In the end Rainsford is able to win, and by doing so gains knowledge that changes him. Rainsford is a dynamic character because he changes from being apathetic towards hunting animals, to empathetic towards hunting animals. At the beginning of the story, Rainsford is apathetic towards hunting animals and sees no problem with doing so. In the exposition of the story, Rainsford is a big-game hunter, and enjoys hunting
Miriam walks by Paula’s house and “stood on the sidewalk out front hoping that wherever Paula was, they would never find her and make her go back again” (73). Paula’s mother, on the other hand, is struck simultaneously by the pain of her daughter’s disappearance and the realization that her husband may have molested her. She may be destined to live out her days without ever discovering what has happened to her daughter. The misery caused by the lack of closure
Fern uses the power of language to both resist the normative power and destroy inadequacy when she persuades her father to not kill a runty piglet who was just born, and again when she gives Wilbur his name. Fern is constructed first as a strong female character who resists the norms of her society, however, after saving and mothering Wilbur she begins to conform to norms such as gaining an interest in boys, which contradicts her earlier characterization, and now characterizes her as a motherly, feminine figure. Charlotte who also saves Wilbur’s life through the power of language resists the norms of killing animals for food and destroys Wilbur’s inadequacy. Charlotte is characterized as a selfless motherly figure because she nobly works hard to destroy Wilbur’s inadequacy and succeeds but gets no recognition. However, Wilbur is the complete opposite of Charlotte.
This insanity is created by Fletcher’s effective use of the elements of plot. She takes the readers from the exposition to the climax where insanity is almost sure, her plot elements work together to make an effective play. Fletcher creates the exposition and the rising action to build suspense. One of the first ways that Fletcher develops suspense is in the exposition. The main character, Ronald Adams, says, “I Know that I am, at this moment perfectly sane, that is not I who is gone
Tho it is hard to see until the very end of the play, A Raisin in the Sun written by Lorraine Hansberry shows Walter Younger is a big dreamer and wants to be rich. Younger is a very selfish man and shows his selfishness through his sacrificing of the family money. When the Younger family inherits ten thousand dollars from the death of a family member, Walter goes crazy trying to get his hands on the money to invest in the liquor store downtown. His selfishness is shown when Mama gives him what is left of the life insurance and he is told to save a generous amount of money for Beneatha’s schooling and then he can keep the rest for saving up. Instead of doing what he is told to do, he invests in the liquor store with his two other friends.
Faulkner’s story demonstrates totally different plot: there is an own main character, her mental disorder and its consequences for the society. In the case of Emily Grierson the problem appeared to be in the inherited disorder, as “people in our town, remembering how old lady Wyatt, her great-aunt, had gone completely crazy at last” (Faulkner 4); and the citizens’ attitude. Miss Emily felt a pressure from people because of own origins and behavior; and these conditions finally made her to kill Homer Barron, an only potential opportunity for marriage after her father’s death. After the crime Miss Emily was not able to get rid of the body and continued to live with it until her own death. It looked like Baron became the only victim of the character’s madness here.
He asks that townspeople for help, whereas the typical hero would not ask for any help. He shows his obvious fear or Frank and getting in different ways. He makes a will because he believes he is going to die, he, at first flees from Frank in fear, and even cries at one point. Both characters show much emotion and fear and are atypical action film/story protagonists. They both also have a strong moral compass, as Will fights for a town that would rather be rid of him and Rainsford turns his nose up at hunting humans against his own personal benefit.
Man vs. Society The short story "Two Fishermen" by Morley Callaghan depicts an important message about the relationship that conformity has with morality. Callaghan illustrates that the true nature of an individual 's being is only revealed when they are put under pressure. This message is portrayed through the characters Michael Foster, Billy Hilton, and K. Smith. In Michael Foster 's case, he is given a choice to stand up for and protect an innocent man with whom he had become acquaintances with. With reference to Billy Hilton, his choice to cast a blind eye to the law go against the very book that he swore an oath to.
Entertaining discussion with Neil over the beauty of a visiting mistress, Mrs. Forrester comments that the girl is “considered pretty,” purposefully omitting her opinion to implicitly imply that the girl is not pretty in the eyes of Mrs. Forrester (28). By specifically using “considered,” Mrs. Forrester only furthers Cather’s argument that perfection is subjective as the girl is flawed to Mrs. Forrester (28). Instead of highlighting her impolite behavior, Neil takes it in stride and later tells her that she is still “lovely” (30), even after realizing that, whenever Mrs. Forrester describes other women, “she always made fun of them a little” (28). By creating the contrast from a young idealistic Neil desiring to see the best in Mrs. Forrester and the older Neil wishing for things to stay “the same,” Cather draws a distinction between idealism drawn from hope compared to idealism drawn from complacency, harping on Neil’s desire to maintain his ideals even after realizing its flaws
As far as Fenwick’s concerned, Foster is blamed for his failure in career because Foster, somehow, has always surpassed him in every work. Even Foster’s character: “He could not bear to be disliked; he hated that anyone should think ill of him; he wanted everyone to be his friend” (241) utterly contradicts to that of Fenwick: “He did not want friends; he certainly did not care that people should like him” (241). And why did he ask Foster for a walk and show him his tarn on the hill? Wasn’t he having “some further design in this” (243)? There is no evidence that the murder of Foster has been arranged in advance, but perhaps the severe hatred and envy have developed so deeply within Fenwick’s mind that in a moment he decided to push his friend into the cold water of the tarn which is, in his perception, his real partner.