With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, new schools of thought attempted to define the position of the individual within society. The Romantic era that dominated the early 19th century attempted to establish the individual as a creature of emotion and experience. Romanticism was eventually replaced by realism, a movement that moved away from the more figurative, almost idealized, imagery of the previous era to focus on the more mundane and darkest times of men. It was a movement that aimed to represent and recreate everyday life in literature, with all its ebbs and flows. One of the main topics of discussion in literary circles of the late 19th century was that of the correct life, which occupies an important place in these two works: The Death of Ivan Ilyich, a short story by Leo Tolstoy, and Hedda Gabler, a play by Henrik Ibsen. Both works chronicle the lives and deaths of their respective main characters as they deal with the realities of life in the late 19th century. Both authors use the motifs of alienation and satisfaction in the same way to propagate the dichotomous relationship between society and self. However, within this framework, they take opposing positions on the idea of ​​purpose and how it relates to the overall notion of "right living." Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essayIn the context of mass urbanization and industrialization brought about by the aforementioned industrial revolution, a new ideal has emerged for the individual finds his place in society. . And, due to massive urbanization causing a sudden increase in population density, it has become much easier for someone to distance themselves from the world around them. The subject of alienation therefore became a social problem at the end of the 19th century. The main character of The Death of Ivan Ilyich struggles with this problem of loneliness and rejection of people throughout the novella. But Tolstoy's take on this notion goes well beyond the simple phrase: "don't alienate people." Ivan is very direct and open about those he chooses to ignore, Tolstoy observes: “…he tried to ignore his wife's unpleasant moods, continued to live in his usual easy and pleasant way, invited friends at his house for a card game and he also tried to go out to his club or spend his evenings with friends” (749). He wants to stay away from his family and instead wants to play bridge with his friends. This is problematic in two respects. Not only does he neglect certain elements of love, but the people he associates with end up influencing his life in negative ways. Ivan never really lives his life for himself; on the contrary, he is content to follow a socially acceptable lifestyle. This is reflected in who he chooses to marry, in the schooling and work he undertakes, and even in how he spends his money. But things are even more complicated than that. Tolstoy does not simply mean that one should spend most of the time surrounded by one's family, because this too can be detrimental to one's life. This is especially true in the case of Ivan and his family, who often make life miserable for each other. The narrator notes: “Is it our fault? » Lisa told her mother. “It’s like we’re responsible!” I'm sorry about Dad, but why should we be tortured?' » (775). This passage shows how illness strains family bonds and how illness makes their life together difficult. They are simply incompatible and maybemoving away from each other is the best solution. Ultimately, to understand what Tolstoy has to say about alienation, we must examine what happens when the eponymous hero is left alone. Interestingly, most of the thematically rich action takes place after Ivan's unfortunate injury and when he is bedridden. In his state, he begins to not only attempt to rationalize his existence – by talking about Caius – but also to make revolutionary revelations about life and death. These last weeks of his existence are probably the most profound and important because the thoughts and, on the theme of alienation, are formed when he is alone, in a sense. Ivan is never truly alone in his disappearance because he conjures up a sort of alter ego. He begins to speak to his conscience, which means that Ivan evaluates his own life in relation to the society around him. It's also interesting to note that this alter ego also represents a part of Ivan that isn't so bad; he possesses the moral and social qualities that would allow him to be socially acceptable and have a good influence on the reader. Through Ivan Ilyich, Tolstoy wants to say something moving, and perhaps foreign at the time, about this notion of alienation: it is imperative not to alienate oneself, that is to say that we must find a sense of belonging and individuality that allows the self to become alienated. conquer society and stand out. Henrik Ibsen explores a similar notion in his play Hedda Gabler, although from the opposite end of the spectrum. Unlike Ivan, the main character in this work is more open about intimate socialization with people. In fact, this play focuses entirely on the deep relationships and social interactions between the characters. Hedda herself is part of multiple love triangles, but it is precisely this form of interaction that poisons her. To be more precise, whenever she is in the presence of other people, she is obliged to respect the social norms befitting a woman in the 19th century. Much like Ivan, the people she associates with are of little influence to her. For example, conversations with Brack or Eilert strain his relationship with George. This is reflected in his behavior towards his friends and family. That is to say, Henrik Ibsen uses his heroine to explore the facades people put on when they are so deeply entrenched in social circles. In other words, characters like Hedda act outside of their nature to appease social norms. Hedda says: “[Miss Tesman] put her hat there on the chair [looks at it smiling] and I pretended I thought it was the maid's” (804). This passage recalls a time when Hedda had to act in a certain way outside of what she is used to in order to keep up appearances. But again, this goes much deeper than saying that too many interactions can become stressful because of how society wants us to act. And again, to get a clear message about alienation, you have to look at what the characters do when they're alone. Ibsen does not use monologues, soliloquies, or asides for the audience to gain insight into a character's psyche; however, it makes the time they are alone very special. Hedda Gabbler is left to her own devices at three key moments in the play: when she plays with her guns before Brack's arrival, when she burns Eilert's manuscript and finally when she ends her life. Very crucial moments in the work and they all carry significant weight when it comes to the development of Hedda's character. The moments when the characters are alone show the reader what the characters are really like.characters. Interestingly enough, Hedda also has a double of sorts. She has an alter ego which, like Ivan's, would allow her to be more socially acceptable and instill in her characteristics reminiscent of those of a morally good person: her unborn child. Furthermore, these episodes embody the same message that Tolstoy was trying to portray: alienation is not in itself a negative trait, it can sometimes be imperative to avoid all interaction to find some time to think and reflect in silence . The motif of alienation lends itself to another, broader notion of satisfaction, which very profoundly dictates the lives of Ivan and Hedda. But it's too easy to say that both characters suffer because they are unhappy. The question is more complicated because both refuse almost believing they are dissatisfied. For example, Ivan rationalizes by saying that because he got a better job and makes a little more money, he is somehow better off and happy because he can fill his house with ornaments and other things. Similarly, Hedda tries to convince herself that she is content to fill her house with material goods. Their flaw lies in their attempt to appease social norms of luxury and possession. To this effect, they both somehow put on fake smiles when in the presence of others, while bottling up more and more depression, which proves fatal for Hedda. Their major flaw lies in the fact that both characters attribute deep meaning to objects that have no intrinsic meaning: money, curtains and manuscripts. Additionally, they avoid or ignore the simplicity of happiness. Truth be told, it seems difficult to attribute the era of realism to joy, as the former aimed to flesh out the brutalities of the world. It's not entirely Ivan or Hedda's fault that they are unhappy, but the authors agree that one should at least try to smile, laugh, have fun so that the individual can find a certain feeling of satisfaction. within a society that has abandoned this idea. The relationship between self and society, especially in the context of “living right,” boils down to the idea of ​​purpose and fulfillment. And it is on this point that Tolstoy and Ibsen disagree. The best way to examine the difference of opinion is to consider the physical aspect of death in both works. The Death of Ivan Ilyich is aptly named because of the immense attention paid to the actual process of dying. In the short story, the period of injury, illness and suffering is very long to the point that it dominates the majority of the work. Death is very important to Ivan because it gives him the opportunity to reflect on his life and see what went wrong. It is also very important to Tolstoy because it allows him to explore the theme of flourishing. To elaborate, the author believes that a person cannot truly have meaning in life and it is in death that we find purpose. This is why he places a lot of emphasis on Ivan's suffering and not the fatal blow. He notes: “…this salon where he had fallen and for which (how bitterly ridiculous it seemed) he had sacrificed his life…” (764). Ivan himself finds humor in his predicament due to the ironic and banal nature of his death. His death is really a far cry from the protagonists of the past, but Tolstoy does not describe him as imperfect. The main character's only flaw seems to be that he has no desire to seek meaning or purpose and this is why at the beginning Ivan thinks that he has not experienced the idea that society is is doing “correct living”, but to consider this is also a mistake. Towards the end of the story, Ilitch redeems himself, after his aporia and his catharsis, he has a revelation about fulfillment, which is reflected in the..