Author: as9vs

The paradox and importance of the title. How the metaphore relates to the idea.

The paradox and importance of the title
Willy, the salesman, kills himself in the name of what he perceives; that is capitalism. This is the critique Miller puts forward. He does so by exposing the paradoxical nature of a system. This paradox is exposed by their constant appearances and recurrence.

“Killing in the name of” by Rage Against the Machine, has death as first word and name as for salesman.  Willy kills in the name of capitalism. This metaphorical analogy is crucial because Willy kills himself, so he kills. And the in the name of, can be applied to the different plausible reasons for why he committed suicide. he killed himself in the name of money, for 20 thousand. he killed himself in the name of family, although he misperceives the value of his life, as put forward by the constant paradox behind the idea. The world is meant to be paradoxical, but it is not meant! (QUOTING MYSELF in terms of existentialism in extension to what i have said in my other post)

Actions That Lead To Metaphor and the exploration of IDEA.

BY ALEJANDRO SEIJAS

"Ben: when I walked into the jungle, I was seventeen. When I walked out I was twenty one. And, by God, I was rich!"

Willy:€¦ was rich! That's just the spirit I want to imbue them with! To walk into a jungle! I was right! I was right! I was right!"(52)

(The following analysis of the action is through what these quotes evoke of the general metaphor of the play). THE ACTION THAT IS MOST PROMINENT IN THESE TWO QUOTES IS TE CONTINUOUS REINFORCING OF WILLY. As he says: “I was right!…”

why? because it leads to the basic idea of the play. He misperceives reality because of being caught in a framed state of mind given that, at the same time, he has misperceived the American Dream. The means to the end. The capitalist dilemma/ paradox which makes of people, the ends, the means to an end! It is due, and by, to the complicated and bizarre nature of the idea of Capitalism, its paradoxical nature as misperceived by the common man, the fact that it is ethereal and in air, an idea, that Miller criticizes the referred state of affairs. It is with the the idea of this story, the story of Willy and his family, his house, his neighbors, that the sorts of actions as the one aforementioned gain significance.it is in relation to the immediate context, and by focusing on specific details, that Millers makes the life and death of man an analogy for the failure of the American Dream; not as an idea only, but, directly, to its people who represent the ends. These people, like Willy, have names (in the name of), perceive status and profession as they see them in themselves. They are salesmen caught in the constant hustle of traveling, as perceived by Willy in his adulthood but not in the memories of how he used to be.

The actions in the very beginning of the play elucidate that stubbornness so characteristic of Willy, which in turn condemn him. He doesn’t perceive things clearly!!!!!! but he says he does!!!!

“LINDA: Maybe it’s your glasses. you never went for your new glasses.

WILLY: No, I see everything. I came back ten miles an hour. It took me nearly four…”( p.13)

Because he is caught up in his old ways he is not able to strive forward and make it in the real world; because he is caught up in reminiscences. But, here, Miller is not saying this romanticism or idealism is bad. Rather, he poses through counterpoint, paradox, that Willy’s ideas, way of thinking, defeat their purpose in the context of the American Dream; which is to be achieved through the bizarre and not benign system of Capitalism. He is criticizing at times of war! immediately after the big wars. In the context of the twentieth century, this idea of opposing the system and state of affairs seems very ‘ooohhhh”, soft and inconcrete/incorporeal, but it really isn’t. The influence of Existentialism as a philosophical current is tremendous, particularly, in the world of Theatre. These influences must not be disregarded.

So, the actions, as depicted by his dialogs, although I am not saying that speaking is acting, concede through reinforcements, as meant in the psychological sense, the blur of the world he perceives in mis-perception.

————————————————————————————————————————–

There is a constant reference to nature. The jungle Image works as a metaphor for the whole play. This metaphor conveys the idea of a world which hasn't been tamed. The Image also puts forward the idea, which speaks of how, like the world/reality, the jungle is a place where one can learn to tame oneself by getting immersed in it. That's what I interpret of the words of Ben's character, although I recognize that the reminiscence it represents on stage can, directly, mean an interpretation of Willy's memory. As stated by Eric, and acknowledged by Sam in the meeting, he is delusional. He is so because he misperceives reality. Reality represents the world in which he dwells. The American Dream, as connoted by his constant reminiscences is and illusion, a big Dream.

The American Dream is divided into two parts, money and family, for the sake of the argument about idea.

One thing is to immerse oneself into a Dream, and another one completely different is to get immersed in the actual jungle; into something real, concrete; with components like money and family.

Metaphor: THE CONCRETE JUNGLE —The city, which is something real. (All the different cities he visits).

THE CONCRETE JUNGLE —Appears as something real, concrete. Jungle appears as a representation of a system which is palpable. (Biff has been to war which is something real. This example I use as counterpoint to Willy's because he is been around and about but always caught in THE NAME OF, the outlook of things, what he thinks they represent, instead of their essence. He is caught up on the idea he has of.
Tracing back to the analysis on Jungle as a world untamed, I'll keep on expanding.

Another important idea that justifies the different metaphors is time. Between the ages of 17 and 21, is representational of the stage of Willy's life when he didn't dare to explore, when he didn't dare to go to Alaska. Biff on the contrary, hadn't had that choice. He is a war veteran who happens to have been at war, in the concrete jungle. Somebody who has been to a war has a perception of life and, probably, a more realistic idea of what value represents. HE KNOWS THE VALUE OF LIFE AND DEATH. He's had first hand experience. Thus money, although it might represent a means to something, is not an end; or could be depreciated in value.

Where is the paradox in this idea?

One of the two elements of the American Dream is family. By killing himself, Willy, does not understand the value of his life to his beloved. As counterpoint, Biff, a veteran, does.

Money, the other element, plays the role of being the most prominent influence which acts detrimentally in pos of the Dream achievement/realization

(I'll continue expanding in a while)

Some other perspective in & of thought in Medea.

late as I am to post, I am not so, in terms of the ‘thought’ of what I’m writing. (BEWARE: this was written under circumstances of major stress, that’s why it might come a bit too acid.)

\

Part III (Thought). Group Project.

Alejandro's Part:

In consideration of the group grade I will not address particularities about the Aristotelian Analysis, for it is clear by now that we all know it. It escalates, reaches the climax and starts unraveling the gist towards the end in a slower, much slower pace. Medea, she is so great, for it represents not only women's struggle in the historical perspective, but rather and furthermore, the always combating human passions.

Passions, desires the gist of us all. In her aim there is no reason. Her reasoning, ever so bright, has been blinded by the red lights, fleshy, humanly tender and emotionally susceptible, of her womb insides. Her insights, are no to be undermined, nevertheless.

What Euripides tells in this story –story for the sake of thinking of thought and not of parts and €˜play'- is how a woman is, in terms of her position in society, analogous to the larger audience that is and was to attend the wine, and much more, festival of Dionysius. The Greek had, as much as we have today, a very clear power structure. Although it differs in terms of €˜to-whom-it-is erected', in terms of alleged responsible deities, it speaks, loud and clear, about what it is to be the underdog.

In every tragedy according to our friend, the teacher of my GREAT antecessor, the great characters are, for I cannot avoid them in thought, so full of attributes. Like Medea, who got the Golden Fleece and €˜bla, bla, bla', is so great as her downfall in terms of glory. The sort of consistent inconsistency and vice-versa, where the great will be the lower ones and the lower ones the great, eventually an according to the development of the action, empowers the playwright and his message. It makes of what is to be said, what is to be homage or criticized, susceptible to interpretations. And the interpretations are what will make a play great or awful, succeed or fail.

Analogous to all the rest of the parts of the Aristotelian analysis, thought in Medea, is the power of its elements, combined, and the ability, example of all great Tragedies, to take everything to its maximum. Take these elements of the play, character, plot, language, spectacle, €˜bla bla' to a point where it will altogether collide and collapse, relentlessly, so the result of interpretation IS THOUGHT.

Provoking and poking. Analogous to this analysis of thought in Medea, the script, there is one analysis of thought, in terms of transcendence, of Medea the €˜Greek' play –obviously, in this analysis.