Eng 48A
Washington Irving
October 28th 2009
Washington Irving
1783-1859
"The great error in Rip's composition was an insuperable aversion to all kinds of profitable labor." (Norton Pg. 955)
Taken from the beginning of Irving's short story, this quote paints a picture of the the main character Rip Van Winkle. A good natured man, and kind neighbor, his greatest failure is in his refusal to work, and support his family. His wife in turn berates him, as he lets his children go hungry, and his farm fall into ruins.
It is hard to gauge Van Winkle as a character. In one perspective, I see Van Winkle as a rebel of sorts. He refuses to be a subject to authority, and only does work that pleases him. It's not necessarily that he is lazy, but that he does that which he prefers to do and when his wife becomes too difficult an obstacle, he leaves to the forest. On the other hand, I find Van Winkle to be a detestable character, a lazy, apathetic, and misogynistic failure of a father, who refuses to take responsibility for his family. It's a strange clashing of ideals, and it makes it hard to pick a side. Is Van Winkle the protagonist, or the antagonist, or is he just a character that the story is built around? When looked at pragmatically, I find him to be more on the side of being an anti-hero. Although the story revolves around him, he helps no-one, and is the subject of a 20 year gap which he crosses over with nonchalance. He is weak, egocentric, lazy, and apathetic, but somehow I still relate to him.
Washington Irving's story seems simple at first, but I find that beneath the story is a commentary on the American Revolution. The story begins by describing Van Winkle's aversion to all work concerning family. His wife, who is never named, representative perhaps of Monarchy under King George III, plays the part of the tyrant, and continually reprimands him for his idleness. In return however, Van Winkle refuses to work. In effect, if his wife represents the monarchy of King George, then Van Winkle, is passively rebelling against England, and thus, represents the colonies. Upon returning to the town twenty years later, the American Revolution has ended, and Van Winkle is no longer a subject to the monarchy, but even so, Van Winkle refuses to work. In describing the sign on the Union Hotel that was once the village inn Irving gives us a hint however. A sign that had once borne the face of King George, the post revolutionary sign bears the same face, but added to it, is a sword, and a cocked hat with the title George Washington beneath it. Is this symbolic perhaps of Irving's belief that government is still government by whatever name? If not Irving's, it is certainly that of Van Winkle, who takes the change of government indifferently. In the end however, why should it affect him? Government means little to a man who refused even the authority of his own wife. To him, a government no matter the form, be it a monarchy, democracy, or matrimony, was still a means of controlling him. A means which he didn't respect.
" Critics have focused on the story's theme of change, in which the contrast between the peaceful pre-Revolutionary colony and the bustling post-Revolutionary America reinforces a simultaneous sense of nostalgia for a simpler time as well as a sense of the reality of our always-shifting American world." (NovelGuide.com)
This quote was taken from an online criticism of Rip Van Winkle, and I find that it brings an interesting perspective to Irving's tale.
In writing Rip Van Winkle, Irving may have been making a commentary on the American Revolution not only by completely omitting the event from the story, but by describing the changes it caused on the village as well. Perhaps Rip Van Winkle's twenty year disappearing act during the revolution represents the detached feelings that many of the colonials felt towards the American Revolution. If they weren't subjects of England, than what were they? Besides, although the British imposed steep taxes, and made it illegal to expand westward, what reason was there for a revolution? If one was a simple man such as Van Winkle, with little care for politics, the American Revolution may have meant very little.
Secondly, Irving describes the changes caused by the American Revolution. When Van Winkle returns home, he encounters a mob of American citizens, engaging in the chaos of the new democracy. He uses words such as 'bilious' and 'idle' to describe the public speaker at the inn. Obviously ripe with negative connotations, this perspective may not have been a commentary on the change in government, but rather a commentary on the arguments that ensued over which political party to support. After all, the first question he is asked, is whether he is a federal or democrat. Van Winkle doesn't seem to care much about the politics of the situation however, and that may be Irving's enduring message. What did it matter if you were Federal, or Democrat? They just wanted to be free.
Taken from the beginning of Irving's short story, this quote paints a picture of the the main character Rip Van Winkle. A good natured man, and kind neighbor, his greatest failure is in his refusal to work, and support his family. His wife in turn berates him, as he lets his children go hungry, and his farm fall into ruins.
It is hard to gauge Van Winkle as a character. In one perspective, I see Van Winkle as a rebel of sorts. He refuses to be a subject to authority, and only does work that pleases him. It's not necessarily that he is lazy, but that he does that which he prefers to do and when his wife becomes too difficult an obstacle, he leaves to the forest. On the other hand, I find Van Winkle to be a detestable character, a lazy, apathetic, and misogynistic failure of a father, who refuses to take responsibility for his family. It's a strange clashing of ideals, and it makes it hard to pick a side. Is Van Winkle the protagonist, or the antagonist, or is he just a character that the story is built around? When looked at pragmatically, I find him to be more on the side of being an anti-hero. Although the story revolves around him, he helps no-one, and is the subject of a 20 year gap which he crosses over with nonchalance. He is weak, egocentric, lazy, and apathetic, but somehow I still relate to him.
Washington Irving's story seems simple at first, but I find that beneath the story is a commentary on the American Revolution. The story begins by describing Van Winkle's aversion to all work concerning family. His wife, who is never named, representative perhaps of Monarchy under King George III, plays the part of the tyrant, and continually reprimands him for his idleness. In return however, Van Winkle refuses to work. In effect, if his wife represents the monarchy of King George, then Van Winkle, is passively rebelling against England, and thus, represents the colonies. Upon returning to the town twenty years later, the American Revolution has ended, and Van Winkle is no longer a subject to the monarchy, but even so, Van Winkle refuses to work. In describing the sign on the Union Hotel that was once the village inn Irving gives us a hint however. A sign that had once borne the face of King George, the post revolutionary sign bears the same face, but added to it, is a sword, and a cocked hat with the title George Washington beneath it. Is this symbolic perhaps of Irving's belief that government is still government by whatever name? If not Irving's, it is certainly that of Van Winkle, who takes the change of government indifferently. In the end however, why should it affect him? Government means little to a man who refused even the authority of his own wife. To him, a government no matter the form, be it a monarchy, democracy, or matrimony, was still a means of controlling him. A means which he didn't respect.
" Critics have focused on the story's theme of change, in which the contrast between the peaceful pre-Revolutionary colony and the bustling post-Revolutionary America reinforces a simultaneous sense of nostalgia for a simpler time as well as a sense of the reality of our always-shifting American world." (NovelGuide.com)
This quote was taken from an online criticism of Rip Van Winkle, and I find that it brings an interesting perspective to Irving's tale.
In writing Rip Van Winkle, Irving may have been making a commentary on the American Revolution not only by completely omitting the event from the story, but by describing the changes it caused on the village as well. Perhaps Rip Van Winkle's twenty year disappearing act during the revolution represents the detached feelings that many of the colonials felt towards the American Revolution. If they weren't subjects of England, than what were they? Besides, although the British imposed steep taxes, and made it illegal to expand westward, what reason was there for a revolution? If one was a simple man such as Van Winkle, with little care for politics, the American Revolution may have meant very little.
Secondly, Irving describes the changes caused by the American Revolution. When Van Winkle returns home, he encounters a mob of American citizens, engaging in the chaos of the new democracy. He uses words such as 'bilious' and 'idle' to describe the public speaker at the inn. Obviously ripe with negative connotations, this perspective may not have been a commentary on the change in government, but rather a commentary on the arguments that ensued over which political party to support. After all, the first question he is asked, is whether he is a federal or democrat. Van Winkle doesn't seem to care much about the politics of the situation however, and that may be Irving's enduring message. What did it matter if you were Federal, or Democrat? They just wanted to be free.
20 points. "Washington Irving's story seems simple at first, but I find that beneath the story is a commentary on the American Revolution." So true!
ReplyDelete