Category: Literature Review

My chosen media for analysis and comparison to Macbeth is “The Great Gatsby” – a 2013 romantic drama film based on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1925 novel of the same name “The Great Gatsby”. Both follow the story of Jay Gatsby, a man who builds his life and does whatever it takes to be united with Daisy Buchanan, the love he lost five years earlier when they first met. Gatsby’s quest leads him from poverty to wealth and into the arms of his beloved and later all those events lead Gatsby to his death. On the other hand, William Shakespeare’s tragedy “Macbeth” follows Macbeth, a Scottish general and Thane to King Duncan. He is overcome by ambition and greed after hearing a prophecy that he will become king. After being subjected to the prophecy and his wife’s provocative behaviour and encouragement, Macbeth kills King Duncan and takes the throne. Towards the end of the play, Macbeth’s guilt and paranoia lead him to commit even more murders to secure his power. His confidence in the prophecies eventually leads to his death.

These two texts seem to have little to nothing in common at first glance, however, there are many overlapping themes and similar character traits in these texts. The main theme in both texts is Ambition. The protagonists, Jay Gatsby and Macbeth, are driven by ambition and do whatever it takes to reach their goals. Jay Gatsby’s goal is to achieve the American Dream, which is symbolized for him by winning the love of Daisy Buchanan. The readers can see that all the success in Gatsby’s life can be attributed to his need to win Daisy’s love. On the other hand, Macbeth is already successful at the beginning of the place and is known as a victorious thane who has vanquished anyone who rebelled against the king. Macbeth is driven by an ambition to be the king of Scotland and that can be concluded from his response after the witches’ prophecy. His response hinted that he has considered that destiny before.

Both authors use symbolism throughout their texts which in The Great Gatsby is the green light at the end of Daisy’s dock. It is a symbol of Gatsby’s hopes and dreams. It represents everything that haunts and beckons Gatsby: the physical and emotional distance between him and Daisy, the gap between the past and the present, the promises of the future. William Shakespeare uses blood as a symbol for guilt in Macbeth. Death and killing happen in an instant, but blood remains, and stains. At the times when both Macbeth and his wife feel most guilty, they despair that they will never be able to wash the blood off their hands.

Gatsby and Macbeth are both seen as impatient characters that are willing to do anything to achieve their goals quickly. In Gatsby’s situation, this can be seen from the five years he spent acquiring his wealth relying on criminal activities to win Daisy’s heart faster. In the text, Gatsby was not well-established old money, so the source of his money was questioned and caused commotion in New York old-money circles. The social class theme in The Great Gatsby shows the developing class rivalry between ‘old’ and ‘new’ money in the struggle between Gatsby and Tom over Daisy. In Macbeth’s situation, he is well-liked and is a part of the higher class from the beginning. He also somewhat “upgrades” from the Thane of Glamis and becomes Thane of Cawdor at the beginning of the play. Despite all that Macbeth is not satisfied and is seeking more glory. After the prophecy, Macbeth realises that the fastest way for him to become king is to murder King Duncan and take the throne.

In both texts, the protagonists are motivated by something or someone. And the motivators in both texts are women that are very close to the protagonists. Lady Macbeth directly motivates Macbeth and Daisy indirectly motivates Gatsby to achieve their goals. Lady Macbeth talks Macbeth into killing the king. She is seen as powerful, manipulative and maybe even more ambitious than Macbeth at the beginning of the play. In the scene when Macbeth starts having second thoughts about his plan, Lady Macbeth calls him a coward and persuades him to do the deed. She wants her husband to succeed not only out of love but also for personal gain, she convinces Macbeth that the only way she will be happy with him is if he becomes the king. Despite being incredibly aggressive she gets crushed by guilt and ends up taking her own life towards the end of the play. Similarly, Daisy motivates Gatsby’s actions. She is first seen as a somewhat an opposite of Lady Macbeth. Daisy is described as weak and passive, however, Daisy also shares the trait of greed and selfishness with Lady Macbeth. When Daisy first met Gatsby he was a poor soldier and though she claimed she loved him back, Daisy would not marry him due to him not being able to offer anything of monetary value to her. Instead, she marries Tom Buchanan and keeps her high position in society and live a lavish lifestyle. She achieves her goals but is not happy afterwards so embarks on an affair with Gatsby. In the end, Tom reveals Gatsby’s criminal connections to her and after Daisy killed Myrtle in a car accident, Daisy is able to plan her escape with her daughter and husband.

Macbeth and Gatsby die at the ends of both stories. Macbeth dies consumed by his wickedness and Gatsby dies still clutching at some last hope that Daisy will call him. There is also some similarity in the way they were both blind to their goals. Gatsby was blinded by his love and did not see Daisy’s true nature. He didn’t realize that Daisy will quickly dismiss their relationship due to her careless nature and leave him. On the other hand, Macbeth’s blind trust in the witches leads to Macduff to killing him in the end. Ambition drove Gatsby and Macbeth to chase their goals, but these goals also blinded and killed them.

Macbeth and The Great Gatsby are both significant literary examples of the theme ambition. Both texts share similarities, such as the use of symbolism and character traits. Overall, both texts display the chosen themes in extremely effective ways that engage the audience in different ways.

Despite the fact that The Stranger is an anecdotal work, it contains a solid reverberation of the philosophical idea of silliness of Camus. In his compositions, Camus contends that there is no coherent reason or request in singular lives and human presence specifically. Also, on the grounds that it is hard for individuals to grasp this idea, they are constantly attempting to distinguish and build a sensible structure or importance in their lives. The expression ‘craziness’ depicts the worthless endeavor by humankind to build up a legitimate request in which there is nobody. While Camus doesn’t explicitly allude to the thought of ridiculousness in The Stranger, it is inside the novel that the thoughts of preposterousness work. There is no ethical request in either the external world where Meursault lives or the inward universe of his considerations and frames of mind. Meursault’s activities, for example, his choice to wed Marie and his choice to slaughter the Arab, have no perceptible thought process.

All things considered, the way of life looks to manufacture and make discerning clarifications for the nonsensical activities of Meursault. The possibility that things occur for no reason now and again, and that occasions have no reason now and again, is dangerous and harming to society. In Part Two of the novel, the preliminary succession speaks to the endeavor by society to create objective request. Both the investigator and the lawyer of Meursault give purposes behind the wrongdoing of Meursault dependent on rationale, plan, and circumstances and logical results. Notwithstanding, truth be told, these clarifications have no premise and just fill in as endeavors to defuse the fearsome thought that the universe is silly. Consequently, the entire preliminary is a case of foolishness — a case of the purposeless endeavor of humankind to uphold rationale on a silly world. A second significant component of the crazy hypothesis of Camus is the idea that human life has no importance or reason for salvation. Camus guarantees that the main positive thing in life is the certainty of death, and all presence is similarly aimless in light of the fact that every single person will in the end meet demise.

Meursault dynamically moves all through the novel towards this acknowledgment, however he doesn’t completely get a handle on it until after his last section contention with the clergyman. Meursault realizes that the world is neglectful of him similarly as he is not interested in a significant part of the universe. Like all people, Meursault was conceived, is going to pass on and it won’t make any difference any more. Incomprehensibly, he can accomplish satisfaction simply after Meursault arrives at this apparently horrid acknowledgment. That understanding aides Meursault, by recording a fruitful lawful intrigue, to set aside his fantasies about dodging execution. He finds that these fanciful desires, recently worried about his brain, will do minimal more than make a deception in him that demise can be anticipated. Meursault sees that his desire for continued life has been a weight. His discharge from this bogus expectation implies that he is allowed to live for what it is and to take advantage of the remainder of his life.

The Stranger shows Meursault that he is significantly more intrigued by the physical parts of his general surroundings than in their social or passionate viewpoints. This attention on the touchy world is the consequence of the novel’s case that human life doesn’t have any higher importance or request. Meursault’s accentuation all through The Stranger spotlights without anyone else body, his physical association with Marie, the climate, and other physical parts of his reality. The glow during the memorial service parade, for example, causes Meursault undeniably more torment than the idea of covering his better half. The glow during the memorial service parade, for example, causes Meursault definitely more torment than the idea of covering his significant other. Meursault’s style of portrayal likewise mirrors his physical intrigue. Despite the fact that he offers tight, plain portrayals while bypassing passionate or social circumstances while talking about themes, for example, nature and the climate, his depictions become distinctive and lavish.

One reasons bird fly is to migrate. They fly away from their natural habitat to escape the grueling cold only to return months later to where they came from. In Song of Solomon, flight is a central theme, especially for the main character, Milkman. Throughout the story, flight becomes a symbol and we see it follows the progression of Milkman from childhood to adulthood, in fact reading “flight” right after his birth in the beginning of the novel and seen toward the end of the novel. Milkman refers to flight upon discovering the story of his great-grandfather, Solomon, of how he “flew” away to escape slavery. Milkman singing Solomon’s song- “O-o-o-o-o-o Solomon done fly, Solomon done gone / Solomon cut across the sky, Solomon gone home!” (page 248). Flight signifies a feeling brought by the gain of new knowledge and liberation, similar to Milkman who seeks to discover his identity, learning that the only way to fly is soar is by leaving everything behind and riding the wind on his journey of self-knowledge

Flight was tied to Milkman even during his childhood. When Milkman had a discussion about Mr. Smith’s death who tried to fly he discovered something about; “…little boy discovered, at four, the same thing that Mr. Smith had learned earlier—that only birds and airplanes could fly—he lost all interest in himself. To have to live without that single gift saddened him” (page 9). As a child this term of flight to him was just simply the physical act of flying. This reflects his immaturity and lack of knowledge as a child. As the novel progresses this gift unravels to us and the author reveals what the gift is.

As his teenage years unravel and his maturity starts to develop a flightless bird, a peacock, appears before his eyes as he discusses what he would do with the gold he plans to take from Pilate. His previous actions, that of a peacock, shows that his vanity is one of the main things that holds him down, as Morrison writes, ‘Too much tail. All that jewelry weighs it down. Like vanity. Can’t nobody fly with all that shit. Wanna fly, you gotta give up the shit that weighs you down’ (page 179). This is a reflection of how Milkman takes everything for granted and lavishes himself in the riches that he feels he deserves. Just as a male peacock’s majestic feathers hold him down, Milkman’s vanity holds him back from realizing who he really is and being able to fly. Vanity is like unnecessary jewelry. It creates a sense of greed within the holder.

As Milkman grows and matures and goes on his “ journey”, similar to how Oddesus in the Iliad and the Odyssey tries to find his way back home. During his journey his journey on the way to Pittsburg he as a dream of flight once more. Now in his adulthood, in his twenties, this dream foreshadows that he is maturing and approaching the day he could finally learn to fly. The airplane flight to Pittsburgh ‘exhilarated’ (page 220) him. Another ‘flight’, but he is not the one who actually flies, it’s the airplane which carries him. This symbolizes that Milkman is approaching his actual flight, and his decision to go alone to the South brings him onto the path leading to maturity

His search and growth for knowledge shows his path to flight. Literally, without knowing his family history and where he really belongs to, Milkman’s spiritual world is hollow and hopeless, especially when considering that almost everyone nears him wants his ‘living life’ (Page 222) the whole time. He therefore leads an aimless and irresponsible life. However, after his journey to the South helps him find out his heritage, he really becomes mature and starts to reflect on himself and take responsibility. This time, he can finally fly. Figuratively, Milkman finds out that he is the kid of the flying Solomon after he goes to the South. Before knowing that, he is not able to fly. But this fact actually symbolizes his family heritage Since the ‘flying’ derives from the African folklore illustrating that African people could fly, the fact about Solomon symbolizes African American culture in a broader sense.

“We accept the love we think we deserve”

Dear friend, being a wallflower does help gain the trust of other people but, does being a wallflower allow those to participate in life completely? “We accept the love we think we deserve” but how do we know if we deserve any better. Steven Chbosky explores the themes of acceptance, tolerance and the effects of being inclusive of others and he also explores the importance of participating in life and not isolating yourself from the rest of the world. As the book’s title refers to The Perks of Being a Wallflower, is a contradiction to the story as the book references to the bad habits of the protagonist who is referred to as a wallflower as someone who sees things, keeps quiet about them and understands.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower follows the story of and is narrated by teenager Charlie who is about to begin his first year of high school with no friends and a very low social status. The book is written in a collection of letters to an unnamed person who Charlie only refers to as “friend” and throughout the book, we only know as much as Charlie does at the time. Charlie begins high school with no one to really depend on, which is quite hard especially with all of the thoughts going through his head. Charlie is suffering from severe social anxiety and PTSD after his only friend from middle school had committed suicide, which inadvertently brings up memories of the death of his Aunt Helen whom he was very close with but as the story goes on with Charlie constantly bringing up memories of his Aunt, the relationship between them raises flags on his Aunt Helens part. As it turns out towards the end of the book we learn that Charlie was molested by his Aunt. As Charlie starts school, he meets two seniors, Patrick and his step-sister Sam, whom he immediately develops a crush upon. He also finds acceptance in his English teacher who throughout the novel pushes Charlie to reach and exceed his academic potential. Throughout the year, Charlie seems to come out of his shell and participates more in life and experiences all the components of a teenager’s life in a journey of relationships, drugs and sex.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower traverses the theme of acceptance and tolerance of others and the power and meaning behind doing so. The book goes into depth about the value of friendship and the effect of inclusiveness towards other people. At the start of the novel, we meet Charlie and learn that he has recently lost his only friend to suicide. Charlie has a taciturn personality and doesn’t communicate with anyone, but is constantly aware of his surroundings and what is happening. Without anyone, Charlie feels like a misfit and has nobody to trust. That is until he meets Sam and Patrick. Patrick is an extroverted, spontaneous, light-hearted homosexual. He is open about his sexuality with his friends and the people he trusts. He takes an immediate liking to Charlie and becomes one of his most trusted friends. Patrick is really inclusive of Charlie and imparts his social intelligence to him. He is always there for Charlie when he needs advice, which is a trait Charlie then puts to use when Patrick spirals into a dark depression. Whilst Charlie isn’t that great at advice-giving, he is there to listen, which is good enough for Patrick. Even when Patrick kisses Charlie he lets it happens because he knows that Patrick doesn’t like him but he just needed to load off his emotions into someone else and Charlie thought that it’s something that good friends do, but it is actually just one of Charlie’s traits if being a passive person and letting people use him whether they mean to or not to feel okay. This also foreshadows his Aunt Helen’s previous pedophilic actions towards him because throughout the book Charlie is okay with people who he is close to and loves to use him as a sexual object just so they can feel better. Sam also takes Charlie under her care as she and her step-brother decide to help Charlie understand the world. To the outside world, Sam is a beautiful, spontaneous and generally well-liked individual and this is how she is displayed at the beginning of the book but as the book goes on, Sam tells Charlie about her past and the problems she’s faced through her life such as being sexually abused as a child which, perhaps, explains their instinctive connection as they seem to have gone through similar situations without even realising. Charlie falls in love with Sam, even though she has a boyfriend through most of the novel, but because Charlie is so empathetic that he is sad for Sam when she eventually breaks up with the guy. When Charlie and Sam have a sexual encounter towards the end of the book Charlie allows it to happen, as he did with Patrick, and instead of actually being part of the situation he plays the role but doesn’t get into it, despite it being what he wanted. Charlie wanted to be with Sam properly in an intimate moment which is why Charlie’s mind doesn’t accept the moment as a real one. Charlie’s newfound friends all participate in the Rocky Horror Picture Show which is a good demonstration of how by having close friends who are strong and having a place to be yourself at, everyone can just be unrestrained, completely included and not judged by each other due to the deep foundations of trust. This proves that Charlie truly blossoms as a person as he begins to find his place in the world.

Also along the theme of acceptance and tolerance of others, is the effects of not doing so. This is displayed in the story by Charlie’s grandfather who is a homophobe and a racist. Everyone in Charlie’s family tolerates his very vocal opinions about how the world works and how things should be however it still affects everyone’s mood and thoughts and makes family gatherings very awkward. Charlie and his family cope with his grandfather by watching Charlie’s brother play football. When everyone watches Charlie’s brother play no one talks, not even his grandfather, which is how they all feel included. Another part in the novel containing unacceptance is when Patrick’s secret gay partner, the school quarterback, denies his homosexuality in front of his friends and bullies Patrick about his therefore also rejecting his relationship with Patrick. Whilst Patrick has a supportive group of friends that he can depend on, Brad doesn’t have that trait among his friends, thus making him feel unincluded and unaccepted leading to him not accepting himself and his sexuality. This relates back to a quote from Charlie’s English teacher Bill, “we accept the love we think we deserve”. The more inclusive, accepting and tolerant people are, the more people beginning to accept themselves and who they are and from that treating other people better, which then becomes an endless cycle.

The other theme in The Perks of Being a Wallflower is the importance of participating in life and not just be a wallflower and watch the world pass you as you just observe and try to understand from the outside. Throughout the novel, while we follow the life of Charlie, we see the people around him take charge of their own lives and stand up for themselves instead of being walked all over. When Bill tells Charlie at the start of the story when Charlie was telling him about his thoughts that he should participate in life instead of watching from the outside and observing, like a wallflower. Charlie’s attempts to participate lead to the befriending of Patrick and Sam. Charlie becomes a good friend by becoming a very good listener which is what he has always done, but as Charlie participates more he learns that there are many more layers to participating than just listening. He learns that participation is less about putting himself in the spotlight and letting people walk all over him but it is more about standing up for himself and what he believes in. However, participation isn’t always as positive as it sounds. It often leads to emotions being shown which is something that Charlie doesn’t seem to be very good at other than crying when his own thoughts become too overwhelming. Most of the characters have coping mechanisms to deal with what is going on in their life, a majority of them being either drugs or sex. Patrick drowns himself with alcohol and has short term flings with people in the park at night to deal with his break up with Brad. Brad has a girlfriend in public to hide his homosexuality and the fact that he’s seeing Patrick on the side. When Brad is faced with accepting his homosexuality he chooses to deny and suppress what he feels. Participation in these sorts of situations require a strong will to power through and face the demon without having to rely on exterior means or just avoiding the issue.

In conclusion, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a novel that goes into depth, not just about the problems that people face in life but how they deal with them and how the acceptance of others can affect a persons view on themselves and what they think that they deserve and ultimately how they treat the people around them. It also takes into consideration the natural tendency to run away from your problems or to avoid them or to use people or things to deal with them in unhealthy ways and it shows the effect these mechanisms have on the people around them. Overall it talks about how codependency is okay if it is with people that are trusted.

The practice of marriage between two men and two women. Although same sex marriage has been regulated through law, religion and custom in most countries are the legal and social responses have fluctuated from celebration on one hand to criminalization on the other. The author of the article ‘Same-Sex Marriage Weakens the Institution of Marriage’ is Ryan T. Anderson. The main idea of this article is that, mainly, marriage exists to bring a man and woman together as husband and wife, to be father and mother to any children their union produces, and that same-sex marriage can interfere with this and are therefore wrong.

In his article, Ryan argues that redefining marriage would spoil the children’s future and education. He states that “decades of social science, including the latest studies using large samples and robust research methods, show that children tend to do best when raised by a mother and a father”. Ryan quotes many stories from the information he gets to illustrate his basic arguments. On the other hand, a redefining marriage would undermine marriage in ways that may hurts children. From the author’s information, E. J. Graff celebrates the fact that redefining marriage would change the “institution message” so that it would “ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers”. A simple romantic companionship may motivate a couple to not divorce and have a better understanding among themselves. Perhaps because of systems of religion and systems of civil authority often reflect and support each other. Same-sex couples are benefits and they are encouraging to support for same-sex marriage because almost all troublesome action lesbians and gay men can undertake. Moreover, the union of a marriage couples of a man and woman to keep away from legal penalties. Public institution acknowledges traditionally married couples where they can perform a good future marriage life in society.

The issue of same-sex marriage frequently sparked emotional and political clashes between supporters and adversary. The author builds up a twisted version of an opposing argument in order to clear it. It aims to misrepresent, misquoting, misconstruing and oversimplifying the original argument to make it easier to attack. He states that “41 states with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman”. But the fact is 50 states each have separate laws which must cling to rulings. Furthermore, confusing necessary and sufficient conditions states that a condition is something which has to be necessary if a conclusion is to hold. “Marriage cannot do the work that society needs it to do if these norms are further weakened”.

Arranged marriage, child marriage, polygamy sometimes may be practiced as a cultural tradition. He describes that “traditional marriage laws reinforce the idea that a married mother and father is the most appropriate environment for rearing children, as the best available social science suggests”. It is a generalization fallacy which is drawing a general conclusion from specific evidence. Ryan says that redefining marriage would spoil the society’s behavior and diminish the before married couple’s children.

Happily married couples with a long history together have managed to preserve some of the elements that were present while they were in the early stages of courtship. A romantic-emotional union destabilize unusual marriage fitting for family. It is appeal to popularity, also known as the bandwagon fallacy, where is constructed based on the belief that more people support a proposition.

However, there are some problems with Ryan’s argument. One of these concerns the evidence he uses to support his case. Appeal to authority is an attempt to establish a conclusion by citing a figure with expertise and authority. Therefore, Thomas Messner, Visiting Fellow for Religion and Civil Society, has taken a close look at many of consequences. Instead, Ryan states: “Heritage Foundation Visiting Fellow Thomas Messner has documented multiples instances in which redefining marriage has already become a nightmare for religious liberty”.

One has the impression that Ryan is only interested in the negatives of the effective world, and in this sense the study seems a biased one. Marriage benefits some couples only, but the author describes it benefits everyone because separating significance of children from marriage burdens innocent observers generally. It also appeals to history, where the person arguing that something has happened in the past will happen in the future. The authors explain “some might appeal to historical inevitability as a reason to avoid answering the question of what marriage is as if it were an already moot question”.

In conclusion, I generally I support Ryan T. Anderson and believe that same-sex marriage is wrong and should not be allowed the same opportunity as other couples of the opposite sex to get married. Besides, many argues that same-sex couples would spoil the society’s reputation. I would say it can affect a children’s future when there is a difficulty in growing up a child without a mother and a father. Therefore, I believe that same-sex marriage will affect anyone else. The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman, uniquely involving the reproduction and rearing of children within a family. Meanwhile, children need both a mother and a father. Legalizing same-sex marriage could lead down a ‘slippery slope’, giving people other non-traditional relationships the rights to marry.

References

1. Cherlin. A. 2018. ‘Marriage Has Become a Trophy’. The Atlantic, viewed 21st January, 2020.
2. ‘Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It’. 2013. The Foundation Heritage, viewed 22nd January, 2020.

Howes describes the self as ‘a construct of the mind, an hypothesis of being, socially formed even as it can be quickly turned against the very social formations that have brought it into birth’. By exploring literary narrative thinking, which emphasises the structure of events in terms of a human’s feelings and thoughts, a dual landscape is created by allowing for the contrast of the self’s stream of consciousness against society’s grouping and categorizing of the individual. In Selvon’s novel The Lonely Londoners, the self and society act as forces that enhance each other through their contrast, with the character of Moses’ self being isolated from London’s society by being perceived as the societal ‘other’. Similarly, Dickens’ Oliver Twist features a plethora of characters who are perceived as outsiders of civilised Victorian society, allowing for the exploration of how society limits the expression of the self. However, unlike Selvon’s characters, Dickens chooses to portray his characters primarily as products of society, suggesting that the self is created from society, whereas The Lonely Londoners presents the self as a separate entity from its society. In this essay I aim to explore how the differing narrative perspectives in both Oliver Twist and The Lonely Londoners influence the expression of society, its ideals, and the self in order to determine to what extent the novel’s different narrative forms highlight the differences between self and society.

The third person narrative present in Dickens’ Oliver Twist allows for an insight into the lives of a range of societal figures within of the early Victorian world. The story’s omniscient narrator enables the reader to understand the nature of the characters of the novel through their interactions with each-other and primarily through their treatment of Oliver, however this is at the expense of an effective analysis of the self as this narrative form limits the perspective of individual characters by instead having full knowledge of all characters and situations in the novel. Brown asserts that in regard to this narrative form ‘the writer of the traditional narrative sees further and speaks better than we do, but he or she is seeing through the same frame and speaking in the same code as the rest of us’ . In reference to Dickens’ novel this assertion implies that the self is not able to exist in this story because the reader only views the characters from the societal and public sphere, we are not able to witness characters in the private sphere but only able to see them interacting with Oliver. The characters of Oliver Twist are also restricted from their self by being portrayed and described through the lens of society’s values within the context of 1830s London. This is evident in the presentation of the characters of this novel, including Fagin who is first introduced to the reader through an anti-Semitic lens influenced by society’s opinion of Jewish people, with Dickens only focusing on the Jewishness of the character rather than viewing him outside of his religion. Fagin’s initial introduction describes him as ‘a very old shrivelled Jew, whose villainous-looking and repulsive face was obscured by a quantity of matted red hair’ . Fagin is referred to as ‘the Jew’ 436 times throughout the novel and limited to being characterised as a Jewish devil attempting to corrupt Christian children rather than a character with a range of embedded qualities . This generalisation of these characters as being one sided is something that Bagehot criticises claiming that Dickens ‘expands traits into people […] instead of determining human nature’ . Much unlike the characters within Selvon’s novel, Dickens’ characters are limited in portraying their emotional level and it is therefore increasingly difficult for the reader to view the conflict of the self, as Bagehot criticises that the author focuses on the wider societal position of his characters and the relationship between societal position and goodness.

Dickens’ writing of Oliver Twist is centred around societal figures as a response to the claimed purpose of his writings explained in the preface to the 1841 edition of the novel, where he writes:

‘It seems, a very coarse and shocking circumstance, that some of the characters in these pages are chosen from the most criminal and degraded of London’s population; that Sikes is a thief, and Fagin a receiver of stolen goods; that the boys are pickpockets, and the girl is a prostitute […] It appeared to me […] to paint them in all their deformity, in all their wretchedness, in all the squalid poverty of their lives; to show them as they really are, for ever skulking uneasily through the dirtiest paths of life, with the great, black, ghastly gallows closing up their prospect’

Dickens’ ambition is to stay true to the experiences of those living in poverty and slum areas in London in the 1830s, having his characters act as representative of figures amongst society rather than individual beings with a range of emotion. Oliver Twist limits the portrayal of the self due to the lack of psychological depth of characters in the novel. In this fictional world of criminals, Nancy is the only character that has a higher degree of psychological depth revealed at the end of the novel as her self is discovered through her defiance of Victorian societal expectations of a woman of her status by doing good to save Oliver from a criminal lifestyle. However, Nancy is also a character that is necessary to identify how society has the power to engulf the self in literature. It can be argued that Rose Maylie and Nancy are foils to each other, both being without family and are orphans, yet they are contrasted against each other due to being raised by different parts of society. Nancy is brought up in the world of crime within Fagin’s gang whereas Rose is raised in a loving, religious, and middle class household – all reflective of the societal ideal of goodness at the time. Much like the majority of characters within this novel, Oliver lacks the self because of his purpose to act as a societal symbol. The third person narrative and omniscient narrator allow the novel to primarily focus on the restrictions of societal notions such as classism by portraying the characters as caricatures of real figures that would have lived in London at the time, instead of prioritising the characterisation of his figures as being separate from these societal figures, hence why it is so difficult for the self to be revealed in this community-focused novel.

In contrast to this, Selvon’s novel is able to explore the self to a greater extent through a form of narrative that is partially voiced by Moses, a black, working-class man who observes his life as an outsider in postcolonial English society. In contrast to the function of Dickens’ narrative form, critic Brown argues that ‘unlike writers of conventional narratives, the postmodern authors invent new ways of reading the world. Instead of reconstructing the world in terms of an earlier, conventional code, they deconstruct conventional experience through new forms of encoding’ . This is evident in the analysis of Selvon’s shifting of the third person narrative focus to Moses’ consciousness through focalisation, allowing the reader to witness Moses’ self and how he interacts within society from the perspective of an outsider. Although the third-person narrator can still be described as a speaker that remains omnipresent throughout the novel , Moses becomes the viewpoint that readers experience Selvon’s London through. This novel also includes a range of scenes that provide an insight into the expectations of 1950s London society and how the characters attempt to change their selves in order to conform to this society’s expectations , such as Galahad’s efforts to ‘dress like an Englishman’ and desire to date Daisy, a white woman. Selvon’s novel provides a higher degree of insight into the self and allows for a better exploration of how society and the self contrast each other, as Moses’ self remains separate from a societal role, that is to say that he doesn’t conform to what is expected of a black immigrant in the white, English sphere of society. Unlike Oliver Twist, where the self is restricted due to the characters’ willingness to only exist as aspects of English society and therefore conform to a supposed role, The Lonely Londoners narrative form enables the reader to witness how the self is only able to truly exist by a character’s defiance of society and the role they are assigned to be societal expectations.

Selvon, like many other Windrush novelists that portray the isolating black immigrant experience during the 1950s, such as Naipaul’s The Mimic Men, also portray similar themes related to the Caribbean conscious remaining ‘other’ in an imperialist English society. Selvon’s novel portrays a compelling reflection of the relationship between the Windrush writers of the 1950s and their confinement to their self by being rejected from ideal society. The focus of the isolation of the individual by being grouped as society’s is also explored within the physical setting of the novel, readers are able to experience Moses’ personal sphere in the setting of his room which allows him to experience ‘profound realism in his life’ , which is separate from the public sphere governed by society’s anticipations. His character acts as the linking factor between the societal ideal and the realistic self . Selvon’s novel seeks to rewrite London by contrasting the city as an unreal place of promise with thriving opportunity against the reality of lonely struggle that the majority of the novel’s characters experience . Moses describes these spheres of self and society using the location of the different boroughs of London that ‘divide up into little worlds’ , where these separated space act as sites of community for the black immigrants which is separate from wider London society and allows for the self to be revealed. The London portrayed by Selvon acts as a highly fragmentary construction of communities, with the rupture between these communities metaphorically acting as a portrayal of the ideal London against the realistic city. This is evident through the glaring contrast between the characters of Galahad, who longs to conform to society’s portrayal of the ‘big romance’ of London by altering his self, and Moses, who has lived in London for many years and suffers the struggles of not conforming to this ideal. This is further reflected in the character’s language, Moses’ Caribbean dialect is evident in the structure of his language whereas Galahad rejects this and instead attempts to talk with a London dialect, conveying his desire to obscure his identity to match the societal ideal. In The Lonely Londoners the reader is able to understand the isolation of the self within a society where it doesn’t conform to its expectations by viewing the events and characters from a perspective within a community conventionally denied entrance into London’s white and English society, and the relationship that creates an identity crisis between the self and the societal expectations that limit the self’s expression.

Oches and Capps argue that in literature, the self ‘embodiments of one or more points of view rather than objective, omniscient accounts’ , in reference to Selvon’s novel it allows for a further analysis of how the narrative reflects the self. The narrative form allows for a range of character’s views to be witnessed by the reader, in contrast to Oliver Twist where Dickens limits his characters’ expression of self by restricting his narrative form in such a way that constrains the novel to a focus on societal standards. The relationship between the self and society is not presented as dual, the self is not able to exist in a way that is separate to society because the characters exist to allow Dickens to represent the ‘dregs’ of society and make a social criticism via the writing of his novel. Selvon, however, emphasises his characters’ identity crises, and therefore their exploration of self, by contrasting his black characters as ‘other’ in the context of the white, English society during the Windrush period. Despite the seeming difference regarding the presentation of the self in these novels, it appears conclusive that the self can only be created by a defiance of society’s expectations of a character and the role in society they should play to as a result of their race, religion, or monetary situation. Overall, it remains evident that in the novel the self, an embodiment of new ideas and thinking, can only be created by a character’s defiance of their expected societal role and the resistance of the values of society.

In “The Jungle,” Upton Sinclair had two compatible goals in mind: to create outrage with practice of selling diseased meat to the public and show a ympathy for laborers who were forced to work in such unsanitary conditions. However, in “The Jungle” Sinclair places psychologically shallow, unrealistic characters in an extremely detailed, realistic environment. Thus causing readers to be more affected by the horrific conditions of Packingtown. Versus the psychological damage on its residents. The novel destroys Sinclair’s second intention of the novel by making the audience to imagine the sight, smell, and taste of the environment of the meatpacking industry while simultaneously preventing any to no sympathy for the workers who were forced to endure such inhumane conditions.

Although “The Jungle” is a work of fiction, Sinclair’s uses of highly strong imagery details that link the novel to a form of writing “muckraking,” this was at its pinnicle in the time frame between the 1890s and 1920s. Muckraking aimed to expose social misconduct through explicit descriptions of shocking conditions and actions, but writers rarely interested in behavioral analysis. Sinclair’s style of writing pairs with photographic precision to highighten the external conditions to put emphasis on the immigrants work. “The Jungle” ruptures with the gritty details of Packingtown, and at many times seems as if Sinclair is describing a desacrated battlefield instead of a production zone for consumer goods: Packingtown is filled with rivers of blood and diseased carcasses. Sinclair emphasized the horrendous conditions of the warehouses to shine hopes that the revolting depictions would cause the public to reform the immigrants’ working conditions. The public, proved to be more affected by sympathy. Sinclair’s descriptive reports clearly aim at “the stomach”; the novel lingers on foul and disturbing images of poisoned rats and rusty nails in breakfast sausages. The response of the public to “The Jungle” would indicate, the dedication to be blunt and provide sensational details to help depict the laborers’ external circumstances, but does not provide the psychological damage.

The realism of Packingtown environment grabs the readers attention through the stimulation of the five senses, to help understand human costs due to such unsafe and unsanitary working conditions. Readers get to feel a sympathetic connection with the workers. for Sinclair to achieve his second goal—prompting reforms to help protect laborers—Sinclair decided to create characters that pertaining to the upper- and middle-class. Of which the readers of “The Jungle” could identify with. However, Sinclair’s attempt to make his protagonist, Jurgis, Sinclair ends up creating and ideal version of him. He paints Jurgis image as patriotic, hardworking, devoted son and new husband, the Lithuanian immigrant is free from personal flaws. Any consequence to occur are no fault of his own, but because of environmental contingencies. For example, Sinclair emphasizes capitalism as the cause of Jurgis’s descent into alcoholism, his abandonment of his family, and falling prey to the influence of reprobates. He makes it very clear by showing how Jurgis’s discovery of the Socialist politics will restore the humanity that which capitalism had taken away. After attending socialist meetings, Jurgis returns immediately to work and back to his family, rehabilitated by his other “comrades.” Overemphasizing his goodness in the industry barons’ corruption, Sinclair portrays Jurgis as a passive victim versus this active agent. Such idealism is a result in a flat, static character, which many times is devoid of any realistic humanity. Although ironically speaking, the fact that Jurgis unsympathetic traits make it very difficult for readers to identify with him. That is why it comes to no surprise, that Sinclair’s initial readers would feel drawn into the natural world of Packingtown—a world which engages on the levels of the five senses, sight, smell, sound, taste, and touch—and shows less concerne with the characters that hardly seem to be real people at all.

The fact that “The Jungle” features an unsympathetic protagonist with unbelievable characters who did not discourage the audience, and turned the novel into a bestseller and whose outcry was to attack and challenege the meat packing industry’s low expectations which resulted in the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. If the audience still persisted to advocate for a law in which would protect from consuming potentially contaminated meat products, even when faced with the irresolute realism aspects of the novel, which included the characters, it ironically shows Sinclair’s key fundamental point that human individuals are nothing if not only self-interested.

Imagine living in a perfect world, where no tragedies exist and everyone gets along. Such as no war, violence, and poverty. Which The Giver community makes sure of. A perfect place with a perfect government who takes care of its people and maintains order. This is a utopian society. In the giver, there are various chapters that make us believe it is a utopian society. As finishing the novel, The Giver seems as a more dystopian society rather then utopian. A dystopian society is a society that is the opposite of a utopian society. Everything in The Giver has gone wrong in the attempt to create a perfect society. In The Giver they tried many different ways to make the society more “perfect”. Whether it is trying to make the community have proper language or having only one person in the community to hold the pain and suffering of the entire community. Either way, nobody in the community knows any better. Although, as the book progresses Jonas begins to get an insight of the many different attributes that the community tries to hide and not show. He learns that the community has given up their freedoms and individualities to have a more utopian society. The mistake that the community had made was that they had given up what makes people human. Sure, they might have security and stability but, they can’t feel happiness or see color. The Giver is a dystopian society because the community is full of sameness, when they release they kill, and there is no freedom.

In The Giver, they want total control over everyone and everything to make it the same. They feel that it is necessary to keep everyone comfortable, and being comfortable is the most important thing. For instance, Jonas as a four had indicated his hunger by stating “I’m starving”. Then he was punished and reinsured that he is never starved and that he would never be starved. This meaning he had spoken an unintentional lie. Not only that but nobody feels any emotion and nobody handles pain. For example, in chapter five the author states:

Usually at the morning ritual when the family members told their dreams, Jonas didn’t contribute much. He rarely dreamed. Sometimes he woke with a feeling of fragments afloat in his sleep, but he couldn’t seem to grasp them and put them together into something worthy of telling at the ritual. (Lowry 43)

This quote shows how everyone is forced to tell what they had dreamed about that night. This is designed to teach children to leave their feelings behind. But without having feelings they can not feel any happiness or any of the good feelings. Emotions in The Giver are vacuumed up like messes on carpets. Even Jonas’s parents can not express their love to Jonas. Not only this but they also can not see color. Color is what we all take for granted, color brings life to things. Not only that but the weak,the old and the disabled are killed to have the sameness controlled. People in the community, give up there choices and differences, give up color and music. They give up all the best human emotions. They give all of this up which would potentially lead to a community of robots. Even The Giver and Jonas understand the cost that the community has paid for it all to be sameness. Even though the community themselves do not see it.

The right to have freedom is what makes us human. Without freedom we would not be able to make our own decisions or to fail, persevere, succeed, feel pain, and feel sorrow. Which is exactly what is happening in The Giver. They lose their rights, and in many cases, they lose themselves as individuals. We make our own decisions, and we make mistakes but we try to learn from them. Without having a freedom of choice. Nobody can suffer from making the wrong choice but nobody can experience the joys of making the right ones. Choice is essential to human happiness. Choice is power. Which Jonas soon realized as he gets some of the memories. When The Giver says “The Committee of Elders sought out my advice” (140). In this page, the community was asking for The Giver’s help in order to make the decision of increasing the rate of births in order to have more Laborers. This is since The Giver has wisdom unlike everyone else in the community. Another time this happened was when the plane had flew over the community, The Giver told them not to shoot it down because he knew it was not dangerous. This is since he used his past memories. When Jonas says “Why can’t we just apply for a change of rules?”(143). This shows how even Jonas has a desire to change, to have more freedom, to have less rules in place.

The final reason that The Giver is a Dystopian society is there method of release. Nobody in the community knows what release is. The people outside that room only thought that the person being released is going to Elsewhere. Little did they know, people inside that room witnessed, or committed, the murder of innocents. They would be released if a twin was three pound lighter than the other one. This is called the release of a new child. Not only children were released though, it can happen to the middle aged too. Release of the elderly which was a time to celebrate there long lived life. There is no third chance either. The rules say that “if there’s a third transgression, he simply has to be released” (pg.11). Although in chapter nineteen, The Giver shows Jonas the morning release tapes from a newchild. At the time Jonas did not know what it means to be released. The author says:

As he continued to watch, the newchild, no longer crying, moved his arms and legs in a jerking motion. Then he went limp. His head fell to the side, his eyes half open. Then he was still. With an odd shocking feeling, Jonas recognized the gestures and posture and expression. (187)

As viewing it he suddenly learns that release meant death. In a perfect world there is no death or suffering. Although they can not help it. They know nothing. This was the life created for them. They may think that they’re sorting out good and bad, but what do they know? If they don’t know anything about love, why should they know suffering and death?

We need to appreciate our world and the differences that come with it. There may be suffering, but there is pride in our accomplishments. We strive to do better than before, to learn from our mistakes and to create things that we never would have imagined. Most importantly there is hope. Unlike in The Giver how everything has gone wrong in the attempt to create a perfect society. The Giver is a dystopian society because the community is full of sameness, when they release they kill, and there is no freedom.

Brought forth for one reason and one reason just, to secure both home and mother, regardless of whether it implies your life is lost all the while. This is a honey bee’s world; serious, organized, and perhaps a bit of discouraging. Honey bees are utilized all through Sue Monk Kidd’s tale ‘The Secret Life of Bees’ as imagery for how Lily associates with society, her family/companions, and herself. As Lily, the storyteller/hero develops and develops into a lady, there are numerous models and references to how honey bees are indistinguishable to how we, as people, match and work altogether; or by and large, don’t.Lily’s family/community is the beehive, her mother is the queen, and she is a worker, plus many more correlations between these tiny black and yellow honey-makers and us.

One major similarity between bees and humans is a queen and a mother. “The queen . . . is the unifying force of the community” and if absent for a few hours, “[bees] show unmistakable signs of queenlessness. ”(1) When Lily’s mother died, Lily was noticeably different, motherless, queenless.She didn’t have someone to fix her “hair that stuck out in eleven different directions,”(3) or to “. . . ake trails of graham cracker crumbs and marshmallows to lure roaches outside,”(172) instead of killing them. “You can tell which girls lack mothers” just like you can tell a which bee colony lacks a queen. Lily is easily spotted and labeled as “off” by peers and society because of her noticeable physical and social shortfalls in the way of being an average teenage girl. “The queen [produces] some substance that . . . stimulates the normal working behavior in the hive. [This] has been called ‘queen substance. ’”(102) Lily’s box of her mother’s possessions is her version of “queen substance. Whenever she’s feeling like she is unable to go on and withstand the abuse from T. Ray, she just holds her mother’s things, bathed in the “mother substance” they give off. “A queenless colony is a pitiful and melancholy community… Without intervention, the colony will die. But introduce a new queen and the most extravagant change takes place. ”(277) When Lily found out from August that her mother had left her, she was crestfallen and despondent. Her mother was gone and gone for good, Lily just was scared to let her go. This revelation caused her to recognize that she didn’t need to continue clinging to her old queen’s image, but instead turn to the present and her new queen. Actually, her new queens, for she had a handful of women in her life that were able to step up to fill this important role.

These women are August, June, and Rosaleen. Without them, Lily can barely function, but with them, she flourishes. After Rosaleen is beaten by the police and racists, and T. Ray says that Lily’s mother left her (she doesn’t believe it), Lily thinks of the bees she had trapped in a jar. When she had opened the jar to let them go, they hadn’t left. She hears a little voice in her head whispering, “Lily Melissa Owens, your jar is open. ”(41) This is her realization that she is free to leave, to escape all of the horrible treatment and find a home, a place where she belongs. “On leaving the old nest, the swarm normally flies only a few meters and settles. ”(34) Lily runs away from home with Rosaleen to Tiburon, South Carolina to escape the corrupt police, dangerous racists, and T. Ray in her hometown.

Human experiences can be fraught with danger and trauma, however, can still lead to self-growth and understanding. Human experiences are deeply embedded throughout texts to display and to emphasize how characters interact with each other. In ‘The Boy in the Striped Pajamas’, the director describes the three human experiences shown in the three characters: Bruno, Shmuel and Bruno’s father. The director challenges world views by incorporating the following human experiences in the characters and how characters interact with each other. The director also shows that wanting power is seen in ‘The Boy in the Striped Pajamas’ by showing the audience how certain groups took over less weaker groups creating a sense of mixed emotions for the audience.

A human experience that is very common is war. Some people have experienced war and many haven’t. War is one of the more intense subjects that humans are a part of and discuss as it still goes on in our lives till this day. Movies and texts like ‘The Boy in the Striped Pajamas’ and ‘War Photographer’ share similarities such as the conflict that comes from war. I personally haven’t experienced being a part of this devastated time, but these works have helped me understand and educate me on how saddening this time period really was. In this paper, I will focus on the two works. Both of them help show us focus on the ideas about human experiences of war. However, they both share the fascinating truth about how both texts are upsetting yet exciting, symbolizing trust and growth and overcoming certain obstacles that we face in our everyday lives.

The director of the ‘The Boy in The Striped Pajamas’ has shown an array of elements within his production, assisting in successfully illustrating human experiences. Human experiences are defined as what people face throughout their lifetime including emotional, physical, spiritual and social factors. The director has achieved this primarily through the use of characterization by representing the characters in such a way that they reflect common experiences that are shared amongst us. Such experiences include friendship, emotions, memories and ideas. This allows the audience to appreciate, explore, interpret, analyze and evaluate the variety of representations depicted.

The two protagonists in this movie go by the names of Bruno and Shmuel, two nine-year-old Jew boys, living in Auschwitz, trying to make the most of their lives, but unfortunately, they both live in very different worlds. Bruno and his family are Germans whom their father is part of the Nazi army managing the concentration camps, this is very upsetting because Bruno doesn’t know what his father is doing to his friends (Shmuel) family, but then realizing what was going on.

The director shows a scene in the movie timed at 26 minute, 17 seconds. Bruno is seen hurt and is treated by the fellow Jewish worker named Havert, who immediately helped Bruno. As we continue to watch, Bruno mentions that Havert is only a farmer who peels potatoes for a living, causing him to get a little emotional and discuss his life before being taken to the concentration camp. This shows that Havert is suffering and wants to leave the camps. The use of camera angles zooming on Havert face as he begins to tear up as Bruno says, “You aren’t a doctor, you are a farmer who peels potatoes”, questions Havert past and doesn’t believe that he was a trained doctor

Moreover, the director portrays the human experience of “the desire for freedom and self-determination” is shown through Bruno and Shmuel, they are seen exchanging clothes in order for Bruno to enter and try to help find Shmuel’s dad who was taken away by the Nazi’s. This shows that Bruno is determined to find his friend’s father which then leads to the boys entering the chamber.

After I had completed watching the movie, it has created an urge to find out more about the history of this time period while also making me reflect on how lucky I am today to not have experienced this.

Similar experiences, are found in the poem ‘War Photographer’ by Carol Ann Duffy. This is a poem published in 1985, the poem is about a photographer who returns home to England to develop the hundreds of photos he has taken in many different war zones. The photographer wrestles with the trauma and PTSD of what he has seen, and his bitterness that people who view his images are unable to empathize fully with the victims of catastrophic violence abroad.

‘War Photographer’ shows certain themes and techniques related to human experiences, for example suffering in the human experience is related to the idea that there are challenges in life and that we as humans must overcome these challenges. Suffering is an integral part of the human experience as it determines growth. In this text suffering within the human experience is shown through the use of imagery by the quote “running children in a nightmare heat”. The protagonist discusses the sufferings of war and how it is a collective human experience which is seen in the metaphor ‘spools of suffering’, which emphasizes masses of suffering. The struggle to survive and adversity relates to the idea that humans face challenges to survive and to become a better version of themselves, this is shown through the quote “solutions slop in trays beneath his hands, which did not tremble then though seem to now”. This is shown through the technique of juxtaposition.

Reading this poem has had a huge impact on my understanding of the common module as this poem discusses the in-depth experience of Jewish soldiers and the traumatic times they had to go through. The images that Carol Ann Duffy used, this has helped me have a more enhanced understanding of the world.

In conclusion, both works have allowed me to reflect on my parents’ human experiences and how they suffered during their time in Iraq before migrating to Australia. After hearing what they had been through, it has changed the way I see the world. All three experiences share similarities including suffering yet overcoming the obstacles and reflecting over it. While ‘The Boy in the Striped Pajamas’ and ‘War Photographer’ capture the difference between trauma and life-threatening times, despite the consequences experienced by Jewish people caused by the Nazis or being traumatized from war. They both draw people into this topic. What does this say about human experience?