I Wish to Study English and American Literature

Having majored in literary studies (world literature) as an undergraduate, I would now like to concentrate on English and American literature. I am especially interested in nineteenth-century literature, women’s literature, Anglo-Saxon poetry, and folklore and folk literature. My personal literary projects have involved some combination of these subjects. For the oral section of my comprehensive exams, I specialized in nineteenth century novels by and about women.

The relation ship between “high” and folk literature became the subject for my honors essay, which examined Toni Morrison’s use of classical, biblical, African, and Afro-American folk tradition in her novel. I plan to work further on this essay, treating Morrison’s other novels and perhaps preparing a paper suitable for publication. In my studies toward a doctoral degree, I hope to examine more closely the relationship between high and folk literature.

My junior year and private studies of Anglo-Saxon language and literature have caused me to consider the question of where the divisions between folklore, folk literature, and high literature lie. Should I attend your school, I would like to resume my studies of Anglo-Saxon poetry, with special attention to its folk elements. Writing poetry also figures prominently in my academic and professional goals. I have just begun submitting to the smaller journals with some success and am gradually building a working manuscript for a collection.

The dominant theme of this collection relies on poems that draw from classical, biblical, and folk traditions, as well as everyday experience, in order to celebrate the process of giving and taking life, whether literal or figurative. My poetry draws from and influences my academic studies. Much of what I read and study finds a place in my creative work as subject. At the same time, I study the art of literature by taking part in the creative process, experimenting with the tools used by other authors in the past. In terms of a career, I see myself teaching literature, writing criticism, and going into editing or publishing poetry.

Doctoral studies would be valuable to me in several ways. First, your teaching assistant ship program would provide me with the practical teaching experience I am eager to acquire. Further, earning a Ph. D. in English and American literature would advance my other two career goals by adding to my skills, both critical and creative, in working with language. Ultimately, however, I see the Ph. D. as an end in itself, as well as a professional stepping stone; I enjoy studying literature for its own sake and would like to continue my studies on the level demanded by the Ph. D. program.

Damsels In Address

It is clearly evident that many fairy tales of childhood tend to shape the reader. Certain moral codes and ideals are tightly woven into the text of many fairy tales, promoting or denoting a characters actions. In the Grimms fairy tales Cinderella, Brier Rose, and Rapunzel, the heroines of these tales exhibit strong behavioral codes, thus providing opportunity for the young female reader to relate to the damsel, or to model herself to behave in a similar fashion.

In accordance with Marcia R. Liebermans essay, Some Day My Prince Will Come: Female Acculturation Through the Fairy Tale, I agree ith the assertion that positive traits in fairy tale indicate reward, while the negative characteristics bring misfortune. A heroine in a fairy tale is to be seen as a mentor, a model to easily portray what is right, and what is inherently wrong. For instance, a passive heroine proves to bring eventual reward through pain and suffering, while a female who is assertive, either mentally or physically, is shunned.

Suggestions integrated throughout the text of the three tales provide strong evidence as to the desired morals and values of the society in which the tales were written. Through the examination of ales, their inherent messages surface. Childrens perceptions of fairytales can go a long way towards shaping social interactions among said children. Passivity is a major player in the personalities of Rapunzel, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty. Rapunzel relies completely on a determined prince to escape her imprisonment; Cinderella uses a fairy godmother to help her cause and Sleeping Beauty waits until Prince Charming wakes her.

Children could see these characterizations of women and begin to intertwine them with their own budding personalities. Boys begin to see women as weak and Girls may interpret these ehavior traits as indicative of their being the lesser part of relationships with men. Sexual roles, although not overtly discussed within the pages of fairytales, becomes the focus for these young people. Marcia Lieberman reiterates the idea of inherent roles stating, a picture of sexual roles, behavior psychology, and a way of predicting outcome or fate according to sex(Lieberman, 384).

As they grow older, the children may begin to fall into the roles they discovered in the fairytales; boys begin to act out the hero role and girls become passive, receptive to the males ideas before their own. Throughout Cinderella, the jealous sisters are constantly oppressing the heroine of the tale. The sisters, who enslave Cinderella to complete chores around the palace, portray strong, ill natured, and above all, jealous characters. In contrast, Cinderella represents a relatively passive, young, and beautiful woman.

However, in contrast with Lieberman (389), Cinderella is not passive in completing her tasks about the house. Stating, the system for rewards in fairy tales [] equates these three factors: being beautiful, being chosen, and getting rich, Lieberman acknowledges the relationship between eauty and eventual success (386). Beauty, however, hides within Cinderellas actions. The words, After leaving her slipper at the ball she has nothing more to do but stay home and wait, expressions of description, Lieberman suggests that Cinderella exhibits at the core of her emotions, meekness (389).

Cinderellas submissiveness is rewarded with the introduction of the prince and her eventual happily ever after status. Rewards only pertain to those who have struggled, and therefore prove worthy. In Brier Rose, the heroine of the tale suffers through a great sleep to be eventually rejuvenated and rewarded for er passivity by the prince. Upon her birth, the heroine receives four gifts from fairies: virtue, beauty, wealth, and the curse of a seemingly endless sleep. Three of the four gifts bring lifelong success and happiness, while the latter handicaps her maturation process.

Proclaiming, the prettiest is invariably singled out and designated for reward, Lieberman identifies the tendency for fairy tales to equate beauty with success (384). Once again, the beauty of the heroine arrives as a result of her state of passivity, her intense sleep. The statement, she does not have to show pluck, resourcefulness, or it; she is chosen because she is beautiful, Lieberman explains the heroines ability to attract the eye of others (386). For it is merely the heroines immense beauty that persuades the prince to ride through the forest of thorns in order to reach the heroine and to rejuvenate her from her sleep.

Once again, as a direct result of her beauty, the heroine is rewarded for her beauty and all of the obstacles it brings. Throughout the tale Rapunzel, the heroine is portrayed as the classic fairy tale character, a damsel in distress. In this case, Rapunzel depends upon others to bring her happiness and in that, freedom. Awaiting the assistance of others, Rapunzel helplessly serves to further institute the notion that success only comes with being passive, specifically, being imprisoned by a cruel witch.

Revealing, so many heroines [] are locked up in towers, imprisoned by giants, or otherwise enslaved, Lieberman asserts the prominence of an imprisoned maiden in fairy tales (389). As previously stated, Rapunzel depends on her rescuer in order to escape the tower and the wrath of the witch keeping her in custody. Declaring, The sexes of the rescuer and the person in danger are almost as constantly predictable; men ome along to rescue woman who are in danger of death, Lieberman concludes that in most cases, the damsel in distress is in fact distressed as a result of her imprisonment (391).

Whether mentally or physically imprisoned, the heroine of Rapunzel strongly relies on others, specifically and initially; she relies on a handsome prince driven by beauty. In fairy tales marriage is not without its great rewards. Proclaiming, good, poor and pretty girls always win rich and handsome princes, Lieberman presents marriage as a reward (386). This not without its drawbacks in the development of young childrens perceptions of arriage; Lieberman points out that Since girls are chosen for their beauty, it is easy for a child to infer that beauty leads to wealth (386).

Children see the opportunity to profit and run with the concept that the only way to be happy is to live a life that equates these three factors: being beautiful, being chosen, and getting rich(Lieberman, 387). Woe to the little girl raised on stories of women only able to marry or be loved if they are pretty. The girls can develop a trait of caring much more for their appearance and if ever they are spurned from marriage it may not be taken on its merits, instead seen as a ign that the girl is ugly, not chosen, not rich and consequently not happy.

Boys also see this and become obsessed with money; not willing to conclude the accumulation of wealth is so they can get a pretty girl. Without a doubt children can internalize many of the actions, roles, behaviors and psychology presented to them in fairy tales. Passive heroines are beautiful. In return for such beauty, the maiden is chosen, married, and loved by the hero. This process leads not only to beauty by means of passivity, but also to security and happiness. Assertion equates not only with beauty, but ugliness and misfortune s well.

Boys in turn develop a sense of responsibility and see themselves in the dominant role. In other words, they must save the day by getting the girl and then of course spreading wealth. For the young girls of the fairy tale audience to acknowledge that they must act out roles similar to the behavior of the heroines in the three tales under examination, thus guaranteeing eternal wealth and happiness. Boys will see the same roles played out and revert to the breadwinning hero role. Lessons portrayed throughout the story are epitomized by Marcia Lieberman to support the notion of love, success, and failure.

Materialism – The Great Gatsby

America has been labeled “The land of opportunity,” a place where it is possible to accomplish anything and everything. This state of mind is known as “The American Dream. ” The American Dream provides a sense of hope and faith that looks forward to the fulfillment of human wishes and desires. This dream, however, originates from a desire for spiritual and material improvement. Unfortunately, the acquisition of material has been tied together with happiness in America. Although “The American Dream” can be thought of as a positive motivation, it often causes people to strive for material perfection, rather than a spiritual one.

This has been a truth since the beginnings of America, such as the setting of F. Scott Fitzgeralds novel, The Great Gatsby, which is an example of this set in the 20s. The characters in this novel are too fixed on material things, losing sight of what is really important. The characters in The Great Gatsby take a materialistic attitude that causes them to fall into a downward spiral of empty hope and zealous obsession. Fitzgerald contrasts Jay Gatsby and Nick Carraway to display how the materialistic attitude of the 1920s leads many to hopeless depression and how materialism never constitutes happiness.

Fitzgerald uses Jay Gatsby, a character who spends his entire adult life raising his status, only to show the stupidity of the materialistic attitude. Rather than hard work, Gatsby turns to crime and bootlegging in order to earn wealth and status to get the attention of Daisy Buchanon, a woman he falls in love with five years earlier. “He [Gatsby] found her [Daisy] excitingly desirable. He went to her house There was a ripe mystery about it, a hint of bedrooms upstairs more beautiful and cool then the other bedrooms It excited him too that many men had already loved DaisyIt increased her value in his eyes” (155-156).

Gatsby falls in love with everything about Daisy. It is not only her that Gatsby desires, it is her riches and possessions as well. The fact the many other gentlemen want Daisy simply increases her worth in Gatsbys eyes. All of these things are the reasons Gatsby “commit[s] himself to the following of a grail” (156). The grail symbolizes a quest for perfection, the perfection of himself in others eyes. James Gatz works his entire adult life to win this woman, to achieve this unrealistic dream of his. Fitzgerald uses the word grail to suggest that for Gatsby, marrying Daisy is a type of a religious quest.

Yet, truthfully, Daisy herself is not the key, but the increase in status that she would bring him and the illusion that she carries with her. He had thrown himself into it [the dream] decking it out with every bright feather that drifted his way” (101). Gatsby is much more in love with the idea of Daisy, not the reality of who she is. He wants everything she has and stands for. Gatsby wastes his entire adult life trying to achieve this idealistic dream. Indeed he loves Daisy, but through his fantasy he builds her up to be someone she is not.

Lost in his idealistic world, he molds his images of her into a perfect specimen. Nick Carraway comments, “There must have been moments when Daisy tumbled short of his dreams, not through her own fault, but because of the colossal vitality of his illusion”, yet he refuses to acknowledge these moments” (101). His state of reality is so greatly altered that he cannot believe she is not the absolute perfect woman he so desired five years ago. Jay Gatsbys obsession with Daisy gives him a false illusion of her, much like the illusion of the American dream, both representing inevitable disaster.

F. Scott Fitzgerald clearly uses Jay Gatsby to represent the materialistic attitude of the 1920s. Literary critic Marius Bewley suggests that Jay Gatsby is ” The mythic embodiment of the American Dreamthe terrible deficiencies are not so much the private ones of Jay Gatsby, but are those inherent in contemporary manifestations of the American vision itselfGatsbys deficiencies of intelligence and judgment bring him to his tragic deatha death that is spiritual as well as physical. But the more important question that faces us through our sense of the immediate tragedy is where (these deficiencies) have brought America”.

This state of perfection that people so desperately want to achieve is the very reason why American society is dysfunctional. People are blinded by this hopeful result of their lives, they allow the present to escape their grasp. Fitzgerald introduces a place by the name of “The Valley of Ashes”. It is a depressing locality far away from the glamour and wealth of the East and West Eggs. This dumping ground is half way between West Egg and New York. The Valley of Ashes is a symbol of the empty existence of a low society. Fitzgerald uses this slum as an example of the failure of the American Dream.

He criticizes the corruption of the American dream. What was once for Thomas Jefferson-a belief in self-reliance and hard work, has become what Nick Carraway calls “The service of a cast, vulgar, and meretricious beauty” (180). This energy might have gone into the pursuit of morale and self worth, rather than materialism and shallow fortunes. Things like love and relating to another human being is completely overlooked in the pursuit of power and a very showy, but fundamentally empty form of success. All the characters in this novel are caught up in materialism except for one, Nick Carraway, the narrator and the observer.

Nick sees all the evil that goes on, and it is not until about the end of the novel that he realizes he does not want to be any part of it. Right before Gatsby is killed, Nick says goodbye to him, turns to walk away, then pauses, turns back and shouts ” Theyre a rotten crowd, Youre worth the whole damn bunch put together ” (162). This is a very special moment where Nick reveals to the reader that although he disapproves of Gatsbys materialism, his tasteless pink suits, his love of a woman as shallow as Daisy, and his pathetic efforts to win her back by showing off what he has rather than who he isGatsby is not part of “the foul dust”.

His “incorruptible dream” has something pure and noble about it, which sets him apart from the others. Tom, Daisy, Jordan,–they belong to the “rotten crowd” because they are selfish, materialistic, and cruel. They do not have spiritual values or compassion. Nick realizes that Gatsby is better than them because of his total dedication to a dream. Nick also comes to the realization that “They were careless people, Tom and Daisythey smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made” (187).

Nicks decision to leave the east is tied up with his reaction to “careless people”. He does not want to become that way himself. He is now rid of Tom and the world Tom represents, and can return to a world of principles and traditions in the Midwest. Nicks final thoughts are stated at the end of the novel where the story is summed up. The novel is transformed from a story of a small group of people at a moment in time to a portrait of an entire nation.

It is Nicks last night in West Egg and he has walked over to Gatsbys mansion, letting the houses melt away in his imagination, he thinks of what this island must have looked like to the Dutch sailors seeing it for the first time in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: as a new world–pure, and unspoiled. Nick calls it “a fresh green breast of the new world” (189). It finally hits Nick at the end that men have always been dreamers. The idea of America as a land of infinite possibilities was so magnificent then, that man was “face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder” (189).

The landits physical beauty and its apparently limitless horizonswere worthy of the dream. For Gatsby the green light at the end of Daisys dock symbolized the same American dream that drove the Dutch sailors to the new world. Gatsby believed in the dream, and Nick Carraway will always love him for it. Nick will also always know the importance of human beings in his life; and not material things. Placing Nick as an observer, Fitzgerald is able to successfully show the reader how foolish it is to value material items over spirituality. The Great Gatsby is not, just a book about the 1920s.

It is a book about America, its promise, and the betrayal of that promise. F. Scott Ftizgerald writes his best novels during the 1920s, in which he examines the evils of the time; he recognizes the consequences that accompany the actions of the characters who act on such vices, and wrote about them. This is a novel about what happens to the American dream in the 1920s, a period when the old values that give substance to the dream are corrupted by the vulgar pursuit of wealth. The very definition of materialism implies unhappiness because without spiritual values there cannot be true and lasting fulfillment.

For although this novel captures the romance and glitter of “The Jazz Age”, it is more fundamentally a sad storythe portrayal of a young man and his tragic search for happiness. It is shameful that this country is built with such hope and positive motivation, but that the dark side of humanity turns it into such a selfish country. America, the land of opportunity, has unfortunately turned into an economic battle. Society is so worried about being the best, people surpass pure happiness. “There is only one success: to be able to spend your life in your own way, and not to give others absurd maddening claims upon it.

The Great Gatsby – Analysis of Nick

Nick Carraway has a special place in The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald. He is not just one character among several; it is through his eyes and ears that the story takes place. In this novel, Nick goes to some length to establish his credibility, indeed his moral integrity, in telling this story about this “great” man called Gatsby. He begins with a reflection on his own upbringing, quoting his father’s words about Nick’s “advantages, which we could assume were material but, he soon makes clear, were spiritual or moral advantages.

Nick wants his reader to know that his upbringing gave him the moral fiber with which to withstand and pass judgment on an amoral world, such as the one he had observed the previous summer. He says, rather pompously, that as a consequence of such an upbringing, he is “inclined to reserve all judgments” about other people, but then goes on to say that such “tolerance . . . has a limit. This is the first sign the narrator gives the reader to show he will give an even-handed insight to the story that is about to unfold.

Later the reader learns he neither reserves all judgments nor does his tolerance reach its limit. Nick is very partial in his way of telling the story about several characters. He admits early into the story that he makes an exception of judging Gatsby, for whom he is prepared to suspend both the moral code of his upbringing and the limit of intolerance, because Gatsby had an “extraordinary gift for hope, a romantic readiness. This inspired him to a level of friendship and loyalty that Nick seems unprepared to extend towards others in the novel.

Nick overlooks the moral implications of Gatsby’s bootlegging, his association with speakeasies, and with Meyer Wolfsheim, the man rumored to have fixed the World Series in 1919. Yet, he is contemptuous of Jordan Baker for cheating in a mere golf game. While he says that he is prepared to forgive this sort of behavior in a woman: “It made no difference to me. Dishonesty in a woman is a thing you never blame too deeply – I was casually sorry, and then I forgot,” it seems that he cannot accept her for being “incurably dishonest” and then reflects that his one “cardinal virtue” is that he is “one of the few honest people” he has ever known.

When it comes to judging women – or perhaps only potential lovers – not only are they judged, they are judged by how well they stand up to his own virtues. Nick leaves the Midwest after he returns from the war, restless and at odds with the traditional, conservative values that, from his account, haven’t changed in spite of the tumult of the war. It is this insularity from a changed world no longer structured by the values that had sent young men to war, that decides him to go East, to New York, and learn about bonds.

After one summer out East, a remarkable summer for this morally advantaged young man, he “decided to come back home” to the security of what is familiar and traditional. He sought a return to the safety of a place where houses were referred to by the names of families that had inhabited them for generations; a security that Nick decides makes Westerners “subtly unadaptable to Eastern life. By this stage, the East had become for him the “grotesque” stuff of his nightmares. This return home tells the reader many things about Nick.

Nick is adversely affected by the events of that summer: the death of a woman he met briefly and indirectly, who was having an affair with his cousin’s husband and whose death leads to the death of his next-door neighbor. The only genuine affection in the novel is shown by Nick towards Gatsby. He admires Gatsby’s optimism, an attitude that is out of step with the sordidness of the times. Fitzgerald illustrates this sordidness not just in the Valley of Ashes, but right there beneath the thin veneer of the opulence represented by Daisy and Tom.

Nick is “in love” with Gatsby’s capacity to dream and ability to live as if the dream were to come true, and it is this that clouds his judgment of Gatsby and therefore obscures our grasp on Gatsby. When Gatsby takes Nick to one side and tells him of his origins, he starts to say that he was “the son of some wealthy people in the Middle West – all dead now . . . ” The truth (of his origins) does not matter to Gatsby; what matters to him is being part of Daisy’s world or Daisy being a part of his. Gatsby’s sense of what is true and real is of an entirely other order from Nick’s.

If he were motivated by truth, Gatsby would still be poor Jay Gatz with a hopelessly futile dream. In the passage where Nick says to Gatsby that you can’t repeat the past, and Gatsby’s incredulity at this. Nick begins to understand for the first time the level of Gatsby’s desire for a Daisy who no longer exists. It astounds Nick: “I gathered that he wanted to recover something . . . that had gone into loving Daisy . . . out of the corner of his eye Gatsby saw that the blocks of the sidewalks really formed a ladder and mounted to a secret place above the trees . . .

Through all he said, even through his appalling sentimentality, I was reminded of something – an elusive rhythm, a fragment of lost words, that I had heard somewhere a long time ago . . . ” These are Nick’s words. Whose “appalling sentimentality” is operating here? Has Nick reported any of Gatsby’s words – which comprise so little of the novel – to suggest that he would even begin to put his love for Daisy in these “sentimental” terms? Is not this excess of sentiment in fact Nick’s sentiment for Gatsby or perhaps Nick’s attempt at displaying those “rather literary” days he had in college? Or both? The reader should consider the distance that Fitzgerald has created between his presence in the story and Nick’s and their implications.

Fitzgerald has created a most interesting character in Nick because he is very much a fallible storyteller. When an author unsettles an accepted convention in the art of storytelling by creating a narrator like Nick, it draws attention to the story as fiction, as artifice. Ironically, in doing this, he has created in Nick a figure who more closely resembles an average human being and thus has heightened the realism of the novel.

The Chrysalids, by John Wyndham

The Chrysalids, by John Wyndham is a great novel in my opinion. It occurs in the future but it focuses on prejudices, intolerance and torture, issues that exist now and will always exist as long as we do. I believe the novel has a very important message for readers today. In the novel, The Chrysalids, and in reality presently, many human rights are being violated. First off, child abuse and torture is a major factor in the novel. Secondly, the intolerance towards the women of Waknuk, and how they are treated. Lastly, the deportation of people to other countries around the world, and other area’s of Labrador.

The first issue that is a major concern in the novel, is the torture and abuse towards David, and other members in the novel. Every minute in the United States, children are physically and sexually abused, murdered, maimed, and emotionally scarred. David, the narrator of the novel, has encountured this abuse more than once. David is tortured numorous times, by his father, Joseph Strorm. This brutality would continue, until Mr. Strorm received the information he demanded. It would continue on for hours, until David could not handle it anymore, until the answers Joseph Strorm wanted, were beaten out of of him.

No child, anywhere in the world, should have to experience such cruelty. Over 67% of children with disabilities are induced by physical abuse. These numbers are very shocking, but what is every more unbelievalbe is the fact that these children are suffering in silence. Today more and more children are being abused, physically, mentally, and even emotionally. The most pitiful part of it all, is that this abuse is being done by the people the childs parents or close relatives, the ones that are supposed to love and nurture the child, not abuse and torture the child.

Another human right being abused in the book, is the intolerance towards the opposite sex. The women of Waknuk, are too familiar with this sitution. Women in Waknuk are not aloud to work outside of the home. The men believe their rightful place to be, is in the home. Cooking, cleaning, having childern, and keeping the house is complete order. This exact thing is happening around the world, even in our own communities today, as we speak. But I believe this intolerance is most severe in a country called, Afghanistan.

Women in this country annot attend school, have no right to work, cannot have male doctors only females attending them, and have even been ordered to stay in the home. But if they do choose to go out, they cannot show their faces in public, go outside the house alone, wear certain clothes, or even wear shoes that make a clicking sound. Women can not walk alone even in their own neighbourhood without the fear of being stopped, beaten or detained particularly by the religious police as suspected moral offenders. This is because there are more constraints placed on the behaviour of women than men.

For instance they are not allowed to go anywhere, or leave the country without a male guardian or his written consent. Lastly, the human right abuse being violated in the novel, is the free will to move in and out of a country, and the will to live where you see fit. In the novel, The Chrysalids, if you are born with the slightest abnormality, deviation, or even a special power, such as Davis and his friends, think shapes, you are sent away, and exiled to the Fringes, as a mutant. If you do not leave immediatly to the Fringers, or return once you have been sent there.

The people of Waknuk have a right to, shoot and even kill you, if you decide to break the rules. This same issue is happening today in many countries around the world. For example, Thai women are being trafficked to Japan. Trafficking people means the illegal and highly profitable recruitment, transport or sale of human beings for the purpose of exploiting their labor. It is a slavery like practice that must be eliminated. The trafficking of women and children into bonded sweatshop labor, forced marriage, forced prostitution, domestic servitude, and other kinds of work is a global phenomenon.

Traffickers use coercive tactics including deception, fraud, intimidation, isolation, threat and use of physical force, or debt bondage to control their victim. Also, as I said earlier, the women in Afghanistan, cannot leave the country with out a male guardian or his written consent. The novel, The Chrysalids, by John Wyndam, as you can tell, has many human rights abuses. I have only explained a few of these abuses in the novel, but their are considerably more in the book.

Unforuntly all these abuses will continue to reoccur, in our world, as long as we are around. Even when people are the same race or the same religion there is prejudices, intolerance and torture. If you do not act or look a certain way, you are deemed different. To be different is to be hated. To be different is to feel inferior to those who deem themselves normal. What people don’t realize is that we are supposed to be different. We are not supposed to be mirror images of each other. If that were to happen, what kind of world would we be living in today?

The Great Gatsby

There are many different types of people in this world. Apart from physical features, it is the characteristics of a person that makes him/her original. Nick Carraway the narrator of The Great Gatsby, has qualities which are the complete opposite of those of Tom Buchanan, his cousin-in-law. In the novel, the author, F. Scott Fitzgerald, uses the comparison between two cousins to show how their differing characteristics reflects the themes of morality and reality versus illusion. One of Nick’s Characteristics, that is incompatible with Toms is that Nick is cautious when speaking.

On an occasion when Mr. Gatz said something that Nick disagreed with , Nick still hesitantly, agreed with him, as to not hurt an old man’s feelings; as apparent by the following quote: “If he lived, he would have been a great man. A man like James J. Hill. He’d of helped build up the country. ’ ‘That’s true,’ I said, uncomfortably. (Pg. 164) Tom, who is at the other end of the rope, is very careless about what he says; he does not care if he hurts someone. At one time, he was very rude when paying only ten dollars to a dog seller on the street. “

‘Is it a boy or a girl? ’ she asked delicately, ‘That dog. That dog’s a boy. Dog-seller) ‘It’s a bitch,’ said Tom decisively. ‘Here’s your money. Go and buy ten more dogs with it. ’ (Pg. 28) This shows that Tom does not care if he hurts the feelings of the person to whom he speaks with. Nick’s carefulness when speaking and Tom’s Carelessness reveals a lot about their morality. It shows that Nick’s morals are high he can not hurt an old man who had just lost his son; whereas Tom’s morals are so low, that he hurts a poor stranger walking down the street, who is trying to make a living. The carefulness of speaking shows the theme of morality because it reflects respect for humanity.

With the realization that the way one wants to be treated he or she treats the other person with the same respect. Nick’s carefulness when saying something reveals the fact that he makes good judgements. An example of his good judgements is when he said that Tom and Daisy were careless people because throughout the novel evidences can be found to support this statement. “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy they smashed up thing and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made. ” (Pg. 0-1)

Nick shows his good judgement of Tom and Daisy being careless people. On the contrary, Tom makes baseless judgements that are visible in the following quote. “Nowadays people begin by sneering at family life and family institutions, and next they’ll throw everything overboard and have intermarriage between black and white. (Pg. 130) This quote reveals how Tom scorns the blacks for no apparent reason. Nick’s reasonable judgements reflect reality, for he sees things as they really are. On the other hand, Tom’s baseless judgements reflect the illusions in his world, for his judgements are what he only views to be right.

Nick and Tom’s ability to make judgements reveal how good of judgements they make in their relationships. Nick is honest in his relationships. Before going back to the mid-west, he went and talked to Jordan about their relationship, as the following quote reveals: “There was one thing to be done before I left, and awkward, unpleasant thing that perhaps had better been left alone. But I wanted to leave things in order and not just trust that obliging and indifferent sea to sweep my refuse away I saw Jordan Baker and talked over and around what had happened to us together, and to us together, and what happened afterward to me. Pg. 178)

This shows how Nick wants to be honest about how he feels towards Jordan. On the other hand, Tom is dishonest in relationships; not only was he cheating on his wife, but he also lied to his mistress, as the quote indicates- “You see, cried Catherine Triumphantly. It’s really his wife that is keeping them apart. She is a Catholic, and I was a little shocked at the elaborateness of the lie. (Pg. 34) Nick’s honestly shows the amount of respect he has for people whereas Tom’s dishonesty in relationships, unveils his lack of respect for other people.

Their differing characteristics reveal how each of them treat their relationships. Thus, showing theme of morality. Nick’s honesty and Toms lack of it, set the foundation for their faithfulness. Since Nick has a strong foundation and is honest, he is thus, very faithful. His faithfulness is quite visible because he was one of the few people to attend Gatsby’s Funeral. Nick and two others, were the only one’s to attend the service. He also arranged the service. This shows how he was faithful to his Gatsby until the very end.

On the other hand, he has a weak foundation, for he is dishonest and consequently is not faithful. An example of his unfaithfulness is that he was not present at his daughter Pammy’s, birth. His faithfulness to his wife is visible in the following quote-“Well, she (Pammy) was less then an hour old and Tom was God knows where. I woke up out of the ether with an utterly abandoned feeling (said Daisy) (Pg. 17) Tom not showing up to his daughter’s birth shows how he has no moral value of family. Nick’s faithfulness and Tom’s unfaithfulness, indicates their morals.

Nick has high moral, since he attended Gatsby’s funeral; however, or the contrary, Tom’s morals are low, since he was not present at his daughter’s birth, not for Daisy’s sake, and not for Pammy’s sake. Therefore it shows how their foundation for their faithfulness reflects the theme of morality. Nick’s and Tom’s faithfulness or lack of it, are the pillars that hold up their conscience. Since Nick has thick strong pillars, he, as a result, has a very strong conscience. His conscience makes him feel responsible for Gatsby’s death, for he was the one that brought Gatsby and Daisy together.

After Gatsby’s death the East was haunted for me like that, distorted beyond my eyes power of correction. (Pg. 178) This quote shows that Nick is feeling responsible for bringing the two together. On the contrary, since Tom’s pillars are weak, his conscience is also that weak. Tom was very much responsible for Gatsby’s death , for he lead the killer, Mr. Willison, to Gatsby. Even though he was in a tight situation to have stilled informed Gatsby about Mr. Wilson coming for him, however he did not. He did not ever feel barely guilty, as the following quote reveals: Tom I inquire, ‘What did you say to Wilson that afternoon?

I told him the truth. ,’ he said, ‘He came to the door while we were getting ready to leave and when I sent down “? ” that weren’t in he tried to force this way upstairs. He was crazy enough to kill me if I hadn’t told him who owed the car. His hand was on the revolver in his pocket every minute he was in the house-’ He broke off definitely. ‘What if I did tell him (Gatsby)? That fellow had it coming to him. He threw dust into your eyes just like he did Daisy’ (Pg. 180) This shows Tom did not feel any remorse for telling on Gatsby.

The fact that Nick has a conscience and Tom does not seem to have a conscience gives more depth of morality of these characters. Nicks sensitive conscience proves that he is a clean-hearted person; whereas tom insensitive conscience proves that he is a selfish person. The theme of morality is shown through their conscience actions. The characteristics of human beings, can say a lot about what kind of person they are. Both Nick and Tom have characteristics that are quite the opposite. In showing the differing characteristics of Nick and Tom, Fritzgerald portrays the themes of morality and reality versus illusion.

Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry

If you go back to the Old House, it’s in ruins and the Clock Tower is gone. But remember this place to come back later when you have some items that you don’t have at the moment… At Father’s House, the baby bird is spreading its wings. Unfortunately, it doesn’t say anything with a Relay. One of the books you may be able to read now is here too: Level 15 (Shield Pack). Don’t worry if you’re not up this high yet; if you keep fighting monsters you’ll either get there, or you’ll spend so much on curing damage that you’ll eventually figure out you need to kill easier monsters for a while to get levels so you can add points to the Robots.

It helps too if you raise the levels of the Robots’ weapons, or build and give them better Boots or Shields. If you did manage to get to Level 19 already, read the book for Weather and follow the instructions in the Scraps section to get ScrapB. You can do this later though, with no ill effects. OK, let’s go on a trip to South Isle! Go to the Harbor area, which is monster-free. Talk to the man in the grass skirt, then walk onto the boat. Wait while it toils across the seas of Quintenix. You’ll arrive at the Pier area on South Isle. When you leave the area, the path to the Village area is revealed.

Mint and more natives are in there, and the screen shakes along with a sound effect like a helicopter (on my emulator, at least); that’s the Volcano. There’s a Tool Shop in the Village, but it has the same stock as the one in Rococo and the prices are 50% higher. Find the Shaman’s house in the northwest, and then enter the Elder’s house in the northeast. Now visit the Shaman’s house, and note that blocked door in the first room for later. Or you can skip all the background information, including talking to the Mayor, and just talk to the native in the Inn and then moving into the left bed.

There will be a dream sequence with a gold robot at the Volcano. Talk to the native standing near the exit, and the path to the Volcano area will be revealed when you leave. The Volcano area is monster-free (for now). Explore it and get the Celtis 1 and $300 treasures before you talk to the native blocking the stairs to the hole. Now climb the rope, or fall in, and you’re in the Volcano Cave. This has monsters in it, but you can always climb out and get back to Rococo, at least until you walk a bit west of the rope and you get a strange message from the guide and the rope disappears.

I think it’s trying to say that you’re now a sacrifice to the Deity/Volcano. Anyway, clear out the monsters here and get the $500 treasure, then go north to the next room. The treasure in the northeast corner here is a Repair. Leave through the northwest corner, and you’re now in what’s obviously a man-made (or at least Hacker-made) area! Welcome to the Factory Experience! Stella and Pops from Rococo are here, but you can leave either through the south door, or by pressing the button on the north wall and then riding a conveyor belt (red is north, white is south in this room).

I suggest exploring south first, as the conveyor belt area is tricky to navigate (return from it by letting a patrolling guard see you). I can understand why Stella and Pops don’t leave, but the Hackers are beyond dumb for not taking everything from you including the 3 Robots. But if they did, it wouldn’t be much of a game. OK, from Stella and Pops go south, west (get Cure treasure), east, south to the Bio Lab Ent. There’s a strange thing on the north wall, and the Hacker guard won’t let you go further. So let’s go back and do the conveyor belts instead.

As said above, you get sent back if a guard spots you. But they don’t “see” very far or off to the sides. So do a lot of hiding in corners and just out of their range, and follow them around. There’s several things to do here: 1. Get to the northeast corner with the locked door and mouse, talk to the mouse via the Relay. You’ll be doing quite a bit of mouse hole movement later. Remember this locked door for later. 2. Dodge the guard again, go southwest and notice the other mouse hole near the doorway to the Hacker executive washroom.

Go in, and the talkative Hacker will let slip some useful info, and put a Stamp on your hand (which doesn’t actually show up anywhere, and it doesn’t stop the patrolling guards from sending you back to Stella). He won’t move out of the way either, so go on to… 3. It’s not easy to tell from the graphics, but you can go west from the washroom door area “under” to get the Cure treasure. 4. This part is a little tricky: while dodging the guards, make your way to the southwest portion of the big conveyor room and press the button near that corner. That will reverse the conveyors, and allow you to go north.

Now you’re in another bathroom. The conveyor reverse button is on the north wall. You can talk to the guard blocking the west doorway here, and because you have that Stamp, he’ll let you through! You’re now in still another bathroom, but this one has monsters in it! Also has mouse holes on the north end, and $600 treasure too. Go through the exit in the southwest, and walk up to the “Boss” door. You’ll overhear some talking between Dr. Einst and a Hacker, then they notice an eavesdropper! Luckily, it’s another Hacker, not you. Also, notice the mouse holes here too.

Now make your way back through this bathroom to the Executive one where a Hacker was blocking your way. After doing all that other stuff, the Hacker blocking the way now turns into Kotetsu. Talk to him and he wants you to follow him to the north. In there, he’ll show you a garbage chute. But to be ornery, check out the toilet with yet another mouse hole next to it, and the door to the Chief Exec. toilet. Open the door behind Kotetsu, then go in to fall back into somewhere under the Volcano. That annoying “earthquake” effect is back… The treasure in a southwest corner of your entry room is a Cure.

Take the west-most of the 2 exits on the south side; the eastern one just leads to one monster in a dead end. Keep going, and leave through the stairs in the southeast, but if you’re willing to get through a few more fights you can notice an altar-like structure on the northeast side of this room before you leave. Now there are two small rooms with invisible monsters. These things are rather nasty, and can easily cause you to lose the game (bet you didn’t know that you lose when all of your robots are junk! ). A Masker is worth 2. 6, and a Beret is 2. 5! Most of the time they run away if you inflict damage, and you get 0. ut of it.

Best strategy is to Escape, then run away from them while they are visible and shaking their heads. There are two in each room. If you’re lucky, you’ll make it through both rooms without meeting any of them. To be fair to those of you playing without cheating, I didn’t hang out here and get even more levels. But after these 2 rooms, you return to the outside world in the Shaman’s House! This is now your opportunity to take a break and go back to Rococo or your Father’s House to read more books, do other R&D stuff, or just build up your supplies (Clean, Cure, Repair).

You won’t get another chance, until you get to the R&D in the Volcano, to do this stuff. So ignore all the villagers thinking you’re a ghost, and just go back to Rococo to rest up from your “vacation”. The Volcano area now has Powermole monsters, and the rope is back so you can climb into and out of the Volcano Cave. The guard that wouldn’t let you out of the “Bio Lab Ent. ” room is also gone, so you can freely walk into and out of this Hacker base under the Volcano. So if you want to go scouting and build up levels, go ahead! I strongly suggest you be at least level 16 before starting up with following the story again.

It makes combat easier, and you can avoid retracing your steps to find books. When you talk to the Elder of the village, you begin a long sequence back in the Bio Lab. Basically, you’re forced to walk into a wooden box decorated with a green scarab, and be carried to the Shrine, then the Director’s Office. And Mint is in there with you! Dr. Einst shows up and tries to mack on Mint before mutual recognition occurs.

Search the room: read the level 16 book (Quick Pack), notice yet another mouse hole, take the Key treasure, try talking to the skull device on the wall (it’s DeityCom! One strange thing but pointless thing about that scarab box is that while it appears wider than one “square”, you can walk through the “half squares” on the sides. Hopefully you were level 16 already, and can now leave this room behind. If not, you’ll either have to come back to read the book, or go to Kirara later, if you really must get them all. Walk out of the “Chief’s Room” and find yourself on the far side of the Hacker bathrooms. The Hacker guard that looked at your Stamp earlier now can tell you that the Chief was chased to the Toilet.

So, dodge patrolling guards, ride conveyors and press buttons as necessary to get to the big toilet where you got your hand stamped and met Kotetsu. Mint will be in there, and asks you to follow Einst further into the mens’ room (some reporter! ). The Hacker inside will tell you Kotetsu is the cleaning person, mention the Lunchroom, and tell you to check the Exec. facilities; you won’t be allowed to go in the garbage chute again. Go in, and walk a step towards the toilet, and this small room (which has a mouse hole of its very own) does something strange, like move in an elevator fashion.

Don’t worry, you can walk out, into another bathroom and one other exit, and back in to get back where you started. By the way, the last place you could save the game was just outside the toilet where Mint is now. Those flashing lights on the side of the walkway are alarms; trip one and 4 groups of Cmdrs will show up! Go to the northeast exit to find the Earthquake Device door (which won’t open with your Key), a hole, and a $400 treasure. Brave the alarms and go through the southeast exit to find a Secret Lab room with a hole and “Boss” design, but no door! t least that you can see at the moment… ) So return back to Mint and tell her it was a dead end.

She’ll run off, and you can go try out your Key on the only other locked door you can now get to: northeast of the big bathroom, where there’s a mouse out in plain sight (told you to remember that! ). You’ll have to travel through this room with 2 Turbo monsters several more times, but for now head north. This is the Lunchroom. Kotetsu is all the way on the right, and will tell you to go get Chameleon Glasses from R&D. Go in the opening to the left of Kotetsu, and you’ll find the Hacker Cook.

If you like, go to the southeast opening and listen to Hackers order food. But talk to the Cook, and he’ll tell you what to say to get into R&D by delivering food. So now head south (2 Turbo room), east (several monsters), north (the “Gunrobot” monster first shows up here, a hole and a $800 treasure), north (alarm on walkway for 4 groups of Cmdrs), north again (the “Biolion” and “CannonX” monsters first show up here, alarm on walkway for 3 groups of Cmdrs, another treasure), west (ignore the stairs down and the southwest exit, just head all the way to the left and press A at the door).

As I Lay Dying: Addie Bundren

Addie Bundren conjures up the central darkness derived from her death and directly or indirectly causes actions in which each Bundren character takes advantage of Addie. With the character’s actions revolving around her death, William Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying reveals the truth about the people who surround a person may take advantage of him or her. The death of Addie Bundren shapes all of the character’s actions in life including Addie’s final request before her death.

Addie takes advantage of her death by using it for revenge and inflicting final pains upon some characters, while the other characters use er to get what they want for their personal needs. Addie causes all the painful actions around her family either directly or indirectly. Addie is foremost the prominent abuser of her upcoming death in As I Lay Dying. She predetermines her time to die, and she makes sure that the people in her family whom she dislikes must experience her wrath before she moves on to the next life. Addie is the one who is dying, but she makes revenges run throughout the family and extend beyond” (Wadlington 35).

Inflicting pain mostly on Anse, Addie enjoys herself. Anse, a azy man, is forced by his wife to take her to Jefferson to be buried as her final request. Addie’s revenge on Anse was payback for all the times when he just sat around while Addie, her children, and sometimes neighbors do all the hard work for him. Also “Addie reacts to Anse’s arid conventionality by having a clandestine affair with minister Whitfield” (Wadlington 31). Addie also indirectly hurts one of her favorite sons, Cash.

Cash is hurt indirectly when he helps ! his kinfolk carry his mother’s coffin to Jefferson, where along the path, he breaks his leg while crossing a looded river. Although Cash is one of Addie’s favorites besides Jewel, Addie’s cruel revenge carries over to Cash’s broken leg, which later becomes infected. Besides her indirect action on Cash’s leg, Cash is the most favorite of Addie. As Wadlington states, “He is very much his mother’s son in expressing his feelings through physical action rather than through words by building a coffin for the mother he loves” (Wadlington 41).

Jewel, Addie’s second favorite next to Cash, seems to be cursed by his callous mother. Jewel can only express himself through physical actions by being cruel. Yelling and screaming is the only way Jewel shows his love for his mother, but Jewel’s ferocity begins to wear him down physically. Saving his mother’s coffin from going downstream and rescuing the coffin from the burning barn were some ways Jewel showed his love, although those actions are quite extreme because Jewel could have been killed. Addie’s revenge could have killed Jewel, but luckily it did not happen.

Addie’s revenge also affects her little son Vardaman. Teaching of the world is usually the mother’s job in the family especially on Addie’s case since Anse is a lazy bum. As “for Vardaman, his “unknowingness” comes from his mother’s death compounded by his family’s failure to communicate reassurance and explanation to him” (Wadlington 56). Addie did not teach him what was in the world and manners; so as a result, when his mother dies, Vardaman confused his mother’s death with a dead fish he caught that day.

Vardaman’s manners are reckless against Dr. Peabody when he came to nurse Addie. Vardaman action was quite extreme when he tried to chase the doctor away because Vardaman is quite irrational in not understanding that Dr. Peabody did not kill his mother. Dewey Dell, Addie’s daughter, is deprived of a central motherly figure. Addie’s action in not caring enough for her daughter leads her to become irresponsible with Lafe where Lafe impregnates Dewey Dell.

Darl, one of Addie’s least favorites, is rejected by his mother which “injured him psychologically” and led him to burn the barn where Addie’s coffin lay resting in peace (Wadlington 30). Darl is sent to an asylum for that demented deed, but could have been prevented if Addie showed more affection toward Darl. Darl s gradually revealed as a rejected son who feels that his mother is not even alive because he calls her “Addie Bundren” instead of calling her “Mother” (Wadlington 41).

If Addie had cared more for her children and spent more time with her children before her death, then possibly none of painful actions that resulted from Addie’s presence would have happened. As a result her selfishness towards her children in not giving enough tender love and care, her children become deprived in her life which leads to all the characters taking advantage of Addie. Addie’s death also reflects upon the attitudes between Cash, Darl, and Jewel. Between the three, jealousy is prevalent.

Jewel and Darl envy the love that Addie gives Cash, while Darl is Jealous of Jewel; therefore, Darl teases him by always asking him “Who was your father? ” (Faulkner 213). Cash, Darl, and Jewel do not get along because of their bitter jealousy of each other. Jewel can never please his mother enough, so he gets mad at Cash while Darl continues to pick on his origin of birth which causes a bitter rivalry between the three (Wadlington 32). Away from her family, Addie’s cruelty leads into her former teaching career where she hates her children and wishes they where vanquished.

Addie resents her children similarly in the way she resents her students when she expressed, “When school was out and the last one had left with his dirty snuffling nose, instead of going home, I would go down a hill to the spring where I could be quiet and hate them” (Faulkner 169). Addie seems to portray her hatred for her schoolchildren the same way she hated her own children. Addie’s death results in more character actions in which all characters except Jewel take advantage f her death in order to obtain what they want. The characters use Addie’s death as an incentive to look forward to her death and quickly take her to Jefferson.

Anse, the prime tributary, grasps Addie’s death so he can go to Jefferson to get his long and awaited false teeth. At the end of the journey to Jefferson, he meets his new wife whose name is only presented as Mrs. Bundren to replace his old wife, Addie. Vardaman seems to forget about his mother’s death and begins to think only about the cars in the toy store at Jefferson where he tries to get a toy train. Dewey Dell uses Addie’s death to have a chance to go to the pharmacies at the end of the journey to get an abortion with Lafe’s ten dollars.

Cash seems to want new tools, while Darl just wants to get the burial over with, but his task is not finished because he is sent to an asylum. Overall, Addie uses her deat! h to her advantage, by making her family pay and make them take her to be buried in Jefferson, while the other characters use Addie’s death to attain what they want. Addie is the central monstrosity against all people who surround her, which leads to the day when he dies where her surrounding community would eventually begin to take advantage of her.

All the characters take advantage of Addie’s death even Addie herself as she gets her revenge on her whole family. The curse of Addie enchanted over her family resembles similarly to a type of hex. If Addie is more sincere and more of a motherly figure to her children, then possibly she would enjoy life, and her family would enjoy her and no pain would be inflicted. If Addie expressed her love, then many people would not dare imagine taking advantage of her, but instead, eminently respect her.

Death of a Salesman

They all return to the house. The fully paid for house. The sight of it brings back a slight sob to Linda’s throat, when she reaches the cement stoop her sobbing once again becomes full. Charley looks to her but is at a loss for words. Happy puts his arms around his mother and holds her. Biff only looks on at it all. For a brief second he sees the Willy’s fate in Happy’s eyes as he holds Linda. Willy’s death has brought Biff to know what he is more than ever. He’s not a salesman and neither is Happy but Happy is just like is father and Biff fears nothing can be done to change the course of life Happy has chosen upon Willy’s death.

The small grieving party enters the house and each takes a seat in the living room. Linda has gained control over herself again. No one dares to say a word they each sit by themselves accompanied by their own thoughts. Biff’s mind is racing now. Thoughts of how his life will not end like Willy’s. Biff has no master plan for his life he just wishes to begin his life. His real life. “Construction” Biff accidentally says allowed. Everyone looks at him. What about construction. Happy says to Biff. Tomorrow I’ll look for a job in construction is Biff’s reply.

I’ll start at the bottom and I’ll gradually raise my position. Someday maybe architecture or engineering. By god I’m gonna do something with my life weather it’s to my families approval or not. Charley looks at Biff and says. Biff I don’t know if this is the right time for this. It’s sounds like a good idea to me but I honestly don’t think this is the time to talk about it. I’m sorry Charley you’re right I’m going to bed now I’ll see you all tomorrow. Biff stands up stretches his arms and back and goes off to bed. Biff wakes up early the next morning.

No one else has woken yet and Charley had gone home the night before. Despite the death of his father hanging over him like a dark, dreary cloud Biff is in an unexplainably great mood. He felt as if his life was just beginning on this day. He is wearing his blue suit, makes himself some eggs and toast, and has a cup of coffee. Then he was off to find an honest job. Biff wanted to make a sort of amends with the old construction company him and Happy used to steal from. This was Biff’s first choice. He arrived at the company building straitened himself out and went in.

As he entered the lobby a young receptionist met him. Biff stated his business and asked if any job were open. The receptionist handed him an application to fill out. Biff took a seat by a window and started on the application. the first question he encountered was that of experience. Biff began to make up false places of employment for himself. When he noticed this was exactly what his father and happy would be doing he threw out the application and asked for another. If he didn’t get the job honestly he didn’t want the job at all.

Biff put applications out for a few hours most places followed the basic routine as the first. Then he returned home. Happy and Linda were in the kitchen eating lunch when he came in. Linda and happy ignored him so he made himself some lunch and sat down at the table with them. What’s with the “cold shoulder” you guys are giving me. Biff asked. We aren’t giving you a “cold shoulder” we simply don’t have anything to say to you was Linda’s reply. Well would you like to hear about my day? The phone rang just as he finished his question. Linda got up to answer it.

It’s for you Biff. It’s the Altec construction agency. Biff took the phone and said thanks mom. Linda reproached Biff’s thanks with an uh-huh and she sat down to her meal again. Biff hung the phone and told Linda and Biff that they wanted him to come in for an interview right away. I just put the application in this morning and they want to interview me already. Isn’t that great guys! That’s good was Linda’s only reply. You know what Mom, Happy I really don’t care how you feel about me but I’m not going to let you two financially fade away just because you dislike me.

If I get this job you are getting a portion of my paycheck whatever you need to keep yourselves afloat. I’ll move out if that’s what you want. The only thing you’ll ever see from me is my money! With all that said Biff left the house not waiting for a reply he didn’t expect. Biff arrived at the Altec company building still in his blue suit before he entered he looked at the suit and wished he hadn’t worn it. the suit went along with his father’s belief of image being foremost important. Biff no longer wanted a job simply for his image.

Biff entered the building walked straight to the receptionist and stated his name. The receptionist told him that Mr. Lansing, the personnel manager was expecting him and she pointed towards the office door Labeled Personell Manager, Mr. Lansing. Biff thanked the receptionist and he walked over to the door. Before Biff knocked however he took the suit coat off and set it on a chair then he knocked on Mr. Lansing’s office door.

A man dressed in a suit very similar to Biff’s opened the door and said hello my name is Mr. Lansing please come in and take a seat. Biff followed Mr. Lansings instruction and sat down in a comfortable leather chair in front of Mr. lansing’s fine Cherry desk. By the look of the personnel manager’s office Biff thought to himself that this company must be quite successful and he was assured that he wasn’t making a mistake with this business venture. Okay Mr. Loman lets get started. Mr. lansing asked Biff a few simple questions. Then he asked Biff when the soonest he could start. I could start today if you want me to Biff told him.

Great Biff you see a few of our workers have recently left the company to begin their own and we are in desperate need right now. I don’t want to rush you into it. So we won’t start you today but how’s tomorrow sound around 12:00am at the Westmore Voice recording construction site on Philips street. That would be great Mr. Lansing. The sooner I can make some money the better. Please call me Charles I try and keep good relations with our employees and I want you to know that if you ever have any problems or comments to come to me with them. Okay.

Catcher in the Rye – Themes

For my summer reading, I chose to read Catcher in the Rye, by J. D. Salinger. I decided to do my essay on the themes of the story. The only problem was, I couldn’t think of any. After reading the book twice, and still coming up without any, I decided to do some research on the web. I found out what some of the themes are, and now they make sense to me. There were four major themes that ran throughout the story. One of the major themes in Catcher in the Rye is the preservation of innocence. Holden believes that the children are almost perfect in the way that they are truthful, innocent and not “phony.

They (children) never try to impress others by being something other than themselves. They rely on adults and have little or no responsibilities, but are open to learning and the truth. Another theme is the development of maturity. Holden slowly matures throughout the novel, finally growing up in the park at the carousel. When people mature, they lose the innocence of childhood and become trapped between childhood and adulthood (phoniness). They start to accept responsibilities for their actions, but they try to change themselves to impress others.

They put on phony airs, and are less open to learning. Holden sees adults as people who have given in to society and become something they’re not. Adults think that they are always right, because they have conformed to the norm. There are certain responsibilities and ideals that adults are expected to have. In reaching these, they become phony and untrue to themselves and others. Holden wants to hold on to the innocence and truth of youth, and this means not becoming one of the phony adults he despises.

Reality and truth are things that are not easily recognized or explained. Holden knows this and has learned that the recognition of these concepts is different in young people and adults. Holden wants to preserve the innocence of children because he sees children as the only people who are able to see the truth behind the illusions of the world. Children are still discovering new things and are open to learning, while adults do not learn, but conform and therefore can’t discern between reality and illusion.

On the Waterfront and High Noon

A lot has been made of the suggested subtexts present in High Noon and On the Waterfront, that they reflect the experiences of Carl Foreman (the writer of High Noon) and Elia Kazan with the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Foreman has openly assented to this, and Kazan has admitted that there are parallels. However, while this can give us insight of the personal opinions of these men, I do not think that the significance of these subtexts can be played down enough.

My reasons are that they are in no way attached to the films-that is, not evident without knowledge other than that of the films themselves; that they add nothing to the films, as a work of art; and that the assumption of the subtexts is very ambiguous. By this last point, I mean that we cannot give authorial intention any more power over our understanding of the film than that of any other interpretation.

We would be just as well to say that High Noon is really about the Nazi persecution of the Jews, or even about the Allied attack on the Nazis, because, as I have said, this kind of meaning is not produced by the film but is superimposed over it. The films are interchangeable in this aspect, because they are both about people doing what they believe is right-it just happens that the idea of what is right differed between Foreman and Kazan.

A better way of commenting on the socio-political climate of the fifties in Hollywood, as reflected in these films, is to take meaning from the films, rather than receive a meaning from someone who claims authority over them and depreciates the role of the viewer. We must look at what the films really say about America rather than what someone tells us they are meant to say, because these can be quite different things. The communist scare was at fever pitch in the early 1950s, when HUAC reopened investigations.

Opinion was divided in Hollywood. There were those, like Kazan and the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, who believed that the communist threat was real, and that, in Kazans words, communists were in a lot of organizations-unseen, unrecognised, unbeknownst to anybody. While Kazan has made it clear that he was not happy about testifying at HUAC, he seems firm in his belief that there was a lot of communist indoctrination and brainwashing going on that posed a danger to American society.

Opinion amongst others was that HUAC was an angry god who must be sated, and that those who testified were forced into playing up the threat of communism, just to satisfy (and justify) the committee and keep working. Brian Neve has made the point that no matter what Kazans feelings were about communism, he might have exposed the threat in ways other than testifying to an organisation that ruined many careers and lives.

Arthur Miller said of it that Kazan in his human weakness had been forced to humiliate himself. The consequence of blacklisting and the fear generated by HUAC was that there was a shift in Hollywood from the social conscience films of the post-war period, as any criticism of American society was suspected as un-American. I suggest that there is a significant distinction between previous films (like those of the race cycle) and those of the early fifties.

Where the earlier films were critical of American society, its prejudices, and aimed to teach liberal ideas of equality, in some later films the emphasis is shifted from society in general to oppressive (and un-American) organisations-be it an unfair medical committee in People Will Talk, the Ku Klux Klan in Storm Warning, or a corrupt union in On the Waterfront. The distinction is significant because (although, in the last two films, people share the responsibility for allowing wrong to happen) the problem is not America-it is un-American individuals, who must be rooted out of society.

As said of the Hoboken docks, in On the Waterfront, its like it aint even part of America. This considered, High Noon could be regarded as a continuation of the concern in On the Waterfront. Hadleyville has been cleaned of the un-American oppressors: Will Kane and the townspeople fought against Frank Miller and the corrupt villains who controlled the town, turning it into a place where it is safe for a decent woman to walk the streets. But the film is hardly an affirmation of people-power: when justice fails, Miller returns to kill Kane and the people desert him, as it no longer seems their problem.

The film concludes, as does On the Waterfront, with a lack of faith in humanity, showing that the will to self-preservation dominates over the other drives. They suggest that humans are like electricity, in that they follow the path of least resistance. Though done in slightly different ways, they both lament the sheer lack of solidarity in communities against those who exploit or tyrannize over them. Opposition is hard to organise, and people know from experience that if you stick out your neck, theyll cut it off.

The consequence of this in the films can be seen in two ways: either that in life there are great men and lesser men (slightly fascist view), or that it is every individuals duty to liberate themselves from mind forgd manacles. I think that, perhaps simply because Gary Cooper looks so much better than the rest of the snivelling, cowardly townsfolk, High Noon is more in line with the first view. (Perhaps surprisingly, given Foremans supposed communism.

The film is played out in such a way that we are disgusted by the actions of the people, and feel very little sympathy for their awkward positions. On the Waterfront is more in line with the later view, because Kazan shows the potential for power in the workers (although unexercised). They are all physically strong, unlike the people of Hadleyville, but have been beaten into submission. We do not get the overwhelming impression that Terry Malloy is a better man than anyone else, but only that he frees himself.

However, before any harsh judgment of High Noon is made, it could be said that the elements of the film may direct us towards a more allegorical interpretation, being that Kane is the only True Man in the film and the crowds merely serve as a necessary resistance to Kanes moral rightness, a didactic tool to assure us of Kanes moral rightness. By this last point, I mean High Noon, its mise-en-scne, narrative, dialogue, and characterisation (its lack of realism) can direct us away from a literal interpretation of the events in the film. We are presented with a simplistic, black and white tale of good versus bad.

Which is which is implicit throughout, and never called into question. It is a very unambiguous situation that Kane is in: a villain is coming to kill him, who will not give up until one of them is dead. Because the situation is forced upon Kane, meaning is also forced upon the viewer. The film is almost propaganda, since we are given no reasonable option but to sympathise with Kane throughout. Perhaps, also, the film deliberately panders to the idyllic American rural myth in its celebration of guns, honesty, loyalty, pride, temperance, and abstinence from vice-the usual sentiments.

We see that his marriage is conducted in a secular ceremony, performed by a judge in front of the flag, because (although the reason given is that his bride is a Quaker) this shows the innate virtue and natural religion of Kane, and that he has no need for institutionalised religion for moral guidance. Importance is placed only in the lawfulness and safety of Hadleyville. Institutions of authority are dismissed: the church, politics, the judiciary, even Kanes tin star of the law, and true good is shown instead to be in the in the individual character and his actions.

Society is clear-cut, black and white, good and bad. It is a deliberately anti-intellectual film, emphasised by the constant repetition of how smart it is to give in and run. The gratification of traditional ideals is complete when the obvious rightness of siding with Kane is supplanted by the desire to bring big business to town. It just seems so narrow minded and egotistic that not one person actually believes Kane is wrong-they all admit he is right, but, for whatever reason, do not help. We get, in High Noon, none of the complexity and ambiguity of human nature that we get in On the Waterfront.

There is no time given at all to Kazans dilemma-that sometimes there is no obvious right, and doing what you think is right may not always feel good. In this way, the distinctions between the two are distinct. High Noon displays a nave childishness, and, if looked at in the context of HUAC, seems guilty of trying to rewrite history (or boil it down to good and bad). Whatever the final analysis on Kazans dealings with HUAC, he displays a greater sense of awareness of the complexities in life and reflects them in his film. However, in spite of this, the politics of On the Waterfront are quite suspect and questionable.

Ideologically, On the Waterfront is a contradictory, hypocritical, and conservative film. It becomes startlingly clear throughout the film that, although the attack is upon a corrupt union run by mobsters, we are witnessing the workings of three individual rackets: the criminal, the state, and the church. Kazans duplicity is in his siding with the church and state over the criminal, when all three are shown to be of questionable virtue. The union uses the power of the workers to blackmail the merchant companies who use the harbour (for example, by threatening strikes when the goods are perishable, like the bananas).

We see Johnny Friendlys banker, Morgan, who forces the men into loaning money at extortionate rates of interest. It seems that this behaviour is in no way in opposition to the practises of legitimate business and banking. The problem is that this particular racket is not state controlled, and that American government does not profit from it. Its like it aint even America, like the criminals have their own separate state within America. Johnnys sob story is reminiscent of countless others, where businessmen have worked themselves out of poverty to the top of the ladder.

This potential for financial success is the quality of America, land of opportunity. Criminal rackets are the same as business, they are just more physically brutal because they do not have state legislation to protect their interests, and so appear worse. Terrys brother, Charlie, says this girl and the Father, theyve got their hooks in the kid so deep he doesnt know which end is up anymore, but it is everyone, state, church, and mob, who try to get their hooks in to Terry and the rest of the workers. Kazan said I thought [Catholicism] was simplistic, mechanical and slightly hypocritical.

Anyway, I wanted Father Barry to be a rigidly ethical man who in any circumstance would tell you what is right. However, Father Barrys rightness is highly dubious. Terry Malloys character could be described as being without a superego. The outward appearance of this is that he appears to be lacking in gratitude. If he is working in the hole he gets on with it, if he is working the easy job in the loft he gets on with it. He does not lapse into sycophantism, because of his total ambivalence, and he cannot be bought.

He does the jobs that are expected of him, but he does not behave as he is expected. In this way, he is a little like the protagonist of Camus The Outsider, in that his lack of regard for the conventions of human behaviour makes him suspect by his fellows. Father Barry, in particular, tries to instil Terry with a superego, which is further complemented by his patriarchal stance against Terry. Terry tells him, if I spill, my life aint worth a nickel, and Father Barry replies, and how much is your soul worth if you dont? He follows this up with, Im not asking you to do anything.

Its your own conscience thats got to do the asking. Edie, who has been indoctrinated by the nuns, repeats this: you let your conscience tell you what to do! Perhaps I am biased, but does this not seem like such a cruel trick to play on a nave, but good man? While he may be sexually aggressive, intellectually Terry is a child. I think that the priest plays a rotten trick in trying to encourage guilt, and preaching self-abasement, and passive humility. The Waterfront Crime Commission investigators are the state versions of priests.

To get Terry on-side, they employ similar tactics to Father Barry, in that they feed him a little birdseed and then make him do the running (literally, in Father Barrys case). The difference between the two is that the priest believes in what he says, while the investigators merely say whatever is necessary to coax information out of a witness. What I find so interesting in this is that while Kazan certainly would not agree with what I have said, there seem to be so many startling comparisons and links to be made between the organisations in the film.

When we see Father Barry at the docks sniffing around, right after seeing the mobsters, we immediately see the investigators. We see from the picture in Johnny Friendlys bar that there is some link between the criminals and politicians (and, therefore, the state); the police, enforcers of state legislation, are also linked to crime, as they accept the moral code of the mob: that you dont rat. And the courtroom scene is a union of the state and church (the legitimate rackets) against the criminal.

I think that the overall picture here is that there are elements of truth in the statement in question. The politics of On the Waterfront seem very confused, because while we have the positive character of Terry Malloy, and the other forces that influence him do not seem to be acting in his benefit, only the corrupt union boss is called to question. This would be more acceptable if Kazan portrayed Father Barry and the investigators in a more romantic way, but his realism is stunning. The two were shown as they are, human, self interested, and ruthless.

Yet they are still sided with. It is a very good film, but this just confuses me and seems out of joint with other elements of the film. High Noon is a two-dimensional film, creating an entirely fictional universe in which the hero is always unquestionably right. These two films are far from ambiguous, instead seeming to be a clear statement of an unflinching belief in doing the right thing. There is discrepancy between the two views on what right is, and in what should one place faith, but there is little internal conflict in the films.

Children’s Literature and the Holocaust

During the 1940’s Jewish Europeans experienced an unthinkable and atrocious collective trauma. In her work “Survivor-Parents and Their Children” taken from the anthology Generations of the Holocaust, Judith S. Kestenberg has argued that regardless of location, the effects of the Holocaust are felt on survivors parenting. The children of survivors receive a secondary traumatic impact by being forced to deal with the impact the Holocaust had directly on their parents.

The novel Briar Rose by Jane Yolen is an example of a Holocaust survivor sharing her experiences through a fictionalized tale made for young adults. Some may believe that a traditional, educationally focused history source or a first hand account from a survivor is the best way to inform children about the Holocaust. It has been discovered through research of survivors and their families that first hand accounts passed down from parent to child are traumatizing. However, history books are ineffective because people are turned into statistics, thereby trivializing the terror of the Holocaust.

This essay argues that a fictional style of storytelling or literature is the best way to inform children and adolescents about the Holocaust. Witnessing is important, however, there is no educational value in traumatizing children; it is better to use literature that explains the Holocaust at a level children and young adults can handle. Milton Meltzer, author of Never forget: The Jews of the Holocaust discusses the importance of witnessing: “To forget what we know would not be human. To remember (it) is to think of what being human means.

Indifference is the greatest sin. . . . It can be as powerful as an action. Not to do something against evil is to participate in the evil” (Sherman 173). Meltzer gives the straightforward conclusion that people must be educated about the Holocaust because to remain silent about it is just as bad as playing a role in persecuting Jews. This conclusion also gives the rationale for teaching children about the Holocaust. But more specifically, why else may witnessing be important and what are the drawbacks of witnessing?

Despite the logic and seemingly usefulness of witnessing, it can be a traumatic experience for the witness. The trauma experienced through first hand accounts can be further explained through the use of Marianne Hirsch’s article “Projected Memory: Holocaust photographs in Personal and Public Fantasy,” which discusses ways people can perceive traumatic information of the past. People can either have “the ability to say it could have been me, it was me, also’ and at the same time that it was not me'” or the line between the witness and the listener can be blurred and the historical trauma interiorized.

Hirsch identifies a negative identification with trauma as idiopathic or “self-sameness” (408). An over-identification with trauma causes the witness to act out and become a victim. As Hirsch writes, “Acting out is based on tragic identification and the continuation of one’s self as a surrogate victim. It is based on over identification and repetition. Keeping the wounds open, it results in retraumatization” (414). It is because of these reasons that painful histories must be carefully passed on with the witness’s welfare in mind.

Anyone who hears a first hand account about the Holocaust may experience trauma. According to Judith S. Kestenberg, author of “Survivor-Parents and Their Children,” first hand witnessing of the Holocaust has long-term traumatic effects that are passed down through generation. As shown through out the studies and cases discussed in the anthology Generations of The Holocaust, the “psychological task” children of survivors have to face is dealing with the trauma handed down from their parents as a result of their experiences with the Holocaust.

Children of survivors are traumatized because “survivor-parents introduce into their parenthood the usual identification and counter identifications not only with their own living or deceased parents and siblings, but also with various people-some well known to them, some anonymous-who were part of their persecution experience” (Kestenberg 96). The knowledge of their parents trauma causes the child to over-identify with their parents. But not only children of survivors are traumatized by information of the Holocaust.

Even gentiles maybe traumatized by hearing first hand accounts from Holocaust survivors. “The Holocaust In Fiction; Naming The Unnamable; Morality In Literature” describes how author Joyce Hackett was negatively affected by the year she spent researching about the Holocaust: “In the months she spent conducting interviews with survivors of Theresienstadt- -a Nazi camp… Hackett found herself casually buying rope with which to fashion her own noose, and idly wondering whether it would hurt to drop a blow-dryer in my bath water'” (B6).

Hackett had an idiopathic reaction to witnessing. She over-identified with the survivors she interviewed and showed evidence of acting out, the interviews with survivors sparked her preoccupation with suicide. Since it has been shown that first hand witnessing causes trauma to children and also carries the risk of traumatizing more remote witnesses, history books may be seen as the next alternative to informing children of the Holocaust. However, history books are ineffective in teaching children about the Holocaust.

The article “Historian’s WWII Book Sanitizes History for Youth” discusses a history book that fails to convey more than mundane facts. Historian Stephen E. Ambrose wrote a book or “an introduction to the war for young readers” (Eskenazi 1). “The book fails resoundingly. Instead it presents a prettified version of the war and the role of the United States: Ambrose does mention such figures as 4,600 U. S. military personnel killed at Pearl Harbor, 85,000 Japanese incinerated at Hiroshima, and 11 million dead via Hitler’s Final Solution, including 6 million Jews” (Eskanzi 1).

The facts in the history books are ineffective. Whereas witnessing causes a problem of over identification, history books cause the problem of too little identification. The information the reader of a history book receives is not enough to create a significant impact or understanding. Because of this, no heteropathic identification is formed. The reader has no emotional connection with the work and the reader child gains nothing from reading the book. After eliminating the use of first hand witnessing and history books, the next alternative for teaching children about the Holocaust is through fictional literature.

Some have declared writing fiction about the Holocaust is impossible and immoral: “The arguments about the immorality of creating fiction about the Holocaust are related to concerns about exploiting the victims and survivors, as well as the fear of being cooped by the act of describing evil. There are concerns that imaginative works about the Holocaust, as opposed to factual texts such as autobiographies or histories, will somehow subvert the truth of what actually happened” (Walter 40).

However, unlike first hand witnessing and history books, novels are the best way to relay information about something as complex as the Holocaust. As discussed in “Juvenile Picture Books About the Holocaust: Extending the Definitions of Children’s Literature” Jeffrey Derevensky, professor of educational psychology, has a theory about the stages of childhood development and Holocaust literature: “At the concrete operational stage, from ages seven to eleven, children can begin to comprehend the objective events of the Holocaust.

They will be unable to understand the broader philosophical and psychological issues until they reach the stage of formal operation and thought, at approximately age eleven” (Walter 41). Derevensky has concluded through his studies that children and adolescents do have special and different needs. Considering these factors he has determined that starting from the age of seven, children may be introduced to the Holocaust. The child at that age will not be ready for all the information but as her or she ages more information may be introduced.

The novel Briar Rose by Jane Yolen is an example of literature made for young adults that deals with the Holocaust. Within the story itself, the reader is confronted with the controversy of what children can handle hearing about the Holocaust. How much should children be told? And how should they be told? In Briar Rose, Gemma uses a fairy tale to explain her experiences to her grandchildren. As discussed in the book Generations of the Holocaust parent survivors traumatize their children because of their experiences with the Holocaust.

The novel succeeded in the ways that first hand witnessing and history books failed; the novel was not traumatic and the reader formed an emotional connection with the characters in the book adding to the understanding of real events. In Briar Rose, a family discovers only after the death of the matriarch that she was a Holocaust survivor. Gemma, mother of one and grandmother of three, hinted but never told her family members of her involvement with the Holocaust. Her family always assumed she immigrated to the United States before World War II.

What she did tell them was the story of Briar Rose, in which she used a fairy tale of a sleeping beauty named Aurora to elude to her experiences under Nazi occupation. In her story the bad fairy was described as “the one in black with big black boots and silver eagles on her hat” (Yolen 27). The spell cast by the bad fairy is described as a mist that covered the entire kingdom: “Everyone in it- the good people an d the not-so-good, the young people and the not-so-young, and even Briar Rose’s mother and father fell asleep. Everyone slept.

So fast asleep they were not able to wake up for a hundred years” (Yolen 46). Using the ideas of M. P. Machet, author of “Authenticity in Holocaust Literature for Children” one can analyze Briar Rose. The article discusses the way that Jewish people are represented in children’s books. This author agrees that books are a good way to teach children about the Holocaust. Machet says: “Novels can help children become aware of the Holocaust by conveying some of the complexity of the historical situation and also by personifying the events through fictional characters with who children can identify” (Machet 1).

Yolen’s novel succeeds in teaching about the Holocaust while at the same time using characters the reader may identifies with. In Briar Rose Gemma tells her story using the fairy tale because she feels that her daughter and grandchildren will be able to comprehend the fairy tale. Gemma uses a princess to be the fictional character that her witnesses are to identify with. Although the listener is not royalty, a princess is something children (especially little girls) can identify with. However, this identification only happens when the child is very young.

Eventually as the child grows and matures, this identification will not be sufficient. Looking at the novel itself which teaches about the Holocaust, the fictional characters are family members that have to deal with the loss of an important member of the family. Gemma, the Holocaust survivor is given more than just a face, the reader of the novel forms a connection with the character as more of her secret past is disclosed. Since learning first hand witnessing causes trauma to the witness and that history books lack significant impact, children should be taught about the Holocaust through literature.

The more our young know about why the Holocaust happened, and how it took place, the more they, as our future adults will be prepared to deal with the trends in society that endanger our humanity” As the plot progresses more information is divulged, with age and time more and more can be taught. Well written literature about the Holocaust can provide children elements of the issue that parents and history books cannot give. Not only can it cover a variety of complex issues at a level young adults can relate to, the characters, although emotionally provoking, are distanced enough that the young readers are not traumatized.

Franz Kafka – The Metamorphosis

“When he lifted his head a little, he saw his vaulted brown belly, sectioned by arch-shaped ribs, to whose dome the cover, about to slide off completely, could barely cling. His many legs, pitifully thin compared with the size of the rest of him, were waving helplessly before his eyes. ” Gregor Samsa is the main character in this story to go through a metamorphosis. This change has turned Gregor into a “monstrous vermin”.

Kafka expresses the anxieties, inner terrors, and cynicism of Gregor’s life throughout the novella, Metamorphosis. Gregor’s feelings towards his job, the effect his job has on his family, and the cruelty that his family displays show many of the changes that occur in the story. The novel opens with Gregor in his monstrous state, late for work. He surmises that his job as a traveling salesman is very important, since he has to pay off his father’s debts, yet he is growing extremely tired and frustrated about it.

The upset of doing business is much worse than the actual business in the home office, and, besides, I’ve got the torture of traveling, worrying about changing trains, eating miserable food at all hours, constantly seeing new faces, no relationships that last or get more intimate. To the devil with it all! ” Gregor has a great amount of anger towards his job, which soon leads to his resentment towards society as a whole. The fact that his office manager showed up at Gregor’s house plays an immense role in creating apprehension and anxieties in Gregor’s mind.

He feels strangled by his job and is too weak to tolerate the pressure. Along with the pressure created by his office manager and society, the Samsa’s, especially Gregor’s father, take advantage of him. Gregor earns the basic income to support his family. “But of course he actually could have paid off more of his father’s debt to the boss with this extra money, and the clay on which he could have gotten rid of his job would have been much closer, but now things were undoubtedly better, the way his father had arranged them.

The bad taste of the Samsa’s has put Gregor in a difficult position, which I feel is one of the largest issues leading to Gregor’s metamorphosis. Gregor’s family in general had given him the negative attitude he has on life. They took advantage of him to the point where he was the means of the family’s survival. After Gregor’s metamorphosis, when he could no longer attend work, his family begins to treat him as the vermin he has supposedly become.

They no longer consider him a human being, or even a member of their family. Gregor was practically waiting for his family to give up hope in him so he could end his life. “He thought back on his family with deep emotion and love. His conviction that he would have to disappear was, if possible, even firmer than his sister’s. ” Following this quotation, Gregor Samsa commits suicide. He felt he was no longer needed, as a salesman, a son and brother, or a member of society, and gives up his measly life.

The anxieties, inner terrors, and cynicism of life in general were all factors leading to the metamorphosis of Gregor Samsa. Gregor died of a broken heart. His family and society also had a major part in bringing Gregor to his final state. Kafka used Gregor’s metamorphosis into a vermin as an symbol for Gregor’s transformation in which he alienated himself from everything, and most importantly, from himself. The other main metamorphosis that occurs in the short story deals with Gregor’s father, although I do not feel it is as major of a change.

When Gregor is no longer able to work, his father takes back over the role of head of the household, which he obviously did not want to do. The main change dealing with Gregor and his father is the reversal of father and son back to their original positions. After years of not working, Gregor’s father does not want to handle the change and responsibility that now faces him so he turns his anger at working towards his son. He feels that it is Gregor’s fault and this anger is one of the many things that lead to Gregor’s eventual downfall.

Jack Kerouac and the beat movement

World War II marked a wide dividing line between the old and the new in American society and the nations literature (The World Book Encyclopedia 427) . When world War II ended there was a pent up desire that had been postponed due to the war. Post war America brought about a time when it seemed that every young man was doing the same thing, getting a job, settling down and starting a family. America was becoming a nation of consumers. One group that was against conforming to this dull American lifestyle was referred to as Beatniks. The Beats or Beatniks condemned middle class American life as morally bankrupt.

They praised individualism as the highest human goal(The World Book Encyclopedia 428). This perspective was present in poetry and literature through out the beat movement. One of the most important works produced during the beat movement was Jack Kerouacs On The Road. In the novel Jack Kerouacs alter ego Sal Paradise represents the American man who realizes he doesnt want to conform to societies pressures but still hasnt realized what it is exactly he wants to do. He is a man who has very little direction and is very much lost in the world as he knows it. Kerouac seems to be constantly trying to escape.

In examining the novel one might wonder what is Kerouac escaping and by what means does he do so? Kerouac used two means of escape through out the novel and through out his life. His first means of escape was his constant travel. He traveled from east to west, New York to San Francisco and stopped everywhere in between. He made this trip over and over, constantly on the road. The simple title of the novel exemplifies Kerouacs ongoing need to travel. When he and his friends got tried of traveling east to west they traveled north to south, driving all the way down to Mexico City.

His travels gave him the opportunity to be an outsider with no worries. He was able to witness and observe all that there was to offer throughout the country. While journeying across the states, staying in small towns for no more than a few nights, Kerouac was able to obtain a life with no commitment or responsibility. Even if he was to make some sort of commitment to one of his many girls along the way, it wasnt unlike him to just pick up and leave. After all the only thing people around seemed to know about him was that he liked to drink.

This leads to the other form of escape Kerouac used, the alteration of reality. Kerouac would mentally alter his perception of reality through the use of drugs and alcohol. I was getting drunk and didnt care; everything was fine(Kerouac 35). To him everything in life was fine as long as he was drunk. He was beginning to drink heavily, and to drink whiskey and gin instead of just beer (Nicosia 96). That was only the beginning of his disillusionment. Jack began taking benzedrine and smoking marijuana(Nicosia 102). Having the means by which he escapes, the question still remains what is Kerouac trying to escape?

In order to understand this we must explore some of Jacks personal issues. A issue concerning Kerouac that is very often eluded to but never really spoken about in On The Road is his possible homosexuality. While Jack never actually came out about his sexuality, his close friends would often witness Jacks participation in endless rounds of sex with both men and women(Nicosia 102). Kerouacs homosexual tendencies caused an overriding psychological conflict: Kerouac was gay but despised homosexuals. Jack talked incessantly about all the big old fags he knew(Nicosia 493).

Even though Kerouac would have homosexual encounters, he felt a private guilt over his homosexual feelings. In an attempt to ease his guilt Jack would denounce homosexuality, saying that gay sex is not in my line(Nicosia 142). Jack was obviously ashamed of his homosexual experiences and fought all his life against the label queer(Nicosia 154). In 1945, he wrote a letter to Allen Ginsberg trying to resolve the issue of his possible homosexuality. He stated that the physical aspects of gay sex were disgusting; and though the desire for it might exist in his subconscious, there was no way of determining that for sure(Nicosia 142).

His apologetic tone in the letter showed that even though Kerouac wasnt entirely sure of his sexual identity, he still felt guilty that the mere thought of homosexuality had entered his feelings. This persistent guilt for his constant homosexual needs ultimately affected his ability to sustain close relationships. Kerouacs poor ability to maintain relationships is evident through out his life as well as in On The Road. All through the novel, Kerouac along with Cassady, would always be chasing down one girl or trying to make another. This very much mirrored his real life where Kerouac married three times.

Jacks first wife, Frankie Edith Parker, ended the marriage because of jacks relentless adultery. Kerouacs next marriage was to Joan Haverty Kerouac, who eventually ended the marriage saying they had made a commitment to the marriage but not to each other(Charters 357). His third and final wife was Stella Sampas Kerouac, who was told by Jack on his death bed, Stella, I love you for only the second time since they had been married. The fact that Jack couldnt commit himself to one woman at a time shows his insecurity and uncertainty towards his sexuality.

This uncertainty shows that Jack is obviously unsure about himself. It may just be that all of Kerouacs running and bingeing throughout the country was actually an expedition to find himself. All his life he may not have been escaping but rather discovering. Kerouac needed to see the way the rest of America was in an effort to find what he was. The human experience is about self-discovery. It is a universal theme which Kerouac draws upon in his classic beat work On the Road , Kerouac simply recorded this journey at a turning point in America.

Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace

Wallace’s fictional narrative Infinite Jest is an epic approach to the solicitous and addictive nature of humanity. The novel’s diverse characters demonstrate both individually and collectively the fixations and obsessions that bind humanity to the pitfalls of reality and provide a fertile groundwork for the semiotic explanation of addictive behavior. Although Wallace may have actualized the concept of the “addicted gaze” to the literal or physical response to the viewing of Incandenza’s coveted film the Entertainment [Infinite Jest], it is manifested symbolically throughout the novel in the distractions of its characters.

Nihilism

It would appear that Wallace has chosen society’s most frequently rejected and denounced individuals as the vehicle for the narrative search for and preservation of the ultimate fix, which is illustrated by the obsession for Incandenza’s film. At the same time and despite their diversity and distinctions, these individuals will ultimately represent the inextricable and covert characteristics of nihilistic behavior.

School-aged malcontents, drug addicts and the physically challenged all attempt to get a hold of a copy of the film and experience its pleasures at any cost. Ironically, it was the film maker James Incadenza’s habit to regularly observe the depravation of Boston’s crowded street milieus, where “everyone goes nuts and mills, either switching or watching” (620). It is not surprising therefore that he should develop a film that would be perceived as the panacea to the entertainment addictions of the masses.

Figurative Transgendering

Wallace devotes a substantial amount of space to the illustration of the contradictions of gender, where the adoption of gender behavior or symbols contrary to the character’s true gender can be analyzed. The occasion of Hugh Steeply in drag as he met with Marathe to discuss the emergence of the Entertainment’s cartridge may have served the literal purpose of the agent arriving incognito however his devotion to applying feminine mannerisms appear to go above and beyond the call of duty (90). In spite of his practice, Marathe nevertheless describes Steely’s appearance as “less like a women than a twisted parody of womanhood” (93).

Wallace also presents the steroid-driven objectives of a number of the female tennis player’s like Ann Kittenplan. “who at twelve-and-a-have looks like a Belorussian shot putter” (330). It may be fair to assume that their desire to acquire a manly physique is not entirely confined to the advantages it offers on the tennis court. In his notes, Wallace suggests that the “gratification of pretty much every physical need is either taken care of or prohibited” by the tennis academy (984). Clearly, the administration of steroids or any other drug of choice is prohibited by the ETA considering the wide scale purchase of “clean” urine for the academy’s drug testing.

An Endless Jest

Perhaps the most significant example of the addicted gaze is demonstrated not so much in the stationary and fixated attention to satisfying one’s obsession but in the demand for the continuous pursuit of it. The halfway house/rehab center, Ennet House, represents the often ineffectual and delusional pursuit of ridding oneself of addiction. A clear example of the deceptive environment of rehab is demonstrated by Lenz’s use of cocaine while at the facility. For many of the residents like Lenz, the limitations at Ennet House are often so unbearable that its residents are driven to the use of drugs in order to preserve their sanity. Ironically, Lenz’s stash of cocaine works as a contrived temptation that undermines any true potential for ridding himself of his addiction.

Conclusion

Wallace’s Infinite Jest is a chaotic amalgam of humanity and the similarly depraved behaviors that they demonstrate in the pursuit of amusement and satisfaction. Although the restrictions to their attainment are clearly represented by the physical entities of the Academy, the Ennet House and the wheelchair, they are also fostered by them.

If Incandenza’s “Accomplice” is any indication of the content of the Entertainment, it only reinforces the contention that human nature includes the inherent desire to not only view the depravity and debauchery of human behavior but even more, to participate in it. There is little to ponder why so many of Wallace’s characters must depend on their mind and body altering drugs of choice, if not to influence how they are viewed by others then at the very least to make more palatable their own perceptions of self.

John L.’s monologue delivered at one of the AA meetings illustrates the destructive implications of either reasoning: “all the masks come off and you all of a sudden see the Disease as it really isand see what owns you, what’s become what you are -” (347).

Jane Eyre – Miss Temples Influence On Jane

“Jane Eyre” is set during the Victorian period, at a time where a women’s role in society was restrictive and repressive and class differences distinct. A job as a governess was one of the only few respectable positions available to the educated but impoverished single women.

Not only is “Jane Eyre” a novel about one woman’s journey through life, but Bronte also conveys to the reader the social injustices of the period, such as poverty, lack of universal education and sexual inequality. Jane’s plight and her “dependant” status is particularly emphasised at the beginning of the novel.

Miss Temple is the kind and fair-minded superintendent of Lowood School, who plays an important role in the emotional development of Jane Eyre.

Miss Temple is described by Helen as being “good and very clever” and “above the rest, because she knows far more than they do”. This description is more significant because it has been said by Helen, and she herself is extremely mature.

One of Miss Temple’s most outstanding qualities is her ability to command (perhaps unconsciously) respect from everyone around her, “considerable organ of veneration, for I yet retain the sense of admiring awe with which my eyes traced her steps”. Even during their first encounter Jane is “impressed”… “by her voice, look and air”.

Throughout Jane’s stay at Lowood, Miss Temple frequently demonstrates her human kindness and compassion for people. An Example of this is when after noticing that the burnt porridge was not eaten by anyone, she ordered a lunch of bread and cheese to be served to all, realising their hunger. This incident is also evidence of her courage, of how she is not afraid to stand up to her superior, when she feels that too much unnecessary suffering has been inflicted on the children

Miss Temple’s Christianity contrasts with that of Mr Brocklehurst, where instead of preaching restrictive and depressing doctrine, which he then proceeds to contradict, she encourages the children by “precept and example”.

After the incident involving Mr Brocklehurst announcing to the whole school that Jane is a liar, the reader becomes aware of Miss Temple’s sense of natural justice, where before accepting what Mr Brocklehust has said, she inquires from Jane her version.

It is of no coincidence that Bronte choose to coincide Miss Temple’s arrival into the schoolroom with the moon’s light “streaming in through a window near”. Bronte throughout the novel uses weather to set the mood of a character.

Jane’s time at Gateshead Hall was one of misery and anguish. She was subjected to domestic tyranny, and abused by her cousin John Reed continually. Jane, from her “very first recollections of existence” had been told that she had better not think herself “on an equality with the Misses Reed and Master Reed” and that it was her “place to be humble”.

At Gateshead she was made to feel like a “discord” and a person “not worthy of notice”. Even the servants treated her with inferiority, because of her “dependant” status, which in Victorian society was viewed without compassion. Her strong desire to love and to be loved was not fulfilled here. Whereas at Lowood Jane was treated with respect and as an equal by Miss Temple, and her desire to be loved and cared for was fulfilled by Miss Temple and Helen Burns.

Jane arrives at Lowood as a passionate little girl, who is deeply resentful of her aunt and cousins, but due to the influence of Helen Burns and Miss Temple’s example, Jane learns to control these feelings, and be happy, “I had given in allegiance to duty and order”… “I believed I was content”… “I appeared a disciplined and a subdued character”.

Jane admits “to her instruction I owed the best part of my acquirements; her friendship and society and been my continual solace; she had stood me in the stead of mother, governess, and latterly, companion”.

Miss Temple’s treatment of Helen also has an influence on Jane. Jane has a great deal of admiration for Miss Temple, and in many ways copies her behaviour. Miss Temple’s treatment of Helen shows Jane how to treat other people, with kindness and respect.

When Miss Temple invites Jane and Helen for tea, Jane listens enraptured to Helen’s and Miss Temple’s intellectual discussion, while observing a real warmth and affinity between them. It is clear to Jane that both Miss Temple and Helen are both very intelligent and well read, Jane admires these qualities and tries to seek them herself as they lead to an independence of mind, another quality that Jane wishes to acquire.

The extent of Miss Temple’s influence on Jane can be seen by the way she reacts to Miss Temple’s departure, “from the day she left I was no longer the same: with her was gone every settled feeling that made Lowood in some degree a home to me” and without the presence of Miss Temple there to guide her she feels that “the reason to be tranquil was no more”.

Miss Temple acts as a strong role model to Jane, and holds the qualities which Jane aspires to have: kindness, sensitivity to the sufferings of others and resolute in her stance to injustice, “I had imbibed from her something of her nature and much of her habits”.

It is through Miss Temple’s influence that Jane deals successfully with situations that occur later in her life, including leaving Gateshead and refusing to marry St John.

The Matchmaker and main characters

The Matchmaker has four main characters Mrs. Dolly Levi, Mr. Horace Vandergelder, Cornelius Hackl, and Mrs. Irene Molloy. Each character has his or her own personality, but one thing that each character has in common is that they want some type of adventure or change in their life. How they go about these changes they each do differently. Mrs. Dolly Levi is a lady who likes to get what she wants. She has ambitions and likes to live life to its fullist. These are all positive characteristics about Mrs. Levi. It is how she goes about getting what she wants that makes her a interesting character.

Mrs. Levi enjoys getting into other peoples business and telling them how to conduct their lives. Even though that fits her job description as a matchmaker, she goes about doing it in a very manipulitive way. I, Mrs. Dolly Levi, intend to make the most of my life. I want to spend lots of money and enjoy doing it. I want to marry Mr. Vandergelder and I will lie and cheat in order to do so. Without money I am not happy and I want to be happy, that is why I will marry Mr. Vandergelder. I think that Mr. Vandergelder is a nice old man on the inside once you get past his grumpy facade.

He needs a little excitement in his life and I will give it to him. Mr. Horace Vandergelder is a stingy, cruel and miserable old man. He wants things done his way or no way at all. If things are not the way he wants them they are wrong and foolish. Horace has all this money and has nothing to spend it on. He just wants to control his nieces life. For the first time it seems, in this play, he realizes he may want to take a little risk in his life. I, Mr. Horace Vandergelder, want to get married. I am willing to take the first risk that I have taken in a long time and get married.

I need a little bit of order in my house and that is what a wife will do for me. I like Mrs. Levi, mainly because I am paying her to find a suitible wife for me. I love my niece Ermengarde but she is a fool for wanting to marry Ambrose, a man with no money. I do not understand why she would want to marry a poor artist. Cornelius Hackl is a very spontaneous character who is the most willing to take large risks in his life. He is now thirty-three and realizes that his life is not moving as fast as he would like for it to.

This is why he chose to go to New York and do something about it and it sure paid off for him. Cornelius is a leader and not afraid to take chances. He feels a great need for adventure in his life and takes Barnaby with him. I, Cornelius, am getting too old to have the same position that I have had at work for so long now. I feel that I need a change in my life, an adventure. Even if I need to risk everything I have, which is not much, I am willing to do it to get something more out of my life. I am really fed up with Mr.

Vandergelder always bossing me around and never showing me any gratification for it. He does not appreciate anything that I have ever done for him. Barnaby is one of my best friends and it is my responsibility to show him how to have a good time and make life a little adventerous. Mrs. Molloy is the kind of women that I have always wanted, I dream about marrying her. Mrs. Irene Molloy, is another character who is searching for some kind of adventure in her life. Mrs. Molloy, like Mr. Vandergelder, is looking to get married. She says she wants to marry a husband who will have good fights with her.

Mrs. Molloy despite having strange views on marriage is a very nice lady who was willing to help Barnaby and Cornelius when they were in trouble. I, Mrs. Irene Molloy, want to find a man for marriage. I do not care if I love the man or not. All that I want right now is to get out of the millinery business. I believe that all millineries are seen as wicked women and I do not want to be seen like that anymore. I do not love Mr. Vandergelder, but I would marry him for his money. There is something about Cornelius that I happen to find very charming.

Storytelling In A Modern World

We humans are all storytellers, or story-listeners, or both. That’s a crucial element of our humanity. Passing down the generations, constantly changing under the pressure of altering circumstances, stories link humanity together in chains of narrative. Odysseus sets out on the wine-dark sea, fights ferocious monsters, endures endless hardships, and eventually finds his way home; and so does Tim OBrien in The Things They Carried; and so do many thousands of other heroes conceived in the 2,900 years between Odysseus and OBrien.

Storytelling has been, since the earliest times, the way people have ordered their reality. It is the fundamental use of language, that which creates and defines reality. As James Baldwin said in his essay, If Black Language Isnt a Language, Then Tell Me What Is? , People evolve a language in order to describe and thus control their circumstances, or in order not to be submerged by a reality that they cannot articulate. . . What joins all languages, and all men [sic], is the necessity to confront life, in order, not inconceivably, to outwit death (37).

Baldwins understanding of the use of language can be extended to the purpose of storytelling. By telling a story, not only do we create reality, we defeat death. This concept of stories as constructing reality is not unique to Baldwin. In Narrative Means To Therapeutic Ends, by Michael White and David Epston, the same ideas of storytelling are enumerated, In striving to make sense of life, persons face the task of arranging their experiences of events in sequences across time in such a way as to arrive at a coherent account of themselves and the world around them. . . This account can be referred to as a story (47)

Ours has been the storytelling century: never before have so many of us had the chance to absorb so many stories. Earlier centuries heard stories face-to-face, figured them out from pictures on the walls of caves or cathedrals, read them in manuscripts, and finally (from the 15th century onward) read them in printed books. The 19th century industrialized storytelling through popular novels and magazines. The 20th century made stories pervasive. Now, they are installed as constant elements in our lives, delivered through movies, radio, television and the Internet, all of them machines of narrative.

The 21st century will find new ways of telling the old stories and developing new ones. So far, no one claims excellence for literary experiments on the Internet-but then, the novel at its birth was thought to be frivolous and the movies, when new, were no more than a toy. But there is a danger in this swell of story-telling. There was a time when the story-teller was revered. Story-tellers were considered to be prophets, shamans, visionaries. Today, there are two kinds of storytellers, the money makers, and the outcasts.

The outcasts, like Thomas Builds-the-Fire in Sherman Alexies novel, The Lone Ranger and Tonto fistfight in heaven, are telling the stories of the dispossessed. The stories which do not get told in Hollywood, at least, they rarely get told. We might have expected that humanity would at some point have resisted this swelling ocean of stories, would have been repelled by so much narration, so many ingenious plots, so many satisfying resolutions. But no: it appears we can never get enough. We thirst after stories of all kinds-epics, tragedies, comedies, anecdotes, parables. We are insatiable.

Many of us are so enchanted we go back to the same story again and again, searching for fresh meaning. Some people watch Casablanca every chance they get. I used to read The Chronicles of Narnia until I wore the pages out, and Ive already burned through four copies of Shogun. There are those who believe Christmas incomplete without A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. Given a chance, we convert real tragedy into stories and then makes stories into parables, or life-lessons, which we use as the beginnings of wisdom. The Vietnam War was a tragic time in American history.

Boys lost their innocence, lost their lives, and the country was split down the middle because of it. Then, in our stories, it became a metaphor for all wars, for all loss and schisms. It became a profound symbol of greed, violence and the danger accompanying technology. It tells the tale of love, of fear and of isolation. Its not the war that did this, though. It was the memory, the souls of those who fought the war. Mark Turner of the University of Maryland, in his book, The Literary Mind, tells us bluntly: “Narrative imagining-story-is the fundamental instrument of thought.

Rational capacities depend upon it” (37). He believes that storytelling is our chief means of explaining the world to one another and ourselves, and the principal way we form intelligence. It is essential to human cognition. Stories teach the brain how to work. Turner grounds his theory in the neuroscience of Gerald Edelman, who argues that the mind uses overlapping systems (he calls them “maps”) of neurons to pull together scattered bits of sensation and thought. Stories are the forces that set these neurons firing and connecting, and the connections that result become the architecture of human intelligence.

Those who spend long hours reading stories to their children are clearly on the right track-and so is the child who demands the same story over and over again. A neural path is being carved through the mind; perhaps the child gets it right by instinct. In the sciences of the mind there is something even more compelling to be said about narrative: Sigmund Freud became the most influential thinker of the century because he told effective stories, and retold the stories of others in ways that elaborated on his own patterns of thought.

In one sense, Freud ended the 20th century as a failure: armies of analysts and theorists can now demonstrate that he often exaggerated his results, that he failed to understand what some of his patients were telling him (about sexual abuse, for instance), that his rate of helping patients get better was not high, and that there is no way (nor will there ever be a way) to prove his theories by anything remotely like a scientific method.

As a result, a generation of psychiatrists has scorned or ignored him. Even so, he has conquered. Go the movies, pick up a novel, switch on a TV talk show, and there is no doubt who is in charge, whose concepts provide the underpinning of everyday discourse.

William Shakespeares The Tragedy of Julius Caesar

William Shakespeare writes the Tragedy of Julius Caesar. This tragic play is based on historical facts of the life of Julius Caesar. It displays the events before his death such as his conquest over Pompey’s armies and his coronation to be king and after his death. Furthermore, this play describes the minds and motives of Caesar’s assassins. He gives a description of Cassius that serves as a prediction on his choices regarding Cassius. In addition, my choices would differ from those of Caesar’s if I was the exalted ruler.

First, in Julius Caesar, Caesar describes Cassius in the first act and he made choices based on his description. Caesar referred to Cassius as having “a lean and hungry look [and] he thinks too much, such men are dangerous”. What this means is that Cassius exhibits no signs of cheerfulness and he is not “gamesome”, indicating that he may be a threat to Caesar. However, he describes Cassius as a one who “reads much, a great observer, and looks quite through the deeds of men”.

Moreover, Caesar felt that such a man could not be fully trusted and felt Cassius had little loyalty to him. Next, I predict Caesar will make thoughtless choices regarding Cassius. In the play, I predict that Caesar will keep an eye on Cassius and avoid him as much as possible. Nonetheless, these projected actions will still seal his fate later in the play. Some indications of his imminent demise were the angry talk of the tribunes and the warning given by the soothsayer: “Beware the Ides of March”.

Furthermore, I predict that Caesar will be stabbed to death by “augurers” near the Tiber River while protecting Calpurnia. Finally, I would do things in a different way if I were the exalted ruler of ancient Rome. I would not have trusted Cassius as much as Caesar did because of his “dangerous looks” such as his facial expression. As the exalted ruler of the Roman Em-pire, I would investigate many people whom I have suspicions on. By doing these inves-tigations on people, I can lower my chances of being assassinated.

Moreover, unlike Caesar, I would consider some warnings from people such as the soothsayer. In conclusion, judgements made by Caesar about Cassius that predicted the future of the play. Caesar feels suspicious about Cassius and sees him as a danger to his power. I predict that various signs, such as the warning by the soothsayer and the dialogue of the tribunes, will contribute to a future danger awaiting Caesar. In addition, the events that followed would have been entirely different if I had been the exalted ruler.

Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried Eating Them Away

For young people, the Vietnam War is a thing of the past and they can only learn about it from second hand sources. In Tim O’brien’s The Things They Carried, it becomes very apparent that the Vietnam conflict has proved to be one that many of the participants have not been able move away from, while getting on with their lives. O? brien shows that the conflict takes on a parasitic form that eats away on its victims for the rest of their lives. A parasite is defined as an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while harming its host.

The war in this case takes the place of the organism, and the host becomes the soldiers. There are several examples of the parasitic nature of war through out the book. In one particular section, Tim O’Brien returns to Vietnam with his daughter. Twenty years had gone by, but it seems as though all of his thoughts are geared back to the time he had spent in the jungle so long before. The two of them travel all over the country, but before their departure, he returns to the field where he feels he lost everything. On this list he includes his honor, his best friend, and all faith in himself.

For O’Brien, evidence of the parasite is not solely in his return Vietnam, but rather a constant personal preoccupation that seems to flow through the collection of stories. O’Brien shows how the memories of the war take on a parasitic form, and uses himself as an example. In the chapter ? Speaking of Courage? , O’Brien introduces a character by the name of Norman Bowker. In the story Norman finds him self home after serving his time in Vietnam. Even though he is back in his home town, things do not seem the same to him. The was seems to have put a new spin on his life.

Most of the story e spends driving in circles while thinking about the war and his lack of place in his old society. The war becomes his whole life, and he feels as though he is to far distant from the town people for them to understand. The reader then finds out that Bowker commits suicide because the parasitic affect of his memories became to much for him to handle. There is another section in the book where a man named Jimmy Cross comes to visit O’Brien after the war. They talk of experiences and hardships, then it becomes apparent Cross has also been unable to totally move on with his life.

There are still secrets, and they still weigh heavy on his mind even during his his every day civilian life. O’Brien never complains about these problems, but it is clear the they bother him a great deal. There are countless themes in this book, but one of the major ones is the after effects the war had and still has on the men that were there. It is clear from O’Brien’s writing on Cross, Bowker, and himself is more than just story telling. In using these people he attempts to show what the war has done to the population of soldiers that participated in the conflict.

The plot of “The Yellow Wallpaper”

The plot of “The Yellow Wallpaper” comes from a moderation of Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s personal experience. In 1887, just two years after the birth of her first child, Dr. Silas Weir Mitchell diagnosed Gilman with neurasthenia, an emotional disorder characterized by fatigue and depression. Mitchell decided that the best prescription would be a “rest cure”. Mitchell encouraged Gilman to “Live a domestic life as far as possible,” to “have two hours’ intellectual life each day,” and to “never touch a pen, brush or pencil again,”(Gilman 20) as long as she lived.

After three months of isolation, abiding by Dr. Mitchell’s orders, Gilman realized she was becoming insane. She abandoned Dr. Mitchell’s advice and, after recovering, she wrote an exaggerated version of her experience. Written in 1892, “The Yellow Wallpaper” reflects the social mindset of United States’ citizens just after the Civil War. This was a time of cultural and economical growth, expansion, and development. Women received little political and social freedom; their actions were greatly influenced by their husbands’ wills.

The wallpaper’s chaotic pattern represents the metaphorical bars that Jane feels trapped in as a woman. The woman in the paper represents Jane trying to escape and become free from the reigns of her husband. Women were not expected to have a career or a “public life;” instead, they were expected to focus on the upkeep of home and family. People in this time lived with the mindset that women were nice to look at, and were to be seen, not heard. With this story, Gilman brought into light that women have the capacity to think for themselves and the right to express these thoughts.

The Yellow Wallpaper” depicts this by showing that Gilman manages to overcome the constraints of her husband and the doctor in order to be able to write and to become free. Gilman’s purpose for writing “The Yellow Wallpaper,” was to make Dr. Mitchell’s bogus cure known. She wanted to make sure no other woman was diagnosed and treated in the same way she was. She states that “The Yellow Wallpaper,” “Was not intended to drive people crazy, but to save people from being driven crazy, and it worked”(Gilman 20). Dr.

Mitchell is said to have discontinued his “rest cure” after reading Gilman’s story. Gilman’s bold approach of writing on such a controversial topic most likely came from her upbringing. Her father had a profession of a magazine editor, so she spent most of her time with her great aunts. Cathrine Beecher was best known for her views on “domestic feminism. ” Isabella Beecher Hooker was an eager suffragist, and avid supporter of women’s right to vote. Gilman’s most well known aunt, Harriet Beecher Stowe, is the author of bestselling, Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

After first being rejected by The Atlantic, “The Yellow Wallpaper” was published in the New England Magazine in 1872. Editor Scudder of The Atlantic said the story was too depressing to be published. He also stated that he did not want to make any other person suffer through the story as much as he did. It wasn’t until 1920, that it received its deserved attention. Writer and critic William Dean Howells included “The yellow Wallpaper,” in his The Great Modern American Stories. Howell states that he still “shivers” over it just as much as he did when he first read it.

Wuthering Heights – prose work by Emily Bronte

Wuthering Heights, published in 1847, is the only prose work written by Emily Bronte, middle of the three famous Bronte sisters. She was 29 at the time and her life should have only been beginning, but sadly it would end a year later (Gaskill 433). The one and only novel that she wrote was a complex story that used two separate houses in an isolated setting as a vehicle to explore the dichotomy of the social class system in nineteenth century England and the impracticalities of the mixing of the two social classes.

And in the end we find that the woman who attempts to better her social standing by marrying outside of love is befallen by misfortune, suffers from mental disorders, and dies from depression induced anorexia. The two households that supply the setting for the novel are as different in nature as their names suggest. Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange… even to say the names without allowing the least of meanings to cross the mind is to notice a stark difference in connotation, and in environment.

One does not need know the stormy, cloud lingering, and damp stench of the word wuthering to know that this is a house plagued by dysfunction, abuse, and solitude. And to say the words thrushcross grange is to feel the sophisticated warmth of far spread green fields with grazing livestock, white pillars, friendly brick facade, and glorious Crystal chandeliers. It is said that misery loves company, but wouldnt it be more fitted to say that lack of company causes misery, at least in some cases?

It seems that the lead character; Heathcliff who desires the impossible, his child and adulthood love Catherines company, is stricken with mental health problems and is left to die because of misery without her. As a young child, Heathcliff was found on the streets of Liverpool and taken to Wuthering Heights by a very generous man by the name of Earnshaw. Mr. Earnshaw was the master of Wuthering Heights at that time, and he had two young children by the names of Catherine and Hindley. There, Heathcliff was treated like one of the family.

He was perhaps even Mister Earnshaws favorite of his three children. But, sadly, not too many years later Mister Earnshaw would pass, and Hindley being his only son would take charge of the Heights. Hindley immediately took a painful revenge out on the dirty street rat that came into his house and took his father away from him. Bitterness ran wild through Hindleys veins like blood through any person with a heart, and this bitterness would begin a long chain of verbal, and emotional abuse toward poor Heathcliff.

Heathcliff was forced to live as a lowly slave and referred by such hollow names a it and that thing(Bronte 40-51). Such abuse and sudden, perhaps even traumatic change in environment could seriously fowl the development of a teenage child, and it did. Clearly as an adult Heathcliff suffered from at least one if not multiple psychological disorders, and perhaps the most obvious of these clinical diseases is Adjustment Disorder.

Adjustment Disorder is characterized by a maladaptive response to a psychological stressor (Costello 186), and its symptoms include: notable impairment in social functioning, depression, feelings of loneliness or hopelessness, apprehensiveness, and restless behavior. In some cases it also causes erratic behavior, which means that the individual ignores the rights of others, and is combative with others as well (Laughlin 637). Clearly Heathcliff displays these symptoms on an alarming red flag that even the most blind of the blind can see without squint or strain.

Perhaps the timeliest of places to observe Heathcliffs personality disorder is after the most traumatic event in his life, Catherines death, occurs. Through his son’s marriage and death Heathcliff acquired Thrushcross Grange and was renting it out while young Cathy, Hareton, Joseph, his other servant Zilla, and himself were staying at Wuthering Heights. His tenant during this particular period happened to be a fellow named Lockwood.

Lockwood was a decent man, of decent social standing and he wanted to discover the demeanor of his new landlord and neighbor, Heathcliff. Upon his first arrival at the Heights Lockwood is quoted as saying, … his attitude at the door appeared to demand my speedy entrance, or complete departure… (Bronte 10). And later during the same visit while trying to explain his dogs cold behavior towards Lockwood Heathcliff is quoted as saying, Guests are so exceedingly rare in this house that I and my dogs hardly know how to receive them (13).

With these two extremely revealing quotes we learn that not only is Heathcliffs inability to function positively in a social manner recognizable to a complete stranger, but that he is also willing to face the fact that he is not accustomed to having conversation with someone that is to be considered his equal. The next time that Lockwood would attempt to trek the moors to pay his neighbors what turns out to be an untimely visit would be not long after the first, and in the onset of a violently tormenting snowstorm. Upon his second arrival Mr.

Lockwood discovers that Heathcliff leaves the gate surrounding the perimeter of the Heights locked like a cell, and after climbing the fence finds that no one will let him in to have a meeting with the warden. After much convincing Lockwood finally gets into the house and out of the blustering wind and blistering snow, and all seems to go well until, with a slip of the tongue, Lockwood sets of a neurotic trigger inside of Heathcliffs mind. Mistaking that Young Cathy is Heathcliffs wife instead of prisoner, he mentions how nice it must be to have such an amiable lady.

Heathcliff responds with a restless cry of, My amiable lady! Where is she- my amiable lady (Bronte 18). To Heathcliff, although Catherine was never Heathcliffs wife, he still considers her his one and only amiable lady and will live a restless and vacant life until he dies and can live a long abundant death with his Catherine. From that point on Heathcliffs demeanor changes for the whole rest of the night from that of somewhat calm and friendly, at least for Heathcliff, to stone cold and rock hard.

All empathetic feelings characteristic of human beings flee his heart in one last final charge like lifeboats escaping the drowning Titanic. At one point in the evening he pauses his cold conversation and asks Catherine to fetch some tea, and Mr. Lockwood describes the cold stare that he deposited in her as a look of hatred. Why this cold heated stare? Cathy is the lone soul on whom Heathcliff can take out his anger for Catherines death, since he holds her responsible because Catherine died while giving birth to Cathy.

These thoughts of Catherine seem to peek Heathcliffs dementia and he becomes more unreasonable, and more antisocial as the night goes on. With the storm outside culminating into a catharsis of fierce winds and slicing snow, Heathcliff shares his thoughts on Lockwoods poor judgment for choosing such a dangerous time to journey to the Heights. Lockwood also expresses his concern and asks Heathcliff for a guide to show him how to get back to his abode. When Heathcliff denies, Lockwood asks Cathy for help getting home, and she responds with, I cannot escort you.

They wouldnt let me go to the end of the garden wall (21). It is saddening to see that a young girl of Cathys age would make such a horrendous statement. It shows Heathcliffs lack of respect for the rights of others, and the bounds to which he will go to make sure that theirs are not outside of the grounds. After realizing that he is not going to get any assistance on a trek back across the moors and to Thrushcross Grange, Lockwood suggests that he might stay the night at Wuthering Heights and return to the Grange upon daylight.

Heathcliff starkly declares that he has no accommodations for guests and that this is not possible. Mr. Lockwood replies with, I can sleep on a chair in this room. No, no! demanded Heathcliff, on the contrary, A stranger is a stranger be he rich or poor: it will not suit me to permit anyone the range of the place while I am off guard (22). This statement declares Heathcliffs apprehension toward any one of a number of possible things. It could be taken literally, meaning that he does not trust anyone in the house when he is not around. It could be taken less literally as well.

Possibly, Heathcliff is afraid to let any guests spend the night because he does not want anyone thinking that they are welcome in the Heights for more than just a short visit. Maybe he doesnt want Mr. Lockwood to get to comfortable in with the house. Whatever Heathcliffs reasons are for not wanting Lockwood to stay the night during the wretched storm, one can rest assured knowing that that is not the normal response of a normal person of sound mind. The actions taken and words spoken by Heathcliff that night are the words of a man not of sound mind, and perhaps soon to be of no mind.

The symptoms of Adjustment Disorder are clearly apparent in Heathcliffs behavior, but what really caused Heathcliffs mental and emotional deterioration, and eventually his physical deterioration was the depression that it caused. Adjustment Disorder is known, in some cases, to cause depression. Depression can be defined as, a state of mind and body which is characterized by a change in mood towards being miserable, worried, discouraged, irritable, unable to feel emotion, fearful, despondent, hopeless…

Winokur 3). And to site text to exemplify Heathcliffs depression would be like trying to pick the two best leaves off of an oak tree in mid summer. Some of the symptoms for diagnosis of clinical depression that Heathcliff displays are; poor appetite or weight loss, trouble sleeping, agitation, difficulty thinking and concentrating, and thoughts of death (4): When day breaks Ill send for Green, I wish to make some legal inquiries of him while I can bestow a thought on those matters, and while I can act calmly.

I have not written my will yet, and how to leave my property I cannot determine… It is not my fault that I cannot eat or rest. I assure you it is through no settled designs. Ill do both as soon as I possibly can. But you might as well bid a man struggling in the water rest within arms length of the shore (Bronte 315). These are clearly the words of a man who is welcoming death and considers it relief from a daunting life. fortunately for him he would get his break within an arms reach. death came to Heathcliff soon after he made this speech to Nelly.

It could be said that he may have died from malnutrition, or even perhaps Anorexia. According to Comprehensive Psychiatry, the third most prevalent symptom occurring in hospitalized depressed patients is Anorexia, with 80% of all patients showing it. No one will ever know whether Emily displayed these diseases in her character on purpose, or if she just happened to create a character that fit into the mold of two mental illnesses almost without flaw by accident. But, one thing is clear, the character known as Heathcliff in her novel is mentally ill, and not just slightly twisted.

The Scarlet Letter, Arthur Dimmesdale

In Nathaniel Hawthorn’s torrid tale of The Scarlet Letter, Arthur Dimmesdale, a main character, is confronted with a number of circumstances, both in and out of his control, that lead to his ultimate demise. Dimmsedale is a weak cowardly man. Arthur Dimmesdale, a minister, lives his life under the watchful yet admiring eye of the townspeople of Boston and, as a result, becomes a slave to the public opinion. His sin against Hester and Pearl is that he will not acknowledge them as his wife and daughter in the daylight.

He keeps his dreadful secret from all those under his care in the church for seven years for fear that he will lose their love and they will not forgive him. He is too weak to admit his sins openly and in their entirety. Instead, he allows his parishioners to lift him in their esteem by confessing, in all humility, that he is a sinner: “The minister well knew–subtle but remorseful hypocrite that he was! –The light in which his vague confession would be viewed. They love him all the more for his honest and humble character, and this is Arthur’s intent.

Even as he plans to run away with Hester four days after their meeting in the forest, he comforts himself with the knowledge that he will give his sermon on predestination on the third day, and thus will leave his community with fond memories of his final exhortation. Arthur’s flaw can be found in the fact that he chooses to value the public view above those of Hester, his love, and God, his master. Arthur, punishing himself for his ugly secret, which his need for public affirmation will not let him reveal, gradually kills himself through guilt and masochistic practices.

In Mr. Dimmesdale’s secret closet, under lock and key, there was a bloody scourge. Oftentimes, this Protestant and Puritan divine had plied it on his own shoulders; laughing bitterly at himself all the while. It was his custom to rigorously until his knees trembled beneath him, as an act of penance. He kept vigils, likewise, night after night, and sometimes in utter darkness; sometimes with a glimmering lamp; and sometimes, viewing his own face in a looking glass, by the most powerful light which he could throw upon it.

He tortured himself, but could not purify, himself. Arthur allows his guilt and self-hatred to destroy his heart and soul, but he still refuses to confess and repent publicly his great transgression. Instead, he is often seen with his hand covering his heart, looking pained and repentant. Arthur allows himself to think the worst of himself, and does not guard his heart against the evil of Roger Chillingworth, which he senses, but chooses not to detect and eliminate.

He confesses openly that he sinned, but he doesn’t confess that he has, for all these years, been oppressed by his need for acceptance. He instead accepts Hester and Pearl, a positive though final step. Arthur recognizes that he should have put aside his desire for public worship when he says: “People of New England! –ye, that have loved me! -ye, that have deemed me holy! –behold me here, the one sinner of the world! At last! –at last! -I stand upon the spot where, seven years since, I should have stood; here, with this woman, whose arm, more than the little strength where with I have crept thitherward, sustains me, at this dreadful moment, from groveling down upon my face! ”

He cannot entirely escape his desire to have the people look well upon him. Arthur dies in the heroine’s arms, publicly and somewhat triumphantly, having gotten things off his scarred chest. His cathartic confession is not followed by a lifetime of public shame as that which Hester has endured but rather peace in heaven.

It seems that Arthur has the benefit of the confession and recognition without the painful aftermath, and because his confession comes so close to his time of death, he is remembered as the sweet man he was before his death and not as shamefully as he could have been. Arthur must have been a weak, dependent man before he ever entangled his life with Hester’s. Such weakness is not born overnight, but instead is usually drawn out after trials and tribulations like Arthur’s. Instead of overcoming his weakness, Arthur lives as a sinner, allowing Hester to be the strong and moral one for them both.

Even in death, she is the supporting one, he the weak one. Even as Hawthorne describes him, Arthur is childlike and ill-suited to his environment: “Notwithstanding his high gifts and scholar-like attainments, there was an air about this young minister,–an apprehensive, a startled, a half-frightened look–as of a being who felt himself quite astray and at a loss in the pathway of human existence, and could only be at ease in some seclusion of his own. This is hardly the epitaph of a man of strength and integrity, but rather a brief description of an endless list of insecurities and foibles.

Arthur Dimmesdale is not a strong character, or one of any considerable growth. Surely, all readers are in agreement that his story is tragic of its own accord, but that it incites pity for him is questionable. Arthur, while being significantly flawed and quite aware of it, ends up destroyed as a man. #3 Hawthorn shows sins of several different kinds in numerous people, as well as the consequences and remedies of their sins. Arthur Dimmesdale bares the most brutal effects of such sin, this is due to several reasons.

The most observable reason for his eventual breakdown is the fact that he keeps his sin a secret. Arthur Dimmesdale’s sin was the same as Hester’s, except he never confessed. Dimmesdale also believes that his sin has taken the meaning out of his life. His life’s work has been dedicated to God, and now his sin has tainted it. He feels that he is a fraud and is not fit to lead the people of the town to salvation. His secret guilt is a much heavier burden than Hester’s since he must hold it all within himself. This also reveals Dimmesdale weakness.

Arthur wanted desperately to admit his sin to the world, which is shown throughout the book. In view of the fact that there was no external punishment for Arthur, he creates it within himself. He still received his penalty, an internal punishment. At one point in the story he had delusions of going to the scaffold and confessing his sin to the people. It caused him to walk feebly, and left him without any substantial strength as he felt of little worth. This self-inflicted punishment affected his physical appearance to such a degree that others would notice it.

While waiting in the woods for him, Hester observed Dimmesdale “leaning on a staff, which he had cut by the wayside. He looked haggard and feeble”. Pearl also notices the ministers compulsive behaviors caused by his hidden feelings, as revealed when she asked “will he always keep his hand over his heart? ” Dimmesdale is seen throughout the book holding his hand to his heart. It is the sign through which he could symbolize to world both his sin and suffering. It represents his scarlet letter that he forces himself to wear, whether intentionally or subconscious.

Auther Dimmesdale’s own punishment is so oppressive that the chance of leaving with Hester and Pearl makes him the exact opposite of what he has become. He left the woods with twice as much energy as before. On the way to town, he barely stops himself from swearing to a fellow deacon. When an old lady approaches him he cannot remember any scriptures to tell her, and the urge to use his power of persuasion over a young maiden is so strong that he covers his face with his cloak and runs off.

Near the end of the story Dimmesdale finally receives his salvation. After his Election Day speech he ascends the scaffold and bears to the entire town the truth behind his sin. After he achieves this great mental feat he collapses and dies. This is a true irony since his death was both his final salvation, and also served as the last effect of his sin. The internal punishment he caused himself was his eventual downfall. Dimmesdale had many hardships, and had the most brutal effects of sin bestowed upon him.

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens is a story written to promote awareness of the tragedies that occurred in France during the French revolution. The two themes of the book are interconnected with each other. The themes are those of sacrifice, and hate. The themes are portrayed through out the book and are shown by the actions of the characters. The story is perfectly described in the following paraphrase by William Butler Yeats, in The Second Coming Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned. The centre in this poem represents Paris, France. Paris was the center of the newly formed republic and revolution. The monarchy in France had only a few jobs and responsibilities, to represent, care for, create jobs for, and make peace for all people of France. King Luis XVI was a failure, one of the worst and most selfish kings to ever reign over France, he was the straw that broke the camels back. King Louis XVI has his priorities in disarray.

Not once did he place the eople of France before himself, he was impeccably greedy. He taxed the peasants more than ever, they were starving, sick, and dying. He failed at his duty. Chaos broke out and people rebelled, Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. The center, the government, fell apart. Things fell apart; the centre cannot hold. The people needed a leader, someone other than the king, and that was in their situation, someone that understood their needs. Madame Defarge, Ernest Defarge, and the Jacques were all willing to lead the French people against the ing and for the new democracy.

The people were angry and wanted revenge, they hated all aristocrats, the king, and the old regime. Leaders like Madame Defarge had the same beliefs and were followed because they were willing to act upon their hatred. Hatred and revenge were the main reasons for the sixty-three deaths a day. Everyone was in fear of the sharp lady, the guillotine. Many innocent people were sacrificed for the republic for being traitors of France. The entire revolution broke out into such chaos that people were being killed eft and right, including the leaders.

Dickens uses France and England to compare and contrast his views and opinions about the French revolution and to show the anarchy that was taking place. He mocks the king and the nobles. His mornings chocolate could not so much as get into the throat of Monsignor, without the aid of four strong men besides the cook. Yes. It took four men, all four ablaze with gorgeous decoration, and the Chief of them unable to exist with fewer than two gold watches in his pocket, emulative of the noble and chaste fashion set by

Monsignor, to conduct the happy chocolate to Monsignors lips. Pitiful situations as these, were the concerns of the nobility and royalty in France, not that of the starving population. These were the little things caused the huge explosion and rebellion in France. Death was the answer to everything, the term innocent until proven guilty was never used, guilty till proven innocent in the courts. People during this time lived in fear, constant fear, and in hate of their situation, their leaders, their republic, and the democracy and even their ewly found freedom.

Hate and revenge were the only things that mattered. The best act of sacrifice was shown by Sydney Carton. Carton is in loving adoration of Lucie Manette and will do anything for her. For the life you love was the phrase whispered into Lucies ear by Carton before he sacrificed his life for her beloved husband. Carton met his death with great dignity, in fulfilling his old promise to Lucie, he attains peace within. Those that watched Cartons death stated, The peacefullest mans face ever beheld at the guillotine.

Relationship versus Alienation

In the Stories of Achilles, Gilgamesh, and Job As  opposites, relationship and alienation reveal much about character. In Homers The Iliad, Achilles tragic flaw, anger, and his petty pursuit of honor cause his alienation from society. His reconnection comes only after his friend Patroclus dies and he sees that the he has focused his life on trivial rewards rather than love. Herbert Masons title character, Gilgamesh, is also distracted from his friendship, and his friend, Enkidu, must die before he appreciates the importance of the relationship.

It takes an unmediated onversation with God for the Bible figure, Job, to realize that his alienation is self-inflicted because he doubts God. After this recognition, he is able to regain his identity as a religious shepherd. Achilles, Gilgamesh, and Job feel alienation from their individual beliefs, their relationships with others, or their relationship with their god or gods, but they also eventually work back toward regaining connection and rebuilding identity. By definition, a storys tragic hero must have a tragic flaw.

In The Iliad, the tragic hero Achilles displays excessive anger. Even though his anger otivates him as a great warrior, it is, conversely, his tragic flaw. Also known in Greek as thumos (1), or intense spiritedness, this anger is the factor that separates Achilles from the rest of his society in a number of ways. His rage, or mnis (2), against Agamemnon and Hector causes his desertion the war effort, the death of his friend, Patroclus, and his own eventual death.

In Book I, Achilles is motivated by a need for the character trait that classified him as a hero… lory. His thumos causes Achilles to disconnect himself from society. He is focused so much on the acquisition of glory and a divine reward for a lorious life, not to mention Briseus as his prize, that he cannot bring himself to battle. Later, in Book XVI of The Iliad, Achilles anger is his weakness, and the cause of Patroclus death. Achilles sends Patroclus with the Myrmidons and lends him his own armor, telling him to repel the Trojans from the ships, but never go further.

He reasons that his reputation would be ruined if Patroclus failed: No doom my noble mother revealed to me from Zeus, just this terrible pain that wounds me to the quick- when one man attempts to plunder a man his equal, to commandeer a prize, exulting so in his power. Thats the pain that wounds me, suffering such humiliation. (3) He continues to persuade Patroclus, saying …. you can win great honor, great glory for me in the eyes of all the Argive ranks(4). Although Achilles is appealing to Patroclus sense of friendship, Achilles himself is estranged from his own sense of friendship because he is so blinded by his quest for glory.

In this case, Achilles alienates himself from his community. Upon Patroclus death, Achilles awakens to the true spirit of his relationship with his friend. The glory and honor that once ruled his life now ean nothing compared to his bond with Patroclus. Achilles, the mighty warrior, falls … overpowered in all his power, sprawled in the dust… tearing his hair, defiling it with his own hands(5). However, his self-inflicted alienation has cost him the life of his friend, and by the time he comes to realize that love is more important than conquest, it is too late.

The result, Achilles isolation from community and relationship, has caused him to feel intense anomy (6), that there is no meaning or reason to life. Because of Patroclus death, he has become dehumanized and unattached to his own feelings nd rational behavior. His alienation from himself then leads to his inability to actively participate in his formerly comfortable society. Both The Iliad and The Odyssey teach that it takes a long time for a person who has totally been lost in a traumatizing event, such as war, to finally be found.

This idea of alienation from self, or disconnection from ones beliefs and personal history, is clear in the story of Odysseus. After his battles in the Trojan War, Odysseus must travel many years, not only to find his home, but to overcome numerous obstacles to rediscover his pre-war self. The Iliad also ortrays this idea of self-rediscovery as Achilles attempts to renew himself after losing himself in war. First, however, Achilles rages on, as in the episode where he slaughters the men by the river. Although he still possesses the thumos, he is working his way toward transformation.

He never makes it home like Odysseus, because he dies first, but this is what makes his heroism tragic. Both Achilles and Odysseus become human after living for so long as machines of war. As they rebuild their dignity, they both reabsorb into society, though Achilles only lives on as a legend of war while Odysseus goes on to rebuilds his elationships. The story of Gilgamesh portrays relationships in much the same way as The Iliad. Once they meet, Gilgamesh and Enkidu become instant friends. In fact, they are so close that they have a yin-yang type relationship whereby they are perfect complements for each other.

What Gilgamesh lacks in bravery, Enkidu makes up in courage, and what Enkidu needs in interpersonal skills, Gilgamesh provides with his position as a semi-god. The first stanza of the poem summarizes the story, stating Gilgamesh was a god and man;/ Enkidu was an animal and man. / It is the story/ Of their becoming human together (7). Since Gilgamesh and Enkidu are not wholly man, they are alienated from society. They cannot relate to other members of their community because they are unique. Their differences, in fact, cause the strong bond of their friendship.

The alliance between Gilgamesh and Enkidu concludes in a similar fashion as the relationship of Achilles and Patroclus. As Gilgamesh and Enkidu head off into battle, Gilgamesh convinces Enkidu to lead the warriors. This resulted in Enkidus death and the withdrawal of Gilgamesh into deep seclusion from the public because of his guilt complex. It is as though half of im has died along with Enkidu, and he feels the emptiness just as Achilles grieves Patroclus: Gilgamesh wandered through the desert/ Alone as he had never been alone/ When he had craved but not known what he craved;/ The dryness now was worse than the decay.

The bored know nothing of this agony/ Waiting for diversion they have never lost/ Death has taken the direction he had gained. / He was no more a king/ But just a man who now had/ lost his way/ Yet had a greater passion to withdraw/ Into a deeper isolation. (8) Gilgamesh is nearly empty without his friend. Because he feels Enkidus eath is his fault, he is disheartened even more, and, in turn, he alienates himself further from others. Gilgamesh finds some comfort in relationships with other people, but he has really only found more purposelessness.

After a discussion with Ea, the poem narrates that the transfer … gave him pleasure, being his friend… , however, … they only know how to compete or echo… (9). His self-inflicted isolation impedes Gilgamesh from interaction with other individuals. Gilgamesh spends the remainder of the poem attempting to rebuild himself as a complete person by searching for the parts of him that died with Enkidu.

Near the end of the poem, the reader sees that Gilgamesh finally reconnects with his emotions, … ealizing/ He had not come this far to hear himself/ Recall the failure of his grief to save/ But to find an end to his despair (10). Finally, Gilgamesh is recovering from the loss of Enkidu, and he goes on to attempt to reestablish his relationships with his wife and the rest of society. Of all stories of alienation, the tale of Job overwhelms the competition. Imagine living a nearly perfect life, complete with piety, kindness, and love, only to have it stripped away, seemingly for no reason, by a God who had been so trustworthy.

The Grapes of Wrath: Symbolic Characters

Struggling through such things as the depression, the Dust Bowl summers, and trying to provide for their own families, which included finding somewhere to travel to where life would be safe. Such is the story of the Joads. The Joads were the main family in John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, a book which was written in order to show what a family was going through, at this time period, and how they were trying to better their lives at the same time. It wouldn’t be enough for Steinbeck to simply write this story in very plain terms, as anyone could have simply logged an account of events and published it.

Critics have argued, however, that Steinbeck was too artificial in his ways of trying to gain some respect for the migrants. Regardless of the critical opinions, John Steinbeck utilized symbolism as a forum to convey the hardships and attitudes of the citizens of America during the 1930’s in his book The Grapes of Wrath. The first aspect of the novel that must be looked at when viewing the symbolic nature is that of the characters created by Steinbeck and how even the smallest facets of their person lead to a much larger meaning. The first goal that Steinbeck had in mind, was to appeal to the common Midwesterner at that ime.

The best way to go about doing this was to focus on one of the two things that nearly all migrants had in common, which was religion and hardships. Steinbeck creates a story about the journey of a family and mirrors it to that of biblical events. The entire family, in themselves, were like the Israelites. “They too flee from oppression, wander through the wilderness of hardships, seeking their own Promised Land” (Shockley, 91). Unfortunately, although the Israelites were successful, the Joads never really found what they could consider to be a promised land.

They were never lucky enough to really satisfy heir dreams of living a comfortable life. But, they were still able to improve on their situation. Another symbolic character that was undoubtedly more religious than anyone else taking the journey was Jim Casy. He was a preacher that was picked up along the way by the Joads. Steinbeck manages to squeeze in a lot about this character, and a lot of the background he creates about Mr. Casy shows just how much of a biblical man he really is supposed to be. So much so, that Steinbeck uses Jim Casy to symbolize Christ.

Oddly enough, his initials were not only the same as Jesus Christ, but much of his life is similar to the biblical accounts f Christ. Not only did he also begin his long trek after a stay in the wilderness, he also had rejected an old religion to try and find his own version of the gospel and convince people to follow him. His death, another aspect comparable to that of Christ, also occurred in the middle of a stream, which could represent the “crossing over Jordan” account. “Particularly significant, however, are Casy’s last words directed to the man who murders him” (Shockley, 92-93).

Jim’s last words are to forgive the man who kills him with a pickax. He tells him “You don’t know what you’re a-doing,” which is a simple allusion to he statement by Jesus to God when He is being crucified and asks his Father to forgive them, for they knew not what they were doing. In this novel, even the title is a Christian allusion. The title is “a direct Christian allusion, suggesting the glory of the coming of the Lord” (Shockley, 90). Looking at the main character of the story, Tom Joad, even more Christian symbolism is seen.

Tom Joad is almost a direct fit for the story of the “prodigal son” from the bible. He is the son that must lead everyone across in a great journey, while symbolically already wandering from the favor of God by killing a man in self-defense. Tom must find a way to forget about this event and continue to keep his goal of getting to California (and his Promised Land) in sight. He understands that he must stay determined and persevere because he is an example and a leader to his family and he cannot allow any internal event to slow him down.

Rose of Sharon, the daughter of the family, also has a very religious connotation; her religious meaning is not so much symbolic of a specific person or event in the bible, but more of an example of Christian values. The great hardship in her life was the fact that the child she was pregnant with the whole tory, and the one that kept her from doing work necessary to everyone’s survival, was stillborn. Now, after going through all this, she had to face the reality of living without her child and the reality of her husband walking out on her.

Even after all this when the Joads come upon the old man in the barn “the two women [Ma Joad and Rose of Sharon] looked deep into each other’s eyes. Not my will, but Thine be done. ” (Shockley, 94) Rose knows that even though she had lost her own child, she must now take another, and the fact that Steinbeck has her say “Thine will be done” is because she knows that it is in fact God’s ill that she is serving, and that is much more important than any problem she has. Next, the women in the story are an example of the mentality of the “indestructible woman. ”

The greatest example of this is the eldest, Ma Joad. Ma Joad stands out in Steinbeck’s work as a complete and positive characterization of a woman” (Gladstein, 118). She is the only character in the novel that appears to be flawless on every level, not just as someone who does monotonous chores throughout the story. She stands as a shining example of a woman who refuses to back down, no matter what the obstacles at hand. Some of he obstacles included Grandma’s death, the desertion of Noah, the leaving behind of the Wilsons followed by Connie’s departure, the murder of Casy, Tom becoming a fugitive, Rose of Sharon’s baby being stillborn, and being surrounded by starvation and depression.

She uses al of her strength and willpower to help deal with these tragedies. One of the biggest examples of her undying strength and love is the way she help Rose of Sharon deal with her pregnancy and the loss of her baby. She helps keep the family together, and if that meant giving every ounce of spirit and energy that she had, she’d do it because of the love she had or her family.

Steinbeck creates her as that indestructible woman because he wants to convince the migrants of the 1930’s to follow in the footsteps of Ma Joad, and ultimately, mirror the journey of the entire Joad family. Warren French explains exactly what Steinbeck’s intent with having the characters, especially Ma Joad, develop the way they do throughout the novel: The story that Steinbeck sought to tell does end, furthermore, with Ma Joad’s discovery that it is no longer the “fambly” alone that one must “give a han’,” but “everybody.

As I wrote in my own study of Steinbeck, answer the harge that the tale is inconclusive, the scene in the barn “marks the end of the story that Steinbeck has to tell about the Joads,” because “their education is completed What happens to them now depends upon the ability of the rest of society to learn the same lesson they have already learned. ” (93-94) Rose of Sharon is another woman who shows indestructibility.

She also has to deal with her stillborn baby and all of what Ma Joad had to go through, but she still attempts to continue on and help Ma whenever she can. Bedraggled and burdened, deserted by her husband, Rose of Sharon still drags herself out of ed to do her part in earning money for support of the family” (Gladstein, 122). In the novel Steinbeck writes about she tries how because of the way she tried so hard to help, that she was constantly vomiting, just to keep up with regular chores, yet her spirit remained unwavering. With all of this occurring around her, one of the novel’s greatest Christian allusions comes from her character.

In the climactic event at the end of the novel, Rose of Sharon looked at the old man who needed her milk and just smiled. “This is my body, says Rosasharn, and becomes the Resurrection and the Life. In her, life and death are one, and through her, life triumphs over death” (Shockley, 94). She gives herself for that of another, and that is a major Christian principle. Besides the characters, the events in the story are also an example of how Steinbeck uses symbolism. This is the second major way that Steinbeck uses symbolism in this story.

There are several examples which show how perserverent the human spirit could be in times of trouble. The trek itself shows how committed to their dreams the Joads were. They had to risk everything just to find work and a place to live. Also, the characters in the story had to adapt o the events that were happening to them throughout the journey. For example, Tom first got his idea of transportation when he saw the tractor at the beginning of the story and remembered that tractors were just now starting to cover the plains all the time, so they must be able to make it in some kind of machine.

When Tom visits the car dealer, he comes away with a car that didn’t quite fit their needs, but he made it work. Another example is how the family learns to use every item, the realize how valuable every single item they have isto their existence, and it becomes more and more clear every single day as the ituation becomes more and more harsh. Also, the kindness of the human spirit is shown in Steinbeck’s novel through these events. The main example in the novel is when the waitress in the caf lets the poor migrant have a free loaf of bread just to continue his journey.

She is then rewarded with two big tips from the next customers, who are truckers that come through to eat. This is a shining example of the old adage “kindness breeds kindness” (Carlson, 97). Then, when Rose of Sharon took care of the old man in the barn, she ends up symbolically gaining a child where before she had lost her own. These two were both examples of human kindness and in both instances, the people were rewarded for their kindness. These examples are also examples of a major principle in Christianity which is to do unto others as you would like done to you.

The third and final major aspect of symbolism shown in The Grapes of Wrath is the role that nature plays in the story. It is unquestioned that nature plays a big part in the lives of the Joads simply because their journey takes place in the middle of the plains where weather, such as rain, can easily become a harsh hazard since there is really no shelter from it and they really ave no other option that to continue trudging forward as much as possible.

Weather is shown in this as both a destroying and regenerative force. Steinbeck goes on to depict in lyrical prose the disintegration of the house before the almost delicate onslaught of nature: rain, weeds, dust, wind” (Owens, 79). Nature then knows that the house is no longer useful to the Joads and “reclaims it as its own” (Owens, 79). One of the most interesting parts of this work is what is known by Steinbeck as the “interchapters. ” Steinbeck includes several chapters throughout the novel which simply act as a symbolic reference to some other idea, hat at first glance, have no meaning to the story, but these stories symbolically prove a point for Steinbeck.

The first, and most famous, of these is the journey of the turtle. Steinbeck opens a chapter by simply describing a turtle that is struggling to cross a highway. Steinbeck goes through great detail to explain much about the turtle and its own little journey, but he really doesn’t say much about the purpose. That is because it is so clear. The turtle is simply heading somewhere and must cross the road. It struggles and struggles and when it finally gets close to the other side a truck comes by and nocks it across the road anyway, unharmed.

The moral is that the turtle made it across, but if it had tried any less, it might have been hit by the tire instead of just being brushed aside by it. Another story symbolic of the plight of the farmer is the ant lion trap which is analogous to the fact that most farmers were scurrying around trying to acquire land and supplies to live but avoid being caught at the same time. Of course, not everyone can succeed, so Steinbeck inserts the story of the Joad’s dog being hit by the truck.

Not everyone is going to be as lucky as the turtle in their efforts, and this lesson omes at a price to the Joads. Machines played a major part in this story in the way was created because of the fact that machines were taking over everything in the farming community and workers weren’t really needed anymore. Not only were machines one of the causes of the migration in the first place, but they also directly cause several deaths in the story. It is stated in the novel that “one man on a tractor can take the place of twelve or fourteen families.

Through this manner, Steinbeck shows in the plot itself how machines add to the complexity of the situation. He then uses the interchapters to show how much effect they had on ature and animals as well as humans. “Tom sees the No Riders’ sticker on the tractor as an example of how inhuman machinery has become” (Griffin, 222). It is then very symbolic when they meet at the beginning of the journey westward and must meet at the truck, which is seen as the only “real” thing left, since the house is demolished.

The truck was never meant to be of any “real” significance in the first place, for it is a machine. Lastly, Steinbeck made great reference to animals throughout the story. He used them repeatedly to show how people were acting and to describe things and events, as well as foreshadow future happenings. One example of the description of people was the reference to Muley Grave’s sex drive in his younger days, when “he describes his first experience as snorting like a buck deer, randy as a billygoat” (Griffin, 220).

Then a reference to nature again being like farmers is when the moths circling the fire are pointed out, they are just like the farmers circling a town, looking for opportunity and waiting to enter. Then, animals are also used in foreshadowing death (be it the dog or Rose of Sharon’s baby) by the circling of buzzards overhead. Steinbeck loved to use more minor events in nature to explain the trials and tribulations of the Joads. Although Steinbeck created this highly acclaimed world of symbolism, it is not without its fault, at least according to some interpretations.

Steinbeck goes to great lengths to create this world of symbolism with very intricate characters which he wants the reader to understand to be his representation of the public during the 1930’s. Unfortunately, some found his book to be all too artificial. “Complete literalness in such matters doesn’t necessarily simulate life in literature” (Moore, 59). The dispute here is whether or not Steinbeck is attempting to overglorify the attempts or the migrants. Many Midwesterners id feel quite a bit of harshness enter their lives when trying to live through the 1930’s, but it is hard to say if the Joads had life as tough as most.

However, Henry Moore states that the shining examples of good symbolism and truth in The Grapes of Wrath come in the interchapters, such as the turtle and tractor tales. The problem though, as he states it, is that “the contrapuntal chapters about the Joad family don’t always have the continuous strength to carry them” (Moore, 60). Basically Dr. Moore is saying that if Steinbeck really wanted to use symbolism in this story to show the trials and tribulations of the igrants in the 1930’s, he should have kept the story more realistic and down- to-earth in its approach to the topic.

Overall, John Steinbeck did appeal to the Midwesterners through his book The Grapes of Wrath. He won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1962 while The Grapes of Wrath won the Pulitzer Prize in 1939. He managed to explain many events of the current time period through his use symbolism, and obviously, many readers enjoyed it. By using characters, nature and events for forms of symbolism, Steinbeck keeps the reader interested and at the same time conveys his thoughts and beliefs.

Loss of innocence in Catcher in the Rye

Nothing Gold Can Stay by Robert Frost exemplifies the loss of innocence. The poem displays how you are pure and innocent when you are a child but as you mature, it is impossible to remain this way. In The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger, Holden will soon realize that nothing Holdens main goal in life is to protect children from losing their innocence. He designates this to the role of catcher in the rye, who catches children before they fall off the cliff.

Symbolically, the cliff represents the transition from childhood to adulthood. He idolizes his sister Phoebe and his deceased brother, Allie, because they embody the characteristics of innocence and virtue, attributes Holden finds ideal. Holden yearns for that childlike sincerity, instead of the adult world, which seems hypocritical and Obviously, Holdens job of catcher in the rye is only a dream, but he still tries to protect childrens naivet. While visiting Phoebes school, he notices that some had written Fuck you on the wall.

Seeing that drove him crazy because he knew that if his sister saw the writing, she would iscover what it meant, and therefore part of her innocence would be taken away. In order to preserve his catcher in the rye role, he wipes off all the Fuck you signs that he can. Here you can see he is a step closer to realizing that his dream role cannot come true when he says that not even in a million years could you rub off half the Fuck you signs. This shows that he is starting to realize that his dream may not be possible.

One good example of Holdens character comes when he is at the Museum of Natural History. He comments about how the greatest thing about the museum is how, although you may come many times over the years, it never changes. Every exhibit would be exactly the same. The only thing that changes is you. It makes Holden despondent to think about Phoebe going to the museum and changing every time she goes. Certain things should stay the way they are. You ought to be able to stick them in one of those big glass cases and just leave them alone.

These two lines represent Holdens character entirely. The climax of the novel comes when Holden is watching Phoebe on the carousel in the rain and his dream is symbolically crushed. Phoebe and all of the children are reaching for a gold ring on the carousel and Holden is worried she will fall off. The thing with kids is, if they want to grab for the gold ring, you have to let them do it, and not say anything. If they fall off, they fall off, but its bad if you say anything to them. When Holden makes this comment, you can see his views have changed.

He now sees that hildren cannot be restricted in this way. In his quest for an Eden filled with innocence and purity, Holden came to the conclusion that life must move forward and this means that Holden cannot hold onto adolescence forever. Although he does have a nervous breakdown, he now seems able to deal with his problems. He also seems to understand the word phony now, and no longer uses it. D. Bs English girlfriend sounds affected but not phony. Holden seems to have grown and realizes now that not every adult in the world is bad.

The Distinguishing between Hester and Dimmesdale

Both Hester and Dimmesdale, are characters in the Scarlet Letter. They suffer with the guilt of the sin of adultery that they committed. At the time, the Puritans looked down on this type of sin. Hester and Dimmesdale can be compared and contrast in the way they handled their scarlet letter, their cowardliness, and their belief of what the afterlife is. Hester and Dimmesdale both bear a scarlet letter but the way they handle it is different. Hesters scarlet letter is a piece of clothing, the SCARLET LETTER, so fantastically embroidered and illuminated upon her bosom (Hawthorn 51).

Dimmesdale on the other hand, has a scarlet letter carved in his chest. This is revealed when Dimmesdale was giving his revelation, in which he tore away the ministerial band from before his breast. It was revealed! (Hawthorn 232). Since the Scarlet Letter on Hester is visible to the public, she was criticized and looked down on. This women has brought same upon us all, and ought to die (Hawthorn 49) is said by a female in the market place talking about Hester. She becomes a stronger person through living this hard life.

Dimmesdale instead has to live a life of cowardly and selfish meanness, that added tenfold disgrace and ignominy to his original crime (Loring 185). He becomes weaker and weaker by time, neither growing wiser nor stronger, but, day after day, paler and paler, more and more abject (Loring 186). Their courage is also weak. The courage that those two share is quite similar, in that they have none. They both are afraid of the public and what the public would think of them.

Hester refuses to tell anyone about her real husband, Chillingworth, who is still alive, or about her lover, Dimmesdale. Hester and Dimmesdale also try to take the cowardly way out when she has a chance to go to leave Boston and go to Europe, Her advising them to flee Boston was irresponsible (Granger 7). Hester after talking about leaving, and while in the forest with Dimmesdale and Pearl, takes the scarlet letter off. She was planning to never wear the scarlet letter again, especially after saying, The mid-ocean shall take it from my hand, and swallow it up forever!

Hawthorne 193). This shows that she did not have enough courage to bear the scarlet letter in Europe. Pearl still makes her bear the letter by saying, Come thou and take it up! (Hawthorne 193). Finally, Dimmesdale has a boost of courage on the scaffold he says he is the one sinner of the world! there stood one in the midst of you, at whose brand of sin and infamy ye have not shuddered! (Hawthorne 231- 232). He finally has the courage to admit that he had sin. After this speech, his live is coming to an end.

Hesters view of the afterlife is one in which both her and Dimmesdale will live with each other. When Dimmesdale is dying in her arms she says, Shall we not meet again? Thou lookest far into eternity, with those bright dying eyes! Then tell me what thou seest? (Hawthorne 233). By saying that she believes that they will be united in paradise (Grander 8). In that Dimmesdale replies his belief of the afterlife, we forgot our God God knows: and He is merciful! Praised be His name! His will be done! Farewell! (Hawthorne 233).

This shows that Dimmesdale does not know what the after life will be like, but he knows that it will be the way God wanted it to be. Although Dimmesdale and Hester are fictional characters their lives are good examples of what could happen between human relationships. It shows that a letter can be more hindering than the sin itself, and that the way you handle the punishment is important. It can be either publicly or internally, both have their ups and downs. Also by having the courage to tell the truth is the easiest way to be set free, even though being set free might be death.

Green Willow (Japanese Literature)

Without honor, life is meaningless. According to the folktale, Green Willow, honor is essential to an individual of Japanese decent. This tale explains what the people of this country value and how they function. As the story unfolds, so do the components that form what Japan is. The background contains the codes and classes in which they live. The plot draws our attention, however it is the elements of the culture that is taken into account. In addition, it presents a conflict that is dealt with by society everyday. That is, being distracted from our tasks. In the act of facing that conflict, good judgment should be used.

The decision of the main character reveals what arises when you do not. Honor was used as evidence or a symbol of distinction in this culture. The people remained the right to preserve their good name. This code that they emphasize in their country is denominated as the bushido. An example of applying this system to their lives is in the manner of how they conform to their classes. Each person received and exalted title or rank. A samurai warrior, for instance, could not surpass the law by marrying “a [mere] peasant girl” without the permission of his daimyo.

In contrast, the samurai would ask the parents for her hand in marriage and they would respond with gratitude. The warrior is “a person of too a degree for [them] to consider refusing the honor of [his] request. ” The hospitality of the Japanese people is also accredited in the folktale. It is not often that a person would be taken in and accommodated. Despite that common belief, the parents of Green Willow shelter and aid the samurai on his journey. This act of kindness shows that this is a nation with pure and humble intentions.

It is evident in the old couples’ appreciation for Tomotada’s “condescending to overlook their daughter’s peasant origins” and offered her as “a gift, a humble handmaid” to him. Furthermore, this tale manifested a true dilemma that our society goes up against daily. Responsibilities are supposed to come before one’s own personal gain. If a person becomes enraptured in their own self-seeking task and overlook their duties, that person will eventually suffer for it. Japan regards honor as something you have to strive for. It must be earned.

The main character broke the rules of his the country had already established and paid for it in innumerable ways. This version of how Japan operates day to day exposes our community to something different. This “something” may be what we want our culture to adapt to. The story voiced an entity that influences our own lives. Moreover, somehow we need to relinquish the ‘distractions’ and do what is required of us before we go ahead do what we desire. There are just far too many issues we need to resolve first considering that we all want to live in a calm and composed world.

The Alienation of Victor Frankenstein and Dr. John Faustus

Victor Frankenstein and John Faustus are two characters that are alienated because of their intellectual curiosity. Faustus’s and Frankenstein’s pursuits of knowledge begin with an inexorable journey to their downfalls as they become alienated. Both characters attempt to exceed human ability and are alienated from God because of their attempts. These men are concerned with the secrets of nature and are ultimately alienated from the world because of their quests which violate nature.

They are alienated from themselves because of their extreme passions for knowledge. Faustus and Frankentstein could escape their tragic endings and their alienations if only they had fortitude. According to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1985), alienation is “of or belonging to another person or place, foreign in nature or character, the action of a stranger, or a state of estrangement, or a withdrawing or separation of a person or his affections from and object or position of former attachment”.

According to the class lecture on alienation, Raymond Williams defines alienation as “ cutting off or being cut off from God, a state of being cut off or estranged from the knowledge of God or from his mercy or worship, loss of original human nature, or a loss of connection with one’s deepest feelings and needs or sense of powerlessness”(notes). Victor Frankenstein’s journey begins with his notable childhood. Victor is extremely loved by his parents and they bestow upon him a wonderful and educated life as a child. Victor states, “During every hour of my infant life I received a lesson of patience, of charity, and of self-control”(39).

However his downfall begins as he develops a desire for the knowledge of the metaphysical or physical secrets of the world. He attends the University of Ingolstaldt and begins his work on the creature. The task consumes him, and he rejects his family and his upbringing that are so full of love and contentment. Victor states, “And the same feelings which made me neglect the scenes around me caused me also to forget those friends who were so many miles absent, and whom I had not seen for so long a time”(40). Victor disregards the lessons that he learned as a child and becomes obsessed.

He loses his patience and his self-control, which result in his alienation. John Faustus’s journey begins when he is a young man. His parents send him to school and he studies and becomes a very intelligent doctor. The chorus says of Faustus, “Excelling all, and sweetly can dispute In th’ heavenly matters of theology”(Prologue). Faustus begins his downfall as he searches for knowledge but complains that he has not accomplished any great feat. He becomes obsessed with the power of immortal beings and desires to obtain such power.

He exclaims, “Oh what a world of power and delight, of power, of honor, and omnipotence is promised to the studious artisan”(1. 1. 6). Faustus confuses knowledge with power and wants to learn the black arts so that he can become a supreme being. Victor Frankenstein attempts and completes one of God’s greatest miracles. He creates a human life. In his attempt and completion of playing God, he loses all faith and contemplation of his higher being. Victor asserts, “I seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit”(39). After the being’s creation, Victor realizes that he must destroy it.

Instead of praying to God and asking for advice, he takes matters into his own hands and pursues for the death of his creature. Perhaps Victor is alienated from God in the sense that he feels himself a supreme being, a creator, or an arbiter of who shall live and die. Faustus attempts and succeeds in surpassing human ability by involving himself with the devil and possessing certain black magic powers. Faustus gives in to the Seven Deadly Sins and sells his soul to the devil. Faustus states, “Ay, take it, and the devil give thee good of it”(2. 1. 22).

Selling one’s soul to the devil is essentially alienating oneself from God and the grace of God. However, although Faustus is deemed a possession of the devil, he is not completely alienated from God until he devotes his entire life and thoughts to his obsession with power. It is entirely unnatural to play Mother Nature by creating a human life as Frankenstein did. I think that Mother Nature is separate from God in the sense that God creates life and Mother Nature nurtures it. Victor Frankenstein violates nature by interfering with life’s natural process of reproduction.

As Victor violates nature, he is also alienated from nature. He expresses a love for the beautiful sights and smells of nature before his despair, but later he says, “Winter, Spring, and Summer passed away during my labours; but I did not watch the blossom or the expanding leaves – sights which before always yielded me supreme delight”(41). As Frankenstein is alienated from nature, he is also alienated from the world. Faustus violates nature and is alienated because of his violation. He ignores the natural beauties of the world because they are too simple to satisfy him.

He is only concerned with the studies of literature that will enable him to be a powerful and Supreme Being. He pronounces, “Philosophy is odious and obscure, Both law and physic are for petty wits, ‘Tis magic, magic, that hath ravished me! ”(l. 1. 8). He attempts to obtain satisfaction by seeking evil, which ultimately alienates him from the world. Frankenstein is alienated from himself because of his relentless pursuit. Victor doesn’t even acknowledge the feelings that he has about all matters of his life except those that concern his task.

He comments, “ I wished, as it were, to procrastinate all that related to my feelings of affection until the great object, which swallowed up every habit of my nature should be completed”(40). On several occasions, Victor becomes physically ill as a result of his quest. He has no concern even for his own health because of his obsession with his creature. Faustus’s concerns are only for his power and performance of immortal tasks. He doesn’t care that his soul is doomed to the gates of hell. His self-alienation, or his soul’s alienation, is evident because he is told on several occasions that he can repent and save his soul.

The Old Man says to Faustus, “I see an angel hover o’er thy head, And with a vial full of precious grace Offers to pour the same into thy soul: Then call for mercy and avoid despair. ”(5. 1. 72-73). However, he is blinded by evil and this evil causes him to be alienated. Fortitude is “ Strength of mind that enables a person to encounter danger or bear pain or adversity with courage”, according to the dictionary (1985). Victor could escape his alienation if he had fortitude. After the creature comes to life, he could have taught his creature the nature of his existence and about his life situation, but he chose rather to flee.

The creature would not have turned to evil, and Victor would not have lost his beloved family. Most importantly, he would not be in his estranged state of mind, and he would not be alienated. Victor has other chances to conquer his alienation also. He has the chance to tell everyone of his creature, the murderer, thereby after the death of William to free himself from the knowledge he possesses hence escaping alienation. Faustus could escape his hellish doom and his alienation if he had foritude. He has the choice to repent his sins until the devil takes him away.

However, he doesn’t repent because he is afraid of the physical pain that will be inflicted upon him. The Old Man says, “ And so have hope that this my kind rebuke, Checking thy body, may amend thy soul. ”(5. 1. 72). The devil could not harm his soul if he had repented and endured the physical pain. Faustus is a coward and has no fortitude. John Faustus and Victor Frankenstein are completely alienated because of their intellectual curiosity. They experience an educated uprise and then a terrible downfall.

The men are alienated from God by their attempts to exceed human ability. Frankenstein and Faustus are estranged from the knowledge of the world because of their concern for the secrets of nature. They lose a connection with their deepest feelings and needs because of their desire for knowledge. If the men had fortitude they could avoid their alienations. These characters are alienated by their intellectual ability and their pursuit of knowledge beyond the scope of human knowledge. Their human knowledge, or humanity ironically denotes them from that which nurtured them.

Oedipus The King by Sophecles

Oedipus the king written by sophecles when read for the first time the reader will realize that the audience already knows what is going to happen its just the way that the characters deal will with it. There is an oracle that says that Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother. Sophecles examines the relationship between fate and free will. Fate being what some say is an excuse. For example if I said that I could not do what I wanted to do I could say it was fate, which is junk. What is fate? Fate is something that is supposedly set out for some one when they are born.

Fate pertaining to the play oedipus rex is that the mother queen locasta and the father king Laios have learned from an oracle that their son Oedipus was to kill his father and marry his mother. So in an effort to get away from this horrible fate, they give their son to a shepered to pierce his ankles and to never be seen again. They thought that was the end of it. Thus making Oedipus an outcast from his kingdom that when his father leaves is his to rule. But their son oedipus, who grows up in corinth finds that the king and queen there are not his biological parents.

He sets out to find his parents on the way he kills all but one man on a caravan that tried to run him off the road. (later to be found out that it was his father king lois. In the story sophecles uses fate and free will to keep the drama going There by making it a dramatic technique. Friedrich nietzsche talks about how finding out your fate before hand gives you knowledge of what oedipus wanted to not come true unconsciously has come true. (Neitzsche29blooms) This basically means that if Oedipus had lived with his parents and had his parents not have given him up he could have probably avoided all of this.

But since this did not happen Oedipus is forced to fend for himself. So fate is something that many people use an excuse for something that they have not yet accomplished. Also fate plays a big part in the play because Oedipus who finds out from creon that there is a killer among them, he does not know who was killed or that he had done the killing. Free will pertaining to the play is what the character in this case oedipus does to avoid the fate that the oracle has set out for him. This means that Oedipus is so determined to find out who the killer of the king is.

He goes throughout the play talking to people who might know anything about what went on before he became king. One person he talks to is terrisies. He is blind and basically says that oedipus is the killer of king Laios. Oedipus gets angry because that is a big charge. Also Oedipus has laid out a decree saying that whoever the killer is, is to be banished and not spoken to by anyone In the community. So terissies says that I should not be even talking to you because you are the killer. Es shucks burg talks about how freewill causes Oedipus to be strong and to find the killer.

This basically means that sophecles wrote Oedipus to be the strongest of all the characters until the very end. It is my opinion that if Oedipus was not strong there could have been consequences before the play even hit its high point. Oedipus had to be strong to learn that he was his father’s killer Oedipus had to be strong to learn that he was his fathers killer. Aristotle talks about the use of a reversal. This is when terisies said reveals that Oedipus is the killer and tells him this family on Cornish is not his family at all. Also this makes his kids his sisters rather than his kids, because his mother bore his kids.

T. b. l. Webster examined sophecles’ conception of the gods. By saying the gods administer justice n accordance with their laws. In he play Oedipus Rex they are unwritten and sure laws of the gods not for yesterday or today, but eternal. They are partly moral commands such as bury the dead avenge the dead commit no injustice And partly universal principles such as the danger of excess and the changes of human fortunes. For both there are analogies in other writings from the time of Hesiod onwards and sophecles is writing in an ell established tradition. (Webster cmlc.

Is says how the tradition of writing started, and says that the play was written very well according to Aristotle’s critique. It also says that back in the day everything depended on what the gods said. If the gods say kill your self they probably would do What the gods had said and if they did not they would face an ugly fate such as having to die slow or to not be able to have babies or to not be ale to see for the rest of your life.

There is a way to avoid all problems and that is to be you’re self and if something happens the make the best of it. E. S. uckburg says that a careful study of the play itself will suffice to show that the second of these two views is the true one. Sophecles has allowed Oedipus to put his case ably and he has been content to make jocasta a do the non thinkable by giving her son away, and not being exempt from human passion and human weakness. But none the less does he mean us to feel that, in this controversy, the right is wholly with her and the wrong wholly with her judge. (Shuckburg bloom29. ) This is what makes her cry when she finds out that she has slept with her son and that he is her husband’s killer.

When Oedipus finds out that he killed his father he then proceeds to tell his mother who stabs herself. After this happens Oedipus takes her brooches and proceeds to poke his eyes out as to not be able to see that the fate he once tried to get away from has now come true. In conclusion sophecles Oedipus the king was a very good play yet tragic, but it is good for telling someone how to deal with the fate. The play also tells us when to exercise free will and when to just give up and not try to find the truth.

Harry Potter and Censorship

Literature that children are exposed to often gives them ideas and provokes them to think and draw their own conclusions about things, it also provides a necessary escape from reality for them. This is why censoring children’s books can be rather destructive to their developing minds. If the tools with which kids are given to sharpen their minds are banned, then a little part of their education is stolen from them. With every theft of knowledge the future is too robbed of possibility, and these days books are being pulled off of school shelves faster than ever.

From 1991 to 1994 the number of formal demands for the removal of books from public and school libraries has increased by more than fifty percent (Staples, 1). ” At this rate America’s libraries will soon have devastatingly small children’s sections without any real literary content. Without people in our society who can think and react for themselves than things cannot change, whether the change is for the best or the worst, life would become very repetitive. Parents are not alone in the battle against questionable reading material.

There are many religious groups who make it their personal mission to rid America’s libraries of books they see as damaging. One such group is the Christian Coalition and Citizens for Excellence in Education, who print lists with intentions of censoring the books on them. What is it in children’s books that adults find so threatening? Parents often object to strong or degrading words and names, or ideas and events that promote satanic, anti-Christian, and witchcraft themes.

Although these words and beliefs are something that nobody would want their child partaking in, it helps them distinguish right from wrong, and shows them the strength that such beliefs and words can hold. Surprisingly many of the books that are being banned, are also considered classic children’s novels. Frequently banned titles include The Catcher in the Rye, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Little Red Riding Hood. These stories include most of the traits that parents and other groups find questionable.

The language used and ‘frightening’ events in the story have gotten the aforementioned stories pulled from many libraries across America. While the language in Harry Potter is neither offensive nor harsh, the story about a young wizard and his adventures at Hogwarts is considered satanic and evil by many adults, and school districts. Although the book does in fact deal with wizardry and sorcery of an unearthly nature, it has very clear characterizations of good and evil. Many school districts however do not care about good and evil characterizations.

Their feeling is that if a certain idea is expressed in a book, the school is responsible for teaching it to that child. The reasons for censoring a book range from having satanic content to anti family values. The censors feel that wizardry is a threat to their children, so in fear of a book they probably have not read, they just decide to ban it, and save the hassle of reviewing it in the school board. Profanity is another major reason that schools are pulling books from the shelves at an alarming rate.

Words that are demeaning or considered destructive and the books containing them are a sure target for many of the religious groups who support the censoring of children’s literature. Words such as “good god, crap, hell, and Christ” are examples of the type which might face censorship. In actuality a child in an American society hears words such as these more frequently than they read them. At places like school lunchrooms and playgrounds the dialogue is often very hurtful and directed at one’s peers. Is all of this because of what a child read in English class? That idea is absurd.

The television is a much better place for hearing derogatory comments. Robin Brancato, an author, said about the profanity in her book, these words and what they mean are a true and unavoidable part of life, and that she, as an author, is “interested in portraying life as it really is. ” Children are not fools. They understand what is going on around them and would simply not buy into a plot that had everybody happily holding hands across the world. Its unnatural, every one in the world has seen conflict, on the national scale and at home. Sexual content also tends to get books pulled off the shelves.

Books dealing with homosexuality, and even sexual development are targeted. Daddy’s Roommate by Michael Wilhoite is about a boy living with his gay father. While this would be an uncomfortable situation to live in, it does help children be more accepting towards all people. Classic novels such as Huckleberry Finn are also being pulled from the curriculum at many schools because of the use of the word nigger. In Kenosha, Wisconsin, the local school district was asked by a member of the NAACP to have the book “be removed from the school cirriculum because of the term ‘nigger’ (Miner, 7).

Basically what the review board in Kenosha decided was that if the individual teacher was not comfortable with reading the book in class than they could chose an alternative. Although this is a very derogatory word, the novel is a classic one. Almost everybody has read it at one time or another. Almost A few people that might have missed this timeless classic however might be some devout born again Christians. Groups such as the Christian Coalition, and The Committee for Excellence in Education often recommend that books be banned.

Other groups include Concerned Women for America, the American Family Association, and The Family Research Council (Miner, 4). These groups object to Harry Potter and other books for mainly religious reasons. A spokesperson for another religious group, Focus on the Family, said that Harry Potter was just “pagan material- witches and warlocks and spells and seances and this kind of stuffThis is about what’s right and wrong and pushing religious symbolism (Terwilliger, 2). ” Although no where in Rowling’s novel is there any religious symbolism, parents continue to complain.

If not about pushing Satanism on their children, than about the morals contained in the book. Karen Jo Gounaud, founder and president of Family Friendly Libraries says about Potter “It’s a matter of who has the best magic, not who is overcoming evil with goodby self sacrificing (2). ” The FFL website is full of anti Potter propaganda, saying that kids who read it will become part of the Wicca church. While nothing is impossible, it is doubtful that a child who has read a Harry Potter book will, upon the books completion, begin to sacrifice livestock. Or even start believing in witchcraft for that matter.

One of the main draws to the book for children is that it offers them an escape from reality. “It’s really fun reading books that take you into a different world (Wilgoren, 5). ” The book is a separate world for them and no matter how hard children try, they’re not going to be able to cast any spells on people. The only danger that Harry Potter represents is to video game makers, who are losing profit with every page turned. Between the pages of Rowling’s first novel in the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone, lies a story with brave heroes and evil villains.

Instead of teaching anti-Christian and immoral values, as according to some parents, it teaches that evil sometimes lurks in the least expected places and good can hide much the same. For instance in the end of the novel it is Quirrell who is responsible for letting Voldemort inhabit his body, nobody suspected the quiet, reserved Quirrell to be so hungry for power. Also the suspected villain Professor Snape turns out to be the one who saved Harry’s life in the Quiddich match. Another positive message is that studying helps in real life.

It is Hermoine who often saves the day with her immense knowledge of magical spells, and characteristics of plants. All of her knowledge comes from having enough self-discipline to study hard and remember things she reads. The religious groups against the novel have focused only on the fact that the book deals with magic, and probably have not bothered reading past the cover. If they had, they would begin to see that many of the values and morals that they hold sacred are shared in Rowling’s book. The villainous characters in the book range from the typical school yard bully, Draco Malfoy, to the purely evil Voldemort.

Although certain scenes in The Sorcerers Stone are frightening, they tend to deal with fictitious events, such as Qurriell drinking unicorn blood in the dark forest. This and the final encounter with Voldemort were by far the more frightening scenes, but is a child really going to believe that underneath turbans are evil monster heads? Or that there are such things as centaurs? These ideas are almost as crazy as believing that Harry Potter is Satan’s medium for access into our world, or that Harry Potter is going to cause a nation of children to join the Wiccan church.

With every generation has come some controversial progressions, and this is just one of them. With today’s loud music, violence in films and video games, parents should be relieved that their children are turning to books that stir their imaginations, and at the same time strengthen their minds. While most parents are probably ecstatic that their kids are reading anything, it is the few that feel their values are at stake who force teachers and librarians to remove controversial books from the shelves.

The character analysis from Uncle Tom’s Cabin

Probably the most complex female character in the novel, Ophelia deserves special attention from the reader because she is treated as a surrogate for Stowe’s intended audience. Its as if Stowe conceived an imaginary picture of her intended reader, then brought that reader into the book as a character. Ophelia embodies what Stowe considered a widespread Northern problem; the white person who opposes slavery on a theoretical level but feels racial prejudice and hatred in the presence of an actual black slave.

Ophelia detests slavery, but she considers it almost necessary for blacks, against which she harbors a deep-seated prejudice, she does not want them to touch her. Stowe emphasizes that much of Ophelia’s racial prejudice stems from unfamiliarity and ignorance rather than from actual experience-based hatred. Because Ophelia has seldom spent time in the presence of slaves, she finds them uncomfortably alien to her. Ophelia seems to be one of the only characters in Uncle Tom’s Cabin whose character develops as the story progresses.

Once St. Clare puts Topsy in her care, Ophelia if forced to be in contact with a slave. At first she begins to teach Topsy out of mere duty. But Stowe suggests that duty alone will not eradicate slavery and that abolitionists must act out of love. Evas death proves to be the crucial catalyst in Ophelia’s transformation, and she comes to love Topsy as an actual human being and not just a slave. She overcomes her racial prejudice and offers herself as a model to Stowe’s Northern readers.

Ethan Frome: Ethan’s Failures

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Harlem Renaissance

The Harlem Renaissance is the vast migration of African-Americans to northern cities during the 1920s and 1930s. During this time African-Americans felt that they were finally able to freely express themselves as proud Black individuals. This period of time held some very important landmark occasions, but also came with its share of racial prejudice and segregation. Most frequently in this era the discrimination was intra-racial and a color line emerges with so many different gradations of black and white that everyone is treated differently.

Alain Locke describes this time period as something of a spiritual emancipation,[1] meaning a time where African-Americans are finally using their artistic and creative abilities to produce art and literature without suffering under the tyranny of the pressures expected of a Black man. However, even though this burden is alleviated, another comes to take its place. People are often times only identified as their race and not as what is in their power to produce or achieve.

The Black man was expected to write about black things and not sound like a white writer. There was a job he served and it was to entertain the white man as the white man saw fit, and the black man was not to deviate from this. When a Black poet told Langston Hughes that he wanted to be known as a poet, not just a black poet Hughes thought that meant the man wanted to be white. [2] However, this man does not wish to be white, he simply wants his work to be appreciated for its own beauty and not for the sheer fact that a Black man wrote it.

He wants to be able to write poetry without having to worry if he is using the white mans style or not. It would be much easier to be a white poet with those given rights to not be troubled with trying to conform to a certain style of writing due to being a certain race. Associated with the color line are the advantages of the white man. In Fausets, Plum Bun: A Novel Without a Moral, Angela expresses that she learned the joys and freedom that to her were inherently associated with being white. Placement on the color line determines how high ones hopes can reach.

Color or rather the lack of it seems to the child the one absolute prerequisite to the life of which she was always dreaming. [3] By being of a fairer skin she was allowed more opportunities. In Nella Larsens, Quicksand, the girl is black and spends some time with her Danish relatives in Denmark where even though she is more fortunate than her darker skinned peers she is treated as entertainment for the white friends of the family. This concept of being shown around is not unique to just this one case.

In Harlem it became the norm to see white people driving in at night to see the shows put on by Black talents. Langston Hughes demonstrates the absurdities of the Harlem night life in The Big Sea. All the entertainers and club owners were black, yet most of the patrons were white. The Negroes said: We cant go downtown and sit and stare at you in your clubs. You wont even let us in your clubs. [4] The whites were convinced that the people of Harlem loved to have the white people stroll in everyday by the masses and take over their clubs.

The whites think of themselves as starting to get cultured and more integrative by going out into Harlem and showing their enthusiasm, but in reality the Black people are a savage form of entertainment to them. The lindy-hoppers at the Savoy began to practice acrobatic routines and to do absurd things for the entertainment of the whites4 They havent bothered to befriend any Black people; they simply go there and watch them in the shows acting like fools for their entertainment without taking into consideration their homes and their families.

The worst act during the Harlem nightlife scene is executed by the club owners. The Black club owners demonstrated segregation to their own kind. Intra-racial prejudice is more psychologically disturbing than cross-racial prejudice. These club owners barred their own race from going to the club at night because of the abundance of white patronage. This worked against the club owners because part of the thrill for the white people was to watch the Black people interact with each other and amuse themselves.

The intra-racial prejudice was not just in the clubs of Harlem. Middle class Black families were raising their children to the social norms of a white society. And they themselves draw a color line. In the North they go to white theaters and white movies. And in the South they have at least two cars and a house like white folks. [5] The white world becomes synonymous with success and good virtues. Striving to be white does not give the children a proper sense of their roots; it in fact strips them of any pride they may have ever had for themselves.

Children must grow up with a sense that their people are good people too and not only look to whites as role model citizens but to look at them as friends so that everyone is an equal. They should learn to not say, I want to be white. But rather say, Why should I want to be white? I am a Negro-and beautiful. [6] This period of time gave the African-American population a lot to be proud of. A lot of fine literature and other artsy forms of work were created by Black hands. However, there also was a share of intra-racial prejudice, segregation, and a visible color line that made living for African-Americans hard once again.

Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tempest, a Brave New World; or just a sad goodbye

Through the years there has been much debate as to whether Shakespeare’s The Tempest is an Allegory to European colonization and colonial life, or if it is his “farewell to the stage” with a complete overview of the stage and a compilation of all of his characters into a few, in which the playwright himself being presented as Prospero. Is The Tempest an allegory to European colonization, or is it Shakespeare, presenting his formal farewell to the stage?

Many believe that Shakespeare, personified his character into Prospero, because Prospero ultimately created the entire plot of the play with his magic, which he obtained shortly after being marooned on the island. Because The Tempest was one of only two of Shakespeare’s works that were entirely original, one could see why this would be the easiest position to take; after all, Prospero basically writes the play himself, by creating a complicated plot to regain his dukedom from which he was usurped. He also controls every character in the play, some with loving relationships, some with just the opposite.

Watching” Prospero create and work through the play, is almost like watching the playwright write the play, from start to finish. His extremely manipulative control over all characters in the play, and his delicate and sometimes hard to understand strategy in “capturing” the king is symbolized in the end in which Miranda and Ferdinand are revealed playing chess. Because of this, his dukedom is surrendered back to him, for which matter he also surrenders his magic in order to fit in with the world which he is about to rejoin after twelve years.

This play very much does show the magic and ability to create anything in the world of theatre, even a barren theatre like the Globe, before the wonders of technology could create special effects and realistic scenery. This is ironic because the vivid descriptions that the characters give of the island, whether good or bad, are not achievable through primitive scenery as there was in Shakespeare’s day, so therefore are left up to the audience for interpretation.

For instance: Adr: Though this island be desert Uninhabitable and almost inaccessible The air breathes upon us here the most Seb: As if it had lungs, and rotten ones Ant: Or as if t’were perfumed by a fen Gon: How lush and lusty the grass looks, How Green! Ant: The ground indeed is tawny (Act II. Scene I. ) This is just one example of how in this play, Shakespeare allows the reader to take a look into the playwright’s mind and how life as a playwright was to Shakespeare.

After all, if every play were written in the magical world of The Tempest, Hamlet would have been reunited with Ophelia, and King Hamlet would have risen from the dead in order to forgive his murder and restore his kingdom (Johnston 6), or Lady Macbeth would have finally washed that “damned spot” out of her hand, with out going crazy, and Duncan would have forgiven Macbeth before he obtained his extreme pessimistic view of life in general, provided that Macbeth surrender his kingdom back to Duncan.

It is a world without real tragedy, only staged tragedy, and it is the world in which Shakespeare is possibly trying to imply that the playwright lives, because his magic, like Prospero’s is only good in his world, or in his case, the stage. One of the main indicators that perhaps this was his final farewell to the stage is Prospero’s epilogue to the play. In it he states that in order to rejoin life outside his isolated island where anything is possible, he must “drown his book” or give up his magic.

This is very significant because to many readers it symbolizes Shakespeare “drowning his book” or preparing to re-enter society without the imagination with which he created plays. Prospero tells the audience that he is a slave to his own magic, and that in order for him to be set free, they must applaud him, so he can leave. This is possibly also symbolic of Shakespeare giving up his play writing and that in order for him to be set free from the imagination and creativity, the audience must applaud him one last time so as to satisfy the insatiable desire for applause that the playwright has.

He also may be trying to show how it was very easy for him to get caught up in his own capabilities as playwright, and forgotten the main purpose of the play, which is not to show off. This is also illustrated by the wedding masque that Prospero performs with his magic, forgetting that there are three men attempting to take his life, while he shows off. When he remembers this, he must force himself back to reality, and focus on accomplishing the goal of stopping this rebellion of Caliban.

Prospero’s surrender of his magic also symbolizes that he has accomplished all there is to accomplish, and he is now going back home to contemplate life and live in peace, as Shakespeare did shortly after he completed this play. (Johnston 9) In any case, it is very tempting to idealize this play as Shakespeare’s formal farewell to the stage, but it isn’t necessarily logical, since he wrote still two plays after The Tempest. This play may have been his last great work, but it was not his last work period.

So, perhaps there is another motive behind the writing of this play. There are a few occurrences in the play that suggest a common bond with early European colonization. For instance, when Prospero arrived on the island originally, he found Caliban, since he was not able to communicate with Caliban, Prospero educated him and enslaved him, but only after he had shown Prospero how to sustain himself and Miranda with food and hunting and trapping.

This is very symbolic of the traditional Thanksgiving story, and the Jamestown story as well, both of which were being settled around the time of this play. The reasoning behind why Caliban was enslaved, and Ariel was set free from the pine tree was that Caliban was a “savage,” a native to the land, and a person that Prospero and Miranda did not know how to handle. He is considered to be a creature of the earth, and Ariel was a beautiful spirit of the air.

Caliban is portrayed as indistinguishable whether he is man or monster, and so therefore, he was enslaved. (Mandel, Steward, Phillips 17) Another of the major themes in the play is that of the allure of colonization. During the race to colonize the New World in the early 15th Century, the three major powers, Spain, France and England were each competing for claims in the New World. (Schmalbach, Newman 32) Concerning the treatment of Natives, Spain was the worst, but Spain backed off of their exploration, in order to pursue other matters.

Next in line was England. England was known for her harsh treatment, and enslavement of the Natives, while France was known for having the best relations with them, and even sided with them to try and chase England out of the New World, so they could stake claims to central locations for trapping and trading. This is illustrated by Caliban’s request to overthrow Prospero, his soon to be former master, and Stephano’s agreement to do so, so that he and Miranda can “rule as king and queen. ” (Act III. Scene II.

This is an illustration of how the Natives, in order to get out from under the oppressment of their former rulers, the English, they assumed a new “master” by gaining French assistance. As the party of nobles is looking for Ferdinand, they begin to discuss what they would do if they were given lordship of the island. Their responses are greatly similar to the true occurrences concerning the early English colonies. Even Gonzalo, who wants to have equality among men in his colony, is contradicted as Antonio points out that he would still be ruler over them, and it would be no different than England.

Sebastian feels that he would “take it home for his son as an apple” and then “plant the seeds in the sea, bringing forth more islands. ” (Act II. Scene II) This illustrates the lust for power and conquering that the English had, since they could not just be happy with part of the natives land so they had to take more, and create additional colonies with it. Eventually in history, the English did drive out the natives completely, moving them twice before finally settling them permanently. They then created all of the colonies, which became the states we know today.

This particular scene illustrates this very well. In October of 1996, the archaeologists on Jamestown Island discovered a ring with the signet of William Strachey, a man who wrote a letter to a woman in England in 1610 concerning the islands off the coast of Bermuda. It is believed that this letter may have made it into the hands of Shakespeare, from which he acquired very descriptive information about the islands, and the colonization of them. It described the English treatment of natives, and a shipwreck that Strachey was in that marooned him there.

In this letter, he described in detail a similar shipwreck, as well as an island almost identical to the one Shakespeare chose to maroon his characters on in the play. (Andrews 1) In conclusion, one can clearly see, that although Shakespeare may have used the Tempest as his farewell in a sense, and used it to describe himself as Prospero, the evidence supports the claim much more strongly that he was simply creating a magical, mystical, allusion to the European colonization of the 15th century, and that he did so in an almost satirical manner.

Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House

Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, considers a very delicate situation experienced by a Scandinavian family in 1879. Nora Helmer, the main character and adored wife of Torvald faces a life-altering dilemma. She has to decide whether to remain with her obsessive husband in his sheltered home, playing the part of a doll, or take the initiative to leave and seek out her own individuality. There are three minor characters that have a significant impact on the final decision that Nora attains. Each one, representing some particular social aspect, is essential to the development of Nora’s character. Krogstad, Dr. Rank and Mrs.

Linde have all had a long-standing relationship with the Helmer family, but neither character can provide Nora with a completely reassuring path to follow. She must discover this for herself, as they can only help to point her in another direction other than the one that Torvald has. Nils Krogstad is in fear of losing his job at the bank. He will stop at nothing in order to retain his position, as he has struggled relentlessly to get to where he is now. Krogstad was guilty of committing the same crime as that of Nora and although their motives were different, the law still regards their actions as fraudulent.

In all of his ruthlessness and selfishness, Krogstad represents the desperation that Nora experience’s throughout the play as she tries to figure a way out of her desperate situation. She had gone to him in her time of need and now he has approached her in his time of despair. However, she is unable to assist him because it would mean that she would have to involve Torvald and that is the last thing she wants to happen. Thus, Krogstad retaliates by explaining to her that if he goes down, she will go with him. ‘But I tell you this: if I’m pitched out a second time, you are going to keep me company’;(Ibsen 29).

He shows no sympathy, as he does not hesitate to destroy the reputations of both Nora and Helmer for his own benefit and to further his own standing in society. The character of Krogstad demonstrates that although one can overcome their fault and eventually move on with life, that person will ultimately revert to other similar acts of ruthlessness later in life. Dr. Rank is also a long-time acquaintance of the Helmer’s and makes frequent visits to their household. Nora enjoys secretly flirting with him until he admits that he has had a profound affection towards her for quite some time. This causes her to become upset towards Dr.

Rank because his confession means that they can no longer continue their secretive game together. The connotation of the name ‘Rank’ has a symbolic meaning in Ibsen’s play. The word rank denotes a stink or rot and may very well represent the depression experienced in Nora’s life. The significance of his life helps to exemplify the loneliness and misery experienced by someone living in solitude. Evidence of his desolation occurs when he says, ‘I’m slowly sinking. There’s nothing to be done about it’; (Ibsen 45), and furthermore when he explains how he does not wish to see Torvald once the dying process begins.

On no account must he. I won’t have it. I’ll lock the door on him. –As soon as I’m absolutely certain of the worst, I’ll send you my visiting card with a black cross on it. You’ll know when the final horrible disintegration has begun (Ibsen 45). The very existence and fate of Dr. Rank manifests a sense of sorrow and despair and this forces Nora to take into consideration the particular lifestyle of his when making her decision to leave her family and home. Mrs. Kristine Linde is a longtime confidante of Nora, and until the beginning of the play, has not seen her for nine or ten years.

Since then, her husband has died and she was left with nothing, having to open a shop and run a school in order to get by. Now, she has returned to the Helmer’s in search of more work. Mrs. Linde represents the social conformity that women can accomplish in that era. An example occurs when Nora asks her how it is possible that she was left with nothing and still able to move on. Mrs. Linde casually replies, ‘Oh, it sometimes happens, Nora’; (Ibsen 8). Although she was able to overcome the death of her husband, it does not mean that she has necessarily been happy all this time, as she states,

These last three years have been one long relentless drudge…Just utterly empty. Nobody to live for any more. That’s why I couldn’t stand it any longer being cut off up there. Surely it must be a bit easier here to find something to occupy your mind’; (Ibsen 11). The character of Mrs. Linde allows Nora to understand that by leaving, she will undergo many hardships however, she provides Nora with assurance, a sense of hope that women can make a living on their own, without a husband at their side.

In the end, all three minor characters have undergone a radical change, having arrived at some other position in life. Krogstad and Mrs. Linde have become a couple, and Dr. Rank is soon to pass away. This is significant, as Nora has chosen to abandon her family to pursue her own independence and individuality. She will no longer play the part of a doll and depend on Torvald to support her and resolve all of her problems and thus, takes a giant step forward towards the development of women as their own individuals.

Ibsen’s A Doll’s House explores the role of women in the late 1800’s and stresses the importance of their realization of this believed inferiority. Living in our present day society sometimes causes us to underestimate the transition that women have undergone throughout these last hundred years. However, Nora’s progression at the end of the play arouses an awareness to an awakening society recognizing the changing view of the status of women at that time.

Canterbury Tales -The Woman of Bath

The Canterbury Tales, by Geoffrey Chaucer, is a collection of stories in a frame story, between 1387 and 1400. It is the story of a group of thirty people who travel as pilgrims to Canterbury to visit the shrine of Thomas Beckett. The pilgrims, who come from all classes of society, tell stories to each other to kill time while they travel to Canterbury. In the Prologue, it states Chaucer intended that each pilgrim should tell two tales on the way to Canterbury and two tales on the way back.

He died before he had a chance to finish his project; however, he did manage to complete twenty-four of the tales including the one supposedly told by the Woman of Bath. The rather promiscuous Woman of Bath told an interesting story which was in keeping with her unique personality. The lewd Woman of Bath was a very intricate cloth-maker who led a very interesting life. She was a member of the urban society and was very successful in her endeavors. She was considered attractive, she had big hips, long hair, gapped teeth, and she was somewhat deaf.

She wore tight clothes, a red scarf on her head, red fishnet stockings, and soft new shoes. All of these things, along with the fact that she was very well traveled indicated that she was rather wealthy. The Woman of Bath had five husbands and many more love affairs. Chaucer states that she knows how to remedy loves problems, an art at which she knew the oldest dances. The Woman of Bath was quite an attractive, wealthy and promiscuous woman of her day. The story told by the Woman of Bath seemed complicated, but when it comes down to it, it is simply about the one thing a woman wants in a relationship.

Her tale begins with a kings men out on a journey. On his journey, he came across a very attractive young woman, and being a man, he raped her. When the King found out, he was outraged and ordered and ordered the mans death. However, the Queen begged for his life. The King decided that the Queen could decide the mans punishment. She decided that if he wanted to live, he would have one year and a day to go out on a journey to decide what it is that a woman wants most in a relationship. So, he set out on another journey.

He went an entire year asking every woman he found what she wanted most, only to hear a different answer from each and every woman. Finally, his year was coming to an end and he began his way home. On the way he met an old woman, this woman told him that she would tell him the secret to what women want, if he promised to do whatever she asks of him first. He agreed. She told him that all a woman wants is to be in complete and total control over her marriage and love affairs. The man then went back to the Queen and her court of women and told them what he had learned.

No one disagreed with what he said, so the queen spared his life. The Old Woman then stood up and said now you have to do what I ask you to. So, will you marry me? The man broke down yelling no, anything but that. However, he had to do it anyway. On their wedding night, he ignored her and treated her very coldly. When she asked why, he told her what do you expect you are old and ugly. She continued to tell him that being old and ugly is a sign of chastity and cleanliness; while, being young and attractive is a sign of promiscuity and dirtiness.

She told him that he had to choose which one of the two he wanted. He told her that it did not matter, and it was all up to her; therefore, giving her control over the situation. In reward, the next morning when they awoke, she was the best of both worlds. Not only was she young and beautiful, she was faithful and pure at the same time. The story told by the Woman of Bath was quite interesting. The Woman of Bath had five failed marriages and many other failed relationships; thus, the story she told may be her reasoning for their failure.

At first glance, the story the Woman of Bath told did not seem to fit her promiscuous description at all, seeing as though it was a story of a successful and happy relationship. However, when considering her many failed relationships it is easy to see how she may blame their failure completely on the mens lack of giving her control. If she had not been such a promiscuous character, she probably would have come up with an original crime other than rape for the Kings man. So, it is quite believable that the Woman of Bath could conceive a tale such as the one she told.

Analysis of the Ending of “Death of a Salesman”

The play “Death of a Salesman” shows the final demise of Willy Loman, a sixty- year-old salesman in the America of the 1940’s, who has deluded himself all his life about being a big success in the business world. It also portrays his wife Linda, who “plays along” nicely with his lies and tells him what he wants to hear, out of compassion. The book describes the last day of his life, but there are frequent “flashbacks” in which Willy relives key events of the past, often confusing them with what is happening in the present. His two sons, Biff and

Happy, who are in their 30’s, have become failures like himself. Both of them have gone from idolizing their father in their youth to despising him in the present. On the last few pages of the play, Willy finally decides to take his own life ([1] and [2]). Not only out of desperation because he just lost his job, with which he was hardly earning enough to pay ordinary expenses at the end. He does it primarily because he thinks that the life insurance payout [3] will allow Biff to come to something [4], so that at least one of the Lomans will fulfill is unrealistic dream of great wealth and success.

But even here in one of his last moments, while having a conversation with a ghost from the past, he continues to lie to himself by saying that his funeral will be a big event [2], and that there will be guests from all over his former working territory in attendance. Yet as was to be expected, this is not what happens, none of the people he sold to come. Although perhaps this wrong foretelling could be attributed to senility, rather than his typical self-deception [5]. Maybe he as forgotten that the “old buyers” have already died of old age.

His imagined dialogue partner tells him that Biff will consider the impending act one of cowardice. This obviously indicates that he himself also thinks that it’s very probable that Biff will hate him even more for doing it, as the presence of “Ben”, a man whom he greatly admires for being a successful businessman, is a product of his own mind. But he ignores this knowledge which he carries in himself, and goes on with his plan.

After this scene, Biff, who has decided to totally sever the ties with his arents, has an “abprupt conversation” (p. 9) with Willy. Linda and Biff are in attendance. He doesn’t want to leave with another fight, he wants to make peace with his father [6] and tell him goodbye in a friendly manner. He has realized, that all his life, he has tried to become something that he doesn’t really want to be, and that becoming this something (a prosperous businessman) was a (for him) unreachable goal which was only put into his mind by his father (p. 105). He doesn’t want a desk, but the exact opposite: To work outside, in the open air, with his hands.

But he’s willing to forgive [6] Willy for making this grave mistake while Biff was in his youth. He simply wants to end their relationship in a dignified way. Willy is very angered by this plan of Biff’s [7], because it means that he is definitely not going to take the 20000 dollars and make a fortune out of it. Happy, who has become very much like his father, self-deceiving and never facing reality, is shocked by what Biff says. He is visibly not used to hearing the naked truth being spoken in his family. He objects by telling another lie, “We always told the truth! (p. 104).

This only serves to enrage Biff further, after Willy has already denied shaking his hand, which would have been a gesture of great symbolic meaning. For Willy, it would have meant admitting to everybody that he was wrong, and it would show acceptance of his son’s true nature. But Willy goes on to say that Biff is doing all of this out of spite, and not because it is what he really wants. Spite, because the teenage Biff had once caught him cheating on Linda, and that was the turning point from being admired, to being hated by Biff.

So now, instead of generously forgiving, Biff becomes just as angry and ggresive. They almost get into a physical fight, but he suddenly lapses intro utter sadness and desperation, and cries, holding on to Willy. Afer he has left, Willy is deeply moved, because he realizes that Biff actually liked him. But even this realisation does not make him understand Biff, and he proclaims again that Biff “will be magnificent! ” (p. 106). And his mental voice, in the form of Ben, adds that this will certainly be the case, especially “with twenty thousand behind him”.

He is freshly motivated to proceed with his old plan by is gross misinterpretation of Biff’s startling behaviour. He is simply unable to realize, that money is not what Biff wants or needs. Although he does realize, that Biff, despite everything, loves him, and perhaps this is to him another incentive to give him the money. At the funeral, Happy is unchanged, his old self. He says that “[they] would’ve helped him” (p. 110), even though he himself had been extremely cruel to Willy by abandoning him at a restaurant just before the big quarrel, and certainly this wasn’t the only incident where he had shown no regard at all for Willy.

Happy has obviously not learned a thing from the entire tragedy, which is why Biff gives him a “hopeless” glance near the end of the Requiem. Biff speaks of the “nice days” that they had had together, which all involve handyman’s work Willy had done on the day. Charley adds to this that “he was a happy man with a batch of cement” (p. 110). This adds a new dimension to the tragedy, because it all indicates that Willy was, just like Biff, a man who enjoys physical work. If this was the case, then Willy could simply never admit to himself, like Biff finally did, that he WASN’T going to make big money.

Linda voices her regret over not being able to cry, alone at Willy’s grave. An explanation of this would be, that she simply cannot understand and forgive him these last acts. First, the not letting Biff go, and then committing suicide, despite the fact that Biff had made his intentions so clear. Also, she might interpret into his self-inflicted death, which leaves her behind alone, that he did not love her. This conclusion of the tragedy fits the rest of the play well. The dramatic character development is quite unpredictable, neither are the specific events, which makes it a compelling read.

The Birthmark, by Nathaniel Hawthorne

In The Birthmark, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Georgianas futile attempt to be flawless by cooperating in her own murder doesnt make her any wiser, especially because such a sacrifice does not earn her closeness with her husband. The character of Georgiana epitomizes the virtues upheld by the conventions of her time; she is beautiful, docile and has no ambitions of her own other than to make her husband happy. In addition to this apparent perfect union is a “singular mark, deeply interwoven, as it were, with the texture and substance of her face” (Hawthorne 11).

The birthmark is differently interpreted by all. Initially Georgiana thinks of the birthmark, as a charm, and Aylmer knows not whether to term [the birthmark] a defect or a beauty . . . (Hawthorne 11). Most persons of her own sex refers it as the bloody hand, that Quite destroy(s) the effect of Georgianas beauty . . . (Hawthorne 11). While her admirers were wont to say that some fairy at her birth-hour had laid her tiny hand upon the infants cheek, and left this impress [the birthmark] there in token of the magic endowments that were to give her such sway over all hearts (Hawthorne 11).

Georgianas casual approach towards the birthmark reveals while she answers No, indeed, when her husband asks her has it never occurred to you [Georgiana] that the mark upon your cheek might be removed? (Hawthorne 10). Aylmer however visions the birthmark as Hawthorne says small blue stains which sometimes occur in the purest statuary marble . . . (11). Later on Georgiana soon learn(s) to shudder as her husbands hatred towards the birthmark considerably increases (Hawthorne 12). Aylmers obsession soon starts reflecting in Georgiana.

She at this point ignores all warnings and falls prey to her husbands ambition of removing the birthmark, of which, he although is convinced of the perfect practicability . . . (Hawthorne 13). Georgiana learns from Aylmers dream that, there might be a situation in the course of the operation when he might be inexorably resolved to cut or wrench it [her heart] away (Hawthorne 13). Her recent interpretation of the birthmark overshadows this dream as she now even at the remotest possibility wants that the attempt be made, at whatever risk (Hawthorne 13). Aylemers dream however is not the only warning that Georgiana receives.

Aylmer to gain confidence in her wife and to declare success in his new venture performs a couple of experiments, which results futile. Georgiana pays no heed when the whole plant suffer(s) a blight, its leaves turning coal-black as if by the agency of fire (Hawthorne 16). Neither did she understand when she finds the features of the portrait blurred and indefinable; while the minute figure of the hand appeared where the cheek should have been (Hawthorne 16). Aylmers throwing of the plate into a jar of corrosive acid could well have been a foreshadowing of her fate.

Furthermore, while poring over works in her husbands library, Georgiana loyally ignores the journal those reveal his [Aylmers] many failed experiments. The nadir of her [Georgianas] self-degradation and worship for her husband shielded her eyes from any logical deductions. Finally Gorgiana consumes the fatal concoction that grips her in its mortal claws. Aylmer prior her death confirms the concoction that Gorgiana mistakes as the elixir of life, to be poisonous (Hawthorne 17). Georgiana shows more concern by Aylmers possession of the concoction than her consuming it while saying, Why do you keep such a terrific drug? (Hawthorne 17).

She admires her husband even more for not accepting anything other than perfection and: She felt how much more precious was such a sentiment than the meaner kind which would have borne the imperfection for her sake, and have been guilty of treason to holy love by degrading its perfect idea to the level of the actual; and with her whole spirit she prayed that, for a single moment, she might satisfy his highest and deepest conception. (Hawthorne 21) Gorgiana now hates the birthmark even more than Aylmer does in wishing to put off this birthmark of mortality by relinquishing mortality itself in preference to any other mode (Hawthorne 21).

Even after realizing that her husbands concoction has proved fatal; Georgiana shows no sign of repenting but consoles her husband by saying you have aimed loftily; you have done nobly. Do not repent that, with so high and pure a feeling, you have rejected the best the earth could offer (Hawthorne 23). Hawthorne concludes the story by saying, he [Aylmer] need not thus have flung away the happiness which would have woven his mortal life of the self-same texture with the celestial (23).

This perhaps can be said for Georgiana too. It can also be said that the fatal concoction damages her heart, and that the birthmark vanishes amid the triumphant rush of blood that bathed the whole cheek . . . (Hawthorne 11). Thus Georgiana would have been wiser resenting her husbands ambitious intentions of removing the visible mark of earthly imperfection (Hawthorne 11). While her intense love and worship for her husband can never be doubted, her foolish sacrifice, at the same time can not be appreciated.

The Crucible vs The Scarlet Letter

Two hundred years ago, the church was the center of life in many New England towns. The church provided not only religions guidance but, was a place for social gathering and a chance for neighbors to keep in touch. This is shown in depth in Boston, by Nathaniel Hawthorne’s, The Scarlet Letter and in Salem, by Arthur Miller’s, The Crucible. Both towns are perfect models of the churches’ affect on their communities. Both towns were settled by immigrants from England seeking religious freedom from the theocracies in Europe.

In each town the church became a leading force in the local government. The church could influence the courts to impose legal penalties on crimes against the Ten Commandments. Crimes such as adultery, in The Scarlet Letter, and worshiping other gods, The Crucible, were violations of the commandments and carried significant civil penalties. The church influenced the community “to keep the community together, and to prevent any kind of disunity that might challenge the church’s institutional values. ” In The Scarlet Letter, Boston even held special Election Day sermons.

These were then followed by a special procession given by the town for the “minister whom they so loved. ” However, these beloved church leaders were not the perfect devout workers of God that they professed to be. Reverend Dimmesdale, was an adulterer and father of an illegitimate child. Reverend Danforth of The Crucible, was a money hungry old man who appeared to be preaching for his own greedy, personal gain. Both men, however, were allowed to get away with their sins for a while because no one dared question the people who gave them their spiritual enlightenment.

These men were, after all, the same men who were responsible for the church that stood at the center of not only the town, but also the morality and values that guided the lives of the people who lived in it. It is somewhat ironic that in both novels, the persecution of women in puritan communities for crimes, which were sins against the church, took place in religious societies formed by those seeking relief from religious persecution. In each book, persecution of those who dared be different by breaking the communities accepted religious values, is apparent.

Hester, the adulteress, and Abigail, the adulteress “witch”, were both persecuted for their actions. In conclusion, it is very clear that the common theocratic theme of societal values based on puritanical religious beliefs controlled the day-to-day lives of the communities in The Scarlet Letter and The Crucible. The effect that religious conformity had on the lives of the community and persecution for nonconformity can not be overlooked in these works of Hawthorne or Miller.

The Rudder That Steers a Story

Two men. Two men alike in two different stories, in two different time periods, characterized in ways that fit their culture and the social structure of their audience. Efficient changes in characters tend to help the reader or the viewer better understand and relate to modern day circumstances. Ulysses Everett McGill in O Brother, Where Art Thou? is the most effective adaptation because he retains certain core qualities from the original character of Odysseus at the same time as he is modernized.

Significant, core characteristics in both Odysseus and Everett that are essential in making the adaptation between Odysseus and Everett effective and essential in keeping the story alluring are the ambition, the boldness, the drive, and the leadership qualities they possess. In every story, there are always those characters that have this persona, and most of the time having these qualities is the rudder that steers the plotline. Being bold and ambitious causes Odysseus and Everett to be extremely willful. Ambitious people have a distinct plan they want to stick by, and they want that plan to go their way.

Any story needs this kind of character so that the story line stays strong. Just as it was in Greek times, in more modern times, an audience still has a natural focus on these types of characters because of their potent personalities and hard-driven hearts. Even after hundreds of years, strong, courageous personalities are still, and will probably always be, an inspiration to people. If Everett in O Brother, Where Art Thou? had not had these same qualities, he would not have pulled off the same effect that Odysseus did in The Odyssey.

The story would not have even been the same, since one of the main focuses of The Odyssey is Odysseus iron-willed drive that eventually gets him home. Everetts obsession to get home to his wife and kids as well as Odysseus passion to do the same is what made this story so strong. If either character had been passive or unassertive, both stories would have lost a lot of its power and effect. Being a king calls for the job of being a leader, and since Odysseus ambitious aspirations are what get him home, it becomes quite an inspirational story to anyone who reads it.

Odysseus was quite a leader, and in an authoritative position with his crew members, just as Everett was between him, and his two crew members, Pete and Delmar. It is obvious that the drive and ambition in these two characters make them the decision-makers of their group, which is also a strong, effective feature. Odysseus shows all these qualities and more in trying to lead his army back to Ithaca. He shows great leadership and wisdom when encountering such obstacles as the sirens and the Cyclops, just as Everett also takes control in leading him and his friends through barriers along the way.

The will power in Everett and Odysseus plays a huge part in making them the most effective adaptation. Another important quality that has been adapted and modernized is Odysseus and Everetts susceptibility to temptation. Though their aggression and determination can certainly get them far, it is natural and obvious that not everything will go as planned, especially when tested with difficult situations. Temptation occasionally gets both Odysseus and Everett into trouble, but what kind of story would the audience be interested in if there were not a few things that got them into trouble?

Odysseus is often tempted by other women (Circe, Calypso, etc. ) to satisfy both his and their sexual needs. It may have been more accepted for the men to do that sort of thing in that era than in the time period of O Brother, Where Art Thou? , but it still breaks a trust and loyalty issue. Though Everett is also slightly tempted by the sirens in the movie, just as Odysseus was tempted by Circe and Calypso, he does not commit adultery quite like Odysseus does, which was good for the story in that the main reason for Everetts journey was to get his wife back (p. 212, line 33-37).

And though Odysseus was tempted by these women, his heart is still with Penelope (p. 212, line 37-41). Also, both characters are at some point distracted by food and hunger issues that get them into trouble. Odysseus, in the Cyclops chapter, gets in a dilemma over Polyphemus cheese, and Everett, at the picnic with Big Dan, seems to be more focused on what he is eating to realize that his friend has just been knocked down (pp 218-220, line 253-305). This particular weakness in each character is a very important part to keep because it shows that not all heroes of a story are perfect.

Everyone can fall, and everyone can mess up, and it is not something that was only significant to show in Greek times. Everett retains a weakness factor from Odysseus that portrays a valuable, imperfect quality to show that not all people are faultless. Every audience likes conflict, temptation, sin, and imperfection. That is what makes it so appealing and that is what makes the characters most successful, especially when overcoming that shortcoming in the end.

One other effective adaptation where Everett is modernized from Odysseus in O Brother, Where Art Thou? s the sign of powerlessness Everett showed around his wife. Odysseus remained pretty consistent in staying in that audacious, confident, leadership position, over his wife. The whole twenty years Penelope was without Odysseus she felt that things were not in control. He was not there to place some boundaries on the suitors, though if he had been there, she would not have had suitors to begin with. She depended on him to take care of her and the house, which shows what kind of man Odysseus is. He was the man of the house and he brought home the bread.

Generally, men rule over women, husbands rule over their wives, and this was even more evident in the time period of the Odyssey. For example, when Odysseus has to leave Penelope after Telemachus was born to go to war in Troy, it is implied that Penelope is submissive to him by letting him go and understanding why he has to go, rather than saying or doing anything to try and hold him back from what he needs to do. Everett also carries those same audacious, confident, leadership qualities all throughout the movie, until he sees his wife again.

Penny seems to know what she wants and demands it, and one cannot condone that Everett, though very strong and ambitious, is much a slave to her needs. Everett spends so much of his energy trying to gain his wifes trust back that he would do nearly anything to get her and his daughters back. Before Everett and his band sing up on stage, he tries to get the attention of Penny by saying, I wanna be what you want me to bea perfect example of how Everett just wants to cater to her needs. In no way does Odysseus demonstrate this side to Penelope.

When Penny says that she wont marry Everett unless he gets their old wedding ring back, is another example from the movie that shows Everetts servitude to Penny. This part makes the adaptation of Odysseus to Everett the most effective one in that it shows the change in the role of women over time. Though women are still somewhat portrayed as people that submit to their husbands, the rise of women and their roles in society have greatly changed. Today, most women stand up for themselves, get jobs, and become more than just a housewife.

Penelope, as sweet as she is, is very passive, a follower, a human-doormat so to speak, but that was the role of women at that time. It was not appropriate for women to act much differently back then, when it is very socially acceptable for women to act in such a way today. This change in character, this somewhat surrendering attitude that Everett displays towards Penny also provides more comedy for the film, whereas The Odyssey was not necessarily a typical comedic novel, nor was that what the audience during that time period was exposed to.

A contemporary audience is more often exposed to humor, and that is what this transformation of the strong-willed Odysseus to the strong-willed, weakened-by-Penny, Everett does to a contemporary audience, especially taking it into consideration that Everett probably would not admit to groveling to his wife. The men enjoy laughing at the situation, while women enjoy relating to it, giving off the most effective adjustment to a modern day audience.

Some would say that Odysseus to Everett is not the most effective adaptation of The Odyssey in O Brother, Where Art Thou? They would argue that the change from Penelope to Penny is the best adaptation because neither character retains core qualities of the other, and that perhaps is a more effective adaptation. There is more of a difference in character between Penny and Penelope than in Everett and Odysseus. Penny and Penelope are quite opposite and the extreme change between these characters could be looked at as more effective for this very reason.

The modernization from Penelope to Penny could be looked at as being more effective to the viewer, more of a change in character to fit modern circumstances. From what has been shown though, it seems that Odysseus and Everett still play the stronger role in actually retaining some core qualities of each other. Their characters are more appealing, more captivating, more interesting, simply for the reason that their personality calls for that kind of attention.

Even though it seems like Penny has a little more control over Everett than Penelope does over Odysseus, Everetts qualities in Odysseus, the wit, charm, confidence, and ambition, are still more attractive to the eye. The main character of a story usually has more influence over an audience because they are, in fact, the characters that are shown the most, have the most lines, and carry the most responsibility, thus making the adaptation a more efficient one.

Overall, evidence shows that the adaptation between Odysseus in The Odyssey and Everett in O Brother, Where Art Thou? is the most affective adaptation. Their motivated, striving personalities, their vulnerability to temptation, and their way of reacting to the role of women, all display perfect examples of how an old story can be correspondingly transformed into a more modern one, adjusting certain qualities according to the time and the audience, and keeping core ones.

Everett definitely portrays many of the same qualities that Odysseus does, being in a leadership position, fearless, and confident. This is an important concept to consider in that modernizing a character can help the view better connect with the person and better understand the importance of such an adaptation, perfect for the time. It becomes clearer and more evident that character adjustments and modernizations are the rudder that steers the remake of an original.

The Adventures Of Huck

Huck is very responsive to the beauty of the natural world about him. He uses vivid imagery to describe nature in a peculiar way, which one can even consider out of character for him. His word choice, general attitude, use of literary devices, and the use of words which describe the sounds as they happened, all add to his vivid description of the summer storm. Huck’s reaction is unusual because up to this point in the story the impression of Huck that the reader has is one of a wild, uneducated boy running away from home.

The reader does not expect Huck to analyze nature by using thought provoking similes Huck’s use of action words contribute greatly to the descriptiveness of his account of the summer storm. These words add to the thrust and movement of his description. “Directly it begun to rain… rained like all fury… never see the wind blow so” (43). “… and the rain would thrash along by so thick…. blast of wind.. ” (43+44). These descriptions keep the description moving and keeps the interest of the reader.

They invoke common experiences that everyone has experienced. After reading these action words, the reader begins to develop a image of what it was like to be Huck at that point. This image is further aided by other factors. The other factors that influence the image the reader perceives are: word use, literary devices, allusions to common experiences, and specific details. Some of the specific details include use of color and descriptions of the environment.

Vivid descriptions such as, It would get so dark that it looked all blue-black outside, and lovely; and the rain would thrash along by so thick that the trees off a little ways looked dim and spider-webby; and here would come a blast of wind that would bend the trees down and turn up the pale underside of the leaves; and then a perfect ripper of a gust would follow along and set the branches to tossing their arms as if they was just wild; and next, when it was just about the bluest and blackest — fst!

It was as bright as glory, and you’d have a little glimpse of treetops a-plunging about away off yonder in the storm, hundreds of yards further than you could see before; dark as sin again in a second, and now you’d hear the thunder let go with an awful crash, and then go rumbling, grumbling, tumbling, down the sky towards the under side of the world, like rolling empty barrels down-stairs — where it’s long stairs and they bounce a good deal, you know” (44).

That one sentence encompasses all of the techniques and provides an excellent description. It uses personification, alliteration, allusions, personification, and others. Huck uses several onomatopoeias in his description of the storm. In addition to painting a picture in the readers mind, because of his use of onomatopoeias, the reader can also experience and hear the scene and the storm as if he/she were actually there. Huck uses four words to describe how thunder sounded.

The first is fst, “… when it was just about the bluest and blackest – fst! It was as bright as glory… ” (44). The other three are: rumbling, grumbling, and tumbling. “… and now you’d hear the thunder let go with an awful crash, and then go rumbling, grumbling, tumbling, down the sky towards the under side of the world… ” (44). Huck then uses one simile in paricular to further exemplify the sound of the thunder and to create a better scene for the reader. “… mbling, down the sky towards the under side of the world, like rolling empty barrels down-stairs — where it’s long stairs and they bounce a good deal, you know” (44).

This simile enhances this description of the storm in a few ways. The last part, “… you know” (44) adds more character to the description. It is beginning to sound more like a child, Huck. Also, anyone can imagine what rolling barrels down a long set of stairs sound like and when the reader really thinks about it, he/she realizes that, that is what thunder sounds like.

Huck’s vivid description of thunder, both visually and audibly, add to his personality and allows the reader to experience a different side of Huck. Huck is not just a naive child who is oblivious to natural wonders. He is responsive to the beauty of the natural world about him. There is more to him then meets the eye. Huck shows the reader this by his choice of words and the way in which he describes the summer storm. His uses literary devices to his advantage and to further his points. Huck shows he is not a shallow character and can be serious if he wants to.

The Great Gatsby a symbolic novel

The Great Gatsby is a symbolic novel of the disintegration of the American dream in an era of extraordinary prosperity and material excess. On the surface, we see that it is a story about the love between a man and a woman but the overall theme is the collapse of the American dream in society. We find that every character in their own way is searching for their American dream but as a result, their desire for wealth and pleasure, caused them to find themselves lost in the corruption of the aristocrat society.

Daisy is one of the characters that is trying to search for her American dream but the readers don’t really notice this because it seems that Daisy has everything already – wealth, a husband, love and family. It is everything she could possibly want but as we get to know Daisy, the reader sees that there is something else Daisy desires besides wealth and luxurious material. “I’m glad it’s a girl. And I hope she’ll be a fool – that’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool. ” – Pg 21. Daisy’s America dream is to be this “beautiful little fool” she envisions.

Daisy is beautiful and it is told through the characters that she is charming and beautiful but they could see right through her. They knew what she wanted in life and the fact that she was void of any loyalty or care. Daisy sought after this image of being this “beautiful little fool” so that she could hide her selfish ways and put on this fake facade so the other characters would see she is innocent. Throughout the novel, Daisy acts snooty and stuck-up around the other characters as if she is better then them.

She also acts very child-like when she cries over “beautiful shirts. ” “They’re such beautiful shirts,” she sobbed, her voice muffled in the thick folds. “It makes me sad because I’ve never seen such – such beautiful shirts before. ” – Pg 98. From this it shows that she only cares about luxurious material. Through her actions, we see that Daisy is not this girl that we should sympathize or look up to as “great” compared to Gatsby. “Even if we are cousins. You didn’t come to my wedding. I wasn’t back from the war. That’s true. She hesitated.

Well, I’ve had a very bad time, Nick, and I’m pretty cynical about everything. ” – Pg 21. She doesn’t really understand the harsh reality of life and hides behind her wealth and when she doesn’t even remember that Nick was fighting in the war which was the reason he couldn’t attend her wedding, she seemed as if it wasn’t as important as her engagement. Nick notices and realizes that Daisy isn’t the right person for Gatsby because of her greed and her expectations of being wealthy and keeping her status in the aristocrat society.

They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made” – Pg 180-181. It is not until the end, the readers are revealed to Daisy’s true identity. In the novel, we are given snippets of Daisy’s character but when we see that Daisy doesn’t truly love Gatsby and lets him take the blame for her mistakes; she is seen as a selfish and careless person. She no longer is charming but seen as a person that doesn’t care about others besides themselves.

Nick’s last words of the novel conclude the failure of the American dream and of the characters. “And as I sat there brooding on the old, unknown world, I thought of Gatsby’s wonder when he first picked out the green light at the end of Daisy’s dock. He had come a long way to this blue lawn, and his dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it. He did not know that it was already behind him, somewhere back in that vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night.

Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matterto-morrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther. . . . And one fine morning So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. ” When Gatsby dies, any chance of the American Dream surviving in the dehumanized modern world is destroyed with him. All of the hopes and dreams that strengthened and uplifted Gatsby are shattered.

After shooting Gatsby, George Wilson, the symbol of the common man who is trying to achieve his own success in the modern dream, commits suicide. The deaths of both the rich and poor man trying to achieve their goals symbolize the disintegration of the American Dream. As for Daisy she was unable to achieve her dream of becoming the “beautiful little fool”, she hoped that every girl would be. She left her past to start over again with Tom. When Gatsby died and the other characters revealed her fake facade, she no longer could face the harsh reality. Through Gatsby’s failed attempt to reach his dream, F.

Scott Fitzgerald incorporates the decline of American values. The characters in The Great Gatsby are mere examples of Fitzgerald’s message – the old American dream and all of its pure ideals have been replaced with money, greed, and materialism. Daisy represented the greed and was associated with the green light, symbolizing hope, money and jealousy. As hope is the core of American dream and money and jealousy is what surrounds it. Consquently, Daisy finds herself lost in her own failure of her American dream and is left with only guilt and remorse due to Gatsby’s death.

Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison

Invisible Man. Throughout the story, the narrator embarks on a mental and physical journey to seek what the narrator believes is “true identity,” a belief quite mistaken, for he, although unaware of it, had already been inhabited by true identities all along. Ellison, in Invisible Man, uses the main characters invisibility and conflict with the outside world to illustrate the confusion of identity that many people experience. The narrator’s life is filled with constant eruptions of mental traumas.

The biggest psychological burden he has is his identity, or rather his misidentity. He feels “wearing on the nerves” (Ellison 3) for people to see him as what they like to believe he is and not see him as what he really is. Throughout his life, he takes on several different identities and none, he thinks, adequately represents his true self, until his final one, as an invisible man. The narrator thinks the many identities he possesses do not reflect him, but he fails to recognize that identity is simply a mirror that reflects the surroundings and the person who looks into it.

It is only in this reflection of the immediate surrounding that the viewers can relate to the narrator’s identity. The viewers see only the part of the narrator that is apparently connected to the viewer’s own world. The part obscured is unknown and, therefore, insignificant. Lucius Brockway, an old operator of the paint factory, saw the narrator only as an existence threatening his job, despite that the narrator is sent there to merely assist him. Brockway repeatedly questions the narrator of his purpose there and his mechanical credentials but never even bother to inquire his name.

Because to the old fellow, who the narrator is as a person is uninterested. What he is as n object and what that object’s relationship is to Brockway’s engine room is important. The narrator’s identity is pulled from this relationship, and this relationship suggests to Brockway that his identity is a “threat. ” However, the viewer decides to see someone as the identity they assign to that person. The Closing of The American Mind, by Allan Bloom, explains this identity phenomenon by comparing two “ships of states” (Bloom 113).

If one ship “is to be forever at sea, [and] another is to reach port and the passengers go their separate ways, they think about one another and their relationships on he ship very differently in the two cases” (Bloom 113). In the first state, friends will be acquainted and enemies will be formed, while in the second state, the passengers will most likely not bother to know anyone new, and everyone will get off the ship and remain strangers to one another. A person’s identity is unique to every different viewer at every different location and situation.

This point the narrator senses but does not fully understand. During his first Brotherhood meeting, he exclaims, “I am a new citizen of the country of your vision, a native of your fraternal land” (Ellison 328) ! He preaches to others the fact that identity is transitional, yet he does not accept it himself. Maybe he thought it distressing being liked not for being his true self but because of the identity he puts on, or being hated not for being himself but because of his identity.

To Dr. Bledsoe, the principal of the black southern university where the narrator attended, the narrator is a petty “black educated fool” (Ellison 141). To Mr. Norton, a rich white trustee of the black university, the narrator is a simple object intertwined with his fate, a mere somebody, he explained to the narrator, that “[was] omehow connected with [Mr. Norton’s] destiny” (Ellison 41). To the organizers of the Brotherhood, Jack, Tobitt, and the others, the narrator is what they designed him to be.

They designed for him an identity of a social speaker and leader, and to his listeners and followers, he is just that. These were his multiple identities, and none were less authentic than the others were, because to his onlookers, he is what his identities say he is, even if he thinks differently. The narrator always had a desire for people “who could give [him] a proper reflection of [his] importance” (Ellison 160). But there is o such thing as a proper reflection because his importance varies among different people. Subconsciously, he craves attention.

He wants recognition and status and wants to be honored as someone special. He must feel that he “can have no dignity if his status is not special, if he is not essentially different”(Bloom 193); therefore he joins Brotherhood in order to distinguish himself, and to give himself an identity. He gets what he wants, recognition and fame, but it is not right he thought, for he is recognized only for his false identity. His identity positions him in the center of attention of housands of people, yet he feels he is unseen. In the brotherhood of thousands of brothers, yet he feels no one knows him.

This is his feeling of having a misidentity, but it is his conception of identity, which is mistaken. To comprehend identity, it would be necessary to understand that, in a solitary state, there is no need for identity, because identity is like a name, a label a person wears for those around him to see. If a person is stranded on an island, what use will it be to have a name? The narrator thought he “was becoming someone else”(Ellison 328) when he acquired his new Brotherhood name, but a ame change is simply a prescription for an identity change in the same human being.

A name, or rather call it an identity, is dynamic and interchangeable; a being is static. Rinehart, in the story, is an identity, which to different people implied a gambler, a briber, a lover, and a Reverend, and even happened to be an identity the narrator incidentally acquires temporarily. The narrator does not understand the fact that “Man is ambiguous” (Bloom 113), that man is viewed differently from different perspectives, but how a man is seen will not alter the person he is. The same person in different states of dentities will experience quite a deviation in the way he or she is treated.

The different treatments can lead to how one feels about one’s own being, which, in some cases, might illusion oneself as being a different person. John Howard Griffon, the author and narrator of the true-life novel, Black Like Me, demonstrated the interchangeability of identities and its effects. For himself, a white man, to understand what it is like to be black, he decides to “become a Negro” (Griffon 8). By simply darkening his skin with a medication, he gives up his life as a privileged white southerner, and walks into a life that appears suddenly mysterious and frightening” (Griffon 9).

Similarly, the narrator steps into a life of northern privileges he could only dream of when he was in the South. Probably “it was the clothes and the new name and the circumstances” (Ellison 328) which is so unfamiliar to the narrator that causes him to feel so different, and so strange, leading him into believing that he is becoming someone else. Perhaps he is startled that people likes him so much, which makes him think he “had become less of what [he] was, less a Negro” (Ellison 347); much like how

Griffon is shocked when he glares into a mirror that reflects a “stranger, a fierce, bald, very dark Negro” (Griffon 191). But unlike the narrator, who rejects reality by assuming invisibility, Griffon stands face to face with the people who see his new identity. Although Griffon initially felt divided into “two men, the observing one and the one that panicked” (Griffon 48), he eventually learns how people are seen through multiple perspectives. The narrator sees the meaning of identity as the universal perspective of a being.

He acquires fame and recognition through the influential role he plays as a eading activist of the Brotherhood, and thinks everyone will regard him that way. Feeling full of confidence and dignity, he greeted two black fellows in a bar, thinking they would be astounded to see him. But, to his surprise, they “only look at [him] oddly”(Ellison 416). To those two, his fame is his notoriety because they do not like his race philosophy. The narrator works for an ideology that promotes equality among all humans, whether black or white, male or female.

While the two black fellows hold an opposing ideology, a popular conventional belief in blacks at the time that “insisted on respect for lacks as blacks, not as human beings simply” (Bloom 33). Instead of being seen as a social leader, he is seen by those two as a social disgrace in the eyes of the black community. The narrator sees himself as a walking stereotype. He is right because anyone who is perceived through an identity is a stereotype because no identity reveals exactly who a person is.

Like a stereotype, identity exists externally from the person it identifies because it exists within the eye of the viewer. The narrator, during his fight with a white man on the street, suddenly realized that he is fighting a person that “had not seen him]” (Ellison 4). However, that white man does see him, just that he is seen through an identity without any respect. The narrator is disgusted with people stereotyping him; therefore, he wants to believe himself as invisible. He does not want to speak at Clifton’s funeral, yet the people will not leave until he performs what is expected of him to give a speech.

He comes to view his fame as a stereotype no different than that of those “black brothers who entertained them [white people] with stories so often that they [white people] laughed even before these fellows opened their mouths” (Ellison 413). The narrator can believe himself to be whatever he wants, but what he sees of himself is not what others see of him. He cannot decide for others how to see him, although he can influence the way people see him just as easy as how J. H. Griffon adopted his new identities when he “wakes up in a black man’s skin” (Griffon 161).

According to The Closing of the American Mind, all identities “depend on the free consent of individuals” (Bloom 110). For example a president holds his identity only because people elect to see him that way, otherwise he is like any ordinary Joe. Even if he thinks of himself as eally nothing more than of common flesh and bones, he is no less a president because his identity is for the public to perceive and not for himself. Even if there is a single person who considers him a president, he is a president only to that person, just like how the narrator is perceived as a “fink” when he stumbles into a Union meeting.

This is his identity in a particular setting, to those particular people, despite which, he truthfully denies it. Identity is “something [over] which one has no control” (Griffon 7). The narrator believes he finally found his true identity when he realizes he is nvisible to his surroundings; therefore, he assumes invisibility. However, invisibility is only his way to avoid reality. He is not invisible but simply not seen as what he thinks he should be seen as. He feels invisible only because no one really understands him, but, in reality, can any person be fully understood?

A person can only be understood to an extent. Not even brother or sister, a best friend, a spouse, or a person’s parents who created him or her can totally understand. As John Corry says “… [he is a] black nationalist … and the here … Here… he can enjoy his invisibility” (Corry 1). Nobody is seen exactly as who they want to be seen, but that does not mean they are invisible, just that the identity they are presenting might not be what the world expects.

Despite the narrator’s belief that, after his long journey, he has finally found the true understanding of identity and discovered his real identity, he is mistaken, for all the identities he experienced were real. He is the “same human individual,” seen differently “only in appearance” (Griffon 161) and that shows invisibility is a false revelation. Every different person who sees him holds a unique perception of im, even if he does not like how he is perceived; it is still a unique identity of his very being, and that identity is real on a simple basis that it exist.

Because identity is a tool for the beholder to assess the identified, it belongs only to the beholder and not the identified. Without other people around, a person will not have an identity and there will be no need for one. That is the whole reasoning behind identity. The reflection of the world upon the main character builds a false identity with in, while he does not realize his true identity until his invisibility refuses to allow him to reflect the world.

Analysis Of Ethan Frome

Ethan Frome is a story of ill-fated love, set during the winter in the rural New England town of Starkfield. Ethan is a farmer who is married to a sickly woman named Zeena. The two live in trapped, unspoken resentment on Ethan’s isolated and failing farm. Ethan has been caring for his wife for six years now. Due to Zeena’s numerous ailments they employ her cousin, the animated Mattie Silver, to help in the house. With Mattie’s youthful presence and attitude in the house, Ethans bitterness of his youth’s lost opportunities and the dissatisfaction with his life and empty marriage are reawaken.

This resentment leads to Ethan and Mattie in turn, falling in love. However, they never follow their love due to Ethan’s morals and the respect he has for his marriage to Zeena. Ethan eagerly awaits the nights when he is able to walk Mattie home from the town dances. He cherishes the ground she walks on and would do anything for her. After a visit to the doctor, Zeena is told that she needs more appreciable hired help. Thus, she decides to send her incompetent cousin away and hire a new one. Ethan and Mattie are desperate to stay together.

However, Ethan’s lack of financial means and Zeenas health are the deciding factors that will never allow him to leave Starkfield to be with his love. When the two are unable to find any plausible solutions to this issue, Ethan and Mattie decide to commit suicide by sledding into a tree. They figure it is the only way they can be together. The attempt fails, and the two are left paralyzed. Now Ethan’s wife must care for the two for the rest of their lives. There were many themes found in Ethan Frome, but the greatest of them all is loneliness and isolation.

In college Ethan acquired the nickname “Old Stiff” because he rarely went out with the boys. Once he returned to the farm to care for his parents, he couldn’t go out with them even if he wanted to. Whatever he’s done has kept him apart from others: tending to the farm and mill, nursing his sick mother and caring for Zeena. Ethan’s isolation is intensified, because he is often tongue-tied. He would like to make contact with others but can’t. For example, when he wants to impress Mattie with beautiful words of love, he mutters, “Come along. ”

In their own ways, Zeena and Mattie are solitary figures, too. For years, Zeena rarely leaves the house. She’s consumed by her illness. Mattie, on the other hand, seeks refuge from loneliness at the Fromes’ farm. A year later she chooses to die rather than return to a world of solitude. Edith Wharton uses characters such as Mattie, to express the theme of loneliness and isolation. Mattie Silver is unlike any of the other characters in Ethan Frome. The town of Starkfield is very colorless and dull. When Mattie enters she is wearing bright clothing and ribbons tied in her hair.

From her first appearance, the reader becomes aware that Mattie is very different from Ethan’s wife. Of all the characters in this novel, Mattie is the most tragic. She was so energetic and full of life that she wanted to free Ethan from this terrible society he lived in. She suggested suicide as a means of escape for the two of them. When the attempt failed, she became paralyzed. She is now stuck in the cold, colorless, world of Starkfield which unto itself is extremely tragic and ironic. The setting of Ethan Frome also expresses the isolation.

Around the turn of the century, in Ethan Frome’s time, the town of Starkfield was a cold and lifeless place. Life is dreary and cheerless in Starkfield. People stay indoors and keep to themselves. Weeks pass between visits with friends or neighbors. Wharton calls Starkfield a small farming community, and the town does live up to its name. It’s barren and it’s people are poor. Ethan can barely scrape a living off the land. The town Starkfield afflicts Ethan and helps to shape his destiny. Like the town, he is sullen and run-down.

Starkfield sits alone in its valley, isolated from the world around it. Ethan is also isolated. He left the lonely valley to go to college, but since returning he has gone scarcely more than few miles from his remote farm. Physically, and therefore, emotionally, he is trapped by his wife, his farm, and his poverty. Ethan is in some ways, a piece of the scenery, or as the narrator says, “a part of the mute melancholy landscape, an incarnation of frozen woe. ” He lacks the strength to shake himself loose before it’s too late.

The author is able to clearly portray the themes of isolation and loneliness through the characters and the setting. In conclusion, I feel that Ethan Frome should be included in a list of works of high literary merit, because it is a classic. The book is about society in general and this attracts many readers. I think that the magnificence of Ethan himself attracts many readers. His character was so carefully thought out and brilliantly painted in the readers mind. Although Ethan Frome was not a commercial success when it was first written, many critics praised the novel.

Dr Kinnicuttt said that Ethan Frome was “a classic that will be read an re-read with pleasure and instruction. ” Henry James told Edith Wharton that the novel “contained a beautiful art and tone and truth — a beautiful artful kept downness. ” Many critics also disliked the book. People said that it was too pessimistic to be recommended to the general reader. A critic in The Bookman could not forgive Wharton for her cruelty toward both her characters and her readers. The novel shows how one will not follow their heart due to what society may think.

It shows how much society’s beliefs in the 1900’s were valued. Despite low sales when this book first became published and unfavorable remarks about Ethan Frome, the novel is still read and loved by many people, in many countries and languages, today. All of these factors attribute to wonderful teachers, just like Mrs. Verrastro, assigning it as a required report and analysis to help our young and budding minds and persons develop into well educated and productive members of society.

Doctor Faustus Duality in the Doctor: Values in Faustus

In Christopher Marlowe’s the epic Christian tragedy, Doctor Faustus, the protagonist, Dr. Faustus, struggles between following God or Lucifer. Faustus, who is an enigma in himself, is capable of tremendous eloquence and willful blindness. His refusal to see what is fact and what is fiction is a result of his pompous persona. In his quest to become omnipotent, Faustus fails to see that there is life after death and that his material possessions are of no consequence. Faustus is a combatant in his own internal war of knowledge or salvation.

Faustus’s inner turmoil gives way to the dominant meaning within the play: Medieval morals versus Renaissance ideals. Faustus’s harrowing demise serves not only as a message to all but also gives justice to the age-old cliche “too little too late. ” Marlowe’s characterization of Faustus leads one to the predominant idea of duality in society of his era in which Medieval values conflict with those of the Renaissance. In the opening of the play Marlowe uses the chorus to announce the time, place, and most importantly, to introduce Faustus.

The chorus refers to the Greek myth of Icarus while characterizing Faustus – ” Till swoll’n with cunning, of self conceit,/ His waxen wings did mount above his reach/ And melting, heavens conspired his overthrow! “(Prologue. 19-21. ). ” His waxen wings did mount above his reach” is an ironic comparison between Icarus and Faustus. It is ironic because Icarus directly disobeys his father, which ties into the idea of moral sin. However, in Faustus’ case it is disobedient to become too learned. Also, the line ” heavens conspired his overthrow” could be a reference to Lucifer’s attempt to overpower God.

Thus, the Chorus would ultimately be making reference to Faustus attempting to outwit God. This does in fact tie into the stark contrast between Medieval and Renaissance values; the medieval world shunned all that was not Christian while the Renaissance was a re-birth of learning in which people openly questioned divinity as with much more. The chorus makes it seem that Faustus is a bad’ man because he seeks knowledge. In essence, it portrays Faustus as a “Renaissance man who pays the medieval price for being one. ”

Faustus’s constant struggle between conforming to Medieval values or exploring Renaissance principles is heightened by the Good Angel and Bad Angel. The Good Angel pulls Faustus towards Medieval values. He represents Faustus’s Medieval instincts: “O Faustus, lay that damned book aside/ And gaze not on it lest it tempt thy soul/ And heap God’s heavy wrath upon thy head! / Read, read the Scriptures – that is blasphemy! “(1. 1. 67-69). The Angel is eluding to Medieval ideals by saying that books are damned’ and will bring God’s heavy wrath’. That is blasphemy’ is yet another reference to books not being of God.

The Good Angel is Faustus key to salvation. Again, Faustus’s inner conflict gives way to the ultimate theme of redemption and sin. While the Good Angel represents the medieval era, the Bad Angel signifies the Renaissance : “Go forward Faustus, in that famous art/ Wherein all nature’s treasure is contained. / . . . / Lord and commander of these elements! “(1. 1. 71-74). The Bad Angel feeds Faustus’s thirst for knowledge by telling him that all nature’s treasure is contained’ in his books. Going even further, the Angel tells Faustus to be Lord’ and commander’ of these elements ultimately telling Faustus that he could be God if he so chose.

Both angels are ultimately signify duality within society. Where half are pulled towards the righteous Medieval morals and the others toward liberated Renaissance ideals. Faustus’s difficulty between his Medieval instincts and Renaissance passions is constantly reflected in his repenting for salvation and then immediately afterward pledging allegiance to Lucifer. This is most notable when the Old man confronts Faustus: Old Man. O gentle Faustus, leave this damned art,/ This magic that will charm thy soul to hell/ And quite bereave thee of salvation. “(5. 1. -37).

The Old Man symbolizes medieval society by claiming that philosophy and knowledge are damned arts’. The word charm’ is apt for, most notably because it makes reference to something that lures or seduces. When in fact, Faustus needed no charming’ to get him interested in the damned arts’. Rather then repenting, Faustus decides to ponder over what the Old Man has said -” O friend,/ I feel thy words to comfort my distressed soul:/ Leave me awhile to ponder on my sins”(5. 1. 61-63). By using sin’ to symbolize knowledge, Faustus reveals his tormented self.

Faustus exposes his inner conflict of his medieval morals and Renaissance values by saying his soul is distressed’. Fearing the decisions he has made, Faustus tries to repent: ” Accursed Faustus ! Wretch, what has thou done! / I do repent, and yet I do despair:/ Hell strives with grace for conquest in my breast! / What shall I do to shun the snares of death? ” (5. 1. 66-69). Faustus repents and then unintentionally reveals his hidden reasoning: What shall I do to shun the snares of death’ is Faustus’s way of wondering how he will get out of eternal damnation which he eagerly has accepted till now.

Also, the excerpt tells all that Faustus cannot, even on his deathbed, repent because it requires the forfeiting of erudition. Faustus is being pulled this way and that by duality in society. Where one tells Faustus to further his quest others plead him to repent and put an end to his sinful’ ways. A question arises, is Faustus’s story tragic? Faustus embraces his Renaissance persona by acknowledging his life choices. In his never ending quest to obtain knowledge, Faustus conjures Helen of Troy so that he may marvel at her beauty: “Was this the face that launched a thousand ships/ And burnt the topless towers of Illium?

Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss. / Her kiss suck forth my soul. See where it flies! ” (5. 1. 95-99). Helen is an apt person for Faustus to gawk at. She was considered to be the most beautiful women in all the world. However, Faustus lives in a time and place of sexual repression. Thus, Helen represents sin and sexual freedom – an end to Medieval morals. The word immortal’ implies that Helen’s kiss allows men to live forever and that Helen herself is immortal’. This ironical comparison demonstrates that Faustus is still in denial about death.

However, with ‘Her kiss suck forth my soul’, Faustus suggests that Helen has taken his life. This is ironic on many levels, most noticeably being that many men died to rescue Helen from the Trojans. In addition, Faustus is the only one responsible for his lost soul. The conjuring of Helen of Troy represents Faustus’s decision to accept what he has done with his life and follow his Renaissance persona. In calling on Helen, Faustus has yielded himself to immortal sins. First and foremost, Faustus has sinned by using black magic to call on Helen. Lastly, Faustus is openly sexual with Helen of Troy.

His kissing of Helen is ultimately a symbol of accepting that which has already been done and preparing to face eternal damnation. Faustus’s epic battle between Medieval morals and Renaissance ideals results in his eternal damnation. Faustus has many chances to repent, yet not once does he decided to put an end to seeking knowledge and practicing magic. His decision is ultimately a signal for the end of Medieval beliefs in religion being the key’ and the emergence of free thinking. Faustus has been said to be “a Renaissance man who paid the Medieval price for being one” ( R. M. Dawkins).

He was an intellectual in a society of ignorance imposed upon by the clergy of the Catholic Church. Though Faustus is the tragic hero of the play one must really consider if in fact Faustus’s demise is tragic. Faustus makes his own decisions and knows where they will take him to in the end. He refuses to see that heaven and hell do exist and despite the many warnings given to him about the heinousness of hell, he still follows the path of damnation. Faustus’s greatest scene is his soliloquy to Helen of Troy.

As he proclaims her beauty and kisses her fair lips he cements himself as a man of a new era, free both sexually and spiritually. Faustus proves not to be completely sure of what he has done with his life via his last words “Ugly Hell, gape not! Come not Lucifer! / I’ll burn my books! “(5. 2. 196-197). With, I’ll burn my books! ‘, Faustus unintentionally reveals, yet again, his medieval self. Faustus’s harrowing demise results in eternal damnation is tragic. Though he is a man with the charisma and courage to follow his passions in life despite the duality within society and the constant pulling of morals and ideals.

Faustus is told time after time that he can still repent and save himself from the wrath of God. Several times he does in fact repent, yet because of his inner conflict he takes it back’. Not till Faustus utters his last words is one completely sure that Faustus’s story is tragic, at best. Faustus proves to be a man of high and heroic temper by refusing to relinquish his passions and by bearing one heavy mischance after another. Yet, before his death, he is still questioning his life and the decisions he has made. Ultimately, he dies unhappy and still a combatant in his own internal war.

The realm of A Clockwork Orange

The freedom of choice and the rehabilitating form of corrections encase the realm of A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess. It produces the question about man’s free will and the ability to choose one’s destiny, good or evil. “If he can only perform good or only perform evil, then he is a clockwork orange-meaning that he has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil or State”(Burgess ix). Burgess expresses the idea that man can not be completely good or evil and must have both in order to create a moral choice.

The book deals upon reforming a criminal with only good morals and conditioning an automated response to “evil. ” Burgess enforces the idea of the medical model of corrections, in terms of rehabilitating an offender, which is up to the individual. That one should determine the cause and then find an exclusive treatment to resolve that individual’s case, then apply it. This is the case with the character Alex, a juvenile delinquent introduced into prisonization then conditioned by governmental moral standards. This lack of personal moral choice imposed upon Alex creates conflicting situations in which he has no ontrol over.

This is apparent when trying to readjust into society. As conflicts arise within the spectrum of criminal justice the main focus is revolved around the corrections aspect of reforming the criminal element. Within the confines of the seventies Londoner. The character, Alex is created as the ultimate juvenile delinquent leading a small gang. Living within his own world the use of old Londoner language and attire reflect the non- conformity with society. Let loose within a large metropolitan, Alex is engulfed in the affairs of several criminal practices, from rape to aggravated assault.

As a juvenile delinquent, Alex is finally caught and seen as an adult offender. Like all offenders he promotes his innocence and sets blame upon his companions. “Where are the others? Where are my stinking traitorous droogs? One of my cursed grahzny bratties chained me on the glazzies. Get them before they get away. It was their idea, brothers. They like forced me to do it”(Burgess 74). Betrayed by his cohorts Alex is beaten by local officials and confesses to all the crimes. As a point to retribution a sergeant states, “Violence makes violence”(Burgess 80) and proceeds to through Alex back into the cell.

All the hile Alex detests the treatment and conditions of the local jail, ” So I was kicked and punched and bullied off to the cells and put in with about ten or twelve other plennies, a lot of them drunk”(Burgess 81). Unlike the fair treatment of most juveniles Alex was finally getting the taste of adult corrections, being held in a drunk tank along with other felons. Faced with the reality of prison life, Alex is introduced to prisonization by the same system which incarcerated him. Showing him one must be tough and violent to survive within the penal system.

The term prisonization refers to the effect when an offender is ubjected to the culture, morals, rules, and values of a penal institution. Then this is inscribed into his or her own behavior and deems them fit as a norm. This is the case involving Alex when he must prove his worth in a correctional institution by beating a fellow inmate. “If we can’t have sleep let’s have some education, our new friend here had better be taught a lesson I fisted him all over, dancing about with my boots on though unlaced, and then I tripped him and he went crash crash on the floor.

I gave him a real horror show kick on the gulliver”(Burgess 102). Although being brutal deems fit for Alex, he realizes hat only repentance and good behavior in the eyes of the officials can release him from the jaws of justices. So in order to be viewed as a reforming criminal Alex turns to religion. As the prison minister clearly states, “Is it going to be in and out of institutions like this, though more in than out for most of you, or are you going to attend to the Divine Word and realize the punishment that await the unrepentant sinner in the next world, as well as in this? (Burgess 90) and the main focus for reforming is in the hands of God and individual moral choice.

Through religion Alex soon becomes a model prisoner, xternally, yet internally still willing to do anything to get out. This also included experimental rehabilitation methods done by the state. Being a juvenile in an adult prison one would have the urgency to be released as quickly as possible. When the word got out of a new experimental reforming process and a chance for early release, it immediately caught Alex’s attention.

To be chosen, this meant constant pressuring and questioning to the officials, plus showing that he is trying to reform. ” You’ve been very helpful and, I consider, shown a genuine desire to reform. You will, if you continue his manner, earn your remission with no trouble at all”(Burgess 94). However Alex’s intent on reforming was not a religious aspect but the quickest. He finally realizes a new way to get out and questions the proceedings. “I don’t know what it’s called, I said, All I know is that it gets you out quickly and makes sure you don’t get in again”(Burgess 95).

However the minister has doubts about the medical treatment techniques involved in forcing a person to be morally better. He brings up the question of what makes a real moral person. “I must confess I share those doubts. The question is whether such a technique can really make a man good. Goodness comes from within, 6655321. Goodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man”(Burgess 95). This does not deter Alex from the thought of early release but only intensifies his desires. With his determination and pure will Alex is finally permitted to be experimented on for rehabilitation.

With an early release in site Alex’s willingness overshadows any curiosities of the treatment. Transferred from a state prison to a private facility insures his release from incarceration. “In a little over a fortnight you will be out again in the big free world, no longer a number”(Burgess 108). With the increase in population comes an increase crime, this has also brought on encouraging new rehabilitating techniques to corrections. Stated by one government official the importance of reforming in corrections rather than retribution.

The government cannot be concerned any longer with out moded penalogical theories. Cram criminals together and see what happens. You get concentrated criminality, crime in the midst of punishment . . . Kill the criminal reflex, that’s all”(Burgess 105,106). The rehabilitating technique used upon Alex is that of responsive conditioning with the use of drugs and visual aids. Conditioning is the implementation of either teaching or forcing one to feel or think a certain way when given a decision. Alex is therefore forced to feel and think negative responses when shown evil sites or thoughts.

Yet the an error had occurred when the state was conditioning “good” into him. The use of classical music along with the treatment conditioned Alex to respond to that as well. As Alex detested the use of music, he states the cruelty of the technique, “But it’s not fair on the music. It’s not fair I should feel ill when I’m slooshying lovely Ludwig van and G. F. Handel and others”(Burgess 133). Yet the state feels the use of music is only an enhancement to the treatment, “It’s a useful emotional heightener, that’s all I know”(Burgess 131).

As the treatment ends the sick feeling is only increased when Alex is confronted with any “evil. ” With this conditioning set in place Alex is finally released into society and deemed healthy, pure of all morals. The readjustment into society’s values seems to be the main question. Was the implementation of conditioning a person to strictly good morals proper and humane? As the title suggests one can not be purely good or evil to be a man. One must have both in order to create humanistic choice. If not, the creation would be that of a robot like person incapable of feeling or self awareness.

As Alex is released into the world as the states’ example of a “healthy” person, he is tested by all extremes. One test was the incapability to defend himself against the smallest attacks on his character. Another error the state had provided is the use of music in the treatment of Alex. Not only does he feel physically sick when he thinks or looks at violence but also when he hears classical music. “It was that these doctors bratchnies had so fixed things that any music that was like for the emotions would make me just sick ike viddying or wanting to do violence”(Burgess 161).

Within the conditioning techniques of repulsing him to violence, the state had also forced him to hate music. The use of this correctional treatment failed due to the implementations on morality of human choice. Is it better to have a criminal make human choices, good or bad, or a purely good person not capable of making any choices. As most opinions state, criminals should all be locked up or dealt with in some harsh manner. There are also those who believe that offenders are diseased by some element and can and/or should be cured.

As far as corrections is concerned, society can not lock up every offender and can not come up with plausible means of curing the criminal element. With the rise in population there will always be a rise in crime. However this does seem to be the present trend, 5. 3 million people were on probation, in jail, in prison, or on parole in 1995 (B. J. S. 1). As seen in Alex’s case the corrections techniques to cure the element did not work. Perhaps the best means was to incarcerate him for his term and let him pay his debt to society. The only correct method of corrections is that of self correcting ones.

Catcher In The Rye

Throughout life, an individual may endure several emotionally or physically straining moments. In The Catcher In The Rye, Holden Caulfield suffers much verbal abuse, as well as physical. Both forms of the abuse, combined with other factors, eventually leads Holden to suffer a mental breakdown. Holden’s actions prove that ** “A blow from a whip raises a welt, but a blow from the tongue smashes bones. ” Holden experiences several fights throughout the story. Near the beginning, he begins a struggle with Stradlater, his roommate, over his friend’s date, Jane Gallagher.

Holden was upset to learn that the couple were alone in a car, knowing Stradlater’s sexual history. Holden’s mind chooses to push out the incident, so it is foggy in his head. But all he knew was, he tried to hit Stradlater but missed. After the miss, Stradlater proceeded to climb on top of Holden and take hold of his wrists, not letting him up. Stradlater dug his knees deep into Holden’s chest to keep him from moving. This seemed to go on for “around ten hours”. When Stradlater finally gave in and let Holden get up, the struggle started again, ending with a bloody nose for Holden.

Afterwards, although Holden was somewhat offended by the actions, he did not seem to care about his dripping nose. He went directly over to Ackley’s room, not even stopping to wipe up his nose. He also did not seem to care about the overall fight, because he talked of it like it meant nothing to him. “I had a little goddam tiff with Stradlater,” he explains to Ackley. “Do you feel like playing a little Canasta? ” This quick forgetting shows that the fight had little affect on Holden, and that his injury meant little to him. While Holden is in the Edmont Hotel, the elevator man mentions he prospect of a prostitute.

Holden reluctantly agrees to a throw, which would cost him five dollars. Holden was very nervous during his wait, but when the girl showed up he told her he only wanted to talk. Even though they didn’t do anything, Holden paid his money, only to find that the girl was promised ten. Holden refused to pay the extra amount, assuring the girl that he was told a throw was only five and he was not going to pay more. She left, only to return minutes later with the elevator man, Maurice. Maurice threatened and punched Holden, demanding the extra five dollars that he “owed”.

After a bit of “roughing up”, Sunny, the prostitute, searches Holden’s wallet and pulls out another five. Sunny starts out the door, but Maurice was still holding Holden, snapping on him and shoving him. Right before stepping out, he gives Holden a punch in the stomach. Although Holden was hurt badly, he didn’t care much about how he felt. All he knew was that he could hardly breathe. Halfway to the bathroom, he started pretending that he was dying. Although Holden was slightly affected emotionally by this incident, he didn’t care much at all about it, and let his injuries take care of themselves.

When Holden was first expelled from Pencey, he paid a final visit to his favorite teacher, Mr. Spencer. Mr. Spencer’s attitude was caring at first, but he began to scold Holden about his grades. “You knew absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing,” he repeated several times. He even had the indecency to read Holden his own paper, the one in which Holden knew absolutely no idea about the subject. He makes a mockery of Holden and his work, and completely destroys any self-pride that Holden may have. Mr. Spencer was very insensitive with his words, implying that Holden needed to grow up nd move on in his life.

These words may have been part of what eventually caused Holden’s emotional breakdown, the feeling that he was lacking in life. The reader is able to interpret through Holden’s thoughts and actions that the physical blows meant little to Holden, while the emotional blows meant much more. He was able to basically ignore his injuries, but could not possibly take the emotional pain out of his head. Even when he didn’t think about it, it was always there subconsciously, proving that a blow from the tongue smashes bones, while a blow from a whip only raises a welt.