literature

The Cask of Amontillado, by Edgar Allen Poe, is a story of revenge by aristocratic Montressor who decides to kill Fortunato in a deceitful cruel way to punish him for an insult. Poe weaves a mood of gloom, despondency, and grotesque into this story, by using the literary elements of plot, setting and theme. The plot is diabolical and simple. Planning to take revenge on Fortunato, Montresor lures him to the deep family wine vault and ends up with Montresor burying him alive in the crypt. The story illustrates the author’s focus on “single effect”. “Every action that Montresor takes in order to redress the wrongs he has suffered at the hand of Fortunato strengthens the tale’s tone of impending doom” (Smith 225).

The story does not have a particular named setting but the names of the characters seem to suggest it must be somewhere in Europe. It opens at the time of the carnival season and soon shifts into the damp, dark and gloomy catacombs full of human remains with piles of bones. Montresor is the narrator of the story and hence the story has a first-person point of view. From this point of view, one is able to know and understand only Montresor’s point of view. But as the story progresses, one understands that it is Montresor’s thoughts and feelings that dictate the beginning, progress, and end of the story and the first-person narrative allows the reader to get a glimpse into the criminal mind of Montresor, increasing the reader’s sense of horror (Garrity 117). In the words of critic Harold Bloom: “First-person narratives, from Richardson to Poe, enact the unification of narrator and narrated, narration and event, creator and created” (Bloom 147).

The theme of the story is stated in the opening paragraphs by Montresor, which is the motivation behind his crime of killing Fortunato: “A thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge”. He further makes evident the intensity of his desire to take revenge: “I must not only punish but punish with impunity.” The plot is diabolical and simple. Planning to take revenge on Fortunato, Montresor lures him to the deep family wine vault and ends up with Montresor burying him alive in the crypt. The story illustrates the author’s focus on “single effect”. Every action that Montresor takes in order to redress the wrongs he has suffered at the hand of Fortunato strengthens the tale’s tone of impending doom.

The author weaves the theme of reverse psychology into the plot. Reverse psychology is pretending to want one thing when the person actually desires the opposite. In order to lure Fortunato into the catacombs, Montresor uses reverse psychology. Montresor says if Fortunato is too busy, he will take Luchesi to the catacombs to taste the Amontillado in his vaults. This is a ploy used by Montresor for he fully knows that Fortunato does not like Luchesi and loves rare wine and these references will persuade him to follow Montresor. Whenever Fortunato coughs, Montresor pretends to be interested in his health and suggests that they go back, making Fortunato insist that a mere cough will not kill him.

The two main protagonists of this story are Montresor and Fortunato. Fortunato, in the eyes of Montresor, is “rich, respected, admired, beloved; you are happy, as once I was. You’re a man to be missed”. These words suggest that Fortunato must have been an important and cultured man in his social circle. The fact that Fortunato is totally unaware of the murderous intent of Montresor implies that he is a very innocent trusting man. Fortunato is dressed as a clown for the carnival, symbolic of his foolishness. He is also a very proud man who thinks he alone is capable of evaluating the wine of Montresor. This folly leads him to his death. Montressor while maintaining a cool appearance has a lot of rages within. His entire focus is on punishing his enemy and he is so obsessive on this goal that he is blind to the moral implications of his criminal act. Montressor is a very cunning, deceitful criminal who plans the murder of Fortunato and uses his innocent trusting nature to lure him to the trap. Montressor is also a very sensitive and weak person to carry the grievance of an insult and to allow it to drive him to murder. But Montresor seems to have some humanity left in him when he leaves the catacombs hastily unable to stand the jingling sound of bells “My heart grew sick”.

The theme of “The Cask of Amontillado” reveals the criminal mind of a person who revels in planning and executing the murder of another person. Even after fifty years, Montresor remembers the dead body of Fortunato that lies in his wine cellar and he continues to convince himself that it is an acceptable act of revenge. Fifty years later, Montressor is still thinking about the corpse that has been quietly rotting in the corner of his wine cellar and this story is a sort of confession by Montresor after so many years.

One of the most remarkable aspects of “The Cask of Amontillado” is the blending of a macabre sense of humor with a deep element of irony. Montresor keeps toasting on the health of Fortunato whom he plans to murder, as they both descent to the catacombs. This sarcastic behavior continues till the end when Montresor reveals his mason trowel to Fortunato when the latter mentions that he is a member of the secret Mason society. “It reflects the humor of a mind tickled by its own perversity” (Magistrale 94). Dramatic irony occurs when Fortunato goes into the cellar to taste Amontillado while the reader is painfully aware that he is moving towards his end. There are numerous examples of verbal irony within Montresor’s words. “I will not die of a cough.” Montresor says, “True–true….”; “In pace requiescat!” (“Rest in peace!”) is the last irony of a heavily ironic tale. The narrative’s ultimate irony is however reserved for Montresor himself, who expected to get everlasting peace by taking his revenge on Fortunato, but finds himself captive in the memories of the crime even fifty years after the act had been committed.

Works Cited

Bloom, Harold (1987). The Tales of Poe. Chelsea House Publishers, New York.

Garrity, Roberts Nancy (2000). Classic Middle School Literature Mystery: Mystery. Good Year Books.

Magistrale, Tony (2001). Student Companion to Edgar Allan Poe. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.

Smith, A. Patrick (2002). Thematic Guide to Popular Short Stories. Greenwood Publishing Group.

In the short story “Everyday Use” Alice Walker focuses on the concept of cultural heritage and the way it can be perceived (or even distorted) by different people. One of the main characters, Dee is a person who attempts to alienate herself from her roots in every possible way. She can be simultaneously sophisticated and ridiculous, educated, and ignorant, stylish and tasteless. The main reason for that is her inability to accept her culture that in her opinion is dated and out-of fashion.

At the very outset of the story, it becomes obvious that she wants to look and sound different from her family, her mother Ms. Johnson (the narrator) and her sister Maggie. It can be observed in her behavior, speech, and even clothes. Throughout the story, the author contrasts Dee and her family paying extra attention to the way they interpret their culture. First, Dee greets her mother in a very strange fashion, instead of saying “Good morning” which would have been more natural under such circumstances, she says “Wa-su-zo-Tean-o!”(Walker, 28). We can see the she is trying to sound very unusual but such a form of salutation makes her slightly ridiculous because it is alien to her mother and sister. The absurdity of her behavior becomes noticeable even in the way she dresses. The person, wearing a very long dress on a hot day cannot be characterized as very sensible and Ms. Johnson points it out immediately Furthermore, this woman seldom comes to see her relatives and even now her visit has a very specific purpose, to take some antiques from her mothers house. Dee does not even ask neither Mama not Maggie anything about their life though she has not seen them for a long time.

As the story progresses Alice Walker gives the reader additional clues about Dees personality. The fact that this woman does not want to be called by her own name “Dee” is very telling. When her mother wonders what happened to Dee she says, “Dee is dead” (Alice Walker, 29). She does not want to be “named after people who oppress her” (Walker, 29). The narrator, though she is not as sophisticated as her daughter is, detects the inconsistency in her logic and tells her that she was called after her aunt but Dee overlooks her remark. To a certain degree, her rejection of her name is very symbolic because consequently she denounces her own culture deeming it unworthy of her. Nevertheless, it seems to Dee (or Wangero as she names herself) that she has a right to criticize Mama and Maggie for not understanding their heritage.

It is not implicitly expressed by the author but it is worth mentioning that Dee wants to segregate herself even from her family because she considers them too simple in the negative sense of this word or even ignorant (to be more exact). The narrators recollections eloquently substantiate this statement. Being more educated than Mama or Maggie, Dee is desperately trying to place emphasis on this fact, which makes the rest of the family feel as if they were “dimwits” (Walker, 29). However, it should be taken into account that a truly educated person would never boast of his or her knowledge or manners. We can observe a very curious paradox: considering herself a forward thinking person, Dee remains ignorant. Unlike her daughter, Ms. Jonson did not have a chance to receive a good education but she did her best to give it to her older daughter but she does not seem to appreciate it.

In addition to that, Dee views her family as somewhat old-fashioned. She wants Mama to give her the old quilts. When Ms Johnson says that it is Maggie’s wedding present” Dee is very astonished and says that her sister is “backward enough to put them to everyday use.”(Walker, 33). The word “backward” becomes crucial in this case, because it refers to not only Maggie or Mama but to African-American culture in general. Dee wants to turn them into museum pieces, something that has become a remnant of a long-forgotten past. At first glance, it may seem that Dee genuinely wants to preserve these quilts as family treasure, and her motives may even appear to be noble but in fact, it is just a desire to be fashionable. Earlier when Ms. Johnson offered one of the quilts to her, Wangero did not accept this offer because at that moment such quilts were “out of style” (Walker, 33). Therefore, it is quite possible for us to say that she is mostly driven by her selfishness. Dee accuses her relatives of not understanding their heritage, though she herself does not even value it. We can see the alienation even in the way she leaves the place: both her mother and her sister feel very much relieved when Dee finally departs. For them she is no longer an insuperable part of the family.

Thus, having analyzed the novel “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker we can arrive at the conclusion that through such characters as Dee (or Wangero) the author shows how people can reject not only their culture but also their families. It can be observed in Dees behavior, speech and even in the way she treats her relatives. First, we should say that this person rejects her own name (and subsequently her culture); secondly, she deems her mother and sister as backward and even ignorant though they seem to have more common sense than she does.

Bibliography

Alice Walker, Barbara Christian. “Everyday Use” Rutgers University Press, 1994.

Cathedral, the short story by Raymond Carver has a small number of characters who are nevertheless very interesting. They are have been developed by the author of the short story in an excellent way to the level that it is possible to have a comprehensive view of the traits of each of them. The major characters in the story include the narrator, who tells the story in first person, the wife to the narrator who is also the friend to the blind man whose name is Robert, and the blind man who has already been identified as Robert. Minor characters in the story include the many friends who the blind man claims to have made in places such as the Philippines and his wife, Beulah, who is deceased. Other minor characters include the military man who used to be the husband to the narrator’s wife as well as the preacher who presided over the wedding between Robert and Beulah. There is also the wife to the preacher. These characters, both major and minor exhibit various traits as we shall see in the following detailed analysis.

The Narrator (Husband to the lady who is a friend to Robert)

As it has already been stated, the narrator is the husband to the lady who used to be the wife to a military officer, but divorced him and got married to the narrator. She was once an employee to Robert, the blind man and their friendship remained even after she got married and stopped working for him. The friendship is the reason behind the blind man’s visit.

The narrator comes out as a man who is insecure. This is evident from the way he behaves in the presence of the blind man. He is too conscious of the way the wife treats the blind man, to the level that one can sense that he is scared that his wife may be giving too much attention to the blind man. This is insecurity. He is also observant as shown by the careful manner in which he looks at the events that are taking place around him. This is especially true in the period of the visit by Robert whereby he takes note of all the movements made by both his wife and Robert right from the time the two get out of the car. All the actions of the blind man, Robert are carefully watched and reported. The way Robert eats, the manner of his speech, the way he drinks, the way he smokes and the momentary strokes he gives to his overgrown beard do not escape the narrator’s eyes.

Apart from the above, the narrator is a considerate individual despite his earlier displays of insecurity. This is shown by the way he goes out to try to strike a conversation with the blind man as a way of making him feel at home. The effort he puts in doing this is remarkable in that his wife has kept him out of the discussion for a long time by engaging Robert only; to the extent that the narrator feels like he is not in the room. His considerate nature is also shown by his willingness to allow his wife to invite a male friend to visit them in their family home. In most cultures, it is not taken so well when wives befriend other men leave alone inviting them to their matrimonial home. The narrator is a bit uneasy at first but he gathers the courage and allows his wife to go ahead and invite her blind friend anyway. As it turns out, the narrator is not a bad fellow because he strikes a chord of friendship with Robert.

The narrator also comes out a bigot when he expresses dismay over the mere thought of the blind man having married a lady whose name sounds as if the bearer is a person of color or Negro. Although it is not explicitly displayed, he comes out as an individual with racist tendencies and a very narrow mind. The wife, who is accommodative and open minded is not impressed by this and she makes this clear by asking him whether he is mad.

The Narrator’s wife

She is a portrayed as understanding and friendly. This is shown by her relationship with Robert, who, as a blind person, has a number of challenges to contend with in a world where vision plays a highly significant role. She does not have the skepticism that her husband has concerning blind Robert.

She is also shown as being inconsiderate and unfair to some extent through the way she handles the conversation that takes place when the blind man, Robert, arrives in their home. She excludes her husband from the discussion, making him feel left out and unwanted. It would have been okay if she would have included him as she is the one who knew Robert and therefore had the responsibility of handling the talks between Robert and her husband.

Robert

Given the achievements he had had, Robert is hard working. He is said to have worked for a radio station and operated a business with his late wife. This is a serious achievement for a man with impaired vision. He is also portrayed as humble and kind, as shown by the way he responds to the narrator’s questions. He is also friendly, and this is why he is able to have a good friendship with the narrator’s wife. Another trait that comes out his that he is intelligent, an aspect that enables him to master complex concepts even without vision.

Introduction

The play The Glass Menagerie describes a unique experience of people during 1940s and their relations with the outside world. Laura Wingfield symbolizes unmitigated difference. Her “morbid shyness” (to use a phrase Williams had applied to himself as a boy) prevents her from having any kind of normal relationship with others. Her lameness, and more precisely, the brace she has to wear, materializes this difference. The uniqueness of the play is that readers perceive and understand the character of Laura Wingfield through her relations with other characters, Tom, her brother, Amanda her mother and Jim, her fiancé.

Thesis

The play is based on irony and symbolism which allow Tennessee Williams to create a unique atmosphere and appeal to emotions of readers and their feelings. The purpose of the paper is to give readers better understanding of Laura Wingfield and to get better understanding of the role in which plays and actions that she makes. Symbolism

The materialization of values and traditions is reflected in the symbol of unicorn, Laura’s favorite little glass animal. Revealingly, dancing with Laura, Jim accidentally causes it to fall and lose its single horn. Laura muses: “Now it is just like all the other horses… Maybe it’s a blessing in disguise.” She will just imagine that he had an operation: “The horn was removed to make him feel more at home with the other horses, the ones that don’t have horns” (Williams 108). The brace and the brittle glass menagerie–most strikingly, the unicorn that has to be symbolically castrated to merge with the group–are significant theatrical props (materializing the misery and splendor of difference), but in the Glass Menagerie the true textual symbol of difference is that of the “blue roses.” A few years before the stage action begins, Laura had had to stay away from school. Having thought that Laura had said “blue roses” Jim had jokingly nicknamed her “Blue roses.” Today he comments that, if ordinary people are as common as weeds,

“but–you–well–, you’re–Blue Roses!” Laura: But blue is wrong for–roses… Jim: It’s right for you! (Williams, p. 108).

As the play begins, a long time after the events related, the sailor whose domain is limitless fluidity returns to the now empty apartment, incapable of forgetting his sister who remains in his mind as the embodiment of unmitigable alienation (Bloom, p. 47).

Laura’s glass animals, especially the unicorn, which is broken, symbolize the tenuousness of her hold on reality, the ease with which her illusion may be shattered. Of her, Williams says, “the lovely fragility of glass which is her I mage.” This symbol is relevant to the other characters also, for their ability to exist at all in the world rests on illusions as easily destroyed as the unicorn (Bloom, p. 62).

Glass Menagerie is a symbol of false dreams and inability of the main character to see the truth about her life. The Glass Menagerie suggests the wholesome use of a living tradition to the artist. Unlike his fellow Mississippians William Faulkner and Eudora Welty, Williams has no strong feeling for place. Like Tom Wingfield, he is a rover; and when he returns to Mississippi for a setting it is more often than not for exotic effect, not for cultural reasons (Tischler, p. 28). Williams’s use of the South for shock value is gross and deliberate, but the part the South plays in shaping his moral vision is more impressive because it is unselfconscious. In the character of Amanda, The Glass Menagerie moves almost imperceptibly into mythic meaning. The character of Laura Wingfield is unveiled through the symbol of unicorn and the glass menagerie she admires most of all (Bloom, p. 49).

Irony

Ironic details allow Williams to unveil reality of life and false ideals imposed by Amanda on Laura. This consideration brings us finally to a reassessment of the end of the play: Tom’s command, “Blow out your candles, Laura—and so goodbye” (Williams, p. 12) that plunges both of them into the dark. We have seen a similar effect at the end of The Two Character Play described by Williams as a Liebestod (but one that must not be blatant); and we must associate it with the “holy candles” said to glisten in Laura’s eyes, with the fact that the candlesticks came from a church that was struck by lightning, and with the way that the final blackout reenacts Tom’s previous betrayal of the family to darkness when he misappropriated the electricity money—just as his deliberate smashing of his glass at the end, in exasperation at his mother, recapitulates his earlier, accidental smashing of Laura’s glass animals and Jim’s disfigurement of the unicorn (both light and glass being symbols for Laura herself, who is described as resembling “transparent glass touched with light”) (Tischler 32) If readers take into account, furthermore, the fact that Tom bids Laura put out her own candles, surely what we are faced with at the end is not only a regretful, tender and pathetic mood (though, of course, we do have that, very powerfully), but also a ruthless reenactment of Tom’s original violation of his sister’s trust. The gentlemen callers begin as a joke (Bloom, p. 25).

Amanda exaggerates her glories, like the number of gentlemen callers, but the idea of a very different way of life is real, and this is enough to establish her as the dominant interest in the play. When she talks of Blue Mountain, her children patronize her and laugh behind her back. “I know what’s coming,” Tom says. “Yes. But let her tell it,” Laura says. “She loves to tell it” (Williams 34). Then Amanda simpers and capers in a mere burlesque of the high life she recalls as a Southern belle. Tom wants to know how she managed to entertain all those gentlemen callers. She knew the art of conversation, she says. A girl in those days needed more than a pretty face and figure, “although I wasn’t slighted in either respect”; she had to know how to talk and to discuss significant things. “Never anything coarse or common or vulgar” (Williams 87). Amanda’s escape from the dreary present is different from Tom’s and Laura’s. They try to escape reality, but she in her own way is coming to grips with it, by trying to make a breadwinner out of Tom and by securing Laura’s future with a career or marriage. “Both of my children—they’re unusual children! Don’t you think I know it? I’m so—proud!” (Williams, p. 86).

The gentlemen callers are not designed to reflect her popularity so much as to suggest to her children the larger possibilities that life has to offer which they from limited experience are unable to see (Tischler, p. 33). The gentlemen callers begin as a joke; Amanda herself is a joke, in the eyes of her children and of the generation which they represent; but Williams’s concept of a very different way of life in his native South enables him to transmute the silly mother and her dreams into something which is noble and true. In its larger meaning, Amanda’s tragedy becomes a parable of the inadequacy of modem life (Bloom, p. 95).

Tom having said to their mother, “Laura is very different from other girls,” Amanda replies, “I think the difference is all to her advantage” (Williams, p. 65). On stage, the objective correlative of imagination and art into which Laura has retreated is the eponymous glass menagerie that she spends hours taking care of. The sparkling glass also represents the more or less imaginary shining past nostalgically remembered by Amanda: when Tom insults his mother, brutally bringing her back to reality, to the present, he makes a violent gesture and upsets the glass menagerie: “there is a tinkle of shattering glass. Laura cries out as if wounded” (Williams, p. 42). In this way, the playwright highlights the absence of flexibility, the lack of fluidity in Amanda’s and Laura’s dreams which can be shattered by the intrusion of reality. The most dramatic scene between the representative of reality and that of imagination, between normalcy and difference, occurs when Jim and Laura find themselves alone. In high school Laura had had a secret crush on Jim; now, a few years later, she comes into close contact with him for the first time: trying to boost her morale Jim goes so far as to kiss her. Amanda herself is ridicules, in the eyes of her children and of the generation which they represent; but Williams’s concept of a very different way of life in his native South enables him to transmute the silly mother and her dreams into something which is noble and true. In its larger meaning, Amanda’s tragedy becomes a parable of the inadequacy of modem life (Bloom, p. 54).

Imagery

Imagery is another important stylistic device which helps Williams to create emotional tension and intensify feelings of the play. Tom and Laura relationship not only is more central to the play’s action than might have been assumed from the critics’ concentration on the mother (Amanda), but also is treated with a startling range of moods: in particular, with a considerable variety of attitudes to the Laura character, ranging all the way from quiet, stoic heroism at one extreme to sheer neurasthenic bitchiness at the other. “She shrinks from strangers, from confrontations. We see her as a pale shadow of her dominating mother, lacking her vivacity, courage, and grit” (Tischler 29). The key to both these problems lies in the ambiguity of Tom’s attitude to Laura. This attitude is, of course, basically one of loving regret for having abandoned her. There are hints of complexity in the brother’s remembrance of his relation to his sister, then, that seem directly linked to the very innovative “plastic theatre” devices of the staging (to use Williams’s own terminology in the production notes to the play) (Bloom, p. 66).

Williams’s “memory play” uses the box-within-box structure perfected by Pirandello as a comment on the self-referentiality of theatre; and its final effect is rather like that famous mime of Marcel Marceau in which a man trapped in a small box worms his way out of it only to find himself trapped in a bigger box outside. “Taking it as a symbol of Laura herself, fragile and beautiful, the author plays with the more specific figure of the unicorn. Here we see the complete development of a complex idea, hinted at in the dialogue” (Tischler, p. 33). This “memory play” is often spoken of as an exorcism of the past, but, if so, it is no more than an attempt to exorcise. It is better understood as an obsessive reliving of the experience in an attempt to come to terms with it, which recurs to Tom against his will, as is clear from the end of his last speech: “Oh, Laura Laura, I tried to leave you behind me, but I am more faithful than I intended to be.” (Williams, p. 143). Similarly, understanding of the pattern throws light on the element of laborateness, of slightly false posturing, poeticizing and self-conscious symbol making in some of Tom’s framework speeches, especially towards the end (Bloom, p. 39).

The very sense of “forcing” in the style makes us question the integrity of the speaker, alerting us to ambivalences in his attitude: his wish to justify himself as well as to grieve, his surrender to emotion but at the same time his ironic, self-defensive distancing from it. And this sense of ambivalence, of wishing to withdraw and deny at the same time as to relive and accept, is particularly important for the much maligned projection device. Like the theatricalism of having the characters mime eating or Tom playing the first scene “as though reading from a script,” projections such as the sailing vessel with the Jolly Roger which accompanies Tom’s dreams of adventure (and links them, incidentally, to Jim’s high-school swaggering in The Pirates of Penzance) serve to maintain an ironic distance between the early Tom-within-the-play and the later Tom-remembering, through whose presentation the audience must willy-nilly experience the play (Bloom 40). It creates a gap between the commentary of Tom-remembering and the audience’s own emotional reactions to events, like that Texas draft in which Tom is made to argue about the play directly with the audience. this appears most disturbingly in relation to Laura, who is otherwise a wholly sympathetic character without the dimension of absurdity that is clear in Amanda, Jim, and Tom himself. She is given such a dimension (Tischler, p. 33).

This ambiguity extends to the Tom-Laura relationship, which, far more than the cruder, more obvious relation to Amanda, determines the play’s tone and mood; and its main key lies in the expressionistic dramaturgy of The Glass Menagerie—the various devices that ironize, distance, and complicate emotional response—which is so often ignored or unjustly dismissed. That dramaturgy anticipates from the first the obsessions and techniques with which Tennessee Williams’s career concluded. The changes made in Jim’s lines provide a sharper contrast to the future predicted for his personality. Like the hospitality of the old South, Jim’s politeness seems destined for extinction. Amanda Wingfield of The Glass Menagerie, a faded belle from Blue Mountain, Mississippi, with recollections of seventeen gentlemen callers in one afternoon, exults in her Southern past to make more bearable the St. Louis industrial slum where an unfortunate marriage has brought her. Following Tischler: “Laura is the gentle portrayal of a girl fixed forever in childhood. She plays with her glass animals and enjoys her victrola but is unable to cope with typewriters, offices, flirtations, and strangers”.

A garrulous and silly woman, she torments her son about his drinking and his movie-going and makes her daughter’s life miserable because Laura, unable to cope with a physical infirmity and a natural shyness, seeks refuge in an imaginary world of a glass menagerie. Amanda’s patter about the gentlemen callers begins as a tiresome joke; but in the course of the play by some obscure alchemy of which the author himself seems unaware, the Southern past confers on Amanda a tragic depth which her children do not share (Bloom, p. 111).

Conclusion

Using symbolism and imagery, Williams portrays that Laura is crippled, physically and emotionally. Amanda is stronger than either, but under the pressure of circumstance she also gives way to littleness, in her constant nagging and in impossible demands on her children. In what way, then, does the play rise above littleness? It is in Amanda Wingfield’s memory, “seated predominantly in the heart,” of her life before she came to an urban industrialized North, which Williams refers to as “the fundamentally enslaved section of American society.” The tragic dimension of the play is centered in Amanda, for neither of her children is capable of seeing, as the mother sees, their starved present in the light of a larger past. Mother, son, and daughter are all personal with the author and their sufferings deeply felt, but no one of them has a certain preeminence in the author’s mind. Only in the mother, as the story progresses, does a definite meaning emerge.

Works Cited

1. Bloom, H. Tennessee Williams’s the Glass Menagerie. Chelsea House, 2000.
2. Tischler, N. M. Student Companion to Tennessee Williams. Greenwood Press, 2000.
3. Williams, T. The Glass Menagerie. New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1999.

Introduction

The novel “A separate Peace” by John Knowles is a truly remarkable work, which gives insights into the inner worlds of two ordinary boys, exploring crucial topics, like jealousy, betrayal, true friendship, forgiveness, relationships between people. It introduces a flashback narration of the protagonist of the story Gene about the time when he was a schoolboy. Gene tells the story about himself and his best friend Phineas, their relations, his feelings towards his friend, and his betrayal of his friend. All the actions within the novel seem to be rendered in comparison to the two boys’ actions and decisions. This is where the reader receives all the information about boys, about their profiles and intentions, and consequently can make a conclusion about them and the novel. Nonetheless, most of the novel is the narration of Gene and his flashbacks, feelings, sometimes regrets, the novel is devoted to the other boy, Gene’s friend, Phineas.

Main body

Firstly, the fact, that Phineas is a focal point of the novel can not be lost on the reader. Every event, presented within the novel concerns Finny as either a main functioning character or the one, who is being a passive participant in the events, which unfold in the novel. Finny is presented to the reader as an outstanding athlete, with a very good personality inside. He is presented as an ideal from any side, infecting the surrounding people with his joy for life, his ability to enjoy each moment of it. Whether it be Gene or anybody else, he would be involved with the ideas, provided by Phineas. For example, Gene mentions his inability to resist Finny’s ideas, saying “What was I doing up here anyway? Why did I let Finny talk me into stupid things like this? Was he getting some kind of hold over me?” (Knowles, p. 9). Then, the reader is occupied with the situation on the tree, where Finny appears to be the victim and the main focus of the reader. And up till the end of the book, Finny reveals the reader’s attention to himself.

Next Gene’s envy made him so obsessed with Finny’s success in sports and not only, that he not intentionally made Finny stand against the foreground of the book. Gene’s feeling reveals in his thoughts “[Finny] could get away with anything. I couldn’t help envying him that a little, which was perfectly normal. There was no harm in envying even your best friend a little.” (Knowles, p. 18). Every time the best friends saw each other, Gene had an agenda, to somehow harm his friend, which gradually grew into a big accident on the tree. After the accident, Gene is further obsessed with the pains of remorse, and constantly analyzing his act, he contributes to Finny’s further fame.

Finally, Finny is presented as a realistic character or the one, who lives in reality, while Gene lives in his fixed thoughts, this makes the reader feel an appeal for Finny. The narrator of the novel failed to show his real profile. It seems that his thoughts, concerning his friend and feelings, overwhelming him, made Gene a character living insight himself. He does not show his real human identity, concealing it under the mask of non-involvement and rejection of brutality of his intentions and deeds. The narrator himself makes Finny stand out in the novel, putting himself to the periphery of the reader’s attention and compassion. For instance “… the surrounding world confusion found no reflection inside me [Gene]. So I ceased to have any real sense of it.” (Knowles, p. 115). Finny’s feelings and perception of the world were real and sincere. He does not have a clue about his friend’s thoughts and along the novel stays a true friend to him. When Finny dies, Gene does not cry at his funeral, thinking,” I could not escape a feeling that this was my funeral, and you do not cry in that case.” (Knowles, 186) It appears that Gene lived through his friend, having to envy him. He could not let his filings go and just be himself. This, though metaphorical death, shows that the time has come for Gene to come back to reality. Gene understands this perfectly, which is revealed in his words “During the time I was with him, Phineas created an atmosphere in which I continued now to live, a way of sizing up the world with erratic and entirely personal reservations, letting its rocklike facts sift through and be accepted only a little at a time, only as much as he could assimilate without a sense of chaos and loss.” (Knowles, p. 194). This citation makes it clear that the narrator lived with his friend Finny, he had some feelings, though concealed from others, but real. And after his friend’s death, he lives in flashbacks, constantly recollecting the past. He lives in the past.

Inferring, it is necessary to mention, that the novel “A separate Peace” by John Knowles is an insightful work, which brings up crucial issues. There are several characters presented within the book. Nevertheless, it can be regarded as a novel about a seemingly minor character, Finny. Though he is not a narrator and does not state anything in the novel, he manages to stand out from others using being a focal point in the events, unfolded in the plot, using the narrator’s obsession with his personality, and using Finny’s sincere perception of the world. Gene as a narrator of the book revealed the many-sided personality of his friend Finny the best he could, using all his intelligence. Maybe this was the narrator’s modest try to somehow make amends.

Works Cited

John Knowles. A Separate Peace. Bantam. 1984

Victor Frankenstein is the true monster in the novel titled Frankenstein by Mary Shelley because his effort to assume supernatural status results in a creature that inspires horror and disgust in society. This postulation may be opposed by many readers who believe that the creature victor made is the real monster. The true definition of a monster is a creature that inspires horror and disgust. From the semantic viewpoint, the creature is the monster in the novel. However, from a thematic point of view, it is wrong to conclude that the creature is the monster. This paper is going to prove why Victor is the real monster in the novel.

To start with, the creature that inspired horror and disgust in society was created by Victor. Had he not created that creature, the people would not have experienced the atrocities committed by the monster. His irresponsible behavior after he fails to get satisfaction from his creature makes society suffer. He is therefore responsible for all the atrocities committed by the monster. Why did victor create the monster in the first place? Victor wants to prove to the whole society that he has some supernatural powers and that is why he engages in a scientific process that gives rise to this creature.

One may say that factors beyond his control pushed Victor to engage in the scientific process that gave rise to this creature. The demise of his mother and self-alienation from his society inspired this creative process. Creating is not the big problem in this case. The problem is the way he reacted to the results of his creative process. The results of his creative process are a grotesque monster whose sight horrifies its creator. He then resolves to destroy what he had created. Unfortunately, his creation escapes from the science lab, swearing to avenge by going on the offensive against victor and the rest of the human folk. Is the creature to blame for its actions? The perspective from which this book is written is very subjective because it makes the reader see the evils that the monster committed without giving them a chance to reflect on the origin of these evils. Keen analysts will discover that this point of view is subjective because portrays the monster as the evil character. Victor manages to bring out all the negative characteristics of the monster in a convincing way. This subjectivity draws the readers away from the flaws of the narrator (Tropp, p. 4).

However, a keen reader will notice that Victor was solely interested in creating a life without thinking about the responsibilities that were to be undertaken once the life has been created. He did not think about the aftermath of his creation. When the monster is created, its behavior is akin to that of an infant. An infant needs the care of the mother and the guidance of everyone concerned and this is what the creature needed. In the initial stage of its life, the creature does not have the mannerisms of a monster. Instead of caring for his creature and giving it the necessary guidance, Victor is devastated by its grotesque sight and his selfishness leads him to attempt to destroy the creature, which subsequently escapes from its confines to save its life.

According to Martin Tropp in his book titled The Mary Shelley Monster, Most readers believe that Frankenstein is the monster but in the real sense, it is the name of the scientist who made the monster (Tropp, p. 67). However, the name can fit both the creator and the creature. To prove his point, Tropp starts by examining the domestic situation that Victor had that inspired him to create the monster. Victor had a good family background, with loving parents, good friends, and material security. However, Victor is vulnerable to obsessions and this is seen when he rejects the alchemist’s thoughts from his professors. To him, the thoughts are useless and he, therefore, misses the grandeur of their thoughts and concentrates on harnessing the science of those days and matching it to the great visions of those who had come before him. Despite having a stable family, Victor turns his back on his family and friends as he becomes increasingly obsessed with his project. He also turns his back against nature itself and immediately after succeeding in creating, he turns his back on his creation also.

Victor can be compared to the mythical man in olden literature called Faust who sold his soul in return for the forbidden knowledge but the problem with him is that he refused to take responsibility for his actions. Tropp argues that the central figure in this book is not victor himself. The central figure is the creature he succeeded in making then turned his back on it. This creature is a technological creation created not through magic but a scientific process in a laboratory. According to Tropp, Victor is not responsible enough. When he discovers that his creature is horrible and would not give him the gratification he wanted, he wants to destroy it. However, the creature manages to understand its nature and the situation it is facing. “He is an adult, who has been rejected by his maker because he is horrible and therefore, he has no meaning and direction in life” (Shelley, p. 234). The creature discovers what truly makes a man by itself and struggles to identify with man and communicate with him. The creature wants to become a part of the normal society but does not manage. It is a story of someone who seeks a family or someone to identify with but does not get that chance. This passion is later turned into violence thus proving Godwin’s teachings that innate good can be transformed into evil by the narrowness and perversion by an immoral society. The creature, therefore, embarks on a terrible wave of vengeance because of the rejection it has suffered from society and its maker. The creature proves his point when it says “I am shunned and hated by all mankind and that is why I live a miserable life. This is why I am malicious. My creator wanted to tear me into pieces and I don’t see why I should pity man if he cannot pity me” (Shelley, p. 144). The creature asserts that it wanted to inspire love in society but is not given that chance because society rejects it even before discovering its internal qualities. Having denied the chance to inspire love, the creature decides to cause fear and revenge its injuries and miseries. The revenge is mostly directed to its creator. “And to you my creator, you are my biggest enemy and I swear that I hate you with an inextinguishable hatred. I will destroy you. I will desolate your inhuman heart until you curse the hour you were born (Shelley, p. 147).

The monster still has some human features, especially in behavior. This is evident when it was weeping after ranting about the poverty and the miserable conditions in which it was living in. The other features of humanity evident in this creature are exuding joy as it basks near the fireplace, expression of pain, and the appreciation of the aesthetics of nature. The monster is not nurtured by its creator, it is nurtured by nature which acquaints it with diverse skills to survive and the creature is very thankful to nature for the role it has played in its life. However, there are some acts of monstrosity in this creature but any keen reader will discover that the monster is innocent in its behavior because it had not been taught. It does not know how to make a distinction between right and wrong because it had been abandoned by its creator immediately after creation. This means that the monster is not responsible for its inhuman behavior and also its external horrific features that scare human beings.

Maurice Hindle in his book titled “The modern Prometheus illustrates the various acts of monstrosity in the novel that highlight the determination of the monster to hit back at the society that had rejected it. The biggest act of monstrosity comes in the middle chapters especially after the creature sees its ugly face in a mirror. The monster gets extremely angry after seeing all the scars on its face and decides to seek revenge upon its maker and had to leave the De Lacy family to pursue its revenge (Hindle, p. 49).

According to Hindle, the monster starts a journey that would help it locate Victor Frankenstein in determination to seek justice from the person responsible for everything that it had been going through. It is important to note that the author used shades of humanity to counter the monstrosity that is building up in the creature to indicate this creature was not an absolute monster and would have lived like a normal human being had it been given that chance by its creator. One of the best aspects of humanity comes immediately after the creature realizes that it had a hideous face that was not in any way human; when it saves a girl who had fallen in a stream (Tropp, p. 49). This showed that the monster had an interest in human life, had a human heart, and did not like to see people suffering. However, a man who saw the incident thought that the monster was harming the girl and aimed a gun at it. The monster was very angry with the man because it did not deserve to be rewarded this way after saving a life. This served to increase the monstrosity building within the creature but it is important to note that the creature is not responsible for its monstrous actions; the actions are motivated by people’s behavior towards it. Immediately after the incident with the gunman, the monster kills the child (Tropp, p. 51). Society heaps blame on the monster but the blame should have gone to Frankenstein because he is the one that created the monster without thinking about the implications of the life that he had created. The monster may have committed several heinous acts in the novel but the person responsible for these monstrous acts is Victor Frankenstein because he created a being, driven by selfish ambition. He wanted to receive glory from human folk for assuming a supernatural status. He did not put into consideration the impact of his creation.

Harold Bloom, in his book titled “The Works of Mary Shelley focuses on the biggest Irony in this book. The biggest irony is that people identify with the creature that is presented as horrible and inhuman and not the creator. The readers understand that the situation of the creature is brought about by the inhumanity and the irresponsibility of the creator. The novel, therefore, creates a strained relationship between a disgruntled creature and a disillusioned creator. The creature does not in any way deserve to be blamed for the violence and the hostility it extends towards society. Victor stands to blame because the creature is an extension of himself. Victor Frankenstein is thus the monster in this Mary Shelley novel. To start with, creating a monster was itself an act of monstrosity. Attempting to destroy it because he was horrified by the hideous nature of the creature was also monstrous. Failing to nurture his creature so that it can assume humane traits led the creature to behave like a monster and the person responsible for the monstrosity of this creature is the creator himself (Bloom, p. 78). The whole mayhem that is presented in this work of art stems from the decision of Victor Frankenstein to assume a Godly position being a creator meaning that he is the cause of all this conflict. Throughout the novel, the monitor is shown to be even more humane than its creator and this is an indication that the true monster was not the creature but Victor Frankenstein, who is later punished for his selfish actions. Had Victor Frankenstein the monster, the devastating acts of the monster would have been avoided. Still, had victor taken responsibility after creating the being, it would have developed into a normal human being.

In conclusion, Frankenstein animates the monster because it’s an extension of himself and as long as he tries to escape from his creature, he remains weak and impotent. The whole conflict in this novel is a result of a disgruntled creature that tries to confront its troubles, troubles caused by the person who created it. That is why the fury of the readers of this novel is directed towards Victor and not the creation he brought into existence.

Works Cited

1. Bloom, Harold. The Works of Mary Shelley. New York: Chelsea House, 1988
2. Hindle, Maurice. The modern Prometheus.NY: Penguin, 2003
3. Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. London: Aerie Books, 1985.
4. Tropp, Martin. Mary Shelley’s Monster. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996.

Alice Walker had a number of aesthetic goals in her short story, Everyday Use. The most pronounced aesthetic goal in the short story is the cultural heritage of any given community in general and for the African American family that is used in the short story in particular (Eagleton 67-68). She uses the quilt as a potent instrument of heritage given that the item is an inheritance from past eras of the family. Another aesthetic goal that Walker may have wanted to achieve is the superficiality of people who attempt to shun their real identity. Through the understanding of aesthetics as the perception of culture and the way one views the world, it is justifiable to say that Walker’s representation of Wangero or Dee as a confused individual, who, despite her education seems to be lacking a true sense of her individuality is an aesthetics goal (Adorno 133). The third aesthetic goal that Walker wanted to achieve through the short story Everyday Use is the beauty of simplicity. How does Alice Walker achieve the above goals? What techniques does she employ?

Several techniques are used by Alice Walker in achieving the above aesthetic goals. To begin with the goal of cultural heritage, Alice Walker makes use of the quilt and the two characters; Dee “Wangero” and Maggie. The quilt has been passed from parents to children and at the moment it is in the hands of the two sisters (Bausch & Cassill 1524-1518). As Dee goes to pursue her studies, Maggie takes care of the quilt. In a deeper sense, Maggie is representing the undiluted traditions of the family; unlike Dee whose, way of life is completely mixed up. The contest that takes place between Maggie and her sister, Dee, is reminiscent of the arguments that are common in families where the members have been exposed to different cultures. Each tries to present himself or herself as the best as Dee tries to claim that she knows how to handle the quilt better than her unschooled sister, Maggie, who may use it on a daily basis thus spoiling it.

Apart from that above, Walker has used the character Wangero or Dee to demonstrate the superficiality that emanates from shunning one’s true identity. Dee is a completely changed person. She has lost touch with her African American heritage and culture and at the same time, she does not fit in any other culture. She, therefore, stands at a crossroads; full of confusion and lack of direction. The sad thing is that she does not see this in herself. She thinks she is the best and goes ahead to dismiss Maggie as someone who does not understand how the quilt is supposed to be used.

Lastly, Walker has used the character, Maggie, to achieve the beauty of simplicity as an aesthetic goal. Maggie is not schooled and therefore does not understand the issues of modern education. When compared to Dee who has gone to school, one sympathizes with Maggie and admires the life she is leading. The sympathy is due to Dee’s mistreatment while the admiration is due to her lack of complication in the way she leads her life. A look at the character of Dee who has gone to school brings the idea that if school makes one disrespectful and confused as Dee has turned out to be, then taking Maggie’s way is the best. Her respect and love for her mother are unquestionable and she lacks the combativeness and aggressiveness of Dee.

Works Cited

Adorno ,Theodor. Aesthetic Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.Print.

Bausch,Richard & Cassill,R.V.The Norton Anthology of Short Fiction.(7^th ed.).New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006.Print.

Eagleton,Terry. The Ideology of the Aesthetic (1^st ed.).New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 1991.Print.

Websites Dedicated to Writing

The Following are dedicated to writing. The description after each website is about what one can expect to find in the website. Web.

The above website has prompts for fiction writing as well as guidelines on how to write.It also has links to many other writing sites that can be helpful to an upcoming writer. Web.

This website has tips on how to become a better writer. These tips include the word selection, sentence length among others.