Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why did edgar allan poe write about death
All the different death theories regarding Edgar Allan Poe
How did edgar allan poe die essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why did edgar allan poe write about death
The ending of “The Locket” is very predictable. With careful analysis, any reader should be able to easily guess the ending before actually reading it. From the start to the end, clues are constantly given about the ending. As the story opens, soldiers were questioning Edmond about the locket and showed great interest in it. Also, when a soldier was found dead with the locket, the story never actually said the dead body was Edmond. Finally, many foreshadowing clues are given when Octavia talks to her friend the judge. Hence, the ending of the story is predictable because other soldiers clearly valued the locket, the story never said the dead body was Edmond, and the judge directly suggests to Octavia that Edmond will come back. First, the …show more content…
locket was both valuable and highly esteemed by other soldiers. This suggests the possibility that it could be stolen. At the start of the story, Edmond and four soldiers sit around a campfire. Two of the soldiers question Edmond about the locket, while one solider remains silent, just listening to the conversation. At this time, the reader learns that the locket was given to Edmond by his wife and that it was her “most precious earthly possession”. The soldiers joked that the locket was a charm that helped keep Edmond safe during the war. It is not difficult to deduce that if someone has a valuable item it could possibly be stolen. The fact that the soldiers around Edmond noticed the locket, and seemed to greatly admire it, makes this even easier to predict. Next, the story never directly says the dead body is Edmond. This suggests the possibility that Edmond may still be alive. When the solider is found dead with the locket around his neck, it is assumed to be Edmond. However, the story never directly says this. Moreover, the description of the body does not seem to match Edmond. The soldier was described as “a mere boy”. Although Octavia was described as “young” and “youthful”, it is unlikely that her husband would be young enough to be described as “a mere boy.” Because of this, readers will likely question if the dead solider is really Edmond. Finally Octavia’s meeting with her friend, the judge, is the biggest clue that Edmond will come back at the end of the story.
The clues begin when the judge comments about Octavia’s veil. He asked her to remove her veil, telling her to “never put it on again.” This suggests the morning process should be over. It is later revealed that the reason the judge does not want her to mourn is because Edmond is not actually dead. The judge placed his arm on her and said “Do you not think that on a day like this, miracles might happen? When the whole earth is vibrant with life, does it not seem to you, Octavia, that heaven might for once relent and give us back our dead?” This is the most obvious clue that Edmond is not actually dead or that he will somehow comeback. Even readers who are not good at noticing foreshadowing clues should easily be able to predict the ending by this point. In conclusion, the ending of “The Locket” is very predictable. This is because of three main reasons. First the locket was valuable and other soldiers noticed and admired it, suggesting the possibility that people may want to steal it. Secondly, the story never directly says the dead body is Edmond, and the description of the body does not seem to match Edmond. Finally the judge gives several clues, and even directly suggests that the dead will come back. Hence, with careful reading, the ending of the story is
predictable.
...story, this made me think that finally the serial killer is caught but that turned out to be nothing, still having the suspense of when the real serial killer will come in hand. But against my every envisagement, the serial killer came by himself to Duncan to get his lost diary back in the lost and found department. This made the chills run through me as he came at the time I didn't expected. This brought the sudden climax in the story making me even more anxious that even though Duncan has found the serial killer, how will he ever stop this killing machine. And finally at the end when the serial killer was chasing Duncan down on the subway tracks, they both get hit by the train creating more anxiety in my mind that how will Duncan ever survive this kind of blow. But in the ending he survives and the serial killer dies, thus creating a happy mental picture in the end.
The ending of this book was a cliffhanger. In my opinion that is the worse kind of ending, but that’s how that writing persuades the reader to get the next book in the series. Without giving too much away about the end of the story, it was very unexpected. To be
In his essay “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” John Locke makes a connection between memory and consciousness and called this connection the memory theory. The memory theory states that if “a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, [and is] the same thinking thing, in different times and places” then it is continuously the same rational being has a consciousness (Locke 1959). Locke ties the consciousness and memory together by saying that “as far as … consciousness can be extended backwards to any past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that person”; meaning that if a person has memories of their existence and actions they are the same person. Locke connects the memory
During the enlightenment period in the 1600’s to the 1700’s, writers like Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau influenced some of America’s founding documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. During this time period, these writers had no idea that their works would impact such influential documents. The first document these writers influenced was the Virginia Declaration of Rights.
John Locke is considered one of the best political minds of his time. The modern conception of western democracy and government can be attributed to his writing the Second Treatise of Government. John Locke championed many political notions that both liberals and conservatives hold close to their ideologies. He argues that political power should not be concentrated to one specific branch, and that there should be multiple branches in government. In addition to, the need for the government to run by the majority of the population through choosing leaders, at a time where the popular thing was to be under the rule of a monarch. But despite all of his political idea, one thing was extremely evident in his writing. This was that he preferred limited
easy to predict the ending because, in the story, there were only bad guys and good guys.
The ending is not expected at readers do not think that Winston would have been captured. Readers feel pity during the ending. However, there is a very strong voice throughout - creates intensity and creates impartiality
... difficult to predict that the Joad family is going to have to relocate to California because of the dust bowl in Oklahoma. It is also very predictable that they would have a hard time finding work and food with the migrant worker population so vast. Throughout the novel I found that I could generally think of just about everything that the Joad family went through. However, one event in the novel was not predictable. I never would have thought that an ex-convict could have been so loyal to his friend's cause. I am speaking of course of Tom Joad and his decision to take on the work of organizing migrant workers after Jim Casey is killed. Also most readers would expect a happy ending for the Joad family after enduring so much during the course of the book. The book ends with some hope for the future of the Joad family as Rose of Sharon nurses a sickly man to health.
While history continues to be made everyday that goes by, we take a look at three famous philosophers to interpret their ideas. These philosophers include John Locke, Karl Marx, and Niccolo Machiavelli. They all have something in common, which is to observe and form an opinion on the human nature of people and how society works as a whole. Even though all three discuss about the same topic, their ideas are quite different from one another. While Locke and Marx place their opinions on human reasoning, Machiavelli does not. Each of their opinions derived from the actions that people make, such as Locke, who believes that all humans are created equal, Marx who believes that people are consciously good and will do the right thing to balance society, and Machiavelli on the other hand, who believes people are selfish and will act in accordance to their best interest.
Locke and Marx put their trust in human reason while Machiavelli does not. These authors’ assumptions and different conceptions of human nature determine and lead to each of their conclusions regarding human nature. This paper will argue that Locke views human nature in a positive manner where humans are rational and reasonable. This paper will also argue that Marx denies the existence of human nature and instead concludes that social relations and society ultimately defines humans. Finally, this paper will argue that Machiavelli, unlike the other authors, has a negative understanding of humans as he thinks that man is selfish and that an individual should not be given too much power as they only act upon their own self-interest.
In a state of nature, each man, as the possessor of reason and free will, is cognitively independent and equal, and so, by implication, politically independent and equal (Braman 07). Locke knew that men were there own learning tools within themselves. Not only did they learn from there mistakes, which was known for centuries, but, they also grew from one another and took what they needed for there own well mental development (Braman 09) Just like mankind has been doing for as long as anyone can remember, they have been working there owns ways of life out for themselves and to learn from one another and not from someone or something telling you how you should be living.
The only people in the story whose fates are not revealed beforehand are Ayah, the mother, and Chato, the father. The ending does end on an ominous tone, however, and their fates are hinted subtly, but not absolutely. What do you think happened to the couple at the end? What hints in the narrative make you think that
John Locke is a philosopher who discovered many theories. His philosophy states, “humans begin as blank and gradually acquire knowledge through experience” (Locke). This means that it is the experiences that determine who you are. They can determine if someone is a good person or a bad person. Positive experiences can make someone a good person; bad experiences determine if someone is a bad person, and the same can be said for the monster in Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein.
Personal identity examines what makes a person at one time identical with a person at another. Many philosophers believe we are always changing and therefore, we cannot have a persisting identity if we are different from one moment to the next. However, many philosophers believe there is some important feature that determines a person’s identity and keeps it persistent. For John Locke, this important feature is memory, and I agree. Memory is the most important feature in determining a person’s identity as memory is the necessary and sufficient condition of personal identity.
In addition to being a rich, nice, and suitable man, Paris was not a Montague. Lord Capulet was impressed with Paris and scheduled an abrupt wedding for the marriage of Paris and Juliet, without knowing of the secret matrimony of Romeo and Juliet. When Juliet heard news of her arranged marriage she soon fled to a trusted friend, Friar Lawrence, for a tactic to get out of the soon to be marriage. The Friar quickly brewed up a vial that had the capability to make one appear dead while they were still alive. In addition to making the vial the Friar also sent word to Romeo that in two days he need to return to Verona to be there when Juliet woke up from her sleep like coma. As fate would have it Romeo received word that Juliet had past on, but not that it was only a medically induced coma. Immediately after hearing the horrible news of his wife's death Romeo few back to the tomb of Juliet's body with a bottle of lethal poison. When he arrived Paris was at Juliet's tomb, nevertheless Paris blames Romeo for the death of Juliet's death. Meaning that Romeo broke her heart when he killed her cousin Tybalt. They were soon consumed in a fight, but in the end Romeo kills Paris. Romeo was consumed with grief and drinks poison that puts him to rest. Soon Juliet woke up to discover the dead bodies of Paris and Romeo, the sight of the bodies caused her to stab herself in the