Canterbury Tales: Chaunticleer

In the book Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer, gives us a stunning tale about a rooster named Chaunticleer. Chaunticleer, who is the King of his domain in his farmland kingdom. Like a King, he quotes passages from intellectuals, dreams vivid dreams, has a libido that runs like a bat out of hell, and is described as a very elegant looking Rooster. He has every characteristic of a person belonging to the upper class.

Chaucer’s hidden meanings and ideas make us think that the story is about roosters and farm animals, but in reality he s making the Aristocracy of his time period the subject of his mockery by making the reader realize how clueless the Aristocracy can be to the way things are in the real World. Chaucer describes Chaunticleer in many different ways. One of them is his language. Chaunticleer’s language is that of a scholar. He quotes many different scriptures in a conversation with Pertelote, such as, Saint Kenelm, Daniel and Joseph (from the bible), and Croesus.

From each author he tells a story about an individual who had a vision in a dream and the dream came true. He may have been making all the stories up in order to win the argument with Pertelote, but, this seems unlikely because he does not take heed to his own advice and stay away from the fox that encounters him later. He is educated enough to know these supposed quotations but not intelligent enough to understand the real meaning of them. It is if he simply brings because they help him win the argument with his spouse and not because he actually believes what they say.

Chaucer is using the idea that the Aristocracy has schooling throughout their childhood, but it is only one to have seemingly important but empty conversations. His physical appearance is also described with such beautiful passion that it makes us think Chaunticleer is heaven on earth. “His comb was redder than fine coral, and crenellated like a castle wall; his bill was black and shone like jet; his legs and toes were like azure; his nails whiter than lily; and his color like the burnished gold.

Chaucer describes Chaunticleer as the quintessential Cock, so perfect that his description is no longer believable when we realize he is escribing a Rooster. Chaucer is setting up Chaunticleer to be as regal and grandiose as a King. Even though he looks like a million dollars he is still very shallow inside. He lies to his spouse just to keep her happy and his every thought is of fornication. Like the Aristocracy he takes many pleasures of the flesh with no real commitment to his duty as a rooster. Chaunticleer’s character appears to be that of a shallow used car salesman.

He lies to his spouse about his opinion of women just so he can ride her later in the morning. Mulier est hominis confusio; Madame, the meaning of this Latin is, ‘Woman is man’s joy and all his bliss. ‘” The real meaning is ” Woman is man’s ruin”. He tells her a lie to ensure he gets what he wants from her later. He seems like the type of person who would say anything to get what they want no matter the truth or whom it hurts. He also falls victim to his own hubris, something that is not uncommon to most rich arrogant people. Chaucer’s creation of Chaunticleer is done solely to imitate and mock the upper class.

Chaunticleer is educated, like people in the upper class; looks good, as people with money can afford to do; and revolves around the pleasures of the flesh like a pre-pubescent child. Had he not been “riding” Pertelote all morning he might have seen the fox coming and been able to avoid becoming captured. His attitude was that of the upper class, that he is too good to worry about life’s little trivial matters and that he loves to have pleasure. The fox is able to dupe him simply by flattering his voice. “… the reason I came was only to hear how you sing.

He is so consumed with living in his own grandiose twisted reality, where nothing bad happens, that he does not realize that a fox is about to gobble him up! He does have an epiphany at the end, however, “No more through your flattery get me to close my eyes and sing. For he who knowingly blinks when he should see, God let him never thrive. ” Chaucer uses the character Chaunticleer to poke fun at the Aristocracy and all their tendencies towards living life in the name of “consummate pleasure seekers,” and not in the name of “reality driven people”.

Free At Last

When a reader first reads The Yellow Wallpaper it appears to be a story of a young woman suffering from post pardum depression that slowly ends in the total loss of reality. However, understanding that Charlotte Perkins Gilman was an early feminist, and her writings share a common theme that women do not have an equal human status in society, the story takes on a whole new meaning. The authors creative use of symbolism in The Yellow Wallpaper allows the reader an inside look of a young womans struggle to free herself from societys norm.

The authors use of setting and symbolism perfectly represents the male dominant society in the Victorian era that believed a womens place was in the home. The author carefully constructed her sentences and symbols to produce a picture of arrogant and creepy male oppression. The story opens with the young woman describing the house as a colonial mansion, a hereditary estate, I would say a haunted house, and reach the height of romantic felicitybut that would be asking too much of fate! (168). The author uses this symbolism to describe the different roles a woman played.

The colonial mansion describes her as a wife and a hereditary estate that of a mother. The haunted house alludes to the fact that a woman during this time had to hide any signs of intelligence or creativity. When the young woman talks about the height of romantic felicity and that it would be to much to ask, the reader understands the young womans desire to show her creativity through writing but that her husband and society would perceive this as a woman trying to over step her bounds would treat her as a outcast, therefore, she must hide this side of herself away.

It is the wallpaper, though, that is the focal point of the story, and it holds within it many descriptive symbols for the creepy discrimination and oppression of women. Women were thought to be property and treated like children. The author slowly releases clues that allow the reader to see the wallpaper as a symbol of male authority. The young womans fascination with the ugly paper begins as an innocent annoyance, builds to a pastime, and turns into an obsession. The young woman states that the color is repellent, almost revolting; a smoldering unclean yellow, strangely faded by the slow-turn sunlight.

It is a dull yet lurid orange in some places, a sickly sulphur tint in others (170). The young woman feels tramped in a marriage, dominated by her husband and dictated by society, that wont allow her to openly express herself. Although she felt no animosity toward her husband, the marriage itself was more like a prison. It trapped a woman in a role of being submissive and dominated. No wonder the children hated it! I should hate it myself if I had to live in this room long (170).

In other words, no wonder most women hated marriage and even though she loved her husband, she herself would come to hate it if she continued to allow her husband to suppress her creativity. Another symbol is the papers odor, which is a metaphor for the foul effects of male domination. The young woman tells the reader it creeps all over the house. I find it hovering in the dining room, skulking in the parlor, hiding in the hall, lying in wait for me on the stairs.

It gets into my hair. Even when I go to ride, if I turn my head suddenly and surprise itthere is that smell! 77). In every aspect of her duties as a wife and mother her husband and society dominate and oppress her. Even outside her home she cant escape the effects of male dominance, its all around her. The young woman also states that there is a kind of sub-pattern and in the places where it isnt faded and where the sun is just soI can see a strange, provoking formless sort of figure, that seems to skulk about that silly and conspicuous front design (173). By daylight she is subdued, quiet. I fancy it is the pattern that keeps her so still (176).

The formless figure represents women who are forced to the background, a mere shadow of men, by male dominance. It was not deemed proper for a woman to be openly individualistic and to do so they had to skulk or lurk among men. The strangled heads in the paper symbolize women whose careers and goals have been choked by male dominance. The young woman comes to the realization that If only that top pattern could be gotten off from the under one! I mean to try it, little by little (179). She slowly gains the courage to tear way from male dominance and live the kind of life she wants by pulling of the paper.

She begins to tear away at the paper piece by piece gaining confidence with each piece removed. The young woman peeled off all the paper I could reach standing on the floor. It sticks horribly and the pattern just enjoys it (222). It would not be easy to break through the barrier since men would not so easy give in to equality. Bits of paper still remained and although she made great strides in freeing herself from the dominance of her husband there was still work to be done in terms of true social and economic equality and that it will not be easy to break the dominance that men have enjoyed for so long.

The book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

I have read the book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn up to chapter fourteen. I have found one thing I don’t like, the language which is used is straight out of the 1800’s. An example of this can be found on every page in the book. Twain shows one of these examples when he writes, “I took to it again because pap hadn’t no objections. ” This language is not acceptable in modern English, it should really be, “I took to it again because pap had no objections. ” When Tom and Huckleberry were outside and ran out of candles and needed more of them, I thought it was good of Tom to leave money for the candles he stole.

Twain shows this when he writes, “But Tom wanted to resk it; so we slid in there and got three candles, and Tom laid five cents on the table for pay. ” This shows that though it was wrong of Tom to steal the candles it honest of him to leave pay for the candles. I think that Tom and Huck are very smart boys, when Huck snuck out of the house Tom pretended that he was a cat to get Hucks attention. If he hadn’t done this the widow might have caught them leaving in the middle of the night. Twain shows their resourcefulness when he writes, “Directly I could just barely hear a me-yow! me-yow! down there.

That was good! Says I, me-yow! me-yow! as soft as I could, and then I put out the light and scrambled out of the window on to the shed. ” This shows the boys resourcefulness and intelligence. I think it is sick that the group of boys made their own gang. The gang planned to rob people, kill people and take people for ransom. Twain illustrates this when he writes, “We ain’t burglars. That ain’t no sort of style. We are highwaymen. We stop stages and carriages on the road, with masks on and kill the people and take their watches and money. ” I find it horrible that some young school boys would plan to kill people.

Literary Paper of The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck

Steinbeck wrote many wonderful books but a great classic is one titled The Grapes of Wrath. This is a story of a family called the Joads, and a tale of a courageous family who sought security and family unity. In my paper I will examine the different ways the Joads tried to keep united whether just within their immediate family or eventually with all the others who shared the same struggles and sufferings. Steinbeck’s dialogue and description’s of the dusty roads, the men squatting in the dirt drawing pictures while making major decisions, the way in which they traveled all puts you right into the middle of the family.

One becomes aware and wants to be a part of there unity and their long for security. Steinbeck’s use of the characters dialect is astoundingly excellent and unmistakenly realistic of the Joad’s culture. Without this dialogue, it would not be as intense and vivid. J. Homer Caskey, in “Letters to the Editor” says, “Steinbeck’s knowledge of the forces which hold a family together and the forces which cause it to disintegrate. He understands that family councils are an important part of the lives of the Joads.

The major theme is the struggle and survival of the Joad family from the ime they lost their home, to the unity they felt and soon were a part of a whole community, one big family, and one big soul. This theme is particularly exemplified by Ma Joad, who played a major part. The Joads encountered a constant struggle to keep the family going and intact. When Ma knew that gramma Joad was dying she told her that there was nothing she could do, that the family needed to get across the desert that night. It was not until they were across the desert that she let the family know that Gramma Joad had died during the night.

Ma Joad was the strong but yet understanding one of the family. She istened to pa and obeyed his wishes, until she had to be strong and stand her ground. Ma was convinced and had to be forceful with pa and show him that she was capable of making decisions. After this confrontation with pa the other family members began to see ma differently and looked to her for the final approval.

John Steinbeck, in “The Grapes of Wrath” says, “On’y way you gonna get me to go is whup me… Ma Joad takes on Pa in order to keep the family from going off too far. Tom Joad represented the man of the family and provided support through his strength. I believe that Tom Joad kept the family in line. As they went on ith their trails, the fact that he had been in prison kept the whole family from doing anything that might incriminate or send him back. They held their tongues at times when they encountered prejudice and degrading comments from people. Tom’s role in the story was that of one to look up to, and even though he spent time in prison he still held on to the big brother figure.

Gary at first seemed to be a loner, although once he was made to be a part of the family, he began to look within himself and to the meaning of life. He seemed to find a new direction in life. John Steinbeck, in “The Grapes of Wrath” says, “I ain’t gonna baptize. I’m gonna work i the fiel’s, in the green fiel’s, an I’m gonna be near to folks. I ain’s gonna try to teach ’em nothin, I’m gonna try to lear. Gonna learn why the folks walks in the grass, gonna hear ’em talk, gonna hear ’em sing. Gonna listen to kids eatin mush.

Gonna hear husban an wife a-poundin’ the mattress in the night. Gonna eat with ’em an learn. ” Gonna lay in the grass, open an’ honest with anybody that’ll have me. Gonna cuss an’ swear an’ hear the peotry of folks talkin. All that’s holy, all that’s what I didn understan. All them things is the good things. ” Rose of Sharon had her dreams and did nothing but wonder about what her reams would bring. She wanted Connie to study at night and work at the ice store. She wanted the best for her with her baby.

She constantly dreamed of them in their nice little house all alone as a family. Rose of Sharon only thought of herself, her baby and her dreams. She gave no interest to the family, contributed nothing but the burden of her dreams and selfishness. Until she experienced the self fulfilling pleasure of helping someone else and realized that sometimes helping someone else can be more rewarding. It is said that this story is fiction, an invention of the human mind, but to a great degree it is true. The lives of so many people were tractored off the land.

Survival forced them to accept their fate and to battle for the survival of the family unit. James N. Vaughan, in “The Commonweal” says, “The story of the disastrous move to the west is a story of death, desertion and hunger. It is the story of …. of whose existence has been destroyed for reasons of which they had but the dimmest understanding. ” In conclusion, as the Joads continued their struggle for survival, they became a living and challenging part of the forgotten American dream. “There is a sense that man can survive in nature if he is, in turn, himself natural. “

Psychoanalyzing Hamlet Essay

The mystery of Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a phantom of literary debate that has haunted readers throughout the centuries. Hamlet is a complete enigma; a puzzle scholars have tried to piece together since his introduction to the literary world. Throughout the course of Hamlet the reader is constantly striving to rationalize Hamlet’s odd behavior, mostly through the play’s written text. In doing so, many readers mistakenly draw their conclusions based on the surface content of Hamlet’s statements and actions.

When drawing into question Hamlet’s actions as well as his reasons for acting, many assume that Hamlet himself is fully aware of his own motives. This assumption in itself produces the very matter in question. Take for example Hamlet’s hesitation to kill the king. Hamlet believes that his desire to kill King Claudius is driven by his fathers’ demand for revenge. If this were true, Hamlet would kill Claudius the moment he has the chance, if not the moment he knows for sure that Claudius is guilty of murdering his father. Why does Hamlet hesitate? One must call into question what Hamlet holds to be true.

If Hamlet’s given motivation for killing the king is legitimate, then Claudius should die at about Act 3. Because Hamlet’s actions do not correspond with his given reasoning, one is forced to look for an alternate explanation for Hamlet’s behavior. In doing so, one will come to the conclusion that Hamlet is driven by forces other than what is obvious to the reader, as well as Hamlet himself. Given this example, one must denounce the assumption that Hamlet is aware of the forces that motivate him, and understand that Hamlet’s true motivation is unconscious This unconscious force is the true reason behind Hamlet’s mysterious behavior.

In naming this force, one must look beneath the surface of Hamlet’s own level of consciousness, and into what Hamlet himself is consciously unaware. The key to understanding Hamlet lies in the realization of the unconscious energy that provokes him to action and inaction. By channeling into Hamlet’s unconscious, providing both Freudian and Jungian psychoanalytical perspectives, Hamlet’s true unconscious motivation will be uncovered, and the mystery of Hamlet will be silenced. The term consciousness refers to “one’s awareness of internal and external stimuli.

The unconscious contains thoughts, memories, and desires that are well below the surface of awareness but that nonetheless exert great influence on behavior. “(Weiten) Jung and Freud agree upon the existence of the unconscious, but their perspectives are vastly different. The core of the Freudian perspective is centered around Hamlet’s relationship with his mother, and the aforementioned example concerning Hamlet and King Claudius. According to the Freudian view, Hamlet is driven by unconscious sexual desire and aggravation.

This sexual aggression is directed towards his mother and Claudius. The overall analysis of Hamlet’s behavior is represented in Jones’ statement, “So far as I can see, there is no escape from the conclusion that the cause of Hamlet’s hesitancy lies in some unconscious source of repugnance to his task” When Hamlet first hears the ghost’s call for revenge, he answers: Haste me to know’t, that I with wings as swift As mediation or the thoughts of love, May sweep to my revenge. (Act I, Sc. 5) Hamlet says this in Act I, yet Claudius is not killed until Act 5.

Surely Hamlet is not “sweeping” to revenge. Hamlet’s inability to act upon the ghost’s request cannot be linked to any uncertainty of the ghost’s claims, for in Act 3 Sc. 2 Hamlet states “I’ll take the ghost’s word for a thousand pound”. A probable conclusion lies in the possibly that Hamlet does not want to kill the king. Take into consideration the relationship between Hamlet and his mother. According to Freud, all boys develop a sense of sexuality at the early age of three. Due to the mother’s proximity to the child, the boys sexuality is directed toward the mother.

The child then develops a hatred for the main opposition for his mother’s affection-his father. The stage of development where a boy falls in love with his mother and wants to kill his father is called the Oedipus Complex. Hamlet exhibits signs of a lingering Oedipus Complex. Oedipus complex disappears when the young boy realizes “the impossibility of fulfilling the sexual wish for the mother”(Hall) The main factor in making the young boys wish impossible is the father. When Hamlet’s father dies, his main opposition disappears. This poses an opportunity for Hamlet to achieve his boyhood dream-to “have” his mother.

As Jones states, “The association of the idea of sexuality with his mother, buried since infancy, can no longer be concealed from his consciousness. ” These feelings are what drive Hamlet to self-repulsion, and ultimately to the question “To be or not to be-that is the question”,(Act3 Sc. 2)where Hamlet questions the worth of his own life. Hamlet’s unconscious desire for his mother is, as Jones says “Stimulated to unconscious activity by someone usurping this place exactly as he had once longed to do” In seeing Claudius take his father’s place by Gertrude’s side, Hamlet unconsciously realizes his own childhood desire to do the same.

In Hamlet’s statement “O, most wicked speed, to post with such dexterity to incestuous sheets” (Act1 Sc. 2) , Hamlet reveals this realization. In his use of the word “incestuous” Hamlet projects his own feelings onto his mother and Claudius. Weiten defines Projection as : “Attributing one’s own thoughts, feelings, and motives to another” By calling the union between Claudius and his mother Gertrude “incestuous”, Hamlet informs the reader of his own imagined union with Gertrude; a union that would be “incestuous”. When Hamlet learns that Claudius killed his father, he cries “O my prophetic soul!

My uncle? “. Jones states “The two recent events, the father’s death and the mother’s second marriage, seemed to the world to have no inner casual relation to each other, but they represented ideas which in Hamlet’s unconscious fantasy had always been closely associated. ” These ideas found immediate expression in Hamlet’s cry. The murder of his father and the marriage of his mother are two concepts Hamlet has connected since boyhood, his “prophetic soul” anticipated Claudius being his father’s killer since Claudius had already married Gertrude.

Hamlet, having unconsciously recognized his sexual desire for his mother by seeing Claudius take the throne, realizes the other half of his lingering Oedipal complex in learning that Claudius killed his father. Claudius, by marrying Gertrude and killing Hamlet’s father, has done exactly what Hamlet has unconsciously longed to do since boyhood. As a result, Hamlet cannot kill Claudius, for Claudius in fact personifies Hamlet. This is the answer to the original question.

Hamlet hesitates to kill the king because “In reality his uncle incorporates the deepest and most buried part of his own personality, so that he cannot kill him without also killing himself”(Jones) Claudius represents Hamlet’s deepest and most secretive desires, and in killing Claudius, Hamlet would be forced to consciously recognize these desires. For this reason, Hamlet hesitates to grant the ghost’s call for revenge. Instead, Hamlet takes advantage of his dual with Laertes to produce the final solution-his own death, as well as the death of Claudius, his other self.

In the opposing view of the Jungian analyst, one would argue that there is much more to Hamlet than unconscious sexual aggression. Sex as a basis for all human behavior is simply too limited a concept; Jung claims that “there has to be more to it”. There are two forces that drive Hamlet. One is his anima, which is the “personification of the feminine nature of a man’s unconscious”(Platania). The second is Hamlet’s desire to reach individuation, which will be discussed later. In reference to the anima, Platania states that “we experience the opposite sex as the lost part of our own selves.

There is in each man a feminine side hidden beneath his masculinity. Ultimately, the anima seeks to gain balance by equaling out a man’s masculine and feminine tendencies. If there is good communication between the individual and the anima, balance can be achieved. But in Hamlet, as in most men, there is an inclination to ignore the voice of the anima. Hamlet is a victim to the age old belief that men cannot be in the least bit feminine. Because of this belief, Hamlet does not allow his feminine side to find conscious expression.

Within Hamlet, there is an unconscious battle between his anima, seeking an outlet for expression, and his conscious desire to be “masculine”. This battle is consciously expressed in the contrast between two of Hamlet’s sayings. In Act I Sc. 2 Hamlet says “frailty, thy name is woman! “, and in Act 2 Sc. 2 he says “what a piece of work is a man”. In contrast, these two statements show Hamlet degrading women-kind while uplifting man-kind. Hamlet is stating externally what is going on internally within his unconscious, namely his battle to repress femininity and promote masculinity.

One must assume that this battle between Hamlet’s anima and his masculinity is of great proportions, for in the process Hamlet develops a hatred for all femininity, namely women. This unconscious hatred is consciously expressed through Hamlet’s treatment of Ophelia. Hamlet at one point loves Ophelia, “I loved you once”(Act3 Sc. 1), but then suddenly loses this love, “You should not have believed me, I loved you not. ” Hamlet’s change of heart is a result of his unconscious inner battle.

While he naturally wants to fall in love with Ophelia, Hamlet’s urge to repress all femininity within himself is so great that he comes to hate the femininity in Ophelia as well. The struggle within Hamlet is proven to be unconscious by Hamlet’s constant change of heart, as signified when Hamlet says “I loved Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers could not with all their quantity of love make up my sum”(Act 5 sc. 1) Hamlet wants to love Ophelia, but is torn between his love and his unconscious desire to hate all femininity. Besides his animus, Hamlet is motivated by his desire to achieve individuation.

Jung says of individuation, “I use the term ‘individuation’ to denote the process by which a person becomes an individual”. Hamlet’s entire life is a journey to becoming an individual. To become an individual, one must become consciously aware of one’s own strengths and limitations. The actual journey to becoming individualized is unconscious, for the individual in not aware that he is on a journey. It is only after the individual has reached individuation that he becomes conscious of all aspects of his character. Before Hamlet can reach individuation, he must first recognize the part of himself that he keeps from consciousness.

The side of Hamlet that Hamlet himself restrains from acknowledging is known as the Shadow self. Platania defines the shadow as “an unconscious part of the personality characterized by traits and attitudes which the conscious tends to reject or ignore. ” The emergence of Hamlet’s shadow self is manifested in his “madness”. While in his state of “madness”, Hamlet says some very honest things about himself such as “I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offenses at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in”(Act3 Sc. With this statement, Hamlet is acknowledging his shadow self; the parts of his character of which he is most ashamed.

Hamlet’s “madness” is the simple conscious recognition of the worst parts of his personality. In becoming consciously aware of his flaws, Hamlet is making the biggest step towards individuation. But remember, Hamlet at this point is still consciously unaware of his journey towards individuation. At this stage, Hamlet is not aware that he is on a journey, and is only semi-consciously aware of the worst parts of his character, and will not become fully aware until his journey is over.

Sadly, Hamlet does not make it to the end of his journey. Along the path to individuation Platania states that ” we split, we resist, we fly from the inevitable terror of our own personal death”. Perhaps this is the reason why Hamlet does not complete his journey. The realization of ones shadow self can be overwhelming, for with the acceptance of the shadow comes the “death” of one’s character. Hamlet does not reach individuation because he dies in his “madness”, having let his evil half tempt him into killing Polonius, Laertes, and Claudius.

Hamlet is not yet strong enough to recognize his shadow self, his “evil side”, and thus lets his darker half send him into death with blood on his hands. Provided both these Freudian and Jungian perspectives, two separate conclusions can be drawn concerning Hamlet’s unconscious motivation. The Freudian view would suggest that Hamlet is unconsciously inspired by repressed sexual desire and aggression. Hamlet, in witnessing King Claudius’ marriage of Gertrude, is reminded of his own boyhood fantasy to marry Gertrude. Likewise, Hamlet, in learning that Claudius killed his father, is reminded of own childhood fantasy to do the same.

The unconscious desires of Hamlet to kill his father and marry his mother is classified as the Oedipus Complex. Hamlet’s Oedipal complex is the reason for his self-reproach and loathing, finding expression due to the stimulation of his repressed desires. Hamlet comes to realize the duality between Claudius and himself, and therefore cannot bring himself to kill Claudius. In recognizing the similarities between himself and Claudius, Hamlet distinguishes the fact that Claudius is a part of his own personality, and that he cannot kill Claudius without killing himself.

As a result Hamlet’s only solution is to die along with Claudius. The Jungian view suggests that there is more to Hamlet than sexual desire. Hamlet is constantly trying to suppress his animus, the feminine side of his personality. In the struggle to do so, he develops an unconscious hatred for all femininity, as expressed in his relationship with Ophelia. The Jungian view also suggests that as a human being, Hamlet is on an unconscious spiritual quest towards individuation- the becoming of an individual. In order to become an individual, Hamlet must accept the darkest parts of his own personality, his Shadow self.

Hamlet’s supposed madness is a manifestation of the shadow self, in which Hamlet begins to accept his darker side. Yet Hamlet proves to be unready for the acceptance of his shadow self, and his dark half drives him to murder three characters, his step-father being one. Thus, by digging into Hamlet’s unconscious, his true unconscious motives have been unveiled. In overlooking the obvious, the true force behind Hamlet’s actions and inaction has been revealed, resulting in a final product that is an extensive comprehension of Hamlet’s character, and is, as Gertrude would say “more matter than art”.

The Island of Dr. Moreau

The Island of Dr. Moreau is a story that questions the ability of men playing God. The balance of nature is put to the ultimate test as a man by the name of Charles Edward Prendick stumbles across an out-of-control experiment that fuses man with animal.

At first glance, this tropical paradise seems idyllic. But deep in the jungles lies a terrifying secret. Moreau and Montgomery have been preforming scientific research on human beings and the experiment goes terribly wrong. They have ignored the most fundamental law of the jungle: survival of the fittest.

The first illustration is a drawing of Doctor Moreau explaining his status on the island to Prendick. Prendick has been finding out things that he shouldn’t have been knowing, and he demands answers. He gets his answers from Dr. Moreau but he hears things that are unimaginable. Moreau explains how he mutates humans into beast-like animals. For the rest of Prendick’s stay on the island he maintains an uneasy feeling and he wishes he never arrived on this island.

The Next sketch illustrates the beasts new thirst for blood, which is a major turning point for the story. Roaming free, these beast-people are highly intelligent with murderous instincts. Their thirst for blood is pacified through a combination of sedatives and shock discipline. But events triggered by Prendick’s unexpected arrival are about to break Moreau’s God- like domination over these resentful creatures.

The last drawing in my visual essay symbolizes a catastrophe. This was a point in the novel were all hell broke loose. Prendick found himself in the middle of a violent eruption between the doctor and his “family.” Moreau, Montgomery, and most of the beasts lost their lives. Prendick himself was even forced to kill. It ended up that he was the last one left on the island except for a few beasts. Prendick later escaped the clutches of his captors and flees the island leaving behind terror, but taking a new life with him.

I chose not to use colour in my drawings because without colour a feeling of coldness is present and I felt Moreau was a cold person. Doctor Moreau was a complex man who felt he had to take the place of God. Unfortunately his scientific ways eventually cost him his life. Moreau thought he was doing the right thing, but by turning animals into humans he turned heaven into hell.

The Importance of Being Earnest

In The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde, humor functions through the use of Characterization and the social satire of the Victorian period. Characterization is the method an author uses to reveal or describe characters and their various personalities. Satire is a literary tone used to ridicule or make fun of human vice or weakness, often with the intent of correcting, or changing, the subject of the satirical attack. These two comical devices are part of the nature of humor, which is the concept that a persons flaws are funny.

An example is if a person was to stand on stage and one was to point out their physical and physiological flaws in front of a big crowd. Of course everyone in the crowd would be laughing because that is the nature of humor. This is what the whole play, The Importance of Being Earnest is based around. The play also works perfectly on how it is setup in the beginning and brought through to become a very funny play in the end. Oscar Wildes use of Characterization is primarily shown through the character Lady Bracknell. Lady Bracknell is a very stubborn character who is a little overprotective of her daughter Gwendolen.

Lady Bracknells character is significantly exposed when she is questioning Jack before he is allowed by her to engage Gwendolen, I feel bound to tell you that you are not down on my list of eligible young menhowever, I am quite ready to enter your name, should your answers be what a really affectionate mother requires. (Pg. 12) By using the characterization of Lady Bracknell, Oscar Wilde creates a larger comedic affect in the play. In The Importance of Being Earnest, Oscar Wilde uses the character Algernon to depict Satire.

Algernon is a very arrogant, self-centered, and hypocritical character who puts blame on anyone but himself. The satirical affect of his character is placed blatantly on his problem of over-eating. If Algernon has eaten something that he was not supposed to, one of his servants takes him right out of trouble by making an excuse. Here Algernon is being hypocritical by telling Jack not to eat a cucumber sandwich and then eating one himself. Please dont touch the cucumber sandwiches. They are ordered specially for Aunt Augusta. [Takes one and eats it.

By using the satire of Algernon, Oscar Wilde constructs a much more comical play. Throughout the play, Oscar Wilde uses Satire and Characterization to make the comical affect work perfectly. The satire in the play would not work correctly if Oscar Wilde did not make the characterization of each character accurate. If Algernon was not arrogant and snobby, then there would be no satire on his part. If Lady Bracknell was not over-protective and mulish, then there would be no satire on her part. The play would not work correctly if these two characters were not portrayed precisely and were not satirical.

Along with satire and characterization, the wit of Oscar Wilde formulates an immense humor affect throughout the play. If Oscar Wilde did not have Algernon over-hear Jack and Gwendolen talking about where Jacks country house is located, then the play would not work out at all. It is Oscar Wildes wit that makes The Importance of Being Earnest work superiorly. In The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde, characterization, satire, and wit correspond perfectly to create an ideal comical affect. This is mainly done through the characters Algernon and Lady Bracknell who through the wit of Oscar Wilde generate the perfect comical play.

Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange

Banned for social reasons in many conditions and in many school systems, Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange first seems to pierce the mind with its bizarre linguistic orgy of debauchery, brutality, and sex, and for some, refuses to affect them above the level of pure voyeurism and bloodlust (either for reveling in it or despising it).

Sadism seems to twist the male protagonist; his mind becomes alive with brutal fantasies whilst listening to seemingly innocuous classical music ( “There were vecks and ptitsas, both young and starry, lying on the ground screaming for mercy, and I was smecking all ver my rot and grinding my boot in their litsos. ”). Many arguments have been made about the censorship of this novella which “glorifies sex and violence;” however, these elements are clearly manipulated for plot development and character development, and ultimately, the story does pose a moral lesson.

By psychological definition, people affected with anti-social disorder (also known as “sociopaths” or “psychopaths”) have incredible manipulation skills; they also fail to “conform to social norms,” are deceitful and aggressive, and seek to destroy with little remorse. Sex, cruelty, and dominance define parts of anti-social behavior, and the odd near-antithesis of a hero, Alex, exists as the beloved psychopath in this cult story.

He vigorously goes on nightly rampages with his band of “droogs” after consuming spiked “moloko,” tearing down what society has morally built and ripping holes into the reasoning of random citizens. Here, Burgess utilizes a unique method of writing by making the readers realize their affection for this teenage criminal, even in the midst of his violent perversions. As stated in many other summaries and analogies of the book, the ethics derived from the book revolve around the topic of choice.

Is a person truly moral if their “benevolence” comes from forced conditioning as opposed to their personal choice for compassion? Does programmed decency towards people ultimately possess superiority over a natural psychosis? It can be argued that programmed decency protects the happiness of the main population, but natural psychosis comes from the choice of he individual, and protects their happiness (if the psychosis served as a source of joy for the individual to begin with, not insanity that brings about manic-depression and whatnot).

Building the character of Alex to fully express the story and the questions the book will eventually pose doubtlessly requires the use of savage raping, theft, and the vicious, bloody beatings administered to many common people; these portions of A Clockwork Orange appointed “taboo” aid in the definition of the brutal Alex, and are necessary to release the topic of choice’s full effect.

A Clockwork Orange often faces criticisms for its supposed blatant celebration of savagery, contempt for authority, and sexual promiscuity by promoting a character who wallows in all of these forbidden acts, but for the many people who gripe about its obscenities fail to see the function in helping the story.

Perhaps the reason many potential readers of this cult favorite shy away from it can be attributed to the Kubrick movie, which was edited down from an X rating to an R, inspired copycat crimes, and was considered visually repulsive for numerous amounts of conservative movie goers; however, the book is protected with a shield of the “nadsat talk,” and emphasizes points in ethics. For the many critics of the novella and the ones who cannot see past the lewd material, please refrain from calling it “trash. ” It is just the opposite.

A Clockwork Orange: Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish

A Clockwork Orange received critical acclaim, made more than thirty million dollars at the box office, and was nominated for various awards; however, this esteemed film was outlawed from the nation of Great Britain in order to curb its immoral content from permeating society. Before all the controversy began, A Clockwork Orange was a novel, written mostly in Russian, by Anthony Burgess. Stanley Kubrick is known to critics as a film maker who probes the dark side of human psyche. Kubrick has also directed films such as Dr. Strangelove, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket.

In each of these movies the udience delves into the evil side of the main character. Great Britain had this film removed from theaters across the country because the government justly illustrated there was a connection between the movie’s graphic violence and an increased crime rate. In Clockwork . . . , there are unquestionably violent and graphic actions. Multiple beatings, a rape, and a murder are performed by the lead characters. These crimes are drug induced. Before going out, the gang goes to the “milk bar” for some “milk plus” which is riddled with amphetamines.

The first violent act came not more than ten minutes into the movie. It was when he boys, led by Alex, beat a helpless wino that asked them for some change. The gang then strode away as if nothing occurred. They struck him repeatedly with canes and they kicked him a few times to the job. Next, the boys went to see a rival gang. This other group was in the middle of raping a woman when Alex and Company came in and intervened. They proceeded to beat the other gang members to a pulp. Then, they went to the house of a writer, to burglarize it.

While there, they brutalized the writer and his wife. Alex raped the wife in front of the writer and then started to sing “Sing’n in the Rain” as he pummeled the old an. Alex’s final act of violence came at the house of a rich health spa owner. The gang went there with the intent of robbing the place, but the woman who lived there was alert to the scheme and called the police. She attacked Alex and he defended himself with a sculpture of male genitalia. The fight ended when Alex crammed the statue in the mouth of the victim, and killed her.

These were some of the more graphic scenes, which aided Britain’s decision to ban the film. Incidents from this film triggered an onslaught of violent crimes across the country of Great Britain. Numerous copycat crimes were reported which imicked to exact detail the grotesque murder and rape scenes found in Clockwork. The most notable copycat crime was in Britain where a woman was raped and beaten by a group of thugs who sang “Sing’n in the Rain” as they carried out their ruthless act of violence. When questioned by police, one of the thugs commented, “I got the idea to beat this b**** from a movie I saw.

The movie turned out to be none other than Clockwork…. Stanley Kubrick has also been responsible for additional films that are bleak, pessimistic, and sometimes terrifying. Not only is this his style, but t is also his means of conveying a very sublime personal message. Kubrick believes that contemporary society is a very tragic and violent place. This message comes across very clearly in Clockwork Orange. It is through this film that Kubrick explores the nature of violent crime and in doing so brilliantly satirizes the deterioration of society and its values.

Although Kubrick’s message may be sincere, his methods exploit the intentions of video imagery and demean his viewing audience. Films of this nature have an incredible power to induce its viewers into committing violent actions. This theory is not ingenuous and has been supported by many prominent members of the psychological community. For this reason, I believe the film needs to be formally banned. Although it played to sellout crowds in London for nearly a year, it introduced weak moral standards and a glorification of violence to the public.

This film was best received by the college aged youths of Great Britain. This is a very impressionable time in the life of a person and could influence them into justifying violence and the abuse of women. The British government made the right decision in banning the movie and protecting he ailing moral standards of Great Britain. As stated previously, many scholars believe that A Clockwork Orange was responsible for a wave of copycat crimes and an increase in the crime rate.

This theory can be supported by the fact that in the viewing area where Clockwork was shown there was a dramatic increase in crimes directly related to scenes from the movie. Even if the percentage of the increase in crime was minuscule, this does not underscore the value in banning the film. Does not saving just one life justify banning the content of this heinous video? I wholeheartedly believe the answer to this question is yes. Human life is worth much more than one man’s sarcastic dissertation on violent crime.

What will be next–a young girl brutally raped and killed, an innocent child tortured by ruthless villains, and old man shot down in cold blood? One would think a society as educated as ours would recognize the danger in glorifying these films of violence and gore. Our children have a hard enough time determining right from wrong. Movies such as Clockwork… only add to the moral decay of our society. If society is to work toward the esteemed goal of building a kinder, gentler nation, censorship must play a key role in our dauntless journey.

Where Connotations Serve to Clarify

Julian Marias, a Spanish philosopher proves to be no exception to the numerous writers attempting to describe Californias effect on both visitors and residents alike almost predictably invoking the idea of paradise in their evaluation. He confirms California as a paradise while at the same time exploring the reflective meaning of paradise itself in human consciousness.

Marias considers California to be a vision of paradise in respect to his diverse interpretations of the word paradise. In other words, Marias attempts to generate a critical meditation allowed the word paradise to have various connotation from the Garden of Eden to Paradise Lost, which help to strengthen his reasons for California to be paradise. Marias defines Paradise as a garden. In other words, the article attempts to illustrate Paradise as the Garden of Eden.

If it is true, for instance, that even in the wildest areas, where nature has taken charge of everything, there is a peculiar composition of forms,kosmosthat is reminiscent of a garden, hen that is establishing Marias systematic view on how California is not a mere paradise but also having a bearing to the Garden of Eden. Furthermore, since there are wild, untrammeled, and rugged forest lands in the North Atlantic states; deserts in Arizona and New Mexico. California is another matter, truly an oasis, then once again we can see an image of California as being a desert garden.

There are numerous accounts of examples across the pages that seem to expose a penetrating contemplation on the authors part when viewing California as the Garden of Eden. While this summation serves to demonstrate how California is a garden, Marias critical meditation continues by claiming California to be “Paradise Lost. ” According to the article California is seen as “Paradise Lost. ”

In other words, Marias differentiates East Los Angeles and the downtown center of Los Angeles as being quite the opposite description from Paradise: “Paradise Lost. If it is true, for example, that even in the least prosperous or well-to-do sections which are, if one looks carefully, very sordid and depressingly ugly (East Los Angeles), lend to those shoddy remnants of Paradise, hen that is unveiling another of Marias critical approaches to how California can be seen as Paradise Lost. Moreover, since “where there is no Paradise at all is in the old town because there the city is decaying under the sordidness that crept over it; it has fallen away,” then once more Marias critical examination implements a comparison between Paradise and Paradise Lost to further iterate his analysis of Paradise.

In the time that this summation serves as another example of the authors applied logical concepts for California to be perceived as Paradise Lost, the word paradise functions also as the absence of limitation due to Marias further critical meditation of paradise. Marias acknowledges paradise as the absence of limitation. In other words, Marias interprets paradise as having no limits only mere conditions by taking a more critical perspective.

If it is true, in fact, that “it cannot obtain where nature is rugged, violent, or immoderate, where there is an everyday battle against inclemency,” then that is saying something about the conditions that are set by man in order to have paradise. In addition, since California “is the place where a well-high miraculous technology, an unprecedented amount of wealth, and the perfect structuring of mans cities have together achieved the height of pure implausibility,” then it is evident of the outcomes of a paradise with no limits.

During the time that this analysis acts as an example of how Marias theory of knowledge seems to manifest paradise as limitless, however he furthers his critical meditation to have paradise serving as a mere fantasy. Marias asserts California as paradise. In other words, Marias critical meditation serves to have a more critical angle by submitting California as an illusionary place. If it is true, specifically, that “the first stage remains so natural, so alive, and so powerful that perhaps the oil wells therefore spring up from a foreground of blazing flowers,” then that is saying something of how California is deficient of the real world.

Moreover, since “nearby is a cemetery for dogs, with small monuments and even a Conestoga wagon,” then once again we get the impression that California being a plaything; a childs tale. There are many more examples across the pages that seem to reiterate Californias characterization as a fable on account of the authors further critical thinking on the matter of California as paradise. All the while this summation serves to illustrate how California is no more then a mere illusion, an illusion created by man corresponding to Marias systematic view.

The author implies that California is where the hand of man is felt close by. In other words, the manifestation of California as paradise is the fabrication by mans instruction and imagination. If it is true, for instance, that “White stucco houses, often capriciously incongruous, that look like toys or, better, like a stage setting,” then that is saying something of mans instruction to stage the setting in order to have a deceptive appearance.

What’s more, since “a whole family of deer may start up from among them, and at dusk there is an air of mystery that descends; but it is a literary mystery, out of a childs book,” then once again we can see how mans imagination serves to harvest a childs tale. These examples make it obvious of how mans imagination plays a major role into why they perceive California as paradise. Thus, because of Marias extensive critical meditation of why she considers California to be Paradise accredited the word paradise to serve as significant connotations.

The Glass Menagerie: A Study in Symbolism

In the drama, The Glass Menagerie (1945), Tennessee Williams reflects upon personal experiences he and his family encountered during the Depression of the 1930s. As a lower class family, the characters are placed in the slums of St. Louis in 1935. The protagonist, Tom Wingfield, is the narrator and Williams surrogate. Living with his mother and sister, Tom supports them by working in a shoe manufacturing warehouse. He should feel lucky to have this job; however, he despises his work and dreams of leaving to become a Merchant Marine.

Unhappy with what life has dealt him, Tom strives for adventure and longs to turn his back on his responsibilities. His mother, Amanda Wingfield, abandoned by her husband almost sixteen years ago, tries to keep her family together through tough times. Although her love and hopes for her children are sincere, her overbearing and outspoken nature often hurts them. Laura, Toms sister, suffers from neuroses. She has trouble separating fantasy from reality. Without the ability to function in the outside world, Laura becomes a liability to both Tom and Amanda.

The gentleman caller, Jim OConnor, is a friend of Toms from the warehouse. He is an ambitious young man, who strives for the American Dream through hard work and optimism. Jim offers the Wingfields hope for the future: Tom: He is the most realistic character in the play, being an emissary from a world of reality that we were somehow set apart from. But since I have a poets weakness for symbols, I am using this character also as a symbol; he is the long- delayed but always expected something that we live for (23).

Williams gives the reader many emblems throughout the play; there are three of them are especially interesting. The unicorn symbolizes Lauras uniqueness, the picture of Mr. Wingfield represents his strong influence on his deserted family, and Malvolios coffin trick signifies Toms suffocating lifestyle. The unicorn is a symbolic representation of ways that Laura is unique or unusual. The first facet of the unicorn, its horn, refers to ways that Laura is an unusual person, such as in her may escape mechanisms. Lauras escape devices include her glass menagerie, listening to records on the Victrola, and visiting the park and zoo.

Laura identifies with her glass menagerie because she has trouble identifying with the real world, the pieces are small and delicate, just as she is. The Victrola is a reminder of Mr. Wingfield; Laura often plays records to avoid the present and thinks pleasantly about the times she had with her father. When Laura stopped going to Rubicams Business College, she would spend many of her days at the zoo or park. She was a nature lover and thought of these places as very peaceful and beautiful, a sharp contrast to her real life. The fragility of the unicorn, its second part, recalls Lauras delicate psychological condition.

Lauras emotional problems caused many difficulties in her life. While in high school, Laura was very self-conscious about the brace she had to wear, as evidenced in the following passage: Laura: I had that brace on my leg — it clumped so loud! Jim: I never heard any clumping. Laura: To me it sounded like — thunder! Jim: Well, well, well, I never even noticed. Laura: And everybody was seated before I came in. I had to walk in front of all those people. My seat was in the back row. I had to go clumping all the way up the aisle with everyone watching!

Jim: You shouldnt have been self-conscious. Laura: I know, but I was (93). Laura suffered all the way through high school. Unfortunately, she scored poorly on her final examinations and dropped out of school. After such a failure, her fragile self-esteem dropped from low to almost non-existent, and she could not face going back. Six years later, with pressure from her mother, Laura took another stab at education. She enrolled at Rubicams Business College. However, Laura only made it to the first test. As the test began, she vomited on the floor and had to be carried to the bathroom.

Laura never returned to school, and once again her fragile emotions got the best of her. The transparency of the unicorn, its final facet, represents the fact that Lauras problems are easily apparent to anyone who cares to notice them. This is best seen through Jims evaluation of her: Jim: You know what I judge to be the trouble with you? Inferiority complex! Yep — thats what I judge to be your principal trouble. A lack of confidence in yourself as a person. You dont have the proper amount of faith in yourself. Im basing that fact on a number of your remarks and also on certain observations Ive made (98-9).

Jim, practically a stranger, was able to see right through Laura and recognize her glaring psychological problems. Although the unicorn is the most famous symbol of the play, the picture of Mr. Wingfield strikes the reader as thought-provoking, also. The picture of Mr. Wingfield is an emblem of his pervasive influence on Amanda, Laura, and Tom. First, the largeness of the portrait suggests Mr. Wingfields strong hold on Laura, even though he has been gone nearly sixteen years. The “larger-than-life size photograph” looms over the family as a haunting reminder of him (23). This especially torments Laura, who hopes someday he will return.

This is evident in her playing of the Victrola. The Victrola brings back pleasant memories of her father; she remembers when times were good and wishes things could be like that again. Second, the grin on Mr. Wingfields face reminds Amanda of the effect his personality has had on her life. Mr. Wingfields grin and good looks are what first attracted Amanda to him. He was full of charisma and won Amandas heart through physical attraction, as Amanda declares: “One thing your father had plenty of — was charm! ” (36). Amanda remembers the pleasant times they shared and, as a romantic, still hopes that he will return.

However, more realistic in her situation, Amanda looks at the grin as a painful reminder of his mischievous and devious manner that led to him leaving. The grin signifies Mr. Wingfield laughing at them by abandoning them. This is apparent when Tom states: “The last we heard of him was a picture postcard from Mazatlan, on the Pacific coast of Mexico, containing a message of two words: Hello — Goodbye! and no address” (23). Finally, Mr. Wingfields Doughboy uniform mirrors Toms adventurous aspirations to become a Merchant Marine. Tom longs to break free of his boring life and satisfy his craving for adventure.

He rationalizes his plans to abandon his family through heredity: “Im like my father. The bastard son of a bastard! ” (80). Just as the picture of Mr. Wingfield, Malvolios coffin trick represents some more of the great symbolism used throughout the play. Malvolios coffin trick is a token of Toms suffocating lifestyle. The first aspect, Malvolios similarities with Tom, refers to each of their life-threatening situations. Malvolio faces literal death by suffocation if he does not successfully escape the coffin. Conversely, Tom faces figurative death by emotional and spiritual suffocation if he does not find a way out of his present situation.

The coffin, the second aspect, symbolizes the lifestyle from which Tom is striving to escape. Tom looks at his life as a “two-by-four situation” (45). He fears living the next fifty-five years of his life working in the basement of a warehouse, performing mundane tasks, and making a mere sixty-five dollars a month. Although he loves his family, he cannot tolerate the thought of spending the rest of his life in a cramped apartment, supporting his family, living with the constant worry of Lauras well-being, and putting up with his mothers frequent nagging.

The nails of the coffin, its final facet, represent Laura and Amanda. In his trick, Malvolio escapes from the coffin without disturbing any of the nails; however, Tom knows that that will be impossible for him: “You know it dont take much intelligence to get yourself into a nailed up coffin, Laura. But who in hell ever got himself out of one without removing one nail? ” (45). Tom is suffocating in his own figurative coffin, but for him to escape he must disturb Laura and Amanda. Clearly, Malvolios escape from the coffin was much easier than Toms flight from his lifestyle will be.

In conclusion, Williams play, through well-written symbolism, offers its readers many emblems to study, including the unicorn, the picture of Mr. Wingfield, and Malvolios coffin trick. This drama teaches the reader about the struggles of the Depression and the effects it had on the people who lived through it. Like Tom, Williams suffered with his own suffocating lifestyle, until he finally escaped to become a playwright. When Williams left home, his sister, Rose (Laura), was devastated. Her neuroses worsened to psychoses, and at age 27 she was lobotomized, which left her a vegetable for the rest of her life.

However, unlike his father (Mr. Wingfield), Williams felt much guilt for leaving his family and never completely forgave himself for what happened to Rose. Although what happened to Rose is very tragic, I feel it is hard to blame Williams. Unfortunately, after he left, surgeons performed a lobotomy on her, but if he would have stayed, it would have been as if he was lobotomizing himself. I feel that The Glass Menagerie was a wonderful play. With so many tokens throughout the play, each one with many facets, it was truly fascinating to analyze and discuss them.

Pride and Prejudice – Jane Austen

Jane Austen was a child of the Enlightenment, an age when reason was valued while many romantic traditions still lingered on in society. [* By the way the romantic period follows the Enlightenment (a reaction)] As one of the educated and intelligent women emerging from this era, Austen has used the character of Elizabeth Bennet to epitomise the harmonious balance between reason and emotion in a woman, making her a truly admirable and attractive character.

Elizabeth’s strength of character is emphasised by its contrast with the weak, nave acceptance of Jane’s, the instability and excess of Mrs Bennet’s and the blind, weak-willed following of Kitty’s. Her strength is also shown in her rejections of the proposals of Mr Collins and Darcy. Unlike her mother, she does not base her choice of lovers on the financial security they will give her, and has the strength to reject them.

This is especially evident in her rejection of Darcy’s initial proposal, when she displays a passionate strength in her anger due to her belief that he has wilfully prevented Jane and Bingley’s marriage and wronged Wickham by refusing to grant him the property that the old Mr Darcy bequeathed him. In both cases, the suitor is self-assured that his suit will be accepted, and as a result Elizabeth’s rejections are amplified by the size of the blows that their egos receive. In Rosings, she does not let Lady Catherine tyrannise her as “the mere satellites of money and rank, she thought she could witness without trepidation.

The Lucases and Collinses are submissive to Lady Catherine, with Maria being “frightened almost out of her senses”, and it is probable that society as a whole behaves likewise, as Elizabeth suspects she is “the first creature who had ever dared to trifle with such dignified impertinence”. She is again presented as a rebel against ideas of class when Lady Catherine pays a visit to her to ensure that she does not marry Darcy and Elizabeth refuses to accept the idea that Pemberley will be “polluted” by her presence.

Elizabeth also expresses her rebellion against society by taking little trouble to become accomplished, as young ladies were expected to then. She devotes little time to becoming skilled at playing the piano, and has not learnt drawing at all. Elizabeth’s intelligence reveals her to be one of the few reasoning characters of the novel, a sensible individual in a society largely composed of fools. In this way, this attribute was less a product of the civilisation of her immediate society than of the civilisation of the Enlightenment which emphasised the importance of reason in life and served to educate Elizabeth.

As the daughter of Mr Bennet, her view of society is a cynical, ironic one, heightened by the presence of brainless family members and neighbours. It is her sense of irony which enables her to survive in such a society, as she enjoys the humour of the ridiculous pomposity of Mr Collins as her father does. [I disagree with the introduction here. A sense of irony gives Mr Bennet the ability to survive a disastrous marriage, but Elizabeth does not share such emotional detachment — she is “engag”.

However, she does not employ as insulting a tone as her father does, but chooses to define it as “impertinence”. After Darcy’s proposal is accepted, Darcy tells her that one of the reasons why he fell in love with her was “the liveliness of your mind”, showing that her intelligence adds to her charms as she uses it in the form of [gd. ] wit rather than cold cynicism. She enjoys studying characters, and is able to tell Bingley, “I understand you perfectly.

The relative objectiveness of her views of characters is emphasised when compared with people like Jane, who assumes that all people are good-hearted, and Mr Collins, who is automatically swayed to the favour of people of noble birth. Elizabeth’s subjective first impressions of Darcy and Wickham show that she is human and can make mistakes in this field; but the fact that she can apply reason after her initial outrage on reading Darcy’s letter demonstrates her ability to face truths and change her mind rationally.

She is self-aware, unlike characters such as Mr Collins who do not realise their own absurdity, and can criticise herself, such as when she is “enraged with herself for being so silly” for hoping that Darcy still loves her, or even mock herself, as when she remarks on the potential [gd. ] misfortune that she may “find a man agreeable whom one is determined to hate! ” The existence of contrasting characters in Pride and Prejudice displays the fact that Elizabeth has a balance between the cold knowledge of Mary and the wild emotion of Lydia.

Mr Bennet brands both Lydia and Mary as silly, but he respects Elizabeth as she can use reason to apply her knowledge and to curb her emotion. The severe practicality of Charlotte Lucas, seen in her acceptance of Mr Collins’ proposal which Elizabeth had refused, highlights the fact that although Elizabeth is not romantic to the point of ignoring reality, she is not overly pragmatic either, and understands the importance of love and emotion in life. [Moral principle, too: marriage for love. ]

However, Elizabeth also possesses qualities which make her attractive in a traditional feminine way. She is undoubtedly pretty, being said to be “equally next to Jane in birth and beauty”. After Darcy’s initial rejection to dance with her, it is her “fine eyes” that begin to intrigue him. Despite her cynicism towards humanity, she is not as passive towards the silliness of her family members’ actions as Mr Bennet, being embarrassed at the Netherfield ball [exactly — she is not detached like Mr B. all and trying to prevent Lydia from gonig to Brighton.

After marriage, she is able to reform Kitty by bringing her to live with her so that she becomes, “by proper attention and management, less irritable, less ignorant, and less insipid. ” Her intimate relationship with Jane is touching, as they confide in each other and give each other advice. It reveals Elizabeth’s capacity for sympathy, as seen in the vehemence of her accusation of Darcy for deliberately keeping Jane and Bingley apart. Darcy cites her “affectionate behaviour to Jane”.

Their sisterly relationship is seen as all the more valuable when contrasted with that of Kitty and Lydia, where Lydia simply encourages Kitty in foolishness and is insensitive to her when she is [gd. ] upset. Her high spirits, which can be construed as flirtatious, also attract Darcy to her, as illustrated by her demand that he help to sustain a conversation between them when they dance together at the Netherfield ball. Her character is in no way unfeminine, and it is no wonder that Darcy is attracted to her after he comes to know and understand her.

From this, we can see that Austen has managed to create her ideal woman in Elizabeth. Her strength and intelligence are qualities that make her respectable and admirable to any man or woman, but the fact that she possesses a softer, feminine side makes her genuinely attractive in the eyes of the reader, and helps us to better appreciate her other qualities. With these attributes, in accordance with the intellectual atmosphere of the Enlightenment, we can say that such a character is the finest product of her civilisation.

The Centaur by John Updike

John Updike, unlike many of today’s authors, wrote about what he knew and life experiences. Some people may say that this would make his writings boring or uninteresting. The way he writes, however, makes it applicable to almost everyone’s life. When John Updike was little he grew up in a small town in Pennsylvania and later moved to a small farm a couple miles away. He ended up going to Harvard university on a full ride scholarship. Updike wrote many books on his childhood.

He wrote the short story Flight based on his early childhood in Shillington, a small town in Pennsylvania. He wrote On the Farm based on his older childhood life, on small farm in Plowsville Pennsylvania. He also wrote the novel The Centuar based on his college life at Harvard. Most authors are known to be an ” Inch deep and a mile wide”, but Updike has lived through or experienced everything that he based his books on. During the late 1950’s to early 1960’s John Updike was said to have faced a “Crisis of faith prompted by his conciousness of death’s inevitability. ( 1 ,pg 2051)

Because of this, John Updike started writing many short stories and novels about theological and religious issues. His books A Month of Sundays, Roger’s Version, and S actually form an updated ersion of Scarlet Letter. He was often referred to as the ” late twentieth century Hawthorne. “(1, pg2051) He also wrote The After Life which tells the life of a man’s continuation of life and journey to death. Another well book that he wrote on religion is Toward the End of Time which tells of a man’s life mounting to his death.

Some people may say these writings sound morbid and uninteresting, but most people wonder about religion and death, but are to embarrassed to talk about it. That’s one reason why Updike’s works are so popular, these books talk about what people wonder but don’t want to ask. Along with John Updike writing on experience and religious views, he also wrote on topics that interested the people. He wrote what some people have called the ” Rabbit Series”( 5-a) which tells of a man who is always trying to adapt to a continuously changing world and always searching for something more.

Adapting to the constantly changing society is something that people are forced to deal with everyday. Also people are always searching for something new and exciting , so people are interested in these books they pertain to there lives. Updike also wrote on the popular subject of marriage and realationships. He wrote many books that deal with the problems and stresses in relationships and marriages. These books are so popular because people deal with these types of problems everyday and are looking for any help that they can get.

Some of the books that talk about relationships and marriages are Marry Me, Museums and Woman, and Problems. Lastly, John Updike wrote numerous short stories and poems that deal with with sex and intercourse. His book Facing Nature with these types of poems. Whether people like it or not, it’s very true that people find anything that deals with sex is very entertaining. People, young and old, ove to talk and read about sex. Because of the many great writings John Updike has created, he has received many awards.

To start off his long list of awards; In 1964 he was awarded a honorary doctoral degree from Ursinsus college. In 1967 Moravian college also awarded him a honorary doctoral degree. In 1974 Lafayette college he was awarded, again, the honorary doctoral degree. In 1982 was the last time he was awarded the honorary doctoral degree, which was from Albright college. In 1992 he was awarded the Doctors of Letters from Harvard University. In 1995 he was awarded the French rank “Commanduer de L’Orde des Artset Letteres” (2, pg 5) , also in the same year the book Rabbit at Rest won the Howells medal by the American Acadamy for arts and letters.

In 1996 his novel In the Beauty of Lilies won the Ambassader book award. In 1997 he was awarded The Champion award from Jesuit magazine “America” for ” cultural contributions as a Christian writer. “(2,pg 5) In 1998 John Updike won Harvard’s first arts medal, the Thomas Cooper Library Medal by the University of South Carolina, and he was also awarded the national book foundation medal for ” contributing so many great American stories. “

A Book Review on The Unbearable Lightness of Being

This International Bestseller is about a young woman in love with a man torn between his love for her and his incorrigible womanizing; one of his mistresses and her humble faithful lover  these are the two couples whose story is told in this masterful novel. In a world in which lives are shaped by irrevocable choices and by fortuitous events, a world in which everything occurs but once, existence seems to lose its substance, its weight. Hence, we feel the unbearable lightness of being not only as the consequence of our private actions, but also in the public sphere, and the two inevitably intertwine.

This novel revolves around the idea of eternal return as a perspective from which things appear other than as we know them: without mitigating circumstance of their transitory nature. Nietzsche says that a life that is only lived once means nothing. Nietzsche called the idea of eternal return the heaviest of burdens. But is lightness splendid and heaviness deplorable? The heaviest of burdens sinks us, crushes us, and pins us to the ground. But in the love poetry of every age, the woman longs to be weighed down by the mans body.

A woman would rather be burdened by the pains a man brings her than to live without any burden at all due to the absence of love. The heaviest of burdens is an image of lifes most intense fulfillment. The heavier the burden, the closer our lives come to the earth, the more real and truthful they become. Having completely no burden would be considered an illusion if ever it is at all possible. The absolute absence of burden causes man to be lighter than air, take leave of the earth, and become only half real, his movements are free as they are insignificant. What is the use of a life without any burdens and trials to learn from?

It is through these burdens that we shall find out purpose in life. Life is a sketch. We do not have basis from which to compare situations because we only live once. A doctor, a divorcee, and a womanizer, Tomas feared and desired women that he kept erotic friendships to exclude love from his life. He abided by the rule of threes: seeing a woman in three consecutive times, or maintaining relationships over the years but making sure that rendezvous are three weeks apart. If Tomas violates this, his mistresses would assume inferior status and demand more from him.

Tomas is an insomniac who could not sleep beside another person. After making love with one of his mistresses, he would bring her back home (if they were at Tomas flat) or he would go back home (if they were in the mistress home). A waitress in a hotel restaurant in a small Czech town. Tereza came to Prague to escape her mothers world. Her mother was beautiful and a lot of men courted her. Consequently, she was impregnated by the most manly of her suitors. She eventually regretted this because the man turned out to by a lazy sloth. She blamed Tereza for this.

Tereza always thought that her body was special and that that is not the same for anybody elses body. Hence, there is no duality of soul and body (soul and body can never be separated). However, her mother thought otherwise. Her mother thought that each and every body is the same. Tomas favorite lover, Sabina is a painter from Geneva. With her, Tomas could fulfill his fantasies. Together, they enjoyed erotic rendezvous each of which had been an opportunity to think up some new little vice and some new little game they would play. *Sabina was only mentioned in three chapters.

This signifies that her life was very light and is not worth mentioning; did not make any impression on anybodys life. The story is set in a Prague. The main character, Tomas, lives in a flat across a courtyard at the opposite walls. The setting shifts from Prague to a small Czech provincial town where Tomas and Tereza, his love interest, met. A part of this beautiful Tomas had met Tereza in a hotel restaurant where she worked located in a small Czech town. They had spent scarcely an hour together. Ten days later, Tereza paid Tomas a visit in Prague.

When Tereza left for Prague, she phoned Tomas to pick her up. She brought her heavy luggage into Tomas flat (indicating that Tereza would be a burden to him). Tomas checked her into a small hotel where she stayed during her visit. Eventually, they made love in Tomas flat and surprisingly, Tomas slept with Tereza beside her which he usually cant do with her other lovers. He felt love for Tereza and so they got married. It was w whirlwind romance between them but Tomas realized that he couldnt live without her and that he wanted to die beside her. Despite of this, Tomas continued his erotic friendships.

He then concluded that love does not make itself felt in the desire of copulation (a desire that extends to numerous women) but in the desire of shared sleep (a desire that is limited only to one woman). Tereza knew all along that Tomas was being unfaithful but this did not stop her from loving Tomas. His unfaithfulness lead Tereza to believe that her body was no different compared to those of Tomas mistresses (this was manifested in Terezas dreams). Tomas, even though he desired women, felt that he could not make love with infidelities. To Tomas, being intoxicated was being faithful to Tereza.

One of Tomas lovers was Sabina, a painter from Geneva. Sabina and Tomas understood each other. Although Sabina knew that all she could ever be to Tomas was a mistress, they shared a special relationship. They could go on erotic rendezvous filled with games and adventures and yet they could make sweet love without saying a word and feel as if they are the last two people on earth. But with her, Tomas felt this certain emptiness within him unlike how he felt with Tereza. With Sabina, everything was there for the taking; nothing about her was a burden. This made her very light.

His life with her had no meaning and burden at all. Without that certain feeling of burden, Tomas felt he really didnt love Sabina. Sabina and Franz were lovers who did not understand each other. When they would sit down and talk about their own lives and share it with each other, he would listen eagerly to the story of her life and she would be equally eager to hear the story of his, but although they had a clear understanding of the logical meaning of the words they exchanged, they failed to hear the semantic susurrus of the river flowing through them.

They say that it is possible for one to hear what you are saying without really listening to a word youre saying. When Tomas and Tereza moved to Zurich, Sabina decided to visit Tomas since she was just in Geneva where she had emigrated. Tomas couldnt resist visiting Sabina in her hotel room so he did. When they saw each other, they made love like they have never made love before. But right after, Tomas left and went back to his wife. Despite of all of Tomas infidelities, Tereza did everything she could to win Tomas and have him all to herself.

Her unending patience made Tomas realize hw important Tereza is to him and so Tomas learned his lesson well and realized that the burden of having Tereza was indeed the one element that has been missing his life: love. Man VS Man: Fidelity gave unity to lives that would otherwise splinter into thousands of split-second impressions. Betrayal means breaking ranks and going off into the unknown. Through this notion of fidelity and betrayal a conflict arises between Franz and Sabina. Franz wanted fidelity. Sabina loved Betrayal (her life was a succession of betrayals).

Franz loves music and considers it intoxicating while for Sabina music is noise. Lightness and Darkness: For Sabina, living meant seeing. Seeing is limited by strong light and total darkness. She hated both (both extremities). For Franz, lights means source of light itself like the light that comes from a light bulb or the sun. He loved lightness and darkness. To him, darkness was pure, perfect. Franz would always close his eyes whenever he penetrated Sabina. This (to Franz) would indicate that he was taking pleasure in it. To Sabina, she felt a disagreement with what she saw; for her, Franz refused to see and appreciate her.

Living in truth: For Sabina, living in truth was possible but only way from the public (once someone keeps an eye on you, nothing you do would seem truthful). Being around the public eye, for her meant living in lies. For Franz, living in truth meant breaking down barriers between a public and private life where there are no secrets. Man VS Man: Another conflict arises between Tomas and Tereza because of Tomas infidelities. All throughout the story, Tereza struggles to win Tomas heart completely without having to share it with anyone else.

Man VS Himself: In this story, Tomas struggles to overcome his fear and desire of women, which results this continuous infidelities. Man VS. Society: Here, conflict arises between Sabina and her protest against the scrutiny of the society around he. She would rather live her life as privately as possible without being watched and judged by society. To her, a life out for the public to see is a life full of lies. She feels that nothing she does would seem truthful if she laid her life out for the public to see. The way the contrasting points of lightness and weight were shown in this bestseller is very intriguing.

All throughout the story, weight is preferred over lightness. Tomas, although he knew that Tereza was going to be a burden, still chose to take her in. Sabina, whose life was considered light, was only mentioned in a few chapters, which gives the reader the impression that her life didnt really make such a big effect on anybodys life. Ive always felt that a burden in life must be worked to ones advantage and strength and not to ones disadvantage and weakness. It is through these burdens that we learn to walk and become stronger. Without these, burdens, how else can we decide our faith and what path to choose?

I would rather live a life that offers obstacles and burdens than live one that has no obstacle at all so I could find what my purpose in life is, Otherwise, for what purpose would my life serve? For me, the heaviest of burdens is not knowing what ones purpose in life is. This burden alone will teach us to search fro that purpose. Through this search, we shall discover new things and new lessons and eventually find that purpose. In this search, things will not be easy for us. We will encounter other burdens wherein we shall encounter and fight our own demons in search of light and meaning.

Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men: Character Study

The American Novelist, John Steinbeck was a powerful writer of dramatic stories about good versus bad. His own views on writing were that not only should a writer make the story sound good but also the story written should teach a lesson. In fact, Steinbeck focused many of his novels, not on average literary themes rather he tended to relay messages about the many hard truths of life in The United States. Upon winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1962 the Swedish academy introduced him by saying “He had no mind to be an unoffending comforter and entertainer.

Instead, the topics he chose were serious and enunciatory” This serious focus was not exempt from his two works “The Grapes of Wrath” and “Of Mice and Men”. “The Grapes of Wrath” has been recognized by many as “the greatest novel in American History” and it remains among the archetypes of American culture. Although “Of Mice and Men” may not have received as much fanfare as the other it is still a great classic that was recently made into a motion picture. The focus of “The Grapes of Wrath” Is one family, the Joads, who has been kicked off their Oklahoma farm and forced to move to California to look for work.

The story has historical significance as it is true that many families were forced, in the same way as the Joads, to leave their homes to look for work during the depression. It is in this fact that one can see how Steinbeck’s intention in “The grapes of Wrath” was to depict the hardships people went through during an actual event in American history. Perhaps the most solemn message in this novel was the poor treatment of the dispossessed families as they reached California.

In “Of Mice and Men” the reader is presented with a story that takes place in the same setting of “The Grapes of Wrath” This story etails the hardships of two traveling companions while they are working at a ranch in California. The common thread between these two novels is not necessarily the plot or the setting rather, it is the way in which Steinbeck relays his message. That is to say that, although both novels carry different story lines they both portray hard truths about human suffering. Steinbeck reveals these truths through his depiction of characters.

In each story it seems that the characters were crafted by Steinbeck in a bias manner so as to emphasize the overall message of the book. It is quite obvious that all of Steinbeck’s characters are either good or bad. Steinbeck himself said “as with all retold tales that are in people’s heart’s there are only good and bad things and black and white things and no in-between anywhere” In both novels the dispossessed characters are good and well intentioned and the wealthy people are brutal and mean.

This of course is done to make the situation seem all that more hard on the dispossessed characters. In “The Grapes of Wrath” the character of young Tom Joad is a prime example of how bias Steinbeck’s portrayal was. With a quick glance at the history of Tom’s life one would say that he is not really the good guy. Yet after reading “The Grapes of Wrath” the reader feels sorry for Tom and all of his faults are justified because of his situation.

Likewise, the characters of Ma and the preacher, Jim Casey do not fit their traditional roles but, again, their actions are justified by Steinbeck. In the same way, the book “Of Mice and Men” portrays two men (Lennie and George) running from the law, looking for work. Lennie is a mentally handicap person who brings most of the trouble to he pair. Yet, despite all of his downsides the reader is made to feel sorry for him. George is portrayed in a good way until the end of the book where he kills Lennie, and even then the reader feels for George because of the predicament he is in.

The rest of the characters in both novels are the rich and powerful. In “The grapes of Wrath” these rich people were not even given names and Steinbeck’s dislike for them is obvious. This fact truly illustrates the message he is trying to get across . In “Of mice and Men” the boss and his son Curley are portrayed as the bad guys. Note: This is only my introduction unfortunately due to some extenuating circumstances I have not had enough time to do a complete rough draft. My plan is to characterize the characters in light of Steinbeck’s bias portrayals and illustrate how the technique he used was effective in getting his point across.

My next four points or paragraphs will be: 1. ) Description of Tom Joad how he was bad yet good in the sense that his actions were bad but his cause was for the better. 2. ) Description of Ma and the preacher, how they were characterized out of their traditional roles and how their straying form the norm was ustified and helped relay to the reader the desperation of the family’s situation. 3. ) The roles of Lennie and George, how they were outcasts and Lennie killed a women yet the reader felt sorry for them both because they were on the opposite side of a greater injustice. 4. ) Portrait of the rich and powerful. How Steinbeck’s ignorance of not giving them names proved he did not like them. Every time they came up in the story they were doing something bad. And my conclusion. Hopefully I will get a chance to see you today, I have third period prep so I will look for you and we could chat. Thanx.

“Cathedral” by Raymond Carver and “Girls at War” by Chinua Achebe

In the short stories “Cathedral” by Raymond Carver and “Girls at War” by Chinua Achebe, the theme of blindness is prevalent. In “The Cathedral” Robert, the man who comes to visit, is physically blind, but in his mind, he sees things more clearly than most others do. His “mental-vision” is seen when he travels to his ex-employee’s house to visit for a couple days. Robert knows the implications of the situation he is putting himself in. The husband, who is the narrator, could be jealous and this whole trip could turn out adversely for the blind man.

The husband could be onchalant about Robert’s knowledge of his wife and making the trip all the worth while. Robert is not the only one in the story to have vision. When the husband offers Robert some marijuana, he is taking a risk. He thinks the blind man will be ok with the idea of it but he does not know for sure. He could end up turning Robert off and that would be then end of their relationship and any hope of ever having one. Robert turns out to be open to new experiences, although he has never tried it; he gives it a try. Both of these people have a vision that is lacking by the wife.

The narrator’s vision is not clouded by the things he sees. Robert relies totally on his inner vision to guide him because he is blind. Because both of these people have a vision that is not possessed by Robert’s wife, they get along very well and hit it off from the start. The wife’s lack of vision is seen when she first introduces Robert to her husband. Her husband asks Robert what side of the train he sat on. After making this remark his wife tells him off for asking a question that would not make any sense to ask a blind man, since his view of the scenery is the same no matter which side he sits on.

His wife does not realize that her husband is trying to start a conversation. Since he has probably never talked to a blind man, he does not know what to say. Her vision clouds her inner vision’s ability to realize that he is trying to be being polite. Her lack of vision is seen again when she comes downstairs and realizes that Robert and her husband are smoking a joint. She is completely confused about Robert smoking marijuana. “My wife came back downstairs wearing her pink robe and her pink slippers.

‘What do I smell? ‘ she said. We thought we’d have us some cannabis,’ I said. My wife gave me a avage look. Then she looked at the blind man and said, ‘Robert, I didn’t know you smoked. ‘ He said, ‘ I do now my dear. There’s a first time for everything. But I don’t feel anything yet. ” Here you can see the narrator’s wife numb to the idea of smoking marijuana with her guest. In her blindness, she does realize that other people might smoke marijuana. That is why she gave her husband “a savage look. ” She did not realize that anyone else she knew smoked marijuana.

In Chinua Achebe’s short story, “Girls at War” there is a blindness in the character of Reginald Nwankwo. He was blind to see his uture right in front of his face even when she stopped him and searched his car. “All right sir, close it. ” Then she opened the rear door and bent down to inspect under the seats. It was then he took the first real look at her, khaki jeans and canvas shoes with the new-style hair-plait which gave a girl a defiant look and which they called – for reasons of their own – “air force base”; and she looked vaguely familiar.

The narrator later continues to tell about how they had met each other before. Here Reginald does not realize what he is seeing. He is looking at a girl and can realize that she is pretty. However his vision stops at the surface and he does not realize that she is trying to get to know him. Later in the story, Reginald meets her again. This time he sees her when he goes to get supplies for himself and his family. When he meets her, she is walking home and he picks her up in his car like a hitch-hiker.

“‘No, no, no’ said Nwankwo firmly. It’s the young woman I stopped for. I have a bad tyre and can only take one person. Sorry. ‘ ‘My son, please,’ cried one old woman in despair, gripping the door handle. ” Reginald refuses to give the old woman a ride. He realized what this girl meant o his life when, by chance, they had met three times in a row. This time he took her in and tried to understand what exactly was going on. Reginald was able to open his inner eye and see that there was something more to this girl thatn meets the eye, and he wanted to check her out.

He had broken the blindness of his inner eye. Now he could see what this was supposed to mean to his life. When he realized that this girl meant a lot to him was, “‘Plane! ; screamed the boys from the kitchen. ‘My mother! ‘ screamed Gladys. As they scuttled towards the bunker of palm stems and red earth ‘Don’t be so scared. ‘ He said. She oved closer and he began to kiss her and squeeze her breasts. She yielded more and more and then fully. ” Here during the fright of death the only thing Reginald could think of was being with the girl of his dreams.

He had realized what she had known he was the one for her since the day she meet him. When two caucasian Red Cross people show up at a party, they are not able to see with their eyes because they were intoxicated. However, they are still not able to see with their inner eyes either. Therefore, they only see what they already know. The two Red Cross people had gotten drunk because a friend of theirs had een shot down and killed while flying relief to other parts of the country. Here the Red Cross people vocalize their opinions on the war and the people they are flying relief for.

Why should a man, a decent man throw away his life. For nothing! Charley didn’t need to die. Not for this stinking place Even these girls who come here all dolled up and smiling, what are they worth? one American dollar and they are ready to tumble into bed. ” The Red Cross man cannot see that everyone at the party was partying because they were sick of seeing the hate and anger of war. That was the point of the party. There is a ision that everyone is able to use. This vision is not in the form of millions of colors but of words and circumstances.

Like the bat that does not see with its eyes but its form of RADAR, some people are able to see the sub-plot in the situation that most people cannot see. Reginald Nwankwo learns to see with this form of vision and is able to realize what his life was all about: Gladys. The narrator in “The Cathedral” was able to see with this vision and so was Robert. All of these people could be considered blind-as-a-bat by most, but by the few who can see without their eyes, they are considered enlightened.

The Canterbury Tales A Character Sketch of Chaucer’s Knight

Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, written in approximately 1385, is a collection of twenty-four stories ostensibly told by various people who are going on a religious pilgrimage to Canterbury Cathedral from London, England. Prior to the actual tales, however, Chaucer offers the reader a glimpse of fourteenth century life by way of what he refers to as a General Prologue. In this prologue, Chaucer introduces all of the characters who are involved in this imaginary journey and who will tell the tales. Among the characters included in this introductory section is a night.

Chaucer initially refers to the knight as “a most distinguished man” (l. 43) and, indeed, his sketch of the knight is highly complimentary. The knight, Chaucer tells us, “possessed/Fine horses, but he was not gaily dressed” (ll. 69-70). Indeed, the knight is dressed in a common shirt which is stained “where his armor had left mark” (l. 72). That is, the knight is “just home from service” (l. 73) and is in such a hurry to go on his pilgrimage that he has not even paused before beginning it to change his clothes.

The knight has had a very busy life as his fighting career has taken him to a great many places. He has seen military service in Egypt, Lithuania, Prussia, Russia, Spain, North Africa, and Asia Minor where he “was of [great] value in all eyes (l. 63). Even though he has had a very successful and busy career, he is extremely humble: Chaucer maintains that he is “modest as a maid” (l. 65). Moreover, he has never said a rude thing to anyone in his entire life (cf. , ll. 66-7).

Clearly, the knight possesses an outstanding character. Chaucer gives to the knight one of the more flattering descriptions in the General Prologue. The knight can do no wrong: he is an outstanding warrior who has fought for the true faith–according to Chaucer–on three continents. In the midst of all this contenton, however, the knight remains modest and polite. The knight is the embodiment of the chivalric code: he is devout and courteous off the battlefield and is bold and fearless on it.

In twentieth century America, we would like to think that we ave many people in our society who are like Chaucer’s knight. During this nation’s altercation with Iraq in 1991, the concept of the modest but effective soldier captured the imagination of the country. Indeed, the nation’s journalists in many ways attempted to make General H. Norman Schwarzkof a latter day knight. The general was made to appear as a fearless leader who really was a regular guy under the uniform. It would be nice to think that a person such as the knight could exist in the twentieth century.

The fact of the matter is that it is unlikely that people such as the knight existed even in the fourteenth century. As he does with all of his characters, Chaucer is producing a stereotype in creating the knight. As noted above, Chaucer, in describing the knight, is describing a chivalric ideal. The history of the Middle Ages demonstrates that this ideal rarely was manifested in actual conduct. Nevertheless, in his description of the knight, Chaucer shows the reader the possibility of the chivalric way of life.

Antigone a tragic play written by Sophocles

Antigone is a tragic play written by Sophocles in about 441b. c. The play is a continuation of the curse put upon the household of Oedipus Rex. Sophocles actually wrote this play before he wrote Oedipus, but it follows Oedipus in chronological order. The story of Antigone begins after the departure of Oedipus, the king of Thebes, into self-exile. Oedipus two sons, Eteocles and Polyneices, were left to rule over Thebes. An argument over rights to power forces Polynices to leave Thebes. Some time passes and Polynices returns with the army from Argos and attempts to overthrow his brother.

The two brothers fight and kill one another and the war ends. Creon, the uncle of the two brothers becomes the new king of Thebes. Because Polynices proved to be an enemy of the state, Creon chose to leave his body unburied. In the Greek culture, the denial of Funeral rights was a fate reserved for the worst criminals (). This is the point where the dialogue of the play actually begins. Antigone, sister to Polynices and Eteocles, disobeys Creon and properly buries the body of Polynices.

When Creon hears what Antigone has done he has her placed in a cave and essentially buried alive. This enrages Creons son, Haimon, who turns his own sword upon himself. When Eurydice, Creon wife her the news she to kills herself. Creon is left at the end to mourn the death of two nephews, a niece, a son, and a wife. This play more than an issue of right verses wrong or fate verses free will; it is a collision between the rightful demands of the family and the laws of the state (). Creon being in the position of ruler chooses to follow the demands of the state.

There is much debate as to which character was in the right. Was Antigone right to disobey the king for the sake of her family or was Creon right in his duty as ruler to preserve order and punish enemies of the state? Through looking at the history of the era, the intentions of the playwright, and the critical analysis and commentary offered on the play, it is in my opinion that Sophocles intended Creon to be the character who was in the right, not Antigone. The start of theater and drama in Ancient Greece took form in about 5th century b. with Sophocles being considered the master of tragedy.

In his plays and those of the same genre, classic fables that the people of the era knew well were used to tell the stories. The tragic heros of these stories often strive to live honorable and righteous lives, but because of some mistake their lives would often great and noble death. The idea that serving the state was proper way to gain honor was a popular belief during this time period. This philosophy was echoed by Plato in his book, the Republic. Plato dealt with establishing the ideal state.

The way to achieve the ideal state was through striving for justice. Justice, according to Plato, is doing only the tasks assigned to them by nature. This is the fundamental notion for his creation of an ideal city. It is both knowing what true justice is and where one belongs in the city that the ideal can be achieved. Justice in a city can be found in an individual as well outside the individual because it is a concept that is universal. If a ruler of a state was to maintain order and control over his people he must then seek the best way to obtain justice.

In crucial decisions, the ruler must look the see what is the good for the whole if he is to achieve this idea of justice. If Sophocles, believed along these same lines, and it is my opinion that he did, then Creons actions toward Polynices were justified. Creon acted in the best interest of the people. A trader of the state could not go unpunished. This was Creon’s duty as a ruler: it was the task assigned to him by nature. If Creon was right in his decision to punish Polynices then Antigone was wrong to defy the king.

Creons next step, the imprisonment of Antigone, must also be considered justified since she has defy deliberately disobeyed his orders. Looking at the dialogue of the chorus may provide insight into the intentions of Sophocles. The chorus was partly considered to be a character participating in the story and a mouthpiece for the author. The chorus in Antigone seems to justify the decision of Creon to take the life of Antigone. In the prologue, the choragos states Polynices was the the wild eagle shouting insults above our land.

This line establishes Polynices as an enemy to the state of Thebes. If Polynices is the enemy, then Creon must punish him for his actions. In Ode I at the end of scene I, the chorus states when the laws are kept how proudly the city stands! When the laws are broken what of this city then? This is in response to Antigones action of covering the body of her brother. The chorus takes the position that Creons order must be followed for the state to maintain justice. This puts Antigone in the wrong for her actions.

If she disobeys the king deliberately then her she must accept the consequences of death. Creon had no choice but take the life of Antigone if he was to maintain order. In Ode II the chorus comments on the mortal arrogance of Antigone which seems to reassert the actions of Creon. The arrogant, headstrong Antigone seemed almost willing for her punishment. The chorus in Scene IV points to the fault of Antigone when it says to Antigone, You walk at last to the underworld; untouched by sickness, broken by no sword. What women has ever found your way to death?

The chorus here continues to blame Antigone for the result of her death, not Creon. In the same Scene, the chorus continues and says, You made your choice, Your death is the doing of your conscious hand. Commentary on the play offers several opinions as to which character acted rightly. One commentary makes the point that for Creon to maintain order in a city that has recently undergone civil war the he had to take punish Polynices as a criminal. This was not an action based on personal hatred. This was an action taken as a rightly appointed ruler for the overall welfare of his state.

This is a duty that must be upheld by any ruler, president or politician. Their main responsibility is the welfare of the people the serve. This means putting family matters second to the good of the entire people. Another point made by several different critiques is that the play focuses on the actions of Creon, not Antigone. By focusing on the action of Creon then it seems that Sophocles intended Creons actions be given highest priority. This is further support by the removal of Antigone from the play only two-thirds of the way through.

Sophocles might have done this to allow the chorus of the play to follow Creon and therefore side with him on his decisions. Creon undoubtedly suffers the most for his actions. His decisions cause him to loose many members of his family. The grief he must have felt for these decisions is hard to comprehend. Whether or not Creon wanted to be king was not a circumstance that he had power over. But since he was king he know had a responsibility to lead and protect his people. This meant punishing those that opposed the state of Thebes family or not.

Therefore it was a correct decision. It served to good of the whole not Creons own selfish desires. Antigone defied this decision putting her in the same category of her brother a trader of the state. Therefore she must also be punished in much the same way as a criminal of the state was punished. Through looking at the history of the time period, the statements of the chorus, and the critical analysis offered, I believe it was Sophocles to portray the character of Creon as the character that acted correctly.

A Modest Proposal

In the nineteenth century, Ireland was marked by extensive personal suffering. Civilians, predominantly the catholic lower and middle-classes, were having a hard time finding jobs, paying rent, feeding their children, as well as putting up with overpopulation which contributed to the overall growing problem of poverty. During this time of suffering, many began to question whether Britain acted as hastily and as effectively as they could have, as well as believing that centuries of British rule and/or political oppression was a fundamental cause of the famine (which originated from a potato crop failure).

Jonathan Swift, a poor-boy who found his niche as a social critic/spokesman for Irish rights, after analyzing the possible causes, he concludes that England should not be the sole one to blame and therefore proposes a rather straightforward solution to Ireland’s evident predicament by insisting that the abundance of children of the poor to be used as a food supply. Jonathan Swift blames the English Protestants for their cruel and inhumane treatment of the papists, or poor Irish Catholics, through both political and economic oppression.

This is seen when the author’s “persona” believes that England would be more than willing to eat the Irish poor even if such a proposal had never been suggested, saying that, “I could name a country which would be glad to eat up our whole nation without it. ” Being a son of pauper parents, as well as having spent years in Ireland, he first handedly experienced poverty-stricken Ireland. Since the poor cannot afford to pay their rent at due, the property owners would seize their property and kick them out onto the streets, creating even more complications.

As the streets become crowded with the “begging mothers” and whining babies, slums multiply and worsen. He detests the idle English aristocrats for the seemingly lack of concern in attempting to resolve the growing problem of poverty either by the English courts through legislation or otherwise. He, as well as many other Irishmen, readily sees the clear denial of the English in accepting their part in the poverty in Ireland, though Britain did in fact provide much relief to the starving public.

Swift shows his readers that his contempt for the irresponsibility, greed, and moral indifference of the wealthy is parallel to that of his disgust at the failure of Ireland’s political leaders. The Irish too were in part to be those to blame for the famine because they should have been aware of such misfortune in advance. With proprietors throwing families out onto the streets, both the parents and children resorted such acts as begging and stealing.

Jonathan Swift criticizes them, mostly the parents, by saying,”These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg” He believes that resorting to thievery was a strong sign of laziness, and that they should dedicate more effort to finding a job to provide for their families. Furthermore, Swift took the suffering of the Irish to heart and, immodestly, came up with and proposed a very well thought out solution.

Though at first Swift shocks his readers, he then precedes it with an outline of his argument which slowly causes him/her to rationalize such a practice. Through-out his argument, it was made apparent that it was a classic situation/case of the pot calling the tea kettle black, where as the pot is the suffering Irish and the tea kettle is England; both strongly believed that the other was to blame while not realizing that they too may have been at fault.

The play, Death of a Salesman

In the play, Death of a Salesman, the main character, Willy Loman’s tragedy is due to both his own flawed character and society’s flaws. Advancements in science throughout this century have led to tremendous advancements in industry. In this case however, advancements in industry have not always led to advancements in living conditions. For some, society has created mass wealth. For Willy Loman, however, mass society has created only tremendous grief and hardship, based on endless promise. For these reasons, his tragedy is due both to societies flaws and to the flaws in his own character.

It was society who stripped him of his dignity, piece by piece. It was society who stripped him of his lifestyle, and his own sons who stripped him of hope. The most obvious flaw in society is greed. This is the desire to get ahead of the next guy. It is the philosophy of businesses that compromise the dreams of many men. Though sometimes this can drive a man to great things, sometimes it can drive a man to ruin. Willy Loman was a simple man driven to ruin by greed. However, this was not by his own greed, but by that of others.

The developers’ greed took away the sun and left him with only shadows. Willy’s boss reduced him to commission and even his sons reduced him to a failure. All of this greed around him led him to ruin. The next largest flaw in society is a lack of compassion. This could be as a result of overwhelming greed. The main culprit or cause of this flaw is big business. “I’m always in a race with the junkyard! I just finished paying for the car and it’s on it last legs. The refrigerator consumes belts like a goddam maniac. They time those things. Act 2, Page __, lines 16-19)

It was Willy’s belief in this statement that drew him to believe that big business lacked compassion. It is this flaw that allowed him to die a slow death and which played the greatest role in his eventual downfall. The third and largest flaw in society is the lack of a social net. This would be a net which would identify people in trouble and attempt to improve their situation. It would identify people who are a danger to themselves or to others and treat them. If such a net had existed, Willy Loman might now have met his premature end.

Instead, he could have received psychiatric help and recovered from his condition. It was the direct result of the flaws on society, which led to Will Loman’s death. It was the greed that was so predominant around him that led to his unhappiness. It was the lack of compassion from society, which allowed his unhappiness to flourish, and which eventually consumed him. In the end, it was the lack of a social safety net, which failed to save him from himself. Everyone has conflicts that they must face sooner or later.

The way in which people deal with these personal conflicts can differ as much as problem to get it out of the way. Willy Lowman’s technique in Arthur Miller’s play Death of a Salesman, leads to very severe consequences. Willy never really does anything to help the situation, he just escapes into the past, whether intentionally or not, to happier times were problems were scarce. The use of this escape throughout the play can be compared to the use of a drug, because he uses his escapes as if they were narcotics. As the play progressed, the reader learns that it can be a dangerous drug, because it is addictive and deadly.

The first time that Willy is seen lapsing off into the past is when he encounters Biff after arriving home. The conversation between Willy and Linda reflects Willy’s disappointment in Biff and what he ahs become, which is, for the most, part a bum. After failing to deal adequately with his feelings, he escapes into a time when things were better for his family. It is not uncommon for one to think of better times at low points in their life in order to cheer themselves up so that they are able to deal with the problems that they encounter, but Willy Lowman takes it one step further.

His refusal to accept reality is so strong that in his mind he is transported back in time to relive one of the happier days of his life. It was a time when no one argued, Willy and Linda were younger, the financial situation was less of a burden and Biff and Happy enthusiastically welcomed their father back home from a long road trip. Willy’s need for the “drug” is satisfied and he is reassured that everything will turn out okay, and the family will soon be as happy as it was in the good old days.

The next flashback occurs during a discussion between Willy and Linda. Willy is depressed about his inability to make enough money to support his family, his looks, his personality, and the success of his friend and neighbor, charley. “My God if business doesn’t pick up, I don’t know what I’m gonna do! ” is the comment made by Willy after Linda figures out the difference between the family’s income and their expences. Before Linda has a chance to offer any words of consolation, Willy blurts out, “I’m fat. I’m veryfoolish to look at, Linda.

In doing this he has depressed himself so much that he is visited by a woman with whom he is having an affair. The woman’s purpose in this point of the play is to cheer him up. She raises his spirts by telling him how funny and lovable he is, saying, “You do make me laughAnd I think you’re a wonderful man. ” And when he is reassured of his attractiveness and competence, the woman disappears, her purpose being fulfilled. Once again the drug has come to the rescue, allowing Willy to postpone having to actually do something about his problem.

Pride and Perception

Jane Austen’s society values impressions, and considers them an important aspect of their culture. A first impression determines the entire perception of that person. In Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet learns a hard lesson by basing her perception of other characters completely on their first impressions. “The comedy is concerned with a heroine who must be educated out of a condition of self-deception brought on by the shutters of pride into a condition of perception when that pride had been humbled through the exposure of the errors of judgement into which it has led her” (Watt, 98).

Through occurrences within the novel Pride and Prejudice, the perception based on first impressions of Wickham and Darcy in Elizabeth Bennet’s eyes alters. Elizabeth’s first impressions of Wickham and Darcy come from social interaction. At a ball in Meryton, Darcy’s “character was decided. He was the proudest, most disagreeable man in the world, and everybody hoped that he would never come there again” (Austen 11). This quick opinion of Darcy’s character opposes the opinions of Wickham. He appeared “far beyond them all in person, countenance, air and walk.

Wickham also seemed, “the happy man towards whom almost every female eye was turned” (Austen 66). Elizabeth makes a quick judgement of both the characters and personalities of Darcy and Wickham. “Elizabeth is completely taken in by the almost transparent duplicity of Mr. Wickham regarding himself and his relations with Mr. Darcy and the Darcy family” (Moler, 25). These drastic perceptions affect her feelings for Darcy. Elizabeth chooses to befriend Wickham, and in turn learns much about Darcy rom him.

Elizabeth found the interest of the subject increase [and] Mr. Wickham began to speak on more general topics” (Austen 69). She begins to take a general interest in their friendship, and in turn her opinion of Darcy becomes more atrocious. Elizabeth learns that “all his [Darcy’s] actions may be traced to pride; and pride has often been his best friend” (Austen 71). Wickham continues his conversation and eventually tells Elizabeth that Darcy threw him from his household into a life of poverty.

Most important, of course, is Elizabeth’s misjudgement of Darcy’s character: the overreaction to his pride and reserve that makes her unable to see what lies beneath it” (Moler, 26). Wickham’s actions and words lead Elizabeth to a harsh perception of Darcy and a kind perception of himself. This same perception of Darcy eventually leads her to confront him about his abuse of Wickham. “He has been so unlucky as to lose your friendship, and in a manner which he is likely to suffer from all his life” (Austen 80).

At this point Elizabeth’s original perceptions of both Darcy and Wickham reach their climax, and slowly begin to decline. Now, the second perception of Darcy and Wickham begins to alter the first. A letter written to Elizabeth by Darcy reveals the real intentions of Wickham. “Mr. Wickham’s chief object was unquestioningly my sister’s fortune, but I cannot help supposing that the hope of revenging himself on me was a strong inducement” (Austen 172). After discovering this information Elizabeth slowly ceases her relationship with Wickham.

The major action’ of the story, concerns her recognition of her wrong- headness regarding [Wickham] and her reevaluation of the man, Darcy, she has While traveling the country she receives a letter from Jane saying that Lydia ran off with Wickham. They understood “that his belief that Wickham never intended to go there, or to marry Lydia at all” (Austen 229). Elizabeth, after getting over the initial shock, also learns that Darcy helps to force Wickham into a marriage with Lydia. This action not only alters Wickham’s influence over Elizabeth, but alters Elizabeth’s perception of Darcy.

How much I like him. His behavior to us has in every respect been as pleasing as when we were in Derbyshire” (Austen 272). This final act completes Darcy’s alteration of perception in Elizabeth’s eyes. Wickham suffers one last downfall before fading out of Elizabeth’s life. He gets Lydia to write to Pemberly asking for money. “I am sure Wickham would like a place at court very much, and I do not think we shall have quite money enough to live upon without some help” (Austen 325). At this point Wickham falls from all respect in Elizabeth’s eyes, and his alteration of perception concludes.

Elizabeth learns during the course of the novel that first impressions should not determine a person’s complete perception. “Austen engages us both intellectually and emotionally in [Elizabeth and Darcy’s] painful progress toward greater self-awareness, toward recognition of their different kinds of pride and prejudice, and thus toward greater perceptiveness regarding those around them” (Moler, 6). Elizabeth sees her fault in the original perception of Darcy and Wickham, and willing recognizes and alters those first perceptions.

The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams

The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams shows the struggle of two people to fit into society, Tom and Laura, and how society wouldnt accept them. They were the dreamers that were unjustly kept out and you may even go as far as to say persecuted into staying out and aloof like the other dreamers which are forced to become outcasts and not contribute to the actions of all. Tom and Laura, the two dreamers, were pushed by their mom, Amanda, to her frame of mind and the thoughts of a hard working society. They both stumbled on the fire escape which served as a gateway, physically and mentally.

Tom had the problem of fitting in at the warehouse were he worked, because is the warehouse really a place for someone like him and his mind rebelled. Lastly you can see how society forced them to change and Laura to lose her status in order to fit in with Jim and thats shown by the horn breaking. Tom then realizes that and leaves which causes him to change too. Tennessee Williams artfully depicted this. The fire escape. A downtrodden red thing off the sides of buildings showing societies ineffectual escape from itself. In this case it served as a passageway between the real world and the dream one that Laura and Tom were living in at home.

Both somehow stumbled both physically and mentally. When Laura said Im all right. I slipped but Im all right(47). She was trying to pass to the real world to do a real job and couldnt because of societies inability to accept her and her ways. She wasnt strong enough to make the trip by herself, but needed the moral support of the other dreamer in the area, which was Tom who came running out. Tom is the one who stumbles mentally in his inability to look at the escape, which would be his way out of the place. He was always losing his strength while out there smoking and looking out into the world.

Recognizing the sounds and trying to connect but unable to. He was forced away and unable to bring up the strength inside himself to go out and leave and to stay strong as a dreamer. Forced by society to use it as a gateway instead of just keeping it the same and just a mode of transportation to go down. Every night you hear Tom say, Im going to the movies (42). He uses that as an escape of the imagination which is what made him a dreamer. As long as he went to the movies and stayed away from seeing and experiencing he could still dream. He wants to see them in person and adventure out but that would be what society wants him to do.

Tom is probably content or made to seem content with the movies and sees his impending doom in being a dreamer so he becomes obsessed with trying to escape it. With Yes, Movies! Look….. Im tired of movies and Im about to move(79). Tom tells Jim of his plans to leave and see what he needs to, but Jim cannot realize the scope of the problem. In the warehouse, for Tom and the school for Laura were the places in which dreamers do not fit in. Everyone is thinking of advancing themselves and the American Dream in the same breath. Tom was in the warehouse and it wasnt a place for him. He attempted to rein in his wishes but was unable to do it.

He still had to sneak off and write poems to show his thoughts. He knew of …. on poems(68), Was what Tom was saying towards Jim. Jim was one who didnt care of what others did but just wanted to become one of the people who could fulfill the American dream. Laura, like tom snuck off to hiding places to dream and remember what it was like. Instead of going to the business school she snuck off to the menagerie and the museum, both places where dreaming is recommended, the only sanctuary for them in society.

She, like Tom was living in a dream but was unable to be as focused as he was so she Went to the art museum….. e tropical flowers(33), showing she had to back up her strength by skipping a killer of dreamers for one that strengthens her resolve but it is shown to be not enough and changes. When Jim broke the horn on the unicorn showed the change of Laura from being the unicorn to a normal horse who can fit in. Since Tom was so close he felt the break and the fact that another dreamer had been changed by the rules of society and could not stand away any more. Jim had brought Laura over to his way of thinking and that of the American society. In Make him feel less—freakish!

Now he will feel more at home with the other horses, the ones that dont have horns… (104). Laura was that horse and felt freakish in her actions and wanted to fit in with the other horses. Thats the meaning of that speech. she was broken to the American dream and then Tom felt that his ground was being invaded and got defensive. He soon left upon realizing that he was changing to Amandas way of thinking, so he left. upon his leaving he lost his dreaming ability anyway. It was ironic how he no longer dreamed because he felt he was seeing the dreams in real life, as society had again forced him out.

As you can see Tom and Laura were dreamers which were unaccepted into society. Laura lost her dreaming when the unicorn lost its horn and tom then lost his upon doing the first thing he had dreamed about because he stayed that way and didnt dream about going any higher. Ultimately Tennessee Wiliiams message was that society was rigid and it forced those which did not fit the mold to change into a from which was acceptable. That we killed the dreamers and are till doing it at an even younger age. We have to Accept them with open arms if ever we are able to make it far into the future and survive.

Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton

Ethan Frome, the main character in the book entitled Ethan Frome, by Edith Wharton, has many complex problems going on at the same time. His family has died and he has a wife that is continually sick, and the only form of happiness he has is from his wife’s cousin Mattie. This, however, at times proves to be hard because of Ethan’s wifes interference. Nothing seems to be going in Ethan’s favor. The main theme of the book is failure, and this is shown through marrying his wife, not being able to stand up to his wife, and his involvement concerning the “smash up.

The first way failure is shown in the book is through the marriage of Ethan and his wife. He married her because she had tried to help his mother recover from an illness, and once his mother died he could not bear the thought of living in the house alone. His wife was seven years his senior and always seemed to have some kind of illness. It seemed all she ever did was complain, and he resented this because it stifled his growing soul. Since his wife was continuously ill, and her cousin needed a place to stay, they took her in to help around the house.

Ethan took an immediate propensity to her cousin, Mattie, because she brought a bright light upon his dismal day. He seemed to have found someone that cared for him, was always happy and could share his youth, unlike his sickly wife who always nagged him. He longed to be with Mattie, however he had loyalty to his wife. Being married to the wrong person proved to be Ethan’s first failure. Ethan’s second failure was not being able to stand up against his wife. His wife claimed that a new doctor said that she was extremely sick, and needed more help around the house.

She told him without any discussion that Mattie had to go. Ethan could not find the words to make her alter her decision. His wife also decided that Mattie had to leave the next day itself and Ethan could not do anything about it. It was stated in the book that his wife had the upper hand in the house by the line “Now she [his wife] had mastered him [Ethan] and he obeyed her. ” Ethan just could not find the right things to say and it was because of his failure of not being able to stand up to his wife, he was going to lose the only thing that made him happy.

Ethan’s last failure was the way he modified his and Mattie’s lives regarding the “smash up. ” He so desperately wanted to run away with Mattie, but he could not because his practical sense told him it was not feasible to do so. Mattie wanted so desperately to be with Ethan, that she suggested in order to stay together forever, was to die together. It was Ethan’s job to steer into the tree with the sled so that it looked like an accidental death instead of suicide. Instead of running square into the tree, he did not hit the tree right and it did not kill either of them.

Instead it just injured them , nd these injuries stayed with them forever. In this way Ethan had his last failure in not exceeding to die with his love, instead he had to live with the guilt from his wife, the injured Mattie, and broken dreams. In these three ways, of marrying the wrong person, not being able to stand up to his wife, and incidents that come from the smash up, proves that the main theme of the book is failure. It seemed that everything Ethan tried to do, worked against his favor. With all the incidents that happened it seemed inevitable that his life would always be a string of failure.

The play Antigone, written by Sophocles

The opening events of the play Antigone, written by Sophocles, quickly establish the central conflict between Antigone and Creon. Creon has decreed that the traitor Polynices, who tried to burn down the temple of gods in Thebes, must not be given proper burial. Antigone is the only one who will speak against this decree and insists on the sacredness of family and a symbolic burial for her brother. Whereas Antigone sees no validity in a law that disregards the duty family members owe one another, Creon’s point of view is exactly opposite.

He has no use for anyone who places private ties above the common good, as he proclaims firmly to the Chorus and the audience as he revels in his victory over Polynices. He sees Polynices as an enemy to the state because he attacked his brother. Creon’s first speech, which is dominated by words such as “authority” and “law”, shows the extent to which Creon fixates on government and law as the supreme authority. Between Antigone and Creon there can be no compromisethey both find absolute validity in the respective loyalties they uphold.

In the struggle between Creon and Antigone, Sophocles’ audience would have recognized a genuine conflict of duties and values. From the Greek point of view, both Creon’s and Antigone’s positions are flawed, because both oversimplify ethical life by recognizing only one kind of good or duty. By oversimplifying, each ignores the fact that a conflict exists at all, or that deliberation is necessary. Moreover, both Creon and Antigone display the dangerous flaw of pride in the way they justify and carry out their decisions.

Antigone admits right from the beginning that she wants to carry out the burial because the action is glorious. Antigone has a savage spirit; she has spent most of her life burying her family members. Creon’s pride is that of a tyrant. He is inflexible and unyielding, unwilling throughout the play to listen to advice or Antigone. Creon’s love for the city-state cause him to abandon all other beliefs. He tries to enforce this upon the people of Thebes. He wants them to think that his laws should be followed before any other personal, moral, or religious belief.

This is where the conflict of character occurs between Antigone and Creon. Antigone knows that the sacred laws held by heaven are far more important than those made by a king. It is the danger of pride that leads both these characters to overlook their own human qualities and the limitations of their own powers The Chorus is made up of older men of the city. Some of the times the Chorus speaks in this drama, it seems to side with Creon and the established power of Thebes.

The Chorus’s first speech (117-179) describes the thwarted pride of the invading enemy: The God Zeus hates bravado and bragging. Yet this encomium to the victory of Thebes through Zeus has a cunningly critical edge. The Chorus’s focus on pride and the fall of the prideful comments underhandedly on the willfulness seen in Antigone and will see in Creon. In Creon’s first speech, where he assumes the “Now here I am, holding all authority and the throne, in virtue of kinship with the dead” and reiterates his decree against the traitor Polynices (191-192).

In lines 308-309 the Chorus says to Creon “My lord: I wonder, could this be God’s doing? This is the thought that keeps on haunting me. The Chorus is questioning Creon if it could be the doing of God who buried Polynices, Creon replies; “Stop, before your words fill even me with rage that you should be exposed as a fool, and you so old. For what you say is surely insupportable when you say the gods took forethought for this corpse” (310-313). Even though Antigone exhibits a blamable pride and a hunger for glory, her disobedience is less serious than those of Creon.

It is evident that Antigone’s actions are driven by a love for her brother, and a desire to please the gods. While Creon’s actions are founded in his quest for more power and complete control over the city of Thebes and its people. Antigone’s crime harms no one directly, whereas Creon’s mistakes affect an entire city. We learn from Teiresias that new armies are rising up in anger against Thebes because of Creon’s treatment of their dead. More important, Creon’s refusal to bury Polynices represents a more radical insult to human values than Antigone’s refusal to heed Creon’s edict.

Creon says at the beginning of the play that the sight of Polynices’ unburied corpse is an obscenity, but he clearly doesn’t understand the implications of his own words. “You shall leave him without burial; you shall watch him chewed up by birds and dogs and violated” (224-226). Whereas Antigone breaks a law made by a particular ruler in a particular instance, a law that he could have made differently, Creon violates an unwritten law, a cultural must. Creon goes forward, prepared to do what is necessary to right his wrongs. However, as is often the case in life, he does not repent soon enough.

In the aftermath, he is left with the deaths of three people, all of which he caused. He is left to remember all the things he could have done differently, and that is possibly the worst punishment of all. Ultimately, King Creon learns his lesson, but it is a hard lesson and one that brings down everyone around him. Perhaps he, himself, says it best. “Lead me away, a vain silly man who killed you, son, and you, too, lady. I did not mean to, but I did. I do not know where to turn my eyes to look to, for support. Everything in my hands is crossed. A most unwelcome fate has leaped upon me” (2044).

Nevertheless, my sympathies are most likely tipping toward Antigone in this encounter. Just before the argument between Antigone and Creon, the sentry gives a vivid and disgusting description of the disinterment of Polynices’ corpse. Polynices’ rotting body is the physical evidence, or perhaps a symbol, of the injustice of Creon’s decree and of the ruin it will bring about in Thebes. The description of the squalor of the corpse prepares the audience to be sympathetic to Antigone’s arguments, even as she flies in the face of law with a pride that easily matches Creon’s.

Antigone draws a distinction between divine law and human law, between the “great unwritten, unshakable traditions” and the statute of individual rulers such as Creon. Each of Antigone’s actions was admirable, in the interest of her brother and the gods. She buries her brother without worrying what might happen to her. However, Antigone debated over the issue of whether to bury her brother or not. In the end she ultimately decided that her life was not as valuable as making sure her brother rests in peace. She was only trying to please the gods whereas Creon was working directly against the will of the gods.

With each viewpoint located at opposite ends of the social spectrum, a dilemma is unavoidable when the two face each other. This is the backbone for the entire plot of Antigone. On one side is Antigone, who pursues her self-righteous beliefs whole-heatedly and without question. On the other side is Creon, who acts in response to what he believes are best for the society. Both characters are justified in their behavior. It is their motives that set them apart from each other. Antigone knows that she will suffer personal anguish if she does not carry out her actions.

If my husband were dead, I might have had another, and child from another man if I lost the first. But when father and mother both were hidden in death my brother’s life would bloom for me again” (959-962). Antigone was unable to complete the three stages of womanhood: she is not a daughter because her parents are dead, she won’t be a wife, and she won’t be a mother. Because of this she believes that her motive is one that should be accepted and that the love for a brother could never be viewed as foolish. Creon, on the other hand, makes his decisions as a king rather then an uncle.

He is concerned with keeping the city-state in order, and his public perception untarnished. He cannot let feelings like love and kindness for Antigone prohibit him from ruling a nation. Both Antigone and Creon believe the gods support their positions. Antigone believes that by Creon denying Polynices a proper burial, he is denying him a right granted by the gods. “The time in which I must please those that are dead is longer than I must please those of this world. For I shall lie forever You, if you like, can cast dishonor on what the gods have honored” (86-89).

She believes that he will not be granted life after death if he is not buried, and that the gods permit all a chance at immortality. When speaking to Antigone it seemed that the Chorus was siding with Creon: “You went to extreme of daring and against the high throne of Justice you fell, my daughter, grievously. ” “.. it is your own self-willed temper that has destroyed you” (901-903, 920-921). However, despite her disobedience to Creon, Antigone is the tragic hero in this play she exploited high standing morals, good intentions, and a high rank.

With both characters assuming religious approval for their actions, it is impossible to exploit any mistakes that may exist within the two viewpoints, making a conclusion that much more difficult. Throughout the play, each character rattles off the reasons for their actions. Both also justify their actions religiously, believing they are the ones acting accordingly by the gods. The entire plot is a construction of conflict between personal and social motives, a scene not uncommon in today’s society.

Sophocles attempts to answer the debate by ultimately showing that the gods approved of Antigone’s motives and that Creon should have buried his nephew. But with so much unnecessary bloodshed committed at the end of the story, it is impossible to believe that this is the final decision. Sophocles believed that the individual held the power and the state shouldn’t have total control over an individual. This is hardly a solution to the debate, the fact that everyone dies. Rather, it is a sign that the debate will live on for all of eternity.

Compare and Contrast: Oedipus and Othello

When comparing and contrasting the character’s Oedipus and Othello by means of the different theatrical practices, one must take in account that there have been many interpretations, and productions of each of their respected plays. The differing presentations of each may lead someone to think differently about the play than another would.

In comparing and contrasting the dramatic representation of the protagonists Oedipus and Othello, theatrical presentation, costume design, and character will lead the reader, and viewer, to have a greater insight into the theatrical practices of their times and their pproaches to the issue of verisimilitude. The theatrical presentation of both plays are very similar. The two plays would both be presented on a thrust stage, which is a platform surrounded on three sides by the audience. Except for the backdrop which would have some element of scenery, the stage itself would be bare apart from a few scenic elements and props.

Othello, like most of Shakespeare’s plays, had what is called an abstract setting. That is a setting in which the locale may change rapidly, it may not be indicated by the script that it has changed, and was most likely suggested by a few props. Abstract settings place more emphasis on the language and the performer, which causes the spectator to use their imagination. It also places more emphasis on costuming. This type of setting helped set up the style of representational theater, which places high emphasis on the realistic.

The style used in classical Greece was presentational which, because of the use of the mask, gave no illusion that this story is happening before their eyes. The audience is reminded that they are watching a play, and not merely observing life. Thus, the use of the thrust stage is the only similarity of the two types of presentation. Othello is a purely illusionistic play, whereas Oedipus Rex is one that when watched, the viewer knows that they are watching a performance. Costumes convey information about the character and aid in setting the tone or mood of the production.

Because most acting involves impersonation, most costumes are essential to re-create historical or to the period in which the production takes place. Costumes like that of William Shakespeare’s Othello maybe abstract, ever-changing, like it’s setting. When using the costume design of the latest film version of Othello, he is usually seen in a toga-like uniform hich may have stemmed from his moor background. Since costume elements were formalized in classical Greek theater, the costumes would be that of everyday dress with slight additions of colour, designs, all of which created a larger meaning in the context of the play.

The additions on the toga also contributed to accentuating the setting , which in Oedipus’ case was Thebes. His toga could have been coloured like the sand and have an ornament like a Sphinx tooth, signifying his bravery for killing the beast. In the case of Othello his toga- like uniform, may have had a general’s insignia on the shoulders, and much like n the film, the scars and tattoos showing the suffering he has gone through. On the issue of verisimilitude, actors in Oedipus Rex would be required to wear a mask bearing an expression that would stay throughout the place, making the character’s seem flat and general.

Oedipus is a round character, but because of the mask, he has a one dimensional projection to the audience. The costumes worn in Othello would be that of clothing of that time. This is common in both plays, but the absence of the mask in Othello, meant that the actor provided their own expressions. Thus, the costumes worn in both plays would be life-like o the audience, but the use of the mask in classical Greece robbed the viewer of a three dimensional projection and withheld the expressions, by the actor.

When an actor acts, they impersonate to believably re-create a historical or fictional character. The character’s of Oedipus and Othello are developed into round characters. Round characters are those that are well developed three dimensionally with multiple meaning to their characters. Oedipus is a character who’s fate cannot be avoided, and which ever path he seems to take leads him to more trouble than what he had to deal with before. Even though his character is well-rounded, he is not believable.

It would be highly unlikely that Oedipus would marry a woman who looked as if she could be his mother without asking a few questions about her past marriages and about her children. It could have caused some insight in their characters, and questions could have arisen about the first child which was sent away and thought of as dead. Othello on the other hand is a well-rounded character, and he is believable. Othello is a man who is filled with jealousy and mistrust he learns that his wife may be sleeping with another man.

Anyone who has been in love has had this feeling once and a while, and that feeling is being fed by the person of whom they most trust it can be devastating for that person. As Iago continually feeds Othello’s suspicion, his hurt and mistrust grows for his wife, until he finally kills her. This is seen in the news everyday… a jealous lover kills the other half because they were seen with another man, or with their ex. Thus, the character of Oedipus is a round characters, but cannot be believed due to the absurd circumstances of his marriage with Jocasta.

Othello’s round haracter can be believed, because jealousy invades all of us at one time or another and for Othello, he chose to act upon it much like those who act in our society today. In conclusion, when comparing and contrasting the dramatic representation of the protagonists Oedipus and Othello, the differences in their theatrical presentations ,with regard to the styles of presentational and representational theater, the similarities in approach to costume design, and their approaches to the validity of realistic characters, gives great insight on these two different dramatic periods.

Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman

Loving a person too much can often be deceiving. Failing to act upon the truth in order to protect an individual’s pride and emotions can bring about destruction for the American Dream. Lois Gordon’s quote about Linda is a good example of the disillusionment that many people experience when loving someone too much, when he says, “Linda, as the eternal wife and mother, the fixed point of affection both given and received, is, in many ways, the earth mother who embodies the play’s ultimate moral value–love.

But in the beautiful, ironic complexity of her creation, she is also Willy’s destroyer. ” In Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman Linda continually suffers from Willy’s frustrations. Even so, she manages to be the loving woman who attempts to keep her family happy However, by covering up failures and protecting pride, Linda ironically ends up being the cause of Willy’s destruction. Throughout the play, Linda suffers a great deal of stress from Willy’s feelings of disappointment. Willy’s impractical dreams have turned into a lifetime of frustrations.

Disappointed and worried, Willy sometimes treats Linda cruelly or insensitively, but she understands the pain and fear behind his behavior, and forgives him in those moments. Willy is rude to Linda when he says, (page 65) “Will you let me talk? Don’t take his side all the time, goddammit! ” When Biff responds to Willy’s discourteousness by furiously yelling at him, Linda sympathetically says, (page 65)“What’d you have to start that for? You see how sweet he was as soon as you talked hopefully? Come up and say good night to him. Don’t let him go to bed that way.

Even though Willy treats Linda sternly, she cares for him so much that she forgives and excuses his actions. Miller tells us, “she more than loves him, she admires him. ” A man with as delicate a sense of self-worth as Willy cannot tolerate his wife’s discordance with him, so Linda has adjusted herself to ignore her own opinions in favor of her husband. Linda also suffers in the way that her sons do not give enough respect to Willy. She feels that Willy deserves at least the respect of his sons when she says, (page 56) “Attention, attention must finally be paid to such a person.

She is a good and understanding mother, but will not tolerate her sons disrespecting her beloved husband. After Linda finds out that Biff and Happy abandon their father in a restaurant for dates with women they’ve picked up, she loses control of her emotions and attacks both of them by shouting out, (page 124) “There’s no stranger you’d do that to! I don’t want you tormenting him anymore. You’re a pair of animals! Not one, not another living soul would have the cruelty to walk out on that man in a restaurant!

Accordingly, Linda is pushed to the brink of anxiety, as she tries ever so hard to keep her husband happy. Even though Linda suffers through an emotional rollercoaster, she still assumes the role as the loving wife and symbolizes the values of love and devotion to the Loman family. “You’re my foundation and my support” (page 18) Willy tells Linda. Even then Willy understands Linda’s devotion to him. She is the model of a loving, devoted, and patient wife. Linda has always supported Willy in his illusions about himself and his achievements.

Willy’s lapses turn Linda into an even sweeter and more amiable woman. Linda is also responsible to keep a clear picture of their finances. When Willy and Linda are talking about how much money Willy earned, she says, (page 35) “Two hundred-my God! Two hundred and twelve dollars! ” A few moments later after Willy slowly explains how much he really made, Linda says, “Well, it makes seventy dollars and some pennies. That’s very good. ” When Willy boasts of big sales, Linda gently questions until she learns the truth, never showing any disapproval of him for exaggerating.

She does the best she can with their meager income to pay their endless bills. Linda is Willy’s comfort and support. She believes in him completely, even in his fantasy of himself. In some respects, Linda has made a child of her husband, always indulgent and devoted to him. In this way, Linda is truly Willy’s guide, moral support, and comforter. Linda avoids the truth with Willy by protecting and defending his pride and self-respect. By doing so, she is destroying all hopes of him becoming successful. She does this by constant reassuring, which leads to high and unrealistic hopes.

This is evident when Linda says, (page 37) “But you’re doing wonderful dear. You’re making seventy to a hundred dollars a week. ” Linda is only saying this because she does not want to destroy Willy’s spirit. She is reassuring him that he is doing great and that he is making enough money. In actuality, this is not the case because Willy is about 50 dollars short of paying the month’s bills. By reassuring Willy, Linda is giving him a false sense of pride. To a certain extent, Willy believes he is better than he really is because of Linda.

Linda’s defense and protection indirectly leads to her husband’s downfall. When Willy goes to Howard to ask for a job, Willy thinks he is better than he really is when he says, (page 82) “I put thirty-four years into this firm, Howard…. and in 1928 I had a big year. I averaged a hundred and seventy dollars a week in commissions. ” If Willy knew the truth that he was not good enough to make it in the business, he would not have taken the rejection so seriously. This false sense of reality leads to Willy’s epression and confusion on whether or not life is worth living anymore.

When Ben comes and offers Willy a far-away job (page 85), Linda boycotts it, saying he ought to be satisfied with his wonderful position at home. Willy needed Linda’s unconditional approval, but ironically it may have prevented the one chance he had to escape to a more suitable way of life. From beginning to end, Linda is the true care giver for the Loman family. However, Linda fails to realize that it’s not how much love is given; it is how love is given that is important. She uses her love as a protective barrier, in an effort to defend her family from the harsh reality.

But in the inspiring, paradoxical intricacy of her character, she ends up being the source of Willy’s downfall. There is a lesson to be learned from Linda Loman: hiding the truth is not the proper way to love, for it does more bad than good. Even though the truth may hurt at that point in time, later on it will be realized hat the truth only helps benefit growth and development. The truth ultimately aids in restoring hopes and dreams. When people are able to grasp this concept of love, the American Dream will be feasible to anyone.

Three Similarities between Field of Dreams and The Hobbit

There are many similarities and numerous differences between The Hobbit and Field of Dreams. This will be talking about the similarities. One similarity is both Bilbo and Ray do crazy things. Another is how both the dwarfs and Ray go on an adventure. The last one is how both Bilbo and Ray are looked up to. The first similarity is between Ray and Bilbo. First, Bilbo is sitting at his door and smoking a pipe, when Gandalf appears. Gandalf visits him and asks him in taking part in an adventure that he arranges. Because of his family tradition, he says no, but he invites Gandalf for tea two days later.

Two days later Gandalf doesnt appear but every 5 minutes a dwarf comes into his house. They told Bilbo about their great treasure that has been taken by Smaug. Thorin has a map has a map of the region and a key to the palace. After many songs, Bilbo finally agrees. This is strange because hobbits are very civilized, intelligent and nimble race. Apart from a little part of his relatives, the traditional fundamental attitude of his family is very indigenous and no one has ever thought of adventures or uncomfortable things except for his tookish relatives.

In Field of Dreams, Ray builds a baseball field over his cornfield and he doesnt even play baseball.. That is very unusual. People in his town think he is crazy and start to consider that there is something wrong with him.. Another similarity is both Ray and the dwarfs have to go on a strenuous journey. The dwarfs went on an extremely long adventure to get their treasure back. They encounter bad parts with the trolls, goblins, when Bilbo meets Gollum, the wargs, elves, Smaug, and the battle of the five armies, They escape all of these bad happenings. Eventually the dwarves are successful and kill Smaug and receive some parts of his treasure.

They all get back home safely except for Fili, Kili, and Thorin, who die in the battle. Ray lives in Iowa and hears a voice in his corn crops that says if you build it he will come. He builds a baseball field and players like Shoeless Joe Jackson started to play there. Then he goes to Boston to find Terrence Mann. His wife supports him because one night they had the same dream. Him and Mann go to a Red Sox game and hear and see the same things. Ray goes back home and picks up a younger Terrence Mann and at the end Ray has a catch with his father. Another similarity is both Bilbo and Ray are looked up to by people or creatures.

The dwarfs look up to Bilbo after he saves them many times with his ring like when Bilbo saves the dwarfs when they get caught by the spider and when he steals a part of Smaugs treasure while he is sleeping. Karen and Anne look up Ray because they believe in what he is doing. They also look up to him because he seems so sure that he is right in what he is doing. This is just a few of the many similarities. The things that are mentioned are important because without them being talked about then the story and book would have nothing happening. If all of the similarities are added up them one can see how similar a book is to a story.

The Death of the American Dream-The Great Gatsby

In Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, all the characters are, in one way or another, attempting to achieve a state of happiness in their lives. The main characters are divided into two groups: the rich upper class and the poorer lower class, which struggles to attain a higher position. Though the major players seek only to change their lives for the better, the idealism and spiritualism of the American Dream is eventually crushed beneath the harsh reality of life, leaving their lives without any meaning or purpose.

Tom and Daisy Buchanan, the rich socialite couple, seem to have everything they could possibly desire; however, though their lives are full of material possessions, they are unsatisfied and seek to change their circumstances. Tom, the arrogant ex-football player, drifts on “forever seeking a little wistfully for the dramatic turbulence of some irrecoverable football game”(Fitzgerald pg. 10) and reads “deep books with long words in them”(pg. 17) in order to have something to talk about. Though he appears happily married to Daisy, Tom has an affair with Myrtle Wilson and keeps an apartment with her in New York.

Tom’s basic nature of unrest prevents him from being satisfied with the life he leads, and so he creates another life for himself with Myrtle. Daisy Buchanan is an empty figure, a woman with neither strong desires nor convictions. Even before her loyalty to either Tom or Gatsby is put to the test, Daisy does nothing but sit around all day and wonder what to do with herself. She knows that Tom has a mistress on the side, yet hesitates to leave him even when she learns of Gatsby’s devotion to her. Daisy professes her love to Gatsby, yet cannot bring herself to tell Tom goodbye except at Gatsby’s insistence.

Even then, once Tom pleads with her to stay, Daisy quickly changes her mind and ultimately leaves Gatsby for a life of comfort and security. The Buchanans are the ultimate examples of wealth and prosperity, the embodiment of the rich life of the American Dream, yet their lives are empty, unfulfilled, and without purpose. Though Myrtle Wilson makes an attempt to escape her own class and pursue happiness with the richer set, her efforts ultimately produce no results, and she dies, a victim of the very group she sought to join.

Myrtle tries to join Tom’s class by entering into an affair with him and taking on his way of living, but in doing so, she becomes vulgar and corrupt like the rich. She loses all sense of morality and is scornful of people of her own class. Her constant clothing changes signify her dissatisfaction with her life – she changes personalities every time she changes her dress: “with the influence of the dress her whole personality had also undergone a change. The intense vitality was converted into impressive hauteur”(pg. 35).

She treats the elevator boy in her apartment building with disdain: “Myrtle raised her eyebrows in despair at the shiftlessness of the lower orders. ‘These people! You have to keep after them all the time. ‘”(pg. 36). It is evident that although American democracy and principles are based on the concept of equality among people, social discrimination does still exist, and the divisions between classes cannot be overcome. Myrtle strives for a new life for herself, yet she is corrupted by the supposedly ‘better’ group and finally falls victim to it.

Jay Gatsby’s idealistic view of Daisy Buchanan creates a conflict for him once he is confronted by the reality. Over the course of five years, Gatsby has built Daisy up in his mind to be the perfect woman, someone that the actual Daisy could never measure up to: “no amount of fire or freshness can challenge what a man will store up in his ghostly heart”(pg. 101). Daisy cannot help but fall short of Gatsby’s dream, and so Gatsby is disappointed that the woman he loves does not exist as he imagines her to be. Though Gatsby is rich, he is of the lower set, and he attempts to join the upper class with Daisy.

His desire for a better life stems from his faith that anything is possible if he puts his mind to it, which is also a part of the American Dream. However, Gatsby’s dream collapses when he fails to win Daisy and is ultimately rejected by the higher social group. No ill-gotten wealth can help him and though a bullet from George Wilson’s gun kills him physically, Gatsby dies spiritually when Daisy chooses Tom over him. The failure of Gatsby’s ideals is directly related to the failure of the American Dream in that it is destroyed by reality, in this case by the reality of Daisy’s rejection.

Without his dream, Gatsby has nothing, no fire to keep him going, no direction, and no purpose. Throughout the novel, Fitzgerald shows the collapse of dreams, whether they are dreams of money, status, or simply of happiness. The biggest collapse, however, is of the American Dream. The failure of the American Dream is unavoidable, not only because the reality of life cannot compare to idealistic dreams, but also because the ideals are usually far too perfect to be paralleled in reality.

Dreams give purpose to life, something to work toward, an end to the road. Without dreams one’s life has no meaning, as shown in the fates of Gatsby and the Buchanans. Their lives become empty and hollow without the presence of some ideal. Gatsby is a prime example of the failure of the American Dream. Though he has become successful in life, all his wealth stems from illegal sources: “he bought up a lot of side-street drug stores here and in Chicago and sold grain alcohol over the counter”(pg. 141).

Gatsby seems to think nothing of earning his money by illicit means, though that practice goes directly against the principles of the American Dream. Nick comments on this failure of the American Dream in his narrative descriptions of the characters, where all the immoral people have the money and the moral ones are the poor lower class. The American Dream is something all people work toward to some extent, yet it is doomed to failure as its ideal conflict with the reality of life. Although it is an admirable goal, it is an unobtainable one. The American Dream is just that – a dream.

Archtypical Fathers in Henry IV and The Chrysalids

An ideal father is one who is both caring and understanding. To fit this mould, one must express these characteristics. The outlook and actions of King Henry IV (Shakespeare, Henry IV Part 1) and Joseph Strorm (Wyndham, The Chrysalids), suggest characters who do not match the mould of the archetypical ideal father. King Henry IV was a father who thought not much of his son. He sees his son as a riotous, irresponsible young man. King Henry tells Westmoreland that he is envious of Lord Northumberland’s son, Hotspur, and that e wishes he could be more honorable.

It shows King Henry’s lack of trust and grasp of his son through conversations with others. The King has a serious discussion with Prince Hal in act three, where he tells him that he is starting to behave in the same way as King Richard, and since he is acting this way, the people will not want him to be the King. The King has his own ideas on how he thinks that the Prince should live, and for that reason has made the relationship between them very difficult. If only the King would have been more accepting, the Prince could have lived more like himself.

Joseph Strorm is a father with very strict rules. He cares more about the physical make up of a person than he does about the actual personality of the person. In the story a very cold side of Joseph Strorm is shown; he never gets close to his son at all. The only conversation shared between Joseph and his children are harsh and is often punishment. The way Joseph responded when David jokingly wished for a hird arm showed that he cared more about his image and purity than he did for his own child.

Both King Henry and Joseph Strorm lacked the ability to look eye to eye with their children. King Henry did not like the way his Prince ran his life, and Joseph Strorm did not care at all about anything other than if something was pure. These fathers both wished that their children could have been more like themselves. Both King Henry IV and Joseph Strorm are miserable fathers and should reevaluate the way they deal with their children.

Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights

This entire novel takes place in England between Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange, two homes on the English moors. There is a distance of approximately two miles between the two homes. The moors are vast open lands that may stretch out for miles at a time. Due to location and climate, there is usually a heavy fog present on the moors during the night. This presence adds dreariness and confusion to the already complex feud occurring between the two families living in the homes. The exact period of time was never precisely established but the general time period is suggested by the setting.

The use of horses for transportation back and forth between the two homes was maximized as there was a consistent flow of news between the two families. The use of candles being taken “upstairs to bed” also suggests an early time period. The actual duration of the book takes many years, approximately sixty, due to the spreading of the story over three generations. One chief character was Heathcliff. The entire story was written around Heathcliff and yet he wasn’t really the main character. Heathcliff was adopted off of the streets at a very young age. Neither of his foster siblings cared much for him at first.

Eventually, his sister grew to like him and his brother grew to hate him. As the years passed, Heathcliff’s brother Hindley continued to scar him emotionally and his sister Cathy grew to love him with such a passion that when Cathy and Hindley died in their middle ages, Heathcliff vowed to take revenge on Hindley’s son and to not rest until he lay in the ground beside Cathy. There were many instances in the story where one was compelled to feel sorry for the way Heathcliff was constantly barraged by Hindley’s acts of contempt. However, no matter how much damage Hindley did, there was no one to blame for Heathcliff’s mannerism but

Heathcliff. One example of Heathcliff’s psychological turmoil was when Cathy died. He bribed the cemetery caretaker to open Cathy’s grave after the funeral services had passed. On doing so, Heathcliff kicked one side of the coffin in so that the dust and dirt could be free to intermingle with the body of Cathy. He instructed the caretaker to close the grave and to repeat the same ordeal this time with Heathcliff’s coffin when he died. Another chief character was Nelly, the secondary narrator. (Secondary because she tells the majority of the story within the dialogue of the primary narrator.

Nelly was the only person that was present at the beginning of the story and lived to tell the see the end of it. Nelly was an important character because she was the one that raised most of the children in the story. Although the children may not have turned out the way Nelly would have liked, she still played an important part in shaping the lives of the characters and in turn the course of the story. The most important event of the story, I believe, was when Heathcliff died. With Heathcliff dead, along with Cathy and Hindley, there was no one remaining who wished to seek revenge upon nother.

Hindley’s son Haerton eventually married Cathy’s daughter, Cathy. And as most stories go, the two lived happily every after at Wuthering Heights. I would strongly recommend this book to another reader. The book is well written. It is easily read due to the manner in which the text flows. There is no need to tear apart the sentences in order to follow the story as you would in reading, for instance, Lord of the Flies. All in all the book had a good storyline, a wonderful cast of characters, a pleasant ending, and is definitely a classic piece of English Literature.

Symbolism in A Rose For Emily

William Faulkner (1897-1962) was a southern writer; he spent most of his time in Oxford, Mississippi. “A Rose For Emily” was a vehicle for him to write about the South and the old ways of the South. He was a well respected writer. In 1950 he received the Nobel Prize for Literature. faulkner uses symbolism to make his message stronger. Faulkner uses symbolism as a way to repersent the qualities of the character, places and events in his work.

Emily came from a well to do family that had alot of history in the town. The Grierson’s were so powerful, Emily did not have to pay taxes. The whole townspeople seemed to think taht they were snobby because in Emily’s father’s eyes, none of the men were quite good enough for Emily. Unfortunately, Emily turned out to be a lonely old woman because of her father’s influence. in “A Rose for Emily”, Faulkner uses the element of time to enhance details of the setting and vice versa.

By avoiding chronological order of events of Miss Emily’s life, Faulkner first gives the reader a completed puzzle, and then allows the reader to examine the puzzle piece by piece. By doing so he enhances the story and presents two different perspectives of time held by the characters such as, the world of the present and, the world of tradition and the past-“confusing time with it’s mathematical progression… divided from them by the narrow bottleneck of the most recent decade of years”(Faulkner 35-36).

Faulkner uses symbolic elements to compare the Grierson house with Emily’s life- “lifting its stubborn and coquettish decay above the cotton wagons and the gasoline pumps-an eyesore among eyesores”(Faulkner 29). This is expressed by the symbolism of the decaying house, which is like Miss Emily’s physical and mental deterioration. Emily’s life like the house, suffers from lack of love and care. The message that Faulkner presented in “A Rose For Emily” was strongly supported by symbolism. Faulkner compares the Grierson house with Emily and her life.

Julius Caesar: Jealousy

Jealousy causes many of the characters in The Tragedy of Julius Caesar to commit dangerous and foolish acts. Cassius’ jealousy drives him to kill Caesar. All the conspirators, except the noble Brutus, kill Caesar because they feel threatened by his power. Brutus is the only conspirator who murders Caesar for more honorable reasons. Jealousy is a very important theme in this play. Cassius feels very threatened by Caesar’s power.

He remembers when he was an equal to Caesar, and doesn’t think that Caesar deserves this much power. He comments to Brutus, “I was born free as Caesar; so were you: / We both have ed as well, and we can both / Endure the winter’s cold as well as he” (Act I, sc. II, 97-99). Cassius is also enraged because Caesar doesn’t like him. Caesar suggests, “Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; / He thinks too much: such men are dangerous” (Act I, sc. II, 194-195).

Cassius thinks that Caesar’s temper is dangerous. He declares, “Ye gods! It doth amaze me, / A man of such a feeble temper should / So get the start of the majestic world, / And bear the palm alone” (Act I, sc. II, 128-131). Casca also is jealous of Caesar. He is disgusted by Caesar’s manipulation of the commoners. He describes it as “mere foolery” (Act I, sc. II, 235). Casca agrees with Cassius that Brutus is an essential part the conspiracy.

He says, “O, he sits high in all the people’s hearts; / And that which would appear offense in us, / His countenance, like richest alchemy, / Will change to virtue and to worthiness” (Act I, sc. III, 157-160). Brutus is the only conspirator who does not act out of jealousy and envy. He is Caesar’s friend, and holds a powerful position in Rome. Therefore, he has no reason to feel jealous of Caesar. Brutus makes his decision based on what is the best for Rome, and is tricked into believing that the other onspirators feel the same way.

He comments, “What need we any spur but our own cause / To prick us to redress? What other bond / Than the secret Romans that have spoke the word, / And will not palter? And what other oath than honesty to honesty engaged / That this shall be, or we will fall for it” (Act II, sc. I, 123-128). Antony realizes that Brutus had honorable reasons for killing Caesar. After Brutus’ suicide, Antony proclaims, “This was the noblest Roman of them all. / All the conspirators save only he / Did that they did in envy of Great Caesar” (Act V, sc. V, 68-70).

The Black Cat by Edgar Allen Poe

There are major differences between the film we saw in class and The Black Cat by Edgar Allen Poe. The film had added effects to get the viewer’s attention. The film also let out important parts that were in the short story. The short story gave the reader a better background for character analysis. Although the story was much more enticing because the reader knew the main character better. In the short story the man(abusive husband) is described as a loving and caring husband, who is very fond of animals. He describes to the reader how his obsession with lcohol is like a disease.

He gets more irritable everyday because his cravings for alcohol become greater and greater. He was often physically abusive to his wife. One night the man came home very drunk and violent so Pluto(the black cat) scratched him out of fear. then the man lost his temper and cut out the cat’s eye with his penknife. One morning the man hanged the cat from a tree limb with a noose around its neck. That night his house burnt to the ground. In the morning he found a petrified white cat with a rope around its neck in the charred remains.

A few days later the man saw a black cat with a white chest and he liked it so much he let the cat follow him home. The cat made itself at home but the man avoided it because of a sense of shame for his former deed. The next day the man noticed that the cat was missing an eye just as Pluto. His wife pointed out that the white spot on its chest resembled the Gallows! The cat made the man trip in his basement one day. So he picked up an ax to kill the cat, and his wife stepped in the way and he put the ax through her brains. The man decided to hide the body and the cat behind a bricked up all in the basement.

The police came and looked at everything. Just before they left, they heard a noise from the basement wall. So they tore the bricks down. Thus they discovered the body and the black cat. The film hints that the man was once a loving and caring husband. The wife told her husband he was not the same man she married. The film shows how the alcohol made the man abuse his wife for more drinking money. There is no hint of affection for animals shown. The man’s wife is having an affair because she doesn’t love her husband anymore.

When the man finds out what his wife is doing he poisons his wife and her boyfriend. Then he bricks them up behind a wall in the basement along with the black cat he hated. Based on this information the critic can see these two story plots are completely different. They even describe the man differently. There is one similarity between the two plots. “A guilty conscious never feels secure. ” The man experiences the truth of this statement because he basically gives the murder away when the cat is heard. Although the two story plots were different, Poe’s unique style of writing can entice anyone.

A Critical Analysis of Hester Prynne

The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne was written in 1849. This novel won him much fame and a good reputation as a writer. In writing The Scarlet Letter, Hawethorne was creating a form of fiction he called the psychological romance. A psychological romance is a story that contains all of the conventional trappings of a typical romance, but deeply portrays humans in conflict with themselves. The Scarlet Letter won Hawthorne great critical acclaim, and even today the book remains on the best seller list.

The Scarlet Letter is so popular maybe because generations of readers can interpret it and see subtle meanings that somewhat reflect their own lives. Each of us, has goodness like Hester Prynne, cowardice like Dimmesdale, and even a little evil like Chillingworth. My favorite character in this book was Hester Prynne because even tough she has done wrong, she remains happy, solid, and sane. In the following essay I plan to critically analyze the novel’s protagonist, Hester Prynne. Hester Prynne is a young woman who was sent to the colonies by her husband, who plans to join her later but is presumed lost at sea.

She is a symbol of the aknowledged sinner; a person whose sin has been recognized but has sought repentance. Hester is the public sinner who shows the effect of her punishment on her human nature. She is seen as a fallen woman in the eyes of the village people. Over the seven years of her punishment Hester’s internal struggle with her sin changes from a victim of Puritanical judgement to being a smart woman who is in tune with human nature. When she meets Dimmesdale in the forest in Chapter 18, Hawthorne says, “ The tendency of her fate and fortunes had been to set her free.

The scarlet letter was her passport into regions where other women dared not tread. ” What is most remarkeable about Hester Prynne is her strength of character. Her inner strength and honesty and her compassion to others, even ones that have condemned her is what is brought to the reader’s attention throughout the novel. At the beginning of the novel Hester is described as a radiant beauty, however seven years later her beauty is gone and the beautiful hair that she once had is hidden underneath a cap that she wears.

In Chapter 13, she removes the cap and the letter “A” and she becomes the beautiful person that she was before her punishment. I think that this is symbolic in that when she removes her cap and letter she taking off the harsh structure of Puritan society. When Pearl demands that she put back on her cap and letter “ her beauty, the warnth and richness of her womanhood, departed, like Alexander, 3 fading sunshine; and a gray shadow seemed to fall across her. ” While her punishment does change her physical appearance, it has a deeper impact on her character.

Despite the lonely life that she leads Hester somehow finds an inner strength to defy both the townspeople and the local government. Hester’s strength is apparent also in dealing with her husband, Chillingworth and her lover, Dimmesdale. This source of strength comes from recognizing her sin and dealing with the consequences. She has nothing but the strength of her spirit to sustain her. This inner peace that she has is recognized by the changing attitude of the community when they begin to think of her not as an adulterer but as an angel of goodness. Hester was also honest.

She openly acknowledges her sin and does not try to hide the letter from the townspeople, but wears it with dignity. By recognizing her sin she remains sane, even though her life had been difficult and somewhat bitter. Finally Hester becomes an angel of compassion and mercy who eventually lives out a life as a figure of sensitivity in the community. She becomes known for her charitable deeds by helping the poor and suffering. Her shame in herself by the judgements of others make her respond to other victims of society and of the world. In time the Puritan society sees the letter not as meaning adultery, but as “angel” or “able”.

She being a victim of the harsh society in which she lived made her more sensitive Alexander, 4 to other victims of society. Her sensitivity turns her symbolic meaning from a person whose life was originally sinful and of an evil nature to a woman who is strong and sensitive with a respect for treating people kindly and with respect. In her final years “the scarlet letter ceased to be a stigma which attracted the world’s scorn and bitterness, and became a type of something the world sorrowed over, and looked upon with awe, yet with reverence too.

Since her character is strongly tied to the scarlet letter, Hester represents the public sinner who changes and learns from her own sorrow to understand the humanity of others. Often when people suffer a great loss in their lives or experiences that change their lives they become survivors with an increased understanding and sympathy for the human losses of others. I think that Hester is such a symbol because she triumphed over tragedy. She went against society for the love of a man.

Even though she was wrong in committing adultry the love that she had for Dimmesdale broke through the bonds of her marriage to Chillingworth. In the end, Hester’s strength, honesty, and sensitivity carry her down the pathway of life. While Dimmesdale dies on the scaffold after his confession and Chillingworth dies of his own bitter hatred , she lives on enduring a quiet life in Colonial Boston. The scarlet letter made her what she was and through her suffering she became a stronger person and found peace.

Catch 22 and Good as Gold – Satire

Joseph Heller who is perhaps one of the most famous writers of the 20th century writes on some emotional issues such as war. He does not deal with these issues in the normal fashion instead he criticizes them and the institutions that help carry these things out. Heller in fact goes beyond criticizing he satirizes. Throughout his two major novels Catch-22 and Good as Gold he satirizes almost all of Americas respectful institutions. To truly understand these novels you must recognize that they are satires and why they are.

Catch-22 is a satire on World War II. This novel takes place on the small island of Pianosa in the Mediterranean sea late in the war when Germany is no longer a threat. It is the struggle of one man, Yossarian, to survive the war. Throughout this novel Yossarian is trying to escape the war, and in order to do so he does many improper things. Good as Gold is about a Jewish man named Gold. It is about Golds experiences with the government while being employed in the White House.

It also deals in detail with Golds family problems and Golds struggle to write a book on the contemporary Jewish society. Throughout these two novels, Catch-22 and Good as Gold, Heller criticizes many institutions. In Good as Gold it is the White House and government as a whole, and in Catch-22 it is the military and medical institutions. In Catch-22 the military is heavily satirized. Heller does this by criticizing it. Karl agrees with this statement by offering an example of the satire of both the military and civilian institutions in Catch-22:

The influence of mail clerk Wintergreen, the computer foul-up that promotes Major Major, and the petty rivalries among officers satirizes the communication failures and the cut-throat competition Heller saw within both the civilian and military bureaucracies of the 1950s. Even the Civil Rights movement, not yet widespread in the 1950s, is satirized in Colonel Cathcart attitudes toward enlisted men. (23) Karl summarizes the satirazation of the military with this:

The enemy in Hellers book is not simply the chaos of war, but also the deadly inhuman bureaucracy of the military-economic establishment which clams to be a stay against chaos while it threatens human life more insidiously then battle itself. Heller also questions the need for the death and carnage throughout the novel asking if it is really necessary. Many other institutions are also satirized in Catch-22. Bryant points out the extreme variety of institutions that Heller satirizes with this “His satire is directed toward the institutions that make up society, business, psychiatry, medicine, law, the military. ” (Bryant 228).

Medicine is one of the institutions that is heavily satirized. He does this by portraying medicine as a science that is almost barbaric and not exact. He writes of how the men of the squadron used the hospital as a way out of battle. Catch-22 it self begins in the hospital where Yossarian is faking Jaundice of the liver in order to avoid battle. Many characters also take this up as a form of staying out of battle. Heller addresses the barbarism of medicine with Dr. Daneekas aides. He writes of them painting peoples gums and feet violet in order to ward of certain illnesses.

In Catch-22 Heller also satirize religion. This occurs in Chapter Nineteen when Colonel Cathcart is aspiring to become a general. In this chapter religion is satirized in a number of ways. The first is when Colonel Cathcart uses it for a social icon to improve his chance of becoming general. Dr. Peek agrees with this by saying “. . . we see a satire on religion used as a matter of social status” (25). In Catch-22 there is also one more major satiriazation it is that of industry and finance. The reason this is true is because of certain things Milo says such as “Whats good for the syndicate is good for the country” (Karl 34).

Good as Gold is manly a satire on the White House and government. Heller portrays the White House as being, “disgraceful,” according to Merrill. Merrill believes that this work criticizes politics almost from page one and that it does an excellent job of it in fact he writes “A number of reviewers found that the Washington satire brilliant and incisive. . . (103). The other device that Heller uses is humor. Catch-22 is so satirical in places that it is hilarious.

Mr. Hellers talent and use of comedy is so prevalent in these novels that it caused The Atlantic to write “Mr. Hellers talents for comedy are so considerable that one gets irritated when he keeps pressing” (Phoenix 31). Other critics such as Brustein also wrote that Hellers works are extremely hilarious (228). Although the novel is funny is uses humor in order to further satirize. Dr. Peek agrees with this statement by saying that “Its [Catch-22] not a flag-waving war adventure, but a novel using humor to discredit or ridicule aspects of out society” (24). Dr. Peek also goes on to comment on the amount of comical dialogue in the novel.

He says that it contains a significant amount of this dialogue and that it further adds to the humor (11). Heller even takes his humor as far as naming his characters comically. Dr. Karl points out the comical naming of Major Major which turns into Major Major Major Major with his accidental promotion (11). The attaching of the prefix “Hungry” to Joes name in the novel is also comical, but Heller does not stop at that he goes as far as naming a character Scheisskopf, the parade crazed lieutenant, which actually means “shithead. ” (Peek 10).

Not only does Heller name characters comically he makes them act comically. The Loyalty Oath Crusade is an excellent example of this. This crusade is so completely absurd that it is humorous. Another example of the humor in this novel is the parades that Scheisskopf orders. It is not that he orders these parades that is comical it is his how serious he takes them. He comments to himself throughout the novel on how he will improve his parades. These ideas include nailing his marchers arms in the proper place. Perhaps one of the best examples of a comical character and who acts satirically is Milo Minderbinder.

Milo runs a black-market syndicate in which he claims everyone gets the profits. Milos company acts as everything from a food supplier to a mercenary. The Germans hire Milo to do a number of missions. The one that Heller writes about in particular detail is the mission where Milo bombs his own squadron killing countless lives. Heller writes that Milo claimed responsibility for the act. As one would expect Milo would be arrested, but Heller carries the satire further by having Milo go scott free after he says “it made a huge net profit” (Peek 27).

Another of Hellers comical characters is the character of Peckem. In the novel Peckem along with Colonel Korn plot to take over General Dreedles command. They do this by placing priority on such things as a perfect bomb pattern which endangers many mens lifes. Hellers description of Peckem is in itself comical he describes him as having the “ability to get men to agree” (Peek 20). Still one further element of Hellers humor is his comical language. The dialogue is extremely comical at times. An example of this is the hearing where Clevinger is being tried.

Throughout this entire scene the characters often retort with just one word and even contradict something they said a moment ago. Dr. Peek believes that the squadron sometimes overcomes the officers command of the them by comical language (36). Heller uses irony throughout both novels in titles and characters in order to satirize. Throughout Catch-22 Heller discusses the theme of reality and appearance. He also discusses the difference between what is said and what is real. This leads to Hellers irony.

The best example of this theme of reality is when Colonel Catchart is discussing whether to punish Yossarian or give him a medal (Peek 21). Dr. Peek also believes that the novel juxtaposes scenes in order to great a “ironic perspective” (Peek 10). In both Good as Gold and Catch-22 Heller names the books ironically. The title of Catch-22 is very ironic because the definition of Catch-22 is that in order to be removed from duty you must be insane. The catch to it is that if you go to a doctor because you believe that you are insane and you want to be removed from combat duty you cannot.

The reason for this is that if you believe you are insane and want to be removed from duty you must be sane because you dont want to fight, hence risking death, any more. Olderman wrote about the catch saying this ” Catch-22 is the principle that informs the military-economic machine, giving it power and making war possible in the first place . . . the illogical must be done because the high command [Catch-22] says it is logical” (229). The title of Good as Gold is also ironic. It is because Good as Gold is the name of the contemporary Jewish novel that Professor Gold writes in Hellers work.

The irony of the title means to say that the novel he writes is only as true and good as Gold is himself. Heller also makes his characters act ironically in both novels. In Catch-22 “Heller treats the senior officers in his book with criticism and scorn. General Dreedles want to shoot Danby for moaning is an excellent example of his portrayal of senior officers as incompetent, ridiculous characters” (Merrill 16). The pinnacle of Hellers irony and therefore satire is in the characters and situations surrounding the characters of Dr. Daneeka and Mudd.

The satire in both these incidents is directed toward record keeping. In Dr. Daneekas case he is believed dead because the plane he was supposed to be on crashed, yet he is really alive. The opposite is true in the Mudd situation. In this situation Mudd is killed before he signs onto the combat roster so therefore he is treated as being alive while really dead as being alive. This treatment is such as his bags will not be removed from his former tent, and also all of the enlisted men speak of him throughout the book. Dr. Peek also points out one further ironic highlight in the novel, McWatts death.

He believes that McWatts death is ironic because McWatt had no malice yet he was violently killed (Peek 24). Good as Gold also has a certain element of irony although it is less apparent. The characters of the White House seem to take their job lightly and do the improper things. The offering of a White House job as high-level as the Secretary of State to Professor Gold by Ralph Newsome, the presidential aide, simply because the president liked Golds book on him is ironic and a excellent example of satire. In Catch-22 Heller also portrays characters that hold high level positions in the military as being incompetent and irresponsible.

Merrill believes that almost all of the characters in the novel are portrayed incompetent which is according to satiric fashions. He sites the numerous doctors that Yossarian fooled by faking a liver condition. He also cites Gus and Wes, Doctor Daneekas assistants, as being incompetent for their rushing of people to the hospital for a fever and their painting to ill peoples toes and gums violet (Merrill 18). It is also obvious in the novel that the military decisions are made in a absurd way and are highly illogical.

The prime example of this is in the character Wintergreen who intercepts mail between the generals and doctors thereby allowing him to change orders to his liking. On this subject Burgess commented in his work on contemporary fiction by saying “His approach [Hellers] is not merely satirical it is surrealistic, absurd, even lunatic, though the aim is serious enough to show . . . the monstrous egotism of the top brass” (Burgess 140). This example of Wintergreen and the Burgess quote further show the irresponsibility and incompetence of high ranking officers.

Heller portrays the military in Catch-22 as being exploitative of its soldiers and society. This is true in certain circumstances such as the tight bomb pattern that Colonel Cathcart deems imperative in order for him to be raised in command level. The military seems to act irresponsibly almost all the time. At one point in the novel the military ordered a whole civilian town destroyed in order to obtain a picture of a tight bomb pattern. This portraysion goes farther then a tight bomb pattern it extends to the point of total control of the soldiers in the military.

Dr. Peek comments on this saying that “. . . tire against dominating bureaucracy in general as the squadron begins to realize that administrators whose job is to serve them have taken control of their lives instead” (20). The last device that Heller uses to create satire is in Good as Gold. In this novel he uses extreme amounts of caricature. This occurs especially in the White House characters. Merrill also points out Hellers caricature of Jewish people as whole by saying that their are no Jews in Good as Gold only “caricatures conceived on a level somewhat between sitcom and slapstick” (100). Hellers two novels, Catch-22 and Good as Gold, in short contain much satire.

Catch-22 contains satire which is deeply integrated into its architecture, while Good as Gold is more superficial but still substantial. While Catch-22 satirizes primarily the military, Good as Gold satirizes the White House and government. These two novels contain many devices such as humor, irony, and caricature in order to achieve the desired effect of satire. As Karl points out Catch-22 had a profound effect on peoples views on war and also a impact on war novels of the 1960s and 1970s. If these novels are read as anything but satires they will not be appreciated nor understood totally.

Comparison of the Novel Pride and Predjudice and the Movie Sense and Sensibility

Pride and Prejudice, the novel by Jane Austen, and Sense and Sensibility, the movie based on the novel by Austen, share many striking similarities. These similarities lie in the characters, plots and subplots between these characters, the settings, and the overall style and themes used in creating the two works. Jane Austen uses extremely similar characters in almost the exact same situation in Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility. The clearest examples of this are the parallels between Jane and Bingley in Pride and Prejudice and Elinor and Ferris in Sense and Sensibility.

Each of the ladies is in love with men who are in love with men far wealthier than they are. In a similar manner, both Ferris and Bingley, despite the fact that their lovers can offer them very little or nothing monetarily, have a true love for Elinor and Jane, respectively. The characters are also similar in that for a while they believe their chance at love is destroyed, when Bingley in the novel and Elinor in the movie are forced by outside circumstances to depart for a new residence.

Both Bingley and Ferris are rumored to be engaged or interested in other, more wealthy, women, but both eventually return to their true lovers and propose to them. Jane Austen clearly uses these similar characters and plotlines to draw on the same main ideas about love, and the unimportance of wealth despite the customs of the times. Austen uses another set of parallel characters between the novel and the movie in Elizabeth and Darcy, and Maryanne and Brandon. In each case, the man either falls in love or is extremely attracted to his female counterpart immediately.

Elizabeth and Maryanne, however, at first have their love lives centered elsewhere. Elizabeth’s “first love” was Wickham, and Maryanne’s was Willowby, but each man deserted and left the women feeling robbed. After being apart from their male admirers for some time and seeing the good each one really possesses, Elizabeth eventually falls in love with Darcy, and Maryanne with Colonel Brandon. This set of similar characters brings to light another of Austen’s ideas, that sometimes what one believes is true love can completely unravel, but love always works out in the end.

Along with the similarities in the main characters and the plots and subplots which occur relating to these characters in Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, the two works are also share many more basic similarities. One of the most obvious is the setting. Each takes place in the early 1800’s in the English countryside, in nice luxurious homes. Each is a comedy of manners, which means that satire is used to criticize the formality and mannerisms of the time, especially among the wealthy class.

Jane Austen constantly uses examples of their excessive “proper” customs, which usually cause nothing but confusion and a lack of progress. Austen often contrasts the uptight and self-absorbed attitude of the wealthy with the characters who display honesty and search for true love rather than money. The movie, Sense and Sensibility, and the novel, Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen, reflect very similar themes and contain almost exact replica characters as well as storylines that these characters undergo.

Each contains one set of lovers whose immediate true love is able to override all obstacles, as well as another couple who are not immediately mutually attracted to each other, but eventually realize they are right for each other and fall in love. Also, each work criticizes the customs relating to love and courting of the time, especially pertaining to the upper class. Jane Austen uses each work in an excellent manner to display similar ideas and themes which were very important to the people of the early 1800’s and still relate well to people today.

Symbolism in A Streetcar Named Desire

“Symbols are nothing but the natural speech of dramathe purest language of plays. ” Once, quoted as having said this, Tennessee Williams has certainly used symbolism and colour extremely effectively in his play, A Streetcar Named Desire’. A moving story about fading Southern belle Blanche DuBois and her lapse into insanity, A Streetcar Named Desire’ contains much symbolism and clever use of colour. This helps the audience to link certain scenes and events to the themes and issues that Williams presents within the play, such as desire and death, and the conflict between the old America and the new.

Scene Three is one of the pivotal scenes of the play. That Williams thought of it in this way is indicated by his choice of the title The Poker Party’ for the third version of the play. The scene begins with extremely explicit stage directions, and one will note that Williams intends the stage to be full of bright, vivid colours – to signify the coarseness and directness of the poker players and their surroundings.

The yellow linoleum, the bright green glass shade, the blue red and green of the men’s shirts – all are colourful and contrasting, and this is indicative that they are impervious to subtlety and ambiguity, two of Blanche’s key characteristics. She is usually seen wearing whites and pinks, and looking very soft and feminine. This will, on stage, contrast oddly with the colour and brightness around her. Williams uses this technique of colour to signify Blanche’s inability to fit in with her surroundings. However, she is also seen in different colours, symbolic of what she is doing at that moment.

She is usually seen in white, indicative of the purity she claims to possess. At other instances, she is dressed in a scarlet silk robe, when she is flirting with Stanley and Mitch. This is suggestive of a scarlet woman’, and draws the audience’s attention to Blanche’s fatal flaw. When on stage together, Blanche’s frilly, dainty clothes are in sharp contrast with Stanley’s greasy seersucker pants, or his vivid green bowling shirt. Blanche herself is symbolic of the old, genteel South, while Stanley epitomises the new generation of working-class Americans; this clash is cleverly brought out by their contrasting costumes.

It is also interesting to note that in Scene Eleven, Blanche is dressed in a jacket of della Robbia blue – the blue used by the artist della Robbia when painting the robes of the Madonna, who is the virgin that Blanche always pretended to be. Williams has made good use of simple visual aids, such as colour, to help the audience retain certain things of importance within the play. Tennessee Williams has also made use of symbols – and his consistency in using them is very helpful to the audience to grasp the ideas he is putting across.

The very names of the characters and places are symbolic. The famous streetcar that brings Blanche to her sister’s house is called Desire’ – desire being one of the main themes in the play. Interestingly, it is the superintendent of the school in Laurel – Mr. Graves – who is one of the main causes for Blanche having to make this journey, from a streetcar named Desire’ to one called Cemeteries’ and finally to her sister’s house, situated in Elysian Fields – the Elysian Fields being the dwelling place of virtuous people after death (in Greek mythology).

Blanche DuBois itself means white woods’ as she tells Mitch – which implies something virginal and unsullied – both of which she is not. Stella means star: “Stella, oh Stella, Stella! Stella for Star! ” as Blanche cries wildly, yet Stella burns not with the intensity of Blanche. Her passions are different, and she is extremely unlike her namesake. Even the home of the DuBois – Belle Reve – means beautiful dream’, symbolic of the past that has gone forever, and Blanche’s inability to rouse herself from her dreamworld of illusions and magic.

This use of irony is extremely effective dramatically, because the audience receives insight into the nature of each character, and other pointers, even before the play begins. It is very difficult to give the audience insight into the characters of each person , merely by the words they speak, so Williams uses animal symbols to help shape the characters in the mind of the audience. Blanche is often pictured as a moth, delicate and frail. The audience may also remember that a light bulb has often caused the destruction of the moth in everyday life.

Blanche must avid a strong light to keep up her pretence of being young, and it his her exposure to the light (both literally, when Mitch pulls off the paper lantern from the bulb, and metaphorically, when Stanley exposes her in her true colours to the world) that is her downfall. Stanley remarks about her drinking, “lapping it up like a wildcat”, and just before the climax in Scene Ten her controls her, saying “Tiger-tiger” just like a tamer in a circus. Stanley himself is described as an ape by Blanche, and Stella rebukes him for eating like a pig.

The simple symbols speak volumes about the kind of person Stanley is, and symbols such as these are extremely valuable to the audience, giving insight and understanding. Williams also uses the less obvious symbolism of music – the perpetual blue piano’, which expresses the spirit of New Orleans, the sounds and strains of the Varsouviana polka, whenever Blanche is forced to remember the gruesome death of her husband, and Blanche’s choice of songs for singing in the bathtub.

In Scene Two, she sings: “From the land of the sky blue water, They brought a captive maid! ” She herself is the captive maid she so blithely warbles about. In Scne Seven, her singin that it’s a Barnum and Bailey world, just as phony as it can be’, is juxtaposed with Stanley’s uncovering of her phony lies, and sensitive members of the audience will recognise this subtler symbolism. Williams also uses other symbols within the play, such as the playing of poker.

This is symbolic of Stanley’s and Blanche’s struggle for the upper hand, and in Scene Eleven, while Blanche is about to be taken away to the asylum, Stanley is playing poker, and he is winning all the games. Blanche’s fear of bright light is symbolic of her fear of being exposed for who she really is, and her incessant bathing is almost like a ritual cleansing of sins that she can never really purge.

Her inability to use the telephone to contact Shep Huntleigh and Mitch is also indicative of her inability to communicate with the other people in her world, which is partly the reason for her subsequent insanity. Few playwrights use symbolism as extensively as Tennessee Williams, and even fewer use it as effectively as he. Even in The Glass Menagerie’ he uses Laura’s collection of glass figurines as symbols, giving insight into her multi-faceted character, and her delicate, fanciful ways.

The fate of the unicorn is also a smaller-scale version of her fate at the end of the play. Williams is fully aware of the fact that plays are meant to be staged. His themes and issues are complex, so he uses symbols and colours to highlight events and important issues, thus helping his audience. Looking deeply into his play, we see that not only is A Streetcar Names Desire’ full of symbolism, the play itself is symbolic of the clashes between Old and New, the Past and the Present.

The Renaissance Woman

Pablo Picasso once said there are two kinds of women; there are goddesses and doormats. This quote perfectly reflects the outlook of Renaissance women. Shakespeare fully illustrates this in his novel, Taming of The Shrew. By portraying the darker side of the Renaissance life of Elizabethan women, the concept of marriage as a business agreement, and by using animal imagery, Shakepeare demonstrates that the Elizabethan era was not a particularly good time to be a woman. I will be master of what is mine own.

She is my goods my chattels; she is my house, my household stuff, my field, my barn, my horse, my ox, my ass, my anything, Petruchio said about his wife Katherine. In this quote Shakespeare clearly expresses that women are mens chattel (property). In this era, women were not thought of being any better than an ox or a cow. Women were the last on the Gods social scale — politics, and family (house, children, cow, wife). In addition to women being property, women were bonded into forced marriages. In the Renaissance era, marriage was not about love, but about dowry and dower.

The dowry was the wealth or possessions given from the brides father to the groom, when married. The dower was the wealth or possession provided to the bride when married. Baptista comments, I must confess your offer is the best, and let your father make her the assurance, she is your own; else you must pardon me Shakespeare stresses that marriage is between the fathers of the bride and the bridegroom. It also depicts that women do not have a choice who they marry, but is offered to whichever suitor has the highest bid for her. Lastly, in the Elizabethan era men used animal imagery to portray womens characteristics.

In the title of the novel, a cute cuddly shrew with a horrible temper represents Katherine, a pretty girl ready to explode like a time bomb. Shakespeare uses animal imagery to add comedy to the play, for instance in Katherines line, What is your crest? A coxcomb? Then Petruchio plays on her words by using animal imagery and puns, A combless cock, so Kate will be my hen. These quotes clearly express Kate being described as a shrew and Petruchios hen. This technique of writing adds comedy, and offers a great comparison of human and animal characteristics, even though the comparisons are insulting to the female gender.

The Taming of The Shrew clearly expresses the proper role of an Elizabethan woman, the concept of marriage as a business agreement, and the use of animal imagery to describe womens characteristics. In spite of the hardships that women have endured through the centuries to become independent, one must agree that there are still limitations placed upon women today. While modern women would hardly put up with what Katherine endured, men still call women chicks, so is there much truth in the modern adage, Youve come a long way baby? Shakespeare might be laughing in his grave at the thought.

Elizabethan Revenge in Hamlet

Hamlet is a play written by William Shakespeare that very closely follows the dramatic conventions of revenge in Elizabethan theater. All revenge tragedies originally stemmed from the Greeks, who wrote and performed the first plays. After the Greeks came Seneca who was very influential to all Elizabethan tragedy writers. Seneca who was Roman, basically set all of the ideas and the norms for all revenge play writers in the Renaissance era including William Shakespeare. The two most famous English revenge tragedies written in the Elizabethan era were Hamlet, written by Shakespeare and The Spanish Tragedy, written by Thomas Kyd.

These two plays used mostly all of the Elizabethan conventions for revenge tragedies in their plays. Hamlet especially incorporated all revenge conventions in one way or another, which truly made Hamlet a typical revenge play. Shakespeares Hamlet is one of many heroes of the Elizabethan and Jacobean stage who finds himself grievously wronged by a powerful figure, with no recourse to the law, and with a crime against his family to avenge. Seneca was among the greatest authors of classical tragedies and there was not one educated Elizabethan who was unaware of him or his plays.

There were certain stylistic and different strategically hought out devices that Elizabethan playwrights including Shakespeare learned and used from Senecas great tragedies. The five act structure, the appearance of some kind of ghost, the one line exchanges known as stichomythia, and Senecas use of long rhetorical speeches were all later used in tragedies by Elizabethan playwrights. Some of Senecas ideas were originally taken from the Greeks when the Romans conquered Greece, and with it they took home many Greek theatrical ideas.

Some of Senecas stories that originated from the Greeks like Agamemnon and Thyestes which dealt with bloody family histories and revenge captivated the Elizabethans. Senecas stories werent really written for performance purposes, so if English playwrights liked his ideas, they had to figure out a way to make the story theatrically workable, relevant and exciting to the Elizabethan audience who were very demanding. Senecas influence formed part of a developing tradition of tragedies whose plots hinge on political power, forbidden sexuality, family honor and private revenge.

There was no author who exercised a wider or deeper influence upon the Elizabethan mind or upon the Elizabethan form of tragedy than did Seneca. For the dramatists of Renaissance Italy, France and England, lassical tragedy meant only the ten Latin plays of Seneca and not Euripides, Aeschylus and Sophocles. Hamlet is certainly not much like any play of Senecas one can name, but Seneca is undoubtedly one of the effective ingredients in the emotional charge of Hamlet. Hamlet without Seneca is inconceivable.

During the time of Elizabethan theater, plays about tragedy and revenge were very common and a regular convention seemed to be formed on what aspects should be put into a typical revenge tragedy. In all revenge tragedies first and foremost, a crime is committed and for various reasons laws and justice cannot punish the crime so the ndividual who is the main character, goes through with the revenge in spite of everything. The main character then usually had a period of doubt , where he tries to decide whether or not to go through with the revenge, which usually involves tough and complex planning.

Other features that were typical were the appearance of a ghost, to get the revenger to go through with the deed. The revenger also usually had a very close relationship with the audience through soliloquies and asides. The original crime that will eventually be avenged is nearly always sexual or violent or both. The crime has been committed against family member of the revenger. The revenger places himself outside the normal moral order of things, and often becomes more isolated as the play progresses-an isolation which at its most extreme becomes madness.

The revenge must be the cause of a catastrophe and the beginning of the revenge must start immediately after the crisis. After the ghost persuades the revenger to commit his deed, a hesitation first occurs and then a delay by the avenger before killing the murderer, and his actual or acted out madness. The revenge must be taken out by the revenger or his trusted accomplices. The revenger and is accomplices may also die at the moment of success or even during the course of revenge. It should not be assumed that revenge plays parallel the moral expectations of the Elizabethan audience.

Church, State and the regular morals of people in that age did not accept revenge, instead they thought that revenge would simply not under any circumezces be tolerated no matter what the original deed was. It is repugnant on theological grounds, since Christian orthodoxy posits a world ordered by Divine Providence, in which revenge is a sin and a blasphemy, endangering the soul of the revenger. The revenger by taking law into is own hands was in turn completely going against the total political authority of the state.

People should therefore never think that revenge was expected by Elizabethan society. Although they loved to see it in plays, it was considered sinful and it was utterly condemned. The Spanish Tragedy written by Thomas Kyd was an excellent example of a revenge tragedy. With this play, Elizabethan theater received its first great revenge tragedy, and because of the success of this play, the dramatic form had to be imitated. The play was performed from 1587 to 1589 and it gave people an everlasting emembrance of the story of a father who avenges the murder of his son.

In this story, a man named Andrea is killed by Balthazar in the heat of battle. The death was considered by Elizabethan people as a fair one, therefore a problem occurred when Andreas ghost appeared to seek vengeance on its killer. Kyd seemed to have used this to parallel a ghost named Achilles in Senecas play Troades. Andreas ghost comes and tells his father, Hieronimo that he must seek revenge. Hieronimo does not know who killed his son but he goes to find out. During his investigation, he receives a letter saying that Lorenzo killed his on, but he doubts this so he runs to the king for justice.

Hieronimo importantly secures his legal rights before taking justice into his own hands. The madness scene comes into effect when Hieronimos wife, Usable goes mad, and Hieronimo is so stunned that his mind becomes once again unsettled. Finally Hieronimo decides to go through with the revenge, so he seeks out to murder Balthazar and Lorenzo, which he successfully does. Hieronimo becomes a blood thirsty maniac and when the king calls for his arrest, he commits suicide. As well as the fact that Elizabethan theater had its rules bout how a revenge tragedy had to be, so did Thomas Kyd.

He came up with the Kydian Formula to distinguish revenge tragedies from other plays. His first point was that the fundamental motive was revenge, and the revenge is aided by an accomplice who both commit suicide after the revenge is achieved. The ghost of the slain watches the revenge on the person who killed him. The revenger goes through justifiable hesitation before committing to revenge as a solution. Madness occurs due to the grieve of a loss. Intrigue is used against and by the revenger. There is bloody action and many deaths that occur throughout the entire play.

The accomplices on both sides are killed. The villain is full of villainous devices. The revenge is accomplished terribly and fittingly. The final point that Thomas Kyd made about his play was that minor characters are left to deal with the situation at the end of the play. The Spanish Tragedy follows these rules made by Kyd very closely, simply because Kyd developed these rules from the play. The fundamental motive was revenge because that was the central theme of the play. The ghost of Andrea sees his father kill the men who murdered Andrea originally.

Hieronimo hesitates first because he goes o the king and then he is faced with Isabellas madness which is caused by Andreas death. The play is filled with all kinds of bloody action and many people die throughout the course of the play. The accomplices in the play also all end up dead. Lorenzo who is the true villain, is full of all kinds of evil villainous devices. The revenge works out perfectly, in that both Lorenzo and Balthazar get murdered in the end by Hieronimo. The minor characters were left to clean up the mess of all of the deaths that occurred during the play.

The Spanish Tragedy also follows the conventions of Elizabethan theater very closely. The murder was committed and Hieronimo had to take justice into his own hands, because true justice just simply wasnt available. Hieronimo then delays his revenge for many different reasons that occur in the play. The ghost of Andrea appeared and guided Hieronimo to the direction of his killer. Also at the end of the play, both Hieronimo and his accomplices die after they were successful in committing the revenge. In Hamlet, Shakespeare follows regular convention for a large part of the play.

In the beginning, Shakespeare sets up the scene, having a ghost on a dark night. Everyone is working and something trange is happening in Denmark. It is as if Shakespeare is saying that some kind of foul play has been committed. This sets up for the major theme in the play which is of course revenge. The ghost appears to talk to Hamlet. It is quite obvious that the play had a gruesome, violent death and the sexual aspect of the play was clearly introduced when Claudius married Hamlets mother Gertrude.

The ghost tells Hamlet that he has been given the role of the person who will take revenge upon Claudius. Hamlet must now think of how to take revenge on Claudius, although he doesnt know what to do about it. He ponders his houghts for a long period of time, expecting to do the deed immediately, but instead he drags it on until the end of the play. Although what was important to note was that all tragic heroes of plays at that time delayed their actual revenge until the end of the play.

In most revenge plays, the revenger was often anonymous and well disguised, stalking the enemy about to be killed, but Hamlet started a battle of wits with Claudius by acting mad and calling it his antic disposition, although the whole thing was a ploy to get closer to Claudius to be able to avenge his fathers death more easily. The actic was a disadvantage in that it drew all attention upon himself. More importantly though it was an advantage that his antic disposition, isolated him from the rest of the court because of the people not paying attention to what he thought or did because of his craziness.

One important part of all revenge plays is that after the revenge is finally decided upon, the tragic hero delays the actual revenge until the end of the play. Hamlets delay of killing Claudius takes on three distinct stages. Firstly he had to prove that the ghost was actually telling the truth, and he did this by staging the play The Mousetrap at court. When Claudius stormed out in rage, Hamlet knew that he was guilty. The second stage was when Hamlet could have killed Claudius while he was confessing to god.

If Hamlet had done it here then Claudius would have gone to heaven because he confessed while Hamlets father was in purgatory because he did not get the opportunity to confess. So Hamlet therefore decided not to murder Claudius at this point in the play. The third delay was the fact that he got side tracked. He accidentally killed Polonius which created a whole new problem with the fact that Laertes now wanted Hamlet dead. After he commit this murder he was also sent off and unable to see the king for another few weeks until he could finally do the job.

What makes Hamlet ezd out from many other revenge plays of the period is not that it rejects the conventions of its genre but that it both enacts and analyses them. It can be easily understood that Hamlet very closely follows the regular conventions for all Elizabethan tragedies. First Hamlet is faced with the fact that he has to avenge the murder of his father and since there is no fair justice available, he must take the law into his own hands. The ghost of his father appears to guide Hamlet to Claudius and inform Hamlet of the evil that Claudius has committed.

Then Hamlet coneztly delays his revenge and always finds a way to put it off until he finally does it in Act V, Scene 2. Hamlet at the same time continues to keep a close relationship with the audience with his seven main soliloquies including the famous, To be, or not to be… (Act 3 Scene 1). The play also consists of a mad scene where Ophelia has gone mad because her father Polonius had been killed and because Hamlet was sent off to England. The sexual aspect of the play was brought in when Claudius married Gertrude after he had dreadfully illed Old Hamlet and taken his throne.

Hamlet also follows almost every aspect of Thomas Kyds formula for a revenge tragedy. The only point that can be argued is that the accomplices on both sides were not killed because at the end of the play, Horatio was the only one to survive, although if it wasnt for Hamlet, Horatio would have commit suicide when he said, I am more an antique Roman than a Dane. Heres some liquor left. (Act V Scene 2, 346-347). If Horatio had killed himself, then Hamlet would have followed the Kydian formula as well as the regular conventions for Elizabethan revenge tragedy.

Hamlet is definitely a great example of a typical revenge tragedy of the Elizabethan theater era. It followed every convention required to classify it as a revenge play quite perfectly. Hamlet is definitely one of the greatest revenge stories ever written and it was all influenced first by Sophocles, Euripides and other Greeks, and then more importantly by Seneca. Hamlet as well as The Spanish Tragedy tackled and conquered all areas that were required for the consummation of a great revenge tragedy. Revenge although thought to be unlawful and against the Church was absolutely adored by all Elizabethan people.

The Elizabethan audience always insisted on seeing eventual justice, and one who stained his hands with blood had to pay the penalty. That no revenger, no matter how just, ever wholly escapes the penalty for shedding blood, even in error. This was also a very important point that was also dealt with brilliantly by Shakespeare in finding a way to kill Hamlet justly even though he was required to kill Claudius. Hamlet was written with the mighty pen of Shakespeare who once again shows people that he can conjure up any play and make it one of the greatest of all time. Hamlet was one of the greatest of all time.

Sophocles “Oedipus the King”

Sophocles wrote “Oedipus the King” for the annual festival where playwrights competed for prizes. It was a major civic occasion, with attendance expected. Sophocles the writer is phenomenally good, especially considering his era. His writing is tight, with each phrase contributing to the whole. He is full of succinct observations on life. And despite the limits of the form, he often manages to make his characters seem like real individuals.

The title of our play is often given in its Latin translation “Oedipus Rex”, rather than in its original Greek (“Oedipus Tyranneus”), since the Greek term for king is the English “tyrant” which means a monarch who rules without the consent of the people. As the play opens, the priest of Zeus and a bunch of non-speaking characters (old people, children) appear before King Oedipus with tree-branches wrapped with wool. It was evidently the custom to do this in front of a god’s altar when you wanted something urgently. Oedipus greets them as a caring, compassionate leader.

The priest explains (really for the audience’s benefit) that Thebes is suffering from a plague. Plants, animals, and people are all dying. The people know Oedipus is not a god, but they believe that some god inspired him to solve the riddle of the sphinx and save the town. And since Oedipus has been king, he has done a splendid job. So now people look to him to find a cure for the plague. Oedipus explains (really for the audience’s benefit) that he has sent Creon (Jocasta’s brother) to the oracle of the god Apollo at Delphi to get an answer.

He’s late returning, but as soon as he gets back, Oedipus promises to do whatever the oracle says. Just then, Creon arrives. Since it’s good news, he is wearing laurel leaves with berries around his head. Creon says, “All’s well that ends well. ” (The Greeks loved irony. ) Apollo said that the killer of Laius must be found and banished, and the plague will end. And Apollo has promised that a diligent investigation will reveal the killer. Oedipus asks to review the facts. All that is known is that Laius left for Delphi and never returned. (Don’t ask what Oedipus did with the bodies of Laius and his crew.

There was no immediate investigation, because of the sphinx problem. One of Laius’s men escaped, and walked back to Thebes. (Don’t ask what Oedipus did with Laius’s horses and chariot. ) By the time he got back, Oedipus was being hailed as king. The witness said Laius was killed by a gang of robbers. (We can already figure out why the witness lied. And we’ll learn later that he asked immediately to be transferred away from Thebes, and has been gone ever since. ) Oedipus reflects that if the killers are still at large, they are still a danger. He decides to issue a policy statement to help find the killer.

The chorus, in a song, calls on the various gods (including Triple Artemis, in her aspects as huntress, moon-goddess, and goddess of dark sorcery), to save them from the plague and from the evil god Ares, who is ordinarily the god of war but is here the god of general mass death. Oedipus issues a policy statement, that whoever comes forward with information about the murder of Laius will be rewarded, and that if the killer himself confesses, he will not be punished beyond having to leave the city permanently. On the other hand, if anyone conceals the killer, Oedipus says he will be cursed.

Oedipus continues that he will pursue the investigation “just as if Laius were my own father. ” (The Greeks loved irony. ) The Chorus says that Apollo ought to come right out and say who the murderer is. (The Chorus’s job is to say what ordinary people think. ) Oedipus says, “Nobody can make the gods do what they don’t want to. ” The chorus suggests bringing in the blind psychic, Teiresias. Especially, they hope he can find the missing witness to the killing. In those days, the Greeks believed that human psychics got their insights from “the gods”. There are other stories about Teiresias.

As a young man, he ran into some magic snakes and got his gender changed for seven years. This enabled him to tell whether the male or the female enjoys sex more. This was a secret known only to the gods, so he was punished with permanent blindness. Teiresias comes in. Oedipus asks his help finding the killers, ending up by saying, “The greatest thing you can do with your life is to use all your special talents to help others unselfishly. ” Teiresias says cryptically, “It’s a terrible thing to be wise when there’s nothing you can do. ” (As A. A. Milne would say later, and perhaps Oedipus too, “When ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise. Teiresias says, “I want to go home. ”

Oedipus calls him unpatriotic. Teiresias says, “Your words are wide of the mark (hamartia)”. Our expression in English is “You’re missing the point”. (Originally an archery target was a point. ) We’ll hear about hamartia again. Teiresias continues to stonewall, and Oedipus gets very angry. Finally Teiresias gives in, says Oedipus is the killer, and adds that he is “living in shame with his closest relative. ” Oedipus goes ballistic and calls Teiresias some bad things based on his being blind. Teiresias says, “You’ll see soon.

Oedipus understandably thinks this is a poltical trick to smear him, with Teiresias and Creon in cahoots. Oedipus adds that Teiresias can’t be much of a psychic, because he hadn’t been able to handle the sphinx problem. The Chorus tells both men to cool down. Teiresias leaves, predicting disaster. Soon Oedipus will learn the truth and be a blind exile, leaning on his staff. The Chorus sings about the oracle at Delphi, which was supposedly the center of the world. “Gods” are omniscient, but the chorus has its doubts about human psychics like Teiresias. Especially, they cannot believe Oedipus is a killer.

Creon comes in, incensed that Oedipus would accuse him of trying to smear him. The Chorus says Oedipus is simply angry. Creon says he must be nuts. The Chorus says that to the king’s faults and misbehavior, they are blind. (“See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” — the norm in a non-democracy. ) Oedipus comes in and accuses Creon directly of planning a coup, using a smear by a crooked psychic as an excuse. They exchange angry words. Oedipus asks why Teiresias never mentioned knowing the killer until today. Creon can’t explain this. He defends himself from the accusation of planning a coup. ) Being king is too much trouble. (2) Creon has other worthwhile things to do. (3)

Creon has everything he needs. (4) Creon has political influence anyway. (5) Creon is well-liked and isn’t going to do an obvious wrong. “You build a good reputation over a lifetime. A single bad action ruins it. ” The Greeks loved irony. Oedipus isn’t satisfied. He says he wants Creon executed for treason. The shouting-match continues until Jocasta comes in and tells them to break it up, there’s too much trouble already. The Chorus says it agrees, and tells Jocasta that both men are at fault.

Creon leaves, and Jocasta asks what’s happened. The Chorus talks about what a fine king Oedipus has been, and says, “Let’s forget the whole business with Teiresias’s prophecy. ” The Chorus uses a variant of the proverb, “Let sleeping dogs lie. ” It’s better not to ask about things that can make trouble. The Greeks loved irony. Oedipus talks about it anyway. Jocasta says, “Well, I don’t believe in psychics. I’ll prove it. Laius and I were told that our baby would kill him and marry me. But this never happened, because we left the baby to die in the woods.

And the witness said that Laius was killed at that place where three roads meet by robbers. ” “Uh-oh”, says Oedipus. “Which three roads? ” The Greeks loved irony. Jocasta says, “It’s where the roads from Thebes, Delphi, and Daulis meet. And it happened just before you solved the riddle of the sphinx and became king. ” Oedipus is upset. He asks Zeus (chief god), “What are you doing to me? ” He asks Jocasta for a description. Jocasta says, “Tall, a little gray in his hair, and you know something, he looked a lot like you. ” The Greeks loved irony. Oedipus continues his questioning.

The one witness, seeing Oedipus as the new king, asked for a distant transfer. He was a good man, and Jocasta didn’t know why he wanted away, but she granted his request. Oedipus tells his story. He was going to the oracles to find out whether he was adopted. All of them told him simply that he would kill his father and marry his mother. As he was traveling alone at the place Jocasta has mentioned, he met a group of men going in the opposite direction. The men, including the leader, started insulting him. Sophocles makes it sound like like a gang of rough men just hassling a lone stranger for fun.

One of the men shoved Oedipus. Oedipus punched him back. The leader struck Oedipus treacherously on the back of the head with the horse staff, Oedipus turned and hit the leader in the chest with his own staff, knocking him out of the chariot. Then Oedipus managed to kill them all except for the one who ran away. It was justifiable, self-defense. But Oedipus is devastated. He says he must be the killer of Laius, and he is ashamed that he has been having sex with his victim’s wife. Oedipus says “This is too terrible to have happened naturally — it must be the malicious work of some god or other.

He says he will simply leave the city, now, and let the plague end. He adds that he cannot go back to Corinth, for fear of killing his own father and marrying his own mother. The Chorus is deeply sympathetic to Oedipus, and appreciative of his willingness to go voluntarily into exile to save the city. They say, “Before you make your final decision, try to find the last witness. Maybe he will exonerate you. ” And Oedipus notes, “The witness did say it was robbers, plural. ” Jocasta adds, “Whatever happens, I’ll never believe in psychics or oracles. Laius was prophesied to die by the hand of his own child. ”

The Chorus sings a puzzling song about how (1) we have to obey the gods; (2) the gods’s best gift is good government; (3) if the government is bad, there is no reason to be good; (4) nobody believes in oracles any more. Jocasta comes in, having visited the local shrines and left little offerings, and asks people to join her in praying for the distraught Oedipus. He’s our leader, and we need him now. She prays to Apollo to make this disastrous situation better. The Greeks loved irony. Just then, a messenger comes in from Corinth. He says “Lucky Jocasta, you lucky wife! ” (Actually, “Blessed is your marriage bed! The Greeks loved irony. )

The king of Corinth has died, and the Corinthians have chosen Oedipus to be their new king. (Greek city-states were often elective monarchies. ) Jocasta says, “Great news. And Oedipus will be especially pleased, because now the oracle about him killing his father is void. You see, I was right not to believe in oracles. ” The Greeks loved irony. Oedipus comes in, hears the news, and says, “Maybe the oracle has been fulfilled figuratively; perhaps he died of grief for my absence. But I’m still worried about marrying my mother. ” Jocasta says, “Forget it.

Life is governed by chance, not destiny. Maybe you’ll dream about marrying your mother. You should ignore dreams. ” Oedipus is still worried. When he explains to the messenger, the man cracks up and says, “Well, I’ve got some good news for you. You don’t have to worry about marrying the lady you’ve called mother… because you’re adopted! ” All hell breaks loose. Oedipus questions the messenger, and learns the messenger had been herding sheep, had met a shepherd who had found Oedipus, had taken the baby, had taken the pin out of his ankles, and had given him to the king and queen of Corinth to raise as their own.

Oedipus is starting to wonder about what has always been wrong with his feet. Oedipus says, “It’s time to clear this up. Send for the other shepherd. ” Jocasta realizes exactly what has happened. Jocasta begs Oedipus NOT to pursue the matter. Oedipus says he has to know. (If Oedipus wasn’t so intent on getting to the truth, there’d be no play. ) Jocasta runs out horribly upset. Oedipus is a little slower, and thinks, “Perhaps she’s upset to find out I’m not really of royal blood. But what the heck — I’m ‘Destiny’s child’ — and that’s something to be proud of!

I’m me. ” The Greeks loved irony. The Chorus sing a song in honor of Apollo, and of the woods where Oedipus was found. The say the spot will become famous. Perhaps Oedipus is the child of nymphs and satyrs. The Greeks loved irony. The other shepherd is brought in. He already has figured things out, and pretends he doesn’t remember. Then he begs the other messenger to be quiet. But Oedipus insists on the truth. It comes out. Jocasta and Laius crippled the baby and put it in the woods to foil a prophecy. Oedipus had, indeed, always wondered what was wrong with his feet.

Now everybody knows the truth. Oedipus rushes out. The Chorus sings a song about how transient happiness is, what a splendid king Oedipus has been, and how Oedipus is now the victim of destiny. The next scene is an extremely graphic account, by an eyewitness. Jocasta ran into the bedroom, screaming. She locked the door from inside. A few minutes later, Oedipus came in, and broke down the door with what seemed to be supernatural strength. He found Jocasta dead, hanging. Oedipus took the body down, then removed the pin that held up her dress.

He stabbed it again and again into his eyes, saying he has looked at his mother’s naked body when he shouldn’t, and he has learned what he now wishes he hadn’t. The blood didn’t merely dribble, as after a single needlestick. It gushed on both sides. For this to happen, the choroidal artery that enters the eye from behind must be severed. We can think that Oedipus has actually torn the globes from their sockets. Oedipus now begs to be taken out of the city (so that the plague will end), but he has no strength and no guide. Oedipus comes in. Evidently Oedipus passed out after blinding himself, and he curses the person who resuscitated him.

The Chorus asks, “How were you able to rip out your eyeballs? ” Oedipus replies, “Apollo gave me the strength to do it. ” Creon is the new king. He is not angry, merely kind. He helps Oedipus up and out of the city, guided by his two daughters. Staff in hand, Oedipus himself is the answer to the riddle of the sphinx. Oedipus says that some incredible destiny must surely await him. But the Chorus ends with a reflection on how transient human happiness often us: “Don’t say anybody is fortunate until that person is dead — the final rest, free from pain. ”

What is Sophocles saying? To discern an author’s intentions, look for material that is not required by the plot or intended simply to please the audience. In retelling the story of Oedipus, Sophocles goes beyond mere irony. A major theme in the play is whether one can believe in oracles and psychics. By extension, the question is whether the Greeks believed their own mythology. Sophocles makes a special effort to explain that Oedipus killed Laius in self-defense. More generally, Sophocles goes out of his way to present Oedipus as an extremely capable, beloved administrator.

Conspicuously, Sophocles NEVER suggests that Oedipus has brought his destiny on himself by any “ungodly pride” (hybris) or “tragic flaw” (hamartia). The last lines seem ambiguous. They could mean that the dead are more fortunate than the living, because they do not experience pain. Is life really that bad? “The gods” made the prophecies that led Oedipus into disaster. The sphinx appeared (she must have been sent by the gods), and Oedipus solved her riddle (the chorus says he must have been guided by the gods. ) Teiresias could not solve the riddle, or detect the killer — thanks to “the gods”.

At the beginning, Apollo’s oracle simply says, “Find the killer” — leading to the cruel ironies of the play. Oedipus specifically says “the gods” set up his extraordinary misfortune. And at the end, Apollo merely gives Oedipus the strength to carve his own eyes out of their sockets. In other words, Sophocles says that Oedipus’s frightful misadvanture is the intentional work of “the gods”. At the end, everybody says this. Pure and simple. Nobody even asks why. The Golden Age of Athens was a time for thinkers, scientists, inventors, and for people to share ideas freely.

Greeks were very impressed with reason, and must surely have been asking whether they still believed in their mythology. “Social conservatives” prosecuted Socrates for expressing doubts about “the gods”, but only because they thought this would corrupt the minds of young people. (Does this sound familiar? ) People have often noted that comedy and melodrama have arisen independently in many cultures, but that tragedy has its unique beginnings in Athen’s golden age — the first time that we hear people asking the tough questions about what they really believed.

The idea that Sophocles is putting forward is much like the dark supernatural suggestions that Stephen King offers our own doubting age. Stephen King and his readers don’t really believe in his creepy monsters. And I don’t know whether Sophocles really believed the message of “Oedipus the King”. Sophocles is saying, “Maybe the gods do exist… and are consciously and elaborately MALICIOUS. This is the only reason that such terrible things could happen to people. “

The Joy Luck Club

The Joy Luck Club is a story about four Chinese friends and their daughters. It tells the story of the mothers struggles in China and their acceptance in America, and the daughters struggles of finding themselves as Chinese-Americans. The movie starts off with a story about a swan feather, and how it was brought over with only good intentions. Then the movie goes on, the setting is at a party for June the daughter of Suyuan. Suyuan has just past away about four months ago, and her mothers friends have found her long lost daughters.

But it is too late for her to go see them so they tell June, about it and they arrange a meeting for her in China. The party is a going away party for Junes trip to China. At the party June realizes that she was expected to take the place of her mother at the mahjong table. June sat at the East where it all starts The Joy Luck Club. The Joy Luck club was a weekly meeting of the best friends, were they talked about their hopes for their daughters and there stories of the past. The swan feather in the beginning was a symbol of all the hopes and dreams that the mother wanted to give to her daughter.

This woman crossing a vast ocean, with only the company of a swan, yet she is not scared. She has dreams for her daughter, and this dream is the driving force of her actions. She is moved to realize this dream, that she is not even aware of the potential bad outcomes. There is no talk about hoping to have a daughter it says I will have a daughter just like me, and she will always be to full to swallow any sorrow. There is no single thought of failure in her mind. Her dreams have instilled in her blind faith, and inherent optimism. She will go as far as that she lets these qualities take her.

The swan feather is a symbol of Chinese culture, in that it was brought from China with only good intentions. It was not a symbol for failure but for hope. The swan grew up to me more than what was hoped for it was too beautiful to eat. But when it was taken away, the only thing that was left was a feather a symbol of something that was meant to be nothing but became more. It was a symbol for the mothers it was what they wanted there children to become more then what they where in China. This symbol was learned through the stories that the mothers have told to their daughters.

It was learned through the hard ship that the mothers have experienced in there past in China, the past that haunted them to America. In the story of June and her mother Suyuan, in the kitchen. June stands out strongly, because of her mothers intention in giving her the pendant is unclear, it spurs her to the question. That the gift was given in the context of their discussion of quality, and may show in specific way her mother was valuing her, not just for being her daughter, but because she was finally, best at something. This was the night that Suyuan recognized her daughter is different, but Best Quality.

Suyuan wanted the best for her daughter. Suyuan knew that her daughter was the best but never really said it to her. June always thought that she wasnt enough for her mother that she never measured up to her expectations. And everything that her mother hoped for that she couldnt meet, she was a disappointment. Her mother noticed that she had all the qualities that she hoped for in a daughter, she told this to her daughter when she noticed that she always took the worst crab so that the best crab was served to the guest. June had the Best Heart. This was something that Suyuan wanted to give to her daughter.

June now realizes this, and she realizes that she has met her mothers hopes. The pendant is her mothers recognition that, if nothing else, June is true to her own nature, is the best. June finds herself performing the same kitchen-rituals that her mother did, June truly begins to understand and honor her. June takes on her mothers spirit as she sits down at the East in the Joy Luck Club. You can also see this when she arrives in China to greet her sisters, with the swan feather at hand. Another symbol in the Joy Luck Club happens between Ying- Ying and Lena.

It starts out by telling the story of Ying- Ying’s past in China and how she recognizes the indirect way that her mother instilled in her a fear of unforeseen and disastrous consequences of her actions. The balance sheet on the refrigerator is the sign that makes it possible for Ying-Ying to redeem herself to her daughter. To show her daughter what a marriage is suppose to be made out of. The economic metaphor illustrates how poor her marriage is in the balance that really matters. Like the table that Harold built, the marriage is showy without being functional.

Ying-Ying demonstrates to her daughter that surface balance is useless and that Lenas conception of herself and Harold being equal is flawed. When the table falls it illustrates the breaking of the marriage, and the freeing of the spirit of the mother. This spirit gives Lena the strength to decide what she wants out of the marriage. You find out in the movie that she had left Harold and is going out with a young Chinese man that respects and loves Lena and her mother Ying-Ying. I am a Chinese-American 2nd generation. Meaning my mom and dad are Chinese but they grew up in America.

I look at my family and culture and it seems like the American way has somehow covered the Chinese way. I look at the way that my grandma is and compare it with the way my mom is and see some resemblance in it. But then there are so many ways that it is different. For example when my grandmother comes over it seems like we cant ever throw away anything she finds some kind of use for it. But on the other hand my mom throws everything away, she always says that we can buy a new one if it breaks. This difference shows me that the economic way that my mom grew up in is different than the way that my grandmother grew up in.

My mom always told me that she doesnt want me to go without something that I want. I know this cause when I was little I use to watch the toy commercials on T. V and every time I saw something that I wanted, I would tell her, and she would buy it for me, like nothing. I think that she wants more for me than what she could have had when she was little. My mom use to tell me the stories of her growing up and only eating a little so that her brother could have more than her, and grow up to be strong. My mom grew up thinking that she was less than what her brother was, since she was born a girl.

For me I am the middle child, and I have a younger brother, but my mom treats us the same. My mom married my dad and of course my grandmother likes it cause my dad is Chinese. But I see my grandmother act differently towards my aunt and her husband who is Spanish. I dont see much character difference in my dad and my uncle they both respect my grandmother, but the only difference is their race. I see my grandmother look at my uncle dumbly, but when she looks at my dad she looks at him just like she looks at my mother. I see my mom and dads as equals in their marriage. They both work and make the decisions together.

They always talk about things and it seems to me that they never argue. They both share the house hold duties, sometimes my mom cooks and does the dishes, but sometimes my dad does the same. I dont see one doing more than the other. I think that this is a good way to keep a marriage together. My grandmother on the other hand was raised in China and came over here being the wife of my Grandpa. My grandmother did all the cooking and cleaning and raising the kids. I just remember my Grandpa smoking and hanging out with his friends. I know that my grandparents loved each other, but it was different than the way my parents love each other.

My grandmother grew up respecting her husbands decisions and not having a say so in any decision. In the movie the Joy Luck Club sex and marriage is one of the cultural gaps that a mother and daughter have to get through. I think that the story of Lindo and Waverly, best shows this. The way that Lindo grew up in China reflects the way that she is in America. Lindo was sold to a matchmaker when she was in China, she was told by her mother how to act or how to be an obedient wife in her new family. Lindo realized that this is not the kind of life that she wanted and she gets a rail ticket to Shanghai.

Waverly on the other hand was grew up in America where the American customs have influenced her way of thinking. Waverly wanted to please her mother and she even married a Chinese Man. But still this didnt please her. When Waverly divorced him she thought that her mother blamed her. Waverly was scared to introduce her fiance to her mother, because she thought that her mother wouldnt approver of her decision. The conflict between the two shows the conflict between the Chinese Culture and the American Culture and how it collides together. Lindo thinks that Waverly is ashamed to be her daughter.

She thinks this because of the way that Waverly acts and communicated to her mother. When Lindo tells Waverly about her mother and her memories. Lindo finally tells her that she only wants the best for her. Waverly tells Lindo that she has so much power over her, and that anything that she does never pleases her. And from this moment it seems like the two cultures have found a common ground, so that both mother and daughter are happy. In all the stories all the mothers want is the best and happiness for their daughters. Sex and Marriage is also apparent in the story of Ying- Ying.

In China Ying- Ying was married to a bad man who was what she dreamed for, but ended up to be very bad. Ying- Ying had realized that her husband was happiest when he was cruel. But it is hard to get out of a marriage especially when there is a son involved. She knew that if she killed him that she would loose something that she loved her son. He had taken away her innocence and so she took from him the only thing that she could she took from him, his son. When she lost her son her spirit was lost also. This haunted her all the way to America, and so when she had a daughter in America she had no spirit cause she had none to give to her.

The way that Ying-Ying grew up in China is different than the way that Lena grows up in America. But since Ying- Ying brought Lena up not knowing her worth she didnt know how to choose the right husband for her. She didnt know her value. In China marriage is based upon the husband and in America the marriage is based upon both. I can see this in the movie but I can also see this in the way that my mom grew up. I think that I can relate more to the daughters. But my mom has helped me realize the value and worth of myself, by telling me and showing me.

I think that in the case of Ying- Ying that in my culture, it would be easier to leave him. With the law on my side I think that I could take away more than what he took away from him. I could take away his son but also keep my spirit. When I watched the movie I thought that Ying-Ying acted dumb. I thought that she didnt have to kill her son to take something away from her evil husband. I think that I acted this way because I was raised in America. Knowing that adultery, and abuse is wrong, I think that I could have taken the son with out killing him.

I think that I acted in an ethnocentric manner, because of the way that I grew up. In America you grow up watching the news or reading about the bad and how you could have done better. Just by watching the news you can see trials of battered wives going back to people who beat them. I always ask my self why thats dumb. I think I act this way because I am educated, and that I know the law enough to know who is right and who is wrong in a situation. I think that my way is better because the son would still be alive and not dead, so I think that is why I also acted ethnocentric.

Looking at the scene in a culturally relative way, I think Ying- Ying acted in the situation was the best for the story line and the time and place that she was in. I know that if I was in China in that time period I would feel trapped and not know what and how to get out of such a marriage with out being killed or hurt. I dont think that I could have gotten the same view of Ying- Ying and the way she is if she acted differently in that situation. In the movie The Joy Luck Club, the characteristics and differences between the two Cultural, of mother and daughter, have brought more light into my culture.

I relate to this movie more than then the other because I am a Chinese American. I dont relate so much to the daughters but more than the mothers, since I am a 2nd generation Chinese. The movie was more about the spirits and dreams of the mothers and the hopes for a better life for their daughters in America. The struggle between the two cultures and the acceptance of mother and daughter are also present in the movie. By looking at the different stories of mother and daughter I could see the differences in the Culture and the gap that they had to overcome.

I think that in my life the gap is much smaller than the gap that the mother and daughters had to overcome. I think this because of the way that my mom raised me. She raised me thinking nothing but the best for me. I think that I can live up to her expectations because of the way that she accepts what I do. The movie opened my eyes to this and made me think, and to come to a conclusion on why I do what I do. The ugly duckling that came from afar and grew into more than what it was supposed to be, a beautiful swan. But taken away and only the feather and the memories of what it was. A beautiful swan, that proved everyone wrong.

All Quiet on the Western Front

Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front, a novel set in World War I, centers around the changes wrought by the war on one young German soldier. During his time in the war, Remarque’s protagonist, Paul Baumer, changes from a rather innocent Romantic to a hardened and somewhat caustic veteran. More importantly, during the course of this metamorphosis, Baumer disaffiliates himself from those societal icons–parents, elders, school, religion–that had been the foundation of his pre-enlistment days.

This rejection comes about as a result of Baumer’s realization that the pre-enlistment society simply does not understand the reality of the Great War. His new society, then, becomes the Company, his fellow trench soldiers, because that is a group which does understand the truth as Baumer has experienced it. Remarque demonstrates Baumer’s disaffiliation from the traditional by emphasizing the language of Baumer’s pre- and post-enlistment societies. Baumer either can not, or chooses not to, communicate truthfully with those representatives of his pre-enlistment and innocent days.

Further, he is repulsed by the banal and meaningless language that is used by members of that society. As he becomes alienated from his former, traditional, society, Baumer simultaneously is able to communicate effectively only with his military comrades. Since the novel is told from the first person point of view, the reader can see how the words Baumer speaks are at variance with his true feelings. In his preface to the novel, Remarque maintains that “a generation of men … were destroyed by the war” (Remarque, All Quiet Preface). Indeed, in All Quiet on the Western Front, the meaning of language itself is, to a great extent, destroyed.

Early in the novel, Baumer notes how his elders had been facile with words prior to his enlistment. Specifically, teachers and parents had used words, passionately at times, to persuade him and other young men to enlist in the war effort. After relating the tale of a teacher who exhorted his students to enlist, Baumer states that “teachers always carry their feelings ready in their waistcoat pockets, and trot them out by the hour” (Remarque, All Quiet I. 15). Baumer admits that he, and others, were fooled by this rhetorical trickery.

Parents, too, were not averse to using words to shame their sons into enlisting. “At that time even one’s parents were ready with the word ‘coward'” (Remarque, All Quiet I. 15). Remembering those days, Baumer asserts that, as a result of his war experiences, he has learned how shallow the use of these words was. Indeed, early in his enlistment, Baumer comprehends that although authority figures taught that duty to one’s country is the greatest thing, we already knew that death-throes are stronger. But for all that, we were no mutineers, no deserters, no cowards–they were very free with these expressions.

We loved our country as much as they; we went courageously into every action; but also we distinguished the false from true, we had suddenly learned to see. (Remarque, All Quiet I. 17) What Baumer and his comrades have learned is that the words and expressions used by the pillars of society do not reflect the reality of war and of one’s participation in it. As the novel progresses, Baumer himself uses words in a similarly false fashion. A number of instances of Baumer’s own misuse of language occur during an important episode in the novel–a period of leave when he visits his home town.

This leave is disastrous for Baumer because he realizes that he can not communicate with the people on the home front because of his military experiences and their limited, or nonexistent, understanding of the war. When he first enters his house, for example, Baumer is overwhelmed at being home. His joy and relief are such that he cannot speak; he can only weep (Remarque, All Quiet VII. 140). When he and his mother greet each other, he realizes immediately that he has nothing to say to her: “We say very little and I am thankful that she asks nothing” (Remarque, All Quiet VII. 1).

But finally she does speak to him and asks, “‘Was it very bad out there, Paul? ‘” (Remarque, All Quiet VII. 143). Here, when he answers, he lies, ostensibly to protect her from hearing of the chaotic conditions from which he has just returned. He thinks to himself, Mother, what should I answer to that! You would not understand, you could never realize it. And you never shall realize it. Was it bad, you ask. –You, Mother,–I shake my head and say: “No, Mother, not so very. There are always a lot of us together so it isn’t so bad. ” (Remarque, All Quiet VII. 3)

Even in trying to protect her, by using words that are false, Baumer creates a separation between his mother and himself. Clearly, as Baumer sees it, such knowledge is not for the uninitiated. On another level, however, Baumer cannot respond to his mother’s question: he understands that the experiences he has had are so overwhelming that a “civilian” language, or any language at all, would be ineffective in describing them. Trying to replicate the experience and horrors of the war via words is impossible, Baumer realizes, and so he lies. Any attempt at telling the truth would, in fact, trivialize its reality.

During the course of his leave, Baumer also sees his father. The fact that he does not wish to speak with his parent (i. e. , use few or no words at all) shows Baumer’s movement away from the traditional institution of the family. Baumer reports that his father “is curious [about the war] in a way that I find stupid and distressing; I no longer have any real contact with him” (Remarque, All Quiet VII. 146). In considering the demands of his father to discuss the war, Baumer, once again, realizes the impossibility, and, in this case, even the danger, of trying to relate the reality of the war via language.

There is nothing he likes more than just hearing about it. I realize he does not know that a man cannot talk of such things; I would do it willingly, but it is too dangerous for me to put these things into words. I am afraid they might then become gigantic and I be no longer able to master them. (Remarque, All Quiet VII. 146) Again, Baumer notes the impossibility of making the experience of war meaningful within a verbal context: the war is too big, the words describing it would have to be correspondingly immense and, with their symbolic size, might become uncontrollable and, hence, meaningless.

While with his father, Baumer meets other men who are certain that they know how to fight and win the war. Ultimately, Baumer says of his father and of these men that “they talk too much for me … They understand of course, they agree, they may even feel it so too, but only with words, only with words” (Remarque, All Quiet VII. 149). Baumer is driven away from the older men because he understands that the words of his father’s generation are meaningless in that they do not reflect the realities of the world and of the war as Baumer has come to understand them.

Also during his leave, Baumer visits the mother of a fallen comrade, Kemmerich. As he did with his own mother, he lies, this time in an attempt to shield her from the details of her son’s lingering death. Moreover, in this conversation, we see Baumer rejecting yet another one of the traditional society’s foundations: religious orthodoxy. He assures Kemmerich’s mother that her son “‘died immediately. He felt absolutely nothing at all. His face was quite calm'” (Remarque, All Quiet VII. 160). Frau Kemmerich doesn’t believe him, or, at least, chooses not to.

She asks him to swear “by everything that is sacred to” him (that is, to God, as far as she is concerned) that what he says is true (Remarque, All Quiet VII. 160). He does so easily because he realizes that nothing is sacred to him. By perverting this oath, Baumer shows both his unwillingness to communicate honestly with a member of the home front and his rejection of the God of that society. Thus, another break with an aspect of his pre-enlistment society is effected through Baumer’s conscious misuse of language.

During his leave, perhaps Baumer’s most striking realization of the vacuity of words in his former society occurs when he is alone in his old room in his parents’ house. After being unsuccessful in feeling a part of his old society by speaking with his mother and his father and his father’s friends, Baumer attempts to reaffiliate with his past by once again becoming a resident of the place. Here, among his mementos, the pictures and postcards on the wall, the familiar and comfortable brown leather sofa, Baumer waits for something that will allow him to feel a part of his pre-enlistment world.

It is his old schoolbooks that symbolize that older, more contemplative, less military world and which Baumer hopes will bring him back to his younger innocent ways. I want that quiet rapture again. I want to feel the same powerful, nameless urge that I used to feel when I turned to my books. The breath of desire that then arose from the coloured backs of the books, shall fill me again, melt the heavy, dead lump of lead that lies somewhere in me and waken again the impatience of the future, the quick joy in the world of thought, it shall bring back again the lost eagerness of my youth.

I sit and wait. (Remarque, All Quiet VII. 1) But Baumer continues to wait and the sign does not come; the quiet rapture does not occur. The room itself, and the pre-enlistment world it represents, become alien to him. “A sudden feeling of foreignness suddenly rises in me. I cannot find my way back” (Remarque, All Quiet VII. 152). Baumer understands that he is irredeemably lost to the primitive, military, non-academic world of the war. Ultimately, the books are worthless because the words in them are meaningless. “Words, Words, Words–they do not reach me. Slowly I place the books back in the shelves. Nevermore” (Remarque, All Quiet VII. 153).

In his experiences with traditional society, Baumer perverts language, that which separates the human from the beast, to the point where it has no meaning. Baumer shows his rejection of that traditional society by refusing to, or being unable to, use the standards of its language. Contrasted with Baumer’s experiences during his visit home are his dealings with his fellow trench soldiers. Unlike Baumer’s feelings at home where he chooses not to speak with his father and makes an empty vow to Frau Kemmerich, Baumer is able to effect true communication, of both a verbal and spiritual kind, with his fellow trench soldiers.

Indeed, within this group, words can have a meaningful, soothing, even rejuvenating, effect. Not long after his return from leave, Baumer and some of his comrades go out on patrol to ascertain the enemy’s strength. During this patrol, Baumer is pinned down in a shell hole, becomes disoriented, and suffers a panic attack. He states: “Tormented, terrified, in my imagination, I see the grey, implacable muzzle of a rifle which moves noiselessly before me whichever way I try to turn my head” (Remarque, All Quiet IX. 184-85). He is unable to regain his equanimity until he hears voices behind him.

He recognizes the voices and realizes that he is close to his comrades in his own trench. The effect of his fellow soldiers’ words on Baumer is antithetical to the effect his father’s and his father’s friends’ empty words have on him. At once a new warmth flows through me. These voices, these quiet words … behind me recall me at a bound from the terrible loneliness and fear of death by which I had been almost destroyed. They are more to me than life these voices, they are more than motherliness and more than fear; they are the strongest, most comforting thing there is anywhere: they are the voices of my comrades.

I am no longer … alone in the darkness;– I belong to them and they to me; we all share the same fear and the same life, we are nearer than lovers, in a simpler, a harder way; I could bury my face in them, in these voices, these words that have saved me and will stand by me. (Remarque, All Quiet IX. 186) Here, Baumer understands the reviving effects of his comrades’ words. Strikingly, as opposed to his town’s citizens’ empty words, the words of Baumer’s comrades actually go beyond their literal meanings.

That is, whereas Baumer notices that the words of the traditional world have no meaning, the words of his comrades have more meaning than even they are aware of. In fact, true communication can exist in the world of the war with few or no words said at all. This phenomenon is perhaps best demonstrated in the novel during a scene involving Baumer and his Second Company mate, Stanislaus Katczinsky. This scene, with its Eucharistic overtones, can be counterpoised to Baumer’s meeting with Kemmerich’s mother. During that meeting, Frau Kemmerich insisted on some kind of verbal attestation of Baumer’s spiritual disposition.

As noted above, he is quite willing to give her such an asseveration because the words he uses in doing so mean nothing to him. With Katczinsky, though, the situation is different because the spirituality of the event is such that words are not necessary, in fact, would be hindrances to the communion Baumer and Katczinsky attain. The scene is a simple one. After Baumer and Katczinsky have stolen a goose, in a small deserted lean-to they eat it together. We sit opposite one another, Kat and I, two soldiers in shabby coats, cooking a goose in the middle of the night.

We don’t talk much, but I believe we have a more complete communion with one another than even lovers have … The grease drips from our hands, in our hearts we are close to one another … we sit with a goose between us and feel in unison, are so intimate that we do not even speak. (Remarque, All Quiet V. 87) These elemental and primitive activities of getting and then eating food bring about a communion, a feeling “in unison,” between the two men that clearly cannot be found in the word-heavy environment of Baumer’s home town.

Perhaps Remarque wants to make the point that true communication can occur only in action, or in silence, or almost accidentally. At any rate, Baumer demonstrates toward the end of his life that even he is not immune from verbal duplicity of a kind that was used on him to get him to enlist. Soon after he hears the comforting words of his comrades (see above), Baumer is caught in another shell hole during the bombardment. Here, he is forced to kill a Frenchman who jumps into it while attacking the German lines. Baumer is horrified at his action.

He notes, “This is the first time I have killed with my hands, whom I can see close at hand, whose death is my doing” (Remarque, All Quiet IX. 193). That is, the war, and his part in it, have become much more personalized because now he can actually see the face of his enemy. In his grief, Baumer takes the dead man’s pocket-book from him so that he can find out the deceased’s name and family situation. Realizing that the man he killed is no monster, that, in fact, he had a family, and is evidently very much like himself, Baumer begins to make promises to the corpse.

He indicates that he will write to his family and goes so far as to promise the corpse that he, Baumer, will take his place on earth: “‘I have killed the printer, Gerard Duval. I must be a printer'” (Remarque, All Quiet IX. 197). More importantly, Baumer renounces his status as soldier by apologizing to the corpse for killing him. “Comrade, I did not want to kill you … You were only an idea to me before, an abstraction that lived in my mind and called forth its appropriate response. It was that abstraction I stabbed … Forgive me, comrade. We always see it too late.

Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, and the same dying and the same agony–Forgive me, comrade; how could you be my enemy? If we threw away these rifles and this uniform you could be my brother just like Kat … ” (Remarque, All Quiet IX. 195) In addition to the obvious brotherhood of nations sentiment that appears in Baumer’s eulogy, it is interesting to note that Baumer sees that Duval could have been even closer–like Katczinsky, a member of Baumer’s inner circle of Second Company.

All of the sentiments, all of the words, that Baumer articulates to Duval are admirable, but they are absolutely false. As time passes, as he spends more time with the corpse of Duval in the shell-hole, Baumer realizes that he will not fulfill the various promises he has made. He cannot write to Duval’s family; it would be beyond impropriety to do so. Moreover, Baumer renounces his brotherhood sentiments: “Today you, tomorrow me” (Remarque, All Quiet IX. 197). Soon, Baumer admits, “I think no more of the dead man, he is of no consequence to me now” (Remarque, All Quiet IX. 8).

And later, to hedge his bets in case there happens to be justice in the universe, Baumer states, “Now merely to avert any ill-luck, I babble mechanically: ‘I will fulfill everything, fulfill everything I have promised you–‘ but already I know that I shall not do so” (Remarque, All Quiet IX. 198). Remarque’s point in this episode is clear: no one is exempt from the perversion of language vis-a-vis the war. Even Paul Baumer, who had been disgusted by the meaninglessness of language as demonstrated in his home town, himself uses words and language that are meaningless.

Once he is reunited with his comrades after the shell hole episode, Baumer admits “it was mere drivelling nonsense that I talked out there in the shell-hole” (Remarque, All Quiet IX. 199). Why does Baumer do it? Why does he employ the same types of vacuous words and sentiments that his elders and teachers had used and for which he has no respect? “It was only because I had to lie [One assumes that this double meaning is apparent only in English. ] there with him so long … After all, war is war” (Remarque, All Quiet IX. 200). Ultimately, that is all that Paul Baumer and the reader are left with: war is war.

It cannot be defined; it cannot even be discussed with any accuracy. It has no sense and, in fact, is the embodiment of a lack of any kind of meaning. In All Quiet on the Western Front, Erich Maria Remarque shows the disorder created by the war. This disorder affects such elemental societal institutions as the family, the schools, and the church. Moreover, the war is so chaotic that it infects the basic abilities, not the least of which is verbal, of humanity itself. By showing how the First World War deleteriously affects the syntax of language, Remarque is able to demonstrate how the war irreparably alters the order of the world itself.

How Poe Shows Woe

Edgar Allan Poes renowned poem The Raven shows the turbulent thoughts and feelings racing through the mind of a person who has lost a loved one. The narrator of the poem has recently lost his lover to deaths unyielding grasp. As a result, he is struck by the grief that accompanies such a death. Poe delineates the miserable, defeated state of the narrators mind through diction, a proper setting, and symbolism. One tool that Poe uses in order to show how the narrators mind dwells on the death of his lover is his masterful use of select words and phrases to construct a mood of death and darkness.

Near the very beginning of the poem, an early example of this word choice lies in line 8: And each dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor. This is a clear example of how the narrator is immersed completely in his lovers deathhe sees death in many of the inanimate objects in his environment. However, Poe does not stop here. Another excellent example of Poes skillful application of diction appears in line 16: ‘Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door/Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door.

Following these lines, the narrator of the poem opens the door and cries out Lenore, his lovers name. The word late has a double meaning in this context: it can be interpreted to mean either late at night or deceased. In this case, the narrator half-expects Lenore to be the one knocking at the door, and thus she is the late, or deceased, visitor. And finally, perhaps the most prominent and intriguing example of diction in The Raven is, surprisingly, not in English. Poe gave the name Lenore to the narrators lover for a clear reasonthe name is a near-perfect homophone of the words le noir in French, which means black.

Using this repeated reference to darkness, Poe creates a sense of gloom throughout the poem. Overall, the words and phrases Poe employs send constant messages to the readers minds, setting up an overall tone of darkness and despair that serves as an underlying foundation for the bleak storyline of and the history behind the poem. Also essential to the gloomy atmosphere of the poem is its setting, which symbolizes death, and further shows the turbulence in the narrators mind and heart.

Poe sets up his poem in the dreariness of some midnight in December, as is shown by the lines Once upon a midnight dreary and Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December (lines 1 and 6, respectively). The timeframe in which the poem takes its course represents the end of a regular, recurring cycle. Just as midnight suggests the end of one day, the month of December marks the end of a year. Similarly, Lenores death occurs at the end of yet another repeating cyclethe cycle of life. Poe also uses the narrators location in conjunction with the stormy weather to create an effect that matches the narrators emotions.

In The Raven, the narrator lives in a well-furnished, comfortable home submersed in a violent rainstorm. The room signifies the place in the narrators heart to which he retreats for shelter from the tempestuous reality of Lenores death. The storm can be labeled as pathetic fallacy, which, despite its unflattering name, is used exceptionally well in The Raven. In this instance of pathetic fallacy, the stormy weather indicates that the narrator of the poem is experiencing equally violent emotions.

The time and place of the poem reveal how the narrator attempts to escape the reality of his lovers death by locking himself up in the past, but also how he is tormented by the hostile truth. But by far the most powerful linguistic device that Poe employs is symbolism. In this poem, symbolism plays an extensive role in placing the readers in the narrators mind in order to allow them to experience his overwhelming feelings and share his emotions. The most obvious example of symbolism in The Raven is, of course, the raven itself.

According to the Pennsylvania Game Commission, ravens consume much carrion, especially in winter. This description of ravens is surprisingly fitting in the poem, since the raven represents death, and death has taken Lenore. Thus, it almost seems that the raven has stolen Lenore, who is now carrion, from the narrator during December, a winter month. Death, or the raven, has consumed Lenore. From this establishment, another symbol can be derived from line 101: Take thy beak from out my heart. Here, the narrator speaks to the raven, who can also be seen as death.

When we replace the raven with death, it suddenly becomes clear that the narrators hidden meaning is Death, stop stabbing at my heart. This shows just how the narrator feels at the momentthe aching in his heart is akin to that caused by a stabbing wound, revealing the magnitude of the blow his heart took when Lenore died. The bust of Pallas Athena, on which the raven is never flitting, still is sitting (line 103) is also symbolic. The word bust has a double meaning, since it can mean either a statue depicting someones upper chest and head, or it can mean a womans breasts.

Because of this alternate meaning, the bust of Pallas Athena represents the female component in the narrators lifeLenorein several ways. The first way in which the bust symbolizes Lenore is that the bust is described to be pallid, or pale. Therefore, it is probably a stone sculpture, which relates to Lenores corpse well. A cold block of pale, unmoving stone is similar to a cold lump of pale, unmoving flesh. The second way in which the bust signifies Lenore is that the raven happens to choose the bust as the place it perches onto. It also says that it will move from the bust nevermore.

The meaning here is that death has conquered Lenore, and nothing will ever change that fact. Yet another link between the bust and Lenore is that Pallas Athena is a goddess, showing how the narrator loved Lenore to the point of her becoming a goddess in his eyes. And finally, the fourth and last way that the bust works as a symbol for Lenore is its placement. The bust is situated above the door of his room, which makes it seem as if the bust is leaving the room via the door, which is comparable to how Lenore has left the narrators life.

The powerful and abundant symbolism in the poem engraves a strong impression into the readers minds of the intense love that once existed between the narrator and Lenore, and of the equally intense grief that has replaced that love. The theme presented in The Raven applies whenever a person is taken from loved ones by death. The poem can be viewed as a warning to the readers never to get caught in the vicious web of dwelling in the past, since the past can never return, and no amount of pleading will ever sway deaths verdicts.

Here, Poe presents a typical example of the effects of death on the survivor, and shows, mainly through his heavy use of symbolism, the grief that accompanies death. He also warns us against falling into the traps laid out by this often overpowering grief. In The Raven, Poe advises us against getting lost in the reflections of the mirrors of the pastfor when the hammers of reality strike, the mirrors can provide little protection from its blows.

During the period of Milton’s Paradise Lost as well as myriad of poets construction of an epoque submerged in metaphysical literature, a number of significant events both socio-political, entwined with a systematic religious metamorphism of the sixteenth and seventeenth century led to a time of unrest and discovery. The creators and author’s of work of this periods placed their emphasis not specifically on a level of morality or self understanding but rather a rediscovery of the body and soul, almost a form of existensionalism or physical cosmos with a geography. ‘All things are subject to the Mind… It measures in one thought the whole circumference of heaven and by the same line it takes the geography of the earth. The seas, the air, the fire all things of either, are within the comprehension of the mind. It has an influence on them all, whence it lakes all that may be useful, all that may be helpful in government. No limitation is prescribed to it, no restriction is upon it, but in a free scope it has a liberty upon all. And in this liberty is the excellence of the mind; in this power and composition of the mind is perfection of a man… Man is an absolute master of himself; his own safety, and tranquillity by God… e made dependent on himself. ‘1 In this short example of Puritanism text as it stands, alone contains a number of various references to the process of colonization, of expanding, perceiving all geographically and manipulating, making man or perhaps more specifically the colonisers omniscient and God-like. The crusader self-reliant and independent with the knowledge that God is his guardian of safety and tranquillity. In this particular the growing number of Puritans played a significant role both in the cultivation and transformation of the Christian religion and foreign territories. The Puritans themselves comprised of those in the Church of England unhappy with limitations of the Elizabethan Settlement; some were Presbyterians, and all were to some extent or other Calvinists (though not all Calvinists were Puritans). They were a people of scrupulous moral rigour and favoured plain styles of dress, detesting any form of luxury or decadence. The name Puritan later became a catch-all label for the disparate groups who led much of the New World colonization and won the English Civil Wars. New World colonization began as early as 1480 by English seamen performing spectacular feats of exploration under Elizabeth I. These seamen made various claims of territorial annexation in America in an effort to outflank their Spanish rivals however, all foundations of permanent colonies proved abortive until the early 17th century. Thereafter, there was steady progress in acquiring territories in the Caribbean and mainland North America. Much settlement in the latter had a religious motive, with colonists seeking to escape the constraints of the English Established Church. As a result, there was an uneasy relationship between many colonial administrations and the royal government at home. Further to these tensions the ‘colonies were split in their allegiances during the civil wars in Britain, but Charles I derived little useful help from those who supported his cause. The collapse of James II regime (1688-9) proved a blow to the efforts of Westminster to encroach on self-rule in North America. The relationship between the centre and the colonies remained problematic right until the War of American Independence. ‘2 The metaphysical tradition established during the seventeenth century can find its foundations in the colonization explorations and the domestic unrest caused by the civil wars. The combination of the two contextually, both in spirituality, imagery and definitions of time and space; have the unique effect of creating a devout religious protagonist’s perceptions of his environment and its history, encompassed in as often was the case one work of art, as a testimony to the period and the Church of England. Frequently such works could be found in the form of poetry, commonly regarded as the most eloquent and essential part of the English language as a means of communications, via its plurality, richness of language and syntax. Poets of the era harnessed the tools of poetry to the spiritual essence of their communication create an impact of divine, gospel-like proportions, which were received and regarded as perhaps the most innovative and highly appreciated works of poetry to have arisen. One such poet was John Milton whose epic work Paradise Lost (written in 1667) was ultimately the last and great Adamite3 work. John Milton (1608-74), was an English poet, the son of a composer of some distinction. The preparation for his life’s work included attendance at St. Paul’s School, Christ’s College and Cambridge for several years. His reputation as a poet preceded him as addressed to the conscience of Europe. As fame through his work augmented so with it did his political career. ‘The theme of Paradise Lost (completed 1665, published 1667) had been in Milton’s mind since 1641. It was to be a sacred drama then; but when in 1658 his official duties were lightened so as to allow him to write, he chose the epic form. The first three books reflect the triumph of the godly–so soon to be reversed; the last books, written in 1663, are tinged with despair. God’s kingdom is not of this world. Man’s intractable nature frustrates the planning of the wise. The heterodox theology of the poem which is made clear in his late De Doctrina Christiana did not trouble Protestant readers till modern critics examined it with hostile intent. ‘4 Part of the poem’s greatness, apart from its length, is a function of the visual immediacy with which Milton realizes the imagined scenes. Milton has been criticized for glossing over certain contemporary developments in scientific and intellectual thought (the astronomical ambiguities in book VII, for example), eg ‘…. What if the sun Be centre to the world , and other stars By his attractive virtue and their own Incited, dance about him various rounds? 5 Their wander course now high, now low, then still Progressive, retrograde, or standing still, In sixth thou seest, and what if seventh to these The planet earth, so steadfast though she seem, Insensibly three different motions move? 6 Which else to several spheres thou must ascribe,7 The poem’s realism is that of a myth, and its credibility dependent on the outlines of Christian belief, rather than specific historical details. The entire concern or major theme of Paradise Lost is to confute predestination and demonstrate the freedom of will. However Satan is portrayed as an almost romantic, recognizable character with whom we share every twist and turn his thinking takes throughout his physical and mental journey. Satan can easily be perceived as the bold intrepid colonist, not lacking the courage of his convictions, be it at the expense of being exiled from the vaults of heaven. With the strength of classical precedents, Milton’s cosmology refracts a seemingly incomprehensible geography of fantastic proportions, utilising allusive language to describe the indescribable. Nevertheless this did not deter some illustrators attempting to recapture the imagery of Militon’s Cosmos. Satan’s fall from grace to a desolate place of fathomless voids, yet unpopulated, turns Satan’s disgrace into a voyage before a quest with a mission, not unlike that of the colonisers. In Book I the voyage of these unchartered and as yet inanimate destinations began when Satan and his host are: Hurl’d headlong flaming from th’ Ethereal sky With hideous ruin and combustion down To bottomless perdition, there to dwell In Admantine chains and penal Fire. For nine days they fall through Chaos till: Hell at last Yawning receiv’d them whole, and on them clos’d, Hell their fit habitation fraught with fire Unquenchable, the house of woe and pain. They splash down into a burning lake, and, looking around, discover themselves much changed from their original angelic form, similarly their surroundings are: A Dungeon horrible, on all sides round As one great Furnace flam’d, yet from those flames No light, but rather darkness visible Serv’d only to discover sights of woe, Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace And rest can never dwell, where hope never comes That comes to all; but torture without end From which they make their way to land: … yon dreary Plain, forlorn and wild, The seat of desolation, void of light, Save what the glimmering of these livid flames Casts pale and dreadful. Nonetheless, like a colonizer in a one of the worst far flung corners of the globe, claiming whatever he passes as his own, Satan makes the best of his circumstances: Farewell happy Fields Where Joy for ever dwells; Hail horrors, hail Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell receive thy new Possessor Meanwhile the demons begin work creating a splendiforous palace, Pandemonium, perhaps the most palatial structure in Hell’s history to match that of heaven. Satan’s acceptance of his situation, is analogous to a determined settler determined to cultivate his surroundings as his own before expanding further afield. Later the demons swarm to the council to decide on an acceptable plan of action. Amidst the demons and second in rank is Envy; he tells of “another World, the happy seat / Of some new Race cal’d Man,” and suggests that they subvert it “and drive as we were drive,/ The puny habitants; or, if not drive/ Seduce them to our Party. ” This is perhaps the most substantive and overbearing allusion to colonisation of the New World, meant literally in this context. The eager demons might well be a metaphorical representation of the religious convoys who were frequently sent ahead with the intent of settling and were hell bent on converting the original inhabitants of the land into their own kind, to adopt them into their religion, their community, so that by manipulating and corrupting them they could seize advantage of their innocence by blatantly encroaching on their land and property, with minimal opposition. Another part adventure to discover wide That dismal World, if any Clime perhaps Might yield them easier habitation Satan’s heroic-like journey continues through treacherous conditions, having to pass inhospitable terrain and fauna, before reaching “thrice threefold” gates of Hell, three of brass, three of iron, and three of adamantine rock, guarded by Sin and Death. On managing to escape Milton’s world of Hell he eventually reaches earth where subtly tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit of knowledge until Eve concedes and eats leading to their loss of paradise. An analogy could be drawn here between Satan and the colonisers of the period enduring a tiresome journey and then tempting the inhabitants (Adam and Eve) with the prospect of wealth through trade; and on acceptance, thus marking their own loss and transgression into a state of perpetual inferiority thereafter in respect of the colonisers. Adam and Eve the original settlers are beguiled by Satan’s corruptness through their own innocent naivity. In respect of Paradise Lost and the theme of colonisation we can the course marked by Satan via his journey (see diagram) is regarded as his geography, despite having finally accomplished his course of action. Further on in books V-VII we have elaborate description of the landscape of Paradise, which is used the manifesto of colonialism through religious dynamics and instability. The schematics of geography and the final mappings that became increasingly important, in so far as territories, progression of colonization and like, even God himself charters the stars in a calculated Genesis He took the golden compasses, prepared In God’s eternal store, to circumscibe This universe, an all created things: One foot he centred, and the other turned Round through the vast profundity obscure, And said, Thus far extend, thus far thy bounds This by thy just circumference8 Milton himself somewhat of a nationalist puritan poet in response to the issue of reformation, firm in the belief that the English were God’s chosen people addressed parliament asking: Why else was this Nation chos’n before any other, that out of her as out of Sion should be proclam’d and sounded forth the first tidings and trumpet of Reformation of all Europ. And had it not bin the obstinat perversnes of our Prelats against the divine and admirable spirit of the Wicklef, to suppresse him as a scismatic an innovator… the glory of reforming all our neighbours had bin compleatly ours. 9 Similarly if not more so the concepts of colonialism, the systematic functions of identifying, locating and securing are no better displayed, conveyed or apparent than in writings of the metaphysical poets. Man is all symmetrie, Full of proportions, one limbe to another, And all to all the world besides: Each part may call the furthest, brother: For head with for hath private amitie, And bothe with moons and tides. 10 In this brief extract taken from George Herberts poem Man we can see the extent to which this evangelical poem – using maps and geometry to define the protestant server and his maker. A new method of language and metaphors had become available and poets did not hasten to incorporate as many different styles as possible to create an identity, using the terminology associated to science, in order to define. A place for everything and everything in its place, reaching the conclusion that God is omnipresent, after having used language to process His location. Likewise John Donne an acclaimed poet of his period, and as Dean of Saint Paul’s Cathedral was a seemingly inexhaustible source of spirituality with which to ordain his poems. Licence my roving hands, and let them go Behind, before, above, between, below Oh my America, my new found lande, My kingdome, safeliest when with on man man’d My myne precious stones my Empiree How blest I am this discovering thee11 In this his poem named, Elegie: To His Mistress Going to Bed the allusions to colonialism are by no means marginalised. Donne paints a scene of a woman undressing, in which his description has the duality of de-sexualising, whilst sexualising. The emphasis and attention paid on material objects such as the garments are for all intents and purposes dehumanising. The description of clothes are paralleled to the colonial, metaphysical conceits discovery and of ownership, whilst mapping. Ostensibly what Donne endeavours to do is colonise the body of the woman. Although considerable language and detail is spent in describing the layers of clothing the purpose of which to emphasise the letting go of material objects. The infinite quest of the spiritualist could be that longing for the return to innocence, of spirituality and spiritual embodiment can only be achieved when irrelevant and extravagant thoughts of materialism and clothes are disregarded. Once the woman is void of all external graces and is the way nature intended, only then does the journey of exploration commence, to discover the essence of human nature, the spiritual manifestation of passion merely acting as a catalyst in the celebration of sexuality. The theme of a quest, searching, mapping territory or bodies, geography of mind, body and soul, unrest and all that is external is apparent in a large proportion of what was written in the seventeen century, religious unsettlement serving only to fuel, scepticism or convictions further. The majority of metaphysical poems have similar themes and imagery, often set in room, study or office, any private enclosure reminiscent of a confession booth. Writing poetry in the form of a confessional is used as a moment of introspection. The new awareness of questions rising with new religious identities of new churches necessitated these occasions of profound reverence and occasional enlightenment, in a journey through their own spirituality. Poetry was writing for private readership, a confessional in the form of a diary, debating with themselves and God. The status of body, that of men and women, the relationship between themselves with one another, and God were all predominating factors in their writing. Poetry was written private realms for a private readership with no public address. A parody may even be draw between Milton circumstances and his vision of Satan, during on of his profound moments of reflection: Me miserable! which was shall I fly Infinite wrath, and infinite despair? Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell;12 I may be useful to think of Satan in the light of ‘likening spiritual to corporal forms’, partly as representative of the public world of politics and rebellion, and his presentation as an exploration of the ambitions and failures, the egotism and despair, that public life offers. In this his role is therefore complemented in the poem by the private, domestic world of Adam and Eve, in whose interpersonal relations are enacted the possibilities and problems of freedom and self-restraint. In metaphysical poetry the body was seen as a secular vessel, embodied with a spiritual love of the world, attached to a humanist concept that pre mined to embody God within the body of man. Colonialism expanse across the America’s induced imagery through language; exploring, discovery, conquering, divine protection, geometry, geography, astronomy, navigation and science were the foundations on which metaphysical poetry evidently propelled itself to growing popularity at a time of general social, political and religious unrest. The Sunne Rising also created by Donne was slightly more satirical, yet maintaining that man was ultimately the ruler of his own world, and God being embodied in wherever he be therein. The sun is employed as a metaphysical conceit, with man being able to block it and the other element with a single wink. Thy beams, so reverend and strong Why shouldst thou think? I could eclipse and cloud them with a winke,13 With reference of imperial history he no longer needs to explore to India, for it is already traced and recorded on a map before him. His self-elevation and lack of humanity are comparable to that of Milton’s Satan. Around the same period other works of post-colonial art were be developed, no doubt heavily influenced by contemporary issues. One such example is Shakespeare’s final work and tragi-comedy The Tempest (1611), interposed and concerned with the theme of the elevation of one myth above another, recurrent impact of colonialism, morality and the loss of innocence. Shakespeare’s unique style of writing is as a direct result of a plethora of influences, one of which was ‘Montaigne’s essay Of Cannibals which discussed the value and the way of life of societies which had not been affected by civilisation of a European type. In addition to this essay a pamphlet circulate called The Discovery of the Bermudas , otherwise called the Isle of Divels, may have played a crucial role. This pamphlet described the bold adventures of a religious group of colonist travelling in a convoy of ships from London to Virginia. However during the voyage, the flagship was separated from the remainder of the convoy in a storm. The maverick ship inadvertently blew towards Bermuda before being tossed onto some rocks. The colonists lived on the islands until they had built boats in which to continue their voyage. The story of their almost miraculous survival aroused considerable interest in England and echoes of their adventure can be found in The Tempest. With little regard of the more elaborate themes images the tale is one of a landing on a island, a veritable paradise, already inhabited by Caliban (often spelt ‘canibal’ by Elizabethans by transposing the letters ‘n’ and ‘l’) a wild, deformed uncivilised beast (representative of native settlers), who is quickly manipulated, overthrown and enslaved by Prospero (King of Milan). Caliban and his environment are parallelled to those of the Garden of Eden and Caliban himself is elemental. As the story progresses and the tyrannical relationship between the two continually increasing, Caliban’s intellect is worthy of argument against Prospero for having denied him his birthright. Prospero’s aim of teaching Caliban was to increase his indisputable control over him, by subverting him into an incomplete and image of his master, defective of all other attributes ie of magic. Caliban, similar to every colonised people before him adapted his adopted culture and power of speech inflicted upon him as a weapon to communicate his own indignation and animosity towards his oppressor. And despite being frequently referred to as a crude savage, disfigured, and evil Caliban exemplifies a better set of values than most of the ‘civilised’ characters in the play. This image derives from speculation regarding the popular English belief that uncivilised pagans were below their civilised counterparts in the hierarchy which had God at its apex and inanimate nature at it base. However a few individuals were beginning to question this assumption and ‘there is evidence in the play that Shakespeare believed that the corruption in a civilised man was more abhorrent than any natural albeit uncivilised behaviour. ’14 At a time when many books and sermons, effected a characteristic Renaissance union between moral and political implications, and concerned themselves with the task of persuading the public that exploration was an honourable and indeed a sanctified activity and Drake was compared to Moses, combining voyaging and mystagogy a practical justification of “the lawfulnesse of Discovering”. It was a somewhat sophistical argument by Purchas, in favour of the propriety of usurping the rights of native populations, and an insistence, half-mystagogic, half-propagandist, on the temperate, fruitful nature of the New World, and the unspoilt purity of its inhabitants. ‘The True Declaration defends colonizing, on the ground that it diffuses the true religion and has authority from Solomon’s trade to Ophir (whether it lay in the East or, as Columbus thought15 in the West Indies). There is room for all; and in any case the natives cannot be regarded as civilized people. ’16 The revelations of The Tempest of watching Caliban suffer at the hands of Prospero affords interesting material for examination. Caliban endures his abuse and insistent that he has deprived him of what is rightfully his, and this perhaps may have been Shakespeare’s way of confronting his contemporary pro-colonising audience with the problems of ownership of newly discovered lands.

During the period of Milton’s Paradise Lost as well as myriad of poets construction of an epoque submerged in metaphysical literature, a number of significant events both socio-political, entwined with a systematic religious metamorphism of the sixteenth and seventeenth century led to a time of unrest and discovery. The creators and author’s of work of this periods placed their emphasis not specifically on a level of morality or self understanding but rather a rediscovery of the body and soul, almost a form of existensionalism or physical cosmos with a geography. ‘All things are subject to the Mind…

It measures in one thought the whole circumference of heaven and by the same line it takes the geography of the earth. The seas, the air, the fire all things of either, are within the comprehension of the mind. It has an influence on them all, whence it lakes all that may be useful, all that may be helpful in government. No limitation is prescribed to it, no restriction is upon it, but in a free scope it has a liberty upon all. And in this liberty is the excellence of the mind; in this power and composition of the mind is perfection of a man… Man is an absolute master of himself; his own safety, and tranquillity by God… e made dependent on himself. ‘1

In this short example of Puritanism text as it stands, alone contains a number of various references to the process of colonization, of expanding, perceiving all geographically and manipulating, making man or perhaps more specifically the colonisers omniscient and God-like. The crusader self-reliant and independent with the knowledge that God is his guardian of safety and tranquillity. In this particular the growing number of Puritans played a significant role both in the cultivation and transformation of the Christian religion and foreign territories.

The Puritans themselves comprised of those in the Church of England unhappy with limitations of the Elizabethan Settlement; some were Presbyterians, and all were to some extent or other Calvinists (though not all Calvinists were Puritans). They were a people of scrupulous moral rigour and favoured plain styles of dress, detesting any form of luxury or decadence. The name Puritan later became a catch-all label for the disparate groups who led much of the New World colonization and won the English Civil Wars. New World colonization began as early as 1480 by English seamen performing spectacular feats of exploration under Elizabeth I.

These seamen made various claims of territorial annexation in America in an effort to outflank their Spanish rivals however, all foundations of permanent colonies proved abortive until the early 17th century. Thereafter, there was steady progress in acquiring territories in the Caribbean and mainland North America. Much settlement in the latter had a religious motive, with colonists seeking to escape the constraints of the English Established Church. As a result, there was an uneasy relationship between many colonial administrations and the royal government at home.

Further to these tensions the ‘colonies were split in their allegiances during the civil wars in Britain, but Charles I derived little useful help from those who supported his cause. The collapse of James II regime (1688-9) proved a blow to the efforts of Westminster to encroach on self-rule in North America. The relationship between the centre and the colonies remained problematic right until the War of American Independence. ‘2 The metaphysical tradition established during the seventeenth century can find its foundations in the colonization explorations and the domestic unrest caused by the civil wars.

The combination of the two contextually, both in spirituality, imagery and definitions of time and space; have the unique effect of creating a devout religious protagonist’s perceptions of his environment and its history, encompassed in as often was the case one work of art, as a testimony to the period and the Church of England. Frequently such works could be found in the form of poetry, commonly regarded as the most eloquent and essential part of the English language as a means of communications, via its plurality, richness of language and syntax.

Poets of the era harnessed the tools of poetry to the spiritual essence of their communication create an impact of divine, gospel-like proportions, which were received and regarded as perhaps the most innovative and highly appreciated works of poetry to have arisen. One such poet was John Milton whose epic work Paradise Lost (written in 1667) was ultimately the last and great Adamite3 work. John Milton (1608-74), was an English poet, the son of a composer of some distinction. The preparation for his life’s work included attendance at St. Paul’s School, Christ’s College and Cambridge for several years.

His reputation as a poet preceded him as addressed to the conscience of Europe. As fame through his work augmented so with it did his political career. ‘The theme of Paradise Lost (completed 1665, published 1667) had been in Milton’s mind since 1641. It was to be a sacred drama then; but when in 1658 his official duties were lightened so as to allow him to write, he chose the epic form. The first three books reflect the triumph of the godly–so soon to be reversed; the last books, written in 1663, are tinged with despair. God’s kingdom is not of this world. Man’s intractable nature frustrates the planning of the wise.

The heterodox theology of the poem which is made clear in his late De Doctrina Christiana did not trouble Protestant readers till modern critics examined it with hostile intent. ‘4 Part of the poem’s greatness, apart from its length, is a function of the visual immediacy with which Milton realizes the imagined scenes. Milton has been criticized for glossing over certain contemporary developments in scientific and intellectual thought (the astronomical ambiguities in book VII, for example), eg ‘…. What if the sun Be centre to the world , and other stars By his attractive virtue and their own Incited, dance about him various rounds? 5

Their wander course now high, now low, then still Progressive, retrograde, or standing still, In sixth thou seest, and what if seventh to these The planet earth, so steadfast though she seem, Insensibly three different motions move? 6 Which else to several spheres thou must ascribe,7 The poem’s realism is that of a myth, and its credibility dependent on the outlines of Christian belief, rather than specific historical details. The entire concern or major theme of Paradise Lost is to confute predestination and demonstrate the freedom of will.

However Satan is portrayed as an almost romantic, recognizable character with whom we share every twist and turn his thinking takes throughout his physical and mental journey. Satan can easily be perceived as the bold intrepid colonist, not lacking the courage of his convictions, be it at the expense of being exiled from the vaults of heaven. With the strength of classical precedents, Milton’s cosmology refracts a seemingly incomprehensible geography of fantastic proportions, utilising allusive language to describe the indescribable.

Nevertheless this did not deter some illustrators attempting to recapture the imagery of Militon’s Cosmos. Satan’s fall from grace to a desolate place of fathomless voids, yet unpopulated, turns Satan’s disgrace into a voyage before a quest with a mission, not unlike that of the colonisers. In Book I the voyage of these unchartered and as yet inanimate destinations began when Satan and his host are: Hurl’d headlong flaming from th’ Ethereal sky With hideous ruin and combustion down To bottomless perdition, there to dwell In Admantine chains and penal Fire. For nine days they fall through Chaos till: Hell at last Yawning receiv’d them whole, and on them clos’d, Hell their fit habitation fraught with fire Unquenchable, the house of woe and pain.

They splash down into a burning lake, and, looking around, discover themselves much changed from their original angelic form, similarly their surroundings are: A Dungeon horrible, on all sides round As one great Furnace flam’d, yet from those flames No light, but rather darkness visible Serv’d only to discover sights of woe, Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace And rest can never dwell, where hope never comes That comes to all; but torture without end From which they make their way to land: … yon dreary Plain, forlorn and wild, The seat of desolation, void of light, Save what the glimmering of these livid flames Casts pale and dreadful.

Nonetheless, like a colonizer in a one of the worst far flung corners of the globe, claiming whatever he passes as his own, Satan makes the best of his circumstances: Farewell happy Fields Where Joy for ever dwells; Hail horrors, hail Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell receive thy new Possessor Meanwhile the demons begin work creating a splendiforous palace, Pandemonium, perhaps the most palatial structure in Hell’s history to match that of heaven.

Satan’s acceptance of his situation, is analogous to a determined settler determined to cultivate his surroundings as his own before expanding further afield. Later the demons swarm to the council to decide on an acceptable plan of action. Amidst the demons and second in rank is Envy; he tells of “another World, the happy seat / Of some new Race cal’d Man,” and suggests that they subvert it “and drive as we were drive,/ The puny habitants; or, if not drive/

Seduce them to our Party. ” This is perhaps the most substantive and overbearing allusion to colonisation of the New World, meant literally in this context. The eager demons might well be a metaphorical representation of the religious convoys who were frequently sent ahead with the intent of settling and were hell bent on converting the original inhabitants of the land into their own kind, to adopt them into their religion, their community, so that by manipulating and corrupting them they could seize advantage of their innocence by blatantly encroaching on their land and property, with minimal opposition.

Another part adventure to discover wide That dismal World, if any Clime perhaps Might yield them easier habitation Satan’s heroic-like journey continues through treacherous conditions, having to pass inhospitable terrain and fauna, before reaching “thrice threefold” gates of Hell, three of brass, three of iron, and three of adamantine rock, guarded by Sin and Death. On managing to escape Milton’s world of Hell he eventually reaches earth where subtly tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit of knowledge until Eve concedes and eats leading to their loss of paradise.

An analogy could be drawn here between Satan and the colonisers of the period enduring a tiresome journey and then tempting the inhabitants (Adam and Eve) with the prospect of wealth through trade; and on acceptance, thus marking their own loss and transgression into a state of perpetual inferiority thereafter in respect of the colonisers. Adam and Eve the original settlers are beguiled by Satan’s corruptness through their own innocent naivity.

In respect of Paradise Lost and the theme of colonisation we can the course marked by Satan via his journey (see diagram) is regarded as his geography, despite having finally accomplished his course of action. Further on in books V-VII we have elaborate description of the landscape of Paradise, which is used the manifesto of colonialism through religious dynamics and instability. The schematics of geography and the final mappings that became increasingly important, in so far as territories, progression of colonization and like, even God himself charters the stars in a calculated Genesis He took the golden compasses, prepared

In God’s eternal store, to circumscibe This universe, an all created things: One foot he centred, and the other turned Round through the vast profundity obscure, And said, Thus far extend, thus far thy bounds This by thy just circumference8 Milton himself somewhat of a nationalist puritan poet in response to the issue of reformation, firm in the belief that the English were God’s chosen people addressed parliament asking: Why else was this Nation chos’n before any other, that out of her as out of Sion should be proclam’d and sounded forth the first tidings and trumpet of Reformation of all Europ.

And had it not bin the obstinat perversnes of our Prelats against the divine and admirable spirit of the Wicklef, to suppresse him as a scismatic an innovator… the glory of reforming all our neighbours had bin compleatly ours. 9 Similarly if not more so the concepts of colonialism, the systematic functions of identifying, locating and securing are no better displayed, conveyed or apparent than in writings of the metaphysical poets. Man is all symmetrie, Full of proportions, one limbe to another, And all to all the world besides:

Each part may call the furthest, brother: For head with for hath private amitie, And bothe with moons and tides. 10 In this brief extract taken from George Herberts poem Man we can see the extent to which this evangelical poem – using maps and geometry to define the protestant server and his maker. A new method of language and metaphors had become available and poets did not hasten to incorporate as many different styles as possible to create an identity, using the terminology associated to science, in order to define.

A place for everything and everything in its place, reaching the conclusion that God is omnipresent, after having used language to process His location. Likewise John Donne an acclaimed poet of his period, and as Dean of Saint Paul’s Cathedral was a seemingly inexhaustible source of spirituality with which to ordain his poems. Licence my roving hands, and let them go Behind, before, above, between, below Oh my America, my new found lande, My kingdome, safeliest when with on man man’d My myne precious stones my Empiree

How blest I am this discovering thee11 In this his poem named, Elegie: To His Mistress Going to Bed the allusions to colonialism are by no means marginalised. Donne paints a scene of a woman undressing, in which his description has the duality of de-sexualising, whilst sexualising. The emphasis and attention paid on material objects such as the garments are for all intents and purposes dehumanising. The description of clothes are paralleled to the colonial, metaphysical conceits discovery and of ownership, whilst mapping.

Ostensibly what Donne endeavours to do is colonise the body of the woman. Although considerable language and detail is spent in describing the layers of clothing the purpose of which to emphasise the letting go of material objects. The infinite quest of the spiritualist could be that longing for the return to innocence, of spirituality and spiritual embodiment can only be achieved when irrelevant and extravagant thoughts of materialism and clothes are disregarded.

Once the woman is void of all external graces and is the way nature intended, only then does the journey of exploration commence, to discover the essence of human nature, the spiritual manifestation of passion merely acting as a catalyst in the celebration of sexuality. The theme of a quest, searching, mapping territory or bodies, geography of mind, body and soul, unrest and all that is external is apparent in a large proportion of what was written in the seventeen century, religious unsettlement serving only to fuel, scepticism or convictions further.

The majority of metaphysical poems have similar themes and imagery, often set in room, study or office, any private enclosure reminiscent of a confession booth. Writing poetry in the form of a confessional is used as a moment of introspection. The new awareness of questions rising with new religious identities of new churches necessitated these occasions of profound reverence and occasional enlightenment, in a journey through their own spirituality. Poetry was writing for private readership, a confessional in the form of a diary, debating with themselves and God.

The status of body, that of men and women, the relationship between themselves with one another, and God were all predominating factors in their writing. Poetry was written private realms for a private readership with no public address. A parody may even be draw between Milton circumstances and his vision of Satan, during on of his profound moments of reflection: Me miserable! which was shall I fly Infinite wrath, and infinite despair? Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell;12

I may be useful to think of Satan in the light of ‘likening spiritual to corporal forms’, partly as representative of the public world of politics and rebellion, and his presentation as an exploration of the ambitions and failures, the egotism and despair, that public life offers. In this his role is therefore complemented in the poem by the private, domestic world of Adam and Eve, in whose interpersonal relations are enacted the possibilities and problems of freedom and self-restraint.

In metaphysical poetry the body was seen as a secular vessel, embodied with a spiritual love of the world, attached to a humanist concept that pre mined to embody God within the body of man. Colonialism expanse across the America’s induced imagery through language; exploring, discovery, conquering, divine protection, geometry, geography, astronomy, navigation and science were the foundations on which metaphysical poetry evidently propelled itself to growing popularity at a time of general social, political and religious unrest.

The Sunne Rising also created by Donne was slightly more satirical, yet maintaining that man was ultimately the ruler of his own world, and God being embodied in wherever he be therein. The sun is employed as a metaphysical conceit, with man being able to block it and the other element with a single wink. Thy beams, so reverend and strong Why shouldst thou think? I could eclipse and cloud them with a winke,13 With reference of imperial history he no longer needs to explore to India, for it is already traced and recorded on a map before him. His self-elevation and lack of humanity are comparable to that of Milton’s Satan.

Around the same period other works of post-colonial art were be developed, no doubt heavily influenced by contemporary issues. One such example is Shakespeare’s final work and tragi-comedy The Tempest (1611), interposed and concerned with the theme of the elevation of one myth above another, recurrent impact of colonialism, morality and the loss of innocence. Shakespeare’s unique style of writing is as a direct result of a plethora of influences, one of which was ‘Montaigne’s essay Of Cannibals which discussed the value and the way of life of societies which had not been affected by civilisation of a European type.

In addition to this essay a pamphlet circulate called The Discovery of the Bermudas , otherwise called the Isle of Divels, may have played a crucial role. This pamphlet described the bold adventures of a religious group of colonist travelling in a convoy of ships from London to Virginia. However during the voyage, the flagship was separated from the remainder of the convoy in a storm. The maverick ship inadvertently blew towards Bermuda before being tossed onto some rocks. The colonists lived on the islands until they had built boats in which to continue their voyage.

The story of their almost miraculous survival aroused considerable interest in England and echoes of their adventure can be found in The Tempest. With little regard of the more elaborate themes images the tale is one of a landing on a island, a veritable paradise, already inhabited by Caliban (often spelt ‘canibal’ by Elizabethans by transposing the letters ‘n’ and ‘l’) a wild, deformed uncivilised beast (representative of native settlers), who is quickly manipulated, overthrown and enslaved by Prospero (King of Milan).

Caliban and his environment are parallelled to those of the Garden of Eden and Caliban himself is elemental. As the story progresses and the tyrannical relationship between the two continually increasing, Caliban’s intellect is worthy of argument against Prospero for having denied him his birthright. Prospero’s aim of teaching Caliban was to increase his indisputable control over him, by subverting him into an incomplete and image of his master, defective of all other attributes ie of magic.

Caliban, similar to every colonised people before him adapted his adopted culture and power of speech inflicted upon him as a weapon to communicate his own indignation and animosity towards his oppressor. And despite being frequently referred to as a crude savage, disfigured, and evil Caliban exemplifies a better set of values than most of the ‘civilised’ characters in the play. This image derives from speculation regarding the popular English belief that uncivilised pagans were below their civilised counterparts in the hierarchy which had God at its apex and inanimate nature at it base.

However a few individuals were beginning to question this assumption and ‘there is evidence in the play that Shakespeare believed that the corruption in a civilised man was more abhorrent than any natural albeit uncivilised behaviour. ’14 At a time when many books and sermons, effected a characteristic Renaissance union between moral and political implications, and concerned themselves with the task of persuading the public that exploration was an honourable and indeed a sanctified activity and Drake was compared to Moses, combining voyaging and mystagogy a practical justification of “the lawfulnesse of Discovering”.

It was a somewhat sophistical argument by Purchas, in favour of the propriety of usurping the rights of native populations, and an insistence, half-mystagogic, half-propagandist, on the temperate, fruitful nature of the New World, and the unspoilt purity of its inhabitants. ‘The True Declaration defends colonizing, on the ground that it diffuses the true religion and has authority from Solomon’s trade to Ophir (whether it lay in the East or, as Columbus thought15 in the West Indies).

There is room for all; and in any case the natives cannot be regarded as civilized people. ’16 The revelations of The Tempest of watching Caliban suffer at the hands of Prospero affords interesting material for examination. Caliban endures his abuse and insistent that he has deprived him of what is rightfully his, and this perhaps may have been Shakespeare’s way of confronting his contemporary pro-colonising audience with the problems of ownership of newly discovered lands.

Antigone – Creon’s Strict Orders

Antigone did the right thing by defileing Creon’s strict orders on burying Polynices because the unalterable laws of the gods and our morals are higher than the blasphemous laws of man. Creon gave strict orders not to bury Polynices because he lead a rebellion, which turned to rout, in Thebes against Creon, their omnipotent king. Antigone could not bare to watch her brother become consumed by vultures’ talons and dogs. Creon finds out that somebody buried Polynices’ body and sent people out to get the person who preformed the burial.

Antigone is guilty and although she is to be wed to Creon’s son, Haemon. He sentences her to be put in a cave with food and water and let the gods decide what to do with her. He was warned by a blind profit not to do this, but he chooses to anyway, leaving him with a dead son, a dead wife, and self-imposed exile. Antigone had good reasons for her actions. She did obey the rules of her gods, which were that any dead body must be given a proper burial, with libatations.

This would prevent the soul from being lost between worlds forever, along with wine as an offering to the gods (page 518- side note). Nor could Antigone let Creon’s edicts go against her morals (lines 392-394). She chooses to share her love, not her hate (line 443). She couldn’t bare to see one family member be chosen over the other because of what a king had decided was right, which she contravened. Why condemn somebody who stood up for what they believed in and is now dead for it anyway? Bringing homage to the family was very important to Antigone (line 422-423).

The gods’ laws come before mortal laws in Antigone’s point-of-view, which is how I believe also. In death, you will answer to your god and no man will have control of your fate in the world that lies hereafter. Therefore by obeying the gods, hopefully, will result in a happy afterlife, which are what most people strive for in ancient times and now. If man does not honor you for noble efforts, your gods’ will. Antigone’s act was honorable. She stood up to the highest of powers so she could honor her brother, knowing the consequence would be death.

Most likely she figured there is only a certain amount man can do to you, so she might as well stand up for not only her family and beliefs, but her gods as well (lines 377-389). Creon could have easily changed his mind, and there were fair amounts of warning. But his decisions lead him into an empty life that could have been adverted if only he would have put his pride aside for a while. Simply because he was too egotistical and too tempermental, his son died (line 986) along with his wife (lines 1080-1081), which left him hapless and with a deep sense of deplorable sorrow leading to self-imposed exile (lines 1119-1126).

The Joy Luck Club, by Amy Tan

In the novel, The Joy Luck Club, by Amy Tan, the characters Suyuan and Jing-Mei Woo have a mother-daughter relationship confused with scattered conflict, but ultimately composed of deep love and commitment for one another. Because of drastic differences in the environments in which they were raised and in their life experiences, these two women have some opposing ideas and beliefs. This, and their lack of communication are responsible for many of the problems they face in their relationship. These conflicts are only resolved when June learns about her mother’s past.

The way that their relationship develops, and the conflicts June and Suyuan face, reveal some of the themes that Amy Tan intends for the readers to learn. These themes concern such topics as finding our life’s importance, making choices, and understanding ourselves and our families. Most of the conflicts that June and her mother face are based on misunderstandings and negligence concerning each other’s feelings and beliefs. June does not understand or even fully know her mother because she does not know about her tragic past and the pain she still feels from the memory of it.

Because Suyuan lost two daughters in China, and her entire family was killed in the war, she leaves this place behind her and places all of her hopes in America and her family there. She wants the very best f or her daughter June. Even her name, Suyuan, meaning “long-cherished wish,” speaks of this hope for Jing-Mei, meaning “the pure, essential, best quality younger sister. ” Suyuan tells her daughter June that she can be anything she wants to be, and that she has great talent. At first June is excited and dreams about what she will become: “In all my imaginings, I was filled with a ense that I would soon become perfect.

My mother and father would adore me. I would be beyond reproach. I would never feel the n eed to sulk for anything. ” (p. 143) Suyuan pushes June to be successful in many different areas such as dance, After failing to excel at each task set before her, June begins to feel more and more resentment towards her mother. She sees her mother’s hopes as expectations, and when she does not live up to these, she feels like a failure. The final incident, when June performs a piano piece filled with mistakes at a talent show, makes June believe that her mother is completely ashamed nd disappointed with her.

June looked through the crowd to her mother’s face. She thought to herself, “… my mother’s expression was what devastated me: a quiet, blank look that said she had lost everything. ” (p. 143) What June did not realize, was that the real reason why her mother was upset was not because she had not lived up to her expectations. She was unhappy because June did not care about having the best for herself. She did not have high hopes or a passion to be successful at anything. She failed because she did not try and she did not care.

This is in strong opposition to Suyuan’s high hopes that originate from the strong love she has for her daughter. It is not until much later in her life, after Suyuan’s death, that June realizes just how much her mother loved her and how proud she was of her. After Suyuan’s death, and after June learns more of the details about her mother’s past, June’s eyes open to the good intentions her mother always had for her in all of the ways that she acted. She realizes that her mother was proud of her even though she was not a great genius at anything.

After Waverly humiliated June at the dinner table by stating that the work she had done for her firm was not good enough, Suyuan attempted to display her pride in June by giving her the jade pendent she always wore, which symbolized her life’s importance. She wanted June to know that her life had value and that she just needed to develop and use her talents in order to discover this. After her mother’s death, June begins wearing this necklace every day. She also thinks back to her job and decides, “I was very good at what I did, succeeding at something small like that. ” (p. 233) Because

June does not make many of these discoveries until after her mother’s death, she fears that she did not appreciate her enough during her life: ‘Right after my mother died, I asked myself a lot of things, things that couldn’t be answered, to force myself to grieve more. It seemed as if I wanted to sustain my grief, to assure myself I had cared deeply enough. But now I ask the question s mostly because I want to know the answers. ” (p. 320) Suyuan loved her daughter more than her own life, but June did not realize this until her questions were answered and she began to understand her mother’s intentions in life, and where her

The stories of Suyuan and Jing-Mei Woo reveal some of Amy Tan’s main themes in the novel. One important theme is that we must get to know and understand our parents in order to fully understand ourselves. June spends the first half of her life believing that she is a disappointment to her mother and has been unsuccessful in life. However, when she learns more about her mother’s past and discovers that her mother is proud of her good heart and concern for others, she realizes that she has accomplished something by doing small things to the best of her ability.

She learns that one does not have to be famous, or a genius, or greatly wealthy in order to be successful. Another important theme is that we need to make our own choices in life and find our own life’s importance. When June was a child, her mother was constantly pushing her to try different things that she had no interest in. Because she did not care about any of these things, she did not really try to be successful, and therefore, would never accomplish anything great. We build our own importance in life by deeply caring about something that we choose nd putting all of our effort into developing or accomplishing this.

The relationship between June and her mother, Suyuan, is far from flawless, yet has the foundation of love that can never be destroyed. There are many misunderstandings between these two women that are unfortunately left unresolved until after Suyuan’s death. Amy Tan uses this relationship and all of its complications to teach the readers important themes about life. Ultimately, love between this mother and daughter prevails through all conflict, and even beyond Suyuan’s death, when her long-cherished wish of uniting her daughters is fulfilled.

The story of Antigone

The story of Antigone has been written and translated numerous times. However, the plays written by Sophocles and Jean Anouilh are the most discussed. Despite sharing a similar plot, these adaptations are very different. In Sophocles’s Antigone, Kreon appears to be the protagonist. However in Anouilh’s, it is Antigone. In Sophocles’s Antigone, Antigone does not appear strong, instead she is almost submissive to Kreon. This Antigone is doing what she does only because of her religion and the gods she believes in. In her death, she does not lose much. She never mentions Haimon directly; he seems to lose more in her death than she does.

Antigone is not a tragic heroine, by dying, she has her wish fulfilled – she wants to die for what she does. Antigone was a martyr, not a tragic heroine. There is considerable distinctionbetween the martyr and the tragic protagonist. The martyr suffers and dies for a particular cause and may consciously seek death. The tragic protagonist… has every reason to live amd makes a heroic struggle to survive . (Miller 13) Kreon has every reason to live, he is ruler of Thebes; he is king. He does not die, but he is destroyed. Kreon loses nearly everything he has.

In the play, he is forced to keep his word to his people. His tragic flaw is an unbending will. Kreon cannot accept that he is wrong. He believes that only his opinion counts. He is unafraid to express his decision to leave Polyneices outside the wall “to be feasted upon by carrion birds” even though the chorus is obviously disgusted. O fate of man, working both good and evil! When the laws are kept how proudly his city stands! When the laws are broken, what of his city then? Never may the anarchic man find rest at my hearth, Never be it said that my thoughts are his thoughts. (Sophocles 599)

Because of his lack of judgment and unwillingness to bow to a woman, he is thrown into complete disarray and dispair. His flaw is an unbending will, and a failure to accept that he is wrong. Even when Teiresias tells him to repent and admit his wrong, he refuses. His downfall becomes his own doing. A tragic hero often comes to learn something about himself and his surroundings. Antigone did not give herself time to do this. She remained a stubborn character, refusing to see anything from more than her own point of view. Creon, however, realized far too late the error of his ways when his own family suffered from his decisions.

Creon had to live with the knowledge that he brought his downfall upon himself. It is right that it should be. I alone am guilty I know it, and I say it. Lead me in. Quickly, friends. I have neither life nor substance. Lead me in. (622) Antigone dies with self-pride, which in a way, worsens Creon’s agony. As a protagonist, Kreon constantly struggles against his pride. The laws of the gods state that every man should be buried; however Creon deliberately disobeys that. He realises his mistakes, however, his pride gets in the way. According to the Greeks, it was hubris or excessive pride that destroyed him.

In the end, Creon is punished, he has lost everything. By the end of the play, Antigone appears as the one who had thrown Creon’s life into disarray. Creon seems vulnerable and destroyed; almost pitifully pathetic. Throughout the play, he fights for the respect he desperately wants. He feels that he has to prove himself to his people, prove that he is a man who means what he says. In Sophocles’s Antigone, Creon also has the most lines. He has over twice as many lines than Antigone. The play’s focus is on Kreon and the struggles he goes through to prove that he is capable of ruling his state and his household.

However in Jean Anouilh’s Antigone, Kreon takes on a different personality. While he obviously suffers in Sophocles’s Antigone, in Anouilh’s, he is cold and composed. After the deaths of Antigone, Haemon and Eurydice, Creon merely says “They say it’s dirty work. But if I didn’t do it, who would? ” Even after the bloodshed, Creon still believes that he is correct, he is not destroyed or even repentant. In Anouiilh’s Antigone, Antigone emerges as the protagonist and tragic heroine. She is much more human than Sophocles’s rendering of her in the sense that she feels more than the earlier Antigone.

She doesn’t want to die but she knew that she would. In her dialogue with Kreon, she does not remain calm like the earlier Antigone, but instead attacks his idea of politics and most importantly, his idea of happiness. What kind of happiness do you foresee for me? Paint me the picture of your happy Antigone. What are the unimportant little sins that I shall have to commit before I am allowed to sink my teeth into life and tear happiness from it? (Anouilh 57) Antigone’s tragic flaw would be that she is much too stubborn and often rushes headlong into things. However, at the end, she seems to realise what she had done.

Forgive me, my darling. You would all have been so happy if not for Antigone. ” Unlike Sophocles’s Antigone, who stays stubborn to the end; knowing that what she did was right, Anouilh’s Antigone is very afraid. She doubts herself a little; she is strong but she is human. She does not welcome her death; she fears it. Antigine has every reason to live. She loved Haemon and her sister but she also loved her dead brother. She has a strong sense of duty; even when Creon denounces her brother, she still tries to convince herself that he[Polyneices] is a good man.

Antigone does not begin Anouilh’s play, but the chorus (wh does) points to her as the protagonist of this play. she will burst forth as the dark tense serious girl, who is about to rise up and face the whole world alone-alone against the world and against Creon, her uncle, the Kingshe is going to dieshe would much rather live than die. (13) Antigone is the protagonist in Anouilh’s play, however, she is not in Sophocles’. The two different protagonists in each play are just another difference between the intepretations of two different authors. However, both Antigone and Creon stand out as the protagonist in their respective plays.

Death Of A Salesman Paper

Well anywise Willy Loman was played by Dustin Hoffman and well he did a great job portraying his charter. And he did very well. The move well little slow to the start but after it introduced all the charts and the things starting falling in place then that is when everything came clear. But I really feel sorry for Willy but in the same persificted I am pissed off at him, but he is cheating in his wife and well in my mind I dont think that is a good idea.

But his sons take most of he flak cus he makes them out to something they are not. See in my mind Willy is a dreamer and well he wishes that he and his family could always live the good live but in fact they cant. He lives in the burbs and well he is also in a dead end job, that will never take him or his family any where. His family consisted of his loving wife Linda, she was the back bone of the family she kept everything in live and going in the right direction for Willy and his sons.

Then there was Happy, he was the player and tycoon and always looking for recognition from his father, but never really got it. Because there was Biff his pride and joy he thought the world revolved around him. Then there was Charlie Willy only true friend ever thought they would fight on a regular basic that still were friend and Charlie ever help Willy out with a little side cash just to keep things running at home.

Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Defined by a book of current literary terms, a climax is “the arrangement of a series of ideas or expressions in ascending order of importance or emphasis; the last term of the arrangement; a culmination. ” Written by F. Scott Fitzgerald during the roaring 20’s, The Great Gatsby provides a look into the upper class circle of the East and West Villages of New York City. Known as East and West Egg in the novel, Fitzgerald, through the eyes of bachelor, portrays a cynical view of the high social society and the morality which it lacks.

This scarcity of ethics ultimately causes the downfall of their ollow world in a clatter of broken hearts and mislead minds. The climax of The Great Gatsby takes place in a New York Hotel suite when, after many hints toward the reason for Gatsby’s company, the true nature of his presence is revealed to Tom Buchanan. Ever since Jay Gatsby returned from World War I, which swept him away from his boyhood love Daisy, he has made every indirect effort to make contact and rekindle her love for him.

Even with the knowledge that she is married and leads a separate life from his, Gatsby, without regrets, lives his life for her. When, at long last, he has the hance to interact with Daisy, he capitalizes on it immediately. With the assistance of Jordan Baker and his neighbor Nick Carraway (Daisy’s second cousin), Gatsby arranges a meeting with Daisy. At this meeting the two hearts are reunited and again would be one, if not for the plate glass barrier of Daisy’s marriage to Tom Buchanan which separates them.

Originally held apart by a young boys’ ineptitude to provide for a wealthy girl, Daisy is now held back by a seemingly insincere knot of matrimony. This keeps the all important bonds of love to be formed between the two former lovers. Tom, a wealthy man with family history, is enlightened to the existence of this perennial relationship in a slow weave of events which explode into the climax of the novel in a New York Hotel Room during a visit by Jay Gatsby.

The spark that ignites the climax tinder box is a question posed by Tom to Gatsby. ‘What kind of a row are you trying to cause in my house anyhow? ‘ They were out in the open at last and Gatsby was content. ” The openness further shows itself as the scene quickly progresses into an blitzkrieg of words, the “I’ve got something to tell you, old sport,__” began Gatsby. But “Please don’t! ” she interrupted helplessly. “Please let’s all go home “She never loved you, do you hear? ” he cried. ”

She only married you because I was poor and she was tired of waiting for me. It was a terrible mistake, but in her heart she never loved anyone except me! At this point Jordan and I tried to go but Tom and Gatsby insisted with competitive firmness that we remain__ as though neither of them had anything to conceal and it would be a privilege to partake vicariously of their Insults and accusations are slung as the too assault each other in a humanely cruel way ntil, when at the height of the climax, Daisy breaks apart.

The two suitors are torn from their opposing member and focus on the revealed pain felt by the object of both their “Please don’t. Her voice was cold but the rancor was gone from it. She looked at Gatsby. “There, Jay,” she said__but her hand as she tried to light a cigarette was trembling. Suddenly she threw the cigarette and the burning match on the carpet. “Oh, you want too much! ” she cried to Gatsby. “I love you now__ isn’t that enough? I can’t help what’s past. ” She began to sob helplessly. ” I did love him once__but I loved you too You loved me too he repeated? “… “She’s not leaving me! ” Tom’s world suddenly leaned down over Gatsby.

Certainly not for a common swindler who’d have to steal the ring A knock out punch, the argument soon sided itself and Tom emerged the victor from a slowly dissipating cloud of dust, Daisy his spoils. The argument drones on, a monotone buzz of accusations, but the outcome had already been decided and the words from that point on would be swallowed by Gatsby in a big gulp of false pride. This scene in which Gatsby and Tom face off is the climax of the novel because ll the events of the book lead up to that one point with a constant drone of anticipation, and the events following it, drift harmlessly towards the conclusion.

From the beginning of the novel and Gatsby’s wonderfully extravagant parties, to the initial meeting of Daisy and Gatsby and the blossoming friendship between Jay and Nick, the book surmounts to that single defining moment in the hotel room in which the main characters can be seen in a shrewdly perforating light. The events which follow the fight in the hotel are also interesting, but unimportant in the end.

Gatsby never lost hope that Daisy would come to him, but as soon as this hope and care arrived back to his heart, unanswered, the events that followed were no longer of importance. Once Daisy’s love and trust in Gatsby died, so did his soul, his body was only an earthly reminder of his existence until Wilson took that also. From the moment when Daisy admitted her love to Tom was true, and that Daisy’s heart was merely a shared possession of his and Tom’s, Gatsby lost the true hope and was left with the care of a desperate man which he so vividly personified.

The Yellow Wallpaper – Journey into Insanity

In “The Yellow Wallpaper”, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, the dominant/submissive relationship between an oppressive husband and his submissive wife pushes her from depression into insanity. Flawed human nature seems to play a great role in her breakdown. Her husband, a noted physician, is unwilling to admit that there might really be something wrong with his wife. This same attitude is seen in her brother, who is also a physician. While this attitude, and the actions taken because of it, certainly contributed to her breakdown; it seems to me that there is a rebellious spirit in her.

Perhaps unconsciously she seems determined to prove them wrong. As the story begins, the woman — whose name we never learn — tells of her depression and how it is dismissed by her husband and brother. “You see, he does not believe I am sick! And what can one do? If a physician of high standing, and one’s own husband, assures friends and relatives that there is really nothing the matter with one but temporary nervous depression — a slight hysterical tendency — what is one to do? ” (Gilman 193).

These two men — both doctors — seem completely unable to admit that there might be more to her ondition than than just stress and a slight nervous condition. Even when a summer in the country and weeks of bed-rest don’t help, her husband refuses to accept that she may have a real problem. Throughout the story there are examples of the dominant – submissive relationship. She is virtually imprisoned in her bedroom, supposedly to allow her to rest and recover her health. She is forbidden to work, “So I . . . am absolutely forbidden to “work” until I am well again. (Gilman 193).

She is not even supposed to write: “There comes John, and I must put this away — he hates to have me write a word. (Gilman 194). She has no say in the location or decor of the room she is virtually imprisoned in: “I don’t like our room a bit. I wanted . . . But John would not hear of it. ” (Gilman 193). She can’t have visitors: “It is so discouraging not to have any advice and companionship about my work. . . but he says he would as soon put fireworks in my pillow-case as to let me have those stimulating people about now. ” (Gilman 196).

Probably in large part because of her oppression, she continues to decline. “I don’t feel as if it was worthwhile to turn my hand over for anything. . ” (Gilman 197). It seems that her husband is oblivious to her declining conditon, since he never admits she has a real problem until the end of the story — at which time he fainted. John could have obtained council from someone less personally involved in her case, but the only help he seeks was for the house and baby. He obtains a nanny to watch over the children while he was away at work each day: “It is fortunate Mary is so good with the baby. (Gilman 195). And he had his sister Jennie take care of the house.

“She is a perfect and enthusiastic housekeeper. (Gilman 196). He does talk of taking her to an expert: “John says if I don’t pick up faster he shall send me to Weir Mitchell in the fall. ” But she took that as a threat since he was even more domineering than her husband and brother. Not only does he fail to get her help, but by keeping her virtually a prisoner in a room with nauseating wallpaper and very little to occupy her mind, let alone offer any kind of mental stimulation, he almost forces her to dwell on her problem.

Prison is supposed to be depressing, and she is pretty close to being a prisoner. Perhaps if she had been allowed to come and go and do as she pleased her depression might have lifted: “I think sometimes that if I were only well enough to write a little it would relieve the press of ideas and rest me. ” (Gilman 195). It seems that just being able to tell someone how she really felt would have eased her depression, but John won’t hear of it. The lack of an outlet caused the depression to worsen: “. . . I must say what I feel and think in some way — it is such a relief!

But the effort is getting to be greater than the relief. ” (Gilman 198). Meanwhile her reaction is to seek to prove him wrong. “John is a physician, and perhaps . . . perhaps that is one reason I do not get well faster. You see he does not believe I am sick! And what can one do? ” (Gilman 193). It seems to me that while putting on an appearance of submission she was frequently rebelling against her husband’s orders. She writes when there is nobody around to see her, she tries to move her bed, but always keeps an eye open for someone comming. This is obvious throughout the story.

It also seems to me that, probably because of his oppressive behaviour, she ants to drive her husband away. “John is away all day, and even some nights when his cases are serious. I am glad my case is not serious! ” (Gilman 195). As her breakdown approaches she actually locks him out of her room: “I have locked the door and thrown the key down into the front path. I don’t want to go out, and I don’t want to have anybody come in, till John comes. I want to astonish him. ” (Gilman 203). I see no reason for this other than to force him to see that he was wrong, and, since she knew he couldn’t tolerate hysteria, to drive him away.