• Are principles, rather than discernment, an unattractive feature?
• In the light of denial, does “sensitivity” hold no candour?
• Are principles, over prejudice, of no worth to refinement?
• When Heathcliff demonstrated his love for Cathy, did it show distaste?
• Did this character take another life in the process of doing so? 

If Heathcliff appeared to be lacking in anything, it was love. His mannerisms became anti-social. He behaved like a man who could not compensate for the abuse he had to live with. He was haunted with the memories of Cathy and overcome with grief, yet it was something he preserved.

That Heathcliff preserved Cathy’s memory was admiral. It appeared to be a shadowed attractiveness, one revealed in short sequences of dry humour and stilted moments of pleasure. This is were the reader’s sympathy for his character shone. There was no real lack of conscience on his part; no impropriety to weigh him down (as far as the reader knows). In this, we can discern Heathcliff as a ‘Romeo’ and Cathy, his ‘Juliet’.

Summery:

I do not believe Heathciff deserved his fate, but then the story is stronger for it; a story of lost love and a sentence for any impropriety he delivered. There is much logic in this anti-hero; we can have sympathy and feel there would have been a physical/sexual attraction between the main leads. Heathcliff’s character showed plenty of backbone; by today’s standards, an entirely different prospect.  Present anti-heroes ponder a demigod affiliation, but can never associated with the Heathcliff character of yesterday.

Oedipus's prophecy began when Cadmus, the founder of Thebes, enraged the god Apollo by killing Apollo's favorite snake. Because of Cadmus's kill, his descendants are forced to live under a curse. Thus, a prophecy states that the son of Laius, the current king of Thebes, will kill his father and marry his mother.

Socrates proves to his audience that humans have no control over their fate by showing multiple failed attempts of people trying to prevent Oedipus's horrible prophecy from coming true. First, Laius simply tries to kill his son by asking one of his servants to leave the baby at Mt. Cithaeron to die. Unfortunately, his attempt at avoiding fate is useless when his servant pities the infant and takes him into a caring family elsewhere.

Once one discovers what his or her destiny will be, he or she will waste time, trying to avoid the impossible. When Oedipus himself finds out about his awful future, he flees Corinth, the city where his parents supposedly are staying. Without realizing his poor decision, he comes into a messy situation with his unfamiliar father. Long after this event, he speaks with Jocasta, his wife and mother about his realization: “I was in that place where three roads meet…the man in front, and the old one, ordered me out of the path. I refused…I killed him. I killed them all…I am the one for whom my curse was meant!” (19). By this time, Oedipus has already reached the point where his prophecy is complete. After declaring vengeance for his father, he finally realizes that he has cursed himself. Therefore, Oedipus's discovery of his fate turned against him.

Free will has no effect on fate, according to Sophocles's play. In fact, one's discovery of his or fate only does destruction. Because Oedipus tries to avoid his fate, he realizes that he helped “accomplish” it when it was too late.

      Wuthering Heights  1992 DVD

Madame Bovary, the novel written in 1857, is by the French novelist, Gustave Flaubert.  The plot revolves around Madame Bovary, who, both unhappy in and bored with her marriage, seeks relationships with other men.  Because the subject matter of the novel deals with transgressions that were unspeakable and obscene to mid 19th century France, Flaubert was attacked for his outrageous work  and was summoned to trial and finally acquitted.  This proved to be both unfortunate and fortunate for the Flaubert.  The novel, because of the publicity, became even more desirable to the masses and, as a result, it became a best seller in 1857, the same year it was published

 
       Madame Bovary 1992  DVD
                            

To understand the characters and setting in Thomas Hardy’s novels, it is necessary for the reader to understand “naturalism” or “naturalistic writing”.  Naturalism embodies the idea that humans struggle in an indifferent world in a futile attempt to exercise free will, which to the naturalist is nonexistent.  Although naturalism does not deny the existence of God, it does depict God as a superfluous force not concerned with man’s needs and desires.  The universe to the naturalist is a vast machine that moves on and is virtually indifferent to man’s struggles or needs.  Hardy’s themes illustrate the indifference of nature to the struggles of man.

Both Tess of the D’Ubervilles published 1891 and Return of the Native published in 1878 dealt with what was considered to be controversial subject matter and although they became popular reading, he initially had some difficulty getting them published.

       
       

              Return of the Native 1994 DVD                 Tess of the Dubervilles 1998 DVD

Jane Eyre, written by Charlotte Bronte in 1847, is the story of an English orphan, 10 years of age at the start of the novel.  The main character’s journey separates itself into 5 distinct stages during the course of the novel as she advances from childhood into adulthood. This story, just as does Great Expectations, has as one of its major themes the injustices of social class prejudices as they existed in England at the time.

                     Jane Eyre  DVD 1996

Great Expectations was written by Charles Dickens and published in 1861. This romantic novel is narrated in retrospect by Pip, the main character.  The story spans Pip's journey from childhood into manhood and the plot line centers around his undying love for Estella . The novel is filled with a myriad of interesting, colorful, and unforgettable characters.  The description of each character is in detail and by the close of the novel, it is as if the characters’ journeys have been yours as well. 

          Great Expectations 1998  DVD

                                         
What makes these novels reach beyond a specific literary period is their unforgettable characters, unique situations and intriguing plots.  The themes deal with universal truths and so they are timeless. The major characters seek to rise above what is too often a hostile environment and move on to fulfill their dreams and expectations.

If you enjoy reading and are looking to lose yourself in  novels dealing with intense romance, unforgettable characters, and highly descriptive passages, then I highly recommend you begin with these.

The movie, however, is based on the novel written  by Susanna Kaysen herself.  She writes about her problems that lead her to being admitted to McLean Hospital.  Kaysen also explains what happens during her stay in the mental institute. She writes of the friends she makes, the doctors, nurses, and so on.  Some of the people she actually knew in the institute end up as characters in the movie later on.  Her book also briefly describes Borderline Disorder, not to confuse it with Bipolar Disorder. 

In the novel, and Susanna's real life she gets married, and that is how she gets out of the institute.  The movie just states that she has a 360 degree turn around in her life and she gets better and gets out.  Susanna Kaysen also writes about seeing Lisa and her son after being released from the institution, while the book does not go beyond Kaysen's release from the loony bin.  

Essentially this is a comparison between the book and the movie itself of Girl, Interrupted.  I hope you all enjoy the movie, but also read the book.  It is nice to read the real life story of Susanna Kaysen, to see that she was an actual person who went through all this stuff and is not just a made up character.

Take care all.

Harry Potter has been the stalwart however, putting up record sales numbers and appealing to the widest audience of perhaps any fictional series ever. Therefore, it is from those three series that I have picked five characters who really have stuck out and the stories what they are.

Severus Snape: (Harry Potter) - First appearance (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)

When the reader is introduced to Severus Snape, he personifies the same outward persona that he wears throughout the rest of the series. The shrewd man with the greasy hair who is ruthlessly biased, and an apparent antagonist to our three heroes. While a principal antagonist for the majority of the first book (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone), Snape is relegated to that of a nuisance and annoyance who takes pleasure in making Harry and his friends lives as miserable as possible over the next three volumes in the series. The reader is never sure what to think of Severus Snape. On one hand, there is Dumbledore's unwavering confidence and trust in the man. Rowling did an excellent job of slightly discrediting some of Dumbledore's beliefs through the thoughts of the protagonist, Harry Potter, enough at least as to where the reader wasn't thoroughly convinced that Dumbledore knew all there was to know about Snape. The character of Snape grew in both significance and complexity during the fifth book (The Order of the Phoenix) and remained at the forefront throughout the rest of the series.

From Harry's point of view, Snape was evil, capable of doing all of the evil things spoken of throughout the wizarding series. It is true that Snape comes across as very harsh and cruel, and, in fact, shows great bias towards members of his own house; however it isn't until the beginning of the sixth installment that the reader truly begins to believe that Harry and his friends are correct and that Snape is as evil as they believe him to be. Snape's loyalties become the essential plotline in the final two books. His ability to shield his mind and read others' minds made it impossible for the reader to discern where his loyalties lay. Especially convincing is the fact that Snape kills Dumbledore at the climax of the sixth book, exits with the Death Eaters and is than with the same during the entirety of the final installment. Throughout all of this though, there is always some doubt about Snape. He seems to be the only character that no one, on either side can truly identify with. He is apparently the right-hand man of each side's leader respectively, and never is his true identity and purpose revealed until the final few chapters of the last book.

That being said, I believe the vindication of Snape and the chapter in which Harry finally learns of all the missing pieces throughout the years is the best in the entire series. When the reader realizes that Snape is the person Harry must go to in order to find his true destiny and fulfill the prophecy that was laid out ahead of him, it comes somewhat as a shock. The entire series shrouds Snape in darkness, deceit and complexity, and all of the secrets come spilling out in one 22 page chapter. Snape was the best character in the series, and with the series being the most successful fantasy novels of all time, he may arguably be the best fantasy character ever.

Nom Anor (Star Wars: New Jedi Order)- First Appearance: Vector Prime

Never have I read a more complex character. Throughout the 27 book series, Anor plays several different roles. He is particularly an interesting character because he is unlike every other member of his species. This is highly unusual when reading a fantasy/science fiction novel because the species and emotions are unusual enough in themselves the majority of the time. Nom Anor is a Yuuzhan Vong, however has no respect for any of the beliefs of his people, save one; the hatred of those in the galaxy they are invading. An absolutely masterful manipulator throughout the series, Anor's character was written by different authors, each with their own personal spin on this very complex character, making him more unpredictable and loathsome as ever. By the midpoint of the series the reader begins to realize just how manipulative and narcissistic Anor is, caring nothing about the fate or outcome of the world, but only in his personal escalation. He plots to kill his superiors, forbidden amongst his people; he enjoys many of the delicacies of the galaxy, even more strongly forbidden by his people; he forges no real confidences wherever he goes, thus he was able to play both sides in the conflict holding his own objectives above all else. The fact that he never forged any amount of credibility amongst friend or foe allowed him to go into hiding and plot a lower class rebellion with the eventual goal of seating him, in disguise, essentially as ruler of the galaxy.

Anor's charcter was one of complete duplicity. Brilliantly written, consistently altered, with no real insight to his ultimate goal until the reader was finally beginning to tire of all the backstabbing and ruthless politics. As a member of the politic party of his race, he was created to have all of the bad traits politicians may have, while also containing none of the good ones.

Q (Star Trek) First appearance: Pilot Episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation

I know that his original appearance is 20 years ago and that would seemingly make him ineligible to appear on this list. However, Q appeared on an episode of Star Trek: Voyager just within the 10 year time period I gave myself, so he just barely counts. And how could I leave this character out.

Q makes his first appearance in the pilot episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation by capturing the Enterprise and putting the entire crew of the ship on trial for the entire body of crimes committed by humanity. A being based on pure logic, as it's the only thing that makes sense to him, Q doesn't understand evolution and maturation, because as an omnipotent being, everything to him exists at the same time. After Picard proves his point and Q concedes humans should be allowed to exist, the crew is freed to go. Throughout the series Q makes several more appearances that allow his character and being to evolve far beyond what was seen in the first episode. The character himself becomes fascinated by the resilience of the human race and with Picard and Riker in general, once becoming mortal and attempting to become a member of the crew.

Q places them in several tight situations, apparently playing games with their lives. However, in each case, the crew turns out more aware of some vital lesson and mantra that enables them to grow stronger and wiser, enabling them to complete more difficult tasks in the future. In this way, Q can be seen as a father to the race of humanity, very similar to the God portrayed in the Holy bible.

Therefore, Q is essentially god. More correctly, he is what we may envision god to be at this stage of our species' development. An omnipotent being able to change anything, at any time to his liking, Q can appear at any time, in any form, to give advice, both wise and disastrous. The character was created to be a physical manifestation of god, tying into the beliefs of Gene Roddenbury and introduced to an upheaval from modern religious bodies. Q was the epitome of an omnipotent being with God-like powers and he turned out to be flawed and arrogant and, because he was immortal, had no regard for life and emotion. While this would incense religious patriarchs of the day, the character greatly intrigued the science fiction fan base and became a staple of modern fantasy.

Jacen Solo (Darth Caedus) - (Star Wars Expanded Universe) - First appearance: The Last Command

Jacen Solo is an interesting character in many ways. It was difficult to choose him over other Expanded Universe characters, particularly Corran Horn, who has become a huge Star Wars star in his own right, and Boba Fett, who simply doesn't have enough of a role to foster being on this list. His arch was great in the Legacy of the Force Series, trumped only by Solo's, and that also was a big factor. Anyway, Solo is unique, for he, his twin sister Jaina and his brother Anakin, are all completely bereft of the direct interpretation of George Lucas. The twins are in fact the first major characters to be born to the Star Wars Expanded Universe after the events of The Return of the Jedi.

Throughout their childhood, Jacen, Jaina and Anakin existed in the stories as accessory characters; their roles were certainly significant and they always factored into the climax and resolution of each story, however they themselves were still not seen as the heroes, that honor still belonged to their parents, Uncle and all their other wacky friends. As the reader was able to see the children mature literally from birth through death, in Jacen and Anakin's case, a sort of kinship began to develop between reader and character. By the time the twins were 15 they had their own young adult series, and they had become somewhat of co-main characters with their parents in the adult novels. The young adult series, Young Jedi Knights, enabled the reader to get to know the twins personalities in much more detail. Jacen was a lover of all forms of life, love and laughter; telling jokes repeatedly, capturing and caring for many different types of animals, and through the force he seemed to have a kinship with all living things. These were very important books in establishing Jacen as an adult and would establish a strong foundation for the character's future.

When the New Jedi Order series hit, the roles of the classic heroes and the next generation of heroes took a dramatic shift, beginning with the death of Chewbacca. This event seemed to singlehandedly hand the reigns from one generation of Star Wars' characters to the next. The new generation was now front and center while the classic heroes, while still heavily involved in the plot, became more accessory characters. Jacen was the star of the 27 book series. In each book a deep understanding of the character was embedded amongst the reader. He openly questioned beliefs of the Jedi in the beginning, eventually questioned the nature of the force, and finally decided he had to go and discover truth for himself. The character was supposed to be killed at the midpoint of the series in the novel Star By Star, however this was scratched and they killed his little brother Anakin instead. This enabled the breaking free of the Jedi doctrine which had, up to that point in his life, been all he had known.

The Legacy of the Force series was essentially entirely about Jacen and his fall to the dark side. Because of his understanding more about the force than anyone else in the books, his fall to the dark side was nothing like any Star Wars fans could have imagined. It wasn't a quick, painless thing that took place in the span of 2 hours and screen time, as is the case with Vader, but a long process embarked upon by someone who, even through his evil deeds, is trying to do some good. He eventually lets the power seduce him, as he promised he would never do, however the reader comes to understand the motives behind the fall and that it's not as cut and dry as portrayed in the movies. With Jacen's death, an entire new arch of Star Wars came to a close, and the bridge to a new generation began, with Ben Skywalker, Alanna, and others beginning to take the reigns as the next legends of the Star Wars Universe.

Harry Potter/Tom Marvolo Riddle (Lord Voldemort), Harry Potter Series - First appearance (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)

These two characters are connected from the very first chapter of the series all the way through to its conclusion. They are very similar in most respects (which is the purpose of the entire story arc), and neither of them would be half as interesting without the other, which is why I have them listed together. Harry Potter would simply be a normal boy who had some unusual adventures, whereas Voldemort would have been the typical villain who was stopped in the end, if not for the fact that their souls were literally combined, and this fact adds to the complexity of the entire body of work.

Tom Riddle and Harry Potter were each brought up in the care of Muggles (non-Wizarding Folk) and neither of them found a meaning or purpose in life until they were admitted into Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Both boys regarded Hogwarts as their home and each of them set out to destroy the other. Harry's character is far less complex until the fifth installment, in which we learn that he is unavoidably connected with the evil Voldemort and will remain so unless one of them is killed. While their experiences are quite similar, they react to those experiences in exactly the opposite ways; Harry learned to love while Voldemort learned to hate. This is the essential concept behind J.K Rowling's series. Love vs. hate/Light vs. Dark. And while the ending is obvious, light/love prevail over darkness, the means to which we are brought to that climax are quite original. As perplexing as their relationship is throughout much of the series, the two characters continue to display completely opposite responses to the same relative emotions. While Harry gets angry and forgives, Voldemort gets angry and punishes.

Harry cares so much about others that he does whatever he can to help them, while Voldemort hates other so much that he will do whatever he can to hurt them. Harry's character can tend to be a little on the annoying end, as he is unreasonably angry and frustrated many times throughout the series; the reader must realize that he is simply a teenager going through all normal teenage emotions, albeit with a huge weight bearing down on him in the form of imminent death. However, while Harry faces his challenges with bravery and perseverance, Voldemort chooses to do so with fear and loathing. This is the essential concept of character, and it is brilliantly demonstrated throughout the series. These two characters are perhaps the reason the series will remain a rampart in modern fiction for many years to come.

When Wang Lung and O-lan get married in the beginning of the novel, it quickly becomes apparent how useful she is. "... and they ate heartily of the good fare, heartily and in silence, and this one praised the own sauce on the fish and that one the well-done pork..." (Pg. 17). According to Wang Lung's guests, O-lan cooks wonderfully, not to mention her ability to make clothes, shoes, mend walls, and still work the fields. O-lans abilities affect the (future) family positively because she can do almost all types of work, even more than Wang Lung. By taking care of things such as housekeeping, she allows Wang Lung the strength and time he needs to succeed. Almost immediately after she marries Wang Lung, they begin having better harvests, and Wang Lung himself has a more leisurely life. In contrast, Wang Lung shows his impracticality and self-indulgence. "‘I will buy it!' he cried in a lordly voice. ‘I will buy it from the great House of Hwang!'" (Pg. 37). Wang Lung is more interested in his pride and contentment than the well being of his own family. Instead of being conservative in his relative poverty, he decides that he will buy the land from the great house, just so he can say he is rich enough to do so. These two examples of O-lan and Wang Lung's early life together show how practical O-lan is, and how impractical Wang Lung is.

Near the middle of O-lan and Wang Lung's relationship, a famine sweeps the land, so Wang Lung and his family travel south to a city, where O-lan shows how useful she is, while Wang Lung shows his impracticality. "The little boys stared at her, and Wang Lung also. Where had she learned to cry thus? How much there was of this woman he did not know!" (Pg. 71). O-lan shows her usefulness by teaching her family how to beg. Now that they are utterly impoverished, O-lan is nothing but useful. Wang has learned that there is a lot more to the woman he married than what he saw at first glance. In addition, she knows how to make a mat house, and how to cook in it. This helps her family by giving them food and shelter, which are necessities of life. Meanwhile, Wang Lung is worried about his self-esteem, and has no idea where to work. "But the notion of holding up a bowl and begging of anyone who passed continued to distress him. It was very well for the old man and for the children and even for the women, but he had his two hands." (Pg. 67). Not only does he worry about begging, but he, lacking the practical knowledge O-lan has, does not know where to work. Sadly, if he had not found a job, he would not resort to begging, showing once again how his impracticality and self-esteem gets in the way of his family's well-being. These two examples prove once again how practical O-lan is, and how impractical Wang Lung is.

During the latter part of O-lan and Wang Lung's relationship, Wang Lung encounters some mysterious issues with his son which O-lan knows how to fix, while Wang Lung beats down and destroys his son physically and emotionally. "And she said, ‘It is useless for you to beat the lad as you do. I have seen this thing come upon the young lords in the courts of the great house, and it came on them melancholy, and when it came the Old Lord found slaves for them if they had not found any for themselves and the thing passed easily'." (Pg. 158). O-lan proves here usefulness to Wang Lung and his family. Being a slave in a great house, she understands the desires of rich young men, which Wang Lung could never understand, having been raised a farmer. Even though Wang Lung does not heed her advice, her statement is found to be truthful when the eldest son enters into a relationship with Lotus, and calms down almost immediately thereafter. In contrast, Wang Lung has no idea what is wrong with his son, but he continues to beat him anyway. "Now the strange thing was that whereas the boy might burst into weeping at a chance rebuke, he stood these beatings under the bamboo without a sound, his face carven and pale as an image. And Wang Lung could make nothing of it, although he thought of it night and day. (Pg. 159). Here, Wang Lung only makes his son, who is already emotionally distressed, worse. Without O-lan's suggestion, the boy could have stayed in that state for a long time. After considering O-lan's advice, though, Wang Lung decides he will marry his son soon. Once again, O-lan positively influences her family, while Wang Lung deteriorates it.

Throughout the book, Wang Lung's self-indulgence, impracticality, and self-esteem issues lead to the degradation of his family, while O-lan's practicality and hard work leads to the building up and strengthening of her family. Moments of contrast are seen throughout Wang Lung and O-lan's relationship. A family's success is only as much as the amount of effort its members put into it. Without crucial members like O-lan, the Wang family would succumb to the numerous impracticalities and self-indulgences of Wang Lung.

A careful review of the works of Austen clearly indicates that she has deliberately imposed this restriction of materials and themes upon her. She herself referred to her work as “two inches of ivory”. In a letter to her niece, she wrote, “three or four families in a country village is the very thing to work on.”

If Austen shows the aristocracy only to satirize it as Lady de Bourgh. The Bennets, the Lucases, the Bingleys and Darcy all belong to the class of landed country gentry with the Bennets and the Lucases at the lower end of it and the Bingleys and Darcy with their persona fortunes at the higher end of it. People like Gardiner (in trade) have been shown very rarely, as in "Pride and Prejudice".

Narrow Physical Setting

'Pride and Prejudice' like other novels of Austen have narrow physical setting. The story revolves round Netherfield Park, Longbourn, Hunsford Parsonage, Meryton and Pemberley. In an era when the English Romantic writers like Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Shelley, Keats and others were in love with external nature, Jane manages to restrict her characters indoors. A trip to the Lake District is canceled in "Pride and Prejudice" and the only description of nature in Pemberley is generalized.

She adhered to the settings of ballrooms, drawing rooms, parks and gardens and allows nothing terrible to happen. The greatest villainy in her novels is elopement (as in the case of Lydia and Wikham) or social faux pus as Darcy's snubbing of Elizabeth.

In the era of American War of Independence, French Revolution and Napoleonic wars, Austen's theme was so limited that it revolved round the orbit of love and marriage. All her heroines had no other business than waiting for an eligible bachelor to get married to.

The only relevance of the militia in a Jane Austen novel is its ability to provide girls with handsome military officers to flirt with and if possible to marry __ Wikham and the other military officers in Meryton in Pride and Prejudice serve a subjects for flirtation for Lydia and Kitty the younger Benner girls, Similarly there is no discussion of spiritual or metaphysical issue and Mr. Collins the vicar is only an absurd, comic figure satirized by Jane Austen.

Feminization of Her Novel

Another limitation is feminization of her novels. There are no report men's affairs. Darcy does not appear to be a wholly credible character. He is seen in the company of Elizabeth. The reader is looking him at from Elizabeth's point of view.

Due to this limitation, Austen has earned a lot of criticism and depreciation as well. H. W Garrod complains of the monotonous uniformity of her materials,” A drab scenery, the worse for use, a thin plot unfashionably cut and by turning, relining and trimming made to do duty for five of six novels, a dozen or so stock characters__these are Miss Austen's materials”. Charlotte Bronte her most famous critic, feels a want of “passion” in her works and believes her to be an author of the surface only: “She ruffles her readers by nothing vehement, disturbs him by nothing profound, ….Her business is not half so much with the human heart as with the human eye, mouth, hands and feet”. Wordsworth admitted that her novels were an admirable copy of life, but since the pervading light of imagination was totally absent in them, they could hardly interest him. Since, her women are eminently pre-occupied with economic security a number of critics think that her text is just money. And since she looks at things from and ironic point of view, it being assumed the tan ironist is only a detached and disinterested observer of life, Leonie Vallard and Marvin Mudrick conclude that she does not have any moral concern.

Perfection within the limited world

Her world is limited but within this limited world she deals every aspect perfectly. The narrow world does never create an image of narrow art. Nor do art or skill depend on the range and boundaries. Real talent always goes ahead whatever may be the range or theme.

The works of Jane Austen despite its restricted field, is perfect.

Purely local issues lend a sense of discipline to her art and enhance accuracy and precision of portrayal in her writings. Her old-intimacy with her characters makes them life-like and realistic. Elizabeth Bennet is the most delightful of creature that ever appeared in print. She is not the simpering and holier-than-thou heroine of a romantic novel but appeal by her next-door girl image with wit, humour as well as human flaws of pride and prejudice.

No two characters of Austen have ever been repeated in any of her novels. Mr. Elton, the vicar in "Emma" is totally different from Mr. Collins, the vicar in "Pride and Prejudice".

Similarly her heroines are all different. Elizabeth is as different from Emma as Emma is from fanny Price. About her characters, Macaulay comments “she has given us a multitude of characters, all , in a certain sense, commonplace, al such as we meet every day. yet they are al as perfectly discriminated from each other as if they were the most eccentric of human beings”.

Not Without Passion or Profundity

It is true that Austen chooses only those aspects of social behaviour than can lend themselves to ironic treatment---- the inconstancies and follies of human behaviour, hypocrisy, pretentiousness, incongruities of speech & conduct and self deception. But it does not mean that she touches only the surface. She is a mistress of much deeper emotion than appear on the surface. Her themes are love, marriage and courtship. All these go cheek by jowl with emotions and passions. Jane-Bingley involvements as well as Elizabeth-Darcy affair are matters touching the very strings of heart. Her distress at the elopement of Lydia and Wikham show her deep feelings. moreover, there are other emotions like jealousy and hypocrisy of Caroline Bingley, the cunning of Wikham, the snobbery and vanity of Lady de Bourgh, all have been depicted by Jane Austen with perfection of art. in Jane Austen, emotions are experienced within a social framework and hence they are controlled but they are not absent.

Moral Concerns

It would be wrong to say that she is not profound or lacks moral concern. she has depicted with skill the psychological workings of Elizabeth's mind, her torment on recognizing her own prejudice even the lay reader can judge the moral values that is unobtrusive but ever present. She portrays the marriages of Lydia and Wikham, Collins and Charlotte and Bennets which by contract serve to highlight the propriety of the Elizabeth-Darcy marriage that is seen in the social context as it brings happiness not only for them but for all the people around. Andrew H. Wright says,

"She develops themes of the broadest significance, the novel go beyond the social record, beneath the didactic, to moral concern, perplexity and commitment. her novels may be read as broad allegories, in which, sense and sensibility, pride and prejudice, and a number of other virtues and defects are set forth and commented upon."

Her Skill and Craftsmanship

Despite her limited theme and subject matter, she is unparalleled in her skill in plot construction. In "Pride and prejudice" not a single event or character is out of place and each contributes to the development of plot and theme. the Plot is knitted in coherent pattern and proceeds like that of a drama from exposition, with the characters being introduced in the first few chapters, the development of the complication with Bingley's departure from Netherfield and Elizabeth's prejudice against Darcy, to the brilliant climax at Hunsford Parsonage where Darcy proposes and is rejected, to the final denouement and resolution with the marriages to the Bennet sisters after the Lydia-Wikham elopement. The sub-plots of Lydia and Wikham, Charlotte and Collins are all closely linked to the main Elizabeth-Darcy plot and highlight the theme of the right marriage. Her characters reveal themselves through dialogue. The witty and ironic language add charm to her art.

Conclusion

She handles characters, events, dialogue and plot with an exquisite mastery of art. She weaves and interweaves different events into the pattern of her novels so nicely that no strand can be separated. Her visible structure may be flimsy but she is profound in plumbing the psychological depths of her characters and in delineating the basic principles of human conduct. On her two inches of ivory, she carces with a miniature delicacy to present a polished and refined work of art.

Richardson and fielding did much for the depiction of rural gentility but they exhibited these matters for romantic purpose. Austen depicts these families with the realism of Defoe and exactness of Crabbe.

Rubinstein says that she has no interest in “(1) a view of man's mortality expressed in theological or existential terms; (2) a view of man's ultimate earthly destiny as explicitly articulated in the language of special and political valuation; (3) a view of man's most profound personal compulsion (next to his institute for survival) his sexuality.”

He further opines, “what she does, she does well, perhaps better than anyone -though of course we all know that there is so much more to life and to literature than this.”

David Cecil says that her "imaginative inspiration" was as surely limited as, for example, those of Hardy or A. Bennet.

Unlike the romantic poets, Scott and Jane accepted the limitations which society imposes on individual. Austen does not deal romance after Walpole and Mrs. Radcliff.

Edward Fitzgerald is more critical, “quite capital in a circle I have found quite understandable to walk in.” He complains that “She never goes out of the parlour.”

Jane Austen exhibits “an exquisite mastery of whatever can be mastered.” L. J. Clipper says, “She does not give the reader simplistic interpretation of life; she does not say to marry only for love, or only for family, or only for the good of society. She is not a philosopher but an artist who gives us particular individuals working under specific kinds of circumstances.”

George:

• Has hopes for the future
• Annoyed with Lenny for causing him so many jobs and troubles
• Is not large
• Takes care of Lenny
• Plays solitaire

Lenny:

• Has hopes for the future
• Dependent on George to guide him
• Sometimes picks up on things
• While mentally slow his reactions and thoughts are also slow although his actual movement can be fast
• Physically cannot converse well with others except for George because of his mental retardation
• He is set apart for being mentally retarded, huge, and strong
• He is defenseless mentally but has very good defense physically
• He is lonely from being set apart and rejected
• Likes to pet furry or soft things [to deal with loneliness]
• Loves mice, puppies, and rabbits
• Is amazing at bucking barley
• Simplistic

Slim:

• He is the skinner on the ranch
• Initially suspected of having an affair with Curley's wife
• Very serious in his image
• Slim is a very smart and wise person, he is very knowledgeable and can solve many problems and issues and so people seek him out for help
• He is a nice person in general
• He owns lots of puppies that Lenny wants, and gives one to Lenny

Curley's Wife:

• Loneliest character on the ranch
• Only woman on the ranch
• She is neglected by her husband (Curley)
• Curley treats her like an object (possession, this is also shown because she is referred to as HIS wife and doesn't have her own name to be called by in the book)
• She is taken by Curley as for granted
• Curley goes out with the rest of the guys to whore houses even though he is married to her
• Curley wants her to always be in their house
• Curley is very jealous even while he does go to whore houses with the rest
• Curley wants her isolated so no other man can talk to her and this makes her seem like a tramp when she does talk to other men even though she is just lonely
• Tries seducing the men to get attention
• Curley thinks he can impress her with soft hand, so he wears a glove with Vaseline in it instead of paying attention to her
• Rightfully, Curley's wife hates him and doesn't mind him to getting hurt
• She thinks she has influence because she is the wife of the bosses son and thinks she can get Crooks in trouble
• Had the chance to become a movie star
• Lenny accidentally kills her

Curley:

• He is the Boss's son
• Is intimidated by Lenny's presence and so hates him
• Thinks he is tough
• He is very aggressive and wants to fight a lot
• He is small
• He is mean
• He is married and treats his wife horribly so she is lonely and is called a tramp
• He is cocky and often loses his temper

Crooks:

• The stable buck at the ranch
• He is the only black man on the ranch
• He is subject to racism
• He has a bad back and rubs something on to it to make it better
• He is lonely because others do not work with him because of racism and because his back restricts him to doing only small tasks
• He reads to deal with his loneliness but to no avail
• He can be considered somewhat of an intellectual because the two books he owns and reads is a dictionary and a book on law
• He has no hopes for the future
• He lives alone, and has become untrusting, paranoid, and suspicious of potential friends
• He is sad and grumpy
• He scared Lenny about George being gone because that is how he always feels
• He "sees" things [that aren't their]
• He feels he will go crazy lest he finds a good companion of any type soon
• Is defensive
• Considers helping Lenny and George but changes his mind when Curley's wife degrades him

Candy:

• Old crippled man
• Lost his hand at the ranch
• He is the swamper at the ranch
• Owns an old dog he likes that is sickly
• Lets Carlson shoot the dog
• Somewhat disabled from taking big steps himself
• Offers George and Lenny half the money needed to buy the ranch in return for coming with them
• Got 250 dollars for losing his arm

Carlson:

• Big fat man who works at the ranch
• Owns a German Luger pistol (which George steals from him to kill Lenny after he strangled Curley's wife)
• Hates Candy's dog and with Candy's barely willing consent shoots it

Andy Cushman:

• In jail because of a whore

Whit:

• He is young
• He works on the ranch
• He showed Carlson a magazine with a letter from William Tenner (an old worker on the farm)

The Boss:

• He is Curley's dad
• He owns and controls the happenings at the ranch
• He is suspicious of George and Lenny traveling together when they first arrive
• Lenny spoke to him even though he promised George not to

Al Wilts:

• Sheriff in the town where Lenny and George work (Soledad)
• Curley wants to find him to figure out who killed his wife

Aunt Clara:

• Deceased aunt of Lenny
• Appears to him in a vision and scolds him, this suggest she did no treat him nicely as a child

Plot:

• Lenny and George had to escape their town because they were being looked for because Lenny, because it was soft and he liked soft things, grabbed a hold of a woman's skirt and would not let go
• Lenny and George find a new job on a ranch and begin to work there to save up money for their own future ranch and business that they plan to buy from two old people, one of which needs an operation
• Crooks scares Lenny about George not coming back and at first Lenny believes him and becomes anxious
• Lenny crushes Curley's hand
• Lenny kills Curley's wife

Thought:

Racism:

• "Ya see the stable buck's a nigger" (p. 21).

Loneliness:

• Many of the characters in Of Mice and Men are lonely, it is one of the biggest ongoing themes of the book
• "Guys like us... are the loneliest guys in the world" (p. 13).
• Lenny pets mice for comfort in being lonely (seeks companion ship in furry animals)
• • The men like to talk about their plans for an ideal future and if they have hope it brings them pleasure and helps them cope with loyalty, if they don't have hope, it gives them some

Friendship:

• Lenny on many occasions imitates George, this is because he is dependent on him and looks up to him for guidance - "Lenny imitated him" (p. 7).
• At one point George says Lenny is his cousin to answer why he hangs around with him. He also quickly brings up what a good worker he is when they notice he is mentally retarded. This shows that, George stands up for Lenny sometimes saving his hide by doing so because in a strange manner he cares about Lenny, not only as a source of companionship
• George protects Lenny

Novelists, biographers and Historians share the same related skills of imagination and empathy, They also need, if they are to write successfully, the skills of communication and the need to consider the audience for whom they are writing. A tedious, factual account, with lengthy quotations from the sources he uses may only serve to bore, even the most dedicated student. Communication is about capturing your audience and inviting them to share you enthusiasm and your illustration of the events.

Certainly Bernard Cornwell paints characters from his imagination and though some of them are larger than life yet he manages to give the reader some of the feelings that stirred the participants of the battles he describes. On the other hand just having your audience, or your readers entranced, unable to put down your work does not make it an accurate record and assessment of the events it purports to describe.

Walter Scott glorified the free and savage defender of Scottish freedom and rights when in fact many of the Jacobite soldiers only joined because their landlords told them to and their crofts would have been burned had they not followed the clan leader. Many, of course deserted as soon as they conveniently could, deeming the cause of the (not so bonny) Prince Charles Edward Stuart a lost one and wishing just to be left alone.

Another case in point is that of the Arthurian legends. These cast the leader of a Celtic war-band in the Romantic light of the Myth of the Chivalry of the High Middle Ages. So he becomes "King" Arthur complete with round table and a gentleness which had little place in the culture of the descendants of that same war band of the dark ages.

Historians may be guilty of myth making or of genuflecting to a myth. Not so very long ago, every student dissertation had to recognize the Marxist view of history and make some sort of nod towards the class struggle. If he did not then he was unlikely to get a good degree. Now we are all Post modernists and have to note the uniqueness of cultures, of time and of place, now Communism and the Berlin wall have collapsed and, with it, academic radicalism.

So we have the Scylla of too rigid and wooden factualism which makes for tedious reading and the Charybdis of imagination run riot into a rippingly good yarn, epic or heroic song which may tickle the imagination of the hearers but do no service to the truth.

All of the above may be well or poorly researched. All may or may not use their imagination and their skill of empathy to present an interesting picture, or a thrilling but scarcely credible view of the past. Hollywood history being another case in point, and in many cases the horrible example. No novelist has poor communication skills since that would mean books remaining for ever in manuscript form. On the other hand prominent academics can get away with poor writing to a certain extent but may still do a disservice to their students.

Even fantasy writing may be not as far from the truth as may be imagined. Terry Pratchett's Discworld series has tales which one soon understands as having several levels of belief. First there is the "good yarn" type of story told with skill and lots of humour by the author. That is the superficial, the surface reading. That may be all the reader wants and so be it. However, it does not take the discerning reader long to find that the situations in which the characters are cast take us to another level of understanding. Here are "people", in the form of were wolves, golems, trolls, dwarves gargoyles and witches. We find ourselves identifying ourselves with them and we realise that they are, sometimes a clever send up of our society and its follies, and sometimes we see our own follies and foibles, grotesquely displayed. Next time you pick up a Discworld book remember you are picking up a story that operates on several levels of understanding. So understand and learn.

People say to me, “I don't read fiction, I prefer factual stuff”. Fine, I like factual "stuff" as well, but then what do we mean by "factual". It is possible to argue that fiction may be more true than fact since good fiction deals with the human condition. Can we say that Dickens was not "factual". The workhouse where Mr. Bumble was the beadle was real, it was a fact, there were many of them as any local historian will tell you. There must be more workhouse scandals in English history than local historians can record. Perhaps Oliver himself is rather overdrawn as unbelievably goody-goody, but then that was what the reading public of the day required. So was Fagin overdrawn but Sykes, Nancy, and the vast array of cockney characters good and bad, were all real.

Then there were certainly schools like the one run by Mr. and Mrs. Squeers. Dotheboys Hall, was real and Dickens, in Nicholas Nickleby took the lid of corruption and abuse. Dickens had a strong social conscience and he wrote accordingly and has left the world a richer place.

If his characters lack the many facets of personality which appear in Shakespeare and one may criticise him for having one-dimensional characters, the goodies being all good and the baddies all bad, that again was what his public wanted and how they understood. Dickens and Shakespeare had that special gift of understanding their public and providing what they wanted. In so doing they also educated that public.

In conclusion I suggest that we ought to take a fresh look at fiction, at all sorts of fiction. Try Conrad for instance and see how Lord Jim was driven by his past. See the sordidness of the petty little life of the Secret Agent and try to think what was the darkness that Conrad explored in Heart of Darkness. Fiction, at its best, and sometimes at its worst, explores the human condition. Would you say that One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is fiction or fact? Try them for yourselves, enjoy then, ponder them, and, maybe weep with them.

It is a heinous thing, to be forced into killing a friend out of mercy. To end a life, and in doin" so end of a lifetime of dreaming of a better life. I feel something akin to shame, even in admitting to my own self, that when first I laid eyes on the pair of them, I couldn't even begin to comprehend the bond they shared. An unlikely friendship, but one that benefited the both of 'em. One they both were dependent on. Perhaps if there were more men like Lennie and George, these bad times would be less dark.

Euthanasia is a controversial issue at the best of times. So much for the American Dream. I got to where I am today by skill alone, but where I am is hardly living in the lap o' luxury. Sure, I get my stake and meals, and a bed if it can be so called, but the life of the ranch worker is no life at all. Just living is a chore.

All around me, I see the suffering of good, but disadvantaged men. Born equal, with an equal shot at success? Hardly. Take ol' Candy, he was a good worker in his day, but now he's as ol' and dogeared as that stinkin' bitch of his. I couldn't save that dog. Shot dead. He ought to 'ave brought his peace, after a lifetime of hard work. Is that the fate that awaits us, too? Disposed off, like poor Candy's dog, or Lennie, when we are of no further use? The American Dream, it never works out for folk like us.

I guess the trouble started way back, before the pair of them so much as showed face here. Curley has always been a troublesome character; thrives on the ill ease of others, and likes to see people on edge. Bitter, is the word I'd use. A small, angry man with too much to prove; dead set upon the way he is perceived by other, less small and less angry men. There's been an underlying tension "ere since the day he first bought that pretty thing of his home, and declared their engagement.

She is sure going to keep him on his toes, her running "round after the ranch hands like them and Curley are equals. Why, that would rile a better man than Curley. I would be glad to see him in such a state, had things turned out differently. I am saddened to say that I played my hand in it, encouraged her. She was a tart if ever I saw one, and at the time I thought that if I could 'ave got a rise outta that son of a bitch Curley through her, then it would be worth it. And I was lonely, too. We all are. George is lonely now too.

Deserved each other, is all I can say. I ain't ever seen a more dysfunctional couple. They might be together, but the two of "em are just as alone as the rest of us. Why, George and Lennie are the only two folk I"ve met up this way who share a real friendship of any sort. One that ones deeper than colleagues, or the companionship of a man and his working animals. My own Lulu has laid her pups, but she and they are no friends of mine. I disposed of the weakest to strengthen the litter, and to save my Lulu the strength. It had to be done, not out of compassion, but because economically, it made the most sense. I gave Candy and Lennie each one of Lulu's pups, but more 'cus I had no use for five than outta compassion for the two men; although I feel some responsibility for the death of Candy's old dog.

Curley doesn't intimidate me, and hasn't in a long time. I've seen enough of his kind before him to let that work, handy though he may be, and I've been around this place long enough to see what he is, and isn't capable of. Never before though, have I seen the kinda brawl exhibited by Lennie, that night he crushed Curley's hand. Scared me, that did.

Curley might be a good boxer, but he has half a brain, and enough sense to know when to stop. He has all of the ill intent that Lennie lacks, but Lennie hasn't the brains to know when to let go. If I'd been wise, I woulda sent Lennie and George on their way that night. Despite his best efforts, George could never "ave kept that big geezer outta trouble indefinitely; although I admire him for trying. Perhaps he cared too much for the oaf, he"d "ave rather see him locked up than harmed, but that is no way to live. We can"t be happy as free men, 'cus in truth we aren't free, but to see Lennie caged, would only lessen my cynical view of the world.

I saw today for the first time with full clarity, the difference in men. Perhaps I was becoming one of 'em. Distanced myself from the folk around me. Being alone for so long, a man becomes cold and unfeeling. Lose the capacity to emphasize with another human being. Why, like I couldn't when first I crossed paths with 'em, the others couldn't comprehend the friendship Lennie and George had. Didn't realise why George was grief stricken. They never dream of what they cannot achieve, 'cus the disappointment of recognising reality is such a burden. It's the difference between mice, and men.

Those that have heart, despite the suffering we all endure, and those that sacrifice that heart long ago to ease their suffering. Curley didn't ever have heart. His wife was killed, and all he could care for was his own revenge. He went after Lennie with a gun with intent to hurt him, draw out his suffering 'cus he'd been humiliated by Lennie. Carlson, he had no heart either. Cared only to live out the lifestyle of a trigger-happy cowboy outta some damned magazine. Whit, too, showed his true colours. Never heard the youngster more excited than he was at the prospect of holding a gun. They're worse than animals, they're animals with guns. But is it better to feel, and to know what loss is, than not to feel at all? To dream, and not succeed, but dream nonetheless? Today, I made my choice.