Media and television have set high expectations for living that many people desire to attain through the accumulation of wealth. Reality television stars, professional athletes, and musicians are often in the headlines for their new salaries. These salaries continue to rise, often in disregard of the actual work that is done by these celebrities and the way of which each individual use this money varies greatly. Some choose to use their money in productive ways, including contributing to charitable causes while others may spend their money more frivolously. Regardless of how they spend their money, children, teenagers, and adults idolize these celebrities and their wealth. However, these same celebrities are often seen in the news headlines …show more content…
Dante Alighieri, born far before the age of media and the exposure that comes as a result, suggests that the accumulation of wealth does destroy both families and community. This destruction can be seen in a number of famous works written in prior centuries as well as in society today. As suggested by Dante, the accumulation of wealth does in fact destroy family and community primarily as we see in Christopher Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta, Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales and in several modern reality television shows including TLC’s hit show 19 Kids and Counting.
The first example of how the accumulation of wealth destroys families and communities comes from the 16th century play, The Jew of Malta by Christopher
…show more content…
This tale centers on a frugal merchant who refuses to give his money to his own wife because of her habits of reckless spending. In order to get the money, she turns to a friend, a monk named Sir John, to get the one hundred francs that she needs from her husband. Sir John is able to get the money from the merchant and in turn gives the money to the wife with the agreement that she spends the night in his arms (Chaucer 156). This act demonstrates the destruction of community. In the community, monks ranked higher than merchants and Sir John abuses his status as a monk because he knows that the merchant will give him the money as a sign of respect. He takes advantage of his social ranking in return for personal pleasure. In addition, the story shows how the bond between the merchant and is wife is now weaker due to her obsession with accumulating wealth. Obviously, it is not healthy for a married woman to seek sexual activities with another man, regardless of her own personal incentives. Thus, the wife’s acts prove to weaken their relationship. Although the merchant is unaware of the affair, he does become angered with his wife when she fails to tell him that Sir John “returned” the money to her. If this angers the merchant, he would certainly be angered to find that the monk lied to him in order to obtain the money for the
In the novel wealth plays vital impact on the lives of the characters, money defines social stature, in my perspective middle class was practically nonexistent, established wealthy individuals
Wolff, Tobias. “The Rich Brother.” Making Literature Matter. Ed. John Clifford and John Schilb. 2nd Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2003. 391 – 403.
“.everyone is bored, and devotes himself to cultivating habits. Our citizens work hard, but solely with the objective of getting rich. Their chief interest is in commerce, and their chief aim in life is, as they call it, ‘doing business’” (Camus 4). Citizens’ unawareness of life’s riches and pleasures shows their susceptibility to the oncoming plague.
“A Millionaire in Blue Jeans?” One of the most valuable principles is found in the very first chapter. Our authors do a wonderful job at dispelling any delusions we have regarding what a Millionaire looks like. I had long assumed, like many others, that the Millionaires of America were the hyperconsumers and elaborate spenders. In fact, we learn that just the opposite is true. I came to understand that, “Wealth is not the same as income”. (The Millionaire Next Door, p. 1, Stanley & Danko) In many cases, income is not at the forefront of relevancy when determining whether someone will become wealthy. There are several factors involved, but ultimately, if a person spends their entire income, the number value of said income simply doesn’t matter. The old age adage regarding spending less than you make is of much more importance. In the Church, this is referred to as ‘living below our means’. We have often been counseled to exercise restraint regarding our spending habits, and have also been commanded to obtain a level of financially secure by building up our savings, staying out of debt, and living within our means. (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball, (2006), 11423) It seems rather silly that a large percentage of our population would be under the assumption that living a large lifestyle, along with the accumulation of fancy things, would somehow equate to wealth. After reading the book, I have come to understand that many of us have an extremely distorted relationship with money, in the assumption that money is to get and spend, while those who are authentic accumulators of wealth understand that money should be invested and stored up as a measure of safety and peace.
Carnegie opens his essay with the statement that there are three main ways most wealthy people use or distribute their money. First, some pass their money on to the next generation. Children...
Throughout literature, relationships can often be found between the author of a story and the story that he writes. In Geoffrey Chaucer's frame story, Canterbury Tales, many of the characters make this idea evident with the tales that they tell. A distinct relationship can be made between the character of the Pardoner and the tale that he tells.
Wolff, Tobias. "The Rich Brother." Making Literature Matter. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St.Martins, 2012. 32336. Print.
The author demonstrates how one can lose sight in life and become corrupt through focusing only on wealth, supremacy and materialistic possessions
Wealth is a diverse topic amongst many people, it’s talked about widely and there is a lot of books, journals, and statistics - that I will use in my paper - but were written based on what other people have found to be true. These sources I have chosen to use talk about the factors, struggles, and lifestyle lived based on being wealthy or not.
“Wealth, as a byproduct of fame, provides immediate, tangible evidence of celebrity’s distinction and staying power. Fame’s windfall goes a long way in lifting financial burdens, opening the celebrity to experiences that are special. Money is no longer a “worry,” and provides “the glory side, the financial side of being famous.” Some celebrities go from “not being able to afford a home,” to multi-million dollar contracts. They are our royalty.”, according to Donna Rothwell’s essay “Being a Celebrity; A Phenomenology of Fame”(Rothwell page 191).Basically, wealth dissolves the concern regarding financial status that the average citizen feels 24/7.Like most people, to acquiring such assets does provide a sense of a luxurious life. It is
“Whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household, but he who hates bribes will live” (Proverbs 15:27). The Bible condemns the value of greed and Chaucer is able to incorporate this value into his work through the ironic uses of holy men. Chaucer’s “The Shipman’s Tale” and “The Summoner’s Tale” suggests that the monk and the friar have an overactive id which overpowers their superego- evident from the character’s selfish motives and their rejection of their holy vows.
The main purpose of Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales is to satirize the corruption within the church. Chaucer does this in one way by giving background information on two pilgrims named the Parson and the Monk. These two people are accompanying Chaucer, along with others, on their pilgrimage to the shrine of Sir Tomas’s at Canterbury. In the prolog, Chaucer talks about how the Monk is self-centered and how he does not hold up the standards that a monk should. The prolog also gives us the background on the Parson, who holds others needs before his own. the background information Chaucer gives on these two helps the reader see the corruption within the church.
The monk receives some scathing sarcasm in Chaucer’s judgment of his new world ways and the garments he wears “With fur of grey, the finest in the land; Also, to fasten hood beneath his chin, He had of good wrought gold a curious pin: A love-knot in the larger end there was.” (194-197, Chaucer). The Friar is described as being full of gossip and willing to accept money to absolve sins, quite the opposite of what a servant of God should be like. Chaucer further describes the friar as being a frequenter of bars and intimate in his knowledge of bar maids and nobles alike. The friar seems to be the character that Chaucer dislikes the most, he describes him as everything he should not be based on his profession. The Pardoner as well seems to draw special attention from Chaucer who describes him as a man selling falsities in the hopes of turning a profit “But with these relics, when he came upon Some simple parson, then this paragon In that one day more money stood to gain Than the poor dupe in two months could attain.” (703-706, Chaucer). Chaucer’s description of the pardoner paints the image of a somewhat “sleazy” individual “This pardoner had hair as yellow as wax, But lank it hung as does a strike of flax; In wisps hung down such locks as he 'd on head, And with them he his shoulders overspread; But thin they dropped, and stringy, one by one.” (677-681,
If one has ever read the General Prologue of Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, they will find the attitude of Chaucer to be very opinionated and complex toward the members of the clergy. Some of the clergy consists of the Monk, the Prioress (also known as the nun), and the Friar. Chaucer has gone into depth of each one of these members in each section of the Prologue. From reading each section and analyzes his attitude towards each member, it is portrayed that Chaucer has a complex attitude of appreciation and dishonesty towards the members of the clergy.
In this novel, in comparison, there are more men than women. Most of the tales told by the men stretch over a wide range of how female should be. On the other hand, the women tend to focus on one idea and stick to it to prove their point. Since there are more men, the women tend to loose the importance and focus from the men. The women figure in this book are the Prioress, the Wife of Bath, and the Second Nun. Chaucer description of the women in this novel is very stereotypical. Although he describes them with great elegance and respect, there is always a condition to it. These conditions then tend to leave no importance for the reader. The Nun is described a “charitable solicitous” who “weep[s] is she … saw a mouse caught in a trap”1. These small details put a wrong impression on the readers therefore leaving no interest and meaning for the tales the women have to say. Even after the tales are done, the Host says things that discourage the