Thanatological approaches to Tolstoj"s The Death of Ivan Ilič were mainly done not by literary scholars, but by either philosophers (as the case of Pu We Hoon) or psychologist (as the case of Dayananda). Thus in this paper I, on the one hand, try to point out some short-comings of these studi...
Thanatological approaches to Tolstoj"s The Death of Ivan Ilič were mainly done not by literary scholars, but by either philosophers (as the case of Pu We Hoon) or psychologist (as the case of Dayananda). Thus in this paper I, on the one hand, try to point out some short-comings of these studies. On the other hand, I try to correct some misinterpretations of these studies. Dr. K?ler-Ross"s theory is good enough as a model for literary analysis. However, it turned out that her theory cannot be applied directly to Tolstoj"s work as Dayananda have done. The most distinctive difficulty is that Dr. K?ler-Ross"s third stage t.i. the stage of "Bargain" has no possibility to be applied to the case of Ivan Ilič. Ivan Ilič is an atheist, first of all, secondly, he never tries to "Bargain" with the God to extend his life, suggesting some unaccomplishable promises. Third, Ivan Ilič denies the existence of the God, though he mentions the word God. But it was not on the basis of his own religious belief. It is true that Ivan Ilič accepts communion, this is, however, also something that Ivan Ilič shows his lack of power or energy to argue with his wife who suggests to do so. Pu We Hoon categorizes Ivan Ilič"s acceptance of his death as something that he had no choice but accepting it. But the logic of Pu"s categorization is rather weak. This aspect has been discussed in detail. In conclusion, Tolstoj"s The Death of Ivan Ilič is undoubtedly a canon of thanatological literature. However, it is necessary to study The Death of Ivan Ilič as a work of literature i.e., a verbal art.
Thanatological approaches to Tolstoj"s The Death of Ivan Ilič were mainly done not by literary scholars, but by either philosophers (as the case of Pu We Hoon) or psychologist (as the case of Dayananda). Thus in this paper I, on the one hand, try to point out some short-comings of these studies. On the other hand, I try to correct some misinterpretations of these studies. Dr. K?ler-Ross"s theory is good enough as a model for literary analysis. However, it turned out that her theory cannot be applied directly to Tolstoj"s work as Dayananda have done. The most distinctive difficulty is that Dr. K?ler-Ross"s third stage t.i. the stage of "Bargain" has no possibility to be applied to the case of Ivan Ilič. Ivan Ilič is an atheist, first of all, secondly, he never tries to "Bargain" with the God to extend his life, suggesting some unaccomplishable promises. Third, Ivan Ilič denies the existence of the God, though he mentions the word God. But it was not on the basis of his own religious belief. It is true that Ivan Ilič accepts communion, this is, however, also something that Ivan Ilič shows his lack of power or energy to argue with his wife who suggests to do so. Pu We Hoon categorizes Ivan Ilič"s acceptance of his death as something that he had no choice but accepting it. But the logic of Pu"s categorization is rather weak. This aspect has been discussed in detail. In conclusion, Tolstoj"s The Death of Ivan Ilič is undoubtedly a canon of thanatological literature. However, it is necessary to study The Death of Ivan Ilič as a work of literature i.e., a verbal art.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.