Rachael Kerr
AP English 11
September 29,2009
Mr. Collins marriage proposal to Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice was completely wrong; his proposal contained inaccurate proportions of Pathos(emotion), Logos(logic), and Ethos (character).
Mr. Collins marriage proposal became more of an argument because of his unneeded amount of Logos. In his speech, he tried to convince Elizabeth to agree to marriage through more logistical thinking than his undying love for her. Although logic is not a bad thing, it just has no place in a marriage proposal, or at least not as the most of the words. In expressing himself, Mr. Collins made it seem as though this were a well-memorized paper, practiced in front of a mirror, not a heart-felt request: “My reasons for marrying are, first, that I think it a right thing for every clergyman…to set the example of matrimony…Secondly, …it will add greatly to my happiness…and thirdly…it is the particular advice and recommendation of the…patroness” (Austen). In this excerpt, he sounded as though he were convincing her of a business transaction, not a ring on her finger. He imparted way too much logic for such an emotional speech like a marriage proposal, and did not consider his own or his listener’s feelings.
In addition to overrun of Logos, Mr. Collins lacked a large part of a marriage proposal, which was Pathos. In his introduction, while it was weak, Mr. Collins did seem to be going down a better path compared to the rest of his argument. However, he stopped himself, and then inserted logic which became the crux of his monologue: “But before I am run away with my feelings on this subject, perhaps it will be advisable for me to state my reasons for marrying”(Austen). Again, his diction gives off an air of business, rather than affection. This lack of any emotion in his proposal made his speech so bland, and lifeless, that if one were to remove any word that directly denoted marriage (e.g. marry, marriage, bride, the complements), the entire text would be able to be substituted for a business proposal. There are many mistakes that Mr. Collins made in his marriage proposal, but in the end, they all link to inaccurate proportions of pathos, logos, and ethos.
Mr. Collins did not create a very good idea of the kind of person he was; he attempted, when he explained he was clergyman, but nothing else described him or his feelings. To write this better, Mr. Collins would need to get in touch with his feelings more, and less in touch with his brain. In actuality, if I were to rewrite it, I would first need to remove all traces of logos; unfortunately this is the majority of his speech, which would remove most of the text(which is not as bad as it sounds because Mr. Collins is just very long-winded). Then, I would need to impart the largest amount of pathos that I can. Finally, I would need to put in some ethos every here and there because this girl doesn’t really have much of an idea of who I am. After all of that, I would come to realize that I probably would have no trace amounts of Mr. Collins original argument and that I could have just very well written a completely new proposal, but I digress.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Huckleberry Finn Notes- Social Critique
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as a Social Critique
o “Aunt Sally says she’s going to adopt me and sivilize me and I can’t stand it” (307)
• By saying this, Huck demonstrates the ignorance of the South and their content with such
o “‘What was the trouble about, Buck?’ ‘…I don’t know.’” (120)
• Here we see Huck talking to a boy his own age (Buck) about a feud between Buck’s family and a neighboring family. Buck replies that he doesn’t know, which demonstrates two points
The feud goes back a long way (never-ending wrath)
No one has tried to find a reason to fight (blind rage)
o Gender morality played a large part in the social critique
• “‘You do a girl terrible poor, but you might fool men, maybe…Why, I spotted you for a boy when you was threading the needle; and I contrived the other things to make certain’” (Twain, 72)
When Huck dressed as a girl, the woman tests to see if he is really a girl with a sequence of situations and judging based on how a girl should act, and how Huck acts. Although Huck was not really a girl, this woman got luck; she could have just had a girl who didn’t act as a girl sitting in front of her
• “I says to myself, this is a girl that I’m letting that old reptle rob her out of her money!...I felt so ornery and low down and mean, that I says to myself, My mind’s made up; I’ll hive that money for them or bust” (188).
When the dauphin and the king attempt to swindle the young girls out of their uncles’ money, Huck sees that it is just plain wrong to take money from grieving girls who are just so sweet
o Stereotypes were broken
• “It was a close place. I took it[a letter to the owner of Jim about where he is] up and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: ‘All right then, I’ll go to hell’—and tore it up. ”(Twain,228).
Huck breaks an almost un-written cardinal rule in the South: if a black person runs away and you find him, turn him in. By not turning Jim in, Huck no longer fits the Southern-stereotype of the novel
o “Aunt Sally says she’s going to adopt me and sivilize me and I can’t stand it” (307)
• By saying this, Huck demonstrates the ignorance of the South and their content with such
o “‘What was the trouble about, Buck?’ ‘…I don’t know.’” (120)
• Here we see Huck talking to a boy his own age (Buck) about a feud between Buck’s family and a neighboring family. Buck replies that he doesn’t know, which demonstrates two points
The feud goes back a long way (never-ending wrath)
No one has tried to find a reason to fight (blind rage)
o Gender morality played a large part in the social critique
• “‘You do a girl terrible poor, but you might fool men, maybe…Why, I spotted you for a boy when you was threading the needle; and I contrived the other things to make certain’” (Twain, 72)
When Huck dressed as a girl, the woman tests to see if he is really a girl with a sequence of situations and judging based on how a girl should act, and how Huck acts. Although Huck was not really a girl, this woman got luck; she could have just had a girl who didn’t act as a girl sitting in front of her
• “I says to myself, this is a girl that I’m letting that old reptle rob her out of her money!...I felt so ornery and low down and mean, that I says to myself, My mind’s made up; I’ll hive that money for them or bust” (188).
When the dauphin and the king attempt to swindle the young girls out of their uncles’ money, Huck sees that it is just plain wrong to take money from grieving girls who are just so sweet
o Stereotypes were broken
• “It was a close place. I took it[a letter to the owner of Jim about where he is] up and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: ‘All right then, I’ll go to hell’—and tore it up. ”(Twain,228).
Huck breaks an almost un-written cardinal rule in the South: if a black person runs away and you find him, turn him in. By not turning Jim in, Huck no longer fits the Southern-stereotype of the novel
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Count of Monte Cristo: Honor
Rachael Kerr
AP English 11
September 10, 2009
The Count of Monte Cristo Suicide (Notes)
In the times that the Count of Monte Cristo takes place, suicide was considered an honorable action. By taking your own life, it showed that you had a sense of self pride; the idea is that if you are willing to take you own life, you know that what you did was seriously wrong. A perfect example of this is Monsieur Morrel. Quite a few terrible things happened to him while Dantes was gone, and all of them were out of his control; Morrel ran a shipping company in which several of his ship had sunken. Although he could not afford it, Morrel paid every living sailor on each ship their wages as if nothing had happened. Finally, Morrel cannot afford another ship after his last one sunk and he paid the sailors, so he plans to kill himself and leave the business to his family. While he planned to do this in secret, Maximilian (his son) entered the room and questioned: “‘Father…why have you a brace of pistols under your coat?’”(183). After being caught by his son, Morrel explains that “[b]lood washes out dishonor” (184) and “[he] should be looked upon as a man who has broken his word and failed in his engagements” (185). And he believes, by killing himself, it not only shows his honor, it leaves honor behind for his family; as he tells his son; “When I am dead, you will raise your head and say ‘I am the son of him who killed himself because for the first time in his life, he was unable to keep his word’”(185). In the end, he does not kill himself because Dantes as Sinbad the Sailor rewards Morrel with a sum of money large enough to get him back on his feet. However, suicide was not always an idea implied to ones’ self in The Count of Monte Cristo. In fact, in the case of Madame Villefort suicide is forced upon her by her husband. After finding out what Madame Villefort had been murdering the people in his household, Monsieur Villefort becomes enraged, threatening her with death. He informs her that justice will be done and that “[he] should send the executioner to any other woman were she the Queen herself, but to [Madame Villefort] [he is] merciful! To [her] [he says]: ‘Madame, have you not put aside a few drops of the most potent, the swiftest, and deadliest poison?” (561). Villefort gives his wife the option of killing herself with the poison she used to kill everyone else, thereby bestowing some sort of honor about her. In the end she follows through, but not without taking her child Edward with her. When it comes to honor, some people will strike or act out against other to either protect their own or a loved one’s’ honor. A perfect example would be Albert de Morcerf; he challenges Danglars to a duel to protect his father’s honor: “Albert was resolved to kill the unknown person who had struck this blow his father” (457). This striving to protect his father’s honor made Albert delve into a blind rage. In fact, while he believed that Danglars was the one to disrespect his father, it was actually Dantes as the Count of Monte Cristo who told Danglars all the things he used to disrespect Albert’s father. While this protection of honor was not suicide, it was most certain that it would end in death; either Albert or Danglars would be killed. The dual was considered an honorable practice because it involved facing that which compromised your honor; if you won, your honor was restored, if you lost, you were dead. In the end, Albert does not go through with the dual and realizes what kind of a person his father really is, one that does not deserve honor and to have his honor defended.
AP English 11
September 10, 2009
The Count of Monte Cristo Suicide (Notes)
In the times that the Count of Monte Cristo takes place, suicide was considered an honorable action. By taking your own life, it showed that you had a sense of self pride; the idea is that if you are willing to take you own life, you know that what you did was seriously wrong. A perfect example of this is Monsieur Morrel. Quite a few terrible things happened to him while Dantes was gone, and all of them were out of his control; Morrel ran a shipping company in which several of his ship had sunken. Although he could not afford it, Morrel paid every living sailor on each ship their wages as if nothing had happened. Finally, Morrel cannot afford another ship after his last one sunk and he paid the sailors, so he plans to kill himself and leave the business to his family. While he planned to do this in secret, Maximilian (his son) entered the room and questioned: “‘Father…why have you a brace of pistols under your coat?’”(183). After being caught by his son, Morrel explains that “[b]lood washes out dishonor” (184) and “[he] should be looked upon as a man who has broken his word and failed in his engagements” (185). And he believes, by killing himself, it not only shows his honor, it leaves honor behind for his family; as he tells his son; “When I am dead, you will raise your head and say ‘I am the son of him who killed himself because for the first time in his life, he was unable to keep his word’”(185). In the end, he does not kill himself because Dantes as Sinbad the Sailor rewards Morrel with a sum of money large enough to get him back on his feet. However, suicide was not always an idea implied to ones’ self in The Count of Monte Cristo. In fact, in the case of Madame Villefort suicide is forced upon her by her husband. After finding out what Madame Villefort had been murdering the people in his household, Monsieur Villefort becomes enraged, threatening her with death. He informs her that justice will be done and that “[he] should send the executioner to any other woman were she the Queen herself, but to [Madame Villefort] [he is] merciful! To [her] [he says]: ‘Madame, have you not put aside a few drops of the most potent, the swiftest, and deadliest poison?” (561). Villefort gives his wife the option of killing herself with the poison she used to kill everyone else, thereby bestowing some sort of honor about her. In the end she follows through, but not without taking her child Edward with her. When it comes to honor, some people will strike or act out against other to either protect their own or a loved one’s’ honor. A perfect example would be Albert de Morcerf; he challenges Danglars to a duel to protect his father’s honor: “Albert was resolved to kill the unknown person who had struck this blow his father” (457). This striving to protect his father’s honor made Albert delve into a blind rage. In fact, while he believed that Danglars was the one to disrespect his father, it was actually Dantes as the Count of Monte Cristo who told Danglars all the things he used to disrespect Albert’s father. While this protection of honor was not suicide, it was most certain that it would end in death; either Albert or Danglars would be killed. The dual was considered an honorable practice because it involved facing that which compromised your honor; if you won, your honor was restored, if you lost, you were dead. In the end, Albert does not go through with the dual and realizes what kind of a person his father really is, one that does not deserve honor and to have his honor defended.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Counte of Monte Cristo 1 pg notes
Rachael Kerr
AP 11 English Language
September 9, 2009
Dantes' Role as God (NOTES)
The idea of taking the role of God came from Dantes’ time at Chateau D’If; being in solitude for so long, knowing he was innocent began to change him. In the beginning, Dantes was a virtuous man, but being wrongly imprisoned led him to believe that God is unjust and not as omnipotent as he had been led to believe. By wrongly being left to rot, Dantes felt that God could do nothing for him. He no longer felt that God was someone to be praised, but to be fought: “I exerted all my efforts to escape it, and I combined all my man’s strength with all my sailor’s skill in that terrible fight against God” (79). Not too long after this passage, Dantes turns once again to God in praise, but also begging for mercy: “have pity on me, oh, my God! and let me not die of despair!”(84). This shows his still strong belief in the existence of God, but the tone has changed to a darker, more ominous God; He is seen more as a punisher than a protector. This angle is what leads Dantes to what he is to become. In Chateau D’If, Dantes learns that he is a neighboring prisoner to a man of the cloth, Abbe Faria Once Abbe Faria reveals to him about what may have happened to him, he proclaims to Dantes; “I almost regret having helped you in your researches and having told you what I did…Because I have instilled into your heart…vengeance” (97). Abbe can clearly see what the hostility towards those who imprisoned Dantes will do to him, and desperately tries to touch and keep that last hold on Dantes’ virtue and level-headed thinking. Whilst teaching Dantes and adopting him as his son, Abbe reveals to Dantes that he has found a hidden fortune on an island, Monte Cristo, that he hopes to escape and retrieve. Abbe promises to Dantes that: “it will be you who takes me [to Monte Cristo]” (114); this means that he will be splitting the vast wealth with (what Abbe refers to Dantes as) his child from God. When Abbe dies, Dantes feels that this will be his only chance to escape and that is what Abbe would have wanted. He plans to head to Monte Cristo and use his acquired wealth as a perfect opportunity to enact the justice that God misses, while at the same time rewarding the good. Finally, after making his way to Monte Cristo, finding his treasure, taking enough with him to do his job, but leaving enough for future use, Dantes returns to Marseilles to being his onslaught of his idea of justice. He is relieved to find that no one recognizes him, leaving him free to enact his punishment. After receiving the information of what he has missed since he was gone (Mercedes getting married, his father dying, et cetera), he is further motivated to punish and reward. Under the alias of an Italian priest named Monsieur l’Abbe, Dantes learns from his friend Caderousse of who his conspirators were and who his first benefactor would be. C Caderousse explained that he took care of Dantes’ father while he was away and tried his best to keep him alive. In fact, in this dialogue, Dantes demonstrates the importance of Christians at that time when he declares: “a man, a Christian, has died of hunger amidst men who call themselves Christians!”(151). This clearly exemplifies that Christian morality was expected of you at this time in history, perhaps another factor for Dantes need to act as God. Caderousse explains that “it is thus that God reward virtue, monsieur. Just look at me. I have never done a wrong action…yet I live in poverty, while Fernand and Danglars (Dantes conspirators) are rolling in wealth” (157). By hearing this situation that is lacking so much justice, Dantes feels that he must intervene and right whatever wrong he can. Dantes leaves Caderousse a large sum of money as to make him equal to the wicked in reward.
AP 11 English Language
September 9, 2009
Dantes' Role as God (NOTES)
The idea of taking the role of God came from Dantes’ time at Chateau D’If; being in solitude for so long, knowing he was innocent began to change him. In the beginning, Dantes was a virtuous man, but being wrongly imprisoned led him to believe that God is unjust and not as omnipotent as he had been led to believe. By wrongly being left to rot, Dantes felt that God could do nothing for him. He no longer felt that God was someone to be praised, but to be fought: “I exerted all my efforts to escape it, and I combined all my man’s strength with all my sailor’s skill in that terrible fight against God” (79). Not too long after this passage, Dantes turns once again to God in praise, but also begging for mercy: “have pity on me, oh, my God! and let me not die of despair!”(84). This shows his still strong belief in the existence of God, but the tone has changed to a darker, more ominous God; He is seen more as a punisher than a protector. This angle is what leads Dantes to what he is to become. In Chateau D’If, Dantes learns that he is a neighboring prisoner to a man of the cloth, Abbe Faria Once Abbe Faria reveals to him about what may have happened to him, he proclaims to Dantes; “I almost regret having helped you in your researches and having told you what I did…Because I have instilled into your heart…vengeance” (97). Abbe can clearly see what the hostility towards those who imprisoned Dantes will do to him, and desperately tries to touch and keep that last hold on Dantes’ virtue and level-headed thinking. Whilst teaching Dantes and adopting him as his son, Abbe reveals to Dantes that he has found a hidden fortune on an island, Monte Cristo, that he hopes to escape and retrieve. Abbe promises to Dantes that: “it will be you who takes me [to Monte Cristo]” (114); this means that he will be splitting the vast wealth with (what Abbe refers to Dantes as) his child from God. When Abbe dies, Dantes feels that this will be his only chance to escape and that is what Abbe would have wanted. He plans to head to Monte Cristo and use his acquired wealth as a perfect opportunity to enact the justice that God misses, while at the same time rewarding the good. Finally, after making his way to Monte Cristo, finding his treasure, taking enough with him to do his job, but leaving enough for future use, Dantes returns to Marseilles to being his onslaught of his idea of justice. He is relieved to find that no one recognizes him, leaving him free to enact his punishment. After receiving the information of what he has missed since he was gone (Mercedes getting married, his father dying, et cetera), he is further motivated to punish and reward. Under the alias of an Italian priest named Monsieur l’Abbe, Dantes learns from his friend Caderousse of who his conspirators were and who his first benefactor would be. C Caderousse explained that he took care of Dantes’ father while he was away and tried his best to keep him alive. In fact, in this dialogue, Dantes demonstrates the importance of Christians at that time when he declares: “a man, a Christian, has died of hunger amidst men who call themselves Christians!”(151). This clearly exemplifies that Christian morality was expected of you at this time in history, perhaps another factor for Dantes need to act as God. Caderousse explains that “it is thus that God reward virtue, monsieur. Just look at me. I have never done a wrong action…yet I live in poverty, while Fernand and Danglars (Dantes conspirators) are rolling in wealth” (157). By hearing this situation that is lacking so much justice, Dantes feels that he must intervene and right whatever wrong he can. Dantes leaves Caderousse a large sum of money as to make him equal to the wicked in reward.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Huckleberry Finn Essay
Rachael Kerr
AP English 11
August 24, 2009
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Essay
The Mississippi as a Guide to Human Understanding
Life: it is the series of years in which we age, learn, and change based on the people we meet. In literature, life is usually shown through an extended metaphor. Perhaps it is a winding road with twists and detours, along with some helpful and hurtful people. If not a road, maybe it is an ocean, with an ever-changing tide, unpredictable tempests, and convenient fishing boats with good people on them. In Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, life is symbolized as the Mississippi River. While riding on this river, Huck meets many new people, and is able to learn about his culture and the ignorance he has inherited. Throughout this journey, he comes to a greater human understanding. Huck is able to experience life and disinherit the bigotry of his culture through his journey along the Mississippi River and the people he meets along the way.
In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain uses the Mississippi River as a metaphor for human life. He showed that life can be extremely unpredictable by sending unforeseen circumstances Huck’s way. More than once, the raft he was riding had floated away, it had broken, and he had also fallen off. In addition, he also used the river to symbolize choices. Although the river did not branch off, there were choices one must make, like veering to the left or right side perhaps. Huck faced this when he contemplated about turning Jim in; “It was a close place. I took it[a letter to the owner of Jim about where he is] up and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: ‘All right then, I’ll go to hell’—and tore it up. ”(Twain,228). Also, on a river a traveler is away from other people, free to be who they want and make their own decisions, thus representing freedom. This freedom is exactly what Huck wished to have, and he expresses it when he says: “You feel mighty free…on a raft” (128). Finally, by using a river, Twain demonstrated partial predictability. A river, like life, can be predetermined if the observer is wise enough. If you watch a river for a long enough time, you begin to notice patterns; the same can be said for life.
While riding down the river, Huck comes across many kinds of people, each being extreme in their quirks and thereby easy to identify. For example, the dauphin and the duke were professional con-men. By making them professionals, they are able to make acts of extreme embezzlement, thus making it obvious what they represent (greed). Another example would be the Grangerfords. After being welcomed into their home for not being of a particular family, Huck learns of a family feud. Another local family, the Sheperdsons, and the Grangerfords have been fighting for many generations; many are killed including two boys around Huck’s age. One of the boys that was killed, Buck, had told Huck that he did not know exactly why this feud existed, only that it did: “ ‘What was the trouble about, Buck?’ ‘…I don’t know.’” (120). This clearly represents blind vengeance and wrath. Each person that Huck comes across helps shape him in some way, and in the end they are a large part of who he becomes.
By traveling down this river, Huck was able to see through the ignorance of the people around him. For one, he was able to see Jim as a regular person, not just as a black slave. By spending time on the raft in a place away from the bigotry of the South, Huck was able to learn who Jim really was as a person. In addition, he also learns there are some people you can trust, like Mrs. Judith Loftus. However, there are people you cannot trust, like the dauphin and duke. Finally, he realized his sense of adventure and natural curiosity is a great tool that he should never let go of: “Aunt Sally says she’s going to adopt me and sivilize me and I can’t stand it” (307). By going on this adventure, he was practically able to see an entire myriad of people, places, and situations that can span a lifetime. By questioning what he was taught, he was able to become his own person, not who everyone else wanted him to be.
After his journey down the Mississippi, Huck learns not only about ignorance, but about himself and other people. In the end, Huck learns that many people you meet in life will come and go. Although you might stay with a newer group of people for a long time, you will always end up with the people you started with. Huck was able to experience life and disinherit the bigotry of his culture through his journey along the Mississippi River and the people he meets along the way. When all his adventures were finished, Huck realized many things. He realized the color of your skin does not determine who you are; by not turning Jim in and actually setting him free, he gains a powerful friend. He also realized that who you are is your decision. Granted he was still a kid, but by going on this journey, he practically saw an entire lifetime of people to trust, avoid, and ignore. Many metaphors could be used in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, but Mark Twain’s choice was the best. By using a river, the metaphor was subtle because rivers are common in the South. Though subtle, the message was strong because life is just like a river; the water is constantly changing, but to the trained eye, patterns immerge.
AP English 11
August 24, 2009
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Essay
The Mississippi as a Guide to Human Understanding
Life: it is the series of years in which we age, learn, and change based on the people we meet. In literature, life is usually shown through an extended metaphor. Perhaps it is a winding road with twists and detours, along with some helpful and hurtful people. If not a road, maybe it is an ocean, with an ever-changing tide, unpredictable tempests, and convenient fishing boats with good people on them. In Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, life is symbolized as the Mississippi River. While riding on this river, Huck meets many new people, and is able to learn about his culture and the ignorance he has inherited. Throughout this journey, he comes to a greater human understanding. Huck is able to experience life and disinherit the bigotry of his culture through his journey along the Mississippi River and the people he meets along the way.
In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain uses the Mississippi River as a metaphor for human life. He showed that life can be extremely unpredictable by sending unforeseen circumstances Huck’s way. More than once, the raft he was riding had floated away, it had broken, and he had also fallen off. In addition, he also used the river to symbolize choices. Although the river did not branch off, there were choices one must make, like veering to the left or right side perhaps. Huck faced this when he contemplated about turning Jim in; “It was a close place. I took it[a letter to the owner of Jim about where he is] up and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: ‘All right then, I’ll go to hell’—and tore it up. ”(Twain,228). Also, on a river a traveler is away from other people, free to be who they want and make their own decisions, thus representing freedom. This freedom is exactly what Huck wished to have, and he expresses it when he says: “You feel mighty free…on a raft” (128). Finally, by using a river, Twain demonstrated partial predictability. A river, like life, can be predetermined if the observer is wise enough. If you watch a river for a long enough time, you begin to notice patterns; the same can be said for life.
While riding down the river, Huck comes across many kinds of people, each being extreme in their quirks and thereby easy to identify. For example, the dauphin and the duke were professional con-men. By making them professionals, they are able to make acts of extreme embezzlement, thus making it obvious what they represent (greed). Another example would be the Grangerfords. After being welcomed into their home for not being of a particular family, Huck learns of a family feud. Another local family, the Sheperdsons, and the Grangerfords have been fighting for many generations; many are killed including two boys around Huck’s age. One of the boys that was killed, Buck, had told Huck that he did not know exactly why this feud existed, only that it did: “ ‘What was the trouble about, Buck?’ ‘…I don’t know.’” (120). This clearly represents blind vengeance and wrath. Each person that Huck comes across helps shape him in some way, and in the end they are a large part of who he becomes.
By traveling down this river, Huck was able to see through the ignorance of the people around him. For one, he was able to see Jim as a regular person, not just as a black slave. By spending time on the raft in a place away from the bigotry of the South, Huck was able to learn who Jim really was as a person. In addition, he also learns there are some people you can trust, like Mrs. Judith Loftus. However, there are people you cannot trust, like the dauphin and duke. Finally, he realized his sense of adventure and natural curiosity is a great tool that he should never let go of: “Aunt Sally says she’s going to adopt me and sivilize me and I can’t stand it” (307). By going on this adventure, he was practically able to see an entire myriad of people, places, and situations that can span a lifetime. By questioning what he was taught, he was able to become his own person, not who everyone else wanted him to be.
After his journey down the Mississippi, Huck learns not only about ignorance, but about himself and other people. In the end, Huck learns that many people you meet in life will come and go. Although you might stay with a newer group of people for a long time, you will always end up with the people you started with. Huck was able to experience life and disinherit the bigotry of his culture through his journey along the Mississippi River and the people he meets along the way. When all his adventures were finished, Huck realized many things. He realized the color of your skin does not determine who you are; by not turning Jim in and actually setting him free, he gains a powerful friend. He also realized that who you are is your decision. Granted he was still a kid, but by going on this journey, he practically saw an entire lifetime of people to trust, avoid, and ignore. Many metaphors could be used in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, but Mark Twain’s choice was the best. By using a river, the metaphor was subtle because rivers are common in the South. Though subtle, the message was strong because life is just like a river; the water is constantly changing, but to the trained eye, patterns immerge.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
The Great Gatsby Essay Prompt 1
Rachael Kerr
English AP 11
August 1, 2009
The Great Gatsby
One of the most influential objects in this changing time of the 1920s was money. Everyone began to drop the idea of doing your job for enough money to live comfortably, and adopting the idea that illegal means such as bootlegging alcohol are ways to acquire enough money to become extravagantly wealthy. In fact, this was the plan for Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby. After spending years under his employer, he made a pact to spending the rest of his life to earning vast amounts of wealth, even if that meant turning to a life of crime. Later in the novel, it is revealed to the readers that Gatsby did this to win back the love of Daisy, Nick’s cousin and wife of Tom Buchanan. While Tom is confronting an affair between Daisy and Gatsby he blurts out this secret about Gatsby: “He…bought up a lot of side-street drug-stores…and sold grain alcohol over the counter[illegal at the time]”(Fitzgerald, 133). This is a very clear demonstration of tainted morals and thinking; Gatsby gave up his self-respect to turn to a life of crime, and Daisy rid herself of morals to only marry a man for his money because of her greed. However, they are not alone in their negative transformation.
Daisy and Gatsby are not the only two in The Great Gatsby with confused and misled morals. While Daisy was having an affair with Gatsby, her husband was not being faithful either; Tom was seeing another woman named Myrtle Wilson. While this is another example of corrupted morals, there is more to be seen from it. When Tom finds out about Daisy’s affair, he angrily forces a confrontation, thus making him a hypocrite because he was having one himself (and with a married woman no less). Also, as if dual affairs were not bad enough, both of them almost have no shame in revealing it. With Daisy, when her husband leaves the room and Gatsby is there, she will begin to kiss him, even though Tom is just in the other room: “As [Tom] left the room again, [Daisy] got up went over to Gatsby…kissing him on the mouth” (116). Then with Tom, he invites Nick to see his mistress one day when he goes off to visit her. In addition, Daisy and Tom’s marriage is the epitome of ‘shallow’; neither of them could be considered ‘good people’, but they married one another over their obsessions and corruption. Daisy only loved men if they had money, making her shallow, but she is unbelievably beautiful. Tom is a controlling, violent, sexist, hypocritical bully, all of which would make him undesirable, except for the fact that he has a vast fortune. These two characters’ small perks are what attract one to the other, but because they feel nothing for one another, they resort to adultery.
As we can gather from main character’s morals, the idea of being dishonest and cheating (both in the sense of relationships and rules) is a completely understandable one. The addition of another character furthers this theme: Jordan Baker, a beautiful woman, one famous for winning golf tournaments. At first, she seems completely fine; she tries to begin a romantic relationship with Nick, and she is unmarried. Later on, though, we learn that she might not be as great at golf as we had previously assumed. It is told that she cheated to win her first tournament, and that she continually bends the truth. In the beginning, Nick can already tell what kind of person she is, but he chooses to allow a close relationship because he believes “Dishonesty in a woman is a thing you never blame deeply” (58). In fact he goes on saying he actually felt sorry for her, and then forgot about it all together; this shows us what kind of character Nick is and how he is important. He can judge people fairly, while not seeming insane and obsessing over one person, and by abstaining from that, readers can understand him and trust his judgment.
Nick Carraway is not only the narrator of The Great Gatsby, but perhaps the most important character besides Gatsby himself. Nick has the job of the observer; he is there to be a ‘control’ character. The story is told from his point-of-view because he is not corrupted, thus he sees corruption clearly. Also, probably the most important part of Nick’s character is the fact that he is not from where the other characters are. Every other character had lived in the New York area for a multitude of years, giving the corruption time to settle. So because he is not corrupted, Nick understands what the characters do as strange and negative. In addition to not only being new to the area, readers ascertain the idea that Nick is a good judge of character because of the fact that he can look at himself and find flaws: “Every one suspects himself of at least one the cardinal virtues, and this is mine: I [Nick] am one of the few honest people I know” (59).
In The Great Gatsby, the decline of the American dream is clearly exemplified by F. Scott Fitzgerald. By juxtaposing an innocent character with corrupted characters, Fitzgerald makes readers concentrate on the actions and morals themselves, not the characters. By using Nick as a narrator, readers are allowed to look at the tainted morals with their own judgment; opposed to if the narrator was a corrupted character, which would have the narrator justifying the twisted beliefs of the characters. By using Nick as an uncorrupted observer and introducing him to corrupted characters, Fitzgerald demonstrates the twisted idea of the new American dream. Each character in the novel represented a different type of moral change: Daisy demonstrated greed by only marrying rich men, Tom showed disloyalty by having an affair, Jordan was dishonest by cheating to win gold tournaments, and Gatsby showed lack of pride in himself and his country by turning to illegal means for money. When our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, they set a goal for each citizen: ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ Time soured this beautiful dream, and it was tainted with all the negative wants and needs of those who lost sight of what was really right.
English AP 11
August 1, 2009
The Great Gatsby
Corruption and the American Dream
When the United States of America was settled, a document was written proclaiming each person’s rights to ‘life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness’. However, as time went on, people began to lose sight of their pride and morals; everything came down to reputation and the almighty dollar. At the time, those that were involved thought nothing of it, but that does not mean anyone thought it strange later on. In fact, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote a famous book on this subject, entitled The Great Gatsby. In this book, Fitzgerald introduces the narrator, Nick Carraway, to several characters undergoing this moral change, which allows him to articulate the corruption of a once wonderful thing. By using Nick as an uncorrupted observer and introducing him to corrupted characters, Fitzgerald demonstrates the twisted idea of the new American dream.One of the most influential objects in this changing time of the 1920s was money. Everyone began to drop the idea of doing your job for enough money to live comfortably, and adopting the idea that illegal means such as bootlegging alcohol are ways to acquire enough money to become extravagantly wealthy. In fact, this was the plan for Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby. After spending years under his employer, he made a pact to spending the rest of his life to earning vast amounts of wealth, even if that meant turning to a life of crime. Later in the novel, it is revealed to the readers that Gatsby did this to win back the love of Daisy, Nick’s cousin and wife of Tom Buchanan. While Tom is confronting an affair between Daisy and Gatsby he blurts out this secret about Gatsby: “He…bought up a lot of side-street drug-stores…and sold grain alcohol over the counter[illegal at the time]”(Fitzgerald, 133). This is a very clear demonstration of tainted morals and thinking; Gatsby gave up his self-respect to turn to a life of crime, and Daisy rid herself of morals to only marry a man for his money because of her greed. However, they are not alone in their negative transformation.
Daisy and Gatsby are not the only two in The Great Gatsby with confused and misled morals. While Daisy was having an affair with Gatsby, her husband was not being faithful either; Tom was seeing another woman named Myrtle Wilson. While this is another example of corrupted morals, there is more to be seen from it. When Tom finds out about Daisy’s affair, he angrily forces a confrontation, thus making him a hypocrite because he was having one himself (and with a married woman no less). Also, as if dual affairs were not bad enough, both of them almost have no shame in revealing it. With Daisy, when her husband leaves the room and Gatsby is there, she will begin to kiss him, even though Tom is just in the other room: “As [Tom] left the room again, [Daisy] got up went over to Gatsby…kissing him on the mouth” (116). Then with Tom, he invites Nick to see his mistress one day when he goes off to visit her. In addition, Daisy and Tom’s marriage is the epitome of ‘shallow’; neither of them could be considered ‘good people’, but they married one another over their obsessions and corruption. Daisy only loved men if they had money, making her shallow, but she is unbelievably beautiful. Tom is a controlling, violent, sexist, hypocritical bully, all of which would make him undesirable, except for the fact that he has a vast fortune. These two characters’ small perks are what attract one to the other, but because they feel nothing for one another, they resort to adultery.
As we can gather from main character’s morals, the idea of being dishonest and cheating (both in the sense of relationships and rules) is a completely understandable one. The addition of another character furthers this theme: Jordan Baker, a beautiful woman, one famous for winning golf tournaments. At first, she seems completely fine; she tries to begin a romantic relationship with Nick, and she is unmarried. Later on, though, we learn that she might not be as great at golf as we had previously assumed. It is told that she cheated to win her first tournament, and that she continually bends the truth. In the beginning, Nick can already tell what kind of person she is, but he chooses to allow a close relationship because he believes “Dishonesty in a woman is a thing you never blame deeply” (58). In fact he goes on saying he actually felt sorry for her, and then forgot about it all together; this shows us what kind of character Nick is and how he is important. He can judge people fairly, while not seeming insane and obsessing over one person, and by abstaining from that, readers can understand him and trust his judgment.
Nick Carraway is not only the narrator of The Great Gatsby, but perhaps the most important character besides Gatsby himself. Nick has the job of the observer; he is there to be a ‘control’ character. The story is told from his point-of-view because he is not corrupted, thus he sees corruption clearly. Also, probably the most important part of Nick’s character is the fact that he is not from where the other characters are. Every other character had lived in the New York area for a multitude of years, giving the corruption time to settle. So because he is not corrupted, Nick understands what the characters do as strange and negative. In addition to not only being new to the area, readers ascertain the idea that Nick is a good judge of character because of the fact that he can look at himself and find flaws: “Every one suspects himself of at least one the cardinal virtues, and this is mine: I [Nick] am one of the few honest people I know” (59).
In The Great Gatsby, the decline of the American dream is clearly exemplified by F. Scott Fitzgerald. By juxtaposing an innocent character with corrupted characters, Fitzgerald makes readers concentrate on the actions and morals themselves, not the characters. By using Nick as a narrator, readers are allowed to look at the tainted morals with their own judgment; opposed to if the narrator was a corrupted character, which would have the narrator justifying the twisted beliefs of the characters. By using Nick as an uncorrupted observer and introducing him to corrupted characters, Fitzgerald demonstrates the twisted idea of the new American dream. Each character in the novel represented a different type of moral change: Daisy demonstrated greed by only marrying rich men, Tom showed disloyalty by having an affair, Jordan was dishonest by cheating to win gold tournaments, and Gatsby showed lack of pride in himself and his country by turning to illegal means for money. When our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, they set a goal for each citizen: ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ Time soured this beautiful dream, and it was tainted with all the negative wants and needs of those who lost sight of what was really right.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The Count of Monte Cristo Essay
Rachael Kerr
AP English 11
July 15, 2009
Summer Reading- The Count of Monte Cristo
Prompt 3-Man as God
God is our omniscient, omnipotent judge. It is believed that He shall enact good onto the righteous, and punish the wicked. But can all that power be held by anyone else? More specifically: can human beings do God’s job? When human beings get angry with God; sometimes it is about punishment not deserved, others, it is about punishment not served, they become angry. When punishment is not felt by those who a man feels it should, that man can become frustrated and take matters into his own hands. That man is Edmond Dantes, and that text is The Count of Monte Cristo. Dantes enacts revenge a surplus of times, in several different roles, each trying to imitate the Providence of God. In The Count of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas articulates his belief that man cannot play God in a multitude of ways, like Dantes’ failure, and warning made to him by other characters such as Abbe Faria.
The Count of Monte Cristo is written and read in a way that it is acknowledged as an intellectual quandary. While reading, a reader muses upon the question “Can a man assume God’s role?” This creates a great debate for there is plenty of information for a refuting side, and a supporting side. A reader that believes God can be played by a man would the examples of Dantes’ Providence. Dantes rewards people that showed kindness, respect, and honor, therefore being ‘good’, like Morrel and his family, and punished those who were greedy, selfish, and wicked, thus deemed ‘bad’, like Fernand and Danglars. On the other hand, a reader that believes a man cannot play God would use examples of Dantes’ failures. For example, when Dantes reveals Valentine’s murder as Madame Villefort, Monsieur Villefort becomes enraged. He finds his wife and tells her to kill herself using the poison she used on Valentine. When she does, she also uses it on her son, stating in her death letter “A good mother never leaves her son!”(Dumas, 565). This innocent child’s death could only be foreseen thus avoided, by the true God. This shows that a man cannot play God because of his lack of foresight.
This argument of whether or not man can act as God is very clearly reflected on by its author, Alexandre Dumas, by using quite a few events to show how man cannot play God. If Dumas wanted to make it seem as though humans could be God, he would have made Edmond’s plan go off with no ill-effects. However, he made it that the most innocent by-stander, Edward Villefort, was killed by Dantes’ lack of omniscience. By making the victim a child, Dumas furthers the point of innocence. Thus because of the child’s age, Edward could not have been born while Dantes was still free, thereby providing him with a very good reason of why he deserves no punishment.
Another way Dumas present this idea is through actual character dialogue. When Abbe Faria reveals to Dantes that he was framed to go to jail, Faria watches a change take place in Dantes. Realizing what he has done, Faria expresses to Dantes: “I almost regret having helped you in your researches and having told you what I did…Because I have instilled into your heart a feeling that previously held no place there-vengeance” (97). By using Abbe Faria, who was a man of God, Dumas shows that playing God may sound like a brilliant idea to anyone naïve enough to believe they could control that kind of power, but to an experience person, it is obviously dangerous. In addition, even the man who became God realized what he did was wrong. In his farewell letter to Maximilian, Dantès writes “pray for a man [himself] who…believed for one moment he was the equal of God, but who now acknowledges in all Christian humility that in God alone is supreme power and infinite wisdom” (590). By making the man who attempted to become God fail and realize why he failed, Dumas hammers home the point that man cannot be God.
By using the hints given by Dumas, a reader can infer that human beings cannot be God. No one person with a life of their own can handle the amount of power God has without misusing it, and this is for a multitude of reasons. One is because we live a life of our own; we all have biased versions of our lives. We see that we can do no wrong, and that every being that does wrong to us deserves punishment. Our ‘just deserts’ would have no positive effects for anyone but ourselves for our own selfish reasons. In contrast, God knows whether or not people deserve punishment because he has no connection to them or their situation. Additionally, God is omnipotent, therefore He can see what will affect who in what way, and whether or not those involved deserve what will happen. Whereas human beings have limited foresight of their actions and cannot be sure whose lives they will affect. Finally, a man playing God would have to lose all feeling to become God. Dantes came extremely close to this, due to his time in solitude. He had lost all connection with the outside world, thus becoming emotionally numb. However, the feeling that still lingered, vengeful, bitter hate, was stronger than most other feelings, and clouded his judgment; “His gloom gave way to wrath. He began to roar out blasphemies which even made his gaoler recoil with horror” (79). While it may seem almost inexistent, this one feeling is what would prove to be Dantes’ downfall.
We see this inability to be God in the novel, when Dantes gets so excited with his complicated revenge plan, that he forgets the one thing that used to mean the most to him, Mercédès. She had done nothing against Dantes; she did not conspire against him, and when he was arrested, she prayed to God for Dantes’ safety. In the end, she was not rewarded; Dantes did not come back to marry her, but to punish her husband. She and her son, Albert, left her husband, but then Albert left Mercedes to a life of poverty and sorrow to join the military. It is shown Dantes no longer cares for Mercedes when he says to her: “Mercedes is dead, madame. I know no one now of that name” (469). He clearly recognizes the woman before him as his previous bride-to-be, but by calling her dead to him, he expresses his lack of compassion towards her. Another reason man cannot play God is because a man playing the role of Providence would exact his revenge, and then forget to reward those who deserve such.
Man cannot play God; The Count of Monte Cristo clearly proves this point. By taking it upon oneself to be God, one would have to have no feelings to cloud judgment, there could be no connection to those one was to judge, and one would need to posses divine foresight to assure that no one innocent would be affected. Dantes was lacking in all of these needs, which is why he failed at playing God. The mistake of killing an innocent child makes him no better than the people he is punishing. Up until the death of Edward in the book, it seemed like Dantes was righteous, and almost God-like, but after, even Dantes begins to question himself; “Realizing that he[Dantes] had passed beyond the bounds of vengeance, he felt he could no longer say: ‘God is for me and with me’”(567). This book, because of it many examples of man prevailing and failing to be God could be used as an intellectual quandary, but ultimately, the author wanted to reflect that man could not be God. In The Count of Monte Cristo “all human wisdom is contained in these words: Wait and hope!”(590).
AP English 11
July 15, 2009
Summer Reading- The Count of Monte Cristo
Prompt 3-Man as God
God is our omniscient, omnipotent judge. It is believed that He shall enact good onto the righteous, and punish the wicked. But can all that power be held by anyone else? More specifically: can human beings do God’s job? When human beings get angry with God; sometimes it is about punishment not deserved, others, it is about punishment not served, they become angry. When punishment is not felt by those who a man feels it should, that man can become frustrated and take matters into his own hands. That man is Edmond Dantes, and that text is The Count of Monte Cristo. Dantes enacts revenge a surplus of times, in several different roles, each trying to imitate the Providence of God. In The Count of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas articulates his belief that man cannot play God in a multitude of ways, like Dantes’ failure, and warning made to him by other characters such as Abbe Faria.
The Count of Monte Cristo is written and read in a way that it is acknowledged as an intellectual quandary. While reading, a reader muses upon the question “Can a man assume God’s role?” This creates a great debate for there is plenty of information for a refuting side, and a supporting side. A reader that believes God can be played by a man would the examples of Dantes’ Providence. Dantes rewards people that showed kindness, respect, and honor, therefore being ‘good’, like Morrel and his family, and punished those who were greedy, selfish, and wicked, thus deemed ‘bad’, like Fernand and Danglars. On the other hand, a reader that believes a man cannot play God would use examples of Dantes’ failures. For example, when Dantes reveals Valentine’s murder as Madame Villefort, Monsieur Villefort becomes enraged. He finds his wife and tells her to kill herself using the poison she used on Valentine. When she does, she also uses it on her son, stating in her death letter “A good mother never leaves her son!”(Dumas, 565). This innocent child’s death could only be foreseen thus avoided, by the true God. This shows that a man cannot play God because of his lack of foresight.
This argument of whether or not man can act as God is very clearly reflected on by its author, Alexandre Dumas, by using quite a few events to show how man cannot play God. If Dumas wanted to make it seem as though humans could be God, he would have made Edmond’s plan go off with no ill-effects. However, he made it that the most innocent by-stander, Edward Villefort, was killed by Dantes’ lack of omniscience. By making the victim a child, Dumas furthers the point of innocence. Thus because of the child’s age, Edward could not have been born while Dantes was still free, thereby providing him with a very good reason of why he deserves no punishment.
Another way Dumas present this idea is through actual character dialogue. When Abbe Faria reveals to Dantes that he was framed to go to jail, Faria watches a change take place in Dantes. Realizing what he has done, Faria expresses to Dantes: “I almost regret having helped you in your researches and having told you what I did…Because I have instilled into your heart a feeling that previously held no place there-vengeance” (97). By using Abbe Faria, who was a man of God, Dumas shows that playing God may sound like a brilliant idea to anyone naïve enough to believe they could control that kind of power, but to an experience person, it is obviously dangerous. In addition, even the man who became God realized what he did was wrong. In his farewell letter to Maximilian, Dantès writes “pray for a man [himself] who…believed for one moment he was the equal of God, but who now acknowledges in all Christian humility that in God alone is supreme power and infinite wisdom” (590). By making the man who attempted to become God fail and realize why he failed, Dumas hammers home the point that man cannot be God.
By using the hints given by Dumas, a reader can infer that human beings cannot be God. No one person with a life of their own can handle the amount of power God has without misusing it, and this is for a multitude of reasons. One is because we live a life of our own; we all have biased versions of our lives. We see that we can do no wrong, and that every being that does wrong to us deserves punishment. Our ‘just deserts’ would have no positive effects for anyone but ourselves for our own selfish reasons. In contrast, God knows whether or not people deserve punishment because he has no connection to them or their situation. Additionally, God is omnipotent, therefore He can see what will affect who in what way, and whether or not those involved deserve what will happen. Whereas human beings have limited foresight of their actions and cannot be sure whose lives they will affect. Finally, a man playing God would have to lose all feeling to become God. Dantes came extremely close to this, due to his time in solitude. He had lost all connection with the outside world, thus becoming emotionally numb. However, the feeling that still lingered, vengeful, bitter hate, was stronger than most other feelings, and clouded his judgment; “His gloom gave way to wrath. He began to roar out blasphemies which even made his gaoler recoil with horror” (79). While it may seem almost inexistent, this one feeling is what would prove to be Dantes’ downfall.
We see this inability to be God in the novel, when Dantes gets so excited with his complicated revenge plan, that he forgets the one thing that used to mean the most to him, Mercédès. She had done nothing against Dantes; she did not conspire against him, and when he was arrested, she prayed to God for Dantes’ safety. In the end, she was not rewarded; Dantes did not come back to marry her, but to punish her husband. She and her son, Albert, left her husband, but then Albert left Mercedes to a life of poverty and sorrow to join the military. It is shown Dantes no longer cares for Mercedes when he says to her: “Mercedes is dead, madame. I know no one now of that name” (469). He clearly recognizes the woman before him as his previous bride-to-be, but by calling her dead to him, he expresses his lack of compassion towards her. Another reason man cannot play God is because a man playing the role of Providence would exact his revenge, and then forget to reward those who deserve such.
Man cannot play God; The Count of Monte Cristo clearly proves this point. By taking it upon oneself to be God, one would have to have no feelings to cloud judgment, there could be no connection to those one was to judge, and one would need to posses divine foresight to assure that no one innocent would be affected. Dantes was lacking in all of these needs, which is why he failed at playing God. The mistake of killing an innocent child makes him no better than the people he is punishing. Up until the death of Edward in the book, it seemed like Dantes was righteous, and almost God-like, but after, even Dantes begins to question himself; “Realizing that he[Dantes] had passed beyond the bounds of vengeance, he felt he could no longer say: ‘God is for me and with me’”(567). This book, because of it many examples of man prevailing and failing to be God could be used as an intellectual quandary, but ultimately, the author wanted to reflect that man could not be God. In The Count of Monte Cristo “all human wisdom is contained in these words: Wait and hope!”(590).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
