Slaughterhouse-Five

As Billy Pilgrim travels through time, the novel explores mental and emotional conditions a specific soldier experiences after war. His constant retreat to childish mannerisms and strong desire t0 be comforted suggest that his character is essentially weak. He warps from past to present to future and even to nothingness after his death, yet Billy rarely seems to form a genuine attachment to anything. His continual displacement in time taught him to accept the things he cannot change (as from the serenity prayer hanging in his office), and since he believes that he isn't in control of life, he must accept everything and know he can change nothing. Billy's repeated saying "so it goes" reflects this consistent acceptance. The saying always follows deaths mentioned in the novel but could easily relate to how Billy views life in general, accepting things for how they are and avoiding any strong emotional ties to the subjects. Events Billy has experienced such as the bombing of Dresden and traveling to Tralfamador have sculpted his character; they have made him both a strong character and a weak one. Billy is strong in the sense that he knows to accept parts of his life that he cannot change instead of battling and losing. However, this strength could also be viewed as stubbornness and apathy. In other words, weakness. On Tralfamador, the Tralfamadorians have convinced Billy that his life is predetermined and whatever he does is already destined to happen and he therefore feels no motivation to change his life and is not compelled to make any effort. Clearly whether Billy is strong or weak is a matter of perspective. One's character may appear strong in one point of view but entirely frail in another.

Beloved

Beloved is a novel largely based around love. Beloved loves Sethe, Denver loves Beloved, Paul D loves Sethe. The novel circulates because of the love that fuels it. In that love, I see a lot of strenght and serious weakness. The characters are strengthened by healthy love but are weakened when love hurts them. Beloved experiences vast extremes of both. Before the novel even begins Sethe has murdered Beloved so she has no chance at life until she comes back. Beloved is forced to confront the pain of knowing her mother murdered her yet her desire to be a part of Sethe. Similarly, Denver and Sethe experience this strength and weakness bred by love. Denver loves Beloved deeply, yet is rejected by her when Sethe comes on the scene. Sethe has dealt with fierce rejection as well, having to deal with the insanity and possible death of her husband and the new man in her life. She has to accept that her previous actions are affecting her current life and cannot escape her past. She loves her present life but is constantly suffering because of what happened before. For my big question, the claim I could make is that mankind is both strong and weak, but the amount of love they have and the condition of that love determines this.

The Stranger

Wow. This book makes this question seem irrelevant to be honest. When I look at my question, whether mankind is strong or fragile, I try to analyze strengths and weaknesses in characters. In this novel, I have to first get inside the mind of Meursault, which is a trial in itself. Meursault appears simple- not having many thoughts, not doing too much with his life, but that apparent simplicity is what makes him so interesting. Meursault understands life. Probably better than most of us... in some ways. Meursault is accepting that he cannot change the past and cannot control the future and therefore doesn't bother trying to do either. In this respect, Meursault is strong. He can live almost entirely in the present and not be affected by his wrongs or his future, until the end of the novel. At that point, he realizes life is precious. This is where his strength begins to falter and he is almost surrendering himself to weakness. But in this novel, it seems that weakness isn't necessarily a flaw. When Meursault enters this fragile state, he becomes aware that life has meaning and the only thing that matters is living life. He recognizes the loss of freedom he now has and how he took it for granted before. Not to say that he is completely changed, though. Meursault still believes that the past is the past and therefore has no intention of trying to alter it, but he has a realization that he could have lived his life differently (whether or not he would have or even wanted to). I guess that I can't really answer my question definitively with this novel. Yes, mankind is strong, yet it is also susceptible to frailty. The difference this novel makes is that being fragile isn't always a fault; it can simply mean being open to the world instead of putting up walls and resisting growth. Mankind is strong, yet sometimes it is best if it would take a moment and embrace being fragile.

Crime and Punishment

Raskolnikov goes from being confirmed in his beliefs about murder to completely shaken by its ramifications. Initially he is justifying his murder but then becomes paranoid and uncomfortable with his situation as a result of his actions. Raskolnikov is frail until the end of the novel. Dealing with the guilt, uncertainty, and paranoia of his crime turned him into a character who could crumble at any moment. He is entirely frail without a resource to fall back on. By the end of the novel, we know that through Sonia, Raskolnikov finds faith and realizes something out there is bigger than himself. Raskolnikov is a fragile man until he finds God. Crime and Punishment reveals that what determines whether a man is strong or fragile is having something to rely on. Without support, a man will collapse, but support enables a man to be strong.

Henry IV Part 1

When I think about how this play relates to my big question (if mankind is strong or fragile), I immediately think of Falstaff. He epitomizes a true man, yet he is hurt intensely by Hal near the end of the play. In this, he shows weakness. This confuses me. If Falstaff is so genuine, shouldn't he have the inner strength to defend himself from others' attacks? Or does truth not have anything to do with strength or weakness? Maybe by living a genuine lifestyle, one is more vulnerable to weakness although they are strong. Maybe strength comes from the ability to survive through moments of weakness. Maybe individuals are either strong or weak, but that is determined by whether they can overcome those weaknesses. Falstaff is hurt by Hal, but he doesn't give up. Falstaff continues to fight and tells Hal that he will be there for him if the prince changes his mind. Falstaff in this way is strong.

From Henry IV Part 1, it appears that mankind proves to be strong when they can persevere despite the strife they endure. Their ability to overcome is the determining factor.

Oedipus

The character of Oedipus shows us both how men can be strong as well as fragile. Early in the tale, Oedipus seemed strong. He was a leader and he was determined to find the truth because he was sure he could handle it. What happened instead was the realization that his truth was too much to bear. This broke him. I believe that men can be strong but can always be broken. With that said, I think it is also possible for people to regain their strength. My issue with Oedipus is that he didn't choose to regain his strength. When he was finally broken, he chose to submit to that brokenness and not redeem himself. I guess that's what it comes down to - a choice. A person has to choose to be strong or fragile. They can be either but they have to commit to what they want to be and not falter from their decision.

"Let every man in mankind's frailty
Consider his last day; and let none
Presume on his good fortune until he find
Life, at his death, a memory without pain." (Sophocles line 1473-1477)

Is mankind strong or fragile? What determines this?

Is mankind strong or fragile? What determines this?

In my life, I have experienced times of both extreme strength and hopeless weakness. I have had to deal with a lot of loss in my life and it seems to me that even though when I feel sadness I am typically weak, I tend to grow from that weakness because of it. I like this idea because I am curious about whether people are inherently strong and just suffer weakness from time to time or if it is the reverse. I don't have an answer for this question as of now, so I am excited to explore my life and literature to develop a firm stance.

In The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway, the majority of the characters seem strong outwardly, but inside they are crumbling. By living lifestyles consisting of partying and feeble attempts at love, they denying their emotions in attempts to be completely happy. Instead, they end up doing more harm to their emotions than good. Since they deny their emotions instead of confronting them, they never learn to deal with them and therefore are unable to get stronger through that success. The people in this novel are fragile. They are unwilling to be strong because they know that would require suffering hardships. Maybe people are only strong if they choose to be. Maybe people are fragile but based on their environment and nurturing they can develop strength that can overcome any weakness, a light in a dark room. Even when the characters rarely face their emotions (usually in a drunken state) they almost always resort back to the way of life they were living previously. At the end of the novel, a woman named Brett tells a man named Jake that they could have had a good life together and Jake says something to the extent of, "isn't it pretty to think so?". Although Brett is acknowledging that she has feelings for Jake that she should have acted on, she will never be with him because he was injured in the war and can no longer have sexual relations. But does this reveal strength or fragilty? In a sense, she is strong because she knows that she shouldn't be with someone that she can't completely commit to, but she is ultimately weak because she cannot rise above the obstacle that has befallen her relationship with Jake. What defines strength? Weakness? How are we able to tell the difference? Strength is trying to overcome obstacles, but weakness is looking at an obstacle and turning back.

In every book that I can remember reading, I see this paradox of strength versus weakness in the characters. For one example, I'm thinking of Holden Caulfield from The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger. Throughout the book, Holden's character keeps you guessing whether or not he is strong or fragile. He seems to be fairly strong since he can be so independent, but his deep seeded mental struggles prove otherwise. Is he weak because of this? Or is he strong because he is trying to overcome it? Maybe a person is deemed weak when they are unwilling to overcome their weaknesses but they are strong if they make an attempt. And going back to the bigger question, does that mean they are inherently strong or fragile?!? I've definitely got some exploring to do... Another thing I was thinking about is how in history, we often read about the fall of kingdoms at the hand of a "strong" leader. What is the relationship between strength and power? Just because a leader has power clearly doesn't mean he is strong. Or does it take strength to hold a kingdom together? I think it takes strength in unity, strength as one being and strength among individuals. One strong man cannot compensate for a fragile world. Or can he?

I was thinking about a song called Breakable by Ingrid Michaelson. I'll post a link to the lyrics:
http://www.lyricsmania.com/breakable_lyrics_ingrid_michaelson.html
This song really makes me think about mankind in general. We ARE so fragile. We are skin and bones, a couple muscles here and there, and we try to face the terrors in the world despite our vulnerability. This is why I question whether we really are so fragile. Practically every day we hear stories about men surviving freak accidents and putting themselves in life threatening situations simply because it's the right thing to do. Men must be strong. But on the other hand, we hear how many deaths occur in freak accidents and are constantly reminded that we aren't yet advanced enough to fight every disease and probably never will be.

I am officially torn.
More research to come.....