Periods Of English Literature

Centuries could pass, and not many changes could be easily perceived by the common man, as those changes came gradually. Yet those changes can be readily discerned when looking at England as a whole, not looking at parts of history individually. The alterations of life, when looked at from a certain literary viewpoint, can be explained when one looks at the different periods in English literature, seeing the depictions of a certain era through writings that unintentionally convey great varieties in the mentality and lifestyles of the people who lived during that time.

From war and violence to the more genteel inclinations of love and peace, English literature has evolved throughout the centuries, most especially if one considers the differences between the Old English, Renaissance and Romantic periods. The Anglo-Saxon history is undoubtedly very interesting to study, as the period spans several centuries and several different inhabitants of the land now known as England. The main characteristic of this time was the heroic ideal, which was the attempt by a hero to do things such as sailing a ship through a storm and taming a horse better than anyone else.

The heros first priority, however, was to always be ready to fight. The Angles were a heathen race, worshipping old Nordic gods and Wyrd (fate). It is very important to remember that it was the Anglo-Saxons who determined the basic language and culture of the English race, therefore it was them that were the foundation upon which literature would stand. The first literature found in the history of this period was during the reign of the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes. It was not really literature, in that it was written down by anybody, in mass-produced copies.

The literature back then consisted of songs, sang by bards, who embellished the story with every telling. It was only in later years that the tales were written down. This came about during the reign of Christianity, where the monks had tried to write down all of the tales that the bards sang, the ancient folk tales of the Anglo-Saxons. The monks also tried to infuse the Anglo-Saxons with a love for Christianity, where the heroes were Christ and his Apostles, by writing poetry such as Cinewulf, The Dream of the Rood and Elene.

It was a monk, in fact, who wrote down the tale of Beowulf, the most celebrated tale of the period. Beowulf is a folk epic that is representative of the Old English period, in both life and character. Beowulf can be summarized as the tale of a brave and heroic warrior, who has superhuman strength and all the important values of a fighter. He saves King Hrothgars people from two evil creatures, Grendel and the Sea Hag, and is rewarded with many great treasures. Later, he becomes King in his own country, and is a very wise and generous ruler.

He dies very honorably, while battling with another supernatural creature to save his kingdom. King Alfred, of the West Saxons, is the veritable Father of English Prose. During the Viking invasions, it was Alfred who saved the Anglo-Saxon culture. He was a great leader and, along with his scholars, translated many Latin works into the language of the West Saxons. Alfred established schools, rebuilt the country, and attracted scholars and learned men. It was after this period of wars and fighting that England really began to develop itself, moulded into the country that it was to remain for several centuries.

Probably one of the most studied periods out of all the periods in English literature, the Renaissance in Elizabethan England counts among its poets and play-wrights some of the best writers of all times. The Renaissance period is host to immortalized words from many a great poet, such as Shakespeares To be or not to be sonnet, and many others. The men of the period wrote about their lives in their poetry, with its many hues of passion, emotion, tragedy and triumph. The main characteristic of the Renaissance period is the Renaissance humanism, a claim of the dignity of man against hatred.

Shakespeare had an image of man as he was before the Fall, and as he is still capable of being. Shakespeare also placed man between the angels and the beasts in the chain of Being that was an important concept in the Medieval mentality. Also important was societys creation of the Renaissance man. The Renaissance man was refined, elegant, dressed splendidly, danced well, wrote poetry, and was an ornament at court, to name but a few. This idea of the perfect man contrasted greatly to the heroic ideal popular in the Anglo-Saxon period.

Though the Renaissance man still had to excel in all areas of human endeavour, even soldiering and commandeering, importance was not placed as highly on these factors of the Renaissance man. Examples of such a man can be found in Sir Philip Sidney, John Donne and Sir Walter Raleigh. A few of the most celebrated writers of all times come from this period, such as Kit Marlowe and William Shakespeare. The latter is undoubtedly the most famous out of all writers and play-wrights, as his plays and his life are still being studied to a great extent.

Shakespeare wrote on a wide array of subjects, writing plays with themes of history, comedy and tragedy, as well as writing sonnets. He wrote such famous plays as Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Nights Dream, Macbeth, and Richard II. Other famous writings from the Renaissance period include Sir Philip Sidneys Astrophil and Stella, Christopher Marlowes The Passionate Shepherd to His Love, Sir Walter Raleighs The Nymphs Reply to the Shepherd, and John Miltons Paradise Lost.

Most of these names no doubt seem very familiar, as their works are still studied, and highly praised for their high degree of poetic refinement. In sharp contrast to the glorified wars of Anglo-Saxon times, the Romantics embraced pantheism, which involves seeing God in nature. Seen as a literary response against political and social organizations of the 18th century, romanticism sought to change the world of literature that was, with the passing of the Neo-Classical Age, rather conservative and controlled.

It probed into the heart of its readers with its newly-infused passion and imagination. The poetic imagery of these Romantic works links human thoughts and emotions intimately with the external world, and tries to appeal to its readers feelings rather than their reason. A list of clear characteristics can be drawn when considering the Romantic works. Included in this list are hatred of hypocrisy and outward show, belief in the brotherhood of man, sympathy for the downtrodden and a rebellion against all things which limit or hamper the individual.

The Romantics were searching for an ideal aesthetic world, and tried to communicate this search throughout their respective works. The Romantic poets, also known as the Lake Poets, included such famous names as William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Lord Byron, John Keats and Percy Bysshe Shelley. Lord Byrons extraordinary tale of The Prisoner of Chillon is a very moving story about a man who, thrown into prison along with his two brothers, must then face the death of those brothers and his own loneliness.

This compelling tale was sure to move its readers into sympathy for Franois de Bonnivard, the actual prisoner of Chillon, whose life was the basis for Byrons work. Publications such as this were Byrons, along with the other Lake poets who probably wrote such tales, way of protesting against such injustices, a protest of mans inhumanity to his fellow human beings. Other great works of the times include Wordsworths Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood, Shelleys Loves Philosophy, and Keats On the Grasshopper and Cricket.

All three tales discuss either nature or love, two key themes during the Romantic period. One poem in particular may stand out among its contemporaries. This poem, by John Keats, is simply named Ozymandias, after a king who had demanded that a statue be made in his honour. In this poem, Keats mocks the Institution, by comparing the deteriorating statue to the decline of the monarchy. All poets of the Romantic Age are remembered for their pantheism, their expression of their innermost feelings and their cry for the bettering of humanity.

As is evident when studying English literary periods, several marked differences appear in the mentalities and lifestyles of the times. The Anglo-Saxon, Renaissance and Romantic Ages give scholars several different perspectives of literature in England throughout the span of several centuries. In later centuries, love and peace came to have just as great an influence as the wars which were so honoured in earlier times, times that included great battles and long periods of discord that forever changed the lives of the English people.

The book The Scarlet Letter

In the book The Scarlet Letter we read about the sins the major adult characters commit, as well as the consequences of their vices. Hester Prynne commits adultery and is therefore doomed to wear the scarlet letter upon her breast for eternity. Being Hesters partner in sin Arthur Dimmesdale must cloak his guilt. Lastly, we have Roger Chillingworth who is the embodiment of evil and tries to reveal the Reverends sin out of vengeance. Hester Prynne, the first major character that we are introduced to, starts off on the town scaffold with an infant of three months in her arms.

Already we are shown one of the consequences of Hesters sin, her child. Hester is also forced to stand upon the scaffold for three hours for the town to see her blazon with the scarlet letter. She also must wear the letter for the rest of her life according to the judgment handed down to her from the town magistrates. Not only is Hester forced to live with the scarlet letter, she must also die with it. On her tombstone a bright red “A” is superimposed in the background.

Next in the saga, we have the amiable Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale. A good clergyman that believes in the word of god strongly but he still commits lechery with Hester. He is commiserative of his sin but cannot reveal it for fear of losing his standing in the church and the high standing among the townspeople. The concealment of the sin eats away at him inside and he punishes himself with bloody scourges; sleepless nights; long periods of starving; and, according to some people, an engraved letter A over his heart.

Finally we have the devilish Roger Chillingworth. To say that revenge was like a hobby for Chillingworth is quite the understatement, he made a career out of it. He lived to reveal Hesters partner in sin at all costs. As soon as he realizes that it is Dimmesdale, he makes it a priority to play constant mind games with Arthur in hopes to cause a mental breakdown. But he didnt really accomplish what he was trying to do.

He wanted to keep playing games with Arthur until he got tired of it and then reveal Arthurs sin to the townspeople almost like a cat plays with a mouse it is about to consume. Arthur reveals his secret to the town on the scaffold and dies. Dimmesdale loses his purpose in life and dies within a year of Arthur. Chillingworth also lies about his identity to carry out his plan to reveal who the other sinner is. Each character committed different sins, and the consequences each character received were varying in

Who Is To Blame For The Deaths Of Romeo And Juliet?

Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy about two star crossed lovers whose love cannot apart them from their two feuding families.

In this essay I will state who or what are responsible for their deaths, the main theme of the story is hatred and fate.

Firstly I must introduce the two families because their attitude of hatred is responsible for the deaths mainly because if they hadnt quarrelled then maybe Romeo and Juliet wouldnt have got married in secret.

Resulting in the feud all the members perpetuated the feud this is illustrated by Tybalt from the Capulet family, Juliets cousin, he started the fight that resulted in Romeo getting banished and he was always causing trouble.

He more than any one else in the story kept hatred alive between the two families because of his violence.

I also blame Lord and Lady Capulet, Juliets parents because they should have paid more attention to Juliets wishes when she refused to marry Paris.

At first they threatened to throw her out onto the streets as in Act three Scene 5 Capulet says to Juliet “Thursday is near lay hand on heart and you be mine, Ill give you to my friend, and you to be not, hang, beg, starve, die in the streets.”

Lady Capulet also put her daughter in the care of the Nurse who raised Juliet as her surrogate daughter.

The Nurse being a blabbermouth out spoken person was also responsible for the death of Juliet.

She never acknowledged that maybe Juliet wasnt ready for this immense step in her life from an on looker guardian.

In Act two-Scene four the Nurse warns Romeo to be true to Juliet and she explains there is another man after her Paris she compares the two.

She says to Romeo that her Juliet is sweet “well sir my mistress is sweetest lady, lord o there is a noble man in town Paris.”

She encouraged Juliet in her romance with Romeo because the action of her being a blabber mouth is that she carried the messages of a secret meeting of where she knew that they where going to spend a night of passion together in Act three Scene two she says to Juliet “hie to your chamber Ill find Romeo to comfort you hark ye, your Romeo will be here all night”

She advised Juliet to marry Paris, knowing she was already married to Romeo.

I also blame Friar Lawrence who was the person that took these newly met lustful children into their marriage, since Romeo and Juliet where two children were married so soon and at a young age this made them unable to make theyre own decisions.

This statement can be proved about Romeo because when he was banished he bellowed like a baby the Nurse had to make young Romeo act like a man just to think of Juliet instead of himself.

The main reason for Friar Lawrences decision to marry the two is wrong is because he thought this might help to make the two families stop fighting in Act two Scenes six Friar Lawrence says, “till holy church incorporate two in one”.

In the end this was proven to be the motivation for the two children killing themselves he also gave Juliet the sleeping potion Act four Scene one “take this vial, being in bed and this distilled liquor drink thou off”.

Now I must introduce The Prince ruler of Verona where the story is set.

The Prince had the power to act to stop the feud between the two families.

It was unjustified of him to send Romeo away from Verona as a punishment for killing Tybalt when the fighting was Tybalt’s own fault for killing Mercutio in Act three Scene three he says “hence from Verona art thou banished: taking thy part, hath rushd aside the law and turn’d that black word into banishment”.

Mercutio had an influence on Romeo because of his friend ship, Mercutio’s attitude to the quarrels and fighting made the situation worse.

He saw the feud as a game and that attitude led him to his death and Romeos banishment.

Even though I am blaming certain people for the tragic deaths of Romeo and Juliet I have to consider that Romeo and Juliet had an affect on there own fates.

Firstly, I will blame Romeo because he acted too hastily throughout the story and he was a romancer because the opening of the story he was in love with Rosoline then he fell for Juliet.

He shouldnt have asked Juliet to marry him so suddenly, and he should have thought more carefully before rushing back to Verona after hearing of Juliets death.

He also acted violently and without thinking when he killed Tybalt in revenge and then later the killing of Paris.

Now I will explain why I think Juliet was responsible for her own death Juliet of death and Romeos death to, I think she shouldnt have deceived and disobeyed her parents.

Like Romeo, she was too rash in rushing into marriage.

She knew she was already engaged to marry Paris at the time of the ball when she first met Romeo and until then she was very happy with her parents choice of Paris a wealthy bachelor.

Before my conclusion can be stated I will have to introduce what I think are the main reasons for the deaths, which is fate.

Fate seemed to control their lives and force them together, becoming the ultimate controlling power in this play even if it is not recognised however in the prologue there is a chosen identity of starts “a pair star-crossed lovers”.

A large part of the beliefs for both Romeo and Juliet involved fate, they believed in the stars and that their actions were not always there own, Romeo for example scene 1 act 4 says “some consequence yet hanging in the stars….by some vile forfeit of untimely death. But hath the steerage over my course direct sail”.

He is simply saying to his friends he had a dream, which lead him to believe that he will die young because of something in the stars, something that will happen.

The only instance of fate managed to direct Romeo into its web like a spider.

There is another instance of strong fate where an illiterate servant of the Capulets was sent to invite people to the ball; in Act one Scene two “I can never find what names I must to be learned”, Romeo saw this list with Rosalines name on it, which got Romeo and his friends to the ball.

When he got to the ball Romeo was memorised by Juliet, and she was simply memorised by him.

They later realise their identity, but they are in love and wont let their names get in the way of their strong emotions.

If fate didnt put them together then what or who did?

What are the chances of all that happening a million to one so thats why I have come to my conclusion that the main reason for what is to blame for the tragic deaths of Romeo and Juliet is the fate.

Who Is To Blame For The Deaths Of Romeo And Juliet?

Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy about two star crossed lovers whose love cannot apart them from their two feuding families.

In this essay I will state who or what are responsible for their deaths, the main theme of the story is hatred and fate.

Firstly I must introduce the two families because their attitude of hatred is responsible for the deaths mainly because if they hadnt quarrelled then maybe Romeo and Juliet wouldnt have got married in secret.

Resulting in the feud all the members perpetuated the feud this is illustrated by Tybalt from the Capulet family, Juliets cousin, he started the fight that resulted in Romeo getting banished and he was always causing trouble.

He more than any one else in the story kept hatred alive between the two families because of his violence.

I also blame Lord and Lady Capulet, Juliets parents because they should have paid more attention to Juliets wishes when she refused to marry Paris.

At first they threatened to throw her out onto the streets as in Act three Scene 5 Capulet says to Juliet “Thursday is near lay hand on heart and you be mine, Ill give you to my friend, and you to be not, hang, beg, starve, die in the streets.”

Lady Capulet also put her daughter in the care of the Nurse who raised Juliet as her surrogate daughter.

The Nurse being a blabbermouth out spoken person was also responsible for the death of Juliet.

She never acknowledged that maybe Juliet wasnt ready for this immense step in her life from an on looker guardian.

In Act two-Scene four the Nurse warns Romeo to be true to Juliet and she explains there is another man after her Paris she compares the two.

She says to Romeo that her Juliet is sweet “well sir my mistress is sweetest lady, lord o there is a noble man in town Paris.”

She encouraged Juliet in her romance with Romeo because the action of her being a blabber mouth is that she carried the messages of a secret meeting of where she knew that they where going to spend a night of passion together in Act three Scene two she says to Juliet “hie to your chamber Ill find Romeo to comfort you hark ye, your Romeo will be here all night”

She advised Juliet to marry Paris, knowing she was already married to Romeo.

I also blame Friar Lawrence who was the person that took these newly met lustful children into their marriage, since Romeo and Juliet where two children were married so soon and at a young age this made them unable to make theyre own decisions.

This statement can be proved about Romeo because when he was banished he bellowed like a baby the Nurse had to make young Romeo act like a man just to think of Juliet instead of himself.

The main reason for Friar Lawrences decision to marry the two is wrong is because he thought this might help to make the two families stop fighting in Act two Scenes six Friar Lawrence says, “till holy church incorporate two in one”.

In the end this was proven to be the motivation for the two children killing themselves he also gave Juliet the sleeping potion Act four Scene one “take this vial, being in bed and this distilled liquor drink thou off”.

Now I must introduce The Prince ruler of Verona where the story is set.

The Prince had the power to act to stop the feud between the two families.

It was unjustified of him to send Romeo away from Verona as a punishment for killing Tybalt when the fighting was Tybalt’s own fault for killing Mercutio in Act three Scene three he says “hence from Verona art thou banished: taking thy part, hath rushd aside the law and turn’d that black word into banishment”.

Mercutio had an influence on Romeo because of his friend ship, Mercutio’s attitude to the quarrels and fighting made the situation worse.

He saw the feud as a game and that attitude led him to his death and Romeos banishment.

Even though I am blaming certain people for the tragic deaths of Romeo and Juliet I have to consider that Romeo and Juliet had an affect on there own fates.

Firstly, I will blame Romeo because he acted too hastily throughout the story and he was a romancer because the opening of the story he was in love with Rosoline then he fell for Juliet.

He shouldnt have asked Juliet to marry him so suddenly, and he should have thought more carefully before rushing back to Verona after hearing of Juliets death.

He also acted violently and without thinking when he killed Tybalt in revenge and then later the killing of Paris.

Now I will explain why I think Juliet was responsible for her own death Juliet of death and Romeos death to, I think she shouldnt have deceived and disobeyed her parents.

Like Romeo, she was too rash in rushing into marriage.

She knew she was already engaged to marry Paris at the time of the ball when she first met Romeo and until then she was very happy with her parents choice of Paris a wealthy bachelor.

Before my conclusion can be stated I will have to introduce what I think are the main reasons for the deaths, which is fate.

Fate seemed to control their lives and force them together, becoming the ultimate controlling power in this play even if it is not recognised however in the prologue there is a chosen identity of starts “a pair star-crossed lovers”.

A large part of the beliefs for both Romeo and Juliet involved fate, they believed in the stars and that their actions were not always there own, Romeo for example scene 1 act 4 says “some consequence yet hanging in the stars….by some vile forfeit of untimely death. But hath the steerage over my course direct sail”.

He is simply saying to his friends he had a dream, which lead him to believe that he will die young because of something in the stars, something that will happen.

The only instance of fate managed to direct Romeo into its web like a spider.

There is another instance of strong fate where an illiterate servant of the Capulets was sent to invite people to the ball; in Act one Scene two “I can never find what names I must to be learned”, Romeo saw this list with Rosalines name on it, which got Romeo and his friends to the ball.

When he got to the ball Romeo was memorised by Juliet, and she was simply memorised by him.

They later realise their identity, but they are in love and wont let their names get in the way of their strong emotions.

If fate didnt put them together then what or who did?

What are the chances of all that happening a million to one so thats why I have come to my conclusion that the main reason for what is to blame for the tragic deaths of Romeo and Juliet is the fate.

The Color Purple by Alice Walker

Best known for her Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Color Purple, Alice Walker portrays black women struggling for sexual as well as racial equality and emerging as strong, creative individuals. Walker was born on February 9, 1944, in Eatonton, Georgia, the eighth child of Willie Lee and Minnie Grant Walker. When Walker was eight, her right eye was injured by one of her brothers, resulting in permanent damage to her eye and facial disfigurement that isolated her as a child. This is where her feminine point of view first emerged in a household where girls were forced to do the domestic chores unaided by the brothers.

Throughout her writing career, Alice Walker has been involved in the black movement and displays strong feelings towards the respect black women get. In 1961, Walker entered Spelman College, where she joined the Civil Rights Movement. Two years after graduating in 1965, she married Melvyn Leventhal, a Jewish civil rights lawyer; afterward, they worked together in Mississippi, registering blacks to vote. In the summer of 1968, she went to Mississippi to be in the heart of the civil-rights movement, helping people who had been thrown off farms or taken off welfare roles for registering to vote.

In New York, she worked as an editor at Ms. Magazine, and her husband worked for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. In 1970, Walker published her first novel, The Third Life of Grange Copeland, about the ravages of racism on a black sharecropping family. In Meridian, 1976, her second novel, she explored a womans successful efforts to find her place in the Civil Rights Movement. She read much of Flannery OConner’s work and greatly admired her. For one thing, OConner practiced economy. According to Herbert Mitgang of the New York Times, “She also knew that the question of race was really just the first question on a long list”(1983).

Much of Walkers writings are very personal. For example, one of her first books once was written during a time in which she was pregnant and suicidal and it described how she had an abortion and dealt with all of its after effects. Unlike many other authors, she is not afraid to write about very personal experiences she has had. Since the beginning of her writing career, she has written sixteen books, including five novels, several collections of essays, short stories, childrens books, and poems.

Charles Truehearth of The Washington Post writes, “She has discussed such topics as spousal abuse, fear of death, female sexuality, and incest”(1991). Walker is very much of a feminist, which is demonstrated by the previous quote. According to David Bradley of The New York Times, “She coined the term “womanist” which she used to describe the Black womens issues that are at the heart of so much of her work”(1984). One of the major themes that she had incorporated within several of her writings was the difference between black and white authors, along with the Womens Movement.

She contemplated the fact that black women had been suppressed for so long that they would never know what kind of great artists they may have lost during all the times while there was slavery. This is what the short story “In Search of Our Mothers Gardens” discusses. The title has a special meaning because Walker is referring to her own mother. In this work, she discusses all the talents of older black women writers such as Phyllis Wheatley and Zora Neal Hurston. What she is referring to in the title is her own mothers talent in art and gardening.

She talks about how well known her mother was for her gardening skills that even strangers would stop and admire her handiwork. She points out the fact that it was so beautiful that her childhood, which was filled with poverty and sadness, was made a little more bearable because of it. When she thinks back on it, all she remembers is the beautiful neighborhood, and has a talent for bringing beauty to the forefront. The fact is though she was never given the opportunity to explore it like she may have been had she been a white woman in America.

Walker expresses her view on women in the following way: Exquisite butterflies trapped in an evil honey, toiling away their lives in an era, a century, that did not acknowledge them, except as the mule of the world. They dreamed dreams that no one knew not even countryside crooning lullabies to ghosts, and drawing the mother of Christ in charcoal on courthouse walls (In Search of Mothers Gardens, Walker). ” This representation of the women during this time in the eighteenth and nineteenth century is so personal and so emotional to her that she devoted much of the rest of her life to writing about it and defending womens rights.

She was involved in the Black Nationalist movement in the 1960s. This was a political and social movement in the 1960s and early 1970s. Maria Lauret writes in her book, Alice Walker, “The Black Movement, with which she still identified, was split on questions of anti-Semitism, integration, class, region, religion, and increasingly, sex (1999). ” It sought to acquire economic success among members of the African American community and an eventual creation of an African American Nation. This was directly opposed to the assimilation of the blacks onto an American nation, which was predominately white.

The black nationalists also sought to maintain and promote separate identity as people of an African ancestry. According to Brittanica On-Line, “Many of the slogans they still use are of pride among African Americans”(Black Nationalism). Currently she is supportive of the black advancement in a white society; however, her feminist views are cross-cultural. This caused a lot of conflict within the black community when her third book The Color Purple was released. It was a great success which won a Pulitzer Prize in 1983, and it made Walker a financially secure woman.

It has been translated into 22 languages and has sold over four million copies. The novel covers the period between the World Wars, telling the story of two sisters, one a missionary in Africa, the other a child-wife living in the South. They sustain each other, and themselves, through a series of letters. However, many critics have objected to its representation of black men. The main problem is its representation of the husband, who was extremely violent and abusive, which some think seemed to represent the whole of the Black American manhood.

Astrid Roemer, a journal writer believes that “Many of the critics think that it hurt the black movement more than it helped because of how she depicted the black man (Journal of African-American and African Arts and Letters, p. 294). ” This interpreted his character as a composite of black men in general, but she was even more disappointed about the publics response to The Color Purple in that people said, “this doesnt happen. ” What was really upsetting was the lack of empathy for the woman in Walkers story. However, womanism, in Alice Walkers definition, is not just different from feminism; it is better.

She believes that part of her tradition as a black woman is that they are universalists. Black children, yellow, red, or brown children, that is the black womans normal, day-to-day relationship. In her family alone, they are about four different colors. According to the book Alice Walker by Winchell, Gates Jr. , and Appiah, “When a black woman looks at the world, it is so different. When she looks at the people in Iran they look like kinfolk. When she looks at the people in Cuba, they look like her uncles and nieces”(1993).

Overall, Walker has been a very influential author throughout the black community, and her audiences are very much interracial. Although many of the criticisms are controversial over her view of black men, through this research it is concluded that the depiction cannot be narrowed down to black men. She was merely describing the kind of man who had the potential and who was abusive. Not suprisingly, most of the controversy streams from the fact that there arent other black male characters portrayed to counteract the depiction of the abuser.

This perceived imbalance however doesnt mean that she is focusing all her anger towards black males, she is merely trying to illustrate topics that people know are true yet perhaps unwilling to admit it. Another good argument is that it seems as though critics are trying to force her to choose between her support for the black community and her support for the feminist movement, and she wont do that for them. She is equally supportive of both, and that is a very admirable quality. Alice Walker was a very personal author who was not afraid to show or hide anything in the struggle against racism and support for black women.

Shakespeare’s Methods of Suspense In Julius Caesar

Shakespeare used many techniques to build suspense in Julius Caesar, but the two events that moved the story the most, the siloqueys by Brutus and the other conspirators and Caesars wifes dream, created the suspense up until Caesars assassination. When the reader reads Brutus siloquey, they feel on edge for the first time. This is a turning point in the story and the reader ponders if Brutus will join the conspirators. When he begins his speech with It must be his death.

Act 2 Scene 1 Pg 49 Line 10) the reader becomes overwhelmed with shock. Since Brutus was one of the most honorable senators, the fact that he would go against his friend generates a sudden urgency in the play. After reading that Brutus deems Caesar as a serpents egg, which hatched would, as his kind, grow mischievous. [We] should kill him in the shell. the reader is anxious that Caesar will be killed shortly (Act 2 Scene 1 Pg 51 Lines 33-36).

Since Brutus speech occurred at his house, in private, Caesar remains totally unaware of Brutus plan, causing the reader to scream in agony of the dramatic irony they’ve just read. Fortunately for Caesar, his wife has a vision of the coming days events. Calphurnia has a dream that Caesar will be murdered the next day. During Calphurnias dream of Caesars death, the reader gets a feeling of the tension inside the story. Caphurinas dream, one of death and mayhem, and so vivid and graphic it causes her to scream out Help ho, they murder Caesar! ree times. (Act 2 Scene Pg. 75 Lines 1-3) Caesar tells Decius Brutus later She dreamt tonight that she saw my statue, which, like a fountain with a hundred spouts, did run pure blood; and many lusty Romans came smiling and did bathe their hands in it. And these does she apply for warnings and portents and evils imminent, and on her knee hath begged that I will stay at home today. (Act 2 Scene 2 Pg 81 lines 81-87) Caesar truly believes that the truth of the vision and the reader believes that he will stay at home.

Unfortunately, the man Caesar told his dream to happens to be aligned with Brutus. He convinces Caesar that This is all amiss interpreted (Act Scene 2 Pg 81 Line 88). The reader feels the suspense because they know Caesar has just taken the bait and the conspiritors are waiting to reel him in. In conclusion, Shakespeare created such suspense using the foreshadowing by Calphurnia and the siloquey by Brutus that the reader felt an immeasurable amount of emotions that only the great playwright could ensue.

Life, like The great Gatsby

Imagine that you live in the nineteen twenties, and that you are a very wealthy man that lives by himself in a manchine, on a lake and who throws parties every weekend. This is just the beginning of how to explain the way Jay Gatsby lived his life. This novel, by F. Scott, Fitzgerald is one that is very deep in thought. Fitzgerald releases little clues along the way of the novel that will be crusual to understand the ending. For instance, he makes the blue coupe a very important clue, as well as the Dr. T. J. Eckleburg eyes on the billboard that Mr.

Wilson (the gas station attendant ) refers to as the eyes of god. There are also other little things that relate to the reason of gatsbys death. The main characters of this novel each have their part to do with the ending, Nick Caraway is probably the main character of this novel, as he comes down from New Jersey to new York to visit his cousin Daisy, who is married to Tom Buchannan. These are some of the incidents that are included in the novel as you will read further I will relate some issues of the novel, as well as other critics have included their views on The Great Gatsby.

F. Scott, Fitsgerald was an American short story writer and novelist famous for is depictions of the Jazz Age(the 1920s), his most brilliant novel work being The Great Gatsby(1925). He was born in St. Paul, Minnesota on sept. 24, 1896 and died in Hollywood, California on December 21, 1940. His private life, with his wife, Zelda, in both America and France, became almost as celebrated as his novels. Fitsgerald was the only son of an aristocrat father, who was the author of the star spangle banner.

Fitzgerald spent most of time with his wife, latter in their relationship they moved to france where he began to write his most brilliant novel, The Great Gatsby. All of his divided nature is in his novel, the native midwestener afir with the possibilities of every Americans dream in OLSON 2 its hero, Jay Gatsby, and the compassionate princeton gentlemen in its narrator, Nick Carraway. The Great Gatsby is the most profoundly American novel of its time (Houghton).

Fitzgerald had an intensely romantic imagination, what he once called a heightened sensitivity to the promises of life, and he rushed into experience determined to realize those promises. Latter on in Fitzgeralds life, he started to drink very heavily and became very unhappy. In 1930 his wife had a mental breakdown and in 1932 another, rom which she never recovered. With its failure and his despair over Zelda, Fitzgerald was close to becoming an incurable alcoholic.

He surpassed becoming an alcoholic though, and moved out west to become a Hollywood screenwriter were he met his new wife Sheilah Graham, but he never forgot about Zelda and his daughter Scotti. (Johnson, 384). The Great Gatsby is an excellent review on how fitzgerald preceived his life to be, in the same sense that he also was very wealthy. Gatsby, in this novel is the mistiries wealthy man that lives in the big house across the lake from Tom and Daisy Buchanann. There would always be some type of party going on at his house, but for some reason he never attended to them, he would always watch from his window.

Nick Caraway is Daisys cousin who comes to visit, Nick needs a place to stay, so he finds an ad for a guest cottage that Mr. Jay Gatsby owns. After Nick has moved in Jay and Nick become pretty close friends. Jordan has always wondered who The Great Gatsby was, so she uses Nick to find out more about him. As the story goes on, there are some odd things that Fitsgerald relates to the story as important things. These important things make you eally think about what it means to the story. The Automobile in The Great Gatsby is a very big topic for the conclution of the story.

What we have in The Great Gatsby is a creative manipulation of the automobile as symbol and image to accomplish a variety of ends (OMeara, 74). OMeara goes on to say that when Fitzgerald accentuates mechanism and minimizes aesthetics, he depersonalizes vehicles and underscores the OLSON 3 behavior of their drivers. The existing criticism on automobiles in The Great Gatsby usually centers on one or the other of these two functions. (OMeara, 75). The result of he car is that it ends up killing Myrtle. Kenneth and Irving Saposnik discuss the automobile imagery from a technological standpoint.

Knodt asserts that all of the novel symbols of technology – automobiles, trains, and telephones are connected with destruction and evil (Saposnik, 131). I believe in this theory, that vehicles are a result evil in almost every movie. In this case the evil is the Blue Coupe sedan that ends up killing Myrtle. The other thing that sticks out to me is the billboard that has the two eyes on it with glasses. This board is referred to Mr. Wilson as the eyes of god, he believes that they an see everything and when the car ends up killing his wife Myrtle, he tells people that god saw what happened.

A footnote for the line in Andrew Turnnbulls edition of The Letters of F. Scott Fitzgerald(1963)describes the dust jacket as showing two huge eyes, intended to be those of Daisy Fay, brooding over New York City, and this had been Fitsgerald s inspiration for the eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg(Turnbull, 166). The brief exegesis examines the imagery of cats and dogs in Scott Fitzgeralds jazz age novel, The Great Gatsby. Toward the end of the novel, Nick Caraway refers to the hot summer days on Long Island as dog-days(Kehul, 118).

John Kehul goes on to mention that many of the characters in the novel are portrayed in canine terms. They cynically, in the sense of the Greek root kynikos, meaning dog-like. Their bites, particularly in relationship to the main character, Gatsby, become worse then their barks. In contrast to this canine element, Gatsby has a heightened sensitivity(120). In The Great Gatsby I did notice a lot of the characters mentioning dogs or phrasing one another as you old dog you,. Myrtle mentions to Tom (the man she is having an affair with) that she would like a dog.

I believe that Fitzgerald resembles these dogs as a symbol f affection. Canine imagery first appears in chapter one, when Nick casually tells the reader that he once owned a dog. He lists his possessions: an old dodge, a finish woman OLSON 4 who cooks and cleans for him, and his dog. I had a dog–at least I had him a few days until he ran away(124). Almost forty years after the book was written, Ernest dust jacket and I remember being embarrassed by the violence, bad taste and slippery look of it. It looked like the book jacket for a book of bad science fiction.

Scott told me not to be put of by it, that it had to with a billboard along the highway in Long Island that was mportant in the story. He said that he liked the jacket, but now how didnt like it. I took it offto read the book (feast 176). According to Hemmingway, the cover of the book only had to do with the billboard and had already fallen out of favor with the author(179). I believe that the cover of The Great Gatsby is a unique one, in a way that people really would believe things like that if they never had any type of religion background or were just messed up in the head.

As I was explaining earlier in the paper about all the characters, I was mentioning things about Nick Carraway. Nick Carraway is also the narrator of the novel, he is robably they most sufficient character in the novel, meaning that he is always relaying information to others rather than getting involved in the mischief. What I mean is, that, the affairs between Tom and Myrtle, and Daisy and Gatsby. Nick knows just about everything about everyone and he is the newest person in town.

I think that Fitzgerald put like this because, Nick had no other meaning to the story if he didnt get involved with the secrets that were going on. Near the end though, Nick is clueless as to what is going on with Myrtle and Tom until the night of the accident when Myrtle runs out in front of he speeding yellow cadilac. Myrtle had thought that Tom was driving the car, and so she dashed in front of it because she wanted to leave with Tom and get away from her husband that was not to rich or smart like Tom was.

In The Great Gatsby, the fact that the billboard is only mentioned once or twice in the film, but it so crucial to how the result of the ending is. Fitzgerald is trying to point out that this billboard is the point were OLSON 5 everything takes place, like, the eyes looking down on the two cars going to party and that they are always looking at Mr. Wilson. When Mr. Wilsons wife (Myrtle) dies he is shock and is looking for answers to what happened. As OMeara points out earlier, cars are a means of destruction and evil.

In two cases this is true. One, being that big yellow cadilac killed Myrtle and two, the fact Tom is using his car as a medium of exchange for Mr. Wilsons wife and free gas. Mr. Wilson does not relize the fact that his wife is cheating on him with Tom, the man he wants the car from. In all conclusion to The Great Gatsby, many little things in the novel were substantial to how the ending was to be. Fitzgerald had really related the billboard of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg that looked like owl eyes and referred to a the eyes of god by Mr.

Wilson when he talking to Tom. The other thing that sets the tone of this novel is the car. this was the murder weapon that killed Myrtle and was recognized by Mr. Wilson as the car that Jay Gatsby was driving that night, which was result of the death of Mr. Jay Gatsby by no other than the man that looked at the owl eyes all day outside his gas station. Well the fact of living in the nineteen twenties and being a millionaire and throwing parties every weekend doesnt sound that bad, I just wouldnt want to be The Great Gatsby.

Eliot and Sylvia

Talking of Michelangelo, a subject so deep that it begs a discussion more serious than that of the chatter at ladies’ tea parties. But the women just come and go, discussing the great artist only superficially, and Prufrock addresses the ladies with an air almost of biting sarcasm. Prufrock then decides to switch back to this other, more beautiful world, and he describes the fog rubbing up against the windowpanes. He describes the fog almost as if it were an animal; personifying it and giving even it some sense of feline beauty

With Sylvia, the only feeling that is particularly obvious is one of contented pride, as the mother celebrates her baby’s birth (“Our voices echo, magnifying your arrival”) and congratulates it on its newly-found independence. There does seem to be an upset, almost resentful undertone, as the mother says “I’m no more your mother/ Than the cloud which distills a mirror to reflect its own slow/ Effacement at the wind’s hand. ” Although she is only pointing out that this is the case, she seems to be nostalgic for the time when her baby was wholly dependant on her.

The focus of the poem, however, seems to be on discovery, as is shown by the end: “And now you try Your handful of notes;/ The clear vowels rise like balloons. ” This appears to be a description of the baby crying, but instead of reprimanding her child, the mother acclaims it. This has the effect of showing her contentment due to the baby being able to cry, and her satisfaction with regard to its experimental use of sounds. The new coming baby is very excited as a child cry, the sound of live and hope, but after a few days later, her child is gone because a miscarry problem, she lost her child.

I am no more your mother”. In T. S Eliot’s “the love song of J. Alfred Prufrock” self esteem affects his love life greatly. The woman he is in love with is younger than he is and this distresses him. He does not believe that some younger woman could possibly accept him or find him attractive. Expressing any kind of affection to her is awkward and difficult. Prufrock knows what he must say but cannot bring himself to say it ” should I, after tea and cakes and ices, have the strength to force the moment to it’s crisis? 79-80) his apprehensiveness in his love life is very troublesome for him indeed.

The debate in Prufrock’s mind finally comes to a close when he compares himself to prince Hamlet from William Shakespear’s masterpiece Hamlet. Prurock decides he is diplomatic, conscientious, and strives for perfection. However at the same time he tends to lack some sort of mental power fears he is looking like a fool. This is the conclusion he comes to in order to accept his place in society and live life the way he should.

Fantasizing of a world where these problems do not exist is a pleasant daydream for Prufrock. He imagines the peaceful world under the sea where social classes do not exist. This shows the internal conflict still occurring within him. Even though he has overcome his problem with his love life, he still has many other worries to contend with. The mermaids a re singing beautifully, but in his opinion, they can not possibly singing for him. His insecurity is still present and seems incurable, his fantasy world is brought to a crashing halt easily.

Till human voices wake us, and we drown. “(131) His only happiness can be found in daydreams and can be destroyed easily as such. Although giving him temporary relief from the pressures of his life, this dreamlike state is destroyed his heart and only returning to the real world will save him. The trauma can happen to anyone similar with Prufrock. Sylvia Plath had been suffer a lonely since a child hood, her dad died when she was eight year old, so lonely is a big problem for her to afraid.

Shadows our safety, we stand round blankly as walls”. Her comment on motherhood in ” Morning song” tells of her disassociation with it. ” I’m no more your mother/Than the cloud that distills a mirror to reflect its own slow/ Effacement at the wind’s hand. “. Alongside the glorification of her child, she also acknowledges its vulnerability and depression. She appreciates its significance as well as accepting the fact that like everyone else, it will eventually be killed by the world.

Although Prufrock is a man of knowledge and society he is still a misfit because of a little characteristic he can do nothing about. Age kills us all, but for Prufrock it has already killed him, lonely effect on adult, suffering people, and families will be part of it. Love bring people closer, happier but sometime horrible and unfair thing. Overtime, we have seen love is truly heals the pain, bring the joys when people start to have love and compassion for each other that is when the change will come.

Sir John Falstaff’s Influence on Prince Hal in I Henry IV

In Shakespearean histories, there is always one individual who influences the major character and considerably advances the plot. In I Henry IV by William Shakespeare, Falstaff is such a character. Sir John Falstaff is perhaps the most complex comic character ever invented. He carries a dignified presence in the mind’s eye; and in him, we recognize our internal admiration and jealousy of the rebellious dual personality that we all secretly wish for.

The multi-faceted Falstaff, in comic revolt against law and order, in his role as father figure to Prince Hal, and ultimately, in his natural ability to iscern and adapt to any situation, emerges as the most complex and paradoxical character in drama. Frequently, in literature, the sun represents royalty, or in this case the king, who strives to uphold law and order. Rhetorically, the moon, symbolizes instability, not only because it does not remain the same size to one’s eyes as time passes, but because it reigns the ebb and flow of the tides. Therefore, as a knight guided by moonlight, Falstaff is a dissenter against law and order.

This conclusion finds support in his witty tautologies and epithets. Falstaff is invariably aware that Hal will one day become king, and when that happens, robbers will be honored in England by Let[ting] us be indulgence Diana’s foresters, gentlemen of the shade, monions of the moon; and let[ting] men say we be men of good government, being governed as the sea is, by our novle and chaste mistress the moon, under whose countenance we steal (I, ii, 25-30). Falstaff’s final dismissal of law and order culminates with a comic plea to the prince, urging him to have nothing to do with old father antic the law?

Do not thou, when thou art King, hang a thief (I, ii, 62-63). We see a similar epithet in the next act, send him packing (II, iv, 301), in which Falstaff again denounces responsibility, law, and order. Despite his lack of care for order and responsibility, the rebel dormant in readers applauds Falstaff’s defiance of the establishment of his defense. Falstaff seems to appeal to the average reader, for he relates to them, just as a twentieth-century American would relate to —————. With this in mind, when examining Hal’s one line response after Falstaff said, Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world,” the prince says: I do, I will.

Therefore, playing the role of king in this spontaneous exchange, the prince embraces law and order, because he has the consecrated obligation to fulfill, one that affects the lives of all Englishmen. The relationship between Falstaff and Prince Hal is an unusual one. The two frequently exchange spontaneous, good-natured insults and the reader comes to see that in reality, they are not unfitting for each other. Prince Hal is Falstaff’s surrogate son; and for the fractious Prince himself, Falstaff is a second father, a parent he neither fears nor respectshas .

He is one on whom he xecutes all his whims, even persuading Falstaff to emulate a parental role, while he kneels at Hal’s feet and pretends to listen to his reprimands. In looking at the following passage, we see Hal’s description of Falstaff as a gluttonous derelict who has feels no sense of responsibility for either himself or others. Thou art so fat-witted with drinking of old sack, and unbuttoning thee after supper, and sleep- ing upon benches after noon, that thou hast forgotten to demand that truly which thou wouldst truly know.

What a devil hast thou to do with the time of the ay? (I, ii, 2-7) Time, a symbol of the ordered life, could not concern a man who spends his days drinking sack, eating, sleeping, and frequenting brothels. Finally, Falstaff’s natural ability to perceive or know how to react in a situation is ultimately, what makes this character so complex. Wit is often an insubstantial substitute for pleasurable sensation; emanating from trivial spite at the cost of others. Falstaff’s wit emerges from a copiousness of good humor and good nature.

He would not be in character, if he were not so fat as he is; or there is the greatest awe in his imagination and the pampered self- of his physical appetites. Shakespeare represents Falstaff as a liar, a braggart, a coward, a glutton, etc. , and yet he is not offensive, but delightful; for he is all these as much to amuse others as to gratify himself. As such, Falstaff uses his wit to redeem himself from embarrassing or complex situations and is always successful in doing such. The audience virtually forgets the conflict because they are so enamored with his wit.

Fundamentally, he is an actor in himself lmost as much as upon the stage, and we refuse to object to the character of Falstaff in a moral point of view. The unrestrained indulgence of his own ease, appetites, and convenience, has neither malice nor hypocrisy in it. We only consider the number of witticisms in which he puts in conflicts, and do not trouble ourselves about the consequences resulting from them, for no mischievous consequences ever result. The secret of Falstaff’s wit is for the most part a masterly presence of mind, an absolute self-possession, which nothing can disturb.

His retorts are nstinctive suggestions of his self-love; inherent evasions of all that threatens to interrupt the career of his triumphant joviality and self- absorption. His natural aversion to every unpleasant thought or circumstance, of itself makes light of objections, and provokes the most exorbitant and lewd answers in his own mind. His indifference to truth does not hinder his reputation, and the more unexpected his contrivances are, the happier he seems to be rid of them, the anticipation of their effect acting as a stimulus to the liveliness of his character.

His wit is contagious and those around him tend to emulate his extraordinary talent for his ingenuity. Falstaff ultimately trains Hal and molds his reputation such that he undoubtedly becomes the most beloved king of that era. Hal’s popularity enables him to consolidate power and unite the country against the older aristocracy. Hal is a man of the people through theft, wit, and exposure in the streets of London. Through Falstaff’s friendship, Prince Hal rises from the gutter and overcomes familial oppression to become a hero who absorbs the spirit of London.

Animal Farm a book written by George Orwell

animal farm essays

Animal Farm is a book written by George Orwell, pen name for Eric Blair. Animal Farm was first published in 1945. George Orwell’s Animal Farm is a political satire of a totalitarian society ruled by a mighty dictatorship, in all probability an allegory for the events surrounding the Russian Revolution of 1917. The story takes place somewhere in England. The story is told by an all-knowing narrator in the third person. The animals of “Manor Farm” overthrow their human master after a long history of mistreatment.

Led by the pigs, the farm animals continue to do their work, only with more pride, knowing that they are working for themselves, as opposed to working for humans. Little by little, the pigs become dominant, gaining more power and advantage over the other animals, so much so that they become as corrupt and power-hungry as their predecessors, the humans. The theme in Animal Farm maintains that in every society there are leaders who, if given the opportunity, will likely abuse their power. The book begins in the barnyard of Mr. Jones’ “Manor Farm”.

The animals congregate at a meeting led by the prize white boar, Major. Major points out to the assembled animals that no animal in England is free. He further explains that the products of their labor is stolen by man, who alone benefits. Man, in turn, gives back to the animals the bare minimum which will keep them from starvation while he profits from the rest. The old boar tells them that the source of all their problems is man, and that they must remove man from their midst to abolish tyranny and hunger. Only Days later, Major dies, but the hope and pride which he gave the other animals does not die.

Under the leadership of the pigs, the most intelligent of the animals, they rebel against their human master managing to overthrow him. After the rebellion, under the direction of Napoleon, the most outspoken pig, and Snowball, the most eloquent pig,the animals continue to work the farm successfully. As with all societies, the animals have laws which must be obeyed. Their laws stated that animals shall never become like humans; cruel and manipulative. They shall not wear clothing nor sleep in beds. Most importantly, they are to respect one another’s equality and killing another animal is strictly forbidden.

Meanwhile, the pigs as leaders are taking bigger food rations for themselves justifying their behavior as something necessary for the “brains” of their animal society. At this point we begin to suspect that the pigs will abuse their positions and power in this animal society. Mr. Jones tries to reclaim his power but the animals prevent him from doing so in what they call “The Battle of the Cowshed”. After the battle, Napoleon drives Snowball off the farm telling everyone that Snowball was on Mr. Jones’ side. Napoleon is further appreciated by the other animals for exposing and removing the traitor, Snowball, from their midst.

Slowly, Napoleon gets a stronger and stronger hold over the other animals, dominating their every action. The situation at “Animal Farm”, the new name for “Manor Farm”, really starts to change now. Napoleon moves into Mr. Jones’ house, sleeps in his bed, and even wears his clothes. In order to make his actions appear legal, the law had to be interpreted differently, which Napoleon arranged. In defiance of the original laws, Napoleon befriends Mr. Pilkington, the human owner of a nearby farm. Napoleon had such control over the other animals that they accepted such a blatant disregard of their law about fraternizing with humans.

The book ends with the pigs sitting at a table, eating with humans. Napoleon announces to those around the table that the name “Manor Farm” will be reinstated. The humans and pigs converse while the other animals outside look on. They, the lowly creatures according to the pigs and humans, look from pig to man and from man to pig, unable to distinguish between the two species. After reading this novel it has given me a better understanding of the phrase, “Total power corrupts totally”. In the book, once a few (the pigs) gained most or total power, they abused it by giving themselves bigger rations of the daily food supply.

Besides the fact that this book recieved great applause, I myself would recommend this book to any average reader whom wishes to broaden their government horizens and social behavior patterns. This book is an excellent fairy tale with a twist of real life politics. On the whole, I find this book quite satisfying to my knowledge. An easy book to read, vocabulary-wise, yet relays a powerful message that has been seen and heard, over and over, centuries past and many years to come. His writings also reveal his political views. This modern fable satire attacking Stalinism reflects his extreme distrust of autocratic government.

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë Analysis

The way in which society tries to live today goes hand in hand with the quote “What really matters is on the inside, not the outside”, which is often repeated, maybe because people want everyone to feel equal and no one inferior or maybe because a person just wants to feel better about his or herself so this statement is said. The story “Jane Eyre” completely contradicts this quote, especially during the social extravaganza, which was put on by Mr. Rochester and the Thornfield workers.

The main goal during the era in which the book “Jane Eyre” took place was to be wealthy so you could be a part of all the so called finer things in life such as nice clothing, jewelry, money, large mansions, and so on. The social extravaganza which took place at Mr. Rochester’s mansion contributed to the meaning of the book by helping explain the characters, setting, and plot of the story “Jane Eyre”. During this social long lasting party, thirteen ladies and gentlemen came to stay at the Thornfield mansion along with Mr. Rochester, Jane and rest of the servants in the mansion not including the ladies and gentlemen’s servants whom they would bring along for their own purposes.

There were eight women and five men. The women, Mrs. Eshton, Amy and Louisa Eshton, lady Lynn, Mrs. Colonel Dent, Lady Ingram, Blanch and Mary Ingram were all dressed very nicely. They all walked lightly with buoyancy. The men, Henry and Frederick Lynn, Colonel Dent, Mr. Eshton, and Lord Ingram all looked of wealth. Mrs. Blanch Eshton played a role in the contribution of this social get together in the form of a bride to be.

She and Mr. Rochester were preparing for marriage. In hearing that Mr. Rochester and Blanch Ingram were to be married, Jane insisted that she must move out before Blanch moves in. Hearing this in the garden, Mr. Rochester proposed to Jane on the spot stating that he never loved Blanch and she never loved he. In the story “Jane Eyre” the setting as the reader knows renders to be quite a degrading one in a way.

The setting describes all of the elegance which went along with being wealthy like Mr. Rochester, Louisa Eshton, Mary Ingram, et cetera and the poor hard life which went along with being born with so called not good blood and therefore a person was started out in life knowing that he or she would never acquire a life of luxury but a life of hard work and a feeling of inferiority. During the social get together Jane, Mrs. Fairfax, and many others were at the Thornfield house for the only reason of making the richer guests happy by waiting on them hand and foot and performing whatever tasks in which they were told to do such as serving supper and helping dress the ladies and gentlemen.

The guests, Mrs. Eshton, Amy and Louisa Eshton, Lady Lynn, Mrs. Colonel Dent, Lady Ingram, Blanch and Mary Ingram, Henry and Frederick Lynn, Colonel Dent, Mr. Eshton, and Lord Ingram were all sat in the nicely cleaned and furnished dinning room to eat supper and were well provided with the best silverware and china for such occasions as tea and all meals while the servants would eat in the kitchen or their room. During the stay of these wealthy people the plot was to seem that Mrs. Ingram and Mr. Rochester were going to get married but the reader knows that he really loves Jane.

Mr. Rochester and Blanch would make eye contact frequently and do such acts together as he singing while she played the piano together. This was all but an act put on by Mr. Rochester. He knew that Blanch Ingram only loved him for his money. Mr. Rochester rumored that he wasn’t worth a third of the fortune that people thought and after that Blanch and her mother were very cold to him. Mr. Rochester told Jane that she must be present every night. The reader knew so he could see and talk to Jane. Mr. Rochester’s extravaganza at his mansion helped contribute parts of the characters, setting, and plot of the story “Jane Eyre”.

This social occasion was quite important to the rest of the book because without it Jane would have had no fight, or no doubt about Mr. Rochester. Without this section the book would have made for an entirely different plot. The quote “ What really matters is on the inside, not the outside” really shows how life was back in the time when Mr. Rochester and Jane were living. The people than were much more selfish than the majority of the population of our society today.

Bibliography: The criticism “The Function of Setting in Jane Eyre” describes briefly the outline of the story and the mental and physical walls of each in which Jane was contained. Jane was continually moving throughout her life to new settings such as the move from Gateshead to Lowood then Lowood to Thornfield next from Thornfield to the Moor House and so on. As each of these moves occurred Bronte, the author of Jane Eyre, made sure that each of these surroundings fitted Jane’s differing hopes and dreams although in each situation Jane, was surrounded by walls, physically and mentally

Jane was ostracized from the rest of the family, which mentally made her feel imprisoned in the Gateshead mansion. She was imprisoned to the contents of the nursery physically before she left for Lowood. Jane ate, slept, and passed her time in the nursery walls. Within the walls of Lowood Jane stayed for eight years. She was a student for six years and a teacher for the remaining two years. Physically Jane did not leave the walls of Lowood except to go to church. Mentally, she did not feel as imprisoned in this situation as her earlier situation at Gateshead because she found people that really cared for her such as Mrs. Temple and Helen Burns at Lowood.

She could relate and achieve happiness to a point with the help of these people whereas she could do nothing of the sort at Gateshead where she was rarely loved or talked to by anyone except Bessie. When Jane moves to Thornfield she is freer than she has ever physically been before. The walls are still there but less real to her because she now feels that her life is filled with more life, fire, and feeling than before. The Thornfield mansion has so called soft shackles on Jane.

When Jane ventures out into the real world with nothing with her and no walls to protect her, she realizes that she is not equipped to live in complete freedom. Jane finds the Moore House and is quite happy with it knowing how the outside world is now. She can come and leave the house whenever she feels and the companionship of Mary and Diana probably suit to be the best situation for Jane yet. Jane then moves into another small cottage where she is quite happy until she decides to go back to Mr. Rochester, the walls which seem to best suit Jane. Upon arriving at Thornfield, Jane feels that she can now stay with Mr. Rochester because the circumstances have changed.

Mrs. Rochester has now died and the confining walls of Thornfield have burnt down so Jane can live happily the way she wants because all the walls are now down. I liked this specific criticism about “The Function of Setting in Jane Eyre” because it helps explain what goes on in Jane’s mind and how she feels and adapts to each situation, which she finds herself. The criticism summarizes the setting of each location in which Jane is in and how mentally and physically she feels about being within the walls of each.

Irony is the gaiety of reflection and the joy of wisdom

The subject of irony has always been an extremely opinionated debate in itself; with the come of this song, “Ironic”, by Alanis Morisette, the arguments rage on. Some say the above are just instances of bad luck, things you wouldn’t want to happen to you; others say these are true instances of irony. Irony is technically defined as “an event or result that is the opposite of what is expected” (Webster’s New World Dictionary 314). The Once and Future King by T. H. White delineates many illustrations of irony.

Love, innocence, and power are readily apparent themes portrayed throughout the book, and White has been able to weave his opinion of irony into many happenings. An example of irony raised by White involves the question, “Does your mother love you? ” Do you believe your mother loves you? Most firmly believe so. Would you still love your mother if she didn’t love you? Hopefully. But “mammy” didn’t give her children a second loving thought. She ignored her only children; she was jealous of her only children; she beat her only children for doing something she wasn’t able to do (White 263). And yet they still loved her unconditionally.

They loved her, obeyed her, protected her, avenged her family (White 219). Wouldn’t you consider it ironic that this role-reversal has taken place? Normally, it is the child breaking away from the mother; the mother holds onto her dear, sweet children. Rather, White has the dear, sweet children holding onto their “breakaway” mother. One wouldn’t expect the children to love their abusive mother. Yet, the feelings the children tell of and the respect they show to their mother proves their love. But! those who love are not always so innocent. Do “innocent” children go around killing birds? No. But, Kay was an “innocent” boy.

Only the innocent were able to capture unicorns (White 258); only the innocent were able to enter fairies’ castles (White 103). Kay was able to accomplish both of these tasks. Yet, Kay was also a bird-killer. Kay walked late into his lesson with Wart and Archimedes, only to find them discussing how wonderful the birds of nature were (White 160). Kay was late due to killing “a few small birds”. Two examples of irony are apparent from this situation. First, it is ironic that Kay is called an innocent boy while killing birds. Second, there is irony in the conversation engaged in by Wart and Archimedes and the timing of Kay’s entrance.

One wouldn’t expect Kay to state that he was late because of killing some birds while his peer and teacher are discussing the wonderfulness of birds. Was Kay really all that innocent after all? Probably not. And how much power do the innocent really have? Power is everything. Power over pleasure, power over love, power over the mind. Or is it the mind? When Arthur was a child, he had been taught that “might is right”, that power was all that existed. (White 52). He grew up believing this, that feelings didn’t matter in life, that feelings were just stumbling blocks.

But as he became older, Arthur realized that his early teachings were illogical. He began thinking that power wasn’t necessarily everything, that just because you could do something didn’t mean that you should (White 246). The never-ending controversy between ability and obligation entered his mind and he took action upon his rightful thoughts: the mind controls the body, the power; without the mind, there would be no power. This change in Arthur’s mentality is ironic. When one is a young child, what is taught to them during that impressionable time usually sticks with them through adulthood. They will mo! t often live with and by those early teachings. Still, Arthur seemed, once again, to be going against what was expected. Each of these examples demonstrates irony: what it is, where it is, what it means. T. H. White was trying to prove his opinion of irony when placing it throughout The Once and Future King. His examples are proof that irony is, though defined as what one wouldn’t expect, what to expect. You don’t get what you want, what you want is what you expect; you don’t get what you expect, life isn’t what you expect. Life is irony. Irony is the gaiety of reflection and the joy of wisdom.

The women in The Story of an Hour and The Yellow Wallpaper

The women in The Story of an Hour and The Yellow Wallpaper attempt to overcome their oppression by finding an outlet. They tried to find something or do something that would comfort them. In The Story of an Hour, the window is the main symbol. Correspondingly, in The Yellow Wallpaper, the wallpaper itself is the main symbol. In The Story of an Hour, the window is what symbolizes Mrs. Mallards freedom in that she has new opportunities. She says that she is finally free, free body and soul. She says this because she realizes that she is finally free from her husband.

It can be inferred from the story she was oppressed because she didnt have any opportunities in the past. The window is what releases her from her oppression by setting her free and giving her new opportunities that were not available to her in the past. In The Yellow Wallpaper, the wallpaper symbolizes her oppression in a way. In which Johns wife sees a woman in the wallpaper. During the daytime the light makes it look as if she is behind bars shaking them. However, during the night the woman in the wallpaper creeps around.

Johns Wife relates the woman in the wallpaper to herself by saying that she creeps in the daytime when John isnt around. However, during the night she is quite still because John is around and he will notice her. Johns wife tries to overcome her oppression by setting the woman free inside the wallpaper, in order to free her oppression. Which the house itself is a prison for her since John wont let her leave and that he keeps telling her that writing will make her worse, while it was only depression. Both stories are not to be taken literally because of the meanings behind each of he main symbols. The women in the story try to overcome their oppression by finding an outlet for how they feel and their depression.

Mrs. Mallard uses the window which sets her free. Johns wife tears down the wallpaper and she tries to write to get her feelings out. Words / Pages : 352 / 24 Yellow Wallpaper The women in The Story of an Hour and The Yellow Wallpaper attempt to overcome their oppression by finding an outlet. They tried to find something or do something that would comfort them. In The Story of an Hour, the window is the main symbol.

Correspondingly, in The Yellow Wallpaper, the wallpaper itself is the main symbol. In The Story of an Hour, the window is what symbolizes Mrs. Mallards freedom in that she has new opportunities. She says that she is finally free, free body and soul. She says this because she realizes that she is finally free from her husband. It can be inferred from the story she was oppressed because she didnt have any opportunities in the past. The window is what releases her from her oppression by setting her free and giving her new opportunities that were not available to her in the past.

In The Yellow Wallpaper, the wallpaper symbolizes her oppression in a way. In which Johns wife sees a woman in the wallpaper. During the daytime the light makes it look as if she is behind bars shaking them. However, during the night the woman in the wallpaper creeps around. Johns Wife relates the woman in the wallpaper to herself by saying that she creeps in the daytime when John isnt around. However, during the night she is quite still because John is around and he will notice her. Johns wife tries to overcome her oppression by setting the woman free inside the wallpaper, in order to free er oppression.

Which the house itself is a prison for her since John wont let her leave and that he keeps telling her that writing will make her worse, while it was only depression. Both stories are not to be taken literally because of the meanings behind each of the main symbols. The women in the story try to overcome their oppression by finding an outlet for how they feel and their depression. Mrs. Mallard uses the window which sets her free. Johns wife tears down the wallpaper and she tries to write to get her feelings out.

D.H. Lawrances short story The Horse Dealers Daughter

D. H. Lawrances short story The Horse Dealers Daughter is about a depressed young woman who attempts to commit suicide but unexpectedly falls in love. I believe that Mabel Pervin is driven to commit suicide because of the years of verbal abuse and neglect done to her by her siblings. Also Mabel is ashamed of her poverty and no longer wants to face the townspeople, and Mabel also wishes to be glorified like her mother was in her death. As a result her subconscious caused her to walk right into her demise.

Mabels relationship with her brothers is an abusive one, her sister is married and does not live near them and she doesn’t visit. Her sister shows concern by offering Mabel a room in her home for as long as she likes but Mabel refuses. Her brothers give the impression that they are annoyed by Mabels very presence, Lawrance confirms this by describing Fred Henrys behavior He pushed his coarse brown mustache upwards, off his lip, and glanced irritably at his sister, who sat impassive and inscrutable (587). Her brothers do not acknowledge her yet alone have a decent conversation.

They treat her like a servant never saying thank you or even showing any kind of gratitude. They had talked at her and round her for so many years, that she hardly heard them at all (587). She in turn decided to ignore them by not answering there questions. But when they did speak to her it was in a cruel manner, they also made light of her depression The sulkiest bitch that ever trod (589) Fred Henry exclaimed. Therefore she no longer wanted to subject herself to their scrutiny Why should she answer to anybody? (590).

The stables had been full of horses the kitchen was full of servants (590) gives the indication that Mabel was raised in privilege. But now, as Lawrence points out, she is now without servants and has to buy the cheapest food (590). Even thought everything else in her life was bad, as long as there was money, the girl felt herself established, and brutally proud (590) but now there was no more money, everything was gone to the dogs; there was nothing but debt (590). The final blow was that the morning of her attempted suicide she had gotten the news that she is now bankrupt.

Mabel is now left with nothing and nowhere to live. Mabel was a young girl when she lost her mother and was not mature enough to let go and move on as the rest of her family did. Therefore Mabel continued a relationship with her mother even after her mothers death by visiting her grave often and performing ritualistic tasks “clipped the grass from the grave, and arranged the pinky white chrysanthemums … and carefully, most scrupulously sponged the marble headstone and the coping-stone as Lawrance explains (590).

She felt immediate contact with the world of her mother”(590) by doing these things. Because the graveyard was on top of a hill Mabel felt as though no one could see her she felt immune to the world”(590). Mabel believes that by killing herself she will “be coming nearer to her fulfillment, her own glorification “(590) To conclude I believe Mabel Pervine decided to attempt suicide because she was tired of the way she was treated by her brothers, she felt shame from being poor, and above all the only place where she felt happy and secure was in the graveyard near her mother.

The major characters in The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison

The major characters in The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison were Pecola Breedlove, Cholly Breedlove, Claudia MacTeer, and Frieda MacTeer. Pecola Breedlove is an eleven-year-old black girl around whom the story revolves. Her innermost desire is to have the “bluest” eyes so that others will view her as pretty in the end that desire is what finishes her, she believes that God gives her blue eyes causing her insanity. She doesn’t have many friends other than Claudia and Frieda. Throughout the book we see how Pecola is picked on by other children her age and then later on abused by Cholly, her own father.

Her mother doesn’t care for her either her actions toward Pecola are not without contempt. Cholly Breedlove is Pecola’s drunken father. He has never known a loving family; his father deserted him and his mother who then left him to die in a garbage can. His great aunt saves him and raises him until her death, which occurred when Cholly was only thirteen or fourteen years old. Cholly himself deserts his family, not physically but he is always in a drunken state and doesn’t provide the family with the barest necessities. Cholly dies alone in a warehouse.

Claudia MacTeer is the main narrator in the story. She is about nine years old when they story takes place, she is remembering the story. Claudia is black and doesn’t see anything wrong with that. She isn’t like the other girls who think it would be better if she was white, she doesn’t buy into that idea, she destroys the white dolls that she receives for Christmas. Claudia has learned from her mother how to be a strong black female and express her opinion in a white dominated society. Frieda is a lot like her sister and had the same morals imposed on her by her mother.

Frieda is about ten years old when the story takes place. The book The Bluest Eye is not told in chronological order and skips from the story to a look into the past of certain characters. There are two narrators, Claudia MacTeer is one who tells the actual story but there is also an omniscient narrator who tells us about the character’s lives. The book starts in the fall of 1940 and Claudia and Frieda have just gone back to school. Their family is having some troubles paying the bills so they rent a room out to Mr.

Henry but then find out that they will have another guest soon because Pecola Breedlove is going to come stay with them because her father has just burned down their house. We then hear memories about the time when Pecola is living with the MacTeers and then the second narrator comes in and gives us some background on the Breedlove family. This is when we find out about Pecola’s wish for blue eyes and her living situation before she came to the MacTeers. The next season we hear about from Claudia is winter. She tells us about a girl named Maureen who is “perfect” in the eyes of all the other students and teachers.

Claudia, Frieda and Maureen are walking home together, even though Claudia and Frieda don’t like her, when they see Pecola getting harassed by some boys in the school yard and they rescue her. Maureen tries to befriend Pecola but only to torture her some more. Frieda stands up for Pecola but then Maureen makes a comment on how the girls are black and therefor ugly which hurts Pecola even more. Now we hear from the second narrator again about a woman named Geraldine and her son Junior. Junior sees Pecola and invites her into the house to supposedly show her some kittens and give her one.

Junior kills his mother’s beloved cat and blames it on Pecola. Geraldine shoves Pecola out of the house calling her “black” as if it was an insult, which just adds to her harassment by others. We hear from Claudia again about the spring where the roomer Mr. Henry sexually harasses Frieda and about how the whippings they receive are worse in the spring. Claudia and Frieda go to visit Pecola and find her at the home of the white people where her mother works. The omniscient narrator comes in again and tells us about Pauline Breedlove’s childhood and the beginning of her marriage to Cholly. We also hear about Cholly’s childhood.

The next major event, whish is told by the second narrator, is when Cholly comes home drunk one day and rapes his own daughter and just leaves her lying on the kitchen floor. Again from the second narrator we find out about “Soaphead” Church who is “Faith Healer” he claims he speak to god. Pecola asks him for blue eyes and he has her kill a dog that he was too repulsed by to kill himself and says she will have blue eyes if something happens to the dog when she gives him the “food. ” We now hear from Claudia again about the summer, when everyone finds out that Pecola is pregnant by her father.

Pecola has gone insane and she only speaks to her imaginary friend who she views to be real. Pecola believes that she has blue eyes. In the last section we find out that the baby dies because it was born prematurely and that Pecola lives with her mother on the edges of town, he father has died and her brother has left town. In The Bluest Eye Toni Morrison makes a judgement on the human condition. Her opinion is that people depend on the world to find their self-value and their self-worth. This opinion has had a lot of truth in my life.

I used to look at others to figure out how I should be feeling and what others saw of me I saw in myself. That view on life gave me a lot of problems. I believe that what Toni Morrison is saying about the human condition is true in some ways. It’s sad that we rely on others to see what we should see in ourselves. The people who have gotten away from that trend have made a great improvement in their lives. There are many movies and t. v. shows that have this point of view because it is sadly a fact of life. The one movie that stands out in my mind is a French movie called “Le diner des cons. Which is about these friends who find the weirdest people to take to diner and the one who has the “weirdest” wins, this one guy thinks it is wrong yet to fit in with his “friends” he goes along with the scheme. The people who are chosen think they are really making friends but it is all a scam. There are many people who would do anything to fit in with the “cool” group. I think it is sad that we decide who we are by the group of people we associate with. Being a black child growing up in the 1940’s you faced a lot of criticism and harassment not only from the white children but also from other black children.

Pecola Breedlove is a good example of the constant harassment. She was hurt and harassed by everyone even her own parents. She had low self-esteem and a low self worth because of her surroundings while Frieda and Claudia thought more of themselves because of their upbringing. I liked The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison, it isn’t my favorite book out of the ones that I have read but I enjoyed it, some parts were a little too graphic for me though. Even so this book is within the top five books that I have ever read.

Capital punishment

Since the beginning of recorded history, mankind has made use of the idea of capital punishment. Most ancient societies accepted the notion that certain crimes deserved the death penalty. The idea of a crime punishable by death dates far back to Ancient Rome and the laws passed at that time. Till this day, however, there is still much debate as to whether or not capital punishment should be abolished. Although there are numerous arguments for and against the situation, the only way to fully understand something is to look at the death penalty from both standing viewpoints. When discussing Capital Punishment, many questions are asked.

Is it morally just? Is it an effective punishment? Is it applied fairly? Is it successful in discouraging potential criminals? While there is much evidence to show that the death penalty is in fact successful, the morality and social issues governing it seem to point out that Capital Punishment should in fact be abolished. Is Capital Punishment successful in discouraging potential offenders, or is it simply a penalty which does not strike fear into the criminals of todays society? While there is no more a harsher penalty than that of death, many criminals do in fact fear the death penalty.

The death penalty deters murder by putting the fear of death into would be killers. A person is less likely to do something, if he or she thinks that harm will come to him. Another way the death penalty deters murder, is the fact that if the killer is dead, he will not be able to kill again. Most supporters of the death penalty feel that offenders should be punished for their crimes, and that it does not matter whether it will deter the crime rate. Supporters of the death penalty are in favour of making examples out of offenders, and that the threat of death will be enough to deter the crime rate, but the crime rate is irrelevant.

Studies prove that increasing amount of executions does in fact deter murders through out the state (insert figure 1). According to Isaac Ehrlich’s study, published on April 16, 1976, eight murders are deterred for each execution that is carried out in the U. S. A. He goes on to say, “If one execution of a guilty capital murderer deters the murder of one innocent life, the execution is justified. ” Punishments should remain as severe as possible, for that is the only way to discourage todays criminals from committing a capital offence.

While deterrence is the most frequently made and widely accepted argument in favor of the death penalty, why is it then that the states which do inflict the death penalty, are those with this highest murder rates? (Insert figure 2) While some may conclude that Capital punishment does have its effect on potential offenders, the opposition suggests that there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty has any impact on the rate of crime. A recent study shows that in asking 1000 inmates in Californias Matherson Prison on the question of the death penalty, 63% said life in jail is far worse than the death penalty.

Capital punishment is no more effective a deterrent that prolonged incarceration. Is the death penalty a moral or immoral punishment? Capital punishment comes from the idea of retribution. This widely held concept dates back to ancient civilizations and the Mosaic Code. The idea of an eye for an eye has long been used by many societies and was a basic principle regarding punishments, especially murder. Many of the ancient rulers, and to some effect even todays leaders, feel that if you take someones life it is only sensible for you to lose yours.

Candide – Voltaire’s Writing Style

In Candide, Voltaire uses many writing techniques which can also be found in the works of Cervantes, Alighieri, Rabelais and Moliere. The use of the various styles and conventions shows that, despite the passage of centuries and the language differences, certain writing techniques will always be effective. One common literary technique is the author’s use of one or more of his characters as his ‘voice’ to speak out the authors views on a certain subject.

For instance, in Moliere’s Tartuffe, the author uses the character of Cleante to speak out against religious hypocrites (page 1419, lines 99-102): Nothing that I more cherish and admire Than honest zeal and true religious fire. So there is nothing that I find more base Than specious piety’s dishonest face. In Candide, Voltaire makes use of several characters to voice his opinion mocking philosophical optimism. On page 1594, Candide is asking a gentleman about whether everything is for the best in the physical world as well as the moral universe.

The man replies: … I believe nothing of the sort. I find that everything goes wrong in our world; that nobody knows his place in society or his duty, what he’s doing or what he ought to be doing, and that outside f mealtimes… the rest of the day is spent in useless quarrels… -it’s one unending warfare. By having this character take on such a pessimistic tone, he directly contradicts the obviously over-optimistic tone of Candide. In the conclusion (page 1617) an old turk instructs Candide in the futility of needless philosophizing by saying that “… he work keeps us from three great evils, boredom, vice, and poverty. ” In each of these examples, the character chosen by the author comes across as a reasonable and respectable person, making the author’s point of view seem just as reasonable and respectable. Another technique Voltaire uses in Candide is that of taking actual people and events and weaving into his work of fiction. He often does this to mock or ridicule his political and literary adversaries, as shown in the conversation between the abbe’ and the Parisian supper guests (page 1593).

The abbe’ mentions two critics who in Voltaires time have criticized his work. The critics are referred to as boring and impudent by the supper guests. In much the same manner Alighieri, in The Divine Comedy, has placed many of his enemies in various circles of Hell. In one instance (page 797), Dante himself ushes one of his political enemies back down into the swampy waters of the river Styx. In Gargantua and Pantagruel, Rabelais mentions a series of text books which are a part of the sort of educational curriculum that he is satirizing.

He ridicules their use in that it takes Gargantua so long to learn simple tasks such as memorizing the alphabet. In each of these cases, the authors are able to speak out against people or practices in a way less confrontational than public speaking, as well as state their opinion in a form where they cannot be immediately contradicted. Voltarie has occasion to use the comedic style of exaggeration n Candide, such as the Baron’s sister refusing to marry Candide’s father because he can only prove seventy-one quarterings of his family tree.

Later, Candide is sentenced to receive a flogging for having deserted the Bulgar army. He must make thirty-six passes through the gauntlet of two thousand troops. More outlandish examples of exaggeration can be found in Gargantua and Pantagruel, such as the size of Gargantua’s mare (as big as six elephants) or the weight of his dumbbells (each one is eight hundred and five tons). Beside being entertaining to read, these exaggerations serve to point out the idiculousness of an ideal by showing it in a preposterous light. The format in which Candide is written closely resembles that of Cervante’s Don Quixote.

In both books, the authors have chosen to name each chapter in a descriptive style; the name of the chapter tends to be a brief description of the action that is to take place within it. Compare chapter three of Don Quixote, “Of the amusing manner in which Don Quixote had himself dubbed a knight. ” with chapter three of Candide, “How Candide Escaped from the Bulgars, and What Became of Him”. Alighieri uses this method in The Divine Comedy as well, lthough on a much less descriptive level. Each of the cantos in his Divine Comedy has short three or four word descriptions of what happens in the canto.

Many chapters in Candide end with some sort of lead-in to the next chapter, giving the book a certain feel similar to today’s television serials. This method is used in Don Quixote (chapter 8), but in a much more dramatic fashion. Just as Don Quixote is about to go into battle with the Biscayan, the action is abruptly halted by the narrator who describes how the ‘original’ author had not finished the story, but that a ‘second’ author had picked up where the irst left off and the action continues in the next chapter.

While Cervantes may have been poking fun at this method by useing it in such an exaggerated manner, both he and Voltaire use it effectively to keep the reader’s attention and make him want to read on to find out what happens next. In Candide, the story is written such that the main character and usually one or more companions have set out on a great journey filled with adventures. It is in this journey that Candide’s outlook on life is challenged; he is forced to become less optimistic about this world being the best of all possible worlds.

Similarly, in The Divine Comedy, Dante goes on a journey as well; through Hell, Purgatory and Heaven with his guide Virgil. Through his travels he is shown the error of other men’s ways, serving to remind him of his own sins and to put him back on the right path in life. In Don Quixote, the would-be knight-errant sets out with his sidekick Sancho Panza on an adventure too; determined to right wrongs and save damsels in distress. Through the harsh realities of life he eventually comes out of his insanity and sees that his way of life in his modern world is outdated and obsolete.

In placing their characters in these adventures the authors demonstrate that, through experience with real-world situations, these men trying to live by some outdated or far-fetched ideal soon learn the error in their reasoning and adapt themselves to the author’s way of thinking. From these examples it can be seen how Voltaire, a writer from the Enlightenment period, uses methods from writers centuries before him to effectively communicate his point to his contemporary readers. The times and issues may be quite different, but the writing style works just as well for him as it did all the way back to the twelfth century.

The Black Panther Party

My survey paper for Assignment 4 is on the Black Panther Party. I will discuss the rise and the fall of the Black Panther Party and how Huey Newton and Bobby Seale met. I will also discuss some of the goals of the Black Panther Party, the good the party did for the black and poor communities. I will also discuss what they hoped to achieve from their movement. Huey Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party (BPP) in Oakland, California in 1966. The original name of the Black Panther Party was the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. Huey Newton was illiterate when he graduated from high school.

Newton taught himself how to read. Seale had served in the Air Force. Newton and Seale met while both were attending Merritt Junior College in 1965. After Newton attended Merritt Junior College he studied law at the San Francisco School of Law. At Merritt Junior College they organized a Soul Student’s Advisory Council. This Council was the first group to demand that African-American studies be included in the college curriculum. The two men split with the council when Newton and Seale wanted to bring a squad of Black youths on campus to perform drills in commemoration of Malcolm X’s birthday the year after his death.

This is when they formed the Black Panther Party. Newton was the Party’s Defense Minister and Seale was the Chairman. The Black Panther Party symbol, the panther, was adopted from an independent political party established by residents in Lowndes County, Alabama a year earlier. The symbol was chosen because the panther is a powerful image. To achieve their goals, Newton and Seale had a ten-point platform that demanded full employment, exemption of black men from the military and an end to police brutality among other things. The last point, point number ten was a summary of all of the other points.

One of the main goals was to protect Black citizens against police brutality. Their message was self-defense. The Party originally preached violent revolution as the only means of achieving black liberation. The party called on blacks to arm themselves for the liberation struggle. Huey Newton studied law and spoke up when the police violated the civil rights of Black people. He made sure the search warrants were legal. The Black Panther Party had their own patrols to monitor the activities of the police in Black neighborhoods.

The Black Panther Party advocated the use of violence for people trying to defend themselves. Not everyone agreed with the Black Panther Party. The media distorted a lot of things. The Black Panther Party was viewed as Black militants at war with the White power structure and of hating the police. The Black Panther Party considered this view a false view. The members of the Black Panther Party did have strong feelings about the use of violence and the police. “I say violence is as necessary as cherry pie is to America”, H. Rap Brown, Justice Minister, Black Panther Party.

Bobby Seale was charged and convicted of conspiracy to violently disrupt the Democratic National Convention of 1968. The conviction was later overturned. Seale was also a codefendant in a Connecticut case charging murder of an alleged informer on the party. Seale was acquitted in 1971. Another major trial was of 13 Panthers in New York City accused of conspiring to bomb public places. They were also acquitted in 1971. Huey Newton was jailed for manslaughter after Officer John Frey died in a shootout with the Black Panther Party in 1968. This kicked off the “Free Huey” campaign.

Later the charges were dropped. After this campaign, the Black Panther Party went National. The Black Panther Party expanded with chapters in 48 states. Black Panther Party coalition and support groups popped up in Japan, China, France, England, Germany, Sweden, Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Uruguay and including Israel. The results of the trials caused many to believe that the Black Panthers were being subjected to extreme police harassment. Another incident that sparked this view was a raid by the Chicago police of Illinois party leader Fred Hampton and another Panther in 1969.

After reviewing the facts of the raid, it was found that the two Panthers had been shot in their beds without provocation. Regardless of the entire negative press the Black Panther Party received they had many programs which benefited the Black communities. The social programs provided services to Black and poor people, promoting a model for an alternative, ore humane scheme. There were more than 35 programs referred to as Survival Program. The party members ran these programs under the slogan “Survival Pending Civil Rights Survey Paper Page 2 Revolution” or SPR.

The first program was the Free Breakfast for Children Program. This program fed 200,000 children per day. They printed newspapers, had free clinics and grocery giveaways. They opened anti-poverty centers, manufactured and distributed free shoes; they also developed school and educational programs. The Free Breakfast program became a model for the Federal government and was soon implemented in public schools. The Black Panther Party did not get the credit they deserved. The FBI accused them as being communists and that the Free Breakfast Program was a propaganda tool used to carry out its communist agenda.

The FBI believed the Black Panther Party wanted to overthrow the United States Government. The government did everything they could think of to destroy the programs. The police raided churches where children were being fed and the free clinics were raided and all of the supplies were destroyed. The police were brutal and every effort to move ahead by the Black Panther Party was resisted. The FBI kept pages and pages on all Black Panther Party chapters and all of the Black Panther Party members. There are some negative things about the Black Panther Party.

I don’t agree with the violence, but I spent many mornings as a child with my mother feeding the children breakfast who would not have otherwise been able to eat. I have also spent a couple of holidays as a child giving out food. The Black Panther Party collapsed in the late 1970s brought down by deaths and defections. There were also many internal disputes that help break apart the party. A major split came about. Newton and Seale announced in 1972 their intention to abandon violent methods. Eldridge Cleaver, formerly the publicist for the party, continued to preach violent revolution.

In 1974 both Seale and Newton left the party. Seale resigned and Newton fled to Cuba to avoid drug and murder charges. Newton returned to the United States three years after he left. The two trials ended with hung juries. Newton earned a PhD in social philosophy from the University of California at Santa Cruz in 1980. Eldridge Cleaver had spent much of 1954-1966 in prison for various crimes including rape. He wrote a book Soul on Ice in 1968. After a shootout with police in Oakland, Cleaver began a period of exile in Cuba and Algeria.

He returned to the United States in 1975. A young drug dealer shot Huey Newton to death in 1989. The Black Panther Party made an impact on history and on America. Attention was brought to the plight of African-Americans. The party gradually lost most of its influence, ceasing to be an important force in the black communities. The formation of the Black Panther Party came at a time when tensions were high in the African-American communities against whites. Great African-American leaders were being assassinated. Racial violence was widespread.

The Civil Rights Act had just been signed in 1964. Malcolm X was assassinated in Harlem, February 21, 1965. The Watts riot occurred in Los Angeles the same year of Malcolm X’s assassination August 11-16. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee in 1968. His assassination caused an uproar in more than 100 cities. In 1969 Edwin Pratt, Executive Director of the Seattle Urban League and a respected African-American leader was shot to death while standing in the doorway of his home. The murder has never been solved.

The Bluest Eye – A Reality of Presence

In The Bluest Eye, Toni Morrison shows that anger is healthy and that it is not something to be feared; those who are not able to get angry are the ones who suffer the most. She criticizes Cholly, Polly, Claudia, Soaphead Church, the Mobile Girls, and Pecola because these blacks in her story wrongly place their anger on themselves, their own race, their family, or even God, instead of being angry at those they should have been angry at: whites. Pecola Breedlove suffered the most because she was the result of having others’ anger dumped on her, and she herself was unable to get angry.

When Geraldine yells at her to get out of her house, Pecola’s eyes were fixed on the “pretty” lady and her “pretty” house. Pecola does not stand up to Maureen Peal when she made fun of her for seeing her dad naked but instead lets Freida and Claudia fight for her. Instead of getting mad at Mr. Yacobowski for looking down on her, she directed her anger toward the dandelions she once thought were beautiful. However, “the anger will not hold”(50), and the feelings soon gave way to shame. Pecola was the sad product of having others’ anger placed on her: “All of our waste we dumped on her and she absorbed.

And all of our beauty, which was hers first and which she gave to us”(205). They felt beautiful next to her ugliness, wholesome next to her uncleanness, her poverty made them generous, her weakness made them strong, and her pain made them happier. When Pecola’s father, Cholly Breedlove, was caught as a teenager in a field with Darlene by two white men, “never did he once consider directing his hatred toward the hunters”(150), rather her directed his hatred towards the girl because hating the white men would “consume” him.

He was powerless against the white men and was unable to protect Darlene from them as well. This caused his to hate her for being in the situation with him and for realizing how powerless her really was. Also, Cholly felt that any misery his daughter suffered was his fault, and looking in to Pecola’s loving eyes angered him because her wondered, “What could her do for her – ever? What give her? What say to her? ”(161) Cholly’s failures led him to hate those that he failed, most of all his family.

Pecola’s mother, Polly Breedlove, also wrongly placed her anger on her family. As a result of having a deformed foot, Polly had always had a feeling of unworthiness and separateness. With her own children, “sometimes I’d catch myself hollering at them and beating them, but I couldn’t seem to stop”(124). She stopped taking care of her own children and her home and took care of a white family and their home. She found praise, love, and acceptance with the Fisher family, and it is for these reasons that she stayed with them.

She had been deprived of such feelings from her family when growing up and in turn deprived her own family of these same feelings. Polly “held Cholly as a mode on sin and failure, she bore him like a crown of thorns, and her children like a cross”(126). Pecola’s friend Claudia is angry at the beauty of whiteness and attempts to dismember white dolls to find where their beauty lies. There is a sarcastic tone in her voice when she spoke of having to be “worthy” to play with the dolls.

Later, when telling the story as a past experience, she describes the adults’ tone of voice as being filled with years of unfulfilled longing, perhaps a longing to be themselves beautifully white. Claudia herself was happiest when she stood up to Maureen Peal, the beautiful girl from her class. When Claudia and Freida taunted her as she ran down the street, they were happy to get a chance to express anger, and “we were still in love with ourselves then”(74). Claudia’s anger towards dolls turns to hated of white girls.

Out of a fear for his anger the she could not comprehend, she later tool a refuge in loving whites. She had to at least pretend to love whites or, like Cholly, the hatred would consume her. Later however, she realizes that this change was “an adjustment without improvement”(23), and that making herself love them only fooled herself and helped her cope. Soaphead Church wrongly places his anger on God and blamed him for “screwing-up” human nature. He asked God to explain how he could let Pecola’s wish for blue eyes go so long without being answered and scorned God for not loving Pecola.

Despite his own sins, Soaphead feels that he had a right to blame God and ot assume his role in granting Pecola blue eyes, although her knew that beauty was not necessarily a physical thing but a state of mind and being: “No one else will see her blue eyes. But she will”(182). The Mobile girls wrongly placed their anger in their own race, and they do not give of themselves fully(even to their family). These girls hate niggers because according to them, “colored people were neat and quiet; niggers were dirty and loud”(87).

Black children, or they as Geraldine called them, were like flies: “They slept six to a bed, all their pee mixing together in the night as they wt their beds. . . they clowned on the playgrounds, broke things in dime stores, ran in front of you on the street. . . grass wouldn’t grow where they lived. Flowers died. Like flies they hovered; like flies they settled”(92). Although the Mobile girls are black themselves, they “. . . got rid of the funkiness. the dreadful funkiness of passion, the funkiness of nature, the funkiness of the wide range of human emotions,”(83) and most of all they tried to rid themselves of the funkiness of being black.

They were shut off by the whites because they did not belong, but shut themselves off from their own black race. To the blacks in The Bluest Eye, “Anger is better(than shame). There is a sense of being in anger. A reality of presence. An awareness of worth”(50). the blacks are not strong, only aggressive; they are not compassionate, only polite; they were not good, but well behave; they substituted good grammar for intellect, and rearranged lies to make them truth(205).

Most of all, they faked love where felt powerless to hate, and destroyed what love they did have with anger. Toni Morrison tells this story to show the sadness in the way that the blacks were compelled to place their anger on their own families and on their blackness instead of on whites who cause their misery. Although they didn’t know this, “The Thing to fear(and thus hate) was the Thing that made her beautiful, and not us”(74), whiteness.

The Power And The Glory: “The Roof Couldnt Keep Out This Rain”

In Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory, setting is essential in understanding the spiritual conquest of the main character. The story takes place in post-revolution Mexico of the nineteen-thirties, where Catholicism has been banned. The government has shut down all of the churches and established anti-Catholic laws, jealous of the rising power of the church, and nervous of the corrupt ways in which the church has been dealing with sin. The main character, a nameless “whiskey priest,” hopelessly roams the desolate plains of southern Mexico, on the run from the law, as the only priest left who has not denounced his fatherhood.

The surrounding communities in southern Mexico refuse to harbor the priest because of the drastic repercussions from the police. The priest feels guilty about his pride in being an inadequate priest and a sinner, but has come to terms with the eternal damnation he will face in the afterlife. The physical and cultural settings in The Power and Glory guide the reader through an odyssey of one man’s struggle to find meaning in the world, as it parallels the priest’s internal perspective, and symbolizes his redemptive conversion and his final unconscious achievement of martyrdom.

Ater the Mexican Revolution, the Mexican government established anti-Catholic laws against the churches. The government dismissed the Church’s system of redemption, and became jealous of the Church’s rising influence over society. This system required “sinners” to pay the church money in order to escape eternal damnation in the afterlife. “And the priest came round with the collecting bag, taking their centavos, abusing them for their small comforting sins, and sacrificing nothing at all in return- except a little sexual indulgence. (pp. 22-3) Every priest denounced their profession and became married in order to remain lawful citizens. However, this “whiskey priest” “felt bound to his sin by love And when we love our sin then we are damned indeed. ” (pp. 172-3) The priest claims he is too proud to denounce his fatherhood, and roams southern Mexico as a fugitive from the law. “He was a bad priest, he knew it. ” (p. 60) The priest encounters nothing but the desolate plains of southern Mexico and the cultural depression of its poverty-stricken lands.

Half a dozen huts of mud and wattle stood ina clearing; two were in ruins. A few pigs routed round, and an old woman carried a burning ember from hut to hut, lighting little fire on the centre of each floor to fill the hut with smoke and keep mosquitos away. p. 42 Everybody the priest encounters will not harbour him because of fear of the law. These barren lands symbolize the priest’s feeling of worthlesness and rejection from God, and the feeling of inevitable sin and the impossibility of martyrdom. “‘I don’t know how to repent. ‘ That was true: he had lost the faculty.

He couldn’t say to himself that he wished his sin had never existed, because the sin seemed to him now so unimportant and he loved the fruit of it… our sins have so much beauty. (p. 128,130) The priest continues to create damage as several innocent members of passing communities are executed by the police for not being able to provide adequate information on the priest’s course of action. The priest’s developing knowledge of the damage he is creating adds guilt to his anxiety, and he continues to question God about the meaning behind his situation.

It infuriated him to think that there were still people in the state who believed in a loving and merciful God. There are mystics who are said to have experienced God directly. He was a mystic, oo, and what he had experienced was vacancy- a complete certainty in the existence of a dying, cooling world, of human beings who had evolved from animals for no pupose at all. p. 24 As the priest becomes more humble from self-awareness, he becomes less self-centered and begins to regret his careless sins in the past and develops a more compassionate mindframe. ‘Oh God, forgive me – I am proud, lustful, greedy man They deserve a martyr to care for them- not a man like me, who loves all the wrong things. ‘” (p. 95) In a dangerous effort, he visits his bastard child from his old town. The priest begins to understand that, “one must love every soul as if it were one’s own child. The passion to protect must extend itself over a world. ” (p. 82) When he finally sees his daughter, he has a revelation about the interconnected essence of God in its connection with love and human nature. ‘Oh God, help her. Damn me, I deserve it, but let her live for ever. This was the love he should have felt for every soul in the world: all the fear and the wish to save concentrated unjustly on the one child. He beagn to weep; it was as if he had to watch her from the hore drown slowly because he had forgotten how to swim. He thought: This is what I should feel all the time for everyone p. 208 The priest is ostracized from his old community after he visits his daughter, but finds himself in a change of setting. In a quietly powerful scene, the priest reaches a town with a large white church, free of anti-catholic laws. Here is hope.

The setting provides several symbols that reflect the priest’s newfound hope and developing self-confidence as a compassionate human being. The priest finally finds a town that has a church, where he is able to hold confessionals for the town people. A seasonal down pouring becomes a symbolic cleansing of the priest’s pride in sin, and his guilt and anxiety about his duty in life. He comes to understand that: “Even a coward has a sense of duty. ” (p. 190) At the end of the story, the priest is willingly lead to a dying murderer for confessional, knowing he is being set up and will be apprehended by the police. he soul held absolution and peace at the final moment, after a lifetime of the most hideous crime The priest hurriedly whispered the words of conditional absolution, in case, for one second before it crossed the border, the pirit had repented He prayed: ‘O merciful God, after all he was thinking of me, it was for my sake’ pp. 189-90 The priest sacrifices his life for the sake of duty and Oneness with God and humanity. And the priest unconsciously exemplifies the humble and unselfish sacrifice of a martyr as he faces the firing squad: He felt only an immense dissapointment because he had to go to God empty-handed, with nothing done at all.

It seemed to him, at that moment, that it would have been quite easy to have been a saint. It would have only needed a little self-restraint and a little courage. He felt like someone who has missed happiness by seconds at an appointed place. He knew now that at the end there was only one thing that counted- to be a saint. p. 210 By the end of the story, the priest achieves martyrdom, and proves himself worthy of becoming a saint, aside the rest of the Holy priests. Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory details the evolution of a man’s character as he struggles to understand God and his sense of duty as a priest, and as a human being.

In this story, setting is one of the most important tools in reflecting the internal landscape of the main character. This idea is essential in understanding the Oneness between Mother Nature and human nature. The divinity in ourselves becomes apparent when we begin to understand humanity as a unified child of God, and therefore, our duty to treat everybody with compassion and “love every soul as if it were one’s own child. ” (p. 82) Our (internal) Self is a reflection of our relationship with the rest of he world.

Jesus Christ explained this idea in the seldom read, “Book of Thomas,” when he said: “For whoever has not known Himself knows nothing, but he who has known Himself has already understood the depths of all things. The irony and paradox of this priest’s journey through sin and lawlesness to achieve a revelatory understanding about his obligation to openly love himself and humanity, demonstrates the complexity of life all human beings are plagued with in a universal search to understand Thyself, (and/or, God).

This “whiskey priest” becomes One with life, and demonstrates “the power and the glory,” when he finally understands: “‘Love is not wrong, but love should be happy and open- it is only wrong when it is secret, unhappy It can be more unhappy than anything but the loss of God. It is the loss of God. ‘” (p. 172) The Power And The Glory: “The Roof Couldnt Keep Out This Rain” The Power and the Glory: “The roof couldn’t keep out this rain. ” (p. 152) “Hope is an instinct only the reasoning human mind can kill. An animal never knows despair. ” -Graham Greene, “The Power and the Glory” (p. 41) In Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory, setting is essential in understanding the spiritual conquest of the main character. The story takes place in post-revolution Mexico of the nineteen-thirties, where Catholicism has been banned. The government has shut down all of the churches and established anti-Catholic laws, jealous of the rising power of the church, and nervous of the corrupt ways in which the church has been dealing with sin. The main character, a nameless “whiskey priest,” hopelessly roams the desolate plains of southern Mexico, on the run from the law, as the only priest left who has not denounced his fatherhood.

The surrounding communities in southern Mexico refuse to harbor the priest because of the drastic repercussions from the police. The priest feels guilty about his pride in being an inadequate priest and a sinner, but has come to terms with the eternal damnation he will face in the afterlife. The physical and cultural settings in The Power and Glory guide the reader through an odyssey of one man’s struggle to find meaning in the world, as it parallels the priest’s internal perspective, and symbolizes his redemptive conversion and his final unconscious achievement of martyrdom.

Ater the Mexican Revolution, the Mexican government established anti-Catholic laws against the churches. The government dismissed the Church’s system of redemption, and became jealous of the Church’s rising influence over society. This system required “sinners” to pay the church money in order to escape eternal damnation in the afterlife. “And the priest came round with the collecting bag, taking their centavos, abusing them for their small comforting sins, and sacrificing nothing at all in return- except a little sexual indulgence. (pp. 22-3) Every priest denounced their profession and became married in order to remain lawful citizens. However, this “whiskey priest” “felt bound to his sin by love And when we love our sin then we are damned indeed. ” (pp. 172-3) The priest claims he is too proud to denounce his fatherhood, and roams southern Mexico as a fugitive from the law. “He was a bad priest, he knew it. ” (p. 60) The priest encounters nothing but the desolate plains of southern Mexico and the cultural depression of its poverty-stricken lands.

Half a dozen huts of mud and wattle stood ina clearing; two were in ruins. A few pigs routed round, and an old woman carried a burning ember from hut to hut, lighting little fire on the centre of each floor to fill the hut with smoke and keep mosquitos away. p. 42 Everybody the priest encounters will not harbour him because of fear of the law. These barren lands symbolize the priest’s feeling of worthlesness and rejection from God, and the feeling of inevitable sin and the impossibility of martyrdom. “‘I don’t know how to repent. ‘ That was true: he had lost the faculty.

He couldn’t say to himself that he wished his sin had never existed, because the sin seemed to him now so unimportant and he loved the fruit of it… our sins have so much beauty. (p. 128,130) The priest continues to create damage as several innocent members of passing communities are executed by the police for not being able to provide adequate information on the priest’s course of action. The priest’s developing knowledge of the damage he is creating adds guilt to his anxiety, and he continues to question God about the meaning behind his situation.

It infuriated him to think that there were still people in the state who believed in a loving and merciful God. There are mystics who are said to have experienced God directly. He was a mystic, oo, and what he had experienced was vacancy- a complete certainty in the existence of a dying, cooling world, of human beings who had evolved from animals for no pupose at all. p. 24 As the priest becomes more humble from self-awareness, he becomes less self-centered and begins to regret his careless sins in the past and develops a more compassionate mindframe. ‘Oh God, forgive me – I am proud, lustful, greedy man They deserve a martyr to care for them- not a man like me, who loves all the wrong things. ‘” (p. 95) In a dangerous effort, he visits his bastard child from his old town. The priest begins to understand that, “one must love every soul as if it were one’s own child.

The passion to protect must extend itself over a world. ” (p. 82) When he finally sees his daughter, he has a revelation about the interconnected essence of God in its connection with love and human nature. Oh God, help her. Damn me, I deserve it, but let her live for ever. ‘ This was the love he should have felt for every soul in the world: all the fear and the wish to save concentrated unjustly on the one child. He beagn to weep; it was as if he had to watch her from the hore drown slowly because he had forgotten how to swim. He thought: This is what I should feel all the time for everyone p. 208 The priest is ostracized from his old community after he visits his daughter, but finds himself in a change of setting.

In a quietly powerful scene, the priest reaches a town with a large white church, free of anti-catholic laws. Here is hope. The setting provides several symbols that reflect the priest’s newfound hope and developing self-confidence as a compassionate human being. The priest finally finds a town that has a church, where he is able to hold confessionals for the town people. A seasonal down pouring becomes a symbolic cleansing of the priest’s pride in sin, and his guilt and anxiety about his duty in life.

He comes to understand that: “Even a coward has a sense of duty. ” (p. 90) At the end of the story, the priest is willingly lead to a dying murderer for confessional, knowing he is being set up and will be apprehended by the police. the soul held absolution and peace at the final moment, after a lifetime of the most hideous crime The priest hurriedly whispered the words of conditional absolution, in case, for one second before it crossed the border, the pirit had repented He prayed: ‘O merciful God, after all he was thinking of me, it was for my sake’ pp. 189-90 The priest sacrifices his life for the sake of duty and Oneness with God and humanity.

And the priest unconsciously exemplifies the humble and unselfish sacrifice of a martyr as he faces the firing squad: He felt only an immense dissapointment because he had to go to God empty-handed, with nothing done at all. It seemed to him, at that moment, that it would have been quite easy to have been a saint. It would have only needed a little self-restraint and a little courage. He felt like someone who has missed happiness by seconds at an appointed place. He knew now that at the end there was only one thing that counted- to be a saint. . 210 By the end of the story, the priest achieves martyrdom, and proves himself worthy of becoming a saint, aside the rest of the Holy priests. Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory details the evolution of a man’s character as he struggles to understand God and his sense of duty as a priest, and as a human being. In this story, setting is one of the most important tools in reflecting the internal landscape of the main character. This idea is essential in understanding the Oneness between Mother Nature and human nature.

The divinity in ourselves becomes apparent when we begin to understand humanity as a unified child of God, and therefore, our duty to treat everybody with compassion and “love every soul as if it were one’s own child. ” (p. 82) Our (internal) Self is a reflection of our relationship with the rest of he world. Jesus Christ explained this idea in the seldom read, “Book of Thomas,” when he said: “For whoever has not known Himself knows nothing, but he who has known Himself has already understood the depths of all things.

The irony and paradox of this priest’s journey through sin and lawlesness to achieve a revelatory understanding about his obligation to openly love himself and humanity, demonstrates the complexity of life all human beings are plagued with in a universal search to understand Thyself, (and/or, God). This “whiskey priest” becomes One with life, and demonstrates “the power and the glory,” when he finally understands: “‘Love is not wrong, but love should be happy and open- it is only wrong when it is secret, unhappy It can be more unhappy than anything but the loss of God. It is the loss of God. ‘” (p. 172)

“A Good Man is Hard to Find” by Flannery O’Connor

The short story “A Good Man is Hard to Find” by Flannery O’Connor could be viewed as a comic strip about massacre and martyrdom. What stops it from becoming a solemn story is its intensity, ambition, and unfamiliarity. O’Connor blends the line between humor and terror. She introduces her audience to the horror of self-love. The grandmother is thought of by the community as agood person and appears to be so on the surface, but she is also mean and narcissistic. She forces her family to abide by her wishes; she sees them as an extension of herself; and she seizes every opportunity to get what she wants.

By manipulating her grandchildren, she gets her son to go back to the house with the “secret panel”, causing them to meet The Misfit, and ultimately sealing the entire family’s death. O’Connor makes the trite seem sweet, the humdrum seem tragic, and the ridiculous seem righteous. The reader can no longer use their textbook ways of interpreting fiction and human behavior because O’Connor is constantly throwing our assumptions back at us. Through out “A good man is hard to find” O’Connor reinforces the horror of self-love through her images.

She contrasts the two houses, The Tower: the restaurant owned by Red Sammy, and the plantation house. The restaurant is a “broken-down place”- “a long dark room” with a tiny place to dance. At one time Red Sammy found pleasure from the restaurant but now he is afraid to leave the door unlatched. He has given in to the “meanness” of the world. In contrast to the horrible Tower is the grandmother’s peaceful memories of the plantation house that is filled with wonderful treasures. However, the family never reach this house because this house does not even exist on the this dirt road or even in the same state.

Because of the grandmother’s pride she cannot admit that she has made a mistake. “‘It’s not much farther,’ the grandmother said and just as she said it, a horrible thought came to her. The thought was so embarrassing that she turned red in the face and her eyes dilated and her feet jumped up…. ” (144). The grandmother’s pride and self-centered wish to see the house causes the Misfit to discover and murder the family. Both houses are, in effect, ruins of the spirit. It is a comic view of the family that the reader receives in the first half of the story.

The comedy is in the way O’Connor has very matter of factly and nonchalantly reported the characters outlandish actions and appearances. O’Connor has made this even more funny by not appearing to tell it in a funny way. The grandmother is the funniest and most colorful of the characters in the story; she is pushy, annoying, and at times an endearing grandmother. O’Connor makes the grandmother a target for her satire right from the beginning by exposing her absurd wardrobe and old-fashioned mannerisms. “…

The grandmother had on a navy blue straw sailor hat with a bunch of white violets on the brim and a navy blue dress with a small white dot in the print. Her collars and cuffs were white organdy trimmed with lace and at her neckline she had pinned a purple spray of cloth violets containing a sachet. In case of an accident, anyone seeing her dead on the highway would know at once thatshewas a lady. ” (138) The last line becomes ironically funny because ultimately this is where the grandmother ends up- in a ditch dead.

As a reader one must then question the seriousness of the author towards her characters and should the reader have a sympathetic view towards these characters when they are being presented to an audience as comical figures and an elaborate joke. If more attention is paid to the story’s self-conscious technique, then the reader can adjust their sympathies in a way that would coincide with the story’s style. The first words uttered in the first pages of “A good man is hard to find” are directed to the reader almost as much as they are directed to Bailey: “Now look here, … see here, read this. ” (137).

The reader themselves are rustling the pages of the story almost simultaneously as the grandmother is shaking the newspaper at Bailey. Cleverly, O’Connor has made her reader self-conscious of her printed medium and undoubtedly made the reader aware of the similarities between them and her characters. Once the reader can understand the satirical overtone of the story, the absurdities become less important. For example, the writing is monotone but has a dramatic quality to it which O’Connor later uses to describe the family massacre. This mimics the newspaper the grandmother is rattling at her son’s bald head.

The grandmother’s family will be killed by a man that views murder as a sport, he can look at a pile of bodies as nonchalantly as Bailey skimming over the weather report. The irony is absurd. This family is doomed by news stories and columnists. Nothing could be more horribly ridiculous. O’Connor is re-enforcing her stylistic approach to the literature by having the children read comic books in the beginning of the short story, all the way through their fateful journey. This story, in many ways, is a verbal comic strip. It mimics that of the frames of a comic strip with small self-contained scenes.

Their are no smooth transitions in the narrative but rather abrupt juxtapositions. One could almost imagine a bubble over the characters head saying “We’ve had an ACCIDENT! ” (145). Even the names of the characters elude to comic book figures: June Star and Red Sammy. The story could even be said to read like that of a comic book and imitate its layout. For example, the sign advertising Red Sammy’s Restaurant. “TRY RED SAMMY’S FAMOUS BARBECUE. NONE LIKE FAMOUS RED SAMMY’S! RED SAM! THE FAT BOY WITH THE HAPPY LAUGH. A VETERAN! RED SAMMY’S YOUR MAN! ” (140).

But then the narrative continues in a comic book like fashion describing the odd and bizarre scene as the family pulls up to the Tower. “Red Sammy was lying on the bareground outside The Tower with his head under a truck while a gray monkey about a foot high, chained to a small chinaberry tree, chattered nearby,” (140). O’Connor’s satirical irony is apparent in the scene with the little “Negro child. ” While the grandmother tries to beautify this poor pant-less black child living in a shack, O’Connor does not allow the reader to see the beautiful picture that the grandmother wants to paint. “… ‘Oh look at the cute little pickaninny! she said pointing to a Negro child standing in the door of a shack.

‘Wouldn’t that make a picture, now? ‘ she asked and they all turned and looked at the little Negro out of the back window. He waved. ‘He didn’t have any britches on,’ June Star said. ‘He probably didn’t have any,’ the grandmother explained. ‘Little niggers in the country don’t have things like we do. If I could paint that picture,’ she said. ” (139) Anthony Di Renzo, author of American Gargoyles, suggests that the “grotesqueness of the passage above is also pleasing as a whole, in the delightful interaction of its mismatched parts.

O’Connor’s real achievement here is one of composition, or rather, de- composition- since she dismantles the artistic rules that say that something is beautiful if, and only if, it conforms to certain rigid categories of dimension, proportion, and propriety,” (140). If the grandmother were to have painted this scene, she would have concentrated on the greatness of the landscape, therefore romanticizing a picture that is far from deserving of that title. O’Connor, on the other hand, includes the dirty and wretched shack and the pant-less child. Of course, the effect is satirical.

The grandmother’s pretty picture is ruined when the little boy shows his bum to her. The old women’s attempt to look beyond a blatant reality and make it pretty is being mocked by O’Connor. The author has blended the line between the satirical and the lyrical to form a beauty that would not be considered a standard “pretty picture. ” The same blending of the satirical and the lyrical occurs later in the story with the children playing with Red Sammy’s monkey: “The children ran outside into the white sunlight and looked at the monkey in the lacy chinaberry tree.

He was busy catching fleas on himself and biting each one carefully between his teeth as if it were a delicacy,” (142). O’Connor practically compares the chattering children to the chattering pet. She also subtly mocks the grandmother’s concern for manners: Red Sammy’s monkey eats his fleas as though he were eating a gourmet meal. The “white sunlight” and the “lacy chinaberry tree” becomethe monkey’s intelligence and mannerisms. O’Connor’s writing is so clear in this passage,and her entire work for that matter, because she will not separate what pleases her from what disgusts her.

In her world, lacy chinaberry trees and chattering monkeys form a single image and are perfect for one another. This helps the reader become more aware to O’Connor’s complex cartoon martyrs. Di Renzo says in his book American Gargoyles that many critics have objections to “A good man is hard to find” because of O’Connor’s elaborate comic depiction of the grandmother and her family. He goes on to say that because the family is so ludicrous, “so irredeemably gauche and petty,” that it would be impossible for the reader to sympathize with them, even when they are being massacred by the misfit. 141) Di Renzo later talks about the Misfit as a complicated and non-cartoon like character.

“O’Connor’s comic technique disparages the victims of violence and ironically makes their killer, the Misfit, the most attractive character in the story. He may be a cold-blooded, homicidal maniac, but he is at least complicated and dignified. Self-conscious and articulate, the Misfit appears to be a man, not a cartoon, a creature capable of passion, reflection, and existential suffering. ” (Di Renzo 142)

O’Connor incorporates into her writing tenderness and compassion but these caring qualities are intertwined with caricature and satire to avoid superficiality and insincerity. For example, when the family is traveling through Georgia, the grandmother’s ability to nurture is demonstrated but still eluding to her triteness. “The grandmother offered to hold the baby and the children’s mother passed him over the front seat to her. She set him on her knee and bounced him and told him about the things they were passing.

She rolled her eyes and screwed up her mouth and stuck her leathery thin face into his smooth bland one. Occasionally he gave her a faraway smile. They passed a large cotton field with five or six graves fenced in the middle of it, like a small island. ‘Look at the graveyard! ‘ the grandmother said, pointing it out. ‘That was the old family burying ground. That belonged to the plantation. ‘ ‘Where’s the plantation? ‘ John Wesley asked. ‘Gone With the Wind,’ said the grandmother. ‘Ha. Ha. ‘ ” (139)

The contrast between the angelic baby and the old grandmother is apparent, however the feeling the reader gets here is not disgust but rather a warm and intimate feeling. Rather abruptly this gentle exchange is interrupted by the passing of the graveyard. The five or six gravestones are foreshadowing the family’s fate with the Misfit. The emotional exchange between the baby and the grandmother is a reminder to the reader of the family’s mortality. The tone of the scene is lighten by the grandmother’s joking and light- heartedness.

This scene marks an incredible emotional accomplishment for the family. The story never breaks its comic book format, even as the family is dragged off a few at a time to be put to death. The deaths are framed in a series of comic book squares. Irony again sets in when the only survivor is the cat, which the grandmother would not leave home by its self for fear it would “brush against one of the gas burners and accidentally asphyxiate himself,” (138). Even the massacre of the family is comically written.

The line between tragedy and comedy has become completely blurred by the time the family has gotten into the accident. The Misfit is as much a cartoon as the grandmother. Di Renzo says that many critics complain that the grandmother and her family do not behave nobly enough during their execution. (155) He quotes Martha Stephens in his book American Gargoyles expressing the opinion that “The family is shown in death to be as ordinary and ridiculous as before,” (155). Nothing changes aboutthe characters, even in death, they are seen to be “flat,” never losing their cartoon-like quality.

For example, when Bailey is dragged off to be executed he says: “I’ll be back in a minute, Mamma, wait on me! ” (148). Bailey’s final words are a turning point for then family. He is expressing fear and love, not just anger anymore. The change is subtle in all of the characters but it is there. O’Connor saves her most subtle writing for the grandmother. She combines every contradiction that seem to make up the grandmother’s personality into one sentence. Di Renzo says that “the grandmother’s strategies of dissuading the Misfit include proselytism, etiquette, hysteria, and bribery: [‘Jesus! the old lady cried. ‘You’ve got good blood! I know you wouldn’t shoot a lady! I know you come from nice people! Pray! Jesus, you ought not to shoot a lady! I’ll give you all the money I’ve got! ‘]” (AG 156) The grandmother experiences for the first time in her life a moment of clarity. When she reaches out to touch the Misfit, this is truly an unselfish act. She knows that her fate is sealed and she too will end up dead like the rest of her family. She is waiting for the inevitable to happen.

She has nothing to gain by reaching out to the Misfit, and that makes her gesture all the more amazing. She is not thinking of herself but of the pain and heart-ache that the Misfit has gone through. After the Misfit shoots the grandmother three times in the chest, the reader is able to see the Misfit’s eyes when he takes off his glasses they are “red-rimmed and pale and defenseless looking” (153); this is what provokes the grandmother’s selflessness. The point in which O’Connor brings her two extremes together is at the very end with one sentence.

The Misfit says “She would have been a good women if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life,” (153). The satirical and the saintly have completely blended together in this one sentence. Basically, the only way the grandmother could have been good and sustain that goodness was if someone were to threaten her with death daily. Di Renzo feels that “the misfit is not merely being clever. He is trying to express his own mixed and semicoherent feelings. He has been affectedby the grandmother,” (AG 159).

There is something about the grandmother that has made the Misfit uncomfortable. The old women’s behavior is a mystery that confronts not only the Misfit but also the reader’s traditional ideas about goodness. The comic book format that is used by O’Connor is successful in “A Good Man is Hard to Find. ” She has blended the line between the satirical and the lyrical. For a reader to look at this story in any other way than a comic strip about massacre and martyrdom would do an injustice to Flannery O’Connor’s intentional satirical writing.

Analysis of major characters in 1984

John – Although Bernard Marx is the primary character in Brave New World up until his visit with Lenina to the Reservation, after that point he fades into the background and John becomes the central protagonist. John first enters the story as he expresses an interest in participating in the Indian religious ritual from which Bernard and Lenina recoil. John’s desire first marks him as an outsider among the Indians, since he is not allowed to participate in their ritual.

It also demonstrates the huge cultural divide between him and World State society, since Bernard and Lenina see the tribal ritual as disgusting. John becomes the central character of the novel because, rejected both by the “savage” Indian culture and the “civilized” World State culture, he is the ultimate outsider. As an outsider, John takes his values from a more than 900-year-old author, William Shakespeare.

John’s extensive knowledge of Shakespeare’s works serves him in several important ways: it enables him to verbalize his own complex emotions and reactions, it provides him with a framework from which to criticize World State values, and it provides him with language that allows him to hold his own against the formidable rhetorical skill of Mustapha Mond during their confrontation.

On the other hand, John’s insistence on viewing the world through Shakespearean eyes sometimes blinds him to the reality of other characters, notably Lenina, who, in his mind, is alternately a heroine and a “strumpet,” neither of which label is quite appropriate to her. ) Shakespeare embodies all of the human and humanitarian values that have been abandoned in the World State. John’s rejection of the shallow happiness of the World State, his inability to reconcile his love and lust for Lenina, and even his eventual suicide all reflect themes from Shakespeare.

He is himself a Shakespearean character in a world where any poetry that does not sell a product is prohibited. John’s nave optimism about the World State, expressed in the words from The Tempest that constitute the novel’s title, is crushed when he comes into direct contact with the State. The phrase “brave new world” takes on an increasingly bitter, ironic, and pessimistic tone as he becomes more knowledgeable about the State. John participation in the final orgy and his suicide at the end of the novel can be seen as the result of an insanity created by the fundamental conflict between his values and the reality of the world around him.

Bernard Marx – Up until his visit to the Reservation and the introduction of John, Bernard Marx is the central figure of the novel. Bernard’s first appearance in the novel is highly ironic. Just as the Director finishes his explanation of how the World State has successfully eliminated lovesickness, and everything that goes along with frustrated desire, Huxley gives us our first glimpse into a character’s private thoughts, and that character is lovesick, jealous, and fiercely angry at his sexual rivals.

Thus, while Bernard is not exactly heroic (and he becomes even less so as the novel progresses), he is still interesting to the reader because he is human. He wants things that he can’t have. The major movement in Bernard’s character is his rise in popularity after the trip to the Reservation and his discovery of John, followed by his disastrous fall. Before and during his trip to the Reservation, Bernard is lonely, insecure, and isolated.

When he returns with John, he uses his newfound popularity to participate in all of the aspects of World State society that he had previously criticized, such as promiscuous sex. This about-face proves Bernard to be a critic whose deepest desire is to become what he criticizes. When John refuses to become a tool in Bernard’s attempt to remain popular, Bernard’s success collapses instantaneously. By continuing to criticize the World State while reveling in its “pleasant vices,” Bernard reveals himself to be a hypocrite.

John are sympathetic to him because they agree that the World State needs criticizing and because they recognize that Bernard is trapped in a body to which his conditioning has not suited him, but they have no respect for him. Lenina relationship to Bernard is different: she sees him merely as a strange, interesting fellow with whom she can take a break from her relationship with Henry Foster. She is happy to use him for her own social gain, but she doesn’t have the emotional investment in him that she does in John.

Helmholtz Watson – Helmholtz Watson is not as fully developed as some of the other characters, acting instead as a foil for Bernard and John. For Bernard, Helmholtz is everything Bernard wishes he could be: strong, intelligent, and attractive. As such a figure of strength, Helmholtz is very comfortable in his caste. Unlike Bernard, he is well liked and respected. Though he and Bernard share a dislike of the World State, Helmholtz condemns it for radically different reasons. Bernard dislikes the State because he is too weak to fit his the social position he has been assigned; Helmholtz because he is too strong.

Helmholtz can see and feel how the shallow culture in which he lives is stifling him. Helmholtz is also a foil for John, but in a different way. Helmholtz and John are very similar in spirit; both love poetry, and both are intelligent and critical of the World State. But there is an enormous cultural gap between them. Even when Helmholtz sees the genius in Shakespeare’s poetry, he cannot help but laugh at the mention of mothers, fathers, and marriage-concepts that are vulgar and ridiculous in the World State.

The conversations between Helmholtz illustrate that even the most reflective and intelligent World State member is defined by the culture in which he has been raised. Mustapha Mond – Mustapha Mond is the most powerful and intelligent proponent of the World State. Early in the novel, it is his voice that explains the history of the World State and the philosophy upon which it is based. Later in the novel it is his debate with John that lays out the fundamental difference in values between World State society and the kind of society represented in Shakespeare’s plays.

Mustapha Mond is a paradoxical figure. He reads Shakespeare and the Bible and he used to be an independent-minded scientist, but he also censors new ideas and controls a totalitarian state. For Mond, humankind’s ultimate goals are stability and happiness, as opposed to emotions, human relations, and individual expression. By combining a firm commitment to the values of the World State with a nuanced understanding of its history and function, Mustapha Mond presents a formidable opponent for John, Bernard and Helmholtz.

Chaucer’s Attitude Towards Wealth

In the masterpiece, The Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer described his characters by classification. Chaucer describes the characters wealth as an impression on the character, good or bad. Chaucers attitude helped to create feelings for the characters that were described throughout the work. Chaucer attitude towards the guildsmens showy wealth was opposing of their real character. For example, they strongly represented one impressive guild-fraternity (13) with showy clothes and admirable gear that they wore.

The guildsmen had a lot of money and wanted to show it off to everyone that they saw. Also, their knives had only the best metal put on them, and wrought with purest silver (13) which only brings attention to their showy dress. The guildsmen thought that the better you dressed the richer you are. Chaucer was impressed with their league of members and how each one helped the other out. Chaucer shows the Wife of Bath as being well traveled and well known throughout the town.

For example, She dressed as though she her hose were of the finest scarlet red, and her shoes were soft and new. (15) Being nicely dressed made up for her lack of attraction. She also had pride in her self about her skills as a seamstress and her self as a person. When she walked through town it was as though she was putting on a pageant for impressing men. In addition, shed been to Rome and also to Boulogne, St James of Compostella and Cologne. (15) She had freedom to travel and wasnt always worried about her responsibilities.

Having the independence to travel brought her new experiences in life. Chaucer thought that the Wife of Bath was a renowned seamstress that enjoyed a lot of friendships and adventure. Chaucers attitude toward the plowmans dedication for the good of the church was very praiseworthy. First off, the plowman paid his tithes in full when they were due and always was unselfish of his giving. (17) Even with the grunt job he had, the plowman worked for the betterment of the church. Also, being an honest worker, good and true, (17) he worked hard for every penny he earned.

The plowman never slacked when he worked and never asked for more than should be earned. The plowman did not waste his money on himself instead he gave it to the church for love of Christ. (17) What is the right way to show off your wealth? Each person showed their wealth in different fashions equal to their place in society. Chaucer showed through his attitude that some characters show of wealth was a better choice compared to others, but each character was proud of what they had accomplished.

Relationship between Huck and Jim in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

To turn Jim in, or not to turn Jim in, that is the question that Huck is faced with in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Whether it is nobler to protect a friend or to give in to the demands of society by ending a friendship. This novel portrays a period in American history where most Southern whites considered blacks as a piece of property. Huck, a white Southern boy, and Jim, a run-away slave, had a friendship that was inappropriate in society. During their adventurous journey, Huck would have to confront the consequences of protecting a run-away slave, if he decided to give Jim protection.

Throughout this novel the relationship between Huck and Jim differs in and out of society because of Huck’s feelings towards Jim. These two adventurers had planned to leave the Mississippi and go North, but missed their chance. The river took them farther and farther South. If Jim was caught, he would be in big trouble. If Huck didn’t turn Jim in, he would also be in big trouble. Huck found himself battling with his conscience, when he realized how close Jim was to his freedom, “…I begun to get it through my head that he was most free—and who was to blame for it? Why, me.

I couldn’t get that out of my conscience, no how nor no way. ” (pg. 85) Turning Jim in would be difficult, since he was a benevolent and amiable man. It was not righteous that he should be hurt, but if Huck helped Jim run away, he would have to turn his back on his own people. He would be saying slavery, and everyone who believed in it, was wrong. Huck came to the decision to tell someone about Jim that will force him back into slavery. Soon enough they encountered two white men on a skiff. During this incident Huck perceived that his feelings to protect Jim were stronger than his feelings to turn him in.

He lied when the men asked if Jim was white or black. Each time they encountered other people who might turn Jim in, Huck was prepared to reveal another untrue story. Huck knew that Jim counted on him to protect him and not betray him, since they had a special friendship that most whites and blacks would never have, “…you’s de bes’ fren’ Jim’s ever had; en you’s de only fren’ ole Jim’s got now. ” (pg. 87) When Huck and Jim are alone, Jim can’t help talking about what he is going to do once he becomes free and Huck couldn’t quite bare that kind of talk. It most froze me to hear such talk. He wouldn’t ever dared to talk such talk in his life before. ” (pg. 86)

But Huck continued to protect Jim in society, he was able to fool anyone in order to make sure Jim was safe. Outside of society Huck didn’t have to pretend anything. In society he had to fight back his guiltiness and hide Jim. The special friendship that Huck and Jim had together contrasted greatly from the conservative relationships between whites and blacks in the South.

Whites felt that slaves had no feelings whatsoever, but Huck knew that Jim had feelings just like everyone else. They gave concern for one another and in some ways Jim was like a father figure to Huck. As they spent more time with each other, their friendship grew stronger and stronger until Huck could sacrifice things for Jim. Mark Twain presented the terrible existence of slavery and gives the reader a big adventure in how a white can sacrifice so much for a slave to reach freedom.

The Importance of Point of View in The Black Cat

Point of view is a very important aspect of The Black Cat. The main character tells the story to the reader from his first person point of view. You have a good feel for the story because you have the first person narration. As you read into the story it comes apparent however that the narrator telling the story is not a reliable interpretation of the details around him. You have a good feel for his emotions and the events of the story, but the narrators opinions are so far out that you are forced to wonder just what of the story is the askew interpretation of a madman and what is the reality of the situation.

The first person narration of the story plays an integral part in the reader’s level of understanding of the main character’s madness, as well as the unfolding of plot of the story. The story revolves around a man and his cat that loves him very devoutly. At the start of the story he is very fond of his loving companion the cat, Pluto. The cat’s love for his master eventually becomes Pluto’s demise. The cat would follow its master’s every move. If the narrator moved the cat was at his feet, if he sat Pluto would clamor to his lap.

This after a while began to enrage the narrator. He soon found himself becoming very irritable towards Pluto and his other pets. One night he came home “much intoxicated” and he grabbed Pluto. Pluto bit his hand and this sent him into a rage. “The fury of a demon instantly possessed me. I knew myself no longer. My original soul seemed, at once, to take its flight from my body; and a more than fiendish malevolence, gin-nurtured, thrilled every fibre of my frame”(Poe 103). At this point he seems to have lost it. This description is not that of someone of sane mindset.

His soul taking flight from his body appears to be symbolic for the loss of his rational thought. The fury of a demon gives you the imagery of something not human. Poe takes every opportunity to use the narrator, and the point of view, to give you insight into the mind of the madman. He uses eloquent imagery and symbolism to further your understanding of the main character’s rational. After this passage the narrator then with a penknife cuts out one of the cat’s eyes. This certainly isn’t the act of someone who is of sane mind.

Edgar Allen Poe makes the narrator of his story be someone not of a sane mind for good reason. How could you possibly know the true madness of the man without knowing what his thoughts were? His actions alone could leave things to be debated. When you know his thoughts it becomes apparent that he truly has delusions of his surroundings and is out of touch with reality somewhat. When the police searched the house for any sign of the wife, and they entered the cellar the narrator wasn’t in the least nervous or felt any guilt for the slaying of his wife.

You can easily see the madness of the narrator when Poe describes his emotions first hand. “I quivered not a muscle. My heart beat calmly as one who slumbers in innocence” (107). Poe compares the narrator’s level of anxiety to someone slumbering in innocence! Surely someone who murdered his own wife with an ax would feel some guilt. That is unless, of course, if that person was mad. Knowing the thoughts of the main character furthers your true understanding of his madness.

The main character murdered his wife, but the ability of him not to feel any remorse for it makes him mad, and Poe uses point of view to display this lack of remorse, and madness, to the reader. The thing above all that stands out to show you that this man, the narrator, is sick was the fact that he was not only feeling no guilt at the horrible murder of his wife, but that he was feeling exuberated at the fact that he had out witted the police. “The glee at my heart was too strong to be restrained.

I burned to say if but one word, by way of triumph, and to render doubly sure their assurance of my guiltlessness”(107). Poe even goes as far to use the word “guiltlessness” in the description of the narrator’s thoughts. He truly felt no remorse for the ghastly deed he did. This truly shows that both the narrator was mad, and that Poe wanted him to be displayed that way to the reader. Poe uses a narrator who is of sick mind, to further make the story more interesting. It gives you insight into the mind of a murderous madman.

Think what this story would be like if, possibly it was told from the perspective of one of the policemen, or from a neighbor who told the story of the mad murder. You wouldn’t have the same kind of insight into the real mentality and thought process of the madman, as you do when the narrator is in fact the madman himself. You wouldn’t be able to see for yourself the madness in the man through his thoughts. You can see the transformation of the thoughts of the narrator change through the story, from someone who has some issues, to a complete madman who feels no remorse.

When he cuts out one of Pluto’s eyes he does it drunk. This shows that he has the madness in him, but it requires the alcohol for the madness to be truly seen. The morning after he does at this point in the story feel some remorse. “When reasoning had returned with the morning – when I had slept off the fumes of the night’s debauch – I experienced a sentiment half of horror, half of remorse, for the crime of which I had been guilty”(Poe 103). But even here you see that the narrator, looking back and telling the story is mad.

Poe has the narrator say, “had been guilty” which implies that he somehow is no longer guilty. Only a madman could consider himself to be no longer guilty of something like that. However at this point the character in the story feels remorse and is not completely mad. The point where he really goes off the deep end is after he kills Pluto. Poe describes his deed as being beyond the forgiveness of the “Most Merciful and Most Terrible God”(104). In this description of the narrator’s thoughts you see that he now feels that he is an absolutely horrible person.

The main character believes that even God can’t forgive him. The God who can forgive most anything can not forgive this act. This again is another description of the main character’s thoughts that brings you into his mind. The description of not being able to be forgiven, even by God, shows that he feels very deep remorse for killing the cat at this point of the story, or at the very least that he can see the wrong in his action. This deep remorse and feeling of no forgiveness for it, leads to the complete callus that he has at the end of the story.

The first person narration of this story gives you deep, important insight into the mind of the main character. His mad thoughts are displayed right before you. The point of view plays an integral role in feeding the story to the reader. You learn more and more about the main character through his thoughts and emotions that are displayed to you through Poe’s very descriptive style. This point of view makes the story very interesting and holds the reader’s attention to the story. You always want to know more about the mad character. The eloquent descriptions of his thoughts and feelings just keep you

Pygmalion Analysis

I chose the archetype The prostitute with a heart of gold. An archetype is defined as a universal idea that can take many forms, appearing spontaneously, at any time, at any place, and without any outside influence (Pygmalions Word Play, Carl Jung, p. 82). When present in the unconscious, an archetype shapes thoughts, feelings, moods, speech, and actions. The prostitute with a heart of gold originated in early Greek mythology as the story of Pygmalion. Next, a more modern version called My Fair Lady was written and performed in the 1950s. Then in the 1980s the movie Pretty

Woman came out, which has the same story line as the other two, although it is a lot more modernized and the theme of a prostitute with a heart of gold is much more evident than in of its predecessors. Although the oldest profession was just as large a factor in society in 1912 when George Bernard Shaws Pygmalion play was released as it is today, it was talked about much less freely and the idea of reforming street girl was not as feasible as it is today. My Fair Lady was one of the first versions of a poor street girl metamorphasizing into an elegant, proper lady.

Pretty Woman can closely trace ts roots back to My Fair Lady, because both women reform to a better life that they never dreamed was possible, the most striking difference being that Pretty Woman is a more modernized version and the evidence of prostitution is much more evident. In the story of Pygmalion, he wanted a wife, yet he saw too much corruption in women and always doubted their true motives. He was a very talented sculptor, and one day he began sculpting an ivory maiden statue.

No woman was physically comparable to this statue, not the most perfect naturally created woman. His art was so good that it caught him in his own web of deceit. Eventually Pygmalion fell in love with this counterfeit creation, full well knowing that he would drive himself mad obsessing over an inanimate object while at the same time knowing that nothing good could come from his love. He caressed her, gave her presents and decorated her body with fine clothing and jewels. He even laid her on his royal bed at night to sleep, calling her his wife.

Finally, the festival of Venus came and Pygmalion stood before the altar and timidly said, Give me, I pray to you for my wife – he dared not say my ivory wife, but said instead – One like my ivory virgin (Metamorphoses by Ovid, p. 10). The golden goddess of Venus knew that he meant he wanted his statue to be his wife, so she granted his wish. When Pygmalion returned home he placed his hands upon his statue, and to his surprise she felt warm and alive! Her lips became soft, and her skin molded to his touch. Nine months later a baby girl was born to them. In this Greek myth Pygmalion creates an ideal woman, made out of ivory.

Although he never expected her to become real he still treated her like his wife and took great care of her. Eventually his wish was granted and she was brought to life. The perfect woman, in his eyes, was now his wife. Pygmalion reated and formed this woman, showing that if you want something bad enough and love it as much as he loved his statue, you can make it happen. In My Fair Lady, written during the era of the 1950s in England, there was a high aristocratic society which demarcates itself from the rest of English society, consisting of the elegantly dressed bourgeois class sharply contrasting the poor peasant class.

Eliza Doolittle, a disheveled cockney flower vender who was lucky enough to catch the eye of a Professor Henry Higgins who gives her an offer she cant refuse. Higgins is a well known phonetic expert who studies … the cience of speech… speech patterns and their corresponding locations… (Pygamalion, p. 19). He brutally criticizes Elizas detestable boo-hooing and crude pronunciations of words. To the snobby, intolerant Higgins inarticulateness and ignorance concerning proper dialect and language produces a verbal class distinction that functions as an external indicator of what class in society you belong to.

He cannot understand why some English men and women do not take the time to learn how to speak proper English. Higgins makes the offer to Eliza to stay with him for six months and he would teach her how to speak articulately nough to pass in the most exclusive social gathering, the Embassy Ball, without anyone being aware of her Cockney origins, which is no small task. He says that she will become a proper aristocratic lady who speaks proper English. Once Eliza and Professor Higgins begin business, they practice the skills and pronunciations of the proper use of English.

Everyday they repeatedly practice Elizas grammar, dialects, and speech patterns with a recording device that enables Eliza to learn from her own mistakes. In just weeks there are dramatic differences in Elizas speech patterns that are apparent by listening to their recording lessons. Not only has her English improved, but her manners and etiquette have improved as well, due to the help of Professor Higgins. Months later, Eliza has been transformed into one of them, a member of the exclusive bourgeois class in England, able to pass at any social event she chooses, which is no easy accomplishment.

Thanks to Professor Higgins, Eliza can mingle with the snobs of the elite class, and no one has any idea where she is originally from. Higgins has not only traversed the phonetic stream, transforming one polar opposite dialect into another, but he has simultaneously developed an affection for his star pupil. Although he denies it to by telling himself that he can live just the same without her, just as he did before, he knows it is just a lie. The six months have passed quickly, and it is time for Eliza to leave.

Eliza is a fresh new woman, and is capable of playing off the aristocratic role, to live a sophisticated and proper life of her own. In fact she won the heart of a fine gentleman, Freddy, and is planning a marriage with him. Higgins is surprised, although he doesnt show it, and continues to act as if he is not bothered at all by this development. In his mind though, hes remembering how accustomed he has grown to her face, that he ill soon miss. The two say their good-byes, and Higgins returns home to find himself listening to the first recordings of Eliza.

Shortly thereafter Eliza returns back to Higgins home and surprises him with the truth of her true feelings for him. She finally admits to herself that she has grown to love both him and his lifestyle, and that Freddy is not her true love. The story of My Fair Lady is similar to Pygmalion because of the similarities between the archetypal characters Professor Higgins and Pygmalion. Professor Higgins has the intelligence and ability to take a poor and uneducated woman with no manners and culpt her into an elegant and sophisticated lady who is able to ascend into the upper echelons of high society from the streets of England seamlessly.

At the same time, Professor Higgins has unknowingly molded Eliza into his ideal woman. On the other hand, although Pygmalion did not actually teach and transform his statue into his ideal woman, his undying hope for an ideal intellectual mate to suit the physical beauty he created brought together divine intervention with divine creation and formed his ideal woman, in his eyes. Again, this is evidence that anything is possible, if you really devote your ind to it.

Although Professor Higgins was rude and snobby, he still held a strong belief in his ideal and it took a lot of devotion to take an unmolded human being and bring qualities out in her that no one ever thought were there. This example gives hope to every little girl who aspires to be something she is not. Although Professor Higgins did bring to the surface the elite qualities that were necessary to fit into society at this time, it was the untapped potential in Eliza which made it possible for her to fit in and have confidence to become something that she wasnt previously.

Higgins clearly lacks the roticism of Ovids Pygmalion, but his distaste for women in lifes gutters, his passion for creation, for an art that conceals its art in carrying a thing of beauty from raw materials, his dressing Eliza in gowns and jewels, and his desire to articulate life and achieve an ideal, all echo Ovids hero. Pygmalions passions finally impregnate his creation; Higgins finally sparks Eliza to give birth to the woman within her (Berst, p. 13).

Elizas growth involves increasing self-realization, an evolution from a lower to a higher state of being, and an important quality that sometimes is not innately there nd must be developed. Pygmalion spent great time and effort in creating his ideal woman. This gives hope to society, especially the lower classes, that one can change and succeed if they just try hard enough. The more advanced and modern version of My Fair Lady was spawned in a film entitled Pretty Woman.

This 1980s film is more blunt than its predecessors because the Higgins character (played by Richard Gere) chooses a prostitute (Julia Roberts) not as someone to try to pass into high society, but as a companion to himself. The movie takes place in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, in a ealthy area in present day, and is not so unlikely a scenario to happen considering the day and age that we live in today. Gere is a rich, cool executive who finds a soft spot for Roberts, who turns out to be a strikingly honest, real and charming woman.

Gere decides to hire her for business and social reasons (as a woman for display) with the agreement that she is treated like a princess for a week. She gets a new wardrobe, goes to the opera, and learns proper etiquette manners for fine dining. We see Higgins plight paralleled in Geres attempt to pass her off as a normal, Beverly Hills debutante. We see Eliza Doolittle represented in Roberts because she decides she wants more from Gere than money. Julia ends up like a fairy tale character, succeeding in passing as well as getting her man, like Eliza Doolittle and similar to Pygmalions statue.

Each woman is transformed into a new identity. My Fair Lady and Pretty Woman are the stories that more young women will be able to take inspiration from and shows once again that its very possible to find true women with hearts of gold. Pretty Woman really shows society that regardless of your living status, class or occupation, all women have the bility to grow, change and succeed buried deep inside. Not all prostitutes or street people are helpless, and meaningless.

They can have genuine hearts as well and sometimes they are truly more honest and real because of the experiences that they have lived through and the challenges they have faced thus far in their lives. In all three stories, both the man and woman can be seen as an archetypal hero. Pygmalion, Professor Higgins and Richard Gere all each take the risk of helping these women, and society could view them negatively for their involvement with the lower class. Eliza and Julia take a big risk in being tepped on and being ridiculed lower than they already are compared to the mens lifestyles.

They are archetypal heroes because they have strong character and are willing to change. These women have the confidence and ability to change and this shows society that again, anything is possible. The only downfall was the verbal abuse both women took from the elite class, as they were learning to adapt. High society doesnt appreciate or care for prostitutes, but for everyone to be fooled and convinced of this new woman shows their absurdity. A person has a heart of gold regardless of their status even if it is not evident to the naked eye.

Time and Setting in “A Rose for Emily”

In “A Rose for Emily,” Faulkner uses the element of time to enhance details of the setting and vice versa. By avoiding the chronological order of events of Miss Emily’s life, Faulkner first gives the reader a finished puzzle, and then allows the reader to examine this puzzle piece by piece, step by step. By doing so, he enhances the plot and presents two different perspectives of time held by the characters.

The first perspective (the world of the present) views time as a “mechanical progression” in which he past is a “diminishing road. The second perspective (the world of tradition and the past) views the past as “a huge meadow which no winter ever quite touches, divided from them now by the narrow bottleneck of the most recent decade of years. ” The first perspective is that of Homer and the modern generation. The second is that of the older members of the Board of Aldermen and of the confederate soldiers. Emily holds the second view as well, except that for her there is no bottleneck dividing her from the meadow of the past.

Faulkner begins the story with Miss Emily’s funeral, where the men see her as a “fallen monument” and the women are anxious to see the inside of her house. He gives us a picture of a woman who is frail because she has “fallen,” yet as important and symbolic as a “monument. ” The details of Miss Emily’s house closely relate to her and symbolize what she stands for. It is set on “what had once been the most select street. ” The narrator (which is the town in this case) describes the house as “stubborn and coquettish. ” Cotton gins and garages have long obliterated the neighborhood, but it is the only house left.

With a further look at Miss Emily’s life, we realize the importance of the setting in which the story takes place. The house in which she lives remains static and unchanged as the town progresses. Inside the walls of her abode, Miss Emily conquers time and progression. In chapter one, Faulkner takes us back to the time when Miss Emily refused to pay her taxes. She believes that just because Colonel Sartoris remitted her taxes in 1894, that she is exempt from paying them even years later. The town changes, it’s people change, yet Miss Emily has put a halt on time.

In her mind, the Colonel is still alive even though he is not. When the deputation waits upon her, we get a glimpse of her decaying house. “It smelled of dust and disuseIt was furnished in heavy, leather covered furniturethe leather was cracked. On a tarnished gilt easel before the fireplace stood a crayon portrait of Miss Emily’s father. ” The description of Miss Emily’s house is very haunting. There is no life or motion in this house. Everything appears to be decaying, just as Miss Emily herself. The picture of her father is just another symbol of immobility and no sense of time.

When he died, Miss Emily refused to acknowledge his death. She stopped time, at least in her mind. Miss Emily is “a small, fat woman in black, with a gold chain descending to her waist and vanishing into her belt. ” “Then they could hear the invisible watch ticking at the end of the gold chain. ” In this case, the watch is a symbol of time; yet in this house, time is invisible. Miss Emily has lost her understanding of time. When these men try to convince her that a lot of time has passed since her father’s death and that she must pay her taxes, she repeats, “I have no taxes in Jefferson,” and vanquishes them.

From this point, Faulkner makes a smooth transition to a period of thirty years ago, when Miss Emily “vanquished their fathers about the smell. ” The plot continues in the backward direction, demonstrating Miss Emily’s lack of understanding of time. A smell develops in Miss Emily’s house, which is another sign of decay and death. Miss Emily is oblivious to the smell, while it continues to bother the neighbors. These town’s people are intimidated by Miss Emily, and have to sprinkle lime juice on her lawn in secrecy. They are afraid to confront her, just as the next generation is afraid to confront her about the taxes.

Her strong presence is enough for her to surpass the law. Home….. r Barron, a symbol of progression and alteration, comes around to pave the town’s sidewalks and construction modernizes the town. He starts courting Miss Emily, and the reader thinks that perhaps he can put an end to Miss Emily’s hallucination with time. Homer Barron is a cheerful character and an outsider. “Whenever you heard a lot of laughing anywhere about the square, Homer would be in the center of the group. ” However, he is a bachelor who does not want to settle down, and the town’s people don’t approve of him marrying Miss Emily because of his class.

Then some of the ladies began to say that it was a disgrace to the town and a bad example to the young people. ” Once Homer Barron enters Miss Emily’s house and her life, he is bound to her forever without escape. “So we were not surprised when Homer Barron-the streets had been finished some time since-was gone. She murders him and preserves his body like one would preserve a dead rose. Once again, time stands in her house, while the rest of the setting, the town, changes. Years passed and the “newer generation became the backbone and the spirit of the town. ” The new generation makes Miss Emily feel even more isolated.

When the town got free postal delivery, Miss Emily alone refused to let them fasten numbers above her door and attach a mailbox to it. ” Miss Emily refuses to let any change affect her life and her house. “Thus she passed from generation to generation-dear, inescapable, impervious, tranquil, and perverse. ” “And so she died. Fell ill in the house filled with dust and shadows. ” Miss Emily dies in this decaying, old, creepy, house which is located in a bright and rising town. The final stage of decay in her house is revealed to the reader. Not only is she dead, but so is Homer Barron, of whom only a decaying corpse remains.

A thin acrid pall as of the tomb seemed to lie everywhere upon this room decked and furnished as for a bridal. ” The details of the setting throughout the story foreshadow this dramatic conclusion. The decay of the house, the dust and the cracks, Miss Emily’s refusal for change all lead up to her death and that of Homer Barron. As soon as an outside force, Homer Barron, enters this creepy house, he disappears in time. “He had become inextricable from the bed in which he lay; and upon him and upon the pillow beside him lay that even coating of the patient and biding dust. ”

The scrambling of time throughout the story is a great demonstration of the scrambling of time in Miss Emily’s mind and in her house. As the town changes and progresses, grows and modernizes, Miss Emily’s “stubborn and coquettish” house remains the same. Perhaps if the story of Miss Emily had been set in a different place, her life would have turned out differently. With all the pressures from her father and the town’s people, she became a very closed up and rather frightening person. There were too many expectations of women in those days and Faulkner demonstrates the consequences of such a life through Miss Emily.

By setting the story in an upscale, post Civil War town, he uses both the details of the setting and time to show what happens women such as Miss Emily, the “tragic monument. ” Miss Emily’s world was always in the past. When she is threatened with desertion and disgrace, she not only takes refuge in that world but also takes Homer with her in the only manner possible–death. As a final conclusion of Miss Emily’s life and the story, her position in regard to the specific problem of time is suggested in the scene where the old soldiers appear at her funeral.

The very old me-some in their brushed Confederate uniforms-on the porch and the lawn, talking of Miss Emily as is she had been a contemporary of their, believing that they had danced with her and courted her perhaps, confusing time with its mathematical progression. ” These men have lost their sense of time as well as Miss Emily. The hallucinate; they imagine things which never occurred; there is no sense of time in their minds. Faulkner presents a very horrifying picture in this story, and he does this by playing with the chronology, using symbols and foreshadowing and presenting a detailed setting.

The two Romantic themes

The two Romantic themes that I have chosen are the nostalgia for the past and the importance of an individuals emotions. Emily Bronte uses these two to strengthen the story of Wuthering Heights, especially the second. In my opinion these are two very important techniques to Ms. Bronte. Without these two themes the story would not be as well written, and it would not be as well respected as it is. The book would not capture the reader as it does. The whole story of Wuthering Heights is about the characters feelings.

Bronte could not have written such an excellent book, without the use of nostalgia for the past and the importance of an individuals emotions. It is obvious, for those who have read the book Wuthering Heights, why nostalgia for the past is important. A great deal of the book is set in the past. Without this there would not be a story, or the story would be lacking a great deal of detail. The story of Wuthering Heights starts off talking about Cathys childhood. This sets up the whole story for the reader. So without this we would not understand the story.

A great portion of the book is told from Nellys point of view, which is in the past. She tells about the story, which takes place in the past. Without Brontes love for the past we wouldnt have a story. There is a lot of focus on the emotions of the characters in this novel. Bronte uses characters emotions a lot in the story. I think that she bases the story on individuals emotions. Such emotions are love and hate. Love is used a great deal in the story with Catherine, Heathcliff, and Edgar. Catherine is in love with both Edgar and Heathcliff.

She gets confused as to which one she wants, and that makes Edgar and Heathcliff hate each other. Individual emotions play a large role in the story of Wuthering Heights. Without them there would be no story, because this was a love story and love is an emotion. These two themes have great influence on this story. The past is important, because the bulk of the story is takes place in the past. Individual emotions are even more important because they are the base of the story. Without these emotions there would be no story. The main emotion is love. These two themes make the story more interesting and give it meaning to the reader.

Everybody has emotions and no one wants to read a book without them. The two Romantic themes that I have chosen are the nostalgia for the past and the importance of an individuals emotions. Emily Bronte uses these two to strengthen the story of Wuthering Heights, especially the second. In my opinion these are two very important techniques to Ms. Bronte. Without these two themes the story would not be as well written, and it would not be as well respected as it is. The book would not capture the reader as it does. The whole story of Wuthering Heights is about the characters feelings.

Bronte could not have written such an excellent book, without the use of nostalgia for the past and the importance of an individuals emotions. It is obvious, for those who have read the book Wuthering Heights, why nostalgia for the past is important. A great deal of the book is set in the past. Without this there would not be a story, or the story would be lacking a great deal of detail. The story of Wuthering Heights starts off talking about Cathys childhood. This sets up the whole story for the reader. So without this we would not understand the story. A great portion of the book is told from Nellys point of view, which is in the past.

She tells about the story, which takes place in the past. Without Brontes love for the past we wouldnt have a story. There is a lot of focus on the emotions of the characters in this novel. Bronte uses characters emotions a lot in the story. I think that she bases the story on individuals emotions. Such emotions are love and hate. Love is used a great deal in the story with Catherine, Heathcliff, and Edgar. Catherine is in love with both Edgar and Heathcliff. She gets confused as to which one she wants, and that makes Edgar and Heathcliff hate each other.

Individual emotions play a large role in the story of Wuthering Heights. Without them there would be no story, because this was a love story and love is an emotion. These two themes have great influence on this story. The past is important, because the bulk of the story is takes place in the past. Individual emotions are even more important because they are the base of the story. Without these emotions there would be no story. The main emotion is love. These two themes make the story more interesting and give it meaning to the reader. Everybody has emotions and no one wants to read a book without them.

The Secret Sharer Critical Analysis

The Secret Sharer written by Joseph Conrad, centers around a character of a sea captain. Its title and opening paragraphs forecast a story of mystery, isolation, duality, darkness and silence. The novel proves true these predictions reveling thematic and image patterns directly proportional to them. The opening of the novel further reveals dialectics in the novel. The clash between the private and the public world or man versus society, in other words is the primary dialectic. The journey theme or the rite of passage theme also reveal themselves.

We see a young and inexperienced captain grow and explore himself and the world around him, and in the process becoming a functional member of a society. The novella may be only fifty pages long but its words speak volumes. The first indication of a course that a novel may take is its title. The three little words contained in the title give rise to many interpretations. An image generated by the title could be that of a gossip. Since a gossip is someone who tells peoples secrets, or in other words is a secret sharer if the word secret is taken for a noun, it is a possibility that this image might come to mind.

Another image is that of a person who shares in secrecy, therefore becoming a secret sharer, if the word secret is taken for an adjective. This could be an image of a miser, who generally does not share his wealth, but does so only in secrecy. A secret sharer could also be an imaginary friend. It would be a person who is secretive, and you share your thoughts with them. A Biblical interpretation of the secret sharer could be that of the snake in the garden of Eden. Since the snake shares the ultimate secret of knowledge with Adam and Eve, it could be considered a secret sharer.

The connotations of the two main words in the title show a contradiction. A secret has a mysterious somewhat evil connotation, while a sharer has a benevolent and good connotation. This gives rise to a possibility of a good and evil dialectic. The denotation of secret is something kept private, sharing is, however, a public act. This brings to light the dialectic of the public versus the private world. The opening paragraphs bring to life the world of the work. The place where the characters move and have their being is a sail ship in this novel.

The laws that define the character behavior are similar to the laws of a standard ship operation. There is a chain of command that must be respected. Also, there are rules and regulations to the liberties of the shipmates. This is evident in the greetings between the lower officers and the captain. Also, captains commands must be respected, as they were when he sent the night watchmen away. The laws of the ship do not permit violations. There is a great need for order for a ship to function.

Therefor one can assume since the setting is a ship, that the laws will not permit violations. Later on, we find out of Laggetts predicament. There is punishment for breaking a law. Likewise, captain will face punishment if found to be harboring a criminal. Therefore laws do not permit violations. As for deity, there is little influence of God in the novel, so one is not able to judge if the laws permit the belief in God. There are definite links between cause and effect. Captains are obeyed. The effect of his first order is mistrust from the crew in his abilities.

The world is both real and fictional. It is real in the fact there are no supernatural elements, but fictional in the fact that it came from the authors imagination. The world is highly structured due to the fact that it is a ship where there is a clear hierarchy and laws. Furthermore, the world is restricted to a place, but not time. Specific circumstances tie the world to the ship, but time plays no role in it. The archetypal elements found in the opening paragraphs and throughout the book reveal the hidden meanings and intentions of the author.

The “two small clumps of trees” which symbolize generative and degenerative processes, growth, proliferation, consistence and immortality, mark “the mouth of the river Meinam” which in turn symbolizes the rebirth, the flowing of time into eternity and the transitional phases of the life cycle, present the work in miniature. Also, the mouth of a river is where the salt water meets the fresh water symbolizing the place where the consciousness and the unconsciousness meet. The two trees are an exponent of duality a recurrent theme in the novel. They also reflect the secret partnership to be formed between Leggatt and the captain.

Furthermore, the green color of the trees symbolizes growth touching upon the theme of the rite of passage. The captain comes into the sea, an archetypal symbol of spiritual mystery and infinity, death and rebirth, timelessness and eternity, and the unconscious. This marks a beginning of a journey into the unknown for the captain. The sun shining overhead symbolized the law of nature, the creative energy, and the consciousness. The ship can therefore be seen as in a balance between unconsciousness and consciousness. The blue color of the sea symbolizes a positive side, truth and spiritual purity.

The land that the captain left behind symbolizes the mother. Further more adding to the growth of the captain. The pattern of mysteriousness seen in the opening paragraphs of the novel continues to appear throughout it. From the first sentence “a mysterious system of half submerged bamboo fence” the theme is established. Even from the title one can assume a theme of secrecy which directly implies mysteriousness. Furthermore the crew does not know their captain, and the captain does not know his crew. This fact adds to the mystery, especially after the mysterious and strange order not to have a night watch given by the captain.

In addition, the names of the ship and the captain are withheld establishing a sense of mystery. The meeting of Leggatt adds yet another mystery. “Mysterious shades of night” progress to “mysterious communication” established between the narrator and Leggatt who “mysteriously” emerged from the sea. Also, the captains action of hiding Leggatt brings more mystery to the crew. Likewise, Captain Archbold saw in the narrator, “a mysterious similitude to the young fellow he had distrusted and disliked from the first. ” The character of Leggatt is mysterious in itself. The reader is never fully understands the true nature of Leggatts actions.

Also, the past lives of all characters in the novel are never mentioned or considered. Another theme clustered throughout the novel is isolation. Same as mystery, isolation is projected in the title and opening paragraphs. Isolation brings about a need for sharing. The first sentence “abandoned forever by some nomad tribe of fisherman now gone to the other end of the ocean; for there was no sign of human habitation as far as the eye could reach,” foreshadows the appearance of isolation and seclusion. Further more, the narrator is a stranger to everyone on the ship.

As the captain remarked, “my strangeness, which had made me sleepless, had promoted that unconventional arrangement, as if I had expected in those solitary hours of the night to get on terms with the ship of which I knew nothing, manned by men of whom I knew very little more. ” This isolation is broken by the entrance of yet another stranger, Leggatt. Much like the captain he was also a stranger on his ship. Also, he spent many days locked up in isolation on his former ship, and two nights after that swimming in isolation. Even with this arrival. The captain is still isolated from the crew.

The feelings of isolation subside, however. “Its a great satisfaction to have got somebody to understand. ” Thus, Leggatt was created to break the feeling of isolation for both the captain and himself. Starting in the opening paragraphs, the patterns of silence and calmness are projected in the novel. “I saw the strait line of the flat shore joined to the stable sea” instills in a reader a scene of calmness and order. “She floated at the starting point of a long journey, very still in an immense stillness there was not a sound in her – and around us nothing moved” further adds to the effect.

Further on in the novel the captain “was met by the profound silence of the fore end of the ship. ” When the captain takes his stroll he notices “all was still down there. ” Everything in the novel from “solemnity of perfect solitude” in atmosphere of the opening paragraphs, to the “silent young man” character of the second mate, to the “stillness of air and water” and “silent play of summer lighting” in nature reflect the world of the novel which is the solemn and silent ship.

The captain and Leggatt must abide by these laws of the world, and in order to maintain this artificial silence imposed upon them, they spoke is soft whispers audible only to each other. The duality theme also exists throughout the novel. However, duality serves a purpose as a factor in the tension and dialectic build up. From the start everything appears in pairs. The title of the novel contains two significant words, who are of equal length, start with the same letter and are nouns. Further more, the novel is composed of two books.

Also, the opening paragraphs introduce us to the two trees. There are two officers on the deck waiting to welcome the captain to the ship. An officer remarks that he saw a second ship with the setting sun. The captain and Leggatt are two strangers on a ship. Moreover, there is an uncanny resemblance between the two. Also, there are two captains in the novel. The end is marked by a comment “shes round” by the two seamen. Duality throughout the novel serves to show the partnership between Leggatt and the captain. This partnership is formed between opposing characters.

As the captain remarked “the dual working of my mind distracted me almost to the point of insanity it was very much like being mad, only it was worse because one was aware of it. ” The tension formed by this dialectic must be resolved. In order to resolve this problem, the narrator needs to grow up and individuate, to learn how to deal with the opposing force that are tearing him apart. The captain realizes that the partnership has served its purpose and has to end “everything was against us in our secret partnership. ” Thus when it is resolved both of them can seek “a new destiny. ”

The theme of darkness tied in with the shadow image clusters plays important role in the novel. As the novel opens the narrator is in a shadow of the sails of the ship. Also, “the side of the ship made an opaque belt of shadow on the darkling glassy shimmer of the sea. ” When Captain meets Leggatt, he is “glimmering white in the darkness. ” “A shadowy, dark head, like mine,” is used to describe Leggatt. Darkness and shadows are always present when the two are together. The often talk during the night which is the epitome of darkness. Moreover, there is also an inner darkness which is associated with Leggatts soul.

He has killed a man, and that will forever leave a black spot on his soul. The captain knows of Leggatts actions yet remains strangely detached. Shadows once again come to life at the end of the novel. “The shadow of the land the very blackness of it” describes the islands shadow on the ship. This instance is significant since the captain is with the crew. If one looks at possible Jungian considerations it becomes evident that it ties in the dialectic of private versus public as well as the rite of passage and journey theme, as well as the hero initiation archetype.

In the opening paragraphs one finds many references to the journey home. “She floated at the starting point of a long journey. ” Also there are some references to rebirth. The river is a symbol of rebirth, and if look on this way conception is two weeks ago when the captain got the post, and birth is coming onto a ship. Also, he is in a shadow when he comes on board alone, able to reflect on himself. However, when he comes in contact with the crew he becomes a stranger, and puts up a facade in front of them. This sets up the dialectic between the public and the private world for the captain.

He is unable to combine the two. His youth is evident in his inexperienced decisions. The following has to occur to resolve the dialectic. The captain has to grow up and explore himself to be able to deal with the two worlds. This also marks the first stage of the hero initiation, the separation from the crew. Through a Jungian point of view, the captain puts on a mask for the world demonstrating a dominant persona. Through individuation he has to explore the shadow of his personality to balance the two. Next comes the growth phase. When Leggatt comes on board the captain makes an instant connection with his double.

Due to his rash behavior we learn of one can say that Leggatt has a strong shadow to his personality. Moreover, the captain cannot see Leggatts head at first adding to the fact that Leggatt is without reason. Through their conversations in the darkness of the night, the captain explores his soul. He transforms, grows, goes through individuation and moves along his journey, thus tying in the dialectic and the themes. “The dual working of my mind distracted me almost to the point of insanity” reveals that growth did no come effortlessly to the narrator.

The ending of the book brings an end to the dialectic, the journey, the rite of passage and hero initiation. At the end of the novel the captain is in the shadow with his crew signifying he is able to control both his private and the public world. Also, he makes good decisions and saves himself and the crew, showing significant growth as a leader. With these actions he rejoins the crew as a fully functional member thus ending the hero initiation. Also, the island marks the endpoint of their physical journey as well. Thus, everything comes to an end. The cosmic implications of the book are positive ones.

The theme of positive growth and success are evident in the end of the novel. All of the dialectics are resolved in a good way. Also, all the thematic predictions are tied together and fulfilled. I believe I find an underlying Objective Correlative throughout the novel. All of us have been on the outside looking in sometimes. This is the situation of the captain at the start of his journey. At the end the captain succeeds in his quest, and the reader feels glad that the captain is able to fit in. The reader can relate to the captains plight, and therefore shares in the joy together with him.

The Secret Sharer written by Joseph Conrad, is a short book that is very near perfection. In the opening paragraphs and the title there is not a word wasted. Each of those words serves to forecast the work in miniature. From the first couple of pages the reader is completely aware of the direction the story is going in. An attentive reader will also notice the themes of duality, darkness, mystery, isolation and silence. He will also notice the dialectics as well as many journey themes both physical and mental. If one play careful attention the book will open a world as one never saw before.

Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels: Satire In Lillipute

In Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, Swift uses satire to tell a tale of Lemuel Gulliver going on voyages in strange lands and meeting a variety of different characters. Jonathan Swift’s was one of the greatest satirists of his and our time. In the first book of Gulliver’s Travels millions of young schoolchildren have grown to love this famous story and never recognize the satire hidden in the story. In his first Book he uses satire to demonstrate English politics by using the citizens of Lilliput. Gulliver’s first adventure takes place in Lilliput.

Gulliver gets shipwrecked and finds himself tied down by a considerable number of little people called Lilliputians. The Lilliputians stood only six inches high. During this time Swift recognized that England was also small in stature but was dominant force and had a great influence in Europe. England, despite its small size, had the potential to defeat any nation that might try to conquer them. Swift relates this situation with the Lilliputians. They only stood six inches tall but had the power to take on the, “Man-Mountain”, Gulliver.

The ability of the Lilliputians to capture someone ten times their size can be seen as reinforcing their strength as a small nation, such as England. Thus becoming and remaining a great and powerful country. Swift’s personal life surfaced when Queen Anne represented the Lilliputian Empress. She was responsible for blocking Swift’s advancement in the Church of England because she was offended by his writing. Swift in Gulliver Travels had Gulliver urinate on the Empress’ room when it caught on fire. Gulliver’s urination on the palace offended the Lilliputians and thought that they where insignificant.

Even though Gulliver’s urination intends to prevent a disaster, it also gives Gulliver the ability to control the Lilliputians in any way he likes. Swift uses this sequence of problems to show a personal issue in his life. Swift’s urination scene parody’s his own life giving him a satire within a satire. By pointing this out in the story, he mocks his critics. Swift further illustrates satire by comparing English government to Lilliput. In the early eighteenth century, the English government was under the Whig’s political party.

Swift represented himself as Gulliver as being a Tory, and the Lilliputians as being power-hungry Whigs. Their heels of their shoes identified these parties. In Lilliput the High-Heels represented the Tories and the Low-Heels represented the Whigs. George I favored the Whigs, so the Lilliputian emperor favored the Low-Heals. But the Prince of Whales favored both parties, and thus the Lilliputian heir to the throne wore one High-Heel and one Low. When Gulliver started learning about the Lilliputians government he noticed that their government officials were chosen by rope dancing.

To Gulliver and the reader these practices seem ridiculous and idiotic, but to the Lilliputians they see these practices as normal. Swift uses this scene to satire the British government at this time. The British government also elected their ministers in a same foolish manner. Throughout the first book in Gulliver’s Travels, Swift uses satire to demonstrate British politics by using the Lilliputians as a tool to mock and at the same time educate England and its politics. Through Gulliver’s eyes, Swift demonstrates the way British people lived in the eighteenth century.

From each experience we grasp a stronger understanding of the faults of their government and people who ran them. But most importantly, Swift teaches us through satire to take a good look at ourselves, not only our government and to recognize its faults and try to improve on them. Satire In Lillipute In Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, Swift uses satire to tell a tale of Lemuel Gulliver going on voyages in strange lands and meeting a variety of different characters. Jonathan Swift’s was one of the greatest satirists of his and our time.

In the first book of Gulliver’s Travels millions of young schoolchildren have grown to love this famous story and never recognize the satire hidden in the story. In his first Book he uses satire to demonstrate English politics by using the citizens of Lilliput. Gulliver’s first adventure takes place in Lilliput. Gulliver gets shipwrecked and finds himself tied down by a considerable number of little people called Lilliputians. The Lilliputians stood only six inches high. During this time Swift recognized that England was also small in stature but was dominant force and had a great influence in Europe.

England, despite its small size, had the potential to defeat any nation that might try to conquer them. Swift relates this situation with the Lilliputians. They only stood six inches tall but had the power to take on the, “Man-Mountain”, Gulliver. The ability of the Lilliputians to capture someone ten times their size can be seen as reinforcing their strength as a small nation, such as England. Thus becoming and remaining a great and powerful country. Swift’s personal life surfaced when Queen Anne represented the Lilliputian Empress.

She was responsible for blocking Swift’s advancement in the Church of England because she was offended by his writing. Swift in Gulliver Travels had Gulliver urinate on the Empress’ room when it caught on fire. Gulliver’s urination on the palace offended the Lilliputians and thought that they where insignificant. Even though Gulliver’s urination intends to prevent a disaster, it also gives Gulliver the ability to control the Lilliputians in any way he likes. Swift uses this sequence of problems to show a personal issue in his life.

Swift’s urination scene parody’s his own life giving him a satire within a satire. By pointing this out in the story, he mocks his critics. Swift further illustrates satire by comparing English government to Lilliput. In the early eighteenth century, the English government was under the Whig’s political party. Swift represented himself as Gulliver as being a Tory, and the Lilliputians as being power-hungry Whigs. Their heels of their shoes identified these parties. In Lilliput the High-Heels represented the Tories and the Low-Heels represented the Whigs.

George I favored the Whigs, so the Lilliputian emperor favored the Low-Heals. But the Prince of Whales favored both parties, and thus the Lilliputian heir to the throne wore one High-Heel and one Low. When Gulliver started learning about the Lilliputians government he noticed that their government officials were chosen by rope dancing. To Gulliver and the reader these practices seem ridiculous and idiotic, but to the Lilliputians they see these practices as normal. Swift uses this scene to satire the British government at this time. The British government also elected their ministers in a same foolish manner.

Throughout the first book in Gulliver’s Travels, Swift uses satire to demonstrate British politics by using the Lilliputians as a tool to mock and at the same time educate England and its politics. Through Gulliver’s eyes, Swift demonstrates the way British people lived in the eighteenth century. From each experience we grasp a stronger understanding of the faults of their government and people who ran them. But most importantly, Swift teaches us through satire to take a good look at ourselves, not only our government and to recognize its faults and try to improve on them.

Glass Menagerie Symbolism

In his drama, The Glass Menagerie, Tennessee Williams uses symbolism in order to develop multi-faceted characters and to display the recurring themes of the play. These various symbols appear throughout the entire piece, and they are usually disguised as objects or imagery. They allow the reader to know the characters’ personalities, and their true inside characteristics. These symbols also add to the major themes, which develop as the play gains momentum. In the drama, symbols play the most important role.

One of the most recurring symbols is the glass menagerie itself. It consists of glass animals frozen in form and it is housed at the Wingfield’s apartment. The glass menagerie has a high amount of meaning for all of the characters in this play. ‘Ultimately, the glass menagerie is symbolic of all their shattered dreams, failing to fulfill their transcendent aspirations, the Wingfields find themselves confined to a wasteland reality, their dreams become a ‘heap of broken images”; (Thompson 15). Just as the menagerie itself is frozen in time, the Wingfields are also.

They are restricted to the one way of living that they have practiced as time had passed, so they do not know how to break free of that confinement. All the characters as a whole have tried to escape the harsh reality, but in every case they manage to fail, and in turn shatter their dreams like glass. This continuing struggle is a large part of the major theme of The Glass Menagerie. Just as the glass menagerie represents all of the characters as a whole, it also represents each character individually. ‘Though the glass menagerie is most directly relevant to Laura, all four characters have sublimated their animal drives into esthetics.

Laura has her glass animals, Tom his movies and poems, Amanda her jonquil-filled memories distorted into hopes, and Jim his baritone cliches of progress’; (Cohn 101). Though Amanda blames her children alone for relying on false illusions, she too carries this fault. Although it is obvious that the glass menagerie represents Laura because of her frailty, Tom, Amanda, and even Jim are exemplified too. They all concentrate their powers in illusions, only in different ways. More specifically, the glass menagerie unravels the character of Laura and lets the reader into her true personality.

The glass menagerie ’embodies the fragility of Laura’s world, her search for beauty; it registers sensitively changes in lighting and stands in vivid contrast to the harshness of the outer world which can (and does) shatter so easily’; (Stein 110-111). Glass itself, being so fragile, is the perfect item that can symbolize Laura. Just as it can shatter so easily when exposed, Laura can too. The glass being translucent also symbolizes Laura’s struggle to become her own person and to let her inside feelings know to the world. Though it is learned that Laura has a physical handicap, and emotional handicap lies within her also.

It enables her to lead a normal life, and restricts her to illusions. The glass menagerie symbolizes this because it shows that Laura as an unreal image, not made of the human characteristics others possess. Drained of the courage and self-esteem needed to face the world, all that is left is a defenseless girl unable to face the world. The glass menagerie’s ‘frozen animal forms image her own immobilized animal or sexual nature, her arrested emotional development, and her inability to cope with the demands of a flesh-and-blood world’; (Thompson 15). The menagerie also symbolizes the change, which takes place when Laura is exposed to Jim.

Jim reveals a side of Laura that the reader is not familiar with at this time. He recharges her self-confidence and boasts her courage and trust, but this does not last. As described by Williams, ‘A fragile, unearthly prettiness has cone out in Laura,’; when with Jim, ‘she is like a piece of translucent glass touched by light, given a momentary, not actual, not lasting’; (Williams 69). It is obvious that Laura has changed, but this change does not become permanent. Just as the menagerie represents Laura, it also holds significance for Laura’s mother, Amanda.

Throughout the drama, Amanda tells her children about the life she lived when she was young and living at Blue Mountain. She recalls her dozens of gentlemen callers and her popularity at the time. Seeing how time has changed for Amanda from her youth to the time presented in the play, it is plain to understand why she would try to relive her past. Amanda wishes that her life would be as simple and enjoyable as it was when she was young. She also wants to create such a happy childhood for her two children. Amanda tries to force upon her views to Laura and Tom, and in turn wants to live in the past.

She yearns for Laura to have gentlemen callers as she had, and tries to make this dream a reality. ‘It is Amanda who names Laura’s collection a ‘glass menagerie,’ in which animal drives are frozen into esthetic objects, and it is she who longs for gentlemen callers in an ungentle world’; (Cohn 101). Amanda tries to freeze her life to preserve the girl she once was. The glass menagerie, being frozen in time, symbolizes Amanda’s wishes for Laura to live the life Amanda once had. One specific member of the glass menagerie, the unicorn, plays an important part in symbolizing the situation between Laura and Jim (the gentleman caller).

As Jim and Laura become more closely acquainted, Jim changes Laura and makes her a more solid being. Symbolically, the horn of the glass unicorn (Laura’s favorite piece) breaks off when Jim is exposed to it. Metaphorically, this occurs right after Jim reveals his marital situation to Laura. When Laura finds out that Jim is engaged to be married, a part of her breaks too. When Jim breaks the glass unicorn’s horn, he is unintentionally bringing Laura into the real world. This also symbolizes the breaking of Laura’s hope, which adds to the major theme of the drama (Adler 2069-2070).

In high school, Laura was the unicorn in a society full of horses. Because she was shy and had a leg brace, she was considered an outcast, and overall, different. Symbolically, the unicorn’s horn breaks off just as Laura breaks out of her closed shell (Mendez 1). Originally, Laura is delicate and unique, as is the unicorn. She is different because of her disability, but internally, she is a girl who missed a couple steps while growing up. When the unicorn loses its horn and becomes like the rest of the animals in the glass menagerie, it loses its uniqueness.

Likewise, when Laura gains confidence through Jim, she realizes that she is not too different from everyone else. This is a characteristic that is able to be overcome, but just needs some assistance (Ross 1). Jim brings out Laura’s inside, but then destroys it when the truth is revealed. ‘When this incompatible couple waltzes into the glass menagerie, they begin to destroy it. At first, Laura does not mind. She is too thrilled with the prospect of being normal to care whether her glass unicorn has lost its distinctive horn.

But the accident warns the reader of what Jim awkwardly confesses after the kiss – that he has made a mistake and will see her no more. Laura now knows that she belongs to a different world from Jim. He wandered into a zoo of exotic animals, but that was on his day off and he must return to the real world’; (Scanlan 102). This quote depicts the situation perfectly. When Jim switches worlds as he steps into the Wingfield’s apartment, he represents a member of the glass animals. Laura is shattered though when she realizes he cannot be an animal in her menagerie, and that they are not members of the same world.

It is obvious that the unicorn revealed many traits of both Laura’s and Jim’s characters. Imagery is another important form of symbolism used in William’s play. Lighting techniques and other such icons create a balanced set of qualities in the characters, and add meaning to the entire story itself. Lighting gives the scenes added significance by providing more details towards the theme. All of the characters struggle to make their dreams come true, but they all end up failing in each situation. Light symbolizes hope in The Glass Menagerie. During one of the many quarrels between Amanda and Tom, some of Laura’s glass animals break.

Laura is present during this scene, and the reader is told that one single beam of light is concentrated on Laura’s face. The disappointment and sorrow is evident, and the light depicts this exactly. In this case, light symbolizes Laura’s grief without any words needed (Adler 2069). Another situation between Amanda and Tom also includes symbolism through lighting. Amanda tells Tom to make a wish on the ‘silver slipper of the moon’; (Williams 58). The small amount of light shown by the moon represents the small amount of hope that the wish will come true.

The blackout (which starts off the seventh scene) is used to make the transition back and forth between hope and pain. The lights flicker, and then go out, leaving the scene in complete darkness. The black out is also what reveals the truth about Laura’s gentleman caller. Directly following the blackout, candles are lit by Jim. The significance in this is that Jim sets the mood of the scene, putting him in complete control over the events to come. The flickering of the candle light in this scene shows that the situation is wavering between hope and disappointment (light symbolizing hope).

This is proven even further when all light is erased after Laura learns about Jim’s fiance, and the scene is left in darkness (Stein 111). Just as Jim set the scene with hope represented by the flames, Laura took that hope away after Tom tells her to blow out her candles. Tom realizes that there is no hope left for them, and that there is no point in trying to overcome the inevitable failure. Lightning, which is also considered flickering light, is also used in this final passage of Williams’ drama. Tom states in his final speech, ‘the world is lit by lightning’; (Williams 115). This comment reflects on all of the Wingfields.

The family tries to team up against the harshness of the world and fails (Scanlan 103). As quickly as hope is presented, it is erased. The image of a rainbow is also used in this play to symbolize hope. Adding to the continuing theme, every situation in which this symbol is used ends up disastrous. Tom uses a magic scarf in order to change a goldfish into a bird. This shows his need to escape his imprisonment and fly away. The rainbow gives him hope, but it is proven that Tom actually never does leave his pain. He does escape, but the memory and Laura and his mother still haunt him. The chandeliers at the Dance Hall create rainbow prisms.

This foreshadows the hope instilled in Laura during her dance with Jim. Though she feels at peace with him during their encounter, this also ends up in disappointment (Harris 1). Though the glass menagerie and imagery are symbols used throughout the entire drama, there are also other symbols that play brief, but important roles. They may appear only in the author’s directions, but they help the reader examine the characters completely. The nickname ‘Blue Roses’; is given to Laura by Jim when they are in high school together. Though this may seem like a random nickname, it actually has a large significance to the character of Laura.

Jim tells Laura that she is unlike all others. They are all weeds but she is Blue Roses. Though Laura says that blue is wrong for roses, because she is different, they are right for her. Just as blue is a unique color for a rose; Laura is unique (Williams 105-106). In general, ‘Blue Roses’; is symbolic of Laura’s existence as a whole. Roses are frail and beautiful but cannot be blue. This is also symbolic of the imaginary presence of Laura. (Adler 2069-2070). Though she is a visible human being, her appearance is too frail to be one of a real woman. The fire escape is used by all of the characters symbolically.

It is the only entrance to the Wingfield’s apartment, so it holds much significance. As Williams describes, ‘The apartment faces an alley and is entered by a fire escape, a structure whose name is a touch of accidental poetic truth, for all of these huge buildings are always burning with the slow and implacable fires of human desperation’; (Williams 21). The continuous drama, which takes place in the Wingfield’s apartment, provides two uses of the fire escape; an escape and a refuge. Amanda uses it as an escape; it is the only way a gentlemen caller can come and rescue Laura. For Laura, it is an escape from the world.

She is proven weak when she has to leave the apartment and stumbles. Tom uses it as an escape to the outside and from his mother (Mendez 1). For Jim, it is a way of entering the Wingfields’ lives (Harris 1). ‘As Laura is symbolized by her glass unicorn, Tom is symbolized by his movies,’; Cohn states. ‘He explains movies to his mother as sublimated adventure, but by the time Jim comes to the house, Tom is tired of vicarious adventure’; (Cohn 100-101). Tom uses movies as a get-a-way from his unhappy life in the apartment. He goes to the movies instead of moving, but as he explains, he wants to move.

Tom escapes to the movies, but then finds that he wants adventure of his own, in real life. In conclusion, these symbols which appear throughout the entire drama show the true personalities of Tennessee Williams’ characters. Each character has separate traits, which are revealed by these images. The theme of the drama is the destruction and failure of hopes and dreams. Each of these symbols helps display this thesis individually, but they all add together to prove it as a whole. All of the developing characters in The Glass Menagerie together produce a central theme, which is reliant on symbols.

In Tess of the d’Urbervilles, by Hardy and The Cat

In Tess of the d’Urbervilles, by Hardy and The Catcher in the Rye, by Salinger, the protagonists of both novels Tess and Holden, are portrayed as being the typical teenager of their time, who both choose to make rash decisions based upon their naivety. Tess and Holden are both inexperienced in the world and they are forced to choose their own path to follow. Tess and Holden are trapped by society’s class system, their struggles with money, and their own inexperience and naivety, which lead them to make disastrous choices that inevitably doom them to a tragic end.

Tess and Holden are both caught in society’s class system, and because they are confused about what is expected of them from society they make choices based upon their own beliefs. Tess felt inferior to Angel because his family was financially stable, while her family was not. Tess chooses to tell Angel about Alec seducing her, and when Angel takes the news poorly she tells him “I will obey you like your wretched slave, even if it is to lie down and die” (Hardy 226).

Because Tess feels socially inferior, she is willing to act as a slave. Angel, however, leaves because he sees Tess s something too low for him. This abandonment is the key to Tess’ downfall. Holden is at the opposite end of the ladder, he has wealth, and because of his money he feels as though he is better than other people, while Tess feels as if she is lower than other people. While Holden is in the cab he makes the choice by of asking Horwitz “you ever pass by the lagoon in Central Park? Down by the Central Park South? (Salinger 81). Holden is asking the cab driver, Horwitz a question that he knows will not have an answer to. When Horwitz does not respond, Holden has a feeling of superiority over him ecause Holden perceives Horwitz as a mere cabbie who doesn’t compare to himself and his social class. Tess and Holden are opposite ends, and in this instance they approach similar situations completely differently because of where they stand in society. Society and the class divisions of their time influence them both.

Tess makes the choice of telling Angel of her previous sexual relation and because of it Angel tragically leaves her, and Holden makes the choice of mocking those who he feels to be socially inferior, eventually ends up tragically alone and institutionalized. Tess was a beautiful English peasant whose sole purpose in life was to marry a wealthy man so that her family would become financially stable, while Holden’s family already had wealth, but he felt as though money made people phony. Tess reluctantly made the tragic choice of marrying Alec for his money and because he told her that Angel was never going to return.

After Angel returns from Brazil, he immediately goes to see Tess and notices Her neck rose out of a frill of down, and her well-remembered cable of dark-brown hair was partially coiled up in a mass at the back f her head and partly hanging on her shoulder-the evident result of haste. (Hardy 371) Tess is a different person from when Angel last saw her, and now Tess has become a gold digger who only married Alec for his money. Tess is no longer happy and the arrival of Angel only reminds Tess of the happiness she is missing.

Tess and Holden are similar to one another in that they both realize that money doesn’t bring them happiness, and they both can be happy without having wealth. Even though Holden doesn’t believe in God, he willingly gave two nuns ten dollars for their collection, but then he realized After they left, I started getting sorry that I’d only given them ten bucks for their collection. But the thing was, I’d made that date to go to a matinee with old Sally Hayes, and I needed to keep some dough for the tickets and stuff. I was sorry anyway, though.

Goddamn money. It always ends up making you blue as hell (Salinger 113). Holden says “Goddamn money. It always ends up making you blue as hell” shows that he really doesn’t like to have money because it makes him more upset than joyful. Tess and Holden have similar beliefs in that money isn’t everything. Tess makes the disastrous choice of marrying Alec, which eventually leads to the tragic end of both their lives, and Holden makes the choice of using his money as a tool to implement his power, which tragically made him alienated from most people.

Tess and Holden are both portrayed as being nave characters that make poor choices and as a result suffer the tragic consequences that inevitably face them in the end. Tess makes the choice of going to Flintcomb Ash to work, but she arrived home early; her mother assumed that Tess was home early because she was going to get married. However, the reason why Tess as home early was because she was scared and no longer wanted to be around Alec. Tess asks her mother “why didn’t you tell me there was danger in men- folk? Why didn’t you warn me? (Hardy 80). Tess was unaware of men’s intentions and felt it was somewhat her mother’s fault for not warning her. Tess was portrayed as being nave by taking trust into other people without thinking about it too much. Holden was quite similar to Tess, he was around the same age as her, and they are both portrayed as being nave. Holden makes the choice of seeing Mr. Spencer and while he was there he thought, “I’m lucky though. I mean I could shoot the old bull to old Spencer and think about those ducks at the same time. It’s funny.

You don’t have to think to hard when you talk to a teacher” (Salinger 13). Holden demonstrates how nave he really was by thinking he can think about something as meaningless as the ducks, while at the same time have an intelligent conversation. The choices Tess and Holden make are a result of being young and vulnerable in the world, Tess makes the choice of trusting people which led to her tragic execution, and Holden makes the tragic choice of believing he knew enough of what was out there before he was eady, which in the ending leaves him in an asylum.

Tess and Holden are trapped by society’s class system, their struggles with money, and their own inexperience and naivety, which lead them to make disastrous choices that inevitably doom them to a tragic end. From their inability to function wisely in society’s divisions, to their poor choices regarding the money and personal happiness, concluded with their complete lack of worldly knowledge, Tess and Holden are too vulnerable to be successful in their worlds. The tragic choices each make had inevitably doomed them, and they were to face the consequences.

Works Cited: Hardy, Thomas. Tess of the d’Urbervilles. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1981 Salinger, J. D. The Catcher in the Rye. New York: Bantam Books, 1984 In Tess of the d’Urbervilles, by Hardy and The Catcher in the Rye, by Salinger, the protagonists of both novels Tess and Holden, are portrayed as being the typical teenager of their time, who both choose to make rash decisions based upon their naivety. Tess and Holden are both inexperienced in the world and they are forced to choose their own path to follow.

Tess and Holden are trapped by society’s class system, their struggles with oney, and their own inexperience and naivety, which lead them to make disastrous choices that inevitably doom them to a tragic end. Tess and Holden are both caught in society’s class system, and because they are confused about what is expected of them from society they make choices based upon their own beliefs. Tess felt inferior to Angel because his family was financially stable, while her family was not.

Tess chooses to tell Angel about Alec seducing her, and when Angel takes the news poorly she tells him “I will obey you like your wretched slave, even if it is to lie down and die” (Hardy 226). Because Tess feels socially inferior, she is willing to act as a slave. Angel, however, leaves because he sees Tess as something too low for him. This abandonment is the key to Tess’ downfall. Holden is at the opposite end of the ladder, he has wealth, and because of his money he feels as though he is better than other people, while Tess feels as if she is lower than other people.

While Holden is in the cab he makes the choice by of asking Horwitz “you ever pass by the lagoon in Central Park? Down by the Central Park South? ” (Salinger 81). Holden is asking the cab driver, Horwitz a question that he knows will not ave an answer to. When Horwitz does not respond, Holden has a feeling of superiority over him because Holden perceives Horwitz as a mere cabbie who doesn’t compare to himself and his social class. Tess and Holden are opposite ends, and in this instance they approach similar situations completely differently because of where they stand in society.

Society and the class divisions of their time influence them both. Tess makes the choice of telling Angel of her previous sexual relation and because of it Angel tragically leaves her, and Holden makes the choice of mocking those who he feels to be socially nferior, eventually ends up tragically alone and institutionalized. Tess was a beautiful English peasant whose sole purpose in life was to marry a wealthy man so that her family would become financially stable, while Holden’s family already had wealth, but he felt as though money made people phony.

Tess reluctantly made the tragic choice of marrying Alec for his money and because he told her that Angel was never going to return. After Angel returns from Brazil, he immediately goes to see Tess and notices Her neck rose out of a frill of down, and her well-remembered cable f dark-brown hair was partially coiled up in a mass at the back of her head and partly hanging on her shoulder-the evident result of haste. (Hardy 371) Tess is a different person from when Angel last saw her, and now Tess has become a gold digger who only married Alec for his money.

Tess is no longer happy and the arrival of Angel only reminds Tess of the happiness she is missing. Tess and Holden are similar to one another in that they both realize that money doesn’t bring them happiness, and they both can be happy without having wealth. Even though Holden doesn’t believe in God, he willingly gave two nuns ten ollars for their collection, but then he realized After they left, I started getting sorry that I’d only given them ten bucks for their collection. But the thing was, I’d made that date to go to a matinee with old Sally Hayes, and I needed to keep some dough for the tickets and stuff.

I was sorry anyway, though. Goddamn money. It always ends up making you blue as hell (Salinger 113). Holden says “Goddamn money. It always ends up making you blue as hell” shows that he really doesn’t like to have money because it makes him more upset than joyful. Tess and Holden have similar beliefs in that money isn’t everything. Tess makes the disastrous choice of marrying Alec, which eventually leads to the tragic end of both their lives, and Holden makes the choice of using his money as a tool to implement his power, which tragically made him alienated from most people.

Tess and Holden are both portrayed as being nave characters that make poor choices and as a result suffer the tragic consequences that inevitably face them in the end. Tess makes the choice of going to Flintcomb Ash to work, but she arrived home early; her mother assumed that Tess was home early because she was going to get married. However, the reason why Tess as home early was because she was scared and no longer wanted to be around Alec. Tess asks her mother “why didn’t you tell me there was danger in men- folk? Why didn’t you warn me? (Hardy 80).

Tess was unaware of men’s intentions and felt it was somewhat her mother’s fault for not warning her. Tess was portrayed as being nave by taking trust into other people without thinking about it too much. Holden was quite similar to Tess, he was around the same age as her, and they are both portrayed as being nave. Holden makes the choice of seeing Mr. Spencer and while he was there he thought, “I’m lucky though. I mean I could shoot the old bull to old Spencer and think about those ducks at the same time. It’s funny.

You don’t have to think to hard when you talk to a teacher” (Salinger 13). Holden demonstrates how nave he really was by thinking he can think about something as meaningless as the ducks, while at the same time have an intelligent conversation. The choices Tess and Holden make are a result of being young and vulnerable in the world, Tess makes the choice of trusting people which led to her tragic execution, and Holden makes the tragic choice of believing he knew enough of what was out there before he was eady, which in the ending leaves him in an asylum.

Tess and Holden are trapped by society’s class system, their struggles with money, and their own inexperience and naivety, which lead them to make disastrous choices that inevitably doom them to a tragic end. From their inability to function wisely in society’s divisions, to their poor choices regarding the money and personal happiness, concluded with their complete lack of worldly knowledge, Tess and Holden are too vulnerable to be successful in their worlds. The tragic choices each make had inevitably doomed them, and they were to face the consequences.

Berry Gordy: Father of the Motown Sound

Berry Gordy Jr. was born in Detroit, Michigan on November 28, 1929. He was the seventh born out of eight siblings. His parents migrated to Detroit from Georgia during 1922. They were part of a mass exodus of African Americans who left the South in the 20’s and traveled to northern cities in search of better economic futures. During that time jobs were plentiful in the factories, mainly the big four automotive plants that like, Chrysler, Ford, Chevrolet, and General Motors. Berry and Bertha Gordy would instill in Berry Jr. and his brothers and sisters a strong work ethic and a belief that anything could be achieved through persistence.

His family also had deep roots in business. Berry Sr. owned a plastering and carpentry service, a general store, and a printing business. Gordy’s family believed in the philosophy of Booker T. Washington, which stressed economic independence for blacks. Gordy Sr. named his store after him. Berry Gordy Jr. was heavily influenced by the ambition of his father. Like his father, he was also very determined and he tried many new ventures. Berry was an average student who earned decent grades. Despite this he decided to drop out of Northeastern High School to peruse a featherweight boxing career.

He once even fought on the same card as the great Joe Louis. He had a brief but successful series of fights but decided to give up boxing in 1951. That same year he would then decide to try out the Army. He served for two years during the Korean War; there he earned his high school equivalency diploma. After his short stint in the army, he decided to open a record store, which only sold jazz records. Berry always enjoyed listening to records in his basement and he had a great love of music. Berry always hung around Detroit’s popular nightspots to hear the bebop jazz sounds.

He was able to see the performances of famous artists like pianist Thelonious Monk and saxophonist Charlie “Bird” Parker. Unfortunately, Berry’s store eventually closed due to financial difficulties. Gordy soon found himself working at Ford’s Mercury plant, earning $85 a week. Bored with his assembly line job, he spent all of his free time writing songs. Berry would hum melodies and make up song lyrics in his head to break the monotony of everyday work. Berry soon began to get serious about song writing and he got his big break when he won a talent contest.

He wrote a song for Jackie Wilson called “Reet Petite. ” It became a major R&B hit in late 1957. Gordy continued to dabble in freelance songwriting and he found success with “Lonely Teardrops,” and “To Be Loved,” which were two other hits that he wrote for Jackie Wilson. He also wrote a hit song for Barret Strong called “Money (That’s What I Want). ” This gave Berry a strong reputation as an accomplished songwriter in the music world. Berry was an outstanding writer despite the fact that he was unable to read music. Gordy had no musical talent at all, as far as singing or playing music was concerned.

He did however have an ability to gauge whether a song had the elements of popular appeal. He had the power to detect star quality and potential in songs and performers. The first star that Gordy would discover would be William Smokey Robinson, a Detroit high schooler with a soothing falsetto voice and an ear for sweet lyrics. In 1957 Smokey Robinson was the lead singer of a group called the Matadors. They auditioned unsuccessfully for Jackie Wilson’s manager, but Gordy who was instrumental in Wilson’s earlier success happened to be present at the audition.

His talent for recognizing star power came in handy because he saw something that everyone at that audition seemed to miss. Berry persuaded Smokey and the Matadors to change their names to the Miracles and work with him. Berry Gordy began recording Robinson’s group, The Miracles, for New York based End Records. They had early success with their record “Got a Job/My Momma Done Told Me. ” Gordy then established Jobete Publishing company and began Motown Records.

The name was derived from the city of Detroit’s nickname “The Motor City. Smokey Robinson convinced Gordy to start his own recording company because although Gordy was very successful as an independent songwriter he remained on the fringes of the popular music business, making very little money. He was writing great songs, but he most of the profits were ending up in the pockets of record labels or distributors. He rented an eight-room house on 2648 W. Grand Blvd with an $ 800 loan from his family. This two-story house would serve as both the recording studio and the administrative headquarters for Motown Records.

This famous house would later be known as Hitsville USA and become a major tourist attraction in Detroit. Gordy was the CEO and president for Motown and he named Robinson as it’s Vice President. In 1960 Motown would release its first hit single, “Shop Around,” by Smokey Robinson and The Miracles. It sold over one million copies. It was number 1 one R&B hit and it reached number 2 on the pop chart in early 1961. This was the song that introduced Motown records to the world. Motown enjoyed its greatest success between 1965 and 1968, when it dominated the Billboard charts.

By 1966, three out of every four Motown releases made the charts. Motown was responsible for launching the careers of some of pop music and R&B’s all time greatest performers. Motown had several young singing groups, including The Temptations, Martha and the Vandellas, and the Marvelletts. There were great performers like Stevie Wonder, The Four Tops, the Contours, Junior walker and the All-Stars, The Isley Brothers, and Gladys Knight and the Pips. Yet, despite the success of these great artists, many of whom, are household names even today, no Motown act of the 1960’s matched the success of Diana Ross and the Supremes.

They scored many number one hits like “Where Did Our Love Go,” “Baby Love,” and “Come See About Me” in 1964. In 1965 they topped the charts again with hits like “Stop! In the Name of Love,” “Back in My Arms Again,” and” I Hear a Symphony”. In 1966 they had a famous hit called “You Can’t Hurry Love. ” They were the second most successful singing group of the decade-surpassed only by the Beatles-but they remain the most successful female singing group of all time. Diana Ross, the groups lead singer went on to have an impressive solo career and she even did a little bit of acting.

She was most famous for her role in the movie “Lady sings the Blues. ” There were a lot of factors that contributed to Motown Records early success. One thing was the death of big-band swing after World War II. It was the dominant form of popular music in America during the Great Depression. Eventually Big musical units became huge economic burdens on bandleaders and many musicians felt it impractical to carry on this tradition. Big band would take a back seat to what is known as bebop jazz, which was made more for listening than for dancing.

With the emergence of rhythm and blues from the inner-city ghettos bebop began to fade just as big band had. R&B was being promoted many famous bandleaders like Louis Jordan and Lionel Hampton. The creation or rhythm and blues was what eventually brought about many small independent labels. Companies like Columbia, Decca, Peacock Records, and Vee Jay Records helped pioneer the R&B movement by supporting great up and coming artists. They seized the opportunity to make profits off of music that was then considered radical and unconventional.

The main reason why the larger companies did not record many of these artists was because they were African American. The records produced by these smaller independent companies were known as “race records. ” The underground sound of race records was penetrating the mainstream of society with the help of black radio, which became prominent after World War II. It gave black listeners great clout as consumers and made it possible for black record company owners to market their songs directly to its growing audience.

All of these numerous changes in American society paved the way for someone like Berry Gordy to form a company like Motown. Changes in society continued to take place in 1954 and with the Brown V. the Board of Education case. It abolished the segregation of American schools and helped to upgrade the conditions of many inner-city schools. This played a major role in the success of Motown Records because the majority of Berry Gordy’s acts came out of the Detroit Public School system, which had one of the nations top musical programs at the time.

The death of Tin Pan Alley was also a major factor in Motown’s success because it allowed artists or labels to write their own music. The foundation of Motown rested on the fact that they were able to write their own music, thus staying independent and black owned. A Company like Motown would be able to thrive because it would be able to keep all of the money it earned and put it back into the company so that it could cultivate more talent. Therefore it would have the potential to have a long live and be very successful.

One of the most critical ingredients to the success of Motown was unquestionably the song writing. Motown records had some of the best songwriters in the business, besides Smokey Robinson and Berry Gordy there was the famous team of Holland and Dozier. They consisted of Brian Holland, Lamont Dozier, and Eddie Holland who wrote and produced the Supremes’ mid-1960’s hits. There were also famous songwriters Sylvia Moy, Norman Whitfield, Mickey Stevenson, and Ivy Joe Hunter. All of his songwriters were also producers.

Gordy and his huge songwriting staff created what is known as the “Motown sound,” a ballad based blend of traditional black harmony and gospel music with the lively beat of rhythm and blues. Since Gordy’s business was small he had to run it different from other companies. The studio on West Grand Blvd. also served the purpose of a finishing school and an academy of popular arts. Gordy found a lot of his talent out of high school and most of them had little or no experience in actually performing for large crowds or being on television.

His staff of coaches was known as the “Motown U Pros,” Cholly Atkins headed them. These coaches taught the artists etiquette, choreography, and how to handle fame. With the combination of opportunity, raw talent, and world-renowned song writing Motown easily took it’s place as the top record company of the 60’s. Times and tastes changed as the 60’s became the 70’s and Motown eventually decided to move its operation from Detroit to Los Angeles, following the trend of many musicians who migrated West. Although the company didn’t have as strong of an impact in the 70’s it was still a formidable enterprise.

Motown still had heavy weight acts like The Jackson 5, Rick James, The Commodores, Lionel Richie, and Marvin Gaye. Gordy also made the move into the filmmaking industry with popular movies like, “Lady Sings the Blues,” starring Diana Ross. In 1988 Berry Gordy decided to sell Motown to MCA for $61 million dollars because he found it difficult to compete with multinational conglomerates that began to dominate the industry. Later Motown was sold to PolyGram 1993. Although Gordy is no longer making records, he still has a hand in Motown-related projects as well, including a television miniseries and a Broadway musical.

As for Motown records today, the label boasts a less substantial roster than in its glory years, but it still includes some very impressive acts such as Stevie Wonder, Johnny Gill, Queen Latifah, Jason Weaver, and Boyz II Men. Boyz II Men’s single “End of the Road” set records in 1992 by remaining at number one on the Billboard charts for 13 weeks, longer than any other song since the pop charts began. Berry Gordy headed one of the most successful black-owned companies in the United States.

By 1972 Berry Gordy was the richest black man in America with an annual income in excess of $ 10 million dollars. By 1982, the company boasted revenues of $ 104 million, and Motown acts had recorded 110 number one hits on the American pop charts. Gordy was honored with a lifetime achievement award at the American Music Awards in 1975 and was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988. Gordy was given a star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame in 1996 and people even wanted to name the section of West Grand Boulevard in front of the Motown Museum (Hitsville USA) after Berry Gordy.

Motown records helped bring black performers and black music to the mainstream popular music charts. Motown started at a time when the country as a whole was optimistic about the future. The election of JFK, and the growing popularity of MLK Jr. and his message, fostered a sense that blacks were soon to enter a world of equality through the front door. This feeling was particularly felt in Detroit, as Motown became a success and crossed over into white audiences as well. To this day the “Motown sound” still continues to influence pop music.

Jailed And Stuck

The authors Kate Chopin of Desirees Baby and Susan Glaspell of Trifles present a caste system of the 19th century. They both focus upon the theme of the inferiority of women with respect to marriage, gender, and prospective positions in a caste system of society. Actually, these two authors can be thought of as feminists of their times. Surely, many readers thought that these two authors were very liberal in their writing. Many of todays readers would be in agreement of the womens plight of past times. In each of the stories, the women characters are inferior to their husband counterparts.

In Desirees Baby, Desiree knows she must believe and follow her marriage vows of honor, obey, and respect. When Armand listens to gossip and does not inquire further, he believes his wife is not a white woman. He shuns both her and the baby. Desiree asks him, Shall I go, Armand? Do you want me to go (Chopin 359). She finally leaves with the child without any pleading or begging for justice or explanation but out of consent. In addition, the characterization of Armand points to his dominance over his wife. This is seen when Desiree realizes a strange, an awful change in her husbands manner, which she dared not ask him to explain (358).

During this time, women were forbidden to question their husbands. In Trifles, Mrs. Peters is said to be the sheriffs wife and married to the law (Glaspell 65). She is unimportant and belonging to the sheriff more like property that one owns. This tolerance of being dominated by her male husband is emphasized by Mrs. Peters stating to Mrs. Hale, But Mrs. Hale, the law is the law (61). Her husband makes the law for everyone and for her. She does not question him. Glaspell describes Minnie Foster, later known as Mrs. Wright, as happy when she was young.

She dressed nicely, she sang in a choir, and she was out in society a great deal. Her husband, Mr. Wright, is characterized as being like a hermit, saying folks talked too much anyway when referring to buying a telephone (57). Once Mrs. Wright married Mr. Wright, she obeys him and ends up changing her whole lifestyle. The other husbands wives notice her change saying she used to wear pretty clothes and be lively, when she was Minnie Foster, one of the town girls singing in the choir. But thatoh, that was thirty years ago (60).

Because these women were thought of as the wives, they were told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it by their husbands. The husbands, because of their gender, see themselves as the authority figures. They do not value any of the womens opinions, thoughts, or even intelligence too highly in these stories because of the womens gender. In Desirees Baby, the baby is determined to be black; one of the parents is black. Armand sort of takes the initiative and declares himself, who is of nobility and master of the plantation by gender not to be the one tainted with the inferior bloodline.

This only leaves Desiree, who does not really know her background. However, it does not matter. Desiree, being female, assumes the guilt and gets no chance to explain, or to seek explanation. This is significant because the one who actually had the black heritage was Armand. In Trifles, the men criticize the womens thoughts and opinions. The men even make fun of the women. When the women are talking about the fruit, the sheriff says, Well, can you beat the women! Held for murder and worryin about her preserves (58). Mr.

Hale also says, Well, women are used to worrying over trifles, about the same situation. Neither man fully comes to understand the significance of the womens opinions nor thinks that the women could add anything to help solve the case at hand. The reader realizes that the women, with their opinions and thoughts, are the ones who actually figure out the how, who, and why of the murder. Because of the womens gender, the men in these patriarchal societies in each story do not fully realize the womens values or intelligence.

When looking closer, one can see that the wives in these marriages are also restricted to being homemakers and mothers. The males agree that there was not much more for their wives to do other than being a homemaker or a mother to their children. In Trifles, the wives talk about their lives and responsibilities. Mrs. Hale finishes the loaf of bread in a manner of returning to familiar things (59). Mrs. Peters says, she (Mrs. Wright) wanted an apron, to make her feel more natural (60). Mrs. Hale then comments about trying to get her own (Mrs.

Wrights) house to turn against her (61). The wives comment on piecing a quilt and worrying about her bottles of fruit (64). All of these comments suggest that all the wives did was housework. Even the County Attorney remarks on how Mrs. Wright was not much of a housekeeper and how she did not have the homemaking instinct (59). Later when Mrs. Peters leaves he picks up the apron, and laughs (65). These remarks intensify the feeling that the husbands thought of their wives as homemakers. In addition, the reader gets the feeling that the wives had no free time.

Mrs. Hale says, theres a great deal of work to be done on a farm and farmers wives have their hands full (59). Mrs. Peters remarks you were awful busy, Mrs. Haleyour house and your children (62). Mrs. Hale mentions Ive not seen much of her of late years (59). One can conclude that the wives do all the work around the house and raise the children with not much spare time left over for them. This conveys to the husbands the feeling that Minnie Foster could not have had time to commit the murder. Yet, the women, who see all of the tasks half done, feel that Mrs.

Wright suddenly had to do something right then in her busy day. In Desirees Baby, one sees that Armand, the husband, is in charge of all the work. Chopin writes that Young Aubignys rule was a strict one, too, and under it his negroes had forgotten to be gay (Chopin 357). Living in a time of plantations and slaves, servants do the work around the house. One of La Blanches little quadroon boys stood fanning the child slowly with a fan of peacock feathers (358). Desiree is restricted to childbearing and raising their child. Even Desirees mother urges her, to come back to your mother who loves you.

Come with your child (359). In this day, the wives did this and nothing more than was expected of them. All of the above stated qualities about marriage lead to one conclusion–the wives of this time were inferior to their husband counterparts. Today, in a marriage, the wife and the husband are closer to equal. Today, more women have well-paying jobs that allow them to share in the support of the family expenses. Today, the thoughts that women are inferior because of their gender are all but gone. Today, neither the woman nor the man exclusively does the work around the house.

Today, men and women are so much more independent and self-sufficient that sometimes they do not marry or if they do, they adjust their marriage vows accordingly. Since so much has changed with the times, the types of marriages portrayed in these stories are almost totally gone. The only exceptions would be the ones in movies, which portray this earlier period. The authors Kate Chopin and Susan Glaspell speak out against the inferiority of women in these marriages. They each lived close to the time of their stories and therefore could get a great deal of input by looking at other marriages and maybe their own.

They both show that the women were essentially belittled and not taken seriously. In the case of Desiree in Desirees Baby, this is because of her gender, marriage, and race. In the case of Mrs. Wright and the other wives in Trifles, this is due to their gender, social positions, and marriage. For the period that these authors lived in, the disparaging of women was commonplace. The authors should be commended for writing such liberating thoughts and ideas that would otherwise never be thought of in that day and time.

Biff suffering from Willys illusions and delusions

Who is William Loman? William Loman is the main character in the play Death Of A Salesman by Arthur Miller. In the play Willy is play as an elderly salesman and lost in false hopes and illusions. As Willy grown older, he has trouble distinguishing between the past and present. The character that suffer from Willys illusions and delusions was Biff, Willys eldest son. The three main reasons that Biff was suffering from Willys illusions and delusions were being well liked, being a salesman, and arguing with Willy all the time.

Willys believed that all it takes to become successful is being well liked. Willy thought that Oliver would let Biff borrow some money even though if Bill Oliver hasnt seen Biff around ten years. You know why he remembered you, dont you? Because you impressed him in those days. (pg. 108) Biff stole Olivers basketball and it been a long time that Oliver didnt see or contact with Biff, so there is no way that Oliver will remember Biff. Once you walk in to the jungle, they dont care if you are well liked because they only care about your skills.

They only hired you for your skill not your look. Being well liked is not the key word for being success because being popular can always be forget, but if you have skills it is always there when you need it. The second reasons that Willys believed Biff could be a successful salesman. Biff was trying to achieve Willys goal. Well, I spent six or seven years after high school trying to work myself up. Shipping clerk, salesman, business of one kind or another. And its a measly manner of existence.

To get on that subway on the hot mornings in summer. To devote your whole life to keeping stock, or making phone calls, or selling or buying. To suffer fifty weeks of the years for sake of a two-week vacation, when all you really desire is to be outdoors, with your shirt off. And always to have to get ahead of the next fella. And still thats how you build a future. (pg. 22) Biff gives up his goal just for Willy. Since the day that Biff, he was actually tying to accomplish Willys goal.

But it was to hard for him because he doesnt have the patient to wait and he is not well-educated person. If Willy doesnt motivate Biff from cheating then he could have been learning something that would help him in the real world. Willy and Biff argue all the time. Biff cant stand Willy illusions and delusion anymore. Will you let me go, for Christs sake? Will you take that phony dream and burn it before something happens? Ill go in the morning. Put him put him to bed. (pg. 133) Biff finally found out that is dad had the wrong dreams.

So he want to go some to some other places to find the real him so he doesnt have to be at home and face Willys illusions and delusion before something going to happen. Throughout the play Biff had wasted his time in high school until he was thirty-four years old. If he didnt suffer from his dads illusions and delusions than he could have been an intelligent and a have a successful job. The reasons that Biff suffer from the illusions and delusions was being popular, being a businessman, and disagreeing in subjects.

Crossing Brooklyn Ferry

Recurring Images and Motifs in "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry" In the poem "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry", by Walt Whitman, there are many recurring images and motifs that can be seen. Whitman develops these images throughout the course of the poem. The most dominant of these are the linear notion of time, playing roles, and nature. By examining these motifs and tracing their development, ones understanding of the poem becomes highly deepened. Whitman challenges the linear notion of time by connecting past with future.

This can be seen in the first stanza, as the poem opens: "And you that shall cross from hore to shore years hence are more to me, and more in my meditations than you might suppose"(4-5). This lets the reader know that he has written this with the reader in mind, even before that reader existed. He challenges time by connecting his time with ours. He has preconcived us reading this poem. When we read his words we are connected to him and his feelings, all in the same time. He is sure that after he is gone the water will still run and people will still "see the shipping of Manhattan/and the heights of Brooklyn" (14-15).

He makes his past and our futher all one. No matter the time nor the distance, the reader will experience the same way he experiences at the moment in time he resides: Just as you feel when you look on the river and sky, so I felt, Just as any of you is one of a living crowd, I was one of a crowd, Just as you are refresh’d by the gladness of the river and the bright flow, I was" (23-26). This same motif follows through to the next stanza, as he continues to emphasize how things are the same to him as they are to those of us interpreting the poem.

By tracing this motif we see that no matter where we are or how far away from Brooklyn and Manhattan, the images that Whitman saw will live on long after his passing. This deepens the understanding of the poem and assists the reader to comprehend Whitman’s state of reasoning when composing this poem. He, in fact, was writing this poem to be read long after he was gone. He "consider’d long and seriously of you before you were born" (88). He realized that certain constants would stay the same, including people and the roles they take in their lives.

In stanza six, the idea of playing roles develops: Lived the same life with the rest, the same old laughing, gnawing, sleeping, Plays the part that still looks back on the actor or ctress, The same old role, the role that is what we make it, as great as we like, Or as small as we like, or both great and small. (82-85) This demonstrates how we all play a part in our life, but yet we all experience the same feelings. We are trying to play a role we are not. We hide behind our roles and hurry, not taking the time to notice what Whitman noticed.

He stood and watched , writing about what he saw, presuming that we will watch and perceive the same. There is yet further mention of how we play roles in stanza nine: "Live, old life! Play the part that looks back on the actor or actress! quot;(110). This deepens the understanding of the point he is trying to convey. We are all playing the same old roles, and taking on the same parts again, and again. The role is enormous or small depending on the depth of ones imagination. As the poem is further examined, we see Whitman’s recurring images of nature.

Very frequently there is mention of water, red and yellow light of the sky, hills, and sea-birds. The birds, in fact, coincide with the motif of role playing. The sea-birds, unlike humans, do not have to play a role. They are free to be one with nature: Fly on, sea-birds! fly sideways, or wheel in large ircles high in the air; Receive the summer sky, you water, and faithfully hold it till all downcast eyes have time to take it from you! (113-115) He tells the sea-birds to hold on to the beauty of nature, which they are a part. They, unlike humans, do not look with downcasting eyes"(114).

Nature is the one constant, for Whitman, that does not change. In a sense it is perfection. It is the everlasting source of life, which will remain long after our lives are through: "Fifty years hence,/A hundred years hence, or ever so many hundred years hence, other will see"(17-18). It has stayed he same then, now, tomorrow, and beyond: "These and all else were to me the same as they are to you"(49). As humans we accept it for what it is. We do not look at it as we do humans. We should look at humans this way – as perfect, pure, no masks, not playing a role.

By examining these motifs and tracing their development, the poem itself becomes more clear to the reader. We learn that Whitman developed this poem with the idea it would be read hundreds of years later. It is apparent that there is a connection between people and their roles, nature, and time. As times goes on thus nature goes on. People continue to hide behind roles, unable to be as that of nature–unjudging. Nature will continue to exist as the people around it continue to stay the same, hurrying along in the masses oblivious to the wonders around them.

Crossing Brooklyn Ferry Recurring Images and Motifs in "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry" In the poem "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry", by Walt Whitman, there are many recurring images and motifs that can be seen. Whitman develops these images throughout the course of the poem. The most dominant of these are the linear notion of time, playing roles, and nature. By examining these motifs and tracing their development, ones understanding of the poem becomes highly deepened. Whitman challenges the linear notion of time by connecting past with future.

This can be seen in the first stanza, as the poem opens: "And you that shall cross from shore to shore years hence are more to me, and more in my meditations than you might suppose"(4-5). This lets the reader know that he has written this with the reader in mind, even before that reader existed. He challenges time by connecting his time with ours. He has preconcived us reading this poem. When we read his words we are connected to him and his feelings, all in the same time. He is sure that after he is gone the water will still run and people will still "see the shipping of Manhattan/and the heights of Brooklyn" (14-15).

He makes his past and our futher all one. No matter the time nor the distance, the reader will experience the same way he experiences at the moment in time he resides: Just as you feel when you look on the river and sky, so I felt, Just as any of you is one of a living crowd, I was one of a crowd, Just as you are refresh’d by the gladness of the iver and the bright flow, I was" (23-26). This same motif follows through to the next stanza, as he continues to emphasize how things are the same to him as they are to those of us interpreting the poem.

By tracing this motif we see that no matter where we are or how far away from Brooklyn and Manhattan, the images that Whitman saw will live on long after his passing. This deepens the understanding of the poem and assists the reader to comprehend Whitman’s state of reasoning when composing this poem. He, in fact, was writing this poem to be read long after he was gone. He "consider’d long and seriously of you before you were born" (88). He realized that certain constants would stay the same, including people and the roles they take in their lives.

In stanza six, the idea of playing roles develops: Lived the same life with the rest, the same old laughing, gnawing, sleeping, Plays the part that still looks back on the actor or actress, The same old role, the role that is what we make it, as great as we like, Or as small as we like, or both great and small. (82-85) This demonstrates how we all play a part in our life, but yet we all experience the same feelings. We are trying to play a role we are not. We hide behind our roles and hurry, not taking the time to notice what Whitman noticed.

He stood and watched , writing about what he saw, presuming that we will watch and perceive the same. There is yet further mention of how we play roles in stanza nine: "Live, old life! Play the part that looks back on the actor or actress! "(110). This deepens the understanding of the point he is trying to convey. We are all playing the same old roles, and taking on the same parts again, and again. The role is enormous or small depending on the depth of ones magination. As the poem is further examined, we see Whitman’s recurring images of nature.

Very frequently there is mention of water, red and yellow light of the sky, hills, and sea-birds. The birds, in fact, coincide with the motif of role playing. The sea-birds, unlike humans, do not have to play a role. They are free to be one with nature: Fly on, sea-birds! fly sideways, or wheel in large circles high in the air; Receive the summer sky, you water, and faithfully hold it till all downcast eyes have time to take it from you! (113-115) He tells the sea-birds to hold on to the beauty of nature, which hey are a part. They, unlike humans, do not look with downcasting eyes"(114).

Nature is the one constant, for Whitman, that does not change. In a sense it is perfection. It is the everlasting source of life, which will remain long after our lives are through: "Fifty years hence,/A hundred years hence, or ever so many hundred years hence, other will see"(17-18). It has stayed the same then, now, tomorrow, and beyond: "These and all else were to me the same as they are to you"(49). As humans we accept it for what it is. We do not look at it as we do humans. We hould look at humans this way – as perfect, pure, no masks, not playing a role.

By examining these motifs and tracing their development, the poem itself becomes more clear to the reader. We learn that Whitman developed this poem with the idea it would be read hundreds of years later. It is apparent that there is a connection between people and their roles, nature, and time. As times goes on thus nature goes on. People continue to hide behind roles, unable to be as that of nature–unjudging. Nature will continue to exist as the people around it continue to stay the same, hurrying along in the masses oblivious to the wonders around them.

A Comparison and Contrast of Juergen Habermas and Hans Georg Gadamer

The intellectual battle between the Gadamer-Hermeneutics school and the Habermas-critical theorists is well documented. Hermeneutics claiming a universal applicability stating, being that can be understood is language[1], and the critical theorist claiming a reflective reasoning process that goes beyond hermeneutics. The battle has been aptly stated in the rather public disagreements between Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jurgen Habermas, in a series of essays written in the late sixties and early seventies.

Gadamer has never really been interested or competent in explicit political or moral philosophy, rather his interests were to discover the mode of human understanding and experience and their subsequent examination in the human sciences. Gadamer states as much in his introduction: The hermeneutics developed here is not, therefore, a methodology of the human sciences, but an attempt to understand what the human sciences truly are, beyond their methodological self-consciousness, and what connects them with the totality of our experience of world. [2]

Thus, Gadamer seems to be trying to develop a value neutral or ideological free theory of how human beings understand and interpret reality, garnering it universality in the process. Habermas oppositionaly maintains that hermeneutics is insufficient for human understanding, due to power dominations emanating from ideology and socio-cultural systems (including language itself). Rather, as Habermas maintains, language itself can be used to thwart understanding and thus a critical reflective reason must be used to overcome linguistic inadequacies.

Habermas, as a champion of reason, suspects the ideological uses of language that are used to distort and destroy communication and understanding. Instead, a critical reason free from ideological constraints must be used. Habermas is thus a critical theorist in the school of the enlightenment. He values reason highly and disagrees with many postmodernists who tend to be suspect of reason as just another tool of power. This essay will attempt to explicate their agreements and differences, by first chronicling their intellectual heritage and tradition and then focusing on their ideas.

The essay will be structured along the same lines of the Gadamer-Habermas debate, explaining first hermeneutical theory and then the critical theorist response. As well, an attempt at contextualizing their two respective theories for ethics and socio-political thought will be positioned. The ending summary will show the prominence of these two philosophers for western society and potentially history. To understand these two men properly, perhaps an understanding of their intellectual backgrounds is in order.

Hans Georg Gadamer was the most successful student of Martin Heidegger, the renowned philosopher and author of Being and Time. Heidegger stressed the finitude of man and dealt with existential issues. In many ways, he was seen as Nietzsches heir, with his bombastic and passionate style. Gadamer as an intellectual, seemed ignorant of current events and retreated to his studies. A friend once asked if Gadamer had read anything on current events, in which Gadamer replied, I basically read books that are at least only two thousand years old. 3]

Gadamer maintained his reputation through WW II and eventually settled in Heidelberg where he would write his momentous volume Truth and Method in 1960. Habermas, conversely, came from the Frankfurt school, the home of Marxist-Freudian critical theory. After WW II, he strongly opposed Gadamers teacher Martin Heidegger and other right wing thinkers he deemed dangerous to the fledgling German democracy. [4] In recent years, Habermas has moved away from his radicalism and helped the left reconcile itself to liberal democracy in the unified German state. 5]

What remains interesting between these two intellectuals is their academic genealogies, Gadamer, a student of Heidegger and in the line of Nietzsche and Habermas, in the line of Karl Marx. Both intellectuals come from different streams of the German intellectual tradition. It is to be seen how much this will account for their agreements and disagreements. To analyze the differences and similarities of the two thinkers, it is important to curtly examine their respective theories. Because Gadamer wrote primarily about human understanding and communication, we will focus on these elements of their philosophy.

However, we will also attempt to examine some of their ethical and socio-political philosophy. Gadamers philosophical hermeneutics proposes that being itself is understood through language, whether that language be the written word, art, speech, or body language. This is the universal aspect of human being. Gadamer states this as such: We can now see that this activity of the thing itself, the coming into language of meaning, points to a universal ontological structure, namely to the basic nature of everything toward which understanding can be directed.

Being that can be understood is language [italics his, bold mine]. [6] The being that Gadamer speaks of is a linguistic understanding that comes about from the famous hermeneutic circle. The hermeneutic circles arises when a persons prejudices (e. g. a persons inherited linguistic tradition) are used to confront new data or experience and are then critically analyzed with the above result of changing the persons prejudices. [7] Prejudices in Gadamers system are not suspect but rather we must acknowledge the fact there are legitimate prejudices. 8] This process is also called the fusion of horizons[9], where understanding and reflection are achieved.

Gadamer criticizes the enlightenment project, which attempted philosophy and self-understanding in an historical vacuum. Rather: Long before we understand ourselves through the process of self-examination, we understand ourselves in a self-evident way in the family, society and state in which we liveThat is why the prejudices of the individual, far more than his judgments, constitute the historical reality of his being [italics mine]. 10]

Gadamer stands against the enlightenment epistemology that attempts philosophy and social sciences as an objective science, within the same parameters of experimental science. Understanding and knowledge, are therefore passed down from a shared set of principles in which the interpreted text or person becomes known from previous unknowing, through his own prejudices, the other loses his/her alieness and thus a fusion of horizons absorbs the once unseen, unknown, or alien knowledge/understanding.

Understanding then stands somewhere between subjectivity and objectivity, subjective through the individuals prejudices and inherited cultural and linguistic tradition and objective through some sort of understanding between the two dialoguing parties (e. g. a reader and the text, an audience and a play, or two persons conversing). Habermass own understanding of language and knowledge takes on a decidedly Marxist-critical tone. Unlike Gadamer who speaks of tradition(s) and authority, Habermas uses terms like language games[11] and reflective reason[12]. Habermass epistemology is distinctly based upon reason.

However this reason, tends to be a dialectical Marxist reason, not the linear reason expressed in early Anglo-Franco enlightenment thinkers. However, Habermas and Gadamer do not seem completely apart on this issue. One author has noted that, Habermas uses the language of reason, where Gadamer tends to use the language of being. [13] While these terms are not used in parallel, there does seem to be some linkage to similarly expressed ideas. Gadamers ontological tutelage under Heidegger and Habermass Marxist-Freudian heritage would seem to explain some of the differences.

However, Habermass own views seem to be very much in parallel to many of Gadamers. First Habermass own theory of communicative action relies on a very dialogical approach to understanding, in which both participants dialogue using rational discourse to a satisfactory conclusion (ethical or otherwise)[14]. This parallels the hermeneutic view of dialogical understanding and appropriation very well. Second, Habermas shares with Gadamer a rejection of the positivist view of language. Positivism asserted that language much like science is fixed and meaning is objectively known through linguistic utterance.

Conversely, Habermas, like Gadamer, maintains that language contains a dialectical element, in which it acquires new meaning through the life world that accompanies it. Language is porous not fixed. Third, Habermas shares with Gadamer his belief that language enables us to be a part of a historical tradition. [15] We appropriate meaning and can reflect upon it through the inheritance of that tradition. However, unlike Gadamer, Habermas does not agree with the universalism of the hermeneutic understanding. This topic will divide them, along with Gadamers conservative intellectual heritage, thoroughly suspected and rejected by Habermas.

Hermeneutics claims a universal applicability. This universal claim mimics Derridas own deconstructionist claim that There is nothing outside the text. [16] While Derrida and Gadamer have their own issues and debate, the universality of texts is not one of them. G. B. Madison notes this universal life hermeneutic stating, Hermeneutics insists that both the general theory of human understanding it embodies as well as the practical implications [italics mine] which follow from this theory (as regards, for instance, ethical and political issues) have universal relevance or applicability. 17] This universality troubles many postmodern thinkers. The universal or absolute has often been used to denigrate and subjugate different peoples in a host of manners. Whether it be the colonial Christian missionaries stripping Natives of their culture under the guise of an absolute Christian gospel or the once universal claim to male supremacy, the universal is a term used to silence the other(s). Claims of universality have an intellectual weight and aggression not found in other theories.

John D Caputo has even accused Gadamer of having a closet essentialism, a foundationalism that asks us to bend our knee to the authority of linguistic tradition. [18] Habermas has also been accused of foundationalism, against his claims of being post-metaphysical. [19] However, the universalism that Habermas rejects in Gadamer is not Habermas aversion to universalism, like Derrida, for Habermas himself claims universality for his communicative ethics. Rather, Habermas is rejecting the claim that hermeneutics is sufficient for (proper) human understanding. Habermas relates this, saying:

Gadamer fails to appreciate the power of reflection that is developed in understanding. This type of reflection is no longer blinded by the illusion of an absolute, self-grounded autonomy and odes not detach itself from the soil of contingency on which it finds itself. But in grasping the genesis of the tradition from which it proceeds and on which it turns back, reflection shakes the dogmatism of life practices. [20] The shaking of dogmatism and tradition are key features in Habermas thought. Critical theory is about going beyond the traditions and recognizing that language is also ideological. 21] He states in a later interchange with Gadamer, that, Hermeneutical consciousness is incomplete so long as it has not incorporated into itself reflection on the limit of hermeneutical understanding. [22] Habermas is concerned about the lack of critical reflection in hermeneutics. He also seems concerned of Gadamers fondness for historical authority and tradition and dislike for enlightenment reason. Habermas relates this, saying: This experience of reflection is the unforgettable legacy bequeathed to us by the German Idealism from the spirit of the eighteenth century.

One is tempted to lead Gadamer into battle against himself, to demonstrate to him hermeneutically that he ignores that legacy because he has taken over an undialectical concept of enlightenment from the limited perspective of the German nineteenth century and that with it has had adopted and attitude that vindicated for us (Germans) a dangerous pretension to superiority separating us from the Western traditionThe right of reflection demands that the hermeneutics approach restrict itself. It calls for a reference system that goes beyond the framework of tradition as such; only then can tradition also be criticized[23]. italics mine]

Habermas is concerned here about not only Gadamers theory but also about his potential pretentious German spirit. One must wonder that he is referring to Heidegger and Nietzsche in this regard, especially given his own workings against Heidegger after WW II. These concerns echo a deeper concern of Habermass: Gadamers closet conservatism (not to be confused with neo or social conservatism), an orientation that follows Edmund Burke in rejecting the revolutionary impulses of enlightenment and an exaltation of tradition and historical continuity.

Habermas instead advocates a critically self-aware hermeneuticsone which differentiates between insight and delusion and enabling dominance-free communication, which assimilates the metahermeneutical knowledge concerning the conditions which make systematically distorted communication possible. [24] One could state the issue as such: Habermass theory of communicative action involves the disembodiment of self-interest, cultural and historical aspects of the persons involved. 25] However, Gadamers hermeneutics quite insistently maintains that a person cannot do this, that is, his being is historically constituted, evident through the socialized, linguistic life world that he/she finds him/herself. Habermass ideological and socio-politico views are quite known, as a Frankfurt school adherent.

However, Gadamers are less so. He has always described himself as a political liberal in interviews. [26] While his reputation remained relatively unscathed over WW II, some authors have questioned his actions during this period, suggesting some Nazi sympathies. 27] However, since then Gadamer has consistently denounced the Nazi regime. Gadamer himself wrote an article entitled, On the Political Incompetence of Philosophy, in 1998. Recalling the unsavory involvement of his mentor Martin Heidegger with the Nazi regime, Gadamer notes the incompetence of philosophy and philosophers in politics. He wrote poignantly that, The philosophers gaze, which probes every question down to its basic and ultimate generality, does not seem predisposed to view correctly the possibilities and concrete circumstances of social and political life. 28] The philosopher so concerned with realities oft times disconnected from real life, seem unable to make correct political judgments.

It is with this trepidation that Gadamer has remained out of ideological, ethical and political conflicts. Despite Gadamers lack of political, ideological or ethical writing, one could glean a certain ideological disposition in his writing. As aforementioned, Habermas has denounced some of Gadamers work as being in the line of Edmund Burke and conservative reactionaries against the enlightenment.

Burke vehemently rejected the French revolution and its excesses, instead focusing on peaceful and historical continuous means to reform, in the example of Great Britain. Gadamers insistence on historical tradition and authority would seem to echo Burkes thought. One sentence in Truth and Method displays this: What makes classical ethics superior to modern moral philosophy is that it grounds the transition from ethics to politics, the art of right legislation, on the indispensability of tradition. By comparison, the modern enlightenment is abstract and revolutionary. 29]

Gadamer and Habermas in a Canadian context could be associated with Red Tories and social democracy respectively. Despite socialism, liberalism and libertarians internal battles, they seem to share a distinct and fundamental common epistemological locus, reason (albeit applied and conceived of differently). Gadamers conservatism exhibits an older ideological struggle. In this context, the debate between the two could be seen to be a carry over from the 17th and 18th centuries, in which the enlightenment and conservative forces vied for the mind and heart of western civilization.

Gadamer and Habermas remain two of the most important German philosophers in the post-WW II era. Their respective philosophies show many commonalities, as well as disparities. So, what do these two intellectual giants, if they are indeed giants, have to provide the western intellectual tradition? (i. e. Why are they important) Many have criticized modern scholarships ivory tower abstractions as useless and grassroots workingmen and women, as well as political and corporate leadership, seem completely ignorant of much contemporary scholarship.

The answer would seem to be complex. For while it is most assuredly true, that the average person would not have a clue about Gadamers hermeneutic circle or Habermass theory of communicative action, these two people do shape the way the western tradition interprets and guides itself. It steers intellectual leaders in value judgments and reality potentialities. Philosophers real life influence often comes years after their death, as in the case of John Locke and the American Revolution. In some ways, Gadamer and Habermass influence has yet to be written.

Time will tell of their importance. However, in current philosophical, ethical, and sociological research and impact, these two have had great influence. It is for no reason that an encomium written on Gadamers ninety-fifth birthday described him as, the most successful philosopher of the Federal Republic [of Germany]. [30] Habermas, as well, could have been the receptor of such a accolade. Perhaps the answer to the above stated question is, that it is an unfinished story, with the beginning chapters looking very promising, and an ending sure to surprise.

Blood Bonds Antigone and The Eumenides

Every human on this earth has a bond to another. These bonds, as well as their significance, differ between people. This paper will focus on the bonds of marriage and blood, and their role in the plays Antigone and The Eumenides. How do they relate to each other? Is one more important than the other? How does the divine and mortal world interpret these? Through a review of the two plays and a comparison of their presentation of the bonds of blood and marriage, this paper will answer these questions.

Upon initial examination, the bond of blood seems to be the prevailing one in Antigone, but upon closer examination, it is obvious that the bond of marriage plays a strong role as well. Sophocles introduces these bonds through Antigone’s troubled ancestry; she was born of an alliance between her brother and her mother. (This alliance also produced Ismene, Polyneices, and Eteocles. ) This disobedience of natural laws clearly shows the disrespect that this family has for bonds of marriage and of blood. This disobedience may be innate, as some argue that Oedipus knew nothing of his wife’s relation to him when he killed the king, his father. Coles Notes, 20-21)

In any case, this disrespect has been passed onto Antigone. She sees marriage as a kind of death. (Sophocles, 504-508) She also states that she would not have buried her husband against the city’s orders, as she did for her brother. (Sophocles, 960-964) Her logic is that although she may have another husband or child, she will never have another brother, since her parents are dead. (Sophocles, 966-969) This leads to the conclusion that the death of her parents has strengthened the blood bond. (In other words, the destruction of marriage causes stronger blood ties, where marriage weakens blood ties. This is why Antigone sees marriage as a kind of death, and why she believes that it will weaken her ties with her family. (Sophocles, 506-512) Antigone first expresses her sense of duty to her siblings in lines 81 to 89:

“Be as you choose to be; but for myself I myself will bury him. It will be good To die, so doing. I shall lie by his side, Loving him as he loved me; I shall be This conviction is tested indirectly many times throughout the play, but most strongly in a confrontation with Creon, where she maintains and restates her original beliefs. (Sophocles, 509-515) This is especially noteworthy considering the times in which she lived.

Her place is in the household, or oikos, not to look for glory or bravery, or challenge authoritative figures. The lines are not as clearly drawn in The Eumenides. The divine and mortal worlds have different opinions about the sanctity of blood and marriage bonds. The issue here is one of justice, as it is in Antigone, but in a different respect. In addition, a complicated family history leads up to the conflict. During the Trojan War, King Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter. When he returned, his wife, Clytaemestra, in revenge for his crime murdered him.

Many years later, their son, Orestes, murdered Clytaemestra (who was not punished) in revenge for his father’s death. (Aeschylus, 454-464) Questions arise, such as: Is the crime of Orestes more severe than that of Clytaemestra? Should Orestes be punished or is his crime one of justice? In the beginning, the lines seem clearly drawn. The gods, specifically Apollo, see the marriage bond as equal to one of blood. His logic behind this is that Zeus and Hera have sanctified the marriage oaths. (Aeschylus, 213-222) Mortals, as represented by the chorus, see a marriage bond as inconsequential compared with a bond of blood. Aeschylus, 211-12)

However, later in the play, Athene agrees with the mortals, although her judgement of Orestes’ punishment does not reflect this belief. (Aeschylus, 739-41, 752-753) These contradictions highlight the conflict between divine and mortal, and marriage and blood. In both plays, a blatant disrespect for the marriage bond is shown. In Antigone, it is seen in Oedipus’ destruction of his parent’s marriage. (Coles Notes, 20) The king, Creon, also shows disrespect for this bond, as shown in lines 626-629 and in lines 632-633: “Ismene: Will you kill your son’s wife to be? Creon: Yes, there are other fields for him to plough.

Ismene: Not with the mutual love of him and her. Creon: I hate a bad wife for a son of mine. Chorus: Will you rob you son of this girl? Creon: Death-it is death that will stop the marriage for me. ” In The Eumenides, the disrespect for this bond is shown most clearly by the refusal of mortals (Aeschylus, 211-13) and Athene (Aeschylus, 739-40) to accept the bond of marriage as one equal to the bond of blood. In contrast, a strong respect for the bonds of blood is shown in both plays. For Antigone, her siblings are the most important people to her. She is willing to bury her brother against the city’s orders even if it means her execution. Sophocles, 82-89) This seems to be contradicted by the awkward position that she puts her sister, Ismene, in by asking her to participate in Antigone’s crime. (Sophocles, 90-101)

However, Antigone does this out of respect and obedience for her oikos, the realm of the household. Everything that she does throughout the play is out of this respect and obedience. Creon disrespects Antigone’s obedience to her oikos, as shown by his consistent belief that what Antigone did was wrong, no matter what her reasons. (Sophocles, 526-40) He is also disrespecting the bond of blood of uncle and niece between him and Antigone. Sophocles, 530-534) His pride dominates ancient customs and his love for his family. (Sophocles, 585-587. )

The rivalry of respect and disrespect for these bonds is seen again in The Eumenides. As previously stated, Apollo sees the bond of blood and the bond of marriage as equal (Aeschylus, 213-23), where mortals (Aeschylus, 211-13) and Athene (Aeschylus, 739-40) see the bond of blood as superior to that of marriage. This causes conflicts between the gods. In the beginning of the play, this conflict is between Apollo, who believes Orestes should not be punished, and the Furies, who believe he should be punished for matricide.

When judgement on Orestes is passed (“Athene: The man before us has escaped the charge of blood. ” line 752), the wrath of the Furies moves from Apollo to Athene. This conflict lasts from line 778 to the end of the play. It is obvious after close examination between these two texts that the bonds between marriage and blood are often complicated. They are often intertwined (as seen by Antigone’s ancestry) and their importance differs between cultures and societal positions, as seen in The Eumenides. Antigone and The Eumenides are important Greek societal statements on the bonds of blood and marriage.

Bibliography: Blood Bonds Antigone and The Eumenides Every human on this earth has a bond to another. These bonds, as well as their significance, differ between people. This paper will focus on the bonds of marriage and blood, and their role in the plays Antigone and The Eumenides. How do they relate to each other? Is one more important than the other? How does the divine and mortal world interpret these? Through a review of the two plays and a comparison of their presentation of the bonds of blood and marriage, this paper will answer these questions.

Upon initial examination, the bond of blood seems to be the prevailing one in Antigone, but upon closer examination, it is obvious that the bond of marriage plays a strong role as well. Sophocles introduces these bonds through Antigone’s troubled ancestry; she was born of an alliance between her brother and her mother. (This alliance also produced Ismene, Polyneices, and Eteocles. ) This disobedience of natural laws clearly shows the disrespect that this family has for bonds of marriage and of blood. This disobedience may be innate, as some argue that Oedipus knew nothing of his wife’s relation to him when he killed the king, his father. Coles Notes, 20-21) In any case, this disrespect has been passed onto Antigone. She sees marriage as a kind of death. (Sophocles, 504-508)

She also states that she would not have buried her husband against the city’s orders, as she did for her brother. (Sophocles, 960-964) Her logic is that although she may have another husband or child, she will never have another brother, since her parents are dead. (Sophocles, 966-969) This leads to the conclusion that the death of her parents has strengthened the blood bond. (In other words, the destruction of marriage causes stronger blood ties, where marriage weakens blood ties. This is why Antigone sees marriage as a kind of death, and why she believes that it will weaken her ties with her family. (Sophocles, 506-512)

Antigone first expresses her sense of duty to her siblings in lines 81 to 89: “Be as you choose to be; but for myself I myself will bury him. It will be good To die, so doing. I shall lie by his side, Loving him as he loved me; I shall be This conviction is tested indirectly many times throughout the play, but most strongly in a confrontation with Creon, where she maintains and restates her original beliefs. (Sophocles, 509-515) This is especially noteworthy considering the times in which she lived.

Her place is in the household, or oikos, not to look for glory or bravery, or challenge authoritative figures. The lines are not as clearly drawn in The Eumenides. The divine and mortal worlds have different opinions about the sanctity of blood and marriage bonds. The issue here is one of justice, as it is in Antigone, but in a different respect. In addition, a complicated family history leads up to the conflict. During the Trojan War, King Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter. When he returned, his wife, Clytaemestra, in revenge for his crime murdered him.

Many years later, their son, Orestes, murdered Clytaemestra (who was not punished) in revenge for his father’s death. (Aeschylus, 454-464) Questions arise, such as: Is the crime of Orestes more severe than that of Clytaemestra? Should Orestes be punished or is his crime one of justice? In the beginning, the lines seem clearly drawn. The gods, specifically Apollo, see the marriage bond as equal to one of blood. His logic behind this is that Zeus and Hera have sanctified the marriage oaths. (Aeschylus, 213-222) Mortals, as represented by the chorus, see a marriage bond as inconsequential compared with a bond of blood. Aeschylus, 211-12)

However, later in the play, Athene agrees with the mortals, although her judgement of Orestes’ punishment does not reflect this belief. (Aeschylus, 739-41, 752-753) These contradictions highlight the conflict between divine and mortal, and marriage and blood. In both plays, a blatant disrespect for the marriage bond is shown. In Antigone, it is seen in Oedipus’ destruction of his parent’s marriage. (Coles Notes, 20) The king, Creon, also shows disrespect for this bond, as shown in lines 626-629 and in lines 632-633: “Ismene: Will you kill your son’s wife to be? Creon: Yes, there are other fields for him to plough.

Ismene: Not with the mutual love of him and her. Creon: I hate a bad wife for a son of mine. Chorus: Will you rob you son of this girl? Creon: Death-it is death that will stop the marriage for me. ” In The Eumenides, the disrespect for this bond is shown most clearly by the refusal of mortals (Aeschylus, 211-13) and Athene (Aeschylus, 739-40) to accept the bond of marriage as one equal to the bond of blood. In contrast, a strong respect for the bonds of blood is shown in both plays. For Antigone, her siblings are the most important people to her. She is willing to bury her brother against the city’s orders even if it means her execution. Sophocles, 82-89) This seems to be contradicted by the awkward position that she puts her sister, Ismene, in by asking her to participate in Antigone’s crime. (Sophocles, 90-101)

However, Antigone does this out of respect and obedience for her oikos, the realm of the household. Everything that she does throughout the play is out of this respect and obedience. Creon disrespects Antigone’s obedience to her oikos, as shown by his consistent belief that what Antigone did was wrong, no matter what her reasons. (Sophocles, 526-40) He is also disrespecting the bond of blood of uncle and niece between him and Antigone. Sophocles, 530-534)

His pride dominates ancient customs and his love for his family. (Sophocles, 585-587. ) The rivalry of respect and disrespect for these bonds is seen again in The Eumenides. As previously stated, Apollo sees the bond of blood and the bond of marriage as equal (Aeschylus, 213-23), where mortals (Aeschylus, 211-13) and Athene (Aeschylus, 739-40) see the bond of blood as superior to that of marriage. This causes conflicts between the gods. In the beginning of the play, this conflict is between Apollo, who believes Orestes should not be punished, and the Furies, who believe he should be punished for matricide.

When judgement on Orestes is passed (“Athene: The man before us has escaped the charge of blood. ” line 752), the wrath of the Furies moves from Apollo to Athene. This conflict lasts from line 778 to the end of the play. It is obvious after close examination between these two texts that the bonds between marriage and blood are often complicated. They are often intertwined (as seen by Antigone’s ancestry) and their importance differs between cultures and societal positions, as seen in The Eumenides. Antigone and The Eumenides are important Greek societal statements on the bonds of blood and marriage.

The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil

In the first chapter of his book The Age of Spiritual Machines, author Ray Kurzweil gives a very brief history of the Universe, which serves as a preface for his subsequent theories. In this history, Kurzweil chronicles the rapid expansion of time between salient events in the history of the Universe, describing time, in his own words, as geometrically slowing (pg. 10). He then jumps headfirst into the history of evolution, and shortly thereafter of technology, in both of which the time between salient events is shrinking exponentially.

This leads him to question the opposing nature of the trend (how can time be accelerating as applied to technology and evolution yet decelerating as applied to the very Universe which contains these? ) as well as search for similarities between the trends. Thus is created Kurzweils first theoretical law, that of time and chaos. Kurzweils Law of Time and Chaos is as follows; “In a process, the time interval between salient events (that is, events that change the nature of the process, or significantly alter the future of the process) expands or contracts along with the amount of chaos. (pg. 29)

In other words, as things become more chaotic as applied to a specific process it takes longer for significant events to occur within that process, and vice-versa. According to this law, the rate at which we advance technologically has, and will continue to, accelerate exponentially. What if this exponential growth “hits a wall” so to speak, as trends of the exponential variety frequently do? Kurzweil is quick to answer this question, which he knows will be raised quickly by most readers.

According to the Law of Accelerating Returns, which states simply that as a process speeds up so do the returns from that process speed up as well, technology will continue to build upon and advance itself. As technology advances, we are able to create more technologically advanced machines, which in turn will enable us to create even more advanced machines, and so on. According to Kurzweil, the only two resources this technological evolution needs to survive are “the growing order of the evolving technology… nd the chaos from which an evolutionary process draws its options for further diversity” (pg 35), both of which, Kurzweil claims, are unbounded.

With the an understanding of the Laws of Accelerating Returns and of Time and Chaos firmly under our belts, Kurzweil advances to the next chapter in order to answer a question subtly raised by his faith in the continuing exponential advancement of technologycan an intelligence (such as ours) create an intelligence (such as the artificial intelligence of our computers) more intelligent than itself?

His answer is yes, and he comes to this conclusion by looking at the process of human evolution as an intelligence in itself. If this is the case, and we are to measure intelligence in terms of speed and frequency of error (as we do for an IQ test), then evolution, according to Kurzweil, would rate “only infinitesimally greater than zero” on that same IQ test. Therefore, humansa creation resulting from the intelligence of evolutionare more intelligent than the intelligence that spawned them.

Kurzweil cites the example of scientists ongoing work with DNA, which is on the brink of allowing us to refine and control evolution as the original process never could, as evidence that we have indeed become more intelligent than the process that gave us birth. It is not a difficult comparison which leads Kurzweil to postulate that some day computers, the intelligence that man created, will some day become more intelligent than man himself.

It is also not difficult to foresee the day when computers more intelligent than man will begin to create intelligence more intelligent than theythus Kurzweil brings to a close his second chapter, setting nicely the stage for the rest of the book. In the first chapter of his book The Age of Spiritual Machines, author Ray Kurzweil gives a very brief history of the Universe, which serves as a preface for his subsequent theories.

In this history, Kurzweil chronicles the rapid expansion of time between salient events in the history of the Universe, describing time, in his own words, as geometrically slowing (pg. 10). He then jumps headfirst into the history of evolution, and shortly thereafter of technology, in both of which the time between salient events is shrinking exponentially. This leads him to question the opposing nature of the trend (how can time be accelerating as applied to technology and evolution yet decelerating as applied to the very Universe which contains these? as well as search for similarities between the trends. Thus is created Kurzweils first theoretical law, that of time and chaos. Kurzweils Law of Time and Chaos is as follows; “In a process, the time interval between salient events (that is, events that change the nature of the process, or significantly alter the future of the process) expands or contracts along with the amount of chaos. ” (pg. 29) In other words, as things become more chaotic as applied to a specific process it takes longer for significant events to occur within that process, and vice-versa.

According to this law, the rate at which we advance technologically has, and will continue to, accelerate exponentially. What if this exponential growth “hits a wall” so to speak, as trends of the exponential variety frequently do? Kurzweil is quick to answer this question, which he knows will be raised quickly by most readers. According to the Law of Accelerating Returns, which states simply that as a process speeds up so do the returns from that process speed up as well, technology will continue to build upon and advance itself.

As technology advances, we are able to create more technologically advanced machines, which in turn will enable us to create even more advanced machines, and so on. According to Kurzweil, the only two resources this technological evolution needs to survive are “the growing order of the evolving technology… and the chaos from which an evolutionary process draws its options for further diversity” (pg 35), both of which, Kurzweil claims, are unbounded.

With the an understanding of the Laws of Accelerating Returns and of Time and Chaos firmly under our belts, Kurzweil advances to the next chapter in order to answer a question subtly raised by his faith in the continuing exponential advancement of technologycan an intelligence (such as ours) create an intelligence (such as the artificial intelligence of our computers) more intelligent than itself? His answer is yes, and he comes to this conclusion by looking at the process of human evolution as an intelligence in itself.

If this is the case, and we are to measure intelligence in terms of speed and frequency of error (as we do for an IQ test), then evolution, according to Kurzweil, would rate “only infinitesimally greater than zero” on that same IQ test. Therefore, humansa creation resulting from the intelligence of evolutionare more intelligent than the intelligence that spawned them. Kurzweil cites the example of scientists ongoing work with DNA, which is on the brink of allowing us to refine and control evolution as the original process never could, as evidence that we have indeed become more intelligent than the process that gave us birth.

It is not a difficult comparison which leads Kurzweil to postulate that some day computers, the intelligence that man created, will some day become more intelligent than man himself. It is also not difficult to foresee the day when computers more intelligent than man will begin to create intelligence more intelligent than theythus Kurzweil brings to a close his second chapter, setting nicely the stage for the rest of the book.

Foolish Analysis of Twelfth Night

In English literature, the two main ways which the fool could enter imaginative literature is that “He could provide a topic, a theme for mediation, or he could turn into a stock character on the stage, a stylized comic figure”. In William Shakespeare’s comedy, Twelfth Night, Feste the clown is not the only fool who is subject to foolery. He and many other characters combine their silly acts and wits to invade other characters that that either escape reality or live a dream. It is not unusual that the fool should be a prominent figure and make an important contribution in forming the confusion and the humor in an Elizabethan drama.

In Twelfth Night, the clown and the fools are the ones who combine humor and wit to make the comedy work. Clowns, jesters, and Buffoons are usually regarded as fools. Their differences could be of how they dress, act or are portrayed in society. A clown for example, was understood to be a country bumpkin or ‘cloun’. In Elizabethan usage, the word ‘clown’ is ambiguous meaning both countryman and principal comedian. Another meaning given to it in the 1600 is a fool or jester. As for a buffoon, it is defined as “a man whose profession is to make low jests and antics postures; a clown, jester, fool”.

The buffoon is a fool because “although he exploits his own weaknesses instead of being exploited by others…. he resembles other comic fools”. This is similar to the definition of a ‘Jester’ who is also known as a “one maintained in a prince’s court or nobleman’s household”. As you can see, the buffoon, jester and the clown are all depicted as fools and are related and tied to each other in some sort of way. They relatively have the same objectives in their roles but in appearance (clothes, physical features) they may be different.

In Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, Feste’s role in this Illyrian comedy is significant because “Illyria is a country permeated with the spirit of the Feast of Fools, where identities are confused, ‘uncivil rule’ applauded… and no harm is done”. “In Illyria therefore the fool is not so much a critic of his environment as a ringleader, a merry-companion, a Lord of Misrule. Being equally welcome above and below stairs.. ” makes Feste significant as a character. Feste plays the role of a humble clown employed by Olivia’s father playing the licensed fool of their household.

We learn this in Olivia’s statement stating that Feste is “an allowed fool”(I. v. 93) meaning he is licensed, privileged critic to speak the truth of the people around him. We also learn in a statement by Curio to the Duke that Feste is employed by Olivia’s father. “Feste the jester… a fool that the Lady Olivia’s father took much pleasure in”(II. iv. 11). Feste is more of the comic truth of the comedy. Although he does not make any profound remarks, he seems to be the wisest person within all the characters in the comedy.

Viola remarks this by saying “This fellow’s wise enough to play the fool”(III. i. 61). Since Feste is a licensed fool, his main role in Twelfth Night is to speak the truth. This is where the humor lies, his truthfulness. In one example he proves Olivia to be a true fool by asking her what she was mourning about. The point Feste tried to make was why was Olivia mourning for a person who’s soul is in heaven? CLOWN Good madonna, why mourn’st thou? OLIVIA Good Fool, for my brother’s death. CLOWN I think his soul is in hell, madonna.

OLIVIA I know his soul is in heaven, fool. CLOWN The more fool, madonna, to mourn for your brother’s soul, being in heaven. Take away the fool, gentlemen. Adding to the humor of the comedy, Feste, dresses up as Sir Topaz, the curate and visits the imprisoned Malvolio with Maria and Sir Toby. There he uses his humor to abuse Malvolio who is still unaware that he is actually talking to the clown than to the real Sir Topas. Feste (disguised as Sir Topaz) calls Malvolio a “lunatic” (IV. ii. 23), “satan”(IV. ii. 32) and confuses him by wittingly making him a fool.

Throughout the play, Malvolio has always been the person who intentionally spoils the pleasure of other people (killjoy). He is Feste’s worst nightmare in the play, but in the end is triumphed over by Feste completely and is the only character to show a negative attitude and a dignity reversed. Malvolio proclaims: I’ll be revenged on the whole pack of you! ” (V. i. 378). At the end of the comedy, Feste, is given the last word and is left in possession of the stage. Maria, Olivia’s companion is another person who seems enthusiastic in playing pranks on other people.

In Twelfth Night, she plays the unsuspecting role of a behind the scene fool who gives ideas to Feste, Sir Andrew and Sir Toby to assist her in her plans. In two incidents, she remains quiet while her plans are carried out by either the Knights or the Clown. Part of the humor that lies in this comedy is that Maria’s pranks are harsh and cruel, using love and power (status of Olivia) to attack Malvolio, steward of Olivia, who is “…. sick of self love”(I. v. 90). For this, Malvolio’s greed for power ends himself locked up in a dark cell and is accused of being mad.

She also prepares Feste to disguise as Sir Topaz. This is seen in the quote: “Nay,I prithee put on this gown and this beard; make him believe thou are Sir Topas the curate; do it quickly. I’ll call Sir Toby the whilst. ” (IV. ii. 1,2,3) Combined with other fools, Maria helps make Twelfth Night a hilariously funny comedy. Lastly, Sir Toby Belch is another fool in Twelfth Night. His role is helping “on the game of make-believe”. Always convincing & encouraging the rich Sir Andrew Aguecheek that he has a chance of winning Lady Olivia’s love.

He is similar to Feste, except he plays the role of a knight and is Olivia’s kinsman. His role is similar to a fool because he depicts many pranks of a fool. For example in Act II scene iii, while he was drunk he sings along with Feste when Malvolio barges in to shut them up. Whenever there is a prank, Maria invites Sir Toby to participate. One such prank was to assist Maria’s fake letter to make Malvolio think Olivia is in love with him. Sir Toby’s make-believe scheme works convincingly on Malvolio. Another prank was to accompany the disguised Feste (Sir Topaz) into the dark cell where Malvolio was imprisoned.

This accompaniment was probably to assure Malvolio that the real Sir Topaz is visiting him. Yet it is another make-believe scheme of Sir Toby. In Twelfth Night, the fools are the ones that control the comedy and humor in the play. They assist in the make believe game and fool around with characters who attempt to evade reality realize their fantasies. In Twelfth Night, Feste, Maria and Sir Toby are the fools that make the comedy work in many senses. They create the confusion through humor and it all works out in the end to make William Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night a really funny Elizabethan play.

Shakespeare’s Sonnet 130 Analysis Essay

sonnet 130

The Shakespearean sonnet affords two additional rhyme endings (a-g, 7 in all) so that each rhyme is heard only once. This enlarges the range of rhyme sounds and words the poet can use and allows the poet to combine the sonnet lines in rhetorically more complex ways.

Sonnet 130 is the only Shakespearean sonnet which models a form of poetry called the blazon, popular in the 16th century used to describe heraldry. It presents a detailed summary of all of the main features and colors of an illustration. A typical blazon of a person would start with the hair and work downward, focusing on eyes, ears, lips, neck, bosom and so on.

Read moreShakespeare’s Sonnet 130 Analysis Essay