In Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man Is Hard To Find," pride is manifested. The existence -and predominance- of pride in the story is apparent from the beginning when the grandmother dresses in her "Sunday clothes" for a family road trip so that "in case of an accident, anyone seeing her dead on the highway would know at once that she was a lady." If one is dead, does she care if someone else thinks she is a lady? Of course not- she is dead and therefore no longer on this earth. She would not care, but this lady does. The grandmother is prideful of the fact that she is- or, rather, she believes herself to be- a lady. When one is preoccupied with her appearance or self, she might be classified of described as vain. Vanity and Pride walk together: If one is prideful in herself, she is vain. The grandmother's obsession with appearing as a lady shows the reader that she is, indeed, prideful.
There is evidence in this story that the grandmother believes herself to be better than others. At one point she says, "In my time, children were more respectful of their native states and their parents and everyone else." She, of course, includes herself in that. (Do remember that she is a lady.) The grandmother believes that she and her generation were more respectful than her grandchildren's generation. With this belief, she elevates herself over her grandchildren. Of course she was not disrespectful; she is a lady. When one believes herself to be "better" than someone else, it is considered pride. In addition to considering herself better than her grandchildren, she believed herself to be better than Black children. The grandmother said to her grandchildren, "Little niggers in the country don't have things like we do." "Nigger" is a disrespectful term for a Black persin, and by using it to describe someone she insinuates that he is "beneath" her because she is white and he is black. The grandmother is prideful of her race! This is something no one can control (being born of a particular color, that is). If she were black, she would not have used the term "nigger" in that manner. If she were not prideful or her race, she would not have used the term. She may have even done something to help the people in need without expecting some glorification in return. That is the mark of a humble person, though, and the grandmother does not do this. She instead exhibits pride.
The grandmother is not the only character in the story who is prideful. Young June Star, the granddaughter, has similar traits to her grandmother. While in the car, the grandmother tells June Star and her brother a story about one of her suitors from long ago. June star did not find the story amusing: "She said she wouldn't marry a man that just brought her a watermelon on Saturday." June Star felt she was better than that. Perhaps she wanted a watermelon every day, or a ruby-encrusted watermelon every Saturday, or a diamond-encrusted watermelon every Saturday. One plain watermelon a week is not "good enough" for June Star. She deserves better, in her mind. This is pride, June Star believes herself to deserve more than one watermelon a week. She feels as if she is above that. When one feels that an act of kindness is beneath her, it is obvious to anyone around her that she has excessive pride. Later, at The Tower, the owner's wife asks her, "Would you like to come be my little girl?" What would a humble person do? A humble person would certainly not say, "No, I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't live in a broken-down place like this for a million bucks!" as June Star does. That respone is the opposite of humble. The opposite of humility is pride. Humility is lowering oneself to a mental and spiritual state of servitude out of love. Does June Star show humility? No, rather she shows prie with her rude retort. She shows the reader that she believes herself to be worthy of better surroundings and accomodations. She is selfish rather than selfless, prideful rather than humble. June Star wanted what was "good" for her, what was easy- selfishness. Why did she want what was good for her, easy for her? She was full of pride in herself.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
A Comparison of Father and Son in William Faulkner's "Barn Burning"
Colonel Sartoris Snopes, Sarty, in William Faulkner's "Barn Burning," was different from his father. This difference in character in Sarty Snopes and Abner Snopes is apparent in the beginning of the story: Sbner Snopes had burned a barn, and Sarty did not wish to lie for his father. "He aims for me to lie, he thought, again with that frantic grief and despair." Abner committed a premeditated crime of burning his neighbor's barn, but Sarty hesitated to tell one lie that could save his own father. This clearly shows Sarty is different- better- in moral character from his father.
When Sarty and Abner left the store, an older boy called Abner "Barn burner!" Sarty fought for his father even though he was half the size of the other boy. The boy knocked Sarty down twice, and Sarty was bleeding, but Abner did nothing. Sarty fought for his guilty father's name, but Abner did not protect or fight for his innocent son. After Sarty fought for Abner, he felt "his father's hand [jerk] him back, the harsh, cold voice [speak] above him." Sarty fought for his father, but his father spoke harshly to him. Abner, with his cold, harsh words, destroyed Sarty's confidence, and with his lifestlye almost destroyed Sarty's life. Sarty builds; Abner destroys.
Abner ruined his landlord's rug and had to clean it. In doing so, he permanently ruined it. The landlore informed Abner that he was to pay twently bushels of his crop for the rug. Even though Sarty knew his father had been wrong, he tried to comfort him: "You done the best you could!" he cried. "If he wanted hit done differently why didn't he wait and tell you how?" Sarty wished to believe the best of his father, and he was even prepared to help him: "We'll get hit and hide hit! I kin watch...." Sarty was prepare to go great lengths to help his father, even after his father had not gone to any lengths to help Sarty (as in the earlier fight). Sarty builds; Abner destroys. Later, Abner talks to Sarty, "the voice almost pleasant, almost gentle." This suggests that this was as pleasant and gentle Abner was with Sarty, not even pleasant or gentle- only almost.Yet, despite how Abner talked to Sarty, Sarty tried to comfort and justify his father when his father ruined the rug. Sarty builds; Abner destroys. Abner, in choosing the lifestyle her did, destroyed- or prevented the building of- his family. He forced them to move time after time. He burned his neighbor's barns, and he and his family had to move again and again. Abner could have chosen to make honest work, care for his family, feed his family so that they would not be hungry, but he did not. Sarty encouraged his father, fought for his father, even though he knew Abner was guilty. Sarty changed his life, gave up his home, his sisters and brother and mother and aunt, so that he could change and not become like his father. Sarty builds; Abner destroys.
Sarty Snopes turned in his father and in advertly caused his father and brother to die because he wanted to change his life. Sarty gave up all his worldly belongings besides the clothes he wore. That was the price of change. Abner died an arsonist, and thief, a cold, hardened man. Abner could have changed, but he did not have the will to. Sarty did. Sarty built his life; Abner destroyed his own.
When Sarty and Abner left the store, an older boy called Abner "Barn burner!" Sarty fought for his father even though he was half the size of the other boy. The boy knocked Sarty down twice, and Sarty was bleeding, but Abner did nothing. Sarty fought for his guilty father's name, but Abner did not protect or fight for his innocent son. After Sarty fought for Abner, he felt "his father's hand [jerk] him back, the harsh, cold voice [speak] above him." Sarty fought for his father, but his father spoke harshly to him. Abner, with his cold, harsh words, destroyed Sarty's confidence, and with his lifestlye almost destroyed Sarty's life. Sarty builds; Abner destroys.
Abner ruined his landlord's rug and had to clean it. In doing so, he permanently ruined it. The landlore informed Abner that he was to pay twently bushels of his crop for the rug. Even though Sarty knew his father had been wrong, he tried to comfort him: "You done the best you could!" he cried. "If he wanted hit done differently why didn't he wait and tell you how?" Sarty wished to believe the best of his father, and he was even prepared to help him: "We'll get hit and hide hit! I kin watch...." Sarty was prepare to go great lengths to help his father, even after his father had not gone to any lengths to help Sarty (as in the earlier fight). Sarty builds; Abner destroys. Later, Abner talks to Sarty, "the voice almost pleasant, almost gentle." This suggests that this was as pleasant and gentle Abner was with Sarty, not even pleasant or gentle- only almost.Yet, despite how Abner talked to Sarty, Sarty tried to comfort and justify his father when his father ruined the rug. Sarty builds; Abner destroys. Abner, in choosing the lifestyle her did, destroyed- or prevented the building of- his family. He forced them to move time after time. He burned his neighbor's barns, and he and his family had to move again and again. Abner could have chosen to make honest work, care for his family, feed his family so that they would not be hungry, but he did not. Sarty encouraged his father, fought for his father, even though he knew Abner was guilty. Sarty changed his life, gave up his home, his sisters and brother and mother and aunt, so that he could change and not become like his father. Sarty builds; Abner destroys.
Sarty Snopes turned in his father and in advertly caused his father and brother to die because he wanted to change his life. Sarty gave up all his worldly belongings besides the clothes he wore. That was the price of change. Abner died an arsonist, and thief, a cold, hardened man. Abner could have changed, but he did not have the will to. Sarty did. Sarty built his life; Abner destroyed his own.
Analysis of Ethos in Frederick Douglass's "What to a Slave is the Fourth of July?" (oration, delivered in Corinthian Hall, Rochester, July 5, 1852)
In the first three paragraphs, Douglass appears- and is- very modest. In paragraph one, he says "The little experience I have had... avails me nothing on the present occaion." Douglass is apologizing in advance for any errors he may have in his oration. (A good man knows he is not perfect.) Although this may seem a paradox, it is the law of humans. Douglass recognizes this and maintains a modest disposition. This raises his ethos because it shows him to be aware that he has faults. In the third paragraph Douglass says, "That I am here to-day is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as gratitude." With the word "astonishment" he humbles himself farther; he was surprised that he was asked to speak at such an important event. With the word "gratitude" he is bowing before his audience, thanking them. This shows humility because Douglass did not appear to be conceited, selfish, arrogant, or the like. A modest man has greater ethos: Is a man with no confidence in himself humble? No, since he considers himself worthless he spends his timr and energy trying to "prove himself" to the people surrounding him. He says good things about himself, brags, exaggerates his accomplishments. This shows him to be arrogant to those he is trying to impress. Douglass does the opposite: He plays down his accomplishments. This shows he does not need to boast to win the approval of his listeners. A modest man is a confident man. Which would a listener be more likely to have faith in: a man with confidence or a man without confidence? If one is secure in himself, others may be secure in him too. With modesty, Douglass is building trust from his audience. A man who can lure his listeners in with such an honest tactic is one of great ethos.
In paragraph six, Douglass alluded to Thomas Paine with "... tried men's souls," and in paragraph seven alluded to Patrick Henry with "They petitioned and remonstrated." This shows Douglass to be well-read, which makes the audience have more confidence in him. An audience is more likely to trust an educated, clever man than an ignorant one. To be able to accurately and spontaneously quote and use literature is the mark of a clever man. Although a clever man is not guaranteed to be ethical, this quality raises a listener's confidence in him.
In the sixth paragraph, Douglass says, "To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day." With this Douglass is encouraging his audience to stand up for what is right, even if it is placing oneself in the minority. He realizes more people than not of the day joined the "wrong," the "oppressor," the "strong," because it was the easier path. Douglass is not only saying "Stand uo for what is right," he is manifesting that statement by giving the speech. This raises his ethos: An ethical man not only "talks the talk," but he also "walks the walk." It is easy to tell someone what is right, but to actually do it is much more difficult. Douglass remains strong and presents his ethos by supporting abolition in middle nineteenth-century America. He publicly denounces slavery. For a black man to do that was risky. Douglass risked his life for what he believed; that is an indication- a strong indication- of ethos.
In paragraph six, Douglass alluded to Thomas Paine with "... tried men's souls," and in paragraph seven alluded to Patrick Henry with "They petitioned and remonstrated." This shows Douglass to be well-read, which makes the audience have more confidence in him. An audience is more likely to trust an educated, clever man than an ignorant one. To be able to accurately and spontaneously quote and use literature is the mark of a clever man. Although a clever man is not guaranteed to be ethical, this quality raises a listener's confidence in him.
In the sixth paragraph, Douglass says, "To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day." With this Douglass is encouraging his audience to stand up for what is right, even if it is placing oneself in the minority. He realizes more people than not of the day joined the "wrong," the "oppressor," the "strong," because it was the easier path. Douglass is not only saying "Stand uo for what is right," he is manifesting that statement by giving the speech. This raises his ethos: An ethical man not only "talks the talk," but he also "walks the walk." It is easy to tell someone what is right, but to actually do it is much more difficult. Douglass remains strong and presents his ethos by supporting abolition in middle nineteenth-century America. He publicly denounces slavery. For a black man to do that was risky. Douglass risked his life for what he believed; that is an indication- a strong indication- of ethos.
Analysis on Revision of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence
In the second paragraph of the original document, Jefferson says "... and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government." Expunge means to erase completely- so completely that one cannot tell there was something once there. When one is angry, he wants to destroy the ties to whatever or whoever angered him, but, in the reality of world politics, one cannot do this. By using the word "expunge," Jefferson was telling the British Crown that he wanted nothing to do with the former government that had oppressed the colonies. Truthfully, though, Jefferson wanted to change the Parliamentary system of government to suit the new states. He used hyperbole because he was angry. (One tends to exaggerate when he is angry.) So, in order to be truthful or tactful, the committee substituted the word "alter" for "expunge." The revised document says "... and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of governemnt," meaning the colonists planned to change the former system of government- not obliterate it.
Later in the second paragraph Jefferson said, "The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations...." In his anger, he felt as though the king were constantly, continuously, and unabatingly harming the colonies. Literally that could not be the case; in order for "unremitting" to be correctly used here, the king would have had to be constantly harming the colonies. That was not the case, but Jefferson, in his anger, felt it to be so. A more realistic and truthful word was subsituted, and the document now reads, "The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations." Although the king did not continusly harm the colonies, he did so continually. "Repeated injuries" shows less anger and emotion than "unremitting injuries." One with a broken arm thinks only of the unabating pain, while there was but one incident that caused the break. Such is so with Jefferson and the British Crown.
Beginning in the twenty-third line of the secong paragraph, Jefferson said, "The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest but all have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states." When one is angry, he dares his opposition to show him where he is wrong. This is what Jefferson did: The phrase "among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest" shows he was angry with the British Crown. He was saying, "There is nothing you can find that will disprove what I am saying." If this were so, would he say this? Only if he were angry. At a calm, peaceful moment Jefferson would have thought to not include that phrase because it is a sign of dishonesty to say outright, "I'm right!" after making a statement. But Jefferson was angry- he wrote this in a fury, thinking what he was saying would increase others' confidence in his previous statements. That would not. (It would do the opposite.) So, the committee removed the phrase, allowing Jefferson's statement to stand unqualified.
Later in the second paragraph Jefferson said, "The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations...." In his anger, he felt as though the king were constantly, continuously, and unabatingly harming the colonies. Literally that could not be the case; in order for "unremitting" to be correctly used here, the king would have had to be constantly harming the colonies. That was not the case, but Jefferson, in his anger, felt it to be so. A more realistic and truthful word was subsituted, and the document now reads, "The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations." Although the king did not continusly harm the colonies, he did so continually. "Repeated injuries" shows less anger and emotion than "unremitting injuries." One with a broken arm thinks only of the unabating pain, while there was but one incident that caused the break. Such is so with Jefferson and the British Crown.
Beginning in the twenty-third line of the secong paragraph, Jefferson said, "The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest but all have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states." When one is angry, he dares his opposition to show him where he is wrong. This is what Jefferson did: The phrase "among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest" shows he was angry with the British Crown. He was saying, "There is nothing you can find that will disprove what I am saying." If this were so, would he say this? Only if he were angry. At a calm, peaceful moment Jefferson would have thought to not include that phrase because it is a sign of dishonesty to say outright, "I'm right!" after making a statement. But Jefferson was angry- he wrote this in a fury, thinking what he was saying would increase others' confidence in his previous statements. That would not. (It would do the opposite.) So, the committee removed the phrase, allowing Jefferson's statement to stand unqualified.
Some Analysis on William Somerset Maugham's The Painted Veil
In The Painted Veil, William Somerset Maugham shows the reader that one's friends can help him "lift the veil."
At the beginning of the novel, Kitty Fane was vain: She used her looks and charm- not her compassion for others or kindness- to attract suitors. Although she thought herself "prettier than ever," she married Walter so that she would be able to avoid underirable things, such as Doris's (her sister) wedding. Would a selfless woman marry a man for convienence?
However, after she moved to China with her husband, Kitty found friendship. Kitty's newfound friends helped her change and mature. When Kitty first met Waddington in China, he had no knowledge of her love for Charlie Townsend and therefore gave her his frank opinion: Charlie was foolish, selfish, and deceptive. This allowed Kitty to "lift the veil" and see how others viewed Charlie; although a reputation is not everything, it is wise to take it into account. Later, Waddington told Kitty, "You see, you and I are the only people here who walk quite quietly and peaceably on solid ground. The nuns walk in heaven and your husband- in darkness." Before this, Kitty had not understood what she had done to her husband, but Waddington, with this statement, helped Kitty to see that Walter's pain lay in more than his injured ego. Waddington was not hesitant to speak his mind; he told Kitty, "I don't think for a moment that you're in love with your husband," and "You look... unhappy." Kitty was unhappy, and she knew that, but her friend saw that too, helping her see that she needed to find peace. If one is unhappy, he is not at peace. He is troubled or burdened and cannot let his troubles go. By telling Kitty she looked unhappy, Waddington made her see herself as others did: not at peace. In her mind, the solution was to find peace. According to Shelley's poem ("Lift not the painted veil which those who live"), hope is under the veil. Kitty had a hope for peace and therefore had lifed the veil with the help of her dear friend, Waddington. Without him would she have known she wanted peace? Perhaps, but mich later, if then. Without Waddington, Kitty would have remained as she was before lifting the veil called Life.
The nuns at the convent continuously praised Walter: He was kind; he was good. Kitty marveled at ths: "She alone had been blind to his merit." Kitty had not seen Walter as a good man until she befriended the French nuns. These women helped Kitty to see past Walter's manner, his dress, his outward appearance, and into his heart, and, in turn, into her own. Would Kitty have come to think of and have compassion for Walter if it had not been for the nuns? Mother Superior ans Sister Joseph helped Kitty life the veil and see that Kitty despised Walter because he loved her. Without them she would not have found her path to peace. Mother Superior once said to Kitty. "You know, my dear child, that one cannot find peace in work or in pleasure, in the world or in a convent, but only in one's soul." Peace comes from a rested soul, one absent of distress, regret, troubles, or worry burdening it. With these words, Mother Superior changed Kitty Fane's life. Kitty lifted to veil and saw where to find peace. What is a life without peace? What is a life without a content heart and soul? Kitty's friends helped her lift the veil by being honest about her, themselves, and life. As Oscar Wilde once said, "Friends stab you in the front."
At the beginning of the novel, Kitty Fane was vain: She used her looks and charm- not her compassion for others or kindness- to attract suitors. Although she thought herself "prettier than ever," she married Walter so that she would be able to avoid underirable things, such as Doris's (her sister) wedding. Would a selfless woman marry a man for convienence?
However, after she moved to China with her husband, Kitty found friendship. Kitty's newfound friends helped her change and mature. When Kitty first met Waddington in China, he had no knowledge of her love for Charlie Townsend and therefore gave her his frank opinion: Charlie was foolish, selfish, and deceptive. This allowed Kitty to "lift the veil" and see how others viewed Charlie; although a reputation is not everything, it is wise to take it into account. Later, Waddington told Kitty, "You see, you and I are the only people here who walk quite quietly and peaceably on solid ground. The nuns walk in heaven and your husband- in darkness." Before this, Kitty had not understood what she had done to her husband, but Waddington, with this statement, helped Kitty to see that Walter's pain lay in more than his injured ego. Waddington was not hesitant to speak his mind; he told Kitty, "I don't think for a moment that you're in love with your husband," and "You look... unhappy." Kitty was unhappy, and she knew that, but her friend saw that too, helping her see that she needed to find peace. If one is unhappy, he is not at peace. He is troubled or burdened and cannot let his troubles go. By telling Kitty she looked unhappy, Waddington made her see herself as others did: not at peace. In her mind, the solution was to find peace. According to Shelley's poem ("Lift not the painted veil which those who live"), hope is under the veil. Kitty had a hope for peace and therefore had lifed the veil with the help of her dear friend, Waddington. Without him would she have known she wanted peace? Perhaps, but mich later, if then. Without Waddington, Kitty would have remained as she was before lifting the veil called Life.
The nuns at the convent continuously praised Walter: He was kind; he was good. Kitty marveled at ths: "She alone had been blind to his merit." Kitty had not seen Walter as a good man until she befriended the French nuns. These women helped Kitty to see past Walter's manner, his dress, his outward appearance, and into his heart, and, in turn, into her own. Would Kitty have come to think of and have compassion for Walter if it had not been for the nuns? Mother Superior ans Sister Joseph helped Kitty life the veil and see that Kitty despised Walter because he loved her. Without them she would not have found her path to peace. Mother Superior once said to Kitty. "You know, my dear child, that one cannot find peace in work or in pleasure, in the world or in a convent, but only in one's soul." Peace comes from a rested soul, one absent of distress, regret, troubles, or worry burdening it. With these words, Mother Superior changed Kitty Fane's life. Kitty lifted to veil and saw where to find peace. What is a life without peace? What is a life without a content heart and soul? Kitty's friends helped her lift the veil by being honest about her, themselves, and life. As Oscar Wilde once said, "Friends stab you in the front."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)