Talk:Death of a Salesman/Archives/2012

Attention must be paid.

I've never seen the play, but would someone work into the article a mention of what I assume is the play's most famous line: "Attention must be paid." (where it comes in the plot, it's signifigance, etc.) Thanks. -- Seth Ilys 20:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That line, while very famous, doesn't do much more than say that when somebody has a problem you can't just look away like it's not there. It is said by Linda, to Biff and Happy about 2/5 of the way through, in response to them complaining about Willy being old and senile. The whole line(s) is "He's not the finest character that ever lived. But he's a human being, and a terrible thing is happening to him. So attention must be paid." ... "Attention, attention must be finally paid to such a person. You called him crazy -- " Dunno if it would help the article at all, though I probably just could've added there instead of here. oh well. o_0 --Nirvelli 13:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Links

Should "salesman" in the first line of the plot synopsis be a link? It just goes to some stub about a movie. o_0--Nirvelli 13:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis of Ending

At the very end of the novel, Willy's life insurance is used to pay off the Loman's house (I haven't read/seen the play in a while, so I may be wrong, but the mortgage was mentioned at least once in the play). Therefore, the last line of the plot synopsis ("worse off than before") should probably be changed.

Willy's life insurance insn't brought up in the requiem, and the family may have not recieved it; the insurance company already had doubts about Willy's previous accident's credibility. The morgage was mentioned, and the amount still owed, since it was around the same amount as the life insurance, you could also assume that they used the money for life insurance to pay it off--though the cash may have been in Willy pocket durring the accident--. It's also possible that the sons or Charley chipped in. Capi crimm 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Its not a novel. Linda's words "We're free and "clear"" could suggest that whilst being able to pay off the mortgage there was also anough money to not encounter financial difficuty again; perhaps this suggests that the life insurance came through as Willy intended it to. - Alex Ghionis

We don't ever know if Willy's life insurance went through. It was mentioned in the play that the authorities knew he was suicidal. It wouldn't have been paid out on the grounds of suicide. The mortgage payment was all down to Willy's lifetime of work, not his suicide. Geisskane

--- As mentioned, the audience never knows if the insurance money was paid out. The amount of mortgage still owed was not the same as the insurance amount. Linda said they only had one payment left. The insurance was for 20,000. Their mortgage payments were not 20,000 a month. Willy worked all his life to pay the bills and pay off the house. He himself mentions this and so with the final payment Linda says "we are free and clear" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.71.75 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Play's The Thing

The film and television productions of Death of a Salesman are listed in the article along with the personnel involved. More important are the people involved in the actual theatrical production. Salesman was a long running play. --McDogm 16:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Requiem section

Am I the only one who thinks something ought to be done - attention must be paid, if you will - about the section on the Requiem? It reads like it was taken straight from a C- high school paper on the play. --The Amazing Superking 06:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No you are not the only one. That section reads as though it was the actual intent of Miller but I don't know that Miller ever said that. Furthermore, I don't think it's correct, I don't think that "Miller is explaining that being a Salesman does not have a fulfilling role in life.." I'd take it as quite the opposite. More likely, Miller is highlighting the glamor of a Salesman's life that those who "[apply] the law and [heal] the sick" don't experience. But that's just my POV.--gargoyle888 03:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. This section sounds like crap. I'll get around to writing something for it later, i hope. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, my memory is pretty bad, but I have zero recollection of this section. Was it added in later, or did I get a version that didn't include it?

Do you remember the part with the funeral? Also: Please sign your name using four tildes ~~~~ when making your posts. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the reqiuem section of the article claims, "At the graveyard, Biff correctly says, 'He had the wrong dreams. All, all, wrong.'" This is very much disputable - regardeing the word correctly.

Although in many ways this is true, Willy's dreams were not wrong on every level. In principle they are very laudable: he wants to earn money and be a success, and he wants the same for his sons. However, they become distorted, so that he has warped notions about the nature and achievement of success and eventually ends up killing himself in order to impress and aid Biff. Hence it can be seen that Willy's views are not necessarily entirely "wrong".

A simplistic reading of Biff's line is a reference to Willy's adoption of the American Dream, and this interpretation informs the view of the play as a critique of Capitalism. Hence, Miller's view is taken to be that the American Dream is "wrong". This is too straightforward an interpretation of the writer's ideas. Miller's primary aim was to highlight the human destruction of the Capitalist system, not to villify the ideals of the system full stop.

I request that the emphasis of the requiem section be changed, so that it does not take such a simplistic view of this crucial part of the play. Furthermore, I question the validity of any encyclopedic entry which attempts to analyse any work of art. A full analysis is extremely difficult to attempt, not least with a work so complex as Death of a Salesman. In addition, many different critical interpretations exist, yet only the prevalent ones have been described in this article. This serves only to simplify the play and does not do justice to its author.

In my opinion, it would be far better for the article to confine itself to factual details and give a full bibliography of appropriate critical assesments of the text. Whilst only the full work can truly inform the reader of its plot, I am not so naive as to think this would be appropriate, and hence request that any plot summary be stressed as a simplification, and that the reader be strongly urged to read further material for a fuller view.

Well, that's enough of me preaching from my high horse, what does anyone else have to say about it all?

Cheers! Saxmachine 213.1.45.10 21:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bernard is also at the Requiem, this should be pointed out. He is meant to be in Washington, yet he appears for the funeral which is perhaps only a few days after Willy's death. Is he there on the orders of Charley, or is he there from his own respect for Willy? Minor details, but should still be mentioned. It also states the sons are "crying harshly". There is absolutly not textual evidence to support this. 212.137.146.28 12:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Alex Ghionis

How do you cry harshly ?? O_o I'll remove it. O0pyromancer0o 20:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's highly biased to state that Biff is correct. There's an argument, and it's never stated by anyone who is correct. Biff contends that he lived a lie his whole life. Happy (I think... somewhat hazy on the character) contends that his dreams were his only reason for living at all. It's a matter of debate and thought, not for an encyclopedia to point out who's 'correct.'

Bipolar Disorder

Willy seems to be, more than anything else, suffering from Bipolar disorder. He seems to fit the symptoms listed on the wiki page. It might be worthwhile to make a note of it in the article - this recontextualizes some of the book. Eoseth 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I would caution against interpreting things on a more-or-less biographical level rather than analyzing the play as literature. It's dangerous to add things to the interpretation that aren't in the work itself. I think it would take away from the quality of the analysis. Theshibboleth 05:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Willy Loman suffers from bipolar disorder just as Hamlet suffers from hallucinations. It's a drama, not a documentary. Saxmachine 213.120.56.41 17:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Charley's line in Requiem "Nobody dast blame this man"

What does "dast" in this sentance actually mean? Is it, as I have assumed, nobody dares to blame this man? I have tried to find a definition on the internet but it seems that such a thing does not exsist! My whole English group is confused as to the exact meaning for this and would love an answer from a more intelligent person!!

I think it's a contraction of "dares to". Fits and you can see how fast speech might change "dares to" to "dast". --M1ss1ontomars2k4 03:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

a contraction of "darest" - you know, it's like, Shakespearean Horwendil (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

philandering

As far as I can recall there is only evidence of one affair, and

"stating that once he was known throughout New England, driving long hours but making unparalleled sales (something true only because of his philandering with secretaries)"

doesn't seem accurate. Or am I missing something?

Um, i don't think unparalleled is correct, unless the sales are so bad they're unparalleled. But the secretary he was with when Biff visited claimed that Willy would be allowed to go straight to her boss right away without waiting in line. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Tragedy?

Why "Thus this play is not a pure tragedy in the classical sense"? Someone could explain that??

Tanks, Roccuz 17:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

    I think this is because it does not quite fit in Aristotle's definition in Poetics,
of a "great" man being the tragic hero. However, the discussion below clarifies Willy's role
as a tragic hero. 70.94.13.66 (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What the heck is a Loman scion?

The younger son, lies shamelessly to make it look like he is a perfect Loman scion???

A branch. In this case, metaphorically, "Loman's perfect child". DJ Clayworth 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

Don't know if anyone else can see it, but for me, the book cover is cut off so that "Miller" reads "Mill". I've tried specifying different options (i.e. "thumb", "frame", "300px") in different combinations, but they either cut it off or don't display well (e.g. no border). (Note: my screen resolution is 1024 × 768, so if yours can see it correctly, it might just be me) — SheeEttin {T/C} 00:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It reads "Miller" to me, so it may just be your computer. loulou 03:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Willy Loman was trying to Kill himself with it. Throughout the play Willy Loman attempts suicide with the "rubber thingy" as well as attempting to kill himself while purposely driving off the road. An eye witness said it was purposely. Car insurance did not pay for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.0.26 (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The rubber hose is used to commit suicide by breathing in the natural gas used to heat the furnace. Remember the "nipple".

It is not hooked to the exhaust of the car.71.188.5.33 (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Edgar

unanimously

re: "No longer unanimously considered as a masterpiece, this play is sentimental and relies on cliches to move the audience."

This above comment is just silly.

agreed. removed it as a result. Fugazilazarus 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Charley

Is he not Willy's brother? He is referred to several times as Uncle Charley --TommyOliver 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He is Willy's deceased Brother. --Jackie

This is incorrect. Charley is Willy's longtime neighbor and friend, referred to by Biff and Happy as Uncle as a term of endearment. BEN is Willy's deceased brother. "Jackie" clearly did not read the book well.--67.171.180.243 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ben is the brother, and Charley is the neighbor who not only "loans" Willy $50 every week but through him we are able to better understand Willy. J.Siek. 14 May 2007

Popular references

Death of a Salesman & Biff Loman are mentioned in the the episode of Seinfeld titled "The Subway". Also, Jerry routinely refers to George as "Biff" throughout the series. Although often veiled, would such a reference from a hugely popular sitcom merit a mention in the article? Jon Park 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Also was just recenly used in family guy by stewy when he say i ll be happy and you can be biff

Ben ends up in Africa

I'm rather sure that Ben does not move to Africa after going to Alaska, it simply states that he ended up in Africa when he wanted to go Alaska. Does anyone know otherwise? Currently the article reads, Ben, who at an early age left for Alaska, and later moved to Africa. --Credema 01:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Linda ? Do you feel she is a strong woman ? Or weak? There are many different viewpoints on this whats your opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.161.202 (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First time posting here, I have some problems with certain items

1.Why is there a mention of Loman having a problem with cocaine in the intro?

2. On sets on the right side of the screen it says Willy Lomans House "on the moon"?

Can someone please correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.92.89 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Character Bios and fixing up

I think there should be a formal list of characters just so everyone in the play is mentioned, even minor characters (ther aren't that many). Also the main article for the most part, the ideas are fine, however the syntax is a bit off or akward, someone should look at that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.47.3 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct grammar???

As Willy had gave The Woman stockings, considered a luxury at the time, this explains why he is continually haunted when his wife Linda mends stockings that he urges her to discard.

To me, this sentence sounds very weird. What kind of a tense is "had gave"??? And there might be some better solution to continue the sentence instead of "this explains".

Tummel (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mansfield

"Her performance in the play attracted Paramount Pictures to hire her for the studio's film productions." No matter how many references are quoted to support this, it remains utter nonsense. It is plain evident for which two very compellling reasons she was hired. I propose to delete the sentence, it being utterly irrelevant to the article. --Awaler (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Absurd "Reference"

I removed the following from the references section:

• 2003, Big Fish directed by Tim Burton is loosely based on this play .

First, I've seen the movie, and aside from the two taking place in America, there are few (if any) similarities between the two. Second, the movie was based on the book, Big Fish (as is stated in its Wikipedia article), and I've seen no evidence that that book is based on DoaS. Unless someone re-adds this with a valid reference, I'd say it doesn't belong here. 72.130.89.63 (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot?

So lots on style, and impact, but no actual plot synopsis. It would be helpful for those of us who have neither seen nor read this. Thanks. VonBlade (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was rather surprised to find that there wasn't one. --DBN (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well !! If u guys are having hard time figuring out the plot of motif, then u should check sparknotes.com it has characters and important quotes, and everything else that u got questions on..check it out. You can even check on gradesavers.com.. they have amazing info on it.. khan.s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.102.80 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think plot synopsis is necessary... To be honest, I logged in and thought the plot section was way too long and detailed. Wikipedia should give info on the book and what it is about, not a step by step of what actually happens in the novel. And now you guys want to add a section that gives a biased reflection on possible motifs in the story. Great. Personally, I want to cut this plot down from the monster it currently is. If you guys have any opposition to this, then by all means voice them and we'll have a discussion on the matter. --Ironstove (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to include a brief plot summary of the play, considering its relevance and high level of critical and academic exposure.

"[A] terrible thing is happening"[1] to Willy Loman, a traveling salesman in his sixties. Loman lives in Brooklyn, New York during the late 1940's in the home he and his wife Linda have been mortgaging since the childhood of their adult sons, Biff and Happy. Biff is now thirty-four and Happy, thirty-two. While Happy is enjoying some degree of middle-class security working in a department store, Biff is a self-described bum, a wanderer who is "mixed up very bad"[2] and cannot settle down the way his father and brother have. At the outset of Act One, Biff has returned home from vaguely-described travels in the Western United States. This homecoming (the first in many years) finds his exhausted father delusional and intermittently conversing with the phantoms of a more hopeful past. Ordinary misfortunes, aggravated by the untenable and increasing gap between Willy's expectations and reality, provoke the dissolution of the Loman family status quo

I'm new to editing so I'm not sure how to cite things. I hope that this isn't too verbose or hermetic. If anyone has any suggestions, feel free to edit. I tried not to reveal too much of the plot sequence since that's what the original text is for. Redactthyself (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the plot on the page at the moment is certainly not how I remember 'Death of a Salesman' Is there any way to revert back to what the page was like before this happened? 16:58, 5 January 2011 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.222.62 (talk)

Well, the summary before was copied straight from SparkNotes, so it was removed. I'm trying to get a new summary in. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 17:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Squandered?

Re: "...Aristotle's characterization of tragedy as the downfall of a great man, whether through (depending on the translator) a flaw in his character or a mistake he has squandered."

Can you squander a mistake? That part of the opening section doesn't make sense to me. A mistake isn't something you possess and then lose. This is supposedly translated by someone, but if that's accurate, there should be a citation for where those translations came from. Evan 156.99.27.197 (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

suicide and insurance

I want to clear up a detail about insurance. Suicide clauses usually expire after a few years. After the expiration the insurance company would be required to pay a death claim regardless of the cause of death. The implication for the plot is that the company did pay and enabled Linda to settle the mortgage. The chilling philosophical implication is that, as Willy bitterly puts it at one point, he was worth more to his family dead than alive, as far as money was concerned. CharlesTheBold (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Eliot" in Themes section

In the Themes section, the last sentence of the first paragraph is "Or (in Eliot's words) human kind cannot bear very much reality." Who is the "Eliot" mentionned? It is the only mention of "Eliot" in the entire article. M.Nelson (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Eliot is T. S. Eliot, and the quotation is from "Burnt Norton," one of his Four Quartets. Its relevance to the play may be in the poem's contemplation of time present and time past, missed opportunities, and how words ultimately fail us. Becky2006 (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Considered 'by whom?'

In the opening sentence, it says that the play is 'considered a classic of American theater.'

Next to 'considered' there is, in brackets, 'by whom?'

I don't see cause for debate or doubt... it's not 'by whom,' it's just a general consensus. Even if you don't personally like the play, it's still a highly significant piece of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.162.205 (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"...who realizes he has wasted his years in pursuit of a goal that is not only unattainable, but was never real to begin with."

He NEVER realises this. That is the tragedy of the play. He is unaware that his efforts have been utterly futile, and he is still sure that his death will put some money in Biff's pocket. He continues dreaming, even into death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.249 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Context?

I know it was written in 1949 and was styled after the greek tragedies, but was the whole "failure of the american dream" (or failure of capitalism) on the way out, on the way in, or in the middle? Just think it'd be nice to have more perspective. Zorae (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the lead

Why is it written in passive voice? I'll admit, I'm not that familiar with Death of a Salesman (hence, my reading about it on Wikipedia), but "it is said" and "it is demonstrated?" Give me a break! I don't know who says or demonstrates those things, so instead of deleting it, I added "who?" flags. I think that summarizes my concern.65.117.234.99 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph no links!

The intro gives opinions on who the story's inspiration is from and how Miller is criticizing capitalism, but there is not a single link!PonileExpress (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Themes Section a Cut N' Paste?

The entire themes section seems to be cut and pasted from someone's essay, lines such as 'For me, an intact family relationship means...' and 'In a paper called “The Concept of Family in Arthur Miller’s Play Death of a Salesman”, it seems important to me to mention...'. Being fairly new at this, I don't know if it needs cleanup, citations or removal. Tochiazuma (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary needs paragraph structure

It is difficult to read the plot summary in its current form (basically one very long paragraph). Could someone please chop it up into different paragraphs so it can be more easily read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.7.168 (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this was taken directly from http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/salesman/summary.html. Are they Cieted if this is true? Sanchasmcdude (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

references and links

I believe Arthur Miller's "Tragedy and the Common Man" should be added to this article: http://vccslitonline.cc.va.us/tragedy/milleressay.htm it seems clear some of these ideas are in the article, without proper reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.66.32 (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

It would appear the entirety of the plot summary has been copied from SparkNotes. Just informing. 206.158.3.71 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the text is word-for-word identical or almost identical to http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/salesman/summary.html . I have removed the plot summary per WP:COPYVIO. Will try to find the time to write a more concise summary of the plot as soon as possible, if nobody else beats me to it. (The existing plot summary was too detailed, quite apart from the copyvio issue.) --bonadea contributions talk 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

An IP editor inserted (under ==Characters==) "Miss Francis" in place of "The Woman". I suspect this is vandalism. Can someone knowledgeable undo this edit if it is mischievous? I do not know the play well enough. --Greenmaven (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I checked this on several websites. Miss Francis is correct. Not vandalism! Apologies --Greenmaven (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is correct. "Miss Francis" is certainly referenced on many sites, but there is only one mention of that name in the text, and, even then, it's ambiguous as to whether that is her real name or not. From the Penguin Plays version of the text, pp. 119:

Willy: Get out of here! Go back, go back...Suddenly striving for the ordinary: This is Miss Francis, Biff, she's a buyer. They're painting her room. Go back, Miss Francis, go back...

In the character list and throughout the play, she and her dialogue are credited as "The Woman." I think it would be better to list her as such on this page. -Martinman (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have decided to 'be bold' and edit 'Miss Francis" back to 'The Woman'. My reasoning is that the article has been edited numerous times over a nine year period, and that 'The Woman' has been effectively a consensus decision. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

'Classroom-like' English literature question

Questions to answer about Act 1:

1.How would you characterize the relationship between happy and biff?

2.What is biffs attitude towards willy? towards linda?

3. what is happys attitude towards willy? towrads linda?

4.Who is happy? Describe him

5.who is biff? Describe him

6.what is happys presnt situation? professionally personally

7.What is biffs present situation? professionally personally

I asked the contributor of Death of a Salesman to modified the "Themes and Points of Interest" so that it's more encyclopedic. But when he asks how it can be so, I'm not sure! I mean, the questions are valid: "Why? Do the Loman men have a tragic flaw? What could it be?" -- But I don't think encyclopedia should ask its reader like an English-class teacher asks his/her students (although this may not be the contributor's intent). Those are general questions that can be asked of most tragedies.

Should we just provided some possible analysis? Or should we remove those question-sentences? Or should we convert those questions into statements, somehow? --Menchi 21:05, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Seems simple enough in principle: instead of asking questions, give the answers. (But perhaps I only think that because I'm not familiar with the play.) —Paul A 00:57, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that they're not questions that have a "right" answer - as with most studies of humanities, for each question there are many interpretations. --Alex S 02:16, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So make the section bigger, and describe the different interpretations. —Paul A 02:50, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

you can't just eat the orange and throw away the peel. a man is not a fruit.

I agree, I think it would be be a great idea to link to interpretations; id est things like the story from a critical viewpoint, a feministic viewpoint(Willy as an opressor), intrinsic value, and others. I also think it would be important to link to the authors of the viewpoint and their analysis. So not giving the full argument, but just a just a synopsis.Capi crimm 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, those questions have no intrinsic place in the article. They're designed to stimulate creative thinking, whereas the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide hard facts. Neither the questions or the possible answers need or should be addressed here. The Cap'n (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Selling

What does Willy sell? IIRC, it's never explicitly stated. That should be in the article, don't you think? Ellsworth 18:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    I don't think it's ever actually stated in the play.

He's a salesman in a metaphorical sense primarily: He is selling himself, in every way. He is crushed because no matter how hard he tries, the world is indifferent to him in his mediocrity, and he ends up losing all sense of self (having 'sold' it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.149.231 (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that Willy's selling goes into the greater themes of the American dream and pursuing success. On many levels, pursuit of success in the free-market economy involves selling something. For example, this often occurs when one has to "sell" oneself to a business in order to get a job. By making Willy a salesman, Miller emphasizes the idea of the struggle to find a buyer in the competitive world of American business. Note also that the salesmanship inherent in Willy's character goes beyond his job. Willy is constantly trying to "sell himself" to friends, acquaintances, and even his own family in order to achieve his goal of being "well liked." Willy's role as a salesman serves to highlight this aspect of his personality as well. - Matt Smith

When I was in High School, we went to see a production of it in Edinburgh. The class was accompanied by our English teacher (of course) and the school's History teacher, who had never seen or read the play. Our English teacher told us later that the first question she was asked by the other was "What did he sell?" The point of her telling us this, was to show that it's completely irrelevant what he sold. It could be anything. Maccoinnich 11:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect it is clear that he sells stockings (perhaps amongst other goods.) He gives Miss Francis some from his stock (no pun intended) and he tells Linda not to mend her own stockings - because he sells them. - 212.137.136.148 12:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Alex Ghionis

I have no idea where you got that from. He tells Linda to stop mending her stockings because it reminds him of his affair with the woman, thus making him feel guilty. It doesn't actually matter what he sells. I guess by not knowing it reflects his success as a Salesman, if he was at all succesful we'd know. The fact that we don't shows he's generic and nothing special. He's simply, "a" salesman and not "the" salesman. Geisskane, 3rd July

According to a handout we got in English Class, Arthur Miller said that he sells 'Himself' in his Collected Plays. -Lalabox --210.56.68.124 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, "Unfortunately, time has passed, and now his life seems to be slipping out of control due to a crippling cocaine addiction." I love this, so didn't have the heart to change it. If any killjoy can be bothered to, though, I guess it'll stop some kids failing GCSEs/SATs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.149.231 (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

All these English-class explanations miss the point that Mr. Miller was a Marxist. English classes are based on contemporary criticism, early 1950's academic criticism, which tends to be Marxist. Marxist theory is an oversimplification of industrial production versus ownership. It has no place for the salesman who explains the product to the customers and the customers' concerns to the designers (for whom Marx has no sympathy.) It does not matter what he sells, because Marxist theory cannot find merit in his work. That is the basis of his tragedy---a man, not of the upper class that Marxism can self-righteously judge, but a man of the lower middle class, caught in a dead end. The whole point of tragedy is suffering that the prevailing theory cannot explain, from Oedopous' unintentional sin to MacBeth's acquiescence to his wife's. The point of tragedy is to make the listner re-examine his wordview. Mr. Miller operates from a Marxist worldview that has no explanation for why Wille must suffer. He leaves the audience unable to explain the shortcoming of the worldview that he assumes it shares. That is what makes it a tragedy. That is why it does matter what he sells. 71.175.133.100 (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Rubber thingy

What was the rubber thingy that they found in the basment? I read the book over and over and still can't figure it out! loulou 15:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A suicide device. You use it to breathe in the gas and suffocate yourself, I think.

Yes, that's it.71.141.91.139 02:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Anonymous

you attach it to the exaust of the car and put the other end into the window of the car turn the car on and you sufforcate yourself

In this instance however he doesnt attach it to the car, its for use with the gas tanks in the basement - i presume for the heating of the house. -Alex Ghionis

The rubber hose is used to commit suicide by breathing in the natural gas used to heat the furnace. Remember the "nipple".

I believe that natural gas is not poisonous. In the UK, the number of suicides went down once natural gass replaced coal gas. Sorry I don't know where to find tildes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.133.148 (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not hooked to the exhaust of the car.71.188.5.33 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Edgar