Revenge

A summary of A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner

In A Rose for Emily, William Faulkner brings us into the life of a real southern woman, or may I say the typical depiction of a southern woman. He brings us into the life of Emily, a now older woman, past her years. He tells us in the beginning that she has died and then goes into details of her home. Throughout the story Miss Emily is portrayed as a really strong women who has had to over come a lot, such as the death of her father whom she was very close to. She inherited the home and all his assets. She seemed to live a very comfortable life.

We see her strong demeanor when some people are sent by the major to collect some taxes from Miss Emily, which she presumably has no idea of what they are talking about. She speaks to them as though they have no authority and at one point tells Tobe her manservant to, “Show these gentlemen out”. It turns a little suspicious after this because we then hear about a man she loved and how he seems to be missing and the really bad odor coming from her home.

When you read a little further we hear of how people sent complaints to the major about the smell and how we sent four men to go and spread lime at the cellar door. At this point in the story people began to feel really bad for Miss Emily. She had lost her father, had lost her love and now has people assuming things about her because of the smell coming from her house, she became abandoned, and something she did to herself.

When her father died people thought she was really crazy because she would deny that he was dead and tried to show no grief when she was visited by towns people, and actually kept his body in the house for days, not wanting to dispose of the body. After this all happened, she never let anyone come and visit and nobody was in her house expect, her, Tobe, and we soon find out her dead lover Homer Barron. He relationship with Homer Barron was really weird and really shocking for the town’s people.

He was not to normal man her family members would date. It came a time when Miss Emily went to a druggist and asked for poison. They were together for a long time and people thought that they would get married but it never happened and we knew that Emily was very much in love yet it seemed that Homer was not as committed as she was.

Her family had come to visit one-day, some cousins, and Homer left at this time, and after they left he arrived three days later and Homer was never seen after that. Emily became much more enclosed in her house and never really went anywhere and Homer was nowhere to be seen. People hadn’t seen her in months and the next time they saw her she was gray. Her door remained closed at all times.

After many years Miss Emily died. People came to her house for the wake. The mysterious part of the house, which no one had entered for the last 40 years, was now to be explored. They entered the dusty old smelly room, to find a suit and tie and the body of old rotted Homer Barron lying on her bed. And next to him was a pillow with an indented space where someone’s head use to lay, that of Miss Emily.

This story ends in a very peculiar way. William Faulkner waits to be the end to tell us about what really happened to Homer Barron and the real actions of Miss Emily. We see how crazy she really was and really do not understand the real cause of her actions. We knew that something had happened to Homer yet I never really thought it was that and was surprised and creeped out at the end.

Jane Jacob’s book, Systems of Survival, discusses two types of ethical or value systems governing our working lives, with each one the complete foil of the other. These two systems describe the framework by which we operate day to day, procuring our needs and securing our own territories. It is interesting to note that while the two systems in question are polar opposites, there are several instances where organizations use a combination of the two.

However, it is worth mentioning that while the two are indeed different, both, as products of their own unique environment, are equally necessary and valid to the circumstances in which they arise and within the context of their use. There are times when one system leverages another for its own advantage. The two systems are Guardian Moral Syndrome and the Commercial Moral Syndrome. From their names alone, it is easy to guess their differences from one another. The first model, the Guardian Moral Syndrome, generally refers to people or agencies that are protective or defensive in nature.

Examples of guardians are the military and the police, organizations which employ force in order to achieve its goals. The Commercial Model Syndrome is used by commercial or business entities. The commercials use trade in order to advance its interests. The main argument of Jacobs’ book is that our world uses only two methods to acquire resources and those are to trade in an atmosphere of symbiosis, or take another’s resources by force under the pretense of a variety of reasons. As Paquet & Gilles explains, “Guardian moral syndrome underpinning hierarchical system, and commercial moral syndrome underpinning market-type organizations.(1999, p. 35)

In this regard, this paper will try to differentiate the two systems more clearly by citing two famous personalities who embody each system or model and try to explain their actions in light of the values that define each system. Guardian Moral Syndrome: George W. Bush It is perhaps unfortunate to be the President of the United States at the time when the September 11 World Trade Canter attack took place. Imagine the burden of responsibility, made more difficult to bear with the whole world watching your every move. George W.

Bush, the current President of the United States made the decision to retaliate and take an offensive stance against terrorism, saying that it was a necessary move to protect his country. Soon after the 9-11 attacks, the United States, backed by its international allies waged a war on Afghanistan to free the country from the iron grip of the Taliban rule. By doing so, Bush redefined the concept of terrorism from nameless, stateless entities, to one that is closely associated with the country that is giving them safe passage (Moens, 2004, p. 164).

A country that harbors a terrorist shares in the sin and will suffer the consequences of doing so. Up to now, even the face of growing dissent, Bush has continued its war against terrorism. After Afghanistan, Bush went on to attack Iraq and weed out Saddam Hussein. While he was successful at bringing Hussein down, the long drawn out war in Iraq is hugely unpopular in the United States. Bush is receiving increasingly heated criticism from his own country. From receiving the highest approval rating immediately following the 9-11 attacks, his ratings plummeted to a level lowest in recent history.

According to Sammon, Bush defends his position by saying that terrorism is not a criminal offense, but an act of war. (2006, p. 25). It is very plain to see how Bush is exhibiting the Moral Guardian Syndrome. He does not hesitate to use force to advance his own cause. Perhaps encouraged by the success of the Afghanistan campaign, he truly believes that he can rid the world of terrorists. Values such as exert prowess, take vengeance, deceive for the sake of task, be fatalistic, can be seen in Bush’s leadership style.

Primarily, it is the unflinching willingness to use physical force that defines Bush’s presidency. In order to protect his territory and resources, he embraces force and stands his ground. The use of military might to exact vengeance and uphold a way of life holds true with the Guardian Moral Syndrome. In fact, the need for righteous revenge was what galvanized the United States soon after the World Trade Center was attacked, killing thousands of people. Bush capitalized on his country’s united call for justice in order to indefinitely maintain his war against terrorists and extremists.

He protects his turf by actively seeking out and eliminating those who threaten his territory and he does so with firm belief in his cause. Bush personifies the guardian moral syndrome because the use of righteous force governs his thoughts and actions. He remains faithful to the cause and is more than willing to pay the price for his advocacy and beliefs. Commercial Model Syndrome: Sir Richard Branson Sir Richard Charles Nicholas Branson is the owner of the Virgin group of companies. He was born in Surrey, England and is currently the fifth richest man in the United Kingdom.

Branson is a high school dropout because his dyslexia was getting in the way of his learning. His teachers, who did not know any better at that time thought he was a slow learner. Whatever shortcomings Richard had in his academic life, he made up with his entrepreneurial spirit, Richard has always been enterprising, venturing into businesses at a young age. He was 21 years when he opened his first record store in 1971. In the 1980’s, Branson’s Virgin record label grew rapidly, spurred primarily by his flamboyant and competitive style. What started out as a small record store is now a globally-recognized brand.

A big part of Branson’s early success was the choice of name for his business, but foremost was his passion and faith for what he is doing. He was focused and had his eye on the goal from day one. He leveraged his small successes in order to take on grander undertakings. Fridson describes Branson’s success. “The unconventionality reflected in Branson’s managerial style is a personality trait that made him a highly successful innovator throughout his career. ” (1999, p. 226) Branson breaks the mold of the traditional successful businessman (Nelson and Quick, p. 111).

Nevertheless, he is still remains to be a classic example of the commercial moral syndrome and is a good case in point. Among all the values embodied by the commercial moral syndrome, Branson is the epitome of optimism. He had explicit faith in his own success, and the positive expectations he had for himself became a self-fulfilling prophecy, as evidenced by his Virgin conglomerate. Aside from his optimism, Branson is also industrious and efficient, and does not balk at the competition. However, it should be noted that among all of Branson’s traits as a businessman.

He best embodies the qualities of the commercial moral syndrome with his willingness to innovate. Among the precepts of the commercial moral syndrome says that one should be open to inventiveness and novelty. There should be a willingness to try something new and keep redefining the current state of things. Branson, for all his successes, could have just chosen to rest on his laurels and enjoy the fruits of his hard work. But the need to raise the bar keeps him on the top of his game. This perhaps is the hallmark of every great businessman.

The willingness to create something new, and accept the risks that go with it are what sets the Branson from the rest of the crowd and is perhaps the main reason for his success. Branson acquires resources and riches by engaging in business under a free market economy, and he expands on his territory by using what he has earned as funds in order to acquire more. He enters into agreements and partnerships to diversify and knows how to invest productively and is optimistic even as he takes calculated risks. Branson is a model for the commercial moral system because he represents all the best that this system embodies.

He is perhaps one of the best arguments for this model. Branson has proved that with the right attitude, anyone can be successful businessman, even a school drop-out like he is. Indeed the concept of a dichotomy in business and government entities is dictated by the circumstances wherein they are being used. One model or syndrome is not necessarily better over the other because they were made for entirely different reasons. Guardian precepts are designed to strengthen the individual against fear and weakness, but it should be tempered with a strong sense of fairness and justice.

The best guardians are that person who, while believing in the necessity of force, exhausts all peaceful means before using it. Force should always be a last resort, and must never be used to advance any selfish interests. Conversely, commercial precepts are designed for the accumulation of wealth under a free market environment. But it success in a commercial model should be tempered with civic responsibility and the willingness to give back to the community and help those who have not been so fortunate in life. The two people mentioned in this paper does embody the qualities of each system.

They are operating within their own zones and are successful in their own right. However, I believe that the world is far too complex to be condensed into a black and white model. While there is no doubt that Jacobs has great insights on how we act to survive and keep our turf, most things in life are not as clearly defined. Depending on the situation, we can be guardians or commercials, or a bit of both. And while the two people discussed here typify one model or another, there is no saying how long will they stay that way and how will they act if their life circumstances were any different, or if something changes in their environment.

It is man’s path to struggle with his destiny and writers have long written about such a battle in a man’s inner soul. In the works of Alexandre Dumas and William Shakespeare such a battle is best described in their comparable works, “The Count of Monte Cristo” and “King Lear”. It is the purpose of this paper to present either novel, and the main male protagonists in the stories and pit them against each other as well as have them share in their twined destiny of faults, failures and eventual redemption.

Dumas weaves a story about a man, Edmond Dantes whose life becomes entangled in another man’s vengeance and is subsequently doomed to life imprisonment. These actions are out of the protagonist’s control as he is neither aware of the person for whom the letter is intended that he is carrying to Paris (it is actually supposed to be given to Bonapartist father) nor of the rival against him, Danglars. It would thus appear as though Dantes is allowing his destiny to be overtaken from his free will.

In Shakespeare’s “King Lear” Lear also allows to be a rather flotsam figure on his own path, being lead this way and that, not from a guidance of reason but by happenstance, bad luck, and fate. Blindness is recognized in the play by Lear’s grotesque nature and how he cannot stand to see the world, or kingdom he created. In King Lear’s distrust of his daughters he one by one makes himself disowned by them I prithee, daughter, do not make me mad. I will not trouble thee, my child; farewell.

We’ll no more meet, no more see one another. But yet thou art my flesh, my blood, my daughter; Or rather a disease that’s in my flesh, Which I must needs call mine. Thou art a boil, A plague sore, an embossed carbuncle In my corrupted blood. But I’ll not chide thee. Let shame come when it will, I do not call it. I do not bid the Thunder-bearer shoot Nor tell tales of thee to high-judging Jove. Mend when thou canst; be better at thy leisure; I can be patient, I can stay with Regan, I and my hundred knights.

” (Shakespeare II. iv. 1514). Blindness is a factor in either author’s tale. For Dumas, he allows his character to remain faithful to himself but also he makes him blind to the events and circumstances surrounding him. Dantes is sent to prison, but it is in prison where he finds Abbe Faria, who teaches his about philosophy, languages, music, history, and it is in this knowledge that Dumas allows the hero to gain self confidence that he would not have otherwise come to had he not been imprisoned.

It seems that either author depends a great deal upon unusual circumstances and luck (either perceived as good or bad luck) to progress the plot forward for the characters. Both characters have to face where their loyalties lie, or where the people’s loyalties lie who surround them. In “King Lear” the focus of the married daughters who are proven to be evil and usurpers of their fathers power while the younger daughter, the innocent unmarried one proves to be the only supporter King Lear has although he blindingly distrusts her from act one.

The theme of “King Lear” is suitably that of loyalty from the female caste whether in faithfulness or disloyalty. With the theme of loyalty there must also be a theme of vengeance as these two factors often walk hand in hand. It is proper for Dantes to want to seek vengeance on an unjust act done to him out of jealousy from Danglars. Although it takes Dantes nine years for his plan to put into action, it takes Lear merely three acts for his vengeance to take shape on Cordelia’s life and Lear’s blindness. For, what is the purpose of having a protagonist who does not learn anything?

Lear learns of his mistakes with distrusting his daughter Cordelia and by trusting his other daughters- therefore, because he was blind to this distrust in a metaphorical sense he must be made blind physically in order to find redemption for his actions. Dumas takes a different approach in his protagonist’s story. Dumas gives Dantes an education as well as a treasure but the idea of vengeance swallows any joy he may have gleaned from his newly found position in life as the Count of Monte Cristo. It is with a heavy heart (after finding out about his father’s death) that Dantes goes to Marseilles and then on to other European cities.

Despite this occupying thought of revenge, Dantes does manage to try and save Caderousse, but is unable to help the man because Caderousse’s greed is his downfall. Although he is given two chances of redemption from Dantes he falls into a life of crime and is killed. Both authors need to have progression, change or punishment in their works in order for the reader to find the humanity in the protagonists, for, without their humanity Dantes’ revenge would be a fool’s errand and Lear would not have blinded himself after seeing the error of his ways.

The parallels of greed in political power (another form of the grotesque in Shakespeare’s play) are presented in how Goneril and Regan seek political power by their ability to strip the King of all his train of followers, by rejecting the King’s title, and turning him out into the storm, “…entreat him by no means to stay” (III. 1. 297). Also, Edmund has high political aspirations by allowing Gloucester to be blinded for his own political gain, “Hang him instantly [Regan]…Pluck out his eyes [Goneril]” (III. 7. 4-5), and he usurps Edgar’s legitimate title as the future Earl of Gloucester.

Furthermore, Kent and Edgar both lose their nobility, the Earl of Kent is banished for his honest defense of Cordelia, and Edgar loses his claim to nobility through the deceit and trickery of Edmund. Political greed was also seen with Caderousse as well as Dantes’ other enemies who have grown wealthy and more corrupt since he has been in prison. Both author’s hinge their characters on the edge of redemption and give them each a scenario in which they can either grasp this ultimate gift and be free of blame or hate, or they can become criminals of love and honor.

The authors are the same in this account, they allow their protagonists to find their redemption: For Lear, it is blindness, for Dantes it is shown in the mercy he gives to his enemy Danglars. In their redemption either man finds love again: Cordelia’s for her father Lear and Haydee for Dantes. Bibliography Dumas, Alexandre. “The Count of Monte Cristo”. Penguin Classic. 1992. Shakespeare, William. “King Lear”. Penguin Classic. 1998.