Charlotte Bronte presents a strong religious motif early on in Jane Eyre with the introduction of Mr. Brocklehurst, the landlord and headmaster of the boarding school that Jane is sent to as a child. He is one of the first people that Jane meets in the novel with a religious force that seems to power him through his daily life. He claims to be a religious man, but his actions and motives tell otherwise. Although the poor, orphaned girls at the school are suffering from a lack of an adequate food supply and efficient clothing, Mr. Brocklehurst continues to make money from the school and provides only the necessities to keep the girls alive. Christians are generally seen as charitable people with a strong moral fiber, but Bronte’s portrayal of Mr. Brocklehurst proves that religion is not always equivalent to morality. Because of this, Bronte is able to use Mr. Brocklehurst’s duplicitous personality to shed light on the hypocrisy of the Christian faith.
Mr. Brocklehurst often incites Jane as a deceitful liar. He tells Mrs. Temple and the other teachers in the school that she cannot be trusted, as he learned from her aunt, Mrs. Reed. The irony of this situation is the fact that Mr. Brocklehurst cannot be trusted. He often refers to Jane as a product of the devil, suggesting his Christian faith. Jane has not taken anything from the school or committed a single act that could be viewed as evil. Mr. Brocklehurst, however, has taken a great sum of money from the school. If anyone possesses demonic qualities, it is not Jane, but, instead, Mr. Brocklehurst.
In 19th century England, the Christian faith was seen as the core of morality. Those who had faith in God were automatically believed to be genuine, good-natured people. Charlotte Bronte contradicts this idea with the character of Mr. Brocklehurst, who takes money that could be used for needy schoolgirls for his own benefit. This portrayal shows that Christianity is not the root of morality. With this, Bronte proves that virtue is not synonymous with religion, and those who lack religion can still be moral people.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Jane Eyre - Prompt #13
Jane Eyre, the title character of Charlotte Bronte’s 19th century Victorian novel, seems to be a part of various social classes throughout her life. Her ambiguous lifestyle causes her to be seen as an indefinite part of society. She continuously transcends the concepts of “rich” and “poor” as she travels between the two social statuses. During her childhood, Jane lives with the Reeds, a family of great wealth and social stature. She eventually becomes a student at Lowood School, a place where young girls are taught to conform to a very underprivileged lifestyle. After teaching at the Lowood School during her early adulthood, Jane transfers to Thornfield, where she works for Mr. Rochester, a wealthy man who owns a mansion equipped with many employees. Jane is able to adapt in an adequate manner between each of these transitions while still holding true to her honorable, resolute character. Because Jane, as an orphan, was not born into a specific social class, she is able to construct an unbiased view of the world thus allowing her to properly adjust to the ambiguity of her social status while continuing to lead a moral life.
Social class often affects the personality that a human being develops. An upper class mentality tends to include an unwavering sense of entitlement and vanity. Such can be seen with the Reed family, who Jane spends the majority of her childhood with. John Reed, the spoiled son of Jane’s guardian, Mrs. Reed, tells Jane that she is not allowed to read their books because she is unworthy of their possessions. This sense of worthlessness that is instilled in Jane from such a young age causes her to feel like she is unwelcomed in the family, and therefore in the social class that they are a part of. Jane often refrains from accompanying the family on their frequent nature walks because she feels that she is an outcast in their family and overall society.
When Jane moves from the Reed residence to the Lowood School, she is suddenly thrust upon a lifestyle of deprivation. The school’s owner, Mr. Brocklehurst, believes strongly in forcing the girls at his school to live in a very hostile environment. This abrupt transition into a lower-class regime is not as difficult for Jane to accept as it may have been for others because she never truly saw herself as part of the upper class. The sense of entitlement that often accompanies the personalities of the wealthy was never instilled in Jane because the Reed family separated themselves from her.
These constant transitions between social classes that set her apart from the rest of society make Jane the strong, independent woman that she is. She is, in herself, her own sector of society. Neither rich nor poor, she stands alone in her social class. The absence of social classes in her life allows her to view the world in a way that most others cannot. She does not judge based on wealth or poverty; she sees the immediate strengths and weaknesses that a person emits and judges them based on their character. This makes her a more open, accepting human being because she has not been scarred by a social class taking over her personality and overall life.
Social class often affects the personality that a human being develops. An upper class mentality tends to include an unwavering sense of entitlement and vanity. Such can be seen with the Reed family, who Jane spends the majority of her childhood with. John Reed, the spoiled son of Jane’s guardian, Mrs. Reed, tells Jane that she is not allowed to read their books because she is unworthy of their possessions. This sense of worthlessness that is instilled in Jane from such a young age causes her to feel like she is unwelcomed in the family, and therefore in the social class that they are a part of. Jane often refrains from accompanying the family on their frequent nature walks because she feels that she is an outcast in their family and overall society.
When Jane moves from the Reed residence to the Lowood School, she is suddenly thrust upon a lifestyle of deprivation. The school’s owner, Mr. Brocklehurst, believes strongly in forcing the girls at his school to live in a very hostile environment. This abrupt transition into a lower-class regime is not as difficult for Jane to accept as it may have been for others because she never truly saw herself as part of the upper class. The sense of entitlement that often accompanies the personalities of the wealthy was never instilled in Jane because the Reed family separated themselves from her.
These constant transitions between social classes that set her apart from the rest of society make Jane the strong, independent woman that she is. She is, in herself, her own sector of society. Neither rich nor poor, she stands alone in her social class. The absence of social classes in her life allows her to view the world in a way that most others cannot. She does not judge based on wealth or poverty; she sees the immediate strengths and weaknesses that a person emits and judges them based on their character. This makes her a more open, accepting human being because she has not been scarred by a social class taking over her personality and overall life.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Midterm Essay 3 - Nature vs Nurture
The ways in which we act, see ourselves, and view the world around us are dependent on society. We choose our actions according to the things we have observed and the people we wish to mimic. A character’s personality is the by-product of their environment. If they are raised in a violent manner, they will most likely grow to be the same way. Being the core of a kingdom’s hatred will cause them to hate themselves just as much as they feel that they are hated by society. We act according to the way that we believe society expects us to act; there is no predetermined good or evil.
John Gardner’s “Grendel” is the story of a monster-like creature who wreaks havoc on the mead hall of Herot. Grendel constantly questions his own free will and wonders if his fate is predetermined. He lives his life with a single goal – to prove to himself and to the rest of the world that no one has a purpose in life. Grendel is seen as the ultimate form of evil to the people of Herot. As he is constantly judged by the society that surrounds him, he develops a view on himself according to the way he believes society views him. They believe him to be evil, so he acts in a way that will cause them to continue to see him that way.
Raised by his neglectful mother, Grendel has lacked the proper care and attention to develop into a being that society views as inherently good. His miserable upbringing can partially be blamed for his inability to act in a manner that society sees as moral. Grendel goes to the mead hall nightly and mercilessly kills all of the humans he can find. He musters all of the “evil” that he has learned from his mother and the stigma society has placed on him in order to prove that he is, in fact, in charge of his own being.
The reason Grendel acts in a manner that has been assigned to him by society is because he wants his presence to be acknowledged. He feels that because he is considered “different” from humans, he will not be accepted as part of their society. Therefore, he acts accordingly. The only way that he is able to be noticed is if he creates issues that will be recognized by the society that has shunned him. In chapter 1, Grendel throws rocks at a ram that stands at the edge of a cliff. The fact that the ram does not notice him frustrates him, causing him to lurch into a fit of rage. People want to be noticed by society, so they act in a way that will allow them to be seen. Society is the root of all good and evil that exists within it. People are nurtured by their society to act in a specific way, and depending on the stigma society has placed on them, they become either good or evil.
John Gardner’s “Grendel” is the story of a monster-like creature who wreaks havoc on the mead hall of Herot. Grendel constantly questions his own free will and wonders if his fate is predetermined. He lives his life with a single goal – to prove to himself and to the rest of the world that no one has a purpose in life. Grendel is seen as the ultimate form of evil to the people of Herot. As he is constantly judged by the society that surrounds him, he develops a view on himself according to the way he believes society views him. They believe him to be evil, so he acts in a way that will cause them to continue to see him that way.
Raised by his neglectful mother, Grendel has lacked the proper care and attention to develop into a being that society views as inherently good. His miserable upbringing can partially be blamed for his inability to act in a manner that society sees as moral. Grendel goes to the mead hall nightly and mercilessly kills all of the humans he can find. He musters all of the “evil” that he has learned from his mother and the stigma society has placed on him in order to prove that he is, in fact, in charge of his own being.
The reason Grendel acts in a manner that has been assigned to him by society is because he wants his presence to be acknowledged. He feels that because he is considered “different” from humans, he will not be accepted as part of their society. Therefore, he acts accordingly. The only way that he is able to be noticed is if he creates issues that will be recognized by the society that has shunned him. In chapter 1, Grendel throws rocks at a ram that stands at the edge of a cliff. The fact that the ram does not notice him frustrates him, causing him to lurch into a fit of rage. People want to be noticed by society, so they act in a way that will allow them to be seen. Society is the root of all good and evil that exists within it. People are nurtured by their society to act in a specific way, and depending on the stigma society has placed on them, they become either good or evil.
Midterm Essay 2 - Evil & Immorality
The concept of evil is relative to the way society views it. The values and norms that society has fed us determine what we feel, as a group, to be considered wrong. However, in some cases, this apparent immorality can be justified, depending on the situation that a human being is placed in. Prince Hamlet, in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, witnesses his father’s ghost admitting to him that the new king, the prince’s uncle, killed him to gain both the crown and his former wife. Hamlet reacts with trying to expose his uncle for what he is – a murderer and an adulterer. As Hamlet tries to do so, many people tend to obstruct his goal, causing him to react in ways that are not commonly viewed as moral in society. He ignores his girlfriend, Ophelia, because of his preoccupation and eventually kills her father. These actions alone can be viewed as those of a sociopath. But what Hamlet is doing stems from his remorse for his father and his undying need to get revenge in his name. Therefore, it is not immorality that causes Hamlet to commit these acts; instead, it is his need to avenge the evil that has emerged in his father’s kingdom.
Hamlet, by his words alone, seems to verbally abuse Ophelia by telling her to “get thee to a nunnery (3.1.119),” and often accusing her of being unfaithful. Any man in modern society who offended a woman so would be marked as evil – a man who does not know how to properly treat a woman. However, Hamlet’s distress can be blamed for his constant abuse toward Ophelia. His immense misery when he learns of her death shows that he was truly in love with her, despite the way in which he treated her for much of their relationship.
After Hamlet kills Polonius, his son Laertes comes to avenge his death. Laertes serves as the foil to Hamlet, showcasing their similarities and differences. As a strong, educated, level-headed man, Laertes makes Hamlet seem like a miserable boy who is only trying to make his father’s kingdom right again Laertes’s willingness to listen to Hamlet displays Hamlet’s inability to act rationally, which makes the reader feel sorry for him. The reader is more sympathetic to Hamlet because Hamlet’s motives are made obvious. He does not wish to do wrong to the kingdom, only to avenge it.
Hamlet, by his words alone, seems to verbally abuse Ophelia by telling her to “get thee to a nunnery (3.1.119),” and often accusing her of being unfaithful. Any man in modern society who offended a woman so would be marked as evil – a man who does not know how to properly treat a woman. However, Hamlet’s distress can be blamed for his constant abuse toward Ophelia. His immense misery when he learns of her death shows that he was truly in love with her, despite the way in which he treated her for much of their relationship.
After Hamlet kills Polonius, his son Laertes comes to avenge his death. Laertes serves as the foil to Hamlet, showcasing their similarities and differences. As a strong, educated, level-headed man, Laertes makes Hamlet seem like a miserable boy who is only trying to make his father’s kingdom right again Laertes’s willingness to listen to Hamlet displays Hamlet’s inability to act rationally, which makes the reader feel sorry for him. The reader is more sympathetic to Hamlet because Hamlet’s motives are made obvious. He does not wish to do wrong to the kingdom, only to avenge it.
Midterm Essay 1 - Romantic Poetry
In “Bright Star, Would I were Steadfast as Thou Art,” John Keats addresses the star about how he is envious of its persistence. He discusses what he would do if he had this star-like quality, explaining that he would spend the time with his lover. This is an aspect often used in Romantic poetry, as it creates a connection between an object and a part of nature. Similarly, in Sir Philip Sidney’s “Sonnet 31,” the speaker has a conversation with the moon about his lover. The unification of the speakers’ lovers with nature helps to set forth a greater meaning to each by showing the intangibility of the lovers while also enforcing the passion that the speakers have for nature, both themes commonly used in Romantic poetry.
In both poems, the lovers do not seem to be immediately available to their respective admirers. Keats tells that the speaker wishes he could be “gazing on the new soft-fallen mask/ of snow upon the mountains and the moors (L7-8),” which is comparable to laying “pillow’d upon my fair love’s ripening breast, to feel for ever its soft fall and swell (L10-11).” Here, he compares all that the star sees from the sky to what he wishes he could interminably see in respect to his lover. This yearning for the vision of his lover can be compared to the desire that the speaker in Sidney’s “Sonnet 31” feels when discussing the unavailability of the women that he desires. This may be explained by Sidney’s inability to marry the woman that he loved because of her father’s early death. The speaker tells the moon that he knows the moon understands what it is like to see with “love-with-love-acquainted eyes/ can judge of love, thou feel’st a lover’s case (L5-6).” Here, the speaker addresses that he lacks the lover that he so desires, just as the moon does.
The speakers in each of the poems conclude with absolute notions. In “Bright Star, Would I were Steadfast as Thou Art,” the speaker admits that if cannot “hear her tender-taken breath (L13),” and liver forever doing so, he would rather die. The speaker in “Sonnet 31” scorns his lover for her ungratefulness. Neither poem ends with the beloved finally in the realm of their lover, displaying a common theme of Romantic poetry – unrequited love.
In both poems, the lovers do not seem to be immediately available to their respective admirers. Keats tells that the speaker wishes he could be “gazing on the new soft-fallen mask/ of snow upon the mountains and the moors (L7-8),” which is comparable to laying “pillow’d upon my fair love’s ripening breast, to feel for ever its soft fall and swell (L10-11).” Here, he compares all that the star sees from the sky to what he wishes he could interminably see in respect to his lover. This yearning for the vision of his lover can be compared to the desire that the speaker in Sidney’s “Sonnet 31” feels when discussing the unavailability of the women that he desires. This may be explained by Sidney’s inability to marry the woman that he loved because of her father’s early death. The speaker tells the moon that he knows the moon understands what it is like to see with “love-with-love-acquainted eyes/ can judge of love, thou feel’st a lover’s case (L5-6).” Here, the speaker addresses that he lacks the lover that he so desires, just as the moon does.
The speakers in each of the poems conclude with absolute notions. In “Bright Star, Would I were Steadfast as Thou Art,” the speaker admits that if cannot “hear her tender-taken breath (L13),” and liver forever doing so, he would rather die. The speaker in “Sonnet 31” scorns his lover for her ungratefulness. Neither poem ends with the beloved finally in the realm of their lover, displaying a common theme of Romantic poetry – unrequited love.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Richard II AP Essay
As the Queen overhears a conversation between two commoners in Richard II, she discovers the true reputation of her husband to the masses. The Queen hides with her ladies and the commoners speak to each other about the King’s current situation without knowing that the Queen is within earshot. The commoners speak figuratively about the King, dramatizing the situation. After stating that the King is about to be deposed, the two commoners make an extended metaphor to a garden that symbolizes the growth of the kingdom. This comparison eventually turns to include the Garden of Eden when the Queen addresses the subjects. She compares one of the commoners to Adam, insinuating that as a lesser man than the king, he does not know what he is talking about. The figurative language that the commoners and the Queen use to describe this situation makes the scene more dramatic and eccentric in explaining the ills of the King and his subjects.
Gard, one of the commoners, begins by stating the current position of the kingdom. The unruliness of the masses has erupted from the oppression that was forced upon them, and it seems that a war will begin in which all of these people will be killed. He then begins the comparison of the kingdom to a garden, stating in line 20, “When our sea-walled garden, the whole land,/ Is full of weeds, her fairest flowers choked up,/ Her fruit tress all unpruned, her hedges ruined, Her knots disordered and her wholesome herbs/ Swarming with caterpillars?” The passage describes the unrest of the land, showing that it is bound by the figurative walls that suppress the masses and the prosperity of the kingdom has lessened because of the disorderly ruins that now make up the area. After naming other important men that have been killed, Gard claims that the overthrowing of the King is inevitable.
When the Queen shows herself to the commoners, she expresses her disdain for their words. In lines 54-58, she says “What Eve, what serpent, hath suggested thee/ To make a second fall of cursed man?/ Why dost thou say King Richard is deposed?/ Darest thou, thou little better thing than earth, Divine his downfall?” Here, the Queen is explaining that someone that simply tends to the earth cannot possibly predict the downfall of the King. She speaks figuratively to describe Gard’s unimportance in society, but still questions how he is aware of such exclusive information. In the cases of both the commoners and the Queen, the language that is used makes the situation more dramatic, giving the scene a sense of importance. By speaking figuratively, the issue at hand and condition of the kingdom seems to be in dire need of salvation.
Gard, one of the commoners, begins by stating the current position of the kingdom. The unruliness of the masses has erupted from the oppression that was forced upon them, and it seems that a war will begin in which all of these people will be killed. He then begins the comparison of the kingdom to a garden, stating in line 20, “When our sea-walled garden, the whole land,/ Is full of weeds, her fairest flowers choked up,/ Her fruit tress all unpruned, her hedges ruined, Her knots disordered and her wholesome herbs/ Swarming with caterpillars?” The passage describes the unrest of the land, showing that it is bound by the figurative walls that suppress the masses and the prosperity of the kingdom has lessened because of the disorderly ruins that now make up the area. After naming other important men that have been killed, Gard claims that the overthrowing of the King is inevitable.
When the Queen shows herself to the commoners, she expresses her disdain for their words. In lines 54-58, she says “What Eve, what serpent, hath suggested thee/ To make a second fall of cursed man?/ Why dost thou say King Richard is deposed?/ Darest thou, thou little better thing than earth, Divine his downfall?” Here, the Queen is explaining that someone that simply tends to the earth cannot possibly predict the downfall of the King. She speaks figuratively to describe Gard’s unimportance in society, but still questions how he is aware of such exclusive information. In the cases of both the commoners and the Queen, the language that is used makes the situation more dramatic, giving the scene a sense of importance. By speaking figuratively, the issue at hand and condition of the kingdom seems to be in dire need of salvation.
One Art: Revised
Elizabeth Bishop expresses the immense anguish she feels over losing her lover through a dichotomy between lines 1-15 and lines 16-19. By doing so, she shows how much more pain she felt over losing this important person in her life as compared to the trivial things that people seem to lose every day. Bishop begins by explaining that “the art of losing isn’t hard to master.” Bishop believes that although she loses things every day, the loss is not detrimental to her own life. For example, in lines 4-5, Bishop says, “Lose something every day. Accept the fluster/ of lost door keys, the hour badly spent.” Here, Bishop shows that she is never fazed by losing insignificant things such as door keys or time. She continues on by saying that losing things becomes a part of one’s daily life, whether they are losing places, names, or their memory in general. Each of these “lost” items serves as a comparison to the speaker losing her beloved, showing that pain she feels over the absence of her cherished lover excels far beyond that of items of less importance.
Later on in the poem, Bishop begins to mention the loss of more important things in life. In line 10, she speaks of losing her mother’s watch, and in line 11, she says that she has lost three houses. Further on, she parallels the idea of moving with losing. The reader can tell from lines 13-15 that the speaker has moved often in her life, as she discusses losing two cities, two rivers, and a continent. By speaking in these vast terms, one can understand that the speaker losing her lover must have been quite a disaster, as she states in line 15. If losing this significant other has been more detrimental to her being than losing a continent, as she says, the speaker must be in dire anguish over the circumstances. These comparisons help to exaggerate her argument.
In the final stanza of the poem, the speaker finally admits to the reason that she has mastered the “art” of losing. She says that although all losing may seem like disaster, it is only that way in certain forms. However, she says “I shan’t have lied,” in line 17. Through this phrase, it is evident that although she says that losing is not hard to master, losing her lover has been particularly difficult. She has been able to endure the loss of many other things, but this absence in her life is seemingly impossible to recover from.
Later on in the poem, Bishop begins to mention the loss of more important things in life. In line 10, she speaks of losing her mother’s watch, and in line 11, she says that she has lost three houses. Further on, she parallels the idea of moving with losing. The reader can tell from lines 13-15 that the speaker has moved often in her life, as she discusses losing two cities, two rivers, and a continent. By speaking in these vast terms, one can understand that the speaker losing her lover must have been quite a disaster, as she states in line 15. If losing this significant other has been more detrimental to her being than losing a continent, as she says, the speaker must be in dire anguish over the circumstances. These comparisons help to exaggerate her argument.
In the final stanza of the poem, the speaker finally admits to the reason that she has mastered the “art” of losing. She says that although all losing may seem like disaster, it is only that way in certain forms. However, she says “I shan’t have lied,” in line 17. Through this phrase, it is evident that although she says that losing is not hard to master, losing her lover has been particularly difficult. She has been able to endure the loss of many other things, but this absence in her life is seemingly impossible to recover from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)