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.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)