AO help, im stuck on a paper about Arthur Miller and his anti capitalist literature
Blah i have to make this long paper - not really but i dont feel like doing it so its really long 5-7 pgs.
its due friday, but i have to show her a rough draft tomorrow. ANYWAY these are the fruits of my last 30 minutes of work.
im stuck now and when i get stuck 2 things happen. i either do nothing for the rest of the day, or i get help and a spark ignites and i keep writing.
without further wait, here is my pos paper (btw im not concerned with the content, i can shape it up quickly before friday.) but if you notice any egregious errors please let me know.
Arthur Miller was questioned by Senator McCarthy for the suspicion of communist ties, and anti-capitalist literature in 195x. Death of a Salesman is one of the playwright’s most controversial pieces of literature; the contrast from his portrayal of benevolent socialistic societies, and capitalistic corruption is quite clear. His sense of Marxism allows the presumably capitalist American audience some insight as to how their system (of capitalism) has failed their “little brother” - the one whom we can help by reevaluating what has become of our consumerist, production based society. However, it fails to portray the negative side of socialism, whereas it embellishes upon the negatives of capitalism. Furthermore Arthur Miller skews reality in his plays and then has the audacity to condemn the government for their expressed displeasure in his communist uplifting literature during the “red scare.”
The “Red Scare” caused many people to question their views on communism; Arthur Miller was no different than any other idealistic young man searching for the answers -having to tear down and question what he knows in order to progress as a man. Arthur Miller took part in several communist meetings, and with a better understanding of communism’s precepts, he wrote the Death of a Salesman, a scathing play which condemns America’s foundation, or what was settled once and for all at the end of the Civil War. This is of course the idea that a lowly man can become an entrepreneur and succeed. “As the representative of the pioneer and entrepreneur, Ben embodies the avenues to success of the earlier, more individualistic, production phase of the American economy” (Spindler p. 61). Willy understood this, but what he didn’t understand is that there is only room for one number one. Willy is a salesman that above all things, even his undisclosed product, sells himself. As a salesman he is unconcerned with attaining some quota, rather he is concerned with maintaining an amiable personality that will sell for him (Spindler p. 62). So when people stop returning Willy’s smiles, he recedes into his make-believe world where everything is ok, and his hopes are still alive rather than being crushed entirely by the harsh society. Inarguably, a man whom is fired after forty years of work, in the beginnings of his elderly stages, would be livid with his boss, and we as the audience should feel compassion for this man who is put out on his own, but “this is no ruthless executive callously firing the trusted employee from calculated mercenary motives: it is the ‘nice guy’ forced into a situation that he doesn’t know how to handle ‘nicely’ consequently . . . Making the ugliness of it worse” (Wetland pp. 53-54 The horrible events and overwhelming success that surrounds Willy swallows him up and suffocates the “life out of him.” As we the audience notice this we can’t help but challenge whether or not the capitalist way of life is right way to live. Still one mustn’t tear down capitalism without fairly comparing it to socialism.
Arthur Miller seems to overlook this, and roasts capitalism until its appearance to the public is blackened, and its reputation tainted.
It is of course the capitalist system that has done Willy in; the scene in which he is brutally fired after some 40 years with the firm comes straight from party-line literature of the ‘thirties, and the idea emerges lucidly enough through all the confused motivations of the play that it is our particular form of money economy that has bred the absurdly false ideals of both father and sons. [. . .] The playwright withdraws behind an air of pseudo-universality, and hurries to present some cruelty of misfortune . . . after [Willy] has been fired, or gratuitously from some other source, as in the quite unbelievable scene of the two sons, walking out on their father in the restaurant (Welland 52).
This misrepresentation of capitalism is an attempt to change the audiences opinion of the country they live in; since Miller had a notoriety amongst his peers and especially since he was betrothed to Marilyn Monroe, he was able to reach the audience in a personal way.
as you can see i have 2 paragraphs left so im not near done. any ideas? i realize this may be a hard topic, so if you cant help then thats cool
and if you think socialism is cool then go to hell
MSN & Email : firstname.lastname@example.org
Fantastic Traders: mark_426, Demobilized
Good Traders: Flogzero, LstCause7, mirthvader, rapidshooter, SIGSays