencies is parceled out unequally at birth.” –(Chapter 1); so it makes sense that that is what Fitzgerald wanted to say to us through The Great Gatsby: morality. Morality is far more important than physical achievement.

American first dream was about discovery, individualism, and the pursuit of happiness [from Sparknotes]. However, the rise of stock market post-war had created a sudden euphoria, where people started to spend and consume at unprecedented levels. With that, unfortunately, morality started also to decay and corrupted. In Jay Gatsby, Fitzgerald wanted to show two different things.

First, the empty pursuit of dream; in Gatsby, American people should see that their first original dream had been vanished, and replaced by the moral corruption (Daisy is no longer the fresh-innocent girl Gatsby used to know, she had been…you know what). Second, the good morality; although Gatsby gained his wealth in disrespectable ways, he still have pure conscience in him (he stood up to take the blame of Myrtle Wilson’s murder although he did not do it). Between the two, while the empty pursuit of dream won’t make one great, I believe the good morality will.

At the end I think, Fitzgerald wanted to say that it is great of Gatsby to do what he did at the end of the story. It is also what has made Nick complimenting him: “They’re a rotten crowd; you’re worth the whole damn bunch put together”.

But most of all, I think, The Great Gatsby itself is a great literary work by Fitzgerald; maybe not the greatest one, but obviously one of the greatest… ;)

Five whole stars for The Great Gatsby, a novel I will certainly read and read again in the future.

~~~~~~~

I read the Penguin Classics hardback edition

This book is counted for:

6^th book for Turn of The Century Salon

4^th book for Back to the Classics 2013

10^th book for What’s in A Name Reading Challenge 2013

43^rd book for The Classics Club

6^th book for The Well-Educated Mind Self-Project

The Importance of Being Earnest

[conclusion in English is at the bottom of this post]

Pentingnya menjadi jujur, kira-kira begitulah arti judul buku berbentuk play (drama) ini, The Importance of Being Earnest. Dan nampaknya memang Oscar Wilde—penulis play ber-setting jaman Victoria, abad 19-an ini—memang hendak menyoroti kemunafikan masyarakat yang ada di sekitarnya, dengan segala ketidakjujurannya, lewat play yang kocak namun sinis ini.

Jack dan Algernon adalah dua pria muda yang bersahabat. Meski keduanya memiliki sifat yang berbeda, namun mereka memiliki satu kesamaan, yaitu tidak jujur. Bukan, mereka bukanlah maling atau penipu kelas wahid; mereka adalah manusia-manusia biasa seperti kita. Jack dan Algernon sama-sama menciptakan sosok khayalan yang sering mereka gunakan sebagai alasan saat mereka hendak pergi ke tempat lain, atau untuk menghindar dari kewajiban hadir di suatu tempat yang tak mereka kehendaki. Jack menciptakan sosok ‘kakak laki-laki’ bernama Ernest (kebetulankah bahwa nama itu berbunyi sama dengan ‘kejujuran’ atau ‘earnest’?...), sedang Algernon sering menggunakan sosok ‘kawan pria tua sakit-sakitan’ bernama Bunbury. Bila seorang bibi mengundang Algernon makan malam—dan sungguh, Bibi Augusta Bracknell benar-benar sosok wanita yang tak bakal diinginkan seorang pun menjadi bibinya!—maka Algernon bisa berkelit dengan mengatakan bahwa ia harus mengunjungi Bunbury yang sedang sakit, padahal Bunbury in tak pernah ada. Itulah salah satu bentuk ‘Bunburying’ ala Oscar Wilde—menemukan pelarian dalam wujud sosok buatan mereka sendiri.

Celakanya, Jack dan Algernon sama-sama hendak memikat dua wanita pujaan mereka dengan menggunakan ‘Bunburist’ yang sama, yakni sosok Ernest Worthing. Jack yang mencintai Gwendolen (putri Lady Bracknell; sepupu Algernon), dan Algernon yang terpesona pada Cecily (anak asuh Jack), sama-sama mengaku sebagai Ernest. Lalu bayangkan betapa kocaknya ketika Jack, Algernon, Gwendolen dan Cecily, keempatnya dipertemukan secara tak sengaja dalam satu panggung! Apa yang akan terjadi ketika Gwendolen dan Cecily menemukan bahwa pria pujaan mereka sama-sama bernama Ernest? Dan lebih celaka lagi, kedua gadis ini jatuh cinta pada kedua pria idamannya karena mereka bernama Ernest! Terlepas dari apa yang dikatakan Shakespeare—apalah arti sebuah nama—ternyata nama seseorang mencerminkan kepribadian penyandangnya. Buktinya, Gwen dan Cecily sama-sama menemukan sosok pribadi yang jujur dalam pria yang (mengaku) bernama Ernest. Absurd? Memang itulah yang ingin disampaikan—atau lebih tepatnya—dikritik oleh Wilde.

Sama seperti yang kutemukan di The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde menulis play ini dengan gaya sinis-jenaka-nya. Play ini sungguh menghibur dengan kekocakannya yang sering membuatku kesulitan menahan tawa (karena seringkali aku membacanya ketika sedang berada di tempat umum); kisahnya pendek, tokohnya tak terlalu banyak, dan tak ada banyak konflik. Pendeknya, sebuah karya yang bisa dikunyah dengan santai, dan dicerna dalam waktu singkat. Namun tetap, karya ini tidaklah berlalu tanpa arti begitu saja, karena sindiran Oscar Wilde tentang kemunafikan sangat mengena di hatiku.

Empat muffin untuk Erne(a)st -- (tolong dibagi rata untuk Jack dan Algernon; jangan biarkan mereka rebutan lagi karena sungguh…scene itu bikin aku sakit perut karena menahan tawa!!)

Conclusion:

Help! I think I have just fallen in love with Oscar Wilde… :) After The Picture of Dorian Gray, I found Wilde’s same witty and cynical style in writing, which at the same time contained a sharp criticism for the society. Hypocrisy is something that we can find at all time, and by reading The Importance of Being Earnest, I realized that what Wilde wanted to point out at his time, is also relevant for our today’s life.

Absurdity in human relationship was reflected in this play by Gwendolen and Cecily. They both fell in love with the same ‘Ernest’ just because they had a name that is reflecting ‘earnestness’. Isn’t that absurd? Name is just ‘outer clothes’ that one’s wearing, and I can’t deny that we too often judge others by their ‘clothes’ (appearance, status, wealth, etc). See how Lady Bracknell took her notes and interviewing (or rather interrogating??) the young men who proposed to her daughter; it’s so absurd! (but funny at the same time). And see how she made Cecily to stand before her so that she can ‘evaluate’ her figure. Frankly speaking, it reminds me of how people observe horses’ bodies before they buy them! (suddenly scenes from Black Beauty pop up in my mind..LOL!)

On the other hand, Jack’s and Algernon’s lack of earnest—by creating a fictional figure to whom they can go wherever they need a reason to do (or not to do) something that they don’t want others to know—is something I can accept better than what the ladies did. I mean, it’s indeed absurd to create imaginary person, but aren’t we often create bunch of reasons to protect our own privacy? It’s something that is difficult to avoid entirely. I think what Oscar Wilde meant is the importance of control ourselves, not letting the ‘Bunbury’ inside us be comfortable in his throne, that someday he might steal our identity. This book taught us the importance of being earnest, no matter hypocrite and corrupt our society is.

Four stars for this play—for making me laugh almost entire of the scenes!

[I read ebook version from Project Gutenberg]

[Short Story] The Half-Brothers by Elizabeth Gaskell

I read this story during few hours when my internet connection was very poor, that I can’t do anything else (browsing, tweeting, emailing), but copying the content of this short story from the bookmarked page of classicreader.com (I don’t know why I succeeded in doing this while having been failed with other sites). Anyway, I started to quick-browse the entire story right away, only to notice that Gaskell (or anyone who re-typed this story for ebook) has written this in long paragraphs, something I really dislike. I lost my reading appetite in an instant, but having nothing more interesting to do, I kept reading while here and there tidying up the paragraphs into moderate ones for more comfortable reading.

Very soon I began to be absorbed within the story, and after finishing it, began to cry….

The story was told in first person by a young man. He retold his story partly from his aunt Fanny and partly from his own experiences. It started when his mother had married her first husband in a very young age, only to be a widow after three years, when his husband left her a child and a farm with no money to support their household. Fortunately there was an old bachelor called Stenton—the owner of a big farm—who would like to marry her and took Gregory (his son) too into his care.

They were soon wed, but it didn’t take a long time for the old bachelor to realize that his wife’s love was never meant to be for him, but for Gregory, her son. This made him disliked and even hated Gregory, and began to ill-treat him at least with words. Then the baby was born, Stenton’s son, who would become the narrator of this story. The mother had not survived long, but before she died, she asked for Gregory to be put besides his half-brother, and for Gregory to take his brother’s hand in his. And from then on this son—the half-brother of Gregory—became everyone’s favorite, while Gregory often received hard words from other, for being awkward and ungainly.

It went on for sixteen years, when on one night the narrator was sent to a Fell (mountain) in an errand. That night turned out to be a stormy and snowy night, and the narrator soon got lost on the Fells. While he was in a desperate state, looking forward to his death, there came a help from—of course—his half brother Gregory, who was accompanied by his spaniel dog. Now, what will happen next—can the two brothers came home safely in the middle of that stormy night? I think—as other short stories—you could guess the ending. But for me, I shed my tears in the middle of my lunch hour—thanks to Elizabeth Gaskell… L

This is the first piece of Gaskell I’ve ever read, and I don’t know whether the short story can reflect her writing style in her more famous novels, but if it does, I can say that there is not something special from Gaskell that can make her stand out from other authors. Her narration flows naturally, but if not for words we have been familiar with 19th century works, I would have thought it was a work from one of modern authors.

The story is quite engaging and touching, and probably was made for shedding tears. What I can learn from it is—and I have read a similar story before—the highest quality of love, which is to keep loving others despite of their bad treatment to us. It also tells us not to ill-treat others, for ill-treatment on child could negatively affect it, which would make the child grow up as an unhappy person. The awkwardness, the indifference came not from stupidity, but from others treatment.

[I read the ebook version from classicreader.com]

This post is included in Short Storieson Wednesday.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Terus terang, baru kali aku mencoba membaca karya drama William Shakespeare. Dan menuruti anjuran beberapa teman, aku akhirnya memilih membaca versi e-book, karena e-book menyediakan semacam thesaurus yang otmatis muncul ketika kita mengarahkan cursor ke kata tertentu. Dan memang benar, tak pernah aku menyelesaikan satu halaman pun tanpa membuka thesaurus, dengan kata lain ada begitu banyak kata ‘asing’ yang kutemui. Kadang-kadang bahkan thesaurus pun tak mendeteksi suatu kata, dan aku harus mencarinya di glossary khusus karya-karya Shakespeare di Shakespeare Glossary. Namun ternyata pengalamanku membaca Shakespeare justru membuatku ingin membaca lebih banyak lagi karyanya.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream ini adalah salah satu karya Shakespeare yang terbanyak difilmkan maupun dimainkan di atas panggung. Karya ini masuk genre komedi (genre yang kupikir pasti lebih ringan daripada sejarah maupun tragedi). Kisahnya dibuka dengan suasana di kerajaan Athens yang sedang bersukacita menantikan pesta pernikahan raja dan ratu mereka: King Theseus dan Queen Hyppollyta. Di tengah semarak persiapan itu, datanglah Egeus menghadap untuk mengadukan persoalan pelik. Putrinya Hermia yang telah dipersiapkannya untuk dinikahkan dengan pemuda bernama Demetrius, ternyata lebih mencintai pemuda lainnya yang bernama Lysander. Egeus malah mengharuskan Hermia untuk memilih antara menikah dengan Demetrius atau mati. King Theseus akhirnya memberikan waktu bagi Hermia untuk berpikir, dan harus member keputusan saat pernikahan sang Raja.

Ingin terbebas dari hukum yang mereka anggap kejam, Hermia dan Lysander berencana untuk melarikan diri ke hutan tempat tinggal bibi Lysander, di mana mereka dapat menikah dengan bebas. Sementara itu, ada seorang gadis bernama Helena yang amat mencintai Demetrius, padahal sang pria mencintai Hermia. Ketika Lysander dan Hermia membocorkan rencana pelarian mereka pada Helena, segera Helena berketetapan hati untuk memberitahu Demetrius, agar Demetrius segera mengejar ke hutan. Di sana—harap Helena—mungkin saja Demetrius akan mengalihkan cinta kepada dirinya. Maka dimulailah petualangan empat tokoh kita di hutan dekat Athens.

Sementara itu di hutan, Raja kaum peri: Oberon sedang resah karena keinginannya tak dikabulkan oleh Ratu Titania. Maka Oberon menyuruh asistennya yaitu Puck untuk mencari serbuk bunga tertentu yang—bila dibuat ramuan—akan membuat orang yang terkena tidur lelap, dan akan jatuh cinta pada orang yang pertama ia lihat ketika bangun. Oberon ingin ‘mengerjai’ istrinya agar menuruti keinginannya. Berangkatlah Puck mencari bunga itu, dan begitu mendapatkannya, Oberon mengoleskannya di pelupuk mata Titania ketika tidur. Sementara itu Oberon mendengar pertengkaran antara Helena—yang ngotot mengekor pada Demetrius, dan Demetrius—yang merasa terganggu dan berusaha mengusir Helena. Oberon pun menyuruh Puck mengoleskan ‘ramuan cinta’ yang sama ke mata si “pria berbusana Athens”, agar mereka berdua menjadi pasangan.

Malangnya si Puck ‘salah alamat’, alih-alih mengoleskan ramuan cinta ke mata Demetrius, ia membubuhkannya ke mata Lysander—yang sama-sama berbusana khas Athens. Dari sini anda akan dapat membayangkan betapa akan kacau dan ironisnya kisah cinta tokoh-tokoh kita ini nantinya gara-gara ramuan cinta itu. Dan kekocakan akan bertambah ketika masuk tokoh-tokoh lain, yaitu para sekelompok pekerja  yang ingin menampilkan sebuah drama pada pesta pernikahan Theseus dan Hyppollyta. Kelucuan timbul saat mereka berebut memerankan tokoh yang mana, dan lebih lucu lagi waktu mereka benar-benar menampilkannya. Meski begitu di kisah utamanya sendiri kadang terselip dialog yang membuat kita tersenyum, misalnya:

“Lysander: You have her fathers love, Demetrius (memang Egeus menyukai Demetrius)

Demetrius: Let me have Hermias; do you marry him.”  


Meski tampaknya tak serius, ada beberapa hal yang tersirat dari drama ini. Shakespeare ingin menyoroti ironisnya cinta. Saat ada dua pemuda dan dua pemudi, bukannya mereka saling berpasangan, namun ternyata ada satu wanita yang dicintai dua pria, dan wanita yang satu lagi tak menerima cinta dari siapa pun. Aku juga melihat kecenderungan wanita yang menganggap pria mencintai wanita hanya karena fisik semata. Dan ketika si wanita mengharap cinta si pria dan tak mendapatkannya, ia pun mulai menyalahkan diri sendiri yang secara fisik kurang menarik disbanding saingannya. Hal ini nampak pada tokoh Helena, yang dialognya diwarnai kegetiran dan cenderung membuat dirinya sendiri jauh lebih rendah daripada Hermia karena cemburu dan iri.

"Happy is Hermia, wheresoeer she lies,

For she hath blessed and attractive eyes.

How came her eyes so bright? Not with salt tears;

If so, my eyes are oftener washd than hers.

No, no, I am as ugly as a bear;

For beasts that meet me run away for fear;

Therefore no marvel though Demetrius

Do, as a monster, fly my presence thus.

What wicked and dissembling glass of mine

Made me compare with Hermias sphery eyne?"

Itulah salah satu contoh dialog ‘galau’ Helena. Contoh bagaimana cinta membuat manusia kadang menjadi buta dan irasional. Bagiku pribadi, itulah yang kudapat dari drama ini. Mungkin ada filosofi lain yang terselip di sana-sini, namun aku hanya berhasil menemukan apa yang telah kutulis ini saja. Semoga kali berikutnya aku akan dapat lebih memahami sekaligus menikmati drama karya Shakespeare.

Tiga bintang untuk A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

Judul: A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Penulis: William Shakespeare

Format: e-book

Penerbit: eshelf Books

e-pages: 63 hlm


Conclusion:
This is the first time I read Shakespeare's play, and frankly speaking I cannot say I enjoyed it very much. First of all, there are several 'strange' words that even did not appear in my Kindle's dictionary. Other than the language (maybe I'm just not familiar with play's language), I found the story is not quite engaging. I can feel the beauty of this play..oh yes, but that's it, nothing more. So I guess I'd just give three stars for A Midsummer Night's Dream. After all, I don't quite like comedy play, so next time I might choose history or even tragedy when I have another mood to read Shakespeare again. What do you think?