Some old people are oppressed by the fear of death.In the young there is a justification for this feeling.Young men who have reason to fear that they will be killed in battle may justifiably feel bitter in the thought that they have been cheated of the best things that life has to offer.But in an old man who has known human joys and sorrows,and has achieved whatever work it was in him to do,the fear of death is somewhat abject and ignoble.The best way to overcome it—so at least it seems to me—is to make your interests gradually wider and more impersonal,until bit by bit the walls of the ego recede,and your life becomes increasingly merged in the universal life.An individual human existence should be like a river—small at first,narrowly contained within its banks,and rushing passionately past boulders and over waterfalls.Gradually the river grows wider,the banks recede,the waters flow more quietly,and in the end,without any visible break,they become merged in the sea,and painlessly lose their individual being.The man,who,in old age,can see his life in this way,will not suffer from the fear of death,since the things he cares for will continue.And if,with the decay of vitality,weariness increases,the thought of rest will be not unwelcome.I should wish to die while still at work,knowing that others will carry on what I can no longer do,and content in the thought that what was possible has been done.
Again we ask our questions:what has Russell done and how has he done it?His subject is the way to handle old people's fear of death,but he is doing not just an objective analysis of the fear.He offers,in fact,more than information for some utilitarian purpose.Unlike Schaefer and Lamm,Russell not only informs,but also persuades:he urges his readers to take what he considers the noble attitude toward death and to participate in its consequences.
To communicate his idea,Russell,like Schaefer and Lamm,uses a series of propositions,but he has used something more,and this something more constitutes Russell's approach into literature:Russell's personal tone（"at least it seems to me;""I should wish..."）,his imagery（"walls of the ego;""river...banks...rushing...boulders...waterfalls"）,his figures of speech（parallel:"In the young...in the old...;"simile:"an individual human existence should be like a river;"metaphor:"boulders...waterfalls,""sea"）.Russell expresses the same idea twice in different ways:matter-of-fact and poetic:
1.The best way to overcome it—so at least it seems to me—is to make your interests gradually wider and more impersonal...
2.An individual human existence should be like a river—small at first,narrowly contained within its banks,and rushing passionately past boulders and over waterfalls.Gradually the river grows wider,the banks recede,the waters flow more quietly,and in the end,without any visible break,they become merged in the sea,and painlessly lose their individual being.
The literal,abstract expression of the first version speaks about something,but the poetic imagery of the second version invites us to experience and participate in the scene in concrete.Unlike Schaefer and Lamm's abstract impersonal prose,Russell's concrete poetic prose translates his abstract ideas into imagery,and readers identify personally with their own experiences and values.
The essay as a form,then,can move in either direction:to present impersonal truth（one kind of reality for the writer）in abstract propositions as Schaefer and Lamm do,or to present personal convictions（another kind of reality for the writer）in poetic prose as Russell does.Reading an essay like"How to Grow Old"is the first step into understanding and enjoying literature.
What would happen if we read a piece which depends entirely on invented characters and events and not on impersonal facts?Practical people devoted to the search for useful information are likely to answer"None at all."But let us examine the American poet Robert Frost's"The Road Not Taken"and investigate for ourselves.
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler,long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other,as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh,I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood,and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
The story in the poem is not a dramatic one:a nameless traveler is confronted with a situation which requires him or her to make a decision;the decision is taken and the traveler's life is made.The information contained in the poem is literal,actual,or empirical as the information conveyed in Schaefer and Lamm's and Russell's paragraphs.But if this was what Frost intended to convey to his readers,he was making a fuss about it.In fact,most people would consider the definition of crime and the deion of the appropriate way to deal with the fear of death more informative than the relating of this ordinary event.Then,what does Frost intend to do?
Almost any work of literature contains two levels of meaning or truth:literal and symbolic.Writers use literal meaning to stand for something more universal in time and place.For example,the American writer William Allen White wrote:
I was never a Socialist in my youth so as not to be a Republican in my old age.
Frost wrote:
I never dared to be a radical when young
For fear it would make me conservative when old.
