Old Age Sticks

Old Age Sticks

E.E. Cummings

old age sticks 

up Keep

off

signs)&

youth yanks them down(old

age

cries No

Tres)&(pas)

youth laughs

(sing

old age

scolds Forbid

den

Stop

Must

n't Don't

&)youth goes

right on

gr

owing old.

"Old Age Sticks" is about the cycle of growing up, and the relationship between the young and the old. The old character in the poem respects property, and feels entitled to it. He’s been around long enough to want an object to represent his work on earth. The youth haven’t begun to understand what it truly means to “own” something, as they haven’t worked a day in their life. This is represented in the argument between the old men and the youth. The old man is alone, while the youth are numerous. This is supposed to represent how rare maturity is. There’s more time for ignorance to be “killed off” by corruptive experience. Time brings knowledge, but learning is often a lonely road. To me, the first line of the poem is peculiar, because it gives an image of old sticks, as in branches. Branches are detached pieces of wood that once were connected to a tree. They are detached from their “mother” and are alone. It could also mean that this loneliness the old man endures exists far beyond the feeling of being connected to a family tree. The youth still have the ability to laugh and sing while the old man appears to be upset, as he yells and scolds. Corruption that age and experience bring will eventually lose childlike characteristics such as outward displays of innocent joy. The old man tries to warn the young that they must respect the idea of property. Instead, they ignore him and go right on “growing old”. E.E. Cummings uses word play through the format of his poems. He means that the young go on growing and owing old. It’s cyclical. The first and last words of the poem are “old”. I believe this is meant to emphasize the cycle of youth turning old, and scolding their “past” selves. It also shows how inevitable growing up is. No matter how much the old man yells and explains, the youth are bound to repeat the mistakes of the old man’s past. It’s strange that Cummings splits up the word “trespassing”. I did look up the two words, and they are French. Tres translates to “very” or “a lot” in French. Pas means “step”. It’s a dance, but another rare use is “the right to precede”. Using these translations, we could say that the old man cries “No a lot step”. He doesn’t want the youth to take a large step into maturity. He wants them to relish their youth, instead children are often eager to grow up. It isn’t until they are mature that they realize there were perks to being young that they didn’t notice before. Now that I think about it, the trespassing sign may not mean that the old man is holding possession over the land. He’s occupies it, but doesn’t want the youth to tread into his territory. He doesn’t want the youth to become like him. It’s a more depressing look at old age. The old man doesn’t seem to be enjoying himself. His experience and knowledge wasn’t worth his happiness. I can’t seem to shake the cliched saying “ignorance is bliss”. I suppose many sayings are cliched because they’re true.

M'ama

“I did it for love, didn’t I?”(50). Nora considers these words to herself. It’s a rationalization, but one hidden behind a veil of genuine love. On the surface, Nora seems to be manipulative. While she honestly finds pleasure in telling the lie to Torvald, the reason she’s in her situation is because of “love”. She hides the information from Torvald to protect him. Well. . . this is all fine and dandy, except Nora ends up leaving Torvald. Her reasons behind her actions are revealed through conversation with Rank. Rank, who’s another victim of Nora’s manipulations asks why she leads him on. She replies, “Well, you see, there are some people whom one loves, and others whom it’s almost more fun to be with”(69). It’s sad to think that it isn’t fun to be with someone you love, but it’s important to first analyze Nora’s definition of love. She borrows money because of love. She stays with Torvald and amuses him for love. Love is merely an obligation, a duty. Nora mistakes love for her duties required by her marriage. Love is simple. It isn’t a game to be played between two individuals. Nora believes that love and pleasure seeking are mutually exclusive, but they can go hand-in-hand.This is similar to Archer in The Age of Innocence. He pursues Ellen, when his marriage to May should fulfill his needs for enjoyment with another partner. Archer however is robbed of any confrontation with May. He “loses” and is forced to fantasize about his life with Ellen. Instead, Nora reaches an end when she decides that  “I don’t love you anymore”(101). On the surface, this is one of the most hurtful things one can say to another. It reminds the person that the love they once had, the love that brought them happiness is now absent, and cannot return. This is all controlled by the one word “anymore”. Love needs to be reciprocated. No matter how Torvald still feels towards Nora, their abyss remains unbridged. . . This is aggravating because I’m having trouble assembling gnostic arguments for or against Nora. I’m not going to pretend that I  comprehend what “love” is. Nora - She’s incredibly unlikeable. She knows that everything that she is doing is wrong, and yet she’s able to leave her life with a clear conscious. She thinks that leaving her family behind so that she can work on herself is positive. The problem is that marriage confuses these two characters’ definition of love. To Archer, the worshipped virgin gives him the disillusion that “love” is the chance to teach an innocent girl the wonders of the world. It’s the ability to make a mark on someone else. It’s power. Property. It’s the ability to look at a person and think to oneself “I’ve imposed so much of my own philosophies, characteristics, and physical mark on this human that they are now an extension of me. They belong to me because I’ve created the persona sitting right in front of me”. Torvald is guilty of the same treatment. He often speaks of how he wants his marriage to Nora be like their very first night. He also idolizes virginity. To Nora, love makes people keep secrets and having a hand in the financial stability of the household. Once she exclaims that she doesn’t love Torvald anymore, she has no interest in investing herself in the stability of the life they’ve built. No matter how fake it is, it was still their life. It’s the end of their life. Her reasons for leaving the household can be interchanged with the reason she gives for loaning the money. She’s leaving Torvald for love. Love and respect she has for herself. That’s the only optimistic view I can give to the end of Doll’s House. I take what I said back. Love is extremely complicated, especially when it’s built on something as ephemeral and extreme as emotions.

Evil in Fargo and No Country For Old Men

Today I watched Fargo, and noticed striking similarities between the character Grimsrud in Fargo and Chigurh in No Country For Old Men. I think that the Cohen Brothers use these characters to display their definition of evil. The similarities span farther than the disturbingly silent performances by their actors and awful haircuts. In Fargo, after being caught for seven homicides, Grimsrud sits in the back of the squad car while Marge, the female police officer, tries to comprehend his motives. She says, "And for what?  For a little bit of money. There's more to life than money, you know. Don't you know that?...  And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day". Her words of reason are left on Grimsrud. He doesn’t reply and merely stares blankly ahead with what’s described in the screenplay as “hallow eyes”. I’ll compare this scene with the one in No Country For Old Men. 

ARLA JEAN
You don't have to do this.

CHIGURH
People always say the same thing.

CARLA JEAN What do they say?

CHIGURH
They say “You don't have to do this.”

CARLA JEAN You don't. . .

Chigurh stares at her for a beat.

CHIGURH
This is the best I can do. . .

He digs in his pocket for a coin.

CHIGURH . . . Call it.

CARLA JEAN
I knowed you was crazy when I saw you settin there. I knowed exactly what was in store for me.

CHIGURH Call it.

CARLA JEAN
No. I ain't gonna call it.

CHIGURH Call it.

CARLA JEAN
The coin don't have no say. It's just you.

CHIGURH
I got here the same way the coin did.

In both of these encounters, the Cohen Brothers use female characters to show the reasoning and humane nature of woman against the cold murderous rage of man. On the surface, Grimsrud seems to be motivated by 80,000 dollars, but to him, it is only a job. He’s a hired gun. Chigurh is also a hitman. But neither are truly motivated by the money their job brings in. Anton is offered money during one of his jobs, and he turns it down. It’s about seeing a job to its completion. He stands by set principles and rules, and does not falter. Both men are forces of evil that make sure purpose is enacted on a random and meaningless world.  Anton gives Carla Jean a chance to leave her life up to random fate, but she refuses. The coin toss is a random device that has no intentional purpose. This is juxtaposed against Chigurh’s purposeful assassinations. Carla Jean refuses to give her life to chance, and so evil takes her life. Evil in the Cohen Bother’s movies are personified as hollow men who strive to make sure their morals are fulfilled. They have purpose. It’s not chaotic. It may be born out of nihilism, but it’s evil with a purpose. This is in stark contrast with the evil we’ve been analyzing. There isn’t a sympathetic or relatable characteristic in either character. It makes them a terrifying plot device, but also fascinating characters whose absolute dedication to their law make them impossible forces to be reckoned with. There is no moral ambiguity. Perhaps this means the Cohen Brothers are arguing that evil comes from intent purely. Nature is random and has no consciousness, but humans do. Evil is born from striving towards fulfilled purpose. Their films show the dangers of committing to a way of life without remaining flexible or understandable to those who do not agree or fit in with established principles. To the audience, Grimsrud is a cold and empty vessel, but in reality he is a hyper focused man who has no room for outside influence. Both characters who speak to these agents of evil cannot seem to connect with them, and cannot comprehend their actions. To Carla Jean, Chigurh doesn’t have to kill her, but what she doesn’t understand is that in order for Chigurh to live a life full of purpose, he does. Evil’s motives are often mistaken for greed, similarly to how Marge thinks Grimsrud did it all for the money. This shows that once evil takes ahold of its host, they become disconnected and alone. Rebellion is a lonely road, and so is the gathering of knowledge.