“Dream On Monkey Mountain” By Derek Wallcot And “The Love Song” By Alfred Prufrock Essay, Research Paper
The conscious and subconscious are two important themes in discussing both the 1919 poem “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” by T.S. Eliot, and the Derek Walcott’s 1967 play “Dream on Monkey Mountain.” In discussing the authors use of the conscious and subconscious in these two works many similarities and differences can be found.
In T.S. Eliot’s poem “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock,” Eliot startles the reader by using dramatic shifts in and out of the main character Prufrock’s thoughts (subconscious) and what is consciously going on. The Poem is about a timid and downcast man in search of meaning, of love, in search of something to break him from the dullness and superficiality that he feels his life to be. Eliot lets us into Prufrock?s world exploring his progression of emotion from timidity to self-disparagement and, ultimately, to despair of life. In this “Love Song,” Prufrock searches for meaning and acceptance by the love of a woman, but fails miserably because of his lack of self-assurance and because of his mouse-like meekness. Prufrock is a man for who, it seems, everything goes wrong, and for whom there are no happy allowances. In a very real way, Prufrock’s story is twentieth century mankind’s story, too. Eliot’s “Prufrock” is brilliant commentary on the fallenness, the emptiness, and the final despair of modern individuals.
The emptiness and the shallowness of Prufrock’s “universe” and of
Prufrock himself are evident from the very beginning of the poem. The
lines “When the evening is spread out against the sky / Like a patient
etherized upon a table” (2-3) suggest a certain lifelessness. Likewise,
the women who “come and go / Talking of Michelangelo” (13-14) seem to
have nothing better to talk about, for when the women are revisited a
few lines down, they are still talking about the same dead artist
(35-36). The “yellow fog” (15), which by its color has connotations of
sourness, “curled once about the house, and fell asleep” (22). Prufrock
has already witnessed this dull event many times, saying: “I have
measured out my life with coffee spoons” (51). The evening “sleeps so
peacefully!” (75), cries Prufrock, and perhaps there is a tone of
bitterness in his voice. All this shows, in Prufrock’s case, the falsity
of the elite social existence, which is thought by some to be the
pinnacle of social involvement, and, in a broader context, what social
life is often like in our era.
In his doubting state, Prufrock compares himself to others. In line 94
he alludes to Lazarus. He uses this allusion to exaggerate his oldness.
Lazarus was an aged man who was restored from death by Jesus. Prufrock
considers his age to be a ‘death’ to his romantic zeal. Being raised
from the dead would restore the romance to his life. However tells
himself this is impossible.
The dramatic climax of this poem occurs in line 111. here, Prufrock
alludes to Shakespeare’s Prince Hamlet. He uses this allusion to show
his inferiority, and his inability to declare his love. This is also the
dramatic climax of his poem, where all the internal debating comes to an
end. He finally gives in to his timid character and starts his journey
into a ‘dream world’.
For example in the last three lines, Eliot paints a contrasting picture of a serene ocean setting. Like line one, line 129 includes a mysterious second
person. Who is “we” referring to? It could be Prufrock and himself, him
and the mermaids, or all humankind. In line 130 the seaweed is red and
brown. This symbolizes the decaying of Prufrock’s heart. His present
dream-like state is destroying his heart. Only the return to reality can
stop this destruction.
Prufrock’s dream like state created by Eliot can be contrasted by Makak’s dream like state or sequence in the play “Dream on Monkey Mountain.” In the 1967 play by Derek Walcott The play beginning in the police station as Makak begs to be released, then moving in Scene One into an apparent flashback to the events that brought Makak there; or is this
his recounting of the dream? Then Part Two begins back in the jail, with the murder of Cpl. Lestrade and the flight – this seems to be a return to the present, with the re-establishment of the initial situation, but may not be; the epilogue again returns to the site of imprisonment, with Tigre and Moustique both restored to life, and Moustique’s more prosaic interpretation of Makak’s situation. This complexity may lead us to wonder, what is real? What is fantasy?
The dream works with various symbolic elements, as a political
allegory of the state of blacks in the Caribbean and generally in the
postcolonial world. They are cut off from their roots; hence Makak’s
determination to go back to Africa as part of his vision. But what
is the source of the vision? It is suggested at one point that it is the
whites – certainly Makak himself describes its origin from a woman in
white face, who also appears as the white mask produced by Lestrade and
also by Moustique. When Makak has a vision of the white woman in the
prison, Lestrade says “is this rage for whiteness that does drive
niggers mad.” Consider what it means if the source of “back-to-Africa”
movement is white, as in the U.S. during the 19th century (founding of
Liberia).
Cpl. Lestrade, who is of mixed race (mulatto), represents the
complicity of certain elements of the black community with the
colonizers, although he should be the ally of the other blacks. Hence
his verbal attack on the prisoners as “animals, beasts, savages,
cannibals, niggers” and his account of the “nigger” as a tribe of apes
that “lingered behind” when others began to walk upright, with straight
backbones. Lestrade has become alienated from his black self by his
service to the whites but is cured of that alienation when the others
make him strip naked; as Makak tells him, “They reject half of you. We
accept all.” But is he cured? His complicity with the whites turns into
a killing rage, and he finally even urges Makak to destroy the source of
the vision, because she is white, lest Makak become like Lestrade was,
i.e., “neither one thing nor the other.” Lestrade’s query after his
stabbing, “Did you feel pity for me or horror of them?” puts the
audience on the spot, forced to recognize the violence. And it is clear
that “native” violence becomes an excuse for further violence on the
part of the oppressors, as he takes out his rifle to go “hunting the
lion.”
Makak’s vision leads to an attempt to regain his heritage, as the
white woman tells him that he is descended “from the family of lions and
kings.” Moustique is more practical, more concerned with making a living
than in following visions, and compares Makak to Don Quijote. Moustique
collects money for both of their nourishment, and does not fully
comprehend Makak’s revolution; or does he? He tells Makak that some day
he will have to sell the dream just for food and shelter, that love is
not enough. Lestrade’s view of Makak’s dream is political: he denies the
possibility of freedom, saying “It’s the slaves who believe in
freedom.”
Moustique is the first of several characters who appropriate the
vision to their own ends – a frequent event in any revolution. Moustique
impersonates Makak and uses the language of Afrocentrism to get money
from the people in the marketplace. But his betrayal of the vision is
itself betrayed, by Basil’s recognition that he is not Makak, which in
turn leads the people to reject the false prophet. He is killed, leading
to Makak’s vision of blackness, which Lestrade in the jailhouse trial
calls heresy. When Moustique reappears on Monkey Mountain, it is to
confront Makak with the perversion of his revolution into violence.
Souris and Tigre also seek to exploit Makak’s dream for their own
purposes, when Tigre urges the “madness” on Makak to bring him to kill
Lestrade and free them all. By causing Makak to shed blood, they do
succeed in transforming the nature of his vision and leading to its
probable failure. Their betrayal of the revolution, too, is bound to
material needs.