Many people believe that they make their decisions solely on their own when in reality many outside components impact their choices. In both the novel, Flowers for Algernon, and the film, Awakenings, characters are forced to make choices and are swayed by many similar factors. Aspects that can influence decisions include surrounding environment, the benefit of social standing, and conflicting emotions. In both the novel and the cinematic work, characters make life decisions which are influenced by their surrounding environment. To begin, in the film, Dr. Sayer is affected by the catatonic patients residing in his department at the hospital. In the front-end of the film, Dr. Sayer is portrayed as a socially awkward man. This is idiosyncrasy …show more content…
Firstly, in Flowers for Algernon, Professor Nemur and Dr. Strauss make the decision to operate on Charlie solely with the possibility of boosting their reputation with fame and wealth. This is demonstrated during the scientists’ speech when they suggest Charlie was a subhuman before the operation, boosting their credibility on the fact that they gave him his wealth of knowledge entirely. When Charlie rebels at the Chicago convention, Strauss and Nemur’s dreams are crushed as they came so close to presenting their creation to the world, only fall short of the recognition and riches they could have obtained. Next, Charlie obliges to the operation to transform his reputation from an incompetent adult to an average man. His only dream was to be included in conversations at the bakery and talk politics, religion, and etcetera with his colleagues. Charlie’s feelings are exhibited when he reveals his desire not to be relegated to the flour sacks with his comic book, instead he would like to be included in the conversations of his co-workers. The possibility of finally being normal for once in his life inspires Charlie to agree to the operation. Finally, in Awakenings, Dr. Sayer is influenced to put a patient on the experimental drug, L-Dopa, to prove his worthiness and place in the hospital. During his early experiments with the catatonic patients, the senior doctors scoffed at his empty theories with no scientific evidence to support them. A representation of this situation is Dr. Sayer’s ball experiment where the patients supposedly steal the will to move from the ball. To conclude, when a person’s reputation is on the line, they can be compelled to make a decision to heighten their standing in the societal
On that day he picked up Algernon like normal but got bit. Charlie watched afterward for some time and saw that he was disturbed and vicious. Burt tells me that Algernon is changing. He is less cooperative, he refuses to run the maze any more, and he hasn't been eating. Burt and others have to feed Algernon because he refuses to do the shifting lock. This a indication that the procedure isn't permanent and Charlie may start to lose intelligence. On May 25 Dr.Nemur and I told Charlie not to come to the lab anymore. Then on May 29 we gave him permission to start a lab and he worked all day and all night on the reason he is losing intelligence. On june 5th he is forgetting stuff which leads up to him becoming absent minded on June 10th. The other indications the procedure wasn’t permanent was once they dissected Algernon who died on June 8th Charlie predictions were correct. Charlie also can’t read or remember books he already read. Soon Charlie can’t remember where he put stuff, forgets punctuation, and spelling reverts back to before. These indications are clear that the procedure wasn’t
To start off, Leonard was a smart student and had friends, before he got the harsh disease that ruined his whole life. On the other hand, Charlie had the mental retardation since he was born, never really had friends, and never got to experience what it felt like to think the way everyone else did and comprehend the things surrounding him. Furthermore, in Flowers for Algernon Charlie had Algernon who had the same operation as him, that foreshadowed his fate. He explains, "Algernon died two days ago. His brain had decreased in weight, and there was a general soothing out of cerebral convolutions as well as a deepening and broadening of brain fissures. I guess that the same thing is or will soon be happening to me" (pg.533). In Awakenings, viewers were lead to believe the drug would be permanent and cure the disease. The doctors had no idea whether or not it would work, but after it had worked we were most likely convinced that L-Dopa had worked. Also the patients would stay that way forever, but sadly they just had to face the truth when the drug wore off. The third difference contrasting Flowers for Algernon and Awakenings is how after their doctors did whatever they did on them and was normals, they had different interest. Leonard wanted to explore and interact with society and nature and Charlie isolated himself the outside the world. Something to support this is that in the movie, Leonard tried to get out of the
There were many similarities between the short story “Flowers for Algernon” and the movie Awakenings. “Flowers for Algernon”, by Daniel Keyes, is about a man named Charlie, who has a very low IQ. Charlie gets an operation to make him smarter. It is a story about what happens to him during that period of time. The movie, Awakenings, directed by Penny Marshall, starring Robin Williams and Robert De Niro, is about how some people, including Leonard Lowe, the main character, developed a disease and are now catatonic. Dr. Malcolm Sayer finds a drug that seems like a miracle drug. The movie is about what happens during the time that the catatonic patients are on the drug.
Scientific experimentation shows a destructive nature of man through stereotypes. Stereotypes are cruel and heartless. “He makes the same mistakes as the others when they look at a feeble-minded person and laugh because they don’t understand there are human feelings involved. He doesn’t realise I was a person before I came here.” (Keyes, 145) Before the surgery Charlie was looked down upon because of his mental state. However, after the surgery he is treated like he was made by the scientists, as though he was their very own ‘Frankenstein’. This is a destructive nature of man because after the surgery Charlie finds out that his so called friends have been making fun of him his whole life. Stereotypes show a destructive nature of man. “People with mental illness are depicted as burdens to society and incapable of contributing in positive ways to their communities.” (Edney) Through this book the reader knows this statement is false, because Charlie is able to function fairly well in society, considering he has a job and he is doing very well there. Stereotypes show a destructive nature of man because they belittle people and make them feel worthless.
Respect for Subjects, as defined by the U.S government, is to “show respect to human subjects, researchers must continue to check the well-being of each subject as the study proceeds. Researchers should remove subjects from the study if it becomes too risky or harmful.” (Emanuel et al. p.7, ¶7-8). The means that the doctors must keep checking on the subjects and must be removed if it was dangerous. Charlie wasn’t removed from the experiment even though it becomes harmful to him. This is why the study violates the principle of Respect for Subjects, as it doesn’t benefit Charlie, making this experiment treacherous. “I have already begun to notice signs of emotional instability and forgetfulness, the first symptoms of the burnout.” (Keyes June 5, ¶8). Charlie is struggling and is getting worse by the day, and Dr. Strauss and Nemur are not taking any action into it. At the same time, these doctors are still keeping Charlie in the experiment even though he is at discomfort. Later on in the passage, Charlie is at distress. “Deterioration progressing. I have become absentminded.” (Keyes June 10, ¶1). Charlie symptoms are getting worse progressively just because he recieved the experiment. He is returning back to his original state. In the story, Fair Subject Selection was clearly not applied to the experiment as is didn’t follow the regulation. The main reason why this
Was Charlie better off without the operation? Through Flowers for Algernon, Daniel Keyes sends an crucial message to society that man should never tamper with human intelligence or else the outcome can be personally devastating. After Charlie's operation, he felt isolated and lonesome, change in personality made him edgy around people or (lack social skills), and suffered from traumas due to past memories.
The concept of choice is one that humans have abused time and time again. While free will may seem like a positive, the storyteller often portrays what can go wrong when humans are making the decisions. The way in which these choices are made can happen in a variety of manners, but the fundamentals of free will are very similar from story to story. In “The Chameleon is Late” and “The Two Bundles”, free will results in death remaining on earth, but the decisions that led to this outcome were made in unique ways.
Choices, options, decisions, whatever one chooses to call them, he is aware that he has them. In reading Kate Chopin's The Awakening and Henrik Isben's A Doll's House it is clearly seen that the choices made by the two female protagonists, Edna and Nora, stem from their perception of themselves and their capabilities. Furthermore, it is that view of self that leads each to make either a life-altering or life-ending decision.
After the surgery, Charlie learned that the grass isn’t always greener on the other side, and that many of his old friends wouldn’t see the same person in him. Charlie suddenly had to experience drastic changes in his lifestyle, and the story revolves around these complications. Charlie’s story began with the surgery, the biggest decision he made in his life. Although he was a guinea pig during the procedure, he wasn’t worried at all about the surgery, but rather on becoming smart as fast as he could. Supposedly these doctors were doing Charlie the greatest favor he would ever receive, and he was so eager to learn as much as he could.
At one point or another everyone has been a witness to that strange boy in the corner of the grocery store spending an hour choosing candy. Every time you pass him, his determined and focused expression catches your eye and you can't resist the curiosity as to why this crazy kid still is so focused on choosing the best possible way to get a cavity. The reasons may be simple, but reasons happen in consequence of life influences. Likewise the boy's influence could be his amazing goal setting that his mother taught him and because of that he finds it special in his own way to find the best candy bar for the best satisfaction. In like fashion, John from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World also stands with his decisions. Both boys have influences that affect their reasons and consequently create a decision. Linda and Shakespeare are the influences that keep John soaring through decisions.
In one’s lifetime, he or she may face an internal struggle. Perhaps the struggle lies in a difficult choice between right and wrong. Perhaps it lies in a decision between want and need. Maybe one must contemplate how much his or her happiness is truly worth. Regardless, every person has internal conflict not easily solved. In The Awakening, Edna Pontellier struggles with two conflicting forces, expectations of her and her own desires, illuminating the meaning of the novella: defying societal expectations in order to seek individuality and independence is always just.
Throughout the hundreds of years, individuals have pondered the impact of heavenly or insidious force, environment, hereditary qualities, even excitement, as deciding how free any individual is in settling on good decisions. Fate, a result of the past, is often described as the advancement of occasions out of man 's control, dictated by an extraordinary force. In any case that someone may utilize their freewill can reflect upon their outcomes, decided upon a supreme force, whether they are positive or negative. In the novels “A Lesson Before Dying,” Ernest Gaines and “The Grapes of Wrath,” John Steinbeck, the authors explore the trials and tribulations of self influenced fate controlled by an higher force.
What are we as humans far more afraid of free choice or a forced decision? Manipulation and influence are presented in many ways through out the course of this book. This essay will be more of a comparative analysis between two novels The Tragedy Of Macbeth and Paradise Lost. Though influence may be a large section of our lives manipulation is what gets us to do things.
Whether a person’s life is something experienced authentically, or factually written down as literature, there are more complexities faced then there are simplicities on a daily basis. This multifariousness causes constant bewilderment and hesitation before any sort of important decision a person must make in his or her life. When it comes to characters of the written words, as soon sensations of ambiguity, uncertainty, and paranoia form, the outlook and actions of these characters are what usually result in regrettable decisions and added anxiety for both that character as well as the reader. Examples of these themes affecting characters in the world of fiction are found in the novel The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon, and the play Glengarry Glen Ross written by David Mamet. Throughout both of these texts, characters such as Oedipa Maas who allows these emotions to guide her in her journey of self discovery, and Shelly Levene who is so overcome with these emotions that they become his downfall. For both of these characters, these constant emotional themes are what guide their most impulsive actions, which can generally also become regrettable decisions. Even though it is a distinguishing factor of human beings, when these characters are portrayed in print, it somehow seems to affect the reader more, because they are able to see the fictional repercussions, and also know how they could have been avoided.
Choices made in a person’s life are theirs to choose and to own up to. The play, Macbeth by William Shakespeare exemplifies the dangers of allowing others to strongly influence one’s decisions. Many characters within the play use techniques like deceit to get what they want. Characters such as the witches give Macbeth false hope and Lady Macbeth, who uses her ambition to convince Macbeth to submit to their will. Decisions in life are often manipulated by malevolent outside forces.