Slaughter House V

Slaughter House V by Kurt Vonnegut is a very intriguing novel. At first glance this novel tackles the topic of fate vs freewill, while also attacking American ideology and literature's compartmentalizing of genre and form. As one begins to peel off these first initial layers of Vonnegut's novel it becomes evident that fear is in fact existent in his writing. The topic of fear, or lack there of, becomes most evident in the scenes of war. There is one scene specifically where, "somebody shot at the four from far away... Billy stood there politely, giving the marksman another chance." (33) This lack of fear is because Billy has time traveled. Billy knows what will happen and he knows that nothing can change that. He knows that he has no free will . This acknowledgement that one has no control seems to be almost therapeutic  for Billy because it creates inside him an intense passivity. Billy knows that he has no control over the situation and therefore is not fearful because to Billy fear is pointless. What happens is what is meant to happen and if he dies, so it goes. Another aspect as to why Billy has no fear at this moment is because he already knows what will happen. When there is no more unknown in a situation fear tends to dissipate. This is because often times fear is a product of our own imagination. It results from when our mind wanders to what could be.
Even another interpretation of why Billy has no fear is because humans often tend to fear what we don't understand, and to Billy the Tralfalmadores have enlightened him. Since he is fully enlightened there is nothing he doesn't understand, and therefore, nothing that he fears. Whatever the reason is as to why Billy does not possess the emotion fear there is one thing that is for certain; he survives. This lack of fear, an instinct we believe helps us stay alive, has in fact kept Billy alive longer than any of his fellow colleague who possess fear. This then brings up the question is fear healthy and does it truly help us to survive? Billy's passivity has enabled him to flow through life unscathed, but would this passivity breed the same result for all of us?

Beloved

What drives a mother to attempt a murder on her children? In Beloved Sethe attempts to kill her children out of fear, a fear of slavery. This fear of slavery was rightly placed in Sethe because of her choke cherry tree back, her loss of a husband, her unknown parents, and her sexually abused  breasts. Sethe believes that killing her children is truly an act of love because it will save them from these toils, and she may have been making the right choice, but ultimately she was making a choice out of fear. She didn't want her children to have to go through the troubles of slavery, nor did she want to constantly worry about their well being. To her she believed the simplest way to avoid her fear, was to try to hide from it. She decided that the fear of death was less daunting than the fear of slavery, and so she attempted to hide in death from the lurking evils of slavery.
Another aspect of fear in the novel is once again the fear of slavery; however, this is a societal fear. An interpretation of the novel reveals that Beloved is representative of Sethe's past haunting her. This past includes her time in slavery, and so when Sethe escapes into the new community around 124 she is bringing the legacy of slavery with her. Something the community does not want. This is why the community does not warn Sethe when the schoolteacher arrives; they unconsciously, or even consciously wanted Sethe to be taken away. By the end of the novel though the community acknowledges the legacy of slavery and sets out to protect Sethe. They scare away Beloved and save Sethe from making another rash decision when she tries to kill Mr. Bodwin.
In Beloved no single person was capable of overcoming their fear, it took an entire community.

The Stranger

Fear is no doubt a prevalent aspect of The Stranger by Albert Camus. What is most intriguing about this novel though is that he has both sides of fear, the fearless and the fearful.  For the main character, Meursault, societal emotions are not something he participates in. He is sure to always tell the truth, nothing more nor nothing less, and never waivers from this one moral of his. The reader also learns that by some miracle Meursault does not judge people, which is a human action. Judging people allows us to make notions about whether this person is safe to be around, or if this person is safe to trust; however, humans naturally have a fear of the unknown and because of this society judges those it does not understand as a threat. This idea mainly comes out in the court case after Meursault shoots a man for no inherently good reason. The prosecution even says, “But here in this court the wholly negative virtue of tolerance must give way to the sterner but loftier virtue of justice. Especially when the emptiness of a man’s heart becomes, as we find it has in this man, an abyss threatening to swallow up society.” There is nothing in mankind that says a man must have feelings or he is a danger to society; society has created this fear of “if one is not like society one is a threat to it.”

On the flip side Meurseult is fearless even in the face of death. When he is about to be executed he thinks, “I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.” This aspect that Meursault has no fear hints a larger message: Fear is when humans lack control. Meursault has accepted everything in his life without judgment and without regret creating an atmosphere where he has surrendered his control to life. He has become a person floating through life never looking forward, and never really looking back. He simply lives in the present. This living in the present removes any trace of fear because we fear not what is happening to us, but what will result of what is happening. When one lives only in the present there is no need to worry about the future.

Invisible Man

At a first glance Invisible Man does not appear to be based much off of fear, but as one looks more closely at the text it becomes evident is filled with actions committed by fear. For instance, in the very first speech made by the narrator he reveals his fear of the white man. He shows that he knows his place when he quickly stumbles after accidentally saying "social equality." The narrator originally shapes who he wants to be based off of his fear of the white man, by accepting his place in their society and not questioning it. Fear comes into play again after the narrator takes Mr. Norton through the town, and out of fear of what might happen, Bledsoe expels the narrator from the college. This expulsion occurred simply because Bledsoe feared that the narrator would not be capable of living in the white man's world with an education. Later in the paint factory the narrator's fear of asking his supervisor what paint to fill his can with leads him to trouble, where he is then reassigned with Brockway, gets in a fight, and accidentally blows up the boiler room. Which then leads to the Brotherhood where the narrator operates constantly in fear. At first he was very trusting of the Brotherhood, but he begins to learn that he must be careful if he wants to keep his position, and therefore becomes fearful of the Brotherhood's leaders, which yet once again dictates some of his actions. Finally, it is while he is running from Ras the Destroyer that he decides where he "decides" his fate. It is while he is running out of fear that he falls into the sewers and finds his home.

King Lear, Shakespeare

The play King Lear by Shakespeare does not touch much on the concept of fear. It instead chooses to mainly address sanity and loyalty; however there are a few instances in which fear controls the characters. One example of this is how Edmund manages to get Edgar fearful for his life, by convincing Edgar that he is a wanted man for plotting to murder Gloucester. Edgar, caught up in the moment, and fearful of what was to come, listens to his brother and flees the castle. Another ironic concept involving fear occurs after Gloucester's eyes have been gouged out. Fearful that Gloucester will acquire sympathy from the people and lead to the overturning of Regan's empire, she issues the command for Oswald to kill Gloucester on sight. When Oswald attempts to kill Gloucester he is killed first by Edgar, who then reads a letter revealing Edmund's corruption. It is from the knowledge gained from this letter that Edgar challenges Edmund to a duel, and upsets his plan, along with the entire play. Although the play does not explain why we let fear control us, it is an example of why not to make decisions out of fear. It was out of fear that lead Edgar to rise up and become the "hero" of the play.

Shakespeare Concordance: Life

Act I, Scene II

Edmund

This dialogue occurs between Edmund and his father, Gloucester. It occurs right after Edmund gives Gloucester "Edgar's" letter, incriminating him of conspiring against his father.

EDMUND I do not well know, my lord. If it shall please

 you to suspend your indignation against my

 brother till you can derive from him better

 testimony of his intent, you shall run a certain

 course; where, if you violently proceed against

 him, mistaking his purpose, it would make a great

 gap in your own honour, and shake in pieces the

 heart of his obedience. I dare pawn down my life

 for him, that he hath wrote this to feel my

 affection to your honour, and to no further

 pretence of danger.

This passage details how Edmund tries to portray his love for his brother and cover for his "brother's" letter. He does this to merely make the situation more believable, and by acting like he loves his brother he is actually proving he does not.

Edmund is using the word as a way to really get his father's attention. Here the word is being used as an asset, or collateral to convince Gloucester to listen to Edmund. He does not merely think or believe an idea, he lays down his life for this idea. Although this word is not very connotative, it is very symbolic, because Edmund's life is riding on this lie. Whether his father believes this or not will determine if he becomes and heir to Gloucester, or simply the illegitimate child.

Act II, Scene II

Cornwall

This exchange occurs after Kent has insulted and fought with Oswald, and Cornwall is bringing "justice."

CORNWALL Fetch forth the stocks! As I have life and honour,

 There shall he sit till noon.

This quote is Cornwall stating that as long as he lives and has his power Kent will remain in the stocks until noon the next day.

Here Cornwall is using the word life as an expression to make an absolute statement. He is making clear there is no doubt that Kent will be punished. He is making Kent an example and using his life and honor to make the point. Ironically when Cornwall loses his honor (gouging out Gloucester's eyes for "treason") he also loses his life.

Similarly to Edmund, Cornwall uses the word life as an expression to prove a point; however, although neither have connotations to it, they both ironically do represent the fate of the speaker.

Act III, Scene IV

Gloucester

This statement occurs between Gloucester and Kent while they are out in the storm. Gloucester makes says this line after Kent says King Lear's wits begin to unsettle.

GLOUCESTER Canst thou blame him?

 [Storm still]

 His daughters seek his death: ah, that good Kent!

 He said it would be thus, poor banish'd man!

 Thou say'st the king grows mad; I'll tell thee, friend,

 I am almost mad myself: I had a son,

 Now outlaw'd from my blood; he sought my life,

 But lately, very late: I loved him, friend;

 No father his son dearer: truth to tell thee,

 The grief hath crazed my wits. What a night's this!

 I do beseech your grace,--

This quote is a quick summary of the plots against the King and against Gloucester. Overall Gloucester is just remorseful over what has happened so far throughout the play.

In this passage the first thing that caught my eye is Shakespeare writes "His daughters seek his death" for the King, but then writes "he sought my life" for Gloucester. The use of life instead of death the second time around is a curious situation. My best guess for this is that Lear may already be "dead" in essence. He has lost his mind and is no longer truly himself, the true Lear has died, where as Gloucester is still sane and aware of reality (at least for the time being). This difference can be seen when Gloucester says, "the king grows mad... I am almost mad myself." Ironically Edgar truly did seek Gloucester life, not his death.

Unlike the other two quotes, life in this passage is not an expression of speech used to draw attention or cause persuasion, but instead here life is a Freudian slip of something Gloucester may subconsciously be aware of. It is also a way to describe sanity.

Act IV, Scene IV

Cordelia

These words are exchanged between Cordelia and the Doctor before France goes to war with England. She is speaking with the doctor about her father’s insanity.

CORDELIA All blest secrets,

 All you unpublish'd virtues of the earth,

 Spring with my tears! be aidant and remediate

 In the good man's distress! Seek, seek for him;

 Lest his ungovern'd rage dissolve the life

 That wants the means to lead it.

This passage details out Cordelia's love for her father, and her want for nature to heal him of his insanity.

What's interesting about the use of life in this situation is how life is being taken over by his rage and insanity. It creates a comparison between life and sanity, as if life cannot exist without sanity.

The use of life in this context is similar to the way Gloucester used life.  Cordelia uses it as a way to discern sanity from insanity.

Although the word life is used to represent itself towards the beginning of the novel, as the two sisters begin to make their moves for power, the use and meaning of life changes. In the early stages of the play the word life is used as a means of persuasion, collateral for what the characters are saying or commanding, but after the introduction of the storm, and the banishment of Lear the word life takes on a whole new meaning. As the storm continues the word life no longer is just the amount of time someone lives, but begins to detail their state of mind, and quality of life. Life becomes representative of a person's sanity, and as the sanity is lost he begins to be referred to as dead, or he is depicted with a” dissolving” life. 

Oedipus Rex by Sophocles

Oedipus Rex is a play based entirely off fear. Not only is the main theme from this play to fear and respect the gods, but fear is what depicts Oedipus' fate. It is when, " 'An oracle reported to Laios once... that his doom would be death at the hands of his own son-his son, born of his flesh and [Iokaste]!'" It was also foreseen that this child would marry his mother, Iokaste, so the King, "had pierced the baby's ankles and left him to die on a lonely mountainside." Fear of Oedipus' potential took over their minds and controlled the couple when they "decided" Oedipus' fate; however, as we know Oedipus in fact did not die, but in turn was adopted by the King and Queen of Corinth, Polybus and Merope. One day after words from a drunkard Oedipus visits the oracle distraught over who his birth parents truly are, when the oracle spoke of wretchedness. The oracle wailed that Oedipus, "should be [his] father's murderer." Oedipus, fearing the worst, attempted to escape this dreadful fate and fled to the city of Thebes, where he inevitably killed his father and married and had kids with his mother. Regardless of what you believe fate is, or if it even exists, it is undeniable Oedipus, Laios, and Iokaste made their crossroad decisions out of fear, and this ultimately led to tragedy.