Will a grammarian please proofread my short paper?
This is the first two pages of a ten-page paper. Here it is... I'm really terrible with parallel constructions...: Peer Gynt, Brand, and Faust To write that Henrik Ibsen’s first two major plays, Peer Gynt and Brand, have a “close and distinct relationship†is almost truistic (McFarlane 22). An exploration of the connection between Peer Gynt and Goethe’s Faust is an equally commonplace theme. Two of the most recurrent trends that pervade these studies of Peer Gynt¬—that Peer is a counter-Brand and that Peer is Faustian—are inaccurate. A less facile explanation would be that Peer and Brand, rather than being antitheses, are the obverse and reverse sides of a single coin. Similarly, Peer is not some réchauffé version of Faust; he is, instead, an ironic inversion of Goethe’s scholarly necromancer. Meyer begins his chapter on Peer Gynt by parroting one hundred plus years of Ibsen criticism: “Set in Norway, Africa, and Norway again during the nineteenth century, Peer Gynt tells of a man the exact opposite of Brand…†(25). Auden, too, echoes the masses by writing that Peer and Brand are “related to each other by being each other’s opposite†(442). But to the extent that Meyer and Auden both share the same conclusion, they differ in their method for reaching that conclusion. Meyer claims that Brand is indomitable and unwavering in his conviction that “religion has become too soft and should return to the single-minded austerity of the Old Testament†(22). It is true that Brand proselytizes an attitude of an all-or-nothing with severity. Textual examples abound of Brand’s firmness abound. Brand allows his mother to die without late rites because she will not bequeath every penny she has to the poor. She is willing to give nine-tenths of her money to charity, but wants to leave the rest to Brand as a legacy. This is not sufficient for Brand, who throughout the play declaims, “All or nothing. That / is my demand†(Ibsen 53). This attitude of Brand’s eventually leads to the death of his wife and child, and finally his own martyrdom. Conversely, Meyer claims that “[Peer Gynt is] a compromiser who thinks only of himself, and shuns work and suffering†(emphasis added, 25). On the surface Meyer’s assertion seems straightforward: Peer is a compromiser and Brand is not, therefore, they are opposites. But this argument is posited on the false premise that Peer is, indeed, a compromiser. Meyer does not illuminate his reasoning by referencing any specific passages that show Peer to be a compromiser. Yet others, who share his view, typically justify it by misreading an instance where Peer propounds his moral philosophy: The Gyntian self—it’s an army corps Of wishes, appetites, desires. The Gyntian self is a mighty sea Of whim, demand, proclivity— In short, whatever moves my own soul And makes me live to my own will. (102) Here Peer reveals himself to be a sort of sybaritic epicurean, but not a compromiser. If Brand behaved in this fashion, he would certainly be compromising his own ascetic ideals. But for Peer to behave in this way is for him to follow his own self-prescribed morality, not stoop away from it. Throughout the play Peer always conforms to the Gyntian self; he never compromises his self-satisfying philosophy. p.s. The titles should be underlines, I just can't underline them for a question.
Homework Help - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
looks okay to me
