Mark twain demolished coopers romanticism in his novels. Cooper’s tone was also criticized as being reactionary, romantic and pedagogical in tone. Sydney Krause States that all of the harsh criticism and the bad talk about Cooper is not the words of a person with good judgment. She is not saying that Mark is wrong, but that he is over stressing the criticism and even though she does agree with him in some ways Cooper is still an amazing writer (“James”). John McWilliams also believes that Mark twain‘s attack on Cooper is not justified.
As a character, Nick himself is somewhat difficult to observe, since we see the whole novel through his eyes. Secondly, Nick states the he is the only honest person he ever known, but it can be agreed that Nick is actually a dishonest character. Finally, Nick isn’t the main character (protagonist) and it becomes evident that he is actually also an unreliable narrator. It would become evident that one shouldn’t believe everything Nick says, especially his “high-and mighty” asides, but you can take his larger characterisations and version of events seriously. Each of the following paragraphs will substantiate the statement that Nick Carraway acts as both the unreliable narrator and dishonest character.
This is very different from the character in the novel, who was portrayed as cynical and careless. These changes received severe criticism from the author of the source book, but Brando wouldn’t have it any other way, as he was a pacifist movement leader in real
Neither the master nor the servant respected the established verticality (Baselga). Not only did Algernon do this with Lane, but he also happened to have a conflict with Jack that is another jab at the Victorian idea of morality: Jack: It is a very ungentlemanly thing to read a private cigarette case. Algernon: Oh! It is absurd to have a hard and fast rule about what one should read and what one shouldn’t. More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn’t read.” (Wilde 6) Wilde made fun of the Victorian idea of morality as a “rigid body of rules” whose purpose is to tell people what they should and shouldn’t do (Sparknotes, Morality) Wilde’s play offers “rather biting … criticism of the institutions and values that … made Britain the world 's greatest colonial power
‘Positive characters … usually prove miserably ineffectual when contending with ruthless overwhelming powers’ claims Amin Malak, noting on such protagonists as Winston Smith and Offred in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, and, when looking at the dystopian genre as a whole, he certainly seems to be correct. Dystopian fiction does seem to portray the worse side of human nature than the better, leaving the positive traits to the struggling protagonists. While utopian writers seemed to think that the essence of human nature was to do good, dystopian writers seem to think very differently and it is from this notion that these novels seem to be written. Nineteen Eighty-Four certainly seems to do this, with almost every member of the society representing one or more negative aspects of humanity. Throughout the novel, Winston constantly references the fact that ‘Today there were fear, hatred and pain’ and that in this society of Ingsoc ‘No emotion was pure, because everything was mixed up with fear and hatred’ and this is displayed in many, various ways.
Humbert Humbert and his Lolita, Dolores Haze, are incomparable characters that toy with the reader’s emotions and are the basis of this story. While questioning the author’s intention in creating such a wretched tale, I discovered that Vladimir Nabokov, himself states that the novel has no intended moral, it was just something he had to get off his chest. And that is perhaps the best evaluation I can offer, one should read Lolita not for is sexual and emotional rawness, the beautiful prose, or a good and honest cry, but because it is book without an intended moral. Books like these have no gray zone, no middle ground, the reader is forced to love it or hate
Which in the end resulted in a very unfitting demise for Gatsby and Myrtle. Nick is not an honest storyteller but he is a reliable narrator because throughout the story he has been judgemental towards others and not saying the full truth or truly giving the reader the satisfaction of knowing his feelings. In the beginning, he said this “In consequence, I’m inclined to reserve all judgments, a habit that has opened up many curious natures to me and also made me the victim of not a few veteran bores.” (Pg.1). Thus from the very beginning of the novel, Nick was stating he had to reserve all judgments but as the reader continues to read on this statement turns out to be false as he in multiple occasions judges a character such as Tom, Gatsby, and Daisy. Nick is a reliable narrator though he tells the full truth all the way to the end well at least to the reader not actually to the characters in the novel.
He argues that the British’s support for social control, meant renouncing the individual alone, and given his propensity towards anarchy, he disapproved of their socialist nature. He denounced the cultural homogeneity of American society, their heedlessness and indifference, and the crooked, nefarious nature of law enforcement. Deemed as his most famous novel, A Clockwork Orange has been regarded considerably influential in areas of literary, visual, and music culture. However, prior to its release there was hesitation on publishing the novel due to worries of being an ‘enormous flop’ (Independent, 2012). It was prompted that, although illustrating a well-kept storyline and pleasant detail, the language would be too challenging to comprehend.
As the Webster’s New World Dictionary states, an anti-hero is the protagonist of a novel who lacks the virtues of a traditional hero. (#27) Instead of showing the good and the bad by using two different people in a hero-villain format, the anti-hero combines the two extremes into one character to show a more realistic human nature. “Yossarian is a morally and physically weak character, the epitome of an anti-hero.” (Sanders, #1) Most of Yossarian’s actions reflect that he disagrees with the term heroism because they are simply the opposite of what a hero
In spite of the fact, that Bradley also proved his points by giving examples from the text. Leavis called Bradley’s criticism on Othello “extravagant in misdirected scrupulosity” (p.136) and accused Bradley for lacking knowledge. The reason Leavis assume of misunderstanding by Bradley is that Bradley didn’t fully understand the text, therefore the evidence he give lacks ‘weigh’ (p.136). Bradley’s wrong interpretation of text was due to the lack of understanding of words on text, which happened due to him being sentimental, and that’s the reason he excessively ‘misdirected’ (p.136) the quality of moral integrity in Othello. Leavis disagree with the Othello being centre of the play “Othello”.