Perry Smith - In Cold Blood: Character Thursday (65)

In a crime story, Perry Smith would definitely be the antagonist, because he is the murderer. However, In Cold Blood is not merely a crime story; it is a warning for us that the whole society is responsible to build either good or bad people. Murderers or criminals are not born as criminals at first; they are all born as innocent babies; they start life as we all do: as a blank sheet of paper, ready to be filled with scripts of life.  Here in this story, Perry Smith is not only a villain, he is also a victim.

The series of failure in the development of little Perry has begun—at least—from his parents. After his father decided to have contraband alcohol business for living, Perry’s mother began to get drunk, and other bad things started to follow. They quarreled often, and I guess peace and love have slowly evaporated from their home and family, replaced by violence. Perry was a child with sensitive and tender heart who should be taken in special care; he needed love, affection and tenderness much more than anybody else with different personalities. These violent episodes in the family, unfortunately, happened on the very important phase of Perry’s early development.

After that, his parents separated, and Perry must enter several institutions, and there he did not get any better treatment either. And that because people failed to understand Perry’s needs. If only they gave him love, acceptance and support, I believe it is not too late to bring him to the right path. But, it never happened, and with all the violence he got, he got worse. As a result, Perry grew up as a man with hatred and grudge deep inside him. In the surface he might be a feminine man who loved poetry and cared about others (he really provided comfort for his victims-to-be before he killed them), but inside, he still bore the needs to inflict upon people who had treated him cruelly and unfairly, people who had humiliated him.

The interesting aspect here, is how Perry put the blame not on several certain people who had really troubled him, but on the whole world. It was between he, Perry, and the world. At the end, the instinct of killing occupied him. It didn’t matter who the victim would be, the only matter was that Perry needed to let the world know what they had done to him.

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Jordan Baker in The Great Gatsby: Character Thursday (64)

Being a rather outsider from Gatsby-Buchanans circle, Jordan Baker is one of the most interesting characters in this book—well, apart from Jay Gatsby, of course. Jordan is a professional golfer, and this makes her being in the circle of those glamorous wealthy people. She often attends Gatsby’s parties, and befriends with the Buchanans. But unlike Daisy Buchanan, she is not a kind of drama queen who is always fluttering, sighing and whispering. Jordan is firm, strong and self-esteemed (maybe her career makes her like that).

Her quality first appears when Nick arrives at Buchanans resident, where the wind blew up the white curtains, while Daisy and Jordan’s white dresses were fluttered and rippled by the breeze. I can imagine Daisy in this condition with her dreamy expression, while Jordan—through Nick’s eyes—was portrayed as “extended full length at her end of the divan, completely motionless, and with her chin raised a little, as if she were balancing something on it which was quite likely to fall.”

Later on it is also revealed through her relationship with Nick that Jordan has a tendency of cheating. That’s why she was attracted to Nick: “Jordan Baker instinctively avoided clever, shrewd men, and now I saw that this was because she felt safer on a plane where any divergence from a code would be thought impossible. She was incurably dishonest. She wasn't able to endure being at a disadvantage.” So I guess, Jordan is only attracted to Nick because with him she doesn’t have to wear her masks all the time. She might be the kind of person who always seeks for acknowledgment from others, she needs to be accepted in the sophisticated circle of wealthy and famous people. I don’t think Jordan really falls in love with Nick, she just need someone with whom she can be herself. Maybe she is a bit tired of being hypocrisy; wearing ‘mask’ all the time is a tiring job, isn’t it?

Moreover, Jordan is selfish and indifferent. We can see this when she is driving with Nick—who criticizes her of being a danger for others with her careless style of driving. But she merely says that it’s not her business, and it seems never occur to her that her driving should relevant to others than herself. I guess that’s why Jordan—despite of being a bit uneasy with Myrtle accident—keep continuing her normal life after that. Maybe the need to emerge to a glamorous life makes Jordan abandoning her own conscience. And I think Nick is right by breaking her up, she shares the amoral qualities of Daisy and Tom.

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby: Character Thursday (63)

Nick is the narrator of The Great Gatsby; he came from a conservative family in the West. His father has planted high morality and honour in him since he was very young, which Nick keeps dearly in his heart when he’s grown up. After the war, Nick leads to the East, studying at Yale, and gets a good carrier in bond in New York. But not after his summer in West Egg, that he seems to realize that his real talent might be in writing.

Nick is fascinated with Jay Gatsby, an enigmatic, wealthy young man who lives in a luxury mansion next door. It might be that Nick has been adoring Gatsby from the first moment he saw him, and his judgment towards Gatsby is more or less affected by the charisma Gatsby possesses; despite of the ‘reserving judgments’ quality Nick always admits proudly to hold.

I imagine Nick to be an innocent man who has been molded by his family to almost become a puritan. But his adventure in the East has given much more than his father ever taught him, I think. Nick came to West Egg with a concept of high morality (he even dreams of uniformity of human morale). Nonetheless, Nick is quickly fascinated by the wild parties held by Gatsby. Little by little he gets used to this new life style; he often has a relationship with Jordan Baker, one of the Buchanans’ friends. When Tom Buchanan takes him to see his mistress, Nick doesn’t seem to be able to refuse, and he’s kind of dragged by this new fascination; although he still feels uneasy with this vulgar affair (he feels that the Dr. T.J. Eckleburg billboard is following him with its gaze when he passes it in Tom’s car).

Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway

The longer he spends time with his new friends, his feeling is mingled between disgusting and fascinated. He helps Gatsby to arrange a meeting with Daisy (Tom’s wife), which means he is part of the cheating. However he begins to feel disgusted by Tom’s rough and brutal manner. Everything becomes clear for him after Myrtle’s accident takes place. Only then that Nick can finally make his fair judgment of them all. He can see now how the ‘Eastern’ (Tom, Daisy, Jordan) are lack of conscience, selfish and arrogant; and how Gatsby stood upon them all by his latest action towards the accident.

I’m glad that Nick breaks up with Jordan at last, for although she might not be as severe as Tom and Daisy, she is too indifferent to scold her friends’ actions, and just stays at their house that night after the accident, which means she more or less approves them.

The talks about whether Nick is a gay or bisexual is I think have been exaggerated. I don’t see anything wrong with him, and I think he builds a healthy relationship with Jordan, he’s attracted to her as a woman. The incident in McKee’s bedroom (which some indicate it a sign of Nick being gay) is nothing but a portrait of how Nick has been doubly dizzy by alcohol and the brutality he has just witnessed. It was when Nick is vaguely remembers the whole things, but McKee’s portfolio of the chaos has reminded him again.

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Tom Tulliver in The Mill on The Floss: Character Thursday (62)

Tom is the older boy of the Tullivers, not good as a student, but grows up as a determined young man to accomplish family’s wish. When he was only a teenager, the Tulliver had a crisis that forced young Tom to leave school and his youthful to bear huge responsibility. Tom has a sister Maggie who loves him very much; and I’ve been thinking whether Tom ever truly loved his sister.

When they were children, Tom bought Maggie a fish-line from his saving; he said he had quarreled with his friends because he wanted to save money to buy the lines (for him and Maggie). At first I thought, it’s so sweet of Tom to do that for his little sister; I found it sweet for a boy to love playing with his little sister, instead of ignoring and teasing her with other boys (like boys used to do to their little sisters). But then, when Maggie made mistakes (and it’s a huge one in Tom’s eyes), he scolded Maggie and refused to play with her. So, I was thinking, does Tom purely love Maggie? Or does he love to play with Maggie? Love her presence?

Later on Tom always forgives Maggie and get on well with her again. And Maggie does a lot of mistakes indeed, that I can’t really blame Tom for getting annoyed at his sister. When they were grown up, Tom gets angry with Maggie when she disobeys family’s restrictive orders and acts on her own; he wants his sister to be respected by others. So I think, Tom really loves Maggie with his own way, which is a rather selfish and authoritative love, but it’s love all the same.

Tom gets so rigid and stubborn when he’s grown up; he only focuses in the business and ignores his conscience to be more humane. I think it’s because Tom must bear a burden before he’s prepared for it. And as the only man in the family other than the invalid father, Tom had been brought up with a passive obeisance to his father, so Tom—with his limited talent and imagination—must bear a huge responsibility to fulfill his father’s wish, although he doesn’t think it right. Because of that, he also set up a high expectation for his sister; he expected Maggie to sacrifice her dreams just like he had done it, because all he did is also for her own good. There’s selfishness there, but again, Tom was brought up by unfriendly circumstances and society.

I don’t think I’d be able to hate him, I just pity on him. I’m proud that at least he had succeeded to pay the family’s debt and brought back their honour. Now I’m wondering what Tom would be if his life is convenient, would he be better than he was, after all?

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Maggie Tulliver in The Mill on The Floss: Character Thursday (61)

The Mill on the Floss tells us the life span of Maggie Tulliver, a rebellious and imaginative young girl who—unlike any ordinary girls of her age—appraised books and knowledge. Her imagination was broadening by the books which influenced her way of thinking. Maggie grown up to be a young woman who was hunger for being loved and cared, especially by her brother Tom. She was disappointed when Tom could not understand her and even angry with her.

Maggie was a woman who was misplaced and misjudged. She was being prejudiced by others, but she could bear it in silence only if Tom agreed with her and continued to love her. Unfortunately she didn’t get that from Tom. Nonetheless, Tom was her center of life, and neither Philip Wakem nor Stephen Guest could replace his position in Maggie’s heart. And this is unusual, because Tom had never been an attentive brother to Maggie since they were small children. So, I think it’s because Maggie had unconsciously idolized Tom. Maggie found in Tom everything she wanted to have but couldn’t: freedom and independence. Maggie always wanted to show off to Tom that she was also capable to do what people expected from boys, and she needed that recognition from Tom, to make him regarded her as his equal.

Emily Watson as Maggie Tulliver

During the second half of the book I kept questioning, whom that Maggie loved the most: Stephen or Philip? I believe Maggie loved Tom more than those two, but now I also think that above them all, Maggie loved freedom, independence and recognition. She could not make decision of whom she would choose for a husband, because she felt none of them brought her freedom. In Philip, she felt that they have a special bound since children, and her conscience ‘forced’ her to pick him. On the other hand, Stephen forced her to think about her love to him. If I were Maggie, I would leave everything behind, and accept the job offer as a nursemaid somewhere far away from home. But then, freedom is supposed to be free choices with all the consequences.

If only Maggie lived in this modern era, at least…we, women, have more freedom to decide what’s best for us.

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? Seethe details of Character Thursday first.

Jacques Lantier in La Bête Humaine

If we ignore the ‘human beast’ in him, Jacques Lantier is certainly an amiable young man. He was handsome, tall, with strong built muscles which his job as a train driver required. Despite of having born from poor parents, Jacques was well educated, and he was a skillful engineer and driver too. His manly appearance and his shy and polite manner attracted quite many women.

The most interesting side of our main character in this book (for me, at least) is his love for his train engine: La Lison (the name he gave ‘her’). Being that, Jacques could have been made example of man who really loves what he’s doing. Throughout the story Jacques was always discipline at work, and he disliked his fireman’s manner although he tolerated him as long as he did his job well. Unfortunately, Jacques had also a dark side; a compulsive behavior triggered by sexual passion that he could not control. It’s a pity, because he was genuinely a kind man.

I found Jacques was very attentive towards his aunt; he visited her whenever he was around, and he listened to her sorrows. No wonder, her poor aunty loved him even more than her only daughter. I was quite relieved by how Jacques could listen to his conscience when Séverine persuaded him to kill Roubaud. It only proved that Jacques was not a real murderer, he just had an illness, and could not control it when the seizure came.

In general, I think Jacques had a problem with his explosive passion, just like his brother Claude. So the cure would only be mildly taking everything in life and maintain the balance of his every aspect. It’s much easier to say than to apply in action, of course, not mentioning that Jacques was very attractive. In the end, there was not any good choices for Jacques’ future, and I think what Zola made him in the end is the best for him. Poor Jacques…..

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Pierre Sandoz in The Masterpiece: Character Thursday (59)

This young novelist, Claude’s best friend in The Masterpiece, actually represented Émile Zola’s personalities which makes this book the most autobiographical in Les Rougon-Macquart series. Sandoz was portrayed as an amiable and enthusiast young man, loved socializing and was always attentive to his friends. He had a habit of inviting his artist friends to have dinner in his humble house every Thursday evening, and to have warm discussions—or rather debates—around arts and politics after the meals. He continued this habit even after marriage.

Sandoz was indeed the oldest of the gang, but it’s not the only reason that he appeared to have a fatherly quality. Despite of being one of the members of the revolutionary young artists, Sandoz had a proportional and healthy life. Unlike his maniac friends, Sandoz possessed the ability to balance his creativity and his personal life. He did confess that sometimes he would be carried away by his imagination, that he’d forgot everything surround him; he would be drowned into his works and ignored his family. Nevertheless, he still kept his marriage well enough, and he have never neglected the Thursday’s dinner for his friends! I should say that Sandoz was the ‘glue’ of the gang. I believe Sandoz was the wisest and most logical artist of them all.

Portrait of Emile Zola - Paul Cezanne, 1864

Among the young artists, Sandoz befriended Claude Lantier most closely. I think it’s because Sandoz’ fatherly quality perfectly matched Claude’s childish and trustful personalities. Sandoz understood Claude very well, he never laughed at his mistakes, not because he was afraid to hurt his best friend’s feeling, but more because he knew that Claude was very sensitive, and criticizing him openly just brought him down. Sandoz knew how to bring it softly to encourage his friend. And when Claude did not do Sandoz’ suggestion and failed, Sandoz never blamed him.

When Claude completely failed, unlike the others, Sandoz kept befriending him; he even worried about him and took great care of him and Christine. Sandoz was willingly to put his effort and time to take Claude on their strolls to break his despair. And finally, at the funeral, Sandoz faithfully defended his poor friend; and was one of few who attended the funeral and took dear old Claude to his last resting.

What a friend Pierre Sandoz was, and how lucky Claude for having such a good friend! I won’t talk about Sandoz’ novels, for Sandoz is Zola, and we all know how genius this French novelist and Naturalist is!

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Claude Lantier in The Masterpiece: Character Thursday (58)

Claude is the main character in Zola’s The Masterpiece; he was a shy guy who liked painting but disliked women. One day Claude met Christine, fell madly in love with her, then married her. But it turned out that Claude could not control more than one passion at the same time; that when he was enjoying his love with Christine, he could not drag himself to produce any serious painting. Then, when Christine offered herself to model for his painting, Claude began to stay away from his wife, and began fallen in love with his painting—or in this case, the woman in his painting. Seems that, in Claude, one passion would dominate another; but it was a madness which dominated Claude to his end.

I am still wondering whether it’d be much better if Claude has never been in love with Christine at all, or it would be all the same whether he married her or not, because the madness was already there? Maybe Claude was right after all for not liking women, maybe that way he could focus only on painting. But would have it altered his future to the better? I don’t know, maybe not…..

Claude seems to be a man with an unbalanced emotion. He was, in fact, a talented and skilled painter—all his friends admitted that—and he was genius too. Claude with several of his friends—young painters—started a new generation of impressionism. He had set a new style of painting, and although his paintings kept being refused by the Salon (a public exhibition which influenced the public taste of arts), many young artists followed his example in putting natures in their paintings. But strangely, he who had set the style, could never produce any single masterpiece till the end. Why? Again….I put the blame to his unbalanced emotion.

It’s a pity to see such a talented young man must meet a sad end. Claude was always very kind to his friends, and in a way he still loved Christine till the end. His only problem was he could not cope with himself, he could not control his emotion—when his paintings were refused, he would be so enraged, and when he poured out his feelings in painting, he became severely obsessed. Claude did not possess self-control of himself, and at last his repeatedly failure ruined him completely.

Bernard Fresson as Claude in L'oeuvre, 1967

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Katharina in The Taming of The Shrew: Character Thursday (57)

Katharina is the eldest daughter of Baptista, a gentleman of Padua, who represented women’s despair at the time Shakespeare wrote this play: The Taming of the Shrew. Katharina was a shrewd and scornful young lady; she was famous for that, and that made her difficult to get a husband. I don’t know which one must have come first, whether young men were terrified of her because of her bad reputation, or her shrewdness came from worrying because no young men had made any approach to her. But I think, it’s her own nature that made her different from other girls of her age.

There’s no doubt that Katharina was an intelligent, smart and independent woman; and she had just lived in the wrong era. Katharina would be happier if she has lived in modern era, where women have an equal opportunity to pursue her dream and to decide what she’s going to do in life by her own. In her era, Katharina suffered from the injustice the society had put on women. Then, a woman must put her future in her parent’ hands to get her a husband; as if getting a husband was a matter of life and death for a woman. And what her life would be in the future would depend on what kind of husband they would get. A marriage (with all the dowry aspects) had become a kind of business, don’t you think?

I imagine Katharina as an independent and self-esteemed woman who was confined by the values set by the society, that a woman should be sweet, shy, fool and submissive in order to attract men. I could feel how Katharina longed for having an equal relationship with men; how she would love to share her opinions on things which men usually discussed: politics, social, literature, etc. In the despair of not being able to do that, Katharina must have felt lonely and desperate. Then the shrewdness began to appear. It got worse because Katharina hasn’t found any men who would propose her because of her temper; while she knew that the only hope to get more freedom was when she has got married. Those tortured Katharina even more, and her tongue got sharper and sharper.

What’s more interesting is the ending. After Petruchio married her, Katharina has completely changed. Do you think she was afraid because Petruchio could become sharper than her? I guess not, it’s because Katharina came finally to realize that there’s nothing she could change in her life. She lived in the wrong world, and what she could do was either take it or leave it. She had chosen to be happy by accepting her role as a wife, and thus seemed that she had been tamed by Petruchio. Well, it might be true in one point, because Petruchio knew better than anybody else, that the shrewdness in Katharina came from unhappiness. And when he made her see the reality, Katharina was too clever not to change herself.

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Clarissa Dalloway in Mrs. Dalloway: Character Thursday (56)

Clarissa is the heroine of Mrs. Dalloway, and she was in her middle age. At this stage of life, she began questioning her past decision to leave her ex-boyfriend Peter Walsh and married Richard Dalloway. I think Clarissa and Peter should have been made a good couple; they loved each other, and they understood each other very well. Often in their meetings, they knew what the other was thinking before they really said it. However, Clarissa was so afraid of uncertainty, that she finally chose Richard Dalloway who was more mature and settled than Peter.

Other reason why Clarissa left Peter, was because Clarissa didn’t like to be scrutinized by him. I think the thought of her boyfriend could read her mind and knew her too much had annoyed her. Clarissa seemed to be always hiding most of her feeling from public. She always wanted to be seen ladylike and quite descent in her high-class society. She was so afraid that she looked too old or too unfit for it (that’s why she was very sensitive to Peter’s unspoken critics).

And in the middle of that fuss, Clarissa never thought about the true meaning of life. She just flowed with it, and enjoyed it. When she held a dinner party, for example, it’s just that she wanted to host a party, no other (more important) reason. She bought flowers for that occasion to feel younger and fresher. She was irritated when Richard was invited to a lady’s lunch without her—not that she was jealous I think—but because the lady did not appreciate her much to invite her. So, how people regarded her was the most important thing for Clarissa Dalloway.

In the end I think Clarissa began to think deeper than the only what in the surface. By beginning to reasoning her marrying to Richard, I think she began to see how she had prioritized status than love; the surface than what’s in the inside. And finally, Clarissa was forced to realize the mortality of human’s life. She was tried to be indifferent to it, blaming the young man’s death as reducing her party’s festivity, but in the end she must have realized that she too must think about it more seriously than just the glamour and glitters of the flowers, fashion and parties.

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Porthos in The Three Musketeers: Character Thursday (55)

Porthos is, probably, the most uninteresting musketeer from the four inseparable musketeers who served the King of France under Mr. de Treville. From my first encounter with him in Three Musketeers, it’s easy to learn that Porthos adored his appearance so much, that he challenged d’Artagnan for a duel only because d’Artagnan has caught his false golden embroidered belt!

Just like his other comrades, Porthos’ income was not as big as his taste; and like other musketeers too, he used to spend his salary so quickly, that in only few days he would have been moneyless. But again, like other musketeers, Porthos had his charming manner which was quite a gentlemanly appeal for high rank women (ladies and duchesses). From these mistresses, the poor musketeers used to get their ‘second’ salaries. It’s an easy case for Porthos too, with his handsome countenance and well-built massive body.

You can guess, I think, which one is Porthos?...

Porthos might not be very intelligent, but he was brave and loyal. In short, Porthos was a simpleton; he didn’t have many mysteries veiled his life—well, apart from his false golden belt perhaps—like Athos or Aramis, and there’s certainly not any politics in him. His only aim in life was, perhaps, being admired by others as a pure gentleman, being well taken care in terms of clothes and foods, and having enough money to get them. I don’t think he cared much for politics, he’s just loyal to the King and Queen like any other conservative gentlemen who had high adoration to royal figures. And Porthos disliked the Cardinal just because Richelieu opposed the King (and Queen).

Well, Porthos might only be an ordinary gentleman, but later in The Man In The Iron Mask, he would show his quality as a devoted and loyal friend.

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Medea in Medea: Character Thursday (54)

Medea—whose name became the title of this Greek play of Euripides—is the leading female character in this play. She is neither protagonist nor antagonist; to me, she is just a victim.

Medea was a young woman from a barbarian country, I suspect, a less civilian one. She abandoned her land and her family because she was in love with Jason. Both young lovers arrived in Corinth and decided to stay in this new country after they were married. I imagined that Medea had been growing up as an independent girl, and she was used to make decision by herself. Entering a marriage life, Medea must obey her husband and accept him, good or bad, as her superior. This must have been quite tough for a young woman of freedom. Medea felt that women were in a weaker position when affronted with the husbands. Men, even after marriage, could have mistresses without ruining his honor, but women couldn’t; they were supposed to be faithful to their husbands.

When Medea knew that Jason would like to marry another girl—daughter of King of Corinth—she was enraged. She felt that after all she must have been sacrificing for the marriage (her freedom, her full obeisance, her submissiveness), she was helpless to her husband’s selfish want. Medea did not have anywhere to run, either she must live bitterly with his husband’s infidelity, or she would be disgraced for divorcing her husband.

The wound from being abandoned by Jason, and her hopeless situation, were more than enough to be born by an independent and self-esteem woman. That was perhaps which lead Medea into her half madness. She could not control her temper, and after the rage was accumulated, she decided to take avenge by murdering everyone who has ruined her life. Considering how she was brought up in a less civilian culture, killing others should not be a strange things; that’s why I think we could not accused Medea of being suddenly mad; it has been in her blood.

The most interesting point in this play is when Medea went forth and back to decide whether she should kill her two sons to ruin their father, or bring them with her in her banishment. I think Medea had her own selfishness too, for, in this matter, she never thought about the kids, but for her own feeling. When she declined from killing them, it’s not because of the kids, but because she felt the affection for them. When she made herself to kill them, it’s more of her needs to take avenge to their father, than to deprive them of the disgrace they might have to endure.

So, in short, it was first her own personal character (being selfish), then the way she was beought, but more than those, the society which did not support women, caused more fracture in the already corrupted soul of Medea, and made her even worse to a level which we call madness.

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Edwin Drood in The Mystery of Edwin Drood

Apart from the mystery—which Charles Dickens did not live long enough to solve—Edwin Drood was an interesting character. He was an orphan, and had only his uncle John (Jack) Jasper as a relative; and as they were of the similar age, they had become intimate friends. Drood is a young man of good spirit, gaiety and cheerfulness. In his simplicity, Drood never sees any obstacles in life, and rather took everything for granted. Men with those qualities should have been far away from troubles, however it’s often than not, that their indifference caused them huge problems.

Drood was supposed to marry an orphan girl he had long affianced to—Rosa—when he was coming of age, and after that a bright future has been waiting for him in Egypt as an engineer. With his indifference and selfishness, Drood never thought much about others’ feelings. He did not take his future marriage as a serious matter, and until the time came, he treated Rosa merely as a little sister whom he called ‘Pussy’. I believe deep in his heart Drood has a slight attraction to Rosa, that had he not engaged to her since childhood, he would have felt the attraction more easily.

Drood always sees positive aspects of others, that he did not see any suspicious thing about Jasper; Drood only thought about himself. And being insensible, he talked rather harshly to Neville Landless on the night of their first encounter. I believe it’s not that Drood wanted to intimidated Neville, but it’s because he talked whatever across his mind, never care about what other may feel about it.

in BBC miniseries

If Drood talked about Rosa indifferently, I think it’s because it was Drood’s nature to not think seriously of everything; he did not have any intentions to be ignorant. And giving money to Princess Puffer who was coughing terribly on the night he was murdered, showed that Drood wasn’t that ignorant to others. He could be kind sometime…

What I learn most from Edwin Drood is that being too sensitive won’t make you happy, but being too insensitive can put you in danger when you did not realize that people who look kind to you might not be honest to you.

Arthur Clennam in Little Dorrit

Arthur Clennam is the main male protagonist in Little Dorrit. I choose him to be featured in Character Thursday this week instead of Little Dorrit herself, because I found an interesting aspect in his personality. Brought up by the contrast combination of an iron-woman mother and a weak father in a dark and gloomy house full of hatred and revenge atmosphere had affected Arthur’s character as a man. I imagined petit Arthur as an unhappy and brooding child, constantly feeling unsafe and unsure, afraid at every action that his mother would scold him.

Fortunately his father took him when he has grown up to China to work as an apprentice in their family business. I imagine, being away from that horrible house and his strict and loveless mother, and lived in a loving surrounding of his father, has altered his personality to be much better. When he returned to England after his father died, Arthur has become a tender and loving person, though his day-dreamer and shyness aspects were still there—which I suspect as the result of his mother oppressive way of bringing him up.

What I like from Arthur is his sensitiveness towards injustice. Bringing home a remembrance token from his father to his mother, he insisted to be informed whether their family had been done any injustice to others while doing business in the past; that he would like to repair that if any. Arthur showed that manner too in Dorrit’s imprisonment. He was the originator of Pancks’ investigation in the case, which led to the revealing of Dorrit’s unexpected fortune.

Matthew MacFadyen as Arthur Clennam
in BBC miniseries

What I doesn’t like from Arthur is his over-sensitiveness—or may I say melancholy?—thoughts of himself. After being rejected by Minnie (Pet) Meagles, he considered himself too old for love—and he was only forty!—and although he felt something special towards Amy Dorrit, he pushed aside the idea of love, and assured himself that it was a feeling of protection, or even more a fatherly affection to a child—which led him to call Amy as ‘my child’. Oh Arthur…how foolish you were!

All in all, I learn from Arthur Clennam’s story that one’s character was much influenced by how he/she had been brought up. Unhappy characters usually come from unhappy atmosphere in their home. Even if they have experienced much better life conditions after that, small fragments of the unfortunate past might still exist in who they are today.

Miss Wade in Little Dorrit

Although not the most influencing characters, Miss Wade is one of the most intriguing characters I found in Little Dorrit. She could not be included in the protagonists or antagonist group, as she was just an unhappy and indifferent young woman who added ‘colors’ to this book’s main story and theme.

From her first appearance on board the ship that brought Arthur Clennam to England, I have noticed something special in Miss Wade. She was described as ‘a handsome young Englishwoman, travelling, quite alone, who had a proud observant face, and had either withdrawn herself from the rest or been avoided by the rest.’ She was a stern woman, anti-social and liked to spend times in her solitary; she seemed to be having a severe hatred in herself, and always regarded the world with bitterness.

It was later on revealed that Miss Wade was an unfortunate human being. From her confession letter to Arthur Clennam, we began to understand why she appeared to be mysterious; and despite of her haughty manner, no one knew who she really was, and what social status or level she possessed. Miss Wade turned out to be born as an orphan. Since childhood she was treated differently; girls of her age with whom she lived with began to patronize her; and people conciliated her in insolent pity and superiority—just because she was an orphan.

Maxine Peake in the BBC mini series

Miss Wade has a deep love towards another girl whom she lived with; but she treated her just like others. Sometimes she seemed to be sweet to her, but other times she often deliberately hurt her too by making her jealous. In a little coincident, Miss Wade heard her friend told someone that Miss Wade was a child with an ‘unhappy temper’.

Further more when she was a young woman, she fell in love with a young man. They have been engaged and were certain to get married, when Miss Wade felt that the guy’s family wanted her to be submissive to the family. Once again Miss Wade felt she was being dominated by others, and this enraged her. The marriage was cancelled, and Miss Wade had a bitter hatred towards her lover.

I think her strong will and determination came first from the lack of love she experienced in her childhood. Not having parental affection, she searched for it in her friends—and that’s why when she liked one of the girls, she loved her immensely. However she was disappointed by others’ superiority towards her, including her dear friend. It was the disappointment from her best friend which terribly hurt her. And unfortunately she lived among the society who highly praised social status at that time, that she was assumed and treated as a woman of lower class, despite of her educated and cultured manner.

From her story, I learned that before we judge others, we ought to find out their background first, it’s more often than not, one’s character or moral was cultivated from his/her childhood social culture and education.

Cordelia in King Lear

Cordelia is the youngest daughter of King Lear, and the kindest princess of the King’s three daughters. She is a tender-hearted young woman, honest and easily touched by injustice. Cordelia has no pretense in her. When King Lear asked his three daughters, how much they loved their father, Cordelia could not make up words to explain how deeply she loved her father, although she knew that her father would get angry to hear her plain expression. For Cordelia, it’s enough that she loved him deep in her heart; that her love could only be expressed through her care for him.

Even if her answer would cost her everything—her inheritance and her suitors (she would have nothing as her dowry)—Cordelia kept her principle, that true love could not be expressed plainly through words. I think she could have invented some lovely words just to save her status in the Kingdom, but she did not do that. I admire Cordelia’s strong hold of her principle and honesty. And to those qualities, she was rewarded by the King of France—one of her suitors—by marrying her despite of the lack of dowry.

Years after that, although having been unfairly banished by her father, Cordelia kept thinking of him, she never hated her father, there’s no vengeance in her heart. She persuaded her husband, the King of France to come to England to save her father from her two wicked sisters.

   

When Cordelia finally met King Lear, he was not the powerful King any longer, he has been a poor and weak old man who was banished from his own Kingdom. In his condition, Cordelia still loved him, because she has been loved him from the beginning not as a King, but as a father. And now, when seeing the poor condition of King Lear, Cordelia could finally express her deep love for him. That’s the purest kind of love a father could expect from his children. And from Cordelia, we can learn that love doesn’t need proof; love can only be felt with our hearts.

Earl of Kent in King Lear

The Earl of Kent (or we can simply call him ‘Kent’) was one of the protagonists in King Lear with a good sense from the beginning. As an Earl, Kent served King Lear; he has become one of his trusted friends. Kent was clever and brave. When King Lear has emotionally banished his daughter Cordelia because she could not express her love to her father properly, Kent openly confronted his King to reconsider his decision. King Lear was enraged by this and banished Kent as well.

Kent was also the most loyal servant of King Lear. Despite of being unfairly banished from the Kingdom for criticizing his master, Kent never hated him and never stopped serving him. He was willingly to put a disguise as a poor peasant and humbly asked King Lear to be his servant. When King Lear was being kicked by his daughters; poor and homeless, Kent followed him and protecting him anywhere the King went. The ending was rather absurd, perhaps, for modern people; when Duke of Albany offered Kent and Edgar to rule the Kingdom, Kent refused it by saying:

“I have a journey, sir, shortly to go;

My master calls me, I must not say no.”

Kent (right) was banished by King Lear (left)

from: The Tragedy of King Lear - 2002

presented by: The ActorsNet of Bucks County

Considering that Kent’s sole master was King Lear, and King Lear—at the time he said it—was just dead, we can only assume that Kent’s journey was a journey to the death, where he believed the dead King Lear “calls” him; or in other word, Kent was going to commit a suicide. For us it might be absurd and silly, even for people at the era of this story, but that act only made Kent’s loyalty very subtle, and confirmed his nobleness.

However, sometimes Kent could be temperamental and blunt, that put him in trouble. The obvious example was when he insulted Oswald—Goneril’s attendant—and even attacked the man because he had once been impolite towards King Lear. His action resulted in a humiliating punishment by Duke of Cornwall and Regan. Although he had done it out of his being nobleman and his loyalty to the King, nevertheless he shouldn’t attack a messenger who did not do anything to him personally.

Kent (left) in stocks for a punishment

from: The Tragedy of King Lear - 2002

presented by: The ActorsNet of Bucks County

Apart from his bluntness, Kent was a tender-hearted man too. Perhaps it’s only Kent who could see how Cordelia actually loved her father dearly, her lack of love declaration didn’t reflect her deep and tender love. Kent saw the proof in King France’s tent when Cordelia was attending the sick King Lear, and his tender heart was touched by the scene.

Cordelia:

O my dear father! Restoration hang

Thy medicine on my lips; and let this kiss

Repair those violent harms that my two sisters

Have in thy reverence made!

Kent:

Kind and dear princess!

Santiago in The Old Man and The Sea

Santiago is the main character in one of Hemingway’s masterpieces: The Old Man and The Sea—he was the old man himself. As a fisherman, Santiago lived poorly in Havana. His main assets were his boat and some fishing equipment as old as himself. Living by himself in his humble hut without family, I can imagine how hard it was for Santiago to compete with younger fishermen with—perhaps—better equipment and strongly-built muscles. But he had an advantage of long experience and strong determination.

I guess living poorly has helped Santiago to have his determination; if you have been struggling for your entire life to survive, you’ll be familiar with hardship to know that you must not fall in desperation when facing problems. Santiago has been sailing for 84 days without catching one single fish. A boy who has been his assistant was forced to leave him by his parents because they thought Santiago was an unfortunate man. Not only that, young fishermen started making fool of him, while the old ones looked at him with pity. But Santiago kept sailing and hoping that today he might catch something if God permitted him.

Everytime he had trouble to work by himself, he would remember and miss the boy—if only the boy was here—but he would soon throw away those thoughts; he didn’t like daydreaming because it would only split his focus. He always said to himself to not thinking about what he did not have, but to think of what he need to do and make plans. This is one of the reasons why I admire Santiago, while working alone by himself, he never lost focus; he was very discipline to himself.

More than that, I admire Santiago for his love for God’s creations—nature, animals. Men need to kill animals for food, but it does not mean that men have rights to cruelly treat the animals. Men were the highest creature on earth, but it does not mean they can disrespect animals. Santiago haunted the big marlin for days, he would at the end kill it, but during the process he treated the fish like an equal enemy—even as a company in the journey. Just like a boxer wanted to conquer his enemy, Santiago learned the marlin’s facts and characters, then made plan and strategy.

And when he finally conquered the marlin and tied its body on the side of his boat, and sharks came quickly to eat its flesh, Santiago enraged. Not only because the sharks were robbing his catch, but also because he felt as if the sharks had torn his friend’s body. He felt sad about it and sorry that he could not protect the marlin. Isn’t that remarkable? Santiago was only a poor fisherman, but he taught us moral values of living as a dignified human being.

Ralph Touchett in The Portrait of A Lady

Ralph might not be a perfect partner for most women. Although he was wealthy enough to live comfortably without working, Ralph has been suffering from acute pulmonary disease. But apart from that, Ralph could have been favorite suitor for young women. He was kind, intelligent, energetic (before the disease took over him), with good sense of humor and good taste of art. He was a perfect English gentleman, though he was born from an American father. Ralph has worked diligently before he was forced to stay at home by his illness.

From his first introduction to Isabel Archer—his cousin—Ralph had fallen in love with her. But, fully realized that he won’t be a perfect husband for Isabel and could hardly won the pretty young lady’s heart, Ralph retreated from her suitors group, and only treated Isabel as her cousin. From the beginning I saw that Ralph was the only man who could really understand Isabel’s unique characters. Ralph knew her passion, what she wanted in life.

When her other suitors were busy shoving their wealth and advantages to the young woman—you’re going to be a lady; we’ll stay in a big house; not enough? You’re free to go around the world if that’s what you want, etc—Ralph already knew that Isabel loved the freedom to live her life in her own way. Without much talking, he secretly arranged with his dying father to alter the will by transferring a huge part of Ralph’s inheritance to Isabel. Ralph had done this knowing that he won’t get even a ‘thank you’ from Isabel, let alone her love.

Ralph on his dying bed

Later on when Isabel had married Osmond and having an unhappy marriage but kept it closely from her friends and relatives, Ralph knew it and never forced Isabel to ‘open her mask’. But what amazed me was that Ralph could survive longer than he was supposed to, because he loved Isabel and he wanted to see how she will do in her future. How love brings life!

If I must choose between male characters in Isabel’s life: Lord Warburton, Caspar Goodwood, Gilbert Osmond, and Ralph Touchett…I’ll choose Ralph, simply because his love was true.

Isabel Archer in The Portrait of A Lady

Isabel Archer—our heroine—is a self-possessed young lady with independent mind. She has been comfortably living under her father’s protection, and her obsession was seeing more of the world and how people lived across from where she had been living: America. When she must live alone, Isabel was in the state of a writer who was facing a blank paper; eager to start filling it with his remarkable ideas, yet didn’t know what to write.

Her aunt, Mrs. Touchett brought Isabel to England, where her life would never be the same again. Inheriting some amount of money made Isabel felt free, free to reach her dream to widen her knowledge. She rejected two marriage proposals from two gentlemen because she wanted to fulfill her dream first. Then in her journey around the world, she met a man she adored. Ignoring everyone’s advises, Isabel married Gilbert Osmond, lived in Rome, and soon found that she had completely lost everything dear to her during the marriage. She had made a huge mistake!

From a lot of classics characters, I think Isabel Archer is the one to whom I most akin. Both of us praise freedom; freedom to be ourselves, to do what we like, and to sound our ideas. Unfortunately for Isabel, she lived in her era, when women were not supposed to live by her own. Well, the same thing applies nowadays—perhaps, in certain country with strong patriarchal culture—but it was much tougher for women in 19^th century.

Nicole Kidman as Isabel Archer

Other thing that makes me as if I’m seeing my own reflection on the mirror, is Isabel’s stubbornness (if it could be called ‘stubborn’) in not following others’ persuasive suggestions. In all occasions, when her friends persuaded her to do or choose something, Isabel always did the contrary. I share the same thing as Isabel, the harder people suggest us to take direction, the harder we stick to the other way. Why Isabel chose Osmond instead of Lord Warburton or Caspar Goodwood? Because Osmond never pushed her too hard (well—at the beginning, I mean; he changed a lot after they had married).

All in all, Isabel was a smart woman, she had her own ideas, and she was eager to express it. I think marriage would not be a danger if Isabel had chosen the right man. In her innocence, Isabel could not see behind people’s masks. And when she made a mistake, her pride prevented her to admit anything at all to her friends who cared about her. She preferred to swallow the bitterness by herself, she felt that she had done the mistake by herself—despite of their advises—so now she would not complain, not even to her husband who had made her suffered.

Isabel was a very strong and brave woman. Others would think her as stupid and stubborn, rejected other’s stretching hands to help her. But I can understand why she kept her bitterness to herself. Like I said, Isabel is very similar to me. You might call it pride or arrogance, whatever, we don’t care. We are strong women, we knew we’ve made mistakes—hey, who doesn’t?—but we didn’t like to be forced to confess it to everyone. We knew what you all would say: See, what I’ve told you? Or I know you’re unhappy, etc etc. Well, you DON’T know anything, so stop disturbing us; mind your own business. We would let you know when we need helps, but before that just leave us alone.

One thing I don’t agree with Isabel, of all her suitors, I wonder why Isabel could not see that Ralph’s love was the truest and deepest. Speaking about love, I don’t believe that Isabel really loved Osmond, I think she adored him, she was amazed by his noble thoughts and his knowledge. Ralph might be too humorous, but deep inside he was sincere. But then, Isabel was only a very young innocent girl. Girls like Isabel were easily fascinated by the world, not knowing that there are so many deceptions under the beautiful masks.

In the end, are we happy? If we were given another opportunity, would we take different path? I think the answer would be 'No'. Isabel Archer and I hold our principles, and leaving a husband, even if he hates us, is not something we would do in the first place. We know that life can be difficult, but we will get through all that. We are strong when we hold on ourselves and stand on our feet, others' interference would only weaken and confuse us.