What Goes Around Comes Around

What Goes Around Comes Around

In his story "The Black Cat," Edgar Allan Poe dramatizes his experience with madness,
and challenges the readers suspension of disbelief by using imagery in describing the plot and
characters. Poe uses foreshadowing to describe the scenes of sanity versus insanity. He writes "for
the most wild yet homely narrative which I am about to pen, I neither expect nor illicit belief. Yet
mad I am not- and surely do I not dream," alerts the reader about a forthcoming story that will test
the boundaries of reality and fiction. The author asserts his belief of the activities described in the
story when he states "to-morrow I die, and to-day I would unburden my soul"(80).
Poe describes his affectionate temperament of his character when he writes "my
tenderness of heart was even so conspicuous as to make me the jest of my companions"(80). He
also characterizes his animal friends as "unselfish" and their love as "self-sacrificing" illustrating
to the readers his devotion to them for their companionship. The author uses foreshadowing in the
statement "we had birds, goldfish, a fine dog, a rabbit, a small monkey, and a cat"(80). The use
of italics hints to the reader of upcoming events about the cat that peaks interest and anticipation.
Poe also describes a touch foreshadowing and suspension of disbelief when he illustrates his
wives response to the cat when he writes "all black cats are witches in disguise, not that she was
ever serious upon this point-and I mention the matter at all for no better reason than it happened,
just now, to be remembered"(80).
Poe expresses his early attachment to the cat and dramatizes the character changes he
experiences when he writes "our friendship lasted, in this manner, for several years, during which
my general temperament and character-through instrumentality of the Fiend Intemperance-had (I
blush to confess it) experienced a radical alteration for the worse"(81). He warns the reader of
new events in a cynical tone and implies the beginning of the madness he denies. Poe first
illustrates this madness when he uses imagery to describe the brutal scene with the cat when he
writes "I took from my waistcoat-pocket a pen knife, opened it, grasped the poor beast by the
throat, and deliberately cut one of its eyes from the socket!"
The author describes his emotional and physical state of being during the unthinkable act
as "I blush, I burn, I shudder, while I pen the damnable atrocity"(81). He describes the morning
aftereffect of his actions when he states "when reason returned with the morning-when I had slept
off the fumes of the night's debauch-I experienced a sentiment half of horror, half of remorse, for
the crime of which I had been guilty; but it was, at best, a feeble and equivocable feeling, and the
soul remained untouched"(81). Now Poe implies to the readers that he has truly crossed over into
madness by brutally attacking the animal and feeling little or no remorse.
Next Poe dramatizes his change in character even further when he writes "and then came,
as if to my final and irrevocable overthrow, the spirit of PERVERSENESS,"(81) which once
again alerts the reader of new events so shocking that reading forward becomes an essentiality.
The author illustrates a scene so outrageous that the reader has to go beyond the suspension of
disbelief they have agreed to participate in. He writes "One morning, in cold blood, I slipped a
noose about its neck and hung it to the limb of a tree;-hung it with tears streaming from my eyes,
and with the bitterest remorse at my heart;-hung it because I knew that it had loved me, and
because I felt it had given me no reason of offense;-hung it because I knew that in so I was
committing a sin-a deadly sin that would jeopardize my immortal soul as to place it-if such a thing
were possible- even beyond the reach of the Most Merciful and Most Terrible God"(81-82).
Now the reader has crossed over the line of reality versus fiction. The author continues to
illustrate the inconceivable story when he describes the scene after the fire that destroyed every
part of the house except the one wall that was still standing. Poe writes "I approached and saw, as
if graven in bas-relief upon the white surface the figure of a gigantic cat and there was a rope
around the animals neck,"(82) leading the readers to join the madness and believe that this was the
same cat that Poe had savagely destroyed earlier that same day.
The author describes his need to replace the animal in order to feel peace and after doing
so, he finds himself once again feeling a abhorrence toward the animal. He writes "but
gradually-very gradually- I came to look upon it with unutterable loathing, and to flee silently
from its odious presence, as from the breath of a pestance"(83). Poe uses imagery to describes his
disgust with the cat when he states "that like Pluto, it also had been deprived of one of its
eyes,"(83) he now wanted to destroy this animal as well. Poe illustrates the change of character he
has experience since the beginning of the story only now he has gone beyond the madness that has
consumed him many times. He writes "evil thoughts becomes my sole intimates-the darkest and
most evil of thoughts"(84).
The author uses more imagery when he writes the final abominable act of evil. Poe
confesses to the reader about the murder of his wife when he states "goaded by the interference
into a rage more than demoniacal, I withdrew my arm from her grasp and buried the ax in her
brain"(84). He explains how he disposes of the body in detail and describes the relief he feels
when he writes "I soundly and tranquilly slept; aye, slept even with the burden of murder upon my
soul"(85). Poe informs the reader of his little remorse when he states" my happiness was supreme,
and the guilt of my dark deed disturbed me but little"(85).
The author leads the reader to the final plateau of suspension when he dramatizes the
conclusion of the story. He explains the sounds he heard in detail when the mystery unfolds
regarding the missing cat he had not seen or heard from since the murder. He writes "like the
sobbing of a child, and then quickly swelling into one long, loud, and continuous scream, utterly
anomalous and inhuman-a howl-a wailing shriek, half of horror and half of triumph, such as might
have arisen only out of hell, conjointly from the throats of the damned in their agony and the
demons that exult in the damnation"(85). Poes use of descriptive details allows the reader to feel
the horrifying experience of a man who believed he was free from the evil of madness. Poe ends
the story after utilizing every inch of suspension of disbelief the reader can afford. He sums up the
plot of the story when he writes "the hideous beast whose craft had seduced me into murder, and
whose informing voice had consigned me to the hangman," (85) implying that the cat had induced
the same torture on him that he had brought on the first cat.

UtopiaSir Thomas More

Thomas More's use of dialogue in "Utopia" is not only practical but masterly layed out

as well. The text itself is divided into two parts. The first , called "Book One", describes the

English society of the fifteenth century with such perfection that it shows many complex sides

of the interpretted structure with such clarity and form that the reader is given the freedom for

interpretation as well. This flexibility clearly illustrates More's request for discussion and

point of view from this reader. In one concise, artistic paragraph, More clearly illustrates his

proposition of the problems people possess within a capitalist society and the fault of the

structure itself; clearly showing More's point of view for "Book One". If More attempted to get

anything across to the people of England it was this:

Take a barren year of failed harvests, when many thousands of men have been carried off by hunger. If at the end of the famine the barns of the rich were searched. I dare say positively enough grain would be found in them to have saved the lives of all those who died from starvation and disease, if it had been divided equally among them. Nobody really need have suffered from a bad harvest at all. So easily might men get the necessities of life if that cursed money, which is supposed to provide access to them, were not in fact the chief barrier to our getting what we need to live. Even the rich, I'm sure, understand this. They must know that it's better to have enough of what we really need than an abundance of superfluities, much better to escape from our many present troubles than to be burdened with great masses of wealth. And in fact I have no doubt that every man's perception of where his true interest lies, along with with the authority of Christ our Saviour..... would long ago have brought the whole world to adopt Utopian laws, if it were not for one single monster, the prime plague and begetter of all others---I mean pride. (More, pg.83)

For one to fully realize the significance of this virtueous paragraph they first must remember

the time period it was written; more so now that we are in the twentieth century dominated by

capitalism.


Before More accounts for his rhetorical, socialist society of "Book Two" in detail, he

strengthens his idea of communism by pre-establishing the problems of England in "Book

One". This measurement makes one see the strengths and weaknesses between the two; as

well as, their similarities. It is difficult to title Utopia as a socialist, communist society, in as

much, it is just as valid to argue that Utopia is as opressive as the England described in

"Book One". If Utopia is a truely socialist state, then one can see that opression is

unescapable in either society. Either way, it just shows the absurdity to claim either of these

as an utopian commonwealth. However, it is clear that More's attempt was to make Utopia an

egalitarian society for the better of the people as whole. His description of the institutions

Utopia is so prescise and well formatted that it is difficult to see any flaws other than the ones

that were out of his control. More, just as anyone, was a slave of the society he lived in. No

matter how hard More tried to escape it, his morals and values were still derived from the

society he lived in. This is why one must look at Utopia as a society designed only to better

the people of the capitalist England. It is absurd to look at Utopia as a perfect state, in as

much, the knowledge which was true to More would interfear with many areas within the

society of Utopia; More's faith, his ignorance of the evolving future, and the societies outside

of Utopia described in "Book Two" would make the society of Utopia a paradox. The strength of

it all, is that More amazingly knew his socialist state was not perfect; even for the society of

England:

...though he is a man of unquestioned learning, and highly experienced in the ways of the world, I cannot agree with everything he said. Yet I confess there are many things in the Commonwealth of Utopia that I wish our own country would imitate----though I don't really expect it will (More, pg. 85)


In correlation to both societies described in "Utopia", with both opressing the people

within it, controlling their knowledge and way of life, it is clear that utopia is impossible to

reach as long as human kind is confined to any institution. The difference between the two

societies is seen when one looks at where this opression stems from. England's capitalist

society is structured in such a way that it allows the people within it to opress or be opressed

by each other. In Utopia the oppression is derived not from the people but from the structure

itself. Therefore, a capitalist societies' structure allows more freedom for the people than the

egalitarian society; thus, ironically, it is argueable to state that capitalism is more socialist

than socialism. The problem of a capitalist society stems not from its' structure but from the

people within it. In contrast, the people of the socialist society are all equal; yet, what makes

this possible is the structures' control over the people. Both societies have strengths and

weaknesses. Untill humankind can be resocialized losing the terms power, greed , and pride

from our vocabulary, will there be terms like opression and freedom in it as well. The only

possibillity for this, is if humankind is confined within a similar society as described by More

called Utopia; then evolve into a society with the same structural freedoms like capitalism.

Therfore, for the capitalist England of the fifteenth century, More's society in "Book Two" was

not his ideal utopian state; but a path leading towards it.

As you can see, More's liturary dialogue called "Utopia", as stressed through out this

essay, is not an attempt to illustrate an utopian society, and would be a parodox if done so. I

think one get's this false interpretation through the title of the text and the name of his socialist

imaginary state with perfect political, social, conditions or constitution."(pg.395) It also states

that "Utopia" is derived from the Greek words "no place". If More had this definition in mind it

would clarify the a majority of the ambiguities within the context of the text, also illustrating

even more of the opression More faced in England; as well as, his fear of it. More's "Utopia

was done in such a way to enlighten the people of England about their opressing capitalist

society. Instead of leaving the reader with a sense of hopelessness, he gives an alternative

society; not to make the reader interpret it as an ideal society to want over England's, but

make one realize the possibility of change. It is aimed to make one contemplate on the

weaknesses and strengths of their own society and how to go about changing it to better the

common wealth of their people as a whole

the yellow wallpapera journey into insanity

The Yellow Wallpaper - Journey into Insanity


In "The Yellow Wallpaper", by Charlotte Perkins Gilman,

the dominant/submissive relationship between an oppressive

husband and his submissive wife pushes her from depression

into insanity.


Flawed human nature seems to play a great role in her

breakdown. Her husband, a noted physician, is unwilling to

admit that there might really be something wrong with his

wife. This same attitude is seen in her brother, who is also

a physician. While this attitude, and the actions taken

because of it, certainly contributed to her breakdown; it

seems to me that there is a rebellious spirit in her.

Perhaps unconsciously she seems determined to prove them

wrong.


As the story begins, the woman -- whose name we never

learn -- tells of her depression and how it is dismissed by

her husband and brother. "You see, he does not believe I am

sick! And what can one do? If a physician of high

standing, and one's own husband, assures friends and

relatives that there is really nothing the matter with one

but temporary nervous depression -- a slight hysterical

* * * * * Roberts 2

tendency -- what is one to do?" (Gilman 193). These two

men -- both doctors -- seem completely unable to admit that

there might be more to her condition than than just stress

and a slight nervous condition. Even when a summer in the

country and weeks of bed-rest don't help, her husband

refuses to accept that she may have a real problem.


Throughout the story there are examples of the dominant

- submissive relationship. She is virtually imprisoned in

her bedroom, supposedly to allow her to rest and recover her

health. She is forbidden to work, "So I . . . am absolutely

forbidden to "work" until I am well again." (Gilman 193).

She is not even supposed to write: "There comes John, and I

must put this away -- he hates to have me write a word."

(Gilman 194).


She has no say in the location or decor of the room she

is virtually imprisoned in: "I don't like our room a bit.

I wanted . . . But John would not hear of it." (Gilman

193).


She can't have visitors: "It is so discouraging not

to have any advice and companionship about my work. . . but

he says he would as soon put fireworks in my pillow-case as

to let me have those stimulating people about now." (Gilman

196).


Probably in large part because of her oppression, she

continues to decline. "I don't feel as if it was worthwhile

to turn my hand over for anything. . ." (Gilman 197). It

seems that her husband is oblivious to her declining

conditon, since he never admits she has a real problem until

* * * * * Roberts 3

the end of the story -- at which time he fainted.


John could have obtained council from someone less

personally involved in her case, but the only help he seeks

was for the house and baby. He obtains a nanny to watch

over the children while he was away at work each day: "It

is fortunate Mary is so good with the baby." (Gilman 195).

And he had his sister Jennie take care of the house. "She

is a perfect and enthusiastic housekeeper." (Gilman 196).


He does talk of taking her to an expert: "John says if I

don't pick up faster he shall send me to Weir Mitchell in

the fall." But she took that as a threat since he was even

more domineering than her husband and brother.


Not only does he fail to get her help, but by keeping

her virtually a prisoner in a room with nauseating wallpaper

and very little to occupy her mind, let alone offer any kind

of mental stimulation, he almost forces her to dwell on her

problem. Prison is supposed to be depressing, and she is

pretty close to being a prisoner.


Perhaps if she had been allowed to come and go and do

as she pleased her depression might have lifted: "I think

sometimes that if I were only well enough to write a little

it would relieve the press of ideas and rest me." (Gilman

195). It seems that just being able to tell someone how she

really felt would have eased her depression, but John

won't hear of it. The lack of an outlet caused the

depression to worsen: ". . . I must say what I feel and

* * * * * Roberts 4

think in some way -- it is such a relief! But the effort is

getting to be greater than the relief." (Gilman 198).


Meanwhile her reaction is to seek to prove him wrong.

"John is a physician, and perhaps . . . perhaps that is one

reason I do not get well faster. You see he does not

believe I am sick! And what can one do?" (Gilman 193). It

seems to me that while putting on an appearance of

submission she was frequently rebelling against her

husband's orders. She writes when there is nobody around to

see her, she tries to move her bed, but always keeps an eye

open for someone comming. This is obvious throughout the

story.


It also seems to me that, probably because of his

oppressive behaviour, she wants to drive her husband away.

"John is away all day, and even some nights when his cases

are serious. I am glad my case is not serious!" (Gilman

195). As her breakdown approaches she actually locks him

out of her room: "I have locked the door and thrown the key

down into the front path. I don't want to go out, and I

don't want to have anybody come in, till John comes. I want

to astonish him." (Gilman 203). I see no reason for this

other than to force him to see that he was wrong, and, since

she knew he couldn't tolerate hysteria, to drive him away.


Works Cited

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. "The Yellow Wallpaper." 1892.
The New England Magazine. Reprinted in "Lives &
Moments - An Introduction to Short Fiction" by Hans
Ostrom. Hold, Orlando, FL 1991.

The Yellow Wallpaper

Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper is a commentary on the male oppression of women in a patriarchal society. However, the story itself presents an interesting look at one woman's struggle to deal with both physical and mental confinement. This theme is particularly thought-provoking when read in today's context where individual freedom is one of our most cherished rights. This analysis will focus on two primary issues: 1) the many vivid images Gilman uses to illustrate the physical and symbolic confinement the narrator endures during her illness; and 2) the overall effect of, and her reaction to, this confinement.
The Yellow Wallpaper begins with the narrator's description of the physically confining elements surrounding her. The story is cast in an isolated hereditary estate, set back from the road and located three miles from town. The property boasts protective hedges that surround the garden, walls that surround the estate, and locked gates which guarantee seclusion. Even the connecting garden represents confinement, with box-bordered paths and grape-covered arbors. This isolation motif continues within the mansion itself. Although she preferred the downstairs room with roses all over the windows that opened on the piazza, the narrator finds herself relegated to an out of the way dungeon-like nursery on the second floor, appropriately equipped with "rings and things" in the walls. Windows in each direction provide glimpses of the garden, arbors, bushes, and trees. The bay is visible, as is a private wharf that adjoins the estate. These views reinforce isolationism; they can be seen from the room, but not touched or experienced. There is a gate at the head of the stairs, presumably to keep the children contained in their play area. Additionally, the bed is immovable as it has been nailed to the floor. It is here that the narrator secretly describes her slow decent into madness.

Although the physical confinement drains the narrator's strength and will, the mental and emotional confinement symbolized in the story play an important role in her ultimate fall into dementia. By being forced to be her own company, she is confined within her mind. Likewise, part of the narrator's mental confinement stems from her recognition of her physical confinement. The depression the narrator has experienced associated with child bearing is mentally confining as well. Specifically, she cannot control her emotions or manage her guilt over her inability to care for her child. These structures of confinement contribute to the rapid degeneration of her faculties.
As the wife of a prominent physician in the late nineteenth century, the narrator's assumption of the typical female role illustrates one aspect of the symbolic confinement present within both the story and the society. She is subservient and deferential to her husband John who enjoys the power traditionally associated with his sex and additional authority afforded him by his status as a doctor. Jean Kennard notes, "By keeping her underemployed and isolated, John effectively ensures his wife's dependence on him" (81). John's control over his wife is typical of the control most men had over women in the late nineteenth century. He decides everything on her behalf, including what room she will stay in and who she will be allowed to see. He diagnoses her postpartum depression as a "temporary nervous depression--a slight hysterical tendency" and in doing so, diminishes her complaints and demeans her individuality. His prescribed treatment is worse than the disease; every hour is scheduled, she is forbidden to write, told what to think, and prohibited from acting as mother to her child.
John's behavior illustrates his covert efforts to control his wife as well. He looks to the narrator's brother, who is also a physician, to validate his diagnosis and prescribed cure, making it even more difficult for the narrator to challenge the prescription herself. He repeatedly diminishes her by laughing at her and not taking her grievances seriously. The narrator complains "John does not know how much I really suffer. He knows there is no reason to suffer, and that satisfies him." John's contempt for his wife's ideas is blatant; he refers to her as a "little girl," and when she requests that she be moved to a different room downstairs, he "took [her] in his arms and called [her] a blessed little goose, and said he would go down to the cellar, if [she] wished, and have it whitewashed into the bargain." That he is only willing to move her into the basement, instead of allowing her a room of her choice, epitomizes his domineering personality.
As the woman descends into madness, she notices that the pattern in the wallpaper "becomes bars" in the moonlight and that "the woman behind it is as plain as can be." Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar assert that the woman behind the wallpaper is the narrator's doppelg nger (10). This woman is symbolic of the narrator's own confinement by the patriarchal society she lives in. Moreover, we see that the wallpaper is a metaphor of her fractured mental state. She describes the chaotic pattern that will follow ". . . the lame uncertain curves for a little distance. . . suddenly committing suicide--plunging off at outrageous angles, destroying themselves in unheard of contradictions," alluding to her own, and society's, eventual destruction in the absence of enlightened change. Furthermore, the narrator acknowledges that she is representative of most women of her time with the statement "I think there are a great many women [behind the paper]."
The effect of John's oppression on the narrator is severe. At the climax of her insanity she writes that she can see the woman from behind the wallpaper pattern "out of every one of my windows!" The narrator continues:
It is the same woman, I know, for she is always creeping, and most women do not creep by daylight.
I see her on that long road under the trees, creeping along, and when a carriage comes she hides under the blackberry vines.
I don't blame her a bit. It must be very humiliating to be caught creeping by daylight!
That evening the narrator noticed the woman in the pattern begin to crawl and shake the wallpaper in an effort to break free from it, just as she would like to break free from the confines and restrictions imposed on her by society and her husband John. In her diary she describes helping the woman tear down the paper: "I pulled and she shook, I shook and she pulled . . . ."
Most of the paper was removed the next day while the narrator watched many women creeping around in the street. At the end of the story the narrator has surprised John, who has come home from work to find her creeping around the room. She proclaims "I've got out at last, in spite of you and Jane. And I've pulled off most of the paper, so you can't put me back!"
Although the reader might pity the narrator's inability to challenge John's authority, one must view the events of the story within the context of the 1860's. At this time, socitey would not tolerate such assertiveness from women. Moreover, the tragic story ends with a paradox. By definition, one who is mentally ill is not healthy. However, the narrator finds freedom, and apparently health, by rejecting an insane society and loosing her identity to the wallpaper. In contrast, the reader concludes the narrator is now confined by her insanity, and cannot be free.
Works Cited
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. "The Yellow Wallpaper." English 2307. Comp. Jane Bell. n.p., c.1996. 3-7.
Kennard, Jean. "Convention Coverage or How to Read Your Own Life." Charlotte Perkins Gilman: The Woman and Her Work. Ed. Sheryl Meyering. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1989. 75-94.

The Yellow Wallpaper A womans struggle

{\rtf1\ansi \deff0{\fonttbl
{\f0\froman Times New;}}{\colortbl
\red0\green0\blue0;}
{\stylesheet{\fs20 \snext0 Normal;}
}\margl1440\margr1440\ftnbj\ftnrestart \sectd \sbknone\headery1440\endnhere
{\header \pard \qr\sl0
{\plain \chpgn \par}}

{\plain \tab \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \tab Pregnancy and childbirth are very emotional times in a woman's life and many women suffer
from the "baby blues." The innocent nickname for postpartum depression is deceptive because it
down plays the severity of this condition. Although she was not formally diagnosed with postpartum
depression, Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935) developed a severe depression after the birth of
her only child (Kennedy et. al. 424). Unfortunately, she was treated by Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, who
forbade her to write and prescribed only bed rest and quiet for recovery (Kennedy et al. 424). Her
condition only worsened and ultimately resulted in divorce (Kennedy and Gioia 424). Gilman's
literary indictment of Dr. Mitchell's ineffective treatment came to life in the story "The Yellow
Wallpaper." On the surface, this gothic tale seems only to relate one woman's struggle with mental
illness, but because Guilman was a prominent feminist and social thinker she incorporated themes of
women's rights and the poor relationships between husbands and wives (Kennedy and Gioia 424).
Guilman cleverly manipulates the setting to support her themes and set the eerie mood.\par
}{\plain \tab Upon first reading "The Yellow Wallpaper," the reader may see the relationship between the
narrator and her husband John as caring, but with examination one will find that the narrator is
repeatedly belittled and demeaned by her husband. On first arriving at the vacation home John
chooses the old attic nursery against his wife's wishes and laughs at her when she complains about
the wallpaper (Kennedy et al. 424,425). In Charlotte Bronte's novel }{\plain \ul Jane Eyre}{\plain , Mr. Rodchester
uses his attic to keep his insane wife hidden from the rest of the world. John's actions can easily be
interpreted with the same malice. The narrator's insistence that John is a caring and loving husband
draws special attention to the true meanings behind his word's and actions. Would a man deeply
concerned for his wife's mental state constantly leave her alone to tend after patients with "serious"
conditions (Kennedy et al. 426)? Any time John speaks to his wife, he uses the third person voice
or refers to her as "little girl" or some other term of endearment (Kennedy and Gioia 430,431). He
never uses her name, therefore he never really recognizes her as a person nor an equal. This dialog
can easily be compares to one between a parent and his child. Because the room was an old nursery
this idea is strongly enforced. Hance, there is no oddity in the fact that the narrator comes to think of
herself as a child (Twentieth 111). She comments on the fact that the children tore the wallpaper
and later admits to doing it herself (Kennedy et al. 426,428). Her regression is also demonstrated
by her comparison of her present room with the bedroom of her childhood (Kennedy and Gioia
427,428).\par
}{\plain \tab The underlying theme of woman's rights emanates from every part of "The Yellow
Wallpaper." In an essay by Elaine R. Hedges, she points out how the wallpaper symbolized the
gross lack of women' rights (Short 119). The yellow "smooches" that Jennie finds on the clothes of
the narrator and her husband, symbolize the stain that this social situation leaves on everything it
touches (Short 120). Though she tries to break free of the overwhelming oppression she suffers, she
says the pattern, "slaps you in the face, knocks you down, and tramples on you (Kennedy et al.
431)." The intensity of frustration the narrator feels is further described when she describes the
designs in the pattern: "(They) suddenly commit suicide - plunge off at outrageous angles, destroy
themselves in unheard-of contradictions (Kennedy et al. 429)." Hedges also suggests that the
wallpaper symbolizes the way men view women (Short 120). The "absurd, unblinking eyes" in the
wallpaper indicate the lack of intelligence women have in the perception of men (Kennedy et al.
427). The hallucination of the creeping woman that the narrator sees symbolizes the domination
that women bear. As the creeping woman violently shakes the bars of the pattern, so too does the
author struggle to gain her own identity and break free of the imprisonment of her domination
(Short 120). Jennie, the contended and quiet sister who wishes for no "better profession," is the
epitome of what the narrator is struggling against. Though ultimately she is broken by insanity, the
narrator never gives up and triumphantly creeps over her husband at the end.\par
}{\plain \tab The setting of "The Yellow Wallpaper" is vital to uncovering the meanings hidden
underneath the surface. Because she is being forced to stay in the attic of the old house, she is also
being kept, figuratively, in the "attic" of her mind (Twentieth 111). The distance in the relationship
of the narrator and her husband is portrayed in the necessity for two beds (Kennedy et al. 425).
Bechelard goes so far as to say that the house can be seen as a small version of the world and the
social problems that burden it (Twentieth 110). Upon close scrutiny of the setting and small detail
that the narrator relates, one begins to question the innocence of the quaint "vacation home." While
describing her room and surroundings, she makes the reader suspicious when she mentions barred
windows and nailed down beds, but the gate at the top of the stairs and rings on the wall go beyond
suspicion (Kennedy and Gioia 426,429). Could the rings possibly be manacle rings, like the kind
doctors used to chain mental patients? Could that "yellow" smell be the foul smell of urine? The
mental institutions of old where not very sanitary. These facts make one wonder if the narrator's
"loving" husband institutionalized her.\par
}{\plain \tab "The Yellow Wallpaper," by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, was written to protest the treatments
of Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, but contains much more than one expects. The short story \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain not only studies the complications within a marital relationship, it examines a woman's struggle with
mental illness and the hardships of inequality between the sexes. The setting plays an important role
to strengthen the themes and also makes the reader question the innocence and simplicity of what is
related to him.\par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Works Cited\par
}{\plain \par
Bronte, Charlotte. }{\plain \ul Jane Eyre}{\plain . New York: Signet Classic, 1960\par
}{\plain Kennedy, X.J. and Dan Gioia. }{\plain \ul Literature: an Introduction to Fiction, poetry, and Drama}{\plain . Sixth
\tab Edition. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers Inc., 1995.\par
}{\plain \ul Twentieth Century Literary Criticism}{\plain . Vol. 9. Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1983.\par
}{\plain Hodges, Elaine R. }{\plain \ul Short Story Criticism}{\plain . Vol. 13. Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1993.\par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}}

The Transcendence of frogs and ourangatangs

The Transcendence Of Frogs and Ourang-Outangs

"Hop-Frog!, I will make a man of you."

In Edgar Allen Poe's short story "Hop Frog," the title character Hop-Frog is able to transcend the limitations of his physical body, in ways the King and his seven ministers are unable. "Hop-Frog" has multiple examples of the transcendence of man, and the inability of man to transcend. The most prominent of these points are:

1. By overcoming the limitations of his, Hop-Frog's, physical body he is able to transcend into a greater existence than his biology would allow.
2. By the King and his ministers discounting of Hop-Frog due to his disfigurement and their inability to acknowledge his transcendence, they are fated to never have the chance to transcend.
3. By the use of symbolism in "Hop-Frog," Poe reinforces the actions of the characters and strengthens the representations of their transcendence, or lack there of.

Each of these of these three points coalesce to bring the significance of the transcendence of man, or the lack there of, into a focused view.

Hop-Frog, the title character in Edgar Allen Poe's "Hop-Frog," is able to transcend the limitations of his physical body. Biologically Hop-Frog is nothing more than a freak of nature. Hop-Frog is a dwarf. His means of locomotion was that of an "interjectional gait---- something between a leap and a wiggle,"(482) and this motion was only afforded to him through "great pain and difficulty." Hop-frog's teeth are "large, powerful, and repulsive."(484) His arms, not in balance with his body, have a "prodigious power."(482) His arms so over compensated for his body he "resembled a squirrel, or a small monkey, more than a frog."(482) His ability to tolerate wine is nonexistent. The story states that Hop-Frog is from "some barbarous region."(482) For the King, Hop-Frog is a "triplicate treasure"(482) for the king to laugh at. If a man is no greater than his biological make up, then Hop-Frog is a freak, and limited to his body. Hop-Frog proves this is not true. By using his arms Hop-Frog is able to do astounding acrobatic feats. Hop-Frog is able to overcome the effect that drink had on him and is able to remain calm and formulate a plan of revenge when Trippetta is struck and wine is thrown in her face. Hop-Frog even breaks the stereotypical mold of a beautiful hero. Hop-Frog is able to find a love with Trippetta, a love that transcends his physical makeup. Hop-Frog saves the girl, has his revenge, escapes unharmed to his homeland, and in an ironic twist of fate is able to have the last laugh at the King's expense. Hop-Frog is an example of a transcendent male, one who is able to go beyond his biological makeup and becomes something greater.

The King and his seven ministers are all healthy, albeit fat, strong men with little or no disabilities the reader is informed of. Their only weakness according to the author was that for "jest."(481) It the King's and his minister's predisposition to joking, and their inability to see in others any measure of transcendence are doomed to failure. The fact that the King and his ministers call him "Hop-Frog" and not his given name, thereby not acknowledging his existence, further reinforces the fact that they see him as nothing more than an object to laugh at. The fact that the King continually forces Hop-Frog to drink wine even though the King knows the effect it has on him. The King, unable able to recognize Hop-Frog's transcendence, has no idea as Hop-Frog lays the ground work for the King and his ministers death through a "carefully planned and enacted setup."(1089) The King is only Able to see that Hop-Frog is laughing, and since the King's weakness is a "good Jest"(481), he is unable to see the motives behind the actions. When the King allows for no weapons at the gathering, and entrusts the keys to the locked doors to Hop-Frog, the King and his ministers are again unable conceive of any transcendence in Hop-Frog. The King and his ministers are, up until the moment of their inevitable death, still not cognoscente of their fate, they "were convulsed with laughter,"(486) and ignorant to the events that were to succeed. It is the King's and his minister's predisposition to jokes, and their inability to acknowledge Hop-Frog's transcendence from the limitations of his body, the fact that he is more than just the sum total of his parts, that dooms them to their fate. "Hop-Frog!, I will make a man of you,"(484) is the King's ultimate admission of his inability to acknowledge Hop-Frog's transcendence, by not acknowledging that Hop-Frog is biologically a man, the King is blind to the fact that Hop-Frog can be more than a man biologically.

In "Hop-Frog," Poe makes use of extensive symbolism to enhance the transcendence of Hop-Frog and the inability of the King to recognize the fact. The opening description of the king is that he would have "preferred Rabelias' 'Gargantua'," a giant king with a great capacity for food and drink, indicating a great lack of control and animal desires. When the mythical king is hungry or thirsty he eats or drinks, and when the King in the story wants a jest he has one. Both kings react without consequence, and both kings constrained by their animal urges and desires, are nothing more than the biological limits of their bodies. Another strong symbol, is that of Hop-Frogs choice of costume for the King and His Ministers. By choosing ourang-outangs Hop-Frog represents the King and his ministers as "basal beasts,"(331) with no conscience. He, Hop-Frog, shows them to be animals that have a thought, lust or desire and act upon it accordingly without care to the repercussions that it might have on others. The chains that Hop-Frog ties around their bodies is a representation of the fact that the King and his ministers, will never be able to transcend the "bestial bodies"(331) they inhabit. Hop-Frog's final words as he is about to leave, "... this is my last jest,"(487) is a vocalization by Hop-Frog that he has now transcended the limitations of his body and indicates that he is going to go forward from there. The most profound use of symbolism is when Hop-Frog escapes through the "roof of the saloon."(487) The act itself represents Hop-Frogs ability to transcend his body. The saloon represents his body, and the escape a symbolic representation that Hop-Frog has surpassed his biological limitations.

Edgar Allen Poe's Hop-Frog contains many examples of the transcendence of man and the inability of others to acknowledge. The main character, Hop-Frog, is able to overcome the effect that drink has on him, finds love, and manages to be more than his biological makeup. Hop-Frog is able to transcend the limitations of his physical body, and is able to become something greater than biological makeup. The King and his seven ministers are unable or are unwilling to acknowledge Hop-Frog's transcendence and in so doing they doom themselves to an inevitable fate. Also, through the use of symbolism, Poe is able to "strengthen his imagery"(1091) of Hop-Frog's transcendence and the King and his seven ministers inability to transcend and recognize transcendence in others.


Works Cited

Hall, Donald, and Stephen Spendler. Concise Encyclopedia of English and American Poets and Poetry. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1963. 1084-1092.
Hart, James D. Oxford Companion to American Literature. 5TH Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. 323-336.
Poe, Edgar Allen. "Hop Frog". The Bedford Introduction To Literature Ed. Michael Meyer. 3RD Ed. Boston: St. Martin's Press, 1996. 481-487.

The Pitiful Prufrock

The Pitiful Prufrock
T.S. Elliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," is a melancholy poem of one man's frustrated search to find the meaning of his existence. The speaker's strong use of imagery contributes to the poems theme of communion and loneliness.
The Poem begins with an invitation from Prufrock to follow him through his self-examination. The imagery of this invitation begins with a startling simile, "Let us go then you and I/ When the evening is spread out against the sky/ Like a patient etherised upon a table." This simile literally describes the evening sky, but functions on another level. Prufrock's description of the "etherised" evening indicates an altering of perception, and an altering of time, which creates a dreamlike quality throughout the poem. This dreamlike quality is supported throughout the poem with the "yellow fog" that contributes to the slowed-down-etherised feeling of the poem. Time and perception are effectively "etherised" in this poem. It is almost as if the poem is a suspended moment of realization of one man's life, "spread out against the sky". The imagery of the patient represents Prufrock's self-examination. Furthermore, the imagery of the "etherised patient" denotes a person waiting for treatment. It seems this treatment will be Prufrock's examination of himself and his life.
Prufrock repeats his invitation and asks the reader to follow him through a cold and lonely setting that seems to be the Prufrock's domain. The imagery of the journey through the city is described as pointed to lead the reader (and more accurately Prufrock) to an overwhelming question. Prufrock's description of the urban city is quite dreary: " Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,/ The muttering retreats/ Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels/ And sawdust restaurants with oyster shells;/ Streets that follow like a tedious argument/ Of insidious intent." This is the lonely setting that Prufrock lives out his meager existence. This city is suspended under the same anesthesia that spreads the evening like an "etherised patient."
Prufrock moves his attention from the city to his final destination; "the room the women come and go/ Speaking of Michealangelo." This couplet contrasts with the previous urban landscape and adds anticipation to the ominous tension surrounding the event. This line also is about time. The couplet suggests that Prufrock has been around to see these women "come and go," implying Prufrock has been situated in the high societal environment for some time. The line also implies that while others have come and gone from the social circles Prufrock is a part of; Prufrock has stayed stagnating. On the way, Prufrock deliberates on whether he can find value in the cold superficial environment, and ask the overwhelming question, "Do I dare/ Disturb the universe?". He feels if he can muster the courage to ask the question, he may at last find value in his life: "would it have been worth while/ To have bitten off the matter with a smile,? To have squeezed the universe into a ball." Ultimately, he fails at both tasks.
Throughout the poem, the themes of time's passage and age continue to illustrate the unhappiness of Prufrock's life. Prufrock reveals the measured out portions of life he has lived: "I have measured out my life in coffee spoons." This phrase shows Prufrock's inability to seize the day. He also employs subtle devices, such as thinning hair and resulting bald spot, as indicators of age and the importance he feels now that he is past his prime: "Time to turn back and descend the stair,/ With a bald spot in the middle of my hair--/ (They will say: 'How his hair is growing thin')" This shows Prufrock's fear of being laughed at. Furthermore, this line shows Prufrock's desire to "disturb the universe," and his fear that he will be scoffed at for not acting his proper age. When he speaks of time it is in a contradictory fashion. On one hand, he feels a sense of urgency as he travels to the party, because must decide if he will ask his question. Yet, while he agonizes over whether to attempt a change in his life, he tells us time is plentiful, explaining "there will be time for you and time for me/ And time yet for a hundred indecisions / And for a hundred visions and revisions/ Before taking of the toast and tea" This seems to be Prufrock trying to escape his conviction of asking the question through rationalization.
Prufrock's growing indifference towards his sophisticated social circle, where time is suspended, reflect his aging weariness. Ironically, he has catered to the proprieties of high society for years, and remains unaware of how time has ingrained the same emptiness into his own nature: "For I have known them all already, known them all/ I know the voices with a dying fall/ And I have known the eyes already, known them all/ And I have known the arms already, known them all" In this line, Prufrock shows that he is part of the societal circle, and has shared the shallowness of living he finds repulsive in his peers.. Prufrock understands the his inability to "disturb the universe" when he considers how he will approach his intended romantic interest, but realizes his leisurely way of life has left him ill-prepared to deal with the responsibilities that accompany change: "I should have been a pair of ragged claws/ Scuttling across the floors of silent seas."
Not Surprisingly, after declining to "dare disturb the universe," he becomes resigned to his unchanging fate in superficial, sophisticated style. He imagines himself walking along a perfect beach, wearing fine "white flannel trousers," He has not lost or gained anything, the labor of his decision has added up to nothing of consequence.
Prufrock talks compulsively of the party scene, but actually speaks to no one. Even as the scene unfolds in his mind, he is rendered practically speechless by the scrutiny of the cultured society matrons as they "fix" their gazes upon him: "The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,/ And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin, When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,/ Then how should I begin?" From this line, we see that Prufrock is reduced to a bug under the scrutiny of his peers; there approval pins him down and renders him unable to ask his question. He is tense and excited at the prospect of his question changing his life , but knows he will feel horribly self-conscious , and it frightens him. He is certain if he asks his question and reveals his feelings, he will not be understood. Surely, he would be made the fool. He decides it is not worth the effort after all: "I am no prophet-and here's no great matter;/ I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,/ And I have seen the eternal footman hold my coat, and snicker,/ And in short I was afraid."
In this line, Prufrock's fears betray his desires. He knows the approval he covets comes from a frivolous, futile, class of people. He has heard them talk for years and knows only fashion, appearance, art, and style are deemed worthy of discussion. In fact, he listened so long he can't hear there voices anymore. He can only hear "voices dying with a dying fall," not unlike the indistinguishable hum of music playing in another room. But this is fine with him, because he and his world are once again at a comfortable place.
Finally and permanently, Prufrock accepts that he will never be a prophet like Lazarus or a prince like Hamlet, and he slips into the safety of a fantasy world.

The gift of the magi a continuation

THE GIFT OF THE MAGI
It was one week from Della's 30th birthday and Jim didn't have enough money to buy her a present.
"Well," Jim thought, "if I don't have a watch then why should I have a chain for one?" So, he sold his watch
chain in order to have money for Della's present. "Now, what do I buy Della?" he asked himself. "I think I'll go
to the flea market and look for something, because one little rusty old chain won't buy me very much," Jim stated
as he started riding his bicycle to the market. At the market Jim found many things, some very pretty and
expensive, some very pretty and cheap, and some just plain ugly things that had been there awhile and always
would be until they were finally thrown away. "Omigosh, is that DDDDeeDDDe...?" Jim stuttered in
astonishment. Was what he had seen real? Or was he just jumping to conclusions? Was that really the hair that
Della had sold just 2 years ago? It was, and Jim thought that Della would maybe like it back, so he bought it for 2
cents and he was so happy and he thought he had the best present anyone could ever give their girlfriend. "Now,"
Jim thought, "will this be a useful gift, and I don't mean in a few years, this time I want to get it right," So Jim
thought for two days straight. Finally he came up with an idea, "I'll make it into a wig, a girl can never have to
many wigs." So he went to the wig shop, which usually only made those white braided wigs that all the important
men wore, but the wigmaker made an exception because Jim was a good friend and after all, it was for a girls
birthday. The wigmaker asked, "Are you sure Della will like this present, I mean it is rather odd, and Della's hair
has already grown twice as long as this. But don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be rude, I mean, well I think
I'll just get started on this wig right away, okay, bye." So Jim left, thinking that the wigmaker was a little out of
his mind that day.
The next day, which was the day before Della's birthday, the wigmaker called Jim. "Hello, Umm, did you
want this wig dyed, or left red? And also, I can't make a wig that fits unless Della's head is measured, what will
you do to find out without arousing her suspicions?" Jim answered uncertainly, "Well I guess I'll just have to
that's all, and of course not, Don't you dare dye that beautiful color of hair, it's the prettiest I've ever seen." The
wigmaker replied, " Okay, but I still need to know her head size very soon in order to finish the hat, are you sure
you like that color?" "I'm not stupid, what I say I want is what I want. Now, I will bring the measurements over
as soon as I get them," Jim replied rudely.
"Della," Jim replied, breathless from running all the way to the store and back to buy a tape measure, "I
need to get your measurements for something, could you come here?" Della obeys thinking maybe a new dress as a
present. "What measurements do you need, honey?" Della answered in her sweetest voice. Jim said "I need to get
your head size for something, that's all." "Well, Okay, " Della replied surprised at first, and then realized that she
must be getting a hat for her birthday.
Later at the wig shop. "There, it's all finished; do you like it Jim?" asked the wigmaker. Jim said, "It's
great, don't you think? You don't look to sure about it?" The wigmaker replied, lying, "It's great, after all it's the
thought that counts, right?." "Sure thing Phil, well, gotta go, tomorrow's Della's birthday, are you going to be
there?" "Sure Jim, I'll be there." Said the wigmaker.
It is Della's birthday, all of Jim and Della's friends are at their home, and she begins to open presents.
She will be opening Jim's present first. "I wonder what it could be?" Della claims, quite ecstatically. She unties
the ribbon, carefully undoes the golden wrapping paper, opens the box, and slowly takes out the tissue paper, piece
by piece. "I'm really exited," she says as the first piece floats to the floor. "I can hardly wait, I know it will be
great," she says as the second tissue is lifted up. "This is the last one, it's it's ......... it's a wig!!!" Della shouts
loudly and upset. "It is just a piece of filthy old hair, worse yet it's someone else's who could have germs. How
dare you, you, you" Jim shouts back, in order to be heard by the roaring of Della, "My sweet, it's your very own
hair, the hair in which you cut off to buy me a Christmas present, doesn't that mean anything to you? And besides,
I thought it was the thought that counted." But Della was to upset to listen to reason. She shouted at him, "I hate
you, I really hate you. How dare you give me a worthless rag, get away from me, I never want to see you again, I'm
packing and leaving tomorrow!" As she finished speaking she ran into her bedroom, locked the door, and dropped
onto her bed, crying her eyes out. Della left the next day, not even saying goodbye to Jim. Jim was heartbroken.
He moved away out of shame for being so dum. For the next 30 years he kept the wig, which had been thrown
back in his face by his beloved, and he mourned his loss. He vowed that if he could ever se Della again, he could
make up for his stupidity.


It is 34 years after Della left Jim. Jim had previously been traveling the country, and eventually settled
in Della's home town, hoping that someday she too would return. Lucky for him, she did return, for her 64th
birthday. She wanted to spend it with her brother, David, and his family. David and Jim had been friends ever
since they met when Della and Jim started seeing each other. David is how Jim had been keeping tabs on where
Della was. By now, Della was old, gray, with short ugly hair. On Della's birthday, Jim showed up, with the wig
hiding in a box. Della opened the door and froze, stunned. "Jim, it, it's been so long, why are you here?" Della
asked shakily. Jim replied, "Well, I have never forgotten you Della, and I still love you and hope you could forgive
me." "Actually, I shouldn't have been as cruel to you as I was, but still, that was a dum move," Della said. Jim
stated apologetically, "It was a stupid present then, but would you take it now? It kinda fits the situation better
don't you think? But I am not implying that you look ugly now, If I gave you this I wouldn't want you to wear it if
your just around me if you didn't want, because I don't think you've changed one bit." Jim says, taking the box
from behind him and handing it to Della. She opens it, and it's the old wig, but cleaned and groomed of course.
Della stutters, "I, I, I don't know what to say. I love it, and it's true with me also. I have never loved anyone else
but you." Jim asks, "Della, will you marry me?" "Yes, oh yes, of course I will marry you." Della says as she puts
on the old wig.
Della and Jim lived happily ever after, until 2 years later when they both died together in a terrible car
crash.

The Dark House

Story e - The dark house by Tom-Inge

Earlier today, John and I were taking a walk in the outskirts of the town, when we saw an old house on top of a hill. I wanted to take a closer look at it, but John looked a little spooked, and mumbled something about not wanting to go there.
I convinced him that there was nothing to be afraid of, it's just an old house which haven't been occupied for a while, though I wasn't sure whether someone really was living there. We walked up the driveway, up to the house. It was huge. The place looked deserted, the grass wasn't mowed for ages, and everything was a mess. John chew nails like crazy, but I still wanted to check this place out.
The door was made of wood, and looked like it could fall apart any minute.
I tried to turn the door knob, but it fell off as soon as I touched it. The knob rolled down the steps and kept on rolling down the driveway, and stopped by the fence.
That didn't make John feel any better at all. He looked like he had seen a ghost.
I took a deep breath, and pushed the door. It wouldn't budge an inch. "Help me out", I said, but John kept chewing his nails. God knows why, there was nothing to be scared of. Or was it? I took a step backwards, and then kicked the door. It slowly slid open, and I went inside. "Wow! What a huge mansion we've got here!" John took a peek into the house, but didn't dare go inside.
There was a huge hall in the middle of the house, with staircases to my left and right. I went right ahead, towards a glass door in front of me. It wasn't locked, so I carefully turned the knob, and the door opened. Suddenly I felt someone touch my shoulder. I turned around immediately to see, but there was nobody there. "Probably just my imagination", I said to myself, and went on into the room.
It was a lounge, with some impressive furniture, antiques and other objects. It was a lot to look at, and I yelled for John. He didn't reply, so I went to check on him. All I found outside the house was a shoe, and his necklace. I couldn't quite understand what was going on. If he'd run away, at least he'd taken his belongings with him. The door slammed shut behind me, and my heart stopped for a second or two. I turned, and again there was nobody there. All I could hear, was the breeze in the trees nearby, and a helicopter flying over the town. I admit I was a bit spooked myself now, and felt like running away, but I was fascinated by this old house, and wanted to explore it.
I turned around and went inside again, the door wasn't locked this time. I went up the staircase, and into a bedroom. I should never have done that. On the bed lay John, without his shoe or necklace, completely pale in his face, dead. I started crying, wishing that we'd never entered this house in the first place. A cold breeze made me stop crying, and to swear revenge upon whoever that did this to my friend. Outside the room I spotted something floating in the air, in the hall. It was transparent, I could see through it. It floated closer to me, and I started running away, down the stairs and towards the door leading outside. But it was locked. "I'm doomed", I thought, and stood still. As I looked to my left, I saw a window, big enough for me to climb through. I ran over there, knowing that the floating thing was following me. The window was in a kitchen, and in one corner I saw a little white furry thing with long ears. I looked behind me, the floating thing had stopped in the hall. I picked up the bunny, but when it turned around, I could see its long, bloodstained teeth, and its red eyes, staring at me. I couldn't move, I panicked. The bunny jumped and bit my arm, my god it was painful, and the blood started running, dripping on the floor. I kicked the bunny, it flew towards the hall, and then I broke the window with my shoe. But something kept me back. I had sworn revenge, so I couldn't leave this house until I had eliminated the creature which had killed John. I turned, the bunny came running towards me, and I grabbed a knife to fight it off with. I waved the knife around, trying to stab the bunny to death, and managed to do so after having been bit way too many times in my legs. The kitchen didn't contain any form of bandages, so I started searching around the house, carrying the bloody knife with me.
At last I found the bathroom, and some bandages to put on my wounds, but suddenly someone turned off the lights. I got terrified, and walked around as blind as a bat. I felt someone touching me again, and ran as fast as I could in a random direction, until I hit my head in something and fainted. When I woke up again, I felt pain in my right leg. When I looked, I saw the furry little white thing chewing on my leg. I grabbed a pot plant, and smashed it into the rabbit, which fell lifeless to the floor. I picked up the rabbit, and walked towards a railing.
I was now in the hall, and I saw the floating thing downstairs, near the kitchen. The bunny started to move, and I quickly threw it over the railing. It hit the thing down there, and they melted together into a green slimy mass. The green stuff began crawling up the staircase, and towards me. My feet ached so much, I couldn't run, so I picked up my knife from the floor and prepared to fight it. I slashed the knife into the monster, but nothing happened. I tried several times, but of no use. I climbed over the railing, and lowered myself by my arms down to the floor below. The green mass followed. I walked towards the kitchen, but it was hard to see anything in the dark. Some light came in through the windows, though. I searched the room roughly, and found a fork, a bottle, some broken glass which I cut my finger on, and a flashlight. I turned on the flashlight and looked around. I found some kerosene, and put it in the empty bottle I found, and then tore a piece of cloth from my shirt and stuffed into the bottle. The Molotov cocktail was ready for use. I lurched upon the creature, and when I was close enough, I lit the cloth with my lighter, and threw the cocktail at the green slime.
The monster burned for quite a while, and soon it was nothing left but ashes.
I went up to the bedroom where John was, and I fainted when I saw him get out of bed all by himself.
When I awakened, I noticed that I was lying on the ground outside the house. John said that we'd better get as far away from this house as possible. I tried to get on my feet, but I just fell on the ground again. John helped me get to the railway station, and bought me a ticket. He had to go home, so he couldn't join me. Now I am sitting here in a couch, riding as far away from that spooky place as I can, but my legs are still aching. And what is that furry little creature in the corner of the couch?

THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO

The Count of Monte Cristo
by: Alexandre Dumas




The Story of Edmond Dantès, the Sailor, who Becomes the Rich
& Powerful Count of Monte Cristo and Takes Revenge on all his Enemies.








Chesky Hoffman
June 17, 1996
Dr. Goodale



In this essay I will show how Edmond Dantès punishes his four enemies with relation to their specific ambitions. Edmond is sent to jail due to his enemies' jealousy. After he escapes he becomes rich and powerful and gets back at them. Before I relate to you how Dantès gets back at his enemies I would like to familiarize you with the story.
The story describes the life of its main character Edmond Dantès. He is promoted to captain of his ship. This promotion ignites the jealousy of his fellow shipmate Danglars. Dantès is then falsely accused of being a Bonapartist. This means he sides with Napoleon Bonaparte and is committing treason against his own king. He is sent to a prison called the Château d'If. The Château d'If was surrounded by water and was known as a place of no return. When Dantès escapes, he takes revenge against his four enemies who conspired against him to send him to prison, in the manner of an eye for and eye. These four conspirators are Danglars, Caderousse, Fernand Mondago, and Villefort. In order to take revenge on his four enemies, Dantès uses a variety of names and disguises. The main new identity he uses for himself is The Count of Monte Cristo.
Danglars, as mentioned above, was the Count's shipmate when his name was still Edmond Dantès. When Edmond went to jail, Danglars ran away and became very rich. Caderousse was a tailor. He was also the Count's father's landlord and once the count was sent to prison, Caderousse allowed Dantès' father to starve to death. Fernand Mondago was in love with the count's fiancee Mercédès. When the Count was sent to jail Fernand married her on the pretext that the count would not return. These three enemies all got together one night and were all responsible for writing an incriminating letter about the Count to his fourth enemy, Monsieur De Villefort, who was the city's temporary prosecutor at the time. He was responsible for the actual sending of the Count to prison.
After the Count escaped from prison, he discovered that all his enemies had moved to Paris. He became acquainted with people from that city and eventually moved there so that he could have his revenge. The revenge taken on Danglars matches the crime which he committed toward the Count. When Danglars wrote the incriminating letter about the Count, calling him a Bonapartist, his intention was to get the Count's position as Captain of the ship for himself. This shows how power hungry he was. In order for the Count to take proper revenge on this man, he recalled Danglars's great lust for power and decided to gradually diminish Danglars' wealth. This in turn made Danglars lose his reputation as a good banker. As a result, Danglars had to run away from the embarrassment of losing all of his power and high stature.
We see the same concept of 'an eye for and eye' played out in the Count's revenge toward Caderousse. When the Count escaped from jail he remembered what a love for money Caderousse had. Therefore he brought Caderousse a diamond. When an appraiser came to Caderousse's house, he paid for the diamond and then stayed for the night. In middle of the night Caderousse killed the appraiser and took both the diamond and the money paid for it. He was caught and sentenced to hard labor in prison. The Count chose this form of revenge because he knew that Caderousse could not resist the temptation of extra money. The Count punished him in this fashion because Caderousse took away all the money that Dantès left for his father. This loss of money caused Dantès' father to starve to death. The Count understood Caderousse's greed and punished him through it.
The Count took revenge on Fernand Mondego by causing his wife Mercédès and son Albert to leave home. To do this, the Count introduced Albert to Danglars's daughter. The couple became engaged. A few days before the wedding was to take place, Danglars asked the Count for information about Fernand. The Count told him to send a letter to where Fernand worked as guard for the Ali Pasha. When Danglars received a reply to his letter, the news spread quickly that Fernand was a traitor and let the enemy become victorious. The Pasha entrusted Fernand with his wife and daughter. Fernand sold them indirectly to the Count. The main point of this punishment was to make Mercédès and Albert leave Fernand. This punishment relates to Fernand's ambitions because the Count thought about how back in Marseilles Fernand took away his family (Mercédès and his father). In getting his revenge, the Count causes Fernand to lose his family.
Villefort was a loyalist, His father was a Bonapartist. He was always trying to get the favor of the King so that he could get an even higher position. One way to accomplish this task was to find Bonapartists and put them in jail. Villefort sent the Count to jail only because the latter knew that Villefort's father was a Bonapartist. When he sent the Count to prison he thought he was covering up his secret about his father for good by burying the Count in the Château d'If. Then the Count reappeared. In his revenge toward Villefort, the Count uncovered a secret which Villefort thought was literally buried many years ago. The Count discovered the secret of an illegitimate child which had been born of a union between Villefort and Madame Danglars. Villefort had buried the child alive, but someone had rescued him. The Count of Monte Cristo disgraced Villefort by revealing the secret of his illegitimate child to the public. This method of revenge was symbolic. Villefort thought he had buried the disgrace of his dead son forever. He also thought he had "buried" the secret of his father, the Bonapartist, by sending Edmond Dantès, the one who knew his secret, to the Château d'If. Edmond came back from the dead as did Villefort's son.
We see from this story that it is not wise to take revenge. It is up to G-d to decide what each person deserves. In our story, a man named Edmond Dantès thought it wise to take revenge on his enemies. He took revenge on each person in a way that related to the way they originally conspired against him. However, at the end, instead of feeling good about himself, he felt confused. On the one hand he got back at his enemies, but on the other hand, he lost the affection of Mercédès, whom he loved. He then recognized that if a person does take revenge into his own hands, G-d now has a way of punishing him. Edmond Dantès ruined everyone who hurt him and in the process, he ruined himself.

The changes in the narratots view of sonny

The Changes in the Narrator's View of Sonny

Can one know another's thoughts? Through dialogue, actions, and events, the thoughts and views
of a man of whom we know not even a name are shown. The man is the narrator of "Sonny's Blues" and
his thoughts we are shown are those directed towards his brother. Over the course of the story, there are
three major stages or phases that the narrator goes through, in which his thoughts about his brother
change. We see that those stages of thought vary greatly over the narrator's life, from confusion about his
brother to understanding. Each phase brings different views of his own responsibility toward his brother,
his brother's manhood, and his brother's sense of reality.
Through out the story, three of the narrator's view are changed, the first of which is Sonny's
manhood. During the first phase, early in the story, the narrator showed that he viewed Sonny as a child.
"I was beginning to realize that I'd never seen him so upset before... [and decided this was] one of those
things kids go through and that I shouldn't make it seem important."(49) This quote is an example of how
the narrator viewed his brother. He not only thought Sonny acted as a kid, but was also too young to be
planning a future or career. "He still wasn't a man yet, he was still a child, and they had to watch out for
him in all kinds of ways."(51) The narrator decided that he would plan Sonny's future and when Sonny
rebelled, the narrator saw it as yet another childish action.
Another way in which the narrator's overall view changed was his view on whether Sonny's idea
of reality was sound. Still in the first phase, the narrator often presents his view of reality and when Sonny
rejects it, the narrator feels Sonny is being unreasonable. For instance, "'Well Sonny,' I said, gently, "you
know people can't always do exactly what they want to do-' 'No I don't think that,' said Sonny, surprising
me."(49) Actually, Sonny understood life much more clearly than the narrator, but the narrator did not
realize that then. He thought that perhaps Sonny was just too young or too high on drugs to understand
what life was about.
Finally, the third view changed was the narrator's responsibility towards Sonny. Before the
brothers' mother died, the narrator promised he would take it upon himself to take care of Sonny should
the mother die. The narrator viewed Sonny as a responsibility he had. Because of the promise made to his
mother, he felt he owed it to his mother to take care of Sonny. Therefore, whenever he did something for
Sonny it was because his mother had wanted him to, not because he cared about Sonny. As soon as taking
care of Sonny stopped working with his schedule, he sent him to his mother-in-law's house.
During the story, however, a long separation brought the narrator into his second stage of
thinking, and changed his views of Sonny. The narrator recognized that Sonny wasn't just a kid any more.
Sonny had been in the Navy and had been living on his own for some time. Yet he didn't see him as a
man either. "He was a man by then, of course, but I wasn't willing to see it."(52) He saw Sonny as a
teenager of sorts. Sonny dressed strangely, became family with strange friends, and listened to still
stranger music." In the narrator's eyes, Sonny foolishly thought he knew everything.
Even though the narrator's views on Sonny's manhood changed, during the second stage his
feelings about Sonny's sense of reality didn't. When he saw Sonny after Sonny's stay in the Navy, the
narrator still viewed Sonny as if he were on drugs. "He carried himself, loose and dreamlike all the time,
...and his music seemed to be merely an excuse for the life he led. It sounded just that weird and
disordered."(52) He thought that Sonny had been driven even farther from reality than before. He thought
that Sonny's view of reality was so distorted that he might as well have been dead.
Unlike his views on Sonny's sanity, when his views on Sonny's manhood changed so he thought,
did his responsibility toward Sonny. He began fighting regularly with Sonny, "Then [Sonny] stood up and
he told me not to worry about him anymore in life, that as he was dead as far as I was concerned."(52)
During this time in which the narrator thought Sonny was acting as a teenager he forsook his promise all
together. The narrator did not communicate with his brother at all for some time. During this time of no
communication, he felt that he could do nothing more and could not be held responsible for what
happened to Sonny.
As the story nears completion, a single event brings the narrator out of the second phase and into
his third phase. It is in this final pahse that the narrator obtains a true understanding of Sonny. The death
of the narrator's daughter Grace was so devastating to the narrator that he said, "My trouble made his
real"(53). The narrator finally felt the pain and despair that had plagued his brother for so long. It was at
that moment that the narrator found himself understanding Sonny's manhood. He was on the same level
as his brother, and he was finally seeing his brother as he truly was. When the narrator felt these feelings
he saw that Sonny was just a man that was steeped in despair and deserved respect.
All of the narrator's views did not change at once. He had already come to accept Sonny as a man
before his views of Sonny's sanity changed. As he listened to Sonny's emotional playing, he came to the
realization that Sonny had always understood what life was about. He listened to the playing and
recognized it as more than merely music. Through his mentioning the cup of trembling, the cup that hold
the anger of the Lord, he shows he understands what Sonny has been through. He finally knew that
Sonny's songs, Sonny's blues weren't weird or disordered but were actually a way to freedom.
Finally, during the third phase, the narrator finally started caring about Sonny instead of try to
care for Sonny. He no longer saw him as just something to be taken care of, he finally began to see him as
a brother. He became sensitive to what offended Sonny and took caution to avoid them. He was willing to
be interested in what Sonny interested in. Finally, he was willing to sit and listen to Sonny instead of
telling him how to run his life. All of these were drastic changes from when their mother had first died
and improved the brothers' relationship.
Through out the story it is as if the narrator is descending a stair well. Each stage that the narrator goes
through is another flight of stairs and each flight of stairs he descends brings him closer to an
understanding of Sonny. The narrator descended one flight and it changed his views one way, another
flight and his views changed again. During the whole ordeal he can see Sonny, yet his views of Sonny are
distorted or blurred. After each stage he believes his new view is the correct one, however it is not until he
reaches the ground that he gets a true idea of what Sonny is like. It is then that he brings himself down to
Sonny's level and begins seeing Sonny as an equal.

Swifts Real Argument

Swift's Real Argument

God only knows from whence came Freud's theory of penis envy, but one of his more tame theories, that of "reverse psychology", may have its roots in the satire of the late Jonathan Swift. I do not mean to assert that Swift employed or was at all familiar with that style of persuasion, but his style is certainly comparable. Reverse psychology (as I chose to define it for this paper) means taking arguments that affirm an issue to such a degree that they seem absurd, and thus oppose the issue. Swift, in "An Argument [Against] The Abolishing Of Christianity In England" stands up for Christianity, and based on the absurdity of his defense, he inadvertently desecrates it. He sets up a fictitious society in which Christianity is disregarded and disdained, but nominal Christianity remains. The author writes to defend this nominal Christianity from abolition. The arguments that the author uses, which are common knowledge in his time, if applied to Christianity in Swift's time would be quite dangerous allegations. Indeed, the reasons that Swift gives for the preservation of the fictitious Christianity are exactly what he sees wrong with the Christianity practiced in his time. By applying Swift's satirical argument for the preservation of this fictitious religion to that which was currently practiced, Swift asserts that their Christianity served ulterior motives, both for the government and for the people.
If we are to prove that the government was using religion for selfish purposes, we must be sure that it was not serving its intended purpose, the assurance of the moral sanctity of its policies. This is quite evident in the author's comment that if real Christianity was revived, it would be, "destroy at one blow all the wit and half the learning of the kingdom; to break the entire frame and constitution of things[.]" This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity has no influence on the government's current policies. It even seems as if the government established Church isn't completely rooted in Christianity, as the author weakly suggests that, "[A]bolishing Christianity may perhaps bring the church into danger."
The ways that the government actually uses Christianity are completely selfish. One such purpose is the consolation of allies, "among whom, for we ought to know, it may be the custom of the country to believe a God." He later goes on to suggest the abolition of Christianity in peace-time in order to avoid the loss of allies. It also seems as if the government uses Christianity to pacify the commoners. Although Swift sarcastically interjects, "Not that I [agree] with those who hold religion to have been the intervention of politicians to keep the lower part of the world in awe," he also says that religion is, "[O]f singular use for the common people."
In other instances, the government does not use, but certainly benefits from Christianity. In several ways Christianity is a buffer from dissension, in that it takes a blow that might have instead landed on government. Many of the reasons that the author's opposition has given for abolishing Christianity deals with the settlement of unrest that comes from religious disputes. One such example they give is that if Christianity were abolished, there would be no more persecution of "blasphemers". Swift answers that these people are naturally inclined to rebel against establishments. Therefore, if the church, their favorite object of rebellion, was taken away, they would resort to rebelling against the government. This statement suggests that ,"deorum offensa diis curae" (offenses against the gods are the god's business). If applied to the English government, it accuses them of only punishing "blasphemers" in the interest of protecting the government. Another argument that the author counters is that upon the fall of Christianity, Protestants and other dissenters would be able to again join in communion with the Catholic church. To this, the author retorts that while this may take away one reason for dissension, "spirit of opposition" would still remain. Thus, when these Protestants found themselves unhappily thrust back into the fold, they would simply find another area in which to dissent, and this time it may be an important area like government. While reaffirming the government's selfish motives, this accuses the Protestants of separating from the Catholic church not because of moral differences, but in order to quench their desire to rebel. Another unity that the author's opposition predicted would come from Christianity's fall would that of political and religious parties. Swift answers that these parties used religious differences as an excuse to argue, and that, if necessary, they would find any number of other matters to argue about. One very lilliputian example that he gives is that of two Italian factions that spawned from a dispute over the color of some ribbons. The author asserts that, much like the Protestants, these parties used religion as an excuse to fulfill their selfish desire to argue.
Like the politicians, the people also have disposed of Christianity as far as letting influence their actions. The Christianity then practiced has no relation to real Christianity, "[S]uch as used in primitive times", "to have an influence upon men's beliefs and actions." Apparently, even belief in a god, "is more than is required of us" (Christians). Also, "[B]y an entire change in the methods of education," "the young gentlemen who are now on the scene seem to have not the least tincture of [virtue, honor, etc.]." This new generation, while not believing in the morals associated Christianity, still gain from their existence. While they disobey the laws associated with these morals, Swift asserts that breaking the rule wouldn't be nearly as fun if it wasn't considered wrong.
The people also value church for selfish reasons. As Swift explains, church is many things for many people, none of which include spiritual fulfillment. For social butterflies, church is the perfect place to hob-knob or show off your latest outfit. For the businessman, "where more meetings for business?", "where more bargains driven of all sorts?" Finally, for the insomniac, "where so many conveniences or enticements to sleep?" These statements apply more directly than any others in the article to the high church of England.
All of the things that Swift says about this fictional religion would be very strong words if applied to the Church of England. It might be readily conceived by the innocent reader that Swift was an enemy of the church in his time. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Swift was involved in the church and politics all his life, often in the position of supporting political and religious factions. While this could be used to counter my thesis that Swift was criticizing the establishment, it can just as easily support it. Swift obviously didn't hate government or the church, on the contrary, it was his love of these things that led him to point out the injustices that were scarring them. Like a mother scolding her child, Swift finds fault in his beloved church, only that he may edify it.

Swifts Real Argument 2

Swift's Real Argument

God only knows from whence came Freud's theory of penis envy, but one of his more tame theories, that of "reverse psychology", may have its roots in the satire of the late Jonathan Swift. I do not mean to assert that Swift employed or was at all familiar with that style of persuasion, but his style is certainly comparable. Reverse psychology (as I chose to define it for this paper) means taking arguments that affirm an issue to such a degree that they seem absurd, and thus oppose the issue. Swift, in "An Argument [Against] The Abolishing Of Christianity In England" stands up for Christianity, and based on the absurdity of his defense, he inadvertently desecrates it. He sets up a fictitious society in which Christianity is disregarded and disdained, but nominal Christianity remains. The author writes to defend this nominal Christianity from abolition. The arguments that the author uses, which are common knowledge in his time, if applied to Christianity in Swift's time would be quite dangerous allegations. Indeed, the reasons that Swift gives for the preservation of the fictitious Christianity are exactly what he sees wrong with the Christianity practiced in his time. By applying Swift's satirical argument for the preservation of this fictitious religion to that which was currently practiced, Swift asserts that their Christianity served ulterior motives, both for the government and for the people.
If we are to prove that the government was using religion for selfish purposes, we must be sure that it was not serving its intended purpose, the assurance of the moral sanctity of its policies. This is quite evident in the author's comment that if real Christianity was revived, it would be, "destroy at one blow all the wit and half the learning of the kingdom; to break the entire frame and constitution of things[.]" This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity has no influence on the government's current policies. It even seems as if the government established Church isn't completely rooted in Christianity, as the author weakly suggests that, "[A]bolishing Christianity may perhaps bring the church into danger."
The ways that the government actually uses Christianity are completely selfish. One such purpose is the consolation of allies, "among whom, for we ought to know, it may be the custom of the country to believe a God." He later goes on to suggest the abolition of Christianity in peace-time in order to avoid the loss of allies. It also seems as if the government uses Christianity to pacify the commoners. Although Swift sarcastically interjects, "Not that I [agree] with those who hold religion to have been the intervention of politicians to keep the lower part of the world in awe," he also says that religion is, "[O]f singular use for the common people."
In other instances, the government does not use, but certainly benefits from Christianity. In several ways Christianity is a buffer from dissension, in that it takes a blow that might have instead landed on government. Many of the reasons that the author's opposition has given for abolishing Christianity deals with the settlement of unrest that comes from religious disputes. One such example they give is that if Christianity were abolished, there would be no more persecution of "blasphemers". Swift answers that these people are naturally inclined to rebel against establishments. Therefore, if the church, their favorite object of rebellion, was taken away, they would resort to rebelling against the government. This statement suggests that ,"deorum offensa diis curae" (offenses against the gods are the god's business). If applied to the English government, it accuses them of only punishing "blasphemers" in the interest of protecting the government. Another argument that the author counters is that upon the fall of Christianity, Protestants and other dissenters would be able to again join in communion with the Catholic church. To this, the author retorts that while this may take away one reason for dissension, "spirit of opposition" would still remain. Thus, when these Protestants found themselves unhappily thrust back into the fold, they would simply find another area in which to dissent, and this time it may be an important area like government. While reaffirming the government's selfish motives, this accuses the Protestants of separating from the Catholic church not because of moral differences, but in order to quench their desire to rebel. Another unity that the author's opposition predicted would come from Christianity's fall would that of political and religious parties. Swift answers that these parties used religious differences as an excuse to argue, and that, if necessary, they would find any number of other matters to argue about. One very lilliputian example that he gives is that of two Italian factions that spawned from a dispute over the color of some ribbons. The author asserts that, much like the Protestants, these parties used religion as an excuse to fulfill their selfish desire to argue.
Like the politicians, the people also have disposed of Christianity as far as letting influence their actions. The Christianity then practiced has no relation to real Christianity, "[S]uch as used in primitive times", "to have an influence upon men's beliefs and actions." Apparently, even belief in a god, "is more than is required of us" (Christians). Also, "[B]y an entire change in the methods of education," "the young gentlemen who are now on the scene seem to have not the least tincture of [virtue, honor, etc.]." This new generation, while not believing in the morals associated Christianity, still gain from their existence. While they disobey the laws associated with these morals, Swift asserts that breaking the rule wouldn't be nearly as fun if it wasn't considered wrong.
The people also value church for selfish reasons. As Swift explains, church is many things for many people, none of which include spiritual fulfillment. For social butterflies, church is the perfect place to hob-knob or show off your latest outfit. For the businessman, "where more meetings for business?", "where more bargains driven of all sorts?" Finally, for the insomniac, "where so many conveniences or enticements to sleep?" These statements apply more directly than any others in the article to the high church of England.
All of the things that Swift says about this fictional religion would be very strong words if applied to the Church of England. It might be readily conceived by the innocent reader that Swift was an enemy of the church in his time. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Swift was involved in the church and politics all his life, often in the position of supporting political and religious factions. While this could be used to counter my thesis that Swift was criticizing the establishment, it can just as easily support it. Swift obviously didn't hate government or the church, on the contrary, it was his love of these things that led him to point out the injustices that were scarring them. Like a mother scolding her child, Swift finds fault in his beloved church, only that he may edify it.