The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar

- William Shakespeare
In 1598, Francis Meres described Shakespeare as "the most excellent in both sides - comedy and
tragedy". His comedies are unsurpassed for the marvelous harmony they establish among so many
apparently discordant elements. His tragedies, rightly interpreted, do not reveal a spirit of gloom
and disillusionment. Yet, if we ponder carefully, while the themes of Shakespeare's tragedies are
indeed dark and dismal, the message that they impart is that, no matter how deep the misfortune or
how dreary the circumstances, man is capable of rising from his own ashes, like Phoenix; think of
Richard II, Henry V, King Lear, or Prospero. Good will triumph over evil, in the end; think of
Hamlet, Macbeth, Julius Caesar.
As the theme and message in Shakespeare's comedies, they can be summed up in two lines from
"As You Like It":
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players"
In his comedies, just as in real life, the protagonists play different parts in the little playmates they
have themselves improvised in order to get what they desire. No one is hurt, no one is denied the
opportunity to join in the game, no one is left out. Life is a merry-go-round and each individual
may get off the platform as soon as he no longer enjoys the game. As long as all ends well
All Samuel Taylor Coleridge maintained, Shakespeare was more interested in characterdevelopment than in his plots. Besides, in most cases, he did not invent the plots, he merely
borrowed them from Holinshed and Hall Chronicles. Yet, his plots follow the classical Aristotelian
outlines.
Of Shakespeare's tragic characters, Mark Antony is quite outstanding in point of versatility. He
does not exactly fit the Aristotelian description of the tragic hero. He is reliable and trustworthy
friend, a highly intelligent and tactful man, a good psychologist, a skilful orator. Analysing
Antony's famous speech of act 3, scene 2, we admire its uncanny rhetorical effects and the most
persuasive use of the emotional appeal that assist him in disentangling the truth from the pack of
lies concerning Julius Caesar that Brutus had just told the Roman citizens. By using the apophatic
approach (the device by which one mentions something by saying it will not be mentioned: "I
come to bury Caesar, not to praise him", and "I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke"), Antony
manages to do just what he was not expected or allowed to do: praise Caesar and disprove what
Brutus spoke.
In a society like Shakespeare's, which felt secure about what constituted proper behavior, social,
political and familial roles were basic sources of order and untroubled adherence to them
symbolized the continued existence of order. What Shakespeare presents in "Julius Caesar" and in
other tragedies as "Romeo and Juliet", "Hamlet", "Othello", "King Lear", "Macbeth" is not
untroubled adherence to the roles of his type but, rather, their constant violation or loss as well as
the subsequent restoration of order, as the masters of deceit who had thrived on disorder are
exposed and destroyed.
Antony speech moves coherently from one idea to another, from one image to another, as he
places the Roman citizens in relation to reality and forces them to identify the real traitor. Thus,
order is being restored and, as Edmund remarks in "King Lear": "The wheel is come full circle".
Style and imagery:
In Renaissance literature the idea that the poet, insofar as he creates a world of his own, can be
compared with God, Who created the world, was already a commonplace by Shakespeare's time.

The fact that St. Augustine compared the world with a poem and a discourse was crucial for the
way in which the Renaissance writers conceived of style and imagery.
The development of poetic language, of style and imagery, was the main concern of 16th century
Renaissance writers who probed the nature of language and its ingredients as well as potential
relationships between words and reality ("brutish beasts" is intentionally used by Antony in his
speech in order to imply that, by murdering Caesar, Brutus acted like a brute), between words and
signs as containers of meanings.
Shakespeare's preoccupation with language was not confined to words as rhetorical ornaments of
thought but, rather, reflects the belief in the magic of language that thrives on an inter-referentially
among words, concepts, and things (the word "Brutus", the concept of brutality, and the brutish
thing that Brutus did, i.e. Caesar assassination).
An Examination of Southern Dialect
as Seen in the Works of William Faulkner
In the writings of William Faulkner, the reader may sense that the author has created an entire world,
which directly reflects his own personal experience. Faulkner writes about the area in and around
Mississippi, where he is from, during the post-Civil War period. It is most frequently Northern
Mississippi that Faulkner uses for his literary territory, changing Oxford to "Jefferson" and Lafayette
County to "Yoknapatawpha County," because it is here that he lived most of his life and wrote of the
people he knew.
Faulkner's stories focus on the Southeastern United States at a time period when old traditions began
to clash with new ideals. This is an era in American history with which most people can quickly
identify, whether they are Southern or not. The South in Faulkner's works are complete with all the
expected features: an agricultural society, Southern belles and gentlemen, racial tensions, and
especially the common characteristics of Southern speech. Faulkner strays from the normal customs of
Northern literature to present a realistic portrait of the South that he grew up in. In doing so, he comes
up with an excellent sample of the Southern language, including linguistic qualities of both black and
white speech. Faulkner establishes a unique literary voice which is recognizable due to variances from
standard English in vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammatical form, while juxtaposing speech
elements foreign to anyone not familiar with Southern heritage.
The works of William Faulkner succeed in creating a literary dialect which is relatively consistent
throughout all of his stories. A literary dialect is best defined as an "author's attempt to represent in
writing a speech that is restricted regionally, socially, or both" (Ives 146). In Faulkner's writing, this
can be described by such traits as an intentional misspelling, like "marster" for master, or in the use of
"Miss" along with the given first name of a female, as in "Miss Corrie." These, amongst countless
other examples, are distinctly Southern speech traditions. Anyone not from the South may need
explanations of much of Faulkner's pronunciations, words, usages, and language customs which the
author himself takes for granted. Because Faulkner has employed such a vast and complex Southern
dialect in his stories, the language he uses has become a microcosm of Southern language as a whole.
As one critic has noted, "local forms of speech maintain one's individual dignity in a homogenizing
world" (Burkett vii).
In Faulkner, this local speech is a mixture of "Southern American and Negro dialogue with all the
folklore from Virginia to Louisiana, Florida to Texas" (Brown 2). Faulkner's dialect is effective both as
a literary device and as a link between the American English language and American culture and
history, specifically in the Southeast.

The South is probably the most linguistically diversified part of the nation. Blacks and whites from
Atlanta to Charleston to Nashville speak a different form of standard English in a different version of
the Southern accent. Part of this linguistic diversity is reflected in the way that the Southern
aristocracy can "shift not only vocabulary and pronunciation, but even grammar, according to the
audience" ((1)McDavid 219). This technique is very much alive in Faulkner's work. For example, in
The Reivers, the upper-class grandfather character Boss is an educated man of high social standing in
the community. Yet, when he is in the company of only his grandson Lucius, as part of a lecture, he
says "the safe things ain't always the best things" ((2)Faulkner 117). Throughout the book, Boss's
speech moves from the formal to the informal, largely depending on the intimacy he feels with the
person or persons to whom he is speaking. Such a case illustrates that Faulkner is well aware of the
prestige norms that exist in Southern speech, and he takes advantage of this knowledge. As Feagin
points out, in the Southeast, the way in which "nonstandard English is employed demonstrates a
symbol of intimacy and local loyalty, as well as a gauge of the level of integration into a close-knit
network" (Feagin 222).
Faulkner's characters reveal a tendency to speak in a slang-like or non-prescriptive grammar when
they converse with other characters that they know well, often apparent in the form of jokes and
metaphorical language. Similarly to the aristocratic speaker, the less educated Southern speaker often
attempts to improve his or her speech when in a formal setting. McDavid asserts that the common way
to do so is by "using bigger words and longer sentences, sometimes resulting in the ridiculous"
((2)McDavid 265). A good example of such in Faulkner occurs in As I Lay Dying when Anse, a rural,
farming man, attempts to sound eloquent at a time of utmost solemnity. During a funeral speech, Anse
states the following: The somebody you was young with and you growed old in her and she growed
old in you, seeing the old coming on and it was the one somebody you could hear say it don't matter
and know it was the truth outen the hard world and all a man's grief and trials ((1)Faulkner 511).
It is obvious that Anse intends to speak formally in this situation, thus Faulkner follows McDavid's
rule of Southern speech about the elongation of sentences and its irregular result. This passage is
successful in two ways. First, it reveals a realistic trait common in the Southeast, reflecting the
solidarity norm based on local non-standard speech (Feagin 219). Second, it serves as a very powerful
literary technique because the oration captures the high level of sincerity in the speaking character.
Another highly common form of Southern dialect which is often seen in Faulkner's writing is the
presence of African American speech features. There are numerous examples of black speech in
Faulkner that follow linguistic patterns. However, it is the purpose of this essay to view only a few of
the most common. Alphonso Smith defines the most general rule of Southern Negro speech as the
tendency to pronounce words like more, store, four, and floor without the /r/ sound, as in mo, sto, fo,
and flo (Smith 365). Faulkner holds true to this generalization by narrating similar speech from the
black characters in his books. For instance, in As I Lay Dying, the character Cash offers a statement
which proves Faulkner's conformity to this black English norm when he says, "I ain't so sho that ere a
man has the right to say what is crazy and what ain't" ((1)Faulkner 221).
Further, linguists such as Raven and Virginia McDavid have gathered that the oldest and least
educated, as well as many Negro informants in their Southern language studies have demonstrated
dominant usage of such ungrammatical verb past tenses as div for dive, growed for grow, and riz for
rise ((3)McDavid 264-280). Accordingly, in Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury, there is an immense
sign on the Negro Second Baptist Church which reads "He Is Ris."
Faulkner also depicts the vernacular of Southern blacks in his opulent use of repetition and Biblical
allusion. It has been noted by researchers of Southern linguistics that a strong relationship exists
between the rituals of black churches and everyday black speech customs. Examples of this

relationship include religious reference, long pauses, swaying and gesturing, and repetition (JonesJackson 115-124). Although it is impossible to identify with many of these aspects of black speech
while reading words on a page, it is clear that Faulkner takes advantage of those aspects that the
readers can detect. For instance, all of his works display abundant uses of the words Jesus, heaven, and
crucifixion, and sometimes choir hymns such as "all folks talkin' bout heaven ain't gwine dar" appear
in the speech of black characters (Brown 19-222). Other Negro language features common in Faulkner
are loss of /r/ at the end of words as in "betta" for better, use of be substituted for all tenses of the word
be, as well as the "zero copula, or possession indicated without a possessive morpheme" (Stewart 57).
Much of Faulkner's writing has viewed blacks humanely, giving them a significant voice in the
Southern American culture. However, for the most part, the literature reflects the general social
attitude towards blacks at the time, which renders their language substandard and basically inferior to
that of most whites. In the stories of Faulkner, the author writes in his natural language which he
learned growing up in Mississippi. This language, obviously, is what constitutes his literary dialect.
Nevertheless, a closer observation of the linguistic style of his writing reveals exactly how he
establishes this unconventional dialect. Primarily, Faulkner utilizes the technique of intentional
variation of words from standard English orthography or, to be more specific, he purposefully spells
words incorrectly.
The examples of this in his works occur on a page by page basis. Some of the more common and
peculiar, occurring in more than just one of his stories, are "Ferginny" for Virginia, "ricklick" for
recollect or remember, and "gwine" or "ghy" for going to (Brown 19-222). Another similar
pronunciation feature of Faulkner's work is the combining of two like words to create a new word with
a new spelling. Two examples of this action are "aggravoke," a blend of aggravate and provoke, and
"agoment," used as a combination of agony and torment (Brown 19). In addition to these, Faulkner
also plays on language variation by exhibiting words or expressions to which the average English
speaker cannot possibly know the meaning. Words like "jumper" for denim jacket and pants or
"dragon" for a Ku Klux Klansman, and expressions such as "struck and jumped" to signify picking up
the scent of and then killing a deer, fall into this category (Brown 19-222).
Finally, to establish his literary dialect, Faulkner ensures that "grammatical forms are used that do not
appear in the textbooks - except as awful warnings" (Ives 147). Many of these have already been
discussed above, but several others appear in the writing as in the multiple cases of double negatives,
eliminating the /g/ from words ending in -ing, and placing the word "like" at the end of adjectives for
emphasis (as in "proper-like," and "quick-like"). In short, most of these features, and the local dialect
as a whole, can be seen in such passages as the following from As I Lay Dying: "I know that Old
Marster will care for me as for ere a sparrow that falls" ((1)Faulkner 440). This quotation is
grammatically unsound, it contains unusual word spelling and pronunciation, and it also makes use of
a seemingly foreign phrase or saying. From the start, what almost all of these characteristics have in
common is that they are chiefly reflections of the Southern Lowland dialect, and therefore they make
Faulkner's literature a symbol of that geographical region and culture as a whole.
Some important questions arise when examining the language of Faulkner or any similarly dialectoriented author. These questions surround the actual nature of a dialect, and the way in which it is
manifested by the writer on to the page. Dialects are patterns of communication by which all people in
an exclusive region recognize. People, even without a written language, understand "these speech
conventions, or patterns to which actual noises conform" even though they may not be "systematically
analyzed and recorded in a grammar" (Ives 150). A group of people who speaks a dialect will
commonly have uniform variations from other dialects that are noticeable by people outside their
speaking class, as in the differences between black and white Southern English. A writer like Faulkner,

then, presents a very special affinity with his own dialect because he writes in it without having to rely
on research or background study. His storytelling language is pure, "when he needs something, he
searches the lumber room of his head for something to serve his purpose" (Brown 4).
The literary dialect in the works of William Faulkner is almost a carbon-copy of the Southern dialect
he truly speaks. Moreover, although Faulkner is not commonly regarded as a great historian, his
writing reveals a great deal of Southern history and culture.Though probably not all of these accounts
are entirely accurate, it is quite possible that Faulkner's descriptions of historical events alight directly
from his own experience with the Southern tradition of oral storytelling. Faulkner's representation of
Southern speech in his writing, follows the actual linguistic parameters of the Southern Lowland
dialect very closely, or Southern Proper by Raven McDavid's classification. Faulkner makes a strong
effort to display the various facets of this dialect even though many of them cannot really be sensed
through writing alone. For instance, the only true aspects of language that are excluded in writing are
facial and bodily expressions accompanying speech, pauses and changes in pitch or volume, and speed
of articulation. Generally speaking, however, these features are secondary in comparison with
pronunciation, grammar, and word usage.
Faulkner's literary dialect is consistent with several of the prevailing trends of Southern speech. For
one, it supports the theory of Southern language diversity due to the fact that Faulkner's is a distinctly
Southern dialect, yet has many differences from other Southern dialects, including the use of phrases
like "trade days" (days set aside for auctioning) only used in the immediate area (Brown 202). Also,
Faulkner's writing presents the large quantity of archaic and folk utterances in the Negro dialect, which
are the result of years of insufficient educational opportunity. One other trait of Faulkner's language
that is common to the popular conception of Southern dialects is the occasional loss of postvocalic /r/,
as in the words "baun" for born, and "bastud" for bastard. These words, along with dozens of others
appearing in many of Faulkner's stories.
Faulkner, quite simply, delineates a place rich in the tradition and pride of the average Southerner.
Consequently, the speech in his text also carries some of the stigmas attached to Southern life itself.
First and foremost of these blemishes is the pervading tone of racism, automated by the appearance of
the word "nigger" in practically all of Faulkner's works. Although the word does represent the
authenticity of Faulkner's dialect, it will always carry with it an arresting level of shame and disgrace.
The feeling of racism is perpetuated by the fact that most of the Negro speech in Faulkner is slightly
less standard than white speech, giving it a hint of inferiority. Although Faulkner explores the issue of
racism with an open mind and even attempts to repudiate some of the negative connotations associated
with blacks, his genuine Southern tongue cannot completely detach from the very real evils of racial
injustice in Southern American history.
Finally, the dialect in these stories, in all of its originality, continues to uphold the popular belief that
Southern English is, in many instances, bad English employed by less intelligent speakers. This
setback is mainly attributable in Faulkner's writing to the double negatives, use of ain't, and use of
third person don't. Contrary to these negative opinions however, most of the cases of bad grammar
here are actually remnants of archaic proper English rather than unintelligent corruptions of modern
English. Thus Faulkner's storytelling dialect creates a lasting impression of his Southern world,
encompassing both the common and unique, the positive and the negative. In demonstrating his ability
to author such a realistic, yet original world, drawing on his own natural dialect, "Faulkner insists that
life is narrative, based on the preeminence of language in our lives" (Lockyer xii).

Envy: A Pitfall of Marriage in Hemingway's The Garden of Eden

Jealousy is a natural, human emotion that holds most of man kind captive. It drives the human mind to
act upon envious impulses that lead to distress and sometimes disaster. Though most of humankind has
a sense of self-control to recognize and overcome this, there are those that do not. This is just the case
in Ernest Hemingway's The Garden of Eden. As Catherine Bourne struggles to cope with her confused
sexual identity, she becomes uncontrollably jealous of her husband's prosperity as a novelist. Her envy
ultimately leads to the destruction of her marriage with her husband, David.
Catherine's confusion with her sexual identity first develops when she decides to get a boyish style
haircut. She explains to David, "You see, ...I'm a girl. But now I'm a boy too and I can do anything and
anything and anything" (15). Catherine believes that she possesses the ability to change sexes at any
time. She sees that she is not entirely David's equal and attempts to remedy her insecurities by
claiming to be a boy. "Nobody can tell which way I am but us. I'll only be a boy at night..." David
responds, "All right, boy" (56). David perceives this as merely a sexual "game" between he and
Catherine. However, he does realize that there is a change in his wife's personality. "...His heart said
goodbye Catherine goodbye my lovely girl goodbye good luck and goodbye" (18). David is
acknowledging that a part of Catherine is gone and that he must learn how to deal with his wife's
changing state of mind. Catherine is slowly developing a distorted perception of reality that later leads
to her jealous rages.
Although Catherine evinces a desire to further her husband's career, she is only expressing a
willingness to help him so that she may somehow be a part of his work. She is envious of his abilities
to write, and because she does not share that part of his life, she retaliates with violent and harmful
force. The first problem arises when David receives newspaper clippings containing reviews of his
latest novel. Catherine says, "How can we be us and have the things we have and do what we do and
you be this that's in the clippings?" (24). She feels invaded by her husband's prosperity as a writer and
cannot fathom how their relationship can continue the way it is if he chooses to be the man described
in the clippings. She implies that the David Bourne that she knows is different from the David Bourne
characterized in the newspaper. He assures her that nothing will change saying, "I've had them before,
they're bad for you but it doesn't last" (24). He mentions that the clippings are temporary and have no
effect on him. David's words do not assuage Catherine's jealousy. Later, David expresses a desire to
begin another novel. Catherine responds, "Then write, stupid. You didn't say you wouldn't write.
Nobody said anything about worrying if you wrote. Did they?" (27). Catherine's retort carries a tone of
derision and sarcasm. Her words and tone imply a contempt for David's talent; one that she knows not
how to deal with.
Catherine's envy reaches a peak when David finishes his third novel. Realizing that her verbal protest
of the last novel and its reviews have no affect, Catherine resorts to damaging the writing itself. As
David goes to place the finishing touches on his novel, he notices that "the pile of cahiers that the
stories had been written in was gone. So were the four bulky envelopes from the bank that had
contained the press clippings" (218-219). David immediately suspects Catherine of taking the stories
but cannot comprehend how or why she would take them. "He had not believed that the stories could
be gone, he had not believed that she could do it" (219). David confronts Catherine with this and says
"Where did you put them, Devil?" (220). Catherine tells him honestly that she put them "in the iron
drum with holes that Madame uses to burn trash. I poured on some petrol...It made a big fire and
everything burned. I did it for you, David, and for...us" (221). Catherine feels that in order for her to
obtain some validity in their relationship, she must destroy the thing that keeps her and David separate.

After this tirade, Catherine decides to leave David and travel to Paris. David is very pococurante about
her decision and lets her go with only a warning to "...drive carefully and don't pass on hills" (227).
The climax of her jealousy and the result of her actions overshadow the love he once had for her.
Because of this, David falls in love with another woman, and Catherine leaves without being heard
from again. The development of Catherine's jealous nature is the cause of David and Catherine's
destroyed marriage
A Farewell To Arms
All fiction is autobiographical, no matter how obscure from the author's experience it may be, marks
of their life can be detected in any of their tales. A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway is based
largely on Hemingway's own personal experiences. The main character of the novel, Frederic Henry,
experiences many of the same situations that Hemingway lived. Some of these similarities are exact,
while some are less similar, and some events have a completely different outcome.
Ernest Hemingway was born on July 21, 1899, in Oak Park, Illinois. Hemingway worked as a reporter
for the Kansas City Star after graduating from high school in 1917. During World War I, he served as
an ambulance driver in the Italian infantry and was wounded just before his 19th birthday.
Hospitalized, Hemingway fell in love with an older nurse. Later, while working in Paris as a
correspondent for the Toronto Star, he became involved with the expatriate literary and artistic circle
surrounding Gertrude Stein. During the Spanish Civil War, Hemingway served as a correspondent on
the loyalist side. He fought in World War II and then settled in Cuba in 1945. In 1954, Hemingway
was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. After his expulsion from Cuba by the Castro regime, he
moved to Idaho. In his life, Hemingway married four times and wrote numerous essays, short stories
and novels. The effects of Hemingway's lifelong depressions, illnesses and accidents caught up with
him. In July 1961, he committed suicide in Ketchum, Idaho. What remains, are his works, the product
of a talented author.
A Farewell to Arms is the story of Frederic Henry, an American, driving an ambulance for the Italian
Army during World War I. The novel takes us through Frederic's experiences in war and his love affair
with Catherine Barkley, an American nurse in Italy. The novel starts in the northern mountains of Italy
at the beginning of World War I. Rinaldi, Frederic's roommate, takes him to visit a nurse he has taken a
liking to. Catherine Barkley, the nurse Rinaldi speaks of, is instantly attracted to Frederic and he is to
her. Frederic courts her for a brief time before he goes to the front.
At the front, Frederic is wounded in the legs and taken to an aid station and then to an army hospital.
He is then transferred to an American hospital in Milan where he meets up with Catherine again. Their
love flourishes. They spend their nights together in Frederic's hospital bed and their days going to
restaurants, horse races and taking carriage rides.
Frederic returns to the war after his recovery. The war is going badly in Italy. The German troops
forced a full-scale retreat. Soon after Frederic's return, he deserts the war in a daring escape. Frederic
leaves and meets a pregnant Catherine in Stresa.
The two go over to Switzerland where they spend an idyllic time waiting for the birth of their baby.
Catherine has a long and difficult labor. Their baby is delivered dead. Catherine dies soon after from
"one hemorrhage after another." After Catherine dies, Frederic leaves and walks back to his hotel. A
Farewell to Arms is a story of love and pain and of loyalty and desertion set in the tragic time of war.
There are many similarities in the experiences of Ernest Hemingway and his character Frederic Henry,
in A Farewell to Arms. Hemingway and Henry were both involved in World War I, in a medical
capacity, but neither of them were regular army personnel. Like Hemingway, Henry was shot in his

right knee during a battle. Both men were Americans but were ambulance drivers for the Italian Army.
In real life, Hemingway met his love, Agnes, a nurse, in the hospital after being shot; Henry met his
love, Catherine Barkley, also a nurse, before he was shot and hospitalized. In both cases, the
relationships with these women were strengthened while the men were hospitalized. Another
difference is that in A Farewell to Arms, Catherine and her child died while she was giving birth, this
was not the case with Agnes, who left Henry for another Italian Army officer. Nevertheless, these
differences are only surface. These slight changes allowed Hemingway, an extremely private man, to
try and prove to the public that it was not himself and his own experiences which he was writing
about. On the contrary, In the book Modern Critical Interpretations of A Farewell to Arms, Millicent
Bell sees the novel as "not the autobiography some readers have thought it" (Bloom 113). Instead, Bell
perceives the novel to be a "pseudoautobiography and a personal metaphor." One can see that Bell
ignored the deep psychological similarities that Henry and Hemingway share. Their similar escapes,
their morbid nature, their avoidance of relationships, their obsession with war, and their similar views
on death.
There is great power in being an author; you can make things happen which do not necessarily occur
in real life. Hemingway felt throughout his life, powerless, and so to escape this, he created alternative
lives by writing stories. Hemingway, who fell in love with Agnes, an American nurse, seven years
older than he, while wounded in Milan, was deeply hurt after she didn't return his affections. While the
beginning of A Farewell to Arms, up until this point is similar, this is where the story changes. In the
book, Frederic and Catherine are both in love with each other. Hemingway continued his affair with
Agnes through Frederic and Catherine. He put his dreams of what his faded love affair would have
been like in the love scenes between Catherine and Frederic: "When I saw her I was in love with her.
Everything turned over inside of me. She looked toward the door, saw there was no one, then she sat
on the side of the bed and leaned over and kissed me. I pulled her down and kissed her and felt her
heart beating." Writing about what could have been was one way that Hemingway escaped from his
life. Like Frederic Henry, Hemingway also acted out his feelings of inadequacy among other problems
by hunting, drinking, spending lots of money and sleeping with many women. Escapism, which is a
theme of the novel, is largely by Frederic and Ernest to deal with their similar wounds, psychological
and physical.
Hemingway and Henry also have similar unhealthy obsessions and personality flaws. Both men are
eternally morbid, which shows itself in their obsessions with war and death. Hemingway shows his
melancholy belief that death is inevitable through Frederic. Hemingway shows the reader that death
ends life before you have the chance to live it. This was undoubtedly one of the reason's that
Hemingway ended the book in Catherine Barkley's death and the death of her child. Frederic says in
response to the deaths: "You died. You did not know what it was about. You never had time to learn.
They threw you in and told you the rules and the first time they caught you off base they killed you^
they killed you in the end. You could count on that. Stay around and they would kill you." Hemingway
fought in more that one war and subsequently wrote more than one novel about his experiences in
them. Henry also could not leave the war for even a moment, up until the end when he decides to
desert. When Catherine asks Frederic to stop talking about the war for awhile, he counters with, "It's
very hard, there's no place to drop it." Essayist Wyndham Lewis in the book Twentieth Century
Interpretations of A Farewell to Arms says that the war years "were a democratic, a leveling school"
for Hemingway. Lewis feels that war was "a release" for Hemingway, an "opportunity to show that he
is a real man" (Gellens 76). The statement made by Lewis is evidently true of Hemingway. One can
see that he is obsessed with war, much like Frederic Henry, because it is an outlet for him, or another
form of escape.

Another striking similarity between Hemingway and his character Henry, is their isolationism. Edgar
Johnson in Twentieth Century Interpretations of A Farewell to Arms writes, "it is society as a whole
that is rejected, social responsibility, social concern." Henry, like Hemingway, leads a private life as a
detached, isolated individual. He socializes with the officers, talks with the priest and visits the
officer's brothel, but maintains only superficial relationships. The only relationship that means
anything to him is Catherine, which is Hemingway's Agnes, both of which are isolated relationships.
Johnson says about Hemingway, "He will solve the problem of dealing with the world by taking refuge
in individualism and isolated personal relationships and sensations" (Gellens 112-113). Happiness
comes for Hemingway and Henry only when they are in these relationships, away from the pressures
of society and their lives.
Ernest Hemingway once gave some advice to his fellow writer F. Scott Fitzgerald. If something in life
hurts you, you should use it in your writing. In writing a Farewell to Arms, Hemingway followed his
own advice. In many ways, Frederic Henry was a psychological parallel to Hemingway. The painful
experiences of his own life, which were consciously and unconsciously placed in this novel, helped
make it a major literary achievement.
Farewell To Arms
Ernest Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms captures the inspiring trials and tribulations of a disillusioned
man caught between love and war. Driving an ambulance on the Italian front of World War One
Frederick Henry discovers his values as he realizes his love for Catherine Barkley, a innocent English
Nurse.
An American Second Lieutenant in the Italian Army's Ambulance Corps, Frederick Henry is depicted
as an average man in search of a set of values. Initially Frederick is lonely, lustful, confused and
restless, but as he becomes involved with Catherine Barkley he finds his niche, and a meaning to life.
Frederick can be considered heroic in that he is honorable, not interested in material commodities, and
puts his fellow soldier before himself. When the entire mess hall teases the priest Frederick defends
him and is his only true friend. Also, when offered an award, Frederick refuses. Additionally, when he
and the other drivers were bombed, he ignores his own injuries to assist the others and insists that the
doctors treat others before himself. Catherine Barkley is a young English nurse who has already lost a
fianc to the war and is introduced as partially crazy. She begins her relationship with Frederick
pretending, he is her lost fianc who has returned, but soon falls! in love with him and regains her
sanity. Throughout the story Catherine remains static, and represents the ideal Hemingway character
that Frederick is to become as the novel comes to an end. The basic plot of the novel revolves around
Frederick's relationship with Catherine. Frederick experiences the war in the Italian Alps and sustains a
leg injury that hospitalizes him for several months. Although he knew Catherine before his
hospitalization, their relationship blossoms during this period when he is away from the front. Soon
after his return to the front, there is a huge retreat and he takes his ambulance crew on a back road to
get around traffic. When he finally does make it back to the army he is forced to desert in fear of
execution. He finds Catherine and they begin a new life together in Switzerland. Ultimately, Frederick
learns his basic values through Catherine in their adventures of love, war, and death during World War
One. The theme shown is that love can come from even the strangest places, also there is a basic good
versus evil shown by the dramatic tragedy at the end.
A Farewell to Arms is a very emotional and understanding story. Throughout the book Frederick acted
as a confused hero with Catherine as his guidance. Frederick is very realistic and while he is a better
man than the average he has several flaws. Catherine on the other hand is entirely too perfect. She

seems almost supernatural, like an angel at times.

Initially when she is a little insane her character was more believable. The story is written in the first
person narrative where Frederick is the narrator and sometimes refers to future events. Overall, A
Farewell to Arms is an excellent book that while not always action packed kept me reading and
surprised me many times.
The Sun Also Rises
In the novel The Sun Also Rises, by Ernest Hemingway, a reader is forced to decide weather the spite
that the Jake has for Chon originates from Jakes racist background, or his deeply seeded jealousy of
Chon for having a brief affair with Brett. Even though it is clear that Jake has racist views, the hatred
he has for his former friend Chon Chon is strictly based on the jealousy he feels towards Chon for the
weekend he spent with Brett.
Jake goes in to great detail about Chons early life. He speaks highly and admiringly of Chon, but in a
condescending way. A reader get her first hint on page one that Jake has some racist feelings toward
Chon. He speaks of how Chon's nose was flattened in a boxing match and concluded the sentence with
...and it certainly improved his nose (11). This can be taken as a reference to the stereotypical Jew
nose that is often associated with Jewish people. Jake and Chon are close friends, and Jake likes him
up to the point where he becomes involved with Brett. Jake goes on and on about all of the
relationship mistakes in Chons life. There is an hint of jealousy that appears in Jake's tone. He states
that women began to become attracted to Chon as he got older, and that it changed him so that he was
not so pleasant to have around (16). There is racism in Jakes tone, but Jakes problem with Chon is is
strictly one of jealousy.
By this time Jake has already developed an extreme distaste for Chons endeavors with women, but
these feelings their peak when Chon and Lady Brett have a brief affair. Jake, having unconditional
love for Brett, blames the entire incident on Chon. In turn, Chon makes as point to rub it in Jakes face.
Jake says ...it was giving him pleasure to be able to talk with the understanding that I knew there was
something between them (106). Jake has a great deal of trouble dealing with this. It has nothing to do
with the fact that Chon is Jewish, Jake is merely jealous of him. It would not be manly for Jake to
openly admit his jealousy, and blame the jealousy on his harsh feelings toward Chon. As a result Jake
falls back on the fact that Chon is Jewish, and uses that as an excuse for his anger.
One of the reasons that Jake was so hurt by Chons affair with Brett was that Jake knows that Brett
will always love him, and has no feelings for Chon other than a temporary lust. Chon is unable to
accept the fact that Brett does not care at all for him, and he makes it very difficult to for people to
enjoy his company. Bill sayshe makes me sick and he can go to hell,and I am damn glad he is staying
here...(108). These is not a racial based opinion, Chon just has an unpleasant personality. Everyone in
the group agrees that Chons presence is not enjoyable, but nobody feels it the way Jake does. In this
story Jake allows the woman that he to loves run his life and occupy his thoughts. Jake is a bitter
person, and he is living in a time of unhappiness and depression that resulted from the war. The hate he
feels for his former friend Chon Chon is not one of racism; before the incident with Brett they were
close friends. This is just another case of a woman coming in between two male friends. The affair
might not have even affected that relationship, it is Chon's reaction to the affair that spoils the
friendship. Jake is jealous of Chon because he knows that Brett loves only him.

The Sun Also Rises

In the novel The Sun Also Rises, written by Ernest Hemingway the main character makes a decision to
introduce the woman he loves to a young bull fighter. Jake makes this decision very much agonist the
will of his friends, but in doing so he pleases Brett. Jake does this because he is unconditionally
committed to Brett, and is willing to do whatever necessary to bring her happiness, even if it is only
temporary.
Jakes first reaction to the news that Brett is interested in meeting and spending time with Romero is
one of negativity. He learns of this from he friend Montoya and tells him Dont give him the Message
(176). He did not think that it would be a good idea for Brett to have anything to do Romero, and did
not want him to receive the message that invited him to have coffee with their group. At this point it is
clear that Jake does not approve of this proposed encounter. His later decision to introduce them
supports the idea that Jake is unconditionally devoted to Brett, and her happiness. The introduction
was a very strange one. It was not as if Jake went out of his way for it to happen. It was much more the
will of Brett. She raved on and on about Romero and insisted to Jake that they go and find him. Jake
did not fight her on this issue, but he certainly did not provoke it. Jake was more of a stooge for Brett.
She would have had her way even if Jake had not helped her. She uses her feminine charm, and there
is, little that Jake can say. At one point she says Oh, darling, please stay by me. Please stay by me and
see me through this(188). Jake is to wrapped around her finger to refuse. There is no question in
Jakes mind that he will be losing Montoya as a friend and also the respect that others had once held
for him, yet he choose Brett over these losses. Jake even goes as far as to make an agreement with
with Montoya that he breaks upon the introduction of Brett to Romero. It says when Romero walked
into the room he started to smile, but then say the group with Romero then at that point he did not
even nod(181). This was at the first introduction. The real damage had nod even been done yet, but
Jake proceeded because he wanted to to make her happy.
In this story Jake is forced with a decision that will change a great deal of his life. He decision
ultimately costs him a good friendship, and takes away the respect that his other friends had once had
for him. He does this consciously and unselfishly without hesitation. This does not mean that he has
lost his moral creditability as a character, but rather the opposite. Jake becomes a stronger character
after this because is shows his unconditional devotion and love for Brett.
The Sun Also Rises
With a strong setting in Paris and parts of Spain such as Madrid, Pamplona, and Bayonne, The Sun
Also Rises takes a journey through the countryside of Spain, as well as the big and busy city of Paris.
Drama as occurred between close friends in this time of 1924, a spring filled with buzzing bees,
succulent sunlight, and quarreling acquaintances. This wonderful work of fiction written by Ernest
Hemingway. While Jake Barnes and his company of friends are on their way to see the bulls of
Pamplona and the fiesta that follows, Jakes old lover Brett Ashley has an affair with Jakes best friend
Robert Cohn, a Princeton educated Jew. While this is going on, Brett is still Mikes fiance, one of
Jakes other friends. Bill, an acquaintance of Jakes spends his time with Jake, having drinks and
fishing. After much of this activity, Cohn, Ashley, and Mike arrive in Pamplona from San Sebastion.
Brett is a woman who likes many different men, so her affair with Robert Cohn meant nothing to her,
but it meant a lot for him. While in Pamplona and the hotel, Cohn is constantly following Brett around
like a sad puppy dog. Brett, after being fed up with the whole ordeal, calls Robert on his behavior,

exposing him to Mike, Bretts fianc, who takes the news lightly.
The whole point of the crew going to Spain was to see the running of the bulls and the bullfights that
go along with it. Jakes friend Montoya, who owns the hotel they are staying at, is an aficionado on
bull fighting, as well as Jake. Montoya introduces Jake to young but very talented bullfighter by the
name of Pedro Romero. Brett, who is suddenly infatuated with this young stud whose nearly half her
age, persuades Jake to get the two aquatinted. Mike, drunken and tight, hears of this and calls Jake a
pimp, of which makes Jake feel like an ass. Pedro and Brett run off together for a short-lived fling.
To put it all together shortly but simply, a man who doesnt want to get old along with aging friends
set out on small adventures to make themselves somehow feel young. One of these events turns out to
be the fiesta of the bulls in Pamplona. Brett, a needy and beautiful woman has a close connection with
all of the men on her trip, and eventually creates one with one of the main attractions at the bullfights.
Jake and his male friends leave, while Brett has run off with the bullfighter. After breaking the fling
off, Brett returns to Jake for help, and resolves to stay with Mike after all.
There was lots of talking in this book. Hemingway obviously sees the importance of conversation in a
book about people and their lives or the way they live. A great majority of the important details came
about with the knowledge of what these characters spoke about. Also a better understanding of the
characters was established through the use of dialogue.
The main conflict in this book was man vs. himself. Brett was struggling to come to terms with what
type of person she was, as well as Mike. Jake was steadily trying to keep himself together in order to
keep his friends friends. Robert Cohn was just trying his best to make himself feel young or as if he
had really lived. The characters all had problems with themselves.
The Sun Also Rises and A Clean Well-Light Place
In this paper, I will describe what critics have to say about Ernest Hemingway's novel The Sun Also
Rises and his short story A clean well-Light Place. First I will describe the basic plot of the story, then
go one to describe each of the characters by what the critics have to say about them. I will start off
with the main character and narrator Jake Barnes. Then go to Lady Brett Ashley, Robert Cohn, Pedro
Romero, and finally I will fish off that section with a little about Bill Gordon. Then I will describe a
little of how Ernest Hemingway's characters fit into what critics have to say about the story. After that,
I will then go into describing how the four American Themes were used in the novel. After that, I will
evaluate the criticism of the book using one or two quotes from the book. >From there, I go into my
next literary work. I describe the basic plot of A Clean Well-Light place. Then I describe the themes of
the story. I then go on to describing the criticism, or at least what I could find on the short story. I
continue with my evaluation of the criticism of the book. Also using one or two quotes. I conclude my
paper by giving my evaluation of each of the works, and evaluating the author's style, content, and
themes. In The Sun Also Rises, meet Jake Barnes, the main character and narrator of the novel. He and
his friend Robert Cohn meet a lady named Lady Brett. Here is the story of their adventure. In The Sun
Also Rises, a group of young Americans move to Paris after World War I. Jake Barnes, a
newspaperman who is in love with Lady Brett Ashley, Robert Cohn, a Jewish former Princeton student
who was outcast, Lady Brett Ashley, an older Englishwoman who also love Jake Barnes, but can't
consummate their love because he was wounded in his genitals. As they travel through Paris drinking
and sitting at cafes, they met up with Brett's fianc Mike Campbell and his friend Bill Gorton. Jake
plans a trip to Pamplona, Spain for a festival full of bullfighting and the running of the bulls. Before
everyone got to Spain, Mike, Brett and Robert already being there, Mike and Brett decided to take a
side trip to San Sebastian. Robert followed them like a lovesick puppy. While in Spain they met up

with a bullfighter named Pedro Romero, who Brett falls madly in love with. After the festival is over,
Brett leaves with Pedro and goes to Madrid, Mikes goes to a town on the French borde! r, Bill goes
back to Paris, and Jake leaves for San Sebastian to relax. When Jack arrives, he finds out that Pedro
wants to marry Brett, but she turned him down. She tells Jake about how happy they might have been
together. The conflict of this novel is that one loves another and that person loves someone different.
No one can truly get what he or she wants. Jake tells this story in first person. Psychology of the
individual was definitely present in this novel. You could always tell what Jake was thinking.
American Dream is also present because everyone wanted to have the perfect life. 'The difficulties of
interpreting The Sun Also Rises in a clear and relatively certain manner stem in the main from two
factors: the use of a particularly opaque first-person narrator; and the fact of Jake's wound which has
rendered him impotent, while leaving him normally responsive to sexual desire. The first factor results
in the bewilderment a reader will have in trying to locate the norms of 'truth' in the novel; that is, since
the entire novel related directly by Jake Barnes, the reader can never be sure how reliable Jake's
observations and judgments are.' (Monarch Notes) In the novel, Jake goes from being at a stage of
anguish and at times, a state of self-pity at the beginning to accepting himself as he is at the end. He
also discovered the appreciation of nature, companionship, and bravery. Jake emerges as the
Hemingway Hero, a cynical realistic individual who will hide his feelings in himself and who will
await the inevitable reckoning which life presents itself, of the novel. (Monarch Notes) In book one,
we start to see the outlines of the Hemingway Hero in Jake. He is capable of showing sorrowful, deep
emotions. He is also tender, compassionate and thoughtful. You see this in Jake when Brett and Jake
have their initial meeting together. Until meeting Brett, Jake was more interested in Robert Cohn.
Readers may think that Cohn is Jake's best friend because in the first chapters, most of the information
is about Cohn. As the story continues, the narrator unmasks Cohn. We discover Cohn not being the
pleasant companion, but the ant! i-hero to Jake. Jake becomes more aware of Cohn's boy-man
personality in Chapter IV when two lovers argue. So in the end of Book one, Jake goes from being a
friend to being suspicious and increasingly belligerent acquaintance of his fellow American. Early on
readers usually make the conclusion that something is wrong with Jake. It is implied that that he can
not have sex. When Spain comes into to play with the story, Jake changes in a very distinct way. He
loves Paris, but he loves Spain in a very different way. His French capital provides him with a refuge
from the States, the chance to live individually and freely. Jake feels an intimate contact with the
nature and existence when he's in Spain. (Monarch Notes) 'Because of her four lovers and the
attendant fact that the plot, such as it is, revolves about the ensuing complications, Brett stands out as
the most fascinating protagonist of the total group of actors in the novel.' (Monarch Notes) Without a
doubt, Brett is very colorful and adds an exotic approach to his characters. Although Brett appears
rather late in the novel, she begins to dominate the action in Book one. Just like Jake and Robert, Brett
wears a mask. They also identify Brett as an extreme example of the 'lost generation'. (Monarch Notes)
Robert Cohn is labeled one of the most bitter verbal depictions of a character in the novel. He is the
exact opposite of the Hemingway Hero. Hemingway probably described Cohn as a Jew, not for any
overt demonstration of anti-Semitism but to explain part of the young man's problem. Some critics
have read into this character a Hemingway attack on the defects of the American character. If this is
true, and there seems to be more than a modicum of accuracy in the criticism, then the unfavorable
attributes of American youth are: a basic immaturity, reliance upon physical strength, a thin veneer of
romanticism, the lack of appreciation for the simple virtues of companionship, good food and drink,
and the inability to adjust to the demands of an older civilization. (Monarch Notes) Robert Cohn is an
example of the boy-man, the adolescent playing the role of a mature individual. Without Cohn's
presence in the novel, the positive morality would not have been so fully illustrated; one arrives at a

clearer understanding of Jake Barnes and Pedro Romero's dedication to life and death. Cohn is
basically bewildered by the world of his contemporaries and he does not understand the members of
his own generation. He doesn't belong to the group he associates with. Hemingway is implying that
Cohn does not belong in Europe. In Book two, Cohn is more sentimental and requires more
recognition and appreciation. Cohn is also bored at the festival in Spain and is critical and cynical the
whole time. (Monarch Notes) Pedro Romero is the young Spanish matador who enters the story late,
and is not involved in much of the action in general. In a lot of ways, Pedro is an idealization of the
Spaniard: concise pride, honor, and bravery. 'Romero is untamed and uncorrupted by the decadence of
the modern world so that he is fundamentally a symbol and a stereotype rather than a living complex
to fathom.' (Monarch Notes) Some say that Romero is the answer to the rush of American civilians and
youth in the rise of the death in Europe after World War I. Bill Gordon, is probably one of the most
successful characters. He also belongs to the 'lost generation in spirit and sympathy, but learned how to
work hard, and he adjusted well to the 1920s. 'For many people in America, the years immediately
following World War I and World War II were characterized by anger, discontent and disillusionment.'
(Kwan, The Sun Also') This simple quote describes the main characters in this book. Jake is angry
because of his wound, and that he can't consummate his love with Brett. Cohn is angry and discontent
because he, same as Jake, can not consummate his love with Brett, but for different reasons. Cohn is
the Hemingway anti-hero so he is very critical of everything and is not open for change. Brett is the
disillusioned one. After losing the love of her life, she just gone from man to man, disillusioned that
she'll find someone to make her whole, but she never does. The major themes of American literature in
this work are psychology of the individual, American Dream, Individual in Society and Nature and the
Land. Psychology of the individual is shown through Jake Barnes. He tells the story through first
person and you always know how he's feeling, and how he feels about the other characters. Although
his feeling about the other character may be different from what the characters are really like, but that
still shows what he is thinking. The war also plays a role in the Psychology. The war has implict the
character's approach to daily life. American Dream is in this novel, but it's killed. Post-World War I
attitudes of the characters disapprove of the war and the US getting into the war, so they've moved to
France. The war has left them with a cynical view of the United States, and therefore isn't as much
American Dream as it is achieving their personal dreams. Individual in society is shown through each
of the characters and how! they react to their surroundings and situations that occur. Brett being the
very man-friendly woman that she is, has been known to have many relationships that mean nothing to
her, and don't last her very long. Robert Cohn shows his views when he follows Mike Campbell and
Brett around Sebastian the whole time like a lovesick puppy. Also when he is very critical of
everything at the festival in Spain. Jake shows it through being the Hemingway Hero, how he over
comes tragedy, first with Lady Brett, then finally with the acceptance his wound, and his impotency.
And finally the Nature and the Land, you have the background of the land, the rivers, the mountains
and the plains. But unlike some of his other novels, this nature shows the aftermath of wrath and
destruction after World War I, not during it. 'At five o'clock I was in the Hotel Crillion waiting for
Brett. She was not there, so I sat down and wrote letters. They were not very good letters but I hoped
their being on Crillion stationery would help them. Brett did not turn up so about quarter to six I went
down to the bar'' (Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises, 41) This quote show the emerging of the
Hemingway Hero. He's beginning to get over his bitterness and starting to feel those deep sorrowful
emotions that the stereotypical hero does. 'We often talked about bulls and bull-fighters. I had stopped
at the Montoya for several years. We never talked for very long at a time. It was simply the pleasure of
discovering what we each felt.' (Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises, 132) This passage also agrees with
the critics when they said that Paris has a special place in Jake's heart, but Spain meant something

totally different to him. He loves Spain in a different way. He loved to learn about Spain and talk to
people abo! ut the culture. In Paris, he liked to drink and sit at cafes. In A Clean Well-Lighted Place,
two waiters are sitting at their caf talking and waiting to close up. While they are waiting they are
discussing the old man sitting out on the terrace, and why he would have wanted to commit suicide. As
old deaf man is sitting out on the terrace drinking brandies, he flashes to the waiters for another. When
the young waiter goes over to the table to tell him he's had enough and must go home because the
waiter wants to close up and go home himself to his wife waiting in bed for him. When the waiters
close up the caf, the young waiter goes home, and the old waiter goes to find another caf/bar that's
open. He goes to another bar, and he discusses the nadas with another bartender. There isn't much
American Dream, Individual in society, or Nature and the land. The only theme in this short story is
Psychology of the Individual. This comes at the end of the story when they discuss the nadas. The
nadas, pertaining to nothing, and nothingness, these people discuss their fear of nothing, the clean
well-lighted caf that the waiter works in is like a refuge for those that have no where to go, and need
some, not nothing. The Hemingway hero doesn't make its appearance quite as obvious as it did in the
novel. The older waiter would be the stereotypical hero in this short story because of wanted to help
people escape from nada, just like he wants to. He's trying to help others as he helps himself. This
portrays the deep and sorrowful emotions by having a place for the lonely people to go to. (Literary
Companion, 37, 38) 'Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name, thy Kingdom nada, thy will be nada,
in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas
and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada y pues nada' (Hemingway, A Clean Well-Lighted
Place, 383) This passage states that if you believe in nothing, you are nothing, and in a way you have
noting to live for. You just wander around. In the story the darkness is the nothing and the nothing is
death. The clean well-light place was a place where people could go to escape the nothing, to believe
in something, and be something. (Chelsea House, 1843) AS the two waiters sit in the bar they discuss
why the man might have wanted to commit suicide. The young waiter can not understand the one
man's despair. He doesn't understand how he can have all that money, and yet want to kill himself.
(Mangum, Short Fiction, 1626) The Sun Also Rises is a very good piece of literature. It has a very
intreqit, well developed, easy to follow plot, and a very good portrayal of the four American themes.
Ernest Hemingway also has very developed, constant characters. Jake did change in the novel, but that
was a physical, believable change. Their attitudes are also very developed and intriqit with their
surrounds after the war. The Clean Well-Lighted Place is also a very good piece of literature. Although
in this short story, Hemingway sows his pessimistic side. He discusses even the riches people may be
happy, but if they don't believe in something then they are nothing, and the poorest people who believe
in something are the happiest. The darkness in this story is death and death is nothing, the light is life,
and happiness. The old deaf man was happy sitting in the caf drinking his brandies in the well-lighted
caf. The older waiter wasn't very happy sitting the dark bar talking to the bartender and drinking. Their
conversation describes the nothing that is surrounding them. They are all scared of the nothing, which
is death, but the old man. He was the one with the courage to stand up and be he. He believed in
himself, and believing in something is having something to believe in, not believing in nothing.
Therefore the old deaf man was the happiest out of all the characters. Even the! young waiter who had
his wife waiting for him at home. Being a woman, I don't necessarily agree with Hemingway's style of
disgracing the woman, and making all the men seem macho. But then again, if I were a guy, I'm sure I
would be agreeing with his style of writing. Among the sexist characteristics that Hemingway has he is
a very talented writer, and has written some very meaningful novels, that involves themes that still
stand true today. His content is varies from book to book. The Sun Also Rises and A Farewell to Arms
are during and post war activities. A Clean Well-Lighted Place having to do with death, and

nothingness. By doing this Hemingway doesn't get boring by writing about the same topic every time
he writes. Hemingway writes about all four themes. In The Sun Also Rises, all four themes come into
play with the characters. A Clean Well-Lighted Place mostly has the psychology of the individual
because of what the story pertains to.
Ernest Hemingway: The Importance of Middle-Class Masculinity
Ernest Hemingway is a legendary writer who was born on July 21, 1899 in Oak Park, Illinois. He was
the second of Clarence and Grace Hemingway's six children. He was raised in a strict Protestant
community that tried as hard as possible to be separate themselves from the big city of Chicago,
though they were very close geographically. While growing up, the young Hemingway spent lots of
his time hunting and fishing with his father, and learned about the ways of music with his mother. He
attended school in the Oak Park Public School system and in high school, Hemingway played sports
and wrote for the school newspaper.
Ernest Hemingway has received several awards for his work such as the Pulitzer Prize in 1953, the
Prize for Fiction for his novel The Old Man and the Sea, and The Nobel Prize for Literature in 1954
for his mastery of the art of narrative, most recently demonstrated in The Old Man and the Sea, and for
the influence that he has exerted on contemporary style (The Life and Work of Ernest Hemingway in
Oak Park). He is acclaimed as being the most influential writer of our time, "the most important author
living today, the outstanding author since the death of Shakespeare" according to John O'Hara. Yet
recently, his works have come under heavy fire for their blatant use of homophobia, androgyny, and
misogyny. Rumors are spewed from critic to critic about his mysterious sexuality. Different sources
claim different interpretations of his simple, yet complex stories. While others claim that to believe
Hemingway purposefully used androgyny, misogyny, or homophobia is ludicrous, I believe the
opposite. Hemingway's homophobia, which was shaped by his early life experiences and American
society, is evident in many of his works such as "Mr. and Mrs. Elliot" and The Sun Also Rises.
There may be two main reasons as to Hemingway's strong homophobia. One such cause is the
American society at the time. Hemingway grew up in the mid-nineteenth century in which the
advancements in industrialization opened opportunities for a division of labor in the American work
place. As a result, more and more male workers found themselves able to earn a decent amount of
money from means other then manual labor. As Gail Bederman notes, "Between 1820 and 1860, as
increasing numbers of men had begun to earn comfortable livings as entrepreneurs, professionals, and
managers, the middle class had become increasingly conscious of itself as a class, with interests,
tastes, and lifestyles different from both the very rich and from those who performed manual labor"
(209). By the end of the nineteenth century, the middle class in America had an identity separate from
that of the upper and working classes.
Along with this identity came a Victorian ideology. They began giving their society "roles" for males
and females. Those that did not fit into those "roles" were considered "abnormal". In the words of
Byrne Fone: By the 1880s in both England and America, the Victorian medical theorists and social
commentators had participated with social and sexual activities of men and women, assigning to each
very different roles. The "true woman" was to be submissive socially and sexually, the manager of
domestic life, pious as well as morally "pure." Men were socially and sexually assertive, benign rulers
of the patriarchal family, and active providers of material goods. Victorian theorists argued that these
roles were dictated by nature and biology and that their qualities were "naturally" associated with the
biological female or male. (183) According to the Victorian standard that was being upheld by the
middle-class medical profession, the dominance of the male was not something designed by society,

but a sign of "civilization," a natural fact of evolution. American middle-class "civilization" depended
greatly on the division of the two sexes into different "spheres". These spheres epitomized their role in
society, home life, and the workplace. Without this division they believed they were no different than
the "savages" from whom they tried to individuate themselves from. Bederman states, "Savage (that is,
nonwhite) men and women were almost identical, but civilized races had evolved the pronounced
sexual differences celebrated in the middle-class's doctrine of separate spheres" (213).
As time went on females were becoming more and more commonplace in the workplace. The middleclass began losing jobs that were once defined as "masculine." Women were slowly raiding their
sphere. While they never had much love for the jobs of their male counterparts, the mere presence of
women was unsettling to the concept of middle-class masculinity. Males began to fear that they were
not as different from women as they once believed. To further the troubles, men were beginning to link
themselves with another group males that didn't differentiate itself from females: homosexuals.
Middle-class men were not disgusted with homosexuals for their sexual preference as they were for
their social appearance. Chauncey aptly illustrates the difference: "The determining criterion in
labeling a man as `straight' (their term) or `queer' was not the extent of his homosexual activity, but the
gender role he assumed. The only men who sharply differentiated themselves from other me, labeling
themselves as `queer,' were those who assumed the sexual and other cultural roles ascribed to women
("Brotherhood" 75-76)." At this time the middle-class man dreaded his connection with homosexual
males, especially since both groups were increasingly being identified with the "feminine" sphere.
"Middle-class men gravitated toward a harsh, often brutal pronouncement against homosexuality in
order to recuperate the loss of their masculinity through their identification with gay men: the radical
disavowal of homosexuality" (Donnell 10). The middle-class man then began to identify homosexual
men as "fairies". "Only by violently disavowing any relationship to `fairies', " Donnell sates, "were
middle-class males able to repossess a modicum of the masculinity they felt that they lost by being
identified with the "queer" male" (10).
Feeling that their identities were threatened from all sides by women, other classes of heterosexual
men, and by gay men, "turn-of-the-century middle-class men began to formulate elaborate defense
mechanism[s] to protect their fragile sense of masculinity" (Donnell 6). According to Bederman: [M]
iddle-class men, uncomfortably confused about the nature and sources of male power, began to cast
about for new ways to fortify their shaky constructions of manliness. They adopted a variety of
strategies . . . [like] growing crazes for bodybuilding and college football. . . . A new rhetoric about
maleness appeared. Contemporaries . . . began to speak approvingly about something they called
"masculinity." (211)
However, the middle-class male did not recover fully. While he recovered some of his lost masculinity,
he did so only at the expense of homosexuals. At this time World War I had initiated. It seemed to be
an "excellent forum for the middle-class male's revitalization of his masculine ideology" (Donnell 13).
However, it turned out to be something completely different. World War I gave the middle-class
American soldier with a masculine world vastly different from the one constructed in the United
States. Generally, Europeans were far more tolerant of alternative expressions of sexuality than were
Americans. According to Chauncey:
The war not only took many Americans from their small towns, it sent them to Europe, where they
were likely to encounter a cultural and political climate for homosexuals that was almost unimaginable
at home. By the time of World War I, there existed in Paris and Berlin a highly developed gay
commercial subculture that easily surpassed the scope of the gay world in New York. (New York 144)
So what does this struggle for the importance of middle-class masculinity have to do with
Hemingway? Growing up in Oak Park Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, Hemingway was the epitome of

the middle-class male.

Hemingway's possession of the middle-class preoccupation with proving how masculine he was is
incredibly evident in his life as well as his art. Critics and scholars have found there are two
Hemingways emerging in his writing. One was the brilliant writer while the other was "Papa"
Hemingway. "Papa" signified Hemingway's more masculine public alias. Josh Silverstein notes:
Whether it was "Papa" hunting in Africa, or "Papa" in Spain watching the bullfights, or "Papa" at a
cafin Paris chatting with acquaintances over a bottle of cognac, this was the public image
Hemingway projected to others, rough and tough, a real "man's man." (1)
Denis Brian describes Hemingway's quick motions to violence whenever anyone challenged his
manhood: "Writer Max Eastman questioned Hemingway's manliness, not to his face but in print. Soon
after, the two met by chance in their editor's office where Hemingway first used Eastman as a duster to
clear the editor's desk, then wrestled him to the floor" (5). In another incident Hemingway used more
violence to prove his manliness. According to Brian, "Publisher Robert McAlmon called [Hemingway]
`a fairy' who had beaten his first wife, and deserted her to marry a lesbian. . . . Hemingway had
responded to McAlmon's slurs by punching him in the face and calling him a half-assed, fairy asslicking, fake husband" (Brian 194). This underscores his tireless efforts to prove his masculinity.
Just as it did for the middle-class American, World War I changed Hemingway's views of homosexuals
also. After serving in the Red Cross in Italy during World War I, Hemingway started to show signs of
an increasing tolerance of different types of sexuality. According to Warren Bennett, "Hemingway's
interest in variant sexual behavior as a subject that could be exploited in fiction was kindled . . . in
1920 when Hemingway began reading Havelock Ellis's Erotic Symbolism" (226). Notice that
Hemingway's interest in Ellis and alternate sexualities began only after his visit to Europe during
World War I.
Hemingway was a part of the middle-class lust for masculinity just as much as any other middle-class
male in his personal and public life. Donnell states: The author's many physical attacks upon friends
who question his masculinity; the threats leveled at innocent passerby whom Hemingway perceived as
"fairies"; his practically manic desire to hunt and kill as many animals as possible; his incessant need
to experiment sexually-all of these indicate a symptomatology of angst that Hemingway shared with
his fellow middle-class men. (13) This was Hemingway's public life. These were the strange
mannerisms that he developed from the American society. However, the American society was only
half of the cause. His troubling early life experiences didn't help matters. As Debra A. Moddelmog
notes:
Among the disclosures that have drawn the greatest scrutiny are Grace Hemingway's Treating her son
as the female twin of his older sister and dressing him in girls' clothes, apparently for longer than was
conventional for the time; Hemingway's attraction, both sexual and non-sexual, for lesbians; his
fascination with the mage trios; and his engagement in role playing in bed, the man becoming the
woman to the woman's man. (187) Hemingway was tainted, and his public antics showed its effects.
However, to get the broad spectrum of his childhood and the society's effects you must look at his
works. There you see how his unique sexuality comes into play.
The novel we shall consider is The Sun Also Rises. In this novel Hemingway deals with impotence,
androgyny, and homosexuals. The story speaks on a man named Jake how epitomizes the "Lost
Generation" in the words of Gertrude Stein. Jake has come back from the war completely different. He
is less of a man, with an injury that has left him impotent, much like Hemingway's injury in France in
1944 that left him experiencing bouts of impotence. Jake is in love with a woman named Brett, whom
he cannot have. Brett (whose name even resembles that of a male) is very "mannish", lacking the
curves of a woman and has with the dominance of a male. Jake, who is threatened by the homosexuals

that dance with Brett outside of a club because, though they are gay, have more "manhood" than Jake,
lacks manhood or masculinity, and has the characteristics of a female. Perhaps Hemingway was
exhibiting his interest of androgyny as Jake and Brett, both lacking something from their respective
sex but possessing something from the other, struggle for love.
A story from In Our Time called "Mr. And Mrs. Elliot" deals greatly with homosexuality. In the story,
the protagonist, Hubert Elliot, is a self-styled puritan. Hubert was a twenty-five year old virgin until he
married Mrs. Elliot. As Donnell states:
. . . Hubert learns about ostensibly heterosexual practices (male-female kissing) solely from the lips of
another man - even if it is only in form of a story (162). Thus, the knowledge of a heterosexual
practice can only be passed through a male-male interaction - and example of heterosexuality being
transmitted through a homosexual dynamic.
Hubert's wife, Cornelia, fifteen years older than he, similarly shows a sexual problem. The narrator
states, they both try "very hard to have a baby . . . as often as Mr. Elliot can stand it" (161). Cornelia
has an intense dislike for sex (with males at least) and it is apparent through her "falling asleep" on her
wedding night.
Cornelia shows other sexual problems through the fact that she owns a business. This is an obvious
intrusion of the female into the male "sphere". She also has a "girl friend" (162). Although many
women have friends who are "girls", Cornelia's friend is more than simply a friend. Soon after they get
married, Cornelia makes Hubert send for her "girl friend"; soon after that the two women sleep in the
same bed and have "many a good cry together" (164). "Crying", as the narrator puts it, does not have
to do with emotional or physical pain but with sexual pleasure. The fact that they have "many a good
cry" shows that Cornelia's girl friend is better at pleasing her then Hubert is. To top it all Hubert's
acceptance of the situation not only shows his wife's lesbianism, but his own homosexuality.
Hemingway described Hubert as an experienced virgin to make him out to be the middle-class' typical
homosexual. By giving Cornelia a "girl friend" and making her intrude into the male "sphere",
Hemingway created the ideal middle-class representation of a lesbian.
Hemingway may have been a homosexual in denial. His determination to keep up his manhood's
"good name" may have been a decoy to hide his true homosexuality. As a Rolling Stone article notes,
his son was in fact gay. Perhaps he got it genetically from his father, Ernest Hemingway. Many things
were repeated in that family. Hemingway, the depressed drunk, committed suicide just like his father.
However, they were different reasons. After Hemingway's depression he was sent to the Mayo Clinic
in Rochester, Minnesota. There he received electroshock therapy that impaired his memory and
stripped from him the concentration to write. Hemingway also lost the ability to do other things he so
loved like fish and hunt. So perhaps he killed himself because Ernest Hemingway could no longer "be"
Ernest Hemingway.
Hills Like White Elephants - Jig's Choice of Progress
In writing "Hills like White Elephants" Ernest Hemingway expresses that having a child is better seen
as a progressive life change rather than an obstruction. This short story begins with a man and girl
bickering and having drinks at a train junction between Barcelona and Madrid. The tone becomes
serious as the two discuss the future of their unborn child. Hemingway skillfully uses the elements of
fiction to create a subtle statement concerning life and the decisions it sometimes forces us to make.
The girl, Jig, first demonstrates her tiring of the couple's lifestyle with her comment: "That's all we do
isn't it-look at things and try new drinks?" (463) Hemingway shows the reader that she is ready for the
next step in life, now that it has been presented to her. On one side of the setting, lies the sun baked,

barren hills. Jig contemplates their future and observes "the other side" (465) where the country is
fertile and there are "fields of grain and trees" (465). In the images of water and drought, or more
simply, of life and death, the author emphasizes Jig's choices. One choice is to abort the baby and
wonder about the future of her relationship to the. The other choice is to make the jump into the river
of life, which seems, to Jig, to have some promise. This promise is demonstrated in her suggesting to
the man: "We could get along." (465)
Later Jig steps away from the shade of the building and of her mate and she initiates a change in tone.
Jig tells the man that "It isn't ours anymore," referring to their lifestyles and the world they have been
living in. With Jig's smile to her mate and to the serving woman, Hemingway eases the tension created
by the conflict. By this time Jig seems to have come to a conclusion. Finally, the man asks, "Do you
feel better?" and she replies, "There's nothing wrong with me, I feel fine" (466). Jig has decided that
being pregnant is a life change to be cherished and built upon.
Jig's outlook changes as the story progresses. In this short time, her dependency on the man
diminishes. Jig's private thoughts are illuminated by Hemingway's clever manipulation setting,
character and conflict. Through Jig, Hemingway concludes that life has choices that should be made in
order to develop one's self.
Old Man and The Sea
In the novel The Old Man and the Sea, Ernest Hemingway uses the literary device of metaphors.
Hemingway uses the metaphor of the ocean to symbolize life and to depict the role that individuals
play in life. Hemingway uses the metaphor of the lions to signify people who live their lives as active
participants. The tourists in the novel represent the individuals, who in observe their lives and are not
active participants. In the novels that Ernest Hemingway writes, he uses metaphors to reflect his life
experiences and opinions. The ocean in The Old Man and the Sea is a metaphor, which represents
Hemingway's personel view of life. Hemingway believes that in life everyone must find their own
niche and uses the metaphor of the ocean and the boats on it to demonstrate this.
...most of the boats were silent except for the dip of the oars. They spread apart after they were out of
the mouth of the harbour and each one headed for the part of the ocean where he hoped to find fish.
The old man knew he was going far out...1(page 22) Hemingway feels that in life there are people who
participate in life and people who observe life as it passes just like on the ocean where there are boats
that do not test their boundaries. The boats are the people in life, and most of the boats are silent. They
paddle within the areas they know to be safe and always are cautious not to upset the life that they
have established for themselves. Hemingway is explaining that most people don't raise a commotion,
they just allow life to happen to them. The old man is testing his limits, he is challenging the ocean,
and rowing where he wants to go, not where the ocean wants to take him. Hemingway believes that in
life, the farther a person stays from the observers, the more free and exhilarated they will be.
If there is a hurricane, you always see the signs of it in the sky for days ahead, if you are at sea. They
do not see it ashore because they do not know what to look for, he thought. The land must make a
difference too, in the shape of the clouds. But we have no hurricane coming now.2(page 51)
Hemingway theorizes that in life there are going to be unexpected collisions. Just as the sea creates
storms life creates storms. Those who live life to the fullest will be the least affected by these storms
because they have the strength and the knowledge to handle them, but the observers or those on land
will be destroyed because they do not have the power to handle the destruction that the storms will
cause. The individuals who are far out to sea have the knowledge that the ocean will test them with
momentous storms, and this is why they go so far out to sea. The people who Hemingway thinks face

life head- on are represented by lions in the novel.

Hemingway uses the metaphor of the lion to depict the participants in life.
When Santiago is a child he visits Africa, and tells Manolin of the lions he sees. "When I was your age
I was before the mast on a square-rigged ship and that ship ran to Africa and I have seen lions on the
beaches in the evening."3(page 17) Hemingway uses the lions on the beach as a metaphor, because
most lions would never be found on a beach.
The only lions that would ever be found on a beach are the lions who are equivalent to the humans
who are participants. The lions on the beach are going where most lions would never dare go. These
lions are testing their boundaries, seeing just how far they can go, just like participants. This line also
hints at Hemingway's belief that age impairs, but does not extinguish one's ability to be participants in
their own lives.
Santiago realizes that all of his glories were in his youth, and strongly relates the power that the lions
in his dreams have to his youth.
He no longer dreamed of storms, nor of women, nor of great occurrences, nor of great fish, nor fights,
nor contests of strength, nor of his wife. He only dreamed of places now and of the lions on the beach.
The played like young cats in the dusk and he loved them as he loved the boy. He never dreamed about
the boy.4(page 19) Santiago is slowly losing his ability to be an effective participant in his life because
of the limitations that are associated with aging. Hemingway also experiences inabilities that he has
never known and which brings him into a depression. Santiago is beginning to believe that he is not a
participant in his life so he doesn't depress himself by dreaming of anything other than the lions, who
are participants. In his dreams, Santiago is living vicariously through the lions. The lions represent all
that Hemingway ever was, and what he wishes he still could be. The tourists in the novel are
metaphors for what Hemingway isn't.
The tourists are metaphors for the people Hemingway believes live their lives as passive observers.
The tourists appear only briefly but the statement that Hemingway makes through them is profound.
That afternoon there was a party of tourist at the Terrace and looking down in the water among the
empty beer cans and dead barracudas a woman saw a great long white spine with a huge tail at the end
that lifted and swung with the tide while the east wind blew a heavy steady sea outside the entrance to
the harbor. 'What's that?' she asked a waiter and pointed to the long backbone of the great fish that was
just now garbage waiting to go out with the tide. 'Tiburon,' the waiter said, 'Eshark.' He was meaning
to explain what dare grapple happened. 'I didn't know sharks had such handsome tails.' 'I didn't either,'
her male companion said.5(page 109) These two tourists who speak are hardly differentiated from the
group to which they belong. They are all metaphors for individuals who are spectators of the human
scene rather than participants in its activity. They see, but they see without fully comprehending. They
are only faintly curious, only passingly interested, only superficially observing, they have not been
initiated into the mysteries that Santiago understands. These tourists live their lives as tourists,
skimming the surface of life, without resolution or clarity. Their life reflects that of all people who live
their lives ashore, who dare not grapple with the mysteries of the ocean, or of life. This is the type of
life that Hemingway always tried to avoid, to the point of his taking his own life. Hemingway uses
metaphors to reflect his opinions of life and the people that he has met in life. The metaphor of the sea
symbolizes all of life and the roles that people must choose to have in life. The lions are a metaphor
for the people Hemingway respects and the type of person Hemingway is. The tourists are a metaphor
for the individuals who choose to live their life as onlookers but never participants. Through
Hemingway's use of penetrating metaphors in his novels, readers gain an understanding of
Hemingway's life and or their own. Through his novels Hemingway challenges every member of
society to admit that most people are observers and through his novels dares them to head out to sea

and catch their marlin.

Bibliography Hemingway, Ernest. The Old Man and the Sea. Triad Grafton. London. 1976 *All
subsequent entries are from this source* Endnotes 1Ernest Hemingway. The Old Man and the Sea.
Triad Grafton. London. 1976
Soldier's Home
Critical Analysis of "Soldier's Home": Before, During, and After the War (with bibliography)
Many of the titles of Ernest Hemingway's stories are ironic, and can be read on a number of levels;
Soldier's Home is no exception. Our first impression, having read the title only, is that this story will
be about a old soldier living out the remainder of his life in an institution where veterans go to die. We
soon find out that the story has nothing to do with the elderly, or institutions; rather, it tells the story of
a young man, Harold Krebs, only recently returned from World War I, who has moved back into his
parents' house while he figures out what he wants to do with the rest of his life.
And yet our first impression lingers, and with good reason; despite the fact that his parents'
comfortable, middle-class lifestyle used to feel like home to Harold Krebs, it no longer does. Harold is
not home; he has no home at all. This is actually not an uncommon scenario among young people
(such as college students) returning into the womb of their childhood again. But with Harold, the
situation is more dramatic because he has not only lived on his own, but has dealt with -- and been
traumatized by -- life-and-death situations his parents could not possibly understand.
Hemingway does not divulge why Krebs was the last person in his home town to return home from the
war; according to the Kansas City Star, Hemingway himself "left Kansas City in the spring of 1918
and did not return for 10 years, [becoming] 'the first of 132 former Star employees to be wounded in
World War I,' according to a Star article at the time of his death" (Kansas City Star, hem6.htm).
Wherever he was in the intervening time, by the time Harold gets home, the novelty of the returning
soldier has long since worn off. All the other former soldiers have found a niche for themselves in the
community, but Harold needs a while longer to get his bearings; he plays pool, "practiced on his
clarinet, strolled down town, read, and went to bed" (Hemingway, 146). What he is doing, of course, is
killing time.
The problem, of course, has to do with Harold's definition of who he has become. He recognizes he
has changed, and this change is played out dramatically against the backdrop of a town where nothing
else has changed since he was in high school. His father parks his car in the same place; it's still the
same car; the girls walking down the street look like the same girls, except more of them have short
hair now. Imamura comments, "Krebs admires them, yet he protects himself from the danger of sexual
involvement as if he were still suffering from a previous affair" (Imamura, 102). And Daniel Slaughter
observes that "One gets the sense while reading 'A Soldier's Home' that watching the girls was a
healing process" (Slaughter, hemingway_1.html).
What has happened here, really? Why is Krebs unable to adjust to life back in Oklahoma? Why can't
he talk to girls, or manage to do anything productive with his time? These answers can be found in a
careful examination of what Krebs was doing before the war and what happened while he was in
Europe.
Prior to the war, Hemingway tells us in the very first paragraph, Krebs attended a Methodist school in
Kansas. He was not out of place then; Hemingway says "There is a picture which shows him among
his fraternity brothers, all of them wearing exactly the same height and style collar" (Hemingway,
145). There is a tremendous poignancy in this detail; at least one of these young men, so concerned
about his appearance, would soon be shipped overseas to the most horrific war the world had ever

known. The fact that his college was a religious institution is also significant, for it shows that he was,
at that time, in synch with his mother's religious values.
At least, he did not have any reason to doubt them, or not enough strength to resist them (or her).
Hemingway tells us before the first paragraph is over that Krebs "enlisted in the Marines in 1917"
(Hemingway, 145). The Marines are an elite fighting force who today advertise they are looking for "a
few good men" -- indicating that if the prospective soldier is not out of the ordinary, he need not apply.
However, was Krebs a good Marine? J.F. Kobler observes that there is at least some indication in
"Soldier's Home" "that Krebs did not fight bravely in the war. . . . Krebs admits to himself that he has
lied in public about his military experiences, but he cannot stop lying to himself about the real extent
and the psychological effect of his lying" (Kobler, 377).
We know for sure that he was "badly, sickeningly frightened all the time" (Hemingway, 146).
Certainly his war experiences were not glamorous, and he brings home quite a collection of battlescarred baggage, not the least of which is his guilt over having to live a lie. Krebs even connects the
politics of courting with "lying", which he has already told us makes him feel "nauseated". As Lamb
points out, "The shadow that renders Krebs incapable of action and that lies at the crux of the story is
stated in three sentences that follow immediately after his first statement that young women are not
worth it: 'He did not want any consequences. He did not want any consequences ever again. He wanted
to live along without consequences.'
His desire to avoid consequences is his single overriding motivation. He fondly recalls the French and
German women because relationships with them were uncomplicated and without consequence; there
was no need even to talk. He wants the hometown women but does not act on these desires because
they are too complicated and not worth the consequences. He is attracted to his little sister because he
can shrug off her demands and she will still love him. But his mother repels him because her demands
are complex and unavoidable" (Lamb, 18). But it is not until his mother confronts him over breakfast
about his future that he realizes that he cannot continue to live at home any more.
Robert Paul Lamb observes that before Harold's mother begins her lecture, she takes off her glasses;
"this gesture seems to imply that she either can not, or does not want to 'see' him" (Lamb, 18). His
mother, in other words, does not want to be distracted by Harold's point of view while she is
expounding on hers. This somewhat echoes his earlier observation that "Later he felt the need to talk
but no one wanted to hear about it" (Hemingway, 145).
Essentially, no one wants to recognize Harold's unique identity. His mother pressures him to get a job
by arguing that "There are no idle hands in [God's] Kingdom," to which Harold significantly observes,
"I'm not in His Kingdom" (Hemingway, 151). And he's not. The world he discovered during World
War I had no hand of God in it.
His mother then observes that all the other boys "just your age" are settling down and becoming
"really a credit to the community". This hearkens back to the first paragraph of the story, in which
Harold observes a picture of himself with his fraternity brothers, all sporting identical haircuts and
collars.
Harold is no longer like everybody else; he's not sure who he is, but he's sure of that. Finally, his
mother asks whether he loves her. He replies quite truthfully that he does not. We know that this is
because his entire worldview has been turned upside down by his traumatic experiences in the war,
and the ability to genuinely love requires an emotional balance he does not have right now. But his
mother does not understand this, because she cannot identify with his experiences; as Tateo Imamura
observes, "Krebs' small-town mother cannot comprehend her son's struggles and sufferings caused by
the war. She devotes herself to her religion and never questions her own values" (Imamura, 102). So
he lies to please her, and kneels down as she prays to please her -- and then he knows he has to go

away. Harold lies out of an inability to force a painful issue and take a stand. He may feel that he
acquiesces out of compassion, but in fact he is not secure enough in his own self to risk a
confrontation that could be painful or guilt-inducing.
Harold veers onto the edge of self-revelation with his straight-forward answers about the Kingdom of
God and his lack of ability to love, but when his mother begins to cry he waffles; she will never see
that he isn't the boy he was in high school -- or perhaps, the boy she thought he was.
Death of the American Dream
On the surface, The Great Gatsby is a story of the torn love between and man and a women. The theme
of the novel, however; shows a much larger, less romantic scope. Though all of its action takes place
over a few months during the summer of 1922 and is set in a restricted geographical area of Long
Island, New York, The Great Gatsby is a highly symbolic dispute on America in the 1920's, in
particular the disintegration of the American dream is an era of lacking prosperity and material
possession.
F. Scott Fitzgerald portrays the 1920's as an era of decayed social and moral values, evidence in its
embracing cynicism, greed and empty persuit for pleasure. The reckless feeling that led to decadent
parties and wild Jazz music, like the ones shown in The Great Gatsby with the miraculous parties
Gatsby throws every Saturday night, resulted mainly in the destruction of the American dream, as the
unrestrained want for money and pleasure and to go beyond the noble goals. When World War I ended
in 1918, the generation of young Americans who had fought in the war became more disillusioned, as
the brutal carnage that they had just faced, made the Victorian social mortality of the early 20th
century American seemed like boring, stuffy and empty hypocrisy. The dizzying rise of the stock
market, which was the consequence of the war, led to a sudden, sustained increase in the national
wealth and a new found materialism, as people began to spend and consume at dangerous levels. A
person from any social group or background could, eventually, make a fortune, but the American
aristocracy (families with old wealth) disliked the newly rich industrialists and spectators.
Additionally, the passage of the 18th Amendment in 1919, which banned the sale of alcohol, created a
thriving underworld formatted to satisfy the massive demand for bootleg liquor among both the rich
and the poor.
Fitzgerald positions the characters of The Great Gatsby as symbols of the 1920's social trends. Nick
and Gatsby, who had both fought in WWI, exhibit the new found cosmopolitanism and cynicism that
resulted from the war. The various social climbers and ambitious spectators who attend Gatsby's
parties show the greedy scramble for wealth. The crash between "Old Money" and "New Money"
manifests itself in the novel's symbolic geography. East Egg represents the established aristocracy;
West Egg represents the self-made rich. Meyer Wolfshiem and Gatsby's fortune symbolize the rise of
organized crime and bootlegging.
As Nick explains in Chapter IX, the American dream was originally about discovery, individualism
and the quest for happiness. In the 1920's shown in the novel, however; easy money and relaxed social
values have corrupted this dream, especially on the East Coast. The main plot of this novel strongly
reflects this judgment, as Gatsby's dream of loving Daisy is ruined by the difference in their respective
social statuses, Gatsby turning to crime to make enough money to impress her, and the unrestricted
materialism that characterizes her lifestyle. Even though places and objects in The Great Gatsby have
meaning is only because the characters instill them with meaning. The eyes of Doctor T.J. Eckleburg
show this idea. In Nick's mind, the ability to create meaningful symbols amounts to a central
component of the American dream, as early Americans invest their new nation with their own

comforts and values.

Nick compares the green bulk of America rising from the ocean to the green light at the end of Daisy's
dock. Just as Americans have given America meaning through their dreams for their own lives, Gatsby
instills Daisy with a kind of idealized perfection that she either deserves or has. Gatsby's dream is
ruined by the unworthiness of its object, just as the American dream in the 1920's is ruined by the
unworthiness of it's object, money and pleasure. Like 1920's Americans in general, fruitlessly seeking
a past existing era in which their dreams had value, Gatsby longs to recreate a vanished past, his time
in Louisville with Daisy, but isn't able to do so. When his dream crumbles, all that is left for Gatsby to
do, is to die; all Nick can do is move back to Minnesota, where the American dream and values have
not yet decayed.
The Great Gatsby - The Use of Symbolism
F. Scott Fitzgerald is an author who is distinguished for his use of symbolism in his literature, like in
the novel The Great Gatsby. He uses the image of Doctor T. J. Eckelburg's eyes to symbolize a godlike
being. Fitzgerald uses the symbol of the two women in yellow at Gatsby's party to represent the values
of the 1920's. The food provided at Gatsby's party symbolically represents the members of 1920's
society. F. Scott Fitzgerald uses Symbolism in the novel The Great Gatsby as an accurate reflection of
life in the American 1920's. In The Great Gatsby the symbol of T. J. Eckelburg's eyes represent a godly
being watching over society. Fitzgerald incorporates the eyes into his novel to represent a pair of all
seeing, all knowing and judging eyes, which are meant to intimidate. The character of George Wilson
believes that the eyes are the eyes of God.
"I spoke to her," he muttered, after a long silence. "I told her she might fool me but she couldn't fool
God. I took her to the window- " With an effort he got up and walked to the rear window and leaned
his face pressed against it, "-and I said 'God knows what you've been doing, everything you've been
doing. You may fool me but you can't fool God!' " Standing behind him Michaelis saw with a shock
that he was looking at the eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg, which had just emerged pale and enormous
from the dissolving night. "God sees everything," repeated Wilson. (p.167) Through Wilson's beliefs
Fitzgerald explains that the eyes can see everything including Myrtle's infidelities. Myrtle is a typical
person of the 1920's. She has put her own life and interests ahead of everyone else's including her
husband's. The eyes of God are frowning down on the 1920's society. But above the grey land and the
spasms of bleak dust which drift endlessly over it, you perceive, after a moment, the eyes of Doctor T.
J. Eckleburg. The eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg are blue and gigantic-their retinas are one yard high.
The look out of no face but, instead, from a pair of enormous yellow spectacles which pass over a nonexistent nose...his eyes, dimmed a little by many painless days under sun and rain, brood on over the
solemn dumping ground.(p.27-28) Through Fitzgerald's wording in describing the image of
Eckleburg's eyes the reader develops a mental image of an omnipotent being who is constantly
watching over the land. The reader discerns that the eyes not only see everything but that they eyes are
morbidly unhappy. The use of the word 'brood' suggests that whatever the eyes are seeing has made
their owner disappointed. This is Fitzgerald's way of indicating that the people of the 1920's are
disgraceful and undignified because of their selfishness. People of the 1920's spent large sums of
money on themselves, and they would attend parties where they didn't know the host. This type of
behaviour is why the 1920's are known as a decadent era. The eyes not only symbolize a god-like
being but also Fitzgerald himself and his negative views of 1920's society. Fitzgerald's negative views
of society are also portrayed through his depiction of certain guests at Gatsby's parties.

The symbol of the two women dressed identically in yellow at Gatsby's party depict the values of the
people of the 20's. The two women in yellow meet Jordan and Nick at one of Gatsby's party and are
entirely self involved.
"Do you come to these parties often?" inquired Jordan of the girl beside her.
"The last one was the one I met you at," answered the girl in an alert, confident voice. She turned to
her companion: "Wasn't it for you Lucille?" It was for Lucille too. "I like to come," Lucille said "I
never care what I do, so I always have a good time. When I was here last I tore my gown on a chair,
and he asked me my name and address- inside of a week I got a package from Croirier's with a new
evening gown in it."(p.47) Lucille admits that her general attitude toward life is that she doesn't care
what she does as long as she has a good time. Her entire motivation in her life is to enjoy herself.
When all she was asked was if she came to the parties often she also felt the need to inform the rest of
the guests of her trivial anecdote. The reason that these women are indicative of the generation is
because of their self-absorbed character and their egotistical nature.
"Gatsby. Somebody told me-" The two girls and Jordan leaned together confidentially. "Somebody
told me they thought he killed a man once." A thrill passed over all of us. The three Mr. Mumbles bent
forward and listened eagerly.
"I don't think it's so much that," argued Lucille sceptically; "It's more that he was a German spy during
the war." One of the men nodded in confirmation. "Oh know it couldn't be that because he was in the
American army during the war."(p.48) The two women are spreading vicious rumours about their host
purely for the sake of attention. They are so egotistical that they are willing to tarnish the reputation of
the man who has invited them into his house, simply on the basis that they want to be the centre of
everyone's attention. In Fitzgerald's opinion, people of the 20's were mainly made up of this type of
person.
The symbols of the food served at Gatsby's party represent and personify the people of the 20's.
Gatsby's house frequently receives crates of oranges which demonstrates the wasteful character of
people in the 1920's.
Every Friday five crates of oranges and lemons arrived from a fruiterer in New York-every Monday
these same oranges and lemons left his back door in a pyramid of pulpless halves.(p.45) This
incredible wastefulness is representative of people who lived in the 1920's. They were wasteful to the
extreme because they assumed that they deserved to be wasteful and carefree. After so many years of
being unhappy from, among other things, World War I. During the war, they were forced to ration
everything, so the twenties was the time to gain back their selfishness. Their personalities are also
symbolised by the colossal food buffet served at the party.
On buffet tables, garnished with glistening hors d'oeuvre, spiced baked hams crowded against salads
of harlequin designs and pastry pigs and turkeys bewitched to a dark gold.(p.44) These symbols all
personify the people of the 20's. The people garnished themselves in glistening jewels and clothing
just to impress the people that they met. They are all spiced implying that they have made themselves
into something that they are not by spicing up their lives with fancy clothing and costumes which hide
who they really are. They design themselves as they think they will be most accepted, and are
bewitched by the brightness and glow of popularity and richness. People of the twenties wore
costumes and this is part of what Fitzgerald is trying to convey.
In the novel The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald uses the literary technique of symbolism to reflect what life
in the 1920's was like, through Fitzgerald's eyes. The image of Doctor T. J.
Eckelburg's eyes is used to signify a disappointed godlike being. Fitzgerald uses the the two women in
yellow at Gatsby's party to as a symbol to represent the values of people in the 20's. The food provided
at Gatsby's party is symbolic of people who lived in the 20's. Through Fitzgerald's use of symbolism to

describe the costumed characters of the 20's the reader can learn to constantly, and consistently
examine the people that they surround themselves with. The novel also teaches the lesson of being true
to one's self, since true closure may only come one honesty is achieved. Fitzgerald is not only a
consequential author but an effective moral adviser as well.
Bibliography Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. Macmillan Publishing Company. New York.
1992.
The Great Gatsby - An Essay about the Character and Function of Nick Carraway
This is an essay about the character and function of Nick Carraway. Despite the title, Nick Carraway is
the first character we meet, and appropriately his role in The Great Gatsby is crucial; without him the
story would lack balance and insight. The first chapter is primarily dedicated in establishing his
personality and position in the book, then moving on to Tom and Daisy. Nick is our guide, path
finder in The Great Gatsby; he relates the story as he has seen it and from what others have told him.
He strives at all times to be objective, his comments are balanced, as he says just in the first page of
the book Im inclined to reserve all judgements. His objectivity is reinforced throughout to us by his
scorn of Gatsby he thoroughly disapproves of him he represented everything for which I have
unaffected scorn. Yet there is something some heightened sensitivity to the promises of life, an
extraordinary gift for hope that is attractive to Nick, and requires him to make several attempts at
describing it. He registers contempt for much of what Gatsby stands for the falseness, the criminality,
but still he likes him. His ability to laugh at Gatsby and his false airs What was that? . . . The picture
of Oxford? shows hes neither charmed nor wholly disgusted by Gatsby. Nick sees him as the best of
a rotten crowd, his approval is always relative compared to Tom and Daisy his dream like
innocence is attractive, though twisted into an impossible goal and only nearly achieved by
criminality. But compared to Toms ruthless attitude to Myrtle and Wilson, Daisys careless
abandonment of Gatsby and ultimately their complete inability to see their wrong if you think I
didnt have my share of suffering . . . I sat down and cried like a baby put Gatsby in a much fairer
light. As Nick says, Gatsby was worth the whole damn bunch put together.
His amusingly contemptuous remarks show his sense of humour, and although he is straight-laced, we
are not bored by him. We are told of his age thirty, which makes us take his opinions seriously, as he
is not some immature unworldly man.
Nick is introduced directly, but Gatsby remains a distant character for a good while. The establishment
of Nicks reflective, tolerant personality is essential, as are his limitations, so we dont just dismiss him
as Fitzgeralds mouthpiece. The fact that he disapproves of Gatsby so early on, helps us to go along
with his judgements when he tells us of Gatsby and unfolds the story. Our first mysterious glimpse of
Gatsby prepares us for much of what is to come. The imagery of silhouette, moonlight, and
shadow in this passage prepare us for Gatsbys shadowy, dark character. Many more of his actions
will appear to us and Nick as curious, the fact he is trembling shows he is intense in his emotions
and none of this is for show, Gatsby believes he is alone. His concentration on the single green light
represents his determination to succeed, his constant drive, all to be with Daisy. He then vanishes just
as we are becoming acquainted with him from a distance, echoing the end of the book.
The mystery surrounding Gatsby before we meet him adds to his charm. It is similar to the beginning
of Shakespeares Othello, we get many different stories and names for him bootlegger; nephew
or cousin of Kaiser Wilhelms; something funny about a fellow whod do that; regular Belasco
and Ill bet he killed a man'. This forces us, in effect, to reserve all judgement. It would be difficult
to introduce Gatsby as candidly as Nick, for we would almost certainly disapprove of him. Thats the

drive in this book, to find out the truth about Gatsby because, like Nick, we are sceptical of what he
says or what is said about him. Nick is unlike the other characters of the book; he is not one of the
careless people. He has a conscience, he is not selfish he has decency, which is well demonstrated in
his efforts for Gatsbys funeral. His down to earth character shows how superficial Daisy and Tom are.
Tom and Daisy are ruthlessly practical, where Gatsby is a hopeless dreamer. Nick guides us between
these two extremes, a detached observer whilst being involved in the action I was within and
without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life.
His aim to be truthful and objective makes the reader trust him. When he says Gatsby has a rare smile
with a quality of eternal reassurance in it we know Nick isnt being charmed by his riches or parties;
but is telling it to us straight. His contempt for much of what Gatsby says, but also Nicks tolerance, is
emphasised when Nick doesnt mock him "I lived . . . trying to forget something very sad that had
happened to me long ago." With an effort I managed to restrain my incredulous laughter. We trust
Nick to judge what is genuine about Gatsby and what is more of his romanticising.
We have no choice but to identify with Nick, the other characters lack the dimension for us to trust
them, which is what Fitzgerald is trying to demonstrate. Seeing Gatsby through Nicks eyes we
sympathise for him and his unattainable life long dream, without Nick we could perceive Gatsby as a
corrupt mad man trying to disrupt an old girlfriends life. This would not be the whole truth, and not
what Fitzgerald would want us to see.
While clearly Gatsby is the focus of the book and what he stands for hope, romance, the twisted
American Dream; there is an argument for saying Nick is the main character. Gatsby doesnt speak till
the third chapter, and he dies after three-quarters of the book. This is of course the only way Gatsby
can go, his whole life was Daisy and his dreams, and as he failed there is no future for him. His
unbalanced obsession left no room for anything else in his life. Nick is the more in depth character as
practically every part of the story is related to us with his thoughts and his perceptions, it is hard for
him not to be. He is the character we leave the story feeling we understand and we support his actions
and judgements, unlike Gatsby. He is the narrator, but his involvement in the events, no matter how
much he tries to stay objective, make a difference. He gets drunk at the party, falls in love with
Jordan the skill of Fitzgerald is to establish Nick as a character in his own right, not just Fitzgeralds
mouthpiece.
Bibliography Edited Turnbull: Letters of F Scott Fitzgerald 1958
The Great Gatsby
When F. Scott Fitzgerald first published The Great Gatsby, it was named Under the Red, White, and
Blue. However, after having revised the novel many times with his many editors, publishers, and
personal advisors, Fitzgerald eventually released the book under its contemporary title. Why did
Fitzgerald make the change? Under the red white and blue referred to the life of people in America, or
under the American flag. His novel is focused on the corruption of the American dream, and the
corruption of those residing within. The great Gatsby referred to one of the principle characters in the
novel, Jay Gatsby. Why was Gatsby so great that the book was named after him? Jay Gatsby was
portrayed by Fitzgerald as the son of God, or of a God. Fitzgerald reminds us of this throughout the
novel, and from beginning to end he fills the text with hints as he alludes to Gatsby's divine spirit. The
'Great Gatsby' was a great man- Fitzgerald tells the reader that Gatsby was so great he could not have
been a man- that he was a heavenly figure. Fitzgerald wanted the reader to believe that the American
dream had died, and to further ingrain his belief in our minds, he destroys religion and morality' but
the final and most dismal reality Fitzgerald faces us with is that no man is a great man- the only great

man encountered in The Great Gatsby is the son of God- who is superior to man, and cannot be judged
by the same rules. An author uses imagery to convey specific thoughts and emotions from his readers.
Fitzgerald constantly reminds us that Gatsby is a heavenly figure by associating Gatsby with the
moon. The moon is a heavenly body; therefore, Gatsby's presence brings out the heavens. The first
time the narrator, Nick, meets Gatsby, it is at one of Gatsby's gaudy parties, and 'the moon had risen
higher.'(Fitzgerald p.51) just before Nick met Gatsby. When Nick leaves the party, 'a wafer of a moon
was shining over Gatsby's house.'(p.60) After Myrtle had been run over by Daisy, Nick speaks to
Gatsby outside Daisy's house, and Nick 'could think of nothing except the luminosity of his pink suit
under the moon.' The imagery in this location suggests that Gatsby is innocent of the crime he is
implicated in, which is the murder of Myrtle. The moon shining down on Gatsby, making his suit
radiate, suggests that heaven looks with favor upon Gatsby. Gatsby is linked with the heavens occurs
when he describe! d having kissed Daisy for the first time. ''sidewalk was white with moonlight' The
quiet lights in the houses were humming out into the darkness and there was a stir and bustle among
the stars' Gatsby saw that the blocks of the sidewalk really formed a ladder and mounted to a secret
place above the trees- he could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the
pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder.'(pg.117) This particular passage suggests to
the reader that Gatsby is indeed a heavenly figure, the son of God, as moonlight shines down upon
him, and he has the superhuman ability to hear the sounds of the stars. When Nick saw Gatsby for the
first time, Gatsby had been gazing out over the water of the Sound. 'Mr. Gatsby himself, come out to
determine what share was his of our local heavens.'(pg. 25). This is an unusual phrase, since we would
expect Gatsby to determine where he fit in the local heavens, not which share of the local heavens was
his. This shows that Gatsby is not a part of our world; rather, a shareholder. Fitzgerald then moves to
establish Gatsby as the son of God by creating moments of Gatsby's life which parallel that of Jesus.
The first example of this is when Nick first meets Gatsby, and Gatsby smiles at Nick. 'He smiled
understandingly- much more than understandingly. It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of
eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life.'(pg. 52). The usage of the
word eternal suggests that Gatsby is immortal, as is the son of God, who died so that we may all be
immortal. Such a deep and compassionate smile can only come from a man of extraordinary power.
Fitzgerald continues by elevating Gatsby above his high-class and powerful friends, who attended his
parties. 'I wondered if the fact that he was not drinking helped to set him off from his guests, for it
seemed to me that he grew more correct as the fraternal hilarity increased.'(pg. 54). This once again
illustrates that Gatsby is a higher figure than the rest of society, as his affluent guests fit a level below
him. The Great Gatsby was set above everyone, even the best of the best. As the novel and Gatsby's
life progress, it follows Jesus' life in parallel. Jesus was brought before the government, and was
questioned repeatedly as to his motives, and whether or not he claimed to be the King of the Jews.
Gatsby was questioned by Tom on pages 134-142. Tom questioned Gatsby's motives, his past, and his
occupation. This interrogation was not dissimilar to that of Jesus, as Jesus remained wholly calm
during his rough interrogation- Gatsby remained unfazed and composed during his heated
interrogation. When Gatsby died, he went in a similar fashion to that of Jesus. Not by the same
method, death on the cross, but by an extremely similar process. 'Gatsby shouldered the mattress and
started for the pool. Once he stopped and shifted it a little and the chauffeur asked him if he needed
help, but he shook his head and in a moment disappeared among the yellowing trees.'(pg. 169). This
imagery is consistent with that of Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus had been forced to carry his own cross to
the place of the crucifixion (on his shoulder), and similarly Gatsby had carried his mattress (on his
shoulder) to the place of his death. People had asked Jesus if he needed assistance carrying his cross,
and Jesus refused- just as Gatsby had refused aid from his chauffeur. The reason for Gatsby's death

was similar to Jesus', as well. Gatsby had been killed because George Wilson believed that Gatsby had
killed his wife, Myrtle. In reality, Myrtle had been killed by Daisy. Therefore, Gatsby had died for
Daisy's sin. In the same way, Jesus had died for the sins of mankind, while he himself had committed
no sin. Both Jesus and Gatsby had died for the sins of others. Their deaths were similar, but so were
their funerals. Gatsby's funeral had few attendees: 'The minister glanced several times at his watch so I
took him aside and asked him to wait for half an hour. But it wasn't any use. Nobody came.'(pg. 182).
Gatsby's best friend, Wolfshiem, had not attended the funeral- 'Let us learn to show our friendship for
a man when he is alive and not after he is dead,'(pg. 180) because Wolfshiem had wanted to keep a low
profile, and not jeopardize his own safety by appearing at the funeral. In the same way, Jesus' burial
place was kept secret to protect it from graverobbers, and there were few people in attendance at the
funeral- to keep the lowest possible profile. Gatsby had tried to improve his life in the same way as
Ben Franklin- with a daily schedule to stay on track and an orderly system of life. Ironically, Franklin's
list of moral improvements (which Gatsby followed) included number 13, 'Mimic Jesus'
(Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin). Gatsby had mimicked Jesus, and ended up the same way as
Jesus had- dead. Gatsby's life had not been a waste. As Jesus had saved souls, started a major religion,
and helped lead people in a new and better life, Gatsby had changed the narrator of the novel, Nick.
'Gatsby turned out all right at the end; it is what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust floated in the wake
of his dreams that temporarily closed out my interest in the abortive sorrows and short-winded elations
of men.'(pg. 7). Gatsby's life, which had much suffering, had served the purpose of helping Nick to
learn more about life and about people. Jesus had been the son of a merciful God, sent into a spiritual
society composed of extremely pious citizens. It had been Jesus' task to show God's people how to
better live their lives, and to be ready for Judgement Day. Gatsby had been the son of a meretricious
God, sent into a meretricious society whose social echelon was dominated by the upper class, who
could destroy or control anything they wanted without consequence (as demonstrated by Tom and
Daisy.) '[Gatsby] was a son of God- a phrase, which, if it means anything, means just that- and he must
be about His Father's Business, the service of a vast, vulgar and meretricious beauty.'(p.104) The
parallel thus existed not only between Jesus and Gatsby, but also between a spiritual society and a
meretricious society. Gatsby left a lasting impression on the world behind him. After his death, his
presence lingered over everyone, as did the death of Jesus. 'As the moon rose higher the inessential
houses began to melt away until gradually I became aware of the old island here that flowered once for
Dutch sailor's eyes- a fresh, green breast of the new world.'(pg. 189). This image of Long Island, with
its beach, water, and green color, expresses hope- this is a land that can become anything- one of the
core philosophies of the American Dream. By exposing the pure American Dream beneath the
modernized Long Island, Fitzgerald suggests that the American Dream has not only been neglected
and unachieved, but that irrevocable corruption had set in. Living under the red, white and blue is thus
meretricious, as the American Dream is now a false attraction. Gatsby's life after death was seen
through the moonlight- the haze had disappeared- we now see that beneath the superficial world in
which we live there is a purity to be found. Beneath the riches and material objects there is an
intangible yet concrete basis on which we build our society. Though our society has lost its morality
and lost its cause to dream, as demonstrated in The Great Gatsby, ultimately there is a truth which we
can find- but we will always lose the truth no matter how hard we try- since we are merely men. The
Great Gatsby found his truth after five years, and lost it' but in effect The Great Gatsby's moonlight
removed the falsities which concealed the universal truth we all seek.

Into The Wild

In Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild, Chris McCandless is portrayed as a reckless and foolish person who
perishes out of arrogance, stupidity and self-centeredness. He knows what he would encounter out in
the wild, but he doesn't prepare for it and it costs him his life.
Chris McCandless is an adventurous and reckless person. Chris loves the outdoors. After graduating
from college, Chris buys himself a car and travels west in search of a new life. "...he intended to invent
an utterly new life, one in which he would be free to wallow in unfiltered experience." (pg. 22-23)
During the time Chris is out west, he makes some reckless decisions such as when he is traveling alone
in the desert and he almost dies of dehydration. Chris also almost dies when he paddles his canoe
through gale force winds and whitecaps and he breaks his oar because he beats the canoe with it
(luckily he has a spare). "He screams and beats canoe with oar. The oar breaks. Alex has one spare oar.
He calms himself. If loses second oar is dead."(pg. 36) Chris could have been killed not only by
capsizing, but also by breaking his oar. Chris' recklessness in Alaska is one of the contributing factors
of his death. He knows what the conditions of his escapade are but he doesn't prepare for it. "Alex
admitted that the only food in his pack was a ten-pound bag of rice. His gear seemed exceedingly
minimal for the harsh conditions of the interior, which in April still lay buried under the winter snow
pack. Alex's cheap leather hiking boots were neither waterproof nor well insulated. His rifle was only .
22 caliber, a bore too small to rely on if he expected to kill large animals like moose and caribou,
which he would have to eat if he hoped to remain very long in the country. He had no ax, no bug dope,
no snowshoes, and no compass. The only navigational aid in his possession was a tattered state road
map he'd scrounged at a gas station." (pg. 5)
Chris McCandless' arrogance is another contributing factor of his death. Chris shows his arrogance to
anyone who tries to offer advice and/or supplies to him. "Gallien offered to drive Alex all the way to
Anchorage, buy him some decent gear, and then drive him back to wherever he wanted to go." "No,
thanks anyway, I'll be fine with what I've got." (pg.6) Ronald Franz tries to "Convince him to get an
education and a job and make something of his life." (pg. 51) Chris doesn't want any advice on how to
make his life better and replies, "Look Mr. Franz. You don't need to worry about me. I have a college
education. I'm not destitute. I'm living like this by choice." (pg. 51) Chris' arrogance also shows to
Wayne Westerberg. Wayne offers to buy Chris a plane ticket to Fairbanks so Chris can stay and work
for another 10 days. Chris rejects the offer, saying, "No, I want to hitch north. Flying would be
cheating. It would wreck the whole trip." (pg. 67) Because of Chris' arrogance he walked into the wild
ill-supported and he paid the ultimate price.
Chris' self-centeredness is his hubris or fatal flaw. He keeps all the people he meets at arms length.
Chris is able to make many friends during his escapade. Wayne Westerberg gives Chris a job and
lodgings, Jan and Bob Burres give Chris a place to stay, as does Ronald Franz. Chris had a bad
relationship with his family except for his sister Carine. "Since they won't ever take me seriously, for a
few months after graduation I'm going to let them think they are right, I'm going to let them think the
I'm "coming around to see their side of things" and that our relationship is stabilizing. And then, once
the time is right, with one abrupt, swift action I'm going to completely knock them out of my life. I'm
going to divorce them as my parents once and for all and never speak to either of those idiots again as
long as I live. I'll be through with them once and for all, forever." (pg. 64) Chris disliked his parents so
much that when he goes away for the last time, he tells no one where he is going. Chris cares only
about himself, not about the feelings of others. Chris' self-centeredness is another contributing factor
to his death.

Three things contributed to Chris' death, his arrogance, recklessness and self-centeredness. His hatred
and non-caring of his parents and family, the way he put down advice and supplies from others who
try to help him and the way he goes into the wild unprepared are part of his hubris. Hubris will
eventually lead to a tragic downfall. Just as in Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, Brutus and the
other conspirators, along with Julius Caesar, himself, have their tragic downfalls; Chris succumbs to
the same end.
The Great Gatsby - Writing Techniques
Foreshadowing and Flashback: Two Writing Techniques Repeatedly Used in The Great Gatsby In one
of the greatest works of the Twentieth Century, "The Great Gatsby" by F. Scott Fitzgerald, there are
many writing techniques used throughout the novel. However, the two literary devices that occur in
just about every chapter in the novel are: foreshadowing, and/or flashback. Immediately in chapter
one, upon his arrival in West Egg, Nick Carroway makes the distinction between Gatsby, whom he
loves because of his dream, and the other characters, who constitute the "foul dust" that "floated in the
wake of his dreams." Nick's instantaneous scorn for these "Eastern" types for shadows all the way to
the very end of the novel. At the end the novel, after all the commotion has been caused by these
Easterners, Nick refuses to deal with them any longer. He leaves the East, returns to the Midwest, and,
for the time being at least, withdraws from his involvement with other people. "Suppose you met
somebody just as careless as yourself." "I hope I never will," she [Jordan] answered. "I hate careless
people. That's why I like you." (pg. 63) Jordan is explaining to Nick how she is able to drive badly as
long as everyone else drives carefully. This quotation represents the writing technique of
foreshadowing, which is being used in one of its finest form. Fitzgerald is foreshadowing to chapter
seven where Daisy kills Myrtle Wilson because of her reckless driving. Fitzgerald uses foreshadowing
to strengthen the plot of his book. In The Great Gatsby, the structure of the novel is influenced by
foreshadowing and flashback. Fitzgerald utilizes foreshadowing to the best of its ability to help
organize the novel. "Luckily the clock took this moment to tilt dangerously at the pressure of his head,
whereupon he turned and caught it with trembling fingers and set it back in place. 'I'm sorry about the
clock,' he said. 'It's an old clock,' I told him idiotically." (pg. 92) This quotation is the first use of
foreshadowing that is in chapter five. It pertains to all the trouble Gatsby causes as he tries to win
Daisy back. The past is represented by the clock and how Gatsby wants to repeat it with Daisy. This
quotation foreshadows to the end of the novel when Nick is left to tell the story of the dreamer whose
dreams were corrupted. 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 clea!
n up the mess they had made. In chapter six, Fitzgerald focuses on the first moment of disillusionment
which Gatsby has. "Can't repeat the past?" he cried incredulously. "Why of course you can!" (pg. 116)
This quotation is clearly foreshadowing almost the entire book. It foreshadows Gatsby's attempts to
woe Daisy for Tom and tries to make things the way they were before he left for the army. It also
alludes to the fact that he must be rich and powerful to do that. Overall, it shows that he destroys
himself trying to get Daisy back from Tom Buchanan. In the beginning of chapter seven Fitzgerald
foreshadows the death of Gatsby. "I couldn't sleep all night; a fog-horn was groaning incessantly on
the Sound, and I tossed half sick between grotesque reality and savage frightening dreams. I heard a
taxi go up Gatsby's drive and immediately I jumped out of bed and began too dress- I felt that I had
something to tell him, something to warn him about and morning would be too late." (pg.154) This
quotation definitely foreshadows the death of Gatsby. Fitzgerald also foreshadows Wilson's
involvement when his wife died. "He murdered her." "It was an accident, George." Wilson shook his

head. His eyes narrowed and his mouth widened slightly with the ghost of superior 'Hm!' "(pg. 166)
This quote clearly tells the readers that George is not going to let the person who he thinks killed his
wife get away with it. Foreshadowing is sparingly displayed though out the novel and especially in the
last chapters. Flashback is used quite often in The Great Gatsby. Jordan begins to remember when she
met Gatsby with Daisy for the first time and how they were in love. "One October day in nineteenseventeen.....The largest of the banners and the largest of the lawns belonged to Daisy Fay's house. She
was just eighteen...His name was Jay Gatsby and I didn't lay eyes on him again for over four years."
(pg. 80) As the reader can clearly see, Jordan begins to narrate about the first and last time that she saw
Gatsby with Daisy that was four years ago. In chapter eight, Nick flashes back to the night of Myrtle's
death and begins to tell the story of what went on after her death. "Now I want to go back a little and
tell what happened at the garage after we left there the night before." (pg. 163) Nick tells the reader
about how Wilson thought he had figured out who had killed his wife. Nick follows step by step as he
walks all the way to Tom Buchanan's. Nick then describes Wilson killing Gatsby in the pool and then
Wilson killing himself. In chapter nine, another flashback is told by Nick. Nick recalls the night of
Gatsby's death, and the next day, when all the policemen were at Gatsby's house. "After two years I
remember the rest of that day, and that night and the next day, only as an endless drill of police and
photographers and newspaper men in and out of Gatsby's front door." (pg.171) Nick then continues
into another flashback where he is trying to get people to come to Gatsby's funeral. During this
flashback Ni! ck finally meets Gatsby's father, Mr. Gatz, who came to his son's funeral. "Next morning
I sent the butler to New York with a letter to Wolfshiem which asked for information and urged him to
come out on the next train. [for Gatsby's funeral]...When the butler brought back Wolfshiem's answer I
began to have a feeling of defiance.....The third day that a telegram signed Henry C. Gatz arrived from
a town in Minnesota...It was Gatsby's father." (pg. 175) In the last sentence of the novel the reader
realizes the story is being told as seen through the eyes of a Dutch sailor which transports the reader
into the past. "Boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." (pg. 189) In chapter
nine, Nick begins to recall the past and relive his old memories. His must relieve his lingering thoughts
of the past. During the chapter, Nick uses a flashback to tell about Gatsby's funeral for the readers to
know what happen the day Gatsby was shot. Flashback in The Great Gatsby also helps to give the
reader background information about the characters. As one can see, the book came to life through the
use of flashback and foreshadowing. These two main ingredients in this novel made it possible for the
reader to be able to understand Gatsby the way Fitzgerald does. It also helps one to understand
Gatsby's relentless pursuit his dream. These two elements of the novel were weaved into a classic
novel that was and is read and adored by millions of readers and students
The Great Gatsby and the Fall of the American Dream
The book 'The Great Gatsby' by F. Scott Fitzgerald was an 'icon of its time.' The book discusses topics
that were important, controversial and interesting back in 1920's America. The novel is 'an exploration
of the American Dream as it exists in a corrupt period of history.' The main themes in the book are the
decay of morals and values and the frustration of a 'modern' society. The Great Gatsby describes the
decay of the American Dream and the want for money and materialism. This novel also describes the
gap between the rich and the poor (Gatsby and the Wilsons, West Egg and the Valley of the Ashes) by
comparing the differences between the Western United States (traditional western culture) and the
Eastern United States (money obsessed values). On a smaller scale this could be seen as the difference
between the West Egg (the 'new, money) and the East egg (the 'old' money). The 1920's were a time of
corruption and the degradation of moral values for the United States and many other countries. World

War One had just ended and people were reveling in the materialism that came with the end of it, new
mass produced commodities such as motor cars and radios were filling people's driveways and houses,
money was more accessible (before the Great Depression). Cars were becoming a social symbol in the
1920s as we can see with Gatsby's five cars, one of which he gives to Nick and one of which kills
Myrtle Wilson later on in the novel. Herbert Hoover (an American President) said in 1925 "We will
root out poverty and put two cars in every garage." The parties that Gatsby held every week in the
summer were a symbol of the carelessness of the time. Gatsby would hide in the house while the
'guests', most of whom were not even invited, would party, eat and drink until the early hours of the
morning without even meeting the guest or even knowing who he was. People would turn up just to be
seen or reported in the local newspapers "In his blue garden people came and went like moths among
the whisperings and the champagne." This shows the carelessness of the guests. Another quote about
the parties refers to the way the guests devour the endless supply of food and never give a thought as
to who gave it to them. "Every Friday five crates of oranges and Lemons arrived from a fruiterer In
New York- Every Monday these same oranges and lemons left his backdoor in a pyramid of pulpless
halves." This is also a symbol; it relates the 'pulpless halves' to the rather 'empty' guests, soulless
people obsessed by image and wealth, a corruption of the American Dream. Another sign of the fall of
the American Dream in The Great Gatsby is the way Gatsby makes his money. Gatsby gets his fortune
through the illegal sale of alcohol ('bootlegging'). The sale of alcohol was prohibited in the United
States in the 1920s. Gatsby came from the western United States where there was 'old money.' There
he met Dan Cody who taught him how to 'bootleg.' As Gatsby became richer he moved to West Egg in
New York. Gatsby's house is a rather artificial place, the house was originally built to impress Daisy
with his so-called wealth, and this is a sign of a corrupt way of 'winning' love through money and
wealth. Gatsby's house is furnished well with old looking ornaments and (probably) second hand
antiques, Gatsby's house also has a library which is full of 'uncut' literature. The conversation between
Jordan and an unnamed man at one of Gatsby's parties talks about the books: "Absolutely real - have
real pages and everything. I'd thought they'd be a nice durable cardboard." These books and antiques
are just Gatsby's way of showing off his wealth to others, however Gatsby doesn't really care for
materialism, we can tell this because his bedroom, the only room he really ever uses, is empty
compared to the rest of the house. Gatsby's love life is also a sign of declining morals, and also a sign
of further corruption of the American Dream. Daisy has an affair with Gatsby; Gatsby then gets
concerned that Daisy does not tell Tom about her affair with him in chapter six. Eventually Daisy tells
Tom about her affair with Jay Gatsby. The climax of the story comes when Gatsby tells Tom that
Daisy never loved him. The fall of the American Dream and corruption is also evident in the position
and treatment of children in the story, Daisy and Tom's daughter, Pammy, is treated as an object to
show off rather than a child to love. "The child, relinquished by the nurse, rushed across the room and
rooted shyly into her mother's dress." The child does not know her mother very well and is still very
shy to go near her. Gatsby had never really known of the existence of Daisy's child, as Daisy was
probably afraid to tell him about her. "Afterward he kept looking at the child in surprise. I don't think
he had ever really believed it it's existence before." The word it instead of her also denotes the child's
position as nil. Daisy uses the child as a show item: "I got dressed before luncheon" said the child,
turning eagerly towards Daisy. "That's because your mother wanted to show you off" replies Daisy.
When the child speaks to Daisy, Daisy never answers or replies to her. Daisy always changes the
subject as if she doesn't even notice the child is there. For example, when the girl comments Jordan's
dress, Daisy ignores her and asks her what she thinks about her friends: "Aunt Jordan's got on a white
dress too" (said the child). "How do you like mother's friends?" (Replies Daisy). Also: "Where's
daddy?" (Said the child) "She doesn't look like her father" explained Daisy. 'Daddy' (Tom) is also

never around, he was not there when his child was born. Daisy thinks that Tom is 'brutish' and she has
never really liked him. The Great Gatsby is a great portrayal of the corruption of society and the fall of
the American Dream. The Great Gatsby shows us the way people will fall into the hands of money,
greed and power and get involved in illegal activities to get where they want and what they want. This
book is a perfect example of the fall of the American Dream in the 1920s.
Bibliography: The Great Gatsby - F. Scott Fitzgerald (The school's Penguin edition) Scott Fitzgerald's
Criticism of America - Marcus Bailey Fitzgerald and The Great Gatsby
The Great Gatsby - About Nick Carraway
Despite the title, Nick Carraway is the first character we meet, and appropriately his role in The Great
Gatsby is crucial; without him the story would lack balance and insight. The first chapter is primarily
dedicated to establishing his personality and position in the book, then moving on to Tom and Daisy.
Nick is our guide in The Great Gatsby; he relates the story as he has seen it and from what others have
told him. He strives at all times to be objective and to make balanced comments just as he said in the
beginning of the book, 'I'm inclined to reserve all judgements.' The role of Nick Carraway is so
important to the book that the character of Jay Gatsby could not exist. His objectivity is reinforced
throughout to us by his scorn of Gatsby which becomes known to the reader when he says he,
'represented everything for which I have unaffected scorn.' He registers contempt for much of what
Gatsby stands for; the falseness, the criminality, but he still likes him. His ability to laugh at Gatsby
and his false beliefs shows he's neither charmed not wholly disgusted by Gatsby. Nick's amusingly
contemptuous remarks show his sense of humor, and although he is straight-laced, he does not bore the
reader. Fitzgerald tells the audience of his age, thirty, which makes the them take his opinions
seriously, as he is not some immature man. Nick is introduced directly, but Gatsby remains a distant
and unknown character for a good while. The establishment of Nick's reflective, tolerant personality is
essential, as are his limitations, so we just don't dismiss him as a character speaking the words and
feelings of the author. The fact that he disapproves of Gatsby so early on helps us to go along with his
judgements when he tells us of Gatsby and unfolds the story. Nick is unlike the other characters of the
book; he is not one of the 'careless people.' He has a conscience, he is not selfish, and he has decency
that is well demonstrated in his efforts for Gatsby's funeral. His down to earth character shows how
superficial Daisy and Tom are. Daisy and Tom are ruthlessly practical, where Gatsby's just a dreamer.
Nick guides us between these two extremes, an indifferent observer while being involved in the action.
This is evident when Nick said, 'I was within and without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled by!
the inexhaustible variety of life.' Nick's aim to be truthful and objective makes the reader trust him.
When he says that Gatsby has a 'rare smile with a quality of eternal reassurance in it,' we know Nick
isn't being charmed by his riches or parties; but is telling it to us straight. His contempt for much of
what Gatsby says, but also Nick's tolerance, is emphasized when Nick doesn't mock him. The reader
has no choice but to become acquainted with Nick. The other characters lack the dimension for us to
trust them, which is what Fitzgerald is trying to demonstrate. Seeing Gatsby through Nick's eyes
makes the reader sympathize with him and his unattainable life long dream. Without Nick we would
perceive Gatsby as a corrupt mad man trying to disrupt an old girlfriend's life. This would not be the
whole truth and not what Fitzgerald would want us to see. While Gatsby and what he stands for is
clearly the focus of the book, there is an argument for saying that Nick is the main character. Gatsby
doesn't speak till the third chapter and he dies after three-quarters of the book. Nick is the more in
depth character and since practically every part of the story is related to us with his thoughts and his
perceptions, it is hard for him not to be. He is the character the reader leaves the story feeling they

understand and whose actions and judgements they support, unlike Gatsby. He is the narrator but his
involvement in the events, no matter how much he tries to stay objective, make a difference. Fitzgerald
sets up Nick Carraway's role as a character in his own right, not just Fitzgerald's mouthpiece.
Signifigance of Bad Drivers in The Great Gatsby
The 1920's was an age of extravagancy. The automobile brought great things for the wealthy. They
would ornate their cars with gold plated mirrors and expensive furs for the women to place on their
laps while they rode. While there was no drivers test anyone who could afford an automobile could
drive one. In The Great Gatsby, a novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, the automobile, a symbol of wealth,
serves as an instrument of death and destruction. Many of the characters in The Great Gatsby are
horrible drivers literally and figuratively. Jordan Baker decides being a careless driver is necessary as
long as the other drivers are cautious. Tom and Daisy Buchanan where described as being careless
people, "...the smashed up things and creatures and then they retreated back to 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..." This was an accurate description of the way most wealthy acted in the 1920's as well
as most characters in the novel. Jordan Baker, Nick Carraway, and Jay Gatsby were primary examples
of the carelessness literally and metaphorically speaking in the novel. Jordan shows the carelessness of
the wealthy in the 1920's through her careless actions, Nick shows the theme of bad drivers in the
novel through his inability to hinder, and Gatsby shows the theme of bad drivers in the novel through
his impossible dream.
The wealthy in the 1920's were constantly neglectful of the way they behaved and when they realized
they realized they were wrong they would retreat back to their money. They believed that what they
did could never be wrong. They thought of themselves to be superior. Gatsby perceived Jordan to be
an honest person but Nick notices she cheats and lies to make things better for herself. He reads in a
newspaper article that she had moved her ball from a bad lie in the semifinal round of a golf
tournament. He describes her as "... incurably dishonest. She wasn't able to endure being at a
disadvantage..." Jordan has a discussion with Nick on the topic of bad drivers and it is then she tells
him her thoughts on her actions. She says she can be careless and worry free as long as everyone else
will be there to clean up after her.
Nick Carraway is not the best driver, figuratively speaking, himself. Nick is an example who makes
bad choices in life. Nick witnesses first hand the affair between Tom and Myrtle. He first knows when
he visits Tom and Daisy's home and meets Jordan. Jordan is who tells him that Tom is on the phone
with his mistress, Myrtle, when he leaves the room to take a call. He rides along with Tom into
downtown New York and meets Wilson, Myrtle's husband. He's present at the hotel where Tom takes
Myrtle and meets Catherine, Myrtle's sister and Mr. McKee. He knows that Tom takes Myrtle here
often and they lie to their spouses of their destination. Nick does not inform Daisy or Wilson of this
affair or correct Tom when he speaks of morals and honesty in family. Nick also acts as a link between
the affair of Daisy and Gatsby. When Jordan tells him Gatsby wishes him to ask Daisy for tea at his
house so they may see each other again he invites them both over knowing Gatsby is infatuated with
Daisy and Daisy is not happy with her marriage with Tom. Nick is present at the argument at the Plaza
Hotel in New York when Daisy and Gatsby tell Nick that they too are having an affair. He does not
speak up when Tom and Daisy argue over morals, when he knows Tom is in an affair. Nick makes
choices in this novel that could have prevented the death of Myrtle and Gatsby.
Gatsby is also another example of a life driver who makes bad choices. Gatsby's life long dream is to
acquire wealth and power in order to acquire happiness. He devotes most of his life trying to recapture

the past and dies in its pursuit. His tragic flaw is inability to read people. He assumes that Jordan is an
honest person and believes Daisy is still in love with him. At the Plaza Hotel Gatsby still believes that
Daisy loves him. He is convinced of this as is shown when he takes the blame for Myrtle's death. "Was
Daisy driving?" "Yes...but of course I'll say I was." He also watches and protects Daisy as she returns
home. Gatsby cannot accept that the past is gone and done with. For Gatsby, his American Dream is
not material possessions, although it may seem that way. He only comes into riches so that he can
fulfill his true American Dream, Daisy. However, he never gets to fully fulfill his dream and ends up
paying the ultimate price for it.
As the 1920's was full of flamboyancy The Great Gatsby was full of bad drivers. The wealthy were the
most careless and in The Great Gatsby the wealthy were so careless people died. Jordan Baker
believed she could do whatever she wanted, cheat or lie, as long as someone else was there to clean up
after her mess. Nick Carraway stood by and watched the corruption in his group of acquaintances.
Gatsby spent his whole life trying to reach an unattainable dream. All 3 characters can be described as
bad drivers who lead to the tragic end of this novel.
The Great Gatsby - The Death of the American Dream
The American Dream is dead. This is the main theme in F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel The Great Gatsby.
In the novel Fitzgerald gives us a glimpse into the life of the high class during the roaring twenties
through the eyes of a moralistic young man named Nick Carraway. It is through the narrator's dealings
with high society that readers are shown how modern values have transformed the American Dream's
pure ideals into a scheme for materialistic power and further, how the world of high society lacks any
sense of morals or consequence. In order to support this message, Fitzgerald presents the original
aspects of the American Dream along with its modern face to show that the once impervious dream is
now lost forever to the American people.
The main qualities of the American Dream presented in The Great Gatsby are perseverance and hope.
Another famous characteristic of the American dream is the idea of success against all odds. This is
shown through the life of James Gatz, who focused all his attention to living the dream and becoming
an American hero. Ever since he was young, Gatz worked hard on becoming a great man. This is
documented in Gatz's copy of the adventures of Hopalong Cassidy, who was another romantic
American figure. While showing this journal to Nick, Mr. Gatz professed, "Jimmy was bound to get
ahead. He always had some resolves like this or something. Do you notice what he's got about
improving his mind? He was always great for that." (Pg. 175) James Gatz connection to the American
dream is further illustrated by the fact that his program for self-improvement is right out of Ben
Franklin's Autobiography, right down to the smallest details. The content of the schedule and what it
was written on sho! ws two more of the qualities that are part of being an American hero: hardworking ambition and a thirst for adventure.
The product of all of James Gatz's hard work is the longing Jay Gatsby, who epitomizes one of the
main characteristics of the American dream: everlasting hope. Gatsby desire to win Daisy's love is his
version of the old American dream: an incredible goal and a constant search for the opportunity to
reach this goal. This is shown when Gatsby is first introduced into the novel. It is late at night and we
find him "with his hands in his pockets out to determine what share was his of our local heavens."
While Nick continues to watch Gatsby's movements he says: "-he [Gatsby] stretched out his arms
toward the dark water in a curious way, and, far as I was from him I could have sworn he was
trembling. Involuntarily I glanced seaward-and distinguished nothing except a single green light,
minute and far away, that might have been the end of a dock" (Pg. 21-22) The green light that Gatsby

reaches out for symbolizes his longing; his longing for Daisy, for money, for acceptance and no matter
how much he has he never feels complete. This green light is part of the American Dream. It
symbolizes our constant searching for a way to reach that goal just of in the distance, as Nick
described it, "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before
us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter-tomorrow we will run faster, stretch our arms farther. And
one fine morning-" (Pg. 182) Gatsby's goal gave him a purpose in life, which sets him apart from the
rest of the upper class. He is constantly chasing his dream of being with Daisy, from the moment he
stretches toward her house to his finial days of life when he patiently waits for hours outside her house
even though she has already abandoned her affair with him. Gatsby is a man who has all of the purest
traits of the old American hero, hope, perseverance, hard working ambition, and a thirst for adventure,
but he loses them by wearing the dream's modern face.
F. Scott Fitzgerald credits the destruction of the American Dream to wealth, privilege, and the lack of
humanity that those aspects create. Money is clearly identified as the main culprit in the dream's death.
It becomes easily entangled with hope and success and replacing their positions in the American
Dream with materialism. This is shown through Gatsby's use of illegal practices and underground
connections to make money. His lavish parties, huge mansion, and giant collection of clothing all
represent his corruption. His use of status and privilege is demonstrated when his traffic violation is
ignored by the police officer. But the worst qualities of the dream's modern face are evident in Tom
and Daisy Buchanan, who live without any hopes or regrets because the foundation of their character
is money and wealth. Nick describes the Buchanan's as such: "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) An example of the Buchanan's carelessness and lack of regret comes when
Nicks runs into Tom one last time. When confronted with Gatsby's death Tom merely responds "I told
him the truthWhat If I did tell him? That fellow had it coming to him" (Pg. 187) Even though Tom
admits to the fact that he is responsible for Gatsby's murder and Wilson's suicide, he continues to claim
innocence because he has never known guilt or shame as a member of the established elite. This upper
class is shown to be made-up of heartless citizens who have achieved success at the cost of
dehumanization and the selling of their souls.
There is a sense of hopelessness at the end of the novel to prove that the purity of the American dream
is dead with Daisy's baby, Gatsby's death, and Wilson's suicide all examples. The first hint of tragedy
begins at the introduction of the Buchanan's daughter. When the girl is brought into the salon Nick
observes an obvious disturbance in Gatsby's attitude and thinking, "Gatsby and I in turn leaned down
and took the small reluctant hand. Afterward he kept looking at the child with surprise. I don't think he
had ever really believed in its existence before." (Pg. 117) Daisy then calls her child an "absolute little
dream", crushing all of Gatsby's hopes of recreating the past. Then the replacement of the American
dream with materialism is pointed out moments later when Nick and Gatsby try to discern the charm
in Daisy's voice. At that moment Gatsby says, "Her voice is full of money", and Nicks reaches a
revelation about society: "That was it. I'd never understood it before. It was full of money-that was the
inexhaustible charm that rose and fell in it, the jingle of it, the cymbals' song of it. High in a white
palace the golden girl." (Pg. 120) With this revelation all of Daisy's charm and beauty is stripped
away and only money is left to be admired. Gatsby then realizes that his dream he has been pursing is
not that of love but of money hidden behind a human face. Afterwards, When Gatsby dies, any chance
of the old American Dream of surviving in the dehumanized modern world id destroyed with him. All
of the hopes and dreams that strengthened and uplifted Gatsby are shattered as he lies in his pool,
dazed and confused about the world he is living in and about to leave. 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 death of the old American Dream. The dream is now completely lost and can never be
restored. Through the tragic story of Jay Gatsby and his failed attempt to reach his dream, F. Scott
Fitzgerald also describes the tragic death 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. Nick Carraway conveys this message as an outsider, an
honest man from the mid-west who witnessed the whole affair as an observer. The Great Gatsby is not
about the life and death of James Gatz, but about what James Gatz stood for. It is about the life and
death of the old American Dream.
Pygmalion
Writing about what happens to Eliza at the end of the play, Shaw commented "people in all directions
have assumed for no other reason than that became the heroine of a romantic, that she must have
married the hero of it". Do you agree from your consideration of Higgins's and Eliza with his words
the true sequel is patent to anyone with a sense of humour in general and of feminine instinct in
particular?
George Bernard's Shaws comedy `Pygmalion` presents the unlikely journey of an impoverished flower
girl into London's society in the early twentieth century.
The two main characters in the play are Henry Higgins, master of phonetician and Eliza Doolittle, a
common flower girl.
Some say Shaw created a mouthpiece of his own ideas and the character of Eliza is the personification
of these views.
Bernard Shaw played two main roles in society before the publication of Pygmalion. Two of these may
be link to his creation of Eliza and Higgins. Firstly his active role as a supporter of women's right,
secondly his campaign for the simplification of spelling and the reform of the English alphabet. The
two characters both represent his love for social action.
Higgins characters is not only extravagant but also comic. His passionate fondness for sweets and
chocolates stands out in contrast to his seriousness and austere mode of living. He is constantly
forgetting appointments, stumbling and tripping over something (Act 3 p58) "He goes to the divan,
stumbling into the fender and over the fire ions on his way, extricating himself with muttered
impatiently on the divan that he almost breaks it". These lines and oddities of his character contribute
to the laughs in the play and place Higgins in the tradition of the comic hero.
Eliza on the other hand comes across as quite naive, simple and sometimes quite ignorant. Her
behavior is the result of a poor upbringing and lack of education. Eliza has a strong moral within her
self and is also very ambitious. She proves this well to Higgins with her quick learning skills.
Towards the end of the play Eliza instinctually knows that higgins did not of the making of a married
man (mainly due to his idealization of his mother), although Shaw stands by his opinion that Eliza
would not marry him even if there were no mother-rivals, that she would still refuse the marriage.
The play ends with an uncertainty to the plot, whether or not Eliza will marry Higgins, however this is
cleared by the epilogue in which he states reasons against such a commitment. Instead Eliza marries
Freddy Eynsford Hill. Some may predict she was driven away from Higgins, with his abrupt sense of
being, using sentences involving Eliza while in conversation with Colonel pickering, "Thank god its
all over" says Higgins without realising the hurt he is causing her with the miserable silences.

At the end of the Shaw quotes "people in all directions have assumed for no other reason than that she
became the heroine of romance, that she must have married the hero of it". One can only form the
conclusion that the ending to the play is suitable if only from learning of Shaw's own opinions and
attitudes to feminist ideologies. This is because if it were to end in the obvious way (whereby Eliza
would marry Higgins) Shaw would be failing his own play as someone with knowledge of women's
attitudes would know that a person like Eliza would never marry Higgins.
If Shaw were to take into consideration the audience expectation he would have ended with Eliza
marrying Higgins. The play is essentially a comedy so therefore one could argue that as an
experienced play write he should have ended it in a way that conforms to the comedy genre, so
therefore the audience can be forgiven for expecting what is an obvious ending.
The ending of Pygmalion is serious and in some ways realistic, not at all in keeping with the light
hearted and cheerful generic conventions of a comedy. Therefore the audience cannot help but feel
somewhat let down that their need for the fairy tale ending (the typical consummation of the hero and
heroine) goes unfulfilled. This was distinctive of Shaw (who was a lover of paradox) to have provided
such an anti-romantic conclusion to the play. His own need to write a realistic and informed ending
was more important.
It is not entirely true to someone with feminine instinct that Eliza would marry Higgins. She is in a
situation whereby there is opportunity to choose a suitable spouse rather than being pressured into
marrying somebody who clearly would not fulfill her and meet emotional needs as a husband should.
A person with a feminine instinct would realise this is a far more acceptable conclusion to the play.
George Orwell - 1984
There is a reoccurring theme in the novel 1984, by George Orwell. The main character, Winston Smith
is often fantasizing about his utopia, and dreaming about past events. In a world where everyone is
controlled and everything is decided for you, Winston relies on his subconscious mind to maintain his
sanity.
Winston works rewriting the past in a department for the Party. His memories of the past are usually
the opposite of the Party's version of the past. Winston is very confused about whether or not he is
losing his mind. His dreams reveal the reality of the Party and the truth of the past, enabling him to
trust his own instinct of what is right and wrong, keeping it clear in his mind what the past was really
like. In one dream Winston envisioned his mother and his baby sister sinking into a well or lowering
off the side of a ship - he wasn't quite sure. He felt as if they were being sucked towards death. He
knew they were sacrificing their lives for his own. Winston realizes "...that his mothers death, nearly
30 years ago, had been tragic and sorrowful in a way that was no longer possible" (Orwell 28). He
believed that the feelings of tragedy, privacy, love, and friendship were things of past times. The
memory of his mother's death saddened him because he knew that she had died loving him, all the
while he was too young and selfish to love her back. The loyalty his mother had for him does not exist
in 1984. There is only fear and hatred and pain.
Winston had another dream of the disappearance of his mother. He remembered a time of chaos and
depression when he was about 10 or 12 years old. His father had disappeared sometime earlier. Food
was scarce but his mother did what she could to comfort her children. Winston was always hungry, and
that drove him to steal bits of food from his sister's plate. "He knew he was starving the other two, but
he couldn't help it; he even felt he had a right to do it" (134). A chocolate ration had been issued and
the family had a two ounce piece for the three of them. Winston, of course, demanded the whole piece.
His mother responded by telling him not to be greedy. She gave him the majority of the piece and the

rest to his little sister, but he stole it from her. She started to cry while Winston ran away with the
chocolate. His mother held his baby sister in her arms, trying to console her. It did not produce more
chocolate, but it was only natural for her to do it. His mother was an unusual woman, yet intelligent,
noble and pure, "her feelings were her own, and could not be altered from the outside" (136). He
realized that in those times if you loved someone, you loved them from the bottom of your heart, no
matter what. If you had nothing else to give, you gave love. Contrasting this with today, Winston
recognized that the Party persuades you to think that impulses and feelings are unimportant, ultimately
robbing you of your power. Whatever happens really makes no difference, in the end you are vanished.
What mattered then were individual relationships, nowadays people had become hard on the inside.
Emotions are the only weapon against the Party, they cannot stop you from loving someone, because it
isn't something you can control. After he had eaten the chocolate he felt ashamed, but that lifted when
hunger stroke again. His mother had disappeared by the time he had returned.
While Winston was sitting in his cell at the ministry of love, a memory floated into his mind. He
remembered playing a board game with his mother, while his sister watched. She had gone out to buy
the game of Snakes & Ladders because Winston had been whining of boredom. It was a cracked
board, and poorly made. Winston was very disappointed with it, but he became intrigued when his
mother started to play. "For a whole afternoon they had been happy together, as in his earlier
childhood". "His affection for her had temporarily revived"(243). Winston suddenly pushed this
thought out of his mind as if it were a false memory. At this stage of Winston's life he no longer
believed that this was the reality of the past, he thought it was a false memory. He could no longer
distinguish between fact and fiction; he now believed the only love that existed was that for Big
Brother. He did not want to admit that his memories of the past were the truth. This is the turning point
for him, where he no longer uses his memories to guide him.
In the same respect as his dreams, Winston fantasizes to keep his hopes up. He has fantasies about his
utopia the Golden Country. The Golden Country was an old pasture with a path, and a molehole here
and there. There were elm trees that swayed faintly in the breeze. Somewhere that couldn't be seen was
a stream with willow tress. Winston dreamt of the golden country so often that he wasn't sure if he had
seen it in real life. He had pictured Julia (at that time she was "the girl with dark hair", before they had
met) coming toward him in the field. She had thrown her clothes aside with a graceful, careless
gesture. This impressed him. Not her nudity, but the way she did it. It was as though Big Brother, the
Party and the Thought Police had been swept aside; you could do what you wanted a notion of ancient
times. It was this possibility that gave Winston something to look forward to.
When Winston and Julia met on their first getaway she took him to the countryside outside of London.
It looked very similar to what he had seen before with a footpath, pasture and elm trees that swayed in
the wind. Winston asked Julia if there was a stream nearby and she confirmed that there was. "It's the
Golden Country - almost", Winston had told her (103). Julia and Winston acted out their desires, like
in his fantasy. Julia was exactly what Winston had wanted. She wasn't pure or perfectly good. He
wanted her love, but also he wanted "the animal instinct, the simple undifferentiated desire: the force
that would tear the Party to pieces". This newfound love for Winston was like a blessing. It was his
weapon against the party, in this lifetime that was definitely something to be grateful for.
Furthermore, Winston had bought a glass paperweight from Mr. Charrington's Antique shop. He found
the inside very intriguing. It had a depth to it, even though it was transparent. He thought of the
outside arch as the sky and the inside as a complete little world. He imagined he was inside, along with
Julia and their apartment. The symbolism of this paperweight indicates that Winston feels protected
from reality of the real world, the Party. The outside glass is his protection. The inside contains his
Golden Country and perfect relationship with Julia, transparent and free of flaws. They have a stronger

emotional bond than the average relationship of those days. This is his escape from the harsh reality.
The dreams and fantasies that Winston has allow him to remain in a positive state of mind; it is
because of this that the Party does not overpower him. Winston and Julia had a conversation about the
lies of the Party. Julia learnt at school that the Party had invented airplanes. Winston argued that
airplanes had been invented long before the days of the Party. Julia, also did not remember that 4 years
prior, Oceania had been at war with Eastasia. She thought they had always been at war with Eurasia.
The fact that Julia did not remember these things "frightened him a little" (127). Julia is clearly not the
only person who doesn't know this factual knowledge evident to Winston. Winston's memory is what
sets him apart from others. The Party has failed in making him believe their lies. He has won, so far,
by remembering the truth and trying to remind others.
Winston and Julia visit O'Brien at his home. They told him that they believed that there was a "...secret
organization working against the Party" and they wanted to join (140). Without hesitation Winston
agrees to: give his life, commit murder, commit acts of sabotage, betray his country, and even throw
sulfuric acid in a child's face. Neither Winston nor Julia agreed to be separated from one another.
Winston is definitely devoted to oppose the Party, and it is evident that he would do whatever it takes.
Although, from his dreams he has realized that his love for Julia is his firearm against the Party and he
finds strength and support in her.
When Winston began to regain his health in the ministry of love he began to dream a great deal. They
were all surpassingly happy dreams. He would dream himself into the Golden Country with his
mother, Julia and even O'Brien. "Such thoughts as he had when he was awake were mostly about his
dreams" (227). Previously he had told O'Brien that he believed that even if he gave up, the spirit of
mankind could overthrow the Party. He had almost completely given into the Party but he had not
betrayed Julia. Winston did not want to give up the possibility that the Party could be destroyed.
Finally, at the end of the story Winston gave into the Party, but willingly. He had made a good effort to
remain an individual but he decided it just wasn't worth the struggle any longer. Winston knows the
truth deep down. We should learn from his example to trust our gut feelings and believe in ourselves.
Winston didn't let anyone change him and neither should we. It is important to find strength in yourself
and in the relationships you have with others.
The Literary Activity of George Orwell
The British author George Orwell, pen name for Eric Blair, achieved prominence in the late 1940's as
the author of two brilliant satires. He wrote documentaries, essays, and criticism during the 1930's and
later established himself as one of the most important and influential voices of the century. Eric Arthur
Blair (later George Orwell) was born in 1903 in the Indian Village Motihari, which lies near to the
border of Nepal. At that time India was a part of the British Empire, and Blair's father Richard, held a
post as an agent in the Opium Department of the Indian Civil Service. Blair's paternal grandfather, too,
had been part of the British Raj, and had served in the Indian Army. Eric's mother, Ida Mabel Blair, the
daughter of a French tradesman, was about eighteen years younger than her husband Richard Blair
was. Eric had an elder sister called Marjorie. The Blairs led a relatively privileged and fairly pleasant
existence, in helping to administer the Empire. Although the Blair family was not very wealthy, Orwell
later described them ironically as "lower-upper-middle class (Gross, p.109)." They owned no property
and had no extensive investments; they were like many middle-class English families of the time,
totally dependent on the British Empire for their livelihoo! d and prospects. Even though the father
continued to work in India until he retired in 1912, in 1907, the family returned to England and lived at
Henley. With some difficulty, Blair's parents sent their son to a private preparatory school in Sussex at

the age of eight. At the age of thirteen, he won a scholarship to Wellington, and soon after another to
Eaton, the famous public school (Gross, p.112). His parents had forced him to work at a dreary
preparatory school, and now after winning the scholarship, he was not any more interested in further
mental exertion unrelated to his private ambition. 'At the beginning of Why/Write, he explains that
from the age of five or six he knew he would be, 'must be,' a writer (Gross, p.115).' But to become a
writer one had to read literature. But English literature was not a major subject at Eaton, where most
boys came from backgrounds either irremediably unliterary or so literary that to teach them English
Literature would be absurd. One of Eric's tutors later declared that his famous pupil had done
absolutely no work for five years. This was, of course, untrue: Eric has apprenticed himself to the
masters of English prose who most appealed to him, including Swift, Sterne and Jack London (Gross,
p.117). However, he has finished the final examinations at Eaton as 138th of 167. He neglected to win
a university scholarship, and in 1922, Eric Blair joined the Indian Imperial Police (Gross, p.118). In
doing so he was already breaking away from the path most of his schoolfellows would take, for Eaton
often led to either Oxford or Cambridge. Instead, he was drawn to a life of travel and action. He
trained in Burma and served for five years in the police force there. 'In 1927,while home on leave, he
resigned. There are at least two reasons for this. First, his life as a policeman was a distraction from the
life he really wanted, which was to be a writer. And second, he had come to feel that, as a policeman in
Burma, he was supporting a political system in which he could no longer believe (Stringer, p.412).'
Even as early as this, his notions about writing and his political ideas were closely linked. It was not
simply that he wished to break away from British Imperialism in India: ! he wished to ' 'escape from ...
every form of man's dominion over man,' as he said in Road to Wigan Pier (1937), and the social
structure out of which he came dependent (Stringer, 413).' Back in London he settled down in a gritty
bedroom in Portobello Road. There, at the age of twenty-four, he started to teach himself how to write.
His neighbors were impressed by his determination. Week after week he remained in his unheated
bedroom, thawing his hands over a candle when they became too numb to write. In spring of 1928 he
turned his back on his own inherited values, by taking a drastic step. For more than one year he went
on living among the poor, first in London then in Paris. For him, the poor were victims of injustice,
playing the same part as the Burmese played in their country. One reason for going to live among the
poor was to over come a repulsion which he saw as typical for his own class. At Paris he lived and
worked in a working class quarter. At the time, he tells us, Paris was full of artists and would-be artists.
There Orwell led a life that was far from bohemian. When he eventually got a job, he worked as a
dishwasher. Once again his journey was d! ownward into the life to which he felt he should expose
himself, the life of poverty-stricken, or of those who barely scraped up a living (Stringer, p.415). When
he came back to London, he again lived for a couple of months among the tramps and poor people. In
December 1929, Eric spent Christmas with his family. At his visit he announced that he's going to
write a book about his time in Paris. The original version of Down and Out, entitled 'A Scullion's
Diary,' was completed in October 1930 and came to only 35,000 words for Orwell had used only a part
of his material. After two rejections from publishers Orwell wrote Burmese Days, published in 1934, a
book based on his experiences in the colonial service. We owe the rescue of Down and Out to Mabel
Firez: she was asked to destroy the script, but save the paper clips. Instead, she took the manuscript
and brought it to Leonard Monroe, literary agent at the house Gollancz, and bullied him to read it.
Soon it was accepted - on condition that all curses were deleted and certain names changed. 'Having
completed this last revision Eric wrote to Victor Gollancz: 'I would prefer the book to! be published
pseudonymously. I have no reputation that is lost by doing this and if the book has any kind of success
I can always use this pseudonym again' (Stringer, p.419).' But Orwell's reasons for taking the name
Orwell are much more complicated than those writers usually have when adopting a pen name. In

effect it meant that Eric Blair would somehow have to shed his old identity and take on a new. This is
exactly what he tried to do: 'he tried to change himself from Eric Blair, old Etonian an English colonial
policeman, into George Orwell, classless antiauthoritarian (Gross, p.131).' Down and Out in Paris and
London, was not a novel; 'it was a kind of documentary account of life about which not many of those
who would read the book at the time would know very much about, and this was the point of it: he
wished to bring the English middle class, of which he was a member, to an understanding of what life
they led and enjoyed, was founded upon, the life under their very noses (Gross, p.144).' Here we see
two typical aspects of Orwell as a writer: his idea of himself as the exposure of painful truth, which
people for various reasons do not wish to look at; and his idea of himself as a representative of the
English moral conscience (Gross, p.148).
His next book was A Clergyman's Daughter (1935) and Keep The Aspidistra Flying (1936). He opened
a village shop in Wellington, Hertfordshire, in 1936, where he did business in the mornings, and wrote
in the afternoons. The same year he married Eileen O 'Shaughnessy. In that year he also received a
commission from the Left Book Club to examine the conditions of the poor and unemployed. This
resulted in The Road to Wilgan Pier. He went on living among the poor about whom he was to write
his book. Once again it was a journey away from the comparative comfort of the middle class life. His
account of mining communities in the north of England in this book is full of detail, and conveys to
the reader what it is like to go down a mine. When the Left Book Club read what he had written about
the English class system and English socialism in The Road to Wigan Pier they were not pleased, and
when the book was published it contained a preface by Victor Gollancz taking issue with many of !
Orwell's main points. The Left Book Club wasn't pleased because in the second half of the book
Orwell criticized the English socialism, because in his eyes it was mostly unrealistic. Another fact
criticized by Orwell was that most of the socialists tended to be members of the Middle class (Stringer,
p.438). 'The kind of socialist Orwell makes fun of is the sort who spouts phrases like 'proletarian
solidarity', and who puts of decent people, the people for whom Orwell wants to write (Stringer,
p.439).' Having completed The Road to Wigan Pier he went to Spain at the end of 1936, with the idea
of writing newspaper articles on the Civil War which had broken out there. The conflict in Spain was
between the communist, socialist Republic, and General Franco's Fascist military rebellion. When
Orwell arrived at Barcelona he was astonished at the atmosphere he found there: what had seemed
impossible in England seemed a fact of daily life in Spain. Class distinction seemed to have vanished.
There was a shortage of everything, but there was equality. Orwell joined in the struggle, by enlisting
in the militia of POUM (Partido Obrero de Unificacin de Marxista), with which the British Labor
Party had an association. For the first time in his life socialism seemed a reality, something for which
was worth fighting for. He was wounded in the throat. Three and a half months later when he returned
to Barcelona, he found it a changed city. No longer a place where the socialist word comrade was!
really felt to mean something, it was a city returning to "normal." Even worse, he was to find that his
group that he was with, the POUM, was now accused of being a Fascist militia, secretly helping
Franco. Orwell had to sleep in the open to avoid showing his papers, and eventually managed to
escape into France with his wife. His account of his time in Spain was published in Homage to
Catalonia (1938). His experiences in Spain left two impressions on Orwell's mind. First, they showed
him that socialism in action was a human possibility, if only a temporary one. He never forgot the
exhilaration of those first days in Barcelona, when a new society seemed possible, where
"comradeship" instead of being just a socialist was reality. Second, the experience of the city returning
to normal, he saw as a gloomy confirmation of the fact that there will always be different classes. He
saw that there is something in the human nature that seeks violence, conflict, and power over others. !
It will be clear that these two impressions, of hope on one hand, and despair on the other are entirely

contradiction. Nevertheless, despite the despair and confusion of his return to Barcelona, street fights
between different groups of socialists broke out again, Orwell left Spain with a hopeful impression
(Stringer, p.441-446). In 1938, Orwell became ill with tuberculosis, and spent the winter in Morocco.
While there he wrote his next book, a novel entitled Coming up for Air published in 1939, the year the
long threatened war between England and Germany broke out. Orwell wanted to fight, as he has done
in Spain, against the fascist enemy, but he was declared unfit. In 1941, he joined the British
Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) as talks producer in the Indian section of the eastern service. He
served in the Home Guard, a wartime civilian body for local defense. In 1943, he left the BBC to
become literary editor of the tribune, and began writing Animal Farm. In 1944, the Orwells adopted a
son, but in 1945 his wife died during an operation. Towards the end of the war Orwell went to Europe
as a reporter (Stringer, p.448-449). Late in 1945, he went to the island of Jura off the Scottish coast,
and settled there. He wrote Nineteen Eighty-four there. The islands climate was unsuitable for
someone suffering from tuberculosis and Nineteen Eighty-four reflects the bleakness of human
suffering, the indignity of pain. Indeed he said that the book wouldn't have been so gloomy had he not
been so ill. His wedding to Sonia Bronwell took place at his bedside in University College Hospital.
By the time of his death in January 1950, he had been judged a major author by cities on both sides of
the Atlantic, and his value as a cultural critic has been increasingly widely recognized (Stringer,
p.450).
Analysis 'Animal Farm', Orwell wrote, 'was the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of
what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole (Hopkinson, p.12).'
Orwell's purpose of writing this book was to write a book in simple language with concrete symbolism
so that ordinary English people, who had enjoyed a tradition of justice and liberty for centuries, would
realize what a totalitarian system, like Russia's government, was like. His experience in Spain had
shown him how easily totalitarian propaganda can control the opinion of enlightened people in
democratic countries. Orwell's style in composing a cynical novel in simplistic manners allows the
reader to easily relate the plot and characters to the events and leaders of the Russian government from
1917 to the middle 1940s. Orwell wrote Animal Farm to destroy the Soviet myth that Russia was a
true socialist society. 'He attacks the injustice of the Soviet regime and seeks to correct Western
misconception about the Soviet Communism. Orwell's Animal Farm is based on the first thirty years
of the Soviet Union, a real society pursuing the ideal of equality (Atkins, p.120).' His book argues that
a society where men live together fairly, justly, and equally hasn't worked and couldn't work. Animal
Farm, a brief, concentrated satire, subtitled 'A Fairy Story', can also be read on the simple level of plot
and character. It is an entertaining, witty tale of a farm whose oppressed animals, capable of speech
and reason, overcome a cruel master and set up a revolutionary government. They are betrayed by the
evil power-hungry pigs, especially by their leader, Napoleon, and forced to return to their former
servitude. Only the leadership has changed. On another, more serious level, of course, it is a political
allegory, a symbolic tale where all the events and characters represent issues and leaders in Russian
history since 1917, 'in which the interplay between surface action and inner meaning is everything
(Atkins, p.125).' Orwell's deeper purpose is to teach a political lesson. Orwell uses actual historical
events to construct his story. Each animal stands for a precise figure or representative type. The pigs,
who can read and write and organize, are the 'Bolshevik intellectuals who came to dominate the vast
Soviet bureaucracy (Iftinkar, p.731).' Napoleon is Stalin, the select group around him the Politburo,
Snowball is Trotsky, and Squealer represents the propagandists of the regime. The pigs enjoy the
privileges of belonging to the new ruling class, which include special food and shorter working hours,
but also suffer the consequences of questioning Napoleon's policies. The other animals represent
various types of common people. Boxer, the name suggesting the Boxer Rebellion of 1900 where

revolutionaries tried to expel foreigners from China, is the decent working man, fired by enthusiasm
for the egalitarian ideal, working overtime in the factories or on the land, and willing to die to defend
his country. Clover is the eternal motherly working woman of the people. Molly, the unreliable,
frivolous mare, represents the 'White Russians who opposed the revolution and fled the country
(Iftinkar, p.732).' The dogs are the vast army of secret police who maintain Stalin in power. The sheep
are the ignorant public who repeat the latest propaganda without thinking and who can be made to turn
up to 'spontaneous demonstrations (Orwell, p.108)' in support of Napoleon's plans. Moses, the raven,
represents the opportunist Church. He flies off after Mr. Jones, but returns later, and continues to
preach about the Sugarcandy Mountain (heaven), but the pi! gs' propaganda obliterates any lingering
belief. Benjamin the donkey, the cynical but powerless average man, never believes in the glorious
future to come, and is always alert to every betrayal. Orwell's allegory is comic in its detailed parallels:
the hoof and horn is clearly the hammer and sickle, the Communist party emblem. 'Beasts of England'
is a parody of the 'Internationale' the Communist party's song. The Order of the Green Banner is the
'Order of Lenin, and the other first- and second-class awards spoof the fondness of Soviet Russia for
awarding medals, for everything from exceeding one's quota on the assembly line or in the harvest to
bearing a great many children (Iftinkar, p.732).' 'The poem in praise of Napoleon (Orwell, p.90 - 91)'
imitates the sycophantic verses and the mass paintings and sculptures turned out to glorify Stalin. Each
event of the story has a historical parallel. The Rebellion in chapter 2 is the October 1917 Revolution,
and the Battle of the Cowshed in chapter 4 is the subsequent Civil War. Mr. Jones and the farmers
represent the loyalist Russians and foreign forces that tried, but failed, to dislodge the Bolsheviks. The
hens' revolt in chapter 7 stands for the brutally suppressed '1921 mutiny of the sailors at Kronstadt,
(Iftinkar, 732)' which challenged the new regime to release political prisoners and grant freedoms of
speech and the press. Napoleon's deal with Whymper, who trades the farm's produce at Willingdon
market, represents 'Russia's 1922 Treaty of Rapollo with Germany (Iftinkar, p.733).' Orwell
emphasizes Napoleon's decision to trade because it breaks the First Commandment, that 'whatever
goes upon two legs is an enemy'(Orwell, p.33). 'Official Soviet policy was hostile to Germany, a
militaristic, capitalist nation, but the Treaty revealed that the Communist regime h! ad been trading
arms and heavy machinery, and would continue to do so (Iftinkar, p.734).' The Windmill stands for 'the
first Five-Year Plan of 1928, which called for rapid industrialization and collectivization of agriculture
(Iftinkar, p.734).' In chapter 6 a terrible storm caused 'the windmill to fall to ruins' (Orwell, p.71),
which symbolizes the grim failure of this policy. Chapter 7 describes in symbolic terms the famine and
starvation which followed. The hens' revolt stands for the peasants' bitter resistance to collective
farming, when they burned their crops and slaughtered their animals. The animals' false confessions in
chapter 7 are the Purge Trials of the late 1930s. The false banknotes given by Mr. Frederick for the
corn represent Hitler's betrayal of 'the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 (Iftinkar, p.735),' and the second
destruction of the Windmill, by Mr. Frederick's men, is 'the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941 (Iftinkar,
p.735).' The last chapter brings Orwell up to date of the book's composition. He ends with a satiric
portrait of the Teheran Conf! erence of 1943, the meeting of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin, 'who
were planning to divide the world among themselves (Atkins, p.163).' The quarrel over cheating at
cards predicts the downfall of the superpowers as soon as the war ended. The plot's circular
movement, which returns the animals to conditions very like those in the beginning, provides
occasions for vivid irony. In the first chapter they lament their forced labor and poor food, but by
chapter 6 they are starving, and are forced to work once more. In chapter 1 Old Major predicts that one
day Jones will send Boxer to the butcher, and in chapter 9 Napoleon fulfills this prophecy by sending
him to the slaughterhouse. In chapter 7, when various animals falsely confess their crimes and are
summarily executed by the dogs, 'the air was heavy and the smell of blood, which had been unknown

there since the expulsion of Jones (Orwell, p.83).' These ironies all emphasis the tragic failure of the
revolution, and support Benjamin's view that 'life would go on as it had always gone on ' that is badly
(Orwell, 56).' Though all the characters are representative types, Orwell differentiates the two most
important figures, Napoleon and Snowball, so that they resemble their real-life counterparts both in the
broad lines of their characterizations and in their two major disagreements. Like Stalin, Napoleon,
having 'a reputation for getting his own way (Orwell, p.25),' takes charge of indoctrinating the young,
sets up an elaborate propaganda machine, cultivates an image of omnipotent portraying charismatic
power, and surrounds himself with bodyguards and fawning attendants. Like Trotsky, Snowball is an
intellectual, who quickly researches a topic and formulates plans. He is a persuasive orator, but fails to
extort the leadership from Napoleon. Napoleon and Snowball's quarrel over the Windmill represents
their dispute over what should take priority in developing the Soviet Union. 'Stalin wanted to
collectivize the agriculture; Trotsky was for developing industry. Ultimately Stalin adopted both
programs in his first Five-Year Plan (Iftinkar, p.736),' just as Napoleon derides Snowball's plans, then
uses them as his own. 'Their most fundamental disagreement was whether to try to spread the
revolution to other countries, as classical Marxism dictated, or confine themselves to making a
socialist state in Russia (Meyers, p.137).' Napoleon argues for the latter, saying that the animals must
arm themselves to protect their new leadership. Snowball says that they must send more pigeons into
neighboring farms to spread the news about the revolution, so at the end Napoleon assures the farmers
that he will not spread the rebellion among the animals. 'Expelled from the Politburo in 1925, Trotsky
went into exile in 1929 and was considered a heretic. His historical role was altered; his face cut out of
group photographs of the leaders of the revolution. In Russia he was denounced as a traitor and
conspirator and in 1940 a Stalinist agent assassinated him in Mexico City (Iftinkar, p.737).' Similarly,
Snowball is blamed for everything that goes wrong in Animal Farm, and the animals are persuaded
that he was a traitor from the beginning. It has been said that the very act of reducing human
characters to animals implies a pessimistic view of man, and that in Animal Farm the satiric vision is
close to the tragic. 'Orwell turns elements of comedy into scenes of tragic horror (Connolly, p.176).' In
chapter 5, Napoleon comically lifts his leg to urinate on Snowball's plans. But shortly afterwards, he
summons the dogs and orders them to rip out the throats of those who confess their disloyalty. In one
instance Napoleon's contempt is amusing, in the next it is horrifying. The beast-fable is not only a
device that allows Orwell's serious message to be intelligible on two levels; the use of animals to
represent man is basic to his whole theme. We can readily grasp that animals are oppressed and feel it
is wrong to exploit them and betray their trust. Orwell counts on our common assumptions about
particular species to suggest his meaning. The sheep and their bleating are perfect metaphors for a
gullible public, ever read to accept policies and repeat rumors as truth. We commonly believe pigs are
greedy and savage, even to the point of devouring their young, which describes the power-hungry
government officials of the 1917 ' 1945 interval. In chapter 3, 'the work of the farm went like
clockwork (Orwell, p.36)' when the animals were in charge; into this simple fabric Orwell inserts a
word with Marxist overtones: 'with the worthless 'parasitical' human beings gone, there was more for
everyone to eat (Orwell, p.36).' The simplicity of his vocabulary adds to the creativeness and ingenuity
Orwell displays through the double meanings in his writing. The political allegory of Animal Farm,
whether specific or general, detailed or allusive, is persuasive, thorough and accurate, and the
brilliance of the book becomes much clearer when the satiric allegory is compared to the political
actuality of Russia's historic government. Critics who write, 'It makes a delightful children's story' are
completely oblivious to the sophisticated, underlying meanings the parable satires. The pleasure of
reading Animal Farm lies in recognizing the double meanings, the political and historical parallels, in
the story that George Orwell cleverly disguised through creative symbolism. Some critics say that

Orwell's satire is over-exaggerated. But to those critics I would ask then why did 'customs officials at
the Moscow International Book Fair in 1987 clear the British exhibitors' shelves of Animal Farm
(Meyers, p.241).' I believe there is no better certification of the book's truth. Bibliography Ahmad,
Iftinkar, Herbert Brodsky, et al., World Cultures: A Global Mosaic. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1993.
George Orwell - Animal Farm
George Orwell's novel Animal Farm does an excellent job of drawing parallels from the situation
leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917. Animal Farm is a satire that uses its characters to
symbolize leaders of the Russian Revolution. The animals of "Manor Farm", the setting of this novel,
which symbolizes Russia, overthrow their human master after years of mistreatment. Led by the pigs,
the farm animals continue to do their work, only with more pride, knowing that they are working for
themselves, as opposed to working for their human master, Farmer Jones. Slowly over time the pigs
gain power and take advantage of the other animals. They gain so much power that they become just
as power hungry and corrupt as their human master. The theme in the novel being that in every society
there are leaders who will, if given the chance, likely abuse their position. Old Major is a prize white
boar who helps point out to the animals that no animal in England is free. He continues to tell the
animals that the their labor is stolen by man, who benefits alone. The animals in return get near
nothing, just enough to keep them away from starvation. Old Major gave many speeches to the farm
animals about hope and the future. He is the main animal who got the rebellion started even though he
died before it actually began. Old Major's role compares to Lenin and Marx whose ideas would spark
the communist revolution. Lenin became the leader and teacher of the working class in Russia, and
their determination to struggle against capitalism. Like Old Major, Lenin and Marx wrote essays and
gave speeches to the working class poor. The working class in Russia, as compared with the barnyard
animals in Animal Farm, were a laboring class of people that received low wages for their work. Old
major tells the animals that the source of the problem is man, they must overthrow man to abolish
tyranny and hunger. Soon Old Major does die, but his words still echo in the hearts of all the animals.
With the leadership of the pigs, the smartest animals, they repel against the human and gain complete
control of the farm. This would symbolize the Russian Revolution.
Another parallel represented in the book is Farmer Jones. His character is similar to the politician Czar
Nicholas who treated his people similar to how Farmer Jones treated his animals. The animal rebellion
on the farm was started because Farmer Jones was a drunk who never took care of the animals. This
made them very angry, fed by the words of Old Major the animals decided to rebel like the Russians.
Czar Nicholas was a very weak man who treated his people similar to how Farmer Jones treated his
animals. The Czar made his working class people very uneasy with the way he used his authority and
preached all the time, and the people suffered and finally demanded reform by rebelling.
The animal Napoleon can be compared as a character representing Stalin in Russia. Both were very
mean looking, didn't talk very much but always got what they wanted through force. In one part of the
book Napoleon had the dogs charge Snowball, another animal, as soon as he thought that the pigs were
becoming corrupt. Stalin became the Soviet Leader after the death of Lenin. He was underestimated by
his opponents who always became his victims, and he had one of the most ruthless, regimes in history.
In was not till very many years later that the world found out about the many deaths that Stalin created
in Russia during the Revolution. Another strong parrael would is the character of Snowball with the
Russian leader Trotsky. Snowball was very enthusiastic and was a leader who organized the defense of
the farm. He gave speeches and instructions but was not very beneficial. All the other animals liked

him, but he was outsmarted by Napoleon. Trotsky and Stalin's relationship was very much like
Snowball's and Napoleons. Trotsky organized the Red Army and gave speeches and everyone in
Russia thought he would win power over Stalin. After Lenin's death Trotsky lost all his power to Stalin
and was expelled from the communist party.
George Orwell has created a masterpiece which is excellent if it is read without any prior knowledge
to the situation in Russia. However the added element does wonders for this novel. Orwell is a genius
and he has cleverly hidden the satire in such an excellent way, that everything fits into the picture like
a jigsaw puzzle. I give this book five stars. This rating is given for many reasons. It is a very easy read
and quite enjoyable to many levels of education.
George Orwell's Vision of the World
George Orwell's vision of the world in the year 1984 is horrific and chilling. Written in 1949, this
piece of literature is an everlasting classic that reminds us that history is a vital part of human
existence, although we often forget it. The past, present, and future are as changeable as human
opinions and beliefs. In this book, Orwell highlighted on some of the fears that many people have for
the world that we are creating. The control of the Party that he speaks of is like that of the Nazis of
World War II. The only difference between the Nazis and Orwell's imagined Party, is the emotion. The
Nazis fell from power because of the emotions of its leader, Adolph Hitler. The Party held up because
their leader, Big Brother, was merely an image and had no emotion at all. Within my reading, I
encountered many interesting points, both scenes and lines, that I remember vividly. All of these points
reflect the type of power that we humans have to control our existence as we know it. From the points
that I concentrated on came my own thoughts and fears about what future the human race was able to
create. The point that I remember most vividly is the motto of the Party. The motto is: 'Those who
control the past, control the future; Those who control the future, control the present; Those who
control the present, control the past.' This slogan played a main part in the plot. George Orwell
incorporated this theme into the story to show the kind of power that the Party actually had. The Party
did control the present, so they were able to do with it what they wished. The members of the Party
rewrote history at every current change, whether the changes be as simple as a human dying or a
change of enemy in the ongoing war. The Party had every piece of literature rewritten and every photo
reproduced to fit their fictional stories of war success and economic advance. By having this power, to
control the past, they controlled the future. With the power to control the future of the human race, the
Party manipulated the human body and its functions. It also controlled the hum! an mind through
physical experiments and the enforcement of complete orthodoxy to fit their needs. This absolute
power is everlasting and definite. This idea of total power made the line memorable. A second
prominent concept that I came across in my reading was the idea of doublethink. This meant that a
person was to know and believe in one idea while subconsciously knowing that it was wrong.
Everyone knew the ideas of the Party, forgot them when they didn't serve a specific purpose, and then
they remembered them again when they were needed. This could all happen to a person with in a
single moment. After the moment passed, the idea was forgotten again. One of the concepts of the
party was that two plus two equals five. Everyone was to believe this if and when the Party said so. If
it was convenient at any one time to think it, they did, if it was not, they did not. This is an example of
doublethink. The Party manipulated people into thinking what they wanted. In this way, it controlled
the human mind, body, and spirit. The third most memorable point in this book was not a concept of
the Party, but it is about human instincts. Humans naturally need the love, affection, and acceptation of
another human. To feel any of these primitive emotions, one had to secretly brake all of the rules and

regulations of the Party. Two of the main characters in this book shared human feelings for each other
that the Party didn't encourage. They secretly read forbidden books, sang age old nursery rhymes, and
made love to each other, all of which the Party banned because they encouraged free thought and
human emotion. After reviewing all of these points, I find that my fear of what the human race is
capable of is more realistic than I originally thought. The thought that human existence was regulated
with such rigidity is disturbing and unnerving. George Orwell's writing may, in some way, keep us
from forgetting that we can learn from the past and what we did then will determine what we do in the
future. As long as we always remember that free thought and expression are uncontrollable, no one
person or organization can stop us from experiencing them. As long as we understand this concept
there is no way to go but forward.
George Orwell Research
Eric Arthur Blair was born in 1903 at Motihari in British-occupied India. While growin up, he attended
private schools in Sussex, Wellington and Eton. He worked at the Imperial Indian Police untill 1927
when he went to London to study the poverty stricken. He then moved to Paris where he wrote two
lost novels. After he moved back to England he wrote Down and Out in Paris and London, Burmese
Days, A Clergymans Daughter and Keep the Apidistra Flying. He published all four under the
psuedonym George Orwell. He then married Eileen OShaughnessy and wrote The Road to Wigan
Pier. Orwell then joined the Army and fought in the Spanish civil war. He became a socialist
revolutionary and wrote Homage to Catalonia, Coming Up for Air, and in 1943, he wrote Animal
Farm. Its success ended Orwells financial troubles forever. In 1947 and 48 despite Tuberculosis, he
wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four. He died in 1950 (Williams 7-15). This essay will show and prove to you
that George Orwells life has influenced modern society a great deal.
BIOGRAPHY In 1903, Eric Arthur Blair was born. Living in India until he was four, Blair and his
family then moved to England and settled at Henley. At the age of eight, Blair was sent to a private
school in Sussex, and he lived there, except on holidays, until he was thirteen. He went to two private
secondary schools: Wellington(for one term) and Eton (for four and a half years).
After Eton, Blair joined the Imperial Indian Police and was trained in Burma. He served there for
nearly five years and then in 1927, while hom on leave, decided not to return. He later wrote that he
had come to understand and reject the imperialism he was serving. He was struck...between hatred of
the empire and rage against the native people who opposed it, and made his immediate job more
difficult. Blair, on his first six months of release, traveled to the East End to research the English poor.
In Spring of 1928, he took a room in a working-class district of Paris. He wrote two novels, which
have been lost, as well as publishing a number of articles in French and English. He became ill with
pneumonia, worked ten weeks as a dishwasher and kitchen porter, and returned to England at the end
of 1929.
He used his parents home in Suffolk for writing and earned money from occasional articles and
teaching. Blair then completed several versions of what was to become his first book, called, not by
his choice, Down and Out in Paris and London. The book was a record of his experiences, but If its
all the same to everybody, I would prefer [it] to be published pseudonymously.
Discussing the publication of his first book with his agent, he decided on three possible pseudonyms:
Keneth Miles, George Orwell and H. Lewis Allways. He favored George Orwell. The Orwell is a river
in Suffolk, south of his parents home. George Orwell published his first book in 1933. Down and
Out... was followed by the novel Burmese Days, published first in the United States rather than in
England because of his English publishers fear of its giving offence in Burma. After Burmese Days

came two more novels: A Clergymans Daughter, published in 1935; and Keep the Apidistra Flying,
published in 1936.
In the Spring of 1936 he moved to Hertfordshire and married Eileen OShaughnessy, an Oxford
graduate in English, a teacher, a journalist, and later a London graduate in psychology. Orwells
reputation at this time was based mainly on his accounts of poverty and depression. His next book,
The Road to Wigan Pier was written for the Left Book Club and started his career as a political writer.
Much of this book was composed of an essay on class and socialism, which was Orwells first
statement of his political possition.
In July, he left for Spain to fight (and write) in the Spanish civil war. For the next two or three years,
Orwell became a revolutionary socialist. When he returned from war , he wrote Homage to Catalonia
and in the winter of 1938, wrote Coming Up for Air. In 1941 he wrote London Letters and in August
joined the BBC as a talks producer in the Indian Section of the Eastern Service. Later in the year, he
began writing Animal Farm. It did not appear until August 1945, at the end of the war.
He and his wife adopted a son in 1944, but in 1945 his wife died during an opperation. Animal Farms
success ended Orwells financial worries that he had suffered from for twenty years. In 1946, he
settled in Jura, Scottland, with his younger sister as houskeeper, though he returned to lundon for the
winter. During 1947, in the early stages of renewed tuberculosis, he wrote the first drafts of Nineteen
Eighty-Four. In 1948, amid several attacks, Orwell wrote the second draft. In September, 1949, he
went into a hospital in London, and in October married Sonia Brownell. In January 1950, Eric Arthur
Blair, aka George Orwell, died. (Williams 7-15) WORKS In 1933, Orwell wrote Down and Out in
Paris and London. This was his first book. It is the record of a young mans (most-likely Orwells)
experiences with poverty in Paris and London. It did very well for a first novel. In most ways it was a
long, autobiographical essay on poverty. (Wykes 71-72) Orwells second novel was Burmese Days. It
was an account of Orwells experiences working for the Imperial Indian Police in Burma. For fear of
insulting Burma, this novel was published first in the U.S. rather than in England. (Wykes 44) His next
two novels were A Clergymans Daughter and Keep the Appidistra Flying. A Clergymans Daughter,
published in 1935, is the journey of Dorothy Hare. A journey of escape and self-exploration (Wykes
4). Keep the Apidistra Flying, published in 1936, is a novel about middle-class decline and
compromise (Wykes 7). Orwell regarded these novels as failures.
The Road to Wigan Pier, written for the Left Book Club in 1936 was Orwells fourth novel. This book
started Orwells life-long career change to political writing. The first part of this book is reporting on
the poor and unemployed. The second part is an essay on class and socialism, as I mentioned before. It
was the first statement of Orwells political possition. (Wykes 50-60) Homage to Catalonia, Orwells
fifth novel, completed his break with the orthodox left. It is an attempt to tell the truth about war from
Orwells point of view. The genre to which this book belongs was later defined by Orwell as the
Political book...a sort of enlarged pamphlet combining history with political critiscism. Orwell came
to believe that Homage to Catalonia was the best book he had ever written.
During winter in 1938, Orwell wrote his sixth novel Coming Up for Air. It is the discovery of George
Bowling, that his boy-hood home has changed like everything else. It is regarded as his best novel
(with the exception of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four). It illustrates in great detail, the fact
that everything peacefull eventually becomes corupt.
After Coming Up for Air, Orwell wrote one of his most-loved novels, Animal Farm. It is the fairy
story of an animal revolution on the Manor Farm, The animals create a socialistic republic in which
Some animals are more equal than others (Orwell). The book an alagorical essay on the Russian
Revolution. By the end of the book the pigs disobey the laws of Animal Farm, but as they do so,
they change the laws to fit their needs. Animal Farm is a spiritual parody of the Communist Manifesto

(Calder 5-20) Animal Farm was followed by Orwells eighth and last novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Another of Orwells best novels, 1984 is the story of Winston Smith. Smith is a member of a
totalitarianist party ruled by the god-like Big Brother. There is no freedom, privacy or choice. No
friendship or love. There is only love for Big Brother. It is the story of Smiths secret rebellion from
the party through love, sex, free-thought and choice. It is said to be Orwells greatest achivement
(Calder 74-88). CRITISCISM This is the kind of book I like to read, where I get the truth in chapters
of real life..., writes W.h> Davies about Down and Out in Paris and London. Daniel George for the
tribune says, Much of it is, I should judge, written from first-hand knowledge. Hames Farrell
comments [Orwells] account is genuine, unexagerated and intelligent (Meyers 39-49) About
Burmese Days, an annonymus author writes, Burmese Days, by George Orwell is symptomatic of the
reaction against conventional portrayals of Burma as a land of tinkling temples bells, gentle charming
Burmans, and strong silent Englishman. For the Fortnightly, G.W. Stonier observes, Burmese Days
is another novel, and I recommend it to all those who enjoy a lively hatred in fiction (Meyers 50-57)
About Orwells next novel, A Clergymans Daughter, Peter Quennel writes A Clergymans Daughter
is abitious yet not entirely successfull. Michael Sayers comments George Orwell is a popular
novelist sensitive to values that most other novelists are popular for ignoring. For the Commonweal,
Geoffrey Stone reports, ...in A Clergymans Daughter, [Orwell] arranges circumstance so that the
pessimistic conclusion will seem inevitable (Meyers 58-64) Mr. Orwells new book, bitter almost
throughout and often crude is also all about money, writes William Plomer of Keep the Apidistra
Flying. Cyril Connoly, for the New Statesman and Nation, writes, The book is the recital of
[Orwells] misfortunes interrupted by tirades against money and the spiritual evil it causes. An
unsigned notice in the TImes Literary Supplement states, If this book is persistently irritating, this is
exactly what makes it worth reading; few books have enough body in them to be irratants (Meyers
65-90) Walter Greenwood writes about The Road to Wigan Pier, Mr. Orwell has the gift of writing
vividly, of creating in the minds eye a picture of the scene described. Of Mr. Orwells book, there is
little to say except praise..., comments Arthur Calder-Marshall. It takes an ugly section of British
life, and it forces us to confront it for what it is, writes H.J. Laski (Meyers 91-118) Homage to
Catalonia is... a book which is at the same time a work of first-class literature and a political document
of the greatest importance, reports Geoffrey Gorer. John McNair for the New Leader, writes, There
have been many books written on the Spanish civil war, but none containing so many living, first-hand
experiences as this (Meyers 119-151) Mr. Orwell writes with hard, honest clarity and unanswering
precision of feeling, states of Coming Up for Air, an unsigned notice in the Times Literary
Supplement. John Cogley for the Commonweal, writes, George Orwell, a hard man, is frankly
sentimental about the world he knew as a boy. Coming Up for Air, written in 1938, reverts to the
journalistic stylo of ease and understatement, the disquietude of Burmese Days worked out of it
(Meyers 152-190).
..it is a devestating attack on Stalin and his betrayal of the Russian revolution, as seen by another
revolutionary, writes Cyril Connoly on Animal Farm. The staory is very well-written, especially the
Snowball episode#, which suggests that that the communist Trotskyite is a conception on much the
same plane as the nazi jew...,writes Northrup Frye for the Canadian Forum. Isaac Rosenfield for the
Nation, writes, George Orwell, to judge by his writing, is a man, not without imagination, who is
never swept away by his imagination. Of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Fredric Warburg comments, This is
amongst the most terrifying books I have ever read. Mr. Orwells latest book, Nineteen Eighty-Four,
can be approached either as a political argument or as an indictment of materialism cast in fictional
foprm, writes Harold Nicolson. Mr. Orwell is in every way similar to Huxley, especially in his
contempt for people, in his aim of slandering man, reports Isaac Anisimov for the Pravda.

CONCLUSION As you can see, George Orwell is one of the most beloved and respected authors in
history. His works speak out against money, hypocrisy, poverty and injustice. His style has influenced
many modern authors and will, most definetly, influence many more authors to come.
George Orwell - Political Satire
George Orwell, author of the highly acclaimed Animal Farm, wrote this fable in hopes of informing
not only children, but also the population as a whole, of his views on the Russian Revolution and the
rise of communism in that nation. The fable, a literary composition conveying a moral truth, clearly
guides the readers through the steps and outcome of the Russian Revolution. But instead of the battle
being fought and won in the streets of Russia, Orwell chooses to portray the happenings of the Russian
Revolution on a farm based during the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. The animals, unhappy
with their day-to-day living conditions, rise and revolt against the tyrant Jones, the cruel and drunkard
owner of the Jones' farm.
In Animal Farm, the barn was a place for the meetings that took place, and alternatively served as a
shelter for all of the animals, except for the pigs. The schoolhouse was a place for the pigs, and rarely
other animals, to learn to read and write and therefore grow in social power over the other lessintelligent animals that spent their days working in order to bring in enough food to keep the
revolution alive. The farmhouse was where the Jones family resided, before the revolution that forced
them astray. According to the commandments set forth after the revolution, no animal was to use the
farmhouse for their own personal gain, however, the pigs were able to distort this rule so that they
were able to live in luxury in this house meant for the humans. Building the windmill proved to be an
important icon and struggle for the animals of Animal Farm, as it was destroyed twice and never quite
brought the gleefulness and comfortable life that the animals were led to envision before-hand and
during the construction by the sinister pig Napoleon. Each character of Animal Farm represented an
important character or type-of people in the Russian Revolution, a direct comparison between Animal
Farm, and a strong political movement that shocked the world.
Comrade Napoleon, as he insisted the other animals called him, represents Joseph Stalin, a cruel leader
during and after the revolution, who exiled other political leaders and forced mass-executions upon the
people, just as Napoleon does in Orwell's fable. Snowball, the opposing pig and leader of the farm to
Napoleon, seemed a strong and just leader, until, Napoleon expelled him from the farm and set-off
rumors about Napoleon's false attempt to destroy the civilization they had worked to build after the
revolution. Snowball links closely with the Soviet expatriate Leon Trotsky, who was expelled from
Russia under the leadership of Stalin. Major, the wise pig that passed away days after he unveiled his
plan for a new and better life on the farm, seems to portray traits of both Karl Marx and V.I Lenin.
Marx, because like this political thinker, Major brought about and created the idea of communism, or
'animalism', the Animal Farm version of this system of thought. In a way, Major is associated with
Lenin of the Russian Revolution, the opportunist who brought and initiated the communist way of life
on this land when it needed a new system-of-thought to help it's troubled economy and the way-of-life
it's people were forced to live out every day. Pilkington and Frederick, the human owners of
neighboring farms, represent various world leaders during the time of the revolution, and the
occurrences that happened between them and Russia, or between Animal Farm and the other farms.
Boxer, a strong dedicated horse of Animal Farm, I believe represented all of the people of Russia. The
poverty stricken, the homeless, who still work hard in order to make the system of communism or
animalism work. Boxer is the representation of the workers who are pushed around, who are taken for

all they are worth, and who are left for dead.
In the end of the Orwell's tale, Animal Farm is much worse a place for the common animals then it had
been previous to the revolution. The food is scarce, the leadership is harsh and unruly, the world-load
is hard, and the conditions of life for the common animals had changed for the worse. The pigs, the
leaders of animal farm, celebrate their victory and their entrance into high-society, as the lowly other
animals still left on the farm look on. This is how history recorded the Russian Revolution, and Orwell
illustrated the political aspects of this in the fable Animal Farm.
George Orwell - Politics and the English Language
If George Orwell, author of Politics and the English Language read Tom Verduccis essay Three
Dimensional, he would argue with Tom Verdiccis style. Tom Verdicci breaks several of Orwells rules.
The rules broken are; (1) Never use a long word where a short one will do; (2) Never use a foreign
phrase, scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
The first rule broken is Never use a long word where a short one will do. Verdicci tends to puzzle the
reader by using words such as captaincy, crispness, deficiencies, and competent. Orwell states: A
scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What
am I trying to say What words will express it What image or idiom will make it clearer Is this image
fresh enough to have an effect In each sentence which Tom Verducci has used these words, it seems
like he didnt bother asking himself these four simple questions. Consequently, Tom Verducci has
broken one of Orwells rules.
Verducci goes on to break a second rule, which states: Never use a foreign phrase, scientific word or a
jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. For example in his essay, there is a
passage written in foreign language that states Blue Jays first baseman hits like a bouncer but
schmoozes like a maitre d. This phrase relates to another rule of Orwells. Orwell states: In certain
kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literacy criticism, it is normal to come across long
passages which are almost completely lacking of meaning. Thus, this phrase is a prime example,
which breaks Orwells rules in two ways.
Overall, the essay written by Tom Verducci is well done. But to George Orwells expectations, it is
breaking several of his rules. Both readers agree on the fact that asking themselves a question, which
is: Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly, is agreed upon. Tom Verducci has not said something,
which is ugly in his essay. Also, Verducci has not broken the rule of Never us a metaphor, smile which
you are used to seeing in print. Tom Verducci uses various types of words to keep his essay interesting
to the extent of not making it boring by repeating words, which are metaphors or similes. Thus, Tom
Verducci has not broken all of Orwells rules.
In conclusion, George Orwell, author of Politics and the English Language read Tom Verduccis essay
Three Dimensional, he would argue with Tom Verdiccis style. The rules Tom Verducci breaks are:
Never use a long word where a short one will do; Never use a foreign phrase, scientific word or a
jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" and George Orwell's "Animal Farm"
There are many different ways to reveal one's perception of society. In art for instance, the reflection
may be revealed in the form of a sculpture, a song or a picture. Satire is one the ways that the reaction
or perception of life is expressed. People look at life from different stand points, as matter of fact, they
naturally perceive it in numerous ways. As a result of the variety in perception, the way of revealing

the effects or reflections of these perceptions also shows variety. In the satiric work of Jonathan Swift's
"Gulliver's Travels" and George Orwell's "Animal Farm" both authors make a distinction between
country vs. court or in Orwell's case, country (people) vs. government. Gulliver's first adventure takes
place in Lilliput. Gulliver gets shipwrecked and finds himself tied down by a considerable number of
little people called Lilliputians. The Lilliputians stood only six inches high. During this time Swift
recognized that England was also small in stature but was dominant force and had a great influence in
Europe. England, despite its small size, had the potential to defeat any nation that might try to conquer
them. Swift relates this situation with the Lilliputians. They only stood six inches tall but had the
power to take on the, Man-Mountain, Gulliver. The ability of the Lilliputians to capture someone ten
times their size can be seen as reinforcing their strength as a small nation, such as England. Thus
becoming and remaining a great and powerful country.
Swift further illustrates satire of the country vs. court distinction by comparing English government to
Lilliput. In the early eighteenth century, the English government was under the Whig's political party.
Swift represented himself as Gulliver as being a Tory, and the Lilliputians as being power-hungry
Whigs. Their heels of their shoes identified these parties. In Lilliput the High-Heels represented the
Tories and the Low-Heels represented the Whigs. George I favored the Whigs, so the Lilliputian
emperor favored the Low-Heals. But the Prince of Whales favored both parties, and thus the
Lilliputian heir to the throne wore one High-Heel and one Low. When Gulliver started learning about
the Lilliputians government he noticed that their government officials were chosen by rope dancing.
To Gulliver and the reader these practices seem ridiculous and idiotic, but to the Lilliputians they see
these practices as normal. Swift uses this scene to satire the British government at this time. The
British government also elected their ministers in a same foolish manner. George Orwell's Animal
Farm is a political satire of a totalitarian society ruled by a mighty dictatorship, in all probability an
allegory for the events surrounding the Russian Revolution of 1917. Orwell makes a parody of Soviet
Communism as demonstrated by Animal Farm's brutal totalitarian rule, manipulated and exploited
working class, and the pigs' evolution into the capitalists they initially opposed. The animals of Manor
Farm overthrow their human master after a long history of mistreatment. Led by the pigs, the farm
animals continue to do their work, only with more pride, knowing that they are working for
themselves, as opposed to working for humans. Little by little, the pigs become dominant, gaining
more power and advantage over the other animals, so much so that they become as corrupt and powerhungry as their predecessors, the humans. The theme in Animal Farm maintains that in every society
there are leaders who, if given the opportunity, will likely abuse their power. Animalism, which
represents communism, was a revolution that didn't work. Animalism was supposed to make life better
for the animals but instead their lives got worse. By the end of the story, everything had changed. The
government had become corrupt, there was a dictator, and the animals had become slaves to the pigs.
Life for the animals couldn't get any worse.
Meanwhile, the pigs as leaders are taking bigger food rations for themselves justifying their behavior
as something necessary for the brains of their animal society. At this point we begin to suspect that the
pigs will abuse their positions and power in this animal society. This is Orwell's way of depicting the
vices and problems of society during his time which in some ways, still holds true to many societies
and governments today.
The country vs court is a reoccurring theme in many satirical and literary works. "Gulliver's Travels"
and "Animal Farm" were both written to express their authors' disenchantment with the state of
evolution of human nature.

"Shooting An Elephant" - Pressure of the Masses

The essay "Shooting An Elephant" begins with the author, George Orwell, a British Police officer in
Burma, describing his experiences with the local Burmese people who hate the British and find
various ways by which to put the English fraternity to shame and ridicule. In order not to lose face and
be jeered by the Burmese people, Orwell has to shoot down an elephant which had gotten out of
control and was stampeding around destroying everything that came its way and even killing a man, an
Indian Dravidian coolie. He did not wait to see the elephant die, but was later informed about the gory
details of the elephants death and of the people who stripped the elephant to the bones. Orwell is a
sub-divisional police officer in Myanmar, Lower Burma. He goes through inner conflicts and feels
sorry for the poor and exploited people. The people hate the British and their rule and find ways to
ridicule and jeer them from a safe distance and in ways not are punished for their actions. Orwell
himself is against the British imperialism and has strong feelings against the rule. In his job as a
policeman he had seen the duty work of the Empire at close Quarters and hated it bitterly. In doing his
duty by the empire, he came in for a lot of ridicule, jeering, and insults from the Burmese people.
These insults were not done openly, but subtly. He understood the situation in no uncertain terms. He
also understood the position of the British, of how to save their face by unknowingly doing what the
population was making them do.
One day Orwell is informed about an elephant going wild, in the bazaar. The elephant had broken its
chain and went on a rampage destroying whatever came its way. The elephant also killed an Indian
Dravidian coolie. As the people see Orwell armed with a gun, they supposedly expect him to shoot the
mad elephant. He goes, looking for the elephant and his act of destruction and killing, armed with a
gun and a rifle only for his own protection and not for shooting down the massive elephant. In his
eyes, the elephant is worth more alive, than dead. The people, seeing him armed with a gun, follow
him and the mob goes on increasing by the time he locates the elephant. The elephant has got over his
"must", and is now peacefully pulling stalks from the field and putting them in his mouth with his
trunk. Orwell has no intention of killing the elephant, but the will of over two thousand natives, seems
to imprint on his mind. He is the holder of the magic weapon, which will give them their fun, and meat
off the elephant. Orwell is driven to kill the elephant, inspite of his unwillingness. Says Orwell "that
when a white man turns tyrant, it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow,
posing dummy, that conventionalized figure of Sahib". The whites had self imposed certain conditions
and rules for impressing the natives. When any crisis happened, the natives looked up to them for the
solution and to keep that image they inadvertently, had to do what the natives wanted. The white man
wore a mask and his face had grown to fit it. To impress and please the people, he is forced to shoot
the now peaceful elephant. He has to shoot the massive elephant several times with his rifle and gun.
The elephant suffers acute agony and a very painful death. Orwell walks away from the tortured gasps
of the elephant, which he finds unbearable. He is later informed about the details of the elephant's
death, and the people who ripped the meat off it to the bones. He was perfectly justified in killing the
mad elephant. That was the right thing to do as the elephant had killed a human being and brought
about a lot of destruction. It could not be trusted to remain sane even though it then looked peaceful.
Orwell however feels in his heart that what he did was to save his face and not having to look a fool in
the eyes of the natives.

Catcher in the Rye - "Boys will be Boys"

Holden Caulfield, portrayed in the J.D. Salinger novel Catcher in the Rye as an adolescent struggling
to find his own identity, possesses many characteristics that easily link him to the typical teenager
living today. The fact that they book was written more than forty years ago clearly exemplifies the
saying "boys will be boys" no matter what period of time is taking place. Holden's actions are those
that any teenage can clearly relate with. The desire for independence, the sexually related encounters,
the questioning of one's religion, the individual view of the world as a whole, the language, and
dealing with teenage pressures such as drinking and smoking are issues that almost all teens have had
or will have to deal with in their adolescent years. Thusly, this novel and its main character's
experiences can easily be related to and will forever link Holden with every member of society,
because everyone was or will be a teen. The first and most obvious characteristic found in most teens,
including Holden, would be the desire for independence. Throughout the novel, Holden is not once
wishing to have his parents help in any way. He has practically lived his entire life in dorms at
prestigious schools, and has learned quite well how to be on his own. "This tendency of teenagers took
place even in ancient history, where the freshly developed teen opts to leave the cave and hunt for his
own food" (Kegel 54). Every teenager tries, in his or her own way, to be independent. Instead of
admitting to one's parents of a wrongful deed, the teen tries covering up the mistake or avoiding it in
hopes that they won't get in any Bailey 2 trouble. They feel that they have enough intelligence to think
through a problem without going to their parents for assistance. When Holden hears the news that he
has been expelled from Pency, he concludes that his parents would not know of this for a few days.
Therefore, he would wait from Saturday until Wednesday, to let his parents "get it and thoroughly
digest it" (25) and then face the consequences, which will more than likely be less severe after his
parents calmed down. He states, "I didn't want to be around when they first got it. My mother gets very
hysterical. She's not too bad after she gets something thoroughly digested, though" (51). In taking the
independent route, Holden does not look for sympathy or help from either of his parents. He feels that
he can deal with his situation by waiting until the next school year in order to apply himself a little
better. Another characteristic of a teenager, usually of the male gender, would be the widespread
subject of sex. As everyone knows, during and after puberty, males have a stronger fascination with
the issue and related experiences. Holden is no different. "In my mind, I'm the biggest sex manic you
ever saw. Sometimes I can think of very crumby stuff I wouldn't mind doing if the opportunity came
up" (62). Although Holden honestly states to the reader that he is a virgin; he still has encounters
associated with sexual activity. First and foremost, Holden actually obtains a prostitute during a brief
stay at a hotel room. Holden never has sexual intercourse with this woman, but it does show that he is
a teenager looking for affection and pleasure. Also, he proclaimed that he had plenty of opportunities
to "give the time" (32) to other women, but he never quite knew to do it while on a date. Holden is
very much like the average teen in this regard. The media and other primary sources in teen lives have
taken an interest in sex, and have made it seem like it is the greatest thing known to mankind. Most
teenagers find it Bailey 3 slightly embarrassing to admit to being chaste, mainly due to the fact that
they think everyone is doing it; which is clearly false. Teenagers want to experience and experiment
with sex, and even if they choose to not have sex until marriage, they will fantasize about it. This is yet
another example of the similarities in which Holden and the typical teen share. Sex and religion almost
go hand in hand today amongst the teenage population. Do teens wait for marriage like the Bible
insists or should teens defy the rules outlined by the Bible and have pre-marital sex? Although the
novel does not quite refer to sex in a religious sense, it is a good example of choices teens are forced to
make. Teens, along with many other members of society, do not agree with every guideline that the

Bible sets out for them. They have to decide how large a role religion is going to play in their lives.
Holden says that he, in some ways, is "an atheist" (Breit 82). He sometimes prays to Jesus, and yet
other times he feels like he just cannot pray because of his likes, dislikes, and indifferent views of the
church. This can be related to many teenagers, for religion is not always an easy subject. Teens
sometimes feel that not all information on a particular religion is completely true. Some teens toy with
the fact that their faith, if they have one, is actually factual. Holden feels that the information on Jesus
is probably true, but he is a little suspicious of the Disciples and other characters from the Bible. "Take
the Disciples, for instance. They annoy the hell out of me, if you want to know the truth. They were all
right after Jesus was dead and all, but while he was alive, they were about as much use to him as a
hole in the head" (99). He has many questions, as does all of society, of some contradicting issues
concerning religion. As every teenager perceives the world in one way or another, Holden too has his
own individual views on the world, in which he sees as an evil and corrupt place where Bailey 4 there
is no peace. This perception of the world does not change significantly through the novel. However as
the novel progresses, Holden gradually comes to the realization that he is powerless to change this.
"During the short time period of Holden's life covered in this book, he does succeed in making us
perceive that the world is crazy" (Stevenson 216). Shortly after Holden leaves Pency Prep he checks
into the Edmont Hotel. This is where Holden's turmoil begins. Holden spends the following evening in
this hotel that was "full of perverts and morons. (There were) screwballs all over the place" (188). His
situation only deteriorates from this point on as the more he looks around this world, the more
depressing life seems. Around every corner, Holden sees evil. He looks out on a world that appears
completely immoral and unscrupulous. The three days we learn of from the novel places a distressed
Holden in the vicinity of Manhattan. The city is decked with decorations and holiday splendor; yet,
much to Holden's despair, he seldom yields any occasions of peace, charity or even genuine
merriment. Holden is surrounded by what he views as drunks, perverts, morons and screwballs. These
convictions, which Holden holds, waver very momentarily during only one particular scene in the
book. The scene is that with Mr. Antolini. After Mr. Antolini patted Holden on the head while he was
sleeping, Holden jumped up and ran out thinking that Mr. Antolini was a pervert as well. This is the
only time during the novel where Holden thinks twice about considering someone as a pervert. After
reviewing Mr. Antolini, Holden finally concludes that maybe he wasn't making a "flitty" (190) pass at
him. "Maybe he just likes patting guys' heads as they sleep" (191). This is really the only time Holden
actually considers a positive side. This event does not constitute a significant change. As Holden
himself says, "It's not too bad when the sun's out, but the sun only comes out when it feels like coming
out" (200). The sun of course is a reference to decency through the common Bailey 5 association of
light and goodness. His perception of the world would remain the same. Many teenagers today see the
world in a way that everyone is out to get them. They believe if they do not get what they want that
life is not fair. Holden apparently feels the same way. The one conviction that does not change during
the novel is Holden's belief that he can change the world. On his date with Sally, Holden reveals his
feelings. "Did you ever get fed upI mean did you ever get scared that everything was going to go
lousy unless you did something" (131). Holden goes through several plans. It takes most of the book
before Holden begins to realize that he is helpless to stop this corruption. Finally, he realizes that not
only is there nothing that he can do, but there is nowhere he can go to hide from it. This relates Holden
back to the typical teenager in the sense that everyone wants to change the world in some drastic way.
But in the end, they realize that there's nothing for them do to that is so significant and that there is no
escape from the harsh reality of the world surrounding them. "Adolescents use their own unique
language of slang and swearing, which is partly to rebel and partly to find their own identity" (Carlton
337). This typical teenage trait is also exhibited in Holden. When someone listens to a teenager they

usually hear a variety of swear words and slang terms. Holden uses quite a bit of slang and profanity in
his speech. For example, when he is talking about the football game near the beginning of the novel,
he says: I was standing way the hell on top of Thomsen Hill, right next to this crazy cannonYou
could see the two teams bashing each other all over the place. You couldn't see the grandstand too hot,
but you could hear Bailey 6 them all yelling, deep and terrific on the Pencey sidescrawny and faggy
on the Saxon Hall side (2) When Holden says, "crazy," "bashing each other all over the place,"
"hot," and "faggy," he is using slang terms. Each generation has its own variety of slang terms each
with separate and almost ironic terms. Some slang used by today's teens means exactly the opposite of
what would be thought. Each child is taught that there are some "bad" words or swear words that
should not be used, but as like most teenagers, Holden swears quite often. Holden's sister, Phoebe,
makes a comment on his swearing. She merely requests Holden to, "Don't swear so much" (168).
Vulgar language is a pitfall of adolescence. Another major aspect of teenage life, are such pressures of
drinking and smoking. As most teenagers in today's world have come across alcohol at one point or
another, Holden has given into the pressures of underage drinking to drown his sorrows. Throughout
the novel, Holden drinks even though he is underage. "Many drink to escape the problems that they
face day to day, and in the novel it is apparent that Holden is drinking so that he can stop thinking
about the fact that he has gotten expelled from yet another school" (Barr 93). Drinking is a major issue
in the world today with such dangers of binge drinking and drinking and driving. Holden, like the
typical teenager is also curious about drinking. The media clearly exploits drinking and makes it
appear "cool." His curiosity gets the best of him and he continually drinks. Another problem with
teenage drinking, at all times throughout history, is the great ease at which it can be acquired. In the
novel, Holden can simply walk into a bar of some sort, order a drink and in most cases, get served.
Although society is more stringent with underage drinking today, there are ways for teens to easily
acquire alcohol, as Holden does in this novel. Bailey 7 Holden is also an avid chain smoker. It seems
that every chance he gets, he is lighting up yet another cigarette. Smoking is an adult activity, and
Holden smokes to be more of an adult. Even though the cigarettes taste bad, he still smokes them. He
smokes to ease his nerves and simply because he has become addicted to the substance. Smoking is a
big problem faced by teens in all generations. Many smoke to rebel against their parents or because,
like alcohol, it is viewed sometimes as the "cool" thing to do. A large portion of today's teens smoke
although they are aware of the dangers like the fact that tobacco is the only product which kills a third
of its users. Smoking is a bad thing, but teenagers of every day and age are faced with this. As seen in
these previous examples, and also found in more instances, Holden Caulfied truly resembles the
typical teen. He has gone through the same situations, encountered many of the same problems, and he
also has acted in similar ways as the average teen. Teenage adolescence is a period of transition
between childhood and adulthood. In this period, we all experience development both physically and
emotionally, including the epitome of all teens, Holden Caulfield.
Catcher in the Rye - Fall of Innocence
Jerome David Salinger, born in New York City on January 1, 1919, may not have written many novels
in which he is recognized for. Although, he did write one novel, which brought him fame. In many of
Salinger's short stories and especially his most well-known novel he writes about how the main
character falls from his or her own innocence then rises to face their challenges. In J.D. Salinger's ,
Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield goes through a fall from his innocence throughout his journey to
his safe haven, home.
One example of when Holden fell from his own innocence is when he is in the room with Phoebe and

he can't name anything he likes. Holden reacts to this question by saying, "Boy, she was depressing
me"(Salinger 169). The only three things he can name that he liked were Allie, James Castle, and
sitting there chewing the fat with Phoebe. The reason this is a time when Holden falls is because he
gets really depressed when he can barely think of anything he liked. The reason I think Holden gets so
depressed is because two of the people he names are dead. That's why he is so lonely all the time.
Holden finds things in common with Allie and James Castle and since they're both dead he feels, in the
back of his mind, that he should also be dead which makes him depressed.
Another example of a fall for Holden is when he realizes he can't erase even half the "fuck you's" in
the world. This doesn't sound very important, but it is symbolic because he realizes that he can not be
the catcher in the rye. His dream of shielding all the innocent children from society's harsh elements
has been ruined by this one statement. Now because of this realization he comes to the conclusion that
he can not shield everybody, not even half of everybody. An example of Holden trying to be the
catcher in the rye is when Holden first sees the "fuck you" on the wall. Holden said, "It drove me
damn near crazy. I thought how Phoebe and all the other kids would see it, and how they'd wonder
what the hell it meant, and then finally some dirty kid would tell them- all cockeyed, naturally what it
meant, and how they'd think about it even worry about it for a couple of days. I kept wanting to kill
whoever'd written it".(Salinger 201)
Holden's final fall comes when he is in the Egyptian Tomb in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. When
Holden is deep within the Egyptian Tomb he feels he is in a safe and sanitary place free from society's
cruel components until he sees the "fuck you" on the wall. When he sees this he starts to think about
committing suicide because he feels like living is just a waste. During this time he spent in the tomb he
decides on life or death. After going unconscious for a couple of minutes he decides to live because,
"Death thus becomes not a gesture of defiance but of surrender"(Miller 17). Once Holden wakes up he
feels better and symbolically chooses life. This is when Holden begins to rise. When Phoebe is on the
carousel Holden wants to protect her but restrains himself, "The thing is 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 to say anything to them"(Miller 17-18)When Holden says this his dreams of being catcher in
the rye vanish. He realizes that all children must fall, like he himself did.
In conclusion, The Catcher in the Rye is a story of a boy falling from innocence to enter adulthood. An
example of J.D. Salinger using symbolism to show Holden's Holding on to his childhood is in his
name, Holden(Hold On). This is referring to Holden not wanting to enter society and all it's phonies.
Today, when somebody holds on to their innocence they are often considered outcasts; and in the
persons mind everyone who considers him this, is a phony, like how Holden saw everyone.
After Holden Caulfield returns to his native New York and rents a room in a sleazy hotel, he makes a
date with Sally Hayes. Before this date, Holden finds himself wandering the streets of the naked city.
He is feeling depressed and finds himself on Broadway trying to purchase a record for his sister.
After making this purchase, Holden notices a poor family walking in front of him. This unit is
composed of a father, mother, and "little kid." Holden notices the child who is walking in a straight
line in the street and humming a tune to himself. Holden approaches him to determine the tune he is
singing. This tune is "If a Body Catch a Body Coming Through the Rye."Holden finds it amusing that
the child is strutting quite literally on Broadway and is so care-free. He notices cars screeching and
honking all over the place, and yet the child proceeds. The child's happy disposition seems to
encourage Holden's on vitality. It gripped Holden that the child was singing with "a pretty little
voice...just for the hell of it" and brightened him up. A deeper interpretation of this scene would dictate
that the child represents Holden's own personality and life. Holden is defiantly singing his own tune

just for the hell of it and like the child, seems to have no regard for his own well-being. At this point,
Holden may see a side in himself that is care-free and this lightens his depression.
Catcher in the Rye - Loss of Innocence
In JD Salingers' Catcher in the Rye, a troubled teenager named Holden Caufield struggles with the fact
that everyone has to grow up. The book gets its title from Holden's constant concern with the loss of
innocence. He did not want children to grow up because he felt that adults are corrupt. This is seen
when Holden tries to erase naughty words from the walls of an elementary school where his younger
sister Phoebe attended. "While I was sitting down, I saw something that drove me crazy. Somebody'd
written 'Fuck you' on the wall. It drove me damn near crazy. I thought how Phoebe and all the other
little kids would see it, and how they'd wonder what the hell it meant, and then finally some dirty kid
would tell them- all cockeyed, naturally- what it meant, and how they'd all think about it and maybe
even worry about it for a couple of days. I kept wanting to kill whoever'd written it. I figured it was
some perverty bum that'd sneaked in the school late at night to take a leak or something and then wrote
it on the wall. I kept picturing myself catching him at it, and how I'd smash his head on the stone steps
till hew as good and goddam dead and bloody." (201) His deep concern with impeccability caused him
to create stereotypes of a hooligan that would try to corrupt the children of an elementary school.
Holden believed that children were innocent because they viewed the world and society without any
bias. When Phoebe asked him to name something that he would like to be when he grew up, the only
thing he would have liked to be was a "catcher in the rye." He invented an illusion for himself of a
strange fantasy. He stated that he would like to follow a poem by Robert Burns: "If a body catch a
body comin' through the rye." He kept "picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big
field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around- nobody big, I mean- except me.
And I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they
start to go over the cliff- I mean if they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to
come out from somewhere and catch them. Thats all I'd do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye
and all. I know it's crazy, but that's the only thing I'd really like to be." (173) Holden wants to stop
children from "falling" into losing their innocence and becoming an adult, and he takes pleasure in the
attempted thwarting of maturation.
In the beginning of Catcher in the Rye, his initial character is one of a child. Throughout the book, he
takes steps and the forces of change take a toll on his childish ways. In the end, he seems to be
changed into a man. Holden is definitely extremely immature in the beginning of the book. He
characterizes almost every person he meets as a "phony". He feels that he is surrounded by hypocrites
in a school filled with fakery. Principal Thurmer, the principal of Holden's high school, Pencey, was
the leader of the whole charade. During a teacher/parent day, Principal Thurmer would only say hello
to the wealthy parents of students. He would not associate himself with those that were not financially
stable, because he was a phony.
Holden also maintains a lack of responsibility throughout the whole book. He was the equipment
manager of the fencing team at Pencey, but he lost the equipment on the subway. He also failed out of
two schools for lack of effort and absences from classes. Holden also had a daydream about two
children who never grew up, whore main in a perfect world forever. This daydream is a result of his
younger brother Allie's death. Allie represents the unchangeable youth of which Holden must let go if
he ever expects to maintain sanity. Holden has a fixation on childhood, which shows itself in many
forms. His glorification of children, inordinate admiration of Phoebe, idealization of his dead younger
brother, and the joy he gets from reminiscing about his own childhood all contribute to his obsession

with innocence and youth.

Throughout the middle of the book, forces of change unfold on Holden. While waiting for an old
friend of his, he had the sudden urge to go into a museum that he had visited while still a child in
school in order to bring back memories of his childhood. However, when he finally reached the
museum, he decided not to. "Then a funny thing happened. When I got to the museum, all of a sudden
I wouldn't have gone inside for a million bucks. It just didn't appeal to me..." (122) This shows that
Holden is becoming an adult. He did not want to enter the museum because he realized that he was too
old to take part in such an activity. When he takes Phoebe to a carousel later in the book, he decided
not to ride on it, or even stand on it during a rain storm, because he felt "too old" to get on. Holden
also had another one of his childish fantasies for his future. He wanted to go and be a deaf mute
somewhere in the west, so he wouldn't have to deal with all the phonies and hypocrites of every day
life. Phoebe told him that she wanted to go along with him, but he denies her of this because of his
growing responsibility and metamorphosis as an adult. He told her, "I'm not going away anywhere. I
changed my mind." (207)
At the end of the book, Holden seems to be much more mature. His key step was when he did not ride
with Phoebe on the carrousel. Holden only watched his sister ride along. In the center of the carousel,
there was a gold ring. The children riding on the carousel would reach for the gold ring in order to win
a prize. "All the kids kept trying to grab for the gold ring, and so was old Phoebe, and I was sort of
afraid she'd fall off the goddam horse, but I didn't say anything or do anything. 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 it's bad if you say anything to them."(211) This carousel symbolizes life, and the
constant journey of childhood into adulthood. Children would sometimes fall when striving to reach
the gold ring in the center of life, or their complete success or adulthood. Holden would have yelled
out to the children that it was dangerous to try to achieve this goal, but he realized in this anagnoresis
that the children should go along the path of life by themselves.
Throughout the book, Holden tried to save all children from growing up and losing their innocence.
When he realized that he could not achieve this goal, he had a nervous breakdown and could not deal
with it. However, it is an inevitable fact that everyone has to grow up.
Catcher in the Rye - Through Holden's Eyes
The Catcher in the Rye has truly earned it's place among great classic works. J. D. Salinger created a
literary piece that was completely unique. The entire novel was written in the first person view of the
17-year-old, Holden Caulfield. The majority of the story is compiled of Holden's rudimentary
monologue of 'complexly simple' thoughts, the rest utilizing his relay of previous dialogue. That and
the use of unique punctuation, digressing explanations, and complex characterization, transformed the
simple plot into the complex literary classic.
The novel's dialogue and monologue alike, manage to relay the feel of natural speaking such as:
"I mean you'd be different in some way - I can't explain what I mean."
The contractions; you'd and can't - since they are common in everyday language - establish a very
common and simple tone. Stress on the first syllable of "different," reinforces the tone by
demonstrating how typically they speak, just as in reality. He uses dashes for pauses and signaling
associative digressions. Instead of signaling pauses, commas are used mostly where mechanically
required, for instance:
"So all of a sudden, I ran like a madman across the street - I damn near got myself killed doing it, if
you want to know the truth - and went in this stationary store and bought a pad and pencil."

Holden Caulfield creates a thought provoking point of view. On the surface many of his thought
patterns seem unrelated and straying from the topic. His association of topic with digression is used
almost constantly throughout the novel. However, realizing that these digressions are very relevant and
even crucial to the topic allow the reader to gain true insight to the character. His statements about his
sister's intelligence, followed by explanations of how well she listens, reveals Holden's associations of
intelligence with being quiet and observant. Another example would be his tension around the nuns.
Even though he enjoyed the conversation, he worried about being asked if he was Catholic. He stated
they "...would have liked it better if he were Catholic." This gives insight to his discomfort with being
judged morally, and to his association of people of morals looking down on those who don't share
them.
In Holden's descriptions and thoughts, Salinger accomplished the most unique aspect of the story's
point-of-view. Instead of using the popular - however overrated - style of well refined thoughts and
flowery descriptions, Salinger describes things as they are perceived upon a first impression. Naturally
the human mind does not instantly process first encounters or experiences into drawn out rhetorical
metaphors. We must think about them first, relate and compare them to past experiences, then form
associations. This is based on Jean Piaget theory of assimilating new situations, accommodating them
with previous knowledge, then forming generalizations for understanding, called schemas. [HoughtonMifflin Psychology, pgs. 49-50] That is exactly how Salinger describes Holden's thoughts. Holden,
like us all, has difficulty explaining things until they have been thought through. For instance, Holden
observes Stradlater's grooming and his looks. Then he compares it to the way guys look in yearbooks,
and what parents say about them. Last he concludes, through comparison, that Stradlater is the kind of
guy that your parents ask about. He states: "I've had that experience quite frequently."
In the more descriptive writings of other authors, it is difficult to relate to the complex associations.
The majority of thought inspired by these works can sometimes be just to figure out the point.
However, Salinger expresses the thought patterns of Holden in the same inherent ways that all humans
think, and through that, relays a strong tone of realism and active thought. Despite the lack of dazzling
rhetoric, Salinger's descriptions are no less intricate. They inspire a more natural style of analyzation
that most can relate to easily. A more logical and linear path, relating to typical primal human thought,
is followed instead of abstract reasoning and artistic representation.
Finally, the elements previously discussed, and a few independent ones, will be used to examine the
characterization of Holden Caulfield. Such as how Caulfield's tendency toward constant introspection
and analyzing of his world, his digression of topics, and the nature in which he speaks, gives us clues
to his character.
His level of intelligence is in no way reflected by his lack of knowledge on trivial issues. He is adept at
reasoning the things around him. Almost all of the insight Caulfield spoke of were things that would
not have been taught to him. Such as repeatedly displaying understanding of human nature,
pretensions, and thought processes. However, despite his intuition, he applies his often cynical and
pessimistic reasoning to almost everything. This fact illustrates ignorance and a level of immaturity.
This is obvious in his inquiry about the ducks, thoughts concerning women, obscene graffiti, and
always getting a "pukey cab."
Since the fact that his mental health was brought up often with his thoughts of being crazy, with
statements like "I'm crazy, swear to God, I am..." and references of psychological hospitalization in the
beginning and end, a psychological approach will be used to explain his manner. Holden demonstrates
tendencies associated with both OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) and bipolar Disorder,
consisting of swings between manic and depressive states.

OCD is characterized by obsessive thoughts and their motivation of compulsive acts to relieve the
stress of the obsession. [Houghton Mifflin Psychology, pg. 539] It is quite obvious that Holden is very
obsessed with detail. He also demonstrates a common symptom of OCD, counting. At Grand Central
Station, he mentions repeatedly counting floor squares. Small details trouble him endlessly. Once he
becomes so obsessed with type of luggage that his roomate has that he hides his own under the bed.
Bipolar Disorder, the more severe of the two, is the most apparent in Caulfield. He displays an
amazing amount of symptoms of this Disorder. He suffers symptoms such as: little need to sleep,
difficulty remaining on topic discussions (jumping from subject to subject), bursting with ideas and
insight, irritation with people who rationalize with them, excessive spending of money, impaired
decision making (instances of people going to live on the streets), cynicism, and paranoia. The mania
will give way to severe depression, in some cases, in a matter of hours.
The examples of the previous symptoms are demonstrated in Caulfield's monologuos thoughts and
dialogue. The instances of his jumping from topic to topic, and his insight and ideas, have already been
discussed. Holden comments on his "little need for sleep" often like after the clubs close he says, "I
wasn't sleepy or anything." A great amount of irritation is shown toward Sally when she points out
flaws in his plans of running away. He becomes belligerent and tells her, "you give me a royal pain in
the ass." In the beginning he comments on his abundant supply of money, but by the end he is forced
to borrow from his sister. He frequently pays for peoples meals and drinks, donated money to nuns,
and offered anyone a drink "on him". A textbook example of his impaired decision making was his
plans to run away, pretend to be mute, and build a cabin in the woods. His cynicism is constant as he
repeatedly generalizes everyone on the basis of dress, status, and looks. The thoughts of always getting
a pukey cab and obscene words being everywhere are prime cases of paranoia. Then in his swing to
depression, he comments on people making him depressed, his feelings of being "lousy," and once
expressed thoughts of suicide. When he spoke of people coming to New York to get up early, he
voiced his wish to jump out of the hotel window.
Holden Caulfield, being afflicted with such handicaps, was doomed to fail in school, and his
breakdown inevitable. Living in a time when clinical psychology would not come for a few years,
Holden was forced to cope with this on his own. There was no one to go to for help, so his wish for it
manifested itself into the one thing he would like. So in his subconscious wishes for control and help
he said:
"Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all.
Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around - nobody big, I mean - except me. And I'm standing on
the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the
cliff - I mean if they're running and they don't look where their going I have to come out from
somewhere and catch them. That's all I'd do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it's
crazy, but that's the only thing I'd really like to be. I know it's crazy."
The children represent all of his problems running rampid in his game of life that "old Spencer" told
him of in the beginning. The absence of "big" people portray no one being in charge, and him the lone
"big" person, express him as being souly in control. The playing in the rye field next to a crazy cliff
would depict his nearness to his fall, while being oblivious to the danger. His one wish is to able to
prevent this, to be in control. Then after establishing his wishes he considers it impossible by
expressing thoughts of it's craziness. He is resolved that he cannot be in control, but it is all he wants.
In a world before alternatives to his painful lifestyle, what can Holden do but blindly play the game in
the rye field, right beside his cliff of sanity.

"But life is a game boy. Life is a game that one must play by the rules."
Catcher in the Rye - Holden Caufield Character Analysis
The Catcher in the Rye can be strongly considered as one of the greatest novels of all time and Holden
Caufield distinguishes himself as one of the greatest and most diverse characters. His moral system
and his sense of justice force him to detect horrifying flaws in the society in which he lives. However,
this is not his principle difficulty. His principle difficulty is not that he is a rebel, or a coward, nor that
he hates society, it is that he has had many experiences and he remembers everything. Salinger
indicates this through Holden's confusion of time throughout the novel. Experiences at Whooten,
Pency, and Elkton Hills combine and no levels of time separate them. This causes Holden to end the
novel missing everyone and every experience. He remembers all the good and bad, until distinctions
between the two disappear. Holden believes throughout the novel that certain things should stay the
same. Holden becomes a character portrayed by Salinger that disagrees with things changing. He
wants to retain everything, in short he wants everything to always remain the same, and when changes
occur; Holden reacts. However the most important aspect of Holden Caufield's character can be
attributed to his judgment of people. Holden Caufield, a character who always jumps to conclusions
about people and their phoniness, can be labeled as a hypocrite because he exemplifies a phony
himself.
Holden Caufield the 16 year old protagonist and main character of The Catcher in the Rye narrates the
story and explains all the events throughout three influential days of
his life. A prep school student who has just been kicked out of his second school, Holden struggles to
find the right path into adulthood. He does not know what road to follow and he uses others as the
scapegoat for his puzzlement in life. Harold Bloom explains,
His central dilemma is that he wants to retain a child's innocence., but because of biology he must
move either into adulthood or madness. As a sort of compromise Holden imagines himself as "the
catcher in the rye," a protector of childhood innocence exempt from movement into adulthood, which
is neither possible nor sane." (Bloom's Notes 22)
Even Gerald Rosen states that, "It is important to note here that Holden's rejection of an adult role is
not a case of sour grapes. He believes he will succeed and it is the successful life he fears"(101). Even
though Holden tries to act like an adult at times, he is actually extremely afraid of the adult life and as
a way to escape life, he creates this character, the catcher in the rye, throughout his thoughts. He feels
that by saving the children from falling off the cliff, he saves them from falling into the adult world
that he disgusts. He feels that this character can prevent the children from becoming adults and
remaining in that childish world. Holden pictured it this way,
Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all.
Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around-nobody big, I mean except me. And I'm standing on the
edge of some crazy cliff.
What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff. I mean if they're running
and they don't look we're they're going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That's all I
have to do all day. I'd just be the Catcher in the Rye and all. I know it's crazy, but that's the only thing
I'd really like to be. I know it's crazy(Salinger 173).
Holden exhibits the madness described before at often times throughout the book and in the end it ends
up sending him to a sanitarium. He knows he has become mad and he even tells himself this many
times in the book; but he never really believes it. One time in the book when he displays this madness
is,

But I'm crazy I swear to God I am. About halfway to the bathroom, I started pretending I had a bullet
in my guts. Old Maurice had plugged me. Now I was on the way to the bathroom to get a good shot of
bourbon. I pictured myself with my automatic in my pocket, and staggering a little bit. I'd walk down a
couple of floors-holding on to my guts, blood leaking all over the place. As soon as old Maurice
opened the doors he'd start screaming at me. But I'd plug him anyway(Salinger 103-4).
This explains the psychotically disturbing actions Holden makes in this novel. Holden becomes
obsessed with death and dying, and several times in the book he wishes he was dead. "Again, Holden
can't stay away from the subject of the death of family members and the decay of the corpse. Even
when he later goes to the Museum of Art, he winds up in the mummy room explaining about
preserving the dead to two boys and then getting sick and "sort of" passing out"(Rosen 100). He
knows that he has become crazy but has a problem admitting it fully and this shows why can be
considered a phony.
Holden Caufield constantly criticizes religion and many different aspects of it. Throughout the book he
makes remarks on Jesus and the Disciples many times. About the Disciples he says, "Take the
Disciples for instance. They annoy the hell out of me, if you want to know the truth"(Salinger 99). He
explains that his reason feeling this way is because he is an atheist. However he also says that he
believes in Jesus but not the disciples. However the definition of an atheist is someone who does not
believe in God. Frederick Gwynn and Joseph Blotner explain, "Jesus and Holden Caufield truly love
their neighbors, especially the poor in goods, appearance and spirit. Holden not only gives $10 to the
nuns in the station but is also depressed by their meager breakfast and the fact that they will never be
going anywhere swanky for lunch"(29). Holden and Jesus have many similarities, but Holden feels he
is totally opposite from Jesus. Just one more example of Holden's total disregard of what is going on.
Holden dislikes many people, places, and events all because of the phoniness surrounding them.
Mollie Sandock says that "He feels a scathing, harrowing disgust for the "phoniness" he senses so
acutely all around him. It makes him literally ill. He is repulsed not only by the insincerity and self
promotion of the "phonies," "hot-shots," "jerks," "bastards," and "morons," but by the phoniness that is
excellence corrupted"(966). Holden realizes all the flaws within others but he can not see them within
himself. At the end of the novel he complains heavily about the fowl language written on walls where
children can see it. Yet as Edward Corbett explains, "Holden's swearing is so habitual, so
unintentional, so ritualistic that it takes on a quality of innocence. He is constantly seeking to appear
older than he really is. His profanity is so much ingrained by habit. that he is wholly unaware of how
rough his language is"(442). There were even a few times in the book that his sister reprimanded him
for swearing too much. He also does not trust that anyone tells the truth. Sandock replies by saying,
He repeatedly insists that he is telling the truth because in his experience and by his rigorous
standards, most people do not speak the truth. He prefaces his revelations with "If you really want to
hear about it," and "If you want to know the truth," because he found few people do want to know the
truth(966).
Holden encounters many different people, and experiences many adventures throughout the three days
that this story occurs. He becomes involved with a variety of people, including taxi drivers, two nuns,
an elevator man(pimp), three girls from Seattle, a prostitute, and a former teacher from whom Holden
thinks he should flee from, in the middle of the night. He can never hold on to anyone he cares about;
so he always finds a way to ruin the relationship by escaping, or destroying it. Nash Burger says that,
"Holden's mercurial changes of mood, his stubborn refusal to admit his own sensitiveness and
emotions, his cheerful disregard of what is sometimes known as reality are typically and heart
breakingly adolescent"(New York Times 14). He also easily mocks certain people and the way they

act. On teachers Holden feels that, "You don't have to think to too hard when you talk to a
teacher"(Salinger 13). When his sister asks him if he would want to become a lawyer like his dad, he
replies by saying, "Lawyers are all right, I guess-but it doesn't appeal to me. All you do is make a lot of
dough and play golf and play bridge and buy cars and drink martinis and look like a hot-shot"(Salinger
172). Many would think that after all of Holden's experiences and tragedies, he would go to his parents
for help. However he does not, which shows that he must not have a good relationship with his parents
if he can not talk to them. It seems as if he wants to reach out to them but for some reason he can not.
Gerald Rosen gives examples of being shut out, he says,
Holden sorely misses being able to turn to his parents in his time of trouble. He doesn't say this, but he
reveals it obliquely in his movie fantasies of being shot by the mob. He first pulls the peak of his
hunting cap over his eyes and shouts about being blind. Then Holden shouts, " Mother darling, give
me your hand. Why won't you give me your hand?" This seems like clowning, but in fact it is a
revelation of his terrible anguished isolation from his family(100).
According to Webster's dictionary, "Phoniness is described as artificial, counterfeit, or
hypocritical"(362). These are all actions displayed by Holden at several times throughout the novel.
Phony is one of the words heavily used by Holden. He uses the word phony several times throughout
the course of this book and he uses it to describe the actions of others and not himself. Before Holden
judges others, he should take a look at himself and see his faults. Throughout all the encounters with
different people in the book, he is easily the phoniest of all the characters. Perhaps Holden can be
explained better by Corbett, "Holden is himself a phony. He is an inveterate liar; he frequently
masquerades as someone he is not; he fulminates against foibles of which he himself is guilty; he
frequently vents his spleen about his friends, despite the fact that he seems too be advocating the need
for charity"(443). Holden has a dreamy look on life, he dreams of retaining his childhood and
remaining the way he used to be. This idealism explains why he is close to his sister Phoebe and why
he was so close to his brother Allie. He does not want anyone to fall off the cliff into adulthood, he
wants them to remain in the rye and if they go to fall off he will catch them. He is displayed as a true
Peter Pan. Not wanting to grow up was Peter's main reason for living and so was Holden's. Holden
was Peter Pan in his own sense, but he stands out from Peter Pan in many ways, and that is why he is
The Catcher in the Rye.
Jack London - Martin Eden
Jack London, prestigious author of Martin Eden writes his opinions into his work. Aspects of different
societies are prevalent throughout his work and the class struggle between different classes of
characters is apparent in his writing. Although not an autobiography much of his writing can appear to
include his personal views on life. Martin Eden, the protagonist created by London begins as a petty
seaman works his his way to the upper class of society. Through self-determination and self-education
he is able to become a member of the bourgeois. Writers with styles similar to London in that they all
write in the same style in that shows the struggle of the poor and their climb to the upper class only to
see that it reveals a faux ideal. Alice Hoffman author of Here On Earth appears to hold many of the
same beliefs as Martin which are seen throughout her novel.
Martin Eden was forced to make his own living. Eden was never given anything and had to work to
gain everything he wanted. Everyday struggles included finding the simple necessities of food and
shelter. As a poor sailor, Eden looked around and saw the ideals of the bourgeois. Through the eyes of
Eden the Bourgeois were the educated, wealthy, and were what Martin desired to become. He dreams
of becoming educated and belonging to the upper class; ultimately he finds one small connection that

opens up a new world to the once struggling seaman.

Although later disproved, his first impressions of this class were seen from an outsider's view as
perfect. 'Here was intellectual life, he thought, and here was beauty, warm and wonderful as he had
never dreamed it could be.' (p. 40) Martin comes into contact with a family that introduces him to this
new world. The Morse family was all Martin dreamed of, he viewed them, as them part of a perfect
society and Ruth was the focal point of it.! Ruth was heavenly like a flower; her culture and
sophistication stimulated him.
Introduction to this new class surprised Martin. The library, a new idea to him, becomes his new
haven. Although he lacked both the time and money necessary for a traditional education between
sailing he began his way to self-education. In the beginning Martin was separated from Ruth because
of their class difference, but as this yearning for education developed he and Ruth become involved.
'He wasn't of their tribe, and he couldn't talk their lingo was the way he put it to himself. He couldn't
fake being their kind.' (p. 51) Although he wasn't born any with any of these 'privileges' he made it his
business to strive to fulfil what he thought was the better society. Through his studying he soon
developed a love for writing and although he was still a sailor he continued to develop a passion for
something new to his mind. Discovering the world of writing and literature he was able to take himself
places he had never dreamed he would be. His climb to the upper class was a big struggle for him in
his life. Martin's first attempt at becoming a part of the society was a failure. At first his etiquette
wasn't good enough and he was too opinionated and looked down upon by guests of the Morses'.
Martin's writing transcends him into a new person. Martin's transformation allows him to understand
that things are not cracked up to what they appear to be. When he achieves opulence, Martin feels as if
he is still not accepted as a true member of the elite. He believes that he is still the same Martin Eden,
his fame has only changed his image not his character. 'Martin bethought himself of the numerous
occasions on which he had met Judge Blount at the Morses' and when Judge Blount had not invited
him to dinner. Why had he not invited him to dinner than? He asked himself. He had not changed. He
was the same Martin Eden. What made the difference?' (p. 437) The truth of the upper class is revealed
once Martin becomes accepted as one of them. Martin becomes disgusted and as he was once looked
down upon, he begins to look down upon the members of the 'upper class.' Throughout literature this
common rejection can be found. In Alice Hoffman's, Here On Earth Hollis is similar to Martin Eden.
This is the same rejection that Hollis experiences at the hands of Hank and their eronics. The age-old
argument of new money vs. old money is a central theme throughout literature. At one point another
prominent author, F. Scott Fitzgerald remarked to Ernest Hemingway, 'the rich are different from you
and me.' As Hollis and Martin Eden are to the respective rich, they can never be truly accepted into the
bourgeois society. Hover, their dedication to assuming the identity of the rich causes them misery and
sorrow and eventually leads to a tragic death. Martin Eden's perseverance and hard work were both a
let down and a pickup it was a double-edged sword. His laboring leads to his eventual success and his
emotional downfall.
London explores a key question; Is it worth the trouble to gain prestige and wealth but to lose your
livelihood? Through Martin Eden London explores the struggle between classes. Specifically London
explains the yearning of the poor to be rich and the steadfastness of the rich to be unacceptant of the
'nouvelle rich.' This struggle is apparent as barriers continue to exist in the struggle between classes.
John Steinbeck - Infinity Mirror
"Tularecito" is a myth about truth. Tularecito, just a character of that myth, is the focus for this glossed
over fable. Steinbeck draws on this form of genre to present the idea that we are all a part of what

happens to others, based upon our nature.

The image presented of Tularecito is that of a demon, an idiot savant, a boy with a gift from God, and
that gift's cost. He is a freak, a dangerous misfit, an innocent who does not need the constraints of
reality. Tularecito is a test. The test is one of moral caliber. It is a test of the souls of the characters who
overshadaow Tularecito.
Pancho is a man that is both holy and sinful. His purfunctory act of church going becomes true belief
as alcohol demons induce him to halucinate a deformed boy into an outcast from hell. He looks into
his mirror and sees himself, becomes shaken, reforms.
From Pancho's employer, Franklin Gomez, we get a cold hard look into society. We see a mother,
knowing her son is to be hated and feared, and perhaps possibly killed, cannot face killing her son with
her bare hands.
She leaves the killing to exposure to the elements, enying herself a look into Tularecito.
Franklin adopts Pancho's demon, and Tularecito transforms into a disadvantaged who has been gifted
with talent. Tularecito becomes a man at the age of six, "The boy grew rapidly, but after the fifth year
his brain did not grow any more," To Franklin, Tularecito is grace, and graceless. He is talented in all
things of any physical strength, and well proficient in the creation of beauty, and an artist in the care
for life of nature. The touch of Tularecito brings beauty, and life, and love to the world, until he
becomes enraged, (should anyone endanger what came from the touch of his hand). Franklin looked
into Tularecito's mirror and saw what Tularecito was. Authority views come from several directions.
While one teacher sees Tularecito as a Pavlovian dog, needing to be trained, the other sees him as an
idiot savant, needing only to be pushed into harmless fantasy. This leads a third view of Tularecito, one
of a simple minded killer that needs to be locked up for his own good.
Tularecito is viewed as less than human from the start. His name means "little frog", and his physical
disabilities are seen by all, causing fear.
Tularecito is a noble savage. Dangerous to look at but hiding the soul of God, hf is intimidating, a
creator, and dangerously tempermental. As Steinbeck weaves his tale, it is obviously full of metaphors
on the basic belief of our society that everything must be forced into a plausable category, fit for
inclusion into the human race. Tularecito should never have gone to school. He would have been
happy living at home, simple as he was. In the end society takes Tularecito and makes him a monster.
Since monsters are not allowed into human society, Tularecito goes looking for a different society that
he does belong to.
Unfortunately this society doen not exist. Tularecito has no control over his perceptions of reality and
fantasy. He searches for a world of fantasy, and in his efforts, he creates a hole. When this hole is
covered up, it confirms Tularecito's belief in fantasy. Tularecito creates another hole, and waits for his
fantasy to show.
Tularecito has only one flaw. He believes that what he created should not be destroyed. Whenever this
happens, should it be school, work, or fantasy, Tularecito defends his creations with the only thing he
can understand, violence. It is not like true, calculated violence, but very much like a motor nerve
reaction. He reacts with pure emotion and pain, and eventually he kills.
Steinbeck tells an interesting story with Tularecito as a mirror. In fact, all the characters in the story are
mirrors. As we look at them we see how we measure against them. But Tularecito is a mirror with an
infinity of sides. He is a tool for testing human beliefs, one of which is that sometimes, it is better to
leave things alone than to try to force them into our mirror image of how they should exist.

John Steinbeck - Essay on Loneliness

"Of Mice and Men" essay on Loneliness is a basic part of human life. Every one becomes lonely once
in a while but in Steinbeck's novella "Of Mice and Men", he illustrates the loneliness of ranch life in
the early 1930's and shows how people are driven to try and find friendship in order to escape from
loneliness. Steinbeck creates a lonely and blue atmosphere at many times in the book. He uses names
and words such as the town near the ranch called "Soledad", which means loneliness and the card
game "Solitaire" Which means by ones self. He makes it clear that all the men on the ranch are lonely,
with particular people lonelier than others. In the opening chapter, Steinbeck introduces the idea of
loneliness and men who work on ranches living temporary lives, with no aim in life. Steinbeck uses
the setting to convey these ideas. As they were walking along the path, it is described as " a path
beaten by hard boys coming down from the ranches to swim in the deep pool, and beaten hard by
tramps who come wearily down from the highway in the evening to jungle-up near water" (p.18) This
creates a setting and shows how men who work on the ranch have had temporary, isolated and lonely
lives. He also writes "an ash-pile made by many fires" (p.18) This shows that many men must have
walked through this road to enter a lonely and miserable life, moving from ranch to ranch finding
useless work. I think all the people living in the ranch are lonely. This proves this where Steinbeck
describes the bunk house where all the workers sleep. "Over each bunk there was nailed an apple box
with the opening forward so that it made two shelves for personal belongings of the occupant of the
bunk." (p38) The way Steinbeck describes the bunkhouse indicates their lonely lives. Also by only
having two shelves for their personal belongings shows their lonely insecure lives.
However, there are particular people in the ranch who have lonelier lives than others. The loneliest
person on the ranch has to be Crooks, who suffers from extreme loneliness because he is black and he
is living in a ranch and the surrounding area which is very racist. He lives by himself, because the
other men do not like him. He does not take part in any of the social activities in the ranch and is left
out completely. He is so lonely that he turns to books, which soon becomes boring and he will become
lonely again. He is so desperate for company and for someone to talk, even though he does not really
show it. When Lennie comes into his room he just talks and doesn't care if Lennie is listening or not,
because he is so desperate. Crooks says to Lennie "A guy goes nuts if he ain't got nobody. Don't matter
no difference who the guy is, longs he with you. I tell ya a guy gets too lonely an he gets sick" (p.105)
This shows that he desperately needs a friend to talk to and he is at the point where he is becoming
emotionally sick of it. In a way this point made by Crooks shows that George and Lennie support each
other from being very lonely, even if Lennie is as thick as an ape, he still disables George from being
lonely. George and Lennie have something which all the men on the ranch envy and that is friendship.
Crooks calls Lennie "nuts" and does not believe that Lennie will own his own land with George and
Candy. He exclaims "An' never a God damn one of `em ever gets it. Just like heaven. Ever'body wants
a little piece of lan'. It's just in their head." (p.106) This shows that he has no hope for the future and
that he has no belief in men from that ranch going to heaven or a better place.
Crooks is probably the loneliest character in the ranch with Curley's wife. There are two characters
that we never get to know the name, they are the boss and Curley's wife. The boss does not seem to be
friends with any of the men, maybe to keep his place as higher than everyone else, or in case he has to
sack one of the workers. However, there is prove that he is not friendly person as he does not seem to
understand friendship between two people. Such as where George told The Boss tat they travel
together, he replied "What stake you got in this guy? You takin' his pay away from him? (p.43) This
show that nobody understands friendship, as it does not exist on the ranch. Curley's wife is controlled
by her husband, who does not let her speak to any of the men on the ranch, which leads her into being

lonely. Even though Curley's wife is mentioned frequently, we never know what her name is. This just
shows how people do not care for others, leading to loneliness. I think all the men do not consider her
as a normal human being, but and object. None of the men are to scared to talk to her in case Curley
becomes jealous and wants to start a fight. She has no female friends on the ranch, so the men are her
only option, but they do not want to become friends with her.She spots out Lennie and wants to start a
friendship with him as all of the others fear Curley and will have nothing to do with her. She says to
Lennie Think I dont like to talk to somebody ever once in a while? This shows that she is trying to tell
Lennie that she desperately needs to talk to somebody as she hardly does ever talk to no-one because
they do not listen to her. I do not think that She should be as lonely as she is, because she has a
husband, but he ignores her and just goes out to Cat houses once in a while, where she is not allowed
to go anywhere, but stay in the house. I am given the impression that she is living in two lives. In
reality she is living in a boring ranch, with no companionship in isolation. However, she also believes
that she would make it to the movies one day. She says to Lennie "I aint used to livin like this. I coulda
made something of myself... maybe I will yet "(p.124) Because she is so lonely, she wants to think of
herself as having a future ahead of her, but of course she doesn't.
when Curleys Wfe is Killed by Lennie, Steinbeck describes Curley's wife as a pretier figure. He writes
"..the meanness and the plannings of the discontent and the ache for attention were all gone from her
face." (p.128) This shows that now Curley's wife is dead, she now looks happy and has escaped from
her loneliness.
Curley's Wife is not the only one with a dream future, Crooks wishes he could be educated in the
future, but like he said, "never a God damn one of `em ever gets it". Also Candy has a dream of
owning a future farm with Lennie and George. Candy is an old ranch worker who is disabled due to an
accident in the past. He is now a swamper, who's only companionship was his dog, until Carlson
shoots it for him because it is old and useless, just like Candy. Later on in the book, he wishes he
should have shot the dog himself, which is similar to the tragic fate with George and Lennie later on in
the book. When his dog dies, he searches for new friendship as he does not want to grow older and
older being lonely. He hopes George and Lennie will become these friends, as when he overhears them
talking about their dream ranch he offers his savings into that farm, and makes George and Lennie's
dream begin to turn into reality.
" `S'pose I went in with you guys. That's three hundred and fifty bucks I'd put in... How'd that be? "
(p.87) This shows that he is fed up of being in a place where he is not wanted. He knows that he is
going to get sacked soon, when he is no use at all, and he will have no place, no friends and no life to
turn to. That is why he is sacrificing his savings into a farm, which he could live the rest of his life in,
in peace and comfort. Candy's desperate attempt to be a part of their dream shows us the amount of
loneliness that exists for him.
I believe all the other characters on the ranch, such as Whit, Carlson, Slim and Curley, are all also
lonely, but they seem not to care. Curley, however, even though he has a wife, seems to be lonely. Not
very many people like him as he is not a very nice man. He wants to keep his place on the ranch by
looking down on people, and by keeping his wife away from the other men. This has led for him to
have no friends. This is probably why he goes to a brothel with other ranch men, as you have to be
lonely to go to a cat house.
George and Lennie seem to be two lonely men. George has to always keep an eye on Lennie and
therefore Lennie is a burden to him. Lennie on the other hand is lonely, but he is too dim to
understand. He seems to live in his own world, and evolves everything around whether it pleases
George or not. But they have something that all the other men have not got, and that is a true
friendship. Lennie is there for George to keep sane, while George is there to help Lennie. George likes

to talk to Lennie most of the time about their dream ranch. He says to Lennie that guys like us are the
loneliest people in the world but he comments on themselves "With us it aint like that. We got a future.
We got somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us.." (p.32) This just shows that they both enjoy
talking to each other, making each other happy. But later on in the book, George loses Lennie, as he
kills him himself. When one of the members of a friendship is removed, there is much misery. When
Candy lost his dog, he kept thinking about him. He felt he should have shot his dog himself, not a
stranger. When George had to shoot Lennie, he felt terrible. He had just shot his best friend, his only
friend in the world. Because of this, he has to live the rest of his life alone and knowing that he killed
his only friend. But I think he did the right thing. I think it shows their strong friendship. George did
what was best for himself and for Lennie, a she could not watch Lennie die miserably in pain, getting
brutally killed by George. He wanted George to die peacefully, thinking about the thing he loves about
the most-rabbits. He knew Lennie would have died in slow and cruel way if he left it for Curley.
After George killed Lennie, it seems that he would have a better life without him, but really he would
have a worse life and would turn out like the other ranch workers. He will suffer from loneliness and
will have no true friends. Of course, his dream will never come true as he could not precede with it
without Lonnie. I think the simple moral to the story is Every body needs someone to talk to in order
to survive. Curley's wife died because she had no one to talk to. Crooks says he feels sick sometimes
because he is so lonely. It is obvious that he will not live a happier life and will probably die soon. And
Candy, he is old and lonely and is associated with his dog. stein beck writes he will go into the same
direction as his dog, which is probably true. It is obvious that all the workers on the ranch will die a
sad and lonely death, mainly because they had no friends. If this book taught me anything, it`ll have to
be, every body needs a friend to talk to, no matter what race, sex or age, you have to have
companionship to prevent you from suffering from loneliness.
Of Mice and Men - The theme of loneliness
"Of Mice and Men" is a skillful novel, which deals with the theme of `outsiders', that is, individuals
who do not fit into the mainstream of society. The novel portrays this idea of loneliness throughout
John Steinbeck's stimulating and exciting novel.
There are several clearly identified themes running through the novel. The loyalty and friendship
which exists between two men, George and Lennie, and the hostile environment of America during the
American Depression. But, the main two themes of `Of Mice and Men' were loneliness and prejudice.
Steinbeck raises questions in the mind of the reader that the novel would be based on loneliness. The
first line read "A few miles south of Soledad". This is a clever idea by Steinbeck as "Soledad" means
loneliness in Spanish. The title "Of Mice and Men" may be seen as a warning for the whole novel as it
came from Robbie Burns's poem "To a Mouse" which translates as `no matter how well be plan the
future, things often go wrong'.
The setting of Steinbeck's novel is very important because the date when the novel took place was in
1929, around the time New York Wall Street stock market collapsed, resulting in the dollar becoming
worthless. Unemployment was high at this time and men had to move around a lot looking for work,
which meant they were never in one place long enough to form any relationships, so this was a very
lonely existence.
Steinbeck shaped the ranch where George Milton and Lennie Small worked in as an isolated and
primitive place. Steinbeck uses his personal experience as a ranch worker to describe how the working
men at the ranch felt in the novel. George says that "ranch workers are the loneliest people in the
world and don't belong nowhere".

Steinbeck also portrays loneliness through characterisation. He uses sexism, racism and ageism to get
his message across.
One example of this is when George meets the old, decaying Candy and his antiquated dog, he tells
him about the "black" man called Crooks. Candy stated to the inarticulate George "give the Stable
Buck hell. Ya see the stable buck's a nigger". This was typical of 1930's America as black people were
thought of as inferior to white people. This suggests that Crooks was friendless. He has his "own bunk
in a separate nigger room" and "he scattered personal possessions around the floor; for being alone he
could leave things about". Crooks is obviously suffering from racial discrimination as he is the only
black man on the ranch and is not allowed in the bunkroom with the other men because of his colour.
He therefore, had a very lonely existence.
Steinbeck also uses Candy to portray loneliness. The disconsolate Candy becomes lonely after his
beloved dog was shot. The men in the ranch describe the dog as a "stinking hound" and an "old
b******d". Candy feels dejected as he says "I wish somebody would shoot me when I become
useless".
This proves that Steinbeck describes Candy as lonely character.
Perhaps the loneliest character, which Steinbeck creates in the novel, is Curly's wife. She is the only
female in the ranch and although she is married, you never witness the distinct couple of Curly and his
wife together; they are always searching for each other. Curly's wife is lonely and, as a result of this,
she was endlessly trying to make friends with George and Lenny. She tries to convince Lennie to
speak to her despite what George was declaring. Curly's wife remarked, "You can talk to me, don't
listen to George". But, Lenny didn't agree with what she has to say. Another piece of evidence, to
suggest that Curly's wife is lonely is that she had no name! This proves that no one ever stays long
enough to get to know her. Curly's wife also flirts with the male workers of the ranch to seek attention.
The workers think she is a "tart" but she is an insecure, lonely woman and this is shown when she tells
Lennie "I never get to talk to anyone, or else, Curly gets mad". My personal opinion is that Curly's
wife married Curly for company, not for love.
Steinbeck illustrates Slim to say to George and Lenny "I've never seen a couple like you two before. It
is not normal in this area". You never read about Slim in abundance which must also indicate he is a
lonely character.
Another example which Steinbeck uses to illustrate why these men are lonely was when Whit
describes that he has a friend who was in a magazine; he said, "Do you remember Bill Tenner. He
worked here three years ago?"
This emphasizes how these ranch workers never developed relationships.
Steinbeck uses George and Lennie as a contrast because they are the only people to have anyone to
talk to. To demonstrate this, Lenny exclaimed "But not us because.........because I got you to look after
me and you have got me to look after you and that's why".
The last line that Steinbeck wrote read, "Now what the hell ya suppose is eatin' them two guys". Curly
isn't used to being with someone for so long as he does not understand why they were depressed.
In conclusion, John Steinbeck expertly portrays the theme of loneliness in "Of Mice and Men" in an
interesting and original manner. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book.
Of Mice and Men - The Struggle
"Of Mice and Men" is a book about two men and their struggle to achieve their dream of owning a
farm through their companionship. The two men are completely different, one being a retarded fellow

(Lennie), and the other, a typical ranch hand (George) who travels with him. On the path to achieving
their dream, they run into obstacles, but stick together, stressing the importance of true friendship.
Steinbeck wrote this book to tell us how important it is to have a friend to share your life with.
The book starts off set in Soledad, which, when translated into English means "lonely". But when
Lennie and George are together, they are anything but lonely. They share a friendship so great that if
either person dies, or both are separated, they other could not survive. Their friendship is a true one,
where they share their lives together, benefitting from each others company. "Guys like us, that work
on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world. They got no family. They don't belong no place. They
come to a ranch an' work up a stake and then they go inta town and blow their stake, and the first thing
you know they're pounding in' their tail on some other ranch. They ain't got nothing to look ahead
to....With us it ain't like that. We got a future. We got somebody to talk to that give as a damn about us.
We don't have to sit in no bar room blow in' in our jack jus' because we got no place else to go. If them
other guys gets in jail then can rot for all anybody gives a damn. But not us. But not us! An' why?
Because.....because I got you to look after me, and you got me to look after you, and that's why."
(p.13-14) Because of the extent of Lennie and George's friendship, they go beyond the mere sharing of
words. George and Lennie share a dream of owning a farm, due to their friendship with each other.
Their friendship makes this dream possible, because if there were only one person, there would be no
one to share the dream with, it would be just a silly old thought, and not a serious possibility. "With us
it ain't like that. We got a future. We got somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us......O.K.
Someday--we're gonna get the jack together and we're gonna have a little house and a couple of acres
an' a cow and some pigs and' An' live off the fatta the lan, An' have rabbits. Go on, George! Tell about
what we're gonna have in the garden and about the rabbits in the cages and about the rain in the winter
and the stove, and how thick the cream is on the milk like you can hardly cut it. Tell about that,
George." (p.14) In the third chapter of this book, Candy is center of attention due to his dog, which
Carlson wants killed. Candy is an old man who has no one to talk to or keep him company besides the
dog. To him, the dog was more than an animal that smelled, it was a companion to share life with.
When Carlson tells Candy he wants to kill his dog, Candy is hesitant to answer. Candy stalls, and
finally gives in to Carlson's request. He had this dog for his whole life, and now that it was gone,
Candy would be abandoned without a friend. Out of this loneliness, he jumps on to Lennie and
George's dream, giving practically everything he has to them, stressing the importance of friendship
and sharing your life with a friend. "Tell you what' s'pose I went in with you guys. Tha's three hundred
and fifty bucks I'd put in. I ain't much good, but I could cook and tend the chickens and hoe the garden
some. How'd that be? I'd make a will an' leave my share to you guys in case I kick off, 'cause I ain't got
no relatives nor nothing." (p.59) In this book most of the people had no one to share their life with as
intimately as George, Lennie, Candy and his dog did, leaving themselves with a void which they tried
to fill in. Take for example, Curley's wife. She had a husband, but he was never there to spend time
with her, so she went in search of someone to talk to. What Curley's wife needed was a companion or a
friend which she could spend her life with because even though she was beautiful, she didn't have
anyone to spend her life with, therefore resulting in her unhappiness. "Think I don't like to talk to
somebody ever' once in a while? Think I like to stick that house alla time?" (p.77) Through out the
book Steinbeck uses many characters to emphasize a message which he wants to get across to us. By
looking at the situations which George, Lennie, Candy, and Curley's wife were in, we can conclude
that Steinbeck wrote the book to tell us how important it is to have a friend to share your life with.

John Steinbeck - Of Mice and Men

Do you have an unrealistic dream? In the book Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, the main
characters in the story each had a dream in which they were unable to carry out. Taking place during
the Great Depression era in the United States, these individuals struggled to survive. The theme "It is
better not to have big dreams in life because they are too difficult to attain and you end up bitterly
disappointed and unmotivated" was brought up and proven true by them. Lennie, Candy, and Curley's
wife's dreams, like "the best laid schemes o'mice an' men gang aft a-gley, had been led astray. Lennie's
dream had been shattered when his craving for soft materials caused him to commit a crime. Lennie
dreamt of owning a farm and a little house with George, and most of all, tending some rabbits. Seeking
employment and asylum at Tyler Ranch, Lennie longed to have a feel of some soft materials.
However, being a feeble-minded man, and having a childlike understanding of his enormous strength,
the result was tragic when Lennie broke the neck of Curley's wife while feeling her soft hair. His first
thought after the incidence was that he would no longer be able to tend the rabbits. He did not realized
how serious this mistake of his was. It had cost him not only his dream, but his life as well. The only
piece of land that Lennie ended up with was his grave. Because of Lennie's fault, Candy's dream of
having a share of George's farm became unrealistic. Candy was among the ones who could hardly
manage the struggle to survive during the Depression. His age has robbed his usefulness, so he was
more than happy to take part in the plans of George and Lennie. Their dream farm was always on
Candy's mind. He went on to figuring about how they could earn money off the rabbits, and their lives
then. However, he discovered what Lennie has done, and saw that the farm which has once seemed so
real is now gone. Curley's wife dreamt of being a movie star and regrets marrying Curley. Having
encountered an actor when she was fifteen, she was told that she was a natural in acting, but her
mother forbade her to pursue her dream. On the same night that she met another actor, she met Curley.
When no letter came from the actor, she marries Curley. However, she has always wanted to make
some achievements and loved attention. She constantly wandered around looking for trouble. When
she was killed by Lennie, she was not able to go after her dream anymore. Lennie, Candy, and Curley's
wife were not capable of having their dreams come true, but were full of hope. A problem got into
each of their way, which they have not the power to solve. They have shown how big dreams often
cause tragedies, and are unrealistic.
Huckleberry Finn - Conflict Between the Individual
The conflict between society and the individual is a theme portrayed throughout Twain's Huckleberry
Finn. Huck was not raised in accord with the accepted ways of civilization. Huck faces many aspects
of society, which makes him choose his own individuality over civilization. He practically raises
himself, relying on instinct to guide him through life. As portrayed several times in the novel, Huck
chooses to follow his innate sense of right, yet he does not realize that his own instincts are more
moral than those of society.
From the very beginning of Huck's story, Huck without a doubt states that he did not want to conform
to society; "The Widow Douglas she took me for her son, and allowed she would sivilize me... I got
into my old rags and my sugar hogshead again, and was free and satisfied"(Twain, 2). Miss Watson
lives with Huck and she is always picking at him, trying to make him become conventional. According
to the essay, The Struggle to Find Oneself Huck has become so used to being free that he sees the
Widow Douglas' protection solely in terms of confinement. She doesnt let Huck smoke when he
wants and she is always nagging. "Miss Watson would say, "Don't put your feet up there,

Huckleberry;" and "Don't scrunch up like that, Huckleberry -- set up straight;" and pretty soon she
would say, "Don't gap and stretch like that, Huckleberry -- why don't you try to behave?"(Twain, 3).
We get the feeling that Huck is an individual, a person who is independent and has the willingness to
live a life free of complications. According to Ryan Schremmers essay Examination of Freedom as an
Overall Theme in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn the theme of freedom is shown in Huckleberry
Finn, which parallels to his distancing from society:
One of the most prominent and important themes of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is freedom.
Freedom not only from Huck's internal paradoxical struggle in defining right and wrong, but also
freedom from Huck's personal relationships with the Widow Douglas and his father, as well as
freedom from the societal institutions of government, religion, and prejudices.
When Pap returns for Huck, and the matter of custody is brought before the court, the reader is forced
to see the corruption of society. The judge rules that Huck belongs to Pap, and forces him to obey an
evil and abusive man. One who drinks abundantly and beats his son. In this case Pap symbolizes the
viciousness and cruelty of civilization. Later, when Huck makes it look as though he has been killed,
we see how society is more concerned over finding Huck's dead body than rescuing his live one from
Pap. This is a society that is more anxious about finding a dead body than it is in the safety of people.
This situation prepares us for Hucks need to escape from society. In Schremmers essay we see how
Huck struggles for freedom from two families. He tries to stay away from getting "sivilized" from
Widow Douglass and tries to escape his fathers brutality.
Later on in Chapter VI Pap kidnaps Huck and puts him in a cabin in the woods. We see how Huck
prefers the freedom of the wilderness to the limitations and restrictions of society. "It was pretty good
times up in the woods there, take it all around" (Twain 32). But when Huck feels Paps presence, is
when we see how his feelings about being free in the wilderness change.
The theme becomes even more evident once Huck and Jim set out, down the Mississippi in chapter
VIII. Huck enjoys his adventures on the raft, "Nothing could be better"(115), Huck thought. But only a
few pages later the raft and Jim provide the same comforts. Nothing had ever sounded so good to him
as Jim's voice, and Huck felt "mighty free and easy and comfortable on the raft"(128). He prefers the
freedom of the wilderness to the restrictions of society. Also, Huck's acceptance of Jim is a total
defiance of society. Huck realizes that society would "call me a low down ablitionist and despise me
for keeping mum,"(Twain 62) but he decides not to conform to society. Ironically, Huck believes he is
committing a sin by going against society and protecting Jim. He does not realize that his own
instincts are more morally correct than those of society'. According to the Hartford Courant we
understand Hucks feelings about accepting Jim and going against the norm:
Most amusing is the struggle Huck has with his conscience in regard to slavery. His conscience tells
him, the way it has been instructed, that to help the runaway, nigger Jim to escape--to aid in stealing
the property of Miss Watson, who has never injured him, is an enormous offense that will no doubt
carry him to the bad place; but his affection for Jim finally induces him to violate his conscience and
risk eternal punishment in helping Jim to escape.
In chapter sixteen, we see the most inhumane action of society. Huck meets some men looking for
runaway slaves, and he fabricates a story about his father on the raft with smallpox. The men fear
catching this disease and instead of rescuing him, they give him money and advise him not to let it be
known of his father's sickness when seeking help. These men are not hesitant to hunt slaves, yet they
refuse to help a sick man.
Huck's acceptance of his love for Jim is shown in chapter thirty-one. Huck writes a letter to Miss
Watson to return Jim, yet he ends up ripping the letter and wishes to free Jim. "'All right, then, I'll go
to hell'- and he tore it up." Here, we see that Huck concludes that he is evil, and that society has been

right all along.

Huck doesnt realize that his goodness comes from within. He doesnt become aware that those inner
qualities are not paralleled to external behavior. If Huck was to catch on that he would be eager to
change how society functions instead of running away from it.
Huck acts as a much nobler person when he is not confined by the hypocrisies of civilization.
Throughout the story we see how he distance himself from society and creates his own world in which
he follows his own feelings of whats moral and honorable. From the beginning of the story we see his
instinct come into play and how it affects his decisions throughout the story. He almost always goes
his own way, makes up his own mind, and lives by his own standards.
Huckleberry Finn - Critical Essay
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is the noblest, greatest, and most adventuresome novel in the
world. Mark Twain definitely has a style of his own that depicts a realism in the novel about the
society back in antebellum America. Mark Twain definitely characterizes the protagonist, the
intelligent and sympathetic Huckleberry Finn, by the direct candid manner of writing as though
through the actual voice of Huck. Every word, thought, and speech by Huck is so precise it reflects
even the racism and black stereotypes typical of the era. And this has lead to many conflicting battles
by various readers since the first print of the novel, though inspiring some. Says John H. Wallace,
outraged by Twains constant use of the degrading and white supremacist word nigger, "[The
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is] the most grotesque example of racist trash ever written" (Mark
Twain Journal by Thadious Davis, Fall 1984 and Spring 1985). Yet, again to counter that is a quote by
the great American writer Ernest Hemingway, "All modern American literature comes from one book
by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finnits the best book weve hadThere has been nothing as
good since" (The Green Hills of Africa [Scribners. 1953] 22). The controversy behind the novel has
been and will always remain the crux of any readers is still truly racism. Twain surely does use the
word nigger often, both as a referral to the slave Jim and any African-American that Huck comes
across and as the epitome of insult and inferiority. However, the reader must also not fail to recognize
that this style of racism, this malicious treatment of African-Americans, this degrading attitude
towards them is all stylized of the pre-Civil War tradition. Racism is only mentioned in the novel as an
object of natural course and a precision to the actual views of the setting then. Huckleberry Finn still
stands as a powerful portrayal of experience through the newfound eyes of an innocent boy. Huck only
says and treats the African-American culture accordingly with the society that he was raised in. To say
anything different would truly be out of place and setting of the era. Twains literary style in capturing
the novel, Hucks casual attitude and candid position, and Jims undoubted acceptance of the
oppression by the names all signifies this.
Twains literary style is that of a natural southern dialect intermingled with other dialects to represent
the various attitudes of the Mississippian region; he does not intend to outrightly suggest Negro
inferiority. Had Twain intended racial bigotry, he would not write the about the sympathies of Huck
towards Jim. This can easily be seen in that Huck does, in various points in the book, realize Jim to be
a white equivalent at times. Huck tells the reader, when he realizes that Jim misses his own family and
children, "I do believe he cared just as much for his people as white folks does for theirn" (150). I do
believe that Twains literary style, that is, his informal language through Huck, is more a captivation of
thoughts as though in a conversation than as an intended use of white supremacist inclination. Any
words that seem to degrade African-Americans is merely a freelance use of Southern jargon and not
deliberate. That is, Huck talks the way he knows how and was taught according to the society then to

stylize a specific treatment at black slaves. However, his sympathies towards Jim throughout the river
odyssey has taught Huck to overcome certain stereotypes, such as black stupidity and apathy, but not
quite thoroughly to rebel against societal prejudices. Huckleberry still believes Jim to be irrelevant and
pig-headed at times, as in their exchange over the Biblical story of King Solomon and the French
language. Huck does not tell Jim but to the reader," If he got a notion in his head once, there warnt no
getting it out againI see it warnt no use wasting words you cant learn a nigger to argue" (76-79).
Huckleberry is also a very important character to study to further contemplate Twains literary style in
that Huck is the main character and the voice through which Twain conveys the images of the South.
The reader will notice that Huck acts based on his own morals. Despite the Widow Douglass and Miss
Watsons attempt to "sivilize" Huck by teaching, sheltering, and instructing him on how to behave,
Hucks actions throughout the novel do not always reflect their teachings. The protagonist has limited
perspective and his outlook in life is honest, containing no propagandist suggestions. Huck neither
advocates slavery nor does he protest against it. He sees slavery as a natural occurrence in daily life
and the inferior disposition of slavery to be of little significance. Whenever a situation occurs that
requires Huck to assist Jim, Huck does so accordingly to his own moral standards. He may agitate over
the morality of helping a runaway nigger, as southern society condemns the act, but his own love for
Jim allows Huck to accept his own "wickedness". "I come to being lost and going to helland got to
thinking over our trip down the river; and I see Jim before me all the time But somehow I couldnt
seem to strike no places to harden me against himhow good he always was I was the best friend
old Jim ever had in the world, and the only one hes got now I [will] steal Jim out of slavery again;
and if I could think up anything worse, I would do that, too" (206).
Finally, Jim and many other African-American slaves seem to accept their lesser positions as
contended to "white folks". This is the most critical junction that has earned Twain innumerable
criticism and caused such long discrepancies among the scholars of American heritage literature. The
oddest, most peculiar description in the novel after Hucks almost symbolic acceptance of Jims
persona, Twain makes a pivot that then mocks Jims buffoonery towards the end. After all that Huck
and Jim has endured together, Huck seems to compromise it all simply to please the childish and
ridiculous ploys of Tom Sawyer. Outrageous proposals such as having rats, snakes, and spiders occupy
the same small "prison" Jim is in, that Jim water a plant with his tears until it flowers, that Jim make
engravings on stone to reveal his oppressed imprisonment in the hut when Jim is living quite well, etc.
All of these preposterous acts might make the reader laugh aloud! Yet, they serve a different meaning
and belong to a wider course. For one, Huckleberry extremely admires Tom Sawyer. The situation is
not merely targeting blacks and humiliating them, it is rather simplistic. Towards the beginning of the
novel, Huck specifically says, being proud but humble about faking his death," I did wish tom Sawyer
was there; I knowed he would take an interest in this kind of business, and throw in the fancy touches.
Nobody could spread himself like Tom Sawyer in such a thing as that" (33). Later and throughout the
novel, anytime Huckleberry managed to trick somebody, he would imagine Tom to be there and more
capable. Though the reader knows Huck is quite intelligent by himself, seeing how he dupes so many
people with his stories. Huck continues this stark admiration of Tom even to the end when he says,
"He [Tom] knowed how to do everything" (250). However, Huck does not seem to possess a kind of
jealousy towards Tom but still maintains the innocence of simplicity. Try as Tom might, Huck is not
swayed by his "Spaniards and A-rabs", magicians, and genies. Claiming them, after trying it himself
by rubbing an old tin lamp and an iron ring, "was only just one of Tom Sawyers lies" (16). This also
suggests that Tom plays on the ignorance of others. So when Tom makes plans to free Jim, Tom is just
bragging his knowledge and continuing his usual insulting of others when they disagree or question
him. He again plays on the ignorance of Jims caretaker Nat by having Nat believe he was

hallucinating. Huck and Tom undertake so much trouble but it all makes the novel appear very boyish
and reminiscent of the Mother Goose nursery rhyme on what boys are made of. Once more, Mark
Twain isnt necessarily suggesting that African-Americans are inferior and should be discriminated
against, the author desires to capture the innocence and playfulness of childhood, specifically
depicting Huckleberry as a true boy.
Huckleberry Finn is a wonderful book that captures the heart of the reader in its brilliance and
innocence. Despite many critics have attacked its racist perspective; the piece merely represents a
reality that occurred during antebellum America, the setting of the novel. Twains literary devices in
capturing the focal of excitement, adventure, and human sympathy is a wonderful novel that should be
recognized, not for bigotry, but that it is the candid viewpoint of a boy that grew up in that era. And
even then, the protagonist does overcome some social prejudices of slavery because he is concerned
with the well-being of his runaway slave friend Jim. That the mockery of the slave race in the end
allowed by Huck is more about fulfilling the awes of Huck towards Tom. The novel is a success
because it does not fail to capture the one singular point of growing up for Huck: boyhood.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - Society And The River
In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain develops criticism of society by contrasting
Huck and Jims life on the river to their dealings with people on land. Twain uses the adventures of
Huck and Jim to expose the hypocrisy, racism, and injustices of society.
Throughout the book hypocrisy of society is brought out by Huck's dealings with people. Miss
Watson, the first character, is displayed as a hypocrite by Huck "Pretty soon I wanted to smoke, and
asked the widow to let me. But she wouldnt. And she took snuff too; of course that was all right,
because she done it herself" (Twain 8). Huck did not understand why she does not want him to smoke,
"That is just the way with some people. They get down on a thing when they don't know nothing about
it" (Twain 8).
When Huck encounters the Grangerfords and Shepardsons he describes Colonel Grangerford as, " a
gentleman, you see. He was a gentleman all over; and so was his family"(Twain 86). On Sunday when
Huck goes to church he sees the hypocriticalism of the families, "The men took their guns along,
The Shepardsons done the same. I t was pretty ornery preaching-all about brotherly love, and suchlike" (Twain 90).
Huck with his anti-society attitude, you would presume that he would have no problem in helping Jim.
Yet he fights within himself about turning over Jim to the authorities, by this action within Huck
shows that he must have feelings that slavery is correct so that the racial bigotry of the time may be
seen. This decision for Huck is monumental even though he makes it on the spot. He has in a way
decided to turn his back on everything that "home" stands for, this allows us to leave our thought of
bigotry behind and begin to see Jim for what he really is a man.
Hucks attitude for Jim is racist which is seen when he decides to play a trick on Jim during their
voyage. After Huck plays his trick his attitude toward Jim begins to change, "It was fifteen minutes
before I could work myself up to go and humble myself to a nigger; but I done it, and I warn't ever
sorry for it afterward, neither" (Twain 72). The dialogue throughout the book between Huck and Jim
illustrates that Jim is more than property and that he is a human being with feelings, and hopes for a
better future.
The river provides a place for Huck and Jim to escape the harsh society around them and develops into
a god. The river provides a pathway for the action to progress, unlike other forms of travel it proceeds
to guide the book in one direction down a set path. The god-likeness of the river controls the

adventures, "It is the River that will not let them land at Cairo, where Jim could have reached
freedom; it is the Rive that separates them the River that reunites them, " (Eliot 333). Society has
lost the moral meaning of the river, " the river was forgotten, and precisely by the "dwellers in
cities," by the "worshippers of the machine" (Trilling 325). It is through the adventure of Huck and
Jim that Twain tries to show the power that can only be displayed by the natural force of the river, "
the river was forgotten, and precisely by the "dwellers in cities," by the " worshippers of the machine"
(Trilling 325).
Whenever Huck goes to shore he eventually seeks the refuge of the raft and the river. The problems of
society become apparent to Huck when he goes ashore, while watching the gun fight between the
Grangerfords and Shepardsons he becomes ill with the violence between these two families, "I wished
I hadnt ever come ashore that night, to see such things" (Twain 94). The river never deals with the
insignificant matters of society, and allows Huck the freedom to be himself. The river is freedom, the
land is oppression, and that oppression is most evident to Jim. In Hucks dealings with society he sees
people for who they truly are, "He sees the real world; and he does not judge it-he allows it to judge
itself" (Eliot 329).
Huck is rejuvenated by the river, when he goes ashore he faces society and all the injustices that it
carries. When he returned to the raft he felt free again, "Other places do seem so cramped up and
smothery, but a raft dont. you feel mighty free and easy and comfortable on a raft" (Twain 96). The
river becomes the place where freedom is felt for Huck and Jim on a grand scale.
The end of the novel may appear to distract from the maturing of Huck and seem to regress Huck back
to the state he was at the beginning of the novel. When Twain really was just trying to fade Huck out,
"Huck Finn must come from nowhere and be bound nowhere" (Eliot 335). The return of Tom, with his
elaborate scheme to free Jim is merely to set Huck into the background of the novel again. Tom returns
to let the reader see the transformation of Huck, "Mark Twain, Huck Finn whose fate it must always
be to seek a freedom beyond the limits of any civilization, ended his novel by contrasting Toms and
Hucks sense of the Territory." (Pearce 361). The ending simply shows the changes Huck has gone
through during his voyage to the boyish attitude him and Tom shared at the beginning of the novel.
Huck and Jims adventures allow us the chance to examine the society they live in. It also gives us an
opportunity to examine society today along with ourselves. Freedom the one thing that both Huck and
Jim are searching for they only find on the river. Twain is showing us in this story that sometime we
must break away from society and what the world views as correct and just. He is showing us that we
have the strength inside to stand on our own and make decisions for ourselves. Twain, through Huck,
gives us the chance to see all the things in the world as they really are. Not so that we judge the world
but so we can stand up for what is right.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - Literary Analysis
Ransomed? Whats that? ... it means that we keep them till theyre dead (10). This dialogue
reflects Twains witty personality. Mark Twain, a great American novelist, exploits his humor, realism,
and satire in his unique writing style in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Mark Twain, born in
1835, wrote numerous books throughout his lifetime. Many of his books include humor; they also
contain deep cynicism and satire on society. Mark Twain, the author of The Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn, exemplifies his aspects of writing humor, realism, and satire throughout the characters and
situations in his great American novel.
Mark Twain applies humor in the various episodes throughout the book to keep the reader laughing
and make the story interesting. The first humorous episode occurs when Huck Finn astonishes Jim

with stories of kings. Jim had only heard of King Solomon, whom he considers a fool for wanting to
chop a baby in half and adds, Yit dey say Sollermun de wises man dat ever live. I doan take no
stock in dat (75). Next, the author introduces the Grangerfords as Huck goes ashore and
unexpectedly encounters this family. Huck learns about a feud occurring between the two biggest
families in town: the Grangerfords and the Sheperdsons. When Huck asks Buck about the feud, Buck
replies, ... a feud is this way: A man has a quarrel with another man, and kills him; then that other
mans brother kills him; then the other brothers, on both sides, goes for one another; then the cousins
chip in and by and by everybodys killed off, and there aint no more feud (105). A duel breaks out
one day between the families and Huck leaves town, heading for the river where he rejoins Jim, and
they continue down the Mississippi. Another humorous episode appears n the novel on the Phelps
plantation. Huck learns that the king has sold Jim to the Phelps family, relatives of Tom Sawyer. The
Phelps family mistakes Huck for Tom Sawyer. When Tom meets with Aunt Sally, he ... [reaches] over
and [kisses] Aunt Sally on the mouth (219) This comes as a surprises to her and Tom explains that he
[thinks] [she] [likes] it (219) Later, Huck runs into Tom on the way into town and the two make up
another story about their identities. The two then devise a plan to rescue Jim. They use Jim as a
prisoner and make him go through jail escaping clichs. While going through these rituals he replies
I never knowed b fo twas so much bother and trouble to be a prisoner (252). In the end, though,
Tom reveals that Jim owns himself. Twain uses humor as a way to add realism to multiple situations.
Mark Twain employs several examples of realism in the way he wrote The Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn. Twain explores the gullibility of society when the duke and king go to the camp meeting and
collect money from the poor, unsuspecting, church-going people. The king makes up a story about his
profession as a pirate who lost his crew at sea, to which the people respond saying, Take up a
collection for him, take up a collection! (128). Twain uses deceit, lying, and hypocrisy throughout
the novel, which appear in various chapters. Twain also reveals examples of realism through the
dialect the characters use in the novel. In his book, Twain utilizes the real dialect used at the time,
which further demonstrates the realist qualities which he possesses. Throughout the book, Twain
includes many different dialects including the Missouri Negro dialect; the extremest form of the
backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary Pike County dialect, and four modified varieties of the
last (2). Other examples of realism occur throughout the setting. The story takes place in St.
Petersburg and on the Mississippi, near Twains place of birth. In particular, Mark Twain makes use of
the episodes of realism as a way to satirize society.
Satire, another element in Twains writing, occurs many times throughout his novel as well. A
convincing example of satire occurs in the first chapter when Huck says, [b]y and by they fetched the
niggers in and had prayers, and then everybody was off to bed (5). This pokes fun at the fact that
Miss Watson tries to become a better Christian and a better person but still owns slaves and considers
them property. Another satisfactory example of satire occurs when Pap becomes outraged at the
thought of a black man having the opportunity to vote. However, the black man actually has more
education than Pap (27). Twain uses the Boggs-Sherburn event to include more satire. When Boggs
enters the story he says he has come to murder Colonel Sherburn. Sherburn then proceeds to shoot
Boggs and the townspeople plan to lynch him. Sherburn laughs in their faces and says to them, you
are cowards (142). Finally the crowd breaks up and moves on (142). Huck reflects on this incident
and says ... the pitifulest thing out is a mob (142). Another prime example of satire occurs when
Huck goes to the Phelps plantation and sees the two frauds, the king and the duke, tarred and
feathered. He points out that [h]uman beings can be awful cruel to one another (222). Mark Twain
includes numerous examples of satire throughout the novel.
Through the use of humor, realism, and satire, Twain illustrates these aspects of his writing style. His

style portrays the flaws in society and how pre-Civil War people treat each other. Mark Twain, one of
the great American novelists of the nineteenth century, uses his books to teach others about life in the
1840s.
Nathaniel Hawthorne - Hypocrisy In The Scarlet Letter
In The Scarlet Letter Hypocrisy is evident everywhere. The characters of Hester, Dimmesdale,
Chillingworth, and the very society that the characters lived in, were steeped in hypocrisy. Hawthorne
was not subtle in his portrayal of the terrible sin of hypocrisy; he made sure it was easy to see the sin
at work. Parallels can be drawn between the characters of The Scarlet Letter and of todays society.
Just because this book is set in colonial times, does not mean its lessons are not applicable to the world
we live in.
The first character, Hester Prynne, is guilty of adultery and of hypocrisy. She loves Dimmesdale yet
she says nothing while for seven years Dimmesdale is slowly tortured. This love she felt that was so
strong, that it made her break sacred vows must have disappeared. Why else would she condemn her
supposed love to the hands of her vengeful husband. Dimmesdale is continually tortured by his inner
demons of guilt that gnaw at his soul, and Chillingworth makes sure these demons never go away.
Hester allows this to happen. Physically and mentally the minister begins to weaken, slowly he
becomes emaciated, and he punishes himself constantly. Only when Hester knows that if
Chillingworth is aloud to continue, that Dimmesdale will surely go insane if she does not reveal her
secret. Why did Hester wait so long? She did not reveal who her lover was on the scaffolding when
she had the perfect opportunity to. Also, she did not tell her husband who her lover was.
Why did Hester Prynne keep secrets that ended up hurting everyone. Hester can atone for her sin of
adultery, but every day that she keeps the secret of her lover, and the true identity of Rodger
Chillingworth a secret she is committing a sin. If Hester would have Take heed how thou deniest to
him---who, perchance, hath not the courage to grasp it for himself---the bitter, but wholesome, cup that
is now presented to thy lips!(Dimmesdale 47) things would have been infinitely better for everyone.
Everyone Hester Prynne loves, she does in a hypocritical way. She loves Pearl enough to sacrifice to
feed and clothe her, but she does not love Pearl enough to give her a father. Hester loves Dimmesdale,
but she does not love him enough to expose his sin publicly, and she conceals her knowledge of
Chillingworth. Either you love something whole-heartedly, or you dont. Hawthorne might have
portrayed Hester in a more favorable light then the other characters, but still she should have to wear a
scarlet H in addition to her A.
The second character, Arthur Dimmesdale is the epitome of hypocrisy. Hawthorne intended his name
to have symbolic meaning. Dimmesdale meaning dim or not very bright. Arthur might be bright in the
areas of theology, but when it comes to hypocrisy, he is a fool. Dimmesdale says very near the
beginning of the book What can thy silence do for him, except to tempt him---yea, compel him, as it
were---to add hypocrisy to sin?(Dimmesdale 47) He knows what will happen to him if he endures his
sin in private, but he is too weak at this point in the book to admit it. The tapestries of biblical adultery,
which are found in Arthurs room are hypocritical. These are supposed to help him atone for his sins
by making him feel guilty, but he feels no better. Arthur goes and preaches every week on how bad sin
is, and how he is the worst sinner of them all. These partial confessions just make him more of a
hypocrite. Dimmesdale knows how the parishioners will interpret these confessions, he is not blind to
their looks of adoration. Dimmesdale enjoys being viewed as a saint, when he knows he is a truly a
sinner.
The years of torture the minister receives, are brought on by his own doing. If his supposed

commitment to the community had stopped him from admitting his sin, he would have not been
tortured. His love of the community is very similar to Hester Prynnes love of Pearl. Dimmesdale only
loves his community enough to preach in it, but he is preacher harboring a great sin, and so he cannot
truly guide his community spiritually. Dimmesdales and Hesters love are alike in their limitations.
While Dimmesdale does speak up for Hester keeping her Pearl Truth in what Hester says, and in the
feeling which inspires her! God gave her the child, and gave her, too, an instinctive knowledge of its
nature and requirements,---both seemingly so peculiar,---which no other moral being can posses. And,
moreover, is there not a quality of awful sacredness in the relation between this mother and this
child.(Dimmesdale 78) but he cannot love her enough to be her husband.
The scene at the scaffolding at night is a truly disgusting scene of hypocrisy. Arthur seizes the
opportunity to go up on the scaffolding and feel better about his sin, but when he sees a fellow man of
the cloth walking by, he cowers. Would it not have been better to have his sin revealed? Then when
Hester and Pear stand with him Pear asks Wilt thou stand here with mother and me, to-morrow
noontide?(Pearl 105)The minister is given another chance to redeem himself, but he cowers yet
again!
Dimmesdale is selfish, he tries to atone in private, by whipping himself and fasting. This accomplishes
nothing, he knows in his heart that no punishment in private will get him forgiveness from the lord.
Yet he continues his practices of private punishment, so he temporarily feels better about himself.
Another occurrence of hypocrisy was when Hester finally revealed the true identity of Rodger
Chillingworth. Dimmesdale was overcome with anger, how could Arthur have been mad? Hester had
finally conquered her weakness of character, and told him the truth. Dimmesdale could only see that
she had been harboring a terrible secret in her heart. After that, the agreement to run away to the Old
World was another instance of a character weakness of Arthur. He had not atoned for his sins, but he
would still run away with Hester. He even interpreted the flood of sunshine to mean that God himself
approved of their plan.
Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter is the ultimate incarnation of hypocrisy. He represents how the
Puritan ideals had been twisted into something that reeked of hypocrisy. Dimmesdale pretended to be a
good, just, and wise minister, in reality, he was a bad, unjust, and foolish. Dimmesdale recognizes the
danger of hypocrisy, but his character is too weak to avoid the pitfall of hypocrisy.
The third character of Roger Chillingworth is a man who at one point was guided by intellect, and not
his emotions. He pretends to be Dimmesdales friend, but inflicts grievous wounds upon the reverend.
At the beginning of The Scarlet Letter Rodger returns to his wife, only to find her being publicly
condemned for adultery, his emotions began to take over. At that point, his only goal in life is revenge.
When he eventually figures out who Hesters lover was, he begins to torture Dimmesdale in such a
way that he does not know he is being tortured. Chilingworths emotions rule him, his single-minded
pursuit of revenge overtakes him. He is supposed to be a scholar, a man of reason. Revenge for the
betrayal of Hester is the driving force in his life. The actual torture he inflicts is purely mental, and is
successful in breaking Dimmesdales body and soul down. During one instance Chillingworth sees
what he has become The unfortunate physician, while uttering these words, lifted his hands with a
look of horror, as if he had beheld some frightful shape, which he could not recognize, usurping the
place of his own image in a glass. IT was on of those moments---which sometimes occur only in the
interval of year---when a mans moral aspect is faithfully revealed to his minds eye. Not improbably
he had never viewed himself as he did now.(Hawthorne 118) He sees just how far evil he has become,
but still Chillingworth continues his vengeful work.

The Puritan society itself was a lesson in hypocrisy. Supposedly, they were firm believers in the Bible,
but the Bible advocates forgiveness and toleration. The whole societys basis was on religious
enlightenment. Yet, why was it that the first thing that was to be built in Boston was a prison? Why is
the first building thought of a place of punishment? Another example of religious hypocrisy happened
early in the book. Hawthorne described some gossiping housewives that were talking about Hester's
punishment. Each one of the housewives was advocating harsher punishment for Hester. The
magistrates are God-fearing gentleman, but merciful overmuch,---that is the truth, added a third
autumnal matron. At the very least, they should have put the brand of a hot iron on Hester Prynnes
forehead. Madam Hester would have winced at that, I warrant me.(Housewife 36). Religion is often
the source of much hypocrisy. A great example of God being perverted into something else, were the
Crusades. Christian soldiers were told to go and kill in the name of God, so they went off into the
holy lands and killed the infidel. Fanaticism to a deity is not a good thing. The terrorists of 9/11 killed
so many people did so in the name of God also. Their creed actually does not call for anything like
that. Perversion of God by those who hold power is a sin. Its impossible to truly believe in a religion,
and feel justified in killing or persecuting others. The infamous Bill Clinton fiasco was made into big
issue because of fundamentalists in government. Newt Gingrich (a former prominent Republican) was
much to busy thumping his Bible to even read it. He called for Clintons head, even thought Newt
liked to philander too. This man was exactly like Arthur Dimmesdale in some respects. Both of them
were guilty of a sin they themselves were condemning. Hypocrisy was present in Puritan society and it
endures still even today.
Hypocrisy is the major theme in The Scarlet Letter. Hawthornes work was meant to highlight the
hypocrisy in Puritan society, and in the people that make up the society. The Scarlet Letter was meant
to expose just how much of a sin hypocrisy is, and just how it causes so much pain and suffering.
Hawthorne Writing Style
Nathaniel Hawthorne was a prominent early American Author who contributed greatly to the evolution
of modern American literature. A New England native, Hawthorne was born in Salem, Massachusetts
on July 4, 1804 and died on May 19, 1864 in New Hampshire. An avid seaman, Hawthorne's father
died in 1808 when Nathaniel Hawthorne was only a young child. After his father's death, Hawthorne
showed a keen interest in his father's worldwide nautical adventures and often read the logbooks his
father had compiled from sailing abroad. Hawthorne was a descendant of a long line of New England
Puritans, which sparked his interest in the Puritan way of life. After he graduated from Bowdoin
College in 1825, Hawthorne returned to his home in Salem were he began to write in semi-seclusion.
Hawthorne published his first novel, Fanshawe in 1828. In 1839, Hawthorne was appointed weigher
and gauger at the Boston Custom House. He later married Sophia Amelia Peabody in 1842. In the
following years, Hawthorne wrote his more famous novels which shaped his own literary style, as well
as the genres of the romance novel and short story. Eventually, Hawthorne developed a style of
romance fiction representative of his own beliefs. Although Nathaniel Hawthorne's writing style was
often viewed as outdated when compared to modern literature, Hawthorne conveyed modern themes
of psychology and human nature through his crafty use of allegory and symbolism. To begin with,
Hawthorne's style was commonplace for a writer of the nineteenth century. During the time period in
which Hawthorne wrote, printing technology was not yet advanced enough to easily reproduce
photographs in books. Therefore, Hawthorne frequently wrote lengthy visual descriptions since his
audience had no other means to see the setting of the novel. (Magill:1 840). One example of such
descriptions was in The Scarlet Letter when Hawthorne intricately describes the prison door and its

surroundings. Another aspect of Hawthorne's writing which was exclusive to his time period was the
use of formal dialogue which remained fairly consistent from character to character (Magill:2 140).
Such overblown dialogue was evident in The Scarlet Letter when the dialogue of Pearl, a young child,
exhibited no difference from the dialogue of the other characters in the novel. Hawthorne adopted the
use of overly formal dialogue partly from a British writer, Sir Walter Scott, whose works were popular
in the United States and Great Britain (Magill:1 841). Although Hawthorne's dialogue was overly
formal, it was an accurate tool in describing human emotion (Gale). Absence of character
confrontation was another component of Hawthorne's literary style. Hawthorne frequently focused
more on a character's inner struggle or a central theme than on heated encounters between characters
(Gale). One example of this style can be found in The Scarlet Letter since the novel was almost solely
based on the commandment 'Thou shall not commit adultery' (Magill:1 846). Despite dated dialogue
and dated writing style, Hawthorne implied various modern themes in his works. One of Hawthorne's
recurring themes throughout his works was his own view on human nature. Hawthorne explored an
interesting human psychology through his exploration of the dark side of human consciousness
(Magill:1 841). In The Scarlet Letter, Hawthorne introduced 'a profound comment on the breakdown
of human relationships in the society of the seventeenth century' (Harris 304). Hawthorne's theme that
human nature is full of wickedness was also evident in 'Young Goodman Brown' when the title
character encountered great difficulty in resisting temptation (Magill:3 1143). One outstanding aspect
found in Hawthorne's writing was the concept of neutral territory. Hawthorne described this concept as
'a neutral territory, somewhere between the real world and fairy-land where the actual and imaginary
may meet, and each imbue itself with the nature of the other' (Litz 145). The concept of neutral ground
was most evident in the Custom House section of The Scarlet Letter and served as the area in which
romance took place (Magill:1 1569). Hawthorne's modern themes were also modeled by Hawthorne's
own religious beliefs. Although it was not the only reason Hawthorne wrote The Scarlet Letter, his
Puritan background contributed greatly to his portrayal of a sinner in a strict Puritan community (Litz
157). Hawthorne also raised questions concerning the morality and necessity of Hester Prynne's exile
in The Scarlet Letter. One reason for these inquires was Hawthorne's disbelief in heaven, hell, angels,
or devils since modern science was undermining the Bible (Magill:2 847). Unlike the frankness
commonly found in modern twentieth century literature, the nature of literature in the nineteenth
century was more conservative. Therefore, Hawthorne implied more modern themes through the use
of symbolism. One of Hawthorne's most obvious symbols in The Scarlet Letter was Pearl, the living
product of the adulterous affair between Arthur Dimmesdale and Hester Prynne. Even though some of
Hawthorne's symbols were fantastical, they represented an anachronistic moral standpoint of
Hawthorne himself. (Gale) An example of this symbolism was Hester's moral sin of adultery
symbolized by an overly ornate scarlet 'A' on Hester's breast. In fact, few authors who worked outside
realism have been as concerned with morals as Hawthorne was. (Magill:2 1572). Hawthorne also
employed allegory as a way of presenting themes. Hawthorne often achieved allegory by placing
characters in a situation outside of the ordinary (Magill:2 1572). In The Scarlet Letter Hawthorne
presented a highly complex variation on his usual theme of human isolation and the human community
(Harris 304). Hester Prynne was a superb example of both these themes since she was isolated from a
strict Puritan community. Possibly, Hawthorne's recurring theme of isolation stemmed from his own
experience of seclusion (Gale). Hawthorne explored the themes of penance for sins and cowardliness
when Arthur Dimmesdale struggled with himself to make his sin public. In conclusion, Hawthorne's
literary style did indeed contain elements such as description and dialogue, which seemed out of place
when compared to modern twentieth century literature. However, Hawthorne's style was typical of the
literary style of the time. Nevertheless, Hawthorne addressed modern themes and expressed his own

view on human nature and religion. In addition, Hawthorne's symbolism was an essential tool in
addressing topics, which were too radical to be publicly addressed in the nineteenth century.
Therefore, Hawthorne's symbolism an astute way to express his own beliefs. Hawthorne also achieved
a unique form of allegory by placing characters in unusual situations. Hawthorne used various symbols
to imply themes of adultery, sins, and human morality. All in all, Hawthorne deeply examined every
facet of human nature and drew conclusions from the experiences of the characters in his work.
WORKS CITED Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Scarlet Letter.
Fitzgerald, Sheila ed. Short Story Criticism. vol.4.
The Scarlet Letter - Roger Chillingworth
Throughout all forms of literature, the author will often provide situations and characters, each which
can contain a strong symbolic meaning. Symbolism allows a character to be expressed as almost
anything. Through the symbolism of a single character, any type of character trait, story, or way of life
can be told. Also, a character can represent a strong and demanding feeling. One of these feelings is
that of revenge, a controlling obsession possessed by a character. It is a problem that may lead to
feelings or acts of sin and evil. The actions, feelings, thoughts, and looks of one character may
symbolize that chain of evil and sin, including the root of all evil. In Nathaniel Hawthornes The
Scarlet Letter, symbolism is used throughout the novel to describe the character Roger Chillingworths
acts of revenge, representing sin and evil, including the devil, which lead to the decomposition of his
character.
Near the beginning of the novel, as Roger Chillingworth first appears as a character, his symbolic
relationship with the devil and sin is first apparent. Roger Chillingworth first appears as a stranger of
the new colony. After being held captive by Indians after he was shipwrecked a year before, he learns
of Hesters sin. Shortly after, the symbolic relationship between Chillingworth and the devil is first
shown in Chapter 4, where he disguises himself as a physician, and provides a new identity for himself
as Roger Chillingworth. said Old Roger Chillingworth, as he was hereafter to be named. Pg. 81
The Stranger entered the room with the characteristic quietude of the profession to which he
announced himself as belonging. Pg. 76. After changing his name to Roger Chillingworth, and
labeling himself as a great physician, he is able to deceive the colony. This may relate to the devil in
the way that stories have told how the devil often disguises itself in order to tempt someone, or
perform another evil. The primary and deadly evil seen vividly through Roger Chillingworth is that of
vengeance. It is his primary sin and problem in the novel, which eventually leads to his defeat and his
death.
What once began for Chillingworth as an act of vengeance, slowly transformed into a life of endless
obsession. Not the less, he shall be mine. Pg. 78. Roger Chillingworth tells Hester that the father of
her child will be known and that Chillingworth will make it certain that he learns the man, and
confronts him. The reader may experience the intensity of Chillingworths plans for the future, as the
foreshadowing of his obsession is apparent. As the passion of his revenge grows, Chillingworths
actions become more sinful and symbolic. this learned man was the physician as well as friend of
the young minister. Pg. 109. Chillingworth decides to become good friends with Reverend
Dimmesdale, the father of Hester Prynnes child, in order to ensure the slow and painful torture of the
reverend. These black weeds have sprung up out of a buried heart to make manifest of an unspoken
crime. Pg. 129. Chillingworth speaks to the reverend about the blackness of secrets in order to torture
the reverend by increasing the pain of his guilt. Chillingworths evil symbolism is also apparent here in
his obsession of destroying the reverend. Although Chillingworth was the only character with no

problem at the start of the novel, his dedication to vengeance and pure evil, leads to his defeat as he
remains the only character who never repents for any of his sins.
The structure of Chillingworths character is carefully decomposed throughout the novel. Hester
had been looking steadily at the old man, and was shocked, as well as wonder-smitten, to discern what
a change had been wrought upon him in the last seven years. But the former aspect of an intellectual
and studious man, calm and quiet, which was what she best remembered in him, had altogether
vanished and had been succeeded by an eager searching, almost fierce, yet carefully guarded look.
Pg. 103. The quote greatly relates to what has happened to Chillingworth throughout the novel. After
dedicating his life to revenge, he begins to change for the worse. Once again, he relates to the devil
because sin and evil (revenge) will often lead to a terrible defeat. Soon, Chillingworth learns that the
reverend may have the strength to escape his destiny for him. Chillingworth realizes, that if
Dimmesdale finally makes public of his sin, he will have escaped Chillingworth, because
Chillingworth will no longer be able to slowly destroy him through guilt. The physician knew, then,
that, in the ministers regard, he was no longer a trusted friend, but his bitterest enemy. Pg. 211.
Chillingworth gains a deeper hate for Dimmesdale now as he becomes stronger.
Finally, at the end of the novel, as the reverend finally decides to reveal his shame, Chillingworth
grabs him violently and screams, Do not blacken your fame and perish in dishonor. I can yet save
you. Pg. 235. As Dimmesdale confesses and escapes Chillingworth, Roger has been defeated. After
dedicating the last seven years or his life to torturing the reverend, Chillingworths motive for living,
and his obsession, is no longer present. After Dimmesdale dies upon the scaffold, Chillingworth does
very little with the rest of his life, and dies a year after the death of the reverend. The symbolism
Chillingworth possesses holds meanings that are very powerful. First, both his attitude, and the result
of his revenge describe the effects of ones vengeance. Not only did he slowly decompose the life of
Reverend Dimmesdale, but after the death, he lost reason for living, and died also. Now, at the
beginning of the book, certain empathy can be felt with Chillingworth. Many can relate to having a
spouse or friend who has wronged the other through lying, cheating, and/or evil or sins. Every day,
you may hear about a person who has committed adultery, breaking apart a family or causing others
grief. A reader will understand the need for revenge when something of this nature occurs, and will at
first side with Chillingworth. Yet, as the book progresses, his side of evil is shown through his actions,
thoughts, looks, and feelings. Chillingworth appears as a character, brought into a destined for
perfection society, as the sinful tempter of the colony. One, whos vengeful tactics led to the deaths of
two men, and whos sinister plan changed the aspects of a society. Although he was originally the only
character without a problem or a sin, he became the one who performed the worst sins of all.
Symbolic Characters in The Scarlet Letter
Symbolic characters are very important in most powerful novels. One classic that uses characters as
symbols is The Scarlet Letter. This novel is about a woman in Puritan society, Hester, who commits
adultery with her minister, Arthur Dimmesdale. She has a daughter, Pearl, and is forced to wear a
scarlet letter the rest of her life. Arthur hides his sin and becomes extremely troubled. Hesters
husband, Roger, takes it upon himself to judge and punish Arthur for his sin and becomes like the
devil. Many characters in the novel are symbols for something. Three characters that are symbolic are
Roger Chillingworth, the young woman, and Pearl.
One character in the story that is symbolic is Roger, Hesters husband. He is the symbol of a life
consumed with revenge. When the reader first meets Roger, he is a mostly normal man.
He was small in stature, with a furrowed visage, which, as yet, could hardly be termed aged. There

was a remarkable intelligence in his features... (p. 56)

The only unusual trait of his is a slight deformity of the shoulder. He is an intelligent man who spends
most of his time reading. When Roger finds out that Hester has been unfaithful to him, he vows to take
revenge on the man who sinned with her. Later he finds out that the man is Minister Arthur
Dimmesdale and meticulously plots revenge. His life becomes consumed with the carrying out of his
revenge. He himself sins as he tries to destroy Arthurs soul. Roger soon comes to resemble the devil.
He even notices this similarity in himself. He says, I have already told thee what I am! A fiend! (p.
158) Hester also says that she pities him, ...for the hatred that has transformed a wise and just man to
a fiend. (p. 159) Each of them recognize that Rogers life centered around hatred and revenge have
made him like the devil. The symbol working in Roger, living to destroy, shows that tearing down
another person causes as much damage to ones own life. Roger is the symbol of a life consumed by
desire for revenge.
Another symbolic character is the kind young woman. She is symbolic of hope in the story.
Surrounded by people criticizing and being self-righteous the young woman alone has kind words to
say to and about Hester Prynne. The first instance when she is kind is at the beginning when Hester is
on the scaffold for the first time. Other women were making remarks like, This woman has brought
shame upon us all, and ought to die. (p. 49) But the young woman says,...let her cover the mark as
she will, the pang of it will be always in her heart. (p. 49) Even thought this remark is not extremely
kind it is the only thing said in Hesters defense. Later in the scene the young woman speaks again.
Oh, peace, neighbors, peace! whispered their youngest companion; do not let her hear you! Not a
stitch in that embroidered letter, but she has felt it in her heart. (p. 51)
Once again, she is the only person to defend Hester. This makes her symbolic of the hope that Hester
can return to a somewhat normal life. She is Hesters hope. At the end of the story, the reader learns
that the young woman dies and Hester makes her burial robe.
Hester saw and recognized the self-same faces of that group of matrons, who had awaited her
forthcoming from the prison-door, seven years ago; all save one, the youngest and only compassionate
among them, whose burial-robe she had since made. (p. 225)
The death of the kind woman, who symbolizes hope, is significant because Hesters hope also dies and
she is forever an outcast in the society. The young woman is symbolic of hope in the novel.
Another character who is symbolic is Pearl, who symbolizes secret sin. Pearl is wild and uncontrolled
like the passion that caused the sin. Throughout most of the book, Pearl is wild. When she is in the
forest with her mother, she fits in with the wild things and they seem to accept her. ...the mother
forest, and these wild things which it nourished, all recognized a kindred wildness in the human child.
(p. 188) Nature recognizes in Pearl a wildness. Also, Pearls character is described as developing,
...the steadfast principles of an unflinching courage, an uncontrollable will, a sturdy pride... (p.
165) All of these characteristics relate to sin, especially sin that is not recognized. While committing
the sin, a person has strong will, pride, and courage just like Pearl does. Pearl is wild and passionate.
Also, when the sin is discovered, Pearls character changes dramatically. Before, Pearl had been wild
and almost insensitive, when her father, Arthur, finally admits he is Pearls father and is dying, Pearl
changes.
Pearl kissed his lips. A spell was broken. The great scene of grief, in which the wild infant bore a part,
had developed all her sympathies; and as her tears fell upon her fathers cheek, they were the pledge
that she would grow up amid human joy and sorrow, nor forever do battle with the world, but be a
woman in it. (p. 233)
Pearl is not wild after this experience. Instead she is sensitive and calm. As soon as Pearl, or the sin, is

acknowledged she is no longer wild and passionate but controlled, calm, and happy. Pearl is the
symbol of hidden sin.
Pearl, the kind woman, and Roger are all symbolic in the novel. Each characters symbolism adds a
deeper meaning to the book and allows for more strong themes to be created or interpreted in the
novel.
The Scarlet Letter - 17th century Life
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne expresses the aspects of relationships, religion,
community, discipline and punishment in the puritan community of 17th century Boston.
Relationships between men and women were very constrained and that is what made adultery such a
bad sin in the eyes of everyone in the community. Religion seemed to govern over all, people would
look up to reverends and the community believed that fate was their destiny. Public discipline and
punishment were used to discourage everyone else from committing the same crime or sin as the
offending "criminal" did. The community was to follow the beliefs of god and to do their duties the
best they could, yet were there to criticize and punish all who disobeyed the religion or laws. In 17th
century Boston every thing was very strict and everyone was expected to follow the laws, which
makes Hester's sin such an excellent example of the beliefs of that time period. The first scaffold scene
is very important because the scene sums up the beliefs of the general public at that time, and gives a
prospective of what Hester Prynne must deal with. In the beginning of chapter two the scene is
described as "it could have betokened nothing short of the anticipated execution of some noted
culprit,"(47) showing that the whole town was there for a ruthless public punishment. The crowd was
not there for an execution though, but there for a public punishment of Hester Prynne who had
committed adultery. A townsman describes Hester's punishment to a stranger as, "they have doomed
Mistress Prynne to stand only a space of three hours on the platform of the pillory, and then thereafter,
for the remainder of her natural life, to wear a mark of shame upon her bosom."(58) This scene shows
the weight of values and morals upon society in the 17th century and how public punishment was not
only used as punishment but as a way to discourage others from committing the same crime. The
community was key in this punishment because it helped alienate Hester and further her pain. The
punishment brings forth Hester's underlying pain, "[Hester] sent forth a cry she turned her eyes
downward at the scarlet letter, and even touched it with her finger, to assure herself that the infant and
the shame were real."(55) This pain only breaks surface once, yet throughout the whole story Hester
must deal with the shame and emotional pain of the scarlet letter. The stranger sums it up best with the
quotation, "Thus she will be a living sermon against sin, until the ignominious letter be engraved upon
her tombstone."
Since religion was such a key part of their lives, anyone who did disobey their god was looked down
upon. What made religion ironic in this story was how everyone looked up to a reverend that had
committed the same sin as someone they looked down upon severely. Dimmesdale says, "before the
judgment-seat, thy mother, and thou, and I, must stand together! But daylight of this world shall not
see our meeting!"(134) The reverend knows his sin and wants be punished with Hester and Pearl, yet
not until what he calls "judgement day." In the 17th century, Puritans believed that there was a stern
God who had decreed in advance the fate of each person for all time. Therefore, there was not much
people felt they could do to become a better person in God's eyes but do his biding with their jobs. To
increase their chances of getting to go to heaven the townspeople would often get one step closer to
God by getting close to a religious leader, which was bad for Arthur Dimmesdale who was probably
farther away from God than everyone else because of his sin. Relationships were looked upon as

something sacred and a woman should be loyal to her husband. Once married it was considered a
horrible offense if you were un-loyal to your spouse.
"They have not been bold to put force the extremity of our righteous law against her. The penalty
therefor is death."(58) A townsman explains that the penalty is death for her crime (showing the
harshness of the 17th century), yet that the other party in the affair must have played a strong role in
tempting her, so they just sentenced her to the letter on her chest and three hours on the scaffold.
The stranger shows how most people reacted when only seeing one of the guilty two parties up on the
scaffold, "it irks me, nevertheless, that the partner of her iniquity should not, at least, stand on the
scaffold by her side." Women still did not have that many rights, so anything Hester said in her defense
would have just have been ignored. Relationships were not supposed to be broken unless by divorce,
even if the husband was at the bottom of the sea-where Hester's husband was believed to be.
Through relationships, religion, community, discipline and punishment the reader can get a better
understanding of what was expected of towns people in the 17th century. The Scarlet Letter shows the
pain and suffering a woman went through when she broke her marriage, and disobeyed her religion.
She then was sentenced to a public punishment to be humiliated, tormented, and alienated by the
community around her. The fate driven religious society in 17th century Boston would not accept sin
of any kind and the punishment for adultery was death. Instead, the community branded Hester Prynne
with the letter "A" for the rest of her life and made her stand in front of the whole community as an
example for everyone that sin and corruption was not accepted in their society.
The Scarlet Letter - Light and Darkness
Nathaniel Hawthorne, author of The Scarlet Letter, felt that the Puritans were people who believed that
the world was a place where the battle between good and evil was a never-ending one. Throughout the
novel, Hawthorne uses the symbols of light and dark to depict this battle among the characters Hester
Prynne, Pearl, and Roger Chillingworth.
After Hester commits her sin, her beauty almost immediately vanishes into darkness. Her hair no
longer hangs freely about her face, instead she ties it up in a bonnet. Hester is not perceived as an evil
person, but her sin makes her "light" hide away. The sun is used as a descriptor of the goodness or pure
nature of character. Because of her sin and the scarlet letter, Hester is no longer pure, therefore she is
not seen in the sun. Hawthorne states, "It was only the darkened house that could contain her. When
sunshine came again, she was not there." While on a walk to the forest, Pearl, Hesters daughter states,
"...the sunshine does not love you. it runs away and hides itself, because it is afraid of something on
your bosom." This is evidence that the scarlet letter itself may be the cause of Hesters darkness.
Pearl is the character most recognized for her presence in the sun. She is drawn to the sun, as the sun is
drawn to her. While at the governors house, Pearl notices how brightly the sun shines through the
windows. She requests that, "the sunshine be stripped off its front and given to her to play with."
Hester responds by saying, "No my little Pearl. Thou must gather thine own sunshine. I have none to
give thee!" Pearl has been seen as a character that always persists on knowing the truth. While in the
forest Pearl wants to hear a story from Hester. She asks Hester if she has ever seen the Black Man.
Hester replies that she has seen the Black Man once before. This suggests that the Black Man may be
her husband, Roger Chillingworth.
Roger Chillingworth is a character who is almost Satan-like. Chillingworth is described as the Black
Man by Pearl and his own description of himself suggests that he is a fiend of some kind. When
Chillingworth discovers that Dimmesdale was the father of Pearl, he taunts him and makes him feel
more guilt than he already possesses. Hester feels guilty because she has suppressed from Dimmesdale

who Chillingworth really is. Chillingworth says, "Ye that have wronged me not sinful, save in a kind
of typical illusion, neither am I fiend like who have snatched a fiends office from his hands. It is our
fate. Let the black flower blossom as it may!" The black flower, as Chillingworth describes it, is the
truth of all the events leading up to who the father is, and who Chillingworth is. The truth is a dark
truth, therefore it is related with the darkness.
Hester, Pearl, and Chillingworth are all characters associated with good and/or evil. Hesters character
is at first beautiful and after she bonds with the scarlet letter she is seen with the darkness, and
shadows. Her transformation occurs when she takes the bonnet off, and detaches the letter. Almost
immediately her light comes back and she is beautiful again. This is her physical exposure to Pearl, as
well as the exposure of her adulterous sin. Pearl does not have anything to expose, but she does
witness Hesters transformation in the light. Pearl, for the first time, expresses human emotion, which
happens in her mothers light. Roger Chillingworth is the dark force in this particular story. He suffices
the truth through Dimmesdale and Hesters guilty feelings. Hence, Chillingworth is the tool for
exposing the dark truths.
The Scarlet Letter - The Morality Issue
Through Hawthorne, the book The Scarlet Letter is written about love, sin, and most of all morals.
Hawthorne creates many different perspectives on characters and their views. His vivid descriptions of
the main trio of characters allow the reader to make there own decisions on who is morally right or
wrong. Is Hester a victim, or a temptress, or maybe Dimmesdale is in the wrong for falling for the
temptress. Chillingworth, who is at first thought to be the victim, but in the end the villain? Through
Hawthornes writing we the reader must decide on the morality issue among Hester, Dimmesdale, and
Chillingworth.
Hester, who is essentially the main character in The Scarlet Letter, therefore, is the most vividly
described character in the book. In committing an act so looked down upon by her community in
Salem, she must be burdened by an "A" on her chest. As Hester suffered greatly for her transgression,
the citizens suffered as well, whether knowing or not, through their hypocritical and cruel punishment.
She was morally wrong in what she did, but Hester Prynne was honest enough to herself to reveal the
adulterous acts that she committed. She became more accepted in her community as she accepted
herself and the "A" on her chest. We all have sins, but if we don not admit to our sins we wont be
forgiven. The reverend Dimmesdale said "But still, me thinks, it must needs be better for the sufferer
to be free to show his pain, as this poor woman Hester is, than to cover it all up in his heart." This
statement is true because she because she began to reconstruct her life. The community began calling
her sister of Mercy, and the "A" was said to stand for "Able." Though Hester was morally wrong in her
act, she was morally right in accepting her wrong.
This leads us to the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale, the man who assisted in ruining Hesters
reputation. Though, a holy man, and a man who is very much revered by the people of Salem, he
commits a sin in which goes totally against the words he preaches. His choice to keep his black secret
locked deep within his soul resulted in the deterioration of his health. Each time he would deliver a
sermon to his congregation, he grew weaker and more ashamed of what he did. In doing so, he chose
his congregation over his health, to remain the most respected man in the community. A choice that
caused him to suffer much more than Hester and Chillingworth ever did. Dimmesdale was morally
wrong in his act, but in keeping this enormous secret from the community, the town of Salem was
better off. This was the moral thing to do for the good of the community. His soul became blackened
by his secret as well as from Roger Chillingworths evil torture.

Chillingworth is probably the most mysterious character in the book because of how he changes as the
book goes on. He went from a kind and gentleman, to an evil man who many thought worked with
"Black Magic." It was in fact the largest sin of all in Chillingworths mission to inflict torturous
revenge on the reverend Arthur Dimmesdale. In a quote from Dimmesdale in the book he says "That
old mans revenge has been blacker than my sin. He has violated, in cold blood, the sanctity of a
human heart." In doing these terrible acts of evil it is stated throughout the book that Chillingworth
was growing uglier and uglier as time went on. This was a sin that he himself was affected by his
devilish acts. In the beginning Roger Chillingworth seems to not be in the wrong, though in the end he
becomes the most immoral one of them all.
When you think about this book, its about morals, sin, and how morally they handle their sin. In
Nathaniel Hawthornes The Scarlet Letter it is the criminal that seems good and the good that seems
criminal. With Hester accepting her sin she is forgiven, therefore she did the morally right thing.
Dimmesdale is a slightly different case. He might be wrong for committing the sin and keeping it a
secret, but in keeping his sin a secret for the well being of the community, he is forgiven. Then there is
Chillingworth, a man who was taken over by the devil himself. He is a murderer. He killed
Dimmesdale through his "Black Magic" and torture. That in my opinion is the ultimate sin, and
definitely morally wrong.
An examination of two modern interpretations of
Shakespeare's `A Midsummer Night's Dream'
Modern theatres and audience expectations are very different to the expectations of Shakespeare's
time. Shakespeare's Globe Theatre was rediscovered on the South Bank in 1989 which, at the time,
was an entirely different experience of any theatre we know today. There was no roof, no cushioned
seats, and most of the audience would be standing in a circular space on the floor, whilst cheering on
the actors, like fans at a football match. Modern theatre audiences watch the play silently in respect to
others and sit comfortably, admiring a radiant stage with professional actors dressed up to scratch and
realistic props which take the audience into another world. Whereas, at The Globe, theatre
expeactations were very different. The audience depended upon good weather and sunlight to enhance
the enjoyment of watchting the play. Only the affordable would sit in the tiers surrounding the edge of
The Globe, onlooking the stage with very few props basic costumes and no background. However, the
audience were still taken away, but by the visualative words which created a sense of escapism.
In Shakespeare's Globe, the audience expectation was very different from todays. The audience did not
expect realism from the props and believed anything. For example when Oberon states, `I am
invisible,' which is how Shakespeare painted the scenery with his words without the use of
camouflaged costumes or blending backdrops. These days, the audience expect much more than just
words.
Other detail such as stage directions also affect the audience expectations of today. A modern
playwright brings much more detail compared to Shakespeare's stage directions. This can be seen from
the play `Death of a Salesman,' written by Arther Miller. The first page of the play is filled with stage
directions. For example, `the flute plays on. He hears it but is not aware of it,' shows some extent of
the detailed instructions a modern playwright uses compared to Shakespeare who used simplicity in
his stage directions. Instead of details, he used straight forward instructions such as, `Enter Puck.'
Detailed stage directions were not necessary because Shakespeare would have been there at the time
telling the actors what to do, and how to do it.
Due to the lack of stage directions telling us exactly how Shakespeare imagined his play, modern

playwrights must draw up their own interpretations of the play. They can do this through their own
choice of actors, lighting, music, effects and direction. As a result of the lack of detail from the original
text and wide choice of variations, interpretations can be very different.
Shakespeare's `A Midsummer Night's Dream,' is a comedy which shares many similarities to another
famous Shakespeare play, `Romeo and Juliet.' They both begin the same with `two star crossed lovers'
who were fated in the stars to be together and whose parents disapproved of them being together. In `A
Midsummer Night's Dream,' the moon is frequently mentioned by the characters, `Methinks how slow
this old moon wanes; she lingers my desires,' the moon being associated with madness throughout the
play. In `Romeo and Juliet,' the stars are regularly referred to in a similar manner.
The play `A Midsummer Night's Dream' has been interpreted in many different ways. In two of these
interpretations, there are very many similarities projected in very different ways. One interpretation is
the BBC version directed by Jonathan Miller. The second is the 1998, Twentieth Century Fox version,
directed by Michael Hoffman.
In the BBC version, the play starts off with Theseus and Hippolyta, who look quite old for a married
couple. Hippolyta's tan and hair style suggests that she does look foreign. Theseus and Hippolyta did
not seem to be in love and she looked disgusted. Egeus, Hermia, Demetrius, and Lysander are all
discussing Egeus's disapproval of his daughter's lover. Helena, who is supposed to be blond and fair, is
actually ginger, ugly and has glasses! There is hardly any movement which suggests nobility. There is
also hardly any lighting and the atmosphere is dull and dark. The scene did not contain any special
effects. In the scene, they were sitting in English Castle- like setting. Although the play was intended
to be situated in Athens, Shakespeare would not have been there so he would not have any idea of
what it looked like, so he may have intended the play to be in this setting. The room was a library or a
study and looked very formal. Theseus was seated for this scene and he was an educated, rich learned
man. The room was very dark, with little natural light coming from the windows. The use of the
darkened set added prominence to the actors, because the rest of the set was dull. Despite the fact that
the play was situated in Athens, the dull coloured costumes were from the Elizabethan period. They
were probably modern dressed for Shakespeare's time.
The Twentieth Century Fox Version was situated in Italy at the turn of the 19th century. This version of
act 1 scene 1, was very different to the BBC version. In the background, there is classical joyous music
being played, and lit up fairies fly about which are seen in the film later on. The scene started off with
a lot more movement. There was preparation for the Duke's wedding who looked in his forties or
fifties. Hippolyta, who looked in her thirties, and Theseus were very much in love compared to the
other version. Hermia was pretty, as intended and so was Helena, who had long blond hair and was
`fair'. The costumes were more bright and colourful. They were Italian costumes from the 1900's.
Theseus and Hippolyta talk in an office or study about their wedding. Theseus talks to Hippolyta, the
Queen of the Amazons, by using a lot of war like imagery when he speaks. For example, `with pomp,
triumph, and revelling.' The general tone of this scene is that it has more excitement, more liveliness
and brightness.
Act 1, scene 2 of the BBC version is the gathering of Quince, Bottom, Snug, Flute, Snout and
Starveling in a pub or caf rehearsing for a play for the wedding. Quince, who is in charge of
organising, is very down to earth and serious. Bottom appears to be full of himself, and is always
interrupting rudely. Quince asks `Is all our company here?' and Bottom replies, `You were best to call
them generally, man by man according to the script.' They are all wearing very simple clothes, putting
forward the idea that they are working class men. Although there is hardly any movement in this scene
compared to the film, it is the most lively scene in this version so far.
In the 1998 film version, many new ideas are put forward. For example, instead of just getting on with

rehearsing the play, they turn it into a competition. Bottom flirts with another woman, despite him
having a wife. During his flirtatious moments, his wife sees what he does and gives him evil looks.
This gives an insight of what Bottom is really like and is all cleverly acted to music being played. Also
Bottom creates a scene because of his loud and vain actions. Children spill water over his head and
everyone laughs at him. The director creates sympathy for the character and he makes the audience
like Bottom, compared to the other version, where Bottom is seen as simply irritating, but funny. The
new ideas have all been put forward without the use of adding in extra text, also his wife is not
mentioned in the text. The director has deviated from what Shakespeare would have intended the play
to be like, because he did not include his wife, the sympathy for the character, or the competition. We
know that it has been deviated, otherwise, Shakespeare would have included it in his stage directions.
However, it may be similar to what he intended because Shakespeare would have been there at the
time so he could have improvised scenes during the practices. In this scene as opposed to the scene in
the other version, you can actually tell that Quince is supposed to be in charge because he is louder,
more enthusiastic and takes more control over Bottom. The position on the soliloquy is changed to
after the rehearsals as a reminder for the viewers of the other plot. In this scene there is generally more
camera movement showing people in their everyday lifestyles and exaggerated movement to make it
funnier. Also the use of malapropism adds to the comedy, for example, when Bottom interrupts Quince
yet again, 'I'll speak in a monstrous little voice, `Thisne, Thisne!' in line 55. The malapropism where he
tells them to `rehearse more obscenely and courageously,' in line 111 shows his stupidity.
Act II, scene I, of the BBC version starts off with three fairies along with Puck in the woods at night. It
is dark, but the moon lights up their faces. They are going round in circles, talking amonst each other.
At this point, Puck is inevitably seen as mischeivious. `Sometimes for the three- foot stool mistaketh
me; Then slip I from her bum, down topples she,' says Puck to the fairy on line 52. Oberon and
Titainia, King and Queen of the fairies are fighting. There is hardly any movement, however the voices
and expressions liven it up. They wear creative costumes in a magical yet dull, angry atmosphere.
There is no music or sounds other than howling in the background. In the Twentieth Century Fox
version, Puck is much more older and the rest of the characters are very attractive. Puck and the first
fairy were drunk since Theseus was getting married and wanted everyone to be happy. This added to
the comedy. Oberon, played by Rupert Everett in this version, is much younger than the BBC version.
Thunder bolts and lightening occur when Oberon enters, this is because they `square', then Titania
played by Michelle Pfeiffer, places her finger over her lips and all goes calm. There are spectacular
special effects in this scene when the thunder strikes rocks and alights them. However, this is not what
Shakespeare would have intended because there were no facilities at the time and also the audience
expectation came from the words.
The set is illuminated by the fire. The use of SFX throughout the scene in this film shows the power of
the fairies associated with nature. Titania and Oberon wear very creative costumes and are dressed like
Kings and Queens. In this scene, there is much more movement and the atmosphere is less tense and
more comical.
As an overall view, I prefer the Hoffman version, firstly because it is more livelier together with more
action, and secondly because I believe Shakespeare should be accessible for everyone and eventually
original Shakespeare will die out if it is not updated to suit modern tastes. Shakespeare would have not
intended his play to be like many of the modern interpretations of today, as stage directions were not
given so he would have his own setting in his mind, however, the modern directors of these
interpretations can come up with how the scene was supposed to look like because of the words from
the original play. This is one reason to how Shakespeare may have intended the play to be like the
modern film interpretation.

Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream

In Shakespeare's play A Midsummer Night's Dream, one of the main reoccurring themes is love.
Shakespeare writes of love that is passionate and impulsive, or sensible and reasonable. In Act three,
Bottom, a crude commoner states on opinion of love. "And Yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep
little company together now-a-days; the more pity, that some honest neighbors will not make them
friends." (Act III, Scene i, line 136) However, in many ways, reason and love are already much more
closely linked in their society than the modern day reader is used to. Shakespeare has one example of
real love in this play: Hermia and Lysander's. Their love is pure and simple. They have no reason to be
in love with each other, but yet have hopelessly fallen so. This is Shakespeare's symbol of ultimate
innocence. However, often with innocence comes abuse of that quality, as in A Midsummer Night's
Dream. Egeus, Hermia's father, feels that Hermia is too innocent to choose her own husband, and that
it is his place to choose one for her. Although perhaps he is only doing this to 'protect' her, it shows his
opinion of Hermia's incompetence. He illustrates this value system when explains to Theseus "And,
my gracious duke, This man hath bewitch'd the bosom of my child. Thou, thou, Lysander, thou hast
given her rhymes, And interchanged love-tokens with my child' With cunning hast thou filch'd my
daughter's heart, Turn'd her obedience, which is due to me, To stubborn harshness." (Act I, Scene I,
line 27) In many ways the opposite of real love, Hermia and Demetrius' relationship is symbolic for
practicality and sensibility. Hermia does not love Demetrius and refuses to marry him. It is not even
clear what Demetrius' motives are. One can speculate, however, that he desires to marry Hermia for
her money or respectable family. Whatever the reasons, it is apparent that this relationship is quite
contrasting in comparison to Hermia and Lysander's. It seems to be more of a business arrangement
than anything else. Egeus explains this to Lysander by saying "True, [Demetrius] hath my love, And
what is mine my love shall render him. And she is mine, and all my right of her I do estate unto
Demetrius." (Act I, Scene I, line 97) With these relationships, Shakespeare illustrates the irony of love
in the values of the community and culture. In this way, The reader discovers that sensible marriages
are more likely to be embraced by the community than passionate ones and that Bottom's suggestion
that love should be more closely linked to reason has, form a modern reader's eye, already been
followed.
Shakespeare - Analysis of Sonnet 2
In Sonnet 2, Shakespeare stresses to his lover that beauty will not last, and that it is selfish and foolish
for anyone not to prepare for the loss of beauty and youth by having a child to carry on unsurpassed
beauty. The sonnet can be cynically seen as Shakespeare's attempt to get his lover to sleep with him
rather than as a lesson in living life.
In the first quatrain Shakespeare says that later on, your youth will be worthless. The greatness of your
youth, admired by everyone now, will be, will be as worthless as a "tatter'd weed of small worth held".
Shakespeare says this worthlessness will be when forty years of age wrinkles your brow and when
there are, "deep trenches in thy beauty's field". The personification is seen in the metaphor: "deep
trenches in thy beauty's field" which can be seen as wrinkles in a beautiful face. This gives readers a
picture of the old age that has yet to come for some.
In the second quatrain, when what has yet to come for some has came, and when you are asked, where
is your beauty now? And when you're asked, "where are all the treasures of thy lusty days?" You must

reply that These "treasures of thy lusty days" or offspring from your youth are lost in "thine own deep
sunken eyes" states the poet. In this place of old age where your youth is, is also greed and selfobsession which is written as "all-eating shame and thriftless praise" by Shakespeare. The metaphor of
"all-eating shame" is effective in how readers sense a feeling of negativity from the words of
Shakespeare's hand. In the third quatrain, where Shakespeare's hand rhymes of regret, the ideal answer
is shown. The poet states, "This fair child of mine shall sum my account and make my old excuse,
proving his beauty by succession thine!" This was the answer wished to be used but could not be.
Shakespeare says, "How much more praise deserved thy beauty's use" which regrets, if only your
beauty could have been put to a greater use.
The couplet then describes what it would be like to have this baby. Shakespeare poetically states that
this baby would be "new made when thou art old" This means that the baby would be young while you
are old. The final line tells how you would see your own blood flow warm through the baby while you
are cold. "And see thy warm blood when thou feel'st it cold."
Shakespeare - Cassius vs Brutus Julius Caesar
In William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", honor is displayed as a prominent theme throughout the
play. Honor is having great respect for others, regardless of their status in society; and performing
great deeds not for personal gain but for the good of others. Marcus Brutus is an example of an
honorable man; Caius Cassius, however, is not.
When Brutus joined the conspiracy against Caesar, he did it solely for the good of Rome. Unlike all
the other men, Brutus justified his motive for murder: Brutus feared that Caesar would alter his
attitude when he was crowned emperor: "He would be crown'd/ How that might change his nature..."
(II,i,12-13). Brutus was afraid of the possibility of a negative change in Caesar that could doom Rome.
Cassius formed the conspiracy with motives based solely on envy, and he believed that Caesar was not
going to be a good enough ruler. He says: "...it doth amaze me A man of such feeble temper should So
get the start of the majestic world And bear the palm alone." (I,ii,128-31) Cassius also thought that he
was also much stronger than Caesar. Cassius says: "...Caesar said to me, `Dearest thou, Cassius, now
Leap in with me into this angry flood, And swim to yonder point?' Upon the word Accoutred as I was,
I plunged in and bade him follow; so indeed he did. The torrent roared...but ere we could arrive the
point proposed, Caesar cried, `Help me Cassius, or I sink.'...So from the waves of Tiber Did I the tired
Caesar: and this man Is now become a god and Cassius is A wretched creature...". (I,ii,102-117)
Cassius had to save Caesar from the river, which draws him to the conclusion that he deserves
recognition for his strength over Caesar. One of Brutus' flaws is that he is not very bright. He is an
idealist; he doesn't think about the consequences of Caesar's murder. For example, when Cassius
presented the idea of swearing an oath of secrecy within the conspiracy, Brutus assumes that all of the
other men were as noble as he and would not tell anyone of their plans. However, one man betrayed
the conspiracy and Caesar was warned.
Cassius' forethought is one thing he holds over Brutus, as he thinks about the possible outcomes in
Caesar's murder. He suggested killing Marc Anthony along with Caesar, however, Brutus said: "Our
course will seem too bloody.../Let us be sacrificers, but not butchers..." (II,i,162/166). Brutus didn't
want to kill Antony and Cassius backed down immediately. Cassius is also weak minded and changes
how he feels when someone disagrees with him. He suggested that Cicero join the conspiracy by
saying, "What of Cicero? Shall we sound him?/I think he will stand very strong with us." (II,i,141-2).
Brutus responds in protest by saying, "O name him not: Let us not break with him: For he will never

follow anything That other men begin." (II,i,150-3). Cassius vetoed his idea without arguement. For
one to be honorable, they must argue their opinions and stand up for their thoughts and beliefs.
Brutus not only treats all men with respect, but he also treats his wife Portia with respect. This is found
to be a remarkable trait as women were looked down upon in that day. He said to her: "You are my
true and honorable wife, As dear to me as are the ruddy drops That visit my sad heart." (II,i,287-90)
When he said this to her the reader notices that even though he is planning to kill one of his friends, he
really does have a kind heart.
Cassius, however, is very sarcastic towards others, such as Caesar, and has little respect for him. He
said: "Why man, he doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus, and we petty men walk under his
huge legs and peep about..." (II,i,136-8) Although, both men die with their honor, Brutus is the one
who lived his life with integrity, Cassius did not. Brutus is "the noblest Roman of them all" (V,v,68)
and died with honor by his side. Honor is an important characteristic and must be used delicately, but
Brutus defines honor. Cassius is a man of little power and is envious of those who have what he
wants.
Shakespeare - Julius Caesar Analysis
Aristotle was perhaps the pioneer of modern day dramas, more specifically dramatic tragedies. He first
defined what a tragedy is: A drama which contained hubris, pathos and/or bathos, and the most valued
element in a tragedy, a tragic hero. This was usually the main character who is noble in his deeds, yet
has one flaw which causes him to fall. The tragic works of Shakespeare were no exception. In the
drama, Julius Caesar the reader can clearly see many of the principles of a tragedy. That is all except
for the tragic hero. Ideas as to who is the tragic hero range from Cassius to Julius Caesar himself. The
trouble is all characters have material to prove and disprove them. However the hypothesis that
Marcus Brutus is the tragic hero is incorrect. One element to a tragic hero is the hero has only one
tragic flaw, and Brutus clearly has more than one flaw in his character. The first flaws in Brutus
character is his naivete and the assumptions he makes about other characters. Through out the entire
story these two flaws are reflected in many of his decisions and actions. A specific example is his view
on the Roman populace. Thinking all Romans are honorable and noble it is not only incorrect, but it
plagues him until the very end of the play. One instance occurred as the conspirators were meeting.
Brutus stated, Lets kill him boldly, but not wrathfully...... This shall make our purpose necessary and
not envious.... (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, 2.1. 172 & 177-178). He honestly believed that all
involved were going to kill Caesar for honorable reasons. Not once did he question the motives of
everyone, where, in reality Brutus probably was the only involved for noble reasons. Brutus
undoubtedly convinces the reader of his own naivete when he states, ... let us bathe our hands in
Caesars blood... Lets all cry ^Peace, freedom, and liberty!! (3.1. 106 & 110) Just by his enthusiasm,
Brutus is not aware of any other motives. He simply believes that , Peace, freedom, and liberty are the
only motives. Another example was during his speech at Caesars funeral. ... not that I loved Caesar
less, but that I loved Rome more (3.2. 18-20). Addressing the nobility of his actions and his love for
Rome, Brutus surmises that the people understand him because of their equal love for their country.
This assumption is evident because he uses it as the sole reason for killing Caesar. A reason that Brutus
believes the people agree with, otherwise he would not use it to rationalize such a crime. Lastly that
same lack of insight is seen in when Brutus declares, ... I have done no more to Caesar than you shall
do to Brutus (3.2. 28-29) Paraphrased he says that the people would do the same to him if he became
ambitious, as he did to Caesar for becoming ambitious. Yet the people hardly understand him. One
citizen proves that! when he states, Caesars better parts Shall be crowned in Brutus (3.2 39-40). The

citizen completely misses the point Brutus is trying to make, and blurts out a random, ignorant
comment. Throughout all the naive decisions and assumptions Brutus still has another downfall. A
flaw that is closely related, but still different. The second flaw seen in Brutus is his one sided
perception of many things. His perceptions of attitudes, values, beliefs, and more. This can be seen
during his funeral speech. Focusing only on the political aspects of the assassination, he not once stops
to consider that Caesar was more than a representation of the future Rome, but a person too. I slew my
best lover for the good of Rome ( 3.2. 33-34) says Brutus. He dose not once grieve for Caesar, or show
remorse for Caesar. He innocently addresses only one side of the situation. This incorrect perception is
then used against him n Cassius speech. Cassius makes it plain to the audience that Brutus did not
view Caesar as a person, and therefore convincing the crowd against Brutus. A second example of
Brutus poor perception was after the assassination. As Rome's situation turned into civil war Brutus
still speaks of honor and nobility. ... Did not great Julius bleed for justice sake? ( 4.3. 19) , ... I am
armed so str! ong in honesty(4.3. 67), our legions are brimful, our cause is ripe (4.3. 214). On and on
he goes focused on what he still deems important. Once again Brutus perception is incorrect and
reality is much different. Not many still value honestly, and most know that at those times, it would
not help you move ahead. Rome begins to fall, and what hopes of saving it do not center around the
honorable and noble point of view Brutus clings on to. Yet it is his flaw that he is ignorant of such
things. One flaw, that are many within Brutus.
Brutus has two, maybe three, distinct flaws in his character, and many downfalls. Brutus first is naive,
and assumes to much about the people of Rome. He does listen to them, but what he hears is either
misinterpreted, or it is set aside because it does not agree with his preconceived notions of what the
populace should be saying. All of this makes it very clear that Brutus is not the tragic hero. Who then
is the hero? As stated before, there is concrete evidence proving and disproving many other characters.
But then is Julius Caesar truly a tragedy? Does not a tragedy have a clear tragic hero? Nobody will
ever know. But whether Julius Caesar is a tragedy as most believe, or a historical account as others
believe, it is a beautiful work of art. Literature at its very best, something that will never be forgotten.
Shakespeare - Equivocation in Macbeth
In Macbeth, Shakespeare uses the theme of equivocation to effectively illustrate the evil nature of the
witches. Equivocation is the use of ambiguous expressions in order to mislead. The prophecies of the
witches play a mischief in this play, as they are a form of deception that at times use vague language to
dodge an issue. The three influential prophecies, which the witches make in this play, are that the
protagonist Macbeth will become the king of Scotland, Banquo will be the father of the king of
Scotland, and Macbeth will not be killed until the Birnam wood moves to Dunsinane hill. The sources
of these prophecies are the witches who put together the devious words into Macbeth's mind, which
demonstrates the evil nature of the witches.
In Macbeth, one of the earliest prophecies that the witches make is that Macbeth will become the king
of Scotland. "All hail, Macbeth! that shalt be king hereafter!"(I.iii.50) is the prophecy in which no
indication of the doom of Macbeth is present. The literal meaning of this apocalypse is that Macbeth
will become the king of Scotland. Thus, his ambition to take the pursuit of breaking the natural order
to become the king becomes ungovernable. This is evident when Macbeth is shown hallucinating of a
dagger before he kills Duncan, the real king of Scotland. Macbeth says, "Is this a dagger, which I see
before me, / The handle toward my hand? Come let me clutch thee"(II.i.33-34), which shows that he is
in a great doubt on whether to assassinate Duncan or not. The metaphorical meaning of the revelation
disclosed by the witches is that Macbeth will ultimately be ruined in the future after he reaches his

ambition of becoming the king, as he will have to face the resistance of the loyal nobles of king
Duncan including Banquo, Macduff, Malcom, etc. Macbeth is greatly affected by this prophecy and
becomes the target of the mendacious and perplexing words spoken by the witches and kills the king.
Hence, the witches are of evil nature because they indirectly ruin Macbeth's life.
Another evil prophecy of the witches is that Banquo is to be the father of the king of Scotland. This
lies in conflict with the prophecy described above, which states that Macbeth will be the king, because
he is not the son of Banquo. The emblematic meaning of this prophecy is that Banquo will die, as he
would create potential resistance for Macbeth, and Macbeth will not let his ambition let down,
therefore, Banquo's life is at high risk. Later in the play, Macbeth conspires to kill his best friend,
Banquo, and the latter tells his son, Fleance, that he would take revenge for father's death. Banquo
says, "O, treachery! Fly, good Fleance, fly, fly, fly! / Thou mayst revenge. O slave!"(III.iv.18-19). The
misleading and ambiguous nature of the witches is very well reflected in this prophecy.
Third Witch: Hail!
First Witch: Lesser than Macbeth, and greater.
Second Witch: Not so happy, yet much happier.
Third Witch: Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none:
So all hail, Macbeth and Banquo! (I.iii.64-68)
The words "Lesser" and "greater", and "Not so happy" and "happier" are total contrast to each other,
and they imply cryptic meaning which has been explained above. The witches use supernatural powers
to prophesize the hidden meaning that evinces their evil nature.
Another major prophecy that the witches make after Macbeth becomes the king of Scotland is that he
cannot be killed until the great Birnam wood moves to Dunsinane hill. Again, Macbeth takes the literal
meaning and believes that the Birnam wood has to move to Dunsinane hill supernaturally, which is not
possible under normal circumstances; hence, he becomes carefree and jovial. The irony is that the trees
of Birnam wood could be cut and held onto hands to help hide the enemies of Macbeth, which would
assist them to kill him, and simultaneously, cause the Birnam wood to move to the Dunsinane hill as
prophesized by the witches. The prophecy, "Macbeth shall never vanquish'd be until / Great Birnam
wood to high Dunsinane hill / Shall come against him." (IV.1.92-94), is not very much explicit.
Macbeth fell into his tragic flaw of ambition and ignored the metaphorical meaning of the prophecy.
He says, "That will never be: / Who can impress the forest, bid the tree" (IV.i.94-95). Macbeth is
finally killed at the end of the play, and Malcom becomes the king of Scotland, which signifies the
return of order. In this tragic play, the witches ruin brave Macbeth's life by setting a trap that exploits
his tragic flaw of ambition through the use of equivocal language. The indulgence of the witches in his
life by making prophecies remarks for their supernatural evilness.
Equivocation is found in the prophecies of the witches. Macbeth revolves around these prophecies;
hence, equivocation plays an important role in this play. It is due to equivocation in these prophecies
that Macbeth becomes disoriented and looses his balance, which makes this play a successful tragedy.
Hence, the theme of equivocation extensively demonstrates the evil nature of the witches.
Shakespeare - Lady Macbeth
Lady Macbeth is the most evil character in Macbeth
Throughout the play the character of Lady Macbeth is consistently displayed as the most evil character
in the play through her ambition, cruelty, and manipulation.

AMBITION
- When Lady Macbeth leans about the witches' prophecy that Macbeth will ultimately be King, she
fears he will be too kind-hearted to achieve this status so she begins to take matters into her own
hands. Her soliloquy imploring dark powers to take all compassion from her is appalling in its
unnaturalness:
Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me, from the crown to the toe, top-full
Of direst cruelty (I, v, 40-43)
- Lady Macbeth is far more ambitious then Macbeth is. She appears to be mentally strong and her
conscience did not seem troubled by the murders that she was a part of. Her determined ambition is
what keeps Macbeth focused on committing the murders. It is not until later in the play when Macbeth
is able to adopt ambition of his own as he plans the murder of Macduff's family on his own. However,
this ambition he receives is that which came from Lady Macbeth.
CRUELTY
Lady Macbeth rarely shows any sympathy towards any characters throughout the time of the play.
When she finds out the prophecies given to Macbeth by the witches, she immediately takes action and
creates a plan. She works out the details of the plan to kill the king, and when Macbeth cannot return
the blood-stained daggers to Duncan's room, she takes command of the situation and returns the
daggers herself.
Infirm of purpose!
Give me the daggers. (II, ii, 51-52)
She also plays a key role in the murder of Banquo. During the feast whilst there are guests over,
Macbeth is so unsettled by seeing the ghost of Banquo that he nearly has a mental breakdown. Lady
Macbeth shows no regard for this as she immediately ridicules him. Lady Macbeth's true cruelty is
shown when her death has no effect on the play as she is not considered a hero. Her character is that of
such pure evil that it is difficult for the audience to sympathize for her on a personal level. Her crimes
were considered so brutal that it would be difficult for anyone to ever forgive her.
MANIPULATION
Lady Macbeth is an exceedingly conceded character as seen in as she openly defies heaven. Her true
nature can be reflected through the imagery of blood, violence, death, as from the beginning of the
play she is set out on an inevitable course of destruction. Macbeth is first introduced as an admirable
individual and a hero to Scotland, it is Macbeth's fatal ambition that is unleashed by Lady Macbeth.
His true personality can be revealed as he admits:
I am in blood

Stepped in so far that should I wade no more,

Returning were as tedious as go o'er (III, iv, 136-138)
Lady Macbeth instigated the actions which eventually led to Macbeth committing the acts that he did.
Throughout the play the audience is constantly reminded of Macbeth insecurity as he is always
questioning his own actions. Lady Macbeth's primary role in the play is to give Macbeth the vital push
and then sustain him until he can control his own conscience and actions. Lady Macbeth uses a
specific techniques to ensure that Macbeth keeps to his purpose such as accusing Macbeth of being a
coward. As Lady Macbeth herself possesses characteristics that are regularly only present in a male
such as single-minded courage and cruelty. She shuns Macbeth for his failure to live up to the standard
which she, as a women, has set. Using her physical characteristics of a women, and mental
characteristics of a man, Lady Macbeth ridicules her husband for not being able to murder Duncan as
seen in the following quote:
I have given suck, and know
How tender `tis to love the babe that milks me;
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums,
And dashed the brains out, had I so sworn as you
Have done to this (I, vii, 54-59)
Macbeth - Presentation of Characters
Macbeth, a play by William Shakespeare written sometime between 1603-1606, is a tragic story of
death and deceit amongst the noblemen of Scotland. The two main characters are Macbeth, Thane of
Glamis and his wife Lady Macbeth. The play is based around the conflict in Scotland at the time
between the King and rebellious Scotsmen, who were overcome single-handedly by Macbeth on the
side of the King, Duncan. Macbeth and his fellow kinsman Banquo were met on a heath by three
witches who prophesised Macbeth becoming Thane of Cawdor, and later King of Scotland. When he
later learned he had been made Thane of Cawdor for his service to the crown, he believed that it was
the work of the witches. However, rather than leaving it to the witches, Macbeth decided he would
have to kill the king himself if he wanted the crown, fulfilling his ambition. Therefore, with the
influence and assistance of his wife, he eventually murdered King Duncan, with himself then
becoming king. He is r! esultantly guilt ridden, but his wife is very calm and accepts no responsibility
for Duncan?s death. The tables turn later on in the play though, with Macbeth continuing his killing to
gain more power and becoming more independent from his wife, eventually leading to her going mad
and committing suicide. This play and the topics explored within it were very relevant to the time in
which it was written. Practising witchcraft became an executable offence in 1604, so the witches in the
play would have caused quite some controversy. Regicide, the murder of a king or queen, was also an
extremely serious crime as the king was believed to have been chosen by God, so to kill the king was
to act against God and also nature. Today it is still the only executable offence in the United Kingdom.
The King of England when the play was written, James I, was interested in the supernatural. He also
survived an assassination attempt in his youth and had an ancestor named Banquo, who was
historically evil but was made good in Shakespeare?s play. All of these aspects of the play would have
appealed to King James which implies it may have been written for him. The whole idea of rebellion
and deceit is also linked to more topical events of the time, namely the gunpowder plot of 1605 when
an attemp! t was made to blow up the Houses Of Parliament.
Act 1 Scene 1 of the play sets the scene with a very short, mysterious gathering of the three witches.
They appear suddenly, in mid-conversation, which is dramatic and creates unclear ideas about the

dubious topics of conversation. This in turn creates an air of tension, suspicion and an ominous
atmosphere. The presence of thunder and lightning is a symbol of evil and creates a more hostile
atmosphere. This suggests that the rest of the play will be full of deceit; revenge; anger and pain,
implying the play will be a tragedy. This scene creates a sense of mystery and intrigue, and as the
scene is short, there is little evidence to go on, so there is nothing about which the audience can be
decisive or certain. As far as what we learn about Macbeth goes, we know that the witches plan to
meet Macbeth later in the play on the same heath as they are in this scene. We also learn that there will
be some sort of battle from which Macbeth will emerge victorious. They show this in the! ir
conversation: ??When the battle?s lost, and won? This shows that one side, (as we later learn the
rebellious Scots led by Macdonald) will emerge losers and the other (Macbeth) will emerge victorious.
This is speaking in a contradictory way, and makes use of antithesis. This has relevance to many
instances later in the play where characters have contradictory thoughts. Antithesis is used again in this
scene in the ultimate stanza, the witches chant a warning: ??Fair is foul, and foul is fair, Hover through
the fog and filthy air? This implies that appearances are deceptive, and it creates a sense of mystery
and encourages thought as to what significance this may hold for later in the play. As it is a rhyming
couplet, it is more memorable and dramatically effective to the audience. The confused messages it
conveys provoke deep thought amongst the members of the audience. This scene is similar to an
introduction or prologue to a novel.
Act 1, Scene 2 of the play is the ?real? beginning. The audience hears about the gruesome way in
which Macbeth slaughtered the opposing Scotsmen, led by Macdonald. In this scene, a wounded
soldier who comes fresh from battle glorifies Macbeth: he is credited to the entire defeat of the Scots
single-handed. The audience builds a picture of Macbeth as a very brave, courageous fighter and
leader in battle. The King of Scotland, Duncan, also values Macbeth very highly, which leads to his
becoming Thane of Cawdor. Duncan shows his gratitude to Macbeth during the soldier?s account of
the battle: ??O valiant cousin, worthy gentleman!? This shows that the king regards Macbeth so highly
he sees him as a relative. He sees him as a brave and loyal soldier; a heroic fighter. However, Macbeth
appears quite ruthless, and he seems to have no conscience when fighting for his king. He gives the
impression of being a little arrogant and ostentatious. This is evident particularly in the brutal way in
which he slaughtered Macdonald, as described by the wounded soldier: ??Till he unseamed him from
the nave to th? chops, And fixed his head upon our battlements? This shows that Macbeth is a coldhearted predator when it comes to battle. Here, Macbeth is not at all troubled by the blood he has shed.
This is notably comparable to Act 2, Scene 2 where he is the complete opposite, plagued with guilt
over his murderous actions where the blood symbolises guilt. In turn, both relate back to Act 1, Scene
1 and the prediction of contradiction later in the play. After this scene, the feelings of the audience
about Macbeth are that he is a noble, loyal servant to the king, who goes fearlessly into battle, and
would die for his cause. He does, however, appear much more brutal and violent than first imagined.
This scene also reinforces the witches? prophecy that they would meet Macbeth on the heath once the
battles are over and he emerges victorious. However brutal he may appear though, the audience gets
the impression that he is a very loyal servant, and is a very trustworthy character. Act 1, Scene 3 is a
very significant part of the play and has an adverse effect on the remainder of it. This is the scene first
prophesised in Act 1, Scene 1 where the witches say they will meet Macbeth. Towards the beginning
of this scene, we learn that the witches are in fact evil. One of them punishes a woman who refused to
give her a chestnut by creating a storm for the woman?s husband at sea. All three witches get pleasure
out of this evil. There is also an indication that they may have some kind of supernatural powers, as
they have a cut-off thumb, which they claim is from the husband of the woman who refused the witch

a chestnut. This suggestion of magical or supernatural powers reinforces the intrigue created in Act 1,
Scene 1. As Macbeth enters, his first words echo the final words of the witches in the first scene, as he
addresses Banquo: ??So foul and fair a day I have not seen? This refers back to the witches: ??Fair is
foul and foul is fair? The significance of Macbeth saying this is that he is again suggesting the idea of
appearances being deceptive in terms of them winning the battle, but at the same time the weather
being horrific. This is ironic as he is the character who later becomes two-faced and deceptive, so he is
in fact talking about himself. Following the introduction to the third scene comes the primary climax
of the play: the meeting of Macbeth, Banquo and the witches. The witches greet Macbeth with a
prophecy - that he will become Thane of Cawdor, and then King of Scotland. At first, Macbeth appears
slightly taken aback. However, he soon dismisses what he considers an absurd prediction. Banquo is
similarly startled and surprised, and questions the accuracy of what the witches have said. They also
tell Banquo that he will have children who will become Kings of Scotland, although he will not make
it himself. Here Macbeth re-enters into the conversation, appearing rather disturbed by what has been
said, and he is anxious to hear the basis upon which the witches have prophesised. He demands to
know more of them: ??Stay, you imperfect speakers, tell me more? This shows his apprehension to
relieve his ignorance. The witches promptly depart, and although Macbeth and Banquo engage in light
conversation about the occurrence, they do not really take it seriously.
Shortly afterwards, Ross meets Macbeth and Banquo. He praises Macbeth?s efforts in the battles, and
goes on to inform him of his honorary new role, Thane of Cawdor. At first, Macbeth is shocked, and
he immediately questions Ross. Once Macbeth acknowledges the news of the traitorous behaviour of
the then present Thane of Cawdor, he believes that his honour is the work of the witches and that they
are able to change the future. Macbeth immediately jumps to the obvious conclusion: he believes that,
having fulfilled the primary part of the prophecy: he will soon accomplish the second and become
king. He demonstrates this in his aside: ??Glamis and Thane of Cawdor. The greatest is behind? This is
the first sign that Macbeth has some kind of deceitful, evil side to his nature. Banquo intelligently
tracks Macbeth?s thought, and speaks aloud about his concerns of the evil nature of the witches, and
what chaos they could potentially cause. He refers to them as ?instruments of darkness?, using
imagery of darkness representing evil. Shakespeare makes use of dramatic irony here, as we, the
audience, are aware from Act 1, Scene 2 that Macbeth has been made Thane of Cawdor for his bravery
and not by the witches. Macbeth is presented as a very confused character at this point though; arguing
with himself in his asides. He unsuccessfully attempts to rationalise as to whether the witches?
intentions are good or evil. However, already his thoughts turn to potential regicide. At this point in the
play though, Macbeth is very uncomfortable with the thought of killing the king, and he is very
insecure as he shows in another of his asides: ??My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical? Here
he demonstrates that for the moment, his evil thoughts are only fantasy. It appears here that Macbeth is
quite gullible and has been deceived into believing the witches prophecy, simply because they were
aware of his becoming Thane of Cawdor prior to him. Macbeth?s times of silence during his asides
concern Banquo and Ross. However, from the moment that Macbeth learns he is Thane, his lies begin,
as he claims he has forgotten about killing the king to Banquo and Ross when in fact his ambitions
have been fuelled and his mind is on nothing else. There is an evident uncertainty as to what will
happen next, with the idea prominent in Macbeth?s brain. The original impression of Macbeth to the
audience is immediately put into question. Although he has done no physical harm to anyone, his
treacherous thoughts lead the audience to begin to doubt the loyalty and devotion of Macbeth to his
King and country he was originally credited with. Act 1, Scene 4 is where Macbeth really begins to
weave his web of deceit. The scene begins with King Duncan talking of the dishonesty and mistrust he
experienced with the previous Thane of Cawdor. This is ironic considering the treacherous thoughts

the new Thane of Cawdor, Macbeth, has already begun to have. Similarly, the beginning of Act 1,
Scene 6 is ironic with King Duncan and Banquo talking about the security and pleasantness that
Macbeth?s castle offers them for their visit. In Act 1, Scene 4, Macbeth enters and King Duncan
immediately beings to praise him for his efforts in the recent battles. The King is very grateful, and
tells Macbeth that he can never repay him for his duties. Here Macbeth is extremely two-faced, telling
the King that to serve him is in itself enough of a reward for his duties: ??The service and the loyalty I
owe, In doing it, pays itself? Considering his regicidal thoughts in the previous scene, this is extremely
dishonest and deceitful of Macbeth. This again demonstrates an example of the last line of Act 1,
Scene 1, where the witches suggest that appearances can be deceptive.
In this scene, Macbeth discovers a second obstacle he must overcome if he is to fulfil his ambition and
the witches? prophecy. King Duncan announces that, following the betrayal of the previous Thane of
Cawdor, the new heir to his throne will be his son, Malcolm. This news is devastating to Macbeth, as
obviously, if he is to become King, he not only has King Duncan to surpass, but also the obstacle
created by the Prince of Cumberland and new heir, Malcolm. However, Macbeth is very successful at
keeping his feelings hidden. He does not actually address the subject directly though; he decides to
invite the King and his subjects to dinner at his home. King Duncan is oblivious to any ulterior
motives Macbeth has, and merely takes the invitation as a kind gesture. In the subsequent aside,
Macbeth reveals his real feelings: ??The Prince of Cumberland - that is a step on which I must fall
down or else o?erleap.? Here again Macbeth is planning to murder someone, though this time the new
obstacle in his path to achieve his ambition is Malcolm, Prince of Cumberland. This shows the greed
and jealousy behind his loyal, humble exterior. This is all an example of dramatic irony, as we, the
audience are aware of Macbeth?s true intentions, whereas King Duncan and the Prince of Cumberland
are not. This scene is again similar to Act 1, Scene 6 in which the guests arrive at the home of Macbeth
and Lady Macbeth. There is a conversation between King Duncan and Lady Macbeth, and there are
many similarities visible here between the behaviour of Macbeth in Act 1, Scene 4 and that of Lady
Macbeth in this scene. She is extremely welcoming and displays kindness towards King Duncan, when
in fact behind this she is planning his death making the scene very ironic. We see a great contrast in
Lady Macbeth compared to her behaviour in the previous scene, in which she asks to lose her
conscience to enable her to assist in the murder of King Duncan. This is again comparable to Macbeth
in Act 1, Scene 4 where he plans to murder Duncan, but is extremely two-faced in the subsequent
scene by being welcoming and kind to the King. Lady Macbeth makes a great effort to ensure that
Duncan feels completely relaxed and secure in her hands as hostess. She shows this when speaking to
him: ??All our service in every point twice done, and then done double.? This demonstrates the effort
made to make Duncan feel completely comfortable and at ease, in complete trust of Lady Macbeth and
wholly unaware of her cruel intentions. The words of Duncan only reinforce how susceptible he has
been to the lies of Macbeth and his wife. He shows this in the last line of the scene: ??Conduct me to
mine host. We love him highly.? These are doubtless the words of someone unreservedly ignorant to
his fate. Act 1, Scene 5 is the first scene in which we meet Lady Macbeth, the other main character of
the play. The first impressions of Macbeth gained by the audience are positive which become
increasingly negative as the play develops. In great contrast, the very first impressions we gain of
Lady Macbeth are of an evil, scheming and ambitious character. She suggests that she is going to
influence Macbeth into making sure he becomes King. She has a hunger for power and is selfish, with
no conscience. This scene appears to suggest that Lady Macbeth is the dominant force in her
relationship with her husband. She makes a bizarre appeal to the spirits to make her less effeminate
and more brutal and courageous. She asks for supernatural help, which links her to the witches at the
beginning of the play. She wishes to lose her femininity and become more masculine, and to exonerate

her conscience of any evils she may commit. An example of this is in her appeal to the spirits: ??
Come, you spirits that tend on moral thoughts, unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to the toe
top-full of direst cruelty. Make thick my blood.? This indicates her desire to be less of a stereotypical
female, and to have the fortitude to employ whatever means necessary to accomplish her aspirations.
Lady Macbeth appeals to the spirits to remove her maternal instincts, from which we are able to make
an educated guess that she has given birth to a child. However, we are also aware that the child
subsequently died, as later in the play we learn that Macbeth has no children. The death of this child
may have caused Lady Macbeth bitterness, which fuels her ambition to become Queen of Scotland.
There is also significance in her asking the spirits to thicken her blood, as later in the play Shakespeare
uses imagery to make blood represent guilt. Therefore, asking for the thickening of her blood
represents allowing her to withstand guilt, and removing her conscience. From the point of view of the
audience, the introduction of Lady Macbeth is very dramatic and violent. Her appeal to the spirits is of
great compassion and sincer! ity; she immediately appears very cold, hard and malicious. Lady
Macbeth doubts the capabilities of her husband upon delivery of his letter, and immediately decides to
make it her responsibility to ensure he fulfils his ambition. She believes that Macbeth will be too
good-natured to go through with the deed. However, she is also aware of the ambition of her husband.
It is on this basis that she decides to take the responsibility. She will influence him to ensure he goes
through with it, because she is unsure to what lengths he will go. She demonstrates this in commenting
to herself on the letter: ??Yet I fear thy nature. It is too full o th? milk of human kindness.? This
implies that although Macbeth may be very ambitious, Lady Macbeth has doubts as to whether or not
he will go to the extent of killing his King. However, in the age in which this play is set, women could
only make something of themselves with the aid of a man. The status of a woman?s husband
determined her own status. Therefore, it is actually debatable whether Lady Macbeth is doing this to
assist her husband, or if it is for her own person gain to become Queen. In addition, she offers
encouragement to her husband for him to not let his true feelings be outwardly visible. This is an
example of the witches? idea of appearances being deceptive. She tells him: ??Your hand, your tongue;
look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under?t.? This indicates that Lady Macbeth wants
Macbeth to be outwardly loyal but inwardly deceitful: extremely two-faced.
Lady Macbeth appears to be the dominant force in her relationship with Macbeth. She makes the
decisions and takes the actions. They are very open and honest with each other though, and there is a
lot of evident love and passion between them. She does appear to be in control all the time and
Macbeth seems to have little choice but to agree with her. This is shown again when she demands ?
leave all the rest to me?, relating to the planning of Duncan?s murder. Act 1, Scene 7 contains the
famous soliloquy of Macbeth, in which he debates over whether or not he should murder King
Duncan. He puts forward one reason for killing him: fulfilling his ambition. In contrast, he puts
forward many reasons as to why he should not kill Duncan. These include Duncan?s innocence, the
trust Duncan has for him and how regicide is an unnatural act as according to the divine right of
Kings. As God has chosen the King, he would be going against God and killing him would unbalance
nature, causing chaos or a political storm. In addition, Duncan is a good king, great pity would be
caused and there would be complications in dealing with the guards and kinsmen. Duncan would have
no opportunity to defend himself, so it would not be even-handed justice, and also the significant
matter of Macbeth?s conscience in killing his own King. This is all summed up in his reason for
killing in his soliloquy: ??I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition.?
This indicates that although there are many reasons against killing Duncan, his ambition to become
King is so strong it dominates over them all. Mentally, Macbeth appears relatively stable in his
soliloquy, as he is able to rationally debate with himself whether or not he should kill Duncan. He does

appear quite confused, although at the end of his soliloquy he logically makes up his mind not to kill
Duncan. Macbeth is presented as a strong character for defying his ambition. He exclaims his decision
to Lady Macbeth almost straightaway: ??We will proceed no further in this business.? This shows he
has decided not to go ahead with the murder. Nevertheless, when it comes to overcoming his wife?s
ambition, he fails. Lady Macbeth easily influences him and persuades him that to murder Duncan is
the right thing to do. Lady Macbeth pressurises Macbeth by making him feel un-manly and cowardly,
and she makes him feel inferior to her. To the audience he appears weak for his inability to remain
defiant against his wife. She blackmails him into murdering Duncan: ??And live a coward in thine
own esteem, letting ?I dare not? wait upon ?I would?.? This shows how she makes him feel cowardly
and secondary to her, and in doing so persuades him to take part in Duncan?s murder. Lady Macbeth is
a manipulative character, and the perception of her by the audience is of an evil, spiteful character with
no conscience who will stop at nothing to achieve her ambition. The feeling of the audience towards
Macbeth is partial respect for deciding not to go ahead. However, the audience?s perception of
Macbeth is that he is cowardly for giving into his wife?s manipulation. She takes her persuasive
methods to such an extent as to say she would rather kill her own child than give in to conscience and
reason over the issue of killing Duncan. She expresses this to Macbeth: ??I would, while it was
smiling in my face, have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums and dashed the brains out, had I
so sworn as you have done to this.? This may show that Lady Macbeth is really such an evil, vicious
and ambitious character that she would rather kill her child than not achieve her full potential in
society. It may also be an indication that she has in fact rid herself of her femininity and been
overcome so as her maternal instinct is lost. On the other hand she could be using hyperbole to
persuade her husband by touching a raw nerve in making him feel cowardly and effeminate. Lady
Macbeth?s character comes across in this scene as extremely strong, and with no apparent doubt in her
mind about what actions to take concerning the fulfilling of her ambition. She is manipulative and
tactical in her persuasion of her husband to kill Duncan. Macbeth in comparison is very weak in
fighting his side of the argument, which in fact assists his wife in persuading him. This may have been
because he was so uncertain in his aside as to whether killing Duncan was the right thing to do.
Throughout the whole of Act 1, Lady Macbeth has changed very little. If anything, she has gone from
being an ambitious, nasty character, to a scheming, extremely ambitious, uncaring, plain evil character
who will stop at nothing to achieve her goals. Macbeth appears to have changed from being a heroic
warrior, to a devious, two-faced liar. However, at this point in the play, he is still the character who
questions the morality of certain actions. In comparison, it would appear that! Lady Macbeth takes the
action primarily, and then faces the consequences and suffers later. This becomes apparent further on
in the play, where the pair appear to swap their roles. Macbeth becomes dominant, and Lady Macbeth
a guilt-ridden wreck.
In Act 2, Scene 1 we see Macbeth with Banquo. Shakespeare does this to show the audience how the
pair have grown apart and how Macbeth is becoming increasingly evil. The first indication of this is in
the apprehension with which Banquo greets Macbeth when they meet - unlike King Duncan, Banquo
does not feel secure and feels the need to ask for his sword from his servant upon hearing someone
enter the room. This scene uses a lot more of the imagery found in Act 1, Scene 3 where darkness
represents malevolence, and creates an evil atmosphere. The atmosphere is very appropriate as
Macbeth is again dishonest with Banquo. When Banquo mentions his dreams of the witches and how
they have disturbed his thoughts, Macbeth claims to have forgotten about them altogether, when in fact
it is the exact opposite. He seems to become more isolated as the play develops, and he conceals his
true feelings simply, yet effectively here, claiming: ??I think not of them? This is a complete lie, which

represents the obvious divide that now exists between Macbeth and his formerly close friend Banquo.
Eventually this distance leads Macbeth to have Banquo murdered.
Following the departure of Banquo, Macbeth begins his hallucination. He believes he can see a dagger
in front of him. The dagger he sees could be a representation of his ambition to become King of
Scotland. The fact that he is hallucinating is also an indication of his mental instability and insecurity
at the time. It could be argued that the dagger is proven to be his ambition when it leads him to the
chamber of Duncan: ??Is this a dagger which I see before me, the handle toward my hand? Come, let
me clutch thee.? His desire to hold the dagger here is an indication of his desperation to accomplish
the deed as swiftly as possible, before he has any regrets. Following this, Macbeth believes that ?gouts
of blood? are appearing on the dagger. The blood could represent guilt and the appearance of it on the
dagger suggests that some kind of supernatural work, of witchcraft or wizardry is responsible.
Macbeth?s mind in this scene appears to be dazed, confused and unsure of what he is doing. It shows
that he has very mixed up emotions and is not coping well. His ambition is taking over his guilt and
rationality. However, the hallucination represents the mental fight Macbeth is having between the two.
Another idea is that the witches have sent the hallucination, which causes his confusion. His character
does now seem completely evil, and he no longer has any physical influences, such as Lady Macbeth
in Act 1, Scene 7. He is killing, or planning to kill of his own accord, and this makes him evi! l and
nasty. It is notable, however, that although he does eventually kill Duncan, he does not find the task
easy. I believe that Shakespeare has included this scene to develop Macbeth into a more complex,
emotional character. His mentally unstable appearance suggests that he may not be entirely responsible
for Duncan?s murder.
Act 2, Scene 2 is set immediately after Macbeth has murdered King Duncan. This scene is incredibly
ironic considering what happens later in the play, when Macbeth and Lady Macbeth exchange roles
from the way they behave in this scene. Macbeth is even more confused and dazed than he was before
killing Duncan, and he displays an immediate regret for doing it. Having killed him, he goes
immediately to Lady Macbeth without even completing the deed and disposing of the daggers. For the
first time in the play, Macbeth displays an air of authority in declaring that he will not return to the
scene of the crime, and that Lady Macbeth must do it for him. He is extremely paranoid, scared and
frightened. This is indicated in Macbeth?s inability to say Amen, suggesting that he feels he will go to
hell and is very unholy for killing Duncan, as he tells Lady Macbeth: ??List?ning their fear I could not
say ?Amen? when they did say ?God bless us?.? This shows that he truly feels God no longer blesses
him. In addition, Macbeth hears a voice that says he will never sleep again: ??Sleep no more: Macbeth
does murder sleep, the innocent sleep.? This shows that his character has a regret immediately for
killing Duncan. He has murdered someone in his sleep, and in the form of Duncan, sleep symbolises
innocence. Therefore, Macbeth believes he will be unable to sleep. Sleep depravation can cause
depression and make one unhealthy, so by taking Duncan?s sleep, Macbeth feels he too will be
deprived of the privilege. All of these things Macbeth does are representations of evil taking away
innocence; in the form of sleep, Duncan and religious faith.
Shakespeare then introduces a new form of imagery, which becomes more significant later in the play,
in particular to Lady Macbeth. Macbeth feels he cannot wash off the blood of Duncan, which
represents the way in which his conscience will plague him for the rest of his life. Blood is a symbol of
guilt here, and Macbeth feels he will never lose his. He uses hyperbole and says there is so much blood
on his hands, that to wash them in the sea would only turn the waters red rather than cleanse him.
Shakespeare presents Macbeth?s guilt and remorse here in the form of him being unable to wash off
the blood. In talking of washing the blood off his hands, Macbeth means the mental blood in its

representation of guilt. He regrets murdering Duncan very much, and hallucinates again hearing a
knocking sound. He appeals to the knocking to awaken Duncan again, and shows how much he regrets
his actions at the end of the scene: ??Wake Duncan with thy knocking. I would thou couldst.? This
shows that at this moment in the play, Macbeth would do anything to bring King Duncan back to life.
Lady Macbeth, in direct comparison, copes perfectly well with the whole situation. At the very
beginning of the scene, she appears quite agitated and nervous, appealing to shrieking owls to silence
themselves. However, once Macbeth has returned to her, she appears completely calm and relaxed
about the situation. She immediately complains to her husband for having not completed his task by
bringing the daggers back to her, instead of disposing of them. Again she tries to make him feel
cowardly for not completing it, however this time unsuccessfully. Lady Macbeth states to Macbeth
that if they think about the deed too much they will both go mad. This is ironic as she goes mad later
in the play. She does at this point though, appear to be in control of the situation. She orders Macbeth
around by telling him to ensure all his tracks have been covered, and to forget that the whole event
ever occurred. Having smeared the blood over the Kings guards, Lady Macbeth returns with a com!
pletely clear conscience. She redirects all criticism onto Macbeth and will not accept any responsibility
for assisting in the murder of King Duncan. She also calls Macbeth a coward for not returning the
daggers here: ??My hands are of your colour, but I shame to wear a heart so white.? This supports the
suggestion that Lady Macbeth feels no guilt, as if blood is a representation of guilt, her white heart
represents no guilt whatsoever. Despite having no conscience regarding the deed, Lady Macbeth
remains very paranoid about anyone discovering their guilt. She hears a knocking noise many times
towards the end of this scene, which unnerves her and makes her apprehensive. Later in the play, the
roles are exchanged almost perfectly. Macbeth gradually becomes increasingly evil, and loses his
conscience altogether. Lady Macbeth, in comparison, goes mad and commits suicide because of her
guilt in assisting in Duncan?s murder becomes so strong she is unable to live any longer. She now
feels she is unable to wash the blood off her hands, whereas Macbeth has forgotten about the incident
completely. He also manages to become much more independent from her, and is able to continue his
corruptive behaviour without her assistance and support.
Shakespeare has structured the play to reflect Macbeth?s moral dilemma, in that each scene goes in a
sequence of good and evil. For instance, Act 1, Scene 1 is evil, Act 2, Scene 2 good, then Act 1, Scene
3 evil again. This represents the changing opinions and feelings of Macbeth about whether or not to
kill Duncan. The way that he is constantly changing his mind about whether or not he should fulfil his
ambition follows the same pattern as the representations of good and evil in each scene. Notably, both
the final scene studied and Macbeth?s opinions emerge evil, with Macbeth?s guilt-ridden actions in the
final scene, and Duncan?s death towards the end of the studied section of the play. Shakespeare uses
imagery throughout the whole of the play. However, most prominent are his representations of good
and evil, as light and darkness. Quite stereotypically, the storms, bad weather, thunder and lightning in
the scenes with the witches represent their evil presence, and some indication of supernatural activity.
Shakespeare also uses blood to represent guilt, and there are many references made throughout the
play to blood, which signifies its representation of evil later in the play. The use of asides is also
effective, as it allows the audience to know Macbeth?s deepest inner thoughts, giving them the
advantage of dramatic irony over the other characters. This engages the audience, as they can
anticipate how the play will develop. However, this play clearly demonstrates Shakespeare at his most
successful, with unexpected plot twists that prove the predictions of the audience wrong.
In conclusion, I believe Shakespeare has very successfully portrayed the moral dilemma faced by Lady
Macbeth and her husband. He challenges certain stereotypes, such as women?s femininity, and men?s

masculinity. He does this by giving Lady Macbeth the role of appealing to the spirits to unsex her,
enabling her to assist in Duncan?s murder without maternal instincts of femininity creating any
boundaries or restrictions to her potential capabilities. Macbeth is presented as a very strong character
physically, able to overcome large armies of men. However, mentally he is weak willed and finds
coping with his ambition very difficult. He has internal conflicts with himself trying to decide whether
or not to fulfil his ambition and become King, or to remain loyal to his master and King, Duncan. He
does actually come to his own conclusions in deciding to not commit the deed. However, he has no
strength of character and allows Lady Macbeth to manipulate him by questioning his masculinity.
Eventually, this leads Macbeth to not only taking the life of his King, but to continue his tyranny as
king by slaughtering anyone who dares to cross his path. Lady Macbeth in comparison does exactly
the opposite. She starts by appealing to the spirits to unsex her, and she becomes a spiteful, evil,
manipulative character. Her ambition is even greater than Macbeth?s, and it fuels her onwards to
persuade her husband to go ahead and commit regicide, allowing her to become Queen. Following her
becoming Queen, however, she begins to lose her hard, cold exterior, and can no longer remain free of
responsibility for Duncan?s death. Eventually, the thought of her guilt horrifies her so much that she
goes mad and commits suicide. This suggests that she was only able to accept no responsibility with
the false cover of the spirits, and not independently. Macbeth, however, had the natural resilience to
cope with the responsibility. This is proven in his progression to become a stronger and more powerful
king. The feeling of the audience towards each character also changes as the play develops. Macbeth
appears a heroic warrior at first, and by ! the end of Act 2, Scene 2 the audience views him as an evil,
unkind, dishonest character, who is extremely selfish. Lady Macbeth is viewed as a manipulative, evil
character at first. However, when she goes mad with guilt, there is some sympathy from the audience
towards her. Finally, this play teaches some quite important moral values: that one should never let
power influence rational decisions; that honesty eventually prevails; that ambition can be extremely
dangerous; and that ultimately, good always overcomes evil.
Macbeth Composition
Life itself can either be great or not so great. Sometimes your up on top of the world and sometimes
your lying face down in the dirt. Either way you got to take what life gives you and make the best of it.
In this soliloquy, MacBeth's recognition scene, he offers the reader a very negative and dark
worldview. In essence he says that 1) life is repetitive and boring, 2) that man is puny and
insignificant, and 3) that life itself is rendered meaningless and absurd by the finality of death.
MacBeth's worldview is extremely negative and pessimistic, and he sees no hope at all. Given the
experience of life and literature, one might disagree with him and offer evidence to the contrary.
There are many examples to prove MacBeth wrong in his view of life as being boring and repetitive.
First, in the play MacBeth, king Duncan decides to make MacBeth Thane of Cawdor. How boring can
it be to rule all of Cawdor and know that the king thinks very highly of you. Second, man has invented
video games, TV, sports, and amusement parks to entertain man. So how can all those things just
mention still make life boring? There is no way life is boring and repetitive because there is always
something you can find to entertain yourself.
MacBeth also thinks that man is puny and insignificant but that is truly wrong. Man is the supreme
being of the Earth. Look how powerful the Pope, president of the United States, generals etc. can be.
Every catholic would do anything the Pope would ask. Another reason to prove the views of MacBeth
wrong comes right out of the play. The king of Scotland means a lot to the people and has the most
power throughout the land. Once MacBeth killed king Duncan he knew he had to king Malcolm who

has the heir to the throne in order for nothing to stand in his way of the throne. Obviously Malcolm
was pretty significant to MacBeth if he wanted to murder him. Furthermore, you can look at history
and see how Cesar ruled most of the world for over 600 years. There are just to many examples to
prove that man is in no way puny and insignificant.
There is no way life is meaningless even with death in mind. Every culture in the world believes in a
God and a afterlife. They spend their lives praying and worshiping their Gods hoping that the afterlife
will be grand. You should not fear death because you get to go to heaven, which is what you want
heaven to be. Therefore there is no reason why you should fear death.
The way MacBeth views the world as a dark place is extremely wrong. Throughout this paper there
has been many examples on how life is exciting and very meaningful. Even though there are bad days
or even weeks in life, the good days always out weighs the bad. In conclusion, life is what you make
of it so you can't blame others for your life and the way you live it.
Macbeth Contrasting Shades
In everyday life normal people like you and I sometimes pretend to be what we are not, or we "wear a
mask". It is a defense-mechanism that can be used for social or even political augmentation. In
Macbeth, a tragedy by William Shakespeare, Macbeth hides his true nature as he strives for the
pinnacle of political influence by killing his king, Duncan. Shakespeare uses "fair and foul"
contradictions to reflect Macbeth, who appears to be a fair noble thane, but in turn is a foul person and
deceptive murderer. Macbeth takes advantage of the king's trust, uses a false identity, and murders
those around him to gain supreme sovereignty.
The first step Macbeth takes in seizing for the crown is taking advantage of Duncan's nae sense of
trust. While watching the thane of Cawdor getting hung, Duncan comments, "There's no art to find the
mind's construction in the face. He was a gentleman on whom I built an absolute trust."(2.4 13-16)
Duncan lacks the essential insight to detect treachery within his own ranks. He also does not see the
inconsistency of Macbeth's character, which leads to the king's bloody murder. Lady Macbeth clarifies
their sneaky plan in killing Duncan when saying, "Bear welcome in your eye, your hand, your tongue.
Look like th'innocent flower, but be the serpent under `t." (1.6 76-77) After this effective plan resulting
in murder, a wise old man says to Macduff and Ross, "God's benison go with you and with those that
would make good of bad and friends of foes." (2.4 55-56) This warning is used by Shakespeare to
foreshadow the knowledge of Macbeth's betrayal. Macduff, unlike Duncan, suspects Macbeth and
does not convene with him.
After killing off those that truly prevent him from taking the throne, he has to hide his true colors.
Macbeth "wears a mask" of false innocence, and must seem like a good and loyal King to his subjects,
when in fact is guilty of numerous slaughters. If Macbeth slaughtered all that opposed or suspected
him, he would have nobody to rule. Therefore, some alliances must be maintained regardless of their
nature. His wife reminds him that the other nobles are important to the longevity of his reign. "Come
on, gentle my lord, sleek o'er your rugged looks. Be bright and jovial among your guests tonight." (3.2
30-32) Macbeth cannot hide his foulness, even when his own survival depends on it. During a feast
with other nobles, Macbeth almost reveals the truth when seeing an imagined ghost of murdered
Banquo. Without association with others, Macbeth's reign would be superficial and short.
Well, as bad as we can feel about ourselves when we must "wear a mask", we can comfort ourselves
by relating to the extremity of Macbeth, who lived a series of lies and deception before he was killed
by Macbeth and justice was returned to Scotland. By use of contradiction, Shakespeare made a
complex character who was not what he seemed.

Macbeth - The Hands of Gods

The last moments of a production are important because they can greatly alter the audiences'
interpretation of the entire play. This is especially true in William Shakespeare's Macbeth. A number of
unanswered questions such as who is responsible for Macbeth's fate and whether peace is restored to
the kingdom gather at the end of the original play. In each of the different productions, directors
Roman Polanski and Trevor Nunn allude to these answers.
Shakespeare's play ends with Malcolm saying to his kinsman:
We shall not spend a large expense of time
Before we reckon with your several loves
And make us even with you. My Thanes and kinsmen,
Henceforth be Earls, the first that ever Scotland
In such an honor named. What's more to do,
Which would be planted newly with the time,
As calling home our exiled friends abroad,
That fled the snares of watchful tyranny,
Producing forth the cruel ministers
Of this dead butcher and his fiend-like queenWho, as 'tis thought, by self and violent hands
Took off her life-this and what needful else
That calls upon us, by the grace of grace
We will perform in measure, time, and place.
So thanks to all at once and to each one,
Whom we invite to see us crowned at Scone.
(5.11.26-41)
Because his speech merely recaps past events that the audience already knows and does not provide
any revelation into the unanswered questions of the play, Malcolm's speech leaves the audience with
ambiguities. The speech contains no comments on where to place the blame of Macbeth's fate, thus the
audience must decide for themselves as to whether Macbeth alone stands responsible for his fate or
whether the witches participation holds them as the responsible ones.
Director Roman Polanski attempts an answer to this ambiguity in the last scene of his production of
Macbeth. The evening turns to dusk, and the air holds a hazy mystical feel. The sound of the witches
playing a flute-like musical instrument rises from behind two large rocks. Then Donalbain, leaving his
horse behind, limps toward those rocks intently looking for those whom he believes reside there. He
then disappears behind the rocks and the music stops, insinuating that they will now prophesize the
future for Donalbain. In his last scene, Polanski leaves the viewer with the notion that the witches
control fate like puppeteers with their dolls, the kingdom and its inhabitants are as mere pawns in their
game. Donalbain stands to gain the throne after the death of his elder brother Malcolm; therefore he
becomes the perfect toy for the witches. Polanski creates this notion that the witches control the
kingdom and its inhabitants in order to prove that ultimately Macbeth does not control his own fate

and therefore does not hold responsibility for his own actions. Macbeth foreshadows the idea that fate
holds ultimate power and people only act out their minor roles in the brief production of life, when he
says, Lifes but a walking shadow, a poor player/ That struts and frets his hour upon the stage/ And then
is heard no more"(5.5.23-25). Polanski reinforces the same idea stated in Macbeths speech in the final
moments of the production with the image of the witches controlling Donalbain just as they ultimately
control Macbeth during his life.
The last moments of a production are important because they can greatly alter the audiences'
interpretation of the entire play. This is especially true in William Shakespeare's Macbeth. A number of
unanswered questions such as who is responsible for Macbeth's fate and whether peace is restored to
the kingdom gather at the end of the original play. In each of the different productions, directors
Roman Polanski and Trevor Nunn allude to these answers.
Shakespeare's play ends with Malcolm saying to his kinsman:
We shall not spend a large expense of time
Before we reckon with your several loves
And make us even with you. My Thanes and kinsmen,
Henceforth be Earls, the first that ever Scotland
In such an honor named. What's more to do,
Which would be planted newly with the time,
As calling home our exiled friends abroad,
That fled the snares of watchful tyranny,
Producing forth the cruel ministers
Of this dead butcher and his fiend-like queenWho, as 'tis thought, by self and violent hands
Took off her life-this and what needful else
That calls upon us, by the grace of grace
We will perform in measure, time, and place.
So thanks to all at once and to each one,
Whom we invite to see us crowned at Scone.
(5.11.26-41)
Because his speech merely recaps past events that the audience already knows and does not provide
any revelation into the unanswered questions of the play, Malcolm's speech leaves the audience with
ambiguities. The speech contains no comments on where to place the blame of Macbeth's fate, thus the
audience must decide for themselves as to whether Macbeth alone stands responsible for his fate or
whether the witches participation holds them as the responsible ones.
Director Roman Polanski attempts an answer to this ambiguity in the last scene of his production of
Macbeth. The evening turns to dusk, and the air holds a hazy mystical feel. The sound of the witches
playing a flute-like musical instrument rises from behind two large rocks. Then Donalbain, leaving his
horse behind, limps toward those rocks intently looking for those whom he believes reside there. He
then disappears behind the rocks and the music stops, insinuating that they will now prophesize the
future for Donalbain. In his last scene, Polanski leaves the viewer with the notion that the witches
control fate like puppeteers with their dolls, the kingdom and its inhabitants are as mere pawns in their

game. Donalbain stands to gain the throne after the death of his elder brother Malcolm; therefore he
becomes the perfect toy for the witches. Polanski creates this notion that the witches control the
kingdom and its inhabitants in order to prove that ultimately Macbeth does not control his own fate
and therefore does not hold responsibility for his own actions. Macbeth foreshadows the idea that fate
holds ultimate power and people only act out their minor roles in the brief production of life, when he
says, Lifes but a walking shadow, a poor player/ That struts and frets his hour upon the stage/ And then
is heard no more"(5.5.23-25). Polanski reinforces the same idea stated in Macbeths speech in the final
moments of the production with the image of the witches controlling Donalbain just as they ultimately
control Macbeth during his life.
Hamlet and his hesitation
One should start by defining `Hamlet'. `Hamlet' is a tragedy. The tragic action stems from a flaw or
failing act of shame or horror, and as a result the protagonist suffers intensely. The protagonist- Hamlet
in this play has a fatal defect or tragic trait in his character- uncertainty, delay of action. There are also
two conflicts involved: an inner conflict in the mind and soul of the protagonist, and an outer or
physical one as he comes into collisions with his opponents. But the centre of a tragic impression is the
sense of waste. There is a profound sense of sadness, wasted talent and unnecessary suffering towards
or at the end.
The character of Hamlet stands quite by itself. It is not a character marked by strength of will or even
of passion, but by refinement of thought and sentiment. It is more his taste to indulge his imagination
in reflecting upon the enormity of the crime and refining his schemes of vengeance, than to put them
into immediate practice- his ruling passion is to think and not to act.
Hamlet is plagued by self-doubts. In his second soliloquy, the essence of his true conflict is uncovered.
He is committed to seeking revenge for his father, King Hamlet, yet he cannot act on behalf of his
father because of his revulsion towards extracting that cold and calculating revenge. Hamlets selfcondemnation takes several forms, including a series of imaginary, demeaning insults that he absorbs
like a coward- he feels he has done nothing to take revenge on Claudius and feels like he lacks the
ability- `unpregnant of my cause'. Hamlet fails to quell his apprehensions of committing murder, so he
tries to focus his attention on a plan to ensure Claudius admits his own guilt. He stages the play `The
Mousetrap' where Claudius's crimes are re-enacted, forcing the King to reveal his own guilt. This gives
him proof that revenge on Claudius would be justified- so he sets out to `catch the conscience of the
King.'
Hamlet tries to find reason for his inadequacy- `Am I a coward?' but his hesitation does not make him
one. He is a Prince, an intellectual and has a sense of social duty towards Denmark and its people. One
should ask, why does Hamlet procrastinate in taking revenge on Claudius? He is a man of great moral
integrity who is forced to commit an act, which goes against his deepest principles. Through his
soliloquies, he tries to make sense of his moral dilemma. To take another perspective, one could say
that Hamlet has become so disenchanted with life since his father's death that he has neither the desire
nor the will to exact revenge. He is also faced with an appearance- reality dilemma- he does not know
whom to and who not to trust- what the other characters may appear to be, may not be reality.
Hamlet would rather have confirmation of his uncle's betrayal or treachery before taking action. His
third soliloquy-`To be, or not to be' is governed more by reason than by frenzied motion as compared
to the previous one. He asks whether one should live or not, but it could also be a question as to
whether to take action or not; a question between reason and passion. To me, the opening line of this
soliloquy does not suggest that Hamlet is hesitating, but rather that he contemplates and sparks an

internal debate within himself.

I agree that Hamlet possesses a quality of nobility. It is noble and reasonable for him to confirm
Claudius's guilt and also to confirm that the ghost of his father is an, `honest ghost.' He prepares to
duel against Laertes at the near end, although there was no honour on Laertes' part as he avenges his
father's death. `There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow...the readiness is all.' Throughout
the play Hamlet has known more than any of the others, but here he accepts the fact that no man has
achieved knowledge about the true nature of reality.
From these lines one can conclude that Hamlet is content and has `resigned to his fate.' He seems to
have resolved the conflict he had previously with himself and answers a question he once asked- `Let
be.'
As with all tragedies, the moral order in the end is re-established, as Hamlet kills the King and
although he himself dies, Denmark is left in the hands of a responsible Fortinbras- Prince of Norway.
Hamlet was definitely plagued by self-doubts, and this did result in his hesitation, but it did not make
him a coward and rather brought his honesty and nobility to the fore. He would not have wanted to
regret something that shouldn't have happened, and although he lost the power of action in the energy
of resolve, he thought about his plans and reasoned, and in the end it counted.
Hamlet Brutal Truth
Disillusionment. Depression. Despair. These are the burning emotions churning in young Hamlet's
soul as he attempts to come to terms with his father's death and his mother's incestuous, illicit
marriage. While Hamlet tries to pick up the pieces of his shattered idealism, he consciously embarks
on a quest to seek the truth hidden in Elsinore; this, in stark contrast to Claudius' fervent attempts to
obscure the truth of murder. Deception versus truth; illusion versus reality. In the play, Prince Hamlet
is constantly having to differentiate amongst them. However, there is always an exception to the rule,
and in this case, the exception lies in Act 2, Scene 2, where an "honest" conversation (sans the gilded
trappings of deceit) takes place between Hamlet and Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern. Via the use of
prose and figurative language, Shakespeare utilizes the passage to illustrate Hamlet's view of the
cosmos and mankind.
Throughout the play, the themes of illusion and mendaciousness have been carefully developed. The
entire royal Danish court is ensnared in a web of espionage, betrayal, and lies. Not a single man speaks
his mind, nor addresses his purpose clearly. As Polonius puts it so perfectly: "And thus do we of
wisdom and of reach^ By indirections find directions out" Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 71-3 The many
falsehoods and deceptions uttered in Hamlet are expressed through eloquent, formal, poetic language
(iambic pentameter), tantamount to an art form. If deceit is a painted, ornate subject then, its foil of
truth is simple and unvarnished. Accordingly, when the pretenses of illusion are discarded in Act 2,
Scene 2, the language is written in direct prose.
Addressing Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet pleads with them to deliver up honest speech about
the intent of their arrival: "[offer up] Anything but to th' purpose." Act 2, Scene 2, Line 300 In a
gesture of extreme significance, in a quote complementary to Polonius' aforementioned one, Hamlet
demands: "Be even and direct with me whether you were sent for or no." Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 310-11
Being the bumbling fools they are, Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern disclose their intentions and
purposes to Hamlet, revealing the King and Queen's instructions. Thus does truth prevail in this
passage. For this reason, the whole passage is devoid of the "artful" poetic devices that are used in the
better portion of the play.
The recurring motif of corruption also appears in the passage. Due to the wicked internal proceedings

in the state of Denmark (e.g. murder, incest), Shakespeare implies that the whole state is "soiled",
which in turn has a direct negative consequence in the grand universal scheme of things. Imagery of
warped and distasteful plants, in place of the traditional "aesthetically correct" beautiful flowers in a
garden, serves to further reinforce the degeneration theme: "'Tis an unweeded garden that grows to
seed. Things rank and gross in nature possess it merely." Act 1, Scene 2 Essentially, all of life, and all
that was good and beautiful in life (e.g. the garden) is sullied.
Hamlet, the disillusioned idealist, continues with the motif when he disheartenedly declares: "the
earth, seems to me a sterile promontory^" -Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 321-2 [the air] "why, it appeareth
nothing to me but a fouled and pestilent congregation of vapors." -Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 325-6 The
above lines represent Hamlet's cosmic view on the planet. He finds the world to be empty and lifeless,
dirty and diseased, and his particular place in it to be desolate and lonely. Indeed, he feels so isolated
and entrapped in his native land that he says: [the world is a prison] "A goodly one, in which there are
many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst." -Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 264-6
This view of the world exemplifies the micro/macro concept, where Denmark is the "micro"
manifestation of a prison for our hero. The taint of "micro" Denmark leads to repercussions that in turn
affect the whole universal order, leading to the consequence of the world itself becoming the "macro"
manifestation of a prison in Hamlet's eyes.
Further along in the same paragraph, Hamlet offers up his opinion on man, extolling his virtues and
excellent qualities ("what a piece of work is man^"). Yet, it is tremendously ironic, that the ideal type
of man Hamlet is describing is nowhere to be found in the play. Hamlet himself is indecisive, unable
to take action, Claudius is a slave to his lusts and passions, Polonius is a simpering, servile old fool,
and Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern are mindless ninnies. Quite simply, no "true man" as Hamlet
describes him exists in the play.
As a result of this dismal realization, and because of his inability to adapt to the "unnatural state of
things in Denmark", Hamlet has lost the love for life he once had. This loss of enthusiasm also stems
from the fact that he intrinsically knows there is more wickedness brewing under the superficial
illusionary surface of calm that Claudius is trying to promote. As a culmination of all these factors,
Hamlet loses all faith in man: "And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?" Scene 2, Act 2,
Lines 332-3 Drawing on Biblical allusions, Hamlet redefines the position of man as simply "that
which came from dust". From this stance, it is inferred that solely God is Truth. Man, coming from the
lowly earth, cannot be depended upon to deliver pure and true thoughts, as his source of origin itself is
impure and unclean. If one establishes this rationality for mankind's nature, then all the characters in
the play can be accounted for.
Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark
Is Hamlet a tragic hero, a weak revenger or a political misfit?
Shakespeare's Hamlet is at the outset a typical revenge play. However, it is possible to see Prince
Hamlet as a more complex character as he can be seen as various combinations of a weak revenger, a
tragic hero and a political misfit. In order to fully understand the world in which Hamlet finds himself,
it is necessary to examine all three of these roles and either dismiss them or justify Hamlet's behaviour
as a revenger.
As a tragic hero, Hamlet displays many typical qualities of a traditional hero in a Elizabethan revenge
tragedy.
Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark and therefore belongs to a social elite. Hamlet can be described as

being too noble to take revenge. As a very well educated scholar of Wittenberg University in Sweden
he has to think extensively before taking revenge. He feels the need to question revenge yet he is
reluctant to do so rashly without considerable thought "thus conscience does make cowards of us all".
We see that this happens in the first few moments of the play when Hamlet doubts the ghost is his
father and he needs further prompting and reassurance throughout the play "So art thou to revenge,
when thou shalt hear". Hamlet constantly rationalises and stops himself from acting with any degree of
passion. This could be seen either as a weakness or as a personal strength. Hamlet can and is
frequently described, as a man with a tragic flaw, this being that his tendency to contemplate his
actions is not a positive quality but that instead this brings about his downfall. Hamlet appears to many
critics to be too much of an intellectual to play the role as a typical revenger "O what a rogue and
peasant slave am I! Is it not monstrous that this player here, but in a fiction, in a dream of passion".
Hamlet also seems to be a victim of bad luck. The accidental killing of Polonius in this mother's
bedroom as well as the interception of Hamlet's ship by pirates and his subsequent return to Denmark
are two such examples. However this bad luck could also be described as the tragedy of fate
depending on ones personal view.
Shakespeare's own view was that fate existed and that the decisions that Hamlet makes during the play
make little difference to the final outcome. It seems that as Hamlet is unable to kill Claudius while he
has the chance. Early in the play his fate must be that he dies as a consequence. Hamlet himself
becomes fatalistic, on his return from exile. "-Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander
returneth to dust the dust is earth". He has either lost heart totally or he has realised that, in order to
take any sort of revenge on his uncle, he might actually have to die himself. Strangely in keeping with
this his giving up on life his highly self critical and analytical soliloquies stop during Act Five. It is
unclear whether this is a realisation that his fate is sealed or that a last attempt at preventing himself
from taking action. Critic Catherine England says this about the issue of fate throughout Hamlet: "He
can and does still make choices and act on them. Only he accepts that there is a higher power with
responsibility for how things turn out; and in V.ii.215-220 he argues that that power is ultimately a
caring one. So he believes that he can go through life more calmly, without fear, and ready for, and
accepting of, whatever eventuates, even though he can't know what that will be."
Critics debate whether is Hamlet has to die in the play. One of the most interesting, although new is
that Hamlet is too virtuous to live in the human world and therefore there is no choice but for him to
die.
However it is also possible for Hamlet to be considered a weak revenger in comparison to the
traditional revenger who is a man of action. The traditional hero in revenge plays comprised most of
the qualities that Hamlet possesses. The question that Shakespeare asks in this play is whether
Hamlet's inaction is a quality to be admired or criticised.
Shakespeare uses an old legend and changes it so that it is suitable for the purpose he requires. If
Shakespeare is questioning the idea of taking revenge, it is ironic that his story is far from original and
that it is based around the convention of the revenge play.
Hamlet is many ways is typical of a traditional revenger. As all plays of the time the central character
would have been a member of the aristocracy and usually of the court too. As a Prince who is well
educated, hamlet fits the traditional role of a revenger. However due to his interest in philosophy and
his studious nature, intellectually and morally he does not fit in with the traditional role of a revenger.
His education could be seen as either a blessing or a curse.
Hamlet can be categorised as either a morally strong man for not taking revenge or as a failure.
If Hamlet is shown as strong then we can see him as a `modern thinker' and a positive role model. His

constant questioning and uncertainty of traditional and socially accepted boundaries a totally new and
extraordinarily bold move. The pressure that is put on him by the ghost of his father pressure, to act as
a revenger out of duty is delayed which requites an almost superhuman strength of character. This
must have been a radical idea at the time, to depart from the traditional role.
Hamlet can be seem as a weak revenger, a weak willed coward who lets his family name before
tarnished and who allows his uncle to outsmart him. This would have been controversial at the time as
family reputation, dignity and honour were one of the most important values.
A modern audience could see Hamlet as both a weak revenger but also as a morally courageous man
who tries to do the right thing. The modern audience's preoccupation with the psychology aspect of
Hamlet is the main reason that `Hamlet,' unlike most other revenge plays is still extensively
performed, studied and read. As taking revenge is illegal but more importantly in violent situations is
socially and morally unacceptable. This makes it just as relevant today, as in the Elizabethan conflict.
The ghost of Hamlet's father can be seen as either a spirit, as shown traditionally or as a conscience or
apparition of the dead. Hamlet's careful consideration and reasoning for and against revenge and the
condemnation of his own character and the self-destruction of it, is a remarkably accurate portrayal of
a man driven to despair or even madness.
The audience sympathises with Hamlet's situation when the ghost of his much-respected father appears
to him. In nearly all productions King Hamlet appears as an old man with an air of grace and dignity
and the audience has the impression of a well respected, brave warrior whose death was a tragic loss to
his kingdom "Together with that fair and warlike form in which the majesty of buried Denmark did
sometimes march?" . This is something Hamlet feels he must aspire to be, even though most critics
agree he could not fulfil this ambition. After his fathers death we see that his world dramatically
changes. Hamlet is oppressed and forbidden to travel back to university, "Denmark's a prison...a
goodly one, in which there are many confines wards, and dungeons". The only person he can trust is
Horatio, "Good my lord tell it. Hamlet: No, you will reveal. Horatio: Not my lord by heaven," as he is
aware that Ophelia is not being loyal to him and it can he debated that the `madness' he pretends he is
suffering from changes into a real mental instability and he is unable to release himself from acting,
which then becomes a reality. This spirals to Ophelia's own madness and what seems to be her suicide,
and Hamlet looses someone who could have stabilised his life.
We also see Hamlet and his mother being spied on by Polonius. This is an example of the unbalanced
political situation and a justification for Hamlet's paranoia. The death of Polonius is unfortunate and it
is obvious that Hamlet is being cold and uncaring which is unsurprising.
Hamlet's situation is made worse as no-one else in the court apart from Horatio is aware of the murder
Claudius has committed. Claudius is a popular leader which makes Hamlet's position more dangerous
and lead to a great deal of isolation with his native Denmark. Apart from Horatio, Hamlet cannot trust
anyone, which increases his sense of isolation.
My view is that Hamlet fits all the three categories well and that not one of the views: weak revenger,
tragic, hero or political misfit, classifies him accurately. He is a combination of all three and at times
vacillates between weak revenger and tragic hero, making him particularly venerable and open to
attack. The political problems in Denmark are a contributing factor which simply lead Hamlet to his
death but have no bearing on his ability to be either a tragic hero or a weak revenger. I think that
Hamlet is a tragic hero with a fatal flaw that he think to much, and is too introspective that ultimately
leads to his own and other friends and family members' death.
Women in Hamlet

In William Shakespeare's Hamlet, women play an important role. They are the ones whom the men use
to play out their nefarious plots. They are quite easily manipulated and have almost no say in anything.
It seems as though Shakespeare thought of them as tools, as most men did at the time.
Ophelia is the first woman in the play who seems to be being manipulated. Her father, Polonius, uses
her to spy on Hamlet. He sets her up in a hall, where she is to meet Hamlet Polonius and King
Claudius spy on them. She goes along with this, even though Hamlet is the man she loves. Her father
is so easily able to convince her that Hamlet does not actually love her, that it is no wonder young
women of the time would nearly always marry the man their father chose out for them.
Gertrude is not immune to this mistreatment. She has no trouble believing that there was no foul play
involved in the death of her husband. Claudius is so convincing, he even gets her to marry him. The
fact that their marriage happens a mere few weeks after Hamlet Sr.'s death goes to show how quickly
women of the time turned their back on things that no longer interested them. If her dead husband
could not provide her with some divertissement, she wanted nothing to do with him; she certainly
didn't want to waste her time grieving. She felt that Claudius would be someone fun and could give
her what she wanted, so without thinking about those around her, especially Hamlet, she went ahead
and married him. She also betrays Hamlet by telling the king of his visit to her room. She tells him of
how he killed Polonius and made her swear not to tell him. The fact that she could betray her own son
for her husband, who is not even his father, is proof that the man controlled women they were married
to. In conclusion, it is evident that women were not strong-willed individuals in William Shakespeare's
time. They did what was asked of them without much of a fight. This certainly did not help with their
oppression. It was not until women started standing up for their rights that they were heard and taken
seriously. It is a shame that it took so long for them to do it. There may have been many intelligent
women who may have helped invent or create things that would have greatly helped civilization,
unfortunately mankind missed out on that opportunity.
King Lear
Good King, that must approve the common saw, Thou out of heavens benediction comst To the warm
sun Approach, thou beacon to this under globe, That by thy comfortable beams I may Peruse this letter.
Nothing almost sees miracles But misery. I know tis from Cordelia Who hath most fortunately been
informed Of my obscured course, and shall find time >From this enormous state, seeking to give
Losses their remedies. All weary and oerwatched, Take vantage heavy eyes, not to behold This
shameful lodging.
Fortune, goodnight. Smile once more; turn thy wheel.
Shakespeare (H) D. Bradford November10, 1997 Damian Schafgans "The theme of King Lear may be
stated in psychological as well as biological terms. So put, it is the destructive, the ultimately suicidal
character of unregulated passion, its power to carry human nature back to chaos....
The predestined end of unmastered passion is the suicide of the species. That is the gospel according to
King Lear. The play is in no small measure an actual representation of that process. The murdersuicide of Regan-Goneril is an example. But it is more than a picture of chaos and impending doom.
What is the remedy for chaos? it asks. What can avert the doom? The characters who have mastered
their passions give us a glimpse of the answer to those questions." -Harold C. Goddard, The Meaning
of Shakespeare, 1951 Shakespeares tragedy, King Lear, is often thought of as not only one of
Shakespeares best works, but also one of his best "poems". The language follows in Shakespeares
trademark format using iambic pentameter in much of the play. Shakespeares It is we ll known for its
many universal themes. Some of these themes are: Dealing with he folly of old age and the ingratitude

of youth; Good versus evil; Nature; Vision and blindness; and Fortune. These themes have been
examined for hundreds of years in many dif ferent forums, but what makes this play so unique is the
fact that Shakespeare incorporates all of these issues in just one tale. One character that examines
some of these issues is a character named Kent. Kent is a significant character in King Lear, as he is
involved from the beginning to the end. Kent is the ideal first mate to the commander of the ship of
state. From the moment we meet him and observe his tactful response to Gloucesters bawdy chatter,
we know we can rely on this good man. It doesnt take long for us to become better acquainted. When
Lear banishes Cordelia, and Kent speaks up in her behalf, he is bold but courteous. And he sticks to his
guns, even at the risk of his own banishment. The measure of his devotion to his master, the king, is
shown by his assumption of a disguise. This enables him to continue in Lears service. There are
several additional facets of Kents personality. He can be hotheaded, as in the outburst that infuriates
Lear in the very first s cene. And his treatment of Oswald is hardly gentle. Kent even shows a sense of
humor in his lengthy description of Gonerils steward. Kent is not a great philosopher, but he does
acknowledge that there are greater forces determining our fates. He endures disfavor and discomfort
stoically. His devotion and faithfulness are always in our minds. In the midst of the final turmoil, we
still have compassion for Kent when he tells us that he cannot fulfill the only formal request made of
him. He cannot share the responsibility for restoring order to England because he is nearing his own
end.
As mentioned before, Kent clearly belives in a greater sence of fate and fortune. This is exactly what
his speech is about in act two, scene two. Kent is at the bottom of the wheel of fortune, and he is
looking for the wheel to turn in his favor. Dissecti ng the speech line for line is the only real way of
understanding the speech. The first line, "Good king, that must approve the common saw," is an
allusion to Lear and his duties as his subjects percieve them to be, with the word "saw" meaning
proverb. "t hou out of heavens benediction comst to the warm sun," means that Lear, out of heavens
blessing once again will be in the sun, or recognized as the king. "Approach thou beacon to this under
globe" is the idea that Kent wants some sort of illumination, wh ether it be the sun or the moon, to
come to his place at the dredges of the society. "That by thy comfortable beams I may peruse this
letter" means that Kent wants to read a letter that he has received, but is unable to, as it is too dark.
"nothing almost sees miracles but misery" clearly Kent is at the bottom of the wheel of fortune, being
placed in stocks and left outside, and he is the embodiment of this "misery" and he realizes that this
letter he holds could indeed be a miracle of sorts. "I know tis from Cordelia who hath most fortunatly
been informed of my obscured course and shall find time from this enormous state, seeking to give
losses their remedies." This is the idea that Cordelia has been informed of Kents "interesting"
situation and may be able to help him out in his mission. "All weary and oerwatched, take vantage
heavy eyes not to behold this shameful lodging." Kent realizes that while he is helpless to do anything
but sleep while locked in the stocks, and figures that it would in fact be to his advantage to sleep and
forget about his predicament and get some well needed sleep. "Fortune, good night. Smile once more,
turn thy wheel." Kent recognizes that he cannot get any lower on the wheel of fortune and that it is
only a matter of time before he comes back to power with Lear.
King Lear is a timeless tale of honor, betrayal, usurpation of power and greed. Clearly Shakespeare
was not only a great poet, but he was also an observer. He recognized certain qualities and emotion
that all humans exhibit. The reason that he was so incr edible was that he was able to balance between
the fiction and magic of Lear and his daughters, and the truth and realities of greed and power.
King Lear

The play works out before us the problems of human suffering and human imperfection the relations
of humanity to nature on the one hand and aspirations towards perfection on the other. This play often
leads to the discussion of the characters of Edgar, Lear, and Cordelia.
In particular reference to the human suffering that occurs upon three characters, they all are in the
same boat with different plights. Although for the three characters they're suffering depended upon
others evil characteristics and un-fare situations, they each contained too much pride to do something
about it immediately or in Edgar's case to naive to see through the evil ways of others. Thus leading to
their human imperfections. Ironically in this play (king Lear) the three characters being discussed were
all dubbed "good characters". Throughout the play they were the focus of all-evil to occur.
In the beginning of the play we are introduced to Lear the king whom is forcing his daughters to
profess their love for him. This act shows his imperfect nature of being selfish and proud. In this act
we are also introduced to Cordelia, who is Lear's daughter. She is to profess her affection for her
undeserving father. Although she is the favorite of the three daughters with the most to gain, she
doesn't exaggerate her love towards him as the others do, she simply states "nothing my lord" (act1,
scene1) Whether Cordelia didn't tell her father how she felt about him because she mirrored him and
had too much pride, or if it was due to circumstances of whom she had to bow in front of is debatable.
It is obvious throughout the play her use of words riddled her farther and kept her on his mind, which
was unintentional but served a greater purpose to Lear in the end.
Lear also represented the vanity of humans. To me he showed the same behavioral patterns of a young
teenager. The need for others affection, especially in a social setting, the wanting of others most
honorable opinions and the blindness to what could simply be there lies. This vainness also parallels to
what are dubbed the evil characters. For example general, Regan and Edmond are consumed by what
others think of them and what they think of others. This is evident in there speeches throughout Act
2,Scene4. They justify their rude behavior towards their father by highlighting his age as a reason.
This is an attempt for them to gain more power based on the appearance of age, what they think as
being old and weak.
When discussing human suffering Edgar is also within the confines of being dubbed suffering in life
by means of human imperfections based on him as well as others. He is gullible and naive which lends
himself to humiliation of being lied to and the plait of dealing with the consciences. His equal brother
Edmond, who takes into consideration what he can gain from dismissing of his brother and quickly
plots against him, sees his trusting nature. He reveals his plot in Act 2,Scene 1. Edmond simply lies to
Edgar and tells him his father in Cornwall is angered with him. With no other evidence than word of
mouth. Edgar believes Edmond and flees eventually emerging as poor tom. This lie is lived in Edgar's
mind because much of the time he doesn't have the courage to ask questions. You can't blame Edgar
for not asking questions or subjecting himself to the truth. Nobody wants to hear their father confess
hatred towards them nor does anyone want a bully (Cornwall) to confront. Through his suffering he
gains great wisdom which is evident when he begins to speak in prose (Act4, Scene6) the same can be
said for Lear. Lear is able to see what really maters with the help of Cordelia, whom already has the
understanding and wisdom Lear and Edgar were lacking.
Cordelia is one with herself and is often paralleled a Christ figure. She doesn't have aspirations to be
perfect as Lear does. She doesn't cowardly hide her imperfections as Edgar does. She simply states
how she feels and banished for her words or lack they're of.
Lear sees himself in the beginning of the play as the greatest king. He believes this so much he asks
his daughters in front of many high-social status acquaintances. Once his kingdom is divided the
realization that he is nothing becomes evident to him. He complains of his plight, endures a storm as
testament to his clash of character, his stubborn pride mixed with the vainness of being or striving to

be perfect, and stages a mock trial. These actions are looked on by others as riding on madness but can
be seen by the reader as driven by aspirations to be perfect. This also parallels to Edgar he driven by
his goal of being perfect. Not questioning his brother so it also be seen as a fear of Edmond being
truthful therefore portraying Edgar as a bad son, not perfect. Through most of the hardships he is to
endure he doesn't complain. He ingests the surroundings and perfects his knowledge ability and he
unintentionally reaches a perfection most thrive for: wisdom. This comes from within himself. Once
you hit rock bottom and are left with nothing you are forced to search within yourself and the nature
around you to find how you can love yourself up and stay up. Clearly Edgar found a way to represent
the true nature of man. This is evident to others. Lear declares this in Act2, Scene4, (line 159160)"First let me talk with this philosopher" (referring to Edgar). This depiction shows how reverting
back to nature can help one to become in tune with you and others will see this confidence exuding
itself as wisdom.
The relations of humanity to human nature are also relevant in this discussion on the three characters.
Both Edgar and Lear discarded their possessions and come to the realization that they were basically
useless. Also both have similar new philosophies and compassion for the poor, which represents
humanity and their return to human nature. Within there plights to achieve perfection they come to
realization that material possessions are unnecessary. Also with relevance to the human nature
relationship it becomes evident throughout the play that until the character, whether it be Lear or,
Edgar, suffers by means of human imperfection they don't gain wisdom. It seems throughout the play
that this is in direct correlation to the use animal imagery. In the beginning it is just the Fool who uses
animal imagery in his speeches. This is ironic because he is represent wisdom. This pattern of wisdom
to animal imagery in speeches continues in both Lear and Edgar speeches but not within Cordelia's
perhaps because she hasn't endured hardships and had to revert back to primal tendencies as Lear and
Edgar have.
The problems of human suffering and human imperfection are clearly in direct correlation to themes of
humanity to human nature and their aspirations for perfection. Without suffering, whether it be based
on your own imperfections or what others deemed as cruel behavior towards those imperfections, most
can not revert to the un-materalistic character they were born as .In our society it would be just as
difficult to become one with the earth as outlined in this play. This need to find inner happiness in dayto-day life is still evident. It seems most in our society as well as in this play don't revert back to
animal tendencies until there idea of human imperfection is shattered by pain and the despair of losing
control of surrounding situation
Social Paradigms Within King Lear
Introduction "Kiernan Ryan's argument that King Lear endorses neither feudal nor bourgeois
worldviews but instead looks forward to a utopian condition beyond both," is to a degree acceptable in
my opinion. I vehemently concur that the play does indeed look beyond both the feudal and bourgeois
ideologies and strives towards a more utopian condition, but I do not agree that King Lear endorses
neither feudal nor bourgeois paradigms. The understanding that I have assimilated from this play is
that Shakespeare favours feudal worldviews over bourgeois worldviews, and thus, esoterically
endorses the worldviews of the feudal system.
Shakespeare is subversively invective and polemical towards the ideologies of the bourgeoisie; he
tenaciously excoriates their sense of self-preserving individualism and their avaricious nature, but he
never astringently attacks the ideologies of feudalism, he sedulously highlights the flaws of its fabric
without being vitriolic or seditious (Shakespeare uses Lear as a figural antithesis to James I, so that he

could probably avoid being ostracised and demonised by him).

Shakespeare surreptitiously acknowledges and highlights the flaws within the feudalistic system, but
he also accentuates a personal belief in that system, a belief that suggests the system would work more
equitably and justly if the powers that be within the system acknowledge their responsibilities to their
subjects, and acknowledge their needs and afflictions more punctiliously and more humanely. The fact
that Shakespeare was less acerbic in his criticism of the feudal system than his criticism of the
bourgeois system indicates that he favoured the former over the latter.
Shakespeare wrote King Lear in 1605. It was a time of discord and pernicious poverty, a time when
the hapless souls of the impoverished were being exploited and demeaned by the nefarious forces of
capitalism. There was a radical transformation in industry, farming and land owning. The old feudal
order and its aged method's of production were being replaced by capitalist relations characteristic of
the period of primary accumulation. The hiring of labour took place, replacing serfdom, as it was more
profitable in a rising capitalist society to do so. The wool industry and its export market blossomed, as
did the demand for pasture- land. The cultivated land that belonged to the landlords became converted
into sheep-walks. This transition meant that the peasantry had no land to cultivate; and since there was
only an immense supply of free agricultural labour available, to keep from starvation, the peasantry
had to work for a pittance. This became the prerequisite for the development of capitalist industry, i.e.,
exploitation. Due to the unquenchable demand for land, the land that was confiscated during the
reformation (around 1535) was sold on for a pittance to the bourgeoisie, who also purchased land from
the old feudal lords, land which was ravished during the war of the roses (1455-1485). Due to these
transactions, a bond of unity came into fruition between the old land -owners and the bourgeoisie,
since the former began to apply capitalist methods to agriculture. As a result a new social group was
formed, and these were known as the bourgeois landed gentry. Conversely, the so-called yeomanry or
the class of wealthy peasant farmers were dispelled from their land from the new landowners drawn
from the bourgeoisie and the nobility, and were forced to accept the status of tenant.
The old feudal nobility was capitulating rapidly (due mainly to the war of the roses) and became
known as the ex-feudal landowners (aristocracy), which were more acquisitive and bourgeois in
nature.
During the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603), absolutism reached its climax, but near the winter- time of
her rule, it began to collapse. Mainly the middle and petty nobility supported this English absolutism,
and it primarily served the interests of these classes, not those of the bourgeoisie. This was due mainly
to the fact that industrial and trade privileges and monopoly rights were only afforded to those with the
strata of nobility. Near the beginning of the seventeenth century the bourgeoisie outgrew this system,
which was abused by Elizabeth during the last decade of her reign, and later by James I (1603-1625)
and Charles I (1625-1649), in carrying out their policy of feudal reaction. This brought about the
idyllic friendship between the new bourgeois nobility, the gentry, and the court nobility (which were
the integral directing centres of political life).
Toward the end of Elizabeth's reign, Puritanism, which was the religious screen for the classconsciousness of the bourgeoisie in its struggle against feudalism and absolutism, gained ground. This
group, which called itself Presbyterian, had the main primary objective of confiscating the property of
the Church of England, and also the abolition of all privileges, which obstructed bourgeoisie
development.
Shakespeare's King Lear incorporates and imbues all the heterogeneous elements of his time that
contributed to human misery, social unrest and social division. He prodigiously emphasizes the
shortcomings of the main the two opposing classes of his time (i.e. the feudal classes and the
bourgeoisie classes.), and uses these opposing forces to bring about a suggestion of change, and with

this dialectic way of reasoning, Shakespeare urges the leaders of society to take a more humanistic
approach to there ideologies and beliefs, one which is centred on human interests or values, one which
will augment the well being of mankind, one that acknowledges and enforces the rights and needs of
the individual, one that will create a more utopian and egalitarian society. FEUDILISM VS
BOUGEOISIE WITHIN KING LEAR " Sitting by his fire at night, Shakespeare heard them in the roar
of the storm against the window-pane, in the howling of the wind in the chimneys- heard all these
terrible voices contrapuntally inwoven one with another as in a fugue, and heard in them the tortureshriek of suffering humanity." George Brandles' interpretation to what actually enthused Shakespeare
to write King Lear certainly ascribes to my belief that Shakespeare wanted to encapsulate and
promulgate the nefarious suffering that the poverty stricken peasants had to endure in his time.
In King Lear, Shakespeare offsets the old feudal class and the new emerging bourgeoisie class against
each other and denigrates upon their shortcomings to highlight that the suffering and state of destitute
that existed in his time, was endemic and endogenous within these two class systems; and that non of
them can be exculpated from blame. Swinburne's assertions that Lear voices a "fiery protest against
the social iniquities and legal atrocities of civilized mankind" and that the play is a "cry on behalf of
the outcast of the world", reinforces the sense of social criticism that exists within the play. In act one,
scene one, the eponymous character, the aging King Lear (who is the play's protagonist) relinquishes
himself from the responsibilities of government. Lear represents the ideologies of the old, antiquated
feudal system, which entails a political, gendered and familial hierarchy; to which Lear has divine and
absolute authority to rule over. Lear's abdication in essence, has a destabilising effect over the society
to which he rules, as he is subverting the traditions of the political hierarchy system. Lear is wilfully
antagonistic; he chooses not to act in accordance to societal expectations, that a king should only be
relieved of his divine duties due to the intervention of death. Lear's decisions to divide his kingdom are
purely insular and self motivated. He fatuously eschews from his divine duty of king, one that
asseverates that he must consider himself as an extenuation of his subjects, that they collectively, have
to be integrated into any decisions he makes, and that these decisions should be for their advantage,
not just his. Lear fashions a love test between his three daughters, to find out which of them loves him
the most, so that he can distribute his kingdom in a manner fitting to their affectionate avowals, "which
of you shall we say doth love us the most?" Ironically, Lear's contumacy creates a form of competition
that is indicative of capitalism, a society that reflects the ideals of the new bourgeoisie. Lear's
daughter's, Goneril and Regan embody this new emerging force. They assiduously modify their
lexicon with a verbose amount of flattery to win their fathers affections. Regan and Goneril's
philosophy is based on individual ambition.
The benign and resplendid Cordelia rebuts her sisters false obsequiousness, and refuses plainly, to
participate in her fathers pretentious charade. Cordelia's verisimilitude and veracious nature,
symbolises a new changing aristocracy, one that imbues fealty, honesty, and courage. Cordelia refuses
to resort to competition in order to project her true love of her father, hence her morals are
unimpeachable they are beyond material gain. Cordelia expresses her love in formal, feudal terms
"Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave my heart into my mouth. I love your majesty according to my
bond; no more nor less." She loves understands and accepts without question her duty to love her
father, but although she loves him more than her sisters do, her integrity prevents her from making a
false declaration in order to gain his wealth.
Lear in a blind and vengeful rage disowns Cordelia and banishes her from his kingdom, and then
divides his kingdom between equally between his two daughters Goneril and Regan. He is blind
towards the virtues of his true daughter, and is more favourable and rewarding towards his malignant,
Machiavellian daughters, all because he foolishly wants to believe their worm-tongued, sycophantic

assertions.
When Lear disinherits Cordelia he steps "between the dragon and his wrath," urging Lear to reconsider
his actions, to acknowledged that his other daughters have flattered him with false declarations of love.
Kent is vitriolic in his protestation because of the love and respect he possesses for Lear. Kent
acknowledges that the king he reveres has impetuously and foolishly created a fissure within his
kingdom, that will have a cataclysmic and tragic effect on both Lear and his subjects.
Lear undergoes great traumatic suffering as a result of his foolhardy decisions. In seeking love and
affection, he is treated with distain and filial ingratitude by his daughters Goneril and Regan
throughout act two. They ridicule his frail mind and body, question his sanity and sardonically taunt
him about his powerlessness and uselessness, now that the is striped from the eminency of king,
trappings that he imprudently thought would be still at his disposal after his renunciation.
Due to the heinous torment that he endures, Lear begins to loose the faculties of his mind, his sanity
dissipitates. Lear becomes vulnerable to a wider reality when he puts himself at the mercy of his
daughters and finds himself suddenly homeless and stripped of retinue and privileges. Through the
process of misery, Lear achieves a degree of spiritual apprehension, self-knowledge and insight, which
he never approached in the days of his prosperity. After he has borne humiliation and felt the fury of
the elements, he becomes increasingly aware of his own faults and limitations and the need of others.
In scene three acts two and three, he is solicitous for the fool, and urges Kent and the fool to go into
the protecting hovel first. He then ponders upon the wretches who were his subjects, and whose misery
he has never before been sufficiently aware ("O, I have ta'en/too little care of this"). In act four scene
six, Lear begins to understand the corrupting influence of power such as he himself has wielded:
"There thou mightest behold the great image of authority: a dogs obeyed in office." In the same scene
Lear exposes the corruption of the law, and the inequalities inherent within its administration ("plate
sin with gold"). He recognises his past blindness to flattery and exhibits a touching new humility as he
openly acknowledges his guilt in meeting with Cordelia. Shakespeare uses this period of regeneration
to illustrate how that one can find a better plain of existence if one was to stand outside of himself and
his own needs and recognise the and acknowledge the needs of others. Shakespeare innovatively uses
Kent in order to humanize Lear, making him a human being who has a strong capacity for love, a
person who is merely suffering as a result of his erroneous decisions. Kent conditions our opinion of
Lear; he is a constant witness throughout the play of Lear's great worth. Kent is used by Shakespeare
to evoke all the qualities that are instilled within the old feudal system, like fealty, integrity, courage,
fortitude and graciousness. Shakespeare contrasts the difference between the valiant and honourable
Kent against the cowardly and self-interested Oswald. Phyllis Rackin best sums up Oswald by stating
that his "faults throughought has been that he is completely the creature of the social and political
hierarchy, unaware of any values beyond worldly status or any code beyond manners." The contrast
between the two servants demonstrates that Shakespeare believed in the importance of one to accept
their individualism and to garner a respect for their freedom to take control of your own life and mind.
In act 1, scene 1, we are also introduced to the subplot, involving Gloucester, Edgar and Edmund. The
subplot mirrors the main plot; it entails the same follies and misjudgements, and compounds how these
flaws can lead to abominable circumstances in the end. Shakespeare uses the subplot to accentuate
how Lear's actions affect not only himself, but also the families of the people within his kingdom .
Edmund is the pernicious, conniving, amoral "illegitimate" son of Gloucester, who was a product of
his father's licentious ways. He represents the new emerging society. He is determined to usurp and
outsell his father in order to get his hands on "that which my father looses." He pursues power in the
form of property with a ruthlessness that cuts right through family ties. Edmund negates all the most
heavenly ecstasies, and all the feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. In act 1, scene two, we are first

introduced to his tyrannical intentions in his soliloquy. "I grow, I prosper," he says, and these words
define his materialistic ambitions throughout the play. With his attack on the "plague of custom," this
quotation embodies Edmunds resentment of the old feudal social order of the world and his
accompanying craving for respect and power. Edmund slanders the forthright and sincere Edgar (who
embodies the same traits of feudalism that Kent embodies) and so secures the disinheritance of his
brother. Then he malevolently betrays his father's commendable selflessness, as he informs Regan
about Gloucester's kind assistance towards the rejected Lear. Gloucester's act of selflessness
exemplifies again, the virtuous and rewarding aspects of feudalism. Edmund's betrayal results in
Gloucester being repugnantly mutilated in act three scene seven. Cornwall and Regan pluck out his
eyes and then let him out of their house so that he may "smell/his way to Dover." This ultimately
sickening scene dramatises the capricious, hedonistic and amoral vices that are attached to the new
emerging power seeking, unscrupulous bourgeoisie class. Shakespeare contrasts this with Gloucester's
suffering, to demonstrate that the merciful and compassionate can suffer at the hands of the new
emerging social class whose sole aim is primary accumulation. The only negative flaw that we can
attach to Lear and Gloucester is that they both lack sound judgement at the start of the play, and their
prudish, autocratic, substandard behaviour is the cause for this. Gloucester in his blindness, ironically
starts to see the error of his ways, and again like Lear under goes a period of regeneration in act four,
scene one. He cries to the heavenly powers to " let the superfluous and lust-dieted man.... Feel your
power quickly.... And each man have enough." Goneril and Regan become infatuated with Edmund,
and thus become embroiled in a battle for his affections. This however leads to tragedy, as in act five,
scene six they are both stricken off this mortal coil as a result of this lust fuelled competitiveness, as
Regan is poisoned and subsequently murdered by her sister, and then Goneril meets her end through
self-inflicted suicide. The gruesome nature of the sisters deaths, for their causes of desire, illustrates
that Shakespeare believes the carnivorous, cannibalistic nature of the materialist and power hungry
bourgeoisies system will force it to implode, to turn in on itself and to eat away at it's reprehensible
super-structure. Albany, Goneril's husband pre-prophesises this grotesque vision of the future of
capitalist society when he says, "Humanity must perforce prey on itself/like monsters of the deep."
Edgar's defeats and kills Oswald in act five, scene one and then valiantly eradicates the acerbic,
capitalistic disease that is Edmund in act five, scene two. Edgar's purification of these scabrous
wretches clearly indicates that Shakespeare supports and endorses some of the ideals of feudalism and
is against the ideals of the more capitalistically driven bourgeoisie. In the final act, act five, scene three
Shakespeare also depicts the tragic scene of Lear immerging with his dead daughter in his arms as that
of the Pieta, by drawing comparisons to the holy mother with her son in her arms and Lear the father
with his daughter in his arms, whom he looked upon for divine qualities. By portraying this heart
wrenching scene and the scene of the death of Lear dying in anguish in a divine manner, Shakespeare
further illustrates how the good and the pure individuals of society (i.e., the old feudal, aristocratic
class) will be inevitably destroyed by the egregious and demonic individuals of society (i.e., the new
emerging bourgeoisie class).
At the very end of the play Edgar and Kent regain their power and titles back from Albany. Albany
invites them to rule with him. Kent feeling himself near death refuses, but Edgar seems to accept.
Edgar's survival over the forces of adversity (capitalism), and his appointment of high office suggests
that there is a better hope for the future, one that expels self-motivated ideals like the acquisition of
land, wealth and power, one that exuberates fealty, courage, valour, honour and a sense of duty, all the
qualities that can be found in feudalism, once it becomes more aware of selfless acts and the needs of
the lower classes within society.
CONCLUSION Shakespeare wrote King Lear in a manner that was autonomous, free from the

conventions of religion and feudal tradition. He wrote with a febrile sense of morality; which was
based on the free will of man, on the voice of man's conscience, on his sense of responsibility towards
himself and the world. He strove toads a utopian society with precocious utopian ideals, he accepted
that there were flaws within his society, but believed that they could be eradicated if the head of state
became more personable and affectionate towards the subjects he governed. He believed that there
within existed within mankind the inherent capability to do what is just, not just for himself, but also
for mankind as a whole. He believed in individualism, the most salient characteristic of the
Renaissance. He harnessed a new approach towards social relations, the organization of the state, and
the nature of authority. Shakespeare believed that the highest authority was that of the monarchy, but
his conception of this was not so much the authority of divine right as the authority of responsibility.
The monarch can only justify and ratify the importance of its rank and its subsistence by expressing
and acknowledging the collective will of his people and by realising their collective welfare and wellbeing.
The Merchant of Venice by W, Shakespeare
Shakespeare wrote the Merchant of Venice, it is one of Shakespeare's less known plays because the
original manuscripts were lost but the play did re-surface in the 1600s. In Shakespeare's time there was
only one Jew in England, he name was Rodrigo Lopez. He was the Queen's Physician and was only
half Jew. He was tried and executed. Shakespeare probably never met a Jew so he may have got his
attitudes towards Jews from his experiences of them; he may also have got ideas and inspiration from
the one other play about Jews at the time called `The Jew of Malta'. Christopher Marlowe who was a
contempary of Shakespeare wrote it. Marlowe was stabbed to death in a pub.
This play was a controversial play when it was written and it still is now. It was controversial in
Shakespeare's time because Jew's were not well liked and this is supported by the fact that the only
Jew in England was executed. This play is arguably even more controversial now because we live in a
post-holocaust world. The holocaust changed people's views towards Jews because they were treated
like sub-humans and they were massacred by the millions.
The genre of this play is hard to decide because in Shakespeare's time it would have been a comedy
because people would have wanted to see Shylock lose everything because he was a Jew but now it is
more of a tragedy because our attitudes towards to Jews have changed. The Merchant of Venice is also
a bit of a mystery play because we do not know who sent the letter about Antonio's ships because they
never did sink it was a dramatic device use by Shakespeare.
The courtroom scene is one of the most important scenes because everyone is on stage and it is the
penultimate scene of the play. Act IV Scene I is a stage for Shakespeare to present his ideas to the
audience, he shows the Duke using derogatory language towards Shylock to show the attitudes of
Venice towards Jews and he also shows us that women were not recognised in court through Nerissa
and Portia dressing up as men to save Antonio. This scene also shows a change in attitude over time
because in Shakespeare's time a Jew having to change to a Christian was a fate worse than death
because it is a spiritual death and some people would say if you cant be yourself what's the point of
life. But in our time death is much worse because we are not so religious.
As the scene opens, the Duke begins the dialogue with references to Shylock. The Duke uses phrases
such as `That thou but leadest this fashion of thy malice', `thou art come to answer a stony adversary,
an inhuman wretch' to describe Shylock and his actions. Shakespeare uses this language to show how
alienated Shylock is from the rest of the people in the courtroom and it also sets the scene that the trial
is straight away biased because of the prejudice towards Jews. When Shylock enters the court, the

Duke continues to use derogatory and insulting language to address Shylock he says `From stubborn
Turks and Tartars, never train'd to offices of tender courtesy'. He also refers to Shylock as `Jew' instead
of using his name, as if he is not good enough to have a name. The language the Duke uses shows
Venice's hatred towards Jews and it also makes Shylock look all alone, fighting a battle against a city
which despises him and his religion. The Duke speaks at Shylock rather than to him, which shows he
thinks Shylock is sub-human and it shows the class difference between the Duke and Shylock.
Shylock's opening speeches express his will to have his pound of flesh because he wants to and
nothing will stop him, `You'll ask me why I rather have a weight in carrion flesh than to receive three
thousand ducats. I'll not answer that, but say it is my humour' this line confounds audience's
expectations because everyone is looking at Shylock and expecting him to be merciful but instead he
states that he will have his pound of flesh. Shylock is determined to have his pound of flesh because
although three thousand ducats would be of more use to him than the flesh, it would be a major victory
for him to lawfully kill a Christian in front of the people of Venice who hate him.
Shylocks opening speeches are impassionate and also represent part of the play's continuing themes of
love and hate. Shylock talks mostly of hate in his speeches this relates to the theme of Christians and
Jews as a symbol of hate. Shylocks talks about how he would rather have a rat in his house poisoned
than receive ten thousand ducats, he uses this to illustrate why he is taking his pound of flesh rather
than receive the money. The way Shylock likens Antonio to a rat shows how much hate there is
between Christians and Jews. The feud between Antonio and Shylock is a structure or device used by
Shakespeare to explore the idea of difference.
There are themes that run all the way through the play. Money is a big theme because it is the basis for
the plot about Antonio owing Shylock money. Love is theme that is symbolised by Bassanio and
Portia, it is also symbolised by the friendship of Antonio and Bassanio. Hate is an important theme
because the play is about the hate between Christians and Jews, which is emphasized through Antonio
and Shylocks feud. Family is also a theme and its importance is shown through how devastated
Shylock is when Jessica runs away. Justice and mercy are shown to be linked because it isn't really
possible to have justice without mercy. Death is a theme that is shown through Shylock's eagerness to
kill Antonio.
Nerissa's sudden arrival increases the tension because the audience thought that there was nothing that
could save Antonio because it Shylock was so determined to have his pound of flesh, `From both, my
lord. Bellario greets your grace'. Now that a possible solution has arrived the audience knows a little
bit about Portia's plan and are wondering if she will turn up. The audience are ultimately wondering if
the plan will work if she does turn up.
Nerissa presents the letter and while she is doing this Shylock is whetting his knife, the juxtaposition
of these two scenes happening at the same time is very effective. This is because you have got Nerissa
trying to stop Shylock from getting his way, which is the solution, but at the same you have got
Shylock preparing to carry it out. I think Shakespeare uses these to dramatic devices together because
it creates tension because the audience can see in front of them the two things that could happen in the
trial and this makes them wonder what is going to happen next.
When the letter is read out it is in prose as opposed to verse like the rest of the play, the transition from
verse to prose makes it seem more likely that Antonio will be saved because verse is much less
emotional and formal which makes the letter sound more genuine as it is the type of language a doctor
of law would use. This change is a dramatic device used to change the atmosphere and mood of the
scene. Before the letter is read out the people on stage are talking in poetry, they are also talking in an
emotional way either trying to convince Shylock to be merciful or Shylock laying down the reasons
for his actions.

Portia enters the court immediately after the letter has been read out `and hear, I take it, is the doctor
come. Give me your hand; come you from old Bellario?' The entrance of Portia contributes to the
dramatic tension because the audience is wondering if she will be able to save Antonio. The fact that
Portia is dressed as a man is dramatically ironic because it is obvious to the audience who she really is
but the characters on stage do not realise it. Shakespeare now increases the tension with Portia's pleas
for mercy and Bassanio's offer to double the amount owed to Shylock by way of compensation.
Portia's pleas to Shylock for mercy but insistence on the letter of the law being obeyed are traps
deliberately set so that Shylock's final defeat will be bitterer. Shylock refuses to accept the extra
money from Bassanio through this Shylock condemns himself because he makes it quite clear that he
wants to take Antonio's life, which makes him look like a murderer.
Portia tells Antonio he must prepare for the forfeit to be carried out, `You must prepare your bosom for
his knife'. Shakespeare is building towards the climax, this increases the tension because it confounds
the audience's expectations as the audience was expecting Portia to save Antonio not allow Shylock to
carry out the forfeit.
Just as Shylock is about to carry out the forfeit, Portia reveals the details of the law, which makes it
impossible for Shylock to carry it out `Shed thou no blood, nor cut thou less nor more but just a pound
of flesh'. Shakespeare slowly reveals the details of the law to maximise the effect of the audience's
realisation that what looked like Antonio's sealed fate could not be carried out.
Shakespeare's unexpected twist that Shylock is to die is very unexpected because Shylock was the one
who brought the case to court in the first place. This twist would have worked even better on an
Elizabethan audience because they would have wanted to see Shylock condemned to death because
they hated Jews. `If it proved against an alien that by direct or indirect attempts he seek the life of any
citizen,' `the offender's life lies in the mercy of the Duke only, `gainst all other voice.' Shakespeare's
language when describing that Shylock must die show how much Shylock and his religion are
despised by the city of Venice. In particular his use of the word `alien' to describe Shylock shows how
alienated the Jews are from the rest of the people of Venice and England, which are both Christian
societies.
I think Portia doesn't reveal her true identity because she thinks that it would not be appropriate for her
to reveal her identity in front of other people because women are not recognised in court. I also think
that maybe if she revealed her true self her arguments might be dismissed because she is a woman and
not recognised and she did not want to risk losing the case. I think Antonio would be very grateful to
her for saving his life but at the same time he would be shocked because women are not recognised in
court. I think she accepts the ring from Bassanio so she can prove that it was she at the trial and so she
can confront Bassanio for giving it away when he promised not to. This then paves the way for a
comic ending after the seriousness of Act 4 Scene I.
Shakespeare used many dramatic devices to build dramatic tension in Act IV Scene I such as
confounding the audience's expectations, sudden entrances and adding unexpected twists. I think
Shakespeare built up dramatic tension very effectively because he quickly changed the direction of the
trial from going in Shylock's favour to in Antonio's favour which kept the audience guessing all the
time, he also used a different dramatic devices to build the tension which worked. The tension worked
because it kept the audience guessing about what would happen next. Also it helped to put across
Shakespeare's views and perspective on Elizabethan society.
I think the play has relevance to the modern audience because it shows a change in attitudes over time
and it also shows how one event like the holocaust can completely change our attitudes and women
today can see how lucky they are to live in a society which respects their opinions and lets them speak

their minds. There are also lessons to be learnt such as not to make bonds that you cannot fill and that
if you behave maliciously towards people it will catch up with you, they will treat you in the same way
if the tables turn.
Othello as Entertainmnet
When the well-known English dramatist William Shakespeare began writing Othello, he had already
been educated in the classics and in literature. Although his contemporary Ben Jonson said that
Shakespeare knew "little Latin and less Greek," scholars know that Shakespeare knew, at least, about
Greek ideas about comedy and tragedy. He was not incredibly educated, but he was aware that his play
would comment on ideas about comedy. By looking at a few crucial scenes in the play, this paper will
demonstrate that, although most people consider Shakespeares Othello a tragedy, it is actually a black
comedy.
In Act V, Scene I (17-30) lines Iago comments comically on the murder scene he has set up himself.
This is the scene: Iago. O murderous slave! O villain! [Stabs RODERIGO] Rod. O damnd Iago! O
inhuman dog! Iago. Kill men i the dark! Where be these bloody thieves? How silent is this town! Ho!
murder! murder! What may you be? are you of good or evil? Lod. As you shall prove us, praise us.
Iago. Signior Lodovico? Lod. He, sir.
Iago. I cry you mercy. Heres Cassio hurt by villains.
Gra. Cassio! Iago. How is it, brother? Cas. My leg is cut in two.
Iago. Marry, heaven forbid, Light, gentlemen; Ill bind it with my shirt.
Iago has the audience and everyone other than Roderigo believe that he is looking for thieves. If you
think about it, that is a funny statement. He has committed a murder, but he pretends that he has not.
Further, he pretends that he is looking for the killer and is the only one who cares enough to do so, and
cannot believe "how silent" the town is. Even his final gesture, of trying to "bind" the wound with his
shirt, is a supremely comic one, perhaps for Shakespeare more than Iago. Iago may be able to stem the
flow of blood coming from Cassios leg. But it would be silly for the audience to believe what Iago
implicitly asks them to believe, that anyone or anything can stem the tide of destruction that he has
already unleashed on the plays characters, and by implication, in the plays plot.
Earlier in the play, in Act II, Scene I (lines 87-95), a similar event occurs, when Cassio greets
Desdemona and speaks about Othello and Iago: Cas. She that I spake of, our great captains captain,
Left in the conduct of the bold Iago, Whose footing here anticipates our thoughts A sennights speed.
Great Jove, Othello guard, And swell his sail with thine own powerful breath, That he may bless this
bay with his tall ship, Make loves quick pants in Desdemonas arms, Give renewd fire to our
extincted spirits, And bring all Cyprus comfort! Cassio is a noble gentleman, and his words are meant
to carry weight. But he seems unaware that his noble words are entirely unsuitable to the occasion, and
especially the person he is describing, Iago. Cassio describes Iago as "bold Iago," which is
unintentionally funny, because it is both true and untrue. It is patently untrue, because Iago is anything
but "bold," or noble. But Cassios comment is also true, because Iago really is bold; he is aggressive
and self-serving, though that is really not what Cassio means. The unintended lie in both statements
makes Cassio seem a fool, and his comments comical, because they ironically wink at the audience.
The audience at Shakespeares time also would know the Othello story well, so the rest of speech
which describes the innocent, though sexual, love between Othello and Desdemona would ring equally
untrue. This is the love that Iago will destroy, in the following scenes.

A later scene confirms our suspicions. In Act III, Scene IV (lines 1-10), Desdemona and the clown
have an exchange of words that refers back to the earlier scene. They move through various puns on
the word "lie:" Des. Do you know, sirrah, where Lieutenant Cassio Lies? Clo. I dare not say he lies
any where.
Des. Why, man? Clo. He is a soldier; and for one to say a soldier lies, is stabbing. Des. Go to; where
lodges he? Clo. To tell you where he lodges is to tell you where I lie. Des. Can anything be made of
this? Clo. I know not where he lodges, and for me to devise a lodging, and say he lies here or he lies
there, were to lie in mine own throat. The scene is clearly a funny one, and meant to be. The clowns
presence suggests as much. Desdemona is asking him a direct question, and he is playfully avoiding
answering her, by performing tricks with the word "lie," while actually lying. The scene looks back to
Act II, Scene I, where Cassio lies, without meaning to lie. The conversation also looks ahead to the
scene we first looked at, Act V, Scene I, in which Iago actually "stabs" the soldier, Roderigo. The
clown plays with Desdemonas sentiments, while Shakespeare winks at the audience.
As in all of Shakespeares well-crafted plays, the scene with the clown comments on the other two
scenes, and transforms them in the process. By comparing the first and last scene with the scene with
the clown, we begin to understand Shakespeares comic intent. Ironically, the scene with the clown,
which obviously bends the truth, rings more true than the other scenes. It lets us peek into the
dramatists purpose and his goal. In the three scenes together, we can catch a glimpse of the crime Iago
will perpetrate on Othello. This chain of events helps us see the lies behind Iagos statements. It also
helps us see the tragedy that is the black comedy, Othello.
Othello Essay
When Iago's treachery is fully revealed, Othello asks "Why hath thou thus ensnar'd my soul and
body?"+ Explain Iago's motives for hating both Othello and Cassio, analyse the methods he uses to
ruin their lives and show how Shakespeare reveals Iago's thoughts and plans to the audience.
The play "Othello" was written by the playwright William Shakespeare, one of the best and wellknown writers of that period and upto the current day. He wrote it in 1604 to be performed to the new
King: King James I and for that reason he included themes in it such as Turkish history, witchcraft and
black magic which he knew King James I liked. The play is named after one of the main characters
who has a fatal flaw. The character in question is Othello, the Moor of Venice, a believing and
honourable member of the Venetian community and a general of the Venetian army. Although the play
was named after Othello, Shakespeare brings in a true villan whose name is Iago. At the time Spain
was Englands enermy and Iago being a Spanish name makes the audience sure that Iago is evil. Iago
could arguably be the main character, making the play a tragedy which is a play in which characters
must struggle with circumstances in which most meet death and despair which in this case the Moor's
torture and eventually his, and other innocent characters' demise. Shakespeare seems to suggest in this
play that white Iago is a very negative character and Othello the black general is the hero. This would
have been at a time when much of England would have questioned these views. Shakespeare may have
been trying to make a social comment and putting forward a negative attitude towards racism.
The story is based around a tale by the Italian writer Giraldi Cinthio. It begins in Venice, a `nice',
civilised city, and moves to the chaotic war in Cyprus. This change has a lot of significance and
relevance in the play because it symbolises the changes in Othello's life and perceptions. Cyprus is an
island that is exposed and can be easily attacked which brings in irony when Othello moves there
Iago's plan succeeds. The play begins with a conversation between Iago and a Venetian nobleman
Roderigo. They are discussing about how Desdemona, whom Roderigo loves, has eloped with Othello.

Through this early conversation it is evident that that Iago is manipulative and cunning as he is already
taking advantage of the rich and love struck Roderigo, whose money he has full use of: "Thus do I
ever make my fool, my purse.." The first word we hear from Iago is "Sblood", a strong swear word in
the British language at the time. We learn through the conversation that Iago uses crude language and
is not well spoken, or noble, but a simple man, a soldier. Iago explains to Roderigo why he hates the
general, Othello. It seems that he had pleaded with Othello for the position of lieutenant in the army,
but despite his efforts Othello promotes Cassio, a nobleman: "One Michael Cassio, a
Florentine,....That never set a squadron in the field" >From this statement we know that he despises
Othello for this decision because not only is Cassio inexperienced, but he is also not from Venice but
from Florence.
As Iago tells Roderigo of what he thinks as a mistake we become more aware of his bitterness. Iago
here also gives a further reason why he hates Othello to the audience in the way of a soliloquy, a
dramatic device whereby a character talks directly to the audience about his feelings and opinions.
This way of conveying an idea to the audience is used by Shakespeare a lot because it builds up
tension because the audience know things the other characters don't.
In this soliloquy, Iago tells the audience of his suspicion that Othello has slept with his wife, Emilia:
"And it is thought abroad that `twixt my sheets He has done my office." At this point we start to
become more aware of his jealous nature and suspect that it may be based mostly on his paranoid
mind. Not only does he believe that Othello has slept with his wife he also believes that Cassio has as
well,and with has good looks, his charm and his luck with women also the fact that Cassio got the
promotion and not him makes Iago totally jealous of Cassio and this is why he hates Cassio so much.
"He hath a person and a smooth dispose to be suspected - framed to make a woman false." He suggests
in this sentence that Cassio is irresistible to women because of his charm and looks. Shakespeare is
showing here how jealous Iago is but also showing that sometimes Iago can be honest.
In the first act of the play, Iago convinces Roderigo to help him arouse Brabantio, Desdemona's father,
in order to tell him of the secret marriage between his daughter and Othello: "Even now, now, very
now, an old black ram is tapping your white ewe." Iago again uses crude, racist language bringing
sexual animalistic images which would have been despised in the city of civilised and sophisticated
Venice. Shakespeare makes Iago does this to anger Brabantio into violence and to make the audience
question their own views on racism. This method of manipulation is used by Iago as he knows how his
words will affect others. He uses this method against Othello to convince Othello of Desdemona's
affair and also uses it against other people during the length of the play.
"Were they as prime as goats, as hot as monkeys, As salt as wolves in pride and fools as gross as
ignorance made drunk" (Act III Scene III) Here he compares Desdemona and Cassio to animals to
bring into Othello's mind terrible and horrific images to make him angry. Iago is confident that his
words will hit their target. Iago frequently uses racist terms. In the presence of Roderigo and to anger
Brabantio, he is often being racist. He refers to Othello as a "Barbury horse", a type of Arab horse,
which is not only racist but adding animalistic terms in as well. In the play, the scene changes from
Venice to Cyprus. Shakespeare uses Venice to symbolise truth and civility and, in contrast to this, the
setting moves to Cyprus, bad, terrible and war-torn, and the setting for Othello's similarly tumultuous
trial. Whilst Othello's mind is at rest, the audience enjoys a Venetian setting, and when he becomes
provoked and disturbed, we see the backcloth of Cyprus. The other characters in the play also seem
pleased and contented of the implications of being in Venice. Brabantio himself explains: "What tell'st
thou me of robbing? This is Venice; My house is not a grange." (Act I Scene I) This is just proving that
the idea of robbery in Venice is just outrageous to a man like Brabantio, content with his Venetian
home and his Venetian blood and not used to uncival behaviour.

The difference between Venice and Cyprus is really shown by Iago whose plan is unsuccessful in his
attempts to bring comedown to Othello in Venice by telling Brabantio that Othello has slept with his
daughter in no uncertain terms, while in Cyprus he succeeds, by breaking up Othello's marriage and
then annihilating Cassio. He makes Othello believe that Cassio is Desdemona's secret lover, thereby
ruining both of his enemies with the same liebut first of all he makes sure everyone thinks he is
Cassio's friend: "Touch me not so near I had rather have this tongue cut from my mouth than it do
offence to Michael Cassio." He does this so no one will suspect him of foul play. This brings a lot of
dramatic irony into the play by characters such as Othello and Cassio continually calling him "honest
Iago" while the audience know he's not. Therefore Iago can continue his evil plan without being
suspected. Next Iago loses Cassio his position of lieutenant. In doing this he brings cleverly into the
plan stupid, lovestruck Roderigo. Iago tells Roderigo that he should pick a fight with Cassio while he
is on duty. Iago does this because he knows that this would hurt Cassio's reputation and ruin his
friendship with Othello. Othello holds a party and Iago joins Cassio. Iago asks him to partake in a
glass of wine. Cassio agrees, but insists that he can only have a little for he has "no brains for
drinking". But he gives way and soon gets drunk. Iago gets Cassio drunk to help him with his plan.
When Roderigo starts on Cassio, Cassio will respond, therefore upsetting Othello when he sees them,
giving him no choice but to take Cassio's position from him. Iago then cunningly tells Cassio that to
get his position back he needs to persuade Desdemona to speak to Othello on his behalf.
"Confess yourself freely to he ... requested" Iago does this so when he has filled Othello's mind with
thoughts, having Desdemona coming up to Othello wanting to talk about Cassio will upset Othello
further. While Desdemona is trying to speak to Othello about Cassio, Iago is planting lots of sexual
animalistic thoughts in Othello's mind: "Were they as prime as goats, as hot as monkeys, as salt as
wolves." While Othello is thinking about this, Iago also reminds Othello of Desdemona being disloyal
to her father and leaving him in secret stating that she could so easily do it again. In the end, with Iago
making more and more comments and Othello becoming more and more suspicious, Othello is pushed
over the edge, killing his wife and himself. Act III Scene III is the most important scene in the play
and is often called the Temptation Scene. it contains lots of tension and works up the audience a great
deal. This is because this is where Iago's plan seems to change everything so quickly. At the start of the
scene Othello says: "Excellent wretch: Perdition catch my soul But I do love thee: and when thee not,
Chaos is come again." He means that if he didn't love Desdemona, it would be chaos. This builds up
the tension because of the dramatic irony because we, the audience, know what's going to come. Iago
continues to make Othello suspicious and then says: "Utter my thoughts? Why say, they are vile, and
false?" Shakespeare again questions society by putting in he play what lots of people have done and
will do. Here Iago is actually getting Othello to ask him what he is thinking, not directly telling him,
but using his suspision against him making him ask what Iago thinks so that, cleverly, he cannot be
blamed later on. He does this by telling him that he doesn't want to hear what he has to say. He does
this, making Othello's suspicions work against him, making him ask and from there onwards puts
concocted words into Othello's mind. The things he tells Othello mostly are to make his suspicions
grow, but Iago does add the slightest of truths in to prove it a bit more: "She did deceive her father,
marrying you.." Here he reminds Othello that Desdemona did deceive her father, so could deceive
again. While Iago is reminding and telling Othello what has happened, and what could be happening,
he is adding language in which he is saying how a lady could fall for Cassio, building up Othello's
fatal flaw - jealousy. Here we see a big change Othello turning into someone almost like IagoThe
audience see Othello's language change from gentlemanly to crude: "Damn her lewd minx..." Here is
Othello uttering in Shakespearian times very bad words. Shakespeare makes Othello change his
languageand thoughts just to show the audience how someone can easily change from mere suspision.

Then the last statement Othello says in the scene proving the point for the audience that Othello has
changed: " O damn her, damn her. Come go with me apart, I will withdraw To furnish me with some
swift means of death" This changes the way the audience perceive Othello from Othello saying life
would be chaos if Desdemona wasn't there at the beginning of the scene to damn her, get heraway
from me and kill her at the end. This really starts the tragedy with the audience now knowing that evil
Iago's plan has worked and the play will have a tragic ending, This builds up the tesnion as well,
because the charaters in the play still refer to Iago as "honest" when the audience can see plainly he is
not. The handkerchief scene is another important scene in Othello. The scene is full of tension, which
Shakespeare keeps on cleverly adding to, to bring more furore from the audience. This tension is
brought about by Desdemona speaking for Cassio which compounds Othello's fears and at the same
time Othello asking for the handkerchief bringing in dramatic irony creating tension.
Throughout the scene, Othello gets more and more desparate making the audience sit on the edge of
their seats even more and then at the same time Desdemona interrupting with words for Cassio. Here
you can see that, even though Desdemona keeps on denying it, Othello won't rest and keeps on asking
her, showing how well Iago has worked up Othello with evil lies.This scene and the temptation scene
bring the play up to its climax full of dramatic tension Shakespeare has cleverly made. Lots of Iago's
motives were based on suspicion and his truly wicked and cunning ways forced Othello's weakness to
come from him - jealousy. Othello changed during the play from a polite general to a badly spoken
murderer all because Iago thought Othello may have slept with his wife and Othello didn't promote
him but Cassio. In this play Iago was prepared to ruin and end peoples' lives just because of his
jeaousy. His motives were small and his actions huge and horrific. So what most people would wonder
and what Othello asked on the brink of death was: "Why hath thou thus ensnar'd my soul and
body?"
Romeo and Juliet and the West Side Story
Romeo and Juliet, the West Side Story, both amazing stories both end in tragedy, one more some on
less. They were both different, yet based on the same story line. There were a lot of similar things and
a lot of different things. You will soon learn the differences, the similarities and the different
atmosphere within each story.
Romeo and Juliet takes place in a time, where guns and basic engineering had not been introduced.
Where swords and daggers were used to enforce law. And disobeying the law would get you hung, or
banished. Within this world, to families with a ravage feud, disrupted the normal peace in the city. The
feud had been going on for centuries, the cause was unknown. Two lovers, oblivious to the others
heritage, fell in love. They kissed and rejoiced, before knowing the others name. Soon they learned of
the others heritage, but it was too late to back out of such love. Romeo leaped the Capulet walls, and
listen to Juliet pour out her love for him. By the next day, they were scheduled for marriage, and
would be married soon. After the marriage, Romeo was as happy as could be. He met Tybalt, a
Capulet, and greeted him with open arms. A friend of Romeo began to fight Tybalt though, and was
slain. Although Romeo's love was unmatched by any other, he could not let his friend die, and do
nothing. He slew Tybalt and cursed himself for doing so afterwards, the Prince banished Romeo. In his
place of banishment. Juliet is angered with Romeo but soon find that he did it because Tybalt killed his
friend. He heard news of Juliet's death. He raced back to the town to be with his wife. And drank
poison in an effort to bring them together in the beyond. Juliet wasn't really dead, and when she
awakened, and found Romeo she could not control her feelings, she acted quickly, and killed herself so
she could be with him.

The West Side Story takes place in a time where racism was a growing problem. It took place in the
depths of New York. In a run down part of town, where there is no rich, only poor. Where kids are
tortured on the streets, by gangs. The gang which supposedly owns the town is known as the Jets.
They are feared by many, but not the Sharks. The Sharks is another gang, a new one the members
consist of no girls like the jets. But when the jets are American, these juveniles are Puerto Rican. None
the less, in this time and age, there are guns and general engineering. The law is enforced by police. A
former member of the Jets meets a girl, she is beautiful beyond reasoning, and while looking at her he
can focus on none else. His name was Tony, her name Maria. All though they don't know this yet each
other, they feel as if they were destined to meet. Maria's boyfriend Chino slips her mind, as she is
focused on Tony. She doesn't know his name, but doesn't care she is too deeply in love and knows he
is as well. Tony walks toward her, not knowing not caring. This is what he had been waiting for,
something big just around the corner. They fell in love like quicksilver, but soon found that they were
each others enemies but it was too late. Later that night Tony made his way to Maria's apartment he
found her their, and proposed his love. Although they never married, they acted as if they were. Soon
Maria finds out about a gang war, and tells Tony to go stop it. He cant Tony's best friend is killed so in
rage he killed Bernardo, Maria's brother. Maria hears news of this from Chino, and she begs him to tell
her if Tony is all right. Chino finds Maria and Tony are in love and begins to track Tony down. Maria
is extremely angered with Tony, but soon finds that he did it because her brother killed his best friend.
She forgives him, but Tony had to hide cops were looking for Jets, Sharks, and Tony. Chino was also
looking for Tony, so he his in the bottom of a drugstore. Maria is delayed and can't get to Tony so they
can leave. So she sends Anita to give him a message. Anita is willing to do this for her, but on arriving
at the drugstore she is harassed by Jets, and can't give him the message because she's angered. Tony
hears that Maria is dead, and runs outside and tells Chino to get him; he finds tat Maria isn't dead, and
runs to her, but is shot in the process. Maria wants to kills herself but doesn't. It ends in tragedy.
Many differences and similarities evolved from these stories. They are in the many, both stories end in
tragedy, one a little less then the other. Although they are both Tragic well written. The differences are
noticeable, but as you can see there are many noticeable similarities. Like Tony and Maria meeting not
knowing each others heritage as Romeo and Juliet. And Romeo hearing of Juliet's death, and taking a
step toward his death, as Tony did yelling for Chino to get him to.
Romeo' s Depression
Many people view the tragedy Romeo and Juliet as simply a romance-filled play where the
protagonists die at the end. However, this play also involves the mounting depression of Romeo
Montague; he suffers constantly throughout the first act and displays many of the modern symptoms of
teen depression. Rosaline, the woman who is currently starring in his dreams, rejects his pitiful
advances time after time, thus, causing his sleepless nights and effeminate attitudes. Exhibiting social
withdrawal, sensitivity to rejection, and hopelessness, Romeo is surely depressed (http://www.teendepression.info 2). Unsuccessfully, his family and friends try to interpret his convoluted emotions.
Confused by Romeo's odd behaviors, the Montagues and their allies are beginning to discuss and try to
resolve his issues. They are wondering where Romeo is after a brawl when issues of his sudden
disappearances begin to arise. Benvolio observes, "Towards him I made, but he was ware of me/And
stole into the covert of the wood" (I, i, 125-126). Avoiding civilization and a desire of isolation are
common symptoms of teen depression (http://www.teen-depression.info 2). Romeo does not want to
associate with anyone; he feels they will destabilize his so-called "love" for Rosaline. When stating
that Romeo "[. . .] stole into the covert of the wood" (I, i, 126), Shakespeare utilizes the word wood as

a symbol for how Romeo is lost in a dark, shadowy corner of his own mind. Also representative of his
emotions, Romeo has been frequently locking himself away in his room in order to sulk in his
intensifying misery. In the same conversation, Montague apprehensively states, "And private in his
chamber pens himself,/[. . .]/And makes himself an artificial night" (I, i, 139-141). Creating a dark and
melancholy space signifies Romeo's state of mind; he feels trapped by his heart, undeserving of love,
and afraid of being turned away.
Rejection is a sensitive area for a depressed teen; specifically Romeo, who has a proliferating fear of
it. Discoursing with Benvolio about his feelings divulges a sudden realization about his sensations.
Referring to Rosaline, Romeo cries, "She hath forsworn to love, and in that vow/Do I live dead that
live to tell it now" (I, iv, 22). In Romeo's mind, Rosaline is being stubborn by waiting for true love--he
wants her now and feels "dead" because she refuses to have him. By using the oxymoron "[. . .] I live
dead" (I, iv, 22), Shakespeare is illustrating that Romeo feels like life is pointless until Rosaline
accepts him; if she does not love him, then who? Living dead is possible today; it causes the victim to
portray a useless and abandoned behavior. Difficulty coping with fear, anger, and rejection is another
obvious depression symptom (http://www.teen-depression.info 2). Still pouring his heart out to
Benvolio, Romeo selfishly complains, "Well in that hit you miss. She'll not be hit" (I, i, 209). Although
Romeo has tried to capitalize on every ounce of his charm and flaunt every drop of his beauty,
Rosaline still refuses to accept his love. Her negative responses trigger Romeo's feelings of self-doubt,
hurt, and hopelessness.
Romeo's childish conduct will never appeal to Rosaline; therefore, he feels that there is no promise in
any future relationships. Changing his mind is discovered to be a more demanding task than expected
when Mercutio, making the most of his wit, coerces the following statement out of Romeo, "Under
love's heavy burden do I sink" (I, i, 22). Unrequited passion is treading heavily on Romeo's chest,
causing him to regress into the darkest, most desolate areas of his soul. In a swift change of events,
however, immediately after making this testimony he is swept away by the indescribable beauty of
Juliet Capulet. Romeo has faith that he will never be obligated to experience heartache again!
Nevertheless, this is a tragedy, and his ecstasy is trounced when it is discovered that Juliet is his mortal
enemy. Shocked, Romeo exclaims, "O dear account! My life is my foe's debt" (I, v, 120). The one
phenomenal lady who has blessed him with inexpressible joy is in total control of his fate. Discovering
a deplorable truth of that magnitude would cause any human to become depressed; in fact, numerous
depression cases are caused by traumatic events such as conflicts with a boyfriend or girlfriend
(http://www.teen-depression.info 2).
Hopelessness, sensitivity to denunciation, and social abandonment are just a few of the scores of
depression symptoms. Still, Romeo does ultimately get what he desires--an infinity to spend with
Juliet in eternal sleep. His loneliness, pain, and heartache went recognized in the most ghastly way
possible, although his heart's wishes were fulfilled. Depression is simply a tragic disorder that inflicts
insufferable emotional pain upon a human's mind. Shakespeare depicts the relation between despair
and Romeo and Juliet best in the closing lines when the Prince declares, "For never was a story of
more woe/Than this of Juliet and her Romeo" (V, iii, 309-310).

Shylock, A Victim of Himself in "The Merchant of Venice"

In Shakespeare's play, The Merchant of Venice, the character of Shylock proves, ultimately, to be a
victim of himself. Shylock brings about his own demise through his own deeds and misdeeds.

Shylock begins to cause his own misfortune when Antonio approaches him for a loan to aid Bassanio
in courting Portia. At first, Shylock is wary to lend Antonio the money. "I am debating of my present
store...I cannot instantly raise up the gross of full three thousand ducats...Tubal...will furnish me (13)".
Shylock realizes that he does not have the money on hand to lend to Antonio, and instead of turning
Antonio down for the loan, he plans to borrow the money from another. Shylock is so intent upon
binding Antonio, that when he himself cannot fulfill the request, he risks his own reputation simply for
revenge against Antonio. He insists upon having a consequence if Antonio cannot repay the debt. "...let
the forfeit be nominated for an equal pound of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken in what part of
your body pleaseth me" (16). Shylock is so eager for this opportunity that he doesn't think about the
specifics of the bond between he and Antonio.
Another detail that Shylock overlooks is Antonio's good reputation and trustworthiness. He panics
when he realizes there is a more than likely chance that Antonio's ships will come within the allotted
time of three months. In order to secure his victory, he decides to plant rumors among the local gossips
of Venice.
The first rumor is of a destroyed vessel by the French and English. "...in the narrow seas that part, the
French and English there miscarried a vessel of our country richly fraught" (38). The second rumor is
of another destroyed ship carrying wealth. "...Antonio hath a ship of rich lading wracked on the narrow
seas...a very dangerous flat and fatal" (43). Not only is Antonio rumored to have two destroyed ships
at sea, but also they both seem to have been wrecked in the same place. The English Channel is
described in both quotes as "...the narrow seas that part..." (38), and "...on the narrow seas..." (43). As
Shylock learns, seemingly for the first time, of this news he is terribly delighted. "I thank God...Is it
true?" (46). Shylock seems to be beside himself with excitement over the news of Antonio's lost ships.
However, his excitement is truly over the fact that his rumors are spreading and he is winning the
upper hand within the bond.
However, things do not continue to go well for Shylock. In the last scene of the play, Portia explains to
Antonio that none of his ships were ruined nor lost at sea, and that they were all bound for Venice
within the coming months. "...you shall find three of your argosies are richly come to harbor suddenly"
(93). This proves that the ships were merely delayed and the rumors of the wreckage and sinking were
false.
The final showing of Shylock's self-induced misfortune comes about in Act IV, Scene 1, when Portia
discovers Shylock's mistakes and uses them to Antonio's advantage. Portia questions Shylock about
the bond, or more specifically about the pound of flesh. "Tarry a little...this bond doth give thee here
no jot of blood; the words are expressly are "a pound of flesh." Take then thy bond, take thou thy
pound of flesh; but in the cutting it if thou dost shed one drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods
are, by the laws of Venice, confiscate unto the law of Venice" (76). Portia allows Shylock only a pound
of Antonio's flesh and nothing more. This does not include the shedding of Antonio's blood, an
oversight previously made by Shylock. Unfortunately, since Shylock cannot carry out the bond
without breaking the laws of Venice, he must submit to the consequences. "It is enacted...if it be
proved against an alien that by direct or indirect attempts he seek the life of any citizen, the party
`gainst...shall seize one half his goods; the other half comes to...the state..." (78). Portia tells the court
that the conditions stipulated in the bond constitute as attempted murder upon Shylock's part, and the
he must give over half his goods to Antonio, and half his goods to the state. His attempts to secure his
victory over Antonio prove futile, and Shylock loses more than he bargained for.
Shylock's sad misfortune is in no way undeserving. Through his lies, mistrust, and underhanded deeds,
he does prove to be an unscrupulous businessman who deserves the legal actions coming to him.

However, Shylock truly only brings harm upon himself by ignoring the details and possible
consequences of the bond.
"The Merchant of Venice" - Shylock Vs. Antonio
"Christians are superior to Jews." Such was the attitude of the Elizabethan audiences. This audience
saw Shylock as the villain, because, according to them, evil was an inherent trait of a Jew. In order to
make all the negative traits of Shylock the Jew more apparent, Shakespeare created a contrast.
Antonio, who is meant to contrast Shylock, is used to make the Jew's flaws more obvious to the
Elizabethans.
When Shylock and Antonio meet, their words of confrontation show how each is nearly the opposite
of his fellow. To highlight the Jew's stinginess, Shakespeare has the two protagonists argue about it.
Shylock prides himself on his thrift, while in the gentile world it was most probably, as it is today,
looked down upon. Antonio, in contrast, prides himself on having an open wallet. Antonio spares no
expense for his friend Bassanio's happiness, even his life, he would willfully give. Also, this caring for
a friend contrasts Shylock's sentiments. Shylock didn't care about his daughter after she betrayed him,
but only wanted his possessions to be returned. Furthermore, the kind Antonio is happy, while the
angry Shylock only becomes more bitter as the play progresses. Both happiness and being free with
one's money were looked upon as positive things in Elizabethan times. Both traits were obviously
portrayed by Antonio the Christian, while Shylock was the owner of the opposite characteristics,
frowned upon in those times.
Kindness is another virtue in the book embodied by Antonio. While Shylock's love of money or
ambition preclude any such kindness, Antonio is a charitable man. Antonio helps those in need of a
loan, lending money free of interest. Thus, he would attract borrowers, giving them an alternative to
borrowing ducats at Shylock`s astronomical interest rates. Because he is so amiable, Antonio is
constantly accompanied by friends. Shylock the Jew, however, is nearly always alone, spending
precious few minutes with his single friend, Tubal. This seeming popularity of Antonio is another
admirable trait which he portrays, and Shylock the Jew plays the loner, most probably a less glorious
place to be on the social ladder at that point in history. This social success and kindness of the
Christian would reaffirm the theory of Christian superiority in the minds of the audience, contrasting it
with the social failures of the Jew.
Also, the loyalty which was paid to Antonio and the high opinion held of him is in stark contrast the
betrayal and mockery of Shylock. Shylock's own daughter had abandoned the faith which he loved,
and he was persecuted for. Before leaving though, his daughter made sure to rob him as well, taking
away from him all that he had. Antonio's friends, however, stay with their friend even in his darkest
hours. Also, many speak of the greatness of Antonio behind his back, while they mock Shylock to the
Jew's face as well as behind his back.
The second to last scene, however, holds the most important contrast in the eyes of the Elizabethans.
Just as one thinks the Jew will succeed, he falls. In that scene, the verdict does not go the way Shylock
foresaw, the Jew expected to extract the pound of flesh. However, being unable to cause any blood loss
or take anything more or less than a pound of flesh, Shylock demands the principle. Unknowingly,
Shylock had committed what could be considered attempted murder, the punishment being the loss of
one's estate and possible one's life. The Jew's money is taken, and his life is on the line. Antonio, the
Christian, ends up on top, gaining half of Shylock`s estate, because the Jew attempted to kill him. The
reason why these two endings had to be contrasted is to show their importance. The failure of the Jew
alone would not have been enough, but the victory of the Christian was written in order to show the

two eventual endpoints for the religions. The Elizabethans were comforted, thinking that although the
Jews were successful now, they, too, would fall and the Christians would ultimately succeed.
How does Shakespeare build dramatic tension?
Shakespeare wrote the Merchant of Venice, it is one of Shakespeare's less known plays because the
original manuscripts were lost but the play did re-surface in the 1600s. In Shakespeare's time there was
only one Jew in England, he name was Rodrigo Lopez. He was the Queen's Physician and was only
half Jew. He was tried and executed. Shakespeare probably never met a Jew so he may have got his
attitudes towards Jews from his experiences of them; he may also have got ideas and inspiration from
the one other play about Jews at the time called `The Jew of Malta'. Christopher Marlowe who was a
contempary of Shakespeare wrote it. Marlowe was stabbed to death in a pub.
This play was a controversial play when it was written and it still is now. It was controversial in
Shakespeare's time because Jew's were not well liked and this is supported by the fact that the only
Jew in England was executed. This play is arguably even more controversial now because we live in a
post-holocaust world. The holocaust changed people's views towards Jews because they were treated
like sub-humans and they were massacred by the millions.
The genre of this play is hard to decide because in Shakespeare's time it would have been a comedy
because people would have wanted to see Shylock lose everything because he was a Jew but now it is
more of a tragedy because our attitudes towards to Jews have changed. The Merchant of Venice is also
a bit of a mystery play because we do not know who sent the letter about Antonio's ships because they
never did sink it was a dramatic device use by Shakespeare.
The courtroom scene is one of the most important scenes because everyone is on stage and it is the
penultimate scene of the play. Act IV Scene I is a stage for Shakespeare to present his ideas to the
audience, he shows the Duke using derogatory language towards Shylock to show the attitudes of
Venice towards Jews and he also shows us that women were not recognised in court through Nerissa
and Portia dressing up as men to save Antonio. This scene also shows a change in attitude over time
because in Shakespeare's time a Jew having to change to a Christian was a fate worse than death
because it is a spiritual death and some people would say if you cant be yourself what's the point of
life. But in our time death is much worse because we are not so religious.
As the scene opens, the Duke begins the dialogue with references to Shylock. The Duke uses phrases
such as `That thou but leadest this fashion of thy malice', `thou art come to answer a stony adversary,
an inhuman wretch' to describe Shylock and his actions. Shakespeare uses this language to show how
alienated Shylock is from the rest of the people in the courtroom and it also sets the scene that the trial
is straight away biased because of the prejudice towards Jews. When Shylock enters the court, the
Duke continues to use derogatory and insulting language to address Shylock he says `From stubborn
Turks and Tartars, never train'd to offices of tender courtesy'. He also refers to Shylock as `Jew' instead
of using his name, as if he is not good enough to have a name. The language the Duke uses shows
Venice's hatred towards Jews and it also makes Shylock look all alone, fighting a battle against a city
which despises him and his religion. The Duke speaks at Shylock rather than to him, which shows he
thinks Shylock is sub-human and it shows the class difference between the Duke and Shylock.
Shylock's opening speeches express his will to have his pound of flesh because he wants to and
nothing will stop him, `You'll ask me why I rather have a weight in carrion flesh than to receive three
thousand ducats. I'll not answer that, but say it is my humour' this line confounds audience's
expectations because everyone is looking at Shylock and expecting him to be merciful but instead he
states that he will have his pound of flesh. Shylock is determined to have his pound of flesh because

although three thousand ducats would be of more use to him than the flesh, it would be a major victory
for him to lawfully kill a Christian in front of the people of Venice who hate him.
Shylocks opening speeches are impassionate and also represent part of the play's continuing themes of
love and hate. Shylock talks mostly of hate in his speeches this relates to the theme of Christians and
Jews as a symbol of hate. Shylocks talks about how he would rather have a rat in his house poisoned
than receive ten thousand ducats, he uses this to illustrate why he is taking his pound of flesh rather
than receive the money. The way Shylock likens Antonio to a rat shows how much hate there is
between Christians and Jews. The feud between Antonio and Shylock is a structure or device used by
Shakespeare to explore the idea of difference.
There are themes that run all the way through the play. Money is a big theme because it is the basis for
the plot about Antonio owing Shylock money. Love is theme that is symbolised by Bassanio and
Portia, it is also symbolised by the friendship of Antonio and Bassanio. Hate is an important theme
because the play is about the hate between Christians and Jews, which is emphasized through Antonio
and Shylocks feud. Family is also a theme and its importance is shown through how devastated
Shylock is when Jessica runs away. Justice and mercy are shown to be linked because it isn't really
possible to have justice without mercy. Death is a theme that is shown through Shylock's eagerness to
kill Antonio.
Nerissa's sudden arrival increases the tension because the audience thought that there was nothing that
could save Antonio because it Shylock was so determined to have his pound of flesh, `From both, my
lord. Bellario greets your grace'. Now that a possible solution has arrived the audience knows a little
bit about Portia's plan and are wondering if she will turn up. The audience are ultimately wondering if
the plan will work if she does turn up.
Nerissa presents the letter and while she is doing this Shylock is whetting his knife, the juxtaposition
of these two scenes happening at the same time is very effective. This is because you have got Nerissa
trying to stop Shylock from getting his way, which is the solution, but at the same you have got
Shylock preparing to carry it out. I think Shakespeare uses these to dramatic devices together because
it creates tension because the audience can see in front of them the two things that could happen in the
trial and this makes them wonder what is going to happen next.
When the letter is read out it is in prose as opposed to verse like the rest of the play, the transition from
verse to prose makes it seem more likely that Antonio will be saved because verse is much less
emotional and formal which makes the letter sound more genuine as it is the type of language a doctor
of law would use. This change is a dramatic device used to change the atmosphere and mood of the
scene. Before the letter is read out the people on stage are talking in poetry, they are also talking in an
emotional way either trying to convince Shylock to be merciful or Shylock laying down the reasons
for his actions.
Portia enters the court immediately after the letter has been read out `and hear, I take it, is the doctor
come. Give me your hand; come you from old Bellario?' The entrance of Portia contributes to the
dramatic tension because the audience is wondering if she will be able to save Antonio. The fact that
Portia is dressed as a man is dramatically ironic because it is obvious to the audience who she really is
but the characters on stage do not realise it. Shakespeare now increases the tension with Portia's pleas
for mercy and Bassanio's offer to double the amount owed to Shylock by way of compensation.
Portia's pleas to Shylock for mercy but insistence on the letter of the law being obeyed are traps
deliberately set so that Shylock's final defeat will be bitterer. Shylock refuses to accept the extra
money from Bassanio through this Shylock condemns himself because he makes it quite clear that he
wants to take Antonio's life, which makes him look like a murderer.

Portia tells Antonio he must prepare for the forfeit to be carried out, `You must prepare your bosom for
his knife'. Shakespeare is building towards the climax, this increases the tension because it confounds
the audience's expectations as the audience was expecting Portia to save Antonio not allow Shylock to
carry out the forfeit.
Just as Shylock is about to carry out the forfeit, Portia reveals the details of the law, which makes it
impossible for Shylock to carry it out `Shed thou no blood, nor cut thou less nor more but just a pound
of flesh'. Shakespeare slowly reveals the details of the law to maximise the effect of the audience's
realisation that what looked like Antonio's sealed fate could not be carried out.
Shakespeare's unexpected twist that Shylock is to die is very unexpected because Shylock was the one
who brought the case to court in the first place. This twist would have worked even better on an
Elizabethan audience because they would have wanted to see Shylock condemned to death because
they hated Jews. `If it proved against an alien that by direct or indirect attempts he seek the life of any
citizen,' `the offender's life lies in the mercy of the Duke only, `gainst all other voice.' Shakespeare's
language when describing that Shylock must die show how much Shylock and his religion are
despised by the city of Venice. In particular his use of the word `alien' to describe Shylock shows how
alienated the Jews are from the rest of the people of Venice and England, which are both Christian
societies.
I think Portia doesn't reveal her true identity because she thinks that it would not be appropriate for her
to reveal her identity in front of other people because women are not recognised in court. I also think
that maybe if she revealed her true self her arguments might be dismissed because she is a woman and
not recognised and she did not want to risk losing the case. I think Antonio would be very grateful to
her for saving his life but at the same time he would be shocked because women are not recognised in
court. I think she accepts the ring from Bassanio so she can prove that it was she at the trial and so she
can confront Bassanio for giving it away when he promised not to. This then paves the way for a
comic ending after the seriousness of Act 4 Scene I.
Shakespeare used many dramatic devices to build dramatic tension in Act IV Scene I such as
confounding the audience's expectations, sudden entrances and adding unexpected twists. I think
Shakespeare built up dramatic tension very effectively because he quickly changed the direction of the
trial from going in Shylock's favour to in Antonio's favour which kept the audience guessing all the
time, he also used a different dramatic devices to build the tension which worked. The tension worked
because it kept the audience guessing about what would happen next. Also it helped to put across
Shakespeare's views and perspective on Elizabethan society.
I think the play has relevance to the modern audience because it shows a change in attitudes over time
and it also shows how one event like the holocaust can completely change our attitudes and women
today can see how lucky they are to live in a society which respects their opinions and lets them speak
their minds. There are also lessons to be learnt such as not to make bonds that you cannot fill and that
if you behave maliciously towards people it will catch up with you, they will treat you in the same way
if the tables turn.

Shakespeare Era
The institution of marriage in the Renaissance Period was both secular and sacred. Secularly, it served
as a union of two parties interested in acquiring property, money or political alliances. Marriage was

also sacred in that it bound the love of a man and woman and sought procreation. William
Shakespeare's work vividly displays the sacredness of love and marriage. Popular critics of his time
considered Shakespeare the greatest love poet of all time. It was once said "he represented in an
inimitable and masterly manner all the phenomena and manifestations of love." A working knowledge
of both marriage and inheritance procedures in the Renaissance Period affords a better understanding
of Shakespeare's works.
No property right was more significant than the right to succeed to landed estate. No right was more
symbolic of the status of women, too. First, land descended to the eldest son to the exclusion of his
siblings. But if there was no son, land went to the daughter. If there were more than one daughter then
they were all equal heiresses. Common law gave a limited preference to males, as it gave daughters
preference over collateral males, such as the nephew, or uncle, or male cousin. The younger son often
received no inheritance after the bulk of it was given to the eldest son, so many times they sought
higher education in order to provide for any family they might have in the future.
The next to be considered for the inheritance of a deceased landowner was the widow. The widow had
a large common law right which became very well protected in the 16th century. She was entitled to a
third of her husband's land for life because of her right of dower. A husband could leave his wife less
by specifying it at the time of his marriage. But by the time of Edward I, the dower became an
irreducible third and husbands could instead now specify more dower. The legitimate heir, however,
did reserve the right to object to this if he did. Over time the widow's third became a well protected
right that extended over any land her husband had ever held during their marriage. If a husband wished
to alienate land he had to get his wife's consent. If he alienated without her consent she could claim
dower against the purchaser. Interestingly enough, a woman could not contract herself out of dower
because it would put her rights at the mercy of the dishonest and those who would wish to take
advantage of her.
Shakespeare created lovers whose main concern was not what they would inherit, but rather the love
felt for each other. One's inheritance was of great importance to a family's well being and, in many
cases, survival. This was not usually the concern of many of Shakespeare's main characters. Many of
his couples, such as Lysander and Helena, Romeo and Juliet, and Othello and Desdemona married for
love rather than financial conveniences and inheritances.
Shakespeare based his most unforgettable plots on love versus societal norms. Courtship of
Shakespeare's time held two major forms. First, and most commonly, parents and friends were the
matchmakers. They selected the possible spouse, performed careful examination of his economic
prospects, and then brought the couple together to find out if there were any strong feelings of dislike
between them in order to ensure that the couple would get along well in marriage. Parents did not
advocate "forced" marriages because the best marriages were those that were equally consensual and
desired by both parties. Freedom of choice varied for each child in a family. Each child had a certain
amount of freedom in choosing their mate, depending on their different role. The eldest son was under
the greatest pressure since he inherited the bulk of the estate. His marriage was often critical to the
family's survival because they depended on him for financial support. Because a daughter's only real
future lay in marriage, she had less freedom over her choice in a mate. Her family had to make sure
she would be provided for. The youngest son had the most freedom because he often had to make his
own fortune, as the inheritance was all but gone by the time he was old enough to provide for himself.
The family did not depend on him and therefore had less interest in whom he married. If there were no
signs of aversion between a couple then the planning of the marriage would commence. After the
couple consented, the settlements were signed and a formal church wedding was arranged.
The second form of courtship was handled for the most part by the parties involved. A man attracted to

a certain woman would ask her family for permission. Keith Wrightson suggests in his documentation
of 17th century marriage practices that "it seems reasonable to conclude that among the greater part of
the common people marriage partners were freely chosen, subject to the advice of friends and a sense
of obligation to consult or subsequently inform parents if they were alive and within reach." If the man
was both financially and personally acceptable, permission was granted and courtship continued with
visits, gifts, and expressions of love.
In Shakespeare's play A Midsummer Night's Dream, he gives evidence to couples matched by their
own will. The play begins with Theseus and Hippolyta talking of their upcoming marriage.
Now fair Hippolyta, our nuptial hour Draws on apace; four happy days bring in Another moon^but
O, methinks, how slow This old moon wanes! She lingers my desires, Like to a step-dame or a
dowager Long withering out a young man's revenue... (I.i. 1-6) Theseus demonstrates here that the
entry to marriage is of his own desire rather than a match made by parents. Hippolyta is equally as
happy as Theseus over their union and chooses Theseus herself. Knowing that couples were usually
matched by parents, Shakespeare went against societal norms and often displayed love as being the
sole desire of the couple. This often became his central theme; lovers doomed by their disapproving
families.
Before a couple could officially be considered married by the church and common law, there were four
basic requirements. First, the bride's family had to consent and a dowry be offered. Second, both
parties had to be of equal social class. The third requirement was for the parties to publicly declare the
wedding and to have witnesses. Finally, the couple had to consummate the marriage.
In Measure for Measure, Claudio and Juliet are married by common law standards. However, they
were married in secret and not in public, therefore, Claudio is arrested for impregnating Juliet without
being legally married.
I got possession of Julietta's bed.
You know the lady; she is fast my wife, Save that we do the denunciation lack Of outward order. This
we came not to, Only for propagation of a dow'r Remaining in the coffer of her friends, From whom
we thought it meet to hide our love (I.ii. 146-52) It was very important that marriage be witnessed.
When it is found that Claudio disregarded this requirement, one of the main concerns of the play
becomes whether or not he will die for it. Shakespeare emphasizes the risks and consequences of not
following the requirements to marriage by presenting Claudio's life in danger at the start of the play.
The church-sanctioned age for marriage was at a minimum 14 years for men and 12 years for women.
The average age, however, was around 21 years for the eldest son and 20 for women. In Shakespeare's
most famous play, Romeo and Juliet, the readers are able to see the significance of age in marriage.
Juliet's mother, Lady Capulet, demonstrates the fact that it was possible to marry off a daughter at the
extremely young age of 14 years old. Juliet is 13 when the plays starts and Lady Capulet is already in
great haste to marry her off. Therefore, she feels it most pertinent to talk the matter over with her
daughter immediately: ...younger than you, Here in Verona, ladies of esteem, Are made already
mothers. By my count, I was your mother much upon these years That you are now a maid-- (I.iii. 6973) Lady Capulet felt that it was high time Juliet be married. The reader can see here the emphasis on
the considerably young age of Juliet but realize, as well, that it was definitely conceivable in that time
period. Shakespeare uses the knowledge of the church-sanctioned age to create Romeo and Juliet, and
point out the characteristics of young lovers.
Shakespeare's time period marked a time where marriage was an important aspect of people's lives.
The ways in which people were matched and married was very evident in many of his works as he
strove to depict love and the relationships that developed between men and women. The procedures to

inheritance are an important aspect of marriage in that it gives people a better understanding of the
reasons behind the way marriages were handled around the Renaissance era. Shakespeare's work can
be used in comparison to other poets of different times to attest to the continuity of the fundamental
features of marriage over the centuries. His work still has a compelling effect on its readers today
because it focuses on the sincerity of the heart, often defying basic rules of society, even in modern
times.
Techniques Used In Shakespearean Comedies
Shakespeare is known as one of the world's greatest playwrights. He has written tragedies, histories,
and sonnets. But one of Shakespeare's greatest talents was writing comedies. He used many techniques
when writing a comedy and some of these seem to be consistent through out his comedies.
One of the first techniques that should be discussed is the subject matter of Shakespeare's comedies.
Shakespeare always uses love and marriage as the content for his comedies. This can be seen in the
comedies Much ado about nothing, As You Like it, A Midsummer Nights Dream, and The Taming of
The Shrew, where the characters fall in love and get married. Another technique that Shakespeare
incorporates into his comedies is the use of the lower class for comedy. Shakespeare tends to poke fun
at the lower class and make them into fools in his comedies. An example of this is in Much Ado About
Nothing, where Shakespeare has the constable Dogberry and his foolish assistant Verges run around
acting like they are riding horses. Another example of Shakespeare's use of the lower class for comedy
is in The Taming of The Shrew. In that comedy Shakespeare makes Petruchio's servants bumbling and
incompetent.
The use of eavesdropping is another very important device in Shakespeare's comedies. This technique
plays a major role in Much Ado About Nothing where it is used to get Benedick and Beatrice together.
Also it used considerably in As You Like it.
The last technique is the one everyone knows and loves, the happy ending. Shakespeare consistently
has a happy ending in his comedies. These happy endings usually involve the lovers finally getting
together and getting married after they have solved the problem that had been keeping them apart. This
can be seen in Much Ado About Nothing where the situation between Claudio and Hero was cleared
up and they were able to marry. Also Benedick and Beatrice was able to marry with the help of their
friends who showed them how they truly felt about each other. Similar situations occur in
Shakespeare's other plays. The overall result being a touching and enjoyable ending to the comedy.
As it can be seen Shakespeare was an excellent comedic writer. He used many techniques in his
comedies and often these techniques would be reused in other comedies. With such skill in writing
these plays and the intuitive use of these techniques it is no wonder why we treasure Shakespeare's
comedies.
Thomas Hardy - Tess of Durbervilles
Tess Durbeyfield is a victim of external and uncomprehended forces. Passive and yielding,
unsuspicious and fundamentally pure, she suffers a weakness of will and reason, struggling against a
fate that is too strong for her. Tess is the easiest victim of circumstance, society and male idealism,
who fights the hardest fight yet is destroyed by her ravaging self-destructive sense of guilt, life denial
and the cruelty of two men. It is primarily the death of the horse, Prince, the Durbeyfields main source
of livelihood, that commences the web of circumstance that envelops Tess. Tess views herself as the
cause of her families economic downfall, however she also believes that she is parallel to a murderess.
The imagery at this point in the novel shows how distraught and guilt ridden Tess is as she places her
hand upon Princes wound in a futile attempt to prevent the blood loss that cannot be prevented. This

imagery is equivalent to a photographic proof - a lead-up to the events that will shape Tesss life and
the inevitable evil that also, like the crimson blood that spouts from Princes wound, cannot be
stopped. The symbolic fact that Tess perceives herself to be comparable to a murderess is an insight
into the murder that she will eventually commit and is also a reference to the level of guilt that now
consumes her. Nobody blamed Tess as she blamed herself... she regarded herself in the light of a
murderess. Her parents, aware of her beauty,view Tess as an opportunity for future wealth and
coupled with the unfortunate circumstance of Princes death urge Tess to venture from the engirdled
and secluded region of Marlott to seek financial assistance from the Durbervilles in nearby
Trantridge . It is here that she first encounters the sexually dominating and somewhat demonic Alec
Durberville, whom she is later to fall victim to. Alecs first words to Tess , Well, my Beauty, what
can I do for you? indicate that his first impression of Tess is only one of sexual magnetism. Alec then
proceeds to charm Tess by pushing strawberries into her mouth and pressing roses into her bosom.
These fruits of love are an indication of Alecs lust and sexual desire for Tess as he preys upon her
purity and rural innocence. Tess unwillingly becomes a victim to Alecs inhumane,violent and
aggressive sexual advances as Alec, always the master of opportunities, takes advantage of her whilst
alone in the woods and rapes her. Tess has fallen subject to the crueller side of human nature as Alec
seizes upon her vulnerability.
After this sexual violation and corruption of innocence, Tess flees home and although she has escaped
the trap of the sexually rapacious Alec for the time being,her circumstance is similar to that of a
wounded animal - her blood of innocence has been released. At this time Hardy gives reference to
Shakespeares The Rape of Lucrece -where the serpent hisses the sweet birds sing suggesting that
Alec was equivalent to Satan tempting Eve. Tess is undoubtedly a victim and her lack of
understanding over such matters only increases the guilt that already embodies her. To add further to
her shame she chances upon a holy man who paints exerts from the bible around the countryside. In
red accusatory letters she reads THY, DAMNATION, SLUMBERETH, NOT and is horrified to
think how relevant it is to her recent misfortunes. Tess at this stage is a victim to her own self conscience and she becomes a recluse trapped within her home - away from the society that has
unjustfully condemned her whilst in reality she has broken no law of nature.
Returning to work in the field, Tess witnesses the rabbits forced further to shelter as the corn rows in
which they dwell are reaped and the harvesters kill every one of them with sticks and stones. This is
symbolic of Tesss own situation as she is being separated little by little from family and friends and
from her childhood innocence ,it is suggestive of the loneliness she now feels. The baby she has
baptised as Sorrow dies, his name being an indication of the anguish that has taken place within Tess
due to the circumstances of his conceival and it also epitomises what is to follow through the events of
her own sorrowful life.
In an attempt to start her life anew, Tess decides to move away from the seclusion of Marlott to
Talbothays - where no one will know of her past. Although filled with natural optimism, Tesss past
has already begun to weave the fatalistic web that will trap her like a fly and from which the ravenous
spider of chaotic doom will draw all of her lifes animation out. Talbothays Dairy is the phase of
Tesss life in which she experiences her only period of sheer happiness, although at times this is
tinctured by mental hesitations as to her purity and righteousness. Here we can see in an abstracted
form the way society has entrapped Tess by its assertions of what is supposedly morally correct.
Like a fascinated bird Tess is drawn into the wild and overgrown garden by the sound of Angel
Clares harp - playing. We gain here, a sense of Tesss affinity within the natural environment as she
proceeds as stealthily as a cat through this profusion of growth. Hardy has likened Tess to an animal

and this is symbolic also of the eminent disaster to follow. Tess is trapped once again - although on this
occasion she is bound to Angel by ideological fetters . Tess is transformed in Angels sight ... a
visionary essence of woman - a whole sex condensed into one typical form. Tesss material, physical
relationship with Alec has been replaced by a spiritual, idealised one with Angel. She has now become
a victim of Angels idealisation as her individuality is becoming further suppressed by his imaginative
and ethereal reasonings. As the spring season progresses so does Angel and Tesss romance and
eventually she succumbs to Angels charms.
After failing to tell Angel of her past, she writes him a letter which is placed beneath his door. In a
cruel twist of fate , the letter slides beneath the mat and there it remains - unread. Tess and Angels
marriage is marred by ill - omen. Hardy gives reference to the gnats that know nothing of their brief
glorification - as Tess herself cannot fathom the potent fatalism that will cause her such sorrow.
Hardys continual use of ill -omen gives the impression of the extent of Tesss victimisation to fate; the
Durberville coach and the crow of the cock symbolising the death of their relationship.
On their honeymoon, traditionally a joyous occasion, Tess confides in Angel the nature of her past.
Prior to this confession, Tess is horrified by the portraits she sees hanging on the walls. Angel beholds
a similar quality within Tess - an arrogance and ferocity which is the truth linked to her past. On
hearing of Tesss unfortunate past, Angel withdraws from reality by refusing to admit that she is the
woman that he loved. You were one person; now you are another Angels departure to Brazil leaves
Tess almost as a widow . Angel s physical rejection of Tess has subjected her to the cruelty of love, a
victim once again - she is broken both spiritually and emotionally. It is at this point in the novel that
she begins to understand that her beauty is part of the cause of her destruction. In answer to this she
dons her oldest field gown, covers half her face with a handkerchief, and snips off her eyebrows to
keep off these casual lovers. Tess has realised that part of the victimisation she has undergone is
because of her beauty, although this realisation has come too late to save her from Alecs lustful
actions and Angels idealised ones. Tess seeks shelter one night beneath some bushes to hide from a
lustful man and awakens to find pheasants left half - dead by a shooting party. All of these birds are
writhing in agony apart from those which have been unable to bear any more and have died through
the night. Tess reprimands herself for feeling self-pity; I be not mangled, and I be not bleeding - and
although she is not physically marred by the events that have so irrevocably altered her life ,
emotionally and spiritually she is exhausted.
The potent tragedy of Tesss life is that her decisions have always been made with good and pure
intentions but have resulted in damaging consequences.Tess is undoubtedly a victim as misery
punctuates her life. She is a victim of circumstance in that her individuality makes little difference to
her fate, she is a victim of society in the sense that she is a scapegoat of narrow - mindedness and she
is a victim of male ideology on the grounds that her powers of will and reason are undermined by her
sensuality. Tess herself sums up her own blighted life best; Once a victim, always a victim - thats the
law!
Oedipus the King and Odysseus
A good leader is known by its influence, commands, and strong will. Odysseus in the Odyssey by
Homer, translated by Robert Fitzgerald, and Oedipus in Oedipus the King by Sophocles, translated by
Robert Fagles; both characters demonstrate strong leadership by characterizing traits towards strength,
courage, nobility, confidence, and great insight. These two different personalities prove similar
characteristics toward a good leadership developing their knowledge and power differently towards
themselves and their public.

Odysseus, the protagonist of the odyssey, has defining characteristics traits of a Homeric leader
developing power, bravery, dignity, a thirst for glory, and confidence in his authority. His most
distinguishing trait, however, is his sharp intellect. Odysseus's quick thinking helps him out of some
very tough situations. He fought among the Greek heroes at Troy; he struggled to return to his
kingdom in Ithaca. Odysseus is the husband of Queen Penelope and father of Prince Telemachus.
Though a strong courageous warrior, he most re-owned for his cunning. He is a favorite of the goddess
Athena, who often sends him divine aid, but a bitter enemy of Posedium that gives him a tough time
achieving his goals.
Oedipus, the protagonist of Oedipus the King, is a man of swift action and great insight. At the
Opening of Oedipus the King, he proves his qualities that make him an excellent ruler who anticipates
his subjects' needs. He becomes a king of Thebes before the action of Oedipus the king begins. He is
renowned for his intelligence and his ability to solve riddles. He saved the city of Thebes and was
made its king by solving the riddle of the sphinx, the supernatural being that had held the city capture.
Yet Oedipus is stubbornly blind to the truth about himself. His name's literal meaning ("swollen foot")
is the clue to his identity. He was taken from the house of Laius as a baby and left in the mountains
with his feet bound together. On his way to Thebes, he killed his biological father, not knowing who he
was, and preceded to marry Jocasta his biological mother, not knowing who she was either. But
Oedipus swiftness and confides continue until the very end by his interrogation, and motion trying to
keep pace with his fate, even if it goes well beyond his reach.
These two leaders distribute same traits and approach as when referring to ruling. For example: in the
beginning of the Odyssey, Odysseus was not much alert into his ruling because he was long lost, but
his journey back home gave him more strength. As he immediately approached his city, he used his
intelligence in hiding his identity to figure the wrongs that had happened in his absence. As soon as he
figure his plans, he took over using all his powers and sending the idiotic to the places they deserved
to be because of the damage they caused Odysseus and his family. In Oedipus the king, Oedipus used
all his powers at the beginning in solving the riddle and saving Thebes, after he had used all his
strength he then found out the absurd tragedy of marrying his mother Jocasta and killing his father. At
the end of Oedipus the king he finds his peace, giving his trust to Theseus. Giving up his intellect
powers he continues to precede his normal life in peace.
These two authors seem to have different meaning of a strong leader in ruling its nation. Homer's ideal
ended in a fairy tale hero, in a dramatic and humorous journey coming to save his kingdom, and
having a happy ending in achieving the right goals. Sophocle's design of the myth aroused with a
larger intellectual and emotional reaction, with his strong intelligence saving his city, and came to a
strong and powerful start, giving the reader the notion of a clever leader. But as he arose from his
leadership, giving up because of the discovery in his personal striking life, did not give him an ending
of a good ruler.
Christopher Marlowe - His Contribution to English Literature
Christopher Marlowe: what did he contribute to English literature and how is his writing reflective of
the style of the times? Christopher Marlowe contributed greatly to English literature. He developed a
new metre which has become one of the most popular in English literary history, and he revitalised a
dying form of English drama. His short life was apparently violent and the m an himself was
supposedly of a volatile temperament, yet he managed to write some of the most delicate and beautiful
works on record. His writing is representative of the spirit of the Elizabethan literature in his attitude
towards religion, his choice of writing style and in the metre that he used.

Christopher Marlowe was born in 1564 the son of a Canterbury shoemaker and was an exact
contemporary of Shakespeare. He was educated at the King's School, Canterbury, and Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge. He became a BA in 1584 and a MA in 1587. He seem s to have been of a violent
nature and was often in trouble with the law. He made many trips to the continent during his short
lifetime and it has been suggested that these visits were related to espionage. In 1589 he was involved
in a street brawl which resulted in a man's death. An injunction was brought against him three years
later by the constable of Shoreditch in relation to that death. In 1592 he was deported from the
Netherlands after attempting to issue forged gold coins. On the 30th of May 1593 he was killed by
Ingram Frizer in a Deptford tavern after a quarrel over the bill. He was only 29 years old. During the
middle ages, culture and government were influenced greatly by the Church of Rome. The
Reformation of Henry VIII (1529-39), and the break of ties with that church meant that the monarch
was now supreme governor. This altered the whole balance of political and religious life, and,
consequently, was the balance of literature, art and thought. The literature of Elizabethan England was
based on the crown. This period of literature (1558-1625) is outstanding because of its range of
interests and vi tality of language. Drama was the chief form of Elizabethan art because there was an
influx of writers trying to emulate speech in their writing, and because of the suddenly expanded
vocabulary writers were using (most of these new words came from foreign languages).
Marlowe's plays comprise The Tragedy of Dido, Queen of Carthage (possibly with some collaboration
from Nashe), Tamburlaine parts one and two, The Jew of Malta, Edward II, Dr. Faustus and The
Massacre at Paris. Up to the time of Tamburlaine, written in 15 87-8, there had been a few so-called
tragedies. Of these, the best known is Gorboduc, first played in 1561, and apparently popular enough
to justify its printing a few years later, although the play was "a lifeless performance, with no character
of enough vitality to stand out from the ruck of the rest of the pasteboards." With Tamburlaine,
Marlowe swept the Elizabethan audiences off their feet. The Jew of Malta, written after Tamburlaine,
begins very strongly, with the main character a commanding figure of the same calibre as Tamburlaine,
and the characterisation is better rounded than Tamburlaine's. Sadly the play comes to pieces after the
sec ond act, and it has been speculated that another less talented author revised the ending. Edward II
is unexpected in that the main character is a neurotic weakling, instead of a dominant figure like Henry
V. Even though the characterisation is clumsy, it is yet a dramatist's treatment, and one can see that
Marlowe has moved towards creating a more developed character. Marlowe thus breathed new life
into English tragedy, and paved the way for the greatest English dramatist, Shakespeare. It is quite
possible that without Marlowe's contribution to English tragedy, Shakespeare would never have at
tempted such an unpopular style and he would not be canonised as he is today. The Tragical History of
Doctor Faustus is surely the pinnacle of Marlowe's achievement. The subject no doubt appealed to
Marlowe. In no other play of his, nor in the majority of English literature, is there a scene to match the
passionate and tragic inte nsity of Faustus' last hour on earth.
Faustus used to be placed as the play immediately following Tamburlaine, yet a discovery by Dr. F. S.
Boas led to the conclusion that the play cannot be dated before 1592. This was because the English
translation of the German Faustbuch was not published until 1592, and though it is possible that
Marlowe saw the manuscript before publication, the evidence suggests that Dr. Faustus was written
after Edward II. This would mean that instead of making a massive jump in quality from Tamburlaine
and The Jew of Malta to Dr. Faustus, and then reverting back to Edward II, Marlowe wrote
Tamburlaine and The Jew and felt that he had not really set his genius and so casts back to the type of
these earlier plays and far surpasses them in dramatic poetry. Faustus tells of a man who sells his soul
to Satan in return for twenty-four years of knowledge and power. The protagonist, Dr. John Faustus,
instead of sharing his gift with others, fritters his years away until the in last scene he realises the

grave m istakes he has made. The scenes where Faustus uses his power for practical jokes are in stark
contrast to those where something meaningful happens to him. There are three places in the play
where Marlowe's genius can be seen illuminated by perfection of m etre and rhetoric; the scene where
Faustus conjures up Mephistopheles, the scene in which he speaks to Helen of Troy and Faustus' last
hour on Earth. It has been suggested by some that Marlowe only wrote these three scenes and the rest
was added by someon e else. However these are probably the same people who think Marlowe and
Shakespeare are the same man. Even so, these scenes were unmatched in their word play and metre
until Shakespeare. This play is timeless because its subject matter is still interest ing today and because
the force of Marlowe's conviction cannot help but invoke emotions in even the most soulless of critics.
Possibly Marlowe's greatest gift to English literature was his metre. Marlowe was the real creator of
the most famous, most versatile and noblest of English measure, the unrhymed decasyllabic (ten
syllables) line called blank verse. Blank verse or iambic pentameter as it is known was first used
twenty or so years before Marlowe, however it was intolerably monotonous. The metre comes from
the Greek Iambic trimeter, which was a twelve-syllable line with six feet. The experimenters were
perceptive enough to see that the more slowly moving English language would require five feet
instead of six. The result was such lifeless pieces as this from Gorboduc: Your lasting age shall be their
longer stay, For cares of kings, that rule as you have ruled, For public wealth and not for private joy,
Do waste man's life, and hasten crooked age, With furrowed face and with enfeebled limbs, To draw
on creeping death a swifter pace.
They two yet young shall bear the parted reign With greater ease, than one, now old, alone, Can wield
the whole, for whom much harder is With lessened strength the double weight to bear.
This piece is unbelievably tedious, and without a sensitive ear like Marlowe's, blank verse would never
have been the great measure that it is. What Marlowe did was to revise the internal structure of the
single line. In some lines he substituted an iamb (- / ) for a spondee (- - ), a tribrach (/ / / ) or a dactyl (/ / ) in certain feet, which made each line more interesting and versatile. Als o, while having a few
lines strictly conform to the norm, he created lines with four, three even two groups of sounds. By
using these devices, Marlowe transformed blank verse from a stiff and monotonous to a varied and
flexible metre, as can be seen in Fa ustus' invocation to Helen: Was this the face that launch'd a
thousand ships? And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?- Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.The first line is regular, with five feet and five stresses. The second has the same number of stresses,
but the grouping of the words is irregular. Whereas the third is completely irregular. It is Marlowe's
greatest gift to English literature that he ma naged to develop a metre which gave the author more
creative freedom than any other before or since. Marlowe's writing is reflective of the spirit of the
Elizabethan age in a number of ways. His subject matter and characters in his plays often question the
validity of the church. He has been criticised for being an atheist, for example he was accused of
blasphemy in his portrayal of Helen in Dr. Faustus She is seen as a goddess who has the power to
cleanse Faustus' soul, even though God cannot. She is more powerful than the virgin Mary, and the
fact that Marlowe presents the proposition that God is inca pable of redeeming Faustus' soul farther
aggravated the church. This new thinking about the church is part of the spirit of the Elizabethan age
due to King Henry VIII's reformation. In many Elizabethan plays, the main character is a merchant of
some sort, due to the rise in power of these middle class businessmen. This can be seen in many plays
of Shakespeare, as well as Marlowe's The Rich Jew of Malta. Also the protagonists in Mar lowe's
plays are often similar to Everyman, particularly Dr. Faustus, except that these characters are
individuals, and not mankind in general, in that the character learns something which is important to
the audience as well. The Everyman plays were writ ten shortly before Marlowe's birth, and again this
re-characterisation by Marlowe is a reflection of the spirit of the times in his works. Lastly, the fact

that Marlowe used iambic pentameter, as well as having drama as his writing style is representative of
the Elizabethan age. Although these were contributions to English literature, Marlowe really set the
trend for this age, and many cont emporaries of his used these techniques. In that sense, one of
Marlowe's contributions to English literature was that he defined a lot of the aspects of Elizabethan
literature. Marlowe's revolutionary use of literature is both representative of the age, a s well as a
contribution to English literature.
Marlowe contributed greatly to English literature. His works are excellent on their own; though he also
revitalised the tragedy as well as developing blank verse, one of the most beautiful, flexible and
versatile of metres. His work is representative of the spirit of the Elizabethan age in that Marlowe used
drama as his chief form of writing, his subject matters were demonstrative of this age, for example the
loss of belief in the church, and he wrote in iambic pentameter which became very popular before the
end of this age.
Henrik Ibsen - Life and Carreer
Henrik Ibsen was born at Skien in Norway on March 20, 1828. When he was eight, his father went
bankrupt. This event made a deep impression upon him. After they went bankrupt, his family moved to
a small farm north of the town where they lived in poverty. Henrik was forced to attend a small local
school. He received a substandard education. In 1843, the family returned to town. Unfortunately they
were still poor. Ibsen came from a very dysfunctional family. His domineering father was an alcoholic
who found solace in alcohol. His quiet mother found comfort in religion. He used them as a model for
his plays. The blend of an overbearing husband and a submissive wife made appearances in his plays
Brand, A Doll's House, and Ghosts. The bitter character of Hjalmar Ekdal in The Wild Duck was based
on Ibsen's father. When he was sixteen, he moved to Grimstad to work for a druggist. He had wanted
to become a doctor, but game up on the idea after he failed Greek and Math on his! University
entrance exams. Medicine was not his only ambition. He also wanted to be a painter.
In 1850, Ibsen entered the first of his three writing periods. His romantic period went from 1850 to
1873. The greatest works from this period are the Brandand Peer Gynt Most of the plays that he wrote
during these years are romantic historical dramas. Lady Inger of Ostraat was a romantic drama with
intrigue. The Vikings of Helgeland was a simple and sad tragedy. The last play of the Romantic period
was Emperor and Galilean. It is similar to Ibsen's other play Catiline because it showed his impatience
with traditional attitudes and values. In both plays he showed sympathy for historical characters who
were famous for being rebellious.
Ibsen became the stage manager and playwright of the National Stage in Bergen in 1851. He worked
there for six years. In 1857, he moved to Christiania (Oslo), where he became director of the
Norwegian Theatre. He neglected both writing and the theatre. He plunged into social life with his
literary friends and drank heavily. In 1858, Ibsen married Suzannah Thoresen, with whom he had one
child, Sigurd Ibsen. This was a marriage that was often as misunderstood as the marriages of Ibsen's
dramas. At the age of thirty, Ibsen saw his first performances of Shakespeare in Copenhagen and
Dresden. Shakespeare's work convinced Ibsen that serious drama must strive toward a psychological
truth and form its basis on the characters and conflicts of mankind. Ibsen and his friend Bjrnstjerne
Bjrnson founded "The Norwegian Company" in 1859. After the Norwegian Theatre went bankrupt in
1862, Ibsen was depressed and broke. As a result, he was sometimes seen drunk on the streets of
Christiani! a. His success with The Pretenders in 1863 inspired him to write several poems. Ibsen
became bitterly disappointed with current political events, especially Norway's failure to help the
Danes in their war against Prussia. In 1864 he left Norway. After he left, he spent most of his time in

Rome, Dresden and Munich. He was supported by a pension from the Norwegian state and income
from his books. In 1866, he had a significant breakthrough with his play Brand. In his speech to
Christiania students in 1874, Ibsen said, "All I have written, I have mentally lived through. Partly I
have written on that which only by glimpses, and at my best moments, I have felt stirring vividly
within me as something great and beautiful. I have written on that which, so to speak, has stood higher
than my daily self. But I have also written on the opposite, on that which to introspective
contemplation appears as the dregs and sediments of one's own nature. Yes, gentlemen, nobody can
poetically present that to which he has not to a certain degree and at least at times the model within
himself." In 1877, Ibsen entered his second period of writing with his play Pillars of Society. Ibsen
wrote a series of plays dealing with social problems, such as A Doll's House and Ghosts. He also wrote
a series of plays dealing with psychological problems, such as The Lady from the Seas and Hedda
Gabler. He wrote eight plays during of this period and both originated and perfected the problem play.
The term "problem play" refers specifically to the type of drama which Ibsen wrote beginning with
Pillars of Society in 1877. In these plays, the emphasis is on the presentation of a social or
psychological problem. These plays deal with contemporary life in realistic settings. The symbolism
that existed in Brand and Peer Gynt is almost gone. Ibsen presents his themes or "problems" to the
audience with realistic characters and straightforward plots. In his plays, Ibsen deals with the theme of
individuals trying to find themselves in the face of established conventions. Two examples of thi! s are
Nora in A Doll's House and Hedda Gabler. Ibsen also used a "retrospective" approach in A Doll's
House and. The major events occur before the curtain goes up. The plays concern the way the
characters dealt with these past events. The themes in A Doll's House made Ibsen the enemy of
conservatives everywhere. The idea of a play that questioned a woman's place in society and
suggesting that a woman's self was more important than her role as wife and mother, was
unprecedented. The play caused outrage in many government and church officials. Some people felt
that Ibsen was responsible for the rising divorce rate. Some theaters in Germany refused to perform the
play the way Ibsen had written it. He was forced to write an alternate "happy" ending in which Nora
sees the error of her ways and doesn't leave. The play became popular in Europe despite its harsh
criticism. It was translated into many languages and performed worldwide. The controversy
surrounding his play made Ibsen! famous. Hedda Gabler was another experiment for Ibsen. Instead of
presenting a social problem, he presented a psychological portrait of a fascinating and self-destructive
woman. After a twenty-seven-year self-imposed exile, Ibsen returned to Norway in 1891. In October
1893, Ibsen's wife Suzannah, returned to Italy due to a recurring problem with gout. While she was
gone, Ibsen found a young lady companion. She was a pianist named Hildur Andersen. Hildur became
a constant companion on visits to theatres, lectures, and galleries. He later gave her a diamond ring as
a symbol of their union. He wrote to her after his wife returned home from Italy. Ibsen and his wife
had marital problems after she returned. He discussed his marriage with an old friend Elise Auber.
According to Halvdan Koht, "[Ibsen] was clearly disturbed about his own marriage and spoke to Mrs.
Auber about it. He had many conflicts with his wife at this time, and on occasion his anger was so
extreme that he threatened to leave her. These outbursts were only momentary, and he knew that they
would never separate." Ibsen's third period of work started after he returned to Norway. It was referred
to as the Symbolist Period. The plays in this period contain elements of defeat. The Master Builder
deals with an aging architect who succumbs to defeat. John Gabriel Borkman is about a man who
sacrifices his love to become rich. Ironically, the title of Ibsen's last play was When We Dead Awaken.
In 1900, Ibsen suffered a stroke. He never completely recovered from his stroke and was an invalid for
the rest of his life. Despite his medical setback, he was a fighter until the end. When he was coming

out of a coma in 1906, the nurse commented that he appeared slightly better. Ibsen replied "On the
contrary!" Sadly, he died a few days later.
Moby Dick
by Herman Melville
The novel Moby Dick by Herman Melville is an epic tale of the voyage of the whaling ship the
Pequod and its captain, Ahab, who relentlessly pursues the great Sperm Whale (the title character)
during a journey around the world. The narrator of the novel is Ishmael, a sailor on the Pequod
who undertakes the journey out of his affection for the sea.
Moby Dick begins with Ishmael's arrival in New Bedford as he travels toward Nantucket. He rests
at the Spouter Inn in New Bedford, where he meets Queequeg, a harpooner from New Zealand
who will also sail on the Pequod. Although Queequeg appears dangerous, he and Ishmael must
share a bed together and the narrator quickly grows fond of the somewhat uncivilized harpooner.
Queequeg is actually the son of a High Chief who left New Zealand because of his desire to learn
among Christians. The next day, Ishmael attends a church service and listens to a sermon by
Father Mapple, a renowned preacher who delivers a sermon considering Jonah and the whale that
concludes that the tale is a lesson to preacher Truth in the face of Falsehood.
On a schooner to Nantucket, Ishmael and Queequeg come across a local bumpkin who mocks
Queequeg. However, when this bumpkin is swept overboard, Queequeg saves him. In Nantucket,
Queequeg and Ishmael choose between three ships for a year journey, and decide upon the
Pequod. The Captain of the Pequod, Peleg, is now retired, and merely owns the boat with another
Quaker, Bildad. Peleg tells them of the new captain, Ahab, and immediately describes him as a
grand and ungodly man. Before leaving for their voyage, Ishmael and Queequeg come across a
stranger named Elijah who predicts disaster on their journey. Before leaving on the Pequod, Elijah
again predicts disaster.
Ishmael and Queequeg board the Pequod, where Captain Ahab is still unseen, secluded in his own
cabin. Peleg and Bildad consult with Starbuck, the first mate. He is a Quaker and a Nantucket
native who is quite practical. The second mate is Stubb, a Cape Cod native with a more jovial and
carefree attitude. The third is Flask, a Martha's Vineyard native with a pugnacious attitude.
Melville introduces the rest of the crew, including the Indian harpooner Tashtego, the African
harpooner Daggoo.
Several days into the voyage, Ahab finally appears as a man seemingly made of bronze who
stands on an ivory leg fashioned from whalebone. He eventually gets into a violent argument with
Stubb when the second mate makes a joke at Ahab's expense, and kicks him. This leads Stubb to
dream of kicking Ahab's ivory leg off, but Flask claims that the kick from Ahab is a sign of honor.
At last, Ahab tells the crew of the Pequod to look for a white-headed whale with a wrinkled brow:
Moby Dick, the legendary whale that took Ahab's leg. Starbuck tells Ahab that his obsession with
Moby Dick is madness, but Ahab claims that all things are masks and there is some unknown
reasoning behind that mask that man must strike through. For Ahab, Moby Dick is that mask.
Ahab himself seems to recognize his own madness. Starbuck begins to worry that the ship is
overmatched by the mad captain and knows that he will see an impious end to Ahab.
While Queequeg and Ishmael weave a sword-mat for lashing to their boat, the Pequod soon comes
upon a whale and Ahab orders his crew to their boats. Ahab orders his special crew, which

Ishmael compares to "phantoms," to their boats. The crew attacks a whale and Queequeg does
strike it, but this is insufficient to kill it. Among the "phantoms" in the boat is Fedallah, a sinister
Parsee.
After passing the Cape of Good Hope, the Pequod comes across the Goney (Albatross), another
ship on its voyage. Ahab asks whether they have seen Moby Dick as the ships pass one another,
but Ahab cannot hear his answer. The mere passing of the ships is unorthodox behavior, for ships
will generally have a 'gam,' a meeting between two ships. The Pequod does have a gam with the
next ship it encounters, the Town-Ho.
Ishmael interrupts his narration to tell a story that was told to him by the crew of the Town-Ho,
just as he would tell it to a circle of Spanish friends after his journey on the Pequod. The story
concerns the near mutiny on the Town-Ho and its eventual conflict with Moby Dick.
The Pequod does vanquish the next whale that it comes across, as Stubb strikes a whale with his
harpoon. However, as the crew of the Pequod attempts to bring the whale into the ship, sharks
attack the carcass and Queequeg nearly loses his hand while fending them off.
The Pequod next comes upon the Jeroboam, a Nantucket ship afflicted with an epidemic. Stubb
later tells a story about the Jeroboam and a mutiny that occurred on this ship because of a Shaker
prophet, Gabriel, on board. The captain of the Jeroboam, Mayhew, warns Ahab about Moby Dick.
After vanquishing a Sperm Whale, Stubb next also kills a Right Whale. Although this is not on the
ship's agenda, the Pequod pursues a Right Whale because of the good omens associated with
having the head of a Sperm Whale and a head of a Right Whale on a ship. Stubb and Flask discuss
rumors that Ahab has sold his soul to Fedallah.
The next ship that the Pequod meets is the Jungfrau (Virgin), a German ship in desperate need of
oil. The Pequod competes with the Virgin for a large whale, and the Pequod is successful in
defeating it. However, the whale carcass begins to sink as the Pequod attempts to secure it and
thus the Pequod must abandon it. The Pequod next finds a large group of Sperm Whales and
injures several of them, but only captures a single one.
Stubb concocts a plan to swindle the next ship that the Pequod meets, the French ship Bouton-deRose (Rosebud), of ambergris. Stubb tells them that the whales that they have vanquished are
useless and could damage their ship, and when the Rosebud leaves these behind the Pequod takes
them in order to gain the ambergris in one of them.
Several days after encountering the Rosebud, a young black man on the boat, Pippin, becomes
frightened while lowering after a whale and jumps from the boat, becoming entangled in the
whale line. Stubb chastises him for his cowardice and tells him that he will be left at sea if he
jumps again. When Pippin (Pip) does the same thing again, Stubb remains true to his word and
Pip only survives because a nearby boat saves him. Nevertheless, Pip loses his sanity from the
event.
The next ship that the Pequod encounters, a British ship called the Samuel Enderby, bears news of
Moby Dick but its crewman Dr. Bunger warns Ahab to leave the whale alone. Later, Ahab's leg
breaks and the carpenter must fix it. Ahab behaves scornfully toward the carpenter. When
Starbuck learns that the casks have sprung a leak, he goes to Ahab's cabin to report the news. Ahab
disagrees with Starbuck's advice on the matter, and becomes so enraged that he pulls a musket on
Starbuck. Although Ahab warns Starbuck that there is but one God on Earth and one Captain on
the Pequod, Starbuck tells him that he will be no danger to Ahab, for Ahab is sufficient danger to
himself. Ahab does relent to Starbuck's advice.
Queequeg becomes ill from fever and seems to approach death, so he asks for a canoe to serve as
a coffin. The carpenter measures Queequeg for his coffin and builds it, but Queequeg returns to

health, claiming that he willed his own recovery. Queequeg keeps the coffin and uses it as a sea
chest.
Upon reaching the Pacific Ocean, Ahab asks Perth the blacksmith to forge a harpoon to use
against Moby Dick. Perth fashions a harpoon that Ahab demands be tempered with the blood of
his pagan harpooners, and he howls out that he baptizes the harpoon in the name of the devil.
The next ship that the Pequod meets is the Bachelor, a Nantucket ship whose captain denies the
existence of Moby Dick. The next day, the Pequod slays four whales, and that night Ahab dreams
of hearses. He and Fedallah pledge to slay Moby Dick and survive the conflict, and Ahab boasts
of his own immortality.
Ahab must soon decide between an easy route past the Cape of Good Hope back to Nantucket and
a difficult route in pursuit of Moby Dick. Ahab easily chooses to continue his quest. The Pequod
soon comes upon a typhoon on its journey in the Pacific, and while battling this storm the
Pequod's compass moves out of alignment. When Starbuck learns this and goes to Ahab's cabin to
tell him, he finds the old man asleep. Starbuck considers shooting Ahab with his musket, but he
cannot move himself to shoot his captain after he hears Ahab cry in his sleep "Moby Dick, I clutch
thy heart at last."
The next morning after the typhoon, Ahab corrects the problem with the compass despite the
skepticism of his crew and the ship continues on its journey. Ahab learns that Pip has gone insane
and offers his cabin to the poor boy. The Pequod comes upon yet another ship, the Rachel, whose
captain, Gardiner, knows Ahab. He requests the Pequod's help in searching for Gardiner's son,
who may be lost at sea, but Ahab flatly refuses when he learns that Moby Dick is nearby. The final
ship that the Pequod meets is the Delight, a ship that has recently come upon Moby Dick and has
nearly been destroyed by its encounter with the whale. Before finally finding Moby Dick, Ahab
reminisces about the day nearly forty years before in which he struck his first whale, and laments
the solitude of his years out on the sea. He admits that he has chased his prey as more of a demon
than a man.
The struggle against Moby Dick lasts three days. On the first day, Ahab spies the whale himself,
and the whaling boats row after it. Moby Dick attacks Ahab's boat, causing it to sink, but Ahab
survives the ordeal when he reaches Stubb's boat. Despite this first failed attempt at defeating the
whale, Ahab pursues him for a second day. On the second day of the chase, roughly the same
defeat occurs. This time Moby Dick breaks Ahab's ivory leg, while Fedallah dies when he
becomes entangled in the harpoon line and is drowned. After this second attack, Starbuck
chastises Ahab, telling him that his pursuit is impious and blasphemous. Ahab declares that the
chase against Moby Dick is immutably decreed, and pursues it for a third day.
On the third day of the attack against Moby Dick, Starbuck panics for ceding to Ahab's demands,
while Ahab tells Starbuck that "some ships sail from their ports and ever afterwards are missing,"
seemingly admitting the futility of his mission. When Ahab and his crew reach Moby Dick, Ahab
finally stabs the whale with his harpoon but the whale again tips Ahab's boat. However, the whale
rams the Pequod and causes it to begin sinking. In a seemingly suicidal act, Ahab throws his
harpoon at Moby Dick but becomes entangled in the line and goes down with it. Only Ishmael
survives this attack, for he was fortunate to be on a whaling boat instead of on the Pequod.
Eventually he is rescued by the Rachel as its captain continues his search for his missing son, only
to find a different orphan.
Pastoral vs court life in As You Like It

Life in the countryside is associated with tranquility, closeness to nature; it is a pure life, inferior to life
at court.
City life is viewed as a decadence form, as the court was the political center. Pastoral life is a
Utopia, an Eden, as theres no hierarchy, it is an equalitarian society of utopian dimensions, an
idealized world, characterized by honesty and simplicity, has nothing to do with power, it is not a
world of flattery, but it is an exile for Duke Senior, as he loses his status.
The Forest of Arden represents not only life in wilderness, a natural life, but Arden is a penalty:
Here feel we not the penalty of Adam (2.1, 5), it is the world after Adams fall, as Duke Senior
has to endure the seasonal change, while court represents civilized life, it is superior. Duke Senior,
however, welcomes winters chill because, unlike the flattery of insincere courtiers, it leads him to
self-awareness.
The ideas on Duke Seniors philosophizing, Sweet are the uses of adversity/ Which, like the toad,
ugly and venomous, / Wears yet a precious jewel in his head; / And this our life, exempt from
public haunt,/ Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,/ Sermons in stones, and good in
everything(2.1,12-17), are based in Stoic thought. He is gracefully stating platitudes, discoursing
on a theme. The Duke may also refer to the fact that Arden may have a jewel, as toads were
believed to have a pearl in their head which held great virtues. In the countryside the world is still
enchanted, there can man find also elements of city life as tongues, books in the wilderness.
Nature is here ones school. Life in nature is preferable because the harshness or not so bad at
plotting, it lacks luxury, it is an abstinent life, a virtuous world, it has a plurality of perspectives.
The duality between the two worlds is represented by the difference between Corin who
represents the pastoral life and Touchstone who represents the court. Corin embodies the
simplicity of a virtue, of truth, of honesty, he is a religious person. He reasons plainly, this is
where he takes his source of his happiness.
Touchstone embodies the carnavalesque tradition, which belongs to the court life, he is a twister of
words, he keeps contradicting himself and has a bad logic, while Corin has common sensical logic
and he lacks money.
Shakespeare highlights the benefits of the life in the forest which are seen as relative to life at
court as well as the contrast between the formal world of the court and country life in Arden,
concluding As You Like At as an exploration of real versus ideal.
Edgar Allan Poe's Biography
-part IEdgar Allan Poe was born at 33 Hollis Street, Boston, Mass., on January 19, 1809, the son of
poverty stricken actors, David, and Elizabeth (born Arnold) Poe. His parents were then filling an
engagement in a Boston theatre, and the appearances of both, together with their sojourns in
various places during their wandering careers, are to be plainly traced in the play bills of the time.
Paternal Ancestry
The father of the poet was one David Poe of Baltimore, Maryland, who had left the study of the
law in that city to take up a stage career contrary to the desire of his family. The Poes had settled
in America some two or three generations prior to the birth of Edgar. Their line is distinctly traced
back to Dring in the Parish of Kildallen, County Cavan, Ireland, and thence into the Parish of
Fenwick in Ayrshire, Scotland. Hence they derived from Scotch-Irish stock, with what trace of the
Celtic is doubtful. The first Poes came to America about 1739. The immediate paternal ancestors
of the poet landed at Newcastle, Delaware, in 1748 or a little earlier. These were John Poe and his
wife Jane McBride Poe who went to settle in eastern Pennsylvania. This couple had ten children in

their family, among them one David who was the grandfather of the poet. David Poe married
Elizabeth Cairnes, also of Scotch-Irish ancestry, then living in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, whence,
sometime prior to the outbreak of the American Revolution they moved to Baltimore, Maryland.
David Poe and his wife, Elizabeth Cairnes Poe, took the patriot side in the Revolution. David was
active in driving the Tories out of Baltimore and was appointed "Assistant Deputy Quartermaster,"
which meant that he was a local purchasing agent of military supplies for the Revolutionary Army.
He is said to have been of considerable aid to Lafayette during the Virginia and Southern
campaigns, and for this patriotic activity he received the courtesy title of "General." His wife
Elizabeth took an active part in making clothes for the Continental Army. David and Elizabeth Poe
(Sr.) had seven children David, the eldest son, becoming the father of the poet. Two sisters of
David, Eliza Poe (afterward Mrs. Henry Herring) and Maria Poe (later Mrs. William Clemm)
enter into the story of the poet's life, the latter particularly, as she became his mother-in-law in
addition to being his aunt. With her he lived from 1835 to 1849.
Young David Poe was destined for the law, but as previously mentioned, he finally left his native
city to go on the stage. His first professional appearance took place at Charleston, S. C., in
December, 1803. A dramatic notice of this performance in a local paper describes David Poe as
being extremely diffident while
". . .His voice seems to be clear, melodious and variable; what its compass may be can only be
shown when he acts unrestrained by timidity. His enunciation seemed to be very distinct and
articulate; and his face and person are much in his favor. His size is of that pitch well fitted for
general action if his talents should be suited to sock and buskin. . . ."
This is perhaps the only direct evidence extant of the physical appearance of the poet's father. No
pictures of him are known to exist. His histrionic powers were at best very limited. He continued
to play in minor parts in various Southern cities and in January, 1806, married Elizabeth Arnold
Hopkins, a young childless widow, also an actress, whose husband had died but a few months
before. Elizabeth Arnold Poe became mother of Edgar Allan Poe.
Maternal Ancestry
The young widow whom David Poe married in 1806 had been born in England in the spring of
1787. She was the daughter of Henry Arnold, and Elizabeth Arnold (born Smith) both actors at the
Covent Garden Theatre Royal, London. Henry Arnold died apparently about 1773. His widow
continued to support herself and her child by acting and singing, and in 1796, taking her young
daughter with her, she came to America and landed in Boston. Mrs. Arnold continued her
professional career in America at first with considerable minor success. Either immediately
before, or just after arriving in the United States, however, she married a second time, one Charles
Tubbs, an Englishman of minor parts and character. The couple continued to act, sing, and dance
in various cities throughout the eastern seaboard and the young Miss Arnold was soon noticed on
the play bills appearing in childish roles as a member of the various troupes to which her family
belonged. Mr. and Mrs. Tubbs disappeared from view about 1798 but the career of Elizabeth
Arnold, Poe's mother, can be traced accurately by various show bills and notices in the
newspapers of the different cities in which she played until her death in 1811. It was during her
wanderings as an actress that she married C. D. Hopkins, himself an actor, in August, 1802. There
were no children by this union. Hopkins died three years later, and in 1806, as previously noted,
his widow was married to David Poe.
The couple continued to play together but with very minor success. They had three children.
William Henry Leonard born in Boston in 1807, Edgar born in Boston in 1809, and Rosalie at
Norfolk, Va., probably in December, 1810. Due to their poverty, which was always extreme, the

first child, Henry, had been left in the care of his grandparents in Baltimore shortly after his birth.
Edgar was born while his parents were filling an engagement at the Boston Theatre. In the
summer of 1809 the Poes went to New York where David Poe either died or deserted his wife,
probably the former. Mrs. Poe was left with the infant Edgar and some time afterward gave birth
to a daughter. A suspicion was afterwards thrown on the paternity of this last child and on the
reputation of Mrs. Poe, which played an unfortunate part in the lives of her children. It is safe to
say that it was unjust.
From 1810 on, Mrs. Poe continued, although in failing health, to appear in various roles in
Norfolk, Va., Charleston, S. C., and Richmond. In the winter of 1811 she was overtaken by a fatal
illness and died on December 8th in circumstances of great misery and poverty at the house of a
Scotch milliner in Richmond. She was buried in the churchyard of St. John's Episcopal Church in
that city two days later, but not without some pious opposition.
Mrs. Poe was survived by three orphaned children. Two of these, Edgar and Rosalie, were with
her at the time of her death and were cared for by charitable persons. Edgar, then about two years
old, was taken into the home of John Allan, a Scotch merchant in fairly prosperous circumstances,
while the infant Rosalie was given shelter by a Mr. and Mrs. William Mackenzie. The Allans and
Mackenzies were close friends and neighbors. The children remained in these households, and the
circumstances of their fostering were, as time went on, equivalent to adoption.
Frances Keeling Valentine Allan, the wife of the Scotch merchant who had given shelter to the
"infant orphan Edgar Poe," was a childless woman who had been married for some years. The
child Edgar appears to have been a bright and attractive little boy, and despite some reluctance on
the part of Mr. Allan, he was soon ensconced as a permanent member of the household. Although
there is some evidence of an attempt on the part of paternal relatives in Baltimore to assert their
interest in the child, the young boy remained as the foster-son of John Allan in Richmond, where
he was early put to a school kept by a Scotch dame and apparently later to one William Irwin, a
local schoolmaster. There is every evidence that his early years of childhood were spent in happy
and comfortable surroundings. Mrs. Allan and her maiden sister, Nancy Valentine, who resided in
the same household, were peculiarly fond of their "pet." He seems, indeed, to have been somewhat
overdressed and spoiled as a very little boy, a propensity on the part of the women which the
foster-father tried to offset by occasional but probably welltimed severity.
In 1815 the family sailed for England on the Ship "Lothair," taking Edgar with them, After a brief
stay in London they visited Scotch relatives, the Galts, Allans, and Fowlds, at Kilmarnock, Irvine,
and other places about Ayrshire. A journey was made to Glasgow and then back to London in the
late fall of 1815 when Edgar was sent back to Scotland at Irvine. There for a short time he
attended the Grammar School. By 1816, however, he was back in London where his foster-father
was endeavoring to build up a branch of his Richmond firm, Ellis and Allan, by trading in tobacco
and general merchandise. The family resided at Southampton Row, Russell Square, while the
young Edgar was sent to a boarding school kept by the Misses Dubourgs at 146 Sloane Street,
Chelsea. He remained there until the summer of 1817. In the fall of that year he was entered at the
Manor House School of the Rev. Mr. John Bransby at Stoke Newington, then a suburb of London.
At this place be remained until some time in the spring of 1820 when he was withdrawn to return
to America. The young Poe's memories of his five years' stay in Scotland and England were
exceedingly vivid and continued to furnish him recollections for the remainder of his life. He
seems to have been a precocious and somewhat lordly young gentleman. A curious and vivid
reminiscence of these early school days in England remains in his story of "William Wilson." It is
significant of his relations with his foster-parents that the bills for his English schooling are

rendered for Master Allan. There can be little doubt that at this time Mr. Allan regarded him as a
son. Other evidence is not lacking.
John Allan's business ventures in London had been unfortunate. He returned to the United States,
arriving in Richmond in August, 1820, considerably embarrassed, a condition in which his partner
Charles Ellis was also involved. Assignments of real estate were eventually made to satisfy
creditors. The life of the Allan family, however, continued to be comfortable. Edgar was sent to an
Academy kept by William Burke, later by Joseph H. Clarke, and attended by the sons of the best
families in Richmond. At school the young Poe excelled in languages, oratory, amateur theatricals,
and attained a notable prowess in swimming. He appears to have attracted the attention of his
masters and elders by his brilliance and to have been well liked but somewhat aloof from most of
his playmates. At a very youthful age he began to write poetry, his first verses dating from his
early teens. About 1823 he became intimate in the home of a schoolmate, Robert Stanard, whose
mother, Jane Stith Stanard, took a tender interest in the brilliant young boy, an affection which
was ardently and romantically returned. It was to this lady that Poe afterwards addressed his poem
"To Helen," beginning...
"Helen, thy beauty is to me"
Mrs. Stanard soon went mad and died. The tragedy was undoubtedly taken to heart by Poe to
whom it came as a great blow shocking him significantly. He is said on somewhat questionable
authority to have haunted her grave in the lonely cemetery by night. There is no doubt that he
continued to cherish her memory as long as be lived.
Be that as it may, however, by 1824 the young poet who had been addressing the girls of a
neighboring female academy in juvenile lyrics found himself fully embarked upon the troubled
waters of a more adult life. Mrs. Stanard had died; his foster-father John Allan was in precarious
financial straits; Mrs. Allan's health was rapidly failing; and there was domestic dissension of the
most serious kind in the household. John Allan had from time to time indulged in extra-marital
relations. Some of his natural children were then living in Richmond and the knowledge of this in
one way or another seems to have become known to his wife. Her sorrow was great. During the
visit of Lafayette to Richmond in 1824 young Poe, who was an officer in a cadet company, acted
as an escort to the old General. This gave him a new sense of his own dignity and importance and
at the same time he appears in some of his contacts about the town with more adult companions to
have learned of his foster-father's mode of life. At home Edgar took the part of his mother, and a
quarrel, which through various ramifications lasted for upwards of a decade, now took place
between Poe and John Allan.
The situation was peculiarly exasperating to all concerned and the conflict dramatic.
Mr. Allan, it appears, had at the time of the death of Mrs. David Poe come into the possession of
some of her correspondence. What was in these letters no one will ever know as they were
afterwards destroyed by Mrs. Clemm at the request of Poe himself. There may have been some
compromising matter in them. At any rate, in order to insure Edgar's silence as to his own affairs,
Mr. Allan wrote a letter to William Henry Leonard Poe in Baltimore, complaining of Edgar in
vague terms accusing him of ingratitude, and attacking the legitimacy of the boy's sister Rosalie.
The effect of this letter, and there may have been others, was evidently very disturbing to both the
sons of Elizabeth Poe. Certainly it must have drawn the lines much tighter in the Allan household
in Richmond. Three years later we find Henry in Baltimore publishing a poem entitled "In a
Pocket Book," which shows every indication that the doubts about his sister's legitimacy had gone
home.
Rosalie Poe about this time began to show distinct signs of arrested development. She never fully

matured, and though she continued to be cherished as a daughter by the Mackenzies who had first
sheltered her, she remained at best a sorrowful reminder of the past to her brother Edgar. She
outlived him by many years, finally dying in a charitable institution in Washington, D. C.
The death of Mrs. Stanard, the financial troubles and consequent irritability of John Allan, the
disputes and counter charges in the household, and his own doubtful position there for he had
never been adopted and his dependence on charity was constantly reiterated all of this proved
an uneasy background for a young and ambitious poet. In addition there are indications that Mr.
Allan as a practical Scotchman bad little or no sympathy for his foster-son's ambitions in the realm
of literature.
In 1825 Mr. Allan's financial straits were amply relieved by the inheritance from his uncle William
Galt of a large fortune. He found himself in short, a very wealthy man. The whole scale of living
of the family now changed to a method of life consonant with their better condition. A new house
of considerable pretension was purchased, and in this large and comfortable mansion, situated at
Fifth and Main Streets in the City of Richmond, a round of entertainments and social functions
began despite the failing health of its mistress. Poe accompanied the family to the new house. His
foster-father withdrew him from Mr. Clarke's Academy and had him prepared for the University
of Virginia which under the patronage of Thomas Jefferson had but recently opened its doors.
On a street nearby lived a little girl by the name of Sarah Elmira Royster. Poe frequented her
parlor where they sang, and drew pictures. Elmira played the piano while Edgar accompanied her
on the flute, or they walked in the gardens close at hand. Henry Poe is known to have visited his
brother in Richmond about this time and to have accompanied Edgar to the Roysters. Before
Edgar left for the University he was engaged to Elmira. The affair, however, was not made known
to the adults of either household.
In February, 1826, Edgar A. Poe matriculated at the University of Virginia. He was then only a
little more than seventeen, but his manhood may be said to have begun.
His position at the University was a precarious one. As the "son" of a wealthy man he had a great
deal of credit and Poe himself was prone to live up to the reputation. On the other hand his fosterfather appears even at this time to have been so alienated from his ward that he provided him with
considerably less than the amount necessary to pay his way. The young student made a rather
brilliant record in his studies but also fell in with a somewhat fast set of youths. In order to
maintain his position he began to play heavily; lost, and used his credit with local shopkeepers
recklessly. It is at this time also that we first hear of his drinking. The effects of a very little
alcohol on Poe's constitution were devastating. He appears to have been a brilliant, but rather
eccentric and decidedly nervous youth. Another cause of strain at this period was the unhappy
"progress" of his love affair. Mr. and Mrs. Royster were evidently aware of the fact that young Poe
was no longer regarded as an heir by his foster-father. They had, of course, soon learned of his
love affair with their daughter and now brought pressure to break off the match. Poe's letters to his
sweetheart were intercepted; Elmira was forbidden to write; the attentions of an eligible young
bachelor, A. Barrett Shelton, were pressed upon her, and she was finally sent away for a while into
safe keeping. In the meantime Mr. Allan was informed of the financial difficulties of his ward
whose indebtedness is said to have totalled $2500. His anger became extreme, and upon the return
of Poe to Richmond to spend the Christmas holidays of 1826, he was advised by his guardian that
he could not return to the University.
The opening weeks of 1827 were spent in Richmond in the most strained relation between young
Poe and Mr. Allan. Poe's career at the University had no doubt been very unsatisfactory. On the
other hand Mr. Allan's anger was implacable and extreme. He refused to pay any of his ward's

debts of honor, or any other debts, thereby reducing the proud spirit of the youngster whom he had
raised as his son to despair. The young Poe was pressed by warrants. His foster-father used the
opportunity to insist upon his reading law and abandoning all literary ambitions. On this rock
apparently they finally split. A violent quarrel took place between them in March, 1827, at the
conclusion of which the young poet dashed into the street and went to an inn whence he wrote
demanding his trunk, personal belongings and clothes. Several letters passed between the two
without a reconciliation being effected. Their mutual grievances were rehearsed and Poe finally
concluded, despite his utter destitution, to work his way North to Boston, then the literary capital
of the United States. Mr. Allan it appears tried to interfere, but his wife and her sister seem to have
supplied Poe secretly with a small sum of money by means of one of the slaves before the young
man set out on his travels.
Under the assumed name of Henri Le Rennet he left Richmond with one companion, Ebenezer
Burling, and reached Norfolk, Va. Here Burling left him while Poe went by ship to Boston where
he arrived almost penniless some time in April, 1827. He did not, as has so often been asserted,
even by himself, go abroad. The dates of his known whereabouts taken from letters and
documents at this time definitely preclude even the possibility of a European trip.
In Boston there is some obscure evidence that Poe attempted to support himself by writing for a
newspaper. It is certain, however, that while in Boston during the spring and summer of 1827 he
made friends with a young printer, one Calvin F. S. Thomas then newly embarked in the trade, and
prevailed on him to print a volume of verse, Tamerlane and Other Poems. The printer does not
appear to have known Poe by any but an assumed name. The title page of the little volume
proclaimed the work to be "By A Bostonian." The bulk of it, probably due to Poe's inability to
recompense the printer, was apparently destroyed or suffered to lie in neglect. Only a few copies
of it got into circulation and only two obscure notices appeared. Poe himself seems to have
secured scarcely some for personal use. In the meantime the author of this unknown but now
famous little volume was reduced to the greatest extremity. Totally without means and too proud
or unable to appeal to Richmond, he finally as a desperate measure enlisted in the United States
Army on May 26, 1827, under the assumed name of Edgar A. Perry. He was assigned to Battery
"H" of the First U. S. Artillery and spent the summer of 1827 in the barracks of Fort
Independence, Boston Harbor. At the end of October his regiment was ordered to Fort Moultrie,
Charleston, S. C.
The ensuing two and a half years form a curious interlude in the life of a poet. Poe spent the time
between November, 1827, and December, 1829, doing garrison duty as an enlisted man at Ft.
Moultrie, S. C. The fort was located on Sullivan's Island at the mouth of the harbor. The young
soldier had a good deal of spare time on his hands which was evidently spent in wandering along
the beaches, writing poetry, and reading. His military duties were light and wholly clerical, as he
had soon been noticed by his officers better fitted for office work than for practice at the greatguns. Of this period, and of his doings and imaginings, the best record is the "Gold Bug," written
many years later, but replete with exact local color and scenes. Poe's duties evidently brought him
into close contact with his officers. He was steady, sober, and intelligent; and promotion ensued.
We soon find him listed as an "artificer," the first step out of the ranks. He himself, however, felt
that his life was being wasted and some time in 1828 correspondence was resumed with his fosterfather in Richmond, the purport of which was a request for reconciliation and a return to civil life.
Although Poe's letters were touching, appealing, and penitent, his guardian was obstinate and the
youth remained at his post until December, 1828, when his regiment was ordered to Fortress
Monroe, Virginia.

Seeing that his guardian would not consent to having him return home, he now conceived the idea
of entering West Point. Some of the officers of his regiment, a surgeon in particular, became
interested, and influence was brought to bear on John Allan. On January 1, 1829, Poe, still serving
under the name of Perry, was promoted to Sergeant-Major of his regiment, the highest rank open
to an enlisted man. His letters home became more insistent and to them were now added the
prayers of Mrs. Allan, who was dying. She desired to see her "dear boy" before she expired.
Strange as it may seem, John Allan remained firm until the very last. He finally sent for his fosterson, then only a few miles away from Richmond, but it was too late. Mrs. Allan died before Poe
arrived home, and despite her dying request not to be buried until her foster-son returned, her
husband proceeded with the funeral. When Poe arrived at the house a few hours later all that he
loved most was in the ground. His agony at the grave is said to have been extreme.
Mrs. Allan had extracted a promise from her husband nevertheless, not to abandon Poe. A partial
reconciliation now took place and Mr. Allan consented to help Poe in his plan to enter West Point.
Letters were written to the Colonel of his regiment, a substitute was secured, and the young poet
found himself discharged from the army on April 15, 1829. He returned for a short period to
Richmond.
Poe remained only a short time at "home." He secured, largely through his own solicitation, a
number of letters of influence to the War Department. Armed with these, and a very cold letter
from his guardian who averred, "Frankly, sir, do I declare that he is no relation to me whatever"
he set out about May 7th for Washington where he presented his credentials, including a number
of recommendations of his officers couched in the highest terms, to the Secretary of War, Mr.
Eaton. A long delay of almost a year occurred, during which his appointment to West Point was in
doubt.
During most of this period, May, 1829, to the end of that year, he resided in Baltimore. His fosterfather supplied him from time to time with small sums just sufficient to keep him alive, and
remained cold and suspicious of his good intentions as to West Point. In the meantime young Poe,
after being robbed by a cousin at a hotel, sought shelter with his Aunt Maria Clemm, the sister of
his father. In the household of this good woman, who was from the first his guardian angel, Poe
found his grandmother, Mrs. David Poe, Sr., then an aged and paralyzed woman, his brother
Henry, and his first cousin Virginia Clemm, a little girl about seven years old. She later became
the poet's wife. During this stay in Baltimore Poe exerted himself to further his literary name.
Shortly after his arrival we find him calling on William Wirt, just retired from active political life
in Washington, author of "Letters of a British Spy," and a man of considerable literary reputation.
Poe left with Wirt the manuscript of "Al Aaraaf" and received from him a letter of advice rather
than recommendation. The incident, however, shows that he had then on hand the manuscript for a
second volume of poems. These consisted of several which had appeared in his first volume, much
revised, and some new ones.
He now went to Philadelphia and left the manuscript with Carey, Lea and Carey, a then famous
publishing firm, who demanded a guarantee before they would print it. Poe wrote to his guardian
asking him to support the little volume to the extent of $100, but received an angry denial and
strict censure for contemplating such an action. By July 28th he bad, however, apparently
arranged for publication of the volume in Baltimore and wrote to Carey, Lea and Carey
withdrawing the manuscript. Through Baltimore friends and relatives he was enabled to reach the
ear of John Neal, then an influential Boston editor, and the forthcoming work received some
helpful notices in the September and December issues of the Yankee for 1829. The book itself,
entitled Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems, was published by Hatch and Dunning in

Baltimore in December, 1829. Somewhat mollified by this success and the notice it attracted, but
much more so by the assurance that his foster-son was about to receive his long delayed
appointment to the Military Academy, Mr. Allan permitted Edgar to return to Richmond where fie
stayed from January to May, 1830, at the "big mansion." His life in Baltimore had been a povertyhaunted one, and the return to his former mode of existence was undoubtfully a welcome one to
Poe.
Mr. Allan, however, had his own private reasons for desiring to have his ward out of Richmond as
soon as possible. He had resumed intimate relations with a former companion after the death of
his wife and was now expecting an unwelcome addition to his natural children. Quarrels with Poe
were renewed. After a peculiarly bitter one Poe wrote a letter to a former acquaintance in the
army, a sergeant to whom he owed a small sum of money. In this he permitted himself to make an
unfortunate statement about his guardian. The letter was later used by the man to collect from Mr.
Allan the amount due him and was the final cause of Poe's being cast off.
The appointment to the Military Academy was received at the end of March. The examinations for
entrance were held at West Point at the end of June, and in May Poe bade farewell to his guardian
and left for the Military Academy, visiting his Baltimore relatives on the way. On July 1, 1830, he
took the oath and was admitted as cadet at West Point.
Poe' remained at the United States Military Academy from June 25, 1830, to February 19, 1831.
There can be no doubt that the military career was distasteful to him and that be had been forced
into it by his guardian in whose fortune he might still hope to share. Mr. Allan, however, regarded
his duties as fulfilled, with Edgar provided for at the public charge, and was glad to have him
away from Richmond. On the day that Poe entered West Point, his guardian was presented with a
pair of natural twins for whom he later on arranged in his will. This did not prevent his marrying a
second time, nevertheless, and the new relation made him more than ever inimical to his foster
son.
Edgar Poe continued to perform his duties creditably at the Military Academy when all hope of
any help in the future from Mr. Allan was shattered by a letter from Richmond which disowned
him. The soldier had presented to his guardian the letter written by Poe a year before, and the rage
of Mr. Allan was extreme. Realizing that all hope of a competence from Richmond was now at an
end, Poe decided to take things in to his own hands and leave the army forever. As he could not
obtain Mr. Allan's consent to resign he went on strike and neglected to attend formations, classes,
or church. He was court martialled and dismissed for being disobedient. While at the Military
Academy he had arranged with Elam Bliss, a New York publisher, to bring out a third volume of
poems to which the student body at the Academy had subscribed.
In February, 1831, he went to New York. He was penniless, illy clad, and nearly died of a "cold"
complicated by internal ear trouble, after reaching the city.
Forced to eat humble pie he again appealed to his guardian, but in vain. He remained in New York
long enough to see his third volume off the press. It was entitled Poems, Second Edition, and
contained a preface addressed to "Dear B.," a person unknown, in which some of the young
author's critical opinions, largely 'taken from Coleridge, were first set forth.
After attempting abortively to obtain letters of introduction to Lafayette from Col. Thayer, the
Superintendent at West Point, in order to join the Polish patriots then revolting against Russia, Poe
left New York and journeyed by way of Philadelphia to Baltimore. He arrived in the latter city
some time about the end of March, 1831, and again took up his residence at Mechanics Row, Milk
Street, with his aunt Maria Clemm and her daughter Virginia. His brother Henry was then in ill
health, "given over to drink," and dying. The next four years were spent in Baltimore under

conditions of extreme poverty. Poe was still obscure and his doings for much of the time are very
vague. A few facts, however, can be certainly glimpsed.
During most of the Baltimore period Poe must have followed the life of a recluse. He now began
to turn his attention to prose and was able to place a few stories with a Philadelphia publication.
His brother Henry died in August, 1831. Edgar continued to live with the Clemms. The household
was poverty stricken, he himself was not in very good health part of the time. What the family
lived on is not clear. Attempts were made to interest Mr. Allan once more in his behalf but in vain.
No relief came from Richmond except upon one occasion when on account of a debt contracted
by his brother Henry, Edgar was in danger of being imprisoned. Mr. Allan sent a belated response
which was the last that Poe ever received from him. Poe is known to have paid ardent attention to
Mary Devereaux, a young girl who lived close by. He was refused, and horsewhipped the girl's
uncle. At this time he also frequented the houses of his relatives, the Poes, and Herrings,
especially the latter, It was then, too that he was hard at work perfecting his art as a writer of short
stories, and upon his only drama, "Politian."
In October, 1833, he competed for a prize of $50 offered for the best short story submitted to a
Baltimore paper, The Saturday Visitor. The prize was awarded by a committee of well known
citizens to Poe's "The Manuscript Found in a Bottle." It was his first notable success and marks his
emergence into fame. The cash was grateful to his necessity, but a more important effect of the
contest was the help given to the poverty stricken young poet by John P. Kennedy, a gentleman of
Baltimore of considerable means, a kind heart, and a writer of parts himself. Mr. Kennedy by
various timely acts of charity and influence set Poe upon the way to fame. He, Kennedy, enabled
Poe to place some of his stories and introduced him to Thomas White, the editor of the Southern
Literary Messenger, published in Richmond, Va. Poe now began to contribute reviews, and short
stories to that periodical and was finally invited in 1835 to come to Richmond as an assistant
editor. In the meanwhile Mr. Allan had died, in 1834, and there was no mention of Poe in his will.
Two ill-advised trips to Richmond by Poe himself between 1832 and 1834 had only succeeded in
further estranging his former guardian and the Allan family. They remained embittered to the last.
In July, 1835, Poe left Baltimore to take up his new editorial duties in Richmond.
As an editor, considered purely from the aspect of the desk and chair, Poe was a decided success.
Subscriptions began to mount for the Southern Literary Messenger. Mr. White might well have
been satisfied. He was a kindly man and well disposed. It is significant of Poe's inability to let
stimulants alone that within a few weeks after arriving in Richmond he found himself discharged.
He returned to Baltimore and there married secretly on September 22, 1835, his first cousin
Virginia Clemm. She was only about thirteen years old at the time and the secret marriage was
caused by the opposition of relatives to so early a union. Poe now applied again to Mr. White with
promises to abstain, and was reinstated in his old position upon good behavior and with a fatherly
warning. Mrs. Clemm and her daughter Virginia followed Poe to Richmond and took up their
residence with him in a boarding house on Capitol Square.
Poe remained in Richmond as assistant editor to Mr. White on the Southern Literary Messenger
from the autumn of 1835 to January, 1837. During his connection with the paper its circulation
increased from 700 to 3500. It attracted national attention, and it is safe to say it was initially due
to Poe that it became the most influential periodical of the South. Its reputation was afterward
maintained and increased by other men of considerable journalistic ability.
The task of the young editor ranged from purely hack work of a frankly journalistic nature to
contributions to literature. He wrote poems, book reviews, general and particular literary criticism,
and short stories both serial and complete. The book reviews varied from comment on Coleridge's

Recollections to references about others such as Mrs. Sigourney's Letters to Young Ladies, in
short from well reasoned and often trenchant critiques to mere notices with a slight critical
comment. Some of the poems which had previously appeared in the volumes of poetry already
alluded to were republished considerably revised. This was following out a policy of more or less
constant revision and republishing in redacted form which Poe continued throughout his career.
Among the most notable of the new poems to appear at this time were, "To Helen," "Irene," or the
"Sleeper," "Israfel," and "Zante."
The general tone of literary criticism in the United States at the time Poe began to write for the
Southern Literary Messenger was either perfunctory, fulsome, or dull. The comment of the young
man in Richmond was interesting, disturbing and refreshing. His frequent severity elicited reply
and remark, and though he aroused antagonism in some quarters, his presence on the scene and
the trenchancy of his style became more and more evident. A number of the stories which Poe had
prepared for "Tales of the Folio Club" in Baltimore before receiving the Saturday Visitor Prize, he
now published in the Messenger. Such stories as "Metzengerstein" attracted considerable notice,
as they well might, and added not a little to his reputation. In some of them a marked morbidity
was even then noted and deprecated. Such deprecatory, comment, however, did not prevent their
unique fascination from being felt. Under the title of "Pinakidia" the young editor also published
at this time a collection of curious gleanings covering a wide field of interest which were taken
from his commonplace book. Many of these he used again later in the Democratic Review under
the title of "Marginalia."
-part IIPoe was described about this time as being "graceful, and with dark, curling hair and magnificent eyes,
wearing a Byron collar and looking every inch a poet." The earliest known portrait of him dates from
his early days on the Messenger and shows him with sideburns and a slightly sardonic cast of
countenance for so young a man. Even at this date he was evidently somewhat fragile and delicate. His
complexion which later became quite sallow is described as having been olive.
Of his private affairs the most important event of the Richmond epoch was his second marriage to his
cousin Virginia. The reasons for this appear to be sufficiently obvious. The first marriage in Baltimore
had been clandestine with Mrs. Clemm as the only witness. It had been opposed by influential
relatives and had never been made public. All explanations were obviated by a second marriage in
public, nothing was said about the first affair, and on May 16, 1830, a marriage bond was signed in the
Hustings Court of the City of Richmond which described Virginia Clemm as twenty-one years old.
She was, as a matter of fact, less than fourteen years of age at the time, and appeared to be a child. The
wedding took place in a boarding house kept by a Mrs. Yarrington, in the company of friends, a
Presbyterian divine by the name of Amasa Converse officiating. After a simple ceremony the couple
left for their honeymoon which was spent at Petersburg, Virginia, at the house of a Mr. Hiram Haines,
editor of the local paper. Poe was back in Richmond before the end of May, 1836, at his desk on the
Messenger. Mr. White had promised him an increase of salary later on.
After his marriage, indeed for some time before, the poet's correspondence with relatives and friends
shows that he was desirous of setting up housekeeping. The plan followed was to solicit funds for Mrs.
Clemm and Virginia in order to establish a boarding house. Although some small aid, "loans," were
obtained, the scheme fell through, and the little family moved to a cheap tenement on Seventh Street,
where they seem to have remained until the end of their stay in Richmond.
Poe continued his editorial work and from his observation, experience, and ambition began to evolve
in his mind a scheme of which the beginnings can be traced back to Baltimore. It was his hope to

establish and to be the editor of a great national literary magazine. That Poe was one of the first men in
America to understand the possibilities of modern journalism from a magazine standpoint there can be
no doubt. From then on until the end of his story it was the darling scheme of his life. Misfortune and
his own personality, rather than the theories of journalism which he entertained, were responsible for
his failure to realize his ambition.
He now began to think of going North to establish the new publication, a move which his growing
reputation and the constantly increasing friction with his editor-in-chief served to hasten. Poe was
brilliant but unsuited to work in a subordinate capacity. Mr. White in all justice must be said to have
been patient. He was, however, patronized upon occasions by his versatile young editor, and there are
also indications that in the fall of 1836 Poe had once more fallen from grace, and in spite of his wellmeant promises to White, was again resorting from time to time to the bottle. In addition to this he
seems to have been restless. Taking advantage of contacts which he had made by correspondence in
New York with such men as Professor Charles Anthon, John K. Paulding, the Harper Brothers, and
others, he decided to remove to that city.
Consequently in January, 1837, he wound up his affairs with the Southern Literary Messenger and Mr.
White, and taking his family with him left for New York, They appear to have arrived there some time
about the end of February, 1837, and to have taken lodgings at the corner of Sixth Avenue and Waverly
Place, sharing a floor with one William Gowans, a bookseller, who was of considerable service to
Poe.
Before leaving Richmond, in the summer of 1836, Poe had made some attempt to have the stories
comprising the "Tales of the Folio Club" published in volume form. The manuscripts had been left
originally with Carey and Lea I in Philadelphia who kept them for some time under consideration but
had finally returned them, minus one story, to the author in February, 1836. Poe then mailed to J. K.
Paulding in New York who submitted them to Harpers. The result was another refusal. Paulding had
written to Poe, however, when he returned the stories, suggesting a long title in two volumes, a very
popular format. Out of this suggestion had grown a long story of adventure, shipwreck, and horrible
suffering in the then unknown southern hemisphere. It was called "The Narrative of Arthur Gordon
Pym" and was finally accepted by Harpers, who published it in 1838 in the United States. Wiley and
Putnam produced an edition in England where it was later pirated. This was Poe's first book of prose
although his fourth bound volume, three volumes of poetry having preceded it. The story appeared
serially in the Southern Literary Messenger even after Poe had severed his editorial connection. It
purported to be written by Arthur Gordon Pym himself and the real author was mentioned only in the
preface. The type of adventure story which "The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym" closely followed
was popular at the time. Poe merely allowed his imagination to deal with familiar material found in
such books as "The Mutiny of the Bounty", "Morell's Narrative of Four Voyages to the Pacific", and
the like. His immediate interest in the Antarctic seems to have arisen from the preparation then being
made by one J. N . Reynolds for a government expedition to those parts. Nathaniel Hawthorne was
also interested in the same scheme, which, however, came to nothing. The success of the book was
small and brought the author very little fame and less cash.
A short while after arriving in New York, Poe, Virginia and Mrs. Clemm moved to a small house at 13
Carmine Street, where Mrs. Clemm took boarders in order to make a living. Poe was receiving near
nothing at all. It was a period of financial panic and literary work was almost impossible to obtain. The
Poes were accompanied to their new domicile by the bookseller Gowans who seems to have
introduced the poet to a number of literary people but with small result. The poverty of the family was
now extreme. Despite this, nevertheless, Poe continued to write. The chief items which can be traced
to this first rather brief sojourn in New York are a review of Arbia Petraea in the New York Review,

edited by Dr. Hawks, "Siopea Fable," published in the Baltimore Book in 1839, and a tale called
"Von Jung, the Mystic," which appeared in the American Monthly Magazine for June, 1837.
The plans for starting a magazine of his own would at that time, owing to the financial depression,
have met no response. Poe, indeed, was unable to obtain even a minor editorial position or sufficient
hack work to enable him to exist. His doings at this time must forever remain somewhat obscure.
Probably through Gowans he was thrown into contact with James Pedder, an Englishman of almost
neglible literary ability but a kindly man. Pedder about this time was engaged in establishing for
himself magazine connections in Philadelphia, where his sisters resided. Through him it seems quite
likely that Poe was induced to leave New York and to move to Philadelphia, then the great publishing
center of the United States. At any rate we find him in Philadelphia about the end of August, 1838,
boarding together with his family and James Pedder at a lodging house kept by the sisters of the
Englishman on Twelfth Street, a little above Mulberry (Arch). Poe was soon definitely engaged upon
two literary projects, the editing of a text book on Conchology and the now long deferred publication
of his collected tales.
Shortly after the arrival in Philadelphia Poe moved nearer the downtown publishing and engraving
shops to a house at Fourth and Arch (then Mulberry) where he continued to reside until September 4,
1838. He was now engaged in editing The Conchologists First Book, or a System of Testaceous
Malaciology, a school text to which he lent his name. It was purely a piece of hack work and has
nothing to do with the creative or artistic writings of Poe. Among collectors the volume is now much
sought after. At least nine editions are known to exist, the first was published in April, 1837, by
Haswell, Barrington and Haswell. Poe wrote the preface and the introduction, and was assisted in his
arrangement of the text and illustrations by a Mr. Isaac Lee and Professor Thomas Wyatt. Bergman, De
Blainville, and Parkinson are quoted, and Cuvier heavily drawn upon. The beautifully engraved plates
of shells were pirated from The Conchologists Text Book, a work by an Englishman, Captain Thomas
Brown, to whom no credit was given. Poe was afterwards attacked for this and accused of plagiarism.
The truth is that the custom of pirating material for school texts was then almost universal and very
little blaim can be laid upon Poe. He received $50 for the use of his name as editor. In the series of
Poe's bound works this was the fifth.
This school text was merely a financial transaction. Poe now turned his attention to publishing his
short stories. Arrangement was made to bring out his collected tales under the title of Tales of the
Grotesque and Arabesque in two thin volumes. They were published in December, 1839, by Lea and
Blanchard of Philadelphia, The title page bore the date 1840. The author received no royalty for his
work but only a few copies to distribute to his friends. The publisher assumed the risk, not a very good
one, for the volumes sold very slowly. There were fourteen stories in the first volume and ten in the
second, which total comprised all the tales published up to that time by the author and "Why the Little
Frenchman Wears His Hand in a Sling," not appearing till later. This was Poe's sixth venture with a
bound work, none of, which had been to any extent successful from financial standpoint.
In the meantime Poe had secured a position with William E. Burton, the publisher of Burton's
Gentleman's Magazine. Mr. Burton was an Englishman, an actor at his best in broad farce, a theatre
manager, and a journalist. To this magazine Poe contributed book reviews, articles on sport, at least
five notable tales and a few poems, "To lanthe in Heaven" being the most notable of the latter. It was
in Burton's that "The Fall of the House of Usher," "William Wilson," and "Morella" appeared. At the
same time Poe was in correspondence with several literary figures among whom Washington Irving
was the most prominent.
Poe's connection with Burton did not last long. There was considerable friction between the two. At
one time Poe withdrew but was prevailed on to return. His salary was small, his work uncongenial,

and somewhat spasmodic. He was again in ill health whether due in part to the use of stimulants is not
certain. At any rate he and Mr. Burton could not agree. The latter sold his magazine to George Rex
Graham in October, 1840, and Poe was retained by the new editor, one of the most able journalists of
the time. Owing to ill health Poe did not assume his duties on the new magazine, Graham's, until
January, 1841, when traces of his pen are plainly evident on its pages.
He was then living in a little brick house at the junction of Coates Street and Fairmont Drive,
Philadelphia, where he had moved, probably in the fall of 1839. It was from this dwelling that he
issued in the fall of 1840 his "Prospectus of the Penn Magazine, a Monthly Literary journal to be
edited and published in the city of Philadelphia by Edgar A. Poe." In this prospectus Poe's theories of a
magazine are made quite clear. He hoped to receive enough subscriptions to provide funds to launch
the undertaking. A considerable number of persons subscribed but the affairs of the prospective editor
were in such a condition that he was forced to abandon his plan in order to take a salaried position
with Mr. Graham. The Penn Magazine was consequently deferred while Poe took a desk with Mr.
Graham at $800 a year.
The success of Graham's Magazine was phenomenal. The subscriptions rose from 5000 to 40,000 in
about eighteen months, the increase being due to Poe's able editing, to the number of articles and
poems secured by his soliciting notable writers to contribute, and to the policy of Mr. Graham who
was lavish in his illustrations and very generous in his fees to authors.
The period of Poe's association with Mr. Graham which lasted from January, 1841, to April, 1842, was
the most financially easy period in his life. His earnings were small, but sufficient to keep him and his
family in some comfort. It was at this time that he developed the tale of ratiocination and published
"The Murders in the Rue Morgue" and other stories of crime and its detection. He became also
interested in cryptograms and their solution, and in 1842 published in the Dollar Newspaper for June
20th of that year his story of "The Gold Bug" in which the solution of a cipher is a component of the
plot. For this story he received a prise of $100. Some of Poe's most reputed work appeared in
Graham's and attracted considerable attention. He now began to become widely known as an able
editor, a brilliant and severe of thrilling tales, and a poet. His connection with Graham, however, was
of short duration. He was impatient of his subordinate position at a small salary, hopeful of starting his
own magazine, and also given to drink. In April, 1842, his "irregularities" caused Mr. Graham to
employ Rufus Wilmot Griswold, the most noted American anthologist of his time, and a very able
editor, in place of Poe. Finding Griswold in his chair one day, Poe left the offices of the magazine and
never returned although he continued to contribute to it from time to time.
He soon set up as a free-lance, wrote where and when he could, attempted to obtain a government
position in the Customs House at Philadelphia through friends in Washington, and again tried to
launch his own magazine now projected as The Stylus. He was almost successful, but a visit to
Washington in March, 1843, when he became unfortunately intoxicated and exhibited his weakness
even at the White House, blasted his fondest hopes. Even his, best friend, F. W. Thomas, a minor
novelist and politician of the time, could do no more for him. Misfortune from now on dogged his
steps.
His wife Virginia was dying of tuberculosis and had frequent hemorrhages. He himself began to resort
to drink more than before. There is also some evidence of the use of opium. He was sent to Saratoga
Springs to recuperate and returned to Philadelphia where he nearly died of heart failure. At this time,
1844, the Poes were living at 234 (now 530) North Seventh Street, Philadelphia, in a house still
standing. Here, although visited by many loyal friends, among whom were the novelist Captain Mayne
Reid, George Rex Graham, Sartain the engraver, Louis Godey, the editor, F. 0. C. Darley, an illustrator,
Hirst, the poet, Thomas Clarke, the publisher, and others, Poe himself experienced the pangs of

poverty and despair. He was in correspondence with James Russell Lowell and other notables, but
unable through various causes, largely due to his temperament and his physical condition, to cope with
the world. Sometime in the fall of 1843 he made an abortive attempt to issue a new edition of his tales
as The Prose Romances of Edgar A. Poe. There was a small edition in paper covers to be sold at 12
cents, but No. 1, containing "The Murders in the Rue Morgue," and "The Man that Was Used Up,", is
the only one of the series known to have appeared, although one copy containing the first tale only is
known to exist. This is the rarest of all Poe items from a collector's standpoint. The little paper
pamphlet was the seventh of Poe's works. It brought the author no returns.
Reduced to the direst necessity, and finding all avenues closed to him in Philadelphia, he now
determined to return to New York. Mrs. Clemm was left behind to close up the house, and on April 6,
1844, taking his invalid wife with him, Poe set out for New York City. He arrived there the same
evening with $4.50 in his pockets and no definite prospects.
Poe and his invalid wife found shelter in a humble boarding house at 130 Greenwich Street. In
immediate need of funds he turned one of his favorite tricks and wrote a false news story for the New
York Sun, later republished as "The Balloon Hoax." Such hoaxes were "popular" at the time and
indulged in by newspaper editors. The story was clever, is notable even now, and fooled thousands at
that timemuch to Poe's delight. The money so earned enabled Mrs. Clemm to come over from
Philadelphia and join the two in New York. Leaving his family at the Greenwich Street lodgings, Poe
then boarded alone for a time with a Mrs. Foster at number 4 Ann Street. During the spring and
summer of 1844 he managed to scrape enough together by hack articles, some of which appeared in
the Columbia (Pa.) Spy, and Godey's Lady's Book, the Ladies' Home Journal of the day, to exist
himself and just barely keep his family.
Virginia's health grew steadily worse and in the early summer of 1844 the whole group moved out to
the country to a farm located on Bloomingdale Road at what is now Eighty-fourth Street and
Broadway. The farm was owned by a kindly Irish couple with a large family, the Brennans. Here for a
few months in what was then a charming rural solitude in the beautiful Hudson Valley, Poe seems to
have enjoyed a brief period of peace. During this interval he composed "The Raven," or rather put it
into final form, as the poem is known to have been in existence in earlier versions as far back as 1842.
The idea of the raven itself was taken from Barnaby Rudge. During the summer Poe carried on a
correspondence with James Russell Lowell who was writing a brief biography of Poe for Graham's,
and with Dr. Thomas Holley Chivers, a Georgia poet whose work undoubtedly influenced the Raven's
author.
By autumn the poet was again destitute and Mrs. Clemm now exerted herself to secure him some
salaried work. She called on Nathaniel P. Willis, then editor of the New York Evening Mirror and
persuaded him to employ Poe in a minor editorial capacity. Sometime in the fall of 1844 the family
again moved to a town lodging at 15 Amity Street, New York City, where they occupied a few rooms.
Poe continued to turn out considerable hack work for Willis and also through the columns of the
Mirror found opportunity to call attention to himself, to notice Miss Barrett's (later Mrs. Robert
Browning) poetry favorably, and to involve himself in an unfortunate attack upon Longfellow known
as the "Little Longfellow War," with various reverberations. By the end of 1844 Poe was ready to
sever connection with Willis who remained his firm friend until the end. Through the good offices of
Lowell, Poe had been put in touch with some minor journalists about New York who were ready to
launch a new weekly to be called The Broadway Journal. Upon this paper Poe was retained in a more
important editorial capacity than Mr. Willis could offer him.
In January, 1845, Poe's poem "The Raven" was published annoymously in the Evening Mirror in
advance of its appearance in the American Whig Review for February. It created a furor, and on

Saturday, February 8, 1845, Mr. Willis reprinted it over the author's name in the Evening Mirror. Poe's
reputation immediately took on the aspects of fame which it never afterward lost. It is safe to say that
no poem in America had ever been so popular. The poet continued to edit the Broadway Journal in
which he carried on the Longfellow controversy, reviewed books, published and republished his
poetry, wrote dramatic reviews and literary criticism, and reprinted many of his stories now more
eagerly read as coming from a famous pen. He was also preparing to become owner of the Broadway
Journal and for this purpose went into debt, in the meanwhile quarreling with Briggs, one of his
partners.
He now too began for the first time since early Richmond days to lead a less lonely life and to go
about in a semi-literary and artistic society. Poe was much seen during the winter of 1845 in the
"salons" of various writers and minor social lights of New York who were known as the literati.
Through Mr. Willis he met a Mrs. Fanny Osgood, the wife of an artist of some note and a minor
poetess, with whom he soon struck up an intimate if not tender friendship. He followed her about to
such an extent that she was finally compelled through the scandal involved and on account of her own
tubercular condition to go to Albany. Poe pursued her there, then to Boston, and thence to Providence,
R. I., where on a lonely walk late one evening be first saw a Mrs. Helen Whitman to whom he
afterwards became engaged. The second poem called "To Helen" celebrates this meeting.
Lowell visited Poe in New York in the spring of 1845 and found Poe slightly intoxicated in his
lodgings at 195 Broadway, whither he had lately moved. In July, Dr. Chivers also visited him and saw
him at times much under the influence but nevertheless with the characteristics of genius about him.
Poe's affairs despite his growing fame did not prosper. He contributed a series of articles to Godey's
Lady's Book on the literati of New York. They were personal sketches combined with the obiter dicta
of the author and a dash of literary criticism that caused considerable stir at the time and in one or two
cases involved Poe in undignified quarrels. The "Literati Papers" do not belong to Poe's more serious
literary criticism but are essentially a contemporary and easy comment on persons he knew, most of
them obscure.
At the end of 1845 despite his desperate efforts, the Broadway Journal failed, leaving its editor and by
that time sole owner, in debt, despondent, and in ill health. Virginia, his wife, continued to decline and
was nearing the grave. Poe was once more without means of support. In the meantime he had again
moved his lodgings to 185 Amity Street. An unfortunate lecture at Boston in the fall of the year had
provided an opportunity for Poe, then in a serious nervous condition, to make more or less an
exhibition of himself. The affair was taken up by his enemies in New York and made the most of. All
this served to add to his depression. Despite such, however, he had succeeded in bringing out in June,
1845, Tales, a collection of his stories selected by E. A. Duyckinck, an able editor, and published by
Wiley and Putnam. This was followed in December, 1845, by The Raven and Other Poems, a selection
of his verse produced by the same publisher. In the series of Poe's work issued during his life time
these two constituted the eighth and ninth books respectively. The Tales were in some cases bound in
two volumes, and both outputs achieved a minor success. At the same time Poe was known to have
been at work on an anthology of various American writers which occupied him from time to time for
several years. It was never published, although some fragments of the manuscript exist.
Poe's affairs and Virginia's health now once more necessitated a move to the country. While Poe
traveled to Baltimore to lecture in the spring of 1846, Mrs. Clemm and Virginia again went to stay at
the Bloomingdale farm. A few weeks later we find the entire family at a farm house on "Turtle Bay,"
now Forty-seventh Street and East River. The stop here was brief. Poe rented a little frame cottage at
Fordham, then a small village about fifteen miles from New York, and to this the family moved at the
end of May, 1846.

In the puny cottage at Fordham, still preserved as a relic in Poe Park, New York City, the poet and his
benign mother-in-law, Mrs. Maria Clemm, experienced together the extremes of tragedy in poverty,
death, and despair. The summer of 1846 was embittered by a violent quarrel with one T. D. English.
whom Poe had attacked acidly in the "Literati Papers." English now "replied," and after a personal
encounter with Poe, accused the latter of forgery in the New York Mirror. Poe sued the paper and
recovered damages for a small amount in February, 1847.
Poe's health was exceptionally bad, his wife continued to sink rapidly, and he himself could neither
write much nor obtain employment. During much of the time Mrs. Clemm by various artifices and
wiles kept bread in their mouths. She both borrowed and begged, and was even reduced to the
necessity of digging vegetables by night in the fields of neighboring farmers. With the arrival of cold
weather the visits of friends and curious persons from the city ceased and the Poes were left alone to
face the rigors of winter without fuel or sufficient clothing or food. Under these inflictions Virginia
sank rapidly. She lay in a bed of straw with her husband's cloak wrapped around her and a pet cat on
her bosom to help provide warmth. In December, 1846, the family was visited by a friend from New
York, Mrs. Mary Louise Shew, who found Virginia dying and Poe and his "mother" destitute. Through
her kindness, and a public appeal in the papers, the immediate wants of the family were relieved and
Virginia enabled to pass away in comparative peace at the end of January, 1847. She was buried at
Fordham but afterwards removed to the side of her husband at Baltimore.
After the death of Virginia, Mrs. Clemm continued to nurse Poe, who gradually returned to a
somewhat better state of health. In this Mrs. Shew assisted until finally compelled to withdraw, due to
the emotional demands of her patient. Helped by his friends Poe once more began to appear among the
living. At Fordham he had written Eureka, a long "prose poem" of a semiscientific and metaphysical
cast which was published in March, 1848, by Geo. B. Putnam of New York. This was the tenth and last
of the poet's works published during his life time, although an "edition" of his tales dated 1849 is
known to exist. The nature of Eureka forbade its being popular. Poe now took to lecturing after a trip
to Philadelphia in the summer of 1847 when another lapse in drink almost proved fatal.
The end of his life was marked by the publication of some of his most remarkable poems. "The Bells,"
"Ulalume," "Annabel Lee," and others, and by his infatuation with several women.
During various lecture trips to Lowell, Mass., and Providence, R. I., he became acquainted with Annie
Richmond and Sarah Helen Whitman, the former a married woman, and the latter a widow of some
literary reputation and considerable charm. After a visit to Richmond, Va., in the summer of 1848 in
which he tried to fight a duel with one Daniels, the editor of a Richmond newspaper, and again lapsed
into drink, he began to pay court to Mrs. Whitman, making several visits to Providence and carrying
on a fervid correspondence. He finally obtained her reluctant consent to marry him on his promise of
refraining from the glass. Poe, however, now in a sadly shattered state, was also "in love," or so
dependent upon the sympathy of Mrs. Richmond that in an attempt to put an end to his impossible
emotional problems he tried suicide by swallowing laudanum in Boston in November, 1848. The dose
proved an emetic and he survived.
Next day in a state bordering upon insanity he appeared in Providence and begged Mrs. Whitman to
carry out her promise. She, it appears, hopeful of perhaps saving him from himself was about to marry
the poet but the opposition of relatives and another lapse from sobriety on the part of Poe, finally
brought about his dismissal. Greatly chagrined he returned to Fordham the same evening to the
comforting ministrations of poor Mrs. Clemm who was reluctantly preparing to welcome a bride.
Poe attempted to hush the matter up and to carry it off with some bravado. News of the affair was
noised about, however, and caused considerable scandal. He now threw himself into writing with
renewed activity, meanwhile continuing his correspondence with Mrs. Richmond. Misfortune

continued to dog his steps. Magazines which had accepted his work failed, or suspended payment, his
health again gave way, and Mrs. Clemm was compelled to nurse him through delirium. Finally
somewhat recovered, but a mere ghost of himself, he undertook to revive his scheme of a magazine,
The Stylus, and with funds furnished by a western admirer, E. H. N. Patterson, he set out for
Richmond, Va., in the spring of 1849, hoping to obtain help there from old friends. Mrs. Clemm was
left behind in New York at the house of a poetess in Brooklyn who was under obligations to Poe.
On the way to Richmond, Poe stopped off in Philadelphia where he again came to drink and wandered
in a distracted state. Finally he was rescued from prison and the streets by some faithful friends who
raised sufficient funds to send him on his way.
Warned by what bad been a near approach to death in Philadelphia, Poe strove with all that was in him
to refrain from wine, and for some time succeeded. In Richmond he was able with the help of old
friends and others, who now recognized both his weakness and his genius, to stage a brief "come
back." He delivered lectures at both Richmond and Norfolk with great success, appeared with applause
and dignity in society, and was finally, after some difficulty, once more able to obtain the promise of
his youthful flame Elmira Royster-now Mrs. A. B. Shelton, a widow in good circumstances, to
marry him.
Preparations for the wedding went forward; the date was set. For a while it looked as if the romance of
the poet's youth with Elmira was to be rewarded by her hand and a considerable dower in middle life.
Letters were written to Mrs. Clemm announcing the state of affairs, and Poe was ready to return to
New York in order to bring her back to Richmond for the wedding. There can be very little doubt that
in all these plans, Poe saw not only the return of his "lost Lenore," but a comfortable old age provided
for Mrs. Clemm, shelter from the world, and escape from poverty. At the very last he wrote Mrs.
Clemm saying that he still loved Mrs. Annie Richmond and wished that "Mr. R." would die. With this
letter, one of the last he wrote, the curious story of his affections ends with contradiction and
ambiguity, as it began.
Taking some little cash which had been received from the proceeds of a lecture given shortly before
his departure, Poe left Richmond very early in the morning of the twenty-third of September, 1849.
The evening before had been spent with Mrs. Shelton and the marriage had been set for October
seventeenth. Poe had not been able to refrain entirely from drinking while in Richmond and he was
undoubtedly in a an abnormal condition upon his departure. The testimony shows, however, that he
was quite sober at that particular time.
He traveled by steamer to Baltimore and arrived there on September twentyninth. Exactly what
happened to him in that city cannot now be ascertained. An election was in progress, and the
preponderance of evidence points to the fact that he began to drink and fell into the hands of a gang of
repeaters who probably gave him drugged liquor and voted him. On October third he was found by Dr.
James E. Snodgrass, an old friend, in a, horrible condition at a low tavern in Lombard Street.
Summoning a relative of Poe, Dr. Snodgrass had the now unconscious and dying poet taken in a
carriage to the Washington Hospital and put into the care of Dr. J. J. Moran, the resident physician.
Several days of delirium ensued with only a few intervals of partial consciousness. He called
repeatedly for one "Reynolds," and gave vent to every indication of utter despair. Finally on Sunday
morning, October 7, 1849, "He became quiet and seemed to rest for a short time. Then, gently, moving
his head, he said, 'Lord help my poor soul.'" As he had lived so he diedin great misery and tragedy.