Category: Character

Pearl’s Symbolism and Introduction in ‘The Scarlet Letter’

Throughout the novel many characters represent and symbolize many different things. One of the most dynamic character’s when it comes to symbolism is Pearl. Although many have analyzed Pearl as simply a symbol and not a character within the novel, the argument that she is in fact a true character that symbolizes many things is up for discussion. Hawthorne consciously uses Pearl’s character to amplify the many themes of the novel. The themes of guilt, sin, isolation, forgiveness and evolution are seen more clearly through Pearl.

When Pearl is first introduced, she is only three months old, although she has not yet spoken, she is latched on to her mother Hester, while she is standing on the scaffold. This is the first time that Pearls symbolism is evident. Hawthorne portrays Hester and Pearl in this manner to characterize Pearl and her first representation of the scarlet letter on her mother’s chest. Hawthorne’s first portrayal of Pearl on the scaffold only represents her as a symbol. He says:

She bore in her arms a child, a baby of some three months old, who winked and turned aside it’s little face from the too vivid light of day; because it’s existence, heretofore, had brought it acquainted only with the gray twilight of a dungeon, or other darksome apartment of the prison. (Hawthorne 47)

This first interpretation and introduction of Pearl concentrates on her facial expressions. This winking baby turning away from the light of the sun is the first symbol of sin that is seen, along with Hester’s scarlet “A” sewn on her dress. Pearl is the physical embodiment of Hester and Dimmesdale’s sin. Hawthorne’s use of symbolism in outlines Pearls representation of the scarlet letter, that she carries within, unlike her mother who carries it upon her chest. Pearl is the living entity of Hester’s adultery, her scarlet letter personified and the living badge of Hester’s guilt.

Pearl as a Child of Nature and Her Connection to the Wilderness

Pearl is the main reason for Hester’s punishment because without the birth of Pearl no one would know of Hester’s sin. Many critics have said that Pearl is not a child but simply a symbol that represents sin and guilt. Pearls innocent face brings turning away from the son portray a true character, but Darrel Abel disagrees. In “Hawthorne’s Pearl: Symbol and Character”, he explains that Pearls first appearance on the scaffold is a representation of evil. He says, “Her reflexive turning-away from of the light of the sun, which, like the love of God and unlike the charity of his debased images, shines alike on the just and unjust, is a symbolic, not a characteristic, act” (Abel 53). Pearls character is not as simple as Abel describes. Pearl winking and turning away from the sun are all actions of a baby who tries to adapt to their surroundings. He compares this to the love of God, and therefore Pearl turning away from the sun means that she is like God, therefore she is a symbol. Abel also claims that Pearl is not born with a soul and that her role in the text is a “messenger of anguish” (Abel 62).

However, when critics analyze Pearl with many different roles, whether she is a symbol or a character in order to find her true placement within the novel, her character evolves into many different functions. In Darrel Abel’s” Hawthorne’s Pearl: Symbol and Character”, he connects Pearl with nature, describing her as “a Child of Nature”. Abel says:

Pearl in her most fundamental character as a Child of Nature. She is of course a “natural child: in the euphemistic sense of the phrase. But a Child of Nature is properly speaking one who discovers conscious and valuable affinities with the natural world and enjoys an active and formative relationship with the world […] Little Pearl manifests this relationship between man and nature; her life and the life of nature are contiguous and sympathetic modes of being. Therefore, Hawthorne observed: “The mother forest, and these wild things which it nourished, all recognized a kindred wilderness in the human child” This “wilderness” however, is not the wilderness of savagery but the wilderness of innocence. (Abel 56-7)

Pearls innocence and connection to nature is significant because it not only portrays her character, but it also shows her connection with others around her. Her special relationship with nature is what makes Pearl so different from others.

However, in order to understand how Hawthorne connects Pearl and nature, the connection between Pearl and Hawthorne’s daughter, Una needs to be examined. Una was Hawthorne’s first daughter and he deemed her to be very talented. He to viewed her as a natural child in the same manner that he viewed Pearl. In T. Walter Herbert, JR’s article, “Nathaniel Hawthorne, Una Hawthorne, and The Scarlet Letter”, he discusses the many similarities of Pearl and Hawthorne’s daughter Una. He says:

Little Pearl is made to enact the qualities that most troubled Hawthorne in his daughter, and she is eventually delivered from them. Hawthorne surrounds little Pearl, that is to say, with therapeutic program, which includes a diagnosis of her difficulty and a prescription for cure, grounded on the gender categories that he considered natural and that defined a femininity he hoped his daughter would grow into (Herbert 287)

Pearl’s Representation of Femininity and Patriarchy

Pearl’s role in The Scarlet Letter is one that is meant to define femininity, just as Hawthorne believed Una would. Una’s uncanny and alien like character caused her to become a creature of her father’s imagination. There are many similarities between Una and Pearl. They were both raised free from the strict rules and beliefs of Puritan schooling, which is why Pearl mirrors Una. This imaginary character, Pearl, that Hawthorne created defined patriarchy and was left unmarked by it. Pearls unexplainable behave within the Puritan community was simply because she was a wild spirit. Despite the many restrictions and rules that were placed on her, she did not abide. Pearls character is viewed as an evil power because she refuses to conform to patriarchy, she is unable to connect with other children around her because they did not accept her.

Pearls reaction to the other children around her is a direct characterization of herself. Her need to react in a manner that is not seen as ordinary, explains her representation of femininity and patriarchy. Pearl refuses to conform to the society around her, like her mother. Although both Hester and Pearl are ostracized from society, Pearl does not fight to be accepted the same way as her mother because she tries to break through the barriers of social norms. Despite Pearl’s young age, Hawthorne exemplifies her as a strong female character.

During the Puritan times in which the novel takes place women and children were treated very harshly. Women were viewed as the tools of Satan due to Eve’s role in the original sin in the bible, they were seen as weak, because they were more inclined to sin. When it came to Puritan children, they were loved but parents made them adhere to strict rules. Children were a direct representation of their parents, therefore if a child did not behave in a manner that was socially acceptable, their parents would be to blame. They believed that the wills of children had to be broken and supervised under strict rules.

Pearl’s Interaction with Other Characters and Society

The characteristics of Puritan children are not seen in Pearl. She is a character that symbolizes many different things and conformity is not one of them. The other children do not get to play in the forest like Pearl, because it is seen as a forbidden place, therefore Pearls connection to nature is more profound. Pearls connection with nature portrays her as a symbolic mystical character even though she isn’t. She is often referred to by her mother and others around her as “elf-child” or “imp”, these references depict Pearl as an imaginary character, a symbol. She is seen as a mystical, demonic character because she does not behave in the same manner as other children. Her wit and wild character cause her to be further outcast by others within society. When Pearl and Hester go to the governor’s house, he threatens to take her away because she is not raised religiously and is thought to posses something evil, like a witch. Hawthorne portrays Pearl in this way to keep his readers intrigued but also to make them think. Although the novel is set during Puritan times, Hawthorne includes the power of imagination and nature vs natural. Pearls characterization as an “elf” or “imp” furthers the discussion of her character symbolizing romanticism. In her character Hawthorne implements all of the themes of romanticism; she is imaginative, smart, an inspiration to her mother, and one with nature.

When Pearl is teased by other Puritan children her reaction is to throw rocks and scream at them. This shows Pearls true characteristics and that she is not only a symbol of sin, but it also shows her being rebellious. Instead of trying to befriend the other children, she screams at them. Pearl’s scream is described as something like a witch. Often times when playing by herself, Pearl makes up imaginary characters. Pearls playtime usually take place within nature, which brings back Pearl being a child of nature. Pearls connection to nature provides her with a connection with the rest of the world. Although she is not a part of the Puritan world and is an outcast, Abel claims that “[Hawthorne] did not see man as a creature separate from the rest of creation, inhabiting a visible world irrational and dead” (Abel 56). This is evident when Pearl is playing alone in the woods, using only her imagination and objects around her. Hawthorne says:

“Her one baby-voice served a multitude of imaginary personages, old and young, to talk withal. The pine-trees, aged, black, and solemn, and flinging groans and other melancholy utterances on the breeze, needed little transformation to figure as Puritan elders; the ugliest weeds of the garden were their children, whom Pearl smote down and uprooted, most unmercifully.” (Hawthorne 81)

Pearl’s Imaginative World and Her Role as a Symbol

Pearls need to make up imaginary friends is something that many young children do, but the way that Pearls goes about this is very odd. She uses her imagination while playing outside to portray the Puritans and their children in an evil manner. This may simply be because of the way that they treat her and her mother, but here Hawthorne has un underlining message. Pearls need to portray Puritans in a negative and hateful light is very much necessary. Hawthorne’s reasoning behind this is because Pearl is the contender of Puritan law. Despite Pearl being young, her childlike-adult nature causes her to be very honest. She could have simply used her imagination to pretend that the other Puritan children are very fond of her, but she doesn’t. This is because Pearl is not searching for acceptance amongst others, only herself. Pearl is not in any way affected by Puritan life because the only thing that is of great interest and influence to her is the forest and the nature around her. She defies the Puritans law because she is always cheerful when she is amongst nature, although this should be some form of punishment for Pearl because she is outcasted, but she embraces it since that is the only place that she is openly accepted.

Throughout Pearls journey in search of acceptance from herself, she also has a fear of abandonment. Pearls fear of abandonment is not that she fears that her mother will ever leave her, but the fear that her mother no longer accepts her for what she is; the physical embodiment of sin. During their years of isolation from society Pearl has only known her mother in one way and that is wearing the scarlet letter. Hawthorne often describes Pearl trying to create her own golden scarlet letter and placing it on her chest like her mothers. Hawthorne does this to say in so many words that Pearl is the personification of Hester and Dimmesdale’s sin.

While in the forest with Hester and Dimmesdale, Pearl throws a fit because her mother is no longer wearing her scarlet letter and has let her black long hair out for all to see. This upsets Pearl because it made her feel as if her mother was getting rid of her also. Hester removing her scarlet letter is as if she is removing Pearl from her life. Pearls main symbol throughout the novel is the physical embodiment of Hester’s sin, therefore if her mother is no longer wearing her “A” then where does Pearl fit in to all of this. Her mother’s change in the forest not only upsets her, but also scares her. For a short moment she questions who she is without her mother’s scarlet letter. What does she now represent? Due to Pearl’s mature character she is expresses this to her mother, “But Pearl, not whit startled at her mother’s threats […] now suddenly burst into a fit of passion, gesticulating violently, and throwing her small figure into the most extravagant contortions. […] still pointing it’s small forefinger at Hester’s bosom!” (Hawthorne 192). Here Pearls actions are the natural characters of a child that is throwing a tantrum, but for Pearl it is more complex. Here actions are not complex because her mother denied her of something or tried to reprimand her, but because she is lost in a place that is so familiar to her. Her mother’s removal of the scarlet letter puts her in a state of shock.

Conclusion: Pearl’s Complex Character and Symbolic Significance

Pearl’s representation of her parents’ sin is the only thing that is familiar to her. Her desire to often communicate with her own reflection includes her mother. Pearl sees Hester as a reflection of herself because she bears the scarlet letter. There are many instances where she tries to create her own scarlet letter and place it upon her bosom to show that her and her mother are the same. They are both ostracized from society and don’t fit in anywhere because they aren’t meant to. When Hester lets her hair down in the forest it is because that is the only place she feel comfortable and acceptable to do this; this is the same way that Pearl feels when they are together within nature. Pearl identifies with nature because it is accepting of her and will never abandon her. That is where she feels at home.

Mary Maloney, a housewife in her sixth month of pregnancy, is waiting for her husband to return home. It is a Thursday night, and they usually eat out. Patrick announced to her that he is going to divorce Mary. The husband communicates that “it’s kind of a bad time,” promising to provide for her financially, but asks her not to make any “fuss,” as it would be bad for his job in the police department. The announcement that she will lose the man around whom her world revolves puts Mary into a daze of unbelief. Instead of debate with Patrick, she goes on as if nothing has happened. She chooses a frozen leg of lamb for the meal.

Patrick was walking into the living room and telling her that he does not want dinner and Mary moves behind and hits him over the head with the leg of lamb. Mary realizes that she will take legal consequences because she has killed Patrick. she fears for her unborn child, who might die if she is executed. She prepares the leg of lamb and put it in the oven to eliminate the devices of the crime. She rehearsed the words that she will use with the police until she goes to the supermarket and acts normal as if nothing happened. Mary calls the police and reports that Patrick Maloney has been killed. Two police officers arrive, a doctor, two detectives, a police photographer, and a man who knew about fingerprints at the house and begin the investigation into Patrick’s murder with her story about going to the grocer and coming back without knowing what had happened to him. She made sure that both the police and detectives saw her as a poor pregnant who was always there for her husband. She showed sorrow for his husband died while she was crying and talking the story to the detectives. The investigator was looking for a weapon in the house or for something that may be missing. the doctor says the back of Patrick’s head was broken to pieces. the murder weapon was eaten by the detectives is one of the most famous examples of the “perfect crime” story. She tries all the time to persuade them to divert them in the investigation and make them believe that it was just an accident.

My opinion about the piece is that it shows a negative and interesting twist to the plot because at the beginning of the story shows Mary as a humble and quiet woman who is at home waiting for her husband to take care of him. But, at the end of the story shows that she is not who she appears to be. In reality, she is a calculated woman capable of killing and tries anything possible to show weakness and that she is not guilty or a suspect in her husband’s death. Which is all to the contrary. She killed her husband only because he wanted to leave her and she was not prepared to accept that reality.

In a vast majority of ancient Greek epics, males tend to be the heroes of the stories. The Iliad and the Odyssey are perfect examples of male characters being the main heroes in each respectable epic. In Homer’s, The Odyssey Odysseus is proclaimed to be the main hero of this epic. Though the Odyssey is centralized around Odysseus’s character and his voyage of returning home thus making him the automatic hero of the story, is it possible that he isn’t necessarily the only hero of this epic? Males have always been given the role of the hero in many of these epics. Be that it may, female characters do however provide guidance and aid to these men along their journeys such as Athena the goddess of warfare and wisdom who helps aid Odysseus on his voyage back home, however, she is still regarded to be a side character or even a side heroin, never fully given the spotlight she deserves. Though Athena would be a perfect candidate for being a heroine in the Odyssey, she is a goddess with divine power making her ineligible to be a true heroine to the human world. Penelope, however, is a true hero in the Odyssey, known as Odysseus’s wife Penelope is often disregarded by the men around her and is never taken seriously as a character. Penelope is a true hero in Odyssey due to her demonstration of cleverness and faithfulness, two qualities that Odysseus lacks as a hero.

Before analyzing Penelope’s role in the Odyssey it is important to establish the role and treatment of women during Ancient Greece. Women were often regarded as objects to their fathers or husbands, in Ancient Greece from Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times by Thomas R. Martin, it points out how often women after marriage were legal wards to their husbands the same way they were to their fathers before marriage and had no choice in who they marry (68). This is shown in The Penelopiad which depicts the story of the Odyssey through Penelope’s eyes: “Through my veil, I studied the young men milling around down below, trying to figure out who each one was and – a thing of no practical consequence, since it wasn’t up to me to choose my husband which one I preferred.” (Atwood 34:40-54). Helene Whittaker also points out that “Women of the upper classes are most often described as being busy at the loom or occupied with some other form of textile work.” (Whittaker 35). This is also shown in the Odyssey several times when Penelope is “working” on Laertes’ burial shroud. It’s important to establish the role and treatment of women during this time because it demonstrates the role Penelope is forced into due to the stigma of men assigning her worth right after birth and with the many men seeing her as just a piece of property causing them to fail in seeing her as a wise clever woman that helps makes her a true heroine. Even though Penelope does fit into this typical role for women. Penelope’s case is somewhat different from the typical lives of women during ancient Greece since she is the queen of Ithaca and as Clark and Schwiebert point out she “must be relatively safe, can easily be interrupted and resumed, and must require minimal movement from home” (164). Due to this Penelope must be able to follow and comply with these rules set on women, but with an absent husband not there to rule the kingdom, Penelope is left all alone to rule over the kingdom and through her cleverness she is able to do so while following the rules set on her. Though Penlope’s cleverness as a leader isn’t necessarily explicitly said in the Odyssey we can look at the moment when Odysseus is asking his mother if Penelope is taking care of Telemachus and if she is already married to which his mother responded that:

She stays firm. Her heart

Is strong. She is still in your house. And all

Her nights are passed in misery, and days

In tears. But no one has usurped your throne.

Telemachus still tends the whole estate

Unharmed and feats in style, as a lord should do,

And he is always asked to council meetings. (Homer 11.181-87)

Now here it seems that Penelope is spending her time filling in the role of a typical woman during this time by crying for her lost husband, while her son handles what is considered a “man’s” business. However, Odysseus asks his mother if Penelope is taking care of their son to which his mother says she’s firm, her heart is strong and she remains in Ithaca, this could suggest that Penelope is helping her son run the whole estate as well. This can further be proven if we look at Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad, Penelope talks about how during Odysseus’s disappearance she began to take action and ruled over the estate “Through my steward, I traded for supplies, and soon had a reputation as a smart bargainer. Through my foreman, I oversaw the farms and the flocks and made a point of learning about such things as lambing and calving, and how to keep a sow from eating her farrow” (Atwood 1:34:00-49) she says she took pride in that especially when people would come to her for advice, she wanted to build up Odysseus’s son when he comes back “with womanly modesty revealing to him how well I had done at what was usually considered a man’s business.” (Atwood 1:34:00-49). With the help of this passage it can be easily be said that though Telemachus may seem to be the ruler of the kingdom at the moment by taking care of the estate, he is only the poster boy for what’s going on with Penelope through her cleverness as a leader is helping her son out as well as keeping the estate running using her male workers to help her execute her plans to make the estate thrive thus showing she is a heroine in the Epic while maintaining and breaking the roles she was ascribed at birth.

For a moment Penelope’s plans are working according to plan until the suitors arrive and begin to take advantage of Penelope’s hospitality as well as pressure her into remarrying. Through this event Penelope demonstrates her cleverness which is shown through her scheme of unweaving her father-in-law’s burial shroud:

I have worked hard to weave this wind-sheet

To bury good Laertes when he dies.

He gained such wealth, the women would reproach me

if he were buried with no shroud. Please let me

finish it! And her words made sense to us.

So every day she wove the mighty cloth,

And then at night by torchlight, she unwove it.

For three long years, her trick beguiled the Greeks. (Homer 2.101-08)

Through her cleverness, Penelope is able to prolong her marriage to any of the suitors for three long years by unweaving all of her long hard work, this ensures that the suitors won’t turn into her enemies due to her lack of anticipation to remarry which can cause them to bring an army of their troops to Ithaca. Lisa Pace Vetter points out the importance of Penelope’s weaving and the symbolism it has throughout the epic as well as how the shroud is a web covering the kingdom to protect it (33). This shows that Penelope is, in fact, a heroine due to her cleverness in maintaining and protecting her kingdom at all cost, even when the suitors find out about her plan after three long years she still manages to keep things under control and hold them off from forcing her to marry one of them.

One last act of cleverness that Penelope displays as a heroin is recognizing Odysseus as the beggar. Now in the Odyssey Penelope is shown to not “recognize” her husband as a beggar but many scholars such as Peter W. Rose suggest that Penelope knows that Odysseus was the beggar and in fact, she also knew of Odysseus’s plan on slaughtering the suitors. (Rose 124). In The Penelopiad, Penelope mentions Odysseus’s appearance and how his legs are short compared to the rest of the men “he legs of Odysseus were quite short in relation to his body. It was all right when he was sitting down, you didn’t notice, but standing up he looked top-heavy.” (Atwood 36:43-51). Once Odysseus returns to Ithaca disguised as a beggar and encounters Penelope she is able to identify it was him based on his legs and torso: “His disguise was well enough done I hoped the wrinkles and baldness were part of the act, and not real but as soon as I saw that barrel chest and those short legs I had a deep suspicion, which became a certainty when I heard he’d broken the neck of a belligerent fellow panhandler.” (Atwood 2:20:32-51).

Penelope is clever enough to be able to uncover Odysseus’s disguise based on his physical appearance as well as his actions. People would argue that if Penelope knew that this was her husband why didn’t she tell anyone. There are two reasons for this one of which is by not exposing Odysseus she is able to allow the suitors to try and draw from Odysseus’s bow and shot through the twelve axes, so once Odysseus takes his turn everyone will know he’s back and it will allow the slaughter of the suitors to occur, thus proving she knew of Odysseus’s plan through being clever. The second reason is Penelope is trying to ensure to Odysseus that she has been faithful. This can be shown in Homer’s The Odyssey when she talks to Odysseus in disguise, she tells him that she’s Odysseus causing her heart to melt and even though Odysseus is “dead” she won’t marry and she “spin schemes” (19.138-142). These two reasons illustrates Penelope’s cleverness by allowing Odysseus to remain in disguise she is able to ensure that the suitors don’t kill Odysseus and ruin the plan on killing all the suitors as well as she is able to clear her name by ensuring that if Odysseus doesn’t know that she knows it him she is able to clear her name of any type of infidelity thus showing that through her cleverness she is, in fact, a heroine by protecting Odysseus and herself.

Penelope’s character demonstration of faithfulness also illustrates the fact that she is a heroine. One thing Odysseus lacks is faithfulness; this is shown multiple times throughout his act of infidelity with the Goddesses Circe and Calypso while on his journey back home to his kingdom of Ithaca. While Odysseus is out committing multiple acts of infidelity, Penelope manages to keep her herself faithful to her husband. This is important to consider that her faithfulness does, in fact, make her a heroine due to by keeping herself true to Odysseus it shows her self sacrifice of her own needs to her husband and kingdom. In order to remain faithful Penelope comes up with many different types of schemes, one of which we discussed already was unweaving of her fathers-in-law: By day I wove the web, and in the night by torchlight, I unwove it.” (Homer 19.148-9). Now though this act displays Penelope’s cleverness in keeping her kingdom in order, it also helps illustrate her faithfulness to her husband. Penelope is given the chance to remarry and move forward with her life even her parents try and persuade her into remarrying (Homer 19.156-7) but Penelope refuses to betray her husband or his memory and by being faithful she is protecting her kingdom from the potential threat of the suitors bringing in an army to ransack Ithaca. Another scheme Penelope comes up with is shooting an arrow through twelve axes. With the pressure from the suitors becoming even more intense, in a last-ditch effort in trying to remain faithful, Penelope tasks the suitors into a challenge that whoever can string Odysseus’s bow and fire an arrow through twelve axes will be her husband:

You want to marry me. I am the prize.

So I will set a contest. This great bow

belonged to Odysseus.

If anyone can grasp it in his hands

and string it easily, and shoot through all

twelve axes, I will marry him. And leave

this beautiful rich home. I think I will

remember it forever, even in

my dreams. (Homer 21.69-77)

Penelope knows that none of the suitors will be able to sting and shoot through the axes except for Odysseus thus securing that none of them will marry her leaving her to remain faithful to her husband. Martin Stienruck does point out that Odysseus is in the room with the rest of the suitors but disguised as a beggar, Penelope does sense that the beggar may be Odysseus so to ensure that it’s him she does the Archery contest in the hopes it is her husband who will win. (Stienruck 114). Penelope’s faithfulness to her husband labels her a heroine in this epic due to by being faithful she is sacrificing her own life to protect her kingdom and stay by her husband’s side, meanwhile, Odysseus’s infidelity is mainly for his own self-interest and pleasure regardless of the feeling and danger it will cause him and his people.

Penelope’s cleverness and faithfulness helps demonstrate herself to be a true heroine along with the other main heroes of this Epic. Throughout the Odyssey and The Penelopiad Penelope’s character has done many heroic deeds from helping her kingdom, estate, and son, to figuring out schemes to ensure her kingdom is safe, protecting Odysseus’s identify when disguised as the beggar and sacrificing her own free will by remaining faithful to her husband while he was gone for 20 years. Through these heroic deeds alongside her cleverness and faithfulness prove she is worthy of being deemed a true heroine in the Odyssey alongside many of the main characters.

American novelist and mountaineer, Jon Krakauer, in his book, Into The Wild, describes the life and death of Christopher McCandless. Krakauer’s purpose is to explain the exact details of McCandless’s final expedition. Krakauer adopts a sympathetic tone to convey to his readers that Chris is extremely gifted and did not die out of stupidity. Krakauer persuades the reader to develop a view that Chris McCandless was more capable and intelligent than most people believed him to be through the application of personal anecdotes and structure. Krakauer’s objective is to demonstrate that perseverance and determination regardless of success, have tremendous value.

One of Krakauer’s main methods of persuasion is the implementation of personal anecdotes. Included in the story are several accounts of personal encounters with Chris McCandless in his final years of life. Krakauer also employs a story from his own life that disproves the speculation that Chris was a suicidal maniac. Krakauer set out on a climbing trip to try to climb the north face of the Devil’s Thumb—a mountain in the Stikine Icecaps in Alaska—knowing that the climb was extremely dangerous. He never truly considered how death was a possible outcome; to Krakauer, the idea of death, “remained as abstract a concept as a non-Euclidean geometry or marriage. Explaining how Krakauer didn’t think about death or get scared by the threat portrays the idea that even if someone is doing extremely dangerous activities, it does not mean that they have a “death wish.” Krakauer says that he and Chris alike could have easily died on their expeditions, but Chris was unlucky. The use of this anecdote of Krakauer’s guides the reader to the opinion that Chris was not crazy but was more sane and competent than many believed him to be.

Another anecdote that Krakauer employs is the story of the time that Ronald Franz and McCandless spent together. McCandless and Franz met when Franz stopped to give McCandless a ride while he was hitchhiking back to his camp. From just the short car ride, Franz became infatuated with Chris. Only 2 months after Franz met Chris, Franz “asked Alex if [he] could adopt him”. Franz thought Alex was a very smart kid who just needed some guidance. Franz truly loved Chris after only a couple of months. If Chris were a lunatic with a death wish, Franz would not have spent more time than the original ride he gave Chris. Not only did Franz want to see Chris more, but he also wanted him to be a part of his family. The use of personal anecdotes adds to Krakauer’s argument of Chris being more intuitive than many believed him to be.

Another strategy that manipulates the reader to agree with Krakauer is the structure of the novel. The book starts by describing the final day McCandless spent alive and includes the story of how Chris’s body was discovered. Following this is the couple years leading up to his death that he spent on the road. The personality of Chris is slowly unraveled through several stories and interviews. Near the middle of the book, Krakauer accepts the fact that “McCandless was a seeker and had an impractical fascination with the harsh side of nature,” and that “he displayed a staggering paucity of common sense”. The negative descriptions of Chris occur early in the book so Krakauer has ample time to refute the fact that Chris was smart in going into the wild unprepared. Later in the book, Krakauer disproves many arguments that Chris was incompetent and unprepared; the most important one being the reason for Chris’s death. Early after Chris had died, people believed that he mistook a plant for a different, deadly, plant. However, Krakauer invalidates this concluding that stating that “he was probably killed instead by the mold that had been growing on those [plant’s] seeds”. This explanation of the cause of Chris’s death is the most logical, and probably correct. Because Chris did not die from a lack of knowledge, it is harder to believe that he was incapable and ill-equipped. Krakauer purposely ends the novel with his explanation for Chris’s death to leave the reader with a sympathetic view of Chris and that is was not necessarily his fault for dying. The structure of the book adds to Krakauer’s justification of Chris being skilled enough to complete his Alaskan odyssey.

Krakauer influences the reader’s perspective of Chris McCandless through personal anecdotes, and structure. Krakauer’s goal in defending Chris is to illustrate to the reader that perseverance no matter if you succeed, is valuable. Krakauer holds Chris in high regard and strongly believes that one should do what will make them happy, even if you do not succeed.

Krakauer made his intentions clear at the start in the author’s notes by declaring that “I won’t claim to be an impartial biographer.” He also said that he will be adding in his own narrative from his youth in hopes that it will shed some light on what kind of things influence McCandless to pursue his journey, where he traveled, and get the perspective of who he was from the people he met including his family. This is helpful because as a reader you know what you are getting into and that we can expect Krakauer to not let his emotions get in the way of what actually happened. Ultimately, we can expect nothing but the truth from him.

Krakauer presents a balanced perspective, choosing to reveal to the readers about the good and bad sides of Chris McCandless. He indulges the readers with the right to make up our own mind and opinions about McCandless by saying, “..but I will leave it to the reader to form his or her own opinion of Chris McCandless”(Author’s Notes). Krakauer also put himself in his narration to describe what he thinks are parallels between Chris and himself by claiming that “Like McCandless, figures of male authority aroused in me a confusing medley of corked fury and hunger to please”. The similarities appeal to my emotions by shedding some light on the personality of McCandless and I thought less of him as a reckless idiot. Consequently, this influences me to be more sympathetic towards McCandless.

Having said that, Krakauer not only compares himself to McCandless, Krakauer also drew a line where those similarities end. On page 153, Krakauer remarks that “Unlike McCandless, however, I have in my backpack a 1:63, 360-scale topographic map..”. The comparison influenced me to understand that Krakauer wasn’t trying to change the narrative but to show us how he was better prepared than McCandless. And also acknowledge that the minor difference is what resulted in their life and death.

Furthermore, Krakauer wrote the book in an organized and dramatic way, mixing up with how we know what happened to Chris before anything else. For instance, Krakauer begins the story at the end when Samel discovered, “…a head sticking out that I knew for certain what it was”. As a reader, it intrigued me and makes me want to keep reading in hopes that I will learn about why and how McCandless died. Krakauer mixes up the past and present. When there are background stories of Chris, they feel like flashbacks and I feel like I was watching a movie. It helps me as a reader to gain a deeper idea of McCandless and his motives. Krakauer does this by including Chris’s journal entries, “Day 100! MADE IT!…But in weakest condition of life. Death looms as serious threat…” and making use of them as the primary source. By doing so, it dawns on me that McCandless was more than a reckless idiot and that he never planned to die while he was on his adventure.

As I have said, Krakauer’s diction, point of view, and the order of the chapters influenced me to believe that McCandless was very hardworking, had strong beliefs and sets high standards for himself. My opinion of him changes from seeing him a narcissist and a reckless idiot to viewing him like Hamlet, who did too much thinking trying to make sense of the world. His overly extravagant independent nature and his life story cause him to walk into the wild. Ultimately Krakauer, in the end, made me understand that McCandless was a human being who saw joy not only in human relationships but also in everything and anything we might experience. And that we don’t have to engage in a habitual lifestyle.

Sancho Panza is a farmer from the same village in La Mancha that Don Quixote is from. He is also Quixote’s neighbor. Panza has a wife whose name is Teresa and several children, one of which has the name of Sanchica. The role that Sancho Panza plays in the novel is that of Don Quixote’s squire throughout his many adventures as a knight errant. Panza continually acts as a voice of reason trying to call Don Quixote out of his foolish visions. For example, on the adventure where Quixote thinks that several windmills are giants waiting for battle, Panza calls out to Quixote as he is charging the windmills that they are not giants as Quixote truly believes. Although Panza fails at getting Quixote to see his foolishness, he keeps a clear mind and sees things as they truly are. Sancho Panza’s reasonableness throughout the novel makes him a very interesting character to review.

Sancho Panza is a supporting character in the novel because he acts as a sidekick and accomplice to the main character, Don Quixote. Throughout the novel, Panza aspires to do exactly as his master says and to serve him to the best of his abilities. One adventure that actively displays this is when they encounter the men from Yanguas. Although Panza is afraid of engaging in battle with the men because he and Quixote are outnumbered, he follows Quixote into battle anyway. Even when the quarrels seem senseless, Panza follows his master into the face of danger.

Two of Sancho Panza’s positive character traits, which are discussed earlier in this paper, are loyalty to his master and the ability to maintain reason in absurd circumstances. A third positive character trait that Panza possesses is his pacifist disposition. Panza believes that he should not engage in senseless combat, unless there is a danger that threatens his life. One of the flaws that Panza must overcome is his ignorance. Because he is illiterate, Panza has never read about the chivalry and “rules of knighthood” that Don Quixote always speaks about, so he relies on Quixote’s knowledge of these subjects to maintain proper chivalry and uphold the duties of a squire. Another flaw that Panza must overcome is his impatience. Panza continually asks on several occasions when he will get the island Don Quixote promises him (Damrosch and Pike 386, 395). A third flaw that Panza must overcome is his cowardice. In the battle with the Basque, Panza suggests to Quixote that they should hide because he is afraid that the “Holy Brotherhood” is going to come after them and throw them in jail. Sancho Panza must overcome these character flaws in order to uphold his good standing as a squire, which commands that he should be patient instead of impatient and brave over cowardly.

Sancho Panza’s core quest is to uphold his duties of being a squire for the knight errant, Don Quixote, during his many adventures aimed at righting wrongs. Panza’s quest contains a combination of reward, revenge, and escape. The reward that drives him to embark on his quest is Don Quixote’s promise that he will make Panza a governor over an island. The revenge that is involved in Panza’s quest is not his but his master’s. Because Don Quixote makes it his mission to exact revenge on any wrongdoing, when Panza becomes Quixote’s squire, it also becomes his mission to aid his master in revenge. There are many escapes that also keep Panza’s quest progressing, which include the escape from the Basque and the escape from the Yanguas. The quest of upholding his duties of being a squire for Don Quixote is important to Panza because he wants the island that he is promised, but above all it is important to him to be loyal to Quixote.

By the end of the novel, Sancho Panza evolves his character by partaking in the foolishness that enchantments are real. Throughout all of the adventures, Panza does not believe that there is such thing as the enchantments that Don Quixote always thinks he sees. By the end of the story, though, Panza tricks Quixote into thinking that a peasant girl is his Lady Dulcinea del Toboso and lets Quixote believe that an enchantress hid Dulcinea’s beauty and true personality in order to stop Quixote from continuously searching for her and trying to make his love for her known.

The writer of this analysis and Sancho Panza are alike in a few admirable personality traits. Both are loyal to their friends, and both keep an eye on the sane without easily falling into tricks. The writer of this analysis also, like Panza, displays some of the negative personality traits. Both seem to get impatient at times, and both can be cowardly in fearful situations. However, the writer of this analysis does not suffer from the ignorance that Panza does. The writer of this analysis probably would not have followed the same course of actions because she would not have went on a journey that left her family all alone and wondering if she is safe or ever coming back.

Introduction

Wuthering Heights is the work of Emily Bronte, one of Bronte’s sisters. This book describes the story of the hero, gipsy’s outcast, Heathcliff, who was adopted by the old master of the villa, went out to get rich because of humiliation and love failure, and retaliated against the landowner Linton and his children who married his girlfriend Katherine when he came back. The real permanent artistic charm of Wuthering Heights is the information and enigma only contained in the book. No matter the structure of the novel, the image of the characters and the narrative skills, it has always been the object of study by western scholars. There are many different opinions and emerge one after another.

Introduction to Wuthering Heights

Wuthering Heights is a story between two English families (Earnshaw and Linton). Many years ago, the story happened in a beautiful but desolate wilderness in northern England. This is a story of love and hate, a devil’s revenge, a love that transcends life and death, and a life that cannot be forgiven. The two protagonists are Heathcliff and Catherine. Their love and hatred together destroy all their happiness. The plot of the whole story is actually unfolded through three parts: the first part describes the childhood life of Heathcliff and Catherine, the second part describes the Revenge of Heathcliff, and the third part describes the death of Heathcliff. Wuthering Heights will be hailed as ‘the most peculiar novel’ by later generations and will become a unique gem in the history of British literature in the 19th century. Until now, it is still admired by numerous readers with its magnificent and moving brilliance and deeply marveled at its extraordinary artistic charm.

Understanding of Wuthering Heights

After reading this book, I have three implications:

The unfortunate man has healed his childhood all his life.

In this book, many people are suffering. From the old master of the villa to his children, to the third generation, the most stable one is probably the maid, the narrator. In the book, the old master can’t give a pair of children full of father love. Son Hindley sees his father bringing back a homeless child, and worries about the division of father love. This anxiety is not seen by his father. Instead, his father is better to the homeless child, and Hindley begins to abandon himself. This idea led him to marry a sick wife and drink like a father after marriage. No matter his wife or children, he only used his violence against Heathcliff to vent his childhood dissatisfaction, which also laid the seeds for later revenge. As the only daughter of the manor, Catherine was not well educated by the noble lady. Her father allowed her to run with Heathcliff. She was attracted by Cliff’s tenacious and wild vitality. Just as the long Princess of Samsung in South Korea was led by the ex husband of the bodyguard, the spirit gradually embarked on a life path of passionate operation. She had a good family background, but she was growing up like a poor girl, lacking both love and money, so later she made such a decision in the matter of marriage, because she felt that by doing so, she could get both Linton’s money and Clive’s love. When Clive came back later, she wanted to do both. Maybe some people said that she was too greedy, but she was really lack of money and love. She had a double sense of hunger. She could not live without either. So, she can only risk walking the steel wire, and finally both of them are lost, just like the fish lost water, and the young will go back to the wild. Her daughter, Katie, is the opposite of her, because she is protected by her father so well that she still lives in a fairy tale when she is a teenager. In today’s words, the standard virgin heart doesn’t understand the dangers of the human heart, and she is easily pulled into the devil’s cave by the devil, without any attempt to resist. Until after marriage, unable to return to heaven, can only rely on willful temper to resist, and finally temperament has become the same as the person she hates. Therefore, children should be protected as much as possible. When they are over ten years old, it is better to let them know a little about human suffering, which is better than people’s evil. Just like children living in a sterile environment, if they encounter a little bacteria, they will be unable to resist and fall ill. Proper frustration education can increase children’s immunity. It’s the same with Linton. His mother’s education and father’s education are just like ice and fire. His heart is torn and he dies in agony in contradiction. Heathcliff, also a victim, has no parents since childhood. He wanders around and is bullied. At a young age, he has developed an iron will. How hard can he do this? He was adopted by old Sean and abused by the young master. Later, he came because he thought that Catherine was good to him, suffered from hunger and was reluctant to leave, How rare was the warmth that the little light brought to him, but the last little light was gone. So I completely exiled myself and began to set foot on the road of no return. If he had the same family and property as Linton when he was a child, how could he have taken such an extreme road?

The secret of marriage happiness – choose what I love, love what I choose.

Several couples in the story are not satisfied with each other. Catherine and Linton got married out of rational consideration, as well as her own identity and future material life security. This is not wrong in itself. Since she has figured out what she wants, it’s good to remember her original intention. If Heathcliff doesn’t come back in her whole life, maybe she can live a peaceful life, just like two snails in a glass bottle. They are the best candidates for each other’s vision. But as soon as Clive came back, the balance broke, and Catherine began to lose her balance. She felt that she could have a better choice. Like Britney in the moon and sixpence, if she didn’t meet Strickland, she would have a peaceful life with Elliot. Maybe everyone has a warehouse of explosives in their heart. If they don’t meet the fuse that can ignite them, they can also be safe for a lifetime. If they meet, it’s hard to say whether they are lucky or unlucky. Choosing what I love is not the most difficult, the most difficult is to love what I choose, that is, for the rest of my life, I will continue to cultivate feelings with my partner, appreciate each other’s advantages, appreciate each other’s efforts, help them grow together and become better myself. The operation after marriage may be more valuable than the choice with wide eyes before marriage. Linton is not a passionate person, but he was born well, gentle and generous, which is his advantage. He knows everything about Catherine, does not do anything to hurt Catherine, but quietly self-healing. Because of the preconceptions, because of the love, Catherine is blind to the advantages of Linton, just like Zhang Ailing said that every man has his own white rose and red rose. In this book, for Catherine, Linton is the white rose and Clive is the red rose. Catherine has no ability to persuade herself, love what I choose, cherish what she has and get a sense of inner balance. If Clive had been chosen, in a few years, she would have felt that she had chosen wrong.

Character decides fate

In the book, Catherine said more than once that Clive is herself, because both of them are full of passion, and their dialogue is vital. Linton and her sister Isabella are another kind of personality, belonging to the gentle and restrained, calm and restrained type. Like the Linton brothers and sisters who meet Catherine and Clive, like sheep who meet wolves, it’s hard not to be hurt. So there is an old saying in China that birds of a feather flock together and people flock together. But Catherine and Clive are crazy, controlling and possessive, which is hard for ordinary people to bear. Like fireworks, they look brilliant and attractive from afar, but if they are too close, they are easily burned, and they often fall in love and kill each other. Katie’s innocence, Linton’s weakness, Hindley’s self abandonment, and some suffering are due to some flaws in our character. Many tragedies are caused by our character. If we deal with the same thing individually, the outcome may be different. Character has the influence of environmental factors, more importantly, our own subjective choice, also known as willpower. In the same suffering environment, some people sink and some people rise up, which has a lot to do with the inner choice. And character will affect our choices in life. For example, little Katie Mingming has already felt the abnormality and eccentricity of little Linton, but she still has to go to the fire pit without telling her father.

Conclusion

This paper mainly introduces Wuthering Heights, which is discussed from two aspects. Firstly, it briefly expounds the plot and outline of Wuthering Heights, and then gives readers some insights on the text content. Wuthering Heights seems to be a ‘strange’ novel. When it was published, it once entered a ‘low tide’ period. It was only half a century later that Wuthering Heights was gradually accepted by the world, until today’s honor. Its success is not achieved overnight, but the product of a certain number of years. At one time, the author of Wuthering Heights was regarded as a ‘extraordinary person’ by others. He had no love experience, was not good at social intercourse, but had certain emotional factors to reserve. The so-called life always inadvertently gives you a heavy blow, but also in the secret gives a sweet rain, nurturing the injured psychology.

1. Reference
2. Miles P. (1990) Inroduction ‘Wuthering Heights’: Popular Memory/Critical Debate. In: Wuthering Heights. The Critics Debate. Palgrave, London
3. Gorsky S R .（1999）’I’ll Cry Myself Sick’: Illness in Wuthering Heights[J]. Literature & Medicine, 18(2):173-191.
4. Margaret, Homans.（1978）Repression and Sublimation of Nature in Wuthering Heights. Pmla.
5. Axelrod M. (1999) The Poetics of Climate in Brontë’s Wuthering Heights. In: The Poetics of Novels. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
6. Chitham E. (2001) The Three Housekeepers of Wuthering Heights. In: The Birth of Wuthering Heights. Palgrave Macmillan, London.

In the novel, Into the wild. John krakauer talks about Chris McCandles a genius that followed his dreams. Or others say an idiot that left his family and try to survive on his own in the wild. Chris McCandles lived for 113 days out in the wild with bits of supplies that he had at the moment. It’s crazy how he survived, which is impressive considering the circumstances. The point is that McCandles was smart, but many other people did not think he would be intelligent. In this essay It’s going to show you how what kind a person was McCandless and what led him and caused him to his death.

My valuable point is that Chris McCanldes was not prepared for his adventure. He went out into the wilderness with only a ten pound bag of rice,clothing for the weather conditions, boots that were not waterproof and a small 22 caliber rifle without a map or compass to help out into civilization in case of an emergency. Literally he was only 6 miles away from a ranger station, which could have helped him incase of an emergency. He was so close that he could have gone home if he really wanted, but decided on what he wanted to do in his life. Which was to live on his own and be away from civilization he was surrounded from where he was from.People would say that he was a brainless idiot because he went out with gear that was “ exceedingly minimal for the harsh conditions of the interior, which in April still lay buried under the winter snowpack” (krakauer 5). Others many believed that this makes him a bush-casualty stereotype, which means he is like any other idiotic that thought they could survive with out preparation or any prior knowledge of how to live in harsh conditions. Jon Krakauer, the author of the book Into The Wild, had claimed that McCandless was more of a traveler than a bush- casualty stereotype because of his journey. Krakauer then compares him to the paper monks that would risk their lives to find a new home since their land became crowded. Pretty sure that krakauer does not think that Chris McCandless was an idiot because he was the same when he was younger. Chris lost his life doing stupid things.

My second point is that Chris McCandless drove off to Alaska for his great adventure that he did not survive. Chris was just “ so enthralled by tales, however, that seemed to forget they were works of fiction” (krakauer44). Jack London’s stories made chris to try and survive in the bush without being prepared for the conditions, instead that he did not need much to survive in the freezing, harsh conditions there. Living in that wilderness is a lot harder than most people would think. Not just getting bitten by bugs, also finding clean water, and weather conditions, it is also that the fact there are hundreds of different animals that live in the wild that would want to eat and kill you while alive or asleep. Lucky chris never really faced into that. Whether you were trying to improve that you were a man to escape civilizations, you need to be prepared for everything that you would face into the wild. Nothing will be easy to be on your own, chris could have have had anxiety or depression for being by himself.

Chris McCandless was a very smart, but was a self-absorbed person. This presented when Krakauer talked to Chris’s family members and said” He measured himself and those around him by an impossibly moral code” (krakauer123). Chris did this because he made himself to have more greatness in his life than most people, making it hopeless to please him no matter what the situation consisted of. This is shown throughout the book through his different background working, traveling, and communicating, from little did he socialized. This is a very important attribute of the personality of Chris McCandless. He thought of himself so that he did not expect to go to the wilderness and fail at what he thought was available to achieve. Nobody can go out into Alaskan bush and try to survive for a long time without being an expert to prepare for every possible situation. It would be very difficult, lucky he found a bus with more material that would help him be alive like the bed,chimney had made him warm and also a lighter to start a fire. The bad thing was that he was losing ammunition of his 22 rifle he had. That was a game changer to hunt for food. Chris handled to survive those 113 days because of his passion to survive and his skill to be alive in the wilderness. By saying active, he was able to hunt, gather and make food for himself. Chris McCandless may have survived if he had brought on a map of the area he was staying at to know where he was because there was a ranger station literally 6 miles away from his position that he could’ve have hiked to save his life. Chris didn’t really think he would’ve need any of those life saving supplies.

My last point brings up the idea of how his family talked about him after he had died. His father had said “ many people have told me that they admire chris for what he was trying to do. If he’d lived, i would agree with them” (Krakauer). This shows that chris’s father was very disappointed in him because he didn’t tell him father where he was. Chris did not want his parents to know he was out on his adventure because he felt like it was being less discharging and it collapsed the purpose of losing himself just to find himself. His sister carine on the other hand was happily proud of chris because he followed his dreams. She talked about his past, relations with girls, and all of those good memories that she had of him. Carine also described him as a solitary person because he would be that guy to show his intelligence on certain subjects such as computer programming, which he took a class in college. His parents not accepting who he really was led to him wanting to be on his own in the wild. Family is an important thing in everyone’s life. It helps them to work a sense of right and wrong by showing love, humility and love. Without an active loving family to support your own child, they will lose a sense of what is right and what is wrong, like traveling the country without any money. Maybe if his family would have loved and cared about him and accept him, he would not have starved or frozen to death in the wilderness of Alaska.

Whether or not Chris McCandless was either a complete idiot or an idealistic genius goes back and forth so much because of all the contradicting points as to why he lived and why he died. Chris acted like a snob and died like someone had no idea on what they were doing, but still survived for 113 days. He was not lacking person. He had a very genuine and heartfelt dream and he chased it to the max that he died doing what he wanted to do. Many people will give up on themselves or dreams of couple challenges they face. People are all guilty of that in one way or another. However, he was not prepared, Chris McCandless believed in things that were not true at all, he completely dismissed that fact that other people were just as intelligent as him, and he severed all ties and died in a wasteland. If chris would have had even the slightest bit of common sense he would have either not gone on his odyssey or had been more prepared for what was going to come.

Everybody has their own opinion on what kind of person Chris McCandless was. Why would he go into the wild with bits of supplies. We get it he survived, but imagine if he only had a map of where he was and what was near him to save his life. Chris McCandless family admired him and wanted to know where he was, wanted to know how he was doing. Mccandless had different characters in front of his friends and family. Being rude to other, also did not care what was going on in his life, like burning his money and not save it for emergencies. He wasn’t a selfish person and didn’t care about things in life. At the end of the day, it was his choice, what made him happy is what really mattered to Chris. It’s his own life, he did what he wanted to fulfill his dreams to live in the wild. Chris McCandless or preferred name, Alexander Supertramp. An idiot, idealist genius or a person of not having common sense, these are all the things that he has known as I don’t even what I would call him. It just seems like he’s known as an idiot that went into the wild.

Romeo is the young boy looking for love, Juliet is the clever girl, and Capulet is the protective father. William Shakespeare made these characters like this so the audience could relate to their characteristics and personalities. William Shakespeare made complex characters throughout The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet with both strengths and weaknesses.

Throughout the Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, Romeo displays, both weaknesses and strengths. Romeo Montague displays all the signs of being very romantic and impulsive. During the night of a feast that the Capulets are holding, Romeo, after meeting Juliet, says, “Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight! For ne’er saw true beauty till this night”(Shakespeare 1. 5. 57-58). Romeo displays romanticism by telling Juliet how he feels “ne’er saw true beauty till this night”. Furthermore, when Romeo follows Juliet, he finds her after the feast and they talk and he says, “He lent me counsel and I lent him eyes. I am no pilot. Yet, wert thou as far as that vast shore washed with the farthest sea. I would adventure for such merchandise” (Shakespeare 2. 2. 90-94). Romeo used his strength of romanticism to woo Juliet. Which at the end of the conversation, leads to them agreeing to marriage. On the flip side, Romeo has a weakness, his impulsiveness. Even though Romeo and Juliet fell in love with each other, everything that they did happened so fast, their first kiss and their marriage. During the party at the Capulets Romeo, after just meeting Juliet, he asks to kiss Juliet, ”O, then, dear saint, let lips do what hands do” (Shakespeare 1. 5. 113). After just meeting Juliet, Romeo is so quick to ask for a kiss, before he even got to know Juliet. After the feast Romeo goes looking for Juliet and finally finds her and ask to marry her. “Th’exchange of thy loves’s faithful vow for mine” (Shakespeare 2. 2. 138-139). Romeo meets Juliet once, and has barely known her for more than a few hours and he’s already asking her to marry him. Romeo is a complex character, but is a character that many young people can relate to.

Lord Capulet displays both strengths and weaknesses throughout the Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare. Lord Capulet is a very protective man, especially to his daughter, Juliet. An example is when he is talking to Paris after Paris asked for Juliet’s hand in marriage, “My child is yet a stranger in the world. She hath not seen the change of fourteen years. Let two more summers wither in their pride” (Shakespeare 1. 2. 8-10). Lord Capulet express his protectiveness by telling Paris that his daughter isn’t fit for marriage, “My child is yet a stranger in the world”. He also states that she should wait awhile before she is fit for marriage, “Let two more summers wither in their pride”. Another example of Lord Capulet being protective is once again him talking to Paris, about Juliet. “And too soon marred are those so early made” (Shakespeare 1. 2. 13). Capulet is also being protective here. He’s explaining that Juliet may be so young, that if she gets pregnant at that age, there could be disastrous accident. Now Capulet also has a weakness, his ability to be Tyrannical. Lord Capulet can be very demanding and very aggressive. One example is when he told Juliet that she has to marry Paris. Juliet did not agree with this and Lord Capulate becomes enraged, “Hang thee, young baggage! Disobedient wretch!” (Shakespeare 3. 5. 161-162). Then he also said, “Speak not. Reply not. Do not answer me. My fingers itch” (Shakespeare 3. 5. 162-164). Capulet becomes demanding, “Speak not. Reply no. Do not answer me” and angry, “Disobedient wretch!” and he even threats to hit her, “My fingers itch”. Capulet is a diverse character, wanting his daughter to wait 2 years before she gets married, but then he also forces Juliet to marry Paris.

Juliet Capulet shows both weaknesses and strengths. Juliet is a girl who is very clever, but even though she is clever she is also impulsive. Before the feast, Lady Capulet asks Juliet to keep and eye out for Paris, and to study him, to see if he’s marriable, Juliet is clever and says, “I’ll look to like, if looking like moving” (Shakespeare 1. 5. 128). Juliet is clever because she is agreeing to her parents wishes, but ultimately is looking elsewhere, “I’ll look to like”. After the feast is over, Juliet wants to know who Romeo is after they met and kissed, but she doesn’t want to make it obvious, “Come hither, Nurse. What is yond gentleman?” (Shakespeare 1. 5. 143). Juliet is clever because she is making the Nurse find out who Romeo is rather than herself. Juliet may be clever, but also she has her weakness, her impulsiveness. First, Juliet asks the Nurse to see if Romeo is married, “Go ask his name-If he be married. My grave is like to be my wedding bed” (Shakespeare 1. 5. 134-135). Before Juliet gets to fully know who Romeo is she is already stating she would rather die than marry anyone other than Romeo. Then, after she learns who Romeo is she says, “My only love sprung from my only hate!/ Too early seen unknown, and known too late!/ Prodigious birth of love it it to me/ That I must love a loathed enemy” (Shakespeare 1. 5. 138-139). After just meeting Romeo, she has already fallen in love, “Love sprung from my only hate”. This displays how Juliet is impulsive. Juliet is a very smart girl, but love makes her make impulsive choices.

William Shakespeare made complex characters throughout The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet with both strengths and weaknesses. Romeo, Juliet, and Lord Capulet have their strengths and their weaknesses. Romeo is Romantic, but impulsive, Juliet is clever, but also impulsive, and Lord Capulet is protective but also exerts tyrannical acts. William Shakespeare did not make the characters in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet on accident, he made them like this on purpose to make the audience feel like they could relate to.

In William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, two young teens fall in love at first sight, they are willing to risk it all to be together forever. With the help of their friends and Friar Lawrance they held an unfortunate ending. Being from rival families made it challenging to be together. Romeo and Juliet were young, stubborn and careless which cloud their judgment causing them to make irresponsible and immature decisions like getting married, proving teens are not mature enough to make adult decisions. Rosaline was all Romeo could think and talk about earlier that day he met Juliet then after meeting Juliet they “fall in love” and rushed into marriage after only knowing each other for a few hours. A close friend once told me, young love may not be real love, get to know them before you turn temporary feelings into permanent actions.

Marriage is a serious and life-changing decision to make. Romeo and Juliet are not mature enough to make adult decisions because they rushed into marriage after knowing each other for a short period of time, it was an immature and irresponsible decision. Juliet states, “If that thy bent of love be honorable, thy purpose marriage, send me word tomorrow. “(2.2.150-151). Juliet is saying if Romeo truly loves her like he claims he does then he should propose to her because they are in love. Therefore proving Romeo and Juliet made an immature decision to marry each other after a couple hours of meeting. They barely knew anything about one another but they knew they came from rival families and all the trouble it may cause, they went through with the decision without a thought.

It is absurd to believe looks are the way to determine someone is your soulmate. Earlier in the day Romeo was head over heels for Rosaline, a girl he saw once and fell madly in love without meeting her. Romeo and Juliet are not mature enough to make adult decisions because Romeo was claiming he was in love with another earlier in the day he met Juliet. Romeo proclaims his love for Juliet to Friar Lawrence and he responds, “Is Rosaline, that thou didst love so dear, so soon forsaken? Young men’s love then lies not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes” (2.3.65-67). Friar Lawrence is unsure of Romeo’s feelings for Juliet because it wasn’t that long ago Romeo came to him heartbroken over Rosaline, he claims young men love with there eyes not their hearts. This proves how inconsistent Romeo’s feelings are, he doesn’t know much about Juliet or Rosaline besides their beautiful appearances. Romeo and Juliet Stuck on the concept of “Love at first sight”.

My cousin is an example of teens not being mature enough to make adult decisions. When she was 17 years old, her parents split and her mom became very ill and unable to care for her kids, leaving her to raise her younger siblings, she began finding ways to escape her home life. She met a boy who was almost 2 years older than her, he was her escape. She ran away from home 5 months later to be with the love of her life. She returned after a year decided on marrying him, she was gullible and he was manipulative. As much as her family and even I would talk to her about the huge mistake she was going to commit, she was blinded by the love he was giving her. Her mom did not give her the blessing to marry him but she left anyway. After yet another year she came back home with a 1-year old and another on the way. The supposed love of her life cheated on her and now wants nothing to do with her or the kids.

Not all teens are mature enough to make adult decisions. There are teens who are mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions but nonetheless should still be aware of who it may affect. Although many may feel their age defines their maturity, most cases it does not. When it comes to making important life changing decisions one should know whom it may affect in the long run and the impact it will have on their lives, good or bad. If Romeo and Juliet had the chance to truly know each other and profess their love for one another in a more peaceful way, they could have spared the lives lost and achieved the happy ending they were longing for.