Irving plays off of various inspirations and his character Rip undergoes the typical heroic journey. Although his ends in an impasse. The lines between reality and fiction, what is credible and not, blur suggesting that the myth America will create for itself is disingenuous. The need and desire to fabricate the past results in no real accountability or adequate satisfaction to society. The story proves that society does not want to recognize its past.
There are actually several narrators in The Moon and Sixpence: the anonymous biographer, Rose Waterford, Mrs. Strickland, Colonel MacAndrew, Dirk Stroeve. Each tells a different story about the painter who recedes into increasing obscurity as the novel progresses. By the end of it, the novel is not about Strickland at all, nor is it the story of the anonymous narrator or of Somerset Maugham or of Paul Gauguin. It is a story about story-telling, and it raises important questions about the role of narrative in both discovering and concealing the "truth" about its subject. This is where the enchantment and disenchantment come.
In “Victims and Victimizers in the Fiction of Katherine Mansfield and Jean Rhys”, Jane Nardin argues that Katherine Mansfield fails to follow the modernist style of writing, which approaches issues from a neutral standpoint, when it comes to victim-ization, due to her inability to portray victims and victimizers neutrally. In order to achieve this equality, the faults of the victim and weaknesses of the victimizer must be observable in a text. However Nardin states that Mansfield did attempt to make her victimizers relatable in some stories. An example of such a story would be “The Fly”. In this short story, Katherine Mansfield describes a morning in the life of a man only referred to as the “the boss” who lost his son in World War 1.
He argues that the different paths taken by each of the Hamilton’s essentially creates no contribution to the overall message of the story. In the making of this novel, Steinbeck even said “It’s a kind of sloppy sounding book”, which Lisca quotes in his article. However, Steinbeck goes on to say “but it is not sloppy really”. The variance of perspectives throughout East of Eden and the ‘sloppiness’ that is described can be looked at as a unique sort of structure. The Trasks and the Hamiltons both portray different sides to a story, and each presence contributes to the overall discussion.
Jane Eyre in An Alternative Universe: The Awakening of Women’s Hood. When St. John proposed to me, unlike myself in the other universe who heard Mr. Rochester’s voice calling, I received an oracle, “Jane, you shall be independent! Your purpose of life is not to be a wife of someone!” These groundbreaking but innovative words shocked me deeply. I had never place myself on a level that I am able to live a life of my own. I had been manipulated by the gentlemen’s game for too long time.
Dichotomies as false reflections of reality: Scholars also argue that dichotomies are not concrete reality but rather assumptions and metaphors which hardly correlate with the reality, which is fluid and in which such fixed concrete categories are rarely found (Barbe 2001, Eckel and Weber 2007). Katharina Barbe (2001) suggest that there is a serious need to re-evaluate dichotomies before their repeated use since its use can lead us to misconceive “relationship between opposing hypothesis” (Wilkins 1982: 22 cited in Barbe 2001). In the case of the North-South divide, Julian Eckl and Ralph Weber argue that such divisions tend to simplify issues of global inequality in two categories, wherein both the practitioners and analysts start treating
It became clear that works by alleged structuralists did not fit the idea of structuralism as an attempt to master and codify structures. Barthes, Lacan, and Foucault, for example, were identified as post-structuralists, who had gone beyond structuralism narrowly conceived. They had described ways in which theories get entangled in the phenomena they attempt to describe; how texts create meaning by violating any conventions that structural analysis locates. They recognized the impossibility of describing a complete or coherent signifying system, since systems are always changing. In fact, post-structuralism does not demonstrate the inadequacies or errors of structuralism so much as turn away from the project of working out what makes cultural phenomena intelligible and emphasize instead a critique of knowledge, totality, and the subject.
The source domain of’ building’,’ attacking’, ‘demolishing’,’ winning’ and ‘losing’ or mapped on the target domain of ‘argument’. Metaphors go through series of fashion where some remain uncertain and unknown while others rise to such an extent that they are no longer recognized as metaphors e.g. “warm relationship”, “warm reception”, and “distant relation” (Ritchie). These metaphors are called dead metaphors as they are no longer considered as metaphors but as plain words. Raymond Gibbs explained metaphors as complex phenomenon and predicted that no one theory can explain all aspects of metaphors used in all
Any theoretical framework which fails to slot in such major variables as the impact of war, conquest, colonial domination, international political and military relationships, or of international trade and the cross-national flow of capital cannot hope to explain either the origins of these societies or the nature of their struggles for political and economic autonomy-struggles, it should be added, which all societies face, though perhaps in varying degrees and contexts at different historical moments. Other difficulties are raised by the notion of ‘traditional society '. As Huntington (1971: 293-4) has recently noted, 'modernity and tradition are essentially deferent concepts. This means that the modern ideal is set forth, and then everything which is not modern is labelled traditional’. Thus, the notion of tradition was formulated not upon the basis of observation but rather as an imaginary opposite to modernity.
One is not entering into a serious discussion on the aptness and inaptness, adequacy or inadequacy of what Williams hold. However, one is bound to engage into its demarcation for under its umbrella fall “plays, essays, novels, poetry, and short stories” . In this essay, the concern is not the origin and development of language and literature as such but to consider how it has shaped the human history. Secondly, English did not originate in India; it came with the British. For the moment, therefore, one’s