Tuesday, February 17, 2009

THE UNIVERSAL CONFLICT IN “TWO KINDS”

In the story, “Two Kinds,” by Amy Tan, the narrator is a maturing girl who is trying to find her identity. However, she is not the only one doing so; her mother is trying to find her an identity as well. Hence, the universal conflict of this story forms when the identity sought by the narrator for herself is not the same as the identity sought by the mother for her daughter. Therefore, the story deals with the complexities of the mother-daughter relationship; by examining the characters of both the mother and the narrator, a clear understanding about why this conflict occurs can be attained.
Since the beginning of the story, the nature of the mother’s character is established. The very first sentence of the story reads: “My mother believed you could be anything you wanted to be in America.” Such perception of the United States prompts the mother to encourage her daughter to take advantage of the opportunities this country has to offer. The mother wants her daughter to succeed for two main reasons: because she wants the best for her daughter and because she wants her daughter to succeed in a way that the mother herself never could. Because she grew up in China, the mother did not have the opportunities the narrator has. Naturally, the mother looks for ways that can potentially prompt her daughter to stardom. So great is the mother’s determination for her daughter to succeed that the mother is even willing to clean someone’s house in exchange for piano lessons for her daughter. However, the mother soon forgets the real purpose of trying to find success for her daughter. By nearly forcing her daughter to do everything that could perhaps bring the daughter success, the mother forgets she wants her daughter to be content in reaching such success.
Unlike the static nature of the mother, the narrator’s character is dynamic, for she is initially thrilled by the idea of being a prodigy. She practices and practices; but, as time progresses, she realizes it is probable that she will not become famous. However, the narrator is not disillusioned because she feels that by giving up on being someone else, she has found herself. The narrator states: “I had new thoughts, willful thoughts, or rather thoughts filled with lots of won’ts. I won’t let her [the mother] change me, I promised myself. I won’t be what I’m not.” Afterwards, any attempt by the mother to have her daughter be a prodigy is seen as a threat to the narrator’s individuality. Because the narrator is satisfied with who she is, she no longer feels the desire to pursue other identities.
Consequently, a century-old conflict emerges between these two women who have a complex bond and an opposing view. As the piano lessons progress, each woman’s passions grow more powerful; the mother can taste her daughter’s future success, while the daughter longs for the day she will reveal her true identity to her mother. After the talent show incident, the climax of the story occurs in the emphatic argument between the two women. Words are said, emotions are expressed, and frustrations are released, all of which converge to form a silence that will not be broken for decades. Eventually, the mother offers the narrator the piano that she had used to practice. When they have an exchange regarding whether the narrator remembers how to play the piano, the mother says: “‘You pick up fast. You have natural talent. You could have been genius if you want to. You just not trying,’ said my mother. And she was neither angry nor sad. She said it as if to announce a fact that could never be disproved.” Although the mother still believes that her daughter could have succeeded, she is no longer affected by their conflict because the narrator has found her own realm of success. Thus, the mother realizes that her belief that one could do anything in America has been vindicated. As for the narrator, she feels as though the present has turned out the way it was supposed to happen.
In conclusion, the universal conflict of this story refers to the unique relationship between mothers and daughters. In this story, both the narrator and the mother want the same thing: success for the narrator that will lead to her happiness. Nevertheless, each woman holds a different approach to achieving success, such difference in approach stemming from their opposing characters. Although, in the end, the narrator finds success and the conflict that exists between the mother and the daughter is resolved, both women still hold the curiosity as to what would have happened if the narrator had really been dedicated to becoming a prodigy.

CHARACTER ANALYSIS OF MARTHA HALE IN “A JURY OF HER PEERS”

In the story “A Jury of Her Peers,” by Susan Glaspell, the character of Martha Hale is torn between two things, the law and her instinct. Although Martha is a righteous woman, in this particular situation, she reacts differently. By deciding to follow her feelings instead of the law, Martha Hale accurately reflects the essence of her character, an essence that is too often hidden from the rest of the world.
Since the beginning of the story, Martha Hale acts very cautiously and nervously. When the sheriff and her husband come to get her, she is apprehensive about going to the crime scene. When she is actually about to enter into the Wrights’ house, she hesitates. The story reads: “Even after she had her foot on the door-step, her hand on the knob, Martha Hale had a moment of feeling she could not cross that threshold. And the reason it seemed she couldn’t cross it now was simply because she hadn’t crossed it before.” Eventually, it is evident that Martha has known Mrs. Wright for a long time. Martha even refers to Mrs. Wright by her maiden name, Minnie Foster. As she is going through the house, Martha regrets not having visited her friend for almost twenty years. When questioned by the attorney about this lapse, Martha tries to justify herself by saying that she has been too busy with chores and that the Wrights’ house does not seem like “a very cheerful place.” In truth, Martha does not really believe these excuses, and she herself knows this fact. Even though it is never clearly stated, Martha’s reason for not visiting her friend is that Martha is suspicious of Mr. Wright. By believing that her friend will not be the same person she knew years ago, Martha continually delays visiting Mrs. Wright; therefore, Martha feels she herself has indirectly contributed to a situation that will eventually result in a murder.
As the story progresses, the characters engage in dialogue that clearly conveys a belief in male superiority, or, better put, a sense of women inferiority and ignorance. Every time Martha hears a sexist remark, she becomes enraged within; by contrast, Mrs. Peters blindly agrees with everything the men say and embodies the “ideal” model for a wife. Martha herself only pretends to be soft-spoken. In reality, Martha is an intelligent woman who is forced by social convention to be submissive and to wed a sexist and somewhat stupid man. Even when Mr. Hale is recounting what had happened, Martha listens closely to make sure he does not say more than what he should. The irony comes when the women are looking at an unfinished quilt and the men catch Martha saying “Do you suppose she was going to quilt it or just knot it?” The men continue to laugh about this incident throughout the story, never knowing they themselves are the ignorant ones in this case. As the women discover the implications of the quilt, the bird and the cage, and put the pieces together, Martha realizes that Mrs. Wright killed Mr. Wright because he had killed the bird. Such discovery ignites Martha because she knows it is because of Mr. Wright’s actions that Mrs. Wright has acted in such a violent way.
Consequently, Martha decides to go against the law and to conceal the truth so that the men do not have evidence that would undoubtedly tie Mrs. Wright with Mr. Wright’s death. Such action illustrates the complexity of Martha’s character. The implications of what she is doing are very grave; if she were to get caught, Martha would face tough consequences. Nevertheless, Martha decides to take the risk because she will not allow a man who is dead to ruin the life of an innocent woman. In a way, Mrs. Wright’s life reflects Martha’s life; both are victims of a sexist society. Martha herself says: “We all go through the same things, it’s all just a different kind of the same thing! If it weren’t, why do you [Mrs. Peters] and I understand?” Although the conditions of their “imprisonment” are different, both Martha and Mrs. Wright experience the same trauma. Indeed, Martha’s main reason for hiding the evidence, apart from the fact that Mrs. Wright is her friend, is that, by trying to help Mrs. Wright, Martha hopes to help herself.
In conclusion, Martha Hale is a woman trapped within herself, mostly because society will not allow her to be who she really is. When she goes to the Wrights’ house, Martha is determined to salvage Mrs. Wright in any way she can, hoping that this action will ease the guilt Martha feels for not having visited Mrs. Wright all those years. When she discovers the bird and makes the connection, Martha decides to hide the evidence, knowing that the murder was only the embodiment of Mrs. Wright’s years of frustration. By taking such decision, Martha makes a blunt statement that she will not tolerate injustice, an admirable and a courageous act, despite the fact that no one knows about this courage except for another silenced voice.

THE ROLE OF CONFLICT IN “BLUE WINDS DANCING”

In the story, “Blue Winds Dancing,” by Tom Whitecloud, the plot is driven by the conflict the narrator faces. This conflict is both internal and external as the narrator searches for his identity and copes with society, respectively. Moreover, the conflict is rooted in the narrator’s opposing views of the two cultures to which he belongs. Therefore, only by a reconciliation of these views will that the narrator finally resolve his conflict.
At the beginning of the story, the narrator presents his views about life. He describes the peace that he feels when he is back home in Wisconsin. However, he also mentions how such peace is completely lost in the everyday life of a big city. It is evident that the narrator has been educated and has lived in a big city for a long time, at least long enough to judge the quality of life in such an environment. The narrator expresses dissatisfaction with society, especially “white” society. He bluntly states: “I am tired. I am weary of trying to keep up this bluff of being civilized. Being civilized means trying to do everything you don’t want to, never doing anything you want to.” He makes a clear contrast between white society and Native American society. Clearly, the narrator feels as if he is not fit for white society; after all, he is a Native American. It is this discontent with his present environment and his present place in society that creates the conflict facing the narrator. More simply put, the narrator is in search of an identity. Consequently, the narrator takes a radical decision. In a desperate attempt to find his true identity, the narrator decides to go back to Wisconsin. He is filled with joy as he sees all of the places on the way to Wisconsin. He remembers every town and every stop. Furthermore, he admires the natural beauty that fills the scenery. The narrator’s love of nature and nonconformity with white society both serve to build the idea that the narrator is, in fact, in touch with his Native American roots. He seems to agree with most of his culture’s philosophies and beliefs. Indeed, when the narrator is on his way home is the transition from white society, in which the narrator does not feel comfortable, to his Native American society, which he was born into but eventually left.
Notwithstanding, the narrator is hesitant and anxious about going back home. Especially because he is a young man, he feels as if he does not fit into Native American society either. The narrator says: “We [young Indians] just don’t seem to fit in anywhere, certainly not among the whites, and not among the older people.” Additionally, the narrator says: “Suddenly, I am afraid… afraid of what my father will say, afraid of being looked on as a stranger by my own people.” Naturally, the narrator feels the pressure of being a minority. At first, he wants to be like everyone else, to be a part of white society. Then, he realizes that such society is not what he imagines it to be. As a result, he wants to reconcile with his roots, this time appreciating them as his own. Nevertheless, the narrator is afraid of what his father and his society will say, especially after he had left them to enter white society. However, both his father and his society take him in as if nothing had happened. Only by experiencing white society does the narrator come to appreciate the richness of his own society. Therefore, he becomes determined to take back what he has lost. At the end of the story, no one has to tell him or to show him anything; the narrator himself realizes that he truly is a Native American. He finally accepts his culture. Indeed, the narrator has gone through a moral reconciliation that not only reunites him with his roots, but also reconciles his roots with the new life he is about to begin.
In conclusion, the narrator faces an inner conflict with his lack of identity and an outer conflict with society. Although he is afraid, the narrator decides to go back home to reclaim his true identity, the identity he lost when he left his home. By finally asserting that indeed he is a Native American, the narrator accomplishes the purpose of his trip and, more importantly, resolves the conflict that has been tearing him apart for too long.

THE CONFLICT OF PHOENIX IN “A WORN PATH”

In the story “A Worn Path,” by Eudora Welty, Phoenix, the main character, makes a journey to the city in order to obtain medicine for her grandson. Although at first this journey seems simple, it becomes evident as the story progresses that Phoenix faces several challenges, such as her age, her socioeconomic standing, and her occasional lack purpose, all of which will serve to form the conflict she faces during the story.
From the beginning of the story, the setting is described as being harsh; country terrain in the middle of a cold December make up the path Phoenix must follow. In this way, the name of the story accurately describes the physical aspect of the path. Moreover, the path is seen as arduous even by the hunter, a young man who is supposedly full of life and energy. When Phoenix tells the hunter she is going to the city, he emphatically responds: “Why, that’s too far! That’s as far as I walk when I come out myself…” Therefore, it is clear that Phoenix’s old age plays a crucial role in her journey. She occasionally has to stop to rest, and she usually prepares for the inclines of the path, since she already knows their locations. Nevertheless, Phoenix is a strong woman, and she is determined not to let her age affect her progress; she is intent on getting to the city, even though she sometimes forgets for what reason.
Additionally, Phoenix has to deal with her current socioeconomic status throughout the story. This factor is especially important because, if Phoenix was neither African-American nor poor, the entire story would not have occurred; she would have been able to obtain the medicine in a more practical way. Her socioeconomic status presents itself as an impediment when Phoenix encounters the hunter. He tells her she should not be going to the city. He questions her, but Phoenix’s ignorance and lack of focus do not allow her to pay attention. While in the building, Phoenix receives harsh treatment from the nurse, someone who ironically is supposed to help people. The nurse talks to her, but senses Phoenix’s detachment. Again, Phoenix is offered money, this time by the nurse. It is this attitude by white, middle class people that do not allow Phoenix to advance. Although Phoenix receives what she wants, she does not receive what she deserves. Instead, she is offered small talk and some money as if those were all she really needed. People expect her to take their charity, to leave, and not to come back for a while. Thus, Phoenix’s socioeconomic status deems her excluded from an opportunity for more helpful aid that could be given to her in many other ways rather than in money.
Perhaps what is most mystifying about Phoenix and what becomes the main motivator of the conflict in this story is Phoenix’s lack of purpose during some critical times. Throughout her journey, Phoenix has to remember why she is doing what she is doing. Occasionally, she enters a state in which she dwells in her own reality and completely disconnects herself from the rest of the world. For instance, when she sat under a tree to rest “…a little boy brought her a plate with a slice of marble-cake on it she spoke to him. ‘That would be acceptable,’ she said. But when she went to take it there was just her own hand in the air.” Also, when she was waiting for the medicine in the building “…the old woman waited, silent, erect, and motionless, just as if she were in armor… at last there came a flicker and then a flame of comprehension across her face, and she spoke, ‘…it was my memory had left me. There I sat and forgot why I made my long trip.’” Indeed, Phoenix, whether intentionally or not, occasionally enters memory lapses that threaten to deter her progress completely.
In conclusion, Phoenix undertakes a challenging task during this story, the very same task that becomes the conflict she faces. Several factors work against Phoenix as she tries to overcome her conflict. Her age makes it more difficult for Phoenix to travel the long path. Her socioeconomic status does not allow her to receive the aid she truly needs. And, finally, her mental transitions cloud the way she will act next. Notwithstanding, Phoenix overcomes her conflict and obtains the medicine for her grandson.

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF MAGGIE AND DEE IN “EVERYDAY USE”

In the story “Everyday Use,” by Alice Walker, the plot is greatly influenced by Maggie and Dee, the two daughters of the narrator. Although they are sisters and are raised in the same environment, Maggie and Dee are very different from each other; they think and act distinctly. Moreover, their conflicting characters serve as symbols to convey the overall theme of the story.
From the beginning, the narrator reveals the differences in the characters of Maggie and Dee. Therefore, it is very difficult to pinpoint similarities between the two. Notwithstanding, one similarity between the two daughters is that they both want to make their mother proud. Also, they both now appreciate their background and their roots and want to hold on to them. Apart from these similarities, it is hard to uncover any likeness between these two sisters. Clearly each sister is not representative of the other one.
As the story unfolds, the differences between Maggie and Dee mount up. Although they both want to make their mother proud and are now appreciative of their background, they both have a different approach to each. Maggie accepts her future; she knows she will marry John Thomas and live in a humble setting. On the contrary, Dee wants to get an education, to make a good living, and to rise to a position better than the one of her birth. Maggie submerges herself in her background; she lives with her mother and learns the traditions of her ancestors, such as quilting. Dee learns about her roots through roots and sees them with a detached form of admiration. In fact, she is so detached from her roots that she feels the need to change her name to “Wangero”, a name derived from a heritage other than her own. Perhaps Dee feels ashamed of her former name, feels she deserves a better name, or just wants to experience something else. She appreciates her roots, but she does not sense them within her. Such differences in thought and action can be accredited to the different personalities of the two girls. Maggie is shy and quiet. She will not fight or cause trouble; therefore, she can be labeled as a conformist. On the other hand, Dee is very extroverted and curious. She wants to excel in everything and experience different things; therefore, she can be labeled as a non-conformist. Indeed, Maggie and Dee have different characters and hold opposing views, mostly because of their different personalities.
Holding a clear distinction between Maggie and Dee, the narrator appreciates each girl’s strengths and weaknesses. The narrator feels very strongly about the two because each daughter represents a part of the narrator. Although the narrator can be more easily identified with Maggie, the character of Dee lives within the narrator. It lives in the form of the dreams and aspirations the narrator once has, which now belongs to Dee. The narrator is happy that her daughter has succeeded because it means the narrator has also succeeded. However, in the instance of the quilts, the narrator is forced to back Maggie. Dee’s attack upon Maggie is an attack upon the narrator, too. Dee’s questioning of Maggie’s use of the quilts goes back to the elemental difference between the two sisters. By Maggie’s putting the quilts to everyday use, she will be submerging herself in her roots. Dee will just hang the quilts somewhere to decorate a space. She will see them and share them with anyone else that sees them, but she will never experience them fully. Because the narrator feels attacked by Dee, a part of the narrator’s own self, the narrator defends her other self, or Maggie. It is a personal conflict that the narrator has probably experienced before internally, but now this conflict surfaces between her two daughters. Still, the narrator accepts the differences between Maggie and Dee because both girls are deviations of the same strong woman they can eventually become.
In conclusion, the characters of Maggie and Dee show more differences than they do similarities. Even the beliefs and the desires they hold in common are expressed and executed differently. Although such differences in character can serve to create conflict, they can also serve to demonstrate both Maggie and Dee’s drive to achieve their dreams.

USE OF IRONY AND SOCIAL SATIRE IN “AN OLD-FASHIONED STORY”

Laurie Colwin’s “An Old-Fashioned Story” is a work that deals with high society’s misconceptions. From the beginning of the story, the Rodkers and the Leopolds display a unique view regarding the upbringing of their children and the expectations they have for them. Naturally, these parents think that their expectations will be met without questioning; after all, their children have everything they can possibly need to succeed. However, the author brilliantly uses elements of irony and social satire to gradually reveal that both Nelson and Elizabeth will surely take their own path, instead of the ones that has been planned out for them.
From the beginning, it is clear that Nelson and Elizabeth are under great pressure to succeed. At the same time, however, there is a tremendous contrast in the responses of Nelson and Elizabeth to such pressure. On one hand, Nelson excels at almost everything he does. He portrays that perfect child whom any parent would be glad to call his or her son. On the other hand, Elizabeth is a rebel who is not willing to conform to the standards set by her parents, especially her forced visits with Nelson. As the story progresses, Elizabeth becomes very wild and does things that are scorned by the people of her social standing. The way in which Elizabeth’s shocking behavior is revealed establishes social satire in the story. It is amusing, and sometimes outright funny, to see the way Elizabeth’s mother reacts to some of her daughter’s thoughts and actions. However, there is not much Mrs. Leopold can do to curb her daughter’s rebellion. An even more amusing use of social satire comes when Nelson’s real character is revealed at the end of the story. Until that time, Nelson is perceived as a virtuous young man who does nothing but listen to his parents. No one could have foreseen what would come next. Nelson’s confession in his own words: “I am most certainly not my family. I don’t like my family and I never have. My family is silly, stuffy, and rigid. You’re not the only one who behaved yourself and got out fast. What do you think I am?” It is one thing to see Elizabeth take a path of independence and free thought, but seeing Nelson reveal that he too has always been at odds with his family is truly shocking. Indeed, Nelson and Elizabeth’s confessions about their views throughout the story are perfect examples of social satire, which, in this case deals, with the abnormities of high class youth.
Along with social satire, Laurie Colwin also uses irony beautifully in her story. It is clear from the beginning of the story that the Rodkers and the Leopolds have many plans for their children; however, the most important one is that their children will one day marry each other. Therefore, they frequently bring Nelson and Elizabeth together so that a strong bond should develop between the two. Nevertheless, this plan backfires because Elizabeth ends up hating Nelson. “He [Nelson] was a nice-looking, somewhat expressionless boy whom Elizabeth found more and more repulsive… [Elizabeth] found his posture disgusting as well.” Clearly, Elizabeth wants nothing to do with Nelson; and, apart from occasional meetings to dinner, Elizabeth does not have contact with Nelson. So, as the story progresses, not much thought is put into an eventual relationship between the two. Notwithstanding, Elizabeth and Nelson eventually discover that they love each other and end up together. Indeed, the use of irony in this story serves as a thrill-builder because it is revealed only at the end of the story, thus compelling the reader to try and come up with possible endings to the story.
In conclusion, the use of social satire and irony in this story is evident. Both elements create a sense of uncertainty about Elizabeth and Nelson’s character because they make those characters seem unpredictable. Moreover, these elements create uncertainty about the overall plot of the story. Most of the events that happen in the story are not predictable, because of the altering characters of Elizabeth and Nelson, the main characters of the story. It is through irony and social satire, both continually present in the story, that “An Old-Fashioned Story” is truly an unpredictable work.

ADMIRABILITY OF THE WIDOW IN “THE WIDOW OF EPHESUS”

In the story “The Widow of Ephesus”, by Gaius Petronius, Encolpius, the narrator, presents two very strong, yet different characters. The first character is Eumolpus, a poet and a storyteller with a deep scorn for all women. The second character is the widow of Ephesus, the main character in the story: between these two characters, the widow of Ephesus is far more admirable because she portrays every quality Eumolpus assures no woman possesses.
In order to understand the widow of Ephesus, it is necessary to examine the character of Eumolpus. After all, it is through Eumolpus’s story and the way he tells it that the widow comes to life. In the beginning of the story Encolpius narrates, he first tells of the state of Eumolpus by saying “[Eumolpus] who was drinking too much wine, decided to amuse us with a few stories.” Eumolpus begins by revealing his low opinion of women. Additionally, Eumolpus criticizes women’s weakness towards seduction. He clarifies that such weakness is not his mere assumption, but that, in fact, he has experienced such firsthand. As Encolpius says, “…he himself had actually seen what he was talking about, and he offered to tell us a true story in illustration.” Because of this resentment, Eumolpus has manipulated the plot of the story he tells in order to prove his point about women. Moreover, it might even be possible that Eumolpus has made up the entire story. Indeed, Eumolpus does not have the sanity to produce words or actions that are worthy of admiration or credibility, especially when he is drunk.
Unlike the person that tells her story, the widow of Ephesus is a virtuous woman who has always tried to live up to the expectations of society. In the beginning of her story, she is a good wife and has a successful marriage. When her husband dies, the widow mourns him almost to the point of death. Her deep-felt mourning is especially meaningful because not every woman will near the point of death in their sorrow. Truly, the widow has done more than what was expected of her; she has been a good wife to her husband and now she is his main mourner. Even the townspeople implore her to discontinue her mourning and to continue with her life, especially since she is a beautiful woman who could easily find love again. Having mourned more than any ordinary woman would have, the widow finally gives in to her human instinct and seeks companionship, both physical and emotional. Thus, the widow fulfills her mourning cycle by finally finding someone who will replace whom she has lost. Moreover, she has fulfilled herself as a strong woman capable of coping with loss and finding a way to keep living her life. The widow has both the right and the necessity to continue living. With such powerful display of character, the widow of Ephesus disproves Eumolpus’s criticisms of women and becomes a woman worthy of admiration.
In conclusion, the characters of Eumolpus and the widow of Ephesus are very different. Eumolpus sees the actions of the widow as proof of his low opinion of women. However, Eumolpus’s opinion of women is biased by his own bad experiences. Therefore, Eumolpus only sees what he wants to see; he does not see the courage and the strength of character of the widow. On the contrary, the widow is a pure person that has lived up to all spousal expectations, even exceeding them. While Eumolpus’s evident character deems him untrustworthy, he does manage to tell the story of a woman truly worthy of admiration.

CONTEXTUAL SYMBOLISM IN “THE CHRYSANTHEMUMS”

In the story, “The Chrysanthemums,” by John Steinbeck, there are several contextual symbols which serve to enhance the overall theme of the story: life’s struggles in rural America. These struggles are often hidden from others, as seen from the experiences and feelings of the character Elisa Allen. Therefore, these symbols represent the aspirations and the frustrations of Elisa; and they help to convey the opinions of the author regarding farm life.
Initially, the reader is introduced to Elisa Allen while she is tending her garden of chrysanthemums. She is hard at work, and clearly she has a natural talent for growing these flowers. The work she puts into these flowers demonstrates the value of the flowers to Elisa. Then, her husbands comes over to her and comments on the flowers. The story reads: “‘At it again…you’ve got a gift with things,’ Henry observed. ‘Some of those yellow chrysanthemums you had these years were ten inches across. I’d wish you’d work out in the orchard and raise some apples that big.’” Evidently, Henry does not care too much for Elisa’s growing of flowers. He believes that Elisa’s work could be better put to use in other areas of the farm; after all, farm life requires a substantial amount of work. However, he does not realize why Elisa grows the flowers; and he cannot be blamed for this lack of understanding because Elisa does not show clear signs of her motives. In reality, Elisa considers the chrysanthemums as representative of her aspirations in life. She desires to be a strong, beautiful woman. Nevertheless, Elisa feels tied down by her farm life and by her husband. Although she does not blame her husband for her hidden misery, she knows that being with him is part of the problem. Therefore, Elisa continues to grow her flowers in spite of her husband and the work that has to be done around the farm. She prefers to let her other work pile up, causing her to have to work more later, but she will never give up growing the flowers. Elisa knows that, if she stops growing the flowers, she will effectively give up on those elements the flowers represent for her, her aspirations and her dreams.
Moreover, the chrysanthemums symbolize Elisa herself. When her husband leaves and the man in the wagon arrives, Elisa is very cold and apprehensive toward the man. She insists several times that she does not have anything for the man to fix. However, her attitude completely changes when the man mentions the chrysanthemums. He notes that they are very rare and that he would like to take some flowers, if possible. The story says: “‘Why yes you can,’ Elisa cried... Her eyes shone. She tore off the battered hat and shook out her dark pretty hair. ‘I’ll put them [the flowers] in a flower pot, and you can take them right with you. Come into the yard.’” This change in attitude demonstrates how important the flowers are to Elisa. In her view, the man’s acknowledgement of the flowers symbolize that, for once, someone has finally noticed her, her beauty, and her hard work. Moreover, the man wants to take some of the flowers, symbolizing that the man deems Elisa’s essence worthy of being taken to other places. Such a gesture delights Elisa and drives her to invite the man into the farm and to look for pots that he can fix. Indeed, the flowers hold a very important place within Elisa because they represent Elisa herself, with all of her dreams, aspirations, and frustrations.
Additionally, there are other contextual symbols which serve to support the symbolic power of the chrysanthemums; the clothes worn by the characters are one such symbol. When the story begins, both Henry and Elisa are dressed in farm clothes. These clothes are worn out because they are used for hard labor in the farm. They symbolize the burden Elisa feels. As already mentioned, she takes off her farming hat to reveal her beautiful hair, as if the hat were hiding her true self. When Henry and Elisa are going to the city, they bathe and put on their best attire. On their way, Elisa sees the wagon on the road. She does not look at the man. However, she knows that the man holds her true essence in the form of the flowers she had given him. When talking to her husband, she is saddened by the fact that it is a complete stranger who knows who really is, instead, of her husband. The story ends saying: “‘It will be enough if we have wine. It will be plenty.’ She turned up her coat collar so he could not see that she was crying.’” Indeed, the ending of the story reveals the true frustrations of Elisa with her life and asserts the author’s idea of farm life being one filled with frustration, misery, and sense of worthlessness.
In conclusion, this story contains some very powerful contextual symbols. Reflective of the title, the most important symbol are the chrysanthemums, representative of Elisa’s true persona. Complementing the chrysanthemums are the clothes of the characters, symbolic of the burdening effect farm life has on Elisa. In agreement with the author’s opinions of farm life, these symbols function to convey the hardships experienced by individuals on farms.

THE CONFLICT IN “YOUNG GOODMAN BROWN”

In the story, “Young Goodman Brown,” by Nathaniel Hawthorne, the character of Goodman Brown is faced with a tearing conflict. Living in Puritan society, he is on his way to participate in a satanic ritual. From the decision he makes and the actions he performs, Goodman Brown reveals the true essence of his character, asserting himself as a loyal subject of Puritan beliefs.
From the beginning of the story, Goodman Brown is very apprehensive about attending the ritual. However, he continues to walk toward the ritual site. Brown is driven by the words of the man with the staff. By the end of the story, it is clear that this man is the devil himself. A clear sign of the man’s identity comes when Brown notes the appearance of the man’s staff as resembling a serpent, a staff which the man offers to Brown several times, clearly as a means of temptation. The story reads: “‘Come, Goodman Brown!’ cried his fellow-traveler, ‘this is a dull pace for the beginning of a journey. Take my staff, if you are so soon weary.’” It is almost as if the evil within the staff will facilitate Brown with the strength to attend the ritual by counteracting the goodness within him. From Biblical records, the serpent is the embodiment of evil and the main tool used by the devil to tempt the first humans. Brown is being tempted by the devil to attend the ritual. Therefore, an element of the conflict is the man vs. man conflict between Brown and the devil. Brown knows that what he is about to do is wrong, but the devil maintains that the ceremony is not as evil as Brown thinks. Indeed, the main element of the conflict of the story is the one provoked by the man, or the devil, who is urging Brown to attend the ritual.
Additionally, the conflict also contains another element of man vs. man and man vs. society; Goodman Brown is torn because he knows that by attending the ritual, he will betray both his wife and his society. In the beginning of the story, Brown is heartbroken about leaving his wife and about lying to her regarding his destination. Brown is afraid that, if he is discovered, his wife will leave him. This fear is especially symbolic since the name of Brown’s wife is “Faith.” Symbolically, Brown is abandoning his “faith” to attend a satanic ritual. Brown is also worried about the shame he is bringing to his family by engaging in the ritual. However, the devil tells him: “I [the devil] have been as well acquainted with your family… they [Brown’s grandfather and father] were my good friends, both; and many a pleasant walk have we had along this path.” Moreover, Brown is betraying his society, a society that is known for its strict doctrines regarding “witchcraft.” Therefore, Brown is also conscious of the effects his actions will have on others, a sentiment which tears Brown and contributes to the conflict facing him.
Nevertheless, the bulk of the worry which Brown has becomes a man vs. himself conflict which nearly overwhelms Brown. After all, it is inside Brown’s mind where the conflict is taking place. Brown knows that he is better than what he is about to do. Even Brown’s name of reference, Goodman, is symbolic of the nature of Brown. In essence, he is a good man. Brown knows of his inherent goodness, but it is not until he is in the midst of committing the sin that Brown acts upon his goodness and decides to not have any part in the ritual. Truly, the most difficult element of the conflict is within Brown and it is up to him to decide which path he will take.
In conclusion, the conflict in this story has several facets. It takes on the form of man vs. man or man vs. society when Brown is tempted by the devil and when he thinks about his family and his wife or when he thinks about his society, respectively. Although the story carries a twist when Brown discovers that other citizens and his own wife are also partaking in the ritual, this discovery, instead of encouraging Brown to participate, serves as the deciding factor which drives Brown to decide not to participate in the ritual. In the end, Brown resolves his conflict by deciding not to take part in the ritual, an act symbolic of Brown’s resistance to temptation and the revelation of his existent goodness.

THE USE OF RITE OF PASSAGE IN “THE FOUND BOAT”

In the story, “The Found Boat,” by Alice Munro, Eva, one of the main characters, experiences a rite of passage by the end of the story. This rite of passage can be more easily identified as growing up, which is, in essence, what Eva experiences. However, such process occurs during a prolonged period of time and it culminates with the children’s epiphany at the end of their journey to the station.
In the beginning of the story, the girls almost completely ignore the boys as they make their way to the lake. However, the girls seem to secretly enjoy the boys, especially how the boys treat them. When the girls spot the boat, they tell the boys, guessing that the boys will dismiss their claim and make fun of them. But the story reads differently: “What surprised them [the girls] in the first place was that the boys really did come.” As time passes and the children spend most of their time together repairing the boat, the bonds between them grow stronger. Essentially, the girls create a connection with the boys by discovering the boat. The boat becomes a uniting factor between the children for they all feel as if each owns a little piece of the boat. If it had not been for the boat and the connection it creates between the children, the environment necessary for Eva to undergo her rite of passage would never have occurred because she would not have had sufficient contact with Clayton, who at this point Eva clearly likes. The biggest clue to Eva’s attraction to Clayton comes when Eva enters the kitchen and engages Clayton’s mother. The story says: “…Eva, who had been brought up to talk politely to parents, even wash-and-iron ladies, and who for some reason especially wanted to make a good impression on Clayton’s mother.” Indeed, Eva comes to realize she likes Clayton, the first step in her rite of passage.
Eventually, the day all of the children are waiting for comes, the day to use the boat. The children go down river and get to the station. Once there, they begin to play Truth or Dare. Then, Frank dares all to take off all their clothes. This dare is a curious dare because its execution requires a sense of maturity. Everyone sits quietly until, not surprisingly enough, Eva accepts the dare for everyone by asking “what first.” By taking the initiative to perform the dare, Eva demonstrates that she has changed. Whereas Carol is very apprehensive, Eva is relaxed and determined to do what she feels is natural. As the children run about naked on the river bank, they portray their newfound freedom. They have cast off their clothes, a symbol of repression, and have begun to live life as they want to, not as their parents do, at least for a small period of time. The story says: “They [the children] felt as if they were going to jump off a cliff and fly. They felt that something was happening to them different from anything that had happened before, and it had to do with the boat, the water, the sunlight, the dark ruined station, and each other.” In that amount of time, they experience firsthand what it means to be free, all thanks to Eva.
Nevertheless, not all rites of passage lead to pleasant experiences, and this story is no exception. For Eva, her rite of passage comes with an unpleasant, perhaps even heartbreaking, experience. While in the lake, Eva and Clayton meet face to face. The story says: “Eva did not turn or try to hide; she was quivering from the cold of the water, but also with pride, shame, boldness, and exhilaration.” For Eva, this is the moment she has been waiting for, a moment to engage Clayton and to see what he will do. However, Clayton is still caught up in his boyhood and spits water at Eva, an action expected from a child. For Eva, Clayton’s gesture is both humiliating and shattering, but it is also the catalyst of Eva’s rite of passage. As the boys leave, Carroll approaches Eva and asks her what Clayton had done. Eva answers “nothing.” From this response, it is evident Eva has undergone a rite of passage. She now has the maturity to accept reality and to cope with what has happened. She also understands that Clayton is still a child and that she cannot expect much more from him. Therefore, Eva considers Clayton’s action nothing, a judgment which reflects Eva’s new reasoning.
In conclusion, the use of rite of passage in this story is ingenious. By having one character experience a rite of passage while others do not, the author reflects the realities and the complexities of life. Nevertheless, the author simplifies the basic idea of rite of passage by having it occur to a young adult. Although Eva is disillusioned by Clayton, she can celebrate her newfound outlook on life and her new understanding of the world and its functions. For now, Eva will just have to wait for Clayton. Indeed, Eva knows that just as she has had her rite of passage, so too will Clayton.

THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT IN “SOLDIER’S HOME”

In the story, “Soldier’s Home,” by Ernest Hemingway, Harold, the protagonist, is faced with a conflict which is both self-inflicted and brought upon by circumstances of life. The nature of the conflict is simple: Harold’s inability to adjust to post-war life. Although the protagonist attempts to deal with this conflict, it is evident that he is not trying very hard. In the end, the protagonist is forced to cope with reality and to face the conflict, a conflict that proves beneficial to the protagonist.
Initially, the returning veteran Harold is introduced to the reader in a pitiful mood. The story reads: “By the time Krebs [Harold] returned to his home town in Oklahoma the greeting of heroes was over.” Evidently, Harold is frustrated because he had not gotten to partake in the admiration enjoyed by the soldiers that had returned as soon as the war was over. Because of the outcome of the war, many Americans came to view the war with disgust and did not mind to talk about it anymore. Moreover, the United States was entering a new era, the Roaring Twenties, which would come to be characterized by the abandonment of foreign ideas and involvements and the attention paid to everything American. All of these behaviors came just years after President Woodrow Wilson had pronounced that “the world must be made safe for democracy,” and the American troops had been proclaimed “liberators.” Therefore, Harold feels let down, perhaps even betrayed, by the country that sent him to what could have been his death. Harold comes to believe that he is still owed for the sacrifice he has made, but he does not know neither who or what owes him nor what he is owed, an uncertainty which helps trigger the conflict.
Consequently, Harold begins to remember his days in Europe and hopes that he could still be there, a clear sign that Harold does not want to accept reality. Europe, Harold believes, had offered him everything he wanted. However, this view is not correct. What Harold really misses is the pampering and the good life he had enjoyed in the army. A soldier, because of the tremendous sacrifice that is asked of him, is treated very well, especially when he or she is on the winning side. Harold received food, clothing, and shelter from the army. Also, Harold enjoyed the status given to him as a soldier. People respected him and girls were very interested in him. When Harold is back home, he admires the girls of his town. Yet, he does not try to engage any of them because he says it takes too much work. In reality, Harold has just become accustomed to having everything without much effort, including women. Harold’s feelings are perfectly described when the story says: “That was the thing about French girls and German girls. There was not all this talking. You couldn’t talk much and you did not need to talk. He thought about France and then he began to think about Germany…He did not want to leave Germany. He did not want to come home. Still, he had come home.” By attempting to live a fantasy, Harold is demonstrating just how out of touch with reality he really is.
Nevertheless, the major element of the nature of the conflict in this story is not related to the war or to Harold’s service; instead, it is the stage that Harold is going through in his life that is making living so hard for him. In essence, Harold is becoming adjusted to being a man, a transition which occurred abruptly during the war. This transition would have been a lot smoother if Harold had stayed home. However, he goes to war as a teenager with no responsibilities and comes back home considered a man. Poor Harold is left without any guidance, and he is expected to engage in the responsibilities of adulthood. Such difficult and abrupt transition conducts Harold into a state of detachment from any responsibilities. It is not until his mother confronts him that Harold is obligated to come back to reality and to face the fact that he is an adult now and that he has to take care of himself. His mother tells him: “…you have lost your ambition, that you haven’t got a definite aim in life.” Eventually, Harold accepts responsibility, though not willingly, and embarks on a new phase of his life.
In conclusion, the nature of the conflict in this story stems from Harold himself and from the situation he has experienced. Harold’s sense of betrayal by his country and people and his disregard to responsibility can be somewhat attributed to the fact that Harold is a returning veteran. Feeling out of place, he’s shell-shocked and enters an almost trance-like state. However, it is the stage through which Harold is going through which has the greatest impact on the conflict in this story. Although the conflict is resolved in the end of the story, the elements that caused it to develop are not.

THE CONFLICT IN “MISS BRILL”

In the story, “Miss Brill,” by Katherine Mansfield, the narrator is a peculiar and a strange character. She lives a simple life, yet she believes she is in a complex world and that she plays a role in that world. Nevertheless, this illusion exists only in the mind of the narrator. Therefore, it is the narrator’s detachment with reality that creates the conflict in this story.
Initially, the narrator introduces the reader to the elegant environment around her. The park is described as being just right, the perfect place to enjoy a Sunday afternoon. She comments on her fur coat, which she is glad she brought. The story reads: “Miss Brill was glad that she had decided on her fur…She had taken it out of its box that afternoon, shaken out the moth-powder, given it a good brush, and rubbed the life back into its dim little eyes.” The comment about the eyes is very important, especially because she views the fur as being a living being. She looks at the fur’s eyes and talks to it. The fur has come to represent the main or, perhaps, the only contact Miss Brill has with another living being. The fur acts as a companion on Miss Brill’s journey to the park every Sunday. Moreover, the fur helps to maintain Miss Brill’s detachment with reality because of the role it plays both in the life of Miss Brill.
Additionally, Miss Brill makes a statement regarding the park and what happens in it that further helps to understand her lack of touch with reality. Miss Brill comes to assert that all that is happening in the park is like a play. The story says: “It was like a play. It was exactly like a play. They [everyone in the park, including Miss Brill] were all on the stage. They weren’t only the audience, not only looking on; they were acting.” From this quote, it is clear that Miss Brill’s life has become a reoccurring sequence of events, much like a play. Although several events occur during a play, the play is still confined to its plot. Eventually the play ends, and the only way to experience it again is by repeating it. Moreover, Miss Brill is an actress in her play, the main character of her life, but not of the world. She does not give herself a dominant role; instead, she only mentions that her role is only on Sundays. However, she hopes that the fact that she is part of the play, and therefore an actress, will help her upgrade her status among others. The narrator mentions how an old invalid gentleman to whom she reads the newspaper four afternoons a week would recognize her as an actress of the play and would offer her his praise. Indeed, Miss Brill herself has accurately identified what her life resembles: a repeating play; the irony is that she connects such play to the entire world.
Notwithstanding, Miss Brill’s play contains a tragic ending. As she is happily sitting on the bench and watching the people in the park, she overhears a young man saying: “Why does she [Miss Brill] come here at all. Who wants her? Why doesn’t she keep her silly old mug at home?” The words of the young man shatter Miss Brill’s character. After that incident, Miss Brill does the unthinkable. She breaks the routine that she has been doing for long time. This single action puts into perspective the impact that comment had on her. The play which Miss Brill has just envisioned has completely changed. In a way, Miss Brill has left one play for another, more depressing play. Moreover, the comment made by the man directly solves the conflict of the story. For the first time, Miss Brill realizes that she is alone and that no one wants to be with her.
In conclusion, the conflict of this story is Miss Brill’s lack of touch with reality. Miss Brill, as she herself says, is part of a play. What she does not realize is that the play she refers to is her life and that she is the only person in that play. When the man makes the comment, Miss Brill is brought back to reality. She finally realizes that her play is a one-person performance. In the end, Miss Brill resolves her conflict, but, at the same time, she is forced to face the true nature of her reality: loneliness.

POINT OF VIEW IN “THE LOTTERY”

In the story, “The Lottery,” by Shirley Jackson, the only point of view used by the author is the dramatic or objective point of view. In this point of view, the narrator is an unidentified speaker who reports things in great detail, even though the narrator does not play a role in the story. By using such point of view, Jackson builds an aura of uncertainty that endures until the dramatic ending of the story.
From the beginning of the story, the knowledge about the lottery is revealed only by the characters themselves. The characters do not mention the details of the lottery; most of them just express their dislike for it, especially because they have to stop what they are doing to participate in the lottery. As the story progresses, not much changes regarding the knowledge about the lottery. People are waiting for their turn to draw from the black box. The state of uncertainty created by the lack of knowledge about the lottery is truly the main driver of the action. It is almost irritating not to know where the story is going. Yet, one wants to keep reading to eventually figure out what the lottery really is. Because there is a certainty that the end will bring the answers to all of the questions formulated throughout the story, one is inclined to submerge oneself deeper into the story and to try to figure out what will eventually happen.
Therefore, it is predictable that an important ending will occur, which will bring with it an event that will clear up the entire story. Jackson accomplishes both objectives by giving the reader with a twist that not everyone would have expected. What at first seems to be a boring and simple tradition quickly transforms into an act of savagery. When the crowd stones Mrs. Hutchinson, it is almost as if all of the possible ideas about the lottery that one has imagined up to that point are violently struck down. Moreover, the end of this story is dramatic because it goes against the common belief of the peace and order experienced in a small village. In an environment ideal for creating a stable society, the reader gets a completely different picture, one of mob brutality and lack of lawfulness, a picture that is sure to inspire new opinions from the reader.
Nevertheless, at the same time that the dramatic ending destroys any assertions about the lottery and its participants, the ending also serves to promote conclusions that reflect the new views of the reader regarding both the lottery and the people in it. By only presenting actions and words, the dramatic point of view in the story sets the perfect scenario for the reader to make his or her own conclusions. Although the narrator never says anything that will influence such conclusions, it is evident that these conclusions will reflect specific ideas. For example, when responding to the fact that other villages do not perform the lottery anymore, Old Man Warner bluntly states: “Pack of crazy fools. Listening to the young folks, nothing’s good enough for them. Next thing you know, they’ll be wanting to go back to living in caves, nobody work any more, live that way for a while.” From this quote, two conclusions can be made: that there is a clear struggle of opinions between the old and the young of the village, and that some villagers have a different interpretation of what it means to be civilized. However, the main conclusion that one can come up with is that the people of this village do not act normal, at least on the day of the lottery, when compared to the prevalent Western beliefs of civilized behavior.
In conclusion, the point of view in this story is what makes it a captivating and almost obsessing tale. By not knowing all of the implications of this lottery, the reader is left without any tangible facts from which to predict what will happen next. It is only until the truly dramatic ending of the story that one realizes what kind of environment one has been dealing with the entire time. But the effects of the dramatic point of view do not end with the ending of the story; after finishing the story, one unconsciously finds oneself formulating conclusions about the story, with the hope that such conclusions will help put the story into a clearer perspective.

NATURE OF THE SWEDE’S PROBLEM IN “THE BLUE HOTEL”

In the story “The Blue Hotel,” by Stephen Crane, there is a great mystery that surrounds the character of the Swede. The way in which the Swede talks and acts is very peculiar. Although the other characters in the story try to interpret the Swede’s behavior, it is evident that their attempts are meaningless. The Swede’s problem is far more complex than anyone imagines, and it can be accredited to several skewed ideas the Swede holds.
Initially, the care and the apprehension with which the Swede carries himself is apparent. It is as if he were afraid of the environment he is in. He can only guess what will happen next. This peculiar way of expecting the worst is easily explained. The Swede happens to hold an outdated idea of the West. Since he is a foreigner, he has probably heard the stories of the so-called “Wild West.” He believes that the West is a haven for lawlessness, chaos, and vice. Therefore, he is always in constant watch for something to happen suddenly, such as a fight or a shootout. Because the Swede is always on the lookout for danger, his behavior merits the suspicion of the characters around him.
Consequently, the Swede wants to portray an image of being tough. At the same time that he is cautious, he wants to participate in everything and be a center of attention. A perfect example of his boasting is when he says to Johnnie “I suppose there have been a good many men killed in this room.” Clearly, the Swede is out of touch with reality and is making a futile attempt at appearing tough. His words backfire, for Johnnie reacts violently to the statement and the Swede begins to fear for his life, shouting “these men are going to kill me.” In the end, the true fearful nature of the Swede is revealed to all of the characters. Notwithstanding, the humiliated Swede is determined to look for other ways to show his true toughness.
As a result of his embarrassing display of fear, the Swede decides to engage in a conflict that will let him show everyone what kind of man he really is. The perfect opportunity comes when the Swede catches Johnnie cheating during their card game. Immediately, the Swede jumps up and confronts Johnny, who acts offended by the allegations. The quarrel between the two men ultimately leads to a physical fight between the two, outside of the hotel and in the coldness of the night. After the gruesome struggle, the Swede emerges victorious. He immediately goes back into the hotel, gathers his things, and leaves the hotel. Such quick departure implies that the Swede’s job has been done. He has come the hotel, gotten into a fight with the toughest man, has beaten that man, and has therefore proven that he indeed is tougher than anyone there. Although that is not what the men in the hotel think, the Swede is convinced the men think he is tough. With this newfound “manliness,” the Swede feels invincible. When he confronts the men at the bar for not drinking with him, the Swede has no fear, because he believes that he is now the toughest man in the town. It is that bloated sense of toughness that leads the Swede to his death. If there is any remainder of the West the Swede envisioned, it exists in the form of the gambler the Swede is so unfortunate to disturb. The gambler does not put up with the Swede and ruthlessly kills him. Indeed, the toughness that would supposedly make the Swede intimidating and untouchable is the same toughness that ends up getting him killed.
In conclusion, there are many reasons for the Swede’s peculiar behavior. First, he has a wrong perception of the environment he is in. Also, he tries to act like someone with characteristics he really does not possess. Finally, his petty victory in the quarrel with Johnnie gives him a sense of toughness that eventually kills him, literally. Because he is not aware of the reality around him, the Swede ultimately ends up facing an unfortunate destiny that is sure to have happened to him eventually.