Uncovering Dr. Stockmann’s Personality
Sometimes, there are some books that have such intriguing characters in them, that captivate the reader, and make him wonder. Such character is Dr. Stockmann from ‘An enemy of the people’, by Henrik Ibsen. However, to understand the complexity and richness of this character, first one must know the plot of the story. Dr. Stockmann is a doctor that lives in a Norwegian city, whose main attraction are the ‘Baths’. They bring a lot of money to the city, but he is not certain of their healthy quality. So he makes a research and finds out that the ‘Baths’, as he had suspected, are unhealthy for the people. Then, he decides that the right thing to do is inform his townspeople of the polluted water, and protect them. However as it turns out, not everyone is in favor of this discovery, especially his brother, the mayor, who successfully turns everyone against him. Throughout this ‘battle ‘between him and the town, and the way he handles the situation, some traits of Dr. Stockman’s personality, come out. As he is presented in the book, Dr. Stockmann is naïve, selfish and moral.
According to Dictionary Reference, someone is naïve when he is ‘having or showing a lack of … judgment’. With this said, Dr. Stockmann is indeed, a naïve person. The first glimpse of his naivety is obvious, after he confides his family about his discovery, in page 20.
Petra: What do you think Uncle Peter’s is going to say, father?
Dr. Stockmann: What do you expect him to say? He can’t help but be pleased than an important matter like this has been brought to light, surely. (Ibsen)
In this scene, as Roshwald writes in his article, Dr. Stockmann, ‘has little doubt that the Baths’Committee, chaired by his brother, will accept hi...
... middle of paper ...
...l stand, is fighting for the well-being of his fellow citizens, with the known dangers in the back of his mind. With this said, the doctor is defending himself for what he thinks is morally correct and fair (Pianalto 169).
To sum up, Dr. Stockmann, is not an ordinary man, because unlike many people, he fights for what he believes is right, even though this might lead to his destruction. Still, he has the characteristics a normal person has, both good and bad. He is naïve because he doesn’t think of the consequences of his discovery for him, his family and his town. Moreover, he is selfish for putting himself before his family, and moral, for standing up for the well-being of the people. Finally, one must remember Dr. Stockmann, as the man who is ‘committed to humanity, as a man who loves his fellow men’ (Roshwald 233), and as a man that nowadays societies need.
“The thing I hate about space is that you can feel how big and empty it is… ”
Frederic is very much alienated from the science of his day. He finds it obscure and frightening, involved in inhuman and ritualistic experiments, and motivated by goals that are fully detached from the needs of ordinary people. His dread and loathing of the coldness and ruthlessness of the aloof scientist come from the Gothic horror of writers like Edgar Allen Poe and Mary Shelley.
Literary villains are all around us. For instance, Voldemort from Harry Potter and Darth Vader from Star Wars. What makes a villain? They will go through anyone or damage anything to reach their goal. No matter how small or how tall they are, anyone can be a villain. One of the worst literary villains is Erik Fisher from Tangerine, written by Edward Bloor. He is a liar and a thief. Those traits are what makes the best villains. Throughout the book, Erik shows that he is a villain through his vile and offensive behavior, his need for power, and his insanity.
In her personal essay, Dr. Grant writes that she learned that most cases involving her patients should not be only handled from a doctor’s point of view but also from personal experience that can help her relate to each patient regardless of their background; Dr. Grant was taught this lesson when she came face to face with a unique patient. Throughout her essay, Dr. Grant writes about how she came to contact with a patient she had nicknamed Mr. G. According to Dr. Grant, “Mr. G is the personification of the irate, belligerent patient that you always dread dealing with because he is usually implacable” (181). It is evident that Dr. Grant lets her position as a doctor greatly impact her judgement placed on her patients, this is supported as she nicknamed the current patient Mr.G . To deal with Mr. G, Dr. Grant resorts to using all the skills she
...tically determined in other people as well.” (Lifton, 1985) A Nazi who said he never intentionally hurt anyone and was just doing his job was what Mengele’s son recalls during a visit in 1977. Mengele fled from a country to another and died in 1979 in Brazil from a stroke and was buried as Wolfgang Gerhard, his body was later dig up in 1985 for a forensic examination to prove it was Mengele’s body, but it wasn’t until in 1992 when DNA proved that it was Mengele’s body. Dr. Josef Mengele, a doctor who did the opposite of what doctors do in their career which is to care and not harm, killed many prisoners of the Auschwitz concentration camp and became one of the evilest men among others in the Holocaust with his experimentations, but to the twins who lived he was the doctor who scarred them for life, and a doctor that was never prosecuted for his crimes in Auschwitz.
Doctors are well respected within the realm of American society and are perceived with the highest regard as a profession. According to Gallup’s Honesty and Ethics in Profession polls, 67% of respondents believe that “the honesty and ethical standards” of medical doctors were “very high.” Furthermore, 88% of respondents polled by Harris Polls considered doctors to either “hold some” or a “great deal of prestige”. Consequently, these overwhelmingly positive views of the medical profession insinuate a myth of infallibility that envelops the physicians and the science they practice. Atul Gawande, in Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science, provides an extensive view of the medical profession from both sides of the operating table
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a nineteenth century literary work that delves into the world of science and the plausible outcomes of morally insensitive technological research. Although the novel brings to the forefront several issues about knowledge and sublime nature, the novel mostly explores the psychological and physical journey of two complex characters. While each character exhibits several interesting traits that range from passive and contemplative to rash and impulsive, their most attractive quality is their monstrosity. Their monstrosities, however, differ in the way each of the character’s act and respond to their environment. Throughout Frankenstein, one assumes that Frankenstein’s creation is the true monster. While the creation’s actions are indeed monstrous, one must also realize that his creator, Victor Frankenstein is also a villain. His inconsiderate and selfish acts as well as his passion for science result in the death of his friend and family members and ultimately in his own demise.
“Secret Doctor of Nazi doctor Josef Mengele” Mirror News. July 30,2011. Web. 24 March 2014
Victor Frankenstein finds himself exploring the world of science against his fathers wishes but he has an impulse to go forward in his education through university. During this time any form of science was little in knowledge especially the chemistry which was Victors area if study. Victor pursues to go farther than the normal human limits of society. “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow” (Chapter 4). He soon finds the answer he was looking for, the answer of life. He becomes obsessed with creating a human being. With his knowledge he believes it should be a perfe...
Pride and prejudice, isolating behaviors, create a path of unnecessary destruction through the life of Victor Frankenstein. All that remains for us the reader is to figure out where our sympathies lie. What lessons we can learn from this tragic tale of the ego driven scientist and his monstrous creation.
“As physicians have always their instruments and knives ready for cases which suddenly require their skill, so do you have principles ready for the understanding of things divine and human, and for doing everything, even the smallest, while remembering the bond which unites the divine and human to one another. For you will not do anything well affecting humans without at the same time referring to things divine; or the contrary.”
An Enemy of the People, by Henrik Ibsen, is the story of a man named Dr. Thomas Stockman, who becomes a deviant to society. After discovering that the waters in the town’s baths are polluted, Dr. Stockman tries to spread the news and have the baths shut down. He assumes that the townspeople will be happy to hear his news, since the water is what has been making everyone sick. However, many people in the town aren’t very happy to hear such news, and before Dr, Stockman realizes it, the entire town has turned against him. Stockman criticizes the townspeople for this, and even refers to them as “street curs.” What made the town turn against him? Did they honestly all disagree with the doctor’s opinion? Did they fall to group pressure? Or, was it his brother the mayor’s influence?
Freudenheim, Milt. And you thought a prespection was private. 8 August 2009. 13 February 2014 .
As the story begins, the unnamed doctor is introduced as one who appears to be strictly professional. “Aas often, in such cases, they weren’t telling me more than they had to, it was up to me to tell them; that’s why they were spending three dollars on me.” (par. 3) The doctor leaves the first impression that he is one that keeps his attention about the job and nothing out of the ordinary besides stating his impressions on the mother, father and the patient, Mathilda. Though he does manage to note that Mathilda has a fever. The doctor takes what he considers a “trial shot” and “point of departure” by inquiring what he suspects is a sore throat (par. 6). This point in the story, nothing remains out of the ordinary or questionable about the doctor’s methods, until the story further develops.
The Mayor in the play had to ignore the truth because of money. Money played a big role in which motivated the Mayor to ignore the situation of the Baths and also ending up in a conflict with Doctor Stockmann. Since the town gained it major income from the Baths, the Mayor didn’t want to expose the public of the truth. When he says, “Oh, the public has no need for new ideas. The public gets on best with the good old recognized ideas it already has” (Ibsen, 94), he’s being very greedy and saying that it’s better to hide the truth because the people will get mad and try to fix the problem. However, fixing the problem costs a lot of money and the Mayor’s extremely concerned with money and reputation. He didn’t want to put time and money in fixing the pipe in the Baths so he just chose to hide the truth and threaten the public with the increase of tax. Therefore, since the Mayor’s position is a leading, responsible one, he buries the truth in order to protect the success of the Baths.