Category: Book Review

Good and evil, despite being two very different and separate deeds, relate with each almost all the time. In essence, society needs one to appreciate the other. Typically, people only take note and appreciate the good in others only after encountering some evil from other experiences. In this context, Emily Brontë, in her book Wuthering Heights, gives a clear contrast between good and evil from the setting, characters, and the supernatural aspects she implements in the novel. For instance, she contrasts two different kinds of parameters in the book; Thrushcross Grange and Wuthering Heights. From the book, Thrushcross Grange is depicted as a friendly and welcoming place from expressions like an institution of domestics and grass growing between the flags and cattle were intended only for the hedge cutters (Brontë 4). Its representation of the calm and fine weather is symbolic of the good side, which depicts the bright and compassionate side of humanity.

Conversely, Wuthering Heights is a depiction of evil. This is evident from its particular characteristics like being dark and stormy. The place is described as being a noteworthy regional adjective, expressive of the atmospheric commotion to which its position is exposed in wild climate. Moreover, Brontë says that “…pure, bracing ventilation they must have up there at all times, indeed: one may guess the power of the north wind blowing over the edge…by a range of gaunt thorns all stretching their limbs one way, as if craving alms of the sun’ (4). The description adds on to the notion of evil in Wuthering Heights. The pace showcases the wild and dissolute aspects of nature. The setting contrast appearing between Thrushcross Grange and Wuthering Heights is critical to the novel not only because of what it symbolizes but also because of the contribution it makes to the book. The light and dark, good and evil contrasts aid in providing a greater comprehension of the turmoil faced by the characters in the process of battling with their moral and wicked internal forces.

In Wuthering Heights, Emily Brontë displays the constructive morals of conventional, cultured, human behavior, that is believed to be good, contrary to the evil; wicked and rebellious side of humanity by contrasting characters like Catherine and Heathcliff. Catherine and Thrushcross Grange are similar in that she personifies the serenity and light at the Grange with her peace and sparkle. Moreover, she always showed kindness to the people around her. One incidence is when she “…took a hand of each of the children, and brought them into the house and set them before the fire, which quickly put color into their white faces…” (Brontë 72). Such simple acts go a long way in depicting someone’s compassion and loving nature. Therefore, Catherine is a clear symbol of good and morality in the novel.

On the other hand, according to Hood (1), Heathcliff symbolizes Wuthering Heights in that they are both rugged and dark, ferocious, and wild. He is depicted as evil right from the dark color of his eyes and hair. Heathcliff himself desires for a lighter complexion to become a better person clearly outlining the connection with the black color and evil. Moreover, various individuals used words like ‘the devil’ and ‘hell’ to refer to Heathcliff, and the author also uses the word ‘diabolical’ and hellish ‘villain’ throughout the book to emphasize the tremendous evil Heathcliff harbors (Al Balola, Fadlelseed and Ibrahim 350). Heathcliff himself in most of his conversations used abusive words to refer to people. For instance, when telling Hareton to take Catherine out of the room, he says, ‘Damnable witch! Dare you pretend to rouse him against me? Off with her! Do you hear? Fling her into the kitchen! I’ll kill her, Ellen Dean, if you let her come into my sight again!’ (Brontë 405). The words go ahead to portray the evil in Heathcliff that makes him even to have thoughts of killing someone.

Furthermore, supernatural instances are introduced in Gothic books to remove the stories from the ordinary, and lead the reader to partially abandon what is factual and go in the fantasy with their imagination as stated by Fořtová (57). In Wuthering Heights, the supernatural is presented by the introduction of ghosts, that not only frighten the readers, but also inhibits the story and, in conjunction with the villain-hero and occurrence of violence, substantially affect its stream of proceedings. Notably, the appearance of Catherine’s ghost is vital to the novel because it swiftly affects the story’s conclusion. The ghost initially appeared to Mr. Lockwood in a dream right at the novel’s commencement and is carefully linked with the end since it demonstrates Heathcliff’s constant longing to reunite with Catherine. The latter meets Catherine’s ghost, preceding the novel’s end.

It is clear that the appearance of Catherine’s ghost determines the final course of events in the story. This is because Heathcliff’s vengeance, which was the driving force of the novel, loses its purpose and sense, as his affection for Catherine, the primary cause of the retaliation, is no longer unsatisfied. Moreover, just after their reunion, Heathcliff follows her to the grave. Consequently, the story terminates with the demise of Heathcliff, and the residual characters can move on with their lives lacking the terror of Heathcliff’s ferocious deeds as a part of his vengeance. Therefore, the first supernatural act revealing Lockwood’s meeting with Catherine’s ghost represents its essence in the setting of the overall story. Besides, the end of Heathcliff’s life, caused by the appearances of Catherine’s ghost, highlights the finality on his principal behavior – the retaliation of his unsatisfied love – leading his demise, along with the conclusion of the whole novel. The supernatural occurrence clearly shows that in as much as the appearance of a ghost is wrong and frowned upon in most societies; some good came out of it.

In conclusion, Wuthering Heights author successfully and carefully contrasted good and evil in her book. This is from the setting where Thrushcross Grange is depicted as good due to its serenity and tranquility while Wuthering Heights is seen as evil because of its wild and stormy weather. Moreover, the good and evil in humanity are outlined through characters like Catherine and Heathcliff. Catherine is good on seen from her calm nature and acts of kindness contrary to the evil Heathcliff who is a terror to the community due to his violent and abusive conduct in his quest for revenge. Also, the author has incorporated supernatural occurrences in the novel. Catherine appears as a ghost initially and Mr. Lockwood and finally to Heathcliff. Despite the appearance of ghosts seen as wrong and unnatural, Catherine’s ghost positively impacts the ending of the story. Heathcliff reunites with his love and follows her to the grave, thereby enabling the rest of the community to continue with their daily activities without the terror and violence that Heathcliff caused.

The actions and choices of characters in Wuthering Heights are often an attempt to raise their social status. This is clear in Catherine’s reason for marrying Edgar Linton instead of Heathcliff, and the sense of revenge that overtakes Heathcliff in his adult life when he attempts to inherit Thrushcross Grange as well as the Heights. It is not within the nature of all characters to be infatuated with social class and the desire to elevate it, instead such feelings frequently come about from being exposed to a material wealth which is not inhabited by that character. Often social class becomes a character’s motivation because of the power of greed in the novel and class frictions resulting in the desire for revenge.

It is fairly easy to read Wuthering Heights through a Marxist lens as from the outset, there are clear social divisions between the characters. Upon Mr Earnshaw adopting Heathcliff, there is initial discontent from Mrs Earnshaw as well as Catherine and Hindley who were ‘grinning and spitting’ at the ‘gipsy brat’, as described by the pair. This behaviour is expected more from the children, though it is surprising that Ellen dehumanises Heathcliff by referring to him with the pronoun ‘it’ and leaving him ‘on the landing of the stairs’, like a dog, hoping he would leave. This brings to light the fine lines between social classes and how this defines how characters are treated. Ellen grew up alongside Catherine and Hareton, allowing her integration into the family, and for her position as a maid to become increasingly irrelevant to those she serves as they know her as a companion. Nonetheless, Ellen is a maid to the family, which lowers her status, allowing the reader to assume she would be more sympathetic towards an abandoned character like Heathcliff and recognise his needs, but she does not. ‘Marxism questions whether the text supports the prevailing social and economic system or undermines it’, significant when considering Wuthering Heights as the Earnshaws and Lintons would have been members of the gentry, providing them with a high social standing. Despite being landowners, they do not have titles of nobility like aristocrats and royals above them, thus their place in the late 18th/early 19th century hierarchy would not have been utterly secure. This makes Nelly Dean’s initial reaction to Heathcliff more surprising as her social class is lower to Heathcliff’s once he is adopted into the Earnshaw family as he is, theoretically, ascribed the same status as the other two children. Additionally, after this point, she will have to serve him as a maid. This confirms the importance of social class as motivation in Wuthering Heights and that even those in the lowest positions look down on others within their own class, presenting the importance of material wealth and that looking down on others for what they do not have becomes a generalised concept, whether you are at the bottom or top of the social hierarchy.

The desire for social status becomes Catherine’s motivation when she returns from Thrushcross Grange. After initial reluctance, Catherine quickly accepts Heathcliff in the family, the pair becoming inseparable and reckless, promising to grow up as ‘rude as savages’ together. Eagleton expresses how Heathcliff’s lack of place in the social and economic structure of Wuthering Heights makes his and Catherine’s relationship natural and one of ‘direct personal equality’ as she is a daughter who does not expect to inherit; she is ‘the least economically integral member’ of the family. Though, upon Catherine’s return, the situation sours between her and Heathcliff and their friendship is tainted by Catherine’s transformation into a ‘dignified’ woman with ‘much improved’ manners along with her new lavish appearance. Bertens (2001) argues that capitalism allows us to ‘become alienated from ourselves’ and ‘turns people into things’, a view which mirrors the transformation of Catherine in a short amount of time. As a child, Catherine became friends with Heathcliff and disregarded her appearance for companionship where ‘punishment grew a mere thing to laugh at’. Exposure to a social class higher than her own and the pressure to behave in an unfamiliar environment alienated Catherine from herself and turned her into the epitome of a woman of gentry status, in both her appearance and person. Catherine’s language and treatment of other characters also changes, seen when she ‘burst into a laugh’ upon seeing Heathcliff’s ‘funny and grim’ appearance, which threatens their relationship. This is a turning point in the novel where, previously neglected, social class now becomes the focal point of Catherine’s motivation and the decisions she makes. Marxist ideas are drawn upon here because the work of capitalism has resulted in a girl of only twelve years old to recognise the pressure surrounding her to conform to a social class above her standing. Catherine’s childhood and friendship with Heathcliff had, up to this point, offered her the freedom of isolation from class and social structure. Therefore, the power of capitalism, enforced by the Linton family, caused a young woman to reevaluate her identity. The upkeep of her appearance continued outside of the Linton household, where it was unnecessary to look and act in such a way in front of the people she is most comfortable with, displaying how capitalist ideas manifested themselves enough for Catherine to internalise the pressure to obey the expectations of this social system, enforcing her motivation through the rest of the novel.

Social class becomes Heathcliff’s motivation once his main motivation, his love for Catherine and desire to marry her, becomes hopeless. Catherine expresses how she would be the ‘greatest woman of the neighbourhood’ if she were to marry Edgar Linton, whereas if Heathcliff and her married, they would be ‘beggars’. Catherine marries Linton to gain material wealth, making her a product of the capitalist social system. Upon Catherine’s declaration of her marriage, revenge becomes Heathcliff’s main motivation. However, this revenge is to acquire the status and wealth of both the Lintons and Earnshaws, thus social status is at the heart of what he wants to achieve. Perhaps Heathcliff’s love for Catherine is still his main motivation; money and status will prove his worthiness to be equal to Linton’s. Although, even after Catherine’s death, Heathcliff is determined to inherit both estates by taking advantage of people – including his own and other characters’ children via encouraging their marriage – specifically his own son becomes a tool for Heathcliff’s revenge. Bertens (2001) expresses that some politicians would be of the view that ‘you have options…all you have to do is to make the right choices and start moving up that social ladder’, the opposite to what Marx believed. Yet, Heathcliff internalises this view when he leaves to begin his revenge. Heathcliff also becomes reliant on violence to fulfil his motivations. After being abused by Hindley for large proportions of his childhood, violence towards others becomes tied to Heathcliff’s much sought after revenge on Hindley. Marxist links here tie to the fact that Hindley had always seen Heathcliff as a threat to his inheritance since Mr Earnshaw adopted him into the family, causing this wealth-based friction to amount to the abuse of Heathcliff. Marxism argues that minds are not ‘unaffected by material circumstances’ and ‘aren’t free at all’ (Bertens 2001), relating to how this drive of Heathcliff’s to obtain Hindley’s inheritance is a product of the varying status between them. If Heathcliff was accepted by Hindley as his equal socially, there would be no ground for revenge to form. However, it is this ‘class struggle’ that Peck and Coyle believe ‘must be made evident’ to a Marxist reading that Heathcliff and Hindley experience.

Manipulation of love and character becomes a means to fulfil motivation. Although Heathcliff and Catherine should have married – halted by wealth and social standing – they married partners they did not truly love to gain material wealth or revenge. Catherine appears to be the only character in the novel that Heathcliff will not act violently towards or treat abhorrently, displaying his adoration for her, but also portraying how status has changed his personality. Heathcliff uses his power to force various marriages between the children of Catherine, Hindley and his own to confirm his control over Thrushcross Grange. Heathcliff also appears to punish every other character in Wuthering Heights apart from Catherine, who rejected him as a husband and caused the ‘train of destruction’ that is Heathcliff’s revenge. Bertens (2001) is of the view that if our values are ‘determined by the sort of economy that we happen to live in, then clearly there is no such thing as an unchanging human condition’. This applies to the character of Heathcliff as the economy this novel lives within holds the power to change the characters’ attitudes towards wealth and status, ultimately bringing destruction into their lives. The characteristics which make us human certainly change throughout the novel because of the economic climate and how characters react to it. Being exposed to and denied the rewards of capitalism fuel Heathcliff’s desire and greed, changing his human experience and personality greatly throughout the novel, depicting how we do not live separately to the economic condition over us.

Overall, the motivation of the characters in Wuthering Heights often has social class at its heart, even when this is camouflaged as love or revenge. Catherine’s desire for a higher social standing through marriage is ultimately what descends the novel into turmoil, with Heathcliff’s desire to increase his wealth to be depicted by Catherine as a gentleman. Upon exposure to a character’s own class and the expected behaviour attached to this label, characters transform and threaten the relationship with those closest to them to acquire a higher place in the social hierarchy. It is an obsession with wealth and status that brings the characters to their doom, both Catherine and Heathcliff becoming their ‘own executioner’.

Most people expect to see the best parts of a what they read when they go to see a movie that is based upon a book, but most of the time “The book is better than the movie” and this is precisely what happened with Into the Wild. The movie’s theme correlates with the book but the way it is presented is quite different than the book. The book Into The Wild, is a travel essay written by Jon Krakauer. It is essentially about a young suburban man from a wealthy family who hitched hiked to Alaska without informing his family. He was Christopher Johnson McCandless, a fine man but stubborn with his own idealism. He disappeared immediately after graduating from college with honors on the summer of 1990, donated his grad school fund of $24,000 to Oxfam, abandoned his car and belongings, burnt all the cash and identity, changed his name into Alexander Supertramp and started wandering across Northern California. He worked in several places, made new friends, and lived where people welcomed him. Finally he reaches Alaska, his dreamland. He was found by moose hunters dead in the bus 142. He was very much influenced by Leo Tolstoy who gave up his wealth and wandered into woods. He actually avoided his parents and the social surrounding but unfortunately he died lack of topographic map, flooding in the river and eating the moldy seeds. Krakauer portrays Chris as a gloomy, grudge-holding, very unlike the happy wanderer of the film. The movie excluded essential parts from the book and concentrates on Chris’s quest. It focuses more on Chris being adventurous, friendly, warm yet resentful towards his parents while Krakauer shows other side of Chris.

However, the movie directed by Sean Penn was based on the book which was Chris’s life between college graduation and death; it focused on his idealism and his adventures more. The unimportant parts were more elaborated and didn’t go along with the sequence. In some instances it was not even essential to show how the teenager was so infatuated by Chris in the movie because Krakuer barely mentioned. It was same with the two German couple in the book it was written that he got a ride from them whereas in the movie, they advised Chris on how to go to Mexico. The book was told in various medium, multiple interviews, journals whereas Chris’s sister Carine narrates most of the time in the movie although she didn’t know anything about his journey to wilderness in the book, she didn’t have any contact with him after he left home.

People who have not read the book and watched the movie, it was more about Chris’s desire to go to Alaska because he was angry with his parents and was in search for truth but there was more to it in the book. According to Gaylord Stucky, “He said it was something he’d wanted to do since he was little, he didn’t want to see a single person, no airplanes, no sign of civilization……” The plot would have been different if this would have been mentioned in the movie but nothing of the sort was brought up. It was understood that his resentment towards his parents and their past made him decide to go in the movie. In the book too it was stated that he was withdrawn towards his parents, he was angry with them. According to Billie, “He seemed mad at us more often, and he became more withdrawn –no, that’s not the right word. Chris wasn’t ever withdrawn. But he wouldn’t tell us what was on his mind and spent more time by himself.” Two summers ago Chris had found that even after he was born his dad Walt had continued with his previous wife and both had a child who was born two years younger than him. His dad was having two relationships together. That infuriated Chris but never confronted his parents. “Rather than love, the money, the fame, give me truth. I sat at a table where were rich food and wine in abundance, an obsequious attendance, but sincerity and truth…… ”The Passage from the book Walden by Henry David Thoreau was highlighted was found with the remains of Chris’s collection. He was made him very upset that his parents kept him in dark and didn’t tell the truth. However in the movie, this plot was shown when he was recalling the graduation ceremony and thinking about his parent’s graduation when he was in Alaska while he was writing on the plywood. The resentment was shown but the plot was presented in different sequence.

The book informs a lot about his early childhood when he was very talented, competitive, compassionate, and a good entrepreneur. Chris was a high achiever in almost everything and brought A’s with little effort in his high school likewise in college he wrote intense editorials on variety of subjects. Both Carine and Chris played musical instrument, he was a gifted French horn player but when Carine got a place as first chair in the senior band, Chris quit playing. There was musical rivalry between them but they were really best friends. When all his friends were having fun in high school Chris would go and help homeless people by chatting with them and buying meals. “Chris didn’t understand how people could possibly be allowed to go hungry, especially in this country,” Billie said. That shows how compassionate and helpful he was. “Chris was always an entrepreneur,” Billie says with laughter. When he was very young he sold fresh vegetables door to door pulling the wagon, had a copy business in the neighborhood. He had a skill of a businessman but he never considered, he was busy dreaming about his idealism and trying to make his dream come true. However the movie leaves all his childhood milestones. It starts with graduation but didn’t show his past. It just portrayed Chris as an adventurous college grad who didn’t want to think about anything but himself.

There was no doubt that Penn was praising Chris. In the book, he’s impatient, selfish and caught up in a dream of idealism. Krakuer mentioned in Author’s note that Chris was intense young man and possessed a streak of stubborn idealism that did not mesh with modern existence. In the film, he’s gentler, cheerful and friendly, wandering the earth and spreading wisdom. There’s a sort of ironic humor to just about everything he does. Penn was telling Chris’s story from Chris’s perspective. He was out living the dream of freedom. The people who stand in his way were bad people. As for Chris urban areas are harsh, crazy, dangerous places and he avoids immediately and he feels he does not fit in those places.

In addition to that there were a great many detailed similarities between the movie and the book. The movie exaggerated a lot of scenes between Chris and his acquaintances along the road but materials shown regarding Chris’s life between his college graduation and death was moreover the same as in the book. The manner is different but the facts are more or less equal, the portions such as finding of bus, killing the moose, his odd jobs, the relationship with Jan Burres, Ronald Franz and Wayne Westerberg. In both presentations his death was an act of poor judgment.

In the end, Penn tried to make the movie more positive than negative by eliminating the dark sides from the book but as a reader I felt movie would have been better if Penn added some important details which would have satisfied readers like me and would say the movie is excellent. He was showing the adventurous journey of Chris which was one of the causes of his resentment towards his parents but was not able to execute Krakuer’s deeper meaning of the book and his perspective of the wild. People should not take idealism too far because then one can only harm oneself and in the wilderness like Alaska there is no return back if one does not have reality check.

Works Cited

1. Into the Wild. Dir. Sean Penn. Paramount Vintage. 2007.
2. Krakauer Jon. Into the Wild. New York: Anchor Book, February 1997. Print.

From the Maccabees to the Mishnah is a book by Shaye J. D. Cohen, Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy at Harvard University. The third edition of this book contains a shortened version of In Between: Jewish-Christians and the curse of the Heretics which is the eleventh chapter in Partings: How Judaism and Christianity Became Two.

As the Name suggests, the book discusses Ancient Judaism between the Maccabean revolution to the Mishnah while also discussing Ancient Judaism in the Second Temple Period in general. The book is divided into eight chapters with each chapter addressing a different aspect of Ancient Judaism. Chapter one is a brief historical overview from 587 BCE to the latter part of the fourth century. Chapter two describes the political, cultural and social aspects of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. Within this chapter Cohen discusses the multiple rebellions and wars from the Maccabean revolution of the second century BCE to the wars of the first and second centuries CE.

Chapter three focusses on the democratization of Judaism in the Second Temple period which Cohen describes as the “major development” in Judaism of the time.

Chapter four addresses the Jewish Community and its institutions with Cohen concluding that “Jewish society of the Second Temple and rabbinic periods was, in many respects, a typical ancient society.”. Chapter five is the largest chapter within the book and focusses on the Sectarian and normative aspects of ancient Judaism. Cohen concludes this chapter by linking his argument back to chapter three by stating that sectarianism is the “culmination of the democratization of Judaism”.

Chapter six explores the implications of canonisation in ancient Judaism. These implications were the “emergence of people who claimed political and religious on the basis of their scriptural expertise.” and the beginning of scriptural study which resulted in the “creation of three new literary genres; scriptural translation, paraphrase, and commentary.”. Chapter seven is titled “The Emergence of Rabbinic Judaism” and is where we get the books first in depth look into what Judaism was in the second to sixth centuries. This chapter is also where we explore what the Mishnah is with Cohen stating that the Mishnah was “the first rabbinic book, written in Hebrew and edited around 200 CE”. As I mentioned above, a shortened version of In Between: Jewish-Christians and the curse of the Heretics is included in this book and can be found in the final chapter. This chapter looks at the Roman, Jewish and Christian viewpoints of each group.

To begin the critical reflection section of this paper I would like to address the question “How successful is this book in achieving its goal?”. To answer this question, we must first identify the books stated goal. Cohen writes that the goal of From the Maccabees to the Mishnah is to “interpret ancient Judaism: to identify its major ideas, to describe its salient practices, to trace its unifying patterns, and to assess its relationship to Israelite religion and society.”. It is my belief that Cohen achieves this goal. One example of this is done through the way Cohen presents each topic. The book does not require a vast knowledge of Ancient Judaism to understand the topics being discussed and each point is displayed clearly and concisely with any terms which the reader might not understand being found in the glossary between pages 273 and 276.

One such example of this can be found in Chapter 5 Sectarian and Normative under the subheading The Focal Points of Jewish Sectarianism. In this section Cohen discusses three main focal points of Jewish sectarianism; law, the Temple and scriptural interpretation. Within the “law as a focal point” heading Cohen compares Jewish and Christian sectarianism which allows readers from both sides to gain a basic understanding of sectarianism. Cohen does this by writing “Christianity is a creedal religion, and Christian sectarianism too is creedal…. Judaism, however, was not a creedal religion. The cutting edge of Jewish sectarianism was not theology but law.”. A section I found extremely interesting was the section on the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. Although I had learned about them through my first year New Testament class, it was amazing to read about their beliefs and where they stood socially within Jewish society. Cohen explores these topics by discussing which texts and works were associated with each sect.

Within the third chapter, Cohen writes about the place of women in Judaism in ancient Judaism, a topic which he would expand on in his 2005 book Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism. Ancient Judaism was androcentric with some groups excluding women all together. Cohen writes that “Women’s Judaism remains elusive” as we have multiple sources of what men believed was the place of women in ancient Judaism, but we have little to no texts on what women thought of their position in society as even texts with female main characters such as Tobit, Esther and Judith accept the male dominated society they live in with little to no opposition. Concerning this, Michael Wojciechowski writes “The conventional view is that the author of Judith is interested in telling a story about the heroic deed of Judith and about the divine help for Israel, rather than in teaching morals. He Is more interested in piety and purity laws than in moral commandments.”

For the final part of this section I will discuss what implications I believe From the Maccabees to the Mishnah may have for interpreting the texts of the New Testament. In modern scholarship it is rarely ignored that Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism, but a book like From the Maccabees to the Mishnah is an excellent reminder of this. By looking at the society and culture of Ancient Judaism we can see the context in which the early church was created therefore leading to a more informed reading of New Testament texts. In the final Chapter, Cohen writes “Christian Literature from approximately 100CE to 160 is uniformly hostile to Jews and Judaism.”. . Although this is again rarely ignored in modern scholarship, it shows that while reading new Testament texts, one should keep in mind the anti-Jewish beliefs within the texts and attempt to look past them in interpretations. Take for example Philippians 3:7-9.

Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. (NRSV)

In This text Paul is not speaking of a replacement theology but instead a messianic eschatology, a redefinition of what Israel is to the followers of Christ but is impossible to deny that there is a clear anti-Jewish message which Cohen illustrates extremely well.

In conclusion, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah is successful in its goal of interpreting Ancient Judaism while also effecting how New testament texts should be interpreted. Cohen describes the complex practices of an ancient society so clearly that it is difficult to become confused by points made.

Introduction to the American Dream and the Great Gatsby

The American Dream is the nation’s overall aspiration for America, and at America’s conception, the birth of the aspiration “rags to riches” was cultivated. America was founded by Puritans fleeing from the Western world desiring religious and governmental freedom, and wealth. This pattern that the Puritans set continued throughout America through Westward Expansion, a search for economic benefits and assets, which was exemplified by historical occurrences like The Gold Rush of 1848. The Great Gatsby takes place in 1922, just seven years before the detrimental economic recession of the Great Depression. The Great Gatsby portrays main themes like the American Dream, roles of femininity, masculinity, vice, materialism, class, and sub-themes like old money versus new money. However, The Great Gatsby provides symbolism about the American Dream: It shows the greed of the corrupt. When comparing the novel The Great Gatsby by Scott F. Fitzgerald to that of the 2013 film directed by Baz Luhrmann, the movie is no longer about the literary eloquence that a book may focus on, but about the entertainment aspect, about drawing the eyes of the viewers into the production. Although both interpretations of The Great Gatsby present similar ideals, the portrayal of the American Dream in the movie in comparison to the film has become overdramatized as demonstrated by its treatment of status, wealth, and romance.

Overdramatization of Status and Class Divisions

Historically, New York, let alone the United States, is highly segregated by socioeconomic status. However, in The Great Gatsby, one of the things that all the classes share is the American Dream to achieve wealth. Though, this achievement was still divided by class because within the wealthy, there was still a social divide between those who were born into it and those of the “rags to riches” prototype. However, Luhrmann’s portrayal of status in the movie has been overdramatized to further display the divisions between class and status. For example, in the movie, during the argument between Tom and Gatsby, Tom taunts Gatsby’s new money status by saying, “Oh no, no, we’re different. I am, they are, she is, we’re all different from you. We were born different, it’s in our blood, and nothing you do, say, steal or dream up, can ever change that.” (Luhrmann, 2013.) This statement displays the grudge and superiority complex that Tom has for those of East Egg status which includes Gatsby, making Gatsby feel inferior, and retaliates into a rageful fit. While East and West Egg continues their rivalries, they stay blissfully unaware that their life in luxury is creating a disproportionate wealth gap for those of the lowest status, those in the Valley of Ashes. The Valley of Ashes in the book is described as, “[a] desolate area of land.” (Fitzgerald, pg. 23.) The movie and Luhrmann’s work stay true to the visualization that the Valley of Ashes was area where “ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens where ashes take the forms of houses and chimneys and rising smoke and finally, with a transcendent effort, of men who move dimly and already crumbling through the powdery air.” (Fitzgerald, pg. 23.) Though unlike the book, the movie puts less emphasis on the Valley of Ashes being a desolate, barren wasteland with scattered businesses but over-dramatizes it as an area with an abundance of urbanization filled with excessive amounts of ash, grime and poverty, but still yet a city that has become torn apart and become a hellscape those who inhabit it.

Wealth and Extravagance in the Roaring Twenties

As explained in the movie by Nick Carraway, in the time of 1922 “stocks hit record peaks, and Wall Street boomed, in a steady golden roar. The parties were bigger, the shows were broader, the buildings were higher, the morals were looser, and the ban on alcohol had backfired making the liquor cheaper.” (Luhrmann, 2013.) With the stock market skyrocketing, it made the American Dream of wealth more accessible to those who could obtain it more effortless than ever. In the book, the theme of wealth is shown consistently through its portrayal and vast differences in status. However, what differs from the book to the film is that the film’s sensationalized focal points seem to revolve around the grand and extravagant parties. Although Luhrmann’s interpretation still encapsulates the ideas of Fitzgerald’s visions, it also adds flairs of modernism, by including music scores of rap from artists like Kanye West and Jay-Z, instead of the expected 1920s themed jazz. The flashy party lacks the scenes that in the book provide a sense of calamity even from within the party, and provide depth on the characters such as the twin girls in the yellow dresses, or the elaborate description of the crying woman, or the car accident. These scenes are now quick jump-cuts, making the activities at the party overstimulating, overwhelming, and generates a head-spinning, alcohol-induced effect to the viewer, as alcohol is a well-known theme to the Roaring Twenties. As the film progresses towards the end, it shows Gatsby’s shocking death was bombarded with the publication, but amongst that publication, there were only a small number of people in both the book and the movie who went to his funeral or even cared. In the book, Wolfsheim sent his regards, and Gatsby’s father, Henry, sent a telegram to postpone the funeral until he arrived in New York, and when he arrived, marveled at his son’s legacy and was proud of him. While in the movie, the only one who came to the funeral aside from paparazzi was Nick Carraway himself. The overdramatization in the lack of people who came to Gatsby’s funeral shows how the journey of the American Dream of wealth is isolating, which Gatsby even admits in the movie, saying “you know, I thought for a while I had a lot of things. But the truth is I’m empty.” (Luhrmann, 2013) Gatsby was always surrounded by people who despised or idolized his status but were never his friends, aside from Nick Carraway. Daisy does not show up to his funeral or send her regards, because she has once again chosen the security of wealth with Tom over true love. The American Dream was full of greed because nothing was ever sustainable or fulfilling.

The American Dream of Wealth and Love: A Comparison

In The Great Gatsby, Jay Gatsby battles an equilibrium: the American Dream of wealth, and the American Dream of true love. Gatsby realizes he must achieve the American Dream of wealth before he even attempts to achieve the American Dream of true love and get Daisy back. Romanticism is a prevalent theme in both the movie and the film, but Luhrmann uses romanticism to his advantage, to over-dramatize the innocence and purity of true love. In the movie, when Nick first walks into the Buchanan’s home to visit Daisy, the lens flares as the doors swing open to reveal a white room brightly lit by sunlight, as flowy sheer white curtains float momentarily in the air, while a crystal chandelier hangs overhead, as bubbly laughter fills the room. Soon, Daisy’s dainty and feminine hand rises over the cream sofa, and she calls for Nick. These motifs that Luhrmann strategically uses are no coincidence, as it displays goodness of life, femininity, hope, purity, naiveté, and innocence that Daisy resembles. Daisy resembles these characteristics because her corruption is never her decision, but is always forced upon her, as in example stated before by her forced to choose financial security over true love and happiness by external factors, either her parents or her husband, Tom Buchanan. These attributes of Daisy’s add to the complexity of Gatsby and Daisy’s relationship, which take center stage as much of the plot in both the film and the novel. However, one character plot that the movie lacked is the romantic relationship between Nick Carraway and famous golfer, Jordan Baker. Although Nick allegedly has another girl in waiting for him back home in the Midwest, he continues with this relationship with Jordan. Nick Carraway notes at one point in the book, “[Jordan’s] grey, sun-strained eyes stared straight ahead, but she had deliberately shifted our relations, and for a moment I thought I loved her.” (Fitzgerald, pg. 58.) Nick insights on the intense and sentimental relationship that was developing between him and Jordan, and despite this character development, Luhrmann decided to cut it entirely from the movie, shifting the focus to the dramatic synopsis of the love triangle between Jay Gatsby, and Daisy and Tom Buchanan, drawing more attention and sensationalizing romantic aspect in the film.

Conclusion: Overdramatization and Universal Ideals

When comparing the literature of Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby to Luhrmann’s work on the motion picture of The Great Gatsby, we see universal ideals through the commonalities of the American Dream for the Eastern United States during the Roaring Twenties. However, the portrayal of the American Dream in the movie in comparison to the film has become overdramatized by Luhrmann’s treatment of status, wealth, and romance in order to sensationalize the novel. We continue to see tactics like Luhrmann’s used to modernize classic literature into Hollywood produced movies. The ending of The Great Gatsby differs as well. In the novel, Nick goes home to the Midwest, the East now filled with toxicity. In the movie, Nick seeks psychiatric help and is being treated by a psychologist as a, “morbidly alcoholic, insomniac, fits of anger, anxiety, depression” (Luhrmann, 2013.) What stays the same is the lesson learned by Nick, is that time is ever-fleeting. Nick voices this saying, “[Gatsby] had come such a long way, and his dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it. He did not know that it was already behind him. Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year, recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter. tomorrow we will run faster, Stretch out our arms farther, and one fine morning, So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly, into the past.” (Luhrmann, 2013.) In the end, Gatsby’s dream was not achieved, and Nick realized the corruption of the American Dream surrounding him, but the only thing that continued to move on was hope and time, so as life does, it beats on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly, into the past.

References

1. Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. Penguin Books, 2018.
2. Luhrmann, Baz, director. The Great Gatsby. Village Roadshow Pictures, Bazmark Productions, A&E Productions, Red Wagon Entertainment, 2013

The author of the novel Flowers for Algernon, Daniel Keyes, conveys the idea that brilliance does not always lead to wisdom or happiness, because gaining intelligence could open the door to issues you may not have had or known about.

Intellect does not necessarily have a correlation with judgment. Charlie writes as a postscript in his final progress report: “please tel prof Nemur not to be such a grouch when pepul laff at him and he woud have more frends” (Keyes 311). Nemur is portrayed as egotistical, and feels irrationally threatened by anyone that might be smarter than him, leading his colleagues to loathe him. Despite being a brilliant scientist, he lacks the judgment to understand that his jealousy and resent is immature. When pressed for advice on a moral decision, Alice, Charlie’s teacher, tells Charlie, “In some ways you’re so advanced, and yet when it comes to making a decision, you’re still a child. The answer can’t be found in books” (Keyes 91). Charlie just recently started gaining knowledge at an incredible pace, and despite being a genius, he’s emotionally immature. Charlie relies too heavily on his knowledge, and when it’s time to make an important moral decision, his lack of judgment is made evident. Wisdom is having knowledge, and having the judgment to know what to do with that knowledge, but even the smartest people could be imprudent.

Intelligence alone is not enough to bring joy. Charlie gets into a drunken argument with the men responsible for his change in intelligence, and tells them how he really feels about it: “Intelligence that hasn’t been tempered by human affection isn’t worth a damn.…When I was retarded I had lots of friends. Now I have no one” (Keyes 249). Charlie is unable to have a serious lasting relationship with anyone, as a friend or romantically, after his transformation. Nemur and the others encourage him to focus only on gaining as much knowledge as possible after his transformation, and while he advanced rapidly intellectually, he stays emotionally underdeveloped, partly leading to his loneliness, and then depression and anger. Soon after the argument, Charlie has a realization: “I was an arrogant, self-centered bastard. I was incapable of making friends or thinking about other people and their problems. I was interested in myself, and myself only” (Keyes 253). Charlie’s incessant arrogance drives many of his colleagues and mentors into despising him. As Charlie gets smarter, he gets increasingly ignorant to what people think of him, and his lack of self-awareness results in him growing more and more despondent as he’s not sure why he has no friends. Knowledge has the ability to bring happiness, but in certain scenarios, especially well illustrated in Charlie’s extreme example, it can lead to depression or anger.

Newfound intelligence can bring undesirable truth. Alice gets in an argument with Charlie, and says, “Before you had the operation, you weren’t like this. You didn’t wallow in your own filth and self-pity, you didn’t pollute your own mind by sitting in front of the TV set all day and night, you didn’t snarl and snap at people” (Keyes 299). Before Charlie has the operation, he is polite and happy, but for most of the period from then until he recedes back to his original state, he is cynical and nihilistic. This is because he realizes how terribly some people treated him just because he was intellectually disabled. Soon after his change in intelligence, Charlie is invited to a party by his friends, and after having been ridiculed and taunted he realizes: “I never knew before that Joe and Frank and the others liked to have me around just to make fun of” (Keyes 42). He has the revelation that practically no one in his life before the surgery really cared about him. Charlie loses all of his friends after his gain in intelligence either because they find the unnatural change immoral, or Charlie realizes they were never his real friends, and only thought they were because they wanted to keep someone with a learning disability around to mock. Charlie’s depression is caused by his new insight into how cruel people could be.

Knowledge is no measure of reason or compassion, and a lack of emotion or affection could be brought on by maturing intellectually.

“Our Papers” is Janie Crawford’s time with Logan Kilicks in several ways. This section has similarities to her relationship with her first husband Logan and what she felt in this time frame.

In this section of the novel, Their Eyes Were Watching God, Janie goes to talk to her grandmother. She has only been married for three or four days and is sad. She tries to let her Nanny know how unhappy she is in her marriage with Logan Killicks. Janie is talking to her Nanny and says, “Cause you told me Ah mus gointer love him, and, and Ah don’t.”(Hurston 23) Janie is explaining to her grandmother how she does not love Logan Killicks like a married wife should. She does not want to be married to him. Nanny sends Janie home to Logan but is heartbroken and dies within a month. Janie stays with Logan for months and then she is ready to move on. She wanted to get away. “She began to stand around the gate and expect things.” (Hurston 25). This is similar to how Julia’s godmother felt in the essay “Our Papers.” The godmother explains to Julia how she charmed El Jefe into getting the paperwork she needed to travel. She tells Julia, “I didn’t want to go anywhere. I just wanted to get away from the hell we were living in.” (Alvarez 14) She explains to Julia how she was not happy with where she was and wanted to get away. This is exactly how Janie felt with her marriage to Logan Killicks. Although Julia’s godmothers situation did not have anything to do with a relationship, they both ultimately wanted to get away from their current life and home. Both Janie and Julia’s godmother wanted freedom, but freedom meant something different to both of them. Janie wanted to get away from Logan and be able to make her own decisions and plans. Julia’s godmother wanted to get away from the Dominican Republic so she didn’t have to live in a dictatorship. In this essay Julia didn’t feel like Janie or her godmother. She was worried that the trip had taken her family away from everything they loved. At the end of the essay Julia felt sadness. She missed the vacations with her large family, especially her cousins. Janie wanted to be free from Logan so she make her own decisions about what she could do and who she loved. Julia’s godmother wanted freedom and didn’t want to stay in the Dominican Republic, strictly controlled by the government. Janie felt the American Dream was to be able to love who she wanted to and not be bossed around by Logan. Julia is sad at the end of “Our Papers” because she doesn’t understand why her parents moved the family to America. She is young and doesn’t realize yet that her parents wanted her to have freedom by living the American Dream.

Briefly, A Gardener- Section 2

There are some similarities and differences in Janie’s time with Joe Starks with Julia’s experience in “Briefly, A Gardener.” While Janie hates working in her husband’s store, Julia is asking her husband for something to do. Janie doesn’t care for her husband, Joe Starks, and Julia is proud of her husband and wants to share his passion for farming. Each of them want and need different things to be happy. Julia says, “Give me a little tiny thing I can do.” (Alvarez 88) Julia wants to be a part of her husband’s hobby so she can connect with him, out of her love for him. While on the other hand, Janie didn’t want to work at her husband’s store and her husband didn’t want her talking. Janie also doesn’t want to wear a head rag as her husband wants her to. Their relationship is opposite of Julia’s marriage. Julia’s husband willingly gives her an opportunity to join him in his passion for farming. Julia wants to show her husband that her herb garden can be successful and is upset when she sees him weeding the garden. Janie’s husband doesn’t want her to have success. He wants her to be a shadow behind him. Both females wanted more independence in different ways. Although Janie was happy with Joey at first, she began to want to do more things on her own. Joe started to tell Janie what she can and can not do/wear. She did not want him controlling certain aspects of her life. He tells her what to do with her hair, and where she can and can not go. Julia doesn’t want her husband to help her with the weeding. She wants to show him she can do it on her own, maybe to impress him. Both women want independence ( the American Dream) but they want it for different reasons. Janie wants independence without her husband. Julia wants independence to show her husband she can farm like him. Their lives are different; they want different things. The American Dream is different from person to person because people have different goals in life. Julia and Janie’s dreams and goals are very different, yet they both want more independence. Independence to each of them was different.

I Want to Be Miss America- Section 3

“I Want to Be Miss America” and chapters 10 – 19 of Their Eyes Were Watching God have certain aspects where Janie and Julia can again be compared. Both females seem to be living the American Dream at that point in their lives. Janie has been with Joe Starks for many years until he died. She is happy he is dead and she loves her freedom from him. Janie met Tea Cake and they talked almost everyday. They soon began to form a relationship. The love she shared with Tea Cake was the love she has been longing for her entire life. She had freedom from a controlling husband; she was in love and had some money so she likely felt she was finally living the American Dream of freedom.

Julia and her sisters must have also felt they were living the American Dream in this essay. Julia’s family had gotten used to living in America and they were no longer homesick.

Unfortunately, both women suffered from doubt. Janie fell in love with Tea Cake but had doubts. “In the cool of the afternoon the fiend from hell specially sent to lovers arrived at Janie’s ear. Doubt.” (Hurston 108) She didn’t know if Tea Cake liked her as much as she liked him and was worried he wouldn’t come back to her.

Although Julia is a young girl, she and her sisters dream of becoming the perfect American teenager. They watch the Miss America Pageant, and that puts the idea in their mind. Julia Alvarezv and her sisters want to look like the perfect American teenagers. “Although we wanted to look like we belonged here, the four sisters, our looks didn’t seem to fit in. “ (Alvarez 39) Julia and her sisters felt like they were too short, their hair was too frizzy and they did not have the curvy figures like the girls in the beauty contest.

Janie and Julia wanted to live the American Dream and both saw irony in their lives as they tried to live that dream. Janie saw irony in the jury who ruled her innocent. “Twelve white men who didn’t know a thing about people like Tea Cake and her were going to sit on the thing.” (Hurston 185). Julia saw irony in the late sixties when her appearance was appreciated and admired. “Soon ethnic looks would be in.” (Alvarez 43) Julia noticed in college other girls wanted to have her look. They wanted to look exotic or foreign.

Again the American Dream looks different, yet similar, for both main characters.

Grandfather’s Blessings- Section 4

“Grandfather’s Blessings” and Section 4 of Their Eyes Were Watching God compare easily. Julia’s grandfather told her she couldn’t go into certain careers because she was a girl. She said she wanted to be a bullfighter and then later said she wanted to be a cowboy and a movie actress. Her grandfather, who she adored and admired, discouraged her. “My, my,” he said, “Where does this little girl get such ideas?” (Alvarez 9) He would say it was not possible for her. Janie was also discouraged by her grandmother. In chapter 1, Janie begins to reminisce about her life and the three husbands that played a part in it. We know that this is leading up to the discouragement or lack of support Janie gets from her grandmother in chapter 2. Janie’s grandmother does not let Janie find love on her own. She makes her marry Logan. Julia’s grandfather and Janie’s grandmother both want what is best for the girls. They want the girls to experience the American Dream. However both girls have very different ideas about the American Dreams when compared to their grandparents’ ideas.

Julia’s grandfather wants her to be something that is suitable for a female. This idea is likely his version of the American Dream. At the end of “Grandfather’s Blessing” he does finally agree when she says she wants to be a pilot and a poet. “A poet, yes. Now you are talking.” (Alvarez 11) Her grandfather loved poetry and would often recite lines. To Julia, the American Dream is finding something that she really wants to do and will love doing. Obviously, she went towards the direction of poetry, writing. She seems like someone that would also want to please her family. So poetry/writing would be a career that would give her what she wanted as well as making her grandfather proud.

Janie’s grandmother wants Janie to marry someone that will take care of her. This idea is likely Nanny’s version of the American Dream. Nanny does not realize Janie’s version of the American Dream will involve independence and choosing who she will love and marry. In the last chapter of Their Eyes Were Watching God Janie seems to have gotten her American Dream. She is in her own home and she is independent of any man controlling her life. She is happy with her loving memories of Tea Cake. “Here was peace.” (Hurston 193)

Both women had their own versions of the American Dream, just like any people have their own version of the American Dream. The dream could be about the freedom of speech or the right to vote. Fortunately for both of the main characters, it seems they have achieved their dreams.

More attempts to navigate a path through the ideal and real world in a hierarchy, depicting one’s desire for fulfilment and the pragmatic understanding that this Utopia is impossible. Thomas More’s conflicting interests between religion and politics in society becomes obvious throughout the novel as he raises concerns of King Henry VIII rule and values implemented in society. The main tension of Utopia is generated through More’s disagreement in private property and a hierarchy, ‘no just and even distribution of goods can be made and that no happiness can be found in human affairs unless private property is utterly abolished,’ the classic dialogue form allows More’s character to respond dialectically and present his enthralling perspective. In response to the hierarchical structure the composer advocates for society to possess virtue, morality and equality as their central values to become a thriving government and civilization, ‘Thereupon a door clapped … “I arrest thee, traitor.” “What, me, my Lord?” quoth he. “Yea, thee, traitor,” quoth the Protector.’ The use of prose argues that a complete breakdown of hierarchical structures in government is necessary in order to assure room for virtue in society as he paradoxically reduces a man of stature. The composer’s concern of valuing goods over virtue and morality results in his attempt to correct this problem through Utopia, ‘Instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, … provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody’s under the frightful necessity of becoming first a thief and then a corpse.’ More’s perspective is apparent as he brands the goods as worthless and possessing moral values the most crucial. Challenging Tudor values the composer mentions the numerous political tribulations that current society is unable to decipher and proposes methods to resolve this concern.

The socialism in Utopia discloses the ability to prevent inequality between citizens and class groups as the political utopia prescribes practical solutions to alleviate the political problems. The depiction of a semi-ideal society forwarded Utilitarianism and ambiguity about convictions that occurred in society, ‘Nobody owns anything but everyone is rich – for what greater wealth can there be than cheerfulness, peace of mind, and freedom from anxiety?’ the culmination of rational thought required between the conflicting ideologies becomes evident between More and Hythloday’s perspectives. Hythloday adheres to a belief in the purity of the philosophical ideal of truth, ‘Why do you suppose they made you king in the first place?… you to devote your energies to making their lives more comfortable, and protecting them from injustice.’ the description he constructs proves the flaw of society valuing the possession of wealth and power over truth and rationality, raising concerns on capital punishment in crimes of theft and the exploitative nature of the enclosure movement. More’s sardonic attack on lawyers target individuals who speak without giving any rational thought to the subject of their discourse, ‘manufacturing thieves and then blaming them for being thieves.’ the caricature of the lawyer as a haughty and hollow individual who lacks reason, questions his practice of religion and portrayal of the capital punishment as both immoral and ineffective. Although More represents Utopia as an ideal civilization that urges for equality he articulates the ‘dystopic’ traits of society and exposes the imperfections. The understanding that the actions of individuals are caused by the structures of wealth and power in society allows the composer to relay compelling questions of the reader’s own society.

The composer creates an important thematic opposition between happiness and suffering and between the individual and society by emphasizing the strict nature of civilization’s rule. Le Guin criticises modern culture’s romanticised view of suffering as interesting and happiness as uninteresting as the Omelas city unfolds, ‘the great water-meadow called the Green Fields,’ the personification prods the reader to open their mind to happiness as a complex emotion that exists in constant relation to suffering. The Omelas city reveals important variables of the concepts of necessity and destructiveness to calculate happiness as the extreme contrast between the individual suffering and society’s happiness is the foundation of society, ‘central heating, subway trains, washing machines… a cure for the common cold,’ the syndeton allegorises the city and establishes civilisation’s structure. The texts movement from the bird’s eye view of the thriving society to a close-up of a suffering individual dramatically contrasts the ‘Festival of Summer’ to the stunted growth of a child, highlighting the sufferer’s denial to coming of age or any sense of selfhood. It becomes exposed that all happiness for the whole society must rely on the complete misery and inequality of a single individual, ‘Happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive,’ the equivocation allows the audience to reconsider perfection and a utopia. The modern manifestation of Utopia reinforces the timeless concerns of an ill-fated pursuit as Le Guin alike More comments on the flaws of humanity. Omelas represents a Utopia ambitious for happiness and equality, however both Utopia and Omelas apply strict rules and regulations to enforce hypnotic stupor in the citizens to disregard the unethical actions taken place. Ursula Le Guin emphasizes More’s urge for society’s understanding of the harmful effects and consequences of a euphoria.

Summary:

Gabriel and Young (2011) designed a study to test three hypotheses. The first hypothesis they were testing if reading a passage from either Harry Potter will make participants “become” wizards or if reading Twilight will make participants “become” vampires. More specifically they examined and proposed the narrative collective-assimilation hypothesis. This hypothesis states that reading a chapter or passage from a book can lead to psychological adaptation of the collections described in the story. The second hypothesis was narrative collective assimilation; they predicted that the more participants achieved their social needs by classifying themselves in groups, the more they would display narrative collective assimilation. Lastly, they tested that narrative collective assimilation would have the same affects as satiated belongingness and positive mood. The example in this study involved 140 undergraduates from the University at Buffalo, State University of New York.

This study used an experimental research method because manipulating the independent variable, which was the type of passage they read from either Twilight or Harry Potter. Although never stated in the text, I assumed they used random assignment on which participants read which passage. The dependent variable for the study were the scores from the identity Implicit Association Test. The participants read a specific chapter in each of the books, for Twilight they specifically read chapter 13 “Confessions,” when Edward (vampire) describes what it is like to be a vampire to Bella. Harry Potter participants read chapters 7 “The Sorting Hat” and 8 “The Potions Master”, chapter 7 was when Harry and his friends (wizards) get sorted into assigned houses from a hat they place on their head and chapter 8, is when Harry first encounters Severus Snape. They gathered the data in person.

The procedures were as followed: participants were told the purpose of the study was to observe people’s responses to book and movies. To do this participant were assigned either a passage from Twilight or Harry Potter and were asking to read as they would normally read for pleasure. Once all participants finished, which took about 30 minutes they then completed an identity Implicit Association Test (identity IAT). The response time it took participants assessed their indirect identification with vampires relative to wizards. The IAT test consisted of multiple tasks, they completed two critical blocks of 40 trials and in each block they were instructed to categorize “me” words and “wizard” words, in the second block they categorized “not me” words with “vampire” words. They next administered an explicit measure of collective assimilation, which consisted of three items designed to measure collective assimilation to vampires or wizards. Finally, they completed the Transportation Scale, a measure of level of absorption in a story.

The results confirmed the hypothesis for all three of the hypothesis. Participants who read Harry Potter associated themselves with wizards, meanwhile those who read Twilight associated themselves with vampires. The findings supported their argument that narratives (stories) is related to the need to belong to groups. It was also supportive of the link between narrative collective assimilation and belongingness which predicted increased life satisfaction and positive affect.

Critique:

Overall the study was well designed to test all three of the hypothesis. The method of having participants read a narrative and then having them “become” the character (wizard or vampire) supports the researcher’s theory. I found the study to be very valid. Validity is having a well-founded and justifiable experiment. The researchers gathered their result by the amount of time it took participants to pair “me” words with “wizard” words and “not me” words with “vampire” words and vice versa. They excluded five participants from the examination because over 10% of their answer times were too fast. Although, they never stated the responses had to be within a certain time limit. Maybe these participants found this examination a lot easier and that’s why they had faster times.

All three of the researcher’s hypothesis were confirmed based on the analysis they performed. I did find the results to be very confusing, they should’ve provided less numbers in the text or a better explanation on what the number meant. If the chart was not provided at the end, I would not have understood the results. They also, should’ve mentioned how they decided to give each of the participants a designated passage to read (random assignment). The researchers should’ve provided a third passage and had the participants read all three, counterbalancing the order each participant received, then they could see which character the participants “became.” Also, after reading the first page and reading the title, it threw me off because I expected that more participants “became” vampires but that wasn’t the case.

A follow-up study, along the same lines as the previous findings can more carefully look at the participants who read on a regular basis for pleasure and see if they still had that desire to belong (increased life satisfaction and better mood) compared to the participants who don’t read at all. They could then see if reading passages and “becoming” the character they’re reading about puts the participants in a better mood than those who do not read and increase life satisfaction.

Brief Summary:

Gabriel and Young (2011) conducted a study to test three hypotheses, mainly that reading a passage causes one to psychologically become part of the collective (group) within the story. The experiment they conducted to test their hypothesis is having the participants read passages from either Twilight (vampires) or Harry Potter (wizards). After the participants finished reading their designated passages, those who read Twilight “became” vampires and those whom read Harry Potter “became” wizards, which supported the researcher’s hypothesis. They also tested the narrative collective assimilation hypothesis, which is humans basic need for connection. Lastly, they tested if narrative collective assimilation was correlated with positive mood and life satisfaction. All three of the researcher’s results supported all the hypothesis.

References

1. Gabriel, S., & Young, A. F. (2011). Becoming a Vampire Without Being Bitten. Psychological Science, 22(8), 990–994. doi: 10.1177/0956797611415541

With references to wider reading, explore and compare the impact of a totalitarian state in The Handmaid’s Tale (Margaret Atwood) and Never Let Me Go (Kazuo Ishiguro).

In The Handmaid’s Tale and Never Let Me Go, both authors explore and compare the impact of the totalitarian states present within the novels. Both Atwood and Ishiguro make distinct links between totalitarianism and the post colonist theory as they portray how a totalitarian state requires to confine certain individuals, similarly to colonies during the 1700s and 1800s, in order to exert power over them. Both novels clearly portray how totalitarian states exploit, brainwash, segregate and remove the identities of certain individuals who they view as the apparatus for a successful totalitarian state.

Disturbingly, both The Handmaid’s Tale and Never Let Me Go portray a totalitarian state as an inescapable force, which determines their fate and programmes their minds to function for society’s betterment. However, the notion itself of totalitarianism greatly differs between the two novels as Ishiguro portrays a forever existing totalitarian state, whereas Atwood conveys a descent into a dictatorial regime. It seems impossible to dismiss the amount of corruption presented in Gilead as individuals are programmed to perform to the government’s values. Gilead has achieved its goal of incarcerating individuals and controlling their lives, emphasised by the character of Offred through her description of how the “Handmaids” are “rat[s] in a maze [who are] free to go anywhere, as long as [they] stay inside the maze”(p.g174). This use of animalistic imagery accentuates how their role in society makes them feel as filthy as “rats” and how they feel trapped inside a “maze”, emphasising their inability to escape this brutal system. Here, Atwood skilfully moulds the novel to portray a cyclical structure emphasising how the world is not progressing for the better but instead is repeating events, evident in the confinement of the “Handmaids” in Gilead, which fundamentally acts as a warning to future society.

It is possible to interpret The Handmaid’s Tale from a post-colonist perspective as Atwood mimics the events of British colonisation in the 1700s when the British Empire exploited and separated citizens of America for their own economic needs[footnoteRef:0]. The concept of history repeating itself is shown as the USA was a colony belonging to the British Empire, who achieved independence in the 1760s[footnoteRef:1]. Similarly, Atwood constructs the “Colonies” in parallelism to the British Empire’s rule suggesting that these colonies function on power hungry people. The introduction of Moira; a rebellious character, graphically describes the situation in the colonies as not only a place for “people they want to get rid of”(p.g260) but also where humans were treated like machines for manual labour. Moira’s character explicitly describes the setting of the colonies, where “the toxic dumps and the radiation [makes] your nose fall off and your skin pull away like rubber gloves”(p.g260).This graphic imagery is resoundingly similar to Nazi Germany and their German nuclear weapon program; fuelled through the exploitation of the Jewish community[footnoteRef:2] , who were viewed as easily discardable machines designed to perform physical work.The image [0: ] [1: ] [2: ] constructed of a “nose fall[ing] off” and “skin pull[ing] away like rubber gloves” suggests that there is a barbaric practice taking place, emphasising the immorality of the Gileadean regime. Atwood highlights the extent of the government’s corruption and lack of protection they offer their citizens by freely discarding those deemed worthless in their vision of a Utopian state.

Similarly, Ishiguro illustrates the concept of a separate world within a world, where the clones have willingly surrendered to the administrative values of the government. The portrayal of Hailsham as a completely separate world is identical to Atwood’s illustration of the colonies. This is visible in the way they are “cloned only to donate their organs and then to complete their life cycle in death[footnoteRef:3], similar to the way colonists were taken advantage of by the British Empire[footnoteRef:4]. Ultimately, Ishiguro exposes the destructive power of totalitarian states by character relationships such as Tommy’s and Kathy’s. This is seen when Tommy accepts his fate as a clone belonging to the government and describes his relationship with Kathy. “trying to hold onto each other…but in the end it’s too much. The current’s too strong. They’ve got to let go, drift apart” (p.g277). At this point, Tommy metaphorically compares the government to the destructive nature of a river that is powerful and difficult to fight. This use of nature imagery emphasises how the government’s immense power and force is similar to the flow of nature and fate: both impossible to alter or futile to go against. Sadly, the clones are forced to swallow this bitter truth and have no choice but to adhere to the government’s values; in turn, they destroy their illusions of a [3: ] [4: ] happy life by coming to the realisation that they “can’t stay together forever”(p.g277). From this, it is obvious that death will inevitably separate them.

Arguably, the notion of the government as puppeteers is predominantly influenced by the biographical context of Ishiguro, a Japanese born individual. The Japanese regard the belief that each individual is connected to their soul mates through a red string of fate[footnoteRef:5]. Essentially, this will ensure they live a happy life together[footnoteRef:6]. However, Ishiguro challenges this cultural vision of life by highlighting how the government systematically alter fates and destroys relationships. For example, the most significant instance of this is when Kathy states how “our lives… so closely interwoven, could unravel and separate… there were powerful tides tugging us apart”(p.g194). Once again, the reader feels the government’s intensity through the continuation of metaphorical language, likening the government to a destructible force more profound than Mother Nature. Additionally, with reference to the Japanese proverb, the government appear to possess such power to “separate” and [5: ] [6: ] “unravel” the strings connecting clones who are viewed as puppets. This relates to Tommy and Kathy’s imminent separation as the dictatorial regime is the force that drives them apart, resulting the clones to have no control over their lives due to the puppeteers

Both novels also explore methods that totalitarian states deploy to indoctrinate nations. This is evident through the use of linguistic manipulation as a crucial weapon in brainwashing citizens for a complete authoritarian state. Essentially, Ishiguro and Atwood starkly remind the reader that the “clones” and “Handmaids”, do not rebel against the ‘Guardians’ or the regime, accentuating how indoctrination is viewed as a privileged education. This bears a resounding resemblance to Nazi Germany during the late 1930s. For instance, children were re-educated and moulded into believing the Jews were the reason why Germany was in poverty[footnoteRef:7]. [7: ]

Ishiguro illustrates how the clones unconsciously conform to this preordained fate of theirs as they fail to acknowledge their cruel fate as donors. For example, the clones have dreams and aspirations of their own just like humans but are always harshly reminded of their sole existence. This is clearly evident when the “Guardian”, Miss Lucy, draws the class’s attention to their lack of aspirational worth when she says “none of you will go to America, none of you will be film stars. And none of you will be working in supermarkets… Your lives are set out for you”(p.g80). Ultimately, repetition is the language of indoctrination when phrases like “none of you” prompt the clones to question their self-worth as they feel unworthy of having dreams, let alone pursuing them. Furthermore, Ishiguro creates a heartless character like Miss Lucy to promote education systematically to “tear human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing”[footnoteRef:8]. Hence, the reader views Miss Lucy as a hard lined, political educator who uses the language of indoctrination to restrict free speech and to fulfil their purpose of donating their vital organs. [8: ]

Ishiguro’s characterisation of the ‘Guardians’ as people in authority are needed to ensure a totalitarian regime functions accordingly. Arguably the prestige title of “Guardian” connotes protection. However, in this case their key role in society is to protect the government’s values through controlling what the clones “have been told and not told”(p.g81), enforcing censorship through “didactic”[footnoteRef:9] mannerisms. From a post-colonist perspective, Ishiguro’s function of naming is “one of the most subtle demonstrations of the power of language”[footnoteRef:10], giving prominence to an imperial concept of being able to “name the world…is therefore to exert power over it”[footnoteRef:11]. This is clearly evident in the construction of the “Guardians” to ensure that the clones are constantly reminded of their reality. Thus, these reminders by Miss Lucy, have a [9: ] [10: ] [11: ] negative psychological impact on the clones as they can no longer distinguish between right and wrong, ultimately succumbing to their ill fate.

Similarly, Atwood presents the “Aunts” in a identical manner to the “Guardians”. However, key figures called “Aunts” play “subliminally on the reader’s conscious”[footnoteRef:12] because Atwood may not specifically explain the connotation but the reader is nevertheless able to see the satirical intentions behind the name. The “Aunts” in Gilead directly contrast mother-like figures in a traditional sense, evident in Aunt Lydia’s retraining of the “Handmaids” as she states: “Ordinary is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary”(p.g43). This reinforces how Atwood’s “naming of the characters”[footnoteRef:13] present a concept of irony as the title “Aunt” juxtaposes its connotation. The “Aunts” at the Red Center in The Handmaid’s Tale adhere to a notion of repetition similar to the ‘Guardians’ in Never Let Me Go. This is evident when Aunt Lydia refuses to acknowledge the injustices of the system by stating: “there is more than one kind of freedom…Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from”(p.g34). Ironically, the repeated noun “freedom” is deconstructed to suit the needs of the state to free the “Handmaids” from the so called previous “days of anarchy”. Here, Aunt Lydia adheres to the change, making her motivation behind the acts of proselytising individuals very obvious. The reader is acutely aware that the strength of a totalitarian state and Atwood’s construct of such figures act as the fuel that runs “a world in which power can decree that two and two make five”[footnoteRef:14]. [12: ] [13: ] [14: ]

Although both novels explore the idea of human exploitation where bodily functions define individual worth and are paramount to the success of the regime. Patriarchy is kept at the forefront of Atwood’s novel unlike Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go. Atwood makes it clear that for a totalitarian state to function, it requires men to be the base of dominance by exploiting women for their reproductive organs; women solely exist to give birth and keep the regime alive. Offred emphasises how she “used to think of my body as an instrument, of pleasure, or a means of transportation, or an implement for the accomplishment of my will (p.g83)… Now the flesh arranges itself differently. I’m a cloud, congealed around a central object” (p.g84). This metaphorical language showcases how women view themselves as a vehicle that mobilize values of the government as if they are martyrs sacrificing their lives for a bigger cause; “pleasure” no longer matters. The only important part of her body is this “central object”, which is the precious fertile uterus unlike the rest of her body that is meaningless like “a cloud”. The fact that her has “flesh arrange[d] itself differently” accentuates how the role of women was established forcefully by the government. Critic K Reshmi argues that “In the Gileadean patriarchy, a woman is denied the right to possess or to have control over her own body. Her value is determined on the basis of her reproductive capability”[footnoteRef:15], giving prominence to the social stratum of women in Gilead. Therefore, those who are fertile, such as the “Handmaids”, are protected by the regime because they valuable assets to the Republic of Gilead. [15: ]

Ishiguro presents a similar concept of sacrifice through the exploitation of the body in Never Let Me Go through the way in which the clones solely exist to donate their organs. This is evident through the character of Miss Emily who harshly emphasises the truth of how the clones will “become adults… and before you’re even middle-aged, you’ll start to donate your vital organs. That’s what each of you was created to do”(p.g80). Sadly, this emphasises how their organs are the only “vital” element of their entire existence, ultimately justifying what they were “created to do”. Critic Nathan Snaza argues that Hailsham is an experiment in humane treatment, even an attempt at free range production of organs in an industry where factory farming is standard”[footnoteRef:16], perhaps providing a form of justification for the presence of Hailsham. Arguably, it is possible to question the “humane” aspects of Hailsham and the beliefs it operates on as the clones are discarded after fulfilling their duties. The fact that Hailsham is described as an “industry where factory farming is the standard”[footnoteRef:17] highlights how the clones function analogous to animals, as they exist to provide profitable materials for their farmers, who in this case are the “originals” of the clones. It is possible to infer from a post colonist perspective that Ishiguro, similarly [16: ] [17: ] to Atwood, is attempting to convey Hailsham as a colony itself, where certain individuals are wrongly utilised for the benefit of a larger power.

Both The Handmaid’s Tale and Never Let Me Go illustrate how the roles allocated to certain individuals have resulted in them becoming outcasts in society. This is distinctly evident through Atwood’s characterisation of the Marthas, Cora and Rita, and their treatment of Offred as a Handmaid. Offred is aware of how the Marthas view her disgust but explains how “the frown isn’t personal: it’s the red dress she disapproves of, and what it stands for. She thinks I may be catching, like a disease or any form of bad luck” (p.g19-20). This clearly illustrates how Offred’s role in society as a Handmaid has resulted her to become an outcast in society as she is now viewed as a “disease” or a “form of bad luck”. .Perhaps Atwood’s reference to diseases could be interpreted from a post-colonist perspective through the way in which colonists were alienated and brutally treated with disgust as fatal diseases[footnoteRef:18]. This reinforces how Atwood crafts the setting of Gilead in an identical manner to the colonies as the “Handmaids” are viewed as “the other”[footnoteRef:19] due to their position in society. Atwood’s symbolism of “the red dress” emphasises this sense of “the other”[footnoteRef:20] as it mimics the uniform allocated to the individuals who fuel a successful totalitarian state. The critic Jessie Givner states how “the desire of the Gilead regime to remove name is as strong as the desire to remove faces. Just as the rules of Gilead try to eliminate mirrors, the reflection of faces, so they attempt to erase names'[footnoteRef:21]. This links back to how the regime monopolize and oppress individuals, stripping them of their identities through the assignment of clothing. [18: ] [19: ] [20: ] [21: ]

[bookmark: _qooelgfcf0c7]Similarly, Ishiguro creates the powerful character of “Madame” to highlight how the clones are treated as outcasts. Whilst she does show sympathy for the clones, in this instance her disgusted reaction portrays a “real dread that one of us would accidentally brush against her…Madame was afraid of us…in the same way someone might be afraid of spiders…It had never occurred to us to wonder how we would feel, being seen like that, being the spiders” (p.g35). Such a reaction essentially provokes the clones to feel like outcasts in society. From a post colonist perspective, it can be suggested that Ishiguro attempts to convey this “concept of otherness” through the way in which the setting of Hailsham is crafted to mimic a separate colony, where the “outside world”[footnoteRef:22] fails to acknowledge the inhabitants as humans. Perhaps, Ishiguro’s construction of “Madame” acts as a microcosm of the human world as they view the clones as monsters. This ultimately provokes feelings of outsiderness as the clones are unable to comprehend with the reaction of “Madame”. Ishiguro highlights how clones, despite containing human-like qualities, are viewed as fearful creatures as they are distinctly being compared to “spiders”. The symbolism of the spider is used to further emphasise how the clones are treated like outsiders as spiders signify fear, highlighting how the regime has instilled fear even within key figures as it portrays this concept of fear of the unknown. This ultimately reinforces how no matter how [22: ] hard the clones try to mimic their originals, they are still viewed as inhumane by figures who “dread” to even “brush” past them.

In conclusion, both The Handmaid’s Tale and Never Let Me Go explore the brutality of a totalitarian state through the way it impacts certain individuals. It is evident in both texts that the government have no regard of who they sacrifice to attain a successful Utopian state. Overall, post colonist critics highlight how the notion of totalitarianism is strikingly similar to the way in which the colonies were ruled by the British Empire. From a modern female reader perspective, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale gives more prominence to the impacts of a totalitarian state as it clearly portrays the change that has occured in the state. Atwood’s skillful use of flashbacks within the novel ultimately provokes feelings of sympathy within the reader as they are able to make a clear comparison between the past and the present, emphasising the change that has occurred due to the regime. The fact that the readers are able to gain an insight of this past allows them to develop a personal connection with the protagonist of the novel as it emphasises how the characters can do nothing but remember the past.This gives importance to the cruel concept of totalitarianism as it possesses the ability to mould the world according to their liking.

1. Oxford History (2015), The British Empire c1857-1967, Robert J Carr, Sally Waller, Prof. Anthony Webster, Series Editor: Sally Waller
2. Lodge. D. (1922). The Art of Fiction. Secker & Warburg
3. Orwell, G. (2014). 1984. London: Penguin Books.
4. Alan Farmer (2015), Access to History: The American Revolution and the Birth of the USA 1740-1801, Second Edition
5. Snaza. N. (2015), The Failure of Humanizing Education in Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go, Volume 26
6. Givner. J.(Summer, 1992) Names and Signatures in Margaret Atwood’s Cat’s Eye and The Handmaid’s Tale, Canadian Literature 133. Page 58.
7. Reshmi. K (2012), Ecofeminist Vision: A Study of Margaret Atwood Surfacing and The Handmaid’s Tale.
8. Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G. and Tiffin, H. (2006) The Post-Colonial Studies Reader, 2nd ed., Abingdon: Routledge, p 261.
9. Robbie B. H. Goh (2011), The Postclone-nial in Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go and Amitav Ghosh’s The Calcutta Chromosome: Science and the Body in the Asian Diaspora
10. Guo. W (2015) Human Cloning as the Other in Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go, Volume 17, Issue 5
11. Holocaust Encyclopedia, Indoctrinating Youth, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/indoctrinating-youth [Accessed November 2018]
12. Bright Side, The Red String of Fate, https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/the-red-string-of-fate-a-beautiful-japanese-legend-140105/ [Accessed October 2018]
13. Atomic Heritage Foundation, German Atomic Bomb Project, https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/german-atomic-bomb-project [Accessed January 2019]