COLD MOUNTAIN
Since Cold Mountain does not heavily rely on dialogue to tell the story, the point of view Frazier uses to narrate the story is important: He must create the effect of being enveloped in two separate worlds, and give insight into characters who have no one to discuss their thoughts with. The only way to accomplish this is by using the omniscient point of view, which is when the author has unlimited knowledge about the characters and their thoughts.
A romantic story is especially suited for this type of narration, because romances revolve not around events, but emotions, which are difficult to describe objectively. To fully appreciate the depth of the love between Ada and Inman, the reader must be able to peer into the deepest thoughts of the characters. Isolation, however, prevents Ada and Inman from revealing these thoughts to each other or to another character. We instead must learn from introspections like the one on pg. 393, when Inman reflects, “…he intended to eat nothing until he found Ada. If she would not have him he would go on to the heights and see if the portals on Shining Rocks would open to him…He doubted there was a man in the world more empty than he at the moment.” Intimate insights such as this one are frequent in the novel, and reveal the most information about Ada and Inman’s feelings for each other.
This unlimited power to inform is used also to directly characterize Inman and especially Ada; due to the relative calm of her ...
Cold Mountain is a popular book and movie written by Charles Frazier. Cold Mountain is a book about two lovers, Inman and Ada, during the Civil War, who depart on separate journeys in hopes of reuniting with one another. The novel is viewed as the physical journey of Inman from the Civil War to Cold Mountain and the inner journey of Ada, but people neglect the sheer importance that Inman’s spiritual journey has on the book. Inman’s physical journey is really non-connected episodes that are linked together by the thread that is Inman’s spiritual sense. Inman regains his spiritual sense, gradually, through the entire novel ending where he achieves redemption and self-completeness with his death. Inman’s journey is that of a spiritual sense where he crosses the void from the world of war to the world of spiritual belief which he left behind at Cold Mountain.
Glenn Greenwald, a talented and widely read columnist on civil liberties for the Guardian newspaper, failed in his attempt to alarm his readers to the flagrant and widespread violations of American privacy. Although his article was full of facts, documentation, and quotes from top rank officials, the article did not convey any sense of wrong doing or outrage. Rather it was dull, lacked passion and a sense of persuasion. In fact, the only attention grabbing part in the whole article is the title.
... as they present pure fantasy, and the lovers have one foot in each world; they experience desperation in the face of harsh realities, but meanwhile they learn and change as a result of their fantastical dreams. The allusions used in each world illustrate the differences between them and bring them together simultaneously. All of the myths and legends referenced have similar themes and origins, but each is interpreted differently by the speaker; the lovers speak of mythological figures much like themselves, the mechanicals attempt to do the same with little success, and the fairies reference gods and goddess who toy with the fates of mortal lovers. Such striking similarities echo the ever-present theme that in love, we are all the same. Whether we fancy a donkey, a meddling fairy, or a friendly Athenian, in love there is beauty, hilarity, and irrationality in excess.
When comparing Chekov’s elements that construct a love story to those in Leigh Michaels’ “The Essential Elements of Writing a Romance Novel”, readers must make their own judgments with what little Chekov provides. Chekov accomplishes this task by portraying Anna's and Gurov's relationship through using a lens of representative true human behavior. Unlike a traditional romantic story, Chekov fails to provide the reader with a concrete answer to how or if the lover’s will endeavor. Furthermore, the expectations of the romantic hero and heroine are skewed when analyzing Gurov and Anna. Readers are forced use their own judgments to fill in the blanks that Chekov provides because of the vast uncertainty due to human nature in the short
...heme of maturation in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, is conveyed through the characters of Scout and Jem, in conjunction with the assistance of their virtuous father Atticus Finch. Early in the novel, Atticus ascertains himself as a major facilitator in the maturation process of Scout and Jem by incessantly providing mature solutions to his children’s predicaments. Moreover, Scout, a major benefactor of the Boo Radley incident and Atticus’ wisdom, has helped her develop into a very tolerant and mature individual. Undeniably, Jem’s remarkable development into a broadminded and compassionate character can be directly attributed to Atticus’ kindness and Jem’s exposure to the Tom Robinson trial. In synopsis, it is evident that the individuals and social circumstances that surround an individual play a major role in defining the type of individual one will become.
“Parents can only give good advice or put them on the right paths, but the final farming of a persons character lies in there own hands” (Frank, Anne). The book, To Killing A Mockingbird, contains a lot of parental influences, which consist of either good influences or bad ones. Influences can come in various forms such as through examples or through direct kinds where the parent is directly telling their child what to do. The two children will learn to express empathy before judging someone as well as learn not to be prejudice towards others. Lastly, in the end of the book the reader can notice the children to be growing up from their father’s advice. Essentially, To Killing A Mockingbird supports that parents are highly influential on their children.
Altman’s view of the romantic couple differs from the Hollywood musical in his semantic description of the characters in relationship to society. He depicts two people of the opposite sex who both seem to lack romantic goals; Guy is instead interested only in physical pleasure from the girl. This couple’s relationship is only defined by music and not illustrated in the traditional terms of a “relationship”. This happiness and the love this couple receives only come from their shared interest in music. This concept of a relationship is much more twisted and dark than societies traditional relationship. Both of their music is inspired by love for others but this love is unrequited love felt for so...
Gaitskill’s “Tiny, Smiling Daddy” focuses on the father and his downward spiral of feeling further disconnected with his family, especially his lesbian daughter, whose article on father-daughter relationships stands as the catalyst for the father’s realization that he’d wronged his daughter and destroyed their relationship. Carver’s “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” focuses on Mel and his attempt to define, compare, and contrast romantic love, while leaving him drunk and confused as he was before. While both of my stories explore how afflicted love traumatizes the psyche and seem to agree that love poses the greatest dilemma in life, and at the same time that it’s the most valued prospect of life, the two stories differ in that frustrated familial love causes Gaitskill's protagonist to become understandable and consequently evokes sympathy from the reader, but on the other hand frustrated romantic love does nothing for Carver's Protagonist, except keep him disconnected from his wife and leaving him unchanged, remaining static as a character and overall unlikable. In comparing “Tiny, Smiling Daddy” and “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”, together they suggest that familial love is more important than romantic love, which we relentlessly strive to achieve often forgetting that we’ll forever feel alone without familial love, arguably the origin of love itself.
Today’s shunned people are a new breed. With the internet, information spreads like a wildfire, creating scandals over night and created a person into an outcast. One of the most prevailing examples of this kind of person is Edward Snowden. Snowden worked for the U.S government for many years in both the CIA and the NSA. While working for the government, he found many things wrong with the way they functioned, but figured that the 2008 election of Barack Obama would create reforms in the government(Greenwald, MacAskill, and Poitras). To Snowden’s dismay, no reform came; in fact, Obama pushed for the same corrupt policies that Snowden hated(Greenwald, MacAskill, and Poitras). In 2013, Snowden felt it was time to released the confidential government documents he had been so concerned over to the internet, for whom he trust to make what need to be public and what needed to stay secret(Greenwald, MacAskill, and Poitras). His motives for doing so seemed harmless enough. When asked why he released the documents, he said “There are all so...
Currently, Snowden’s leaks have revealed a global surveillance apparatus used by the NSA as well as Britain’s Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group, a surveillance apparatus in the UK that conducts real time monitoring of social media networks. The exact size of Snowden's disclosure is unknown, but the following are possible: 15,000 or more Australian intelligence files, according to Australian officials9; at least 58,000 British intelligence files, according to British officials10; and roughly 1.7 million U.S. intelligence files, according to U.S. officials.11 Snowden’s leaks are unprecedented on several levels. His disclosure has been called the most significant leak in U.S. history by Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg.12 Regardless of future action, the debate on the protection of...
Now, the debate rages on: Is Edward Snowden an American hero or an American villain. The United States government wants to bring treason and espionage against him for leaking some of the most confidential government secrets, but, what most people didn’t know before this whole debacle was that the government was uncontrollably spying on its people using any type of phone, tablet, or computer, Now the government’s response to the outrage of the people would be that they are protecting them from possible terrorists, but some may still ask the question of: Is the government violating my privacy? After gathering all the information, it is up to you to decide: Is Edward Snowden an American hero for exposing to the people of the U.S. the government’s dirty spying secrets or is he an American traitor guilty of espionage and treason?
Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the extent of the N.S.A breaches of American privacy and in doing so, became ostracized by the media and barred from freely reentering America, his home country.
Edward Snowden, the famous “whistleblower”, shocked the world with his revelations about the NSA’s database and the programs which allow the organization to access personal information not only of citizens of other nations, but also of citizens of the U.S. The most shocking revelation of all was not the existence of these programs, but the fact that the Obama administration allowed those programs to exist in direct violation of every U.S. citizen’s right to privacy.
Laura and Nick are almost positive that they know what the true meaning of love is. They do not specifically define love, however, they express it through holding hands and smiling at each other. Each couple has their own reasons to believe that they have loved, yet they cannot clearly express why. The dialogue that occurs between Laura, Nick, Mel and Terri reveal a lot about their perception on love. For example, the way the characters interact with each other not only helps the reader to understand the author’s purpose of the essay, but also suggests that there be a relation between the story and intellectual, spiritual, and sensual love.
She remembers how she fantasized about the love affairs that she secretly read about in her romance novels, envisioning her life to comprise of similar satisfactions. She recalls how her vivid imagination had engrossed her into the depths of the story. One may say that this sudden change could be due to her imagination implanting false information into her head. Life certainly has not turned out the way she dreamed.