Rip Van Wrinkle: Social Revolution versus Personnal Revolution

Recently I have read a very famous short story called "Rip Van Wrinkle" by Washington Irving. It's a very tall tale of a man who falls asleep for twenty years and when he awakes finds he has missed the American Revolution. Yes, he becomes a "free man" which doesn't mean anything to him.

Rip wakes up in a world of social revolution but has not undergone any "revolution" himself. He remains unhindered. He remains the same. But the question is, is that good? Rip doesn't seem to care very much since he no longer has any real worldly responsibilities. No more nagging wife. No more children. He has nothing and is content. He's still asleep or has been his whole life.

Though Rip's contentment is alluring I do not believe this is Irving's intention. Rip is contrasting by the dwarf-like men that he meets in the woods before his long nap. They are solemn little men yet they play a game. As if they are sentenced to a life of unhappiness and their torture is a life of games. They have no responsibilities. They are sleeping yet they are so tired. So tired of their nothingness.

Meanwhile the men of the village are different. They become politicians in a sense, they become citizens of a democracy. They have their own ideas, their own morals, new responsibilities. They seem quite content. They are not merely living a life. They are living their lives. They are free men.

So what? Big deal right? Everyone is happy at the end. Isn't that important? Yes, it is, but what is Irving's message? It's rather ambiguous, perhaps not upon the first reading but definitely after contemplation. While Rip remains static the other characters do not. Some, as a result, die. Others live and live well. They have engaged their responsibilities. They have challenged the task at hand. What is better? Well like I said it remains unknown. They are all "free men" but in different ways