It is honorable, but his vampire sire Lestat doesn't see it that way. He sees empathy as a weakness. Lestat comes off as a masochist that takes pleasure in indulging his savage vampire needs. One of my favorite lines in the movie is when Lestat and Louis are talking and Lestat says "Come to New Orleans then, the Paris opera's in town we can try some french cuisine" Louis responds "Forgive me if I have a lingering respect for life." 

It shows how drastically different their personalities are. Lestat tries to teach Louis what the life of a vampire takes, he took him under his dark wing and took the light of day. Ultimately though Louis realizes that's the price he must pay. Also along the way, they meet a young girl who completes this sorrowful family.

The Vampire Claudia as she is known is far too young to be Vampire. Her thirst is almost as terrible as Lestat's and she feeds and lives with all the zeal of youth. In the end though, Louis cannot overcome his own mourning. He mourns for the loss of his mortality, the one thing that humans fear.

What shall be the fate of Lestat, Louis, and his young child of the night? Watch and see

The main character Carmen is okay with her weight in the beginning of the story.  It is her mother that has a problem with Carmens weight.

Her mother puts Carmen, her perfectly fine daughter, on diets and restricts what she can and cannot eat.  Why is the important question here.  Does she do it because she just wants what is best for her daughter?  Is it because of her own weight issues?  Read and then decide for yourself.

She decides, out of the blue, to take her daughter to a whole new place to live.  She says it is a fresh new start, and has all of her other reasonings. At first it may seem like a move is a good idea, however in the end it only detriments both of their lives.  Carmen ends up thinking she is overweight and her mother goes off the deep end....and for what?

I have seen things like this happen in families and it is just a shame.

Perhaps it is not always weight issues, but parents problems eventually become the childrens.  For example, showing affection.  As a child, if the parents do not show much affection towards their children, when the child grows up and have children of their own, they will carry the problem with lack of affection. 

So it is best to be cautious with what you teach your children, so they do not grow up with the same problems.

With all that said, I think Julia Bell is a talented author.  She shows truth in her novel, Massive.  It is okay to like the skin you are in, because it is yours.  Why not make the best of it, because after all you only get one life; one body.  Sure you can alter things, but why not just embrace who you are?

For those who have not read Massive, I suggest you get a copy.  It is well worth the read.

McPherson has a likeness for Uncle Tom’s Cabin because of both its message and its impact on American history. In first comparing it to the romantic novel Gone With the Wind, he showed how Gone With the Wind glamorized the Old South and romanticized the Confederacy, while Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped shape attitudes that would deeply devastate both. Not only does Uncle Tom’s Cabin have its moments of comedy, drama, and appeals to the reader, but it also displays morality, a competition between good and evil. Uncle Tom’s Cabin showed the cruelties of slavery and how they could impact the domestic life. Since the 19^th century witnessed the rise of the middle class, people were horrified at the thought of separating families, since the family was considered sacred. McPherson also admired the fact that Harriet Beecher Stowe based the characters in her novel on people in real life. Stowe apparently knew more about slavery than people assumed, from being brought into contact with many fugitives fleeing into Ohio. One of her brothers lived in Louisiana and gave Stowe the material that brought about the image of Simon Legree and his plantation. Basically, McPherson admired Uncle Tom’s Cabin, praising it as one of the most influential novels of the 19^th century.

The importance of Uncle Tom’s Cabin was truly significant to James M. McPherson. He enjoyed reading the literary work in high school in the 1950s and argued with his professors in college over its true significance. McPherson is determined to make Uncle Tom’s Cabin be seen by all as a global masterpiece, demonstrating the significant flaws in American government during the existence of a divided nation.

In act one scene three, Cory has a confrontation with his father. It is a disagreement of whether or not Cory should be on the football team. Troy wants Cory to stay off the team and work while Cory wants to play football. Troy asserts his authority over his son telling him that it is his house and that Cory must follow his rules. Troy ask Cory why he lives in his house and why Cory has something to eat. Cory replies, “Cause you like me” (136). Troy is angry at Cory's response: “It's my job. It's my responsibility. A man got to take care of his family” (137). The reader can see this passage as Troy being a mean man. It is as though Troy is putting up a fence between him and his son. The question could be asked, what father doesn't like his own son? Troy is giving Cory a lesson on responsibility. Troy explains that Cory is a part of his job. Just something else that Troy has to do everyday.

Troy is pointing out that when a man has a family he must provide for his family. Not because he just likes them but, because they are his responsibility. It is something that a man has to do because he just has to do it. Troy is saying that being a man means taking care of his responsibilities and that his family is one of many responsibilities. Troy also asserts that it takes a lot of hard work to take care of a family. Troy is trying to tell Cory that family is a large responsibility. What makes a man is not only taking on that responsibility but fulfilling it. A man must do things for his family that he will not like to do. A family is hard work and not a game. The reader can see Troy's tactics as being harsh but, what Troy is trying to do is teach his son that responsibility takes working at things you don't always enjoy or prefer to do.

In act two scene five, Cory is coming back from the military for Troy's funeral. He is excited to see his mother and his young step sister that Rose is raising even though it is not her's. Cory informs his mother that he does not plan to go to his father's funeral. His mother is shocked. She does not agree with Cory's decision: “You standing there all healthy and grown talking about you ain't going to your daddy's funeral” (188). Rose mentions that Cory is grown that he is a man. She makes a distinction that he is not like the last time she saw him. She is appalled when she hears that Cory has decided that he will not go to his father's funeral. The reason why she is shocked is because she expects him to act like a man. Acting like a man means taking on responsibility and fulfilling it. Even though Troy was not the nicest father to Cory he is still his father and a father is family.

Family is responsibility. Rose is saying that it is time for Cory to start fulfilling responsibility because he is grown, because he is a man. This is also the reason why Rose is taken back by Cory's proposal. Rose is shocked that a grown man would be acting this way. Her tone is one of shocked disapproval. She disapproves because she expects him to be a man by now. The last time she saw him he would have been going off to the military and then was still a boy. When she sees him the second time he has grown into a “healthy” man. When she hears that Cory does not want to fulfill his responsibility by going to his father's funeral, she is shock by what looks like a man is not acting like one.

Later in the same conversation Rose explains to Cory about his own responsibility. A man is responsible for himself and that no other can affect that. Cory gives the reason that he has been carrying around his father all his life. Troy has been a shadow that has loomed over him like a cloud. Rose responds, “You can't be nobody but who you are, Cory. That shadow wasn't nothing but you growing into yourself” (189). Rose tells Cory that his father's shadow that he thinks he has was nothing but what he perceived. In the first sentence of the passage, Rose says that a person is only themself. A man is only what they are and that nobody can change that. What Troy was trying to show Cory was that he must be his own man and accept his own responsibility. This is what Rose states to Cory. A person can only be themself and that noone can change a person, a person can only change themself.

This is where the second sentence comes in. Cory let his father get him down. What Troy was trying to do is make Cory realize that he is the only one responsible for his own responsibilities. Troy reflects this concept in his own life. In the play the reader sees Troy accepting his own responsibility, some bad and some good. Troy accepts that he has a family to take care of, an affair that he has, and for a new born baby girl. Troy never blames someone else for the things that he has done. This is what he was trying to show Cory. Rose is telling him that his father's funeral was his responsibility and that he has to accept it and not pass it onto his dead father.

Later in the same monolog, Rose explains Troy's intentions. Rose explains what Troy was trying to do for his family. In a way Rose restores Troy as a likeable character for the reader. Rose further explains, “I do know that he meant to do more good than he meant to do harm. He wasn't always right. Sometimes when he touched he bruised” (189). The reader can know from the first line of this passage that Troy's intentions were good for Cory. In the second sentence, Rose further explains to Cory that his father had made mistakes. Wilson is making a statement about parenthood. Fathers are not always right. Fathers are human and make mistakes too. This is also part of Cory becoming a man. He has to accept the faults in his father and through this he can accept his relationship with his father.

In the last sentence of the passage, Rose explains that at times when Tory just meant to touch, he hurt. It is like when a person is in a water balloon toss. Even though the people involved do not intend to break the balloon, the balloon always seems to break for almost all of the contestants. This would be like Troy's parenting. He means not to break the balloon, or hurt Cory, but it is next to impossible to keep from making a mess. Troy breaks the balloon because he has hard hands from a hard life. This is what makes Troy a heroic character. He tried to give his son the best that he can give even though it was not easy. He shows that for a boy to become a man he must fulfill his responsibility. Troy eventually accomplishes this feat through Rose. Through Rose's love. A love that Troy had a hard time expressing. Troy is a hero because he fulfills his responsibilities which include bringing up his son to be a man.

Two enemy families, the Montagues and the Capulets, have been in a bitter family feud for generations. No one can remember who or what started it, but pride and arrogance have kept the feud fired. The fate of Romeo, Juliet, and Paris started in the streets of Verona, where members of each family were fighting. The Prince of Verona declared that if he saw any more fighting between the families, the punishment would be death. Later, Count Paris, a young nobleman, spoke to LordCapulet about marrying Juliet. Lord Capulet invited Paris to try to attract Juliet's attention at an upcoming Capulet ball, despite her young age. At the Capulet ball, Romeo Montague and his friends sneaked in with masks. Romeo saw Juliet Capulet and they fell in love with each other. Later, after sneaking into Capulet grounds, Romeo heard a private confession by Juliet that she loved him despite her family. Friar Lawrence married the two the next day. Tybalt, Juliet's cousin purused Romeo the next day for appearing at the ball in disguise, but Romeo refused to fight him since he was now part of the Capulet family. Romeo's friend Mercutio decided to fight Tybalt, but was fatally wounded when Romeo stepped in to stop the fighting. Romeo then slayed Tybalt in anger over his friend's death, and runs away. Despite the murder, the Prince decided that Romeo should be banished, not killed, since Tybalt's killing Mercutio provoked Romeo. Juliet grieved her husband's absence.

Thinking that she was upset by Tybalt's death Lord Capulet arranged to her engagement to Paris, and threatened to disown her if she didn't agree to marry Paris. Even Juliet's nurse, once her confidant, said that Juliet should forget Romeo and marry Paris. Desperatyeahely, Juliet visited Friar Lawrence for help. Friar Lawrence offered Juliet a potion that would leave her in a death-like trance for 24 hours. He said he would send a message to Romeo to come in the crypt, save Juliet, and run away together. Unfortunately, the message didn't reach Romeo, and he learned of Juliet's “death” from a servant. He illegally bought poison from an apothecary, and visited the Capulet crypt. It appears that while Romeo was mourning, Paris came in and confronted him, and a battle resulted. Romeo killed Paris, and went back to Juliet. He drank the poison, committing suicide, when Juliet began to wake up. Friar Lawrence then arrived, saw Romeo dead, and tried to convince Juliet to leave. But Juliet refused to leave Romeo. Instead, she grabbed Romeo's dagger and stabbed herselv. In grief, the two families agreed to end their feud in honor of their children.

Where does the blame lie? Verona Tattler has looked into the story and believes that Tybalt, Juliet's cousin and Lord Capulet's nephew, is responsible. Tybalt was notoriously hot-blooded and proud of his family status. Recently, Benvolio, Romeo's cousin, had been seen trying to stop a fight between Capulet and Montague servants, when Tybalt drew his sword and claimed his loathing for the Montagues. At the ball, Tybalt saw the masked Romeo and wanted to kill him for reasons beyond wanting to protect the Capulets. Tybalt would have dueled Romeo but Lord Capulet forbade him to. Tybalt wouldn't forget Romeo's intrusion, and it now appears, planned on revenge. The rest you know. As reported yesterday, Tybalt came across Mercutio and slayed him when Romeo tried to separate them. Then Romeokilled Tybalt. If Tybalt hadn't pursued Romeo and initiated the arguments, neither Mercutio nor Tybalt would have died, and Romeo wouldn't have been banished. If Romeo hadn't been banished, Juliet wouldn't have gone to such drastic measures to evade her marriage with Paris. And if Juliet hadn't taken Friar Lawrence's potion, Romeo wouldn't have killed Paris in the crypt, or consumed the poison, and Juliet wouldn't have committed suicide. Tybalt ignored the Prince and his Lord Capulet's orders, and went overboard with his family pride. If Tybalt had thought out his actions, he could have saved his own life and three others.

To confirm our suspicion, the Verona Tattler interviewed Juliet's nurse and Lord Capulet, two members of Tybalt's house.

Verona Tattler: Why was Tybalt so determined to get revenge on Romeo?

Lord Capulet: Tybalt always was proud of his background. He probably was trying to right Romeo's wrong of sneaking into our ball. I knew Tybalt wouldn't disobey my orders on Capulet grounds, but I was hoping he would understand the importance of keeping peace in Verona.

VT:Was he always like this?

Capulet: Yes. When he was younger, he would always stop the other Capulet children from interacting with Montague children. He made enemies fast and disliked all Montagues, no matter their personality.

VT:Was it just family pride that made him want to go after Romeo?

Capulet: If I remember correctly, he always seemed jealous of Romeo. Romeo was an exceptional swordsman and always had a lot of friends. I suppose Tybalt was always looking for a fault in Romeo.

VT:Did you understand the family feud?

Capulet: I don't think anyone did. Tybalt was raised with his family always against the Montagues. From when he was little, he was taught that the Montagues were sworn enemies.

VT: Do you think he's ultimately to blame for your daughter's death, along with Romeo and Paris?

Capulet: To be honest, yes, I do. He never thought before he acted, and in the end it cost him his life, along with my daughter's. He was a great person though, and I will still grieve for him.

Verona Tattler:What do you know about Tybalt?

Juliet's Nurse: He was very vengeful, but a great friend of the Capulets and Juliet especially. He seemed to always want to protect her from harms' way. He'd always try to get back at those that harmed him or his companions.

VT: So do you think that Tybalt thought of Romeo as someone harmful to Juliet?

Nurse: Probably not anyone especially harmful, but he seemed to think that all Montagues were dangerous.

VT: Did you ever know of his plan to get revenge on Romeo?

Nurse: He often spoke in mutters of Romeo. I overheard him talking to one of his companions that he was going to try to get Romeo alone and battle him one-on-one. Oftentimes, I tried to convince him to obey the Prince, but he'd always ignore me and walk away.

VT:What did he think of Mercutio?

Nurse: He always said that Mercutio was a jokester who was all talk but no action.

VT:Would you have ever guessed the outcome of Tybalt's need for revenge?

Nurse: No. I knew Tybalt was going to get himself in trouble eventually, since he would disobey the Prince's order of peace, but I never envisioned him bringing three others with him.

VT:Was Tybalt friendly with Paris?

Nurse: Tybalt was cautious around Paris, since Tybalt was so protective of Juliet. I think they would've become friends because they had some similarities. I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted to harm Paris.

As you can tell, because of the long-lasting family feud, Tybalt seemed born to battle the Montagues. It was only nature that put him against Romeo and urged him to seek revenge on the enemy house. Even though he was trying to do the best, he led himself, Juliet, Romeo, and Paris to their untimely deaths. The Verona Tattler believes that Tybalt was unintentionally responsible for the tragic ending to this love story.

 

 

 

A tragic flaw is a character trait that causes the character to fall from great heights by the end of the literary work. In the case of Antigone, her tragic flaw is her pride. Her unwillingness to be wrong and intent on being headstrong cost Antigone her life in the end. Antigone thought so highly of herself in face that she chooses to go against a direct order. Antigone was outraged when Ismene said, “We are only women, we cannot fight with men, Antigone! ... We must give in to the law.” (10-11). In the time of Sophocles, a women was supposed to be subordinate to men, so the fact that Antigone felt she could take on men was outrageous to the people at that time. Antigone believed that Ismene was taking aim at her pride, and therefore, Antigone told Ismene to not help.

Another time she appears unwilling to share the blame, or glory, depending on which way one looks at it, is when she says, “You shall not lessen my death by sharing it” (20). This exhibits Antigone's pride because she is reluctant to share any glory with Ismene because Antigone wants all the fame for herself. A third time Antigone's pride shows is when she is before being thrown into the cave. The chorus is questioning what other women have been killed the way Antigone will when Antigone says, “How often I have heard the story of Niobe… I feel the loneliness of her death in mine” (26). Antigone's pride is shown here when she compares herself to a god. At this time Greeks would have been appalled anyone, especially a women, compare him or herself to an immortal being. Her pride eventually leads to her downfall however. Creon feels challenged and sentences her to death, which makes pride Antigone's tragic flaw.

A second aspect to a tragic hero is their acceptance of their fall. In order to be a tragic character, the character must acknowledge their fall from grace and accept it. After telling Ismene that death will come to any person who buries Polynices, she proceeds to say that she will bury him regardless (10-11). While she understands she will die for burying her brother, she accepts her fate, which defines the second aspect of a tragic hero. Once again, when confronted by Creon, Antigone says that she dared defy Creon's proclamation (18). She does not try to deny it, she accepts that fact that she will fall from great height fully knowing the consequences. Finally, when being lead to her tomb, Antigone says, “Lead me to my vigil…Come let us wait no longer” (27-28). She is waiting for death to come, a sign, that she doe not reject her downfall, but recognizes her fall from grace. These prove that Antigone came to terms with her fate, and acknowledges her collapse.

The last aspect of a tragic hero is that they view death as a way to escape the suffering. Antigone suffered by seeing her brother go unburied. When telling Ismene of her idea, Antigone says , “I say that his crime is holy: I shall lie down with him in death.” (11). She is obviously suffering with the idea that her brother will not be buried, as she believes the gods would want Polynices buried, and looks to death as a way to end her pain. Another example is when Ismene is asking to die with Antigone, Antigone says, “I belong to death” (21). This shows that Antigone is waiting anxiously to die to join her brothers. A third and final example is when Antigone is being led to her tomb and she repeatedly expresses how she is waiting to die and wants to get it over with to join her family and end the suffering (27).

Antigone is characterized as a tragic hero due to her tragic flaw; pride, and the fact she accepts her downfall, while viewing death as the end to her suffering. She does not allow anyone to share her fate, acknowledges the penalty for burying her brother, and willingly accepts death as a way to end suffering. Therefore, Antigone is a tragic hero.

 

The West Side Story is set in Upper West Side Manhattan. It is about rivalry between two teenage gangs of different backgrounds. Anton, a member of the white gang, fell in love with Maria, the sister of the leader of the rival Puerto Rican gang.

Romeo and Juliet is undoubtedly the most popular romantic love story to ever hit the literary world. It talks about intense passion between the star-crossed lover Romeo and Juliet. Their love was doomed from the start because of their feuding families- the Montague represented by Romeo and Capulet, by Juliet.

The overriding theme, of course, between the two stories - Romeo and Juliet and The West Side Story is love - deep, intense and passionate love. The kind that defies everything even families and loyalties.

The love Tony felt for Maria and Romeo for Juliet made them defy their families, their friends and their social world. Their love is strong and forceful, so much so that it made them revolt against the very world they revolved in and, sometimes, even against themselves.

Intensity of thoughts and feelings dominate both stories. In the case of Romeo and Juliet, Romeo's character takes on intensity to another level. His capacity for deep passionate love is merely an extension of his capacity for intense feelings of all kinds. His intensity is evident when he sneaks into enemy's territory to seek Juliet. Or, when he kills his wife's cousin in a duel. And finally, when he committed suicide upon erroneously believing Juliet is dead.

The same way, Tony of the West Side Story is capable of extreme emotions. This is when he killed his lover's brother Bernardo in a heated argument. He also challenged Chino to kill him when he thought Chino killed Maria which as we know led to his untimely demise towards the end of the story.

Both male characters seem defined by their extreme emotions and capacity for deep love. This deep intense emotion shared by both male protagonists is what propels both stories forward. Had these male characters, Romeo and Tony, did not have such intensity of feelings in the first place, the love they feel for their women - Juliet and Maria respectively, would not have existed.

The women, on the other hand, exhibit logic, objectivity and strength. Juliet, for instance, showed her determination when she first obeyed her parent's request to try to love Paris, their favored suitor. The same way, Maria showed force of will over emotions

when she agreed to marry Chino.

Their objectivity comes across when Maria decided to flee the city with Tony to leave the chaos behind them. When Romeo killed Tybalt, Juliet did not follow Romeo right away. Instead she made a logical decision to allow her love for Romeo to guide her priorities. Both Juliet and Maria, in essence, decided to cut themselves loose from their social connections when they decided to follow their love. Juliet cut herself off from her Nurse, her parents and her social status when she followed Romeo. Maria cut loose from her family, her dead brother's memory and her social circle when she decided to run away with Tony.

Juliet killed herself upon finding out that Romeo is dead not out of weakness but out of love. She stabs her heart with a dagger which showed a lot more courage than taking down pills. Maria, on the other hand, did not commit suicide upon seeing Tony killed by Chino. She used the tragedy to point out to the feuding groups Jets and Sharks how their hate led to Tony's death. The two groups declared truce in the process.

There is no specific morale that one can gather from both stories on love and relationships. Both stories seek to portray the chaos and obstacles that surround passion and love.

Violence brought about by love is another theme that permeates in both stories. In both stories, love is linked to death. As in the case of Tony who died at the end of the story in West Side Story. The same goes to Romeo and Juliet, who met untimely death at the end of the story.

Violence is very pronounced in both stories as we are being made painfully aware from the very start that the two protagonists come from feuding clans such as in Romeo and Juliet or feuding culture such as in The West Side Story. We have this unshakeable feeling that trouble is brewing as soon as the story commences.

Another theme in the story is the conflict of individual self with society. What the protagonists in both stories Romeo and Juliet wanted were different from what the society expected from them. Romeo and Juliet fought for their private feelings to the end by committing the ultimate act of privacy- suicide. In the same vein, Maria and Tony fought for their private love but they did not really resort to extreme means. Tony's death is not brought about by suicide although he challenged the villain Chino to come to kill him when he thought Maria was killed. Still, Tony's death is not self-inflicted or voluntary as in the case of the lovers Romeo and Juliet.

All life is a drama. Such is the claim of Burke referring to any text. In such a written product of Spenser, drama is an essential framework to use. Since the poem is a well-celebrated sonnet, it evokes the very realm of love and romance. Sonnets sprouted from the love poetry of court officials in the then English countries. And drama was first encapsulated by the play of emotions and romanticism in the early centuries.

The poem, as part of Amoretti, which is a series of sonnets depicting the tones and moments of Spenser's courtship particularly to Elizabeth Boyle, may have purposively dramatized the sequencing aspect. The dialogic paradigm used in the sonnet proves to have highlighted the conflict between the comment of the woman on his failed writing and Spenser's feeling of guilt.

Burke's dramatistic analysis initially expounds on the guilt feeling of the author and how he redeems himself through consubstantiality. Later, this critique shall focus on the so-called pentad.

The poem, which was mounted in the 16th century Europe, was probably inspired with the rigors of poetry that even included the famous William Shakespeare, weaving the threads of romance into the intricate arrangement of words, verses, and songs. But, since Burke's approach is necessary, hierarchy is a cardinal factor to look into.

The patriarchal society that emerged and emerging until now has influenced the poem in its most significant possibility. The poet itself was a political bigwig during his time and was among those prominent people who possessed remarkable credentials as to academic achievements. The poet's machismo that could have been incorporated in his poem (such a probability is a desideratum since the poet is not necessarily the agent himself) might have been challenged by the “waves” and the “tide.” Such a fact already weakens the very role of men as superior human beings. Man's hubris overpowers even the supposed undaunted nature.

But another challenge comes-the judgment from the opposite being. The woman in the poem has castigated, intentionally or not, the very apex of the man's ego. The disproving implication of the woman's statement breaches the tradition of the engendered status quo. It is mortal sin to debunk the socially fixed authority's endeavours.

In any state of normalcy in the realm of societal sexes, such an instance was abnormal and worthy of a law suit. The common reaction would be the man's vengeance, argumentative stance, or simply, opposition. But what Spenser is trying to convey is the very essence of authentic love. In existential philosophy, authenticity is measured upon an individual's willingness to compromise everything in order to pave way for his happiness and priority in the world. With this, Spenser exposes the man's priority to be his patient and compassionate love to the woman in such a way that the man's response to the woman was a simple explanation of hope and optimism regarding his strokes that would symbolize eternity. The feeling of guilt in this stage is about to embark on purification, as he seemed to have deliberately rejected the social hierarchy he is in. In plots, this stage refers to denouement.

With the initial disbelief and distrust the woman cast on him, he, ironically, persevered to formulate non-offensive words just to defend his side. He rather explained that albeit nature would disturb his love (through the gesture of writing) for her, the virtues (the fidelity, fervor, patience, and sincerity) shall eternize whatever it is that lurks between them. With this comes identification that may have been achieved after the man's response. The man might have identified himself as a loyal soldier to the woman or an eternal someone who would veer away from the temptations of a concubine. The promise or oath implicit in the man's words could have conveyed truthfulness and ethos, especially if these were delivered by the reputable Spenser to his wife Elizabeth Boyle. The man or the poem now could have achieved rhetorical sensitivity as to have satisfied the traditional emotional and gullible woman of the 16th century.

Such a broader handling of dramatism over Spenser's sonnet might also be relegated to the famous brief and well-classified devise: the dramatistic pentad.

The act in the poem is clearly the writing of the name on the strand-a gesture to instill in the earth a truth behind hearts, a symbol of cathartic interaction with nature as outlet of human emotions and sensations. The act is more of a child-like one since it may delineate a child's naivete on the use of paper or the writing material itself. But Spenser might want to convey the phenomenon of purported regression-that an adult may return to his childhood when he is touched with all the deepness of love, such as a normal individual may be as immature as he could get knowing that his social environment (family, close peers, or lover) would not judge his actions in a shallow and an unfounded way.

But such an act is obstructed because the scene is about the waves washing away his very effort of engraving. The pitiful situation of the man may have been surfaced but was reinforced when he attempted the same for the second time yet with a tide to erase it all. The scene may have placed the man as victimized. But instead of consolation, stoppage is the woman's proposal. This might imply the man's rejection for quite sometime, or maybe a placid reaction from the girl caught in quandary. Nevertheless, the man continued. Such a fact might be alluded to the experience of Spenser when he long courted Boyle amidst both of their hectic schedules as literary academicians then.

Since the simple exchange of words in the sonnet may be attributed to the poet himself (regardless of Roland Barthe's “The Author is Dead”), the poem could be interpreted as a tribute to Boyle-the one and only wife of Spenser. The agent himself could have empowered his credibility all the more, as he might have wanted to tell Boyle of his dedication and undying love (purpose), as he is known as the “Prince of Poets” by his English contemporaries yet a trust-worthy political comrade of lords and earls. And the very agency that transports his message is primarily his use of words that directed to eternity-a term which is indicative of his religiosity as he was influenced by bishops and the rest of the clergy in his period.

Sainted is now his image, perhaps. His exemplifications of the heavens and whatever is relevant to the celestial worlds empowered more of his literary pieces such as the subject of this critique.

It is also significant to note that the material (the sonnet itself) was crafted amidst the heights of the Christian world. Although there had been a period of distress between Roman Catholicism and Puritanism, Spenser was one of those who stood for the permanence of the papacy and the foundation of the laity. It was a period when literary pieces delineating unconditional, pure, and perpetual love filled the air. It was a period when Spenser had the greatest privilege of boosting his ideas and insights through experiential learning to the audiences who then sought reinforcement even in the world of the arts and literature.

Because of such “holy” mood set in Europe, those who speak, write, and know about the Scriptures, take the lion share of integrity, respect, and power. Even in the present day, many leaders still cling to the Church just to be sainted in front of many. Political leaders may have pictures praying in Churches or that they are friends of religious leaders in order to win the hearts and votes of the people. Even in monarchies, religiosity still proves to be a fundamental quality every leader should possess, as it solidifies society albeit with political or economic boundaries or differences. As Karl Marx puts it in his Communist Manifesto, religion is the opium of the masses in that the Church or its influence could cause a significant change in the status quo.

Hence, a revolution in any society worldwide could always be staged just by a single whisper from a religious icon or dictator for that matter.

The very pedestal Spenser claimed made him renowned for the religious essence of his works, especially in sonnets no matter how elaborate the iambic patterns were. “One Day I Wrote Her Name” was just one of the sonnets European lovers could have indulged in.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that the dramatis personae in the said sonnet composed of only two participants with directly opposite sexes. It vividly presents a situation of lovers where the man's statement was all the more colored because of the seemingly challenging words from the woman. In the Deconstructionist or Post-structuralist view, Spenser could have revolutionized the English literature, since women then did not have the right to deliver public statements or any form of pronouncement. But since Spenser punctuated on the extraordinary love of the man to the girl in his sonnet, he as the author, paved way for the woman to speak (in this case, 4 lines even). Although this may also be observable in Shakespeare's works, but the raison d'etre of the woman's utterance in the sonnet at hand seemed to have debunked the social hierarchical structure the Old Europe had.

Indeed, Spenser, with his ability to convey his feelings through verses, or his ability to construct realities that could probably depict him too, the claims of the West may have been right enough that Spenser has really “immortalized the beauty of his beloved.” Whether the poem was delivered or offered to Boyle, his wife, the literary underpinnings may easily be culled out, since both of their phenomenological horizons could have somehow intersected as both of them experienced the world of literature in various genres and treatments. And in this juncture of literature lies Spenser's fortification of the concern for man (individualism from the Renaissance) and the highlighting of human experiences (happiness, pain, and anxiety from Humanism). In the more interesting side of history, the Church then was at the brink of falling, yet however strong the Renaissance was, Spenser succeeded in reconciling his current world with the superiority of Christianity, as he still bravely affixed the tones of his works, especially in the said sonnet, to the Divine intervention over all human experiences, realities, and worlds.

 

All life is a drama. Such is the claim of Burke referring to any text. In such a written product of Spenser, drama is an essential framework to use. Since the poem is a well-celebrated sonnet, it evokes the very realm of love and romance. Sonnets sprouted from the love poetry of court officials in the then English countries. And drama was first encapsulated by the play of emotions and romanticism in the early centuries.

The poem, as part of Amoretti, which is a series of sonnets depicting the tones and moments of Spenser's courtship particularly to Elizabeth Boyle, may have purposively dramatized the sequencing aspect. The dialogic paradigm used in the sonnet proves to have highlighted the conflict between the comment of the woman on his failed writing and Spenser's feeling of guilt.

Burke's dramatistic analysis initially expounds on the guilt feeling of the author and how he redeems himself through consubstantiality. Later, this critique shall focus on the so-called pentad.

The poem, which was mounted in the 16th century Europe, was probably inspired with the rigors of poetry that even included the famous William Shakespeare, weaving the threads of romance into the intricate arrangement of words, verses, and songs. But, since Burke's approach is necessary, hierarchy is a cardinal factor to look into.

The patriarchal society that emerged and emerging until now has influenced the poem in its most significant possibility. The poet itself was a political bigwig during his time and was among those prominent people who possessed remarkable credentials as to academic achievements. The poet's machismo that could have been incorporated in his poem (such a probability is a desideratum since the poet is not necessarily the agent himself) might have been challenged by the “waves” and the “tide.” Such a fact already weakens the very role of men as superior human beings. Man's hubris overpowers even the supposed undaunted nature.

But another challenge comes-the judgment from the opposite being. The woman in the poem has castigated, intentionally or not, the very apex of the man's ego. The disproving implication of the woman's statement breaches the tradition of the engendered status quo. It is mortal sin to debunk the socially fixed authority's endeavours.

In any state of normalcy in the realm of societal sexes, such an instance was abnormal and worthy of a law suit. The common reaction would be the man's vengeance, argumentative stance, or simply, opposition. But what Spenser is trying to convey is the very essence of authentic love. In existential philosophy, authenticity is measured upon an individual's willingness to compromise everything in order to pave way for his happiness and priority in the world. With this, Spenser exposes the man's priority to be his patient and compassionate love to the woman in such a way that the man's response to the woman was a simple explanation of hope and optimism regarding his strokes that would symbolize eternity. The feeling of guilt in this stage is about to embark on purification, as he seemed to have deliberately rejected the social hierarchy he is in. In plots, this stage refers to denouement.

With the initial disbelief and distrust the woman cast on him, he, ironically, persevered to formulate non-offensive words just to defend his side. He rather explained that albeit nature would disturb his love (through the gesture of writing) for her, the virtues (the fidelity, fervor, patience, and sincerity) shall eternize whatever it is that lurks between them. With this comes identification that may have been achieved after the man's response. The man might have identified himself as a loyal soldier to the woman or an eternal someone who would veer away from the temptations of a concubine. The promise or oath implicit in the man's words could have conveyed truthfulness and ethos, especially if these were delivered by the reputable Spenser to his wife Elizabeth Boyle. The man or the poem now could have achieved rhetorical sensitivity as to have satisfied the traditional emotional and gullible woman of the 16th century.

Such a broader handling of dramatism over Spenser's sonnet might also be relegated to the famous brief and well-classified devise: the dramatistic pentad.

The act in the poem is clearly the writing of the name on the strand-a gesture to instill in the earth a truth behind hearts, a symbol of cathartic interaction with nature as outlet of human emotions and sensations. The act is more of a child-like one since it may delineate a child's naivete on the use of paper or the writing material itself. But Spenser might want to convey the phenomenon of purported regression-that an adult may return to his childhood when he is touched with all the deepness of love, such as a normal individual may be as immature as he could get knowing that his social environment (family, close peers, or lover) would not judge his actions in a shallow and an unfounded way.

But such an act is obstructed because the scene is about the waves washing away his very effort of engraving. The pitiful situation of the man may have been surfaced but was reinforced when he attempted the same for the second time yet with a tide to erase it all. The scene may have placed the man as victimized. But instead of consolation, stoppage is the woman's proposal. This might imply the man's rejection for quite sometime, or maybe a placid reaction from the girl caught in quandary. Nevertheless, the man continued. Such a fact might be alluded to the experience of Spenser when he long courted Boyle amidst both of their hectic schedules as literary academicians then.

Since the simple exchange of words in the sonnet may be attributed to the poet himself (regardless of Roland Barthe's “The Author is Dead”), the poem could be interpreted as a tribute to Boyle-the one and only wife of Spenser. The agent himself could have empowered his credibility all the more, as he might have wanted to tell Boyle of his dedication and undying love (purpose), as he is known as the “Prince of Poets” by his English contemporaries yet a trust-worthy political comrade of lords and earls. And the very agency that transports his message is primarily his use of words that directed to eternity-a term which is indicative of his religiosity as he was influenced by bishops and the rest of the clergy in his period.

Sainted is now his image, perhaps. His exemplifications of the heavens and whatever is relevant to the celestial worlds empowered more of his literary pieces such as the subject of this critique.

It is also significant to note that the material (the sonnet itself) was crafted amidst the heights of the Christian world. Although there had been a period of distress between Roman Catholicism and Puritanism, Spenser was one of those who stood for the permanence of the papacy and the foundation of the laity. It was a period when literary pieces delineating unconditional, pure, and perpetual love filled the air. It was a period when Spenser had the greatest privilege of boosting his ideas and insights through experiential learning to the audiences who then sought reinforcement even in the world of the arts and literature.

Because of such “holy” mood set in Europe, those who speak, write, and know about the Scriptures, take the lion share of integrity, respect, and power. Even in the present day, many leaders still cling to the Church just to be sainted in front of many. Political leaders may have pictures praying in Churches or that they are friends of religious leaders in order to win the hearts and votes of the people. Even in monarchies, religiosity still proves to be a fundamental quality every leader should possess, as it solidifies society albeit with political or economic boundaries or differences. As Karl Marx puts it in his Communist Manifesto, religion is the opium of the masses in that the Church or its influence could cause a significant change in the status quo.

Hence, a revolution in any society worldwide could always be staged just by a single whisper from a religious icon or dictator for that matter.

The very pedestal Spenser claimed made him renowned for the religious essence of his works, especially in sonnets no matter how elaborate the iambic patterns were. “One Day I Wrote Her Name” was just one of the sonnets European lovers could have indulged in.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that the dramatis personae in the said sonnet composed of only two participants with directly opposite sexes. It vividly presents a situation of lovers where the man's statement was all the more colored because of the seemingly challenging words from the woman. In the Deconstructionist or Post-structuralist view, Spenser could have revolutionized the English literature, since women then did not have the right to deliver public statements or any form of pronouncement. But since Spenser punctuated on the extraordinary love of the man to the girl in his sonnet, he as the author, paved way for the woman to speak (in this case, 4 lines even). Although this may also be observable in Shakespeare's works, but the raison d'etre of the woman's utterance in the sonnet at hand seemed to have debunked the social hierarchical structure the Old Europe had.

Indeed, Spenser, with his ability to convey his feelings through verses, or his ability to construct realities that could probably depict him too, the claims of the West may have been right enough that Spenser has really “immortalized the beauty of his beloved.” Whether the poem was delivered or offered to Boyle, his wife, the literary underpinnings may easily be culled out, since both of their phenomenological horizons could have somehow intersected as both of them experienced the world of literature in various genres and treatments. And in this juncture of literature lies Spenser's fortification of the concern for man (individualism from the Renaissance) and the highlighting of human experiences (happiness, pain, and anxiety from Humanism). In the more interesting side of history, the Church then was at the brink of falling, yet however strong the Renaissance was, Spenser succeeded in reconciling his current world with the superiority of Christianity, as he still bravely affixed the tones of his works, especially in the said sonnet, to the Divine intervention over all human experiences, realities, and worlds.

 

Willy Loman, like every American, wants a successful life. Americans define this dream as signifying what one could consider as success… having lots of money, owning a home, having lavish jewelry and etc. Loman's American dream is his belief that success is acquired only by being well liked and personally attractive rather than by hard work. This is an unrealistic perspective (perception) of the American dream, as many feel that through hard work, determination, and perseverance, one will become humble and successful by going through tougher aspects of working one's way towards the goal(s). However, he failed to realize that his own success-his house, wife and kids meant enough to his family. Instead, he wanted more, he wanted a materialistic lifestyle… he felt he wasn't even close enough.

Loman's dream was unrealistic. First of all, he did not appreciate his position in life at any stage. He seemed to be very discontent. It did not matter to him that his rationality may have seemed harsh to others. Instead, he insists on more while simultaneously at risk of losing it all - his wife, his children, and his house. As one approaches success, one must sit back and appreciate it. Such is what the American dream is all about but Loman's misconception leads him into un-welcomed behavior.

Miller makes good sense with the title “Death of …” which signifies Loman's life. He was dead to the real world and to his family. The author structures the play around the ill life of the main character not so much of his death but the dead world Loman lives in before his last life drama. The first act tells us quickly the failure of him being a salesman yet he believes he was successful. Even his children's unsuccessfulness is much to be blamed on him of being a poor father. He felt his sons' lack of success wasn't good enough.

Lomen's delusion does not work for his family due to Willy's odd fixation with superficial qualities of attractiveness and likeability. He felt these two qualities determined whether one will become successful or not. He wanted his children to live up to that belief, but he failed at teaching them acceptable ways to go after their dreams. Instead he tried to instill his values of success onto them without giving them the benefit of the doubt of going after their own goals in their own manner. For instance in Act II Biff explains “I saw things that I loved in this world, the work, the food, and the time to sit and smoke. And I looked at the pen and I thought, what the hell am I grabbing this for? Why am I trying to become what I don't want to be… when all I want is out there, waiting for me the minute I say I know who I am.” (Miller p. 1435) with that statement, he was trying to show Willy that he has his own aspirations that he would like to pursue and that it really doesn't matter to him whether he's “liked” or not. Unfortunately, Willy was not able to think out side of his “delusional box”. He is not able to comprehend any other aspect of success without relating it to a materialistic, lavish and admirable lifestyle. His delusion forces his family to work against him while he pursues a false life.

Unfortunately, Willy is wise, foolish and delusional, all at the same time because he has wisdom in knowing that he has a family to provide for, and he wants the best form them, however it is his delusion that causes an uncompromising way of determining what is considered to be success for him and his family and how to actually obtain the American dream.

Arthur Miller did a very well in this piece, especially when using the term “…salesman” in the title. That terminology played a major role at understanding the points and themes being pointed out. In all actuality sales people are very persuasive, and in this story Willy tried his best to show that there is more to live for even in times when the persuasion is not beneficial to you.

On a final note, many of the readings in this section are more close to real life than the other works read in past, due to the realism of the situations being written about. In more times than not people prefer to live life as if it were a fairy tale to escape from dealing with the pain that life in its real sense may bring. Life is hard, it can also be dark. In Flannery O'Connor's A Good Man Is Hard to Find (Literature p. 361) a typical family on a trip is unexpectedly murdered. This is a very unfortunate experience for that family as no one lives looking forward to death, especially not in that manner. I was really bothered by what happened to them, however it's something that I know does happen all over the world. While the other readings in this section did not have such a gruesome ending, like O'Connor's short story, I can definitely say that our love for fairy tale endings have permeated our society because happy ending are much more pleasant. Happy endings provide you with more of an appreciation of life. It allows living to be more worthwhile.