Category: Desire

“The Company of Wolves” by Angela Carter is a criticism of moralistic and pious ideologies surrounding sexuality and its repression expressed through the liminality of Little Red Ridding Hood, who, throughout the story, shifts from being the innocent, naïve girl to becoming the woman society fears the most- a powerful, enchanting, she-devil, witch. At the story’s conclusion, Little Red breaks the shackles of her repression, accepting herself as an outcast, embracing the liminal quality of desire also reflected in her lover: the werewolf.

Carter describes the lives of the people in the story as harsh and uneventful, guided by superstition, ideologies and truths they abide to blindly creating an intense fear against anything different or defiant to their truth, heighted by the dense forest that surrounds them, in which werewolves and other creatures lurk. The people have created a barrier that “keep the wolves outside by living well” (Angela 226). The fear of the wolves is felt so strongly it is passed on to their children at an early age. “The grave eyed-children of the sparse villages always carry knives with them when they go out to tend the little flocks of goats” and “the blades are sharpened daily”. The blade, just like the truths they believe are constantly enforced, perpetuate the ideology that if being unwavering and repetitive, their blade/belief will protect them against evil. The idea of repetition, especially when under servitude, seem to be the main profile of those who fall victim to the wolf. Objectified women dutifully playing a “women’s role” who are caught by their own, dangerous, sexual desire while doing repetitive, expected tasks such as “a woman once bitten in her own kitchen as she was straining the macaroni” (Angela 222). Another tale is that of a woman whose first husband disappears on their wedding night, transforming into a werewolf because of his infidelity, proving to have an untamed sexual desire. The woman re marries, and, as expected, bears children and continues her life as a dutiful wife. Until one day, her first husband comes to the door, in the form of a man, claiming her. He stays in this form until he sees her children and becomes a beast again, maiming the child. The second husband kills the wolf as his wife cries and than beats her (Angela 223). He beats her because she still desired her first husband. However, there is also the case of the “mad old man who used to live by himself in a hut halfway up the mountain and sing to Jesus all day” (Angela 222). This event shows us that although we might be inclined to believe the wolf is gender-targeting, Carter shows us they are preying on those who have are living an almost ritualistic, submissive life deeply internalizing these repressing ideologies as a truth. Yes, most religious ideologies do oppress women directly, however, all genders can feel desire. The ideologies they chose to follow are forcing them to fear and shun a beast they have created who like them constantly fights their own desire — but fails.

Not only are the victim’s male and female, but also the aggressors. In the story it is mentioned “a witch from up the valley once turned an entire wedding party into wolves because the groom had settled on another girl” (Angela 223). These stories speak and highlight sexuality and desire, which is passionate and violent and not restricted to gender. The “witch” is another label used to vilify, shun and scapegoat acting on one’s desires by claiming they are simply not human, transforming the person into something else that no longer belongs.

The werewolf, who is forever half beast, half man, trapped in a painful limbo and “would love to be less beastly if only they knew how and never cease to mourn their own condition” (Angela 222). We know the state of the wolf is defined by desire and his ability to repress it. “Before he can become a wolf, the lycanthrope strips stark naked” (Angela 224), which could lead us to believe that the clothes play an important role in the transformation. However, in the next lines we understand that the physical manifestations as the wearing, stripping and burning of clothing is a false effort of separating what they believe to be two separate entities: wolf and man. “ If you burn his human clothing you condemn him to wolfishness for the rest of his life, so old wives hereabouts think it some protection to throw a hat or an apron at the werewolf, as if clothes made the man” (Angela 224) The werewolf, torn in an everlasting metamorphosis triggered by the inability to repress its desire is attributed beastly features, is shunned and humiliated, transformed in a monster, outcasted.

Little Red Ridding Hood is different from everyone in the story because she was “innocent and naïve” in the sense that she was not taught to fear or repress her desire. Her mother and grandmother have sheltered her from the harsh way of life and collective fears. Carter describes her as “she stands and moves within the invisible pentacle of her own virginity. She is an unbroken egg; she is a sealed vessel; she has inside her a magic space the entrance to which is shut tight with a plug of membrane; she is a closed system; she does not know how to shiver. She has her knife and she is afraid of nothing” (Angela 224). When she enters the woods, which is liminal space, and meets the werewolf she is not afraid, but intrigued and even flirts with him, gives him her basket with her knife, makes a cheeky bet to see who will get to her grandmas house first for a kiss and hopes she loses (Angela 227). We know from this interaction that she is recognizing and embracing her desire and succumbs her only form of protection going against all the ideologies and truths she was supposed to have. This is a large wave in the threshold of her transformation.

Meanwhile, at the grandmother’s house, the wolf pretends to be Little Red, entering the house. When the grandmother, a devout Christian, faces him and he eats her. The whole ordeal is very erotically descriptive, a nod towards her sexual desire but Carter emphasises the Christian repression of it when the wolf tells the grandmother:

You can hurl your Bible at him and your apron after, granny, you thought that was a sure prophylactic6 against these infernal vermin. . . now call on Christ and his mother and all the angels in heaven to protect you but it won’t do you any good. (226) What differentiates the fates of the grandmother and granddaughter is the repression of their desire.

Little Red finally arrives to the cabin, disappointed about not seeing the wolf, and not getting a kiss. When she walks in she was in danger. Since she was not tainted with Christian fear, she embraces her desire, undressing and tossing her clothes in the fire. “the wise child never flinched, even when he answered: ‘All the better to eat you with. The girl burst out laughing; she knew she was nobody’s meat” (Angela 227). By accepting her desire and controlling it, she tamed the wolf. She is no longer in a liminal state, her transformation has ended and not only accepts her desire but controls it and uses it to her advantage. From being innocent and a victim she now has all the power. Marking her transition, she loses her virginity and marries the werewolf, burning both their clothes, making him unable to ever resist his desires, permanently a beast. “The flames danced like dead souls on Walpurgisnacht” (Angela 228), as if witches were welcoming her in her new state. He lays his head on her fearfully, with this the matrimony is completed, and she is in complete power, completely denying the gender ideology of a wife. Carter makes the connection of the birth of Jesus of the Virgin Mary to the “rebirth” of both our characters, emphasizing the importance of virginity and sexual repression by Cristian beliefs.

In conclusion, Angela Carter amazingly depicts how the heavy repression of desire, supported by a common ideology or truth as Cristian beliefs and religion is not only used to oppress mainly women, but society. Carter is undoubtedly on the side of the wolves and shows strong criticism on those who mark them as “beasts”, therefore justifying and never taking responsibility of all irrational actions. By `proposing the liminality between monsters and humans, Carter forces responsibility amongst one’s actions, introspection, and above all, expansion of ideas and hopefully, the downfall of repressive ideologies.

Tennessee Williams was a profound author of the play, A Streetcar Named Desire. He portrayed a realistic outlook on the standard New Orleans life, in which both gender roles and social expectations defined the way world functions. With the everchanging roles that one has, the position one is in will never be the same as the one that they last stood in. This can be vividly shown through one character named Stella, whom struggles between decisions that she is forced to choose. She is a classic representation of what modern society identifies as a power struggle against both gender and social standing. This is since Stella is a married woman, to someone who aggressively finds that masculinity is a constant necessity, leading to the downfall of Stella due to Stanley’s eventual lead up to toxic masculinity. The change of Stella throughout the play is shown to be a power struggle through the choices defined by the social expectations and gender stereotypes, which are measurable through the relationships she has had.

Stanley is an extremely dear person to Stella, he is someone whom she is deeply in love with and forgiving with. Due to the intimacy Stella has with Stanley, it twists the reality she is trying to grasp understanding of. Not only does Stanley attempt to do this through countless berates on especially Blanche, but he also uses these berates as reasons to push the point that he strongly sees. Granted that Stella must listen to these berates constantly, it is no surprise that she feels the need that Stanley must “tell” her “quietly what” he thinks he “found out about” her “sister.” (Williams, 119). Given her plea, was a sign of her inner consciousness taking the side of someone she loves more. After all, Stella’s relationship with Stanley is far more intimate than the relationship Stella has with Blanche. Therefore, it is no surprise if her inner consciousness takes the side of the most loved one.

At the same time, it shows the effect of the social expectations on gender roles, where females are supposed to listen and follow what the males say and do. This is vividly shown in Stella through the fact that she cannot maintain an idea of her own without being influenced with a male perspective. After all, she would have continued viewing Blanche as she was if it were not for Stanley’s input on how he views of Blanche.

The idea of male influence is heavily regarded through the relationship Stella has with Stanley, especially in the cases where Stanley influences many of Stella’s decisions. Subsequently leading to the controlment of Stella’s life and the choices she makes. However, it is not only the male’s fault for continuing with these gender standings that are created for a portrayal of power. It is important to realize that Eunice too, a woman of Stella’s age, implies that it is foolish to believe a woman that says the unordinary. After all, we should never “ever believe it. Life has got to go on. No matter what happens…” (Williams, 183). “It” being the sayings a woman has regarding a gender related issue, an issue that clashes with the relationships between men and women. Explicitly, Eunice tells Stella that she shouldn’t “believe it” because Blanche is defined as crazy for saying that she was raped, which rape was not commonly spoken of in the mid 1940’s. To enumerate, Eunice shows that woman have no place to question male authority as wrong. This can be shown through Eunice saying that Stella should not believe Blanche, implying that Stella shouldn’t question the actions of her loved one; heavily implying that Stanley’s sayings is the one she should believe the most. The struggle of gender roles was not only fought through Blanche, but it was also heavily fought by Eunice whom is a woman of Stella’s age. Ultimately, there is no escape from the gender roles that are pushed upon Stella; it is only to be broken through progression within society; explaining why Blanche got heavily berated in the first place.

Gender role in this story is heavily defined through the characters, which lets readers investigate the play with the Feminist lens. However, class divisions were also heavily implied through the play, commonly measured through the Marxist lens. After all, both Stella and Blanche came from a wealthy background, which explains the way Blanche dresses. To Blanche, the marriage between both Stella and Stanley is viewed as disgusting and out of the ordinary. For instance, Blanche regards Stanley as “common” (Williams, 71). This demonstrates that Blanche, whom is a representation of the higher class, finds distaste within the relationship between Stella and Stanley; whom Stella being a former citizen of the higher class while Stanley being a commoner. Although Blanche is the one who portrays this idea, it is also implied that Stella used to follow this idea until a certain time in her life; possibly changed through her first interactions with Stanley. This all goes to show that those of the higher class should never mix with commoners, because it will either end with the higher class suffering through the financial discomfort or the higher class supporting their common lover through their own money. This heavily shows that higher class should never mix with those of the lower class, because it may disrupt the power of balance that is defined through the social classes of wealth. This especially, is a measurable instance through the Marxist lens.

Stella has been in a constant battle as to what she should think, and how she should think; especially since she has a specified role that is defined through the social expectations on gender roles in a relationship. Her taking sides with Stanley truly shows the power she has within the relationship, which is almost desolate. Many of her decisions were defined under the influence of Stanley, hence the removal of Blanche. Until the removal of Blanche, Stella then realizes the wrong she has done. Stella vigorously mentioned “What have I done to my sister? Oh, God, what have I done to my sister?” (Williams, 176). This illustrates the realization of Stella that it was truly not Blanche’s fault, but it was her fault for being under the influence of the social expectations pushed down from others. Especially since Eunice portrayed the ideas that heavily aided male dominance in a relationship, subsequently leading to Stella taking in the abuse given by Stanley. It truly shows that Stella has no place in the relationship, no place to be dominant. Stella is what we refer to as a vessel, someone who absorbs the thoughts of what others think to finally make a decision which subsequently aids the one who is controlling the vessel, in this case being Stanley. Stanley controlling Stella helped him get the things that he wanted, and it let him do the things that he wanted to freely do; without any repercussions. This truly shows how Stella was a clear portrayal of these social expectations, vividly shown through the power struggles she has.

The play showed no mercy in putting Stella in a place of a power struggle, truly representing how social expectations on gender roles give no care about how the person feels. It will always be there to haunt someone’s decision until they decide to break free from these social expectations. Unfortunately, Stella was incapable of breaking out of this relentless cycle of men being a defined dominance in society, truly showing how it is something we are born in rather than something we choose to be in. It is especially a power struggle since Stella had to sacrifice her relationship with Blanche in order to maintain the relationship she currently has with Stanley, further showing that everything is done in regards for Stanley’s happiness rather than her own. Social expectations should never be a definition as to how society functions, it must be, and will be broken one day; to be progressed whether society is ready or not.

Understanding the distinction between affection versus desire can be very dubious. Particularly on the grounds that desire is the normal and first period of most sentimental connections and can last as long as two years (at any rate that is the thing that the specialists need to state). It’s the principal period of ‘affection’ however it doesn’t in every case frequently form into a caring sentimental relationship.

In any case, when you are seeing someone in the event that you don’t understand what’s the contrast among adoration and desire, it very well may be hard to tell whether the relationship can possibly last and furthermore how and why your relationship (or sexual coexistence so far as that is concerned) might seem to change as you progress from desire to cherish.

Here are a portion of the manners in which that you can differentiate between desire versus love.

The inclination

The emotions related with genuine love versus desire are altogether different. Love is an exceptional inclination of care and love that you feel for someone else. It’s extreme to the point that an individual who encounters love regularly frames a safe passionate connection to the individual they love. Desire is all the more a crude sexual want and a draw between one another which is regularly founded on physical fascination and which can either fail out or transform into affection. Love generally happens as a team begin to find each other’s character, and create trust and comprehension in one another. This is the distinction among desire and love.

After some time

A great many people will by and large state that they comprehend that affection sets aside some effort to develop (except if they advocate all consuming, instant adoration). In any case, similar individuals would presumably comprehend that desire can happen quickly as well. The basic misstep individuals make in this stage however is in hoping to encounter desire promptly and precluding potential accomplices who could transform into genuine love since they don’t quickly feel the desire.

Some of the time it merits giving someone a possibility regardless of whether you don’t feel desire promptly so you can check whether it can possibly create. Another regular misstep made at this stage is that a couple may encounter desire quick and bounce all in, anticipating that this desire should transform into adoration just for things to fail out quick as well. The colloquialism ‘simple come simple go’ likely applies here.

At this stage, it’s as yet worth looking at the individuals with the possibility to check whether desire can develop. It’s additionally important to remain grounded on the off chance that you are feeling exceptional desire with the goal that you can give yourself opportunity to choose if love will get an opportunity to develop. In the event that that is the thing that you need.

After some time, the desire will begin to quiet down and rather will be supplanted with a more profound feeling of affection. It’s now that a few couples probably won’t comprehend why the relationship isn’t so explicitly enthusiastic any longer and is additionally the time where exertion may should be made to keep your sexual coexistence fun and energizing.

The time you spend together

At the point when you are in the desire phase of a relationship, you’ll most likely invest more energy getting a charge out of sex as opposed to investing time putting resources into a profound passionate discussion. As time proceeds onward, in any case, and as you begin to become hopelessly enamored, you’ll start to find that you invest as a lot of energy finding out about one another and talking about your passionate responsibility toward one another. The time you spend together

Future duty

In the desire phase of your relationship, despite the fact that you may be thinking about whether you need to be with the individual you are with, later on. You might not have any quick want for duty. Be that as it may, when you arrive at the adoration arrange, you’ll be contributed and submitted genuinely and physically.

You’ll need to anticipate your future together, and need to keep on studying your accomplice. On the off chance that you don’t build up this longing – you most likely would prefer not to transform this specific relationship into a caring one! In adoration versus desire, you need to consider your future together enamored, however in desire that probably won’t be the need.

The relationship

On the off chance that you are in a phase of desire, you might be sweethearts, yet you may not really be companions. In spite of the fact that you might be forming your relationship into companions. On the off chance that you are enamored you will be companions as well, you presumably won’t quit contemplating your accomplice and will need to know as much as you can about them.

In a relationship that changes from the desire to the affection organize you may begin not being companions, yet after some time you’ll create further emotions and a more grounded bond between you both. In affection versus desire, there is consistently kinship engaged with adoration, yet not really in desire. A few connections will make it to the adoration arrange, while others were never bound to arrive. Desire or love, in any case, there will be an unfathomable voyage of self-disclosure sitting tight for you, and one day the correct relationship will abandon desire into genuine romance.

At this point the distinction between adoration versus desire would be obvious to you. Presently you can make out where your relationship really stands.

Desire simply means a longing or craving, as for something that brings satisfaction or enjoyment. Desire simply means want. A strong feeling to possess something or having the yearning for some event to happen is desire. Our desires show our priorities which shape up the choices we make. Our actions should be based on the choices made in order to fulfil our desires. Remember to have a positive desires and ambitions.

The Heart Is the Store House of All Emotions

Unlike any other living being on the planet, we human beings have a unique heart. Our heart is the storehouse of all emotions that includes both good and bad… love, hatred, happiness, sorrow, anger, guilt, jealousy, pain, kindness, contentment, greed, respect, ego and the list goes on. Most interestingly, all these feelings emerge out of our own desires, fulfilled or unfulfilled. Different temperaments and behaviour give rise to different feelings on different occasions and in different situations.

Fulfilled desires attract good feelings like satisfaction and happiness while the unfulfilled desire leads to negative emotions. Desires can be both good and bad. Desire to own a bigger house could be a need for many, it could be a dream for some and it may be greed for a few. The same is with money. All humans are all created equally with a pure heart. You grow up with many different experiences and among many different kinds of people. Everything has an influence on the heart of a growing child and thus every individual who is born, grows up to be unique in nature. It is very normal for individuals to have different desires though the situation is similar.

In the due course of time, you develop both positive and negative feelings in different ratios and begin to form your character. It is the character which makes each one of us unique from others. People and circumstances majorly influence us to alter our character with time, so does our wants.

As we grow we adapt and remodel our hearts as per our likes and dislikes. Heart desires way more than we can really think it does. It is a feeling of aspiration to have something more, something different, something better each time and it keeps growing.

Understand Your Desires and Their Different Colours

Desire is a strong feeling situated deep within your heart, of attaining something you wish to have. It is the craving to possess something reachable or unreachable, good or bad. Life will be fruitful only when you desire and be persistent about the things suitable for you. Desires can have good and bad effects on your life while it depends on your willingness status.

Your desire to harm a person will never get you peace or happiness. Negative feelings will always generate negative effects on your health and life. Competition in life can bring desires of winning over your competitors but this desire should be a healthy one, where-in defeat should also be accepted sportingly. Rejoicing in the happiness of others brings another level of joy and satisfaction altogether. Do whatever hard work it takes to find the success you crave for but remember small failures make a strong path to success.

It is alright if you fail in spite of putting in tremendous effort, rather than winning by cheating to achieve the desired goal. Failure determines a little more input was needed, begin again but always be fair.

A few strong desires: A hungry person desires food, a budding entrepreneur longs for success, an actor craves for fame, a student expects good marks, guilty desires to be forgiven, lonely wishes to have a company. “NO BEES NO HONEY NO WORK NO MONEY”

What Is Important Is to Work for Your Dreams

The hungry must work to earn a living, an entrepreneur needs to be diligent & then expect success, an actor needs to display his skills to earn applauds, a student needs to put in study efforts to attain flying colours, one has to feel the guilt & ask for forgiveness, the lonely needs to be social & keep his arms open for friendship.

We all love to acquire materialistic things and that surely gives us tremendous pleasure. They are in fact wonderful as they bring the greatest pleasures of living on this planet. The kind of society we live in, makes us all forget that the purpose of life is not in the materials that we buy. If having a materialistic life would be the purpose of our life, then things would give us the ultimate pleasure and we would never want to spend our time or money on anything else. Actually, the happiness that we get by these materials is not everlasting, rather possessing one thing only brings out the urges to buy more.

If materials would serve the purpose of human life then people would be able to possess all of them while leaving the rest of the world aside. Substances are just the joys of living in the world and not the purpose of life.

Everyone needs food, shelter and clothing but the desire to have them alone without aiming at the other aspects in life robs the freedom of leading a truly satisfying life. On the other hand when you acquire the things that money cannot buy, then you will find the feelings of true satisfaction and fulfilment. Pure love, unbreakable trust, true friendship, strongly bonded relationships, understanding, compassion, hard work and success will bring you true happiness and everlasting joy. You will then be motivated to do more and perform better in every aspect in order to fulfil your dreams. What you gain within by fulfilling your life’s purpose is actually what you carry along with you when you finally leave the world for heavenly abode. “For money you can have everything it is said. No, that is not true. You can buy food, but not appetite; medicine, but not health; soft beds, but not sleep; knowledge but not intelligence; glitter, but not comfort; fun, but not pleasure; acquaintances, but not friendship; servants, but not faithfulness; grey hair, but not honor; quiet days, but not peace. The shell of all things you can get for money. But not the kernel. That cannot be had for money.” – Arne Garborg Do not regret the things you could not do in life. Your life is very precious and you have to be happy by fulfilling your dreams and achieving your goals. Even by selling the most precious thing you possess and by earning all the money you want, you will fail to bring yourself the pure satisfaction that a human heart desperately longs for. True satisfaction comes only by following and fulfilling your dreams.

Imagine the feeling of satisfaction you will attain when in retrospect your life would reflect all the non-materialistic, sublime and celestial achievements along with the academic, commercial and other materialistic ones too!

Make Hard Work a Necessity, Not a Choice!

To desire is inherent to all humans. The processing of desire is equally important, only then we shall expect things to fall move our way! The desire to change must be greater than your desire to remain the same, overcoming inertia is what brings about progress. There should be an intense urge to see your wants being fulfilled. This intensity needs the spark of motivation and penchant for hard work and the correct process of making things fall in place. Hard work along with the strong belief to make your ambitions turn real will make it happen faster.

Hard work, dedication, belief and the focus on the goal is a sure way to succeed. We must also remember that the act of getting desires fulfilled by the wrong means generate wrong karma. The willingness to take over someone else’s share of success, fame or belongings is not what you deserve. Wrong desires lead to wrong karma and the success attained would be temporary and false. As the law of karma says, what goes around comes around. Desiring for something that does not belong to you is unacceptable by the Universal system and negates good karma.

Desire and earnestly work hard to achieve it by fair means…make your life worthwhile!! Quotes Worth Considering “There are many shortcuts to failure, but there are no shortcuts to true success.” – Orrin Woodward “In life, most short cuts end up taking longer than taking the longer route.” – Suzy Kassem

The Burning Desire – A Short Story

A young man asked Socrates the secret to success. Socrates told the young man to meet him near the river the next morning. They met the next morning as decided. Socrates asked the young man to walk with him towards the river. While walking when the water levelled up to their neck, Socrates took the man by surprise and ducked him into the water. The boy then struggled to get out but Socrates was strong enough to hold him there until the boy started turning almost blue. Socrates finally pulled his head out of the water and the first thing the young man did was gasped in a deep breath. Socrates then asked “What did you want the most when you were there in the water”, the boy replied “Air”. Socrates then explained, “That is the secret to success. When you want success as badly as you wanted the air, then you will get it. There is no other secret”.

Socrates tells us that a burning desire to achieve anything is the secret to all accomplishments. Just like a small fire cannot create much heat, so a weak desire cannot produce great results.

In Molly Peacock’s poem “Desire” she talks about the desire the human body has. She mentions many aspects of desire by using metaphors and personification. Desire is one of those things that ends up getting everyone into trouble at one point. This poem explains the reason why, it is uncontrollable and instinctual. It comes and goes without logical thought and it does not matter whether or not it makes sense, you want what your heart wants. This can be a problem even though Molly Peacock does not admit it in her poem. Desire is the fuel behind competition and indulgence; too much can be a bad thing. However Peacock takes a surprising neutral standpoint in discussing the definition of desire. Molly Peacock centers her idea that desire is an irrational emotion that occurs within every individual in a different way in moments that overwhelm the thoughts and life of a person.

Molly Peacock begins her poem by stating that desire “isn’t schooled”. This statement means desire cannot be taught. This statement sums the poem up as a whole. By saying desire is something that is not taught, we are saying it is natural. In line two of Peacock’s poem, she uses the word “foetal”. The word foetal is another way of saying fetal, as in a fetus, meaning that desire is innocent and even naive, but also natural. The whole poem points toward desire being natural and unteachable.

Peacock also uses figurative language to help the reader feel the desire she is talking about. Peacock uses personification to enhance her definition of desire. In line one of the poems it says, “It doesn’t speak and it isn’t schooled…It is the blind instinct for life unruled”. Then line seven states, “[It] smells and touches endings and beginnings”. Finally, lines ten and eleven say, “ Like a pet who knows you and nudges your knee with its snout.” The way Peacock uses personification and giving desire animal attributes and having it do things personify it and help her give the right feeling for desire. Peacock uses other types of figurative language, but she overshadows them by using personification so strongly. Peacock shows the reader what desire is by bringing it to real life by using personification.

Molly Peacock’s poem “Desire” is pivoted around her idea that desire is an irrational emotion that occurs within every individual in a different way in moments that overwhelm the thoughts and life of a person. Peacock begins her poem by making sure the reader knows that one can not simply learn to have desire. Desire is something that “isn’t schooled”. Peacock then continues her poem and uses figurative language to enhance her definition of desire. Peacock makes the reader feel what the word desire means to her. Desire is something every human has had, is having, or will have and what you do with that desire will control your destiny.

Introduction to Desire in ‘The Great Gatsby’ and ‘Great Expectations’

The obsessive nature of desire is explored within both ‘The Great Gatsby’ and ‘Great Expectations’ with Fitzgerald and Dickens portraying this desire through: wealth, love and also self-advancement, within their novels. These concepts are devised throughout both novels in different ways. In ‘The Great Gatsby’, Gatsby desires to be wealthier than Tom Buchanan to gain the love of Daisy Buchanan and Fitzgerald uses his mansion to exemplify this. Similarly, in ‘Great Expectations’ the main protagonist Pip desires to be rich when he first sees Satis house and longs to be as wealthy as the upper class of the period. Love is also strongly portrayed through Gatsby’s obsessive need for wanting Daisy. However this ‘love’ is rarely depicted as healthy or stable but rather an overpowering desire to put right the past. Akin to this, Pip is driven by his desire to be worthy of Estella’s love. Lastly the self-advancement of Gatsby shows a strong correlation to the American dream and becoming the wealthiest man of Long island. As well as this, Pip’s desire for self-improvement is to please Estella by becoming a gentleman of the upper-class to be able to meet the standards of the typical gentleman of Victorian society.

Wealth as a Central Object of Desire

In both ‘The Great Gatsby’ and ‘Great Expectations’, Fitzgerald and Dickens similarly explore how Gatsby and Pip have the desire of being wealthy. Fitzgerald depicts Daisy as her voice being “full of money”, and in this way she becomes almost a symbol of wealth to Gatsby, rather than a real woman. As well as justifying that Gatsby’s desire to be wealthy is an attempt to become wealthier than tom Buchanan so that he can please Daisy, and Fetterley argues that ‘he who possesses Daisy Fay is the most powerful boy’, suggesting that Gatsby may just be pursuing this desire of wealth to prove to Daisy that he is the more superior man. It is also evident that, within the 1920’s American society, it was important for people to know where your wealth came from, and whether it was legitimate. Daisy’s wealth comes from her family and the hard work of her husband’s, whereas Gatsby’s wealth isn’t at all legitimate, as we learn when Gatsby replies to Nick about his business with ‘that’s my affair’. By Fitzgerald embodying Daisy as a character so perfect, he is in fact revealing to the reader that Jay Gatsby’s wealth has not been achieved through honest and legal work, further accentuated by his devious nature and the way that he tries to deceive Nick about his wealth. Although Fitzgerald may portray Daisy as the most perfect 1920’s woman, it is apparent that the wealth of Daisy has left her a very corrupt and careless woman, Nick says she ‘smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back to their money or their vast carelessness’. Which provides the reader with an interpretation of Daisy Buchanan and many other 1920’s American women being extremely materialistic, and dependent on the wealth and luxury that their husbands yield to them.

In chapter 22 of ‘Great Expectations’, Pip says: “I wonder he didn’t marry her and get all the property”, when he cannot understand why Compeyson would turn down the opportunity of marriage and wealth, exemplifying that he feels the only things that you need in life to be successful are marriage and wealth, wealth connoted by ‘property’, which was largely associated with status in the Victorian society. As well as this, Pip believes that money can buy him acceptance from the society around him, however he is wrong. Alike to Gatsby, Pip is presented as a character with changed attitudes in ‘Great Expectations’ once he has encountered wealth in London, he says that Hebert Pocket “had grand ideas of wealth” and that he “would never be successful or rich”. Now that Pip had achieved his desire for wealth, supposedly from the kind-hearted actions of Miss Havisham, he portrays himself as somebody obsessed with the nature of status and wealth within Victorian society. Once Pip has the wealth he has been dreaming of, it seems to the reader that he thinks that he can judge everyone’s social status and their wealth against his own.

Dickens makes use of settings and imagery to portray Pip’s desire of wealth to impress Estella within his novel, but to also exemplify how wealth can destroy a person. Pip used to watch the ships on the marshes that transported the convicts, which can be inferred as an important metaphor for the motivation for Pip’s desire of wealth and this isn’t to please anyone else but himself, but he soon realises that wealth isn’t all that it seems which makes Pip different to Jay Gatsby: “I began fully to know how wrecked I was, and how the ship in which I had sailed was gone to pieces”. The ships on the marshes became to Pip a symbol of failure which motivates Pip’s desire for being wealthy, but once he finds this wealth Pip realises that social status is not always the concept that defines success within society, and reveals to the reader that Pip’s dreams didn’t result in his happiness. The connotations of ‘Wrecked’ and ‘pieces’ suggest that the hopes that Pip thought that wealth would bring for him have just shattered before him and made his life more dismal than it was before. Pip doesn’t retrieve Estella by the end of the novel, and she says in the ending: “tell me we are friends”, effectively implying that marrying Estella was a false desire for Pip right from the very beginning of the novel, however the reader does expect a spontaneous marriage or even a happily ever after for the pair. Victoria Leslie suggests that “(Dickens’) decision to subvert so many fairy-tale conventions suggests that there is no place for them in the Victorian world”, implying that Pip and Estella might have been used to portray views about a loss of desire and hope within Victorian society. Also this could have been intended to exemplify that his desire for wealth would shatter before his eyes along with the destruction of Satis house. Pip had fantasised about the wealth and superiority of the rotting and decaying house, and after its burning at the end of the novel he feels somewhat remorseful: “I could trace out where every part of the old house had been”. It becomes evident to the reader that the destruction of something so desirable to Pip, results in the destruction of all the wealth that he had dreamt of.

The Influence of Properties on Desire

The settings and imagery of properties has also been used in both ‘The Great Gatsby’ and ‘Great Expectations’ to define the protagonist’s desire for wealth, for example Gatsby’s mansion and Satis house’s influence on Pip. The parties that Gatsby holds at his opulent mansion are very much a representation of his wealth: “he had waited five years and bought a mansion where he dispensed starlight to casual moths”. Which provides an interpretation of Gatsby using this mansion as a way of drawing attention to himself, by always keeping it lit up, in an attempt of desiring Daisy’s curiosity towards these parties. As well as this, his excessively large ‘mansion’ connotes impressive wealth, implying that these are solely owned by the rich, giving Fitzgerald an opportunity to reflect his thoughts and views about 1920’s America. However, it is evident within the novel that not many people know Gatsby or in fact who he is, suggesting that Gatsby’s parties and wealth provide a fascade of the character that he is. The fact that it is also emphasised that these people who attend are just ‘casual moths’, implies that the only person that he wants to attend these parties is Daisy, and instead people just casually come and go as they please to absorb the wealth and beauty of Gatsby’s parties. The fact that Gatsby’s wealth has been used to attract Daisy, is confirmed by Dr Anna Wulick as she says ‘he set out to earn enough money to win Daisy over, turning to crime’, hinting towards the illegitimate mass of wealth that Gatsby had occupied. The semantic field of opulence and luxury depicted throughout the novel of Gatsby’s parties, acts as a representation of Gatsby’s wealth with, ‘glistening hors d’oeuvre’ and ‘harlequin designs’ and ‘turkeys bewitched to a dark gold’. Successfully strengthening the theme of desire presented within the novel, by exemplifying Nick’s first experience of Gatsby’s parties from a sensuous aspect, in a way of glorifying the lavish and luxurious lifestyle of Jay Gatsby.

Similarly to this, Pip’s desire for wealth is defined by a property, and in ‘Great Expectations’ this is exemplified through Satis house: “The strange house and the strange life appeared to have something to do with everything that was picturesque”. The ‘strangeness’ of Satis house seems to entice Pip’s desire of wealth, although for much of the novel, it is described as ‘rotting’ or ‘decaying’. Both Satis house and Miss Havisham have influenced Pip’s desire of being a wealthy Victorian gentleman, and the fact that Pip juxtaposes this ‘rot’ and ‘decay’ of the house with it being ‘picturesque’, suggests that Pip aspires to have these possessions, although Satis house is a representation of disappointments and unfulfilled dreams, Pip is more compelled by the house’s mystery and beauty. Which further accentuates the alienation of Pip’s social class from the rich and suggests that he has an uneducated desire for wealth. Satis house is in great comparison to Gatsby’s mansions in the fact that the opulence of Gatsby’s mansion, is far from evident at Satis house with it being unkept and overgrown. The semantic field of decay lingers throughout the novel with the house having ‘many iron bars’ and the ‘passages were all dark’, to create a gothic setting for Satis house and depict this almost as a prison which holds the downhearted memories of Miss Havisham. Satis house successfully acts as a symbol of wealth within the novel yet also disappointment and regret, and so his desire for this wealth helps him to look beyond the ‘rotting’ of the house, and instead he is naïve towards the ‘decaying’ of the house and chooses to accept it for its substantial wealth within Victorian society. The disappointment and regret felt by Miss Havisham, evinces that money cannot make you happy further accentuating Pip’s uneducated attitude towards wealth.

Fairy-Tale Imagery and Unrealistic Expectations

Fitzgerald and Dickens have both similarly made use of fairy-tale conventions within each of their novels to exemplify the desire and passion that the two main protagonists have for gaining the love of each of their female interests. Gatsby presents Daisy as the embodiment of a quintessential 1920’s American woman, but it is eventually revealed to the reader that Daisy is not what they assume: “High in a white palace the King’s daughter, the golden girl”. Daisy is repeatedly depicted as the ‘golden girl’ by Fitzgerald throughout the novel, which entails the supremacy and royalty that Daisy demands, prevailing Gatsby’s desire to have her, with ‘palace’ and ‘golden’ creating almost fairy-tale imagery, to imply that Gatsby deems Daisy as an almost enchanted woman. As well as this, the use of fairy-tale conventions effectively promotes Jay Gatsby as somewhat of a hero, rescuing Daisy from her authoritative husband although it is clear to the reader that she does not actually want to be rescued by Gatsby, and is rather disinterested in his ‘fantasy’ of re-writing the past. Andrew Green defines Gatby’s desire of re-writing the past as Gatsby being ‘Unable to escape from the idealised memories of his past with Daisy, he finds himself trapped within an uncertain and deeply unsatisfactory present’, which further emphasises the fact that Fitzgerald is using fairy-tale conventions to undermine the realism of love within 1920’s America.

Similarly, to ‘The Great Gatsby’, Pip describes Estella in a likewise manner in Chapter 29 of ‘Great Expectations’: ‘Marry the princess’, ‘princess’ holds underlying connotations of royalty and fortune which suggests the prominence of Pip’s unrequited love for Estella. Dickens has also used the same approach, of fairy-tale conventions, as Fitzgerald in identifying Estella as another archetypal woman, but within the Victorian society: ‘princess’ connoting beauty. This fairy-tale imagery of the ‘princess’ being locked away in Satis house by Miss Havisham, could exemplify to a modern-day reader a parallel between the story of Rapunzel, and the evil stepmother keeping her locked away in a tower. Pip’s description of Miss Havisham being a ‘wax-work’ and a ‘skeleton’, enforces upon the reader an idea of her having the character of almost the wicked witch of this fairy-tale convention, rather than fairy godmother that Pip assumes her to be. Victoria Leslie further supports this point by insisting that Miss Havisham ‘delights in watching Estella’s cruelty towards Pip’ and that ‘she doesn’t teach Estella to love in return’. Which successfully suggests that Miss Havisham has created Estella to be cold-hearted based on her own resentment, and makes the reader feel somewhat sympathetic towards Estella’s unfortunate childhood. As well as this, there could be underlying tones of self-pleasure, alike to Gatsby, when Pip is satisfied with his ‘princess’ he has reached his goal of social status in society and no longer sees his desire for Estella as a necessity, because he now has ‘everything’ that a man needs in life.

Symbols of Desire and Their Meanings

The symbol of the Green light within ‘The Great Gatsby’, is significant in contributing to the presence of Gatsby’s desire for Daisy, because to Gatsby the Green light represents his dream which-is in fact Daisy. In some ways however, this could come across to the reader as obsessive: “If it wasn’t for the mist, we could see your home across the bay”. Fitzgerald has effectively used the ‘mist’, to create a barrier between desire and reality to in fact foreshadow that Gatsby’s dream is never actually going to be granted. Successfully identifying Gatsby’s obsessive desire for Daisy and emphasising this theme, as Gatsby has managed to occupy the house directly opposite to Daisy’s and has even addressed this with Daisy herself. As Fitzgerald uses ‘mist’ to determine that Gatsby’s dream of Daisy is a risk because she is presented as an unstable woman without Tom, Dickens has also used the theme of mist to present similar ideas: ‘Pip walks to the site in the misty dusk/he is stunned to find Estella’. With mist again acting as a barrier between Pip’s desire for love and for a new life with Estella, and the reality that Satis house has now actually been destroyed, to conclude Pip’s desire of loving Estella.

The actions of Daisy are exemplified by Fitzgerald within the novel in a way of exposing the corrupt nature of desire and love within the 1920’s society, through her aspirations that she has for her young daughter: ‘I hope she’ll be a fool-that’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool’. Fitzgerald has included this, to portray views about women that were present within the 1920’s society like women being subservient to men, without intelligence but rather a product of the social environment and beauty, and to also reveal that Daisy believes that her daughter should grow up to be everything that a man wants her to be so that she can be loved and desired. This view is supported by a website source which has also suggested that ‘her bitterness and cynicism is signalled early on as she expresses a devastating critique of women’s position in society’, confirming the bitterness and disgruntlement of the character of Daisy within the novel.

Alike to ‘The Great Gatsby’, there is an important symbol permeating the novel that represents Pip’s desire to have Estella, which is Satis house although this isn’t used as a positive concept of Pip’s love for her: “She reserved it for me to restore the desolate house”. As mentioned previously, in the novel we can understand that Pip depicts a successful life for a man as being married with property, and Pip’s only way to achieve this is to please Estella and “restore the desolate house”, although this quotation portrays Pip as being selfish, more than being in love as to the reader it seems like all that Pip is interested in is Satis house. Thus, implying that Pip’s love and compassion isn’t as legitimate as it seems, and maybe Pip becomes too focused on the journey of achieving his dream of success that he forgets to actually focus on the desire itself: Estella, making ‘Great Expectations’ very similar in forms of compassion to ‘The Great Gatsby’.

Conclusion: The Complexity of Desire and Its Consequences

The last concept of the obsessive nature of desire explored within both ‘The Great Gatsby’ and ‘Great Expectations’ is the self-advancement of the main protagonists within the two novels: Gatsby and Pip. In ‘The Great Gatsby’, the theme of self-advancement is explored through the use of the American dream, a theory present during the 1920’s society of this novel. Nick says: “Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future”. The symbol of the ‘green light’ which permeates this novel is representative of the American Dream, ‘green’ infers connotations of money and ‘light’ suggesting a source of hope for 1920’s America. Frederick Millet says that the Green Light ‘is a symbol for Gatsby’s dream and the hope for the future’ as well as, Green being ‘the colour of promise, hope, and renewal’, justifying the fact that this symbol does act as a concept of uncovering Gatsby’s dreams for having Daisy and being the richest man of the 1920’s society. Alternatively, this could provide us with a view on transcending present in 1920’s American society, in which people believed that they could transform into a much more omnipotent character, and this green light epitomises the desire that Gatsby has for constantly improving himself. However, the importance of the ‘green light’ dies towards the end of the novel once the carelessness of the richer characters: Gatsby, Daisy and Tom, is exposed. Churchwell claims that, ‘Gatsby has been shaped by a country that channelled his desires into climbing social ladders’.

In literature, Desire is often manipulated by writers and poets in order to build their characters and story, as can be seen in Fitzgerald’s ‘The Great Gatsby’ and Donne’s ‘The Flea’. However, much like how the former two pieces use desire to subvert what are commonly seen as more ‘powerful’ themes such as religion, desire itself can be subverted to give strength to the power of love, as can be seen in Shakespeare’s ‘Sonnet 116’.

In ‘The Great Gatsby’, Desire is manipulated by Fitzgerald in order to explain and chronicle the rise and fall of the eponymous Gatsby. In the novel, it is explained that Gatsby and Daisy enjoyed a brief, but intense, relationship prior to his deployment during World War One. During this time, Daisy married the aristocratic Tom Buchanan, breaking Gatsby’s heart. Resolving to win back her affection, Gatsby works with Meyer Wolfshiem to run a bootlegging scheme throughout the American Prohibition, a thirteen-year period where the production, importation and consumption of alcohol were banned by law. Prior to the novel’s beginning, Gatsby has amassed a fortune, and has bought a mansion on West Egg, one of two islands that serve as representations of the ‘Idle Rich’ (old money) and the ‘nouveau riche’ (new money).

The location of Gatsby’s home is significant, as highlighted by Jordan in Chapter 4. It is mentioned that “Gatsby bought that house so that Daisy would be just across the bay.” Gatsby’s desire for Daisy acts as his driving force for his rise up the socio-economic ladder. Said desire is often materialised by Fitzgerald in the form of a ‘green light’ that sits on Daisy’s dock. Gatsby is noted by Nick to gaze whilst ‘trembling’ at the light, whilst also remarking how ‘minute and far away’ it was from them. The light acts as a beacon to Gatsby and a reminder of his desire for Daisy, but also for his desire to return to the past. However, by describing it as ‘Minute’ and ‘Far Away’, Fitzgerald subtly hints that this light – and by extension Daisy, the object of Gatsby’s desires – is unreachable and unobtainable, providing dark foreshadowing to Gatsby’s grisly fate. It is also argued by some critics that the green light could be that of a traffic light, which were introduced between 1910 and 1920, which means that the light could also be a subtle reference to how the chasing of one’s desires often end in tragedy. Myrtle meets her end after being ran over by Daisy, and Gatsby meets his as a direct result of George’s grief and Tom’s interference. Despite Gatsby seeming to be the biggest victim of his desires, it can be argued that desire is a destructive force throughout other relationships in the novel as well, particularly during the love triangle between Tom, Myrtle and George. From her first introduction, Myrtle is objectified by Nick, with the 1st person narrator describing her as a woman whose: “face, above a spotted dress of dark blue crêpe-de-chine, contained no facet or gleam of beauty, but there was an immediately perceptible vitality about her as if the nerves of her body were continually smouldering.”

Although the description is not exactly a positive one, it can be seen that Myrtle is viewed as a desirable woman, if only for her liveliness. Unlike Daisy, who even calls herself ‘paralysed’ due to her cynical view on her relationship with Tom, Myrtle is shown to chase after her dreams, particularly the newfound object of her desires: Tom. Myrtle is shown to believe that Tom is truly in love with her as she is with him, despite the latter not sharing this love, and instead viewing her as just another affair. However, perhaps the most interesting way that Fitzgerald manipulates desire is through the stirring of the third wheel in the relationship: George, Myrtle’s current partner whom she describes as being unfit to “lick her shoe”. In Gatsby, Religion is nigh-non-existent, with only vague references to God in George’s dialogue in chapter 7, where he remarks that “God sees everything” and cannot be fooled. Interestingly, George attempts to use religion in order to get Myrtle to confess to her affair, and to end it, effectively causing her to cease the chase for her desire. However, the exact opposite occurs, with Myrtle attempting to escape George, running into the road and being run down by Daisy. Throughout the novel, Religion is undermined, if not unmentioned entirely, as the characters are all driven by other motives, most notably desire, and proceed down their paths without any intervention from external forces. As such, it can be argued that a cynical viewpoint is adopted by Fitzgerald, and that capitalism and the desire for wealth have usurped religion and hold the same motivative force it once held.

Religion’s insignificance is also explored in Donne’s ‘The Flea’. In the poem, the speaker is attempting to convince his partner to engage in pre-marital sex, widely considered taboo to the conservative contemporary audience from when the poem was published, and to the Catholic Church, a fact made even more ironic when Donne later went on to involve himself in his local churches. The poem consists of three stanzas which generally consists of iambic feet. However, the metre is erratic, even shifting into trochaic feet from lines 16 to 18. The chaos of the poem’s metre could arguably reflect the speaker’s lustful desperation for his partner. Throughout the poem, Donne undermines religion, identifying the flea as their ‘marriage bed and marriage temple’, rendering the significance of marriage, a religious ceremony, a moot event within his eyes. Donne is also extremely hyperbolic in the poem, stating: “Though use make you apt to kill me, let not to that, self-murder added be and sacrilege, three sins in killing three.” Donne’s speaker attempts to convince his partner that she will be committing three sins if she declines his demands for sex: homicide by not having sex with him, suicide – killing herself by not sleeping with him – and sacrilege by killing the flea, essentially defacing their ‘temple’. In the extremely religious and conservative times when the poem was written, sex before marriage was widely tabooed. Yet, Donne disregards this, lowering its significance to that of a flea, undermining romance similar to the graphic ‘worms’ imagery in ‘To his Coy Mistress’ by fellow metaphysical poet Marvell. In ‘The Flea’, the speaker, and arguably Donne by extension, seek to fulfil their desire of sleeping with their partner, and are shown to manipulate contemporary views on religion, in a similar vein to ‘Gatsby’ in order to fulfil this desire.

However, whilst both Fitzgerald and Donne present very cynical views towards desire, Shakespeare seems to disregard it entirely throughout ‘Sonnet 116’. The poem is a traditional Shakespearean Sonnet consisting of three quatrains, followed by a (loose) rhyming couplet. The poem’s speaker attempts to define love, praising its sincerity and longevity. Shakespeare uses nautical imagery in order to present love as a guiding light, calling it an ‘ever-fixed mark.’ Shakespeare is shown to view love as something pure that can guide lost souls, a thought galvanised by the poem’s opening lines: “Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment.” The line carries connotations of a wedding vow, indirectly contrasting the cynical view of romance displayed in Fitzgerald and Donne’s works. Yet curiously, desire is unmentioned and rendered insignificant. Shakespeare’s view on love is simple and genuine, almost to the point of innocence, as can be seen when he declares that love is eternal “even to the edge of doom.” Shakespeare’s belief in genuine love over desire is shown to be unflinching, as shown in the poem’s rhyming couplet: “If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved” Shakespeare belief in love’s longevity and purity directly opposes the cynical, undermining view maintained throughout ‘Gatsby’ and ‘The Flea’. Unlike the previous texts, Shakespeare does not seem to believe that desire overrules ‘true’ love, instead believing that love is eternal once the (wedding) vow has been made.

Curiously, the poem is not addressed to neither the ‘Fair Youth’ nor the ‘Dark Lady’ mentioned throughout Shakespeare’s poetry. So it’s possible that this poem was a more ‘generalised’ piece, in order to convey his honest views on romance over desire. All three writers dabble with desire through their literature. Whilst Fitzgerald and Donne use it as a driving force for their characters actions, Shakespeare downplays it, believing that true love is eternal, regardless of what obstacles may stand in the way.

What makes a society civilized? This question has been asked for thousands of years but it can never be truly answered because of many conflicting opinions and influencing factors. Yet it’s still a widely discussed and debated topic, that is popular in literature. Odysseus’s adventures in Homer’s epic poem, The Odyssey, portrays his idea of civilization as the ability to fulfill one’s desire, while savagery is depicted as the life of necessity. The idea of necessity vs. desire is depicted many times throughout Odysseus’s journey home, to his family and what he believes is civilization. He runs across many vastly different landscapes and societies. Two of the most distinct lands odyssey comes across is the land of the Phaeacians and the land of the Cyclopes. The Phaeacians live a lavish and carefree life which is praised for being civilized, while the cyclopes live a life of necessity and simplicity that is described as savage. Yet is that really the case?

The Phaeacians are considered one of the most advanced societies in The Odyssey, Their lifestyle choices assert their power and what homer believes is civilization. This life they choose is one not of necessity but desire. Their walls are “plated in bronze”(Homer,182) and the king Alcinous has “fifty serving women in his house”(Homer,182). Yet even the bright-eyed goddess Athena explains that Odyssey can take refuge here, as the people are not savage because of the abundance of riches they have to offer. The Phaeacian royalty is even described as having “luxuriant trees”(Homer,183) that were “showered down by the gods”(Homer,183). This society is based around how extravagant and how many of your earthly desires can be fulfilled, though they are civilized greed runs through their veins. While the cyclops land revealed as the opposite of a basic and simple lifestyle.

The cyclops is described as a primitive and barbaric because they only have the basic means to survive. The cyclops land is portrayed as an unappealing and fruitless land, yet “the earth teams with all that

What makes a society civilized? This question has been asked for thousands of years but it can never be truly answered because of many conflicting opinions and influencing factors. Yet it’s still a widely discussed and debated topic, that is popular in literature. Odysseus’s adventures in Homer’s epic poem, The Odyssey, portrays his idea of civilization as the ability to fulfill one’s desire, while savagery is depicted as the life of necessity. The idea of necessity vs. desire is depicted many times throughout Odysseus’s journey home, to his family and what he believes is civilization. He runs across many vastly different landscapes and societies. Two of the most distinct lands odyssey comes across is the land of the Phaeacians and the land of the Cyclopes. The Phaeacians live a lavish and carefree life which is praised for being civilized, while the cyclopes live a life of necessity and simplicity that is described as savage. Yet is that really the case?

The Phaeacians are considered one of the most advanced societies in The Odyssey, Their lifestyle choices assert their power and what homer believes is civilization. This life they choose is one not of necessity but desire. Their walls are “plated in bronze”(Homer,182) and the king Alcinous has “fifty serving women in his house”(Homer,182). Yet even the bright-eyed goddess Athena explains that Odyssey can take refuge here, as the people are not savage because of the abundance of riches they have to offer. The Phaeacian royalty is even described as having “luxuriant trees”(Homer,183) that were “showered down by the gods”(Homer,183). This society is based around how extravagant and how many of your earthly desires can be fulfilled, though they are civilized greed runs through their veins. While the cyclops land revealed as the opposite of a basic and simple lifestyle.

The cyclops is described as a primitive and barbaric because they only have the basic means to survive. The cyclops land is portrayed as an unappealing and fruitless land, yet “the earth teams with all that it needs”(Homer 215). The cyclopes have the three necessities in life food, water, and shelter but that isn’t seen as civilized because they aren’t striving for excessive worldly possessions. They have little to offer and little to live on they don’t have bronze walls and gold doors. What the cyclopes do have are “flocks of bleating goats” and “wheat, barley, and vines”. Homer uses these quotes to highlight how basic the cyclops’s needs are. What is truly civilized desire or necessity?

The life of desire is shown as civilization though it has impure intentions with it and a life of simplicity and necessity is shown as savage though this lifestyle is not as cruel. The civilized Phaeacians are living a life of expectation and prosperity. This life brings savage tendencies such as greed( philargyria) and gluttony (gastrimargia) which are part of the seven deadly sins. Those are savage acts to commit in a supposedly advanced society. The cyclops have no need to fight over pointless riches based on their lack of desire they seem to have at least some civilized qualities. In any civilization savagery and necessity exist without it nothing could advance, it’s just a matter of balancing and understanding what makes something or someone consumed by desire.

Work Cited

1. Homer, The Odyssey. New York: Penguin Classics. 1996.Print.

In the problem of free will, the higher order theory exists as an attempt to defend compatibilism. Even if all of our desires are derived causally from the laws of nature, some philosophers argue that we still have free will if we have the ability to form desires and the agency to act on these desires. Wanting to do a particular thing is a first order desire. Wanting to want or not want this thing is a second order desire (Frankfurt, 1971). As the chain of desires grows, all desires other than the first are collectively known as higher order desires (Frankfurt, 1971). The higher order theory states that we have freedom of will if we act on our first order desires, which are supported by our higher order desires. However, I believe a contemporary discussion of free will encompasses not only the freedom to will a certain action, but also the freedom to act on said will (Doyle, n.d.). Since the higher order theory does not always guarantee freedom of action, it is clear that it cannot be a solution to the free will problem. Furthermore, merely a congruency between first order and second order desires is not enough to make soft determinism plausible. There must be an honest cause and effect relationship between belief, desires, and action which reflects our true identity.

The reasons for the higher order theory can be seen in cases of mental illnesses or cognitive disabilities. Such cases explain why acting on first order desires alone is not enough to constitute free will. The first order desires of someone with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) come in the form of obsessions and compulsions. While the person acts upon these compulsions, they do not actually have control over their actions (Glannon, 2012b; Meynen, 2012). This is why it is important to consider higher order desires. The second order desire of a person with OCD would most often be that they do not want these compulsions, thereby contradicting their first order desire (Glannon, 2012b). Similarly, a kleptomaniac’s first order desire would be to steal. However, their second order desire would be that they do not want to want to steal. Again, this contradicts their first order desire. Therefore, these cases illustrate why it is important for one’s first order desires to be supported by their higher order desires in order for free will to be possible.

Not only is it necessary for one’s first order desires to be supported by higher orders, there must also be a genuine causal relationship between first order desires and action. In order to establish genuinity of such a relationship, we must distinguish between a desire and an effective desire. An effective desire is one that actually causes an effect in action (Frankfurt, 1971). If a person merely acts in accordance with their desire, and yet this desire in itself was not the main motivator for such an action, then it is not an effective desire (Frankfurt, 1971).

Consider, as an example, that I desire to donate to charity for two reasons. The first reason being that I want to seem cool, and the second reason being that I want to help the less fortunate. My second order desire is that I want to want to help the less fortunate. If it turns out that the desire which actually motivates me to donate is that I want to help the less fortunate, then that desire is the effective one. Since it is also supported by my second order desire, I have free will.

Alternatively, if the real motivation for my donation is that I want to seem cool, then this becomes the effective desire. Since my effective desire contradicts my higher order desire, I do not have free will. Although the desire to help the less fortunate still exists in this second example, I do not have free will since it is not my effective desire.

The effectiveness of higher order desires must also be considered. Frankfurt (1971) puts forth the example of a physician who practices psychotherapy with drug addicts. While he does not want to actually do drugs, he seeks to accurately comprehend the feeling of drug addiction. Therefore, his second order desire is that he wants to want to do drugs. In this case, the physician clearly acts on his first order desire, that he does not want to do drugs. Even though this contradicts his second order desire, instinct would tell us that he does have free will. This is because although the physician wants to desire drugs, he does not want this desire to be effective (Frankfurt, 1971). This example adds a new level of complication to the higher order theory. This is a peculiar case in which the conditions for free will, as outlined by the higher order theory, are not met, and yet the subject still has free will. Perhaps it is not enough to confirm that first order desires are supported by higher order desires. We must consider whether or not desires of higher orders include effectiveness of lower order desires.

It is important to note that even if there is a causal relationship between effective desires and action, which is motivated by desires of higher orders, this may still prohibit freedom of action (Doyle, n.d.). Consider the possibility that a kleptomaniac’s second order desire is that they want to want to steal. In other words, they are okay with being a kleptomaniac and their first order desire is in fact supported by their higher order desires. While the higher order theory would suggest that this person does in fact have freedom of will, I believe that freedom of action is also necessary in order to constitute free will. In this regard, it is clear that the kleptomaniac does not have free will as their actions are still being controlled by their mental illness (Glannon, 2012b; Meynen, 2012). They have simply surrendered to their mental illness. In this example, the fault of the higher order theory is evident; it does not account for cases in which the causal relationship between desires and action hinders freedom of action (Doyle, n.d.).

Another fault of the higher order theory is that it does not account for the possibility that one’s higher order desires may be controlled by an exterior being or entity (Glannon, 2012a; Kane, 2000b). David Kyle Johnson (2016) argues that even if the origin of one’s desires, “is completely out of your control, it doesn’t matter” (p. 15). He goes on to say that free will still exists even if our desires are programmed by our genes or environment. Upon initial reading of this argument, I would have to agree with Johnson. However, the issue becomes more complex when considering a different external source of our desires. Kane (2000a) introduced the idea of a “covert, non-constraining control” (CNC) that could manipulate one’s higher order desires (p. 401). This includes, but is not limited to, drugs, hypnosis, and propaganda. An interesting example of a CNC is the Frankfurt-style case of the “nefarious neurosurgeon” (Frankfurt, as cited in Fischer, 2000). In this thought experiment, we must imagine that a rogue neuroscientist is controlling our higher order desires, which are in alliance with our first order desires. While Johnson (2016) argues that manipulation or programming by external factors would not have any weight in the problem of free will, I believe that one would instinctively say that they did not have free will in the neuroscientist case. This discrepancy forms because Johnson (2016) has only addressed external factors that abide by laws of nature, such as genes and environment. However, he has not considered the possibility of a much more unnatural source of higher order desires, such as a rogue neuroscientist, hypnosis, or propaganda (Frankfurt, as cited in Fischer, 2000). When we consider such possibilities, it seems as though we would not have free will in these cases, even if we acted on desires that do not contradict desires of higher orders (Haji & Cuypers, 2001). Therefore, this thought experiment is substantial as an objection to the higher order theory.

The reason why the higher order theory fails in both the case of the kleptomaniac and the case of the neuroscientist is that both examples prove that the existence of free will is not only dependent on the congruency between first order desires and higher order desires. Instead, it is dependent on how these desires are formed, how these desires motivate actions, and whether such desires reflect one’s true identity. In the case of someone with OCD or kleptomania, their identity, and hence their desires, are manipulated by their mental disorders (Glannon, 2012b; Meynen, 2012). In the case of the neuroscientist, their true identity is mutable by an external factor which does not abide by the laws of nature (Fischer, 2000; Frankfurt, 1971). Both of these lead to a changeability in desires. Therefore, in order to determine if a person is acting in accordance with their true identity, we must consider what one would do if nothing had gone wrong. One must imagine a “perfect world” in which the causal relationships between beliefs, desires, and actions are properly working, without the interference by mental disorders or “covert, non-constraining controls” (Kane, 2000a, p. 401). For example, if the kleptomaniac did not have such a disorder, what would their desires be? If they are acting from the motivation of such desires, then we can conclude that they have free will, as these desires would be derived accurately from their identity.

The neuroscientist scenario, on the other hand, poses much more of a complication. If one was in fact controlled by a neuroscientist, or some other “covert, non-constraining control”, there would be no way to actually confirm this (Kane, 2000a, p. 401). Therefore, it would be impossible to even conceive what a life without the external factor would look like, and what one’s desires would be. Evidently, the neuroscientist thought experiment weakens the higher order theory substantially. (Fischer, 2000; Frankfurt, 1971).

It is evident that the higher order theory, in its current form, fails to provide a solution to the free will problem. This theory should be revised so that it demands a genuine and effective causal relationship between the natural origin of our desires, our desires, and our actions, in a way that reflects our identity. If this can be accomplished there may be hope for free will.

Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre created quite a stir when it was published, under a false male pseudonym, in the mid 1840’s. This novel introduced the idea of the individualize women and how feminism was shifting throughout this time. She explores the undermining sexual innuendos hidden in Jane’s actions throughout the Victorian Era. From orphanhood to marriage, she shows growth in her sense of self. Jane has contradictory desires to be both independent and to serve a strong-willed man. Passion and desire play large roles in Jane’s relationships, but especially with Mr. Rochester, St. John, and can be seen represented in Bertha’s personality. This novel is a hybrid of genres. The Gothic aspect of this book provides a supernatural, suspenseful, mysterious story line, while the Romance parts of the novel focus on passion, love and destiny.

Jane longs for somewhere to belong, but also a sense of freedom. Each relationship she has contributes to her search. Mr. Rochester was Jane’s employer in Thornfield. While he is initially distant and short towards her, he is intrigued by her story and honesty. His arrogant attitude comes from the fact that he has power. His feelings of privilege and superiority fade when he begins to open up to Jane about his past. Her passion begins to heat up for him after saving him from the late night fire that started in his bedroom. Fire is a reoccurring motif that occurs throughout the story representing the burning passion in their relationships. After rescuing him from the burning curtains, she describes him with, “strange energy was in his voice, strange fire in his look.” (96) Although he is with Miss Blanche, he gives Jane a hard time about leaving his room. Jane acts as though his hand holding means little to her and she must return to her duties, but is over come by optimism and hopefulness by Mr. Rochester’s flirtatious attitude. “Till morning dawned I was tossed on a buoyant but unquiet sea, where billows of trouble rolled under surges of joy. I thought sometimes I saw beyond its wild waters a shore, sweet as the hills of Beulah; and now and then a freshening gale, wakened by hope, bore my spirit triumphantly towards the bourne: but I could not reach it, even in fancy—a counteracting breeze blew off land, and continually drove me back. Sense would resist delirium: judgment would warn passion. Too feverish to rest, I rose as soon as day dawned.” (Bronte 96) The desire between them is mutual but there still lies then constant struggle between Jane giving into her sexual desires to be with Mr. Rochester and the desire to fulfill herself and achieve the freedom she is looking for. She is taught by Helen how to better control her fiery rage and passion.

St. John has a similar dominating personality to Rochester, but is more cold towards Jane. He is very dedicate to his religious principles, similar to the way Jane is dedicated to her quest. Jane resorts to her orphan ways and ends up staying with the Rivers’ family and creating a relationship with St. John, who appears to be in love with Rosamond Oliver. He refuses to be with her, in fear she will not make a sufficient missionary wife. While Rochester vents his passions, St. John represses his. He lacks what she used love about Rochester. St. John values Jane for her skills and qualities. He says to her, “God and nature intended you for a missionary’s wife. It is not personal, but mental endowments they have given you: you are formed for labour, not for love. A missionary’s wife you must—shall be. You shall be mine: I claim you—not for my pleasure, but for my Sovereign’s service. (257) He is more passionate about his destiny to be a missionary worker than he is about a relationship with Jane. He admires her and her work ethic but not as a companion or wife. He wants power over her, not a relationship, “either our union must be consecrated and sealed by marriage, or it cannot exist.” (Bronte 258) She would consider going if he was not demanding marriage. The idea of being “a useful tool” on his missionary trip, seems about as belittling as being Rochester’s mistress. Yet she is still Rochester’s relationship.

Jane has grown from being an orphan with no money, family or support to an empowering women finally reaching her full potential. After denying St. John’s trip offer, she realizes that while she would have been free in India, she would have been trapped in a relationship with no love, passion or desire to be together. With Rochester, she felt like she could not be in a marriage that made her feel less respect, being the mistress. Bertha serves as not only Rochester’s wife, but a symbol for Jane’s subconscious feelings. Jane learns to control her rage and never displays to Rochester her thoughts about feeling imprisoned in marriage. Bertha’s existence is what stops the wedding, ruins Jane’s veil then sets the house on fire. Fire reoccurring for another time in the novel, “they called out to him that she was on the roof, where she was standing, waving her arms, above the battlements, and shouting out till they could hear her a mile of.” (274) She manifests Jane’s inner fiery personality. Jane’s five minutes in the Red Room is comparable to Bertha being locked in the attic. While Bertha appears to be insane, her releasing emotions is to show Jane hiding her inner passions and desires.

Jane Eyre’s struggle between wanting to be free and wanting to be loved evokes a lot of different emotions through out the story. Each character shares similar qualities to her. Charlotte Bronte puts emphasis on the sexual aspects of Jane’s life by intertwining similar characteristics through Jane, Mr. Rochester, St. John and Bertha. The amount of passion and desire conveyed through their relationships helps Jane grow into a blossoming woman in a freeing yet equal relationship.