Introduction
Individual characteristics vary among various individuals and they influence their lives within the society. Anton Rosicky and Rip Van Winkle in the set texts are unique in their traits, personalities, and values. Looking at the works of Willa Cather in Neighbour Rosicky and Irving Washington’s works in Rip Van Winkle, one can identify some differences among them. While there are some similarities between Anton Rosicky and Rip Van Winkle, the two have striking differences in terms of conflicts, dependence/independence, and communication skills. As a result, the authors use dialogue and vivid description to help understand the distinguishing qualities of each character. The current discussion will compare the differences exhibited by Anton Rosicky and Rip Van Winkle in terms of conflicts, dependence/independence, and communication.
First, there is need to compare the two characters in terms of dependence or independence from people and things in the society. Anton Rosicky is an individual who has achieved self-realization and a sense of freedom from external influence. As a result, the character appreciates every important milestone in their lives. The first statement in the story shows the level of independence that Rosicky enjoy. “When the Doctor […] told Rosicky he had a bad heart, Rosicky protested” (Cather, 1930, p. 1). The character disagrees with the Doctor’s opinion on his health, showing the nature of information independence held by the character. From the conversation, one can witness the level of independence the character enjoys even in his family and lifestyle “That was why he drank too much; to get a temporary illusion of freedom and wide horizons” (Cather, 1930, p. 8).
On the contrary, Rip Van Winkle, demonstrate dependence on his wife and his friends. The character tends to succumb to the fear of his wife’s influence and thus inclines to this fear, “From even this stronghold the unlucky Rip was at length routed by his termagant wife…” (Washington, 1819, p. 32). By displaying his idleness and contentedness with simple achievements, the character opens the door for external tension with the wife and society. As a result, the readers can then understand the influence of Van Winkle’s wife who tends to control him in every situation. Based on the analysis, it is clear that the first character personifies a strong and independent individual while the second one is dependent and submissive.
The main difference between the two characters is in the main life conflicts they have to face in their life. Anton Rosicky faces a life challenge in his health problem, which is likely to reduce their cherished freedom all his life. The author uses an emotional appeal to help the readership sympathize and share in the character’s situation. “He did not look like a sick man […] His brown face was creased but not wrinkled […]” (Cather, 1930, p. 1). The author indicates the conflict between acceptance and denial of Rosicky’s condition. By suggesting that the character must retire from heavy work and surrender their normal lifestyle, the doctor creates some conflict because Rosicky is not prepared to accept his new condition. On the other hand, both Rosicky and the author try to convince the readership that they are still strong and can carry on with their normative business of life. While Rosicky faces an external conflict, Van Winkle seems to battle psychological conflicts in his personality.
Washington clarifies that Van Winkle is naturally an idle and careless personality who struggles to maintain relevance in the society. Van Winkle fears facing a potential quarrel with his wife, which they try hard to evade. First, the author presents the significance and the position of the character’s friends both domestically and across the society. To cover his undesirable traits, Van Winkle seeks comfort from his dog Wolf and Nicholaus Vedder who are his great friends. “He grieved to give up his dog and gun; he dreaded to meet his wife; but it would not do to starve among the mountains” (Washington, 1819. P. 17). However, Van Winkle fears the controlling effect of his wife. Based on the analysis, the problems faced by the two characters differ in nature and degree. Rosicky has a highly symbolic life, while Van Winkle exhibits a dull life marked by the difficult task of proving his relevance to society.
The third and final difference between the two characters is on communication within other characters and their interactions in the society. Rosicky shows proper communication with his doctor and the family. “No, I guess my heart was always pretty good […] I got little asthma, maybe […]” (Cather, 1930, p. 1). The character respectfully disagree with the doctor’s examination of his heart condition, demonstrating his skilful communication. Besides, Rosicky is accommodative of the doctor’s opinions and maintain healthy conversation to the end. The conversation is healthy and clear because the characters have good communication skills and tolerance. From their friendly dialogue one can identify that the two are close friends and share cordial relationships. The doctor knows quite much about Rosicky and their family which showcases their long friendship. Such relationship is healthy and is one of the primary facilitators of the cohesive communication. In addition, the two have respect for one another’s positions. Rosicky respects the position of their doctor and acknowledge their expertise in a friendly manner.
On the contrary, Van Winkle struggles to find an appropriate language with his daughter and the crowds despite being the village favorite. The author indicates the poor communication skills in Van Winkle’s speech “All stood amazed, until an old woman, tottering out from among the crowd, put her hand to her brow…” (Washington, 1819, p. 22). Van Winkle is unclear in his conversations and cannot engage the crowd for proper understanding. In addition, Van Winkle cannot have a healthy conversation especially with the wife. The character fears the control from his wife and thus cannot have effective communication with her. It is accurate to establish that Rosicky is sociable while Van Winkle is less social.
Conclusion
The characters in the two works are quite different from each other. Anton Rosicky is desirably a social personality, who lives their life to the fullest and raises a wonderful family. The character signifies a perfect society where individuals’ values and traits aligns with the society’s expectations. On the contrary, Van Winkle is an example of a dependent, sly, down-to-earth, and non-sociable person with no ambitions to follow. The two texts show that ambition can guide each individual to their destiny. Besides, the readers can learn the role of negative and positive contentment. Contentment in hard work and contentment with idleness have different consequences, especially in Washington’s works Rip Van Winkle. Finally, the society has various personalities, and from the analysis, the personalities are consequential in one’s life and how they impact their social environment.
References
Cashier, W. (1930). Neighbor Rosicky.
Irving, W. (1819). Rip Van Winkle.