With the advent of the industrial revolution came new schools of thought that attempted to define the individual's position within society. The Romantic era that dominated the early part of the 19th century sought to establish the individual as a creature of emotion and experience. Romanticism was eventually succeeded by realism, a movement that moved away from the more figurative, almost idealized, images of the previous era to focus on the mundane, darker 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 most debated themes in literary circles in the latter part of the 19th century was that of the correct life, which is very prominent 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 tell the life and death stories of their respective title characters as they deal with the realities of life in the late 19th century. Both authors use the motifs of alienation and satisfaction in a similar way to propagate the dichotomous relationship between society and the self, however, in doing so, they take opposite positions on the idea of ​​purpose and how it relates to the overall notion of “correct life”. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayWith the backdrop of mass urbanization and industrialization caused by the aforementioned industrial revolution, a new ideal for the individual to find a place in society has emerged. And, due to mass urbanization that caused a sudden increase in population density, it became much easier for someone to distance themselves from the world around them, so the topic of alienation became a social issue in the late 19th century. The title character of The Death of Ivan Ilyich struggles with this problem of loneliness and pushes people away for much of the story. But Tolstoy's view on this concept goes far beyond simply "not alienating people." Ivan is very direct and open about who he chooses to ignore, Tolstoy notes, "...he tried to ignore his wife's unpleasant moods, continued to live in his usual simple and pleasant way, invited friends to his house for a game at cards, and also tried to go out clubbing or spend evenings with friends” (749). He wants to be away from his family and instead wants to play bridge with his friends. This is problematic in two ways elements of love, but the people he associates with ultimately affect his life in a negative way. Ivan never truly lives life for himself; rather, he simply lives a socially acceptable lifestyle person he chooses to marry, in the school and work he takes up, and even in the way he spends his money. Things are even more complicated than that. Tolstoy doesn't simply mean that you should spend most of your time surrounded from the family because this can also be harmful 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 said to her mother. «It's as if it were our fault! I'm sorry about Daddy, but why should we be tortured?'” (775). This passage shows how the illness is taking a toll on family bonds and how the illness makes it difficult to be together. They are simply incompatible and perhaps distancing themselves from each other is the best course of action. Ultimately, to understand what Tolstoy has to say about alienation, we must examine whathappens 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 try to rationalize his existence - when he talks about Gaius - but also makes 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 topic of alienation, are made when he is alone, in a certain sense. Ivan is never truly alone in his death because he evokes a sort of alter ego. He begins to speak with his conscience, which means that Ivan evaluates his own life compared to the society around him. It is also interesting to note that this alter ego also depicts a part of Ivan that is not entirely evil; he has 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 overwhelming, and perhaps foreign to the time, about this notion of alienation: it is imperative not to alienate ourselves, that is, we must find a sense of belonging and individuality that allows the self to conquer society and stand out. Henrik Ibsen explores a similar concept in his play Hedda Gabler, albeit from the opposite end of the spectrum. Unlike Ivan, the title character of this work is more open to intimate socialization with people. As a matter of fact, the entire focus of this play is 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 elaborate, whenever she is around other people she is forced to abide by the social norms befitting a woman in the 19th century. Similarly to Ivan, the people she associates with have little influence on her, for example, conversations with Brack or Eilert put a strain on her 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 that people put on when they are so deeply entrenched in social circles. That is, characters like Hedda act outside of their nature to appease social standards. Hedda says, "[Miss Tesman] put her hat on the chair [looks at it smiling] and I pretended to think it was the maid's" (804). This passage recalls a time when Hedda had to act a certain way outside of what she was used to in order to keep up appearances. But once again the issue goes far beyond the statement that too much interaction can become stressful because of the way society wants us to act. And once again, to get a clear message about alienation, we need to examine what the characters do when they are alone. Ibsen does not use monologues, soliloquies, or digressions to allow the audience to gain insight into a character's psyche; however, this makes the time when they are alone very special. Hedda Gabbler is left to her own devices at three key points 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 own life. Crucial moments in the play and they all carry with them significant weight when it comes to Hedda's character development. The moments when the characters are alone show the reader what the characters are really like. Interestingly, Hedda also has a lookalike of sorts. She has an alter ego that, like Ivan's, would allow her to be more socially acceptable and instill in her characteristics reminiscent of a morally good person: her unborn child. Furthermore, these episodesthey embody the same message that Tolstoy was trying to portray: alienation is not inherently a negative trait, sometimes it can be imperative to avoid 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 both Ivan's and Hedda's lives. But it's too easy to say that the two characters suffer because they are unhappy. The matter is more complicated because the two almost refuse to believe that they are dissatisfied. For example, Ivan rationalizes that because he got a better job and makes a little more money, he is somehow better off and is happy because he can fill his house with ornaments and things. Similarly, Hedda tries to convince herself that she is content by filling her house with material goods. Their flaw lies in the attempt to appease the social standards of luxury and possession. In this sense they both sort of wear fake smiles when they are around others, suppressing more and more depression, which proves fatal for Hedda. Their main flaw is that both characters assign deep meanings to objects that inherently don't have one: money, curtains, and manuscripts. Furthermore, they avoid or ignore the simplicity of happiness. To be sure, it seems difficult to attribute the era of Realism to joy, since the former was intent on fleshing out the brutalities of the world. It is not entirely Ivan or Hedda's fault that they are unhappy, but the authors agree that an attempt – to smile, to laugh, to have fun – must be made at least for the individual to find a sense of satisfaction. within a society that has given up on this idea. The relationship between self and society, especially in the context of “good living,” boils down to the idea of ​​purpose and fulfillment. And it is on this issue that Tolstoy and Ibsen disagree. The best way to examine the difference in opinions is to consider the physical aspect of death in both works. The Death of Ivan Ilyich is rightfully named for the enormous attention to the actual process of death. Within the story, the period of injury, illness and suffering is very prolonged to the point that it dominates most of the work. Death is very significant to Ivan because it gives him the opportunity to reflect on his life to see what went wrong. It is also very important for Tolstoy because it allows him to explore the theme of realization. To elaborate, the author believes that a person cannot truly have meaning in life and that it is through death that we find purpose. This is why he places a lot of emphasis on Ivan's suffering and not on the fatal blow. He notes, "...that parlor where he had fallen and for the sake of which (how bitterly ridiculous it seemed) he had sacrificed his life..." (764). Ivan himself finds humor in his predicament because of how ironic and banal his death is. His demise is indeed far from that of the protagonists of the past but Tolstoy does not describe it as flawed. The title character's only flaw seems to be that he has no desire to search for meaning or purpose and at first this is why Ivan believes he has not lived up to society's idea of ​​the "proper life", but consider this is also a mistake. Towards the end of the story Ilyich redeems himself, after his aporia and catharsis he has an epiphany on realization, which is reflected in the final meeting between him and his son. He thinks to himself, “'Yes, I'm making them miserable,' he thought. “They are sorry, but it will be better for them when I die” (777). While it is a sad realization, Ivan realizes through this exchange that the only way to right his mistakes with his family is to die and make them peace. A.