Confusion in Landscape for a Good Woman I found Landscape for a Good Woman to be a confusing landscape, one whose contours are difficult to follow. I don't mean to imply that I did not find the book fascinating, but it was so rich and the stories and scholarly discussions were so intertwined that it was difficult to keep track of what Steedman was trying to convey. Why did she choose to write in this way? Instead of giving us a straight narrative about her childhood and allowing us to make our own inferences, I feel as if she's told a story and, at the same time, she's told us how to interpret that story and has given us a critique of her own and others' interpretations of her story. Steedman does begin the section titled "Stories" by saying that "this book. . . is about interpretations." Of course, all stories, fiction or non-fiction, are interpretations of events and characters, told from the perspective of the author. I don't find the interpretations themselves to be problematic; maybe what I find confusing is that Steedman gives us interpretations from so many different...
The main character in John Steinback’s short story: The Chrysanthemums, is a married woman named Elisa Allen. She is a hardworking diligent young woman. In the opening chapters of The Chrysanthemums, Elisa is seen heartily in a great degree tendering to her gentle flowers. Powerful she is – gentle and conservative with her strength. She knows her weakness. Like the gentle calm flow of water embedding itself into layers of strata – which forms the highest peaks and grandest canyons.
Perception and appearance is everything, right? Or is it just a false production that was created with the intent to portray one’s self as something they are not? Similar to an illusion, the way things appear is not necessarily the same as reality. Especially after only a single encounter, the first impression of a circumstance or person can easily be deceiving to the observer. In a society that seems to be putting individuals’ appearances ahead of their spirits and interiors, it becomes very easy for individuals to wear a false mask and to walk around conducting a masquerade for others to see. This lack of belief in a true sense of self and the intention to deceive others demonstrates that a hollow belief system, whether religious or otherwise, can allow for someone to take advantage of another individual.
Throughout The Good Earth, by Pearl Buck, the land brings forth nourishing food and wealth as well as comfort to those who work it. Those who are not close with the land suffer immensely and are corrupted by their distance from the land. Distance from their land is usually because of money, which is overriding corrupting force. The corruption of money causes people to leave their land. This in turn causes further corruption because the nourishing land is not able to save the people from their obsession with money.
In “The Botany of Desire” by Michael Pollan, the author argues that instead of humans interacting, controlling, and paving the way for plants, they in fact work in ways for our lives to better themselves, and help us to become the human’s we are. They instill desires in our life: beauty, control, sweetness, and intoxication. Each plant mentioned in the four-part book, apples (Malus Domestica), tulips (Tulipa), marijuana (Cannabis Sativa x Inidica), and potatoes (Solanum Tuberosum) contribute to a desire. Apples help instill the desire for sweetness, with the sugary nutrient Red Delicious or Gala. Tulips help create the desire of beauty, where we want it and where we get it from Marijuana intoxicates people daily, and that is the desire it creates, people have always enjoyed altering their consciousness, from the Chinese dynasties with their opium to the current times that are infatuated with weed culture. Potatoes had the desire of control. Potatoes need control; they instilled control in the different societies
But she has zero capability left to even interact normally with the outer physical world, and so it is, although she isn’t even there. Throughout the story, the reader is called to trust the narrator although it is clear she is going crazy, for she is the only telling the story. Gilman is able to develop the theme through this character’s point of view by showing that the narrator has no choice in the world in which she lives—she must obey the men in her life above all else. If Gilman chose any other perspective, the story would not have been able to portray the woman’s oppression as well, because the reader would not have been able to see into her mind as it slipped away well into insanity.
In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet the main character Hamlet experiences many different and puzzling emotions. He toys with the idea of killing himself and then plays with the idea of murdering others. Many people ask themselves who or what is this man and what is going on inside his head. The most common question asked about him is whether or not he is sane or insane. Although the door seems to swing both ways many see him as a sane person with one thought on his mind, and that is revenge. The first point of his sanity is while speaking with Horatio in the beginning of the play, secondly is the fact of his wittiness with the other characters and finally, his soliloquy.
As the play opened, Hamlet and Ophelia appeared as lovers experiencing a time of turbulence. Hamlet had just returned home from his schooling in Saxony to find that his mother had quickly remarried her dead husband's brother, and this gravely upset him. Hamlet was sincerely devoted to the idea of bloodline loyalty and sought revenge upon learning that Claudius had killed his father. Ophelia, though it seems her relationship with Hamlet is in either the developmental stage or the finalizing stage, became the prime choice as a lure for Hamlet. Laertes inadvertently opened Ophelia up to this role when he spoke with Ophelia about Hamlet before leaving for France. He allowed Polonius to find out about Hamlet's courtship of Ophelia, which led to Polonius' misguided attempts at taking care of Ophelia and obeying the king's command to find the root of Hamlet's problems. Ophelia, placed in the middle against her wishes, obeyed her father and brother's commands with little disagreement. The only time she argued was when Laertes advised her against making decisions incompatible with the expectations of Elizabethan women. Ophelia tells him, in her boldest lines of the play:
Hamlet only claims madness because it allows him to say and perform actions he otherwise would be prohibited from, while keeping people from taking his actions seriously. This seems to be part of his initial plan that is first mentioned when he asks Horatio and Marcellus not to make any remarks in relation to his ?antic disposition (1.5.192).? Hamlet?s madness allows him to talk to Claudius, Gertrude, Ophelia, and Polonius in a manner unsuitable for a prince. He is often disrespectful and insulting in his remarks. Although his acting backfires during his speech to Gertrude, Hamlet is able to severely criticize her for her actions because she thinks he is insane. During the play he also makes many sexual innuendos and even blatantly sexual remarks towards Ophelia such as ?That?s a fair thought to lie between maids? legs (3.2.125).? His convincing insanity act gives him the chance to vent his anger towards Ophelia for her abandonment.
Throughout the Shakespearian play, Hamlet, the main character is given the overwhelming responsibility of avenging his father’s "foul and most unnatural murder" (I.iv.36). Such a burden can slowly drive a man off the deep end psychologically. Because of this, Hamlet’s disposition is extremely inconsistent and erratic throughout the play. At times he shows signs of uncontrollable insanity. Whenever he interacts with the characters he is wild, crazy, and plays a fool. At other times, he exemplifies intelligence and method in his madness. In instances when he is alone or with Horatio, he is civilized and sane. Hamlet goes through different stages of insanity throughout the story, but his neurotic and skeptical personality amplifies his persona of seeming insane to the other characters. Hamlet comes up with the idea to fake madness in the beginning of the play in order to confuse his enemies. However, for Hamlet to fulfill his duty of getting revenge, he must be totally sane. Hamlet’s intellectual brilliance make it seem too impossible for him to actually be mad, for to be insane means that one is irrational and without any sense. When one is irrational, one is not governed by or according to reason. So, Hamlet is only acting mad in order to plan his revenge on Claudius.
Men and women are born two different kinds of species. They have different responds and attitudes in a great number of ways. The difference between men and women in Dorothy Parker's 'A Well-Worn Story' is represented through the attitudes of the man and the girl towards their relationship, the girl is passionate and zealous about this relationship, while the man is lukewarm and passionless. First, this essay will examine the girl's attitude towards this relationship, next it will demonstrate what is the man's attitude towards this relationship.
Hamlet chooses to go mad so he has an advantage over his opponent and since he is the Prince of Denmark certain behavior is unacceptable, so by faking madness he is able to get away with inappropriate sayings and actions. We can see this when he talks to Claudius, Polonius, Ophelia and his mother. When Hamlet talks to Horatio in the first act he says how he is going to "feign madness" and that:
Hamlet's act of feigning madness allows him to speak his mind while everyone believes it is truly out of insanity. This allows Hamlet to vent some of his true feelings in relative safety without fear of suspicion. On the other hand, Hamlet acts sane when acting insane is unnecessary. When he talks to Horatio about watching Claudius for signs of guilt during the play, he says "Give him heedful note, for I mine eyes will rivet his face, and, after, we will both our judgments join in censure of his seeming." (Crowther ) If he was truly mad he wouldn’t think in such an organized manner. Hamlet did not act insane with Horatio because he had no reason to, since it was his close friend whom he trusts. Also, when he is explaining to the players how ...
In conclusion, it is hard to grasp the true meaning of the story unless the story is read a second time because of the author's style of writing.
... he over re-acts and the ghost of his father appears to remind him of why he was there. Gertrude senses Hamlets anger after he kills Polonius and asked what have I done? Hamlets reply was one full of grief, anxiety and anger. He begins to tell his mother of what he knows and what he expects from her. Not to share her bed with Claudius as well as take part in any more corruption. Gertrude then begins to see that her son is not mad with sickness, but is more mad with anger over her stupidity. Hamlet has let his mother become his main role model for all women in the world and that is why he is so negative towards women.
Hamlet throughout the play seems insane but in reality it is only an act to achieve his goal of killing his father's murderer. Hamlet chooses to go mad so he has an advantage over his opponent and since he is the Prince of Denmark certain behavior is unacceptable, so by faking madness he is able to get away with inappropriate sayings and actions. We can see this when he talks to Claudius, Polonius, Ophelia and his mother. When Hamlet talks to Horatio in the first act he says how he is going to "feign madness" and that: