Native Son Book Review

Title: Native Son
Author: Richard Wright
Date of Publication: 1940
Genre: Urban naturalism; novel of social protest

Historical information about the period of publication:

The 1940’s was a period of time dominated by World War II and its effects. The fear of communism by capitalist Americans was a continuous factor, hence the consistent distrust of “Reds” in the book. It came to the point where there was a questionable who was easier to trust: an African-American or a communist. This is also an example of the difference in acceptances of these two highly feared and disrespected groups in America at the time. African-Americans, human beings who were born in America, were politically accepted but not socially accepted; they were feared and hidden. The Communists were a reminder that war was real and apparent in this time and that America was not impenetrable. Our country suffered greatly, outside and inside its boundaries.

Characteristics of the genre:

Urban naturalism is characterized by the use of realistic representation- depicting actual life like evens of human life, specifically in this novel, African-Americans.  In Native Son, segregation was largely emphasized, something that was very common in the 1930s. Although the events that took place in Native Son did not actually happen, it could happen, therefore it illustrates realistic occurrences.  In most naturalistic literature, the main character is brought to life or influenced through the environment. Naturalism is meant to depict the realistic features that are there but people disregard.  Specifically in Native Son, Bigger is a victim to the social environment that is constructed by racism, but the arrogance of people blinds this idea that through intolerance of a people ---can gravely affect the outcome of psychological development, therefore attributing violent tendencies or immorality into their personas; to be treated without consideration results in a feeling of no purpose and dissatisfaction. Biographical information about the author:
On September 4, 1908 a little boy was born to an illiterate sharecropper and a school teacher. This little boy would face many hardships, simply due to the color of his skin, yet he would overcome those adversities and make a name for himself in the literary community. His name was Richard Wright, the author of Uncle Tom’s Children, Black Boy, and Native Son. Wright knew more than most people about suffering, without a stable childhood home, an ill mother, and an absent father. At six years old Wright’s father left his four year old brother, mother, and him for another woman, this was the start of their problems. A year later Richard Wright’s mother, Ella Wilson Wright, became gravely ill and unable to take care of neither him nor his brother. During the time she was unable to care for them their father’s mother took them in, and then they were sent to an orphanage. When she was sufficiently recovered their little family moved to her sister’s house. Here Wright would pick up some of the resentment he had for white people after his aunt’s husband is murdered by whites. Throughout this time Wright stayed in school, yet as he got around ten years old it became more and more difficult to stay in school due to the adversaries facing him. It became increasingly difficult to hold a job and provide for his family whilst going to school. At the age of 17 with a ninth grade education Wright quit school. He moved to multiple places, sometimes with just his Aunt and other times with the whole family. In 1927 he acquired a job in the postal service in Chicago, here he interacted with both blacks and whites and even attends black literary groups. Everything was swelling until the stock market crashed leaving him without a job. After this Wright becomes a Communist and published a few pieces to magazines and newspapers. Wright became the editor of The Daily Worker, a Communist newspaper, in 1937. He aided greatly in publishing and creating newspapers and articles about racial issues prevalent at the time. A year later he published one of his most famous works, Uncle Tom’s Children. Around this time he met a white modern dance teacher named Dime Rose Madman; in 1938 she became Dime Rose Wright. Two years after their marriage Wright published a book that gained international fame and was controversial enough to be banned in cities in the United States, Native Son. There was a Broadway show based on the book in 1941. Around this same time tensions began increasing in the involvement, or lack thereof, of the United States in World War II that is until Pearl Harbor. In 1942 the United States entered the War, in 1943 Wright began being investigated by the FBI, and the investigation did not end until his death. After the war Wright was disgusted at the still blatantly obvious displays of racism in America and decided to move to Paris, France. In Europe he continued publishing works and working on projects, they were not successful.  On November 28, 1960 Richard Wright died of a heart attack, at the age of fifty two.

Plot summary: 

Bigger Thomas, a troubled young African-American, is leading a life of crime and not going anywhere with his life.  He was seeking to fill a void that never left: power. He led a band of other young men who would go out with him on the crime sprees in their communities. Bigger was being held responsible in his home to provide for his family of four: his mother, brother, sister, and himself. Bigger takes a job for a wealthy white family, the Daltons, as their chauffeur.  The youth of their family was Miss Mary Dalton, who was also the source of much of their anxiety.  After Bigger is taken through a roller coaster of fear in a night on the town with Mary and her communist boyfriend, Jan Elrond, Bigger makes a huge mistake. Bigger carries a drunken Mary to her room where he accidentally smothers her to death.  To cover his tracks he also burns her body in a furnace. He plays off the incident the next day with ease. He turns the direction of suspicion towards the “Red”, Jan Elrond. Later, he brings his girlfriend, Bessie, a drunken worker into the whole scheme. He forces her to go along with it even though he knows she knows too much. When Bigger goes back to the Daltons, the bones are discovered in the furnace as he was attempting to clear out the ashes. The reporters jump at this opportunity to say that Bigger sexually assaulted her and then burned her to cover it up. He runs away with Bessie and ends up killing her after he rapes her because he fears she will only drag him down. He eventually gets caught in a shootout and arrested. After being arrested, Bigger is put on trial for rape and murder of Mary. They use Bessie’s murder as well to stir up a fixed opinion. Max tries to buy Bigger more time by pleading not guilty but he knows what will end up happening. He is sentenced to death after the trial. The last person he talks to is Miramax who sympathizing Bigger’s last moments. Bigger still wonders and longs for the meaning and significance of life. Miramax tries to set an idea for him but Bigger sees it a lot differently. He decides that his murders were done with good intent. He is at peace finally, which is why Miramax does not confront or discourage him from this idea. Miramax leaves him saying that he would tell Jan that Bigger said hello.


Memorable Quotations:  

Quotation, speaker, page number, and “What does it say?” “What does it mean?” and “What does it Matter”

1. "’Sometimes I feel like something awful going to happen to me,’ Bigger spoke with a tinge of bitter pride in his voice” (23).  Speaker: Bigger Thomas
  When Bigger says this he is letting the reader know that there is something bad that will occur in the progression of the novel. Wright used this foreshadowing to draw in his audience, by establishing that something bad is going to happen in the novel, the reader become more enticed to want to continue reading. This is significant because this is quote is basically a hint (“hook”) as to what will happen, meant to create a stir of curiosity.

2. “Love is not based upon sex alone, and that is all he had with Bessie. He wanted more, but the circumstances of his life and her life would not allow it. And the temperament of both Bigger and Bessie kept it out. Love grows from stable relationships, shared experience, loyalty, devotion, trust. Neither Bigger nor Bessie had any of these. What was there they could hope for? There was no common vision binding their hearts together; there was no common hope steering their feet in a common path. Even though they were intimately together, they were confounding alone. They were physically dependent upon each other and they hated their dependence.” page 401. Boris A. Max 
This quote is meant to illustrate the extent at which discrimination has affected the lives of blacks. It has not only rid them of specifics they are not able to do, but it has fabricated lifeless and unemotional beings. If a person is treated without compassion--- without life, they begin to believe and are unable to feel anything, which is why Bessie drank her life away and Bigger engorged in sex was to rid this feeling of loneliness that was constantly there. How were they supposed to be able to love? When they never learned what love was, what it was composed of, what it felt like, or what it meant to share happiness with another.  This idea that  not only objects and  interest were taken away, but the freedom to express themselves, the freedom to feel, the freedom to do as they pleased. They no longer had a choice, they were puppets and the whites were their controllers.

3. “He wondered if it were possible that after all everybody in the world felt alike? Did those who hated him have in them the same thing Max had seen in him, the thing that had made Max ask him those questions? And what motive could Max have in helping? Why would Max risk that white tide of hate to help him? For the first time in his life he had gained a pinnacle of feeling upon which he could stand and see vague relations that he had never dreamed of. If that white looming mountain of hate were not a mountain at all, but people, people like himself, and like Jan—then he was faced with a high hope the like of which he had never thought could be, and a despair the full depths of which he knew he could not stand to feel. A strong counter-emotion waxed in him, urging him, warning him to leave this newly-seen and newly-felt thing alone, that it would lead him to but another blind alley, to deeper hate and shame. “Page 360. Bigger’s Thoughts.  
Bigger for the first time has experienced the treatment of equality. Max spoke to him like a human and listened to his life, neither with contempt or disgust, but instead understanding and compassion. He realized that he was equal to that of any white person. He believed that for the first time he could establish some sort of relationship with a white man, something that was unheard of to him. These ideas scared Bigger and instead of embracing this feeling he decided to hide this emotion, because he was unable to understand how he even hoped for such a thing. He disregarded this idea and believed that instead of being a positive thing, it would only get him into more trouble. This is significant because it depicts Bigger’s change and growth as a person. In the beginning of the novel Bigger only acted upon emotions and irrationality but in the end of the novel he was able to rationalize and conceptualize ideas of equality and how he was allowed to be give the rights of fair treatment.

 4.  “He rested his black fingers on the edge of the white table and a silent laugh burst from his parted lips as he saw himself for a split second in a lurid objective light: he had killed a rich white girl and had burned her body after cutting her head off and had lied to throw the blame on someone else and had written a kidnap note demanding ten thousand dollars and yet he stood here afraid to touch food on the table, food which undoubtedly was his own.” page 186. Bigger’s thoughts.
Bigger was amused with the fact that he was more frightened of what would happen if he touched the food that was given to him, rather than the fear of being found guilty for murder. It is a direct sign of irony; you would think that as a killer, Bigger would fear nothing. However, Wright used this irony for a reason; Bigger was frightened because he was accustomed to it, he was not accustomed to kill, therefore he used this killing as an assurance to himself that he was equal to the power of the whites, because he had killed one without consequence. This knowing that only he had the power to end a life was how Bigger found happiness for a short time, illustrated by his slight amusement but in reality it was used to mask his fear.

5. “He lay on the cold floor sobbing; but really he was standing up strongly with contrite heart, holding his life
 In his hands, staring at it with a wondering question. He lay on the cold floor sobbing; but really he was pushing
 Forward with his puny strength against a world too big and too strong for him. He lay on the cold floor sobbing; but he really was groping forward with fierce zeal into a welter of circumstances which he felt contained a water of mercy for the thirst of his heart and brain.”
Page 310. Narrator.
This was the first time the reader is able to view Bigger in a vulnerable state. It actually creates a desire to feel sympathy towards him because for the first time, you realize he is not this monster that other perceive him as, rather just a man that has been corrupted by his social environment. You begin to view him as a human and as humans we are not perfect. It is significant because it illustrates remorse and real emotions. Bigger has throughout the novel established as an emotionless and rather immoral characteristic that could be described as disturbing, but when reading this quote by itself you imagine fragile and sensitive person, this quote completely changes your perspective and characterizations of Bigger.

6. “There was just the old feeling, the feeling that he had had all his life: he was black and had done wrong; white men were looking at something with which they would soon accuse him. It was the old feeling, hard and constant again now, of wanting to grab something and clutch it in his hands and swing it into someone’s face” (206) Speaker: Narrator  
Bigger had grown accustomed to being unacknowledged and disrespected by white people. The feeling was becoming monotonous now; it was so constant and prominent in his life. He had killed a white girl, it was now even easier or “justified” for white people to persecute him. The white peoples’ hatred of Bigger and black people in general was getting so consequential; violence was the only thing to turn to as an escape. The whites were unaware of the lifelong damages they created in the lives’ of African-Americans.

7. “And, yet, out of it all, over and above all that had happened, impalpable but real, there remained to him a queer sense of power. He had done this. He had brought all this about. In all of his life these two murders were the most meaningful things that had ever happened to him.” (224). Speaker: Narrator
Killing had made Bigger feel potent. It was something that could not be taken away from him, he had the power to decide someone’s fate; the outcome of life or death was in his hands and no one else’s’. It was the only time Bigger felt equivalent to whites.  He felt like it killing was the only thing that had given purpose to his life and for the first time ever the desire to do something with his life.

8.  “Though he had killed a black girl and a white girl, he knew that it would be for the death of the white girl and that he would be punished. The black girl was merely ‘evidence.’ And under it all he knew that the white people did not really care about Bessie’s being killed” (306). Speaker: Narrator This quote shows how much black people were discriminated and persecuted against in America in the 1930’s. They were equivalent depicted and illustrated as monsters and having unrestrained urges for white women. Bessie was of not very significant in the trial of Bigger because as a black woman, her life was less important to that of Mary, white women. The whites would not bother bringing justice for the death of a black person. This is significant because it truly shows the comparison between the distinction of colors and how much influence it has on importance and decisions.

9.  “He felt that he had his destiny in his grasp. He was more alive than he could ever remember having been; his mind and attention were pointed focused toward a goal. For the first time in his life he moved consciously between two sharply defined poles: he was moving away from the threatening penalty of death, from the death like times that brought him that tightness and hotness in his chest; and he was moving toward a sense of fullness he had so often but inadequately felt in magazines and movies.” page 149. Narrator. 
 Bigger was able to experience the power to decide an outcome, something that was very unusual considering the African-American race was submissive in all aspects. However, because Bigger had this power to decide the fate of someone, he also had the power to determine what they were allowed to known, which Bigger interpreted as the only meaningful thing that had occurred in his life, because for the first time he was the one able to decide his own fate. He was not longer restrained or fearful because he knew something that nobody else knew. He thrived on this untouched knowledge and used it to complete a simulated feeling of satisfaction.

10. “It’s because others have said you were bad and they made you live in bad conditions. When a man hears that over and over and looks about him and sees that his life is bad, he begins to doubt his own mind.” ( 390).  Speaker: Boris A. Max 
Bigger’s view of him all throughout his was life was that he lacked any virtuous characteristics. He was ashamed of whom he was, how he acted, ad where he came from; he had no chance in this world to make anything of himself. He thought this because he never had a chance to do anything that would define or give reason to his life. After years of this routine maltreatment by whites, he finally gave up on himself and on the idea that he could ever be of importance.

Major symbols, motifs, images:

A few major symbols/motifs in the novel were communism, societal acceptance, and racism. Communism was a constant idea in the book that highlighted the American society’s intense fear and discouragement of the unknown. They knew that the power the idea and spread of communism was strong; they just did not know how it would affect their society.  For this reason, they antagonized it throughout their country and supported it with moral intent. Much like the racism found in the majority of people of this time period. “White” America feared the unknown power of the African-Americans. They feared that one day; the blacks would tear the veil of ignorance. They feared that the comfort of arrogance would be torn away from them and replaced with a reminder of the darkness they tried so hard to hide. The idea of societal acceptance expresses the constant longing of not only Bigger. Bigger represents the entire group of the troubled stereotypical African-American youth of this time. These strong willed youth sought to find the equalizer and their time of balance. They sought the power of knowledge that these privileged whites of another world experienced every day.

Themes:

A theme displayed in this novel is the effect of racism on a society as a whole, the racist and the race, the oppressor and the oppressed. Bigger, everyday of his life, before and after his experience with the Daltons was spent seeking a way to feel equal or show the power he held over those who made him feel defeated. When Bigger seeks to rob the store owned by the white man with his friends, he knew he was wrong and he was scared but his main intent was to feel superior to anyone or anything: his “gang”, the white people, the idea racism itself. The more you force the thought that someone is subservient or less potent, the harder it is for them to believe otherwise. It makes it harder for them to strive to be more than what they are presumed to be. Furthermore, those who were filling the minds of these people who were being degraded become arrogant. They know that the inferior will never amount to anything or become educated, so they live in ignorance. They hide away the “hooligans” and “hood rats” from their surface perspective so they can continue with their lives believing they closed the gateway into equality. Throughout the novel, the author specifically wants the reader to understand that the societal influences of racism are what create this inevitable state of minds that consist of pure hate and savagery. How anything else is expected, when they were never even introduced to the meaning of love or kindness, or therefore, even given a chance to experience it. They have no way to break through the continuous cycle of racism, so they must find other ways to give purpose or any significant meaning to their lives.

Works Cited

"Open-ended Questions for Advanced Placement." Sb169.k12.sd.us. Web. 9 Oct. 2013.
SparkNotes. SparkNotes, n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2013.
Wright, Richard. Native Son. New York: Harper & Row, 1940. Print.
"Richard Wright Biography." Richard Wright Biography. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Oct. 2013.
"Richard Wright Bio." Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 9 Oct. 2013.
Wright, Richard. Native Son,. New York: Harper & Bros., 1940. Print.
"Free Response 2012 AP." Collegeboard.com. College Board, n.d. Web. 9 Oct. 2013. <https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/ap-student/pdf/english-literature-and-comp/ap-2012-english-literature-free-response-questions.pdf>.

Tone Stand Alone Paragraph (Duchess and the Jeweller)

The exemplary Duchess and the prestigious Jeweller”

Throughout the short story, The Duchess and the Jeweller, by Virginia Woolf, the tone is sarcastic and ironic. Woolf specifically named her principal character (Oliver Bacon) in relation to a pig because she was implying that he acted like one in order to get rich, which illustrates her sarcastic tone towards the upper class. One day, the Duchess, which whom Bacon was “friends” with gave him the opportunity to “court” her daughter. Her only condition was that he had to buy the pearls she had brought him; she took them out of her ferret bag, again mocking this idea of a so called “elegant” upper class and foreshadowing that the pearls were most likely bad. By taking the pearls that he knew were faulty, Bacon displayed his moronic desire to be elite. Just as a pig would endlessly search for truffles, Bacon would never give up on this want to be “important”; which was how he viewed the upper class. What is ironic about this is the fact that the Duchess acted vulgar by making a rotten bargain with the jeweller, yet the jeweller wanted to be like her? An upper class citizen is considered: educated, smart, classy and superior, yet the Duchess displays the exact opposite; she needed help from someone who was supposed to be subservient to her. This corrupts the meaning of being “upper” class, how can a man that has more money and in that moment, more class want to be more like the begging Duchess? (Oh what irony!) Woolf was intending to mock this idea of a social hierarchy and she did this throughout the entire story, using sarcasm and irony.

Frankenstein Essay

Frankenstein the great? 

  In the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the two characters Robert Walton and Victor Frankenstein share very similar characteristics, in the fact, they both share overly ambitious dreams and similar hopes of success. Frankenstein by creating life surpassed the limits of reality by impersonating God.  Walton wished to push the progression of sea travel by taking a route through the North Pole in slim hopes of finding a Northern passage to the Pacific. The distinct way in which both characterize success displays their unmistakable contrast on the ideas of morality. Frankenstein’s dream was a success, yet his overambitious demeanor lead to his destruction. Yet, in one regard Frankenstein was the greatest character in the story, he helped save a life; Walton was able to utilize Frankenstein’s experience to protect himself from his own demise. 

The unique aspirations that both Walton and Frankenstein have foreshadow an easily distinguishable difference in their end results. Walton’s dreams of being able to find a Northern passage to the Pacific and Frankenstein dreams of being able to bring eternal life to humanity. In both cases, the dreams would benefit mankind in some way; however one is far more unrealistic than the other.  Frankenstein and Walton hope that their “dream [transforms] society and [brings] glory to themselves” (Frankenstein). However, the realms of reality were questioned through Frankenstein’s work, which lead him to become power-hungry, especially when he began to imagine himself as a God and have an unreasonable expectation of bringing life to lifeless matter. Therefore it is easily distinguishable between the dreams that “the morality of Frankenstein's endeavor is more open to question, as is that of Walton's search for a northern passage and of scientific research in general” (Ozolins).

Walton is the epitome of “right” and Frankenstein the epitome of “wrong”. Unlike Walton, Frankenstein’s adventures lead him to his own demise. Frankenstein became enthralled with this idea of immortality and power, to the point where his character became blinded to all other aspects of life. Shelley set Frankenstein’s dream in a very ominous atmosphere, which again illustrated ruin, “It was the secrets of heaven and earth that [he] desired to learn; and whether it was the outward substance of things or the inner spirit of nature and the mysterious soul of man that occupied [him], still [his] inquiries were directed to the metaphysical, or in it highest sense, the physical secrets of the world." (Frankenstein 23). This idea of secrets and mysteriousness gives the reader a very eerie feeling on the character of Frankenstein. As opposed to Frankenstein Shelley creates Walton, who shared similar aspirations of serving a purpose in life, in a more vibrant light. Shelley describes Walton as a dreamer; she allows his dreams to be possible. In one of the letters to his sister, Walton (Shelley) writes “you may remember that a history of all the voyages made for purposes of discovery composed the whole of our good Uncle Thomas' library,” this is important because it allows the reader to feel comfortable with his idea for a new water passage, but not for the dream of Frankenstein. Shelley compares these two in such distinct ways because she wants the reader to grasp this connection of a double personality and the ideas of right versus wrong. 

Frankenstein is able to help Walton come to his senses with his terrifying story of “adventure.” Walton rescues Frankenstein from the icy water when he was on his way to the North Pole. Frankenstein begins to anxiously tell his adventure and the price he paid to have done that. He talks about the creature and all the problems that he has caused him, especially by killing all those he loves. “Victor implores Walton not to follow his example, warning, "Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow" (Frankenstein 38).  At this point Walton decided to reasonably come to the conclusion that maybe this exploration was too much of a dangerous dream and was not worth losing his life for. The character of Walton was able to determine what was right and what was wrong, as opposed to Frankenstein who acted impulsively throughout the majority of the story. Frankenstein was able to finally make a useful contribution in the story; he was able to help Walton. The dream of Walton may not have been achieved, but at least Walton did not end up “'as nothing, and like the archangel who aspired to omnipotence, [he] [is] chained in an eternal hell,” as Frankenstein did. (Frankenstein 194).Walton signified hope for the future, unlike Frankenstein that had died, Walton still had a chance to live and to know better than to waste a life away on a dream.

Throughout the novel, Frankenstein and Walton’s demeanor are very similar; they both share an ambitious way of life and seemingly greedy attitude of success. However, Frankenstein and Walton’s dream are very distinctly illustrated in the story; Shelley discusses the difference between morality and immorality by describing the two dreams in distinct way. Frankenstein is characterized as a very impulsive and manipulative person that does things according to his selfish needs, although Walton could potentially be characterized the same, he is not because his motives on exploration can be considered far more honorable and overall he is far more reasonable. As much as Frankenstein seemed useless throughout the story, on the fact that he got his entire loved ones killed, he was a huge positive impact on the life of Walton. Had it not been for Frankenstein, the sailor would not have been aware of the endless negativity knowledge can really have. “Seek happiness in tranquility and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries."(Frankenstein 200) 

Works Cited

"Frankenstein." LitCharts. Company LitCharts, 2014. Web. 24 Sept. 2014.

Ozolins, Aija. "Science Fiction Studies." Dreams and Doctrines: Dual Strands in Frankenstein. N.p., 2010. Web. 26 Sept. 2014.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, Bram Stoker, and Robert Louis Stevenson. Frankenstein. New York: Signet Classic, 1994. Print.

Literary Criticism Tragedy paper (on Medea)

In the story Medea by Euripides, Medea is betrayed by her husband Jason. In the course of their love Medea has gone to extremes in order to make her husband happy, yet he still decides to have an affair with the daughter of Creon, Glauce. In the process of her mourning, Medea becomes so overwhelmed with pain that she is unable to distinguish the difference between good and evil. She wished to equalize the pain she had felt when her husband had left her, so in order to do that Medea derived a devious plan that would ensure her husband’s long lasting desolation. Throughout the story Medea truly illustrates the full embodiment of the tragic vision of Arthur Miller’s “Tragedy and the Common Man”, Aristotle’s theory or Tragedy and serves as a medium for the suffering of others. 

Medea lived an already chaotic life with her husband Jason, it was only further complicated when Jason decided to leave her. Medea was the type of woman that was willing to do anything to keep her husband, even going to the extreme of killing her own brother. So when her husband decided to leave her, her life went into a downward spiral of continuous destruction. There is an ominous foreshadowment in the beginning of the story. The reader is able to come to this conclusion due to the concerned natures of the elderly nurse and chorus.  In fact, quickly after being banished from Corinth by Creon, she planned her revenge. This illustrated her, as Miller said a tragic character must be driven by “the wound of indignity.” She was driven by this inability “to remain passive in the face of what [she] conceives to be a challenge to [her] dignity.” Basically meaning that because Jason hurt not only hurt Medea emotionally but attacked her dignity, Medea would do whatever it takes to be able to retain what was left of her dignity. Medea would, at all costs, ensure the complete obliteration of Jason’s happiness. She was unwilling to take into account limitations for her revenge. She contributed not only to the suffering of herself but to multiple characters throughout the play. 

Medea was a very unstable person after Jason’s betrayal. Her depression lead her to take rash decisions, she was unwilling to overlook her tragedy, she had a “tragic flaw” meaning that she felt it necessary to hurt her enemy, which was another example of Miller’s “Tragedy of a Common Man”. Her life was so over-consumed with the need to hurt her husband that she surpassed the realms of morality by first planning to kill Glauce, with a cleverly made poisonous robe. Her morality was further compromised when she decided to kill her own children, simply to prove to Jason what her pain was like. Not only had Medea inflicted a pain upon herself but pain was inflicted upon the father of Glauce, Creon. He wept and witnessed in agony the sight of his daughter dying from the poison that consumed her body, he tried to stop the poison but ended up also being consumed in it and died as well. After this portion of her plan had succeeded she killed her children because she knew that Jason would come looking for her after he had become aware of the news of Glauce’s death. Subsequently, Jason, when arrived at Medea’s place witnessed his children’s dead bodies which left him in complete anguish. Everywhere that Medea set her revenge upon caused the suffering of others. 

Medea was willing to do anything , in order to ensure her appeasement. In general, Medea symbolized the strength of a woman, which played upon her image as a tragic hero. Aristotle referrers to the protagonist as acting in a self-destructive way due to the tragedy they endure, which causes blinding in their character.  This is why; it could be concluded Medea was written up in such a specific way by Euripides. It is important to realize that the circumstances of her tragedy, especially being male inflicted, which caused her to fight against this common idea of a male dominated society. When faced with this incredibly unfair treatment, Medea responds with a shocking act of bloody resistance. By killing her children, she's rebelling against the submissive role of women in her time. Something to take into deep consideration is the fact that both children killed were males.  Therefore not only is Medea hurting her husband but she intends to hurt the ego of thousands of other men, it is meant to leave a haunting message of what a women in capable of doing due to the agony a man has caused in her life, which again supports Aristotle’s theory of tragedy, through the “the law of probability or necessity.”

Medea was unable to control her pain and anger due to the fact her husband betrayed her.  She planned to hurt the lives of those who had hurt hers. It is important to realize the severity of Medea’s pain; she was so overwhelmed with agony that she was willing to hurt anybody in order to succeed her revenge. She killed without moral restrictions; she killed Glauce to be which caused agony amongst her family and Jason. She then killed her sons that left Jason in ruins at the end of the play and leaves pain in the ego of male readers everywhere. The story successfully contributed to both Aristotle’s and Miller’s ideas of what a tragedy was composed of and Medea served as a very noteworthy instrument of suffering upon those around her due to her ravaging desire for revenge.

Works Cited

Aristotle. "Outline of Aristotle's Theory of Tragedy." Outline of Aristotle's Theory of Tragedy. Barbar F. Macmus, Nov. 1999. Web. 02 Nov. 2014.

Euripides, and Rex Warner. Medea. New York: Dover Publications, 1993. Print.

Miller, Arthur. "Tragedy and the Common Man." Books. The New York Times, 27 Feb. 1949. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.

Themes: The importance of Being Earnest (Timed write)

 In the plays “The Importance of being Earnest” by Oscar Wilde and “Pygmalion” by George Bernard Shaw the two main characters Cecily Johnson and Eliza Doolittle both act as important illustrators of the themes of their overall plot. In both cases, the women seem to display the corruption of the societal ladder and for this reason they resonate the theme, the power of appearance and sincerity.

In both plays the authors use satire in order to display the reality of the corrupted middle class. The satire is effective and helps the reader realize the arrogance and farse ideals of which the middle class was built on. This is important because it helps get through the message of the necessity of being sincere in life. The theme: the power of appearance and sincerity, serves as the truth of societal classes. People in the so called “lower class” wallow in pity and present themselves in a way that people treat them inferiorly. The authors hope to make this clear, that in order to be taken seriously and treated respectedly, one must become act such, instead of demeaning yourself with self­pity and acting ignorant.

Eliza Doolittle, in the beginning of the play presented herself in a very brutish, dirty and rugged manner, and so she was treated by all the people on the street inferiorly. Then the fact she talked in a very vulgar manner made eveyone, even the readers able to tell the little she regarded herself. Lets flash foward when Eliza is all cleaned up and presents herself in a respectful manner; people were unable to even tell she was this so called “lower class” despite the fact she was not wealthy. The ablility to function in society can be determined on your appearance. People say “do not judge a book by its cover,” yet how else is a person able to judge another in any other way than they intiially present themselves. Perhaps the lesson there is to learn that societal classes are insignificant if all are able to respect not only others equally but themselves equally. Eliza ended up demanding respect by simply respecting herself and so this idea of an appearance having the ability to tranform someone’s life entirely is displayed.

 Cecily Johnson was created by Oscar WIlde in the hopes of being the image of the middle class and dispalyed the way they thought. Cecily hoped to become wed to man named “earnest” because she was convinced that only by a man having such a name would he be repsonsible. truthful, fair, and earnest. What was humorous about this was the fact she was a hypocrite, yet she hoped to have this perfect man. This hypocrisy was displayed by the differences she treat maids and those of her fellow middle classers and the way she initially treated Lady Bracknell versus the way she treated her after she was aware of her wealth. This satire was further displayed when the man she planned to wed was in fact lying about being named Ernest, yet then coincidentally due to a series of events during his previous life, he ended up actually being named Ernest. This back and forth silly manner of representing truth and lies, helps uncover the messy way the Victorian models of honesty and repsonsibility were like, therefore trying to get throught the importance of being sincerity to its reader.

In conclusion, Eliza and Cecily were very important characters because they were the respresentations of the overall themes of both plays. In both cases they were able to illustrate the corruptions of the middle class and falsity this so called societal ladder represented. Eliza Doolittle helped break this idea of middle class having to do with wealth and helped the reader realize that the answer to being treated equally by all others and having importance in society is to act as such. It is along these ideas of “treat others how you want to be treated.” Cecily Johnson was the corrupted image of the middle class, she was illustrating the hypocritical values that the Victorian model had. This flip flop between truth and lies helps the reader realize the importance of being sincere. Therefore in both plays Cecily Johnson and Eliza Doolittle were able to act as key exemplifiers of the overall signifcance of both plays.

Thematic on the Enlightenment

The Power within the Enlightened­-man There was a time in which people were unwilling to accept the idea of accepting new ideas. The mentality of people was hand picked by a limited amount of “Gods” as Kings were referred to. People were unable to stand out in the crowd, and instead conformed to what was allowed to be known, but that all changed. Denis Diderot questioned the grasp religion had on the world and pushed forth his radical ideas into the Encyclopedia, which covered all aspects of: religion, science and technology, arts, politics, etc. In the Encyclopedia, he in fact subtly hinted his opposition towards the corruption of church and state and gave way to the new era that would come to question God himself and all pre existing ways of life. It was the Age of Reason, also known as the Enlightenment, which is now known as the intellectual movement that helped expand people’s willingness to question. It ultimately led to the breaking of traditional ideas and was the driving force in the birth and growth of democracy and the power of man.

Diderot paved the way for numerous future known names to take the same rebellious stand against the traditional way of life. Enlightenment Literature was a celebration of ideas­it was all about what the human mind was truly capable of. They were optimistic about understanding the world with new potential knowledge. Intellectuals began to consider the possibility of freedom and democracy.The greatest display of rebellion was the Declaration of Independence that called for the abolishment of grasp Britain held against the Americas. The Declaration of independence was created by great minds like: Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith. Their reasoning of breaking the ties with the mother country was due to the fact, people begun to rebel and rationalize about the ideals of what it really meant to live. They reasoned that the only way to truly be free was to fight against those unfair ways and from here they contrived this new idea of the importance of the individual. The Enlightenment fully encompassed this idea of the rights of individuals and their importance in society. People like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau all created these new found ideas of people having the right to life, liberty and prosperity. Voltaire was influenced by Montesquieu and although he feared the passions of the common people, he ridiculed the pompous behaviors of the aristocrats. He truthfully thought he was the friend of peasants and serfs.He was hopeful that the enlightened monarchs would do things based on the good of all people.John Locke specifically believed in the empowerment of the people and ensured that the best form of government was a limited one. In the book Two Treatises of Government, John Locke rejected the idea of divine right of Kings and argued that when the King loses the consent of his governed, they all have the ability to remove him a King. It is important to know that this particular work was the primary influence in the libertarian ideals of the American Revolution. Less than a decade later, Thomas Jefferson, used the ideas of John Locke to create the Bill of Rights, which was integrated into the Declaration of Independence; it helped paved way for the power of the individual. The Bill of Rights also challenged this idea of “Divine Right of Kings” that basically named the King the dictator of a nation. With the Bill of Rights, the people became the ones in charge of maintaining a country together. The Enlightenment ensured that the radicalism that became of the King was unheard of; in the Americas, they no longer referred to the one in charge as the King anymore, but as a representative of the people. This entire idea of government being controlled by the divinity of a single person, based on the supposed decision of God became obsolete. The government began to separate church and state and began to rationalize how their government will go about without the control of religion and explore new ideas. Instead, people began to “slowly separate from the collective and began to develop as an antithesis of the collective agrarian society of prior centuries; thus, giving rise to a wave of new philosophical thought that evolved into the popular movement of the Enlightenment” (Aaron).

The strangely surprising thing about this immense change in the outlook of people’s live was the fact that “even though the release from mortal authority and the servitude of religion was central to the Enlightenment, they did not banish the Deities. Instead they either personified deities as part of the natural world which allowed the individual the opportunity to be “part or particle of God” (Emerson, 657). The reason why this was especially interesting was because this meant that somehow, the entire view of life was shifted, yet the idea of a single God was still intact. Instead of religion completely transforming its ideals, people began to shift their take on religion and due to this change in ideals; people began forming their own churches. “The followers of the Enlightenment did not simply limit the role of God in one’s life, but denied that God has any direct involvement in our lives. God was understood as the “Divine Watchmaker” who set the universe in motion, just as a watchmaker would wind a watch, and then left everything else up to us” (Gross). The man who started it all was Martin Luther. “In 1517,  Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses, a series of condemnation of Church practices, to the door of the Cathedral at Wittenberg. He questioned the efficacy of indulgences and this was seen as an attack on the Church as a whole” (Grosse). From this new idea of ideas of religion, new churches like: Calvinism, Baptism, Anabaptist, Anglican, Lutheran, etc were born. The separation from the grips of Catholicism expanded and people began to make their own decisions about the faith they intended to pursue. An example of this would be how Calvinists believe in the idea of predestination, this idea that God already knows who and when people will go to hell or heaven and there is no way of stopping it because it is already pre­determined. Before the Enlightenment people never questioned the all knowing idea of Christianity, mostly because people were illiterate at the time. However, due to this idea of individuals being powerful in the world, it allowed for many more people to become literate and therefore interpret the bible for what they truly believe, again displaying this idea of rebellion. The entire era of Enlightenment was to question the realms of what is now and trying to think of the possibilities of the future.

Another thing that drastically changed the way American lived was the book, Wealth of Nations by discussing the importance of laissez­faire. That the economy could only function with the idea of an invisible hands, which is an off hands government approach which would help regulate the economy. Adam Smith basically provided an insight into morality, money, and many subjects which we deal with on daily basis without having any idea about their origin. The Wealth of Nations specifically reads, “about how the mercantile system that existed at the time of writing, but along the way, gives a complicated but brilliant account of an economic system based in human nature and deeply rooted social dynamics” (Smith). It is important to realize that his numerous sequels of these books help individuals come to understand new found business about law and ethics. “He specifically attacked the mercantile system and how Smith's first major criticism of mercantilism is that it conflates value and wealth with precious metals” (Gradesaver). He was the first to invent this idea of Gross Domestic Product, which is the dollar’s value made of all finished products made within a country’s border. He went against this idea of previous medals being the standard measurement of wealth in a nation; therefore he felt that by using the profit of production within our borders, we would ensure to realize annually how much profit the United States really does make due to made things within the nations and things exported to other countries, there by comparing to previous years our wealth, which is how we can indicate our prosperity or down turn. This form of wealth indicator would have never been possible, had it not been due for Adam Smith. He is this idea of breaking from the traditions of breaking free and exploring that new found knowledge.

The Enlightenment Art was all about bringing reason and real life practical matter to life. It was based on the idea that the “business of the artist was conceived of as the imitation of nature, and as far as high art was concerned, this process of imitation should be informed by an intelligent grasp of the processes used to produce classical art” (The Enlightenment).Two major styles developed in the visual arts: Rococo and Neoclassicism. Rococo was known as the style fighting the Grandeur theme, it instead was dualistic which meant that it private and considered for the higher class as well as the lower class and could be public instead of private.It reflected a desire to rekindle the spirit and forms of classical art from ancient Greece and Rome, and was based on the principles of order and reason. The illustration of human beings should be the most value type of art, simply because it was real and gave order to the world of art. An especially needed quality for an art piece to be considered Rococo is the decorative and elaborate form in which the paintings, sculpture, drawing, etc was drawn in. An example of this real world drawing would be in Joseph Wright of Derby's painting A Philosopher Giving A Lecture at the Orrery(1765), he demonstrates the mechanical model of the solar system. The solar system had never been thought up of and so having found out a system that demonstrated the motions of the planets around the sun; we see the first steps into astrological advancement, which is what the Enlightenment also discusses the importance of advancements. This is important because the Enlightenment was all about new ideas and yet even so was not meant to so much create emotion but instead curiosity and simple admiration for new things.. Eugene Delacroix, for example painted La liberté guidant le peuple, which is latin for Liberty Leading the People, the painting was influenced by the July Revolution of 1830. Delacroix truly felt he had to paint this because just as the people felt it was their duty to fight for their beliefs, it was his duty to paint that particular moment. This was the portrayal of an art that was a big more expressive and emotional in terms of the content of settings, place and what the art should make you feel. However, even a war is predicate and although it may elicit some deep emotions, it is still considered straightforward and more decorative than it would emotionally draining. Delacroix expressed his individuality through this painting through the use of very orderly and defined strokes as well as having a particular reason behind his painting.

Neoclassicism is known as the severe and very non expressive form of art that was created in rebellion to the flamboyant style of the Rococo. Neoclassical artists would include: Antonio Canova, John Louis Davis, Robert Smith, and Anton Raphael Mengs. Jacques­Louis Davis was highly famous for his painting The Death of Socrates, which illustrates Socrates in a calm and relaxed for even though he is accepting death. In the painting, Socrates “continues to speak even while reaching for the cup, demonstrating his indifference to death and his unyielding commitment to his ideals” (Socrates). This picture therefore sums up the idea of death to the philosopher which can be understood because the art was meant to be straightforward and not meant to dive into the emotionality within a viewer, instead it was art to simply admire. Other noteworthy artists, like Theobald Reinhold von Oer, whose piece Weimar’s Courtyard of the Muses, was meant to illustrate the German literary and and cultural movement that established basis for a new humanism. It was based on the principles of this new humanism; the“Enlightenment humanism is characterized by such keywords as autonomy, reason, and progress, and it is usually distinguished from Renaissance humanism because of its more secular nature,” in addition to also combining parts of the renaissance humanism which incorporate some ideals of religion (Humanism). Take for example, Antonio Canova, his piece Cupid and Psyche, goes back to that idea previously talked about how the Enlightenment incorporated deities as natural part of the world as well as the humanism described previously. The god Cupid in this sculpture is in the height of love and tenderness, immediately after having awaken the lifeless Psyche with a kiss. This is important because it illustrates the breaking of traditional art due to the fact that Psyche and Cupid were about mythological Gods, henceforth displaying this open­mindedness of the Enlightenment and the simplicity of how the art can be described illustrates an idea of everyday life, not in extremes of expressionism at all.

Enlightenment Music was characterized by a number of new ideas. Most prominent was this shift in melodies, during the enlightenment era, melodies were all about short phrases and simple accompaniments. More than a just new stylistic definition of music that was defined based on the time period, it was important to note that, that the Enlightenment music was made between “a turning point encompassing the years of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Empire,” this is especially important because this music was not just a random selection of years that were mundane, instead this music thrived during a time of revolutionary and groundbreaking new not only ideals but questioning of life (Enlightenment). It became a necessity for the language of music to be “international”, meaning that it should appeal to everyone. It was revolution not just within the form of politics but a revolution within the mind. Music was meant to be individualized yet during the previous eras music was not nearly as important. It was during the era of Enlightenment that music thrived and became popular. In fact“most of the composers during this time period had created great music due to the fact that they were surrounded by the thriving culture and art” (Enlightenment). A prominent characteristic that set apart this music from most was that music during this time was meant to be natural and immediately pleasing. Noteworthy composers during this time included: Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, George Frederick Handel, Ludwig von Beethoven, Franz Schubert, and Antonio Vivaldi. It was actually Bach and Handel that can be given the credit for commencing this new movement of music, it is said they paved the way for some of the greatest composer of the Enlightenment. It was interesting because these two were not considered to be innovator in the world of music, yet are two of the most respected composer because they are still illustrated as geniuses of music for the simple fact they were the primary influencers, let's say the wise grandfather of the Enlightenment music era. Johann Sebastian Bach composed music with the intention that his music would not only be heard but felt. He had originally composed music that was all about religion, yet nearing the end of his life he broke away from that. “His secular music had reflected his love of life and for crazy humor” (MediaWiki). It truly went against tradition, but he decided to compose music that gave ideas instead of just sound, which his life rapidly depleting he poured out music that expressed his inner emotionality and left it out for the world to see him not as a simple piece in a puzzle but see him as an individual with unique qualities based on his music. Next we move onto George Frideric Handel, “the main difference between Bach and Handel was that Handel had written his music for the purpose of the people while Bach had written music for God” (Enlightenment). His music was particularly known for being copied from difference composers, however, he used the incorporation of many composers as well as international sounds in order to create a unique blend of music that was displayed as pleasing and universal to people. Henceforth their commencement into the secular form of music helped other like previously stated before, Beethoven, Mozart, etc.

Ludwig von Beethoven was especially innovative in his composition of music, considering that he had a particular interest in politics within his music. After grieving for the death of the reformist Emperor Joseph II in 1789, Beethoven became sympathetic to enlightenment ideals. He especially promoted the French Revolution which was displayed by his Symphony No.3 which was dedicated to Napoleon Bonaparte after having self­proclaimed himself as the Emperor of the France. In 1804 he even changed the description of this symphony from “in honor of a good man”, to “the memory of a great man.” What was truly ironic about Beethoven was the fact that he was one of the most known classical composers, which was during the era of the Enlightenment, yet he was “firmly rooted in the Classical era, Beethoven's music was revolutionary for his time, breaking forms, creating styles, and introducing the world to the Romantic era” (Beethoven).

Finally Wolfgang Amadeus can be described as the epitome of enlightenment music. He is definitely one of the most recognized Enlightenment musical composers and in addition to being one of the most known composers in all eras of music as well. Mozart was known as a prodigy, at a very young age, he was known to compose music for his father to hear. It is not exaggerated when you say that music chose Mozart, by the age of five Mozart was a composer, and although he was unable to write down what notes were played, he felt the music and chose what was beautiful in accordance to his own wants. It was “Mozart’s travels to England and France had exposed him to the ideals of independence and equality” (Till). Mozart displayed this immense amount of support on the newfound ideas of society. It was in his opera ‘“The Marriage of Figaro” epitomized the new ways of thinking by giving servants a central role’, something that was unheard of before the Enlightenment (Till). It was Mozart who first illustrated the idea of equally amongst entertainment. Those less fortune than aristocrats still deserved to be amongst the beauty of music, theatres, and art. In other words, he was truly an influential character not only in the musical sense but in helping people understand what it was to truly be a powerful individual and not in the terms of money, but in the terms of what specific qualities defined you as a person.

 The commencement of these rationalized ideals all began with the single stroke of magic, by a man named Denis Diderot that first retaliated due to the unfairness of the state and then the church. He argued for the complete abolishment of church and states to get mixed together, because all it does is create chaos. The Enlightenment was the intellectual movement that helped expand the ideals of democracy throughout the world. It questioned traditional ideas and changed the world from a religious mindset to that of rationalism. In other worlds it is quite evident that throughout the course of the Enlightenment Era, there was acts of rebellion not only in literature but in all forms of media. It was through the use of literature, however, that the enlightened writers were able to pass on their questioning on the old standard of living. Lets recap on the ideas Diderot inflicted upon the people. The idea of an encyclopedia was unheard of but yet people were finally willing to question what was spoon fed to them since birth. The idea of advancement was something to be scared about, people were instilled into the idea of divine right of kings and life to be dictated based on the plan of religion. Advancements in all aspects of life were contributed by the Enlightenment. The only way we have transitioned into the people we are today, that is people that are willing to expand their horizons, be the best you can be, question education, society and yourself, and the idea of equality was all rooted in the heart of the Enlightenment, with people like Mozart, Locke, Montesquieu, Luther, Goya etc. The effects of the Enlightenment era are not only still seen today but felt amongst the crowds of people that comprise the world. And just as Mozart’s music is too unwilling to die within the hearts of people, the idea of expansion of not only knowledge but curiosity of advancements will always drive people, and so the moment the Enlightenment stepped “foot” on this world, was the moment its influence became eternal.



Works Cited
"Denis Diderot." Diderot's Role in The Enlightenment. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2014. Grosse, Jeremiah R. "The Reformation and the Enlightenment: From Revolt to Paganism." Life Issues.net. N.p., July 2009. Web. 15 Dec. 2014. Lochner, Lance, and Enrico Moretti. "The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self­Reports." American Economic Review 94.1 (2004): 155­89. Web. Lunsford, Andrea A., and John J. Ruszkiewicz. The Presence of Others: Voices and Images That Call for Response. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000. Print. Organisation for Economic Co­Operation and Development. "Education Indicators in Focus." ­ OECD ILibrary. OECD, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 13 Dec. 2014. "The Reformation and the Enlightenment: From Revolt to Paganism." Lifeissues.net. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2014. "The Wealth of Nations Summary." The Wealth of Nations Summary. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2014 ROSSUM, RALPH A. "Limited Government And The Bill Of Rights." Political Science Quarterly (Wiley­Blackwell) 128.4 (2013): 773­774. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Dec. 2014. Kostelnick, Charles. "Visualizing Technology And Practical Knowledge In The Encyclopédie ’S Plates: Rhetoric, Drawing Conventions, And Enlightenment Values." History & Technology 28.4 (2012): 443­454. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Dec. 2014. The Death of Socrates." Neoclassicism and French Revolution. Core Art, 2008. Web. 15 May 2015. "The Enlightenment." OpenLearn. Open University, 2015. Web. 15 May 2015. Till, Nicholas. "The Enlightenment." NPR. NPR, 1999. Web. 15 May 2015. Webster's New World Dictionary of Music by Nicolas Slonimsky Schirmer Books, 1998, NY Beethoven by Denis Matthews Vintage Books, 1985, NY Beethoven by William Kinderman University of California Press, 1995, Berkeley The Life of Beethoven by David Wyn Jones Cambridge University Press, 1998, Cambridge The Beethoven Compendium: A Guide to Beethoven's Life and Music by Barry Cooper, Anne­Louise Coldicott, Nicholas Marston and William Drabkin Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1991, London Title