History Portion
Loss is a part of everybody’s lives. How we cope with it, how we respond to it is what shapes who we are. We learn from loss -- one could argue that it is, in fact, vital for our development despite its painful nature. In any case, although loss manifests itself in many forms, the one people most often think about when the word is said is grief. More specifically, grief as a reaction to a loved one’s death. In this essay we will take a look at the concept of grief around the world and whether or not it changes across cultures and the ideas of mourning v. grief.
To start, cross cultural grief is a visible body in this world. It is clear that moving from region to region, country to country the styles and expectations in which people are meant to grieve differ. Sometimes this difference is even quite great. However, there are arguments that what is changing is not the grief itself, but the mourning process and expectations that go along with it. This can even be seen in the two’s definitions -- mourning’s definition is the expression of deep sorrow for someone who has died, typically involving following certain conventions such as wearing black clothes; while grief’s definition is simply deep sorrow, especially that caused by someone's death. While grief is simply described as a state of being, mourning’s very definition prescribes it with the presumption of customs. Yet, despite these obvious differences, people still get them confused all the time. Before we discuss the difference in detail, though, let’s take a second to explore mourning practices around the world.
To begin, in Mexican culture, for example, mourning is gone about much differently than in, say, American or Chinese culture. Rather than going through a long, arduous grieving process following the passing of a loved one, it is common for Mexican people to go through anticipatory grief ( provided that the death is expected and not sudden ) ( Dia De Los Muertos P.4 ).
Anticipatory grief would be triggered by the diagnosis of a terminal illness, for example, or from the health of an elderly person beginning to fail. During this process, the individual(s) affected by the situation mourn the oncoming, eventual loss of the dying and may experience anxiety over the ambiguity of when the death will actually occur. However, the american perception of death and mourning post-mortem differ greatly from that of Mexico. In the United States, funerals and wakes are somber occasions, full of black clothing, silence, and sorrow. While it is true that Mexican funerals are a similarly somber occasion, the country’s wakes are more like parties than a the lugubrious vigils americans practice ( Redmond P.2 ). During the event there is music, much food, games of all sorts, storytelling, and laughter -- in this way the wake is celebrating the life of the lost rather than mourning its end.
Of course, the most stark contrast between our example of Mexico and the United States has to be Dia de los Muertos, or Day of the Dead. Dia de los Muertos is a mexican holiday typically celebrated November 1st to November 2nd, though the festivities may extend further. The practice was born out of the fusing of indigenous Aztec traditions and Catholicism and teaches that mourning the dead would only serve to insult them -- so, instead of morning, Mexicans participate in numerous celebrations ( Dia De Los Muertos ). Shrines are erected for the deceased being honored, complete with their favorite foods, mementos from life, favorite colors, indulgences they enjoyed, etc. By doing this not only are they making offerings to their deceased loved ones, but they are also inviting the spirit of the departed to partake in the holiday. Since, in this culture and celebration, death is viewed as a natural occurrence; just the next step in life rather than the end of all things prior, spirits are encouraged and welcomed as the honored guests of Dia de los Muertos. Finally, as the physical embodiment of this culture’s cheerful demeanor towards death, the mascots of Day of the Dead are calacas and calaveras -- skulls and skeletons -- which appear with vibrant decorations of all kinds throughout the entire festival. They are friendly, usually portrayed enjoying life, celebrating, and entertaining. ( Redmond P.1 ) With all this in mind, the difference of the Mexican perception of death and mourning is very evident. For instance, how do the Chinese view and deal with mourning and death?
In China, grieving is much more structured than it is in Mexico or the United States. Instead of being a lenient emotional process, the Chinese mourn through stages that are marked by different ceremonies and customs, though even those are not the same universally. The events that take place are determined by a variety of factors including age, role in the family, and the family member’s relationship to the deceased. For age, whether or not the passed was older or younger than those in mourning effects the proper etiquette for the grieving process -- this concept is very different from Mexican or American customs, because it is considered the responsibility of the young to hold a funeral ( Chinese Grieving P.2 ). Due to traditional Chinese beliefs, it is not considered correct for elders to hold a funeral for the young. If a young person without children passes away, they are to be buried by their parents without a ceremony. However if an elder dies they are given a full funeral and traditional Chinese grieving process, the roles of which are dispersed based on family role and relationship to the deceased.
When a funeral does take place, they are vastly different from the funerals of the other two cultures being looked at. While many western countries just wear black at a funeral, dress conduct in China is divided into a rigid, hierarchical structure ( Chinese Grieving P.4 ). Colors provide significant meaning about the relationship of the attendees to the deceased and, typically, the division goes as follows:
Another difference would be that, while american funerals and largely quiet with maybe some crying, Chinese funerals are expected to be very loud. Crying is both expected and accepted and is usually the loudest right before the coffin is sealed. At this point, we have seen how Chinese and Mexican mourning are different, but what about the American mourning process?
Compared to the other two parts of the world we have discussed, the American mourning process is actually quite lenient. With the exception of funerals there aren’t many hard lines about what is and is not acceptable -- there is not a time limit per say on mourning or a mourning role one must take based on their relation to the dead as there is in China. Death in America, other than at a funeral, is mostly perceived as a personal process. There may be allotted amounts of time where people start expecting one’s grief to subside, but generally people are left alone. Sadness is expected by those affected by a loss but little else is a cultural standard. The exception of a traditional “american” funeral, however, is a somber occasion. Compared to the hierarchy of Chinese funerals and the vibrancy of Mexican ones, American funerals are very dull. People are expected to wear black and the occasion is usually rather quiet. While crying is expected, especially from those closest to the person who has been lost, many are simply lugubrious, downcast, and silent for the duration of the event. Other than the tradition for grieving and black clothing and perhaps special military funerals, I cannot really say American funerals have any exact custom the way the other mentioned cultures do.
Now that we have addressed the different ways in which cultures respond to grief, I present that argument that grief and mourning are not, in fact, the same thing. I personally do not feel that grief is altered by culture -- it is something that transcends human societal conventions and roots itself deep in our biology. The response of a mother who has lost her child may change based on the person, but the culture seldom changes the anguish she feels. Perhaps, outwardly, she may present herself one way or another based on what is expected of her by her culture but that does not change her instinctual, emotional response to a loss. Instead, what we have explored thus far in this essay I would consider mourning customs. Mourning is different than grief in that it is the traditions following a loss rather than the actual experience of sorrow, though many mistake the two for being one in the same. This has actually been a hotly debated topic by psychologists such as John Bowlby and Kubler-Ross, although upon research you may discover that the consensus, at least from what I have found, leans toward the outlook that grief and mourning are not the same. For a more thorough understanding, however, let’s take a look at some proposed grief theories.
Perhaps the most famous theory of grief is the Kubler-Ross model. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross was an originally swiss psychiatrist and author born on July 8, 1926. Fascinated by the concepts of death and appalled at how it was handled -- or more specifically, not handled in the United States ( at least medically speaking ) Ross sought to shed light on this taboo subject. She believed that grief and death could be, in some way or another, classified and after a long period of quite extensive research she published her most famous book On Death and Dying ( Death and Dying ). In the novel she outlined her famous model of grief and dying, commonly called the five stages of grief, which consisted of ( in order ) denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. At the time these ideas were revolutionary and attracted a large amount of attention on a national scale. Today the stages, though not viewed as linearly today as they were initially, are widely accepted and categorized as follows:
This model supports the ideas presented earlier -- that grief and mourning are separate. In implying that everyone follows a, for the most part, specific grieving process by association dictates that grief transcends culture. This is further supported when you look at the fact that both birds and primates display similar grief responses when faced with separation and loss as we do which does beg the question “is grief universal?”, but that is a subject for another time.
In any case, another well known theory of grief in John Bowlby’s theory of Attachment Instinct. Edward John Mostyn Bowlby was born February 26, 1907 in London, England. A prominent psychologist, psychiatrist, and psychoanalyst, Bowlby sought to remedy what he saw as deficiencies in the old theories of grief, namely those of famous psychologist Sigmund Freud. In his pursuit to do so he coined the theory of grief from attachment instinct. In this proposition, death and loss trigger a response comparable to the feelings of a child ( with a secure attachment type ) upon separation with their mother. The initial response would be to protest and fight for the return of their matriarch, however when that fails they would begin to despair their mother will not return and remain very much focused on her and her absence. Eventually, with no other options, the child loses interest in their mother and does not react strongly when she returns ( Grief and Mourning P.3 ). Bowlby argues that a person’s grief from a loss -- specifically a loss such as death -- follows these same preprogrammed behaviors. Since attachment is a valuable survival instinct, manifesting itself in many forms, it would make sense for it to affect how we grieve. Grief cannot be triggered from a death without some form of attachment to the departed, so that means when people are devastated from a loss their emotions are being driven by a severe form of separation anxiety. A death forces people to readjust their attachments to fit the new reality, compensating for the permanent absence of a previously available loved one ( Grief and Mourning P.5 ). One may argue that this is incorrect because all people experience grief at least somewhat differently from one another, but the strengthens itself with an effective counter to that. Much like children develop different styles of attachment when they are young based on their mother’s bond to them, so too do we develop different attachment styles to people in our lives. In fact, bereavement research indicates that a child’s attachment style can actually either predict or influence one’s bereavement style later in life. People who believe in attachment theory too argue that since attachment is biological and, in their eyes, attachment is the fuel of grief, grief at a base level has to function similarly in all cultures and thus undergirds a cross-cultural model of grief.
In any case, after looking through all that has been discussed in this paper one can argue one way or another of whether or not grief is affected by culture, but hopefully more information can now be taken into account upon doing so. At the very least it has been rather thoroughly argued that mourning and grief are different both in the eyes of psychologist throughout history and by definition. Will there are be a way to truly compare the concept of grief throughout the world and perhaps even across species line? Who’s to say, but the topic is an interesting one and warrants a great deal of attention. Loss shapes us all, so the value of understanding grief and its social and cultural impacts is immense. Perhaps, in the end, it is not culture that shapes grief, but grief that shapes culture.
To start, cross cultural grief is a visible body in this world. It is clear that moving from region to region, country to country the styles and expectations in which people are meant to grieve differ. Sometimes this difference is even quite great. However, there are arguments that what is changing is not the grief itself, but the mourning process and expectations that go along with it. This can even be seen in the two’s definitions -- mourning’s definition is the expression of deep sorrow for someone who has died, typically involving following certain conventions such as wearing black clothes; while grief’s definition is simply deep sorrow, especially that caused by someone's death. While grief is simply described as a state of being, mourning’s very definition prescribes it with the presumption of customs. Yet, despite these obvious differences, people still get them confused all the time. Before we discuss the difference in detail, though, let’s take a second to explore mourning practices around the world.
To begin, in Mexican culture, for example, mourning is gone about much differently than in, say, American or Chinese culture. Rather than going through a long, arduous grieving process following the passing of a loved one, it is common for Mexican people to go through anticipatory grief ( provided that the death is expected and not sudden ) ( Dia De Los Muertos P.4 ).
Anticipatory grief would be triggered by the diagnosis of a terminal illness, for example, or from the health of an elderly person beginning to fail. During this process, the individual(s) affected by the situation mourn the oncoming, eventual loss of the dying and may experience anxiety over the ambiguity of when the death will actually occur. However, the american perception of death and mourning post-mortem differ greatly from that of Mexico. In the United States, funerals and wakes are somber occasions, full of black clothing, silence, and sorrow. While it is true that Mexican funerals are a similarly somber occasion, the country’s wakes are more like parties than a the lugubrious vigils americans practice ( Redmond P.2 ). During the event there is music, much food, games of all sorts, storytelling, and laughter -- in this way the wake is celebrating the life of the lost rather than mourning its end.
Of course, the most stark contrast between our example of Mexico and the United States has to be Dia de los Muertos, or Day of the Dead. Dia de los Muertos is a mexican holiday typically celebrated November 1st to November 2nd, though the festivities may extend further. The practice was born out of the fusing of indigenous Aztec traditions and Catholicism and teaches that mourning the dead would only serve to insult them -- so, instead of morning, Mexicans participate in numerous celebrations ( Dia De Los Muertos ). Shrines are erected for the deceased being honored, complete with their favorite foods, mementos from life, favorite colors, indulgences they enjoyed, etc. By doing this not only are they making offerings to their deceased loved ones, but they are also inviting the spirit of the departed to partake in the holiday. Since, in this culture and celebration, death is viewed as a natural occurrence; just the next step in life rather than the end of all things prior, spirits are encouraged and welcomed as the honored guests of Dia de los Muertos. Finally, as the physical embodiment of this culture’s cheerful demeanor towards death, the mascots of Day of the Dead are calacas and calaveras -- skulls and skeletons -- which appear with vibrant decorations of all kinds throughout the entire festival. They are friendly, usually portrayed enjoying life, celebrating, and entertaining. ( Redmond P.1 ) With all this in mind, the difference of the Mexican perception of death and mourning is very evident. For instance, how do the Chinese view and deal with mourning and death?
In China, grieving is much more structured than it is in Mexico or the United States. Instead of being a lenient emotional process, the Chinese mourn through stages that are marked by different ceremonies and customs, though even those are not the same universally. The events that take place are determined by a variety of factors including age, role in the family, and the family member’s relationship to the deceased. For age, whether or not the passed was older or younger than those in mourning effects the proper etiquette for the grieving process -- this concept is very different from Mexican or American customs, because it is considered the responsibility of the young to hold a funeral ( Chinese Grieving P.2 ). Due to traditional Chinese beliefs, it is not considered correct for elders to hold a funeral for the young. If a young person without children passes away, they are to be buried by their parents without a ceremony. However if an elder dies they are given a full funeral and traditional Chinese grieving process, the roles of which are dispersed based on family role and relationship to the deceased.
When a funeral does take place, they are vastly different from the funerals of the other two cultures being looked at. While many western countries just wear black at a funeral, dress conduct in China is divided into a rigid, hierarchical structure ( Chinese Grieving P.4 ). Colors provide significant meaning about the relationship of the attendees to the deceased and, typically, the division goes as follows:
- Members of the family are not to wear red clothing or jewelry to the funeral, as they are seen as a sign of happiness and thus disrespect.
- The main colors of grief in China are black, white, and blue. While it is a stereotype that during Chinese funerals people wear exclusively white, the reality is that the color shows the level of grief and connection one has to the person who has died.
- Black clothing is reserved for the children and daughter-in-laws of the party who has died -- this implies that they are grieving the most. As such, no one else is to wear black.
- Grandchildren and great-grandchildren are to wear blue, while son-in-laws are to wear white. The lighter the color the further the separation is considered to be the one who has died with white meaning that they were the least close to the deceased.
Another difference would be that, while american funerals and largely quiet with maybe some crying, Chinese funerals are expected to be very loud. Crying is both expected and accepted and is usually the loudest right before the coffin is sealed. At this point, we have seen how Chinese and Mexican mourning are different, but what about the American mourning process?
Compared to the other two parts of the world we have discussed, the American mourning process is actually quite lenient. With the exception of funerals there aren’t many hard lines about what is and is not acceptable -- there is not a time limit per say on mourning or a mourning role one must take based on their relation to the dead as there is in China. Death in America, other than at a funeral, is mostly perceived as a personal process. There may be allotted amounts of time where people start expecting one’s grief to subside, but generally people are left alone. Sadness is expected by those affected by a loss but little else is a cultural standard. The exception of a traditional “american” funeral, however, is a somber occasion. Compared to the hierarchy of Chinese funerals and the vibrancy of Mexican ones, American funerals are very dull. People are expected to wear black and the occasion is usually rather quiet. While crying is expected, especially from those closest to the person who has been lost, many are simply lugubrious, downcast, and silent for the duration of the event. Other than the tradition for grieving and black clothing and perhaps special military funerals, I cannot really say American funerals have any exact custom the way the other mentioned cultures do.
Now that we have addressed the different ways in which cultures respond to grief, I present that argument that grief and mourning are not, in fact, the same thing. I personally do not feel that grief is altered by culture -- it is something that transcends human societal conventions and roots itself deep in our biology. The response of a mother who has lost her child may change based on the person, but the culture seldom changes the anguish she feels. Perhaps, outwardly, she may present herself one way or another based on what is expected of her by her culture but that does not change her instinctual, emotional response to a loss. Instead, what we have explored thus far in this essay I would consider mourning customs. Mourning is different than grief in that it is the traditions following a loss rather than the actual experience of sorrow, though many mistake the two for being one in the same. This has actually been a hotly debated topic by psychologists such as John Bowlby and Kubler-Ross, although upon research you may discover that the consensus, at least from what I have found, leans toward the outlook that grief and mourning are not the same. For a more thorough understanding, however, let’s take a look at some proposed grief theories.
Perhaps the most famous theory of grief is the Kubler-Ross model. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross was an originally swiss psychiatrist and author born on July 8, 1926. Fascinated by the concepts of death and appalled at how it was handled -- or more specifically, not handled in the United States ( at least medically speaking ) Ross sought to shed light on this taboo subject. She believed that grief and death could be, in some way or another, classified and after a long period of quite extensive research she published her most famous book On Death and Dying ( Death and Dying ). In the novel she outlined her famous model of grief and dying, commonly called the five stages of grief, which consisted of ( in order ) denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. At the time these ideas were revolutionary and attracted a large amount of attention on a national scale. Today the stages, though not viewed as linearly today as they were initially, are widely accepted and categorized as follows:
- Denial. During the stage of denial, individuals initially believe that what has happened simply cannot be true -- that everyone is mistaken ( PsychToday P.3 ). They refuse to accept the news and hold on to a false, idealized reality; often the whole situation feels more like a bad dream that they will wake up from soon rather than a real loss.
- Anger. In the anger stage, individuals are forced to stop denying the situation. Once they can no longer pretend what occurred didn’t occur, they become angry and lash out at others -- especially those nearby -- and themselves. They do not understand why what has happened to them has happened and usually feel that the situation is unfair. Often people in this stage try to find somebody to blame and a reason for the tragedy ( PsychToday P.4 ). It is typical for one to begin resenting the source of their grief -- for instance, if somebody has died, in this stage it is not uncommon for the grieving to grow angry with the deceased.
- Bargaining. Eventually, anger falls through and the stage of bargaining begins. Once this occurs individuals may begin to beg a higher power or even the person themselves, provided that the loss is not a death, to undo what has been done. This often includes grandiose promises of lifestyle changes and substantial alterations to one’s behavior in exchange for reversal of the tragedy ( PsychToday P.4 ). People may also offer to undergo personal sacrifices and suffering in order to, say, save a broken relationship even if the sacrifices are unfair / unjustified.
- Depression. The fourth stage of this model is depression, which hits after anger and bargaining fail and the individual realizes that nothing can reverse their loss. In the depression stage, one is forced to face the truth of their situation and the fact that they are helpless to change it. Subsequently, individuals spiral into a depression where they may cry, experience erratic sleeping patterns, change in appetite, withdraw from their peers and activities they may have once enjoyed, etc. This continues for the duration of which it takes somebody to process their loss ( PsychToday P.4 ). People may also blame themselves for what has happened even if it was beyond their control of the blame is unjustified.
- Acceptance. Finally, if all goes accordingly one should theoretically enter the acceptance stage. At this point, individuals come to accept the situation and what they’ve went through completely ( PsychToday P.5 ). They understand the fact that they cannot change what has occurred and finally begin to truly recover and move on from their loss.
This model supports the ideas presented earlier -- that grief and mourning are separate. In implying that everyone follows a, for the most part, specific grieving process by association dictates that grief transcends culture. This is further supported when you look at the fact that both birds and primates display similar grief responses when faced with separation and loss as we do which does beg the question “is grief universal?”, but that is a subject for another time.
In any case, another well known theory of grief in John Bowlby’s theory of Attachment Instinct. Edward John Mostyn Bowlby was born February 26, 1907 in London, England. A prominent psychologist, psychiatrist, and psychoanalyst, Bowlby sought to remedy what he saw as deficiencies in the old theories of grief, namely those of famous psychologist Sigmund Freud. In his pursuit to do so he coined the theory of grief from attachment instinct. In this proposition, death and loss trigger a response comparable to the feelings of a child ( with a secure attachment type ) upon separation with their mother. The initial response would be to protest and fight for the return of their matriarch, however when that fails they would begin to despair their mother will not return and remain very much focused on her and her absence. Eventually, with no other options, the child loses interest in their mother and does not react strongly when she returns ( Grief and Mourning P.3 ). Bowlby argues that a person’s grief from a loss -- specifically a loss such as death -- follows these same preprogrammed behaviors. Since attachment is a valuable survival instinct, manifesting itself in many forms, it would make sense for it to affect how we grieve. Grief cannot be triggered from a death without some form of attachment to the departed, so that means when people are devastated from a loss their emotions are being driven by a severe form of separation anxiety. A death forces people to readjust their attachments to fit the new reality, compensating for the permanent absence of a previously available loved one ( Grief and Mourning P.5 ). One may argue that this is incorrect because all people experience grief at least somewhat differently from one another, but the strengthens itself with an effective counter to that. Much like children develop different styles of attachment when they are young based on their mother’s bond to them, so too do we develop different attachment styles to people in our lives. In fact, bereavement research indicates that a child’s attachment style can actually either predict or influence one’s bereavement style later in life. People who believe in attachment theory too argue that since attachment is biological and, in their eyes, attachment is the fuel of grief, grief at a base level has to function similarly in all cultures and thus undergirds a cross-cultural model of grief.
In any case, after looking through all that has been discussed in this paper one can argue one way or another of whether or not grief is affected by culture, but hopefully more information can now be taken into account upon doing so. At the very least it has been rather thoroughly argued that mourning and grief are different both in the eyes of psychologist throughout history and by definition. Will there are be a way to truly compare the concept of grief throughout the world and perhaps even across species line? Who’s to say, but the topic is an interesting one and warrants a great deal of attention. Loss shapes us all, so the value of understanding grief and its social and cultural impacts is immense. Perhaps, in the end, it is not culture that shapes grief, but grief that shapes culture.
English Portion
Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
by Dylan Thomas
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The first tercet of Dylan Thomas’ Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night proposes, contrary to the tone of the other quotes, going about grief and dying in a way that inspires anger. While many poems describe coming to terms with death, going into the process with acceptance and peace, Thomas takes an alternate approach. He advises his dying father -- the muse of this work -- to instead fight against the darkness, to rebel against and reject his encroaching fate. This is clearly shown throughout every line. The name of the poem, the first line of the piece is “Do not go gentle into that good night”. This is, of course, speaking to the matter in which his father should decline. The good night, in this case, is referring to his death; so to say that one should not go gentle into that good night the writer is effectively saying to not fade away peacefully, to not wither without complaint.
The two next lines further develops this. Again he reiterates that one should not necessarily go peacefully, instead old age should “burn and rave at close of day”. His view of death, of loss in its injustice, clearly depicts his inclination towards anger rather than blind, passive acceptance. It poses a question: why do we accept what we cannot change? Is that always what’s right? Why is it considered inappropriate, ignoble for one to lash out at the injustice of death after living a life that feels incomplete? As a response to these questions, as retaliation for the expectation of peace, Thomas closes with the famous line: “rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
The second tercet marks the beginning of a four stanza focus on the types of men who do just as Thomas is recommending -- rage against death. This particular section explores the rebellion of wise men near their demise. It starts off by saying “though wise men at their end know dark is right”. This line can be easily interpreted to mean that although wise men understand that their fate is correct, that death is an inevitability that they must come to terms with, they refuse to give into it complacently. The reasoning for this is stated in the following line, that being “because their words had forked no lightning they…”. This is explaining that the reason they rage against death is because they had not yet accomplished the things they desired in life. Their words did not spark controversy, did not affect change or grasp notoriety in their lifetime and as a consequence they “do not go gentle into that good night”.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The third tercet focuses on good men. In this stanza, Thomas speaks of men who devoted their life to being normal, good and respectable people. There is always danger in being kind and good as a means of seeking out acclaim and admiration, however, and these good men now mourn that their deeds did not reap any rewards in their lifetime. They lament as to how “their frail deeds may have danced in a green bay”, or how their nobility and magnanimity may have been received brilliantly in a different setting. If they had been surrounded by appreciative, thoughtful types instead of just normal people perhaps things would have been different, perhaps they would have led rewarding lives. But because the circumstances were what they were, the good men cry and Thomas advises that they, too, show “rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
The fourth tercet speaks of wild men who admired and sang praises of talent, genius, inspiration etc. in themselves and others but wasted their time with idle venerations. Because of their focus on the concept brilliance rather than the practice of it, they failed to seize the moment. It could be compared to a man freezing to death in a cave with a pile of wood. The man finds a match and lights it but because he spends all his time admiring and pondering the little flame, he does not think to burn the wood. This concept does not cross his mind until the match goes out but once it does the opportunity has past. This is what is happening to Thomas’ “wild men”, shown in the line “and learn, too late, they grieved it on its way”, and because of this misfortune, because of this injustice, Thomas advises once again to “rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
In Thomas’ final tercet he speaks of grave men, or men who are approaching the precipice of death. He explains how only now at the end of their lives do they realize that they could have spent their time being brighter than they previously thought possible. They could have invested time in joy and levity, according to Thomas even “blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay”. Now, however, it is too late. Because of their imminent death they will not have the opportunity to do this, to allow for such felicity, and because of this atrocity they too should “rage against the dying of the light”.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Finally we conclude with Thomas revealing the true subject of this poem -- his dying father. We know his father to be dying, as he refers to him being on “the sad height”, and we know Thomas to be experiencing anticipatory grief. He pleads with his father to “curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray”, implying that for his father to curse him would be a blessing. His curses would be proof of his fire, of the remnants of a will to live and that is the premise of this entire piece. All of this was written to beg his father to fight the darkness of death and this is confirmed at the poignant close of the poem. To his moribund father, Thomas says the phrases that were meant for him all along:
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
While this poem addresses many people in its text, I consider it to be about the loss of another and how the author, Dylan Thomas, is coping with that. Regardless of whether or not the poem speaks generally at first, in the end it was always meant to be for his father -- his father, who was at the brink of death. I find this piece particularly interesting because although many literary pieces have explored death and grieving, have spoken of losing another, few have done so with anger. Not just his own anger, either. Thomas recommends choler to all those nearing death. In dealing with his own grief over what will become of his father, Thomas is projecting his anger at a situation he cannot control -- he may very well have felt lost, powerless, and, subsequently, enraged at the dying of his parent. As a result, he projects his rage to his father, hopes that he may be able to use it to hold on a little longer. In this way, Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night is about the loss of another.
by Dylan Thomas
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The first tercet of Dylan Thomas’ Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night proposes, contrary to the tone of the other quotes, going about grief and dying in a way that inspires anger. While many poems describe coming to terms with death, going into the process with acceptance and peace, Thomas takes an alternate approach. He advises his dying father -- the muse of this work -- to instead fight against the darkness, to rebel against and reject his encroaching fate. This is clearly shown throughout every line. The name of the poem, the first line of the piece is “Do not go gentle into that good night”. This is, of course, speaking to the matter in which his father should decline. The good night, in this case, is referring to his death; so to say that one should not go gentle into that good night the writer is effectively saying to not fade away peacefully, to not wither without complaint.
The two next lines further develops this. Again he reiterates that one should not necessarily go peacefully, instead old age should “burn and rave at close of day”. His view of death, of loss in its injustice, clearly depicts his inclination towards anger rather than blind, passive acceptance. It poses a question: why do we accept what we cannot change? Is that always what’s right? Why is it considered inappropriate, ignoble for one to lash out at the injustice of death after living a life that feels incomplete? As a response to these questions, as retaliation for the expectation of peace, Thomas closes with the famous line: “rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
The second tercet marks the beginning of a four stanza focus on the types of men who do just as Thomas is recommending -- rage against death. This particular section explores the rebellion of wise men near their demise. It starts off by saying “though wise men at their end know dark is right”. This line can be easily interpreted to mean that although wise men understand that their fate is correct, that death is an inevitability that they must come to terms with, they refuse to give into it complacently. The reasoning for this is stated in the following line, that being “because their words had forked no lightning they…”. This is explaining that the reason they rage against death is because they had not yet accomplished the things they desired in life. Their words did not spark controversy, did not affect change or grasp notoriety in their lifetime and as a consequence they “do not go gentle into that good night”.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The third tercet focuses on good men. In this stanza, Thomas speaks of men who devoted their life to being normal, good and respectable people. There is always danger in being kind and good as a means of seeking out acclaim and admiration, however, and these good men now mourn that their deeds did not reap any rewards in their lifetime. They lament as to how “their frail deeds may have danced in a green bay”, or how their nobility and magnanimity may have been received brilliantly in a different setting. If they had been surrounded by appreciative, thoughtful types instead of just normal people perhaps things would have been different, perhaps they would have led rewarding lives. But because the circumstances were what they were, the good men cry and Thomas advises that they, too, show “rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
The fourth tercet speaks of wild men who admired and sang praises of talent, genius, inspiration etc. in themselves and others but wasted their time with idle venerations. Because of their focus on the concept brilliance rather than the practice of it, they failed to seize the moment. It could be compared to a man freezing to death in a cave with a pile of wood. The man finds a match and lights it but because he spends all his time admiring and pondering the little flame, he does not think to burn the wood. This concept does not cross his mind until the match goes out but once it does the opportunity has past. This is what is happening to Thomas’ “wild men”, shown in the line “and learn, too late, they grieved it on its way”, and because of this misfortune, because of this injustice, Thomas advises once again to “rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
In Thomas’ final tercet he speaks of grave men, or men who are approaching the precipice of death. He explains how only now at the end of their lives do they realize that they could have spent their time being brighter than they previously thought possible. They could have invested time in joy and levity, according to Thomas even “blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay”. Now, however, it is too late. Because of their imminent death they will not have the opportunity to do this, to allow for such felicity, and because of this atrocity they too should “rage against the dying of the light”.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Finally we conclude with Thomas revealing the true subject of this poem -- his dying father. We know his father to be dying, as he refers to him being on “the sad height”, and we know Thomas to be experiencing anticipatory grief. He pleads with his father to “curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray”, implying that for his father to curse him would be a blessing. His curses would be proof of his fire, of the remnants of a will to live and that is the premise of this entire piece. All of this was written to beg his father to fight the darkness of death and this is confirmed at the poignant close of the poem. To his moribund father, Thomas says the phrases that were meant for him all along:
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
While this poem addresses many people in its text, I consider it to be about the loss of another and how the author, Dylan Thomas, is coping with that. Regardless of whether or not the poem speaks generally at first, in the end it was always meant to be for his father -- his father, who was at the brink of death. I find this piece particularly interesting because although many literary pieces have explored death and grieving, have spoken of losing another, few have done so with anger. Not just his own anger, either. Thomas recommends choler to all those nearing death. In dealing with his own grief over what will become of his father, Thomas is projecting his anger at a situation he cannot control -- he may very well have felt lost, powerless, and, subsequently, enraged at the dying of his parent. As a result, he projects his rage to his father, hopes that he may be able to use it to hold on a little longer. In this way, Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night is about the loss of another.