Category: Society

Psychologist Deborah Tannen once said: “We all know we are unique individuals, but we tend to see others as representatives of groups.” She also added that it is in our nature to do this, and from what she had said it can be concluded that this function in the human brain makes them more efficient since they will be able to see patterns. However, while this ability to separate different people into different groups based on distinguishing features of their bodies does help us in some degree, it, for the majority of times, does more damage than good, as it could be used to ignore individual’s talents and specialty, or punish them for some mistake their group has made, intentionally or otherwise. To Kill a Mockingbird is a novel that explores this interesting part of humanity, and reveals its ugliness, and it uses the perspective and growth of a child, Jean Louise ‘Scout’ Finch, to illustrate the story, which serves the purpose of showing the reader of the loss of innocence in the child as she is exposed to the horrific part of human nature that is discrimination.

One of the main external conflicts in To Kill a Mockingbird that concerns Scout is Scout v society. The reason this conflict happens is that Scout internally rebellious, and doesn’t normally follow the society standards, and thus Scout’s nature clash with societies’ expectations. This is shown initially when Scout went to school for the first time, and she disagrees with her teacher, Miss Caroline, on the subject of reading. At that time in society, children were not supposed to read, it was strange for Scout to be able to read, so she stood out in class and became a target for the teacher to discriminate and criticized her for being eligible, and telling her to start with a “fresh mind” and to try to “undo the damage” – Lee, page 23, suggesting that Miss Caroline thought that it was harmful to a child to read at a young age. There is no evidence supporting why it is harmful, yet she believes it anyway, and this is because Scout was an anomaly, and it is in most human’s nature to detest something new or different when it enters their lives, and the best way to deal with that is to harshly criticize the difference until one unification is made. Scout had to this rule of society the hard way when she spends the rest of the school year miserably: “but the prospect of spending nine months refraining from reading and writing made me think of running away.” – Lee, page 37. This was the first time Scout is exposed to the reality of her world, and with this, her senses of right and wrong are challenged by her society.

Another one of the major contributors to Scout’s conflict with society is the unwritten rules on gender and class. As said before, Scout is special in nature, being able to read and understand books at a very young age, without any major help, and she is also very active, curious, and poorly dressed, attributes one would stereotypically be associated with a boy, and this is where the unwritten rules on gender comes in. Scout’s tomboy personality puts her under the disapproval of society, first shown in her visit to Aunt Alexandra. In chapter 9, Scout explained: “Aunt Alexandra’s vision of my deportment involved playing with small stoves, tea sets, and wearing the Add-A-Pearl necklace she gave me when I was born;” – Lee, page 108. Aunt Alexandra is a symbol of the traditional southern woman. She is strict, and as seen in the quote, she wanted all of the people in her family to be like her, to live up to their family name, or in other words, to be an upper-class noble that does not reject the social norms. Aunt Alexandra wants Scout to be a lady because it was normal for upper-class women to be and act like ladies, and she brings Scout being her tea sets, small stoves, things that a lady should grow up with, hoping that this would be enough to influence Scout into being a well-mannered noblewoman. However, Scout does not get affected by this and instead wanted to pursue her visions on what she would want to be like. Scout wanted to be an individual and wanted to be treated like one. In chapter 24, Scout, after being beaten down by the various amount of people that scorned and criticized because of her individuality, decided to give the lady act a try, attended Alexandra’s missionary circle, while wearing a dress: “I was wearing my pink Sunday dress, shoes, and a petticoat” – Lee, page 306. This is a critical moment as it shows Scout trying out to be someone she is not, but what society wanted her to be, and then rejecting it, saying that it is not for her, and that she is more at home in her father’s world, a world where she doesn’t have to pretend to be someone else for the acceptance of others. Through this self discovery, it is made clear that although, in the end, Scout made the same decision she had made since her childhood, to be the person she wants to be, she now understands that such unwritten rules for class and gender exists and because of this, she has matured, and so does the audience, who experiences these incidents with Scout.

When discussing To Kill a Mockingbird, it is almost impossible to avoid its stance on the unwritten rules about race, since that is what the novel mainly focused on. Scout’s first interaction with racism was in school. In chapter 9, when Scout’s father, Atticus, took the Tom Robinson case and became his attorney, Scout is mocked by her classmates, like Cecil Jacobs, who announced that her father “defended niggers” – Lee, page 99. The fact that even a schoolboy is able to say the word that contains hundreds of years of oppression and pain with much ease is establishing that being racist at this time is widely accepted and is a normal thing for people to do. People at that time knew that discrimination is unacceptable, as shown in the fact that in chapter 26, when Scout’s class are discussing Hilter’s reign, Miss Gate criticizes it by saying: “That’s the difference between America and Germany. We are a democracy, and Germany is a dictatorship.” and “Over here we don’t believe in persecuting anybody. Persecuting comes from people who are prejudiced.” – Lee, page 329. This shows the sad truth that people at that time does not even know the reality of their actions. They show empathy towards the jews since the jews were treated horribly in Hitler’s reign, but when it comes to colored people, they do not show this empathy. Only those with a clear mind and a just personality could see the hypocrisy and irony in this, like Scout. However, these are only the tip of the iceberg, as the theme of racism is mainly explored in the trial of Tom Robinson. Throughout the trial, Scout actively sees the racist bais her society takes place. Although presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence that proves Tom Robinson’s innocence, he is still sentenced to guilty from all of the twelve juries. A bystander who has little prejudice like Scout, Jem and Dill will see the obvious unfair rules and will get affected by it. At the end of the trial, Jem’s “face was streaked with angry tears” – Lee, page 285, meaning that he got so angry and upset at the trial that he cried over it, while Dill couldn’t even make it past the cross-examination. Normally, one would expect Scout, a girl, to cry to most and be the most enraged at the outcome of the trial. However, she was surprisingly the least affected, and this is because of her maturity at this part of the novel.

Conclusion

Up to this point, Scout has already experienced the accepted rules of society in being an outsider, class and gender, and has since overcome and adapted to these challenges, and she became more mature than most people her age for these reasons, but this is at the cost of her innocence. At the beginning of the novel, Scout was a naughty tomboy, who gets into fights and has no regard for what people thought of her. In the end, she did not change much in appearance, but morally, she is another person. The lessons at school and aunt Alexandra, taught her that she has a specific role to play in society, and no matter if she accepts the role or not, it is the truth and it will always be there to haunt her. For the trial, through Atticus’s actions, Scout was taught that is she should always stand up for herself and defend what she thinks is right.

The use of the controversial N-Word tends to strike a chord for many Americans. Some recognize the N-Word as an unmentionable term and a purely racial slur. In fact, they believe the N-Word should be completely redacted from all features of society. However, the N-Word is still a significant part of American history and one cannot simply erase the negative aspects of history. The truth is that there are many very rational reasons for not censoring the N-Word from the vocabulary of society. Perhaps the best reason is to provide students with proper historical context. Furthermore, the N-Word has been reclaimed and transformed by the black community emerging as an expression of endearment rather than a derogatory term. While some condemn the use of the N-Word, it is necessary to provide a proper historical context for students and to bestow a means by which the black community can subvert its grim history, planted in racism, slavery, and the systematic oppression of black individuals, and reclaim the word for themselves.

In the discussion regarding the censorship of the N-Word, one divisive issue has been whether or not the N-Word should remain in classical, historical books. This ongoing debate is particularly concerned with books commonly found in high school curricula. In fact, according to the American Library Association, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is one of the most challenged books in the nation (“100 Most Frequently Challenged Books: 1990–1999.”). Although this exuberant adventure story has been widely considered one of the greatest American novels ever written, it has attracted considerable controversy based on its language. More specifically, the frequent usage of the N-Word in this classic has drawn intense scrutiny and has sparked a relentless debate. On one hand, concerned parents and educators proclaim that the N-Word is an extremely derogatory term and its repetitive use in the novel contributes to a racist narrative. Furthermore, they fear recurrent exposure to the N-word in the classroom will encourage racism outside of the classroom. Therefore, they contend the N-Word should be censored as it is unfit for the developing minds of students. On the other hand, passionate teachers and parents argue that the meaning and context of the N-Word must be openly discussed to be understood. They insist that educators should teach the N-word with the proper historical context encompassing white supremacy, lynching, economic suppression, segregation, and discrimination. For example, in an uncensored quote depicting racism in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck remarks, ‘He had an uncommon level head for a n*****” (Twain 76). In this statement, Twain deliberately uses Huck, a product of society, to casually wield the N-Word to highlight society’s preconceived notions of a supposedly inferior race. Replacing the N-Word with a less precise euphemism would diminish the impact that Twain intended to have on the reader as well as reduce the reader’s understanding of the historical context. My view is that instead of censoring the N-Word, students must be given appropriate historical circumstances so they can deconstruct it, discuss it, and develop a deeper comprehension. According to Randall Kennedy, Professor of Law at Harvard University, “…It is important to provide a context within which presentation of that term can be properly understood. It is also imperative, however, to permit present and future readers to see for themselves directly the full gamut of American cultural productions, the ugly as well as the beautiful, those that mirror the majestic features of American democracy and those that mirror America’s most depressing failings”(Kennedy). In this powerful statement, Kennedy asserts that veiling the N-Word does not simply erase America’s dark history. Ignoring racism and censoring hate does not make them disappear. In actuality, censorship only allows underlying issues to fester and grow. Instead of being exposed to less precise euphemisms, bringing the N-Word with its historical context into the light allows parents, educators, and children to confront race and racism in a manner that stimulates empathy and conversation.

Another relevant matter is whether or not one’s race should dictate their usage of the N-Word in society. The vast majority of Americans, strongly denounce the N-Word when intentionally used as a disparaging insult. But, the issue becomes more complicated when considering its distinct usage in the American vernacular, especially in the black community. The prominent usage of the N-Word in this group has ignited much argumentation. On one side, there are Americans of all races that argue that the N-Word is demeaning no matter who says it. They emphasize that the hurtful and offensive connotations of the N-Word can never be reconciled and should be left in the past. On the other side of the argument, many black folks contend that the N-Word is commonly used as a term of endearment. These Americans firmly believe reclaiming a word used by their oppressors and transforming it into a term of solidarity amongst the black community is empowering. I find this side of the argument to be the most compelling. After all, as summed up by an African-American woman, “…They [blacks] transformed nigger to signify the varied and complex human beings they knew themselves to be. If the word was to disappear totally from the mouths of even the most liberal of white society, no one in that room was naive enough to believe it would disappear from white minds. Meeting the word head-on, they proved it had absolutely nothing to do with the way they were determined to live their lives (Naylor).” Rather than ignoring the word and hoping it would fade into the background, black Americans confronted the issue head-on and reduced the power the N-Word held over them. By taking a radioactive word that inflicted centuries of pain upon their ancestors, and reclaiming it as a colloquial term, the black community has shown its strength and resilience. Censoring the N-Word would be a discredit to the healing black community that worked so hard to reclaim it for themselves.

All in all, the N-Word is a contentious topic. Although the usage of the N-Word carries strong opposition in society due to its harrowing history, connection to racism, and derogatory connotations; there are valid reasons as to not completely censor the word from society. History, no matter how good or bad, must be remembered. In classic novels, censoring the N-Word is sugarcoating the past and is betraying the conscious decision of the author to accurately depict that era. By giving students the entire historical context of the N-Word, they are given the opportunity to face racism while fostering meaningful discussion and empathy. Moreover, it is important to acknowledge the fact that the black community has transformed a word of racial prejudice into a word of endearment amongst themselves. Reclaiming and redefining the N-Word allows the black community to subvert its grim history.

Works Cited

1. “100 Most Frequently Challenged Books: 1990–1999.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, American Library Association, 18 July 2017, http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/100-most-frequently-challenged-books-1990–1999.
2. Kennedy, Randall. “A Note On The Word ‘Nigger.’” Black History, Harper’s Weekly, https://blackhistory.harpweek.com/1Introduction/RandallKennedyEssay.htm.
3. Naylor, Gloria. “The Meanings of a Word.” English, Union County College, http://faculty.ucc.edu/english-chewning/naylor.htm .
4. Twain, Mark, et al. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Fearon Education, 1991.

The three readings that I selected for my response paper are documents that strongly influenced early American politics. After reading the articles, it is evident that the policies and ideologies discussed not only impacted the time period in which they were written, but current political institutions. The first reading “The American Democrat” by James Fenimore Cooper, focuses on the dangers and emergence of social stations, along with, analyzing the similarities between aristocratic ideals and democratic ideals. The second readings “Self-Reliance & Politics” by Ralph Waldo Emerson, centered on the ideals of Transcendentalism and Self Sufficiently.

This pair of readings in particular, were distinctly different from the others. Mainly, due to the fact, that although democracy is celebrated as the key political system, Emerson equally denounces large government and group collectiveness. Finally, the third reading “Resistance to Civil Government” by Henry David Thoreau, also focused on the ideal of Transcendentalism and the importance of the individual on government. Thoreau’s approach to individualism seems more practical and has real-world applications. All the readings explored flaws in the American society that they were crafted in, making it more pertinent to addressing societal dilemmas which initially motivated the authors’ political philosophies.

In “The American Democrat” one of James Cooper’s main points was rejecting the idea that “one man is as good as another. He argued that the ideal was not factual, and that foundation of American political institutions could not be built on it. To disprove the theory, Cooper tested it against the state of nature and the times current political institutions. Cooper described the maxim as something that “…is true in neither nature, revealed morals, nor political theory.’ This quote highlighted that when we look at the nature of mankind, we know that all men are not equal. The examples that were the most compelling, centered on physical qualities e.g. some men being taller and more handsome than the others. Another major example used would be, when Cooper states “… would at once do away with the elections, since a lottery would be simpler, easier and cheaper than the present mode of selecting representatives. (pdf pages 466- 467 paragraph.1)”

This suggestion although exaggerated, brings to light the great point that we as social beings share a common understanding that all men are not equal. This flows succinctly with the moral qualities Cooper lists: such some men being wiser or braver than others. A separate aim of the reading was also to address the dangers of social stations. Which Cooper describes as “that in which one possesses in the ordinary associations and is dependent on birth, education, personal qualities, property, tastes, …. (pdf pg.465 para 3)” This means that being in a democracy has made it so there are advantages in every aspect of society. This is important to note because Cooper explains that democracies make it so all members of society can reach for the top, (attainable success) despite the fact they are not equal in either physical or moral ability. Being that these examples easily showed the primary flaw in the “one man is as good as another” it made the article more compelling than “Self-Reliance & Politics” which did not employ clear societal references. Utilizing a simple example allowed myself as the reader, to completely understand how Cooper’s arguing point of Democracy providing balance to society.

The “Self-Reliance & Politics” by Ralph Emerson article is connected to the article “Resistance to Civil Government” by Henry David Thoreau in its application of the theory of transcendentalism. Which is defined as “a philosophical movement that stressed the individual’s relation to nature (pg.396 para 1)” The reason I found Emerson’s work to be not as compelling as that of Thoreau’s is the fact that there was lack of practical application. Emerson did not clearly illustrate how self-government and the individual would impact society. Quotes such as “…the entire people to give their voices on every measure; or by a double choice to get representation of the whole; or by a selection of the best citizens… (pg.406 para 2)” fail to support the argument that individualism drives societies. Also, Emerson’s ideal of transcendentalism slightly differs from Thoreau, being that in “Self-Reliance & Politics” he states that “I do not call to mind a single human being who has steadily denied the authority of the laws, o the simple ground of his own moral nature (pg.409 para 1).” This is the completely contradictory of what Thoreau views the individuals’ impact in society. Despite the delivery of this ideal being different in Emerson’s and Thoreau’s works, there is a common experience. That being, self-reliance and individuality are the essential building blocks for a strong society.

Specifically, in the Emerson piece, he makes several references to how important self-reliance is when stating that “High be his heart, faithful his will, clear his sight, that he may in good earnest be doctrine, society, law, to himself, that a simple purpose may be to him as strong as iron necessity is to others. If a man consider the present aspects of what is called by distinction society, he will see the need of these ethics. (pg.400 para 1)” This quote is relevant because it establishes the main argument the author is making, that self-reliance improves the individual in all aspects of life thus, in return, improving society. However, this is the same reason I believe the “Self-Reliance & Politics” was less compelling “Resistance to Civil Government”. There is no real-life application; Emerson only states that great individuals create unique ideals/perspectives but can not individual impose those ideals on the greater government. Thoreau in his work, had a more realistic application of transcendentalism in society and better defined the individual’s impact on society. This is evident when Thoreau states “But to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.(pg.410 para 3 )”

This ideal of better government is not only more practical but makes more sense when we understand that the governments we create come from things that we as society have agreed on. With this being the case, it is not hard to see that it would be simpler to change the government we currently have, rather than create a new one. Thoreau directly applies his individualist ideals when it comes to his views on abolition. In his work, he describes that allowing institutions like slavery have made us prisoners in our country. Adding that, throughout history, society has rejected ideals of individuals that challenge the status quo. Examples he used were, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the excommunication of Nicolaus Copernicus and Martin Luther, and the declaration of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin as rebels. Abolition was something that would aggressive challenge the foundation of American culture and development. This can not be disputed when we look back and analyze how dependent American society was on the slave labor. Another strong point of the piece is how Thoreau speaks to his refusal to participate in laws that contradict what he believes as an individual. This is highlighted in his imprisonment for breaking the law by not paying the poll tax. “I could not help being stuck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. This is compelling because it shows how individuality could be directly implemented in someone’s life. By disobeying a law that he deemed unjust, Thoreau showcased how one must be able to sacrifice themselves for their ideals. He affirms on this point by expressing that “When I meet a government which says to me, “Your money or your life” why should I be in haste to give it my money? (pg. 414 para 3)”

Overall, the readings covered pivotal political ideologies that setup how we participate in government today. In my opinion the most compelling reading was Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government” mainly because of its practical application and real-world references. Thoreau made it, so his model of transcendentalism could be copied and served as a beacon for opposing social injustices. Cooper’s “The American Democrat” is the second most compelling, due to the fact, the main arguments were supported soundly and still hold reliance in today. Being that Cooper’s dissection of the “one man is as good as another” maxim provided myself with greater insight how nature has created such inequalities and it’s up to us through our governments specifically democracies to correct these inequalities while not creating inequality. Stimulating the conversation around maintaining the balance between advantages created from nature and those stemming from democracies is something that affects our current governments. Despite finding “Self-Reliance & Politics” by Ralph Emerson the least compelling the author made unique points that challenged me to think differently about the Individual’s influence on government. If more the piece had more practical elements, I believe it would have not only been more compelling but more impactful on the spread of transcendentalism in early American society.

Work cited

1. Kramnick, Isaac, and Theodore J. Lowi. American Political Thought: a Norton Anthology. W. W. Norton & Company, 2019.

Chaucer, through his literature, and looking specifically at The Canterbury Tales, has arguably provided a lens into the cross strata of Middle Age society. In doing so, it demonstrates that discussions surrounding gender, female agency and masculinity in a historically patriarchal society has been conveyed throughout literature dating back to the fourteenth century. So much so, that some of the most pioneering gender and social studies have been formulated based on his works. His literature was an innovation for fourteenth-century readers and has continued to be an academic resource.

The historical social turbulence of Chaucer’s society has been analysed in conjunction with selected tales from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales to depict the way in which gender, courtship, marriage and protofeminism are presented. I have engaged closely with the topic of women and their representation in Middle Age society, identifying with Elaine Tuttle Hansen’s argument that.

‘women have been men’s problem, the question; and the historical reality of literature and theory over the last hundred and fifty years has been crucially bound up with that, a problematic of sexuality and sexual identity in which the pressure of women’s struggles against the given definitions produced men’s concern with that question’ (287 Hansen 1992)

Moreover, with the use of literary critics and sources to research the balance between male and female has been incorporated to illustrate the relationships and paradigms. This is evidenced by the ways in which Chaucer’s tales play with gender roles, the feminine and masculine condition and by analysing how the tales accommodate feminine identity. The ways in which the power structures of the tales allow gender hierarchy, in some form to be distributed, allowing flexibility to the fundamental conventions that patriarchal society had been premised.

Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales defends the traditionality of Middle Age society whilst simultaneously scrutinising the semantics of patriarchal society. These arguments have engaged closely with literary critics and close readings of individual tales to reach the conclusion that The Canterbury Tales and its characters ambiguously challenge the conventions of normative Middle Age society in which gender equality was a proposed anxiety.

While it is not possible to determine that Chaucer was directly challenging social normative conventions with The Canterbury Tales, the ambiguity of the texts I believe, interpret conflicting contemporary values surrounding the cross strata of Middle Age society. These arguments supported by literary critics still acknowledge that.

‘The whole point of such representations of the world is precisely that they do not capture historical reality accurately but rather systematically distort and invert it, offering imaginary resolutions to real problems, reducing structural social inequalities to matters of personal morality, and presenting historically specific social arrangements as eternally valid (171 Rigby 1996)

This essay identifies the confinements women may have experienced during a patriarchal culture, bringing to attention the fears and anxieties that endangered the masculine condition. I have suggested that female characters, such as, Griselda, Dorigen and Emelye embody extreme feminine characteristics that threaten the masculinity of their tales society and create an opening for female independent thought. While demonstrating how Alison’s character in The Wife of Bath challenges the foundations of patriarchal society and embodies the fundamental characteristics, we would associate in a modern world with feminism. These points work in conjunction with the argument that,

‘given that the male was taken as the norm and women as the ‘marked case’, medieval attitudes to gender tended to be most explicitly formulated in discussions of women’s nature’ (119-20 Rigby 1996)

Chaucer represents individual questions of morality within the tales highlighting aspects such as betrayal, infidelity, the mockery of marriage and the supposed inferiority of women with a believable backdrop of Middle Age England. This essay has used this to provide an argument that Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, with its inclusion of relatable characters, suggest an alternative perspective of Middle Age society.

Introduction to Utopian Societies in Literature

Utopia is an imaginary world of ideal perfection (‘Utopia Definition’). This definition portrays the societies created by the two authors Ursula Le Guin and N.K Jemisin in ‘The ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’ and ‘The Ones Who Stay and Fight’ respectively. Le Guin portrays a utopia made possible by the transference of all misery to a young child who is locked in a cellar. Citizens of Omelas thrive in happiness at the anguish of a young child confined in a building’s dark basement. Conversely, Jemisin directly responds and rebukes Le Guin’s utopia through. Jemisin portrays a distant world known as the City of Um-Helat that has remodeled itself based on Earth. The citizens of this new world look at what is wrong with Earth, particularly how people tend to fail in helping those in need as they focus on building a better future for themselves. These authors offer their notions of utopia regarding their advanced changes as compared to our world. Nonetheless, they also depict how a utopian society is not always of perfection. In this synthesis paper, the qualities of a utopia, its downsides and solutions, as well as the idea of it not being something to be strived for, will be discussed.

Harmony and Discrimination: The Paradox of Utopian Societies

In a utopia, citizens live in a harmonious society. Harmonious refers to things or people that get along well (‘Harmonious Dictionary Definition’). In ‘The Ones Who Stay and Fight,’ the friendly relationship of the Um-Helatians can be depicted in the celebrations of ‘The Day of Good Birds.’ People of all ages gathered in the streets with everyone helping one another to look good or celebrate them, especially for this joyous day. The relationship between the adults and the children was friendly. The narrator states, ‘at the Day’s dawning, the children of the city come forth, most wearing wings made for them by the parents and old aunties’ (Jemisin 1). In celebrating and supporting another, this harmonious relationship is also shown to the farmers. The narrator states that ‘the parade wends through the city, the farmers ducking their gazes or laughing as their fellow citizens also offer salute’ (Jemisin 3). Surprisingly, this harmony is achieved at the anguish of a young child confined to a windowless basement of a building. The child is denied food, suitable shelter, clothes, and opportunities to mingle with other children. The narrator states, ‘to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed’ (Le Guin 4). This depicts how the harmonious relationship of the Omelas was based on discrimination, with the majority of the upper class being prioritized while the lower level or minority (the young child) not considered. Similarly, in ‘The ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,’ harmony can be shown in the Summer Festival. During this festival, the streets are filled with people of all ages. The narrator states, ‘old people in long stiff robes of mauve…merry women carrying their babies and chatting as they walked…children dodged in and out’ (Le Guin 1). Nonetheless, this harmony is only experienced by those who are not eager to possess knowledge of our world. Those who breached the boundaries of the universe and entered into our society are usually tracked and killed. For instance, the man who managed to breach the two worlds was murdered by the social workers. They believed that he had accessed our knowledge of playing video games, watched television, among others, which is dangerous for their prosperity. They also posit that the information from our world is a disease. The narrator states, ‘the disease has taken one poor victim, but it need not claim more’ (Jemisin 10). Thus, killing the man as her daughter watches to contain the ‘infectious’ illness.

Freedom and Limitations in Utopian Societies

Citizens also live in a society that promotes freedom. This applies to all the fundamental human rights that guide people’s way of life (Shestack 27). As John F. Kennedy said, ‘The great revolution in the history of man, past, present, and future, is the revolution of those determined to be free’ (Quoted from ‘Foreign Relations of the United States Office of the Historian’). Thus, it is crucial for a utopia in the future to embrace the freedom of its people. In Omelas, Le Guin shows how the Omelas lived in a community where there was freedom. She states, ‘I do not know the rules and laws of their society, but I suspect that they were singularly few as they did without monarchy and slavery’ (Le Guin 2). Even though the narrator is not sure of the rules of Omelas due to the lack of a monarch, she knows slavery is not practiced. The narrator’s portrayal of slavery contradicts with the treatment of the young child locked in a building’s basement. By locking him denies him his fundamental rights. Thus, this shows that freedom was not provided to all Omelas, but the majority (the town’s people) and not the minority (the young child). Similarly, in Um-Helat, the citizens enjoyed boundless freedom by doing whatever they liked. The narrator states, ‘But this is no awkward dystopia, where all are forced to conform’ (Jemisin 2). This freedom is primarily seen in the festival where everyone participated regardless of their age, color, or religion. Nonetheless, despite the freedom being a significant aspect of Um-Helat, the citizens were still denied the right to expression and access to our world’s information with harsh punishment being provided. The man who breached the barrier of the universe to obtain our world’s knowledge was killed. Thus, this portrays how the Um-Helatians’ rights were not granted to those who broke the law.

Safety and Fear in Utopian Settings

In utopia, citizens also live with no fear. This implies that they should feel safe and protected from social, economic, political, and technological threats. In ‘The ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,’ the narrator depicts Omelas as a city where people did not get worried about any problems or threats in society. This is in spite of Omelas having no king who could develop laws to promote social order. Le Guin states, ‘They did not use swords, or keep slaves. They were not barbarians…As they did without monarchy and slavery, so they also got on without the stock exchange, the advertisement, the secret police, and the bomb’ (Le Guin 1). Nonetheless, not every Omelas lived in a safe environment. The young child was locked in the basement, which was dark due to the lack of windows, thus being afraid. Similarly, in ‘The Ones Who Stay and Fight,’ Um-Helatians also live with no fear. In the narrative, the narrator states, ‘this is a land where no one hungers, no one is left ill, no one lives in fear, and even war is almost forgotten’ (Le Guin 7). This depicts how Um-Helatians enjoyed safety with nothing to worry about except helping one another. However, this security came with a heavy burden with those who breached the barriers of the universe felt unsafe. They were tracked and killed.

Equality as a Solution to Utopian Society’s Downfalls

A utopian society can avoid the downside of being happy at the expense of the minority by promoting equality. Treating others in equal measures fosters the notion of a perfect utopia (Claeys 148). Le Guin points out how the Omelas thrived in harmony and happiness only because a young child was suffering while being locked in the basement of a windowless building. All the Omelas were aware of the situation, but no one took a step in rescuing him. The narrator states, ‘They all know it is there, all the people of Omelas. Some of them have come to see it. Others are content merely to know it is there… but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city… depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery’ (Le Guin 3). This depicts how this utopia was occupied by selfish citizens who were not able to help the young boy due to fear of losing happiness and prosperity. However, In spite of the imperfections, this utopia can be made perfect by the Omelas rescuing the boy and treating him as one of their children. A utopian society can also avoid the shortcoming of preventing its citizens from accessing knowledge by not placing a limit on their fundamental human rights. In Um-Helat, Jemisin depicts how the citizens were denied freedom of obtaining information and knowledge of our world. Those who found to have breached the boundaries of the two worlds were heavily punished by death. Freedom to access information should be boundless, and it is up to the citizens to decide whether that knowledge is harmful or not to their perceptions.

The Unrealistic Pursuit of a Perfect Utopia

A utopian society is not something that people should strive for in reality. This is because the human quest for perfection will only yield dystopian results (Ashcroft 8). The majority of people in authority tend to greedy, corrupt, and selfish, thus to create a perfect ‘utopia,’ few individuals tend to suffer for the benefit of the majority. For instance, In Omelas, a young child had to suffer at the expense of the citizens. Also, in Um-Helat, those who accessed the knowledge of our world, which was prohibited, were punished by death. This is the opposite of the perfect Um-helat, where everyone is happy with everyone being able to access their basic needs. These examples from the two short narratives depict how, in the process of building a perfect utopia, the results can, at times, lead to a dystopia.

Conclusion: The Complex Nature of Utopian Societies

A utopia is a place where everyone fantasizes. Based on the two short stories by Le Guin and Jemisin, the citizens of utopian societies live in harmony, enjoy limitless freedom, and live with no fear. Le Guin points out how, in Omelas, the local custom ‘Day of the Birds’ brought people together as they helped one another achieve happiness in the celebrations. Similarly, Jemisin shows how the Summer Festival united the Um-Helatians together as they celebrated this joyous moment. Le Guin and Jemisin also show how Omelas and Um-Helatians lived with no fear due to lack of insecurity. Le Guin also depicts how freedom in Omela was limitless freedom, where there were no rules or slavery to limit their way of life. Similarly, Jemisin also shows how, in Um-Helat, citizens were not forced to conform to any standards. Nevertheless, despite the positives of the two utopian societies, they had their downsides. In Um-Helat, the citizens were denied the freedom to access information regarding our world. The social workers who tracked and punished those who broke the law believed that accessing our worlds’ knowledge would destroy the happiness and prosperity of Um-Helat. Also, in Omelas, the citizens lived in joy at the suffering of a young child confined to a basement. For a perfect utopia to be created, every citizen should be treated with equal measures as well as offering them freedom. These narratives depict how a utopian society is not something that should be desired since it yields to dystopian results, which are detrimental to human survival.

Humans live in a world where you are stereotyped just by the way you walk. Humans live in a world where you are silenced by having opinions. Humans live in a world where you are called names because of your skin color. Humans live in a world where society follows what the leader does. In the novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain puts our world to shame with his brilliant mind. He judges the world with fat mouth fulls of satire and irony. Twain juggles society’s thoughts with characterization and the past. Worst of all, he ends our fairytale with reality and facts. Writers and journalist galore have tried to end this wake up call and demise recognizing the real problems happening in the world. Not realizing the consequences to this act can separate races over only banning the book because of the n-word. It will not be able to show the importance of not using the terms and ideas brought out in the novel and also shed light on the stereotypes Twain brings out using his black characters. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn should not be banned. To begin with, banning the novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, separates whites and blacks by using the n-word as the reason for prohibiting the book.

William Raspberry, an African-American journalist feels the same in this concept by saying, “N-word. The word almost as magical in its negative power. Books- good books- have been banned because of its use. Race relations have been shattered, friendships broken and credibility destroyed by its mere utterness.” The n-word has obviously had some very bad effects in society and to African Americans feeling of self worth. Prohibiting the book gives this word tremendous amounts of power that we all so desperately do not want it to have. Furthermore, banning the book because of it’s past gives off the idea that all different types of races are very separate and different. It is important to celebrate culture, but not with the idea that we all are ranked and do not have equality. Besides the fact that the whole point of the novel is to show how horrible stereotypes and the treatment of African Americans was, even reducing the amount of times the racial slur is uses can potentially create the idea that humanity must all hate each other’s ancestors for what happened back then. To briefly conclude, the book, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn should not be banned only due to the use of the n-word.

Secondly, the horrendous terms and stereotypes of society used in Huck Finn emphasizes the importance of not believing the ideas that white characters show in the book and illustrate in real life. An excerpt from the passage, Race and Adventures in Huckleberry Finn, helps reveal the true meaning behind Twain’s writing and intention. It states, “They also seek to show that Jim’s humanity is far greater than his caricature as a minstrel figure, that his innocence is uses to poke fun at whites and show the falsity of stereotypes. Finally, the ending merely shows the power of society and Tom Sawyer to dehumanize Jim, which actually motivates Huck to leave civilization altogether.” This conveys how Twain uses his writing to show important issues. The reason why Twain uses such language, terms, dialects, and stereotypes is because he wants the world to have a better viewpoint and the only way he could do that in such a time period as the 1800’s was to camouflage that with the social norms. In addition, Twain not only shows the disgusting stereotypes of blacks, but also the white society’s ideas. He mostly shows this when Huck meets the Grangerfords, Shepherdsons, and the Duke and Dauphin. He reveals the hypocrisy of whites during the time, but emphasizes it through humor. On the whole, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn speaks against our racial past through terms, dialect, and stereotyping. Not for it.

Lastly, some people agree that Jim’s characterization makes fun of black people and is extremely degrading to all of the African American race. Julius Lester, a professor at at the University of Massachusetts believes this by saying, “Jim does not exist with integrity of his own. He is a childlike person, who in attitude and character, is more like one of the boys in Tom Sawyer’s gang than a grown man with a wife and children…” Although Jim’s character is made in a way that seems very immature for his age and his situation, this is exactly what Twain intended. Jim’s character is used to show the stereotype of black people being thought of as dumb and unintelligent. Yet, Jim is still found to be am almost heroic character and beloved in our hearts. Kenney J. Williams, professor at Duke University states, “At the end of the novel, when he could have saved himself from discovery, he comes out of hiding with the full knowledge that he is jeopardizing his freedom…Jim displays an affirmation of life that goes beyond the ignoble laws created to enslave. No matter how foolish Jim may appear, and despite the number of times he is called “n-word,” in the final analysis he cannot be burlesqued.”

Throughout the novel, Jim continues to show his bravery and pride of being who he is. He shares information about himself with a 14 year old white boy who can potentially turn him in for being a runaway slave. Even though this is a huge danger to Jim, he still travels along on the ride of life with Huck Finn. Also, Jim uses his bravery to protect his friends at all cost even when his own life is in danger. To summarize, Jim gives pride to African Americans in the novel because of his heroism. To conclude, Mark Twain stands up to the horrendous past and current society of our world through facts and irony. Given all these important thoughts, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn should not be banned. He conveys his issues with the view of the world on African Americans through the use of the n-word and words much like it, preventing a feeling of dividation within races. Twain captures racist ideas by emphasizing the importance of not using such terms and ideas against African Americans. Also, characterization in the story shows through stereotypes and thoughts of society. Overall, the book can cause a bit of confusion, but when people put their mind to it, there is no better book to tell them straight up facts about our society.

What is your opinion on racism and the debate over slavery in the past american teachings? Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in today’s American society, which is considered to be non-racist, puts a lot of different thoughts about what is and is not racist into both reality and nonfiction. Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Huckleberry Finn) is one of the best American books to non-purposely advertise the american spirit; is also one of the the most known novels considered to be racist, and many feel that it should be taken out of the schools and teachings.

If read, you will find the phrase “nigger” used widely in the book, considering the United States’ widely diverse culture and the history behind the nation, the debate over Huckleberry Finn is one that is influenced by many parents, educators, and most importantly, students. The novel is considered the one that all other American literature stems from, but it is almost constantly brought under scrutiny for the racial aspects, the sexist qualities and the almost laughable ending. The debate over whether or not the book is truly racist strongly impacts the decision on whether or not the book should be taught in the American public school classroom. While there are racial elements in the novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,the novel as a whole is not racist and should still be taught in the upper levels of public school because of the historical realism and the true meaning that Mark Twain meant to represent.The use of the n-word in Huckleberry Finn causes a huge reaction to the novel. Obviously, there are different reactions depending on culture, historical opinions,aspects to society and what race one happens to be. However, one also has to take into account Twain’s usage of the word, what he wants the word to symbolize and finally his attempt to narrate in the place of Huck( an uneducated child, struggling to follow society and his friends, living in the early 1800’s). While many do not approve of Twain’s usage in Huckleberry Finn,it is not implied that he uses the term in a racial way. The use of the n-word in the novel does not necessarily have to represent the racial opinions of modern society, and does not make the novel racist.To many, using the n-word means that one implies racism and intends to degrade others. Though of course as of today, many use the word in many other interpretations and meanings, many of which of completely misunderstand the word and is usually sought to fit the description of many present day african americans, the use of this term is wrong, and in today’s culture, this is true.

A white man uses the n-word, many feel that this is improper and racist, whether they are referring to an African American or not. According to Langston Hughes, who is quoted by Peaches Henry, “the word niggerto to colored people is like a red rag to a bull. . . The word nigger, you see, sums up for us who are colored all the bitter years of insult and struggle in America” (388). Yes there were many years were African Americans or really any other colored race were treated wrongly in the United States of America, both before and after the abolition of slavery, and in many cases to this day are still racially sought out as “different” . As a Caucasian American, one is typically taught that this term should not be used or that its a typically misdirected term, as it is harmful to others’ feelings and misleading. While the term should not be used by anyone in a hurtful manner, that does not mean that students should not be exposed to historical reality in the proper setting, the classroom.

In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain is not necessarily attempting to be racist. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn , two young lads, one of which is a runaway slave(Jim), and the other being a young boy running away from society(Huck) face countless internal and external forces trying to seperate the two, all to most of the problems having to do at least somewhat with that Jim is a slave.As known to back in the day; all slaves are property and should not be friends with whites, nor be treated the same as whites. Huck buries himself in the decision of whether or not to turn Jim in or befriend him due to his being. Mark Twain greatly resembles the young boys situation to society and continues to do so through the story. Jim is soon captured and Huck gets his chance to a his preferred lifestyle…though event change due to the two once again fighting against racist and seemingly unpleasant society; at this point of the novel society seems to be putting terms to their meant to be places. The completely unreliable narration of a uneducated young Huck Finn, only makes to seem that situations and predicaments in the novel are very much so over dramatized and or even lies. Which Huck proves to due quite typically through the novel through his journey.

The issue with racism and society back in the period of time of the novel did create a many issues for both Huck and Jim in the novel. While there were also a many other issues that antagonized the characters, such as the “King and the Duke”(characters who pretended to be famous people to manipulate others to get there money and ultimately mislead and cause issues for Jim and Huck), racism and society were the main ones to blame. Mark Twain did an excellent job of relating the story to reality, historical issues, and the American spirit. Both Jim and Huck find there salvations and ultimate endings and the book ends with a nearly laughable ending.

Season of migration to the north by Tayeb Salih and Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe considerably enhance readers’ knowledge on hybridity through describing cultural hybridity, exposing effects of colonialism on native cultures, and challenging Eurocentric stereotypes. Season of migration to the north provides a unique narration on the colonial experience in Africa. Written about Sudan by a Sudanese author, it provides remarkable insight into the world it seeks to describe. To provide this awareness, Salih uses the character of Mustafa Sa’eed, in co-existence with the narrator who is unnamed, to display how colonialism influenced the balance in Africa before European involvement and how he hopes that it will be restored. Season of Migration to the North recognizes the story of a man looking for an identity that he did not realize he had lost. Through his increasing awareness of Mustafa Sa’eed’s life, the narrator finally rectifies his personal identity crisis. Things Fall Apart is a post-colonial novel that showcases the impact of the Christian missionaries on the Igbo Society. Things Fall Apart also looks at the social and cultural life of an African tribe. The novel also showcases the daily life and culture of the tribe and the individuals that make up the tribe. This novel acts as a reminder of what used to be Nigeria once. It portrays the way a society can handle change and how change impacts the people that make up that society.

“At basic level, hybridity refers to any mixing of east and western culture. Within colonial and postcolonial literature, it most commonly refers to colonial subjects from Asia or Africa who have found a balance between eastern and western cultural attributes” (Singh 1). Hybridity is when an individual experiences more than one culture, it is known as mixing of east and western culture. In Tayeb Salih’s, Season of Migration to the North, the reader encounters the story of one of the main characters, Mustafa Sa’eed. Throughout Season of Migration to the North, the narrator attempts to discover the true identity of Sa’eed, but instead, finds himself as well. Cultural differences help mold an individual’s identity into one’s being, compared to what they actually become. “Given that, the novel Season of Migration to the North takes notice of the collision between two different worlds (West and East) based on the lives of two framed characters, the Narrator and Mustafa Sa’eed. They mirror each other in their life journeys to Europe and back” (Zohdi 1).

Season of Migration to the North by Tayeb Salih is a novel about a man looking for an identity that he did not realize he had lost. From his understanding of Mustafa Sa’eed’s life, the narrator finally realizes and takes a hold of his own identity crisis’s. It is notable that throughout the novel, the main character who is also known as the narrator’s identity remains mysterious. His background, educational and family life is given to the background, but his name remains unknown in the whole novel. On the other side there is Mustafa Sa’eed who is “the intelligent colonized, loses his own identity in this way and finally disappears as the victim of this colonizing strategy’s consequence, merged- or lost-identity”(1).

In the article “Lost-identity; A Result of “Hybridity” and “Ambivalence” in Tayeb Salih’s Season of Migration to the North “by Esmaeil Zohdi, Zohdi mentions that hybridity occurs when an individual is caught between two separate things, usually two different cultures, which end up leading the individual to a double vision or double consciousness which in result create a lost identity. This article also explores how people of a different country and culture have their own unique customs and cultures which sets them apart. However, when they leave their own country and go to another one, there is a sense of dual identity that is created. “living in the in-between spaces and between two different worlds brings the person a merged identity. And this is what Bhabha calls the “third space” and describes it full of ambivalence and contradictory. Bhabha says that “border lives” put the person in “the moment of transit where space and time cross to produce complex figures of difference and identity, past and present, inside and outside, inclusion and exclusion, [for] there is a sense of disorientation, a disturbance of direction in the ‘beyond’” In fact, anybody who lives in the in-between spaces, between two different cultures, lives a dual life which doubles his/her identity” (2). Even though the two protagonists in these novels have different attitudes towards the west and their own culture, “the structure of arrival in both novels is not straightforward and immediate, but instead reflects a negotiation between two attitudes and a transition from an immediate, physical arrival to an inner, mental arrival. This leads to a new understanding of and an adjustment to a fuller sense of arrival” (Masmoudi 2).

The narrator and Mustafa Sa’eed reflect each other to a great extent.. They both overlook the colonial culture and try to over throw the oriental point of view. They both are a product of the western culture who try to survive between the new and old traditionalism and modernity in the Arab world on the edge of the current social and cultural changes. Mustafa Sa’eed’s role in season of migration to the north is about the idea of belonging and an identity crisis. Sa’eed, just like the narrator, has experienced the north and south. Mustafa Sa’eed’s life is mirroring with the time period of British colonization. This shows the exploration of cultural history and colonial identity. Mustafa Sa’eed has a deep desire to belong to the western culture. Mustafa Sa’eed is conflicted between two worlds, when he was asked what race he is, he was conflicted in his response. He says talks about his face is Arab like the desert of the empty Quarter, while my head is African (Salih, p. 33). This shows the extent of Mustafa’s involvement with colonial discourse because it relates to ethnic and racial stereotypes. He is aware of the English attitude towards colonial subjects.

This novel study the inner conflict between consciousness and unconsciousness which is shown though the characters of the narrator and Saeed. They have almost identical cultural, social and education backgrounds. However, they develop different attitudes towards the west. Their differences come from “the consciousness and the drives of unconsciousness. While they consciously view the west as an enemy that needs to be battled and defeated, they unconsciously consider it as a friend or an ally whose knowledge, technologies and sciences should be borrowed and transferred. (Zohdi, 2)

Utopia is a satire that was written by Sir Thomas More. Utopia consisted of two parts: A book one and a book two. Book one was about a journey taken by Thomas More where he is traveling through cities and meets up with an old friend named Peter Giles, whom then introduces Thomas More to Raphael Hythloday. The three men then delve deep into conversations about Raphael and his experiences with the King and the courts. Book two was all about Utopia and perfectness. It’s about its geography, the government, the social life, customs and traditions, and the people who inhabit Utopia. Many people would call Utopia a perfect society because that is what Utopia truly is and is what Utopia means. What is a perfect society in reality though? A perfect society would be a society that is well adapted, inhabited by pure-hearted people with no crimes, no homeless people or criminals, and no hunger. That society would be housed in a geographically perfect place with plenty of water and land.

First, a perfect society should have a perfect geographical location in where it is housed. Such a location where there is plenty of land and water for boats and ships to sail through and bring supplies. For example, in this quote, “Being sheltered from the wind by the surrounding land, the bay is never rough, but quiet and smooth instead, like a big lake. Thus, nearly the whole inner coast is one great harbor, across which ships pass in every direction, to the great advantage of the people.” This quote shows that Utopia has a perfect geographical condition with plenty of land which serves as a great advantage to the people because they could use it to trade materials and supplies and even use it as a traveling method. Another example, “If these landmarks were shifted about, the Utopians could easily lure to destruction an enemy fleet coming against them, however big it was.” This quote from the book shows that the geography of Utopia is also built in a way so that it will be hard for unknown invaders to navigate through the areas, incase any danger comes through. This is part of a perfect society because the geographical conditions are perfect. There’s abundance of land, water, and even protection from intruders.

Moreover, a perfect society’s people should be well-adapted, proficient at their jobs, nice and friendly, and overall generally good people that are good at what they do. In these quotes: “They are trained in it from childhood, partly in the schools, where they learn theory, and partly through field trips”, “Each person is taught a particular trade of his own, such as wool-working, linen-making, masonry, metal-work, or carpentry.” These quotes show that the people that inhabit Utopia are well-working people that have been trained since they were kids. They are proficient at what they do and even know specific skillsets that can come in quite handy like wool-working and linen-making in that quote. This is part of a perfect society too because hard working people is what makes a society run. Utopia is a prime example of that. Hard working people that are great and efficient at what they do.

Most importantly, a good political system and government is what a perfect society should have. A government that is powerful, well balanced, but also can be kept in check by the people if need be. In this quote, “Once a year, every group of thirty households elects an official, formerly called the syphogrants. All the syphogrants, two hundred in number, elect the governor. They take an oath to choose the man they think best qualified.” This quote shows how there are many people involved in the government and election process. Another quote, “The governor holds office for life, unless he is suspected of aiming at a tyranny.” This is a prime example of how the people in Utopia can quickly elect the government and just as quickly shut down the government for being too abusive and corrupt. This is part of a perfect society because every society needs a government to keep things in check, however, with limited power, so that the government may not go corrupt. The perfect society where the government can rule but can be kept in check by the people.

In conclusion, Utopia is described as a society where literally everything is perfect. Utopia’s geography, the government, the social life, customs and traditions, and the people who inhabit Utopia, everything coordinates with each other perfectly. This is a prime example of what a perfect society is: Well adapted, inhabited by pure-hearted people with no crimes, no homeless people or criminals, geographically beneficent, and no hunger.

David lived is unfortunate that things do not conform to the so-called standard would be considered evil species, plant, animal or person, once do not conform to the standard will be marginalized and even killed, the concept of people’s ignorance and complacent for David. Now is a cruel blow and depression. But there is no lack of love in life, he met Sophie family, their love and different ideas let David’s heart retain a trace of warmth. In the first chapter, various sharp contrasts are used to set off the ignorance of the old ideas and ridicule the ignorance of the old ideas.

People’s fear of the unknown is just like people in David’s hometown, they are mentally stagnant and only have a denial attitude towards everything new. While young David was busy working on the farm with his family, he had time to learn new things with curiosity. He accepted Sophie with six toes. When David had to betray Sophie, he told Sophie to his family, and Sophie’s family was forced to flee. Ignorant people are too harsh, do not allow crops to produce abnormal, do not allow animals to look strange, the novel uses a variety of methods of ridicule, with a variety of funny and incredible story more warned people, how ignorant is complacent, they do not believe in modern advanced technology, but one day will be out of date.

Here, I also more firmly believe that people should be rational, need to constantly learn, people should not stick to the inherent thinking, but like David with a creative and constantly challenging mind, only in this way, people will overcome fear, overcome the past. In the conflict between the two sides, looks for the principle of inner love and chooses the right one. He accepts Sophie like David and confesses with her. Such a belief is worth keeping and worth having. Maybe this is not acceptable, but all the great men in history grew up in this kind of adversity, they always stick to their original intention, dare to innovate, dare to challenge the unknown, this process may be confused, may be faced with many obstacles, but after the storm, there will be success. As is the case in societies where there is too much control, defeat often comes from within, and this may well be the case in Waknuk.

The vivid irony of this novel vividly warns people that they should have a positive attitude towards life and constantly bring forth new ideas. But the old ideas are hard to break down and call on rational people to stand up and dare to find and change people. Lag behind is not terrible, terrible is not to know the change, system change, dynasty change will keep pace with. The Times, here, also need the hero to save people. As Darwin said, natural selection, the survival of the fittest, species will evolve, when the evolution of things is seen as blasphemy against the dignity of God, then people are not far from extinction. Children like David need to be recognized, and his hometown needs more people like David to stand up and change the world, to recognize the world.