Death of a Salesman: Willy Loman and the Mythological American Dream

For nearly half a century Willy Loman, the central character in Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, has enjoyed the status of cultural icon. This is quite remarkable considering that most cultural icons are heroes, or at least viewed in a more positive light than Willy Loman. He is a caricature; a cautionary tale for those who would have blind faith in the so-called American Dream. Some of us, like Willy’s son Biff, view the Dream as myth. The sense of entitlement on display in “Salesman” is something that many people have discovered to be folly, particularly in the face of the country’s deep economic woes. I would go as far as to say that the collective national obsession with the American Dream is not just mythological, but also pathological.

To understand why the character of Willy Loman and his fictional family have attained cultural icon status, it is instructive to look at the dramatic and literary elements at work in “Salesman.” From the beginning, Miller establishes thematic motifs; the opening flute music evokes the father Willy barely knew (he manufactured and sold flutes). This represents not only the father who abandoned Willy at a young age but also the career that Willy chose, ostensibly to emulate his father, who he felt was successful and lived the American Dream but also betrayed him. Willy is constantly in conflict with holding on to the dream and feeling glimpses of where it all went wrong for him personally. Another recurring theme is the continuous and seamless daydream sequences, where Willy imagines and often attempts to re-write history to suit his delusions. There are so many signs that should tell him that he is holding on too tight to the dream; he even has to be told repeatedly that he is fired before it sinks in. And Linda’s unconditional love at times seems to buffer his ego, though she does attempt to convince him to take a non-traveling position, hoping against hope that this will bring him back to reality.

Perhaps one of the most interesting examples of symbolism that I found was Biff’s penchant for thievery, and how Willy’s condoning his actions represents his bitterness at not being able to achieve The Dream; if you can’t earn it, take it. At one point, Willy orders Charley’s son Bernard to give Biff the answers to a test. Another more subtle symbolism involves The Woman. One could make the case that she represents the emptiness, indeed the shallowness of Willy’s aspirations. She has no name and we are given no background for her. She is a pawn in his game, yet he doesn’t even know how to use her in a way that would be advantageous. The vegetable garden represents Willy’s need to find some measure of success that he can pass on to his progeny and the type of work that could have brought him success had he followed his interests and inclinations.

If there is no other figurative language in this entire piece, this is all that is necessary: “I've got to get some seeds. I've got to get some seeds, right away. Nothing's planted. I don't have a thing in the ground.” The last sentence, in particular, represents so much; all the hopes and dreams he has for Biff and Happy; all that he hasn’t accomplished in his life and career, which are one and the same; and the faint hope that he holds that he is still a great salesman, from which his family and friends, by reaching out with love, are trying their mightiest to steer him away. Of course, thoughts of purchasing a house in the country and gardening are his glimpses into the life that could have been, if he had let go of The Dream and followed his heart.

The tone of the play is one of hopelessness, with occasional, ever so slight glimpses at the possibility of happier outcomes. Alas, these glimpses are not long for the world. There is a constantly building feeling of dread, until the inevitable is revealed in the suicide accoutrement and attempts, culminating with the long-anticipated outcome.

Many of the thoughts and emotions are “hammered home” in “Salesman.” There is a consistency to the diction; we feel and hear the frustration from Willy as well as his family, over and over, and all characters are the same in this way. The one exception could be Linda, who at times seems to try and fight through the malaise, admonishing her sons for abandoning their father and almost always attempting to buoy his spirits. There is most certainly a colloquial quality to the diction; however, it is more a product of the era in which the film is set than the place. For example, both men and women referred to as “pal” or the neighbor Charley called “Uncle” when he is actually a friend of the family.

Willy Loman is in conflict primarily with society. He has been sold a bill of goods called The American Dream and he doesn’t even realize how destructive it can be, particularly for those who can’t measure up, who can’t “keep up with the Jones’.” This is his quest from the outset, to make the material gains that will prove his worthiness as a man, a husband, a father. But it will always be just out of this reach. His internal conflict is one between the salesman he is convinced he is destined to be, the mercurial plodder his wife and sons cannot fathom; and the more serene, perhaps even creative Willy that longs to live in the country and plant vegetables.

The setting in a rough and tumble sales environment is uniquely North American. Sure, there are salesman all over the world, but none quite like the ones that operate on this continent. Type-A personalities are often involved in sales, and in this story they are exemplified in Howard (Willy’s boss) and to a lesser extent Happy. Despite his passive-aggressive behavior, Willy is not a Type-A personality and is not built for the cut-throat world of sales.

The primary form of criticism that should be applied here is Archetypal and Mythological Criticism. Willy and his family surround themselves with the creature comforts expected of them in our culture. Willy and Linda’s generation made it through the depression, and they are the first to enjoy the fruits of the consumerist society that emerged following World War Two. Even their choices in activities and leisure are borne from the lifestyle that so many at the time wanted because it was ubiquitously marketed to them; Biff and Happy playing football; the boys eating at the chop house; Happy’s conquests of women. All of this feeds into the myth of the American Dream. You are heroic if you achieve and come out on top; you are John Wayne. Those who cannot keep pace, like Willy and Biff, are consumed by thoughts of where it all went wrong, and can spiral into madness if they cannot accept and be at peace with an alternative.

Deconstructionist Criticism is a secondary form of criticism that should be considered. Many view “Salesman” as an examination of the destructive nature of capitalism. When you consider that Miller wrote this play at the cusp of the era of McCarthyism, it is no wonder he came under great scrutiny from “red-baiters.” With the McCarthyites, or today’s tea-baggers, if you were against unfettered capitalism you were automatically a commie or socialist. I believe that Biff represents the gray area; an alternative to the dog-eat-dog of the American Dream. Biff simply wanted to find a peaceful place within the zeitgeist. He was not choosing a different ideology, but rather a way to fit his own talents and abilities, his heart and soul, into the framework of society. He was choosing the path of the rugged individualist; something that should be lauded in this culture but was rare at the time and if you really think about it, is still rare. Our society has a follower mentality, and this is manifest in our continuing acceptance of the crushing specter of unregulated capitalism to hold sway, despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary.

The phenomenon of “The Secret” is an example of why belief in the American Dream is pathological. Self-help programs like “The Secret” trumpet the notion that if you want material success bad enough, all you need to do is have a positive attitude; wish for it and it will come to you. The folly in this line of thinking should be self-evident. However, it is only very recently that sociologists have addressed the idea that perhaps over-optimism and positive thinking is troubling, even dangerous. From cancer treatment to investing in the stock market, the belief that if you have a positive countenance all will be well is endemic in our culture. Perhaps the name William – Willy, or Will is symbolic. Willy was practically “willing” himself and his sons to success. His optimism turned to grim determination in the face of reality, yet he could not get a grip on that reality, and it cost him his sanity and ultimately his life. Today, in tough economic times, many people are taking stock in their lives and choosing a path for themselves that better fits their personalities and capabilities; to put the brakes on this runaway freight train that is American life. It is too bad that the non-fictitious Biffs of that era could not live long enough to see that their lifestyle choices were healthy. And for the rest of us, the lesson is that a little dose of reality along with your optimism goes a long way.

Ishmael Reed's "Flight to Canada" - an analysis

Angry. Hostile. Misunderstood. Dark. Literary critics have used these and other pejoratives to describe the work of Ishmael Reed. For one to understand the full breadth of the man and his legacy, one must also consider descriptors such as: satirical, complexity, experience, peculiar, painstaking. Looking at his body of work, it seems as if Reed is on a relentless mission to break convention when it comes to literary traditions. It is rare to discover an artist with such contempt for authoritarian structures who can still manage to see their work maintain a degree of accessibility. Yet there he is, recognized among the best of the Post-modern literary figures and respected by colleagues and critics alike. In the ironic frivolity of Reed’s poem “Flight to Canada” we find the winning combination of accessibility and radical free form.

One of the most interesting aspects of this poem is that Reed incorporates in the narrative a method of travel (airplane) that did not exist in the time and place of the story. Or did it? Some people seem to think that because the poem (which opens the novel of the same name) references air travel, that perhaps the novel is not supposed to be set in the civil war era after all. This appears to be a severe misrepresentation. There is not much room for doubt that the novel takes place in the antebellum south, if for no other reason than that the principal characters are referred to as slaves. Perhaps because Reed has chosen to place Quickskill in another time in the poem, this fools some into thinking that this is his intention for the entire story. Is this some sort of literary dog whistle, meant for those who can decode its meaning? Or is it simply another example of Reed’s use of non-traditional literary forms to communicate an experience that few could understand? Or are these questions essentially asking the same thing? Reed is well-known for using anachronisms; but what purpose does it serve? One is left with more questions than answers when studying Reed’s work, which is the mark of a great artist.

Some of the language used is borrowed from another time. “What it was” is a term used in 1970’s Blaxploitation films; reference is made to getting an “agent” which in context is very much a 20^th Century term; even Saskatchewan did not join Canada until 1905. Reed uses this technique to great effect in all his work. In this piece, he jumps back and forth between the Civil War era and the present. The juxtaposition of the language and references of the modern era with those of the Civil War era gives the piece an almost subversive quality; given the consensus surrounding the analysis and criticism of Reed’s canon, this is probably the desired effect.

While Reed mostly shuns metaphor and simile in Flight to Canada, hyperbole and personification abound. An example of personification: “Last visit I slept in Your bed and sampled your cellar. Had your prime Quadroon give me She-Bear.” Hyperbole examples are creative: “Beats craning your neck after the North Star” and “Passengers came up and shook my hand and within 10 min. I had signed up for 3 anti-slavery lectures.” Given Reed’s penchant for composing his own “language” or writing his own laws of literature, or at least foregoing literary traditions to communicate the unique African-American experience, perhaps the metaphors are disguised.

The poem is also chock full of irony. With Reed’s well-known disdain for verbal niceties as it relates to race relations in the United States, one could say that the poem is almost entirely ironic. “Did you have a nice trip, Massa?” “It’s cold up here but least nobody is collaring hobbling gagging handcuffing yoking chaining and thumbscrewing.” “That was rat poison I left in your Old Crow.” Reed clearly has no qualms about portraying the pain of the slave experience through unabashed ironic language, including delight in pulling one over on the The Man.

It would not be a stretch to say that Reed is contemptuous of white America and his characters would certainly be no different in that regard; therefore, a sarcastic, even celebratory tone is not unexpected, particularly in this piece. Quickskill’s delight in having escaped the clutches of his Massa is apparent throughout; champagne with his fellow passengers, rat poison in Massa’s Old Crow, “safe in the arms of Canada”, he is clearly triumphant, and who could blame him? It is in this celebratory mood that the sarcasm rears; “I knowed you wouldn’t mind”, “Did you have a nice trip, Massa?”, “Remind me to get an agent”, “I borrowed your cotton money to pay for my ticket.”

Despite the fact that much of the time Ishmael Reed’s efforts feel like one big inside joke, I enjoy it immensely. It is challenging and requires research to uncover meaning more than any poet I have encountered. It illuminates with force the African-American condition. His combination of colloquialisms and razor wit spares no American institution and makes Ishmael Reed truly an artist making his own literary rules – or at least breaking some of them.

When Environmental Regulations Fail Us

The vast majority of the world’s scientists have formed a consensus that human activity, including use of fossil fuels, is warming the planet at an alarming rate. There have been many calls to take action, big and small, to address this distress signal from mother earth. Environmental regulations vary from country to country, even state to state, but nevertheless are the most important aspect in even beginning to address the problems that we face in protecting our natural world. One of the biggest meetings to try to have the world’s leaders on the same page is coming up next month in Copenhagen. This is the big one; all the little things that individual countries are doing culminate in this gathering on the world stage to put the best minds together and find solutions. However, economic concerns threaten to trump any chance at real progress in curbing global warming.

Lack of environmental regulations, or protection of our way of life in the face of natural disasters of catastrophic proportions, is at the heart of the matter. The American way of life, indeed the way of life of the entire developed world, is dependent upon cheap fossil fuels. And the way of life that we’ve built since the middle of the 20^th century, is that of a suburban way of life. It is all interconnected; our dependence on oil is in large part due to our inability to even think about organizing our lives and our economy in a more sustainable way. A lifestyle centered on the automobile; from the rise of Levittown to the development of the interstate highway system, is our blessing and our curse.

There is no better example of either ignoring environmental regulations or lack of them, and our pursuit of maintaining this lifestyle, than the Alberta Tar Sands. This excerpt from a National Geographic article on the Tar or Oil Sands shows the lengths that our society will go to keep the lifeblood of the economy going, while exacting a terrible environmental toll: “Nowhere on Earth is more earth being moved these days than in the Athabasca Valley. To extract each barrel of oil from a surface mine, the industry must first cut down the forest, then remove an average of two tons of peat and dirt that lie above the oil sands layer, then two tons of the sand itself. It must heat several barrels of water to strip the bitumen from the sand and upgrade it, and afterward it discharges contaminated water into tailings ponds like the one near Mildred Lake” (Kunzig, 2009). As the world moves toward stricter international environmental regulations, the Oil Sands have been identified as “the largest contributor to the rise of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada” (Environment Canada, 2009). If any significant legislation or regulations come out of the Copenhagen meetings, there is no way that Canada, or the world, could meet emission reduction goals with the specter of the Oil Sands threatening the environment every day.

Of course there are abundant examples all over the world of companies and governments ignoring or weakening environmental regulations. It is mostly done to protect economic interests, which in turn protects our way of life. Perhaps what needs to come out of the meetings in Copenhagen is not just regulations that give us a fighting chance at slowing global warming, but also plans to re-order the economies of the developed world in a sustainable way. These are extremely difficult decisions, but if we do not change our ways, some day Mother Nature will force it upon us.

Natural Resources and Lifestyles: Assessing the Impact

The debate on how natural resources should be apportioned is old and contentious. There are arguments from all sides in all forms; from businesses to tourists; workers to politicians; no one seems to agree on anything, including whether our precious resources are finite or not. As with so much that involves science, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty as to how to assess the need for regulation, decentralization, use and exploitation of natural resources. Coming to any semblance of agreement on such issues is arguably one of the greatest challenges of our times.

Different regions of the world seem to have very different ideas on the issue of privatization of resources. In Bolivia, President Evo Morales has started an “Agrarian Revolution” where land is distributed to poor, indigenous farmers to help rebuild the rural economy from the bottom up, part of a larger social democratic movement that has swept much of Latin America. Meanwhile, in California, private banks have gained control of precious water resources, and, with no public oversight, can distribute the water as they please, even selling it to the city of Los Angeles. However, the question of whether private interests should even own the rights to water is hotly contested. Wenonah Hauter, director of “Water for All Campaign” makes the case for the public good when she states, “Under corporate control, the bottom line will always be about price and profit, not the public interest. Access to clean and affordable water is a right that every American should be granted. The bank’s giveaway scheme corrupts our democratic process."(Public citizen, 2003).

Lifestyles are often affected by the control and distribution of natural resources; and it is not always nature that is affected, but human resources as well. North American tourists flock to Mexican and South American resorts for beautiful beaches and cheap travel deals; however, these resorts, owned by multinational corporations, are often not subject to laws pertaining to the health and safety of the citizens of nearby towns. In fact, these corporations often choose these communities specifically because they do not have significant regulations that would prevent them from making as much money as they can. Add to that the scandalously low wages that are paid to the local resort workers and you have a double-edged sword; tourists accustomed to paying for cheap hotels and meals would not come if prices were raised, which would be one way to pay the workers fairly (assuming that the corporations would use the monies in this way, which is unlikely). All the while the corporations pillage the local community of its resources, both natural and human.

Arguably the most controversial of instances in exploitation of natural resources can be found in the petroleum industry. We have seen the first of modern day resource wars with the battle over control of the oil fields of the globe, whether it is the Middle East, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or the Tar Sands of Alberta, Canada. Just the act of extraction in the Tar Sands alone is one of the most egregious environmental disasters we are likely to witness in our lifetime. Access to cheap, plentiful oil is the engine that drives the economies of the western world. Former Vice President Cheney famously stated that “the American way of life is non-negotiable”; in other words, we will take what we need to keep our way of life. Well, Mr. Vice President, this means that the American way of life is also non-sustainable. We know that natural resources like fossil fuel are finite, so it is only a matter of time before they run out. Will we as a society adjust to this difficult reality?