We see Holden’s fear of phonies shine throughout The Catcher in the Rye. Why does he have this fear? Shouldn’t someone who acts tough and often brags know that they will never become a phony? The answer would be yes if Holden wasn’t so insecure. Holden’s childish ways cause him to never mature and figure out who he is as a person.
''The Cask of Amontillado'' is also a superb early example of the unreliable narrator at work. Having drawn us into Montresor's paranoia with his very first sentence, Poe will not let us escape. Like poor Fortunato, we too are walled up in a suffocating structure from which only death -- or the end of the story -- can release us. Until that moment we are imprisoned in a logic that is entirely sound, but for the fact that it's erected on a false premise(Mcgrath). Poe is a person who you probably do not want to mess with because it seems as if he has the ability to ruin you.
The narrator hires Bartleby and doesn’t fire him when Bartleby refuses to do the work that the narrator asks him to do. The narrator’s first three words that describe Bartleby are “pallidly neat, pitiably respectful, incurable forlorn” (Melville par. 15). The narrator sees negative light from seeing Bartleby. The narrator starts to notice strange things about Bartleby: “he never spoke but to answer,” “never visited any refectory or eating house,” and “never went out for a walk” (Melville par.
This novel was so incredibly out there with its tone, characters, and setting that any attempt to even slightly recreate something along the lines of it would be futile, and most likely blatantly not as good. Rare is it to find a book so unconcerned with the “rules” of fictional writing, especially one that is so well written and and successful in its excursions from conformity, causing the reader to be constantly questioning their views on reality and existence and of things that we only ever acknowledge as mysteries. There is a great existential tone throughout “Night Vale” that is perhaps perfectly represented through this quote: “Your existence is not impossible, but also not very
‘Iago is such a disturbing villain because he seems to have no real motives for his evil.’ How far and in what ways do you agree with this view? Iago is nothing more than a devious mastermind and Machiavellian of the Shakespearean tragedy, Othello. Whilst Iago does try to communicate multiple reasons for his motives in wanting to destroy Cassio and Othello these are mere rationalisations and excuses to provide justification for his evil actions and can only be accepted when analysing Othello on a surface level. Looking into Othello further we can see that Iago is a power thirsty character that dwells in his corruption and evil which makes him such a disturbing villain. Iago gives a sheer numbers of excuses to try and prove his ulterior motives, conveniently adding new reasons for his hate every time he needs to encourage Roderigo to do something for him.
In Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain displays an extremely unique point of view. Throughout the storyTwain seems to gift his characters with a lack of moral values. A gift it might not be, yet still thee characters have been a passion for making bad decisions. This seemingly little plot twist might not look like such a big deal, but in reality it effects the whole story line. These fictional personalities not only decide to do the wrong thing, they also are extremely selfish, greedy, and uncivilized.
If there is no message for the society, the play may not face this affection, but entertaining people by the writer’s wit is more important than saying thing directly without any aesthetic way. Wilde uses “absurdity many times in this work and believe or not, absurdity has a faultless logic. All the conspiracy in this play are absurd and at the end of the First Act, the absurdity reveals automatically. He criticizes 19.th
The idea that the extraordinary narrative which has been called the Joyce-Armstrong Fragment is an elaborate practical joke evolved by some person, cursed by a perverted and sinister sense of humour, has now been abandoned by all who have examined the matter. The most macabre and imaginative of plotters would hesitate before linking his morbid fancies with the unquestioned and tragic facts which reinforce the statement. Though the assertions contained in it are amazing and even monstrous, it is none the less forcing itself upon the general intelligence that they are true, and that we must readjust our ideas to the new situation. This world of ours appears to be separated by a slight and precarious margin of safety from a most singular and
She argues that the characters in Pride and Prejudice are defeatist, ignorant, and, perpetually chained to each other. This stance is troubling, however, because it overlooks the meaningful aspects of Jane Austen’s work, namely the transformation of Darcy and Elizabeth’s relationship. The first point is that “there is no degree of virtue --or talent or beauty--that a good dose of arrogance cannot overwhelm and turn into something bitter and repulsive” (Puterbaugh 1). This is certainly true when it comes to the likes of Mr. Collins, with his supremely conceited attitude. Take, for example, what he spoke to the beautiful Elizabeth on the proposition of engagement.
'LIKE POPE AND SWIFT, WAUGH DESIRES TO SHOCK PEOPLE INTO A REALISATION OF HOW FAR THEY HAD DEPARTED FROM A REASONABLE AND HUMANE STANDARD OF BEHAVIOUR' (D. J. DOOLEY). HOW FAR IS WAUGH'S SATIRE DEPENDENT UPON THE RECOGNITION OF 'REASONABLE AND HUMANE' STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOUR? FOCUS ON ONE OR MORE NOVEL IN THIS COURSE. Although Waugh's satire in 1928's Decline and Fall is entirely dependent upon 'the recognition of reasonable and humane standards of behaviour', Waugh is the only one to make such a 'recognition'; the characters of his novel remain totally unaware as to the extent of their own departure from the standard. This is because the standard which Waugh uses as the moral foundation from which he can satirise his characters has, Waugh believes, long since disappeared from 1920s British society.
Christopher McCandless is a legend of sorts. He, unlike so many, dared to escape society’s opression, to seek insight, and to follow his own heart and intuition. There will always exist those who, in their prejudices and misconceptions, chastise his ideas for being off the trodden path, for McCandless’ beliefs are not the first of its kind. Dozens before him have experienced similar journeys such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, David Henry Thoreau, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and they, too, have been underestimated as mere idealists in their times; only later is their wisdom adequately valued, and even then, much less heeded. Nevertheless, the truth will always exist, though only for those who actively seek it.
What makes the book worth reading, however, is not to revel in the action, nor to mock the seemingly haughty narrator, but to analyze the author’s portrayals of human nature. Wells riddled the plot with examples of the moralistic slump that may occur in the worst of circumstances. To think that “life is an incessant struggle for existence,” is void of all morals and emotion, a raw notion that reveals our most basic purpose in life, simply existing, rather than feeling (Wells 208). His startling displays lead me to wonder whether he is pessimistic or realistic about the human race. This aspect of the text is the only reason the book managed to keep my
The grid can also never create a “city within a city” as it spreads itself in the same pattern wherever the lines crosses and creates a city where every block is connected and homogenous in a convenient but nevertheless dull manner. Koolhaas likely is aware these deficiency in the grid’s implementation on Manhattan as he labels Manhattansim a blueprint and conjecture to justify it’s