Henrik Ibsens Peer Gynt, The Wild Duck, and When We Dead Waken - Essay Example

A Contemporary Critical Examination of Henrik Ibsen’s Peer Gynt, The Wild Duck, and When We Dead Waken This dissertation examines Henrik Ibsen’s Peer Gynt, Wild Duck, and When We Dead Awake using a post-structuralist critical framework. As the post-structural critical lens includes a wide variety of thoughts and perspectives, the dissertation considers the plays from a variety of sometimes competing perspectives. Section (1) examines Peer Gynt from a variety of sometimes competing post-structural perspectives; section (2) considers The Wild Duck predominantly from a deconstructive approach that examines the central tenants of the play as they are elucidated by reference to Derrida’s play of signifiers; section (3) examines When We Dead Waken as part of progressive statement on the role of the artist; finally, the dissertation concludes by considering the unifying characteristics of the plays, and the broader role of post-structural thought. It’s argued that not only is Ibsen one of the primary fathers of Modern Drama, but that specific elements in his oeuvre – Gynt’s conversation with the Boyg, the signification of the ‘wild duck’ – demand a post-structural lens to approach comprehension. When possible, contemporary post-structural scholarship has been incorporated into the dissertation. These plays have been chosen for their resistance to traditional critical approaches. Less emphasis has been placed on developing an inter-textual framework between the plays, as it’s believed such an approach is better suited to a more comprehensive selection. If there is an underlining theme that emerged in the construction of the dissertation it is that the art object anticipates the critical framework needed to adequately articulate its textual functions. That is, traditional Ibsen scholarship was handicapped by an inability to articulate elements of the plays that the post-structural framework, albeit flawed, contributes newfound insight. Table of Contents Page ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................................i TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................ii INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................1 PEER GYNT.............................................................................................................................................3-4 1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................4 1.2 Traditional Critical Approaches.............................................................................................3-4 1.3 Gilles Deleuze and the Critical Framework............................................................................4-6 1.4 Kristeva; Uncanny; the Self.....................................................................................................6-7 1.5Abjection...................................................................................................................................7-9 1.6 Jouissance..............................................................................................................................9-10 1.7 Political Examinations........................................................................................................10-12 1.8 Conclusion................................................................................................................................12-13 THE WILD DUCK....................................................................................................................................13 2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................13-14 2.2 Paul De Man’s Legacy........................................................................................................14-15 2.3 Interpretive Discourse..............................................................................................................15 2.4 Lie-lie...................................................................................................................................16-17 2.5 Negative Theology...............................................................................................................17-19 2.6 Haljmar’s Role as Photographer........................................................................................19-21 2.7 The Duck..............................................................................................................................21-24 2.8 Textual Chaos...........................................................................................................................24 2.9 Modernist Self-Reflexivity.........................................................................................................25 2.1.1 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................26-26 WHEN WE DEAD WAKEN....................................................................................................................27 3.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................27 3.2 Critical Investigation...........................................................................................................27-30 3.3 Conclusion................................................................................................................................30-31 CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................31-33 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................33-34 Introduction In keeping with a great amount of post-structural discursivity the essay establishes a methodological framework that is not restricted to an overarching narrative. In the examination of three seminal texts – Peer Gynt, Wild Duck, and When We Dead Awaken -- a myriad of post-structural lenses, including those of Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva, Jacques Lacan, and Paul De Man, are coupled with what Foucault (2006) terms ‘founders of discursivity,’ Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. In refining a critical understanding of these ideas, this dissertation is highly indebted to Professor of English at Yale University, Paul H. Fry, whose open-access Survey of the Theory of Literature course served as a much valued source in gaining a meta-critical perspective on the post-structural texts. While there is an enormous canon of scholarship devoted to Ibsen’s plays, investigations involving a strictly post-structuralist framework are surprisingly limited. The reason for the dearth of post-structural investigation into one of the most dramatically complex writers of the nineteenth century is beyond the scope of this examination. When possible, existing post-structural investigations of Ibsen’s works have been incorporated to supplement the critical examinations and contentions advanced. In these instances, the Ibsen Studies journal served as a tremendous resource. Father of Modern Drama and the champion of the naturalist movement, Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen began his dramatic career writing romantic style verse-dramas like Peer Gynt, (the play about a lively, difficult man wondering through-out the land in search of something more in life and always seeming to run into some sort of trouble, like trolls and other sorts of over exaggerated characters) but he made a sharp break in style when he moved into naturalism. When Ibsens play Dollhouse was first presented the audience was shocked and dumfounded when the stage manager came out and told them that the play had ended. All of the characters in this are ordinary, everyday people with who the audience of the time could certainly identify. The insightful depth and complexity of his characters is undeniable. People always seem to want to label his characters as good or bad, moral or immoral, but their complicated personalities makes such a generalization difficult. This is one of the things that most disturbed people at the time. Ibsen ignored simple definitions and brought forth the idea that all people are both good and bad. It’s this undeniable textual complexity that gives Ibsen his continued relevance for contemporary interpretive practices. This investigation proceeds from the understanding that the textual complexities of Ibsen’s work are ripe products for the application of post-structural critical practices. In many instances Ibsen’s texts seem to anticipate later developments in modernism and post-modernism. In what has become a favored example of Ibsen pointing the way forward for Modern developments there is the oft quoted passage from Act 5 of Peer Gynt when the passenger states, “Peer Gynt can’t die in the middle of Act Five” (Ibsen, pg. 89). The post-structural deconstructive forces underlining foundational elements of Wild Duck are taken up in Section 2 of this examination. Indeed, if there is an underlining theme that links these plays it is that the art object anticipates its critical lens. Section (1) examines Peer Gynt from a variety of sometimes competing post-structural perspectives; section (2) considers The Wild Duck predominantly from a deconstructive approach that examines the central tenants of the play as they are elucidated by reference to Derrida’s play of signifiers; section (3) examines When We Dead Waken as part of progressive statement on the role of the artist; finally, the dissertation concludes by considering the unifying characteristics of the plays, and the broader role of post-structural thought. Ultimately, these plays have been chosen for not for the central importance to Ibsen’s oeuvre but for their relevance to and for contemporary critical theory. Ultimately, the essay strives in all respects to utilize the post-structural framework to go beyond traditional scholarship, demonstrating the contemporary relevance for the plays, and functioning as evidence of the importance of the post-structural framework -- not only as a new perspective -- but as a means of progress in literary theory. 1. Peer Gynt 1.1 Introduction Among Ibsens works, Peer Gynt is something of an anomaly. The Norwegian playwright is known mostly for such dour, realistic prose-dramas as Hedda Gabbler and The Wild Duck. But Peer Gynt, a much earlier work, is exuberant, frequently humorous and written in lively, highly colored poetry. Its hero, Peer Gynt is one of those figures of world literature who, like Falstaff or Don Quixote, seem even larger than the works that gave them birth. Peer is a Nordic Everyman, who in the course of the play ages from a brawling, fantasy-prone youth to an indomitable old man. During his long life, he suffers the pangs of love, wins and losses power and fortune, and has preposterous adventures with trolls, monkeys and Arabian belly dancers. Those adventures are essentially a dramatization of his spiritual progress or lack of it. It is, like King Lear and Faust and a couple of others, a dramatic summation that encapsulates a universe in some ways the most inclusive and essential. Certainly it is the last word on mans double nature as questing spirit and wallowing troll. And it squarely confronts the ultimate questions of being and extinction, of the possibilities of God, devil, and mere dissolution. Boldly, it asks what is salvation and if such a thing exists. More boldly yet, it probes deeper and deeper into life with poetic fancy and earthy humor. Boldest of all, it does not stoop to easy answers. Thats why Peer Gynt continues to be a fruitful puzzle for successive generations of scholars, critics, and artists. 1.2 Traditional Critical Approaches The traditional critical approach examines the play as a chronological whole. Chronically restless, Peer is usually faithful to only one thing -- his desire to run away from himself. In the play, that trait is symbolized by his desertion of Solveig, the one woman he truly loves. Peer eventually returns to Solveig, but not before he comes to see that he has wasted his life. The revelation comes from his meeting with a subtly frightening character called the Buttonmoulder, who approaches Peer near the end of the play. It is the Buttonmoulders job to round up all the souls who are neither bad enough for hell nor good enough for heaven and melt them down like so many imperfect buttons so they can be used in the making of new souls. He tells Peer that he too must be melted down because, like all the other mediocrities, he has "never been himself." His words set Peer on a last, desperate search to discover what the Buttonmoulder means and to become, if possible, "himself." It’s this search for authentic meaning and a higher state of existence that are generally central to the theoretical investigation. 1.3 Gilles Deleuze and the Critical Framework Rather than follow the traditional critical approach to an examination of Peer’s character progression this examination follows Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari who, as cited by Rees (2008, pg. 293), offer: One of the clearest formulations of what Deleuze and Guattari mean by ‘‘becoming’’ appears in their monumental work, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia from 1980. There they write that becoming ‘‘constitutes a zone of proximity and indiscernability, a no-man’s land, a nonlocalizable relation sweeping up the two distant or contiguous points, carrying one into the proximity of the other’’ Rees (2008, pg. 293) proceeds from this framework and argues that it was particular relevancy for Peer Gynt as “the poetic nature of the text opens it up to a more splintered interpretation than one of mere linear identity progression/maturation.” Indeed, in the opening scene, he tells a tall tale to his mother, Aase, about how he has ridden on the back of a stag and fallen off a mountain summit. There is a childlike, fairy-tale quality about the entire play. Peer may be lying about the stag, but even more unlikely events happen to him. At one point, he enters the core of a mountain and becomes embroiled with a tribe of trolls. The whole interlude may either be a nightmare or a real event. It is unimportant; the play breaks down the distinction between objective and subjective perceptions and shows that they are equally important. The world that is created for Peers inward and outward journey is as gloomy and oppressive as the long Norwegian winter, lit by the sudden shafts of Ibsens poetry. Peer never gets anywhere: again and again, he is failing to become ‘himself’. Near the end of the play, Peer asks the Buttonmoulder what is meant by "becoming oneself." The Buttonmoulder tells him it means “putting yourself to death.” Following Rees’s lead, this textual interpretation understands Peer Gynt not through the progression of maturation details, but through a prism of competing critical interpretations. In a sense, this approach could also be termed neo-pragmatic, if not for the heavy reliance of seminal ‘post-structural’ thinkers. 1.4 Kristeva; Uncanny; the Self The scene where peer refuses to become a troll as indicative of a post-modern splintered reality that rebels against the overarching features of meta-narrative and stable identity construction. While Peer is willing to subsume his identity to great degrees he is ultimately resistant of changing himself entirely to a troll. Contemporary criticism (Dvergsdal 1993) notes the interplay between language and concepts of self throughout the play. This Act II scene and Peer Gynt’s confrontation with the Boyg directly after constitute one of the most notable elements of the play and due to Edvard Grieg’s ‘In the Hall of the Mountain King’ section from his Piano Concerto in A Minor that was inspired by the scene. While Grieg (Layton 1998, pg. 75) famously stated, “I have also written something for the scene in the hall of the mountain King - something that I literally cant bear listening to because it absolutely reeks of cow-pies, exaggerated Norwegian nationalism, and trollish self-satisfaction! But I have a hunch that the irony will be discernible,” the piece functions as a testament to the textual and artistic complexity at play in the scene. As the scene begins the reader follows Gynt as he speaks with a character who is only defined as ‘She’. In the textual version of the play the reader is unable to determine whether the person Peer is speaking to is a human or non-human entity. Jentsch (1906, pg. 34) states, “In telling a story one of the most successful devices for easily creating uncanny effects is to leave the reader in uncertainty whether a particular figure in the story is a human being or an automaton and to do it in such a way that his attention is not focused directly upon his uncertainty.” In this sense, the identity of Ibsen’s ‘She’ is purposely concealed to disrupt the concept of Self and invoke the concept of the uncanny within the reader. Soon, the situation turns and Gynt finds himself at odds with the trolls. Hag with Cleaver states, “Shall I spit him or roast him or brown him or stew him?” (Ibsen, pg. 45) This quote is notable as it plays with the concept of Self by equating Gynt with a pig – a repetitive trope that is repeated throughout the play. The identity politics here play with a traditional 19th century conception of the Self with developments that would later be articulated by writers such as Julia Kristeva. Beginning a mode of investigation of the Self concept, the King asks Peer, “What is the difference between troll and man?” (pg. 46) Later after Gynt says that the King will want him to change his religion the King states, “No interest in that...By outward and visible troll we’ll know each other.” (pg. 46) In this dialogue, the text is playing games with the traditional concept of a stable Self and probing Gynt in ways that reveal his concept of Self or alterity. As Gynt finishes speaking with the King he exits and his path is blocked by the Boyg. These scenes melt into each other with a proto-surrealist style, so that by the time Gynt reaches the Boyg the text is seemingly an extension of Gynt’s internal or unconscious mental state. Gynt’s conversation with the Boyg invokes Lacan’s mirror stage, as in the Boyg Gynt sees himself and experiences the sublimity of self. Indeed, if one were to draw a line through the character prompts in the text of the play, the scene function as an unconscious sort of Shakespearean soliloquy. Just as Hamlet interrogated the more foundational question of ‘to be or not to be’, Ibsen’s inter-textual metaphor is extended as Gynt and the Boyg debate the concept of ‘being/self’ through an investigation of its stability -- “How many of yous are there?” (pg. 49) 1.5 Abjection Another foundational element of the text, existing in confluence with its investigations into the nature of the Self, is Kristeva’s concept of the abject. For Kristeva, the abject represents the feeling of horror that is brought upon an individual when they exist outside of the signification order. For Kristeva this concept becomes a primary concern for the marginalized members of society – homosexuals, schizophrenics; even Jesus Christ and his disciples could be considered abject members of the social order. In Peer Gynt, large portions of Gynt’s existence are compromised in this outsider state. One of the most complex and intriguing scenes, right alongside the Act II Boyg interaction, is the Gynt’s Act IV visit to Egypt. Gynt extorts the wonders of travel, which places him in direct contradiction to Ibsen’s characterization of Hedvig in The Wild Duck who is content to remain in one place. It seems for Ibsen this trope is an indication of the individual’s strength of character or contentment, as Hedvig’s stability contrasts greatly with the Gynt’s unstable order. It’s when Gynt visits Egypt that he encounters the sphinx to which he confuses for the Boyg and proceeds to have a similar investigation of the self. The scene and Gynt’s subsequent descent into the insane asylum have much in common with the earlier Act II scene. In this scene however the emphasis becomes on both a pervading sense of abjection on the part of the inmates as well as Gynt, and a deliberation on the concept of rationality vs. irrationality. Begriffenfeldt states, “Last night, at eleven p.m., Pure Reason passed away” (pg. 79) While the reference to Pure Reason most certainly is a reference to Kant’s famous Critique of Pure Reason, it also functions to establish the metaphysical tone of the scene. “What was mental disorder before, became last night the norm of the New Age,” Begriffendfelt states. One immediately considers Foucault (1993) who argues that the concept of madness and sanity have undergone structural shifts since the Medieval Ages. At the conclusion of the scene Hussein and Gynt engage in a dialogue where Hussein says he is a pen and Gynt says he is a piece of paper. This dialogue explores the fluid nature of the self, as well as its socially defined position; that is, the self is continually written and rewritten. As the scene concludes Hussein commits suicide in a symbolic demonstration of the ‘death’ of the self. 1.6 Jouissance The drive to ‘produce the very least possible jouissance’ is an underlining thematic concern of Peer Gynt. While Peer is initially motivated by the Pleasure Principle drive, it’s the constricting encroachment of the Lacanian jouissance that subverts this impulse and drives Gynt away from situations. Consider this in the context of repetitive elements in Peer Gynt, notably his frequent reliance on hyperbolic storytelling, specifically in reference to the scene of his mother’s death. The death allows for his freedom and emotional development. In this scene, Ibsen plays on the juxtaposition of Gynt’s fantastical visions of a reindeer ride and the sobering reality of his mother’s death. Gynt is obscenely unaware of his mother’s condition despite her insinuations; this is so much so that the story seems to function as a repressive mechanism. Another interpretation of the Lacanian jouissance within the death scene considers its more darkly absurd elements. As mentioned, the death of Gynt’s mother has a slightly liberating effect on his development, forcing him out of the strictures of his past reality. The progression of Gynt’s story has an orgasmic quality to it that can be aligned with the Lacanian conception of jouissance as transcendent bliss. In this sense the scene functions to illustrate a major repressive release from the pervading motherly constriction that Aase has instituted on Gynt and the scene is actually the realization of these unconscious desires in a symbolic realization of this Lacanian bliss. Simply put, Peer Gynt’s psychic urges are reveling in the death of his mother because her demise furthers his development. 1.7 Political Examination This political analytic frame is influenced by Marxist critique Fredric Jameson who criticized structuralism by offering an ideological interpretation of the text. Indeed, the overarching political formulations in this essay will be understood in terms of Jameson’s Political Unconscious (2002, pg. 17) that “conceives of the political perspective not as some supplementary method, not as an optional auxiliary to other interpretative critical methods current today -- the psychoanalytic or the mythcritical, the stylistic, the mythcritical, the structural -- but rather as the absolute horizon of all reading and all interpretation.” When considering the relevance of the political lens in regards to its structural counterpart, it’s important to recognize Jameson when he states structuralism is, “a philosophy which does not include within itself a theory of its own particular situation (Jameson, 1975, p. 71).” That is to say, that the nature of structuralist philosophy as a system of meaning determined through interrelation and the shifting nature of linguistic signs is such that attempting to formulate objective critical analysis is inherently contradictory. While one might be able to identify thematic significations throughout literature, there has to be an objective signifier outside the text that they ultimately refer. It’s worth noting that the same year Peer Gynt was published (1867), Karl Marx released the first volume of Das Kapital. While there is seemingly no connection between these events, it does offer a perspective on the intellectual paradigm and ferment swirling throughout European society. Ibsen’s work notably that within Doll House and Wild Duck have been noted for their intensity of realism in demonstrating the inter-workings of the social order. While the fantastical nature and verse form of Peer Gynt removes it from characterization as a traditionally ‘realist’ text, its underlining concerns with the social order and human archetypes make it ripe for political appropriation. It’s well documented that the Nazi’s appropriated the play for national socialist purposes. In discussing the elements that the Nazi’s emphasized Englert (1991, pg. 89) states that Peer sacrifices his humanity as “an embodiment of imperfection and of self-deception, [and] he ostensibly develops into an Americanized money-and-business-man, who does not even hesitate to trade slaves and false idols.” In this regard, the Nazi’s understood Gynt as all the negative embodiments of Americans. The scenes that most likely drew the Nazi’s attention function just as well as a Marxist critique of the capitalist pervading order. At the beginning of Act IV Peer appears in his middle ages and is entertaining a group of men. Peer states, “I have thought. Pondered. Read: widely if not deep. I came to learning late; had not the leisure. A fragment from history here and there. The odd dose of religion – for reassurance in bad times; one could never swallow that wholesale. A man should learn only what can be put to work for him.” (pg. 62) In many regards this passage can function as an early parody of the American Dream phenomenon; it can equally be considered a Marxist critique of the frivolity of the upper class. The text presents a significant amount of imagery that relates to the idea that there is a pervading ideology or force that once set in motion is unstoppable. Consider Gynt when he states, “I came to feel misgivings too. A moral revulsion indeed. But believe me: an enterprise on such a scale, once in motion – deploying thousands – is the devil to stop.” (pg. 62) Gynt justifies his moral improprieties by stating this he made sure to give back to world in positive ways. The reader is led to view this mode of penance as absurd. It’s also a strikingly prescient statement of a contemporary society where giant corporate conglomerates and celebrities atone for moral improprieties through public demonstrations of charity. Even Gynt’s past profession as a slave trader can easily be read as a comment upon the exploitative process of the capitalist system. The men Gynt is speaking to are all notably foreign in their accents. This seems to function within the text to culturally differentiate him from them and heighten the social critique interpretation of the play. Gynt goes on to state that will be working as a war profiteer. He states, “You fight the Greek fight for Freedom and Justice; and end impaled on janissaries’ lances. Forgive me for not joining you. My cause is money alone.” (pg. 65) This also has contemporary relevance as British and American cultures continue to interfere with outside countries through the motivation for continued profit. Gynt could just as easily be discussing American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are at least partially influenced by the need to stabilize the region to ensure the free flow of oil. Towards the play’s conclusion Gynt’s outlook has largely remained the same; consider this line from Act V, when Gynt is situated on the boat, “You think I’m out of my mind? Fork out for another man’s children? That below, I’ve earned with labour, hard and sore. No one’s waiting for old Peer Gynt.” (pg. 84) Ultimately Gynt’s conversation with the foreign visitors concludes and they unanimously remark that he is selfish and absurd. In a prescient communist gesture the men decide to usurp Gynt’s property and sail away to Greece – only through an unlikely occurrence does Gynt’s boat explode and the men sink to their deaths. 1.8 Conclusion Peer Gynt, written nearly a hundred years ago, tells us more about our own condition than almost anything written in recent times, for Peers concern with Self is one of the central problems of our national life. A fanciful storyteller with a prancing imagination, Peer might have developed into a great man, but he is too absorbed in appearances to become anything more than a great illusionist. As rapist, as honorary troll, as slave trader, as entrepreneur, as prophet, he is the incarnation of compromise, the spirit of accommodation, the apotheosis of the middle way. He whirls giddily around the glove, justifying his absolute lack of conviction and principle with the protest that he is being true to himself. The inevitable conclusion to this maniacal egotism is insanity (where the ego turns in upon itself completely), and it is in the madhouse that Peer is crowned Emperor. Neither saint nor sinner, Peer finally learns he has been a worthless nonentity who existed only in the love of a faithful wife. At the play’s conclusion he is to be melted down, like all useless things, by the Button Moulder. "He who forfeits his calling, forfeits his right to live," wrote Kierkegaard ( as cited in Zucker, 1942 pg. 12), who believed, like Ibsen, that careerist self-absorption and mindless self-seeking are the most monstrous waste of life. Or, as the Button Moulder puts it, "To be yourself, you must slay yourself." 2. The Wild Duck 2.1 Introduction On 12 June 1883 Ibsen announced to his friend Georg Brandes (as cited in Robertson, 1959, pg. 3) that he was working on the plot of a new dramatic work that was to be The Wild Duck. He added, "Jeg gar i denne tid og tumler med udkastet til et nyt dramatisk arbejde i 4 akter. Der ansamler sig jo gerne mellem ar og dag diverse galskaber i en, og dem vil man gerne have et afl0b for" ("At the moment Im setting about revolving the plot of a new dramatic work in four acts. A variety of wild ideas are inclined to gather together in ones mind, and one needs to find an outlet for them"). The variety of wild ideas ("diverse galskaber") in The Wild Duck is of a formidable audacity. In Henrik Ibsen’s The Wild Duck the underling progression of the discourse is concerned with the gradual realization of ‘truths’ that Gregers Werle understands to be central to his concern with the Claim of the Ideal. In one sense The Wild Duck explores the effect of Utopian idealism on those who need illusions in order to survive. In his effort to lead the Ekdals toward "a true conjugal union," Gregers Werle exposes Ginas adultery with his father, old Werle, and the dubious paternity of their daughter, Hedwig. It is a story that concludes morbidly with Hedwigs suicide, but Ibsen nevertheless realizes it is an occasion for ferocious satire, even farce. It seems that Ibsen’s commentary through this thematic element is linked to a desire to create tensions within the reader rather than to settle or rest on either fundamental meaning of the text. The text at times seems to indicate that Greger’s philosophy is misguided; at other times it plays with this signification, and ultimately leaves the reader with no lasting message. While Ibsen has been identified as a proto-modernist writer, or even the first modernist, The Wild Duck’s underlining play of signification has much in common with the post-structural theory of deconstruction. Rather than attempting to link a comprehensive overview of deconstruction with the fundamental themes of Wild Duck, this portion of the analysis advances a deconstructive framework utilizing Paul De Man’s writing in Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust (1982); specifically De Man’s essay ‘Semiology and Rhetoric’ is utilized in relation to Ibsen’s text. 2.2 Paul De Man’s Legacy The specific use of Paul De Man’s Semiology and Rhetoric (1982) in this context warrants consideration. De Man’s legacy as a post-structural thinker and colleague of Jacques Derrida is well documented. Indeed, De Man was at the now famous 1966 John Hopkin’s Conference when Derrida delivered his ‘Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’ lecture and became a proponent of deconstruction thereon, even working with Derrida at Yale. However, perhaps De Man’s most lasting legacy is the revelation that in his youth he wrote anti-semitic diatribes lambasting Jewish people in an attempt to restrict them from Belgian intellectual life. In the wake of these revelations the critical community reexamined De Man’s discursive rhetoric in terms of an underlining skepticism towards Nazi-apologism. The text that gained most critical scrutiny was, indeed, De Man’s Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust (1982); specifically passages in ‘Semiology and Rhetoric,’ such as his discussion of Rousseau’s ‘Purloined Ribbon’ were criticized. 2.3 Interpretive Discourse The argument that De Man advances in this text is much in-line with The Wild Duck’s underling mode of signification; consider, for instance, De Man when he states, “an "Allegory of Reading" emerges when texts are subjected to such scrutiny and reveal this tension; a reading wherein the text reveals its own assumptions about language, and in so doing dictates a statement about undecidability, the difficulties inherent in totalization, their own readability, or the "limitations of textual authority” (De Man, 1982, pg. 99). While De Man is speaking of less-author created ‘undecidability,’ the structural duality of truth vs. non-truth, ideal vs. real, Gregers Werle vs. Dr. Relling that ultimately demonstrates both the ‘limitations of textual authority’ as well as the limitations of human agency. 2.4 Life-lie For Hjalmer his belief in the inevitability of his invention represents merely one of the untruths that are foundational elements of his existence. In all instances, these foundational truths are shrouded in a sort of textual indiscernability. The most the reader comes to understand of his invention is when Hjalmar states, “I made a vow that if I were to bring my powers to bear on this trade (photography), I would raise it to such a height that it would become both an art and a science” (pg. 69). While it’s clear that Hjalmar’s invention has something to do with photography, it is so vaguely defined that it gradually takes on a metaphysical signification; indeed, the reference to a hybrid art and science can be interpreted as indicating some transcendental purpose. However, when Hjalmar is asked to give specifics he responds, “My dear fellows, you mustn’t ask me for details yet” (pg. 69). In this instance, the textual signification of Hjalmar’s invention is at best indirectly defined through reference to something that is irrational (art) and something that is rational (science). In this regard, the post-structural underlining framework for the text is best understood through the concept of the deconstructive ‘transcendental signified.’ While Western discourse had been founded on a transcendent belief in God, rationality, or political discourse, the notion of deconstruction denied that reality and gave way to the endless play of signifiers. In Hjalmar’s belief in the redemptive power of his invention – indeed, it seems to be more central to his existence than even Gina and Hedvig – he has founded his life on an unstable and untruthful reality. If one adopts the deconstructive dialogue in examining Hjalmar’s textual signification it’s clear that the ‘invention’ represents his transcendental signified, or cogito ergo sum, to which additional signifieds are established, notably his ‘happy’ relationship with his daughter and his wife. In response to Hjalmar’s ‘life lie’ Greger’s Werle sets about on a moral quest to, in a sense, set him straight and redeem him. Traditional scholarship has considered Greger’s underlining intentions in moving in with and trying to redeem Werle, with some even arguing that it was a selfish act, an attempt to seek revenge against his father. However, for the purpose of this examination the underlining structural metaphor will be advanced as it relates to Werle’s own meaning making reality. Consider the nature of the nature of the relationship between the two men. McCarthy (1956, pg. 76) notes, “Hjalmars pretended purpose in life is a sort of parody of Gregers "purpose to live for." The reverse is true as well; Gregerss belief that he can affect a meaningful difference in other peoples lives can be seen as his life-lie.” In a sense, these mens’ life-lies are virtually synonymous with each other. While Hjalmar’s life-lie is his invention, Greger’s transcendental signified becomes his reliance on his ‘demand of the ideal’. 2.5 Negative Theology If one follows with this understanding of the life-lie as a sort of false transcendental signified, then Hjalmar and Gregers can both be posited as God/Devil figures. While much traditional scholarship has drawn comparisons between Greger’s God-like meddling and effect on the Ekdal family, Hjalmar exhibits certain transcendent tendencies. For instance, in referring to the reason for his passion with his invention he states, “I can restore his self-respect and bring him back from the dead, by raising the name of Ekdal to a position of honor and dignity again” (pg. 69). While it’s recognized that the work is in translation, it’s impossible to ignore the imagery of ‘raising’ and not make the immediate connection to Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, or Christ himself resurrecting. While it would be easy to establish a structural dichotomy that posits a binary signification between Gregers nebulous demand of the ideal and Hjalmars unknowable invention, its clear that the text goes beyond such traditional characterizations. Indeed, such an argument would perhaps best be established between Dr. Relling and Gregers demand of the ideal, as Relling presents a conscious objection to Gregers philosophy; when the proposition of the philosophy is brought up at the dinner table Relling states, "you can carry the damned thing wherever you like, but Id advise you not to produce it here, at least not while Im in the house" (pg. 78) In this regard, its notable that just as Hjalmars invention is ill-defined, so is it impossible to establish a stable definition of Gregers demand of the ideal. At best one might consider Kant in this regard. Gregers tried to give direction to Hjalmar by helping him feel secure in asking his wife what she has done wrong, also to everyone else in the family who was hiding some secrets. No one in the play is able to keep a promise and that goes completely against Kants Rational Absolutism. One of Kants main points is that keeping a promise is your duty. Kant believes that in order to be ethical you simply do something that is right, and that was what Gregers was trying to do. The decision that the Ekdals and Werles make can be looked at as either ethical or unethical it depends on the individual’s paradigm. One will notice the characterization of Gregers ideal as damned as in this instance it advances the god/devil presence by functioning to characterize Greger with the trace of the devil. Its also notable as it advances the notion of negative theology, or apophasis, wherein Gregers religious ideal is characterized by its lack. Indeed, many scholars (Almond 2002) that negative theology is the central tenant of Derridean post-structural investigation. While in a sense one could argue that Dr. Relling seems to represent the voice of reason or foundational element of the text, it’s clear upon further inspection that his perspective is defined just as negatively as Hjalmar and Greger’s. Perhaps the most stable version of his outlook is articulated at the play’s conclusion when he states, “Oh, I don’t know – life wouldn’t be too bad, if it weren’t for these damned debt-collectors, going round harassing us ordinary folk with their demands of the ideal” (pg. 135). In referring ironically to the nature of Greger’s philosophical approach Robertson (1959, pg. 32) states, “the truth of Hedvigs uncertain parentage and then, after raising them from the mud at the bottom of the metaphoric lake by offering them the freedom of truth (a Biblical allusion to the oft misused "and the truth shall set you free"), lead them to a new life of luxurious happiness and unhampered love.” It’s clear that Ibsen is playing on this mode of thought. It’s worth noting that the ‘truth will set you free’ perspective is not limited to biblical scripture, but is also a foundational element of much secular psychological thought, including 20th century cognitive and psychodynamic therapy. In a sense, through Greger’s philosophy Ibsen is critiquing a cornerstone of Western thought that continues to be relevant today. 2.6 Hjalmar’s Role as Photographer For a moment it would be worth dwelling on Hjalmar’s role as a photographer. There is a long critical history, much of it devoted to film theory from writers such as Susan Sontag, and Laura Mulvey, as well as concerns that date to the inception of the photographic device, such as those evident in works by Walter Benjamin and even the short stories of Christopher Isherwood. These theorists have focused on the positioning effect of the perspective of the seer and, as with Jacques Lacan, ways that the photographer’s ‘gaze’ can have the reverse effect of eliciting self-inspection; it seems that the underlining trend in these investigations is that the photographer has a privileged perspective, or heightened insight into the process of nature. Interestingly, Hjalmar’s characterization as a photographer makes ironic mockery of such a privileging of photographic perspective. Towards the beginning of the play Greger’s states, “Tell me this. After your engagement – was that when my father got you to...I mean, was that when you decided to take up photography?” (pg. 11) While one might think it slightly pedantic to dwell on the nature of the ellipses in this line, there is actually a critical precedent for such investigations. Consider Kristeva (1983, pg. 199) who states, Next to complete clauses that are nonetheless concatenated by the three dots, one notes two kinds of ellipses. On the one hand, the points of suspension cut off a constituent from the main clause or from the predicate; thus isolated, the constituent loses its identity as object phrase, for instance, and while it does not gain a truly autonomous value it still floats in a syntactic irresolution that opens a path to various logical and semantic connotations, in short, to daydreaming. In the event context of the play, this ellipsis indicates that not only did Greger’s father support Hjalmar in becoming a photographer, but the impulse for Hjalmar’s pursuit was actually generated by Werle. This is significant as it marks the beginning of the deception that comes to surround Hjalmar’s existence. In this regard, the photographic context is best understood in terms of Baudrillard (1988, p. 170) who argued for, “the successive phases of the image: 1) It is the reflection of a basic reality; 2) It masks and perverts a basic reality; 3) It masks the absence of a basic reality; 4) It bears no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum.” While Baudrillard is referring to the nature of the semiological image or sign, this passage has been appropriated as Hjalmar’s role as photographer, through its motivation by Werle directly after he set Werle up with Gina, functions to represent a sort of second order signification of existence; that is, Hjalmar’s perception of his own existence is masked and perverted by the semiological deflection that is embodied in the photographic instrument. When considering other critical representations of the ‘photographer,’ Hjalmar’s role as a photographer becomes a highly ironic event. Consider the darkly comic occurrence in Act I where Hjalmar is asked to show off his photography at the dinner party. Mrs. Sorby interjects, “What these gentlemen mean, Mr. Ekdal, is that when one is invited out, one should sing for one’s supper.” (pg. 13) Considering the context of Hjalmar’s signification as ‘photographer’ the attempts of Werle and the dinner guests to entice Hjalmar to entertain them with his photography represents a sort of mockery of the concept of the photographer as privileged observer. In these regard, it’s essential to mention Foucault (1980), as well as the early Marxist realists who argued for the interpretation of the cultural object in terms of the hierarchical power structures that are inherent in society. In this sense, Wild Duck functions as a highly prescient and effective Marxist critique of the ruling class; this is evident as it reveals, in a sense, the exploitation of the lower class Hjalmar by the upper class Werle. It also must be mentioned that, just as it does Hjalmar and Gregers, the text suggests that Werle is a god figure. After discovering the aid Werle gave Hjalmar, Gregers remarks, “...my father’s been like a kind of divine providence for you.” To which Hjalmar responds with more religious imagery, “He didn’t forsake his old friend’s son in his hour of need.” (pg. 12) The parallel between this line and historical occurrences in Christian theology between God the Father and God the Son are evident. 2.7 The Duck While surprisingly little post-structural scholarship has been applied to Ibsen’s Wild Duck, a few notable theorists have examined the play under a deconstructive framework. In Jørgen Veisland’s (2005) ‘The Ethics of Aesthetics: Decadence in Henrik Ibsens The Wild Duck’ the loft and the wild duck itself are examined for their shifting signification. Veisland (2005, pg. 51) writes, Ibsen’s play – and the play within the play, the scene of the attic – is in many ways a dramatization of an internalization whose only external reference point is language itself. The attic is a linguistic construction that plays out a subliminal fantasy; hence, the Ekdal loft turns into a mockery of Gregers Werle’s quest for substantial truth, since the loft is precisely the place his application of such a truth reaches its ironic climax. For him also, the attic serves as the metonymy of a lack. In this sense the loft operates under a number of meanings. In the sense quoted in the passage, it represents a sort of deconstructive clearing ground where the endless play of ‘substantial truth’ is deferred. Like most significant tropes throughout the play – Hjalmar’s ‘invention’, Greger’s demand of the ideal, the illicit business dealing – the loft is shrouded in an ambiguity that opens it up for the play of signifiers. In a Lacanian, or perhaps surrealist, sense it is structured like an unconscious stew in which abstract and diverse wish fulfillment fantasies – Ekdal’s hunting somehow occurs in this space – are coupled with the highly complex wild duck. For Veisland (2005), the wild duck represents the nature of the art; that is, the ‘wild’ represents the wild and untamed nature subject of life that the artist incorporates for artistic production. Consider Greger’s remark in response to Hjalmar’s discussion about artistic inspiration, “You know, my dear Hjalmar, I think there’s a bit of the wild duck in you” (pg. 71). In this sense, the wild duck is a sort of rawness that can be experienced or even that which is incapable of being co-opted by scientific rationality. Indeed, Greger’s comment has a trace of irony attached to it in the sense that Hjalmar, as evidenced in his pursuit of scientific progress through his invention, is very much characterized as devoted to reason. Veisland (2005) considers the moral dilemma of Ibsen in this appropriation process. Much attention has been paid, both critically and textually, to the significance of the duck diving to the ‘depths of the ocean’. For Veisland (2005, pg. 48) this marks a significant shift from one mode of identification to another: the dive to the bottom of the ocean inaugurates the animal’s discovery of its own otherness, all the ‘devilish stuff’ down there. Hence the fall is not a fall; on the contrary, life – or, as the bird intends it to be, death – at the bottom of the ocean signifies the ascent of the wild duck into a replenished, differentiated Being whose precondition, paradoxically, is decadence and demonization (‘the devilish stuff’) In this interpretive discourse the duck comes to function as the internal/external embodiment of decadence. If one follows the genesis of the duck from Werle to Patterson to Hedvig -- it’s clear how this metaphor is advanced. Perhaps, in this sense, the wild duck comes to represent, paradoxically, the textual slippages of meaning and the impossibility of grounded form. While originally accepted, as Hjalmar undergoes his character arch at the hand of Greger’s demands of the ideal, the wild duck becomes demonized by him. At various times he threatens to kill it and Hedvig forces him to promise not to strangle it when she leaves the house. This change of perspective seems directly related to Greger’s influence, and indeed Hjalmar’s new characterization is very similar to Greger’s pronouncements that there is a poison that has pervaded the Ekdal household. Another important connotation to consider is the wild duck’s relation with Hedvig. It can be argued that in a sense the wild duck becomes Hedvig’s life-lie; however this interpretation is somewhat problematic. In some instances the wild duck is positioned as a sort of shrine, or even god figure. Hedvig states, “They look after her and build things for her, you know?” (pg. 63) It’s clear that the wild duck is centrally important to Hedvig as the text overtly indicates as much. While James Joyce (Ibsen 1991, pg. xxvi) stated, in referring to what he understood as the critical impossibility of the wild duck, “one can only brood upon it as upon a personal woe.” Perhaps one of the strengths of the post-structural framework is that through and negative theology a testament to the metaphysical différance of the wild duck can be resurrected. 2.8 Textual Chaos Kristeva (1983, pg. 35) states, “Metaphor of want as such, phobia bears the marks of the frailty of the subjects signifying system.” As Greger’s comes to enact more of an influence on Hjalmar and Gina is exposed as previously intimately involved with Werle, the characters life-lies begin to unravel and as De Man states, ‘dictates a statement about undecidability’. Soon it’s revealed that Hedvig may not be truly Hjalmar’s child. While Hjalmar leaves for a time he returns to collect his ‘science papers.’ In this instance the text functions to posit science as Hjalmar’s seemingly stable alternative to the irrational deconstructive forces that have begun to unravel the stability of his existence; this leads him to paranoia and the questioning of everything, including Hedvig’s affection for him. Indeed, a testament to the literary significance of this play is that upon prolonged and in-depth inspection the reader himself is forced into a similar nihilistic quandary. In response to Hjalmar’s rejection of his family, Greger’s sets about attempting to convince Hedvig that she should murder the wild duck to demonstrate her love for her father. Many traditional criticism of the play note that it’s highly probably that Greger’s actually intends to convince Hedvig to commit suicide. One can consider that to Greger’s, Hedvig represents the literal extension of what he perceives as his father’s wrongdoing – the poisoned insemination of evil incarnate. When Hedvig declares that his proposition seems strange, Greger’s tell her, “Oh, if only somebody opened your eyes to what’s truly worthwhile in life! If only you had that pure, joyful, courageous spirit of self-sacrifice, you’d soon see how he’d come back to you! But I still have faith in you.” (pg. 118) In examining this line it seems much more apparent that Greger’s is actually speaking about suicide. Consider the words ‘pure’ and ‘spirit of self-sacrifice,’ while a cursory reading situates the word spirit as in the connotation of motivation, it can just as easily refer to spirit as in soul. In this sense, Gregers is saying that only through your suicide can you be pure and loveable again, and only then will he come back to you. While the text doesn’t reveal Hedvig’s thought process, a quote from Kristeva (1983, pg. 210) uncannily functions to give testament to Hedvig’s cognitive processing, “she is preparing to go through the first great demystification of Power...and it is necessarily taking place within that fulfillment of religion as sacred horror, which is Judeo-Christian monotheism.” That is, Hedvig through Hedvig’s suicide she has experienced and demonstrated the horror that is central in the logic of sacrifice that is central to Western theology. What is at stake in The Wild Duck is not merely an idealistic philosophy, but one of the cornerstone elements of Judeo-Christian theology, namely the 7th Commandment (Exodus 20:2-20:17 “You shall not commit adultery.” Hedvig’s illegitimate birth represents one of the cornerstones of sin within this theological tradition. Ibsen has implemented a biblical-inspired framework and text ripe with religious imagery to create a moral conundrum that appropriates and subverts the very values of the Christian tradition. Simply put, The Wild Duck can be read as a heretical text that justifies the suicide of a young child using the same sacrificial logic as the Crucifixion. 2.9 Modernist Self-Reflexivity While Peer Gynt has been discussed in relation to its role as one of the first modernist texts, in the final conversation between Gregers and Dr. Relling one can note the furthered development of this stylistic paradigm. This final conversation functions as a meta-commentary on the play which concluded with Hjalmar standing over Hedvig’s corpse. This meta-commentary decidedly removes the text from its similar counterpart Oedipus Rex, as it demonstrates the implausibility of the hand of fate. In addition, the scene functions to further the interpretation that Greger’s intentions were to promote Hedvig’s suicide as an element of sacrifice as he states, “Hedvig hasn’t died in vain. Didn’t you see how grief brought out everything that was most noble in him?” (pg. 135) Most importantly, the tone of the conversation is decidedly detached from the play’s tragic conclusion, even concluding with a demonic joke that leads Dr. Relling to reply, “Like hell it is.” The question of whether Gregers is a sort of devil figure is left unanswered, but the modernist absurdity implemented in this conversation would be continued in the work of Tom Stoppard and Samuel Beckett. 2.1.1 Conclusion The conclusion of this analysis represents less a summation to the meaning of the text, but rather an acknowledgement to the impossibility of meaning, In this regard the text functions outside of the Modernist framework in its post-structural complexity. The incorporation of De Man’s ‘Semiology and Rhetoric’ then, as a deconstructive framework in examining The Wild Duck, serves a number of functions. In addition to the theoretical applicability of De Man’s text to the play’s text, the specific juxtaposition of De Man’s controversial work with Ibsen’s text functions to accentuate the political dimensions of both texts, adds an aesthetic dimension to the analysis, and, perhaps ironically, question the ‘limitations of textual authority’ in regards to deconstruction. 3. When We Dead Waken 3.1 Introduction When We Dead Waken is the final play the Ibsen completed before his death and it also is one of his shortest works. Critics (Rudkin 2006) have noted that the play’s length functions to accentuate its archetypical functions by removing that which is extraneous to its central concerns. The play can be read almost entirely as the symbolic inter-workings of the mind of the artist in crisis. A microscopic inspection of this symbolic order also reveals a heavy reliance on biblical imagery. This analysis proceeds from these assumptions and examines the play, not as a testament of Ibsen’s final statement, but as a meditation on the role of the artist and the human. 3.2 Critical Investigation At the beginning of the play the text overtly references and implements ocean imagery to demonstrate Rubek’s psychic malaise. Rubek states, “Perhaps I’ve been too long abroad. I feel quite alien now to all this...to this provincial atmosphere.” (pg. 200) The imagery the text implements has much in common with Jean-Paul Sartre’s novel Nausea that was written nearly a century later. While a surface interpretation of Rubek’s discomfort attributes it to his disintegrating relationship with Maja, the actual reason is more in-line with Sartre’s text – namely, a discomfort with the nature of reality and one’s place in the social order. The surface text is constantly commented on by the narration, “There’s more to those figures than meets the eye; a hidden meaning, covered, within:...a secret no public can see.” (pg. 203) Considering the nature of the underlining concern the text is attempting to signify, such metaphors used are worth noting for their artistry. Another such metaphor are references to a sea change, adding insight to the nature of text as concerned not with the dissolution of a relationship but with the transformation of its central protagonist. Early in Act I the text makes reference to Rubek’s magnum opus sculpture ‘Day of Resurrection.’ This is only the first reference to biblical scripture; indeed, in a sense the text works within a biblical epistemology to investigate its core assumptions. A radical interpretation of the text understands it as a sort of Hegelian survey of Western metaphysics to the then contemporary psychic confusion of the artist brought on by Nietzsche. In this view Rubek’s fatherly relationship with Maja mirrors that of Moses and the Jews. Consider the line, “...I should leave the country with you, spend the rest of my days abroad, enjoy the good life?” The centrality to the text of mountains and mountain imagery in this sense functions as a sort of Moses at Mount Sinai. As the text advances the imagery seems to shift to reference the life of Jesus Christ. The image of “a pale shape in among the trees” can uncannily function as the Holy Spirit and perverted Jesus or angel figure. The figure also has a striking similarity to the ghost Henry James would later adopt in Turn of the Screw (2007). This sense advances the notion of the text as an unconscious or surreal like element. Indeed, there is a great amount of dream imagery implemented throughout the text. Maja even responds to Rubek’s discussion on the figure saying, “For God’s sake, Rubek, I told you this morning: you dreamed it.” (pg. 206) Even as the text is in translation there is a repetitive reference to the word ‘gaze’. This may perhaps be a conscious effort on behalf of translator David Rudkin to draw a similarity to the much used Lacanian term. The term functions to accentuate the introspective and psychic nature of the text and Rubek’s dilemma. As Wolfheim is introduced into the text he makes reference to the similarity of his and Rubek’s professions. He states, “He hews away at marble...I hew away at the taut and quivering sinews of the bear...Make ourselves master and lord of it.” (pg. 211) Just as Rubek promised to bring Maja up to a wondrous house, Wolfheim states, “you’re best coming with me up the mountain. No touch nor taint of humanity there.” (pg. 211) In this sense, the text establishes a dichotomous relationship between Wolfheim and Rubek that considers the purpose behind their fundamental modes of existence. While art is the central preoccupation of Rubek’s existence, Wolfheim embodies a commitment to a more direct form of life. Wolfheim’s frequent description as a bear slayer seems to challenge Rubek’s description as homebound and determined. As Irena is introduced into the text she states that she has killed her husband and her children. Whether Irena is meant to function as a sort of feminine composite of Rubek, or a separate entity is undecipherable, however it’s fairly clear that her purpose is in direct alignment with Rubek’s. In this regard, the text’s frequent references to Irena’s nakedness in front of Rubek function as a sort of symbiosis of souls. The sculpture that is produced is referred to as a child that has been produced between the two artists. In this sense, the sculpture is equated with the meaning or sense of purpose associated with having a child. At one point Rubek distances himself from the characterization of the work as a child, while Irena holds to this contention. In this sense the text posits that the masculine perspective on the art object is a transcendent being unto itself, substituting one mode of immortality for another. It’s not long after the appearance of Irena that Rubek and Maja argue and agree to separate. Maja states, “You might have taken me with you...up a high enough mountain; but you haven’t shown me all the glory of the world.” (pg. 299) In this regard the text is functioning to call into question the role of the artist. The mountain becomes the peak of meaning and purpose. In not being able to bring Maja to the glories of the world, the text is indicating that while the artistic process is an attempt at transcendence or communion with god, it is nevertheless incomplete as it misses out on an essential element of existence. The ultimate message of the text is incomplete. While Rubek and Maja ultimately reject their commitment to the artistic process and acknowledge as much in stating, “When we dead waken,” there is an element of their disavowal that is somewhat baptismal or even like a caterpillar that has emerged from its cocoon. There is a sense to the text that the sacrifices made for the art or not merely frivolous, but add considerable depth and character to these protagonists. Interestingly, Wolfheim and Maja are at times portrayed as devlish and decadent. Wolfheim states, “If devil you would have me, devil let me be...See my horns then, can we?” (pg. 246) While there may be an adulterous sense to these lines, it is also evident of the character’s deeper purpose as somehow heretical to the nature of existence. Perhaps the text is presenting a pantheistic view of god, and equating art to a communion with this essence. While this is a radical interpretation, it would then follow that through rejecting art and embracing life Maja and Wolfheim are rebelling against the mythic stew of their creation and dancing their fleeting youth away into the night. 3.3 Conclusion In his Pulitzer Prize winning investigation into human meaning, Denial of Death (1997), Ernest Becker explores the various systems of purpose that human beings adopt. While the book implements a psychoanalytic framework, its incisive commentary and logical analysis function brilliantly to, in a sense, expose the skeletal system of these competing ‘meanings of life’. In many regards, Ibsen’s When We Dead Awake artistically investigates the same themes of as Becker; while Becker’s work consciously functions to deconstruct this meaning making system, leaving the reader with no true way forward, Ibsen’s deconstruction dwells on competing possibilities. Soon after Ibsen finished writing this play he suffered a stroke that paralyzed him mentally and phys Read More