Religion vs State in Antigone

Religion vs. State

The classic Greek tragedy, “Antigone,” portrays the importance of family, loyalty, and obedience within the city state of Thebes. The story begins with the account of the two brothers, Eteocles and Polynices, killing each other at battle, as they were fighting for the family throne. Because both brothers result dead, Creon, the uncle, assumes all power over the city. As king, he decides that “Eteocles, who fell fighting for his city…will be buried and receive all honors,” (Antigone, lines 196-198) as for “Polynices, who…hope[d] of burning his native land…he shall be neither buried nor mourned” (Antigone, lines 201-207). Antigone, sister of Eteocles and Polynices, and niece of Creon, refuses her uncle’s decree and sets out to bury her brother properly, accepting death as a punishment for her actions. Although the conflict of the story sparks from questioning the burial rights of an enemy to Thebes’s, ultimately, the tragedy underlines the major clash between religion and the city state. As Antigone represents the argument for religion, Creon inevitably represents the argument for the state.

The character Antigone, believed that divine law was above all, and that the laws of the gods were superior to those set by mankind. When it is brought to her attention that Creon is deciding to leave her brother Polynices unburied, she is determined to carry on with the burial rights for her brother. When Ismene, Antigone’s sister, questions Antigone’s disobedience to Creon, she responds by saying, “He has no right to keep me from my own” (Antigone, line 49). In this line Antigone is not only expressing her disregard for Creon’s rule, but also her boldness to speak out against a king, being a female in a classical Greek society where “women were not true citizens of the democracy” (p 67). Later, Antigone justifies this idea when she says “I will bury him…I will lie…a holy outlaw, since I must please those below a longer time than people here, for I should lie there forever” (Antigone, line 71-76). In this line, Antigone is referring to the gods, whom she knows she will have to please for eternity, as opposed to Creon, who is mortal, and can only rule for so long. It is because of this that Antigone believes carrying on with her brothers burial, she will be known as a “holy outlaw,” holy because she is favoring the Gods, yet an outlaw for breaking the king’s law. It is evident that Antigone places religion above the state. Her faith to the gods is so great that she is willing to give up her life to satisfy them than to live and follow Creon’s rule. As the argument between Antigone and Ismene progresses, Antigone states, “I know I’ll please those I should please most” (Antigone, line 89). Again, Antigone is well aware of the punishment she will receive is she buries her brother, but she knows her actions will please the gods, whom she has the obligation to “please most.” This idea is further emphasized when Antigone is telling her sister Ismene that not participating in the burial of her brother is “dishonor[ing] the god’s commands” (Antigone, line 77). Once again, Antigone feels that not carrying on with the religious tradition of granting their brother everlasting peace will only be an act of disobedience towards the god’s. To her, “dishonoring” the god’s was simply unthinkable, for they stood above all else. Therefore, lying to rest the body of her brother was not an option, but an obligation. Later on in the tragedy, when Creon questions Antigone if she had any previous knowledge of what consequences her actions would bring, she boldly responds that she knew, but she went on with them regardless, “Because it wasn’t Zeus who pronounced these things to me” (Antigone, lines 459-460). In this line, Antigone is brave enough to stand up to Creon, the king, and remind him that although he stands as king, the gods are still greater, therefore, more important to follow. As Antigone further explains, “I would never think your pronouncements had such strength that…they could override the…ever-lasting prescriptions of the gods…” (Antigone, lines 462-465). Again, Antigone is declaring Creon’s laws as insignificant because he does not hold the power to “override” the laws set down by the gods. Not only is Antigone trying to justify her reasons for burying her brother, but she is also humiliating Creon’s unjust law.

Creon, the king of Thebes, believed that the well-being of the state was most important and that anybody who dares stand against his city state would be considered an enemy to him. As Creon states the he would not, “consider an enemy of my country a friend to myself…” (Antigone, lines 188-189). In other words, in Creon’s eyes, an enemy to the state was an enemy to him and any friend to the state was a friend of his. It is because of this idea that Creon disagrees with Antigone over the burial rights of Polynices. Because Polynices died in battle trying to take over the city of Thebes, he was nothing more than the enemy of the state, which made him an enemy to Creon. As Creon further explains, “Whoever is friendly to this city will in life and death be equally honored by me” (Antigone, line 212-213). Here, Creon makes it clear that those who live and die as friends of Thebes, will be also be honored in life and death, just as Eteocles was. One can infer that the opposite holds for Creon, as he will dishonor any enemy of Thebes in life and death—in this case, Polynices, who died enemy of Thebes, and is dishonored from his burial rights, doomed to “wander by the…entrance of the Underworld, for eternity,” or so it was believed by the Greeks (Antigone, p 67). With this idea, Creon is able to justify the denial of burial rights to Polynices. Further on into the story, Creon makes it clear that by no means will he bury Polynices, “You will not place him in a tomb, not even if Zeus’s own eagles want to snatch up the carrion and take it to the very throne of Heaven!” (Antigone, lines 1044-1047) Here, Creon’s enragement drives him to speak out against the gods. In this statement, he claims that even if Zeus, the king of the gods, was to try and take away Polynices body to bury it, Creon would not allow it. It is clear that Creon does not see any power greater than that of the state, as he is so bluntly denouncing the king of all gods. Because he is the head of the state, he seems to think of himself above all, making his laws more powerful than those of the gods. From this, one can see why Creon feels so infuriated that someone would go so far as to break the law of his state. When Antigone is brought to Creon for burying her brother, he states, “Since, I caught her, alone of all entire people in open rebellion, I will not make myself a liar to the city, but kill her” (Antigone, lines 665-668). The fact that Antigone disregarded the law of the state condemns her to death, as the law holds more valuable to that of human life. The “rebellion” of Antigone’s by breaking state law made her an enemy to Creon. Creon finds himself forced to kill Antigone because he will not be a laughing matter to the state by allowing a woman to openly disobey his kingdom, “No woman will rule while I live” (Antigone, line 541). The fact that Antigone is a woman gives her no right to speak out against Creon, let alone to break state law. From this one can see that Creon is an extremist in matters of the state. The state is above all and those who go against it, dishonor it and deserve to die.

Overall, it is evident that “Antigone” effectively conveys the conflict between religion and state in classical Greece. Antigone holds religion so highly that she disregards the state law and Creon believes the state to be above all and disregards the laws set forth by the gods. These two extreme cases express the dilemma that brought about this great tragedy, two rights that resulted in death.

Alienation from Language Barriers in Elena

"Elena" by Pat Mora

Throughout human history language has evolved. From early cavemen to ancient Romans up to present time, there have been countless languages spoken. Despite its evolution, the purpose of language has never changed: communication. Language is the means for two or more people who share a similar culture to relate to one another. Even though language facilitates communication for those of a similar culture, it can become a barrier for two people who are from different parts of the world, who speak different languages. For many immigrants arriving in the United States, assimilating to the new surroundings and culture could be difficult already but learning the language is an even bigger challenge. In the poem "Elena" by Pat Mora, the speaker--a Mexican mother--is portrayed as feeling lonely in America; her biggest obstacle is the disconnection from her family, for she can no longer communicate with her children in her native language. Through the use of setting and language, the theme of alienation that results from language barriers, becomes evident in the poem, "Elena".

Pat Mora uses the setting and language to contrast the tone and further emphasize the theme of the poem. The poem starts off with a joyful memory of Mexico and then shifts off into the speaker’s miserable reality in the United States. Lines two through six, focus on this pleasing memory of what used to be the speaker’s home in Mexico, “I remember how I’d smile / listening to my little ones, / understanding every word they’d say, / their jokes, their songs, their plots. / Vamos a pedirle dulces a mama. Vamos.” From the second line, it is pointed out that this is in fact just a memory, as the speaker can only “remember” these times she had with her children. The use of words such as “smile,” “little ones,” “jokes,” “songs,” and “dulces,” (candy) emphasize feelings of happiness and delight, as the speaker is seen in a comforting and pleasing setting. The speaker recalls herself smiling, which inevitably suggests that she felt some sort of contentment. This feeling of contentment carries on when she speaks of her children, as she describes them as, “my little ones.” This choice of wording is not only affectionate, but also very nurturing and maternal. Ultimately, the diction points towards the speaker’s close and loving relationship she had with her children in Mexico. It was in this setting where she was able to “understand” everything her children said because they spoke her native language, Spanish—“Vamos a pedirle dulces a mama. Vamos” (Line 6). Spanish was the speaker’s language to communicate with her children; Spanish was the speaker’s connection to her children, “But that was in Mexico” (Line 7). This line is pointing out the shift of tone in the poem, as it “was” then, in Mexico that this happiness held true, “but” the setting has changed, and so does the tone, respectively.

The speaker no longer finds herself in Mexico where she was able to bond and speak with her own children. Now she finds herself in a new place—The United States—where she is not nearly as happy as she was before. In fact, the tone of the poem suggests quite the opposite. This part of the poem portrays feelings of loneliness, as the speaker is now feeling estranged from her own family. Before, when she was living in Mexico, she was able to speak to her children in her native tongue and was able to hold a close relationship with them. But, “Now [her] children…speak English,” a language that she is not familiar with (Lines 7-8). It is because of this language barrier that the speaker finds herself incapable of communicating with her own children. From the first line one of the poem, “My Spanish isn’t good enough,” one can picture this woman that feels as though her language is insufficient, for it is no longer useful to her. In hopes of regaining that lost connection with her family, the speaker buys a “book to learn English” (line 12). She knows that she must first learn to speak English to reestablish that connection with her “little ones” that she has been yearning for (line 3).

Although the speaker makes the effort to learn to speak English, she still feels solitary and excluded around her family. As her family sits around the kitchen table to talk, she “stand[s] by the stove and feel[s] dumb, alone” (Line 11). Here, one finds the speaker demeaning herself. The fact that she feels “dumb” even around her own family, suggests that she is no longer in a comforting setting. And even though she is surrounded by her family, she still feels “alone.” The reason the speaker might feel this is way is because she is no longer able to connect or relate to her own children. The speaker feels, “embarrassed at mispronouncing words, embarrassed at the laughter of [her] children, the grocer, the mailman” (Lines 16-18). She keeps herself away because she knows that if she were to make an effort to speak English she would be laughed at for her thick accent. This laughter only brings down her confidence and self-esteem. Because of this that she “takes [her] English book and lock[s] [herself] in the bathroom” and “[says] the thick words softly” to herself (Lines 18-20). Here, she describes words as being “thick,” noting her thick accent that others seem to point out. In these lines, one gets the image of a mother who is secluding herself from her family because she does not want to be made fun of. The fact that the speaker has to practically hide from her family to avoid humiliation is almost revolting. The speaker does not find herself confident in her ability to speak English due to the humiliation she suffers from her children. Because of this possibility for humiliation she does not feel comfortable practicing her English around them.

It is evident that the speaker does not feel comfortable within the confines of her own home, around her own family. The speaker’s inability to speak English has caused her to feel distant from her family, and has stripped her from the close relationship she once shared with her children. The depressing tone, which only briefly changes to joyful during a short memory, and the contrast between the past in Mexico and the present in America are two tools the author, Pat Mora, uses to bring about the theme of alienation in “Elena”. This poem shows how vital language is in terms of communication between people, but more importantly, it shows how significantly it can affect even the closest relationships between a mother and child.

Oppression and Need for Escape in The Yellow Wallpaper

The Yellow Wallpaper

History has shown that women were considered second-class citizens for much of the nineteenth century, oppressed by the opposite sex for being “weak”. This oppression is not uncommon to literature; in fact, it has become usual to read about many of the societal obstacles that women had to surpass in order to advance to freedom. In the story, “The Yellow Wallpaper”, Charlotte Perkins Gilman uses the protagonist—also the narrator—to portray the repression of women during this time period. The anonymous narrator begins the story by telling of her husband and their summer home. Initially all seems well, however the reader comes to find that the entire story is a compilation of writings that were written in secret; the reader finds that the narrator’s husband is also her physician, who is attempting to cure her alleged illness—a nervous disorder—by restricting her to all-day rest. Although the narrator struggles to fight her nervous disorder, ultimately, she finds herself trying to break free from her husband’s control; Gilman uses the symbol of the oppressive yellow wallpaper to illustrate the narrator’s emotional subjugation and ultimate need for escape from her husband.

The narrators lack of freedom and subjugated identity, are symbolized through the yellow wallpaper. When the wallpaper is introduced toward the beginning of the story, its color is described as “repellant, almost revolting; a smouldering unclean yellow, strangely faded by the slow-turning sunlight” (p 317). Here, the narrator is very descriptive for the dislike of this wallpaper. This is especially pointed out through the analogy of cacophony, as it gives off a harsh and bothered tone. The use of the words such as, “repellant” and “revolting,” used to describe the wallpaper, give off a feeling for the wallpaper that is almost sickening; this in a sense can be representative of the narrator’s illness. Since this wallpaper surrounds her at all times to remind her of her illness, it infuriates her, and forces her to “hate it” (p 317). Much of the narrator’s suffering results from her husband’s despotism. As his wife’s physician, John, puts his wife under the rest cure; a cure that prohibits the patient from doing any form of work. The inability of the narrator to exercise her mind only seems to make her more ill. Unlike her husband, the narrator believes that “congenial work, with excitement and change, would do [her] good” (p 316). Though the narrator differs in thought with the suggested treatment from her husband and brother, who is also a doctor, she isn’t willing to question them. “Personally, I disagree with their ideas…but what is one to do?” (p 316) From this line, one can see that the narrator doesn’t find it fit to speak up to either her brother or her husband. When the narrator tells herself “what is one to do?” she is indicating that she has no control over her own health or life. She gives off the image of a powerless individual who has no dominion, no identity. This stresses the belief of the inferior role of women as second class citizens in society and also as submissive wives in marriages.

However, even though the narrator is forbidden to write, she finds writing to be her only outlet for her thoughts and emotions, “I think sometimes that…it would relieve the press of ideas and rest me” (p 318). From this, the reader can see how the narrator finds the necessity to express herself, since she is essentially forbidden to do anything. This need of hers is so great that she goes through the trouble of constantly hiding her writings from her husband, “There comes John, and I must put this away—he hates to have me write a word” (p 317). The fact that the narrator cannot express herself even through writing highlights the image of this controlling and overpowering husband. The inability to exercise one’s mind seems to be the worst form of oppression. John only creates this engulfing train of trapped thoughts within his wife’s mind, forcing her to find some form of escape.

Being a victim to her husband’s dominance, it is only expected of her to feel a need for escape, “she is all the time trying to climb through. But nobody could climb through that pattern—it strangles so; I think that is why it has so many heads” (p 325). Once again, the wallpaper is paralleled with the narrators need for escape, but unlike the woman behind the wallpaper, the narrator wishes to “climb through” the control of her husband. Yet, she knows that to overcome her husband is almost impossible, much like the deadly escape from the pattern. The “many heads” can be seen as the countless number of women who have fallen victims to their husband’s control, and wasted their lives trying to escape from this social “pattern.” The image of the woman shaking the bars shows the narrators desperate need for freedom. The narrator expresses in her secret journal, “I don’t like our room a bit. I wanted one downstairs that opened the piazza and had roses all over the window, and such pretty old-fashioned chintz hangings!” (p 316) Here, the narrator is describing her desire for another room, one that is perhaps more alive with roses and one that feels more free. The narrator’s need for an open room suggests her feeling of entrapment. John's insistence to put his wife in this room where “the windows are barred…and there are rings and things in the walls,” seems to show he perhaps wanted his wife to feel captive to his rule (p 317). The “barred windows,” portray confinement, in this case for the narrator—her confinement to the four walls of the room. Also, the narrator’s obsession for the wallpaper only makes her feel trapped within her own home. This feeling is portrayed more clearly as she describes the woman she fancies behind the yellow wallpaper who, “in the very shady spots she just takes hold of the bars and shakes them hard” (p 325). Much like the woman behind the wallpaper, the narrator is living trapped in a room surrounded by barred windows.

Not only is the narrator being controlled by her husband, the fact that the narrator remains unnamed, only emphasizes the narrator’s need for a voice. When she tries to tell her husband how she feels about the home, he disregards her comment and comes up with his own explanation, simply just ignoring her expressed opinion. “There is something strange about the house…I even said so to John…but he said what I felt was a draught, and shut the window” (p 316). Surprisingly, here, the narrator finds it within herself to actually state her opinions to her husband, only to be quickly shut down by him. It is almost as if she was hoping for some sort of understanding from her husband, only to realize that she was still not being heard. In regards to the husband, it is obvious to the reader that John doesn’t take his wife’s opinions into consideration; he doesn’t value her thoughts. Later in the story, when the narrator brings up the idea of moving downstairs into another room, John manages to keep her quiet by hugging her and calling her “a blessed little goose” (p 318). In this one case, one can see how the husband treats his wife like she was a “little” child; he dismisses her requests and instead babies her by calling her names. This again highlights the fact that John does not take his wife sincerely, something that dwelled heavily on the narrator as she finds herself trying to find a voice for herself. In the process of finding her own voice, the narrator finds the wallpaper speaking to her. She begins to recognize herself as the woman behind the yellow wallpaper. “It is the same woman, I know, for she is always creeping, and most women do not creep by daylight…I always lock the door when I creep by daylight, I can’t do it at night…” (p 325) Here, the narrator blatantly identifies herself as this trapped woman. She first begins by describing the woman as “she,” but then progresses to use the word “I,” almost as if she finally realized that she had been seeing herself all along. The wallpaper speaks for her.

Evidently, Gilman portrayed the narrator’s difficult and unhappy situation through the use of symbolism. The wallpaper was used to represent the narrator’s oppressed feelings and emotions, as well as her need for escape. The dominance and neglect from her husband only forced the narrator to fancy herself as this woman trapped behind the wallpaper. Although she managed to escape, unlike other women, the cost was too high—her sanity.

He Didnt Love Her

He was her life, but he didn’t love her.
She was the ideal woman, but he didn’t love her.
He meant the world to her, but he didn’t love her.
She was gorgeous inside and out and he didn’t love her.
Heads turned full round 360 when she walked past, and he still didn’t love her.
She was the envy of all women, but he didn’t love her.
Any man would bow down to her command, yet he didn’t love her.
Her brains and beauty were unmatched, and he still didn’t love her.
No matter what she said or did, he didn’t care one least bit.
Whether or not she existed, was a matter of no importance.
At one point in time, he did love her and he did care.
But she fell into the world of temptation and it all changed.
She left him for another, hoping to find happiness.
Not realizing she had been living it all along by his side.
She took his love for granted, one too many.
At this instant she finds herself in tears as she writes this poem.
And now
As she is hoping to retain what she once had
She realizes that…
HE DOES NOT LOVE HER.

Miss My English Class...

ILL C U ALL ON MONDAY! =D

FRQ

Symbols are commonly used in fiction stories. They “take your story beyond simple plot or character development and create depth and meaning.” [www.ehow.com] A symbol helps communicate an idea to the reader that was not introduced clearly within the text. In the novel “Their Eyes Were Watching God,” Zora Neale Hurston used a variety of symbols to communicate an aspect of the story that led to a greater idea. One example of this symbolism is the use of Janie’s mothers name “Leafy.”
When you think of a leaf, you think of a green leaf on a branch of a beautiful blossoming tree filled with life. But what happens to that leaf when the tree slowly dies? Its leaves begin to fall. In the story, Leafy is characterized as the daughter of a former slave woman and her master. At the young age of seventeen, she became pregnant from the school teacher that raped her. After that, “she took to drinkin’ likker and stayin’ out nights.” [pg 19] Her mother “Couldn’t git her to stay here and nowhere else.” [pg 19] Nobody knew where she was after that. Whether she was dead or alive was an unanswered question. With the name of “Leafy,” Zora Neale Hurston is able to portray the typical fallen woman. That is, the one that became impure. After being raped and having a baby [Janie], society would not look on Leafy as the ideal woman. People would have degraded her for something that she clearly had no control over. Getting back to the top of the feminine social pyramid was made impossible. This acknowledgement of Leafy turned her into the woman that she became; the drunk that roamed the streets and stayed out at nights. After all, she was just another woman that did not care for her baby. The use of the name Leafy brings about this character as just another dry fallen leaf of a tree, roaming through the world and its wonders, with no sense of direction or path. The leaf just continues to be thrown and pushed by the wind that carries it through life. That leaf reflects with its color more death than life. That leaf fights its way to stay alive. Until eventually, that same leaf breaks and tumbles through the dirt, becoming nothing but a forgotten memory.
So what does this symbolism bring to the story? This symbolism helped portray the principles of which society placed on women. These same standards which also, shaped Janie into the woman that she became. It emphasizes the idea that women were all products of a society that held them at the top of the social pyramid, one that idealized “the true woman.” As one can see from this symbolism, society played a major role in the plot and setting of the story, since after all, it transformed the female characters. This symbolism helped portray Janie, who like her mother, was just another victim of society and its sick evils of ideology. This same symbolism stressed the importance of female roles in the story. With this symbolism for “the fallen woman,” visual images of a suppressed, dependant, and beat down black woman are made clearer. The notion of the silenced woman is understood more in depth.
Overall, symbols play a major role in novels. They help to bring about a deeper understanding of an idea. Symbols can tie the whole story closer together to add more meaning to the moral of the plot. In the novel, “Their Eyes Were Watching God,” Zora Neale Hurston made a good use of symbols to communicate her ideas to the reader. Having Leafy symbolize the “fallen woman,” brought about the importance of society in the story.

Their Eyes Were Watching God "Quote"

“…you got tuh go there tuh know there. Yo’ papa and yo’ mama and nobody else can’t tell yuh and show yuh. Two things everybody’s got tuh do fuh theyselves. They got tuh go tuh God, and they got tuh find out about livin’ fuh theyselves.” [pg 192] Janie was a young girl who lived her life learning throughout her experiences about the realities of life. She did in fact face the real world and its injustices, but it did nothing more than shape her into the woman that she became. Throughout her experiences she learned that marriage did not mean love, that reaching the top of the social pyramid did not mean happiness, and most of all that you must live life at its fullest not caring what the response of others might be.
In the story “Their Eyes Were Watching God,” Janie is portrayed as this innocent young girl who is hoping on someday meeting with her one true love. Marriage was love and nothing more. “Husbands and wives always loved each other, and that was what marriage meant.” [pg 21] When her old grandmother asked her to marry for her own security, Janie did so, hoping that this would mean the “end to cosmic loneliness of the unmated.” [pg 21] Little did she know that marriage was nothing more than a game of property. It did not matter whether the couple loved each other, but whether or not one could supply for one another. As her grandmother explained, “De nigger woman is de mule uh de world so fur as Ah can see.” [pg 14] In fact the woman was the working hand of the world; homes could not possibly function without them. They were the structure of the family. Just like a mule works long hours to get the job of the man done, so does the woman work the same way. With their duty as wives, they are expected to listen and follow to the commands of the husband. Janie of course was not as accepting of this social stance. “Youse mad ‘cause Ah don’t fall down and wash-up dese sixty acres uh ground yuh got. You ain’t done me no favor by marryin’ me. And if dat’s what you call yo’self doin’, Ah don’t thank yuh for it.” [pg 31] Here, Janie did stand up to her husband, Logan, and refused to be his “mule.” This male dominancy irked Janie and pushed her to leave her husband for Joe Starks, who promised not to treat her in this manner. As she was leaving Logan, “A feeling of sudden newness and change came over her.” [pg 32] Janie did in fact change from this experience as she was able to overcome this issue and move on with her life. She did not let Logan and her unhappy marriage to him stop her from reaching her happiness.
Not only did Janie realize that marriage did not mean love, but also that reaching the top of the social pyramid did not mean happiness. In truth, it didn’t. As Mrs. Starks, she was the Mayors wife, the store owner, and the woman who lived in the beautiful white house that overlooked all the others. The people of town looked up at her, but deep down inside Jodie was nothing close to being happy. This unhappiness came from the continuous oppression from her husband. As a female, she was not allowed into male conversations and male hobbies. Her husband controlled her and forced her to wear head rags to hide her hair from public eyes. This control in return brought about this beat down silent woman who was just waiting to lash out. “No matter what Jody did, she said nothing. She had learned how to talk some and leave some. She was a rut in the road. Plenty of life beneath the surface but it was kept beaten down by the wheels.” [pg 76] Joe’s continued oppression caused Janie to restrain herself from talking, to hold up all of the emotions that kept piling within her. Being Mrs. Starks was not happiness like she expected, but rather more a life she didn’t wish to live. She would give up everything she had to just be happy. She disliked looking down on the Negro’s of the town like Mr. Stark did with his “I god” and intellectual talking. Janie did not feel ready to live the life of “de white madam,” like her grandmother had wished. Being on top of the social pyramid was not suitable for Janie; it did not bring happiness.
Last of all she learned that you must live life at its fullest even if it does not meet the acceptance of others. Janie came about this notion as she experienced joyous moments with her love Tea Cake. Many had criticized her for dating someone who was too young for her and did not have the money to offer her a life like Mr. Starks did. Janie did not allow for these gossipers to retain her from finally enjoying life. As Janie explains “Ah never ‘spected nothing’…but bein’ dead from the standin’ still and tryin’ tuh laugh.” After living a life full of restrictions, control, and oppression, Janie was just anxious to explore the world and its wonders. Tea Cake had become her ecstasy to attain this. She expected others to talk about her life and criticize it as they compared it to theirs. “Dey gointuh make ‘miration ‘cause mah love didn’t work lak they love, if dey ever had any.” [pg 191] Knowing the way that society worked and how they responded to such occurrences, Janie knew what others in town were going to say about her. They in turn were ignorant because they lacked the experiences of actually encountering the real life and learning from it. Janie had been happy by Tea Cake’s side, and she loved him with all her heart. If others could not accept that, she didn’t care. After all, “Love is lak de sea. It’s uh movin’ thing, but still and all, it takes its shape from de shore it meets, and it’s different with every shore.” [pg 191] In other words, love is different with each and every person, not all encounter it the same way. Love shapes people all in different areas and aspects. No love is the same.
Overall, Janie learned from the realities of life and her experiences. All these occurrences helped shape Janie into the woman that she became. They helped her grow, learn, and move on with her life. These experiences changed her view of marriage, society, and happiness all together. Life brought about this beautiful immature fruit that reached its full bright green color. After the storm cleared, this pear became ripe.