even care for him, new stockings, all the while Linda, who does nothing but shower him with her utmost affection, is stuck mending her old ones. Through this factor and all the supplementary aspects of Willy's affair Miller proves to the audience that Loman is unaware of the difference between love and well-likeness. It is not so much so the definition that Loman is not able to distinct, in this case, but rather in contrast in intrinsic value. The play's protagonist understands that the two do not equate, however, he mistakenly places more value on being well-liked then being loved.
Confirmation of Loman’s incapability to decipher the difference between love and well-likeness can also be seen through his style of parenting. Willy Loman loves his sons , to that there is no question, nor is there any problem. The obstruction lies in how he goes about loving them. …show more content…
He believes that raising them to be “well-liked” individuals, rather than “loved” men is the right way to go. Once again verifying that he does not recognize the difference between the two’s values. By teaching them to be well-liked, Loman neglects all the proper fundamentals necessary in order to build one’s character. Therefor Biff and Happy lack essential characteristics such as; compassion, honesty, ambition, and gratitude. Thus Happy is a compulsive liar and Biff a kleptomaniac. In addition Miller displays the protagonist’s well-liked verses love dilemma throughout the novel in the form of Happy. Metaphorically Happy is the ugly duckling in the family. In as much as in their younger days Biff was the “perfect” son; popular, star athlete, and a ladies man. In simpler terms Biff was well-liked, while Happy was not, which of course made their father favor Biff. Although Happy adored Loman, and devoted his life to making his father proud,
Confirmation of Loman’s incapability to decipher the difference between love and well-likeness can also be seen through his style of parenting. Willy Loman loves his sons , to that there is no question, nor is there any problem. The obstruction lies in how he goes about loving them. …show more content…
He believes that raising them to be “well-liked” individuals, rather than “loved” men is the right way to go. Once again verifying that he does not recognize the difference between the two’s values. By teaching them to be well-liked, Loman neglects all the proper fundamentals necessary in order to build one’s character. Therefor Biff and Happy lack essential characteristics such as; compassion, honesty, ambition, and gratitude. Thus Happy is a compulsive liar and Biff a kleptomaniac. In addition Miller displays the protagonist’s well-liked verses love dilemma throughout the novel in the form of Happy. Metaphorically Happy is the ugly duckling in the family. In as much as in their younger days Biff was the “perfect” son; popular, star athlete, and a ladies man. In simpler terms Biff was well-liked, while Happy was not, which of course made their father favor Biff. Although Happy adored Loman, and devoted his life to making his father proud,