Tomorrow for humans

Tomorrow for Humans

A Way You'll Never be, Big Two-Hearted River

     The war destructed Nick Adams from the inside, and the story does not end in mental breakdown or a huge blow. Rather, he goes back to nature, catches fish and cries for Jesus in delight when he could have a nice meal. He loses the big fish, but is satisfied after he caught two medium-sized ones, and the story ends with him resolving from fishing in the swamp.
     These parts are some examples from Big Two-Hearted River that show how Hemingway believed humans as noble; "Nick laughed. He would finish the cigarette." After Nick loses the big trout, he feels a little disappointed, and this is when he smokes the cigarette right after he lost it. His disappointment does not take long: "He sat on the logs smoking, drying in the sun, the sun warm on his back, the river shallow ahead entering the woods... the logs warm in the sun, smooth to sit on, without bark, gray to the touch, slowly the feeling of disappointment left him. ... Nick tied a new hook on the leader, puling the gut tight until it grimped into itself in a hard knot." He then moves away from the deep water and catches two trouts, satisfied: "They were fine trout."
     Before cleaning the two trouts, Nick ponders about fishing at the deep water again. But he decides not to, and goes back to camp at the end of the story, because "in the fast deep water in the half light the fishing would be tragic." It would be tragic not only because of the half light but because "He did not want to hook big trout in places impossible to land them." At last, when he goes back to the camp, he looks back to see the river and the story ends with him thinking of another day to come back: "There were plenty of days coming when he could fish the swamp."
     In the story, Nick is not arrogant or stupid enough to go fishing in the deep water, not taking care of the situations. He knew there were things that he had to consider of nature. It can be contrasted to the man in To Build a Fire, who was too arrogant to ignore the temperature; fifty degrees below zero. Humans in Hemingway's stories were not arrogant like him, but rather contemplating, and trying not to bring himself into destruction. Humans know they are not perfect, or the strongest creature on Earth.
     Also, his disappointment after losing the big trout does not take long, and he does not despair or get obsessed with the deep water's fish. He knew himself so he didn't start a meaningless challenge, and soon after his failure he overcame with it-he tried again, and he succeeded to satisfy himself.   

     Not only in these Nick Adams stories had Hemingway showed his noble view on humans. Against the irrationality, Hemingway believed humans fight against them; one does not give up. Nick, for instance, he did not end in a huge blow or a strong mental breakdown from the irrational war but rather recovered himself slowly. He thought it was part of a human nature that humans always continue in an absurd world by doing something they think that is not absurd. The world was absurd with the terrible debris of war, but Nick could recover himself. But not all humans believed this way; if William Golding was given to write about the same situation, the story might have been written Nick Adams struggling to live between the dead bodies. Nick might have committed suicide at the end of the story, because Golding believed humans as “savages” whose civilizations or Reason are nothing in front of extreme situations.

     My idea rests heavily on Hemingway’s side, and on others who all insisted the idea of resistance, heading for something better than the present. Not only Hemingway, but many writers including Camus, believed that humans can get through the absurd reality by trying to change it; resisting. Golding’s idea may seem convincing, but the problem of his idea is that if humans are really like what Golding described, then there is no tomorrow among humans. Throughout the history there have been numerous people who tried to resist upon irrationality, who tried to bring back the big fish against sharks, and who tried to cure themselves from destruction.

Comments

Soho Shim: Wow… I see another big fan of HemingwayJ. As I’m also a supporter of Hemingway, I generally agree with your idea. I think it’d have been better if you linked your idea with the story more. Well… I hope to see a more developed writing of yours (on the blog)!

Yeji: I don’t have enough time (two minute left) to read your writing carefully and think about specific ways to improve your writing, but I think your attempt of comparing Hemingway and Golding is terrific. The bell rangL. I’ll add comments on your blog. Sorry! 

Getting Through Life

Getting Through Life

The Garden Lodge

     I believe there is something more in like than what Caroline has done throughout her life. It is the beauty of sentiments. In the lodge Caroline becomes sentimental and confronts it, but soon compresses her from being emotional or "idealistic" like what her family did. The reason she pressed her from being so was that she wanted to live a more convenient life. She didn't want something vague anymore, but something real and precise, as she went through her "vague" childhood. But what would that mean?

     What would be living so convenient mean, when one has to keep on pressuring from having such natural emotions? Caroline saw it valuable, maybe, but I could understand what her father or Heinrich wanted for their lives. They knew that falling under those vague emotions didn't help them any for a convenient living, but music and art was what they lived for. The moments they spent in music and art, that was what they devoted themselves wholly into. I believe that Heinrich would have been much happier than Caroline; Caroline would realize, at the end of her death, that she had never really did something she desired by devoting herself fully, but instead just keep on stopping herself from those bursting emotions.

     The beauty of emotions; they are the sensation many artists cry for, what writers give up most of their life for, and the fire that makes people to throw themselves in when they know that they would tear down in flames, like a moth. And that's why Caroline's piano would never be as beautiful as her father's.     
     The fact that Caroline had lived in a time period much different from now on, when the world was (relatively) not peaceful, is true. So maybe it can be argued that it was her best way to overcome the self-destruction; but here, how can we call it a 'best' way?
     Is it a best way if it brings one convenience? Is it a best way if it brings one money? Is it a best way if it promises you a nice, cozy bed? No, those can never be the best value of life, and therefore can never be a ultimate purpose of life-at least for me. Maybe I would have also done like Caroline if I was in her time, but when the opportunity came-the one she loved-to evoke my sentiments, and get to feel the real "happiness", I wouldn't have trashed it away.        
     I know that I should not be looking at her story with the perspective that is built within the society nowadays; and Caroline's desire of stability is understandable. Succeeding destruction like World War I and Great Depression could have made her think that the world is a place that would not let her survive if she struggled with emotions that bothers her to make rational, objective decisions-what will bring her the most. But still, wouldn't it be too sad if, when Caroline meets her time of death in her cozy bed, and finally recognizes that she never enjoyed fully of what she really loved? 

Comments

Haeuk Ko: Yes, perhaps Caroline's piano might not be as 'beautiful' as her father's in the eyes of those who look for the flame of passion in every object. But, if one was intent on looking for harmony of objects that form a beauty together-not by itself-Caroline's would be more adequate than her father's which would shine too brightly alone. All in all, what I wanted to comment on was that perhaps you cherish only one way because you did not yet find the values of the other way. Just as people from 60s and 80s have different prospects of like, people from different backgrounds find content and satisfaction from different lives.

Yoonju Chung: It was really interesting to read your essay! I could not have thought of finding a theme "the beauty of sentimentality" after reading "The Garden Lodge". Maybe she was not happy as much as her brother and were since she had never done something she is really eager to do. Although I thought giving up her past was the best way to overcome self-destruction in this time period (after WW1, influenza, Great Depression, Russian revolution), it was really interesting and I hope you put more background information. More developing your eyes is what needed!

It was a Dog Because It Never Resisted

It was a Dog Because It Never Resisted

A Dark, Brown Dog

     One of the fundamental ideas of naturalism is that the nature is indifferent. It is, in the same time, powerful, and greatly “superior” to humans since humans’ lives are determined by the nature in naturalistic views. Naturalists view humans as just a part of the absolute nature, thus humans are not so much different from animals, insects, and so on. The two stories carry this characteristic well enough.

     In To Build a Fire, when the protagonist stands on the verge of death, he tries to cut the dog open in order to gain its warmth. In A Dark, Brown Dog, the family shows savagery toward a poor, weak dog; the father “held a carnival with the cooking utensils-the furniture and his wife.” He even throws the dog out the window. Here the savagery of humans is revealed-the “civilization” doesn’t work in these stories. Both stories concentrate on how humans are just a segment of the nature by “joking off” civilization. Savagery-one of the instincts the nature had given-was what revealed or portrayed under the cover of civilization.

     However, a question can come up at this moment: so what? It can be plausible, that humans are a mere part of the absolute nature. But like what the doctor in La Peste by Camus said, “People don’t give up.” The pastor in La Peste stressed in his speech about how God had created and planned everything in order, and so that the plague is part of his plan so the people should not deny. But the doctor criticized him, that no matter what people know about who plans their lives, people never give up-even if they think they did, they live their lives with hope at least in some parts. Naturalism can be criticized in the same way also.

Comments

Soyeon Min: It was interesting that you compared the story with an outside text, La Peste. However, to a reader who had not read La Peste, the last paragraph was a little hard to understand. I think your writing could be better if you could include some brief explanations about the plot and context of La Peste so that the reader can better understand. Also, I did not quite get the part you mentioned about “predetermined destiny.” Why is “predetermined destiny” and “god’s will” relevant to naturalism? I think you have a brilliant idea and your essay would be better if you could better elaborate.

But I liked your writing anyways.

Yunjo Jeong: (He commented on several grammatical mistakes and commented right beside the text. Those comments except the grammatical checks are the below ones.)

I see, but don’t they also distinguish between humankind and nature?

So, civilization is losing its function even in “civilized” nations of the world. Is it?

Great here, but can you also explain why the dog did not resist to any violence incurred upon him?

Well I never read this one.

What Naturalists have Missed

What Naturalists have Missed

To Build a Fire

     In naturalistic novels, humans who try to fight against the superior but indifferent nature, fail and surrender. This idea corresponds to Social Darwinism, and the naturalists have also tried to reveal the “brute” in humans, which exists inherently among all of them. Naturalism prevailed around the early 20^th century, when all the economic depressions and the two brutal World Wars had happened. A lot of the authors were naturalists, and Jack London of To build a Fire, and William Golding of the Lord of the Flies were among them also. Throughout the story To build a Fire, London tries to show the ugly side of human instinct-the selfish instinct to survive, the arrogance that eventually led himself to destruction-and, how the nature is superior to the man; no matter how hard the man struggle, he fails to overcome the nature. 

     The arrogance the author tried to show appears from almost all parts at the front of the story. For example: "He was quick and alert in the things of life, but only in the things, and not in the significances", "Fifty degrees below zero was to him just precisely fifty degrees below zero. That there should be anything more to it than that was a thought that never entered his head” and "What were frosted cheeks? A bit painful, that was all." This arrogance was something that eventually led himself to destruction. The man shows his selfish instinct to survive; he tries to kill the dog just to thaw out his hands. Despite of all his continuous trials of building a fire, nature, much more superior to him, strikes him ruthlessly, and finally leads him to death. 

     The impression I got from this story, however, was that London failed to describe the real general human instinct. Like what the most naturalists tend to do, London picked certain parts from human life and wrote his story using them as a tool to convey his meanings. But the world is definitely something more than he wrote. To explain, London had missed the fact that humans are not all arrogant as the man in this story does. There are a lot of humans that do recognize fifty degrees below zero as something that can freeze them to death. Therefore, the story is about an extraordinary man who is stupid enough to not care about such a freezing weather when the bulk of human beings are not, and thus the story fails to describe the nature of most humans.

          This does not apply to this story but also to most of the naturalism stories; humans are something more than they think. And, in the same vein, I really agree with Eric Sundquist said:  (Naturalism is) “revelling in the extraordinary …… and the grotesque in order to reveal the immutable bestiality of Man in Nature……” One strong reason is that, humans resist, even to the absolute thing like nature, and there are ones who do not surrender when naturalists think all humans would. And because of them humans do not live in a place where is affected only by nature; humans live in the place where they believe they can change it.

Camus, despite the fact that he had also experienced World Wars and economic depression, and even that he was once a soldier in those wars, wrote completely different novels. His fundamental idea is based on “resistance.” Resistance, according to Camus, is what dignifies human. One of his masterpieces, La Peste, is a typical story that shows this “resistance” idea. Plague was all over the city, and people were dying helplessly. Rieux, the protagonist, fights against the disease by incessantly taking care of the patients. He never gives up, and he never even thinks of giving up his "resistance" against the plague even when the plague was at its peak, that it seemed so powerful and endless to win over. The plague symbolizes the irrationality human beings can face; something out of their will, but in the same place, something so powerful. Rieux never surrenders, and his fight continues until the plague finally ends.

Always there has been someone resisting against the unreasonable society. No matter how powerful the absurdity seemed to be, there were people who gave away their lives and rebelled to their realities. That is the part the naturalists have missed: humans resist, and it is not the few minority of the whole human being; the history could go on with those resisting people’s incessant challenges. There has been, and will be, people who try to fight against the unreasonable reality, and what matters is not the effect but the fact that he resisted: that is what finally dignifies humans. Naturalists have missed that part of humans. Humans don’t accept the world as it is; they fight against the reality for a better place for them. They do not surrender, and some of them give up what their most basic instinct try to protect: their lives. They do it for the world to change.

If William Golding has really written his story Lord of the Flies as a response to Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea, he missed to see how the old man successfully and incessantly resisted against the superior nature, the sea. That spirit of unquailing resistance surely exists among humans, and if the object of resistance is powerful or not does not matter, because there are still people who resist against things that seem impossible to win over, like the old man. Human beings do have people like the old man, and therefore the view that humans would always fail to make changes and surrender to the superior nature cannot be enough to explain the whole human being. The world is somewhere more hopeful than naturalists view it, since it has people that will resist for a better world.

Comments 

Chonghyun Ahn: I was unsure on how you came to the conclusion of this story was about ugly human instincts. If the conclusion is right, it'd be better to see why the author came to such thoughts and then refute by using more examples other than a quotation. I agree that men are depicted negatively, and that there was extreme pessimism, but I'd like some more support behind that.

Yun Jo Jeong: Sorry. I see it has a great level of academic discussions, but I'm not in the position to connect on this. Just two words is enough: Good Job! +) he checked several grammatical mistakes

Identifying Information

Identifying Information: 

Sol Kim

11b3

111020
kimsol0211@naver.com

Adam, Eve, and Mark Twain

Adam, Eve, and Mark Twain

Excerpts from Eve's Diary and Excerpts from Adam's Diary

     Realism, like what its name expresses, focuses on the reality. Realists present plausible events, and in their stories they concentrate on the characters. The Excerpts from Eve’s Diary, and Excerpts from Adam’s Diary, written by a typical realist writer Mark Twain, are also written in realistic views. According to the link given, realistic writings “avoid the sensational, dramatic elements of naturalistic novels and romances (Campbell, Donna M. “Realism in American Literature, 1860-1890.”).” Just like what she said, throughout the whole story, Adam and Eve consider their reality; about something that happens around them. Nothing dramatic happens in the writing. Also the story concentrates on describing Adam and Eve more than the plot(most of the stories are composed of descriptions of Adam and Eve)-which is also a common characteristic of realistic novels- “character is more important than action and plot (Campbell, Donna M.)”.

     Moving on, this is the interesting part: Mark Twain expresses very contrasting thoughts to the common, prevailing idea of society back then. He portrays Eve-a woman-in such a positive way compared to what the society had done in Twain's time. Also, setting Eve as the first woman of the world in his story allows Twain to show as if women are naturally like Eve in his story-intelligent, organized, and active. These are very different thoughts considering the society's atmosphere at Twain's time. Twain also did it in his another novel, The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn; he tried to show how blacks-typically Jim in the novel-are not different from whites, which was something very far away from the society's prevailing idea back then.
     Not only was he trying to show women’s strengths, but the way Twain describes Adam and Eve and their differences seemed to me to interpret the piece as Twain trying to support women suffrage. Mark Twain was a big supporter of women suffrage, and Eve in his story is a perfect possible voter-organized, intelligent and passionate. Adam, in contrast, considered almost nothing else but only his comfort. Then doesn't it seem to be like Twain wanted to say, that women are even more appropriate to do the politics, since they are the ones who try to change this world to a better place? 
     In addition, through these two “diaries” I thought Twain wanted to express gender equality. In Excerpts from Adam’s Diary, on Monday of third week since Adam started writing-notice that Adam started to write in his diary around the day he met Eve while Eve started writing right after her creation-, Adam said “She told me she was made out of a rib taken from my body. This is at least doubtful, if not more than that. I have not missed any rib.” If this is true, it refutes one of the basic arguments of male chauvinists, which is that women are born from theft. Also, according to many interpretations of the Bible, the original sin was committed because Eve had lured Adam to eat the apple. But from Excerpts from Adam’s Diary, Adam eats the apple because “I was so hungry. It was against my principles, but I find that principles have no real force except when one is well fed. (from Excerpts from Adam's Diary)” 

    Other than that, Twain tried to express the difference between men and women throughout the whole two diaries. The two diaries have a lot of contrasting points, and even their styles of writing are different. There are things that Adam is better, such as thinking of adequate words for situations, and others that Eve is better, such as accommodating with the nature and participating to change the world. Plus, one of the notable differences between them is their perspectives on the world (or the nature): for Eve it is something filled with curiosity, waiting for her to “experiment” on it, while for Adam it is something just there and he only needs to use it for his comfort. Mark Twain, overall, tried to describe what he felt as real man and woman as realistic as possible.

References:

Campbell, Donna M. "Realism in American Literature, 1860-1890." Literary Movements. Dept. of English, Washington State University. 09/08/2011. Web. 03/27/2012

Mark Twain. “Excerpts from Eve’s Diary”

Mark Twain. “Excerpts from Adam’s Diary”

Comments:

Inhee Ho: I liked your writing! But I quite don’t get how Huckleberry Finn and Adam’s Diary/Eve’s Diary are alike. True that in Adam/Eve’s Diary Mark Twain seems to draw woman as somewhat idealistic creature, but does it link to Huck being unworried about Jim being a black? Plus, as reading the first sentence of your last paragraph, I expected some more about ‘diaries’. How a typical writing form of ‘diary’ may have contributed/distracted the writing could have been a great crucial topic, I think. And one thing more! This may be just my ‘personal’ opinion, but I think Adam in the story isn’t as negative. After all, Adam becomes much more ‘civilized’ and ‘intellectual’ in the end. Maybe this is showing higher capability of learning hidden in man? I don’t know. Anyway, I liked your points! 

Dark Romanticism and Poe

Dark Romanticism and Poe

The Cask of Amontillado and The Tell-Tale Heart

     “For these Dark Romantics, the natural world is dark, decaying, and mysterious; when it does reveal truth to man, its revelations are evil and hellish. …… works of Dark Romanticism frequently show individuals failing in their attempts to make changes for the better (Wikipedia).” Edgar Allan Poe is the typical author of Dark Romanticism, as he expresses it through his stories. For him humans are “evil and hellish,” and the main character of the two stories is insane.

     However, the first impression I got from The Cask of Amontillado and The Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe was that Poe is clever. It seemed like he wanted to make the whole process of murder a work of art. Nor the screams and the bones were something that impressed me first; it was how Poe makes the crime in his pieces so elaborately. Poe may have wanted to show these two things: first, as well known, the dark side of human instinct such as vanity, greed, brutality, and second, how a murder can be such elaborately-eventually in some ways, beautifully-held.

     The dark romanticists saw the world as it is full of evil, and they revealed that ideas in their pieces by showing how ugly human instinct is. Like them, Poe wanted to expose the greed, vanity and brutality of human instinct that people does not usually show on their outside. Those ideas are clued on parts where Fortunato calls Luchesi “ignoramus,” and when Fortunato keeps on asking to see the Amontillado, though Montresor warned him a couple of times. Montresor played the role of Poe in the story, who tries to reveal the ugly instinct of humans at the bottom, because he knew Fortunato would not stop though he warns since it was Montresor himself who talked about Luchesi and made Fortunato to be in vanity. And though he knew, he kept on warning in order to expose the ugly side of humans- vanity and greed, for instance.

     The next part is that for me Poe seemed to be beautifying murder with such elaborate descriptions and constructions. It seemed to me that Poe wanted to make his writing a piece of art rather than just a brutal murder story. His wonderful selection of words, which almost every word he used gives horror to the readers, and his elaborate foreshadowing that not only frightens the readers extremely but also makes them awe at Poe, are what made me think of his work a piece of art. Eventually I got to feel of murder in Poe’s story as something beautiful, as a part of art, something different from ordinary murder. Murder in his story is not just a killing act, but a masterpiece that is drawn out of tons of elaborate plans and vivid descriptions. To explain, take Montresor’s warning: they come up in horror at the end of the story, letting the reader to feel what really Montresor had meant. Also, the careful foreshadowing such as: “And I to your long life” from The Cask of Amontillado and the talented descriptions like: “Many a night, just at midnight, when all the world slept, it has welled up from my own bosom, deepening, with its dreadful echo, the terrors that distracted me. I say I knew it well” and “So I opened it-you cannot imagine how stealthily, stealthily-until at length a single dim ray like the thread of the spider shot out from the crevice and fell upon the vulture eye” from The Tell-Tale Heart show how the story was so elaborately planned and described, eventually making the readers feel it close to their skins. Did Poe want his writings to be a work of art? I can’t say for sure, but it is sure that surely he wrote his stories very carefully.

     Not only those two stories, but The Pit and the Pendulum also have these points. The protagonist of the story feels the extreme anxiety that he feels when the huge pendulum comes down from the ceiling, swinging fast. He tried to reveal humans’ urge for survival, gave a lot of foreshadowing at the beginning of the story, and a whole bunch of wonderful descriptions about the man’s extreme nervousness and panic.

Comments

Soho: Umm… I got your point, but I feel kind of confused what “beautiful murder” means…… Does it mean that the process of murder itself was elaborate and carefully-planned, or that the descriptions in the story are kind of ‘non-violent’ or not radical? You might give some quotes from the story.

Fate and Humans

Fate and Humans
The Ambitious Guest
 

    Along with Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne is considered as an American Dark Romanticism writer. In Dark Romantic novels, the natural world is dark and mysterious, and it reveals itself to humans as evil. Humans tend to be vain and not wise. The Ambitious Guest by Nathaniel Hawthorne has some of these characteristics of Dark Romanticism and in this story, with fate; the story shows the helpless and vain humans in front of fate.

     The story starts with a nice scene of one family gathering around their hearth, smiling and laughing. Father and mother “had a sober gladness” on their faces, children laughed, the eldest daughter, seventeen, “was the image of Happiness”, the aged grandmother “was the image of Happiness grown old.” This happiness is, however soon interrupted by the appearance of the ambitious guest, a young man with an ambitious dream: “He could have borne to live an undistinguished life, but not to be forgotten in the grave.” To the family the guest says that he cannot die until he achieves his destiny, and then “let Death come: I shall have built my monument.” The father of the house is soon affected by the abstract dream of ‘wanting his own monuments’, dreaming of having a good farm, earning reputation as an honest man. The seventeen-year-old daughter smiled with sadness, recognizing her lonesomeness. The grandmother expresses her dream of having her grave well-arranged, and how she is worried about it. And all these dreams ended soon after, when the rockslide came. They “fled right into the pathway of destruction”, and “the victims were at peace. Their bodies were never found.”

     Here it seems like Hawthorne wanted to show the helpless and vain humans. The families were helpless; they could have lived throughout the slide if they listened to its sound carefully and noticed that it would not affect their fireplace like it did before. They could have also lived when others listened to the little boy and actually went to the Flume, and they could have lived when the father did not hesitate to open the doors-as usual-for the wagon riders, letting them take the family a ride to the Flume like what the little boy said again. Chances did come-chances that could keep them alive. However, they did not take all these chances, and it shows that they were determined to die throughout the rockslide. The stranger could not say “let Death come” after he achieved his “destiny”; Death came no matter when he wanted it to come, and he could do nothing about it. They- the families and the stranger- were helpless because they could not change their fate to the way they wanted but had to get what was determined for them.

     In front of their fate, every ambition of them was vain. No matter what they dreamed about their monuments, their fate was there, waiting for them. The families and the stranger dreamed about their monuments, but they were actually remembered by their death under the rockslide, and the stranger was even doubted to have existed. The grandmother would have never had her fine grave-clothes she had prepared years before, and did not have to worry about her grave because she could not even have one; her body was never found. 

     The story, moreover, made me think about myself; I myself have my own dreams, and most of them are distant from now. But who knows if I die from an earthquake several minutes from now? That thought really made me feel helpless, and soon one more thought came to my mind; that those concerns would not stop me from dreaming. I will dream about my distant future, though something strong like fate may distort my way toward there; it is because that is the best thing I can do. That is the best thing I can do if, for instance, Death is there waiting for me. But not only dreaming like what the ambitious guest did-he has done nothing-, rather I will be trying to do something right now, this every instant to achieve my dream, because again, happily running towards my dream every instant is the best thing I can do as a helpless human, if humans really are.

Comments

Joelle S.W. Jung: I agree on your basic point that we plan ahead too much when we could die today. Carpe diem, and memento mori, as they say. Your point seems slightly different than what Hawthorne intended, though. Could you make the link * here much clearer? Why did you get that impression?

(I deleted the part * when modifying my essay.)

Hyejoon Lee: I don’t think the biggest theme of this story is ‘fate’ but it’s really interesting that you actually thought that this was about fate. So, because your topic itself is quite unique, I think you should have elaborated more on why you believe FATE is the theme rather than spending the whole second paragraph on what would have happened instead. And about the “meaningless” part, maybe the whole ambition was not all meaningless because it had some impact on the family. Actually, it had a big impact. If it wasn’t for the fervor created by the ambition, the family would have spent a peaceful and calm afternoon and wouldn’t have (as Mr. Menard mentioned before) ran out so blindly “into” the rockslide. So ambition is what killed the family.