The De Lacey family Essay Example for Free

The De Lacey family Essay with smiles and caresses. The creature was abandoned at birth, despised, lonely and beaten off by all who met him for his physical differences his yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath his appearance turns out to be the cause of all his problems. People are frightened of him, which keeps the monster from making contact with them. This incapability of personal contact and the intense isolation is what indirectly drives the monster to his crimes. The monsters deformities are hideous, however this was the grotesque work of Victor he saw what he was creating though you could argue that he was in no rational state of mind, my loud, unrestrained, heartless laughter frightened him. However, just because this Tragic Heros mind is not in order ,it does not give him the right to abandon his wretched creation without even considering the consequences , the unfortunate creature also tries in vain to bond with his selfish creator his jaws opened and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, but is still abandoned. Victor has the characteristics of Aristotles five point tragic hero, he is an over reacher which obviously makes him floorless he has supreme pride which is a reflection of arrogance and conceit. It seems to demonstrate superiority to fellow human beings and equality with Gods. Victor plays God knowing what he is doing was wrong he does not even address the moral issues properly. Victor also has a capacity for suffering he suffers because he believes in what he is doing and feels guilt and guiltless at the same time, he says himself I shunned my fellow creatures as if I had been guilty of a crime. Our feelings change frequently for both monster and Victor as the story develops we begin to feel anger towards Victor for abandoning his responsibility, then for the monster for killing a helpless child although we later find out that William encouraged the monster and brought it on himself, my pa is a syndic-he is M. Frankenstein-he will punish you this enrages the monster and he acts out of further rejection and his burning rage against Victor. Thinking that a young child would understand him I could seize him and educate him as my friend and companion he did not take pleasure in killing William the child still struggled and loaded me with epithets which carried despair to my heart. It is clear why the monster does this terrible deed, he has no hope left and is a tortured soul, revenge is the only way to make things right . Victor has to pay for what he has done, he needs to feel the pain and despair that fuels the monster, thus begins a vicious circle of revenge and redemption. Shelley toys with our emotions throughout the novel, it is hard to decide exactly where to direct our anger and despair to. Insted we find ourselves taking turns to sympathise with both characters. However, we come to understand the Monsters side of things when we hear him relate his tale to Victor; he explains what life has been like for him, and what events have taken place. Hearing the Monsters side of things changes our whole perception of him. We come to understand that he was not bad from the start; it was the events in his life that moulded and shaped him into the corrupt and lonely creature that he has become. The Monsters first experience is rejection and he is given a very negative start in life being left alone to feel complete desolation, I was a poor, helpless, miserable wretch; I could distinguish nothing; but feeling pain invade me on all sides, I sat down and wept. He has done nothing wrong and does not deserve to be feeling these sorts of emotions, although it shows the reader that he is capable of thinking and feeling. The Monster starts to pick up aspects of life for himself as he has no maternal figures and learns simple concepts I felt light and hunger. He is a very unique and sensitive creature and learns to enjoy the world before he even experiences negative emotions I first discovered that a pleasant sound, which often saluted my ears, proceeded from the throats of the little winged animals. It is clear that the monster enjoys nature just as Victor does. The monster then loses hope and comes to believe that nobody wants to perceive him I escaped to the open country and fearfully took refuge in a low hovel. The creature has tried in vain to communicate with people on several occasions, but is always rejected. We come to understand why the monster is the way he is as he begins to learn by observing the De Lacey family. Through reading novel such as Miltons Paradise Lost he starts wondering about his existence and his isolation because of his apparent uniqueness I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence. When the monster starts wondering about his origin we are compelled to feel empathy for him. It is obvious that he longs for some kindness, protection and company. These desires become even more evident when he reads the diary that Victor kept during hid creation, the monster learns that Victor was not at all happy with his creation how can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe. This makes the monster feel even more lonely and abhorred, as he realises that his own creator could not even stand to look at him or even give him a real chance before he cowardly ran away to hastily forget about what he had done. As reader we now begin to feel anger towards Victor, it is his fault that the monster feels like this, and it is not fair.

Jean Paul Sartres No Exit And Its Existentialist Themes Essays

Jean Paul Sartre's No Exit And Its Existentialist Themes I would like to take this opportunity to discuss Jean Paul Sartre's philosophy and it's integration into his play "No Exit". Embedded within the character interactions are many Sartrean philosophical themes. Personal attributes serve to demonstrate some of the more dominant ideas in Sartre's writings. Each of the three characters in the play show identifiable characteristics of sexual perversion, bad faith, and interactions of consciousness.This play takes an interesting setting, that of the afterlife. The plot centers around three main characters, Joseph Garcin, Estelle Rigault and Inez Serrano. Hell, as portrayed in this work, is no more than a room with three couches and Second Empire decorum. There are no mirrors, no windows, no books, generally no form of amusement. Some very human privileges that we take for granted have also been taken away: sleep, tears, and even momentary reprieves of blinking. Each of the three characters is introduced into the room by a surprisingly polite Valet. Initial confrontations are "uncomfortable", each person knowing that he/she is deceased, but they are not impolite. However, as the true reasons why each person has been sentenced to Hell are revealed, the true nature of the place takes shape. Rather than try to explain the chronological progression of the play, I would rather take each character and their opinions individually in an attempt to highlight what I believe are the important parts. The first person to appear in the play is Mr.Garcin. At first glance, he is a very polite, gentlemanly, and moral individual. However, the further into the play that we read, we find that he is none of these things. Instead, he represents some of the worst ails that afflict humankind (according to Sartre). He was graced with a wife that loved him unconditionally, and he loathed for no other reason. In fact, one the first memories that he has of her is how "she got on his nerves". There is one story that is obviously intended to shock the reader, and provide a good interpretation of Garcin's true character. He states:"Well here's something you can get your teeth into. I brought a half-caste girl to stay in our house. My wife slept upstairs; she must have heard - everything. She was an early riser and, as I and the girl stayed in bed late, she served us our... ...tolen away their ability to close their eyes. There is no way to turn off the sinks! Oaklander gives us a good description of the system, and how it applies to this situation:Rather it appears that the world has a kind of drain hole in the middle of its being and that it is perpetually flowing off through this hole. The universe, the flow, and the drain hole are all once again recovered, reapprehended, and fixed as an object. All this is there for me as a partial structure in the world, even though the total disintegration of the universe is involved. Moreover these disintegrations may often be contained within more narrow limits.. (Oaklander, pg. 284)In conclusion, Jean Paul Sartre takes less than fifty pages to materialize his existentialist ideas for the stage. He has given us interpretations of sexual desire, bad faith, and conscious interactions. As a note: I truly believe that this play could be analyzed on an even deeper level. Each comment could be dissected and applied to part of Sartre's theory. However, this scope was limited to stay within the bounds of this paper. Works Cited Sartre, Jean Paul. No Exit and Three Other Plays. 1944. NY: Vintage Books, 1989.

Debate of Gore/Bush

Gore believes that teachers should be able to have one on one sessions with their students and in order to do so he believes that classrooms should be smaller and more teachers should be hired. In order to hire more teachers he believes that teachers who teach a subject which was their own major should receive a bonus. He feels that education is important because â€Å"the students of today build the economy of tomorrow.† Bush believes that education is our first priority in this country. He believes that education should be both flexible for the students and the educators. He believes that more money should go into school funding and teachers should have a pay increase. He feels as though literacy is a big problem among children and he moves toward a structure of education that ensures a child his ability to read. Gore seems to be working towards helping the middle class population and hopes to pass a bill to give the middle class a tax cut. Bush is for big business and free enterprise. He feels that the government should not regulate big businesses and that competition in the economy is a very good thing.. Gore states that he is not afraid to take on drug companies to give medicare benefits to the elderly and bring down prescription prices to fit the elderly needs. He believes that we should slowly move step by step towards universal health coverage. He wants to make the health care plan better for those who have one and provide a health care plan for those who do not. Within four years he wants to make health care available for every child. He spoke of tax credit for individual health plans and an encouragement to businesses to give health care twenty-five percent credit. Bush is opposed to a national health care system. He stated that in the eight years that Clinton and Gore served nothing was done about medicare or social security. Bush also believes that Gore†s plans for healthcare cannot be carried out with our country†s budget and Bush believes Gore is a big spender. Bush stated how he provided health care for everyone in Texas and how a national health care plan would fail. I feel as though both candidates were pushing to get all of the issues in within this last debate and that made them not have much backup for all of their statements. I think this was just a â€Å"playground argument† between the two candidates. They both were trying to say they were the better candidate but they truly did not give us a reason why. Both candidates seemed to have some optimistic ideas for America but I just don†t see how some of their bills and plans would ever work. Although the debate did not show a good turnout for me I still feel as though Gore has more intelligence on his behalf and has exactly what America needs to expand us technologically.

My Vision of The Cold War

My Vision of The Cold War The Cold War was an elongated state of political conflict, economic competition, and military tension after the World War II principally between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. The Cold War wasn’t a typical war: there were no enemy planes bombing countries, no tanks or heavy artillery, no troops plundering native habitants and destroying cities and villages. It was a war of interests and ideologies. The conflict between Eastern and Western parts of the world had deep roots. At the very beginning of the XXth century relations between the USA and Russia could be described as hostile. In the early 1920s, soon after the Communist revolution in Russia, the United States of America provided a famine relief to the Soviet people and little by little contacts between these two countries improved; but by the 1930s the relationship had soured again and after the World War II it had lead to the Cold War. This unusual war made almost the entire world divide into two hostile camps around two dominant powers fighting to become the dominant power (this phenomenon was called a bipolar system). The United States were trying to spread their democratic ideology to the whole world, whereas the USSR was trying to promote their communist ideology. I believe that the blame for this war for supremacy can hardly be placed on one country. In some way this war was inevitable due to tremendous differences in the two ideologies. The Cold War lasted for forty three years and ended in 1991 after the Soviet Union collapse, leaving the USA the dominant power. This also has lead to the establishment of noncommunist political parties and the development of a new democratic state in the former USSR.