• No one is doing the work of being alive except Marlow and Kurtz
  • brick-maker, pilgrims sitting around and doing nothing
• The futility of death, and life
  • life is nothing but an attempt for one to learn things about themselves
  • were we really worth enough for us to find excitement in a tangle with death?
• Kurtz starts out as a man of values, recognises the horror, yet still does bad things?
  • to be a good person, yet do bad things at the same time?
  • a product of his society that blocks out individual desires?
  • chiaroscuro: the coexistence of light and dark
• Sublime vs Banal
  • Kurtz could not see the flame of the candle but was wide enough to embrace the whole universe
    • he was not afraid to embrace the reality, he understands the horror, he experienced it all, came back and judged for himself, did not fall prey to the lies of civilisation
    • Marlow respects his truth telling at the end of the day
• Is Marlow a preacher, or is he merely telling his story?
  • He is not forcing this wisdom that he has on anyone
  • It is your decision to choose to see the light
    • Is that wise or weak?
  • The futility of the situation
• We have been hidden by the true nature of evil because society and civilisation has created enough institutions to hide the truth
  • we have created a world where we have created tenets of society that keep our evil nature at check
  • in the wilderness, there is nothing around us to harness this evil; our true desires, our innate sense of evil comes out in this unrestricted landscape where we are free to take certain actions

“There’s a certain Slant of light,

Winter Afternoons –

That oppresses, like the Heft

Of Cathedral Tunes –

Heavenly Hurt, it gives us –

We can find no scar,

But internal difference –

Where the Meanings, are –

None may teach it – Any –

‘Tis the seal Despair –

An imperial affliction

Sent us of the Air –

When it comes, the Landscape listens –

Shadows – hold their breath –

When it goes, ’tis like the Distance

On the look of Death –”

This page represents the isolation Marlow feels, in being the only one who has not fallen prey to the idealistic conception of colonialism, and knows it for what it truly is. His “isolation amongst all these men” with whom he felt no common ground, as well as the “uniform sombreness of the coast”, kept him in some sort of facade, almost wanting to drive him mad. The African coast looking so sombre, yet so inviting, shows the uncertainty and enigma around the journey that is faced by Marlow. Marlow seems to represent the idea that the advent of colonialism is something that is inviting when you are apart from it, but it is something cruel and horrific in nature once you become a part of it. The uniformity of the men on his ship, as accompanied by the way in which the coast looks, communicates a sense of normality that is far from the truth of colonialism, as Marlow discovers in the succeeding pages when he reaches his destination. Marlow recognises the sound of the waves as something that “had reason, had a meaning”; he understands why the waves make those noises, and that there is a reason for that. This is juxtaposed against the sombreness of the coast, to show the uncertainty and preoccupations facing his journey to the African coast.

When Marlow sees the African men rowing the boat down the coast, he does something rather surprising and out of character for him, in that he humanises them as a comparison to the men he is on the boat with. His crew mates lack uniqueness in that they are all motivated by a single desire; that of greed, masked by the lies of civility, and this has dehumanised them to the point of generalisation where Marlow uses his disconnection with them to represent his disconnection from the rest of society. While his description of the men holds racist connotations, such as their “grotesque masks”, he notices their “wild vitality” and “an intense energy of movement, that was as natural and true as the surf along their coast”. Their presence, just like the waves in the ocean, can be explained with reason; simply because this is where they are from, and this is their home. It is once again used to show how unnatural the white men venturing into this foreign territory seems; unlike the African men on the boat, there is nothing about them to signify a sense of purpose about their African ventures.

Marlow and these men have come to Africa to know the unknown, but Africa resist being known. The man-of-war that fires into absolute nothingness shows Africa’s resistance at being known, and drives those who try absolutely crazy. Marlow makes note of the “incomprehensible” nature of the ship firing into a continent, after which “nothing could happen”. He sees this as a “touch of insanity in the proceeding, a sense of lugubrious drollery in the sight”. Likewise, one of the men of his ship attempt to assure him that there are in fact native “enemies” hiding out in the woods somewhere, trying to justify the man-of-war’s actions. It once again shows the illusion created by the Westerners themselves; they believe the black man is their enemy, when in fact the desires created by their own greed that ultimately drive them insane are their true enemies. It shows a unity of civilisation, in the sense that Marlow is a part of this civilisation who are all so insanely misdirected in their representation of the Africans as enemies. They fail to see that the horrors of colonialism are caused by themselves, and the inability for the white man to see this, regardless of whether he is French or British, shows a common sentiment being echoed by Marlow; the idea that the true desires of colonial practices are hidden by the illusion of fighting the enemies of civilisation.

So far, it is clear to see the themes and stylistic choices that Conrad has employed in his attempt to depict the idealistic perception of colonialism and the greed masked with civility that is prevalent in hollow society. The seamless, interwoven nature of Marlow’s dialogue, internal thinking and vivid imagery contribute to the sentiment of existence that Conrad was trying to emphasise upon. The way I see it, we are witnessing the very thought process and creation of perspectives that we usually cannot see in a man’s mind, but Conrad has achieved a sense of fluency in the way that he has incorporated these three elements together to represent the true idea of human nature. However, this leads one to question Marlow himself as a narrator; is he unreliable in that he is biased, or confused himself? Racism and colonialism are two ideas that can exist separately, and it is clear to see that Marlow perceives himself as enlightened about the true nature of colonialism for its materialistic spoils. However, it is clear to see the blatant racism on the part of Marlow, especially in his use of vivid imagery to describe the scenes at the railway construction site and the Grove of Death; the black slaves have been dehumanised to the point of representing no more than the disease they have fallen victim to.

His inherent bias can also prove to open up our understanding to what Conrad is attempting to talk about and communicate. He is, after all, the only one on the ship who is completely willing to go the other way, and truly believes he understands the truths about colonialism, being ready to go against what man would consider his most fervent desire at the time. Marlow in a sense is still exploring himself; although he is inherently biased and corrupt by the social contextual ideals of the time, there is a sense of morality and truth to him that seems to be absent from most of the other characters. It represents the conflict of cynicism and romanticism, in that Marlow has opened his eyes to the real world and seen colonialism for what it is, whereas those around him tend to use the tinted glasses of civility and honour through which to see the situation. Perhaps Marlow represents Conrad himself, and the experiences he had in being the only one who was aware enough to see what he saw in the Congo for what it really was.

Finally, there seems to be a lack of moral certainty to this story. It is quite ambiguous, in that it is a story that ends where it begins (as per what I have heard from those who have read the book and completed it). This leads me to question whether there was anything learned at all, or whether anything has changed. Have we merely come back in a full circle, the characters having spent all this time trying to persuade someone if not themselves, only for them to have given up and accept the very ideals they seemingly fought against? Marlow might have changed before, especially after his experiences in Africa, but there is a suggestion for a lack of learning anything at all.

A whisper yourself,

A tremor when together;

All for one indeed.

Daisy: attracting or repelling?

So far, as a reader, Daisy has been extremely contrasting in that it has been hard to decide whether to sympathise with her or not wish her well. We understand how she had a relationship with Gatsby about five years ago, and how she has lived a life of wealth and luxury and left Gatsby for his poverty; this shows us an obvious sense of Daisy’s desire to live life in splendour and to be with a man who can provide for her incessantly. However, when we come across the scene with the shirts, it is oddly uncharacteristic of Daisy that she cries as soon as she sees the shirts. It is a feeling of regret, a sense that if she had waited with Gatsby through the tough times then she could have had this. Perhaps it could have also been a moment of self-reflection; why is she the type of person that has to value to such a great extent the material wealth of an individual, when she could have loved Gatsby for who he is and also have been blessed with such wealth? Daisy is in that sense polarising because we as the readers want to sympathise with her for her broken marriage with Tom, and the fact that she is aware to the plight of her situation when she all she tries to act like to make her immune to such pain is a “beautiful little fool”, what she wishes her daughter to be. However, she does do the same thing with Gatsby as Tom does with Myrtle, but she shows affection in such a public manner right in front of Tom, that the reader feels a bit discomforted in that sense; at least Tom took the effort to hide his affair to a certain extent.

However, Daisy’s most polarising moment comes during the big fight; we see how eager she is to be with Gatsby at all times, and how she takes the car with Gatsby to go to the city as well, but when it comes to the fight and Gatsby asks her to tell Tom that she never loved him, she hesitates and tells him that this isn’t the truth. She is confused in herself, and she can’t make such decisions for herself. It is interesting that Tom and Gatsby are the ones that want to have this discussion, while Daisy is the one that has been dreading this discussion for the longest time instead. She knows that she can live her life with her happy, foolish exterior for as long as possible until it comes time to have this conversation, and she now knows that she has to strip away the foolish, innocent exterior to give way to the woman that she really is; the one that has been conscious and aware of the situation the whole time. It is interesting to see that in the fight, Tom is the one that comes out on top. Instead of trying to break down only Gatsby, he shifts his focus onto Daisy, coaxing her into saying and truly believing that she has loved him as well, be it whether she has loved Gatsby too or not. He knows that, no matter if Daisy and Gatsby drive back together, Daisy will still be in his bed by nightfall. For so long, Daisy has been the extroverted, innocent and laughter-filled person in the room that lightens the mood of every situation, but when this persona of her breaks, who does she really become? The cynic that she tries to hide on the inside? Is this why she breaks down at Gatsby’s house, because of the recognition or who she has really become now?

Gatsby: the man who he really is

Gatsby is a man who wishes the world to be as it should be, and not how it really is. He toys with the conflict of idealism versus reality, and forever tries to change the past to make the future what he wants it to be. Gatsby is paradoxical in the sense that he changed his past and who he is, but he wants to keep his future the way he sees it at the current moment, as a man of immense wealth and status in society. We find out that he is, in reality, James Gatz, a man from a poor family who didn’t even really go to Oxford. There is the presence of the water motif, in that Gatsby dives into the water as James Gatz and comes out as Jay Gatsby; a sense of renewal, a cleaning of the slate to emerge as new and fresh. It was the belief from Dan Cody in him, the man who gave him his first job, that he was able to rise to some sort of prominence in society and to get a job for himself. However, we understand the reasons for his abstaining from alcohol and his deterrence from other women due to the circumstances of Dan Cody’s death and his relationship with the newswoman who took all of Gatsby’s inheritance as well. It seems to encapsulate the story of in vino veritas, in that Gatsby knows under the influence of alcohol the truth will come out, the secrets will come out, and he will be in a position of manipulation where others will easily be able to take control of him, especially dangerous in his line of work. Gatsby refuses to admit that Daisy has loved anyone other than him, because this is the life that he has lived; only loving one woman, one person. Is it selfish, though, for him to desire the same level of love from Daisy that he has given her for five years?

We see the real desire of Gatsby, while it may lie in his love for Daisy, is for a sense of achievement, the idea of achieving the American Dream. As consolidated by the water motif, the American Dream is all about starting anew and wiping off the slate to have a fresh start. Daisy’s voice sounds like money, and the green light symbolises the colour of money; so is Gatsby’s real desire the money and the wealth that comes with having someone like Daisy be so devoted to him, as he is to her? Does he have a point to prove someone, is he doing this to fulfil his own desires to be at the top of the food chain, or is this really love?

In the first two chapters of the Great Gatsby, there is a constant thematic conflict between cynicism and romanticism. Nick seems to represent the idea of a cynic, yet he is a cynic who has been cynical through his life based on his upbringing and experiences, in places such as his college where he was judged for this very sense of cynicism. The way that he interprets feelings, such as thinking that he loved Jordan in that one moment, or when he knew that his previous entanglement had to be “tactfully broken off before he was free” seem to show a sense of inexperience and Nick’s robotic nature of interpreting feelings. He is the type of man to go on a date and worry about how his potential significant other and himself could not have a working relationship, more so than how a sense of love could grow. However, Nick’s cynicism is interesting in that he is able to detach himself completely from situations where he feels nowhere at home; he may reserve from passing judgments out loud, but he does pass judgments in his head subtly. Fitzgerald refuses to explicitly depict Nick’s opinion for several parts of the first two chapters, but on occasions such as Tom breaking Myrtle’s nose, it is clear to the reader from the voice used that Nick holds a certain opinion about these type of events.

Romanticism

The white dresses

When Nick runs into the two ladies at the Buchanan’s house, the description of the setting contribute to the sublime interpretation that we see from Nick. The use of the white dresses, the gleaming white windows, the frosted wedding cake of the ceiling, and the use of nature creates this almost Renaissance like depiction of the scene; one full of emotion, feelings, beauty and the eye’s appreciation. Nick perceives this as being somewhat angelic, seeing the two women as he walks into the beautiful room, and how everything seems as though it would float up onto the ceiling in a dream of sorts. However, the tension here between the cynicism and the romanticism once more finds itself in the form of Tom shutting the windows closed, and how everything seems to slowly come back down to the ground; in other words, a snap back to the reality of the situation. It shows the stark contrast of the romanticised lives of the privileged few, as compared to the kind of atmosphere that Nick brings in; he, in a sense, is the snap back to reality.

The green light

Similarly, the green light on the far end of the lake that Gatsby points his arms towards and trembles towards just happens to be where Daisy’s house is; a sense of romanticised desire, in the fervour of Gatsby’s actions. Nick understands the green light as a symbolic object for Gatsby, without even knowing him, and it signifies a strong sense of hope on the part of Gatsby. Since Daisy and Tom’s house and their life symbolises power, money and the American Dream to some extent as well, it also signifies Gatsby’s desire to be up there with the top dogs in society. It is romantic in that it allows one to hope, rather than question the consequences of such fervent desire.

Cynicism

The valley of ashes

The valley of ashes once again contributes to the cynical tone of the novel that Fitzgerald tries to communicate through Nick. Being the link from the posh Long Island houses to the middle of the city, it signifies the lower end of society, and in a sense the dead aspirations and hope of a mass of society where only a lucky few were able to profit from a so called golden age – it would be important to remember that the Great Depression was a mere 4 years after this novel was written. The way that the ashes take the “forms of houses and chimneys and rising smoke” and how “men who move dimly and” are “already crumbling through the powdery air” seem to suggest that while this might be a landfill, there may also be people who live down there; the outcasts of society. The way a valley slops down between two hills, seems to signify the idea of boom and bust; the Long Island houses and NYC are on the booms, while the valley sits low in the bust. All in all, the valley of ashes seems to show the true representation of society, before, now and forever; while the beautiful houses, clothes and scenic views may cover up the higher ends of society, the reality is that they are themselves no more than a valley of ashes, stepping on others to get higher up the food chain.

Eyes of Dr. TJ Eckleburg

The eyes of Dr. TJ Eckleburg serve as a wormhole into the future – for looking through them, into the valley of ashes, signals impending doom for the higher classes of society – as proven by the Great Depression. Secondly, the fact that the eyes have remained paintless for days or weeks seems to represent the vision that the higher ends of society will always hold of the view through which they are seeing through Eckleburg’s glasses, the valley of ashes. It seems to signify the idea that their opinions of those lower than them, while always stay the same – no matter what these people do, they will never be able to paint over the prejudice, opinionated behaviour of those that have achieved the American Dream in their minds. T.J. Eckleburg’s eyes seem to serve as a symbol for some sort of moral higher being, perhaps God himself; looking down upon the moral wasteland that society has founded itself upon, and a criticism of the developing idea of consumerism.

Through his tone of writing, Carver seemingly presents the hopelessness that society faces in pinning love to specificity and an identity through a criticism of the vanity that we represent in our interpretations of one’s actions as ‘love’. His use of Nick as a passive muse through which to tell the story, in first person, positions ourselves in Nick’s perspective as a listener and observer of what Mel and Terri have to show us that we do not seem to see yet.

The contrast between Mel’s rationality in the opening and his emotional reactions when intoxicated towards the end contribute to the theme of complexity and the helplessness in maintaining a steadfast opinion on the definition of love. Mel talks of the idea as love being nothing less than spiritual; the people who we fall in love with are no more than muses, there is no sense of a ‘truth’ to love. The truth of love is what we make it out to be, and is not inextricably tied to a material being. However, for considering himself a “mechanic” who merely goes in and gets the job done, the truth of the reactions we see from the intoxicated Mel is a man who prides his cynicism on the terrible experiences that he has had with love, ranging from the trauma of Ed’s constant threats to the hatred that replaced the love he once had for his ex-wife.

Mel’s seemingly rational approach is consolidated by the critical tone in which he interprets Terri’s idea of love; Carver’s acknowledgment of the vanity that we feel in attributing obsessive ‘acts of love’ to our influence and deserved passion. Terri interprets Ed’s acts of violence and aggression as though she was so loveable that she was able to push him to this extreme, demonstrating her vanity in believing that it was her who inspired this irrational obsession. Perhaps it was just respect for Ed’s feelings from someone who believed that it was surprising for someone to be attracted to her. Carver seems to satire the archetypal tenet of chivalry in love, through Mel’s dream to be a knight in shining armour and Terri’s belief in Ed “willing to die for it,” again a criticism of the ways in which we aim to categorise love and attribute it to specific characteristics rather than recognise its ability to take different forms.

Perhaps Carver aims to present his opinion on the imperfect ways in which we categorise love into characteristics and actions through Nick and Laura. Nick recognises that “in addition to being in love,” him and Laura “like each other and enjoy one another’s company.” Is that not what love is to a majority of society, to what movies and romance novels alike want us to interpret love as? Carver suggests the idea that love is an umbrella term; while we try to understand its different forms, it has no specific role or characteristic that is common between us as a society. As Laura recognises that she and Nick know what love is for them, it shows the idea that love is tangible in a sense. It varies from person to person, and as Mel says, there is the capacity for one to love again after having lost before. It is up to the circumstances of one’s unique life, that determine who with and how they fall in love.

I interpret these three cards as being a journey of my 18th year of life, and my transition to adulthood in a way. For me, the lady seems to represent my mother; and how she has taken care of me through my young and adolescent years. The next card seems to represent to me the idea of a gentleman through maturity; rather, the journey I will go through to become a mature, respected, and well informed young gentleman. Finally, the last card seems to show me what I believe should be my priority right now; finishing high school on a high, and graduating with good academic achievements. The book shows me the importance of reading and revision, and how, for what I wish to do in the future, critical reading and such will be a skill most desired. 

Valediction by Sherman Alexie

This story left me questioning my own morals, putting myself in the shoes of Peter and wondering how I would have acted in that type of scenario. It very casually seems to throw shade at human nature to be innately selfish, and makes the reader question their own morals and own reactions for a potential situation similar to that one. 

The story is about two boys, Peter and John, who have been lifelong friends. They have had a ritual of going to this small neighbourhood shop and buying cold drinks after football practice for the longest time. One day, however, instinct or adrenaline of some sort took ahold of them and they stuffed a few six-packs of soda into their duffel bags and stole them back to one of their houses, only paying for the snacks. They celebrated getting away with the soda, and Peter thinks about how they could have stolen beer instead of the soda but they were athletes and they didn’t get drunk. They then vow the next day, meeting before school, that they would never do it again, but after football practice again that day they shoplift some more snacks. This soon becomes part of their ritual once more, until the guilt seems to overtake Peter and he tells John that they shouldn’t continue stealing the stuff anymore in fear of getting caught. John says they should do it one last time, but Peter disagrees and does not accompany John to the store the next day after football practice when John plans to shoplift one more time. Peter did not hear anything from John that night, until he went back to school the next day and found out John had been caught, was sentenced to community service for a month, and had been kicked off the football team, which had been one of Peter’s biggest fears. Peter was called to the principal’s office and was questioned about his involvement in this, to which he said he had not been an accomplice to John, realising that they must have known he was lying. However, John had in fact told the principal that he had done it alone, and had not mentioned Peter’s name. Peter thus felt extreme guilt, and him and John did not talk again for a long time. There were stories going around school that John had betrayed Peter’s good heartedness, and his reputation was intact while John served all the punishment. Their families ignored each other, and so did John and Peter.

They ultimately coincided at a kegger, where John was drunk out of his mind and approached Peter. He held him by the cuff of his shirt and said “You aren’t who I thought you were.” Peter says, “Neither are you.”

God Sees the Truth, But Waits by Leo Tolstoy, trans. Louise & Aymler Maude

This story makes me see the virtue of telling the truth, and an idea of us having more sins than we thought we did. Aksionov seems to realise he is not all that innocent at the end of the story, as though his time serving repentance has shown him the flaws that he has as a person as well. God sees the truth about us, but he waits for us to truly make self-aware conclusions about ourselves, which occurs through feeling some sort of suffering, before we can know the truth, is how I interpret Tolstoy’s message. 

There is a young and handsome man named Ivan Dmitrich Aksionov, who used to get quite rowdy whenever he drank, but now he is married and he is drinks only very occassionally. He is a merchant, and one day he decided to go to a fair in another town. Before he left, his wife told him that she had a bad dream about him and that he should not leave this day. She said that she envisioned him coming home with a head full of gray hair. Aksionov laughs this off and continues on his journey. He stops at the house of a merchant friend of his, and they drank some tea before going to sleep in adjourning rooms. He was an early riser, so he awoke his driver at dawn and set off once more. He then stopped at the landlord of the inn’s house, paid his bill and continued. He rested in the passage of the inn to feed his horses, after feeling tired, and took out his guitar to be played while ordering for some water and tea to be heated. Suddenly a police man approached him, and began cross questioning him about his affairs and whereabouts of the previous night. Aksionov answered calmly, until he finally got fed up and asked why he was being questioned like he had just committed a crime. The officer then reveals to him that the merchant he had stayed with the previous night had been found with his throat slit, and Aksionov was therefore the prime suspect. The police officers entered the building and searched Aksionov’s things until they found a blood stained knife and exclaimed to Aksionov, “What is this?!” Aksionov was too in shock to even answer, making him look extremely suspicious to the police officer. He continually pleaded for his innocence, but he was shaking so much that he gave off the image of being extremely guilty that the police officer ordered him to be tied up and sent to the next town to be imprisoned. He was stripped of all his goods and his eight thousand rubles, while being accused of murder and the theft of 20,000 rubles. He was imprisoned at the nearest town, and inquiries were made about him in his home town of Vladimir where people said that he got rowdy when he was drunk but he was a good man. His wife was extremely sad, and worried about their small children; one still being breastfed. She took all her children to the town where her husband was being held, and pleaded to see him, but they did not allow her to; however, after much begging, the officials let her into the prison to see Aksionov. Seeing him in chains and prison-dress, she collapsed and did not regain consciousness for a long time. When she finally came to her senses, she sat near him, with their children close, and told him about things at home and asked what had happened to him. The wife said that she had written a petition to the Czar to help Aksionov, but the Czar had rejected it. She then scolded him for setting out that day when she had told him not to, and pleaded with him to tell her the truth, running her hands through his hair, and if he really did it. Aksionov took this to mean that she also suspected him, and was distraught at the fact that his own wife suspected him. He put his hands to his face and wept, while the officials told his wife and kids they had to leave. He realized that now, when his own wife suspected him, the only person he could pray to for the truth was God. He stopped trying to send out petitions, and spent all his time praying to God. He was sentenced to be flogged, and when the wounds healed, he was sent to the mines in Siberia. He worked there for 26 years, growing hair as white as snow and a long beard. He didn’t laugh much, but he prayed to God continuously. The prison authorities respected him for his meekness, and everytime there were petitions from the prisoners or quarrels, they went to him for resolution. He earned enough money off making boots to buy a religious book which he would read in the prison while it was light, and sang in the prison-church on Sundays because of his still good voice. Aksionov had not heard of anything from his home, and wondered whether his own family was still alive. Then, one day the new convicts came to the prison and Aksionov and the rest of the old convicts gathered to hear their stories and how they had come to the prison. One of the convicts, a sixty-year old with a closely-cropped grey beard who was strong, told the story of how he took a horse attached to a sledge and was accused of stealing. The driver was a personal friend of his, and he let the horse go too, but he was still accused of stealing. He says that he had in fact done something much worse before for which he should have been sent to Siberia anyways, but he was never found out. He was asked where he came from, and he said he came from the town of Vladimir where his family was from, and his name was Makar, though they called him Seymonich. Aksionov then asks about his family, and Seymonich tells them they are rich while their father is in prison in Siberia, a sinner just like the rest of the prisoners. Aksionov did not like to talk about his misfortune, but he recounts how he has been in prison for 26 years. Seymonich inquires about these sins, and Aksionov refuses to elaborate but the rest of the convicts tell Seymonich how he was wrongfully convicted for a murder all those years ago. Seymonich then seems to recognise who Aksionov is, and when questioned by Aksionov who he thinks the murderer is, since he knows the story and the rumours, Seymonich says that it must be the person whose bag they found the knife in, and that “he’s not a thief until he’s caught”, whoever is the person that framed Aksionov. This makes Aksionov think that Seymonich is in fact the one who has committed the murder, and he is extremely uneasy and sleepless for the rest of the night. He saw images in his head of his family from before he left to go to the fair, and then the images of all the suffering he had faced the last 26 years. This made him ready to kill himself. He felt intense hatred for Makar Seymonich, and desired for vengeance, even if he should die himself. He kept praying the whole night, but felt no relief. He refused to even look at Makar Seymonich, and this uneasiness continued for a fortnight. As he was walking about the prison one night, he saw some earth had been dug out from under one of the shelves on which the prisoners slept. He stopped to see what it was, and suddenly saw Makar Seymonich creeping out from under the shelf, looking up at Aksionov with a frightened face. Aksionov tried to walk away and ignore him, but Seymonich held onto his hand and told him he had dug a hole under the wall, by getting rid of the earth by putting it into his boots and emptying it out on the road everyday when the prisoners were working. Seymonich said to Aksionov, “just you keep quiet old man, and you’ll get out too. If you blab, they’ll flog the life out of me, but I’ll kill you first.” Aksionov trembled with anger, and told Seymonich how he had no wish to escape, and that Seymonich had killed him years ago already. He said that he would either tell or not, based on the message he received from God. The next day, one of the convoy soldiers noticed one of the prisoners emptying earth from his boots while they were working on the road. The prison was searched and they found the tunnel. The Governor of the prison came to question the prisoners, and turned to Aksionov, knowing him to be just and truthful. Aksionov deliberates whether he should tattle on Seymonich or not, who is standing absolutely unconcerned and not so much as glancing towards Aksionov. Aksionov considered telling on Seymonich, justifying this by telling himself how Seymonich had ruined his life, but at the same time wondered if he had suspected him wrongly and they would flog the life out of Seymonich. Aksionov then looked at Makar Seymonich and said that it is not in his place to confess, and they could do with him what he likes, but it is God’s will that he should not tell. Aksionov would not budge no matter how hard the Governor tried, and they left the matter. As Aksionov was sleeping that night, Makar came and sat on his bed in the darkness. Makar then said, “Ivan Dmitrich, forgive me!” and confesses to how he had killed the merchant, and was planning to kill Aksionov too but had heard a sound outside and instead hid the knife in his bag. Aksionov was silent and did not know what to say. Makar then slid off the bed, and begged to Aksionov for forgiveness, saying that he would confess and Aksionov would be released to go home. Aksionov claims that he would have nowhere to go, and that it is easy for Makar to talk without knowing the suffering he has felt for 26 years; his wife dead and children forgetting him, he would have nowhere. Makar then started beating his head on the floor, crying out that he would rather take the flogging that feel the pain he felt when looking at Aksionov in this state, and the fact that Aksionov had pity on him and did not tell, begging for Christ’s sake for forgiveness. When Aksionov saw him sobbing, he began to weep as well, and exclaimed that God would forgive Makar, and that “maybe I am a hundred times worse than you.” At these words, his heart grew light, and he had in fact lost his longing for going home, instead hoping for his last hour to come rather than a desire to leave the prison. In spite of what Aksionov had said, Makar confessed his guilt, but Aksionov was long dead by the time orders for his release came.