In Philip K. Dick’s science-fiction short story, "Fair Game”, Professor Anthony Douglas is suddenly pursued by aliens with unknown intentions until finally being captured and presumably eaten. Grappling with his pursuers attempts to lure him to his death, Douglas impulsively assumes his superior intellect is the target rather than his plump figure, demonstrating the distorting influence hubris has on perception. Professor Douglas’ glaring conceit contributes to the story’s ironic resolution through its distortion of Douglas’ assumption about his purpose, feelings towards his predicament and prediction about his life after his abduction. When readers are introduced to Professor Douglas, he is described as “utterly unbothered by the tensions …show more content…
and doubts that pressured other members of his profession” indicating that the protagonist believes himself to be not only above his peers but above any competition as well (1). This early characterization of Douglas lends itself well to explain why, later on, he assumes his value to the aliens is purely academic. The same pride which dismisses the “whole flock of bright young men” ready to learn and work, inhibits Douglas from imagining any other reason he would be important to extraterrestrial beings (1). Whereas Douglas’ previously claims the young intellectuals arriving at Bryant college will be able to catch up to him in a couple of years, he now regards himself as “the best nuclear physicist in the world” (7). Perhaps a more modest person might have considered why else they could have been deemed valuable or consulted other people before taking off on their own, exposing themselves to more danger. This impulsive assumption on Douglas’ part prevents him from being able to listen to others who he feels above, such as his wife, Laura. Claiming “she wouldn’t be able to handle such a concept”, the dismissive way Douglas views his wife conveys his unwillingness to contemplate the ideas of people who he feels superior to (3). This narrow-minded attitude contributed to Douglas’ capture as he acted, believing he knew best because of his allegedly greater intellect. Naturally, when faced with such a unsettling and life-altering situation, a person would experience a wide array of emotions, however those which Professor Douglas goes through are somewhat unusual.
When Jean Henderson ponders whether the human race is being observed, Douglas responds with “Not you, just me”, demonstrating the narcissistic belief that only he could be worthy enough of surveillance (3). Later, when Jean proposes that gods are trying to communicate with Douglas and compares his situation to when “Moses met God at the top of Mount Sinai”, Douglas doesn’t bat an eye, accepting the comparison between himself and one of the most important biblical figures ever (7). Not one person attempts to re-evaluate this strange situation, all of the scientific elite in the room concluding with great self-importance that one of their own would undoubtably be significant enough to merit extraterrestrial interest. Additionally, Douglas is full of himself enough to believe that after aliens summon literal bolts of lightning to strike him, he can outsmart them by moving to lower ground. He smugly declares, “They’d never get him” and fills his car up with gas (9). Here, Douglas’ excessive pride blinds him to any more potential dangers as he believes he is capable of outmaneuvering giant, supernatural beings. After finally realizing, he cannot outrun these otherworldly beings, Douglas finds peace with the fact that he will be abducted and considers it a compliment. He believes his “skill and knowledge, over everything else” are the reasons behind his abduction, which testifies to how intensely hubris warps perception. Though a normal person would predictably be terrified when confronted with a similar situation, Douglas is flattered and cannot detect the underlying danger. He is so beyond reason that he leaves his car and accepts his fate, only reacting with appropriate horror when it is too late and he is falling into a frying pan (12). It is only when his hubris is
stripped away that Douglas can assess and react to his situation appropriately. Near the end of the story, Douglas believes he is well-informed enough to draw conclusions about his life after abduction. Regardless of the fact that all the aliens have done is try to capture him, Douglas concludes that these beings regard humans as “some sort of testing ground, where techniques and knowledge are painfully developed - for their benefit” (7). This deeply self-congratulating stance on humanity’s purpose, leads Douglas to feel “relaxed, at peace, no longer afraid” when he realizes his capture is unavoidable (11). His hubris concerning his own ability as well as humanity’s leads him to completely misjudge his fate. His ego tells him that he would be important to the aliens who are pursuing him and act as “an instrument in their hands” (11). Douglas even rationalizes that his life will probably be the same “doing the same work as always” except without his friends and family in his life to keep him company (11). Though Douglas considers himself a rational and scientific mind, the illogical manner in which comes to conclusions demonstrates that his ability to conjecture is compromised when the subject concerns his own skill. Supposing he will continue to explore nuclear physics for the benefit of aliens is not an educated hypothesis of Douglas’ future, but in fact, a manifestation of excessive pride.
Into the Wild by John Krakauer is a rare book in which its author freely admits his bias within the first few pages. “I won't claim to be an impartial biographer,” states Krakauer in the author’s note, and indeed he is not. Although it is not revealed in the author's note whether Krakauer's bias will be positive or negative, it can be easily inferred. Krakauer's explanation of his obsession with McCandless's story makes it evident that Into the Wild was written to persuade the reader to view him as the author does; as remarkably intelligent, driven, and spirited. This differs greatly from the opinion many people hold that McCandless was a simply a foolhardy kid in way over his head. Some even go as far as saying that his recklessness was due to an apparent death-wish. Krakauer uses a combination of ethos, logos and pathos throughout his rendition of McCandless’s story to dispute these negative outlooks while also giving readers new to this enigmatic adventure a proper introduction.
Many people were puzzled on why the young man decided to go on such an expedition without being properly prepared. His death has led to a controversy between whether he should be idolized for having the courage to follow his dream or repulsed for his grand stupidity. Although Krakauer never met McCandless, he provides his readers with personal examples that explain why the young man went on this journey. Expecting his readers to comprehend McCandless, Krakauer’s primary purpose is to help his readers understand the importance of embracing one's personal dreams. In order to achieve his purpose, he uses a variation of literary and rhetorical techniques. Some of these techniques include epigrams and ethos. These devices are essential to Krakauer’s purpose because they illustrate and explain the reasons why McCandless went into the inhospitable landscape of Alaska.
A satirical point that the author talked about briefly was Weaver's choice to not read the short, original novel, but the even shorter novel summary. The satire is effective because of how the authors describes the book. By including small lines such as "the most skillful example of American naturalism under 110 pages" and "Weaver's choice to read the Cliffs Notes instead of the pocket-sized novel", the brevity and literary relevance of this book is emphasized greatly. To include how short this novel is makes Weaver look positiv...
Academic colleagues like, David Greenburg, would have been exasperated, part from envy of McCullough’s ability in not only story telling but to sell and he would object to the approach of this book. The colleagues would tear at the lack of compelling rationale for an overused topic, as well as the scene setting, and meager analysis.
One of the principal aims of To Kill a Mockingbird is to subject the narrator to a series of
Hunting big game animals for sport was a popular pastime with the wealthy classes following World War I. The morality of killing for sport was not questioned in reality, but in this short story the author does question it by taking it a step further and having the protagonist, Sangor Rainsford, hunted by the antagonist, General Zaroff.In a short story full of irony, one of the greatest ironies of Richard Connell’s “The Most Dangerous Game” is that General Zaroff repeatedly tells Rainsford that he maintains a sense of civilization on his island.
Childhood is a continuous time of learning, and of seeing mistakes and using them to change your perspectives. In the book To Kill A Mockingbird, Harper Lee illustrates how two children learn from people and their actions to respect everyone no matter what they might look like on the outside. To Kill A Mockingbird tells a story about two young kids named Scout and her older brother Jem Finch growing up in their small, racist town of Maycomb, Alabama. As the years go by they learn how their town and a lot of the people in it aren’t as perfect as they may have seemed before. When Jem and Scout’s father Atticus defends a black man in court, the town’s imperfections begin to show. A sour, little man named Bob Ewell even tries to kill Jem and Scout all because of the help Atticus gave to the black man named Tom Robinson. Throughout the novel, Harper Lee illustrates the central theme that it is wrong to judge someone by their appearance on the outside, or belittle someone because they are different.
Racial discrimination, although not the main focus of To Kill a Mockingbird, plays a large role throughout the novel. Many characters in To Kill a Mockingbird are affected by racial discrimination, whether they are the cause or not. Throughout the novel, three characters stand out as being affected by racial discrimination the most. These characters are Jean Louise “Scout” Finch, Atticus Finch, and Tom Robinson.
As the sweltering, hot sun signified the start of a scorching afternoon, a young boy lay in the fields harvesting vegetables for another family. He had been enslaved to perform chores around the house for the family, and was only given very few privileges. While his stomach throbbed with pangs of hunger, he continued cooking meals for them. After the family indulged in the cozy heat from the fireplace, he was the one to clean the ashes. Despite his whole body feeling sore from all the rigorous work he completed, the young boy had been left alone to suffer. As months passed by, he desired independence. He wanted to cook his own food, make his own fire, harvest his own plants and earn money. The lad soon discovered that he needed faith and courage to break away from his restricted environment. When put in a suppressive situation, every person has the aspiration to escape the injustice. This is what Harrison Bergeron and Sanger Rainsford do to liberate themselves from the external forces that govern their lives. Harrison, the main character of “Harrison Bergeron” written by Kurt Vonnegut, is a strong, fourteen year old boy whose talents have been concealed by the government. Growing up in an environment where equality has restricted people’s thinking, Harrison endeavors to change society’s views. Rainsford, the main character of “The Most Dangerous Game” written by Richard Connell, is a skilled hunter who believes that animals were made to be hunted; he has no sympathy for them. Stranded on island with a killer chasing him, he learns to make rational choices. While both Harrison and Ranisford are courageous characters, Rainsford’s prudence enables him to overpower his enemy, whereas Harrison’s impulsive nature results in him being ...
To Kill a Mockingbird is a novel written by Harper lee in 1960. The novel tells the story of Atticus Finch, a white lawyer, and Tom Robinson, a black servant, accused of raping a white female. Finch defends Robinson in court arguing lack of evidence as his main point. However, the judge and jury still believe the woman’s testimony and orders Robinson to be killed. The novel has been praised for its outstanding literature since its publication. However, it remains a banned book by the American Library Association for its use of racial slurs and profanity. Due to it being banned, many high schools have reconsidered the notion of teaching it to their students. Two prominent authors wrote articles pertaining to this piece of literature: Angela Shaw-Thornburg wrote an article on her re-reading of the novel and her opinions on it; while Malcom Gladwell wrote an article comparing Atticus Finch to a state governor liberalist, James Folsom, and the restraints of liberalism in the south. In addition, Rebecca Best contributes her thought on how the novel should be taught by introducing the idea of “the other.” Regardless of the modern day political arguments surrounding this piece of literature, this novel contains a large insight into the time period of the 1960s which is an influential topic that should be taught to young high school students.
Syntax and diction play a huge role in the beginning of Douglas piece. He speaks clearly about his first teacher, “the mistress”, and how she was so passionate to educate him. At first, Douglass acknowledges her as a kind and generous woman, as he reveals "there was no sorrow or suffering for which
Wilson, M. & Clark, R. (n.d.). Analyzing the Short Story. [online] Retrieved from: https://www.limcollege.edu/Analyzing_the_Short_Story.pdf [Accessed: 12 Apr 2014].
With the progression of time we find Frederick Douglas begin to shift the tone to a focus within himself. The story begins to c...
The reader starts to see that the system of slavery is a cruel one. Douglas uses words such as “violence,” “angry,” and “fury” to make the reader feel the depravity caused by such a terrible system. The reader realizes the anger that the slave system insights in wonderful people such as Mrs. Auld, and acknowledge the dishonesty of such an institution. It takes beautiful people and turns them into terrible vectors for its vile gain. Slavery damages the individual, inasmuch as it insights them with a vicious rage. It causes them to insight this pain in others. Slavery is a self reciprocating wheel of torment and anger. That is what Douglas uses these words to do; make the reader feel the pain and hate slavery causes in an individual. Furthermore, Douglas makes the reader feel the desperate pain that he felt when he was a slave. Using words such as, “wretched,” “tormented,” “distressed,” and “gloomy” to describe his enlightened state in slavery, he forces the reader to feel his pain. Douglas was stuck as a slave seeking enlightenment, which was a terrible position to be in; he was forced to accumulate knowledge in secret. Douglas was then stuck with this knowledge and a want for it in a situation that the could not utilize it. This would truly cause any human rage and hate, damage their soul, scaring them. Douglas’s use of these words cause the reader
... our inability to interact personally with the characters in the book, are bound to a bewildered cicerone who cannot see well enough to point us in the right direction.