His methodology of using an example and supporting it prove effective, as they build up until one agrees with his point. Fiero's use of textual support is minimal, but still present enough to prove his full understanding and interpretation of the play. He primarily uses textual support when proving a claim on a characters personality, such as Juliana's caring nature. Fiero's structure allows the reader to get an overview of the criticism by focusing on the main points in the beginning, then proceeding to elaborate on each point. He uses scenes from the play to help the reader fully understand the qualities he is picking of the character.
Fiero does not address counter-points to his interpretation. Though there may be some room for argument, he supports the idea of the roles of the secondary women fairly well. Many of the qualities possessed by the character, or not possessed by Hedda Gabler, are obvious through the scenes and actions Fiero uses in his criticism, making them somewhat indisputable.
Part III: Evaluation
Fiero's main point in this criticism is the purpose of the secondary women relative to Hedda Gabler character. Women such as Juliana, Berta and especially Thea contrast strikingly with Hedda's character. He proves this point through discussing several scenes, actions and reactions through out the play. However, Fiero's point would have been further lightened by investigating Thea's character more in depth.
The biggest foil to Hedda's character is Thea Elvsted. Not only is she at peace with herself in that she is confident of her love life, she also posses what Hedda wants most: control. Thea's feelings for Lovborg are true, thus allowing her to have a real relationship, in which both husband and wife think equally of each other. Further more, in order to be with Lovborg, Thea ran away from her husband and family, and in that action, completely rebelled against societal norms. Thus, in her own
way, she also accomplished escaping the stereotypical role of woman, the one thing Hedda is most afraid of. As exemplified, Thea is or becomes everything Hedda wishes to be. However, Thea achieves this state unintentionally and with true, innocent and good hearted feelings where as Hedda attempts to reach this goal for all the wrong reasons.
Part I:
In L.M. Domina's criticism on Death of A Salesman, she focuses on the themes of failure and delusion in the play. Domina's criticism surrounds the idea that Willy's guilt and lies, or rather his inability to acknowledge the consequences of them, affect the entire family, especially his sons, Biff and Happy. Biff was once a shining student athlete with the prospect of a great future. However, after failing a math class, he debates whether to take summer courses. Before making the decision, he makes a surprise visit to his father in Boston. However, instead of getting the advice and comfort from Willy that he had expected, Biff discovered his father having an extramarital affair. This was a life changing moment in a boy that had once so fully put faith and trust in his father. After this incident, Biff lost all desire to succeed in life, as his future reflected.
However, Biff keeps this incident a secret from everyone else, exemplifying another flaw surrounding the Loman family: the inability to accept the truth. This inability, especially that of Willy's, results in his glorifying the truth, and therefore living a delusional life. An example given by Domina includes a conversation between Willy and Biff, in which Biff makes an attempt at trying to acknowledge the truth about a past job. Though he was simply a shipping clerk, Willy keeps saying that he was in fact, a salesmen, or “practically” one.
This is only one of the few examples Domina uses to exemplify the theme of failure and falsehood, and the way it affected the Loman household (or symbolically, the failure of the American
Dream). She elaborates on the flaws of Willy, which he passes on to his sons, and the ways in which those flaws lead to his death.
Part II:
Domina's interpretation of the affects of failure and falsehood in the play are reasonable and well supported. She takes the reader through the play, and through a series of events and consequences that begin with either the theme of failure or the delusional state of the family. This allows the reader to follow the affects of the themes, and provides them with a thorough understanding of certain aspects of the play.
Domina uses textual support throughout her criticism to support her views on the affects of failure and delusion. Not only does this make her argument stronger, but it also proves that it is a reasonable evaluation of the themes. Though Domina does briefly offer an alternative interpretation, she does not elaborate on it. She may have chosen to do so because the alternative was also based on sound interpretation, however, elaborating on it could have disproved her point. Therefore, she mentions it without going into further detail.
Part III:
Domina provides a logical interpretation of the affects of the themes of failure and falsehood, and delusions. Willy does ruin the Loman family with his falsehood, especially Biff. However, he refuses to acknowledge this and take responsibility for the blame. During a conversation between Willy's nephew Bernard, and Willy, Bernard describes to Willy what happened to Biff after he came back from the his surprise visit to Boston. He describes the way in which he knew that Biff had given up on life. However, when Bernard asks Willy what happened, he only answers defensively, “What're you trying to do, blame it on me?”
In this incident, Domina's point is proven in that Willy's falsehood, which is his affair, leads to his inacceptance of truth and responsibility. Throughout the play, there are many such incidents that also support Dominas claims.
Part I:
Caroline W. Mayerson's criticism of Hedda Gabler focuses on the idea that Hedda Gabler is not a tragedy. She instead calls Hedda's death as an attention seeking suicide that inflated her ego, as opposed to the death of a true tragic hero, which she defines as a death in which, “the ego is sublimated in order that the values of life may be extended and reborn.” In essence, Hedda Gabler does not grow as a character, but instead commits an act only to draw attention to herself. Mayerson explains that Hedda Gabler was unable to understand the difference between melodrama and tragedy, and therefore mistook her ending as tragedy. The criticism also acknowledges that Ibsen did ironically create a situation in which Hedda Gabler's suicide would like a tragedy, using the example of her environment, which surrounded her with reliques of her life.
Part II:
By defining her idea of a tragic death, Mayerson proves her argument that Hedda Gabler is not a true tragedy. Mayerson describes a tragic death as one which sublimates the ego. However, Hedda Gabler's suicide does quite the opposite. Her death was a last attempt to call attention to herself, thus inflating her ego. Further more, Hedda's death is absolutely insignificant. She commits suicide to escape a life that she created herself, but cannot deal with the consequences. Instead of facing them, she escapes, making her in many ways a coward.
Mayerson uses the example of the symbolization of the environment that Hedda Gabler commits suicide in to support her argument. It shows how Ibsen used irony by creating a situation similar to one of a tragedy, just as Hedda thought her death was a tragedy, even though it was far from it. Mayerson's strong criticism does not present any counter-points. The argument is quite debatable, and it would leave too many questions.
Part III:
Mayerson's argument rings mostly true, in that Hedda Gabler character did not change or grow in the play. If anything, it became stronger, more hateful, resentful, and power hungry. The obviousness of this towards the end of the play leaves Mayerson's argument to be a convincing one. It is evident that Hedda has not learned anything since she was introduced, up until the time of her death.
Even Tessman's own reaction was only to say, “Shot herself! Shot herself in the temple! Fancy that.”
One would expect a much more emotional response from a spouse who has just witnessed his wife killing herself. From Tess manss reaction, it can be concluded that Hedda Gabler's death meant little.
Though Mayerson brings up many logical points throughout the criticism, she elaborates on very few. Further elaboration on the main supporting points could have provided for a better, and more thorough understanding for the reader. It would also make for a stronger argument.
Part I:
This criticism focuses on the idea that Willy's commitment to false social values prevent him from fully understanding the value of human experience. Throughout most of his life, Willy devotes his time working around the values of consumerism, ambition and social stature. However, it is these same “American values” that prevent him from leading a normal American life, and from learning to take comfort in personal relationships, family, friends, and love. At the end of the play, Willy realizes this, at the same time realizing that his true responsibility lies in being a good father.
Responsibility and competition are also especially important themes. Willy has a tendency to evade his responsibilities, and the consequences of not dealing with them. For example, Willy ignored his responsibilities as a father, and instead focused on his American ideal that were false anyways. He prevented them from fulfilling their dreams as well, especially in Biff. Willy's inability to differ his reality from his delusions also contributed to this.
Part II:
The argument in this criticism, especially that of the affect of Willy's commitment to false social values are exemplified throughly in the play. The example given of Willy's irresponsible nature, and the way in which in reflect upon his sons supports the argument strongly. Also, the structure of the criticism, which uses sub sections, makes the critique easier to understand. It helps the reader organize its thoughts, and focus on each main point. There are no contradicting opinions used in this criticism.
Part III:
The arguments in this criticism are reasonable and well-supported. The idea that Willy's commitment to his false social values prevent him from having a true human experience are exemplified throughout the play. Willy's, and consequently his son's, commitment to social values most impact them in the sense that they are not able to understand and have a meaningful relationship. Willy's biggest blunder came in Boston, where Biff caught him having an affair, a sure indicator that all was not well in regards to his relationship with his wife. This affected Biff to the point that it killed his bright future. However, Biff tells no one, and keeps it to himself. His inability to talk to his father about it or tell his secret reflect broken relationships. Lastly, Happy is constantly in company of prostitutes, and is seemingly incapable of having a true relationship and settling down.